Cases Reviewer in Constitutional Law

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEWER Proclamation No. 1, February 25, 2986 PROCLAIMING THAT PRESIDENT CORAZON C. AQUINO AND VICE PRESIDENT SALVADOR H. LAUREL ARE TAKING POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE NAME AND BY WILL OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. On the basis of the people’s mandate clearly manifested last February 7, I and Salvador H. Laurel are taking power in the name and by the will of the Filipino people as President and VicePresident, respectively. By the powers vested in me by the people, I ask all those in the civil service to stay in place. Those who have not done anything against the interests of the people have nothing to fear. I ask that they preserve all records with scrupulous care. The people expect a reorganization of government. Merit will be rewarded. As a first step to restore confidence in public administration, I expect all appointive public officials to submit their courtesy resignation beginning with the members of the Supreme Court. I pledge to do justice to the numerous victims of human rights violations. Consistent with the demands of the sovereign people, we pledge a government dedicated to upheld truth and justice, morality and decency in government, freedom and democracy. To help me run the government, I have issued Executive Order No. 1 dated February 25, 1986 appointing key cabinet ministers and creating certain task forces. I ask our people not to relax but to be even more vigilant in this one moment of triumph. The motherland cannot thank them enough. Yet, we all realize that more is required of each and everyone of us to redeem our promises and prove to create a truly just society for our people. This is just the beginning. The same spirit which animated our campaign, and has led to our triumph, will once more prevail, by the power of the people and by the grace of God.

.The 1986 Provisional "Freedom" Constitution Of The Republic Of The Philippines Full Text Proclamation No. 3 . DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE, PROTECTING THEIR BASIC RIGHTS, ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN ORDERLY TRANSITION TO A GOVERNMENT UNDER A NEW CONSTITUTION. WHEREAS, the new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines; WHEREAS, the heroic action of the people was done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended; WHEREAS, the direct mandate of the people as manifested by their extraordinary action demands the complete reorganization of the government, restoration of democracy, protection of basic rights, rebuilding of confidence in the entire governmental system, eradication of graft and corruption, restoration of peace and order, maintenance of the supremacy of civilian authority over the military, and the transition to a government under a New Constitution in the shortest time possible; .chan robles virtual law library WHEREAS, during the period of transition to a New Constitution it must be guaranteed that the government will respect basic human rights and fundamental freedoms;.chan robles virtual law library WHEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the sovereign mandate of the people, do hereby promulgate the following Provisional Constitution.

Approved: February 25, 1986 PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES ARTICLE I ADOPTION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION, AS AMENDED Section 1. The provisions of ARTICLE I (National Territory), ARTICLE III (Citizenship), ARTICLE IV (Bill of Rights), ARTICLE V (Duties and Obligations of Citizens), and ARTICLE VI (Suffrage) of the 1973 Constitution, as amended, remain in force and effect and are hereby adopted in toto as part of this Provisional Constitution..chan robles virtual law library Section 2. The provisions of ARTICLE II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), ARTICLE VII (The President), ARTICLE X (The Judiciary), ARTICLE XI (Local Government), ARTICLE XII (The Constitutional Commissions), ARTICLE XIII (Accountability of Public Officers), ARTICLE XIV (The National Economy and Patrimony of the Nation), ARTICLE XV (General Provisions) of the 1973 Constitution, as amended, are hereby adopted as part of this Provisional Constitution, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Proclamation..chan robles virtual law library Section 3. ARTICLE VIII (The Batasang Pambansa), ARTICLE IX (The Prime Minister and the Cabinet), ARTICLE XVI (Amendments), ARTICLE XVII (Transitory Provisions) and all amendments thereto are deemed superseded by this Proclamation. .chan robles virtual law library ARTICLE II THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE-PRESIDENT, AND THE CABINET Section 1. Until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution, the President shall continue to exercise legislative power. The President shall give priority to measures to achieve the mandate of the people to:.chan robles virtual law library (a) Completely reorganize the government and eradicate unjust and oppressive structures, and all iniquitous vestiges of the previous regime; .chan robles virtual law library (b) Make effective the guarantees of civil, political, human, social, economic and cultural rights and freedoms of the Filipino people, and provide remedies against violations thereof; (c) Rehabilitate the economy and promote the nationalist aspirations of the people;.chan robles virtual law library (d) Recover ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of the previous regime and protect the interest of the people through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets of accounts; (e) Eradicate graft and corruption in government and punish those

