Constitutional Law Case DigestsARTICLE 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. Countrys 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 countrys 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 countrys 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 countrys 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.

Pamatong v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Pamatong seeks to reverse Comelecs 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 petitioners 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.

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 partyAdditional 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 anothers fractional membership and would be a violation of the constitutional mandate of proportional representationAng 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. COMELECFacts: BANAT assailed the COMELECs resolution in National Board of Canvassers (NBC) which approved the recommendation of Atty. Dalaig (Head of NBC Legal Group) to deny the petition of BANAT for being moot. BANAT filed Petition to Proclaim Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution before the COMELEC.

Issues: 1. WON the method of allocating the seats for elected party-lists is valid and constitutional? If not, what is applicable?2. WON major political parties can participate in the party-list elections?

Held/Ratio: Petition is partially granted. Resolution is SET ASIDE.1. 2% threshold is deemed unconstitutional in the distribution of additional party-list seats because just as in Veterans, those garnering more than 2% of votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes was understood to be in proportion to the votes of the first party.Applicable Steps: Find out the guaranteed seats based on the number of those who got at least 2% of votes The remaining (total seats less guaranteed) will be up for grabs # of party votes / total votes cast = % Allocate remaining seats: Remaining seats x % = number of seats to be allocated (USE WHOLE INTEGER ONLY!) Assign 1 seat to each of the parties next in rank (descending order) until depleted Make sure 3 seat limit is maintained2. Major political parties are disallowed from participating in party-list elections for obvious reasons.

Tobias v AbalosFacts: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 7675 (An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong. Mandaluyong and San Juan belonge to 1 legislative district. Plebiscite was held regarding the RA with a 14.41% turnout. 1800+ voted yes while 7000+ voted no and by these results, the said RA was ratified and in effect.

Issues:1. One-subject-one-bill Rule (Art 6 Sec 26 of the Consti): Every bill passed shall only have 1 subject... But the RA has 2 subjects namely 1) conversion into a city 2) division of congressional district of SanJuan/Manda2. Art 6 Sec 5(1): House of Rep shall be composed of not more than 250 members3. Art 6 Sec 5(4): Preempt the right of Congress to reapportion legislative districts

Held/Ratio: DISMISSED. Bereft of merit1. Liberal usage of the One-subject-one-bill Rule (Lidasan v Comelec 21 SCRA 496). Also, it is in compliance with Art 6 Sec 5(3): Each city with a population of at least 250,000 shall have at least 1 rep2. 250 House of Rep member limit is not absolute. There is an unless otherwise provided by law clause3. It was Congress itself which drafted, deliberated upon and enacted the law in question.NOTE: The alleged gerrymandering is also baseless since author Rep Zamora would actually be diminishing his constituency.

Mariano Jr v COMELECFacts: Petitions assailing RA 7859 (Municipality of Makati to City of Makati) as unconstitutional.

Issues:1. RA did not properly identify the land area/territorial jurisdiction of Makati by metes and bounds2. RA attempts to alter/restart the 3 consecutive term limit of local officials in violation of Sec 8 Art 10, Sec 7 Art 63. Violated constitutional provision requiring general reapportionment law to be passed by Congress within 3 years following the return of census, increase in legislative district, adding another district in Makati not in accordance with Sec5(3) due to population is only at 450k

Held/Ratio: DISMISSED. No merit1. Sec 2, Art 1 of RA in question did delineate the land area2. Its districts may still be increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of 250,000.

Montejo v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Montejo (Leyte Congressman) pleads for the annulment of Sec 1 of Resolution 2736 of the COMELEC redistricting municipalities in Leyte on the ground that it violates the principle of equality of representation.

Issue: WON COMELEC has constitutional power to transfer municipalities from one district to another

Held/Ratio: Sec 1 of RA 2736 VOID. COMELEC has no authority to transfer municipalities. It can only adjust number of members.

Bagabuyo v COMELECFacts: Petitioner insists that RA 9371 converts and divides the City of CDO as a LGU, and does not merely provide for the Citys legislative apportionment.

Issue: WON this is possible...

Held/Ratio: Plebiscite must be held. The Constitution and the Local Government Code expressly require a plebiscite to carry out any creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundary of a local government unit

Section 6Gallego v VerraFacts: Petitioner Pedro Gallego, hailing from Abuyog, Leyte, registered himself as an elector and voted in the election for assemblymen in Malaybalay, Bukidnon wherein he has worked as a government employee until his retirement while his family remained in Abuyog where he owns real property. COA held that lost his domicile in Abuyog in lieu of Malaybalay and, as such, his election for mayor of Abuyog was rendered void.

Issues: WON Gallego had been resident of Abuyog for at least 1 year prior to date of elections in 1940

Held/Ratio: COA judgment REVERSED. Despite being absent from Abuyog for 2 years, he did not lose contact with his family and townspeople and had no intention of remaining and residing indefinitely in Malaybalay. More importantly, he was elected mayor with an overwhelming majority.

Romualdez-Marcos v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Imelda Marcos filed for Candidacy for the positi0on of Representative of the First District of Leyte. Her candidacy was challenged by respondent COMELEC due to the residency requirement needed for district representative candidates.

Issues: WON Imelda was a resident of the First District of Leyte for a period of 1 year at the time of the 1995 elections

Held/Ratio: SET ASIDE. During the past 4 decades, petitioner held various residences for different purposes. None of these purposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin.

Aquino v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Aquino is being challenged by COMELEC in his qualification to be a candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati. His domicile of origin was Concepcion, Tarlac

Issues: WON petitioner has qualified for the candidacy of Representative of the 2nd District of Makati by fulfilling the residency requirement

Held/Ratio: No. Positive proof of showing an abandonment of domicile under the conditions above is absent. Also, it was indicated that the sole purpose of residing (evidenced by petitioners lease) in the 2nd District of Makati was to qualify as a candidate for its Representative elections.

