constitutional law case doctrines

8/20/2019 Constitutional Law Case Doctrines

1/41

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

De Leon v. ESGUERRA

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date,therefore, the Proisional Constitution !ust be dee!ed to hae been superseded. "#ffectiityis i!!ediately upon ratification$

Gonzales v. COMELEC

%ature of power to a!end the Constitution or to propose a!end!ents thereto& not inherentpower of Con'ress but of the people( constituent power of Con'ress

Tolentno v. COMELEC

The condition and li!itation that all the a!end!ents to be proposed by the sa!e conention!ust be sub!itted in a )sin'le election* or plebiscite.

I!"on# v. COMELEC

Co!petence of Con'ress actin' as Constituent +sse!bly& +uthority to call constitutionalconention as Constituent +sse!bly in enactin' i!ple!entin' details.

San$a$ v. COMELEC

Presidential e-ercise of le'islatie powers "and proposin' a!end!ents$ is alid in !artial

law.+!endin' process is a soerei'n act, althou'h the authority to institute the sa!e and theprocedure to be followed reside so!ehow in a particular body "Pres. arcos$.

Santa#o v. COMELEC

The ri'ht of the people to directly propose a!end!ents to the Constitution throu'h thesyste! of initiatie would re!ain ento!bed in a cold niche until Con'ress proides for itsi!ple!entation. /ection 2 of +rticle 0 is not selfe-ecutin'.

La!"no v. COMELEC

#ssence of people3s initiatie& "1$ people !ust author( "2$ they !ust si'n the proposal( "4$proposal is e!bodied in petition

CONCEPT OF STATE

%a&an vs NACOCO


2/41

• The !ere fact that the 5oern!ent happens to be a !a6or stocholder of a corporation does

not !ae it a public corporation.

• istinction between constituent and !inistrant functions.

P'TA vs CIR

• istinction between constituent and !inistrant functions obsolete.

• 5oern!ent has to proide for 'eneral welfare.

Gov. o( t)e P)l. Islan$s vs. Monte $e Pe$a$

• octrine of Parens Patriae "state as 'uardian of the people$

• Transfer of soerei'nty( effect on laws&

abro'ation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted soerei'n"political law$. 'reat body of !unicipal law re'ardin' priate and do!estic ri'hts continue in force untilabro'ated or chan'ed by new ruler.

Co *! C)an vs. 'al$ez Tan *e)

• Continuity of :aw& :aw, once established, continues until chan'ed by so!e co!petent

le'islatie power "not chan'ed by !ere chan'e of soerei'nty$

• +ll acts and proceedin's of the 4 'o. depts. of a de facto 'oern!ent are 'ood and alid.

• ;inds of e facto 'oern!ent&

"1$ de facto proper 'oern!ent obtained by force or oice of the !a6ority"2$ para!ount force by !ilitary forces who inade the territory"4$ independent 'oern!ent established by inhabitants throu'h insurrection

•


3/41

• ere alle'ation that a 'oern!ent functionary is bein' sued in his personal capacity will not

auto!atically re!oe hi! fro! the protection of the laws of public officers and doctrine ofstate i!!unity

• octrine of state i!!unity applicable also to other states.

Re+,"l& v San$oval

• /tate cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the incident( liability should fall on the

public officers who co!!itted acts beyond their authority

• 4 instances when suit is proper&

1. when sued by its na!e2. when unincorporated 'oern!ent a'ency is sued4. when the suit is a'ainst a 'oern!ent e!ployee but liability belon's to the 'oern!ent

Feste/o v Fe-nan$o

• >fficer or e!ployee co!!ittin' the tort is personally liable and !aybe sued as any otherciti?en and held answerable for whateer in6ury

USA vs G,nto

- + state !ay be said to hae descended to the leel of an indiidual and can thus be dee!edto hae tacitly 'ien its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.

'ete-ans Man+o0e- vs CA

-The state is dee!ed to hae 'ien tacitly its consent to be sued when it enters into acontract. @oweer, it does not apply where the contract relates to the e-ercise of itssoerei'n functions.

T)e Me--tt vs Govt o( t)e P)l

- By consentin' to be sued, a state si!ply waies its i!!unity fro! suit. t does not therebyconcede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his faor, or e-tend itsliability to any cause not preiously reco'ni?ed. t !erely 'ies re!edy to enforce a pree-istin' liability and sub!it itself to the 6urisdiction of the court, sub6ect to its ri'ht to interposeany lawful defense.

A!#a"le vs. C,en&a

The 'oern!ent, when it taes away a property fro! a priate land owner for public usewithout 'oin' throu'h the le'al process of e-propriation or ne'otiated sale, the a''rieedparty !ay properly !aintain a suit a'ainst the 'oern!ent without thereby iolatin' thedoctrine of 'oern!ental i!!unity fro! suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetratin'in6ustice to a citi?en.


4/41

Re+,"l& vs. San$#an"aan

- Ahen the state files an action, it diests itself of the soerei'n character and shed itsi!!unity for! suit, descendin' to the leel of an ordinary liti'ant.

Re+,"l& vs. Fel&ano

failure to alle'e in the co!plaint the e-istence of consent by the /tate is a fatal defect"construction !ust be strict a'ainst confer!ent of waier !!unity !ay be inoed by the courts at any pointsta'e of the proceedin's.

USA vs. R,z

Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states& /tates !ay be sued when the

proceedin's arise out of co!!ercial transactions of the forei'n soerei'n.

T)e Hol See v Rosa-o2 3-.

• Pursuant to the 191 ienna Conention on iplo!atic


5/41

e-e!pt fro! 'aarnish!ent.

Rao vs. CFI o( %,la&an

- The character of an incorporated a'ency allows it to sue and be sued without Gualification

%,-ea, o( P-ntn# vs. %,-ea, o( P-ntn# E!+loees Asso&.

- +cceptance of outside wor and pay!ent of oerti!e co!pensation does not !ae wor ofBureau of Printin' proprietary.

- %onsuability of the /tate is aailable to the a'ency een if it is shown that it is en'a'ed notonly in 'oern!ental functions but also, incidentally, in proprietary enterprises"unincorporated a'ency$.

Mo"l P)ls. E4+lo-aton2 In&. vs. CA

f an a'encyHs function is dee!ed proprietary, if such is a necessary incident of the pri!aryand 'o. function of such a'ency, such a'ency is not suable "for an unincorporated a'encyonly$.

Cvl Ae-ona,t&s A$!nst-aton v. Co,-t o( A++eals

%ot all 'oern!ent entities whether corporate or not are i!!une fro! suits. !!unity fro!suits is deter!ined by the character of the ob6ects for which the entity was or'ani?ed. /uits a'ainst /tate a'encies with relation to !atters in which they hae assu!ed to act inpriate or non'oern!ental capacity, and arious suits a'ainst certain corporations createdby the /tate to en'a'e n !atters partain' !ore of the nature of ordinary business are notre'arded as suits a'ainst the /tate.

M,n&+alt o( San Fe-nan$o2 La Unon v. 3,$#e F-!e

The test of liability of the !unicipality depends on whether or not the drier actin' in behalf of the !unicipality is perfor!in' 'oern!ental or proprietary functions. t has already beenre!ared that !unicipal corporations are suable because their charters 'rant the! theco!petence to sue and be sued. %eertheless, they are 'enerally not liable for tortsco!!itted by the! in the dischar'e of 'oern!ental functions and can be held answerableonly if it can be shown that they were actin' in a proprietary capacity. n per!ittin' suchentities to be sued, the state !erely 'ies the clai!ants the ri'ht to show the defendant wasnot actin' in its 'oern!ental capacity when the in6ury was inflicted or that the case co!esunder the e-ceptions reco'ni?ed by law. Failin' this, the clai!ants cannot recoer.