guilty thereof; and, .chan robles virtual law library (f) Restore peace and order, settle the problem of insurgency, and pursue national reconciliation based on justice. Section 2. The President shall be assisted by a Cabinet which shall be composed of Ministers with or without portfolio who shall be appointed by the President. They shall be accountable to and hold office at the pleasure of the President. Section 3. The President shall have control of and exercise general supervision over all local governments. Section 4. In case of permanent vacancy arising from death, incapacity or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become President..chan robles virtual law library In case of death, permanent incapacity, or resignation of the VicePresident, the Cabinet shall choose from among themselves the Minister with portfolio who shall act as President. Section 5. The Vice-President may be appointed Member of the Cabinet and may perform such other functions as may be assigned to him by the President..chan robles virtual law library Section 6. The President, the Vice-President, and the Members of the Cabinet shall be subject to the disabilities provided for in Section 8, Article VII, and in Sections 6 and 7, Article IX, respectively, of the 1973 Constitution, as amended. ARTICLE III GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION Section 1. In the reorganization of the government, priority shall be given to measures to promote economy, efficiency, and the eradication of graft and corruption. .chan robles virtual law library .chan robles virtual law library Section 2. All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successors, if such is made within a period of one year from February 25, 1986. (See Executive Order No. 17, to amend this Section 2). .chan robles virtual law library Section 3. Any public officer or employee separated from the service as a result of the reorganization effected under this Proclamation shall, if entitled under the laws then in force, receive the retirement and other benefits accruing thereunder. Section 4. The records, equipment, buildings, facilities and other properties of all government offices shall be carefully preserved. In case any office or body is abolished or reorganized pursuant to this Proclamation, its funds and properties shall be transferred to the

office or body to which its powers, functions, and responsibilities substantially pertain. ARTICLE IV EXISTING LAWS, TREATIES, AND CONTRACTS Section 1. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instruction, implementing rules and regulations, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Proclamation shall remain operative until amended, modified, or repealed by the President or the regular legislative body to be established under a New Constitution. Section 2. The President may review all contracts, concessions, permits, or other forms of privileges for the exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of natural resources entered into, granted, issued, or acquired before the date of this Proclamation and when the national interest requires, amend, modify, or revoke them. .chan robles virtual law library ARTICLE V ADOPTION OF A NEW CONSTITUTION Section 1. Within sixty (60) days from date of this Proclamation, a Commission shall be appointed by the President to draft a New Constitution. TheCommission shall be composed of not less than thirty (30) nor more than fifty (50) natural born citizens of the Philippines, of recognized probity, known for their independence, nationalism and patriotism. They shall be chosen by the President after consultation with various sectors of society..chan robles virtual law library Section 2. The Commission shall complete its work within as short a period as may be consistent with the need both to hasten the return of normal constitutional government and to draft a document truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people..chan robles virtual law library Section 3. The Commission shall conduct public hearings to ensure that the people will have adequate participation in the formulation of the New Constitution..chan robles virtual law library Section 4. The plenary sessions of the Commission shall be public and fully recorded..chan robles virtual law library Section 5. The New Constitution shall be presented by the Commission to the President who shall fix the date for the holding of a plebiscite. It shall become valid and effective upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast in such plebiscite which shall be held within a period of sixty (60) days following its submission to the President. .chan robles virtual law library

ARTICLE VI HOLDING OF ELECTIONS Section 1. National elections shall be held as may be provided by the New Constitution. Section 2. Local elections shall be held on a date to be determined by the President which shall not be earlier than the date of the plebiscite for the ratification of the New Constitution..chan robles virtual law library ARTICLE VII EFFECTIVE DATE Section 1. This Proclamation shall take effect upon its promulgation by the President. .chan robles virtual law library Section 2. Pursuant to the letter and spirit of this Proclamation, a consolidated official text of the Provisional Constitution shall be promulgated by the President and published in English and Pilipino in the Official Gazette and in newspapers of general circulation to insure widespread dissemination. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ARTICLE XVIII TRANSITORY PROVISIONS Section 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions. The foregoing proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines was approved by the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the twelfth day of October, Nineteen hundred and eightysix, and accordingly signed on the fifteenth day of October, Nineteen hundred and eighty-six at the Plenary Hall, National Government Center, Quezon City, by the Commissioners whose signatures are hereunder affixed. Adopted: Proclamation No. 58 Proclaiming the Ratification of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines Adopted by the Constitutional Commission of 1986, including the Ordinance Appended Thereto

WHEREAS, the Constitutional Commission of 1986 adopted the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines on October 15, 1986, together with the Ordinance appended thereto, which shall become valid and effective upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose; WHEREAS, the Commission on Election, sitting as the national board of canvassers for the February 2, 1987 plebiscite on the proposed Constitution, certified that: 1. The Commission on Election canvassed the returns from 83,288 voting precincts throughout the country involving 21,785,216 votes cast; and 2. On the basis of the canvass made by the Commission on Elections, the results thereof are as follows: a. Affirmative votes: 16,622,111 b. Negative Votes: 4,953,375 c. Abstentions: 209,730 A copy of the Certificate of Canvass of the Votes Cast in the Plebiscite Held on February 2, 1987, of the Commission on Elections dated February 7, 1987 is hereto attached as Annex “A” of this Proclamation. NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the sovereign mandate of the people, do hereby proclaim that the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines adopted by the Constitutional Commission of 1986, including the ordinance appended thereto, has been duly ratified by the Filipino people and is therefore effective and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed. Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of February in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-seven.