Domino v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Domino challenged respondent COMELEC for declaring the petitioner disqualified as candidate for the legislative district of Sarangani in the May, 11 1998 elections for not complying with the 1 year residency requirement. Petitioner is said to be a resident of Ayala Hts, QC wherein he ran for the same position in the 1995 elections. His motion for reconsideration was denied by COMELEC. As a result, a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction was filed by the petitioner.

Issues: WON Domino complied with the residency requirement of the Constitution to be qualified to run for representative e of Sarangani province.

Held/Ratio: No. His lease of contract for the Sarangani property does not support his change of domicile from QC. Though there was physical presence, he did not intend to make it his domicile. This is supported by his lack of intention to abandon his QC residence. More importantly, he fell short of the 1 year requirement indicated in the Constitution.

Co v House Electoral Tribunal (HRET)Facts: Petitioner asked for decision by HRET which declared Jose Ong Jr. A natural born Filipino to be set aside and reversed.

Issues: WON Jose Ongchuan Jr. Was indeed a natural born Filipino

Held/Ratio: Yes. Petitioner was already a natural born Filipino citizen by virtue of his naturalized father and natural born Filipino mother.

Bengzon v CruzFacts: Petitioner Bengzon, who lost his re-election for Representative of the 2nd District of Pangasinan to respondent Cruz, argues that Cruz did not comply with the natural born Filipino citizen requirement for representatives due to his tour of duty with the USMC despite having been repatriated back and reacquired his Filipino citizenship.

Issue: WON respondent, a natural born Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be considered a natural born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Phil citizenship through the Commonwealth Act 63

Held/Ratio: Petition dismissed. Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. In other words, if he was a natural born citizen before he lost his Phil citizenship, he will be restored to his former status when he is repatriated.

Dissenting Opinion: Petition granted. Sec 2 Article 4 of the Constitution states, those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.

Valles v COMELECFacts:Petitioner is challenging the citizenship of private respondent Rosalind Lopez, daughter of a Filipino father and an Australian mother, born in Australia, and requesting that the respondent must go through the process of repatriation.

Issue: WON respondent Lopez is a citizen of the Philippines

Held/Ratio: She is. Despite the respondents application for an alien certificate of registration and carrying an Australian passport, it does not mean that she has renounced her Phil citizenship. Being a dual citizen is not a ground for disqualification for public office. What this refers to is dual allegiance. Lastly, by virtue of jus sanguinis, Lopez is a citizen of the Phil due to her Filipino father. When she filed her certificate of candidacy for public office, she declared her support to the Phil Constitution and thereby terminated her Australian citizenship. Lopez executed a Declaration of Renunciation of Australian Citizenship

SEC 7Dimaporo v Mitra JrThe term in office cannot be changed but the tenure may be affected by circumstances within or beyond the power of the said officer. Tenure may be shorter than the term or it may not exist at all. For instance, when an elective official files a certificate of candidacy for another office, he is deemed to have voluntarily cut short his tenure, not his term.

Farinas v Executive SecretaryFacts:Petioners declare as unconstitutional Sec 14 RA 9006 (Fair Election Act) insofar as it repeals Section 67 of Batas Pambansa Blg 881 (Omnibus Election Code) as it violates Sec 26 Art 6 of the Constitution requiring every law to only have one subject which should be expressed in its title. The repeal of Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is not embraced in the title of RA 9006. Petitioners also challenged that said RA violated the Equal Protection Clause because it gives elective officials undue benefit as against the appointive ones. As such, petitioners assert that RA 9006 should be null and void in its entirety because of its irregularities.

Issues: 1. WON RA 9006 violates the One-Subject-One-Bill Rule?2. WON the repeal of Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is unconstitutional?3. WON RA 9006 violates the equal protection clause?4. WON entire RA 9006 should be nullified?

Held/Ratio: Petition DISMISSED!1. It does not violate the one-subject rule because it believes that RA 9006 general subject matter (An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices) may contain various provisions so long as they are not inconsistent with the general subject.2. No. Even if some legislators believe that the repeal of Sec 67 is bad policy, policy matters are not the concern of the Court but belonging to the dominion of the political branches of the government. When the validity of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, the role of the court is to determine whether it transcends constitutional limitations or the limits of legislative power. No transgression has been shown in this case.3. It does not. EPC does not demand absolute equality among residents (ie. elective and appointive officials), it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike. 4. The Court is not persuaded by the petitioners argument regarding the alleged irregularities in procedure of passing the of the bill in question because, first and foremost, it is not the proper forum for the enforcement of internal rules of Congress. Moreover, the Court cannot inquire into the rules of procedure in Congress especially when the requisite number of its members has agreed that the bill in question should be passed.

SEC 8 - Codilla v De VeneciaFacts: Petition for mandamus and quo warranto against respondents De Venecia et al to compel them to implement the decision of COMELEC by a) administer to petitioner oath of office and b) register her name in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives and against Ma. Victoria Locsin for usurping.

Issue: WON Mandamus should be granted and thereby proclaiming petitioner as Representative over Locsin

Held/Ratio: Mandamus granted. Codilla garnered 71350 votes v Locsins 53447 for the position of representative of 4th District of Leyte

SEC 9 Tolentino v COMELEC.Facts: A seat was vacant in the senate when Sen. Guingona was appointed to VP. Resolution No. 84 called on COMELEC to fill the vacancy via special election on 14 May 2001 and Resolution 84 provided that the 13th placer would serve for the unexpired term of Guingona. Honasan ranked 13th. Petitioners Tolentino & Mojica sought to enjoin COMELEC from proclaiming the 13th as the winner of the special election and sought the issuance of a TRO.

