Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) vs. Zamora Civilian Supremacy

In response to the alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila, President Joseph Estrada exercised his powers as the Commander-In-Chief to call out the Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent and suppress lawless violence. This temporary arrangement involved the establishment of Task Force Tulungan to facilitate and organize the partnership of the PNP and Marines in the planned visibility patrols around the metropolis. The IBP then filed a petition for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and the nullification of the order of President Estrada on the grounds of its alleged unconstitutionality. Although there is separation of powers, the limited power of the judiciary to impede on acts left to the discretion of the executive, there is nevertheless an opening for judicial review to determine potential unconstitutionalities and whether or not there has been an abuse of discretion leading to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The issues here are:1) Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing2) Whether or not the Presidents factual determination of the necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial review3) Whether or not the Tulungan arrangement violates constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and the civilian character of the PNP

In response:1) The petitioner has inadequate legal standing since there is no direct damage or injury in the enactment of said act to any of the petitioners. It also lacks grounds for transcendental significance. However, in some cases, the court is liberal and permits the cognizance of such cases as for instance in this case wherein it was held to inevitably resurface and thus the court chose to resolve it now. 2) It is subject to judicial review because the grant of power is qualified, conditional, or subject to limitations, the issue of the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met or the limitations respected, is justiciable the problem being one of legality or validity, not its wisom3) Tulungan does not violate civilian supremacy for the following reasons:a. The obligations, participation, and authority of the military is clearly spelled out in its mandateb. Police officers are given authority over marines and the overall leader will be the chief of the PNPc. It is a temporary arrangementd. No marines have been signed or officially designated positions in the PNP

The court held: Petition is hereby dismissed.

Kilosbayan, Incorporated vs. Morato

The former Contract of Lease between PCSO and PGMC was declared void as it had features that contradicted with the PCSO charter. It stated that PCSO lacked the funds and capability to operate the online lottery system and will thus remain dependent on the PGMC for the duration of the contract. However, PGMC will then also bear the costs in case ticket sales were insufficient. These features contrary to the PCSO charter made the courts determine this agreement as more of a joint venture agreement than a contract of lease.

A subsequent new Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) was entered into by the two parties with features consistent with the PCSO charter. It removed prior problematic features and stated that PCSO will now have to bear all costs as well as the logistical operation of the lottery system. It assured the minimum rental payment of Php35,000 (4.3% of gross ticket sales). All repairs and service costs will then also be covered by PCSO and upgrades to be negotiated in future agreements.

This ELA was contended based on the prior rejected agreement: its conflict with the PCSO charter and rule on public bidding. It was claimed that the prior decision was the law of the case and should not be reopened. Court decided to reopen the case as the former ruling was not the law of the case since it involved different cases and issues. The first issue was the compliance of the agreement with the PCSO Charter but the second was the authority of the plaintiffs to sue.

The issues here are whether or not the plaintiffs have the right to sue and if the ELA is contrary to the PCSO charter.

Authority of the plaintiff to sue was denied due to their lack of proof that they are the real party in interest the party benefitting or injured by the judgment.

The PCSO is authorized to enter into contracts as long as PCSO will retain control in the implementation of the lottery, not an external party. Also, the ELA does not make PCSO invest or favor competitor corporations. This contract is not subject to public bidding as EO 301 it applies only to purchase and not lease of equipment.

The court held: the petition for prohibition, review, and/or injunction seeking to declare the ELA invalid is dismissed.