1

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 By that date, therefore, the Pro isional Constitution !ust be dee!ed to ha e been superseded. "#ffecti ity is i!!ediately upon ratification$ Gonzales v. COMELEC %ature of power to a!end the Constitution or to propose a!end!ents thereto& not inherent power of Con'ress but of the people( constituent power of Con'ress Tolentino v. COMELEC The condition and li!itation that all the a!end!ents to be proposed by the sa!e con ention !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 constitutional con ention as Constituent +sse!bly in enactin' i!ple!entin' details. Santia"o v. COMELEC ,i'ht of the people to directly propose a!end!ents to the Constitution throu'h the syste! of initiati e would re!ain ento!bed in a cold niche until Con'ress pro ides for its i!ple!entation. -ection 2 of +rticle ./00 is not self1e2ecutin'. La !inov. COMELEC #ssence of people3s initiati e& "1$ people !ust author( "2$ they !ust si'n the proposal( "4$ proposal is e!bodied in petition CONCEPT OF STATE #a$ani vs NACOCO The !ere fact that the 5o ern!ent happens to be a !a6or stoc7holder of a corporation does not !a7e it a public corporation. 8istinction between constituent and !inistrant functions.

P%TA vs CIR 8istinction between constituent and !inistrant functions 9 obsolete. 5o ern!ent has to pro ide for 'eneral welfare.

Gov. o& t'e P'il. Islan(s vs. Monte (e Pie(a(

2
8octrine of Parens Patriae "state as 'uardian of the people$ Transfer of so erei'nty( effect on laws& 1 abro'ation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted so erei'n "political law$. 1 'reat body of !unicipal law re'ardin' pri ate and do!estic ri'hts continue in force until abro'ated or chan'ed by new ruler. C'an vs. %al(ez Tan )e' Continuity of :aw& :aw, once established, continues until chan'ed by so!e co!petent le'islati e power "not chan'ed by !ere chan'e of so erei'nty$ +ll acts and proceedin's of the 4 'o . depts. of a de facto 'o ern!ent are 'ood and alid. ;inds of 8e facto 'o ern!ent& "1$ de facto propoer 9 'o ern!ent obtained by force or oice of the !a6ority "2$ para!ount force 9 by !ilitary forces who in ade the territory "4$ independent 'o ern!ent 9 established by inhabitants throu'h insurrection ,epublic of the Philippines "durin' <apanese occupation$ was a de facto 'o ern!ent.

Co )i

Peo*le vs Gozo Principle of +uto1li!itation& Extent of Philippine sovereignty over American bases Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory.

La+,el vs Misa %ature of +lle'iance to so erei'n& +bsolute and per!anent #ffect of ene!y occupation& so erei'nty of the 'o ern!ent 9 not transferred to occupier

R+&&- v C'ie& o& Sta&& The rule that laws of political nature or affectin' political relations are considered superseded or held in abeyance durin' the !ilitary occupation, is intended for the 'o ernin' of the ci il inhabitants of the occupied territory and not for the ene!ies in ar!s.

STATE IMMUNIT. T'e Hol- See v Rosa,io/ 0,. Pursuant to the 19=1 /ienna Con ention on 8iplo!atic ,elations, a diplo!atic en oy is 'ranted i!!unity fro! the ci il and ad!inistrati e 6urisdiction of the recei in' state o er any real action relatin' to pri ate i!!o able property situated in the territory of the recei in' state which the en oy holds on behalf of the sendin' state for the purposes of the !ission

San(e,s v %e,i(iano >ere alle'ation that a 'o ern!ent functionary is bein' sued in his personal capacity will not auto!atically re!o e hi! fro! the protection of the laws of public officers and doctrine of state i!!unity 8octrine of state i!!unity applicable also to other states.

Re*+!li$ 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!e 2. when unincorporated 'o ern!ent a'ency is sued 4. when the suit is a'ainst a 'o ern!ent e!ployee but liability belon's to the 'o ern!ent

Feste1o v Fe,nan(o ?fficer or e!ployee co!!ittin' the tort is personally liable and !aybe sued as any other citi@en and held answerable for whate er in6ury

Civil Ae,ona+ti$s A( inist,ation v. Co+,t o& A**eals %ot all 'o ern!ent entities whether corporate or not are i!!une fro! suits. 0!!unity fro! suits is deter!ined by the character of the ob6ects for which the entity was or'ani@ed. M+ni$i*alit- o& San Fe,nan(o/ La Union v. 0+("e Fi, e The test of liability of the !unicipality depends on whether or not the dri er actin' in behalf of the !unicipality is perfor!in' 'o ern!ental or proprietary functions. 0t has already been re!ar7ed that !unicipal corporations are suable because their charters 'rant the! the co!petence to sue and be sued. %e ertheless, they are 'enerally not liable for torts co!!itted by the! in the dischar'e of 'o ern!ental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were actin' in a proprietary capacity. 0n per!ittin' such entities to be sued, the state !erely 'i es the clai!ants the ri'ht to show the defendant was not actin' in its 'o ern!ental capacity when the in6ury was inflicted or that the case co!es under the e2ceptions reco'ni@ed by law. Failin' this, the clai!ants cannot reco er. M+ni$i*alit- o& San Mi"+el/ #+la$an v. Fe,nan(ez >unicipal funds in possession of !unicipal and pro incial treasurers are public funds e2e!pt fro! e2ecution. >unicipal funds are held in trust for the people intended and used for the acco!plish!ents of the purposes for which !unicipal corporations are created and that to sub6ect said properties and public funds to e2ecution would !aterially i!pede, e en defeat and in so!e instance destroy said purposes. M+ni$i*alit- o& Ma2ati 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 a ail of the re!edy of !anda!us in order to co!pel the enact!ent and appro al of the necessary appropriation ordinance and the correspondin' disburse!ent of !unicipal funds. USA vs G+into + state !ay be said to ha e descended to the le el of an indi idual and can thus be dee!ed to ha e tacitly 'i en its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.

%ete,ans Man*o3e, vs CA The state is dee!ed to ha e 'i en tacitly its consent to be sued when it enters into a contract. Bowe er, it does not apply where the contract relates to the e2ercise of its so erei'n functions.

T'e Me,,itt vs Gov4t o& t'e P'il By consentin' to be sued, a state si!ply wai es its i!!unity fro! suit. 0t does not thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his fa or, or e2tend its liability to any cause not pre iously reco'ni@ed. 0t !erely 'i es re!edy to enforce a pre1 e2istin' liability and sub!it itself to the 6urisdiction of the court, sub6ect to its ri'ht to interpose any lawful defense.

A i"a!le vs. C+en$a The 'o ern!ent, when it ta7es away a property fro! a pri ate land owner for public use without 'oin' throu'h the le'al process of e2propriation or ne'otiated sale, the a''rie ed party !ay properly !aintain a suit a'ainst the 'o ern!ent without thereby iolatin' the doctrine of 'o ern!ental i!!unity fro! suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetratin' in6ustice to a citi@en. Re*+!li$ vs. San(i"an!a-an Ahen the state files an action, it di ests itself of the so erei'n character and shed its i!!unity for! suit, descendin' to the le el of an ordinary liti'ant.

F+n(a ental P,in$i*les an( State Poli$ies Se$tion 1 %illavi$en$io v. L+2!an5 Hel(5 >ayorCs act unconstitutional. 0t was not authori@ed by any law or ordinance. )?ur 'o ern!ent is a 'o ern!ent of laws and not !en.* Se$tion 6 )+,o(a v. 0alan(oni5 thin7 <apanese :ieutenat15eneral char'ed before the !ilitary co!!ission. Hel(5 The Philippines can adopt the rules and re'ulations laid down on the Ba'ue and 5ene a Con entions notwithstandin' that it is not a si'natory thereto. 0t e!bodied 'enerally accepted principles of international law bindin' upon all states. A"+stin v. E(+5 thin7 trian'ular reflectori@ed early warnin' de ices. Hel(5 :e'islati e enact!ent is not necessary in order to authori@e the issuance of :?0 prescribin' the use of trian'ular reflectori@ed early warnin' de ices. This is also an illustration of 'enerally accepted principles of international law "Pacta sunt ser anda$.

I$'on" v. He,nan(ez5 thin7 ,etail Trade %ationali@ation :aw which is a'ainst the principle of Pacta sunt ser anda.Hel(5 the ,etail Trade %ationali@ation :aw is not unconstitutional because it was passed in the e2ercise of the police power which cannot be bar'ained away throu'h the !ediu! of a treaty. Gonzales v. He$'anova5 thin7 rice i!portation. -tatute s. Treaty. Hel(5 >unicipal law was upheld o er international law on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers under the rule1!a7in' powers of the -upre!e Court. 0n this case, the contracts ad erted to are %?T treaties. Se$tion 7 A"li*a- vs. R+iz 1There is no iolation of the principle of the separation of church and state. The issuance and sale of the sta!ps in Duestion !ay be said to be lin7ed with an e ent of a reli'ious character, but the resultin' propa'anda, if any, recei ed by the Catholic Church, was not the ai! and purpose of the 'o ern!ent. The idea behind the issuance of the posta'e sta!ps was to attract tourists to our country and not pri!arily the reli'ious e ent. Se$tion 18 Al e(a vs. CA 1There e2ists a tenantCs ri'ht of rede!ption in su'ar and coconut lands. Pursuant to +'ricultural :and ,efor! Code of 19=4, it reco'ni@es share tenancy in su'ar lands which is in consonance with the -tateCs pro!otion of social 6ustice wherein it !ay )re'ulate the acDuisition, ownership, use, en6oy!ent and disposition of pri ate property, and eDuitably diffuse propertyEownership and profits.* On(o- .vs. I"na$io 1The principle of social 6ustice applied in this case is a !atter of protection, not eDuality. The Court reco'ni@ed the ri'ht of the petitioner to the clai! of co!pensation because her son was shown to ha e died while )in the actual perfor!ance of his wor7.* To stren'then the constitutional sche!e of social 6ustice and protection to labor, The Court !ade !ention that )as between a laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the e!ployer, who has resources to secure able le'al ad ice, the law has reason to de!and fro! the latter the stricter co!pliance.* Salon"a vs. Fa,,ales 1The plea of social 6ustice of the plaintiff cannot be considered because it was shown that no contract, either to sell or of sale, was e er perfected between hi! and the defendant. 0t !ust be re!e!bered that social 6ustice cannot be in o7ed to tra!ple on the ri'hts of property owners who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social 6ustice

6
consecrated in our Constitution was not intended to ta7e away ri'hts fro! a person and 'i e the! to another who is not entitled thereto.

