Constitutional Law I Digests

Constitutional Law 1

Compiled Darvin’s Digests

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN – “Miriam’s preventive suspension case” preventively

suspended (90 days) by Sandiganbayan upon pendency of consolidated Criminal Cases against her for violation of Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act filed by employees of Com. on Immigration & Deportation for approving application for legalization of alleged disqualified aliens. Assailed through Certiorari. Sec. 13 theoreof makes it ministerial upon courts to preventively suspend from any office being held. – does not exclude members of Congress. Guilt need not be established for preventive suspension to issue. Does not violate Consti on power of Congress to suspend/expel – it is disctinct

from said suspension, imposed upon her not based on her status as legislator. Separation of

powers does not exclude members of Congress from said Act. Supervening event: acquitted by Sandiannbayan. Moot & Academic. Certiorari DISMISSED.

ROCES vs. HRET – “Mrs. Harry Ang-Ping case” Miles Roces & Harry Ang-Ping competitors for 3rd _Leg.

Dist. of Manila, registered voter Alejandro Gomez challenged Ang-Ping’s qualification (being not a natural-born citizen), responded by withdrawing candidacy, substituted by wife Zenaida. COMELEC

denied due course, votes in favor not counted. Case was pending before 1st _{Div. when COMELEC en}

banc (motu proprio) issued assailed Res. striking out Ang-Ping’s name & denying Mrs. Ang-Ping’s substitution before the expiration of the reglementary period. Filed case before HRET w/c gave due course & permitted substitution. Roces files Certiorari. HRET exercises sole jurisdiction & has

power to determine jurisdiction, procedure, etc. COMELEC Res. was void for violating due

process (opportunity to be heard was systematically denied). Did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari DISMISSED.

PIMENTEL vs. HRET – “Partylists at HRET case” Sen. Aquilino Pimentel assailed composition of the

HRET & argued that it must contain partylist representatives on the basis of proportional representation. Petition is not ripe for adjudication bec. it should 1st _{be brought before the HRET & not}

w/ the SC – separation of powers. HR has the power to decide the composition of the HRET unless there is evident grave abuse of discretion. Supervening event: HRET composition later changed to include partylist representation. Moot & academic. Petition DENIED.

BARBERS vs. COMELEC – “Barbers vs. Biazon case” Biazon proclaimed by the COMELEC by

Resolution as the 12th _{Placed Senator despite the fact that not all COC’s have been tallied & counted.}

Biazon has substantial lead over Barbers & the subsequent tallying of all votes will no longer affect the result of the election. COMELEC resolution proclaiming Biazon AFFIRMED.

BONDOC vs. PINEDA – “politics in the HRET case” election contest filed against Rep. Marciano Pineda

(LDP) by Emigdio Bondoc (NP). Upon re-appreciation of votes, pending decision: Bondoc wins by 23 votes. After another re-count & re-appreciation, Bondoc wins by 107 votes. Rep. Camasura, out of zeal, informs his Party Leader Rep. Cojuanco of his conscience vote in favor of Bondoc (w/c will lead to 5-4 vote). To influence decision of HRET, HR issues Res. to disqualify Camasura for party (LDP) disloyalty & remove him from HRET so that they can win upon motion for reconsideration. It

violates the independence of the HRET to be sole judge of election contests. Should be free

from partisanship. No valid cause for termination of Camasura from HRET & violates security of tenure. Certiorari GRANTED.

ROBLES vs. HRET – “withdrawal case” Rep. Virgilio Robles elected to 1st _{Dist. of Caloocan, Romeo}

Santos filed elec. contest w/ HRET (electoral fraud & irregularities) & called for counting / re-appreciation of votes. Filed Motion to Withdraw Contest but later filed Urgent MMotion to

Recall/Disregard his Previous Motion. 1st _{Motion not acted upon, 2}nd _{Motion granted. Robles claimed}

that the 1st _{motion divested HRET of jurisdiction. SC cannot interfere unless there is grave abuse of}

discretion. Jurisdiction, once acquired, cannot be lost at the mere instance of the parties, but

continues until case is terminated. HRET must be allowed to function w/o being impaired by mere

technicalities of procedure. Elec. protest is vested w/ public interest. Certiorari DENIED.

ARROYO vs. HRET – “innovative precinct-level document-based evidence case” Rep. Joker Arroyo

proclaimed Rep. for lone Dist. of Makati, elec. protest filed before HRET by Augusto Syjuco. Justice Gancayco made investigation & found that employees of the HRET engaged in pilfering, tampering, & dumping of ballots – resulted to reduction of Arroyo votes. Syjuco filed for Withdrawal of protest upon

presumption that he already leads & introduced his brainchild sys. of evidence consisting of 200,000 photocopied pages of various local elec. documents & admitted by HRET (in violation of the best

evidence rule) by 6-3 vote (all Justices dissenting) & later proclaimed Syjuco as winner by same

vote. Grave abuse of discretion. Standard revision of ballots procedure must be followed, brainchild system unauthorized by law. Syjuco cannot unjustly broaden the scope of his original cause of action. Syjuco fined for indirect contempt for derogatory remarks against the Justices. Petition for review GRANTED.

LERIAS vs. SANDOVAL – “dag-dag bawas case” Rosette Lerias files elec. protes vs Rep. Roger

Mercado (proclaimed) for Lone Dist. of So. Leyte. Returns from town of Libangon questioned but presumed to produce more votes for Lerias. Board of Canvassers copy of COC’s inconsistent w/ COMELEC copy – indicated dagdag-bawas. Lerias votes reduced by 100 votes per precinct (#6, 10, 18, 19). School teachers testified. Majority rules in favor of Mercado (party-mate) who only presented photocopies for evidence. HRET performs judicial functions & must not be influenced by politics. In

the absence of actual ballots, election returns from Mun. Board of Canvassers presented by Lerias constitutes best evidence. Prima facie evidence. Best evidence rule must apply. HRET

decision is SET ASIDE.

SANDOVAL II vs. HRET – “substituted summons case” Aurora Oreta files elec. protest vs Federico

Sandoval (proclaimed) for Lone Dist. Of Malabon-Navotas for electoral fraud & anomalies. HRET process server serves substitute summons to Gene Maga (maintenance man). Sandoval fails to file answer on time – prayed for admission of his answer. Sol. Gen. agrees w/ his contention. A matter of due process. Violates Rules of Civil Procedure – must be left w/ competent person (relation of confidence). Failed to establish that personal service was not attempted. SC assumes jurisdiction. Certiorari GRANTED

DAZA vs. SINGSON – “change of party composition case” apportionment of Com. on Appointments.

Raul Daza (LP) removed from Com. on Appointments bec. 24 members of the Liberal Party joined LDP, only 17 members left – hence he was relaced by Luis Singson (LDP). LDP not yet registered w/ COMELEC. SC assumes jurisdiction (expanded jurisdiction) & transcendental importance. Supervening event: COMELEC grants registration to LDP – thus entitled to rights/privileges granted by law to pol. parties. HR has authority to change representation in Com. on Appointments at any time accdg. to political alignments. Petition DISMISSED.

COSETENG vs. MITRA Jr. – “Niki Coseteng case” lone member of KAIBA Party prayed for seat in Com.

on Appointments (COA) based on indorsements from 9 congressmen, assailed COA composition. Creation of LDP – obtained 160 members (80%) entitled to 10 seats. LP as next largest party entitled to 1 seat (Verano-Yap) & KBL as principal opposition (Ablan) w/ 1 seat. KAIBA as part of coalesced majority is bound by majority decision. Even if not, it has only 1 member (Coseteng) & consists 0.4% of membership in the HR. DISMISSED.

