Article VI The Legislative Department Case Digests 1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1: CASE DIGESTS
ARTICLE 6: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

SECTION 1.
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER SHALL BE VESTED IN THE CONGRESS OF THE
PHILIPPINES WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF A SENATE AND A HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE BY
THE PROVISION ON INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM.
GARCIA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (!" SCRA "#$
FACTS:
In Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan
agreed to the inlusion of the muniipality of Morong as part of the Subi Speial !onomi "one
#SS!"$ in aord %ith &' no. ())(, other%ise *no%n as the Bases +on,ersion -e,elopment 't
of 199).
May )., 1993/ Petitioners filed a petition to annul the Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye
1993. In the said petition, they set some onditions %hih they %ant to be omplied %ith before
they inlude their muniipality %ith SS!".
Muniipality of Morong did not ta*e any ation on the petition %ithin 30 days after its submission,
%hih prompted the petitioners resorted to their po%er of initiati,e under the 0oal 1o,ernment
+ode of 1991 %hereby they started to soliit the re2uired number of signatures to ause the
repeal of said resolution.
3on. !dilberto M. de 0eon, 4ie5 Mayor and Presiding 6ffier of the Sangguniang Bayan
Morong, %rote a letter to the !7euti,e -iretor of +6M!0!+ re2uesting the denial of the petition
for a loal initiati,e as it %ill 8ust promote di,isi,eness, ounter produti,e and futility.
9uly :, 1993/ +6M!0!+ en ban resol,ed to deny the petition for loal initiati,e on the ground
that its sub8et is ;merely a resolution< and not an ordinane
9uly 13, 1993/ +6M!0!+ further resol,ed to diret Pro,inial !letion Super,isor, 'tty.
Ben8aminn +asiano, to hold on the authentiation of signatures being gathered by the petitioners
ISSUE:
Is Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong Bataan the proper
sub8et of an initiati,e= #i.e. >hether or not the po%er of initiati,e an be e7erised e,en %hat is
2uestioned is only a resolution and not an ordinane=$
HELD:
Petition is 1&'?@!- and +6M!0!+ &esolution 9351:)3 are '??A0!- and S!@ 'SI-!.
RATIO:
In a &epublian system, there are ) *inds of legislati,e po%er/
1. ORIGINAL5 possessed by the so,ereign people
2. DERIVATIVE5 delegated by the so,ereign people to legislati,e bodies and is subordinate
to the original po%er of the people.
6ne of the lessons the people learned is the folly of ompletely surrendering the po%er to
ma*e la%s to the legislature. @hus, in the ne% +onstitution, a system of peopleBs initiati,e %as
thus installed %hih endo%s the people %ith the po%er to enat or re8et any at or la% by
ongress or loal legislati,e body.
+6M!0!+ %as also empo%ered to enfore and administer all la%s and regulations
relati,e to the ondut of an initiati,e and referendum. @hus, on 'ug ., 19C9, it appro,ed &' no.
:(3D entitled ;'n 't Pro,iding for a System of Initiati,e and &eferendum and 'ppropriating
ALSE %1!:
ALDANA, BARRIENTOS, BELLOSILLO, BRIONES, CASTANEDA, DELOS SANTOS, DE &ESUS, GODUCO, IBARRA,
LAGROSAS, MANGAHAS, PENA
1
Eunds @herefor.< >hih spelled out the re2uirements for the e7erise of the po%er of initiati,e
and referendumF proedure of the loal initiati,e and referendumF and their limitations. It %as also
intended for the ats to be inluded as appropriate sub8ets of loal initiati,es.
LOCAL INITIATIVES' legal proess %hereby the registered ,oters of a loal go,ernment
unit may diretly propose, enat, or amend any ordinane. It does not, ho%e,er, deal %ith
the sub8ets or matters that an be ta*en up in a loal initiati,e.
@he +onstitution learly inludes not only ordinane but resolutions as appropriate
sub8ets of a loal initiati,e. 'n at inludes a resolution. Bla* defines an at as Gan e7pression
of %ill or purpose...it may denote something done...as a legislature, inluding not merely physial
ats, but also derees, edits, la%s, 8udgments, resol,es, a%ards and determinations.G @he la%
should be onstrued in harmony %ith and not in ,iolation of the +onstitution.
9an 1:, 1991/ +6M!0!+ also promulgated &' )300 %here it %as stated in Se D, 'rt 1
that the po%er of initiati,e may be e7erised to amend the +onstitution, or to enat a national
legislation, a regional, pro,inial, ity, muniipal or barangay la%, resolution or ordinane.
Se 1). of the 0oal 1o,ernment +ode of 1991 does not limit the appliation of loal
initiati,es to ordinanes, but to all sub8ets or matters %hih are %ithin the legal po%ers of the
Sanggunians to enat.
&esolution ,s. 6rdinane
RESOLUTION' used %hene,er the legislature %ishes to e7press an opinion %hih to
ha,e only a temporary effet
ORDINANCE' intended primarily to permanently diret and ontrol matters applying to
persons or things in general.
+onsidering the lasting hanges that %ill be %rought in the soial, politial, and eonomi
e7istene of the people of Morong by the inlusion of their muniipality in the SS!", it is logial to
hear their ,oie on the matter ,ia an initiati,e.
RUBI VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO ( !# PHIL. 66% $
FACTS:
@he ase is an appliation for habeas orpus in fa,or &ubi and other Manguianes of the Pro,ine of
Mindoro. It %as alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally depri,ed of their liberty by the pro,inial
offiials of that pro,ine. @he petitioners %ere said to be held on the reser,ation established at @igbao,
Mindoro and one -abalos is said to be under the ustody of the pro,inial sheriff in the prison of +alapan
for ha,ing run a%ay from the reser,ation.
In a resolution adopted by the pro,inial board of Mindoro it %as stated that se,eral attempts and
shemes ha,e been made for the ad,anement of the non5+hristian people of Mindoro %hih %ere all a
failure, and that unless other measure is ta*en for the Mangyan %or* of the pro,ine, no suessful
result %ill be obtained to%ard eduating those people, and that it is deemed neessary to oblige them to
li,e in one plae, designated in @igbao, in the interest of la% and order .. It %as also pro,ided that any
mangyan %ho shall refuse to omply %ith the order shall be imprisoned upon on,ition. @he said
resolution has been duly appro,ed by the Seretary of Interior and subse2uently, the pro,inial go,ernor
appro,ed of the same pursuant to 'dministrati,e 6rder of 191(, enated by the legislature, ordering the
non5+hristians to ta*e up their habitation on the site pro,ided and their failure to abide shall be a ground
for imprisonment. Petitioner &ubi and those li,ing in his ranheria ha,e not fi7ed their d%ellings %ithin the
reser,ation of @igbao and are liable in aordane %ith Se. )(D9 of 't )(11. @he pro,inial go,ernor
and the pro,inial board direted the Manguianes in 2uestion to ta*e up their habitation in @igbao.
Petitioner ho%e,er, hallenges the ,alidity of the said 'dministrati,e +ode. It shall be noted that that the
substane of the la% in 2uestion is not ne% to Philippine la%. 'nteedent la%s ma*e use of the term non5
+hristians %ith referene to uni,iliHed elements of the islands.
ALSE %1!:
2
@he ourt made a long enumeration of anteedent la%s before and after the a2uisition of the Anited
States of the Philippine Islands. @hese la%s denote an an7ious regard for the %elfare of the non +hristian
inhabitants of the Philippines and settled and onsistent pratie %ith referene to the method to be
follo%ed for their ad,anement.
ISSUE:
>hether or not the petitioners %ere unla%fully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty.
>hether or not Se )1.D of 'dministrati,e 6reder of 191( is ,alid.
HELD:
@he S+ ruled that the Petitioners %ere ()* unla%fully imprisoned or restrained of their liberlty. More so,
Se. )1.D of the 'dministrati,e +ode of 191( is +)(s*,*-*,)(./.
RATIO:
***Constitutional Issues***
Delegation of Legislative Power.
Petitioner ontends that the order of the go,ernor, direting the Maguianes to habitate themsel,es in
@igabo, is an undue delegation of legislati,e po%er.
@he ma7im of onstitutional la% forbidding the delegation of legislati,e po%er should be Healously
proteted. 9udge &anney in the ase of 6hio stressed that/ ;@he true distintion therefore is bet%een the
delegation of po%er to ma*e the la% %hih neessarily in,ol,eds a disretion as to %hat it shall be, and
onferring an authority or disretion as to its e7eution, to be e7erised under and pursuane of the la%.
@he first annot be delegatedF the latter no ob8etion an be made. 's held in >ayman ,s. Southard,
-isretion may be ommitted by the legislature to an e7euti,e department or offiial. In the ase at hand,
the 0egislature merely onferred upon the pro,inial go,ernor, %ith the appro,al of the pro,inial board,
and the -epartment 3ead, disretionary authority as to the e7eution of the la% and suh disretion is
indeed neessary. Eurthermore, an e7eption to the general rule, santioned by immemorial pratie,
permits the entral legislati,e to delegate po%ers to loal authority. 's offiials harged %ith the
administration of the pro,ine and the protetion of its inhabitants, they are better fitted to selet sites
%hih are fa,orable for impro,ing the people %ho ha,e misfortunes of being ba*%ard in the soiety.
Religious Discrimination
@he %ords non5+hristian ha,e a lear, definite and %ell settled signifiation %hen used in the Philippines
statute boo*s as a desripti,e ad8eti,e applied to tribes, people, or inhabitants d%elling in more or less
remote distrits and pro,ines throughout the islands. It denotes lo% grade of i,iliHation of the indi,iduals
inluded in the lass to %hih they apply.
Liberty: Due Process of Law; Equal Protection Clause
0iberty inludes the right of the itiHen to be free to use his faulties in all la%ful %aysF to li,e and %or*
%here he %illF to earn his li,elihood by any la%ful allingF to pursue any a,oation, an for that purpose to
enter into ontrats %hih may be proper, neessary and essential to his arrying out these purposes to a
suessful onlusion. 0iberty as understood in demoraies is liberty regulated by la%. >hene,er and
%here,er the natural rights of itiHens %ould, if e7erised %ithout restraint, depri,e other itiHens of rights
%hih are also and e2ually natural, suh as assumed rights must yield to the regulation of la%. @he
authority onferred upon e7euti,e offiials by the la% in 2uestion does not unduly interfere %ith the liberty
of the itiHen %hen the degree of i,iliHation of the Manguianes is onsidered.
-ue proess of la% and e2ual protetion lause are not ,iolated by the la% in 2uestion. @here e7ist a la%
ALSE %1!:
3
%ih is reasonableF it is enfored aording to regular methods of proedureF and it applies to all
members of the same lass.
lavery an! Involuntary ervitu!e
Sla,ery and In,oluntary Ser,itude denote a ondition of enfored, ompulsory ser,ie of one to another.
+onfinement in the reser,ations in aordane %ith the said 'dministrati,e +ode of 191( does not
onstitute sla,ery and in,oluntary ser,itude.
Police Power
@he polie po%er of the State is a po%er oe7tensi,e %ith self preser,ation. @he Philippines has both on
reason and authority the right to e7erise the so,ereign polie po%er in the promotion of the general
%elfare and the publi interest. Se. )1.D of the 'dministrati,e 6rder of 191( is a pure e7erise of polie
po%er and the ourt annot delare that the 0egislature has e7eeded its rightful authority in enating the
said la%.
Legislative Intent
@he fundamental ob8eti,e of go,ernment poliy is to establish friendly relations %ith the so5alled non5
+hristians and to promote their eduational, agriultural, industrial, and eonomi de,elopment and
ad,anement in i,iliHation. In so far as the Manguianes themsel,es are onerned, the purposes of bthe
1o,ernment are to gather together the hildren for eduational purposes, and to impro,e the health and
moralsIto begin the proess of i,iliHation. In so far as the relation of the Manguianes to the Stae is
onerned, the purposes of the 0egislature in enating the la%, and of the e7euti,e branh in enforing
it, are to protet the settlers in Mindoro and to de,elop the resoures of the great Island.
PELAE0 VS. THE AUDITOR GENERAL (11 SCRA 16#$
FACTS:
September . to 6tober )9, 19:./ President of the Philippines issued !6 ?os. 935 1)1, 1). and
1):5 1)9 %hih reated 33 muniipalities.
?o,ember 10, 19:./ !mmanuel PelaeH, 4ie President of the Philippines, instituted a %rit of
prohibition %ith preliminary in8untion, against 'uditor 1eneral, to restrain him from passing in
audit any e7penditure of publi funds in implementation of said e7euti,e orders andJor any
disbursement by said muniipalities
ISSUE:
!6 ?os. 935 1)1, 1). and 1):5 1)9 are null and ,oid upon the ground that said Setion :C of the &e,ised
'dministrati,e +ode has been impliedly repealed by &epubli 't ?o. )3(0 and onstitutes an undue
delegation of legislati,e po%er.
HELD:
>3!&!E6&!, the !7euti,e 6rders in 2uestion are hereby delared null and ,oid ab initio and the
respondent permanently restrained from passing in audit any e7penditure of publi funds in
implementation of said !7euti,e 6rders or any disbursement by the muniipalities abo,e referred to. It is
so ordered.
RATIO:
ALSE %1!:
4
9anuary 1, 19:0/ &' ?o. )3(0 %as enated. @his at states that barrios may Knot be reated or
their boundaries altered nor their names hangedB e7ept by an 't of +ongress or of the
orresponding pro,inial board ;upon petition of a ma8ority of the ,oters in the areas affeted< and
the reommendation of the ounil of the muniipality or muniipalities in %hih the proposed
barrio is situated
Moreo,er, setion :C of the &e,ised 'dministrati,e +ode, upon %hih the disputed e7euti,e
orders are based, pro,ides/
@he #1o,ernor51eneral$ President of the Philippines may by e7euti,e order define the boundary,
or boundaries, separate or merge any pro,ine, name any ne% subdi,ision reated and hange
the seat of go,ernment %ithin any subdi,ision to suh plae therein as the publi %elfare may
re2uire/ Pro,ided, @hat the authoriHation of the #Philippine 0egislature$ +ongress of the
Philippines shall first be obtained %hene,er the boundary of any pro,ine or subpro,ine is to be
defined or any pro,ine is to be di,ided into one or more subpro,ines. >hen ation by the
#1o,ernor51eneral$ President of the Philippines in aordane here%ith ma*es neessary a
hange of the territory under the 8urisdition of any administrati,e offier or any 8udiial offier, the
#1o,ernor51eneral$ President of the Philippines, %ith the reommendation and ad,ie of the
head of the -epartment ha,ing e7euti,e ontrol of suh offier, shall redistrit the territory of the
se,eral offiers affeted and assign suh offiers to the ne% distrits so formed.
Apon the hanging of the limits of politial di,isions in pursuane of the foregoing authority, an
e2uitable distribution of the funds and obligations of the di,isions thereby affeted shall be made
in suh manner as may be reommended by the #Insular 'uditor$ 'uditor 1eneral and appro,ed
by the #1o,ernor51eneral$ President of the Philippines.
@he po%er to fi7 ommon boundaries may parta*e of an administrati,e nature sine it
in,ol,es the adoption of means and %ays to arry into effet the la% reating said muniipalities.
But the authority to reate muniipal orporations is essentially legislati,e in nature.
'lthough the +ongress may delegate to another branh of the go,ernment the po%er to
fill in the details in the e7eution, enforement or administration of the la%, it is essential that said
la% should be/
1. +omplete in itself
o must set forth the poliy to be e7euted, arried out or implemented by the
delegate
). Ei7 a standard
o @he limits of %hih are suffiiently determinate must onform in the performane
of his funtions.
Setion :C of the &e,ised 'dministrati,e +ode does not meet these %ell settled
re2uirements for a ,alid delegation of the po%er to fi7 the details in the enforement of a la%. It
does not enuniate any poliy to be arried out or implemented by the President. ?either does it
gi,e a standard suffiiently preise to a,oid the e,il effets abo,e referred to.
if the ,alidity of the delegation of po%ers made in Setion :C %ere upheld, there %ould no
longer be any legal impediment to a statutory grant of authority to the President to do anything
%hih, in his opinion, may be re2uired by publi %elfare or publi interest. Suh grant of authority
%ould be a ,irtual abdiation of the po%ers of +ongress in fa,or of the !7euti,e, and %ould bring
about a total ollapse of the demorati system established by our +onstitution, %hih it is the
speial duty and pri,ilege of this +ourt to uphold.
@he po%er of ontrol under this pro,ision implies the right of the President to interfere in
the e7erise of suh disretion as may be ,ested by la% in the offiers of the e7euti,e
departments, bureaus, or offies of the national go,ernment, as %ell as to at in lieu of suh
offiers. @his po%er is !enie! by the +onstitution to the !7euti,e, insofar as loal go,ernments
ALSE %1!:
5
are onerned.
@hus, the President annot interfere %ith loal go,ernments, so long as the same or its
offiers at %ithin the sope of their authority.
'lso, the po%er of ontrol of the President o,er e7euti,e departments, bureaus or
offies implies no more than the authority to assume diretly the funtions thereof or to interfere in
the e7erise of disretion by its offiials.
Instead of gi,ing the President less po%er o,er loal go,ernments than that ,ested in him
o,er the e7euti,e departments, bureaus or offies, Setion :C of the &e,ised 'dministrati,e
+ode re,erses the proess and does the e"act o##osite, by onferring upon him more po%er
o,er muniipal orporations than that %hih he has o,er said e7euti,e departments, bureaus or
offies.
EASTER SHIPPING LINES, INC. vs. POEA (166 SCRA 1!!$
FACTS:
Pri,ate respondentBs husband, 4italiano Sao, %as the hief offier of MJ4 !astern Polaris. 3e
%as *illed in an aident in @o*yo, 9apan. 3is %ido% sued for damages %ith the P6!' under !6
?o. 19CD and Memorandum +irular ?o. ). @hus, she %as hereby a%arded the sum of P19),
000.
@he o%ner of the ,essel, !astern Shipping 0ines, In. #!S0I$, argued that the P6!' had no
8urisdition o,er the ase as the husband %asnBt an o,erseas %or*er but a domesti employee
and onse2uently, his %ido%Bs laim should ha,e been filed %ith SSS, sub8et to appeal to the
!mployees +ompensation +ommission.
ISSUE:
>hether or not the memorandum irular issued by the P6!' on %hih they based their deision in fa,or
of pri,ate respondent, a ,alid delegation of legislati,e po%er=
HELD:
@he petition is -ISMISS!-.
RATIO:
0egislati,e disretion as to the substanti,e ontents of the la% annot be delegated. >hat an be
delegated is the disretion to determine ho% the la% may be enfores, not %hat the la% shall be.
@he asertainment of the latter sub8et is a prerogati,e of the legislature. @his prerogati,e annot
be abdiated or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate.
@here are ) aepted tests to determine %hether or not there is a ,alid delegation of legislati,e
po%er.
1. COMPLETENESS TEST5 the la% must be omplete in all its terms and onditions %hen
it lea,es the legislature suh that %hen it reahes the delegates the only thing he %ill
ha,e to do is enfore it.
2. SUFFICIENT TEST5 there must be ade2uate guidelines or limitations in the la% to map
out the boundaries of the delegateLs authority and pre,ent the delegation from running
riot.
Both tests are intended to pre,ent a total transferene of legislati,e authority to the delagate, %ho
is not allo%ed to step into the shoes of the legislature and e7erise a po%er essentially legislati,e.
@he priniple of non5 delegation of po%ers is appliable to all the 3 ma8or po%ers of the
1o,ernment but is espeially important in the ase of the legislati,e po%er beause of the many
ALSE %1!:
6
instanes %hen its delegation is permitted. @hus the delegation of the legislati,e has beome the
rule and its non5 delegation the e7eption.
@he reason for the inreasing omple7ity of the tas* of go,ernment and the gro%ing inability of
the legislature to ope diretly %ith the myriad problems demanding it attention. @he gro%th of
soiety has ramified its ati,ities and reated peuliar and sophistiated problems that the
legislature annot be e7peted reasonably to omprehend. SpeialiHation e,en in legislation has
beome neessary.
&easons for delegation of legislati,e po%ers are partiularly appliable to administrati,e bodies.
-elegated po%er to issue rules to arry out the general pro,isions of the stature is alled 2)345
)6 s-7)58,(.*4 /49,s/.*,)(.
>ith suh po%er, administrati,e bodies may implement the broad poliies laid do%n in a statute
by ;filling in< the details %hih the +ongress may not ha,e the opportunity or ompetene to
pro,ide. @his is effeted by their promulgation of %hat are *no%n as supplementary regulations.
@hese regulations ha,e the fore and effet of la%. @hus, Memorandum +irular ?o. ), issued by
the P6!', is an e7erise of administrati,e regulation %herein the P6!' is mandated to protet
the rights of o,erseas Eilipino %or*ers to fair and e2uitable employment praties.
It %as also ontended that !S0I has been denied due proess beause of P6!'Bs Memorandum
sustained and applied it as an uninformed ritiism of administrati,e la% itself. 'dministrati,e
agenies are ,ested %ith ) basi po%ers,
1. 2uasi5 legislati,e5 enables them to promulgate implementing rules and regulations
). 2uasi5 8udiial5 enables them to interpret and apply suh regulations.
Suh arrangement annot be onsidered ,iolati,e of due proess as long as the ardinal rights in
the '?1 @IB'M ,s +I& ase are obser,ed.
>hate,er doubts regarding the rights of the parties are resol,ed in fa,or of pri,ate
respondent under the priniple that those %ith less in life should ha,e more in la%.
ARANETA vs. GATMAITAN (1%1 SCRA !#$
FACTS:
6n aount of the belief of sustenane fishermen that using a tra%l in fishing aused the
depletion of the marine resoures of that area. @here arose a general lamor among the ma8ority
of the inhabitants of oastal to%ns to prohibit the operation of tra%ls in San Miguel Bay.
-e 1C, 19D3/ Muniipal MayorBs 0eague passed a resolution ondemning the operation of tra%ls
as the ause of the %anton destrution of the shrimp speie and resol,ing to petition the
President of the Philippines to regulate fishing in San Miguel Bay by delaring it losed for tra%l
fishing at a ertain period of the year.
Marh )(, 19D./ Muniipal MayorBs 0eague sent another resolution praying that the President to
protet them and the fish resoures of San Miguel Bay by banning the operation of tra%ls therein.
's a response, President issued the follo%ing/
EXECUTIVE ORDER DATE PURPOSE
!6 no. )) 'pril D, 19D. Prohibits the use of tra%ls in
San Miguel Bay
!6 no. :: #amended !6 no. ))$ September )3, 19D. Prohibits the use of tra%ls in
San Miguel Bay, !N+!P@
during the typhoon season
!6 no. C0 #re,i,ed !6 no. ))$ ?o,ember ), 19D. #to ta*e effet after -e. 31,
19D.$
ISSUE:
1. >hether the Seretary of an !7euti,e -epartment and the -iretor of a Bureau, ating in their
apaities as suh 1o,ernment offiials, ould la%fully be re2uired to post a bond in an ation
ALSE %1!:
7
against themF
). >hether the President of the Philippines has authority to issue !7euti,e 6rder ?os. )), :: and
C0, banning the operation of tra%ls in San Miguel BayF
3. >hether !7euti,e 6rder ?os. )), :: and C0 %ere ,alid, for the issuane thereof %as not in the
e7erise of legislati,e po%ers unduly delegated to the President.
HELD:
-elared !6 ?os. )), :: and C0, series of 19D., ,alid for ha,ing been issued by authority of the
+onstitution, the &e,ised 'dministrati,e +ode and Eisheries 't.
RATIO:
OIssue P 1Q
@here are ) re2uisites to be satisfied if an in8untion is to issue/
1. @he e7istene of the right sought to be proteted
). 'ts against %hih the in8untion is to be direted are ,iolati,e of said right.
@he ation being one against the petitioners as suh 1o,ernment offiials, is essentially
one against the 1o,ernment, and to re2uire these offiials to file a bond %ould be indiretly a
re2uirement against the 1o,ernment, for as regards bonds or damages that may be pro,ed, if
any, the real party in interest %ould be the &epubli of the Philippines.
OIssue P )Q/
'griulture and ?atural &esoures, an e7euti,e department and %hih by la%, is plaed
under the diretion and ontrol of the Seretary, %ho e7erises its funtions sub8et to the
general super,ision and ontrol of the President.
!7euti,e orders, regulations, derees and prolamations relati,e to matters under the
super,ision or 8urisdition of a -epartment, the promulgation %hereof is e7pressly
assigned by la% to the President of the Philippines, shall as a general rule, be issued
upon proposition and reommendation of the respeti,e -epartment.
+onse2uently, the promulgation of the 2uestioned e7euti,e orders %as upon the
proposition and reommendation of the Seretary of 'griulture and ?atural &esoures.
@hus, S+ delare that !6 ?os. )), :: and C0, series of 19D., of the President, are ,alid
and issued by authority of la%.
OIssue P 3Q/
DELEGATION OF THE POWER TO
LEGISLATE
CONFERRING OF AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION AS
THE EXECUTION OF THE LAW CONSISTS
In,ol,es a disretion as to %hat the la% shall be
@he authority or disretion as to its e7eution has to be
e7erised under and in pursuane of the la%
+anBt be done ?o ,alid ob8etion an be made
Erom the pro,isions of 't no. .003 as amended by +ommon%ealth 't no. .(1, +ongress
1. -elared it unla%ful to ;ta*e or ath fry or fish eggs in the territorial %aters of the
Philippines
). It authoriHed the Seretary of 'griulture and ?atural &esoures to pro,ide by the
regulations suh restritions as may be deemed neessary to be imposed on the use
of any fishing net or fishing de,ie for the protetion of fish or fry eggs.
3. It authoriHed the Seretary of 'griulture and ?atural &esoures to set aside and
establish fishery reser,ations or fish refuges and santuaries ot be administered in
the manner to be presribed by him and delared it unla%ful for any person to ta*e.
-estroy or *ill in any of the said plaes, or in any manner disturb or dri,e a%ay or
ta*e therefrom, any fish fry or fish eggs
.. PenaliHe the e7eution of suh ats delared unla%ful and in ,iolation of this 't #no.
.003$ or of any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
't no. .003 is omplete in itself and pro,ides suffiient standard to guide the Seretary of
'griulture and ?atural &esoures in implementation of the said la%.
ALSE %1!:
8
>hen the President issued !6 ?o. C0, he did nothing but sho% an an7ious regard for the
%elfare of the inhabitants of San Miguel Bay and dispose of issues of general onern %hih
%ere in onsonane and strit onformity %ith the la%.
SECTION 1.
1.THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE COMPOSED OF NOT MORE THAN TWO
HUNDRED AND FIFTY MEMBERS, UNLESS OTHERWISE FIXED BY LAW, WHO SHALL BE
ELECTED FROM LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS APPORTIONED AMONG THE PROVINCES, CITIES,
AND THE METROPOLITAN MANILA AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NUMBER OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE INHABITANTS, AND ON THE BASIS OF A UNIFORM AND PROGRESSIVE RATIO,
AND THOSE WHO, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, SHALL BE ELECTED THROUGH A PARTY'LIST
SYSTEM OF REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL, AND SECTORAL PARTIES OR
ORGANI0ATIONS.
.THE PARTY'LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL CONSTITUTE TWENTY PER CENTUM OF THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES INCLUDING THOSE UNDER THE PARTY LIST. FOR
THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, ONE'HALF
OF THE SEATS ALLOCATED TO PARTY'LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE FILLED, AS
PROVIDED BY LAW, BY SELECTION OR ELECTION FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN
POOR, INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES, WOMEN, YOUTH, AND SUCH OTHER SECTORS
AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, EXCEPT THE RELIGIOUS SECTOR.
!. EACH LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT SHALL COMPRISE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, CONTIGUOUS,
COMPACT, AND AD&ACENT TERRITORY. EACH CITY WITH A POPULATION OF AT LEAST TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND, OR EACH PROVINCE, SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE
REPRESENTATIVE.
:. WITHIN THREE YEARS FOLLOWING THE RETURN OF EVERY CENSUS, THE CONGRESS
SHALL MA;E A REAPPORTIONMENT OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS BASED ON THE STANDARDS
PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION.
MARIANO vs. COMELEC (: SCRA 11$
FACTS:
1. @%o petitions assailing ertain pro,isions of &' ?o. (CD. #'n 't +on,erting the Muniipality of
Ma*ati Into a 3ighly ArbaniHed +ity$ as unonstitutional.
). 1& ?o. 11CD(( in,ol,es a petition for prohibition and delaratory relief, and assailing the statute
as unonstitutional on the follo%ing grounds/
a. Setion ) did not properly identify the land area or territorial 8urisdition of Ma*ati by
metes and bounds, %ith tehnial desriptions, in ,iolation of Setion 10, 'rtile N of the
+onstitution, in relation to Setions ( and .D0 of the 0oal 1o,ernment +ode.
b. Setion D1 attempts to alter or restart the Kthree5onseuti,e termB limit for loal eleti,e
offiials, in ,iolation of Setion C, 'rtile N of the +onstitution and Setion (, 'rtile 4I of
the +onstitution.
. Setion D)/
i. Inreased the legislati,e distrit of Ma*ati only by speial la% #the +harter$ R
,iolates the onstitutional pro,ision re2uiring a general reapportionment la% to be
passed by +ongress %ithin three years follo%ing the return of e,ery ensus
ii. @he inrease in legislati,e distrit %as not e7pressed in the bill title
iii. @he addition of another legislati,e distrit in Ma*ati is not in aordane %ith
Setion D #3$, 'rtile 4I of the +onstitution R the population of Ma*ati is .D0,000
3. 1& ?o. 11C:)( in,ol,es a petition %hih assails Setion D) as unonstitutional on the same
grounds as aforestated.
ISSUE:
ALSE %1!:
9
>hether or not the 2uestioned pro,isions are onstitutional.
HELD:
Mes. Petitions dismissed.
RATIO:
a. -/ $%e im#ortance of !rawing wit% #recise stro&es t%e territorial boun!aries of a local government
unit cannot be overem#%asi'e!. $%e boun!aries must be clear for t%ey !efine t%e limits of t%e
territorial (uris!iction of a local government unit. It can legitimately e"ercise #owers of government
only wit%in t%e limits of its territorial (uris!iction.
Petitioners ha,e not demonstrated that the delineation of the land area of the proposed +ity of
Ma*ati %ill ause onfusion as to its boundaries.
-/ $%e e"istence of a boun!ary !is#ute !oes not #er se #resent an insurmountable !ifficulty
w%ic% will #revent Congress from !efining wit% reasonable certitu!e t%e territorial (uris!iction of a
local government unit.
+ongress maintained the e7isting boundaries of the proposed +ity of Ma*ati.
b. -/ $%e requirements before a litigant can c%allenge t%e constitutionality of a law are: )*+ t%ere
must be an actual case or controversy; ),+ t%e question of constitutionality must be raise! by t%e
#ro#er #arty; )-+ t%e constitutional question must be raise! at t%e earliest #ossible o##ortunity;
an! ).+ t%e !ecision on t%e constitutional question must be necessary to t%e !etermination of t%e
case itself.
@he petition is premised on the ourrene of many ontingent e,ents #i.e. Mayor Binay %ill run
again, et.$
Petitioners merely posed a hypothetial issue.
Petitioners #residents of @aguig$ are not also the proper parties to raise this abstrat issue.
c. -/ Rea##ortionment of legislative !istricts may be ma!e t%roug% a s#ecial law/ suc% as in t%e
c%arter of a new city. $%e Constitution clearly #rovi!es t%at Congress s%all be com#ose! of not
more t%an ,01 members/ unless ot%erwise fi"e! by law. 2s t%us wor!e!/ t%e Constitution !i! not
#reclu!e Congress from increasing its members%i# by #assing a law/ ot%er t%an a general
rea##ortionment law.
@his is e7atly %hat the +ongress did in enating &' ?o. (CD. and pro,iding for an inrease in
Ma*atiBs legislati,e distrit.
-/ $%e #olicy of t%e Court favors a liberal construction of t%e 3one title one sub(ect4 rule so as not
to im#e!e legislation. $%e Constitution !oes not comman! t%at t%e title of a law s%oul! e"actly
mirror/ fully in!e"/ or com#letely catalogue all its !etails. 5ence/ it s%oul! be sufficient
com#liance if t%e title e"#resses t%e general sub(ect an! all t%e #rovisions are germane to suc%
general sub(ect.
-/ ai! section #rovi!es/ inter alia/ t%at a city wit% a #o#ulation of at least ,01/111 s%all %ave at
least one re#resentative. ection - of t%e 6r!inance a##en!e! to t%e Constitution #rovi!es t%at a
city w%ose #o#ulation %as increase! to more t%an ,01/111 s%all be entitle! to at least one
congressional re#resentative.
'lthough Ma*ati has a population of .D0,000, its legislati,e distrit may still be inreased sine it
has met the minimum population re2uirement of )D0,000.
ANG BAGONG BAYANI'OFW LABOR PARTY VS. COMELEC (:%: SCRA "1#$
FACTS:
ALSE %1!:
10
+6M!0!+ issued the 6mnibus &esolution ?o. 3(CD 6? Marh ):, )001 %here it appro,ed the
partiipation of 1D. organiHations and parties in the )001 party5 list eletions.
'pril 10, )001/ '*bayan +itiHens 'tion Party filed a petition praying that the names of some
herein respondents be deleted from the +ertified 0ist of Politial partiesJ Setoral PartiesJ
6rganiHationsJ +oalitions Partiipating in the Party 0ist System for the May 1., )001 !letions.
'lso as*ed as an alternati,e that the ,otes ast for the said respondents not be ounted or
an,asses, and that latterBs nominees not be prolaimed
'pril 11, )001/ Bayan Muna and Bayan Muna5 Mouth also filed a petition for +anellation of
&egisration and ?omination against some of herein respondents.
'pril 1(, )001/ Bayan Muna filed a Petition hallenging +6M!0!+ 6mnibus &esolution no. 3(CD
May 9, )001/ +ourt ordered a onsolidation of the ) Petitions before it
ISSUES:
1. >hether or not politial parties may partiipate in the party5 list eletions
). >hether or not the party5 list system is e7lusi,e to KmarginaliHed and underrepresentedB setors
and organiHations
3. >hether or not the +omele ommitted gra,e abuse of disretion in promulgating 6mnibus
&esolution ?o. 3(CD.
HELD:
@his ase is &!M'?-!- to the +6M!0!+, %hih is hereby -I&!+@!- to immediately ondut
summary e,identiary hearings on the 2ualifiations of the party5 list partiipants.
RATIO:
Ofor issue P 1Q
Ander the +onstitution and &' (9.1, pri,ate respondents annot be dis2ualified from the party5
list eletions, merely on the ground that they are politial parties.
Setion 3 of 'rtile 4I of the +onstitution pro,ides that the members of the 3ouse of
&epresentati,es may ;be eleted through a party5 list system of registered national, regional and
setoral parties or organiHations.
Ander setions ( and C of 'rtile NI#+$ of the +onstitution, politial parties may be registered
under the party5 list system.
-uring the deliberations in the +onstitutional +ommission, +omm. +hristian Monsod pointed out
that the partiipants in the party5 list system may ;be a regional party, a setoral party, a national
party, A?I-6, Magsasa*a, or a regional party in Mindanao.
o +omm. Monsod stated that the purpose of the party5 list pro,ision %as to open up the
system, in order to gi,e a hane to parties that onsistently plae 3
rd
or .
th
in
ongressional distrit eletions to %in a seat in +ongress and onse2uently, ha,e a ,oie
in the 'ssembly.
&' (9.1 pro,ides us %ith the definitions of the follo%ing/
o P60I@I+'0 P'&@M5 an organiHed group of itiHens ad,oating an ideology, or platform,
priniples or poliies for the general ondut of go,ernment and %hih, as the most
immediate means of seuring their adoption, regularly nominates and supports ertain of
its leaders and members as andidates for publi offie.
o S!+@6&'0 P'&@M5 an organiHed group of itiHens belong to identifiable setors, suh
as those enumerated in 'rt. : Setion D#)$ of the +onstitution, %hih inludes labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous ultural ommunities and %omen and those added by
&' (9.1 li*e the fisherfol*, elderly, handiapped, ,eterans, o,erseas %or*ers and
ALSE %1!:
11
professionals.
o S!+@6&'0 6&1'?I"'@I6?5 a group of itiHens %ho share the same or similar
attributes or harateristis, employment, interests or onerns
o +6'0I@I6?5 an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, setoral perties or
organiHations for eletion purpose.
Ofor issue P )Q
@he re2uisite harater of these parties or organiHations must be onsistent %ith
the purpose of the party5 list system, as laid do%n in the +onstitution and &' (9.1.
Setion D, 'rtile 4I of the +onstitution pro,ides that
#1$ @he 3ouse of &epresentati,es shall be omposed of not more than )D0 members, unless
other%ise fi7ed by la%, %ho shall be eleted from legislati,e distrits apportioned among the
pro,ines, ities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in aordane %ith the number of their
respeti,e inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressi,e ration, and those %ho,
as pro,ided by la%, shall be eleted through a party5 list system of registered national,
regional and setoral parties or organiHations
#)$ @he party5 list representatie,es shall onstitute )0S of the total number of representati,es
inluding those under the party5 list. Eor 3 onseuti,e terms after the ratifiation of this
+onstitution, T of the seats alloated to party5 list representati,es shall be filled, as pro,ided
by la%, by seletion or eletion from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous ultural
ommunities, %omen, youth and suh other setors as may be pro,ided by la%, e7ept the
religious setor.
Said pro,ision on the party5 list system is not self5 e7eutory and is thus up to
+ongress to sulpt in granite the lofty ob8eti,e of the +onstitution. 3ene, &' (9.1 %as
enated
@he MarginaliHed and Anderrepresented to Beome 0a%ma*ers @hemsel,es/
@he *ey %ords in this poliy are ;proportional representations<, ;marginaliHed and
underrepresented< and ;la* of %ell5 defined onstituenies<
P&6P6&@I6?'0 &!P&!S!?@'@I6? refers to the representation of the ;marginaliHed
and underrepresented< as e7emplified by the enumeration in Se. D of the la%.
@he party5 list organiHation or party must fatually and truly represent the
marginaliHed and underrepresented onstituenies mentioned in Se. D.
@he persons nominated by the party5 list andidate organiHation must be ;Eilipino
itiHens belonging to marginaliHed and underrepresented setors, organiHations
and parties<
0'+K 6E >!005 -!EI?!- +6?S@I@A!?+!M refers to the absene of traditionally
identifiable eletoral group, li*e ,oters of a ongressional distrit or territorial unit of
go,ernment. &ather, it points again to those %ith disparate interests identified %ith the
;marginaliHed and underrepresented<
&ole of the +6M!0!+ is to see to it that only those Eilipinos %ho are
;marginaliHed and underrepresented< beome members of +ongress under the
party5 list, Eilipino5 style
Intent is lear/ to gi,e genuine po%er to the people, not only by gi,ing more la%
to those %ho ha,e less in life, but more so by enabling them to beome ,eritable
la%ma*ers themsel,es.
@hus the poliy of the implementation of the la% %ill enable Eilipino itiHens
belonging to marginaliHed and underrepresented setors, organiHations and
parties, to beome members of the 3ouse of &epresentati,es.
Se D of &' (9.1 demonstrates the lear intent of the la% that not all setors an be
represented under the party list system.
@he Party5 list System -eserated by the 6S1 +ontentions
&' no. (9.1 ;does not limit the partiipation in the party5 list system to the marginaliHed and
underrepresented setors of soiety<
ALSE %1!:
12
It ontends that any party or group that is not dis2ualified under Se. : of &' no. (9.1 may
partiipate in the eletions.
@he assertion of the 6S1 that the party5 list system is not e7lusi,e to the marginaliHed and
underrepresented disregards the lear statutory priniple. Its laim that e,en the super5 rih
and o,errepresented an partiipate deserates the spirit of the paty5 list system.
@he 6S1Bs position to treat them similarly defies reason and ommon sense.
>hile the mega5 rih and o,errepresented are numerially spea*ing, a tiny minority,
they are neither marginaliHed nor underrepresented.
'llo%ing the non5 marginaliHed and o,errepresented to ,ie for the remaining seats under the
party5 list system %ould not only dilute, but also pre8udie the hane of the marginaliHe and
underrepresented, ontrary to the intention of the la% to enhane it.
@he party5 list system is a tool for the benefit of the underpri,ilegedF the la% ould not ha,e
gi,en the same tool to others, to the pre8udie of the intended benefiiaries.
@his +ourt, therefore annot allo% the party5 list system to be sullied and prostituted by those
%ho are neither marginaliHed nor underrepresented.
Ofor issue P 3Q
>hat is needed under the present irumstanes is a fatual determination of
%hether respondents therein and all the 1D. pre,iously appro,ed groups, ha,e the neessary
2ualifiations to partiipate in the party5 list eletions, pursuant to the +onstitution and the la%.
@he ourt deems it proper therefore to remand the ase to the +omele to determine
after summary e,identiary hearings, %hether the 1D. parties and organiHations
omply %ith the re2uirements of la%.
ANG BAGONG BAYANI'OFW LABOR PARTY VS. COMELEC (:%: SCRA "1#$
FACTS:
Motion for prolamation filed by ,arious party5list partiipants.
. uni2ue parameters of the Philippine party system/
o 1
st
, the t%enty perent alloation 55 the ombined number of all party5list ongressmen
shall not e7eed t%enty perent of the total membership of the 3ouse of &epresentati,es,
inluding those eleted under the party5list.
o )
nd
, the t%o perent threshold 55 only those parties garnering a minimum of t%o perent of
the total ,alid ,otes ast for the party5list system are 2ualified to ha,e a seat in the 3ouse
