polrev cases

8/9/2019 PolRev Cases

1/63

STANDING OF IBPIBP v. ZAMORA

Facts: At bar is a special civil action for certiorari andprohibition with prayer for issuance of a temporaryrestraining order seeking to nullity on constitutionalgrounds the order of President Joseph Ejercito Estradacommanding the deployment of the Philippine Marines(the Marines) to join the Philippine ational Police (the

!PP!) in visibility patrols around the metropolis"#ormulated $etter of %nstruction &''&&& (the !$*%!)which detailed the manner by which the joint visibilitypatrols+ called ,ask #orce ,ulungan+ would beconducted" ' ,ask #orce ,ulungan was placed underthe leadership of the Police -hief of Metro Manilathrough a sustained street patrolling to minimi.e oreradicate all forms of high/profile crimes especiallythose perpetrated by organi.ed crime syndicateswhose members include those that are well/trained+disciplined and well/armed active or formerPPMilitary personnel"

Held: 01E2E#*2E+ premises considered+ thepetition is hereby 3%4M%44E3" 4* *23E2E3"

Ratio: ,he 5uestion of deployment of the Marines isnot proper for judicial scrutiny since the same involvesa political 5uestion6 that the organi.ation and conductof police visibility patrols+ which feature the team/up ofone police officer and one Philippine Marine soldier+does not violate the civilian supremacy clause in the-onstitution"

In view of standin Apart from this declaration+ however+ the %7P assertsno other basis in support of its locus standi ,he mereinvocation by the %7P of its duty to preserve the rule oflaw and nothing more+ while undoubtedly true+ is notsufficient to clothe it with standing in this case"

ational President of the %7P who signed the petition+is his alone+ absent a formal board resolutionauthori.ing him to file the present action" %ndeed+ noneof its members+ whom the %7P purportedly represents+has sustained any form of injury as a result of theoperation of the joint visibility patrols"

evertheless+ the -ourt does not automaticallyassume jurisdiction over actual constitutional cases

brought before it even in instances that are ripe forresolution" *ne class of cases wherein the -ourthesitates to rule on are 88political 5uestions"! ,hereason is that political 5uestions are concerned withissues dependent upon the wisdom+ not the legality+ ofa particular act or measure being assailed" Moreover+the political 5uestion being a function of the separationof powers+ the courts will not normally interfere with theworkings of another co/e5ual branch unless the caseshows a clear need for the courts to step in to upholdthe law and the -onstitution"

STANDING OF TH! GO"!RNM!NT TO #$!STIONITS O%N &A%S

P!OP&! " "!RAFA'TS:-u/9njieng was convicted of criminal charges by thetrial court of Manila" 1e filed a motion forreconsideration and four motions for new trial but all

were denied" 1e then elevated to the 4upreme -ourtof 9nited 4tates for review+ which was also denied" ,he4- denied the petition subse5uently filed by -u/9njieng for a motion for new trial and thereafterremanded the case to the court of origin for e:ecutionof the judgment" -#% of Manila referred the applicationfor probation of the %nsular Probation *ffice whichrecommended denial of the same" $ater+ ;th branch of-#% Manila set the petition for hearing" ,he #iscal filedan opposition to the granting of probation to -u9njieng+ alleging+ among other things+ that Act o"


2/63


3/63

observed" (Petition originally dismissed by the-our t due to failure to submit certified true copy of thedecision+ but reinstated it anyway")

Iss-e: 0* the lower court has jurisdiction toconsider the con stitutionality of 4ec D; of the$?-

Held: Les" 7P 'B vests in the regional trial courts

jurisdiction over all civil cases in whichthe subject ofthe litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation"Moreover+ Article =+ 4ectionH (' ) + o f th e- o n s t i t u t i o n v e s t s i n t h e 4 u p r e m e - o u r tapp el l ate ju r is dic t io n o ver f in al judgmentsand orders of lower courts in all cases in which theconstitutionality or validity of any treaty+ international or e:ecutive agreement+ law+ presidential decree+proclamation+order+ instruction+ ordinance+ or regulationis in 5uestion"%n the e:erc ise of this jurisd iction +lower courts are advised to act with theutmostcircumspection+ bearing in mind theconse5uences of a declaration of

unconstitutionalityupon the stability of laws+ noless than on the doctrine of separation ofpowers" %t is al soemphasi.ed that every court+including this -ourt+ is charged with the duty of apurposefulhesitation before declaring a lawunconstitutional+ on the theory that the measure wasfirstcarefully studied by the e:ecutive and thelegislative departments and determined by themto bein accordance with the fundamental law before it wasfinally approved" ,o doubt is tosustain" ,hepresumption of constitutionality can be overcome onlyby the clearest showingthat there was indeed aninfraction of the -onstitution"

DO'TRIN! OF OP!RATI"! FA'T

Re)-0lic "s. 'A#acts@2epublic of the Philippines has sought thee:propriation of certain portions of land owned by theprivate respondents for the widening and concreting ofthe abua/7ato/Agos 4ection+ Philippine/Japan1ighway $oan (PJ1$) road" 0hile the right of the2epublic is not now disputed+ the private respondents+however+ demand that the just compensation for theproperty should be based on fair market value and notthat set by Presidential 3ecree o" ;C+ as amended+

which fi:es payment on the basis of the assessment bythe assessor or the declared valuation by the owner+whichever is lower" ,he 2egional+ ,rial -ourt ruled forthe private respondents" 0hen elevated to it+ the -ourtof Appeals affirmed the trial court8s decision"

1eld@ ,here are two views on the effects of adeclaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute"

,he first is the orthodox view " 9nder this rule+ as

announced in Norton v. Shelby + an unconstitutional act

is not a law6 it confers no right6 it imposes no duties6 it

affords no protection6 it creates no office6 it is+ in legal

contemplation+ inoperative+ as if it had not been

passed" %t is therefore stricken from the statute books

and considered never to have e:isted at all" ot only

the parties but all persons are bound by the declaration

of unconstitutionality+ which means that no one may

thereafter invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to

apply it in subse5uent cases" %t is+ in other words+ atotal nullity",he second or modern view is less stringent" 9nder

this view+ the court in passing upon the 5uestion of

constitutionality does not annul or repeal the statute if it

finds it in conflict with the -onstitution" %t simply refuses

to recogni.e it and determines the rights of the parties

just as if such statute had no e:istence" ,he court may

give its reasons for ignoring or disregarding the law+

but the decision affects the parties only and there is no

judgment against the statute" ,he opinion or reasons of

the court may operate as a precedent for the

determination of other similar cases+ but it does not

strike the statute from the statute books6 it does not

repeal+ supersede+ revoke+ or annul the statute" ,he

parties to the suit are concluded by the judgment+ but

no one else is bound",he orthodo: view is e:pressed in Article ; of the -ivil

-ode+ providing that !when the courts declare a law to

be inconsistent with the -onstitution+ the former shall

be void and the latter shall govern" " " "1

,he strict view considers a legislative enactment which

is declared unconstitutional as being+ for all legal

intents and purposes+ a total nullity+ and it is deemedas if had never e:isted" 1ere+ of course+ we refer to the

law itself being per se repugnant to the -onstitution" %t

is not always the case+ however+ that a law is

constitutionally faulty per se" ,hus+ it may well be valid

in its general import" but invalid in its application to

certain factual situations" ,o e:emplify+ an otherwise

valid law may be held unconstitutional only insofar as it

is allowed to operate retrospectively such as+ in

pertinent cases+ when it vitiates contractually vested

rights" ,o that e:tent+ its retroactive application may be

so declared invalid as impairing the obligations of

contracts" 2 A judicial declaration of invalidity+ it is also true+ may

not necessarily obliterate all the effects and

conse5uences of a void act occurring prior to such a

declaration"

T3e Baselines &awMaallona v. !+ita

Facts:


4/63

%n BC+ -ongress passed 2"A" K&


5/63

child was only ten years of age when #lorentino diedand so #rancisco then took charge of #lorentinosinsurance proceeds for the benefit of the child"*n the other hand+ the mother of the child Melchora-abanas filed a complaint seeking the delivery of theinsurance proceeds in favor and for her to be declaredas the childs trustee" #rancisco asserted the terms ofthe insurance policy and that as a private contract itsterms and obligations must be binding only to the

parties and intended beneficiaries"

ISS$!: 0hether or not the state may interfere by

virtue of Fparens patriaeG to the terms of the insurance

policy"

H!&D: Les" ,he -onstitution provides for the

strengthening of the family as the basic social unit+ and

that whenever any member thereof such as in the case

at bar would be prejudiced and his interest be affected

then the judiciary if a litigation has been filed should

resolve that case according to the best interest of that

person" ,he uncle here should not be the trustee+ itshould be the mother as she was the immediate

relative of the minor child and it is assumed that the

mother shall show more care towards the child than

the uncle will" ,he application of )a+ens )at+iae here

is in consonance with this countrys tradition of favoring

conflicts in favor of the family hence preference to the

parent (mother) is observed"

&A%4!RS &!AG$! "S. A#$INO#A-,4@

*n #ebruary 'H+ BDC+ President -ora.on A5uinoissued Proclamation o" announcing that she and>ice President $aurel were taking power"*n March 'H+ BDC+ proclamation o"K was issuedproviding the basis of the A5uino governmentassumption of power by stating that the !newgovernment was installed through a direct e:ercise ofthe power of the #ilipino people assisted by units of theew Armed #orces of the Philippines"!

