Consti1 Prof. Muyot Compiled Digests

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title 1

Macias v COMELEC

Related Topics Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term House of representatives

Notes

Digest Link

RA 3040 Apportions representative districts in the Philippines. Contention c/o petitioners • RA 3040 is unconstitutional. • It was passed by the HOR without printed final copies of the bill having been furnished the Members at least 3 calendar days prior to its passage • It was approved more than 3 years after the return of the last census of our population • It apportioned districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several provinces • They were discriminated against • Provinces were given less representative districts Held & Ratio Unconstitutional. It violated constitutional provisions on the printed form (3-day requirement), population

census, and apportionment of members. 2

Tan v COMELEC

Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term House of representatives

Fast facts BP 885 sought to create a new province of Negros del Norte, getting areas and inhabitants from some of the cities and municipalities of Negros Occidental (i.e. San Carlos, Silay, Cadiz, Calatrava, taboso, Escalante, Sagay, Manapla, Victorias, E.B. Magalona, and Don Salvador Benedicto). A plebiscite to ratify BP 885 was scheduled on January 3, 1986, and would have included only voters from the areas in the would-be province of Negros del Norte, excluding those voters from the other cities and municipalities of Negros Occidental.

Tan v COMELEC

BP 885 An Act Creating a New Province in the Island of Negros to be known as the Province of Negros del Norte. The said law provides that some cities from the island of Negros would be separated in order to create the new province, subject to a concurrence of the majority in a plebiscite. Contentions c/o petitioners • The exclusion and non-participation of the voters of the Province of Negros Occidental other than those living within the territory of the new province of Negros del Norte is not in accordance with the Constitution. • BP 885 is not in accordance with the Local Government Code as in Article 11, Section 3 of the Constitution. The Constitution provides that a plebiscite be held “in the unit or units affected”. The petitioners said that Negros Occidental is a unit affected by the creation of the new province, thus, they should be allowed to vote. Held & Ratio BP 885 is unconstitutional. The pertinent constitutional provision states that the majority of the “unit or units affected” should approve the change in boundaries in a particular province. The fact that only the inhabitants of the would-be province of Negros del Norte will be given a chance to vote on the plebiscite runs counter to the constitutional provision. Negros Occidental also has to vote on the plebiscite because it is also considered a unit affected, its area being diminished by the creation of this new province. 3

Veterans Fed. Party v COMELEC

Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term House of representatives

What is a Party-List • Organization registered with the COMELEC • Upon election, will sit in HoR as regular members Fast facts In the case at bar, the petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution 98-065 and January 7, 1999 Resolution (affirming 98-065). These 2 resolutions ordered the proclamation of 38 additional party-list representatives to fill all 52 seats in the HoR.

Veterans Federal Party v COMELEC

Purpose of RA 7941 The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the HoR through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the HoR. Parameters of RA 7941 1. 20% allocation. The combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the HoR, including those elected under the party-list.

2.

2% threshold. Only those parites garnering a minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are “qualified” to have a seat in the HoR.

3.

The 3-seat limit. Each qualified, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of 3 seats; 1 “qualifying” and 2 additional seats.

4.

Proportional representation. The additional seats which a qualified party is entitlesl to shall be computed “in proportion to their total number of votes.”

Issues 1. Is the 20% allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in Article 6, Section 5(2), mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? Should the 20% allocation for party-list solons be filled up completely all the time? 2. Are the 2% threshold requirement and the 3-seat limit provided in RA 7941 constitutional? 3. If the answer to issue 2 is in the affirmative, how should the additional seats of a qualified party be determined? Held & Ratio The petitions are partly meritorious. The Court agrees with petitioners that the assailed Resolutions should be nullified, but disagrees that they should all be granted additional seats.

As to whether the 20% allocation is mandatory. The Constitution does not require all such seats be filled

up all the time and under all circumstances. It is a mere ceiling. Article 6, Section 5 states that the Congress was vested with the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representation. The Constitution explicitly sets down only the percentage of the total membership in

Page 1 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

the HoR reserved for PL representatives. The Congress exercised its power through RA 7941. Said legislation deemed it necessary to require parties, organizations, and coalitions participating in the system to obtain at least 2% of the total votes cast for the PL system in order to be entitled to a PL seat. Those garnering more than this percentage could have additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes.

As to the 2% threshold. Valid. This threshold was set out by Congress to ensure that only those

organizations which have been given by the people sufficient basis for them to represent their constituents are to be awarded seats in the Parliament. It gives meaningful representation. We could not have PL reps seat in the House if they do not actually represent a significant number of marginalized people—those who voted them.

As to the 3-seat-per party limit. “Qualified” means having hurdled the 2% vote threshold. 3-seat limit

ensures the entry of various interest-representations into the legislature; no single group, no matter how large its membership, would dominate the party-list seats, if not the entire house.

As to the method of allocating additional seats.

STEPS IN DETERMINING WHO QUALIFIES FOR ADDITIONAL SEATS 1. Rank from the highest, based on the number of votes won. All parties with at least 2% of the total votes are guaranteed 1 seat each. Only these parties shall be eligible for additional seats. Illustration (all hypothetical values, no logical interrelationship) Rank Party-List Votes

% of total votes in PL elections 1 ABC Party (FIRST PARTY) 1,000,000 7% 2 DEF Party 900,000 6% 3 GHI Party 800,000 5% 4 JKL Group 700,000 4% 5 MNO Group 600,000 3% 6 PQR Party 500,000 2% 7 STU Group 400,000 1% 8 VWX Group 300,000 1% 9 YZA Party 200,000 1% 10 BCD Group 100,000 1% Note: In this example only those groups ranked 1 through 6 are “qualified” to have seats in the HoR, having hurdled the 2% threshold, ABC party being tagged as the “FIRST PARTY”. 2.

Determine number of additional seats to be granted to the first party. Since the distribution is based on proportional representation, the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes. Formula for additional seats for the first party:

Rules: If proportion ≥ 6%, first party will get 2 seats If proportion ≥ 4%, one seat If proportion ≥ 4%, no additional seat This formula is applicable only in determining the additional seats of the first party. Illustration (based on illustrative facts in [1]) ABC Party Proportion = 7% Additional seats as first party = 2 seats 3.

Determine number of seats for other qualified parties. Formula for additional seats for other qualified parties (concerned party):

Illustration Additional seats of DEF Party

Hence, additional seats for DEF Party is only 1 seat, since rounding up is not applied. Outcome based on illustrative facts Party-List Qualified seats 1 ABC Party 1 2 DEF Party 1 3 GHI Party 1 4 JKL Group 1 5 MNO Group 1 6 PQR Party 1

Additional seats 2 1 1 1 1 1

Total HoR seats 3 2 2 2 2 2

As to COMELEC en banc’s decision. COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the 38 herein

repondent parties, organizations, and coalitions are each entitled to a party-list seat, because it violated 2 requirements of RA 7941: the 2% threshold and proportional requirement.

Page 2 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half

4

Title

Related Topics

Notes

Bagong Bayani v COMELEC

Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term House of representatives

Fast facts The case at bar deals with the disqualification of private respondents, apparently organizations considered as political parties, because the party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented. Contention c/o pet Inclusion of political parties in the party-list race is inconceivable; most objectionable portion of the questioned Resolution.

Digest Link

Bagong Bayani v COMELEC

Contention c/o Solicitor General Party-list race is open to all, including political parties Issues (WON) • Political parties may participate in the party-list elections • Party-list system is exclusive to "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors and organizations. Requirements/criteria for party-list candidates 1. Must be representative of the marginalized 2. Political parties – must comply with #1 3. No organization hailing from the religious sector shall be allowed to participate 4. Must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA7941 5. Must not be an offshoot of the government 6. The nominee him/herself must also qualify, not simply the party Held & Ratio

On the inclusion of political parties. They are not prohibited from joining the party-list race. RA 7941

expressly states that the party-list system is open to all “registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.” The respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties.

On the issue of marginalized and underrepresented. Political parties are not barred from joining the partylist elections, but not all of them can participate. Only those which prove that they qualify as party-list candidates based on the definition of what a party-list organization is. Allowing even rich and powerful political parties would defeat the purpose of the party-list system. Case remanded to the COMELEC. 5

Aquino v COMELEC

Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term House of representatives

Fast facts On April 24, 1995, Move Makati, a duly registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Agapito A. Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman which, under Article 6, Section 6 of the Constitution, should be for a period not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the May 8, 1995 elections. Constitution on residency • For a period not less than one (1) year prior to the elections • Residence = Domicile Domicile The place “where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home”, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law. Purpose of equating residency and domicile in election law

Gallego v Vera. To exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs fo the

community from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain. Issue (WON) Butz Aquino actually was a resident for a period of one year in the area now encompassed by the Second Legislative District of Makati at the time of his election or he was domiciled in the same. Aquino’s COC His domicile of origin of record up to the time of filing of his most recent COC for the 1995 elections was Concepcion, Tarlac. Aquino’s Lease contract Indicates impermanency of residence. Instead of purchasing a place of residence, Aquino simply leased it. Moreover, he had other condominium units in Manila and QC. He admitted that he only stays in the condominium unit in short periods at a time. Change of domicile Not easily achieved. Must be proven that person actually changed his domicile, where he has abandoned prior residence and moved into a new one, with concrete acts manifesting such intention (i.e. severing ties with hometown). Held & Ratio Aquino is disqualified on the ground of the one year residency rule. Aquino’s lease contract is indicative of his purpose not to establish permanent residence in Makati, but simply qualify as a candidate. He also has not established that he has indeed changed his domicile from Tarlac to Makati. 6

Marcos v COMELEC

Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term House of representatives

Fast facts The case at bar deals with the disqualification of Imelda Marcos from running as a candidate for her district in Leyte, on the ground of the one (1) year residency requirement. It has appeared that she has spent most of her recent life living outside of Leyte, specifically in Ilocos and Manila, since her husband became President of the country. Domicile • Natural place of residence • Permanent home • Physical presence in a fixed place • Intention of returning home

Romualdez-Marcos v COMELEC

Residence v Domicile Residence – physical presence Domicile – intent to return It is possible to have several residences at a time, but it is impossible to have more than one domicile. Successful change of domicile 1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile 2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one. Voluntary act of relinquishing candidate’s former domicile with an intent to supplant the former domicile with one of her own choosing. 3. Acts which correspond with the purpose

Page 3 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

Domicile of female spouse Woman does not lose it in favor of her husband’s choice of residence. Held & Ratio Imelda’s domicile was in Tacloban. One does not lose domicile even when he moves to another place for, say, greener pastures. Absence from legal residence does not constitute loss of residence. Imelda had always kept her ties with her domicile. She did have many residences but it did not imply that she never intended to abandon Tacloban as her domicile. All these despite the facts that her husband was the President and that his domicile was in Ilocos and most of his activities were in Manila. 7

Torayno v COMELEC

Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term House of representatives

Timeline 1995: Emano (private resp) ran for governor of Misamis oriental. His COC indicated as residence, Tagoloan Misamis Oriental.

June 14, 1997: Emano executed voter registration in Cagayan de Oro, claiming 20 years of residence. March 25, 1998: Filed candidacy for mayor of CDO, where his COC indicated as residence, Gusa, Cagayan de Oro.

Issue (WON) Emano duly established residence in CDO at least one year prior to the May 11, 1998 elections to qualify him to run for the mayorship thereof. Contentions c/o pet • Emano is a resident of Tagoloan, not CDO • Evidenced by him being governor • Evidenced by his pleadings stating that he is a resident of Tagoloan • Evidenced by exercise of powers of government until he filed candidacy for CDO mayor • He remained a resident of Tago, because residence is a “continuing qualification” that an official must possess • Having a hose in CDO is not enough proof of change in domicile Residence requirement • Prevent strangers to seek office in the city and taking advantage of the political situation in the area • To establish residence just to meet the requirement defeats the purpose of representation Representation Candidate who has actual residence in the area is more cognizant of the needs of the community. Held & Ratio Emano satisfied the residence requirement. Mamba-Perez v COMELEC. Emano not a newcomer to CDO. He has been residing in CDO for 3 years during his term as governor. CDO is where the seat of provincial government is located. His CTC and voter registration evidenced the same. Actual presence in CDO is enough proof that he is acquainted with the community in that he is familiar with their needs. 8

Santiago v Guingona

Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Election of officers

Fast facts On the first session of the 11th Congress, the Senate’s composition was as follows 10 members 7 members 1 member 1 member 1 member 1 member 2 members 23 – total number of senators, the last 6 members are all classified by petitioners as independent

LAMP Lakas-NUCD-UMDP LP Aksyon Demokratico PRP Gabay Bayan Independent

Santiago v Guingona

On the agenda of the day was the election of officers. For Senate presidency, the candidates were Senators Fernan and Tatad. By a vote of 20-2, Fernan was won the position. Senator Tatad thereafter manifested that, with the agreement of Senator Santiago (the only senator that voted for Tatad), allegedly the only other member of the minority, he was assuming the position of minority leader. Senator Guingona was chosen to become the minority leader, being a member of Lakas-NUCD, a party considered a minority. Contentions c/o Tatad Those who had voted for Senator Fernan comprised the majority, while only those who had voted for him, the losing nominee, belonged to the minority. Therefore, only him or Senator Santiago may be chosen as minority leader. Guingona cannot be the minority leader. There has been a violation of the Constitution. Avelino v Cuenco • Question of who was the rightful Senate President • Court assumed jurisdiction • Resolution of issue hinged on the interpretation of the Constitution (quorum) • Judicial supremacy: court sees to it that no branch transgresses Constitution, WON it is justiciable (or political) • Election of Senate Electoral Tribunal is not political. It does not depend on Senate’s full discretionary authority subject to constitutional limitations. Majority • In elections: plurality, more than half of votes needed to win • In multi-party system: political party which most elected lawmakers belong to Minority A group, party , or faction with a smaller number of votes or adherents than the majority. Election of officers The Constitution provides only for the election of Senate President and Speaker of the House. It prescribes only the manner of election of the Senate President. It is silent on the election of other officers. It does not provide for the rules on the election of majority and minority leaders. Held & Ratio No violation. Constitution provides that the Senate President is voted by more than half (majority) of its members. That does not imply that those who do not vote for him constitute the minority. Congress verily has the power and prerogative to provide for such officers as it may deem. And is certainly within its own jurisdiction and discretion to prescribe the parameters for the exercise of this prerogative.

Page 4 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title 9

Avelino v Cuenco

Related Topics Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Quorum

Notes Fast facts In a senate session on February 21, 1949, Senator Tañada was scheduled to give his privilege speech which was supposed to be about allegations against the then Senate President Jose Avelino. As Tañada was about to deliver his speech, Avelino adjourned the session and walked out together with some senators. The remaining senators continued in the session and made Arranza as acting Senate President.

Digest Link

Avelino v Cuenco

Resolution 67 Seat of Senate President is vacant. Senator Cuenco was voted to fill it. Issue Were resolutions Nos. 68 and 67 validly approved? Held & Ratio

As to the justiciability of the issue. The legal and constitutional issues raised by the petitioner in this case, notwithstanding their political nature and implications, are justiciable and within the jurisdiction expressly conferred to the SC, which cannot be divested from it by express prohibition of the Constitution.

As to the adjournment of effected by Avelino. Invalid. Without authority of the senate. As to the subsequent session held. The rump session held by 12 senators, after Avelino and his 9 supporters walked out from the session hall, had no constitutional quorum to transact business.

As to the validity of the resolutions. Invalid. There was no quorum. The fact that the respondent has been designated only as acting President of the Senate would not entitle him to succeed to the position of the President of the Philippines, emphasizes the invalidity of his election.

10

Pacete v Commission on appointments

Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Rules of proceedings

Pacete v Comm on Appointments 11

Arroyo v De Venecia

Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Rules of proceedings

Arroyo v De Venecia 12

Alejandrino v Quezon MEMORY AID: Punching of De Vera

Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Discipline of members

Fast facts Senator Alejandrino is assailing the constitutionality of a resolution adopted by the Senate, depriving him of his position. This resolution was adopted in response to his behavior, re: punching of Senator De Vera in one of its sessions. Issue WON the SC has jurisdiction over this matter, and if it does, can it reverse the effects of the said resolution?

Alejandrino v Quezon

Severino v Governor-General Mississippi v Johnson The judiciary has no power over the executive and legislative branches inasmuch as reviewing the actions of these branches though it is already appropriate for the judiciary to exercise its power.

Sutherland v Governor The three branches and their powers are equally distributed and independent insofar as their actions as an individual branch are concerned.

WON there is usurpation of power, the theory of checks and balances shall be instated. However, if it is found that a branch has usurped the power of a co-equal branch, the remedy shall be impeachment and not one prescribed by one of the three branches to correct the wrong that has been done. No court can compel the Legislature to make or to refrain from making laws, or to meet or adjourn at its command, or to take any action whatsoever, though the duty to take it be made ever so clear by the

constitution or the laws.

French v Senate of the State of California The judiciary cannot revise even the most arbitrary and unfair action of the legislative considering that its action is part of the power granted by the Constitution to that department. Held & Ratio No. Doing so is a violation of the separation of powers. Jurisprudence has held that the judiciary has no power to overturn any decision of the legislative to suspend an officer, regardless of the merits of the decision itself. The court relied on jurisprudence provided in cases Severino and French. Despite the criticisms on the jurisprudence applied and the merits of the controversy, the SC did not interfere with this matter out of respect for the legislators and the Senate. Other information There is now a limit in the period of suspension of legislators. Limit is because suspending an officer for a lengthy period of time would tantamount to taxation without representation. 13

Osmeña v Pendatun MEMORY AID: A Message to Garcia, Osmeña accusing the President of bribery

Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Discipline of members

Osmeña’s privilege speech He accused president Garcia and his government of bribery (i.e. criminals, even those with serious crimes, could bail themselves out given they could pay a hefty price). This occurrence does not say well of the country’s justice system.

Osmeña v Pendatun

Resolution No. 59 Obligating Congressman Osmeña to substantiate his allegations against the President and give reasons why the Congress should not punish him. Contentions c/o Osmeña • The resolution violated his parliamentary immunity as regards privilege speeches • His speech did not contain words that are considered objectionable to which he must be subjected to punishment • After making his speech, the House went on to discussing other matters. By virtue of which, he shall not be liable anymore to answer for his behavior and be questioned by the House (Rule 17, Section 7 Rules of the House) Held & Ratio • Given that Osmeña was not able to substantiate his allegations and reason out why he should not be reprimanded, a suspension fifteen (15) months was given as a punishment. The court did not find merit in his arguments. • First, as to parliamentary immunity, privilege speeches do endow the legislators freedom of speech. However, this does not mean that the content of the speech can never be questioned by other members of the House, especially when the speech contains words illustrative of disorderly conduct. A

Page 5 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

member of the Congress may be questioned of his privilege speech in the Congress itself (Section 15,

Article VI of the Constitution).

