20200516 Review Notes Blog Post Draft

Digging through my old review notes, I found some notes in Constitutional Law that might be worth
salvaging. Since I feel like preserving some of these studies, I might as well post them here for
everyone else to analyze as well.

Just a little disclaimer. It’s not a guarantee that they will not be asked just because the notes and
cases are more than a decade old. References are included either as annotations or embedded links.

2006 Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

Declaration of Principles and State Policies

The Secretary of National Defense wrote the Veterans Federation of the Philippines, which was
created under Republic Act No. 2640, that it would be subjected to a management audit. The
Veterans Federation of the Philippines filed a petition to prohibit the management audit on the
ground that it is not a public office.

HELD: The function of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines fall within the category of sovereign
functions. The protection of the interests of veterans is not only meant to promote social justic but is
also intended to reward patriotism. Although no budgetary appropriations have been released to the
Veterans Federation of the Philippines, no less public is the use for its funds, as such is limited to the
purposes of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines, which are sovereign functions. (Veterans
Federation of the Philippines vs Reyes, 483 SCRA 526)

The City of Paranaque assessed the Manila International Airport Authority for real property tax as
operator of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Complex, on the ground that it is a government-
owned or controlled corporation. It is because it has no capital stock divided into shares.

HELD: The Manila International Airport Authority is not a government-owned or controlled

corporation. It is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. It is not a stock corporation,
because it has no capital stock divided into shares. It is also not a non-stock corporation, because it
has no members. It is a governmental instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform its
governmental functions. It is an agency vested with special functions, endowed with corporate
powers, and enjoying operational autonomy. It performs government functions essential to the
operation of an international airport. The City of Paranaque cannot tax it. (Manila International
Airport Authority vs Court of Appeals, 495 SCRA 591)

Ramiscal vs Sandiganbayan, 499 SCRA 375, and Alzaga vs Sandiganbayan, 505 SCRA 848, reiterated
the ruling that the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System is a
government-owned and controlled corporation. (Jimenez, 2006)

Bill of Rights

Right to Privacy

Executive Order No. 420 required all government agencies, including government-owned and
controlled corporations, to adopt a unified multi-purpose identification card system. The data to be
recorded in the identification card are the names, home addresses, sex, picture, signature, date of
birth, place of birth, marital status, name of parents, height, weight, two index fingers and two
thumbmarks, any prominent distinguishing features, and taxpayer identification number. Petitioner
argued that Executive Order No. 420 violated the right to privacy.

HELD: All these years, government entities have been issuing identification cards in the performance
of their governmental functions. There have been no complaints that the identification cards violate
the right to privacy. Executive Order No. 420 narrowly limits the data that can be collected, recorded
and shown compared to existing identification cards. The right to privacy does not bar the adoption of
reasonable identification card systems by government entities. (Kilusang Mayo Uno vs Director
General, National Economic Development Authority, 487 SCRA 623)

Driver’s License

The Department of Public Works and Communication issued Administrative Order No. 1, which
prohibited motorcycles on limited access highways on the basis of Republic Act No. 2000. Petitioner
argued that the fact that they possess driver’s licenses and that their vehicles are registered with the
Land Transportation Office entitle them to use all kinds of roads.

HELD: A driver’s license merely allows one to drive a particular mode of transport. It is not a license to
drive any form of transportation on any type of road. Vehicle registration merely signifies the
roadworthiness of a vehicle. This does not preclude the Government from prescribing which roads are
accessible to certain vehicles. (Mirasol vs Department of Public Works and Highways, 490 SCRA 318)

Police Power

The Department of Public Works and Communications issued Administrative Order No. 1, which
prohibited motorcycles on limited access highways on the basis of Republic Act No. 2000. Petitioners
argued that Administrative Order No. 1 is unreasonable.

HELD: The use of public highways by motor vehicles is subject to regulation as an exercise of the
police power of the State. Administrative Order No. 1 merely outlined precautionary measures to
ensure public safety and the uninhibited flow of traffic within limited access facilities. (Mirasol vs
Department of Public Works and Highways, 490 SCRA 318)

Question of Vagueness

Petitioner questioned the constitutionality of the Public Assembly Act on the ground that it violated
due process because of its vagueness.

HELD: The law is very clear and is nowhere vague in its provisions. The word “public” does not have to
be defined. Its ordinary meaning is well-defined. It means an organized body of people, a group of
people distinguished by common interests or characteristics. (Bayan vs Ermita, 486 SCRA 226)

Procedural Due Process

Presence of Violation

A petition for the extradition of petitioner was filed. Petitioner applied for bail, and the trial court
granted the application. Later on, without any notice and hearing, the trial court cancelled the bond
of petitioner.
HELD: Since petitioner has not been shown to be a flight risk nor a danger to the community, she is
entitled to notice and hearing before her bail could be cancelled. Absent prior notice and hearing, the
cancellation of the bail was in violation of her right to due process. (Rodriguez vs Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, 483 SCRA 290)

Respondent, an employee of petitioner, received a notice informing him that he was being dropped
from the rolls for unsatisfactory performance. Petitioner questioned his dismissal.

