Doctrines

Basis of Philippine Political Law

*Macariola vs Asuncion, AM NO 133-J, May 31, 1982
When the US acquires a territory, the interim political law is immediately displaced by a
transfer of sovereignty. However, private laws continue unless in conflict with the US
political law.
State as a Legal Concept
Government
*US vs Dorr, GR NO 1051, May 19, 1903
Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule a society.
The term "government" as employed in ACT No. 292 of the U.S. Philippine Commission
is used in the abstract sense of the existing political system as distinguished from the
concrete organism of the Government. The article in question contains no attack upon
the governmental system of the U.S., and it is quite apparent that, though grossly
abusive as respects both the Commission as a body and some of its individual
members, it contains no attack upon the governmental system by which the authority
of the U.S. is enforced in these islands. The form of Government by a Civil Commission
and a Civil Governor is not assailed. It is the character of the men who are instructed
with the administration of the government that the writer is seeking to bring into
disrepute.
Administration
*Poindexter vs Greenhow, 114 US 270, 5 S CT 903, 29 L ED 185, Apr 20, 1885
Philippine Constitutional Development
1935 Constitution
Vera vs Avelino, GR NO L-543, Aug 31, 1946
On the ground of the separation of powers, the judiciary cannot order a co-equal
branch to reinstate a member of their own.
>protests have been filed with the Senate Electoral Tribunal against the election of
Vera, Diokno, and Romero
Mabanag vs Lopez Vito, GR NO L-1123, Mar 5, 1947
>If a political question conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the political
departments, a duly certified law or resolution also binds the judges under the enrolled
bill rule born of that respect.
>Political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent
that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by express
constitutional or statutory provision. This doctrine is predicated on the principle of the
separation of powers.
Gonzales vs COMELEC, GR NO L-28196, Nov 9, 1967
The system of checks and balances underlying the judicial power to strike down acts of
the Executive or of Congress transcending the confines set forth in the fundamental
laws is not in derogation of the principle of separation of powers, pursuant to which
each department is supreme within its own sphere.
> Congress MAY act as a Constituent Assembly in proposing amendments to the
constitution AND AT THE SAME TIME, call for a constitutional convention for the same
purpose. In ratifying proposed amendments to the constitution, the constitution
provides that such ratification should be through AN ELECTION or more accurately A
PLEBISCITE as the court clarifies. Whether or not it is a special or regular election is not
relevant since such question hinges on the wisdom and not the legality if the action.
Tolentino vs COMELEC, GR NO L-34150, Oct 16, 1971

The Con-Con cannot propose on a piecemeal basis as only one election, not multiple
elections, will be held for ratification. Because the Con-Con is empowered by the
Constitution, it is therefore limited by it.
> Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, the proposed amendment in question cannot
be presented to the people for ratification separately from each and all of the other
amendments to be drafted and proposed by the Convention.
Planas vs COMELEC, GR NO L-35925, Jan 22, 1973
But it was subsequently overtaken by Martial Law. On 30 November 1972, the
Convention submitted its "draft" to the President, who called on a plebiscite to ratify the
Constitution. This was questioned in the case of Planas v COMELEC, 49 SCRA 105 (1973)
on the ground that there can be no freedom of expression under Martial Law.
1973 Constitution
Javellana vs Executive Secretary, GR NO L-36142, Mar 31, 1973
Political questions are questions of wisdom that are decided on by the people and not
by judicial review.
Sanidad vs COMELEC, GR NO L-44640, Oct 12, 1976
W/N the President has power to propose amendments to the Constitution.
YES. If the president has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the
Interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of
that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but adjunct,
although peculiar, to its gross legislative power. This, of course, is not to say that the
President has converted his office into a constituent assembly of that nature normally
constituted by legislature. Rather, with the interim National Assembly not convened,
and only the Presidency and the Supreme Court in operation, the urges of absolute
necessity render it imperative upon the President to act as agent for and in behalf of
the people to propose amendments to the Constitution. Parenthetically, by its very
constitution, the Supreme Court possesses no capacity to propose amendments without
constitutional infractions. For the President to shy away from that actuality and decline
to undertake the amending process would leave the governmental machinery at a
stalemate or create in the powers of the State a destructive vacuum. After all, the
constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions, like the President now, are mere
agents of the people.
Mitra v COMELEC, GR NO 56503, Apr 4, 1981
> a new Constitution can come into effect by the acquiescence of the people. The fact
that people voted in the succeeding referendums regarding the 1976 amendments
(after Marcos announced the 1973 Consti was ratified), and the two elections (for
interim Batasang Pambansa and local government officials; also held under the present
1973 constitution) is proof that they recognize that the 1973 Constitution is in full force
and effect.
> The judiciary, during the period of martial law from September 21, 1972 to January
17,
1981, performed its functions and discharged its responsibility as a separate branch of
the government. It never ceased all the while to exercise the power of judicial review.
There can be no justification then for the reckless assertion that upon the proclamation
of martial law and while it was in force, constitutionalism, in terms of the exercise of the
power of judicial review and respect for individual rights, no longer held sway in the
Philippines.
Legaspi vs Minister of Finance, GR NO L-58289, Jul 24, 1982
Petition: Legaspi filed a petition to declare Presidential Decree 1840 "granting tax
amnesty and filing of statement of assets and liabilities and some other purposes"
unconstitutional

