Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Raul Gonzalez,
claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution
Nature: Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to review the decision of the
Sandiganbayan
Facts:
• Enrique Zaldivar, governor of the province of Antique
• Sought to restrain the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez
• From proceeding with the prosecution and hearing of criminal cases filed against him
• On the ground that said cases were filed by the Tanodbayan.
• The 1987 Consti provided that it is only the Ombudsman who has the authority to file
cases with the Sandiganbayan.
Issue: WON Tanodbayan had authority to file those cases for Sandiganbayan to prosecute and
hear.
Held: NO
Ratio:
1. Under the 1987 Consti, the Ombudsman (distinguished from Tanodbayan) is charged
with the duty to:
Section 13, par 1: Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public officer, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
2. The Tanodbayan of the 1973 Consti became the Office of the Special prosecutor that
shall continue to function and exercise it powers as now or hereafter may be provided
by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under the
Consti. (article 11, section 7)
4. The Tanodbayan is now the subordinate of the Sandiganbayan and it can investigate
and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s authority or orders.
Nature: Petition fro certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction and restraining order
Facts:
1. Inting filed complaints for perjury at the City Fiscal of Davao’s office, against Angelina
S. Salcedo (in latter’s personal data sheets, she indicated that she completed the 1-
year Secretarial Science course at USC in Cebu although she never enrolled in, and
neither did she complete the course) Salcedo is an appurtenant of the judicial staff of
the City Court of Davao
2. City Fiscal of Davao thru Special Counsel Rodrigo R. Duterte conducted preliminary
investigation.
3. found prima facie case for perjury and filed 3 separate counts of perjury under article
183 of RPC
4. Salcedo interposed appeal to the ministry of Justice.
5. Ministry of Justice forwarded records to Tanodbayan, pursuant to Section 10 (f) of the
PD No. 1630, which vests on the latter the power to file and prosecute offenses
committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office.
6. Tanodbayan Vicente Ericta reversed decision of City Fiscal.
7. directed city fiscal to move for dismissal of the 3 criminal cases for perjury against
Salcedo
PETITION DISMISSED.
Alleged crime of Orap: took sums of money from several persons in connection with the case
of People vs. Pepito Iglesias, for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, serious
physical injuries and damage to property
Issue Held/Ratio
WON Tanodbayan has authority to conduct NO.
preliminary investigation of the complaint As Ombudsman, his investigatory powers are
limited to complaints initiated against offices
and personnel of administrative agencies as
defined in Section 9(a) of PD 1607.
WON Tanodbayan had authority to file YES.
corresponding information before the As prosecutor, the authority of the
Sandiganbayan and prosecute the same Tanodbayan is plenary and without
exceptions.
PETITION DISMISSED.
Tanodbayan has jurisdiction to investigate and file information.
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction to prosecute defined under section 4 of PD 1606.
Nixon:
PRESIDENCY
In the White House, the contradictions in Nixon were most obvious. He could be bold, yet also
cautious; effective, yet often inept. Working closely with his national security advisor (later,
secretary of state), Henry KISSINGER, he forsook the anti-Communist policies that he had
supported throughout most of his career in favor of DETENTE with the USSR and
rapprochement with the Communist government of China. In 1969 he began the Strategic
Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with the Soviet Union. In February 1972 he made a historic trip
to Beijing--where he was received by Mao Zedong--thus reversing the U.S. policy of not
recognizing the Communist government. In 1973, after 4 years of waging war in Vietnam--
including heavy bombing raids on North Vietnam (1972) and the invasion (1970) of Cambodia--
the administration managed to arrange a cease-fire that would last long enough to permit U.S.
withdrawal from the Indochinese war zone. After the Arab-Israel War in 1973, the efforts of
Henry Kissinger led to a cease-fire and troop disengagement in the Middle East.
Domestically, under the banner of "A New Federalism," Nixon attempted to shift important
elements of governmental power and responsibility back to state and local governments. He
cut back and opposed federal welfare services, proposed antibusing legislation, and used
wage-and-price controls to fight inflation. A combination of domestic and international
developments, notably the quintupling of oil prices by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) in 1973, led to the economic recession of 1974-75.
In 1972, Nixon swept to an overwhelming victory in the presidential election against his
Democratic challenger Sen. George S. MCGOVERN--but, ironically, the seeds of political
collapse had already been sown. During the campaign, a group of burglars working for the
Committee to Re-elect the President broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National
Committee at the Watergate office-apartment complex in Washington, D.C., apparently in
search of political intelligence. Attempts by the White House to stop or frustrate the ensuing
investigations ultimately failed when Nixon's own White House tape recordings revealed that
the president and his assistants had engaged in an obstruction of justice.
In the meantime he had been forced to drop Vice-President Spiro T. AGNEW, who resigned in
October 1973 after he was charged with corruption that began during his tenure as Baltimore
County executive. As the revelations of wrongdoing piled up, Nixon became preoccupied with
preserving his presidency. He jettisoned top assistants in the White House and fired Special
Prosecutor Archibald COX. After the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, required that he
supply Cox's successor, Leon JAWORSKI, with tape recordings of conversations with his
advisors, the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend (July 27-30, 1974) approval by
the full House of three articles of impeachment against the president. On Aug. 9, 1974, Nixon
resigned his office and was succeeded by Vice-President Gerald R. FORD, whom he had
selected to replace Agnew. A month after Nixon's resignation, Ford pardoned him for any
crimes he might have committed as president. Nixon accepted the pardon but insisted that his
mistakes had been personal and political, not criminal.
Watergate
Watergate is the popular name for the political scandal and constitutional crisis that began
with the arrest (June 17, 1972) of five burglars who broke into Democratic National Committee
headquarters at the Watergate office building in Washington, D.C. It ended with the
resignation (Aug. 9, 1974) of President Richard M. NIXON.
The burglars and two co-plotters--G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt--were indicted
(September 1972) on charges of burglary, conspiracy, and wiretapping. Four months later,
they were convicted and sentenced to prison terms by District Court Judge John J. Sirica, who
was convinced that pertinent details had not been unveiled during the trial and proffered
leniency in exchange for further information. As it became increasingly evident that the
Watergate burglars were tied closely to the Central Intelligence Agency and the Committee to
Re-elect the President (CRP), some of Nixon's aides began talking to federal prosecutors.
The defection of aides such as Jeb Stuart Magruder, assistant to CRP director John N.
MITCHELL, quickly implicated others in Nixon's inner circle. The Senate established (February
1973) an investigative committee headed by Sen. Sam ERVIN, Jr., to look into the growing
scandal. Amid increasing disclosures of White House involvement in the Watergate break-in
and its aftermath, Nixon announced the resignations of John Ehrlichman and H. R. Haldeman,
two of his closest advisors, and the dismissal of his counsel John W. Dean III.
Leon Jaworski, who replaced Cox as special prosecutor on November 1, continued to press for
the tapes. On Mar. 1, 1974, a federal grand jury indicted seven men, including Haldeman,
Ehrlichman, Mitchell, and White House special counsel Charles Colson, for conspiracy to
obstruct justice. At the same time, the House Judiciary Committee began investigating the
Watergate affair and related matters.
The president released (April 30) edited transcripts--containing suspicious gaps--of Watergate-
related Oval Office conversations. Not satisfied, Judge Sirica subpoenaed additional tapes.
When Nixon refused, the case moved to the Supreme Court, which ruled (July 24) against him
by an 8-0 vote. The Court conceded that a president could withhold national security material
but insisted that Watergate was a criminal matter (see UNITED STATES V. RICHARD M. NIXON).
On July 27-30, the House Judiciary Committee, whose public hearings had disclosed evidence
of illegal White House activities, recommended that Nixon be impeached on three charges:
obstruction of justice, abuse of presidential powers, and trying to impede the impeachment
process by defying committee subpoenas. The committee rejected two other possible counts:
Nixon's unauthorized, secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and his use of public funds to
improve his private property.
A beleaguered President Nixon released three tapes to the public on Aug. 5, 1974. One
revealed that he had taken steps to thwart the FBI's inquiry into the Watergate burglary. The
tape made it clear that Nixon had been involved actively in the cover-up from its beginnings.
These disclosures destroyed the president's remaining congressional support. With House
impeachment inevitable and Senate conviction probable, Richard Nixon became (Aug. 9, 1974)
the first U.S. chief executive to resign.
Nature: Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
Facts:
• May 8, 1991, during an official conference at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock,
Arkansas where Clinton was governor.
• Danny Ferguson, former Arkansas State Police, persuaded her to leave her desk
(registration) and to visit the Governor in a business suite at the hotel.
• There, Clinton allegedly made abhorrent sexual advances that she vehemently
rejected.
• Subsequently, her superiors at work shanged her duties to ounish her for rejecting
those advances.
• Jones sought actual damamges of $75,000 and punitive damages of $100,000
• Clinton filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of presidential immunity.
Issue: WON Clinton could claim presidential immunity for unofficial acts performed before he
became president of the USA.
Held: NO
Ratio:
1. Presidential immunity can only be claimed if the President was performing an
official act.
2. Allowing the trial to proceed will not prejudice the function of the President.
a. His testimonies for discovery and for use at trial may be taken at the White
House
b. Such shall be acquired at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule
c. The President may choose not to be present at the trial.
3. The President cannot claim immunity from suits for money damages because in
this particular case, the suit did not arise out of his official act.
4. Immunities are grounded in the nature of the function performed, not the identity
of the actor who performed it.
5. Delaying the trial would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of
evidence, including the inability off witnesses to recall specific facts, or the
possible death of a party.
The Federal District Court has jurisdiction to decide this case. Like every other citizen who
properly invokes that jurisdiction, respondent has a right to an orderly disposition of her
claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the COA is affirmed.