GUINGONA Jr. vs. GONZALES – “Fractional Representation case” Sen. composition: LDP 15 (7.5

seats) , NPC 5 (2.5), Lakas 3 (1.5) , LP-PDP-Laban 1 (0.5). Sen Tolentino proposes compromise w/c was adopted by Senate. LDP gets 8 seats (Sen. Romulo), LP (0.5) gets 1 seat (Sen. W. Tañada). All parties entitled to fractional representation in COA. Justiciable question. Violative of the Consti – proportional rep. The number of 12 seats not mandatory to be all filled up, what is important is that COA has quorum to transact business. Guidelines: 1. party must have at least 2 members to be entitled to seat, 2. w/ more than 2 parties in Senate, a party w/ only 1 member cannot claim seat in COA. Only 10 seats filled. Grave abuse of discretion, Sen. Romulo & Tañada NOT entitled to seats in COA.

NEGROS ORIENTAL II ELEC. COOP vs. SP of DUMAGUETE – “subpoena/contempt power case”

Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete issued sub-poena & required Chairman Paterio Torres & Gen. Mngr. Arturo Umbac to explain why they must not be cited for contempt for failure to appear in investigation. Alleged use of inefficient power lines. The contempt power of the nat’l legislature is

sui generis as a co-equal branch & not vested in local legislative bodies as mere creatures of law. Not vested by the Local Govt. Code – no implied grant of power w/o statutory basis. Such power

is vested by law in Nat’l Electrification Admin, therefore proper recourse is to file complaint in said admin. body. Prohibition GRANTED.

BENGZON Jr. vs. SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE – “Romualdez Corporations case”

Aquino, alleged violation of Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act from privileged speech of Sen. Enrile. Civil Case pending in Sandiganbayan. Alleged employment of devious financial schemes & maneuvers to make it appear that Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez already divested himself of said corps. Refused to testify & sought to enjoin Senate. SC assumes jurisdiction (expanded jurisdiction).

No suggestion of contemplated legislation; investigative powers not unlimited. Cannot impair

Bill of Rights (due process & self-incrimination). No inquiry must be an end in itself – it falls w/in the province of the Judiciary (pending case in Sandganbayan). Prohibition GRANTED.

ARNAULT vs. NAZARENO – “to whom did you give the money to? case" Phil. Gov’t purchased

Buenavista & Tambobong estates from Ernest H. Burt for P 5 million collectively – who purchased such for only P 20,000 & later forfeited his deposits to its former owners. Payment made through atty-in-fact Jean L. Arnault, received, deposited, & withdrew sums. Senate created commity to investigate the sale. Withdrew P 440,000 & gave it to someone – claimed he forgot the name, then later invoked self-incrimination. Committed to custody of Sgt.-at-arms, detained at Bilibid. Filed Habeas Corpus. Such power is incidental to legislative function & implied in its existence. Materiality of question

determined by its direct relation to subj. of inquiry, not in relation w/ proposed legislation.

Questions asked were pertinent. Testimony is obviously false. He asserts a right founded on shaky ground but refuses to perform a clear & imperative duty. Habeas Corpus DENIED.

SANLAKAS vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY – “Oakwood Mutiny case” Pres. issues Proc. No. 427

(Declaring State of Rebellion) & Gen. Order No. 4 (Directing AFP & PNP to suppress rebellion). Petitioners argue that Consti. does not authorize such declaration, possible abuse of rights, undue exercise of emergency & martial law powers w/o grant by Congress. Mootness due to lifting overlooked by SC, ruled upon merits. People’s Orgs don’t have locus standi. Declaration of State of Rebellion is a mere superfluity & legally insignificant – not necessary & merely a declaration of state of events (accdg. to Revised Admin. Code). Power to call on AFP & PNP to suppress

lawlessness & rebellion inherent in Presidency as Chief Exec. & Commander-in-Chief.

Exercised so-called Calling-Out Power. Warrantless arrests are valid as long as requisites are present. Petition DISMISSED.

GUINGONA Jr. vs. CARAGUE – “Auto Debt-Service case” Gen. Appropriations Act of 1990 allocated P

86.6 Billion to debt service, only P 27 Billion to Educ. by virtue of PD No. 81 & other pertinent laws providing for auto-allocation to debt service. Consti. provision on highest budgetary alloc. to Educ. not self-executing. Such laws survive Marcos, repeal by implication (by virtue of Consti.) is frowned upon.

That all appropriations & bills authorizing public debt, etc. must be passed again by Congress is untenable. Such bills referred to by Consti. only refer to bills yet to be enacted, not those already in force by virtue of Presidential Decree. No undue delegation bec. sufficient standards

are set. Petition for review is DISMISSED.

TOLENTINO vs. SECRETARY OF FINANCE – “VAT case” imposes 10% VAT on sale, barter, & exchange

of goods & services. Exemption of publications & sale of religious materials, and other basic goods & services removed. As a house bill transmitted to Senate, it was not passed by Senate but merely consolidated w/ Senate Version. Consti: All appropriation, revenue, tariff bills, etc. shall originate at the HR, Senate may propose/concur w/ amendments. Not the law but the BILL must originate

exclusively from HR, Senate may propose changes. Senate prepared bill but waited for House Bill

before considering it. Consolidation in Conferrence Committee where differences may be reconciled, amendments may still be made even if not originally proposed provided they are germane to the intent of the law; it is still subj. to approval of both Senate & HR. Certiorari & Prohibitons DISMISSED.

ALVAREZ vs. GUINGONA – “City of Santiago Substitute Bill case” House Bill No. 8817 filed in HR to

convert Mun. of Santiago, Isabella into an Independent Component City. In anticipation, Sen. Sotto files counterpart Senate Bill, w/c was approved by the HR, duly signed into law, & ratified through plebiscite. So long as action is withheld pending the House Bill, Consti does not prohibit filing

substitute bill. Challenged also on basis of inclusion of Internal Revenue Allotment to compute

minimum income, SC ruled that it is included. Petition DENIED.

SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORP. vs. PHIL. CEMENT MANUF. CORP. – “Safeguard Measures Act case” after GATT & WTO membership, Phils. enacts said Act along w/ Anti-dumping Act & imposition

of countervailing duties to protect local industries. Procedure of enactment questioned. Both corp. although being local, have primarily foreign stockholders. Philcemcor called for imposition of safeguard measures against importation of Portland Cement due to import surges but denied by DTI

& CA but later implemented by DTI Secretary. Congress has the power to delegate such powers to the Tariff Commission & DTI pursuant to its power of taxation, exclusively vested in the Congress. When the Exec. through the Pres. & her alter egos enforce them, they merely act as agents of Congress to perform acts inherent in the legislature – particularly the taxing power. Must have the positive final determination of the Tariff Commission before it can be imposed. In the absence of such and for other causes, DTI is enjoined from enforcing. Must follow guidelines laid down by the legislature in its enforcement. Petition to enjoin GRANTED.

PASCUAL vs. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS – “Build roads on my private subdivision case” Sen.

Jose Zulueta owned Antonio Subd. RA No. 920 appropriated funds for public roads, claimed that he will donate parcels of his subd. to Go’v’t. subj. to the condition that they will be used as roads in effect increasing their value. Gov. Wenceslao Pascual of Rizal objected & sought to enjoin Sec. of Public Works from enforcing. Violates Consti. prohibition of Members of Congress being directly/indirectly interested in any grant/contract of gov’t. Contract guised as a donation. Legislature cannot allocate

public funds for private purpose – even if there are incidental advantages to the public.