>Presidential Decree 1840 was issued pursuant to the Presidents power to legislate
under Amendment No. 6. When the President acts as a legislator as in the case at bar,
he does not need the concurrence of the Batasan. Rather, he exercises concurrent
authority vested by the Constitution.
>Legislative power, provided in Amendment No. 6, is a power which the Constitution
directly confers upon the President or allows to be delegated to him by the Batasan in
times of crises and emergencies.
PBA vs COMELEC, GR NO L-72915, Dec 19, 1985
Petitions for this case are DISMISSED, with less than 10 votes to declare BP 883 as
unconstitutional. From the justiciable question of the constitutionality of BP 883, the
issue has transformed into a political question wherein the decision for elections lie in
the capacity of the sovereignty of the people.
>Whether or not BP 883, an act calling for snap elections for President and Vice
President, is unconstitutional. ANS: NO. Article VII, Section 9 of the Constitution does not
yield the conclusion that BP 883 is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not prohibit
the President from tendering a resignation that is not immediately effective.
>Whether or not the Supreme Court can prohibit the elections for President and Vice
President.
ANS: NO. Supervening events have turned the issue into a political question which can
be truly decided only by the people in their sovereign capacity. The Court cannot stand
in the way of letting the people decide through their ballot, either to give the incumbent
president a new mandate or to elect a new president. The court should defer to the
exercise of the peoples public right to vote and to express their judgment, since there
is no question more political than the election.
Marcos Jr vs Republic, GR NO 189434, Apr 25, 2012, Mar 12, 2014
This petition was filed by Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. seeking a reversal of the 2 April 2009
Decision of the Anti-Graft court in Civil Case No. 0141, which granted the motion for
partial summary judgment and declared all assets and properties of Arelma, S.A an
entity created by Marcos, forfeited in favor of government.
DECISION: Petition is DENIED. Decision by Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED. All assets,
properties, and funds belonging to Arelma, S.A. are hereby forfeited in favor of
Respondent Republic of the Philippines.
Freedom Constitution
In Re Letter of Associate Justice Puno, AM NO 90-11-2697, Jun 29, 1992
Petitioner Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno wrote a letter seeking the correction of his
seniority ranking (based on the dates of their respective appointments) in the Court of
Appeals. As provided by EO No.33 issued by President Corazon Aquino, any member
who is reappointed will retain the precedence to which he was entitled under his
original appointment. Associate Justices Campos and Javellana questioned the petition
on grounds that Puno cannot claim reappointment because the courts where he had
previously been appointed ceased to exist when the Marcos regime was toppled. The
Court ruled in favor of Justices Campos and Javellana, thereby retaining the number 26
ranking of Associate Justice Puno.
>HELD: Motion for Reconsideration of Justices Campos and Javellana is GRANTED and
the seniority rankings of members of the Court of Appeals, including that of the
petitioner, at the time the appointments were made by the President in 1986, are
recognized and upheld.
>The present Court of Appeals is a new entity, for it was created in the wake of the
massive reorganization launched by the revolutionary government. Appointments
thereto are of no relation to earlier appointments to the abolished courts
Lawyers League vs Aquino, GR NO 73748, May
The petitioners questioned the legitimacy of the government of President Corazon C.
Aquino.