of &epresentati,es. han robles ,irtual la% library
o 3
rd
, the three5seat limit 55 eah 2ualified party, regardless of the number of ,otes it
atually obtained, is entitled to a ma7imum of three seatsF that is, one 2ualifying and t%o
additional seats.
o .
th
, proportional representation 55 the additional seats %hih a 2ualified party is entitled to
shall be omputed in proportion to their total number of ,otes.
9une ):, )001F the +ourt promulgated a deision re2uiring +omele to ommene hearings
follo%ing the guidelines stated in the said deision. @hey are also direted by the ourt to start the
hearing of those %ho loo* li*e they ha,e garnered a ertain number of ,otes to 2ualify for a seat.
Eurthermore, they direted to submit to this +ourt its ompliane report %ithin 30 days from
notie. Einally, the May 9, )001 resolution refraining omele from delaring any %inner shall
remain in fore until after the omele itself %ill ha,e omplied and reported its ompliane.
9uly )(, )001F +omele reommended ertain parties ha,e passed the C point guideline and
ertain parties dis2ualified.
'ug 1., )001F ourt issued a resolution partially lifting the may 9, )001 @&6 to prolaim B'M'?
MA?' as the first %inner in the party list eletion.
'ug )., )001F ourt again issued a resolution partially lifting the may 9, )001 @&6 to prolaim
'KB'M'? and BA@I as %inning party list groups.
ALSE %1!:
13
9an )9, )00)F ourt agreed to 2ualify 'P!+ and +IB'+, %hih had pre,iously been dis2ualified
by +omele in its Eirst +ompliane &eport. @hus, ourt lifted the may 9, )001 @&6 to prolaim
ape and iba as %inners. @o summariHe, after the +ourt had aepted and appro,ed the Eirst
Partial +ompliane &eport and its amendments, the follo%ing nominees %ere ,alidly prolaimed
%inners/ B'M'? MA?' #Satur +. 6ampo, +rispin B. Beltran and 0iHa 0. MaHa$, 'KB'M'?
#0oretta 'nn P. &osales$, BA@I0 #Ben8amin '. +ruH$, 'P!+ #!rnesto +. Pablo$ and +IB'+ #9oel
9. 4illanue,a$.
+omele amended its +ompliane &eports by adding . more party5list partiipants #BA3'M,
+6+6E!-, ?+I' and B'16?1 B'M'?I$ to the list of 2ualified andidates for the May 1., )001
eletions.
?o, )D, )00)F 6S1 ontended that ?+I' is not a 2ualified party under the 8uly )(, )001 report.
ISSUE:
'side from those already ,alidly prolaimed pursuant to earlier &esolutions of this +ourt, are there other
party5list andidates that should be prolaimed %inners= -oes the lause Gtotal ,otes ast for the party5
list systemG inlude only those ballots ast for 2ualified party5list andidates=
DECISION:
3a,ing obtained at least t%o perent of the total ,alid ,otes ast in the last party5list eletions, the
follo%ing 2ualified partiipants are delared eleted %ith one nominee eah/ BA3'M, 'MI?, 'B',
+6+6E!-, PM, S'?0'K'S and 'B'?S!U PI?'M.
RATIO:
+omele made a mista*e in dis2ualifying +6+6E!- and BA3'M. +6+6E!- and BA3'M are
2ualified. +omele report on BA3'M %as merely anhored on on8etures or speulations. 6n
+6+6E!-, the byla%s ma*ing the hairman of the Philippine +oonut 'uthority an automati
member of the +6+6E!- ?ational Board has already been deleted as early as May, 19CC. @he
primary purposes of +6+6E!-Ls 'rtiles of Inorporation authoriHe the organiHation to help
e7plore and obtain possible tehnial and finanial assistane for industry de,elopment from
pri,ate or go,ernmental soures, this statement does not by itself onstitute suh substantial
e,idene to support a onlusion that the +6+6E!- is an entity funded or assisted by the
go,ernment.
@he ,otes obtained by dis2ualified party5list andidates are not to be ounted in determining the
total ,otes ast for the party5list system. In the present ases, the ,otes they obtained should be
deduted from the an,ass of the total number of ,otes ast during the May 1., )001 eletions.
+onse2uently, follo%ing Setion 1) of &' (9.1, a ne% tally and ran*ing of 2ualified party5list
andidates is no% in order, aording to the perentage of ,otes they obtained as ompared %ith
the total ,alid ,otes ast nation%ide. @he ,otes for these dis2ualified groups total C,D9D,:30.
Subtrating this figure from 1D,11C,C1D #the total ,otes ast as reported in the +ompliane
&eports$ %ill result in a ne% total of :,D)3,1CD ,alid ,otes ast for the May 1., )001 party5list
eletions. @his ne% figure representing the ,otes ast for the .: 2ualified party5list partiipants %ill
no% be the basis for omputing the t%o5perent threshold for ,itory and the number of seats the
%inners are entitled to.
@o repeat, there are only .: 2ualified party5list partiipants. @he +ommission reommended for
2ualifiation only .) party5list andidates in its three +ompliane &eports. @o this figure should be
added the t%o partiipants that %ere appro,ed in our 9anuary )9, )00) &esolution, plus another
t%o #BA3'M and +6+6E!-$.
@he ourt found that only 1) of the .: 2ualified parties obtained at least t%o perent of the
:,D)3,1CD total ,alid ,otes ast.
SECTION 6.
ALSE %1!:
14
NO PERSON SHALL BE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UNLESS HE IS A
NATURAL'BORN CITI0EN OF THE PHILIPPINES AND, ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION, IS AT
LEAST TWENTY'FIVE YEARS OF AGE, ABLE TO READ AND WRITE, AND, EXCEPT THE PARTY'
LIST REPRESENTATIVES, A REGISTERED VOTER IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HE SHALL BE
ELECTED, AND A RESIDENT THEREOF FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN ONE YEAR
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DAY OF THE ELECTION.
ROMUALDE0'MARCOS VS. COMELEC
O1.&. 1199(:J S!P@!MB!& 1C, 199DJ 9AS@I+! K'PA?'?Q
FACTS:
Imelda &omualdeH5Maros filed her ertifiate of andiday for representati,e of the 1
st
distrit of
0eyte.
Pri,ate respondent, +irilo &oy Monte8o, inumbent &epresentati,e of the 1
st
distrit of 0eyte, filed
a petition for PetitionerBs dis2ualifiation, alleging that she did not meet the +onstitutional
re2uirement for resideny.
Petitioner the 1yr resideny re2uired as her +ertifiate of +andiday sho%ed ;VVVV years and
seven months<.
Petitioner then filed %ith the Pro,inial !letion Super,isor of 0eyte an 'mendedJ+orreted
+ertifiate of +andiday, hanging the entry ;se,en< months to ;sine hildhood<. @his %as not
aepted for it %as filed out of time.
It %as then filed to +6M!0!+, %here the )
nd
-i,ision, by a ,ote of )/1, ame up %ith the
resolution/
1. Einding the pri,ate respondentBs Petition for -is2ualifiation meritorious
). stri*ing off petitionerBs +orretedJ'mended +ert. of +andiday of Marh 31, 199D
3. +aneling her original +ert. of +andiday
!,en the M& to +6M!0!+ %as denied.
PetitionerBs reasons for the hange/
o It should be noted that she %as born and raised in 0eyte.
o She mo,ed to Manila to pursue her studies as %ell as %or*. She met Eerdinand Maros
%ho %as then the representati,e of Bata, Iloos ?orte. >hen they got married, she
follo%ed her husband throughout his politial areer.
o 3er husband fi7ed their residene in Bata but during his presideny, they li,ed in
Malaanang Palae.
o 'fter the death of her husband and her e7ile, she %as not allo%ed to return to her
anestral home as it %as se2uestered by the P+11, foring her to li,e in different
residenes. !,entually she returned to 0eyte and settled there.
ISSUES:
>hether or not petitioner met the 1yr resideny 2ualifiation for eletion purposes.
>hether or not +6M!0!+ properly e7erised its 8urisdition before and after the eletions.
HELD:
1. <-./,6,+.*,)( )( 1 =5 54s,84(+=
?o. -epending on the 8ustie, there are multiple reasons or opinions. Eirst, the S+ said that for
the purposes of eletion la%, residene is synonymous to domiile.
In the ase 6ng vs. Re#ublic, the +ourtBs onept of domiile is to mean an indi,idualBs
;permanent home<.
She has ne,er lost her domiile, %hih she had sine birth e,en %hen she got married. >hen
ALSE %1!:
15
she got married, the husband has set their domiile and she lost her domiile of 0eyte by
operation of la% but regained suh domiile %hen her husband died. It %as further deided that
%hen her husband died, the return to her original domiile %as as if there %as no interruption.
Eurthermore, on basis of another opinion, upon the death of her husband, she had the freedom to
hoose her domiile.
'n indi,idual does not lose his domiile e,en if he has li,ed and maintained residenes in
different plaes. &esidene, it bears repeating, implies a fatual relationship to a gi,en plae for
,arious purposes.
@o effet a hange in domiile, one must demonstrate/
1. an atual remo,al or an atual hange of domiile
). bona fide intention of abandoning the former plae of residene and establishing a ne%
oneF and
3. 'ts %hih orrespond %ith the purpose
@he absene of any, residene of origin is deemed to ontinue.
. <-./,6,+.*,)( )( 1 =5 54s,84(+=
@he ontention of the petitioner is that it is the 3ouse of &epresentati,es !letoral @ribunal and
not the +6M!0!+ has 8urisdition o,er the eletion of members of the 3ouse &epresentati,es in
aordane %ith 'rt. 4I Se. 1( of the +onstitution
-otrine/ a statute re2uiring rendition of 8udgment %ithin a speified time is generally onstrued to
be merely diretory, ;so that non5ompliane %ith them does not in,alidate the 8udgment on the
theory that if the statute had intended suh result, it %ould ha,e learly indiated it.<
Mandatory ,s. -iretory pro,ision
o -ifferene lies on grounds of e7pedienyF less in8ury results to the general publi by
disregarding than enforing the letter of the la%
o Statute is onstrued to be merely diretory %hen ;the statutory pro,isions %hih may be
thus departed from %ith impunity, %ithout affeting the ,alidity of statutory proeedings,
are usually those %hih relate to the mode or time of doing that %hih is essential to
effet the aim and purpose of the 0egislature or some inident of the essential at.<
A<UINO VS. COMELEC (:> SCRA :%%$
FACTS:
'gapito '. '2uino files his +ertifiate of +andiday for the position of &epresentati,e for the ne%
Seond 0egislati,e -istrit of Ma*ati. #?ote/ he stated his resideny period as 0 years and 10
months$
Mo,e Ma*ati and Mateo Bedon #0'K'S5?A+-5AM-P$ files petition to dis2ualify '2uino for
la*ing residene 2ualifiation.
+6M!0!+ dismissed petition to dis2ualify
Mo,e Ma*ati and Mateo files a motion for reonsideration.
6n the eletion '2uino %ins %ith 3C,D.( ,otes o,er his opponent, 'gusto Sy8uo, %ith 3D,910
,otes.
+6M!0!+ grants motion for reonsideration delaring '2uino as ineligible and thus dis2ualified
as a andidate and determine the %inner from the remaining legible andidates.
ISSUE:
>6? '2uino is legible to run for the said position
>6? -elaring the %inner from the remaining legible andidates is onstitutional
HELD:
ALSE %1!:
16
?6 to both issues.
RATIO:
S4+ 6 A5* VI of the +onstitution pro,ides that a andidate must be a resident of the distrit he is
representing for at least one year before the eletions. '2uino has al%ays been a resident of +oneption,
@arla prior to the eletions. 'lthough he leased a ondominium unit %ithin the distrit he %ill be
representing, mere leasing instead of buying the unit is not e,ident of a strong intention to establish a
domiile.
-elaring the person %ho garnered the seond highest number of ,otes as the %inner beause the
hoie of the ma8ority is dis2ualified is against the so,ereign %ill of the people.
DOMINO VS. COMMISSSION ON ELECTIONS (!1% SCRA 1:6$
FACTS:
+hallenged in this ase for ertiorari %ith a prayer for preliminary in8untion are the &esolution of May :,
199C of the Seond -i,ision of the +6M!0!+, delaring petitioner 9uan -omino dis2ualified as
andidate for representati,e of Sarangani in May 11, 199C eletions and the -eision of May )9, 199C of
the +6M!0!+ en ban denying -6MI?6Bs motion for reonsideration.
6n Marh )D, 199C, -omino filed his ertifiate of andiday for the position of &epresentati,e of
Sarangani, indiating that he had resided in the onstitueny %here he see*s to be eleted for one year
and t%o months immediately preeding the eletion. 6n Marh 30, pri,ate respondents ?arisio &aglifo
9r, !ddie 9a,a, 9uanBayonito 9r, &osario Samson and -ionisio 0im filed %ith the +6M!0!+ petition to
deny due ourse to or +anel +ertifiate of +andiday. @hey alleged that -omino is not a resident muh
less a registered ,oter of Sarangani. @hey had substantiated e,idenes %hih inlude/ the +ertifiate of
+andiday of respondent %herein he laims he ha,e resided in the onstitueny %here he see*s eletion
for one year and ) months and that he is a registered ,oter of SaranganiF 4oterBs &egistration &eord
dated 9une )), 199( indiation registration in Balara, W+. &espondentBs +ommunity @a7 +ertifiate dated
9an 1D, 199(. +ertifiate of +andiday of respondent for the position of +ongressman in the 3
rd
distrit if
W+ %here he stated his residene in the onstitueny %here he see*s to be eleted immediately
preeding the eletion as 3 years, D months an d that he is a registered ,oter in Balara W+F a opy of the
appliation for transfer of registration reords due to hange of residene and opy of the s%orn
appliation for anellation of ,oterBs pre,ious registration.
Eor his defense, -omino maintained that he had ompled %ith the one year residene re2uirement and
that he has e,en residing in Sarangani sine 9an199( he sho%ed a opy of the ontrat lease bet%een
?ora -aaldaal as 0essor and respondent as 0essee e7euted in 9anuary 1D, 199(, opy if the
appliation for @ransfer of &egistration &eords due to +hange of &esidene, +@+ of the notie of
appro,al of 'ppliation.
6n May :, 199C, the +6M!0!+ Seond -i,ision promulgated a &esolution delaring -omino dis2ualified
as andidate for the position of representati,e of Sarangani for la* of the one year residene
re2uirement a li*e%ise ordered the anellation of his ertifiate of andiday 3e negates all his
protestations that he established residene in S'ranganias early as 9an 199(. 3e la*s one year
residene re2uirement.
6n May 11, the +6M!0!+ issued Supplemental 6mnibus &esolution 30.: ordering that the ast ,otes
for -omino be ounted but to suspend prolamation of %inning sine the resolution dis2ualifying him has
not yet beome final and e7eutor.
ALSE %1!:
17
6n September 1D,199C 0uille +hionbian5Solon, the andidate reei,ing the seond highest number of
,otes %as allo%ed by the +ourt to inter,ene. Inter,enor as*s the ourt to uphold -ominoBs dis2ualifiation
and to prolaim her as the representati,e of Sarangani.
ISSUE:
1$ >hether or not the 8udgment of M@+ of W+ delaring the petitioner as resident of Sarangani, not W+ is
final
)$ >hether or not petitioner resided in Sarangani, one year preeding the eletions
3$ >hether or not +6M!0!+ has 8urisdition o,er the petition
DECISION:
the petition is -ISMISS!-
RATIO:
@he +6M!0!+ has the 8urisdition to determine %hether false representation as to material fats %as
made in the ertifiate of andiday that %ill inlude the residene of the andidate. ' deision in an
e7lusion or inlusion of ,oters in the list of ,oters, e,en if final and unappealable, does not a2uire the
nature of res 8udiata. @he M@+ e7eeded its 8urisdition %hen it delared -omino a resident of
Sarangani.
@he term residene as used in la% means the same thing as domiile %hih imports not only intention to
reside but also personal presene in the plae. @hree rules must be born in mind,1$ that a man must ha,e
a residene or domiile some%hereF )$ %hen one established, it remains until ne% one is a2uiredF 3$a
man an ha,e but one residene or domiile at a time.
-omiile re2uires not 8ust bodily presene but also a delared probable intent to ma*e it oneBs fi7ed
abode. @he lease ontrat entered in 9an 199( does not support a hange of domiile. -ominoBs la* of
intention to abandon his residene in W+ is further that he %as a 2ualified andidate strengthened by his
at of registering as ,oter in W+. -omino still falls short of one year resideny re2uirement.
@he +6M!0!+under Se (C 'rt 9 of the 6mnibus !letion +ode has 8urisdition o,er a petition to deny
due ourse to or anel ertifiate of andiday and ontinues e,en after eletion, if for any reason no
final 8udgment or dis2ualifiation is rendered before the eletion and the andidate faing the
dis2ualifiation reei,ed the highest number of ,otes.
It is no% settled that the andidate %ho reei,ed the seond highest number of ,otes M'M ?6@ B!
P&6+0'IM!- >I??!& in ase the >I??!& IS -ISWA'0IEI!-. @hus the ,otes ast for -6MI?6 are
presumed to ha,e been ast in the sinere belief.
DOMINO V. COMELEC (!1% SCRA 1:6$
FACTS:
@his is a speial i,il ation in the Supreme +ourt %here a petition for ertiorari is filed. &espondent
@eodoro +. +ruH %as eleted as the &epresentati,e of the Seond -istrit of Pangasinan in the May 199C
eletions, and %on o,er the petitioner 'ntonio Bengson III, %ho %as then running for reeletion. +ruH %as
a natural5born itiHen of the Philippines. 3e %as born in San +lemente, @arla on 'pril )(, 19:0, of
Eilipino parents. @he fundamental la% then appliable %as the 193D +onstitution. 6n ?o,ember D, 19CD,
ho%e,er, respondent +ruH lost his Eilipino itiHenship %hen he enlisted in the AS Marine +orps and,
%ithout the onsent of the &epubli of the Philippines, too* an oath of allegiane to the AS. 6n Marh 1(,
ALSE %1!:
18
199., respondent +ruH rea2uired his Philippines +itiHenship through repatriation. 'fter losing in the May
199C eletions, petitioner Bengson III filed a ase of 7uo 8arranto 2! Cautelam %ith respondent 3ouse
of &epresentati,es !letoral @ribunal #3&!@$ laiming that respondent +ruH %as not 2ualified to beome
a member of the 3ouse of &epresentati,es sine he is not a natural5born itiHen as re2uired under 'rtile
4I Se. : of the +onstitution, %hih reads/
;?o person shall be a member of the 3ouse of &epresentati,es unless he is a natural5born itiHen
of the Philippines and, on the day of the eletion is at least t%enty5fi,e years of age, able to read
and %rite, and e7ept the party5list representati,es, a registered ,oter in the distrit in %hih he
shall be eleted, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately
preeding the day of the eletion.<
3&!@ rendered its deision dismissing the petition for quo warranto and delaring respondent +ruH the
duly eleted &epresentati,e of the Seond -istrit of Pangasinan. 3ene, this petition for ertiorari.
Petitioner Bengson III argue that 3&!@ ommitted serious errors and gra,e abuse of disretion,
amounting to e7ess of 8urisdition, #1$ %hen it ruled that the pri,ate respondent is a natural5born itiHen
of the Philippines despite the fat the fat that he has eased being suh in ,ie% of the loss and
renuniation of suh itiHenship on his partF #)$ %hen it onsidered the pri,ate respondent as a itiHen of
the Philippines despite the fat that he did not ,alidly a2uire his Philippine itiHenshipF #3$ %hen it
dismissed the petition despite the fat that suh rea2uisition ould not legally and onstitutionally restore
his natural5born status. 3e also asserts that respondent +ruH may no longer be onsidered a natural5born
Eilipino sine he lost his Philippine itiHenship %hen he s%ore allegiane to the AS and had to rea2uire
the same by repatriation, based from 'rtile I4 Se. ) of the +onstitution, %hih e7pressly states that
natural5born itiHens are those %ho are itiHens from birth %ithout ha,ing to perform any at to a2uire or
perfet suh itiHenship.
ISSUE:
>hether or not respondent +ruH, a natural5born Eilipino %ho beame an 'merian itiHen, an still be
onsidered a natural5born Eilipino upon his rea2uisition of Philippine itiHenship.
HELD:
YES. Petition is dismissed.
RATIO:
@here are ) %ays of a2uiring itiHenship/ #1$ by birth, and #)$ by naturaliHation, %hih results to the )
*inds of itiHens R the natural5born itiHen, and the naturaliHed itiHen. ' person, %ho at the time of his
birth is a itiHen of a partiular ountry, is a natural5born itiHen thereof. 6n the other hand, naturaliHed
itiHens are those %ho ha,e been Eilipino itiHens through naturaliHation %here an appliant has to pro,e
that he possess all the 2ualifiations and none of the dis2ualifiations pro,ided by la% to beome a
Eilipino itiHen. @he deision granting Philippine itiHenship beome e7eutory only after ) years from its
promulgation %hen the ourt is satisfied that during the inter,ening period, the appliant has #1$ not left
the PhilippinesF #)$ has dediated himself to the a la%ful alling or professionF #3$ has not been on,ited
of any offense or ,iolation of 1o,ernment promulgated rulesF or #.$ ommitted any at pre8udiial to the
interest of the nation or ontrary to any 1o,ernment announed poliies.
Eilipinos %ho lost their itiHenship may ho%e,er rea2uire the same #1$ by naturaliHation, #)$ by
repatriation, and #3$ by diret at of +ongress. ?aturaliHation is mode for both a2uisition and
rea2uisition of Philippine itiHenship. &epatriation, on the other hand, may be had under ,arious statutes
by those %ho lost their itiHenship due to/ #1$ desertion of the armed foresF #)$ ser,ie in the armed
fores of the allied fores in >> IIF #3$ ser,ie in the armed fores of the AS at any other timeF #.$
marriage of a Eilipina %oman to an alien, and #D$ politial and eonomi neessity. 's distinguished from
the lengthy proess of naturaliHation, repatriation simply onsists of the ta*ing of an oath of allegiane to
ALSE %1!:
19
the &epubli of the Philippines and registering said oath in the 0oal +i,il &egistry of the plae %here the
person onerned resides or last resided. Moreo,er, repatriation results in the reo,ery of the original
nationality. In the ase at bar, respondent +ruH, is deemed to ha,e reo,ered his original status as a
natural5born itiHen, a status %hih he a2uired at birth as a son of a Eilipino father. It bears stressing that
the at of repatriation allo%s him to reo,er, or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine
itiHenship.
PetitionerBs ontention that respondent +ruH is no longer a natural5born itiHen sine he had to perform an
at to regain his itiHenship is untenable. 's orretly e7plained by the 3&!@ in deision, the term
;natural5born itiHen< %as first defined in 'rtile III Se. . of the 19(3 +onstitution %here there are t%o
ategories of Eilipino itiHens %ho are not onsidered natural5born/ #1$ those %ho %ere naturaliHed and #)$
those born before 9anuary 1(, 19(3, of Eilipino mothers %ho, upon reahing the age of ma8ority, eleted
Philippine itiHenship. 3o%e,er, in the present +onstitution, those born of Eilipino mothers before the
effeti,ity of the 19(3 +onstitution and %ho eleted Philippine itiHenship upon reahing the ma8ority age
as natural5born. 'fter defining %ho are natural5born itiHens, Setion ) of 'rtile I4 adds a sentene/
;those %ho elet Philippine itiHenship in aordane %ith paragraph 3, Setion 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural5born itiHens. +onse2uently, under the present onstitution, there are t%o lasses of itiHens/ #1$
those %ho are natural5born and #)$ those %ho are naturaliHed in aordane %ith the la%. ' itiHen %ho is
not a naturaliHed Eilipino, i.e. did not ha,e to undergo the proess of naturaliHation to obtain Philippine
itiHenship, neessarily is natural5born Eilipino. 's respondent +ruH %as not re2uired by la% to go through
the naturaliHation proeedings in order to rea2uire his itiHenship, he is perfore a natural5born Eilipino.
's suh, he possessed all the neessary 2ualifiations to be eleted as member of the 3ouse of
&epresentati,es.
CODILLA V. DE VENECIA (11%6%1, !#! SCRA 6!#$
FACTS:
@hese are petitions for ertiorari to re,ie% the deision of the 3ouse of &epresentati,es !letoral @ribunal
#3&!@$. Petitioners, Si7to Balinguit and 'ntonio +o, and the pri,ate respondent 9ose 6ng 9r. ,ied for the
position of representati,e in the seond legislati,e distrit of ?orthern Samar in the May 19C(
ongressional eletion. &espondent 6ng %as prolaimed the duly eleted representati,e of the said
distrit. Petitioners filed eletion protests. Petitioners ontend his 2ualifiation as a member of the 3ouse
of &epresentati,es on the basis of 'rtile 4I Se. : of the present +onstitution. @he 3&!@ delared that
the respondent 9ose 6ng 9r. is a natural5born Eilipino itiHen and a resident of 0aoang, ?orthern Samar
for ,oting purposes. Petitioners filed a motion for reonsideration, %hih %as ho%e,er, denied. 3ene,
these petitions for ertiorari.
6n t%e issue of (uris!iction
@he +onstitution e7pliitly pro,ides that the 3&!@ and the Senate !letoral @ribunal #S!@$ shall be the
sole 8udges of all ontests relating to the eletion, returns, and 2ualifiations of the respeti,e members,
as stated in 'rtile 4I Se. 1(. @he authority onferred upon the !letoral @ribunal is full, lear, and
omplete. @he use of the %ord sole emphasiHes the e7lusi,ity of the 8urisdition of these tribunals. It has
been argued that under 'rtile 4I Se. 1( of the present +onstitution, the situation may e7ist as it e7ists
today %here there is an unhealthy one5sided politial omposition of the t%o !letoral @ribunals.
6n t%e issue of citi'ens%i#
@he grandfather of pri,ate respondent, 6ng @e arri,ed in the Philippines from +hina in 1C9D and %as able
to obtain a ertifiate of residene from then Spanish olonial administration. 6ng @e brought the pri,ate
respondentBs father, 9ose 6ng +huan, to Samar from +hina. @he respondentBs father, 9ose 6ng +huan
filed %ith +ourt of Eirst Instane of Samar an appliation for naturaliHation, and the same ourt delared
him to be a Eilipino itiHen. &espondent 6ng %as then 9 years old. @he house of the respondent in Samar
%as burnt t%ie and they rebuilt it t%ie in the same distrit t%ie. 6ng, after ompleting his elementary
ALSE %1!:
20
eduation in Samar, %ent to Manila to a2uire his seondary and ollege eduation. 3e too* and passed
the +P' Board !7aminations and sine employment opportunities %ere better in Manila, 6ng found a 8ob
in the +entral Ban* of the Philippines as an e7aminer. 0ater, ho%e,er, he %or*ed the hard%are business
of his family in Manila. In 19(1, his full brother, !mil 6ng, %as eleted as a delegate to the 19(1
+onstitutional +on,ention %here his status as a natural5born itiHen %as hallenged. !mil %as delared a
natural born Eilipino.
&espondent 6ngBs situation is argued to rest on 'rtile I4 Se. 1#3$ of the 19C( +onstitution %hih
pro,ides that ;those born before 9anuary 1(, 19(3, of Eilipino mothers, %ho elet Philippine itiHenship
upon reahing the age of the ma8ority< are itiHens of the Philippines. Setion ) of the same artile also
reads in its last sentene/ ;@hose %ho elet Philippine itiHenship in aordane %ith paragraph 3 hereof
shall be deemed natural5born itiHens<. @here is no dispute that the respondentBs mother %as a natural
born Eilipina at the time of her marriage. @hus, the ontention lies on %hether or not the respondent
eleted or hose to be a Eilipino itiHen. @he aforementioned pro,ision %as enated to orret the
anomalous situation %here, one born of a Eilipino father and an alien mother %as automatially granted
the status of a natural5born itiHen %hile one born of a Eilipino mother and an alien father %ould still ha,e
to elet Philippine itiHenship. Ander the 19(3 +onstitution, they %ere both onsidered as natural5born
itiHens %ith legislati,e intent to orret an unfair position %hih disriminates against Eilipino %omen.
@he petitioners also argue that the respondentBs father %as not ,alidly, a naturaliHed itiHen beause of
his premature ta*ing of oath of itiHenship.
6n t%e issue of resi!ency
@he petitioners argue that sine the pri,ate respondent o%ns no property in 0aoang, Samar, he annot,
therefore be a resident of the said plae.
ISSUE:
>hether or not the 3&!@ ated %ith gra,e abuse of disretion in its deision on the grounds that #1$
respondent 6ng is not a natural5born itiHen of the Philippines, and #)$ respondent 6ng is not a resident
of the seond distrit of ?orthern Samar.
HELD:
?6. Petition is dismissed. @he 2uestioned deision of the 3&!@ is affirmed. &espondent 6ng is delared
a natural5born itiHen of the Philippines and a resident of 0aoang, ?orthern Samar.
RATIO:
6n t%e issue of (uris!iction
In the e7erise of 'rtile 4III Se. 1 of the present +onstitution, the +ourt is merely to he* %hether or
not the go,ernmental branh or ageny has gone beyond the +onstitutional limits of its 8urisdition, not
that it erred or has a different ,ie%. In the absene of a sho%ing that the 3&!@ has ommitted gra,e
abuse of disretion amounting to the la* of 8urisdition, there is no oasion for the +ourt to e7erise its
orreti,e po%erF it %ill not deide a matter %hih by its nature is for the 3&!@ to deide. @he degree of
8udiial inter,ention should not be made to depend on ho% many legislati,e members of the 3&!@ belong
to this party or that party. @he test remains the same R manifest gra,e abuse of disretion. In the ase at
bar, the +ourt finds no impro,ident use of po%er, no denial of due proess on the part of the 3&!@ %hih
%ill neessitate the e7erise of the po%er of 8udiial re,ie% by the Supreme +ourt.
6n t%e issue of citi'ens%i#
In relation to 'rtile I4 Setions 1 and ), to e7pet the respondent to ha,e formally or in %riting eleted
ALSE %1!:
21
itiHenship %hen he ame of age is to as* for the unnatural and unneessary. @he reason is ob,ious. 3e
%as already a itiHen. ?ot only %as his mother a natural born itiHen but his father had been naturaliHed.
'ording to 8urisprudene that defines ;eletion<, the +ourt held that the e7erise of the right of suffrage
and the partiipation in eletion e7erises onstitute a positi,e at of eletion of Philippine itiHenship. @he
pri,ate respondent did more than merely e7erise his right of suffrage. 3e has established his life here in
the Philippines. @here is no doubt in this ase about respondent 6ngBs being Eilipino %hen he turned )1.
@he petitioners 2uestion the itiHenship of the father through a ollateral approah. @his annot be done.
'n atta* on personBs itiHenship may only be done through a diret ation for its nullity. @o as* the +ourt
to delare the grant of Philippine itiHenship to the respondentBs father as null and ,oid %ould run against
the priniple of due proess, as he has already been laid to rest and that he has no opportunity to defend
himself.
Moreo,er, the respondent traes his natural born itiHenship through his mother, not through the
itiHenship of his father. @he itiHenship of his father is rele,ant only to determine %hether or not the
respondent ;hose< to be a Eilipino %hen he ame of age. 't that time and up to the present, both mother
and father of the respondent %ere Eilipinos. &espondent 6ng ould not ha,e eleted any other
itiHenship.
@he same issue on natural5born itiHenship has already been deided in the ase of the full blood brother
of the respondent 6ng, %hih is another reason %hy the +ourt annot delare the 3&!@ as ha,ing
ommitted manifest gra,e abuse of disretion.
6n t%e issue of resi!ency
@he petitioners argument on this issue is misplaed. It is not re2uired that a person should ha,e a house
in order to establish his residene and domiile. @he legislati,e intent is to adhere to the earlier definition
of the %ord ;residene< %hih regarded it as ha,ing the same meaning as ;domiile<. ;-omiile< denotes
a fi7ed permanent residene to %hih %hen absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return. @he
absene of a person from said permanent residene, no matter ho% long, not%ithstanding, it ontinues to
be the domiile of that person. It is harateriHed by animus reverten!i and that in the ase at bar, the
periodial 8ourneys made by the respondent to his home pro,ine, %hile studying and later on pratiing
his profession in Manila, re,eal that he al%ays had the animus reverten!i. In onsidering the residene of
a person, It is enough that he should li,e in the muniipality or in a rented house or that of a friend or
relati,e. @he +onstitution only re2uires that the andidate meet the age, itiHenship, ,oting and residene
re2uirements. ?o%here is it re2uired by the +onstitution that the andidate should also o%n property in
order to be 2ualified.
SECTION ".
THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE ELECTED
FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS WHICH SHALL BEGIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE
PROVIDED BY LAW, AT NOON ON THE THIRTIETH DAY OF &UNE NEXT
FOLLOWING THEIR ELECTION. NO MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL SERVE FOR MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE
TERMS. VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OF THE OFFICE FOR ANY LENGTH OF
TIME SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTERRUPTION IN THE CONTINUITY
OF HIS SERVICE FOR THE FULL TERM FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED.
DIMAPATRO VS. MITRA &R . ( % SCRA ""# )
FACTS:
Petitioner Mohamad 'li -imapatro %as eleted &epresentati,e for the Seond 0egislati,e -istrit of
ALSE %1!:
22
0anao del Sur in 19C( and thereafter too* his oath of offie, performed the duties and en8oyed the rights
and pri,ileges of being an eleted &epresentati,e. 6n 9anuary 1D, 1990, petitioner filed %ith the
+6M!0!+ a +ertifiate of +andiday #+6+$ for the position of &egional 1o,ernor of '&MM.
+6M!0!+ informed the Spea*er and Seretary of the 3ouse of &eps #respondents$ of -imapatroBs filing.
@he respondents e7luded the name of -imapatro from the &oll of Members of the 3ouse of &eps
pursuant to Se. :(, 'rtile 9 of the 6mnibus !letion +ode. 3e %as then e7luded from all the
proeedings of the 3ouse of &epsF %as not paid the emoluments due his offieF his staff %as dismissed
and disbandedF his offie suite %as oupied by another.
Petitioner lost in the '&MM eletions. 3e %rote a letter to respondent Spea*er and e7pressed that he
intends to resume performing his duties and funtions as eleted Member of +ongress. 3e failed to
regain his seat in +ongress. @hus, petitioner filed this petition praying that the deision of the Spea*er
and Seretary of the 3ouse of &eps be re,ie%ed.
ISSUES:
1.$ >hether Setion :(, 'rtile 9, of BP Blg. CC1 is operati,e under the present +onstitution=
).$ >hether the respondent Spea*er andJor Seretary +'? e7lude the petitioner from the rolls of
the 3ouse of &eps, thereby pre,enting him from e7erising his funtions as ongressman, and
depri,ing him of his rights and pri,ileges as suh=
HELD:
1.) Mes. Se. :(, 'rt. 9 of BP Blg CC1 is still operati,e under the present +onstitution, as the
,oluntary at of resignation fall %ithin the term ;,oluntary renuniation< of offie enuniated in
Par. ), Se (, 'rt : of the 19C( +onstitution. Its onstitutional basis remains %ritten in the 19C(
+onstitution that one an eleti,e offiial files a ertifiate of andiday for another offie, he is
deemed to ha,e ,oluntarily ut short his tenure, not his term as e7pressed in Se (, 'rtile : of
the +onstitution. @hus, e,en %hen the pro,isions onerning the shortening of the terms of
ongressmen %ere omitted in the 19C( +onstitution, the said issue is still o,ered by 'rtile : of
the 19C( +onstitution.
2.) PetitonerBs filing of +6+ is an at of resignation and he is presumed to be a%are of the e7isting
la%s. @he Spea*er andJor Seretary of 3& areJis authoriHed to e7lude the petitioner from the
&oll of Members sine they are the administrati,e heads %ho perform ministerial funtions
inluding the remo,al of the petitionerBs name. @he mere at of filing the +6+ for another offie
produes automatially the permanent forfeiture of the eleti,e position being presently held and
it is not neessary that the other position be atually held sine the said filing is an at of
,oluntary resignation.
SECTION 1%.
THE SALARIES OF SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LAW. NO INCREASE IN SAID
COMPENSATION SHALL TA;E EFFECT UNTIL AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE
FULL TERM OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES APPROVING SUCH INCREASE.
SECTION 11.
A SENATOR OR MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL, IN
ALL OFFENSES PUNISHABLE BY NOT MORE THAN SIX YEARS IMPRISONMENT,
BE PRIVILEGED FROM ARREST WHILE THE CONGRESS IS IN SESSION. NO
ALSE %1!:
23
MEMBER SHALL BE <UESTIONED NOR BE HELD LIABLE IN ANY OTHER PLACE
FOR ANY SPEECH OR DEBATE IN THE CONGRESS OR IN ANY COMMITTEE
THEREOF.
ANTONINO VS. VALENCIA (1" SCRA "%$
$%e s#eec% an! utterances must constitute legislative action9 t%at is actions t%at are !one in relation wit%
t%e !uties of a :ember of t%e Congress.
FACTS:
1audenio 'ntonino then a Senator and 0iberal Party head of -a,ao attributed the loss of 0P andidate
to the support gi,en by defendant Brigido 4alenia then Seretary of Publi >or*s and +ommuniations
to the independent 0P andidate %hih di,ided the 0P ,otes. 'ntonino %as 2uoted in metropolitan
ne%spapers %hen he said that had not 4alenia ;sabotaged< and ;double5rossed< the 0P, its offiial
andidate %ould ha,e %on.
6n )C Eeb 19:., 'ntonino %hile attending a Senate session filed a formal re2uest %ith a Senate
+ommittee to in,estigate the ations of 4alenia as Se. of Publi >or*s and +ommuniations in
onnetion %ith a2uisitions of publi %or*s supplies and e2uipments. +opy of the formal re2uest %as
furnished to the +ommission on 'ppointments %ith the re2uest that they be onsidered in passing upon
4aleniaB appointment to the +abinet.
@%o5page press release %as issued by the offie of the Se of Pub >or*s and +om and the ontents
%ere published or reported on the front pages of : metropolitan ne%spapers. @he press release depited
'ntonino as a onsistent liarF that he prostituted his high publi offies as monetary board member and
senator for personal ends and peuniary gainsF and imputed to him the ommission of ertain serious
offenses in ,iolation of the +onstitution and 'nti51raft and +orrupt Praties 't. 'ntonino then filed the
present i,il ation against 4alenia.
4alenia filed a ounterlaim and laims that he did not issue or ause the publiation of the press
release and that they %ere made in good faith and in self defense and that they %ere 2ualifiedly pri,ileged
in harater.
0o%er ourt ruled against 4alenia holding that he aused and %as liable for the issuane of the libelous
press release and its publiation in the papers and re8eted his defenses of 2ualified pri,ilege and
defensi,e libel.
4alenia appealed to S+. -uring the ourse of the appeal, 'ntonino died in a plane rash. Sen. Magnolia
'ntonino as adminastri7 substituted her husband as plaintiff5appelle.
ISSUE:
>hether or not the press release is libelous= >hether or not the press release is proteted as a 2ualified
pri,ilege ommuniation=
HELD:
Press release is libelous. Statements released %ere defamatory and libelous in nature %here malie in
la% is presumed beause they %ere against the honor, integrity and reputation o f plaintiff. -efendant
4alenia made his imputations against the plaintiff publily and unoffiially as to be 2ualifiedly pri,ileged.
@he malie in the at of the defendant %as pro,en %hen the +ourt obser,ed that had the defendant been
prompted by a sense of duty and not beause of malie, the harges should ha,e been filed %ith the
Senate or any of its +ommittees and not publiiHed %idely by all metropolitan ne%spapers. -efendant5
ALSE %1!:
24
appellantBs laim of defensi,e libel is li*e%ise re8eted beause his argument that he had been libeled by
the plaintiff and aordingly the former 8ustified to hit ba* %ith another libel is based upon a %rong
premise. Plaintiff 'ntoninoBs at %as not libelous beause the letter he sent %as a pri,ileged
ommuniation beause the defendant %as harged by the plaintiff in his apaity as a Seretary of
Publi >or*s and +ommuniations and the same %ere filed pri,ately and offiially to the Senate and
+ommission on 'ppointments.
;u!gment affirme!.
&IMENE0 VS. CABANGBANG (1" SCRA >"$
$%e s#eec% an! utterances must constitute legislative action9 t%at is actions t%at are !one in relation wit%
t%e !uties of a :ember of t%e Congress.
FACTS:
&espondent %as a member of the 3ouse %ho %rote an open letter to the President of the Philippines, and
aused this to be published in se,eral ne%spapers of general irulation. @he ontents of the letter %ere
mainly to inform the president of the so5alled three operational plans under serious study of some
offiers of the 'EP and aided by some i,ilians. It also desribes these plans as an insidious plan or a
massi,e politial build5up of then Seretary of -efense 4argas. It also details the ,arious means that has
already been mopped out to ensure the suess of these operational plans. @he letter also suggested
that the planners already ha,e in their ontrol se,eral offiers of the 'EP, inluded are the petitioners. It
%as mentioned ho%e,er in the letter that those mentioned abo,e as already in ontrol of the planners
may be un%illingly be only tools of the plan %hih they may ha,e absolutely no *no%ledge.
'n ordinary i,il ation for damages %as instituted by petitioners against respondent for the publiation of
an allegedly libelous letter. @he trial ourt dismissed this omplaint.
ISSUES:
1.$ >hether or not the letter %as pri,ileged ommuniation=
).$ >hether or not the letter ould be onsidered libelous=
HELD:
?o. It is not pri,ileged ommuniation. 'lthough the +onstitution pro,ides for any member of +ongress
not to be 2uestioned for any speeh or debate therein, in the halls of +ongress or else%here, this
publiation doesnBt fall into this ategory. @he said e7pression refers to utteranes made by legislators in
the performane of their funtions, %hile +ongress is in session. In the ase a 2uo, the letter %as made
%hile +ongress %as presumably not in session. Eurthermore, he aused the letter to be published in
ne%spapers of general irulation, thus ipso fato he %asnBt performing his offiial duty either as a
member of +ongress or any offier of any ommittee.
?o. @he fat that the letter suggested that the plaintiffs may be un%illing tools of the plan %ithout ha,ing
*no%ledge thereof already in a %ay e7ulpate the responsibility of the plaintiffs in the said plans if e,er
they ha,e any part in the same. @his is not derogatory to the petitioners to entitle them to damages,
espeially that the planners of the operational plans %ere already learly suggested.
PEOPLE VS. &ALOS&OS (!: SCRA 6>#$
FACTS:
@he aused %as a member of the lo%er 3ouse %hen he %as on,ited of rape. 3e %as onfined in the
ALSE %1!:
25
