Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
party adversely affected by the change and then fill said vacancies in
conformity with the Constitution.
The Court would have preferred not to intervene in this matter, leaving it to be
settled by the House of Representatives or the Commission on Appointments as the
bodies directly involved. But as our jurisdiction has been invoked and, more
importantly, because a constitutional stalemate had to be resolved, there was no
alternative for us except to act, and to act decisively. In doing so, of course, we are
not imposing our will upon the said agencies, or substituting our discretion for
theirs, but merely discharging our sworn responsibility to interpret and apply the
Constitution. That is a duty we do not evade, lest we ourselves betray our oath.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Thus, this petition is
filed.
Issues:
WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the theory that the issue of
constitutionality was not raised at the earliest opportunity and that the petition
constitutes a collateral attack on the validity of the law.
WON the CA committed serious error in failing to conclude that RA 9262 is
discriminatory, unjust and violative of the equal protection clause.
WON the CA committed grave mistake in not finding that RA 9262 runs counter to
the due process clause of the Constitution
WON the CA erred in not finding that the law does violence to the policy of the state
to protect the family as a basic social institution
WON the CA seriously erredin declaring RA 9262 as invalid and unconstitutional
because it allows an undue delegation of judicial power to Brgy. Officials.
Decision:
1. Petitioner contends that the RTC has limited authority and jurisdiction,
inadequate to tackle the complex issue of constitutionality. Family Courts have
authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute. The question
of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible time so that if not raised
in the pleadings, it may not be raised in the trial and if not raised in the trial court, it
may not be considered in appeal.
2. RA 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws. Equal
protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. In Victoriano
v. Elizalde Rope Workerkers Union, the Court ruled that all that is required of a valid
classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be
based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences; that it must be
germane to the purpose of the law; not limited to existing conditions only; and
apply equally to each member of the class. Therefore, RA9262 is based on a valid
classification and did not violate the equal protection clause by favouring women
over men as victims of violence and abuse to whom the Senate extends its
protection.
3. RA 9262 is not violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. The
essence of due process is in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any
evidence one may have in support of ones defense. The grant of the TPO exparte
cannot be impugned as violative of the right to due process.
For LAMP, this situation runs afoul against the principle of separation of powers
because in receiving and, thereafter, spending funds for their chosen projects, the
Members of Congress in effect intrude into an executive function. Further, the
authority to propose and select projects does not pertain to legislation. It is, in fact,
a non-legislative function devoid of constitutional sanction,8 and, therefore,
impermissible and must be considered nothing less than malfeasance.
RESPONDENTS POSITION: the perceptions of LAMP on the implementation of PDAF
must not be based on mere speculations circulated in the news media preaching the
evils of pork barrel.
ISSUES: 1) whether or not the mandatory requisites for the exercise of judicial
review are met in this case; and 2) whether or not the implementation of PDAF by
the Members of Congress is unconstitutional and illegal.
HELD:
I.
A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct
adverse effect on the individual challenging it. In this case, the petitioner contested
the implementation of an alleged unconstitutional statute, as citizens 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 Court.
LOCUS STANDI: The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such
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 questions. Here, the
sufficient interest preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation
required in taxpayers suits is established. Thus, in the claim that PDAF funds have
been illegally disbursed and wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or
unconstitutional law, LAMP should be allowed to sue.
Lastly, the Court is of the view that the petition poses issues impressed with
paramount public interest. The ramification of issues involving the unconstitutional
spending of PDAF deserves the consideration of the Court, warranting the
assumption of jurisdiction over the petition.
II.
The Court rules in the negative.
In determining whether or not a statute is unconstitutional, the Court does not lose
sight of the presumption of validity accorded to statutory acts of Congress. To justify
the nullification of the law or its implementation, there must be a clear and
FACTS:
Petitioners Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., Rowena S. Disini, Lianne Ivy P. Medina, Janette
Toral and Ernesto Sonido, Jr., as taxpayers, file a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petitioners seek
to 1) nullify Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of RA 10175, otherwise known as the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 for violating the fundamental rights protected
under the Constitution; and 2) prohibit the Respondents, singly and collectively,
from enforcing the afore-mentioned provisions of the Cybercrime Act.