>The counsel for the petitioners withdrew the petition and hereby dismissed by the
court.
>The Supreme Court dismissed the petition because the legitimacy of the Aquino
government is a political matter, where only the people of the Philippines are the judge,
and therefore not a justiciable matter. The people have accepted the government of
President Corazon Aquino and the community of nations has recognized its legitimacy.
In Re Saturnino Bermudez, GR NO 76180, Oct 24, 1986
The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter.
>This case seeks to clarify who are the incumbent Pres and VP referred to in Article
XVIII, Sec. 5 of the proposed 1986 Constitution. Note that after the February 1986 Snap
Elections, Makasiar named Marcos as Pres and Tolentino as VP, while Teehankee named
Aquino as Pres and Laurel as VP. The court dismissed the case as a) it is not within their
jurisdiction, the petition is in effect a suit against the President and s/he is immune from
suits during her incumbency, and b) there is no cause of action, it being in public
records and common public knowledge that Aquino and Laurel are the incumbent Pres
and VP, and in view of the fact that the Aquino Govt. is THE Philippine Government, de
facto and de jure.
>SC ruling in In Re: Saturnino Bermudez that incumbent Presidents are immune from
suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure
but not beyond.
1987 Constitution
De Leon vs Esguerra, GR NO 76180, Aug 31, 1987
Under the 1987 Constitution, all existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations,
letters of instructions, and other issuances not inconsistent, with this Constitution shall
remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked.
Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC, GR NO 127325, Mar 19, 1997
Delfin aimed to lift the terms of elective officials and demanded that the COMELEC take
the necessary steps to initiate a referendum for his cause. However, the Supreme Court
held that it is only through Congress - by calling a Constitutional Convention or by
taking the role of the Constitutional Commission - that revisions can be made. The
COMELEC was enjoined from participating in Delfins effort to launch a plebiscite until a
law has been passed by Congress.
Estrada vs Desierto, Gr Nos 146710-15, Mar 2, 2001 And Apr 3, 2001
Political Question doctrine or the power of judicial review (Marbury v. Madison)
Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question and its elements
are beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled
by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not governed by any formal
requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be
implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.
Lambino vs COMELEC, GR NO 174153, Oct 25, 2006, Nov 21 2006
Judicial Review
Marbury vs Madison, 5 Us 137, Feb 1803
It is the Courts duty to determine which of the conflicting rules would govern the case.
This is the essence of juridical duty.
> Yes, the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine
whether they are unconstitutional and valid
It is the duty of the Judicial Department to interpret the law. And if two laws conflict
each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the
Constitution and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary Legislative act, the
Constitution and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Angara vs Electoral Commission, GR NO L-45081, Jul 15, 1936

The Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly (ART 4, SEC 4 of the
1935 Constitution).
>In justifying the power of judicial review, J. Laurel pointed out that when the court
allocated constitutional boundaries, it neither asserts supremacy, nor annuls the acts of
the legislature. It simply carries out the obligations imposed upon it by the constitution
to determine conflicting claims and to establish for the parties the rights which the
constitution grants to them.
Conditions for the Exercise of Judicial Review
People vs Vera, GR NO L-45685, Nov 16, 1937, Dec 22, 1937
All Laws and statures must uphold the constitution.
>In People v Vera, 66 Phil 56 (1937), J. Laurel laid down the doctrine that judicial review
can only be exercised in an actual case and controversy.
This means (1) a party with a personal and substantial interest, (2) an appropriate case,
(3) a constitutional question raised at the earliest possible time, and (4) a constitutional
question that is the very lis mota of the case, i.e. an unavoidable question.

>Jurisprudence defines interest as "material interest, an interest in issue and to be

affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or
a mere incidental interest. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as
distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or
consequential interest."
>"To qualify a person to be a real party-in-interest in whose name an action must be
prosecuted, he must appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to be
enforced."
Philippine Jurisprudence on the Matter
*In Re: Saturnino Bermudez, GR NO 76180, Oct 24, 1986
The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. The Aquino
government has been accepted by the people. It is not merely a de facto government
but a de jure government.
Dumlao vs COMELEC, GR NO L-52245, Jan 22, 1980
Laws shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with the Constitution is clear
beyond reasonable doubt.