Issues: WON the special election to fill a vacant seat in the Senate was validly held on May 14 2001

Held/Ratio: Dismissed for lack of merit. Election is legally valid. Art VI Sec 9 & RA No. 6645 allows the calling for special elections when a seat in the senate becomes vacant. It also allows the special election and the general elections be held simultaneously

SEC 11 People v JalosjosFacts: Accused-appellant Jalosjos, member of Congress, was convicted with statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness. He filed for motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge his duties as Congressman including attendance in legislative sessions and hearings.

Issue: WON membership in Congress exempt an accused from statutes and rules which apply to incarcerated persons in general?

Held/Ratio: Motion denied.

Antonino v ValenciaFacts: The loss of LP candidate Sarmiento to Duterte for the position of Davao governor was attributed by plaintiff Antonino (senator & LP head in Davao) to the defendant Valencia (Secretary of Public Works and Communications) because he supported an independent candidate (Maglana) and thereby dividing the LP votes. Plaintiff made public statements that were widely quoted in newspapers about Valencias alleged disloyalty. Because of this strained relationship, defendant issued a 2-page press released (Exhibit A) which were reported on the front pages of 6 metropolitan newspapers. Exhibit A contained certain allegations regarding Plaintiff such as taking advantage of his position as a Senator and member of the Monetary Board among others.

Issue: WON Plaintiff has grounds to hold defendant liable for his alleged libellous deeds?

Held/Ratio: Yes. Defendants press release attacked plaintiffs honor, integrity and reputation and was not covered by qualified privilege given to members of Congress in the exercise of their duties.

SEC 13 Liban v GordonFacts: Petition to declare Sen Gordon as having forfeited his Senatorial seat..

Issues: WON the office of the Philippine National Red Cross is a government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Sec 13, Art 6 of the Constitution

Held/Ratio: PNRC is a private organization performing public functions (RA No. 95) The government doesnt control the PNRC.

SEC 14 Puyat v De GuzmanFacts: Puyat Group (petitioner) claims that SEC Commissioner De Guzman, with Justice Fernandez (member of Interim Batasang Pambansa), entered as counsel in SEC Case No. 1747. Fernandez had purchase purchase 10 shares of stock (Php 200.00) of the IPI so he can qualify to run for election as Director of the company.

Issue: WON Fernandez appeared as counsel, albeit indirectly, before an administrative body and thus violating the Constitutional provision that no Assemblyman could appear as counsel before any administrative body (SEC) as indicated in the 1973 Consti

Held/Ratio: Granted Fernandez leave to intervene in the SEC Case 1747. He acquired the shares after the fact and thus appearing as counsel would be in violation of the Constitution

SEC 16 Avelino v CuencoFacts: Senate President Avelino (petitioner) stormed out of the senate session hall with 6 other senators to avoid the ensuing conspiracy by Senator Tanada who was being prevented to deliver his privilege speech to formulate charges against petitioner. In his absence, Senate President Pro-Tempore Arranz was unanimously given permission by his colleagues to continue the session. They finally allowed Tanada to give his speech. By virtue of Resolition No 67 which was unanimously approved, Senator Cuenco as Acting Senate President to which he approved and subsequently took the oath. Petitioner assailing the clusterfuck.

Issue:1. Does the Court have jurisdiction over the matter?2. If the above answer is yes, were resolutions 68 and 67 validly approved?

Held/Ratio: DISMISSED.1. No. The selection of the presiding officer remains within the Senators themselves (by a majority vote) not with the Court.2. Supposing the Court has jurisdiction, Resolutions passed were still valid because there was quorum or the majority required by the Constitution for the transaction of business of the Senate. (12 Senators)

Santiago v GuingonaFacts: After a 20-2 decision, Senator Fernan was declared Senate President against his opponent Senator Tatad. Tatad thereafter assumed the position of minority leader. However, Senator Guingona was recognized as minority leader by Fernan. In lieu of this, Sen. Santiago and Tatad filed a petition for quo warranto alleging Guingona had usurped the position which rightfully belonged to Tatad.

Issue: 1. Does the court have jurisdiction?2. As there a violation of the Constitution?3. Do the allegations against Guingona have merit? Did Fernan ac with grave abuse of discretion in recognizing Guingona as minority leader?

Held/Ratio: DISMISSED1. Yes. Court has the power to inquire whether the Senate committed violation of the Constitution or gravely abuse their discretion on the exercise of their functions.2. No. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the means of how a minority leader is elected (Only Senate president and House Speaker). As such, Court must leave such to the jurisdiction of Congress by virtue of the separation of powers.3. Since the position of minority leader has not been laid down by the Constitution, no way can it be said that there was illegality in Guingonas assumption to the position as well as Fernans recognition of the latter.

Arroyo v De VeneciaFacts: RA 8240 (Sin Taxes) was passed and signed both Speaker and Senate President and was subsequently certified by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress. Bill was signed into law by FVR. Petitioner claims that RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the House which is mandated in the Constitution that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. Petitioner contends that De Venecias certification that the law was properly passed was false. Specifically, the House did not call for yeas or nays, ignored Arroyos objection and the session was hastily adjourned to prevent Arroyo from objecting.

Issue: WON Congress committed grave abuse of discretion in enacting RA 8240?

Held/Ratio: NO. DISMISSED. Courts have no jurisdiction over internal rules of procedure unless private rights are involved. Also, the call for yeas and nays does not have to happen every time a vote is cast but only on the last or 3rd reading at the request of 1/5 of the members present. Last, they suspended session to settle dispute.Osmena v PendatunFacts: In Osmenas privilege speech, he imputed against the President charges of bribery. As a result, Resolution No 59 was passed saying that he will be suspended for 15 months for disorderly behaviour if he fails to provide evidence pertaining to his charges against the president. Petitioner claims that Resolution 59 violated his parliamentary immunity, that his words constituted no actionable conduct, and that, after his speech, the House took up other business which indicated that he shall not be held to answer for his speech.