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. (5a) De Leon v. ESGUERRA The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. (Effectivity is immediately upon ratification) Sanidad v. COMELEC -Presidential exercise of legislative powers (and proposing amendments) is valid in martial law. -Amending process is a sovereign act, although the authority to institute the same and the procedure to be followed reside somehow in a particular body (Pres. Marcos). Santiago v. COMELEC The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed in a cold niche until Congress provides for its implementation. Section 2 of Article XVII is not selfexecuting. CONCEPT OF STATE

The Civil Code of the Philippines AN ACT TO ORDAIN AND INSTITUTE THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES PRELIMINARY TITLE CHAPTER I EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS Art. 7. 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.

“STATE” Community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a fixed territory, and possessed of an independent government organized for political ends to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. ELEMENTS: PEOPLE, TERRITORY, GOVERNMENT and SOVEREIGNTY

PEOPLE Inhabitants of the state; must be numerous enough to be selfsufficing and to defend themselves and small enough to be easily administered and sustained.

voice of the majority (2) paramount force – by military forces who invade the territory (3) independent government – established by inhabitants through insurrection Republic of the Philippines (during Japanese occupation) was a de facto government.

TERRITORY Fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the state.  



The mere fact that the Government happens to be a major stockholder of a corporation does not make it a public corporation. Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions. Bacani vs NACOCO Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions – obsolete. Government has to provide for general welfare. PVTA vs CIR

Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the people) Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws: - abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted sovereign (political law). - great body of municipal law regarding private and domestic rights continue in force until abrogated or changed by new ruler. Cabanas v. Pilapil Lawyer’s League v. Aquino May 22, 1986 Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues until changed by some competent legislative power (not changed by mere change of sovereignty). All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of a de facto government are good and valid. Kinds of De facto government: (1) de facto proper – government obtained by force or

Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine sovereignty over American bases – Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory. People vs Gozo Laurel vs Misa Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and permanent Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the government – not transferred to occupier Ruffy v Chief of Staff The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered superseded or held in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory and not for the enemies in arms. ACT NO. 3083 - AN ACT DEFINING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MAY BE SUED Section 1. Complaint against Government. — Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Government of the Philippine Islands hereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, expressed or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties. Sec. 2. A person desiring to avail himself of the privilege herein conferred must show that he has presented his claim to the Insular Auditor 1 and that the latter did not decide the same within two months from the date of its presentation. Sec. 3. Venue. — Original actions brought pursuant to the authority

conferred in this Act shall be instituted in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the province were the claimant resides, at the option of the latter, upon which court exclusive original jurisdiction is hereby conferred to hear and determine such actions. Sec. 4. Actions instituted as aforesaid shall be governed by the same rules of procedure, both original and appellate, as if the litigants were private parties. Sec. 5. When the Government of the Philippine Island is plaintiff in an action instituted in any court of original jurisdiction, the defendant shall have the right to assert therein, by way of set-off or counterclaim in a similar action between private parties. Sec. 6. Process in actions brought against the Government of the Philippine Islands pursuant to the authority granted in this Act shall be served upon the Attorney-General 2 whose duty it shall be to appear and make defense, either himself or through delegates. Sec. 7. Execution. — No execution shall issue upon any judgment rendered by any court against the Government of the Philippine Islands under the provisions of this Act; but a copy thereof duly certified by the clerk of the Court in which judgment is rendered shall be transmitted by such clerk to the Governor-General, 3 within five days after the same becomes final. Sec. 8. Transmittal of Decision. — The Governor-General, 4 at the commencement of each regular session of the Legislature, 5 shall transmit to that body for appropriate action all decisions so received by him, and if said body determine that payment should be made, it shall appropriate the sum which the Government has been sentenced to pay, including the same in the appropriations for the ensuing year. Sec. 9. This Act shall take effect on its approval

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a) [(Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)] STATE IMMUNITY Sanders v Veridiano •

Art. 2180 The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

•

Mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of the laws of public officers and doctrine of state immunity Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other states.