Nature: In re 1st Indorsement from Honorable Raul M. Gonzalez dated March 16, 1988
requesting Hon. Judge Marcelo Fernan to Comment on an Anonymous Letter-Complaint
Facts:
An anonymous letter by Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court was addressed to
Hon. Raul Gonzalez.
Contents of the letter:
• charges of disbarment brought by Mr. Miguel Cuenco against Justice Marcelo Fernan
• a request for Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez as Tanodbayan/Special Prosecutor to do something
about the case
Issue: WON a member of the Supreme Court can be charged with disbarment during his
incumbency
Held: NO
Ratio:
Article 8, section7, par 1 and article 9, section2 provide:
That members of the Supreme Court who are members of the Philippine bar may be removed
from office only by impeachment.
1. Such public officer cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any
other court with any offense which carries with it a penalty of removal from office, or
any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office.
2. To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member’s
incumbency would circumvent the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court
may be removed from office
• only by impeachment
• and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article 11 (2) of Consti
o culpable violation of the Constitution
o treason
o bribery
o graft
o corruption
o high crimes
o betrayal of public trust
Proper remedy for offending members of the SC who are members of the Philippine bar:
1. impeachment under sections 2 and 3 of article 11 of 1987 Consti
2. when tenure is terminated by impeachment, he may be held liable to answer wither:
a. criminally or
b. administratively (by disbarment proceedings)
• for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate
proceedings
The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Resolution upon Hon. Raul
Gonzalez and Mr. Miguel Cuenco.
In re Jarque
Nature:
Facts:
• November 18, 1995: letter by Cpt. Jose Rene N. Jarque, sworn to before Notary Public
Atty. Aida Balbastro: complaint of disbarment against Ombudsman Aniano Desierto for
“immorality and involvement in various illegal and immoral activities.
• The letter alleged that Desierto has an illegitimate daughter with Teresita Alferez by
the name of Desiree.
Issue: WON the Court can make out a prima facie case for disbarment against Desierto based
on such letter-complaint.
Held: NO
Ratio:
1. The letter made very general allegations made y other, unknown and unnamed
sources.
2. Even if the letter-complaint had succeeded in making out such a prima facie case, the
Court would still have to dismiss the complaints.
Article 8, section7, par 1 and article 9, section2 provide:
That members of the Supreme Court who are members of the Philippine bar may be removed
from office only by impeachment.
3. Such public officer cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any
other court with any offense which carries with it a penalty of removal from office, or
any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office.
4. To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member’s
incumbency would circumvent the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court
may be removed from office
• only by impeachment
• and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article 11 (2) of Consti
o culpable violation of the Constitution
o treason
o bribery
o graft
o corruption
o high crimes
o betrayal of public trust
Proper remedy for offending members of the SC who are members of the Philippine bar:
3. impeachment under sections 2 and 3 of article 11 of 1987 Consti
4. when tenure is terminated by impeachment, he may be held liable to answer wither:
a. criminally or
b. administratively (by disbarment proceedings)
• for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate
proceedings
Issue: WON the Ombudsman has authority to order for the investigation to proceed despite the
recommendations of the special prosecutors to dismiss the same
Held: Yes.
Ratio:
1. The Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the
specificity and adequacy of the averments of the offense charged.
2. His actions were neither whimsical nor capricious because he sincerely believed that
there is sufficient evidence to indict both accused. Such rule is based not only upon
respect of for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Consti to the
Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.
3. But take note: once a case has been filed with the Sandiganbayan, such court will have
full control of the case so much that the information may not be dismissed without
approval of the said court.
Additional info:
Criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either through preliminary or final injunction or a
writ of prohibition, except in the following instances:
1. to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
2. when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions;
3. when there is a pre-judicial question which is sub-judice;
4. when the acts of the office are without or in excess of authority
5. where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance, or regulation
6. when double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
8. where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
9. where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance
10. when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash
on that ground has been denied
11. preliminary injunction to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.
Events:
September 2, 1988: Resolution 19 was passed authorizing petitioner to negotiate and enter
into a contract with the Board of Liquidators in the Acquisition of the Garcia-Diapo Enterprise
September 8, 1988:
• offer was rejected. ]
• Petitioner returned to New Washington and submitted to treasurer his voucher for
transpo expenses
• Asked Atty. Antonio Tabang, provincial auditor, as regards the municipality’s
participation in a public bidding.
• SB doubted whether NW can participate in the bidding
September 19, 1988: petitioner went to manila at his personal expense and participated in the
bidding.
He submitted the highest bid and thus the property was sold to him and a deed of
absolute sale was executed.
During his term, he allowed a portion of the lots to be used as garage for the
municipality’s fire truck and for the municipality’s mushroom culture laboratory
Issue: WON the Ombudsman can reinvestigate a case already filed with the Sandiganbayan
Held: Yes
Ratio:
1. The Sandiganbayan allowed petitioner to file motion to reconsider the adverse
resolution of Special Prosecutor Ines.
2. Thru this, Sandiganbayan thus deferred to the authority of the Ombudsman to
reinvestigate the case and further assess or re-examine the facts.
3. The Sandiganbayan was willing to accept and adopt the final resolution of the Officer
of the Special Prosecutor and Ombudsman on the issue of whether of not the offense
charged was in fact committed by the petitioner
Crim. case dismissed: lack of reasonable ground to believe that petitioner violated said act.
• Petitioner claimed that such repairs and works should be exempted from the payment
of customs duty under
• Par 200, section 8, and par. 348, section 11 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909.
• After hearing the Internal Collector of Customs sustained the protest and ordered the
refund of the money through a warrant for Auditor Wright to sign in approval.
• Wright refused to sign such.
Issue: WON countersignature of the COA may be compelled if it can be shown that:
1) the warrant has been legally drawn by the officer authorized by law to do so
2) and appropriation to which the warrant may be applied exists by virtue of law
3) an unexpended balance of the amount appropriated is available.
Held: YES
Ratio: The duty to countersign the warrant in this case is simply ministerial and it is not up to
the discretion of the Auditor to decide otherwise.
It was then necessary to find out if the 3 requisites needed to compel COA to countersign
warrant for refund were present in the case at bar.
Requisite Status
1. WON warrant has been legally drawn YES.
by the officer authorized by law to do
so • The Collector of Customs was given the
authority to investigate WON such
repairs undertaken by the operators of
Venus were necessary and such would
exempt them from customs duty.
• Representatives from several
Philippine firms testified that the
nature of the repair and overhaul
needed by Venus could not be done in
the Philippines due to lack of needed
facilities.
• Since it was found out that such
repairs were needed and that the Tariff
law does exempt them from customs
duty, the Collector of Customs was
authorized by law to issue a warrant to
be countersigned by the COA so that
the petitioners can be refunded for the
amount paid.
2. WON Venus and the repairs it undertook YES. Act of Congress of 1901 as amended by
were exempted from customs duty Act No. 2872 of the Philippine Legislature
• However when the treasury warrant was sent to the Auditor general, he refused to
countersign it.
• Petitioner wanted court to compel auditor general to sign and consequently cash in
due amount.
Issues Held/Ratio
1. WON Auditor General has the right and YES. Section 2 of Article 10:
power to judge the merits and legality of any • Auditor General has the duty to bring
contract entered into by the Commonwealth to the attention of the proper
of the Philippines through the Purchasing administrative officers expenditure of
Agent funds or property, which, in his
opinion, are irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, or extravagant.
• Auditor General had to find out WON
disbursement was illegal.
(discretionary power, as opposed to
Wright case where the countersigning
was a ministerial duty)
Issue: WON CB’s governor’s designation of Guevara was a violation of Section 1664 of the
Revised Administrative Code, which vests on the Solicitor General the power to employ special
counsel
Held: NO
Ratio:
1. Petitioner was retained not by the government of the Philippines but by the CB, which
has a personality distinct and separate from that of the govt
2. He did not appear in the case as representative of the Solicitor General
Issue: WON Auditor General may now be compelled to pass in audit and approve the payment
of the amounts claimed by the petitioner
Held: YES
Ratio:
The Auditor General has the duty to approve and pass in audit the voucher for said
disbursements, if issued by the proper officer of said agency of the Government.
Since under the law, the Governor of the CB with its Monetary may employ special
legal counsel and approve payments for his services, the Auditor General has the duty to
disburse said amounts.
Facts:
In view of the government’s efforts at privatization, GSIS sold its Manila Hotel shares
(51%) at a bidding where only two parties participated: (1) Renong Berhad , a Malaysian firm
and (2) Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino firm.
Manila Prince offered a bid P2.40 lower than Renong Berhad’s (bidding was on a price
per share basis). Pending confirmation of Renong Berhad as the winner, Manila Prince wrote
GSIS to enjoin it from awarding the sale to Renong, saying they are now willing to match the
Malaysian firm’s bid. Manila Prince then wrote a cheque as bid security, which the GSIS refused
to accept.
Yes. Otherwise, the Consti would always require legislation before any of its provisions
could be considered binding. The Consti, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land,
cannot be held subordinate and cannot be paralyzed by a need for legislative acts.
2. WON “national patrimony” involved only public lands and natural resources
No. “National patrimony” also includes cultural heritage, of which the Manila Hotel has
been a symbol.
No. Whoever controls the shares, controls the land and the hotel.
No. Although the GSIS possesses a distinct and separate personality, its acts are
considered “State action” (1) when they involve the performance of a public function, (2) when
the government is responsible for the action, and (3) when government authorized action.
GSIS activity has requisites (2) and (3), therefore they are actions of the State covered by the
Constitution.