Issues: WON the Court has jurisdiction over this?

Held/Ratio: DISMISSED. Case at bar deals with internal rules of procedure and is outside the Courts jurisdiction.

Paredes v SandinganbayanFacts: While governor, Paredes was charged with violations against Anti-Graft Law. He was eventually elected to Congress. During his 2nd term, Sandiganbayan imposed a preventive suspension on him pursuant to the Anti Graft Law.

Held/Ratio: Petitioners invocation of Sec 16(3) Art 6 of the Constitution is unavailing as it is different from the suspension spoken of in Sec 13 of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft Law). WTF?

United States v PonsFacts: Act 2381, under which Pons must be punished if found guilty, was being disputed to have been approved on March 1, 1914 and not February 28, last day of the special session of Philippine Legistlature. As such, Act must be null and void.

Issue: WON courts can take judicial notice of legislative journals in determining if a bill became a law or not

Held/Ratio: Yes they can. In fact, in the case at bar, they used the journal to ascertain that, indeed, Legislature adjourned on Feb 28, 1914 at midnight.

Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v Gimenez(Auditor of Central Bank)The issue at bar is whether urea and formaldehyde should be exempt by the law from payment of a margin fee pursuant to RA 2609. However it was expressed by the National Institute of Science and Technology that urea formaldehyde is the finished product and is completely different from urea and formaldehyde. It was held that if there was any mistake in the printing of the bill, no judicial decree is needed rather only an amendment or curative legislation.

Astorga v VillegasFacts: RA 4065 (Defining Powers, Rights and Duties of the Vice Mayor of Manila) was signed by the Pres. However, there were irregularities in the content because what was certified by the Secretary of the HRep, Speaker, Secretary of the Senate and the Senate Pres was not the same bill that was originally discussed in Congress. As such, the Pres withdrew his signature from said RA. Thereupon, Manila Mayor Villegas issued circulars to disregard provisions of the RA. In response, Manila Vice Mayor Astorga, filed a petition for mandamus for the respondents to comply with RA 4065.

Issue: WON enrolled bill doctrine or the journal entry rule should be adhered to in this jurisdiction

Held/Ratio: DENIED. RA 4065 is hereby declared not to have been duly enacted.It is the approval by Congress and not the signatures of presiding officers that is essential in determining if a bill has been successfully passed by Congress (enrolled bill). Also, the journal discloses that the amendments introduced on the floor and approved by the Senate were not incorporated in the text sent to the President which was signed by him.

SEC 17 Angara v Electoral CommissionHistory of the creation of the Electoral Commission: Act of Congress of July 1, 1902: the assembly shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its members taken from the US Constitution Act of Congress of August 29, 1916: modified this provision by inserting the word sole... That the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, shall be the sole judges of the elections, returns and qualifications of their elective members. to emphasize the exclusive character of their jurisdiction Committee on Constitutional Guarantees (1934) recommended the creation of a Tribunal empowered to hear protests against election of the legislature and executive (3 Justices, 6 from the legislature 3 minority + 3 majority) It has evolved since then.

Abbas et al v SenateFacts: Petitioners filed before the respondent Tribunal against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators by COMELEC. Enrile, with the petitioners filed a Motion for Disqualification of the Senator-Members of the Tribunals on the ground that all of them were interested parties.

Held/Ratio: Not possible. The proposed mass disqualification would leave the Tribunal no alternative but to abandon a duty that no other court or body can perform. The Tribunal should not be prevented from discharging a duty which it alone has the power to perform.

Bondoc v PinedaFacts:Respondent Pineda (LDP) won against Petitioner (Bondoc - NP) in the 1987 elections for District Representative of Pampanga by a margin of 3,300 votes. Bondoc contested the result and filed a case in the HRET. A decision was reached in Oct 1990 and revealed that Bondoc won over Pineda by 23 votes. The LDP insisted on a recount and the result thereof revealed that Bondoc won by 107 votes. Cong. Camasura (LDP) voted for Bondoc and thus caused an uproar which resulted in his expulsion from the LDP by their party leader. Also, Camsuras election to the HRET was rescinded by the LDP. Without Camasuras vote, the decision lacks the concurrence of 5 members as required by the Rules of the Tribunal and, as such, cant be properly promulgated. A petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus was filed by Bondoc against Pineda et al praying that Camasura be reinstated.

Issue: Can the House of Reps interfere with the disposition of an election contest in the HRET through the ruse of reorganizing the representation on the tribunal of the majority party?

Held/Ratio: No. Disloyalty to party is not a valid cause for termination of membership in the HRET. As such, Camasura is reinstated and the decision that Bondoc is the winner should be duly promulgated.

Guerrero v COMELECFacts: There was a dispute regarding Farinas bid for Congress in the 1998 elections. His Certificate of Candidacy was alleged to not have been filed in time for said election but the COMELEC still allowed him and dismissed the petition against Farinas. When he assumed office, petitioner Guerrero filed a petition claiming that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by failing in its Constitutional duty to uphold and enforce election laws.

Issue: WON it is within COMELECs jurisdiction to decide on this matter?

Held/Ratio: DISMISSEDWhen Farinas was proclaimed winner and subsequently took office, the jurisdiction of HRET will apply and not COMELECs.

Garcia et al v HRETFacts:Petitioners filed a case to disqualify elected Congressman Angping for allegedly violating the citizenship requirement in the Constitution. In the filing of said case, Petitioners failed to pay the 5,000 filing fee which led to the dismissal of their case. After which, petitioners paid the fee and attached a Motion for Reconsideration which was, again, denied. Petition for certiorari was filed before the HRET.

Issue: WON HRET committed grave abuse of discretion for dismissing the petition for quo warranto of petitioners and in refusing to reinstate the same even after the fee was paid

Held/Ratio: DISMISSED! The lawyers of the petitioners should have known what the necessary requirements are for filing the case a particularly important one at that! They cannot accuse HRET for grave abuse of discretion by reason of their non-observance.