• As to the rules of the House, compliance with the same was overturn by the adoption of Resolution 59, as unanimously approved. The rules adopted by deliberative bodies are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the discretion of the body adopting them. On court’s cognizance of issues on House Rules On matters affecting only internal operation of the legislature, the legislature’s formulation and implementation of its rules is beyond the reach of the courts. When, however, the legislative rule affects private rights, the courts cannot altogether be excluded. On privilege speeches A legislator can be made accountable for whatever statement he has made. However, there are certain rules. In a privilege speech, a legislator is not liable for the statements he makes. This is bar the filing of cases against the legislator making the speech. 14

Santiago v Sandiganbayan MEMORY AID: Suspension of Miriam DefensorSantiago

Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Discipline of members

Three criminal cases • Filed in Sandiganbayan: Violation of EO 324 on the prohibition of the legalization of 32 aliens who arrived after January 1, 1984 • Filed in RTC: Violation of PD 46 • Filed in RTC: Libel. 90-day preventive suspension, preventive suspension Decreed on January 25, 1996 to suspend Santiago for the abovementioned cases.

Santiago v Sandiganbayan

*legislators are not exempted RA 3019 Any public official who has pending in court any criminal case under a valid information or any other offense involving fraud against the government shall be suspended from office. Paredes v Sandiganbayan The suspension spoken of in RA 3019 is different from what is provided in Section 16(3), Article 6 of the Constitution in that the former deals with suspension of the officer not as a penalty but a preliminary and preventive measure, given that the same was not being imposed upon the petitioner for misbehavior as a member of the House. Contention c/o Santiago (pet) Only the chamber they belong to has to power to discipline them. REBUTTAL: The abovementioned contention is accurate. However, the case does not relate with them as legislators and their conduct as such. It relates with their penal liability. Held & Ratio The Sandiganbayan had the authority to order the preventive suspension of Santiago. Citing the Paredes case, the Sandiganbayan’s duty to issue the order of preventive suspension is distinct from the power of the Congress to discipline its members. 15

De Venecia v Sandiganbayan

Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Discipline of members

De Venecia refused to suspend; Sandiganbayan can cite him for contempt Rendered moot and academic. Contention c/o pet Only the chamber that they belong to can discipline them (TRUE) This case does not relate with them as legislators and their conduct as such; it relates with their penal liability.

16

Casco Chemical Co. v Gimenez MEMORY AID: urea, formaldehyde

Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Journal and record

Fast facts Casco Chemical Co. is engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resin glues. It has applied for a refund (from the Central Bank) of the margin fees it has paid as a result of its importation of chemicals urea and formaldehyde. RA 2609 Exempts sale of foreign exchange in relation with the importation of “urea formaldehyde” from the payment of the margin fee. “Urea and formaldehyde” v “urea formaldehyde” • Urea and formaldehyde are the individual chemical ingredients to concoct the glue • Urea formaldehyde is the finished product; glue itself. Contention c/o Casco The intent of the legislators, as contemplated in the bill passed in congress and the statements made on the floor of the Senate during the consideration of the bill, was to exempt the importation of urea and formaldehyde separately, not only the finished product. Enrolled bill • Printed, almost final. • Signed by the speaker, senate president, secretary general • Signatures certify that the bill passed both houses Held & Ratio Casco is not entitled to refunds. Although there were statements on the floor that contemplated the intent of exempting the separate articles of chemicals rather than the finished product, the statements are unavailing. What governs and is considered final in the judiciary is the enrolled bill. The enrolled bill stated that the exemption is for urea formaldehyde, the finished product, not the chemicals treated separately.

17

United States v Pons MEMORY AID: Adjournment of legislature, February 28 or March 1?

Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Journal and record

Fast facts Juan Pons et.al., were found guilty by the lower courts of importation of opium, an act which is punishable in RA 2381. Contention c/o Pons RA 2381 is null and void. The Act was passed on March 1, 1914 when the adjournment of the legislature, as set by the Governor-General, was supposed to be on February 28. If, indeed, null and void, he will not be guilty as there will be no law punishing the act of importation of opium.

US v Pons

Cognizance of legislative journals – Probative value In the US, journals may be noticed by the courts in determining the question whether a particular bill became a law or not. Section 313 of Civil Procedure provides that the proceedings of the legislature may be proved by the contents of its journals, provided that in case of Acts of the legislature where a signed (by presiding officers) and approved copy exists, it shall be conclusive evidence of such an Act and of due enactment thereof. Evidence v conclusive evidence

Page 6 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

• Evidence – that which proves or disproves any matter in question or to influence the belief respecting it. • Conclusive evidence – that which establishes the fact Held & Ratio Pons et.al. are guilty of an act punishable by RA 2381. The court recognized the contents of the legislative journals indicating that the adjournment of the session was on the midnight of February 28. The Act (2381) was enacted on March 1, as signed by the presiding officers, and serves as conclusive evidence. Even if it was dated March 1, the journal shall prevail. In the journal, there was adjournment sine die (clock was stopped). Although it really was March 1 already, the date in the journal was still February 28. 18

Astorga v Villegas MEMORY AID: Enrolled bill doctrine or journal entry rule

Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Journal and record

Fast facts Villegas, Mayor of Manila, revoked certain rights and privileges granted to Astorga, Vice-mayor, by virtue of RA 4065. Astorga sued on the premise that RA 4065 should be strictly complied with. RA 4065 An act defining the powers, rights, and duties of the vice mayor of the city of Manila.

Astorga v Villegas

House bill 9266 House bill from which RA 4065 originated. Timeline

March 30, 1964: bill was filed in the HOR April 21, 1964: bill was passed on its third reading without amendments Bill was sent to the Senate committee on provinces and municipal governments and cities, headed by Senator Roxas. Committee came up with an amendment re: successor of vice-mayor in case of his incapacity to act as Mayor.

May 20, 1964: bill was discussed in the Senate on its second reading. Senator Tolentino introduced substantial amendments, which were subsequently approved by the rest of the Senate.

The amendment introduced by Senator Roxas was not acted upon, based on the entries in the journal of Senate proceedings.

May 21, 1964: Letter from the Secretary of the Senate to the HOR read that House bill 9266 was passed by the Senate on May 20, 1964, with amendments. Attached to the letter was a certification of the amendment, which was the one recommended by Senator Roxas and not the one that emanated from Tolentino, the latter being the ones actually approved by the Senate. HOR approved the bill. Bill was attested by the Secretary of HOR, Speaker of HOR, Secretary of the Senate, and the Senate President.

June 16, 1964: Secretary of HOR sent the copies of the bill to the President of the Philippines. June 18, 1964: President of the Philippines signed the bill, thereby making it RA 4065. July 5, 1964: Tolentino issued a press release that the enrolled copy of house bill 9266 signed into law by the president was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by the Senate.

July 11, 1964: Senate president addressed a letter to the President of the Philippines explaining that the bill he signed into a law was not the bill the Congress initially approved. With this, his signature on the enrolled bill had not force and effect as it was invalid.

July 21, 1964: Senate president clarified that the invalidation of his signature on the enrolled bill meant that the bill had never been approved by the Senate. The fact that he and the Secretary of the Senate had signed it did not make the bill a valid enactment.

July 31, 1964: President of the Philippines sent a message to the presiding officers of both Houses of

Congress informing them that in view of the events that have unfolded, he was officially withdrawing his signature on the bill. Contentions c/o Villegas • RA 4065 never became law since it was no the bill actually passed by the Senate • The entries in the journal of the Senate, not the enrolled bill itself, should be decisive in the resolution of the issue Basic assumption of enrolled bill theory The enrolled bill was validly passed. Enrolled bill (or road bill???) doctrine • All changes in the contents of the bill shall be valid so long as it comes before the certification • But it should not be done because it is a violation of the rules • After it is certified, it becomes final. Enrolled bill doctrine v journal entry rule Enrolled bill doctrine. When there exists a copy of an enacted Act signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of the legislative bodies, it shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such acts and of the due enactment thereof.

Journal entry rule. The proceedings of the legislature may be proved by the journals of the respective houses.

Held & Ratio • RA 4065 is deemed to have not been duly enacted and therefore did not become a law. Since the Senate President withdrew his signature on the enrolled bill, such lacks valid attestation that is required by the Constitution as to what constitutes proof of due enactment of a bill. • The approval of the Congress, not the mechanical act of signing the bill, is the requisite contemplated in the Constitution. • There being no bill to speak of, the courts shall resort to the entries in the journal. • Upon examination of the journal, it was established that the bill and attachments submitted to the President of the Philippines for his signature into law was not the same bill approved by the Congress, as it did not contain the amendments emanating from Senator Tolentino. 19

Morales v Subido MEMORY AID: qualifications for chief of a police agency

Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions Journal and record

Contentions c/o Morales (pet) • The version of the provision of house bill 6951, as amended at the behest of Senator Rodrigo, was the version approved by the Senate. However, this was not the same version enacted as a law (Police Act of 1966) • The omission of the phrase “who has served the police department of a city or” was made not at any stage of the legislative proceedings but only during the proofreading stage, as performed by an employee Field v Clark The signing by the Speaker of the HOR and by the President of the Senate of an enrolled bill is an official attestation by the two houses that such bill is the one that has passed Congress. When the bill thus

Page 7 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

attested is signed by the President and deposited in the archives, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. Mabanag v Lopez-Vito An enrolled bill imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts. US v Pons Does not apply in the case at bar. Cited jurisprudence deals with the discrepancy between the enrolled bill and the journal, an issue which the present case lacks. The case at bar merely questions the discrepancies between the enrolled bill and the copies of the bill furnished by the general endorsements made by clerks upon bills previous to their final passage and endorsement. Held & Ratio • With respect to matters not expressly required to be entered on the journal, the enrolled bill prevails in the event of any discrepancy. • The enrolled bill does not always prevail over the journals. Only when the journals lack of pertinent information required by the Constitution. • Field v Clark: The case at bar merely questions the discrepancies between the enrolled bill and the copies of the bill furnished by the general endorsements made by clerks upon bills previous to their final passage and endorsement. 20

Phiconsa v Mathay

Three branches of the government Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications Salaries

The purpose of delaying the effectivity of any increase in salary is to place a “legal bar to the legislators’ yielding to the natural temptation to increase their salaries.” While the letter of the present law prohibits immediate increase of “said compensation,” that is salaries, it is submitted that one may legitimately appeal to the spirit of the prohibition and read the prohibition as an absolute ban on any from of direct or indirect increase of salary. Salary increase will only be increased after the terms of all the legislators who passed the bill on it have already lapsed/ended (next elections).

21

Ligot v Mathay

Three branches of the government Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications Salaries

Ligot is not entitled to receive retirement pay computed based on the salaries of Congressmen after his term. Retirement pay is always based on the salary which one has received. In this case, Ligot never received such an amount (equal to salary of Congressmen after his term).

22

People v Jalosjos

Three branches of the government Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications Freedom from arrest

1935 v 1987 Constitution on immunity from arrest 1935 privilege only encompassed civil arrest

1987 (and 1973) a legislator is privileged from arrest even for a criminal offense provided that the offense was not punishable by a penalty of more than six (6) years imprisonment.

People v Jalosjos

The privilege is available only “while the Congress is in session” whether regular or special and wehter or not the legislator is actually attending a session. Subject matter of motion c/o Jalosjos That he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense. Mandate of sovereign will • Main argument of Jalosjos • The sovereign of the First District of Zamboanga del Norte chose him as their representative in Congress. • Having been duly elected, he has the duty to perform the functions of a Congressman. This is a covenant with his constituents made possible by the intervention by the State. • It cannot be defeated by insuperable procedural restraints arising from pending criminal cases. Held & Ratio • Jalosjos is not allowed to pursue undertakings as Congressman while in detention. • When the voters of his district elected him,, they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. • All persons similarly situated shall be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. The organs of government may not show nay undue favoritism or hostility to any person. • Privilege has to be granted by law, not inferred from the duties of a position. The higher the rank, the greater is the requirement of obedience rather than exemption. • The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. • Election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. • For offenses punishable by more than six (6) years imprisonment, there was no immunity from arrest. Punishment for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua. • There was strong evidence of guilt. • To prevent Jalosjos from fleeing again. • Equal protection laws. 23

Jimenez v Cabangbang

Three branches of the government Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications Speech and debate clause

Fast facts Jimenez files a case to recover damages from a publication of a letter by Cabangbang, a member of the HOR, which is allegedly libelous. Letter of Cabangbang • Open letter to the President of the Philippines dated November 14, 1968 while Congress was not in session • Published in several newspapers • Exposé on three plans, with Jimenez as one of the “masterminds” of the plans. Plans consisted of: (1) grooming, propagandizing, and glamorizing Jesus Vargas, Secretary of National Defense, to be the next RP President; (2) coup d’etat, and; (3) a modification of 1. • ”It is of course possible that the officers mentioned above are unwitting tools of the plan of which they may have absolutely no knowledge.” Referring to the “masterminds”.

Jimenez v Cabangbang

Contention c/o Cabangbang The letter is not libelous since it is within his privilege as a member of the HOR that for any speech or debate made, the same shall not be questioned in any other place (Article 6, Section 15 of 1935). Held & Ratio • It being an open letter, it does not fall under the speech and debate privileges of a member of the HOR. Furthermore, it was issued when the HOR was not in session. He was neither in the performance of his official duty in that he had published his open letter in newspapers, as he did that as a regular citizen and not as a legislator. • The letter is not libelous. The statements contained therein are not sufficiently derogatory as to award damages to the petitioner.

Page 8 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title 24

25

Adaza v Pacana

Puyat v De Guzman

Related Topics Three branches of the government Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications Disqualifications

Three branches of the government Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications Disqualifications

Notes

Digest Link

One cannot hold multiple positions. (Rationale: one cannot have two (2) or multiple loyalties) Adaza was the governor. He then ran as assemblyman. In public office, one who runs for another position, once he takes his oath in the new position, his old position is deemed to have automatically been forfeited. Fast facts Puyat group, composed of some of the directors who were elected on May 14, 1979, contests the appearance in intervention of Fernandez, an assemblyman, in the SEC case on the ground that assemblymen cannot appear as counsel for SEC (Section 11, Article 8 of 1973). Timeline

May 14, 1979: election for the 11 directors of International Pipe Industries (IPI), private corporation. Puyat group would be in control of management.

May 15, 1979: Fernandez purchased 10 shares of stock of IPI. May 25, 1979: Acero group, composed of the remaining directors elected on May 14, filed a case in the SEC questioning the May 14 election and alleging that the votes thereat were not properly counted.

May 30, 1979: deed of sale of shares of stock owned by Fernandez was notarized. May 25-31, 1979: Puyat group contends that Fernandez orally entered his appearance as counsel for

Acero group. Puyat group contested this as it is in violation of the Constitution (…that no assemblyman could appear as counsel before any administrative body…).

May 31, 1979: Fernandez filed an urgent motion for intervention in the SEC case as the owner of the newly purchased 10 shares.

May 31, 1979: SEC case was called. July 17, 1979: SEC granted intervention. Contention c/o Fernandez (resp) He was not the counsel for the Acero group as he only intervened as a separate party who had legal interest in the matter being a shareholder of IPI. Held & Ratio • Fernandez cannot intervene in the SEC case. • He has circumvented the Constitution by hiding behind his supposed legal interest as a shareholder. This is evident in his actions where he bought the shares right after the elections and filed an intervention immediately thereafter. One cannot do indirectly something that he can also not do directly. Subterfuge. • Moreover, he had already expressed his intention to appear as counsel for Acero which would have materialized had it not for the objection of the Puyat group. Realizing the validity of the objection, he decided, instead, to “intervene” as a shareholder. • The “intervention” was merely an afterthought to enable him to appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity. 26

Abbas v SET

Three branches of the government Congress Electoral tribunals

Fast facts Petitioners filed a case in the Senate Electoral Tribunal against 22 newly elected senators (May 11, 1987 elections). Senate Electoral Tribunal • Composed of three (3) SC justices and six (6) senators • Sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members Motion for disqualification Disqualification of the senators from being members of the tribunal who was going to adjudicate the case of mass disqualification (22 senators). Contention c/o petitioners • Senators cannot be members of the tribunal because, especially in this case, they are interested parties • Considerations of public policy and norms of fair play and due process call for the disqualification of the senators as members of the tribunal • In response to this, there should be an amendment in the tribunal’s rules wherein its procedure should permit the contest to be decided by only three (3) members of the Tribunals (effectively, only the SC justices) Held & Ratio • It is proper for the senators to remain as member of the tribunal • The Constitution clearly provides for the composition of the tribunal and definition of its jurisdiction and powers • The reason why the Constitution provides such a composition (justices and senators) is that the duty and authority in adjudicating in election contests lies in both the legislative and the judiciary • As to the ratio of the members (3:6), the Constitution implies that the legislative component in the tribunal, evidenced in its majority membership, is indispensable. Pulling them out of the tribunal would result to violating the spirit and intent of the Constitution • Inasmuch as substitutions will take place, the substitutes of the senators will still be questioned. If everyone who becomes a member of such tribunal and for every instance their membership questioned, the tribunal will be hampered in performing its duty. In effect, the tribunal will have abandoned its duty • The tribunal should not be prevented from discharging their duty, especially when the duty is expressly granted by the Constitution.

27

Bondoc v Pineda

Three branches of the government Congress Electoral tribunals

Fast facts Pineda (LDP) and Bondoc (NP) are rivals in the congressional race in the 4th district of Pampanga. Initially, Pineda was proclaimed the winner of the elections, having won with a margin of 3,300 votes. Bondoc protested Pineda’s proclamation with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).

Bondoc v Pineda

HRET Chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein (Section 17, Article 6 of 1987) Decision of HRET Bondoc is the winner of the contest, with a margin of, after reexaminations, 107 votes. Timeline

March 4, 1991: Congressman Camasura, member of the HRET which decided on the Bondoc case,

revealed to Congressman Cojuangco, secretary-general of LDP, not only the final tally in the case, but also that he voted for Bondoc to honor a gentleman’s agreement among the HRET members. This stirred a buzz in the LDP that led to the plotting of neutralizing the “Bondoc majority” in the HRET.

Page 9 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

March 5, 1991: HRET issued a Notice of Promulgation of Decision on March 14, 1991 re: Bondoc case. March 13, 1991: Eve of promulgation of decision. Cojuangco informed Camasura that he, together with

Congressman Bautista, has been expelled by the LDP as early as February 28, 1991, for allegedly pirating LDP members to join a rival party. Cojuangco also informed Mitra, speaker of the house, about the ouster of the two (2) congressmen and had him note the implications of the ouster as to the prerequisite “party” in the membership to the HRET.

March 14, 1991: Tribunal Chairman Armeurfina Herrera received a letter, dated March 13, 1991, from the Secretary-General of the HOR, informing the tribunal that it has decided to withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of Camasura to the HRET. Such will affect the results of the Bondoc case where Camasura was the “conscience vote”…the decision lacks the concurrence of five (5) members as required by the rules of the tribunal. Promulgation of the decision of Bondoc case was cancelled. SC justices who were members of the tribunal, being of the opinion that the turn of events undermines the independence of the tribunal and derails the orderly adjudication of electoral cases, they have asked the Chief Justice to relieve them of membership from the tribunal. Remaining senator-members of the tribunal, other than Camasura, expressed similar sentiments.