HELD: Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 1994, dropping from the rolls for
unsatisfactory performance for a semester may be made after due notice and a sufficient warning
that an unsatisfactory performance for a succeeding semester shall warrant his separation. The
required notice was not given to respondent. His dropping from the rolls is a violation of due process.
(National Power Corporation vs Zozobrado, 487 SCRA 16)

Absence of Violations

R Transport Corporation vs Philhino Sales Corporation, 494 SCRA 630 and Trans Middle East
(Philippines) Equities, Inc. Vs Sandiganbayan, 499 SCRA 306 reiterated the ruling that a party who was
given a chance to be heard but did not avail himself of it cannot complain he was denied due process.
(Jimenez, 2006)

Gonzales vs Civil Service Commission, 490 SCRA 741, and Berboso vs Court of Appeals, 494 SCRA 583,
reiterated the ruling that the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the initial denial of due
process. (Jimenez, 2006)

Uy vs First Metro Integrated Corporation, 503 SCRA 704, reiterated the ruling that the unexcusable
negligence of counsel does not constitute denial of due process to his client. (Jimenez, 2006)

Impartiality of Judge

Deutsche Bank Manila vs Chua Yok Lee, 481 SCRA 672 reiterated the ruling that the mere fact that a
judge ruled in favor of a party is not indication of bias. (Jimenez, 2006)

People vs Santos, 501 SCRA 325, and Victoriano vs People, 509 SCRA 483, reiterated the ruling that
the mere fact that a judge questioned the witnesses is not an indication of bias. (Jimenez, 2006)

Administrative Due Process

Respondent, a government employee, was ordered dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman for
dishonesty. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. The investigation officer prepared an
order granting it, but the Ombudsman disapproved it by writing on the order, “The original decision
stands.” Respondent argued that the denial of her motion by reconsideration violated her right to due
process.

HELD: The notation was a valid resolution. It adopted the factual and legal conclusions of the original
decision. (Office of the Ombudsman vs Coronel, 493 SCRA 392)

Equal Protection
The Department of Public Works and Communication issued Administrative Order No. 1 which
prohibited motorcycles on limited access highways on the basis of Republic Act No. 2000. Petitioners
argued that the Administrative Order No. 1 violates equal protection, because it singled out
motorcycles.

HELD: Real and substantial distinctions exist between a motorcycle and other forms of transport
sufficient to justify its classification among those prohibited from plying the toll ways. A two-wheeled
vehicle is less stable and more easily overturned than a four-wheeled vehicle. (Mirasol vs Department
of Public Works and Communications, 490 SCRA 318)

The Chief Reporter of the Court of Appeals and the Executive Clerk of Court of the Court of Tax
Appeals requested that they be granted the special allowance under Section 2 of Republic Act No.
9227, since they have the rank of a Metropolitan Trial Court Judge.

HELD: The allowances granted under Republic Act No. 9227 should be granted to holders of positions
with the equivalent rank of Metropolitan Trial Court Judges, because the law role recognizes the
substantial equality in the roles they play in the Judiciary. (In Re: Request of Assistant Court
Administrators for Upgrading of Rank, Salary and Privileges, 495 SCRA 432)

An audit of the transactions of the Toll Regulatory Board uncovered irregularities in which petitioners,
who were employees of the Toll Regulatory Board, were implicated. Petitioners appealed to the
Commission on Audit. Meanwhile, as a result of the audit report, a complaint for violation of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed. Petitioners asked the Office of the Ombudsman to suspend
the preliminary investigation because of their pending appeal, on the basis of the action taken by the
Office of the Ombudsman in a similar case.

HELD: The Office of the Ombudsman may decide how best to pursue the investigation. It may pursue
the investigation because it realizes the decision of the Commission on Audit is unnecessary. Its
varying treatment of similarly situated investigations cannot by itself be considered a violation of the
right to equal protection. (Dimayuga vs Office of the Ombudsman, 495 SCRA 461)

Links for Boosting (Check the Writing Jing Website)

https://writingjing.xyz/empower-network-my-time-as-blogger-affiliate-statistic-at-empower-network/

https://writingjing.xyz/grave-abuse-of-discretion-what-is-grave-abuse-of-discretion/

http://jingdalagan.weebly.com/things-i-wrote/the-10k-formula-google-hangout-with-marc-barrett-
for-12152013

http://jingdalagan.weebly.com/things-i-wrote/empower-network-webinar-by-marc-barrett