Pimentel v HRETFacts: Petitioners are assailing the composition of HRET and CA. They pray that respondents be ordered to alter, reorganize, reconstitute and reconfigure the composition of HRET and CA to include party-list representatives in accordance with Sec 17 & 18 Art 6 of the Constitution and RA 7941.

Issues:1. WON present composition of HRET violates the Constitutional requirement of proportional representation because there arent any party-list reps present2. WON the refusal of HRET and CA to include party-list representatives constitutes a grave abuse of discretion

Held/Ratio: BEREFT OF MERIT. HRET and CA did not violate the Constitution and the Rules of HRET. Sec 17 Art 6 of the Constitution expressly grants to the House of Reps the prerogative to choose from among its district and party-list reps in accordance to the constitutional mandate of proportional representation. As such, no abuse of discretion was done by HRET and CA.

Vinzons-Chato v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Chato raised an issue regarding the canvassing of returns and the alleged invalidity of the respondent Unicos proclamation. However, Unico has already been proclaimed and has taken his oath as a member of the House of Reps.

Held/Ratio:DISMISSED. COMELEC has no jurisdiction over protests after candidate has been proclaimed winner.

Limkaichong v COMELECFacts: Winning Negros Oriental Representative candidate Limkaichong (petitioner) was disqualified by COMELEC before she was proclaimed the winner in the May 14, 2007 elections. May 17, Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) received Joint Resolution of COMELEC suspending the proclamation of petitioner. Next day, Resolution 8062 was issued by COMELEC en banc which stated that: not suspending the proclamation of winning candidates with pending disqualification cases. In compliance with Resolution 8062, COMELEC proclaimed petitioner as duly elected member of the House.

Issues:1. Whether PBOCs proclamation is valid2. Whether, upon Limkaichongs proclamation, the HRET, instead of the COMELEC, should assume jurisdiction over disqualification cases3. WON COMELEC correctly disqualified petitioner on the ground that she is not a natural-born Filipino4. WON the Speaker may be compelled to prohibit petitioner from assuming her duties as a Member

Held/Ratio:GRANTED1. Valid. Since the execution of the May 17 Joint Resolution was suspended due to petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, there was no impediment to the valid proclamation of Limkaichong as winner2. Yes. The law is clear when it said that once candidate has been proclaimed, taken oath and assumed office, jurisdiction now lies with HRET.3. No. This matter should be decided under HRET jurisdiction4. No. House should honor the validity of petitioners proclamation especially since she received the highest number of votes in the elections. Prohibiting her would disenfranchise the electorate.

SEC 18 Daza v SingsonFacts: Petitioner Daza was chosen to represent the LP for the Commission on Appointments (CA). However, LDP was established and consequently, a number of LP members switched to LDP thereby leaving the LP with 17 members while LDP had 159. As a result, Dazas seat was withdrawn and given to respondent LDP member Luis Singson. Petitioner filed for prohibition and injunction with preliminary injunction against respondent. He argues that he cant be removed from CA because his election thereto was permanent and that LDP is not a duly registered party.

Issue: WON petitioners arguments a) non registration of LDP and b) political stability of LDP are sufficient to grant petition

Held/Ratio: DISMISSED. On November 23, 1989, COMELEC granted LDPs position for registration as a political party. Also, the argument regarding LDP being politically unstable is bereft of merit. The 159 members of LDP is proof enough of its permanence and stability.

Coseteng v MitraFacts: Petitioner Nikki Coseteng was the only candidate elected as representative in the 1987 elections from the KAIBA party. She requested from Speaker Mitra to be appointed to CA and HRET as a representative of her party which was thereby endorsed by 9 other representatives not belonging to her party.

Held/Ratio: DISMISSED. Not in accordance with proportional representation.

Guingona v GonzalesFacts: Guingona petitioned to prohibit respondents Sen. Romulo & Tanada from assuming position in CA and to prohibit ex officio Chairman Gonzales from recognizing and allowing respondent senators to sit as members thereof. The LDP majority is questioned by the petitioners because it unduly increased the membership of LDP and LP-PDP-LABAN at the expense of LAKAS NUCD and NPC.

Issue: WON the election of Sen. ROmula and Tanada to the CA is in accordance with Sec 18 Art VI of the constitution and, if so, did senate commit grave abuse of discretion.

Held/Ratio: GRANTED. The election of the 2 senators violated Sec 18, Art 6. Also, the membership (12 senators, 12 representatives) is not a mandatory requirement. CA can operate when quorum is achieved (i.e COMELEC, Supreme Court). Lastly, Senate committed grave abuse of discretion.

SEC 19, 20, 21 Bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon CommitteeFacts: The Senate, by way of the Blue Ribbon Committee, was called upon to investigate a possible violation of the RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) regarding the sale of 36 corporations owned by Kokoy Romualdez. As a result, the Committee subpoenaed petitioners to appear before the Committee and testify on what they know. Petitioners (Bengzon + Baby Lopa) refused by invoking the right of due process. The Court has jurisdiction over the case at bar as it involves the determination of the scope and extent of the power of the Committee in accordance with the constitution

Issues: WON the Committee violated Sec 21, Art 6 of the Constitution in their actions against the petitioners

Held/Ratio: GRANTED. There is already a case intimately similar to this in the Sandiganbayan. Even more so, the investigation must be, as stated in Sec 21, Art 6 of the Constitution, in aid of legislation and that the rights of persons appearing or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

Sabio v GordonFacts: Petitioner Sabio (PCGG Chairman) was invited by the Sen. Gordon (respondent) to join a meeting conducted by the Senate Committee on Government Corps and Public Enterprises and Committee on Public Services to deliberate Senate Res. No. 455 which directed an inquiry in the losses incurred by the Philippine Overseas Telecom Corp (POTC), Phil Communications Satellite Corp (PhilCOMSAT), PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corp (PHC). Sabio declined the invitation 3 times and invoked Sec 4b EO No 1 which limited the power of legislative inquiry. The Committee thereby ordered Sabios arrest and held him in contempt of Senate. Sabio, then, filed a petition for habeas corpus against the Committee.