March 19, 1991: SC ordered the justices to return to their posts in the tribunal. March 21, 1991: Bondoc seeks reversal of HOR decision of disqualifying Camasura from the HRET. Pineda files for the dismissal of Bondoc’s petition. Contentions c/o Pineda • Congress has the sole authority to nominate and elect, from its members, delegates to the HRET • Vis-à-vis, it also has the sole power to remove any of them whenever the ratio in the representation of the political parties in the House or Senate is materially changed • The term of the member of the tribunal could not be co-extensive with his legislative term, for if a member of the tribunal suddenly changes political party affiliation and is not removed from the tribunal, the constitutional provision mandating representation based on political affiliation would be completely nullified. • Expulsion of Camasura from LDP is “purely a party affair” and is thus a political question beyond the reach of the judiciary Proportional representation in the tribunal • Provided for by the 1987 constitution • 3 members chosen by the House or Senate upon nomination of the party having the largest number of votes; 3 members from the party having the second largest number of votes; 3 SC justices • Premised that no party or coalition of parties can dominate the legislative component in the tribunal • Justices hold the deciding votes in that it is impossible for any political party to control the voting in the tribunal Suanes v Chief Accountant of the Senate • Purpose of the establishment of the Electoral Commission was to provide an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of contest to legislative office, devoid of partisan consideration, and to transfer to that tribunal all the powers previously exercised by the legislature in matters of pertaining to contested elections of its members • Power of Electoral Commission: intended to be unimpaired as if it had remained in the legislature Held & Ratio • HOR’s resolution disqualifying Camasura from the tribunal is null and void • The disqualification was made in view of what happened between Camasura and the LDP. It is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of the HRET to be the sole judge of the election contest between Bondoc and Pineda • Disloyalty to a party is not a valid cause for termination of membership in the HRET. As a member of the tribunal, one must discharge his duties with the concept of nonpartisanship. Therefore, it is not a valid ground for expulsion. • The disqualification is violative of Camasura’s right to security of tenure. A member cannot be expelled unless there be some just cause. • The disqualification was clearly made to interfere with the tribunal’s disposition in the Bondoc case and deprive Bondoc of the fruits of the favorable decision • The tribunal should not be hampered to perform its duty specifically granted by the Constitution by reasons which have nothing to do with the merits before it. • The tribunal was created to function as a nonpartisan court although 2/3 of its members are politicians. • It is established by the constitution and prevailing jurisprudence that the tribunal must be independent from any other body, especially the legislature • Cited Suanes and Angara cases 28

Codilla v De Venecia

Three branches of the government Congress Electoral tribunals

Who has jurisdiction? COMELEC has jurisdiction, not HRET, because there was still a pending Motion for Reconsideration. There was no valid proclamation. Case was still in the COMELEC. Having been not duly proclaimed, there was no case.

29

Pimentel v HRET

Three branches of the government Congress Electoral tribunals

Fast facts Petitioners pray that the respondents be ordered to “alter, reorganize, reconstitute, and reconfigure” the composition of the HRET and the CA to include party-list representatives. Contention c/o petitioners • Present composition of the HRET violates the Constitution in that it lacks representation from party-list representatives • Locus standi requirement, as a procedural technicality, should be brushed aside because of the issue’s transcendental importance Held & Ratio Petition dismissed. The Constitution expressly grants to the HOR the prerogative, within defined limits, to choose from among its district and party-list representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted to the house in the HRET. Even assuming that party-list representatives comprise a sufficient number and have agreed to designate common nominees to the HRET, their primary recourse rests with the HOR, not with the SC. It is only if the HOR fails to comply with the constitutional directives on proportional representation can this court have jurisdiction over the matter. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the SC cannot interfere with the HOR’s decision in choosing

Page 10 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

its representatives in the HRET. Case lacks merit in that party-list representatives were not deprived of their participation in the election of members of the HRET. They simply refused to participate therein. In this light, petitioners’ locus standi is not recognized, since they do not have personal stake in the matter. Case is academic as the composition of the house has already been changed as a result of the May 14, 2001 elections. 30

Daza v Singson

Three branches of the government Congress Commission on Appointments

Commission on Appointments CA confirms the nominees of the President. Composed of twelve (12) senators, twelve (12) congressmen. Appointees include heads of agencies, ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, AFP (naval captain up), members of the judiciary and bar council. Legislators, in the CA, are still acting as such, unlike in electoral tribunals where they lose their personality as legislators. Contention c/o Daza (pet) He cannot be removed from CA There is nothing Daza can do.

31

Coseteng v Mitra

Three branches of the government Congress Commission on Appointments

32

Guingona v Gonzales

Three branches of the government Congress Commission on Appointments

33

Tio v Videogram Regulatory Board

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills As to titles of bills

Constitutional requirements as to title of bills 1. every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof (Article 6, Section 26) 2. titles should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation (Governemnt v Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation, Cordero v Cabatuando) 3. titles should be given practical rather than technical construction (Public Service Co., Recktenwald)

Tio v VRB

PD No. 1987 An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board, with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry Rationale of decree (preambular clauses) 1. distribution of videogram materials has greatly prejudiced the operations of movie houses and theaters, decreasing government revenues by an estimated P450M per annum 2. earnings of videogram established are not taxed appropriately, depriving the government P180M per annum 3. unregulated videogram activities have affected the movie industry, which has resulted to the closing down of more than 1,200 movie houses and theaters 4. to ensure national economic recovery, the government has to create conducive to growh and development of all business industries (regulation of such) 5. proper taxes should be imposed to these establishments to alleviate financial condition of the industry; taxation being the primary rationale of regulating videogram activities 6. rampant and unregulated showing of obscene videgram is immoral especially as regards the youth 7. civic-minded citizens and groups have called for remedial measures to curb these blatant malpractices which have flaunted our censorship and copyright laws 8. in view of the aforementioned, bold emergency measures must be adopted with dispatch Contention c/o petitioner Decree is unconstitutional because Section 10 of said decree, which imposes a tax of 30% on the gross receipts payable to the local government, is a RIDER and the same is not related to the subject matter of the decree. Rider Said to have occurred when provisions of the bill do not relate with the subject matter as contemplated by the title of the bill. These provisions are inserted and are made to “ride” on the bill, such that when the bill is made into law, the provision which is not directly connected with it is nonetheless made into law. Held & Ratio Decree is constitutional. Section 10 is allied and related to, and is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the general object of the decree, which is the regulation of the video industry through the VRB. The express purpose of the decree to include taxation is evident in the preambular clauses (5). Those preambles explain the motives of the lawmaker in presenting the measure. The title of the decree is comprehensive enough to include in its subject matter all the provisions contained in the decree. 34

Lidasan v COMELEC

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills As to titles of bills

RA 4790 An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur. Said act involved the formation of the new municipality that will be composed of the following barrios: Barrios from Lanao del Sur Kapatagan Losain Bongabong Matimos Aipang Magolatung Dagowan Bakikis Bungabung

Barrios from Cotabato (P-Parang, B-Buldon) Togaig (B) Sarakan (P) Madalum (B) Kat-bo (P) Bayanga (P) Digakapan (P) Langkong (P) Magabo (P) Tabangao (P) Tiongko (P) Colodan (P) Kabamakawan (P)

Lidasan v COMELEC

Bara Lidasan Petitioner. Resident and taxpayer of the detached portion of Parang, Cotabato. Limitations of constitutional provision for the titles of bills 1. Congress is to refrain from conglomeration, under one statute, of heterogenous subjects 2. the title is to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and those concerned of the import of the single subject thereof Meeting the constitutional requirements: What is sufficient • title serves the purpose of the constitutional demand that it informs the legislators, the persons interested in the subject matter, and the public, of the nature, scope, and consequences of the proposed law and operation • title leads legislators to inquire into the body of the bill, study and discuss the same, take appropriate action thereon, and, thus, prevent surprise or fraud upon them Guidelines

Page 11 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

• sufficiency of the title is established when it is determined WON the same is misleading • technical accuracy is not essential • title is considered bad if: (1) uncertain that the average person will not be sufficiently informed of the subject matter (2) misleading; title pertains to one subject, when, in truth, something else is embraced by its contents • substance over form • constitutional requirement of giving notice to all persons interested, should be kept in mind by the court Held & Ratio RA 4790 is unconstitutional—null and void. Title failed to give notice to all persons interested (i.e. legislators, residents, etc.). It is misleading in that it gives the impression that the barrios which will form the new municipality are all from Lanao del Sur. The transfer of barrios from Cotabato to Lanao constitutes a change in the boundaries, a significant detail that the title failed to communicate. 35

De la Cruz v Paras

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills As to titles of bills

RA 938 An Act granting municipal or city boards and councils the power to regulate the establishment, maintenance and operation of certain places of amusement within their respective territorial jurisdictions May 21, 1954 The first section of the Act was amended to include not merely the power to regulate, but likewise, “prohibit…” The title remained the same.

De la Cruz v Paras

Contention c/o petitioners To construe RA 938 as allowing the prohibition of the operation of night clubs would give rise to a constitutional question. Held & Ratio Statute is invalid. The title did not reflect the true subject matter of the Act. The power granted remains that of a regulation, not prohibition. 36

Tobias v Abalos

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills As to titles of bills

Fast facts Before the enactment of RA 7675, San Juan and Mandaluyong formed a single legislative district, electing just one set of local government officials, including congressman. RA 7675 An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as City of Mandaluyong Article 8, Section 49 of RA Mandaluyong City shall have its won legislative district. San Juan, being part of the old legislative district to which Mandaluyong formerly belonged to, shall remain in the old legislative district. In the next elections, two separate representatives shall be voted for. Contention c/o petitioners The inclusion of Section 49 in the subject law resulted in the latter embracing two principal subjects: (1) the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city and; (2) the division of the congressional district of San Juan/Mandaluyong into two separate districts. The second one does not relate with the subject matter of the RA as expressed in its title. Held & Ratio Abovementioned contention is devoid of merit. The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is a natural logical consequence of its conversion into a highly urbanized city. The title, presumptively, necessarily includes and contemplates the subject and treated under Section 49.

37

Demetria v Alba

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws Appropriation laws

PD No. 1177 Budget reform decree of 1977. Authorizes the President to transfer any fund that has already been appropriated for a given department to another program, both of which are included in the General Appropriations Act.

Demetria v Alba

Constitutional requirement No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. The President…may be authorized to do augment any item in the general appropriations law…from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. (Article 6, Section 25[5]) Held & Ratio as to complying PD 1177 is unconstitutional. It fails to specify the objectives and purposes for which the proposed transfer of funds are to be made. The prohibition to transfer an appropriation for one item to another was explicit and categorical under the 1973 Constitution. The purpose and conditions for which funds may be transferred may be specified. The PD makes no regard as to WON the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same are to be taken or WON the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made. 38

Guingona v Caraque

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws Appropriation laws

Fast facts The 1990 budget consists, among others, an automatic appropriation of P98.4 billion, P86.8 of which goes to debt service. The automatic appropriation is authorized by PD 81, PD 1177, and PD 1967. Contention c/o petitioners Abovementioned PDs are contrary to the constitution (Article 6, Section 24 of 1987). Bills have to be approved by the president, then a law must be passed by Congress to authorize said automatic appropriation.

Guingona v Caraque

Held & Ratio Aforementioned contention is untenable. The framers of the constitution did not intend to say that longestablished statutes, like PDs, have to go again through the legislative process of bill passage in order to be properly enacted. The Constitution simply implies that what has to go through a process is if there are any bills relating with the appropriation measures still to be passed by Congress. 39

Tolentino v Secretary of Finance

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws Appropriation laws

RA 7716 An Act Restructuring the Value-Added Tax (Vat) System, Widening its Tax Base and Enhancing its Administration, and for These Purposes Amending and Repealing the Relevant Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended, and For Other Purposes.

Procedure for the passage of bills

Timeline

July 22, 1992 – August 31, 1993: Several bills were introduced in the HOR seeking to amend certain

Tolentino v Sec of Finance

provisions in the NIRC related with VAT. All were referred to House Committee on Ways and Means which recommended for approval a substitute measure, H.No. 11197 (bill).

November 6 and 17, 1993: The bill was considered on a second reading and was subsequently approved by the HOR after the third and final reading.

November 23, 1993: Bill was sent to the Senate. Transmitted to Senate Committee on Ways and Means.

Page 12 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

February 7, 1994: Senate committee submitted its report and recommended the approval of S.No. 1630. It was stated that the bill was being submitted "in substitution of Senate Bill No. 1129, taking into consideration P. S. Res. No. 734 and H. B. No. 11197."

February 8, 1994: Senate began its consideration of S.No. 1630. March 22, 1994: President marked the bill as “urgent”. March 24, 1994: Bill was approved on second and third readings. April 1994: Bills H.11197 and S.1630 were referred to a conference committee which recommended that "House Bill No. 11197, in consolidation with Senate Bill No. 1630, be approved in accordance with the attached copy of the bill as reconciled and approved by the conferees.”

April 27, 1994: HOR approved conference committee bill. May 2, 1994: Senate approved conference committee bill. May 5, 1994: Bill was presented to the president who then signed it. Contentions c/o petitioners • As to complying with appropriation laws. In enacting RA 7716, Congress violated the Constitution because (Article 6, Section 24) although H. No. 11197 had originated in the HOR, it was not passed by the Senate but was simply consolidated with the Senate version (S. No. 1630) in the Conference Committee to produce the bill which the President signed into law. Since it did not originate from the HOR, it has not become a law. • As to complying with procedures for the passage of bills. S. No. 1630 did not pass three readings on separate days as required by the Constitution because the second and third readings were done on the same day. The Constitution, in relation with the presidential certification, only dispenses with the “printing” requirement, not the “readings” requirement. Also, there is no viable emergency that would justify the certification of the bill. Initiative in proposing revenue bills What is important to consider in understanding the Constitutional requirement expressed in Article 6, Section 24 is not the procedural factor of having a bill exclusive originate from the HOR, but the concept of initiative. The initiative for filing revenue, tariff, or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the HOR under the premise that congressmen, as they come from particular districts, are more abreast to the needs and problems of their locality. Senators take on the role of taking on the same problem in a more macro or national perspective. The views of both these chambers are considered in enacting such laws. Presidential certification When the president certifies to the urgency of the immediate enactment of a certain bill, certain procedural requirements may be dispensed with (Article 6, Section 26[2]). Held & Ratio

As to complying with appropriation laws. S.1630 has complied with the constitution (Article 6, Section 24).

It is not the law, but the revenue bill itself, which the Constitution requires to originate from the HOR. It is important to note this because a House bill, upon undergoing the legislative process, may undergo changes, even when it is passed to the Senate. Now if the argument shall flourish, that a revenue statute—not only the bill which the process began with—must be the same House, it is also saying that the Senate has no power to concur with, let alone propose, amendments to the bill. It implies that the HOR is superior to the Senate. Legislative power is vested by the Constitution not just to one particular chamber but both HOR and Senate. The Senate can propose its own version even with respect to bills which are required by the Constitution to originate in the House.

As to complying with procedures for the passage of bills. S.1630 has likewise complied with procedural requirements as set forth in the constitution. The Senate accepted the president’s certification and dispensed with the requirement of readings on separate days. The issue WON there is an actual emergency to be the basis of the certification is subject to a different standard of review.

40

Philconsa v Enriquez

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws Appropriation laws Procedure for the passage of bills

RA 7663 • An Act Appropriating Funds for the Operation of the Government of the Philippines from January One to December Thirty One, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Four, and for Other Purposes. • Originated from House bill No. 10900. • It imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of appropriations in the proposed budget previously submitted by the President. It also authorized members of Congress to propose and identify projects in “pork barrels” allotted to them and to realign their respective operating budgets. • December 30, 1993: the president signed the bill into law after the same had been presented to him by the Congress for consideration and approval.

Philconsa v Enriquez

Presidential Veto on House bill 10900 • Veto power is part of the legislative process • The president exercised his veto power upon certain provisions in the bill before signing the same into law. • No step was taken in either House of Congress to override the vetoes. • The provision that was vetoed was with regard to first special provision (Appropriations for debt service) in GAA of 1994. Special provision vetoed The appropriation shall be used for the payment of debt. Any payment that will exceed the appropriation shall be subject to approval. The veto was justified by the president by saying that the debt reduction scheme contained in the context of said provision cannot be validly done through GAA of 1994. it must be addressed by revising our debt policy by way of innovative and comprehensive debt reduction programs. The provision is also attempting to repeal PD 1177 (Foreign Borrowing Act) and EO 292, and to reverse the debt payment policy. Gonzales v Macaraig • The president may veto a single provision without also vetoing the whole bill (item-veto) • Any provision in the general appropriations bill shall relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein…(Article 6, Section 25[2]). • Any provision which does not relate to any item of appropriation, is considered “an inappropriate provision” which can be vetoed separately from an item • Repeal of laws (i.e. PD 1177, EO 292) shall be done in a separate law not in the appropriations law Realignment of allocation of operating expenses From the original amount of allocation for operating expenses, a member of Congress may re-allocate a portion of said allocation to any other expense category so long as the limits are still complied with. Contentions c/o petitioners • Only the Senate President and the Speaker, not the individual members of their respective Houses, is authorized by the Constitution to realign appropriations (Article 6, Section 25[5]). • The president cannot veto the Special Provision on the appropriation for debt service without vetoing the entire amount of P86.3 Million.

Page 13 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

Held & Ratio

As to complying with Appropriation laws. Members of the Congress have authority insofar as determining

the necessity of the appropriations. They are in a position to determine such as they are knowledgeable of any deficiencies in other items of their operating expenses that need augmentation. However, the Senate President and the Speaker of the HOR, whichever the case may be, shall approve the realignment.

As to complying with procedures for the passage of bills. Vetos are sustained except for the veto of the

special provision on debt service specifying that the fund therein appropriated “shall be used for payment of the principal and interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness” prohibiting the use of the said funds “to pay for the liabilities of the Central Bank Board of Liquidators” and veto of the second paragraph of Special Provision No.2 of the item of appropriation for the DPWH, and Special provision No. 12 o nthe purchase of medicine by the AFP. 41

Lung Center v QC

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws Tax laws

Fast facts Petitioner is a non-stock and non-profit entity established by virtue of PD No. 1823. It owns a parcel of land, in the center of it is the Lung Center building proper. Significant portions of the remaining space on the land are leased to business enterprises for which the entity earns rental income. The ground floor of the building proper is likewise leased to concessionaires and doctors (clinics). The City Assessor (resp) assessed real property taxes on the entity’s land and building.