Incidental interest will not justify such use of public money for private interests. Petition GRANTED.

BRILLANTES Jr. vs. COMELEC – “Unofficial Quick-Count case” Automation of 2004 Elections signed

into law, funds appropriated therefore, but COMELEC award of contract for Phase 2 of Automated Elec. to Mega Pacific Consortium voided by SC, Phase 3 (Electronic Transmission) scrapped but COMELEC proceeded to implement it to conduct “unofficial count” of Pres. & VP results & hence a re-alignment of funds w/ the COMELEC; thus this petition. Involves expenditure of public funds. No

money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

Said resolution lacks constitutional & statutory basis & usurps the Congress exclusive authority to act as Nat’l. Board of Canvassers for Pres. & VP. Also may amount to Malversation of Public Funds. Failure to notify all political parties.

GARCIA vs. MATA – “AFP Provision in Appropriations Bill case” Ernesto Mata was reserve officer of

AFP, held position of Captain, reverted to inactive status by virtue of RA No. 2332. During that time, he served 9 yrs, 4 mos, 12 days. Relied upon Par. 11 of Special Provision for Armed Forces on the Gen. Appropriations Act w/c provides that reserve officers w/ at least 10 yrs service shall not be reverted to inactive status. Such provision is a rider, a non-appropriation item in an

appropriation measure. Also violates one subject embraced in the title rule. It is not germane to the

subj. matter of the law – it confers no right & affords no protection. Petition DENIED.

ATITIW vs. ZAMORA – “Cordillera Admin. Region case” assail provision in Gen. Appropriations Act of

2000 allocating only around P 18 million for the dev’t. of CAR as opposed to P 36 million annually in previous years. Moot but ruled upon the merits. CAR created by EO No. 220, Organic Act enacted by Congress but lost through Plebiscite. Special Provision No. 1 – directing for the use of fund for winding up of activities & payment of benefits. Not a rider. Even if it is a non-appropriation

provision, it specifies certain conditions/restrictions in the manner by w/c said funds are to be spent. It relates specifically to some appropriation therein. Question of policy, SC cannot interfere.

Prohibition DENIED.

DEMETRIA vs. ALBA – “President’s unlimited fund transfer powers case” PD No. 1177 (Budget

Reform Decree of 1977) provides that the Pres. shall have authority to transfer any fund appropriated to any dept., office, etc of the Exec. Dept. included in the Appropriations Act to any program, proj., activity, etc also included or approved after its enactment. No longer consistent w/ Consti. No law

shall be passed authorizing transfer of appropriations. The Pres., Speaker, & Chief Justice &

heads of Consti. Commissions may only augment items for their offices from savings in other items. Constitutes undue delegation. Petition for review GRANTED.

LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY vs. COMELEC – “Barangay Poll Funds case” represented by its President

Alex David, sought prohibition due to alleged fears of illegal transfer, disbursement of public funds for Bgy. Elections based on Manila Bulletin article. Gen. Appropriations Act allocated only P 137 million. Consti: Heads of Consti. Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in Gen.

Appropriations Law from savings in other items. Omnibus Elec. Code: Local Gov’ts shall

appropriate funds to defray expenses for barangay elec. Well founded in law. Mere unsubstantiated & speculative allegations by petitioners. Prohibition DISMISSED.

PHIL. CONSTITUTION ASSOC. vs. ENRIQUEZ – “Senator’s Power to Augment case” RA No. 7663 -

re-align allocations for operational expenses, provided said allocation is not exceeded. While

members of Congress are in best position to determine their needs, it is the Sen. Pres or Speaker who shall approve such re-alignment. FVR vetoes power granted to AFP Chief of Staff to

use savings in the appropriations to augment Retirement & Separation Benefits Sys. Such right can only be exercised by the Pres. pursuant to law. Petition GRANTED.

CORDERO vs. CABATUANDO – “Representation of Poor Tenants case” RA No. 2263 (Agri. Tenancy

Act), sections 19 & 20 thereof provide for the creation of the Tenancy Mediation Division. Constitutionality assailed on the rule that “no bill may be enacted into law w/c shall embrace more than 1 subj. in its title.” That requirement is satisfied if all parts of the law are at least related to

subj. matter of the title. Agricultural Tenancy Act embraces it & it is not inconsistent thereto, mere

details need not be set forth. Said law transfers duty of representation to Dept. of Justice.

PHIL. CONSTITUTION ASSOC. vs. GIMENEZ – “retirement gratuity for legislators case” Congress

enacts RA No. 3836 (An Act Amending Commonwealth Act No. 186 as amended by RA No. 396) w/c provides for retirement for Senators & Reps. Regardless of age after service of 12 years & grants gratuities & commutation of unused leave benefits. Said provision providing for such is a rider bec.

the laws to be amended only apply to GSIS members, and do not cover legislators. Also it violated one-subject per title rule & authorizes increase in salaries of members of Congress (immediately) & also violates the eual protection clause bec. it was made to apply exclusively to

members of Congress. Declared NULL & VOID.

ALALAYAN vs. NATIONAL POWER CORP. – “power providers case” independent power franchise

holder Santiago P. Alalayan, in behalf of persons w/ common interest assails validity of RA No. 3043 (Amending Commonwealth Act No. 120 as amended by RA No. 2641) empowering the NAPOCOR to “require as a condition that such franchise holder receiving at least 50% of its electric power from NAPOCOR shall not realize a net profit more than 12% per annum of its investment plus 2 mos. operating expenses.” Does not violate property rights, welfare is paramaount consideration in exercise of police power of the state. Not a rider. Title comprehensive enough to reasonably include such object w/o necessity to express each & every end & means in it. If statute amends another, it

suffices if reference be made to the amended legislation. Constitutionality AFFIRMED.

INSULAR LUMBER CO. vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS – “tax exemption on oils used for forest concessions case” Insular Lumber Co. is a NY based corp. w/ license to operate in Phils. & a

licensed forest concessionaire. Tax paid on use of oil & fuel used in its operations, calimed refund on the basis of RA No. 1435 (An Act to Provide Means for Increasing the Highway Special Fund) Sec. 5 thereof providing exemption to miners & loggers. Said provision not a rider. Contains only one policy, w/c is necessity for increasing said Fund, merely grants certain exemptions. It does not

deviate from the gen. subj. of the law. However, the operation of a sawmill (subj. to exemption) is

diff. from a forest concessionaire, hence Insular is still not subj. to full exemption. CTA ruling AFFIRMED.

TIO vs. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD – “VRB case” PD No. 1987 (An Act Creating the

Videogram Regulatory Board) w/ powers to regulate the Videogram industry, Sec.10 thereof imposes 30% tax on gross receipts. It is not a rider. Title is comprehensive enough to include the gen. purpose. All parts of the statute are germane to the subj. matter expressed in the title. May contain

diverse provisions so long as they are not inconsistent w/ subj. expressed in the title. Practical rather than technical construction so as not to cripple the legislature. 30% tax not

oppressive & similar to amusement tax, no undue delegation. Petition DENIED.

PHIL. JUDGES ASSOC. vs. PRADO – “franking privilege case” RA No. 7354 (An Act Creating the Phil.

Postal Corp. Defining its Powers, Functions & Responsibilities, etc.) Sec. 35 thereof is a repealing clause & deprives the Judiciary of the franking privilege. Not a rider. A repealing clause in a new

statute is valid, notwithstanding that the title is silent on the matter. It need not be expressed in

the title thereof. Did not violate the legislative process bec. SC cannot look behind the enrolled bill. Unconstitutional for violating equal protection, granting privilege to Exec.. Legislative, & other less important entities but denying it from the Judiciary w/c needs it most. Discriminatory. GRANTED.