Named as Respondents are the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of the Interior
and Local Government, the Executive Director of the Information Communications
Technology Office, the Chief of the Philippine National Police, and the Director of the
National Bureau of Investigation.
ISSUES/GROUNDS:
1. Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of The Cybercrime Act violate the
petitioners constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression, due
process, equal protection, privacy of communications, as well as the
Constitutional sanctions against double jeopardy, undue delegation of
legislative authority and the right against unreasonable searches and seizure;
o
Section 12 of the Cybercrime Act, which permits the NBI and the
PNP with due cause to engage in real time collection of traffic data
without the benefit of the intervention of a judge, violates the
Petitioners Constitutionally-protected right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizure as well as the right to the privacy
of communications;
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS:
1. The Cybercrime Act Violates Free Speech:
o
online libel under the Cybercrime Act will ensure the imprisonment of
the accused and for a much longer period. Such changes will result in a
chilling effect upon the freedom of speech;
with the passage of the Cybercrime Act, Senator Vicente Sotto IIIs
earlier threat to criminally prosecute all bloggers and internet users
who were critical of his alleged plagiarism of online materials for use in
his speech against the Reproductive Health Bill became real; threat of
criminal prosecution under RA 10175 will work to preclude people such
as Petitioners from posting social commentaries online, thus creating a
chilling effect upon the freedom of expression;
2. Sections 6 and 7 of the Cybercrime Act violate the Double Jeopardy and
Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution:
the cybercrimes defined and punished under Section 6 of the Act are
absolutely identical to the crimes defined in the RPC and special laws
which raises the possibility that an accused will be punished twice for
the same offense in violation of the Constitution;
3. The Real Time Collection of Traffic Date Violate the Right to Privacy and the
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizure:
o
Neither the PNP nor the NBI is required to justify the incursion into
the right to privacy;
No limits imposed upon the PNP or the NBI since they can lawfully
collect traffic data at all times without interruption;
4. The Respondent DOJ Secretarys Take Down Authority under Section 19 of the
Cybercrime Act violates Due Process and is an Undue Delegation of
Legislative Authority
o
To consider that all penal provisions in all specials laws are cybercrimes
under Section 6, it follows that:
1. Complaints filed by intellectual property rights owners may be
acted upon the Respondent DOJ Secretary to block access to
websites and content upon a mere prima facie showing of an
infringement;
2. Foreign sites (e.g. Amazon.com) offering goods on retail to
Philippine citizens may be blocked for violating the Retail Trade
Law;
3. Foreign service providers such as Skype may be blocked from
offering voice services without securing a license from the
National Telecommunications Communication;
4. YouTube video may be blocked for presumably violating the IP
Code.
The Cybercrime Act fails the two tests laid down by the Court
in Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima (GR No. 166715) to determine
the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness
test and (2) the sufficient standard test
1. Nowhere in the Cybercrime Acts declaration of policy does it lay
down the legislative policy with respect to the blocking of
content. No limits upon the takedown power of the respondent
DOJ Secretary;
2. Prima facie standard is not enough to prevent the DOJ Secretary
from exercising infinite discretion and becoming the supreme
authority in the Philippine Internet landscape.
PRAYER:
1. Declare null and void, for being unconstitutional, Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12
and 19 of RA 10175;
2. Prohibit all Respondents from implementing Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19
of RA 10175;
3. Issue a TRO enjoining the Respondents from implementing Sections 4(c)(4),
6, 7, 12 and 19 of RA 10175; and
Unconstitutional provisions
Three provisions were voted down as categorically unconstitutional:
The SC decided that Section 19 granting power to the Department of Justice (DOJ)
to restrict computer data on the basis of prima facie or initially observed evidence
was not in keeping with the Constitution. The said automatic take-down clause is
found in Section 19 of the cybercrime law.
Even the SOLICITOR General, in his defense of RA 10175, admitted before the SC
that Section 19 is "constitutionally impermissible, because it permits a form of final
restraint on speech without prior judicial determination."
Section 12 would have allowed law enforcement authorities with due cause to
collect or record by technical or electronic means "traffic data" in real time.
