(wala hacienda vs PARC COMELEC vs Cruz Vinuya vs Romulo)

(the rest of my assigned cases iz already in le notes. Haha. Mao nalang ang wala sa notes)

COCOFED vs RepublicFacts: (kayo na guys, di ko magets ang facts pero sure ko sa held)

Held:

The Operative Fact Doctrine does not apply

Petitioners assert that the Sandiganbayans refusal to recognize the vested rights purportedly created under the coconut levy laws constitutes taking of private property without due process of law.They reason out that to accord retroactive application to a declaration of unconstitutionality would be unfair inasmuch as such approach would penalize the farmers who merely obeyed then valid laws.

This contention is specious.

InYap v. Thenamaris Ships Management,[170]the Operative Fact Doctrine was discussed in that:

As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law. The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned general rule. In Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, we held:

The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play.It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.

In that case, this Court further held that the Operative Fact Doctrine will not be applied as an exception when to rule otherwise would beiniquitousand would send a wrong signal that an act may be justified when based on an unconstitutional provision of law.

The Court had the following disquisition on the concept of the Operative Fact Doctrine in the case ofChavez v. National Housing Authority:[173]

The operative fact doctrine is embodied inDe Agbayani v. Court of Appeals, wherein it is stated that a legislative or executive act, prior to its being declared as unconstitutional by the courts, is valid and must be complied with.

In the case at bar, the Court rules that the dictates of justice, fairness and equity do not support the claim of the alleged farmer-owners that their ownership of the UCPB shares should be respected. Ourreasons:

1. Said farmers or alleged claimants do not have any legal right to own the UCPB shares distributed to them.It was not successfully refuted that said claimants were issued receipts under R.A. 6260 for the payment of the levy that went into the Coconut Investment Fund (CIF) upon which shares in the Coconut Investment Company will be issued.The Court upholds the finding of the Sandiganbayan that said investment company is a different corporate entity from the United Coconut Planters Bank.This was in fact admitted by petitioners during the April 17, 2001 oral arguments in G.R. Nos. 147062-64.

2. To grant all the UCPB shares to petitioners and its alleged members would be iniquitous and prejudicial to the remaining 4.6 million farmers who have not received any UCPB shares when in fact they also made payments to either the CIF or the CCSF but did not receive any receipt or who was not able to register their receipts or misplaced them.

3. The Sandiganbayan made the finding that due to enormous operational problems and administrative complications, the intended beneficiaries of the UCPB shares were not able to receive the shares due to them.

4.The Court also takes judicial cognizance of the fact that a number, if not all, of the coconut farmers who sold copra did not get the receipts for the payment of the coconut levy for the reason that the copra they produced were bought by traders or middlemen who in turn sold the same to the coconut mills.The reality on the ground is that it was these traders who got the receipts and the corresponding UCPB shares.In addition, some uninformed coconut farmers who actually got the COCOFUNDreceipts, not appreciating the importance and value of said receipts, have already sold said receipts to non-coconut farmers, thereby depriving them of the benefits under the coconut levy laws.Ergo, the coconut farmers are the ones who will not be benefited by the distribution of the UCPB shares contrary to the policy behind the coconut levy laws.The nullification of the distribution of the UCPB shares and their transfer to the government for the coconut industry will, therefore, ensure that the benefits to be deprived from the UCPB shares will actually accrue to the intended beneficiaries the genuine coconut farmers.

From the foregoing, it is highly inappropriate to apply the operative fact doctrine to the UCPB shares.Public funds, which were supposedly given utmost safeguard, were haphazardly distributed to private individuals based on statutory provisions that are found to be constitutionally infirm on not only one but on a variety of grounds.Worse still, the recipients of the UCPB shares may not actually be the intended beneficiaries of said benefit.Clearly, applying the Operative Fact Doctrine would not only be iniquitous but would also serve injustice to the Government, to the coconut industry, and to the people, who, whether willingly or unwillingly, contributed to the public funds, and therefore expect that their Government would take utmost care of them and that they would be used no less, than for public purpose.

CIR vs San Roque

Facts:

This Resolution resolves the Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration filed by San Roque Power Corporation (San Roque) in G.R. No. 187485, the Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) in G.R. No. 187485, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the CIR in G.R.No. 196113, and the Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Taganito Mining Corporation (Taganito) in G.R. No. 196113.