Republic v Sandoval

• •

State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the incident; liability should fall on the public officers who committed acts beyond their authority 3 instances when suit is proper: 1. when sued by its name 2. when unincorporated government agency is sued 3. when the suit is against a government employee but liability belongs to the government

Festejo v Fernando



When the state files an action, it divests itself of the sovereign character and shed its immunity form suit, descending to the level of an ordinary litigant. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan



failure to allege in the complaint the existence of consent by the State is a fatal defect (construction must be strict against conferment of waiver. Immunity may be invoked by the courts at any point/stage of the proceedings. Republic vs. Feliciano

USA vs. Ruiz

Officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable and maybe sued as any other citizen and held answerable for whatever injury 



A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. USA vs Guinto The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to be sued when it enters into a contract. However, it does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. Veterans Manpower vs CA

Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states: States may be sued when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign. 

Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state which the envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission. The Holy See v Rosario,

The Merritt vs Gov’t of the Phil By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense. Amigable vs. Cuenca The government, when it takes away a property from a private land owner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetrating injustice to a citizen.

Republic vs. Villasor •

•

Judgment against the State cannot be enforced by execution. It may limit claimant’s action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the state of execution. Power of courts end when judgment is rendered. [suability vs. liability] Functions and public services cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the disruption of public funds.

Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC •

Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its non-suability. Distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in the

•

proprietary capacity. State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from contract.

PNB vs. Pabalan • •

State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked with regard to funds of public corporations. [suable corporations] Public funds of corporations which can sue and be sued are not exempt from gaarnishment. The character of an incorporated agency allows it to sue and be sued without qualification. Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan



Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Assoc. -

Acceptance of outside work and payment of overtime compensation does not make work of Bureau of Printing proprietary. Non-suability of the State is available to the agency even if it is shown that it is engaged not only in governmental functions but also, incidentally, in proprietary enterprises (unincorporated agency).

Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CA If an agency‘s function is deemed proprietary, if such is a necessary incident of the primary and gov. function of such agency, such agency is not suable (for an unincorporated agency only). 



Not all government entities whether corporate or not are immune from suits. Immunity from suits is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity was organized. Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in which they have assumed to act in private or non-governmental capacity, and various suits against certain corporations created by the State to engage in matters partaking more of the nature of ordinary business are not regarded as suits against the State. (Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals)

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme

The test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver acting in behalf of the municipality is performing governmental or proprietary functions. It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the state merely gives the claimants the right to show the defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was inflicted or that the case comes under the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimants cannot recover. Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez Municipal funds in possession of municipal and provincial treasurers are public funds exempt from execution. Municipal funds are held in trust for the people intended and used for the accomplishments of the purposes for which municipal corporations are created and that to subject said properties and public funds to execution would materially impede, even defeat and in some instance destroy said purposes. Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable reason to effect payment of a final money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds. Fundamental Principles and State Policies REPUBLICANISM “Ours is a government of laws and not of men” Section 1

The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

Ichong v. Hernandez: think Retail Trade Nationalization Law which is against the principle of Pacta sunt servanda.Held: the Retail Trade Nationalization Law is not unconstitutional because it was passed in the exercise of the police power which cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty.

Villavicencio v. Lukban: Mayor’s act is unconstitutional. It was not authorized by any law or ordinance. “Our government is a government of laws and not of men.” INCORPORATION CLAUSE Doctrine of Incorporation: Every state, by membership of the family of nations, is bound by the general principles of international law, which automatically is incorporated (becomes a part of) in its own laws. Section 2 The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

Kuroda v. Jalandoni: think Japanese Lieutenant-General charged before the military commission. Held: The Philippines can adopt the rules and regulations laid down on the Hague and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding that it is not a signatory thereto. It embodied generally accepted principles of international law binding upon all states. Agustin v. Edu: think triangular reflectorized early warning devices. Held: Legislative enactment is not necessary in order to authorize the issuance of LOI prescribing the use of triangular reflectorized early warning devices. This is also an illustration of generally accepted principles of international law (Pacta sunt servanda).



Prevalence of National or Municipal law over International law: Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also when it runs counter to an act of Congress. Gonzales v. Hechanova:



A treaty cannot modify regulations governing admission to Philippine bar (that would be an encroachment upon Supreme Court by the Executive) In re Garcia



Section 2 must be read with Secs. 7 and 8.

Section 7 The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination. Section 8 The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory “SUPREMACY OF CIVILIAN AUTHORITY” Section 3 Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory. -to prevent military take-over.

“DEFENSE OF THE STATE” Aglipay vs. Ruiz Section 4 The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.

