Sei sulla pagina 1di 40

Constitutional Law 2

THE NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION Definition That body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised Purposes To prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign to the several departments their respective powers and duties, and to establish certain fixed principles on which government is founded The Supremacy of the Constitution Basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. Essential ualities of the !ritten Constitution 1. broad 2. brief 3. clear Essential Parts of the !ritten Constitution 1. constitution of liberty 2. constitution of government 3. constitution of sovereignty Permanence of the Constitution apacity to resist capricious or whimsical change dictated not by legitimate needs but only by passing fancies, temporary passions or occasional infatuations of the people with ideas or personalities. Interpretation onstitution like statutory enactments should be read in accordance with the usual rules on interpretation and construction. !interpreted in such a way as to give effect to the intendment of the framers Amen"ment or Re#ision $am%ino #& CO'E$EC ( )&R& No& *+,*-./ Octo%er 0-/ 0112 Facts3 "ambino was able to gather the signatures of #,32$,%&2 individuals for an initiative petition to amend the 1%'$ onstitution. That said number of votes comprises at least 12 per centum of all registered voters with each legislative district at least represented by at least 3 per centum of its registered voters. This has been verified by local ()*"* registrars as well. The proposed amendment to the constitution seeks to modify +ecs 1!$ of ,rt -. and +ec 1!/ of ,rt -.. and by adding ,rt 0-... entitled 1Transitory 2rovisions3. These proposed changes will shift the president bicameral! presidential system to a 4nicameral!2arliamentary form of government. The ()*"* , on 31 ,ug 255#, denied the petition of the "ambino group due to the lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the onstitution 6 this is in pursuant to the ruling in +antiago vs ()*"* . "ambino et al contended that the decision in the aforementioned case is only binding to the parties within that case. ISSUE7 8hether or not the petition for initiative met the re9uirements of +ec 2 ,rt0-.. of the 1%'$ onstitution. HE$D7 The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as public officials. The proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people. The proponents present favorably their proposal to the people and do not present the arguments against their proposal. The proponents,

LPU - Cavite
or their supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures. Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional re9uirements in gathering the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional re9uirements in gathering the signatures 6 that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed amendments. The proponents failed to prove that all the signatories to the proposed amendments were able to read and understand what the petition contains. 2etitioners merely handed out the sheet where people can sign but they did not attach thereto the full text of the proposed amendments. "ambino et al are also actually proposing a revision of the constitution and not a mere amendment. This is also in violation of the logrolling rule wherein a proposed amendment should only contain one issue. The proposed amendment:s by petitioners even includes a transitory provision which would enable the would!be parliament to enact more rules. There is no need to revisit the +antiago case since the issue at hand can be decided upon other facts. The rule is, the ourt avoids 9uestions of constitutionality so long as there are other means to resolve an issue at bar. Proce"ure Proposal 1. Constituent Assembly ;vote of < of ongress= 2. Constitutional Convention ;call by 2:3 vote of ongress, or thrown to people by ma>ority vote of ongress= 3. People's Initiative ?,mendment only@ ;12A of registered voters with 3A of registered voters in each legislative district= Bepublic ,ct Co. #$3& AN ACT PRO4IDIN) FOR A S5STE' OF INITIATI4E AND REFERENDU' AND APPROPRIATIN) FUNDS THEREFOR I& )eneral Pro#isions

Sec& *& Title& This ,ct shall be known as DThe .nitiative and Beferendum ,ct.D Sec& 0& Statement of Policy& The power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or re>ect, in whole or in part, the onstitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the re9uirements of this ,ct is hereby affirmed, recogniEed and guaranteed. Sec& .& Definition of Terms& For purposes of this ,ct, the following terms shall mean7 ;a= DInitiati#eD is the power of the people to propose amendments to the an onstitutions or to propose and enact legislations through election called for the purpose.

There are three ;3= systems of initiative, namely7 a.1 .nitiative on the onstitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the onstitutionG a.2 .nitiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislationG and

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

a.3. .nitiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance. ;b= DIn"irect initiati#eD is exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to body for action. ;c= DReferen"umD is the power of the electorate to approve or re>ect a legislation through an election called for the purpose. .t may be of two classes, namely7 c.1. Beferendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or re>ect an act or law, or part thereof, passed by ongressG and c.2. Beferendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or re>ect a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative bodies. ;d= DPropositionD is the measure proposed by the voters. ;e= DPle%isciteD is the electoral process by which an initiative on the onstitution is approved or re>ected by the people. ;f= DPetitionD is the written instrument containing the proposition and the re9uired number of signatories. .t shall be in a form to be determined by and submitted to the ommission on *lections, hereinafter referred to as the ommission. ;g= D$ocal 6o#ernment unitsD refers to provinces , cities, municipalities and barangays. ;h= D$ocal le6islati#e %o"iesD refers to the +angguniang 2anlalawigan, +angguniang 2anlungsod, +angguniang Bayan, and +angguniang Cayon. ;i= D$ocal e7ecuti#esD refers to the 2rovincial Hovernors, ity or )unicipal )ayors and 2unong Barangay, as the case may be. Sec& ,& !ho may e7ercise& The power of initiative and referendum may be exercised by all registered voters of the country, autonomous barangays. Sec& -& Re8uirements& ;a= To exercise the power of initiative or referendum, at least ten per centum ;15A= of the total number of the registered voters, of which every legislative district is represented by at least three per centum ;3A= of the registered voters thereof, shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the same with the ommission. ;b= , petition for an initiative on the 1%'$ onstitution must have at least twelve per centum ;12A= of the total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum ;3A= of the registered voters therein. .nitiative on the onstitution may be exercised only after five ;&= years from the ratification of the 1%'$ onstitution and only once every five ;&= years thereafter. ;c= The petition shall state the following7 regions, provinces, cities, municipalities and ongress or the local legislative

c.1.

contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted,

approved or re>ected, amended or repealed, as the case may beG c.2. the propositionG c.3. the reason c./.that or reasons thereforG it is not one of the exceptions provided hereinG

c.&.signatures of the petitioners or registered votersG and c.#. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred ;155= words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every page of the petition. ;d= , referendum or initiative affecting a law, resolution or ordinance passed by the legislative assembly of an autonomous region, province or city is deemed validly initiated if the petition thereof is signed by at least ten per centum ;15A= of the registered voters in the province or city, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum ;3A= of the registered voters thereinG 2rovided, however, That if the province or city is composed only of one ;1= legislative district, then at least each municipality in a province or each barangay in a city should be represented by at least three per centum ;3A= of the registered voters therein. ;e= , referendum of initiative on an ordinance passed in a municipality shall be deemed validly initiated if the petition therefor is signed by at least ten per centum ;15A= of the registered voters in the municipality, of which every barangay is represented by at least three per centum ;3A= of the registered voters therein. ;f= , referendum or initiative on a barangay resolution or ordinance is deemed validly initiated if signed by at least ten per centum ;15A= of the registered voters in said barangay. Sec& 2& Special Re6istration& The scheduled initiative or referendum. Sec& +& 4erification of Si6natures& The *lection Begistrar shall verify the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, votersI affidavits and voters identification cards used in the immediately preceding election. II& National Initiati#e an" Referen"um ommission on *lection shall set a special registration day at least three ;3= weeks before a

Sec& 9& Con"uct an" Date of Initiati#e or Referen"um& The ommission shall call and supervise the conduct of initiative or referendum. 8ithin a period of thirty ;35= days from receipt of the petition, the ommission shall, upon determining the sufficiency of the petition, publish the same in Filipino and *nglish at least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation and set the date of the initiative or referendum which shall not be earlier than forty!five

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

;/&= days but not later than ninety ;%5= days from the determination by the ommission of the sufficiency of the petition. Sec& :& Effecti#ity of Initiati#e or Referen"um Proposition& ;a= the 2roposition of the enactment, approval, amendment or re>ection of a national law shall be submitted to and approved by a ma>ority of the votes cast by all the registered voters of the 2hilippines. .f, as certified to by the ommission, the proposition is approved

precedence over the pending legislative measures on the committee. Sec& *0& Appeal& The decision of the ommission on the findings ourt within thirty

of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for initiative or referendum may be appealed to the +upreme ;35= days from notice thereof. III& $ocal initiati#e an" Referen"um

by a ma>ority of the votes cast, the national law proposed for enactment, approval, or amendment shall become effective fifteen ;1&= days following completion of its publication in the (fficial HaEette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the 2hilippines. .f, as certified by the ommission, the proposition to re>ect a national law is approved by a ma>ority of the votes cast, the said national law shall be deemed repealed and the repeal shall become effective fifteen ;1&= days following the completion of publication of the proposition and the certification by the 2hilippines. Jowever, if the ma>ority vote is not obtained, the national law sought to be re>ected or amended shall remain in full force and effect. ;b= The proposition in an initiative on the effective as to the day of the plebiscite. ;c= , national or local initiative propositions approved by ma>ority of the votes cast in an election called for the purpose shall become effective fifteen ;1&= days after certification and proclamation by the ommission. Sec& *1& Prohi%ite" 'easures& The following cannot be the sub>ect of an initiative or referendum petition7 ;a= Co petition embracing more than one ;1= sub>ect shall be submitted to the electorateG and ;b= +tatutes involving emergency measures, the enactment of which are specifically vested in effectivity. Sec& **& In"irect Initiati#e& ,ny duly accredited peopleIs organiEation, as defined by law, may file a petition for indirect initiative with the Jouse of Bepresentatives, and other legislative bodies. The petition shall contain a summary of the chief purposes and contents of the bill that the organiEation proposes to be enacted into law by the legislature. The procedure to be followed on the initiative bill shall be the same as the enactment of any legislative measure before the Jouse of Bepresentative except that the said initiative bill shall have ongress by the onstitution, cannot be sub>ect to referendum until ninety ;%5= days after its onstitution approved ommission in the (fficial HaEette or in newspaper of general circulation in the Sec& *.& Proce"ure in $ocal Initiati#e& ;a= Cot less than two thousand ;2,555= registered voters in case of autonomous regions, one thousand ;1,555= in case of provinces and cities, one hundred ;155= in case of municipalities, and fifty ;&5= in case of barangays, may file a petition with the Begional ,ssembly or local legislative body, respectively, proposing the adoption, enactment, repeal, or amendment, of any law, ordinance or resolution. ;b= .f no favorable action thereon is made by local legislative body within ;35= days from its presentation, the proponents through their duly authoriEed and registered representative may invoke their power of initiative, giving notice thereof to the local legislative body concerned. ;c= The proposition shall be numbered serially starting from one ;1=. The +ecretary of "ocal Hovernment or his designated representative shall extend assistance in the formulation of the proposition. ;d= Two or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative. ;e= 2roponents shall have one hundred twenty ;125= days in case of autonomous regions, ninety ;%5= days in case of provinces and cities, sixty ;#5= days in case of municipalities, and thirty ;35= days in case of barangays, from notice mentioned in subsection ;b= hereof to collect the re9uired number of signatures. ;f= The petition shall be signed before the *lection Begistrar, or his designated representative, in the presence of a representative of the proponent, and a representative of the regional assemblies and local legislative bodies concerned in a public place in the autonomous region or local government unit, as the case may be. +ignature stations may be established in as many places as may be warranted. ;g= 4pon the lapse of the period herein provided, the ommission on *lections, through its office in the local government unit concerned shall certify as to whether or not the re9uired number of signatures has been obtained. Failure to obtain the re9uired number is a defeat of the proposition. ;h= .f the re9uired number of the signatures is obtained, the ommission shall then set a date for the initiative at which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered voters in the local government unit concerned for their approval within ninety ;%5=

by a ma>ority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

days from the date of certification by the ommission, as provided in subsection ;g= hereof, in case of autonomous regions, sixty ;#5= days in case of the provinces and cities, forty!five ;/&= days in case of municipalities, and thirty ;35= days in case of barangays. The initiative shall then be held on the date set, after which the results thereof shall be ommission on *lections. Sec& *,& Effecti#ity of $ocal Propositions& .f the proposition is approved by a ma>ority of the votes cast, it shall take effect fifteen ;1&= days after certification by the ommission as if affirmative action thereon had been made by the local legislative body and local executive concerned. .f it fails to obtain said number of votes, the proposition is considered defeated. Sec& *-& $imitations on $ocal Initiati#es& ;a= The power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year. ;b= .nitiative shall extend only to sub>ects or matters which are within the legal powers of the local legislative bodies to enact. ;c= .f at any time before the initiative is held, the local legislative body shall adopt in toto the proposition presented, the initiative shall be canceled. Jowever, those against such action may, if they so desire, apply for initiative in the manner herein provided. Sec& *2& $imitations Upon $ocal $e6islati#e ;o"ies& ,ny proposition or ordinance or resolution approved through the system of initiative and referendum as herein provided shall not be repealed, modified or amended, by the local legislative body concerned within six ;#= months from the date therefrom, and may be amended, modified or repealed by the local legislative body within ;3:/= of all its members7 2rovided, however, that in case of barangays, the period shall be in ;1= year after the expiration of the first six ;#= months. Sec& *+& $ocal Referen"um& Cotwithstanding the provisions of +ection / hereof, any local legislative body may submit to the registered voters of autonomous region, provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays for the approval or re>ection, any ordinance or resolution duly enacted or approved. +aid referendum shall be held under the control and direction of the ommission within sixty ;#5= days in case of provinces and cities, forty!five ;/&= days in case of municipalities and thirty ;35= days in case of barangays. The ommission shall certify and proclaim the results of the said Santia6o #& CO'E$EC ()R No& *0+.0-/ 'arch *:/ *::+ Facts3 2rivate respondent ,tty. Kesus Lelfin, president of 2eopleMs .nitiati ve for Beforms,)oderniEation and ,ction ;2.B),=, filed with ()*"* a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, through 2eopleMs .nitiative. Je based this petition on ,rticle 0-..,+ec. 2 of the 1%'$ onstitution, which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the onstitution. +ubse9uently the ()*"* issued an order directing the publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. ,t the hearing, +enator Boco, the .B2, Lemokrasya!.pagtanggol Appro#e"3 Au6ust ,/ *:9:& ;+gd.= CORA=ON C& A UINO 2resident of the 2hilippines This ,ct which is a consolidation of +enate Bill Co. 1$ and Jouse Bill Co. 21&5& was finally passed by both the +enate and Jouse of Bepresentatives on Kune ', 1%'%. ;+gd.= UIRINO D& A;AD SANTOS/ <R& +ecretary of the Jouse of Bepresentatives ;+gd.= HONORATA '& OR UIO$A ,cting +ecretary of the +enate Appro#e"/ ;+gd.= RA'ON 4& 'ITRA +peaker of the Jouse of Bepresentatives ;+gd.= <O4ITO R& SA$ON)A 2resident of the +enate certified and proclaimed by the Sec& *:& Applica%ility of the Omni%us Election Co"e& The (mnibus *lection referenda. Sec& 01& Rules an" Re6ulations& The ommission is hereby empowered to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this ,ct. Sec& 0*& Appropriations& The amount necessary to defray the cost of the initial implementation of this ,ct shall be charged against the ontingent Fund in the Heneral ,ppropriations ,ct of the current year. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the full implementation of this ,ct shall be included in the annual Heneral ,ppropriations ,ct. Sec& 00& Separa%ility Clause& .f any part or provision of this ,ct is held invalid or unconstitutional, the other parts or provisions thereof shall remain valid and effective. Sec& 0.& Effecti#ity& This ,ct shall take effect fifteen ;1&= days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. ode and other election laws, not inconsistent with the provisions of this ,ct, shall apply to all initiatives and

referendum. Sec& *9& Authority of Courts& Cothing in this ,ct shall prevent or preclude the proper courts from declaring null and void any proposition approved pursuant to this ,ct for violation of the onstitution or want of capacity of the local legislative body to enact the said measure. I4& Final Pro#isions

Constitutional Law 2
ang Nonstitusyon, 2ublic .nterest "aw enter, and "aban ng Lemokratikong 2ilipino appeared as intervenors!oppositors. +enator Boco filed a motion to dismiss the Lelfin petition on the ground that one which is cogniEable by the ()*"* . The petitioners herein +enator +antiago, ,lexander 2adilla, and .sabel (ngpin filed this civil action for prohibition under Bule #& of the Bules of ourt against ()*"* and the Lelfin petition rising the several arguments, such as the following7 ;1= The constitutional provision on peopleMs initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by ongress. Co such law has been passedG ;2= The peopleMs initiative is limited to amendments to the onstitution, not to revision thereof. "ifting of the term limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the power of peopleMs initiative. The +upreme ourt granted the )otions for .ntervention. Issues3 ;1= 8hether or not +ec. 2, ,rt. 0-.. of the 1%'$ onstitution is a self!executing provision.;2= 8hether or not ()*"* Besolution Co. 2355 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the onstitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative. ;3= 8hether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or an amendment of the onstitution. Hel"3 +ec. 2, ,rt 0-.. of the onstitution is not self executory, thus, wit hout implementing legislation the same cannot operate. ,lthough the onstitution has recogniEed or granted the right, the people cannot exercise it if ongress does not provide for its implementation. The portion of ()*"* Besolution Co. 2355 which prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the onstitution, is void. .t has been an established rule thatwhat has been delegated, cannot be delegated ;potestas delegat a non delegari potest=. The delegation of the power to the ()*"* being invalid, the latter cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right to peopleMs initiative. The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it would affect other provisions of the onstitution such as the synchroniEation of elections, the constitutional guarantee of e9ual access to opportunities for public service, and prohibiting political dynasties. , revision cannot be done by initiative. Jowever, considering the ourtMs decision in the above .ssue, the issue of whether or not the petition is a revision or amendment has become academic PIR'A #& CO'E$EC ( )R No& *0:+,-/ Septem%er 0./ *::+ $am%ino #& CO'E$EC ( )&R& No& *+,*-./ Octo%er 0-/ 0112 Facts3 "ambino was able to gather the signatures of #,32$,%&2 individuals for an initiative petition to amend the 1%'$ onstitution. That said number of votes comprises at least 12 per centum of all registered voters with each legislative district at least represented by at least 3 per centum of its registered voters. This has been verified by local ()*"* registrars as well. The proposed amendment to the constitution seeks to modify +ecs 1!$ of ,rt -. and +ec 1!/ of ,rt -.. and by adding ,rt 0-... entitled 1Transitory 2rovisions3. These proposed changes will shift the president bicameral! presidential system to a 4nicameral!2arliamentary form of government. The ()*"* , on 31 ,ug 255#, denied the petition of the "ambino group due to the lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the onstitution 6 this is in pursuant to the ruling in +antiago vs ()*"* . "ambino et al contended that the decision in the aforementioned case is only binding to the parties within that case. ISSUE7 8hether or not the petition for initiative met the re9uirements of +ec 2 ,rt0-.. of the 1%'$ onstitution.

LPU - Cavite
HE$D7 The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as public officials. The proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people. The proponents present favorably their proposal to the people and do not present the arguments against their proposal. The proponents, or their supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures. Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional re9uirements in gathering the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional re9uirements in gathering the signatures 6 that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed amendments. The proponents failed to prove that all the signatories to the proposed amendments were able to read and understand what the petition contains. 2etitioners merely handed out the sheet where people can sign but they did not attach thereto the full text of the proposed amendments. "ambino et al are also actually proposing a revision of the constitution and not a mere amendment. This is also in violation of the logrolling rule wherein a proposed amendment should only contain one issue. The proposed amendment:s by petitioners even includes a transitory provision which would enable the would!be parliament to enact more rules. There is no need to revisit the +antiago case since the issue at hand can be decided upon other facts. The rule is, the ourt avoids 9uestions of constitutionality so long as there are other means to resolve an issue at bar. 1. Ratification Batification ;ma>ority of the votes cast in the plebisciteG #5!%5 days=

<u"icial Re#ie> of Amen"ments The amending process, both as to proposal and ratification, raises a >udicial 9uestion (Sanidad vs COMELEC) The *:9+ Constitution hapter 3 6 THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS 4otin6 -oting on en banc cases ma>ority of the members who actually took part in the deliberation on the issues in the case and voted thereon Re8uisites of a <u"icial In8uiry 1. Actual Case ! there must be an actual case or controversy Actual case- conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of >udicial ad>udication

Senate #& Ermita ( )&R& No& *2:+++/ 01 April 0112 Facts3 .n 255&,scandalsinvolving anomalous transactions about the Corth Bail 2ro>ect as well as the Harci tapes surfaced. This prompted the +enate to conduct a public hearing to investigate the said anomalies particularly the alleged overpricing in the CB2. The investigating +enate committee issued invitations to certain department heads and military officials to speak before the committee as resource persons. *rmita submitted that he and some of the department heads cannot attend the said hearing due topressingmatters that needimmediateattention. ,F2 hief of +taff +enga likewise sent asimilarletter. Lrilon, the senate president, excepted the said re9uests for they were sent belatedly and arrangements were already made and scheduled. +ubse9uently, H), issued *( /#/ which took effect immediately. *(

Constitutional Law 2
/#/basicallyprohibited Lepartment heads, +enior officials of executive departments who in the >udgment of the department heads are covered by the executive privilegeG Henerals and flag officers of the ,rmed Forces of the 2hilippines and such other officers who in the >udgment of the hief of +taff are covered by the executive privilegeG 2hilippine Cational 2olice ;2C2= officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the >udgment of the hief of the 2C2 are covered by the executive privilegeG +enior national security officials who in the >udgment of the Cational +ecurity ,dviser are covered by the executive privilegeG and +uch other officers as may be determined by the 2resident, from appearing in such hearings conducted by ongress without first securing the presidentMs approval. The department heads and the military officers who were invited by the +enate committee then invoked *( /#/ to except themselves. Lespite *( /#/, the scheduled hearing proceeded with only 2 military personnel attending. For defying 2resident ,rroyoMs order barring military personnel from testifying before legislative in9uiries without her approval, Brig. Hen. Hudani and ol. Balutan were relieved from their military posts and were made to face court martial proceedings. *( /#/Ms constitutionality was assailed for it is alleged that it infringes on the rights and duties of ongress to conduct investigation in aid of legislation and conduct oversight functions in the implementation of laws. ISSUE78hether or not *( /#/ is constitutional.