?ational Penitentiary %hile his appeal %as pending. 3e %as re5eleted. 3e argued that he should be
allo%ed to attend legislati,e sessions and ommittee hearingsF beause his onfinement %as depri,ing
the eletorate of his distrit of their ,oie in +ongress and that he has a duty to attend the sessions in
+ongress.
ISSUE:
>hether or not petitioner should be allo%ed to attend sessions in +ongress=
HELD:
?o. !letion to high go,ernment offies doesnBt free the aused from the ommon restraints of general
la%. @he onstitution pro,ides that a member of the 3ouse of &epresentati,e is pri,ileged from arrest
only if the offense is punishable by not more than : years of imprisonment. @he aused has not gi,en
any reason %hy he should be e7empted from the operation of this pro,ision. Setion 11, 'rtile : of the
+onstitution states that a the members of +ongress annot ompel absent members to attend sessions
espeially if the reason if a legitimate one. +onfinement of a ongressman harged %ith a rime
punishable by more than : years of imprisonment has onstitutional foundations. 'llo%ing the aused to
attend ongressional sessions and ommittee meetings %ill ,irtually ma*e him a free man. >hen the
,oters of his distrit reeleted him, they had full a%areness of the limitation of his freedom of ation. @he
aused is only one of the members of the 3ouse of &epresentati,es. +ongress ontinues to funtion
despite the absene of one or a fe% of its members. @he issue in this ase boils do%n to the 2uestion of
e2ual protetion. !letion to the position isnBt reasonable lassifiation in riminal la% enforement.
Instant motion is !enie!.
SECTION 1:.
NO SENATOR OR MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY
PERSONALLY APPEAR AS COUNSEL BEFORE ANY COURT OF &USTICE OR
BEFORE THE ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS, OR <UASI'&UDICIAL AND OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES. NEITHER SHALL HE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BE
INTERESTED FINANCIALLY IN ANY CONTRACT WITH, OR IN ANY FRANCHISE
OR SPECIAL PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, OR ANY
SUBDIVISION, AGENCY, OR INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF, INCLUDING ANY
GOVERNMENT'OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATION, OR ITS SUBSIDIARY,
DURING HIS TERM OF OFFICE. HE SHALL NOT INTERVENE IN ANY MATTER
BEFORE ANY OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR HIS PECUNIARY BENEFIT OR
WHERE HE MAY BE CALLED UPON TO ACT ON ACCOUNT OF HIS OFFICE.
PUYAT V. DE GU0MAN (11! SCRA !1$
FACTS:
6n May 1., 19(9, an eletion for the -iretors of the International Pipe Industries +orporation %as held.
Petitioner Puyat %as among those eleted. 6n May )D, 19(9, the other group of diretors, led by 'ero,
instituted a proeeding 2uestioning the said eletio8 on the ground that the ,otes %ere not properly
ounted. @hereafter, 9ustie !stanislao EernandeH, then a member of Interim Batasang Pambansa,
entered his appearane as ounsel for 'ero to %hih Puyat ob8eted due to +onstitutional 1orunds
%hih pro,ides that/
EC **. 2R$ <III
=o :ember of t%e >atasang Pambansa s%all a##ear as counsel ?.
ALSE %1!:
26
or before any administrative body.
=eit%er s%all %e/ !irectly/ or in!irectly be intereste! financially in any contract wit%/ or in any franc%ise or
s#ecial #rivilege grante! by t%e @ovenrment/ or any sub!ivision/ agency/ or instrumentality t%ereof/
inclu!ing any government9owne! or conrolle! cor#oration !uring %is term of office.
5e s%all not acce#t em#loyment to intervene in any cause or matter w%ere %e may be calle! on account
of %is office.
'ssemblyman !satnislao EernandeH did not ontinue his appearane as ounsel but instead filed a
Motion for Inter,aention. S!+ granted the motion on aount that EernandeH had 10 shares on the
orporation. @hereafter, the +ourt en ban issued a temporary restraining order en8oining S!+ from
allo%ing the partiipation as inter,enor of 'ssemblyman EernandeH. Soliitor 1eneral supported the
allo%ing of the inter,ention. 3ene this petition.
ISSUE:
>hether or not 'ssemblyman EernandeH, may inter,ene in the S!+ +ase %ithout ,iolating the
+onstitution.
HELD:
@he 6rder granting EernandeH to inter,ene in S!+ +ase is re,ersed and set aside.
RATIO:
EernandeH a2uired a mere 10 shares out of ):), C.3 shares. 3e a2uired said shares after the
institution of the ontested eletion, after the suit has been filed and a day before he filed a motion to
inter,ene. &ealiHing that the ob8etion of petitioner Puyat as ,alid, EernadeH deided, instead, to inter,ene
on the ground of legal interest in the matter under litigation. Ander those fats and irumstanes, the
+ourt found that there has been an indiret appearane as ounsel before and administrati,e body and it
is a irum,ention of the +onstitutional prohibition. @he inter,ention %as an afterthought to enable him to
appear ati,ely in the proeedings in some other apaity. ' ruling upholding the inter,ention %ould ma*e
the +onstitutional pro,ision ineffeti,e. 'll an 'ssemblyman need to do, if he %ants to influene an
administrati,e body is to a2uire a minimal partiipation in the interest of the lient and then inter,ene in
the proeedings. @hat %hih the +onstitution diretly prohibits may not be done in indiretion %hih is
intended to aomplish the ob8ets speifially or impliedly prohibited. In brief, the +ourt held that the
inter,ention of 'ssemblyman in S!+ ase falls %ithin the ambit of the prohibition ontained in Setion 11.
'rt. 4III of the +onstitution.
SECTION 16.
1. THE SENATE SHALL ELECT ITS PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ITS
SPEA;ER, BY A MA&ORITY VOTE OF ALL ITS RESPECTIVE MEMBERS. EACH HOUSE SHALL
CHOOSE SUCH OTHER OFFICERS AS IT MAY DEEM NECESSARY.
. A MA&ORITY OF EACH HOUSE SHALL CONSTITUTE A <UORUM TO DO BUSINESS, BUT A
SMALLER NUMBER MAY AD&OURN FROM DAY TO DAY AND MAY COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE
OF ABSENT MEMBERS IN SUCH MANNER, AND UNDER SUCH PENALTIES, AS SUCH HOUSE
MAY PROVIDE.
!. EACH HOUSE MAY DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS, PUNISH ITS MEMBERS
FOR DISORDERLY BEHAVIOR, AND, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF TWO'THIRDS OF ALL ITS
MEMBERS, SUSPEND OR EXPEL A MEMBER. A PENALTY OF SUSPENSION, WHEN IMPOSED,
SHALL NOT EXCEED SIXTY DAYS.
:. EACH HOUSE SHALL ;EEP A &OURNAL OF ITS PROCEEDINGS, AND FROM TIME TO TIME
ALSE %1!:
27
PUBLISH THE SAME, EXCEPTING SUCH PARTS AS MAY, IN ITS &UDGMENT, AFFECT NATIONAL
SECURITY? AND THE YEAS AND NAYS ON ANY <UESTION SHALL, AT THE RE<UEST OF ONE'
FIFTH OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT, BE ENTERED IN THE &OURNAL. EACH HOUSE SHALL ALSO
;EEP A RECORD OF ITS PROCEEDINGS.
1. NEITHER HOUSE DURING THE SESSIONS OF THE CONGRESS SHALL, WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE OTHER, AD&OURN FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, NOR TO ANY OTHER
PLACE THAN THAT IN WHICH THE TWO HOUSES SHALL BE SITTING.
AVELINO VS. CUENCO (>!. PHIL. 1"$
FACTS:
Petition of 2uo %arranto. Petitioner, 9ose ',elino, as*s the ourt to delare him the rightful senate
president and oust the respondent, Mariano 9esus +ueno.
Eeb 1C, 19.9F the re2uest of senator 0orenHo @anada to spea* on the floor on Eeb )1, 19.9 %as
granted to formulate harges against the then senate president ',elino. 6n the day that @anada
%as supposed to spea* on the floor, ',elino delayed his appearane, did not immediately open
the session, and read slo%ly the resolution of senator Sanidad and @anada. >hen the session
finally started, Sanidad mo,ed that the roll all be dispensed %ith but senator @irona, ',elinoBs
follo%er, opposed the motion beause of the plan of ',elinoBs group to delay the session to
pre,ent @anada from deli,ering his pri,ilege speeh. Suddenly, a disorderly ondut bro*e out in
the senate gallery. Senator Pablo -a,id, ',elinoBs follo%er, mo,ed for ad8ournment of session
perhaps onsistent %ith their ploy to pre,ent @anadaBs pri,ilege speeh. Sanidad opposed the
motion and mo,ed that it be submitted to a ,ote. Suddenly, ',elino banged the ga,el, abandoned
the hair, and %al*ed out of the session hall follo%ed by senator Eraniso, @orres, Magalona,
+larin, -a,id, and @irona. +ueno %as designated to hair the session. @anada %as finally able
to deli,er his pri,ilege speeh. SanidadBs resolution no. :C %as read and appro,ed. @anada
yielded the hair to senate president pro5tempore 'rranH. @hen, Sanidad introdued resolution
no. :( entitled ;&esolution delaring ,aant the position of the president of the senate and
designating the honourable Mariano 9esus +ueno ating president of the senate.< &esolution
no. :( %as appro,ed.
ISSUES:
-oes the ourt ha,e 8urisdition o,er the sub8et matter= If it has, %ere resolutions nos. :C and :( ,alidly
appro,ed=
DECISION:
Petition dismissed. +ourt has no 8urisdition o,er the sub8et matter.
RATIO:
@he ourt does not ha,e any 8urisdition in ,ie% of the separation of po%ers and the onstitutional grant to
the senate of the po%er to elet its o%n president. @he seletion of the presiding offier affets only the
senators themsel,es %ho are at liberty at any time to hoose their offiers, hange, or reinstate them. @he
petition to put ba* the petitioner to preside is only aeptable if the ma8ority of the senators %ant to, suh
remedy lies in the senate session hall and not in the supreme ourt.
ALSE %1!:
28
'ssuming that the ourt has 8urisdition, the session left by ',elino and presided by 'rranH %as a
ontinuation of the session. @hus, the departure of the minority senators does not pre,ent the remaining
ma8ority senators from passing a resolution that met %ith their unanimous endorsement.
OSMENA V. PENDATUN (1%# PHIL. >6!$
FACTS:
In a pri,ilege speeh entitled/ ' message to 1aria, 6smena made allegations of bribery against the
1aria administration.
3ouse &esolution no. D9 follo%ed the reation of a speial ommittee to in,estigate the allegedly
groundless harges made by 6smena against the 1aria administration.
3ouse &esolution no. 1(D found 6smena guilty of serious disorderly beha,ior and thereby suspending
him for 1Dmonths.
ISSUES:
>6? his suspension %as onstitutional
HELD:
+ourt has no 9urisdition. -ismissed
RATIO:
6smena ontends that the +onstitution ga,e him omplete parliamentary immunity in his pri,ilege
speeh. 'lthough the purpose of parliamentary immunity is to guarantee the legislator omplete freedom
of e7pression %ithout being made responsible in riminal or i,il ations, it does ?6@ protet him from
responsibility before the legislati,e body %hene,er his %ords or onduts are disorderly or unbeoming of
a member thereof.
@he 2uestion of %hether 6smenaBs speeh onstitutes disorderly ondut is for the 3ouse to 8udge. @he
matter depends mainly on fatual irumstanes of %hih the house *no%s best.
6n the 2uestion of 8urisdition, the ase should be dismissed for being moot or aademi. Beause no
preliminary in8untion %as issued, the speial ommittee performed its tas*, reported to the house and the
latter appro,ed the suspension order.
UNITED STATES VS. PONS (!: PHIL. "1$
FACTS:
1abino Beliso, 9uan Pons, and 9ainto 0asarte %ere on,ited of the rime of illegal importation of opium.
It %as alleged in the information that the aused, onspiring together, plotting among themsel,es did,
*no%ingly, %illfully, unla%fully, feloniously, and fraudulently, bring from a foreign ountry and import and
introdue in the +ity of Manila D)0 tin ans ontaining 1)D *gs of opium. !ah %ere found guilty of the
harged. @he aused appealed, but Beliso %ithdre% his appeal and the 8udgment has been final to him.
6n appeal, ounsel alleged and offered to pro,e that the last day of the speial session of the Philippine
0egislature for 19.1 %as on Eebruary )CF that the 't )3C1, under %hih Pons must be punished %as not
passed or appro,ed on the )C
th
but on Marh 1 of that yearF that the same is null and ,oid.
ISSUE:
ALSE %1!:
29
>hether or not the aused may be on,ited under 't )3C1.
>hether the ad8ournment of the legislature be pro,ed by legislati,e 8ournals or by e7traneous e,idenes.
DECISION:
@he Supreme +ourt affirmed the on,ition.
RATIO:
't ?o. 1:(9 pro,ides that the Seretary of +ommission shall perform the duties %hih %ould properly be
re2uired of the &eorder of the +ommission under the e7isting la%. Ander &ules 1D and 1: of 0egislati,e
Proedure of Philippine +ommission ;the proeedings of the +ommission shall be briefly and aurately
stated in the 8ournal.< Eurthermore, on page (93 of the +ommission 9ournal, it is stated that/
;@he 9ournal for Saturday, Eebruary )C, 191. %as appro,ed. 'd8ournment sine !ie of the +ommission as
a +hamber of the Philippines. @he hour of midnight ha,ing arri,ed, on motion of +ommissioner Palma,
the Philippine 0egislature ad8ourned sine !ie.4
@he +ourts of the Philippines are bound, 8udiially, to ta*e notie of %hat the la% is, and to enable them to
determine %hether the legal re2uisites as to the ,alidity of a statute ha,e been omplied %ith, it is their
right, as %ell as their duty, to ta*e notie of the legislati,e 8ournals. >hen the legislati,e 8ournal sho% %ith
ertainty the time of ad8ournment of the 0egislature and are lear and unambiguous respeting the same,
they are onlusi,eF and e7traneous e,idene annot be admitted to sho% a different date of
ad8ournment.
In the instant ase, the 8ournal says that the 0egislature ad8ourned at 1) midnight on Eebruary )C, 191..
@his settles the 2uestion and the ourt did not err in delining to go behind the 8ournals.
ARROYO VS. DE VENECIA ("" SCRA 6>$
FACTS:
&epubli 't ?o. C).0, %hih amends ertain pro,isions of the ?ational Internal &e,enue +ode by
imposing so5alled ;sin ta7es< #atually speifi ta7es$ on the manufature and sale of beer and
igarettes, originated in the 3ouse of &epresentati,es as 3. ?o. (19C. @his bill %as appro,ed on third
reading on September 1), 199: and transmitted on September 1:, 199: to the Senate %hih appro,ed it
%ith ertain amendments on third reading on ?o,ember 1(, 199:. ' biameral onferene ommittee %as
formed to reonile the disagreeing pro,isions of the 3ouse and Senate ,ersions of the bill. @he
biameral onferene ommittee submitted its report to the 3ouse at C a.m. on ?o,ember )1, 199:. 't
11/.C a.m., after a reess, &ep. !7e2uiel 9a,ier, hairman of the +ommittee on >ays and Means,
proeeded to deli,er his sponsorship speeh, after %hih he %as interpellated. &ep. &ogelio Sarmiento
%as first to interpellate. 3e %as interrupted %hen &ep. 'rroyo mo,ed to ad8ourn for la* of quorum. &ep.
'ntonio +ueno ob8eted to the motion and as*ed for a head ount. 'fter a roll all, the +hair #-eputy
Spea*er &aul -aHa$ delared the presene of a quorum. @he interpellation of the sponsor thereafter
proeeded. In the ourse of his interpellation, &ep. 'rroyo announed that he %as going to raise a
2uestion on the quorum, although until the end of his interpellation he ne,er did. >hat happened
thereafter is sho%n in the follo%ing transript of the session on ?o,ember )1, 199: of the 3ouse of
&epresentati,es, as published by +ongress in the ne%spaper issues of -eember D and :, 199:/
M&. '0B'?6. Mr. Spea*er, I mo,e that %e no% appro,e and ratify the onferene ommittee
report.
ALSE %1!:
30
@3! -!PA@M SP!'K!& #Mr. -aHa$. 'ny ob8etion to the motion=
M&. '&&6M6. >hat is that, Mr. Spea*er=
@3! -!PA@M SP!'K!& #Mr. -aHa$. @here being none, appro,ed.
#1a,el$
M&. '&&6M6. ?o, no, no, %ait a minute, Mr. Spea*er, I stood up. I %ant to *no% %hat is the
2uestion that the +hair as*ed the distinguished sponsor.
@3! -!PA@M SP!'K!& #Mr. -aHa$. @here %as a motion by the Ma8ority 0eader for appro,al of
the report, and the +hair alled for the motion.
M&. '&&6M6. 6b8etion, I stood up, so I %anted to ob8et.
@3! -!PA@M SP!'K!& #Mr. -aHa$. @he session is suspended for one minute.
#It %as 3/01 p.m.$
#3/.0 p.m., the session %as resumed$
@3! -!PA@M SP!'K!& #Mr. -aHa$. @he session is resumed.
M&. '0B'?6. Mr. Spea*er, I mo,e to ad8ourn until four oBlo*, >ednesday, ne7t %ee*.
@3! -!PA@M SP!'K!& #Mr. -aHa$. @he session is ad8ourned until four oBlo*, >ednesday,
ne7t %ee*.
6n that same day, the bill %as signed by the Spea*er of the 3ouse of &epresentati,es and the President
of the Senate and ertified by the respeti,e seretaries of both 3ouses of +ongress as ha,ing been
finally passed by the 3ouse of &epresentati,es and by the Senate on ?o,ember )1, 199:. @he enrolled
bill %as signed into la% by President Eidel 4. &amos on ?o,ember )), 199:. Petitioners filed a petition for
ertiorari andJor hallenging the ,alidity of &' C).0.
ISSUES:
>hether or not &' C).0 %as passed in ,iolation of rules of the 3ouse %hih %ill therefore be a ,iolation
of the +onstitution.
>hether or not the Supreme +ourt has the po%er to loo* into the internal proeeding of the 3ouse.
HELD:
It is lear from the foregoing fats that %hat is alleged to ha,e been ,iolated in the enatment of &.'. ?o.
C).0 are merely internal rules of proedure of the 3ouse rather than onstitutional re2uirements for the
enatment of a la%. Petitioners laim that &ep. 'rroyo %as still ma*ing a 2uery to the +hair %hen the
latter delared &ep. 'lbanoBs motion appro,ed. But %hat happened is that, after &ep. 'rroyoBs
interpellation of the sponsor of the ommittee report, Ma8ority 0eader &odolfo 'lbano mo,ed for the
appro,al and ratifiation of the onferene ommittee report. @he +hair alled out for ob8etions to the
motion. @hen the +hair delared/ ;@here being none, appro,ed.< 't the same time the +hair %as saying
ALSE %1!:
31
this, ho%e,er, &ep. 'rroyo %as as*ing, ;>hat is that . . . Mr. Spea*er=< @he +hair and &ep. 'rroyo %ere
tal*ing simultaneously. @hus, although &ep. 'rroyo subse2uently ob8eted to the Ma8ority 0eaderBs
motion, the appro,al of the onferene ommittee report had by then already been delared by the +hair,
symboliHed by its banging of the ga,el. 4erily, the fat that nobody ob8ets means a unanimous ation of
the 3ouse ma*ing the passage of the bill to a la% in aordane %ith the la%. @he +onstitution does not
re2uire that the yeas and nays of the Members be ta*en e,ery time a 3ouse has to ,ote, e7ept only in
the follo%ing instanes/ upon the last and third readings of the bill. @herefore, no ,iolation of the
+onstitution %as sho%n.
In this ase no rights of pri,ate indi,iduals are in,ol,ed but only those of a member %ho, instead of
see*ing redress in the 3ouse, hose to transfer the dispute to the Supreme +ourt. @he Supreme +ourt
has no more po%er to loo* into the internal proeedings of a 3ouse than members of that 3ouse as long
as no ,iolation of the +onstitutional ,iolation is sho%n.
CASCO PHILIPPINES CHEMICAL CO., INC. VS. GIMENE0 (" SCRA !:"$
FACTS:
@here %as enated a &epubli 't ?o. ):09, other%ise *no%n as the Eoreign !7hange 't. @he +entral
Ban* of the Philippines issued +irular ?o. 9D fi7ing the a uniform margin fee of )DS on foreign e7hange
transations. Petitioner, +aso Philippine +hemial +o., In, engaged in the manufature of syntheti
resin glues bought imported urea and formaldehyde %hih are main ra% materials in the prodution of its
produts and has paid the margin fee. @hereafter, petitioner sought to refund the said margin fee pursuant
to to &esolution ?o. 1D)9 of the Monetary Board %hih delared that urea and formaldehyde is e7empt
from said sale. @he +entral Ban* issued the orresponding ,ouhers for the refund but failed to gi,e the
money on the ground that the e7emption granted by the Monetary Board is not %ithin the pur,ie% of the
said &'.
@he pertinent pro,isions of the &epubli 't pro,ide/
The margin established by the Monetary Board pursuant to the provisions of section one
hereof shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for the importation of the
following:
X X X
X!!. "rea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard when imported by
and for the exclusive use of end#users.
Petitioner ontends that the term urea formaldehyde should be onstrued as urea an! formaldehyde. It
shall be noted that the ?ational Institute of Siene and @ehnology has e7pressed that urea
formaldehyde is not a hemial solution. It is a finished produt distint and different from urea and
formaldehyde
ISSUE:
>hether or not Area and Eormaldehyde are e7empt by la% from the payment of the aforesaid margin fee.
HELD:
-enied the petition.
RATIO:
@he enrolled bill is onlusi,e upon the ourts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by the
+ongress and appro,ed by the President. If there has been any mista*e in the printing of a bill before it
%as ertified by the offiers of the +ongress and appro,ed by the !7euti,e, the remedy is by
ALSE %1!:
32
amendment or urati,e legislation, not by 8udiial deree. @he importation of urea and formaldehyde is not
e7empt from payment of margin fees being distint and different from urea formaldehyde as pro,ided in
the la%.
SECTION 1".
THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL EACH HAVE AN ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL WHICH SHALL BE THE SOLE &UDGE OF ALL CONTESTS RELATING TO THE
ELECTION, RETURNS, AND <UALIFICATIONS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE MEMBERS. EACH
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL SHALL BE COMPOSED OF NINE MEMBERS, THREE OF WHOM SHALL
BE &USTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT TO BE DESIGNATED BY THE CHIEF &USTICE, AND THE
REMAINING SIX SHALL BE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
AS THE CASE MAY BE, WHO SHALL BE CHOSEN ON THE BASIS OF PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION FROM THE POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE PARTIES OR ORGANI0ATIONS
REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTY'LIST SYSTEM REPRESENTED THEREIN. THE SENIOR &USTICE
IN THE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL SHALL BE ITS CHAIRMAN.
SANCHE0 VS. COMELEC (11! SCRA 6"$
FACTS:
'ugusto SanheH prayed that +6M!0!+ after due hearing, be direted by the +ourt to ondut a reount
of ,otes ast three months ago in the May 11, 19C( senatorial eletions to determine the true number of
,otes to be redited to him and prayed further for the restraining order direting +omele to %ithhold the
prolamation of the last four %inning andidates on the ground that ,otes intended for him %ere delared
as astray ,otes beause of the sameness of his surname %ith a dis2ualified andidate named 1il
SanheH %hose name had not been rossed out from the +omele eletion returns and other eletion
forms. 3e further alleged that he filed an ;urgent Petition to &eount andJor &e5appreiate Ballots< %ith
the +omele.
@he +ourt sustained +omeleBs position that it be allo%ed to omplete the an,ass of the returns of the
senatorial eletions estimated to be at ).0,000 ,otes %hih %ould then be sub8et to its resolution of
SanheHB pending petition. &estraining order %as not issued by the ourt.
Santanina &asul also a senatorial andidate filed her motion for inter,ention and opposition to SanheHB
petition for reount before +omele. &asul and !nrile #ran*ed )3
rd
and ).
th
respeti,ely$ prayed in their
petition %ith +omele that they be prolaimed immediately as duly5eleted senators. +omele deferred
ation on the t%o petitions. Motions for inter,ention %ere granted filed separately by &asul and !nrile
%ere granted days after.
SanheHB petition for reount %as dismissed by the +6mele. SanheH filed a motion for reonsideration
%hih %as opposed by inter,enors &asul and !nrile. &asul %as prolaimed as )3
rd
senator. !nrile
therafter filed %ith the Supreme +ourt his petition.
+omele announed its deision re,ersing its deision to dismiss SanheHB petition for reount. !nrile
filed his seond petition.
ISSUE:
>hether or not the petition for reount andJor re5appreiation of ballots filed %ith the +omele may be
onsidered a summary prolamation ontro,ersy falling %ithin the +omeleBs e7lusi,e 8urisdition or
properly pertains to the realm of eletion protest failing %ithin the e7lusi,e 8urisdition of the Senate
!letoral @ribunal as the Ksole 8udge of all ontests relating to thee eletion, returns, and 2ualifiations of
the members.< #'rt. :, Se 1(, +onstitution$
HELD:
ALSE %1!:
33
+ourt rules that SanheHB petition for reount andJor re5appreiation of the ballots ast in the senatorial
eletions does not present a proper issue for a summary preXprolamation ontro,ersy. @he ground for
reount relied upon by SanheH is learly not among the issues that may be raised in a pre5prolamation
ontro,ersy. 3is allegations of ;SanheH< ,otes intended for him bear no relation to the orretness and
authentiity of the eletion returns an,assed. ?either the +onstitution nor statute has granted the
+omele or the board of an,assers the po%er in the an,ass of eletion returns to loo* beyond the fae
thereof one satisfied of their authentiity.
anc%e'A #etition for recount is set asi!e.
ROBLES VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (1>1 SCRA ">%$
FACTS:
&obles and Santos %ere andidates for the position of +ongressman of the 1
st
-istrit of +alooan +ity in
the May 11, 19C( ongressional eletions. &obles %as prolaimed the %inner on -eember )3, 19C(.
Santos filed an eletion protest %ith the 3&!@, alleging frauds and irregularities in the ounting of ,otes
and an,assing of eletion returns. @he 3&!@ issued an order ommening the re,ision of ontested
ballots on September 1, 19CC.
6n September C, &obles filed a Motion to Suspend the re,ision of ballots. Santos follo%ed %ith a Motion
to >ithdra% Protest on September 1). Apon the filing of SantosBs motion, the re,ision of ballots %as
stopped. Beyond that, no ation on the t%o motions %as ta*en by the 3&!@ %hen Santos filed an Argent
Motion to &eall and -isregard Protest on September 1.. In effet, Santos, %ho had ba*ed out from the
re,ision of the ballots, %as no% pushing again for its re,ision.
6n September 19, the 3&!@ granted SantosB Argent Motion to &eall and -isregard Protest and the
re,ision of ballots %as resumed. &obles filed a Motion for &eonsideration, but %as denied. 3ene, a
petition for certiorari %ith a prayer for in8untion of the re,ision proeedings %as brought to the Supreme
+ourt.
ARGUMENTS:
Petitioner ontended that %hen pri,ate respondent Santos filed his Motion to >ithdra% protest dated
September 1), publi respondent 3&!@ lost its 8urisdition o,er the ase. 3ene, %hen respondent 3&!@
subse2uently ordered the re,ision on September 19 !es#ite t%e wit%!rawal of t%e #rotest, it ated %ithout
8urisdition and gra,e abuse of disretion.
ISSUES:
1. >hether or not 3&!@ lost 8urisdition o,er the ase upon SantosBs filing of a Motion to >ithdra%
Protest #September 1)$
). >hether or not the resumption of re,ision of ballots despite the filing of a Motion to >ithdra%
Protest onstituted gra,e abuse of disretion by 3&!@
HELD:
1. NO. 3&!@ retains 8urisdition o,er the ase.
2. NO. 3&!@ did not ommit gra,e abuse of disretion.
REASONS:
ALSE %1!:
34
@he @454 6,/,(9 of the Motion to >ithdra% Protest, %ithout any ation on the part of the @ribunal, does not
by itself di,est the tribunal of its 8urisdition o,er the ase. +ertainly, the @ribunal retains the authority to
95.(* )5 84(= the motion, and the %ithdra%al beomes effeti,e only %hen the Motion is granted.
A5*,+/4 VI, S4+*,)( 1" of the +onstitution states that the !letoral @ribunals Ashall be the sole $udge of
all contests relating to the election% returns and &ualifications of the members of the legislative
body.' @he use of the %ord KsoleB emphasiHes the ;e7lusi,e harater< of the 8urisdition onferred. It
has been intended to be ;omplete and unimpaired as if it had remained in the legislature.< >here the
ourt has 8urisdition o,er the sub8et matter, its orders upon all 2uestions pertaining to the ause are
orders %ithin its 8urisdition, and ho%e,er erroneous they may be, they annot be orreted by ertiorari.
9udiial re,ie% of deisions or final resolutions of the 3&!@ is possible only upon a determination that the
tribunalBs deision or resolution %as rendered %ithout or in e7ess of its 8urisdition, or upon sho%ing of
suh arbitrary and impro,ident use by the @ribunal of its po%er as onstitutes a denial of due proess of
la%, or upon a demonstration of a ,ery lear unmitigated error, that there has to be a remedy for suh
abuse.
@he right to hold an eleti,e offie is rooted on eletoral mandate, not perei,ed entitlement to the offie.
@he !letoral @ribunal has been set up in order that any doubt as to rightJmandate to a publi offie may
be fully resol,ed ,is5Y5,is the popular %ill. @he resumption of the re,ision of the ballots did not onstitute a
gra,e abuse of disretion as it %as intended to resol,e beyond doubt %ho the people ha,e rightfully
hosen as their representati,es.
ABBAS VS. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (166 SCRA 611$
FACTS:
'rtile 4I, Setion 1( of the +onstitution states that the !letoral @ribunal ;shall be omposed of nine
Members, three of %hom shall be 9usties of the Supreme +ourt...and the remaining si7 shall be
Members of the Senate or the 36&, as the ase may be.< 6n 6tober 9, 19C(, Petitioners filed before the
respondent @ribunal an eletion ontest do*eted as S!@ +ase ?o. 00)5C( against )) andidates of the
0'B'? oalition %ho %ere prolaimed senators5elet in the May 11, 19C( ongressional eletions. @he
respondent tribunals %as at the time omposed of three #3$ 9usties of the Supreme +ourt and si7 #:$
senators.
6n ?o,ember 1(, the petitioner filed %ith the respondent @ribunal a Motion for -is2ualifiation or
Inhibition of the Senators5Members thereof from the hearing and resolution of the abo,e ase on the
ground that all of them are interested parties, and respondents. @his mass dis2ualifiation, in effet, %ould
lea,e only the three 9usties to ser,e as Members of the !letoral @ribunal. @he Motion %as denied and
hene, this petition for ertiorari.
ARGUMENTS:
Petitioners argue that onsiderations of publi poliy and norms of fair play and due proess re2uire the
mass dis2ualifiation. Eurther, neessity ditates that an amendment of the @ribunalBs &ules of proedure
permitting the ontest to be deided by only three Members is a pratiable and unonstitutionally
unob8etable solution.
ISSUE:
>hether or not a Senate !letoral @ribunal omposed of only three #3$ 9usties of the S+ is a ,alid
!letoral @ribunal under the +onstitution
HELD:
ALSE %1!:
35
NO. @he suggested de,ie is unfeasible and repugnant to the +onstitution.
REASONS:
0oo*ing into the %ording and intent of Setion 1( of 'rtile 4I of the +onstitution, it is lear that in reating
a @ribunal omposed by 9usties of the Supreme +ourt and Members of the Senate, both ;8udiial< and
;legislati,e< omponents ommonly share the duty and authority of all ontests relating to the eletion,
returns and 2ualifiations of Senators. @he fat that the proportion of Senators to 9usties in the
presribed membership of the S!@ is ) to 1 R an unmista*able indiation that the ;legislati,e omponent<
annot be totally e7luded from partiipation in the resolution of senatorial eletion ontests, %ithout doing
,iolene to the spirit and intent of the +onstitution.
@he proposed mass dis2ualifiation, if santioned and ordered, %ould lea,e the tribunal no alternati,e but
to abandon a duty that no other ourt or body an perform, but %hih it annot la%fully disharge if shorn
of the partiipation of its entire membership of senators.
@he framers of the +onstitution ould not ha,e been una%are of the possibility of an eletion ontest that
%ould in,ol,e all ). Senators5elet, si7 of %hom %ould ine,itably ha,e to sit in 8udgment thereon. Met the
+onstitution pro,ides no sheme or mode for settling suh unusual situations. 0itigants in suh situations
must simply plae their trust and hopes of ,indiation in the fairness and sense of 8ustie of the Members
of the @ribunal.
&efrain from partiipation must be distinguished from omplete absene. Indeed, an indi,idual Member of
the @ribunal may reuse himself from partiipating in the resolution of a ase %here he sinerely feels that
his biases %ould stand in the %ay of an ob8eti,e and impartial 8udgment. But a @ribunal annot legally
funtion as suh absent its entire members%i# of Senators or 9usties.
LA0ATIN VS. HOUSE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (16> SCRA !#1$
FACTS:
Petitioner and pri,ate respondent %ere among the andidates for &epresentati,e of the first distrit of
Pampanga in the May 11, 19C( eletions. -uring the an,assing of the ,otes, respondent ob8eted to the
inlusion of ertain eletion returns and brought the ase to the +6M!0!+. 6n May 19, @he +6M!0!+
ordered the suspension of the prolamation of the %inning andidate, yet on May )(, petitioner %as
prolaimed the %inner.
&espondent filed t%o petitions/ a$ to nullify the prolamation and b$ pre,ent petitioner from ta*ing offie.
3o%e,er, the +6M!0!+ did not at on the petitions. 6n 9une 30, petitioner assumed offie.
6n September 1D, the +6M!0!+ nullified the prolamation. @he Supreme +ourt set aside the re,oation
on 9anuary )D, 19CC.
6n 9anuary )C, &espondent reei,ed a opy of the +ourtBs deision and onse2uently filed an eletion
protest %ith the 3&!@ on Eebruary C.
ARGUMENTS:
In mo,ing to dismiss pri,ate respondentBs protest on the ground that it %as filed late, petitioner ited Se.
)D0 of the 6mnibus !letion +ode/
' s%orn petition ontesting the eletion of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa...shall be
filed...wit%in ten )*1+ !ays after t%e #roclamation of t%e results of t%e election.
ALSE %1!:
36
Asing the abo,e rule, Petitioner argued that respondent had only until Eebruary : to file a protest.
Sine the protest %as filed on Eebruary C, the 3&!@ did not a2uire 8urisdition o,er it.
3o%e,er, the 3&!@ argued that petitioner %as able to file the protest on time, iting Se. 9 of the 3&!@
rules/
!letion ontests arising from the 19C( +ongressional eletions shall be filed...wit%in fifteen )*0+
!ays from t%e effectivity of t%ese rules on =ovember ,,/ *BCD w%ere t%e #roclamation %as been
ma!e #rior to t%e effectivity of t%ese Rules/ ot%erwise/ t%e same may be file! wit%in fifteen )*0+
!ays from t%e !ate of #roclamation.
Asing the abo,e rule, the 3&!@ argued that respondent has up Eebruary 11 to file a protest. Sine it %as
filed on Eebruary C, the 3&!@ ruled it %as %ithin the presribed period and thus, had 8urisdition o,er the
matter.
ISSUES:
1. >hether or not the 3&!@ has 8urisdition o,er the protest
). >hether or not the Supreme +ourt may ondut a 9udiial &e,ie% of deisionsJfinal resolutions of
the 3&!@
HELD:
1. YES. @he 3&!@ has 8urisdition o,er the protest, as it %as filed %ithin the period presribed by
Se. 9 of the 3&!@ &ules.
2. NO, e7ept for ases re2uiring the e7erise of the +ourtBs ;e7traordinary 8urisdition.<
REASONS:
I(.22/,+.7,/,*= )6 S4+. 1% )6 *B4 O@(,7-s E/4+*,)( C)84 *) *B4 +.s4 .* 7.5: Ander the 19(3
+onstitution, Setion )D0 of the 6mnibus !letion +ode applies to petitions filed before the +6M!0!+
ontesting the eletion of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa or any regional, pro,inial or ity
offiial. Ander the 19C( +onstitution, it has eased to be effeti,e. Eirst, the Batasang Pambansa has
already been abolished and legislati,e po%er is no% ,ested in a biameral +ongress. Seond, the
+onstitution ,ests e7lusi,e 8urisdition o,er all ontests relating to the eletion, returns and 2ualifiations
of the Members of the 36& and the Senate in their respeti,e !letoral @ribunals.
EC+/-s,v4 +B.5.+*45 )6 *B4 E/4+*)5./ T5,7-(./Ds P)345: @he po%er of the 3&!@, as the sole 8udge of
all ontests relating to the eletion, returns and 2ualifiations of the Members of the 3ouse of
&epresentati,es, to promulgate rules and regulations relati,e to matters %ithin its 8urisdition, inluding
the period for filing eletion protests before it, is beyond dispute. @he use of the %ord ;sole< emphasiHes
the exclusive character of the 8urisdition onferred. It is intended to be as complete and unimpaired
as if it had remained originally in the legislature. Its rule5ma*ing po%er neessarily flo%s from the general
po%er granted it by the +onstitution.
It is a settled rule of onstrution that %here a general po%er is onferred is onferred or duly en8oined,
e,ery partiular po%er neessary for the e7erise of the one or the performane of the other is also
onferred. Eollo%ing this priniple, the 3&!@, in order to fully e7erise its onstitutional funtion may
implement its o%n rules onerning the filing of eletoral protests.
' short re,ie% of our onstitutional history re,eals that, e7ept under the 19(3 +onstitution, the po%er to
ALSE %1!:
37
8udge all ontests relating to the eletion, returns and 2ualifiations of the members of the legislati,e
branh has been e7lusi,ely granted to the legislati,e body itself. In the 193D +onstitution, this po%er %as
lodged to an independent, impartial and non5partisan body attahed to the legislature and speially
reated for that singular purpose. Ander the 19(3 +onstitution, this delineation bet%een the po%er of the
!7euti,e and the 0egislature %as blurred %hen 8urisdition o,er eletoral ontests %as ,ested in the
+6M!0!+, an ageny %ith general 8urisdition o,er the ondut of eletion for all eleti,e national and
loal offiials. @he 19C( onstitution ,ested this 8urisdition ba* to the respeti,e !letoral @ribunals of
the Senate and 3ouse of &epresentati,es.
S+)24 )6 *B4 S-254@4 C)-5* )v45 84+,s,)(s @.84 7= *B4 HRET: So long as the +onstitution grants
the 3&!@ the po%er to be the sole 8udge of all ontests related to the eletion, returns and 2ualifiations
of its Members, any final ation ta*en by the 3&!@ on a matter %ithin its 8urisdition shall as a rule, not be
re,ie%ed by the +ourt. Its orreti,e po%er e7tends only to deisions and resolutions onstituting a gra,e
abuse of disretion amounting to la* or e7ess of 8urisdition by the !letoral @ribunals.
BONDOC VS. PINEDA (%1 SCRA "#$
FACTS:
Mariano Pineda of the 0aban ng -emo*rati*ong Pilipino #0-P$ and -r. !rmigidio Bondo of the
?aionalista Party %ere ri,als in the ongressional eletions held on May 11, 19C(. Pineda %as the
prolaimed %inner, but Bondo filed a protest before the 3ouse of &epresentati,es !letoral @ribunal
#3&!@$. @he said tribunal is omposed of nine #9$ members, 3 of %hom are 9usties of the Supreme
+ourt, and the remaining si7 #:$ are members of the 3ouse of &epresentati,es hosen on the basis of
proportional representation from politial parties and party list. ' deision has been reahed by the 3&!@
%here Bondo %on o,er by PinedaF thus the 0-P members in the tribunal insisted on a reappreiation of
,otes and reount of ballots delaying the finaliHation of the deision at least four months. @he
ree7amination resulted in inrease of BondoBs lead o,er Pineda from )3 to 10( ,otes. It shall be noted
that +ongressman +amasura, a member 0-P, ,oted %ith the Supreme +ourt 9usties to prolaim
Bondo the %inner of the ontestF hene, 3&!@ issued a ?otie of Promulgation ?o. )D delaring Bondo
as the %inner. Subse2uently, +ongressman +o8uano informed +amasura and Bautista that the 0-P
e7pelled them from the party on the ground of betrayal to the ause and ob8eti,es, and loyalty to 0-P.
@hereafter, +o8uano informed the 3ouse Spea*er Mitra of the ouster of the said +ongressmen and their
deision to %ithdra% the nomination and resind the eletion of +amasura to the 3&!@. @he @ribunal
issued a &esolution aneling the pre,ious deision on the ground that %ithout the ,ote of +ongressman
+amasura, %ho %as relie,ed from the @ribunal, the deision la*s the onurrene of fi,e members as
re2uired by Se. ). of the &ules of @ribunal, and therefore, annot be ,alidly promulgated.
' Petition for ertiorari, prohibition and mandamus %as filed by Bondo see*ing the follo%ing reliefs/
1.$ to annul the deision of 3&!@ to %ithdra% the nomination of +amasura to the 3&!@.F
).$ issue a %rit of prohibition restraining %hoe,er may be designated in plae of +amasura from
assuming, ossupying, and disharging funtions as a member of the 3&!@,F
3.$ %rit of mandamus ordering +amasura to return and disharge his funtions as a member of
the 3&!@F
In his ans%er, Pineda asserts that the +ongress being the sole authority that nominates and elets the
members of the 3&!@F hene, it has the po%er to remo,e any of them %hene,er the ratio in
representation of the politial parties materially hanged.
ISSUE:
>hether of not the 3ouse of &epresentati,es, at the re2uest of the dominant party, hange the partyBs
representation in the 3ouse &epresentati,es !letoral @ribunal to th%art the promulgation of a deision
freely reahed by the said tribunal in an eletion ontest pending therein.
ALSE %1!:
38
DECISION:
S+ ruled in fa,or of Bondo.
RATIO:
#&ead Setion 1(, 'rtile 4I of the 19C( +onstitution$
@he tribunal %as reated to funtion as a non partisan ourt although t%o5thirds of its members are
politiians. @he purpose of the onstitutional on,ention reating the !letoral @ribunal %as to pro,ide an
in!e#en!ent an! im#artial tribunal for the determination of ontests to legislati,e offie, de,oid of partisan
onsideration and to transfer to that tribunal all po%ers in matter pertaining to ontested eletion of its
members. @he @ribunal is a body separate from and independent from the legislature.
Resolution of 5ouse of Re#resentatives violates t%e in!e#en!ence of 5RE$.
@he &esolution of 3ouse of &epresentati,es remo,ing +ongressman +amasura from the 3&!@ for
disloyalty to 0-P, beause he ast a ,ote in fa,or of ?aionalista party, is a lear impairment of the
onstitutional prerogati,e of the 3&!@ to be the sole 8udge of the eletion ontest bet%een Pineda and
Bondo. @o santion suh interferene %ould redue the 3&!@ as a mere tool for the ad,ane ment of a
party in po%er.
Disloyalty to #arty is not a vali! cause for termination of members%i# in t%e 5RE$
's 8udges, the members of the tribunal must be non5partisan. @hey must disharge their funtions %ith
omplete detahment, impartiality, and independeneIe,en independene from politial party to %hih
they belong. In e7pelling +amasura from 3&!@ for that ground, the 3&!@ ommitted gra,e abuse of
disretion, an in8ustie, and a ,iolation of the +onstitution. Suh resolution is therefore null and ,oid.
E"#ulsion of Congressman Camasura violates %is rig%t to security of tenure.