TOLENTINO vs. SECRETARY OF FINANCE – “VAT case” imposes 10% VAT on sale, barter, & exchange

of goods & services. Exemption of publications & sale of religious materials, and other basic goods & services removed. Included amendments to the Nat’l. Internal Revenue Code by withdrawing certain

exemptions. Such was not mentioned in the title thereof. To mention it in the title would be to

insist that title must be a complete index of its contents. Such would interfere w/ the enactment

of legislation. As long as it is germane to the subj. embraced generally in the title (w/c is to

broaden the tax base & generate further income), it cannot be considered to be a rider.

TOBIAS vs ABALOS – “Mandaluyong City case” caused the creation of separate legislative district

exclusively for City of Mandaluyong. Title only provides: An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly-Urbanized City of Mandaluyong. Does not provide for such creation of Leg. Dist. Creation of separate legislative dist. is not a subj. separate & distinct from its

conversion to a highly-urbanized city. It is germane to the subj. matter. Liberal construction

applied in order not to impede cripple legislature. Petition DENIED.

DE GUZMAN vs. COMELEC – “election officers re-assignment case” passage of RA No. 8189 (Voter’s

Registration Act) Sec. 44 thereof provided that elec. officers who served for certain municipality for more than 4 yrs. shall be re-assigned to other station. COMELEC issued Res. to implement. Election officers protest. Not a rider. Re-assignment of elec. officers is relevant to the subj. matter of

registration to insure the integrity of the reg. process. Title is comprehensive enough to embrace

it. Germane to the subj. matter of the law. No violation of security of tenure or equal protection as well. Petition DENIED.

CAWALING Jr. vs. COMELEC – “2 municipalities merged to 1 city case” RA No. 8806 – An Act

Creating the City of Sorsogon by Merging the Municipalities of Bacon & Sorsogon in the Prov. of Sorsogon, & appropriating funds therefore. Plebiscite held, approved. Benjamin Cawaling, as citizen & taxpayer assails that law contains 2 subjs. 1. creation of City of Sorsogon, & 2. Abolition of Muns. of Bacon & Sorsogon. Consti allows merger of local gov’t units. There is only 1 subj. embraced in the title of the law. The abolition/cessation of corporate existence of Muns. of Bacon &

Sorsogondue to merger is not a subj. separate & distinct from creation of Sorsogon City. Title

is comprehensive enough to include the gen. obj. w/ statute seeks to effect, Liberal interpretation adopted so as not to cripple/impede legislation. Petition DENIED.

ABAKADA GURO PARTYLIST vs. ERMITA – “E-VAT case” EVAT law assailed on the basis, among

others, of the inclusion of certain provisions by the Bicameral Conf. Committee not present in Senate & House Bills. It is w/in the power of the Committee to introduce entirely new provisions. It is

still subj. to approval by both Houses. Senate introduced several substantial amendments

affecting corp. income taxes, franchises, & excise taxes. It is w/in the purview of Consti. allowing

Senate to propose/concur w/ amendments. Included amendments to the Nat’l. Internal Revenue

Code, need not be embraced in the title thereof but is embraced generally & is germane to the

subj. matter of the law. Consttutionality AFFIRMED.

ARROYO vs. DE VENECIA – “Parliamentary Procedures case” Conf. Committee Report on the Sin

Taxes Bill submitted before the HR for approval. Re. Exequiel Javier delivered sponsorship speech, interpellations followed. Important: in the motion for the approval of Committee Report, the presiding officer does not call for a vote based on yeas/nays but simply asks if there is no objection, there being none (he did not recognize the objection of Rep. Arroyo – not the proper motion) proceeded to approve the Report. Assailed on that basis among others. SC ruled that Consti. does not require

that the yeas/nays of members be taken everytime the house has to vote. It is only required upon the third/last reading of the bill at the request of 1/5 of the members present and in re-passing a vetoed bill. Constitutionality AFFIRMED.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS – “caterer’s tax case” RA

No. 6110 took effect imposing certain caterer’s taxes for foods & percentage tax for liquors sold in golf links, restaurants, etc. Pres. Marcos vetoed phrases hotels. motels, & rest houses from said Bill. Manila Golf Club asserts that it is an invalid veto & that the entire section (including golf links) must be vetoed altogether. Sol. Gen. argued that “hotels, motels, & rest houses” are an item in itself w/c the Pres. has the right to veto. SC agrees. To rule otherwise would tie the hands of the Pres. in

choosing either to approve the whole section at the expense of approving a provision he deems unacceptable, or veto the entire section including acceptable provisions. Veto is VALID. GONZALES vs. MACARAIG Jr. – “item vs provision case” Gen. Approp. Act. 0f 1989 enacted into law,

but Sec. 55 thereof vetoed by Pres. Aquino. It provides that if Congress disapproves of or reduces and item or approp. the Exec. may not augment the same by the use of approp. for other items. Said

inappropriate provision; hence treated as mere item. Provisions in an Approp. Law must relate to specific approp. therein. It is merely an expression of Congressional policy. It is likewise a

non-appropriation item inserted in an approp. law. Note: power to augment lies dormant unless

otherwise authorized by law, in this case it was granted. It is, however, ideally embodied in

separate legislation. Proper remedy of Congress is to override the veto, not this court. Veto AFFIRMED.

BENGZON vs. DRILON – “retired justices’ pensions case” RA No. 1797 enacted to grant benefits &

pensions to retired Justices of SC & CA (amending RA No. 910). Criteria: at least 20 yrs service, retirement due to age (70 yrs) or disability. SC issues Resolution pursuant thereto. PD No. 644 enacted to repeal said law but did not take effect due to lack of publication. Congress, upon the impression that PD No. 644 is valid, enacts Gen. Approp. Act of 1992 containing provisons reviving the benefits granted under RA No. 1797, vetoed by the Pres. Since PD No. 644 never took effect,

what the Pres. actually vetoed was an existing law (RA No. 1797) as well as the SC Resolution pursuant thereto. Pres. cannot exercise veto to repeal existing laws, neither can veto power

overturn a SC Resolution or judgment w/o violating the principle of separation of powers & fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. Veto is SET ASIDE.

PHILCONSA vs. ENRIQUEZ – “So many vetoed provisions! case” Gen. Appropriatons Bill passed &

signed into law by the President w/ various vetoed items. Although the standard procedure would be simply to override the veto, Congressmen may question the validity of the veto if it is alleged to be ultra vires.

•

Pres. w/o vetoing the entire approp. for debt service. The said provisions are germane to & have direct relation w/ debt service. They are appropriate provisions & cannot be vetoed

w/o vetoing the entire item/appropriation. VETO VOID.

•

income & creation of revolving fund for SCU’s. Provision for Western Visayas State Univ. & Leyte State Colleges vetoed by Pres. Other SCU’s enjoying the privilege do so by existing law. Pres. merely acted in pursuance to existing law. VETO VALID.

•

maintenance of roads be contracted according to guidelines set forth by DPWH. Vetoed by the Pres. w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. It is not an inappropriate provision; it is

not alien to the subj. of road maintenance & cannot be veoted w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. VETO VOID.

•

Congress required before release of modernization funds. It is the so-called legislative veto.

Any prov. blocking an admin. action in implementing a law or requiring legislative approval must be subj. of a separate law. VETO VALID.