San Roque prays that the rule established in our 12 February 2013 Decision be given only a prospective effect, arguing that "the manner by which the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Court of Tax Appeals(CTA) actually treated the 120 + 30 day periods constitutes an operative fact the effects and consequences of which cannot be erased or undone."1The CIR, on the other hand, asserts that Taganito Mining Corporation's (Taganito) judicial claim for tax credit or refund was prematurely filed before the CTA and should be disallowed because BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued by a Deputy Commissioner, not by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Held:

We deny both motions.

The Doctrine of Operative Fact

The general rule is that a void law or administrative act cannot be the source of legal rights or duties. Article 7 of the Civil Code enunciates this general rule, as well as its exception: "Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution."

The doctrine of operative fact is an exception to the general rule, such that a judicial declaration of invalidity may not necessarily obliterate all the effects and consequences of a void act prior to such declaration.Such a view has support in logic and possesses the merit of simplicity. It may not however be sufficiently realistic. It does not admit of doubt that prior to the declaration of nullity such challenged legislative or executive act must have been in force and had to be complied with. This is so as until after the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it is entitled to obedience and respect. Parties may have acted under it and may have changed their positions. What could be more fitting than that in a subsequent litigation regard be had to what has been done while such legislative or executive act was in operation and presumed to be valid in all respects. It is now accepted as a doctrine that prior to its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned with. This 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.

Clearly, for the operative fact doctrine to apply, there must be a "legislative or executive measure," meaning a law or executive issuance, that is invalidated by the court. From the passage of such law or promulgation of such executive issuance until its invalidation by the court, the effects of the law or executive issuance, when relied upon by the public in good faith, may have to be recognized as valid. In the present case, however, there is no such law or executive issuance that has been invalidated by the Court except BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03.

To justify the application of the doctrine of operative fact as an exemption, San Roque asserts that "the BIR and the CTA in actual practice did not observe and did not require refund seekers to comply with the120+30 day periods."4This is glaring error because an administrative practice is neither a law nor an executive issuance. Moreover, in the present case, there is even no such administrative practice by the BIR as claimed by San Roque.

To repeat, a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the taxpayer.1wphi1One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is compliance with the 120+30 day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. Thus, strict compliance with the 120+30 day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper, whether before, during, or after the effectivity of the Atlas doctrine, except for the period from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on 10 December 2003 to 6 October 2010 when the Aichi doctrine was adopted, which again reinstated the 120+30 day periods as mandatory and jurisdictional.San Roques argument must, therefore, fail. The doctrine of operative fact is an argument for the application of equity and fair play. In the present case, we applied the doctrine of operative fact when we recognized simultaneous filing during the period between 10 December 2003, when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued, and 6 October 2010, when this Court promulgated Aichi declaring the 120+30 day periods mandatory and jurisdictional, thus reversing BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03.

The doctrine of operative fact is in fact incorporated in Section 246 of the Tax Code.

Since the law has already prescribed in Section 246 of the Tax Code how the doctrine of operative fact should be applied, there can be no invocation of the doctrine of operative fact other than what the law has specifically provided in Section 246. In the present case, the rule or ruling subject of the operative fact doctrine is BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 dated 10 December 2003. Prior to this date, there is no such rule or ruling calling for the application of the operative fact doctrine in Section 246. Section246, being an exemption to statutory taxation, must be applied strictly against the taxpayer claiming such exemption.