Members of the 3&!@, as 8udges, are entitled to seurity of tenure, 8ust as members of 8udiiary en8oy
seurity of tenure under our +onstitution #Se ).,'rt 4III, 19C( +onstitution$. Membership in the 3&!@
may not be terminated e7ept for 8ust ause, suh as, e7piration of the membersB ongressional term of
offie, death, permanent disability, resignation from politial party %hih he represents, formal affiliation
%ith anither politial party, remo,al for other ,alid ause. ' member may not be e7pelled by the 3ouse of
&epresentati,es for party disloyalty short of proof that he has formally affiliated %ith another politial
group. @he reords sho%s that +amasura has not formally affiliated %ith another politial groupF thus, his
termination from 3&!@ %as not for ,alid ause, hene, it ,iolated his right to seurity of tenure.
CHAVE0 VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (11 SCRA !11$
FACTS:
Petition for re,ie% of the deision of the +ommission on !letions.
May D, 199)F ourt issued a resolution in 1& no. 10.(0. entitled Eraniso +ha,eH ,. +omele,
et al. -is2ualifying Melhor +ha,eH from running for the offie of senator. Eraniso +ha,eH filed
a motion %ith omele to delete the name of Melhor +ha,eH from the list of 2ualified andidates
and ount all ,otes ast for the dis2ualified Melhor +ha,eH in fa,our of Eraniso +ha,eH. May
C, 199)F omele issued a resolution to remo,e the name of Melhor +ha,eH in the list of
2ualified andidates. 3o%e,er, it failed to order the rediting of all +ha,eH ,otes to Eraniso
+ha,eH. +omele also failed to anel the name of Melhor +ha,eH in the list of 2ualified
ALSE %1!:
39
andidates. +onfusion arose as the +ha,eH ,otes %ere either delared stray or in,alidated by the
Boards of !letion Inspetors #B!I$.
May 1), 199)F omele issued a resolution to redit all the +ha,eH ,otes in fa,our of Eraniso
+ha,eH. Eraniso +ha,eH %as not satisfied of the resolution beause he maintains that it did not
reah all the preints.
9une ., 199)F ourt issued a @&6 en8oining omele from prolaiming the ).
th
%inning senatorial
andidate. @&6 %as subse2uently lifted.
ISSUE:
-id +6M!0!+ at %ith gra,e abuse of disretion due to its ination in deleting Melhor +ha,eH name in
the list of 2ualified andidates= >as there ause of ation on the part of the petitioner= -oes the ourt
ha,e 8urisdition o,er the sub8et matter=
DECISION:
Petition dismissed for la* of merit.
RATIO:
@he alleged ination of +6M!0!+ in ordering the deletion of the name of Melhor +ha,eH does
not all for the e7erise of the ourts funtion of 8udiial re,ie%. @he ourt an re,ie% the
deisions or orders of the omele only in ases of gra,e abuse of disretion ommited by it in
the disharge of its 2uasi58udiial po%ers and not those arising from the e7erise of its
administrati,e funtions. @he failure of omele to implement its o%n resolution is administrati,e
in nature, hene, beyond 8udiial interferene.
'rt. :, Se. 1( of the onstitution pro,ides that ;the senate and the house of representati,es shall
eah ha,e an eletoral tribunal %hih shall be the sole 8udge of all ontests relating to the
eletion, returns, and 2ualifiations of their respeti,e members. 7 7 7< @he %ord ;sole<
emphasiHes the e7lusi,ity of the tribunalsB 8urisdition o,er eletion ontests. In this ase, the
senate eletoral tribunal has e7lusi,e 8urisdition o,er the ase and not the ourt.
Petitioner has no ause of ation. @he ontro,ersy presented being one in the nature of pre5
prolamation. Pre5prolamation ases are not allo%ed in eletions for president, ,ie5president,
senator, and member of the house of representati,es aording to se. 1D of republi at (1::.
Pre5prolamation ontro,ersy is defined as ;any 2uestion pertaining to or affeting the
proeedings of the board of an,assers %hih may be raised by any andidate or by any
registered politial pary or oalition of politial paries before the board or diretly %ith the
ommission in relation to the preparation, transmission, reeipt, ustody, and appreiation of the
eletion returns.< #se. ).1, omnibus eletion ode$
ARROYO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (:6 SCRA !>:$
FACTS:
Petition for re,ie% of a deision of the 3ouse of &epresentati,es !letoral @ribunal.
+ongressional +andidate pri,ate respondent 'ugusto Sy8uo filed an eletion protest before publi
respondent 3ouse of &epresentati,es !letoral @ribunal #3&!@$ D days after the Ma*ati Board of
+an,assers prolaimed petitioner 9o*er 'rroyo the duly eleted +ongressman for Ma*ati in May 11
1999) eletions. !ssentially premised on alleged irregularitiesJanomalies in the tabulation and entries of
,otes and massi,e fraud, pri,ate respondent Sy8uo sought the re,ision and reounting of ballots ast in
1)9) out of total 1(1. preints of Ma*ati from %hih result he aimed to be delared as the duly eleted
ongressman of Ma*ati. Petitioner filed a ounter5protest, 2uestioning the residene 2ualifiation of
ALSE %1!:
40
pri,ate respondent but the ase %as dismissed by publi respondent 3&!@.
&e,isions of the ballots %as underta*en but not %ithout serious irregularities ha,ing been unearthed in
the ourse thereof. @as*ed by publi respondent 3&!@ to in,estigate on the matter, former S+ 9ustie
!milio 1an,ayo onfirmed the irregularities and that 'rroyo %as the lassi ,itim of the unla%ful
e7erise. 't or about time the re,ision %as ompleted and the three preints left unaounted for, pri,ate
respondent Sy8uo mo,ed for the %ithdra%al of these remaining unre,ised protested preints on the
ground that he has presumably o,erta*en 'rroyoBs lead of 13DD9 ,otes. &eeption of e,idene follo%ed/
Pri,ate respondentBs e,idene %ere all doumentary and ,oluminous at that onsisting of o,er )00,000
pages %hih are mere photoopies of the original. 6n the other hand, petitionerBs e,idene onsisted of
ertified true opies of the &e,ision &eports and eletion turns. -espite the petitionerBs ob8etion about
the probati,e ,alue of the respondentBs e7hibit, 3&!@ admitted the e,idene for %hate,er %orth they may
ha,e.
Petitioner and pri,ate respondent filed their respeti,e memoranda simultaneously. Pri,ate respondent
no% alled upon publi respondent 3&!@ to deide the ase on the basis of %hat pri,ate respondent
admits as a ;truly inno,ati,e and ?6?5@&'-I@I6?'0 proess<5 their preint5le,el doument5based
e,idenes. By reason of the pri,ate respondentBs allegations, publi respondent 3&!@ ordered him to
ause %hy his protest should not be dismissed. By a :53 ,ote, publi respondent 3&!@ resol,ed not to
dismiss the protest, to ontinue %ith the e7amination and e,aluation of the e,idene on reord, and
thereafter to deide and ase on the merits. @he &esolution %as issued on Eeb 1D 199.. In their
dissenting opinion, the 3 8usties had to say that t%e #rotestantAs ra!ical s%ift %as no legal #rece!ent; t%e
instant #rotest s%all be !eci!e! in accor!ance wit% t%e tra!ition #rocess of recounting an! revision of
ballots as #rovi!e! by t%e Rules of t%e $ribunal an! by any innovative an! non9tra!itional #rocess
!enominate! as #recinct9level !ocument9base! evi!ence allege! in #rotestantAs memoran!um.
=onet%eless/ #rotestant was can!i! enoug% to a!mit in %is memoran!um t%at to overcome a substantial
margin of well over *,/ 111 votes t%e revision of ballots alone woul! not suffice an! to &ee# %is #rotest
alive %as to !evise t%e broa!er non9tra!itional !etermination of t%e e"istence of #recinct9level9!ocument9
base! anomalies even is t%e same is unaut%ori'e! by law.
Petitioner mo,ed to dismiss the protest but to no a,ail. ?o hearings %ere onduted thereafter. @he
8udgements %ere delared annulling the prolamation of 'rroyo, delaring Sy8uo as the duly eleted
representati,e in ,ie% of the massi,e fraud, irregularities and ,iolation of eletion la%s in onformity %ith
the mandate of +6M!0!+. ;to proseute ases of ,iolation of eletion la%s, inluding ats or omissions
onstituting eletion frauds, offenses and malpraties. #par #:$ Se ) 'rtile95 19C( +onstitution$
>ithout filing a motion for reonsideration of pubi respondent 3&!@Bs deision, petitioner 'rroyo filed the
instant petition setting the ff issues/
ISSUES:
>hether or not/
Publi respondent ated %ith gra,e abuse disretion and %ithout 8urisdition %hen it refused to dismiss
3&!@ +ase after Sy8uo belatedly hanged the theory of his ases and introdued ne% issues
@he 3&!@<s deision dated 9an)D 199D %as rendered in ,iolation of the petitionerBs right
Publi respondent ated apriiously and %ith gra,e abuse of disretion %hen it re8eted long5standing
legal dotrines on eletions and annulmentF disregard the peopleBs right to suffrageF ignored the basi
rules of e,ideneF gra,ely or deliberately misapprehended the fats.
DECISION:
ALSE %1!:
41
@he petition %as 1&'?@!- and publi respondent 3&!@Bs ma8ority deision %as set aside. Sy8uo guilty
of indiret ontempt is fined the amount P1000 to be paid %ithin D days from the reeipt of the deision.
RATIO:
3o%e,er guised or 8ustified by pri,ate respondent , this inno,ati,e theory introdued for the first time
broadened the sope of the eletion protest beyond %hat he originally sought5the mere re,ision of ballots.
Pri,ate respondent intended to ompletely abandon the proess and results of the re,ision and sought to
rely on ;preint5le,el doument5based e,idene<. @his is learly substantial amendment of the eletion
protest e7pressly prosribed by &ule )C of the 3&!@ internal rules< 2fter t%e e"#iration of t%e #erio! for
filing of t%e #rotest; counter9#rotest or #etition for quo warranto/ substantial amen!ments w%ic% broa!en
t%e sco#e of t%e action or intro!uce an a!!itional cause of action s%all not be allowe!.
@he least that 3&!@ ould ha,e done thereafter %as to ondut further hearing so that 'rroyo may ha,e
e7amined, ob8eted to and addued e,idene ontro,erting pri,ate respondent Sy8uoBs Kpreint5le,el
doument5based e,idene/ despite the time %ithin %hih the parties are allo%ed to present their e,idene
as already lapsed. P4*,*,)(45Ds 5,9B* *) 8-4 25)+4ss 3.s +/4.5/= v,)/.*48.
In an eletion protest, the protestant, or ounter5protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had
raised in his original or amended pleading filed prior to the lapse of the statutory period for the filing of
protest or ounter protest. Sy8uo is bound by 'rroyoBs ,itory o,er him by 1309) ,otes. 3e annot be
permitted after ha,ing lost thereon to repudiate his theory and ause ation and adopt another and see*
to re5litigate the matter ane% either in the same forum or on5appeal.
Mere photoopied douments as e,idene ,iolate the best evi!ence rule. +ertain ,ital eletion douments
%ere proured at the sole instane of the ponente of the ma8ority deision %hih as the @ribunal readily
admitted, %ere ne,er offered in e,idene by either of the parties. @he ma8ority ongressmen5members of
the @ribunal %Jo the partiipation of the 3 9usties delared that 10.C. of the ontested signatures are
fa*e. @his ,iolates &ule :C of @ribunalBs o%n rules %hih re2uires that all 2uestions be submitted to the
@ribunal as a body but also in &ule D %hih further re2uires the presene of at least #1$ 8ustie member to
onstitute a ,alid 2uorum.
'nnulment of eletion results is done only in e7treme ases of fraud. 's a guide, !letion @ribunal itself
has laid do%n ) mandatory re2uisites for the annulment of eletion returns. 1$ more than D0S of the total
number of ,otes in the preint or preints %ere in,ol,es)$ the ,otes must be sho%n to be affeted by
fraud, irregularities and anomalies. 3&!@ annulled D0,000 ,otes %Jo a dint of ompliane %ith these
re2uisites. It also disregarded eletion results on se,eral preints on the basis of omissions ommitted
either through mere o,ersight ot plain negligene on the part of eletion offiials or employees. @he bul*
of omissions onsisted of la* or absene of the signature of the +hairman of the Board of !letion
Inspetors and S+ found that these omissions, administrati,e in nature, annot be used a ground to
nullify results. @his ma*ed pri,ate respondent argument that the petition should be dismissed for failure to
first fielm a motion for reonsideration untenable. @he onerted ation of the @ribunal to disregard the
rules of e,idene ma*es the reourse for reonsideration nugatory . it is %ell5settled that a prior motion for
reonsideration an be dispensed %ith is as in the ase petitionerBs fundamental right to due proess %as
,iolated.
&ules and uniformity of proedure are as essential to proure truth and e7atness in eletions as in
anything else. @hus %ith the patent nullity of the entire proeedings before the publi respondent 3&!@
and its ma8ority deision in the eletion protest field by pri,ate respondent, petitionerBs prolamation as
the %inning ongressman deemed not to ha,e been hallenges at all. 'nd finally, in a &esolution dated
Marh 1., 199D, the +ourt re2uired Sy8uo to e7plain %hy he should not be held for indiret ontempt
sine his 'ddendum %hih he prepared appear to undermine treh integrity of some +ourt members/<t%ere
may also be lin&ages between #rotestee 2rroyo an! ;ustice Eleri!a Rut% Romero/ about w%om un&in!
ALSE %1!:
42
rumors are rife t%at 5er 5onor is Fgumaga#angA in t%e u#reme Court/ for 2rroyo.4 in his e7planation,
pri,ate respondent a,erred that he merely e7pressed a simple itiHenBs grie,ane in aordane to his
obser,ations and based on his firm on,itions and that his statements %ere not aimed to undermined the
integrity of some Members of the +ourt.
>ant of intention is no e7use for language use for it s ta*en in the ordinary meaning attahed to them by
impartial obser,ers. Einding respondent statementBs guilty of indiret ontempt.
GUERRERO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (!!6 SCRA :1>$
FACTS:
Speial i,il ation. Petition for ertiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
May C, 199CF Earinas filed his ertifiate of andiday %ith the omele, substituting andidate +he,ylle
Earinas. May 11, 199CF Earinas %as prolaimed %inner as a member of the house of representati,es.
May 1:F 199C, &uiH filed a motion for reonsideration stating that Earinas annot ,alidly substitute for
+he,ylle Earinas beause he is an independent andidate and +he,ylle Earinas is from 0a*as ng
Ma*abayan Masang Pilipino. 9une 3, 199CF Earinas too* his oath of offie as a member of the house of
representati,es. 9une 10, 199CF petitioner 1uerrero filed his petition5in5inter,ention in omele as*ing that
the position of representati,e of the first distrit of iloos norte be delared ,aant and speial eletions
alled for, but disallo%ing the andiday of Earinas. 9an :, 1999F omele dismissed &uiHBs motion and
1uerrroBs petition5in5inter,ention.
ISSUE:
-id the omele ommit gra,e abuse of disretion in holding that the determination of the ,alidity of the
ertifiate of andiday of respondent Earinas is already %ithin the e7lusi,e 8urisdition of the !letoral
@ribunal of the house of representati,es=
DECISION:
Petition dismissed for la* of merit.
RATIO:
@here is no gra,e abuse of disretion on the part of the omele %hen it delared that it eased
8urisdition o,er the ase %hen Earinas assumed offie. >hile the omele is ,ested %ith the po%er to
delare ,alid or in,alid a ertifiate of andiday, its refusal to e7erise that po%er follo%ing the
prolamation and assumption of the position by Earinas is a reognition of the 8urisditional boundaries
separating the omele and the eletoral tribunal of the house of representati,es. Ander, artile :, se. 1(
of the onstitution, the eletoral tribunal of the house of representati,es has sole and e7lusi,e 8urisdition
o,er all ontests relati,e to the eletion, returns, and 2ualifiation of members of the house of
representati,es. 6ne a %inning andidate has been prolaimed, ta*en his oath, and assumed offie as a
member of the house of representati,es, omeleBs 8urisdition eases and the 8urisdition of the eletoral
tribunal of the house of representati,es begins.
GARCIA VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
FACTS:
Speial i,il ation. Petition for ertiorari.
3arry 'ngping %as prolaimed as duly eleted representati,e for the 3
rd
distrit of manila. Petitioners, all
registered ,oters in the distrit, ontested this on the grounds that he %as not a natural5born itiHen of the
ALSE %1!:
43
Philippines. @hey as*ed that 'ngping be delared ineligible. Apon filing the petition, petitioners duly paid
the re2uired PD,000 filing fee. 3ouse of &epresentati,es !letoral @ribunal #3&!@$ issued a resolution
dismissing the petition for 2uo %arranto for failure to pay PD,000 ash deposit re2uired by its rues. Apon
reei,ing the said notie, petitioners paid the PD,000 ash deposit and attahed the reeipt to the motion
for reonsideration they filed %ith the 3&!@. @heir petition %as denied by the 3&!@ on the grounds of
rule 3) of the 199C 3&!@ rules %hih re2uired a PD,000 ash deposit in addition to the filing fees for 2uo
%arranto ases.
ISSUE:
-oes the ourt ha,e 8urisdition o,er the sub8et matter= -id 3&!@ ommit gra,e abuse of disretion in
summarily dismissing the petition for 2uo %arranto of petitioners and refusing to reinstate the same een
after the payment of the re2uired PD,000 ash deposit=
DECISION:
-eision set aside.
RATIO:
@he ourt may in2uire into the issue of 3&!@ by ,irtue of 'rt. C, Se. 1 of the onstitution %hih has
e7panded 8udiial po%er to inlude the determination of %hether or not there has been a gra,e abuse of
disretion amounting to la* or e7ess of 8urisdition on the part of any branh or instrumentality of the
go,ernment.
'ording to rule 3) of the 199C rules of the 3&!@, if the ash deposit is belo% P(D,000 payment shall be
made %ithin 10 days after the filing of the protest. Petitioners filed their petition %ith a )C day delay. In
dismissing the petition, the 3&!@ ated 8udiiously, orretly and ertainly %ithin its 8urisdition. @he
atta* of ineligibility is a serious harge. @he obser,ane of the 3&!@ rules of proedure must be ta*en
seriously if they are to attain their ob8eti,e. @he litigants are e7peted to properly omply %ith the
proedural re2uirements laid do%n by the tribunal %ithout being formerly ordered to do so. 3&!@ did not
ommit gra,e abuse of disretion in applying its rules stritly in dismissing the petition for 2uo %arranto.
SANDOVAL II VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (!!> SCRA ""%$
FACTS:
Speial +i,il 'tion. Petition for ertiorari.
Petitioner Sando,al and respondent 6reta %ere andidates for the lone ongressional distrit of Malabon5
?a,otas during the May 1., )001 eletions. Sando,al %on by a margin of 19,)00 ,otes. May )), )001F he
%as prolaimed by the distrit board of an,assers of Malabon5?a,otas. 'fter ta*ing his oarth of offie, he
assumed the post at noon of 9une 30, )001.9une 1, )001F 6reta filed %ith 3&!@ an eletion protest
against Sando,al. 9une (, )001F 3&!@ proess ser,er 0im ser,ed the summons by substituted ser,ie
upon a ertain 1ene maga %ho signed the proess ser,erBs opy of the summons. 9uly 1), )001F 3&!@
issued a resolution %hih too* note of Sando,alBs failure to file an ans%er to the eletion protest %ithin 10
days from date of ser,ie of the summons. 'ug :, )001F Sando,al mo,e for reonsideration for the
admission of his ans%er %ith ounter5protest beause 1ene Maga %ho reei,ed the summon %as neither
a regular employee nor responsible offier at his offie. 3&!@ denied the petition.
ISSUE:
-oes the ourt ha,e 8urisdition o,er the sub8et matter= >as substituted ser,ie of summons ,alidly
effeted on Sando,al II in the eletion protest filed by 'urora 6reta before the 3&!@=
ALSE %1!:
44
DECISION:
Petition granted. &esolutions of 3&!@ are modified to effet that the ans%er %ith ounter5protest of
Sando,al be admitted to form part of the reord.
RATIO:
+ourt has 8urisdition by ,irtue of 'rt. C, Se. 1 of the onstitution %hih e7pands the 8udiial po%er of the
ourt to inlude the determination of %hether or not there has been a gra,e abuse of disretion amounting
to la* or e7ess of 8urisdition on the part of any branh or instrumentality of the go,ernment.
It is %ell5established that summons upon a respondent or a defendant must be ser,ed by handing a opy
thereof to him in person. If efforts to find him personally %ould ma*e prompt ser,ie impossible, ser,ie
may be ompleted by substituted ser,ie. Ander setion ( of &ule 1. of the 199( rules of i,il proedure,
substituted ser,ie an be done ;by lea,ing opies of the summons at his d%elling house or residene
%ith some person of suitable age and disretion then residing therein or by lea,ing the opies at his offie
or regular plae of business %ith some ompetent person in harge thereof.< @here is absolutely nothing
in the proess ser,erBs affida,it of ser,ie indiating the impossibility of personal ser,ie of summons
upon Sando,al %ithin a reasonable time. Eurthermore, Sando,al %as a ,ery ,isible and ati,e member of
ongress %hih %ould only ta*e the proess ser,er a little e7tra %or* to loate Sando,al. @he element of
a summon being ser,ed on a ompetent person in harge of petitioners offie is missing. 1ene Maga %as
a maintenane man %ho offered his ser,ies not only to Sando,al but to anyone %ho %as so minded to
hire his assistane. @hus, not being an employee thereof, he %ould be an inompetent person to reei,e
the summons in petitionerBs behalf. Eurthermore, Maga %as not in harge of petitionerBs offie. Maga had
ob,iously no ontrol and management of the distrit offie as notieably sho%n by his oupation as
maintenane man. It is unmista*able that the proess ser,er hastily ser,ed the summons upon petitioner
Sando,al by substituted ser,ie %ithout first attempting to personally ser,e the proess.
In light of the defeti,e and irregular substituted ser,ie of summons, the 3&!@ did not a2uire
8urisdition o,er the person of petitioner and onse2uently the period %ithin %hih to file his ans%er %ith
ounter5protest did not start to run.
PIMENTEL, &R. VS HRET (!#! SCRA "$
FACTS:
In the May 199C eletions, 1. representati,es from 13 party5lists are entitled to oupy seats in the 3ouse
of &epresentati,es.
Subse2uently, the 3ouse nominated ontingents for the 3ouse of &epresentati,es !letoral @ribunal
#3&!@$ and +ommission on 'ppointments #+'$ ho%e,er, no party5list representati,e is nominated for the
said onstitutional bodies.
Sen. Pimentel, 9r. %rote t%o letters addressed to the Senate re2uesting the restruture of 3&!@ and +'.
?o response from the Senate.
Pimentel files petition for mandamus, prohibition and preliminary in8untion %ith this ourt. 3e ontends
that under the +onstitution and the Party50ist System 't, party list representati,es are entitled at least 1
seat in 3&!@ and ) seats in the +'.
ISSUE:
>6? the e7lusion of party5list representati,es in the 3&!@ and +' is unonstitutional
HELD:
ALSE %1!:
45
?o. Petition dismissed
RATIO:
S4+ 1" E 1> A5* VI of the +onstitution pro,ides that in the omposition of 3&!@ #: members of the
3ouse$ and +' #1) members of the 3ouse$ there must be a proportional representation from the politial
parties and the party5list. Sine aording to the Party50ist System 't, the party5list representati,es must
onstitute )0S of the seats in the 3ouse, party5list representati,es must ha,e 1 and ) seats for 3&!@
and +' respeti,ely.
3o%e,er, under the dotrine of separation of po%ers, the Supreme +ourt rules that it annot interfere %ith
the e7erise by the house of this onstitutionally mandated duty unless there is an abuse in disretion
amounting to la* or e7ess of 8urisdition. Party5lists are not unla%fully depri,ed of the opportunity to be
nominated in the 3&!@ or +'. Party5list has no lous standi. Eurthermore, 3&!@ and +' ha,e no
onstitutional po%ers to reonstitute themsel,es.
SECTION 1>.
THERE SHALL BE A COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS CONSISTING OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, AS EX OFFICIO CHAIRMAN, TWELVE SENATORS,
AND TWELVE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ELECTED BY
EACH HOUSE ON THE BASIS OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION FROM
THE POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTIES OR ORGANI0ATIONS REGISTERED
UNDER THE PARTY'LIST SYSTEM REPRESENTED THEREIN. THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT VOTE, EXCEPT IN CASE OF A TIE. THE
COMMISSION SHALL ACT ON ALL APPOINTMENTS SUBMITTED TO IT WITHIN
THIRTY SESSION DAYS OF THE CONGRESS FROM THEIR SUBMISSION. THE
COMMISSION SHALL RULE BY A MA&ORITY VOTE OF ALL THE MEMBERS.
DA0A V. SINGSON (1>% SCRA :#6$
FACTS:
Erom the May 19C( eletions, &aul -aHa %as hosen as one of the members of the +ommission on
'ppointments #+'$ as a representati,e of the 0iberal Party #0P$.
In September 19CC, 0aban ng -emo*rati*ong Pilipino #0-P$ %as organiHed resulting in a politial
realignment in the 3ouse of &epresentati,es #3&$. ). members of the 0P shifted to 0-P resulting to the
s%elling of the latter %ith 1D9 members and lea,ing only 1( members %ith the former.
3& re,ised its representation in the +' %ithdra%ing the seat oupied by -aHa and gi,ing this to the
ne%ly formed 0-P in the person of 0uis Singson.
@he petitioner hallenges this reappointment and the ourt issued a @&6 for -aHa and Singson from
ser,ing in the +'.
ISSUE:
>6? the reappointment of members of the +' is onstitutional
HELD:
Mes. Petition -ismissed
ALSE %1!:
46
RATIO:
S4+ 1> A5* VI of the onstitution pro,ides that there shall be a +ommission on 'ppointments onsisting
of, among others, 1) members of the 3& eleted by the 3ouse on the basis of proportional
representation. Sine there %as a shift in the number of members of the 0P to maintain proportional
representation the 3ouse reonstituted +' and a%arded 0-P the seats.
@he petitioner argues that 0-P is not a stable and permanent party so it is not entitled for seats in the +'.
+ourt held that %hen +6M!0!+ granted the registration of 0-P as a registered politial party, 0-P is
2ualified to ha,e seats in the +' maintaining proportional representation.
GUINGONA, &R. V. GON0ALES (1: SCRA ">#$
FACTS:
In the May 199) eletions, senate omposed of the follo%ing members %ith their respeti,e politial
affiliations and their respeti,e number of proportional representati,es in the +ommission on
'ppointments #+'$.
Politial Party Membership Proportional &epresentati,es in +'
0-P 1D (.D
?P+ D ).D
0'K'S5?A+- 3 1.D
0P5P-P50'B'? 1 0.D
Sen. @olentino proposed that for the 1) a,ailable seats in the +', C seats be gi,en to 0-P, ) for ?P+, 1
for 0'K'S5?A+- and 1 for 0P. It %as appro,ed.
Sen. 1uingona, 9r. files a petition to prohibit the Senate President 1onHales to reogniHe Sen. &omulo
#0-P$ and Sen. @anada #0P$ as members of the +'.
ISSUE:
>6? appointment of &omulo and @anada %ere onstitutional
HELD:
?o. 'ppointments of &omulo and @anada are null and ,oid.
RATIO:
S4+ 1> A5* VI of the +onstitution pro,ides that 1) senators are to be appointed in the +' by proportional
representation ho%e,er, it %as not e7pressly stated that the 1) seats must be filled in order for +' to
funtion. +' an funtion e,en if only 10 senators are eleted as long as the 2uorum e7ists. @he eletion
of &omulo and @anada ,iolates the proportional representation lause of Se 1C 'rt 4I sine 0.D of a
representati,e do not ount as 1.
SECTION 1.
THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR ANY OF ITS
RESPECTIVE COMMITTEES MAY CONDUCT IN<UIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS DULY PUBLISHED RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE
ALSE %1!:
47
RIGHTS OF PERSONS APPEARING IN, OR AFFECTED BY, SUCH IN<UIRIES
SHALL BE RESPECTED.
ARNAULT vs. NA0ARENO (>" SCRA #$
FACTS:
B-4(.v,s*. Es*.*4
O5,9,(./
)3(45:
San 9uan de -ios 3ospital
9an 1, 1939 to
9an 1, 19:.
Philippine 1o,Bt has the option to purhase this property for Php3,000,000 %ithin this period
if the Philippine 1o,Bt %ill not purhase this property, it %ill be disposed in ourt on 9une )1,
19..
But if Philippine 1o,Bt %ill opt to purhase the said property, theyLll pay the o%ner the sum of
Php3,000,000
9une )9, 19.:
San 9uan de -ios 3ospital sold the property to !rnest Burt for Php D,000,000 %ho made a
do%n payment of Php 10,000 and agreed to pay Php D00,000 %ithin one year and the
remainder in annual installments of Php D00,000 eah
Eailure to ma*e any of said payments %ould ause the forfeiture of his do%n payment of Php
10,000 and %ould entitle the 3ospital to resind the sale to him.
0atter part of
6tober, 19.9
Philippine 1o,ernment, through the &ural Progress 'dministration bought Buena,ista !state
for Php .,D00,000. Php 1,000,000 %as paid to Burt through his attorney5 in5 fat in the
Philippines, the 'sso. !states In. represented by 9ean 0. 'rnault for BA!?'4IS@'
!S@'@!
T.@7)7)(9 Es*.*4
O5,9,(./
)3(45:
Philippine @rust +ompany
May 1., 19.:
Philippine @rust +ompany sold this to Burt for Php 1,)00,000, %ho paid Php 10,000 and
promised to pay Php 90,000 %ithin 9 months and the balane of Php 1,100,000 in 10
suessi,e annual installments of Php 110,000 eah
Eeb. 1., 19.(
9 month period e7pired %ithout BurtLs ha,ing paid the said or any other amount then or
after%ards
Sept. ., 19.(
Philippine @rust +ompany sold, on,eyed, and deli,ered the estate to &A&'0 P&61&!SS
'-MI?IS@&'@I6? by an absolute dead of sale in onsideration of the sum of Php (D0,000
Eebruary D, 19.C
&ural Progress 'dministration made a notarial demand upon Bert for the resolution and
anellation of his ontrat of purhase %ith the Philippine @rust +ompany due to his failure to
pay the installment of Php 90,000 %ithin the period of 9 months
+EI of &iHal ordered the anellation of BurtBs ertifiate of title and the issuane of a ne% one
in the name of the &ural Progress 'dministration.
0atter part of
6tober, 19.9
the Philippine 1o,ernment, through the &ural Progress 'dministration bought @ambobong
!state for the sum of Php D00,000, %hih %as all paid to Burt through his other attorney5 in5
fat, the ?orth Manila -e,elopment +o., In., also represented by 9ean 0. 'rnault for the
@'MB6B6?1 !S@'@!.
6tober )9, 19.9/ ) he*s payable to Burt aggregating Php 1,D00,000 %ere deli,ered to 'rnault.
o @hat same day, 'rnault opened a ne% aount in BurtBs name %ith the Philippine
?ational Ban* %here he deposited the t%o he*s aggregating Php 1,D00,000
ALSE %1!:
48
o 6n the same oasion, he dre% on the same aount ) he*s
6ne he* for Php D00,000, %hih he transferred to the aount of the
'ssoiated 'genies, In.
'nother he* for Php..0,000 payable to ash, %hih he himself ashed.
It %as the desire of the Senate to determine the ultimate reipient of the sum of Php..0,000
o Eeb )(, 19D0, Senate adopted its &esolution ?o. C to in,estigate the Buena,ista and the
@ambobong !state -eals.
o ' speial ommittee %as reated by the said resolution to %or* on the in,estigation
'rnault refusedJ donBt %ant to mention %ho %as the ultimate reipient of the sum of Php..0,000
beause
o 3is ans%er might be used against him. 'lso, he said that it is his onstitutional right to
refuse to inriminate himself. 'ording to him, suh 2uestion ,iolates his right as a
itiHen to ha,e pri,ay in his dealings %ith other people.
o ;I donBt remember the nameF he %as a representati,e of Burt< ;I am not sureF I donBt
remember the name<
>ithout seuring a reeipt, he turned o,er the Php..0, 000 to a ertain person, a
representati,e of Burt, in ompliane %ith BurtBs ,erbal instrution made in 19.:F
that, as far as he *no%, that ertain person had nothing to do %ith the negations
for the settlement of the Buena,ista and @ambobong asesF that he had seen
that person se,eral times before he ga,e him the money on 6t. )9, 19.9, and
that sine then he had seen him again ) or 3 items. @he last time being in -e,
19.9, in ManilaF that the person %as a male, 395.0 years old, bet. DB)5 DB:.
Senate deliberated and hereby ommitted the petitioner to the ustody of the Sergeant5 at5 'rms
and imprisoned until ;he shall ha,e purged the ontempt by re,ealing to the Senate or to the
aforesaid Speial +ommittee the name of the person to %hom he ga,e the Php ..0,000.
ISSUES:
1. @he Senate has no po%er to punish 'rnault for ontempt for refusing to re,eal the name of the
person to %hom he ga,e the Php ..0,000, beause suh information is immaterial to, and %ill not
ser,e, any intended or purported legislation and his refusal to ans%er the 2uestion has not
embarrassed, obstruted, or impeded the legislati,e proess.
). Senate la*s authority to ommit him for ontempt for a term beyond its period of legislati,e
session, %hih ended on May 1C, 19D0
3. Petitioner in,o*es the pri,ilege against self5 inrimination.
HELD:
@he petition must be denied.
RATIO:
F6)5 ,ss-4 G1H
Sub8et of the in2uiry %as the 2uestionable e7penditure of the 1o,ernment of Php D,000,000 of
publi funs. @hus, itBs been deided that itBs %ithin the 8urisdition of the Senate.
Po%er of the +ourt is limited to determining %hether the legislati,e body has 8urisdition to
institute the in2uiryJ in,estigation
6ne an in2uiry is established to be %ithin the 8urisdition of a legislati,e body to ma*e, %e thin*
the in,estigating ommittee has the po%er to re2uire a %itness to ans%er any 2uestion pertinent
to that in2uiry, sub8et to his onstitutional right against self5 inrimination.
'lso, one the 8urisdition is oneded, the S+ annot ontrol the e7erise of that
8urisdition or the use of +ongressional disretion
In2uiry should be %ithin the 8urisdition, materialJ neessary for the e7erise of a po%er
ALSE %1!:
49
,ested by the +ongress and e,ery 2uestion %hih the in,estigator is empo%ered to
oere a %itness to ans%er must be material or pertinent to the sub8et of the in2uiry
@he materiality of the 2uestion must be determined by its diret relation to the
sub8et of the in2uiry
@he ruling of the Senate on the materiality of the information sought from the
%itness is presumed to be orret.
@he in,estigation had not been ompleted, beause due to the ontumay of the %itness, his
ommittee had not yet determined the parties responsible for the anomalous transation as
re2uired by &esolution no. C
@he bills reommended by this ommittee had not been appro,ed by the 3ouse and
might not be appro,ed pending the ompletion of the in,estigation.
@hose bills %ere not neessarily all the measures that +ongress might deem it neessary
to pass after the in,estigation is finished
@his atmosphere of suspiion must be dissipated, and it an only be done if appropriate steps are
ta*en by the Senate to ompel 'rnault to stop pretending that he annot remember the name of
the person to %hom he ga,e the Php..0,000 and ans%er the 2uestions %hih %ill definitely
establish the identity of that person
F6)5 ,ss-4 GH
+ourt finds no sound reason to limit the po%er of a legislati,e body to punish for ontempt to
the end of e,ery session and not to the end of the last session terminating the e7istene of that
body. !7erising the po%er to punish for ontempt is enables the legislati,e body to perform its
onstitutional funtion %ithout impediment or obstrution.
0egislati,e funtions may be and in pratie are performed during reess by duly onstituted
ommittee harged %ith the duty of performing in,estigations or onduting hearing relati,e to
any proposed legislation. @o deny suh ommittees the po%er of in2uiry %ith proess to enfore
it %ould be to defeat the ,ery purpose for %hih that po%er is reogniHed in the legislati,e body
as an essential and appropriate au7iliary to its legislati,e funtion.
@here is no limit as to time to the SenateBs po%er to punish for ontempt in ases %here that
po%er may onstitutionally be e7erted as in the present ase.
By refusing to ans%er the 2uestions, the %itness has obstruted the performane by the Senate
of its legislati,e funtion, and the Senate has the po%er to remo,e the obstrution by
ompelling the %itness to ans%er the 2uestions thru restraint of his liberty until he shall ha,e
ans%ered them.
o @his po%er subsists as long as the Senate, %hih is a ontinuing body, persists in
performing the partiular legislati,e funtion in,ol,ed.
'lso, itBs an absurd, unneessary and ,e7atious proedure if %e are to hold that the po%er to
punish for ontempt terminates upon the ad8ournment of the session, the Senate %ould ha,e to
resume the in,estigation at the ne7t and sueeding sessions and repeat the ontempt
proeedings against the %itness until the in,estigation is ompleted.
F6)5 ,ss-4 G !H
@he ground upon %hih the %itnessB laim is based is too sha*y, infirm, and slippery to afford him
safety.
3is insistent laim before the bar of the Senate that if he should re,eal the name he %ould
inriminate himself, neessarily implied that he *ne% the name. ItBs also unbelie,able that he
ga,e Php..0,000 to a person un*no%n to him
Sine aording to the %itness himself, the transation %as legal, and that he ga,e the Php..0,
000 to a representati,e of Burt in ompliane %ith the latterBs ,erbal instrution, ourt anBt find a
basis upon %hih to sustain his laim that to re,eal the name of that person might inriminate
him.
@estimony %hih is ob,iously false or e,asi,e is e2ui,alent to a refusal to testify and is
punishable as ontempt assuming that a refusal to testify %ould be so punishable.
ALSE %1!:
50
It is the %itnessBs lear duty as a itiHen to gi,e fran*, sinere and truthful testimony before a
ompetent authority.
@he state has the right to e7at fulfillment of a itiHenBs obligationF onsistent of ourse %ith is
right under the +onstitution.
BENG0ON V. DRILON (!1 SCRA 6!%$
FACTS:
&' 910 %as amended by &' 1(9( %hih pro,ides for the ad8ustment of salaries or retired 9usties of the
Supreme +ourt and +ourt of 'ppeals. &' 3D9D amended &' 1D:C pro,ided for idential benefits as &'
1(9( pro,ided for members of the +onstitutional +ommission. &etirement benefits to Supreme +ourt and
+ourt of 'ppeals 9usties. P- D(C %as enated by President Maros %hih e7tended similar benefits to
the members of the 'EP.
@%o months later, P- :.. %as issued by President Maros repealing Setion 35' of &' 1(9( and &'
3D9D. Ander P- 1:3C, President Maros restored the read8ustment of the retirement benefits of enlisted
men and offiers. ' later deree, P- 1909 %as also issued pro,iding for the read8ustment of the pensions
of members of the 'EP %ho are retired prior to Sept. 10, 19(9. ad8ustment for retirement benefits %as not
restored for retired 9usties of Supreme +ourt and +ourt of 'ppeals. +ongress appro,ed in 1990 a bill for
the reenatment of the repealed pro,isions of &' 1(9( and &' 3D9D %hih President '2uino ,etoed.
Belie,ing that +ongress 't %as trying to irum,ent her ,eto ba* in 1990, the President ,etoed some of
setions she belie,ed %ould bring ba* &' 1(9(.
ISSUE:
>hether or not the Presidential ,eto of items in the 1' 't pro,iding for ad8usted retirement benefits for
members of the 8udiiary is onstitutional=
HELD:
?o, not *no%n to President '2uino, P- :.. ne,er beame la% beause it %as not published prior to its
promulgation in aordane to the ruling in @anada ,. @u,era. @herefore, it follo%s that &' 1(9(
ontinues to be in effet not ha,ing been repealed by P- :... In ,etoing the said setions Pres. '2uino
is in effet ,etoing &' 1(9( %hih %as passed 3D years prior to that date.
'lso, the in,alidity of P- :.. %as ruled upon %ith finality by the Supreme +ourt and a ,eto of the said
items in the 1' 't is tantamount to a re,ersal of that deision. +learly, the President has no po%er to do
both. Eor it to do so %ould be to gi,e it legislati,e po%ers to repeal la%s as %ell as allo% it to diminish the
fisal autonomy of the 9udiiary by ditating ho% its money should be spent in spite of its po%ers of
augmentation. @he at of the !7euti,e in ,etoing the partiular pro,isions is not absolute. @he po%er to
disappro,e any item in the 1' 't does not grant the authority to ,eto a part of the item and to appro,e
the remaining portion of the same item.
Petition grante!. $%e questione! veto is set asi!e as illegal an! unconstitutional.
NEGROS ORIENTAL II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. VS. SANGGUNIANG PANLUNSOD OF
DUMAGUETE (111 SCRA :1$
FACTS:
ALSE %1!:
51
?6&!+6 II is an eletri ooperati,e ha,ing its prinipal plae of business in -umaguete. Sangguniang
Panlunsod of -umaguete onduted an in,estigation in onnetion %ith pending legislation related to the
operations of publi utilities in the +ity of -umaguete. @he in2uiry %as to fous on the alleged installation
and use by ?6&!+6 II of ineffiient po%er lines in that ity. Petitioners %ere re2uired to attend and testify
at the in,estigation %hih they failed to do. Petitioners %ere being held liable for legislati,e ontempt due
to their failure to appear in the said in,estigation. ' subpoena and the 6rder omplained of %ere signed
by &espondent 'ntonio Aypithing, as +hairman of the +ommittee on Publi Atilities and Eranhises and
+o5+hairman of the respondent 'd 3o +ommittee. @he petitioners mo,ed to 2uash the subpoena
alleging that Sangguniang Panlunsod of -umaguete has no po%er to in,estigate the alleged ineffiient
po%er lines.
ISSUES:
>hether or not the +ongress has the po%er to punish non5members for ontempt.
>hether or not the subpoena is ,alidly issued.
HELD:
@here is no onstitutional grant to +ongress to punish non5members for ontempt. ' line should be dra%n
bet%een the po%ers of +ongress as the repository of the legislati,e po%er under the +onstitution, and
those that may be e7erised by the legislati,e bodies of loal go,ernment unit li*e the Sangguniang
Panlunsod of -umaguete %hih, as mere reatures of la%, possess delegated legislati,e po%er.
3o%e,er, there is no e7press pro,ision either in the 19(3 +onstitution or in the 4oal 1o,ernment +ode
granting loal legislati,e bodies, the po%er to subpoena %itnesses and the po%er to punish non5members
for ontempt. @herefore, the Sangguniang Panlunsod of -umaguete is de,oid of po%er to punish the
petitioners for ontempt.
Sine the respondent Sangguniang Panlunsod of -umaguete and respondent 'd 3o +ommittee are
%ithout po%er to punish non5members for ontempt, the subpoena issued ompelling the petitioners to
attend and testify in the in,estigation %as delared null and ,oid for being ultra ,ires
SECTION 1.
1. THE CONGRESS MAY NOT INCREASE THE APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PRESIDENT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT AS SPECIFIED IN THE BUDGET. THE
FORM, CONTENT, AND MANNER OF PREPARATION OF THE BUDGET SHALL BE PRESCRIBED
BY LAW.