%449E@0hether or not the government of -ora.on A5uino islegitimate"

1E$3@LE4@#or the legitimacy of the A5uino government is not a

justiciable matter" %t belongs to the realm of politicswhere only the people of the Philippines are the judge"

And the people have made the judgment6 they haveaccepted the government of President -ora.on -"

A5uino which is in effective control of the entire countryso that it is not merely a de factogovernment but is infact and law a de jure government" Moreover+ thecommunity of nations has recogni.ed the legitimacy of

the present government" All the eleven members of this-ourt+ as reorgani.ed+ have sworn to uphold thefundamental law of the 2epublic under hergovernment"

!ffects of '3ane of Sove+int*Peo)le v. Pe+fecto

FA'TS: ,he issue started when the 4ecretary of the

Philippine 4enate+ #ernando ?uerrero+ discovered thatthe documents regarding the testimony of the

witnesses in an investigation of oil companies had

disappeared from his office" ,hen+ the day following the

convening of 4enate+ the newspaper $a acion

edited by herein respondent ?regorio Perfecto

published an article against the Philippine 4enate"

1ere+ Mr" Perfecto was alleged to have violated Article

'HC of the 4panish Penal -ode provision that

punishes those who insults the Ministers of the -rown"

1ence+ the issue"

ISS$!: 0hether or not Article 'HC of the 4panishPenal -ode (4P-) is still in force and can be applied in

the case at barN H!&D: o" R!ASONING: ,he -ourt stated that during the

4panish ?overnment+ Article 'HC of the 4P- was

enacted to protect 4panish officials as representatives

of the ing" 1owever+ the -ourt e:plains that in the

present case+ we no longer have ings nor its

representatives for the provision to protect" Also+ with

the change of sovereignty over the Philippines from4panish to American+ it means that the invoked

provision of the 4P- had been automatically

abrogated" ,he -ourt determined Article 'HC of the

4P- to be political in nature for it is about the relation

of the 4tate to its inhabitants+ thus+ the -ourt

emphasi.ed that it is a general principle of the public

law that on acquisition of territory, the previous political

relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated.’

1ence+ Article 'HC of the 4P- is considered no longer

in force and cannot be applied to the present case"

,herefore+ respondent was ac5uitted"

Maca+iola "s. As-ncion 551 S'RA 66

#acts@*n June D+ BCK+ respondent Judge Elias Asuncionrendered a decision in -ivil -ase K&& final for lack ofan appeal"


6/63

*n *ctober C+ BCK+ a project of partition wassubmitted to Judge Asuncion" ,he project of partition of lots was not signed by the parties themselves but onlyby the respective counsel of plaintiffs and petitioner7ernardita 2" Macariola" ,he Judge approved it in hisorder dated *ctober 'K+ BCK"

*ne of the lots in the project of partition was $ot D%%% of the -ivil4ervice 2ules and -anon 'H of the -anons of JudicialEthics"

*n ovember '+ B;& a certain Judge Jose 3"epomuceno dismissed the complaints filed against

Asuncion"

%ssue@0hether or ot the respondent Judge violated thementioned provisions"

2uling@o" Judge Asuncion did not violate the mentionedprovisions constituting of !Acts unbecoming a Judge!but was reminded to be more discreet in his private

and business activities"

2espondent Judge did not buy the lot D#Aviolates R'H+ Article =>%%% of the BD; -onstitution+which provides that Fforeign military bases, troops, or

facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines exceptunder a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate . . . and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

Iss-e: 0as the >#A unconstitutionalN

Held: NO, the VFA is not unconstitutional.

4ection 'H+ Article =>%%% disallows foreignmilitary bases+ troops+ or facilities in the country+ unlessthe following conditions are sufficiently met+ viz! (a) itmust be under a t+eat*6 (b) the treaty must be d-l*conc-++ed in 0* t3e Senate and+ when so re5uired by

congress+ ratified by a majority of the votes cast by thepeople in a national referendum6 and (c) +econi/edas a t+eat* by the other contracting state"

,here is no dispute as to the presence of thefirst two re5uisites in the case of the >#A" ,heconcurrence handed by the 4enate through 2esolutiono" D is in accordance with the provisions of the-onstitution " " " the provision in Sin R'H+ Article =>%%%Tre5uiring ratification by a majority of the votes cast in anational referendum being unnecessary since-ongress has not re5uired it"

::: ::: :::

,his -ourt is of the firm view that thephrase “recognized as a treaty” means that the other contracting party accepts or acknoledges theagreement as a treaty" ,o re5uire the othercontracting state+ the 9nited 4tates of America in thiscase+ to submit the >#A to the 9nited 4tates 4enate for concurrence pursuant to its -onstitution+ is to accordstrict meaning to the phrase"


7/63

0ell/entrenched is the principle that the wordsused in the -onstitution are to be given their ordinarymeaning e:cept where technical terms are employed+in which case the significance thus attached to themprevails" %ts language should be understood in thesense they have in common use"

Moreover+ it is inconse5uential whether the9nited 4tates treats the >#A only as an e:ecutive

agreement because+ under international law+ ane:ecutive agreement is as binding as a treaty" ,o besure+ as long as the >#A possesses the elements of anagreement under international law+ the said agreementis to be taken e5ually as a treaty"

::: ::: :::

,he records reveal that the 9nited 4tates?overnment+ through Ambassador ,homas -"1ubbard+ has stated that the 9nited 4tates governmenthas fully committed to living up to the terms of the>#A" #or as long as the 9nited 4tates of America

accepts or acknowledges the >#A as a treaty+ andbinds itself further to comply with its obligations underthe treaty+ there is indeed marked compliance with themandate of the -onstitution"

$SA "S. R!4!S

FA'TS:Private respondent+ hereinafter referred to as Montoya+is an American citi.en who+ at thetime material to thiscase+ was employed as an identification (%"3") checkerat the 9"4" avyE:change (E=) at the Joint 9nited4tates Military Assistance ?roup (J94MA?)head5uarters inUue.on -ity" 4he is married to oneEdgardo 1" Montoya+ a #ilipino/American servicemanemployedby the 9"4" avy and stationed in 4an#rancisco+ -alifornia" Petitioner Ma:ine 7radford+hereinafterreferred to as 7radford+ is likewise an

American citi.en who was the activity e:changemanager atthe said J94MA? 1ead5uarters"As aconse5uence of an incident which occurred on ''January BD; whereby her body andbelongings weresearched after she had bought some items from theretail store of the E=J94MA?+ where she hadpurchasing privileges+ and while she was already at theparking area+Montoya filed on; May BD; a complaint

with the 2egional ,rial -ourt of her place of residence-avite against 7radford for damages due to theoppressive and discriminatory acts committed by thelatterin e:cess of her authority as store manager of theE= J94MA?"%n support of the motion+ the petitionersclaimed that J94MA?+ composed of an Army+ avyand Air?roup+ had been established under thePhilippine/9nited 4tates Military Assistance

Agreemententered into on ' March B


8/63

,he Doct+ine of State I-nit*sometimes calledFthe royal prerogative of dishonestyGas declaredin the -onstitution affirms+F,he state may not be sued without its consent!" ,his provision is merely recognition of the sovereigncharacter of the state andan e:press affirmationof theunwritten rule insulating it from the jurisdiction of the

courtsof justice"According to Justice1olmes thedoctrine of non/suability is based not on anyformalconception or obsolete theory but onthe logicaland practical ground that there can be no legal rightagainst the authority+ which makesthe law on which theright depends" Another justification is the practicalconsideration that thedemands and inconveniences oflitigation will divert the time and resources of the statefrom themore pressing matters demanding itsattention+ to the prejudice of the public welfare",hedoctrine is also available to foreign states insofar asthey are sought to be sued in the courts ofthe localstate" ,he added basis in this case is the principle of

the sovereigne5uality of states+ underwhichone statecannot assert jurisdiction over another inviolation of thema:impar in parem non habet imperium" ,o do so would Funduly ve: thepeace of nations"! !(e)tion: A+ticle 5 of t3e "ienna 'onvention onDi)loatic Relations adits ofe(ce)tions. It +eads:

A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving 4tate"1e shall also enjoyimmunity from its civil and administrative jurisdictione:cept in the caseof@::: ::: :::(c) an action relating to any professionalor commercial activity e:ercised by the diplomaticagent in the receiving 4tate outside his officialfunctions

I-nit* of Fo+ein States ; Di)loats7 Pa+ in)a+e non 3a0et i)e+i-7 P+ocess of S-estion

HO&4 S!! v. RT'

Facts: ,his petition arose from a controversy over aparcel of land+ $ot H/A+ located in the Municipality ofParaVa5ue+ Metro Manila and registered in the nameof petitioner" 4aid $otH/A is contiguous to $otsH/7 andH/3registered in the name of the Philippine 2ealty

-orporation (P2-)" ,he three lots were sold to 2amon$icup+ through Msgr" 3omingo A" -irilos+ Jr"+ acting asagent to the sellers" $ater+ $icup assigned his rights tothe sale to private respondent+ 4tarbright Enterprises",he s5uatters refused to vacate the lots sold to privaterespondent so a dispute arose as to who of the partieshas the responsibility of evicting and clearing the landof s5uatters occurred" -omplicating the relations of theparties was the sale by petitioner of $ot H/A to,ropicana Properties and 3evelopment -orporation(,ropicana)"Private respondent filed a complaint for

annulment of the sale of the three parcels of land+ andspecific performance and damages against petitioner+represented by the Papal uncio+ and three otherdefendants@ namely+ Msgr" 3omingo A" -irilos+ Jr"+ theP2- and ,ropicana"

Held:

