consti chap9 case digest

8/10/2019 CONSTI Chap9 Case Digest

1/17

Gregorio Aglipay v. Juan RuizGR 45459, 13 March 1937 (64 hil !"1#

$ac%&' In May 1936,Juan Ruiz, the Director of Posts announced in thedailies of Manila that he would order the issuance of postage stamps

commemorating the celebration in the City of Manila of the 33r)n%erna%ional *uchari&%ic +ongre&&, organied by the !omanCatholic Church" #he petitioner, Mon&. Gregorio Aglipay, upre-eea o/ %he hilippine )nepenen% +hurch, in the ful$llment ofwhat he considers to be a ci%ic duty, re&uested 0icen%e o%%o, 's&",member of the Philippine (ar, to denounce the matter to the Presidentof the Philippines" In spite of the protest of the petitioner)s attorney,the Director of Posts publicly announced ha%ing sent to the *nited+tates the designs of the postage for printing" #he said stamps wereactually issued and sold though the greater part thereof remainedunsold" #he further sale of the stamps was sought to be pre%ented by

the petitioner and it is alleged that this action of the respondent is%iolation of the pro%isions of &ec%ion !3, &u&ec%ion 3, Ar%icle 0), ofthe Constitution of the Philippines and in as much as it bene$ted aparticular religion"

)&&ue'hether the issuance of the postage stamps was in %iolation ofthe Constitution"

el 2 Ruling'#here has been no constitutional infraction in the caseat bar, -ct .o" /02 grants the Director of Posts, with the appro%al ofthe +ecretary of Public ors and Communications 4 the President of

the Philippines, discretion to misuse postage stamps with new designs5as often as may be deemed ad%antageous to the o%ernment"7 +C one8amining the facts, disco%ered that that the stamps instead ofshowing a Catholic Church chalice as originally planned, contains amap of the Philippines and the location of the City of Manila, and aninscription as follows 5+eat :::III International 'ucharistic Congress,;eb" 3


2/17

Alvarez v& Guingona

Municipal Corporation > ?* !e&uirement > Income > Inclusion of I!-s

$A+'In -pril 1993, 8817@An Ac% +onver%ing %he

Municipali%y o/ an%iago in%o an )nepenen% +o-ponen% +i%y%o e non a& %he +i%y o/ an%iagoA was passed in the B!" InMay 1993, a +enate bill @ 1!43A of similar title and content with thatof B( 1= was introduced in the +enate" In Eanuary 199/, the B(1= was transmitted to the +enate" In ;ebruary 199/, the +enateconducted a public hearing on +( 12/3" In March 199/, the +enateCommittee on ?ocal o%ernment rolled out its recommendation forappro%al of B( 1=, as it was totally the same with +( 12/3"'%entually, B( 1= became a law @!- ==20A" .ow -l%are et al areassailing the constitutionality of the said law on the ground that the billcreating the law did not originate from the lower house and that the

+antiago was not able to comply with the income of at least P20M perannum in order for it to be a city" #hat in the computation of thereported a%erage income of P20,9=/,1"9= included the I!- whichshould not be"

):*'1" hether or not !- ==20 is in%alid for not being originally from theB!"2" hether or not the I!- should be included in the computation of an?*)s income"

*;


3/17

J*A? AR?A:; 0. ?A@AR*?-rt 21" In&uiry in -id of ?egislation

$A+'#his case arose from the legislati%e in&uiry into theacBui&i%ion y %he hilippine Govern-en% o/ %he uenavi&%a

an a-oong e&%a%e& %hru Rural rogre&& A-ini&%ra%ionsometime in 19/9" -mong the witnesses called to e8amine by thespecial committee created by a +enate resolution wasJean ;.Arnaul%, a lawyer who deli%ered a partial of the purchase price to arepresentati%e of the %endor, 'rnest B" (urt" During the +enatein%estigation, -rnault refused to re%eal the identity of saidrepresentati%e, at the same time in%oing his constitutional rightagainst self


4/17

AR*R 0. +M*;*+

$A+ n 2 Eune 200/, CM'?'C promulgated !esolution .o" .(C0/


5/17

ADA?(agong Alyan&ang Maaayan# v&. @a-oraG.R. ?o. 13857" c%oer 1", !"""