People vs. Lagman - Case at bar: accused is prosecuted for failure to register for military service under the National Defense Act - SC upheld the National Defense Act. The duty of the government to defend the state cannot be performed without an army. To leave an organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein. PEACE AND ORDER Section 5 The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional right. The license to carry a firearm is neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create a vested right. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of police power. The maintenance of peace and order, and the protection of the people against violence are constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear firearm is to be construed in connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties. Chavez vs. Romulo

-There is no violation of the principle of the separation of church and state. The issuance and sale of the stamps in question may be said to be linked with an event of a religious character, but the resulting propaganda, if any, received by the Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose of the government. The idea behind the issuance of the postage stamps was to attract tourists to our country and not primarily the religious event. - What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty , not mere religious toleration. However, religious freedom is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs.



an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church and its members and relates to matter of faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of the congregation. Examples of these affairs in which the State cannot meddle are proceedings for excommunication, ordination of religious ministers, administration of sacraments, and other activities to which is attached religious significance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee. It is purely secular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of the church. Austria vs. NLRC

“SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE”

“SOCIAL JUSTICE” Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the Stat xxx; is the promotion of the welfare of all the people, xxx; through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community xxx; constitutionally, through the adoption of measure sxxx; exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.

Section 6 The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

Section 10 The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national

development.

founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number.”

Ondoy .vs. Ignacio -The principle of social justice applied in this case is a matter of protection, not equality. The Court recognized the right of the petitioner to the claim of compensation because her son was shown to have died while “in the actual performance of his work.” To strengthen the constitutional scheme of social justice and protection to labor, The Court made mention that “as between a laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the employer, who has resources to secure able legal advice, the law has reason to demand from the latter the stricter compliance. Salonga vs. Farrales -The plea of social justice of the plaintiff cannot be considered because it was shown that no contract, either to sell or of sale, was ever perfected between him and the defendant. It must be remembered that social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social justice consecrated in our Constitution was not intended to take away rights from a person and give them to another who is not entitled thereto. Calalang vs. Williams -Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be



The new provisions on Social Justice in Art II are:

Section 9 Section 10 Section 11 Section 18 The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. Bernardo vs. NLRC The SC held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabled persons be granted the same terms and conditions of employment as qualified able bodied employees; thus, once hey have attained the status of regular workers, they should be accorded all the benefits granted by law, notwithstanding written or verbal contracts to the contrary. This treatment is rooted not merely in charity or accommodation, but in justice for all. Section 21 The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform. “REARING OF THE YOUTH” The state cannot unreasonably interfere with the exercise by parents of their natural right and duty to rear their children, but it may regulate xxx under the police power Section 12 The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.

It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.



The theory is that the better the home, the better the nation; and also that the strength of the family lies in the correct upbringing of its children.

Meyer vs. Nebraska it is incompetent for the government to prohibit the teaching of a foreign language to students since there is nothing inherently harmful in the language that will impair the upbringing of a child. Section 13 The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs. 

Promote civic efficiency and moral character of our young citizens but also their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well being so that they will be fully prepared when they assume their responsibility of leadership in the direction of our country’s destiny.

Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge Youthful Offender: A person charged with an offense but found to be a youthful offender could be provisionally released on recognizance at court’s decision. “WOMEN” Section 14 The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men

PT&T Co. vs. NLRC the SC held that the petitioner’s policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and the right against, discrimination, which is guaranteed all women workers under the Constitution. While a requirement that a woman employee must remain unmarried may be justified as a “bona fide occupational qualification” where the particular requirements of the job would demand the same, discrimination against married women cannot be adopted by the employer as a general principle.

“RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY” The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. Section 16 The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. Oposa vs. Factoran [Intergenerational Responsibility / Intergenerational Justice] the 34 minors duly joined by their respective parents pleading the cause of “inter-generational responsibility” and “inter-generational justice”, had a valid cause of action in questioning the grant of Timber Licensing Agreements (TLAs) for commercial logging purposes. The minors filed the action for themselves as representing “their generation as well as generations yet unborn”. The SC, on the basis of Section 16, Article II linked with the right to health, recognized a “right to a balanced and healthful ecology” and “the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment”. “MISCELLANEOUS”

Section 15 The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. Section 17 The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and development. PRC vs. De Guzman while it is true that the SC has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements, the exercise of this right may be regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety and general welfare. Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. This regulation assumes particular pertinence in the field of medicine, in order to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance. PMMS, Inc. vs. CA the Court said that the requirement that a school must first obtain government authorization before operating is based on the State policy that educational programs and/or operations shall be of good quality and, therefore, shall at least satisfy minimum standards with respect to curricula, teaching staff, physical plant and facilities and administrative and management viability. Section 22 The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development. Section 23 The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation

Section 28 Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the state adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. “ECONOMY” Section 19 The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. Section 20 The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PCA, the SC said that although the Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary for the promotion of the general welfare as reflected in Sections 6 & 19 of Article XII. Section 21 The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform. ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner. Private rights must yield to the irresistible demands of the public interest on the time-honored justification, as in the case of the policed power, that the welfare of the people is the supreme law.