•

augment pension funds through the use of savings. Accdg. to the Consti. only the Pres. may exercise such power pursuant to a specific law. Properly vetoed. VETO VALID.

•

the compensation of the said CAFGU’s. Vetoed, Pres. requires his prior approval. It is also an amendment to existing law (PD No. 1597 & RA No. 6758). A provision in an

appropriation act cannot be used to repeal/amend existing laws. VETO VALID.

TAN vs. DEL ROSARIO Jr. – “Net Income Tax on Self-Employed & Professionals case” RA No. 7496

imposes said tax. Said tax does not impose gross taxation but net taxation due to allowable deductable items – though significantly reduced. Legislature determines the nature, object, extent, coverage, & situs of taxation. Complied w/ the ff. Rules on Uniformity of Taxation:

• standards used are substantial not arbitrary

• categorization is germane to achieve legislative purpose

• classification applies equally to members of the same class

COMMISSIONER OR INTERNAL REVENUE vs. CA – “Fortune Tobacco Case” Fortune Tobacco Corp.

granted by Patent Office licensed trademarks for Hope, Champion, & More cigarettes classified as locally manufactured brands. Ad Valorem taxes were imposed upon the said products accdg. to NIRC & RA No. 7654. BIR issues assailed Memo Circular No. 37-93 classifying the said products to be locally manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brands – originally owned by foreign manufacturer & thus imposes a greater 55% tax as opposed to the previous 45% tax. Said memo not published. CTA found said classification to be defective. Violates uniformity of taxation. Must be uniform &

equitable. All subjects/objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike & put on equal footing both in privileges & liabilities. Other cigarettes bearing seemingly foreign brands &

similarly situated not included in the circular. Also a violation of due process for lack of notice. CTA ruling AFFIRMED.

ABRA VALLEY COLLEGE INC. vs. AQUINO – “School building’s 1st _{floor for lease case” Abra Valley} Jr. College is a corp. w/c had its building & lot subjected to public auction for failure to pay real property taxes. Highest bidder was Mayor Paterno Millare, cert. of sale issued upon him. Assailed

sale on the basis of supposed tax exemption. 2nd _{Floor of said bldg. used as residence of Director}

Pedro Borgonia & his extended family; 1st _{Floor leased to Northern Marketing Corp. All lands,}

buildings, & improvements used EXCLUSIVELY for religious, scientific, charitable, & educational purposes are exempt from real property tax. Liberal interpretation allowed & considers incidental use also. However, although use of 2nd _{Flr as residence may be classified as}

incidental & justified, use of 1st _{Floor for commercial activities cannot be considered as}

incidental to educational purpose. CFI ruling AFFIRMED.

BAYAN vs. ZAMORA – “Visiting Forces Agreement case” entered into by the Phils. under Pres. Estrada

(through a treaty) & the US. Ratified by the Senate through 2/3 vote, concluded by exchage of notes. Article VII thereof (Importation & Exportation) grants tax exemption to all materials, equipment, supplies, & other properties imported into or acquired in the Phils. by or on behalf of the USAF in connection w/ such activities. They shall be free from all import duties, taxes, & other similar charges. Personal baggage, effects & other properties likewise may be imported free of said duties. Not

assailed on the basis of this matter but upon other grounds. Merely illustrates an example. JOHN HAY PEOPLE’S ALTERANTIVE COALITION vs. LIM – “Camp John Hay case” RA No. 7227

(Bases Conversion & Dev’t Act) enacted for the acceleration & dev’t of Subic & John Hay Camps into hubs of commerce. Bases Conversion Dev’t Authority (BCDA) created & enters into joint venture w/ Tuntex Co. Ltd. & AsiaWorld Inc. to develop John Hay area. Sanggunian passed Resolution establishing certain guidelines including possible payment of local taxes. Supervening event: Proc. No. 420 by FVR grants applicable incentives of Special Econ. Zones to John Hay w/c includes tax exemptions. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed w/o concurrence of majority of

members of the Congress. RA No. 7227 grants ONLY Subic SEZ w/ tax exemptions & other

incentives. Such exemptions cannot be established by the assailed Proclamation. The power of Congress to exempt is as broad as the power to tax. Local gov’ts may also exempt but only from local taxes. Tax exemption cannot be implied, must be expressly granted. Provision NULL & VOID.

SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORP. vs. PHIL. CEMENT MANUF. CORP. – “Safeguard Measures Act case” after GATT & WTO membership, Phils. enacts said Act along w/ Anti-dumping Act & imposition

of countervailing duties to protect local industries. he power of the Exec. to impose safeguard measures is actually just delegated by the legislature in its exercise of taxing power. The Congress

may impose limitations & guidelines to the exercise of these measures (in this case the

safeguard measures) w/c must be complied w/ by the Exec. in its implementation. In this case, it

must have the positive factual determination of the Tariff Commission before it can be imposed. In the absence of such and for other causes, DTI is enjoined from enforcing. Must follow

guidelines laid down by the legislature in its enforcement, otherwise the same would be violative of the Constitution. For failure to comply w/ such procedures, petition to enjoin GRANTED.

LUNG CENTER OF THE PHILS. vs. QUEZON CITY – “Lung Center Case” a non-stock/non-profit entity

established by PD No. 1823. 60% of its hospital beds exclusively used for charity patients. Big portion of Ground Floor leased (canteen, stores, clinics, etc.) & big portion of right side leased to Elliptical Orchids. Assesed for real property tax; claim for exemption denied. To determine if it is a charitable institution, the charter (PD No. 1823) , purpose, by-laws, administration, work and services, and the beneficiaries must be considered. The charitable character (and exemption) is not lost simply

because it derives incomes so long as such incomes are used for charity. However leased properties are NOT exempt - charter does not expressly provide so, they are not used EXCLUSIVELY for the exempted purposes. Sec. 28 (3) of the Consti provides for REAL property tax exemption only. PARTIALLY GRANTED.

ABAKADA GURO PARTYLIST vs. ERMITA – “E-VAT case” imposition of an indirect tax on consumption

of goods/services. Assailed on the basis of uniformity & equitableness (equal protection). It must be established w/ clear & persuasive evidence in order to overcome the presumption of validity. The limitation of creditable input taxes on certain entities – such as those frequently transacting w/ gov’t, or those w/ high ratio of input tax – is not violative of equal protection. Absolute universal

application is not required, merely equal application among equally situated entities. It is

likewise uniform in its application of the said tax on all goods/services as well as the 5-year amortization on tax on purchase of capital goods, as well as the 5% final withholding tax. The E-VAT is likewise equitable as the basic agricultural food & marine products in their grassroots state are not subject to the tax. Although the E-VAT is more regressive than progressive, the Consti only

establishes a preference for progressive rather than regressive taxation, but does not prohibit the latter. E-VAT law is VALID.

SPOUSES CONSTANTINO vs. CUISIA – “debt-relief agreements case” Pursuant to the Phil.

Comprehensive Financing Prog. the Sec. of Finance & Debt-Negotating Chairman enter into the debt-relief agreements w/c include buy-back of loans (re-purchase of loans w/ discount). Consti: No money may be paid from the Treasury except in accordance w/ an appropriation made by law. Although the

power to tax & to spend lies w/ Congress, by virtue of PD No. 1177, w/c has the force of law, the President is empowered to execute debt-payment automatically w/o further appropriation.

Furthermore RA No. 240 grants specific legal authority to the Sec. of Finance for the buy-back loans. The Consti further allows President to contract/guarantee foreign loans w/c include bonds. There is no substantial distinction between loan and bonds. Certiorari & Prohibition DISMISSED.