M,n&+alt o( San M#,el2 %,la&an v. Fe-nan$ez

unicipal funds in possession of !unicipal and proincial treasurers are public funds e-e!ptfro! e-ecution. unicipal funds are held in trust for the people intended and used for theacco!plish!ents of the purposes for which !unicipal corporations are created and that tosub6ect said properties and public funds to e-ecution would !aterially i!pede, een defeatand in so!e instance destroy said purposes.


6/41

M,n&+alt o( Ma5at v. Co,-t o( A++eals

Ahen a !unicipality fails or refuses without 6ustifiable reason to effect pay!ent of a final!oney 6ud'!ent rendered a'ainst it, the clai!ant !ay aail of the re!edy of !anda!us inorder to co!pel the enact!ent and approal of the necessary appropriation ordinance and thecorrespondin' disburse!ent of !unicipal funds.

F,n$a!ental P-n&+les an$ State Pol&es

Se&ton 1

'llav&en&o v. L,5"an6

ayorDs act is unconstitutional. t was not authori?ed by any law or ordinance. )>ur 'oern!ent is a 'oern!ent of laws and not of !en.*

Se&ton 7

*,-o$a v. 3alan$on6

thin =apanese :ieutenant5eneral char'ed before the !ilitary co!!ission.Hel$6 The Philippines can adopt the rules and re'ulations laid down on the @a'ue and5enea Conentions notwithstandin' that it is not a si'natory thereto. t e!bodied 'enerallyaccepted principles of international law bindin' upon all states.

A#,stn v. E$,6

thin trian'ular reflectori?ed early warnin' deices.

Hel$6 :e'islatie enact!ent is not necessary in order to authori?e the issuance of :>prescribin' the use of trian'ular reflectori?ed early warnin' deices. This is also anillustration of 'enerally accepted principles of international law "Pacta sunt seranda$.

I&)on# v. He-nan$ez6

thin


7/41

+ treaty cannot !odify re'ulations 'oernin' ad!ission to Philippine bar "that would be anencroach!ent upon /upre!e Court by the #-ecutie$

Se&ton 8

I%P vs. 9a!o-a

the deploy!ent of the arines does not constitute a breach of the ciilian supre!acy clause.The callin' of the !arines in this case constitutes per!issible use of !ilitary asset for ciilianlaw enforce!ent. - x x The li!ited participation of the arines is eident in the proisions ofthe :etter of nstruction ":>$ itself, which sufficiently proides the !etes and bounds of thearinesD authority. t is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones char'e of theisibility patrols at all ti!es, the real authority belon'in' to the P%P. n fact, the etro anilaPolice Chief is the oerall leader of the P%Parines 6oint isibility patrols.Inder the :>, the police forces are tased to brief or orient the soldiers on police patrolprocedures. t is their responsibility to direct and !ana'e the deploy!ent of the

!arines. t is, liewise, their duty to proide the necessary eGuip!ent to the arinesand render lo'istic support to these soldiers. n iew of the fore'oin', it cannot beproperly ar'ued that !ilitary authority is supre!e oer ciilian authority.t is worth !entionin' that !ilitary assistance to ciilian authorities in ariousfor!s persists in Philippine 6urisdiction. The Philippine e-perience reeals that it is notaerse to reGuestin' the assistance of the !ilitary in the i!ple!entation and e-ecutionof certain traditionally )ciil* functions. - - - /o!e of the !ultifarious actiities wherein!ilitary aid has been rendered, e-e!plifyin' the actiities that brin' both the ciilian andthe !ilitary to'ether in a relationship of cooperation are&1. #lections(2. +d!inistration of the Philippine %ational


8/41

Peo+le vs. La#!an Case at bar& accused is prosecuted for failure to re'ister for !ilitary serice under the%ational efense +ct /C upheld the %ational efense +ct. To leae an or'ani?ation of an ar!y to the will of theciti?ens would be to !ae this duty of the 5oern!ent e-cusable should there be nosufficient !en who olunteer to enlist therein.

Se&ton ;

C)avez vs. Ro!,lo


9/41

of !easures calculated to insure econo!ic stability of all the co!petent ele!ents of society,throu'h the !aintenance of a proper econo!ic and social eGuilibriu! in the interrelations ofthe !e!bers of the co!!unity, constitutionally, throu'h the adoption of !easures le'ally

6ustifiable, or e-traconstitutionally, throu'h the e-ercise of powers underlyin' the e-istenceof all 'oern!ents on the ti!ehonored principle of salus populi est supre!a le-. /ocial

6ustice, therefore, !ust be founded on the reco'nition of the necessity of interdependence

a!on' diers and dierse units of a society and of the protection that should be eGually andeenly e-tended to all 'roups as a co!bined force in our social and econo!ic life, consistentwith the funda!ental and para!ount ob6ectie of the state of pro!otin' the health, co!fort,and Guiet of all persons, and of brin'in' about Mthe 'reatest 'ood to the 'reatest nu!ber.*

Al!e$a vs. CA

There e-ists a tenantDs ri'ht of rede!ption in su'ar and coconut lands. Pursuant to +'ricultural :and


10/41

'-t,o,so vs. M,n&+al 3,$#e

Oouthful >ffender& + person char'ed with an offense but found to be a youthful offendercould be proisionally released on reco'ni?ance at courtDs decision.

Se&ton 1:

PT>T Co. vs. NLRC

the /C held that the petitionerDs policy of not acceptin' or considerin' as disGualified fro!wor any wo!an worer who contracts !arria'e, runs afoul of the test of, and the ri'hta'ainst, discri!ination, which is 'uaranteed all wo!en worers under the Constitution. Ahilea reGuire!ent that a wo!an e!ployee !ust re!ain un!arried !ay be 6ustified as a )bonafide occupational Gualification* where the particular reGuire!ents of the 6ob would de!and

the sa!e, discri!ination a'ainst !arried wo!en cannot be adopted by the e!ployer as a'eneral principle.

Se&ton 1<

O+osa vs. Fa&to-an

Enter'enerational n the issue that the )total lo' ban* is a new policy which should be applied prospectielyand not affect the ri'hts of petitioner ested under the Ti!ber :icensin' +'ree!ent "T:+$,the /c held that this is not a new policy but a !ere reiteration of the policy of conserationand protection the ri'ht to a balanced and healthful ecolo'y.


11/41

Se&ton 1?

PRC vs. De G,z!an

while it is true that the /C has upheld the constitutional ri'ht of eery citi?en to select aprofession or course of study sub6ect to fair, reasonable, and eGuitable ad!ission andacade!ic reGuire!ents, the e-ercise of this ri'ht !ay be re'ulated pursuant to the policepower of the /tate to safe'uard health, !orals, peace, education, order, safety and 'eneralwelfare. Thus, persons who desire to en'a'e in the learned professions reGuirin' scientific or technical nowled'e !ay be reGuired to tae an e-a!ination as a prereGuisite to en'a'in' intheir chosen careers. This re'ulation assu!es particular pertinence in the field of !edicine,in order to protect the public fro! the potentially deadly effects of inco!petence andi'norance.

