Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Holding and Rule (Marshall) Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission. The order granting the commission takes effect when the Executives constitutional power of appointment has been exercised, and the power has been exercised when the last act required from the person possessing the power has been performed. The grant of the commission to Marbury became effective when signed by President Adams. Yes. The law grants Marbury a remedy. The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. Where law assigns a specific duty, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the law for a remedy. The President, by signing the commission, appointed Marbury a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment. Having this legal right to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission, a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right for which the laws of the country afford him a remedy. Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void. It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with 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 act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution. The Constitution states the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction. If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplus age and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction. It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is, in effect, the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and is therefore a matter of original jurisdiction. Disposition Application for writ of mandamus denied. Marbury doesnt get the commission. See Ex Parte McCardle for a constitutional law case brief holding that that the Constitution gives Congress the express power to make exceptions to the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction.
Defensor-Santiago
vs.
Guingona
G.R.
No.
134577,
November
18,
1998
Facts:
During
the
first
regular
session
of
the
eleventh
Congress,
Senator
Fernan
was
declared
the
duly
elected
President
of
the
Senate
by
a
vote
of
20
to
2.
Senator
Tatad
manifested
that,
with
the
agreement
of
Senator
Santiago,
allegedly
the
only
other
member
of
the
minority,
he
was
assuming
the
position
of
minority
leader.
He
explained
that
those
who
had
voted
for
Senator
Fernan
comprised
the
majority,
while
only
those
who
had
voted
for
him,
the
losing
nominee,
belonged
to
the
minority.
Senator
Flavier
manifested
that
the
senators
belonging
to
the
Lakas- NUCD-UMDP
Party
numbering
7
and,
thus,
also
a
minority
had
chosen
Senator
Guingona
as
the
minority
leader.
Thereafter,
the
majority
leader
informed
the
body
that
he
was
in
receipt
of
a
letter
signed
by
the
7
Lakas-NUCD- UMDP
senators,
stating
that
they
had
elected
Senator
Guingona
as
the
minority
leader.
By
virtue
thereof,
the
Senate
President
formally
recognized
Senator
Guingona
as
the
minority
leader
of
the
Senate.
Senators
Santiago
and
Tatad
filed
a
petition
for
quo
warranto,
alleging
that
Senator
Guingona
had
been
usurping,
unlawfully
holding
and
exercising
the
position
of
Senate
minority
leader,
a
position
that,
according
to
them,
rightfully
belonged
to
Senator
Tatad.
Issues:
(1)
Whether
or
not
the
Court
has
jurisdiction
over
the
petition
(2)
Whether
or
not
there
is
an
actual
violation
of
the
Constitution
Held:
Regarding
the
first
issue,
jurisdiction
over
the
subject
matter
of
a
case
is
determined
by
the
allegations
of
the
complaint
or
petition,
regardless
of
whether
the
petitioner
is
entitled
to
the
relief
asserted.
In
light
of
the
allegations
of
the
petitioners,
it
is
clear
that
the
Court
has
jurisdiction
over
the
petition.
It
is
well
within
the
power
and
jurisdiction
of
the
Court
to
inquire
whether
indeed
the
Senate
or
its
officials
committed
a
violation
of
the
Constitution
or
gravely
abused
their
discretion
in
the
exercise
of
their
functions
and
prerogatives.
However,
the
interpretation
proposed
by
petitioners
finds
no
clear
support
from
the
Constitution,
the
laws,
the
Rules
of
the
Senate
or
even
from
practices
of
the
Upper
House.
The
term
majority,
when
referring
to
a
certain
number
out
of
a
total
or
aggregate,
it
simply
means
the
number
greater
than
half
or
more
than
half
of
any
total.
In
effect,
while
the
Constitution
mandates
that
the
President
of
the
Senate
must
be
elected
by
a
number
constituting
more
than
one
half
of
all
the
members
thereof,
it
does
not
provide
that
the
members
who
will
not
vote
for
him
shall
ipso
facto
constitute
the
minority,
who
could
thereby
elect
the
minority
leader.
No
law
or
regulation
states
that
the
defeated
candidate
shall
automatically
become
the
minority
leader.
While
the
Constitution
is
explicit
in
the
manner
of
electing
a
Senate
President
and
a
House
Speaker,
it
is,
however,
dead
silent
on
the
manner
of
selecting
the
other
officers
in
both
chambers
of
Congress.
All
that
the
Charter
says
under
Art.
VI,
Sec.
16(1)
is
that
each
House
shall
choose
such
other
officers
as
it
may
deem
necessary.
The
method
of
choosing
who
will
be
such
other
officers
is
merely
a
derivative
of
the
exercise
of
the
prerogative
conferred
by
the
said
constitutional
provision.
Therefore,
such
method
must
be
prescribed
by
the
Senate
itself,
not
by
the
Court.
Francisco
vs.
House
of
Representatives
(GR
160261,
10
November
2003)
En
Banc,
Carpio
Morales
(J):
1
concurs,
3
wrote
separate
concurring
opinions
to
which
4
concur,
2
wrote
concurring
and
dissenting
separate
opinions
to
which
2
concur.
Facts:
On
28
November
2001,
the
12th
Congress
of
the
House
of
Representatives
adopted
and
approved
the
Rules
of
Procedure
in
Impeachment
Proceedings,
superseding
the
previous
House
Impeachment
Rules
approved
by
the
11th
Congress.
On
22
July
2002,
the
House
of
Representatives
adopted
a
Resolution,
which
directed
the
Committee
on
Justice
"to
conduct
an
investigation,
in
aid
of
legislation,
on
the
manner
of
disbursements
and
expenditures
by
the
Chief
Justice
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
Judiciary
Development
Fund
(JDF).
On
2
June
2003,
former
President
Joseph
E.
Estrada
filed
an
impeachment
complaint
(first
impeachment
complaint)
against
Chief
Justice
Hilario
G.
Davide
Jr.
and
seven
Associate
Justices
of
the
Supreme
Court
for
"culpable
violation
of
the
Constitution,
betrayal
of
the
public
trust
and
other
high
crimes."
The
complaint
was
endorsed
by
House
Representatives,
and
was
referred
to
the
House
Committee
on
Justice
on
5
August
2003
in
accordance
with
Section
3(2)
of
Article
XI
of
the
Constitution.
The
House
Committee
on
Justice
ruled
on
13
October
2003
that
the
first
impeachment
complaint
was
"sufficient
in
form,"
but
voted
to
dismiss
the
same
on
22
October
2003
for
being
insufficient
in
substance.
Four
months
and
three
weeks
since
the
filing
of
the
first
complaint
or
on
23
October
2003,
a
day
after
the
House
Committee
on
Justice
voted
to
dismiss
it,
the
second
impeachment
complaint
was
filed
with
the
Secretary
General
of
the
House
by
House
Representatives
against
Chief
Justice
Hilario
G.
Davide,
Jr.,
founded
on
the
alleged
results
of
the
legislative
inquiry
initiated
by
above-mentioned
House
Resolution.
The
second
impeachment
complaint
was
accompanied
by
a
"Resolution
of
Endorsement/Impeachment"
signed
by
at
least
1/3
of
all
the
Members
of
the
House
of
Representatives.
Various
petitions
for
certiorari,
prohibition,
and
mandamus
were
filed
with
the
Supreme
Court
against
the
House
of
Representatives,
et.
al.,
most
of
which
petitions
contend
that
the
filing
of
the
second
impeachment
complaint
is
unconstitutional
as
it
violates
the
provision
of
Section
5
of
Article
XI
of
the
Constitution
that
"[n]o
impeachment
proceedings
shall
be
initiated
against
the
same
official
more
than
once
within
a
period
of
one
year."
Issue:
Whether
the
power
of
judicial
review
extends
to
those
arising
from
impeachment
proceedings.
Held:
The
Court's
power
of
judicial
review
is
conferred
on
the
judicial
branch
of
the
government
in
Section
1,
Article
VIII
of
our
present
1987
Constitution.
The
"moderating
power"
to
"determine
the
proper
allocation
of
powers"
of
the
different
branches
of
government
and
"to
direct
the
course
of
government
along
constitutional
channels"
is
inherent
in
all
courts
as
a
necessary
consequence
of
the
judicial
power
itself,
which
is
"the
power
of
the
court
to
settle
actual
controversies
involving
rights
which
are
legally
demandable
and
enforceable."
As
indicated
in
Angara
v.
Electoral
Commission,
judicial
review
is
indeed
an
integral
component
of
the
delicate
system
of
checks
and
balances
which,
together
with
the
corollary
principle
of
separation
of
powers,
forms
the
bedrock
of
our
republican
form
of
government
and
insures
that
its
vast
powers
are
utilized
only
for
the
benefit
of
the
people
for
which
it
serves.
The
separation
of
powers
is
a
fundamental
principle
in
our
system
of
government.
It
obtains
not
through
express
provision
but
by
actual
division
in
our
Constitution.
Each
department
of
the
government
has
exclusive
cognizance
of
matters
within
its
jurisdiction,
and
is
supreme
within
its
own
sphere.
But
it
does
not
follow
from
the
fact
that
the
three
powers
are
to
be
kept
separate
and
distinct
that
the
Constitution
intended
them
to
be
absolutely
unrestrained
and
independent
of
each
other.
The
Constitution
has
provided
for
an
elaborate
system
of
checks
and
balances
to
secure
coordination
in
the
workings
of
the
various
departments
of
the
government.
And
the
judiciary
in
turn,
with
the
Supreme
Court
as
the
final
arbiter,
effectively
checks
the
other
departments
in
the
exercise
of
its
power
to
determine
the
law,
and
hence
to
declare
executive
and
legislative
acts
void
if
violative
of
the
Constitution.
The
major
difference
between
the
judicial
power
of
the
Philippine
Supreme
Court
and
that
of
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
is
that
while
the
power
of
judicial
review
is
only
impliedly
granted
to
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
and
is
discretionary
in
nature,
that
granted
to
the
Philippine
Supreme
Court
and
lower
courts,
as
expressly
provided
for
in
the
Constitution,
is
not
just
a
power
but
also
a
duty,
and
it
was
given
an
expanded
definition
to
include
the
power
to
correct
any
grave
abuse
of
discretion
on
the
part
of
any
government
branch
or
instrumentality.
There
are
also
glaring
distinctions
between
the
U.S.
Constitution
and
the
Philippine
Constitution
with
respect
to
the
power
of
the
House
of
Representatives
over
impeachment
proceedings.
While
the
U.S.
Constitution
bestows
sole
power
of
impeachment
to
the
House
of
Representatives
without
limitation,
our
Constitution,
though
vesting
in
the
House
of
Representatives
the
exclusive
power
to
initiate
impeachment
cases,
provides
for
several
limitations
to
the
exercise
of
such
power
as
embodied
in
Section
3(2),
(3),
(4)
and
(5),
Article
XI
thereof.
These
limitations
include
the
manner
of
filing,
required
vote
to
impeach,
and
the
one- year
bar
on
the
impeachment
of
one
and
the
same
official.
The
people
expressed
their
will
when
they
instituted
the
above-mentioned
safeguards
in
the
Constitution.
This
shows
that
the
Constitution
did
not
intend
to
leave
the
matter
of
impeachment
to
the
sole
discretion
of
Congress.
Instead,
it
provided
for
certain
well-defined
limits,
or
"judicially
discoverable
standards"
for
determining
the
validity
of
the
exercise
of
such
discretion,
through
the
power
of
judicial
review.
There
is
indeed
a
plethora
of
cases
in
which
this
Court
exercised
the
power
of
judicial
review
over
congressional
action.
Finally,
there
exists
no
constitutional
basis
for
the
contention
that
the
exercise
of
judicial
review
over
impeachment
proceedings
would
upset
the
system
of
checks
and
balances.
Verily,
the
Constitution
is
to
be
interpreted
as
a
whole
and
"one
section
is
not
to
be
allowed
to
defeat
another."
Both
are
integral
components
of
the
calibrated
system
of
independence
and
interdependence
that
insures
that
no
branch
of
government
act
beyond
the
powers
assigned
to
it
by
the
Constitution.
Baker
sought
an
injunction
prohibiting
further
elections,
and
sought
the
remedy
of
reapportionment
or
at-large
elections.
The
district
court
denied
relief
on
the
grounds
that
the
issue
of
redistricting
posed
a
political
question
and
would
therefore
not
be
heard
by
the
court.
Issues
1. Do
federal
courts
have
jurisdiction
to
hear
a
constitutional
challenge
to
a
legislative
apportionment?
What
is
the
test
for
resolving
whether
a
case
presents
a
political
question?
Yes.
Federal
courts
have
jurisdiction
to
hear
a
constitutional
challenge
to
a
legislative
apportionment.
The
factors
to
be
considered
by
the
court
in
determining
whether
a
case
presents
a
political
question
are:
1. Is
there
a
textually
demonstrable
constitutional
commitment
of
the
issue
to
a
coordinate
political
department
(i.e.
foreign
affairs
or
executive
war
powers)?
Is
there
a
lack
of
judicially
discoverable
and
manageable
standards
for
resolving
the
issue?
The
impossibility
of
deciding
the
issue
without
an
initial
policy
determination
of
a
kind
clearly
for
nonjudicial
discretion.
The
impossibility
of
a
courts
undertaking
independent
resolution
without
expressing
lack
of
the
respect
due
coordinate
branches
of
government.
Is
there
an
unusual
need
for
unquestioning
adherence
to
a
political
decision
already
made?
Would
attempting
to
resolve
the
matter
create
the
possibility
of
embarrassment
from
multifarious
pronouncements
by
various
departments
on
one
question?
2.
2.
2. 3.
4.
5.
6.
The political question doctrine is based in the separation of powers and whether a case is justiciable is determined
on
a
case
by
cases
basis.
In
regards
to
foreign
relations,
if
there
has
been
no
conclusive
governmental
action
regarding
an
issue
then
a
court
can
construe
a
treaty
and
decide
a
case.
Regarding
the
dates
of
the
duration
of
hostilities,
when
there
needs
to
be
definable
clarification
for
a
decision,
the
court
may
be
able
to
decide
the
case.
The
court
held
that
this
case
was
justiciable
and
did
not
present
a
political
question.
The
case
did
not
present
an
issue
to
be
decided
by
another
branch
of
the
government.
The
court
noted
that
judicial
standards
under
the
Equal
Protection
Clause
were
well
developed
and
familiar,
and
it
had
been
open
to
courts
since
the
enactment
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
to
determine
if
an
act
is
arbitrary
and
capricious
and
reflects
no
policy.
When
a
question
is
enmeshed
with
any
of
the
other
two
branches
of
the
government,
it
presents
a
political
question
and
the
Court
will
not
answer
it
without
further
clarification
from
the
other
branches.
See
Brown
v.
Board
of
Education
for
a
constitutional
law
case
brief
featuring
an
interpretation
and
application
of
the
Equal
Protection
Clause
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
in
an
opinion
involving
segregation
in
public
schools.
NIXON
VS
US
Brief
Fact
Summary.
Walter
L.
Nixon
Jr.
(Nixon)
claimed
that
Senate
impeachment
hearings
against
him
were
unconstitutional
because
the
entire
Senate
did
not
try
him,
but
instead
appointed
a
committee
to
make
initial
findings.
Synopsis
of
Rule
of
Law.
A
controversy
is
nonjusticiable
if
there
is
a
textually
demonstrable
commitment
of
an
issue
to
a
coordinate
branch
of
government
or
a
lack
of
judicially
manageable
standards
for
resolving
the
controversy.
Facts.
Nixon,
a
Chief
Judge
of
the
United
States
District
Court,
was
the
subject
of
an
impeachment
hearing
before
the
Senate.
The
Senate
appointed
a
committee
under
Senate
Rule
XI
to
create
a
report
of
findings
regarding
the
impeachment
of
Nixon.
Based
on
the
findings
of
the
committee
and
oral
arguments
from
both
the
committee
and
Nixon,
the
Senate
convicted
Nixon
by
more
than
the
constitutionally
required
two-thirds
vote.
Nixon
commenced
suit,
claiming
that
Senate
rule
XI
violates
the
constitutional
grant
of
authority
to
the
Senate
to
try
all
impeachments
because
it
prohibits
the
entire
Senate
from
taking
part
in
the
trial
and
evidentiary
hearings.
