Constitutional Law Case Digests

ARTICLE 2: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Oposa v Factoran Jr. (The right to a balanced ecology)Facts: Petitioner (representing their generation as well as generations unborn) wants defendant (Factoran) to 1) cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and 2) cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. Country’s land area should be utilized on the basis of a ration of 54% forest cover and 46% for agri, residential, industrial, commercial use. Otherwise the following environmental tragedies will occur: water shortages, change in the salinization of water, massive erosion, loss of soil fertility, endangering and extinction of country’s flora and fauna, disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities etc.

Issue: Whether said petitioners have a cause of action to prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Phil rainforests and arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country’s vital life support system and continued rape of Mother Earth?

Held/Ratio: Petition is GRANTED based on Sec 15 and 16 of the 1987 Constitution as well as E.O 192 which mandates the DENR to be the primary government agency responsible fo the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources including forests, grazing lands and mineral resources.

Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of AppealsFacts: LLDA filed a complained against Caloocan City to cease operations of the open garbage dumpsite. LLDA also found that the city government was maintaining an open dumpsite without securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR as required by PD No 1586. The operation was stopped but was resumed in August 1992. Another Cease and Desist Order was filed by LLDA. On Sept 1992, the Caloocan filed an action for declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order and argued that they have the sole authority to promote the health and safety and the protection of their ecology. The order which was based on the Pollution Control Law was then put up for review by the Court of Appeals. COA sided with Caloocan and thus promoted LLDA to claim that COA disregarded the provisions of EO 927 which granted them administrative quasi-judicial functions on pollution abatement cases.

Issues: Which agency can lawfully exercise jurisdiction over the matter?

Held/Ratio: LLDA. It is a specialized administrative agency specifically mandated under RA No4850 to promote and accelerate the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces including Caloocan. Also, the provisions of EO 927 grant LLDA the administrative and quasi-judicial functions on pollution abatement cases.

Garcia v Board of InvestmentsFacts: Petition to annul and set aside the decision of the Board of Investments approving the transfer of the site of the petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas and the shift of feedstock for that plant from naphtha only to naphtha and/or lpg.

Issue: Whether or not the foreign investor has the right of final choice of plant site?

Held/Ratio: Petition granted. BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion in approving the transfer of the plant to Batangas Nothing is shown to justify the transfer to Batangas. Even more so, Bataan was the original choice by the parties due to its ideal location and that Bataan produces 60% of naphtha whilst LPG still needs to be imported. Legally, Sec10 ArtXII of the Constitution states that it is the duty of the State to regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its jurisdiction and in accordance with its goals and priorities. Same could be implied from Art 2 of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987.

Constitutional Law Case Digests

Pamatong v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Pamatong seeks to reverse Comelec’s refusal to accept his Certificate of Candidacy which was rendered in violation of his right to equal access to opportunities for public service under Sec 26 of the 1987 Consti. Petitioner claims that COmelec erred in disqualifying him since he possesses all constitutional and legal qualifications for the office of the president.

Issues: Whether or not petitioner’s reliance on the equal access clause of the Constitution is misplaced?

Held/Ratio: Yes. There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office rather it is only a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. Sec26 Art 2 neither bestows such right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. The provisions under the article are considered not self-executing. It merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action.

ARTICLE VI: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Garcia v ComelecFacts: The Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong in its Pambayang Kapasyahan agreed to the inclusion of the municipality of Morong as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone. Petitioners filed a petition to annul Pambayang Kapasyahan.

Issue: Whether Pambayang Kapasyahan is the proper subject of an initiative

Held/Ratio: Petition is granted and the Comelec resolution is annulled and set aside. The Constitution includes ordinances as well as resolutions as appropriate subjects of a local initiative (RA 6735)

Eastern Shipping Lines v Philippine Overseas Employment AdministrationFacts: Private respondent was awarded the sum of 192k by POEA for the death of her husband. Petitioner challenged the decision on the ground that the POEA had no jurisdiction over the case since the husband was not an overseas worker.

Issues: Whether or not POEA has the jurisdiction to cover for the death benefits and burial expenses?

Held/Ratio: Yes. Based on EO 797 and Memorandum Circular No 2, the POEA is mandated to protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to fair and equitable practices.

Tablarin v GutierrezPetitioner argues that RA 2382 offends the non delegation principle by failing to establish the necessary standard to be followed by the delegate – Board of Medical Education. However, the said standards are already in Sec 1 of the 1959 Medical Act which states: “the standardization and regulation of medical education.”

Free Telephone Workers Union v Minister of LaborEmpowering the Minister of Labor to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes is not unconstitutional and does not violate the doctrine of non delegation of legislative power.

