ARTICLE I: National Territory

Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [1] , is a belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state . The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below.

The term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to describe any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf.

BASELINE: Normally, the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state. This is either the low-water mark closest to the shore, or alternatively it may be an unlimited distance from permanently exposed land, provided that some portion of elevations exposed at low tide but covered at high tide (like mud flats) is within 12 nautical miles (22 km) of permanently exposed land. Straight baselines can alternatively be defined connecting fringing islands along a coast, across the mouths of rivers, or with certain restrictions across the mouths of bays. In this case, a bay is defined as "a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked waters and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. An indentation shall not, however, be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation". The baseline across the bay must also be no more than 24 nautical miles (44 km) in length.

INTERNAL WATERS: Waters landward of the baseline are defined as internal waters, over which the state has complete jurisdiction: not even innocent passage is allowed. Lakes and rivers are considered internal waters, as are all "archipelagic waters" within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state such as Indonesia or the Philippines.

TERRITORIAL SEA: A state's territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles (22 km)

from its baseline. If this would overlap with another state's territorial sea, the border is

taken as the median point between the states' baselines, unless the states in question

agree otherwise. A state can also choose to claim a smaller territorial sea.

Conflicts still occur whenever a coastal nation claims an entire gulf as its territorial waters while other nations only recognize the more restrictive definitions of the UN convention. Two recent conflicts occurred in the Gulf of Sidra where Libya has claimed the entire gulf as its territorial waters and the U.S. has twice enforced freedom of navigation rights (Gulf of Sidra incident (1981), Gulf of Sidra incident (1989)).

CONTIGUOUS ZONE: The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea". This will typically be 12 nautical miles (22 km) wide, but could be more (if a state has chosen to claim a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical miles), or less, if it would otherwise overlap another state's contiguous zone. However, unlike the territorial sea there is no standard rule for resolving such conflicts, and the states in question must negotiate their own compromise. The United States invoked a contiguous zone on 24 September 1999.[2]

CONTINENTAL SHELF: Article 76[4] gives the legal definition of continental shelf

of coastal countries. For the physical geography definition, see the continental shelf

page.

The continental shelf of a coastal nation extends out to the outer edge of the

continental margin but at least 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the baselines of the

territorial sea if the continental margin does not stretch that far. The outer limit of a

country's continental shelf shall not stretch beyond 350 nautical miles (648 km) of the

baseline, or beyond 100 nautical miles (185 km) from the 2,500 meter isobath, which

is a line connecting the depths of the seabed at 2,500 meters.

The outer edge of the continental margin for the purposes of this article is defined as:

a series of lines joining points not more than 60 nautical miles (111 km) apart

where the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least 1% of the height of the

continental shelf above the foot of the continental slope; or

a series of lines joining points not more than 60 nautical miles apart that is not

more than 60 nautical miles from the foot of the continental margin.

The foot of the continental slope is determined as the point of maximum change in the

gradient at its base.

The portion of the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit is also known

as the extended continental shelf. Countries wishing to delimit their outer continental

shelf beyond 200 nautical miles have to submit information on their claim to the

Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The Commission must make

recommendations on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their

continental shelf. The limits established based on these recommendations shall be

final and binding.

Countries were supposed to lodge their submissions to extend their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles within 10 years of UNCLOS coming into force in the country, or by 13 May 2009 for countries where the convention had come into force before 13 May 1999. As of 1 June 2009, 51 submissions have been lodged with the Commission, of which 8 have been deliberated by the Commission and have had recommendations issued. The 8 are (in the order of date of submission): Russian Federation; Brazil; Australia; Ireland; New Zealand; the joint submission by France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom; Norway and Mexico. A coastal nation has control of all resources on or under its continental shelf, living or not, but no control over any living organisms above the shelf that are beyond its exclusive economic zone. This gives it the right to conduct petroleum drilling works and lay submarine cables or pipelines in its continental shelf.

Article II

Section 1: Philippines as a democratic and republican State

Bacani vs. NACOCO

Government Functions: (revised Admin. Code) refers only to government entity through which the function of the government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in this are included those arms to the government through w/c political authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other

form of local government. These are what we call municipal corporations. They do not include government entities which are given a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government and which are governed by the Corporation law. Their powers, duties and liabilities have to be determined in the light of that law and their corporate charters.

ACCFA vs. CUGCO

Governmental functions:

1) constituent – the very bonds of society and are compulsory

2) ministrant – undertaken only by way of advancing the general interest of society; optional.

Land reform program – governmental function and cannot be undertaken by any private enterprise (no capacity).

PVTA vs. CIR

Government to provide for general welfare. Government entrusted to be responsible for coping with social and economic problems with commensurate power of control over economic affairs: live up to commitment of promoting general welfare through state action.

Republic vs. Judge of CFI Rizal

The rice and Corn Administration is a government agency without a distinct and separate legal personality from that of the Republic of the Philippines.

VFP vs. Reyes

Public Office – the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is vested with some portion of sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.

Office (distinguished from employment or contract) – the creation and conferring of an office involves a delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of the government, for the benefit of the public; that some portion of the sovereign function of the country, either legislative, executive or judicial, attaches, for the time being, to be exercised for the public benefit.

MIAA vs. CA

GOCC – a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to the public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or where applicable (for stock corps.), to the extent of at least 51% of its capital stock.

(MIAA as a government instrumentality) Instrumentality – defined as any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter.

Ramiscal vs. Sandiganbayan

AFP-RSBS – a GOCC and its funds are in the nature of public funds. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by presidents, directors, trustees or managers of GOCCs. What charges to file, and who are to be charged are matters addressed to the discretion of the Ombudsman.

Alzaga vs. Sandiganbayan

The character and operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued with public interest thus the same is a government entity and its funds are in the nature of public funds. (similar to the GSIS)

PSPCA vs. COA

GOCCs are subject to the control or supervision of the State (unlike PSPCA). A juridical entity impressed with public interest does not make the entity a public corporation. The true criterion to determine whether a corporation is public or private is found in the totality of the relation of the corporation to the State. If it is created by the State as its own agency or instrumentality to help in carrying out its governmental functions, then that corporation is considered public; otherwise, it is private.

Serana vs. Sandiganbayan

A UP Student Regent is a public officer. It is not a natural right. It exists, when it exists at all only because and by virtue of some law expressly or impliedly creating or conferring it. Compensation is not an essential element of public office. It is merely incidental to the public office. Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in public office. An investment on an individual of some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes one a

public officer. The administration of UP is a sovereign function of the State. (Art. XIV)

De Jure and De Facto Government

Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh

Kinds of de facto government: 1) government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter (like England under the Commonwealth); 2) established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a government of paramount force (like Castine in Maine and Tampico, Mexico); 3) established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent State (like the Southern Confederacy).

Distinguishing characteristics of the 2nd kind of de facto government: 1) its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; 2) while it exists it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government.

Letter of Associate justice Puno

Revolution – the complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it.; sudden, radical and fundamental change in the government or political system, usually effected with violence or at least some acts of violence; occurs whenever the legal order of a community is nullified and replaced by a new order… away not prescribed by the first order itself.

The Aquino government was revolutionary government due to the fact that it was established in defiance of the existing legal processes. It was a revamp of the Judiciary and the Military signaled the point when the legal system then in effect, had ceased to be obeyed by the Filipino. (De Facto Government).

People vs. Gozo

The Philippines has authority over its entire domain. There is no portion of it that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein and apply to all. The extent of its jurisdiction is both territorial and personal. A State may allow another to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional

right over certain portions of its territory (auto-limitation) but these areas do not retain an alien character, but remain as native soil.

Section 2: International Law and Philippine Municipal Law

Tanada vs. Angara

The principles in Art. 2 are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for the enforcement of the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review. They do not embody judicially enforceable rights but guidelines for legislation. A law should be passed by Congress to clearly define and effectuate such principles. GATT as international law needs to be ratified to be transformed into municipal law.

Bayan vs. Zamora

As long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty, which is an international instrument concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in 2 or more related instruments, and whatever it particular designation. In international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. In this, jurisdiction, we have recognized the binding effect of executive agreements even without the concurrence of the Senate or Congress.

Lim vs. Exec. Sec.

A party to a treaty is not allowed to invoke its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. A treaty is favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. The VFA gives legitimacy to the Balikatan Exercises.

Mijares vs. Ranada

There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that requires the Philippines to recognize foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement thereof.

Shagri-La vs. Developers

Pharmaceutical vs. Duque III

Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the law of the land either by transformation or incorporation. Transformation requires that the international law be transformed into domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. Incorporation applies, when by mere constitutional declaration , international law is deemed to have force and effect of domestic law. Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation, by concurrence of 2/3 majority vote of the members of Senate.

Section 3: Civilian Supremacy

IBP vs. Zamora

Orders which resemble the functions of aid by the AFP already present and existent within the functions of society such as elections, national exams, relief and rescue operations and projects of the Red Cross, are not violative of civilian supremacy.

Section 5: Maintenance of Peace and Order

Kilosbayan vs. Morato

The principles in Article 2 do not embody self-executing constitutional rights, but mere guidelines for legislation and aid for the judiciary.

Section 12: Family life, mother, unborn

Roe vs. Wade

On the basis of the right to privacy, abortion was legalized up to the 6 th month of pregnancy. The constitutional provision bars any application of the Roe vs. wade decision in this jurisdiction.

Meyer vs. Nebraska

Education should always be diligently promoted as it has always been regarded as a matter of supreme importance. It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to his station in life. Rights of parents are superior to the State.

Pierce vs. Society of Sister

The fundamental theory of liberty exclude any general power to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public school teachers only.

Wisconsin vs. Yoder

Only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can over-balance the primary interest of parents in the religious upbringing of their children.

Inherent duty of the state to act as parens patriae (parent of the STATE).

Schools may take disciplinary action when:

1. violations of school policies in connection with school sponsored activities

2. misconduct affecting student’s status or good name or reputation of the school.

Ginsburg vs. New York

The knowledge that parental control cannot always be provided and society’s transcendent interest in protecting the welfare of the children justify reasonable regulation of the sale of material to them.

Section 16: Right to a balanced and healthful ecology

Opposa vs. Factoran

Intergenerational justice and responsibility: Section 16 one of the few self-executing principles in Article 2.

LLDA vs. CA

It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of due process yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests like the protection of the safety, health and general welfare and comfort of the public, as well as the protection of plant and animal life: through the exercise of police power.

Section 19: Self-reliant and independent national economy

Garcia vs. BOI

The State shall develop self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. The government must run its affairs the way it deems best for the national interest, without any external influence or control.

Tanada vs. Angara

Independence refers to freedom from undue foreign control of the national economy especially in such strategic industries as in the development of natural resources and public utilities. It does not prohibit competition, so long as it is fair and reasonable. Some amount of competition would be beneficial for the consumers, as well as producers.

Section 26: Equal access to political opportunities and political dynasties

Pamatong vs. Comelec

There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office and, particularly, to seek the presidency. What is recognized is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by the law. Equality is not sacrificed so long as the burdens engendered by the limitations are meant to be borne be any one who is minded to file a certificate of candidacy.

Article VI

Powers of Congress: plenary: article XVI authorizes Congress to pass law to change name of country, national anthem or national flag; subject to ratification by the people.

VALID DELEGATION

Legislative/ Law making

Legislative <-> Executive

Law <-> Implementing Rules and Regulations

Law-making <-> Rule-making

Principle of non-delegability of Legislative Power

People v. Rosenthal – Blue Sky Law

The executive has the power of subordinate legislation, insofar as it interprets the laws were it is based, and not going beyond and enacting laws. Moreover, this enhances convenience and promotes specialization through the administrative bodies.

Substantive shares- under insular treasurer

Not undue delegation: standard of “public interest”

Delegation to be made: sufficient standard to define rules and regulations

Law’s constitutional basis:

1. Public purpose

2. Reasonableness of means

Araneta vs. Gatmaitan – EO 22, 66 and 88

The legislature has the discretion to what the law should be while the executive has the authority or discretion to the execution of such laws, provided that the execution be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.