$A+ ' n March 1/, 19/=, the Philippines and the *nited +tates of-merica forged a -ili%ary a&e& agree-en%which formalied,

among others, the use of installations in the Philippine territory by the*+ military personnel" #o further strengthen their defense and securityrelationship, the Philippines and the *+ entered into a Mu%ual


6/17

purpose, and recognied as a treaty by the +enate by the othercontracting state7"

#he $rst cited pro%ision applies to any form of treaties andinternational agreements in general with a wide %ariety of subJect

matter" -ll treaties and international agreements entered into by thePhilippines, regardless of subJect matter, co%erage or particulardesignation re&uires the concurrence of the +enate to be %alid andeecti%e"

In contrast, the second cited pro%ision applies to treaties which in%ol%epresence of foreign military bases, troops and facilities in thePhilippines" (oth constitutional pro%isions share some common ground"#he fact that the President referred the H;- to the +enate under +ec"21 -rt" HII, and that +enate e8tended its concurrence under the samepro%ision is immaterial"

*ndoubtedly, +ec" 2 -rt" :HIII which speci$cally deals with treatiesin%ol%ing foreign military bases and troops should apply in the instantcase" ence, /or 0$A %o e con&%i%u%ional i% -u&% &ucien%ly-ee% %he /olloing reBui&i%e& '

a# i% -u&% e uner a %rea%y# %he %rea%y -u&% e uly concurre in y %he ena%e, anhen &o reBuire y +ongre&&, ra%i=e y a -aHori%y o/ vo%e&ca&% y %he people in a na%ional re/erenu-c# recognize a& a %rea%y y %he o%her con%rac%ing %a%e

#here is no dispute in the presence of the $rst two re&uisites" #he thirdre&uisite implies that the other contracting party accepts oracnowledges the agreement as a treaty" Moreo%er, it isinconse&uential whether the *+ treats the H;- only as an e8ecuti%eagreement because, under international law, an e8ecuti%e agreementis as binding as a treaty" #hey are e&ually binding obligations uponnations" #herefore, there is indeed mared compliance with themandate of the constitution"

#he court also $nds that there is no gra%e abuse of discretion on the

part of the e8ecuti%e department as to their power to ratify the H;-"


7/17

Jo&e $.. engzon, Jr. v&. he ena%e lue Rion +o--i%%eeG.R. ?o. 89914, ?ove-er !", 1991

$ac%&'#he !epublic of the Philippines, represented by the PresidentialCommission on ood o%ernment @PCA, $led with the

+andiganbayan a ci%il case against enHa-in Iooy Ro-ualez"#he complaint alleged that (enJamin !omualde andJulie%%e Go-ezRo-ualez, acting by themsel%es andLor in unlawful concert withthen President ;erdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos, and taing unduead%antage of their relationship, inuence and connection with thelatter spouses, engaged in de%ices, schemes and stratagems tounJustly enrich themsel%es at the e8pense of the !epublic of thePhilippines and the ;ilipino people" Conicting reports on thedisposition by the PC of the !omualde corporations were carried in%arious newspapers" ther newspapers declared that shortly after the196 'D+- !e%olution, the !omualde companies were sold for P

million, without PC appro%al, to a holding company controlled by!omualde, and that !icardo ?opa, the President -&uino)s brother


8/17

President -&uino, particularly ?opa, had %iolated the law in connectionwith the alleged sale of 36 or 39 corporations belonging to !omualdeto the ?opa group" #here appears to be, therefore, no intendedlegislation in%ol%ed" #his matter appears to be more within thepro%ince of the courts rather than of the legislature" e%i%ion

GRA?*


9/17

RM:; ?*R) 0. *?A*)nBuiry in ai o/ legi&la%ion K *Eecu%ive rivilege;egi&la%ive (ec !1# L ver&igh% (ec !!# oer&

$A+'n 21 -pril 200=,


10/17

into e8ecuti%e agreements without the concurrence of the ?egislaturehas traditionally been recognied in Philippine Jurisprudence"

!n,the communications are Grecei%ed7 by a close ad%isor of thePresident" *nder the Goperational pro8imity7 test, petitioner can be

considered a close ad%isor, being a member of President -rroyo)scabinet" -nd

3r,there is no ade&uate showing of a compelling need that wouldJustify the limitation of the pri%ilege and of the una%ailability of theinformation elsewhere by an appropriate in%estigating authority"