Tatad v Secretary of EnergyPetitioners argued that the Executive Branch rewrote the standards set forth in RA No 8180 to hasten the deregulation. They also argued that the Executive has no right to alter the standards set in the RA in question because it has no power to make laws.

Constitutional Law Case Digests

People v DacuycuyRespondents argue that the judicial determination of what Congress intended to be the duration of the penalty of imprisonment would be against the doctrine of undue delegation of legislative power. The respondent judge erroneously assumed that since the penalty of imprisonment has been provided for by the legislature, the court is endowed with discretion to ascertain the term or period of imprisonment. As such, it was ruled that the penalty of imprisonment provided in Sec 32 is unconstitutional.

Employers Confederation v. National Wages CommissionFacts: ECOP questioned the validity of a Wage Order of the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board, NCR on Wage Rationalization which is in charge of prescribing minimum wage rates for all workers in various regions.

Issues: Whether or not the Wage Order is valid and does not violate the undue delegation of legislative power

Held/Ratio: The Court sided with the Commission. Court does not find it unlawful and has decided that the Commission have set sufficient standards for the Minimum Wage Fixing

Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board (Sec 3)Facts: Pimentel claims that RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486, which requires candidates for public office to undergo mandatory drug testing, is illegally imposed as an additional qualification on senatorial candidates. He points out the the only requisites needed by a senatorial candidate as stated in Sec 3 Art 6 of the Constitution are as follows: 1) citizenship 2) voter registration 3) literacy 4) age and 5) residency

Issues: Whether or not RA 9165 and COMMELEC Resolution 6486 are unconstitutional

Held/Ratio: Unconstitutional. It is a fundamental rule that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. In other words, no acts shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution.

Veterans Federation Party v COMELECFacts: RA 7941 and the Constitution mandates 4 inviolable parameters regarding the determination of winners in a Philippine style party-list election. Parameters are: a) 20% allocation, b) 2% threshold c) 3-seat limit d) proportional representation. Petitioners claim that Comelec violated these parameters.

Issues:1. Is the 20% allocation mandatory or merely a ceiling?2. Are the 2% threshold requirement and the 3 seat limit constitutional?3. If the answer to Issue2 is in the affirmative, how should the additional seats of a qualified party be

determined?

Held/Ratio:1. Not mandatory. The Constitution merely states “the party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the

total number of representatives including those under the party-list.”2. Yes. It is consistent with the intent of the framers of the Constitution, the law, and, even more so, the very

essence of “representation” under our so-called republican state. 3. Arrange from greatest to least votes relate this to the total number of votes cast only those with at

least 2% of votes will be considered for additional seatsParty with highest vote becomes benchmark

- Grant first party 3 seats, and the party receiving 6%, additional seats in proportion to the first party

Additional seats for other partiesAdditional seats = no of votes of concerned party/no of votes of first party x first party additional seats Fractional membership cannot be converted into whole because this will deprive another’s fractional

membership and would be a violation of the constitutional mandate of proportional representation

Constitutional Law Case Digests

Ang Bagong Bayani v COMELECFacts: Petitioners are challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 (COMELEC) which approved the participation of 154 organizations and parties in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners seek the disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly that the party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or over-represented.

Issues:1. WON political parties may participate in the party-list elections2. WON the party-list system is exclusive to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations3. WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating above resolution

Held/Ratio:1. Yes they can. The Constitution and RA 7941 states that the party-list system is open to all registered

national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations. Private respondents cannot be disqualified from the elections based on the above grounds.

2(3). Yes. It is exclusive to the unprivileged. It is clear in the Constitution as well as in RA 7941 that the COMELEC should see to it that only those Filipinos who are marginalized and underrepresented should become members of Congress under the party-list system. Allowing the non-marginalized and overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats under the party-list system would prejudice the chance of the underprivileged.

Ang Bagong Bayani OFW Labor Party, et al. v. COMELEC, et al.Facts: Parties BUHAY, COCOFED, SANLAKAS and PM have already been validly proclaimed by the Comelec. Before the Court, however, are Motions for proclamation filed by various party-list participants who raised the following question: “Aside from those already validly proclaimed pursuant to earlier Resolutions of the Court, are thre other party-list candidates that should be proclaimed winners?

Issues:1. WON Labo v COMELEC and Grego v COMELEC and related cases should be deemed applicable to the

determination of winners in party-list elections?2. WON the votes cast for parties/orgs that were subsequently disqualified for having failed to meet the 8-pt

guideline should be deducted from the total votes cast for the party-list system during said elections?

Held/Ratio:1. Based on RA 7941 Sec 10 which states that a vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not

entitled to be voted shall not be counted, Labo and Grego cannot be considered.2. Votes obtained by disqualified party-list candidates are not to be counted in determining the total votes

cast for the party-list system pursuant to RA 7941 Sec 12.

Banat v. COMELEC