Section 4 (c)(3) of the law says that "the transmission of commercial electronic
communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise, sell, or
offer for sale products and services are prohibited" unless certain conditions such
as prior affirmative consent from the recipient are met. This was ruled
unconstitutional.
A separability clause contained in Section 29, Chapter VIII of the law allows the rest
of the law to "remain in full force and effect" even if certain provisions are held
invalid.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES with finality the various motions for reconsideration
that both the petitioners and the respondents, represented by the Office of the
Solicitor General, filed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
ISSUES:
1. WON Court has jurisdiction over the matter
2. WON Constitutional right of CP can be exercised by NP, or the Committee on
Rules for the Senate
HELD:
1. Yes. The Court has jurisdiction.
RATIO: The case at bar is not an action against the Senate compelling them to allow
petitioners to exercise duties as members of ET. The ET is part of neither House,
even if the Senate elects its members. The issue is not the power of the Senate to
elect or nominate, but the validity of the manner by which power was exercised
(constitutionality). The Court is concerned with the existence and extent of said
discretionary powers.
2. No.
RATIO: Although respondents allege that the Constitutional mandate of 6 Senate
members in the ET must be followed, this cannot be done without violating the spirit
& philosophy of Art. 6, Sec. 2, which is to provide against partisan decisions. The
respondents' practical interpretation of the law (modifying law to fit the situation)
cannot be accepted; although they followed mandate on number, they disobeyed
mandate on procedure. The contention that petitioner Taada waived his rights or is
in estoppel is not tenable. When interests of public policy & morals are at issue, the
power to waive is inexistent. Taada never led Primicias to believe that his
nominations on behalf of the CP are valid.
WHEREFORE:
The Senate cannot elect members of the ET not nominated by the proper party, nor
can the majority party elect more than 3 members of the ET. Furthermore, the CRS
has no standing to nominate, and the election of respondents Cuenco & Delgado
void ab initio. The appointment of the staff members are valid as it is a selection of
personnel - a matter under the discretion of the Chairman.
PARAS DISSENTING:
The procedure or manner of nomination cannot affect Consti mandate that
the Senate is entitled to 6 seats in the ET. The number of seats (9) must be held
fixed, since the Consti must have consistent application. There is no rule against the
minority party nominating a majority party member to the ET. Furthermore, the
Senate, and not the parties, elect on the ET members, brushing aside partisan
concerns.
LABRADOR DISSENTING:
The petition itself is unconstitutional under Art. 6 Sec. 2 because:
1. 9-member ET mandate violated
2. right to elect of Senate held in abeyance by refusal of minority party to
nominate
Daza V. Singson
Facts:
Daza was chosen to be part of the Commission of Appointments andwas listed as
representative of the Liberal Party. LDP was reorganizedand 24 members from the
Liberal Party transferred to LDP. Becauseof this, the House of Representatives
revised its representation bywithdrawing the seat given to Daza and giving it to the
newly-formedLDP. Singson was chosen to replace Daza, in accordance
toproportional representation.
Issues:
1.Whether the reorganized LDP can be deemed a stable politicalparty
2.Whether it is necessary for the party to be registered to beentitled to proportional
representation in the CA
Held and Ratio
Both petitioner and respondent invoke the case of Cunanan v. Tan. In the said case,
25 Members of the Nacionalista Party reorganized themselves and formed the Allied
Majority. 3 Nacionalista Congressmen, originally chosen, were deprived of their
seats by colleagues who joined the Allied Majority. Carlos Cunanans ad interim
appointment was rejected by the CA. Jorge Tan was designated in his place.
Cunanan contended the validity of the rejection. The Court agreed that Allied
Majority was merely a temporary combination; officially, they were still part of the
Nacionalista Party. Thus, the reorganization of the CA at that time was not based on
proportional representation. The Court held that mere shift of votes should not
affect the organization of the CA, or else, it would forever be at the mercy of the
House of Representatives. The petitioner argues that LDP is not a permanent party
and has not yet achieved stability. However, the LDP has already been inexistence
for a year. They command the biggest following. They not only survived but
prevailed. Regarding being a duly registered party, the LDP was granted its