. NO PROVISION OR ENACTMENT SHALL BE EMBRACED IN THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS
BILL UNLESS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO SOME PARTICULAR APPROPRIATION THEREIN.
ANY SUCH PROVISION OR ENACTMENT SHALL BE LIMITED IN ITS OPERATION TO THE
APPROPRIATION TO WHICH IT RELATES.
!. THE PROCEDURE IN APPROVING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE CONGRESS SHALL STRICTLY
FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE FOR APPROVING APPROPRIATIONS FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS
AND AGENCIES.

:. A SPECIAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL SHALL SPECIFY THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS
INTENDED, AND SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY FUNDS ACTUALLY AVAILABLE AS CERTIFIED BY
THE NATIONAL TREASURER, OR TO BE RAISED BY A CORRESPONDING REVENUE PROPOSAL
THEREIN.
ALSE %1!:
52
1. NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED AUTHORI0ING ANY TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS?
HOWEVER, THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE SPEA;ER OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE CHIEF &USTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE HEADS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS MAY, BY LAW, BE AUTHORI0ED TO AUGMENT ANY ITEM IN
THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS LAW FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES FROM SAVINGS IN
OTHER ITEMS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE APPROPRIATIONS.

6. DISCRETIONARY FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR PARTICULAR OFFICIALS SHALL BE
DISBURSED ONLY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES TO BE SUPPORTED BY APPROPRIATE VOUCHERS
AND SUB&ECT TO SUCH GUIDELINES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW.