“ LOCAL AUTONOMY” The principle of local autonomy does not make local

governments sovereign within the state or an “imperium in imperio”. Local governments can only be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation. It can only mean a measure of decentralization of the function of government.

Art 8 Sec 12 The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function.

Section 25 The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.

In re Manzano

BASCO VS PAGCOR Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution simply means the decentralization and does not make the local governments sovereign within the State or an imperium imperio.



Decentralization of administration is merely delegation of administrative powers to the LGUs in order to broaden the base of governmental power. Decentralization of power is the abdication by the national government powers. LIMBONA VS MANGELIN

SEPARATION OF POWERS Purpose: • to prevent concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions. • System of check and balance with accordance to the constitution Limitations: • Supremacy of the Constitution/Constitutional provisions. Role of the Judiciary: • It sees to it that the constitutional distribution of powers among the several departments of the government is respected and observed. • Allocated constitutional boundaries or invalidates the acts of a coordinate body.

- Members of the SC and other courts shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. - The committee performs administrative function* which under Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution prohibits members of the SC and other courts established by law to be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. To quote CJ Fernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig, he said that “while the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government precluding its doctrine application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in character.” • Administrative functions are those which involves the regulation and control the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislative or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence. “DOCTRINE OF IMPLICATION” The grant of an express power carries with it all other powers that may be necessarily inferred from it. Angara vs. Electoral Commission - Separation of powers as actual division than obtained through express provision - Judiciary is the only Constitutional Arbiter to allocate Constitutional Boundaries - Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of the Constitution asserted by the judiciary (not supremacy of the judiciary itself) - Judicial Review is limited to Actual Litigation. Judiciary







does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of litigation. - The Electoral Commission is an independent, impartial, and non-partisan tribunal. The sole power to determine contests regarding the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly has been transferred in totality to the Electoral Commission. Its power is clear, complete, and exclusive.

Connotes 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 branch of the government. Issues dependent upon the widom, not legality, of a particular measure.

Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced. Completeness test and Sufficient Standard Test: Completeness Test = complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that what is left is merely its enforcement. Sufficient Standard Test = adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Subordinate Legislation = delegated power to issue rules to carry out the general provision of the statute. (Administrative bodies implement the broad policies by promulgating their supplementary regulations.) Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA

Think Senate Electoral Tribunal The issue at bar is not a political question for the senate is not clothed with “full discretionary authority” in the choice of members of the SET.

“JUSTICIABLE QUESTION” Implies a given right xxx, an act or omission violative of said right, and a remedy granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right. Casibang vs. Aquino - Political Question = question of policy; question to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or full discretionary authority - Justiciable Question = implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable; an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law for said breach of right. “POLITICAL QUESTION”

Tanada v Cuenco

Sanidad v. COMELEC On whether the case is justiciable Political questions are associated with the wisdom of the legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or nonpolitical. If the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed was valid or not. On whether the President may propose Constitutional amendments If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but an adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative power. (Note that at the time Prez. Marcos had legislative powers and there was no legislative department at the time) Daza v. Singson Where the legality or validity of the act is in question and not the wisdom of the act, the Court may take jurisdiction and decide on the acts’ validity. Even in political questions

the Court may take jurisdiction under the expanded judicial power extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of the Constitution. (“Judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and 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.”) JUDICIAL POWER Includes the duty 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 the government.

Vilconza vs. Enriquez Kilosbayan v Morato - The voting on petitioners' standing in the previous case was a narrow one, seven (7) members sustaining petitioners' standing and six (6) denying petitioners' right to bring the suit. The majority was thus a tenuous one that is not likely to be maintained in any subsequent litigation. In addition, there have been charges in the membership of the Court, with the retirement of Justice Cruz and Bidin and the appointment of the writer of this opinion and Justice Francisco. Given this fact it is hardly tenable to insist on the maintenance of the ruling as to petitioners' standing.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Sec. 1: Legaspi v Civil Service Commission - It becomes apparent that when a Mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general "public" which possesses the right. -"Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. Properly construed, it embraces every person. Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr. - A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised.