PMMS2 In&. vs. CA

the Court said that the reGuire!ent that a school !ust first obtain 'oern!ent authori?ationbefore operatin' is based on the /tate policy that educational pro'ra!s andor operationsshall be of 'ood Guality and, therefore, shall at least satisfy !ini!u! standards with respectto curricula, teachin' staff, physical plant and facilities and ad!inistratie and !ana'e!entiability.

Se&ton 1@

%e-na-$o vs. NLRC

The /C held that the a'na Carta for isabled Persons !andates that Gualified disabledpersons be 'ranted the sa!e ter!s and conditions of e!ploy!ent as Gualified able bodied

e!ployees( thus, once hey hae attained the status of re'ular worers, they should beaccorded all the benefits 'ranted by law, notwithstandin' written or erbal contracts to thecontrary. This treat!ent is rooted not !erely in charity or acco!!odation, but in 6ustice forall.

Se&ton 1

Ga-&a vs. %OI

B> co!!itted 'rae abuse of discretion because it repudiates the independent policy of 'oern!ent to run its affairs the way it dee!s best for the national interest.#ery proision of the Constitution on the national econo!y and patri!ony is infused withthe spirit of national interest. The nonalienation of national resources, the /tate full controloer the deelop!ent and utili?ation of contributions to the econo!ic 'rowth and 'eneralwelfare of the country and the re'ulation of forei'n inest!ent in accordance to national'oals and priorities are too e-plicit not to be noticed and understood.

Se&ton 7=


12/41

Asso&aton o( P)l++ne Co&on,t Des&&ato-s vs. PCA,

the /C said that althou'h the Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, itneertheless reseres to the 5oern!ent the power to interene wheneer necessary for thepro!otion of the 'eneral welfare as reflected in /ections 19 of +rticle 0.

Pest Mana#e!ent Asso&aton o( t)e P)l++nes vs. Fe-tlze- an$ Pest&$eA,t)o-t, and P)a-!a&e,t&al an$ Healt)Ca-e Asso&aton o( t)e P)l++nes vs. Se&. D,B,e III

espite the fact that )our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy*, itneertheless reseres to the 5oern!ent the power to interene wheneer necessary topro!ote the 'eneral welfare. Free enterprise does not call for re!oal of Hprotectiere'ulationsD. t !ust be clearly e-plained and proen by co!petent eidence 6ust e-actly howsuch protectie re'ulation would result in the restraint of trade.

Se&ton 71

ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM

#!inent do!ain is an inherent power of the /tate that enables it to forcibly acGuire priatelands intended for public use upon pay!ent of 6ust co!pensation to the owner. Priateri'hts !ust yield to the irresistible de!ands of the public interest on the ti!ehonored

6ustification, as in the case of the policed power, that the welfare of the people is thesupre!e law.

Se&ton 7;

%ASCO 'S PAGCOR

:ocal +utono!y under 1987 Constitution si!ply !eans the decentrali?ation and does not!ae the local 'oern!ents soerei'n within the /tate or an i!periu! i!perio.

LIM%ONA 'S MANGELIN

ecentrali?ation of ad!inistration is !erely dele'ation of ad!inistratie powers to the :5Isin order to broaden the base of 'oern!ental power. ecentrali?ation of power is theabdication by the national 'oern!ent powers.

Se&ton 7<

Pa!aton# vs. COMELEC

There is no constitutional ri'ht to run for or hold public office and, particularly, to see thepresidency. Ahat is reco'ni?ed is !erely a priile'e sub6ect to li!itations i!posed by law./ection 2, +rticle of the Constitution neither bestows such a ri'ht nor eleates the


13/41

priile'e to the leel of an enforceable ri'ht. There is nothin' in the plain lan'ua'e of theproision which su''ests such a thrust or 6ustifies an interpretation of the sort. The MeGualaccessM proision is a subsu!ed part of +rticle of the Constitution, entitled Meclaration ofPrinciples and /tate Policies.M The proisions under the +rticle are 'enerally considered notselfe-ecutin', and there is no plausible reason for accordin' a different treat!ent to theMeGual accessM proision. :ie the rest of the policies enu!erated in +rticle , the proision

does not contain any 6udicially enforceable constitutional ri'ht but !erely specifies a'uideline for le'islatie or e-ecutie action. The disre'ard of the proision does not 'ie riseto any cause of action before the courts.

Se&ton 8=

Le#s+ vs CSC

The constitutional ri'ht to infor!ation on !atters of public concern is selfe-ecutin' withoutthe need for any ancillary act of le'islation.

'al!onte vs $e 'lla

The constitutional ri'ht to infor!ation is li!ited on !atters of public concern and is furthersub6ect to such li!itations as !ay be proided by law. @oweer, althou'h citi?ens areafforded the ri'ht to infor!ation, the Constitution does not accord the! the ri'ht to co!pelthe custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, su!!aries and the lie in theirdesire to acGuire infor!ation of public concern.

AB,noSa-!ento vs Mo-ato

Ahen a co!!ittee or board is created as public in its ery e-istence and character such asthe T


14/41

the administrative agency by the organic la! of its existence.

An#a-a vs. Ele&to-al Co!!sson

/eparation of powers as actual diision than obtained throu'h e-press proision =udiciary is the only Constitutional +rbiter to allocate Constitutional Boundaries =udicial /upre!acy R supre!acy of the Constitution asserted by the 6udiciary "notsupre!acy of the 6udiciary itself$ =udicial


15/41

f the President has been le'iti!ately dischar'in' the le'islatie functions of the interi! +sse!bly, there is no reason why he cannot alidly dischar'e the function of that +sse!blyto propose a!end!ents to the Constitution, which is but an ad6unct, althou'h peculiar, to its'ross le'islatie power.

"%ote that at the ti!e Pre?. arcos had le'islatie powers and there was no le'islatie

depart!ent at the ti!e$

Daza v. Sn#son

Ahere the le'ality or alidity of the act is in Guestion and not the wisdo! of the act, the Court!ay tae 6urisdiction and decide on the actsD alidity. #en in political Guestions the Court!ay tae 6urisdiction under the e-panded 6udicial power e-tended to it by +rt 8 /ec. 1 of theConstitution.

")=udicial power includes the duty to settle actual controersies inolin' ri'hts which arele'ally de!andable and enforceable, and to determine !hether or not there has been agrave abuse of discretion amounting to lac' or excess of #urisdiction on the part of any

branch or instrumentality of Government.&(

Dele#aton o( Po0e-s

Ga-&a v. E4e&. Se&-eta-

The Con'ress !ay authori?e the President to fi- tariff rates and duties sub6ect to suchli!itations and restrictions that they !ay i!pose. This is e-pressly proided for in +rt , /ec28 par 2 of the Constitution.

A-aneta v. Dn#lasan

The dele'ation of e!er'ency powers by Con'ress to the President !ay be li!ited byCon'ress sub6ect to restrictions it !ay proide. Con'ress !ay withdraw the dele'ated power at any ti!e. n this case, the e!er'ency power was withdrawn at the ti!e Con'ress beca!eable to e-ercise its le'islatie duties a'ain.