Note: Court upheld nationalism and non-material values over foreign investment
** GSIS ordered to cease from selling to Renong Berhad; to accept matching bid of Manila
Prince
Peralta v. Mathay
Facts:
Petitioner is a trustee of the GSIS. The Auditor General said his Christmas bonus, cost
of living allowance and incentive bonus should be deducted from his retirement gratuity in
view of the Constitutional provision that no employee of the government may receive
additional or double compensation.
Issue: WON petitioner’s Christmas bonus, cost of living allowance and incentive bonus are
covered by the
Constitutuional prohibiton
Held: Yes.
Ratio: The law is clear. The GSIS act only grants per diems to trustees on a daily basis. Such
per diems are then considered as reimbursements or the amount they spend to fulfill their
duties. Allowances given to Peralta in this case, however are not considered reimbursements
and may not be granted. Between the GSIS act and the Constitution, the latter is supreme.
Republic v. Imperial
Facts:
In 1945, the first set of Comelec commissioners were appointed. These were:
1. Lopez Vito, chairman, who shall serve for nine years until 1954
2. Francisco Enage, member, who shall serve for six years until 1951
3. Vicente Vera, member, who shall serve for three years until 1948
In 1949, Respondent Perez was appointed to fill in Vera’s position, which was
vacated by his promotion to Chairmanship upon Vito’s death. Member Enage retired.
By this time, only two of the three Comelec seats at that time were occupied.
Issue: WON Imperial and Perez are legally continuing office as Chairman and Member of
Comelec respectively
Held: Yes
Ratio: The Court counted the respondent’s terms of office from 1941, when CA 567 was
implemented, completing the organization of the Comelec. The rules laid down are:
The Court ruled that to do otherwise would be to violate the rotational cycle
devised by the framers of the Constitution to ensure the continuity of the policies of the
Comelec. Also, with vacancies occurring only once every three years, a four-year
administration may not appoint more than one member of the Comelec at a time,
safeguarding against undue influence by the executive on the independent body.
According to the SC, the following occupied the seats during these times:
** In 1947, the first vacancy occurred when Chairman Vito died. The second vacancy
occurred when Enage retired.
** Petition dismissed
Facts:
Note: De Vera inhibited himself from the
The petitioners, members of the deliberations.
Nacionalista Party, sought to disqualify
Comelec chairman Vicente de Vera from
taking part in the Comelec deliberations
concerning the Nov. 1949 elections on two Brillantes v. Yorac
grounds:
Facts:
1. De Vera’s son, Teodoro de Vera,
was a Liberal Party senatorial candidate Petitioner challenged the
during said elections. Following Rules of constitutionality of Yorac’s appointment as
Court, the older de Vera should be Acting Chairman of the Comelec by then
disqualified. President Aquino.
2. De Vera’s appointment as
Chairman is void ab initio, because he had Issue: WON Yorac’s appointment is
already served as member of Comelec prior constitutional
to his term as Chairman. Under the
Constitution, he was not entitled to any Held: No
reappointment.
Ratio:
Issues / Held / Ratio:
1. The Comelec, although it exercises
(1) WON the Rules of Court applies to the primarily executive functions, is an
Comelec independent constitutional body and is not
under the control of the President. The
No. The Rules of Court, promulgated by discretion in filling out a vacancy in its
the Supreme Court, applies only to judicial chairmanship shall belong to the commission
bodies under its general power of itself.
supervision. The Comelec is an independent,
administrative body over which the Supreme 2. The lack of laws, similar to those rules that
Court has jurisdiction only to the extent that guide the Supreme Court in filling out
it may review the Comelec’s decisions, vacancies, shall not diminish the
ordinances or rulings on certiorari. commission’s discretion. Otherwise
appointments revocable at will, would violate
Assuming the Comelec adopted the the security of tenure and independence of
ROC suppletorily, it does not have the power its members.
to adopt rules on the disqualification of its
members because the Constitution provides ** Appointment held to be unconstitutional;
that its members may only be removed without prejudice to members of the Comelec
through impeachment. re-electing Yorac or somebody else until a
new Chairman is appointed by the President.
The older De Vera should be able to
inhibit himself solely on the basis of ethics. Besa vs. PNB
• “DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO
Nature: Original Petition in the Supreme Court. IMPLEMENT THE REFORMS MANDATED BY
Certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto THE PEOPLE, PROTECTING THEIR BASIC
RIGHTS, ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL
Facts: CONSTITUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
• Tomas Besa was appointed Chief Legal ORDERLY TRNASITION TO A GOVERNMENT
Counsel with the rank of Vice President of UNDER NEW CONSTITUTION”
PNB. • EO 127, Reorganization Program, was also
• By virtue of a resolution by PNB president issued.
Roberto Benedicto, he became Consultant • Several acts and rules were issued to
on Legal Matters. comply with the proclamation.
• Conrado Medina took over his position. • January 6, 1988, Mison issued a
• PNB justified by saying that: memorandum for employees where the
o The position of Chief Legal latter shall be:
Counsel carries a special o Informed of their reappointment,
confidential relationship of lawyer or
and client and thus they have the o Offered another position in the
prerogative to designate or same department or agency
change its lawyer o Informed of their termination
o The transfer was made by the • As a result, Dario was one of the many
Board in the exercise of its whose services were terminated subject to
powers, upon recommendation of normal clearances and possible receipt of
the PNB president retirement benefits under existing laws,
rules, and regulations.
Resolution No. 1053: by BOD: shifted Besa to • Hereafter, the Civil Service Commission
Office of President as Consultant on Legal Matters, reinstated hundreds of employees who
without change in salary and other privileges were separated by Mison.
• Mison charged the CSC with grave abuse
Issue: WON Besa’s transfer was illegal of discretion, a case that could be subject
Held: NO to judicial review without prejudice to the
powers of CSC to have the final say to
Ratio: cases involving its employees and officers.
1. The position of Chief Legal Counsel was a • Dario invoked security of tenure.
highly confidential position and such
position’s term depends upon the will of Issues:
the appointing power. 1. Is it constitutional to separate career civil
2. Removal without just cause as a defense service employees not for cause but as a
applies only to officers and employees result of the reorganization pursuant to
enjoying a fixed term. Proclamation 3 dated March 25m 1986?
3. According to Chief Justice, a primarily Yes. Under Section 16 of Article
confidential officer cannot be removed. 18: Transitory Provisions of the
His term merely expires according to Constitution. It also applies to
nature of job. Reyes says tenure of separations as results of
confidential officers ends upon loss of reorganization after the
confidence. ratification of the Consti.
4. Court also ruled that the position of Chief
Legal Counsel is primarily confidential and 2. Was there a valid reorganization in the
secondarily technical. Bureau of Customs occurring at that time
which would validate Dario’s and several
Petition Dismissed. others’ separation from office?
NO.
Dario vs. Mison • NO change in the staffing pattern
prescribed by Section 34 of EO 127 was
Mison: Commissioner of Customs made even after Mison took office.
Dario: Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of • Mison separated 394 Customs personnel
Customs but replaced them with 522. This was
Nature: proof that such separations were not
• March 25, 1986, Aquino promulgated made to improve the bureaucracy and
Proclamation No. 3 make them more efficient.
• It was also a defiance of President’s • His compensation level belongs to Pay
directive to halt further lay-offs as a Class 2 relative to the highest, Pay Class
consequence of reorganization. 12.
• Mison did not follow procedures laid down
by EO 127 regarding lay-offs. COA decision affirmed. Salas not reinstated.
Facts: COMELEC
• Petitioners were paid incentive benefits for
the year 1992, pursuant to EO 292, Loong vs. COMELEC 305 SCRA 832
otherwise known as the Administrative NATURE: Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari
Code of 1987 and the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of EO 292. Facts:
• ADEPT members were granted incentive • Pursuant to RA No. 8436 prescribing the
bonus for 1992 pursuant to RA 6971 or the adoption of an automated election system,
Productivity Incentives Act of 1990. the May 11, 1998 regular elections in the
• Corporate Auditor disallowed the act as it ARMM was decided upon with the aid of
was a violation of Admin Order 29. counting machines.
• ADEPT questioned this action.
• May 12, 1998: Atty. Tolentino, Jr. was
Issue: WON ADEPT members were covered by RA informed by some election inspectors and
6971 or the Productivity Incentives Act. watchers of discrepancies between votes
cast and the election returns for the
• NO. PTA, employer of ADEPT members, is mayoralty candidates in the Municipality
a government-owned and controlled of Pata.
corporation with original charter subject to
Civil Service Law, Rules, and Regulations. • Upon submission of problem to the
• It is already within the scope of the technical experts of COMELEC, it was
incentives award system under Section 1, discovered that the ballots were not
Rule 10 of the Omnibus Rules properly printed and such was the cause
Implementing EO 292 issued by the Civil of the wrong readings. Nothing was wrong
Service Commission. with the machines.
Issue: WON AO 29 and AO 268 are violative of EO • Tolentino reported to COMELEC Main and
292 and hence null and void. the latter issued Minute Resolution No. 98-
No. Part of control power of President. 1747 ordering a manual count but only in
Exercising his power of control by modifying the the municipality of Pata and the
acts of the respondents who granted incentive subsequent MR No. 98-1796 laying down
benefits to their employees without appropriate rules for manual count
clearance from Office of the President. President,
not the Commission has the power to fix • Private resondent Tan was proclaimed
incentives. governor-elect of Sulu on the basis of the
manual count.