Issue: WON Sec 4b EO No 1 was repealed by the 87 Constitution and thereby rendering the petitioners defense valid

Held/Ratio: Sec 4b EO No 1 was held to be repugnant to Sec 21, Art 6 and shall not be countenanced. Based on jurisprudence (Senate v Ermita), it ruled that the power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive branch.

Standard Chartered Bank v Senate CommitteeFacts: In Sen. Enriles privilege speech, Standard Chartered Bank was denounced for selling unregistered foreign securities in violation of RA 8799 (Securities Regulation Code) and urged the Senate to conduct an inquiry immediately. Petitioner argues that respondent has no jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry and that the inquiry to be conducted was in aid of collection. For this, petitioner was held in contempt.

Issues: WON the Committee has the power to enjoin SBC in cooperating with their inquiry

Held/Ratio: Yes. SBC was not singled out in this inquiry. In fact, SEC and BSP were also enjoined by the Senate. The legislative body can only obtain the knowledge and information needed to base intended legislation by requiring and compelling the disclosure of such information from those who can supply it. The insistence of the petitioner that it was in aid of collection was a direct challenge against the Senates authority and, thus, justifies the contempt citation.

Senate Blue Ribbon Committee v Judge MajaduconFacts: Respondent Judge Majaducon was alleged to have committed grave abuse of discretion when he dismissed the Blue Ribbon Committees petition to lift the cease and desist order filed against them by Atty Flaviano in connection to fund irregularities in the AFP. Also, respondent judge is also alleged to have erred in convicting petitioner Pimentel et al of indirect contempt of court when the latter published in The Phil Star information about the previous case which, for Majaducon, created in the minds of readers the impression that he violated the Constitution and was guilty of gross ignorance of the rules and procedures.

Issue: 1. WON Majaducon committed grave abuse of discretion when he dismissed the petition of the Committee2. WON Majaducon erred in convicting Pimentel et al for indirect contempt of court

Held/Ratio: GRANTED. Reversed decision on the Committee as well as that of Pimentel.1. Courts have no jurisdiction to restrain Congress from performing its function to conduct investigations in aid of legislation2. Yes. Pimentel did not cause the publication in the Phil Star. Also, There was nothing malicious about his statement regarding Majaducons gross ignorance of the rules and procedures since this always comes up in administrative cases.

SEC 22 Senate v ErmitaFacts: Petitioner Senate filed for certiorari & prohibition before the Court challenging the constitutionality of EO 464 (granting head of departments executive privilege) which was proclaimed after the Senate invited members of the executive to a public hearing about alleged overpricing and other unlawful provisions of the contract concerning the North Rail Project. EO 464: deprives Congress of the information possessed by executive officials Sec 21: power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation which aims to elicit information that may be used for legislation Sec 22: power to conduct a question hour with the objective of obtaining information in pursuit of Congress oversight function (inquiring how dep heads are implementing the statutes given to them)

Issues: WON EO 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in Congress

Held/Ratio: PARTIALLY GRANTED. EO 464 Sec 1 & 2a are VALID. Sec 2b & 3 are VOID. Sec 1: Limited only to appearances during question hour (Sec 22) as opposed to inquiries in aid of legislation (Sec 21) Sec 2a: Only through the permission of the President can the Department Heads can appear in Congress Sec 2b: Exec privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of INFORMATION, not PERSONS Sec 3: A claim of privilege must be clearly asserted. Implied claims of exec privilege are not allowed.Neri v Senate CommitteeFacts:Romulo Neri has already testified before the respondent Committees in an 11-hour proceeding regarding matters on National Broadband Project (NBN) awarded by DOTC to ZTE. Petitioner disclosed that COMELEC Chair Abalos offered him 200M in exchange for his approval of the NBN project. He, however, refused to answer questions pertaining to PGMA by invoking executive privilege. Exec Secretary Ermita wrote respondents a letter for them to dispense with questions under executive privilege. He did not show up in the succeeding hearing and was held in contempt. He then explained that he had not shown contemptible conduct and that he still was willing to cooperate provided that he be given in advance what he needs to clarify. Such is the nature of this present motion for reconsideration

Issues: 1. WON there is a recognized presumptive presidential communications privilege in our legal system2. WON there is factual or legal basis to hold that the communications elicited by the 3 questions (WON PGMA followed up the project? WON she directed him to prioritize it? WON she directed him to approve it?) are covered by executive privilege3. WON respondent Committees have shown that the communications elicited by the 3 questions are critical to exercise their functions.4. WON respondent Committees committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing contempt order

Held/Ratio:1. Presidential communications privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.2. In upholding executive privilege with respect to the 3 questions, it did not in any way curb the publics right to information3. Inquiries by the legislature are not subject to the exacting standards of evidence essential to arrive at accurate findings in court proceedings.4. Yes. The subpoena issued to petitioner did not inform him of the questions to be asked. It merely commanded him to testify on what he knows

SEC 25 Garcia v MataFacts: Petitioner filed for certiorari to review Court of First Instances decision which declared Par 11 of the Special Provisions of the AFP of RA No. 1600 (Appropriation Act for the FY 56-57) unconstitutional and invalid. Petitioner also argues that his reversion to inactive status was in violation of the above provision which prohibits the reversion to inactive status of reserve officers on active duty with at least 10 yrs of accumulated service.