". IF, BY THE END OF ANY FISCAL YEAR, THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE FAILED TO PASS THE
GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR THE ENSUING FISCAL YEAR, THE GENERAL
APPROPRIATIONS LAW FOR THE PRECEDING FISCAL YEAR SHALL BE DEEMED RE'ENACTED
AND SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL IS
PASSED BY THE CONGRESS.
GARCIA VS. MATA (>1 SCRA %>$
FACTS:
!usebio 1aria is a reser,e offier on ati,e duty of the 'rmed Eores of the Philippines until his
re,ersion to inati,e status on 1D ?o,ember 19:0, pursuant to the pro,isions of &epubli 't ?o. )33).
't the time of re,ersion, Petitioner held the ran* of +aptain. 6n 9une 1C, 19DD, the date %hen &epubli
't ?o. 13C) too* effet, petitioner had a total of 9 years, . months and 1) days of aumulated ati,e
ommissioned ser,ie in the 'rmed Eores of the PhilippinesF 6n 9uly 11, 19D:, the date %hen &epubli
't 1:00 too* effet, petitioner had an aumulated ati,e ommissioned ser,ie of 10 years, D months
and D days in the 'rmed Eores of the PhilippinesF PetitionerBs re,ersion to inati,e status on 1D
?o,ember 19:0 %as pursuant to the pro,isions of &epubli 't )33., and suh re,ersion %as neither for
ause, at his o%n re2uest, nor after ourt5martial proeedingsF Erom 1D ?o,ember 19:0 up to the
present, petitioner has been on inati,e status and as suh, he has neither reei,ed any emoluments
from the 'rmed Eores of the Philippines, nor %as he e,er employed in the 1o,ernment in any apaityF
's a onse2uene of his re,ersion to inati,e status, petitioner filed the neessary petitions %ith the
offies of the 'EP +hief of Staff, the Seretary of ?ational -efense, and the President, respeti,ely, but
reei,ed reply only from the +hief of Staff through the 'EP 'd8utant 1eneral. @he petitioner brought an
ation for G:an!amus and &eo,ery of a Sum of MoneyG in the ourt a quo to ompel the respondents
Seretary of ?ational -efense and +hief of Staff of the 'rmed Eores of the Philippines

to reinstate him in
the ati,e ommissioned ser,ie of the 'rmed Eores of the Philippines, to read8ust his ran*, and to pay
all the emoluments and allo%anes due to him from the time of his re,ersion to inati,e status basing his
allegations on Paragraph 11 of the Speial Pro,isions of the 'rmed Eores of the Philippines.
ISSUE:
>hether or not the Paragraph 11 of the Speial Pro,isions of the 'rmed Eores of the Philippines is
onstitutional.
HELD:
Paragraph 11 of the Speial Pro,isions of the 'rmed Eores of the Philippines pro,ides/
;'fter the appro,al of this 't, and %hen there is no emergeny, no reser,e offier of the 'rmed Eores of
ALSE %1!:
53
the Philippines may be alled to a tour of ati,e duty for more than t%o years during any period of fi,e onseuti,e
years/ P&64I-!-, @hat hereafter reser,e offiers of the 'rmed Eores of the Philippines on ati,e duty for more
than t%o years on the date of the appro,al of this 't e7ept those %hose military and eduational training,
e7periene and 2ualifiations are deemed essential to the needs of the ser,ie, shall be re,erted to inati,e status
%ithin one year from the appro,al of this 't/ P&64I-!-, EA&@3!&, $%at reserve officers wit% at least ten years of
active accumulate! commissione! service w%o are still on active !uty at t%e time of t%e a##roval of t%is 2ct s%all not
be reverte! to inactive status e"ce#t for cause after #ro#er court9martial #rocee!ings or u#on t%eir requestF
P&64I-!-, EA&@3!&, @hat any suh reser,e offier re,erted to inati,e status %ho has at least fi,e of ati,e
ommissioned ser,ie shall be entitled to a gratuity e2ui,alent to one monthLs authoriHed base and longe,ity pay in
the ran* held at the time of suh re,ersion for e,ery year of ati,e ommissioned ser,ieF P&64I-!-, EA&@3!&,
@hat any reser,e offier %ho reei,es a gratuity under the pro,isions of this 't shall not e7ept during a ?ational
emergeny or mobiliHation, be alled to a tour of ati,e duty %ithin fi,e years from the date of re,ersion/ P&64I-!-,
EA&@3!&, @hat the Seretary of ?ational -efense is authoriHed to e7tend the tour of ati,e duty of reser,e offiers
%ho are 2ualified military pilots and dotorsF P&64I-!-, EA&@3!&, @hat any sa,ings in the appropriations
authoriHed in this 't for the -epartment of ?ational -efense not%ithstanding any pro,ision of this 't to the ontrary
and any une7pended balane of ertifiation to aounts payable sine 1 9uly 19.9 regardless of purpose of the
appropriation shall be made a,ailable for the purpose of this paragraph/ '?- P&64I-!-, EI?'00M, @hat the
Seretary of ?ational -efense shall render a 2uarterly report to +ongress as to the implementation of the pro,isions
of this paragraph.<
@he said pro,ision has no rele,ane or pertinene %hatsoe,er to the budget in 2uestion or to any
appropriation item ontained therein, and is therefore prosribed by 'rt. 4I, Se. 19, par. )

of the 193D
+onstitution of the Philippines, %hih reads/
?o pro,ision or enatment shall be embraed in the general appropriation bill unless it relates speifially to
some partiular appropriation thereinF and any suh pro,ision or enatment shall be limited in its operation to suh
appropriation.
' perusal of the hallenged pro,ision of &.'. 1:00 fails to dislose its rele,ane or relation to any
appropriation item therein, or to the 'ppropriation 't as a %hole. It %as indeed a non5appropriation item
inserted in an appropriation measure in ,iolation of the onstitutional inhibition against GridersG to the
general appropriation at. @he paragraph in 2uestion also ,iolated 'rt. 4I, Se. )1, par. 1
1
of the 193D
+onstitution of the Philippines %hih pro,ided that G?o bill %hih may be enated into la% shall embrae
more than one sub8et %hih shall be e7pressed in the title of the bill.G @his onstitutional re2uirement
nullified and rendered inoperati,e any pro,ision ontained in the body of an at that %as not fairly
inluded in the sub8et e7pressed in the title or %as not germane to or properly onneted %ith that
sub8et. if a pro,ision in the body of the at is not fairly inluded in this restrited sub8et, li*e the pro,ision
relating to the poliy matters of alling to ati,e duty and re,ersion to inati,e duty of reser,e offiers of
the 'EP, suh pro,ision is inoperati,e and of no effet.
Apon the foregoing dissertation, Paragraph 11 of the Speial Pro,isions of the 'rmed Eores of the
Philippines %as delared as unonstitutional, in,alid and inoperati,e. Being unonstitutional, it confers no
rig%t an! affor!s no #rotection. In legal ontemplation it is as though it has ne,er been passed. Petitioner
no longer ha,ing legal basis for suh laims, his petition %as denied.
DEMETRIA VS. ALBA (1:> SCRA %>$
FACTS:
Petitioners, %ho filed petition for prohibition %ith prayer for a %rit of preliminary in8untion 2uestioning the
onstitutionality of the first paragraph of Setion .. of Presidential -eree ?o. 11(( as onerned itiHens
of the Philippines, as members of the ?ational 'ssemblyJBatasan Pambansa representing their millions of
onstituents, as parties %ith general interest ommon to all the people of the Philippines, and as
ta7payers %hose ,ital interest may be affeted. Said paragraph 1 of Setion .. pro,ides/
;@he President shall ha,e the authority to transfer any fund, appropriated for the different departments,
ALSE %1!:
54
bureaus, offies and general agenies of the !7euti,e -epartment, %hih are inluded in the 1eneral 'ppropriations
't, to any program, pro8et or ati,ity of any department, bureau, offie inluded in the 1eneral 'ppropriations 't or
appro,ed after its enatment.<
Petitioners laim that it is in ,iolation of Setion 1:ODQ, 'rtile 4III of the 19(3 +onstitution.
ISSUES:
>hether or not the first paragraph of Setion .. of Presidential -eree ?o. 11(( is in ,iolation of Setion
1:ODQ, 'rtile 4III of the 19(3 +onstitution.
>hether or not the 9udiiary may enroah %ith the e7erise of funtions of the legislati,e and e7euti,e
departments.
HELD:
#1$@he first paragraph of Setion .. of Presidential -eree ?o. 11(( is in ,iolation of Setion 1:ODQ, 'rtile
4III of the 19(3 +onstitution. Setion 1:ODQ, 'rtile 4III of the 19(3 +onstitution pro,ides/
;?o la% shall be passed authoriHing any transfer of appropriations, ho%e,er, the President, the Prime
Minister, the Spea*er, the +hief 9ustie of the Supreme +ourt, and the heads of onstitutional ommissions may by
la% be authoriHed to augment any item in the general appropriations la% for their respeti,e offies from sa,ings in
other items of their respeti,e appropriations.<
Setion 1: authoriHes the President to augment any item in the general appropriations la% for their
respeti,e offiesF ho%e,er, first paragraph of Setion .. of Presidential -eree ?o. 11(( unduly o,er5
e7tends the pri,ilege granted under said Setion 1:ODQ. It empo%ers the President to indisriminately
transfer funds from one departments, bureaus, offies and general agenies of the !7euti,e -epartment
to any program, pro8et or ati,ity of any department, bureau, offie inluded in the 1eneral
'ppropriations 't or appro,ed after its enatment. Indeed, suh pro,ision in 2uestion is null and ,oid.
#)$@he la% pro,ides the dotrine of Separation of Po%ers as %ell as +he*s and Balanes to ensure that
no abuse of po%er shall ta*e plae. @herefore, %here the legislature or the e7euti,e branh is ating
%ithin the limits of its authority, the 8udiiary annot and ought not to interfere %ith the former. But %here
the legislature or the e7euti,e ats beyond the sope of its onstitutional po%ers, it beomes the duty of
the 8udiiary to delare %hat the other branhes of the go,ernment had assumed to do, as ,oid.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION VS. ENRI<UE0 (!1 SCRA 1%6$
FACTS:
&' (::3 #former 3ouse bill ?o. 10900, the 1eneral 'ppropriations Bill of 199.$ entitled ;'n 't
'ppropriating Eunds for the 6peration of the 1o,ernment of the Philippines from 9anuary 1 to -eember
1, 199., and for other Purposes< %as appro,ed by the President and ,etoed some of the pro,isions.
Petitioners assail the speial pro,ision allo%ing a member of +ongress to realign his alloation for
operational e7penses to any other e7pense ategory laiming that it ,iolates Se. )D, 'rt ( of the
+onstitution. Issues of onstitutionality %ere raised before the Supreme +ourt.
Phil+ons' prayed for a %rit of prohibition to delare unonstitutional and ,oid a.$ 'rt 1: on the
+ountry%ide -e,elopment Eund and b.$ @he ,eto of the President of the Speial pro,ision of 'rt N04III of
the 1'' of 199..
1: members of the Senate sought the issuane of %rits of ertiorari, prohibition and mandamus against
the !7e. Seretary, the Se of -ept of Budget and Management and the ?ational @reasurer and
2uestions/ 1.$ +onstitutionality of the onditions imposed by the President in the items of the 1'' of 199.
ALSE %1!:
55
and ).$ the onstitutionality of the ,eto of the speial pro,ision in the appropriation for debt ser,ies.
Senators @anada and &omulo sought the issuane of the %rits of prohibition and mandamus against the
same respondents. Petitioners ontest the onstitutionality of/ 1.$ ,eto on four speial pro,isions added to
items in the 1'' of 199. for the 'EP and -P>3F and ).$ the onditions imposed by the President in the
implementation of ertain appropriations for the +'E1ABs, -P>3, and ?atBl 3igh%ay 'uthority.
ISSUE:
>hether or not the ,eto of the president on four speial pro,isions is onstitutional and ,alid=
HELD:
Speial Pro,ision on -ebt +eiling R +ongress pro,ided for a debt5eiling. 4etoed by the Pres. %Jo ,etoing
the entire appropriation for debt ser,ie. @he said pro,isions are germane to Z ha,e diret relation %J debt
ser,ie. @hey are appropriate pro,isions Z annot be ,etoed %Jo ,etoing the entire itemJappropriation.
4!@6 46I-.
Speial Pro,ision on &e,ol,ing Eunds for S+ABs R said pro,ision allo%s for the use of inome Z reation
of re,ol,ing fund for S+ABs. Pro,ision for >estern 4isayas State Ani,. Z 0eyte State +olleges ,etoed by
Pres. 6ther S+ABs en8oying the pri,ilege do so by e7isting la%. Pres. merely ated in pursuane to
e7isting la%. 4!@6 4'0I-.
Speial Pro,ision on &oad Maintenane R +ongress speified 30S ratio fo %or*s for maintenane of
roads be ontrated aording to guidelines set forth by -P>3. 4etoed by the Pres. %Jo ,etoing the
entire appropriation. It is not an inappropriate pro,isionF it is not alien to the sub8. of road maintenane Z
annot be ,eoted %Jo ,etoing the entire appropriation. 4!@6 46I-.
Speial Pro,ision on Purhase of Military !2uip. R 'EP moderniHation, prior appro,al of +ongress
re2uired before release of moderniHation funds. It is the so5alled legislati,e ,eto. 'ny pro,. blo*ing an
admin. ation in implementing a la% or re2uiring legislati,e appro,al must be sub8. of a separate la%.
4!@6 4'0I-.
Speial Pro,ision on Ase of Sa,ings for 'EP Pensions R allo%s +hief of Staff to augment pension funds
through the use of sa,ings. 'ording to the +onsttution, only the Pres. may e7erise suh po%er
pursuant to a speifi la%. Properly ,etoed. 4!@6 4'0I-.
Speial Pro,ision on +onditions for de5ati,ation of +'E1ABs R use of speial fund for the ompensation
of the said +'E1ABs. 4etoed, Pres. re2uires his prior appro,al. It is also an amendment to e7isting la%
#P- ?o. 1D9( Z &' ?o. :(DC$. ' pro,ision in an appropriation at annot be used to repealJamend
e7isting la%s. 4!@6 4'0I-.
SECTION 6.
1. EVERY BILL PASSED BY THE CONGRESS SHALL EMBRACE ONLY ONE
SUB&ECT WHICH SHALL BE EXPRESSED IN THE TITLE THEREOF.

. NO BILL PASSED BY EITHER HOUSE SHALL BECOME A LAW UNLESS IT HAS
PASSED THREE READINGS ON SEPARATE DAYS, AND PRINTED COPIES
THEREOF IN ITS FINAL FORM HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO ITS MEMBERS
THREE DAYS BEFORE ITS PASSAGE, EXCEPT WHEN THE PRESIDENT
CERTIFIES TO THE NECESSITY OF ITS IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT TO MEET A
PUBLIC CALAMITY OR EMERGENCY. UPON THE LAST READING OF A BILL, NO
ALSE %1!:
56
AMENDMENT THERETO SHALL BE ALLOWED, AND THE VOTE THEREON SHALL
BE TA;EN IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, AND THE YEAS AND NAYS ENTERED
IN THE &OURNAL.
TIO VS. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD (111 SCRA %>$
FACTS:
@io filed a petition assailing the onstitutionality of Presidential -eree ?o. 19C( entitled ;'n 't +reating
the 4ideogram &egulatory Board< %ith broad po%ers to regulate and super,ise the ,ideogram industry on
the follo%ing grounds/ #1$ Setion 10 thereof, %hih imposes a ta7 of 30S on the gross reeipts payable
to the loal go,ernment is a &I-!& and the same is not germane to the sub8et matter thereofF #)$ @he
ta7 imposed is harsh, onfisatory, oppressi,e andJor in unla%ful restraint of trade in ,iolation of the due
proess lause of the +onstitutionF #3$ @here is no fatual nor legal basis for the e7erise by the President
of the ,ast po%ers onferred upon him by 'mendment ?o. :F #.$ @here is undue delegation of po%er and
authorityF and #D$ @here is o,er regulation of the ,ideo industry as if it %ere a nuisane, %hih it is not.
ISSUE:
>hether or not Presidential -eree Bo. 19C( is onstitutional.
HELD:
#1$ Setion 10 is allied and germane to, and is reasonably neessary for the aomplishment of, the
general ob8et of the deree, %hih is the regulation of the ,ideo industry through the 4ideogram
&egulatory Board. 's a tool for regulation it is simply one of the regulatory and ontrol mehanisms
sattered throughout the deree. @he e7press purpose of the deree to inlude ta7ation of the ,ideo
industry is to regulate and rationaliHe the unontrolled distribution of ,ideograms and is therefore not a
rider.
(2) ' ta7 does not ease to be ,alid merely beause it regulates, disourages, or e,en definitely
deters the ati,ities ta7ed. @he ta7 imposed by the deree is not only a regulatory but also a re,enue
measure prompted by the realiHation that earnings of ,ideogram establishments of around P:00 million
per annum ha,e not been sub8eted to ta7, thereby depri,ing the 1o,ernment of an additional soure of
re,enue. @he le,y of the 30S ta7 is for a publi purpose. It %as imposed primarily to ans%er the need for
regulating the ,ideo industry, partiularly beause of the rampant film piray, the flagrant ,iolation of
intelletual property rights, and the proliferation of pornographi ,ideo tapes. 'nd %hile it %as also an
ob8eti,e of the deree to protet the mo,ie industry, the ta7 remains a ,alid imposition.
#3$ @he Cth G%hereasG lause suffiiently summariHes the 8ustifiation in that gra,e emergenies orroding
the moral ,alues of the people and betraying the national eonomi reo,ery program neessitated bold
emergeny measures to be adopted %ith dispath.
#.$ @he grant in Setion 11 of the deree of authority to the B6'&- to Gsoliit the diret assistane of
other agenies and units of the go,ernment and deputiHe, for a fi7ed and limited period, the heads or
personnel of suh agenies and units to perform enforement funtions for the BoardG is not a delegation
ALSE %1!:
57
of the po%er to legislate but merely a onferment of authority or disretion as to its e7eution,
enforement, and implementation.
(5) Being a relati,ely ne% industry, the need for its regulation %as apparent. >hile the underlying
ob8eti,e of the deree is to protet the moribund mo,ie industry, there is no 2uestion that publi %elfare
is at bottom of its enatment, onsidering Gthe unfair ompetition posed by rampant film pirayF the
erosion of the moral fiber of the ,ie%ing publi brought about by the a,ailability of unlassified and
unre,ie%ed ,ideo tapes ontaining pornographi films and films %ith brutally ,iolent se2uenesF and
losses in go,ernment re,enues due to the drop in theatrial attendane, not to mention the fat that the
ati,ities of ,ideo establishments are ,irtually unta7ed sine mere payment of MayorLs permit and
muniipal liense fees are re2uired to engage in business.
@herefore, the deree in 2uestion is onstitutional.
Eor referene/
P&!'MB0! 6E P- 19C(/
1. >3!&!'S, the proliferation and unregulated irulation of ,ideograms inluding, among others,
,ideotapes, diss, assettes or any tehnial impro,ement or ,ariation thereof, ha,e greatly pre8udied
the operations of mo,iehouses and theaters, and ha,e aused a sharp deline in theatrial attendane by
at least forty perent #.0S$ and a tremendous drop in the olletion of sales, ontratorLs speifi,
amusement and other ta7es, thereby resulting in substantial losses estimated at P.D0 Million annually in
go,ernment re,enuesF
). >3!&!'S, ,ideogram#s$ establishments olleti,ely earn around P:00 Million per annum from
rentals, sales and disposition of ,ideograms, and suh earnings ha,e not been sub8eted to ta7, thereby
depri,ing the 1o,ernment of appro7imately P1C0 Million in ta7es eah yearF
3. >3!&!'S, the unregulated ati,ities of ,ideogram establishments ha,e also affeted the ,iability of
the mo,ie industry, partiularly the more than 1,)00 mo,ie houses and theaters throughout the ountry,
and oasioned industry5%ide displaement and unemployment due to the shutdo%n of numerous
mo,iehouses and theatersF
.. G>3!&!'S, in order to ensure national eonomi reo,ery, it is imperati,e for the 1o,ernment to
reate an en,ironment ondui,e to gro%th and de,elopment of all business industries, inluding the
mo,ie industry %hih has an aumulated in,estment of about P3 BillionF
D. >3!&!'S, proper ta7ation of the ati,ities of ,ideogram establishments %ill not only alle,iate the dire
finanial ondition of the mo,ie industry upon %hih more than (D,000 families and D00,000 %or*ers
depend for their li,elihood, but also pro,ide an additional soure of re,enue for the 1o,ernment, and at
the same time rationaliHe the heretofore unontrolled distribution of ,ideogramsF
:. >3!&!'S, the rampant and unregulated sho%ing of obsene ,ideogram features onstitutes a lear
ALSE %1!:
58
and present danger to the moral and spiritual %ell5being of the youth, and impairs the mandate of the
+onstitution for the State to support the rearing of the youth for i,i effiieny and the de,elopment of
moral harater and promote their physial, intelletual, and soial %ell5beingF
(. >3!&!'S, i,i5minded itiHens and groups ha,e alled for remedial measures to urb these blatant
malpraties %hih ha,e flaunted our ensorship and opyright la%sF
C. >3!&!'S, in the fae of these gra,e emergenies orroding the moral ,alues of the people and
betraying the national eonomi reo,ery program, bold emergeny measures must be adopted %ith
dispathF ... #?umbering of paragraphs supplied$.
PHILIPPINE &UDGES ASSOCIATION VS. PRADO (" SCRA "%!$
FACTS:
@his is a petition to delare the unonstitutionality of &epubli 't ?o. (3D.. @he main target of this
petition is Setion 3D of &' (3D. as implemented by the Philippine Postal +orporation.
S!+. 3D. &epealing +lause. R 'll ats, derees, orders, e7euti,e orders, instrutions, rules and regulation
or parts thereof inonsistent %ith the pro,isions of this 't are repealed or modified aordingly.
'll fran*ing pri,ileges authoriHed by la% are hereby repealed, e7ept those pro,ided for under
+ommon%ealth 't ?o. ):D, republi ats ?umbered :9, 1C0, 1.1., )0C(, and D0D9. @he +orporation may
ontinue the fran*ing pri,ilege under +irular ?o. 3D dated 6tober )., 19(( and that of the 4ie5President,
under suh arrangements and onditions as may ob,iate abuse or unauthoriHed use thereof.
@hese measures %ithdra% the fran*ing pri,ilege #free mail$ from the Supreme +ourt, the +ourt of
'ppeals, the &egional @rial +ourts, the Metropolitan @rial +ourts, the Muniipal @rial +ourts, and the 0and
&egistration +ommission and its &egisters of -eeds, along %ith ertain other go,ernment offies.

@he first ob8etion is based on 'rt. 4I, Se. ):#1$ of the +onstitution, %hih pro,ides that ;!,ery bill
passed by the +ongress shall embrae only one sub8et %hih shall be e7pressed in the title thereof.< &'
(3.D is entitled ;'n 't +reating the Philippine Postal +orporation, -efining its Po%ers, funtions and
&esponsibilities, Pro,iding for &egulation of the Industry and for 6ther Purposes +onneted @here%ith<. It
is the submission of the petitioners that Se. 3D of &' (3.D %hih %ithdre% the fran*ing pri,ilege from the
9udiiary is not e7pressed in the title of the la%, nor does it reflet its purposes.
@he seond ob8etion %as that the seond paragraph of the repealing lause %as not inluded in the
original ,ersion of Senate Bill ?o. ()0 or of 3ouse Bill ?o. .)00. It appeared only in the +onferene
+ommittee &eport, its addition ,iolates 'rtile 4I Se. ):#)$ of the +onstitution, %hih pro,ides that/
#)$ ?o bill passed by either 3ouse shall beome a la% unless it has passed three readings on separate
days, and printed opies thereof in its final form ha,e been distributed to its Members three days before its
passage, e7ept %hen the President ertifies to the neessity of its immediate enatment to meet a publi
alamity or emergeny. Apon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allo%ed, and the ,ote
thereon shall be ta*en immediately after, and the yeas and nays entered in the 9ournal.
Petitioners stress that Setion 3D %as ne,er a sub8et of any disagreement bet%een both 3ouses and so
the seond paragraph ould not ha,e been ,alidly added as an amendment.
@he third and most serious hallenge of the petitioners is based on the e2ual protetion lause. It is
alleged that &' (3.D is disriminatory beause %hile %ithdra%ing the fran*ing pri,ilege from the
9udiiary, it retains the same for the President of the Philippines, 4ie5President, Senators and Members
of the 3ouse of &epresentati,e, +6M!0!+, former Presidents of the Philippines, %ido%s of former
Presidents, ?ational +ensus and Statistis 6ffie, and the general publi in the filing of omplaints
against publi offies or offiers. !2ual protetion of the la%s, embodied in a separate lause in 'rtile III
ALSE %1!:
59
Se. 1 of the +onstitution, simply re2uires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated
ali*e, both as to rights onferred and responsibilities imposed. @he respondents argue that the
onsiderable ,olume of mail from the 9udiiary, the fran*ing pri,ilege must be %ithdra%n from it.
ISSUES:
>hether or not &' (3.D is unonstitutional on the grounds that/
#1$ its title embraes more than one sub8et and does not e7press its purposes O'rtile 4I Se. ):#1$QF
#)$ it did not pass the re2uired readings in both 3ouses of +ongress and printed opies of the bill in
its final form %ere not distributed among the members before its passage O'rtile 4I Se. ):#)$QF
#3$ and it is disriminatory and enroahes on the independene of the 9udiiary Oe2ual protetion of
la%s in 'rtile III Se. 1Q.
HELD:
M!S. @he petition is #artially grante!. @he fran*ing pri,ilege of the Supreme +ourt, the +ourt of 'ppeals,
the &egional @rial +ourts, the Metropolitan @rial +ourts, the Muniipal @rial +ourts, and the 0and
&egistration +ommission and its &egisters of -eeds, along %ith ertain other go,ernment offies shall be
restore!.
6n the first ob8etion, the title of the hallenged at does not ,iolate the +onstitution. @he title of the bill is
not re2uired to be an inde7 to the body of the at, or to be omprehensi,e as to o,er e,ery single detail
of the measure. If the title fairly indiates the general sub8et, and reasonably o,ers all the pro,isions of
the at, and is not alulated to mislead the legislature or the people, there is suffiient ompliane %ith
the onstitutional re2uirement. 'ording to +ooley, author of +onstitutional 0imitations, ;the repeal of a
statute on a gi,en sub8et is properly onneted %ith the sub8et matter of a ne% statute on the same
sub8etF and therefore a repealing setion in the ne% statute is ,alid, not%ithstanding that the title is silent
on the sub8et<. @he reason is that %here a statute repeals a former la%, suh repeal is the effect and not
the sub8et of the statuteF and it is the sub8et, not the effet of a la%, %hih is re2uired to be briefly
e7pressed in its title.
6n the seond ob8etion, under the dotrine of separation of po%ers, the +ourt may not in2uire beyond
the ertifiation of the appro,al of a bill from the presiding offiers of +ongress. @he +ourt delines to loo*
into the petitionersB harges that an amendment %as made upon the last reading of the bill that e,entually
beame &' (3D. and that the opies thereof in its final form %ere not distributed among the members of
eah 3ouse. Both the enrolled bill and the legislati,e 8ournals ertify that the measure %as duly enated in
aordane %ith 'rtile 4I Se. ):#)$ of the +onstitution.
6n the third ontention on e2ual protetion of la%s, the argument of the respondents that the
onsiderable ,olume of mail of the 9udiiary 8ustifies the %ithdra%al of its fran*ing pri,ilege, is self5
defeating. @he respondents are in effet saying that the fran*ing pri,ilege should be e7tended only to
those %ho do not need it ,ery muh, if at all #li*e the %ido%s of former Presidents$ but not to those %ho
need it badly. @he +ourt states, ;at this time %hen the 9udiiary is being faulted for the delay in the
administration of 8ustie, the %ithdra%al from it of the fran*ing pri,ilege an only further deepen this
serious problem<. @he +ourt is unable to disagree %ith the respondents that Setion 3D of &' (3.D
represents a ,alid e7erise of polie po%er. 6n the ontrary, the +ourt finds its repealing lause to be
disriminatory and that it denies the 9udiiary the e2ual protetion of the la%s guaranteed for all persons
or things similarly situated.
In sum, the +ourt sustains &' (3.D against the atta* that its sub8et is not e7pressed in its title and that
it %as not passed in aordane %ith the presribed proedure. 3o%e,er, the +ourt annuls Setion 3D of
the la% as ,iolati,e of 'rtile III Se. 1 of the +onstitution that no person shall ;be depri,ed of the e2ual
protetion of the la%s<.
ALSE %1!:
60
TAN VS. DEL ROSARIO, &R. (!" SCRA !:$
FACTS:
@hese are t%o onsolidated speial i,il ations for prohibition hallenge, in 1.&. ?o. 109)9C, the
onstitutionality of &epubli 't ?o. (.9:, *no%n as Simplified ?et Inome @a7ation Sheme #S?I@$,
amending the ertain pro,isions of the ?ational Internal &e,enue +ode, and in 1.&.109.::, the ,alidity of
Se. :, &e,enue &egulations, promulgated by publi respondents pursuant to the said la%.
@.R. =o. *1B,CB
Petitioner laims that the enatment of &' (.9: or the Simplified ?et Inome @a7ation Sheme ,iolates
the follo%ing pro,isions of the +onstitution/
'rtile 4I Se. ):#1$ R !,ery bill passed by the +ongress shall embrae only one sub8et %hih shall be
e7pressed in the title thereof.
'rtile 4I Se. )C#1$ R @he rule of ta7ation shall be uniform and e2uitable. @he +ongress shall embrae
e,ol,e a progressi,e system of ta7ation.
'rtile III Se. 1 R ?o person Shall be depri,ed of 7 7 7 property %ithout due proess of la%, nor shall any
person be denied the e2ual protetion of la%s.
@he full te7t of the title of &' (.9: or the Simplified ?et Inome @a7ation Sheme reads/
;'n 't 'dopting the Simplified ?et Inome @a7ation Sheme Eor the Self5!mployed and Professionals
!ngaged In the Pratie of @heir Profession, 'mending Setions )1 and )9 of the ?ational &e,enue +ode,
as 'mended.<
Setion )1#f$ @a7 on +itiHens and &esidents indiate, ;a ta7 is imposed upon the ta"able net income< of
self5employed andJor professionals engaged in the pratie of their profession in aordane to the ta7
shedule pro,ided by the la%. @he c%e!ular approah is a system employed %here the inome ta7
treatment ,aries and made to depend on the *ind or ategory of ta7able inome of the ta7payer. Setion
)9 -edutions from 1ross Inome indiate s#ecific diret osts that are allo%ed to be deduted from the
ta7able inome.
Petitioner asserts that &' (.9: attempts to ta7 single proprietorship and professionals differently from the
manner it imposes ta7 on orporations and partnerships and thus ,iolates 'rtile 4I Se. )C#1$ of the
+onstitution. @he +ourt ,ie%s the legislati,e intent of the amendatory la% to inreasingly shift the inome
ta7 system to%ards the sc%e!ular approah in the inome ta7ation of indi,idual ta7payers and to
maintain, by large, the present global treatment on ta7able orporations. 1lobal treatment is a system
%here the ta7 treatment ,ie%s indifferently the ta7 base and generally treats in ommon all ategories of
ta7able inome of the ta7payer.
Petitioner gi,es an e7tensi,e disussion on the merits of the la%, illustrating, %hat he belie,es to be an
imbalane bet%een the ta7 liabilities of those o,ered and those %ho are not by the amendatory la%.
@.R. =o. *1B..G
@he 2uestioned regulation reads/
Se. :. 1eneral Professional Partnership R @he general professional partnership #1PP$ and the partners
omprising the 1PP are o,ered by &' (D9:. @hus, in determining the net profit of the partnership, only the
diret osts mentioned in said la% are to be deduted from partnership inome. 'lso, the e7pense paid or
inurred by partners in their indi,idual apaities in the pratie of their profession %hih are not reimbursed
or paid by the partnership but are onsidered diret osts, are not dedutible from his gross inome.
@he ob8etion of the petitioner lies is foused on the administrati,e interpretation of publi respondents
that %ould apply &' (.9: or S?I@ to partners in general professional partnerships.
'ording to the ?ational Internal &e,enue +ode, partnerships are either ;ta7able partnerships< or
;e7empt partnerships<. @he 1PP is an e7ample of an ;e7empt partnership< and that it annot be similarly
ALSE %1!:
61
identified as orporations nor e,en onsidered as independent ta7able entities for inome ta7 purposes.
@he +ode states that a general professional partnership must be formed for the sole purpose of
e7erising a ommon profession, no part of the inome of %hih is deri,ed from its engaging in any trade
businessF other%ise, it is sub8et to ta7 as an ordinary business partnership or, %hih is to say, as a
orporation and thereby sub8et to the orporate inome ta7. ' general professional partnership, unli*e
an ordinary business partnership #%hih is treated as a orporation for inome ta7 purposes and so
sub8et to the orporate inome ta7$, is not itself an inome ta7payer. 3ere, partners themsel,es, not the
partnership #although it is still obligated to file an inome ta7 return Omainly for administration and dataQ$,
are liable for the payment of inome ta7 in their in!ivi!ual apaity omputed in their respeti,e and
distributi,e shares of profit.
ISSUES:
In 1.&. ?o. 109)C9/ %hether or not &' (.9: or the Simplified ?et Inome @a7ation Sheme is
unonstitutional.
In 1.&. ?o. 109..:, %hether or not publi respondents ha,e e7eeded their authority in promulgating
Se. :, &e,enue &egulations, to arry out &' (.9:.
HELD:
?6. Petitions are dismissed.
@.R. =o. *1B,CB
'rtile 4I Se. ):#1$ of the +onstitution has been en,isioned so as #a$ to pre,ent log5rolling legislation
intended to unite the members of the legislature %ho fa,or any one of unrelated sub8ets in support of the
%hole at, #b$ to a,oid surprises or e,en fraud upon the legislature, and #$ to fairly apprise the people,
through suh publiations of its proeedings as are usually made, of the sub8ets of legislation. @he abo,e
ob8eti,es of the fundamental la% appear to us ha,e been suffiiently met.