I-nit* f+o s-it: LE4" ,he logical 5uestion is

whether the foreign state is engaged in the activity inthe regular course of business" %f the foreign state isnot engaged regularly in a business or trade+ theparticular act or transaction must then be tested by itsnature" %f the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity+ oran incident thereof+ then it is an act jure imperiiespecially when it is not undertaken for gain orprofit"$otH/A was ac5uired by petitioner as a donationfrom the Archdiocese of Manila" ,he donation wasmade not for commercial purpose+ but for the use ofpetitioner to construct thereon the official place ofresidence of the Papal uncio" ,he right of a foreignsovereign to ac5uire property+ real or personal+ in a

receiving state+ necessary for the creation andmaintenance of its diplomatic mission+ is recogni.ed inthe BC >ienna -onvention on 3iplomatic 2elations"%n Article K(a) of the -onvention+ a diplomatic envoy isgranted immunity from the civil and administrative

jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real actionrelating to private immovable property situated in theterritory of the receiving state which the envo yholds onbehalf of the sending state for the purposes of themission" %f this immunity is provided for a diplomaticenvoy+ with all the more reason should immunity berecogni.ed as regards the sovereign itself+ which inthis case is the 1oly 4ee"

otes@ ,here are two conflicting concepts of sovereignimmunity+ according to the 4upreme -ourt@ (a)-lassical or absolute theory@ a sovereign cannot+without its consent+ be made a respondent in thecourts of another sovereign6 and (b) 2estrictive theorythe immunity of the sovereign is recogni.ed only withregard to public acts or acts jure imperii (public acof astate+ but not with regard to private acts or acts juregestionis" J92E %MPE2%% A3 J92E ?E4,%*%4" /!,here are two conflicting concepts of sovereignimmunity+ each widely held and firmly established"

According to the classical or absolute theory+ asovereign cannot+ without its consent+ be made a

respondent in the -ourts of another sovereign" According to the newer or restrictive theory+ theimmunity of the sovereign is recogni.ed only withregard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state+ butnot with regard to private act or acts jure gestionis" : :: -ertainly+ the mere entering into a contract by aforeign state with a private party cannot be the ultimatetest" 4uch an act can only be the start of the in5uiry",he logical 5uestion is whether the foreign state isengaged in the activity in the regular course ofbusiness" %f the foreign state is not engaged regularly


9/63

in a business or trade+ the particular act or transactionmust then be tested by its nature" %f the act is in pursuitof a sovereign activity+ or an incident thereof+ then it isan act jure imperii+ especially when it is not undertakenfor gain or profit"! ,he service contracts referred to byprivate respondent have not been intended by the A37for profit or gain but are official acts over which awaiver of immunity would not attach"

Pa+ in )a+e non 3a0et i)e+i-: An e5ual has nopower over an e5ual

P+ocess of S-estion: %n the 9nited 4tates+ the

procedure followed is the process of !suggestion+!

where the foreign state or the international organi.ation

sued in an American court re5uests the 4ecretary of

4tate to make a determination as to whether it is

entitled to immunity" %f the 4ecretary of 4tate finds that

the defendant is immune from suit+ he+ in turn+ asks the

Attorney ?eneral to submit to the court a !suggestion!that the defendant is entitled to immunity" %n England+ a

similar procedure is followed+ only the #oreign *ffice

issues a certification to that effect instead of submitting

a !suggestion! (*8-onnell+ % %nternational $aw K&

SBCHT6 ote@ %mmunity from 4uit of #oreign 4overeign

%nstrumentalities and *bligations+ H& Lale $aw Journal

&DD SB


10/63

(') *" Preliminary %nvestigation is not a matter of right incases cogni.able by the Me,- such as this case"7eing purely a statutory right+ preliminary investigationmay be invoked only when specifically granted by law",he rule on criminal procedure is clear that nopreliminary investigation is re5uired in cases fallingwithin the jurisdiction of the Me,-"

I-nit* of inte+national o+ani/ations and

AenciesS!AFD!' v. N&R'

FA'TS@, wo l abor cases were f i l ed by t he h e re i np r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t s a g a i n s t t h epe t i t i on er+ 4outheast Asian #isheries3evelopment -enter (4EA#3E-)+ before theational $abor2elations -ommission ($2-)+2egional Arbitration 7ranch+ %loilo -ity" %n these cases+theprivate respondents claim having been wrongfullyterminated from their employment by thepetitioner",hepetitioner+ who claims to be an international inter/

government organi.ation composedof various4outheast Asian countries+ filed a Motion to 3ismiss+challenged the jurisdictionof the public respondent intaking cogni.ance of the above cases",he privaterespondents+ as well as respondent labor arbiter+allege that the petitioner is notimmune from su it andassuming that if+ indeed+ it is an internatio nalorgani.ation+ it has+ho wever+ impliedly+ if note:pressly+ waived its immunity by belatedlyraising t he issue of jurisdiction"

ISS$!@0hether or not the petitioner is immune from suit"

R$&ING@,he -ourt ruled for the petitioner" %t is beyond5uestion that petitioner 4EA#3E- isaninternational agency enjoying diplomaticimmunity" %t has already been he ld in4outheastAsian #isheries 3evelopment -enter/

A5uaculture 3epartment vs" ational $abor2elations-ommission (?"2" o" DC;;K+ '&C 4-2A'DKBB')" Petitioner 4outheast Asian#isheries3evelopment -enter/A5uaculture 3epartment(4EA#3E-/AU3) is an international agencybeyond the

jurisdiction of public respondent $2-"7e ing anintergovernmental organi.ation+ 4EA#3E-

including its 3epartments (AU3)+enjoys functionalindependence and freedom from control of the state inwhose territory itsoffice i s located" *ne of thebasic immunities of an internationalorgani.ation is immunityfrom local jurisdiction+ i"e"+that it is immune from the legal writs and processesissued by thetribunals of the country where it is found",he obvious reason for this is that the subjectionofs u c h a n o r g a n i . a t i o n t o t h e a u t h o r i t y o ft h e l o c a l c o u r t s w o u l d a f f o r d aco n ve n i e n t medium thru which the host government

may interfere in their operations or even influenceorcontrol its policies and decisions of theorgani.ation6 besides+ such objection tolocal jurisdiction would impair the capacity of suchbody to discharge its responsibilitiesimpartially onbehalf of its member/states"

'A&&ADO "S. IRRIFacts: Ernesto -allado+ petitioner+ was employed as a

driver at the %22%" *ne day while driving an %22%vehicle on an official trip to the A%A and back to the%22%+ petitioner figured in an accident"

Petitioner was informed of the findings of a preliminaryinvestigation conducted by the %22%8s 1uman 2esource3evelopment 3epartment Manager" %n view of thefindings+ he was charged with@

() 3riving an institute vehicle while on officialduty under the influence of li5uor6(') 4erious misconduct consisting of failure to report tosupervisors the failure of the vehicle to start because of a problem with the car battery+ and

(K) ?ross and habitual neglect of duties"

Petitioner submitted his answer and defenses to thecharges against him" 1owever+ %22% issued a otice of ,ermination to petitioner"

,hereafter+ petitioner filed a complaint before the $abor Arbiter for illegal dismissal+ illegal suspension andindemnity pay with moral and e:emplary damages andattorney8s fees"

%22% wrote the $abor Arbiter to inform him that the%nstitute enjoys immunity from legal process by virtueof Article K of Presidential 3ecree o" C'&+ 2 and thatit invokes such diplomatic immunity and privileges asan international organi.ation in the instant case filed bypetitioner+ not having waived the same"

0hile admitting %22%8s defense of immunity+ the &a0o+A+0ite+ + nonetheless+ cited an *rder issued by the%nstitute to the effect that !in all cases of termination+respondent %22% waives its immunity+! and+accordingly+ considered the defense of immunity nolonger a legal obstacle in resolving the case"

,he N&R' found merit in private respondent8s appealand+ finding that %22% did not waive its immunity+

ordered the aforesaid decision of the $abor Arbiter setaside and the complaint dismissed"

%n this petition petitioner contends that the immunity ofthe %22% as an international organi.ation granted by

Article K of Presidential 3ecree o" C'& may not beinvoked in the case at bench inasmuch as it waived thesame by virtue of its Memorandum on !?uidelines onthe handling of dismissed employees in relation to P"3"C'&"!


11/63

Iss-e: 3id the (%22%) waive its immunity from suit inthis dispute which arose from an employer/employeerelationshipN

Held: o"

P"3" o" C'&+ Article K provides@ )rt. . "mmunity from -egal Process. +he "nstitute shall en%oy immunity from any penal, civil and administrative

proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has beenexpressly waived by the irector/0eneral of the"nstitute or his authorized representatives.