• Petitioners questioned validity of counting created
resolutions. post election
tension
Issues Held/Ratio
1. WON a petition for YES. Section 7, Article 9(A) f) even the military
certiorari and of Consti and police
prohibition under authorities
Rule 65 of ROC is the “unless provided by this unanimously
right remedy to Consti or by law, any recommended
invalidate the decision, order, or ruling of manual counting
disputed COMELEC each Commission may be
resolutions brought to the SC on g) petitioner Loong
certiorari by the aggrieved was not denied
party within 30 days from due process. They
receipt of copy thereof” were given chance
to oppose manual
The petition for counting, submit
certiorari was the proper written reports,
remedy for questions escort and observe
regarding FINAL orders, manual counting.
rulings, and decision of the
COMELEC rendered in the h) Automated
exercise of its adjudicatory counting could not
or quasi-judicial powers. push through. RA
2. WON COMELEC NO. The order for a manual 8436 only provided
committed GAD count was not arbitrary, that in case of
amounting to lack of capricious, or whimsical. breakdowns in one
jurisdiction in machine, other
ordering the manual Factual Bases: machines from
count. a) automated other
machines failed to municipalities may
read correctly the be used. However,
ballots in Pata in the case at bar,
(mayoralty there was nothing
candidate Anton wrong with the
Burahan got 0 machines but with
votes even if the ballots.
Chairman of the
Board of Election i) Under Section 2(1)
Inspectors and of Article 9 C:
others said they COMELEC is given
voted for him) the power to
enforce and
b) another got 100% administer all laws
of the votes and regulations
relative to the
c) technical experts conduct of an
confirmed that the election,
problem was plebiscite,
caused by the initiative,
improperly printed referendum, and
ballots recall.
3. Assuming manual NO.
d) in other count is illegal, WON Section 6 of the
municipalities, it is proper to call for Omnibus Election Code
ballots contained a special election for provides that a special
the wrong the position of election can only be held if
sequence code governor of Sulu there is a failure of
election such that no
e) failures of election occurs because of
automated force majeure, terrorism,
fraud, or other analogous power to annul an Election Code
cases. entire municipal “It may, motu proprio
election on the or upon written petition,
Plea for special election ground of post- and after due notice and
should be submitted to election terrorism hearing order the
COMELEC not to the SC. suspension of the
COMELEC decides en banc proclamation of a
by a majority vote of its candidate-elect or annul
members. (section 4 of RA any proclamation…”
No. 7166)
• part of its main
Only a special election objective to
only for the position of insure free,
governor would be orderly, and
discriminatory and will honest elections.
violate equal protection of • Since the
laws of other candidates submission of
for other positions. returns were
vitiated by post-
Sanchez vs. COMELEC 114 SCRA 454 election terrorism,
Nature: Petitions for certiorari to review the popular will was
resolution of the COMELEC prejudiced.
WON COMELEC has YE. Section 5 of Batasan
Facts: authority to call for a Pambansa Bilang 52.
special election “in case of violence,
• January 30, 1980 local elections
terrorism, loss or
• Virgilio Sanchez: Nacionalista Party
destruction of election
candidate for Municipal Mayor of San
paraphernalia or records,
Fernando, Pampanga
force majeure and other
• Armando Biliwang: Kilusang Bagong analogous cases…the
Lipunan candidate COMELEC shall, on the
• Biliwang was proclaimed winner by basis of a verified petition
Municipal Board of Canvassers and after due notice and
hearing, call for the
• February 1, 1980: Sanchez filed petition to holding or continuation of
declare null and void the elctions due to the elections as soon as
alleged large-scale terrorism practicable”
Issues Facts:
Held/Ratio • Defeated mayoral candidate of the
Nacionalista party, Ananias Hibo, filed a
WON COMELEC has YES: Section 175 of 1978
complaint with the COMELEC charging
• Rogelio de Jesus, then COMELEC registrar Javier vs. COMELEC 144 SCRA 194
of Casiguran, Nature: Petition to review the decision of the
• With violation of 1978 Election Code. COMELEC
• Copy of complaint—Ministry of Justice--- Issues here were rendered moot and academic.
Provincial Fiscal of Sorsogon for Facts:
investigation Candidates in Antique for the Batasan
Pambansa in May 1984 elections
• Asst. Fiscals Manuel Genova and Delfin • Evelio B. Javier: more popular support
Tarog of the Tanodbayan conducted the • Arturo Pacificador: nominee of KBL
investigation and issued a resolution
May 13, 1984: eve of elections: Pacificador and his
• Finding the existence of prima facie case men allegedly ambushed and killed several
against petitioner for violation of section followers of Javier
89 and subsections of Section 178 of
Election Code of 1978. • Javier then questioned the canvass of
elections but complaints were dismissed.
• After approval by Tanodbayan, info was Pacificador was proclaimed winner.
filed before the Sandiganbayan. • Pending petition, second division of
COMELEC, on June 7, 1984, ordered the
• Petitioner question jurisdiction of board to immediately convene and to
Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan over the proclaim the winner without prejudice to
case. the outcome of the case before the
Commission.
What were the violations? Issue: WON 2nd Division of COMELEC had
1. registered persons in order that they may jurisdiction and authority to proclaim Pacificador
vote on election day the winner in election.
2. tampered reports on number of voters: 10, Held: NO
727 instead of 10, 532
Ratio: Section 3 of Article 12-C:
Issue: Who has the power to investigate, “All election cases may be heard and
prosecute, and try election offenses committed by decided y division except contest involving
a public officer in relation to his office- COMELEC members of the Batasang Pambansa, which shall
and CFI or the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan? be heard and decided en banc.”
Section 182 of 1978 Election Code: Guevara vs. COMELEC 104 Phil 269
The Commission shall, thru its duly Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court.
authorized legal officer, have the power to Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction
conduct preliminary investigation of all election Facts:
offenses punishable under this Code and to • Jose Guevara published in the Sunday
prosecute the same. The Commission may avail of Times an article entitled “Ballot Boxes
the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the Contract Hit.
government. • COMELEC ordered him to show just cause
why he should not be punished for
Had the employee not been an officer of contempt.
the COMELEC, regular courts would have
• COMELEC claimed that such article would
jurisdiction.
undermine the exclusive constitutional
Section 4 of PD No. 1606 gives
function of Commission and its Chairman
Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over crimes or
Domingo Imperial and member Sixto
offenses committed by public officers…In relation
Brilliantes in the admin of all laws relative
to their office.
to the conduct of elections.
However, Section 184 of the Election Cod
also gave to the CFI the authority to hear and
National Shipyards and Steel Corp, Acme Steel, Asiatic Steel to manufacture and supply COMELEC ballot
decide all election offenses without qualification
boxes
as to the status of the accused.
COMELEC cancelled contract with ACME as the latter failed to sign contract within designated time
b) Signature or initials or thumbprint of
Chairman of BEI
c) Presence of red and blue fibers
Issue: WON COMELEC had jurisdiction and IX. Courts and the Constitution
authority to investigate and punish petitioner for
contempt in connection with the alleged
publication Marcos vs. Manglapus
Held: NO
Libanan vs. HRET 283 SCRA 520 Issue: WON Cory had constitutional authority to
Nature: Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the
Facts: Philippines. YES
• May 28, 1997: HRET affirmed
proclamation of Jose Tan Ramirez as duly Sub-issues:
elected rep of Eastern Samar over
Marcelino Libanan Do the Marcoses have right to return to
• Libanan filed an election protest before the Philippines? JUSTICIABLE QUESTION. COURT
HRET claiming, among other things, that HAS AUTHORITY.
the May 8, 115 elections were marred by
massive electoral irregularities Is that a threat to national security?
perpetrated by Ramirez and his followers. POLITICAL. PRESIDENT HAS POWER TO DECIDE.
• Libanan prayed for HRET to issue an order
to annul election and proclamation of Issue Held/ Ratio
Ramirez and thereafter so proclaim him as WON president has YES.
duly elected Rep of Samar. power to bar Article 2, Sec 4 and
• HRET said ballots had the required Marcoses’ return 5:
COMELEC watermarks and were thus The President has
valid. obligation to protect the
• Petitioners said the absence of the people, promote their
signature of the chairman of BEI deemed welfare and advance the
ballots void. national interest.
House Resolution
Issue: WON HRET committed GAD in ruling that 1342 even recognized
the absence of the signature of the Chairman of power of President to
the BEI in the ballots did not render the ballots bar the return.
spurious Resolution content: let
Held: NO them return (no
implication of not
Failure of the BEI to sign the ballot shall allowing president to bar
constitute an election offense. However, ballot return.
shall not be considered invalid. It merely renders WON president NO.
BEI Chairman accountable for such failure. acted arbitrarily in Declaration of threat
(Section 24 of RA 7166) determining the had factual bases:
their return poses a • Marcoses were
Authenticating marks may be any of the following: threat to national driven out of the
a) COMELEC watermark interest and welfare country for
stealing millions mandamus: to require any
from country’s person, corporation, or inferior
treasury. court
• Their return • To fo some particular duty
would have therein specified,
posed violence • Which
against State. apperta
ins to
their
office
and
James Madison vs. James Madison,
duty
Secretary of State • And
which
Nature: the
Facts: court
• The late president of the has
USA, Mr. Adamas previou
nominated the sly
petitioners to the Senate determi
and got their consent ned to
and advice. be
• They were to serve as conson
justices of peace of the ant to
Columbia. right
• Together with their and
appointment, justice
commissions were to be • In all
granted for them. cases
• Such commissions were where
signed by the President a party
and affixed, by Madison, has a
as Secretary of State, right to
with the seal of the have
United States. anythin
• However, when g done
petitioners asked for • And
their commissions from has no
the Secretary of State, other
the same were refused specific
of them. means
• Petitioners wanted court of
to order Madison to compell
deliver the commissions. ing its
perfor
mance.
2. Whether YES.
Madbury has a The President signed
Issue Held/Ratio right to the Madbury’s commission and the
1. Whether NO. commission Secretary of State had affixed
the Supreme The legal remedy for appeals he demands the seal of the US to it. At this
Court can differs. stage, his appointment was
award the writ • The writ of mandamus in cases deemed independent of the
of mandamus warranted by the principles executive. Healso now had legal
in any case and usages of law, can be rights arising from his
issued to any court appointed, appointment; a commission was
or persons holding office, one such right.
under the he authority of the 3. WON in the YES.