Held/Ratio: DENIED. Court affirmed lower courts decisions. It is unconstitutional because a new and completely unrelated provision was attached to the Appropriation Act. Said provision is a RIDER (LOL)

Demetria v AlbaFacts: Petitioner is assailing the constitutionality of Par 1 Sec 44 of PD 1177 or Budget Reform Decree of 1977 as it unduly empowers the president to transfer funds within the government without any limits whatsoever.

Held/Ratio: GRANTED. Said provision violates Sec 16(5) of the 73 Constitution (now Sec 25(5) Art 6 of the 87 Constitution) as well as the undue delegation of legislative power.

SEC 26 Tio v Videogram Regulatory BoardFacts: Petitioner assailing the constitutionality of PD 1987 or Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board on the ground that Sec 10 of the decree is not related to the subject matter in the title as it deals with collection of taxes.

Held/Ratio: BEREFT OF MERIT. Its not necessary that the title express each and every word the statute wishes to accomplish. If the parts of the statute are related and not completely inconsistent and foreign to the general title, its all good.Philippine Judges Association v PradoFacts: Petitioners (members of the lower courts) are questioning the constitutionality of Sec 35 of RA 7354 implemented by the Philippine Postal Corp on the ff grounds:1. Title embraces more than 1 subject and does not express its purposes2. Did not pass required number of readings in both Houses including other requirements in passing bills3. Encroaches on the independence of the judiciary

Held/Ratio:1. If the title fairly indicates the general subject and reasonably covers all the provisions of the act, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement. DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION!2. A Conference Committee Report on the Bill was duly approved by both houses of Congress3. Violates Sec 1 Art 3 of the 87 Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of the equal protection of the laws

Farinas v Executive Secretary SEE UNDER SEC 7

Tan v Del RosarioFacts: Petitioner argues that the enactment of RA 7496 violates the Constitution on the following grounds:1. One-subject-one-bill rule2. Desecrates constitutional requirement that taxation shall be uniform and equitable3. Violates the equal protection clause

Held/Ratio:1. Reading the full text of the title renders this argument invalid2(3). Even prior to RA 7496, the general rule of uniform and equitable taxation is the law in force.

Tolentino v Secretary of FinanceFacts: Petitioners assailing the constitutionality of RA 7716 (E-VAT Law) which seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system (levied on the sale, barter, or exchange of goods and properties and on the exchange/sale of services; equivalent of 10% of the gross selling price or gross value).

Issues: 1. Procedural: Does it violate Art 6, Sec 24 & Art 6 Sec 26(2) of the Constitution? What is the extent of the power of Conference Committees?2. Substantive: Does it violate Art 6 Sec 28(1) & (3) of the Constitution?

Held/Ratio: DISMISSED!1. Art 6 Sec 24 bill originated from the House of RepsArt 6 Sec 26(2) President certified the Senate bill as urgentConference Committee It is within their power to include an entirely new provision not found in the House or Senate bill as long as it is germane to the subject of the bills of the committee. After all, its report is not final and would need the approval of both Houses. Which it did.2. Art 6 Sec 28(1) & (3): Tax burden, according to respondents, is actually distributed to as many goods & services as possible particularly those within the reach of higher-income groups.

Tobias v Abalos See Sec 5

SEC 27 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Court of Tax AppealsFacts: CTA declared that the caterers tax under Sec 191-A of RA 6110 illegal because Sec 42 of House Bill 17839 which carries the said proviso was vetoes y Marcos when it was submitted to him by Congress (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Manila Hotel)

Issue: WON the presidential veto referred to the entire section or merely to the imposition of 20% tax on gross receipts of proprietors of restaurants, refreshments, parlors, bars, inside hotels, motels or rest houses?

Held/Ratio: OVERRULED CTA DECISION. What Marcos intended to veto was not the entire section but merely the inclusion of hotels, motels and rest houses in the 20% caterers tax.

Gonzales v MacaraigFacts: Petitioner Gonzales (plus members of the Senate Committee on Finance) challenged the constitutionality of Resolution No. 381 whose Sec 55 & Sec 16 were vetoed by the president. They sought to enjoin respondents (Macaraig + Cabiet members) from implementing Res No 381/RA 6688. Sec 55 & 16 were vetoed because it was in violation of Art 6 Sec 25(5) which allowed the Pres et al to augment items in the General Appropriations Law.

Issue: WON the veto of Sec 55 & 16 is constitutional

Held: PRESIDENTIAL VETO UPHELD. PETITION DISMISSED.Although labelled as provisions, sec 55 (FY89) & Sec 16 (FY90) are actually inappropriate provisions and should be treated as items because they dont show any connection with a schedule of expenditures. As such, pursuant to Sec 25(5), they can be vetoed. In the same vein, they also nullify the authority vested in the President and heads of different branches to augment items in the GAA.

PHILCONSA v EnriquezFacts: GAB 1994 was passed by Congress for presidential approval. Pres signed bill into law (GAA 1994) but vetoed specific provisions which he imposed certain conditions. 4 petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the presidential veto, to wit:1. Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa): writ of prohibition2. 16 senators led by Sen. Pres. Angara, Sen. Gonzales, Sen. Roco: certiorari, prohibition, mandamus3. Sen. Romulo & Sen Tanada: prohibition and mandamus4. Same as 3: with temporary restraining order

Held/Ratio: DISMISSED with exceptions (provisions on debt service, no. 2 of DPWH, no. 12 of medicines for AFP)Court dismissed all petitions that challenged the validity of the presidential vetoes that were vetoed properly. This means that those inappropriate provisions and items that were vetoed were rightly done. On the other hand, those that the Court granted were not properly vetoed for the reason that the part the president vetoed is intimately connected to the entire provision. Removing such item would entail removing the provision altogether. (THIS IS THE BEST I COULD DO.)