,he 4- upholds the constitutionality of the afore5uotedlaw" ,here is in this case !a categorical recognition bythe E:ecutive 7ranch of the ?overnment that %22%enjoys immunities accorded to internationalorgani.ations+ which determination has been held to bea political 5uestion conclusive upon the -ourts in order not to embarass a political department of ?overnment"%t is a recogni.ed principle of international law andunder our system of separation of powers that

diplomatic immunity is essentially a political 5uestionand courts should refuse to look beyond adetermination by the e:ecutive branch of thegovernment+ and where the plea of diplomaticimmunity is recogni.ed and affirmed by the e:ecutivebranch of the government as in the case at bar+ it isthen the duty of the courts to accept the claim ofimmunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principallaw officer of the government or other officer actingunder his direction"

,he raison d1etre for these immunities is the assuranceof unimpeded performance of their functions by theagencies concerned"

,he grant of immunity to %22% is clear and une5uivocaland an e:press waiver by its 3irector/?eneral is theonly way by which it may relin5uish or abandon thisimmunity"

%n cases involving dismissed employees+ the %nstitutemay waive its immunity+ signifying that such waiver isdiscretionary on its part"

DFA v. N&R'

Facts:

*n '; January BBK+ private respondent Magnayi filedan illegal dismissal case against A37" ,wosummonses were served+ one sent directly to the A37and the other through the 3epartment of #oreign

Affairs (!3#A!)" A37 and the 3#A notified respondent$abor Arbiter that the A37+ as well as its President and*fficers+ were covered by an immunity from legalprocess e:cept for borrowings+ guaranties or the saleof securities pursuant to Article H&() and Article HH of

the Agreement Establishing the Asian 3evelopment7ank (the !-harter!) in relation to 4ection H and4ection


12/63

'" o" ,he A37 didn8t descend to the level of anordinary party to a commercial transaction+ whichshould have constituted a waiver of its immunity fromsuit+ by entering into service contracts with differentprivate companies" F,here are two conflicting conceptsof sovereign immunity+ each widely held and firmlyestablished" According to the classical or absolutetheory+ a sovereign cannot+ without its consent+ be

made a respondent in the -ourts of anothersovereign" According to the newer or restrictive theory+the immunity of the sovereign is recogni.ed only withregard to public acts or acts %ure imperii of a state+ butnot with regard to private act or acts %ure gestionis"

F-ertainly+ the mere entering into a contract by aforeign state with a private party cannot be the ultimatetest" 4uch an act can only be the start of thein5uiry" ,he logical 5uestion is whether the foreignstate is engaged in the activity in the regular course ofbusiness" %f the foreign state is not engaged regularlyin a business or trade+ the particular act or transaction

must then be tested by its nature" %f the act is inpursuit of a sovereign activity+ or an incident thereof+then it is an act %ure imperii + especially when it is notundertaken for gain or profit"G

,he service contracts referred to by private respondenthave not been intended by the A37 for profit or gainbut are official acts over which a waiver of immunitywould not attach"

M$NI'IPA& 'ORPORATIONS

M-nici)alit* of San Fe+nando vs.


13/63

August '&+ B;C for the release of the5uestionedgoods which the -ourt denied" *n June'+BDC+ C< bales out of the D& bales werereleased to7agong 7uhay after several motion" ,he si:teenremaining bales weremissing" ,he respondent claimsthat of the


14/63

itshould be so is tantamount to unlawfully e:pandingthe provisions of the decree" %n the case at bar+ oneofthe conditions imposed in the Amended 3eed of3onation is that the donee should build asportscomple: on the donated land" 4ince P"3" 'Cclearly re5uires that the K"HW to BW of the grossareaallotted for parks and playgrounds is Fnon/buildable+G then the obvious 5uestion arises whether or notsuch condition was validly imposed and is binding

on the donee" %t is clear that the Fnon/buildableGcharacter applies only to the K"HW to BWarea set by law" %f there is any e:cess land over andabove theK"HW to BW re5uired by the decree+ which isalso used or allocated for parks+ playgroundsandrecreational purposes+ it is obvious that suche:cess area is not covered by the non/buildabilityrestriction" %nasmuch as the constructionand operation of the drug rehabilitation centerhas beenestablished to be contrary to law+ the saidcenter should be removed or demolished" At this

juncture+we hasten to add that this -ourt is and hasalways been four/s5uare behind the governments

efforts toeradicate the drug scourge in this country" 7utthe end never justifies the means+ and howeverlaudablethe purpose of the construction in 5uestion+this -ourt cannot and will not countenance an outrightandcontinuing violation of the laws of the land+especially when committed by public officials"

S-its aainst P-0lic Office+

"ete+ans an)owe+ v 'A

Facts:

,he constitutionality of the followingprovisions of 2"A" HMP4% in its complaint@

4E-" MP4% alleges that the above provisions of2"A" o" HMP4% likewise 5uestions thevalidity of paragraph K+ subparagraph (g) of theModifying 2egulations on the %ssuance of $icense to*perate and Private 4ecurity $icenses and 4pecifying2egulations for the *peration of PA3PA* issued bythen P- -hief $t" ?en" #idel >" 2amos+ through -ol"4abas >" Edades+ re5uiring that Fall private securityagenciescompany security forces must register asmembers of any PA3PA* -hapter organi.ed within the2egion where their main offices are located"""G" As suchmembership re5uirement in PA3PA* is compulsory innature+ it allegedly violates legal and constitutional

provisions against monopolies+ unfair competition andcombinations in restraint of trade"

*n May '+ BDC+ a Memorandum of Agreement was e:ecuted by PA3PA* and the P--hief+ which fi:ed the minimum monthly contract rateper guard for eight (D) hours of security service per dayat P'+'HH"&& within Metro Manila and P'+'H"&&outside of Metro Manila"

*n June 'B+ BD;+ *din 4ecurity Agency(*din) filed a complaint with PA3PA* accusing >MP4%of cut/throat competition by undercutting its contractrate for security services rendered to the Metropolitan0aterworks and 4ewerage 4ystem (M044)+ chargingsaid customer lower than the standard minimum ratesprovided in the Memorandum of Agreement dated May'+ BDC"

PA3PA* found >MP4% guilty of cut/throatcompetition+ hence+ the PA3PA* -ommittee on3iscipline recommended the e:pulsion of >MP4% fromPA3PA* and the cancellation of its license to operatea security agency (Anne: 3+ Petition)"

,he P-/494%A made similar findings andlikewise recommended the cancellation of >MP4%s

license"

As a result+ PA3PA* refused to issue aclearancecertificate of membership to >MP4% when itre5uested one"

>MP4% wrote the P- -hief on March &+ BDD+re5uesting him to set aside or disregard the findings ofPA3PA* and consider >MP4%s application for renewalof its license+ even without a certificate of membershipfrom PA3PA*


15/63


16/63

covered by the principle of state immunity from suit"3oes thegrant of rights+ power+ and authority to the 94 under the 2P/94 7ases ,reaty cover immunity of its officersfrom crimes and tortsN

1E$3@,he general rule is that public officials can be heldpersonally accountable for acts claimed to have been

performed in connection with official duties where theyhave acted ultra vires or where there is showing of badfaith (-have.v" 4andiganbayan)"%t may be argued+ as ageneral rule+ that -apt" 0illiams as commandingofficer of the naval base was far removed in the chainof command from the offensive publication and it wouldbe asking too much to hold him responsible foreverything which goes wrong on the base" 1owever+ inthis particular case+ the records show that the offensivepublication was sent to the commanding officer forapproval and that he approved it" A2," ';C+ --prescribes a civil liability for damages caused by apersons act or omission constituting fault or

negligence+ stating that+ F0hoever by act or omission+causes damage to another+ there beingfault ornegligence+ is obliged to pay for the damage done"4uch fault or negligence+""G Moreover+ A2," ''B(;)+-ivil -ode provides that moral damages may berecovered in case of libel+ slander or any other formof defamation"G%ndeed+ the imputation of theftcontained in the P*3 was a defamation against thecharacter andreputation of the P2" Petitioner 0ylie himself admittedthat the *ffice of the Provost MarshalE:plicitly recommended the deletion of the nameFAuringG if the article will be published" ,hepetitioners+ however+ were E?$%?E, becauseunder their direction+ they issued the publicationwithout deleting the said name" 4uch act oromission was 9$,2A >%2E4 and -A*, be deemed part of official duty" %t was a ,*2,%*94 act whichridiculed the P2" As a result of petitioners act+ P2suffered besmirched reputation+serious an:iety+ wounded feelings and socialhumiliation+ especially so+ since the article wasbaseless and false" ,he petitioners+ alone+ in theirpersonal capacities+ are liable for the damages theycaused the Private 2espondent

!()+ess 'onsent

Re)-0lic v. Feliciano

# A - , 4 @Petitioner seeks the review of the decision of the%ntermediate Appellate -ourt dated April K&+ BDHreversing the order of the -ourt of #irst %nstance of-amarines 4ur+ 7ranch >%+ dated August '+ BD&+which dismissed the complaint of respondent Pablo#eliciano for recovery of ownership and possession of

a parcel of land on the ground of non/suability of the4tate"*n January ''+ B;&+ #eliciano filed a complaintwith the then -ourt of #irst %nstance of -amarines 4uragainst the 2P+represented by the $and Authority+ forthe recovery of ownership and possession of a parcelof land+ consisting of four (


17/63

immunity can only be made by an act of the legislativebody" Addtl@0orthy of note is the fact+ as pointed out by the4olicitor ?eneral+ that theinformacion posesoriaregistered in the*ffice of the 2egister of 3eed of-amarines 4ur on 4eptember 'K+ BH' was a!reconstituted! possessory information6 itwas

!reconstituted from the duplicate presented to thisoffice (2egister of 3eeds) by 3r" Pablo #eliciano+!without thesubmission of proof that the allegedduplicate was authentic or that the original thereof waslost" 2econstitution can bevalidly made only in case ofloss of the original" ,hese circumstances raise gravedoubts as to the authenticity and validityof the!informacion posesoria! relied upon by respondent#eliciano" Adding to the dubiousness of said documentis thefact that !possessory information calls for an areaof only && hectares+! whereas the land claimed byrespondent#eliciano comprises +KC


18/63

matter rests solely with the $egislature and not with thecourts"