LPU - Cavite
with its demands for information. 8hen ongress exercises its power of in9uiry, the only way for department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are department heads. (nly one executive official may be exempted from this power P the 2resident on whom executive power is vested, hence, beyond the reach of ongress except through the power of impeachment. .t is based on her being the highest official of the executive branch, and the due respect accorded to a co!e9ual branch of government which is sanctioned by a long!standing custom. The re9uirement then to secure presidential consent under +ection 1, limited as it is only to appearances in the 9uestion hour, is valid on its face. For under +ection 22, ,rticle -. of the onstitution, the appearance of department heads in the 9uestion hour is discretionary on their part. +ection 1 cannot, however, be applied to appearances of department heads in in9uiries in aid of legislation. ongress is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of the department head to appear in such in9uiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is subse9uently made, either by the 2resident herself or by the *xecutive +ecretary. 8hen ongress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is not as imperative as that of the 2resident to whom, as hief *xecutive, such department heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of duty. .n such instances, +ection 22, in keeping with the separation of powers, states that ongress may onlyre9uesttheir appearance. Conetheless, when the in9uiry in which ongress re9uires their appearance is Qin aid of legislationM under +ection 21, the appearance is mandatory for the same reasons stated in ,rnault. Da#i" #& Arroyo ( )&R& No& *+*.:2/ 'ay ./ 0112 FACTS3 (n February 2/, 255#, as the nation celebrated the 25th ,nniversaryof the *dsa 2eople 2ower ., 2resident ,rroyo issued 2residential2roclamation Co. 151$ ;22 151$= declaring a state of national emergency. (n the same day, the 2resident issued Heneral (rder Co. & ;H.(. Co. &= implementing 22 151$. The proximate cause behind the executive issuances was the conspiracy among some military officers, leftist insurgents of the Cew 2eopleMs ,rmy ;C2,=, and some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate 2resident ,rroyo. They considered the aim to oust or assassinate the 2resident and take!over the reigns of government as a clear and present danger. ,ll programs and activities related to the 25th anniversary celebration of *dsa 2eople 2ower . are cancelled. "ikewise, all permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local governments are revoked. Kustice +ecretary Baul HonEales stated that political rallies, which to the 2residentMs mind were organiEed for purposes of destabiliEation, are cancelled. 2residential hief of +taff )ichael Lefensor announced that 1warrantless arrests and take!over of facilities, including media, can already be implemented.3 Luring the dispersal of the rallyists along *L+,, police arrested ;without warrant= petitioner Bandolf +. Lavid, a professor at the 4niversity of the 2hilippines and newspaper columnist. *xactly one week after the declaration of a state of national emergency, the 2resident lifted 22 151$ by issuing 2roclamation Co. 1521. ISSUE3 8hether or not the issuance of 22 1521 renders the petitions moot and academic. HE$D3 )oot and academic case ! one that ceases to present a >usticiable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration

HE$D3The + ruled that *( /#/ is constitutional in part. To determine the validity of the provisions of *( /#/, the + sought to distinguish +ection 21 from +ection 22 of ,rt # of the 1%'$ onstitution. The ongressM power of in9uiry is expressly recogniEed in +ection 21 of ,rticle -. of the onstitution. ,lthough there is no provision in the onstitution expressly investing either Jouse of ongress with power to make investigations and exact testimony to the end that it mayexerciseits legislative functions advisedly and effectively, such power is so far incidental to the legislative function as to be implied. .n other words, the power of in9uiry 6 with process to enforce it 6 is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. , legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or changeG and where the legislative body does not itself possess the re9uisite information 6 which is not infre9uently true 6 recourse must be had to others who do possess it. +ection 22 on the other hand provides for the OuestionJour. The Ouestion Jour is closely related with the legislative power, and it is precisely as a complement to or a supplement of the "egislative .n9uiry. The appearance of the members of abinet would be very, very essential not only in theapplicationof check and balance but also, in effect, in aid of legislation. +ection 22 refers only to Ouestion Jour, whereas, +ection 21 would refer specifically to in9uiries in aid of legislation, under which anybody for that matter, may be summoned and if he refuses, he can be held in contempt of the Jouse. , distinction was thus made between in9uiries in aid of legislation and the 9uestion hour. 8hile attendance was meant to be discretionary in the 9uestion hour, it was compulsory in in9uiries in aid of legislation. +ections 21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of ongress. (ne specifically relates to the power to conduct in9uiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a 9uestion hour, the ob>ective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of ongressM oversight function. 4ltimately, the power of ongress to compel the appearance of executive officials under +ection 21 and the lack of it under +ection 22 find their basis in the principle of separation of powers. 8hile the executive branch is a co!e9ual branch of the legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of ongress to legislate by refusing to comply

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite
with no legal force or binding effect. .t cannot be the source of, nor be capable of violating, any right. The instant 2etitions, therefore, and all other oppositions to the )(,, have no more leg to stand on. They no longer present an actual case or a >usticiable controversy for resolution by this ourt. ,n actual case or controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims, which can be resolved on the basis of existing law and >urisprudence. , >usticiable controversy is distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute, in that the former involves a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. , >usticiable controversy admits of specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in character, whereas an opinion only advises what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. The ourt should not feel constrained to rule on the 2etitions at bar >ust because of the great public interest these cases have generated. 8e are, after all, a court of law, and not of public opinion. The power of >udicial review of this ourt is for settling real and existent dispute, it is not for allaying fears or addressing public clamor. .n acting on supposed abuses by other branches of government, the ourt must be careful that it is not committing abuse itself by ignoring the fundamental principles of constitutional law. Pa6ano #& Na?arro ( )&R& No& *,:1+0/ Septem%er 0*/ 011+ Sales #& CO'E$EC ( )&R& No& *+,229/ Septem%er *0/ 011+ A%aAa"a )uro Party $ist 4& Purisima ( )&R& No& *22+*Au6ust *,/ 0119 FACTS3 Bepublic ,ct Co. %33& was enacted to optimiEe the revenue! generation capability and collection of the Bureau of .nternal Bevenue ;B.B= and the Bureau of ustoms ;B( =. .t provides a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of Bewards and .ncentives Fund ;Fund= and a Bevenue 2erformance *valuation Board ;Board= to B.B and B( officials and employees of the B.B and the B( officials and with at least six employees if they exceed their revenue targets. .t covers all months of service, regardless of employment status. 2etitioners, invoking their right as taxpayers, filed this petition challenging the constitutionality of B, %33&, a tax reform legislation. They contend that the limiting the scope of the system of rewards and incentives only to officials and employees of the B.B and the B( violates the constitutional guarantee of e9ual protection. There is no valid basis for classification or distinction as to why such a system should not apply to officials and employees of all other government agencies. Bespondent contends that the allegation that the reward system will breed mercenaries is mere speculation and does not suffice to invalidate the law. +een in con>unction with the declared ob>ective of B, %33&, the law validly classifies the B.B and the B(

thereon would be of no practical use or value. Henerally, courts decline >urisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness. The ourt holds that 2resident ,rroyoMs issuance of 22 1521 did not render the present petitions moot and academic. Luring the eight ;'= days that 22 151$ was operative, the police officers, according to petitioners, committed illegal acts in implementing it. ,re 22 151$ and H.(. Co. & constitutional or validR Lo they >ustify these alleged illegal actsR These are the vital issues that must be resolved in the present petitions. .t must be stressed that 1an unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protectionG it is in legal contemplation, inoperative.3 The 1moot and academic3 principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. ourts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if7 first, there is a grave violation of the onstitutionG second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involvedG third, when constitutional issue raised re9uires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the publicG and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. ,ll the foregoing exceptions are present here and >ustify this ourtMs assumption of >urisdiction over the instant petitions. 2etitioners alleged that the issuance of 22 151$ and H.(. Co. & violates the onstitution. There is no 9uestion that the issues being raised affect the publicMs interest, involving as they do the peopleMs basic rights to freedom of expression, of assembly and of the press. )oreover, the ourt has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules. .t 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. ,nd lastly, respondentsM contested actions are capable of repetition. ertainly, the petitions are sub>ect to >udicial review. Constantino #& People ( )&R& No& *,12-2/ Septem%er *./ 011+ Ra"a?a #& Court of Appeals ( )&R& No& *++*.-/ Octo%er *-/ 0119 )unsi #& CO'E$EC @ )&R& No& *29+:0/ Fe%ruary 0./ 011: Pimentel/ <r& #& A6uirre/ ..2 SCRA 01* The Pro#ince of North Cota%ato #& The )o#ernment of the Repu%lic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain ( )R No& *9.-:*/ Octo%er *,/ 0119 Facts3 The )emorandum of ,greement on the ,ncestral Lomain ,spect of the HB2!)."F Tripoli ,greement of 2eace of 2551 ;)(,= is assailed on its constitutionality. This document prepared by the >oint efforts of the Hovernment of the Bepublic of the 2hilippines ;HB2= 2eace 2anel and the )oro .slamic "iberation Front ;)."F= 2eace 2anel, was merely a codification of consensus points reached between both parties and the aspirations of the )."F to have a Bangsamoro homeland. Issue3 8hen the *xecutive Lepartment pronounced to abandon the )(,, is the issue of its constitutionality merely moot and academic and therefore no longer >usticiable by the ourtR Hel"3 Ses. +ince the )(, has not been signed, its provisions will not at all come into effect. The )(, will forever remain a draft that has never been finaliEed. .t is now nothing more than a piece of paper,

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

because the functions they perform are distinct from those of the other government agencies and instrumentalities. ISSUE3 8hether or Cot there is a violation of e9ual protection clause. HE$D3 *9uality protection is e9uality among e9uals, not similarity of treatment of persons who are classified based on substantial differences in relation to the ob>ect to be accomplished. 8hen things or persons are different in fact or circumstance, they may be treated in law differently. The Constitution "oes not re8uire that thin6s >hich are "ifferent in fact %e treate" in la> as thou6h they >ere the same& The e8ual protection clause "oes not for%i" "iscrimination as to thin6s that are "ifferent& It "oes not prohi%it le6islation >hich is limite" either in the o%Bect to >hich it is "irecte"& The e9ual protection clause recogniEes a valid classification, that is, a classification that has a reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary.22 8ith respect to B, %33&, its expressed public policy is the optimiEation of the revenue!generation capability and collection of the B.B and the B( .23 +ince the sub>ect of the law is the revenue! generation capability and collection of the B.B and the B( , the incentives and:or sanctions provided in the law should logically pertain to the said agencies. )oreover, the law concerns only the B.B and the B( because they have the common distinct primary function of generating revenues for the national government through the collection of taxes, customs duties, fees and charges. Both the B.B and the B( are bureaus under the L(F. They principally perform the special function of being the instrumentalities through which the +tate exercises one of its great inherent functions 6 taxation. .ndubitably, such substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to the purpose of the law. Jence, the classification and treatment accorded to the B.B and the B( under B, %33& fully satisfy the demands of e9ual protection. )arcia #& E7ecuti#e Secretary ( )&R& No& *-+-9,/ April 0/ 011: Facts3 (n 2$ Covember 1%%5, ory issued *xecutive (rder /3'

*( //3 increased the additional duty to %A. .n the same year, *( /$& was passed reinstating the previous &A duty except that crude oil and other oil products continued to be taxed at %A. Harcia, a representative from Bataan, avers that *( /$& and /$' are unconstitutional for they violate +ec 2/ of ,rt # of the onstitution which provides7 3 ,ll appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authoriEing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the Jouse of Bepresentatives, but the +enate may propose or concur with amendments.3 Je contends that since the onstitution vests the

authority to enact revenue bills in ongress, the 2resident may not assume such power of issuing *xecutive (rders Cos. /$& and /$' which are in the nature of revenue!generating measures. ISSUE3 8hether or not *( /$& and /$' are constitutional. HE$D3 4nder +ection 2/, ,rticle -. of the onstitution, the

enactment of appropriation, revenue and tariff bills, like all other bills is, of course, within the province of the "egislative rather than the *xecutive Lepartment. .t does not follow, however, that therefore *xecutive (rders Cos. /$& and /$', assuming they may be characteriEed as revenue measures, are prohibited to the 2resident, that they must be enacted instead by the ongress of the 2hilippines. +ection 2';2= of ,rticle -. of the onstitution

provides as follows7 1;2= The ongress may, by law, authoriEe the 2resident to fix within specified limits, and sub>ect to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export 9uotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Hovernment.3 There is thus explicit constitutional permission to ongress to authoriEe the 2resident 1sub>ect to such limitations and restrictions as ? ongress@ may impose3 to fix 1within specific limits3 1tariff rates . . . and other duties or imposts . . . .3 )unsi #& CO'E$EC @ )&R& No& *29+:0/ Fe%ruary 0./ 011: )arcillano #& House of Representati#es ( )&R& No& *+1..9/ Decem%er 0./ 0119 Facts3 Tapes ostensibly containing a wiretapped conversation purportedly between the 2resident of the 2hilippines and a high!ranking official of the ommission on *lections ; ()*"* = surfaced. The tapes, notoriously referred to as the DJello HarciD tapes, allegedly contained the 2residentMs instructions to ()*"*

which imposed, in addition to any other duties, taxes and charges imposed by law on all articles imported into the 2hilippines, an additional duty of &A ad valorem. This additional duty was imposed across the board on all imported articles, including crude oil and other oil products imported into the 2hilippines. .n 1%%1,

Constitutional Law 2
ommissioner -irgilio Harcillano to manipulate in her favor results of the 255/ presidential elections. These recordings were to become the sub>ect of heated legislative hearings conducted separately by committees of both Jouses of ongress. .ntervenor +agge alleges violation of his right to due process considering that he is summoned to attend the +enate hearings without being apprised not only of his rights therein through the publication of the +enate Bules of 2rocedure Hoverning .n9uiries in ,id of "egislation, but also of the intended legislation which underpins the investigation. Je further intervenes as a taxpayer bewailing the useless and wasteful expenditure of public funds involved in the conduct of the 9uestioned hearings. The respondents in H.B. Co. 1$%2$& admit in their pleadings and even on oral argument that the +enate Bules of 2rocedure Hoverning .n9uiries in ,id of "egislation had been published in newspapers of general circulation only in 1%%& and in 255#. 8ith respect to the present +enate of the 1/th ongress, however, of which the term of half of its members commenced on Kune 35, 255$, no effort was undertaken for the publication of these rules when they first opened their session. Bespondents >ustify their non!observance of the constitutionally mandated publication by arguing that the rules have never been amended since 1%%& and, despite that, they are published in booklet form available to anyone for free, and accessible to the public at the +enateMs internet web page. Issue3 8hether or not publication of the Bules of 2rocedures Hoverning .n9uiries in ,id of "egislation through the +enateMs website, satisfies the due process re9uirement of law.

LPU - Cavite
Suplico #& National Economic De#elopment Authority ( )&R& No& *+99.1/ <uly *,/ 0119 Antolin #& Domon"on ( )&R& No& *2-1.2/ <uly -/ 01*1 Facts3 JaEel )a. . ,ntolin ;2etitioner= failed the ertified 2ublic ,ccountant ; 2,= "icensure *xam she took in (ctober 1%%$. onvinced she deserved to pass the *xam, she wrote to the Board of ,ccountancy ;Board=, re9uesting that her answer sheets be re!corrected. +he was shown her answer sheets but since these showed only shaded marks,she was unable to determine why she failed the *xam. ons e9uently, she asked the Board for copies of the9uestionnaire, her a nswer sheets, the answer keys and an explanation of the grading sy stem ;collectively, the*xamination 2apers=. Jer re9uest was denied on two grounds7 ;1= +ection 3#, ,rticle ... of the Bules and Begulations Hoverning the Begulation and 2ractice of 2rofessionals, as amended by 2rofessional Begulation ommission ;2B =Besolution Co. 332, series of 1%%/, only allowed access to her answer sheets, and reconsideration of the result of her examination can be made only on grounds of mechanical error in the grading of the answer sheets, or malfeasanceG and ;2=the Board was precluded from releasing the *xamination 2apers ;other than the answer sheets= by +ection 25, ,rticle .- of 2B Besolution Co. 33', series of 1%%/. The Board later informed her that her exam was investigated and no mechanical error was foundinthegrading. 2etitioner filed a 2etition for )andamus with Lamages, with application for preliminary mandatory in>unction, against the Board and its members before the Begional Trial ourt ;BT =, praying that the Board provide her with all documents that would show whether the Board fairly administered the exam and correctly graded her answers, and if warranted, to issue to her a certificate of registration as a 2,. +he later amended her 2etition to clarify that she only wanted access to the documents re9uested, not re! correctionofherexam,deletingintheprocessheroriginalprayerforissua nceofacertificateofregistrationas 2,.2etitioner passed the )ay 1%%' 2, "icensure *xam and took her oath as a 2,. onse9uently, the BT denied her application for mandatory in>unction for being moot. +he amended her 2etition a second time to implead the 2B and to ask, in addition to access to the documents she had re9uested, that if warranted, appropriate revisions in the (ctober1%%$ *xam results be made by the Board and the 2B . The BT considered the matter moot and dismissed the petition. (n her motion, however, the BT reconsidered the dismissal, holding that her passing of the subse9uent 2, examination did not render the petition moot because the relief 1and if warranted, to issue to her a certificate of registration as ertified 2ublic ,ccountant3 was deleted from the original petition. ,s regards whether she hadthe constitutional right to have accessto the documents she re9uested, the BT resolved to let the parties first adduce evidence, and to have 2B air its side of the case. The BT also ordered the 2B to preserve and safeguard the 9uestionnaire, petitionerMs answer sheets, and the answer keysforthe(ctober1%%$ 2,"icensure*xam.8hen their motion for reconsideration was denied, respondents brought the case to the ourt of ,ppeals ; ,=which set aside the BT Ms decision and ordered the dismissal of the case because7 ;1= the petition was mooted when petitioner passed the )ay 1%%' 2, examG ;2= +ection 25, ,rticle .- of 2B Besolution Co. 33', series of 1%%/, constituted a valid limitation on her right to information and access to government documentsG ;3=the*xaminationLocumentswerenotofpublicconcern,becauseshe merelysought review of her failing marksG ;/= it was not the ministerial or mandatory function of the respondents to review and reassess the answers to examination 9uestions of a failing examineeG and;&= she failed to exhaust administrative remedies when she did notelevatethemattertothe2B beforeseeking>udicialintervention. 2et itioner,thus,broughtthemattertothe+upreme ourt.

Hel"3 The publication of the Bules of 2rocedure in the website of the +enate, or in pamphlet form available at the +enate, is not sufficient under the TaTada v. Tuvera ruling which re9uires publication either in the (fficial HaEette or in a newspaper of general circulation. The Bules of 2rocedure even provide that the rules Dshall take effect seven ;$= days after publication in two ;2= newspapers of general circulation,D precluding any other form of publication. 2ublication in accordance with TaTada is mandatory to comply with the due process re9uirement because the Bules of 2rocedure put a personMs liberty at risk. , person who violates the Bules of 2rocedure could be arrested and detained by the +enate. The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of B.,. Co. '$%2, otherwise known as the *lectronic ommerce ,ct of 2555, to support their claim of valid publication through the internet is all the more incorrect. B.,. '$%2 considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional e9uivalent of a written document only for evidentiary purposes. .n other words, the law merely recogniEes the admissibility in evidence ;for their being the original= of electronic data messages and:or electronic documents. .t does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and regulations. Hiven this discussion, the respondent +enate ommittees, therefore, could not, in violation of the onstitution, use its unpublished rules in the legislative in9uiry sub>ect of these consolidated cases. The conduct of in9uiries in aid of legislation by the +enate has to be deferred until it shall have caused the publication of the rules, because it can do so only Din accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.D AC;A5AN #& A8uino ()&R& No& *+1-*2/ <uly *2/ 0119

Constitutional Law 2
Issues3 ;1=

LPU - Cavite
ISSUES3 1= whether or not the mandatory re9uisites for the exercise of >udicial review are met in this caseG and 2= whether or not the implementation of 2L,F by the )embers of ongress is unconstitutional and illegal. HE$D3 .. , 9uestion is ripe for ad>udication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. .n this case, the petitioner contested the implementation of an alleged unconstitutional statute, as citiEens and taxpayers. The petition complains of illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation and this is sufficient reason to say that there indeed exists a definite, concrete, real or substantial controversy before the ourt. "( 4+ +T,CL.7 The gist of the 9uestion of standing is whether a party alleges 1such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional 9uestions. Jere, the sufficient interest preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation re9uired in taxpayersM suits is established. Thus, in the claim that 2L,F funds have been illegally disbursed and wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law, ",)2 should be allowed to sue. "astly, the ourt is of the view that the petition poses issues impressed with paramount public interest. The ramification of issues involving the unconstitutional spending of 2L,F deserves the consideration of the ourt, warranting the assumption of >urisdiction over the petition. ... The ourt rules in the negative. .n determining whether or not a statute is unconstitutional, the ourt does not lose sight of the presumption of validity accorded to statutory acts of ongress. To >ustify the nullification of the law or its implementation, there must be a clear and une9uivocal, not a doubtful, breach of the onstitution. .n case of doubt in the sufficiency of proof establishing unconstitutionality, the ourt must sustain legislation because 1to invalidate ?a law@ based on x x x baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the executive which approved it.3 The petition is miserably wanting in this regard. Co convincing proof was presented showing that, indeed, there were direct releases of funds to the )embers of ongress, who actually spend them according to their sole discretion. Levoid of any pertinent evidentiary support that illegal misuse of 2L,F in the form of kickbacks has become a common exercise of unscrupulous )embers of ongress, the ourt cannot indulge the petitionerMs re9uest for re>ection of a law which is outwardly legal and capable of lawful enforcement. 2(BN B,BB*"7 The )embers of ongress are then re9uested by the 2resident to recommend pro>ects and programs which may be funded from the 2L,F. The list submitted by the )embers of ongress is endorsed by the +peaker of the Jouse of Bepresentatives to the LB), which reviews and determines whether such list of pro>ects submitted are consistent with the guidelines and the priorities set by the *xecutive.333 This demonstrates the power given to the 2resident to execute appropriation laws and therefore, to exercise the spending per se of the budget. ,s applied to this case, the petition is seriously wanting in establishing that individual )embers of ongress receive and thereafter spend funds out of 2L,F. +o long as there is no showing of a direct participation of legislators in the actual spending of the budget, the constitutional boundaries between the *xecutive and the "egislative in the budgetary process remain intact. 'a"ria6a #& China ;anAin6 Corporation ( )&R& No& *:0.++/ <uly 0-/ 01*0

8hether or not petitioner may seek >udicial intervention to compel there!correction of her examinationG ;2=8hether ornotpetitionerfailedtoexhausttheadministrativeremedie sG ;3=8hetherornotthecasewasmootedbypetitionerMspassin gthe)ay1%%' 2, "icensure *xaminationG and;/= 8hether or not petitioner has the constitutional right to have access to the *xamination 2apers.

Hel"3 ;1= ,nyclaimforre! correctionorrevisionof petitionerMs1%%$examinationcannotbecompe lledbymandamus. .n ,gustin! Bamos vs. +andoval?H.B. Co. '//$5, February 2, 1%'% ;)inute Besolution=@, 8here the respondent Kudge was 9uestioned for dismissing therein petitionersM mandamus action to compel the )edical Board of *xaminers and the 2rofessional Begulation ommission to re! correct their ratings, the +upreme ourt held that 1;t=he function of reviewing and re!assessing the petitionersM answers to the examination 9uestions, in the light of the facts and arguments presented by them x x x is a discretionary function of the)edicalBoard,notaministerialandmandatoryone,hence,notwit hinthescopeofthewritofmandamus.3 $auria($i%erato #& $elina ( A&'& No& P(1:(0+1./ Septem%er -/ 01** Sana #& Career E7ecuti#e Ser#ice ;oar" ( )&R& No& *:0:02/ No#em%er *-/ 01** $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Suntay ( )&R& No& *99.+2/ Decem%er *,/ 01** Office of the Deputy Om%u"sman for $u?on #& Franciso ( )&R& No& *+0--./ Decem%er *,/ 01** )alicto #& A8uino ( )&R& No& *:.:+9/ Fe%ruary 09/ 01*0 $a>yers A6ainst 'onopoly an" Po#erty #& Secretary of ;u"6et an" 'ana6ement ( )&R& No& *2,:9+/ April 0,/ 01*0 FACTS3 For consideration of the ourt is an original action for certiorari assailing the constitutionality and legality of the implementation of the 2riority Levelopment ,ssistance Fund ;2L,F= as provided for in Bepublic ,ct ;B.,.= %25# or the Heneral ,ppropriations ,ct for 255/ ;H,, of 255/=. 2etitioner "awyers ,gainst )onopoly and 2overty;",)2=, a group of lawyers who have banded together with a mission of dismantling all forms of political, economic or social monopoly in the country. ,ccording to ",)2, the above provision is silent and, therefore, prohibits an automatic or direct allocation of lump sums to individual senators and congressmen for the funding of pro>ects. .t does not empower individual )embers of ongress to propose, select and identify programs and pro>ects to be funded out of 2L,F. For ",)2, this situation runs afoul against the principle of separation of powers because in receiving and, thereafter, spending funds for their chosen pro>ects, the )embers of ongress in effect intrude into an executive function. Further, the authority to propose and select pro>ects does not pertain to legislation. 1.t is, in fact, a non!legislative function devoid of constitutional sanction,3' and, therefore, impermissible and must be considered nothing less than malfeasance. B*+2(CL*CTM+ 2(+.T.(C7 the perceptions of ",)2 on the implementation of 2L,F must not be based on mere speculations circulated in the news media preaching the evils of pork barrel.