REPUBLIC vs. CITY OF KIDAPAWAN – “MAGRA case” PD No. 1442 allowed the gov’t to enter into

service contract for the exploration/utilization of geothermal resources. Gov’t enters into contract w/ PNOC-EDC for operation in the MAGRA (Mt. Apo Geo. Reservation Area) w/ resulted to the construction of a 104-megawatt power plant. Assessed for tax delinquency by Local Treasurer w/c sought public auction of land & improvements. No tax exemptions granted by Charter. Under Local Gov’t Code, tax exemptions granted to real property owned by the Rep. of the Phils. unless beneficial use is granted to a taxable person – PNOC-EDC (the beneficial user) is a taxable person. Tax

exemption in contract cannot be given effect bec. DOE does not have power to exempt; only Congress has the power. Improvements, however, cannot be auctioned bec. they are not the

property subj. to the tax; the land is public land & cannot be auctioned as well. Remedy for the payment of tax delinquency is through Civil Action. Petition PARTIALLY GRANTED.

PASCUAL vs. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS – “Build roads on my private subdivision case” Sen.

Jose Zulueta owned Antonio Subd. RA No. 920 appropriated funds for public roads, claimed that he will donate parcels of his subd. to Gov’t. subj. to the condition that they will be used as roads in effect increasing their value. Gov. Wenceslao Pascual of Rizal objected & sought to enjoin Sec. of Public Works from enforcing. Congress is w/o power to appropriate public funds (& levy taxes) for

anything but a public purpose. Incidental interest to the public will not justify such use of public money for private interests. Also violates prohibition against direct/indirect interest of

legislators in any grant/contract of the gov’t. Petition GRANTED.

MANILA INT’L AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. MABUNAY – “Security Services Bidding case” MIAA

terminates security service contract w/ Lanting Security & enters into a new contract w/ PASSCOR through negotiated contract w/o public bidding. Lanting challenges. MIAA invokes Sec. 68 of the GAA of 1995, w/c allows gov’t to enter into service contracts through public bidding or negotiated contract. Nothing in the said provision allows the gov’t to do away w/ public bidding

requirement. It is a mechanism that allows gov’t to avoid anomalies in the execution of contracts &

the disbursement of funds such as favoritism or over-pricing. Admin. agencies may not transcend

the law in implementation. Petition DENIED.

GUINGONA Jr. vs. CARAGUE – “Auto Debt-Service case” Gen. Appropriations Act of 1990 allocated P

86.6 Billion to debt service, only P 27 Billion to Educ. by virtue of PD No. 81 & other pertinent laws providing for auto-allocation to debt service. Consti. provision on highest budgetary alloc. to Educ. not self-executing. Such laws survive Marcos, repeal by implication (by virtue of Consti.) is frowned upon.

That all appropriations & bills authorizing public debt, etc. must be passed again by Congress is untenable. Such bills referred to by Consti. only refer to bills yet to be enacted, not those already

in force by virtue of Presidential Decree w/c have the force of law. Petition for review is DISMISSED.

COMELEC vs. QUIJANO-PADILLA – “Voter’s Registration w/o Funds case” RA No. 8189 (Voters’

Registration Act) provided for modernization of registration & appropriated funds (P 1 billion) therefor. COMELEC undertakes the Voters Reg. & Identification Sys. Proj. Winning bidder was Photokina Marketing Corp. w/ a bid of P 6.5 billion, COMELEC issues Notice of Award but refuses to execute contract for lack of funds. New Chairman Benipayo scrapped the program. Photokina sues to compel the execution of the contract. RTC rules in favor of Photokina, Sol. Gen. intervenes. Agencies are

required to limit their expenditures w/in appropriations made by law in accordance w/ Consti.,

Admin. Code, & Auditing Code of the Phils. Availability of funds is an indispensable requisite for

the execution of gov’t contracts, otherwise it is null & void. Proposed phasing of execution is

likewise violative of the law & dangerous to the interest of the gov’t. Photokina has recourse though EO No. 292, w/c binds erring officers in their own capacity if they transcend their legitimate powers. Certiorari GRANTED.

GASTON vs. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK – “Sugar Special Fund vs Trust Fund case” The Phil.

Sugar Commission (PHILSUCOM) levied fees upon sugar farmers & millers pursuant to PD No. 388 & proceeded to purchase shares of stock w/ the Repulic Planters Bank (w/c replenished its capital). Trust agreement did not materialize, sugar farmers & millers prayed for the transfer of the shares of stock in their favor. The fees collected are in the nature of a tax w/c accrued to a Special Fund –

the Dev’t & Stabilization Fund – in the exercise of the power to regulate, the police power of the State. The purpose is to promote the growth & dev’t of the sugar industry. It is not a trust fund. Once the purpose has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance shall be transferred to the general funds of the Gov’t. Hence, mandamus is DENIED.

OSMEÑA vs. ORBOS – “Oil Price Stabilization Fund case” PD No. 1956 created the OPSF designed to

reimburse oil companies resulting from world oil price adjustments. Funds acquired from ad valorem taxes & duties on imported petroleum, & other increases in tax collections. They are taxes collected in the exercise of the police power of the State. Coverted into a “trust liability account” by virtue of EO No. 1024 & was released from the Treasury to the Ministry of Eergy. The OPSF is not a trust fund

but is actually a special fund, & was established to protect the consumers from frequent oil price fluctuations. Payments for inventory losses & underrecovery from sales sustained by the

courts but not reimbursements w/c were not specifically authorized by law.

FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS vs. COURT OF APPEALS – “SC jurisdiction over BOI case” EO NO. 226,

the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 repealed BP. No. 129 w/c vested appellate jurisdiction over BOI orders to the IAC (now the CA) & now provided that all appeals from the decisions of said board shall be filed directly w/ the SC. Supervening event: The 1987 Consti. was already effective w/c

prohibits Congress from increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the SC w/o its advice & concurrence. Hence, EO No. 226 never became effective, & BP No. 129 remains in effect, as well

as implementing Circular No. 1-91 pursuant thereto w/c prescribes the procedures therefor.

DIAZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS – “SC jurisdiction over ERB case” Davao Light & Power Co. appealed

the decision of the ERB (deducting assessments from their property) directly to the SC. SC remands the case to the CA for disposition, w/c dismissed it for failure to comply w/ Circular Nos. 1-88 & 2-90 (providing for dismissal of erroneous appeals). EO No. 172, creating the ERB was enacted when

the 1987 Consti was already in effect, hence its vesting upon the SC of jurisdicrion over ERB w/o its advice & concurrence is inoperative. Judicial Reorganization Act remains in effect, as well

as said Resolutions enacted pursuant thereto. Petition DISMISSED.

FABIAN vs. DESIERTO – “SC jurisdiction over Ombudsman case – love affair” Teresita Fabian,

chairman of PROMAT Consruction & Nestor Agustin, incumbent dist. engr. of the 1st _{Metro Mla.}

Engineering Dist. had amorous relations – w/ advantage to PROMAT. When the relationship soured, Fabian sought to end relationship, but Agustin oppressed her. Fabian files admin case before Ombudsman; found him guilty of misconduct – suspension w/o pay for 1 year. Upon motion for reconsideration, Desierto inhibited himself, Deputy Ombudsman exonerated respondent. Pursuant to RA No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act) Fabian appeals to SC. SC found out that Ombudsman & CSC have concurrent jurisdiction, but CSC decisions appealable to the CA. RA No. 6770 enacted during the

effectivity of the 1987 Consti & violates the prohibition on Congress’ increase of the appellate jurisdiction of the SC w/o its advice & concurrence. Not alleged in the appeal, not the lis mota of

the case, but SC brushed them aside. CA has jurisdiction in accordance w/ 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.

