1 of 123

IV. STATE POLICIES (Art. II, Sec. 1)

1. Republicanism: The Philippines is a republican SEPARATION OF POWERS refers to the
and a democratic State. The power of the State demarcation of the three fundamental
and the Government authority resides in the powers of the Government. It means that
hands of the people. the Constitution has blocked out with deft
A. Separation of powers. strokes and in bold lines allotment of
a. MMDA vs CONCERNED RESIDENCES power to the legislative, executive and
OF MANILA BAY: The petitioners herein judicial departments of the government
are residence of Manila Bay and filed a (Justice Laurel). Thus, the legislative
petition for Mandamus against different has no power to enact and construe
executive departments. laws; the executive has no power to
make or construe laws; and the
RULING: The separation of powers is a judiciary has no power to make or
fundamental principle in our system of enact laws.
government. It obtains not through
express provision but by actual division in HOW VIOLATED?
our Constitution. Each department of the 1. One branch may interfere
government has exclusive cognizance of impermissibly with the other’s
matters within its jurisdiction, and is performance of its constitutionally
supreme within its own sphere. But it does assigned functions;
not follow from the fact that the three 2. When one branch assumes a
powers are to be kept separate and functions that more properly is
distinct that the Constitution intended entrusted to another.
them to be absolutely unrestrained and
independent of each other. The In the case, Congress, recommended
Constitution has provided for an elaborate projects and actually dictated the
system of checks and balances to secure implementations of the GAA for the
coordination in the workings of the various area of project identification, fund
departments of the government. x x x And release and realignment. These sphere
the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme shall belong to budget execution.
Court as the final arbiter, effectively
checks the other department in its GONZALEZ vs OFFICE OF THE
exercise of its power to determine the law, PRESIDENT: Petitioner herein is a
and hence to declare executive and deputy Ombudsman which was charge
legislative acts void if violative of the with negligence in the performance of
Constitution. his duties, and was subjected to the
sanction as had been approved by the
Adherence to the separation of powers Office of the President.
is essential in prohibiting the
concentration of the sovereign powers RULING: allows constitutionally
of State in one body. enshrined bodies or organs and
governmental departments to correct
b. BELGICA vs OCHOA: The petitioners mistakes and prevent excesses done
herein contests the constitutionality of an by the other branches. It also ensures
Article for PDAF allowing the Congress to a degree of cooperation while being
implement the same. Petitioner contended clear as to what acts may constitute
that the legislative department has no undue encroachments upon another
power to execute the laws which it branch’s or organ’s constitutional
creates. duties.

RULING: The limitation on the power of Constitutional commissions which have

judicial review to actual cases and been under the constitution as
controversies carries the assurance that independent are not under the control
the courts will not intrude into areas of the president even if they discharge
committed to the. Other branches of the functions that are executive in nature.
government.
Ombudsman is subject to
Political Questions are those which. impeachment by the Congress under
Under the Constitution, are to be decided the principle of checks and balances.
by the people in their sovereign capacity,
or in regard with full discretionary Section 8(2) of RA 6770 vesting
authority has been delegated to the disciplinary authority in the President
Legislature or Executive branch of the over the Deputy Ombudsman violates
Government. the independence of the Office of the

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 2 of 123
Ombudsman and is thus 4. Civilian Supremacy Clause (Art. II, Sec. 3)
unconstitutional. Civilian Authority is at all times, supreme over the
military. The armed forces of the Philippines is
Justiciable Question: is one which is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal
inherently susceptible of being decided is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the
on grounds recognized by law, as integrity of the national territory.
where the court finds that there are
constitutionally-imposed limits on the GARCIA vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
exercise of the powers conferred on a
political branch of government. RULING:

B. Principle for non-delegation of powers: 5. The Doctrine of Separation of Church and

BELGICA vs OCHOA: The petitioner herein State: Art. II, Sec. 6: The Separation of Church
contends that there is a violation of and State shall be inviolable.
separation of power when the Congress
enacted an Article for the disbursement of 6. Social Justice: Art. II, Sec. 10: The State shall
PDAF leaving its implementation to the promote social justice in all phases of national
Congress, which according to them shall be development. Vis Art XIII, Sec. 1: The Congress
left to the executive department. shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures to protect and enhance the right of all
RULING: There are two fundamental tests to the people to human dignity, reduce social,
ensure that the legislative guidelines for economic, and political inequalities, and remove
delegated rule-making are indeed adequate. cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth
The first test is the completeness test which and political power for the common good.
states that the law is complete when it sets
forth therein the policy to be executed, To this end, the State shall regulate the
carried out, or implemented by the delegate. acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of
Sufficient standard test which lays down a property and its increments.
sufficient standard when it provides adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to map out 7. The right of the people to a balanced and
the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and healthful ecology: Art. II, Sec. 15-16: The
prevent the delegation from running riot. State shall promote and protect the right to
health of people and instill health consciousness.
2. Adherence to international Law (Art II, Sec. Among them; 16: The State shall protect and
2) The Philippines renounces war as an advance the right of the people to a healthful and
instrument of national policy, adopts the balance ecology in accord with the rhythm and
generally accepted principles of international law harmony of nature.
and forms part of the law of the land, and
adheres to the policy of peace, equity, justice, OPOSA vs FACTORAN: It was held that the
freedom, cooperation and amity with all nation. petitioner minors duly represented by their
Doctrine of Incorporation: By this virtue, respective parents, had a valid cause of action in
the Courts applied the rules on international questioning the continued grant of Timber
law which are binding in all states like the License Agreements for commercial purposes,
renunciation of war as an instrument of because the cause focuses on a fundamental
national policy, sovereign immunity, a legal right: the right to a balance and healthful
person’s right to life, liberty and due process, ecology. This is in a concept of intergenerational
and pacta sunct servanda. responsibility and intergenerational justice.

3. Renunciation of war as an instrument of 8. Equal access to opportunity for public

national policy: (Art. II, Sec. 2) The Philippines service and prohibition against political
renounces war as an instrument of national dynasties: Art. II, Sec. 26: The State shall
policy, adopts the generally accepted principles guarantee equal access to opportunities for public
of international law and forms part of the law of service, and prohibit political dynasty as may be
the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, defined by law.
equity, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity
with all nation. Viz Art. VI, Sec. 23(1) The 9. Education: Art. XIV, Sec. 2(2): Establish and
Congress by a vote of 2/3 of both houses in joint maintain system of free education in the
sessions assembled, voting separately, shall have elementary and high school levels. Without
the sole power to declare the existence of a state limiting the natural right of parents to rear their
of war. children, elementary education shall be
compulsory to all the children of school age.
Policy of freedom from Nuclear Weapon
(Art. II, Sec. 8) Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3): At the option expressed in
writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall
be allowed to be taught to their children or wards
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 3 of 123
in public elementary and high schools within the PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT-FINDING
regular class hours by the instructors designated COMMITTEE vs DESIERTO: The petitioner
and approved by the religious authorities of the sought to recover all the possession which were
religion to which the children or ward belong, illegally acquired by the cronies and allies of the
without additional cost to the Government. \ then president Marcos, especially those who have
been granted with behest loans. Initially, the CFI
Academic Freedom: Art. XIV, Sec. 5(2): dismissed the claims for being past the
Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all prescription provided by the law, which is within 5
institutions of higher learning. years from the commission of the crime.

CUDIA vs SUPERINTENDENT OF PMA: RULING: The right of the State to recover

Cudia was said to have lied to make a reason properties unlawfully acquired by public officials
for being late in class for two minutes. Thus, or employees, from them or from their nominees
the PMA through a board concerning the as transferees, shall. Not be barred by
honesty and good conduct of its student prescription, laches or estoppel. Behest loans are
rendered a decision dismissing him and part of the ill-gotten wealth which former
disallowing him to graduate during the president Marcos and his cronies accumulated
commencement exercise. and which the Government through the PCGG
seeks to recover.
RULING: although the schools have the
prerogative to choose what to teach, how to 11. Regalian Doctrine: Art. XII, Sec. 2: All lands of
teach, and who to teach, the same does not the public domain , waters, minerals, coal,
go so far as to deprive a student of the right petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of
to graduate when there is clear evidence that potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber ,
he is entitled to the same since, in such a wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
case, the right to graduate becomes a vested resources are owned by the State. With the
righ of the educational institution. exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
A student-school relationship is contractual in development, and utilization of natural resources
nature. Once admitted a student’s enrolment shall be under the full control and supervision of
is not only semestral in duration but for the the State. The State may undertake such
entire period he or she is expected to activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint
complete it. Such contract is imbued with venture, or, production-sharing agreements with
public interest because of the high priority Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at
given by the Constitution to education and the least 60% of whose capital is owned by such
grant to the State of supervisory and citizens. Such agreements may be for a period of
regulatory powers over all educational not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more
institutions. than 25 years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of
Though schools are afforded academic water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries,
freedom (who to teach, what to teach, how or industrial uses other than the development of
shall it be taught, and who may be admitted water power, beneficial use may be the measure
to study) such freedom may be restrained and limit of the grant.
when there is an overriding public welfare.
The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth
As to Cadet Cudia, when in fact he lied, and as in the archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
a contract when he entered the PMA, he exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and
already risk the circumstance of being enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
dismissed when found in violation of the
Honor Code of the PMA. “The fact that a cadet The Congress may by law, allow small-scale
will be separated from the Academy upon a utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens,
finding that he has violated the Honor Code is as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority
known to all cadets even prior to the to subsistence fishermen and fishworks in rivers,
beginning of their careers there”. lakes, bays, and lagoons.