I)lied 'onsent7 %3en State 'oences&itiation

F+oilan v. Pan O+iental S3i))in

FA'TS:*n #ebruary K+ BH+ plaintiff/appellee+ #ernando A" #roilan+ fileda complaint against thedefendant/appellant+ Pan *riental4hipping -o"+ alleging that he purchased from the4hipping-ommission the vessel #4/B; for P'&&+&&&+ payingPH&+&&& down and agreeing to pay the balance ininstallments6 that to secure the payment of the balanceof the purchase price+ hee:ecuted a chattel mortgage of saidvessel in favor of the 4hipping -ommission6 that forvariousreasons+ among them the non/payment of theinstallments+ the 4hipping -ommission tool possession ofsaid vessel and considered the contract of salecancelled6 that the 4hipping-ommission chartered and

delivered said vessel to the defendant/appellant Pan *riental4hipping-o" subject to the approval of the President of thePhilippines6 that he appealed the action of the4hipping-ommission to the President of the Philippines and+ in its meetingon August 'H+ BH&+the -abinet restored him to all his rights under his original contract with the 4hipping-ommission6 that he hadrepeatedly demanded from the Pan *riental 4hipping -o" thepossessionof the vessel in 5uestion but the latter refused to do so"1e+ therefore+ prayed that+ upon theapproval of the bondaccompanying his complaint+ a writ of replevin be issued for thesei.ure of said vessel with all its e5uipment and appurtenances+and that after hearing+ he be adjudged to havethe rightfulpossession thereof *n #ebruary K+ BH+ the lower court issuedthe writ of replevin prayed for by #roilan and byvirtue thereof thePan *riental 4hipping -o" was divested of its possession of saidvessel"*n March + BH+ Pan *riental 4hipping -o" filed itsanswer denying the right of #roilan to the possession of thesaid vessel6 it alleged that the action of the -abinet on

August 'H+ BH&+ restoring#roilan to his rights under hisoriginal contract with the 4hipping -ommission was null andvoid6that+ in any event+ #roilan had not complied with the conditionprecedent imposed by the -abinetfor the restoration of his rightsto the vessel under the original contract6 that it suffered damagesinthe amount of P''+ ;C


19/63

and stated no cause of action" %t was also allegedthat movant wasnot subject to the jurisdiction of the court in connection with thecounterclaim",his motion was opposed by the Pan *riental4hipping -o" in its written opposition dated June


20/63

the level of an individual and can thus be deemed tohave tacitly given its consent to be sued only when itenters into business contracts" %t does not apply wherethe contract relates to the e:ercise of its sovereignfunctions" %n this case the projects are an integral partof the naval base which is devoted to the defense ofboth the 9nited 4tates and the Philippines+ indisputablya function of the government of the highest order6 theyare not utili.ed for nor dedicated to commercial or

business purposes"• correct test for the application of 4tate

immunity is not the conclusion of a contract by a 4tatebut the legal nature of the act

S-a0ilit* not o-t+i3t lia0ilit*

Me+itt v. Gov,t of t3e P3il. Islands

Facts: E" Merritt was a constructor who was e:cellentat his work" *ne day+ while he was riding hismotorcycle along -alle Padre #aura+ he was bumped

by a government ambulance" ,he driver of theambulance was proven to have been negligent"7ecause of the incident+ Merritt was hospitali.ed andhe was severely injured beyond rehabilitation so muchso that he could never perform his job the way he usedto and that he cannot even earn at least half of what heused to earn"

%n order for Merritt to recover damages+ he sought to

sue the government which later authori.ed Merritt to

sue the government by virtue of Act '


21/63

,he %A is a government agency with a juridical personality separate and distinct from thegovernment" %t is not a mere agency of the governmentbut a corporate body performing proprietary functions",herefore+ it may be held liable for the damagescaused by the negligent act of its driver who was not itsspecial agent"

'onsent to 0e s-ed does not incl-de consent to

e(ec-tion

Re)-0lic v. "illaso+

Facts: *n July ;+ BCB+ a decision was rendered in4pecial Proceedings o" 'HC/2 infavor ofrespondents P"J" iener -o"+ $td"+ ?avino 9nchuan+and %nternational-onstruction -orporation and againstpetitioner confirming the arbitration award in theamountof P+;'+KBC"


22/63

from its public funds deposited in their P7 account+no levy under e:ecution may be validly effected"1owever+ this court orders petitioner to pay for the saidland which has been in their use already" ,his -ourtwill not condone petitioner8s blatant refusal to settle itslegal obligation arising from e:propriation of land theyare already enjoying" ,he 4tate8s power of eminentdomain should be e:ercised within the bounds of fairplay and justice"

IMM$NIT4 'ANNOT B! $S!D TO P!RP!TRAT! ANIN


23/63

thereof but no provisions were specifically made for

initiatives on the -onstitution" ,his omission indicates

that the matter of peoples initiative to amend the

-onstitution was left to some future law as pointed

out by former 4enator Arturo ,olentino"ISS$!: 0hether or not 2A C;KH was intended to

include initiative on amendments to the constitution

and if so whether the act+ as worded+ ade5uately

covers such initiative"H!&D: 2A C;KH is intended to include the system of

initiative on amendments to the constitution but is

unfortunately inade5uate to cover that system" 4ec ' of

Article ; of the -onstitution provides@ FAmendments to

this constitution may likewise be directly proposed by

the people through initiative upon a petition of at least

twelve per centum of the total number of registered

voters+ of which every legislative district must be

represented by at least there per centum of the

registered voters therein" " " ,he -ongress shall

provide for the implementation of the e:ercise of this

rightG ,his provision is obviously not self/e:ecutory as it

needs an enabling law to be passed by -ongress"

Joa5uin 7ernas+ a member of the BDC -on/-on

stated Fwithout implementing legislation 4ection '+ Art

; cannot operate" ,hus+ although this mode of

amending the constitution is a mode of amendment

which bypasses -ongressional action in the last

analysis is still dependent on -ongressional action"G

7luntly stated+ the right of the people to directly

propose amendments to the -onstitution through the

system of inititative would remain entombed in the cold

niche of the constitution until -ongress provides for itsimplementation" ,he people cannot e:ercise such

right+ though constitutionally guaranteed+ if -ongress

for whatever reason does not provide for its

implementation" [[[ote that this ruling has been FreversedG on

ovember '&+ '&&C when ten justices of the 4- ruled

that 2A C;KH is ade5uate enough to enable such

initiative" 1*0E>E2+ this was a mere minute

resolution which reads in part@

,en member of the court reiterates their position+ asshown by their previous opinions already given whenthe 3ecision herein was promulgated+ that 2epublic

Act o" C;KH is sufficient and ade5uate to amend the-onstitution thru peoples initiative"

%t is not a stare decisis

INDIR!'T INITIATI"!

SMBA "S. 'OM!&!'

*n March K+ BB'+ -ongress enacted RA. 6??6(,he 7ases -onversionand 3evelopment Act of BB')+which created the 4ubic EconomicIone" 2A ;'';likewise created 47MA to implement thedeclarednational policy of converting the 4ubic militaryreservation intoalternative productive uses" [*n ovember '


24/63

ISS$!:"0* -omelec committed grave abuse of discretionin promulgating2esolution o" 'DE"As defined+ %nitiative is the power of thepeople to propose bills and laws+and to enact or rejectthem at the polls independent of the legislativeassembly" *n the other hand+ referendum is theright reserved to the peopleto adopt or reject any act or measure which has been passed by a legislative bodyand which in most cases would without action on thepart of electors become a law" %n initiative andreferendum+ the -omelec e:ercises administration andsupervision of the process itself+ akin to its powers over the conduct of elections"T3ese law>ain )owe+s 0elon to t3e )eo)le=3ence t3e +es)ondent 'oission cannot cont+olo+ c3ane t3e s-0stance o+ t3econtentof leislation. '" ,he local initiative is *, ultra vires because themunicipal resolution isstill in the proposal stage and notyet an approved law" ,he municipal resolution is still in the proposal stage" %t

is not yet anapproved law" 4hould the people reject it+then there would be nothing tocontest and toadjudicate" %t is only when the people have voted for itand ithas become an approved ordinance or resolutionthat rights and obligationscan be enforced orimplemented thereunder" At this point+ it is merelyaproposal and the writ or prohibition cannot issue upona mere conjecture orpossibility" -onstitutionallyspeaking+ courts may decide only actualcontroversies+not hypothetical 5uestions or cases"%n the presentcase+ it is 5uite clear that the -ourt has authority to

review-omelec 2esolution o" 'D


25/63

dictates"0hat the -onstitution simply re5uired is that themechanisms of recall+ whether one or many+ to bechosen by -ongress should be effective. 9sing itsconstitutionally granted discretion+ -ongress deemed itwise to enact an alternative mode of initiating recallelections to supplement the former mode of initiationby direct action of the people" ,he legislative recordsreveal there were two (') principal reasons why this

alternative mode of initiating the recall process thru anassembly was adopted+ vi.@ (a) to diminish the difficultyof initiating recall thru the direct action of the people6and (b) to cut down on its e:penses"

&OSS OF 'ONFID!N'!= A PO&ITI'A& #$!STION!"ARDON! "S. 'OM!&!'Facts:#elipe Evardone the mayor of 4ulat+ Eastern 4amar+ having beenelected to the position during the BDD local elections" 1eassumedoffice immediately after proclamation" %n BB&+

Ale:ander 2" Apelado+ >icto.ino E" Aclan and oel A" ival filed apetition for the recall of Evardone with the *ffice of the $ocal

Election 2egistrar+ Municipality of 4ulat" ,he -omelec issued a2esolution approving therecommendation of Election 2egistrar>edasto 4umbilla to hold the signing of petition for recall againstEvardone"Evardone filed a petition for prohibition with urgentprayer of restraining order andor writ of preliminary injunction"$ater+ inan en banc resolution+ the -omelec nullified the signingprocess for being violative of the ,2* of the court" 1ence+ thispresent petition"Iss-e 5:0* 2esolution o" '';' promulgated by the -*ME$E- byvirtue of its powers under the -onstitution and 7P KK; ($ocal?overnment-ode) was valid"Held: LesRatio: Evardone maintains that Article =+ 4ection K of the BD;-onstitution repealed 7atas Pambansa 7lg" KK; in favor of one tobe enacted by -ongress" 4ince there was+ during the periodmaterial to this case+ no local government code enacted by-ongress after the effectivity of the BD; -onstitution nor any lawfor that matter on the subject of recall of elected governmentofficials+ Evardone contends that there isno basis for -*ME$E-2esolution o" '';' and that the recall proceedings in the case atbar is premature",he -*ME$E- avers that the constitutionalprovision does not refer only to a local government code which isin futurum butalso in esse" %t merely sets forth the guidelineswhich -ongress will consider in amending the provisions of thepresent $?-" Pending theenactment of the amendatory law+ thee:isting $ocal ?overnment -ode remains operative"Article =>%%%+