Santiago vs Bautista - The courts may not exercise judicial power when there is no applicable law. - Case at bar: An award of honors to a student by a board of teachers may not be reversed by a court where the awards are governed by no applicable law. Daza v Singson - Even if the issue presented was political in nature, the Court is still not be precluded from resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon it that now covers, in proper cases, even the political question. - That where serious constitutional questions are involved, "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure." Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals

- In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of planters, and non-profit civic organizations were allowed to initiate and prosecute actions before this Court to question the constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities.

- There can be no justification for judicial interference in the business of an administrative agency, except when it violates a citizen's constitutional rights, or commits a grave abuse of discretion, or acts in excess of, or without jurisdiction.

- Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the Asset Privatization Trust (administrative body), nor block, by an injunction, the discharge of its functions and the implementation of its decisions in connection with the acquisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it.

raise this abstract issue (city of Makati is involved). Worse, they raise this futuristic issue in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has no jurisdiction. Macasiano v National Housing Authority

Malaga v Penachos, Jr. - It was previously declared the prohibition pertained to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders by courts against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. The Court observed that to allow the courts to judge these matters would disturb the smooth functioning of the administrative machinery. On issues definitely outside of this dimension and involving questions of law, courts could not be prevented by any law (in this case, P.D. No. 605) from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts. PACU v Secretary of Education - Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases and controversies. (Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might under the law withdraw the permit of one of petitioners does not constitute a justiciable controversy.) - Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest therein however intellectually solid the problem may be. This is especially true where the issues "reach constitutional dimensions, for then there comes into play regard for the court's duty to avoid decision of constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes evasion. Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC - Considering that those contingencies mentioned by the petitioners may or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to

-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be determined by the courts unless that question is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of the case. J. Joya v PCGG - The rule is settled that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by the court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: that the question must be raised by the proper party; that there must be an actual case or controversy; that the question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and, that the decision on the constitutional or legal question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. But the most important are the first two (2) requisites. - Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to challenge the legality of official acts done by the government. A taxpayer's suit can prosper only if the governmental acts being questioned involve disbursement of public funds upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the state for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds, which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer. Dumlao v COMELEC - For one, there is a misjoinder of parties and actions. One petitioner does not join other petitioners in the burden of their complaint, nor do the latter join the former in his. They, respectively, contest completely different statutory provisions.

was involved). - For another, there are standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the function of judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case. Bugnay Const. and Dev’t. Corp. v Laron - The doctrine holds that only when the act complained of directly involves an illegal disbursement of public funds raised by taxation will the taxpayer's suit be allowed. The essence of a taxpayer's right to institute such an action hinges on the existence of that requisite pecuniary or monetary interest. - It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently show that he would be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit as a real party in interest.

Oposa v Factoran, Jr. - CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. - Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. - Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors` assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. Lozada v COMELEC

PHILCONSA v Enriquez - The Senators have legal standing to question the validity of the veto. When a veto was made in excess of the authority of the President, it impermissibily intrudes into the domain of the Legislature. A member of Congress can question an act of the Executive which injures Congress as an institution. Tatad v Garcia, Jr. -The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow taxpayers to question contracts entered into by the national government or government-owned or controlled corporations allegedly in contravention of the law and to disallow the same when only municipal contracts are involved (just like in Bugnay case since no public money

- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax money is being illegally spent. It is only when an act complained of, which may include a legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public money that the so-called taxpayer suit may be allowed. - The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. When the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance" shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.

SECTION 3 Bengzon v Lim - What is fiscal autonomy? It contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require. It recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for compensation and play plans of the government and allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course of the discharge of their functions. Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control. - The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based SECTION 4 Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v Court of Appeals, et.al. - Reorganization is purely an internal matter of the Court to which petitioner certainly has no business at all. - The Court with its new membership is not obliged to follow blindly a decision upholding a party's case when, after its re-examination, the same calls for a rectification. SECTION 5 Drilon v Lim - The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate

jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. - In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts are advised to act with the utmost circumspection, bearing in mind the consequences of a declaration of unconstitutionality upon the stability of laws, no less than on the doctrine of separation of powers. As the questioned act is usually the handiwork of the legislative or the executive departments, or both, it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of this Court in the consideration of its validity, which is better determined after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the majority of those who participated in its discussion. Larranaga v Court of Appeals (Transfer the venue of the preliminary investigation from Cebu City to Manila because of the extensive coverage of the proceedings by the Cebu media which allegedly influenced the people's perception of petitioner's character and guilt.) - The Court recognizes that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain circumstances can deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial. It was previously held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage in publicity. - In the case at bar, nothing in the records shows that the tone and content of the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel. First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals - It is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control over cases paced under its appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its

appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction can unnecessarily burden the Court and thereby undermine its essential function of expounding the law in its most profound national aspects. Aruelo v Court of Appeals - Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC can not adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts. The power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts is vested on the Supreme Court. Javellana v DILG (Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 does not violate Article VIII. Section 5 of the Constitution. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law.)