10

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

Pormento #& Estra"a ( )&R& No& *:*:99/ Au6ust .*/ 01*1 Facts7 Koseph *strada was elected 2resident of the Bepublic of the 2hilippines in the general elections held on )ay 11, 1%%'. Je was however ousted ?Uresigned according to the decision of the +upreme ourt in 2rivate respondent *strada vs. ,rroyo, H.B. Co. 1/#$3', )arch 2, 2551@ from office and was not able to finish his term. Je sought the presidency again in the general elections held on )ay 15, 2515. 2etitioner ,tty. *villo . 2ormento opposed *rapQs candidacy and filed a petition for the latterQs dis9ualification, which was however denied by the ()*"* 2nd Livision. Jis motion for reconsideration was subse9uently denied by the ()*"* en banc. 2etitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari on )ay $, 2515. Jowever, under the Bules of ourt, the filing of such petition would not stay the execution of the >udgment, final order or resolution of the ()*"* that is sought to be reviewed. Besides, petitioner did not even pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary in>unction. Jence, private respondent was able to participate as a candidate for the position of 2resident in the )ay 15, 2515 elections where he garnered the second highest number of votes. .ssue7 Loes the challenge on *stradaQs 9ualification to run again for president an actual controversyR Buling7 C(, one of the essential re9uisites for the exercise of the power of >udicial review, the existence of an actual case or controversy, is sorely lacking in this case. ,n action is considered Umoot when it no longer presents a >usticiable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not entitled to >udicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties. There is nothing for the court to resolve as the determination thereof has been overtaken by subse9uent events. ,ssuming an actual case or controversy existed prior to the proclamation of a 2resident who has been duly elected in the )ay 15, 2515 elections, the same is no longer true today. Following the results of that elections, private respondent was not elected 2resident for the second time. Thus, any discussion of his Ure! election will simply be hypothetical and speculative. .t will serve no useful or practical purpose. Hacien"a $uisita Incorporate" #& $uisita In"ustrial ParA Corporation @ )R No& *+**1*/ <uly -/ 01** FACTS .n 1%&', the +panish owners of ompaTia Heneral de

(n )ay $, 1%'5, the martial law administration filed a suit before the )anila BT against Tadeco, et al., for them to

surrender Jacienda "uisita to the then )inistry of ,grarian Beform ;),B= so that the land can be distributed to farmers at cost. Besponding, Tadeco alleged that Jacienda "uisita does not have tenants, besides which sugar lands 6 of which the hacienda consisted 6 are not covered by existing agrarian reform legislations. The )anila BT rendered >udgment ordering Tadeco to surrender Jacienda "uisita to the ),B. Therefrom, Tadeco appealed to the ,.

(n )arch 1$, 1%'', during the administration of 2resident oraEon o>uangco ,9uino, the (ffice of the +olicitor

Heneral moved to withdraw the governmentMs case against Tadeco, et al. The , dismissed the case, sub>ect to the 2,B Ms

approval of TadecoMs proposed stock distribution plan ;+L2= in favor of its farmworkers. +,nde! EO --. and late! /A 0012$ (adeco ad t e option o' availin" stoc3 dist!ibution as an modality to actual land t!ans'e! to t e

alte!native

'a!m%o!3e!s)4 (n ,ugust 23, 1%'', Tadeco organiEed a spin!off corporation, herein petitioner J"., as vehicle to facilitate stock ac9uisition by the farmworkers. For this purpose, Tadeco conveyed to J". the agricultural land portion ;/,%1&.$& hectares= and other farm!related properties of Jacienda "uisita in exchange for J". shares of stock.

(n )ay %, 1%'%, some %3A of the then farmworker! beneficiaries ;F8Bs= complement of Jacienda "uisita signified in a referendum their acceptance of the proposed J".Ms +tock Listribution (ption 2lan ;+(L2=. (n )ay 11, 1%'%, the +L(, was formally entered into by Tadeco, J"., and the &,'/' 9ualified F8Bs. This attested to by then L,B +ecretary 2hilip Kuico. The +L(, embodied the basis and mechanics of J".Ms +L2, which was eventually approved by the 2,B after a follow!up

Tabacos de Filipinas ;Tabacalera= sold Jacienda "uisita and the entral ,Eucarera de Tarlac, the sugar mill of the hacienda, to the Tarlac Levelopment orporation ;Tadeco=, then owned and

controlled by the Kose o>uangco +r. Hroup. The entral Bank of the 2hilippines assisted Tadeco in obtaining a dollar loan from a 4+ bank. ,lso, the H+.+ extended a 2h2&.%11 million loan in favor of Tadeco to pay the peso price component of the sale, with the condition that t e lots comp!isin" t e #acienda Luisita be subdivided by t e applicant-co!po!ation and sold at cost to t e tenants$ s ould t e!e be any$ and % eneve! conditions s ould e&ist %a!!antin" suc action unde! t e p!ovisions o' t e Land (enu!e Act)* Tadeco however did not comply with this condition.

referendum conducted by the L,B on (ctober 1/, 1%'%, in which &,11$ F8Bs, out of &,31& who participated, opted to receive shares in J"..

(n ,ugust 1&, 1%%&, J". applied for the conversion of &55 hectares of land of the hacienda from agricultural to industrial use, pursuant to +ec. #& of B, ##&$. The L,B approved the application on ,ugust 1/, 1%%#, sub>ect to payment of three

11

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

percent ;3A= of the gross selling price to the F8Bs and to J".Ms continued compliance with its undertakings under the +L2, among other conditions.

reconsideration. 2,B

would eventually deny J".Ms motion for

reconsideration via Besolution Co. 255#!3/!51 dated )ay 3, 255#.

ISSUES (n Lecember 13, 1%%#, J"., in exchange for subscription of 12,555,555 shares of stocks of entennary ;1= Loes the 2,B possess >urisdiction to recall or revoke J".Ms +L2R

Joldings, .nc. ; entennary=, ceded 355 hectares of the converted area to the latter. +ubse9uently, entennary sold the entire 355 ;2= +Issue !aised by inte!veno! 6A/M ("!oup o' 'a!m%o!3e!s)4 .s +ec. 31 of B, ##&$, which allows stock transfer in lieu of outright land transfer, unconstitutionalR

hectares for 2h2$&5 million to "uisita .ndustrial 2ark orporation ;".2 (=, which used it in developing an industrial complex. From this area was carved out 2 parcels, for which 2 separate titles were issued in the name of ".2 (. "ater, ".2 ( transferred these 2 parcels to the BiEal ommercial Banking orporation ;B B = in

;3= .s the revocation of the J".Ms +L2 validR +7id PA/C "!avely abuse its disc!etion in !evo3in" t e sub8ect S7P and placin" t e acienda unde! CA/P9s compulso!y ac:uisition and dist!ibution sc eme;4

payment of ".2 (Ms 2h2/31,#%&,$32.15 loan obligations to B B . ".2 (Ms titles were cancelled and new ones were issued to B B . ,part from the &55 hectares, another '5.&1 hectares were later detached from Jacienda "uisita and ac9uired by the government as part of the +ubic! lark!Tarlac *xpressway ;+ T*0= complex. Thus, /,33&.$& hectares remained of the original /,%1& hectares Tadeco ceded to J"..

;/= +hould those portions of the converted land within Jacienda "uisita that B B and ".2 ( ac9uired by purchase be excluded resolutionR +7id t e

from the coverage of the assailed 2,B

PA/C "!avely abuse its disc!etion % en it included LIPCO9s and /C5C9s !espective p!ope!ties t at once 'o!med pa!t o' #acienda

+uch, was the state of things when two separate petitions reached the L,B in the latter part of 2553. The first was filed by the +upervisory Hroup of J". ;+upervisory Hroup=, praying for a renegotiation of the +L(,, or, in the alternative, its revocation. The second petition, praying for the revocation and nullification of the +L(, and the distribution of the lands in the hacienda, was filed by Alyansa n" m"a Man""a"a%an" 5u3id n" #acienda Luisita ;,)B,",=. The L,B then constituted a +pecial Task Force ;+TF= to attend to issues relating to the +L2 of J".. ,fter investigation and evaluation, the +TF found that J". has not complied with its obligations under B, ##&$ despite the implementation of the +L2. (n Lecember 22, 255&, the 2,B issued the assailed Besolution Co. 255&!32!51, recalling:revoking the +L( plan of Tadeco:J".. .t further resolved that the sub>ect lands be forthwith placed under the compulsory coverage or mandated land ac9uisition scheme of the ,B2.

Luisita unde! t e CA/P compulso!y ac:uisition sc eme via t e assailed <otice o' Cove!a"e;4

RU$IN) +( e Cou!t DENIED t e petition o' #LI

and AFFIRMED t e PA/C !esolution placin" t e lands sub8ect o' #LI9s S7P unde! compulso!y cove!a"e on mandated land ac:uisition sc eme o' t e CA/P$ %it t e MODIFICATION t at t e o!i"inal 0$-.0 :uali'ied 6=5s %e!e "iven t e option to !emain as stoc3 olde!s o' #LI) It also e&cluded '!om t e mandato!y CA/P cove!a"e t at pa!t o' #acienda Luisita t at ad been ac:ui!ed by /C5C and LIPCO)4

(1) YES, th PARC has !"ris#iction to r $o% &'I(s SDP "n# r th #octrin of n c ssar) i*plication+

4nder +ec. 31 of B, ##&$, as implemented by L,( From the foregoing resolution, J". sought 15, the authority to approve the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to 2,B . ontrary to petitioner

reconsideration. .ts motion notwithstanding, J". also filed a petition before the +upreme ourt in light of what it considers as ,B2 even

J".Ms posture, 2,B also has the power to revoke the +L2 which it previously approved. .t may be, as urged, that B, ##&$ or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do not explicitly vest the

the L,BMs hasty placing of Jacienda "uisita under before 2,B

could rule or even read the motion for

12

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

2,B

with the power to revoke:recall an approved +L2. +uch

Lecember /, 2553 or 1/ years after approval of the +L2 that said plan and approving resolution were sought to be revoked, but not, to stress, by F,B) or any of its members, but by petitioner ,)B,",. Furthermore, the ,)B,", petition did C(T 9uestion the constitutionality of +ec. 31 of B, ##&$, but concentrated on the purported flaws and gaps in the subse9uent implementation of

power or authority, however, is deemed possessed by 2,B under the principle of necessary implication, a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed.

Following the doctrine of necessary implication, it may be stated that the conferment of express power to approve a plan for stock distribution of the agricultural land of corporate owners necessarily includes the power to revoke or recall the approval of the plan. To deny 2,B such revocatory power would reduce it ,B2, because the very same agency

the +L2. *ven the public respondents, as represented by the +olicitor Heneral, did not 9uestion the constitutionality of the provision. (n the other hand, F,B), whose 2$ members formerly belonged to ,)B,",, raised the constitutionality of +ec. 31 only on )ay 3, 255$ when it filed its +upplemental omment with the ourt. Thus, it took F,B) some eighteen ;1'= years from Covember 21, 1%'% before it challenged the constitutionality of +ec. 31 of B, ##&$ which is 9uite too late in the day. The F,B) members slept on their rights and even accepted benefits from the +L2 with nary a complaint on the alleged unconstitutionality of +ec. 31 upon which the benefits were

into a toothless agency of

tasked to ensure compliance by the corporate landowner with the approved +L2 would be without authority to impose sanctions for non!compliance with it.

(,) NO, S c+ -1 of RA ../0 is not "nconstit"tional+ +( e Cou!t actually !e'used to pass upon t e constitutional :uestion because it %as not rais # at th arli st opport"nit) and because

derived. The

ourt cannot now be goaded into resolving a

constitutional issue that F,B) failed to assail after the lapse of a long period of time and the occurrence of numerous events and activities which resulted from the application of an alleged unconstitutional legal provision.

t e !esolution t e!eo' is not th lis *ota o' t e case) Mo!eove!$ t e issue as been !ende!ed *oot an# aca# *ic since S7O is no

lon"e! one o' t e modes o' ac:uisition unde! /A .2>>)4 The last but the most important re9uisite that the 8hen the ourt is called upon to exercise its power of >udicial review over, and pass upon the constitutionality of, acts of the executive or legislative departments, it does so only when the following essential re9uirements are first met, to wit7 ;1= there is an actual case or controversyG ;2= that the constitutional 9uestion is raised at the earliest possible opportunity by a proper party or one with locus standiG and ;3= the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. constitutional issue must be the very lis mota of the case does not likewise obtain. The lis mota aspect is not present, the

constitutional issue tendered not being critical to the resolution of the case. The unyielding rule has been to avoid, whenever plausible, an issue assailing the constitutionality of a statute or governmental act. .f some other grounds exist by which >udgment can be made without touching the constitutionality of a law, such recourse is favored.

Cot all the foregoing re9uirements are satisfied in the case at bar.

The lis mota in this case, proceeding from the basic positions originally taken by ,)B,", ;to which the F,B) members previously belonged= and the +upervisory Hroup, is the

8hile there is indeed an actual case or controversy, intervenor F,B), composed of a small minority of 2$ farmers, has yet to explain its failure to challenge the constitutionality of +ec. 31 of B, ##&$ as early as Covember 21, 1%'% when 2,B approved the +L2 of Jacienda "uisita or at least within a reasonable time thereafter, and why its members received benefits from the +L2 without so much of a protest. .t was only on

alleged non!compliance by J". with the conditions of the +L2 to support a plea for its revocation. ,nd before the mota is whether or not 2,B ourt, the lis

acted in grave abuse of discretion

when it ordered the recall of the +L2 for such non!compliance and the fact that the +L2, as couched and implemented, offends certain constitutional and statutory provisions. To be sure, any of these key issues may be resolved without plunging into the

13

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

constitutionality of +ec. 31 of B, ##&$. )oreover, looking deeply into the underlying petitions of ,)B,",, et al., it is not the said section per se that is invalid, but rather it is the alleged application of the said provision in the +L2 that is flawed.

of 11',3%1,%$#.'& shares shall have been completely ac9uired and distributed to the TJ.BL 2,BTS.

?.@t is clear as day that the original #,2%# F8Bs, who were 9ualified beneficiaries at the time of the approval of the +L2,

.t may be well to note at this >uncture that +ec. & of B, %$55, amending +ec. $ of B, ##&$, has all but superseded +ec. 31 of B, ##&$ vis!V!vis the stock distribution component of said +ec. 31. .n its pertinent part, +ec. & of B, %$55 provides7 1DTEhat after <une .1/ 011:/ the mo"es of ac8uisition shall %e limite" to #oluntary offer to sell an" compulsory ac8uisition .3 Thus, for all intents and purposes, the stock distribution scheme under +ec. 31 of B, ##&$ is no longer an available option under existing law. The 9uestion of whether or not it is unconstitutional should be a moot issue.

suffered from watering down of shares. ,s determined earlier, each original F8B is entitled to 1','5/.32 J". shares. The original F8Bs got less than the guaranteed 1','5/.32 J". shares per beneficiary, because the ac9uisition and distribution of the J". shares were based on 1man days3 or 1number of days worked3 by the F8B in a yearMs time. ,s explained by J"., a beneficiary needs to work for at least 3$ days in a fiscal year before he or she becomes entitled to J". shares. .f it falls below 3$ days, the F8B, unfortunately, does not get any share at year end. The number of J". shares distributed varies depending on the number of days the F8Bs were allowed to work in one year. 8orse, J". hired farmworkers in addition to the original #,2%# F8Bs, such

(-) YES, th r $ocation of th &'I(s SDP $ali#+ 1NO, th PARC #i# NOT 2ra$ l) a3"s its #iscr tion in r $o%in2 th s"3! ct SDP an# placin2 th haci n#a "n# r CARP(s

that, as indicated in the

ompliance dated ,ugust 2, 2515

submitted by J". to the ourt, the total number of farmworkers of J". as of said date stood at 15,&52. ,ll these farmworkers, which include the original #,2%# F8Bs, were given shares out of the 11',%31,%$#.'& J". shares representing the 33.2%#A of the total

co*p"lsor) ac4"isition an# #istri3"tion sch * +5

The revocation of the approval of the +L2 is valid7 ;1= the mechanics and timelines of J".Ms stock distribution violate L,( 15 because the minimum individual allocation of each original F8B of 1','5/.32 shares was diluted as a result of the use of 1man days3 and the hiring of additional farmworkersG ;2= the 35!year timeframe for J".!to!F8Bs stock transfer is contrary to what +ec. 11 of L,( 15 prescribes.

outstanding capital stock of J"..

learly, the minimum individual

allocation of each original F8B of 1','5/.32 shares was diluted as a result of the use of 1man days3 and the hiring of additional farmworkers.

Hoing into another but related matter, par. 3 of the +L(, expressly providing for a 35!year timeframe for J".!to! F8Bs stock transfer is an arrangement contrary to what +ec. 11 of

.n our review and analysis of par. 3 of the +L(, on the mechanics and timelines of stock distribution, 8e find that it #iolates two ;2= provisions of L,( 15. 2ar. 3 of the +L(, states7

L,( 15 prescribes. +aid +ec. 11 provides for the implementation of the approved stock distribution plan within three ;3= months from receipt by the corporate landowner of the approval of the plan by 2,B . .n fact, based on the said provision, the transfer of the shares of stock in the names of the 9ualified F8Bs should be

3. ,t the end of each fiscal year, for a period of 35 years, the +* (CL 2,BTS ?J".@ shall arrange with the F.B+T 2,BTS ?TL @ the ac9uisition and distribution to the TJ.BL 2,BTS ?F8Bs@ on the basis of number of days worked and at no cost to them of one!thirtieth ;1:35= of 11',3%1,%$#.'& shares of the capital stock of the +* (CL 2,BTS that are presently owned and held by the F.B+T 2,BTS, until such time as the entire block

recorded in the stock and transfer books and must be submitted to the +* within sixty ;#5= days from implementation.

To the

ourt, there is a purpose, which is at once

discernible as it is practical, for the three!month threshold. Bemove this timeline and the corporate landowner can veritably evade compliance with agrarian reform by simply deferring to absurd limits the implementation of the stock distribution scheme.

14

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

that any other person has a right to or interest in such property. .n *vidently, the land transfer beneficiaries are given thirty ;35= years within which to pay the cost of the land thus awarded them to make it less cumbersome for them to pay the government. To be sure, the reason underpinning the 35!year accommodation does not apply to corporate landowners in distributing shares of stock to the 9ualified beneficiaries, as the shares may be issued in a much shorter period of time. The same is true with respect to B B . ,t the time it Taking into account the above discussion, the ac9uired portions of Jacienda "uisita, only the following general annotations appeared on the T Ts of ".2 (7 the Leed of Bestrictions, limiting its use solely as an industrial estateG the +ecretaryMs ertificate in favor of No>i Nomai and Nyosuke JoriG and the Beal *state )ortgage in favor of B B payment of 2h2 355 million. to guarantee the fact, at the time ".2 ( ac9uired said parcels of land, only the following annotations appeared on the T T in the name of entennary7 the +ecretaryMs the +ecretaryMs ertificate in favor of Teresita "opa,

ertificate in favor of +hintaro )urai, and the

conversion of the property from agricultural to industrial and residential use.

revocation of the +L2 by 2,B

should be upheld ?because of

violations of@ L,( 15. .t bears stressing that under +ec. /% of B, ##&$, the 2,B and the L,B have the power to issue rules and

regulations, substantive or procedural. Being a product of such rule!making power, L,( 15 has the force and effect of law and must be duly complied with. The 2,B is, therefore, correct in

revoking the +L2. onse9uently, the 2,B Besolution Co. '%!12! 2 dated Covember 21, l%'% approving the J".Ms +L2 is nullified and voided.

To be sure, intervenor B B and ".2 ( knew that the lots they bought were sub>ected to ,B2 coverage by means of a stock distribution plan, as the L,B conversion order was annotated at the back of the titles of the lots they

ac9uired. Jowever, they are of the honest belief that the sub>ect (6) YES, thos portions of th con$ rt # lan# 7ithin &aci n#a '"isita that RC8C an# 'IPCO ac4"ir # 3) p"rchas sho"l# 3 r sol"tion+ 9cl"# # fro* th co$ ra2 of th assail # PARC lots were validly converted to commercial or industrial purposes and for which said lots were taken out of the sub>ect of 2,B ,B2 coverage

Besolution Co. '%!12!2 and, hence, can be

legally and validly ac9uired by them. ,fter all, +ec. #& of B, ##&$ explicitly allows conversion and disposition of agricultural ?T@here are two ;2= re9uirements before one may be lands previously covered by ,B2 land ac9uisition 1after the

considered a purchaser in good faith, namely7 ;1= that the purchaser buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such propertyG and ;2= that the purchaser pays a full and fair price for the property at the time of such purchase or before he or she has notice of the claim of another.

lapse of five ;&= years from its award when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes or the locality has become urbaniEed and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial

purposes.3 )oreover, L,B notified all the affected parties, more particularly the F8Bs, and gave them the opportunity to comment or oppose the proposed conversion. L,B, after going through the

.t can rightfully be said that both ".2 ( and B B are66based on the above re9uirements and with respect to the adverted transactions of the converted land in 9uestion66 purchasers in good faith for value entitled to the benefits arising from such status.

necessary processes, granted the conversion of &55 hectares of Jacienda "uisita pursuant to its primary >urisdiction under +ec. &5 of B, ##&$ to determine and ad>udicate agrarian reform matters and its original exclusive >urisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. The L,B conversion order became final and executory after none of the F8Bs interposed an

6i!st, at the time ".2 ( purchased the entire three hundred ;355= hectares of industrial land, there was no notice of any supposed defect in the title of its transferor, entennary, or

appeal to the

,. .n this factual setting, B B

and ".2 (

purchased the lots in 9uestion on their honest and well!founded belief that the previous registered owners could legally sell and

15

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

convey the lots though these were previously sub>ect of coverage. *rgo, B B ac9uiring the sub>ect lots.