Any fishing net or fishing device – Protect fish fry and fish eggs (under fisheries law)

Fish trawl – destroys fish fry and fish eggs and comes under “Any fishing net or fishing device”

People vs. Maceren

The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to declare what acts should constitute a criminal offense. It can only authorize the issuance of regulations and the imposition of the penalty provided for in the law itself. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.

“obnoxious and poisonous substance” – under fisheries law prohibited

Fisheries Administrative 84 – Prohibits electro fishing (created by sec. of Agriculture and Natural resources, and Commissioner of Fisheries)

- Penalizes something that is not included in the law that created it (fisheries law)

- Test of completeness and Sufficient standard test

- Ad. 84 goes beyond the fisheries law: added the criminalization of electro fishing

Agustin vs. Edu

To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislative itself determines matters of principle and lays down

fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be heard to repel. A standard thus defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may be carried out. Thereafter, the executive or administrative office designated may in pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations. The standard may be either express or implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. In the Reflector Law, clearly the legislative objective is public safety.

EWD – LOI 229 and 479

Memorandum Circular No. 32

Standard – “Public Safety”

Vienna Convention for Road Signs and Signals

Free Telephone Workers vs. Min. of labor

What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature.” SC furthered that there lies a distinction between the (1) delegation of power to make the laws that necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be (law-making powers of the Congress) and (2) delegation of authority as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law (law-execution powers of administrative bodies). This principle of non-delegation is in response to “the complexities of modern governments giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of ‘subordinate legislation.

Min of Labor – resolve labor disputes -> compulsory arbitration of NLRC

Eastern Shipping vs. POEA

With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant of peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the power of subordinate legislation.

Memorandum Circular No. 2 – implementation

Standard: fair and equitable employment practice

No contract bet employer and employee – POEA to protect the employee

Tablarin vs. Gutierrez

With the growing complexities of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater power by the legislature, and toward the approval of the practice by the courts. As regards the issue of failing to establish the necessary standards, the court believes that standards have indeed been set, as can be found in Section 1 of the 1959 Medical Act: “the standardization and regulation of medical education.

RA 2382 created the Board of Medical Education

Standard: standardization and regulation of the Medical education: power to determine and prescribe requirements for the admission into Med schools

Order 52: creation of NMAT for standardization

Guingona v. Carague

Delegation of Legislative Powers: The legislature does not abdicate its function when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. The power to make laws and to alter and repeal them CANNOT be delegated.

Completeness of Law: The law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him except to execute and enforce it.Budget Appropriation – books of treasury determine the appropriation for debt

Total amount of debt along with interests and other fees – standard to be used

Conference vs. POEA

POEA Resolution to increase seamen compensation and benefits

Osmena vs. Orbos

For a valid delegation of power, it is essential that the law delegating the power must be

(1) Complete in itself, that it must set forth the policy to be executed by the delegate and

(2) It must fix a standard—limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable—to which the delegate must conform.

The standard of legislative delegation must be express or implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. What the law intended was to permit the additional imposts for as long as there exists a need to protect the general public and the petroleum industry from the adverse consequences of pump rate fluctuations.

OPSF – Created by Marcos – reimburse oil companies of the changes in the price to stabilize prices for consumers

Oil Producers -> Market forces change prices -> imported to Philippines

Viola vs. Alunan

Local Government Code – provides National Liga authority to create positions, as it may deem necessary.

Fernandez v. Sto Tomas

Authority to reorganize civil service commission

Standard: decentralization for efficiency and responsiveness in the management of the agencies

Not create and abolish but to reorganize: revised administrative code

Chiongbian v. Orbos

RA 6734 ARMM plebiscite: 4 provinces for creation of autonomous region

President given power to merge the remaining regions: sufficient standard: efficient administration implied in another law

Rodrigo vs. Sandiganbayan

DBM given authority to fill in the details of the salary grade, classification

Not undue delegation: standards given

Abakada v. Ermita

Vat 10% to 12%, following certain criteria

President, through the Secretary of Finance, given criteria to ascertain facts of the situation in relation to the implementation of the increase. The case is not a delegation of legislative power but a “delegation of ascertainment of facts” upon which the enforcement and administration of the increase rate under the law is contingent. The legislature has made the 12% rate contingent upon a specified fact or condition, which is outside of the control of the executive. Thus, there is no discretion that is exercised by the President. The court cited Wayman vs. Southward: “The power to ascertain facts is such a power which may be delegated. There is nothing essentially legislative in ascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as the basis of the taking into effect of law” The ground for this that legislature has determined that under given circumstances, certain executive or administrative action is to be taken and that under other circumstances, different or no action at all is to be taken. What is left to the administration is not legislative determination of what public policy demands but simply an ascertainment of what the facts of the case require to be done according to the terms of the law by which he is governed.

Beltran v. Sec. of Health

RA 7719 Voluntary Blood Donation and regulate blood banks

Public Health sufficient guideline. There is a valid exercise of police power if (a) public interest requires state interference, and (b) the means employed are necessary to the attainment of such objectives. in this regard the interests of the owners/operators of the CBBs must give way to the higher interest of the people.

Bayan v. Ermita

BP No. 880 permits for rallies: issued by the Mayor, clear and present danger standard for issuance

The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally permits is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound “clear and present danger” standard.

Gerochi vs. DOE

Constitutionality of EPIRA and Universal Charge

Undue Delegation – Power of tax: UC not a tax but exercise of Police power

Complete: amount of universal charge is based on guidelines provided in EPIRA

Sufficient Standard: total electrification, viability of power industry, electricity made affordable

ABAKADA vs. Purisima

BIR and BOC: system of rewards and sanctions

Revenue targets given by DBCC; employees covered by the civil service commission and contracts of the employees

UNDUE DELEGATION

People vs. Vera

Probation Act – will only be applied to provinces which provide salaries for probation officers

Not complete in itself – w/n having probation officers under discretion of the provincial board

Not sufficient standard – arbitrary standard given

People vs. Barrias

The penalty must not be left to the administrative agency, but must be provided by statute.

People vs. Panlilio

Act No. 1760 – not criminalizing act

May be charged under other law: Penal Code

People vs. Dacuycuy

Law imposes fine, but no terms of imprisonment – Minimum, medium and maximum sentence depending on the circumstances of the crime (mitigating, etc.)

Judge given legal discretion - circumstances in the crime = penalty to be imposed

Act 296 – less than 3000.00 php

Cebu Oxygen vs. Drilon

RA 6470 – increasing minimum wage = implementing rules

Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

EO 626 – A: prohibition on inter-province transport of carabao and cara-beef.

“as may deem necessary” – gives legislative power to officers: arbitrary

Implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of law it designed to implement.

Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assoc. vs. Duque III

EO No. 51 (Milk Code) – legislative power under freedom consti: Pres. Aquino

WHO – promote the use of breastmilk; Milk Code – promote the use of breastmilk; DOH –

International law – Soft Law and hard Law: WHO – soft law, regulation: has to be enacted into local regulation before it becomes binding

There was a defect – RIRR invalidated: provided a ban on advertisement on milk substitutes, but the law, does not provide for a total ban, only the international law was followed

International soft law must first be enacted into a local regulation before it can be followed by any agency

Milk Code provides the local enactment of the soft law and it is what should have been followed

ABAKADA vs. Purisima

BIR and BOC System of rewards – RA 9335, section 12: creation of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee for approval of IRR of the RA.

Encroahment of the legislative into the realm of judiciary: decision is judiciary in nature as it involves the interpretation and application of the RA unto the IRR.

Tatad vs. Sec of DOE

RA 8180 “Deregulating the Downstream Oil Industry

2 phases: trasition

Full deregulation: implementation should be based on two criteria:

1. global oil prices decline

2. US-Peso exchange rate stable

EO 372 – implemented full deregulation adding additional criteria: depletion of OPSF: void: executive misapplication. Congress has to rely more on the practice of delegating the execution of laws to the executive and other administrative agencies, as society becomes more complex. According to jurisprudence, there are two tests to determine, whether it is a valid delegation – 1) the completeness test, and, 2) the sufficient standard test.

Congress: Senate and House of Representatives

HoR: 2 ways to run: (3 year term, 3 consecutive terms) = 250 members unless otherwise provided by law

1. District representative – natural-born, at least 25 years old, read and write, registered voter of the district, resident of same district at least one year preceding the day of the election

2. Party-list representative

Senate: term of 6 years, re-election for 2 consecutive terms only

Election: 6 years for first 12, 3 years for latter 12 = 24 members

Section 5: Composition of the HoR = 80% district representatives + 20% party-list representatives

Barangay vs. COMELEC

Standards for apportioning seats for Party-list Representatives

20% composition : merely a ceiling, not mandatory to fill in all seats: merely reserved for PLR

Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC

Characteristics of a party-list: (guideline for COMELEC)

1. must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups

2. must comply with declared statutory policy of enabling Filipinos belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors be elected in the HoR.

3. Must not represent a religious sect

4. Must not be disqualified under section 6 of RA 7941

5. Party or org must not be an adjunct of or a project organized by the government

6. Party must comply with requirements, as well as its nominees under section 9 RA 7941

7. Nominee must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector

8. Nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation of legislation

AKLAT vs. COMELEC

AKLAT re-disqualified: did not meet qualifications mentioned in the bagong bayani case

Tobias vs. Abalos

RA 7675: Mandaluyong into an urbanized city: create own legislative district and a new legislative district of San Juan: reapportionment

Gerrymandering – creation of a new legislative district to increase possible number of voters for elections, contrary to the guideline of “contiguous, compact and adjacent territory.

Consti – one province at least on representative

Not gerrymandering – rep who issued RA will actually be made to lose part of his district: contiguous, compact and adjacent territory

Mariano vs. COMELEC

RA 7854: Municipality of Makati into a highly urbanized city

Valid: reapportionment thru special law: duty of congress to reapportion

Criteria: population (250,000) and, income or area

Samson vs. Aguirre

RA 8583: Novaliches as a city: certification as to income, population and area not fatal: statements of NSO, Bureau of Local Government Finance, and Land

Montejo vs. COMELEC

COMELC res. No 2736: change legislative district of Capoocan and Palompon: COMELEC only to make minor adjustments

Legislative district can only be apportioned by “legislative” i.e. congress

Herrera vs. COMELEC

Province of Guimaras – made into 4th class province

Districting based on number of inhabitants: not reapportionment: can be undertaken by COMELEC (districting)

Sema vs. COMELEC

RLA – RA 9054: power to create province, cities, etc.

Creation of the province of Shariff Kabunsan: the power to create provinces inherently involves the power to create legislative districts. However, under the present Constitution, the power to increase the allowable membership in the House of Representatives, as well as the power to reapportion legislative districts, is vested exclusively in Congress (by virtue of Sections 5, (1), (3) and (4) of Article 6). This textual commitment to Congress of the exclusive power to create or reapportion legislative districts is logical. Congress is a national legislature and any increase in its allowable membership or in its incumbent membership through the creation of legislative districts must be embodied in a national law. It would be anomalous for regional or local legislative bodies to create or reapportion legislative districts for a national legislature like Congress. An inferior legislative body, created by a superior legislative body, cannot change the membership of the superior legislative body.

Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC

Legislative apportionment – representation in the HoR

Reapportionment is brought about by changes in population and mandated by the constitutional requirement of equal representation. Hence, emphasis is given to the number of people represented; the uniform and progressive ratio to be observed among the representative districts; and accessibility and commonality of interests in terms of each district being, as far as practicable, continuous, compact and adjacent territory. In terms of the people represented, every city with at least 250,000 people and every province (irrespective of population) is entitled to one representative.

Section 6

Bengson vs. COMELEC

Repatriation – oath of allegiance, which reinstates previous status as a Filipino: natural-born in Tarlac

Aquino vs. COMELEC

Domicile – physical residence, and intention to return there permanently.

Less than one year residency prior to date of elections; lease of a house not permanent: disqualified. The place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law.