Easte-n S)++n# Lnes vs. POEA

The principle of nondele'ation of powers is applicable to all three branches of 'oern!entspecifically in the case of the le'islatie. Ahat can be dele'ated is the discretion todeter!ine how the law !ay be enforced and not what the law shall be since theascertain!ent of the latter sub6ect is within the prero'atie and deter!ination of thele'islature. ele'ation of le'islatie power is per!itted and alid proided that is passes thetwo accepted tests co!pleteness test and the sufficient standard test. The reason for suchdele'ation is the increasin' co!ple-ity of the tas of the 'oern!ent and the 'rowin'inability of the le'islature to cope directly with the !yriad proble!s de!andin' its attention.

Ro$-#,ez v. Gella


16/41

+ct %o. 71 was e-pressly in pursuance of the constitutional li!itation of the dele'ation ofe!er'ency powers. t is presu!ed that the %ational +sse!bly intended it to be for a li!itedperiod. #-ecutie >rders %os. KJK and KJ, which was anchored to the said +ct aredeclared null and oid and the respondents are ordered to desist fro! appropriatin',releasin' and allottin' e-pendin' funds set aside therein.

Peo+le v. 'e-a

+ct %o. J221 is tanta!ount to an undue dele'ation of le'islatie power. The powers of the'oern!ent are distributed a!on' three coordinate and substantially independent or'ans&the le'islatie, the e-ecutie and the 6udicial. #ach of the depart!ents of the 'oern!entderies its authority fro! the Constitution.

US vs. An# Tan# Hof the act within itself does not define a cri!e and is not co!plete, le'islatie act re!ains to

be done to !ae it a law or a cri!e, the doin' of which is ested in the 5o, 'enerally, theact is a dele'ation of le'islatie power, and is thus unconstitutional and oid.

Ynot vs. IACThere is no standard that the officials !ust obsere in deter!inin' to who! to distribute theconfiscated carabaos and carabeef. There is thus an inalid dele'ation of le'islatie power.

Ta"la-n vs. G,te-ezBecause the necessity standards are set forth in the statute "


17/41

+s decided in Tobias . +balos, the Constitution proides that the co!positions of the @ouseshould not be !ore than 2KL !e!bers, unless otherwise proided by law. The natural resultin the creation of a new le'islatie fro! a special law whose purpose is to conert a!unicipality into a city is sanctioned by the Constitution.

Monte/o v. Co!ele&

The Co!elec has no power to reapportion districts but only to !ae !inor ad6ust!ents.


18/41

Santa#o vs. G,n#ona2 3-.

Ahere no proision of the Constitution, the laws or een the rules of the /enate has beenclearly shown to hae been iolated, disre'arded or oerlooed, 'rae abuse of discretioncannot be i!puted to /enate officials for acts done within their co!petence and authority.

Avelno vs. C,en&o

The constitutional 'rant to the /enate of the power to elect its own president should not beinterfered with, nor taen oer, by the 6udiciary.

Ahen the constitution declares that a ma#ority of each )ouse& shall constitute a $uorum, itdoes not !ean all of its !e!bers. a6ority of all the !e!bers constitute the @ouse. @ence,12 senators who unani!ously oted constitute a !a6ority of 24 senators "1L waled out, 1out of the country$.

OSMEA 'S. PENDATUN

The @ouse is the 6ud'e of what constitutes disorderly behaior as conferred upon by theConstitution. +lso, Con'ress has the inherent le'islatie prero'atie of suspension.

PAREDES2 3R. 'S SANDIGAN%AYAN

/andi'anbayan has the authority to suspend a district representatie in iolation of the +nti5raft :aw as it is bein' i!posed on the representatie %>T as a !e!ber of the @ouse.

U.S. 'S PONS

The Court !ay not 'o beyond the the recitals of the le'islatie 6ournals for the purpose ofdeter!inin' the date of ad6ourn!ent when such 6ournal are clear and e-plicit. To inGuire the

eracity of 6ournals, when they are clear and e-plicit, would be to iolate both the letter andspirit of the laws, to inade the coordinate and independent depart!ent of the 'oern!entand to interfere with the le'iti!ate powers and functions of the :e'islature.

CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO 'S GIMENE9

#nrolled bill doctrine the ter! )urea for!aldehyde* is conclusie upon the courts as re'ardsthe tenor of the !easure passed by the Con'ress and approed by the President.

Se&ton 1@

Daza vs Sn#son The sense of the Constitution is that the !e!bership in the C>+ !ust always reflect politicalali'n!ents and !ust ad6ust to chan'es. %owhere, howeer, in the Constitution reGuire that the party!ust be a re'istered party.

Coseten# vs Mt-a #ndorse!ent of other representaties "in C>+$ cannot be counted in faor of a representatie ifthey do not belon' to the latter3s party.


19/41

G,n#ona vs Gonzales Full co!ple!ent of 12 seats in C>+ is not !andatory


20/41

Alva-ez vs G,n#ona + bill of local application, such as one asin' for the conersion of a !unicipality into a city, isdee!ed to hae ori'inated fro! the @ouse proided that the bill of the @ouse was filed prior to thefilin' of the bill in the /enate een if, in the end, the /enate approed its own ersion. The filin' in the /enate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill does not contraenethe constitutional reGuire!ent as lon' as the /enate does not act thereupon until it receies the

@ouse bill.

Se&. 7;6

Ga-&a vs Mata


21/41

separate days both dispensable by pres. certification$ Ahere no /enators controerted the reality of the factual basis of certification, 'rowin' bud'etdeficit !ay be considered as basis for presidential certification. /enators, in respondin' to the call ofthe Pres. by otin' on the bill, !anifested their belief in the ur'ent need for certification of the bill.

Se&. 7?6

Tolentno vs Se&. o( Fnan&e t is within the power of a conference co!!ittee to include in its report an entirely new proision notfound in either @ouse Bill or /enate Bill. "+!end!ent in the nature of substitution is warranted aslon' as a!end!ent is 'er!ane to the sub6ect !atter of the bill$ to disre'ard the enrolled bill is to disre'ard the respect due the other 2 depart!ents.

Gonzales vs Ma&a-a# President can eto an ite! octrine of inappropriate proisions a proision that is constitutionally inappropriate !ay besin'led out for eto if it is not an appropriation or reenue ite!. +n inappropriate proision in an

appropriations bill is an ite! in itself.

%en#zon vs D-lon President3s power to eto an ite! does not 'rant authority to eto part of an ite! "or proisions$. President cannot eto a law or repeal a law.

PHILCONSA vs En-B,ez Proisions that are 'er!ane to the specific appropriations cannot be etoed.


22/41

Se&. 76

Pas&,al vs Se&. o( P,"l& Wo-5s +ppropriation for a road owned by a priate indiidual is inalid because it is not for a publicpurpose. /ubseGuent donation did not alidate the law because alidity of a statute depends upon

the power of Con'ress at the ti!e of its approal and not upon subseGuent eents.

A#l+a vs R,z +ppropriation for special sta!p issue is alid as it is not specifically !ade to benefit a reli'iousdeno!ination but for a public purpose. The benefit acGuired by the Church is incidental only.

G,n#ona vs Ca-a#,e The +uto!atic areappealable to /C because adice and concurrence of /C was not sou'ht.

Daz vs CA /ec. 1L of #> %o. 17L statin' )a party adersely affected by a decision of #


23/41

nitiatie and not


24/41

Se&. 1+ is not needed in appoint!ent of Co!!issioner of Bureau ofCusto!s because a bureau head is not among those !ithin the first group of appoint!ents whereconsent of C>+ is reGuired.