@he ontention that &' (.9: ,iolates 'rtile 4I Se. )C#1$ learly forgets that suh a system of inome
ta7ation has long been the pre,ailing rule e,en prior to &' (.9:. Aniformity of ta7ation merely re2uires
that all sub8ets or ob8ets of ta7ation, similarly situated, are to be treated ali*e both in pri,ileges and
liabilities. Aniformity does not forfend lassifiation as long as/ #a$ the standards that are used are
substantial and not arbitrary, #b$ the ategoriHation is germane to ahie,e the legislati,e purpose, #$ the
la% applies, all things being e2ual, to both present and future onditions, and #d$ the lassifiation applies
e2ually %ell to all those belonging to the same lass. @his lassifiation implied in the legislati,e intent of
the amendatory la% to inreasingly shift the inome ta7 system to%ards the sc%e!ular approah in the
inome ta7ation of indi,idual ta7payers and to maintain, by large, the present global treatment on ta7able
orporations is not arbitrary and inappropriate.
6n the point raised by the petitioner on %hat he ,ie%s as an imbalane bet%een the ta7 liabilities of those
o,ered and not o,ered by the amendatory la%, the ourt annot freely del,e into those matters %hih,
by onstitution fiat, rightly rests on the legislati,e department. >ith the legislature primarily lies the
disretion to determine the nature #*ind$, ob8et #purpose$, e7tent #rate$, o,erage #sub8ets$, and situs
#plae$ of ta7ation.
@he due proess lause may be orretly in,o*ed only %hen there is a lear ontra,ention of inherent or
onstitutional limitations in the e7erise of ta7 po%er. ?o suh transgression is so e,ident to the +ourt.
@.R. =o. *1B..G
Ander the @a7 +ode, the general professional partnership is deemed to be no more than a mere
mehanism or a flo%5through entity in the generation of inome by, and the ultimate distribution of suh
inome to, respeti,ely, eah of the indi,idual partners. Setion : of the &e,enue &egulation, alleged to
arry out &' (.9:, did not alter, but merely onfirmed, the abo,e standing rule as no% so modified by &'
(.9: on basially the e7tent of allo%able dedutions appliable to all indi,idual inome ta7payers on their
ALSE %1!:
62
non5ompensation inome.
@here is no e,ident intention of the la%, either before or after the amendatory legislation, to plae in
une2ual footing or in signifiant ,ariane the inome ta7 treatment of professionals %ho pratie their
respeti,e professions indi,idually and of those %ho do it through a general professional partnership.
TOBIAS VS. ABALOS (!# SCRA 1%6$
FACTS:
@his is a petition to render &epubli 't ?o. (:(D unonstitutional. &' (:(D is also *no%n as ;'n 't
+on,erting the Muniipality of Mandaluyong into a 3ighly urbaniHed +ity to be Kno%n as the +ity of
Mandaluyong<. Prior to the enatment of the assailed statute, the muniipalities of Mandaluyong and San
9uan belonged to only one legislati,e distrit.
3on. &onaldo "amora, the inumbent ongressional representati,e of this legislati,e distrit, sponsored
the bill %hih e,entually beame &' (:(D. Pres. &amos signed it into the la% on Eeb. 9, 199.. Pres.
&amos signed &' (:(D into the la% on Eeb. 9, 199.. ' plebisite %as held on 'pril 10, 199. %here the
people of Mandaluyong %as as*ed %hether they appro,ed of the on,ersion of the Muniipality of
Mandaluyong into a highly urbaniHed ity as pro,ided under &' (:(D. @he turnout at the plebisite %as
only 1...1S of the ,oting population.1C,:)1 ,oted ;yes< %hereas (,911 ,oted ;no<. By ,irtue, of these
results, &' (:(D %as deemed ratified and in effet.
'rtile 4III Se..9 of &' (:(D pro,ides/
;'s a highly5urbaniHed ity, the +ity of Mandaluyong shall ha,e its o%n legislati,e distrit %ith the first
representati,e to be eleted in the ne7t national eletions after the passage of this 't. @he remainder of the
former legislati,e distrit of San 9uanJMandaluyong shall beome the ne% legislati,e distrit of San 9uan
%ith its first representati,e to be eleted at the same eletion<.
Petitioners allege that the inlusion of the assailed Se..9 of &' (:(D embraes t%o prinipal sub8ets,
namely/ #1$ the on,ersion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbaniHed ityF and #)$the di,ision of the
ongressional distrit of San 9uanJMandaluyong into t%o separate distrits. @he seond aforestated
sub8et is not germane tot the sub8et matter of &' (:(D sine the said la% treats of the on,ersion of
Mandaluyong into a highly urbaniHed ity, as e7pressed in the title of the la%. @hus, the ;one sub8et5one
bill< rule has not been omplied %ith.
Petitioners assert that there is no mention of the assailed la% of any ensus to sho% that Mandaluyong
and San 9uan had eah attained the minimum re2uirement of )D0,000 inhabitants to 8ustify their
separation into t%o legislati,e distrits, %hih is allegedly ,iolati,e of 'rtile 4I Se. D#.$ of the
+onstitution.
Petitioners also argue that Setion .9 has resulted in an inrease in the omposition of the 3ouse of
&epresentati,es beyond that pro,ided in 'rtile 4I Se. D#1$.
ISSUE:
>hether or not &' (:(D, speifially 'rti,le 4III Se..9, is unonstitutional for being ,iolati,e of three
speifi pro,isions of the +onstitution/
It ontra,enes the ;one sub8etRone bill< rule, as enuniated in 'rtile 4I, Se. ):#1$ of the
+onstitution.
'rtile 4I Se. D#.$ states ;+ongress shall ma*e a reapportionment of legislati,e distrits based
on the standard pro,ided in this setion<.
'rtile 4I Se. D#1$ states the present limit of )D0 members in the 3ouse of &epresentati,e.
ALSE %1!:
63
HELD:
?6. Petition is dismissed for la* of merit.
+ontrary to petitionerBs assertion, the reation of a separate ongressional distrit for Mandaluyong is not
a sub8et separate and distint from the sub8et of its on,ersion into a highly urbaniHed ity but is natural
and logial onse2uene of its on,ersion into a highly urbaniHed ity. 4erily, the title of &' (:(D
neessarily inludes and ontemplates the sub8et treated under Setion .9 regarding the reation of a
separate ongressional distrit for Mandaluyong. @he onstitutional re2uirement as no% e7pressed in
'rtile 4i Se. ):#1$ ;should be gi,en a pratial rather than a tehnial onstrution. It should be
suffiient ompliane %ith suh re2uirement if the title e7presses the general sub8et and all the
pro,isions are germane to that general sub8et.
@he ontention that there is no mention of a ensus to sho% ompliane %ith minimum re2uirement of
)D0,000 inhabitants to 8ustify the separation into t%o legislati,e distrits of San 9uanJMandaluyong does
not suffie to stri*e do%n the ,alidity of &' (:(D. @he said 't en8oys the presumption of ha,ing passed
through the regular ongressional proess, inluding due onsideration by the members of +ongress of
the minimum re2uirements for the establishment of separate legislati,e distrits, 't any rate, it is not
re2uired that all la%s emanating from the legislature must ontain all rele,ant data onsidered by
+ongress in the enatment of said la%s.
's to the ontention that Setion .9 of &' (:(D in effet preempts the right of ongress to reapportion
legislati,e distrits, the said argument borders on the absurd sine the petitioners o,erloo* the glaring fat
that it %as +ongress itself %hih drafted, deliberated upon, and enated the assailed la%, inluding
Setion .9 thereof. +ongress annot possibly preempt itself on a right %hih pertains to itself.
' reading of the appliable pro,ision, 'rtile 4I Se. D #1$ sho%s that the present limit of )D0 members is
not absolute. @he +onstitution learly pro,ides that the 3ouse of &epresentati,es shall be omposed of
not more than )D0 members, ;unless other%ise pro,ided by la%<. @herefore, the inrease in
ongressional representation mandated by &' (:(D must be allo%ed to stand.
@he petitionersB additional argument that &' (:(D resulted in ;gerrymandering<, %hih is the pratie of
reating legislati,e distrits to fa,or a partiular andidate or party, is not %orth of redene. 3on.
"amoraBs onstitueny has in fat been diminished, %hih de,elopment ould hardly be onsidered as
fa,orable to him.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSN., INC. VS. GIMENE0 (11 SCRA :"#$
FACTS :
Philippine +onstitution 'ssoiation In, a non profit i,i organiHation, duly inorporated under the
Philippine la%, filed a petition for preliminary in8untion en8oining 'uditor 1eneral of the Philippines and
the disbursing offiers of the 3ouse of +ongress from ;passing in audit ,ouhers and from ountersigning
the he*s of treasury %arrants for the payment to any former Senator of former members of the 3ouse
of &epresentati,es of retirement and ,aation gratuities pursuant to &epubli 't ?o. 3C3:. Petitioner
ontends the follo%ing/
1. the pro,ision for the retirement of the members and ertain offiers of +ongress is not
e7pressed in the title of the bill, in ,iolation of Se )#1$ of 'rt 4I of the +onstitutionF
). the pro,ision on retirement and gratuity is a irum,ention of the +onstitutional ban on
inrease of salaries of the members of the +ongress during their term, ontrary to 'rt 4I, Se
1.. of the +onstitution
3. the pro,ision is a lass legislation beause it allo%s members and offiers of the +ongress to
retire after 1) years of ser,ie %hile all other offiers and employees of the go,ernment an
ALSE %1!:
64
retire only after )0 years of ser,ie.
.. the pro,ision on si* and ,aation lea,e is a another attempt of legislators to further inrease
their ompensation in ,iolation of the +onstitution.
@he Soliitor 1eneral filed its ans%er and ontends that/
1. the grant of retirement pensions and benefits does not onstitute forbidden ompensation.
). the title of the la% in 2uestion suffiiently omplies %ith the pro,isions of the +onstitutions
%hih pro,ides that ;no bill may be enated into la% shall embrae more than one sub8et
%hih shall be e7pressed in the title of the bill.<
3. the la% does not onstitute lass legislation
.. ertain indispensable parties %ere not inluded in the petition
D. the petitioner has no standing to institute the ation
:. the payment of the ommutable si* and ,aation lea,e is not an indiret sheme to inrease
the salary.
ISSUES:
>hether or not the petitioner has the legal standing to institute the petition
>hether of not the la% in 2uestion is ,iolati,e of the +onstitution.
RULING:
1
st
point/ PetitionerBs standing to institute the suit.
@he Petitioner an ,alidly institute the suit. In the determination of the degree of interest essential to gi,e
the re2uisite standing to atta* the onstitutionality of a statute, the general rule is that not only persons
indi,idually affeted, but also ta7payers ha,e suffiient interest in pre,enting the illegal e7penditures of
moneys raised by ta7ation and they may, therefore, 2uestion the onstitutionality pf statutes re2uiring
e7penditure of publi moneys.
)
nd
point/ >hether or not &' 3C3: ,iolates Se 1., 'rt 4I of the +onstitution.
@he +onstitutional pro,ision in Setion 1., 'rt 4i inludes in the term of ompensation ;other
emoluments<. @his is the pi,otal point on this fundamental 2uestion . Most of the authorities and deided
ases ha,e regarded emolument as ;the profit arising from offie or employmentF that %hih is reei,ed
as ompensation for ser,ies %hih is anne7ed to possession of an offie, salary, fees, and per2uisites. It
is e,ident that retirement benefit is a form or another speies of emolument, beause it is a part of
ompensation for ser,ies of one possessing any offie.
;=o increase in sai! com#ensation s%all ta&e effect until t%e e"#iration of t%e full term of all members of
t%e =ational 2ssembly electe! subsequent to a##roval of suc% increase
&epubli 't 3C3: pro,ides for an inrease in the emoluments of Senators and 3ouse of
&epresentati,es, to ta*e effet upon appro,al of the said 't. &etirement benefits %ere immediately
a,ailable thereunder, %ithout a%aiting the e7piration of the full term of all Members of the Senate and the
3ouse of representati,es appro,ing suh inrease. Suh pro,ision learly runs ounter to the prohibition
in Se 1., 'rt 4i of the +onstitiution.
3
rd
point/ 4iolation of e2ual protetion lause.
&' 3C3: is patently disriminatory and therefore ,iolate the e2ual protetion lause. Eirstly the said la%
grants retirement benefits to Senators and Members of the 3ouse of representati,es %ho are eleti,e
offiials, it does not inlude other eleti,e offiials suh as go,ernors of pro,ines and the members of the
pro,inial boards and the eleti,e offiials of the muniipalities and hartered ities.
Seondly, all members of the +ongress under &' 3C3: are gi,en retirement ,benefits after ser,ing 1)
years, not neessarily ontinuous, %hereas, most go,ernment offiers and emplpyees aee gi,en
retirement benefits after )o years .
ALSE %1!:
65
In the third plae, all go,ernment offiials and employees are gi,en only one retirement benefits
irrespeti,e of their length of ser,ie in the go,ernment, %hereas, under &' 3C3: Members of the
+ongress %ill b entitled to t%o retirement benefits or e2ui,alent to si7 years of salary.
0astly, &' 3C3: grants retirement benefits to offiials %ho are not members of the 1SIS. Most grantees of
the retirement benefits under ,arious retirement la%s ha,e to be a member or must al least ontribute a
portion of their monthly salaries to 1SIS
.
th
point/ @itle of the &' 3C3: not germane to the sub8et matter.
Par 1 Se )1, 'rt 4I of the +onstitution pro,ides/
=o bill may be enacte! into law s%all embrace more t%an one sub(ect w%ic% s%all be
e"#resse! in t%e title of t%e bill.
Ander &epubli 't 3C3:, amending the first paragraph of Se 1), subsetion [ of the +ommon%ealth
't 1C:, the retirement benefits are granted to members of the 1SIS %ho ha,e rendered at least )o years
of ser,ie regardless of age. @his pro,ision is related and germane to the sub8et of the +ommon%ealth
't 1C:. 6n the other hand, the sueeding paragraph of &' 3C3: refers to members of the +ongress
and to eleti,e offiers %ho are not members of the 1SIS. @o pro,ide retirement benefits therefore, for
these offiials %ould relate to sub8et not germane to the +ommon%ealth 't 1C:.
I( sB)5*, RA !>!6 v,)/.*4s *B544 +)(s*,*-*,)(./ 25)v,s,)(s (.@4/=: *B4 25)B,7,*,)( 549.58,(9
,(+54.s4 ,( s./.5,4s )6 M4@745s )6 *B4 C)(954ss? 4I-./ 25)*4+*,)( +/.-s4? .(8 25)B,7,*,)( *B.* *B4
*,*/4 )6 *B4 7,// sB.// ()* 4@75.+4 @)54 *B.( )(4 s-7J4+*.
INSULAR LUMBER CO. VS. COURT OF TAX APPEALS (1%: SCRA "1%$
FACTS:
@hese t%o ases are appeals by %ay of ertiorari from the pre,ious deision of the +ourt or @a7 'ppeals
ordering the +ommissioner of Internal &e,enue to refund to the Insular 0umber ompany the amount of
P10,D:0,)0 instead of P19,9)1.3(, representing )DS of the speifi ta7 paid on manufatured oil and
motor fuel utiliHed by the said ompany in the operation of its forest onession in the year 19:3.
@he un!is#ute! fats/
Insular 0umber +ompany, a orporation organiHed and e7isting under the la%s of ?e% Mor*, AS', and
duly authoriHed to do business in the Philippines, is a liensed forest onessionaire. @he ompany
purhased manufatured oil and motor fuel %hih it used in the operation of its forest onession, sa%mill,
planning mills, po%er units, ,ehiles, dry *ilns, %ater pumps, la%n mo%ers, and in furnishing free %ater
and light to its employees, on %hih speifi ta7 %as paid. @he ompany filed %ith the +ommissioner of
Internal &e,enue, a laim for refund of P19,9)1.3( representing )DS of the speifi ta7 paid on the
manufatured oil and fuel used in its operations pursuant to the pro,isions of Setion D, &epubli at ?o.
1.3D. +ommissioner denied the +ompanyBs laim for refund on the ground that the pri,ilege of partial ta7
refund granted by Se. D of &' 1.3D to those using oil in the operation of forest and mining onessions
is limited to a period of fi,e years from 9une ., 19.:, the date of effeti,ity of said 't. +onse2uently, oil
used in suh onessions after the said date are sub8et to the full ta7 presribed in the ?ational Internal
&e,enue +ode.
@he +ompany filed a petition for re,ie% before the respondent ourt. @he +ourt of @a7 'ppeals ruled that
the operation of a sa%mill is distint from the operation of a forest onession, hene, the refund pro,ision
of Se. D of &' 1.3D allo%ing partial refund to forest and mining onessionaires annot be e7tended to
the operators of a sa%mill. 6ut of the P19,9)1.3( laimed, representing )DS of speifi ta7 paid,
respondent ourt found out that only the amount of P1.,D9C.0C %as paid on oil utiliHed in logging
operations. 3o%e,er, respondent ourt did not allo% the refund of the full amount of P1.,D9C.0C beause
the +ompanyBs right to laim the refund of a portion thereof, partiularly those paid during the period from
ALSE %1!:
66
9anuary 1, 19:3 to 'pril )9, 19:3 had already presribed. 3ene, the +ompany %as redited the refund
of P10,D:0.)0 only. Both parties appealed from the deision of the +ourt of @a7 'ppeals.
@he +ommissioner ontends the unonstitutionality of the first pro,iso in Se. D of &' 1.3D based on
'rtile 4I Se. )1#1$ of the 193D +onstitution, %hih pro,ides ;?o bill %hih may be enated into a la%
shall embrae more than one sub8et %hih shall be e7pressed in the title of the bill<. &' 1.3D is entitled
;'n 't to Pro,ide Means for Inreasing @he 3igh%ay Speial Eund<. @he +ommissioner argues that the
sub8et of &' 1.3D %as to inrease 3igh%ay Speial Eund. 3o%e,er, Se. D of the 't deals %ith another
sub8et %hih is the partial e7emption of miners and loggers, and that this partial e7emption is not learly
e7pressed in the title of the aforesaid 't.
@he +ompany argues that the operation of the sa%mill is not merely inidental to the operation of the
forest onession but is indispensable thereto, or forms part thereof.
ISSUES:
>hether or not the +ourt of @a7 'ppeals erred in their deision on the follo%ing grounds/
In t%e 2##eal by t%e Commissioner
@hat the first pro,iso in Setion D of &' 1.3D in,o*ed by Insular 0umber +ompany as legal basis
for its laim for ta7 refund is null and ,oid for being unonstitutional in relation to 'rtile 4I Se. )1
#1$ of the 193D +onstitution.
In not holding that the partial e7emption under &' 1.3D is limited only to fi,e years ounted from
9une 1., 19D:, the date of appro,al and effeti,ity of the said at.
In not holding that Insular 0umber +ompany used the 2uestioned oils and fuels after the
e7emption has already lapsed or e7pired and hene, no longer in fore.
In holding that the +ompany is entitled to the ta7 refund of P10,D:0.)0
In t%e 2##eal by t%e Com#any
@hat the +ompany is not entitled to laim a partial refund of the speifi ta7 paid on manufatured
oils used in the operation of its sa%mill.
@hat the +ompanyBs laim for refund on the speifi ta7 paid on oils used during 9anuary 1, 19:3
to 'pril )9, 19:3 has already presribed.
In ordering that the +ompany is entitle only to the ta7 refund of P10,D:0.)0 instead of P19,9)1.3(
as laimed by the petitioner.
HELD:
?6. Petition denied and the 8udgment of the +ourt of @a7 'ppeals affirmed.
2##eal by t%e Commissioner
@he +ourt finds no merit on the argument on the unonstitutionality of &' 1.3D. @he said 't deals %ith
only one sub8et and prolaims 8ust one poliy, namely the neessity for inreasing the 3igh%ay Speial
Eund through the imposition of an inreased speifi ta7 on manufatured oils. @he pro,iso in Setion D of
&' 1.3D, %hih has referene to speifi ta7 on oil and fuel, is not a de,iation from the general sub8et of
the la%. @he primary purpose of 'rtile 4I Se. )1#1$ of the 193D +onstitution is to prohibit dupliity in
legislation the title of %hih might ompletely fail to apprise the legislators or the publi of the nature,
sope and onse2uenes of the la% or its operation. @his does not seem to this +ourt to ha,e been
ignored in the passage of &' 1.3D sine, as the reords of its proeedings bear out, a full debate on
preisely the issue of %hether its title reflets its omplete sub8et %as held by the +ongress %hih
passed it. Eurthermore, in deiding the onstitutionality of a statute alleged to be defeti,ely titled, e,ery
presumption fa,ors the ,alidity of the 't.
ALSE %1!:
67
It is ,ery apparent that the partial refund of speifi ta7 paid for oils used in agriulture and a,iation is
limited to D years %hile there is no time limit for the partial refund of speifi ta7 paid for oils used by
miners and forest onessionaires. @he +ourt finds no basis in applying the limitation of the operati,e
period pro,ided for oils used in agriulture and a,iation to the pro,ision on the refund to miners and forest
onessionaires.
2##eal by t%e Com#any
@he +ourt agrees %ith the +ourt of @a7 'ppeals that the operation sa%mill is distint from the operation of
a forest onession. By the ,ery nature of their operations, they are entirely different business ,entures. It
,ery lear form the language of Setion D that only miners or forest onessionaires are gi,en the
pri,ilege to laim the partial refund.
SECTION ".
1. EVERY BILL PASSED BY THE CONGRESS SHALL, BEFORE IT BECOMES A
LAW, BE PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT. IF HE APPROVES THE SAME HE
SHALL SIGN IT? OTHERWISE, HE SHALL VETO IT AND RETURN THE SAME WITH
HIS OB&ECTIONS TO THE HOUSE WHERE IT ORIGINATED, WHICH SHALL
ENTER THE OB&ECTIONS AT LARGE IN ITS &OURNAL AND PROCEED TO
RECONSIDER IT. IF, AFTER SUCH RECONSIDERATION, TWO'THIRDS OF ALL
THE MEMBERS OF SUCH HOUSE SHALL AGREE TO PASS THE BILL, IT SHALL
BE SENT, TOGETHER WITH THE OB&ECTIONS, TO THE OTHER HOUSE BY
WHICH IT SHALL LI;EWISE BE RECONSIDERED, AND IF APPROVED BY TWO'
THIRDS OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THAT HOUSE, IT SHALL BECOME A LAW. IN
ALL SUCH CASES, THE VOTES OF EACH HOUSE SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
YEAS OR NAYS, AND THE NAMES OF THE MEMBERS VOTING FOR OR AGAINST
SHALL BE ENTERED IN ITS &OURNAL. THE PRESIDENT SHALL COMMUNICATE
HIS VETO OF ANY BILL TO THE HOUSE WHERE IT ORIGINATED WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF RECEIPT THEREOF, OTHERWISE, IT SHALL
BECOME A LAW AS IF HE HAD SIGNED IT.

. THE PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO VETO ANY PARTICULAR ITEM
OR ITEMS IN AN APPROPRIATION, REVENUE, OR TARIFF BILL, BUT THE VETO
SHALL NOT AFFECT THE ITEM OR ITEMS TO WHICH HE DOES NOT OB&ECT.
GON0ALES VS. MACARAIG, &R. (1#1 SCRA :1$
FACTS:
Petition for prohibitionJmandamus atta*ing the onstitutionality of presidential ,eto of setion DD.
Setion DD of the 1eneral 'ppropriations Bill EM 19C9
ec. 00. Pro%ibition against t%e restoration or increase of recommen!e! a##ro#riations !isa##rove! an!Hor re!uce! by congress:
no item of a##ro#riation recommen!e! by t%e #resi!ent in t%e bu!get submitte! to congress #ursuant to article <II/ section ,, of t%e
constitution w%ic% %as been !isa##rove! or re!uce! in t%is act s%all be restore! or increase! by t%e use of a##ro#riations
aut%ori'e! for ot%er #ur#oses by augmentation. 2n item of a##ro#riation for any #ur#ose recommen!e! by t%e #resi!e! in t%e
bu!gets%all be !eeme! to %ave been !isa##rove! by congress if no corres#on!ing a##ro#riation for t%e s#ecific #ur#ose is
#rovi!e! in t%is act.
ALSE %1!:
68
-e 1:, 19CCF ongress passed general appropriations bill for EM 19C9. -e )9, 19CCF president signed
the bill into la% but ,etoed ( speial pro,isions and setion DD %hih is a general pro,ision. @he reason of
the president in ,etoing suh setion is beause it ,iolates 'rtile :, Setion )D #D$ of the onstitution.
Eurthermore, setion DD not only nullify the onstitutional and statutory authority of the president, but also
the senate president, spea*er of the house, hief 8ustie, and the heads of the onstitutional ommissions
to augment any item in the general appropriations la% for their respeti,e offies from sa,ings in other
items of their respeti,e appropriations. Eeb ), 19C9F ongress mentioned in a resolution that the ,eto by
the president of setion DD is unonstitutional %hih means setion DD %ill be in effet. 'pril 11, 19C9F
petition for prohibitionJmandamus %as filed. ' similar pro,ision %as ,etoed by the president. It appears in
the general appropriations at of 1990. Instead of setion DD, suh pro,ision %as loated in setion 1: of
the said bill. It must be noted that the 19C9 appropriations at, the ;use of sa,ings< appears in setion 1),
separate and apart from setion DDF %hereas in the 1990 appropriations at, the ;use of sa,ings< and the
,etoes pro,ision ha,e been omingled in setion 1: only, %ith the ,etoed pro,ision made to appear as a
ondition or restrition.
@he petitioners ause is anhored on the follo%ing/
1. @he presidentBs ,eto po%er does not +o,er pro,isions, that she e7eeded her authority %hen she
,etoed se DD #EM C9$ and se 1: #EM 90$ beause they are pro,isions
). >hen the president ob8ets to a pro,ision, she annot item5,eto but instead ,eto the entire bill
3. @he item5,eto po%er does not arry %ith it the po%er to stri*e out onditions or restritions
.. @he po%er of augmentation in artile :, setion )D #D$ of the onstitution has to be pro,ided for by
la%, %hih means the ongress has also the po%er to determine restritions
@he ,eto po%er of the president an be found in artile :, setion )(, of the onstitution.
ISSUE:
>hether or not the ,eto by the president of setion DD of the 19C9 appropriations bill and subse2uently of
its ounterpart setion 1: of the 1990 appropriations bill, %hih are all pro,isions, is unonstitutional and
%ithout effet.
DECISION:
Petition dismissed. @he 2uestioned presidential ,eto is onstitutional.
RATIO:
@he argument that the president may not ,eto a pro,ision %ithout ,etoing the entire bill disregards the
basi priniple that a distint and se,erable part of a bill may be the sub8et of a separate ,eto. @he same
argument also o,erloo*s the onstitutional mandate that suh pro,ision is only limited in its operation to
some partiular appropriation %hih it relates as stated in artile : setion )D #)$ of the onstitution.
@he onstitution is a limitation upon the po%er of the legislati,e, and in this respet it is a grant of po%er in
the e7euti,e. @he legislati,e has the affirmati,e po%er to enat la%sF the hief e7euti,e has the
negati,e po%er by the onstitutional e7erise of %hih he may defeat the %ill of the legislature. It follo%s
that the hief e7euti,e must find his authority in the onstitution. @hus, suh at of the president is
onstitutional and does not hamper %ith the legislati,e funtion.
Settled is the rule that the e7euti,e is not allo%ed to ,eto a ondition or restrition of an appropriation
%hile allo%ing the appropriation itself to stand. Eor this rule to apply, onditions or restritions should be
suh in the real sense of the term, not some matter %hih are more properly dealt %ith in a separate
ALSE %1!:
69
legislation. &estritions or onditions in an appropriations bill must e7hibit a onnetion %ith money items
in a budgetary sense in the shedule of e7penditures.
>ith this, setion DD #EM C9$ and setion 1: #EM 90$ are held to be inappropriate onditions. @hey are
general la% measures more appropriate for separate legislation. @hey do not sho% the neessary
onnetion %ith a shedule of e7penditures. +onsidering that setion DD #EM C9$ and setion 1: #EM 90$
are not really onditions, they an be ,etoed by the president.
If the legislature belie,ed that the e7erise of the ,eto po%ers by the e7euti,e %ere unonstitutional, the
remedy laid do%n by the onstitution is rystal lear. ' presidential ,eto may be o,erridden by the ,otes
of t%o5thirds of members of ongress as stated in artile :, setion )( #1$ of the onstitution.
SECTION >.
1. THE RULE OF TAXATION SHALL BE UNIFORM AND E<UITABLE. THE
CONGRESS SHALL EVOLVE A PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM OF TAXATION.
. THE CONGRESS MAY, BY LAW, AUTHORI0E THE PRESIDENT TO FIX WITHIN
SPECIFIED LIMITS, AND SUB&ECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
AS IT MAY IMPOSE, TARIFF RATES, IMPORT AND EXPORT <UOTAS, TONNAGE
AND WHARFAGE DUES, AND OTHER DUTIES OR IMPOSTS WITHIN THE
FRAMEWOR; OF THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
!. CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, CHURCHES AND PERSONAGES OR CONVENTS
APPURTENANT THERETO, MOS<UES, NON'PROFIT CEMETERIES, AND ALL
LANDS, BUILDINGS, AND IMPROVEMENTS, ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY, AND
EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, OR EDUCATIONAL
PURPOSES SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION.