Marcos vs. COMELEC

Criteria for the abandonment of domicile:

actual removal or change in domicile

bona fide intention of abandoning and establishing new one

acts which correspond to the purpose

absence of which would continue the domicile of origin

Domino vs. COMELEC

Lease of house – not indicative of intent of permanence

Perez vs. COMELEC

Domicile- the place where a party actually of constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain

The fact that a person registered as a voter in one district is not proof of his domicile in the said district.

Petitioner – ran for governor of the province previously

SJS vs. COMELEC

COMELEC resolution – additional qualification of a candidate for senate: unconstitutional as it violates the explicit qualifications in the consti

Section 7: term of representatives

Dimaporo vs. Mitra, Jr.

BP Blg. 881 – forfeiture or voluntary giving up of one’s tenure, due to the act of filing of certificate of candidacy.

Term – legally mandated

Tenure – actual time

Forfeiture, expulsion, voluntary renunciation

Section 9: Filling-in Vacancies

Lucero vs. COMELEC

Failure of elections = special elections

Tolentino vs. COMELEC

Vacancy in senate: RA 7166: “permanent vacancy at least one year before expiration of the term, shall call and hold a special elections, but in case of vacancy in senate, special election will be held simultaneously with the next regular elections.”

Special elections can coincide with regular elections

Ocampo vs. HRET

2nd placer cannot take the place of a disqualified first placer

Salaries

The salaries of members of the Senate is governed by Article VI of the Constitution as follows:

Sec. 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase.

Sec. 20. The records and books of accounts of Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member.

It must be noted that in accordance with the above provisions, there is no prohibition against the receipt of allowances by the members of Congress. The second section, on the other hand, seeks to avoid the recurrence of the abuses committed by the members of the Old Congress in allotting themselves fabulous allowances the amount of which they refused to divulge to the people. It is now provided under the Constitution that the books of accounts of Congress shall be open to public inspection and must be audited by the Commission on Audit. Moreover, every member of Congress’ itemized expenditures, including allowances, shall be published annually for the information of the people.

It is interesting to note that the Constitution in Section 17, Article XVIII, provides the corresponding salaries of Senators, to wit:

Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual salary of three hundred thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two hundred forty thousand pesos each; the Senators, the members of the House of Representatives, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of the Constitutional Commissions, two hundred four thousand pesos each; and the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos each.

However, under Joint Resolution No. 1, the salaries of the members of the Senate is increased to salary grade 33 with monthly equivalent rate of P35,000.00. The Senate President, on the other hand, is raised to salary grade 34 with a monthly basic salary of P40,000.00.

Section 11: Immunity of arrest

“punishable by more than six years imprisonment”; while congress is in session – 4 th

Monday of july (SONA) and ends 30 days before the next session (compulsory recess), with small recesses in between.

People vs. Jalosjos

Conviction of more than 6 years imprisonment – immunity not applicable

Elected by constituents even though he was already convicted.

Trillanes vs. Pimentel

No person charged by capital offense or offense punishable by reclusion perpetua shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong.

Capacity to carry out his duties while in prison.

Jimenez vs. Cabangbang

Libelous letter: not in the exercise of his duties

Though, it was not libelous against the petitioners, only alleges that they were unwitting tools, not that they were the planners themselves.

Part of communicative and deliverative process

Puyat vs. De Guzman

IPI elections = puyat group vs. acero group = SEC case

Fernandez intervention – circumstances show that there is indirect appearance as counsel before administrative body

Santiago vs. Guingona

Minority vs. majority = must be understood in ordinary terms

Avelino vs Cuenco

Adjournment -> proclamation of new senate president and session continued with only 12 members present

Quorum – majority of “the house” instead of majority of “all the members of the house”

12 members out of 23 is majority of “the house” = based on the number of those present

People vs. jalosjos

Compulsion to attend: jalosjos saying that he could be persuaded for being unable to attend session: not reason for release

Absence is for a valid reason: being detained

Arroyo vs. De Venecia

RA 8240 passed in congress not in accordance with house rules: arroyo still had questions regarding the bill but it was still passed: no calling of the yeas and nays.

Internal rules violated – not in court jurisdiction – only the house can determine its rules and punish its members

Osmena vs. Pendatun

Privilege speech accusing Pres. Garcia of bribery -> house comitte to investigate -> House resolution # 175 declaring him guilty of disorderly behavior and suspension for 15 months

Although exempt from prosecution or civil action for words uttered in congress, members may be questioned in CONGRESS ITSELF.

Disorderly behavior – the house has exclusive power and the court has none.

Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan

Santiago charged with graft and corruption for allowing aliens to stay in Phils.

Suspended by sandiganbayan – pending criminal case: not punishment for disorderly behavior, but preliminary preventive measure for graft and corrupt act.

US vs. Pons

Pons charged under Act 2381 – anti-opium importation

Act 2381 – said to have been passed after last day of session: according to the journals, clock was stopped at 12 midnight: law passed valid

= journal prevails over extraneous evidence

Casco vs Gimenez

Urea and formaldehyde vs urea formaldehyde (as written in the law passed)

Wording of the law – urea formaldehyde: error in the printing

Between the journals and the enrolled bill: enrolled bill prevails

Morrales vs. Subido

Enrolled bill over journal

Astorga vs. Villegas

Due to the circumstances in the case, the court looked into the Senate journals.

= amendments made but not included in the bill signed by the president

Senate president and Chief Executive: had already withdrawn their signatures: invalidates the law

Phil. Judges vs. Prado

Franking privileges of judiciary

Enrolled bill clear, no need to look into journals

But law must be struck down as it violates the equal protection of the law, in regards to the removal of franking privileges of the judiciary

ABAKADA vs. Ermita

Enrolled bill to be followed as it was the one approved by both houses and by the president.

SECTION 17: Senate and House Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Election Contest - statutory contests in which the contestant seeks not only to oust the intruder, but also to have himself inducted into the office.

Pre-proclamation contests - any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns.

Angara vs. Electoral Commission

Prescription given by Electoral commission – has sole jurisdiction over election returns and qualifications of its members

Vera vs. Avelino

Deferment of oath-taking – not election contest

Oath-taking- makes one a members of the legislature: under jurisdiction of the Electoral tribunal

Chavez vs. COMELEC

Pre-proclamation cases not allowed for president, vp, senators and members of HoR

Aquino vs COMELEC

Electoral tribunal does not assume jurisdiction until the winning candidate has been proclaimed and has taken his oath of office

2nd placer – cannot take the place of the winning candidate

Perez vs. COMELEC

COMELEC no longer has jurisdiction as perez was already proclaimed.

Garcia vs HRET

HRET acted according to its own rules, no grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack/excess of jurisdiction.

Rasul vs. COMELEC

HRET – exclusivity in jurisdiction over election contests relating to its own members.

Guerrero vs. COMELEC

Villarosa vs. HRET

Initials not to be used, only one nickname per candidate: not known as Girlie: JTV initials of her husband

Aggabao vs COMELEC

Barbers vs. COMELEC

Roces vs. HRET

Electoral tribunals: 3 justices appointed by Chief Justice, 6 from members of Senate or the HoR

Abbas vs SET

Electoral tribunal must always be composed of legislative members: for every 2 legislators only one justice.

Pimentel vs. HRET

Party-list reps in HoR did not elect a member to the HRET

Bondoc vs. Pineda

HRET must be non-partisan: must not alter composition of the HRET.

Robles vs. HRET

Motion to withdraw does not end tribunal’s jurisdiction

Arroyo vs. HRET

NON-TRADITIONAL PROCESS OF PRECINCT-LEVEL DOCUMENT-BASED EVIDENCE – the process of procuring election documents used not only during the actual balloting stage of the election but much earlier, as early as the time of the registration of voters. (not the best form of evidence)

Lerias vs. HRET

Original copy of the certificates of canvass should be the best evidence

Sandoval vs. HRET

Substitute service – exhaust all means of locating recipient,

Section 18: Commission on Appointment

Daza vs. Singson

Shift in representation of LDP party = reapportionment of the Commission on Appointment

Must be based on proportional representation, political party must be permanent

Coseteng vs. Mitra

2 seats – per appointment into commission

Guingona vs. Gonzales

Cannot reduce the number of seats of a party in favor of another.

12 member Commission – not mandatory, what is mandatory is the proportional representation

Section 21 legislative investigations

Negros vs. sanguniang Panlungsod

Power of inquiry – for the legislative only, not delegated

Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

Power of inquiry to be exercised only for legislative purposes

Senate vs. Ermita

Question hour vs. power of inquiry

Gudani vs. Senga

Commander-in-chief powers – may limit power of inquiry of congress

Standard vs. Senate

Compel to attend – in aid of legislation

Neri vs. Senate

Executive privilege: 2 kinds: presidential communications (between president and executive official) and deliberative process (between executive officials only)

Garci vs House

Senate inquiry must be deferred until publication of the Senate rules has been complied with.

Section 22: “Question Hour”

- Voluntary with consent of the President, or upon the request of the house

- For oversight functions

Arnault vs Nazareno

The materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by its inherent relation to any possible or proposed legislation. (Answer might be the basis if the subject is to be made the subject of legislation.)

Senate continuing – power of investigation terminates at the end of session; may be taken up again at the next session.

Sabio vs. Gordon

Senate vs Ermita

Question hour vs. “in aid of legislation”: can only be limited by PRESIDENTIAL communication privilege

Executive: with presidential consent vs. anyone

Remedy: Sec 21: habeas corpus petition vs. sec 22: questions to be submitted beforehand and executive session

Section 23: congress sole power to declare the existence of a state of war, but may by law authorize president for a limited time, to exercise powers necessary and to carry out a declared national policy.

Lawless violence, invasion or rebellion – either suspend writ of habeas corpus or declare martial law.

In line with David vs. Arroyo – gr. no. 171396 (re BP 1070)

Section 24: origin of money bills, private bills and local application

Appropriations – specific sum of money appropriated for departments for the performance of their functions

Revenue bills – raising taxes

Tariff bills – raises revenue from importation and exportation of goods

Bills authorizing increase of public debt

Bills of local application – in relation to provinces, cities and municipalities, ex. Change municipality into a city

Private bills – ex. Reacquisition of citizenship

Tolentino vs. Sec of Finance

It is the bill that has to originate from the HoR, not the law itself.

HoR and Senate equal = has power to propose amendment, even through substitution.

“…originate exclusively from the HoR, but Senate may propose and concur with amendments.”

Alvarez vs Guingona

The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the Bill of the House, does not contravene the constitutional requirement that a bill of local application should originate from the House of Representatives, for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House Bill.

Presentations on (3 area- 3 groups)

Constitutional commissions on COMELEC: Civil Service and COA

Southern Cross vs Philcemcor

Bill is a tariff bill for a particular purpose

Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works

Incidental advantage to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use public money.

Section 25 Rules on Appropriation

Brillantes vs COMELEC

Electronic quick count (Phase III) not included in the GAA

Appropriation in the GAA – for modernization of Election system; not for quick count

Guingona vs Carague

Appropriation – there must be a fixed amount: valid if it only needs to be computed

Garcia vs. Mata

3rd law should have applied, but applicable provision was invalidated due to its insertion in the Appropirations Act.

Atitiw vs Zamora

In order that a provision or clause in a general appropriations bill may comply with the test of germaneness, it must be particular, unambiguous, and appropriate.

Particular – if it relates specifically to a distinct item or appropriation in the bill and does not refer generally to the entire appropriations bill

Unambiguous – when its application or operation is apparent on the face of the bill and it does not necessitate reference to details or sources outside the appropriations bill

Appropriate – when its subject matter does not necessarily have to be treated in a separate legislation.

Farinas vs Executive Secretary

Difference between elective and appointed officials.

Demetria vs Allba

The president cannot indiscriminately transfer funds without regard as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same

are to be taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made.

Liga vs. COMELEC

Philconsa vs Enriquez

Chief of Staff cannot be delegated power to augment: only for those enumerated in the constitution.

Sanchez vs COA

2 requisites for augmentation: 1) Actual savings; and, 2) there is an existing item to be augmented.