Lung Center v QC

Contention c/o Lung Center It is a charitable institution. Therefore, it is exempt from these real taxes. They find their argument on Article 6, Section 28[3] of the Constitution. Article 6, Section 28[3] With regard to charitable institutions, as defined therein, all land, building, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for charitable purposes shall be exempt from tax. CJ Davide: The exemption does not relate with the institution itself, but, rather, with its real property as regards real property tax. PD 1823, Section 2 Exemptions that the entity could avail of include: (1) from income and gift taxes, (2) from the payment of charges and fees with respect to equipment purchases made by, or for the Lung Center. There is no explicit provision on its alleged exemption from real property taxes, if any. Held & Ratio The Lung Center is a valid charitable institution as created by PD 1823. However, it is only exempted from taxes insofar as the statute that created it so indicates. There is no mention in PD 1823 of its exemption form real property taxes. It is subject to taxation of its real property, specifically those which are leased to commercial establishments, as these are not in pursuance of the entity’s purposes as a charitable institution. 42

Tan v Del Rosario

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws Tax laws

Fast facts Petitioners, in their capacity as taxpayers, are assailing the constitutionality of RA 7496 or the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme (SNIT) and the validity of RR 2-93, as to Section 6. RA 7496 An Act Adopting the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme For The Self-Employed and Professionals Engaged In The Practice of Their Profession, Amending Sections 21 and 29 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended. The amendments include a revised graduated income tax table on the taxes to be imposed on self-employed and professionals engaged in the practice of profession and an enumeration of deductions from gross income to arrive at the gross taxable income. Contentions c/o petitioners • RA 7496 violates the following constitutional provisions: (1) Article 6, Section 26[1]; (2) Article 6, Section 28[1]… As to the sufficiency of the title of the bill. The bill has suddenly adopted the gross income method of taxation, which is not contemplated in the title thereof. As to complying with constitutional provisions on tax. It attempts to tax single proprietorships and professionals differently from the manner it imposes the tax on corporations and partnerships. • It is in excess of the respondents’ rule-making authority to apply SNIT general professional partnerships (GPP) GPPs GPPs are tax-exempt partnerships under the tax code. The income it generates is taxable not as income of the entity but as income of its individual partners with such income is distributed to them. Gross income v net income taxation Gross income taxation – imposed on the amount of gross revenues without applying deductions from said amount (top line amount) Net income taxation – imposed on the net income, which is gross revenues less allowable deductions (bottom line amount) Income tax of individuals v income tax of corporations Individuals – rates with which income tax shall be computed varies depending on the tax base or the income of the individual, where higher the income, higher the tax rate (progressive tax system) Corporations – single rate system, regardless of tax base Held & Ratio

As to the sufficiency of the title of the bill. House bill 34314, from which the RA originated, was simply

entitled Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme for the Self-Employed and Professionals Engaged in the Practice of their Profession. It is true that this title does not contemplate any shift to gross income taxation, as opposed to net income taxation. However there is simply no need for the title to do so because there is actually no change in the method of taxation. As provided for in Section 29, deductions are enumerated, to be incorporated in the computation of the net taxable income of the individual. The number of items considered as allowable deductions may have been reduced, but the incorporation of the same in tax computation is nonetheless results in net income taxation. The objectives of the constitution as to the title of the bill have been sufficiently met.

As to complying with constitutional provisions on taxation. The RA uniform and equitable as to the

imposition of taxes. It has been an established rule in taxation that single proprietorships and professionals shall be imposed with income taxes. There is indeed a shift from the conventional to a scheduler approach in the income taxation of individuals. Nonetheless, this does not imply that certain taxpayers are prejudiced by this change. Thus, it cannot be said that the amendatory RA contravenes uniformity and equity.

Page 14 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title 43

Garcia v Executive Secretary

Related Topics

Notes

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws Tax laws

EO 475 Reduces rate of additional duty on all imported articles from 9% to 5% ad valorem, except in the cases of crude oil and other oil products which continued to be subject to the additional duty of 9% ad valorem. EO 478 Levies, in addition to the 9% ad valorem tax, a specific tax per liter or barrel of imported crude oil and other oil products.

Digest Link

Garcia v Executive Secretary

Contention c/o Garcia • Abovementioned EO’s violate the constitution (Article 6, Section 24). The Constitution vests the authority to enact revenue bills in Congress, the President may not assume such power of issuing EO 475 and 478 which are in the nature of revenue-generating measures. • Levying of customs duties only results in the “protection of local industries” • President’s action is driven purely to generate revenue for the government. Tariff and Customs Code Section 104. All tariff sections, chapters, headings, and subheadings under Section 104 of PD 34 and all subsequent EOs and PDs shall form part of the Code. Section 401 of the Code shall be subject to periodic investigation and may be revised by the president upon recommendation of the NEDA.

Section 401. Flexibility clause. The president has the power to increase or decrease rates of import duties within set limits, including power to modify the form of duty. The power is premised in the theory that modification will be done in the interest of national economy, general welfare and/or national security.

Held & Ratio The President can enact revenue bills in view of Article 6, Section 28[2] of the Constitution. Said provision explicitly provides the constitutional permission to Congress to authorize the president “subject to such limitations and restrictions a [Congress] may impose” to fix “within specific limits” “tariff rates…and other duties…” Moreover, the president is empowered to do so by virtue of the Tariff and Customs Code. Levying of customs duties is done to give much opportunity to local manufactures (i.e. local oil producers) as against dominant importers or restrict the importation of products that are exclusively produced by foreign countries. 44

John Hay PAC v Lim

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws Tax laws

Presidential Proclamation No. 420 • Creating and Designating a Portion of the Area Covered by the Former Camp John Hay as the John Hay Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Pursuant to RA 7227 • Section 3 of this proclamation provides that CJH SEZ shall be granted the incentives provided for in RA 7227

John Hay PAC v Lim

RA 7227 Provides that no taxes, local and national shall be imposed within the Subic Special Economic Zone (Section 12). Only a 5% cumulative Gross income tax shall be imposed on entities within the SEZ. Contention c/o petitioners Proclamation 420 insofar as it grants tax exemptions that RA 7227 supposedly extends to it, is invalid and illegal. Nowhere in RA 7227 is there a grant of tax exemption to SEZs yet to be established in base areas, unlike the grant under Section 12 thereof of tax exemption and investment incentives to the therein established Subic SEZ. Thus, it contravenes Article 6, Section 28[4] of the constitution where it is provided that “no law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress.” Contentions c/o respondents RA 7227, although merely mentioning Subic SEZ, still embodies the legislative intent of exempting all US Military Bases that will be converted to SEZs from taxes. Held & Ratio Proclamation 420 is void. It is the legislature, unless limited by a provision of the state constitution, that has full power to exempt any person or entity from taxation, its power to exempt being as broad as its power to tax. The Constitution may itself provide for specific tax exemptions, or local governments may pass ordinances on exemption only from local taxes. It is clear that RA 7227 only grants the exemptions to Subic SEZ. If it were the intention of the legislature to grant CJH SEZ the same exemptions and incentives it grants to Subic SEZ, it would have so expressly provided in RA 7227. Therefore, the proclamation has no basis for the exemptions is extends to CJH. The proclamation circumvents the Constitution’s imposition that a law granting any tax exemption must have the concurrence of a majority of all the member of Congress. Personal note (highly disputable, not at all conclusive): I think the petitioners were assailing the proclamation as to the validity of its exemptions granted to CJH, as mirrored by the exemptions provided for in RA 7227, because the local government of Baguio will experience a reduction in tax revenues because when CJH is exempted, it cannot be made to pay local taxes such as property taxes. I say this because some of the petitioners are local government officials of Baguio and that their locus standi is based on their interest as such. Moreover, RA 7227 expressly requires the concurrence of local government units to the creation of SEZs. 45

Fabian v Desierto

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws Appellate jurisdiction of SC

Section 27, RA 6770

Effectivity and finality of decisions—all provisionary orders at the Office of the Ombudsman are

immediately effective and executory…in all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the SC by filing a petition for certiorari within 10 days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Contention c/o Fabian (pet) Section 27 of RA 6770, which authorizes an appeal by certiorari t to the SC of the certain adjudications of the Office of the Ombudsman, does not violate the Constitution. Section 27 does not increase the SC’s appellate jurisdiction since, by providing that the mode of appeal shall be by petition for certiorari under Rule 45, then what may be raised therein are only questions of law of which SC already has jurisdiction. Held & Ratio Section 27 of RA 6770 is invalid. It cannot validly authorize any appeal to the SC from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. It violates Article 6, Section 30 of the Constitution because it illegally increased the jurisdiction of the SC. The Revised Rules of Civil Procedure preclude appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the SC via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The present Rule 45 only allows appeals to be brought to the SC through a petition for review on certiorari from judgments and final orders of the lower courts. On the other hand, when the appeal is origination from judgments and final orders of a quasi-judicial agency, the action must be brought to the CA.

46

Tolentino v Secretary of Finance

See 39.

Page 15 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title 47

Philconsa v Enriquez

48

Gonzales v Macaraig

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

See 40.

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Procedure for the passage of bills

Gonzales v Macaraig 49

Bengzon v Drilon

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Procedure for the passage of bills

Bengzon v Drilon 50

Miller v Mardo

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Procedure for the passage of bills

Miller v Mardo 51

Tañada v Tuvera

52

Arnault v Nazareno

See midterm reviewer (23).

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Legislative investigation

Arnault v Nazareno 53

Armault v Balagtas

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Legislative investigation

54

Bengzon v Sen. Blue Ribbon Committee

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Legislative investigation

Bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon Committe 55

Senate v Ermita

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Legislative investigation

Senate v Ermita 56

Sabio v Gordon

Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Legislative investigation

57

Pimentel v Joint Com

Three branches of the government Congress Other powers

58

Republic v Sandiganbayan

Three branches of the government Executive department The president Privileges and salary

Fast facts The Republic, through the PCGG, filed an action for forfeiture of the Marcos Swiss accounts on the grounds set forth by RA 1379.

Prima facie presumption – unlawfully acquired property

A property is unlawfully acquired, hence subject to forfeiture, if its amount or value is manifestly disproportionate to the official salary and other lawful income of the public officer who owns it.

Republic v Sandiganbayan

RA 1379 An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any Property To Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing For the Procedure Therefor. Sections 2 and 3 of this RA provides, among others, the prima facie presumption (as stated above), and that if the respondent fails to prove that the property in question is actually lawfully acquired, it shall be deemed forfeited in favor of the State. Establishment of facts according to RA 1379 1. Ownership by the public officer of money or property acquired during his incumbency, whether it be in his name or otherwise 2. The extent to which the amount of that money or property exceeds, i.e., is grossly disproportionate to, the legitimate income of the public officer Significant financial data Issues (WON) • The petitioner was able to prove its case for forfeiture in accordance with Sections 2 and 3 of RA 1379 • The respondents have interest and ownership over the funds in question Held & Ratio • Yes. It was sufficiently established that the funds were unlawfully acquired. The Republic established that the former first couple were, at the time, public officials; that they acquired a considerable amount of assets during their incumbency as public officials and; that there was apparent disproportion between the first couple’s legitimate income ($304,000) and the total amount of the funds ($356M). The prima facie presumption was not overturned. The burden of overturning the same rests upon the respondent. Marcoses did not present any evidence that the funds were legally acquired, as opposed to

Page 16 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

the presumption that it is ill-gotten. • Yes. The Marcoses, through their separate testimonies, admitted judicially that they have interest in the funds. Such testimonies are admissible as evidence against them.

59

Estrada v Arroyo

Three branches of the government Executive department The president Succession In case of temporary disability

Hearsay evidence Probative force depends, in whole or in part, on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it. Angara diary Contains direct statements of Estrada which can be categorized as admissions of a party: his proposal for a snap presidential election where he would not be a candidate; his statement that he only wanted the 5day period promised by Angelo Reyes; his statements that he would leave by Monday if the second envelope would be opened and that he was “very tired” and “didn’t want any more of this”. Admitted as evidence in the case at bar. Article 7, Section 11 In the event that the President expresses through written correspondence to the Senate President and the House Speaker that he is unable to fulfill the duties of his position, the Vice-President shall assume said position, in the absence of the Presidents retraction of his prior statement or that he is already able to fulfill his duties. The Vice-president can also make the same assumption of the presidency in the event that a Majority of the Cabinet Members likewise expresses through written correspondence to the Senate president and House Speaker that the President is unable to fulfill his duties. If the President submits a retraction of his prior declaration of inability to assume the presidency, he shall reassume said position. However, should a majority of the Cabinet members still submit an express statement that the President is nonetheless unfit to assume his position, Congress, by 2/3 vote of separate houses, shall resolve this disagreement. Contentions c/o Estrada • Congress is at fault in disregarding his argument of temporary inability to govern and President-onleave • The acts of Congress, declaring his unfitness to assume the presidency, is post facto in that it occurred after Arroyo had already assumed the presidency • A declaration of presidential incapacity cannot be implied Held & Ratio There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the declaration of Congress should come before the assumption of the Vice-President of the presidency. Special consideration should be given to the fact that the events which led to the resignation of Estrada happened at express speed and culminated on a Saturday. Congress was not in session then and had no reasonable opportunity to make such a declaration a priori on Estrada’s letter claiming inability to govern.

60

CLU v Executive Secretary

Three branches of the government Executive department The president Exceptions to prohibition from holding another office Secretary of Justice as member of Judicial and Bar Council

Fast facts Petitions are assailing the constitutionality of EO 284. EO No. 284 It adds exceptions to Article 7, Section 13 of the Constitution. It allows officials of the Executive Department, in addition to their primary position, to hold not more than two (2) positions in the government and government corporations… Contention c/o petitioners EO 284 runs counter to the provisions of Article 7, Section 13. Any exception to this provision shall be expressly stated in another Constitutional provision. Article 7, Section 13 Executive Department shall not hold any other office or employment during their tenure, directly or indirectly practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract… Article 9-B, Section 7 Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision… Issue Does the prohibition in Article 7, Section 13 insofar as Cabinet Members, their deputies or assistants are concerned, admit of the broad exceptions made for appointive officials in general under Article 9-B, Section 7? Held & Ratio • No. EO 284 is null and void. • On intent of framers. A Constitutional provision must be interpreted with reference to the intention underlying it. It has been held that the Court in construing a provision should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history of the times, and the condition and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. The provisions were constructed with the distinct objective of disallowing abuse of multiple positions held by an individual from the executive, including appointees, as it was prevalent in the Marcos regime. • On simultaneous interpretation of Sections 13 and 9B. Article 9B is meant to lay down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and employees, while Article 7, Section 13 is meant to be the exception applicable only to the President, VP, Cabinet members, their deputies and assistants. This is illustrative of a stricter mandate as regards the President. • On taking the provisions of the constitution together, not separately. Interpreting Article 9-B as broad exceptions as directly referred from Article 7, Section 13 would render certain Constitutional provisions inoperative. No one section is allowed to defeat another. • On valid references made by Article 7, Section 13. The phrase “unless otherwise provided in this Constitution” must be given a literal interpretation to refer only to those particular instances cited in the Constitution itself: Article 7, Section 3; Article 7, Section 7 and; Article 8, Section 8.

Ex officio

Article 7, Section 13 does not cover those positions held in ex officio capacity. Ex officio refers to an authority that forms part as one of the duties that stems from a position and not a separate position. Only the additional functions and duties “required,” as opposed to “allowed,” by the primary functions may be considered as not constituting “any other office.”

61

Cruz v COA

Three branches of the government Executive department The president Exceptions to prohibition from holding another office Secretary of Justice as member of Judicial and Bar Council

Not only prohibition from holding multiple positions, but also prohibition from receiving double compensation.

Page 17 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title 62

NAC v COA

Related Topics Three branches of the government Executive department The president Exceptions to prohibition from holding another office Secretary of Justice as member of Judicial and Bar Council

Notes

Digest Link

Fast facts Order to disallow the payment of honoraria to the representatives of petitioner’s ex officio members, per COA memorandum 97-038. AO No. 2 The new Implementing Rules and Regulations of Proclamation 347. The NAC shall be composed of, among others, three (3) ex officio members. These members may designate their representatives. Said representatives shall be entitled to per diems and other benefits. Contention c/o NAC COA erred in applying the Memorandum to the NAC ex officio members’ representatives who were all appointive officials with ranks below that of the Assistant Secretary. The payment of honoraria to the representatives should be allowed. Held & Ratio There is no legal basis to grant per diems, allowances, and other benefits to the representatives of ex officio members. COA Memorandum 97-038 specifically disallows any payment of any form of additional compensation to cabinet secretaries, their deputies and assistants, or their representatives, in violation of the rule on multiple positions, and to effect the refund of any and all such additional…citing CLU case. Alternates cannot receive honoraria because the agent cannot have a better right than his principal, the ex officio member. If the ex officio member is barred from receiving additional compensation, so is his representative likewise restricted.

63

Marcos v Manglapus MEMORY AID: Marcos’ return home

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Executive power

Fast facts The wish of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines, after having been exiled, has been barred by President Corazon Aquino, in exercise of her executive power. Article 7, Section 1 The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.

Marcos v Manglapus

Article 7, Sections 14-23 Powers (executive) expressly provided for the Constitution. Issue (WON) The President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines Held & Ratio Yes. The President, who has been expressly granted powers by the Constitution, also has implied residual powers inherent to the grant of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. The President has powers other than those expressly stated in the Constitution. She did not act in grave abuse of discretion. As long as there is some factual basis for the president’s decision, there is no grave abuse of discretion. Notes in class • Exclusive list of powers – there are inherent limitations. Executive power is what the president can/cannot do, restricted by the doctrine of separation of powers. • Supreme court proved that Aquino can prevent Marcos from returning by defining and establishing that the president has residual powers Residual powers Inherent powers exercised by the President in accordance with her position, derived from the oath she has taken during her inauguration. All powers that is not under judicial or legislative. There should be no gap in the exercise of power. Myers v US The federal executive could exercise power from sources not enumerated, so long as not forbidden by the Constitutional text. Not all the powers granted in the Constitution are themselves exhausted by internal enumeration, so that, within a sphere properly regarded as one of “executive” power, authority is implied unless there or elsewhere expressly limited. 64

DENR v DENR Region 12 Employees

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Executive power

Fast facts A Memorandum was issued by the Regional Director of the DENR pursuant to AO 99-14. The Memorandum set forth for the immediate transfer of the DENR XII Regional offices from Cotabato City to Koronadal, South Cotabato. DENR employees that were going to be affected by the enactment of the said Memorandum filed a petition to enjoin such enactment. Contention c/o DENR employees The power to transfer the Regional Office of the DENR is executive in nature. Thus, the Regional director/office of DENR cannot enact said Memorandum as it is beyond its powers. Qualified political agency All executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department…demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the President are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed, and promulgated in the regular course of business, are presumptively the acts of the President. Application of qualified political agency doctrine. The power of the President to reorganize the National Government may validly be delegated to his cabinet members exercising control over a particular executive department… Held & Ratio The DENR Secretary has the authority to reorganize the DENR, by virtue of the qualified political agency doctrine.