:. NO LAW GRANTING ANY TAX EXEMPTION SHALL BE PASSED WITHOUT THE
CONCURRENCE OF A MA&ORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS.
GARCIA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (11 SCRA 1#$
FACTS /
?o, )(, 1990, President issued !6 .3C %hih imposed, additional DS ta7es and harges for imports
inluding rude oil and other oil produts. Subse2uently inreased to 9S by !6 ..3 on 9an 3, 1991. 6n
9uly ). 1991, -ept of Einane re2uested @ariff +ommission #@+$ to initiate the proess re2uired by the
@ariff and +ustoms +ode for the imposition of a le,y for rude oil and other petroleum produts o,ered
by Se 10. of @ariff and +ustoms +ode as amended. @+ sheduled a publi hearing to gi,e interested
parties an opportunity to be heard and to present e,idene in support of their respeti,e positions.
Meantime, !6 .(D %as issued on 'ug 1D, 1991 reduing ta7es to DS e7ept for the rude oil and other
produts %hih remained at 9S. 'fter the hearing, the President issued !6 .(C on 'ug )3, 1991 %hih
le,ied a speial duty of P.9DJliter or P1D1.0D per barrel of imported rude oil and P1.00 per liter of imptd
oil produts.
Petitioner assails the ,alidity of !6 .(D, .(C and argues that they are ,iolati,e of Se )., 'rtile 4I of
19C( +onstitution %hih states that all appropriation, re,enue or tariff bills, bills for the inrease of publi
debt, bills of loal appliation and pri,ate bills shall originate e7lusi,ely in the H)-s4 )6
R4254s4(*.*,v4s, 7-* *B4 S4(.*4 may propose or onur %ith amendments. #?ot the president$. 4ilati,e
ALSE %1!:
70
also of Se. .01 %hih authoriHes the president for suh at only to protet loal industries but not the
purpose of raising addtl re,enue for the go,t.
ISSUE:
1$ onstitutionality of !6 .(D and .(C )$ legality of !6 .(D and .(C
DECISION /
Prohibition and Jmandamus is -ISMISS!- for la* of merit. +osts against the petitioner
RATIO:
1$ it does not follo% that !6 .(D and .(C are prohibited to the President. 'dg to, Se)C, #)$ of 'rtile 4I
of the +onstitution , t%e Congress may by law aut%ori'e t%e Presi!ent to fi" wit%in s#ecial limits/ an!
sub(ect to suc% limitations an! restrictions as it may im#ose/ tariff rates/ im#ort an! e"#ort quotas/
tonnage an! w%arfage !ues an! ot%er !uties or im#osts wit%in t%e framewor& of t%e national
!evelo#ment #rogram of t%e @overnment.
@he @ariff and +ustoms +ode of the Philippines and Se 10. and .01 are the pro,isions %hih the
President in,o*ed in promulgating !6 .(D and .(C
Se 10.5 imptd artiles ha,e to pay the rates of duty indiated in this Setion
Se .015 '.for the interest of national eonomy, general %elfareJ national seurity and sub8et to the
limitations, the president, upon the reommendation of ?!-' is empo%ered to a$ inrease not lo%er than
the basi of 10S nor higher than 100S or remo,e rates b$ to establish 2uota 30 to impose addtl duty
B. publi hearing by the +ommission before reommendation
+. the po%er of the President to inrease or derease rates
@here is nothing in Se 10. or of .01 that suggests an absolute authority. +ustom duties in the name
gi,en to ta7es on the importation and e7portation of ommodities. the le,ying of ustom duties protets
loal industries and simultaneously produes go,t re,enues. Inreased tariffs in the ase at bar must
ha,e proteted the loal rude oil industry as %ell. Protetion of onsumers is an impt dimension of the
national eonomy, general %elfare and national seurity and so ustoms duties may be redued or
remo,ed for the purpose of proteting onsumers from the high pries that may be other%ise impose
upon the ommunity.
CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFROM AD&UDICATION
BOARD ( 11 SCRA >6$
FACTS:
Petition for re,ie% on +ertiorari under &ule :D of the &ules of +ourt to nullify the proeedings and
deision of the -epartment of 'grarian &eform 'd8udiation Board #-'&'B$ dated Sept ., 19C9 and to
set aside the deision of the +' dated 'ug )0, 1990 affirming the deision of the -'&'B %hih ordered
the segregation of .00 hetares of suitable, ompat and ontiguous portions of +entral Mindanao
Ani,ersity #+MA$ land and their inlusion in the +'&P for distribution to dis2ualified benefiiaries on the
ground of la* of 8urisdition
+omplainants, alling themsel,es as the Bu*idnon Eree Earmers and 'griultural 0aborers 6rganiHation
#BIEE'06$ under the leadership of 'l,in 6bri2ue and 0uis 3ermoso against the +MA, before the
-epartment of 'grarian &eform for -elaration of Status as @enants, under the +'&P.
+MA is an agriultural eduational institution run by Bu*idnon pro,ine. It started as a farm shool in
1910 and e7panded into the Bu*idnon ?ational 'griultural 3igh Shool and %as transferred to its ne%
ALSE %1!:
71
site in Manago* Malaybalay, Bu*idnon. In the early 19:0Bs it %as on,erted into a ollege %ith +ampus at
Musuan, until it beame %hat is *no%n as the +MA.
9an 1: 19DC, +arlos 1aria, issued a Prolamation .(: %ithdra%ing from sale or settlement and
reser,ing the Mindanao 'griultural +ollege, a site %hih %ould be the future ampus %hat is no% the
+MA. Se,eral tribes belonging to the ultural ommunities opposed the petition laiming o%nership of
ertain anestral lands. So the grant to shool %as redued from 3.01 hetares to 3000 hetares.
&esolution 1:0, had ;*ilusang S'rilign Si*ap Program< under %hih the land resoures %ere leased to its
faulty and employees .the faulty and staff ombined themsel,es to groups of fi,e members eah to
ulti,ate .5D hetares of land for the lo%land rie pro8et and the +MA pro,ided tehnial *no%5ho% and
training. !ah group pays the +MA a ser,ie fee and land use partiipation fee. @his arries out its
eduational ob8eti,es, train its students and maintain ,arious ati,ities %hih the go,ernment
appropriation ould not ade2uately support. @he ontrat prohibits the establishment of houses and to use
the land as a ollateral for any loan.
Petitioner -r. 0eonardo +hua beame president of the +MA in 9uly 19C:, he disontinued the business
pro8et for prodution of orn, rie and sugar ane *no%n as 'gri5Business Management and @raining
Pro8et due to losses inurred %hile arrying on the said pro8et. Some +MA personnel, among %hom
%here the omplainants %ere laid5off %hen this pro8et %as disontinued. 6bri2ue %as found guilty of
mishandling the +MA funds and %as separated from ser,ie by ,irtue of !6 1(m the reorganiHation la%
of the +MA.
In 19:C, +hua launhed a self5help pro8et alled +MA5inome enhanement program# +MAVI!P$ to
de,elop unutiliHed land. @he +MA %ould pro,ide the use of .5D hetares of land to a selda in turn %ould
pay to the +MA P100 as ser,ie fee and P1000Jhetare as land rental feeF .00 *g of the produe per
year %ould be donated to the +MA Integrated -e,elopment Eoundation. In the middle of 19C(, +MA
allo%ed the former employees and %or*ers to partiipate in the +MA5I!P as speial partiipants.
@he one year ontrat e7pired on 9une 30 19CC. Some %ere rene%ed some %ere as*ed to ,aate and
this led to the filing of the omplaint.
-'&'B found that the pri,ate respondents %ere not tenants and annot therefore be benefiiaries under
the +'&P.
ISSUES: >hether or not
1$ -'&'B has 8urisdition to hear and deide -elaration of Status of @enants and +o,erage of land
under +arp
)$ +' ommitted serious errors and gra,e abuse of disretion amounting to la* of 8urisdition in affirming
-'&'B
DECISION:
@he S+ finds a gra,e of abuse of disretion by +' and -'& ad8udiation Board, hereby delares the
deision of +' and -'&'B affirming the deision of the 2uasi58udiial body as null and ,oid and hereby
order that they be set aside %ith osts against the pri,ate respondents.
RATIO:
6bri2ue laimed that they are tenants of the +MA or landless peasants laiming a part of the +MA
situated at Sinalayan Bu*idnon and Musuan Bu*idnon. @he Supreme +ourt agree %ith the -'&'B that
6bri2ue et al are not tenants. @here %as not landlord5tenant relationship bet%een the +MA and the
faulty. >hat the +MA olleted %as a nominal ser,ie fee and land partiipantBs fee in onsideration for
the assistane gi,en to the partiipants.
'fter the e7piration of their pri,ilege to oupy and ulti,ate the land of the +MA, their ontinued stay %as
unauthoriHed and their settlement on the +MABs land %as %ithout legal authority. S2uatters means any
ALSE %1!:
72
person entering upon lands of other, not laiming in good faith the right to do so by ,irtue of any title of his
o%n, or by ,irtue of some agreement %ith the o%ner or %ith one %hom he belie,es holds title to the land.
Illegal detainers may not a,ail themsel,es of the rights and benefits of agrarian reform.
3o%e,er, the Board held that the respondent Ani,ersity failed to sho% that it atually uses the 2uestioned
area tot the e7lusion of others nor did it sho% that the same is diretly used %ithout any inter,ening
ageny or person and t8hat the use of land are essentially for eduational purposes.
@he pertinent pro,isions of &' ::D( a*a +'& lar of 19:C are as follo%s
Se.5 the +omprehensi,e agrarian &eform 0a% of 19CC shall o,er regardless of tenurial arrangement
and ommodity produed all publi and pri,ate agriultural lands as pro,ided in Prolamation ?o. 131 and
U$ ))9 inluding other lands of the publi domain suitable for agriulture
Se 105 !N!MP@I6?S '?- !N+0ASI6?S5 lands atually diretly and e7lusi,ely used and found to be
neessary for par*s, %ildlife, forest reser,es, reforestation, fish santuaries and breeding grounds,
%atershed, and mangro,es, national defense , shool sites, and ampuses inluding e7perimental farm
stations operated by publi or pri,ate shools for eduational purposes, seeds and seedlings researh
and prodution enters, hurh sites and on,ents appurtenant thereto, mos2ues sites and Islami
+enters appurtenant thereto, ommunal burial grounds and emeteries, penal olonies and penal farms
atually %or*ed by the inmates, go,t, and pri,ate searh and 2uarantine enters and all lands %ith 1CS
slope and o,er, e7ept those already de,eloped shall be e7empt from the o,erage of this at
@he .00 hetares ordered segregated by the -'&'B and affirmed by the +ourt of 'ppeals in its -eision
dated 'ugust )0, 1990 is not o,ered by the +'&P beause/
1$ It is not alienable, and disposable land of the publi domains
)$ @he +MA land reser,ation is not in e7ess of speifi limits as determined by
+ongress
3$ It is pri,ate land registered and titled in the name of its la%ful o%ner, the +MA
.$ It is e7empt from o,erage under Se 10 &' ::D(
Ander Setion . and Setion 10, it is lear that the 8urisdition of the -'&'B is limited only to
matters in,ol,ing the implementation of the +'&P. @he -'&'B has no po%er to try, hear and
ad8udiate the ase pending before it in,ol,ing a portion of the +MA<s titled shool site. @he
-'&'BBs order for the segregation of .00 hetares of the +MA land %as %ithout legal authority.
E6 *,B 2 ec *-9 2@R2RI2= REE6R: 2D;IDIC2$I6= >62RD9t%ere is %ereby create! an 2grarian
Reform 2!(u!ication >oar! un!er t%e 6ffice of t%e ecretary. $%e >oar! s%all assume t%e #owers an!
functions wit% res#ect to a!(u!ication of agrarian reform cases un!er E6 ,,B an! t%e E6.
ec *D9 7I2I ;IDICI2L P68ER 6E $5E D2R9 t%e Dar is %ereby veste! wit% quasi1(u!icial #owers to
!etermine an! a!(u!icate agrarian reform matters an! s%all %ave e"clusive original (uris!iction over all
matters inclu!ing im#lementation of 2grarian Reform.
ec 09 t%e D2R is %ereby veste! wit% #rimary (uris!iction to !etermine an! a!(u!icate agrarian reform
matters an! s%all %ave original (uris!iction over all matters involving t%e im#lementation of agrarian reform.
>here the 2uasi58udiial body finds that the omplainantsJpetitioners are not entitled to the rights
they are demanding, it is an erroneous interpretation of authority for that 2uasi58udiial body to
order pri,ate property to be a%arded for future benefiiaries. 1oing beyond %hat %as as*ed by
the omplainants %ho %ere not entitled tot eh relief prayed for, onstitutes a gra,e abuse of
disretion beause it implies suh apriious and %himsial e7erise of 8udgment as is e2ui,alent
to la* of 8urisdition.
CIR VS. LINGAYEN GULF ELECTRIC POWER CO, INC. (16: SCRA "$
FACTS:
&espondent ta7payer, 0ingayen 1ulf !letri Po%er +o, In operates an eletri po%er plant ser,ing
Binmaley and 0ingyen in Panagasinan, pursuant to the muniipal franhise granted it by their respeti,e
muniipal ounils under &esolution ?os. 1. and )D of 9une )9 and 9uly ), 19.:, respeti,ely. Se 10
ALSE %1!:
73
pro,ide that/
$%e sai! grantee in consi!eration of t%e franc%ise %ereby grante!/ s%all #ay quarterly into
t%e Provincial $reasury of Pangasinan/ one #er centum of t%e gross earnings obtaine! t%ru t%is #rivilege
!uring t%e first twenty years an! two #er centum !uring t%e remaining *0 years of t%e life of sai!
franc%ise.
Eeb )., 19.C5 President appro,ed the franhise
?o, )1, 19DD5 BI& assessed against and demanded them from the pri,ate respondent P19)93..3 as
defiieny in ta7es from 19.:519D.
Sept )9, 19D:5 pri,ate respondent re2uested for a rein,estigation of the ase that instead of inurring a
liability, it made an o,erpayment
@he +ommissioners denied the onferene that the petitioner re2uested. 'ug )1, 19:)5 +ommissioner
demanded from pri,ate respondent P3:1:.C: as defiieny franhise ta7
6t D, 19:)5 pri,ate respondent protested the assessment and re2uested reonsideration but %as denied
Pending the hearing &' 3C.3 %as passed on 9une )), 19:3, granting the pri,ate respondent, legislati,e
franhiseX )S of the gross reeipts payable 2uarterly
Sept 1D, 19:. the respondent ourt ruled that the pro,isions of &' 3C.3 should apply and aordingly
dismissed the laim of the +I&
ISSUES:
>hether or not/ 1$ the DS ta7 presribed in Se)D9 of the ?ational Internal &e,enue +ode assessed
against pri,ate respondent realiHed before the affeti,ity of &' 3C.3
)$ Se . of &' 3C.3 is unonstitutional for being ,iolati,e of the uniformity and e2uality of ta7ation
3$Se . &' 3C.3 is ,alid, %hether or not it ould be gi,en retroati,e effet so as to render unolletible
the ta7es in 2uestion %hih %ere assessed before its enatment
.$ @he ta7payer is liable for P30)D.9: for 9an 1, 19.:5Eeb )9, 19.C
DECISION:
@he deision of the respondent +ourt of @a7 'ppeals is 'EEI&M!-.
RATIO:
It is the ontention of the +I& that the pri,ate respondent should ha,e been liable for the DS franhise ta7
on gross reeipts presribed in Setion )D9 of the @a7 +ode, instead of lo%er franhise ta7 beause Se
)D9 of the @a7 +ode %as amended by &' 39 on 6t 1, 19.:. @he franhise of the respondent %as
e7isting at the time of the amendment sine the franhises %ere aepted on Marh 1, 19.C after the
appro,al of the president on Eeb )., 19.C. 3o%e,er, &' 3C.3 granted the pri,ate respondent a
legislati,e franhise in 9une 19:r, amending, altering or e,en repealing the said muniipal franhises,
pro,iding only a )S ta7 an! effective furt%er u#on t%e !ate t%e original franc%ise was grate!. The private
respondent was liable to pay only the () franchise tax% effective from the date the original
municipal franchise was granted.
@he petitioner submits that the said la% %as unonstitutional insofar as it pro,ides )S ta7 for the
respondent %hile other ta7payers similarly situated %ere sub8et to DS. A *.C ,( -(,6)5@ 3B4( ,*
)245.*4s 3,*B *B4 s.@4 6)5+4 .(8 .664+* ,( 4v45= 2/.+4 3B454 *B4 s-7J4+* )6 ,* ,s 6)-(8. 3o%e,er,
&' 3C.3transfered the petitionerBs po%er plant from the lass pro,ided for in 't 3:3:. @hus it %as only
effeted transfer of a ta7able property from one lass to another. @he DS ta7 in Setion )D9 %as ne,er
intended to ha,e a uni,ersal appliation. @he 0egislature onsiders and ma*es pro,ision for all the
irumstanes of a partiular ase, therefore holding the la% onstitutional.
&' 3C.3 speifially pro,ided for the retroati,e effet of the la% for it pro,ides that it is effeti,e upon
appro,al of the franhise. @he pri,ate respondent therefore is only liable for the payment of perentage
ALSE %1!:
74
and fi7ed ta7 rates as seller of light, heat and po%er, P30)D.9:. But the respondent paid the amount of
P3., 1C..3: %hih %ere ,ery muh more than the amount due.
CIR vs. COURT OF APPEALS (#> SRCA 6>!$
FACTS:
@his is a petition for re,ie% on ertiorari of the deision of the +ourt of 'ppeals that affirmed the deision
of the +ourt of @a7 'ppeals #+@'$ allo%ing the Moung MenBs +hristian 'ssoiation of the Philippines
#MM+'$ R established as a %elfare, eduational and haritable non5profit orporation< R to laim ta7
e7emption on the latterBs inome from the lease of its real property.
@he +ommissioner of Internal &e,enue #+I&$ issued an assessment to Pri,ate &espondent MM+' in the
total amount of P.1D,:1D.01 for ta7es. MM+' filed a letter regarding their protest on the assessment. +I&
denied the laims of MM+'. MM+' filed a petition for re,ie% at +@'. @he +@' issued a ruling in fa,or of
MM+'. -issatisfied %ith the +@' ruling, the +I& ele,ated the ase to the +ourt of 'ppeals #+'$, %hih
initially deided in fa,or of +I&. MM+' as*ed for reonsideration and the +' re,ersed itself in fa,or of
MM+'. @he ruling reads/ ;@he ourt annot depart from the +@'Bs findings of fat, as they are supported
by e,idene beyond %hat is onsidered as substantial<. +I&Bs Motion for &eonsideration %as denied by
the +'. 3ene, this petition for re,ie%.
Petitioner +I& argues that %hile the inome reei,ed by the organiHations enumerated in Se )( of the
?ational Internal &e,enue +ode #?I&+$ is, as a rule, e7empted from the payment of ta7 ;in respet to
inome reei,ed by them as suh,< the e7emption does not apply to inome deri,ed ;from any of their
properties, real or personal, or from any of their ati,ities onduted for profit, regardless of the
disposition made of suh inome<. &entals, therefore, deri,ed by a ta7 e7empt organiHation from the
lease of its properties, real or personal, is not, e7empt from inome ta7ation e,en if suh inome os
e7lusi,ely used for the aomplishment of its ob8eti,es.
Pri,ate respondent MM+' also in,o*es 'rt. 4I Se. )C par. 3 of the 19C( +onstitution, %hih e7empts
;haritable institutions< from the payment not only of property ta7es but also of inome ta7 from any
soure. It also in,o*es 'rtile NI4 Se. . par. 3 of the +onstitution, laiming that the MM+' ;is a non5
sto*, non5profit eduational institution %hose re,enues and assets are used atually, diretly and
e7lusi,ely for eduational purposes so it is e7empt from ta7es on its properties and inome<.
ISSUE:
>hether or not the inome deri,ed from rentals of real property o%ned by MM+' is sub8et to inome ta7
under Se. )( of the ?ational Internal &e,enue +ode and 'rtile 4I Se. )C par. 3 and 'rtile NI4 Se. .
par. 3 of the +onstitution.
HELD:
M!S. @he petition is granted. @he latter deision of the +ourt of 'ppeals in re,ersed and set aside. @he
initial deision of the +ourt of 'ppeals in reinstated, insofar as it ruled that the inome deri,ed by
petitioner MM+' from rentals of its real property is sub8et to inome ta7.
@he e7emption laimed by MM+' is e7pressly disallo%ed by the ,ery %ording of the last paragraph of
then Setion )( of the ?I&+, %hih mandates that the inome of e7empt organiHations #suh as the
MM+'$ from any of their properties, real or personal, be sub8et to the ta7 imposed by the same ode.
6n the onstitutional issue, aording to 9ustie 3ilario -a,ide 9r., a former onstitutional ommissioner,
;%hat is e7empt is not the institution itself 7 7 7F those e7empted from real estate ta7es are lands,
ALSE %1!:
75
buildings and impro,ements atually, diretly, and e7lusi,ely used for religious, haritable, or eduational
purposes<. Er. Bernas also adhered to the same ,ie% that the e7emption reated by the said pro,ision
pertained only to property ta7es. @he +ourt notes that not a sintilla of e,idene %as submitted by MM+'
to pro,e that #1$ it falls under the lassifiation non5sto*, non5profit eduational institutionF and #)$ the
inome it see*s to be e7empted from ta7ation is used atually, diretly, and e7lusi,ely for eduational
purposes. 'lso, MM+' annot be deemed one of the eduational institutions %ithin the pur,ie% of 'rtile
NI4 Se. . par. 3 of the +onstitution beause under the !duation 't of 19C), the tehnial meaning of
;eduational institution< %hih is the shool system, is synonymous %ith formal eduation. @hus, it ;refers
to the hierarhially strutured and hronologially graded learningBs organiHed and pro,ided by the
formal shool system and for %hih ertifiation is re2uired in order for the learner to progress through the
grades or mo,e to the higher le,els. @he +ourt e7amined the 'mended 'rtiles of Inorporation and By5
0a%s of the MM+', but found nothing in them that e,en hints that it is a shool or an eduational system.
@he +ourt finds no basis for granting MM+' e7emption from inome ta7 under the onstitutional pro,ision
in,o*ed.
SECTION #.
1. NO MONEY SHALL BE PAID OUT OF THE TREASURY EXCEPT IN PURSUANCE
OF AN APPROPRIATION MADE BY LAW.
. NO PUBLIC MONEY OR PROPERTY SHALL BE APPROPRIATED, APPLIED,
PAID, OR EMPLOYED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FOR THE USE, BENEFIT, OR
SUPPORT OF ANY SECT, CHURCH, DENOMINATION, SECTARIAN INSTITUTION,
OR SYSTEM OF RELIGION, OR OF ANY PRIEST, PREACHER, MINISTER, OTHER
RELIGIOUS TEACHER, OR DIGNITARY AS SUCH, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH PRIEST,
PREACHER, MINISTER, OR DIGNITARY IS ASSIGNED TO THE ARMED FORCES,
OR TO ANY PENAL INSTITUTION, OR GOVERNMENT ORPHANAGE OR
LEPROSARIUM.

!. ALL MONEY COLLECTED ON ANY TAX LEVIED FOR A SPECIAL PURPOSE
SHALL BE TREATED AS A SPECIAL FUND AND PAID OUT FOR SUCH PURPOSE
ONLY. IF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH A SPECIAL FUND WAS CREATED HAS
BEEN FULFILLED OR ABANDONED, THE BALANCE, IF ANY, SHALL BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL FUNDS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
PASCUAL VS. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WOR;S (11% PHIL !!1$
FACTS:
>eneslao Pasual, Pro,inial 1o,ernor of &iHal, instituted an ation for delaratory relief, %ith
in8untion, assailing the appro,al of the &epubli 't ?o. 9)0, entitled ;'n 't 'ppropriating Eunds for
Publi >or*s< and the -onation made by 9ose "ulueta, %ho at the time of the passage and appro,al of
the said 't, %as a member of the Senate of the Philippines.
&' 9)0 #'t appropriating funds for publi %or*s$ %as enated in 19D3 ontaining an item #Setion 1 OaQ$
for the onstrution, reonstrution, repair, e7tension and impro,ement of Pasig feeder road terminals
#the pro8eted and planned subdi,ision roads, %hih %ere not yet onstruted, %ithin 'ntonio Subdi,ision
o%ned by Senator 9ose +. "ulueta$. 'ntonio Subdi,ision %as a pri,ate property of "ulueta. "ulueta
;donated< said parels of land to the 1o,ernment D months after the enatment of &' 9)0, on the
ondition that if the 1o,ernment ,iolates suh ondition the lands %ould re,ert to "ulueta. @he pro,inial
go,ernor of &iHal, >eneslao Pasual, 2uestioned the ,alidity of the donation and the +onstitutionality of
ALSE %1!:
76
the item in &' 9)0, it being not for a publi purpose.
ISSUES:
>hether or not the item in &' 9)0 is onstitutional.
>hether or not the donation made by "ulueta %as ,alid.
HELD:
It is a general rule that the legislature is %ithout po%er to appropriate publi re,enues for anything but a
publi purpose. @he right of the legislature to appropriate funds is orrelati,e %ith its right to ta7, under
onstitutional pro,isions against ta7ation e7ept for publi purposes and prohibiting the olletion of a ta7
for one purpose and the de,otion thereof to another purpose, no appropriation of state funds an be
made for other than a publi purpose. @he ,alidity of a statute depends upon the po%ers of +ongress at
the time of its passage or appro,al, not upon e,ents oupying, or ats performed, subse2uently thereto,
unless the latter onsist of an amendment of the organi la%, remo,ing, %ith retrospeti,e operation, the
onstitutional limitation infringed by said statute. 3erein, inasmuh as the land on %hih the pro8eted
feeder roads %ere to be onstruted belonged to Senator "ulueta at the time &' 9)0 %as passed by
+ongress, or appro,ed by the President, and the disbursement of said sum beame effeti,e on )0 9une
19D3 pursuant to Setion 13 of the 't, the result is that the appropriating sough a pri,ate purpose and
hene, null and ,oid.
@he land on %hih pro8eted feeder roads are to be onstruted belongs to a pri,ate person, an
appropriation made by the +ongress for that purpose is null and ,oid, and a donation to the 1o,ernment,
made o,er D months after the appro,al and effeti,ity of the 't for the purpose of gi,ing a ;semblane of
legality< to the appropriation, does not ure the basi effet. 's a result, a 8udiial nullifiation of said
donation need not preede the delaration of unonstitutionality of said appropriation.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS VS. <UI&ANO'PADILLA (!># SCRA !1!$
FACTS:
@he Philippine +ongress passed &epubli 't ?o. C1C9, other%ise *no%n as the G<oterJs Registration 2ct
of *BBG/K pro,iding for the moderniHation and omputeriHation of the ,otersL registration list and the
appropriate of funds therefore Gin order to establish a lean, omplete, permanent and updated list of
,oters.G Subse2uently, the +ommission on !letions #+6M!0!+$ promulgated &esolution ?o. 005031D
appro,ing in priniple the 4oterLs &egistration and Identifiation System Pro8et #4&IS$. @he 4&IS Pro8et
en,isions a omputeriHed database system for the May )00. !letions. Bidding for the supply and
installation of information tehnology e2uipment and anillary ser,ies %as held. Pri,ate &espondent
Photo*ina Mar*eting +orporation %as delared the %inning bidder, the bid amounting to P:.DCC Billion
Pesos and %as gi,en the ?otie of '%ard. 3o%e,er, under &epubli 't ?o. C(:0 the budget
appropriated by +ongress for the +6M!0!+Bs moderniHation pro8et %as only 6ne #1$ Billion Pesos and
that the atual a,ailable funds under the +ertifiate of ',ailability of Eunds #+'E$ issued by the +hief
'ountant of the +6M!0!+ %as only P1.) Billion Pesos. -ue to that fat, +6M!0!+ an no longer
pursue the pro8et %ith Photo*ina sine they do not ha,e suffiient funds for the said pro8et. Mean%hile,
Photo*ina %rote se,eral letters re2uesting the formal e7eution of the ontrat, but to no a,ail. -ue to that
fat, Photo*ina filed a petition for mandamus, prohibition and damages against the +6M!0!+ and all its
ommissioners laiming that sine it %as the %inning bidder and %as gi,en the ?otie of '%ard, the
+6M!0!+ must formaliHe the ontrat and sine the latter failed to perform its duty under the ontrat
has aused Photo*ina to inur damages in the preparation of the bid and draft of the ontrat.
ISSUES:
>hether or not Mandamus is the proper remedy of Photo*ina in the ase at bar.
>hether or not Photo*ina an ompel +6M!0!+ to formaliHe the ontrat.
ALSE %1!:
77
HELD:
Mandamus applies as a remedy only %hen petitionerBs right is founded learly in la% and not %hen it is
doubtful. 3ere, the alleged ontrat, relied upon Photo*ina as a soure of rights %hih it see*s to be
proteted, is being disputed, not only on the ground that it %as not perfeted but also it is illegal and
against publi poliy.
Sine Photo*inaBs bid is beyond the amount appropriated by +ongress for the 4&IS Pro8et, the proposed
ontrat is not binding upon the +6M!0!+ and is onsidered ,oid, the petitioners annot be ompelled
by a %rit of mandamus to disharge a duty that in,ol,es the e7erise of 8udgment and disretion,
espeially %here the disbursement of publi funds is onerned.
SECTION !%.
NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED INCREASING THE APPELLATE &URISDICTION OF
THE SUPREME COURT AS PROVIDED IN THIS CONSTITUTION WITHOUT ITS
ADVICE AND CONCURRENCE.
FABIAN vs. DESIERTO (#1 SCRA :"1$
FACTS:
@eresita Eabian %as the ma8or sto*bro*er and president of P&6M'@ +onstrution -e,elopment
+orporation #P&6M'@$ %hih %as engaged in the onstrution business. Pri,ate respondent,
?estor 4. 'gustin %as the inumbent -istrit !ngineer of the Eirst Metro Manila !ngineering
-istrit #EM!-$.
P&6M'@ partiipated in the bidding for go,ernment onstrution pro8ets inluding those under
the EM!-, and 'gustin, reportedly ta*ing ad,antage of his offiial position, in,eigled Eabian into
an amorous relationship, %hih lasted for some time. -uring the said relationship, 'gustin gifted
P&6M'@ %ith publi %or*s ontrats and intereded for it in problems onerning the same in his
offie.
>hen petitioner tried to terminate their relationship, pri,ate respondent refused and resisted her
attempts to do so to the e7tent of employing ats of harassment, intimidation and threats.
!,entually, Eabian filed an administrati,e ase against him on 9uly )., 199D. She sought
'gustinBs dismissal for ,iolating Se 19, &' no. :((0 #6mbudsman 't of 19C9$ and Se 3: of
P- no. C0( #+i,il Ser,ie -eree$
9an 31, 199:/ 1raft In,estigator !duardo &. BeniteH issued a resolution finding pri,ate
respondent guilty of gra,e misondut and ordering his dismissal from the ser,ie %ith forfeiture
of all benefits under the la%. But -eputy 6mbudsman, 3on. 9esus E. 1uerrero, e7onerated
pri,ate respondent from the administrati,e harges.
Based from Se ( of &ule III of '6 ?o. ( #&ules of Proedure of the 6ffie of the 6mbudsman$,
%hen a respondent is absol,ed from all administrati,e harges, the deision of the ombudsman is
ALSE %1!:
78
EI?'0 '?- A?'PP!'0'B0!.
Eabian is arguing that the 6ffie of the 6mbudsman has no authority under the la% to restrit, in
the manner pro,ided in its aforesaid &ules, the right of appeal allo%ed by &epubli 't ?o. :((0,
nor to limit the po%er of re,ie% of this +ourt. Eor Se. )( of &' ?o. :((0 states that all
administrati,e disiplinary ases of the 6ffie of 6mbudsman M'M B! 'PP!'0!- @6 @3! S+
by filling a petition of ertiorari %ithin 10 days from the reeipt of the %ritten notie of the order in
aordane %ith &ule .D of the &ules of +ourt.
But &' no. :((0 ,iolates Se 30, 'rtile 4I of the 19C( +onstitution, %hih pro,ides that ;no la%
shall be passed inreasing the appellate 8urisdition of the S+ as pro,ided in this +onstitution
%ithout its ad,ie and onsent.<
+onstitutional 2uestions, not raised in the regular and orderly proedure in the trial are ordinarily
re8eted unless the 8urisdition of the ourt belo% or that of the appellate ourt is in,ol,ed in %hih
ase it may be raise at any time or on the ourtBs o%n motion. @hus, if a statute on %hih a ourtBs
8urisdition in a proeeding depends is unonstitutional, the ourt has no 8urisdition in the
proeeding, and sine it may determine %hether or not it has 8urisdition, it neessarily follo%s
that it may in2uire into the onstitutionality of the statute.
ISSUE:
>hether or not Setion )( of &' :((0 %hih pro,ides for appeals in administrati,e disiplinary ases
from the 6ffie of the 6mbudsman to the S+ in aordane %ith &ule .D of the &ules of +ourt is ,alid.
RATIO:
Ander the present &ule .D, appeals may be brought through a petition for re,ie% on ertiorari but
only from 8udgments and final orders of the ourts enumerated in Se. 1 thereof. 'ppeals from
8udgments and final orders of 2uasi58udiial agenies are no% re2uired to be brought to the +' on
a ,erified petition for re,ie%, under the re2uirements and onditions in &ule .3 %hih %as
preisely formulated and adopted to pro,ide for a uniform rule of appellate proedure for 2uasi5
8udiial agenies.
Setion )( of &' :((0 annot ,alidly authoriHe an appeal to the S+ from deisions of the 6ffie
of the 6mbudsman in administrati,e disiplinary ases. It onse2uently ,iolates the prosription
in Se. 30, 'rt. 4I of the +onstitution against a la% %hih inreases the appellate 8urisdition of
the S+. 6ther%ise, the indisriminate enatment of legislation enlarging its appellate 8urisdition
%ould unneessarily burden the +ourt
@here is an intimation in the pleadings, ho%e,er, that said Setion )( refers to appellate
8urisdition %hih, being substanti,e in nature, annot be disregarded by this +ourt under its rule5
ma*ing po%er, espeially if it results in a diminution, inrease or modifiation of substanti,e
rights. 6b,iously, ho%e,er, %here the la% is proedural in essene and purpose, the foregoing
onsideration %ould not pose a prosripti,e issue against the e7erise of the rule5ma*ing po%er
of this +ourt. @his brings to fore the 2uestion of %hether Setion )( of &epubli 't ?o. :((0 is
substanti,e or proedural.
In determining %hether a rule presribed by the Supreme +ourt, for the pratie and proedure of
the lo%er ourts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substanti,e right, the test is %hether the rule
really regulates proedure, that is, the (u!icial #rocess for enforcing rig%ts an! !uties recogni'e!
by substantive law and for 8ustly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infration of
them.
o If the rule ta*es a%ay a ,ested right, it is not proedural. But if it o#erates as a means of
im#lementing an e"isting rig%t t%en t%e rule !eals merely wit% #roce!ure
o If the rule reates a right suh as the right to appeal, it may be lassified as a substanti,e
matter.
Eor this reason a transfer by the Supreme +ourt, in the e7erise of its rule5ma*ing po%er, of
pending ases in,ol,ing a re,ie% of deisions of the 6ffie of the 6mbudsman in administrati,e
ALSE %1!:
79
disiplinary ations to the +ourt of 'ppeals %hih shall no% be ,ested %ith e7lusi,e appellate
8urisdition thereo,er, relates to proedure only. @his is so beause it is not the right to appeal of
an aggrie,ed party %hih is affeted by the la%. @hat rig%t has been preser,ed. 6nly the
#roce!ure by %hih the appeal is to be made or deided has been hanged.
@herefore, it has been generally held that rules or statutes in,ol,ing a transfer of ases from one
ourt to another, are proedural and remedial merely and that, as suh, they are appliable to
ations pending at the time the statute %ent into effet or, in the ase at bar, %hen its in,alidity
%as delared.
HELD:
>3!&!E6&!, Setion )( of &epubli 't ?o. :((0 #6mbudsman 't of 19C9$, together %ith Setion (,
&ule III of 'dministrati,e 6rder ?o. 0( #&ules of Proedure of the 6ffie of the 6mbudsman$, and any
other pro,ision of la% or issuane implementing the aforesaid 't and insofar as they pro,ide for appeals
in administrati,e disiplinary ases from the 6ffie of the 6mbudsman to the Supreme +ourt, are hereby
delared I?4'0I- and of no further fore and effet.
@he instant petition is hereby referred and transferred to the +ourt of 'ppeals for final disposition, %ith
said petition to be onsidered by the +ourt of 'ppeals #ro %oc vice as a petition for re,ie% under &ule .3.
ALSE %1!:
80

Article VI The Legislative Department Case Digests 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article VI The Legislative Department Case Digests 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1: CASE DIGESTS

ARTICLE 6: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

You might also like