Deputy Executive Secretary of DILG – no power to augment: only president, senate president, speaker of the House, Chief Justice, and heads of Constitutional Commissions

Section 26: Subject and title of bills – General prohibition on “riders”

Cordero vs. Cabatuando

The constitutional requirement (one title – one bill rule) is satisfied if all parts of the law related to, and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title of the Bill.

It is sufficient of the title is comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object which the statute seeks to effect, without expressing each and every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishment of the object.

Philconsa vs Gimenez

It has been the general disposition of the court that the constitutional provision involving the one title – one subject rule should be construed liberally, in favor of the validity of the statute.

The purpose of this rule is to:

1. prevent fraud or surprise in the legislature

2. fairly appraise the people, through such publication of legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have the opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire.

The requirement that the subject of the act shall be expressed in its title is not a mere rule of legislative procedure; it is MANDATORY. It is the duty of the court to declare void any statute not conforming to the constitutional provision.

Alalayan vs NPC

If the object of the law is to amend a previous legislation, it will suffice if the title gives reference to the amended law.

Insular lumber vs CTA

The primary purpose of the one subject-one title rule is to prohibit duplicity of legislation, the title of which might completely fail to appraise the legislators or the public of the nature, scope and consequences of the law or its operation. -> every presumption fails its validity

Where there is doubt as to the insufficiency of either the title or the Act, the legislation should be sustained.

Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board

Art. VI, Sec. 26 is sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough to include the general purpose to which a statute seeks to achieve.

It is satisfied if all the parts of the statue are related to, and are germane to the subject expressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with and foreign to the general subject and title. PRACTICAL rather than TECHNICAL construction.

Phil. Judges vs Prado

The title need not be an index of the body of the act, or be comprehensive as to cover every single detail of the measure. It need only that all provisions in said act should be germane to the subject thereof.

Tobias vs Abalos

A liberal construction of the one title-one subject rule has been invariably adopted by the court so as not to impede or cripple legislation.

Tatad vs DOEThe title of a law need not mirror or fully index or catalogue all the contents or provisions of the said law.

De Guzman vs COMELEC

Purpose of section 26: 1) prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation; 2) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which titles gave no info, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and, 3) to fairly appraise the people through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise if they so desire.

Section 26 is said to have been complied with if the title is comprehensive enough to embrace the general to embrace the general objective it seeks to achieve: presumption is in favor of validity.

Cawaling vs COMELEC

Every statutes has in its favor the presumption of validity: grounds for nullity must be beyond reasonable doubt. (This also goes for one title-one subject rule).

Section 27: Procedure in Law-making

Arroyo vs De Venecia

No rule of the House of Representatives has been cited which specifically requires that in case involving the approval of a conference committee report, the Chair must restate the motion and conduct a viva voce or nominal voting.

The constitution does not require that the yeas and nays of the Members be taken every time a House has to vote, except only in the ff circumstances: 1) upon the last and third readings of the bills; 2) at the request of 1/5 of the members present; and, 3) in repassing a bill over the veto of the president.

Abakada vs Ermita

It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirely new provision that is not found either in the House bill or in the Senate bill. If the committee can propose an amendment consisting of one or two provisions, there is no reason why it cannot propose several provisions, collectively considered as “an amendment in the nature of a substitute”, so long as such amendment is germane to the subject of the bills before the committee.

Bicameral conference committees – have power to introduce amendments.

No amendment rule pertains only to the procedure to be followed by each house of the Congress with regard to bills initiated in each of said respective Houses, before said bill is transmitted to the other house for its concurrence or amendment.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs CTA

An “item” in a revenue bill doesn’t refer to an entire section imposing a particular kind of tax, but rather to the subject of the tax and the tax rate. To construe “item” as referring to the whole section, would tie the president’s hand in choosing either to approve the whole section at the expense of also approving a provision therein which he deems unacceptable or veto the entire section at the expense of foregoing the collection of the kind of tax altogether.

In Appropriation bills, the president may exercise “item-veto”.

Gonzalez vs Macaraig

The terms item and provision in budgetary legislation and practice are concededly different. An item in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, and the distinct and several parts of a bill. It furthered that “an ‘item’ of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of money, not some general provision of law, which happens to be put into an appropriation bill.”

Inappropriate provisions – should be treated as items subject to the veto power of the president.

To determine if a provision is an inappropriate provision: test of appropriateness

It is not enough that a provision be related to the institution or agency to which funds are appropriated. Conditions and limitations properly included in an appropriation bill must exhibit such a connection with money items of appropriation that they logically belong in a schedule of expenditures. For the rule to apply, restrictions should be such in the real sense of the term, not some matter which are more appropriately dealt with in a separate legislation.

Bengzon vs Drilon

The act of the Executive in vetoing particular provisions is an exercise of a constitutionally vested power. But the veto power is not absolute. Only particular items may be vetoed.

The president cannot set aside or reverse a final and executory judgment of the court through the exercise of the veto power, nor can she enact or amend statutes promulgated by her predecessors, much less to repeal existing laws.

Philconsa vs Enriquez

Where the veto is claimed to have been made without or in excess of the authority vested in the President, the issue of an impermissible intrusion of the Executive into the Legislative domain arises.

Section 28: Taxation

Planters vs Fertiphil

Public purpose is at the heart of a tax law. It is an elastic concept. The inherent requirement that taxes can only be exacted for a public purpose still stands. When a tax law is only a mask to exact funds from the public when its true intent is to give undue benefit and advantage to a private enterprise, the law will not satisfy the requirement of “public purpose”. The purpose of the law is evident from its text or inferable from other secondary sources.

CIR vs Lingayen

A tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found. Uniformity means that all property belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike. (Follows requisites for a valid classification).

Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance

Tax exemption based on valid classification (?)

Tan vs. Del Rosario

Uniformity of taxation follows valid classification between individuals and corporations:

1) the standards that are used therefore are substantial and not arbitrary

2) the categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose

3) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions

4) the classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class.

Under the tax system, the trend is to treat different things differently.

CIRvsCAAll subjects or objects similar must be equally taxed, or put on equal footing both in privileges and liabilities; no exemptions.

All taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class must be taxed at the same rate and the tax must operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found.

Abra Valley College vs Aquino

The exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes is not limited to property actually indispensable therefore, but extends to facilities that are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purpose, such as in the case of hospitals, a school for training nurses, a nurse’s home, property used to provide housing facilities for interns, doctors, superintendents, and other members of the hospital staff, etc.

The exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purpose of the charitable or educational (or religious) institution.

The test of exemption is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the constitution.

Bayan vs Zamora

John Hay vs Lim

Since only Congress can pass tax laws, it follows that only Congress can provide tax exemptions, through the passage of legislation.

Southern Cement vs Philcemcor

The power of taxation by nature and by command of the fundamental law is a preserve of the legislature.

The delegation of taxation power by the legislative to the executive is authorized by the constitution itself. The constitution also grants Congress the right to impose

restrictions and limitations on the taxation power of the president. The restrictions and limitations imposed by Congress take on the mantle of a constitutional command, which the executive branch is obliged to observe.

Lung Center vs QC

To determine whether an enterprise is a charitable institution/entity or not, the elements which should be considered include the statutes creating the enterprise, its corporate purpose, its constitution and by-laws, the methods of administration, the nature of the actual work performed, the character of the services rendered, the indefiniteness of the beneficiaries, and the use and occupation of the properties. A charity may be fully defined as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds and hearts under the influence of education or religion, by assisting them to establish themselves in life or otherwise lessening the burden or government. The test whether an enterprise is charitable or not is whether it exists to carry out a purpose recognized in law as charitable or whether it is maintained for gain, profit or private advantage.

A charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemptions from taxes simply because it derives income from paying patients, or receivables from the government (or donations), so long as the money received is devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve, and no money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the institution.

Abakada vs Ermita

The power of tax cannot be delegated, but the details as to the enforcement and administration of an exercise of such power may be left to the executive, including the power to determine the existence of facts which its operation depends, the rationale being that the preliminary ascertainment of facts as basis for the enactment of legislation is not itself a legislative function but is simply ancillary to legislation. The constitution does not require that Congress find for itself every fact upon which it desires to base legislative action or that it make for itself detailed determinations which it has declared to be prerequisite to application of legislative policy to particular facts and circumstances impossible for Congress itself to properly investigate.

Congress may delegate to the President the power to increase a tax, dependent on a certain set of facts, upon the completion of which the president may carry out the delegated power.

Spouses Constantino vs Cuisia

The Congress can delegate to the cabinet Secretary (i.e. Secretary of Finance), in his capacity as the alter ego of the president, to carry out the authority vested on the Chief Executive under Section 28.

Republic vs City of Kidapawan

Tax exemption cannot be granted without the concurrence of the majority of the members of congress, and may only be done through the passage of legislation. Only congress can provide for tax exemptions, as it is the only branch that has power to tax.

Section 29: Restrictions on the Use of Public Funds

Pascual vs Secretary of Public Works

MIAA vs Mabunay

Legislative may delegate to the agency the power to provide for the means of obtaining object of an appropriation but such act cannot go beyond statutes.

Public bidding has been a practice, which is the accepted method of arriving at a fair price and prevents favoritism and overpricing.

Guingona vs Carague

Constitution does not require exact, specific appropriation made by law.

COMELEC vs. Quijano

No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

Appropriation must first be made prior to the bidding and creation of contracts, so as to provide for a guideline regarding the amount that can be used for the specific enterprise.

Gaston vs Republic Planters Bank

Taxes levied for a specific purpose are considered to be special funds, which is an exercise of the police power of the state. Once the specific purpose is accomplished or abandoned, the funds become and are transferred to the general funds of the state.

Revenues collected are to be treated as a special fund, to be ‘administered in trust’ for the purpose intended.

Osmena vs. Orbos

Money named as tax but actually collected in the exercise of the police power of the state may be placed in a special trust account.

Section 30: Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

First Lepanto Ceramics vs CA

The provision is intended to give the SC a measure of control over cases placed under its appellate jurisdiction.

Diaz vs CA

Fabian vs Disierto

A law is invalid when it increases the appellate jurisdiction of the court without its advice.

Villavert vs Desierto

Tirol vs COA

Cabrera vs Lapid

Section 31: Titles of Royalty and Nobility

Section 32: Initiative and Referendum

SBMA vs COMELEC

Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC

Lambino vs COMELEC

Article VII

Section 1 Executive Power

- Constitutional power granted to the President to enforce laws

- Includes rule-making power: implementation and enforcement of laws passed

Philconsa vs Enriquez

Webb vs De Leon

The prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department, whose principal power and reasonability is to see that our laws are faithfully executed.

Determining probable cause – executive in character

Marcos vs Manglapus

The powers of the president are not limited to those enumerated in the constitution: residual powers

Right to return – found in the UN declaration of Human Rights, International covenant on human rights, but not absolute: subject to national interests, public policy and welfare, health, etc.

- general power to faithfully execute the laws

express powers of the president – those enumerated in the constitution

residual powers – anything not expressly provided in the Constitution, article VI

Laurel vs. Garcia

Power to enter into contracts – except for property under public dominion

Djumantan vs. Domingo

Right of every state to regulate the entry of persons into their country: deportation part of executive power

Chavez vs. PCGG

Pontejos vs. OMB

State witness – will not be charged with criminal prosecution.

US vs. Nixon

General claim of executive privilege is not absolute nor unqualified; in a situation when a person’s right is made subject of a criminal proceeding, then production of evidence is essential to uphold the constitutional rights of the accused.

Neri vs. Senate Committee

Presidential communication privilege

Elements:

Protected communication must relate to a quintessential and non-delegable presidential power

Must be authored or solicited and received by a close advisor of the President of the President himself

Remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need.

AKBAYAN vs. Aquino

Soliven vs. Makasiar

President may waive immunity from suit. The only person who can invoke immunity is the president himself.