*))? GRA?*


11/17

hilippine +on&%i%u%ion A&&ocia%ion v& Gi-enezPolitical ?aw > +alaries of the Members of Congress > ther 'molument

$A+'hilippine +on&%i%u%ion A&&ocia%ion, )nc ();+?AAassails the %alidity of RA 3836entitled GAn Ac% A-ening

u&ec%ion +, &ec%ion 1! o/ +o--oneal%hAc% ?o. 3"967 insofaras the same allows retirement gratuity and commutation of %acationand sic lea%e to +enators and !epresentati%es, and to the electi%eoKcials of both Bouses @of CongressA" #he pro%ision on retirementgratuity is an attempt to circum%ent the Constitutional ban on increaseof salaries of the members of Congress during their term of oKce,contrary to the pro%isions of Ar%icle 0), ec%ion 14 o/ %he+on&%i%u%ion" #he same pro%ision constitutes Gsel$sh class legislation7because it allows members and oKcers of Congress to retire aftertwel%e @12A years of ser%ice and gi%es them a gratuity e&ui%alent toone year salary for e%ery four years of ser%ice, which is not refundable

in case of reinstatement or re election of the retiree, while all otheroKcers and employees of the go%ernment can retire only after at leasttwenty @20A years of ser%ice and are gi%en a gratuity which is onlye&ui%alent to one month salary for e%ery year of ser%ice, which, in anycase, cannot e8ceed 2/ months" #he pro%ision on %acation and siclea%e, commutable at the highest rate recei%ed, insofar as members ofCongress are concerned, is another attempt of the legislator to furtherincrease their compensation in %iolation of the Constitution"

#he +ol


12/17

compensation shall tae eect until after the e8piration of the full termof all the Members of the +enate and of the Bouse of !epresentati%esappro%ing such increase" *ntil otherwise pro%ided by law, there&ien% o/ %he ena%e an %he peaer o/ %he ou&e o/Repre&en%a%ive&shall each recei%e an annual compensation of

&iE%een %hou&an pe&o&"7

hen the Constitutional Con%ention $rst determined the compensationfor the Members of Congress, the amount $8ed by it was onlyP,000"00 per annum but it embodies a special pro%iso which reads asfollows G.o increase in said compensation shall tae eect until afterthe e8piration of the full term of all the members of the .ational-ssembly elected subse&uent to appro%al of such increase"7 In otherwords, under the original constitutional pro%ision regarding the powerof the .ational -ssembly to increase the salaries of its members, noincrea&e oul %ae eec% un%il a/%er %he eEpira%ion o/ %he /ull

%er- o/ %he -e-er& o/ %he A&&e-ly elec%e &u&eBuen% %o%he approval o/ &uch increa&e.

#he Constitutional pro%ision in the aforementioned +ection 1/, -rticleHI, includes in the term compensation Gother emoluments7" #his is thepi%otal point on this fundamental &uestion as to whether theretirement bene$t as pro%ided for in !epublic -ct 336 fall within thepur%iew of the term Gother emoluments"7

G*-olu-en%as Gthe pro$t arising from oKce or employmentN thatwhich is recei%ed as compensation for ser%ices or which is anne8ed to

the possession of an oKce, as salary, fees and per&uisites"7

It is e%ident that retirement bene$t is a form or another species ofemolument, because it is a part of compensation for ser%ices of onepossessing any oKce"

!epublic -ct 336 pro%ides for an increase in the emoluments of+enators and Members of the Bouse of !epresentati%es, to tae eectupon the appro%al of said -ct, which was on Eune 22, 1963" !etirementwas immediately a%ailable thereunder, without awaiting the e8pirationof the full term of all the Members of the +enate and the Bouse of

!epresentati%es appro%ing such increase" +uch pro%ision clearly runscounter to the prohibition in -rticle HI, +ection 1/ of the Constitution"!- 336 is hereby declared uncon&%i%u%ional by the +C"