The
District
Court
and
the
Court
of
Appeals
held
that
the
claim
was
nonjusticiable.
Issue.
Is
the
constitutionality
of
Senate
Rule
XI
nonjusticiable
because
it
involves
a
political
question?
Held.
Yes.
Judgment
Affirmed.
A
controversy
is
nonjusticiable
because
of
the
political
question
doctrine
for
one
of
two
reasons.
First,
if
a
textually
demonstrable
constitutional
commitment
of
the
issue
to
a
coordinate
political
department
is
present.
Second,
if
a
there
is
a
lack
of
judicially
discoverable
and
manageable
standards
for
resolving
the
controversy.
A
lack
of
judicially
manageable
standards
may
strengthen
a
conclusion
that
there
is
a
textually
demonstrable
commitment.
The
Court
rejected
Nixons
claim
that
the
word
try
required
proceedings
in
the
nature
of
a
judicial
trial.
The
Court
found
that
the
word
try
has
a
broader
meaning
and
that
the
Framers
of
the
Constitution
did
not
intend
to
impose
additional
limitations.
The
Court
found
that
the
Constitutions
imposition
of
the
sole
power
of
impeachment
on
the
Senate
constituted
a
textually
demonstrable
commitment
to
a
coordinate
political
department.
The
Court
also
found
that
the
Framers
intentionally
separated
impeachment
trials
from
criminal
trials
in
order
to
avoid
an
appearance
of
bias
and
that
a
lack
of
finality
and
difficulty
in
fashioning
relief
counsels
against
adjudicating
the
matter.
Concurrence.
Justice
Stevens.
The
meaning
of
the
words
sole
and
try
are
not
as
significant
as
the
designation
of
the
impeachment
power
to
the
Legislative
Branch.
Justices
White
and
Blackmun.
The
matter
is
not
a
nonjusticiable
political
question.
Nonetheless
the
Senate
fulfilled
its
constitutional
obligation
to
try
Nixon.
Justice
Souter.
There
are
situations
in
which
judicial
review
of
an
impeachment
trial
would
be
appropriate.
Discussion.
The
majoritys
findings
support
the
political
question
doctrine
by
declining
to
adjudicate
matters
textually
committed
in
the
Constitution
to
other
branches
of
government.
GOLDWATER
VS
CARTER
Brief
Fact
Summary.
President
Carter
terminated
a
treaty
with
Taiwan
without
congressional
approval.
Synopsis
of
Rule
of
Law.
This
is
a
political
question
and
not
justiciable.
Facts.
President
Carter
terminated
a
treaty
with
Taiwan,
and
a
few
Congressional
members
felt
that
this
deprived
them
of
their
Constitutional
function.
However,
no
Congressional
action
was
ever
taken.
The
Senate
considered
a
resolution
that
would
require
the
President
to
get
Senate
approval
before
any
mutual
defense
treaty
could
be
terminated,
but
there
was
no
final
vote
on
the
resolution.
Issue.
Is
this
issue
of
whether
a
President
can
terminate
a
treaty
without
Congressional
approval
a
non-justiciable
political
question?
Held.
Yes.
Whether
or
not
a
President
can
terminate
a
treaty
closely
involves
his
foreign
relations
authority
and
therefore
is
not
reviewable
by
the
Supreme
Court.
Dissent.
Even
though
the
Court
cannot
review
political
questions,
the
court
has
the
power
to
review
whether
or
not
a
particular
branch
of
government
has
exclusive
decision-making
power
over
an
issue.
Concurrence.
This
issue
was
not
ripe
because
the
Senate
never
tried
to
invoke
a
resolution
against
it.
Were
it
ripe,
however,
the
issue
would
be
justiciable
because
it
would
require
an
interpretation
of
the
Constitution.
Even
though
the
Supreme
Court
cannot
hear
purely
political
questions,
it
can
review
cases
to
determine
if
the
interpretation
of
the
Constitution
is
correct.
Discussion.
In
the
arena
of
foreign
affairs,
the
Court
has
held
issues
to
be
political
questions
even
though
many
Justices
believe
these
issues
relate
to
the
interpretation
of
the
Constitution,
and
are
therefore
reviewable.
The
Court
places
a
great
emphasis
on
establishing
a
single,
unified
voice
for
the
nation
on
foreign
affairs
is
Sanidad
vs.
Commission
on
Elections
[GR
L-44640,
12
October
1976];
also
Guzman
vs.
Comelec
[GR
L-44684],
and
Gonzales
vs.
Commission
on
Elections
[GR
L-44714]
En
Banc,
Martin
(J):
1
concurs
in
result,
4
concur
in
separate
opinions,
2
dissent
in
separate
opinions,
2
filed
separate
opinions
Facts:
On
2
September
1976,
President
Ferdinand
E.
Marcos
issued
PD
991
calling
for
a
national
referendum
on
16
October
1976
for
the
Citizens
Assemblies
("barangays")
to
resolve
the
issues
of
martial
law,
the
interim
assembly,
its
replacement,
the
powers
of
such
replacement,
the
period
of
its
existence,
the
length
of
the
period
for
the
exercise
by
the
President
of
his
present
powers.
On
22
September
1976,
the
President
issued
another
PD
1031,
amending
the
previous
Presidential
Decree
991,
by
declaring
the
provisions
of
Presidential
Decree
229
providing
for
the
manner
of
voting
and
canvass
of
votes
in
"barangays"
(Citizens
Assemblies)
applicable
to
the
national
referendum-plebiscite
of
16
October
1976.
The
President
also
issued
PD
1033,
stating
the
questions
to
be
submitted
to
the
people
in
the
referendum-plebiscite
on
16
October
1976.
The
Decree
recites
in
its
"whereas"
clauses
that
the
people's
continued
opposition
to
the
convening
of
the
interim
National
Assembly
evinces
their
desire
to
have
such
body
abolished
and
replaced
thru
a
constitutional
amendment,
providing
for
a
new
interim
legislative
body,
which
will
be
submitted
directly
to
the
people
in
the
referendum-plebiscite
of
October
16.
The
Commission
on
Elections
was
vested
with
the
exclusive
supervision
and
control
of
the
October
1976National
Referendum- Plebiscite.
Pablo
C.
Sanidad
and
Pablito
V.
Sanidad,
father
and
son,
commenced
for
Prohibition
with
Preliminary
Injunction
seeking
to
enjoin
the
COMELEC
from
holding
and
conducting
the
Referendum
Plebiscite
on
October
16;
to
declare
without
force
and
effect
PD
991,
1033
and
1031.
They
contend
that
under
the
1935
and
1973
Constitutions
there
is
no
grant
to
the
incumbent
President
to
exercise
the
constituent
power
to
propose
amendments
to
the
new
Constitution.
On
30
September
1976,
another
action
for
Prohibition
with
Preliminary
Injunction
was
instituted
by
Vicente
M.
Guzman,
a
delegate
to
the
1971
Constitutional
Convention,
asserting
that
the
power
to
propose
amendments
to,
or
revision
of
the
Constitution
during
the
transition
period
is
expressly
conferred
on
the
interim
National
Assembly
under
action
16,
Article
XVII
of
the
Constitution.
Another
petition
for
Prohibition
with
Preliminary
Injunction
was
filed
by
Raul
M.
Gonzales,
his
son,
and
Alfredo
Salapantan,
to
restrain
the
implementation
of
Presidential
Decrees.
Issue:
W/N
the
President
may
call
upon
a
referendum
for
the
amendment
of
the
Constitution.
Held:
Section
1
of
Article
XVI
of
the
1973
Constitution
on
Amendments
ordains
that
"(1)
Any
amendment
to,
or
revision
of,
this
Constitution
may
be
proposed
by
the
National
Assembly
upon
a
vote
of
three-fourths
of
all
its
Members,
or
by
a
constitutional
convention.
(2)
The
National
Assembly
may,
by
a
vote
of
two-thirds
of
all
its
Members,
call
a
constitutional
convention
or,
by
a
majority
vote
of
all
its
Members,
submit
the
question
of
calling
such
a
convention
to
the
electorate
in
an
election."
Section
2
thereof
provides
that
"Any
amendment
to,
or
revision
of,
this
Constitution
shall
be
valid
when
ratified
by
a
majority
of
the
votes
cast
in
a
plebiscite
which
shall
be
held
not
later
than
three
months
a
after
the
approval
of
such
amendment
or
revision.
"In
the
present
period
of
transition,
the
interim
National
Assembly
instituted
in
the
Transitory
Provisions
is
conferred
with
that
amending
power.
Section
15
of
the
Transitory
Provisions
reads
"The
interim
National
Assembly,
upon
special
call
by
the
interim
Prime
Minister,
may,
by
a
majority
vote
of
all
its
Members,
propose
amendments
to
this
Constitution.
Such
amendments
shall
take
effect
when
ratified
in
accordance
with
Article
16
hereof."
There
are,
therefore,
two
periods
contemplated
in
the
constitutional
life
of
the
nation:
period
of
normalcy
and
period
of
transition.
In
times
of
normalcy,
the
amending
process
may
be
initiated
by
the
proposals
of
the
(1)
regular
National
Assembly
upon
a
vote
of
three-fourths
of
all
its
members;
or
(2)
by
a
Constitutional
Convention
called
by
a
vote
of
two-thirds
of
all
the
Members
of
the
National
Assembly.
However
the
calling
of
a
Constitutional
Convention
may
be
submitted
to
the
electorate
in
an
election
voted
upon
by
a
majority
vote
of
all
the
members
of
the
National
Assembly.
In
times
of
transition,
amendments
may
be
proposed
by
a
majority
vote
of
all
the
Members
of
the
interim
National
Assembly
upon
special
call
by
the
interim
Prime
Minister.
The
Court
in
Aquino
v.
COMELEC
had
already
settled
that
the
incumbent
President
is
vested
with
that
prerogative
of
discretion
as
to
when
he
shall
initially
convene
the
interim
National
Assembly.
The
Constitutional
Convention
intended
to
leave
to
the
President
the
determination
of
the
time
when
he
shall
initially
convene
the
interim
National
Assembly,
consistent
with
the
prevailing
conditions
of
peace
and
order
in
the
country.
When
the
Delegates
to
the
Constitutional
Convention
voted
on
the
Transitory
Provisions,
they
were
aware
of
the
fact
that
under
the
same,
the
incumbent
President
was
given
the
discretion
as
to
when
he
could
convene
the
interim
National
Assembly.
The
President's
decision
to
defer
the
convening
of
the
interim
National
Assembly
soon
found
support
from
the
people
themselves.
In
the
plebiscite
of
January
10-15,
1973,
at
which
the
ratification
of
the
1973
Constitution
was
submitted,
the
people
voted
against
the
convening
of
the
interim
National
Assembly.
In
the
referendum
of
24
July
1973,
the
Citizens
Assemblies
("bagangays")
reiterated
their
sovereign
will
to
withhold
the
convening
of
the
interim
National
Assembly.
Again,
in
the
referendum
of
27
February
1975,
the
proposed
question
of
whether
the
interim
National
Assembly
shall
be
initially
convened
was
eliminated,
because
some
of
the
members
of
Congress
and
delegates
of
the
Constitutional
Convention,
who
were
deemed
automatically
members
of
the
interim
National
Assembly,
were
against
its
inclusion
since
in
that
referendum
of
January,
1973
the
people
had
already
resolved
against
it.
In
sensu
striciore,
when
the
legislative
arm
of
the
state
undertakes
the
proposals
of
amendment
toa
Constitution,
that
body
is
not
in
the
usual
function
of
lawmaking.
It
is
not
legislating
when
engaged
in
the
amending
process.
Rather,
it
is
exercising
a
peculiar
power
bestowed
upon
it
by
the
fundamental
charter
itself.
In
the
Philippines,
that
power
is
provided
for
in
Article
XVI
of
the1973
Constitution
(for
the
regular
National
Assembly)
or
in
Section
15
of
the
Transitory
Provisions
(for
the
interim
National
Assembly).
While
ordinarily
it
is
the
business
of
the
legislating
body
to
legislate
for
the
nation
by
virtue
of
constitutional
conferment,
amending
of
the
Constitution
is
not
legislative
in
character.
In
political
science
a
distinction
is
made
between
constitutional
content
of
an
organic
character
and
that
of
a
legislative
character.
The
distinction,
however,
is
one
of
policy,
not
of
law.
Such
being
the
case,
approval
of
the
President
of
any
proposed
amendment
is
a
misnomer.
The
prerogative
of
the
President
to
approve
or
disapprove
applies
only
to
the
ordinary
cases
of
legislation.
The
President
has
nothing
to
do
with
proposition
or
adoption
of
amendments
to
the
Constitution.
Estrada
vs.
Macapagal-Arroyo
(G.R.
No.
146738
March
2,
2001)
FACTS:
Petitioner
sought
to
enjoin
the
respondent
Ombudsman
from
conducting
any
further
proceedings
in
any
criminal
complaint
that
may
be
filed
in
his
office,
until
after
the
term
of
petitioner
as
President
is
over
and
only
if
legally
warranted.
Erap
also
filed
a
Quo
Warranto
case,
praying
for
judgment
confirming
petitioner
to
be
the
lawful
and
incumbent
President
of
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines
temporarily
unable
to
discharge
the
duties
of
his
office,
and
declaring
respondent
to
have
taken
her
oath
as
and
to
be
holding
the
Office
of
the
President,
only
in
an
acting
capacity
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
the
Constitution.
ISSUE:
Is
Arroyo's
administration
legitimate?
HELD:
FIRST:
The
cases
at
bar
pose
legal
and
not
political
questions.
The
principal
issues
for
resolution
require
the
proper
interpretation
of
certain
provisions
in
the
1987
Constitution,
notably
section
1
of
Article
II,
and
section
8
of
Article
VII,
and
the
allocation
of
governmental
powers
under
section
II
of
Article
VII.
The
issues
likewise
call
for
a
ruling
on
the
scope
of
presidential
immunity
from
suit.
They
also
involve
the
correct
calibration
of
the
right
of
petitioner
against
prejudicial
publicity.
As
early
as
the
1803
case
of
Marbury
v.
Madison,
the
doctrine
has
been
laid
down
that
it
is
emphatically
the
province
and
duty
of
the
judicial
department
to
say
what
the
law
is
.
.
.
The
Court
also
distinguished
between
EDSA
People
Power
I
and
EDSA
People
Power
II.
EDSA
I
involves
the
exercise
of
the
people
power
of
revolution,
which
overthrew
the
whole
government.
EDSA
II
is
an
exercise
of
people
power
of
freedom
of
speech
and
freedom
of
assembly
to
petition
the
government
for
redress
of
grievances,
which
only
affected
the
office
of
the
President.
EDSA
I
is
extra
constitutional
and
the
legitimacy
of
the
new
government
that
resulted
from
it
cannot
be
the
subject
of
judicial
review,
but
EDSA
II
is
intra
constitutional
and
the
resignation
of
the
sitting
President
that
it
caused
and
the
succession
of
the
Vice
President
as
President
are
subject
to
judicial
review.
EDSA
I
presented
political
question;
EDSA
II
involves
legal
questions.
SECOND:
Using
the
totality
test,
the
SC
held
that
petitioner
resigned
as
President.
a.
The
proposal
for
a
snap
election
for
president
in
May
where
he
would
not
be
a
candidate
is
an
indicium
that
petitioner
had
intended
to
give
up
the
presidency
even
at
that
time.
b.
The
Angara
diary
shows
that
the
President
wanted
only
five-day
period
promised
by
Reyes,
as
well
as
to
open
the
second
envelop
to
clear
his
name.
If
the
envelope
is
opened,
on
Monday,
he
says,
he
will
leave
by
Monday.
The
President
says.
Pagod
na
pagod
na
ako.
Ayoko
na
masyado
nang
masakit.
Pagod
na
ako
sa
red
tape,
bureaucracy,
intriga.
(I
am
very
tired.
I
dont
want
any
more
of
this
its
too
painful.
Im
tired
of
the
red
tape,
the
bureaucracy,
the
intrigue.)
I
just
want
to
clear
my
name,
then
I
will
go.
