Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Department
A.Organization
and Membership;
Composition/Apportionment
MACIAS VS COMELEC
GR. L-18684 (Sept. 14, 1961) (Constitutional Law
Apportionment, Proportional Representation)
FACTS:
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of a law
(Republic Act 3040) that apportions representative districts in
this country on the ground that it is unconstitutional and void
because it apportioned districts without regard to the number
of inhabitants of the several provinces. Respondents aver
they were merely complying with their duties under the
statute, which they presume and allege to be constitutional.
ISSUE: Whether or not an apportionment law that is
disproportion in representation is unconstitutional.
HELD:
Yes, a law giving provinces with less number of
inhabitants more representative districts than those with
bigger population is invalid because it violates the principle
of proportional representation prescribed by the Constitution.
Such law is arbitrary and capricious and against the vital
principle of equality.
B.Election,
C.Compensation
Issue:
whether Republic Act 3836 violates Section 14,
Article VI, of the Constitution which reads as follows:
The senators and the Members of the House of
Representatives shall, unless otherwise provided by
law, receive an annual compensation of seven
thousand two hundred pesos each, including per diems
and other emoluments or allowances, and exclusive
only of travelling expenses to and from their respective
districts in the case of Members of the House of
Representative and to and from their places of
residence in the case of Senators, when attending
sessions of the Congress. No increase in said
compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of all the Members of the
Senate and of the House of Representatives approving
such increase. Until otherwise provided by law, the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives shall each receive an annual
compensation of sixteen thousand pesos.
Held:
Yes. When the Constitutional Convention first
determined the compensation for the Members of Congress,
FACTS:
were
represented
by
Valentino
Legaspi,
an
first instance.
Adaza vs Pacana
Singularity of Office/Position
FACTS:
Adaza was elected governor of the province of Misamis
Oriental in the January 30, 1980 elections. He took his oath of
office and started discharging his duties as provincial
governor on March 3, 1980. Pacana was elected vicegovernor for same province in the same elections. Under the
law, their respective terms of office would expire on March 3,
1986. On March 27, 1984, Pacana filed his certificate of
candidacy for the May 14, 1984 BP elections; petitioner
Adaza followed suit on April 27, 1984. In the ensuing
elections,
petitioner
won
by
placing
first
among
the
constitutional provision?
HELD:
further contends that when Pacana filed his candidacy for the
to the BP. This is not tenable and it runs afoul against BP. 697,
member of Parliament.
follows:
A member of the National Assembly
subdivision,
HELD:
Section 10.
agency
or
instrumentality
government-owned
or
thereof,
controlled
FACTS:
Petitioners include 3 senators and 8 representatives.
The three senators were suspended by senate due to election
irregularities. The 8 representatives were not allowed to take
their seat in the lower House except in the election of the
House Speaker. They argued that some senators and House
Reps were not considered in determining the required vote
(of each house) in order to pass the Resolution (proposing
amendments
to
the
Constitution)*
which
has
been
either of the two ways specified in section 313 of Act No. 190
Direct Filing
Facts:
Republic Act 7354 was passed into law stirring
commotions from the Judiciary. Under its Sec 35 as
implemented by Philippine Postal Corporation through its
Circular No.92-28. The franking privelege of the Supreme
Court, COA, RTCs, MTC, MTCC, and other government offices
were withdrawn from them.
In addition, the petitioners raised the issue of
constitutionality and the methods adopted prior it becoming
a law.
Issues; WON RA 7354 is unconstitutional.
- Violative of Art VI Sec 26(1) which says '"Every bill passed
by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall
be expressed in the title thereof."
- Violative of Art VI Sec 26(2) which says 'No bill passed by
either House shall become a law unless it has
passed three readings on separate days, and
printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed
to its Members three days before its passage, except when
the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the
last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed,
and the vote thereon
shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays
entered in the Journal.
- Violative of the Equal protection clause
Ruling:
The Supreme Court sustained as to the violation of Art VI
Sec 26(1) ruling further that it's adoption is within the terms
prescribed by law saying that the title of the bill is not
required to be an index to the body of the act, or to be as
comprehensive as to cover every single detail of the
measure.