65

Blaquera v Alcala

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Control of executive departments

66

Hutchison Ports v SBMA

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Control of executive departments

67

NEA v COA

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Control of executive departments

Blaquera v Alcala President has the ultimate say to which company the contract shall be awarded.

Page 18 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title 68

Pimentel v Aguirre

Related Topics Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president General supervision over local governments/autonomous regions

Notes

Digest Link

AO 372 • Requires LGUs to reduce expenditures by 25% • Withholds a portion of internal revenue allotments Contention c/o pet President cannot control LGU, he can only supervise. Principle of local autonomy. AO 372 is violative of this doctrine. Contention c/o resp The act is not “control” as it merely “directs” LGUs to identify measures that will reduce their expenditures. Control v supervision Supervision – overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties Control – power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter Taule v Santos The President wields no more authority than that of checking whether LGUs or their officials were performing their duties as provided by the fundamental law and by statutes. He cannot intervene with LGUs, so long as they act within the scope of their authority. Fiscal autonomy LGUs have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national taxes released by the government, as well as the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their won priorities. Local autonomy v interference Local autonomy does not bar any kid of intervention including supervision. Requisites for valid intervention by the President 1. An unmanaged public sector deficit of the government 2. Consultations with the presiding officers of the Senate and the HOR and the presidents of the various local leagues 3. The corresponding recommendation of the secretaries of the DOF, DILG, and DBM. Held & Ratio The President has the authority to supervise. He can supervise as it is advisory in nature.

69

Bermudez v Torres

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Power of appointment

Fast facts Bermudez is assailing the appointment of Conrado Quiaoit to the post of Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac, a position he previously held. Contention c/o Bermudez (pet) The appointment of Quiaoit is disputable since it lacks the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice, as prescribed under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. The recommendation being highly indispensible in the appointment of a prosecutor. Revised administrative code, Book 4, Title 3, Chapter 2, Section 9 Provides that all provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. San Juan v CSC Cited by the petitioners. Speaks of the appointment of the Provincial Budget Officer, which is subject to the approval of the Minister of Budget and Management upon the recommendation of the local chief executive concerned. This is in line with EO 112. This, the petitioners claim, is the same as the case at bar. Power of appointment Discretionary (Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila v Intermediate Appellate Court, Flores v Drilon). The one who holds the power has the option which he may exercise freely according to his judgment, deciding for himself who is the best qualified individual for a given post. The President is the head of the government whose authority includes the power of control ever all executive departments and bureaus. The President has the power to assume directly the functions of an executive department, bureau, or office. Held & Ratio The recommendation of the Secretary of Justice, as regards the appointment of the Provincial Chief Prosecutor, dispensable. It is to be construed as mere advise, exhortation, or indorsement, which is essentially persuasive in character and not binding or obligatory upon the party to whom it is made. Only advisory in nature. The President, as the head of the executive department, may do away with this particular action because appointment is discretionary and he has the power to control the department. The doctrine in San Juan v CSC cannot be used in the case at bar because, in that case, the DBM had local autonomy. That being, the President shared its power on appointment with the DBM. In the present case however, there is no sharing of power.

70

Sarmiento v Mison

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Power of appointment

Fast facts Petitioners question the constitutionality of the appointment of Salvador Mison as par t of the Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs. Contention c/o pet Guillermo Carague, Secretary of the Department of Budget, cannot effect disbursements in the payment of the salaries of Mison, with the latter being appointed without the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments, hence unconstitutional. 4 groups a President may appoint 1. Heads of executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers 2. All other officers of the government, the appointments of whom are not specifically provided for by the law 3. Those whom the President may be authorized to appoint 4. Officers lower in rank

Sarmiento III v Mison

1935 v 1975 Constitutions: on role of CA 1935 – virtually all appointments of the President had to be subjected to the confirmation and approval of the CA. This cultivated a culture of “horse-trading” and other corrupt practices. 1975 – power of appointments was vested solely in the President, with the role of the President being reduced to nearly nothing. This posed the danger of abuse on the part of the President as his prerogatives will not be subjected to checks and balances the CA provides. Held & Ratio Mison was duly appointed to the Bureau of Customs and, thus, entitled to receive salaries and perform his duties as such. The appointment can be made only with the approval of the President alone, that is, even

Page 19 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

without submitting the nomination for the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. The court reviewed the transcripts of the 1986 Constitutional Convention and it revealed that the framers intentionally left out the last three (3) groups of individuals the President may appoint from the CA confirmation requirement. Only those encompassed by the first group shall be subjected for confirmation, as a requirement for strict compliance. The 1987 Constitution intentionally made these distinctions as a “middle-ground” between the provision of 1935 and 1975 constitutional provisions on the same matter. Moreover, the 1987 constitution, based on the transcripts of the constitutional convention, intentionally left out “heads of bureaus” from the first group. 71

Concepcion-Bautista v Salonga

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Power of appointment

Fast facts Bautista was appointed by President Aquino, from an ad interim appointment, as the Chairperson of the CHR. She took her oath and assumed the duties and responsibilities of the position. Her appointment was questioned by the CA because she was appointed without having the CA confirm her nomination.

Bautista v Salonga

Contention c/o Bautista CA does not have the jurisdiction to question her appointment. Held & Ratio The position of Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is not among the positions mentioned in the first group of presidential appointees, as enumerated in Article 7, Section 16, appointments to which are to be made with the confirmation of the CA. The appointment of the Chairman of the CHR is not specifically provided in the constitution itself, unlike the Chairpersons and members of the COMELEC, CSC, and COA, whose appointments are expressly vested by the constitution in the President, with the consent of the CA. The President shall validly appoint the Chairman of the CHR, without the confirmation of the CA, pursuant to the abovementioned constitutional provision. 72

Calderon v Carale

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Power of appointment

Fast facts President Aquino appointed the Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC representing the public workers and employers sectors. It was stated that the appointees may qualify and assume the duties and responsibilities of their appointed seats. RA 6715 Section 13 Provides that the Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC shall be appointed by the President upon the confirmation of CA. Doctrines from jurisprudence (Mison, Quintos-Deles, and Concepcion-Bautista) 1. Confirmation from CA is only required when the appointee involved in the first group, including those officers whose appointments are expressly vested by the constitution itself in the President (i.e. sectoral reps to Congress and members of the CSC, etc.) 2. Confirmation is not required when the President appoints other government officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law or those officers whom he may be authorized by law to appoint 3. Confirmation is not required in the appointment of those from inferior offices, because it shall be construed as those officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law Issue WON Congress may, by law, require confirmation by the CA of appointments extended by the President to government officers additional to those expressly mentioned in Article 7, Section 16 fo the Constitution whose appointments require confirmation from the CA Contention c/o pet Section 13 of RA 6715 must mandatorily be complied with. Held & Ratio

As to the constitutionality of the appointments. The President is within her authority to appoint the

Chairman and Commissioners of the NLRC without the prior confirmation of the CA. The aforementioned officials are not included in the first group of appointees, as clearly explained in Mison.

As to the constitutionality of RA 6715. Unconstitutional. It amends legislation by adding to the first group

provided in Article 7, Section 16, additional officers which it requires to be appointed by the President upon the confirmation of the CA. It appears that the legislature is not happy with the lessened role of the CA in the appointment process, as compared to the 1935 Constitution. 73

Manalo v Sistoza

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Power of appointment

Fast facts The case at bar deals with the validity of the disbursements made as payment of the salaries of officers of the PNP. These officers were appointed by President Aquino without subjecting such appointments to the confirmation of the CA. Contention c/o Pet There is illegal disbursement of public funds because the payments of salaries and other emoluments were made to PNP officers who were not validly appointed, as their appointment lacks confirmation from the CA. There must be compliance with RA 6975. RA 6975 Empowers the CA to confirm the appointments of public officials, particularly those who are from the rank of superintendent and higher. Held & Ratio

As to the validity of the disbursements. Valid. The payments were made to legitimate officers of the PNP

whose appointments were valid as well. The appointments of the respondents to their respective positions are not contemplated within the first group—that which requires the confirmation by the CA. Officers from the PNP differ from those from the AFP. If those from the latter require the confirmation by the CA in order for them to finally be appointed by the President, those from the PNP need not abide the same process.

As to the Constitutionality of RA 6975. Sections 26 and 31 of the RA are unconstitutional as they provide additional legislation. Congress cannot, by law, expand the power of confirmation of the CA and require confirmation of appointments of other government officials not mentioned in the first group provided in Article 7, Section 16. 74

Soriano v Lista

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Power of appointment

Fast facts The case at bar deals with the appointment of the respondents to different positions in the Philippine Coast Guard and their subsequent assumption of office. Contention c/o Soriano III The aforementioned appointments are illegal and unconstitutional for failure to undergo the confirmation process in the CA. The respondents should be prohibited from discharging their duties and functions as such officers of the PCG. Moreover, they should not be entitled to receiving salaries for their positions. Held & Ratio The appointments are legal and constitutional. The enumeration of appointments subject to confirmation by the CA under Article 7, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution is exclusive. The clause “officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain” refers to military officers alone. Moreover, the PCG is under DOTC not the Philippine Navy. Since it is not included in the first group, the appointments of

Page 20 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

the respondents need not be subjected for confirmation by the CA.

75

Pimentel v Ermita

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Power of appointment

Nature of power to appoint Executive in nature. The legislature may not interfere with the exercise of this executive power except in those instances when the Constitution expressly allows it. Limitations on the executive power to appoint are construed strictly against the legislature. Legislature can only prescribe the qualification for the position. It cannot appoint someone in the guise that it is prescribing qualifications to that office.

Pimentel v Ermita

Contentions c/o petitioners • PGMA should not have appointed respondents as acting secretaries because only an Undersecretary can be designated as an acting secretary • No appointments can be made while congress is in session, whether regular or acting, without the approval of the Commission on Appointments Held & Ratio Appointments are constitutional. The President has the right to appoint the person of her choice into a vacant position temporarily before there is a permanent replacement because the department secretary is her alter ego. An alter ego calls for the trust and confidence of the president. Being such, it entails for the personal choice of the president, not simply the assumption of the undersecretary of the vacant position. The law expressly allows the president to make such acting appointment. Section 17, Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of EO 292 states that “the president may temporarily designate an officer already in the government service or any other competent person to perform the functions of an office in the executive branch.” 76

In Re: Valenzuela

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Power of appointment

77

De Rama v CA

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Power of appointment

78

Matibag v Benipayo

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Power of appointment

79

Larin v Executive Secretary

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Power of appointment

80

Barrioquinto v Fernandez

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Executive clemency

Filing of vacancies important but there is no showing in the case at bar of any compelling reason to justify the making of appointments during the period of the ban.

In Re: Valenzuela

Matibag v Benipayo

Fast facts Petitioners were charged with murder. Jimenez learned of Proclamation No. 8, which grants amnesty in favor of all persons who may be charged with a felony in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy or against personas aiding the war efforts of the enemy, and committed during December 8, 1941, to the date when each particular area of the country where the offense was actually committed was liberated from enemy control and occupation. Petitioners submitted their case to the Guerilla Amnesty Commission (GAC), presided by the respondents. The GAC remanded the same to the CFI without rendering a decision on WON the petitioners are entitled to amnesty. Petitioners filed an action to mandate the GAC to proceed with presiding over their application for amnesty.

Barrioquinto v Fernandez

Contention c/o Resp In order for GAC to be able to preside over such cases, it must be held that the petitioners (those who have applied for amnesty) have admitted having committed the offense. As such, petitioners cannot invoke the benefits of amnesty. Proclamation No. 8 • Amnesty Proclamation of September 7, 1946. • Issued by the then president Manuel Roxas, with concurrence of Congress • Provides among others that in order to determine if the persons who have been charged or will be charged, come within the terms of this proclamation, the GAC shall examine the facts and circumstances surrounding each case and, if necessary, conduct summary hearings of witnesses both for the complainant and the accused Pardon v Amnesty Pardon Granted by

President

Public v Private Granted to whom

Private. Courts take no cognizance. Individual

When

After conviction by final judgment

Effects

Crime subsists, but is forgiven. Criminal liability extinguished. Civil liability subsists. Does not restore rights to hold office or of suffrage, unless expressly provided in the terms of the pardon (accessory penalties). Principal penalty is extinguished. Prospective.

Amnesty President; through proclamation; with the concurrence of Congress Public. Courts take judicial notice. Classes of acts/crimes (pursuant to political objectives) who may be guilty of political offenses, committed by a particular group of people Anytime. Before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution, sometimes also after conviction Crime is considered not to have been committed at all. Retroactive.

Held & Ratio It is not necessary for the petitioners to admit having committed the felony charged to them in order for the GAC to preside over their case and ultimately qualify for amnesty. It is enough that the evidence shows that the offense committed is a felony that qualifies for amnesty as provided in the proclamation. The performance of the summary hearings by the GAC is not dependent on the confession on the part of the accused. The GAC must conduct these hearings regardless of confession, in pursuance of the

Page 21 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

provisions of the proclamation. Amnesty is a public act which the courts, including the GAC, must take cognizance of. Dissenting opinion (Tuason) Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime. If the accused has not confessed to it, he has no use for amnesty. It is the burden of the accused to prove the existence of certain conditions provided in the amnesty proclamation. The accused has to confess the allegations against him before he is allowed to set out such facts as, if true, would defeat the action. Unless the defendant admits at the investigation or hearing having committed the offense and states that he did it in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy and not for purely personal motive, it is impossible for the court or GAC to verify the motive for the commission of the offense, because only the accused could explain his belief and intention or the motive of committing the offense. Rebuttal to dissenting Motive for the commission of a crime is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or after the commission of the offense. The testimony of a defendant at the time of arraignment or the hearing of the case about said motive, cannot generally be considered and relied on. Such a testimony may simply be an afterthought or have underlying interest. 81

Cristobal v Labrador

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Executive clemency

Fast facts Teofilo Santos (resp) was found guilty of estafa and sentenced to six (6) months of arresto mayor and the accessories provided by law. He was imprisoned from March 14 to August 18, 1932 and paid the corresponding costs of trial. Despite his conviction and imprisonment, Santos continued to be a registered voter in his municipality and was, between 1934 and 1937, the municipal president of that municipality. He applied for pardon in view of a newly promulgated Election Code which “disqualifies the respondent from voting for having been ‘declared by final judgment guilty of any crime against property.’” He was granted pardon on December 24, 1939. Miguel Cristobal (pet) filed an action on November 16, 1940 to exclude the name of Santos from the list of voters in their municipality. Effect of pardon granted to Santos Restored his “full civil and political rights, except that with respect to the right to hold public office or employment, he will be eligible for appointment only to positions which are clerical or manual in nature and involving no money or property responsibility.” Contention c/o Cristobal The pardon extended by the President to Santos did not restore the full enjoyment of respondent’s political rights because: (a) the pardoning power of the President does not apply to legislative prohibitions; (b) the pardoning power here would amount to an unlawful exercise by the President of a legislative function, and; (c) the respondent having served his sentence and all the accessory penalties imposed by law, there was nothing to pardon. Limitations on pardoning power of the Chief Executive 1. That the power be exercised after conviction 2. That such power does not extend to cases of impeachment Nature and extent of absolute pardon It not only blots out the crime committed, but removes all disabilities resulting from the conviction. When granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, it removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction. Held & Ratio Santos cannot be excluded for the list of voters since he has already been granted pardon. While the pardon in the case at bar is conditional in the sense that it limits the positions he may occupy or be eligible for, it is still absolute insofar as it “restores the respondent to full civil and political rights.” Right of suffrage is expressly restored by the pardon. The pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by legislative action

82

Pelobello v Palatino

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Executive clemency

Fast facts Florencio Pelobello (pet) filed an action against Gregorio Palatino (resp) questioning the validity of the latter’s election as mayor of their municipality. Palatino was convicted in 1912 and sentenced to imprisonment. He was granted conditional pardon by the Governor-General in 1915 and absolute pardon by the President in 1940. Effect of pardon granted to Palatino Restored him to the enjoyment of full civil and political rights. Contention c/o Pelobello Palatino was disqualified from voting and being voted upon for the contested municipal office, such disqualification not having been removed by plenary action. Issue (WON) The absolute pardon had the effect of removing the disqualification incident to criminal conviction under the Election Code, the pardon having been granted after the election but before the date fixed by law for assuming office. Held & Ratio The absolute pardon granted to Palatino restored him his right of suffrage, barring him from disqualification from voting and being voted for. Citing Cristobal v Labrador. Given that the pardon was extended after the election but before the actual proclamation, it gives the impression that the rationale behind its extension is to specifically allow Palatino to assume his office, as he was clearly the winner of the popular vote.

83

In Re: Lontok

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Executive clemency

Fast facts Case at bar relates with an action for disbarment of Marcelino Lontok from his office of lawyer in the Philippines. He was convicted of bigamy and has since been pardoned by the Governor-General. Effects of pardon granted to Lontok The sentence in his case, involving a conviction of Bigamy and promulgated on February 27, 1918, is remitted, on the condition that he shall not again be guilty of any misconduct. Nature and extent of pardon re: disbarment of attorney A pardon operates to wipe out the conviction and is a bar to any proceeding for the disbarment of the attorney after the pardon has been granted. But where the proceedings to disbar an attorney are founded on the professional misconduct involved in a transaction which has culminated in a conviction of felony, it has been held that while the effect of the pardon is to relieve him of the penal consequences of his act, he may still be subjected to disbarment proceedings, inasmuch as the criminal acts may nevertheless constitute proof that the attorney does not possess a good moral character and is not a fit or proper person to retain his license to practice law. Held & Ratio Lontok cannot be disbarred on the ground of his previous conviction, as the same has already been pardoned. The pardon extended to him is not conditional. However, if he should be guilty again of any misconduct, the condition of his pardon is then violated, and he would then become subject to disbarment.

Page 22 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

84

Torres v Gonzales

Related Topics

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Executive clemency

Notes

Digest Link

Timeline

Prior to 1979: Wilfredo Torres was convicted of estafa and sentenced to imprisonment. April 18, 1979: The President granted him a conditional pardon. He accepted the pardon and was released from confinement.

Torres v Gonzales

May 21, 1986: The Board of Pardons and Parole recommended to the President the cancellation of the

conditional pardon granted to Torres. Evidence obtained revealed that petitioner had been charged with estafa and convicted of sedition, which were pending and on appeal, respectively. Included in the evidence was a letter enumerating the charges that have been brought against Torres over the past 20 years.