Petition denied. The President may enter into agreements with

foreign-owned corporations involving either
10. The right of the State to recover properties technical or financial assistance for large-scale
unlawfully acquired by public officials and exploration, development, and utilization of
employees: Art. XI, Sec. 15: The right of the minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
state to recover properties unlawfully acquired by according to the general terms and conditions
public officials and employees, from them or from provided by law, based on real contributions to
their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred the economic growth and general welfare of the
by prescription, laches or estoppel country. In such agreements, the State shall

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 4 of 123
promote the development and use of local national economy effectively controlled by
scientific and technical resources. Filipinos.

The President shall notify the Congress of every A. Utilization of Natural Resources: Art. XII,
contract entered into in accordance with this Sec. 2:
provision, within thirty days from its execution.
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS vs SEC.
CRUZ vs DENR: The petitioners herein REYES:
sought to nullify some provisions of IPRA for RULING: The agreement on the development,
being repugnant to the Regalian Doctrine. exploration, utilization applies only to
They contended that the government is in fact petroleum, mineral, and other mineral oils are
giving a way portions of public domain to the subject to the following guidelines:
private individuals, who are the indigenous a. Agreement shall be crafted based on
people living within the ancestral domains general law.
subject of the IPRA. b. President as the signatory.
c. Within 30 days from its execution, the
RULING: The Constitutionality of some president shall notify congress.
provisions of IPRA (Indigenous People Rights
Act) was contested as this law provides for the In the case, the SC-46 or the
grant of the natural resources, especially the exploration agreement, though has
ancestral domains and ancestral lands, to the been valid under the PD 87 which was
indigenous people. That included the grant for passed during the martial law era, the
the exploration, development, and utilization president Aquino III had no
of the said natural resources. The respondents participation on the signing of such
contends that the IPRA is unconstitutional contract as it was signed by the then
since it deprives the state of ownership of the secretary of DOE. Thus, the last
natural resources as enshrined in the requirements was also wanting. Alter
Constitution. ego has no application in this case as
what the respondents contend. Alter
The case was voted 7-7 to grant and dismiss ego applies in urgent matters on which
the petition. On the second time, the same the president must participate but who
vote was garnered leading to the dismissal of is not available in the meantime – the
the petition pursuant to the Rules of Court. head of departments will act on his
behalf.
Opinions:
- Ancestral domains and ancestral lands are B. Franchise certificate and authority for
the private properties of indigenous public utilities: Art. XII, Sec. 11: No
people and do not constitute part of the franchise, certificate, or any other form of
land of the public domain. authorization for the operation of a public
- Ancestral domains refer to all areas utility shall be granted except to citizens of
generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising the Philippines or to corporations or
lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and association organized under the laws of the
natural resources therein, held under a Philippines at least 60% of which is owned by
claim of ownership, occupied or possessed such citizens, nor shall such franchise,
by ICCs/IPs by themselves or through their certificate or authorization be exclusive in
ancestors, communally or individually character or for a longer period than fifty
since time immemorial, continuously to years. Neither shall any such franchise or
the present except when interrupted by right be granted except under the condition
war, force. Majeure, or displacement by that it shall be subject to amendment,
force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the
of government projects or any other common good so requires. The State shall
voluntary dealings entered into by encourage equity participation in public
government and private utilities by the general public. The
individual/corporations. participation of foreign investors in the
- Ancestral lands refer to the land occupied, governing body of any public utility enterprise
possessed and utilized by individuals, shall be limited to their proportionate share in
families, and clans who are members of its capital, and all the executive and
the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by managing officers of such corporation or
themselves or through their predecessor- association must be citizens of the Philippines.
in-interest, under claims of individual or
traditional group ownership, continuously, ROY II vs CHAIRPERSON HERBOSA:
to the present. Assailed herein is the definition of voting
powers as enunciated with the 1987
12. Nationalist provisions: Art. II, Sec. 9: The Constitution for the operation of public utilities
State shall develop a self-reliant and independent which is imbued with public interest.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 5 of 123
both in the national economy and for national
RULING: Considering that common shares security, also pronounced that the evident
have voting rights translate to control, as purpose of the citizenship requirement is to
opposed to preferred shares which usually prevent aliens from assuming control of public
have no voting rights, the term “capital” in utilities, which may be inimical to the national
Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution interest. Further, the Court noted that the
refers only to the common shares (those foregoing interpretation is consistent with the
shares which have the right to vote/voting intent of the framers of the Constitution to