%a,tsta vs Salon#a Confir!ation of C>+ is not needed in appoint!ent of Chair!an of Co!!ission of @u!an + confir!ation.

Flo-es vs D-lon


25/41

+ law which li!its the President to only one appointee is an encroach!ent to the prero'atie of thePresident because appoint!ent inoles discretion to choose who to appoint.

L,e#o vs Cvl Se-v&e Co!!sson C/C is without authority to reoe an appoint!ent because of its belief that another person wasbetter Gualified, which is an encroach!ent on the discretion ested solely in the appointin' authority.

The per!anent appoint!ent !ade by the appointin' authority !ay not be reersed by C/C andcall it te!porary.

Po"-e vs Men$eta The acancy in the position of Chair!an of the Professional


26/41

*l,san %aan vs Do!n#,ez +n ad!inistratie officer has only such powers as are e-pressly 'ranted to hi! and thosenecessarily i!plied in the e-ercise thereof. These powers should not be e-tended by i!plicationbeyond what !ay be necessary for their 6ust and reasonable e-ecution.

An#an#&o vs Castllo The power to re!oe is inherent in the power to appoint, but not with re'ard to those officers ore!ployees who belon' to the classified serice for as to the! the inherent power cannot bee-ercised NAMARCO vs A-&a #-ecutie power of control e-tends to 'oern!entowned corporations.

Se&. 1@6

G,azon vs De 'lla

The President has the power to ordain saturation dries. There is nothin' in the Constitution whichdenies the authority of the Chief #-ec. to order police actions to stop unabated cri!inality, risin'lawlessness, and alar!in' co!!unist actiities.

R,(( vs C)e( o( Sta(( Courts !artial are si!ply instru!entalities of the e-ecutie power, proided by the Con'ress for thePresident as Co!!ander in chief to aid hi! in properly co!!andin' the ar!y and nay andenforcin' discipline therein and utili?e under his order those of his authori?ed !ilitaryrepresentaties.

Ola#,e- vs Mlta- Co!!sson No. 8: ue process of law de!ands that in all cri!inal prosecutions the accused be entitled to a trial. Thetrial conte!plated by the due process clause is trial by 6udicial process. ilitary Co!!issions are not

courts within the Philippine 6udicial syste!. =udicial power is ested only in the courts. ilitaryco!!issions pertain to the e-ecutie depart!ent and are instru!entalities of the President asco!!anderinchief to aid hi! in enforcin' discipline in the ar!ed forces.

J,lona vs Gene-al Co,-t Ma-tal

G,$an vs Sen#a The President has constitutional authority to preent a !e!ber of the ar!ed forces fro! testifyin'before a le'islatie inGuiry, by irtue of her power as co!!anderinchief, and that as aconseGuence, a !ilitary officer who defies such in6unction is liable under !ilitary 6ustice. +t the sa!eti!e, the Court also holds that any cha!ber of Con'ress which sees the appearance befoe it of a!ilitary officer a'ainst the consent of the President has adeGuate re!edies under law to co!pelsuch attendance. +ny !ilitary officer who! the Con'ress su!!ons to testify before it !ay beco!pelled to do so by the President. f the President is not so inclined, the President !ay beco!!anded by 6udicial order to co!pel the attendance of the !ilitary officer. Final 6udicial ordershae the force of the law of the land which the President has the duty to faithfully e-ecute.

Se&. 16

To--es vs Gonzales + 6udicial pronounce!ent is not necessary in deter!inin' whether the conditions in the pardon are


27/41

iolated. The deter!ination of whether there is a iolations of the conditions rests e-clusiely in thesound 6ud'!ent of the President.

Monsanto vs Fa&to-an Pardon i!plies 'uilt. Ahile it reliees the party pardoned fro! all punitie conseGuences of hiscri!inal act, it reliees hi! fro! nothin' !ore. t does not, therefore, restore a conicted felon to

public office forfeited by reason of coniction.

Peo+le vs Salle2 3-. Pardon !ay be 'ranted only by final 6ud'!ent. Ahere the 6ud'!ent of coniction is still pendin'appeal, e-ecutie cle!ency !ay not yet be 'ranted. Before an appellant !ay be 'ranted pardon, he!ust first as for the withdrawal of his appeal.

Ga-&a vs COA President3s 'rant of e-ecutie cle!ency to a person dis!issed fro! his office pursuant to anad!inistratie case "but where the latter has been acGuitted in a cri!inal case based on the sa!efacts alle'ed in the cri!inal case$ entitles the latter to auto!atic reinstate!ent and bacwa'es.

Sa"ello vs DECS Pardon "in a cri!inal case$ frees the indiidual fro! all the penalties and disabilities and restoreshi! to all his ciil ri'hts. +lthou'h such pardon !ay restore a person3s eli'ibility to public office, itdoes not entitle hi! to auto!atic reinstate!ent. @e should apply for reappoint!ent to said office. ECo!pare with 5arcia s C>+

Lla!as vs O-"os n 'rantin' the power of e-ecutie cle!ency, the Constitution does not distin'uish between cri!inaland ad!inistratie cases.

Se&. 1@6

Constantno2 3-. vs C,sa The debtrelief contracts, proidin' for buybac and bondconersion sche!es, entered intopursuant to Financin' Pro'ra! are not beyond the powers 'ranted to the President under /ec. 2L,

+rt. . The only restriction that the Constitution proides, aside fro! the prior concurrence of theonetary Board, is that loans !ust be sub6ect to li!itations proided by law. +ccordin'ly, thecontention that buybac and bondconersion sche!es are neither )loans* nor )'uarantees,* andhence beyond the PresidentDs power to e-ecute, are without !erit.

Se&. 716

Co!!ssone- o( C,sto!s vs Easte-n Sea T-a$n# 1


28/41

J steps in treaty!ain' process&"a$ ne'otiation"b$ si'nin' of the treaty "si!ply a !eans of authenticatin' the instru!ent and a sy!bol of

'ood faith$"c$ ratification "for!al act by which a statute confir!s and accepts the proisions of a treaty$"d$ e-chan'e of instru!ents of ratification

n the case at bar, the treaty was !erely si'ned.

3UDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Se&. 16

Santa#o vs %a,tsta The courts !ay not e-ercise 6udicial power when there is no applicable law. Case at bar& +n award of honors to a student by a board of teachers !ay not be reersedby a court where the awards are 'oerned by no applicable law.

Daza v Sn#son #en if the issue presented was political in nature, the Court is still not be precluded fro!resolin' it under the e-panded 6urisdiction conferred upon it that now coers, in propercases, een the political Guestion. That where serious constitutional Guestions are inoled, Mthe transcendental i!portance tothe public of these cases de!ands that they be settled pro!ptly and definitely brushin'aside, if we !ust, technicalities of procedure.M

Mant-,ste Sste!s v Co,-t o( A++eals

There can be no 6ustification for 6udicial interference in the business of an ad!inistratiea'ency, e-cept when it iolates a citi?en3s constitutional ri'hts, or co!!its a 'rae abuse of

discretion, or acts in e-cess of, or without 6urisdiction.

Courts !ay not substitute their 6ud'!ent for that of the +sset Priati?ation Trust"ad!inistratie body$, nor bloc, by an in6unction, the dischar'e of its functions and thei!ple!entation of its decisions in connection with the acGuisition, sale or disposition ofassets transferred to it.