Se$tion 17 LLDA v. CA The i!!ediate response to the de!ands of necessities of protectin' ital public interests 'i es itality to the state!ent on ecolo'y e!bodied in the 8eclaration of Principles and -tate Policies of the 1987 Constitution. +rticle 00, -ection 1=. +s a constitutionally 'uaranteed ri'ht of e ery person, it carries the correlati e duty of non1i!pair!ent. This is but the consonance with the declared policy of the state to protect and pro!ote the ri'ht to health of the people and instill health consciousness a!on' the!. Se$tion 19 GARCIA vs. #OI B?0 co!!itted 'ra e abuse of discretion because it repudiates the independent policy of 'o ern!ent to run its affairs the way it dee!s best for the national interest. # ery pro ision of the Constitution on the national econo!y and patri!ony is infused with the spirit of national interest. The non1alienation of national resources, the -tate full control o er the de elop!ent and utili@ation of contributions to the econo!ic 'rowth and 'eneral welfare of the country and the re'ulation of forei'n in est!ent in accordance to national 'oals and priorities are too e2plicit not to be noticed and understood. Se$tion 61 ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM #!inent do!ain is an inherent power of the -tate that enables it to forcibly acDuire pri ate lands intended for public use upon pay!ent of 6ust co!pensation to the owner. Pri ate ri'hts !ust yield to the irresistible de!ands of the public interest on the ti!e1honored 6ustification, as in the case of the policed power, that the welfare of the people is the supre!e law. Se$tion 6: #ASCO %S PAGCOR :ocal +utono!y under 1987 Constitution si!ply !eans the decentrali@ation and does not !a7e the local 'o ern!ents so erei'n within the -tate or an i!periu! i!perio. LIM#ONA %S MANGELIN 8ecentrali@ation of ad!inistration is !erely dele'ation of ad!inistrati e powers to the :5Fs in order to broaden the base of 'o ern!ental power. 8ecentrali@ation of power is the abdication by the national 'o ern!ent powers.

7
Se$tion ;8 Le"s*i vs CSC The constitutional ri'ht to infor!ation on !atters of public concern is self1e2ecutin' without the need for any ancillary act of le'islation.

%al onte vs (e %illa The constitutional ri'ht to infor!ation is li!ited on !atters of public concern and is further sub6ect to such li!itations as !ay be pro ided by law. Bowe er, althou'h citi@ens are afforded the ri'ht to infor!ation, the Constitution does not accord the! the ri'ht to co!pel the custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, su!!aries and the li7e in their desire to acDuire infor!ation of public concern. A<+ino=sa, iento vs o,ato

Ahen a co!!ittee or board is created as public in its ery e2istence and character such >T,CB, there can be no alid clai! to pri acy. SEPARATION OF POWERS Sani(a( v. COMELEC ?n whether the case is 6usticiable Political Duestions are associated with the wisdo! of the le'ality of a particular act. Ahere the orte2 of the contro ersy refers to the le'ality or alidity of the contested act, that !atter is definitely 6usticiable or non1political. 0f the Constitution pro ides how it !ay be a!ended, the 6udiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the authority assu!ed was alid or not. ?n whether the President !ay propose Constitutional a!end!ents 0f the President has been le'iti!ately dischar'in' the le'islati e functions of the interi! +sse!bly, there is no reason why he cannot alidly dischar'e the function of that +sse!bly to propose a!end!ents to the Constitution, which is but an ad6unct, althou'h peculiar, to its 'ross le'islati e power. "%ote that at the ti!e Pre@. >arcos had le'islati e powers and there was no le'islati e depart!ent at the ti!e$ Daza v. Sin"son Ahere the le'ality or alidity of the act is in Duestion and not the wisdo! of the act, the Court !ay ta7e 6urisdiction and decide on the actsC alidity. # en in political Duestions the Court !ay ta7e 6urisdiction under the e2panded 6udicial power e2tended to it by +rt 8 -ec. 1 of the Constitution. ")<udicial power includes the duty to settle actual contro ersies in ol in' ri'hts which are le'ally de!andable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a

8
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government. ! Dele"ation o& Po3e,s Ga,$ia v. E>e$. Se$,eta,The Con'ress is !ay authori@e the President to fi2 tariff rates and duties sub6ect to such li!itations and restrictions that they !ay i!pose. This is e2pressly pro ided for in +rt =, -ec 28 par 2 of the Constitution.

A,aneta v. Din"lasan The dele'ation of e!er'ency powers by Con'ress to the President !ay be li!ited by Con'ress sub6ect to restrictions it !ay pro ide. Con'ress !ay withdraw the dele'ated power at any ti!e. 0n this case, the e!er'ency power was withdrawn at the ti!e Con'ress beca!e able to e2ercise its le'islati e duties a'ain. In Re5 Manzano The co!!ittee perfor!s ad!inistrati e functionG which under -ection 12, +rticle /000 of the Constitution prohibits !e!bers of the -C and other courts established by law to be desi'nated to any a'ency perfor!in' Duasi16udicial or ad!inistrati e functions. To Duote C< Fernando in 5arcia s. >acarai', he said that "while the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor# the practical demands of government precluding its doctrine application# it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being re$uired to assume a position or perform a duty non%judicial in character. Administrative functions are those which involves the regulation and control the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislative or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence. ission

An"a,a vs. Ele$to,al Co

The #lectoral Co!!ission is an independent, i!partial, and non1partisan tribunal. The sole power to deter!ine contests re'ardin' the elections, returns, and Dualifications of the !e!bers of the %ational +sse!bly has been transferred in totality to the #lectoral Co!!ission. 0ts power is clear, co!plete, and e2clusi e. Easte,n S'i**in" Lines vs. POEA The principle of non1dele'ation of powers is applicable to all three branches of 'o ern!ent specifically in the case of the le'islati e. Ahat can be dele'ated is the discretion to deter!ine how the law !ay be enforced and not what the law shall be since the ascertain!ent of the latter sub6ect is within the prero'ati e and deter!ination of the le'islature. 8ele'ation of le'islati e power is per!itted and alid pro ided that is passes the two accepted tests1 co!pleteness test and the sufficient standard test. The reason for such dele'ation is the increasin' co!ple2ity of the tas7 of the 'o ern!ent and the 'rowin' inability of the le'islature to cope directly with the !yriad proble!s de!andin' its attention.

Casi!an" vs. A<+ino Ahile under the 1974 Constitution the Co!!ission on #lections is now the sole 6ud'e of all contests relatin' to the elections, returns, and Dualifications of !e!bers of the %ational +sse!ble as well as electi e pro incial and city officials "par 2, -ec. 2, +rt. .001C, 1974 Constitution$, such power does not e2tend to electoral contests concernin' !unicipal electi e positions. The issue still re!ains a 6usticiable Duestion and not a political DuestionG. Bence, the courts ha e the 6urisdiction to hear and decide on the case. Political Duestions, in its ordinary parlance, refers to the Duestion of policy. 0t refers to those Duestions which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their so erei'n capacity to, or in re'ard to which full discretionary authority has been ested to the le'islati e or e2ecuti e branch of the 'o ern!ent. 0t is concerned with the issues dependent upon the wisdo!, and not the le'ality of a particular !easure. Ro(,i"+ez v. Gella +ct %o. =71 was e2pressly in pursuance of the constitutional li!itation of the dele'ation of e!er'ency powers. 0t is presu!ed that the %ational +sse!bly intended it to be for a li!ited period. #2ecuti e ?rders %os. HIH and HI=, which was anchored to the said +ct are declared null and oid and the respondents are ordered to desist fro! appropriatin', releasin' and allottin' e2pendin' funds set aside therein. Peo*le v. %e,a +ct %o. I221 is tanta!ount to an undue dele'ation of le'islati e power. The powers of the 'o ern!ent are distributed a!on' three coordinate and substantially independent or'ans& the le'islati e, the e2ecuti e and the 6udicial. #ach of the depart!ents of the 'o ern!ent deri es its authority fro! the Constitution. LEGISLATI%E DEPARTMENT To!ias v. A!alos The creation of a new con'ressional district is but a natural conseDuence of a !unicipalityCs con ersion into a city. The Constitution pro ides that )a city should ha e a population of at least 2HJ,JJJ* and is entitled to at least 1 representati e. Ma,iano 0,. v. Co ele$ +s decided in Tobias . +balos, the Constitution pro ides that the co!positions of the Bouse should not be !ore than 2HJ !e!bers, unless otherwise pro ided by law. The natural result in the creation of a new le'islati e fro! a special law whose purpose is to con ert a !unicipality into a city is sanctioned by the Constitution. Monte1o v. Co ele$ The Co!elec has no power to reapportion districts but only to !a7e !inor ad6ust!ents.

1
,epublic +ct %o. 79I1 )+n act pro idin' for the election of the party1list representati es throu'h the party1list syste! and appropriatin' funds therefro!. Se$tion 1; ?an(+eta vs. De la Costa Ahen a 6ud'e of first instance, presidin' o er a branch of a Court of First 0nstance of a 6udicial district by irtue of a le'al and alid appoint!ent, accepts another appoint!ent to preside o er the sa!e branch of the sa!e Court of First 0nstance, in addition of another Court of First 0nstance to the old one, enters into the dischar'e of the functions of his new office and recei es the correspondin' salary, he abandons his old office and cannot clai! to be entitled to repossess it or Duestion the constitutionality of the law by irtue of which his new appoint!ent has been issued( and, said new appoint!ent ha in' been disappro ed by the Co!!ission on +ppoint!ents of the %ational +sse!bly, neither can he clai! to continue occupyin' the office conferred upon hi! by said new appoint!ent, ha in' ipso 6ure ceased in the dischar'e of the functions thereof.