Harlow vs. Fitzgerald

Qualified Immunity or “good faith” immunity may be use by an official. A official would be qualifiedly immune if he (1) does not know that the action taken in his sphere of responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the victim. (2) did not act with malicious intent. Gov’t officials performing discretionary functions generally are shieled from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known.

Clinton vs. Jones

The President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on official acts. Some public servants are granted immunity from suits for money damages arising out of their official acts so as to enable them to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability. The societal interest in providing such public officials with the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the public at large as an acceptable justification for official immunity. The point of immunity for such officials is to forestall an atmosphere of intimidation that would conflict with their resolve to perform their designated function in a principled fashion. However, as

much as some public officials including the President, may be granted immunity, it does not apply to unofficial conduct. Immunities are grounded in the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed.

Gloria vs. CA

Immunity from suit for the president, not for cabinet members.

Estrada vs. Disierto

Though incumbent presidents are immune from suit DURING their tenure, this immunity does not extend BEYOND their tenure. Additionally, the charges filed against Erap are criminal in nature, and the SC cannot “wrap him in post-tenure immunity from liability”. It would then circumvent the general application of laws to him.

David vs. Arroyo

The President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constituion or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. However, this does not mean that the President is not accountable to anyone. Like any other official, he remains accountable to the people but he may be removed from office only in the mode provided by law and that is by IMPEACHMENT.

Constantino vs. Cuisia

The President of the Philippines is the Executive of the Government of the Philippines, and no other. The heads of the executive departments occupy political positions and hold office in an advisory capacity, and, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, "should be of the President's bosom confidence", and, in the language of Attorney-General Cushing, "are subject to the direction of the President." Without minimizing the importance of the heads of the various departments, their personality is in reality but the projection of that of the President. Stated otherwise, and as forcibly characterized by Chief Justice Taft of the Supreme Court of the United

States, "each head of a department is, and must be, the President's alter ego in the matters of that department where the President is required by law to exercise authority".

Section 4: Election of President and VP

Anson-Roa vs. Arroyo

GMA was not elected: she assumed presidency after resignation of Estrada. Thus, there is no bar from running for presidency as she is not covered by the phrase: “run for any reelection.”

Brillantes vs. Comelec

Canvassing of votes for President and VP is the tack of Congress. It cannot be undertaken by the Comelec, even in the disguise of being “unofficial.”

Pimentel vs. Joint Committee

The canvassing of votes of the President and VP by the Congress is not one of its legislative functions. Thus, it is not covered by the end of the session of Congress, unlike its legislative funcstions, which end along with the adjournment of its sessions.

Lopez vs. Senate

The constitution provides that Congress has the power to promulgate its rules concerning the canvassing of votes for the presidency and VP.

Defensor-santiago vs. Ramos

Section 7: Start of Term as of noon June 30

Tecson vs. Lim

The election contest can only contemplate a post-election scenario. It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined by Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, would not include cases directly brought before it, questioning the qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency before the elections are held.

Section 7-8: Filling in vacancy in the presidency

Estrada vs. Disierto

Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question and its elements are beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not government by any formal requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.

Section 8: Midterm past June 30

Death, Disability; Removal, Resignation Death, Disability; Resignation

Pres. VP Both Acting Pres. (SP/SH)

VP is Pres. Pres. Will nominate VPP from Congress (sec. 9)

Senate Pres./Speaker of HoR as Pres.

By Law (Congress)

Section 11: Incapacity of the President

Estrada vs. Disierto

To be determined by Congress: can be ascertained form their acts of recognition of GMA.

Section 13: Prohibitions

Rafael vs. Embroidery

Ex-officio capacity – not entirely different from current duties and functions; incidental to their office

President fails to Qualify Not Chosen Death/Disability

Pres. VP Both Pres. VP Both Pres. VP Both

VP acts as Pres.

No succession

Senate Pres,/Speaker of HoR

(until one qualifies) “acting pres.”

VP as acting Pres.

No succession

Senate Pres. Or Speaker of HoR

VP as Pres.

Pres. Nominates VP from members of Congress upon confirmation by majority vote of all members of both houses

Senate Pres./Speaker of HoR

CLU vs. Exec. Sec.

The executive is treated as a class in itself and as such, are given stricter prohibitions.

Dela Cruz vs. COA

Ex-officio capacity – no compensation for the executive who acts as such, nor do their representatives.

Bitonio vs. COA and Amnesty int’l vs. COA

Representatives designated by ex-officio members are not exempted from the law: the designation is an imposition only of additional duties, and does not confer any legally demandable rights.

Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan

Participation in a contract with the government, though indirect, is still prohibited: but accused is entitled to investigation and rights conferred by the law.

Section 14-15: Appointments by Acting President

In Re appointment of Valenzuela

There are two kinds of appointments directed against by the appointment ban in Sec. 15, Art. 7: (1) those made for vote-buying and (2) those made for partisan politics. Midnight appointments such as the appointments in question are made in consideration of partisan politics to influence the outcome of the elections. The only appointments that are exempted from the ban are vacant executive positions that will prejudice public interest.

Section 16: Nature of Appointing Power

Govenrment vs. SpringerThe legislative branch has no power to appoint. It is only for the executive.

Bermudez vs. Exec. Sec.

The president need not wait for his/her subordinate’s recommendation to carry out a duty or function vested in his/her office.

Pimentel vs. Ermita

The law expressly allows the President to make such acting appointment. Section 17, Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of EO 292 states that “[t]he President may temporarily designate an officer already in the government service or any other competent person to perform the functions of an office in the executive branch.” Thus, the President may even appoint in an acting capacity a person not yet in the government service, as long as the President deems that person competent.

Sarmiento vs. MisonExcept as to those officers whose appointments require the consent of the COA by express mandate of the first sentence in Sec 16 Art VII, appointments of other officers are left to the President without need of confirmation by the COA. It is only in the first sentence where it is clearly stated that positions enumerated therein require the consent of the COA. The word “alone” is a mere lapsus.

Bautista vs. SalongaAppointing power solely vests in the President, but once she makes the appointment, the President loses the power over the position. It’s up to the appointed person if she would accept or not.

Quinto-Deles vs. CAAppointment of sectoral representatives need CA confirmation.

Pobre vs. MendientaThis provision empowers the President to appoint "those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint." The law that authorizes him to appoint the PRC Commissioner and Associate Commissioners, is P.D. 223, Section 2, which provides that the Commissioner and Associate Commissioners of the PRC are "all to be appointed by the President for a term of nine (9) years, without reappointment, to start from the time they assume office .

Flores vs. DrilonThe power of choice is the heart of the power to appoint. Appointment involves an exercise of discretion of whom to appoint; it is not a ministerial act of issuing appointment papers to the appointee. In other words, the choice of the appointee is a fundamental component of the appointing power.

Rufino vs. Endriga

The power to appoint is the prerogative of the President, except in those instances when the Constitution provides otherwise. Under Section 16, there is a fourth group of

lower-ranked officers whose appointments Congress may by law vest in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. These inferior or lower in rank officers are the subordinates of the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards who are vested by law with the power to appoint. Congress has the discretion to grant to, or withhold from, the heads the power to appoint lower-ranked officers. The 1987 Constitution only allows heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards to appoint only “officers lower in rank” than such “heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.”

Calderon vs. CaraleThe second sentence of Sec 16, Art VII refers to all other officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law and those whom the President may be authorized by law. The NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall within the second sentence of Sec 16. The Chairman and Members of the NLRC are NOT among the officers mentioned in the first sentence of Sec 16, whose appointments requires the confirmation by the Commission on App.

U-Sing vs. NLRCSame as Calderon

Tarrosa vs. SingsonCongress cannot by law expand the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments and require confirmation of appointments of other government officials not expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 of Article 7 of the Constitution.

Manolo vs. SiztozaThe police force is different from and independent of the armed forces and the ranks in the military are not similar to those in the PNP. Thus, directors and chief superintendents of the PNP, such as respondent police officers in this case, do not fall under the first category of presidential appointees requiring the confirmation by the CA (see first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 16). PNP is not part of the AFP.

Soriano vs. ListaIt is clear from Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution that only appointed officers from the rank of colonel or naval captain in the armed forces require confirmation by the CA. The rule is that the plain, clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution should be construed as such and should not be given a construction that changes its meaning. The enumeration of appointments subject to confirmation by the CA under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is exclusive. The

clause "officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain" refers to military officers alone.

Section 17: Power of Control

Lacson-magallanes vs. PanoThe president is vested with the executive power in the 3 branches of government. With this power, comes the power to control all of the executive departments. He can appoint these heads, and dismiss them as he pleases. Having the power to control and direct them, he as well can confirm, modify or reverse the decisions of these department secretaries.

Ang-Angco vs. CastilloThe power of control of the President extends to the power to “alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the [President] for that of the [subordinate officer].” This may be extended to the power to “investigate, suspend or remove officers and employees who belong to the executive department if they are presidential appointees or do not belong to the classified service for such can be justified that the power to remove is inherent to the power to appoint.” The same cannot be done to officers or employees who belong to the classified service. The procedure laid down in the Civil Service Act of 1959 must be followed for their removal.

Villaluz vs. ZaldivarInherent in the power to appoint is the power to remove.

NAMARCO vs. ArcaPresident’s power of control includes GOCCs as part of the Executive department.

Drilon vs. LimSupervision – merely to determine if rules are being followed; control – change the rules and creates new ones, and provide penalties for non-compliance with the rules.

PASEI vs. TorresThe Ministry of Labor is under the executive department and the president has the power of control of its department head (Secretary). It is implicit in the power of control is the power to review, confirm, modify or reverse acts of Dept’ heads. In this case, if the Secretary grants a new license, Marcos can deny or approve of it. Hence, this LOI takes the nature of a presidential issuance which can be repealed by a later presidential issuance.

De Leon vs. Carpio All executive departments, bureaus, and offices are under control of

President President’s power of control over cabinet, who in turn controls bureaus and

other offices under their jurisdictiono As head of executive department, he may delegate some of his

powers to the Cabinet except when he is required by the Constitution to act in person or in the exegencies of the situations demand that he act personally

The NBI is under the Department of Justice and since the Secretary of Justice acts as alter ego of the President, his orders must be followed by the Director of the NBI.

Acts of the alter egos of the President are acts of the President himself unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive.

Joson vs. TorresJurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials is lodged in two authorities: The disciplining authority and the Investigating Authority. The Disciplining Authority is the President whether acting by himself or through the Executive Secretary. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government is the Investigating Authority who may act by himself or by and Investigating committee. The secretary of the DILG, however is not the exclusive investigating authority. In lieu of the DILG Secretary, the disciplining authority may designate a special Investigating committee.

Hutchinson vs. SBMAChartered instirutions are always under the power of control of the President.

Cruz vs. Sec. of DENR

PRA vs. BunagThe task of the Department of Budget and Management is simply to review the compensation and benefits plan of the government agency or entity concerned and determine if the same complies with the prescribed policies and guidelines issued in this regard. The role of the Department of Budget and Management is supervisorial in nature, its main duty being to ascertain that the proposed compensation, benefits and other incentives to be given to PRA officials and employees adhere to the policies and guidelines issued in accordance with applicable laws.

Domingo vs. Zamora

Power of the President to reorganize over: 1) office of the President proper; 2) offices within the office of the President

Romuldez vs. SndiganbayanThe felonious act of public officials and their close relatives are not acts of the state, and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such, but stands on the same footing as any other offender.

Chavez vs. RomuloUnder Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution, he/she is given powers as the Chief Executive: “The president shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.” As the Chief Executive, GMA holds the steering wheel that controls the course of her government. She lays down the policies in the execution of her plans and programs. Whatever policy she chooses, she has her subordinate to implement them. In short, she has the power of control. Whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to her subordinate, she may act directly or merely direct the performance of a duty. Thus, when GMA directed Ebdane to suspend the issuance of the PTCFOR, she was just directing a subordinate to perform an assigned duty. Such act was well within the prerogative of her office.

Section 18 Commander in Chief

Call in AFPSuspend Privilege of

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Declare Martial Law

Grounds

Prevent / Suppress lawless violence Yes ? ?