The
SC
held
that
this
is
high-grade
evidence
that
the
petitioner
has
resigned.
The
intent
to
resign
is
clear
when
he
said
x
x
x
Ayoko
na
masyado
nang
masakit.
Ayoko
na
are
words
of
resignation.
c.
During
the
negotiations,
the
resignation
of
the
petitioner
was
treated
as
a
given
fact.
The
only
unsettled
points
at
that
time
were
the
measures
to
be
undertaken
by
the
parties
during
and
after
transition
period.
d.
His
resignation
was
also
confirmed
by
his
leaving
Malacaang.
In
the
press
release
containing
his
final
statement,
(1)
he
acknowledged
the
oath-taking
of
the
respondent
as
President
of
the
Republic
albeit
with
the
reservation
about
its
legality;
(2)
he
emphasized
he
was
leaving
the
Palace,
the
seat
of
the
presidency,
for
the
sake
of
peace
and
in
order
to
begin
the
healing
process
of
our
nation.
He
did
not
say
he
was
leaving
the
Palace
due
to
any
kind
of
inability
and
he
was
going
to
re-assume
the
presidency
as
soon
as
the
disability
disappears;
(3)
he
expressed
his
gratitude
to
the
people
for
the
opportunity
to
serve
them.
Without
doubt,
he
was
referring
to
the
past
opportunity
given
him
to
serve
the
people
as
President;
(4)
he
assured
that
he
would
not
shirk
from
any
future
challenge
that
may
come
ahead
in
the
same
service
of
our
country.
Petitioners
reference
is
to
a
future
challenge
after
occupying
the
office
of
the
president
which
he
has
given
up;
and
(5)
he
called
on
his
supporters
to
join
him
in
the
promotion
of
a
constructive
national
spirit
of
reconciliation
and
solidarity.
Certainly,
the
national
spirit
of
reconciliation
and
solidarity
could
not
be
attained
if
he
did
not
give
up
the
presidency.
The
press
release
was
petitioners
valedictory,
his
final
act
of
farewell.
His
presidency
is
now
in
the
past
tense.
THIRD:
The
petitioner
is
permanently
unable
to
act
as
President.
Section
11
of
Article
VII
provides
that
Congress
has
the
ultimate
authority
under
the
Constitution
to
determine
whether
the
President
is
incapable
of
performing
his
functions.
Both
houses
of
Congress
have
recognized
respondent
Arroyo
as
the
President.
The
House
of
Representative
passed
on
January
24,
2001
House
Resolution
No.
l75
which
states:
RESOLUTION
EXPRESSING
THE
SUPPORT
OF
THE
HOUSE
OF
REPRESENTATIVES
TO
THE
ASSUMPTION
INTO
OFFICE
BY
VICE
PRESIDENT
GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
AS
PRESIDENT
OFTHE
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
EXTENDING
ITS
CONGRATULATIONS
AND
EXPRESSING
ITS
SUPPORT
FOR
HER
ADMINISTRATION
AS
A
PARTNER
IN
THE
ATTAINMENT
OF
THE
NATIONS
GOALS
UNDER
THE
CONSTITUTION.
The
Senate
also
passed
Senate
Resolution
No.
82
which
states:
RESOLUTION
CONFIRMING
PRESIDENT
GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYOS
NOMINATION
OF
SEN.
TEOFISTO
T.
GUINGONA,
JR.
AS
VICE
PRESIDENT
OF
THE
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
Implicitly
clear
in
that
recognition
is
the
premise
that
the
inability
of
petitioner
Estrada
is
no
longer
temporary.
Congress
has
clearly
rejected
petitioners
claim
of
inability.
Even
if
petitioner
can
prove
that
he
did
not
resign,
still,
he
cannot
successfully
claim
that
he
is
a
President
on
leave
on
the
ground
that
he
is
merely
unable
to
govern
temporarily.
That
claim
has
been
laid
to
rest
by
Congress
and
the
decision
that
respondent
Arroyo
is
the
de
jure
President
made
by
a
co-equal
branch
of
government
cannot
be
reviewed
by
the
Supreme
Court.
FOURTH:
The
petitioner
does
not
enjoy
immunity
from
suit.
The
Supreme
Court
rejected
petitioners
argument
that
he
cannot
be
prosecuted
for
the
reason
that
he
must
first
be
convicted
in
the
impeachment
proceedings.
The
impeachment
trial
of
petitioner
Estrada
was
aborted
by
the
walkout
of
the
prosecutors
and
by
the
events
that
led
to
his
loss
of
the
presidency.
On
February
7,
2001,
the
Senate
passed
Senate
Resolution
No.
83
Recognizing
that
the
Impeachment
Court
is
Functus
Officio.
Since
the
Impeachment
Court
is
now
functus
officio,
it
is
untenable
for
petitioner
to
demand
that
he
should
first
be
impeached
and
then
convicted
before
he
can
be
prosecuted.
The
plea,
if
granted,
would
put
a
perpetual
bar
against
his
prosecution.
The
debates
in
the
Constitutional
Commission
make
it
clear
that
when
impeachment
proceedings
have
become
moot
due
to
the
resignation
of
the
President,
the
proper
criminal
and
civil
cases
may
already
be
filed
against
him.
The
SC
also
ruled
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.
Considering
the
peculiar
circumstance
that
the
impeachment
process
against
the
petitioner
has
been
aborted
and
thereafter
he
lost
the
presidency,
petitioner
cannot
demand
as
a
condition
sine
qua
non
to
his
criminal
prosecution
before
the
Ombudsman
that
he
be
convicted
in
the
impeachment
proceedings.
Also,
petitioner
cannot
cite
any
decision
of
the
SC
licensing
the
President
to
commit
criminal
acts
and
wrapping
him
with
post-tenure
immunity
from
liability.
The
rule
is
that
unlawful
acts
of
public
officials
are
not
acts
of
the
State
and
the
officer
who
acts
illegally
is
not
acting
as
such
but
stands
in
the
same
footing
as
any
other
trespasser.
FIFTH:
Petitioner
was
not
denied
the
right
to
impartial
trial.
Pervasive
publicity
is
not
per
se
prejudicial
to
the
right
of
an
accused
to
fair
trial.
The
mere
fact
that
the
trial
of
appellant
was
given
a
day-to-day,
gavel-to-gavel
coverage
does
not
by
itself
prove
that
the
publicity
so
permeated
the
mind
of
the
trial
judge
and
impaired
his
impartiality.
In
the
case
at
bar,
the
records
do
not
show
that
the
trial
judge
developed
actual
bias
against
appellant
as
a
consequence
of
the
extensive
media
coverage
of
the
pre- trial
and
trial
of
his
case.
The
totality
of
circumstances
of
the
case
does
not
prove
that
the
trial
judge
acquired
a
fixed
opinion
as
a
result
of
prejudicial
publicity
which
is
incapable
if
change
even
by
evidence
presented
during
the
trial.
Appellant
has
the
burden
to
prove
this
actual
bias
and
he
has
not
discharged
the
burden.
SIXTO
S.
BRILLANTES,
JR.
petitioner,
vs.
JOSE
CONCEPCION,
JR.,
JOSE
DE
VENECIA,
EDGARDO
J.
ANGARA,
DR.
JAIME
Z.
GALVEZ,
TAN,
FRANKLIN
M.
DRILON,
FRISCO
SAN
JUAN,
NORBERTO
M.
GONZALES,
HONESTO
M.
ISLETA,
AND
JOSE
A.
BERNAS,
petitioners- in-intervention,
vs.
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS,
respondent.
FACTS:
Congress
enacted
RA
8436
authorizing
COMELEC
to
use
an
automated
election
system
for
the
process
of
voting,
counting
of
votes
and
canvassing/consolidation
the
results
of
national
and
local
elections.
COMELEC
subsequently
approved
Resolution
6712
adopting
the
policy
that
the
precinct
election
results
of
each
city
and
municipality
shall
be
immediately
transmitted
electronically
in
advance
to
the
COMELEC
in
Manila.
Petitioners
in
this
case
questioned,
among
others,
the
Constitutionality
of
the
quick
count
as
being
pre-emptive
of
the
authority
vested
in
Congress
to
canvass
the
votes
for
the
President
and
Vice-President
under
Article
VII,
Section
4
of
the
1987
Constitution.
ISSUE:
Can
the
COMELEC
conduct
unofficial
tabulation
of
presidential
election
results
based
on
a
copy
of
the
election
returns?
RULING:
No.
The
assailed
resolution
usurps,
under
the
guise
of
an
unofficial
tabulation
of
election
results
based
on
a
copy
of
the
election
returns,
the
sole
and
exclusive
authority
of
Congress
to
canvass
the
votes
for
the
election
of
President
and
Vice-President.
The
contention
of
the
COMELEC
that
its
tabulation
of
votes
is
not
prohibited
by
the
Constitution
and
Rep.
Act
No.
8436
as
such
tabulation
is
unofficial,
is
puerile
and
totally
unacceptable.
If
the
COMELEC
is
proscribed
from
conducting
an
official
canvass
of
the
votes
cast
for
the
President
and
Vice-President,
the
COMELEC
is,
with
more
reason,
prohibited
from
making
an
unofficial
canvass
of
said
votes.
Presumption
of
Constitutionality
HON.
ALFREDO
S.
LIM,
in
his
capacity
as
Mayor
of
Manila,
and
the
City
of
Manila,
petitioners,
vs.
HON.
FELIPE
G.
PACQUING,
as
Judge,
branch
40,
Regional
Trial
Court
of
Manila
and
ASSOCIATED
CORPORATION,
respondents.
G.R.
No.
117263
January
27,
1995
FACTS:
The
petition
in
G.R.
No.
115044
was
dismissed
by
the
First
Division
of
this
Court
on
01
September
1994
based
on
finding
that
there
was
"no
abuse
of
discretion,
much
less
lack
of
or
excess
of
jurisdiction,
on
the
part
of
respondent
judge
[Pacquing]",
in
issuing
the
questioned
orders.
Judge
Pacquing
had
earlier
issued
in
Civil
Case
No.
88-45660,
RTC
of
Manila,
Branch
40,
the
following
orders
which
were
assailed
by
the
Mayor
of
the
City
of
Manila,
Hon.
Alfredo
S.
Lim,
in
said
G.R.
No.
115044:
a.
order
dated
28
March
1994
directing
Manila
mayor
Alfredo
S.
Lim
to
issue
the
permit/license
to
operate
the
jai-alai
in
favor
of
Associated
Development
Corporation
(ADC).
b.
order
dated
11
April
1994
directing
mayor
Lim
to
explain
why
he
should
not
be
cited
for
contempt
for
non- compliance
with
the
order
dated
28
March
1994.
c.
order
dated
20
April
1994
reiterating
the
previous
order
directing
Mayor
Lim
to
immediately
issue
the
permit/license
to
Associated
Development
Corporation
(ADC).
-The
order
dated
28
march
1994
was
in
turn
issued
upon
motion
by
ADC
for
execution
of
a
final
judgment
rendered
on
9
September
1988
which
ordered
the
Manila
Mayor
to
immediately
issue
to
ADC
the
permit/license
to
operate
the
jai-alai
in
Manila,
under
Manila
Ordinance
No.
7065.
-On
13
September
1994,
petitioner
Guingona
(as
executive
secretary)
issued
a
directive
to
then
chairman
of
the
Games
and
Amusements
Board
(GAB)
Francisco
R.
Sumulong,
jr.
to
hold
in
abeyance
the
grant
of
authority,
or
if
any
had
been
issued,
to
withdraw
such
grant
of
authority,
to
Associated
Development
Corporation
to
operate
the
jai-alai
in
the
City
of
Manila,
until
the
following
legal
questions
are
properly
resolved:1.
Whether
P.D.
771,
which
revoked
all
existing
Jai-Alai
franchisers,
issued
by
local
governments
as
of
20
August
1975
is
unconstitutional.
2.
Assuming
that
the
City
of
Manila
had
the
power
on7
September
1971
to
issue
a
Jai-Alai
franchise
to
Associated
Development
Corporation,
whether
the
franchise
granted
is
valid
considering
that
the
franchise
has
no
duration,
and
appears
to
be
granted
in
perpetuity.3.
Whether
the
City
of
Manila
had
the
power
to
issue
a
Jai-Alai
franchise
to
Associated
Development
Corporation
on
7
September
1971
in
view
of
executive
Order
No.
392
dated
1
January
1951,
which
transferred
from
local
governments
to
the
Games
and
Amusements
Board
the
power
to
regulate
Jai
Alai.
-The
national
government
contends
that
Manila
Ordinance
No.
7065
which
purported
to
grant
to
ADC
a
franchise
to
conduct
jai-alai
operations
is
void
and
ultra
vires
since
Republic
Act
No.
954,
approved
on20
June
1953,
or
very
much
earlier
than
said
Ordinance
No.
7065,
the
latter
approved
7
September1971,
in
Section
4
thereof,
requires
a
legislative
franchise,
not
a
municipal
franchise,
for
the
operation
of
jai-alai.
Additionally,
the
national
government
argues
that
even
assuming,
arguendo,
that
the
above
mentioned
ordinance
is
valid,
ADC's
franchise
was
nonetheless
effectively
revoked
by
Presidential
decree
No.771,
issued
on
20
August
1975,
Sec.
3
of
which
expressly
revoked
all
existing
franchises
and
permits
to
operate
all
forms
of
gambling
facilities
(including
the
jai- alai)
issued
by
local
governments.
-On
the
other
hand,
ADC's
position
is
that
Ordinance
No.
7065
was
validly
enacted
by
the
City
of
Manila
pursuant
to
its
delegated
powers
under
it
charter,
Republic
Act
No.
409.
ADC
also
squarely
assails
the
constitutionality
of
PD
No.
771
as
violative
of
the
equal
protection
and
non- impairment
clauses
of
the
Constitution.
In
this
connection,
counsel
for
ADC
contends
that
this
Court
should
really
rule
on
the
validity
of
PD
No.
771
to
be
able
to
determine
whether
ADC
continues
to
possess
a
valid
franchise.
ISSUE:
WON
the
Associated
Development
Corporation
has
a
valid
franchise
to
maintain
and
operate
jai
alai.
HELD
-NO.
Respondent
ADC
does
not
possess
the
required
congressional
franchise
to
operate
and
conduct
the
jai
alai
under
RA
954
and
PD
771.
-Congress
did
not
delegate
to
the
City
of
Manila
the
power
'to
franchise"
wagers
or
betting,
including
the
jai-alai,
but
retained
for
itself
such
power
"to
franchise".
What
Congress
delegated
to
the
City
of
Manila
in
Rep.
Act
No.
409,
with
respect
to
wagers
or
betting,
was
the
power
to
"license,
permit,
or
regulate"
which
therefore
means
that
a
license
or
permit
issued
by
the
City
of
Manila
to
operate
a
wager
or
betting
activity,
such
as
the
jai-alai
where
bets
are
accepted,
would
not
amount
to
something
meaningful
UNLESS
the
holder
of
the
permit
or
license
was
also
FRANCHISED
by
the
national
government
to
so
operate.
Moreover,
even
this
power
to
license,
permit,
or
regulate
wagers
or
betting
on
jai-alai
was
removed
from
local
governments,
including
the
City
of
Manila,
and
transferred
to
the
GAB
on
1
January
1951
by
Executive
Order
No.
392.
The
net
result
is
that
the
authority
to
grant
franchises
for
the
operation
of
jai-alai
frontons
is
in
Congress,
while
the
regulatory
function
is
vested
in
the
GAB.
-
Since
ADC
has
no
franchise
from
Congress
to
operate
the
jai
alai,
it
may
not
so
operate
even
if
it
has
a
license
or
permit
from
the
City
Mayor
to
operate
the
jai
alai
in
the
City
of
Manila.
-
Republic
Act
No.
409
(the
Revised
Charter
of
the
City
of
Manila)
which
was
enacted
by
Congress
on
18
June
1949gave
the
Municipal
Board
certain
delegated
legislative
powers
under
Section
18.
A
perusal
of
the
powers
enumerated
under
Section
18
shows
that
these
powers
are
basically
regulatory
in
nature.