Se$tion 1@ P+-at vs. De G+z an %o >e!ber of the Batasan' Pa!bansa shall appear as counsel before any court without appellate 6urisdiction, before any court in any ci il case wherein the 5o ern!ent, or any subdi ision, a'ency, or instru!entality thereof is the ad erse party, or in any cri!inal case wherein any officer or e!ployee of the 5o ern!ent is accused of an offense co!!itted in relation to his office,or before any ad!inistrati e body. %either shall he, directly or indirectly be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special pri ile'e 'ranted by the 5o ern!ent, or any subdi ision, a'ency or instru!entality thereof, includin' any 'o ern!ent1owned or controlled corporation, durin' his ter! of office. Be shall not accept e!ploy!ent to inter ene in any cause or !atter where he !ay be called to act on account of his office. Se$tion 17 Santia"o vs. G+in"ona/ 0,. Ahere no pro ision of the Constitution, the laws or e en the rules of the -enate has been clearly shown to ha e been iolated, disre'arded or o erloo7ed, 'ra e abuse of discretion cannot be i!puted to -enate officials for acts done within their co!petence and authority. Avelino vs. C+en$o The constitutional 'rant to the -enate of the power to elect its own president should not be interfered with, nor ta7en o er, by the 6udiciary.

1
Ahen the constitution declares that a majority of "each &ouse shall constitute a $uorum , it does not !ean all of its !e!bers. >a6ority of all the !e!bers constitute the Bouse. Bence, 12 senators who unani!ously oted constitute a !a6ority of 24 senators "1J wal7ed out, 1 out of the country$. OSMEAA %S. PENDATUN The Bouse is the 6ud'e of what constitutes disorderly beha ior as conferred upon by the Constitution. +lso, Con'ress has the inherent le'islati e prero'ati e of suspension. PAREDES/ 0R. %S SANDIGAN#A.AN -andi'anbayan has the authority to suspend a district representati e in iolation of the +nti1 5raft :aw as it is bein' i!posed on the representati e %?T as a !e!ber of the Bouse. U.S. %S PONS The Court !ay not 'o beyond the the recitals of the le'islati e 6ournals for the purpose of deter!inin' the date of ad6ourn!ent when such 6ournal are clear and e2plicit. To inDuire the eracity of 6ournals, when they are clear and e2plicit, would be to iolate both the letter and spirit of the laws, to in ade the coordinate and independent depart!ent of the 'o ern!ent and to interfere with the le'iti!ate powers and functions of the :e'islature.

CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO %S GIMENE? #nrolled bill doctrine1 the ter! )urea for!aldehyde* is conclusi e upon the courts as re'ards the tenor of the !easure passed by the Con'ress and appro ed by the President. Se$tion 1B G 8a@a s -in'son 1 The sense of the Constitution is that the !e!bership in the C?+ !ust always reflect political ali'n!ents and !ust ad6ust to chan'es. %owhere, howe er, in the Constitution reDuire that the party !ust be a re'istered party. G Coseten' s >itra 1 #ndorse!ent of other representati es "in C?+$ cannot be counted in fa or of a representati e if they do not belon' to the latter3s party. G 5uin'ona s 5on@ales 1 Full co!ple!ent of 12 seats in C?+ is not !andatory ,oundin' out J.H to 1 is unconstitutional as it would depri e other parties of seats in C?+. Se$. 615 G Ben'@on s -enate Blue ,ibbon Co!!ittee 1 0n esti'ation was not in aid of le'islation where it !erely ai!s at deter!inin' whether a law is iolated. To allow such in esti'ation is to iolate separation of powers. G +rnault s %a@areno

1
1 Power of 0n esti'ation includes power to punish a contu!acious witness for conte!pt. #2perience has shown that !ere reDuests for infor!ation are freDuently una ailin'. 1 )0n aid of le'islation* 1 not difficult to satisfy. %ecessity or lac7 of necessity for le'islati e action is deter!ined by the su! total of infor!ation to be 'athered as a result of in esti'ation, and not by a fraction of such infor!ation elicited fro! sin'le Duestion. 0t is sufficient that the Duestion is 'er!ane to the sub6ect !atter of inDuiry. There is no need for it to be directly related or connected to possible le'islation. G %eri s -enate Co!!ittee on +ccountability 1 #2ception to le'islati e inDuiry& #2ecuti e Pri ile'e "which is e2tended to all close ad isors of the President$ 1 0t is wron' for -enate to punish one for conte!pt where e2ecuti e pri ile'e is properly in o7ed. 1 -enate3s !ista7es in the case at bar& "1$ in itations to %eri did not include possible statute( "2$ conte!pt order lac7s reDuired K of otes( "4$ -enate did not first rule on the clai! of e2ecuti e pri ile'e and instead dis!issed %eri3s e2planation( "I$ rules of procedure on inDuiries in aid of le'islation 9 not duly published. Se$. 61 an( 665 G -enate s #r!ita 1 Ahen Con'ress !erely see7s to be infor!ed on how depart!ent heads are i!ple!entin' the statutes, it is not i!perati e. 1 The )o ersi'ht function* of Con'ress !ay be facilitated by co!pulsory process only to the e2tent that it is perfor!ed in pursuit of le'islation. 1 +ppearance of depart!ent heads in Duestion hour is discretionary. 1 Ahen Con'ress e2ercises its power of inDuiry, the only way for the depart!ent heads to e2e!pt the!sel es therefro! is by a alid clai! of pri ile'e. 1 #.#CFT0/# P,0/0:#5# 9 pri ile'e based on doctrine of separation of powers, e2e!ptin' e2ecuti e fro! disclosure reDuire!ents where such e2e!ption is necessary to the dischar'e of hi'hly i!portant e2ecuti e responsibilities. 0t co ers )cate'ories of infor!ation* not of persons. Se$. 6@5 G Tolentino s -ecretary of Finance 1 The phrase )ori'inate e2clusi ely* does not refer to the appropriations law but to the appropriations bill. 0t is sufficient that the Bouse of ,ep. initiated the passa'e of the bill. G +l are@ s 5uin'ona 1 + bill of local application, such as one as7in' for the con ersion of a !unicipality into a city, is dee!ed to ha e ori'inated fro! the Bouse pro ided that the bill of the Bouse was filed prior to the filin' of the bill in the -enate e en if, in the end, the -enate appro ed its own ersion. 1 The filin' in the -enate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill does not contra ene the constitutional reDuire!ent as lon' as the -enate does not act thereupon until it recei es the Bouse bill. Se$. 6:5 G 5arcia s >ata 1 ,08#, 9 a pro ision not related to the appropriation act "is prohibited$ G 8e!etria s +lba 1 transfer of appropriations 9 prohibited

1
G PB0:C?%-+ s #nriDue@ 1 The list of those who !ay be authori@ed to transfer funds is e2clusi e. 1 Case at bar& Con'ress!en are allowed to deter!ine the necessity of reali'n!ent, but Bouse -pea7er or -enate Pres. will ha e to appro e the reali'n!ent before ite!s are reali'ned. 1 Case at bar& Chief of -taff !ay not be 'i e authority to reali'n appropriations. Se$. 675 G Tio s /ideo'ra! ,e'ulatory Board 1 0!position of ta2 is sufficiently related to the re'ulation of ideo industry where the title is co!prehensi e enou'h to include such sub6ect "ta2ation$ related to the 'eneral purpose "creation of /ideo'ra! Board$ G Phil. <ud'es +ssoc. s Prado 1 ,epealLAithdrawal of fran7in' pri ile'e is 'er!ane to the ob6ect of the title, which is to create postal ser ice syste!. Bence, the sa!e is e!braced in the titleL G Tolentino s -ecretary of Finance M-ec. 2= "1$N 1 Aithdrawin' ta2 e2e!ptions 'ranted before is e!braced in the sub6ect of the title which is to widen the ta2 base G Tan s 8el ,osario 1 4 purposes of -ec. 4"1$, +rt. /0& "a$ to pre ent hod'e1pod'e or lo'1rollin' le'islation "b$ to pre ent surprise or fraud upon the le'islature by !eans of pro isions which !i'ht be o erloo7ed "c$ to fairly apprise the people of the sub6ects of le'islation G Tobias s +balos 1 Pro ision pro idin' for a separate le'islati e district is 'er!ane to the sub6ect of the bill creatin' the City of >andaluyon' G Tolentino s -ecretary of Finance M-ec. 2= "2$N 1 0F it is only the printin' that is bein' dispensed by presidential certification, the ti!e sa ed would be so ne'li'ible as to be of any use in ensurin' i!!ediate enact!ent. "Printin' and ,eadin's on separate days 9 both dispensable by pres. certification$ 1 Ahere no -enators contro erted the reality of the factual basis of certification, 'rowin' bud'et deficit !ay be considered as basis for presidential certification. -enators, in respondin' to the call of the Pres. by otin' on the bill, !anifested their belief in the ur'ent need for certification of the bill. Se$. 6C5 G Tolentino s -ec. of Finance 1 0t is within the power of a conference co!!ittee to include in its report an entirely new pro ision not found in either Bouse Bill or -enate Bill. "+!end!ent in the nature of substitution is warranted as lon' as a!end!ent is 'er!ane to the sub6ect !atter of the bill$ 1 to disre'ard the enrolled bill is to disre'ard the respect due the other 2 depart!ents. G 5on@ales s >acarai' 1 Pressident can eto an ite! 1 8octrine of inappropriate pro isions 9 a pro ision that is constitutionally inappropriate !ay be sin'led out for eto if it is not an appropriation or re enue ite!. +n inappropriate pro ision in an appropriations bill is an ite! in iself.