Belgica vs Ochoa

Facts:Before the Court are consolidated petitions, taken under Rule 65 ofthe Rules of Court,all of which assailthe constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System.Pork Barrell refers to anappropriation of government spending meant for localized projects and securedsolely or primarily to bring money toa representative's district.In the Philippines, the pork barrel hasbeen commonly referred to as lump-sum, discretionary funds of Members ofthe Legislature, although, itsusage would evolve in reference to certain funds ofthe President such as theMalampaya Funds and thePresidential Social Fund.The Malampaya Funds was a special fund created under PD910 issued by then President Ferdinand E.Marcos for the development of indigenous energy resources vital to economic growth.The Presidential Social Fund is sourced from theshare of the government in the aggregate grossearnings of PAGCORthrough which the President providesdirect assistance to priorityprograms andprojects not funded under the regular budget.In 1996, an anonymous source later identified as FormerMarikina City Romeo Candazo revealed thathuge sums of government money went into thepockets of legislators as kickbacks.in 2004, several concerned citizens sought the nullification of the PDAFfor being unconstitutional.Unfortunately, forlack of anypertinent evidentiary support that illegal misuse ofPDAF in theform ofkickbacks has become a common exercise of unscrupulous Members of Congress, the petition wasdismissed.In July 2013, NBIbegan its probe into allegations that thegovernment has been defrauded of some P10Billion over the past 10years by a syndicate using fundsfrom the pork barrel oflawmakers and variousgovernment agencies for scoresof ghost projects. The investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits ofsix whistle-blowers who declared that JLN Corporation (stands for Janet Lim Napoles) had facilitated theswindling of billions of pesos from thepublic coffers for ghost projects using nofewer than 20 dummynon-government organizations for an entire decade.

In August 2013, the COA released report revealing substantial irregularities in the disbursement and utilization of PDAF by the Congressmen during Arroyo administration.

As for the presidential pork barrel, whistleblowers allege that atleast 900m fromroyaties in the operation of the malampaya gas project off Palawan province intended for agrarian reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy NGO.

Spurred in large part by findings contained in the COA report and Napoles controversy, several petitions were lodged before the Court similarly seeking that the Pork Barrel be declared unconstitutional.Held:

The Courts pronouncement anent the issue of unconstitutionality of (a) the 2013 PDAF Article and its Special Provisions, (b) all other Congressional Pork Barrel provisions similar thereto, and (c) the phrases (1) and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President: under section 12 of PD 910, and (2) to finance the priority infrastructure development projects under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, must only be treated as prospective in effect in view of the operative fact doctrine.

The operative fact doctrine exhorts the recognition that until the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares the invalidity of a certain legislative or executive act, such act is presumed constitutional and thus, entitled to obedience and respect and should be properly enforced and complied with.

Araullo vs Aquino III

Facts:

When President Benigno Aquino III took office, his administration noticed the sluggish growth of the economy. The World Bank advised that the economy needed a stimulus plan. Budget Secretary Florencio Butch Abad then came up with a program called the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

The DAP was seen as a remedy to speed up the funding of government projects. DAP enables the Executive to realign funds from slow moving projects to priority projects instead of waiting for next years appropriation. So what happens under the DAP was that if a certain government project is being undertaken slowly by a certain executive agency, the funds allotted therefor will be withdrawn by the Executive. Once withdrawn, these funds are declared as savings by the Executive and said funds will then be reallotted to other priority projects. The DAP program did work to stimulate the economy as economic growth was in fact reported and portion of such growth was attributed to the DAP (as noted by the Supreme Court).

Other sources of the DAP include the unprogrammed funds from the General Appropriations Act (GAA). Unprogrammed funds are standby appropriations made by Congress in the GAA.

Meanwhile, in September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada made an expos claiming that he, and other Senators, received Php50M from the President as an incentive for voting in favor of the impeachment of then Chief Justice Renato Corona. Secretary Abad claimed that the money was taken from the DAP but was disbursed upon the request of the Senators.

This apparently opened a can of worms as it turns out that the DAP does not only realign funds within the Executive. It turns out that some non-Executive projects were also funded; to name a few: Php1.5B for the CPLA (Cordillera Peoples Liberation Army), Php1.8B for the MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front), P700M for the Quezon Province, P50-P100M for certain Senators each, P10B for Relocation Projects, etc.

This prompted Maria Carolina Araullo, Chairperson of theBagong Alyansang Makabayan, and several other concerned citizens to file various petitions with the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the DAP. Among their contentions was:

DAP is unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional rule which provides that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

Secretary Abad argued that the DAP is based on certain laws particularly the GAA (savings and augmentation provisions thereof), Sec. 25(5), Art. VI of the Constitution (power of the President to augment), Secs. 38 and 49 of Executive Order 292 (power of the President to suspend expenditures and authority to use savings, respectively).