Appintments
[G.R. No. L-10520 | February 28, 1957]
TAADA vs. CUENCO
FACTS:
Senate chose respondents Senators Mariano J. Cuenco
and Francisco A. Delgado as members of the same Electoral
Tribunal. Respondents allege that: (a) this Court is without
power, authority of jurisdiction to direct or control the action
of the Senate in choosing the members of the Electoral
Tribunal; and (b) that the petition states no cause of action,
because "petitioner Taada has exhausted his right to
nominate after he nominated himself and refused to
nominate two (2) more Senators."
RULING:
We cannot agree with the conclusion drawn by
respondents from the foregoing facts. To begin with, unlike
the cases of Alejandrino vs. Quezon (46 Phil., 83) and Vera
vs. Avelino (77 Phil., 192)-relied upon by the respondents this
is not an action against the Senate, and it does not seek to
compel the latter, either directly or indirectly, to allow the
petitioners to perform their duties as members of said House.
Although the Constitution provides that the Senate shall
choose six (6) Senators to be members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal, the latter is part neither of Congress nor of
the Senate.
fathers
of
our
Cunanan vs Tan
CARLOS CUNANAN vs. JORGE TAN, JR.
Facts:
Petitioner sought to nullify the ad interim appointment
of Jorge Tan Jr as acting Deputy Administrator of the
Reforestation Administration. Cunanan was formerly
appointed in the same position but was later on rejected by
the Commision of Appointment prompting the President to
replace him with Jorge Tan Jr immediately without his
consent.
Filing the quo warranto proceeding to the Supreme
Court, Cunanan questions the validity of the convened
Commission of Appointments citing irregularities as to the
numbers of members comprising the same.
Issue: WON the appointment of Jorge Tan Jr is valid.
Ruling:
With the reorganization of the Commission of
Appointment, it was ruled that such is a power vested in the
Congress as they deem it proper taking into consideration
the proportionate numbers of the members of the
Commission of Appointment members as to their political
affiliations. However, with their reorganization, this affected a
third party's right which they rejected as its result. To correct
this, the Supreme Court declared the reinstatement of the
petitioner and ordered respondent to vacate and turn over
the office in contention.
LP-PDP-LABAN,
two
NPC
and
one
LAKAS-NUCD.
compromise.
proportional representation.
other
representation
in
order
to
especially
come
since
up
with
proportional
one
party
may
have
HELD:
It is a fact accepted by all such parties that each of
them is entitled to a fractional membership on the basis of
the rule on proportional representation of each of the political
parties. A literal interpretation of Section 18 of Article VI of
the Constitution leads to no other manner of application. The
problem is what to do with the fraction of .5 or 1/2 to which
each of the parties is entitled. The LDP majority in the Senate
converted
fractional
half
membership
into
whole
latters
representation
in
the
Commission
on
RA 6715 Section 13
Concepcion-Bautista vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 160 (1989)
FACTS:
(Mison,
Quintos-Deles,
and
FACTS:
On 30 July 1987, the Republic of the Philippines,
represented by the Presidential Commission on Good
Governance (PCGG), filed a complaint with Sandiganbayan
against the petitioners of this case. PCGG allege, among
others, that: defendants (petitioners therein) Benjamin
Kokoy Romualdez and Juliette. Gomez Romualdez, alleged
cronies of former President Marcos and First Lady Imelda
Romualdez Marcos, engaged in schemes and stratagems to
unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the Filipino
people. Among these stratagems are (1) obtained control of
some big business enterprises such as MERALCO, Pilipinas
Shell, and PCI Bank, (2) manipulated the formation of
Erectors Holding Inc, to appear viable and borrow more
capital, reaching a total of more that P2 billion, (3)
collaborated with lawyers (petitioners therein) of the Bengzon
Law Offices in concealing funds and properties, in
maneuvering the purported sale of interests in certain
corporations, in misusing the Meralco Pension Fund worth
P25 million, and in cleverly hiding behind the veil of
corporate entity. On 13 September 1988, Sen. Juan Ponce
Enrile delivered a speech before the Senate on the alleged
take-over of SolOil Incorporated by Ricardo Lopa (who died
during the pendency of this case) and called upon the senate
to look into possible violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act or RA 3019. The Senate Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers or Blue Ribbon Committee
(SBRC) started its investigation through a hearing on 23 May
1989, but Lopa and Bengzon declined to testify. The SBRC
rejected petitioner Bengzons plea and voted to pursue its
investigation. Petitioner claims that the SBRC, in requiring
their attendance and testimony, acted in excess of its
jurisdiction and legislative purpose. Hence this petition.