G Ben'@on s 8rilon 1 President3s power to eto an ite! does not 'rant authority to eto part of an ite! "or pro isions$. 1 President cannot eto a law or repeal a law. G PB0:C?%-+ s #nriDue@ 1 Pro isions that are 'er!ane to the specific appropriations cannot be etoed. 1 ,eDuire!ent of Con'ressional appro al for release of funds for !oderni@ation of +FP can be incorporated in separate bill and hence inappropriate. 0t was properly etoed. 1 #2ecuti e 0!pound!ent 9 refusal of the President to spend funds already allocated by Con'ress for a specific purpose "the duty to i!ple!ent the law includes the duty to desist fro! i!ple!entin' it when i!ple!entation would pre6udice public interest$. The Court, howe er, did not rule on this issue, and rather declared the pro ision concernin' benefits of C+F5Fs as an inappropriate pro ision. Se$. 6B5 G ;apatiran n' !'a %a'lilin'7od sa Pilipinas s Tan 1 a ta2 is considered unifor! when it operates with the sa!e force and effect in e ery place where the sub6ect !ay be found. G Pro ince of +bra s <ud'e Bernando G +bra /alley Colle'e s +Duino 1 Ahere a lot is not used e2clusi ely for educational purpose, it !ay be ta2ed if the use is not incidental to the attain!ent of !ain purpose. G Tan s 8el ,osario 1 Fnifor!ity of ta2ation !eans& "a$ standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary "b$ cate'ori@ation is 'er!ane to achie e le'islati e purpose "c$ law applies, all thin's bein' eDual, to both present and future conditions "d$ classification applies eDually well to all those belon'in' to the sa!e class Se$. 695 G Pascual s -ec. of Public Aor7s 1 +ppropriation for a road owned by a pri ate indi idual is in alid because it is not for a public purpose. -ubseDuent donation did not alidate the law because alidity of a statute depends upon the power of Con'ress at the ti!e of its appro al and not upon subseDuent e ents. G +'lipay s ,ui@ 1 +ppropriation for special sta!p issue is alid as it is not specifically !ade to benefit a reli'ious deno!ination but for a public purpose. The benefit acDuired by the Church is incidental only. G 5uin'ona s Cara'ue 1 The +uto!atic ,eappropriation :aw for ser icin' forei'n debts is alid because the a!ount is fi2ed by the para!eters of the law itself which reDuires the si!ple act of loo7in' into the boo7s of Treasure "the a!ount is deter!inable$. 1 Bud'etary process& "a$ bud'et preparation "b$ le'islati e authori@ation "c$ bud'et e2ecution "d$ bud'et accountability

G ?s!ena s ?rbos 1 0ncrease of petroleu! prices to resol e the Ter!inal Fund Balance deficit is alid as it was a alid e2ercise of police power. G PB0:C?%-+ s #nriDue@ 1 Por7 barrel pro isions in the annual bud'et allowin' !e!bers of Con'ress to perfor! e2ecuti e function of spendin' !oney appropriated are not in iolation of separation of powers because Con'ress itself had specified the uses of the fund and the power 'i en was !erely reco!!endatory to the President who could appro e or disappro e the reco!!endation. Se$. ;85 G First :epanto Cera!ics, 0nc. s C+ 1 B.P. Bl'. 129 'rantin' e2clusi e appellate 6urisdiction to C+ o er the decisions of Duasi16udicial bodies is not superseded by ?!nibus 0n est!ents Code of 1987 pro idin' that decisions of B?0 are appealable to -C because ad ice and concurrence of -C was not sou'ht. G 8ia@ s C+ 1 -ec. 1J of #? %o. 17J statin' )a party ad ersely affected by a decision of #,B !ay file a petition with -C* was superseded by the Constitution statin' that 6urisdiction of -C cannot be !ade to increase without its ad ice and concurrence. Se$. ;65 G -ubic Bay >etropolitan +uthority s C?>#:#C 1 0nitiati e is entirely the wor7 of electorate( the process of law%making by the people themselves 1 ,eferendu! consists !erely of the electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative body. 1 Case at bar& C?>#:#C erred in i!ple!entin' a ,esolution when respondents filed petition for 0nitiati e and not ,eferendu!. EDECUTI%E DEPARTMENT Se$. 15 G >arcos s >an'lapus 1 The President has )residual powers.* The President is !ore than the su! of specific powers enu!erated in the Constitution. 1 Ahat is not part of the le'islati e and 6udicial depart!ents is dee!ed part of the e2ecuti e. 1 The 1987 Constitution pro ided for a li!itation of specific powers of the President, particularly those relatin' to the co!!ander1in1chief clause, but not a di!inution of the 'eneral 'rant of e2ecuti e power. G -oli en s >a7asiar 1 The pri ile'e of i!!unity fro! suit is to assure the e2ercise of Presidential duties free fro! any hindrance or distraction considerin' that bein' the Chief #2ecuti e de!ands undi ided attention. 1 The pri ile'e pertains to the President by irtue of the office and !ay be in o7ed only by the holder of the office. There is nothin' which prohibits the President to wai e this pri ile'e. G #strada s 8esierto 1 + non1sittin' President does not en6oy i!!unity fro! suit "i!!unity is only durin' the tenure$

1
1 # en a sittin' President is not i!!une fro! suit for non1official acts or fro! wron'doin'. "Public office is a public trust. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the -tate and the officer who acts ille'ally is not actin' as such but stands in the sa!e footin' as any other trespasser.$ Se$. 1;5 G 8oro!al s -andi'anbayan 1 -ec -ec. 14, +rt. /00 is applicable in a case where the accused has not si'ned any docu!ent of any bid of the fa!ily corporation of which he is a !e!ber, sub!itted to any 'o ern!ent depart!ent. 1 Case at bar& Petitioner has at least an indirect interest with the transaction with 8#C- and %>OC. G Ci il :iberties Fnion s #2ecuti e -ecretary 1 #? %o. 28I is unconstitutional insofar it allows a !e!ber of the Cabinet to hold not !ore than two positions in the 'o ern!ent. ",espondent3s contention that -ec. 7, +rt. 0.1B is an e2ception would defeat the ob ious le'islati e intent which is to prohibit cabinet !e!bers fro! holdin' !ultiple offices.$ G +ytona s Castillo 1 +s a rule, once an appoint!ent is issued, it cannot be reconsidered where the appointee has Dualified. #2ception& ad interi! appoint!ents issued in the last hours of an out'oin' Chief #2ecuti e "!idni'ht appoint!ents 9 !ade for buyin' otes$. G 0n re /alen@uela and /allarta 1 -ec. 1H "President shall not !a7e appoint!ents within 2 !onths prior to the ne2t Presidential election$ is applicable to the !e!bers of the <udiciary. 1 This sort of appoint!ent is !ade for partisan considerations. Se$. 175 E Bina!ira s 5arrucho 1 +ppoint!ent or desi'nation in ol es e2ercise of discretion which cannot be dele'ated. # en if it be assu!ed that the power could be e2ercised by >inister of Touris!, it could be recalled by the President. 1 8esi'nation is considered only an actin' or te!porary appoint!ent, which does not confer security of tenure. G -ar!iento s >ison 1 I 'roups of officers who! the President shall appoint& "a$ heads of the e2ecuti e depart!ents, a!bassadors, other public !inisters and consuls, officers of the ar!ed forces fro! the ran7 of colonel or na al captain, and other whose appoint!ents are ested in hi! in this Constitution "b$ all other officers of the 5o ern!ent whose appoint!ents are not otherwise pro ided for by law "c$ those who! the President !ay be authori@ed by law to appoint "d$ officers lower in ran7 whose appoint!ents the Con'ress !ay by law est in the President alone. 1 Case at bar& Confir!ation of C?+ is not needed in appoint!ent of Co!!issioner of Bureau of Custo!s because a bureau head is not among those within the first group of appoint!ents where consent of C?+ is reDuired. G Bautista s -alon'a

1
1 Confir!ation of C?+ is not needed in appoint!ent of Chair!an of Co!!ission of Bu!an ,i'hts because such appoint!ent is not ested in the President in the Constitution. The President appoints Chair!an of CB, pursuant to #? 1=4 "'&( 'hairman is thus within the 4rd group of officers$ G Puintos18eles s Co!!ission of +ppoint!ents 1 The appoint!ent of -ectoral ,epresentati es reDuires confir!ation by the Co!!ission on +ppoint!ents. The seats reser ed for sectoral representati es !ay be filled by appoint!ent by the President by e2press pro ision of -ec.7, +rticle ./000 of the Constitution "hence, sectoral representatives are within the )st group of officers$ 1 #2ceptions to those officers within the 1st 'roup& "1$ ?!buds!an and his deputies, and "2$ !e!bers of the -upre!e Court and 6ud'es of lower courts. G Calderon s Carale 1 Confir!ation by C?+ is reDuired only for presidential appointees that are within the 1 st 'roup of officers as !entioned in -ar!iento s >ison. 1 Con'ress !ay not e2pand the list of appoint!ents needin' confir!ation. 1 Case at bar& ,+ =71H, which reDuires the C?+ confir!ation in appoint!ents of %:,C Chair!an and Co!!issioners, trans'resses -ec. 1=, +rt. /00. The appoint!ents of *+(' 'hairman and 'ommissioners do not need C?+ confir!ation because they fall under the ,rd group of officers. G Tarrosa s -in'son 1 affir!ed the rulin' in Calderon s Carale 1 Case at bar& +ppoint!ent of Central Ban7 5o ernor does not need C?+ confir!ation. G Flores s 8rilon 1 + law which li!its the President to only one appointee is an encroach!ent to the prero'ati e of the President because appoint!ent in ol es discretion to choose who to appoint. G :ue'o s Ci il -er ice Co!!ission 1 C-C is without authority to re o7e an appoint!ent because of its belief that another person was better Dualified, which is an encroach!ent on the discretion ested solely in the appointin' authority. 1 The per!anent appoint!ent !ade by the appointin' authority !ay not be re ersed by C-C and call it te!porary. G Pobre s >endieta 1 The acancy in the position of Chair!an of the Professional ,e'ulation Co!!ission cannot be filled by the -enior +ssociate Co!!issioner by operation of law "or by succession$ because it will depri e the President of the power to appoint the Chair!an. Se$. 1C G 8rilon s :i! 1 8istinction between power and control& +n officer in control lays down the rules in the doin' of an act. if they are not followed, he !ay, in his discretion, order the act undone or re1done by his subordinate or he !ay e en decide to do it by hi!self. -upervision does not co er such authority. The super isor !erely sees to it that rules are followed, but he hi!self does not lay down such rules, nor does he ha e the discretion to !odify or replace the!. 0f the rules are not obser ed, he !ay order the wor7 done or re1done but only to confor! to the prescribed rules. Be !ay not prescribe his own !anner e2cept to see to it that the rules are followed.