4ection K of the BD; -onstitution e:press provides that alle:isting laws not inconsistent with the BD;-onstitution shallremain operative+ until amended+ repealed or revoked" 2epublic

Act o" ;C& providing for the $ocal ?overnment -ode of BB+approved by the President on & *ctober BB+ specificallyrepeals 7"P" 7lg" KK; as provided in 4ec" HK


26/63

constitutionalN

Held:Les" %n imposing a two percent threshold+ -ongresswanted to ensure that only those parties+ organi.ationsand coalitions having a sufficient number ofconstituents deserving of representation are actually

represented in -ongress" ,his intent can be gleanedfrom the deliberations on the proposed bill" ,he twopercent threshold is consistent not only with the intentof the framers of the -onstitution and the law+ but withthe very essence of !representation"! 9nder arepublican or representative state+ all governmentauthority emanates from the people+ but is e:ercisedby representatives chosen by them" 7ut to havemeaningful representation+ the elected persons musthave the mandate of a sufficient number of people"*therwise+ in a legislature that features the party/listsystem+ the result might be the proliferation of smallgroups which are incapable of contributing significant

legislation+ and which might even pose a threat to thestability of -ongress" ,hus+ even legislative districtsare apportioned according to !the number of theirrespective inhabitants+ and on the basis of a uniformand progressive ratio! to ensure meaningful localrepresentation"

Iss-e:1ow should the additional seats of a 5ualified party bedeterminedN

Held:4tep *ne" ,here is no dispute among the petitioners+the public and the private respondents+ as well as themembers of this -ourt that the initial step is to rank allthe participating parties+ organi.ations and coalitionsfrom the highest to the lowest based on the number ofvotes they each received" ,hen the ratio for each partyis computed by dividing its votes by the total votes castfor all the parties participating in the system" All partieswith at least two percent of the total votes areguaranteed one seat each" *nly these parties shall beconsidered in the computation of additional seats" ,heparty receiving the highest number of votes shallthenceforth be referred to as the FfirstG party"4tep ,wo" ,he ne:t step is to determine the number of

seats the first party is entitled to+ in order to be able tocompute that for the other parties" 4ince thedistribution is based on proportional representation+ thenumber of seats to be allotted to the other partiescannot possibly e:ceed that to which the first party isentitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number ofvotes"4tep ,hree ,he ne:t step is to solve for the number ofadditional seats that the other 5ualified parties areentitled to+ based on proportional representation"

An Baon Ba*ani>OF% la0o+ )a+t* vs. coelec

#A-,4@?"2" o"


27/63

deducible from the e:cerpts of the news reportappearing in the April K+ '&&; issue of the Manila7ulletin+ is that there is nothing in 2"A" ;B


28/63

7ut no national security or like concerns is involved inthe disclosure of the names of the nominees of theparty/list groups in 5uestion" 3oubtless+ the -omeleccommitted grave abuse of discretion in refusing thelegitimate demands of the petitioners for a list of thenominees of the party/list groups subject of theirrespective petitions" Mandamus+ therefore+ lies"

BANAT "S. 'OM!&!'

Facts: 7arangay Association forational Advancement and ,ransparency (7AA,)filed before the -ommission on Elections (-*ME$E-)a petition to proclaim the full number ofparty listrepresentatives provided by the -onstitution"1owever+ the recommendation of the head of the legalgroup of -*ME$E-s national board of canvassers todeclare the petition mootandacademic was approved by the -*ME$E- enbanc+ and declared further in a resolution that thewinning party list will be resolved using the >eteransruling" 7AA, then filed a petition before the 4-

assailing said resolution of the -*ME$E-"

Iss-es:() %s the '&W allocation for party/list representativesprovided in 4ec H (')+ Art >% of the -onstitutionmandatory or is it merely a ceilingN

(') %s the 'W threshold and F5ualifierG votesprescribed by the same 4ec (b) of 2A ;B


29/63

sectoral lines and do not need to represent any

Fmarginali.ed and underrepresentedG sector"

K" Political parties can participate in party/list elections

provided they register under the party/list system and

do not field candidates in legislative district elections" A

political party+ whether major or not+ that fields

candidates in legislative district elections can

participate in party/list elections only through itssectoral wing that can separately register under the

party/list system" ,he sectoral wing is by itself an

independent sectoral party+ and is linked to a political

party through a coalition"


30/63

-harles 7aker (P) was a resident of 4helby -ounty+,ennessee" 7aker filed suit against Joe -arr+ the4ecretary of 4tate of ,ennessee" 7akers complaintalleged that the ,ennessee legislature had not redrawnits legislative districts since B&+ in violation of the,ennessee 4tate -onstitution which re5uiredredistricting according to the federal census every &years" 7aker+ who lived in an urban part of the state+asserted that the demographics of the state had

changed shifting a greater proportion of the populationto the cities+ thereby diluting his vote in violation of theE5ual Protection -lause of the #ourteenth

Amendment"7aker sought an injunction prohibiting further elections+and sought the remedy of reapportionment or at/largeelections" ,he district court denied relief on thegrounds that the issue of redistricting posed a political5uestion and would therefore not be heard by thecourt"Iss-es

" 3o federal courts have jurisdiction to hear aconstitutional challenge to a legislative

apportionmentN'" 0hat is the test for resolving whether a casepresents a political 5uestionN

Holdin and R-le 8B+ennan9" Les" #ederal courts have jurisdiction to hear a

constitutional challenge to a legislativeapportionment"

'" ,he factors to be considered by the court indetermining whether a case presents a political5uestion are@

" %s there a te:tually demonstrableconstitutional commitment of the issue to acoordinate political department (i"e" foreignaffairs or e:ecutive war powers)N

'" %s there a lack of judiciallydiscoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issueN

K" ,he impossibility of deciding the issuewithout an initial policy determination of akind clearly for nonjudicial discretion"


31/63

,he e:istence of a boundary dispute does not per sepresent an insurmountable difficulty which will prevent-ongress from defining with reasonable certitude theterritorial jurisdiction of a local government unit"-ongress maintained the e:isting boundaries of theproposed -ity of Makati

'" 2eapportionment of legislative districts may bemade through special laws+ such as in the charter of a

new city" ,he constitution provides that -ongress shallbe composed of not more than 'H& members+ unlessotherwise fi:ed by law" As thus worded+ the constitutiondid not preclude the -ongress from increasing itsmembership by passing a law+ other than a generalreapportionment law" ,his is e:actly what the -ongressdid in enacting 2"A" ;DH< and providing for an increasein Makatis legislative district" ,he policy of the -ourtfavors a liberal construction of the Fone title onesubjectG rule so as not to impede legislation" ,he-onstitution does not command that the title of the lawshould e:actly mirror+ fully inde:+ or completelycatalogue in all its details" 1ence+ it should be sufficient

compliance if the title e:presses the general subjectand all the provisions are germane to such generalsubject"

K" 4aid provision provides that a city with a populationof atleast 'H&+&&& shall have at least onerepresentative" 4ection K of the *rdinance appendedto the -onstitution provides that a city whosepopulation has increased to more than 'H&+&&& shallbe entitled to atleast one congressional representative"

Although Makati has a population of illaba"

7iliran+ located in the Krd district of $eyte+ was made its

subprovince by virtue of 2epublic Act o" '


32/63

4ection K @ Any province that may hereafter be

createdY,he number of Members apportioned to the

province out of which such new province was created

or where the city+ whose population has so increases+

is geographically located shall be correspondingly

adjusted by the -ommission on Elections but such

adjustment shall not be made within one hundred and

twenty days before the election"

Minor adjustments does not involve change in the

allocations per district" E:amples include error in the

correct name of a particular municipality or when a

municipality in between which is still in the territory of

one assigned district is forgotten" And consistent with

the limits of its power to make minor adjustments+

section K of the *rdinance did not also give the

respondent -*ME$E- any authority to transfer

municipalities from one legislative district to another

district" ,he power granted by section K to the

respondent is to adjust the number of members (not

municipalities")

Baa0-*o v. 'OM!&!'

Facts: -agayan de *ro only had one legislative district

before" %n '&&C+ -d* congressman Jaraula sponsored

a bill to have two legislative districts in -d* instead"

,he law was passed (2A BK;) hence two legislative

districts were created" 7agabuyo assailed the validity

of the said law and he went immediately to the

4upreme -ourt" 1e was contending that the 'nd district

was created without a plebiscite which was re5uired by

the -onstitution"ISS$!: 0hether or not a plebiscite was re5uired in the

case at bar"H!&D: o+ a plebiscite is not re5uired in the case at

bar" 2A BK; merely increased the representation of

-agayan de *ro -ity in the 1ouse of 2epresentatives

and 4angguniang Panglungsod pursuant to 4ection H+

Article >% of the BD; -onstitution6 the criteria

established under 4ection &+ Article = of the BD;

-onstitution only apply when there is a creation+

division+ merger+ abolition or substantial alteration ofboundaries of a province+ city+ municipality+ or

barangay6 in this case+ no such creation+ division+

merger+ abolition or alteration of boundaries of a local

government unit took place6 and 2"A" o" BK; did not

bring about any change in -agayan de *ros territory+

population and income classification6 hence+ no

plebiscite is re5uired"

#-alifications

MAR'OS "S. 'OM!&!'