The
regulatory
nature
of
these
powers
finds
support
not
only
in
the
plain
words
of
the
enumerations
under
Section
28
but
also
in
this
Court's
ruling
in
People
v.
Vera
(65
Phil.
56).
-
In
Vera
,
this
Court
declared
that
a
law,
which
gives
the
Provincial
Board
the
discretion
to
determine
whether,
or
nota
law
of
general
application
(such
as,
the
Probation
law-Act
No.
4221)
would
or
would
not
be
operative
within
the
province,
is
unconstitutional
for
being
an
undue
delegation
of
legislative
power.
-
The
relevant
provisions
of
Rep.
Acts
Nos.
409
and
954
and
Ordinance
No.
7065
should
be
taken
together
and
it
should
then
be
clear
that
the
legislative
powers
of
the
Municipal
Board
should
be
understood
to
be
regulatory
in
nature
and
that
Republic
Act
No.
954
should
be
understood
to
refer
to
congressional
franchises,
as
a
necessity
for
the
operation
of
jai-alai
declaratory
relief
and
for
prohibition
and
injunction,
with
a
prayer
for
a
temporary
restraining
order.
They
cited
the
following
as
grounds
for
their
petition:
1.
That
there
was
derogation
in
the
legislative
process
and
vitiation
of
legislative
consent;
2.
That
RA
No.
8050violates
the
due
process
clause
of
the
Constitution;
3.
That
RA
No.
8050
violates
the
principle
against
undue
delegation
of
legislative
power;
and
4.
That
it
is
violation
of
the
guaranty
of
freedom
of
speech
and
press.
Meanwhile,
upon
examination
of
the
petition,
it
was
found
out
that
the
body
of
the
petition
gave
no
details
as
to
the
juridical
personality
and
addresses
of
the
alleged
herein
associations
OPAP,
COA,
ACMO,
and
SMOAP,
except
for
Acebedo
Optical
Co.,
Inc.
The
petition,
docketed
as
Civil
Case
No.
95-74770,merely
listed
the
names
of
the
alleged
presidents
as
well
as
their
profession
and
home
addresses.
As
to
herein
petitioners,
they
filed
an
opposition
to
the
application
for
preliminary
injunction
and
alleged
that:
1.
Respondents
do
not
possess
the
requisite
right
as
would
entitle
them
to
the
relief
they
sought;
2.
respondents
have
no
legal
existence
or
capacity
to
file
the
case;
3.
That
the
implementation
of
the
questioned
law
carries
no
injurious
effect;
and
4.
That
herein
respondents
failed
to
overcome
the
presumption
of
constitutionality
in
favor
of
the
questioned
law.
The
Regional
Trial
Court
granted
the
writ
of
preliminary
injunction.
The
court
was
inclined
to
find
prima
facie,
that
petitioners
have
legal
rights
affected
by
the
Revised
Optometry
Law,
and
that
in
its
operation,
said
Law
is
likely
to
inflict
serious
and
irreparable
injury
to
such
legal
rights.
Thus,
herein
petitioners
filed
this
special
civil
action
for
certiorari
and
prohibition
with
a
prayer
for
a
writ
of
preliminary
injunction
and/or
temporary
restraining
order.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
herein
private
respondents
have
legal
existence
or
capacity
(locus
standi)
to
question
the
constitutionality
of
RA
No.
8050.
Ruling:
Only
natural
and
juridical
persons
or
entities
authorized
by
law
may
be
parties
in
a
civil
action,
and
every
action
must
be
prosecuted
or
defended
in
the
name
of
the
real
party
in
interest.
Under
Article
44
of
the
Civil
Code,
an
association
is
considered
a
juridical
person
if
the
law
grants
it
a
personality
separate
and
distinct
from
that
of
its
members.
There
is
serious
doubt
as
to
the
existence
of
private
respondents
OPAP,COA,
ACMO,
and
SMOAP.
For
one,
the
body
of
the
petition
in
Civil
Case
No.
95-74770
makes
no
mention
of
these
associations
nor
states
their
addresses.
Further,
nowhere
is
it
claimed
therein
that
they
are
juridical
entities.
These
run
counter
to
Section
4,
Rule
8
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
which
provides
that
facts
showing
the
capacity
of
a
party
to
sue
or
the
legal
existence
of
an
organized
association
of
persons
that
is
made
a
party
must
be
averred.
Second,
not
even
in
the
sworn
statements
of
the
alleged
presidents
representing
the
"associations,"
which
were
offered
in
evidence
in
support
of
the
application
for
a
writ
of
preliminary
injunction,
were
such
"associations"
mentioned
or
named.
Finally,
in
their
Comment
on
the
instant
petition,
the
private
respondents
chose
to
remain
silent
on
the
issue
of
the
juridical
personality
of
their
"associations."
For
having
failed
to
show
that
they
are
juridical
entities,
private
respondents
OPAP,
COA,
ACMO,
and
SMOAP
must
then
be
deemed
to
be
devoid
of
legal
personality
to
bring
an
action,
such
as
herein
questioned
petition.
Therefore,
since
OPAP,
COA,
ACMO,
and
SMOAP
were
not
shown
to
be
juridical
entities,
they
cannot,
for
obvious
reasons,
be
deemed
real
parties
in
interest.
Thus,
petitioners
prayer
is
granted.
The
questioned
order
rendered
by
the
Regional
Trial
Court
granting
the
application
for
the
issuance
of
a
writ
of
preliminary
injunction,
and
the
writ
of
preliminary
injunction
are
hereby
annulled
and
set
aside.
Principle:
An
association
can
only
be
considered
as
a
juridical
person
if
the
law
grants
it
a
personality
separate
and
distinct
from
that
of
its
members
JUANITO
MARIANO,
JR.
et
al.,
petitioners,
vs.
THE
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS,
THE
MUNICIPALITY
OF
MAKATI,
HON.
JEJOMAR
BINAY,
THE
MUNICIPAL
TREASURER,
AND
SANGGUNIANG
BAYANOF
MAKATI,
respondents.
FACTS:
A
petition
for
prohibition
and
declaratory
relief
against
R.A.
No.
7854,
"An
Act
Converting
the
Municipality
of
Makati
Into
a
Highly
Urbanized
City
to
be
known
as
the
City
of
Makati,"
was
filed
by
petitioners
Juanito
Mariano,
Jr.,
Ligaya
S.
Bautista,
Teresita
Tibay,
Camilo
Santos,
Frankie
Cruz,
Ricardo
Pascual,
Teresita
Abang,
Valentina
Pitalvero,
Rufino
Caldoza,
Florante
Alba,
and
Perfecto
Alba.
Of
the
petitioners,
only
Mariano,
Jr.,
is
a
resident
of
Makati.
The
others
are
residents
of
Ibayo
Ususan,
Taguig,
Metro
Manila.
Suing
as
taxpayers,
they
assail
as
unconstitutional
sections
2,
51,
and
52
of
R.A.
No.
7854.
ISSUES:
Whether
sections
2,
51
and
52
of
R.A.
No.
7854
are
unconstitutional.
RULING:
The
court
finds
no
merit
in
the
petition.
Section
2
of
R.A.
No.
7854
clearly
stated
that
the
city's
land
area
"shall
comprise
the
present
territory
of
the
municipality."
Section
2
did
not
add,
subtract,
divide,
or
multiply
the
established
land
area
of
Makati.
Hence,
the
territorial
bounds
need
not
be
made
in
metes
and
bounds
with
technical
description
and
does
not
violate
sections
7
and
450
of
the
Local
Government
Code.
Also,
at
the
time
of
the
consideration
of
R.A.
No.
7854,
the
territorial
dispute
between
the
municipalities
of
Makati
and
Taguig
over
Fort
Bonifacio
was
under
court
litigation.
Out
of
a
becoming
sense
of
respect
to
co-equal
department
of
government,
legislators
felt
that
the
dispute
should
be
left
to
the
courts
to
decide.
They
did
not
want
to
foreclose
the
dispute
by
making
a
legislative
finding
of
fact,
which
could
decide
the
issue.
The
contention
on
the
constitutionality
of
section
51
of
R.A.
No.
7854
was
not
entertained
by
the
court
since
it
did
not
comply
the
requirements
before
a
litigant
can
challenge
the
constitutionality
of
a
law
which
are:
1)
there
must
be
an
actual
case
or
controversy;
(2)
the
question
of
constitutionality
must
be
raised
by
the
proper
party;
(3)
the
constitutional
question
must
be
raised
at
the
earliest
possible
opportunity;
and
(4)
the
decision
on
the
constitutional
question
must
be
necessary
to
the
determination
of
the
case
itself.
The
petition
is
premised
on
the
occurrence
of
many
contingent
events
which
this
Court
has
no
jurisdiction
and
nor
are
they
proper
parties
to
raise
this
abstract
issue.
On
the
constitutionality
of
section
51
of
R.A.
7854,
which
declares
the
addition
of
another
legislative
district
in
Makati,
the
court
refers
to
the
case
of
Tobias
vs.
Abalos.
In
said
case,
the
court
ruled
that
reapportionment
of
legislative
districts
may
be
made
through
a
special
law,
such
as
in
the
charter
of
a
new
city.
The
Constitution
clearly
provides
that
Congress
shall
be
composed
of
not
more
than
two
hundred
fifty
(250)
members,
unless
otherwise
fixed
by
law.
As
thus
worded,
the
Constitution
did
not
preclude
Congress
from
increasing
its
membership
by
passing
a
law,
other
than
a
general
reapportionment
of
the
law.
This
is
its
exactly
what
was
done
by
Congress
in
enacting
R.A.
No.
7854
and
providing
for
an
increase
in
Makati's
legislative
district.
Moreover,
to
hold
that
reapportionment
can
only
be
made
through
a
general
apportionment
law,
with
a
review
of
all
the
legislative
districts
allotted
to
each
local
government
unit
nationwide,
would
create
an
inequitable
situation
where
a
new
city
or
province
created
by
Congress
will
be
denied
legislative
representation
for
an
indeterminate
period
of
time.
Even
granting
that
the
population
of
Makati
as
of
the
1990
census
stood
at
four
hundred
fifty
thousand
(450,000),
its
legislative
district
may
still
be
increased
since
it
has
met
the
minimum
population
requirement
of
two
hundred
fifty
thousand
(250,000).
There
is
also
no
merit
in
the
contention
of
the
title
of
the
bill
that
it
should
expressly
state
the
addition
of
a
legislative
district.
The
Constitution
does
not
command
that
the
title
of
a
law
should
exactly
mirror,
fully
index,
or
completely
catalogue
all
its
details
so
as
not
to
impede
legislation.
Hence,
the
court
ruled
"it
should
be
sufficient
compliance
if
the
title
expresses
the
general
subject
and
all
the
provisions
are
germane
to
such
general
subject."
WHEREFORE,
the
petitions
are
hereby
DISMISSED
for
lack
of
merit.
No
costs.
LA
BUGAL-BLAAN
TRIBAL
ASSN.,
vs.
DENR
(GR
NO.
127872
JANUARY
27,
2004)
FACTS:
On
July
25,
1987,
then
President
Corazon
C.
Aquino
issued
Executive
Order
(E.O.)
No.2796
authorizing
the
DENR
Secretary
to
accept,
consider
and
evaluate
proposals
from
foreign-owned
corporations
or
foreign
investors
for
contracts
or
agreements
involving
either
technical
or
financial
assistance
for
large-scale
exploration,
development,
and
utilization
of
minerals,
which,
upon
appropriate
recommendation
of
the
Secretary,
the
President
may
execute
with
the
foreign
proponent.
On
March
3,
1995,
then
President
Fidel
V.
Ramos
approved
R.A.
No.
7942
to
govern
the
exploration,
development,
utilization
and
processing
of
all
mineral
resources.
Petitioners
assail
the
constitutionality
of
Republic
Act
No.
7942,
otherwise
known
as
the
PHILIPPINE
MINING
ACT
OF
1995,
along
with
the
Implementing
Rules
and
Regulations
issued
pursuant
thereto,
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
(DENR)
Administrative
Order
96-40,
and
of
the
Financial
and
Technical
Assistance
Agreement
(FTAA)
entered
into
on
March
30,
1995
by
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines
and
WMC
(Philippines),
Inc.
(WMCP),
a
corporation
organized
under
Philippine
laws.
ISSUE:
Are
foreign-owned
corporations
in
the
large-scale
exploration,
development,
and
utilization
of
petroleum,
minerals
and
mineral
oils
limited
to
technical
or
financial
assistance
only?
RULING:
Accordingly,
following
the
literal
text
of
the
Constitution
provided
by
Section
2,
Article
XII,
assistance
accorded
by
foreign-owned
corporations
in
the
large-scale
exploration,
development,
and
utilization
of
petroleum,
minerals
and
mineral
oils
should
be
limited
to
technical"
or
"financial"
assistance
only.
Thus,
R.A.
No.
7942
is
invalid
insofar
as
said
Act
authorizes
service
contracts.
Although
the
statute
employs
the
phrase
"financial
and
technical
agreements"
in
accordance
with
the
1987
Constitution,
it
actually
treats
these
agreements
as
service
contracts
that
grant
beneficial
ownership
to
foreign
contractors
contrary
to
the
fundamental
law.
Fernandez
vs.
Torres
(missing)
Lyons
unconscious.
Lyons
sued
the
municipality
and
sought
damages
and
injunctive
relief
in
District
Court
for
the
Central
District
of
California.
He
asked
the
court
to
issue
an
injunction
preventing
the
police
department
from
using
chokeholds
in
the
future
unless
circumstances
were
to
result
in
death
or
serious
bodily
injury
if
force
was
withheld.
The
District
Court
entered
such
an
injunction.
The
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Ninth
Circuit
affirmed.
The
municipality
appealed
to
the
Supreme
Court.
Issue.
Does
this
case
present
an
actual
case
or
controversy
that
can
be
determined
by
the
Supreme
Court?
If
so,
does
Lyons
have
standing
to
seek
injunctive
relief
against
the
municipality
of
Los
Angeles?
Held.
This
case
does
not
present
an
actual
case
or
controversy
as
required
in
the
Constitution
under
Article
III.
Past
illegal
conduct,
by
itself,
is
insufficient
to
establish
an
actual
case
or
controversy
for
injunctive
relief.
Even
though
Lyons
was
injured
by
the
police
in
the
past,
this
act
alone
does
not
establish
that
Lyons
is
threatened
with
immediate
injury
or
that
he
will
be
pulled
over
and
placed
in
a
chokehold
again.
Lyons
did
not
have
standing
to
bring
this
case
to
the
Supreme
Court.
In
order
to
have
standing,
a
plaintiff
must
show
1)
an
actual
or
likely
injury
in
fact,
2)
that
the
injury
is
sufficiently
concrete
and
individually
affects
the
plaintiff,
3)
that
the
challenged
action
is
the
cause
in
fact
of
the
injury,
and
4)
that
the
Court
will
be
able
to
redress
the
injury
by
its
decision.
In
this
case,
injunctive
relief
against
the
municipality
may
or
may
not
address
the
injury
suffered
by
Lyons.
He
could
seek
damages
for
any
injuries
he
sustained
from
the
chokehold
(i.e.
hospital
bills,
etc.),
but
he
did
not
have
standing
to
enforce
an
injunction
where
it
was
not
clear
if
others
would
be
placed
in
a
chokehold
in
the
future.
Furthermore,
it
was
speculative,
at
best,
that
Lyons
himself
would
be
placed
in
a
chokehold
in
the
future,
and
therefore
injunctive
relief
would
not
clearly
redress
any
potential
injury.
Dissent.
Lyons
did
have
standing
to
bring
a
claim
for
injunctive
relief
against
the
municipality
because
he
did
present
an
actual
case
or
controversy
and
had
suffered
damages
relating
to
the
chokehold.
Standing
has
always
depended
on
whether
a
plaintiff
has
a
personal
stake
in
the
outcome
of
the
controversy.
The
Dissent
explained
that
Lyons
request
for
injunctive
relief
was
coupled
with
his
claim
for
damages
based
on
past
injury.
Because
he
has
an
actual
claim
for
damages,
he
need
not
rely
solely
on
the
threat
of
future
injury
to
establish
his
personal
stake
in
the
outcome
of
the
controversy.