United States. present case, The Secretary of State has
• Writ of the court may two capacities: as an agent of
award a the President, he would not be
mandamus to liable to a mandamus. Issue: WON petitioners have right to 51% of the
James As a ministerial officer of the shares of Manila Hotel over the supposed winner,
Madison, US, he is liable to a mandamus. Renong Berhad, of the GSIS bid.
Secretary of The fixing of a seal to the HELD: YES
State commissions was one of his
ministerial duties together with Ratio:
his job as recorder of the deeds • National patrimony
of land, letters patent, and of includes not only rich
commissions. natural resources but
As such, he has duties also cultural heritage
assigned him by law, and mental ability or
In the execution of which he is faculty of our people.
independent of all control, • Court ruled that Manila
But that of laws. Hotel is part of our
national patrimony as it
has always been mute
witness to the history of
Malabo ‘tong digest na ‘to kaya basahin nyo ulit this nation (naks!).
ang case. • Manila Hotel is also part
of the national economy.
• It is then accorded the
Constitutional protection
provided for in Section
10 of Article 12.
Facts:
(a) violation of the constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment,
(c) being an undue delegation of legislative power, and (d) being discriminatory.
RA no. 8177: lethal injection as the method for the imposition of death penalty
Issues Held/Ratio
1. WON lethal injection violates Section 19, NO.
Article 3 of the Constitution • Although the Director of Prisons is not a
Par. 2 Section 19 of Article 3: trained phlebotomist, section 1 of the third
“The employment of physical, psychological, or par. Of RA 8177 requires that prior to the
degrading punishment against any prisoner or execution, all involved personal shall be
detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate trained in the task so as to avoid inflicting
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be unnecessary pain. The Consti protects
dealt with by law.” convicts only from punishment which are
inherently cruel and degrading.
• The pain experienced in lethal injection is
only incidental to the execution not its main
feature.
2. WON reimposition of the death penalty violates NO
international treaty obligations • International Convention on Civil and
Political Rights recognizes that capital
punishment is an allowable limitation on the
right to life but should be limited to most
serious crimes (Article 6, section 2)
• The Philippines did not sign nor ratify the
Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming
at the Abolition of the Death Penalty.
3. WON RA no. 8177 is undue delegation of NO.
legislative power to the Secretary of Justice and the • It is a form of delegation of legislative
Director of Bureau of Corrections authority to administrative bodies.
Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the Bureau
of Corrections which drafted the details for the lethal
injection execution is a constituent unit of the
Department of Justice tasked to take charge of the
administration of the correctional system.
• The Secretary of Justice is thus tasked to
supervise the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections in promulgating the Lethal
Injection Manual in consultation with the
DOH
4. WON section 19 of the rules and regulations to YES.
implement RA No. 8177 is invalid. • Section 19: Execution Procedure delegates
the making of the Lethal Injection Manual
solely to the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections but does not include the
Secretary of Justice’s authority or mode of
approval or review for such manual.
• Second paragraph of section 19 requires the
confidentiality of the contents of the manual
even with respect to convict and to the
public at large.
• 2nd paragraph violates Section 7 of Article 3
of Consti: the right of people to information
on matters of public concern.
• No legal impediment exists for the convict to
have access to the contents of the manual.
5. WON Section 17 of the Rules and Regulations to YES.
Implement R.A. No. 8177 is invalid for being * Section 17 provides suspension of death penalty for
discriminatory and contrary to law. (Suspension of 3 years for pregnant women. This is a violation of
the Execution of the Death Sentence) Article 83 of the RPC which only suspends execution
to a year. Where there is conflict between an
implementing law and a congressional statute, the
statute must remain.
Respondents are hereby enjoined from enforcing and implementing Republic Act No. 8177 until the
aforesaid Sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177 are
appropriately amended, revised and/or corrected in accordance with this Decision.
Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and prohibition
Certiorari: to annul or modify the proceedings of any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial function
without or excess of its jurisdiction or with GAOD as the law requires.
Facts:
Petitioners wanted RA 8240 to be declared null and void because
• it was passed in violation of the rules of the house
• that these rules embody the Consti mandate (Section 16 par 3 of Article 6) ‘that each House may
determine the rules of its proceedings and
• that a violation of the rules is a violation of the Consti itself.
What happened?
Representative Arroyo approved the conference committee report with Arroyo’s pending question of
the presence of a quorom.
RA 8240: amends certain provisions of the National Internal revenue Code by imposing so-called sin taxes
(actually specific taxes) on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes.
Issue: WON Congress committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting RA No. 8240.
(it was necessary to find out if Congress acted in GAOD to determine Court’s jurisdiction on the case)
Held: NO
Ratio:
1. The alleged violations were merely that of internal rules of procedure of the House rather than
constitutional requirements for the enactment of the law.
2. The Courts cannot declare an act of legislature void on account of noncompliance of rules of
procedure. Besides:
• no rule of the House of Representatives was cited which specifically requires that in cases involving
approval of a conference committee report, that Chair must restate the motion and conduct nominal
voting.
• The manner by which House No. 7198 was approved was not a unique one
• Local Government Code of 1991 was approved in the same manner
• The Consti does not require that yeas and nays be taken every time the House has to vote except:
a) upon the last and 3rd reading of bill
b) at the request of 1/5 of the members
c) in repassing a bill over the veto of the President
3. Rep. Arroyo waived his objection when session reconvened.
4. Under the enroleed bill doctrine, the signing of H. No 7198 are conclusive of its due enactment.
Facts:
• Petitioner contended that Presidential Electoral Tribunal should not be allowed to hear the case
because
• Republic Act No. 1793, creating said Tribunal, is "unconstitutional", and that, "all proceedings taken
by it are a nullity."
Issues:
1. WON RA No. 1793 is inconsistent with the Constitution because the latter does not provide for
election protests involving the office of the President and the vice president as this would prejudice
the tenure of the president and the vice president
HELD: NO
RATIO:
A protest regarding the validity of the victory of a presidential or vice presidential candidate
does not in any way prejudice his tenure. The protest, in the first place, is a question of the validity of
such person’s authority to be president or vice president.
If it is discovered that such candidate won because of tampered ballots and the like, then his
victory would be invalid.
2. WON it is illegal to allow members of the Supreme Court to sit in the Presidential Electoral Tribunal as
this would be a violation of the separation of powers.
HELD: NO
RATIO:
a) the power to judge to judge matters concerning the election, returns and qualifications…is
essentially judicial
b) Upon the other hand, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal has the judicial power to determine
whether or not said duly certified election returns have been irregularly made or tampered
with, or reflect the true results of the elections in the areas covered by each, and, if not, to
recount the ballots cast, and, incidentally thereto, pass upon the validity of each ballot or
determine whether the same shall be counted, and, in the affirmative, in whose favor, which
Congress has no power to do.
1935 Consti!!
Facts:
The constitutionality of Section 14 of the People’s Court Act (CA Act No. 682) was questioned in this
case.
Issue Held/Ratio
1. WON Congress had power to add to the pre- NO.
existing grounds of disqualification of a Justice of the • Disqualification by virtue of membership in
Supreme Court either or both the Philippine ExeCom and the
Phil republic or any branch, instrumentality
and/or agency thereof, is not mandated in
the Consti
• ALL members of the Supreme Court cannot
be deprived of the authority over criminal
cases where the penalty may be death or life
imprisonment (treason has such penalty)
• Deprivation of a judge’s authority is
deprivation of judicial power.
2. WON a person may act as a Justice of the Supreme NO.
Court who has not been duly appointed by the • Judges of mentioned courts only have the ff.
President and confirmed by the COA, even only as a requirement: section 6, article 8
designee a) should have practiced law for a period of not
less that five years or have held during a like
period within the Philippines an officer
requiring a lawyer’s diploma
• However, Justices of the SC are required to
be at least 40 years old and
• Have served for 10 years or more as judge of
a court or record or engaged in the practice
of law in the Philippines
3. WON section 14’s approval of a judge of FI, Judge- NO.
at-large of FI, or Cadastral Judge is valid and that the • No temporary composition of the Supreme
mentioned judges can ‘sit temporarily’ as justice of Court is allowed in the Constitution
the Supreme Court to complete the quorum in cases • Section 14 of said act does not satisfy the
where a justice may not sit and vote when the constitutional requirement of appointment
accused is a person who held office or position under such that members of the SC must be
either or both the Phil ExeCom or the Phil Rep or any appointed by the President with the consent
B,I, A thereof of the COA.
People vs. Gutierrez
Nature: Petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction to annul and set aside an order of
the CFI, Ilocos Sur.
Facts:
May 22, 1970: a group of armed persons descended on barrio Ora Cento, Bantay, Ilocos Sur and set
fire to various houses.
• they also went to Ora Este and burned houses also killing a woman named Vicenta
Balboa
June 10, 1970: Provincial Fiscals and prosecutors from the DOJ filed:
• Criminal Case 47-V for arson with homicide
• Criminal Case 48-V for arson
• Charged 17 of the respondents with 82 others who conspired in the act
• Trial was set for July 27-29, 1970
June 22, 1970: prosecution sought to move trial of case to Circuit Criminal Court to ensure security of
witnesses and personal safety.
• respondent judge refused to transfer the case and reasoned out that since the
accused had already pleaded, transfer was no longer to be heard of.
• Under Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 5179 request for change of venue from SC should
have been done at the very inception of the cases.
Petitioners filed this case to set aside decision of respondent judge and to try the cases at either San
Fernando or Baguio City.