Invasion Yes yes yesRebellion Yes yes yes

Period

Prevent / Suppress lawless violence ?    

Invasion Gen. Rule: 60 days (except if extended or revoked by Congress)

Rebellion      

Notice ? Congress w/in 48 hours

Revocation ? Congress

Judicial Review & Period

?Yes. The test is w/n the Pres. Acted 

arbitrarily 7 sufficiently based on the facts; decide in 60 days

Who can question ? Any CitizenCourts & legis.

AssemblyOpen Open Open

Lansang vs. GarciaPresident has 3 courses of action (in times of national emergency):To call out Armed Forces To suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusTo place the Philippines (entirely or partly) under martial law

Aberca vs. Ver

IBP vs. ZamoraThe calling out power is placed in a different category from the power to declare martial law and the power to suspend martial law and the power to suspend the habeas corpus otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would have simply lumped together the 3 powers and provided for their revocation and review without any qualification (see Section 18, Article 7 codal)The power to call is fully discretionary to the president.

Lacson vs. PerezThe court may review the factual basis for the proclamation declaring the existence of a state of rebellion.

Lim vs. Exec. Sec.

Sanlakas vs. Exec. Sec.The President has full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to determine the necessity of the exercise of such power. None of the petitioners have supported their assertion that the President acted without factual basis.

David vs. ArroyoThe president may call out the AFP without confirmation from Congress, but may not exercise emergency powers without congressional enactment.

Section 19: Executive Clemency

ReprievesCommutation

Pardon Fines Amnesty

Who exercises

President President President PresidentPres. + maj. Of all of Congress

EffectPostpones to a day certain

Remission of part of the punishment

Exempts from punishment (looks forward)-relieved from consequences-civil liability

-abolishes offense(looks backward)

Requisites Final JudgmentFinal Judgment

Final Judgment

Final judgment

-before conviction-treason, political offense/law of nations

Beneficiary individual Individual Individual IndividualClass of individuals

Limitation

Except: impeachment; election offense (Comelec recommendation)

-> Same Same SameSame (if tax

amnesty, needs

legislative concurrence)

Acceptance

Gen. Rule: needed except if absolute

Cristobal vs. Labrador

There are only two limitations on the pardoning power of the executive: that the power be exercised after conviction (final judgement) and that such power does not

extend to cases of impeachment. Pardon was granted to Santos after he has served his sentence and his case was not that of impeachment. Thus, the pardoning power of the executive cannot be restricted by legislative action. An absolute pardon blots out not only the crime committed but removes all disabilities resulting from conviction. Often, imprisonment is not the only punishment when one goes against the law but punishment also comes in the form of accessory and resultant disabilities. When pardon is granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, absolute pardon removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction.

Llamas vs. Orbos

The president may grant clemency for administrative cases in the executive branch: the constitution does not distinguish between criminal and administrative cases.

People vs. Salle

“after final judgment of conviction” – no appeals: if pardon is applied for, it shall not be processed pending an appeal. The judgment must fist be final.

People vs. Bacang

Pardon cannot be extended pending an appeal.

Drilon vs. CA

Once a person has been pardoned, or has served his sentence, his case can no longer be reopened and reinvestigated.

Torres vs. Gonzales

The acceptance of a conditional pardon, carried with it the authority or power given to the President to determine whether the condition of the pardon has been violated. To no other department of the Government has such power been entrusted or delegated. Such act of the President is not subject to judicial scrutiny.

People vs Cassido

Amnesty – granted to classes of persons guilty of political offenses, instituted before or after criminal prosecution or even after conviction.

Monsanto vs. factoran

Pardon does not restore a convicted felon to public office. He must first acguire a reappointment, not a reinstatement, and does not exempt him from paying civil liabilities.

Garcia vs. COA

Since the pardon was based on innocence, the accused should be accorded his rights previously held. He should be automatically reinstated and given back wages, as if he never left his office, as his dismissal is rendered null and void, due to lack of the cause of action to which his innocence was found.

Section 21 International agreements, treaties, etc.

Gonzales vs. hechanova

Although the president may enter into agreements without previous legislative authority, he may not by executive agreement, enter into transactions which is prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto. Under the constitution, the main function of the executive is to enforce the laws enacted by congress. He may not defeat legislative enactments by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws.

USAFFE vs. Treasurer

Executive agreements are two classes:

1) PRESIDENTIAL AGREEMENTS- Agreement made purely by executive acts affecting external relations and independent of or needs no legislative authorization.

2) CONGRESSIONAL- EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS- Agreement entered into in pursuance of acts of congress.

The agreement may fall under any of these 2 classes. Why?

1) Because congress granted authority to the president to obtain loans and incur indebtedness with the Government of US.

2) Even assuming that there was no legislative authorization, the agreement may still be entered into purely as executive acts (which usually relates to money agreements for settlement of pecuniary claims of the citizens.

3) Senate resolution 15 admitted the validity and the binding force of the agreement.

4) The act of congress appropriating funds for the yearly installments (under the agreement) constitute a ratification thereof. Because international agreements are for the executive, the courts may not encroach upon their validity.

Tanada vs. AngaraBayan vs. ZamoraTreaty – signed and approved by 2/3 majority vote of all members of the Senate.

Abaya vs. EbdaneAn "exchange of notes" is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other. Under the usual procedure, the accepting State repeats the text of the offering State to record its assent. The signatories of the letters may be government Ministers, diplomats or departmental heads. The technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval. It is stated that "treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes" all refer to "international instruments binding at international law."Significantly, an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive action without the need of a vote by the Senate or Congress. Agreements concluded by the President which fall short of treaties are commonly referred to as executive agreements and are no less common in our scheme of government than are the more formal instruments – treaties and conventions. They sometimes take the form of exchange of notes and at other times that of more formal documents denominated "agreements" or "protocols". The point where ordinary correspondence between this and other governments ends and agreements – whether denominated executive agreements or exchange of notes or otherwise – begin, may sometimes be difficult of ready ascertainment.Pharmaceutical vs. DOH

Non-customary laws need to be transformed into local legislation before it can be binding: ratification and concurrence of Senate.

Article VIII

Section 1: Judicial Power

Marbury vs. MadisonJudicial review: authority of the court to inquire into the acts of the branches of government or instrumentalities thereof.

Santiago vs. BautistaJudicial function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers; the exercise of which is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court. In order that a special action of certiorari may be invoked in this jurisdiction, the following must exist:a. That there must be a specific controversy involving the rights of persons or property;b. Such controversy is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer for hearing and determination of rights and obligations.

Manila Electric vs. Pasay TransitThe Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions.The power conferred on this court is exclusively judicial, and it cannot be required or authorized to exercise any other. . . . Its jurisdiction and powers and duties being defined in the organic law of the government, and being all strictly judicial, Congress cannot require or authorize the court to exercise any other jurisdiction or power, or perform any other duty… And while it executes firmly all the judicial powers entrusted to it, the court will carefully abstain from exercising any power that is not strictly judicial in its character, and which is not clearly confided to it by the Constitution.

Noblejas vs. Teehankee

Judicial power does not include the power to discipline officers in others branches of government with equal rank as that of a judge. This is beyond the judicial sphere.

Radiowealth vs. AgregadoThe “preservation of Judiciary’s integrity and effectiveness is necessary”. Corollary to this is the power of judiciary to maintain its existence. The quality of the government depends upon the independence of judiciary and the officials of the government cannot deprive the courts of anything which is vital to their functions.

Furthermore, the prerogatives of this court which the Constitution secures against interference include not only the powers to adjudicate cases but all things that are REASONABLY necessary for the administration of justice. The purchase of the necessary equipment would contribute to a more effective judiciary. Lastly, these are implied and incidental powers that are as essential to the existence of the court as the powers specifically granted to it.

In re LauretaThe Court's authority and duty under the premises is unmistakable. It must act to preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an irate lawyer, mouthed by his client, and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession.

In re BorromeoJudges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors. They should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and functions. Hence it is sound rule, which must be recognized independently of statute that judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith. The Court has repeatedly and uniformly ruled that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders. The exercise of the power of contempt of the court is valid.

Director of Prisons vs. Ang Cho KioThe power to revoke a conditional pardon is within the realm of the executive, and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Neither does the judiciary have the power to give advisory opinions. Its main duty is to settle disputes and uphold

rights, in the absence of which it cannot render opinions, as this is not one of its functions.

Echegaray vs. Sec. of JusticeThe finality of a judgment does not mean the Court has lost all its powers over the case. By the finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify, or alter the same. The court still has jurisdiction to execute and enforce it. The power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. Supervening events may change the circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of the litigants to prevent unfairness.Postponement of the date: The particulars of the execution itself are absolutely under the control of the judicial authority, while the executive has no power over the person of the convict except to provide for carrying out of the penalty and to pardon. The date can be postponed, even in sentences of death. Under the common law this postponement can be ordered in 3 ways: (1) by command of the King (2) by discretion of the court (3) by mandate of the law.

PCGG vs. DisiertoThe Constitution has tasked this Court “to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government,” including the Office of the Ombudsman. Specifically, this Court is mandated to review and reverse the ombudsman’s evaluation of the existence of probable cause, if it has been made with grave abuse of discretion.

Domingo vs. ScheerAlthough the courts are without power to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government and are not empowered to execute absolutely their own judgment from that of Congress or of the President, the Court may look into and resolve questions of whether or not such judgment has been made with grave abuse of discretion, when the act of the legislative or executive department violates the law or the Constitution.

Angara vs. Electoral Tribunal

Judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority.The Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional creation with specific powers and functions to execute and perform, closer for purposes of classification to the legislative than to any of the other two departments of the government; is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly.

US vs. NixonThe mere assertion of an “intra-executive” dispute does not defeat federal jurisdiction. Furhtermore the attorney general had conferred upon the special prosecutor the unique tenure and authority to represent the US and with this explicit power to contest the invocation of executive privilege in seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of his duties. Actions of the prosecutor are well within the scope of this express authority seeking specified evidence, which are admissible and relevant ot the criminal case at hand. Thus the issue is of a type considered “traditionally justiciable,” the fact that both officers are of the exec branch does not bar this.

Marcos vs. ManglapusGiven the expanded jurisdiction of the SC, it no longer cowers behind the political question doctrine save for certain undeniable situations such as recognition of states or the grant of pardons. The SC, in the face of the present controversy, has the duty of ascertaining whether or not the Executive goes beyond the power vested by the Constitution. There exists a conflict between the rights asserted by the Marcoses as opposed to the exercise of executive power by the President for the preservation of national interest and security.

Daza vs. SingsonThe issue presented is justiciable rather political, involving as it does the legality and not the wisdom of the act complained of, or the manner of filling the Commission on Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution. Even if the question were political in nature, it would still come within the powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon the SC by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion

amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Garcia vs. BOIThere is an actual controversy whether the petro-chemical plant should remain in Bataan or be transferred to Batangas.

Djumantan vs. DomingoBeing final arbiter, it has power to review the order of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation, as a branch or instrumentality of the Government. GADELJ

Mariano vs. ComelecA hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen into an actual case is not a justiciable controversy which the court can take cognizance of. A hypothetical issue which rests on many contingent events does not pose an issue ripe for adjudication.

PPI vs. ComelecIssue not ripe for judicial review due to lack of actual case or controversy.

SBMA vs. ComelecCourts may decide only actual controversies, not hypothetical questions or cases. Judicial power has been defined in jurisprudence as "the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction". It is "the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violation of such rights". Thus, there can be no occasion for the exercise of judicial power unless real parties come to court for the settlement of an actual controversy and unless the controversy is such that it can be settled in a manner that binds the parties by the application of existing laws.

Tanada vs. AngaraThe court cannot look into the wisdom of the acts of the legislature.

Arroyo vs. De Venecia

The courts may only look into the constitutionality of the acts of officials, and not if these acts conform to the internal rules of each branch of government (HoR rules).

CIR vs. SantosThe Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue. But this authority does not extend to deciding questions, which pertain to legislative policy.