Mootness
RANDOLF
DAVID,
et
al.
vs.
GLORIA
MACAPAGAL- ARROYO,
et
al.
(G.R.
Nos.
171396,
171409,
171485,
171483,
171400,
171489
and
171424
May
3,
2006)
Facts:
Section
18,
Article
VII
of
the
Constitution
grants
the
President,
as
Commander-in-Chief,
a
sequence
of
graduated
powers.
From
the
most
to
the
least
benign,
these
are:
the
calling-out
power,
the
power
to
suspend
the
privilege
of
the
writ
of
habeas
corpus,
and
the
power
to
declare
Martial
Law.
The
only
criterion
for
the
exercise
of
the
calling-out
power
is
that
whenever
it
becomes
necessary,
the
President
may
call
the
armed
forces
to
prevent
or
suppress
lawless
violence,
invasion
or
rebellion.
But
the
President
must
be
careful
in
the
exercise
of
her
powers.
Every
act
that
goes
beyond
the
Presidents
calling-out
power
is
considered
illegal
or
ultra
vires.
There
lies
the
wisdom
of
our
Constitution,
the
greater
the
power,
the
greater
are
the
limitations.
On
February
24,
2006,
as
the
nation
celebrated
the
20th
Anniversary
of
the
EDSA
People
Power
I,
President
Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo,
in
a
move
to
suppress
alleged
plans
to
overthrow
the
government,
issued
Presidential
Proclamation
No.
1017
(PP
1017),
declaring
a
state
of
national
emergency.
She
cited
as
factual
bases
for
the
said
issuance
the
escape
of
the
Magdalo
Group
and
their
audacious
threat
of
the
Magdalo
D-Day;
the
defections
in
the
military,
particularly
in
the
Philippine
Marines;
and
the
reproving
statements
from
the
communist
leaders.
On
the
same
day,
she
issued
General
Order
No.
5
(G.O.
No.
5)
setting
the
standards
which
the
Armed
Forces
of
the
Ripeness
City
of
Los
Angeles
v.
Lyons,
461
US
95,
75
L.Ed.2d
675
Brief
Fact
Summary.
Adolph
Lyons
(Lyons)
was
pulled
over
by
a
Los
Angeles
police
officer
for
a
traffic
violation.
He
offered
no
resistance,
and
without
provocation,
the
police
officer
seized
Lyons
and
placed
him
in
a
chokehold,
rendering
Lyons
unconscious.
Synopsis
of
Rule
of
Law.
A
plaintiff
who
wants
to
invoke
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Supreme
Court
must
allege
an
actual
case
or
controversy.
Further,
the
injury
complained
of
by
plaintiff
must
be
immediate.
Past
exposure
to
illegal
conduct
does
not,
by
itself,
show
a
present
case
or
controversy.
Facts.
In
1976,
Lyons
was
pulled
over
by
a
Los
Angeles
police
officer
for
a
traffic
violation.
Although
Lyons
offered
no
resistance,
the
officer
asked
him
to
step
out
of
the
car,
and
proceeded
to
place
Lyons
in
a
chokehold,
rendering
Philippines
(AFP)
and
the
Philippine
National
Police
(PNP)
should
follow
in
the
suppression
and
prevention
of
acts
of
lawless
violence.
The
following
were
considered
as
additional
factual
bases
for
the
issuance
of
PP
1017
and
G.O.
No.
5:
the
bombing
of
telecommunication
towers
and
cell
sites
in
Bulacan
and
Bataan;
the
raid
of
an
army
outpost
in
Benguet
resulting
in
the
death
of
three
soldiers;
and
the
directive
of
the
Communist
Party
of
the
Philippines
ordering
its
front
organizations
to
join
5,000
Metro
Manila
radicals
and
25,000
more
from
the
provinces
in
mass
protests.
Immediately,
the
Office
of
the
President
announced
the
cancellation
of
all
programs
and
activities
related
to
the
20th
People
Power
I
anniversary
celebration.
It
revoked
permits
to
hold
rallies.
Members
of
the
Kilusang
Mayo
Uno
(KMU)
and
the
National
Federation
of
Labor
Unions- Kilusang
Mayo
Uno
(NAFLU-KMU),
who
marched
from
various
parts
of
Metro
Manila
to
converge
at
the
EDSA
Shrine,
were
violently
dispersed
by
anti-riot
police.
Professor
Randolf
David,
Akbayan
party-list
president
Ronald
Llamas,
and
members
of
the
KMU
and
NAFLU-KMU
were
arrested
without
a
warrant.
In
the
early
morning
of
February
25,
2006,
operatives
of
the
Criminal
Investigation
and
Detection
Group
(CIDG)
raided
the
Daily
Tribune
offices
in
Manila
and
confiscated
news
stories,
documents,
pictures,
and
mock-ups
of
the
Saturday
issue.
Policemen
were
stationed
inside
the
editorial
and
business
offices,
as
well
as
outside
the
building.
A
few
minutes
after
the
search
and
seizure
at
the
Daily
Tribune
offices,
the
police
surrounded
the
premises
of
another
pro-opposition
paper,
Malaya
,
and
its
sister
publication,
the
tabloid
Abante
.
The
PNP
warned
that
it
would
take
over
any
media
organization
that
would
not
follow
standards
set
by
the
government
during
the
state
of
national
emergency.
On
March
3,
2006,
exactly
one
week
from
the
declaration
of
a
state
of
national
emergency
and
after
all
the
present
petitions
had
been
filed,
President
Arroyo
issued
Presidential
Proclamation
No.
1021
(PP
1021),
declaring
that
the
state
of
national
emergency
has
ceased
to
exist
and
lifting
PP1017.
These
consolidated
petitions
for
certiorari
and
prohibition
allege
that
in
issuing
PP
1017
and
G.O.
No.
5,
President
Arroyo
committed
grave
abuse
of
discretion.
It
is
contended
that
respondent
officials
of
the
Government,
in
their
professed
efforts
to
defend
and
preserve
democratic
institutions,
are
actually
trampling
upon
the
very
freedom
guaranteed
and
protected
by
the
Constitution.
Hence,
such
issuances
are
void
for
being
unconstitutional.
RECENT
JURISPRUDENCE
POLITICAL
LAW
ISSUES:
1.)
Whether
or
not
the
issuance
of
PP
1021
rendered
the
present
petitions
moot
and
academic;
2.)
Whether
or
not
the
petitioners
have
legal
standing;
3.)
Whether
or
not
there
were
factual
bases
for
the
issuance
of
PP
1017;
4.)
Whether
or
not
PP
1017
is
a
declaration
of
Martial
Law
5.)
Whether
or
not
PP
1017
arrogates
unto
the
President
the
power
to
legislate;
6.)
Whether
or
not
PP
1017
authorizes
the
President
to
take
over
privately-owned
public
utility
or
business
affected
with
public
interest;
and
7.)
Whether
or
not
PP
1017
and
G.O.
No.
5
are
constitutional
HELD:
The
Petitions
are
PARTLY
GRANTED.
The
issuance
of
PP
1021
did
not
render
the
present
petitions
moot
and
academic
because
all
the
exceptions
to
the
moot
and
academic
principle
are
present.
The
moot
and
academic
principle
is
not
a
magical
formula
that
can
automatically
dissuade
the
courts
from
resolving
a
case.
Courts
will
decide
cases,
otherwise
moot
and
academic,
if:
(1)
there
is
a
grave
violation
of
the
Constitution;
(2)
the
exceptional
character
of
the
situation
and
the
paramount
public
interest
is
involved;
(3)
the
constitutional
issue
raised
requires
formulation
of
controlling
principles
to
guide
the
bench,
the
bar,
and
the
public;
and
(4)
the
case
is
capable
of
repetition
yet
evading
review.
All
these
exceptions
are
present
here.
It
is
alleged
that
the
issuance
of
PP
1017
and
G.O.
No.
5
violates
the
Constitution.
There
is
no
question
that
the
issues
being
raised
affect
the
public
interest,
involving
as
they
do
the
peoples
basic
rights
to
the
freedoms
of
expression,
of
assembly
and
of
the
press.
Moreover,
the
Court
has
the
duty
to
formulate
guiding
and
controlling
constitutional
precepts,
doctrines
or
rules.
It
has
the
symbolic
function
of
educating
the
bench
and
the
bar,
and
in
the
present
petitions,
the
military
and
the
police,
on
the
extent
of
the
protection
given
by
constitutional
guarantees.
Lastly,
the
contested
actions
are
capable
of
repetition.
Certainly,
the
present
petitions
are
subject
to
judicial
review.
All
the
petitioners
have
legal
standing
in
view
of
the
transcendental
importance
of
the
issue
involved.
It
has
been
held
that
the
person
who
impugns
the
validity
of
a
statute
must
have
a
personal
and
substantial
interest
in
the
case
such
that
he
has
sustained,
or
will
sustain
direct
injury
as
a
result.
Taxpayers,
voters,
concerned
citizens,
and
legislators
may
be
accorded
standing
to
sue,
provided
that
the
following
requirements
are
met:
(a)the
cases
involve
constitutional
issues;
(b)for
taxpayers,
there
must
be
a
claim
of
illegal
disbursement
of
public
funds
or
that
the
tax
measure
is
unconstitutional;
(c)for
voters,
there
must
be
a
showing
of
obvious
interest
in
the
validity
of
the
election
law
in
question;
(d)for
concerned
citizens,
there
must
be
a
showing
that
the
issues
raised
are
of
transcendental
importance
which
must
be
settled
early;
and
(e)for
legislators,
there
must
be
a
claim
that
the
official
action
complained
of
infringes
upon
their
prerogatives
as
legislators.
Being
a
mere
procedural
technicality,
however,
the
requirement
of
locus
standi
may
be
waived
by
the
Court
in
the
exercise
of
its
discretion.
The
question
of
locus
standi
is
but
corollary
to
the
bigger
question
of
proper
exercise
of
judicial
power.
Undoubtedly,
the
validity
of
PP
No.
1017
and
G.O
RECENT
JURISPRUDENCE
POLITICAL
LAW
No.
5
is
a
judicial
question,
which
is
of
paramount
importance
to
the
Filipino
people.
In
view
of
the
transcendental
importance
of
this
issue,
all
the
petitioners
are
declared
to
have
locus
standi
.
There
were
sufficient
factual
bases
for
the
Presidents
exercise
of
her
calling-out
power,
which
petitioners
did
not
refute.
In
Integrated
Bar
of
the
Philippines
v.
Zamora
(338
SCRA
81
[2000]),
the
Court
considered
the
Presidents
calling- out
power
as
a
discretionary
power
solely
vested
in
his
wisdom.
It
is
incumbent
upon
the
petitioner
to
show
that
the
Presidents
decision
is
totally
bereft
of
factual
basis.
Nonetheless,
the
Court
stressed,
this
does
not
prevent
an
examination
of
whether
such
power
was
exercised
within
permissible
constitutional
limits
or
whether
it
was
exercised
in
a
manner
constituting
grave
abuse
of
discretion.
Under
the
expanded
power
of
judicial
review,
the
courts
are
authorized
not
only
to
settle
actual
controversies
involving
rights
which
are
legally
demandable
and
enforceable,
but
also
to
determine
whether
or
not
there
has
been
a
grave
abuse
of
discretion
amounting
to
lack
or
excess
of
jurisdiction
on
the
part
of
any
branch
or
instrumentality
of
the
government.
As
to
how
the
Court
may
inquire
into
the
Presidents
exercise
of
the
power,
Lansang
v.
Garcia
(42
SCRA
448
[1971])
adopted
the
test
that
judicial
inquiry
can
go
no
further
than
to
satisfy
the
Court
not
that
the
Presidents
decision
is
correct,
but
that
the
President
did
not
act
arbitrarily.
Thus,
the
standard
laid
down
is
not
correctness,
but
arbitrariness.
Petitioners
failed
to
show
that
President
Arroyos
exercise
of
the
calling-out
power,
by
issuing
PP
1017,
is
totally
bereft
of
factual
basis.
A
reading
of
the
Solicitor
Generals
Consolidated
Comment
and
Memorandum
shows
a
detailed
narration
of
the
events
leading
to
the
issuance
of
PP1017,
with
supporting
reports
forming
part
of
the
records.
Petitioners
did
not
refute
such
events.
Thus,
absent
any
contrary
allegations,
the
President
was
justified
in
issuing
PP
1017
calling
for
military
aid.
Judging
the
seriousness
of
the
incidents,
President
Arroyo
was
not
expected
to
simply
fold
her
arms
and
do
nothing
to
prevent
or
suppress
what
she
believed
was
lawless
violence,
invasion
or
rebellion.
In
times
of
emergency,
our
Constitution
reasonably
demands
that
we
repose
a
certain
amount
of
faith
in
the
basic
integrity
and
wisdom
of
the
Chief
Executive
but
at
the
same
time,
it
obliges
him
to
operate
within
carefully
prescribed
procedural
limitations.
PP
1017
is
not
a
declaration
of
Martial
Law,
but
merely
an
invocation
of
the
Presidents
calling-out
power.
Section
18,
Article
VII
of
the
Constitution
grants
the
President,
as
Commander-in-Chief,
a
sequence
of
graduated
powers.
From
the
most
to
the
least
benign,
these
are:
the
calling-out
power,
the
power
to
suspend
the
privilege
of
the
writ
of
habeas
corpus,
and
the
power
to
declare
Martial
Law.
The
only
criterion
for
the
exercise
of
the
calling-out
power
is
that
whenever
it
becomes
necessary,
the
President
may
call
the
armed
forces
to
prevent
or
suppress
lawless
violence,
invasion
or
rebellion.
Considering
the
circumstances
then
prevailing,
President
Arroyo
found
it
necessary
to
issue
PP
1017.
Owing
to
her
Offices
vast
intelligence
network,
she
is
in
the
best
position
to
determine
the
actual
condition
of
the
country.
But
the
President
must
be
careful
in
the
exercise
of
her
powers.
Every
act
that
goes
beyond
the
Presidents
calling-out
power
is
considered
illegal
or
ultra
vires.
There
lies
the
wisdom
of
our
Constitution,
the
greater
the
power,
the
greater
are
the
limitations.
In
declaring
a
state
of
national
emergency,
President
Arroyo
did
not
only
rely
on
Sec.
18,
Art.
VII
of
the
Constitution,
but
also
on
Sec.
17,
Art.
XII,
a
provision
on
the
States
extraordinary
power
to
takeover
privately-owned
public
utility
and
business
affected
with
public
interest.
It
is
plain
in
the
wordings
of
PP
1017
that
what
President
Arroyo
invoked
was
her
calling-out
power.
PP
1017
is
not
a
declaration
of
Martial
Law.
As
such,
it
cannot
be
used
to
justify
acts
that
can
be
done
only
under
a
valid
declaration
of
Martial
Law.
Specifically,
arrests
and
seizures
without
RECENT
JURISPRUDENCE
POLITICAL
LAW
judicial
warrants,
ban
on
public
assemblies,
take-over
of
news
media
and
agencies
and
press
censorship,
and
issuance
of
Presidential
Decrees,
are
powers
which
can
be
exercised
by
the
President
as
Commander-in-Chief
only
where
there
is
a
valid
declaration
of
Martial
Law
or
suspension
of
the
writ
of
habeas
corpus.
PP
1017
is
unconstitutional
insofar
as
it
grants
President
Arroyo
the
authority
to
promulgate
decrees.
The
second
provision
of
the
operative
portion
of
PP
1017
states:
and
to
enforce
obedience
to
all
the
laws
and
to
all
decrees,
orders
and
regulations
promulgated
by
me
personally
or
upon
my
direction."
The
operative
clause
of
PP
1017
was
lifted
from
PP
1081,
which
gave
former
President
Marcos
legislative
power.
The
ordinance
power
granted
to
President
Arroyo
under
the
Administrative
Code
of
1987
is
limited
to
executive
orders,
administrative
orders,
proclamations,
memorandum
orders,
memorandum
circulars,
and
general
or
special
orders.
She
cannot
issue
decrees
similar
to
those
issued
by
former
President
Marcos
under
PP
1081.