Issue: WON the Secretary of Justice has the power to determine what court should hear specific cases
Held: NO
Ratio:
• violated doctrine for the separation of powers
• Republic Act. No. 5179 creating that Circuit Criminal Court did not and does not
authorize the Secretary of Justice to transfer thereto specified and individual cases.
(Although in this case, Secretary of Justice authorized, not ordered judges to
transfer cases. La siyang violation actually)
• The change of venue in trying cases is in the interest of truth of justice. I the case
at bar, witnesses said they were willing to testify as long as the proceedings would
not be in Ilocos.
Added info: Section 14(a) of Rule 110 of Revised Rules of Court: criminal cases should be tried in the places
where they were committed
However, said section has 5 exceptions:
a) piracy
b) extra-territorial offenses contemplated in Article 2
c) continuing offenses
d) criminal and civil actions arising from written defamation
e) where the application of general rule would prevent a fair and impartial inquiry into the actual
facts of the case
In re Cunanan
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court
Facts:
Republic Act No. 972 popularly known as the ‘Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953’ was enacted on June 21,
1953 without executive approval. (Senator Pablo Angeles David authored the bill)
As a result, 1, 094 unsuccessful bar candidates were to be benefited by the act.
Purpose of the law: to overcome insufficiency of reading materials and the inadequacy of the preparation of
these students when they took the bar (after the war daw kasi)
Ratio:
1. It was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.
2. Legislature exceed in its power to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission to Bar. It is
the job of the Supreme Court to render ultimate decision as to who is fit to practice law.
3. Inadequate preparation is not a valid excuse for flunking the bar and is an arbitrary classification of
people taking the bar. Inadequately prepared students should not be lawyers in the first place.
4. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law.
Republic Act No. 972: An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from Nineteen Hundred and
Forty-Six Up to and Including Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Five
In re IBP
Facts:
On September 17, 1971, Marcos enacted Republic Act 6397 providing for the Integration of the
Philippine Bar and Appropriating Funds therefor. (source of law: House Bill No. 3277)
Integration mean the official unification of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines.
• requires membership
• and financial support
• aimed to make the law profession more efficient and effective.
Issues Held/Ratio
1. WON Court has power to integrate the Philippine YES.
Bar Under Article 8, Section 3, the SC has the power
‘ to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts and the admission to the
practice of law.
The ACT neither confers a new power or
restricts Court’s inherent power but is a mere
legislative declaration that integration will promote
public interest.
2. WON integration is constitutional YES.
a) compelling membership: constitutional? On the question of compelled membership,
b) Membership fee: constitutional? Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any
group of which he is already a member.
On the question of compelled payment of fee, it
was reasoned out that such amount would only be
incidental to its purpose. The State may only
‘discipline’ the bar if it poses a fee that results to an
unconstitutional burden.
3. WON Court should ordain the integration of the YES.
Bar at this time. Integration in other countries has resulted to:
• improved discipline among
members
• more meaningful
participation of lawyers
• hay marami pala..tingnan
niyo na lang org
Majority of local associations of lawyers have
already approved of the bar. 96.45 per cent of
lawyers also approved integration
Facts:
Two hand grenade explosions occurred on August 21, 1971 at Plaza Miranda where the Liberal Party
of the Philippines was holding a public meeting for the presentation of its candidates for the November 8,
1971 elections. Eight persons were killed and many were injured.
As a result, Marcos issued Proclamation No. 889, suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.
Petitioners sought for writs of habeas corpus after being arrested without a warrant therefore and
detained. They questioned the validity of Proclamation No. 889.
Issue Held/Ratio
1. WON Proclamation No. 889 violated par. 4 No.
section 1 of article 3 and par 2, section 10 of Petitioners initially contended that the
article 7 of Consti proclamation was made based solely on the
idea that there was a conspiracy and intent to
rise in arms among several groups in the
country.
However, court held that with the
modifications thru Proclamation No. 889-A,
Marcos declared that the ‘enemy groups’ had
already entered into the conspiracy and have
in fact joined together to engage in armed
insurrection and rebellion.
The Plaza Miranda incident was only one
among the many violent incidences that
brought forth such proclamation.
IN case of invasion, insurrection or rebellion, the President can: 1) call out the armed forces
2) suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
3) put Philippines or any part therof under martial law
Facts:
July 25, 1946: Antonio Lacson was appointed by President as provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental
May 17, 1949: President nominated Lacson to post of provincial fiscal of Tarlac upon recommendation of
Secretary of Justice
Agabin question: Ahh, what are the steps for the aah… appointment of fiscal?
1. nomination by President
2. to make nomination valid and permanent, COA must confirm
3. acceptance thereof by the appointee manifested thru his assumption of office
Issues Held/Ratio
1. WON COA’s appointment of Lacson to Tarlac NO.
created a vacancy in the Negros fiscal office
Since Lacson declined to accept the nomination,
there was no vacancy.
2. WON nomination and confirmation of Lacson to YES.
Tarlac served as removal of Lacson from office However, no reason was presented as to why
Lacson was to be removed. He did not even accept
nomination.
3. WON President can remove at any time, a fiscal he NO.
himself appointed to office Article 12 section 4 provides that ‘no officer or
employee in the civil service shall be removed or
suspended for causes provided by law.’
Section 671 of RAC as amended by
Commonwealth Act No. 177 section 8 classifies
provincial fiscals as person embraced in unclassified
civil service.
Issue: WON said investigation was valid Yes but only after investigation has resulted to
the actual order of deportation.
Held/Ratio: No
Arrest would have been necessary for
Section 2188 of RAC: provincial governor deportation to take effect.
is authorized to receive and investigate
complaints made under oath against municipal However, in the case at bar, investigations
officers for neglect of duty, oppression, corruption, were still ongoing and no order for deportation
or other form of maladministration of office, and was yet made.
conviction by final judgment of any crime of moral
turpitude. Decision: E.O. No 398, series of 1951:
declared illegal
The provincial fiscal himself could not file
a complaint of rape without sworn statement of Deportation may be effected in 2 ways:
offended party. 1. by order of President, after due
investigation, pursuant to Section 69 of
Decision: Investigation was illegal and the RAC
unauthorized. 2. by Commissioner of Immigration, upon
recommendation by the Board of
Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board Commissioners under Section 37 of
Commonwealth Act No. 613
Nature: Appeal from the decision of CFI, Manila
Crime was an act profiteering, hoarding or
Facts: blackmarketing of US dollars
CFI denied petition for writs of habeas
corpus and/or prohibition, certiorari, and
mandamus for his case.
Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff
On May 12, 1952, Special Prosecutor
Emilio L. Galang charged petitioner before the Nature: Original Action in the SC. Prohibition
Deportation Board.
The crimes: Facts:
• purchasing $130,000 with license from Ramon Ruffy, Jose L. Garcia, Prudente
Central Bank and remitted it to Hong Kong Francisco, Dominador Adeva, and Adres Fortus
• attempted bribery of Phil and US officials allegedly killed Lt. Col Jurado.
(Chief of the Intelligence Division of the CB At the time of the time, Ruffy was already
and member of US Air Force) relieved of his assignment as Commanding
Officer, Bolo Battalion.
In effect Deportation Board issued a warrant
of arrest for petitioner (E.O. No 398, series of However, the other four remained officers
1951). Upon fixing of bonds, petitioner was of the Bolo Area of the 6th Military Division.
temporarily set free.
Petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of
Issues: the General Court Martial of the Philippine Army
1. WON President has authority to deport over the case.
aliens
Held: Yes. They also sought for the records of their
Section 69 of Act NO. 2711 of RAC: cases’ proceedings to be reviewed by the
No alien can be deported by prexy EXCEPT Supreme Court.
upon prior investigation, conducted by said
executive or his authorized agent, of the Issues:
1. WON petitioners were under jurisdiction
of General Court Martial of the Philippine Army
Held: YES
Garcia, Francisco, Adeva, and Fortus were
still officers of the Bolo Area deriving authority
from the General Headquarters of the 6th Military
Division when they killed Jurado.
Facts:
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly Liuetentant General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding
General of the Japanse Imperial Forces in the Philippines during the period covering 1943 and 1944,
• who is now charged before a Military Commission
• convened by the Chief of Staff of the AFP with
• having unlawfully disregarded and failed
• to discharge his duties as such commander
• to control the operations of members of his command,
• permitting them to commit brutal crimes against civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese
Forces
• in violation of the law and customs of war
Petitioner questions:
• the constitutionality of E.O. No 68
• the participation of Melville Hussey and Robert Port in the proceedings of the case
Issues:
Issues Held/Ratio
1. WON E.O. No 68 was constitutional YES.
• established a National War Crimes • Section 3 of Article 2 provides: The
Office Philippines renounces war as an
• prescribed rules and regulations instrument of national policy, and
governing the trial of accused war adopts the generally accepted
criminals principles of international law as part
• issued by President on July 29, 1947 of the law of the nation.
• Part of President’s power as
Commander-in-Chief to consummate
unfinished aspect of war, namely, the
trial and punishment of war criminals.
• Although Philippines was not a
signatory of the Hague Convention,
the crime was committed when we
were under the US, a signatory
country.
• Had we not been under US, it would
still have been valid becoz said E.O.
was pursuant to the general
application of national policy against
war.
2. WON 2 American attorneys, Hussey and YES.
Port can participate in the case even if they
were not qualified to practice law in the • Military Commission is a special
Philippines under Rules of Court military tribunal governed by special
law not Rules of Court.
• Lawyers appearing in Military
Commission need not be lawyers
qualified to practice law in the
Philippines.