Issue:

Whether or not the Doctrine of Operative Fact is applicable.Held:

Yes. The Doctrine of Operative Fact, which recognizes the legal effects of an act prior to it being declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is applicable. The DAP has definitely helped stimulate the economy. It has funded numerous projects. If the Executive is ordered to reverse all actions under the DAP, then it may cause more harm than good. The DAP effects can no longer be undone. The beneficiaries of the DAP cannot be asked to return what they received especially so that they relied on the validity of the DAP. However, the Doctrine of Operative Fact may not be applicable to the authors, implementers, and proponents of the DAP if it is so found in the appropriate tribunals (civil, criminal, or administrative) that they have not acted in good faith.Velarde v SJS (2004)

Facts:

Facts:

-On January 28, 2003, SJS filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief before the RTC-Manila against Velarde and his co-respondents Eminence, Jaime Cardinal Sin, Executive Minister Erao Manalo, Brother Eddie Villanueva and Brother Eliseo F. Soriano.

-SJS, a registered political party, sought the interpretation of several constitutional provisions, specifically on the separation of church and state; and a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the acts of religious leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office, or urging or requiring the members of their flock to vote for a specified candidate.

-The petitioner filed a Motion to dismiss beforethe trialcourt owing to the fact that alleged that the questioned SJS Petition did not state a cause of action and that there was no justiciable controversy.

-The trialcourts junked the Velarde petitions under certain reasons:

1. It said that it had jurisdiction over the SJS petition, because in praying for a determination as to whether the actions imputed to the respondents were violative of Article II, Section 6 of the Fundamental Law, the petition hasraisedonly a question of law.

2. It then proceeded to a lengthy discussion of the issueraisedin the Petition the separation of church and state even tracing, to some extent, the historicalbackgroundof the principle. Through its discourse, the court quipped at some point that the "endorsement of specific candidates in an election to anypublicoffice is a clear violation of the separation clause."

-The trialcourts essay did not contain a statement of facts and a dispositive portion, however. Due to this aberration, Velarde and Soriano filed separate Motions for Reconsideration beforethe trialcourt owing to these facts.

-The lower court denied these Motions. Hence, this petition for review.

On April 13, 2004, the Court en banc conducted an Oral Argument.14

-In his Petition, Brother Mike Velarde submits the following issues for this Courts resolution:

1. Whether or not the Decision dated 12 June 2003 rendered by the court a quo was proper and valid;

2. Whether or not there exists justiciable controversy in herein respondents Petition for declaratory relief;

3. Whether or not herein respondent has legal interest in filing the Petition for declaratory relief;

4. Whether or not the constitutional question sought to be resolved by herein respondent is ripe for judicial determination;

5. Whether or not there is adequate remedy other than the declaratory relief; and,

6. Whether or not the court a quo has jurisdiction over the Petition for declaratory relief of herein respondent.

Issue:

Did the Petition for Declaratory Relief raise a justiciable controversy?

Held:

NO. A justiciable controversy toan existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory. A petition filed withthe trialcourt should containa plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim.

The SJS Petition fell short of the requirements to constitutue a jusiciable controversy. Why?

a. It stated no ultimate facts. The petition simplytheorizedthat the people elected who were endorsed by these religious leaders might become beholden to the latter.

b.It did not sufficiently state a declaration ofits rights and duties, what specific legal right of the petitioner wasviolatedby the respondents therein, and what particular act or acts of the latter were in breach of its rights, the law or the constitution,

c.The petition did not pray for a stoppage ofviolatedrights (duh, wala ngang rights na sinabi eh). It merely sought an opinion ofthe trialcourt. However, courts are proscribed from rendering an advisory opinion. (tantamount to making laws, remember the questionability of justice panganibansguidelinesfor article 36 of the family code)

It must also be considered that even the religious leaders were puzzled as to the breach of rights they were claimed to have committed. As pointed out by Soriano, what exactly has he done that merited the attention of SJS? Jaime Cardinal Sin adds that the election season had not even started at the time SJS filed its Petition and that he has not been actively involved in partisan politics. The Petition does not even allege anyindicationor manifest intenton the part of any of the respondents below tochampionan electoral candidate, or to urge their so-called flock to vote for, a particular candidate. It is a time-honored rule that sheer speculation does not give rise to an actionable right.