Presidential
Decrees
are
laws,
which
are
of
the
same
category
and
binding
force
as
statutes
because
the
President
in
the
exercise
of
his
legislative
power
issued
them
during
the
period
of
Martial
Law
under
the
1973
Constitution.
Legislative
power
is
peculiarly
within
the
province
of
the
Legislature.
Neither
Martial
Law
nor
a
state
of
rebellion
nor
a
state
of
emergency
can
justify
President
Arroyos
exercise
of
legislative
power
by
issuing
decrees.
It
follows
that
these
decrees
are
void
and,
therefore,
cannot
be
enforced.
She
cannot
call
the
military
to
enforce
or
implement
certain
laws.
She
can
only
order
the
military,
under
PP
1017,
to
enforce
laws
pertinent
to
its
duty
to
suppress
lawless
violence.
PP
1017
does
not
authorize
President
Arroyo
during
the
emergency
to
temporarily
take
over
or
direct
the
operation
of
any
privately
owned
public
utility
or
business
affected
with
public
interest
without
authority
from
Congress.
Generally,
Congress
is
the
repository
of
emergency
powers.
However,
knowing
that
during
grave
emergencies,
it
may
not
be
possible
or
practicable
for
Congress
to
meet
and
exercise
its
powers,
the
framers
of
our
Constitution
deemed
it
wise
to
allow
Congress
to
grant
emergency
powers
to
the
President,
subject
to
certain
conditions,
thus:
(a)there
must
be
a
war
or
other
emergency;
(b)the
delegation
must
be
for
a
limited
period
only;
(c)the
delegation
must
be
subject
to
such
restrictions
as
the
Congress
may
prescribe;
and
(d)the
emergency
powers
must
be
exercised
to
carry
out
a
national
policy
declared
by
Congress.
The
taking
over
of
private
business
affected
with
public
interest
is
just
another
facet
of
the
emergency
powers
generally
reposed
upon
Congress.
Thus,
when
Sec.
17,
Art.
XII
of
the
Constitution
states
that
the
the
State
may,
during
the
emergency
and
under
reasonable
terms
prescribed
by
it,
temporarily
take
over
or
direct
the
operation
of
any
privately
owned
public
utility
or
business
affected
with
public
interest,
it
refers
to
Congress,
not
the
President.
Whether
or
not
the
President
may
exercise
such
power
is
dependent
on
whether
Congress
may
delegate
it
to
her
pursuant
to
a
law
prescribing
the
reasonable
terms
thereof.
There
is
a
distinction
between
the
Presidents
authority
to
declare
a
state
of
national
emergency
and
her
authority
to
exercise
emergency
powers.
Her
authority
to
declare
a
state
of
national
emergency
is
granted
by
Sec.
18,
Art.
VII
of
the
Constitution,
hence,
no
legitimate
constitutional
objection
can
be
raised.
The
exercise
of
emergency
powers,
such
as
the
taking
over
of
privately
owned
public
utility
or
business
affected
with
public
interest,
is
a
different
matter.
This
requires
a
delegation
from
Congress.
The
President
cannot
decide
whether
exceptional
circumstances
exist
warranting
the
take
over
of
privately
owned
public
utility
or
business
affected
with
public
interest.
Nor
can
she
determine
when
such
exceptional
circumstances
have
ceased.
Likewise,
without
legislation,
the
President
has
no
power
to
point
out
the
types
of
businesses
affected
with
public
interest
that
should
be
taken
over.
RECENT
JURISPRUDENCE
POLITICAL
LAW
The
illegal
implementation
of
PP
1017,
through
G.O.
No.
5,
does
not
render
this
issuance
unconstitutional.
The
criterion
by
which
the
validity
of
a
statute
or
ordinance
is
to
be
measured
is
the
essential
basis
for
the
exercise
of
power,
and
not
a
mere
incidental
result
arising
from
its
exertion.
PP
1017
is
limited
to
the
calling
out
by
the
President
of
the
military
to
prevent
or
suppress
lawless
violence,
invasion
or
rebellion.
It
had
accomplished
the
end
desired
which
prompted
President
Arroyo
to
issue
PP
1021.
But
there
is
nothing
in
PP
1017
allowing
the
police,
expressly
or
impliedly,
to
conduct
illegal
arrest,
search
or
violate
the
citizens
constitutional
rights.
But
when
in
implementing
its
provisions,
pursuant
to
G.O.
No.
5,
the
military
and
the
police
committed
acts,
which
violate
the
citizens
rights
under
the
Constitution,
the
Court
has
to
declare
such
acts
unconstitutional
and
illegal.
David,
et
al.
were
arrested
without
a
warrant
while
they
were
exercising
their
right
to
peaceful
assembly.
They
were
not
committing
any
crime,
neither
was
there
a
showing
of
a
clear
and
present
danger
that
warranted
the
limitation
of
that
right.
Likewise,
the
dispersal
and
arrest
of
members
of
KMU,
et
al.
was
unwarranted.
Apparently,
their
dispersal
was
done
merely
on
the
basis
of
Malacaangs
directive
canceling
all
permits
to
hold
rallies.
The
wholesale
cancellation
of
all
permits
to
rally
is
a
blatant
disregard
of
the
principle
that
freedom
of
assembly
is
not
to
be
limited,
much
less
denied,
except
on
a
showing
of
a
clear
and
present
danger
of
a
substantive
evil
that
the
State
has
a
right
to
prevent.
Furthermore,
the
search
of
the
Daily
Tribune
offices
is
illegal.
Not
only
that
the
search- violated
petitioners
freedom
of
the
press.
It
cannot
be
denied
that
the
CIDG
operatives
exceeded
their
enforcement
duties.
The
search
and
seizure
of
materials
for
publication,
the
stationing
of
policemen
in
the
vicinity
of
the
offices,
and
the
arrogant
warning
of
government
officials
to
media,
are
plain
censorship.
The
acts
of
terrorism
portion
of
G.O.
No.
5
is,
however,
unconstitutional.
G.O.
No.
5
mandates
the
AFP
and
the
PNP
to
immediately
carry
out
the
necessary
and
appropriate
actions
and
measures
to
suppress
and
prevent
acts
of
terrorism
and
lawless
violence.
The
phrase
acts
of
terrorism
is
still
an
amorphous
and
vague
concept.
Since
there
is
no
law
defining
acts
of
terrorism,
it
is
President
Arroyo
alone,
under
G.O.
No.
5,
who
has
the
discretion
to
determine
what
acts
constitute
terrorism.
Her
judgment
on
this
aspect
is
absolute,
without
restrictions.
Consequently,
there
can
be
indiscriminate
arrest
without
warrants,
breaking
into
offices
and
residences,
taking
over
the
media
enterprises,
prohibition
and
dispersal
of
all
assemblies
and
gatherings
unfriendly
to
the
administration.
All
these
can
be
effected
in
the
name
of
G.O.
No.
5.
These
acts
go
far
beyond
the
calling-out
power
of
the
President.
Certainly,
they
violate
the
due
process
clause
of
the
Constitution.
Justice
Marshall's
dissent
argued
that
the
majority's
test
would
immunize
from
review
any
widespread
policy
that
deprives
constitutional
rights
when
individuals
cannot
show
with
certainty
that
they
would
be
subject
to
a
repeat
violation.
He
also
argued
that
the
Court's
traditional
rule
did
not
distinguish
different
forms
of
relief
for
standing
purposes.
La
Bugal-Blaan
Tribal
Assn.
v.
DENR
Secretary,
GR
127882,
Dec.
1,
2004
Facts:
Petitioners
questioned
the
constitutionality
of
RA
7042,
the
Philippine
Mining
Act,
and
the
Financial
and
Technical
Assistance
Agreement,
which
the
President
entered
into
with
WMC
Phils.
Inc.,
a
corporation
organized
under
Philippine
laws
and
owned
by
an
Australian
Company.
RA
7942
contains
provisions
governing
financial
or
technical
assistance
agreements
and
qualifying
foreign
corporations
to
enter
into
a
foreign
or
technical
assistance
agreements
with
the
government.
Respondents
argued
that
the
requisites
for
judicial
review
were
not
present.
Held:
Among
the
petitioners
are
a
cooperative
of
farmers
and
indigenous
people,
actually
affected
by
the
mining
activities
in
their
area
of
residence.
The
petitioners
have
a
standing
to
question
the
constitutionality
of
the
financial
and
technical
assistance
agreement
as
they
allege
a
personal
and
substantial
injury.
Although
the
financial
and
technical
assistance
agreement
entered
into
before
the
affectivity
of
RA
7942,
this
law
applied
to
pre-existing
agreements.
The
fact
that
the
case
was
filed
almost
2
years
after
the
execution
of
the
financial
and
technical
assistance
agreement
does
not
mean
that
its
constitutionality
was
not
raised
at
the
earliest
opportunity.
This
requisite
does
not
mean
that
the
question
of
constitutionality
must
be
raised
immediately
after
execution
of
the
act
complained
of.
Otherwise,
a
law,
otherwise
unconstitutional,
will
lapse
into
constitutionality
by
mere
failure
of
the
proper
party
to
promptly
file
a
case
to
challenge
it.
DeFunis
v.
Odegaard,
416
U.S.
312,
94
S.
Ct.
1704,
40
L.
Ed.
2d
164
(1974).
Facts
Petitioner
DeFunis,
a
white
applicant
to
the
University
of
Washington
law
school,
sued
the
Board
of
Regents
of
the
University
of
Washington
in
state
court
after
he
was
denied
admission.
DeFunis
alleged
that
the
law
school
discriminated
against
applicants
of
certain
races
and
ethnicities,
including
whites,
by
admitting
minority
applicants
with
significantly
lower
undergraduate
grades
and
LSAT
scores.
DeFunis
maintained
that
his
rejection
was
predicated
on
racial
discrimination
in
violation
of
the
Equal
Protection
Clause
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
The
District
Court
granted
DeFunis
injunctive
relief
and
ordered
the
law
school
to
admit
him.
When
DeFunis
was
in
his
second
year
of
law
school,
the
Supreme
Court
of
Washington
reversed,
holding
that
the
admissions
policy
was
not
unconstitutional.
The
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
granted
DeFunis
petition
for
a
writ
of
certiorari
and
stayed
the
judgment
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Washington
pending
final
disposition
of
the
case.
The
case
came
before
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
for
a
full
hearing
when
DeFunis
was
in
his
final
year
of
law
school.
Although
the
law
school
assured
that
it
would
allow
DeFunis
to
graduate
regardless
of
the
Courts
decision,
both
parties
contended
that
mootness
did
not
exist
to
block
formal
adjudication
of
the
matter.
Issue
Can
a
case
be
adjudicated
when
subject
matter
jurisdiction
is
lacking
due
to
mootness,
if
adjudication
of
the
suit
would
resolve
an
important
social
issue?
Holding
and
Rule
No.
When
a
federal
courts
determination
of
a
legal
issue
is
no
longer
necessary
to
compel
the
result
originally
sought,
the
case
is
moot
and
federal
courts
lack
the
power
to
hear
it.
The
constitutional
basis
of
the
mootness
doctrine
is
found
in
Article
III
of
the
Constitution,
which
requires
the
existence
of
a
case
or
controversy.
Thus,
a
real
and
live
controversy
must
exist
at
every
stage
of
review.
The
court
held
that
when
the
original
controversy
has
disappeared
prior
to
development
of
the
suit,
it
is
deemed
moot
and
a
trial
must
not
proceed
for
lack
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction.
That
a
matter
deemed
moot
leaves
an
important
social
issue
unresolved
is
of
no
consequence.
Dissent
(Douglas)
Due
to
the
social
significance
of
the
issue
involved
in
this
case,
this
matter
should
be
adjudicated
despite
its
apparent
mootness.
Dissent
(Brennan)
Because
of
the
social
significance
of
the
issue
involved
in
this
case,
failure
to
adjudicate
this
matter
now
will
only
result
in
a
future
duplication
of
the
court
effort.
See
Brown
v.
Board
of
Education
for
a
constitutional
law
case
brief
involving
an
issue
of
race-based
discrimination
in
which
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
segregation
is
unconstitutional
for
violating
the
Equal
Protection
Clause
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
ordinance
excluded
persons
of
low
and
moderate
income
from
living
in
a
certain
community.
Defendants
responded
by
claiming
that
Plaintiffs
lacked
standing
to
bring
suit.
Synopsis
of
Rule
of
Law.
A
plaintiff
must
generally
allege
a
specific
case
or
controversy
between
herself
and
the
defendant
in
order
to
have
standing.
Facts:
The
Plaintiffs
were
various
organizations
and
individuals
residing
in
Rochester,
New
York
(Rochester).
The
Plaintiffs
brought
suit
against
the
town
of
Penfield,
New
York
(Penfield)
and
members
of
Penfields
Zoning,
Planning,
and
Town
Boards
(Defendants).
Plaintiffs
contended
that
Penfields
zoning
ordinance
effectively
excluded
persons
of
low
and
moderate
income
from
living
in
the
town,
in
contravention
of
constitutional
and
statutory
rights.
The
lower
federal
courts
held
that
none
of
the
Plaintiffs
had
standing.
Issue:
Have
the
Plaintiffs
established
that
a
case
or
controversy
exists
between
themselves
and
the
Defendants
within
the
meaning
of
Article
III
of
the
United
States
Constitution
(Constitution),
in
order
to
have
standing?
Held:
Yes.
Judgment
affirmed.
In
order
for
a
federal
court
to
have
jurisdiction,
the
plaintiff
himself
must
have
suffered
some
threatened
or
actual
injury
resulting
from
the
putatively
legal
action.
Additionally,
standing
will
generally
not
be
found
when:
a
generalized
grievance
is
shared
in
substantially
equal
measure
by
all
or
a
large
class
of
citizens
a
plaintiff
attempts
to
claim
relief
on
the
legal
rights
of
third
parties.
Congress
may
create
standing
for
individuals
through
statutes
who
would
otherwise
lack
standing,
so
long
as
the
plaintiff
alleges
a
distinct
and
palpable
injury
to
himself.
In
the
present
case,
the
Plaintiffs
claimed
the
enforcement
of
zoning
ordinances
against
third
parties
had
the
effect
of
precluding
the
construction
of
housing
suitable
to
their
needs.
For
standing,
a
plaintiff
must
allege
that
the
challenged
practices
affect
him
specifically
and
that
court
intervention
would
personally
benefit
the
plaintiff.
In
order
for
an
organization
to
have
standing,
it
must
claim
that
all
or
any
one
of
its
members
is
suffering
immediate
or
threatened
injury
as
a
result
of
the
challenged
action.
Plaintiffs
in
this
case
fail
to
do
so.
Dissent.
The
Plaintiffs
have
submitted
a
sufficient
pleading
to
avoid
a
motion
to
dismiss
for
lack
of
standing.
The
majoritys
opinion
is
based
instead
on
the
merits
of
the
claim.
Discussion.
The
purpose
of
the
standing
requirement
is
to
prevent
the
courts
from
being
forced
to
adjudicate
abstract
questions
of
wide
public
significance,
which
could
better
be
determined
in
other
forums.
Protection
clause
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
of
the
Constitution?
Held.
Yes.
Appeals
Court
ruling
reversed
and
remanded.
Justice
William
Brennan
(J.
Brennan)
argues
that
case
precedent
dictates
that
an
intermediate
level
of
scrutiny
should
be
applied
in
analyzing
the
statute.
Specifically,
the
gender-based
classification
must
serve
an
important
government
objective
and
be
substantially
related
to
the
achievement
of
such
objective.
The
District
Court
unequivocally
found
that
the
objective
to
be
served
by
the
statute
is
increased
traffic
safety.
J.
Brennan
is
not
persuaded
by
the
Appellees,
Craig
and
others
(Appellees),
statistics
that
the
statute
closely
serves
the
stated
objective.
As
such,
it
is
not
constitutional.
Dissent.
Justice
William
Rehnquist
(J.
Rehnquist)
dissents
on
two
levels.
He
believes
that
rational
basis
analysis
is
the
appropriate
level
of
scrutiny
for
gender-based
classification.
Furthermore,
he
believes
that
the
intermediate
scrutiny
applied
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
(Supreme
Court)
is
so
diaphanous
and
elastic
as
to
encourage
judicial
prejudice.