*Rescue Army vs Municipal Court of City of Los Angeles, 331 US 549, Jun 9,
1947
The Federal Supreme Courts decision should be without prejudice to any rights which
may arise upon final determination of the Municipal Court proceeding, relative to review
in the Supreme Court of that determination. With that reservation the only course
consistent at once with preservation of appellants' rights and with adherence to longobserved policy is to decline to exercise jurisdiction.

*PBA vs COMELEC, GR NO L-72915, Dec 19, 1985

Supervening events have turned the issue into a political question which can be truly
decided only by the people in their sovereign capacity. The Court cannot stand in the
way of letting the people decide through their ballot, either to give the incumbent
president a new mandate or to elect a new president. The court should defer to the
exercise of the peoples public right to vote and to express their judgment, since there
is no question more political than the election.

Political Question
Tanada vs Cuenco, GR NO L-10520, Feb 28, 1957
Political questions are questions to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
legislative or executive branch of government.
Mootness
*Quino vs COMELEC, GR NO 197466, Oct 18, 2011, Nov 29, 2011, Nov 13, 2012
The Court will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: (1) theres a grave
violation of the Constitution; (2) the exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest is involved; (3) when the constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; (4) the
case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

Lozano vs Nograles, GR NO 187883, June 16, 2009

Locus Standi or Legal Standing is not an open invitation for the ignorant and ignoble to
file petitions that prove nothing but their cerebral deficit. (< haha this)
Office of the Ombudsman vs Liggayu, GR NO 174297, Jun 20 2012
The disciplining authority (in this case the OMBUDSMAN) should not appeal the reversal
of its decision because instead of being impartial and detached, becomes an active
participant in prosecuting the respondent.

*Pormento vs Estrada & COMELEC, GR NO 191988, Aug 31, 2010 22, 1986
The Court can only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies. It is not empowered to
decide moot questions that are non-justiciable.

Transcendental Importance
CREBA vs Energy Regulatory Commission, GR NO 174697, Jul 8, 2010
The Court provided the following instructive guides as determinants in determining
whether a matter is of transcendental importance: (1) the character of the funds or
other assets involved in the case; (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or
instrumentality of the government; and (3) the lack of any other party with a more
direct and specific interest in the questions being raised.

Quizon vs COMELEC, GR NO 177927, Feb 15, 2008

A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between
the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits There is no
actual substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled and which would be
negated by the dismissal of the petition
Standing
Minoza vs Lopez, GR NO 170914, Apr 13, 2011
No, the petitioner has no standing.
General rule: Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party-in-interest, who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or
the party entitled to the avails of the suit.

National Appellate Board Of Napolcom vs Mamauag, GR NO 149999, Aug 12,

2005

Taxpayer's Suit
Anti-Graft League Of The Phil. vs San Juan, GR NO 97787, Aug 1, 1996
This petition for certiorari with application for preliminary injunction seeking the
nullification of the 20 March 1989 compromise agreement
>To constitute a taxpayers suit, 2 requisites must be met: (1) public funds are
disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality; (2) the petitioner is directly
affected by the alleged ultra vires act.