1
"%ote$ Power of control pertains to power of an officer to alter, !odify, nullify, or set aside what a subordinate has done in the perfor!ance of his duties and to substitute his 6ud'!ent to that of the for!er M>ondano s -il osaN G /illena s -ecretary of the 0nterior 1 .octrine of /ualified Political Agency 0alter ego principle! %acts of the -ecretaries of #2ecuti e 8epart!ents, when perfor!ed and pro!ul'ated in the re'ular course of business or unless disappro ed or reprobated by the Chief #2ecuti e, are presu!pti ely the acts of the Chief #2ecuti e 1 Case at bar& -ecretary of the 0nterior is in ested with the authority to order the in esti'ation of the char'es a'ainst the petitioner and to appoint a special in esti'ator for that purpose. G :acson1>a'allanes Co., 0nc. s Pano 1 8epart!ent heads are President3s )!en of confidence.* Bis is the power to appoint the!( his, too, is the pri ile'e to dis!iss the! at pleasure. %or!ally, he controls and directs their acts. 0!plicit then is his authority to 'o o er, confir!, !odify or re erse the action ta7en by his depart!ent secretaries. 1 Case at bar& The President, throu'h his #2ecuti e -ecretary, !ay undo an act of the 8irector of :ands G City of 0li'an s 8irector of :ands 1 The President has the power to 'rant portions of public do!ain to any 'o ern!ent entity li7e the City of 0li'an because he has control o er the 8irector of :ands, who has direct e2ecuti e control in the lease, sale or any for! of concession or disposition of the land of public do!ain. G 5ascon s +rroyo 1 Case at bar& #2ecuti e -ecretary has the power and authority to enter into the +'ree!ent to +rbitrate with the +B- CB% as he acted for and in behalf of the President when he si'ned it. G ;ilusan Bayan s 8o!in'ue@ 1 +n ad!inistrati e officer has only such powers as are e2pressly 'ranted to hi! and those necessarily i!plied in the e2ercise thereof. These powers should not be e2tended by i!plication beyond what !ay be necessary for their 6ust and reasonable e2ecution. G +n'an'co s Castillo 1 The power to re!o e is inherent in the power to appoint, but not with re'ard to those officers or e!ployees who belon' to the classified ser ice for as to the! the inherent power cannot be e2ercised G %+>+,C? s +rca 1 #2ecuti e power of control e2tends to 'o ern!ent1owned corporations. Se$. 1B5 G 5ua@on s 8e /illa 1 The President has the power to ordain saturation dri es. There is nothin' in the Constitution which denies the authority of the Chief #2ec. to order police actions to stop unabated cri!inality, risin' lawlessness, and alar!in' co!!unist acti ities. G ,uffy s Chief of -taff 1 Courts !artial are si!ply instru!entalities of the e2ecuti e power, pro ided by the Con'ress for the President as Co!!ander in chief to aid hi! in properly co!!andin' the ar!y and na y and enforcin' discipline therein and utili@e under his order those of his authori@ed !ilitary representati es.

1
G ?la'uer s >ilitary Co!!ission %o. 4I 1 8ue process of law de!ands that in all cri!inal prosecutions the accused be entitled to a trial. The trial 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. >ilitary co!!issions pertain to the e2ecuti e depart!ent and are instru!entalities of the President as co!!ander1in1chief to aid hi! in enforcin' discipline in the ar!ed forces. G Puilona s 5eneral Court >artial G 5udani s -en'a 1 The President has constitutional authority to pre ent a !e!ber of the ar!ed forces fro! testifyin' before a le'islati e inDuiry, by irtue of her power as co!!ander1in1chief, and that as a conseDuence, a !ilitary officer who defies such in6unction is liable under !ilitary 6ustice. +t the sa!e ti!e, the Court also holds that any cha!ber of Con'ress which see7s the appearance befoe it of a !ilitary officer a'ainst the consent of the President has adeDuate re!edies under law to co!pel such attendance. +ny !ilitary officer who! the Con'ress su!!ons to testify before it !ay be co!pelled to do so by the President. 0f the President is not so inclined, the President !ay be co!!anded by 6udicial order to co!pel the attendance of the !ilitary officer. Final 6udicial orders ha e the force of the law of the land which the President has the duty to faithfully e2ecute. Se$. 195 G Torres s 5on@ales 1 + 6udicial pronounce!ent is not necessary in deter!inin' whether the conditions in the pardon are iolated. The deter!ination of whether there is a iolations of the conditions rests e2clusi ely in the sound 6ud'!ent of the President. G >onsanto s Factoran 1 Pardon i!plies 'uilt. Ahile it relie es the party pardoned fro! all puniti e conseDuences of his cri!inal act, it relie es hi! fro! nothin' !ore. 0t does not, therefore, restore a con icted felon to public office forfeited by reason of con iction. G People s -alle, <r. 1 Pardon !ay be 'ranted only by final 6ud'!ent. Ahere the 6ud'!ent of con iction is still pendin' appeal, e2ecuti e cle!ency !ay not yet be 'ranted. Before an appellant !ay be 'ranted pardon, he !ust first as7 for the withdrawal of his appeal. G 5arcia s C?+ 1 President3s 'rant of e2ecuti e cle!ency to a person dis!issed fro! his office pursuant to an ad!inistrati e case "but where the latter has been acDuitted in a cri!inal case based on the sa!e facts alle'ed in the cri!inal case$ entitles the latter to auto!atic reinstate!ent and bac7wa'es. G -abello s 8#C1 Pardon "in a cri!inal case$ frees the indi idual fro! all the penalties and disabilities and restores hi! to all his ci il ri'hts. +lthou'h such pardon !ay restore a person3s eli'ibility to public office, it does not entitle hi! to auto!atic reinstate!ent. Be should apply for reappoint!ent to said office. 1 MCo!pare with 5arcia s C?+N G :la!as s ?rbos 1 0n 'rantin' the power of e2ecuti e cle!ency, the Constitution does not distin'uish between cri!inal and ad!inistrati e cases. Se$. 1B5

G Constantino, <r. s Cuisia 1 The debt1relief contracts, pro idin' for buy1bac7 and bond1con ersion sche!es, entered into pursuant to Financin' Pro'ra! are not beyond the powers 'ranted to the President under -ec. 2J, +rt. /00. The only restriction that the Constitution pro ides, aside fro! the prior concurrence of the >onetary Board, is that loans !ust be sub6ect to li!itations pro ided by law. +ccordin'ly, the contention that buy1bac7 and bond1con ersion sche!es are neither )loans* nor )'uarantees,* and hence beyond the PresidentCs power to e2ecute, are without !erit. Se$. 615 G Co!!issioner of Custo!s s #astern -ea Tradin' "19=1$ 1 The concurrence of the Bouse of Con'ress is reDuired by our funda!ental law in the !a7in' of treaties which are howe er distinct and different fro! e2ecuti e a'ree!ents which !ay be alidly entered without such concurrence. G Pi!entel, <r. s #2ec. -ec. 1 The power to ratify is ested in the President, sub6ect to concurrence of the -enate. The role of the -enate is li!ited only to 'i in' or withholdin' its consent or concurrence to the ratification. Bence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to sub!it a treaty to the -enate or ha in' secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion to ratify lies within the President3s co!petence alone. 1 I steps in treaty1!a7in' 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 pro isions of a treaty$ "d$ e2chan'e of instru!ents of ratification 1 0n the case at bar, the treaty was !erely si'ned. 0UDICIAL DEPARTMENT Se$. 15 G -antia'o s Bautista 1 The courts !ay not e2ercise 6udicial power when there is no applicable law. 1 Case at bar& +n award of honors to a student by a board of teachers !ay not be re ersed by a court where the awards are 'o erned by no applicable law. Daza v Sin"son 1 # en if the issue presented was political in nature, the Court is still not be precluded fro! resol in' it under the e2panded 6urisdiction conferred upon it that now co ers, in proper cases, e en the political Duestion. 1 That where serious constitutional Duestions are in ol ed, Qthe transcendental i!portance to the public of these cases de!ands that they be settled pro!ptly and definitely brushin' aside, if we !ust, technicalities of procedure.Q Mant,+ste S-ste s v Co+,t o& A**eals = There can be no 6ustification for 6udicial interference in the business of an ad!inistrati e a'ency, e2cept when it iolates a citi@en3s constitutional ri'hts, or co!!its a 'ra e abuse of discretion, or acts in e2cess of, or without 6urisdiction.

1 Courts !ay not substitute their 6ud'!ent for that of the +sset Pri ati@ation Trust "ad!inistrati e body$, nor bloc7, by an in6unction, the dischar'e of its functions and the i!ple!entation of its decisions in connection with the acDuisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it. Mala"a v Pena$'os/ 0,. 1 0t was pre iously declared the prohibition pertained to the issuance of in6unctions or restrainin' orders by courts a'ainst ad!inistrati e acts in contro ersies in ol in' facts or the e2ercise of discretion in technical cases. The Court obser ed that to allow the courts to 6ud'e these !atters would disturb the s!ooth functionin' of the ad!inistrati e !achinery. ?n issues definitely outside of this di!ension and in ol in' Duestions of law, courts could not be pre ented by any law "in this case, P.8. %o. =JH$ fro! e2ercisin' their power to restrain or prohibit ad!inistrati e acts. PACU v Se$,eta,- o& E(+$ation = <udicial power is li!ited to the decision of actual cases and contro ersies. ">ere apprehension that the -ecretary of #ducation !i'ht under the law withdraw the per!it of one of petitioners does not constitute a 6usticiable contro ersy.$ 1 Courts do not sit to ad6udicate !ere acade!ic Duestions to satisfy scholarly interest therein howe er intellectually solid the proble! !ay be. This is especially true where the issues Qreach constitutional di!ensions, for then there co!es into play re'ard for the court3s duty to a oid decision of constitutional issues unless a oidance beco!es e asion. Ma,iano/ 0,. v COMELEC 1 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 or contro ersy. Petitioners who are residents of Ta'ui' "e2cept >ariano$ are not also the proper parties to raise this abstract issue "city of >a7ati is in ol ed$. Aorse, they raise this futuristic issue in a petition for declaratory relief o er which this Court has no 6urisdiction. Ma$asiano v National Ho+sin" A+t'o,it10t is a rule fir!ly entrenched in our 6urisprudence that the constitutionality of an act of the le'islature will not be deter!ined by the courts unless that Duestion is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a deter!ination of the case. 0. 0o-a v PCGG 1 The rule is settled that no Duestion in ol in' the constitutionality or alidity of a law or 'o ern!ental act !ay be heard and decided by the court unless there is co!pliance with the le'al reDuisites for 6udicial inDuiry, na!ely& that the Duestion !ust be raised by the proper party( that there !ust be an actual case or contro ersy( that the Duestion !ust be raised at the earliest possible opportunity( and, that the decision on the constitutional or le'al Duestion !ust be necessary to the deter!ination of the case itself. But the !ost i!portant are the first two "2$ reDuisites.