ISSUES:
1. WON the court has jurisdiction over this case.
2. WON the SBRCs inquiry has a valid legislative purpose.
3. WON the sale or disposition of the Romualdez corporations
is a purely private transaction which is beyond the power of
the SBRC to inquire into.
4. WON the inquiry violates the petitioners right to due
process.
HELD:
1. YES. As the court held in Angara vs. Electoral Commission,
the Constitution provided for an elaborate system of checks
and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the
departments of the government, and it is the judiciary that
was vested of the powers to determine the scope, nature and
extent of such powers.
2. NO. The speech of Sen. Enrile contained no suggestion on
contemplated legislation; he merely called upon the Senate
to look into a possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA 3019. The
purpose of the inquiry to be conducted by respondent SBRC
was to find out WON the relatives of President Aquino,
particularly Ricardo Lopa, had violated the law in connection
with the alleged sale of the 36/39 corporations of Kokoy
Romualdez to the Lopa Group. There appears, therefore, no
intended legislation involved. The inquiry also is not
conducted pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 2123 (SR
2123), as the committee alleges. The inquiry under SR 2123
is to look into the charges against PCGG filed by stockholders
of Oriental Petroleum in connection with the implementation
of Section 26 Article XVIII of the Constitution.
3. YES. Mr. Lopa and the petitioners are not connected with
the government and did their acts as private citizens, hence
such a case of alleged graft and corruption is within the
jurisdiction, not of the SBRC, but of the courts.
Sandiganbayan already took jurisdiction of this issue before
the SBRC did. The inquiry of the respondent committee into
the same justiciable controversy already before the
Sandiganbayan would be an encroachment of into the
exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction.
4. NO. The Constitution provides the right of an accused of a
crime to remain silent; this extends also to respondents in
administrative investigation but only if they partake of the
nature of a criminal proceeding. This is not so in this case.
BUT since the court already held that the inquiry is not in aid
of legislation, the petitioners therein cannot be compelled to
testify.
DEMETRIA VS. ALBA (148 SCRA 208)
FACTS:
Petitioners, who filed petition for prohibition with
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction questioning the
constitutionality of the first paragraph of Section 44 of
Presidential Decree No. 1177 as concerned citizens of the
Philippines, as members of the National Assembly/Batasan
Pambansa representing their millions of constituents, as
parties with general interest common to all the people of the
Philippines, and as taxpayers whose vital interest may be
affected. Said paragraph 1 of Section 44 provides:
The President shall have the authority to transfer any
fund, appropriated for the different departments,
bureaus, offices and general agencies of the Executive
Department, which are included in the General
Appropriations Act, to any program, project or activity
of any department, bureau, office included in the
General Appropriations Act or approved after its
enactment.
Petitioners claim that it is in violation of Section 16[5], Article
VIII of the 1973 Constitution.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the first paragraph of Section 44 of
Presidential Decree No. 1177 is in violation of Section16[5],
Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution.
Whether or not the Judiciary may encroach with the
exercise of functions of the legislative and executive
departments.
HELD:
(1)The first paragraph of Section 44 of Presidential Decree
No. 1177 is in violation of Section 16[5], Article VIII of the
1973 Constitution. Section 16[5], Article VIII of the 1973
Constitution provides:
No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations, however, the President, the Prime
Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and the heads of constitutional commissions
may bylaw be authorized to augment any item in the
general appropriations law for their respective offices
from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.
as follows
Sec. 29(l). No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except
in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
They assert that there must be definiteness, certainty and
exactness in an appropriation; otherwise it is an undue
delegation of legislative power to the President who
determines in advance the amount appropriated for the debt
service. 12
RULING: The Court is not persuaded.