Mala#a v Pena&)os2 3-.

t was preiously declared the prohibition pertained to the issuance of in6unctions orrestrainin' orders by courts a'ainst ad!inistratie acts in controersies inolin' facts or thee-ercise of discretion in technical cases. The Court obsered that to allow the courts to 6ud'ethese !atters would disturb the s!ooth functionin' of the ad!inistratie !achinery. >nissues definitely outside of this di!ension and inolin' Guestions of law, courts could not bepreented by any law "in this case, P.. %o. LK$ fro! e-ercisin' their power to restrain orprohibit ad!inistratie acts.

PACU v Se&-eta- o( E$,&aton

=udicial power is li!ited to the decision of actual cases and controersies.

"ere apprehension that the /ecretary of #ducation !i'ht under the law withdraw the per!it


29/41

of one of petitioners does not constitute a 6usticiable controersy.$

Courts do not sit to ad6udicate !ere acade!ic Guestions to satisfy scholarly interest thereinhoweer intellectually solid the proble! !ay be. This is especially true where the issuesMreach constitutional di!ensions, for then there co!es into play re'ard for the court3s duty toaoid decision of constitutional issues unless aoidance beco!es easion.

Ma-ano2 3-. v COMELEC

Considerin' that those contin'encies !entioned by the petitioners !ay or !ay not happen,petitioners !erely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case orcontroersy. Petitioners who are residents of Ta'ui' "e-cept ariano$ are not also the proper parties to raise this abstract issue "city of aati is inoled$. Aorse, they raise this futuristicissue in a petition for declaratory relief oer which this Court has no 6urisdiction.

Ma&asano v Natonal Ho,sn# A,t)o-t

t is a rule fir!ly entrenched in our 6urisprudence that the constitutionality of an act of thele'islature will not be deter!ined by the courts unless that Guestion is properly raised andpresented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a deter!ination of the case.

3. 3oa v PCGG

The rule is settled that no Guestion inolin' the constitutionality or alidity of a law or'oern!ental act !ay be heard and decided by the court unless there is co!pliance with thele'al reGuisites for 6udicial inGuiry, na!ely& that the Guestion !ust be raised by the properparty( that there !ust be an actual case or controersy( that the Guestion !ust be raised atthe earliest possible opportunity( and, that the decision on the constitutional or le'al Guestion!ust be necessary to the deter!ination of the case itself. But the !ost i!portant are the firsttwo "2$ reGuisites.

%ot eery action filed by a ta-payer can Gualify to challen'e the le'ality of official acts doneby the 'oern!ent. + ta-payer3s suit can prosper only if the 'oern!ental acts bein'Guestioned inole disburse!ent of public funds upon the theory that the e-penditure ofpublic funds by an officer of the state for the purpose of ad!inisterin' an unconstitutional actconstitutes a !isapplication of such funds, which !ay be en6oined at the reGuest of ata-payer.

Le#as+ v Cvl Se-v&e Co!!sson

t beco!es apparent that when a anda!us proceedin' inoles the assertion of a publicri'ht, the reGuire!ent of personal interest is satisfied by the !ere fact that the petitioner is aciti?en, and therefore, part of the 'eneral MpublicM which possesses the ri'ht.

MPublicM is a co!prehensie, allinclusie ter!. Properly construed, it e!braces eeryperson.

D,!lao v COMELEC

For one, there is a !is6oinder of parties and actions. >ne petitioner does not 6oin otherpetitioners in the burden of their co!plaint, nor do the latter 6oin the for!er in his. They,respectiely, contest co!pletely different statutory proisions.


30/41

For another, there are standards that hae to be followed in the e-ercise of the function of 6udicial reiew, na!ely& "1$ the e-istence of an appropriate case( "2$ an interest personal andsubstantial by the party raisin' the constitutional Guestion( "4$ the plea that the function bee-ercised at the earliest opportunity( and "J$ the necessity that the constitutional Guestion bepassed upon in order to decide the case.

%,#na Const. an$ Devt. Co-+. v La-on

The doctrine holds that only when the act co!plained of directly inoles an ille'aldisburse!ent of public funds raised by ta-ation will the ta-payer3s suit be allowed. Theessence of a ta-payer3s ri'ht to institute such an action hin'es on the e-istence of thatreGuisite pecuniary or !onetary interest.

t is not enou'h that the ta-payerplaintiff sufficiently show that he would be benefited orin6ured by the 6ud'!ent or entitled to the aails of the suit as a real party in interest.

*los"aan v G,n#ona2 3-. + party3s standin' before this Court is a procedural technicality which it !ay, in the e-erciseof its discretion, set aside in iew of the i!portance of the issues raised.

n line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary ta-payers, !e!bers ofCon'ress, and een association of planters, and nonprofit ciic or'ani?ations were allowedto initiate and prosecute actions before this Court to Guestion the constitutionality or alidityof laws, acts, decisions, rulin's, or orders of arious 'oern!ent a'encies orinstru!entalities.

PHILCONSA v En-B,ez

The /enators hae le'al standin' to Guestion the alidity of the eto. Ahen a eto was!ade in e-cess of the authority of the President, it i!per!issibily intrudes into the do!ain ofthe :e'islature. + !e!ber of Con'ress can Guestion an act of the #-ecutie which in6uresCon'ress as an institution.

Tata$ v Ga-&a2 3-.

The preailin' doctrines in ta-payer3s suits are to allow ta-payers to Guestion contractsentered into by the national 'oern!ent or 'oern!entowned or controlled corporationsalle'edly in contraention of the law and to disallow the sa!e when only !unicipal contractsare inoled "6ust lie in Bu'nay case since no public !oney was inoled$.

O+osa v Fa&to-an2 3-.

C:+// /IT& The sub6ect !atter of the co!plaint is of co!!on and 'eneral interest not 6ust to seeral, but to all citi?ens of the Philippines. ConseGuently, since the parties are sonu!erous, it beco!es i!practicable, if not totally i!possible, to brin' all of the! before thecourt.

Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeedin' 'enerations can only be based on theconcept of inter'enerational responsibility insofar as the ri'ht to a balanced and healthfulecolo'y is concerned.


31/41

%eedless to say, eery 'eneration has a responsibility to the ne-t to presere that rhyth!and har!ony for the full en6oy!ent of a balanced and healthful ecolo'y. Put a little differently,the !inorsU assertion of their ri'ht to a sound eniron!ent constitutes, at the sa!e ti!e, theperfor!ance of their obli'ation to ensure the protection of that ri'ht for the 'enerations toco!e.

Loza$a v COMELEC

+s ta-payers, petitioners !ay not file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alle'edthat ta- !oney is bein' ille'ally spent. t is only when an act co!plained of, which !ayinclude a le'islatie enact!ent or statute, inoles the ille'al e-penditure of public !oneythat the socalled ta-payer suit !ay be allowed. The unchallen'ed rule is that the person who i!pu'ns the alidity of a statute !ust hae apersonal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain,direct in6ury as a result of its enforce!ent. Concrete in6ury, whether actual or threatened, isthat indispensable ele!ent of a dispute which seres in part to cast it in a for! traditionallycapable of 6udicial resolution. Ahen the asserted har! is a M'enerali?ed 'rieanceM shared

in substantially eGual !easure by all or a lar'e class of citi?ens, that har! alone nor!allydoes not warrant e-ercise of 6urisdiction.

