PLDT VS. NLRCG.R. NO. 80609 AUGUST 23, 1988

SUMMARY OF FACTS: Marilyn Abucay was accused of demanding and receiving money from two PLDT clients. Being a PLDT insider (traffic operator) the accused can expedite their application for telephone installation. After due hearing, she was found guilty as charged and accordingly dismissed from the service. She went to the Ministry of Labor and Employment claiming she had been illegally dismissed. Even though Marilyn Abucay lost her case, the dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter’s decision gave Abucay one month pay for every year of service as financial assistance.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUE:The only issue presented in the case at bar is whether the award of financial assistance to an employee who had been dismissed for cause as found by the public respondent is legal or not.

COURT’S RULING ON THE ISSUE:The challenged NLRC resolution was affirmed by the Supreme Court except the award of financial assistance since it has the effect of rewarding rather than punishing the erring employee for his offense. It is a legal precept that an employee who have been validly dismissed and separated for cause is not entitled to any separation pay or financial assistance. An award tendered on the ground of equity and compassion cannot be a substitute for law. Moreover, such award puts a premium on dishonesty and encourages instead of deterring corruption. The High Tribunal noted that separation pay was considered and required no matter what nature of degree of the ground proved. This policy should be re-examined and the exception rationalized, to make it reasonable to both labor and management.

BASCO VS. PAGCORG.R. NO. 91649 MAY 14, 1991

SUMMARY OF FACTS:Petitioners who are all lawyers seek to annul P.D. 1869, PAGCOR Charter because it is allegedly contrary to morals, public policy and order. It also waived the Manila City government's right to impose taxes and license fees, which is recognized by law. P.D. 1869 has likewise intruded into the local government's right to impose local taxes and license fees. Moreover, it conducted gambling, while most other forms of gambling are outlawed, together with prostitution, drug trafficking and other vices. Lastly, PD 1869 is contrary to the declared national policy of the "new restored democracy" and the people's will as expressed in the 1987 Constitution.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUE:The procedural issue is whether petitioners, as taxpayers and practicing lawyers, can question and seek the annulment of PD 1869 on the alleged grounds mentioned thereof.

COURT’S RULING ON THE ISSUE:P.D. 1869 was enacted pursuant to the policy of the government to "regulate and centralize thru an appropriate institution all games of chance authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law"

The City of Manila, being a mere Municipal corporation has no inherent right to impose taxes.

The Charter of the City of Manila is subject to control by Congress. It should be stressed that "municipal corporations are mere creatures of Congress".

Congress, therefore, has the power of control over Local governments (Hebron v. Reyes, G.R. No. 9124, July 2, 1950). And if Congress can grant the City of Manila the power to tax certain matters, it can also provide for exemptions or even take back the power.With the creation of PAGCOR and the direct intervention of the Government, the evil practices and corruptions that go with gambling will be minimized if not totally eradicated. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of PD 1896.

PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL. VS. HEALTH SEC. DUQUEG.R. NO.173034 OCTOBER 9, 2004

SUMMARY OF FACTS:The Court and all parties involved are in agreement that the best nourishment for an infant is mother's milk.Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by President Corazon Aquino on October 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative powers granted to the president under the Freedom Constitution.

One of the preambular clauses of the Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Article 11[2] of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981.

One of the preambular clauses of the Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Article 11[2] of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981.

In 1990, the Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of said instrument provides that State Parties should take appropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and ensure that all segments of society, specially parents and children, are informed of the advantages of breastfeeding.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUE:

The main issue raised in the petition is whether respondents officers of the DOH acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution in promulgating the RIRR.[3]

COURT’S RULING ON THE ISSUE:With regards to the issue of locus standi the modern view is that an association has standing to complain of injuries to its members.

Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation which can be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation.

The ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are not treaties as they have not been concurred in by at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate as required under Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

However, the ICMBS which was adopted by the WHA in 1981 had been transformed into domestic law through local legislation, the Milk Code. Consequently, it is the Milk Code that has the force and effect of law in this jurisdiction and not the ICMBS per se.

It is propounded that WHA Resolutions may constitute “soft law” or non-binding norms, principles and practices that influence state behavior.[31]

An international rule to be considered as customary law, it must be established that such rule is being followed by states because they consider it obligatory to comply with such rules (opinio juris)

Respondents failed to establish that the provisions of pertinent WHA Resolutions are customary international law that may be deemed part of the law of the land.

“Soft law” does not fall into any of the categories of international law set forth in Article 38, Chapter III of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice.[32] It is, however, an expression of non-binding norms, principles, and practices that influence state behavior.

ultra vires (31-trd VI-reez also veer-eez), adj. [Latin"beyond the powers (of)"] (I8c) Unauthorized; beyond the scope of power allowed or granted by a corporate charter or by law <the officer was liable for the firm's ultra vires actions>.

locus standi (loh-k2s stan-dr or -dee). [Latin "place of standing"] (1835) The right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum; STANDING.

pacta sunt servanda (pak-t<J s<Jnt s<Jr-van-dd). [Latin "agreements must be kept"] The rule that agreements and stipulations, esp. those contained in treaties, must be observed

opinio juris sive necessitatis (a-pin-ee-oh joor-is SI-veend-ses-i-tay-tis). [Latin "opinion that an act is necessary by rule oflaw"] Int'llaw. The principle that for conduct or a practice to become a rule of customary international law, it must be shown that nations believe that international law (rather than moral obligation) mandates the conduct or practice.

jus gentium (jas jen-shee-am). [Latin "law of nations"]!. INTERNATIONAL LAW. 2. Roman law. the body of law, taken to be common to all civilized peoples, and applied in dealing with the relations between Roman citizens and foreigners.

ipso facto (ip-soh fak-toh). [Latin "by the fact itself"](16c) By the very nature of the situation <if 25% of allcontractual litigation is caused by faulty drafting, then,ipso facto, the profession needs to improve its draftingskills>.