2
1 %ot e ery action filed by a ta2payer can Dualify to challen'e the le'ality of official acts done by the 'o ern!ent. + ta2payer3s suit can prosper only if the 'o ern!ental acts bein' Duestioned in ol e disburse!ent of public funds upon the theory that the e2penditure of public funds by an officer of the state for the purpose of ad!inisterin' an unconstitutional act constitutes a !isapplication of such funds, which !ay be en6oined at the reDuest of a ta2payer. Le"as*i v Civil Se,vi$e Co ission

1 0t beco!es apparent that when a >anda!us proceedin' in ol es the assertion of a public ri'ht, the reDuire!ent of personal interest is satisfied by the !ere fact that the petitioner is a citi@en, and therefore, part of the 'eneral QpublicQ which possesses the ri'ht. 1QPublicQ is a co!prehensi e, all1inclusi e ter!. Properly construed, it e!braces e ery person. D+ lao v COMELEC 1 For one, there is a !is6oinder of parties and actions. ?ne petitioner does not 6oin other petitioners in the burden of their co!plaint, nor do the latter 6oin the for!er in his. They, respecti ely, contest co!pletely different statutory pro isions. 1 For another, there are standards that ha e to be followed in the e2ercise of the function of 6udicial re iew, na!ely& "1$ the e2istence of an appropriate case( "2$ an interest personal and substantial by the party raisin' the constitutional Duestion( "4$ the plea that the function be e2ercised at the earliest opportunity( and "I$ the necessity that the constitutional Duestion be passed upon in order to decide the case. #+"na- Const. an( Dev4t. Co,*. v La,on 1 The doctrine holds that only when the act co!plained of directly in ol es an ille'al disburse!ent of public funds raised by ta2ation will the ta2payer3s suit be allowed. The essence of a ta2payer3s ri'ht to institute such an action hin'es on the e2istence of that reDuisite pecuniary or !onetary interest. 1 0t is not enou'h that the ta2payer1plaintiff sufficiently show that he would be benefited or in6ured by the 6ud'!ent or entitled to the a ails of the suit as a real party in interest. )ilos!a-an v G+in"ona/ 0,. 1 + party3s standin' before this Court is a procedural technicality which it !ay, in the e2ercise of its discretion, set aside in iew of the i!portance of the issues raised. 1 0n line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary ta2payers, !e!bers of Con'ress, and e en association of planters, and non1profit ci ic or'ani@ations were allowed to initiate and prosecute actions before this Court to Duestion the constitutionality or alidity of laws, acts, decisions, rulin's, or orders of arious 'o ern!ent a'encies or instru!entalities. PHILCONSA v En,i<+ez

2
1 The -enators ha e le'al standin' to Duestion the alidity of the eto. Ahen a eto was !ade in e2cess of the authority of the President, it i!per!issibily intrudes into the do!ain of the :e'islature. + !e!ber of Con'ress can Duestion an act of the #2ecuti e which in6ures Con'ress as an institution. Tata( v Ga,$ia/ 0,. 1The pre ailin' doctrines in ta2payer3s suits are to allow ta2payers to Duestion contracts entered into by the national 'o ern!ent or 'o ern!ent1owned or controlled corporations alle'edly in contra ention of the law and to disallow the sa!e when only !unicipal contracts are in ol ed "6ust li7e in Bu'nay case since no public !oney was in ol ed$. O*osa v Fa$to,an/ 0,. 1 C:+-- -F0T& The sub6ect !atter of the co!plaint is of co!!on and 'eneral interest not 6ust to se eral, but to all citi@ens of the Philippines. ConseDuently, since the parties are so nu!erous, it beco!es i!practicable, if not totally i!possible, to brin' all of the! before the court. 1 Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeedin' 'enerations can only be based on the concept of inter'enerational responsibility insofar as the ri'ht to a balanced and healthful ecolo'y is concerned. 1 %eedless to say, e ery 'eneration has a responsibility to the ne2t to preser e that rhyth! and har!ony for the full en6oy!ent of a balanced and healthful ecolo'y. Put a little differently, the !inorsR assertion of their ri'ht to a sound en iron!ent constitutes, at the sa!e ti!e, the perfor!ance of their obli'ation to ensure the protection of that ri'ht for the 'enerations to co!e. Loza(a v COMELEC = +s ta2payers, petitioners !ay not file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alle'ed that ta2 !oney is bein' ille'ally spent. 0t is only when an act co!plained of, which !ay include a le'islati e enact!ent or statute, in ol es the ille'al e2penditure of public !oney that the so1called ta2payer suit !ay be allowed. 1 The unchallen'ed rule is that the person who i!pu'ns the alidity of a statute !ust ha e a personal 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, is that indispensable ele!ent of a dispute which ser es in part to cast it in a for! traditionally capable of 6udicial resolution. Ahen the asserted har! is a Q'enerali@ed 'rie anceQ shared in substantially eDual !easure by all or a lar'e class of citi@ens, that har! alone nor!ally does not warrant e2ercise of 6urisdiction.

)ilos!a-an v Mo,ato 1 The otin' on petitioners3 standin' in the pre ious case was a narrow one, se en "7$ !e!bers sustainin' petitioners3 standin' and si2 "=$ denyin' petitioners3 ri'ht to brin' the suit. The !a6ority was thus a tenuous one that is not li7ely to be !aintained in any subseDuent liti'ation. 0n addition, there ha e 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 opinion

2
and <ustice Francisco. 5i en this fact it is hardly tenable to insist on the !aintenance of the rulin' as to petitioners3 standin'. SECTION ; #en"zon v Li 1 Ahat is fiscal autono!yS 0t conte!plates a 'uarantee of full fle2ibility to allocate and utili@e their resources with the wisdo! and dispatch that their needs reDuire. 0t reco'ni@es the power and authority to le y, assess and collect fees, fi2 rates of co!pensation not e2ceedin' the hi'hest rates authori@ed by law for co!pensation and play plans of the 'o ern!ent and allocate and disburse such su!s as !ay be pro ided by law or prescribed by the! in the course of the dischar'e of their functions. Fiscal autono!y !eans freedo! fro! outside control. 1 The <udiciary, the Constitutional Co!!issions, and the ?!buds!an !ust ha e the independence and fle2ibility needed in the dischar'e of their constitutional duties. The i!position of restrictions and constraints on the !anner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utili@e the funds appropriated for their operations is anathe!a to fiscal autono!y and iolati e not only of the e2press !andate of the Constitution but especially as re'ards the -upre!e Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional syste! is based SECTION @ Li 2et2ai Sons Millin"/ In$. v Co+,t o& A**eals/ et.al. 1 ,eor'ani@ation is purely an internal !atter of the Court to which petitioner certainly has no business at all. 1 The Court with its new !e!bership is not obli'ed to follow blindly a decision upholdin' a party3s case when, after its re1e2a!ination, the sa!e calls for a rectification. SECTION : D,ilon v Li 1 The Constitution ests in the -upre!e Court appellate 6urisdiction o er final 6ud'!ents and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or alidity of any treaty, international or e2ecuti e a'ree!ent, law, presidential decree, procla!ation, order, instruction, ordinance, or re'ulation is in Duestion. 1 0n the e2ercise of this 6urisdiction, lower courts are ad ised to act with the ut!ost circu!spection, bearin' in !ind the conseDuences of a declaration of unconstitutionality upon the stability of laws, no less than on the doctrine of separation of powers. +s the Duestioned act is usually the handiwor7 of the le'islati e or the e2ecuti e depart!ents, or both, it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a beco!in' !odesty, to defer to the hi'her 6ud'!ent of this Court in the consideration of its alidity, which is better deter!ined after a thorou'h deliberation by a colle'iate body and with the concurrence of the !a6ority of those who participated in its discussion. La,,ana"a v Co+,t o& A**eals

2
"Transfer the enue of the preli!inary in esti'ation fro! Cebu City to >anila because of the e2tensi e co era'e of the proceedin's by the Cebu !edia which alle'edly influenced the people3s perception of petitioner3s character and 'uilt.$ 1 The Court reco'ni@es that per asi e and pre6udicial publicity under certain circu!stances can depri e an accused of his due process ri'ht to fair trial. 0t was pre iously held that to warrant a findin' of pre6udicial publicity there !ust be alle'ation and proof that the 6ud'es ha e been unduly influenced, not si!ply that they !i'ht be, by the barra'e in publicity. 1 0n the case at bar, nothin' in the records shows that the tone and content of the publicity that attended the in esti'ation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and i!partiality of the 8?< Panel. Fi,st Le*anto Ce,a i$s/ In$. v Co+,t o& A**eals = 0t is intended to 'i e the -upre!e Court a !easure of control o er cases paced under its appellate 6urisdiction. For the indiscri!inate enact!ent of le'islation enlar'in' its appellate 6urisdiction. For the indiscri!inate enact!ent of le'islation enlar'in' its appellate 6urisdiction can unnecessarily burden the Court and thereby under!ine its essential function of e2poundin' the law in its !ost profound national aspects. A,+elo v Co+,t o& A**eals = Constitutionally spea7in', the C?>#:#C can not adopt a rule prohibitin' the filin' of 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. 0avellana v DILG "-ection 9J of the :ocal 5o ern!ent Code of 1991 and 8:5 >e!orandu! Circular %o. 9J1 81 does not iolate +rticle /000. -ection H of the Constitution. %either the statute nor the circular trenches upon the -upre!e Court3s power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law.$ 1 The :ocal 5o ern!ent Code and 8:5 >e!orandu! Circular %o. 9J181 si!ply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to a oid conflicts of interest between the dischar'e of their public duties and the pri ate practice of their profession, in those instances where the law allows it. SECTION 7 Ma$e(a v %as<+ez 1 0n the absence of any ad!inistrati e action ta7en a'ainst a person by the Court with re'ard to his certificates of ser ice, the in esti'ation bein' conducted by the ?!buds!an encroaches into the Court3s power of ad!inistrati e super ision o er all courts and its personnel, in iolation of the doctrine of separation of powers. 1 Ahere a cri!inal co!plaint a'ainst a <ud'e or other court e!ployee arises fro! their ad!inistrati e duties, the ?!buds!an !ust defer action on said co!plaint and refer the sa!e to the Court for deter!ination whether said <ud'e or court e!ployee had acted within the scope of their ad!inistrati e duties. Ra<+iza v 0+("e Castane(a/ 0,.