Facts:
Petitioners
filed
a
case
for
the
prohibition
/
injunction
with
a
prayer
for
a
TRO
&
preliminary
injunction
against
the
implementation
of
the
Contract
of
Lease
between
PCSO
&PGMC
in
connection
to
an
online
lotto
system.
Petitioners
are
suing
in
their
capacity
as
members
of
Congress
and
as
taxpayers.
On
DECEMBER
17,
1993
the
Contract
of
Lease
was
executed
and
approved
by
the
president
on
DECEMBER
20,1993.
Petitioner
claims
that
the
respondents
&
the
OFFICE
OF
THE
PRESIDENT
gravely
abused
their
discretion
tantamount
to
a
lack
of
authority
by
entering
into
the
contract,
because:
1.Section
1
of
RA
1169
(PCSO
Charter)
prohibits
the
PCSO
from
conducting
lotteries
in
cooperation
with
any
entity
2.RA
3846
&
jurisprudence
require
Congressional
franchise
before
a
telecom
system
(public
utility)
can
be
established
3.Article
12
of
Section
11
of
the
Constitution
prohibits
companies
with
less
than
60%
Filipino
Ownership
from
operating
a
public
system4.PGMG
is
not
authorized
by
its
charter
or
by
RA
7042(Foreign
Investment
Act)
to
install
an
online
Lotto
system.
The
contract
shows
that
PGMC
is
the
actual
operator
while
it
is
a
75%
foreign-owned
company.
RA
7042
puts
all
forms
of
gambling
on
the
negative
list
Respondents
answered
the
allegations
by
contending:
1.PGMC
is
only
an
independent
contractor.
There
is
no
shared
franchise.
2.PCSO
will
not
a
operate
a
public
system
as
a
telecom
system
is
an
indispensable
requirement
of
an
online
lottery
system.
Petitioner
interpretation
of
Section
1
of
RA
1169
too
narrow.
3.There
are
no
violations
of
laws
4.The
issue
of
morality
is
a
political
one
and
should
not
be
resolved
in
a
legal
forum
5.Petitioners
are
without
legal
standing,
as
illustrated
in
Valmonte
vs.
PCSO.
The
PCSO
is
a
corporate
entity
and
can
enter
into
all
kinds
of
contracts
to
achieve
objectives.
Arguing
that
PCSO
will
operate
a
public
utility,
it
is
still
exempted
under
Section
of
Act
3846,where
legislative
franchisees
are
not
necessary
for
radio
stations
KILOSBAYAN, INCORPORATED, JOVITO R. SALONGA, CIRILO A. RIGOS, ERME CAMBA, EMILIO C. CAPULONG, JR., JOSE T. APOLO, EPHRAIM TENDERO, FERNANDO SANTIAGO, JOSE ABCEDE, CHRISTINE TAN, FELIPE L. GOZON, RAFAEL G. FERNANDO, RAOUL V. VICTORINO, JOSE CUNANAN, QUINTIN S. DOROMAL, SEN. FREDDIE WEBB, SEN. WIGBERTO TAADA, and REP. JOKER P. ARROYO, petitioners, vs. TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Office of the President; RENATO CORONA, in his capacity as Assistant Executive Secretary and Chairman of the Presidential review Committee on the Lotto, Office of the President; PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE; and PHILIPPINE GAMING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
Issues:
KILOSBAYAN,
INCORPORATED,
JOVITO
R.
SALONGA,
1.Whether
or
not
petitioners
have
standing
CIRILO
A.
RIGOS,
ERME
CAMBA,
EMILIO
C.
CAPULONG,
2.Whether
or
not
the
contract
is
legal
under
Section
1
of
JR.,
JOSE
T.
APOLO,
EPHRAIM
TENDERO,
FERNANDO
RA
1169
SANTIAGO,
JOSE
ABCEDE,
CHRISTINE
TAN,
RAFAEL
G.
FERNANDO,
RAOUL
V.
VICTORINO,
JOSE
CUNANAN,
QUINTIN
S.
DOROMAL,
SEN.
FREDDIE
WEBB,
SEN.
Held:
WIGBERTO
TAADA,
REP.
JOKER
P.
ARROYO,
petitioners,
1.Yes,
petitioners
have
standing.
Standing
is
only
a
vs.
procedural
technicality
that
can
be
set
aside
depending
on
MANUEL
L.
MORATO,
in
his
capacity
as
Chairman
of
the
the
importance
of
an
issue.
As
taxpayers
and
citizens
to
be
Philippine
Charity
Sweepstakes
Office,
and
the
affected
by
the
reach
of
the
lotto
system,
petitioners
have
PHILIPPINE
GAMING
MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION,
standing.
respondents.
2.No,
the
contract
is
illegal.
The
Court
rules
in
the
negative
arguing,
whatever
is
not
unequivocally
granted
is
withheld.
PCSO
cannot
share
the
franchise
in
any
way.
FACTS:
The
contracts
nature
can
be
understood
to
form
the
This
is
a
petition
seeking
to
declare
the
ELA
invalid
on
the
intent
of
the
parties
as
evident
in
the
provisions
of
the
ground
that
it
is
substantially
the
same
as
the
Contract
of
contract.
Article
1371
of
the
CC
provides
that
the
intent
of
Lease
nullified
in
G.
R.
No.
113373,
232
SCRA
110.
contracting
parties
is
determined
in
part
through
their
Petitioners
contended
that
the
amended
ELA
is
acts.
The
only
contribution
PCSO
will
be
giving
is
the
inconsistent
with
and
violative
of
PCSO's
charter
and
the
authority
to
operate.
All
risks
are
to
be
taken
by
the
lessor;
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
5
May
1995,
that
it
operation
will
be
taken
by
the
PCSO
only
after
8
years.
violated
the
law
on
public
bidding
of
contracts
as
well
as
Further
proof
are:
Section
2(2),
Article
IX-D
of
the
1987
Constitution
in
a.
Payment
of
investment
acts
in
the
even
of
contract
relation
to
the
COA
Circular
No.
85-55-A.
suspension
/
breach
Respondents
questioned
the
petitioners'
standing
to
bring
b.
Rent
not
fixed
at
4.9%
and
can
be
reduced
given
that
all
this
suit.
risks
are
borne
by
the
lessor
c.
Prohibition
against
PGMC
involvement
in
competitor
ISSUE:
games;
strange
if
gaming
is
PGMC;
business
Whether
or
not
petitioners
possess
the
legal
standing
to
d.
Public
stock
requirement
of
25%
in
2
years,
which
is
file
the
instant
petition.
unreasonable
for
a
lease
contract.
It
indicates
that
PGMC
is
the
operator
and
the
condition
an
attempt
to
increase
RULING:
public
benefit
through
public
involvement.
The
Supreme
Court
ruled
in
the
negative.
Standing
is
a
e.
Escrow
deposit
may
be
used
as
performance
bond.
special
concern
in
constitutional
law
because
some
cases
f.
PGMC
operation
evident
in
personnel
management,
are
brought
not
by
parties
who
have
been
personally
procedural
and
coordinating
rules
set
by
the
lessor.
injured
by
the
operation
of
the
law
or
by
official
action
g.
PCSO
authority
to
terminate
contact
upon
PGMC
taken,
but
by
concerned
citizens,
taxpayers
or
voters
who
insolvency
the
contract
indicates
that
PCSO
is
the
actual
actually
sue
in
the
public
interest.
Petitioners
do
not
in
fact
lessor
of
the
authority
to
operate
given
the
indivisible
show
what
particularized
interest
they
have
for
bringing
community
between
them.
Wherefore,
Petition
granted.
this
suit.
And
they
do
not
have
present
substantial
interest
Contract
invalid
and
TRO
made
permanent.
in
the
ELA
as
would
entitle
them
to
bring
this
suit.
Kilosbayan
v.
Morato
(Recon.),
GR
118910,
Nov.
16,
1995
(missing)
Francisco
v.
Fernando
EN
BANC
ERNESTO
B.
FRANCISCO,
JR.,G.R.
No.
166501
Petitioner,
-
versus
-
HON.
BAYANI
F.
FERNANDO,
in
his
capacity
as
Chairman
of
the
Metropolitan
Manila
Development
Authority,
and
METROPOLITAN
MANILA
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
Respondents.
November
16,
2006
R
E
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
CARPIO,J.:
Petitioner
Ernesto
B.
Francisco,
Jr.
(petitioner),
as
member
of
the
Integrated
Bar
of
the
Philippines
and
taxpayer,
filed
this
original
action
for
the
issuance
of
the
writs
of
Prohibition
and
Mandamus.
Petitioner
prays
for
the
Prohibition
writ
to
enjoin
respondents
Bayani
F.
Fernando,
Chairman
of
the
Metropolitan
Manila
Development
Authority
(MMDA)
and
the
MMDA
(respondents)
from
further
implementing
its
wet
flag
scheme
(Flag
Scheme).
The
Mandamus
writ
is
to
compel
respondents
to
respect
and
uphold
the
x
x
x
rights
of
pedestrians
to
due
process
x
x
x
and
equal
protection
of
the
laws
x
x
x.
Petitioner
contends
that
the
Flag
Scheme:
(1)
has
no
legal
basis
because
the
MMDAs
governing
body,
the
Metro
Manila
Council,
did
not
authorize
it;
(2)
violates
the
Due
Process
Clause
because
it
is
a
summary
punishment
for
jaywalking;
(3)
disregards
the
Constitutional
protection
against
cruel,
degrading,
and
inhuman
punishment;
and
(4)
violates
pedestrian
rights
as
it
exposes
pedestrians
to
various
potential
hazards.
In
their
Comment,
respondents
sought
the
dismissal
of
the
petition
for
petitioners
lack
of
standing
to
litigate
and
for
violation
of
the
doctrine
of
hierarchy
of
courts.
Alternatively,
respondents
contended
that
the
Flag
Scheme
is
a
valid
preventive
measure
against
jaywalking.
Petitioner
filed
a
Reply,
claiming
that
the
Court
should
take
cognizance
of
the
case
as
it
raises
issues
of
paramount
and
transcendental
importance.
Petitioner
also
contended
that
he
filed
this
petition
directly
with
the
Court
because
the
issues
raised
in
the
petition
deserve
the
directx
x
x
intervention
of
the
x
x
x
[C]ourt
x
x
x.
We
dismiss
the
petition.
A
citizen
can
raise
a
constitutional
question
only
when
(1)
he
can
show
that
he
has
personally
suffered
some
actual
or
threatened
injury
because
of
the
allegedly
illegal
conduct
of
the
government;
(2)
the
injury
is
fairly
traceable
to
the
challenged
action;
and
(3)
a
favorable
action
will
likely
redress
the
injury.
On
the
other
hand,
a
party
suing
as
a
taxpayer
must
specifically
show
that
he
has
a
sufficient
interest
in
preventing
the
illegal
expenditure
of
money
raised
by
taxation
and
that
he
will
sustain
a
direct
injury
as
a
result
of
the
enforcement
of
the
questioned
statute.
Petitioner
meets
none
of
the
requirements
under
either
category.
Nor
is
there
merit
to
petitioners
claim
that
the
Court
should
relax
the
standing
requirement
because
of
the
transcendental
importance
of
the
issues
the
petition
raises.
As
an
exception
to
the
standing
requirement,
the
transcendental
importance
of
the
issues
raised
relates
to
the
merits
of
the
petition.
Thus,
the
party
invoking
it
must
show,
among
others,
the
presence
of
a
clear
disregard
of
a
constitutional
or
statutory
prohibition.
Petitioner
has
not
shown
such
clear
constitutional
or
statutory
violation.
On
the
Flag
Schemes
alleged
lack
of
legal
basis,
we
note
that
all
the
cities
and
municipalities
within
the
MMDAs
jurisdiction,
except
Valenzuela
City,
have
each
enacted
anti-jaywalking
ordinances
or
traffic
management
codes
with
provisions
for
pedestrian
regulation.
Such
fact
serves
as
sufficient
basis
for
respondents
implementation
of
schemes,
or
ways
and
means,
to
enforce
the
anti- jaywalking
ordinances
and
similar
regulations.
After
all,
the
MMDA
is
an
administrative
agency
tasked
with
the
implementation
of
rules
and
regulations
enacted
by
proper
authorities.
The
absence
of
an
anti-jaywalking
ordinance
in
Valenzuela
City
does
not
detract
from
this
conclusion
absent
any
proof
that
respondents
implemented
the
Flag
Scheme
in
that
city.
Further,
the
petition
ultimately
calls
for
a
factual
determination
of
whether
the
Flag
Scheme
is
a
reasonable
enforcement
of
anti-jaywalking
ordinances
and
similar
enactments.
This
Court
is
not
a
trier
of
facts.
The
petition
proffers
mere
surmises
and
speculations
on
the
potential
hazards
of
the
Flag
Scheme.
This
Court
cannot
determine
the
reasonableness
of
the
Flag
Scheme
based
on
mere
surmises
and
speculations.
Lastly,
petitioner
violated
the
doctrine
of
hierarchy
of
courts
when
he
filed
this
petition
directly
with
us.
This
Courts
jurisdiction
to
issue
writs
of
certiorari,
prohibition,
mandamus,
quo
warranto,
and
habeas
corpus,
while
concurrent
with
the
Regional
Trial
Courts
and
the
Court
of
Appeals,
does
not
give
litigants
unrestrained
freedom
of
choice
of
forum
from
which
to
seek
such
relief.
We
relax
this
rule
only
in
exceptional
and
compelling
circumstances.
This
is
not
the
case
here.
WHEREFORE,
we
DISMISS
the
petition.
SO
ORDERED.
unconstitutional
and
void
a.)
Art
16
on
the
Countrywide
Development
Fund
and
b.)
The
veto
of
the
President
of
the
Special
provision
of
Art
XLVIII
of
the
GAA
of
1994.
16
members
of
the
Senate
sought
the
issuance
of
writs
of
certiorari,
prohibition
and
mandamus
against
the
Exec.
Secretary,
the
Sec
of
Dept
of
Budget
and
Management
and
the
National
Treasurer
and
questions:
1.)
Constitutionality
of
the
conditions
imposed
by
the
President
in
the
items
of
the
GAA
of
1994
and
2.)
the
constitutionality
of
the
veto
of
the
special
provision
in
the
appropriation
for
debt
services.
Senators
Tanada
and
Romulo
sought
the
issuance
of
the
writs
of
prohibition
and
mandamus
against
the
same
respondents.
Petitioners
contest
the
constitutionality
of:
1.)
veto
on
four
special
provisions
added
to
items
in
the
GAA
of
1994
for
the
AFP
and
DPWH;
and
2.)
the
conditions
imposed
by
the
President
in
the
implementation
of
certain
appropriations
for
the
CAFGUs,
DPWH,
and
Natl
Highway
Authority.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
veto
of
the
president
on
four
special
provisions
is
constitutional
and
valid?
Held:
Special
Provision
on
Debt
Ceiling
Congress
provided
for
a
debt
ceiling.
Vetoed
by
the
Pres.
w/o
vetoing
the
entire
appropriation
for
debt
service.
The
said
provisions
are
germane
to
&
have
direct
relation
w/
debt
service.
They
are
appropriate
provisions
&
cannot
be
vetoed
w/o
vetoing
the
entire
item/appropriation.
VETO
VOID.
Special
Provision
on
Revolving
Funds
for
SCUs
said
provision
allows
for
the
use
of
income
&
creation
of
revolving
fund
for
SCUs.
Provision
for
Western
Visayas
State
Univ.
&
Leyte
State
Colleges
vetoed
by
Pres.
Other
SCUs
enjoying
the
privilege
do
so
by
existing
law.
Pres.
merely
acted
in
pursuance
to
existing
law.
VETO
VALID.
Special
Provision
on
Road
Maintenance
Congress
specified
30%
ratio
of
works
for
maintenance
of
roads
be
contracted
according
to
guidelines
set
forth
by
DPWH.
Vetoed
by
the
Pres.
w/o
vetoing
the
entire
appropriation.
It
is
not
an
inappropriate
provision;
it
is
not
alien
to
the
subj.
of
road
maintenance
&
cannot
be
vetoed
w/o
vetoing
the
entire
appropriation.