Cases at bar:
1. Petition for prohibition with a prayer for a write of preliminary injunction for Case Nos. until his
term as President is over : (February 5, 2001) Court G.R. No. 146710-15
OMB 0-00-1629: Ramon A. October 23, Bribery and graft and corruption
Gonzales 2000
Issue Held/Ratio
1. WON the petitions present a justiciable YES.
controversy Section 1, Article 8 Consti: but also to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of government
If not, WON whether Estrada is immune Estrada resigned. No need for impeachment in
from criminal prosecution order allow suits to be filed against him.
Feb. 7, 2001=Senate Resolution No. 83-
Recognizing that the Impeachment Court is Functus
Officio
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED.
Nature: Special Action for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for issuance of a temp. restraining order
Petitioner sought to nullify order of Pres. Estrada commanding the deployment of the Phil. Marines to
join PNP in visibility patrols around metropolis.
Such deployment was to be temporary.
Facts:
During the term of Cory Aquino, the Marcoses wanted to return to the Philippines but were barred
from doing so.
This is a petition for the court to order the respondents to issue travel documents to the Marcoses
and to enjoin the implementation of the President’s decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
Issue: WON Cory had constitutional authority to prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. YES
Sub-issues:
Do the Marcoses have right to return to the Philippines? JUSTICIABLE QUESTION. COURT HAS
AUTHORITY.
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction.
Facts:
San Miguel Bay became the center for the dispute over trawl fishing.
Sustenance fishermen complained about the operations alleging that those operations depleted the
resources of that marine area.
In effect, President issued E.O.s 22, 66, and 80 which had the effect of prohibiting trawl fishing in the
said area.
Issues: Held/Ratio
1. WON President has authority to issue E.O.s 22, YES.
66, and 80 Section 10(1) of Article 7 of Consti gives
president control over executive departments.
Dept of Agriculture and Natural Resources is
subject to the general supervision and control of
Pres.
2. WON E.O.s were valid VALID and issued with authority of law
3. WON it was undue delegation of powers to NO.
President Act no. 4003 of Legislature as amd. By
Commonwealth Act No. 471 intended to prohibit
devices like trawl nets that deplete food supply
from sea and it authorized Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources who in turn is under
supervision of President.
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction.
Facts:
December 29, 1961: Garcia appointed Dominador Aytona as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank
Aytona takes oath
December 31, 1961: Macapagal issued Administrative Order No. 2 all ad interim appointments made
by Garcia after December 13, 1961 (when Macapagal was proclaimed by Congress).
Issue:
WON Aytona’s appointment was valid
HELD:
No.
Facts:
Petitioners sought to prohibit in their appointed jobs:
Salvador Mison: Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs
Guillermo Carague: Secretary of the Department of Budget
Petitioners alleged that those appointments were void by reason of its not having been confirmed by
the Commission on Appointments.
* The first groups requires consent and confirmation by COA (by virtue of statutory construction)
Held:
No.
Only the first group of appointees requires explicitly the need for consent and confirmation.
The second sentence of provision says: He shall also appoint…
No explicit reference to the need of COA’s consent was then mentioned.
Appointments valid.
Issue: WON PD No. 1177 is unconstitutional. • President could only transfer funds to
augment an item.
Held: • Such transfer may be made if there are
savings.
PD No. 1177 is unconstitutional and void. • PD 1177 overextends powers of President.
• Allowed him to indiscriminately transfer
P.D. No. 1177 paragraph 1 of Section 44: funds from one dept to another.
Tañada vs. Angara
Facts:
Respondent Rizalino Navarro, then Secretary of the Dept of Trade and Industry signed the Final Act
Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations (Final Act)
Petitioners sought:
1. for the nullification, on constitutional grounds, of the concurrence (Senate Resolution No. 97) of
the Philippine Senate in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement
Establishing the WTO
2. for the prohibition of its implementation
Issues Held/Ratio
1. WON Court has jurisdiction YES.
Petitioners alleged that WTO agreement
violated the Consti mandate to ‘develop a self-
reliant and independent national economy
effectively controlled by Filipinos (Sec 19, Art
2) xxx to give preference to qualified Filipinos
(Sec 10, Art 12) and to promote the
preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic
materials, and locally produced goods (Section
12, Art 12).
2. WON WTO agreement violated Consti mandate NO.
on economic nationalism While the Consti mandates economic
nationalism, it also:
• recognizes the need for business
exchange with the world
• exchanges need to be based on
equality and reciprocity
• Consti is only against unfair foreign
competition.
• Consti does not rule out foreign
competition.
WTO provided:
* protection for weak economies thru one-
on-one negotiations with developed
countries
3. WON WTO Agreement unduly limits legislative YES but that is not unconstitutional per se.
power • Treaties do limit absoluteness of
(a provision in the agreement says that sovereignty.
Congress could not pass laws for national • By surrendering state power, nations
interest and general welfare if it were reap greater benefits which are results
inconsistent with agreement) of the provisions of international law
Constitutional!
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition with preliminary injunction
Facts:
Emmanuel Pelaez, vice president of the Phils. instituted this special civil, for a writ of prohibition with
preliminary injunction, against the auditor general and his reps and agents, from passing in audit any
expenditure of public funds in the implementation of the ff. exe. orders from the prexy which the latter
claimed as pursuant to Sec. 68 of the Rev.Admin. Code.
E.O. Nos 93-21, E.O. 121, E.O. 124, E.O. Nos 126-129 ( creating 33 municipalities)
Pelaez maintained that section 68 of the Rev. Admin. Code had already been repealed by Section 3
of Republic Act. No. 2370.
“ Barrios shall not be created or their boundaries altered nor their names changed except under the
provisions of this Act or by Act of Congress.”
Teka, di ba iba naman ung pinag-usapan ng dalawang laws? As in barrios and municipalities?
- Oo nga. Pero ang logic kasi dito, barrios make up municipalities and because the president is not
granted the power to create barrios, lalo na kaya ang municipalities which are made up of barrios.
Issue:
WON the president has authority to create new municipalities
Held:
The court granted the petition on ff grounds:
1. The creation of municipalities is not an administrative function but one, which is essentially and
eminently legislative in character. (Section 3 of rep. Act 2370). It is only administrative in as
much as it allows the adoption of means and way to carry into effect the law creating the said
municipalities.
2. Section 10 (1) of Article VII of Consti- grants prexy control over exe. institutions and general
supervision of LGs as prov. By law. This only grants him the authority to check whether the
offices are performing their duties as provided by law. In the case at bar, the prexy did more than
that. By creating new municipalities, he is in effect submitting local officials to submit to his
dictation, something denied of him by consti.
3. Sec. 68 of Rev. Admin Code must be deemed repealed by the subsequent adoption of the 1935
Consti, which grants the prexy control over exe. branches and units (e.g. municipalities) but not
the power to create or abolish new ones (this one’s legislative)
May opinions pa. Basahin nyo na lang. It’s’ like historical kasi so medyo fun siya. (boink.)
J. Antonio Araneta vs Fiscal of Manila, Eugenio Angeles
Nature: Prohibition and Mandamus
Facts:
Maraming kaso pala ‘to.
1. J. Antonio Araneta
- under prosecution for the violation of E.O. No. 62
- E.O. No. 62-regulates rentals for houses and lots for residential buildings
- Prays of writ of prohibition to judge and fiscal
2. Leon Ma. Guerrero
- E.O. NO. 192- aims to control exports from the Phils. ( pertinent to case at bar: forbids export
of shoes)
- Seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Admin. Of the Sugar Quota Office and the
Commissioner of Customs to permit the exportation of shoes
3. Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr (pres. Of Nacionalista party)
- E.O. No. 225- appropriates funds for the operation of the Gov. of the Phils.
- Applies for writ of prohibition to restrain the treasurer of the Phils from disbursing money
under this E.O.
4. Antonio Barredo
- E.O. No 226- appropriates Php 6,000,000 to defray expenses in connection with and
incidental to the holding of elections to be held in Nov. 1949
- Asks court to prevent respondents from disbursing such amount
E.O.s in question: 62, 192, 225, 226
Basic premise of the petitioners: such E.O.s are null and void because Emergency Powers Act
(Commonwelath Act NO. 671) have ceased to exist.
Act. No 671. An act declaring a state of total emergency as a result of war involving the Phils. And
authorizing the president to promulgate rules and regulations to meet such emergency.
Issue:
WON the E.O.s included in the case at bar are null and void.
Held:
The court held that E.O.s Nos. 62, 192, 225, and 226 were null and void; issued without authority of law
as they were issued after May 25, 1946 when Congress first met ion regular session and Act no. 671
became inoperative.
Legal Basis:
Act No. 671 Section 3: limits the emergency powers of prexy to the time the legislature was prevented
from holdings sessions due to enemy action or other causes brought on by war
“ the prexy shall as soon as practicable upon the convening of the Congress of the Phils report thereto all
the rules and regulations promulgated by him under the powers herein granted.” (in effect, as soon as
this meeting occurs, the emergency powers or the prexy are deemed inoperative unless reenacted with
authority from legislature)
mas makapal pa ung pages for opinions compared to pages for the court’s decision. Kakastress.
______________________________________________
People and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp vs. Jose O. Vera, judge
ad interim of the CFI of Manila
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and prohibition
Facts:
Petitioners pray for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and of prohibition so that the CFI of Manila
may not entertain further the application for probation of Mariano Cu Unjieng. In effect, the latter would be
committed to prison in accordance with the final judgment of conviction rendered by court.
Final Conviction: indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 years and two months of prision correctional to 8
years of prision mayor, to pay costs and with reservation of civil action to Hongkong and Shanghai Banks.