13/17

ena%e o/ %he hilippine& v& *Eecu%ive ecre%ary *r-i%auestion Bour > ' /6/

$A+'In 200, scandals in%ol%ing anomalous transactions about the

@.orth ?uon !ailways Corporation with the China .ational Machineryand '&uipment roupA ?or%h Rail roHec%as well as the Garci %ape&surfaced" #his prompted the +enate to conduct a public hearing toin%estigate the said anomalies particularly the alleged o%erpricing inthe .!P" #he in%estigating +enate committee issued in%itations tocertain department heads and military oKcials to spea before thecommittee as resource persons" *F*+:)0* *+R*ARD *


14/17

*; with process toenforce it > is an essential and appropriate au8iliary to the legislati%efunction" $ leislative body cannot leislate wisely or e(ectively in theabsence o inormation respectin the conditions which the leislationis intended to a(ect or chane! and where the leislative body doesnot itsel possess the re0uisite inormation 1 which is not inre0uentlytrue 1 recourse must be had to others who do possess it" +ection 22 on

the other hand pro%ides for the uestion Bour" #he Nue&%ion ourisclosely related with the legislati%e power, and it is precisely as acomplement to or a supplement of the ?egislati%e In&uiry" #heappearance of the members of Cabinet would be %ery, %ery essentialnot only in the application of chec and balance but also, in eect, inaid of legislation" +ection 22 refers only to uestion Bour, whereas,+ection 21 would refer speci$cally to in&uiries in aid of legislation,under which anybody for that matter, may be summoned and if herefuses, he can be held in contempt of the Bouse" - distinction wasthus made between in&uiries in aid of legislation and the &uestionhour" hile attendance was meant to be discretionary in the &uestion

hour, it was compulsory in in&uiries in aid of legislation" +ections 21and 22, therefore, while closely related and complementary to eachother, should not be considered as pertaining to the same power ofCongress" ne speci$cally relates to the power to conduct in&uiries inaid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may beused for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a&uestion hour, the obJecti%e of which is to obtain information in pursuitof Congress) o%ersight function" *ltimately, the power of Congress tocompel the appearance of e8ecuti%e oKcials under +ection 21 and thelac of it under +ection 22 $nd their basis in the principle of separationof powers" 2hile the executive branch is a co3e0ual branch o the

leislature, it cannot rustrate the power o 'onress to leislate byreusin to comply with its demands or inormation" hen Congresse8ercises its power of in&uiry, the only way for department heads toe8empt themsel%es therefrom is by a %alid claim of pri%ilege" #hey arenot e8empt by the mere fact that they are department heads" nlyone e8ecuti%e oKcial may be e8empted from this power Q thePresident on whom e8ecuti%e power is %ested, hence, beyond thereach of Congress e8cept through the power of impeachment" It is


15/17

based on her being the highest oKcial of the e8ecuti%e branch, and thedue respect accorded to a co


16/17

olen%ino v&. ecre%ary o/ $inance"!" .o" 11/, -ugust 2, 199/

$ac%&'#he %alue& poer no%only %o concur i%h a-en-en%& u% al&o %o propo&ea-en-en%&. Indeed, ha% %he +on&%i%u%ion &i-ply -ean& i&%ha% %he ini%ia%ive /or =ling revenue, %ari or %aE ill&, ill&au%horizing an increa&e o/ %he pulic e%, priva%e ill& anill& o/ local applica%ion -u&% co-e /ro- %he ou&e o/Repre&en%a%ive& on %he %heory %ha%, elec%e a& %hey are /ro-%he i&%ric%&, %he -e-er& o/ %he ou&e can e eEpec%e %o e-ore &en&i%ive %o %he local nee& an prole-&..or does theConstitution prohibit the $ling in the +enate of a substitute bill inanticipation of its receipt of the bill from the Bouse, so long as action

by the +enate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the Bouse bill"

#he ne8t argument of the petitioners was that +" .o" 1630 did not pass3 readings on separate days as re&uired by the Constitution becausethe second and third readings were done on the same day" (ut this wasbecause the re&ien% ha cer%i=e . ?o. 163" a& urgen%.#hepresidential certi$cation dispensed with the re&uirement not only ofprinting but also that of reading the bill on separate days" #hat upon


17/17

the certi$cation of a bill by the President the re&uirement of 3 readingson separate days and of printing and distribution can be dispensedwith is supported by the weight of legislati%e practice"

consti chap9 case digest

Documents