1 The rules e en in an ad!inistrati e case de!ands that if the respondent <ud'e should be disciplined for 'ra e !isconduct or any 'ra er offense, the e idence presented a'ainst hi! should be co!petent and deri ed fro! direct 7nowled'e. The 6udiciary, to which respondent belon's, no less de!ands that before its !e!ber could be faulted, it should be only after due in esti'ation and based on co!petent proofs, no less. This is all the !ore so when as in this case the char'es are penal in nature. "3>isconduct3 also i!plies 3a wron'ful intention and not a !ere error of 6ud'!ent. 0t results that e en if respondent were not correct in his le'al conclusions, his 6udicial actuations cannot be re'arded as 'ra e !isconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently appears.$ SECTION 18 Nita&an v Co issione, o& Inte,nal Reven+e

1 The clear intent of the Constitutional Co!!ission was to delete the proposed e2press 'rant of e2e!ption fro! pay!ent of inco!e ta2 to !e!bers of the <udiciary, so as to Q'i e substance to eDuality a!on' the three branches of 5o ern!ent.* SECTION 11 De La Llana v Al!a 1<udiciary +ct does not iolate 6udicial security of tenure. This Court is e!powered Qto discipline 6ud'es of inferior courts and, by a ote of at least ei'ht !e!bers, order their dis!issal.Q Thus, it possesses the co!petence to re!o e 6ud'es. Fnder the <udiciary +ct, it was the President who was ested with such power. ,e!o al is, of course, to be distin'uished fro! ter!ination by irtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a non1e2istent office. +fter the abolition, there is in law no occupant. 0n case of re!o al, there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. 0t is in that sense that fro! the standpoint of strict law, the Duestion of any i!pair!ent of security of tenure does not arise. %onetheless, for the incu!bents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of separation. +s to its effect, no distinction e2ists between re!o al and the abolition of the office. ,ealistically, it is de oid of si'nificance. Be ceases to be a !e!ber of the 6udiciary. Peo*le v Ga$ott/ 0,. 1 To reDuire the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all ad!inistrati e !atters or cases re'ardless of the sanctions, i!posable or i!posed, would result in a con'ested doc7et and undue delay in the ad6udication of cases in the Court, especially in ad!inistrati e !atters, since e en cases in ol in' the penalty of repri!and would reDuire action by the Court en banc. 1 Oet, althou'h as thus de!onstrated, only cases in ol in' dis!issal of 6ud'es of lower courts are specifically reDuired to be decided by the Court en banc, in co'ni@ance of the need for a thorou'h and 6udicious e aluation of serious char'es a'ainst !e!bers of the 6udiciary, it is only when the penalty i!posed does not e2ceed suspension of !ore than one year or a fine of P1J,JJJ.JJ, or both, that the ad!inistrati e !atter !ay be decided in di ision. SECTION 16

2
In Re5 Manzano = +s incu!bent ,TC <ud'es, they for! part of the structure of 'o ern!ent. Their inte'rity and perfor!ance in the ad6udication of cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. +s public officials, they are trustees of an orderly society. # en as non1!e!bers of Pro incialLCity Co!!ittees on <ustice, ,TC 6ud'es should render assistance to said Co!!ittees to help pro!ote the landable purposes for which they e2ist, but only when such assistance !ay be reasonably incidental to the fulfill!ent of their 6udicial duties. SECTION 1@ Ni$os In(+st,ial Co,* v Co+,t o& A**eals 1 The Court is not duty bound to render si'ned decisions all the ti!e. 0t has a!ple discretion to for!ulate decisions andLor !inute resolutions, pro ided a le'al basis is 'i en, dependin' on its e aluation of a case. 1 +s it is settled that an order dis!issin' a case for insufficient e idence is a 6ud'!ent on the !erits, it is i!perati e that it be a reasoned decision clearly and distinctly statin' therein the facts and the law on which it is based. Men(oza v CFI 1 Ahat is e2pected of the 6udiciary Qis that the decision rendered !a7es clear why either party pre ailed under the applicable law to the facts as established. %or is there any re'id for!ula as to the lan'ua'e to be e!ployed to satisfy the reDuire!ent of clarity and distinctness. The discretion of the particular 6ud'e in this respect, while not unli!ited, is necessarily broad. There is no sacra!ental for! of words which he !ust use upon pain of bein' considered as ha in' failed to abide by what the Constitution directs.Q 1 The pro ision has been held to refer only to decisions of the !erits and not to orders of the trial court resol in' incidental !atters such as the one at bar. "content of the resolution& incident in the prosecution of petitioner$ #o,,o eo v Co+,t o& A**eals 1 The Court re!inds all lower courts, lawyers, and liti'ants that it disposes of the bul7 of its cases by !inute resolutions and decrees the! as final and e2ecutory, as where a case is patently without !erit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision appealed fro! is supported by substantial e idence 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 e2ecution of 6ud'!ent and for non1co!pliance with the rules. The resolution denyin' due course or dis!issin' the petition always 'i es the le'al basis. 1 Ahen the Court, after deliberatin' on a petition and any subseDuent pleadin's, !anifestations, co!!ents, or !otions decides to deny due course to the petition and states that the Duestions raised are factual or no re ersible error in the respondent court3s decision is shown or for so!e other le'al basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient co!pliance with the constitutional reDuire!ent. 1 >inute resolutions need not be si'ned by the !e!bers of the Court who too7 part in the deliberations of a case nor do they reDuire the certification of the Chief <ustice.

)o ats+ In(+st,ies FP'ils.G In$ v Co+,t o& A**eals 1 0t has lon' been settled that this Court has discretion to decide whether a Q!inute resolutionQ should be used in lieu of a full1blown decision in any particular case and that a !inute ,esolution of dis!issal of a Petition for ,e iew on Certiorari constitutes an ad6udication on the !erits of the contro ersy or sub6ect !atter of the Petition. 0t has been stressed by the Court that the 'rant of due course to a Petition for ,e iew is Qnot a !atter of ri'ht, but of sound 6udicial discretion( and so there is no need to fully e2plain the Court3s denial. For one thin', the facts and law are already !entioned in the Court of +ppeals3 opinion.Q P,+(ential #an2 v Cast,o = The Constitutional !andate that Qno . . . !otion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be . . . denied without statin' the le'al basis thereforQ is inapplicable in ad!inistrati e cases. +nd e en if it were, said ,esolution stated the le'al basis for the denial and, therefore, adhered faithfully to the Constitutional reDuire!ent. Q:ac7 of !erit,Q which was one of the 'rounds for denial, is a le'al basis. 1"certification issue$ The reDuire!ent of a certification refers to decisions to 6udicial cases and not to ad!inistrati e cases. Besides, since the decision was a per curiam decision, a for!al certification is not reDuired. Oil an( Nat+,al Gas Co ission v Co+,t o& A**eals

1 The constitutional !andate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without e2pressin' therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not preclude the alidity of Q!e!orandu! decisionsQ which adopt by reference the findin's of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals. SECTION 1@ Fnot 17G %al(ez v Co+,t o& A**eals 1 The "lower$ court state!ent in the decision that a party has pro en his case while the other has not, is not the findin's of facts conte!plated by the Constitution and the rules to be clearly and distinctly stated. 1 This Court has said a'ain and a'ain that it is not a trier of facts and that it relies, on the factual findin's of the lower court and the appellate court which are conclusi e. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS +. C?>>?% P,?/0-0?%A,+elo v. CA The rule of the Co!!ission should pre ail if the proceedin' is before a Co!!ission. But if the proceedin' is before a court, the ,ules of Court pre ails. "-ec. =$ C+a v. Co ele$

2
The 211 decision rendered by the First 8i ision was a alid decision under +rticle 0.1+, -ection 7 of the Constitution. "-ec.7$ %ital=Gozon v. CA #2ecution of the Ci il -er ice Co!!ission3s decision should ha e been ordered and effected by the Co!!ission itself, when de la Fuente filed a !otion therefor. 0t declined to do so, howe er, on the alle'ed 'round, as de la Fuente clai!s he was told, that it Qhad no coerci e powers unli7e a court to enforce its final decisionsLresolutions.Q That proposition, co!!unicated to de la Fuente, of the Co!!ission3s supposed lac7 of coerci e power to enforce its final 6ud'!ents, is incorrect. 0t is inconsistent with pre ious acts of the Co!!ission of actually directin' e2ecution of its decisions and resolutions, which this Court has sanctioned in se eral cases( and it is not in truth a correct assess!ent of its powers under the Constitution and the rele ant laws

Fili*inas En"inee,in" an( Ma$'ine S'o* v. Fe,,e, Ahile it !ay be true that the lower court has the 6urisdiction o er contro ersies dealin' with the C?>#:#C3s award of contracts, the sa!e bein' purely ad!inistrati e and ci il in nature, ne ertheless, herein petitioner has no cause of action on the basis of the alle'ations of its co!plaint. QThe Co!!ission on #lections shall ha e e2clusi e char'e of the enforce!ent and ad!inistration of all laws relati e to the conduct of elections and shall e2ercise all other functions which !ay be conferred upon it by law. 0t shall decide, sa e those in ol in' the ri'ht to ote, all ad!inistrati e Duestions affectin' elections, includin' the deter!ination of the 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 be sub6ect to re iew by the -upre!e Court.Q Mateo v. CA The hirin' and firin' of e!ployees of 'o ern!ent1owned and controlled corporations are 'o erned by the pro isions of the Ci il -er ice :aw and ,ules and ,e'ulations. -C ,e ised +d!inistrati e Circular %o. 119H. Final resolutions of the Ci il -er ice Co!!ission shall be appealable to the Court of +ppeals. 0n any e ent, whether under the old rule or the present rule, ,e'ional Trial Courts ha e no 6urisdiction to entertain cases in ol in' dis!issal of officers and e!ployees co ered by the Ci il -er ice :aw. CI%IL SER%ICE COMMISSION -ection 2 TUPAS v. NHC Ci il ser ice now co ers only 'o ern!ent1owned or controlled corporations with ori'inal or le'islati e charters, that is those created by an act of Con'ress or by special law, and not those incorporated under and pursuant to a 'eneral le'islation. %BC is not co ered by ci il ser ice so its e!ployees undoubtedly ha e the ri'ht to for! unions or e!ployees3 or'ani@ations. The ri'ht to unioni@e or to for! or'ani@ations is now

3
e2plicitly reco'ni@ed and 'ranted to e!ployees in both the 'o ern!ental and the pri ate sectors. De los Santos v. Malla,e The office of city en'ineer is neither pri!arily confidential, policy1deter!inin', nor hi'hly technical. These positions !entioned are e2cluded fro! the !erit syste! and dis!issal at pleasure of officers and e!ployees appointed therein is allowed by the Constitution. Thus, the city en'ineer cannot be re!o ed without 6ust cause. Salaza, v. Mat'aThe tenure of officials holdin' pri!arily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence because their ter! of office lasts only as lon' as confidence in the! endures. Co,*+s v. C+a(e,no Bi'hly technical e!ployees cannot be re!o ed by reason of lac7 or loss of confidence by the one !a7in' the appoint!ent. L+e"o v. Civil Se,vi$e Co ission