Issue:
1. WON the constitutionality of Act. No. 4221 has been properly raised in these proceedings
• Act 4221- Probation Act
- prescribes in detailed manner the procedure for granting probation to accused
persons after their conviction has become final and before they have served their
sentence
Held: the constitutional issue has been sufficiently presented not only in the Sc but also in the trial
court. Judge Vera however declined to pass upon the question on the ground that the private
prosecutor had no authority to raise the question because his rights were not affected by the statute.
Simply stated, the constitutionality of any statute is relevant to every person who will be, sooner or
later, affected by it. The People of the Philippines, thus have every right to raise the question of
constitutionality of such statute which may, sooner or later, affect them (huh? Intindihan nyo ba?)
Possible Sir Agabin Question: But was it right to raise the issue of constitutionality only after the
proceedings of the case? Shouldn’t they have done that before?
Possible Answer: In most cases, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity. However, the exception to that general rule applies to cranial cases wherein the
question may be raised for the first time at any stage of proceedings either in the trail court or on
appeal if it is nec. to the decision of the case.
2. if issue 1 is in the affirmative, WON said act is constitutional.
The constitutionality of Act 4221 is challenged on 3 grounds:
1. it encroaches upon the pardoning power of the executive (probation is different from pardon. It is
a purely judicial act which does not exempt probationer from the entire punishment which the
law inflicts. Executive pardon is against the crim. law which binds and directs judges.
On August 1, 1919, the Governor-General issued a proclamtion fixing the price at which rice should be
sold (E.O. No. 53).
On August 8, 1919, Ang Tang Ho was charged and subsequently found gulity with a violation of the
mentioned proclamation for selling rice at an excessive price ( .80/ganta).
Held:
The court ruled that E.O. No 53 is unconstitutional and void.
Act No. 2868 is a general rule regarding the regulation of palay, rice, and corn sales. It does not
however grant the Governor General the power to fix the prices of rice without justifiable cause. Such specific
stipulations are for the legislature to decide.
(basahin niyo ung orig to get the full idea of what the act was all about.)
Facts:
* Cabinet Bill no. 42…sponsored by Chairman of the Committee on Justice, Human Rights, and Good Govt.
Petitioners sought to enjoin Minister of Budget, Chairman of the Commission on Audit, and Minister of
Justice from taking any action in implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129
Held:
The court’s opinion was: Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is not unconstitutional.
On August 7, 1980, a Presidential Committee on Judicial reorganization was organized thru an E.O.
which was later amended by E.O. N0. 619-A dated September 5, 1980.
3. the law is simply a response to the need for institutional reforms which would result in:
a. more efficiency in the disposal of cases
b. improvement of quality of justice
c. modifications of court jurisdictions
* Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 also results in the abolition of certain inferior courts in the process of modifying
court jurisdictions. However, this is not a violation of powers since such abolitions will be done in good faith
and for the attainment of a better judicial system as was the intended purpose of the statue in the first place.
Facts:
• May 30, 1980: petitioners were charged for subversion (PD No. 885-Revised Anti-Subversion Law)
• upon the recommendation of the respondent Judge Advocate General (Gen. Hamilton Dimaya)
and
• the approval of the respondent Minister of National Defense (Juan Ponce Enrile)
Respondent Chief of Staff of AFP (General Romeo Espino) created the Military Commission No. 34 to
try the case.
July 30, 1980: amended charges to: 1) unlawful possession of explosives and incendiary devices; 2)
conspiracy to assassinate Marcoses; 3) conspiracy to assassinate Messrs. Tangco, Roño, and Corpus;
5) arson of 9 buildings 6) attempted murder of Messrs. Leonardo Perez, Valencia, and Generals
Espino and Ver 7) conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, and inciting to rebellion
Issues Held/Ratio
1. WON military commissions can try civilians for NO.
offenses committed during martial law when civil • Military Tribunals are executive
courts were open institutions.
• Provided by legislature for the President
as Commander-in-Chief
• To aid him in properly commanding the
army and navy and enforcing discipline
therein
• Case at bar involves criminal offenses.
Only judiciary can interpret what
constitutes criminal offense
• Besides, Proclamation No. 2045 (January
17, 1981-lifted martial law) divest Military
Commission No. 34 of its ‘supposed’
authority to try civilians.
2. WON Military Commission NO. 34 violated due YES.
process of law (unconstitutional) • violated Section 18, Article 7: state of
martial does not suspend Consti nor shall
it supplant functioning of civil courts to
military tribunals (gist lang ‘to)
• so long as civil courts are open,
proceedings have to be done in those
places except when the offenses are
merely administrative in nature
Nature: Original Petition in the SC. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory
injunction
Facts:
• Commissioner of Customs Manuel Manahan filed an administrative complaint against Collector of
Customs Ang-Angco;
• For grave neglect of duty and
• observance of a conduct prejudicial to the interest of the customs service
IN RESPONSE TO THAT:
• President Magsaysay created a committee to investigate on Ang-Angco’s case.
• At the time of Magsaysay’s death, investigation was still ongoing.
• After Magsaysay’s death,
• Executive Secretary Castillo, with authority from President,
• Rendered final judgment on Ang-Angco’s case finding the latter
• GUILTY of conduct prejudicial to the best interst of the customs service
• And considered him resigned from the position.
Issue: WON Executive Secretary, with authority from President can render final judgment on an
administrative case without submitting such direct action to the Commissioner of Civil Service and remove
official from office
Held: NO
Ratio:
Under Section 16(i) of the Civil Service Act of 1959:
• the Commissioner of Civil Service has original and exclusive jurisdiction to decided administrative
cases of all officers and employees in the classified service
• limitation to that provision: the Commissioner’s decision may be appealed to the Civil Service
Board of Appeals, whose decision shall be final (Section 18, Republic Act 2260)
But..aah..does the President have aah..the power to remove anybody from office?
Yes.
• Section 79 of RAC provides an implied vested power on President, as Department Head of the
Civil Service Commission.
• HOWEVER, it also provides that the removal should be pursuant to Civil Service Act of 1959 AND
• Civil Service Act of 1959 provides that officers and employees who belong to the classified
service (Collector of Customs is an example) shall be tried by the Commissioner of Civil Service
or the Civil Service Board of Appeals. (grabe ang galing ng logic ng decision na ‘to. to quote a
friend: what an orgasmic piece of legislation)
• AND President’s control is only refers to matters of general policy: means a settled or definite
course or method adopted and followed by govt
Also, officials cannot be arbitrarily removed from office by heads (section 4, article 12 of Consti).
Facts:
• March 25, 1983: Sandiganbayan convicted Salvacion Mosanto (then assistant
treasurer of Calbayog City)
• And three other accused
• Of the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents
THEN:
• petitioner appealed and filed a motion of reconsideration upon court’s decision to
affirm prior ruling of conviction.
• During the pendency of the motion, Marcos granted petitioner absolute pardon.
• Petitioner then asked for reinstatement to her position but was denied by Fulgenio
Factoran, then Deputy Executive Secretary.
• Factoran said reappointment was necessary.
Issue: WON a public officer. Who has been granted an absolute pardon by the Chief executive,
is entitled to reinstatement to her former position without need of a new appointment
Held: NO.
Ratio:
• The petitioner was convicted by Sandiganbayan of estafa has an accessory penalty
of temporary absolute disqualification.
• Temporary absolute disqualification bars convict from public office; this lasts until
end of term of sentence.
• The effect of Marcos’ pardon was simply to remove principal penalty BUT NOT the
accessory penalty UNLESS the pardon expressly provides that accessory penalties
are to be removed also.
• WHY?? Because pardon is not necessarily a declaration that no crime was
committed.
• Pardon excuses one from serving the punishment of the crime but does not
dissolve the crime itself.
Facts:
Issue: WON private respondent Mark Jimenez is entitled to the due process right to notice and
hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.
Held: NO.
Ratio:
1. PD No. 1069 (RP-US Extradition Treaty) provides the time when an extraditee shall be
furnished a copy of the petition for extradition.
• it does not provide the right of the extraditee to demand from the Secretary of
Justice copies of the extradition request from US while the request is still
undergoing evaluation
2. giving the private respondent copy of the request might serve as notice to flee
3. Private respondent assailed that an extradition proceeding is like a criminal proceeding
and thus he has the right to a notice and a hearing HOWEVER, COURT SAID:
a. extradition proceedings do not involve determination of guilt
b. extradition is summary in nature; crim is full blown
c. extradition: president has final discretion to extradite him
THUS:
• due process safeguards do not necessarily apply to the former
4. Was provisional arrest a threat to his liberty?
No. Provisional arrest happens only upon receipt of request for extradition. US had not
requested for that arrest
5. Was warrant of arrest for the temporary detention a threat to his liberty?
No. It was only issued upon filing of the petition for extradition. In the case at bar,
extradition process was still at evaluation level. Threat to respondent’s liberty was
hypothetical.
Facts:
Two hand grenade explosions occurred on August 21, 1971 at Plaza Miranda where the
Liberal Party of the Philippines was holding a public meeting for the presentation of its
candidates for the November 8, 1971 elections. Eight persons were killed and many were
injured.
As a result, Marcos issued Proclamation No. 889, suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.
Petitioners sought for writs of habeas corpus after being arrested without a warrant
therefore and detained. They questioned the validity of Proclamation No. 889.
Issue Held/Ratio
1. WON Proclamation No. 889 violated par. 4 No.
section 1 of article 3 and par 2, section 10 of Petitioners initially contended that the
article 7 of Consti proclamation was made based solely on the
idea that there was a conspiracy and intent to
rise in arms among several groups in the
country.
However, court held that with the
modifications thru Proclamation No. 889-A,
Marcos declared that the ‘enemy groups’ had
already entered into the conspiracy and have
in fact joined together to engage in armed
insurrection and rebellion.
The Plaza Miranda incident was only one
among the many violent incidences that
brought forth such proclamation.