September 8, 1986: President cancelled the conditional pardon. October 10, 1986: Issuance of an Order of Arrest and recommitment against Torres. Effect of pardon granted to Torres Otherwise absolute if not for the condition that he would “not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. Should this condition be violated, he will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law.” Contention c/o Torres The Order of Arrest and Recommitment issued against him is invalid. He did not violate his conditional pardon since he has not been convicted by final judgment of the many charges filed against him. Issue (WON) Conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court is necessary before the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the balance of his original sentence. Tesoro v Director of Prisons If the accused accepted the pardon/parole granted to him, he, in effect, also agreed that the GovernorGeneral’s determination (rather than that of the regular courts of law) that he had breached one of the conditions of his parole by committing a felony (adultery) while he was conditionally at liberty, was binding and conclusive upon him. Revised Administrative Code, Section 64(i) Empowered the Governor-General to grant to convicted prisoners reprieves…and to authorize the arrest and recommitment of those who have violated the terms of his pardon. Determined by the president. Sales v Director of Prisons It is in the prerogative of the Governor-General if he will determine if the conditions of the pardon were breached. It is as if the convict, with full competency to bind himself in the premises, had expressly contracted and agreed, that, whenever the governor should conclude that he had violated the conditions of his parole, an executive order for his arrest and remandment to prison should at once issue, and be conclusive upon him. Espuelas v Provincial Warden of Bohol The power to determine WON the convict has violated the conditions of his pardon is vested upon the President. To no other department of the Government has such power been entrusted. Summary of doctrines from jurisprudence • The grant and subsequent cancellation of a conditional pardon are executive acts, not subject to judicial scrutiny • The determination of WON a breach of condition has occurred may be a purely executive act not subject to judicial scrutiny; but it may also be a judicial act consisting of trial for and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon under Article 159 of the RPC. • If the President chooses to proceed under Section 64 of the Revised Administrative Code, conviction by final judgment is not necessary, in order to successfully cancel the conditional pardon granted to a convict. Held & Ratio The Order of Arrest and Recommitment against Torres is valid. Conviction by final judgment is not a condition precedent to the revocation of conditional pardon granted. The President opted to proceed with Section 64 of the Revised Administrative Code, an action which is not subject to judicial scrutiny. Based on jurisprudence. Dissenting (Cruz) Conviction by final judgment is necessary in determination of WON there has been breach of the terms of the pardon. The accused is still presumed innocent until he is convicted by final judgment. It is an encroachment of judicial functions where it is in the prerogative of the President to determine himself WON there has been a violation of the terms of the pardon and revoke the pardon altogether. 85

IBP v Zamora MEMORY AID: Case on deployment of marines in the malls

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Commander-in-chief

Authority of Commander-in-Chief 1. To maintain peace and order 2. To call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion 3. To suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus 4. To place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law

Digest, IBP v Zamora

Presidential mandate • Deployment of PNP and Marines in malls • Joint visibility patrols • For crime prevention and suppression Nature of authority of Commander-in-Chief When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. There is textual commitment under the Constitution to bestow on the President full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to determine the necessity for the exercise of such power. Thus, should not be subjected to judicial review. Role of Congress (limitation) It may revoke a presidential proclamation or suspension on the matter and the Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof. Calling out of armed forces v Martial Law To validly proclaim Martial Law, the following must be present: 1. There must be an actual invasion or rebellion

Page 23 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

2. Public safety must require it These conditions need not be present in order to validly call out the armed forces. It is enough that there is sufficient basis to support such a proclamation. Contention c/o IBP • Civilian character of PNP has been violated • REBUTTAL: Test: as long as PNP is still in charge, not the marines – perfectly okay. Basis of Chief Executive in calling out marines President has sufficient basis. The recent bombings and Mindanao insurgencies, danger in society is prevalent. Calling out of the marines is simply in pursuance of the prevention and suppression of lawless violence. An actual invasion, as IBP contends, does not have to occur because all it (calling out of marines) requires is that there is a necessity in doing so. Held & Ratio It is constitutional. Not a single citizen has complained that his rights have been violated as a result of the deployment of the marines. The malls (e.g. SM) have not even complained when they are actually the ones who have standing on this issue (because the marines are deployed in their establishments). The President has enough basis to set out such a proclamation.

86

Sanlakas v Executive Secretary MEMORY AID: Oakwood Mutiny

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Commander-in-chief

Notes in class There is history in engaging military in law enforcement. Proclamation No. 427 & General Order No. 4 July 27, 2003: State of rebellion. AFP to suppress the rebellion. Proclamation No. 435 August 1, 2003: Declaration that the state of rebellion has ceased to exist. Nature of authority of Commander-in-Chief Article 7 Section 18 grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a “sequence” of “graduated powers.” From the most to the least benign.

Sanlakas v Executive Secretary

Held & Ratio The mere declaration of a state of rebellion cannot diminish or violate constitutionality of protected rights. The warrantless arrest feared by the petitioners is not exclusive to the declaration of state of rebellion. A person may be subjected to a warrantless arrest for the crime of rebellion WON there is such a proclamation, so long as the requisites for a valid warrantless arrest are present. It is reiterated, based on IBP v Zamora, that the calling out power does not necessitate the same conditions required for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the proclamation of martial law. The only criterion to adjudge the calling out is that whenever such calling out becomes necessary. 87

88

Aquino, Jr. v Enrile

Olaguer v MC No. 34

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Commander-in-chief

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Commander-in-chief

Aquino, Jr. v Ponce-Enrile Timeline

December 24, 1979: Petitioners were arrested and detained. May 30, 1980: Petitioners were charged for subversion (For violation of PD 885, the revised antisubversion law)

Olaguer v MC 34

June 30, 1980: Respondent Chief-of-Staff of AFP created the respondent commission Military Commission No. 34 to try the criminal case filed against the petitioners.

July 30, 1980: Amended charge sheet was filed enumerating the following offenses: (1) unlawful

possession of explosives and incendiary devices; (2) conspiracy to assassinate President and Mrs. Marcos; (3) conspiracy to assassinate cabinet members Enrile, Tatad, and Paterno; (4) conspiracy to assassinate Tangco, Roño, and Corpus; (5) arson of nine buildings; (6) attempted murder of Perez, Valencia, and Generals Espino and Ver; and (7)conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, and inciting to rebellion.

August 19, 1980: Petitioners filed action enjoining respondent MC from proceeding with the trial of their case.

January 17, 1981: President Marcos lifted Martial Law (Proclamation No. 2045). This proclamation revoked General Order No. 8 (creating military tribunals) and provided that “military tribunals created pursuant thereto are hereby dissolved upon final determination of cases pending therein which may not be transferred to the civil courts without irreparable prejudice…” December 4, 1984: Pending resolution on the petition, the MC passed sentence convicting the petitioners and imposed upon them the penalty of death by electrocution.

February 14, 1985: Petitioners file action in SC seeking to enjoin the MC from taking any further action on the case against them, and from implementing the judgment of conviction rendered by the MC because the same is null and void.

Feburary 1986: President Aquino assumed office. Issue (WON) A military tribunal has jurisdiction to try civilians while the civil courts are open and functioning. Aquino, Jr. v MC 2 Held that the MC has been lawfully constituted and validly vested with jurisdiction to hear the cases against civilians. Prompt and effective trial and punishment of offenders have been considered as necessary in a state of martial law, as a mere power of detention may be wholly inadequate for the exigency, martial law creates an exception to the general rule of exclusive subjection to the civil jurisdiction, and renders offenses against the laws of war, as well as those of a civil character, triable by military tribunals. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process. Military tribunals Pertain to the Executive Department and are simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by the legislature for the President as Commander-in-Chief to aid him in properly commanding the army and any and enforcing discipline therein, and utilized under his orders or those of his authorized military representatives. Held & Ratio • As long as the civil courts in the land are open and functioning, military tribunals will never have jurisdiction over civilians. • The power of interpreting laws is a function of the judiciary. It is not the function of the executive, through military authorities. To take cognizance of such a jurisdiction will be a violation of the constitutional right to due process of the civilian.

Page 24 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

• Martial Law has already been lifted. The authority that was once vested in the MCs are already revoked and obsolete. • If those cases pending in the MCs are transferred to the civil courts, there will be no double jeopardy because an indispensable element of double jeopardy is that the first tribunal which tried the case must be of competent jurisdiction. • Article 7, Section 18: Martial shall in no way suspend the functioning of the civil courts nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction to military courts 89

Navales v Abaya

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Commander-in-chief

Main Issue (WON) The General Court-Martial has jurisdiction to conduct the court-martial proceedings involving several junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP charged with violations in connection with the Oakwood Mutiny. Commitment Order August 2, 2003 • Issued by Chief of Staff of AFP, General Abaya • Directed the Major Service Commanders and the Chief of ISAFP to take custodial responsibility of all the military personnel involved in the mutiny Contention c/o Navales The Court-Martial cannot have jurisdiction over the case because the charges are not service-connected. Contention c/o Respondent Charges filed against petitioners are within those provided in RA 7055 as service-connected. RTC Order February 11, 2004 • Declared that all charges before the court-martial against the accused as well as those former accused are not service-connected, but rather absorbed and in furtherance to the alleged crime of coup d’etat. • Prayed for the trial court to, among others, acquire jurisdiction over all the charges file before the military courts in accordance with RA 7055. RA 7055 Provides, among others, that Members of the AFP and other persons subject to military law shall be tried by the proper civil court, EXCEPT when the offense is service-connected, in which case the offense shall be tried by the court-martial. The RA also provides an enumeration of what are considered service-related offenses. Held & Ratio

As to RTC Order. Null and void. The trial court’s declaration was made when the Omnibus Motion had

already been rendered moot and academic with respect to Navales et.al by reason of the dismissal of the charge of coup d’etat against them. Refer to the following timeline:

August 1, 2003: Information was filed with the RTC charging 321 soldiers. September 12, 2003: 243 soldiers filed with the RTC an Omnibus Motion. October 20, 2003: DOJ issued a Resolution finding probable cause for coup d’etat against only 31 of the original 321 soldiers and dismissing the charges against the other 290. November 14, 2003: In its Order, RTC admitted the Amended Information of October 20. February 11, 2004: Issuance of RTC Order, based on the Omnibus Motion filed by the 243 under the Information dated August 1.

Insofar as those whose case against them was dismissed, there was nothing else left to resolve after the Omnibus Motion was considered moot and academic. They were no longer parties to the case, no further relief could be granted to them.

As to the jurisdiction of the Court-Martial. It has jurisdiction. Provided for by RA 7055. Once vested by law on a particular court or body, the jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action cannot be dislodged by any body other than by the legislature through the enactment of a law. The RTC cannot divest jurisdiction validly granted to the Court-Martial over those charges classified as service-connected. The declaration of the RTC that the violations of Articles 63, 64, 67, 96, and 97 of the Articles of War (considered service-connected) are absorbed by the crime of coup d’etat is null and void.

90

Lansang v Garcia

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Commander-in-chief

Proclamation No. 889 • Instituted as a result of the August 21, 1971 Plaza Miranda bombings • Issued on August 23, 1971 • In response to lawless elements that have created a state of lawlessness and disorder affecting public safety and the security of the State • Proclamation of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for the persons detained for the crimes of insurrection and rebellion

Lansang v Garcia

Fast facts On different days subsequent to the proclamation, several individuals (pet) were apprehended and detained by the members of the Constabulary without warrant. These individuals filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus assailing the validity of their warrantless arrest. Contentions c/o Resp • The petitioners had been apprehended and detained “on reasonable belief” that they had “participated in the crime of insurrection or rebellion” • That “their continued detention is justified due to the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Proclamation 889” • That there is “a state of insurrection or rebellion” in the country, and that “public safety and the security of the State required the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus • The President acted on relevant facts gathered through the coordinated efforts of the various intelligence agents of our government • The determination made by the President is “final and conclusive upon the courts and upon all persons” and “partakes of the nature of political questions which cannot be the subject of judicial inquiry • The President of the Philippines has undertaken certain steps to insure that the constitutional rights and privileges of the petitioners remain unimpaired • Opportunities or occasions for abuse by peace officers in the implementation of the proclamation have been greatly minimized, if not completely curtailed, by various safeguards contained in directives issue by proper authority Safeguards 1. No warrantless arrests shall be made, except when caught in the act 2. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus will apply only to those people specified in the proclamation 3. The Chief of Constabulary shall check any abuses made in connection with the suspension of the privilege of the writ 4. EO 333, creating a Presidential Administrative Assistance Committee to hear complaints regarding abuses committed in connection with the implementation of the proclamation Proclamation No. 889-A

Page 25 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

• Amendment to 889 • Apart from adverting to the existence of actual conspiracy and of the intent to rise in arms to overthrow the government, the amendment asserts that the lawless elements “are actually engaged in an armed insurrection and rebellion” to accomplish purpose. • Instead of detaining those who committed crimes in relation with insurrection or rebellion, the proclamation specifies that even overt acts committed by these individuals in furtherance thereof shall also give rise to such suspension Extent of review • Test of arbitrariness • Without just cause • Congress Issue (WON) The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen requiring suspension (of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus) belongs to the President and his decision is final and conclusive upon the courts and upon all other persons. Grounds for the suspension of privilege of the writ 1. there must be “invasion, insurrection, or rebellion or imminent danger thereof 2. “public safety” must require the suspension of the privilege Held & Ratio The President has in his authority the suspension the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The grounds for such suspension are all present.

Existence of first ground. Prevalent Communist activities in the country since the 1920s, with the objective

of incitement to sedition or rebellion. An example is the HMB or the HUKBALAHAP. In latter years, the NPA was established. The NPA adheres to the Maoist concept of the “protracted people’s war” or “war of national liberation.” They have conducted raids, resorted to kidnappings, and taken part in other violent incidents injuring numerous people. Communists believe that force and violence are indispensable to the attainment of their main and ultimate objective, and act in accordance with such belief, although they may disagree on the mains to be used at a given time and a particular place. The NPA is per se proof of the existence of rebellion. 91

In Re: De Villa

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Commander-in-chief

92

David v Arroyo

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Commander-in-chief

State of emergency: seize private and public businesses. GO 5: Unconstitutional. Copied from the declaration of Martial law. No law defining terrorism

93

Constantino v Cuisia

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans

Financing program • Consists of, among others, buyback scheme and bond conversion • Established to managed the country’s external debt through a negotiation-oriented debt strategy involving cooperation and negotiation with foreign creditors • Restructuring of old debt

David v Macapagal-Arroyo

Constantino v Cuisia

Contentions c/o Petitioners • The buyback scheme and debt conversion, as debt-relief contracts entered into pursuant to the Financing Program, is beyond the powers granted to the President. These are neither “loans” or “guarantees”, which are those contracts allowed by the Constitution to be contracted by the President. • The power to contract such transactions cannot be delegated by the President to the respondents. • The Program is made available even to those debts that were fraudulently obtained, thus void. If so, the resulting relief agreements should also be void. The government is guaranteeing loans of private corporations. These were companies owned by Marcos cronies. • Not all loans should be paid for. Some should be ignored, some repudiated. There is no apparent limitation on the President’s power to contract foreign loans. Buyback Scheme where the debtor pays the debt but a lower price, as agreed upon by the parties. Bonds Instruments issued by an organization, in this case the government, at a particular face value. These are, in turn purchased by third parties, usually at a price lower than the face value. Essentially, the issuer needs money so it issues bonds at a discount to attract third parties to purchase the same. The issuer is the debtor; the purchaser becomes the creditor as it awaits the payment of the principal amount of the bond plus interest. The bond is a debt in the point of view of the issuer. It is an investment on the part of the purchaser. Held & Ratio

On bond conversion. President has the authority to use bonds as a relief agreement. The language of the

Constitution is simple and clear as it is broad. It allows the President to contract and guarantee foreign loans. It makes no prohibition on the issuance of certain kinds of loans or distinctions as to which kinds of debt instruments are more onerous than others. RA 245, as amended by PD 142, provides that sovereign bonds may be issued not only to supplement government expenditures but also to provide for the purchase, redemption, or refunding of any obligation, either direct or guaranteed, of the Philippine Government.

On the buyback scheme. President has the authority to use the buyback scheme as a relief agreement. Buyback is a necessary power which springs from the grant of foreign borrowing power. Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges, or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms. The authority of the President to contract debts will be meaningless if he cannot implement the payment for the same. The decision on how the loan is paid lies solely with the executive.

On the delegation of power. The power can be delegated. If the power is vested solely in the President, it is unthinkable that he would perform all the minor and tedious procedures in preparation for incurrence of foreign debt. It is but natural for this task to be delegated. Delegation is also substantiated by the doctrine of qualified political agency (see DENR v DENR Employees). Each head of a department is, and must be, the President’s alter ego in the matters of that department where the President is required by law to exercise authority. However there are just some things the President will never be able to delegate: suspending the writ of habeas corpus and proclaiming Martial Law.

Page 26 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

94

People’s Movement v Manglapus

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Foreign affairs

95

Commission of Customs v Eastern Sea Trading

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Foreign affairs

Notes

Digest Link

International agreements involving political issues or changes in national policy and those involving international agreements of permanent character usually take the form of TREATIES. But the international agreements involving adjustments in detail carrying out well-established national policies and traditions and those involving a more or less temporary character usually take form of executive agreements. Treaties – between 2 states that establishes rights and obligations demandable to and from each state.

96

Go Tek v Deportation Board

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Foreign affairs

Held & Ratio It is an agreement. There is no need for the Congress to ratify it. Fast facts Deportation case. Go Tek (pet), a Chinese man, was arrested in the belief that he was a sector commander and intelligence and record officer of a guerilla unit of the Emergency Intelligence Section, Army of the US. Contention c/o Go Tek The Deportation Board (resp) had no jurisdiction to try the deportation case because the President may deport aliens only on the grounds specified in the law.

Go Tek v Deportation Board

Contention c/o Deportation Board A criminal conviction is not a prerequisite before the State may exercise its right to deport an undesirable alien. The Board is only a fact-finding body whose function is to make a report and recommendation to the President in whom is lodged the exclusive power to deport an alien or dismiss a deportation proceeding. Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board Held that the mere possession of forged checks is not sufficient a ground for the deportation of the alien. There must be conviction for the crime before he is tried for deportation. Issue (WON) The Deportation Board can entertain a deportation proceeding based on a ground which is not specified in section 37 of the Immigration Law and although the alien has not yet been convicted of the offense imputed to him. Held & Ratio • Yes. The Board has jurisdiction even if there has been no final conviction. The President’s power to deport aliens and the investigation of aliens subject to deportation are provided for in the Revised

Administrative Code.