Arroyo v De Venecia see under Sec 16

SEC 28 Gerochi v Dep of EnergyFacts: Petitioners pray that Sec 34 of RA 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act 2001 EPIRA), imposing the Universal Charge and Rule 18 of the IRR, be declared unconstitutional. Also, petitioner prays that a TRO be issued for respondents to refrain from enacting the Universal Charge (non by-passable charge passed on and collected from all end-users on a monthly basis by distribution utilities).

Issue: WON Universal Charge under Sec 34 of EPIRA is a form of taxation

Held/Ratio: Sec 34 of EPIRA regarding the Universal Charge is not a tax but a n exercise of the States regulatory and police power.

Garcia v Executive SecretaryFacts: EO 438 5% ad valorem on all imported articles. Then, EO 443 increased to 9% ad valorem. Then, EO 475 reduced to 5% ad valorem except for crude oil and oil products (9% still). Then, EO 478 added special duties on top of the 9% ad valorem for crude oil and oil products. Petitioner filed for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing validity of EO 475 and 478 claiming they did not originate from the House of Reps (Sec 24)

Held/Ratio: EO 475 & 478 are VALID. Sec 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code delegated to the President such power to implement changes in the taxing of imported goods as long as it aims to generate additional public revenue

Systems Plus Computer College v Caloocan CityFacts: Systems Plus Computer College filed for tax exemption to Caloocan City which is denied because the parcel of land in which the school is situated is owned b Consolidated Assembly Inc. and Pair Mgt Corp, sister company of the school. Another case is filed saying that the companies owning the land donated it to the school but was still denied. A mandamus was then filed by petitioner to respondent city but was again denied for being premature.

Held/Ratio: School did not exhaust all administrative remedies before going to court. It should have presented evidence of the donation of the parcel of land before the City Assessor who would bring it up to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals and Central Board of Assessment Appeals, if necessary.

Central Mindanao University v Dept of Agrarian ReformFacts: Petition for certiorari to nullify the Adjudication Board (DARAB) & Court of Appeals decision to include CMUs 400 hectares of land in the CARP.

Held/Ratio: Court reversed decision because, as misinterpreted by DARAB & Court of Appeals, CMUs lands are exempt from CARP coverage because such lands are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used and have been found necessary for educational purposes.

Commissioner of BIR v Court of AppealsFacts: Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a tax assessment to the Young Mens Christian Assoc of the Phils (YMCA) to pay property and income tax from the lease of their property. YMCA contends that, as a charitable and educational institution, they are exempt from property and income tax. Commissioner filed a petition to Court of Appeals on YMCA.

Held/Ratio: What the framers of the Constitution meant by Sec 28(3) is that only property would be exempt from tax and not the income. Hence, YMCA has to pay income tax.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Judge SantosFacts: RTC Judge Santos decided that certain provisions of the Tariff & Customs Code and the National Internal Revenue Code are confiscating, oppressive and unconstitutional. As a result, CIR brought it up to a higher court to review the decision.

Held/Ratio: Santos went beyond the reach of judicial questioning by questioning the legislators reasons why jewelry, a non-essential item, is taxed as it is in our country. Moreover, using other countries tax policies regarding said item as a yardstick to determine what may be proper policy in our country is unacceptable.

John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition v Victor LimFacts: FVR signed into law RA 7227 (Bases Conversion & Development Act 1992) which declared 288.1 hectares of Camp John Hay as a potential Special Economic Zone. Proclamation 420 was issued which was an act formally directed to the creation of a part of John Hay as a SEZ under the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA). Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Proc 420.

Issue: WON Proc 420 is unconstitutional by providing national & local tax exemption to the John Hay SEZ and WON Proc 420 limits the local autonomy of Baguio City

Held/Ratio: Tax exemption for John Hay SEZ is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because nowhere in RA 7227 does it say that John Hay is exempted. It only mentioned Subic SEZ. Also, Proc 420 does not limit Baguios local autonomy. The designation of BCDA as the governing agency of John Hay EZ is merely an emphasis on the statutory role it has been granted.

SEC 29 Guingona Jr v CaragueFacts: Petitioner Senators question the constitutionality of PD 81, PD 1177 & PD 1967 which allowed the automatic appropriation of 86B for debt service in the national budget.

Issue: WON such PDs violate the Constitution

Held/Ratio: DISMISSED1. Though higher than the budget allotted for education, the budget for DECS was the highest among other department budgets. Also, for the survival of the countrys economy, the budget allocated for debt service is justified.2. Existing laws inconsistent with the 87 Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked (Sec 3 Art 13). Legislators intent for automatic appropriation is that the amount needed should be automatically set aside in order that we may pay any indebtedness incurred.

Osmena v OrbosFacts: Marcos PD 1956 (Oil Price Stabilization Fund OPSF) sought to reimburse oil companies cost increases in crude oil and imported petroleum products resulting from exchange rate adjustments. Petitioner argues that such collections, being a form of special tax, must be created as a special fund and not trust account pursuant to Sec 29(3) Art 6 of the Constitution.

Held/Ratio: While funds collected may be referred to as taxes, they are in the exercise of the States police power to lessen the adverse effects of market volatility in the oil industry to the community. As such, there is no violation of Sec 29(3) of the Constitution.

SEC 30 Fabian v DesiertoFacts: Petitioner filed an administrative case against Agustin (District Engineer) for harassment before the Ombudsman (herein respondent). Agustin was found guilty but filed a motion for reconsideration before the same. Because the ombudsman was friends with Agustins counsel, he passed the case to deputy ombudsman Guerrero who exonerated Agustin from the administrative charges. Petitioner filed for certiorari before the Court to review the decision.

Held/Ratio: Court cannot review Ombudsmans decision because it would violate Sec 30 Art 6. It will unduly expand the appellate jurisdiction of the Court without its advice & consent. Moreover, appellate jurisdiction can only extend to decisions from lower courts in the integrated judicial system and not quasi-judicial bodies/agencies such as the office of the respondent.

JMHRoco