>NO. In the case at bar, disbursement of public funds was only made in 1975 when the
province bought the lands from Ortigas. The 1st requirement is absent. When, however,
no such unlawful spending has been shown, as in the case at bar, petitioner, even as a
taxpayer, cannot question the transaction validly executed by and between the
province and ortigas for the simple reason that it is not privy to said contract. Petitioner
has no locus standi.
Functions of Judicial Review
Salonga vs Cruz Pano, GR NO L-59524, Feb 18, 1985
>[on Symbolic/Matters of Great Public Importance]The case against petitioner for
subversion which was filed by the fiscal on the basis of flimsy testimony given by Victor
Lovely was already dismissed without prejudice by the fiscal (upon anticipation of
adverse ruling). And yet, the SC noting that as the fiscal said the dismissal of the
charges was without prejudice to the filing of new ones for the same acts because the
petitioner has not been arraigned and double jeopardy does not apply, the case is not
entirely moot, decided to perform its duty to "formulate guiding and controlling
constitutional principles, precepts and doctrines or rules" for the guidance of the bar
and bench. It thus, went on to lecture about its antiquated understanding of the
inciting test, and how it could not be proved by a mere photograph.
Javier vs COMELEC, GR NO L-68379-81, Sept 22, 1986
>Sec 3 of Art 12-C of the 1973 Constitution, which was:
was interpreted by the Solicitor General to allow the divisions of the Comission to
decide pre-proclamation controversies in this case as said controversy was not a
contest at the time. SG describes that a contest should involve contention of both
parties for the same office where the one contesting wants not only to oust the
intruder but also to be put into office. Commission decides controversies after
proclamation
>SC calls the SGs interpretation irrational and couldnt have been the intent of the
framers of the Constitution. Interpreting it this way gives more powers to the division
than to the Commission en banc. Constitution clearly intended for the Commission to
get full authority for election cases (supported by the 1978 Election Code, Sec 175)
>Further, the SC defines the term contest as any matter involving the title or claim
of the title to an elective office, made before or after the proclamation of the winner,
whether or not the contestant is claiming the office in dispute.
>The purposes of Sec 3 (Art 12-C 1973 Consti) could not have been achieved had the
Commission been only been able to act en banc after the proclamation (it would have
been too late).
Standing for Taxpayers, Voters, Concerned Citizens, Legislators, etc.
Advocates For Truth In Lending Inc. vs Banko Sentral Monetary Board, Gr No,
192986, Jan 15, 2013

Resident Marine Mammals Of The Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs Reyes,

GR NO 180771, Apr 24, 2012, Apr 21, 2015
According to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, a Filipino citizen may file
a citizen suit for violation of environmental laws. The Court explained that this was to
further encourage the protection of the environment, based on the principle that human
beings are the stewards of nature. In this case, standing is not granted to the marine
mammals of Tanon Strait, but to the petitioners, juridical persons, who have proven that
they are indeed stewards of nature.
According to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

Facial Challenge Against As-Applied Challenge

Cruz vs DENR, GR NO 135385, Apr 13, 1999, Dec 6 2000
The only instance where a facial challenge to a statute is allowed is when it operates in
the area of freedom of expression. In such instance, the overbreadth doctrine permits a
party to challenge the validity of a statute even though as applied to him it is not
unconstitutional but it might be if applied to others not before the Court whose
activities are constitutionally protected. But in other cases, even if it is found that a
provision of a statute is unconstitutional, courts will decree only partial invalidity unless
the invalid portion is so far inseparable from the rest of the statute that a declaration of
partial invalidity is not possible.
Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, GR NO 148560, Nov 19, 2001, Jan 29, 2002
Effects of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality and the Doctrine of Operative
Fact
Dumlao vs COMELEC, GR NO L-52245, Jan 22, 1980
Section 4 of BP 52 provided that any retired elective local official who had received
retirement pay to which he was entitled under the law and who have been 65 years old
at the commencement of the term of office to which he sought to be elected, was not
qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he had retired.
Dumlao filed for prohibition to enjoin the enforcement of the law, claiming that this was
directed at him as former governor of Nueva Vizcaya.
> The SC held that (a) he had no standing, since he had not been injured by the
operation of the law, no petition for his disqualification having been filed and (b) the
action was a request for advisory opinion. And yet, the SC upheld the validity "because
of paramount public interest", declaring that the legislative purpose of infusing younger
blood in local government was valid. Adapted.
Serrano De Agbayani vs Pnb, GR NO L-23127, Apr 29, 1971
Prior to having a legislative or executive act nullified, its existence as a fact must be
recognized.
>In 1939, Agbayani borrowed P450 from PNB secured by a realty mortgage. In 1944, the loan
matured but PNB could not collect because it was at this time of the war. In 1945, Pres. Osmena
issued the Debt Morato rium Law (EO #32), suspending the payment of loans for four years due to
the ravages of war. In 1948, RA 342 extended the Debt Moratorium Law for another eight years (up
to 1956). In 1953, however, the SC declared RA 342 as unconstitutional in the case of Rutter v
Esteban. In 1959, PNB filed a suit for payment of the loan. Has the action prescribed?
> But if we take the unorthodox view, as the SC did, the action could still prosper. The period from
1945 when the law was promulgated, to 1953 when it was declared unconstitutional should not be
counted for the purpose of prescription since the Debt Moratorium Law was operative during this
time. In effect, only 7 years had elapsed (194445, 195359).
Indeed, it would be unjust to punish the creditor who could not collect prior to 1953 because the
Debt Moratorium Law was effective, only to be told later that his respect for an apparently valid law
made him lose his right to collect.
*Rutter vs Esteban, GR NO L-3708, May 18, 1953
>Section 2, Republic Act No. 342: All debts and other monetary obligations payable by
private parties within the Philippines originally incurred or contracted before December
8, 1941, and still remaining unpaid, any provision or provisions in the contract creating
the same or in any subsequent agreement affecting such obligation to the contrary
notwithstanding, shall not be due and demandable for a period of eight (8) years from
and after settlement of the war damage claim of the debtor by the United States
Philippine War Damage Commission, without prejudice, however, to any voluntary