,B2

= ile t e assailed PA/C !esolutions e''ectively nulli'yin" t e #acienda Luisita S7P a!e up eld$ th r $ocation *"st, 3) application of th op rati$ fact principl , 2i$ 7a) to th ri2ht of th ori2inal .,,:. 4"alifi # F;8s to choos 7h th r

and ".2 ( acted in good faith in

,nd second, both ".2 ( and B B

purchased

th ) 7ant to r *ain as &'I stoc%hol# rs or not+ ( e Cou!t cannot tu!n a blind eye to t e 'act t at in A.E.$ .@F o' t e 6=5s a"!eed to t e S7OA (o! t e MOA)$ % ic became t e basis o' t e S7P app!oved by PA/C pe! its /esolution <o) E.-A--- dated <ovembe! -A$ A.E.) 6!om A.E. to ->>1$ t e 6=5s %e!e said to ave !eceived '!om #LI sala!ies and cas bene'its$ ospital and medical bene'its$ -B>-s:ua!e mete! omelots$ @F o' t e "!oss

portions of Jacienda "uisita for value. 4ndeniably, ".2 ( ac9uired 355 hectares of land from entennary for the amount of

2h2$&5 million pursuant to a Leed of +ale dated Kuly 35, 1%%'. (n the other hand, in a Leed of ,bsolute ,ssignment dated Covember 2&, 255/, ".2 ( conveyed portions of Jacienda "uisita in favor of B B by way of dacion en pa"o to pay for a loan of

2h2/31,#%&,$32.15.

p!oduce '!om a"!icultu!al lands$ and @F o' t e p!oceeds o' t e sale o' t e 1>>- ecta!e conve!ted land and t e E>)1A- ecta!e lot

.n relying upon the above!mentioned approvals, proclamation and conversion order, both B B and ".2 ( cannot be considered at fault for believing that certain portions of Jacienda "uisita are industrial:commercial lands and are, thus, outside the ambit of ,B2. The PARC/ an" conse8uently DAR/ 6ra#ely a%use" its "iscretion >hen it place" $IPCOFs an" RC;CFs property >hich once forme" part of Hacien"a $uisita un"er the CARP compulsory ac8uisition scheme #ia the assaile" Notice of Co#era6e&

sold to SC(EG) #LI s a!es totalin" AAE$@.A$.20)E1 %e!e dist!ibuted as o' Ap!il --$ ->>1) On Au"ust 0$ ->l>$ #LI and p!ivate !espondents submitted a Comp!omise A"!eement$ in % ic #LI "ave t e 6=5s t e option o' ac:ui!in" a piece o' a"!icultu!al land o! !emain as #LI stoc3 olde!s$ and as a matte! o' 'act$ most 6=5s indicated t ei! c oice o' !emainin" as stoc3 olde!s) ( ese 'acts and ci!cumstances tend to indicate t at some$ i' not all$ o' t e 6=5s may actually desi!e to continue as #LI s a!e olde!s) A matte! best le't to t ei! o%n disc!etion)4

+( e Cou!t %ent on to apply t e ope!ative 'act doct!ine to dete!mine % at s ould be done in t e a'te!mat disposition o' t e above-enume!ated issues? o' its

1;&EREFORE$

t e

instant

petition

is DENIED) PA/C /esolution <o) ->>1-@-->A dated 7ecembe! --$ ->>1 and /esolution <o) ->>0-@B->A dated May @$ ->>0$ placin" t e lands sub8ect o' #LI9s S7P unde! compulso!y

= ile =e a''i!m t e !evocation o' t e S7P on #acienda Luisita sub8ect o' PA/C /esolution <os) ->>1-@-->A and ->>0-@B->A$ t e Cou!t cannot close its eyes to ce!tain ope!ative 'acts* t at ad occu!!ed in t e

cove!a"e on mandated land ac:uisition sc eme o' t e CA/P$ a!e e!eby AFFIRMED %it t e MODIFICATION t at t e o!i"inal 0$-.0 :uali'ied 6=5s s all ave t e option to !emain as

stoc3 olde!s o' #LI) 7A/ s all immediately sc edule meetin"s %it t e said 0$-.0 6=5s and e&plain to t em t e e''ects$

inte!im) Pe!tinently$ t e ope!ative 'act* doct!ine !ealiCes t at$ in decla!in" a la7 o! 9 c"ti$ action null and void$ o!$ by

conse:uences and le"al o! p!actical implications o' t ei! c oice$ a'te! % ic t e 6=5s %ill be as3ed to mani'est$ in sec!et votin"$ t ei! c oices in t e ballot$ si"nin" t ei! si"natu!es o! placin" t ei! t umbma!3s$ as t e case may be$ ove! t ei! p!inted names)4 )alicto #& A8uino ( )&R& No& *:.:+9/ Fe%ruary 09/ 01*0 Sana #& Career E7ecuti#e Ser#ice ;oar" ( )&R& No& *:0:02/ No#em%er *-/ 01** Funa #& The Chairman/ Commission on Au"it ( )&R& No& *:0+:*/ April 0,/ 01*0

e&tension$ no lon"e! %it out 'o!ce and e''ect$ undue a!s ness and !esultin" un'ai!ness must be avoided) ( is is as it s ould !ealistically be$ since !i" ts mi" t ave acc!ued in 'avo! o' natu!al o! 8u!idical pe!sons and obli"ations 8ustly incu!!ed in t e meantime) ( e actual e&istence o' a statute o! e&ecutive act is$ p!io! to suc a dete!mination$ an ope!ative 'act and may ave conse:uences % ic cannot 8ustly be i"no!edD t e past cannot

al%ays be e!ased by a ne% 8udicial decla!ation)

16

Constitutional Law 2
Philippine International Air Terminals Co&/ Inc #& TaAenaAa Corporation ( )&R& No& *910,-/ <uly ,/ 01*0 Arroyo #& Department of <ustice ( )&R& No& *::190/ Septem%er *9/ 01*0 FACTS

LPU - Cavite

YES, th R sol"tion 2rantin2 th p tition rs( pra) r for a TRO sho"l# 3 r consi# r #+

?T@his

ourt cannot ignore a basic constitutional

precept7 the presumption of validity of official actions. *specially +Late last (uesday$ <ovembe! A1$ ->AA$ t e Sup!eme issued an immediately e&ecuto!y* (empo!a!y /est!ainin" O!de! ((/O) en8oinin" t e implementation o' DO< D part* nt when the practice of issuing watch list orders, has been practiced for decades by the Lepartment of Kustice, and many other analogous practices has been observed as well by many other governmental agencies, including this court, through analogous restrictive practices. This ourt cannot turn to a blind eye what is involved in running a government. xxx. 8hat this all means is that a full hearing must be conducted before this ourt decides to grant a TB( to petitioners, none of whom, by their very own documents, are under any life!threatening, emergency, medical ( e "ove!nment$ t !ou" t e O''ice o' t e Solicito! situation.

Circ"lar No+ 61 and =atc list O!de! and t e!eby allo%in" t e petitione!s A!!oyo spouses to leave t e P ilippines a'te! complyin" %it t e conditions in t e /esolution) ( e !espondent Sec!eta!y o' Hustice Leila 7e Lime o%eve! p!evented t e A!!oyos '!om leavin")

Iene!al$ immediately 'iled a Consolidated ,!"ent Motion 'o! /econside!ation andJo! to Li't (empo!a!y /est!ainin" O!de!*) Petitione! Ilo!ia Macapa"al A!!oyo also 'iled an ,!"ent Motion 'o! /espondents to Cease and 7esist '!om P!eventin" Petitione! IMA '!om Leavin" t e Count!y)* S e also moved to cite t e /espondent Sec!eta!y o' Hustice in contempt 'o! 'ailu!e to comply %it t e (/O) 8hile in the end we may ultimately strike down the issuance of 8atch "ist (rders by the Lepartment of Kustice or uphold such orders and additionally provide standards before the power to restrict travel of persons under preliminary investigation can be exercised, what is at stake this very day is a fundamental 9uestion of whether we should presume that officials can perform the functions they have been performing for ages 6 in order that we On <ovembe! AE$ ->AA$ t e Cou!t conducted a special en banc session to tac3le t e pendin" incidents o' t e consolidated cases)4 ISSUES maintain order in the running of a country. Therefore, with all due respect, it is completely wrong for this ourt to bend over backwards to accommodate the re9uest of petitioners for a TB( to be issued ex parte without hearing the side of the government. xxx. ,mong the more important issues resolved by the ourt during the special en banc session were as follows7 1. +hould the Besolution granting the prayer for a TB( be reconsideredR 2. 8as there compliance with the 2nd condition of the TB(R .f there is none, should the TB( be suspended in the meantimeR 8hen out of the countryMs >urisdiction, by being corporeally absent therefrom, public respondentsM legal remedies against petitioners will be sub>ect to the >urisdiction and the pleasure of the various countries where they will flee. (ut of the RU$IN) countries that had been mentioned by petitioners to be sub>ect of her medical tour, only two ;2= of the countries cited have A) +( e Hustices maintained t ei! E-1 vote on t e extradition treaties with the 2hilippines. .t still needs verification whether the extradition with +pain has already been rendered effective through concurrence to the same by the +enate.

xxx

xxx

xxx

issuance o' t e (/O) ( e ma8o!ity t us !e:ui!e+d4* Sec!eta!y 7e Lima to IMME7IA(ELK COMPLK %it t e said tempo!a!y

!est!ainin" o!de! by allo%in" petitione!s to leave t e count!y)*4

17

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

The moment she flies out of 2hilippine air space, our countryMs ability to enforce its laws will now be sub>ect to the wishes of a foreign government. , 2h22 )illion 2eso bond is crumbs for one who, if proven, has actually obtained multiples more from the countryMs coffers. Ceither will the appointment of a substitute replace the effective >ustice that can be enforced only when a +tate has physical custody of a person who has been proven guilty of violation of the state laws. , conviction against her may lie as a formal >udgment, but there may effectively be no service of sentence. That is of course, all premised on the theory that petitioners may ultimately be convicted for one of the crimes for which they are charged. That result can only add to the very long saga of our peopleMs desperate attempts to try to redeem its self!respect by showing to the world that contrary to the common observation of outsiders, impunity is not allowed to reign in this country. +hould the ourt contribute to such possible despair by NO, th r 7as no co*plianc 7ith th , n# con#ition of th TRO? h nc , YES, th TRO sho"l# 3 s"sp n# # in th * anti* + ( e <ovembe! AE$ ->AA /esolution instead noted t e SPA e&ecuted by Ilo!ia Macapa"al-A!!oyo$ appointin" Atty) 6e!dinand (opacio as e! le"al$ and me!ely stated t at s e e! le"al -) +( e Cou!t voted 0=.115 t at t e!e %as no

compliance %it t e -nd conditiono' t e (/O) 5ut it nonet eless voted by t e same 0>. ma!"in t at t e!e %as no need to e&plicitly state t e le"al e''ect on t e (/O o' t e noncompliance by petitione!s %it t e -ndcondition)

s all co**it to t e Cou!t t at s e s all inst!uct

!ep!esentative to amend pa!) (iii) o' pa!) (b) above to state? to !eceive summons o! documenta!y evidence* and 'o!t %it submit t is compliance %it t e Cou!tD*4

not waiting for the oral argument on 22 Covember 2511 before issuing a TB(R

The principal physician of former 2resident Hloria )acapagal!,rroyo, Lr. Kuliet HopeE! ervantes, and her surgeon, Lr. )ario -er, have all certified to her continuing recovery and her positive prognosis, especially after # to ' months. There has been no allegation in her pleadings that those certifications are false, nor that her doctors are incompetent. They should then be believed by this ourt that there is no medical emergency

The ma>ority, by a $!# voting +sic4, denied the minorityMs proposition that a resolution be issued including a phrase that the TB( is suspended pending compliance with the second condition of the 1& Covember 2511 Besolution. The ma>ority argued that such a clarification is unnecessary, because it is clear that the TB( is conditional, and cannot be made use of until compliance has been done. .t was therefore the sense of the ma>ority that, as an offshoot of the winning vote that there was failure by petitioners to comply with ondition Cumber 2, the

warranting an immediate flight. 8hat is waiting four ;/= more days from today, when oral arguments are conducted, compared with the possibility that there is genuine, and not >ust publicly! imagined intention, on the part of the petitioners to evade legal processes. This ourt can afford to wait until 22 Covember

TB( is implicitly deemed suspended until there is compliance with such condition. *veryone believed that it would be clear to all that a conditional TB( is what it is, conditional.

2511, without pre>udicing any of the constitutional rights of the petitioner, considering the potentials that loom in the distance and the fears that weigh on the minds of our people ! that >ustice will be again be frustrated if the simple operation of bringing back an accused person from abroad, will prove to be impossible to effect, even by this ourt. That ., )$ORIA 'ACAPA)A$ ARRO5O, of legal 0xx. onsidering that petitioners herein are not under age, married, Filipino with residence at 1/ Bad>ao +treet, 2ansol, OueEon ity, do hereby name, constitute and appoint ATT5& Below is the relevant excerpt from the +pecial 2ower of ,ttorney dated 1& Covember 2511, the failed compliance of petitioners with Covember 25117 ondition Cumber 2 in our Besolution dated 1&

any medical emergency, as certified by petitioner Hloria ,rroyoMs own doctors, can this ourt not >ust wait for the omment and the oral arguments to be shortly conductedR3

FERDINAND TOPACIO, likewise of legal age, Filipino, with office address at Hround floor, +kyway Twin Towers, J. Kavier +t., (rtigas enter, 2asig, )etro )anila, as my legal

18

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

representative in the 2hilippines and to be my true and lawful attorney!in!fact, for my name, place and stead, to do and perform the following acts and things, to wit7 1. 2. To sign, verify, and file a written statementG To make and present to the court an application in connection with any proceedings in the suitG 3. /. To pro"uce summons or recei#e "ocumentary e#i"enceG To make and file compromise or a confession of >udgment and to refer the case to arbitrationG &. To deposit and withdraw any money for the purpose of any proceedingG #. $. To obtain copies of documents and papersG and Henerally to do all other lawful acts necessary for the conduct of the said case. ;*mphasis supplied.=

resolution, including our second condition, before issuing any certification that the compliance with the TB( has been made, and only then can the TB( become effective. $imAaichon6 #& Comelec/ )&R& Nos& *+99.*(.0/ April */ 011:/ -9. SCRA * 4ilan"o #& HRET ( )&R& Nos& *:0*,+ G *:0*,:/ Au6ust 0./ 01** 'a6"alo Para sa Pa6%a%a6o ( )&R& No& *:1+:./ <une *:/ 01*0 2. Proper Party ! the 9uestion of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party P!ope! pa!ty 6 one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an in>ury as a result of the act complained of

Da#i" #& Arroyo ( )&R& No& *+*.:2/ 'ay ./ 0112 was being written, ourt Cilos%ayan #& Ermita an" )re6ory On6 )&R& No& *+:9:Decem%er *9/ 0119 Topacio #& On6 ( )&R& No& *+:9:-/ Decem%er *9/ 0119 The Pro#ince of North Cota%ato #& The )o#ernment of the Repu%lic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain ( )R No& *9.-:*/ Octo%er *,/ 0119 Francisco/ <r& #& The House of Representati#es ( )&R& No& *2102* No#em%er *1/ 011. )arcillano #& House of Representati#es ( )&R& No& *+1..9/ Decem%er 0./ 0119 Cha#e? #& )on?ales ( )&R& No& *29..9/ Fe%ruary *-/ 0119 Senate #& Ermita ( )&R& No& *2:+++/ 01 April 0112 )arcillano #& House of Representati#es ( )&R& No& *+1..9/ Decem%er 0./ 0119 AnaA 'in"anaoParty(list )6roup #& The E7ecuti#e Secretary ( )&R& No& *221-0/ Au6ust 0:/ 011+ ASEAN Pacific Planners # Cty of Ur"aneta @ )&R& No& *20-0-/ Septem%er 0./ 0119/ uisum%in6 AC;A5AN #& A8uino ( )&R& No& *+1-*2/ <uly *2/ 0119

8hile

this

opinion

,dministrator and ,cting

hief of the 2ublic .nformation (ffice

;2.(= ,tty. )idas )ar9ueE informed the press that the Temporary Bestraining (rder ;TB(= was effective, i.e., 1in full force and effect.3 ontrary to this interpretation, as stated, it was the understanding of a ma>ority that the TB( is 1suspended pending compliance3 with our earlier Besolution. The operational ineffectivity of the TB( is implied 6 for it is a basic principle that the failure of petitioners to comply with one of the conditions in the Besolution dated 1& Covember 2511 is a >urisdictional defect that suspends, at the least, the effectivity of the TB(. Therefore, the TB(, until faithful compliance with the terms thereof, is legally ineffective. .t was a human mistake,

understandable on the part of the

lerk of

ourt, considering the

way the TB( was rushed, to have issued the same despite non! compliance by petitioners with one of the strict conditions imposed by the ourt. Cevertheless, good faith and all, the legal effect of

such non!compliance is the same 6 petitioners cannot make use thereof for failure to comply faithfully with a condition imposed by this ourt for its issuance. The ourt ,dministrator cum ,cting hief of the 2.( is hereby advised to be careful not to go beyond his role in such offices, and that he has no authority to interpret any of our >udicial issuances, including the present Besolution, a function he never had from the beginning.

Planters Pro"ucts Inc& #& Fertiphil Corporation ( )&R& No& *22112/ 'arch *,/ 0119 Francisco #& Fernan"o )&R& No& *+00+,& No#em%er *2/ 0112 Pharmaceutical an" Health Care Association of the Philippines #& Health Secretary ( )R No& *+.1.,/ Octo%er :/ 011+ 'am%a #& $ara @ )&R& No& *2-*1:/ Decem%er *,/ 011: City )o#ernment of Tu6ue6arao #& Tin6 @ *:0,.-(.2/ Septem%er *,/ 01** )&R& Nos&

Furthermore, it is hereby clarified that it is mandatory for the lerk of ourt to ensure that there is faithful compliance

De la $lana #& Chairman/ Commission on Au"it ( )& R& No& *91:9:/ Fe%ruary +/ 01*0

with all the conditions imposed in our 1& Covember 2511

19

Constitutional Law 2
)alicto #& A8uino ( )&R& No& *:.:+9/ Fe%ruary 09/ 01*0 Cha#e? #& <u"icial an" ;ar Council ( )&R& No& 0100,0/ <uly *+/ 01*0 Facts: In 1994, instead o !avin" onl# seven $e$%e&s, an ei"!t! $e$%e& was added to t!e '(C as two &e)&esentatives &o$ Con"&ess %e"an sittin" in t!e '(C * one &o$ t!e +ouse o ,e)&esentatives and one &o$ t!e -enate, wit! ea.! !avin" one-!al /1021 o a vote2 3!en, t!e '(C 4n (an., in se)a&ate $eetin"s !eld in 2000 and 2001, de.ided to allow t!e &e)&esentatives &o$ t!e -enate and t!e +ouse o ,e)&esentatives one ull vote ea.!2 5t )&esent, -enato& 6&an.is 'ose)! 72 4s.ude&o and Con"&ess$an 8iel C2 3u)as, '&2 /&es)ondents1 si$ultaneousl# sit in t!e '(C as &e)&esentatives o t!e le"islatu&e2 It is t!is )&a.ti.e t!at )etitione& !as 9uestioned in t!is )etition2 ,es)ondents a&"ued t!at t!e .&u: o t!e .ont&ove&s# is t!e )!&ase ;a &e)&esentative o Con"&ess2< It is t!ei& t!eo&# t!at t!e two !ouses, t!e -enate and t!e +ouse o ,e)&esentatives, a&e )e&$anent and $andato&# .o$)onents o ;Con"&ess,< su.! t!at t!e a%sen.e o eit!e& divests t!e te&$ o its su%stantive $eanin" as e:)&essed unde& t!e Constitution2 (i.a$e&alis$, as t!e s#ste$ o .!oi.e %# t!e 6&a$e&s, &e9ui&es t!at %ot! !ouses e:e&.ise t!ei& &es)e.tive )owe&s in t!e )e& o&$an.e o its $andated dut# w!i.! is to le"islate2 3!us, w!en -e.tion 8/11, 5&ti.le =III o t!e Constitution s)ea>s o ;a &e)&esentative &o$ Con"&ess,< it s!ould $ean one &e)&esentative ea.! &o$ %ot! +ouses w!i.! .o$)&ise t!e enti&e Con"&ess2 Issue: ?!et!e& o& not t!e .u&&ent )&a.ti.e o t!e '(C to )e& o&$ its un.tions wit! ei"!t /81 $e$%e&s, two /21 o w!o$ a&e $e$%e&s o Con"&ess, &uns .ounte& to t!e lette& and s)i&it o t!e 1987 Constitution2 Held: @es2 3!e wo&d ;Con"&ess< used in 5&ti.le =III, -e.tion 8/11 o t!e Constitution is used in its "ene&i. sense2 8o )a&ti.ula& allusion w!atsoeve& is $ade on w!et!e& t!e -enate o& t!e +ouse o ,e)&esentatives is %ein" &e e&&ed to, %ut t!at, in eit!e& .ase, onl# a sin"ula& &e)&esentative $a# %e allowed to sit in t!e '(C2 3!e seven-$e$%e& .o$)osition o t!e '(C se&ves a )&a.ti.al )u&)ose, t!at is, to )&ovide a solution s!ould t!e&e %e a stale$ate in votin"2 It is evident t!at t!e de inition o ;Con"&ess< as a %i.a$e&al %od# &e e&s to its )&i$a&# un.tion in "ove&n$ent * to le"islate2 In t!e )assa"e o laws, t!e Constitution is e:)li.it in t!e distin.tion o t!e &ole o ea.! !ouse in t!e )&o.ess2 3!e sa$e !olds t&ue in Con"&essA non-le"islative )owe&s2 5n inte&-)la# %etween t!e two !ouses is ne.essa&# in t!e &ealiBation o t!ese )owe&s .ausin" a vivid di.!oto$# t!at t!e Cou&t .annot si$)l# dis.ount2 3!is, !oweve&, .annot %e said in t!e .ase o '(C &e)&esentation %e.ause no liaison %etween t!e two !ouses e:ists in t!e wo&>in"s o t!e '(C2 +en.e, t!e te&$ ;Con"&ess< $ust %e ta>en to $ean t!e enti&e le"islative de)a&t$ent2 3!e Constitution $andates t!at t!e '(C %e .o$)osed o seven /71 $e$%e&s onl#2 3!e a&"u$ent t!at a senato& .annot &e)&esent a $e$%e& o t!e +ouse o ,e)&esentatives in t!e '(C

LPU - Cavite
and vi.e-ve&sa is, t!us, $is)la.ed2 In t!e '(C, an# $e$%e& o Con"&ess, w!et!e& &o$ t!e -enate o& t!e +ouse o ,e)&esentatives, is .onstitutionall# e$)owe&ed to &e)&esent t!e enti&e Con"&ess2 It $a# %e a .onst&i.ted .onstitutional aut!o&it#, %ut it is not an a%su&dit#2 Unde& t!e .i&.u$stan.es, t!e Cou&t inds t!e e:.e)tion o t!e Co.t&ine o D)e&ative 6a.t a))li.a%le in t!is .ase and !olds t!at notwit!standin" its indin" o un.onstitutionalit# in t!e .u&&ent .o$)osition o t!e '(C, all its )&io& o i.ial a.tions a&e nonet!eless valid2 3!e Cou&t !as no )owe& to add anot!e& $e$%e& %# Eudi.ial .onst&u.tion2 3!e .all o& Eudi.ial a.tivis$ ails to sti& t!e sensi%ilities o t!e Cou&t tas>ed to "ua&d t!e Constitution a"ainst usu&)ation2 3!e Cou&t &e$ains stead ast in .on inin" its )owe&s in t!e s)!e&e "&anted %# t!e Constitution itsel 2 'udi.ial a.tivis$ s!ould neve& %e allowed to %e.o$e Eudi.ial e:u%e&an.e2 In .ases li>e t!is, no a$ount o )&a.ti.al lo"i. o& .onvenien.e .an .onvin.e t!e Cou&t to )e& o&$ eit!e& an e:.ision o& an inse&tion t!at will .!an"e t!e $ani est intent o t!e 6&a$e&s2 3o %&oaden t!e s.o)e o .on"&essional &e)&esentation in t!e '(C is tanta$ount to t!e in.lusion o a su%Ee.t $atte& w!i.! was not in.luded in t!e )&ovision as ena.ted2 3&ue to its .onstitutional $andate, t!e Cou&t .annot .&a t and tailo& .onstitutional )&ovisions in o&de& to a..o$$odate all o situations no $atte& !ow ideal o& &easona%le t!e )&o)osed solution $a# sound2 3o t!e e:e&.ise o t!is int&usion, t!e Cou&t de.lines2 Pa6uia #& Office of the Presi"ent ( )&R& No& *+20+9/ <une 0-/ 01*1 Capalla #& CO'E$EC ( )&R& No& 01***0/ <une *./ 01*0 Earliest Opportunity the constitutional 9uestion must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity what is not alleged cannot be proven if 9uestion is not raised in the pleadings, it could not be raised at the trial, except7 1. in c!iminal case L can be raised any time in the discretion of court 2. in civil case - can be raised at any sta"e i' necessa!y to the determination of the case in eve!y case (e&cept % en t e!e is estoppel) ! can be raised at any sta"e if it involves 8u!isdiction of the court 3. ,B+! BC Broadcasting orporation v. 2hil. )ulti!)edia .nc.! HB Cos. 1$&$#%!$5 ,pex )ining o., .nc. v. ! H.B. Cos. 1&2#13 W 1&2#2', Covember 25, 255% Jacienda "uisita .ncorporated v. "uisita .ndustrial 2ark orporation 6 HB Co. 1$1151, Kuly &, 2511 osco 2hilippines +hipping, .nc. v. Nemper .nsurance ompany ! H.B. Co. 1$%/'', ,pril 23, 2512

/.

