ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs.

THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003.

FACTS:
On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by
Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an
investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)." On June 2, 2003, former
President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide
Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of
the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint was endorsed by Representatives Rolex T.
Suplico, Ronaldo B. Zamora and Didagen Piang Dilangalen, and was referred to the House
Committee. The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first impeachment
complaint was "sufficient in form," but voted to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being
insufficient in substance. To date, the Committee Report to this effect has not yet been sent to the
House in plenary in accordance with the said Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. Four
months and three weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of the first complaint or on October 23,
2003, a day after the House Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it, the second impeachment
complaint was filed with the Secretary General of the House by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro,
Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the
alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution. This second
impeachment complaint was accompanied by a "Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment" signed
by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of Representatives.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr. with the House of Representatives falls within the one year bar provided in the
Constitution.
2. Whether the resolution thereof is a political question has resulted in a political crisis.

HELD:
1. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the impeachment complaint
and referral to the House Committee on Justice, the initial action taken thereon, the meaning of
Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the
foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same official within a one year period
following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. In fine, considering that the first impeachment
complaint, was filed by former President Estrada against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along

with seven associate justices of this Court, on June 2, 2003 and referred to the House Committee on
Justice on August 5, 2003, the second impeachment complaint filed by Representatives Gilberto C.
Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella against the Chief Justice on October 23, 2003 violates the
constitutional prohibition against the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same
impeachable officer within a one-year period.
2.From the foregoing record of the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, it is clear
that judicial power is not only a power; it is also a duty, a duty which cannot be abdicated by the
mere specter of this creature called the political question doctrine. Chief Justice Concepcion
hastened to clarify, however, that Section 1, Article VIII was not intended to do away with "truly
political questions." From this clarification it is gathered that there are two species of political
questions: (1) "truly political questions" and (2) those which "are not truly political questions." Truly
political questions are thus beyond judicial review, the reason for respect of the doctrine of
separation of powers to be maintained. On the other hand, by virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution, courts can review questions which are not truly political in nature.

Collector of Internal
Revenue vs Antonio
Campos Rueda
42 SCRA 23 Political Law Definition of State
In January 1955, Maria Cerdeira died in Tangier, Morocco (an international zone [foreign
country] in North Africa). At the time of her death, she was a Spanish citizen and was a
resident of Tangier. She however left some personal properties (shares of stocks and other
intangibles) in the Philippines. The designated administrator of her estate here is Antonio
Campos Rueda.
In the same year, the Collector of Internal Revenue (CIR) assessed the estate for deficiency
tax amounting to about P161k. Campos Rueda refused to pay the assessed tax as
he claimed that the estate is exempt from the payment of said taxes pursuant to section 122
of the Tax Code which provides:
That no tax shall be collected under this Title in respect of intangible personal property (a) if
the decedent at the time of his death was a resident of a foreign country which at the time
of his death did not impose a transfer tax or death tax of any character in respect of
intangible person property of the Philippines not residing in that foreign country, or (b) if the
laws of the foreign country of which the decedent was a resident at the time of his death
allow a similar exemption from transfer taxes or death taxes of every character in respect of
intangible personal property owned by citizens of the Philippines not residing in that foreign
country.
Campos Rueda was able to prove that there is reciprocity between Tangier and the
Philippines.
However, the CIR still denied any tax exemption in favor of the estate as it averred that
Tangier is not a state as contemplated by Section 22 of the Tax Code and that the
Philippines does not recognize Tangier as a foreign country.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tangier is a state.

HELD: Yes. For purposes of the Tax Code, Tangier is a foreign country.
A foreign country to be identified as a state must be a politically organized sovereign
community independent of outside control bound by penalties of nationhood, legally
supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning under a regime of
law. The stress is on its being a nation, its people occupying a definite territory, politically
organized, exercising by means of its government its sovereign will over the individuals
within it and maintaining its separate international personality.
Further, the Supreme Court noted that there is already an existing jurisprudence (Collector
vs De Lara) which provides that even a tiny principality, that of Liechtenstein, hardly an
international personality in the sense, did fall under the exempt category provided for in
Section 22 of the Tax Code. Thus, recognition is not necessary. Hence, since it was proven
that Tangier provides such exemption to personal properties of Filipinos found therein so
must the Philippines honor the exemption as provided for by our tax law with respect to the
doctrine of reciprocity.