FA'TS:

%melda+ a little over D years old+ in or about BKD+established her domicile in ,acloban+ $eyte where shestudied and graduated high school in the 1oly %nfant

Academy from BKD to B


33/63

'" 3omicile of origin is only lost when there is actualremoval or change of domicile+ a bona fide intention ofabandoning the former residence and establishing anew one+ and acts which correspond with the purpose"%n the absence and concurrence of all these+ domicileof origin should be deemed to continue"

K" A wife does not automatically gain the husbandsdomicile because the term FresidenceG in -ivil $aw

does not mean the same thing in Political $aw" 0hen%melda married late President Marcos in BH


34/63

,he purpose is to e:clude strangers or newcomersunfamiliar with the conditions and needs of thecommunity from taking advantage of favorablecircumstances e:isting in that community for electoralgain"0hile there is nothing wrong with the purpose ofestablishing residence in a given area for meetingelection law re5uirements+ this defeats the essence ofrepresentation+ which is to place through assent of

voters those most cogni.ant and sensitive to the needsof a particular district+ if a candidate falls short of theperiod of residency mandated by law for him to 5ualify"0hich brings us to the second issue"

'" o+ A5uino has not established domicile of choice inthe district he was running in",he 4- agreed with the -omelecs contention that

A5uino should prove that he established a domicile ofchoice and not just residence",he -onstitution re5uires a person running for a post inthe 12 one year of residency prior to the elections inthe district in which he seeks election to "

A5uinos certificate of candidacy in a previous (May +BB') election indicates that he was a resident and aregistered voter of 4an Jose+ -oncepcion+ ,arlac formore than H' years prior to that election" 1is birthcertificate indicated that -onception as his birthplaceand his -*- also showed him to be a registered voterof the same district" ,hus his domicile of origin(obviously+ choice as well) up to the filing of his -*-was in -onception+ ,arlac"

A5uinos connection to the new 4econd 3istrict ofMakati -ity is an alleged lease agreement of acondominium unit in the area" ,he intention not toestablish a permanent home in Makati -ity is evident inhis leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one",he short length of time he claims to be a resident ofMakati (and the fact of his stated domicile in ,arlac andhis claims of other residences in Metro Manila) indicatethat his sole purpose in transferring his physicalresidence is not to ac5uire a new+ residence ordomicile but only to 5ualify as a candidate for2epresentative of the 4econd 3istrict of Makati -ity"

A5uinos assertion that he has transferred his domicilefrom ,arlac to Makati is a bare assertion which ishardly supported by the facts in the case at bench" ,osuccessfully effect a change of domicile+ petitionermust prove an actual removal or an actual change ofdomicile+ a bona fide intention of abandoning the

former place of residence and establishing a new oneand definite acts which correspond with the purpose"

A5uino was thus rightfully dis5ualified by the-ommission on Elections due to his lack of one yearresidence in the district"3ecision%nstant petition dismissed" *rder restrainingrespondent -omelec from proclaiming the candidategarnering the ne:t highest number of votes in thecongressional elections of 4econd district of Makati-ity made permanent"

Dicta:%" A5uinos petition of certiorari contents were@

A" ,he -omelecs lack of jurisdiction to determine thedis5ualification issue involving congressionalcandidates after the May D+ BBH elections+ suchdetermination reserved with the house ofrepresentatives electional tribunal7" Even if the -omelec has jurisdiction+ the jurisdictionceased in the instant case after the elections and the

remedy to the adverse parties lies in another forumwhich is the 12 Electoral ,ribunal consistent with4ection ;+ Article >% of the BD; -onstitution"-" ,he -*ME$E- committed grave abuse ofdiscretion when it proceeded to promulagate its5uestioned decision despite its own recognition that athreshold issue of jurisdiction has to be judiciouslyreviewed again+ assuming arguendo that the -omelechas jurisdiction3" ,he -omelecs finding of non/compliance with theresidency re5uirement of one year against thepetitioner is contrary to evidence and to applicablelaws and jurisprudence"

E" ,he -omelec erred in failing to appreciate the legalimpossibility of enforcing the one year residencyre5uirement of -ongressional candidates in newlycreated political districts which were only e:isting forless than a year at the time of the election and barelyfour months in the case of petitioners district in Makati"#" ,he -omelec committed serious error amounting tolack of jurisdiction when it ordered the board ofcanvassers to determine and proclaim the winner outof the remaining 5ualified candidates after theerroneous dis5ualification of the petitioner in disregardof the doctrine that a second place candidate or aperson who was repudiated by the electorate is a loserand cannot be proclaimed as substitute winner"%%" Modern day carpetbaggers cant be allowed to takeadvantage of the creation of new political districts bysuddenly transplanting themselves in such newdistricts+ prejudicing their genuine residents in theprocess of taking advantage of e:isting conditions inthese areas"%%%" according to -*ME$E-@ ,he lease agreement wase:ecuted mainly to support the one year residencere5uirement as a 5ualification for a candidate of the12+ by establishing a commencement date of hisresidence" %f a oerfectly valid lease agreement cannot+by itself establish a domicile of choice+ this particularlease agreement cannot be better"

Nat-+al Bo+n

B!NGZON "S. HR!TFA'TS@ ,he citi.enship of respondent -ru. is at issue

in this case+ in view of the constitutional re5uirement

that Fno person shall be a Member of the 1ouse of

2epresentatives unless he is a natural/born citi.en"G-ru. was a natural/born citi.en of the Philippines" 1e

was born in ,arlac in BC& of #ilipino parents" %n BDH+

however+ -ru. enlisted in the 94 Marine -orps and


35/63

without the consent of the 2epublic of the Philippines+

took an oath of allegiance to the 94A" As a

-onse5uence+ he lost his #ilipino citi.enship for under

-A o" CK S(An Act Providing for the 0ays in 0hich

Philippine -iti.enship May 7e $ost or 2eac5uired

(BKC)T section (%+ section C of the -onstitution"

12E, rendered its decision dismissing the petition for

5uo warranto and declaring -ru. the duly elected

2epresentative in the said election"ISS$!@ 0* -ru.+ a natural/born #ilipino who

became an American citi.en+ can still be considered a

natural/born #ilipino upon his reac5uisition of

Philippine citi.enship"H!&D@ petition dismissed

4!S#ilipino citi.ens who have lost their citi.enship may

however reac5uire the same in the manner provided by

law" -"A" o" CK enumerates the K modes by which

Philippine citi.enship may be reac5uired by a former

citi.en@

" by naturali.ation+

'" by repatriation+ and

K" by direct act of -ongress"

[[2epatriation may be had under various statutes by

those who lost their citi.enship due to@

" desertion of the armed forces6

'" services in the armed forces of the allied forces in

0orld 0ar %%6

K" service in the Armed #orces of the 9nited 4tates at

any other time+


36/63

actions even where #irst Amendment rights are

implicated+ such restraint should not preclude judicial

review where no alternative avenue of relief is

available+ and that+ if the subpoena was obeyed+

respondents8 #irst Amendment rights would be

violated"!eld" ,he activities of the 4enate 4ubcommittee+ the

individual 4enators+ and the -hief -ounsel fall within

the !legitimate legislative sphere+! and since it isdetermined that such is the case+ those activities are

protected by the absolute prohibition of the 4peech or

3ebate -lause of the -onstitution against being

!5uestioned in any other Place+! and hence are

immune from judicial interference""(a) ,he applicability of the -lause to private civil

actions is supported by the absoluteness of the term

!shall not be 5uestioned! and the sweep of the term !in

any other Place"!(b) %ssuance of subpoenas such as the one in 5uestion

is a legitimate use by -ongress of its power to

investigate+ and the subpoena power may be e:ercisedby a committee acting+ as here+ on behalf of one of the

1ouses"(c) %n5uiry into the sources of the funds used to carry

on activities suspected by a subcommittee of -ongress

to have a potential for undermining the morale of the

Armed #orces is within the legitimate legislative

sphere"(d) ,here is no distinction between the 4ubcommittee8s

Members and its -hief -ounsel insofar as complete

immunity from the issuance of the subpoena under the

4peech or 3ebate -lause is concerned+ and since the

Members are immune because the issuance of the

subpoena is !essential to legislating+! their aides share

that immunity"(e) ,he subpoena cannot be held subject to judicial

5uestioning on the alleged ground that it works an

invasion of respondents8 privacy+ since it is !essential to

legislating"!(f) or can the subpoena be held outside the protection

of speech or debate immunity on the alleged ground

that the motive of the investigation was improper+

since+ in determining the legitimacy of a congressional

action+ the motives alleged to have prompted it are not

to be considered"(g) %n view of the absolute terms of the speech or

debate protection+ a mere allegation that #irst

Amendment rights may be infringed by the subpoena

does not warrant judicial interference"HB 9"4"App"3"-" KH'+


37/63


38/63

T3e )+ivilee of a++est 3as alwa*s 0een +anted ina +est+ictive sense.