*los"aan v Mo-ato

The otin' on petitioners3 standin' in the preious case was a narrow one, seen "7$!e!bers sustainin' petitioners3 standin' and si- "$ denyin' petitioners3 ri'ht to brin' thesuit. The !a6ority was thus a tenuous one that is not liely to be !aintained in anysubseGuent liti'ation. n addition, there hae been char'es in the !e!bership of the Court,with the retire!ent of =ustice Cru? and Bidin and the appoint!ent of the writer of this opinionand =ustice Francisco. 5ien this fact it is hardly tenable to insist on the !aintenance of the

rulin' as to petitioners3 standin'.

SECTION 8

%en#zon v L!

Ahat is fiscal autono!yV t conte!plates a 'uarantee of full fle-ibility to allocate and utili?etheir resources with the wisdo! and dispatch that their needs reGuire. t reco'ni?es thepower and authority to ley, assess and collect fees, fi- rates of co!pensation not e-ceedin'the hi'hest rates authori?ed by law for co!pensation and play plans of the 'oern!ent andallocate and disburse such su!s as !ay be proided by law or prescribed by the! in thecourse of the dischar'e of their functions. Fiscal autono!y !eans freedo! fro! outsidecontrol.

The =udiciary, the Constitutional Co!!issions, and the >!buds!an !ust hae theindependence and fle-ibility needed in the dischar'e of their constitutional duties. Thei!position of restrictions and constraints on the !anner the independent constitutionaloffices allocate and utili?e the funds appropriated for their operations is anathe!a to fiscalautono!y and iolatie not only of the e-press !andate of the Constitution but especially asre'ards the /upre!e Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which theentire fabric of our constitutional syste! is based


32/41

SECTION :

L!5et5a Sons Mlln#2 In&. v Co,-t o( A++eals2 et.al.

#:#C can not adopt a rule prohibitin' the filin' of


33/41

certain pleadin's in the re'ular courts. The power to pro!ul'ate rules concernin' pleadin's,practice and procedure in all courts is ested on the /upre!e Court.

3avellana v DILG

"/ection 9L of the :ocal 5oern!ent Code of 1991 and :5 e!orandu! Circular %o. 9L

81 does not iolate +rticle . /ection K of the Constitution. %either the statute nor thecircular trenches upon the /upre!e Court3s power and authority to prescribe rules on thepractice of law.$

The :ocal 5oern!ent Code and :5 e!orandu! Circular %o. 9L81 si!ply prescriberules of conduct for public officials to aoid conflicts of interest between the dischar'e of their public duties and the priate practice of their profession, in those instances where the lawallows it.

SECTION <

Ma&e$a v 'asB,ez

n the absence of any ad!inistratie action taen a'ainst a person by the Court with re'ardto his certificates of serice, the inesti'ation bein' conducted by the >!buds!anencroaches into the Court3s power of ad!inistratie superision oer all courts and itspersonnel, in iolation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Ahere a cri!inal co!plaint a'ainst a =ud'e or other court e!ployee arises fro! theirad!inistratie duties, the >!buds!an !ust defer action on said co!plaint and refer thesa!e to the Court for deter!ination whether said =ud'e or court e!ployee had acted withinthe scope of their ad!inistratie duties.

RaB,za v 3,$#e Castane$a2 3-.

The rules een in an ad!inistratie case de!ands that if the respondent =ud'e should bedisciplined for 'rae !isconduct or any 'raer offense, the eidence presented a'ainst hi!should be co!petent and deried fro! direct nowled'e. The 6udiciary, to which respondentbelon's, no less de!ands that before its !e!ber could be faulted, it should be only afterdue inesti'ation and based on co!petent proofs, no less. This is all the !ore so when as inthis case the char'es are penal in nature.

"3isconduct3 also i!plies 3a wron'ful intention and not a !ere error of 6ud'!ent. t resultsthat een if respondent were not correct in his le'al conclusions, his 6udicial actuationscannot be re'arded as 'rae !isconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently appears.$

SECTION 1=

Nta(an v Co!!ssone- o( Inte-nal Reven,e

The clear intent of the Constitutional Co!!ission was to delete the proposed e-press 'rantof e-e!ption fro! pay!ent of inco!e ta- to !e!bers of the =udiciary, so as to M'iesubstance to eGuality a!on' the three branches of 5oern!ent.*

SECTION 11

De La Llana v Al"a


34/41

=udiciary +ct does not iolate 6udicial security of tenure. This Court is e!powered Mtodiscipline 6ud'es of inferior courts and, by a ote of at least ei'ht !e!bers, order theirdis!issal.M Thus, it possesses the co!petence to re!oe 6ud'es. Inder the =udiciary +ct, itwas the President who was ested with such power.


35/41

Ahat is e-pected of the 6udiciary Mis that the decision rendered !aes clear why eitherparty preailed under the applicable law to the facts as established. %or is there any re'idfor!ula as to the lan'ua'e to be e!ployed to satisfy the reGuire!ent of clarity anddistinctness. The discretion of the particular 6ud'e in this respect, while not unli!ited, isnecessarily broad. There is no sacra!ental for! of words which he !ust use upon pain ofbein' considered as hain' failed to abide by what the Constitution directs.M

The proision has been held to refer only to decisions of the !erits and not to orders of thetrial court resolin' incidental !atters such as the one at bar. "content of the resolution&incident in the prosecution of petitioner$

%o--o!eo v Co,-t o( A++eals

The Court re!inds all lower courts, lawyers, and liti'ants that it disposes of the bul of itscases by !inute resolutions and decrees the! as final and e-ecutory, as where a case ispatently without !erit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decisionappealed fro! is supported by substantial eidence and is in accord with the facts of the

case and the applicable laws, where it is clear fro! the records that the petition is filed!erely to forestall the early e-ecution of 6ud'!ent and for nonco!pliance with the rules.The resolution denyin' due course or dis!issin' the petition always 'ies the le'al basis.

Ahen the Court, after deliberatin' on a petition and any subseGuent pleadin's,!anifestations, co!!ents, or !otions decides to deny due course to the petition and statesthat the Guestions raised are factual or no reersible error in the respondent court3s decisionis shown or for so!e other le'al basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient co!pliancewith the constitutional reGuire!ent.

inute resolutions need not be si'ned by the !e!bers of the Court who too part in thedeliberations of a case nor do they reGuire the certification of the Chief =ustice.

*o!ats, In$,st-es P)ls. In& v Co,-t o( A++eals

t has lon' been settled that this Court has discretion to decide whether a M!inuteresolutionM should be used in lieu of a fullblown decision in any particular case and that a!inute


36/41

for!al certification is not reGuired.

Ol an$ Nat,-al Gas Co!!sson v Co,-t o( A++eals

The constitutional !andate that no decision shall be rendered by any court withoute-pressin' therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not

preclude the alidity of M!e!orandu! decisionsM which adopt by reference the findin's offact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.

SECTION 1: not 1


37/41

MThe Co!!ission on #lections shall hae e-clusie char'e of the enforce!ent andad!inistration of all laws relatie to the conduct of elections and shall e-ercise all otherfunctions which !ay be conferred upon it by law. t shall decide, sae those inolin' theri'ht to ote, all ad!inistratie Guestions affectin' elections, includin' the deter!ination ofthe nu!ber of location of pollin' places, and the appoint!ent of election inspectors and of

other election officials . . . The decisions, orders and rulin's of the Co!!ission shall besub6ect to reiew by the /upre!e Court.M

Mateo v. CA

The hirin' and firin' of e!ployees of 'oern!entowned and controlled corporations are'oerned by the proisions of the Ciil /erice :aw and


38/41

deter!ine the ind or nature of the appoint!ent e-tended by the appointin' officer, itsauthority bein' li!ited to approin' or reiewin' the appoint!ent in the li'ht of thereGuire!ents of the Ciil /erice :aw. +pproal is !ore appropriately called an attestation,that is, of the fact that the appointee is Gualified for the position to which he has been na!ed.