power, which translates to control). However, place in the hands of Filipino citizens the
if the preferred shares (those shares which control and management of public utilities;
usually do not have the right to vote) also and, as revealed in the deliberations of the
have the right to vote in the election of Constitutional Commission, "capital" refers to
directors, the term “capital” shall include such the voting stock or controlling interest of a
preferred shares because the right to corporation.
participate in the control or management of
the corporation is exercised through the right C. Ownership by acquisition of lands: Art.
to vote in the election of directors. XII, Sec. 7 & 8: Save in cases of hereditary
succession, no private lands shall be
In this case, after the SEC has rendered a transferred or conveyed except to individuals,
resolution (Gamboa resolution) stating that the corporations, or associations qualified to
“capital” in Section 11, Art. XII of the 1987 acquire or hold lands of the public domain; 8:
Constitution refers only to shares of stock entitled Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of
to vote in the election of directors, and thus in the this Article, a. natural-born citizen of the
present case only to common shares and not to the Philippines who has lost his Philippine
total outstanding capital stock (common and non-
voting preferred shares).
citizenship may be a transferee of private
lands, subject to limitations provided by law.
On 2013, SEC posted a Notice in its website inviting
public to attend a public dialogue and to submit PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY vs
comments on the draft memorandum circular on KEPPEL PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS
the guidelines to be followed in determining
compliance with the Filipino ownership requirement RULING:
in public utilities under Section 11, Article XII of the
Constitution pursuant to the Court’s directive in the D. Practice of profession: Art. XII, 2 nd par.,
Gamboa decision.
Sec 14: The practice of all professions in the
On May 2013, SEC through Herbosa issued SEC-MC Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens,
8 re Guidelines on compliance with the Filipino- save in cases provided by law.
Foreign ownership requirements prescribed in the
Constitution and/or existing laws by Corporation E. Ownership, control, administration and
engaged in nationalized and partly establishment of educational
nationalized activities. SEC-MC 8 provides: All institutions: Art. XIV, Sec 4(2):
covered corporations shall, at all times, Educational institutions, other than those
observe the constitutional or statutory established by religious groups and mission
ownership requirement. For purposes of boards, shall be owned sole by citizens of the
determining compliance therewith, the Philippines or corporations or associations at
required percentage of Filipino ownership least 60% of the capital of which is owned by
shall be applied to BOTH a) the total number such citizens. The Congress may, however
of outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote require increased Filipino equity participation
in the election of directors; AND 2) the total in all educational institutions.
number of outstanding shares of stock,
whether or not entitled to vote in the election. The control and administration of educational
institutions shall be vested in citizens of the
The Court adopted the foregoing definition of Philippines.
the term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of
the 1987 Constitution in furtherance of "the No educational institution shall be established
intent and letter of the Constitution that the exclusively for aliens and no group of aliens
'State shall develop a self-reliant and shall comprise more than 1/3 of the
independent national economy effectively enrollment in any school. The provisions of
controlled by Filipinos' (because a) broad this subsection shall not apply to schools
definition unjustifiably disregards who owns established for foreign diplomatic personnel
the all- important voting stock, which and their dependents and, unless otherwise
necessarily equates to control of the public provided by law, for other foreign temporary
utility." The Court, recognizing that the residents.
provision is an express recognition of the
sensitive and vital position of public utilities F. Ownership, and management of mass
media: Art XVI, Sec. 11(1): The ownership
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 6 of 123
and management of mass media shall be Arabic shall be promoted in a voluntary
limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to and optional basis.
corporations, cooperatives or associations, w
holly0owned and managed by such citizens. B. Language used in the promulgation of
the Philippines Constitution: Art. XVI,
The Congress shall regulate or prohibit Sec. 8: The Constitution shall be promulgated
monopolies in commercial mass media when in Filipino and English and shall be translated
the public interest so requires. No into major regional languages, Arabic, and
combinations in restraint of trade or unfair Spanish.
competition therein shall be allowed.
14. Philippine flag: Art XVI, Sec. 1: The flag of the
G. Ownership and control over business Philippines shall be red, white and blue, with a
engaged in advertising industry: Art. sun and three stars, as consecrated and honored
XVI, Sec. 11(2): The advertising industry is by the people and recognized by law.
impressed with public interest, and shall be
regulated by law for the protection of 15. Country’s name, national anthem and
consumers and the promotion of the general national seal: Art. XVI, Sec. 2: The Congress
welfare. may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a
national anthem, or national seal, which shall all
Only Filipino citizens or corporations or be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals,
associations at least 70% of the capital of history and traditions of the people. Such law
which is owned by such citizens shall be shall take effect only upon its ratification by the
allowed to engage in the advertising industry. people in a national referendum.