The C-C has no authority to disappro e or re o7e a per!anent appoint!ent on the 'round that another person is better Dualified than the appointee. The C-C is not e!powered to deter!ine the 7ind or nature of the appoint!ent e2tended by the appointin' officer, its authority bein' li!ited to appro in' or re iewin' the appoint!ent in the li'ht of the reDuire!ents of the Ci il -er ice :aw. +ppro al is !ore appropriately called an attestation, that is, of the fact that the appointee is Dualified for the position to which he has been na!ed. P,ovin$e o& Ca a,ines S+, v. CA :ac7 of ci il ser ice eli'ibility !a7es an appoint!ent te!porary( thus, the appoint!ent is re ocable at any ti!e "without a fi2ed and definite ter!$ or dependent upon the pleasure of the appointin' power. ?btainin' the ci il ser ice le'ibility later on does not ipso facto con ert a te!porary appoint!ent into a per!anent one. SSS E *lo-ees Asso$iation v. CA The ri'ht of 'o ern!ent e!ployees to or'ani@e does not include the ri'ht to stri7e. -ection 7 Civil Li!e,ties Union v. E>e$+tive Se$,eta,Ahile all other appointi e officials in the ci il ser ice are allowed to hold other office or e!ploy!ent in the 'o ern!ent durin' their tenure when such is allowed by tlaw and the pri!ary function of their office, Cabinet !e!bers, their deputies, and assistants !ay only do so when e2pressly authori@ed by the Constitution itself. Flo,es v. D,ilon The pro iso which states, )Pro ided, howe er, that for the first year of its operations fro! the effecti ity of this +ct, the !ayor of the City of ?lon'apo shall be appointed as the chair!an

3
and chief e2ecuti e officer of the -ubic +uthority*, iolates the constitutional prohibition a'ainst appoint!ent or desi'nation of electi e officials to other 'o ern!ent posts. -ection 8 H+i son v. Ozaeta The e!ploy!ent of a person as an a'ent collector is not itself unlawful because there is no inco!patibility between aid appoint!ent and his e!ploy!ent as 8eputy Pro incial Treasurer and >unicipal Treasurer. There is no le'al ob6ection to 'o ern!ent official occupyin' two 'o ern!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 Ca-etano v. Monso( Practice of law !eans any acti ity, in or out of court, which reDuires the application of law, le'al procedure, 7nowled'e, trainin' and e2perience. To en'a'e in the practice of law is to perfor! those acts which are characteristics of the profession. 5enerally, to practice law is to 'i e notice or render any 7ind of ser ice which de ice or ser ice reDuires the use in any de'ree of le'al 7nowled'e or s7ill. #,illantes v. .o,a$ The President has no authority to !a7e 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!es under the discretion of the Co!elec. 0t cannot be e2ercised by the President. + desi'nation +s +ctin' Chair!an is by its ery ter!s essentially te!porary and therefore re ocable at will. %o cause need be established to 6ustify its re ocation. Lin(o v. Co ele$ Co!elecCs state!ent that fa7e and spurious ballots !ay ha e been introduced to increase the otes of protestant cannot be !ade a basis for denyin' the e2ecution pendin' appeal. -ection 4 -ar!iento s. Co!elec Pursuant to -ection 1= of ,.+. 71==, it pro ides& Q+ll pre1procla!ation cases pendin' before the Co!!ission shall be dee!ed ter!inated at the be'innin' of the ter! of the office in ol ed and the rulin's of the boards of can assers concerned shall be dee!ed affir!ed, without pre6udice to the filin' of a re'ular election protest by the a''rie ed party. Bowe er, proceedin's !ay continue when on the basis of the e idence thus far presented, the Co!!ission deter!ines that the petition appears

3
!eritorious and accordin'ly issues an order for the proceedin' to continue or when an appropriate order has been issued by the -upre!e Court in a petition for certiorari.Q ,eyes s. ,TC of ?riental >indoro +ll election cases, includin' pre1procla!ation contro ersies, !ust be decided by the C?>#:#C in di ision. -hould a party be dissatisfied with the decision, he !ay file a !otion for reconsideration before the C?>#:#C en banc. 0t is, therefore, the decision, order or rulin' of the C?>#:#C en banc that, in accordance with +rt. 0., +, -ection 7, Q!ay be brou'ht to the -upre!e Court on certiorari.Q -ection I %ational Press Club s. Co!elec The Co!elec has also been 'ranted the ri'ht to super ise and re'ulate the e2ercise by !edia practitioners the!sel es of their ri'ht to e2pression durin' plebiscite periods. >edia practitioners e2ercisin' their freedo! of e2pression durin' plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. 0n fact, there are no candidates in ol ed in a plebiscite. Teleco!!unications and Broadcast +ttorneys of the Philippines s 5>+ 0t is ar'ued that the power to super ise or re'ulate 'i en to the C?>#:#C under +rt. 0.1C, -ection I of the Constitution does not include the power to prohibit. 0n the first place, what the C?>#:#C is authori@ed to super ise or re'ulate by +rt. 0.1C, -ection I of the Constitution, a!on' other thin's, is the use by !edia of infor!ation of their franchises or per!its, while what Con'ress "not the C?>#:#C$ prohibits is the sale or donation of print space or air ti!e for political ads. 0n other words, the ob6ect of super ision or re'ulation is different fro! the ob6ect of the prohibition. 0t is another fallacy for petitioners to contend that the power to re'ulate does not include the power to prohibit. This !ay ha e force if the ob6ect of the power were the sa!e. +dion' s. C?>#:#C The postin' of decals and stic7ers on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other !o in' ehicles needs the consent of the owner of the ehicle. Bence, the preference of the citi@en beco!es crucial in this 7ind of election propa'anda not the financial resources of the candidate. Ahether the candidate is rich and, therefore, can afford to doleout !ore decals and stic7ers or poor and without the !eans to spread out the nu!ber of decals and stic7ers is not as i!portant as the ri'ht of the owner to freely e2press his choice and e2ercise his ri'ht of free speech. The owner can e en prepare his own decals or stic7ers for postin' on his personal property. To stri7e 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 pro ide a foru! for e2pression but they do not 'uarantee full disse!ination of infor!ation to the public concerned because they are li!ited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or tele ision ti!es.

3
COMMISSION ON AUDIT -#CT0?% 2 5F#/+,+ /- 50>#%#T The +uditor15eneral has no !adate to disappro e e2penditures which in his opinion are e2cessi e and e2tra a'ant. Bis authority is li!ited to the auditin' in e2penditures of funds and properties. such function is li!ited to a deter!ination of whether there is a law appropriatin' funds for a 'i en purpose( whether a contract entered !ade by the proper officer has been entered in confor!ity with the said appropriation law( whether the 'oods and ser ices co ered by the said contract ha e been deli ered or rendered in pursuance thereof, as attested by the proper officer( and whether pay!ent therefore has been authori@ed by the officials of the correspondin' depart!ent or bureau. 0f these reDuire!ents ha e been fulfilled, it is the !inisterial duty of the +uditor 5eneral to appro e and pass in audit the oucher and treasury warrant for said pay!ent. %o discretion to disappro e said pay!ent on the 'round that contract was unwise or unreasonable. ?,?C0? /- C?+ To deter!ine whether an e2penditure of a 'o ern!ent a'ency or instru!entality is irre'ular, unnecessary, e2cessi e, e2tra a'ant and unconscionable, the C?+ should not be bound by the opinion of the le'al counsel of a particular a'ency. :e'al counsel can only offer le'al ad ice. ?->#%+ /- C?+ + co!pro!ise a'ree!ent between a !unicipal corporation "Cebu City$ and the parents of icti! "-pouses dela Cerna$ was constitutional. The participation of the city in an a!icable settle!ent and e entual e2ecution of a co!pro!ise is indubitable within the power and authority of a !unicipal corporation. %otably, the co!pro!ise a'ree!ent was sub!itted to its le'islati e council, which appro ed it confor!ably with its established rules and procedure. -+>B#:0 /- P,?/0%C# ?F 0-+B#:+ C?+ has the re'ulatory power to ensure that 'o ern!ent funds and properties are fully protected and conser ed and that irre'ular unnecessary, e2cessi e, or e2tra a'ant e2penditures or uses of funds owned by, or pertainin' to the 5o ern!ent or any of its subdi isions, a'encies of instru!entalities are pre ented. BF-T+>+%T# /- C?+ 8iscretion e2ercised by C?+ in the denial of the appeal "on the decision of a ,e'ional +uditor$ is within its power. +lso, conclusions of a Board of 8irectors of a 'o ern!ent1 owned and controlled corporation in safe'uardin' the proper use of the 'o ern!entCs and peopleCs property cannot pre ail o er the constitutional !andate on C?+. -+:05F>B+ /- C?+ -upre!e Courts power to re iew C?+ decisions refers to !oney !atters and not to ad!inistrati e cases "rape case s. auditin' e2a!iner1respondent$ in ol in' the discipline of its personnel.

-#CT0?% 4 PB0: +0,:0%#- /- C?+ "!ore on section 2$ C?+ has the e2clusi e authority, sub6ect to li!itations, to define the scope of its audit and e2a!ination, establish the techniDues and !ethods reDuired therefore. C?+ can adopt as its own, si!ply by reiteration or by reference, without the necessity of repro!ul'ation, already e2istin' rules and re'ulations. 0t !ay also e2pand the co era'e thereof to a'encies or instru!entalities under its audit 6urisdiction. C?+ can ad ised P+: to desist fro! biddin' the its fuel upon e2piration of contracts B+5+T-0%5 /- C?>>0TT## ?% P,0/+T0T+T0?% C?+, the a'ency that adopted the rules on biddin' procedure to be followed by 'o ern!ent offices and corporations, upheld the le'ality of biddin' althou'h there is only one offeror "2 were disDualified1 bid below floor price and technical reasons$ since the C?+ Circular does not spea7 of accepted bids but of offerors, without distinction as to whether they were disDualified. The interpretation of an a'ency of its own rules should be 'i en !ore wei'ht than the interpretation by the a'ency of the law it is !erely tas7ed to ad!inister.