,rue+ election is the e:pression of the sovereign powerof the people" 1owever+ in spite of its importance+ theprivileges and rights arising from having been electedmay be enlarged or restricted by law" Privilege has tobe granted by law+ not inferred from the duties of a

position" %n fact+ the higher the rank+ the greater is there5uirement of obedience rather than e:emption"

4ection + Article >%+ of the -onstitution provides@

A 4enator or Member of the 1ouse of 2epresentativesshall+ in all offenses punishable by not more than si:years imprisonment+ be privileged from arrest whilethe -ongress is in session" :::

,he immunity from arrest or detention of 4enators andmembers of the 1ouse of 2epresentatives+ arises froma provision of the -onstitution" ,he history of the

provision shows that the privilege has alwaysbeen granted in a restrictive sense" ,he provisiongranting an e:emption as a special privilege cannot bee:tended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms" %tmay not be e:tended by intendment+ implication ore5uitable considerations"

,he accused/appellant has not given any reason whyhe should be e:empted from the operation of 4ec" +

Art" >% of the -onstitution" ,he membersof-ongress cannot compel absent members to attendsessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimateone" ,he confinement of a -ongressman charged witha crime punishable by imprisonment of more than si:years is not merely authori.ed by law+ it hasconstitutional foundations"

Doct+ine of condonation does not a))l* to c+iinalcases

,he Aguinaldo case involves the administrativeremoval of a public officer foracts done prior to hispresent term of office" %t does not apply toimprisonment arising from the enforcement of criminallaw" Moreover+ in the same way that preventivesuspension is not removal+

confinement pending appeal is not removal" 1eremains a congressman unless e:pelledby -ongress or+ otherwise+ dis5ualified"

*ne rationale behind confinement+whether pending appeal or after final conviction+ ispublic self/defense" 4ociety must protect itself" %t alsoserves as an e:ample and warning to others"

!e+enc* o+ co)ellin te)o+a+* leaves f+oi)+isonent a+e allowed to all )+isone+s.

,here is no showing that the above privileges arepeculiar to him or to a member of -ongress"Emergency or compelling temporary leaves fromimprisonment are allowed to all prisoners+ at thediscretion of the authorities or upon court orders"

To allow acc-sed>a))ellant to attend con+essionalsessions and coittee eetins will vi+t-all*ae 3i a f+ee an

0hen the voters of his district elected the accused/appellant to -ongress+ they did so with full awarenessof the limitations on his freedom of action" ,hey did sowith the knowledge that he could achieve onlysuch legislative results which he could accomplishwithin the confines of prison" ,o give a more drasticillustration+ if voters elect a person with full knowledgethat he is suffering from a terminal illness+ they do so

knowing that at any time+ he may no longer serve hisfull term in office"

,o allow accused/appellant to attend congressionalsessions and committee meetings for H days or morein a week will virtually make him a free man with all theprivileges appurtenant to his position" 4uch an aberrantsituation not only elevates accused/appellants statusto that of a special class+ it also would be a mockery ofthe purposes of the correction system"

%n the ultimate analysis+ the issue before us boils downto a 5uestion of constitutional e5ual protection"

,he -onstitution guarantees@ !: : : nor shall anyperson be denied the e5ual protection of laws"! ,hissimply means that all persons similarly situated shallbe treated alike both in rights enjoyed andresponsibilities imposed" ,he organs of governmentmay not show any undue favoritism or hostility to anyperson" either partiality nor prejudice shall bedisplayed"

3oes being an elective official result in a substantialdistinction that allows different treatmentN %s beinga -ongressman a substantial differentiation whichremoves the accused/appellant as a prisoner from the

same class as all persons validly confined under lawN

,he performance of legitimate and even essentialduties by public officers has never been an e:cuse tofree a person validly in prison"

,he -ourt cannot validate badges of ine5uality" ,henecessities imposed by public welfare may justifye:ercise of government authority to regulate even ifthereby certain groups may plausibly assert that theirinterests are disregarded"


39/63

0e+ therefore+ find that election to the positionof -ongressman is not a reasonable classification incriminal law enforcement" ,he functions and duties ofthe office are not substantial distinctions which lift himfrom the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedomand restricted in liberty of movement" $awful arrest andconfinement are germane to the purposes of the lawand apply to all those belonging to the same

class" # People $s. %alos&os'.(. Nos. )*+-/-0. Fe1ruary *, +2223

Sessions7 Ado-+nents7 Office+s

Santiao v. G-inona

Note: Iss-e +e: Sessions and Ado-+nents a+e notdisc-ssed e(tensivel*. Onl* 'onstit-tional)+ovisions we+e noted.

FA'TS:

3uring the election of officers in the 4enate+ 4en"Marcelo #ernan and 4en" ,atad were both nominatedto the position of 4enate President" 7y a vote of '& to'+ 4en" #ernan was declared the duly elected 4enatePresident" ,hereafter+ 4en" ,atad manifested that+ withthe agreement of 4en" 4antiago+ allegedly the onlyother member of the minority+ he was assumingposition of minority leader" 1e e:plained that thosewho had voted for 4en" #ernan comprised theFmajority+G while only those who had voted for him+ thelosing nominee+ belonged to the Fminority"G 1owever+senators belonging to the $akas/9-3/9M3P Party number ; and+ thus+ also a minority had chosen 4en"?uingona as the minority leader" ,hus+ Petitioners filedthis case for 5uo warranto"

R$&ING:

,he petition fails"

,he meaning of majority vis/a/vis minority

,he term FmajorityG has been judicially defined anumber of times" 0hen referring to a certain numberout of a total or aggregate+ it simply Fmeans the

number greater than half or more than half of anytotal"G ,he plain and unambiguous words of the subjectconstitutional clause simply mean that the 4enatePresident must obtain the votes of more than one halfof all the senators" ot by any construal does it therebydelineate who comprise the Fmajority+G much less theFminority+G in the said body" And there is no showingthat the framers of our -onstitution had in mind otherthan the usual meanings of these terms"

%n effect+ while the -onstitution mandates that the

President of the 4enate must be elected by a numberconstituting more than one half of all the membersthereof+ it does not provide that the members who willnot vote for him shall ipso facto constitute theFminority+G who could thereby elect the minority leader">erily+ no law or regulation states that the defeatedcandidate shall automatically become the minorityleader"

:::

Majority may also refer to Fthe group+ party+ or factionwith the larger number of votes+G not necessarily morethan one half" ,his is sometimes referred to as plurality"%n contrast+ minority is Fa group+ party+ or faction with asmaller number of votes or adherents than themajority"G 7etween two une5ual parts or numberscomprising a whole or totality+ the greater numberwould obviously be the majority+ while the lesser wouldbe the minority" 7ut where there are more than twoune5ual groupings+ it is not as easy to say which is theminority entitled to select the leader representing all

the minorities" %n a government with a multi/partysystem such as in the Philippines (as pointed out bypetitioners themselves)+ there could be several minorityparties+ one of which has to be identified by the-omelec as the Fdominant minority partyG for purposesof the general elections" %n the prevailing compositionof the present 4enate+ members either belong todifferent political parties or are independent" oconstitutional or statutory provision prescribe which ofthe many minority groups or the independents or acombination thereof has the right to select the minorityleader"

-onstitution silent on the manner of selecting officersin -ongress other than 4enate President and 1ouse4peaker

0hile the -onstitution is e:plicit on the manner ofelecting a 4enate President and a 1ouse 4peaker+ it is+however+ dead silent on the manner of selecting theother officers in both chambers of -ongress" All thatthe -harter says is that FSeTach 1ouse shall choosesuch other officers as it may deem necessary"G ,o ourmind+ the method of choosing who will be such otherofficers is merely a derivative of the e:ercise of theprerogative conferred by the afore5uoted constitutionalprovision" ,herefore+ such method must be prescribed

by the 4enate itself+ not by this -ourt"

%n this regard+ the -onstitution vests in each house of-ongress the power Fto determine the rules of itsproceedings"G :::

#$OR$MA"!&INO "S. '$!N'O


40/63

*n #ebruary D+ B


41/63

senators when -uenco was elected unanimously there

was no 5uorum"

,he 4upreme -ourt+ by a vote of seven resolved to

assume jurisdiction over the case in the light of

subse5uent events which justify its intervention" ,he

-hief Justice agrees with the result of the majoritys

pronouncement on the 5uorum upon the ground that+

under the peculiar circumstances of the case+ theconstitutional re5uirement in that regard has become a

mere formalism+ it appearing from the evidence that

any new session with a 5uorum would result in

-uencos election as 4enate President+ and that the

-uenco group+ taking cue from the dissenting opinions+

has been trying to satisfy such formalism by issuing

compulsory processes against senators of the Avelino

group+ but to no avail+ because of the Avelinos

persistent efforts to block all avenues to constitutional

processes" #or this reason+ the 4- believes that the

-uenco group has done enough to satisfy the

re5uirements of the -onstitution and that the majoritys

ruling is in conformity with substantial justice and with

the re5uirements of public interest" ,herefore -uenco

has been legally elected as 4enate President and the

petition is dismissed"


42/63

ordinarily have no concern with their observance" ,heymay be waived or disregarded by the legislative body"-onse5uently+ mere failure to conform to them doesnot have the effect of nullifying the act taken if there5uisite number of members has agreed to aparticular measure" 7ut this is subject to 5ualification"0here the construction to be given to a rule affectsperson other than members of the legislative body+ the5uestion presented is necessarily judicial in character"

Even its validity is open to 5uestion in a case whereprivate rights are involved"

%n the case+ no rights of private individuals are involvedbut only those of a member who+ instead of seekingredress in the 1ouse+ chose to transfer the dispute tothe -ourt"

,he matter complained of concerns a matter of internalprocedure of the 1ouse with which the -ourt shouldnot be concerned" ,he claim is not that there was no5uorum but only that 2ep" Arroyo was effectivelyprevented from 5uestioning the presence of a 5uorum"

2ep" Arroyos earlier motion to adjourn for lack of5uorum had already been defeated+ as the roll callestablished the e:istence of a 5uorum" ,he 5uestion of 5uorum cannot be raised repeatedly especially whenthe 5uorum is obviously

polrev cases

Documents