Necessity of Deci"in6 Constitutional uestion ! the decision of the constitutional 9uestion must be

20

Constitutional Law 2
necessary to the determination of the case itself as long as there is some other basis that can be used by the courts for its decision, the constitutionality of the challenged law will not be touched and the case will be decided on other available grounds Securities an" E7chan6e Commission #& Interport Resources Corporation ( )&R& No& *.-919/ Octo%er 2/ 0119 Romual"e? #& CO'E$EC ( )& R& No& *2+1**/ Decem%er **/ 0119 Serrano #& )allant 'aritime Ser#ices/ Inc& ( )&R& No& *2+2*,/ 'arch 0,/ 011: FACTS3 2etitioner ,ntonio +errano was hired by respondents Hallant )aritime +ervices, .nc. and )arlow Cavigation o., .nc., under a 2(*,!approved contract of employment for 12 months, as hief (fficer, with the basic monthly salary of 4+X1,/55, plus X$55:month overtime pay, and $ days paid vacation leave per month. (n )arch 1%, 1%%', the date of his departure, +errano was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of +econd (fficer with a monthly salary of 4+X1,555 upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be hief (fficer by the end of ,pril 1%%'. Bespondents did not deliver on their promise to make +errano hief (fficer. Jence, +errano refused to stay on as second (fficer and was repatriated to the 2hilippines on )ay 2#, 1%%', serving only two ;2= months and seven ;$= days of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of nine ;%= months and twenty!three ;23= days. +errano filed with the "abor ,rbiter ;",= a omplaint against respondents for constructive dismissal and for payment of his money claims in the total amount of 4+X2#,//2.$3 ;based on the computation of X2&%5:month from Kune 1%%' to February 1%%, X/13.%5 for )arch 1%%', and X1#/5 for )arch 1%%%= as well as moral and exemplary damages. The ", declared the petitionerIs dismissal illegal and awarded him 4+X',$$5, representing his salaray for three ;3= months of the unexpired portion of the aforesaid contract of employment, plus X/& for salary differential and for attorneyIs fees e9uivalent to 15A of the total amountG however, no compensation for damages as prayed was awarded. (n appeal, the C"B modified the ", decision and awarded +errano X/##%.&5, representing three ;3= months salary at X1/55:month, plus //& salary differential and 15A for attorneyIs fees. This decision was based on the provision of B, '5/2, which was made into law on Kuly 1&, 1%%&. +errano filed a )otion for 2artial Beconsideration, but this time he 9uestioned the constitutionality of the last clause in the &th paragraph of +ection 15 of B, '5/2, which reads7 +ec. 15. )oney laims. ! x x x .n case of termination of overseas employment without >ust, valid or authoriEed cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent ;12A= per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three ;3= months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. The C"B denied the )otionG hence, +errano filed a 2etition for ertiorari with the ourt of ,ppeals ; ,=, reiterating the constitutional challenge against the sub>ect clause. The , affirmed the C"B ruling on the reduction of the applicable salary

LPU - Cavite
rate, but skirted the constitutional issue raised by herein petitioner +errano. ISSUES3 1. 8hether or not the sub>ect clause violates +ection 15, ,rticle ... of the onstitution on non!impairment of contractsG 2. 8hether or not the sub>ect clause violate +ection 1, ,rticle ... of the onstitution, and +ection 1', ,rticle .. and +ection 3, ,rticle 0... on labor as a protected sector.

HE$D3 (n the first issue. The answer is in the negative. 2etitionerIs claim that the sub>ect clause unduly interferes with the stipulations in his contract on the term of his employment and the fixed salary package he will receive is not tenable. +ection 15, ,rticle ... of the onstitution provides7 Co law impairing the obligation ofcontracts shall be passed. The prohibition is aligned with the general principle that laws newly enacted have only a prospective operation, and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfectedG however, as to laws already in existence, their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part thereof. Thus, the non!impairment clause under +ection 15, ,rticle .. is limited in application to laws about to be enacted that would in any way derogate from existing acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties thereto. ,s aptly observed by the (+H, the enactment of B.,. Co. '5/2 in 1%%& preceded the execution of the employment contract between petitioner and respondents in 1%%'. Jence, it cannot be argued that B.,. Co. '5/2, particularly the sub>ect clause, impaired the employment contract of the parties. Bather, when the parties executed their 1%%' employment contract, they were deemed to have incorporated into it all the provisions of B.,. Co. '5/2. But even if the ourt were to disregard the timeline, the sub>ect clause may not be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it impinges on the impairment clause, for the law was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the +tate to regulate a business, profession or calling, particularly the recruitment and deployment of (F8s, with the noble end in view of ensuring respect for the dignity and well!being of (F8s wherever they may be employed. 2olice power legislations adopted by the +tate to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and general welfare of the people are generally applicable not only to future contracts but even to those already in existence, for all private contracts must yield to the superior and legitimate measures taken by the +tate to promote public welfare.

(n the second issue.

The answer is in the affirmative. +ection 1, ,rticle ... of the onstitution guarantees7 Co person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the e9ual protection of the law.

21

Constitutional Law 2
+ection 1', ,rticle .. and +ection 3, ,rticle 0... accord all members of the labor sector, without distinction as to place of deployment, full protection of their rights and welfare. To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing constitutional provisions translate to economic security and parity7 all monetary benefits should be e9ually en>oyed by workers of similar category, while all monetary obligations should be borne by them in e9ual degreeG none should be denied the protection of the laws which is en>oyed by, or spared the burden imposed on, others in like circumstances. +uch rights are not absolute but sub>ect to the inherent power of ongress to incorporate, when it sees fit, a system of classification into its legislationG however, to be valid, the classification must comply with these re9uirements7 1= it is based on substantial distinctionsG 2= it is germane to the purposes of the lawG 3= it is not limited to existing conditions onlyG and /= it applies e9ually to all members of the class. There are three levels of scrutiny at which the ourt reviews the constitutionality of a classification embodied in a law7 a= the deferential or rational basis scrutiny in which the challenged classification needs only be shown to be rationally related to serving a legitimate state interestG b= the middle!tier or intermediate scrutiny in which the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interestG and c= strict >udicial scrutiny in which a legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest.

LPU - Cavite
There being a suspect classification involving a vulnerable sector protected by the onstitution, the ourt now sub>ects the classification to a strict >udicial scrutiny, and determines whether it serves a compelling state interest through the least restrictive means. 8hat constitutes compelling state interest is measured by the scale of rights and powers arrayed in the onstitution and calibrated by history. .t is akin to the paramount interest of the state for which some individual liberties must give way, such as the public interest in safeguarding health or maintaining medical standards, or in maintaining access to information on matters of public concern. .n the present case, the ourt dug deep into the records but found no compelling state interest that the sub>ect clause may possibly serve. .n fine, the Hovernment has failed to discharge its burden of proving the existence of a compelling state interest that would >ustify the perpetuation of the discrimination against (F8s under the sub>ect clause. ,ssuming that, as advanced by the (+H, the purpose of the sub>ect clause is to protect the employment of (F8s by mitigating the solidary liability of placement agencies, such callous and cavalier rationale will have to be re>ected. There can never be a >ustification for any form of government action that alleviates the burden of one sector, but imposes the same burden on another sector, especially when the favored sector is composed of private businesses such as placement agencies, while the disadvantaged sector is composed of (F8s whose protection no less than the onstitution commands. The idea that private business interest can be elevated to the level of a compelling state interest is odious. )oreover, even if the purpose of the sub>ect clause is to lessen the solidary liability of placement agencies vis!a!vis their foreign principals, there are mechanisms already in place that can be employed to achieve that purpose without infringing on the constitutional rights of (F8s. The 2(*, Bules and Begulations Hoverning the Becruitment and *mployment of "and!Based (verseas 8orkers, dated February /, 2552, imposes administrative disciplinary measures on erring foreign employers who default on their contractual obligations to migrant workers and:or their 2hilippine agents. These disciplinary measures range from temporary dis9ualification to preventive suspension. The 2(*, Bules and Begulations Hoverning the Becruitment and *mployment of +eafarers, dated )ay 23, 2553, contains similar administrative disciplinary measures against erring foreign employers. Besort to these administrative measures is undoubtedly the less restrictive means of aiding local placement agencies in enforcing the solidary liability of their foreign principals. Thus, the sub>ect clause in the &th paragraph of +ection 15 of B.,. Co. '5/2 is violative of the right of petitioner and other (F8s to e9ual protection. The sub>ect clause 1or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less3 in the &th paragraph of +ection 15 of Bepublic ,ct Co. '5/2 is L* ",B*L4C (C+T.T4T.(C," Cote7 8hen the ourt is called upon to exercise its power of >udicial review of theacts of its co!e9uals, such as the ongress, it does so only when these conditions obtain7 ;1= that there is an actual case

4pon cursory reading, the sub>ect clause appears facially neutral, for it applies to all (F8s. Jowever, a closer examination reveals that the sub>ect clause has a discriminatory intent against, and an invidious impact on, (F8s at two levels7 First, (F8s with employment contracts of less than one year vis! V!vis (F8s with employment contracts of one year or moreG +econd, among (F8s with employment contracts of more than one yearG and Third, (F8s vis!V!vis local workers with fixed!period employmentG

.n sum, prior to B.,. Co. '5/2, (F8s and local workers with fixed!term employment who were illegally discharged were treated alike in terms of the computation of their money claims7 they were uniformly entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portions of their contracts. But with the enactment of B.,. Co. '5/2, specifically the adoption of the sub>ect clause, illegally dismissed (F8s with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their employment contract have since been differently treated in that their money claims are sub>ect to a 3!month cap, whereas no such limitation is imposed on local workers with fixed!term employment. The ourt concludes that the sub>ect clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed!term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3!month cap on the claim of (F8s with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other (F8s or local workers with fixed!term employment. The sub>ect clause singles out one classification of (F8s and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.

22

Constitutional Law 2
or controversy involving a conflict of rights susceptible of >udicial determinationG ;2= that the constitutional 9uestion is raised by a proper party and at the earliest opportunityG and ;3= that the constitutional 9uestion is the very lis mota of the case, otherwise the ourt will dismiss the case or decide the same on some other ground. !!!! ,s discussed earlier, prior to B.,. Co. '5/2, a uniform system of computation of the monetary awards of illegally dismissed (F8s was in place. This uniform system was applicable even to local workers with fixed!term employment. ,rticle #5& of the ode of ommerce provides7 ,rticle #5&. .f the contracts of the captain and members of the crew with the agent should be for a definite period or voyage, they cannot be discharged until the fulfillment of their contracts, except for reasons of insubordination in serious matters, robbery, theft, habitual drunkenness, and damage caused to the vessel or to its cargo by malice or manifest or proven negligence. ,rticle #5& was applied to )adrigal +hipping ompany, .nc. v. (gilvie, in which the ourt held the shipping company liable for the salaries and subsistence allowance of its illegally dismissed employees for the entire unexpired portion of their employment contracts. 8hile ,rticle #5& has remained good law up to the present, ,rticle 2%% of the ode of ommerce was replaced by ,rt. 1&'# of the ivil ode of 1''%, to wit7 ,rticle 1&'#. Field hands, mechanics, artisans, and other laborers hired for a certain time and for a certain work cannot leave or be dismissed without sufficient cause, before the fulfillment of the contract. )eneral #& Urro ( )&R& No& *:*-21/ 'arch 0:/ 01** Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality (BTJ(L(0 -.*8 6 an unconstitutional act is not a lawG it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection )(L*BC -.*8 ?(2*B,T.-* F, T L( TB.C*@ 6 the court does not annul or repeal the statute it finds in conflict with the onstitutionG it simply refuses to recogniEe itG the decision affects the parties only and there is no >udgment against the statueG t e actual e&istence o' t e statute p!io! to its decla!ation o' unconstitutionality %as an ope!ative 'act and mi" t ave conse:uences % ic could not 8ustly be i"no!ed Ymore realistic approachZ Planters Pro"ucts Inc& #& Fertiphil Corporation ( )&R& No& *22112/ 'arch *,/ 0119 Castro #& Deloria ( )&R& No& *2.-92/ <anuary 0+/ 011: 5ap #& Thenamaris ShipFs 'ana6ement an" Intermare 'aritime A6encies/ Inc& ( )&R& No& *+:-.0/ 'ay .1/ 01** $ea6ue of Cities of the Philippines #& CO'E$EC ( )&R& No& *+2:-*/ Au6ust 0,/ 01*1 Hacien"a $uisita/ Incorporate" #& Presi"ential A6rarian Reform Council ( )&R& No& *+**1*/ No#em%er 00/ 01** Philippine Coconut Pro"ucers Fe"eration/ Inc& #& Repu%lic of the Philippines ( )&R& Nos& *++9-+(-9/ <anuary 0,/ 01*0 Philippine Coconut Pro"ucers Fe"eration/ Inc& # Repu%lic of the Philippines ( )&R& Nos& *++9-+(-9/ <anuary 0,/ 01*0

LPU - Cavite
Cha#e? #& <u"icial an" ;ar Council ( )&R& No& 0100,0/ <uly *+/ 01*0 1. 2. Partial Unconstitutionality the legislature is willing to retain the valid portions even if the rest of the statute is declared illegalG and the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute

$u? Farms #& Secretary of A6rarian Reform ( )&R& No& 9299:/ Decem%er ,/ *::1 hapter / 6 THE FUNDA'ENTA$ PO!ERS OF THE STATE 2olice 2ower 2ower of *minent Lomain 2ower of Taxation Similarities 1. they are in e!ent in the +tate 2. they are necessa!y and indispensable 3. they are met ods by which the +tate interferes with private rights /. they p!esuppose an e:uivalent compensation &. they are e&ecised p!ima!ily by t e le"islatu!e Differences L.FF*B*C *+ ,s to regulation ,s to who may exercise ,s to the property taken ,s to ompensation

2(". * 2(8*B regulates both libe!ty and p!ope!ty only the government destroyed because it is noxious or intended for noxious purpose

*).

regulates p!

governmen entities

!wholesome !taken for a

intangible altruistic feeling that the full and fair person has contributed to the general property ex welfare

Planters Pro"ucts Inc& #& Fertiphil Corporation ( )&R& No& *22112/ 'arch *,/ 0119

$imitations Bill of Bights hapter & 6 THE PO$ICE PO!ER Definition an" Scope !power of promoting the welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property Characteristics most pervasive, least limitable and most demanding of the 3 powers E7ercise of the Police Po>er the "egislature ;inherent= 2resident ;by delegation= administrative boards ;by delegation= lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including barangay ;by delegation= )unicipal governments : "H4Is ;conferred by statute 6 general welfare clause of B, $1#5= !hite $i6ht Corporation #& City of 'anila ( )&R& No& *009,2/ <anuary 01/ 011:

23

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite
-n . -ctober #$$$, the -S/, herein petitioner, !iled a petition to the RT& o! Ma ati praying that the practice o! respondents in charging par ing !ees is violativeo! the )ational +uilding &ode and its "mplementing Rules and Regulations. The RT& ruled in !avour o! the respondents. 0pon appeal, &A denied the petition and li ewise denied the motion !or reconsideration. ISSUE: 1hether or not the act o! -S/ is a valid e2ercise o! the power o! eminent domain. HELD: )o. 3minent domain enables the State to !orcibly ac,uire private lands intended !or public use upon payment o! %ust compensation to the owner. Although in the present case, title to and4or possession o! the par ing !acilities remain4s with respondents, the prohibition against their collection o! par ing !ees!rom the public, !or the use o! said !acilities, is already tantamount to a ta ing or con!iscation o! their properties. The State is not only re,uiring that respondentsdevote a portion o! the latter5s properties !or use as par ing spaces, but is also mandating that they give the public access to said par ing spaces !or !ree. Suchis already an e2cessive intrusion into the property rights o! respondents. )ot only are they being deprived o! the right to use a portion o! their properties as theywish, they are !urther prohibited !rom its use or even %ust recovering there!rom the e2penses !or the maintenance and operation o! the re,uired par ing !acilities. "n conclusion, the total prohibition against the collection by respondents o! par ing !ees !rom persons who use the mall par ing !acilities has no basis in the)ational +uilding &ode or its "RR. The State also cannot impose the same prohibition by generally invo ing police power, since said prohibition amounts to ata ing o! respondents5 property without payment o! %ust compensation Tests of the Police Po>er 1. ",8F4" +4BK* T 6 interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, re9uire the exercise of police power 2. ",8F4" )*,C+ 6 the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals 'a7f"l S"3! ct Suri6ao "el Norte Electric Cooperati#e/ Inc& #& Ener6y Re6ulatory Commission >)&R& No& *9.202/ Octo%er ,/ 01*1 Facts3 (n February ', 1%%#, the ,ssociation of )indanao Bural *lectric ooperatives, as representative of +4BC* ( and of the other 33 rural electric cooperatives in )indanao, filed a petition before the then *nergy Begulatory Board ;*BB= for the approval of the formula for automatic cost ad>ustment and adoption of the Cational 2ower orporation ;C2 =restructured rate ad>ustment to comply with Bepublic ,ct ;B.,.= Co. $'32./ The case was docketed as *BB ase Co. %#!/%, and later consolidated with identical petitions of other associations of electric cooperatives in the 2hilippines. .n an (rder dated February 1%, 1%%$, the *BB granted +4BC* ( and other rural electric cooperatives provisional authority to use and implement the 2urchased 2ower ,d>ustment ;22,= formula pursuant to the mandatory provisions of B.,. Co. $'32 and its .BB, with a directive to submit relevant and pertinent documents for the BoardMs review, verification, and confirmation. 8hile the passage of B.,. Co. %13## led to the creation of the *nergy Begulatory ommission ;*B =, replacing and succeeding the *BB. ,ll pending cases before the *BB were transferred to the *B . *BB ase Co. %#!/% was re!docketed as *B ase Co. 2551!3/3..n the (rder dated Kune 1$, 2553, the *B clarified

Facts3 (n 3 Lec 1%%2, then )ayor "im signed into law (rd $$$/ entitled 1,n (rdinance3 prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the ity of )anila. 8hite "ight orp is an operator of mini

hotels and motels who sought to have the (rdinance be nullified as the said (rdinance infringes on the private rights of their patrons. The BT ruled in favor of 8" . .t ruled that the (rdinance strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the onstitution. The ity maintains that the ordinance is valid as it is a valid exercise of police power. 4nder the "H , the empowered to regulate the establishment, operation ity is and

maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and transports. The the ity. ISSUE3 8hether or not (rd $$$/ is valid. HE$D3 The + ruled that the said ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes upon individual liberty. .t also violates the due process clause which serves as a guaranty for protection against arbitrary regulation or seiEure. The said ordinance invades private rights. Cote that not all who goes into motels and hotels for wash up rate are really there for obscene purposes only. +ome are tourists who needed rest or to 1wash up3 or to freshen up. Jence, the infidelity sought to be avoided by the said ordinance is more or less sub>ected only to a limited group of people. The + reiterates that individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be re9uired by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. OS) #& Ayala $an"/ Inc& ( )&R& No& *++1-2/ Septem%er *9/ 011: FACTS: The respondents, Ayala Land, Robinsons, and Shangri-la maintain and operate shopping malls while SM Prime constructs and leases building structures. The shopping malls that respondents operate have par ing !acilities in which they collect par ing !ees !rom the persons ma ing use o! their !acilities. "n May #$$$, a %oint investigation conducted by the Senate &ommittees on Trade and &ommerce and on 'ustice and (uman Rights issued Senate &ommitteeReport )o. ##* in which they !ind that the collection o! par ing !ees by herein respondents are contrary to the )ational +uilding &ode. The &ode merely re,uiresmalls to provide par ing spaces, without speci!ying whether it is !ree or not. , ruled in favor of

24

Constitutional Law 2
*BBMs earlier policy regarding the 22, formula to be used by the electric cooperatives, viE.P ,fter a careful evaluation of the records, the ommission noted that the 22, formula which was approved by the *BB was silent on whether the calculation of the cost of electricity purchased and generated in the formula

LPU - Cavite
enactment, the latter must prevail. ,dditionally, the 22, formula provided in the .BB of B.,. Co. $'32 was only a model to be used as a guide by the electric cooperatives in proposing their own 22, formula for approval by the then *nergy Begulatory Board;*BB=.+ections / and &, Bule .0 of the .BB directed the electric cooperatives to apply for approval of such formula with the *BB so that the system loss caps under the law would be incorporated in their computation of power cost ad>ustments. The .BB did not provide for a specific formulaG therefore, there was nothing in the .BB that was amended or could have been amended relative to the 22, formula. The .BB left to the *BB, now the *nergy Begulatory ommission, the authority to approve and oversee the implementation of the electric cooperativesM 22, formula in the exercise of its rate!making power over them. +urigao del Corte *lectric ooperative, .nc. ;+4BC* (= vs. *nergy Begulatory ommission. H.B.Co. 1'3#2#, (ctober /, 2515.The regulation of rates to be charged by public utilities is founded upon the police powers of the +tate and statutes prescribing rules for the control and regulation of public utilities are a valid exercise thereof. 8hen private property is used for a public purpose and is affected with public interest, it ceases to be >uris privati only and becomes sub>ect to regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good. +ubmission to regulation may be withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing useG but as long as use of the property is continued, the same is sub>ect to public regulation. 8J*B*F(B*, the petition is L*C.*L. The Lecision dated ,pril 1$, 255' and the Besolution dated Kune 2&, 255' of the ourt of ,ppeals in ,!H.B. +2 Co. %%$'1 are ,FF.B)*L. osts against petitioner. en.losu&e o said a&.ade at !is own e:)ense w!en )u%li. inte&est so de$ands2H3!e KKC5 t!en sent a noti.e o de$olition to 'usti.e 7an.a#.o alle"in" t!at a )o&tion o !is %uildin" violated t!e 8ational (uildin" Code o t!e P!ili))ines in &elation toD &dinan.e 8o2 29042 +e did not .o$)l# wit! t!e noti.e2 3!e KKC5 t!en )&o.eeded to de$olis! t!e )a&t# wall o t!e "&ound loo& st&u.tu&e2 3!e Cit# 7ove&n$ent o GueBon Cit# .lai$ed t!at t!e o&dinan.e was a valid e:e&.ise o )oli.e )owe&, &e"ulatin" t!e use o )&o)e&t# in a %usiness Bone2 'usti.e 7an.a#.o iled a Petition wit! )&a#e& o& a te$)o&a&# &est&ainin" o&de& and0o& w&it o )&eli$ina&# inEun.tion2 3!e ,3C &uled t!at t!e o&dinan.e was un.onstitutional2 3!e Cou&t o 5))eals &eve&sed t!e ,3CJs de.ision and &uled t!at t!e o&dinan.e was a valid e:e&.ise o t!e &i"!t o t!e lo.al "ove&n$ent unit to )&o$ote t!e "ene&al wel a&e o its .onstituents )u&suant to its )oli.e )owe&s2 IssueF ?!et!e& D&dinan.e 8o2 2094 is a valid e:e&.ise o )oli.e )owe&2 +eldF @es, it is a valid dele"ation o Poli.e Powe& ,atioF Poli.e )owe& is an in!e&ent att&i%ute o sove&ei"nt#2 I t !as %een de ined as t!e )owe& vested %# t!e Constitution in t!e le"islatu&e to $a>e, o&dain, and esta%lis! all $anne& o w!oleso$e and &easona%le laws, statutes and o&dinan.es, eit!e& wit! )enalties o& wit!out, not &e)u"nant to t!e Constitution, as t!e# s!all Eud"e to %e o& t!e "ood and wel a&e o t!e .o$$onwealt!, and o& t!e su%Ee.ts o t!e sa$e2 3!e )owe& is )lena&# and its s.o)e is vast and )e&vasive, &ea.!in" and Eusti #in" $easu&es o& )u%li. !ealt!, )u%li. sa et#, )u%li. $o&als, and t!e "ene&al wel a&e2 In t!e e:e&.ise o )oli.e )owe&, )&o)e&t# &i"!ts o individuals $a# %e su%Ee.ted to &est&aints and %u&dens in o&de& to ul il t!e o%Ee.tives o t!e "ove&n$ent2 6o& t!is &eason,