P-ovn&e o( Ca!a-nes S,- v. CA

:ac of ciil serice eli'ibility !aes an appoint!ent te!porary( thus, the appoint!ent isreocable at any ti!e "without a fi-ed and definite ter!$ or dependent upon the pleasure ofthe appointin' power. >btainin' the ciil serice le'ibility later on does not ipso facto conerta te!porary appoint!ent into a per!anent one.

SSS E!+loees Asso&aton v. CA

The ri'ht of 'oern!ent e!ployees to or'ani?e does not include the ri'ht to strie.

/ection 7

Cvl L"e-tes Unon v. E4e&,tve Se&-eta-Ahile all other appointie officials in the ciil serice are allowed to hold other office ore!ploy!ent in the 'oern!ent durin' their tenure when such is allowed by tlaw and thepri!ary function of their office, Cabinet !e!bers, their deputies, and assistants !ay only doso when e-pressly authori?ed by the Constitution itself.

Flo-es v. D-lon

The proiso which states, )Proided, howeer, that for the first year of its operations fro! theeffectiity of this +ct, the !ayor of the City of >lon'apo shall be appointed as the chair!anand chief e-ecutie officer of the /ubic +uthority*, iolates the constitutional prohibitiona'ainst appoint!ent or desi'nation of electie officials to other 'oern!ent posts.

/ection 8

J,!son v. Ozaeta

The e!ploy!ent of a person as an a'ent collector is not itself unlawful because there is noinco!patibility between aid appoint!ent and his e!ploy!ent as eputy Proincial Treasurer and unicipal Treasurer. There is no le'al ob6ection to 'oern!ent official occupyin' two'oern!ent offices and perfor!in' functions to both as lon' as there is no inco!patibility.The Constitutional prohibition refers to double appoint!ents and perfor!ance of functions of!ore than one office.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

/ection 1

Caetano v. Monso$

Practice of law !eans any actiity, in or out of court, which reGuires the application of law,le'al procedure, nowled'e, trainin' and e-perience. To en'a'e in the practice of law is toperfor! those acts which are characteristics of the profession. 5enerally, to practice law is to


39/41

'ie notice or render any ind of serice which deice or serice reGuires the use in anyde'ree of le'al nowled'e or sill.

%-llantes v. Yo-a&

The President has no authority to !ae desi'nation of a Co!elec Chair!an in an +ctin'

Capacity. The choice of te!porary Chair!an in the absence of the re'ular chair!an co!esunder the discretion of the Co!elec. t cannot be e-ercised by the President. + desi'nation

+s +ctin' Chair!an is by its ery ter!s essentially te!porary and therefore reocable at will.%o cause need be established to 6ustify its reocation.

Ln$o v. Co!ele&

Co!elecDs state!ent that fae and spurious ballots !ay hae been introduced to increasethe otes of protestant cannot be !ade a basis for denyin' the e-ecution pendin' appeal.

/ection 4

/ar!iento s. Co!elec

Pursuant to /ection 1 of #:#C in diision. /hould a party be dissatisfied with the decision, he !ay file a !otionfor reconsideration before the C>#:#C en banc. t is, therefore, the decision, order orrulin' of the C>#:#C en banc that, in accordance with +rt. 0, +, /ection 7, M!ay bebrou'ht to the /upre!e Court on certiorari.M

/ection J

%ational Press Club s. Co!elec

The Co!elec has also been 'ranted the ri'ht to superise and re'ulate the e-ercise by!edia practitioners the!seles of their ri'ht to e-pression durin' plebiscite periods. ediapractitioners e-ercisin' their freedo! of e-pression durin' plebiscite periods are neither thefranchise holders nor the candidates. n fact, there are no candidates inoled in a plebiscite.

Teleco!!unications and Broadcast +ttorneys of the Philippines s 5+

t is ar'ued that the power to superise or re'ulate 'ien to the C>#:#C under +rt. 0C,


40/41

/ection J of the Constitution does not include the power to prohibit. n the first place, whatthe C>#:#C is authori?ed to superise or re'ulate by +rt. 0C, /ection J of theConstitution, a!on' other thin's, is the use by !edia of infor!ation of their franchises orper!its, while what Con'ress "not the C>#:#C$ prohibits is the sale or donation of printspace or air ti!e for political ads. n other words, the ob6ect of superision or re'ulation isdifferent fro! the ob6ect of the prohibition. t is another fallacy for petitioners to contend that

the power to re'ulate does not include the power to prohibit. This !ay hae force if theob6ect of the power were the sa!e.

+dion' s. C>#:#C

The postin' of decals and sticers on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other !oin'ehicles needs the consent of the owner of the ehicle. @ence, the preference of the citi?enbeco!es crucial in this ind of election propa'anda not the financial resources of thecandidate. Ahether the candidate is rich and, therefore, can afford to doleout !ore decalsand sticers or poor and without the !eans to spread out the nu!ber of decals and sticersis not as i!portant as the ri'ht of the owner to freely e-press his choice and e-ercise hisri'ht of free speech. The owner can een prepare his own decals or sticers for postin' on

his personal property. To strie down this ri'ht and en6oin it is i!per!issible encroach!ent of his liberties.

/anidad s. C>#:#C

Co!elec spaces and Co!elec radio ti!e !ay proide a foru! for e-pression but they do not'uarantee full disse!ination of infor!ation to the public concerned because they are li!itedto either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or teleision ti!es.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT

/#CT>% 2

5I#+


41/41

>/#%+ / C>+

+ co!pro!ise a'ree!ent between a !unicipal corporation "Cebu City$ and the parents oficti! "/pouses dela Cerna$ was constitutional. The participation of the city in an a!icablesettle!ent and eentual e-ecution of a co!pro!ise is indubitable within the power andauthority of a !unicipal corporation. %otably, the co!pro!ise a'ree!ent was sub!itted to

its le'islatie council, which approed it confor!ably with its established rules andprocedure.

/+B#: / P%C# >F /+B#:+

C>+ has the re'ulatory power to ensure that 'oern!ent funds and properties are fullyprotected and consered and that irre'ular unnecessary, e-cessie, or e-traa'ante-penditures or uses of funds owned by, or pertainin' to the 5oern!ent or any of itssubdiisions, a'encies of instru!entalities are preented.

BI/T++%T# / C>+

iscretion e-ercised by C>+ in the denial of the appeal "on the decision of a + can adised P+: to desist fro! biddin'the its fuel upon e-piration of contracts

B+5+T/%5 / C>TT## >% P%

C>+, the a'ency that adopted the rules on biddin' procedure to be followed by 'oern!entoffices and corporations, upheld the le'ality of biddin' althou'h there is only one offeror "2were disGualified bid below floor price and technical reasons$ since the C>+ Circular doesnot spea of accepted bids but of offerors, without distinction as to whether they weredisGualified. The interpretation of an a'ency of its own rules should be 'ien !ore wei'htthan the interpretation by the a'ency of the law it is !erely tased to ad!inister.

constitutional law case doctrines

Documents