VILLAVERT vs. DESIERTO – “SC jurisdiction over Ombudsman case – Sweepstakes” Douglas

Villavert is a Sales & Promotion Supervisor who incurred P 900k + worth of unpaid PCSO tickets. Compromised w/ the PCSO & approved by the PCSO Board of Directors. However, Deputy-Ombudsman for Visayas pursued admin. case against him & found him guilty of Grave Misconduct & Dishonesty – recommended his dismissal. He appealed to the SC. RA No. 6770 enacted during the

effectivity of the 1987 Consti & violates the prohibition on Congress’ increase of the appellate jurisdiction of the SC w/o its advice & concurrence. Case was referred to the CA for final

disposition citing Fabian vs. Desierto.

TIROL Jr. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT – SC jurisdiction over Ombudsman case – public school”

Victoriano Tirol was Regional Director of DECS for Region 8; entered into a contract w/ Fairchild Marketing & Const. w/c was grossly disadvantageous to the gov’t as per COA audit, recommended to the Ombudsman for criminal & admin. charges w/c approved & filed charges w/ Sandiganayan. Petitioned on certiorari to the SC. Fabian vs. Desierto ruling applies. RA No. 6770 enacted during

the effectivity of the 1987 Consti & violates the prohibition on Congress’ increase of the appellate jurisdiction of the SC w/o its advice & concurrence. Certiorari DISMISSED.

SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY vs. COMELEC – “Inclusion of Morong in SEZ case” RA No.

7227 (Bases Conversion & Dev’t Act) w/c provided for the creation of the Subic Special Econ. Zone. Sanggunian Bayan of Morong issued Resolution indicating approval, but residents therein interposed reservations, w/c the SB later agreed to. They submitted request for certain amendments to Congress w/c did not act upon it; hence they resorted to initiative. COMELEC initialted referendum (not

initiative) calendar of activities & promulgated guidelines. SBMA filed for certiorari. Definitions:

•

enact legislation; entirely the work of the electorate

•

begun & consented to by the law-making body

Accdg. to the LGC, local initiative shall cover only matters w/in the legal powers of the Sanggunian to enact (subject to decision by COMELEC). Case is REMANDED to COMELEC w/c must make preparations for Initiative, and NOT referendum. Corrective measures must be made.

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC – “Consti amendment through Initiative case” Atty. Jesus

Delfin filed w/ COMELEC a petition to amend the Consti through Initiative – calling for elimination of term limits of elective officials. COMELEC gives due course to petition pursuant to RA No. 6735. Miriam, IBP, & other parties challenge on certiorari. Provision on Constitutial Amendments in not

self-executing. Requires activation by Congress. The implementing law RA No. 6735 intended to include Constitutional Amendments, however, it is inadequate to cover that system. It failed to

provide a subtitle for Consti amendments, failed to provide contents of the petition, & failed to provide the detailed procedures but provided such for amendment of statutes and local legislation. COMELEC acted w/ grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to petition bec. it did not even contain the signatures. Certiorari GRANTED.

Constitutional Law

Executive Branch of Government

PHILCONSA vs. ENRIQUEZ – “Guidelines in implementation case” Pres. imposed conditions &

administrative guidelines upon the expenditure of funds for the COA, Ombudsman, SC, DPWH, & NHA in accordance w/ his program for Gov’t. The issuance of said guidelines is only an exercise

of the President of his duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. The Pres. is authorized,

WEBB vs. DE LEON – “Vizconde Massacre case” Hubert Webb & 8 other persons charged w/ the crime

of rape w/ homicide of Carmela Vizconde, her mother & sister. The principal witness was Jessica Alfaro. The DOJ issued the assailed Resolution finding probable cause. Information was filed against petitioners through DOJ Order No. 223; warrants of arrest issued by Judge Amelita Tolentino.

Jessica Alfaro was not included in the information based on RA No. 6981 (Witness Protection,

Security, & Benefit Program) w/c mandates non-inclusion of state witness in the criminal complaint & grants immunity from prosecution. It grants the DOJ the power to determine who can qualify to said program & become immune from suit. Not an intrusion of the judicial prerogative to discharge an

accused as a state witness. The power to prosecute crimes is vested in the Executive Branch in its power to implement & execute the laws. The power to execute the law includes the power to

prosecute; hence RA No. 6981 w/ its affirmation of executive discretion is VALID.

MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS – “Marcos’ return to the Phils. case” After being deposed & exiled to

Hawaii, Pres. Marcos, in his deathbed, signified his desire to return to the Phils & die in his country. Circumstances during the time include frequent coup d’ etats, economic problems, etc. Pres. Aquino deemed such return to be dangerous to the safety of the nation. Right to return to one’s country not expressly granted by the Bill of Rights but recognized in Int’l Law. Powers of the Pres. are not

restricted to those expressly granted by the Consti such as appointing power,

commander-in-chief powers, pardoning power, treaty-making power, etc. but include such inherent & residual

unstated powers necessary to the exercise of executive power & implicit to the paramount duty to protect the people. In this case, the residual power of the Pres. to serve & protect the

general welfare of the people is exercised as mandated by the Constitution.

LAUREL vs. GARCIA – “Roppongi Properties case” acquired through reparations from Japan after WW2

under the Reparations Agreement, listed under “Government Sector.” It was originally dedicated to embassy, but the latter was transferred and the Roppongi property became dormant. Pres. Aquino created committee to study the disposition of said estates; EO No. 296 authorized the sale of said estates to non-Filipino citizens/entities. Said property is of public domain – outside the commerce of man. It is dedicated for the public use & cannot be appropriated or alienated w/o a formal

declaration from the gov’t to convert it to patrimonial property. EO No. 296 does not have force

of law bec. Pres. Aquino has already lost her revolutionary powers by then. There must be a law

authorizing its conveyance; the concurrence of Executive & Legislative is necessary.

DJUMANTAN vs. DOMINGO – “Muslim wife case” Bernard Bañez was OCW to Indonesia, married to

Marina Cabael. Married Djumantan in Indonesia & had 2 children. Brought them to Phils. pretended to be friends only & passed through immigration through such misrepresentation. Lived at Bañez’s house, discovered by Cabel who filed for concubinage but was dismissed. His son Leonardo filed complaint before the Ombudsman, detained at Commission on Immigration & Deportation – deportation proceedings ensued. The President’s power to deport is as absolute & unqualified

as the power to prohibit entry into the country. Alien’s admission is a matter of pure permission,

not as a matter of right. Likewise, an alien does not possess right to an indefinite stay. However, the deportation of Djumantan is barred by prescription (5 yrs +) accdg. to Immigration Act of 1940.

CHAVEZ vs. PCGG – “Seriously Flawed Marcos Compromise case” PCGG enters into compromise

agreement w/ the Marcos Family for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth w/c contained several serious constitutional infirmities as follows:

•

for witnesses only, but not for the principals of the crime. The Marcoses are principal

defendants before the Sandiganbayan.

•

to tax & to grant tax exemptions is vested in Congress.

•

encroachment upon the judiciary. Dismissal of the case is at the discretion of the court.

•

the Marcoses. This violates the Civil Code – an action for future fraud cannot be

• It does not provide for a period w/in w/c the Marcoses must satisfy their prestations & lays no standards as to what assets are to be retained by them and those forfeited to the Gov’t.

• It lacks the approval of the President FVR.