should be DgrossD or DnetD of the discounts. To attain uniformity in the implementation of the 22, formula, the ommission has resolved that71. .n the confirmation of past 22,s, the power cost shall still be based on Dgross,D and2. .n the confirmation of future 22,s, the power cost shall be based on Dnet.DThe electric cooperatives filed their respective motions for clarification and:or reconsideration. Jence, the *B issued an(rder$ dated Kanuary 1/, 255&, stating that the 22, was a cost!recovery mechanism, not a revenue!generating scheme, so that the distribution utilities or the electric cooperatives must recover from their customers only the actual cost of purchased power. RU$IN)3 +4BC* ( cannot insist on using the multiplier scheme even after the imposition of the system loss caps under +ection15 of B.,. Co. $'32..ndeed, under Cational *lectrification ,dministration )emorandum Co. 1!,, the use of the multiplier scheme allows the recovery of system losses even beyond the caps mandated in B.,. Co. $'32, which is intended to gradually phase out pilferage losses as a component of the recoverable system losses by the distributing utilities such as +4BC* (. Jowever, it is totally repugnant to and incompatible with the system loss caps established in B.,. Co. $'32, and is repealed by +ection 1# of the law. ,s between C*, )emorandum Co. 1!,, a mere administrative issuance, and B.,. Co. $'32, a legislative )ancayco #& City )o#ernment of ue?on City ( )&R& No& *++91+/ Octo%er **/ 01** 6a.tsF ,eti&ed 'usti.e 4$ilio 52 7an.a#.o %ou"!t a )a&.elo land lo.ated 4C-5, GueBon Cit#2 5 ew #ea&s late&, t!e GueBon Cit# Coun.il issued D&dinan.e 8o2 2904, entitled H5n D&dinan.e ,e9ui&in" t!e Const&u.tion o 5&.ades, o& Co$$e&.ial (uildin"s to %e Const&u.ted in Iones Cesi"nated as (usiness Iones in t!e Ionin" Plan o GueBon Cit#, and P&ovidin" Penalties in =iolation 3!e&eo 2 It &e9ui&ed t!e &elevant )&o)e&t# owne& to .onst&u.t an a&.ade alon" 4C-52 5n a&.ade is de ined as an# )o&tion o a %uildin" a%ove t!e i&st loo& )&oEe.tin" ove& t!e sidewal> %e#ond t!e i&st sto&e# wall used as )&ote.tion o& )edest&ians a"ainst &ain o& sun2 It %ea&s e$)!asis t!at at t!e ti$e D&dinan.e 8o2 2904 was )assed %# t!e .it# .oun.il, t!e&e was #et no %uildin" .ode )assed %# t!e national le"islatu&e2 3!us, t!e &e"ulation o t!e .onst&u.tion o %uildin"s was le t to t!e dis.&etion o lo.al "ove&n$ent units2 Unde& t!is )a&ti.ula& o&dinan.e, t!e .it# .oun.il &e9ui&ed t!at t!e a&.ade is to %e .&eated %# .onst&u.tin" t!e wall o t!e "&ound loo& a.in" t!e sidewal> a ew $ete&s awa# &o$ t!e )&o)e&t# line2 3!us, t!e %uildin" owne& is not allowed to .onst&u.t !is wall u) to t!e ed"e o t!e )&o)e&t# line, t!e&e%# .&eatin" a s)a.e o& s!elte& unde& t!e i&st loo&2 In e e.t, )&o)e&t# owne&s &elin9uis! t!e use o t!e s)a.e o& use asan a&.ade o& )edest&ians, instead o usin" it o& t!ei& own )u&)oses2 3!e o&dinan.e .ove&ed t!e )&o)e&t# o 'usti.e 7an.a#.o2 -u%se9uentl#, 'usti.e 7an.a#.o sou"!t t!e e:e$)tion o a two-sto&e# %uildin" %ein" .onst&u.ted on !is )&o)e&t# &o$ t!e a))li.ation o D&dinan.e 8o2 2904 t!at !e %e e:e$)ted &o$ .onst&u.tin" an a&.ade on !is )&o)e&t#2 3!e Cit# Coun.il a.ted avo&a%l# on 'usti.e 7an.a#.oJs &e9uestH su%Ee.t to t!e .ondition t!at u)on noti.e %# t!e Cit# 4n"inee&, t!e owne& s!all, wit!in &easona%le ti$e, de$olis! t!e

25

Constitutional Law 2
w!en t!e .onditions so de$and as dete&$ined %# t!e le"islatu&e, )&o)e&t# &i"!ts $ust %ow to t!e )&i$a.# o )oli.e )owe& %e.ause )&o)e&t# &i"!ts, t!ou"! s!elte&ed %# due )&o.ess, $ust #ield to "ene&al wel a&e2 Poli.e )owe& as an att&i%ute to )&o$ote t!e .o$$on "ood would %e diluted .onside&a%l# i on t!e $e&e )lea o )etitione&s t!at t!e# will su e& loss o ea&nin"s and .a)ital, t!e 9uestioned )&ovision is invalidated2 Ko&eove&, in t!e a%sen.e o eviden.e de$onst&atin" t!e alle"ed .on is.ato&# e e.t o t!e )&ovision in 9uestion, t!e&e is no %asis o& its nulli i.ation in view o t!e )&esu$)tion o validit# w!i.! eve&# law !as in its avo&2 It is .lea& t!at t!e )&i$a&# o%Ee.tives o t!e .it# .oun.il o GueBon Cit# w!en it issued t!e 9uestioned o&dinan.e o&de&in" t!e .onst&u.tion o a&.ades we&e t!e !ealt! and sa et# o t!e .it# and its in!a%itantsL t!e )&o$otion o t!ei& )&os)e&it#L and t!e i$)&ove$ent o t!ei& $o&als, )ea.e, "ood o&de&, .o$ o&t, and t!e .onvenien.e2 5t t!e ti$e t!at t!e o&dinan.e was )assed, t!e&e was no national %uildin" .ode en o&.ed to "uide t!e .it# .oun.ilL t!us, t!e&e was no law o national a))li.ation t!at )&o!i%ited t!e .it# .oun.il &o$ &e"ulatin" t!e .onst&u.tion o %uildin"s, a&.ades and sidewal>s in t!ei& Eu&isdi.tion2 E7ecuti#e Secretary #& Forerunner 'ulti Resources/ Inc& ( )&R& No& *::.0,/ <anuary +/ 01*. )ol"en>ay 'erchan"isin6 Corporation #& E8uita%le PCI ;anA @)&R& No& *:--,1/ 'arch *./ 01*. 'a7f"l M ans Fernan"o #& St& ScholasticaFs Colle6e ( )&R& No& *2**1+/ 'arch *0/ 01*. Inte6rity of the Police Po>er hapter # 6 E'INENT DO'AIN Definition an" Scope *xpropriationG ondemnation use of the government of its coercive authority, upon >ust compensation, to forcibly ac9uire the needed property in order to devote the same to public use ;see Bule #$, Bules of ourt and +ec. %, ,rt ..., onstitution= National Po>er Corporation #& Santa $oro 4"a& De Capin @ )&R& No& *+-*+2/ Octo%er *+/ 0119 OS) #& Ayala $an"/ Inc& ( )&R& No& *++1-2/ Septem%er *9/ 011: Hacien"a $uisita Incorporate" #& $uisita In"ustrial ParA Corporation @ )R No& *+**1*/ <uly -/ 01** E7port Processin6 =one Authority #& Puli"o @ )&R& No& *99::-/ Au6ust 0,/ 01** Rom #& Ro7as G Co&/ Inc& ( )&R& No& *2:..*/ Septem%er -/ 01** Repu%lic of the Philippines #& $e6aspi ( )&R& No& *++2**/ April *9/ 01*0 Repu%lic of the Philippines #& Hon& Samson(Tata" @ )&R& No& *9+2++/ April *+/ 01*. !ho 'ay E7ercise

LPU - Cavite
1. 2. 3. /. &. The ongress ;inherent= 2resident various local legislative bodies certain public corporations ;e.g. Cational Jousing ,uthority= Ouasi!public corporations ;e.g. 2"LT=

'etropolitan Ce%u !ater District #& <& Cin6 an" Sons Company/ Inc& ( )&R& No& *+-:9./ April *2/ 011: 5usay #& Court of Appeals ( )&R& No& *-229,/ April 2/ 01** D str"ction fro* N c ssit) L*+TB4 T.(C FB() C* *++.TS ! private right vested in every individual with which the right of state or state necessity has nothing to do ! comes under the right of necessity, of self!preservation ! arises under the laws of society or society itself ! cannot re9uire the conversion of the property taken to public use, nor is there any need for the payment of >ust compensation Necessity of E7ercise ! genuine necessity, and ! must be of public character 8hen exercised by legislature 6 political :uestion 8hen exercised by a delegate 6 8usticiable :uestion determine the7 ;a= ade9uacy of compensationG ;b= necessity of takingG and ;c= public use character Pri#ate Property H*C*B," B4"*7 anything that can come under the dominion of man is sub>ect to expropriation *0 *2T.(C+7 money and c ose in action ;personal right not reduced into possession, i.e. the right to bring an action to recover debt, money or thing= 2rivate property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a delegate acting under a "ene!al "!ant o' aut o!ity (City o' Manila vs C inese Community) National Housin6 Authority #& DARA;/ )&R& No& *+-011/ 'ay ,/ 01*1 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& $i#ioco/ )&R& No& *+129-/ Septem%er 00/ 01*1 TaAin6 B*O4.+.T*+ (/epublic vs Castellvi) ?*)!"2L@7 1. ?*@ expropriator must ente! a p!ivate p!ope!ty 2. ?)@ entry must be for mo!e t an a momenta!y pe!iod 3. ?"@ entry must be under the warrant of le"al aut o!ity /. ?2@ entry is for public use &. ?L@ the owner is dep!ived o' en8oyin" is p!ope!ty ! if taking is under police power, it is not compensable T,N.CH 4CL*B *).C*CT L(),.C vs T,N.CH .C 2(". * 2(8*B 7 2(". * 2(8*B

*).C*CT

the pre>udice suffered by the individual property owner is shared in the individu common with the rest of the community special in>u ! where there is taking in the constitutional sense, the property owner need not file a claim for >ust compensation with the ommission on ,uditG he may go directly to the court to demand payment. ,rbitrary action of the government shall be deemed a waiver of its immunity from suit (Ami"able vs Cuenca)

26

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

San Ro8ue Realtyan" De#elopment Corporation #& Repu%lic of the Philippines Hthrou6h the Arme" Forces of the PhilippinesI ( )&R& No& *2.*.1/ Septem%er +/ 011+ Philipine National Oil Company #& 'a6lasan6 @ )&R& No& *--,1+/ No#em%er **/ 0119 'actan Ce%u International Airport Authority #& Tu"tu" ( )&R& No& *+,1*0/ No#em%er *,/ 0119 Forform De#elopment Corporation #& Philippine National Rail>ays ( )&R& No& *0,+:-/ Decem%er *1/ 0119 Nepomuceno #& City of Suri6ao ( )&R& No& *,21:*/ <uly 09/ 0119 Repu%lic #& 'en"o?a ( )&R& No& *9-1:*/ Au6ust 9/ 01*1 Hacien"a $uisita/ Incorporate" #& Presi"ential A6rarian Reform Council ( )&R& No& *+**1*/ No#em%er 00/ 01** $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Honeycom% Farms Corporation ( )&R& No& *2::1./ Fe%ruary 0:/ 01*0 Fernan"o #& St& ScholasticaFs Colle6e ( )&R& No& *2**1+/ 'arch *0/ 01*. National Po>er Corporation #& Ileto ( )&R& No& *2::-+/ <uly **/ 01*0 Pu%lic Use whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare ;Jeirs of ,rdona vs Beyes= includes both direct or indirect benefit or advantage to the public 'anapat #& Court of Appeals ( )&R& No& **1,+9/ Octo%er *-/ 011+ Francia #& 'unicipality of 'eycauayan ( )&R& No& *+1,.0/ 'arch 0,/ 0119 City of 'anila #& Te @ )&R& No& *2:02./ Septem%er 0*/ 01** <ust Compensation full and fair e9uivalent of the property taken from the property owner by the expropriator that sum of money which a person, desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner, willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor

TB,C+F*B (F T.T"* ! 2ayment of >ust compensation before title is transferred B* N(C.CH 2(.CT (F ),BN*T -,"4* (F 2B(2*BTS 7 ! either as of the date of taking or filing of the complaint, whichever comes first *CT.T"*)*CT T( .CT*B*+T 7 Iene!al /ule? when there is delay, there must be interest by way of damages (A!t) -->.$ CC) E&ception? when waived by not claiming the interest 2,S)*CT (F T,0*+ 7 ! Taxes paid from the time of the taking until the transfer of the title, during which the owner did not en>oy any beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by the expropriator. B.HJT (F ",CL(8C*B .C ,+* (F C(C!2,S)*CT Iene!al /ule? landowner is not entitled to recover possession of the property, but only to demand payment E&ception? when the government failed to pay >ust compensation within & years from the finality of >udgment in expropriation proceedings, there is a right to recover property

National Po>er Corporation #& ;a6ui ( )&R& No& *2,:2,/ Octo%er *+/ 0119 Philipine National Oil Company #& 'a6lasan6/ )&R& No& *--,1+/ No#em%er **/ 0119 National Po>er Corporation #& Purefoo"s Corporation ( )&R& No& *21+0-/ Septem%er *0/ 0119 National Po>er Corporation #& Co @ )&R& No& *22:+./ Fe%ruary *1/ 011: $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& A'S Farmin6 Corporation ( )&R& No& *+,:+*/ Octo%er *-/ 0119 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Chico ( )&R& No& *29,-./ 'arch *./ 011: $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Arceo @ )&R& No& *-90+1/ <uly 0*/ 0119 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& A%ello @ )&R& No& *292.*/ April +/ 011: Allie" ;anA #& $an" ;anA ( )&R& No& *+-,00/ 'arch *./ 011: $an" ;anA #& Sps& Orilla ( )&R& No& *-+012/ <une 0+/ 0119 Repu%lic of the PBhilippines #& Holy Trinity Realty De#elopment Corporation ( )&R& No& *+0,*1 Repu%lic of the Philippines #& Cancio ( )&R& No& *+1*,+/ <anuary .1/ 011: Tion6son #& National Housin6 Authority ( )&R& No& *,1.++/ <uly *,/ 0119 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Escan"or ( )&R& No& *+*29-/ Octo%er **/ 01*1 $an" ;anA #& Heirs of $istana > )&R& No& *90+-9/ 'ay .1/ 01**

8J*B* (C"S 2,BT (F J* 2B(2*BTS .+ *02B(2B.,T*L 7 entitlement to conse:uential dama"es, if any [ conse:uential bene'its must be deducted from the total compensation provided conse9uential benefits does not exceed conse9uential damages 2ayment of the correct amount [ 2ayment within a reasonable time F(B) (F ()2*C+,T.(C 7 \ money ;Jowever, in Assoc) o' Small Lando%ne!s vs Sec) o' A"!a!ian /e'o!m$ payment is allowed to be made partly in bonds because it deals with a revolutionary kind of expropriation=

27

Constitutional Law 2
National Po>er Corporation #& Diato(;ernal ( )&R& No& *91:+:/ Decem%er *-/ 01*1 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Heirs of Trini"a" S& 4"a& De Arieta ( )&R& No& *2*9.,/ Au6ust **/ 01*1 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Ri#era ( )&R& No& *90,.*/ No#em%er *+/ 01*1 APO Fruits Corporation #& $an" ;anA of the Philippines ( )&R& No& *2,*:-/ Octo%er *0/ 01*1 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Ferrer ( )&R& No& *+00.1/ Fe%ruary 0/ 01** $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Uman"ap/ )&R& No& *220:9/ No#em%er *+/ 01*1 National Po>er Corporation #& Co/ )&R& No& *22:+./ Fe%ruary *1/ 011: Repu%lic #& 'en"o?a / )&R& No& *9-1:*/ Au6ust 9/ 01*1 Forform De#elopment Corporation #& Philippine National Rail>ays/ )&R& No& *0,+:-/ Decem%er *1/ 0119 Ansal"o #& Tantuico/ <r&/ )&R& No& -1*,+/ . Au6ust *::1/ *99 SCRA .11 Repu%lic of the Philippines #& Sps& Tan Son6 ;oA ( )&R& No& *:*,,9/ No#emner *2/ 01** $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& $istana ( )&R& No& *29*1-/ <uly 0+/ 01** National Po>er Corporation #& Heirs of San6Aay ( )&R& No& *2-909/ Au6ust 0,/ 01** $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Suntay ( )&R& No& *99.+2/ Decem%er *,/ 01** Repu%lic of the Philippines #& Rural ;anA of Ca%acan/ Inc& ( )& R& No& *9-*0,/ <anuary 0-/ 01*0 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Honeycom% Farms Corporation ( )&R& No& *2::1./ Fe%ruary 0:/ 01*0 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Heirs of Sal#a"or Encinas an" <aco%a Del6a"o ( )&R& No& *2++.-/ April *9/ 01*0 Department of A6rarian Reform #& )o"uco ( )&R& No& *+,11+/ <une 0+/ 01*0 Heirs of ;anaa6 #& A'S Farmin6 Corporation ( )&R& No& *9+91*/ Septem%er *./ 01*0 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Heirs of 'a7imo Puyat ( )&R& No& *+-1--/ <une 0+/ 01*0 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& 'ontal#an ( )&R& No& *:1..2/ <une 0+/ 01*0 hapter $ 6 TAJATION method by which contributions are exacted from persons and property for the support of government and for all public needs. obligation to pay taxes is a duty

LPU - Cavite
Philippine Airlines/ Inc& #& E"u ( )&R& No& $(,*.9./ Au6ust *-/ *:99/ *2, SCRA .01 FACTS3 The 2hilippine ,irlines ;2,"= is a corporation engaged in the air transportation business under a legislative franchise, ,ct Co. /2$3%. 4nder its franchise, 2," is exempt from the payment of taxes. +ometime in 1%$1, however, "and Transportation ommissioner Bomeo F. *levate ;*levate= issued a regulation pursuant to +ection ', Bepublic ,ct /13#, otherwise known as the "and and Transportation and Traffic ode, re9uiring all tax exempt entities, among them 2," to pay motor vehicle registration fees. Lespite 2,"Is protestations, *levate refused to register 2,"Is motor vehicles unless the amounts imposed under Bepublic ,ct /13# were paid. 2," thus paid, under protest, registration fees of its motor vehicles. ,fter paying under protest, 2," through counsel, wrote a letter dated )ay 1%,1%$1, to "and Transportation ommissioner Bomeo *du ;*du= demanding a refund of the amounts paid. *du denied the re9uest for refund. Jence, 2," filed a complaint against *du and Cational Treasurer 4baldo arbonell ; arbonell=. The trial court dismissed 2,"Is complaint. 2," appealed to the ourt of ,ppeals which in turn certified the case to the +upreme ourt. ISSUE3 8hether or not motor vehicle registration fees are considered as taxes. RU$IN)3 Ses. .f the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real and substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly called a tax. +uch is the case of motor vehicle registration fees. The motor vehicle registration fees are actually taxes intended for additional revenues of the government even if one fifth or less of the amount collected is set aside for the operating expenses of the agency administering the program. Commissioner of Internal Re#enue #& San 'i6uel Corporation ( )&R& No& *9,,09/ No#em%er 0./ 01** Scope all income earned in the taxing state, whether by citiEens or aliens, and all immovable and tangible personal properties found in its territory, as well as tangible personal property owned by persons domiciled therein City of Pasi6 #& Repu%lic of the Philippines ( )&R& No& *9-10./ Au6ust 0,/ 01** E7ercise 1. "egislature : ongress ;inherent= 2. 2resident ;by delegation : tariff powers ?+ec. 2' ;2=, ,rt. -., onsti@= 3. local legislative bodies ;conferred by direct authority ?+ec. &, ,rt. 0, onsti@= An6eles City #& An6eles City Electric Corporation > )&R& No& *22*.,/ <une 0:/ 01*1 Facts: Dn 'anua&# 22, 2004, t!e Cit# 3&easu&e& issu ed a 8oti.e o 5ssess$ent to 5n"eles4le.t&i. Co&)o&ation /54C1 o& )a#$ent o %usiness ta:, li.ense ee and ot!e& .!a&"es o& t!e )e&iod1993 to 2004 in t!e total a$ount o P94,861,1942102 ?it!in t!e )e&iod )&es.&i%ed %# law, 54C )&otested t!e assess$ent2 ?!en t!e .it# 3&easu&e& denied t!e )&otest and o&de&ed )etitione& to settle its o%li"ation, )etitione& iled wit! t!e ,3C a )etition )&a#in" o& t!e

Nature

28

Constitutional Law 2
issuan.e o a 3,D w!i.! was "&anted2 3!e .it# "ove&n$ent o))osed on t!e "&ound t!at )e& 8I,C t!e .olle.tion o ta:es .annot %e enEoined2 ISSUE: ?!et!e& o& not t!e .olle.tion o lo.al "ove&n $ent ta:es .an %e enEoined2 HELD: 3!e )&o!i%ition on t!e issuan.e o a w&it o inE un.tion to enEoin t!e .olle.tion o ta:esa))lies onl# to national inte&nal &evenue ta:es and not to lo.al ta:es2 ,53IDF 3!e&e is no e:)&ess )&ovision in t!e Lo.al 7ove&n$ent Code )&o!i%itin" .ou&ts &o$ issuin" inEun.tion to &est&ain lo.al "ove&n$ents &o$ .olle.tin" ta:es2 6u&t!e&$o&e, w!en t!e&e is no ot!e& )lain, s)eed# and ade9uate &e$ed# availa%le to t!e )etitione& in t!e o&dina&# .ou&se o law e:.e)t t!is a))li.ation o& a te$)o&a&# &est&ainin" o&de& and0o& w&it o )&eli$ina&# inEun.tion to sto) t!e au.tion sale and0o& to enEoin and0o& &est&ain &es)ondents &o$ lev#in", annotatin" t!e lev#, seiBin", .on is.atin", "a&nis!in", sellin" and dis)osin" at )u%li. au.tion t!e )&o)e&ties o )etitione&, o& ot!e&wise e:e&.isin" ot!e& ad$inist&ative &e$edies a"ainst t!e )etitione& and its )&o)e&ties, Eusti ies t!e $ove o t!e )etitione& in see>in" t!e inEun.tive &elie s sou"!t o&2 Due Process an" Ta7ation ,. Substantive 7 tax should not be confiscatory except when used as an implement of police power B. P!ocedu!al 7 \ due process does not re9uire previous notice and hearing before a law prescribing specific taxes on specific articles may be enacted. \ Jowever, where the tax to be collected is to be based on the value of the taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation of the property. Commissioner of Internal Re#enue #& Petron Corporation ( )& R& No& *9--29/ 'arch 0*/ 01*0 E8ual Protection an" Ta7ation embodied in +ec. 2' ;1=, ,rt. -., 1%'$ onstitution ;The rule of taxation shall be uniform and e9uitable. The ongress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.=

LPU - Cavite
not be allowed if it results in a violation of the e9ual protection clause. Pu%lic Purpose whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare Planters Pro"ucts Inc& #& Fertiphil Corporation ( )&R& No& *22112/ 'arch *,/ 0119 Philippine Coconut Pro"ucers Fe"eration/ Inc& #& Repu%lic of the Philippines ( )&R& Nos& *++9-+(-9/ <anuary 0,/ 01*0 CoBuan6co #& Repu%lic ( )&R& No& *91+1-/ No#em%er 0+/ 01*0