VETO
VOID.
Special
Provision
on
Purchase
of
Military
Equip.
AFP
modernization,
prior
approval
of
Congress
required
before
release
of
modernization
funds.
It
is
the
so-called
legislative
veto.
Any
prov.
blocking
an
admin.
action
in
implementing
a
law
or
requiring
legislative
approval
must
be
subj.
of
a
separate
law.
VETO
VALID.
Special
Provision
on
Use
of
Savings
for
AFP
Pensions
allows
Chief
of
Staff
to
augment
pension
funds
through
the
use
of
savings.
According
to
the
Constitution,
only
the
Pres.
may
exercise
such
power
pursuant
to
a
specific
law.
Properly
vetoed.
VETO
VALID.
Special
Provision
on
Conditions
for
de-activation
of
CAFGUs
use
of
special
fund
for
the
compensation
of
the
said
CAFGUs.
Vetoed,
Pres.
requires
his
prior
approval.
It
is
also
an
amendment
to
existing
law
(PD
No.
1597
&
RA
No.
6758).
A
provision
in
an
appropriation
act
cannot
be
used
to
repeal/amend
existing
laws.
VETO
VALID.
REPRESENTATIVE
AMADO
S.
BAGATSING
VS
COMMITTEE
ON
PRIVATIZATION
(G.R.
No.
112399
July
14,
1995)
FACTS
OF
THE
CASE
PETRON
was
originally
registered
with
the
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
(SEC)
in
1966
under
the
corporate
name
"Esso
Philippines,
Inc."
.ESSO
became
a
wholly- owned
company
of
the
government
under
the
corporate
name
PETRON
and
as
a
subsidiary
of
PNOC.
PETRON
owns
the
largest,
most
modern
complex
refinery
in
the
Philippines.
It
is
listed
as
the
No.
1
corporation
in
terms
of
assets
and
income
in
the
Philippines
in
1993.
President
Corazon
C.
Aquino
promulgated
Proclamation
No.
50
in
the
exercise
of
her
legislative
power
under
the
Freedom
Constitution.
Implicit
in
the
Proclamation
is
the
need
to
raise
revenue
for
the
Government
and
the
ideal
of
leaving
business
to
the
private
sector
by
creating
the
committee
on
privatization.
The
Government
can
then
concentrate
on
the
delivery
of
basic
services
and
the
performance
e
of
vital
public
functions.
The
Presidential
Cabinet
of
President
Ramos
approved
the
privatization
of
PETRON
as
part
of
the
Energy
Sector
Action
Plan.
PNOC
Board
of
Directors
passed
a
resolution
authorizing
the
company
to
negotiate
and
conclude
a
contract
with
the
consortium
of
Salomon
Brothers
of
Hong
Kong
Limited
and
PCI
Capital
Corporation
for
financial
advisory
services
to
be
rendered
to
PETRON.
The
Petron
Privatization
Working
Committee
(PWC)
was
thus
formed.
It
finalized
a
privatization
strategy
with
40%
of
the
shares
to
be
sold
to
a
strategic
partner
and
20%
to
the
general
public
The
President
approved
the
40%
40%
20%
privatization
strategy
of
PETRON.
The
invitation
to
bid
was
published
in
several
newspapers
of
general
circulation,
both
local
and
foreign.
The
PNOC
Board
of
Directors
then
passed
Resolution
No.
866,
S.
1993,
declaring
ARAMCO
the
winning
bidder.
PNOC
and
ARAMCO
signed
the
Stock
Purchase
Agreement;
the
two
companies
signed
the
Shareholders'
Agreement.
The
petition
for
prohibition
in
G.R.
No.
112399
sought:
(1)
to
nullify
the
bidding
conducted
for
the
sale
of
a
block
of
shares
constituting
40%
of
the
capital
stock
(40%
block)
of
Petron
Corporation
(PETRON)
and
the
award
made
to
Aramco
Overseas
Company,
B.V.
(ARAMCO)
as
the
highest
bidder
and
(2)
to
stop
the
sale
of
said
block
of
shares
to
ARAMCO.
The
petition
for
prohibition
and
certiorari
in
G.R.
No.
115994
sought
to
annul
the
sale
of
the
same
block
of
Petron
shares
subject
of
the
petition
in
G.R.
No.
112399.
ARAMCO
entered
a
limited
appearance
to
question
the
jurisdiction
over
its
person,
alleging
that
it
is
a
foreign
company
organized
under
the
laws
of
the
Netherlands,
that
it
is
not
doing
nor
licensed
to
do
business
in
the
Philippines,
and
that
it
does
not
maintain
an
office
or
a
business
address
in
and
has
not
appointed
a
resident
agent
for
the
Philippines
(Rollo,
p.
240).
Petitioners
however,
countered
that
they
filed
the
action
in
their
capacity
as
members
of
Congress.
ISSUE:
WON
Petitioners
have
a
locus
standi
BIDDING
DECISION:
Petition
is
dismissed.
LOCUS
STANDI
In
Philippine
Constitution
Association
v.
Hon.
Salvador
Enriquez,
G.R.
No.
113105,
August
19,
1994,
we
held
that
the
members
of
Congress
have
the
legal
standing
to
question
the
validity
of
acts
of
the
Executive
which
injures
them
in
their
person
or
the
institution
of
Congress
to
which
they
belong.
In
the
latter
case,
the
acts
cause
derivative
but
nonetheless
substantial
injury
which
can
be
questioned
by
members
of
Congress
(Kennedy
v.
James,
412
F.
Supp.
353
[1976]).
In
the
absence
of
a
claim
that
the
contract
in
question
violated
the
rights
of
petitioners
or
impermissibly
intruded
into
the
domain
of
the
Legislature,
petitioners
have
no
legal
standing
to
institute
the
instant
action
in
their
capacity
as
members
of
Congress.
However,
petitioners
can
bring
the
action
in
their
capacity
as
taxpayers
under
the
doctrine
laid
down
in
Kilosbayan,
Inc.
v.
Guingona,
232
SCRA
110
(1994).
Under
said
ruling,
taxpayers
may
question
contracts
entered
into
by
the
national
government
or
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations
alleged
to
be
in
contravention
of
the
law.
As
long
as
the
ruling
in
Kilosbayan
on
locus
standi
is
not
reversed,
we
have
no
choice
but
to
follow
it
and
uphold
the
legal
standing
of
petitioners
as
taxpayers
to
institute
the
present
action.
PRIVATIZATION
The
only
requirement
under
R.A.
No.
7181
in
order
to
privatize
a
strategic
industry
like
PETRON
is
the
approval
of
the
President.
In
the
case
of
PETRON's
privatization,
the
President
gave
his
approval
not
only
once
but
twice.
PETRON's
privatization
is
also
in
line
with
and
is
part
of
the
Philippine
Energy
Program
under
R.A.
No.
7638.
Section
5(b)
of
the
law
provides
that
the
Philippine
Energy
Program
shall
include
a
policy
direction
towards
the
privatization
of
government
agencies
related
to
energy.
On
the
claim
that
there
was
a
failed
bidding,
petitioners
contend
that
there
were
only
three
bidders.
One
of
them,
PETRONAS,
submitted
a
bid
lower
than
the
floor
price
while
a
second,
failed
to
pre-qualify.
Under
said
COA
Circular,
there
is
a
failure
of
bidding
when:
1)
there
is
only
one
offeror;
or
(2)
when
all
the
offers
are
non-complying
or
unacceptable.
In
the
case
at
bench,
there
were
three
offerors:
SAUDI
ARAMCO,
PETRONAS
and
WESTMONT.
While
two
offerors
were
disqualified,
PETRONAS
for
submitting
a
bid
below
the
floor
price
and
WESTMONT
for
technical
reasons,
not
all
the
offerors
were
disqualified.
To
constitute
a
failed
bidding
under
the
COA
Circular,
all
the
offerors
must
be
disqualified.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation of power. HELD: The act of granting probation is not the same as pardon. In fact it is limited and is in a way an imposition of penalty. There is undue delegation of power because there is no set standard provided by Congress on how provincial boards must act in carrying out a system of probation. The provincial boards are given absolute discretion, which is violative of the constitution and the doctrine of the non- delegability of power. Further, it is a violation of equity so protected by the constitution. The challenged section of Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: This Act shall apply only in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation Office. This only means that only provinces that can provide appropriation for a probation officer may have a system of probation within their locality. This would mean to say that convicts in provinces where no probation officer is instituted may not avail of their right to probation.
Taxpayers
suits
BAYAN
V.
ZAMORA
G.R.
NO.
138570,
OCT.
10,
2000
It
is
inconsequential
whether
the
United
States
treats
the
VFA
only
as
an
executive
agreement
because,
under
international
law,
an
executive
agreement
is
as
binding
as
a
treaty.
As
long
as
the
VFA
possesses
the
elements
of
an
agreement
under
international
law,
the
said
agreement
is
to
be
taken
equally
as
a
treaty.
A
treaty,
as
defined
by
the
Vienna
Convention
on
the
Law
of
Treaties,
is
an
international
instrument
concluded
between
States
in
written
form
and
governed
by
international
law,
whether
embodied
in
a
single
instrument
or
in
two
or
more
related
instruments,
and
whatever
its
particular
designation.
There
are
many
other
terms
used
for
a
treaty
or
international
agreement,
some
of
which
are:
act,
protocol,
agreement,
compromise
d
arbitrage,
concordat,
convention,
declaration,
exchange
of
notes,
pact,
statute,
charter
and
modus
vivendi.
All
writers,
from
Hugo
Grotius
onward,
have
pointed
out
that
the
names
or
titles
of
international
agreements
included
under
the
general
term
treaty
have
little
or
no
legal
significance.
Article
2(2)
of
the
Vienna
Convention
provides
that
the
provisions
of
paragraph
1
regarding
the
use
of
terms
in
the
present
Convention
are
without
prejudice
to
the
use
of
those
terms,
or
to
the
meanings
which
may
be
given
to
them
in
the
internal
law
of
the
State.
Thus,
in
international
law,
there
is
no
difference
between
treaties
and
executive
agreements
in
their
binding
effect
upon
states
concerned,
as
long
as
the
negotiating
functionaries
have
remained
within
their
powers.
International
law
continues
to
make
no
distinction
between
treaties
and
executive
agreements:
they
are
equally
binding
obligations
upon
nations.
In
our
jurisdiction,
we
have
recognized
the
binding
effect
of
executive
agreements
even
without
the
concurrence
of
the
Senate
or
Congress.
In
Commissioner
of
Customs
vs.
Eastern
Sea
Trading,
we
said:.
.
.
the
right
of
the
Executive
to
enter
into
binding
agreements
without
the
necessity
of
subsequent
Congressional
approval
has
been
confirmed
by
long
usage.
From
the
earliest
days
of
our
history
we
have
entered
into
executive
agreements
covering
such
subjects
as
commercial
and
consular
relations,
most-favored-nation
rights,
patent
rights,
trademark
and
copyright
protection,
postal
and
navigation
arrangements
and
the
settlement
of
claims.
The
validity
of
these
has
never
been
seriously
questioned
by
our
courts.
GONZALES
V.
NARVASA
G.R.
NO.
140835
(AUGUST
14,
2000)
Facts:
On
December
9,
1999,
a
petition
for
prohibition
and
mandamus
was
filed
assailing
the
constitutionality
of
the
creation
of
the
Preparatory
Commission
on
Constitutional
Reform
(PCCR)
and
of
the
positions
of
presidential
consultants,
advisers
and
assistants.
In
his
capacity
as
citizen
and
as
taxpayer,
he
seeks
to
enjoin
the
Commission
on
Audit
from
passing
in
audit
expenditures
for
the
PCCR
and
the
presidential
consultants,
advisers
and
assistants.
Petitioner
also
prays
that
the
Executive
Secretary
be
compelled
through
a
mandamus
to
furnish
the
petitioner
with
information
requesting
the
names
of
executive
officials
holding
multiple
positions
in
government,
copies
of
their
appointments
and
a
list
of
the
recipients
of
luxury
vehicles
seized
by
the
Bureau
of
Customs
and
turned
over
to
Malacaang.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
petitioner
possesses
the
requisites
of
filing
a
suit
as
a
citizen
and
as
taxpayer.
Ratio
Decidendi:
The
Court
ruled
that
the
petitioner
did
not
have
standing
to
bring
suit
as
citizen.
Petitioner
did
not
in
fact
show
what
particularized
interest
they
have
to
bring
the
suit.
As
civic
leaders,
they
still
fall
short
of
the
requirements
to
maintain
action.
Their
interest
in
assailing
the
EO
does
not
present
to
be
of
a
direct
and
personal
character.
Furthermore,
they
do
not
sustain
or
are
in
immediate
danger
of
sustaining
some
direct
injury
as
a
result
of
its
enforcement.
As
taxpayers,
petitioners
cannot
attack
the
EO.
There
is
no
appropriation
granted
from
Congress
but
only
an
authorization
by
the
president.
There
being
exercise
by
Congress
of
its
taxing
and
spending
power,
petitioner
cannot
be
allowed
to
question
the
PCCRs
creation.
The
petitioner
has
failed
to
show
that
he
is
a
real
party
in
interest.
With
regards
to
the
petitioners
request
of
disclosure
to
public
information,
the
Court
upheld
that
citizens
may
invoke
before
the
courts
the
right
to
information.
When
a
mandamus
proceeding
involves
the
assertion
of
a
public
right,
the
requirement
of
personal
interest
is
satisfied
by
the
mere
fact
that
the
petitioner
is
a
citizen.
The
Supreme
Court
dismissed
the
petition
with
the
exception
that
respondent
Executive
Secretary
is
ordered
to
furnish
petitioner
with
the
information
requested
4.Constitutional question must be the very lis mota of the case Doctrine of Purposeful Hesitation
DRILON V. LIM (G.R. NO. 112497, AUGUST 4, 1994) CRUZ, J. Facts: The principal issue in this case is the constitutionality of Section 187 of the Local Government Code. The Secretary of Justice (on appeal to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer) declared Ordinance No. 7794 (Manila Revenue Code) null and void for non-compliance with the procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containing certain provisions contrary to law and public policy. The RTC revoked the Secretarys resolution and sustained the ordinance. It declared Sec 187 of the LGC as unconstitutional because it vests on the Secretary the power of control over LGUs in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution. The Secretary argues that the annulled Section 187 is constitutional and that the procedural requirements for the enactment of tax ordinances as specified in the Local Government Code had indeed not been observed. (Petition originally dismissed by the Court due to failure to submit certified true copy of the decision, but reinstated it anyway.)
Issue:
WON
the
lower
court
has
jurisdiction
to
consider
the
constitutionality
of
Sec
187
of
the
LGC
Held:
Yes.
BP
129
vests
in
the
regional
trial
courts
jurisdiction
over
all
civil
cases
in
which
the
subject
of
the
litigation
is
incapable
of
pecuniary
estimation.
Moreover,
Article
X,
Section5(2),
of
the
Constitution
vests
in
the
Supreme
Court
appellate
jurisdiction
over
final
judgments
and
orders
of
lower
courts
in
all
cases
in
which
the
constitutionality
or
validity
of
any
treaty,
international
or
executive
agreement,
law,
presidential
decree,
proclamation,
order,
instruction,
ordinance,
or
regulation
is
in
question.
In
the
exercise
of
this
jurisdiction,
lower
courts
are
advised
to
act
with
the
utmost
circumspection,
bearing
in
mind
the
consequences
of
a
declaration
of
unconstitutionality
upon
the
stability
of
laws,
no
less
than
on
the
doctrine
of
separation
of
powers.
It
is
also
emphasized
that
every
court,
including
this
Court,
is
charged
with
the
duty
of
a
purposeful
hesitation
before
declaring
a
law
unconstitutional,
on
the
theory
that
the
measure
was
first
carefully
studied
by
the
executive
and
the
legislative
departments
and
determined
by
them
to
be
in
accordance
with
the
fundamental
law
before
it
was
finally
approved.
To
doubt
is
to
sustain.
The
presumption
of
constitutionality
can
be
overcome
only
by
the
clearest
showing
that
there
was
indeed
an
infraction
of
the
Constitution.