• Under existing law, the deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected by: (1) order of the President, after due investigation, as provided in Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code; (2) the Commissioner of Immigration, upon recommendation of the Board of Commissioners (Qua Chee Gan case) • The State has the inherent power to deport undesirable aliens. The power may be exercised by the President “when he deems such action is necessary for the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation.” When the President, in his discretion, sees that the continued stay of the alien in the country is injurious to public interest, he may deport the alien even in the absence of express law. (Forbes v Chuoco Tiaco and Crossfield) • Conviction is not a requirement to the commencement of the deportation proceedings against an alien. (Tan Tong v Deportation Board) • Exercise of power, President preserving the peace and order Section 69 Revised Administrative code on President’s power to deport An alien may be deported by the President only upon investigation conducted by him or his agents of the ground upon which such action is contemplated. 97

Soliven v Macasiar

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Immunity from suit

Fast facts Maximo Soliven and Luis Beltran (pets) were arrested for the charge of libel. Issue (WON) The President, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners through the filing of the complaint-affidavit. Contention c/o Beltran The reasons which necessitate presidential immunity from suit impose a correlative disability to file suit. If criminal proceedings ensue by virtue of the President’s filing of her complaint-affidavit, she may subsequently have to be a witness for the prosecution, bringing her under the trial court’s jurisdiction. This would in an indirect way defeat her privilege of immunity from suit, as by testifying on the witness stand, she would be exposing herself to possible contempt of court or perjury. Privilege of immunity from suit To assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the President, is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office-holder’s time, also demands undivided attention. Only good during the term of the President. Cannot be used as a shield from criminal proceedings (high-crimes). Held & Ratio • The President may initiate criminal proceedings. Privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by her, the holder of the office; not by any other person in the President’s behalf. • The accused in a criminal case cannot establish as a defense the privilege of immunity of the President to prevent the case from proceeding against the accused. • The President may waive this privilege and submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The decision for waiver is solely upon the President, not any other person. • Issue is premature. There has been no suit filed against the President. Petitioner has been speculating. NOTES IN CLASS: The President can sue, but he cannot be sued within his term. If a public official is sued in his public capacity, a private lawyer cannot represent him. Only the OSC can.

98

Gloria v CA

Three branches of the government Executive department Powers and functions of the president Immunity from suit

Fast facts Bienvenido Icasiano (private resp) was the School Division Superintendent of QC, as appointed by former President Aquino. In 1994, Secretary Gloria (pet) recommended to the President the reassignment of Icasiano to Marikina Institute of Science and Technology (MIST). The President approved the said recommendation. Director Rosas (pet) informed Icasiano of his reassignment. Icasiano asked for the reconsideration of his reassignment. The CA held that the reassignment was violative of Icasiano’s security of tenure, and thus enjoined.

Page 27 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

Contention c/o Pet The petition for prohibition is improper because the same attacks an act of the President, in violation of the doctrine of presidential immunity from suit. Ramos approved the transfer, thus if someone questions the transfer, the act of the President is questioned. Held & Ratio

On the violation of doctrine of presidential immunity from suit. There is no violation of the doctrine. The

petition was clearly filed against Gloria and Rosas, not the President. Even so, the acts of the President may still be questioned and tried in the courts where there is grave abuse of discretion or that the President acted without or in excess of jurisdiction (Executive Secretary, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, etc).

On the violation of the security of tenure. There is violation of security of tenure (Civil Service Laws). The reassignment by Icasiano is indefinite and may be viewed as a demotion or a constructive removal from service. (Bentain v CA) 99

MMDA v Jancom

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Mode of sitting

Fast facts The case at bar relates with an assailment of a waste management contract between the Republic of the Philippines and JANCOM Environmental Corporation. Contentions c/o MMDA • The resort to certiorari was proper • There was no valid contract as it never passed the negotiation stage • The case should be heard by the Court en banc Held & Ratio on cognizance of SC en banc • The case should not be referred to the SC en banc. • The Court en banc is not an Appellate Court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed. • A decision of a Division of the Court is a decision of the Supreme Court. • The division did refer the case en consulta to the Court en banc, suggesting or inquiring if the Court en banc should take over and whether the case should be re-raffled courtwide due to the inhibition of Justice Carpio. The Court en banc, however, declined to take over the case and returned it to the Third Division with instructions that it be re-raffled among the other members of the Division. • Circular 2-89 further pertinently provides that “no motion for reconsideration of the action of the Court en banc declining to take cognizance of a referral by a Division, shall be entertained.”

100

People v Gacott

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Mode of sitting

Fast facts • Eustaquio Gacott (resp) is charged of grave abuse of discretion for erroneously dismissing a case. He was reprimanded a fine of P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law, information of which will be included in his permanent records. • Gacott wants the Court to pass upon his other supplications, arguments, and even his insinuations for that matter. • He asks for his “erroneous” decision to not be included in his permanent records as it would be detrimental to his career. • Gacott somehow suggests that the administrative case against him was unfairly raffled to Justice Bidin in the Third Division Contention c/o Gacott The full court, SC en banc, is the only body which can administratively punish him. The divisions of the SC cannot preside over his case. Held & Ratio Article 8, Section 11 of the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that even divisions can preside over administrative and disciplinary cases of judges. It was never intended that all administrative disciplinary cases should be heard and decided by the whole Court since it would result in an absurdity and inefficiency.

101

Meralco v Pasay Trans Co.

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court No non-judicial work for judges

Fast facts The case at bar relates with a petition of the Manila Electric Company (MEC, pet), requesting the members of the SC, sitting as a board of arbitrators, to fix the terms upon which certain transportation companies shall be permitted to use the Pasig bridge of the MEC and the compensation to be paid to the MEC by such transportation companies. Act NO. 1446, Section 11 Relates with the legal act of the members of the SC, sitting as a board of arbitrators, to act on the petition. Issue Concerns the legal right of the members of the SC, sitting as a board of arbitrators the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act in that capacity. Held & Ratio Act 1446, Section 11 contravenes the maxims which guide the operation of a democratic government constitutionally established, and that it would be improper and illegal for the members of the SC, sitting as a board or arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act on the petition of the MEC. The decisions of the Board of Arbitration shall go through the regular court system (Trial Courts – Court of Appeals – SC). They will be reviewed by the lower courts and will ultimately be reviewed by themselves. The SC cannot sit as members of the Board of Arbitration because it is not within their jurisdiction to decided on cases on purely contractual situations.

102

Garcia v Macaraig

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court No non-judicial work for judges

Fast facts • Administrative charge filed against Judge Catalino Macaraig, Jr. (resp) for alleged dishonesty, violation of his oath of office as judge ... gross incompetence, violation of Republic Act 296 or the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, (particularly) Sections 5, 55 and 58 thereof, committed (allegedly). • Macaraig took his oath as Judge of the CFI of Laguna and San Pablo City on June 29, 1970. It was a newly organized branch which had to establish its operations from scratch. The Municipal Government of Calamba offered to supply the space for the courtroom and offices of the court, , to utilize the financial assistance promised by the Laguna provincial government for the purchase of the necessary supplies and materials and to rely on the national government for the equipment needed by the court (Under Section 190 of the Revised Administrative Code, all these items must be furnished by the provincial government The provincial officials of Laguna, however, informed the respondent that the province was not in a position to do so). • It took so much time for the branch to become established as it experienced difficulties in finding a place to hold its office and finally use the amount appropriated for its expenses Contentions c/o Paz Garcia (pet) • Macaraig has not submitted any monthly reports, certificate of service, period of July 1, 1970 to February 28, 1971 • Macaraig, despite knowing that he has not been fulfilling his duties as judge, still received salaries for the period in question

Page 28 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

Held & Ratio Macaraig is not guilty of dishonesty and gross incompetence. He did not violate his oath of office as judge. During the period in question, he simply could not carry out his duties for the simple reason that he had no sala yet. The respondent took it upon himself to personally work for early action on the part of the corresponding officials in this direction and, in his spare time, made himself available to the Department of Justice to assist the Secretary, what with his vast experience, having worked therein for sixteen years, is, far from being dishonesty, to his credit. In the circumstances, it was certainly not improper that he rendered some kind of service to the government, since he was receiving salaries, while being unable to perform his regular duties as judge without any fault on his part Judicial work encompasses only what is mentioned as judicial power in the Constitution. Judges cannot be appointed to positions in other bodies, unless it is provided by the Constitution or created by the SC. 103

Nitafan v Commission of Internal Revenue

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Salary

1935 v 1973 v 1987 1935 – jurisprudence says that deduction of withholding taxes erodes independence of judiciary, exempt from taxation 1973 – judges are not exempt 1987 – silent WON judges’ salaries are exempt from taxation, the provision of 1973 was specifically deleted Contention c/o Pet Any tax withheld from their emoluments or compensation as judicial officers constitutes a decrease or diminution of their salaries, contrary to the provision of Section 10, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandating that during their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased. The 1987 provision should be interpreted the same way 1935 was interpreted. Held & Ratio • The declared the salaries of members of the Judiciary are not exempt from payment of the income tax and considered such payment as a diminution of their salaries during their continuance in office. The Court hereby reiterates that the salaries of Justices and Judges are properly subject to a general income tax law applicable to all income earners and that the payment of such income tax by Justices and Judges does not fall within the constitutional protection against decrease of their salaries during their continuance in office. • As will be shown hereinafter, 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" in the words of Commissioner Rigos (uniformity of taxation). • The framers actually intended to include an express provision regarding the non-exemption of judges from taxation. They intended to put it in a separate item, but were not able to follow through on that.

104

In Re: Gonzales

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Removal

Fast facts Raul Gonzales forwarded an anonymous letter by “Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court” to Justice Fernan. The letter was addressed to Gonzales referring to charges for disbarment brought by Miguel Cuenco against Justice Fernan and asking “to do something about this.” The action against Fernan was filed in the Tanodbayan. Tanodbayan – special prosecutor like a fiscal; ombudsman. Administrative Case No. 3135 Resolution dated February 1988 entitled “Miguel Cuenco v Honorable Marcelo B. Fernan” in which Resolution, the Court resolved to dismiss the charges made by Cuenco against Fernan for utter lack of merit. The Court resolved to require Cuenco to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for making unfounded serious accusations against Fernan. Important principles of AC 3135

Article 8, Section 7 (1987 Constitution). A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a

Member of the Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer.

Lecaroz v Sandiganbayan. Proscribes the removal from office of the aforementioned constitutional officers by any other method; otherwise, to allow a public officer who maybe removed solely by impeachment to be charged criminally while holding his office with an offense that carries the penalty of removal from office, would be violative of the clear mandate of the fundamental law. Impeachment first, before criminal and other actions. There is fundamental procedural requirement that

must be observed before such liability may be determined and enforced. The Court is not saying that a Member of the SC is absolutely immune from disbarment and criminal actions against him. It is just that, this member must first be removed from office via impeachment proceedings before other actions will prosper against him. Should the tenure of the SC Justice be thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively (by disbarment proceedings) for any misbehavior that may be proven against him.

Reason for ruling. Without the rule, Members of the SC would be vulnerable to all manner of charges which might be brought against them by unsuccessful litigants or their lawyers or by other parties who, for any number of reasons might seek to affect the exercise of judicial authority by the Court. Can judges be disbarred during their term? Yes. The only ones who could be disbarred are the impeachable officers. 105

Santiago v Bautista

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Fast facts Teodoro Santiago, Jr. (pet) was a student of Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City. During graduation, Teodoro was awarded the third honor, with Socorro Medina and Patricia Lingat as first and second honors, respectively. The final list of awardees was deliberated by a board composed of Grade 6 teachers. Contentions c/o Teodoro • He has been prejudiced in that Socorro Medina was tutored by one of their teachers, thus giving her an edge in the judgment of awarding of honors • The committee which adjudged the awarding of honors were composed of only Grade 6 teachers, in violation of the rule that the committee must be composed of teachers from both Grades 5 and 6. CFI Decision The petition states no cause of action and should be dismissed. One of the grounds is that the committee on the ratings of students for honor whose actions are being condemned in the case at bar is not the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions against which an action for certiorari may lie under Section 1 of Rule 65. Jurisdiction of courts Only with regard those actual cases and controversies that require the interpretation of the law. The issue must be justiciable. Must call for the application of the law. Requisites for a valid action of certiorari 1. That there must be a specific controversy involving rights of person or property and said controversy

Page 29 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

2. 3.

Digest Link

is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer for hearing and determination of their respective rights and obligations (Judicial action) The tribunal, board, or officer before whom the controversy is brought must have the power and authority to pronounce judgment and render a decision on the controversy construing and applying the laws to that end. The tribunal, board, or officer must pertain to that branch of the sovereign power which belongs to the judiciary, or at least which does not belong to the legislative or executive department.

Judicial function • It must be the exercise of discretion and judgment within that subdivision of the sovereign power which belongs to the judiciary, or, at least, which does not belong to the legislative or executive department. If the matter in respect to which it is exercised, belongs to either of the other branches, it is not judicial. • Involves the determination of what the law is, and what the legal rights of parties are, with respect to a matter in controversy; and whenever an officer is clothed with that authority and undertakes to determine those questions, he acts judicially. Issue (WON) • SC has the jurisdiction over the issue. • The committee on the rating of students for honor exercised judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the performance of its assigned task. Held & Ratio No actual case or controversy. The committee composed of the teachers was not engaged in judicial functions. There is no mention that when teachers do sit down as a committee and adjudge the awarding of honors to their students, their acts as such relate with the determination of what the law is. Also citing

Felipe v Leuterio. 106

Felipe v Leuterio

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Fast facts The case at bar relates with alleged erroneous results of an oratorical contest held in Naga City. There were 8 contestants, among them were: Nestor Nosce, Emma Imperial (resp), and Luis General, Jr. The issue arose when it was found out that there was an arithmetical error in the final scores. Days after the contest has been conducted and the winners announced, one of the judges (pet) confesses he made a mistake, that the ratings he gave the second placer should have been such as would entitle her to first place. The other judges refuse to alter their verdict. Issue (WON) The Courts have the authority to reverse the award of the board of judges of an oratorical contest. Held & Ratio The judiciary has no power to reverse the award of the board of judges of an oratorical contest. No jurisdiction. Error is contemplated by law as a misapplication of a statute or provision. There could be error in the computation of final scores, but it is not error in context of law. The Court would not interfere in literary contests, beauty contests, and similar contests. The decision of the board in such contests, although only implied, is final and unappealable.

107

Prudential Bank v Castro

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Deliberations

Fast facts The case at bar relates with the disbarment of Atty. Grecia (resp). Contentions c/o Resp • CJ Claudio Teehankee should have voluntary inhibited himself from the proceedings. CJ was prejudicial against Grecia that he rendered a decision against Grecia (disbarment). • The Court’s decision violates the Constitution in that it lacks certification by the CJ that the conclusions of the Court were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. Held & Ratio

As to CJ Teehankee’s voluntary inhibition. Petition denied for lack of legal and factual basis. After a

member has given an opinion on the merits of a given case, he may not be disqualified from participating in the proceedings because a litigant cannot be permitted to speculate upon the action of the Court and raise an objection of this sort after decision has already been rendered. It should be made of record that at no time during the deliberations on the case did the CJ show any ill will nor any sign of vindictiveness much less any attempt to exact vengeance for past affront against Grecia.

As to the lack of certification. This requirement is only present in judicial decisions, not in administrative

cases, like a disbarment proceeding. Even if such certification were required, it is beyond doubt that the conclusions of the Court in its decision were arrived at after consultation and deliberations and voted attest to that.

Per curiam decision – opinion of the court as a whole; there is no ponente. For cases where the court does not want to expose the identity of the ponente. Resolution v Decision Resolution – does not decide the case; dilatory; i.e. dismissal of a case for lack of merit Decision – when the court has given due course; must state facts and law 108

Consing v Court of Appeals

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Deliberations

Fast facts Merlin Consing (pet) sold a house and lot to Caridad Santos. Provided in their contract of sale were particular terms of payment in which the purchase price shall be paid (installment basis, plus interest). In the process, Santos defaulted in her payments. Consing demanded for her payment and had planned to resort to court litigation. Santos expressed her willingness to settle her obligation. However, this is upon the condition that the Consings comply with all the laws and regulations on subdivision and after payment to her damages as a consequence of the use of a portion of her lot as a subdivision road. In response, the Consings submitted a revised subdivision plan. CFI Decision Santos was fully justified in refusing to pay further her monthly amortizations because although Consing submitted a revised plan and may have corrected irregularities and/or have complied with the legal requirements for the operation of their subdivision, he cannot escape liability to Santos for having sold to her portions of the roads or streets denominated as right-of-way. Contention c/o Consing CA did not comply with the certification requirement. Purpose of certification requirement • To ensure that all court decisions are reached after consultation with members of the court en banc or division, as the case may be • To ensure that the decision is rendered by a court as a whole, not merely by a member of the same • To ensure that decisions are arrived only after deliberation, exchange of ideas, and concurrence of majority vote Held & Ratio The absence of certification does not invalidate a decision. It is only evidence for failure to observe the requirement. There could be an administrative case on the ground of lack of certification.

Page 30 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

109

Cruz v DENR

Related Topics

Notes

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Voting

Fast facts The petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

Digest Link

Results of voting

Seven (7) voted to dismiss petition. Kapunan, CJ, Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Santiago, Puno (separate opinion), and Mendoza (not justiciable).

Seven (7) voted to grant petition. Panganiban, Vitug, Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon. As the votes were equally divide and the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED. The assumption is the law is constitutional. 110

Valladolid v Inciong

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Requirements as to decisions

Fast facts JRM owned Tropicana and Copacabana hotels. However, it only had controlling interest in Tropicana, as Copacabana was managed by its owners (siblings Yu). The two hotels became direct competitors. Pertinent financial and business information was being leaked from Copacabana to Tropicana. Ricardo Valladolid (pet) was employed by JRM in 1977 as a telephone switchboard operator. He was subsequently transferred to the position of clerk-collector. He was suspected to be the leak who sends important information to the competitor. Order of May 2, 1979 (December 26, 1979) In response to the application for clearance and Valladolid’s complaint for Illegal Dismissal, the Regional director issued this order. The Deputy Minister of Labor, in a succinct Order, dismissed both appeals after finding “no sufficient justification or valid reason to alter, modify, much less reverse the Order appealed from”. Contention c/o JRM The order of Hon. Amado Inciong (resp) failed to state the facts and conclusion of law upon which it is based, thus unconstitutional. Memorandum decision Only dispositive portion is authored by the SC. The rest is copied from the decision of the lower court. Not prohibited, still valid, but it is not encouraged. Held & Ratio The fact that the Order of the Deputy Minister of Labor issued on December 26. 1979 lacks a statement of facts and conclusions of law does not equate to the violation of the constitutional requirement set forth in Article 8, section 14, which is required of decisions or courts of record. However, the assailed order is not a decision of a court of record. The Ministry of Labor is an administrative agency with quasi-judicial functions, with rules of procedure mandated to be non-litigious, summary, and non-technical. As the Deputy Minister was in full accord with the findings of fact and the conclusions of law drawn from shoes facts by the Regional director, there was no necessity of discussing anew the issues raised therein. Notes in class Only cases that are submitted for decision shall require a full-blown decision. Facts and law must be clearly distinguished

111

Nunal v COA

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Requirements as to decisions

Contention c/o pet The Resolution of the SC under date of May 11, 1998 is not in accordance with Article 8, Section 14 of the Constitution. Article 8, Section 14 No decision shall be rendered by any Court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Held & Ratio Constitutional. The assailed Resolution was not a “Decision” within the meaning of the Constitutional requirement. This mandate is applicable only in cases “submitted for decision,” i.e., given due course and after the filing of Briefs or Memoranda and/or other pleadings, as the case may be. It is not applicable to an Order or Resolution refusing due course to a Petition for certiorari. The assailed Resolution does state the legal basis for the dismissal of the Petition and thus complies with the Constitutional provision.