Garcia-Rueda vs. PascasioWhile the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section I, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. In this regard, "grave abuse of discretion" has been defined as "where a power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law.

Defensor-Santiago vs. GuingonaThe present constitution now fortifies the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. It speaks of judicial prerogative in terms of duty: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a GADALEJ on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Tatad vs. DOEJudicial power includes not only the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also the duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. The courts, as guardians of the Constitution, have the inherent authority to determine whether a statue enacted by the legislature transcends the limit imposed by the fundamental law. Where a statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the right, but the duty of the judiciary to declare such null and void. The petitioner is not

assailing the wisdom of the law, but its constitutionality. Therefore, there is a justiciable controversy.

Telebap vs. ComelecA justiciable controversy has arisen as GMA allaged that said law violates its rights against deprivation of property without just compensation and that it has sustained millions of pesos in damages resulting therefrom.

Miranda vs. Aguirre“The term ‘political question’ connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy.  It refers ‘to those questions which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.’ It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.”“A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.”

Cutaran vs. DENRThere is no justiciable controversy because the applications are still pending. Hence, there is not government act to speak of and rule upon.

Estrada vs. DisiertoReview of the inability of the president to perform his duties and the decision of Congress is no longer a political question. Courts cannot expand executive immunity from suit. The 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. The judiciary has focused on the “thou shall not’s” of the Constitution.

Cawaling vs. ComelecA political question is one in which the wisdom, expediency or justice of the legislative enactment is being questioned. The courts cannot rule on the wisdom of the laws.

Montesclaros vs. Comelec

A proposed bill cannot be the subject of judicial review because it is not a law. Judicial review may only be exercised after a laws has been passed, not before it.

John Hay vs. LimThe courts retain full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directly to it if compelling reasons or the nature and importance of the uses raised, warrant. Remanding the case to the lower courts would unduly prolong the case.

Velarde vs. SJSRequirements for declaratory relief sought by respondents are: 1) justiciable controversy, 2)controversy is between people whose interests are adverse, 3) party seeking relief has a legal interest in the controversy and 4) the issue is ripe for judicial determination.A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one which is merely one of conjecture or merely anticipatory. This petition failed to allege an exsitng controversy or dispute between the petitioner and the named respondents.

Panganiban vs. ShellThe court cannot rule of “feared hypothetical abuse”: not an actual case or controversy. There is not cause of action. No injury or encroachment of right legally enforceable or demandable.

SMART vs. NTCThe court has jurisdiction over administrative issuances of agencies, which were issued in the exercise of their quasi-legislative, and not quasi-judicial function.

Buac vs. ComelecRecount of plebiscite ballots is exclusively within the realm of the Comelec: not to be interfered with by the courts.

Information Technology vs. ComelecThe court does not give advisory opinions. It can nly rule on actual cases or controversies, involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.

Macasiano vs. NHARequisites for declaratory relief:1) There must be a justiciable controversy;2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; and3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy.

Tano vs. SocratesCourt will not entertain direct resort unless redress desired cannot be obtained in appropriate court and when there is exceptional circumstance to justify availment of remedy.

Section 2: Power of Legislature to Apportion Jurisdiction

Mantruste vs. CAThe court is prohibited by law to interfere with, or block, a decision of an executive agency.

Malaga Vs. PenachosCourts are not barred from issuing restraining orders against government entities, if the requirements and procedures set by law are followed.

Section 3: Fiscal Autonomy

In Re Clarifying and Strengthening….The authority of the DBM to “review” the plantilla and compensation of court personnel extends only to “calling the attention of the Court” on what it may perceive as erroneous application of budgetary laws and rules on position classification.

Section 4: Compositions and Sessions

Fortrich vs. Coronait is clear that only cases are referred to the Court en banc for decision whenever the required number of votes is not obtained. Conversely, the rule does not apply where, as in this case, the required three votes is not obtained in the resolution of a motion for reconsideration. Hence, the second sentence of the aforequoted provision speaks only of “case” and not “matter”. The reason is simple. The above-quoted Article VIII, Section 4(3) pertains to the disposition of cases by a division. If there is a tie in the voting, there is no decision. The only way to dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court en banc. On the other hand, if a case has already been decided by the division and the losing party files a motion for reconsideration, the failure of the division to resolve the motion because of a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. There is still the decision which must stand in view of the failure of the members of the division to muster the necessary vote for its reconsideration. Quite plainly, if the voting results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is lost. The assailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be deemed affirmed.

People vs. Dy

The divisions of the Supreme Court are not different and distinct from the actual tribunal. It can be said that the decisions promulgated by each division are actually decisions of the Supreme Court en banc.

Section 5: Powers of the Supreme Court

PACU vs. Sec. of EducationBefore a case can be filed with the Supreme Court, the petitioners must first exhaust all available administrative remedies, and it is encumbent upon them to prove that their rights have been violated.

Tan vs. Macapagal

Solicitor General vs. MMDAThe court may suspend procedural rules to give way for substantive justice. The requisite of having an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication (in invoking the court’s power of judicial review) may be waived by the court in cases of transcendental importance.

Militante vs. CA

Pimentel vs. HRETAll remedies must first be exhaust before seeking recourse to the courts: if the issue involves the rules of the HoR regarding the composition of HRET and the CA, then the proper recourse is through the HoR, and not the courts.

Gonzales vs. MacaraigMembers of congress have the requisite standing to raise constitutional issues.

Jaworski vs. PAGCORMembers of Congress have standing to file suits assailing the legality of acts of other branches of government, or instrumentalities thereof.

Province of Batangas vs. RomuloThe crucial legal issue submitted for resolution of this Court entails the proper legal interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions.  Moreover, the “transcendental importance” of the case, as it necessarily involves the application of the constitutional principle on local autonomy, cannot be gainsaid.  The nature of the present controversy, therefore, warrants the relaxation by this Court of procedural rules in order to resolve the case forthwith.

Disomangcop vs. Datumanong

CHR-employees vs. CHR

Pimentel vs. Exec. Sec.

Info. Tech. Foundation vs. Comelec

Velarde vs. SJS

Domingo vs. Carague

Republic vs. Nolasco

Legaspi vs. CSC

PASEI vs. Torres

Joya vs. PCGG

Tatad vs. Garcia

Board of Optometry vs. ColetOnly natural and juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action, and every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Under Article 44 of the Civil Code, an association is considered a juridical person if the law grants it a personality separate and distinct from that of its members. A real party in interest under Section 2 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court is a party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment on the suit, or the party entity led to the avails of the suit. Since OPAP, COA, ACMO, and SMOAP were not shown to be juridical entities, they cannot be deemed real parties in interest.

Anti-Graft League of the Philippines

Telecom vs. Comelec

Cruz vs. Sec. of DENRPetitioners, as citizens, possess the “public right” to ensure that the national patrimony is not alienated and diminished in violation of the Constitution.  Since the government, as the guardian of the national patrimony, holds it for the benefit of all Filipinos without distinction as to ethnicity, it follows that a citizen has sufficient

interest  to maintain a suit to ensure that any grant of concessions covering the national economy and patrimony strictly complies with constitutional requirements.  Thus, the preservation of the integrity and inviolability of the national patrimony is a proper subject of a citizen’s suit.In addition, petitioners, as taxpayers, possess the right to restrain officials from wasting public funds through the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute.  It is well-settled that a taxpayer has the right to enjoin public officials from wasting public funds through the implementation of an unconstitutional statute, and by necessity, he may assail the validity of a statute appropriating public funds. The taxpayer has paid his taxes and contributed to the public coffers and, thus, may inquire into the manner by which the proceeds of his taxes are spent.  The expenditure by an official of the State for the purpose of administering an invalid law constitutes a misapplication of such funds.

Lozano vs. Macapagal-Arroyo

Lim vs. Exec. Sec.Though being lawyers does not grant these petitioners standing because of lack of sufficient interest (IBP v ZAMORA) and there was no exercise of Congress’ spending powers to warrant a taxpayer’s suit, this issue is one of transcendental importance (to the public), where the SC can relax the standing requirements and allow the suit to prosper.

Chavez vs. PEAThe petitioner has locus standi because of his invocation of his right to information and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources is a matter of transcendental public importance. Furthermore, since PEA did not conduct public bidding, there was no information released to the public regarding the details of its disposition of property. Hence, any citizen can demand from PEA this information at any time during the bidding process, but only upon the committee’s official recommendation (because the right to info only attaches upon that moment).

Tolentino vs. ComelecOrdinarily, the petition will be dismissed because first, the petitioners only assert a harm which is a generalized and not a particular interest. Second, there was no allegation that taxpayer’s money was misused by the COMELEC in violation of specific constitutional protections. However, because of the nature of the issues as being imbued with public interest (right of suffrage) and one which will most likely arise again, the petitioners are granted standing to file.

Agan vs. PIATCOThe petitioners are employees of service providers currently operating at the MIAA and service providers who have contracts with MIAA. They will surely sustain direct injury upon the implementation of the PIATCO contracts because they will be displaced by new employees/service providers thus losing their means of livelihood. Furthermore, the issues posed in the cases required a discussion of the BOT Law and its constitutionality.

Tichangco vs. EnriquezInterest means a material interest in issue that is affected by the questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest. It cannot be vague, speculative or uncertain.

AIWA vs. RomuloPetitioners must show that they have sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result of the executive or legislative act being questioned. In the absence of such showing the case will not prosper.

Pimentel vs. Exec. SecThe Rome Statute is merely intended to complement national criminal laws and courts. Sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to protect our citizens against human rights violations.

Senate vs. ErmitaThe interest of the petitioner in assailing the constitutionality of laws must be direct and personal. When the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest.

Purok vs. YuipicoThe general rule is that all actions must be prosecuted and defended by the real parties in interest and in the name of the real party in interest. An association has the legal personality to represent its members and the outcome case will affect their vital interest. Additionally, an association has standing to file suit for its members despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action.

David vs. Arroyo

Holy Spirit vs. DefensorThe petitioner association has legal standing to file the petition WON it is the duly recognized association of homeowners in the NGC. There is no dispute that the individual members of the HSPSAI are residents of the NGC. They are covered and

stand to be benefited or injured by the enforcement of the IRR (particularly as regards the selection process of beneficiaries and lot allocation to qualified beneficiaries). Thus, the petitioner may assail the IRR if it believes it to be unfavorable to the rights of its members. Furthermore, the petitioners have sustained injury because of the enforcement of the IRR because they were disqualified and eliminated from the selection process (of being considered as bona fide residents),

Henares vs. LTFRBThe petitioners have standing to bring this issue to court. This petition focuses on their fundamental legal right to clean air. This right is an issue of paramount importance for it concerns the air they breathe and it is imbued with public interest. The consequences of the counterproductive effects of a neglected environment due to motor vehicle emissions affect the well-being of everyone.

Francisco vs. FernandoFrancisco has no standing because he did not show that he has personally suffered some injury from the alleged illegal conduct of the government. He also did not show that he had a sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of tax money. There is also no transcendental importance because he did not show a clear disregard of a consti/statutory prohibition. On the lack of legal basis, all other cities have each enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances. Such fact serves as sufficient basis for MMDA’s scheme. After all, the MMDA is an admin agency tasked with the implementation of rules and regulations. Furthermore, the absence of an anti-jaywalking ordinance in Valenzuela does not detract from this conclusion because there was no proof that the MMDA implemented the scheme in that city.

People vs. VeraIt has been held that since the decree pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void, where the jurisdiction of the court depends on the validity of the statue in question, the issue of the constitutionality will be considered on its being brought to the attention of the court by persons interested in the effect to be given the statute. Also, it is true that as a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. There are exceptions. Courts, in the exercise of sound discretion, may determine the time when a question affecting the constitutionality of a statute should be presented. In civil cases, it has been held that it is the duty of the court to pass on the constitutional questions, even if it was raised for the first time on appeal IF it appears that a determination of the question is necessary to a decision of the case. As to the power of the court to consider the constitutional question raised for the first time in these proceedings, the SC is of the opinion is that the People of the Philippines and the Fiscal of the City of Manila is a proper party in these proceedings. The rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a

substantial interest in the case. The enforcement of an invalid statute is detrimental to public interest. Thus, the state has standing to sue.