KILUSANG MAYO UNO vs. DIRECTOR GEN. OF NEDA – “Unified ID System case” Pres. Arroyo,

through EO No. 420 mandated the NEDA to facilitate the implementation of the Uniform ID Sys. for various Departments of the Gov’t under the Executive for cost-efficiency, convenience, etc. Does not usurp the power of the legislature. It is not the Nat’l ID System. There are 2 ways for admin. agencies to effect such ID system: 1. By memorandum of agreement bet. agencies, or 2. upon order of the President. Under the Consti, the President shall have control of all executive departments,

bureaus, & offices. Such power of the Pres. is self-executing & is limited to Exec. Branch.

There are several laws mandating Gov’t entities to reduce costs, increase efficiency, improve services, etc. In issuing said EO, the Pres. is only performing the duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed; it is only an executive issuance, not an act of legislation.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

UNITED STATES vs. RICHARD NIXON – “Exec. Privilege vs. Criminal Justice case” Pres. Nixon was

charged for conspiracy to defraud the United States & obstruction of justice. Pursuant thereto, the court issues sub poena duces tecum for the production of taped conversations bet. Nixon & other exec. officials. Nixon invokes the General Executive Privilege; protection of communications bet. high Gov’t officials & those who advise & assist them in the performance of their duties. Also invokes separation of powers. Both cannot sustain absolute, unqualified Presidential Immunity. He must

allege it on the basis of military or diplomatic secrets. Generalized interest in confidentiality will not hold against the demands of due process & fair admin. of criminal justice.

ALMONTE vs. VASQUEZ – “Econ. Intel. & Investigation Bureau privilege case” Ombudsman received

anonymous letter, presumed to be from employee of EIIB alleging corruption w/in such as ghost employees, anomalous disbursement of public funds, etc. Ombudsman investigates & issues sub poena ducs tecum to Acctng. Division & Records Section of EIIB requiring production of documents relating to Personal Service Funds. Exec. privilege will not hold unless it is alleged that the

privileged info partakes of the nature of military or diplomatic secrets or similar matters. No

express statutory grant of privilege; only purchase of info & rewards are privileged under COA Circular No. 88-293. EIIB has duty to account for use of public funds.

IMMUNITY FROM SUIT

SOLIVEN vs. MAKASIAR – “It’s my prerogative! case” Luis Beltran & other petitioners were charged w/

libel by Pres. Aquino. Beltran argues that the presidential immunity from suit imposes a correlative disability to file suit bec. she may have to be a witness for the prosecution & subjected to pain of perjury – hence circumventing the said principle. It may only be invoked by the President, not by

anyone else in her behalf. Should she so desire, she may shed the immunity, but it is her

prerogative to do so. Privilege works to protect the Pres. from being hampered in the performance of duties & functions by lawsuits & allows the Pres. to give governance her undivided attention.

HARLOW vs. FITZGERALD – “Aides of Nixon case” Bryce Harlow & Alexander Butterfield are aides of

Pres. Nixon who conspired to have Earnest Fitzgerald removed from his employment in the White House, allegedly violating his constitutional rights. Fitzgerald files suit for damages. Presidential aide

does not enjoy the same degree of immunity. He must establish that his office performs such

sensitive functions that would require immunity & that the act alleged was in the performance of said functions. Objective test: must have reasonable knowledge & respect for basic rights.

Subjective test: must not demonstrate malicious intent. Both must be present. Case was

remanded for further proceedings based on the standards laid down.

CLINTON vs. JONES – “Another of Clinton’s sexual adventures case” Paula Corbin Jones was working

w/ Arkansas Industrial Dev’t Comm. State Police Officer Danny Ferguson orders her to leave desk to visit then Gov. Bill Clinton in his hotel suite where the latter made “abhorrent” sexual advances upon

her w/c she rejected. She was later treated in a hostile manner at work. Filed suit for damages. Federal Trial Court deferred trial until expiration of term of Clinton as President of the US. The

President’s immunity from suit does not extend to acts committed outside of official duties.

The rationale of the rule is to allow the Pres. to perform his DUTIES w/o being hampered. The

protected action must be related to the immunity’s purpose. Unofficial acts do not fall w/in the privilege of immunity from suit. The Federal Court erred in deferring due course & must assume

jurisdiction to try the case. Does not violate separation of powers. REMANDED.

GLORIA vs. CA – “DECS reassignment case” DECS Sec. Ricardo Gloria recommended to the Pres. the

re-assignment of Bienvenido Icasiano from being Schools Div. Superintendent of QC to Superintendent of Marikina Inst. of Science & Technology (MIST) to fill up a temporary vacancy. Approved by FVR. Icasiano sues for violation of security of tenure due to indefinite duration of assignment. Presidential immunity from suit is not violated bec. it is directed against Sec. Gloria &

not FVR. Even so, presidential decisions may be assailed in court if there is grave abuse of

discretion. Clearly violated security of tenure.

ESTRADA vs. DESIERTO – “The Impeachment Drama case” Impeachment of Pres. Estrada

disintegrates. The EDSA Dos drama ensues, the mass resignation of his Cabinet follows & he leaves Malacañang. SC considers him to be resigned on the basis of the totality of his acts and the attending circumstances present during the volatile period. Pres. Arroyo sworn into office – SC holds that she is not just acting president but is actually incumbent president; the confirmation of Congress as a co-equal branch was given great weight. Pres. Estrada prosecuted by the Ombudsman based on the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act, Sec. 15 thereof provides that separation or cessation of a

public official from office is not a bar to prosecution under this Act.

The exact nature of Impeachment is debatable, but when impeachment proceedings become

moot due to resignation of the Pres. the proper criminal (plunder, bribery, graft & corruption) & civil actions may proceed against him in ordinary courts. Conviction in Impeachment is not a

requisite to criminal prosecution before the Ombudsman. Unlawful acts of public officials are not

acts of the State; hence they stand on the same footing as any other trespasser. They are not

protected by Executive Immunity from suit.

ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT / VICE PRESIDENT

ANSON-ROA vs. ARROYO – “Incumbent Arroyo runs for President case” Senatorial candidates Elisa

Anson-Roa & Amina Rasul-Bernardo challenge her candidacy & allege use of public funds for campaign. Consti: The President shall not be eligible for RE-ELECTION. No person who has

succeeded the Pres. & has served for more than 4 yrs shall be qualified for election to the same office anytime. Arroyo was not elected as President & has not served for more than 4 yrs.

Does not have to resign & can run w/ all the concomitant powers & duties of the Presidency. COMELEC has jurisdiction. Alleged use of funds is question of fact, not of law.

PRESIDENTIAL CONTROVERSIES

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. RAMOS – “I still want the Presidency case” as the election protest for the

presidency was pending, Miriam files her Cert. of Candidacy for the Senate. It is tantamount to

withdrawal/abandonment of her claim to the Presidency. It is a political contract w/ the electorate

to serve her constituency for the term for w/c she was elected. Only 3 yrs left in the Presidency, 6 yrs to serve as Senator. The action becomes moot upon the expiration of the contested term. She also waived the revision of the remaining unrevised ballots – signifies intent to abandon her claim.

PROHIBITION AGAINST HOLDING OTHER OFFICE / EMPLOYMENT

RAFAEL vs. EACIB – “appointments to the Embroidery Board case” RA No. 3137 created the

Embroidery & Apparel Control & Inspection Board, Sec. 2 thereof defines membership: representatives from Bureau of Customs, Central Bank, Dept. of Commerce & Industry, Nat’l Econ. Council as ex-officio members, & member from the private sector from Assoc. of Embroidery &