112

People v Bugarin

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Requirements as to decisions

Fast facts Marcelino Bugarin (resp) is found by the RTC guilty of raping his daughter, Maryjane. RTC Decision • Guilty beyond reasonable doubt • Four counts of consummated rape • One count of attempted rape • Sentence (dispositive) indicates “3” counts instead of “4” Contention c/o Bugarin The decision of the RTC does not state facts ad law upon which it was based. Rule 120, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure Reiterates Article 8, Section 15 of the Constitution. Provides, among others, that judgment shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the accused and the law upon which such judgment is based. Held & Ratio • The decision of the RTC falls short of the requirement. It disrespects the judicial function. • There was no evaluation of evidence and discussion of legal questions • Does not explain why RTC considered Maryjane’s testimony credible despite the fact that she could not remember the time of the day when she was allegedly raped • Decision found him guilty on 4 counts of consummated rape, instead of 6 (there were 6 informations filed against him)…the dispositive further adding to the confusion indicating just 3 counts Reasons for the requirement • To inform the parties of the basis for the decision so that if any of them appeals, he can point out to the appellate court the findings of facts or the ruling on points of law with which he disagrees. • An assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. • A safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing him from deciding by ipse dixit (a bare assertion resting on the authority of the individual).

Page 31 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

113

Hernandez v CA

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Requirements as to decisions

114

Yao v CA

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Requirements as to decisions

115

Dizon v Judge Lopez

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Requirements as to decisions

Court forgave J. Lopez. Decision came out more than a year after promulgation—only dispositive portion. Period of appeal start when copy of the written decision is served.

116

Asiavest v CA

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Requirements as to decisions

Principles of international law/comity – give due respect to the acts of another country.

117

Tichangco v Enriquez

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Petition for review/motion for reconsideration

Contention c/o Pet The CA’s Decision is invalid because it failed to mention that a magnetic survey was completed only on November 15, 1905, a fact that they perceive to be crucial to the determination of the case.

Digest Link

Issue (WON) The CA complied with Section 14 Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution. Article 8 Section 14 Deals with the disposition of petitions for review and motions for reconsideration. In appellate courts, the rule does not require any comprehensive statement of facts or mention of the applicable law, but merely a statement of the “legal basis” for denying due course. Held & Ratio There is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement when a collegiate appellate court, after deliberation, decides to deny a motion; states that the questions raised are factual or have already been passed upon; or cites some other legal basis. The CA Decision contains the necessary antecedents to warrant its conclusions, the appellate court cannot be said to have withheld “any specific finding of facts.” What the law insists on is that a decision state the “essential ultimate facts.” Indeed, the “mere failure to specify the contentions of the petitioner and the reasons for refusing to believe them is not sufficient to hold the same contrary to the requirements of the provision of law and the Constitution.” Notes in class Resolution – disposition of merits upon due course; does not contain decision 118

Fr. Martinez v CA

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Petition for review/motion for reconsideration

Contention c/o Pet The resolution of the CA denying his motion for reconsideration was rendered in violation of the Constitution because it does not state the legal basis thereof. Held & Ratio The Constitutional requirement was fully complied with when the CA, in denying reconsideration of its decision, stated in its resolution that it found no reason to change its ruling because petitioner had not raised anything new.

119

Re: Delays in the Sandiganbayan

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Periods for deciding cases

Notes in class SC reversed the decision of the CA. “Dismissed for lack of merit” – sufficient as to the constitutional requirement SC is not required to give due course to ALL decisions. Fast facts IBP filed a resolution (administrative complaint) for “serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan. Issue What is the reglementary period within which the Sandiganbayan must decide/resolve cases falling within its jurisdiction? Contentions c/o IBP • The Sandiganbayan is a trial court, it is required to submit the same reports required of the RTC. • The Constitution states that, “all lower collegiate courts” must decide or resolve cases or matters before it within 12 months “from date of submission”; however the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is required to resolve and decide cases within a reduced period of 3 months like RTCs, or at the most, 6 months from the date of submission. Article 8, Section 15 • Must be resolved within 24 months from date of submission to the SC, unless otherwise reduced by the SC • 12 months for all lower collegiate courts • 3 months for all other lower courts • Presupposes that case is deemed submitted for decision • Last pleading Contention c/o Solicitor General • 3 months – original • 12 months - appeal Sandiganbayan Sepcial court of the same level as the CA, possession all the inherent powers of a court of justice, with functions of a trial court. PD 1606 Law creating the Sandiganbayan. Maximum period of determination of cases for the Sandiganbayan = 3 months Held & Ratio Article 8, Section 14 does not apply to the Sandiganbayan. Article 8, Section 5 provides that Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the SC. The Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules providing that the maximum period to decide cases is within 3 months from the date the case was submitted for decision. If court exceeds mandatory periods = administrative sanctions

Page 32 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title 120

In Re: Demetria

Related Topics Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Administrative powers Supervision of lower courts

Notes

Digest Link

Fast facts Justice Demetrio G. Demetria was found guilty on March 27, 2001 of interceding in behalf of suspected drug queen Yu Yuk Lai, Demetria being in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Demetria, then an Associate Justice of the CA, was dismissed from service with prejudice to his appointment or reappointment to any government office, agency, or instrumentality, including GOCCs or institutions. All his benefits were ordered forfeited. Among other events, Demetria accompanied a certain Go Teng Kok and Atty. Reinerio Paas to the office of SP Formaran, the public prosecutor handling the Yu Yuk Lai case. Upon meeting Formaran, Go Teng Kok readily asked the prosecutor to withdraw his motion for inhibition, i.e. the unsigned letter of “concerned court employees,” was “not strong”. Formaran declined the request and simply said that he would bring the matter to CSP Jovencito Zuño, with Demetria commenting, “Iyon pala.” Demetria then called Zuño and requested the CSP to order Formaran to withdraw the MFI. Resolution The evidence is clear, if not overwhelming and damning” that respondent did intercede for suspected Chinese drug queen Yu Yuk Lai. The decision to dismiss Demetria, as promulgated by the retired SC Justice Griño-Aquino. Absent any showing of bias, partiality, flaw or grave abuse of discretion, we shall not disturb the findings of the respected Justice. Personal Note Did not find a discussion within the case of the exact Constitutional provision that relates to the “Supervision of lower courts” which this case is supposed to be illustrative of. I would suppose, though, that it is about Article 8, Section 11, where it is mentioned that the SC has the power to dismiss the judges of the lower courts.

121

People v Pilotin

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Administrative powers Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice

Contention c/o Crisologo His life would be in jeopardy if he were to be confined in the Vigan municipal jail during the trial because there are many political enemies of the Crisologo family in that vicinity. Held & Ratio The Constitution expressly empowers the Court to “order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice”. What is involved in the case at bar is not merely a miscarriage of justice but the personal safety of Crisologo. It would be absurd to compel him to undergo trial in a place where his life would be imperiled. Dispositive The municipal court of Vigan is directed to transfer the record of Crisologo’s Criminal Case to the city court of Quezon City where it should be redocketed and raffled to any Judge. The case may be tried at Camp Crame. The usual precautions and security measures should be adopted in bringing Crisologo to Crame on the occasion of the hearing. Notes in class Applies to criminal cases (civil cases – inhibition venue can be transferred but not jurisdiction.) Jurisdiction • Subject matter • Person • Territory

122

Mondiguing v Abad

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Administrative powers Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice

Contentions c/o Mondiquing • They could not expect a fair and impartial trial in Lagawe, Ifugao because Judge Francisco Men Abad of the CFI of that province is a protégé of Governor Lumauig and his brother, former Congressman Romulo Lumaig • Their witnesses would be afraid to testify for fear of harassment and reprisals • Their lives and the lives of their witnesses and lawyers would be in grave danger in Ifugao because of the tensions and antagonisms spawned by the case and the political rivalry beteen the Lumauig and Mondiguing factions. Issue (WON) Mondiguing’s plea for a change of venue is justified. Basis of change of venue A change of place of trial in criminal cases should not be granted for whimsical or flimsy reason. “the interests of the public require the, to secure the best results and effects in the punishment of crime, it is necessary to prosecute and punish the criminal in the very place, as near as may be, where he committed his crime”. Held & Ratio Petition for change of venue is meritorious. A change of venue is granted as it was shown that the accused might be liquidated by his enemies in the place where the trial was originally scheduled to be held.

123

People v Sola

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Administrative powers Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice

Fast facts CFI Negros Occidental issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the deceased bodies of 7 persons believed in the possession of the accused Pablo Sola in his hacienda at Sta. Isabel, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental. Contentions c/o witnesses in the murder cases They were in fear that if the trial is held at the CFI branch in Himamaylan which is but 10km from Kabankalan, their safety could be jeopardized. At least 2 of the accused are official with power and influence in Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. In addition, most of the accused remained at large. There have been reports made to police authorities of threats made on the families of the witnesses. General rule The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue. Held & Ratio Change of venue has become moot and academic. However, the case proceeds with this discussion: To compel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make a mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the very purpose for which courts have been established. The witnesses in the case are fearful of their lives. They are afraid they would be killed on their way to or from Himamaylan during any of the days of trial. Because of this fear, they may either refuse to testify or testify falsely to save their lives.

124

Zaldivar v Gonzales

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Administrative powers Admission to the practice of law

Fast facts Zaldivar (pet) is one of several defedants in Criminal Cases Nos. 12159-12161 and 12163-12177 (for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) pending before the Sandiganbayan. The Office of the Tanodbayan conducted the preliminary investigation and filed the criminal informations in those cases. Contention c/o Zaldivar

Page 33 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

Gonzales (resp), as Tanodbayan and under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, was no longer vested with power and authority independently to investigate and to institute cases for graft and corruption against public officials and employees, and hence that the informations filed in the aforementioned Criminal Cases were all null and void. Philippine Daily Globe article Tanod Scores SC for Quashing Graft Case Gonzales is quoted in many occasions saying that stopping him from investigating graft cases, like that involving Zaldivar, “can aggravate the thought that affluent persons can prevent the progress of trial…What I am afraid of (with the issuance of the order) is that it appears that while rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the SC, it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course.” He continues to accuse that this issue will promote further lack of confidence in the judiciary. While he has been supposedly been assigned by President Aquino to preside over graft cases as Tanodbayan, the SC has been continually preventing him to do so. April 27, 1988 SC Decision Order Gonzales too cease and desist from conducting investigations and filing criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan or otherwise exercising the powers and functions of the Ombudsman. Statements in MFR filed by Gonzales on April 28, 1988 1. That he had been approached by a leading member fo the SC and he was asked to “go slow” on Zaldivar and “not be too hard on him” 2. That he was approached and asked to “refrain” from investigating the COA report on illegal disbursements in the SC because “it will embarrass this Court” 3. That in several instances, the respondent was called over the phone by a leading member of the SC and was asked to dismiss cases against 2 members of the Court Authority to discipline The SC, as regulator and guardian of the legal profession, has plenary disciplinary authority over attorneys. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court’s constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself of law. Contentions c/o Gonzales • Members of the court should inhibit themselves as they were biased and prejudiced against him • The issues of the proceeding should be passed upon the IBP because he does not expect due process from the SC, that the SC has become incapable of judging him impartially and fairly. • The SC deliberately rendered an erroneous decision when it rendered it Decision on April 27, 1988 • That decision was rendered in retaliation by the SC against him for the position he had taken “that the SC Justices cannot claim immunity from suit or investigation by government prosecutors”, and in order to stop respondent from investigating cases against “some of the protégés or friends of some SC Justices”. • The members of the SC have improperly “pressured him to render decisions favorable to their “colleagues and friends”, including dismissal of “cases” against 2 of its own members. Held & Ratio Considering the kinds of statements of lawyers discussed above which the Court has in the past penalized as contemptuous or as warranting application of disciplinary sanctions, the SC holds that the statements made by Gonzales clearly constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the SC. The statements, especially the one which mentions that the SC made a deliberately erroneous decision, constitute the grossest disrespect for the Court. Such statements very clearly debase and degrade the SC and, through the SC, the entire system of administration of justice in the country. Dispositive Atty. Raul M. Gonzales is suspended from the practice of law indefinitely and until further orders from the SC, the suspensions to take effect immediately. 125

In Re: Cunanan

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Administrative powers Admission to the practice of law

Fast facts The case at bar deals with an RA that, when effected, result in the passage and admittance to the practice of law of people who have previously flunked the bar exams. The enactment of the RA will result in the admittance of additional 1,094 candidates. RA 972 An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955. Date of Bar Exams 1946-1951 1952 1953 1954 1955

Passing % 70 71 72 73 74

Those who deemed to have passed by virtue of the RA shall be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of the Philippine Bar. OBJECTIVE: to admit to the bar those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation. Issue (WON) RA 972 is constitutional. Requirement of legal profession The public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency, precisely more so as legal problem evolved by the times become more difficult. An adequate legal preparations one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that should be developed constantly and maintained firmly. To the legal profession is entrusted the protection of property, life, honor, and civil liberties. Admission to the practice of law The admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. Role of Congress May repeal, alter, and supplement the rules promulgated by the Court, but the authority and responsibility over the admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of attorneys at law and their supervision remain vested in the SC. Discussion of the issue The law is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession. To approve officially of those inadequately prepared individual to dedicate themselves to such a delicate mission is to create a serious social danger. In decreeing that bar candidates who obtained in the bar exams of 1946 to 1952, a general average of 70%...be admitted in mass to the practice of law, the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment revoking those promulgated by the Court during the aforecited year affecting the bar candidates concerned. Although the Court can certainly revoke these judgments, it is no less certain that only the Court, and not the legislative (by virtue of RA) or executive (EO) department may do so. Otherwise, it will

Page 34 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

be a usurpation of functions. Resolution The RA is partly unconstitutional and constitutional, the latter being caused by lack of unanimity among the presiding justices. Notes in class A law enacted in 1953 (It revoked the judgments the SC has made before as regards the lawyers they have admitted), applied retroactively will in effect give the Congress the power that should have been vested solely in the judiciary: violates separation of powers. 126

Aguirre v Rana

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Administrative powers Admission to the practice of law

Fast facts Edwin Rana (resp) was among those who passed the 2000 bar exams. He was about to take his oath when a petition was filed against him, requesting for the denial of his admission to the bar. Pending decision for the charges filed against him, he was allowed to take his oath but was enjoined from signing in the roll of attorneys until judgment has finally been rendered. Contentions c/o Aguirre (pet) • Rana is guilty of unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation • Rana appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the MBEC of Mandaon, Masbate • Rana represented himself as counsel for and behalf of Vice Mayoralty candidate, George Bunan and signed the pleading as counsel for Bunan. Practice of law Any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill. Requisites for the admittance to the practice It is not enough that a candidate passes the bar exams. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. It is the signing in the Roll that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. Effectively, there are two (2) requisites, after the passing of the bar exams: (1) taking oath and (2) signing in the Roll. Held & Ratio Rana is denied admission to the Philippine Bar. Affirmed findings of OBC. OBC found Rana to be guilty of misconduct. His behavior casts serious doubt on his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. Rana’s unauthorized practice of law is a sufficient ground to deny his admission to the practice of law. It was proven that he represented himself as counsel even before he had taken his oath.

127

In Re: Edillon

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Administrative powers Integration of the bar

Fast facts Marcial Edillon is subject to an action for his name to be removed from the Roll of Attorneys. Contentions c/o IBP Edillon should be disbarred and whose name should be stricken out of the Roll because of stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues to the IBP. Section 24, Article 3 IBP By-laws Provides, among others, that continued delinquency in payment of the fees shall authorize the IBP to resort to all appropriate actions, including a recommendation to the SC for the removal of the delinquent member’s name from the Roll. Section 10 Court Rule Provides, among others, that the effect of the nonpayment of dues shall warrant suspension of membership in the IBP and continued default for one year shall be a ground for removal of the name of the delinquent from the Roll. Contention c/o Edillon The abovementioned provisions in the IBP by-laws and Court Rule are null and void as they are violativeof his right to freedom of association. He is being deprived of the rights to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. In re: Petition for the IBP, Roman Ozaeta The integration of the Philippine Bar is perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable. Integrated Bar and Integration of the bar Integration of the bar is a process by which every member of the Bar is afforded an opportunity to do his share in carrying out the objectives of the Bar as well as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. An integrated Bar is an official national body of which all lawyers are required to be members. They are, therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar. Created by the SC, as the regulator of the practice of law. Integration provides an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member. Reason for the collection of fees In order to further the State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services. Held & Ratio

On Edillon’s name and the Roll. Edillon is barred and his name is removed from the Roll. Integration of

the Bar in the Philippines is valid as there is a power expressly vested in the SC by the Constitution. The SC has the plenary power over all cases regarding the admission to and supervision of the practice of law. All legislation directing the integration of the Bar has been uniformly and universally sustained as a valid exercise of the police power over an important profession. The practice of law being clothed with public interest, the holder of this privilege must submit to a degree of control for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has created.

On Edillon’s constitutional right of freedom to association. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the IBP is not violative his constitutional right to associate. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member.

128

In Re: IBP Elections Bar Matter No. 491

Three branches of the government Judicial department The Supreme Court Administrative powers Integration of the bar

Fast facts There were 3 candidates for the position of IBP President in 1989: Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta Drilon. Drilon won the elections. However, there were allegations that the candidates resorted to unorthodox campaigning practices that further investigation was conducted. IBP The IBP shall be non-political in character and that there shall be no lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates, and of the IBP officers, national, or regional, or chapter.

Page 35 of 36

CONSTI1: A.MUYOT: CASE SUMMARY: First Semester 2007-2008: Second-half Title

Related Topics

Notes

Digest Link

Resolution Elections of 1989 are null and void. All the practices, those which pertain to the campaign of the 3 candidates proving to be overly extravagant and unreasonable, made a political circus of the proceedings and tainted the whole elections process. In addition the Court amended the by-laws of the IBP. The changes included, among others, the shift of the voter participation in the elections from all the delegates of the IBP per region to simply the members of the Board of Governors. The Court has power to amend the by-laws as part of their power to promulgate rules under Article 8, Section 5(5). 129

De La Llana v Alba

Three branches of the government Judicial department Lower courts Tenure

Fast facts De La Llana was a Judge and was allegedly affected by BP 129. He, together with other colleagues, filed an action to enjoin the enactment of BP 129. BP 129 An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for other Purposes". BP 129 mandates that Justices and Judges of inferior courts from the Court of Appeals to municipal courts, except the occupants of the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, unless appointed to the inferior courts established by such Act, would be considered separated from the Judiciary. The purpose of this act is to promote expediency in decisions and avoid accumulation of pending cases.

De La Llana v Alba

Issue (WON) BP 129 is constitutional. Held & Ratio The abolition of an office within the competence of a legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no infirmity. This conclusion flows from the fundamental proposition that the legislature may abolish courts inferior to the SC and therefore may reorganize them territorially or otherwise thereby necessitation new appointments and commissions. The Constitution vests in the National Assembly the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts, subject to certain limitations in the case of the SC. There is no undue delegation of legislative power if the law is complete and provides for a standard.

Page 36 of 36