Mirasol vs. CAThe present case was instituted primarily for accounting and specific performance. The CA correctly ruled that PNB’s obligation to render an accounting is an issue which can be determined without having to rule on the validity of PD 579. It is not the lis mota of the case.

Matibag vs. BenipayoThe earliest opportunity is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same.

La Bugal vs. RamosThe “earliest opportunity” requirement should not be taken to mean that the question of constitutionality must be immediately raised after the execution of the act complained of. That the question of constitutionality has not been raised before is not a valid reason for refusing to allow it to be raised later.

Arceta vs. MangrobangThe constitutional question is not the lis mota in the case. To justify a law’s nullification, there must be a clear breach of the Consti and not one which is speculative.

Estarja vs. RanadaThe law requires that the question of constitutionality be raised at the earliest opportunity. In this case, Estarija raised the issue of constitutionality in his MR to the OMB. Verily, the OMB has no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of a law. Thus, when petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality before the CA, the constitutional question was raised at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, this court may determine when a constitutional issue may be passed upon.

Baker vs. CarrPolitical questions are those questions under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative/executive branch of the government. Cases which are political in nature as follows:

a. Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (issues of foreign affairs and executive war powers, parliamentary rules and regulations)

b. A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue

c. Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion (WISDOM)

d. Possible infringement of separation of powerse. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already

made*f. Potentiality of embarrassment from many pronouncements by various

departments on one question *

Significantly in the Philippines, since the Constitution empowers the SC to check for GADLEJ of other branches, the question is not political even if there is the presence of e and f.

Omena vs. PendatunThe resolution was unanimously approved by the Congress and such approval amounted to the suspension of Congress rules, which can be done by unanimous consent (therefore they can take up matters already dealt with). In conclusion, the courts may not interfere with internal rules and regulations of the Congress unless Constitutional rights are violated.

Arroyo vs. De VeneciaThe wisdom of house rules (procedure) cannot be judicially determined out of respect for the separation of powers.

Defensor-Santiago vs. GuingonaThe Senate may determine its rules when it comes to voting for the minority leader as it is not constitutionally provided for. Only the manner of electing the Senate President and House Speaker is provided for in the Constitution. “Each House shall choose such officers as it may deem necessary”.

ICMC vs. CallejaThe determination of immunities accorded to international organizations has been held to be a political question conclusive upon the courts in order not to embarrass a political department of the Government. If a plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized by the executive, it is the duty of the courts to accept the same. These

organizations are granted immunities to prevent control or interference from the local host government (unimpeded performance).

Tanada vs. Angara Where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes the judiciary’s duty to settle the dispute. The Constitution must be upheld. The SC stresses, though, that the Court will not review the wisdom (reasons why) the Senate concurred in the WTO agreement or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by the WTO. It will also not rule on the propriety of the government’s policy of removing taxes, subsidies and other import barriers. It will only check if Senate committed GADLEJ/violated the Constitution in ratifying the WTO agreement.

Garcia vs. CoronaThe court is bound to respect the legislative finding that deregulation is the policy answer to the problem of high oil prices.

Liang vs. PeopleSlandering a person could not be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime (defamation) in the name of an official duty. The imputation of theft cannot be part of official functions. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, enjoys immunity from crim jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any commercial/professional activity exercised by the agent in the receiving state outside his official functions.

De Agbayani vs. PNBThis is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the governmental organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such adjudication. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination [of unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.

Chavez vs. PeopleIt is only in cases where the penalty is death that the RTC must forward the records of the case to the SC for automatic review. Since the petitioners did not file an appeal, the decision of their conviction and sentence to RP is final and unappealable.

Pearson vs. IACThe SC has CONCURRENT jurisdiction with the IAC (now CA) and CFI (now RTC) to issue extraordinary writs. Parties should seek proper relief from lower courts before going to the SC. If the CA or RTC can competently issue extraordinary writs, the principle of hierarchy of courts must be preserved.

People vs. MateoTo ensure utmost inspection before the penalty of death, RP or LI is imposed, the Court now deems it wise to provide in these cases a review by the CA before the case is elevated to the SC. The need for an intermediate review by the CA is merely a procedural matter that is Constitutionally vested in the SC.

Cebu Women’s Club vs. De La VictoriaA party may directly appeal to the SC from a decision of the trial court only on pure questions of law. The petition does not involve pure questions of law because a question of law arises when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts as distinguished from a question of fact which occurs when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the facts.

People vs. GutierrezIt is within the power of the courts to determine the most suitable place of the trial. The Judicial Power vested in the SC and it connotes certain inherent attributes necessary for an effective administration of justice. One of these inherent powers is that of the transfer of trial of cases from one court to another.

First Lepanto vs. CAReview of BOI decisions – first to CA.

Lina vs. PurisimaIf in any case elevated to this Court for the correction of any supposed procedural error of any lower court, it should be found that indeed there has been a mistake, and it further appears that all the facts needed for a complete determination of the whole controversy are already before the Court, the SC may at its option dispense with the usual procedure of remanding and instead resolve the pertinent issues and render final judgments on the merits.

In Re: CunananCongress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by the SC but the authority and responsibility over the admission of attorneys remain vested in the SC.

In Re: AgrosinoThe practice of law is a personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.

Javellana vs. DILGThese merely prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of public duties and the private practice of law, and do not infringe on the SC’s power and authority to promulgate rules regarding the practice of law.

Bustos vs. LuceroSubstantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights as opposed to remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights/obtain redress for invasion. As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from procedural law which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished. Preliminary investigation is eminently remedial (being the first step taken in a criminal prosecution). The curtailment of the right of an accused in a prelim investigation to cross examine the witnesses who had given evidence for his arrest does not offend the Constitution. Prelim investigation is not an essential part of due process (it may suppressed entirely). Finally,nit is inevitable that the SC in making rules should step on substantive rights, and the Constitution must be presumed to tolerate if not expect such incursion as does not affect the accused in a harsh and arbitrary manner but operates only in a limited and substantial manner to his disadvantage. It has the power to adopt a general and complete system of procedure.

Santero vs. CFI of CaviteA substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and to the children the right to receive support during liquidation, such right cannot be impaired by the Rules of Court, which is a procedural rule.

PNB vs. AsuncionA procedural rule cannot amend a substantive law.

Damasco vs. LaquiPhilippine jurisprudence considers prescription of a crime or offense a loss or waiver by the State of its right to prosecute an act prohibited/punished by law. While it is the rule that an accused who fails to move to quash before pleading, is deemed to waive all objections, yet this rule cannot apply to the defense of prescription, which under Art 69 of the RPC extinguishes criminal liability.

Carpio vs. Sulu ResourcesWhen the SC, in its exercise of its rule-making power, transfers to the CA pending cases involving a review of a quasi-judicial body’s decisions [MAB’s], such transfer only relates to procedure and it does not impair substantive rights because the aggrieved party’s right to appeal is preserved and what is changed is only the procedure by which the appeal is to be made or decided.

Land Bank vs. De LeonA petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure in effecting appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts in cases involving the determination of just compensation to the landowners concerned.

People vs. LacsonIf a criminal case is provisionally dismissed without express consent, the new rule would not apply. In this case, the 11 informations in criminal cases were filed with the RTC which was well within the two year period therefore the MR is granted and the RTC is directed to proceed with the criminal cases.

Planters vs. FertiphilRetroactive application is only allowed if no vested rights are impaired. In the case, at the time PPI filed its appeal in 1992, all that the rules require for the perfection of its appeal was the filing of a notice of appeal. PPI complied with this requirement when it filed a notice of appeal. Thus, the 1997 Rules of CivPro which took effect on 1997 and required docket fees cannot affect PPI’s appeal which was already perfected in 1992.

In Re: 2003 Bar ExaminationsDisbarment due to violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 as well as Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral conduct/uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession).

Tan vs. BauschSC has authority to transfer jurisdiction through Administrative Order.

Tan vs. ComelecReview of rules of quasi-judicial bodies.

Article IX: Constitutional Commissions

Civil Service Comelec Commission on AuditComposition 1 chairman and 2

commissioners1 chairman and 6 commissioners

1 chairman and 2 commisisioners

Qualifications Natural-born, 35 + yrs old, capacity for public ad.; not candidate for elctive position in elctions immediately preceding appt

Natural-born, 35+ yrs old, college grad.; not candidate for elctive position in elctions immediately preceding appt; maj. Including chairman should be member of bar, + 10 yr practice

Natural-born, 35 + yrs old, CPA (10 yrs auditing experience), or members of the bar(10 yrs law practice); not candidate for elctive position in elctions immediately preceding appt.

Term 7 yrs w/out reappointment (staggered)

7 yrs w/out reappointment (staggered)

7 yrs w/out reappointment (staggered)

Appointment President w/ CA approval

President w/ CA approval

President w/ CA approval

Jurisdiction Branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the gov’t including GOCCs with original charters

Electoral process Government, any subdivision, agency or instrumentality, including GOCCs w/ original charters post-audit: consti bodies, autonomous state univ. and colleges, other GOCCs, NGOs w/ gov’t subsidy or equity

Powers Central personnel agency of the gov’t

Insure free, orderly and honest elections

Examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property owned and held in trust by, or pertaining to the gov’t

Article X: Local GovernmentTerritorial and Political subdivisions:

1) provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays2) Autonomous regions (only ARMM so far)

Power of president over LGU: general supervision

Article XI: Accountability of Public OfficersPublic office: public trust

Impeachment: President, VP, members of SC, members of Constitutional Commissions, and OmbudsmanReasons: culpable violation of the Consti, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.HoR: exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachmentWho may file: any member of HoR, or any citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any member of HoRVote: at least 1/3 of all the members of HoR.

Article XII: National Economy and Patrimony

Article XVII: Amendments or RevisionsCongress Constitutional

ConventionThe People How?

Amendment Yes yes No Congress: vote of ¾ of all members; consti.convention

Revision yes yes yes Initiative:

petition of at least 12% of all registered voters, every legis. district represented by at least 3% of registered voters therein

Amendment- alteration of one or a few specific and separable provisions.; improve specific parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress specific portions that may have become obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous.Revision – re-examination of the whole document, or of provisions of the document which have over-all implications for the entire document, to determine ho and to what extent they should be altered; may involve a re-writing of the whole Constitution.Ex. Presidential system to parliamentary – revision; change of term of president – amendment

No amendment shall be authorized oftener than once every 5 years. Congress to provide for the implementation of right to initiative Congress by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, may call a constitutional

convention By a vote of a majority of all its members, it may submit to the electorate

the question of calling a convention. Proposed amendments or revision: submitted all at once for one election

by the people.

Valid amendment or revision: ratified by majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be held not earlier than 60 days not later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

Article XVIII: Transitory Provisions

1987 Constitution – took effect on Feb. 2, 1987 (upon ratification by the people)PCGG – continued to operate.Military Bases: only allowed based on following requisites:

1) a treaty is entered into2) duly concurred in by the Senate, and when Congress requires, ratified by a

majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum for that purpose

3) the treaty is recognized as such by the other contracting State.

Filipino Citizens Filipino Corporations

Foreign Corporation

Agricultural Lands

Own/lease Own/lease Lease# of years if leased

25 years

# of hectares 500 hectares by lease; 12 hectares if owned

1000 hectares

Other Nat. resources

Form of Exploitation

Co-production, joint venture or production sharing agreement (license, concession/lease)

Co-production, joint venture or production sharing agreement (license, concession/lease)

Technical/financial assistance (large-scale)Minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils

# of years 25 years (renewable for addt’l 25)

25 years (renewable for addt’l 25)

Transfer of Private land

Yes Yes No (if foreign individual: only in cases of hereditary succession)

Franchise Yes Yes (60% Filipino; 40% foreign)

No

Starr Weigand