Section 3, Article XVIII of the Constitution recognizes that "All
existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations,
letters of instructions and other executive issuances not
inconsistent with the Constitution shall remain operative until
amended, repealed or revoked."
This transitory provision of the Constitution has precisely
been adopted by its framers to preserve the social order so
that legislation by the then President Marcos may be
recognized. Such laws are to remain in force and effect
unless they are inconsistent with the Constitution or, are
otherwise amended, repealed or revoked.
The Court, therefore, finds that R.A. No. 4860, as amended by
P.D. No. 81, Section 31 of P.D. 1177 and P.D. No. 1967
constitute lawful authorizations or appropriations, unless they
are repealed or otherwise amended by Congress. The
Executive was thus merely complying with the duty to
implement the same.
Sanchez, J.:
Facts:
1.
2.
Finally, the title did not inform the members of Congress the
full impact of the law. One, it did not apprise the people in
the towns of Buldon and Parang in Cotabato and in the
province of Cotabato itself that part of their territory is being
taken away from their towns and province and added to the
adjacent Province of Lanao del Sur. Two, it kept the public in
the dark as to what towns and provinces were actually
affected by the bill.
Palawan, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sulu, TawiTawi, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga del Sur;
and the following cities: Cotabato, Dapitan, Dipolog,
General Santos, Iligan, Marawi, Pagadian, Puerto
Prinsesa, and Zamboanga
3.Four provinces voted in favor of creating an
autonomous region: Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu,
Tawi-tawi
4.The cities and provinces not voting in favor of the
Autonomous Region were under Art XIX, Sec. 13 of the
RA 6734:
That only provinces and cities voting favorably
in plebiscites shall be included in the ARMM. The
provinces and cities which in the plebiscite do
not vote for inclusion in the Autonomous Region
shall remain in the existing administrative
regions. Provided, however, that the President
may, by administrative determination, merge
the existing regions.
5.With this provision, President Aquino issued
Executive Order No. 429, Providing for
theReorganization of the Administrative Regions in
Mindanao.
6.Petitioners, members of the Congress, wrote to
Corazon Aquino, contending that theres:
oNo law authorizing the President to pick certain
provinces and cities to be restructured to new
administrative regions
oSome of the provinces and cities in the regions did
not even take part in the plebiscite
oThe transfer of provinces is an alteration of existing
governmental units or reorganization. The authority to
merge doesnt include the authority to reorganize.
1.The inauguration of the New Administrative Region
IX went ahead.
Issues:
1.WON the power to merge administrative regions is
legislative or executive in character (and whether Sec.
23 of Art. 29 is invalid because it contains no standard
to guide the Presidents discretion)
2.WON the power given is fairly expressed in the title
of the statute
3.WON the power granted authorizes the
reorganization even of regions and provinces that did
not take part in the plebiscite
4.WON the power granted includes the power to
transfer the regional center of Region XI from
Zamboanga to Pagadian
Held:
1.Nature of administrative regions and the purpose of
their creations:
oRA 5435 authorizing the President, with the help of
a Commission on Reorganization to reorganize the
different executive departments, bureaus, etc.
oReorganization Commission submitted an Integrated
Reorganization Plan which divided the country into 11
regions (1969)
oPD No. 1 the Reorganization Plan was approved and
made part of the law of the land (1972)
oPD No. 773 divided Region IX into two grpups
oPD No. 1555 transfer of regional center of Region IX
from Jolo to Zamboanga
The Creation and subsequent reorganization of
administrative regions have been by the President
pursuant to the authority granted to him b the law. The
choice of President is logical because the division
intended to facilitate the administration of executive
departments and local governments. It has been
traditionally lodged in the President.
the 3 readings in the HoR, the same did not complete the 3
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not publication in the Official Gazatte is an
indispensable requirement for the effectivity of the PDs, LOIs,
general orders, EOs, etc. where the laws themselves provide
for
their own effectivity dates.
RULING:
Yes. It is the peoples right to be informed on matters
of public concern and corollarily access to official records,
and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions,
or decisions, shall be afforded the citizens subject to such
limitation as may be provided by law (Sec. 6 Art. IV, 1973
Constitution). Laws, to be valid and enforceable, must be