agreement which the interested parties may enter into after the approval of this Act for
the settlement of said obligations.
>. Statutes declaring a moratorium on obligations are generally constitutional
Such laws were often passed during or after times of financial distress such as wars and
disasters. Similar laws were passed in some US states after the civil war and they have
been declared constitutional. Some laws however, were declared unconstitutional where
the period of moratorium prescribed is indefinite or unreasonable.
>The argument that moratorium laws impair the obligation of contracts does not hold
water. It is justified as a valid exercise of the state of it's police power.
Thus the true test of constitutionality of a moratorium statute lies in the
determination of the period of a suspension of the remedy. It is required that such
suspension be definite and reasonable, otherwise it would be violative of the
constitution.
>R.A. No. 342 is unconstitutional for being unreasonable
Planters Products Inc. vs Fertiphil Corp, GR NO 166006, Mar 14, 2008
The doctrine of operative fact is the exception to the general rule and is not a necessary
consequence of constitutional invalidity. It only aplies as a matter of equity and fair
play, and is only applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an
undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.
Castro vs Deloria, GR NO 163586, Jan 27, 2009
Where a judicial interpretation declares a law unconstitutional or abandons a doctrinal
interpretation of such law, the Court, recognizing that acts may have been performed
under the impression of the constitutionality of the law or the validity of its
interpretation, has consistently held that such operative fact cannot be undone by the
mere subsequent declaration of the nullity of the law or its interpretation. Thus, the
declaration can only have a prospective application.
>But where no law is invalidated nor doctrine abandoned, a judicial interpretation of the
law should be deemed incorporated at the moment of its legislation. Thus, its
retroactive effect.
*Uy vs Sandiganbayan, GR NO 105965-70, Aug 9, 1999, Feb 22, 2000, Mar 20,
2001
the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
(Aug 9, 1999)

# the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the

Sandiganbayan and other courts. (March 20, 2001)
Araullo vs Aquino III, GR NO 209287, Jul 1, 2014, Feb 3 2015
Only projects, activities and programs that can no longer be undone and whose
beneficiaries relied in good faith on the unconstitutional activitys (DAP) validity are
objects of the operative fact doctrine.
The doctrine of operative fact cannot be applied to the co-authors and co-actors of an
unconstitutional act.
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
COCOFED vs Republic, GR NO 177857-58, Sep 17, 2009, Feb 11, 2010, Jan 24,
2012, Sep 4, 2012
Corollary to the principle of separation of powers is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
that the courts will DEFER to the decisions of the administrative offices and agencies by
reason of their expertise and experience in the matters assigned to them.
Interpretation of the Constitution
*Francisco Jr vs House Of Representatives, GR NO 160261, Oct 28, 2003, Nov 10, 2003
*CLU vs Executive Secretary, GR NO 83896, Feb 22, 1991
*Manila Prince Hotel vs Gsis, GR NO 122156, Feb 3, 1997
doctrine of constitutional supremacy: if a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution that law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the
executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and
void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and
contract
*Tanada vs Cuenco, GR NO L-10520, Feb 28, 1957
Political questions are questions to be decide by the people in their sovereign capacity,
or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branch of government.
*Peralta vs Director Of Prisons, GR NO L-49, Nov 12, 1945