the same to the Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties. Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr. - The rules even in an administrative case demands that if the respondent Judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence presented against him should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. The judiciary, to which respondent belongs, no less demands that before its member could be faulted, it should be only after due investigation and based on competent proofs, no less. This is all the more so when as in this case the charges are penal in nature. ('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. It results that even if respondent were not correct in his legal conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot be regarded as grave misconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently appears.) SECTION 10

- The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession, in those instances where the law allows it. SECTION 6

Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue - The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed express grant of exemption from payment of income tax to members of the Judiciary, so as to "give substance to equality among the three branches of Government.”

Maceda v Vasquez SECTION 11 - In the absence of any administrative action taken against a person by the Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. - Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer

De La Llana v Alba -Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security of tenure. This Court is empowered "to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least eight members, order their dismissal." Thus, it possesses the competence to remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the President who was vested with such power. Removal is, of course, to be distinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office.

After the abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for the incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of separation. As to its effect, no distinction exists between removal and the abolition of the office. Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He ceases to be a member of the judiciary. People v Gacott, Jr. - To require the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all administrative matters or cases regardless of the sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in a congested docket and undue delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court, especially in administrative matters, since even cases involving the penalty of reprimand would require action by the Court en banc. - Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only cases involving dismissal of judges of lower courts are specifically required to be decided by the Court en banc, in cognizance of the need for a thorough and judicious evaluation of serious charges against members of the judiciary, it is only when the penalty imposed does not exceed suspension of more than one year or a fine of P10,000.00, or both, that the administrative matter may be decided in division. SECTION 12

SECTION 14 Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals - The Court is not duty bound to render signed decisions all the time. It has ample discretion to formulate decisions and/or minute resolutions, provided a legal basis is given, depending on its evaluation of a case. - As it is settled that an order dismissing a case for insufficient evidence is a judgment on the merits, it is imperative that it be a reasoned decision clearly and distinctly stating therein the facts and the law on which it is based. Mendoza v CFI - What is expected of the judiciary "is that the decision rendered makes clear why either party prevailed under the applicable law to the facts as established. Nor is there any regid formula as to the language to be employed to satisfy the requirement of clarity and distinctness. The discretion of the particular judge in this respect, while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There is no sacramental form of words which he must use upon pain of being considered as having failed to abide by what the Constitution directs." - The provision has been held to refer only to decisions of the merits and not to orders of the trial court resolving incidental matters such as the one at bar. (content of the resolution: incident in the prosecution of petitioner)

In Re: Manzano - As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of government. Their integrity and performance in the adjudication of cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. As public officials, they are trustees of an orderly society. Even as non-members of Provincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC judges should render assistance to said Committees to help promote the landable purposes for which they exist, but only when such assistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties.

Borromeo v Court of Appeals - The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants that it disposes of the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and executory, as where a case is patently without merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable laws, where it is clear from the records that the petition is filed merely to

forestall the early execution of judgment and for noncompliance with the rules. The resolution denying due course or dismissing the petition always gives the legal basis. - When the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any subsequent pleadings, manifestations, comments, or motions decides to deny due course to the petition and states that the questions raised are factual or no reversible error in the respondent court's decision is shown or for some other legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement. - Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in the deliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the Chief Justice.

Certiorari constitutes an adjudication on the merits of the controversy or subject matter of the Petition. It has been stressed by the Court that the grant of due course to a Petition for Review is "not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the Court's denial. For one thing, the facts and law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals' opinion." Prudential Bank v Castro - The Constitutional mandate that "no . . . motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be . . . denied without stating the legal basis therefor" is inapplicable in administrative cases. And even if it were, said Resolution stated the legal basis for the denial and, therefore, adhered faithfully to the Constitutional requirement. "Lack of merit," which was one of the grounds for denial, is a legal basis.

Valdez v Court of Appeals - The (lower) court statement in the decision that a party has proven his case while the other has not, is not the findings of facts contemplated by the Constitution and the rules to be clearly and distinctly stated. - This Court has said again and again that it is not a trier of facts and that it relies, on the factual findings of the lower court and the appellate court which are conclusive. Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Court of Appeals - The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions" which adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals. Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc v Court of Appeals - It has long been settled that this Court has discretion to decide whether a "minute resolution" should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case and that a minute Resolution of dismissal of a Petition for Review on

-(certification issue) The requirement of a certification refers to decisions to judicial cases and not to administrative cases. Besides, since the decision was a per curiam decision, a formal certification is not required.