Free Telephone Workers Union vs

Minister of Labor
108 SCRA 757 Political Law Delegation of Power Completeness Test
In 1981, there was an ongoing labor dispute between the Free Telephone Workers Union
(the Union) and the Philippine Long Distance Company. Eventually, the Minister of Labor
(Blas Ople) assumed jurisdiction over the issue pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code.
The Union assailed the provisions of Article 264 as it averred that it is an undue delegation
of power by Congress to the Minister of Labor. They averred that by granting discretion to
the Minister of Labor to whether or not refer a labor dispute for compulsory arbitration to the
National Labor Relations Commission, it also effectively granted the Minister to make or
unmake the law on free collective bargaining.
ISSUE: Whether or not such provision is an undue delegation of power.
HELD: No. In the first place, this issue is not yet ripe for adjudication as the Minister of
Labor was yet to take on the entirety of the case. There is still no ground to rule that there is
an unconstitutional application of the law.
The Union failed to make out a case of undue delegation of legislative power. There could
be, however, an unconstitutional application. For while the Constitution allows compulsory
arbitration, it must be stressed that the exercise of such competence cannot ignore the
basic fundamental principle and state policy that the state should afford protection to labor.
But as to whether or not there is an unconstitutional application of the law, that is yet to be
determined since the Minister of Labor has not yet made a factual determination of the labor
dispute in issue.

There is no undue delegation in this case. The law in issue is complete and it set a sufficient
standard. The law cannot be any clearer, the coverage being limited to strikes or lockouts
adversely affecting the national interest.

Legaspi vs Secretary of
Finance
Political Law Forms of Government
Legaspi, then incumbent member of the interim Batasang Pambansa, petitioned to declare
Presidential Decree 1840 granting tax amnesty and filing of statement of assets and
liabilities and some other purposes unconstitutional. He argued that said decree was
promulgated despite the fact that under the Constitution (T)he Legislative power shall be
vested in a Batasang Pambansa (Sec. 1, Article VIII) and the President may grant amnesty
only with concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa.
ISSUE: Whether or not the President (PM) can issue such decrees.
HELD: It is to be observed that the original text mentions President (Prime Minister). This is
so because . . . The incumbent President of the Philippines shall be the Prime Minister and
he shall continue to exercise all his powers even after the interim Batasang Pambansa is
organized and ready to discharge its functions, and likewise he shall continue to exercise
his powers and prerogatives under the 1935 Constitution and the powers vested in the
President and the Prime Minister under this Constitution.Parenthetically, the term
Incumbent President employed in the transitory provisions could only refer to President
Ferdinand E. Marcos (Aquino vs. Commission on Elections, 62 SCRA 275). After the April
7 amendments there exists no longer a President (Prime Minister) but A President and A

Prime Minister. They are now two different offices which cannot be held by a single person
not a transitory one but a regular one provided for and governed by the main provisions of
the newly amended Constitution. Subsequent events accept the reality that we are no
longer governed by the transitory provisions of the Constitution. This form of government is
essentially parliamentary with presidential features.

Leopoldo Bacani vs National

Coconut Corporation
100 Phil. 468 Political Law Two-fold Function of the Government Constituent vs
Ministrant Functions
Leopoldo Bacani and Mateo Matoto were court stenographers assigned in a court in Manila.
During the pendency of a particular case in said court, counsel for one of the parties,
National Coconut Corporation or NACOCO, requested said stenographers for copies of the
transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing. Bacani et al complied
with the request and sent 714 pages and thereafter submitted to said counsel their bills for
the payment of their fees. The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to
Bacani and P150 to Matoto for said transcripts at the rate of P1 per page.
However, in January 1953, the Auditor General required Bacani et al to reimburse said
amounts on the strength of a circular of the Department of Justice. It was expressed that
NACOCO, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in
question. Bacani et al counter that NACOCO is not a government entity within the purview
of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. NACOCO set up as a defense that the
NACOCO is a government entity within the purview of section 2 of the Revised

Administrative Code of 1917 and, hence, it is exempt from paying the stenographers fees
under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not NACOCO is a government entity.
HELD: No. Government owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) do not acquire the
status of being part of the government because they do not come under the classification of
municipal or public corporation. Take for instance the NACOCO. While it was organized with
the purpose of adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent of trade
preferences in the United States and of providing Facilities for the better curing of copra
products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products, a function which our
government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry, it was, however, given
a corporate power separate and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to
the provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers
that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518 the law
creating NACOCO). It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private
corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from our government.
The Supreme Court also noted the constituent functions of the government. Constituent
functions are those which constitute the very bonds of society and are compulsory in nature.
According to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, they are as follows:
1. The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from
violence and robbery.
2. The fixing of the legal relations between man and wife and between parents and children.
3. The regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchange of property, and the
determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime.
4. The determination of contract rights between individuals.
5. The definition and punishment of crime.
6. The administration of justice in civil cases.
7. The determination of the political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens.
8. Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the preservation of the state from external
danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interests.
On the other hand, ministrant functions are those that are undertaken only by way of
advancing the general interests of society, and are merely optional. The most important of
the ministrant functions are: public works, public education, public charity, health and safety
regulations, and regulations of trade and industry. The principles to consider whether or not
a government shall exercise certain of these optional functions are: (1) that a government

should do for the public welfare those things which private capital would not naturally
undertake and (2) that a government should do these things which by its very nature it is
better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of
individuals.