LAWER’S LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES VS. AQUINOG.R. NO. 73748 MAY 22, 1986

MMDA VS. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAYG.R. NOS. 171947-48 DECEMBER 18, 2008

SUMMARY OF FACTS:The issue of global warming has been on the headlines nowadays and even before but

without any positive response from the very people tasked to implement the prevailing environmental laws.

The urgent need to tackle this environmental pollution, as a cause of climate change, has irritated not a few citizens but the international community as well.

But even pools of hard evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis that need bold action, the voice of sarcasm, pessimists, and procrastinators can still be heard loudly and read in the air lanes and newspapers respectively.

This case turns on government agencies and their officers who, by the nature of their respective offices or by direct statutory command, are tasked to protect and preserve, at the first instance, our internal waters, rivers, shores, and seas polluted by human activities.

Their cavalier attitude towards solving, if not mitigating, the environmental pollution problem, is a sad commentary on bureaucratic efficiency and commitment.

At the centre of the case is the Manila Bay, a place with colourful history, teeming with marine life during olden times and a busy sea lane, but now a dirty and slowly dying expanse mainly because of the abject official indifference of people and institutions that could have otherwise made a difference.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up Operations, envisage a clean-up in general or are they limited only to the clean-up of specific pollution incidents?

Whether petitioners can be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay?

COURT’S RULING ON THE ISSUE:A discretionary duty is one that “allows a person to exercise judgment and choose to

perform or not to perform.”[14] Any suggestion that the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-related duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis.

Respondents are correct. For one thing, said Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific pollution incident, as long as water quality “has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage.” This section, to stress, commands concerned government agencies, when appropriate, “to take such measures as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water

quality standards.” In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.

The appellate court wrote: “PD 1152 aims to introduce a comprehensive program of environmental protection and management. This is better served by making Secs. 17 & 20 of general application rather than limiting them to specific pollution incidents.”[35]

GRECO ANTONIOUS BELGICA VS. HON. SECRETARYG.R. NO. 208566 DECEMBER 18, 2008

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

This case is a consolidation of various petitions initiated by different well-meaning individuals and progressive parties which assails the constitutionality of the “pork barrel system” formally named as PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ISSUE:

Whether or not there exists an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power.

Whether or not herein petitioners challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance.

lis mota (lis moh-tJ), n. [Latin "a lawsuit moved"] Hist.A dispute that has begun and later forms the basis ofa lawsuit.

COURT’S RULING ON THE ISSUE:

Existence of an Actual Case or Controversy.

An actual case or controversy existed because there is divergence of legal rights manifested by the incompatible positions of the parties on the constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System." Also, the questions in these consolidated cases are ripe for arbitration since the challenged funds and the provisions allowing for their utilization – such as the 2013 GAA for the PDAF, PD 910 for the Malampaya Funds and PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, for the Presidential Social Fund – are currently existing and operational; hence, there exists an immediate or threatened injury to petitioners as a result of the unconstitutional use of these public funds.

Political Question

The 2013 PDAF Article violates the principle of non-delegability since legislators are only effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation, which, as settled in Philconsa, is lodged in Congress.

The intrinsic constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System" is not an issue dependent upon the wisdom of the political branches of government but rather a legal one which the Constitution itself has

commanded the Court to act upon. Scrutinizing the contours of the system along constitutional lines is a task that the political branches of government are incapable of rendering precisely because it is an exercise of judicial power.

Locus Standi

Petitioners have come before the Court in their respective capacities as citizen-taxpayers, the sizable part of their incomes has been always dutifully contributed to the coffers of the National Treasury. As such, they possess the requisite locus standi to question the legitimacy of the existing "Pork Barrel System" under which the taxes they pay have been and continued to be exploited. It cannot be gainsaid that as taxpayers they will directly be affected from the unconstitutional usage of public funds, if the Court so rules.

Invariably, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law,147 as in these cases.At its core, legislators have been consistently accorded post-enactment authority (a) to identify the projects they desire to be funded through various Congressional Pork Barrel allocations; (b) and in the areas of fund release and realignment. Thus, legislators have been, in one form or another, authorized to participate in “the various operational aspects of budgeting,” violating the separation of powers principle. That the said authority is treated as merely recommendatory in nature does not alter its unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition covers any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law. Informal practices, through which legislators have effectively intruded into the proper phases of budget execution, must be deemed as acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and, hence, accorded the same unconstitutional treatment.