4C.F(B).TS 6 persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate \ B*O4.+T*+ ((an vs 7el /osa!io)7 DSCAEE 1. ?+@ standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary 2. ? @ categoriEation is germane to achieve the legislative purpose 3. ?,@ the law applies, all things being e9ual, to both present and future conditions /. ?*@ classification applies e9ually well to all those belonging to the same class *O4.T,B"* T,0,T.(C 6 based on the capacity to pay \ *O4,".TS .C T,0,T.(C 6 tax shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of the property 2B(HB*++.-* +S+T*) (F T,0,T.(C 6 the rate increases as the tax base increases

Dou%le Ta7ation when additional taxes are laid on the same sub>ect by the same taxing >urisdiction during the same taxing period and for the same purpose. despite the lack of specific prohibition, double taxation will

COCOFED #& Repu%lic ( )&R& Nos& *++9-+(-9 G *+9*:./ <anuary 0,/ 01*0 FACTS3 .n 1%$1, Bepublic ,ct Co. #2#5 was enacted creating the oconut .nvestment Fund ; .F=. The source of the .F was a 25.&& levy on the sale of every 155 kg. of copra. The 2hilippine oconut ,dministration was tasked to collect and administer the Fund. (ut of the 5.&& levy, 25.52 was placed at the disposition of the ( (F*L, the recogniEed national association of coconut producers declared by the 2 ,. ocofund receipts were ought to be issued to every copra seller. Luring the )artial "aw regime, then 2resident Ferdinand )arcos issued several 2residential Lecrees purportedly for the improvement of the coconut industry. The most relevant among these is 2.L. Co. $&& which permitted the use of the Fund for the Uac9uisition of a commercial bank for the benefit of coconut farmers and the distribution of the shares of the stock of the bank it ?2 ,@ ac9uired free to the coconut farmers ;+ec.2=. Thus, the 2 , ac9uired the First 4nited Bank, later renamed the 4nited oconut 2lanters Bank ;4 2B=. The 2 , bought the $2.2A of 24BMs outstanding capital stock or 13$,'## shares at 2255 per share ;22$, &$3,255.55= from 2edro o>uangco in behalf of the coconut farmers.3 The rest of the Fund was deposited to the 4 2B interest free. Farmers who had paid the .F and registered their receipts with 2 , were given their corresponding 4 2B stock certificates. (nly 1# million worth of ( (F4CL receipts were registered and a large number of the coconut farmers opted to sell all:part of their 4 2B shares to private individuals. +imply put, parts of the coconut levy funds went directly or indirectly to various pro>ects and:or was converted into different assets or investments through the years. ,fter the *L+, Bevolution, 2resident oraEon ,9uino issued *xecutive (rder 1which created the 2residential ommission on Hood Hovernment ;2 HH=.The 2 HH aimed to assist the 2resident in the recovery of ill!gotten wealth accumulated by the )arcoses and their cronies. 2 HH was empowered to file cases for se9uestration in the +andiganbayan. ,mong the se9uestered properties were the shares of stock in the 4 2Bregistered in the name of Uover a million coconut farmers held in trust by the 2 ,. The +andiganbayan allowed the se9uestration by ruling in a 2artial +ummary Kudgment that the oconut "evy Funds are prima facie public funds and that +ection 1 and 2 of 2LCo. $&& ;and some other 2Ls= were unconstitutional. The ( (F*L representing the Uover a million coconut farmers via 2etition for review under Bule /& sought the reversal of the ruling contending among others that the se9uestration amounted to Utaking of private property without >ust compensation and impairment of vested right of ownership. ISSUE3 8hat is the C,T4B* of the oconut "evy FundR RU$IN)3

29

Constitutional Law 2
The + ruled in favor of the B*24B". . To begin with, the oconut "evy was imposed in the exercise of the +tateMs inherent power of taxation. .ndeed, the oconut "evy Funds partake the nature of T,0*+. The Funds were generated by virtue of statutory enactments by the proper legislative authorities and for public purpose. The Funds were collected to advance the government avowed policy of protecting the coconut industry. The + took >udicial notice of the fact that the coconut industry is one of the great economic pillars of our nation, and coconuts and their byproducts occupy a leading position among the countriesM export products. Taxation is done not merely to raise revenues to support the government, but also to provide means for the rehabilitation and the stabiliEation of a threatened industry,which is so affected with public interest .

LPU - Cavite
Capere v. Barbarona ! H.B. Co. 1#5/2#, Kanuary 31, 255' Depri#ation connotes denial of right to life, liberty or property not unconstitutional. what is prohibited is deprivation without due process of law. $ife

connotes integrity of the physical person not mere animal e istence! embraces the enjoyment by the individual of "od#given faculties that can ma$e his life worth living.

Petitioner Or6ani?ations #& E7ecuti#e Secretary ( )&R& Nos& *,+1.2(.+/ April *1/ 01*0 $an" ;anA of the Philippines #& Cacayurin @ )& R& No& *:*22+/ April *+/ 01*. Ta7 E7emptions !may either be7 A) constitutional ! ,rt. -i, +ec. 2' ;3= 7 when lands, buildings and improvements are actually, directly and exclusively ?,L*@ for religious, charitable or educational purposes 6 entitled to exemption 2. statuto!y! discretion of legislature ommissioner of .nternal Bevenue v. Fortune Tobacco orporation ! H.B. Cos. 1#$2$/!$&, Kuly 21, 255' British ,merican Tobacco v. amacho ! H.B. Co. 1#3&'3, ,ugust 25, 255' British ,merican Tobacco v. amacho, H.B. Co. 1#3&'3, ,pril 1&, 255% OueEon ity v. ,B+! BC Broadcasting orporation ! H.B. Co. 1##/5', (ctober #, 255' )anila .nternational ,irport ,uthority v. ity of 2asay ! H.B. Co. 1#35$2, ,pril 2, 255% Cational Jousing ,uthority v. ity of .loilo ! H.B. Co. 1$22#$, ,ugust 25, 255' Ligital Telecommunications 2hilippines, .nc. v. ity Hovernment of Batangas 6 H.B. Co. 1&#5/5, Lecember 11, 255' 2hilippine Banking orporation v. ommissioner of .nternal Bevenue ! H.B. Co. 1$5&$/, Kanuary 35, 255% +mart ommunications, .nc. v. ity of Lavao ! H.B. Co. 1&&/%1, +eptember 1#, 255' Bepublic v. aguioa ! H.B. Co. 1#'&'/, (ctober 1&, 255$ hapter ' 6 DUE PROCESS OF $A! Ori6in of Due Process E#olution of Due Process 'eanin6 of Due Process Du #& <ayoma ( )&R& No& *+-1,0/ April 0./ 01*0 Person Covers Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the latter, with respect only to property because its life and liberty are derived from and subject to control of legislature

$i%erty freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude Property anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract all things within the commerce of man %owever, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is not regarded as property. &f created by statute, it may be abolished by the legislature at any time. 'ere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at will Su%stanti#e Due Process re(uires intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty or property )*+,&-&.*/. 0awful -ubject 1. 0awful 'eans Serrano #& )allant 'aritime Ser#ices/ Inc& ()&R& No& *2+2*,/ 'arch 0,/ 011: 5ap #& Thenamaris ShipFs 'ana6ement an" Intermare 'aritime A6encies/ Inc+ ( )&R& No& *+:-.0/ 'ay .1/ 01** Heirs of Arca"io Castro Sr& #& $o?a"a ( )&R& No& *2.102/ Au6ust 0:/ 01*0 uiao #& uiao ( )&R& No *+2--2/ <uly ,/ 01*0 FACTS7Bita . Ouiao ;Bita= filed a complaint for legal separation against petitioner Brigido B. Ouiao ;Brigido=. BT rendered a decision declaring the legal separation thereby awarding the custody of their 3 minor children in favor of Bita and all remainingproperties shall be divided e9ually between the spouses sub>ect to the respective legitimes of the children and the payment of the unpaid con>ugal liabilities.

BrigidoMs share, however, of the net profits earned by the con>ugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the common children because Brigido is the offending spouse.

30

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

Ceither party filed a motion for reconsideration and appeal within the period -2> days late! o! a'te! mo!e t an nine mont s from the promulgation of the Lecision, the petitioner filed before the BT a )otion for larification, asking the BT to define the term

1. First, since the spouses were married prior to the promulgation of the current family code, the default rule is that .n the absence of marriage settlements, or when the same are void, the system of relative community or con>ugal partnership of gains as established in this ode, shall govern the property relations between husband and wife.

1Cet 2rofits *arned.3

BT

held that the phrase 1C*T 2B(F.T *,BC*L3 denotes 1the Second$ since at the time of the dissolution of the spousesM marriage the operative law is already the Family ode, the same

remainder of theproperties of the parties after deducting the separate properties of each ?of the@ spouse and the debts.3 .t further held that after determining the remainder of theproperties, it shall be forfeited in favor of the common children because the offending spouse does not have any right to any share of the net profits earned, pursuant to ,rticles #3, Co. ;2= and /3, Co. ;2= of the Family ode.

applies in the instant case and the applicable law in so far as the li9uidation of the con>ugal partnership assets andliabilities is concerned is ,rticle 12% of the Family ode in relation to ,rticle #3;2= of the Family ode.

2. The petitioner is saying that since the property relations between The petitioner claims that the court a :uo is wrong when it applied ,rticle 12% of the Family ode, instead of ,rticle 152. Je the spouses is governed by the regime of Hains under the on>ugal 2artnership of

ivil ode, the petitioner ac9uired vested rights on>ugal 2artnership of Hains, ivil ode, which provides7 1,ll

confusingly argues that ,rticle 152 applies because there is no other provision under the Family ode which defines

over half of the properties of the pursuant to ,rticle 1/3 of the

net profitsearned sub>ect of forfeiture as a result of legal separation.

property of the con>ugal partnership of gains is owned in common by the husband and wife.3

ISSUES3

8hile one may not be deprived of his 1vested right,3 he may lose the same if there is due process and such deprivation is founded in

1. 8hether ,rt 152 on dissolution of absolute community or ,rt 12% on dissolution of con>ugal partnership of gains is applicable in this case. 6 ,rt 12% will govern.

law and >urisprudence.

.n the present case, the petitioner was accorded his right to due process. 6i!st, he was well!aware that the respondent prayed in her

2. 8hether the offending spouse ac9uired vested rights over]of the properties in the con>ugal partnership6 C(.

complaint that all of the con>ugalproperties be awarded to her. .n fact, in his ,nswer, the petitioner prayed that the trial court divide the community assets between the petitioner and the respondent as

3. .s the computation of 1net profits3 earned in the con>ugal partnership of gains the same with the computation of 1net profits3 earned in the absolute communityR C(.

circumstances and evidence warrant after the accounting and inventory of all the the community properties of decision for legal the

parties. Second$ when

separationwas

RATIO3

promulgated, the petitioner never 9uestioned the trial courtMs ruling forfeiting what the trial court termed as 1net profits,3 pursuant to

31

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

,rticle 12%;$= of the Family

ode. Thus, the petitioner cannot

considered part of the con>ugal partnership. Thus, ordinarily, what remains in the above!listed properties should be divided e9ually between the spouses and:or their respective heirs. Jowever, since

claim being deprived of his right to due process.

3. 8hen a couple enters into a re6ime of a%solute community, the husband and the wife become >oint owners of all the properties of the marriage. 8hatever property each spouse brings into the marriage, and those ac9uired during the marriage ;except those excluded under ,rticle %2 of the Family ode= form the common mass of the coupleMs properties. ,nd when the coupleMs marriage or community is dissolved, that common mass is divided between the spouses, or their respective heirs, e9ually or in the proportion the parties have established, irrespective of the value each one may have originally owned.

the trial court found the petitioner the guilty party, his share from the net profits of the con>ugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the common children, pursuant to ,rticle #3;2= of the Family ode. ,gain, lest we be confused, like in the absolute community regime, nothing will be returned to the guilty party in the con>ugal partnership regime, because there is no separate property which may be accounted for in the guilty partys

favor.

.n this case, assuming arguendo that ,rt 152 is applicable, since it has been established that the spouses have no separate properties, what will be divided e9ually between them is simply the 1net profits.3 ,nd since the legal separation]share decision of Brigido states that the in the net profits shall be awarded to the children, Brigido will still be left with nothing.

Proce"ural Due Process # restriction on actions of judicial and (uasi#judicial agencies of government # 2otice 3 %earing (...hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon in(uiry and renders judgment only after trial) <"#icial D" Proc ss Impartial an" Competent Court )aca" #& Clapis ( A&'& No& RT<(*1(00-+/ <uly *+/ 01*0 Arroyo #& Department of <ustice ( )&R& No& *::190/ Septem%er *9/ 01*0 FACTS

(n the other hand, when a couple enters into a re6ime of conBu6al partnership of 6ains under ,rticle1/2 of the ivil ode, 1the

+Late last (uesday$ <ovembe! A1$ ->AA$ t e Sup!eme issued an immediately e&ecuto!y* (empo!a!y /est!ainin" O!de! ((/O) en8oinin" t e implementation o' DO< D part* nt

husband and the wife place in common fund the fruits of their separate property and income from their work or industry, and divide e9ually, upon the dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained indiscriminately by either spouse during the marriage.3 From the foregoing provision, each of the couple has his and her own property and debts. The law does not intend to effect a mixture the spouses. or merger Bather, of it

Circ"lar No+ 61 and =atc list O!de! and t e!eby allo%in" t e petitione!s A!!oyo spouses to leave t e P ilippines a'te! complyin" %it t e conditions in t e /esolution) ( e !espondent Sec!eta!y o' Hustice Leila 7e Lime o%eve! p!evented t e A!!oyos '!om leavin")

( e "ove!nment$ t !ou"

t e O''ice o' t e Solicito!

those debts or properties between

Iene!al$ immediately 'iled a Consolidated ,!"ent Motion 'o! /econside!ation andJo! to Li't (empo!a!y /est!ainin" O!de!*) Petitione! Ilo!ia Macapa"al A!!oyo also 'iled an ,!"ent Motion 'o! /espondents to Cease and 7esist '!om P!eventin" Petitione!

establishes a complete separation of capitals.

.n the instant case, since it was already established by the trial court that thespouses have no separate properties, there is nothing to return to any of them. The listed properties above are

IMA '!om Leavin" t e Count!y)* S e also moved to cite t e /espondent Sec!eta!y o' Hustice in contempt 'o! 'ailu!e to comply %it t e (/O)

32

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

On <ovembe! AE$ ->AA$ t e Cou!t conducted a special en banc session to tac3le t e pendin" incidents o' t e consolidated cases)4 ISSUES

maintain order in the running of a country. Therefore, with all due respect, it is completely wrong for this ourt to bend over backwards to accommodate the re9uest of petitioners for a TB( to be issued ex parte without hearing the side of the government. xxx.

,mong the more important issues resolved by the ourt during the special en banc session were as follows7 1. +hould the Besolution granting the prayer for a TB( be reconsideredR 2. 8as there compliance with the 2 condition of the TB(R .f there is none, should the TB( be suspended in the meantimeR
nd

xxx

xxx

xxx

8hen out of the countryMs >urisdiction, by being corporeally absent therefrom, public respondentsM legal remedies against petitioners will be sub>ect to the >urisdiction and the pleasure of the various countries where they will flee. (ut of the

RU$IN)

countries that had been mentioned by petitioners to be sub>ect of her medical tour, only two ;2= of the countries cited have A) +( e Hustices maintained t ei! E-1 vote on t e extradition treaties with the 2hilippines. .t still needs verification whether the extradition with +pain has already been rendered effective through concurrence to the same by the +enate.

issuance o' t e (/O) ( e ma8o!ity t us !e:ui!e+d4* Sec!eta!y 7e Lima to IMME7IA(ELK COMPLK %it t e said tempo!a!y

!est!ainin" o!de! by allo%in" petitione!s to leave t e count!y)*4 The moment she flies out of 2hilippine air space, our YES, th R sol"tion 2rantin2 th p tition rs( pra) r for a TRO sho"l# 3 r consi# r #+ countryMs ability to enforce its laws will now be sub>ect to the wishes of a foreign government. , 2h22 )illion 2eso bond is crumbs for one who, if proven, has actually obtained multiples ?T@his ourt cannot ignore a basic constitutional more from the countryMs coffers. Ceither will the appointment of a substitute replace the effective >ustice that can be enforced only when a +tate has physical custody of a person who has been proven guilty of violation of the state laws. , conviction against her may lie as a formal >udgment, but there may effectively be no service of sentence. That is of course, all premised on the theory that petitioners may ultimately be convicted for one of the crimes for which they are charged. That result can only add to the very long saga of our peopleMs desperate attempts to try to redeem its self!respect by showing to the world that contrary to the common observation of outsiders, impunity is not allowed to reign in this country. +hould the ourt contribute to such possible despair by

precept7 the presumption of validity of official actions. *specially when the practice of issuing watch list orders, has been practiced for decades by the Lepartment of Kustice, and many other analogous practices has been observed as well by many other governmental agencies, including this court, through analogous restrictive practices. This ourt cannot turn to a blind eye what is involved in running a government. xxx. 8hat this all means is that a full hearing must be conducted before this ourt decides to grant a TB( to petitioners, none of whom, by their very own documents, are under any life!threatening, emergency, medical situation.

not waiting for the oral argument on 22 Covember 2511 before 8hile in the end we may ultimately strike down the issuance of 8atch "ist (rders by the Lepartment of Kustice or uphold such orders and additionally provide standards before the power to restrict travel of persons under preliminary investigation can be exercised, what is at stake this very day is a fundamental 9uestion of whether we should presume that officials can perform the functions they have been performing for ages 6 in order that we The principal physician of former 2resident Hloria )acapagal!,rroyo, Lr. Kuliet HopeE! ervantes, and her surgeon, Lr. )ario -er, have all certified to her continuing recovery and her positive prognosis, especially after # to ' months. There has been no allegation in her pleadings that those certifications are issuing a TB(R

33

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

false, nor that her doctors are incompetent. They should then be believed by this ourt that there is no medical emergency

is clear that the TB( is conditional, and cannot be made use of until compliance has been done. .t was therefore the sense of the ma>ority that, as an offshoot of the winning vote that there was failure by petitioners to comply with ondition Cumber 2, the

warranting an immediate flight. 8hat is waiting four ;/= more days from today, when oral arguments are conducted, compared with the possibility that there is genuine, and not >ust publicly! imagined intention, on the part of the petitioners to evade legal processes. This ourt can afford to wait until 22 Covember

TB( is implicitly deemed suspended until there is compliance with such condition. *veryone believed that it would be clear to all that a conditional TB( is what it is, conditional.

2511, without pre>udicing any of the constitutional rights of the petitioner, considering the potentials that loom in the distance and the fears that weigh on the minds of our people ! that >ustice will be again be frustrated if the simple operation of bringing back an accused person from abroad, will prove to be impossible to effect, even by this ourt. That ., )$ORIA 'ACAPA)A$ ARRO5O, of legal 0xx. onsidering that petitioners herein are not under age, married, Filipino with residence at 1/ Bad>ao +treet, 2ansol, OueEon ity, do hereby name, constitute and appoint ATT5& Below is the relevant excerpt from the +pecial 2ower of ,ttorney dated 1& Covember 2511, the failed compliance of petitioners with Covember 25117 ondition Cumber 2 in our Besolution dated 1&

any medical emergency, as certified by petitioner Hloria ,rroyoMs own doctors, can this ourt not >ust wait for the omment and the oral arguments to be shortly conductedR3

FERDINAND TOPACIO, likewise of legal age, Filipino, with office address at Hround floor, +kyway Twin Towers, J. Kavier +t., (rtigas enter, 2asig, )etro )anila, as my legal

representative in the 2hilippines and to be my true and lawful -) +( e Cou!t voted 0=.115 t at t e!e %as no attorney!in!fact, for my name, place and stead, to do and perform the following acts and things, to wit7 1. 2. To sign, verify, and file a written statementG To make and present to the court an application in connection with any proceedings in the suitG 3. ( e <ovembe! AE$ ->AA /esolution instead noted t e SPA e&ecuted by Ilo!ia Macapa"al-A!!oyo$ appointin" Atty) 6e!dinand (opacio as e! le"al$ and me!ely stated t at s e e! le"al #. $. &. /. To pro"uce summons or recei#e "ocumentary e#i"enceG To make and file compromise or a confession of >udgment and to refer the case to arbitrationG To deposit and withdraw any money for the purpose of any proceedingG To obtain copies of documents and papersG and Henerally to do all other lawful acts necessary for the conduct of the said case. ;*mphasis supplied.=

compliance %it t e -nd conditiono' t e (/O) 5ut it nonet eless voted by t e same 0>. ma!"in t at t e!e %as no need to e&plicitly state t e le"al e''ect on t e (/O o' t e noncompliance by petitione!s %it t e - condition)
nd

s all co**it to t e Cou!t t at s e s all inst!uct

!ep!esentative to amend pa!) (iii) o' pa!) (b) above to state? to !eceive summons o! documenta!y evidence* and 'o!t %it submit t is compliance %it t e Cou!tD*4

NO, th r 7as no co*plianc 7ith th , n# con#ition of th TRO? h nc , YES, th TRO sho"l# 3 s"sp n# # in th * anti* +

8hile

this

opinion

was

being

written,

ourt

,dministrator and ,cting

hief of the 2ublic .nformation (ffice

;2.(= ,tty. )idas )ar9ueE informed the press that the Temporary Bestraining (rder ;TB(= was effective, i.e., 1in full force and The ma>ority, by a $!# voting +sic4, denied the effect.3 ontrary to this interpretation, as stated, it was the understanding of a ma>ority that the TB( is 1suspended pending compliance3 with our earlier Besolution. The operational ineffectivity of the TB( is implied 6 for it is a basic principle that the failure of petitioners to comply with one of the conditions in

minorityMs proposition that a resolution be issued including a phrase that the TB( is suspended pending compliance with the second condition of the 1& Covember 2511 Besolution. The ma>ority argued that such a clarification is unnecessary, because it

34

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite
Office of the Court A"ministrator #& <u"6e In"ar ( A&'& No& RT<(*1(00.0/ April *1/ 01*0 'elen"res #& Presi"ential Anti()raft Commission ( )&R& No& *2.9-:/ Au6ust *-/ 01*0 People #& San"i6an%ayan ( )&R& Nos& *-..1,(1-/ Fe%ruary +/ 01*0 Uni#ersity of the Philippines #& Di?on ( )&R& No& *+**90/ Au6ust 0./ 01*0 'ortel #& Cerr ( )&R& No& *-20:2/ No#em%er *0/ 01*0 P$DT #& HPS Soft>are an" Communication Corporation ( )&R& No& *+12:,/ Decem%er *1/ 01*0 'aliAsi #& Commission on Elections @ )&R& No& 01..10/ April **/ 01*. 5laya #& )acott ( A"m& Case No& 2,+-/ <anuary .1/ 01*. Appeal E7ceptions N"isanc s Asilo #& People ( )R No& *-:1*+(*9/ 'arch : 01** Hipolito #& Cinco ( )&R& No& *+,*,./ No#em%er 09/ 01** Pere? #& Spouses 'a"rona an" Pante ( )&R& No& *9,,+9/ 'arch 0*/ 01*0 Presumptions <u"6ment A#*inistrati$ D" Proc ss )*+,&-&.*- 5%*6-P&784 1. 5%8 )ight to a hearing 9. 5*8 .ribunal must consider the evidence presented :. 568 6ecision must have something to support itself ;. 5-8 *vidence must be -ubstantial <. 5P8 6ecision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected =. 5&8 .ribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the facts and law of the controversy >. 578 6ecision is rendered in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can $now the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered ;orlon6an #& Pena ( )&R& No& *,.-:*/ No#em%er 0./ 011+ Repu%lic of the Philippines #& Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation ( )&R& No& *+.:*9/ April 9/ 0119 'arcelo #& ;un6u%un6 ( )&R& No& *+-01*/ April 0./ 0119 Concio #& DO<@ )&R& No& *+-1-+/ <anuary 0:/ 0119 Ca"a #& Time Sa#er $aun"ry ( )&R& No& *9*,91/ <anuary .1/ 011:

the Besolution dated 1& Covember 2511 is a >urisdictional defect that suspends, at the least, the effectivity of the TB(. Therefore, the TB(, until faithful compliance with the terms thereof, is legally ineffective. .t was a human mistake,

understandable on the part of the

lerk of

ourt, considering the

way the TB( was rushed, to have issued the same despite non! compliance by petitioners with one of the strict conditions imposed by the ourt. Cevertheless, good faith and all, the legal effect of

such non!compliance is the same 6 petitioners cannot make use thereof for failure to comply faithfully with a condition imposed by this ourt for its issuance. The ourt ,dministrator cum ,cting hief of the 2.( is hereby advised to be careful not to go beyond his role in such offices, and that he has no authority to interpret any of our >udicial issuances, including the present Besolution, a function he never had from the beginning.