ACCFA VS. CUGCO CASE DIGEST

Saturday, July 6, 2013

ACCFA VS CUGCO CASE DIGEST

Facts:
ACCFA was a government agency created under R.A. No. 821 amended its administrative machinery was
reorganized and its name changed to Agricultural Credit Administrative under the Land Reform Code
(R.A. No. 3844).
On Sept. 4, 1961 a collective bargaining agreement which was to be effective for a period of one year
from July 1, 1961 was entered into by and between the unions and ACCFA. On October 30, 1962 the
unions together with its mother union, Confederation of Unions in Government Corporation and offices
(CUGCO) filed a complaint with the court of Industrial relations against ACCFA for having allegedly
committed acts of unfair labor practice.
At the pendency of the above mentioned case specifically on August 1963 the president of the
Philippines signed into law the Agricultural land Reform Code (R.A. 3844) which among other things
required Reorganizations of Administrative Machinery of Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing
Administrative changed its name to Agricultural credit Administration.
ACCFA Supervisors Association and their workers Association filed a petition for certification election
with the court of Industrial Relations praying for exclusive bargaining agents for supervisors and rank
and file employees, respectively in ACA.

 ACA in effect challenges the Jurisdiction of Court of Industrial Relations to entertain the petition of
Unions for certification election on ground that ACA is engaged in governmental functions. The Unions
join issue on single point contending ACA forms proprietary functions.

ISSUE:

Is ACCFA (ACA) performing governmental functions?

RULING:

Yes, Under Section 3 of Agricultural Land Reform Code. ACA established among other governmental
agencies to extend credit and similar assistance to agriculture, in pursuance under Section 2.
Unions have no bargaining rights with ACA E.O 75 placed ACA under Land Reform Program Administration
and by virtue of R.A. 3844. The implementation of Land Reform Program of government is a
governmental function not a proprietary function.
ACA cant step down to deal privately. It is ministerial and government functions are exercised by the
state as attributes of sovereignty and not merely to promote welfare, progress, and prosperity.

Agricultural Credit and

Cooperative Financing
Administration vs Confederation
of Unions in Government
Corporations and Offices
November 6, 2011
No comments

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Email

ADVERTISEMENTS

30 SCRA 649 Political Law Two-fold Function of the Government Free Enterprise
Ministrant vs Constituent Functions
In September 1961 a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was agreed upon by labor
unions (ASA and AWA) and ACCFA (Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing
Administration). The said CBA was supposed to be effective on July 1, 1962. Due to nonimplementation of the CBA the unions held a strike on October 25, 1962. And 5 days later
CUGCO (Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices), the mother
union of ASA and AWA filed a complaint against ACCFA due to unfair labor practices,
among others, which CUGCO was able to win in court.
In April 1963, ACCFA appealed the decision and while the appeal was pending, Republic
Act No. 3844 was passed which effectively turned ACCFA to ACA (Agricultural Credit
Administration). In March 1964, ASA and AWA then petitioned that they may have sole
bargaining rights with ACA. While this petition was not yet decided upon, in the same month
of March 1964, Executive Order No. 75 was also passed which placed ACA under the Land
Reform Project Administration (LRPA). Notwithstanding the latest legislation passed, the
trial court and the appellate court ruled in favor of ASA and AWA and ruled that they have
bargaining rights with ACA..
ISSUE: Whether or not ASA and AWA can be given sole bargaining rights with ACA.

HELD: No. The Unions have no bargaining rights with ACA. EO 75 placed ACA under the
LRPA and by virtue of RA 3844 the implementation of the Land Reform Program of the
government is a governmental function NOT a proprietary function. Being such, ACA can no
longer step down to deal privately with said unions as it may have been doing when it was
still ACCFA.
The Supreme Court also made a pronouncement which recognized the growing
complexities of modern society which have rendered the classification of the governmental
functions (ministrant and constituent) as unrealistic, if not obsolete. Ministerial and
governmental functions continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and are absorbed
within the activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it to
meet the increasing social challenges of the times and move towards a greater socialization
of economic forces. Hence, gone are the days where constituent functions are exclusively
performed by the government and not delegated to private institutions. In this case, a
constituent function is left to be performed by a private entity like ACA (formerly ACCFA).
Separate Opinion on the Free Enterprise System
J. Fernando This country never practiced the free enterprise system and it has
abandoned the concept of laissez faire. It is the welfare state concept which is being
followed as shown by the constitutional provision on agrarian reform, housing, protection to
labor and others that provide for the social welfare.