Furthermore, it is hereby clarified that it is mandatory for the lerk of ourt to ensure that there is faithful compliance

with all the conditions imposed in our 1& Covember 2511 resolution, including our second condition, before issuing any certification that the compliance with the TB( has been made, and only then can the TB( become effective. <uris"iction Hearin6 # not necessarily trial#type hearing! submission of position papers is enough # right of a party to cross#e amine the witness against him in a civil case is an indispensable part of due process # the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect of absence of a hearing # Cases in which notice and hearing may be dispensed with without violating due process4 a) abatement of nuisance per se b) preventive suspension of a civil servant facing admin. charges c) cancellation of passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime statutory presumptions Erese #& 'acalin6ay @ )&R& No& *2291:/ April 00/ 0119 E8uita%le PCI;anAin6 Corporation #& RC;C Capital Corporation @ )&R& No& *900,9/ Decem%er *9/ 0119 Diona #& ;alan6ue ( )&R& No& *+.--:/ <anuary +/ 01*.

35

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

NASECO )uar"s Association #& National Ser#ice Corporation ( )&R& No& *2-,,0/ Au6ust 0-/ 01*1 A& =& Arnai? Realty/ Inc& #& Office of the Presi"ent/ )R No& *+120./ <uly :/ 01*1 Office of the Om%u"sman #& Reyes ( )&R& No& *+1-*0/ Octo%er -/ 01** CoBuan6co #& Repu%lic ( )&R& No& *91+1-/ No#em%er 0+/ 01*0 hapter % 6 E UA$ PROTECTION Definition Soriano #& $a6uar"ia ( )&R& No& *2,+9-/ April 0:/ 011: Persons Protecte" 5rasue6ui #& Philippine Air $ines ( )&R& No& *2919*/ Octo%er *+/ 0119 Classification R 4"ir * nts Su%stantial Distinctions Serrano #& )allant 'aritime Ser#ices/ Inc& ( )&R& No& *2+2*,/ 'arch 0,/ 011: )o%encion6 #& Court of Appeals @ )&R& No& *-:99./ 'arch .*/ 0119 ;ritish American To%acco #& Camacho ( )&R& No& *2.-9./ Au6ust 01/ 0119 an" April *-/ 011: ;CDA # COA ( )&R& No& *+9*21/ Fe%ruary 02/ 011: A%aAa"a )uro Party $ist 4& Purisima ( )&R& No& *22+*Au6ust *,/ 0119 CO'E$EC #& Cru? ( )&R& No& *922*2/ No#em%er 01/ 011: 5ap #& Thenamaris ShipFs 'ana6ement an" Intermare 'aritime A6encies/ Inc+ ( )&R& No& *+:-.0/ 'ay .1/ 01** uinto #& CO'E$EC ( )&R& No& *9:2:9/ Decem%er */ 011:/ D'RE Fe%ruary 00/ 01*1 Facts3

andidacy andidates

; o = of

and

Comination 2olitical

of

(fficial in

Begistered

2arties

onnection with the )ay 15, 2515 Cational and "ocal *lections. +ections / and & of Besolution Co. '#$' provide7 SEC) B) E''ects o' 6ilin" Ce!ti'icates o' Candidacy)Ma) Any pe!son oldin" a public appointive o''ice o! position includin" active membe!s o' t e A!med 6o!ces o' t e P ilippines$ and ot e! o''ice!s and employees in "ove!nment-o%ned o! cont!olled co!po!ations$ s all be conside!ed ipso 'acto !esi"ned '!om o''ice upon t e 'ilin" o' is ce!ti'icate o' candidacy) b) Any pe!son oldin" an elective o''ice o! position s all not be conside!ed !esi"ned upon t e 'ilin" o' is ce!ti'icate o' candidacy 'o! t e same o! any ot e! elective o''ice o! position) SEC) 1) Pe!iod 'o! 'ilin" Ce!ti'icate o' Candidacy)M( e ce!ti'icate o' candidacy s all be 'iled on !e"ula! days$ '!om <ovembe! -> to @>$ ->>.$ du!in" o''ice ou!s$ e&cept on t e last day$ % ic s all be until midni" t) is

,larmed that they will be deemed ipso facto resigned from their offices the moment they file their o s,

petitioners *leaEar 2. Ouinto and Herino ,. Tolentino, Kr., who hold appointive positions in the government and who intend to run in the coming elections, filed the instant petition for prohibition and certiorari, seeking the declaration of the afore!9uoted +ection /;a= of Besolution Co. '#$' as null and void.

2etitioners contend that the ()*"* gravely abused its discretion when it issued the assailed Besolution. They aver that the advance filing of o s for the 2515 elections is intended merely for the purpose of early printing of the official ballots in order to cope with time limitations. +uch advance filing does not automatically make the person who filed the moment of filing. o a candidate at the

Lecember 22, 1%%$,

ongress enacted Bepublic ,ct ()*"* to

;B.,.= Co. '/3#, an act authoriEing the national or local elections.

use an automated election system in the )ay 1%%'

,lmost a decade thereafter, ongress amended the law on Kanuary 23, 255$ by enacting B.,. Co. %3#%. +ection 13 of the amendatory law modified +ection 11 of B.,. Co. '/3#

Bespondent argues that petitioners have no legal standing to institute the suit. 2etitioners have not yet filed their o s, hence, they are not yet affected by the assailed provision in the ()*"* resolution. The (+H further claims that the petition is premature or unripe for >udicial determination. 2etitioners have

2ursuant to its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer election laws, ()*"* issued Besolution Co. '#$', the Huidelines on the Filing of ertificates of

36

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

admitted that they are merely planning to file their o s for the coming 2515 elections

protection, the assailed measure because of its impact on voting rights. Jere, petitionersM interest in running for public office, an interest

Issue3 8(C petitioners have legal standing. 8(C the resolution and the B, '#$' are null and void. Hel"3 To put things in their proper perspective, it is imperative that we trace the brief history of the assailed provision. +ection /;a= of ()*"* Besolution Co. '#$' is a reproduction of the second ()*"*

protected by +ections / and ' of ,rticle ... of the onstitution, is breached by the proviso in +ection 13 of B.,. Co. %3#%. .t is now the opportune time for the ourt to strike down the said proviso for being violative of the e9ual protection clause and for being overbroad. .n considering persons holding appointive positions as ipso facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their o s, but not considering as resigned all other civil servants, specifically the elective ones, the law unduly discriminates against the first class. The fact alone that there is substantial distinction between those who hold appointive positions and those occupying elective posts, does not >ustify such differential treatment. There is thus no valid >ustification to treat appointive officials differently from the elective ones. The classification simply fails to meet the test that it should be germane to the purposes of the law. The measure encapsulated in the second proviso of the third paragraph of +ection 13 of B.,. Co. %3#% and in +ection ## of the (* violates the e9ual protection clause. The petition is granted.

proviso in the third paragraph of +ection 13 of B.,. Co. %3#%, which for ready reference is 9uoted as follows7 For this purpose, the filing of ommission shall set the deadline for the of candidacy:petition for

certificate

registration:manifestation to participate in the election. ,ny person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy7 2rovided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period7 2rovided, finally, That any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and officers and employees in government!owned or !controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his:her office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his:her certificate of candidacy. The ourt, nevertheless, finds that, while petitioners are not yet

candidates, they have the standing to raise the constitutional challenge, simply because they are 9ualified voters. , restriction on candidacy, such as the challenged measure herein, affects the rights of voters to choose their public officials. The rights of voters and the rights of candidates do not lend themselves to neat separationG laws that affect candidates always have at least some theoretical, correlative effect on voters. The ourt believes that

both candidates and voters may challenge, on grounds of e9ual

;irao6o #& The Philippine Truth Commission of 01*1 ( )&R& No& *:0:.-/ Decem%er *1/ 01*1 FACTS3 2res. ,9uino signed *. (. Co. 1 establishing 2hilippine Truth ommission of 2515 ;2T = dated Kuly 35, 2515. 2T is a mere ad hoc body formed under the (ffice of the 2resident with the primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third!level public officers and employees, their co!principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous administration, and to submit its finding and recommendations to the 2resident, ongress and the (mbudsman. 2T has all the powers of an investigative body. But it is not a 9uasi!>udicial body as it cannot ad>udicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards in disputes between contending parties. ,ll it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make recommendations. .t may have subpoena powers but it has no power to cite people in contempt, much less order their arrest. ,lthough it is a fact!finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts of law. 2etitioners asked the ourt to declare it unconstitutional and to en>oin the 2T from performing its functions. They argued that7 ;a= *.(. Co. 1 violates separation of powers as it arrogates the power of the ongress to create a public office and appropriate funds for its operation.

37

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.3 Beal!party!in interest is 1the party who stands to be benefited or in>ured by the >udgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.3 Lifficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Jere, the plaintiff who asserts a 1public right3 in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representative of the general public. Je has to show that he is entitled to seek >udicial protection. Je has to make out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a 1citiEen3 or 1taxpayer. The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have 1a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct in>ury as a result.3 The ourt, however, finds reason in BiraogoMs assertion that the petition covers matters of transcendental importance to >ustify the exercise of >urisdiction by the ourt. There are constitutional issues in the petition which deserve the attention of this ourt in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents The *xecutive is given much leeway in ensuring that our laws are faithfully executed. The powers of the 2resident are not limited to those specific powers under the onstitution. (ne of the recogniEed powers of the 2resident granted pursuant to this constitutionally!mandated duty is the power to create ad hoc committees. This flows from the obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws have been faithfully executed. The purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating bodies to exist is to allow an in9uiry into matters which the 2resident is entitled to know so that he can be properly advised and guided in the performance of his duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the laws of the land. 2. There will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of existing funds already appropriated. There is no usurpation on the part of the *xecutive of the power of ongress to appropriate funds. There is no need to specify the amount to be earmarked for the operation of the commission because, whatever funds the ongress has provided for the (ffice of the 2resident will be the very source of the funds for the commission. The amount that would be allocated to the 2T shall be sub>ect to existing auditing rules and regulations so there is no impropriety in the funding. 3. 2T will not supplant the (mbudsman or the L(K or erode their respective powers. .f at all, the investigative function of the commission will complement those of the two offices. The function of determining probable cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains to be with the L(K and the (mbudsman. 2T Ms power to investigate is limited to obtaining facts so that it can advise and guide the 2resident in the performance of his duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the laws of the land. /. ourt finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of *xecutive (rder Co. 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the e9ual protection clause enshrined in +ection 1, ,rticle ... ;Bill of Bights= of the 1%'$ onstitution. *9ual protection re9uires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. .t re9uires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. The purpose of the e9ual protection clause is to secure every person within a stateMs >urisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by its improper execution through the stateMs duly constituted authorities. There must be e9uality among e9uals as determined according to a valid classification. *9ual protection clause permits classification. +uch classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four re9uisites7 ;1= The classification rests on substantial distinctionsG ;2= .t is germane to the purpose of the lawG ;3= .t is not limited to existing conditions onlyG and ;/= .t applies e9ually to all members of the same class.

;b= The provision of Book ..., hapter 15, +ection 31 of the ,dministrative ode of 1%'$ cannot legitimiEe *.(. Co. 1 because the delegated authority of the 2resident to structurally reorganiEe the (ffice of the 2resident to achieve economy, simplicity and efficiency does not include the power to create an entirely new public office which was hitherto inexistent like the 1Truth ommission.3 ;c= *.(. Co. 1 illegally amended the onstitution and statutes when it vested the 1Truth ommission3 with 9uasi!>udicial powers duplicating, if not superseding, those of the (ffice of the (mbudsman created under the 1%'$ onstitution and the L(K created under the ,dministrative ode of 1%'$. ;d= *.(. Co. 1 violates the e9ual protection clause as it selectively targets for investigation and prosecution officials and personnel of the previous administration as if corruption is their peculiar species even as it excludes those of the other administrations, past and present, who may be indictable. Bespondents, through (+H, 9uestioned the legal standing of petitioners and argued that7 1@ *.(. Co. 1 does not arrogate the powers of ongress because the 2residentMs executive power and power of control necessarily include the inherent power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that, in any event, the onstitution, Bevised ,dministrative ode of 1%'$, 2L Co. 1/1#1# ;as amended=, B.,. Co. %%$5 and settled >urisprudence, authoriEe the 2resident to create or form such bodies. 2@ *.(. Co. 1 does not usurp the power of ongress to appropriate funds because there is no appropriation but a mere allocation of funds already appropriated by ongress. 3@ The Truth ommission does not duplicate or supersede the functions of the (mbudsman and the L(K, because it is a fact! finding body and not a 9uasi!>udicial body and its functions do not duplicate, supplant or erode the latterMs >urisdiction. /@ The Truth ommission does not violate the e9ual protection clause because it was validly created for laudable purposes. ISSUES3 1. 8(C the petitioners have legal standing to file the petitions and 9uestion *. (. Co. 1G 2. 8(C *. (. Co. 1 violates the principle of separation of powers by usurping the powers of ongress to create and to appropriate funds for public offices, agencies and commissionsG 3. 8(C *. (. Co. 1 supplants the powers of the (mbudsman and the L(KG /. 8(C *. (. Co. 1 violates the e9ual protection clause. RU$IN)3 The power of >udicial review is sub>ect to limitations, to wit7 ;1= there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of >udicial powerG ;2= the person challenging the act must have the standing to 9uestion the validity of the sub>ect act or issuanceG otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct in>ury as a result of its enforcementG ;3= the 9uestion of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunityG and ;/= the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. 1. The petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the ongress as a body to which they belong as members. To the extent the powers of ongress are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. "egislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges vested by the onstitution in their office remain inviolate. Thus, they are allowed to 9uestion the validity of any official action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators. 8ith regard to Biraogo, he has not shown that he sustained, or is in danger of sustaining, any personal and direct in>ury attributable to the implementation of *. (. Co. 1. "ocus standi is 1a right of appearance in a court of >ustice on a given 9uestion.3 .n private suits, standing is governed by the 1real! parties!in interest3 rule. .t provides that 1every action must be

38

Constitutional Law 2
The classification will be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed. *xecutive (rder Co. 1 should be struck down as violative of the e9ual protection clause. The clear mandate of truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration only. The intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest. ,rroyo administration is but >ust a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. .t is not a class of its own. Cot to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the e9ual protection clause cannot sanction. +uch discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution. +uperficial differences do not make for a valid classification. The 2T must not exclude the other past administrations. The 2T must, at least, have the authority to investigate all past administrations. The onstitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights determined and all public authority administered. "aws that do not conform to the onstitution should be stricken down for being unconstitutional. 8J*B*F(B*, the petitions are HB,CT*L. *xecutive (rder Co. 1 is hereby declared 4C (C+T.T4T.(C," insofar as it is violative of the e9ual protection clause of the onstitution. $ea6ue of Cities of the Philippines #& CO'E$EC ( )&R& No& *+2:-*/ April *0/ 01** 'en"o?a #& People @ )&R& No& *9.9:*/ Octo%er *:/ 01** Facts3 Bomarico )endoEa ;petitioner= is a company boss:employer convicted for violating a special law known as the +ocial +ecurity ondonation "aw of 255% for non!remittance of the +ocial +ecurity +ervice ;+++= contributions to his employees. The offense iscriminal in nature. Cevertheless, )endoEa admitted his fault, as he said, he acted in good faith. But still, the ourt has to render >udgment and apply the proper penalty how harsh it may be dura lex sed lex=.The ourt sentenced )endoEa to an indeterminate prison term. onsidering the circumstances, the court the ourt transmitted the case to the hief *xecutive, through the Lepartment of Kustice, and B* ())*CL+ the grant of executive clemency to the petitioner. Issue3 8ithout violating the separation of powers, can the +upreme ourt recommend to the 2resident, the grant of executive clemency to a convictR Rulin63 The ourt the discretion to recommend to the 2resident actions it deems appropriate but are beyond its power when it considers the penalty imposed as excessive. .t is clearly stated in the Bevised 2enal ode which providesG U8henever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the hief *xecutive, through the Lepartment of Kustice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the sub>ect of legislation. .n the same way, the court shall submit to the hief *xecutive, through the Lepartment of Kustice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this ode would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the in>ury caused by the offense.

LPU - Cavite
;ureau of Customs Employees Association #& Te#es ( )&R& No& *9*+1,/ Decem%er 2/ 01** FACTS3 1. (n Kanuary 2&, 255&, former 2resident Hloria )acapagal!,rroyo signed into law B.,. Co. %33&.2. B, ?Co.@ %33& was enacted to optimiEe the revenue!generation capability and collection of the Bureau of .nternal Bevenue ;B.B= and the Bureau of ustoms ;B( =.3. The law intends to encourage B.B and B( officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providinga system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Bewards and .ncentives Fund ;Fund= and a Bevenue 2erformance *valuation Board ;Board=. .t covers all officials and employees of the B.B and the B( with at least six months of service, regardless of employment status./. The Fund is sourced from the collection of the B.B and the B( in excess of their revenue targets for the year, as determined by the Levelopment Budget and oordinating ommittee ;LB =. ,ny incentive or reward is taken from the fund and allocated to the B.B and the B( in proportion to their contribution in the excess collection of the targeted amount of tax revenue.&. ontending that the enactment and implementation of B.,. Co. %33& are tainted with constitutional infirmities inviolation of the fundamental rights of its members, petitioners, directly filed the present petition against respondents )argarito B. Teves, in his capacity as +ecretary of the Lepartment of Finance ;L(F=, ommissioner Capoleon ". )orales ; ommissioner )orales=, in his capacity as B( ommissioner, and "ilian B. Jefti, in her capacity as ommissioner of the Bureau of .nternal Bevenue ;B.B=.#. .n 255', high!ranking officials of the B( pursuant to the mandate of B.,. Co. %33& and its .BB, and in order to comply with the stringent deadlines thereof, started to disseminate ollection Listrict 2erformance ontracts $ ;2erformance ontracts= for the lower ranking officials and rank! and!file employees to sign.$. B( *, opined that the revenue target was impossible to meet due to the HovernmentMs own policies on reduced tariff rates and tax breaks to big businesses, the occurrence of natural calamities and because of other economicfactors.'. B( *, claimed that some B( employees were coerced and forced to sign the 2erformance ontract. They also alleged they were threatened that if they do not sign their respective 2erformance ontracts, they would face possible reassignment, reshuffling, or worse, be placed on floating status.%. This petition was filed directly with this ourt on )arch 3, 255'. B( *, asserted that in view of the unconstitutionality of B.,. Co. %33& and its .BB, and their adverse effects on the constitutional rights of B( officials and employees, direct resort to this ourt is >ustified. ISSUEKS7 ;1= 8hether there is undue delegation of legislative power to the Board ;2= 8hether B.,. Co. %33& and its .BB violate the rights of B( *,Ms members to7 ;a= e9ual protection of laws, ;b= security of tenure and ;c= due processG and ;3=8hether B.,. Co. %33& is a bill of attainder. HE$D3

39

Constitutional Law 2

LPU - Cavite

1. Co. .n the face of the increasing complexity of modern life, delegation of legislative power to various specialiEed administrative agencies is allowed as an exception to this principle. Hiven the volume and variety of interactions in todayMs society, it is doubtful if the legislature can promulgate laws that will deal ade9uately with and respond promptly to the minutiae of everyday life. Jence , the need to delegate to administrative bodies P the principal agencies tasked to execute laws in their specialiEed fields P the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given statute and effectuate its policies. ,ll that is re9uired for the valid exercise of this power of subordinate legislation is that the regulation be germane to the ob>ects and purposes of the law and that the regulation be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law. These re9uirements are denominated as the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. 32 Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power7 ;1= the completeness test and ;2= the sufficient Commissioner of Customs #& Hypermi7 Fee"s Corporation ( )&R& No& *+:-+:/ Fe%ruary */ 01*0 )arcia #& E7ecuti#e Secretary ( )&R& No& *:9--,/ <uly .1/ 01*0 Facts (n 2$ Covember 1%%5, ory issued *xecutive (rder /3'

the *xecutive Lepartment. .t does not follow, however, that therefore *xecutive (rders Cos. /$& and /$', assuming they may be characteriEed as revenue measures, are prohibited to the 2resident, that they must be enacted instead by the ongress of the 2hilippines. +ection 2';2= of ,rticle -. of the onstitution

provides as follows7 1;2= The ongress may, by law, authoriEe the 2resident to fix within specified limits, and sub>ect to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export 9uotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Hovernment.3 There is thus explicit constitutional permission to ongress to authoriEe the 2resident 1sub>ect to such limitations and restrictions as ? ongress@ may impose3 to fix 1within specific limits3 1tariff rates . . . and other duties or imposts . . . .3 )ol"en>ay 'erchan"isin6 Corporation #& E8uita%le PCI ;anA @)&R& No& *:--,1/ 'arch *./ 01*. Arroyo #& Department of <ustice ( )&R& No& *::190/ Septem%er *9/ 01*0 Spouses Dacu"ao #& Secretary of <ustice ( )&R& No& *991-2/ <anuary 9/ 01*. Da%alos #& Re6ional Trial Court ( )&R& No& *:.:21/ <anuary +/ 01*. Pichay #& Office of the Deputy E7ecuti#e Secretary for $e6al Affairs In#esti6ati#e an" A"Bu"ication Di#ision ( )&R& No& *:2,0-/ <uly 0,/ 01*0 A8uino #& Philippine Ports Authhority @ )& R& No& *9*:+./ April *+/ 01*. )arcia #& Drilon ( )&R& No& *+:02+/ <une 0-/ 01*. Rele#ance to Purpose of $a> Duration Applica%ility to All

which imposed, in addition to any other duties, taxes and charges imposed by law on all articles imported into the 2hilippines, an additional duty of &A ad valorem. This additional duty was imposed across the board on all imported articles, including crude oil and other oil products imported into the 2hilippines. .n 1%%1, *( //3 increased the additional duty to %A. .n the same year, *( /$& was passed reinstating the previous &A duty except that crude oil and other oil products continued to be taxed at %A. Harcia, a representative from Bataan, avers that *( /$& and /$' are unconstitutional for they violate +ec 2/ of ,rt # of the onstitution which provides7 3 ,ll appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authoriEing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the Jouse of Bepresentatives, but the +enate may propose or concur with amendments.3 Je contends that since the onstitution vests the

authority to enact revenue bills in ongress, the 2resident may not assume such power of issuing *xecutive (rders Cos. /$& and /$' which are in the nature of revenue!generating measures. ISSUE3 8hether or not *( /$& and /$' are constitutional. HE$D3 4nder +ection 2/, ,rticle -. of the onstitution, the

enactment of appropriation, revenue and tariff bills, like all other bills is, of course, within the province of the "egislative rather than

40