13. Language: 16. Military: Art. XVI, Sec. 4 and 5: The Armed
A. Classifications: Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a
a. National Language: Art. XIV, Sec. 6, citizen armed force which shall undergo military
1st par: The national language of the training and serve, as may be provided by law. It
Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall shall keep a regular force necessary for the
be further developed and enriched on the security of the State.
basis existing Philippine and other
languages. 5 (1): All members of the armed forces shall take
b. Official Language: Art. XIV, Sec. 7, 1st an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this
par and Sec. 6, 2nd par: For purposes of Constitution.
communication and instruction, the official
languages of the Philippines are Filipino 5 (2): The State shall strengthen the patriotic
and, until otherwise provided by law, spirit and nationalist consciousness of the
English. military, and respect for people’s right in the
performance of their duty.
The regional languages are the
auxiliary languages in the regions and 5 (3): Professionalism in the armed forces and
shall serve as auxiliary media of adequate remuneration and benefits of its
instructions therein. members shall be a prime concern of the State.
The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan
Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted politics.
on a voluntary and optional basis.
5 (4): No member of the armed forces in the
6, 2nd par: Subject to provisions of law active service shall, at any time, be appointed or
and as the Congress may deem designated in any capacity to a civilian position in
appropriate, the Government shall take the Government including government-owned or
steps to initiate and sustain the use of controlled corporations or any of their
Filipino as a medium of official subsidiaries.
communication and as language of
instruction in the educational system. 5 (5): Laws on retirement of military officers shall
not allow extension of their service.
Auxiliary official language: Art XIV,
Sec. 7, 2nd par: The regional 5 (6): The officers and mend of the regular force
languages are the auxiliary official of the armed forces shall be recruited
languages in the regions and shall proportionately from all province and cities as far
serve as auxiliary media of instruction as practicable.
therein.
5(7): The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the
Voluntary or optional language: Armed forces shall not exceed three years.
Art XIV, Sec. 7, 3 rd par: Spanish ang However, in times of war or other national

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 7 of 123
emergency declared by the congress, the V. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
President may extend such tour of duty. 1. Who may exercise legislative power?
A. Art. VI, Sec. 1: The legislative power shall be
17. Police force: Art. XVI, Sec. 6: The State shall vested in the Congress of the Philippines
establish and maintain one police force, which which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
shall be national in scope and civilian in Representatives, except to the extent
character, to be administered and controlled by a reserved to the people by the provision on
national police commission. The authority of local initiative and referendum.
executives over the police units in their B. Viz Art. VI, Sec. 32: The Congress shall, as
jurisdiction shall be provided by law. early as possible, provide for a system of
initiative and referendum, and the exceptions
therefrom, whereby the people can directly
propose and enact laws or approve o reject
any act or law or part thereof passed by the
Congress or local legislative body after the
registration of a petition therefor signed by at
least ten percentum of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least three
percentum of registered voters thereof.
C. Delegated legislative power to the LGUs:
(See. RA 7610). Such legislation by the local
government is not regarded as a transfer of
general legislative power, but rather a the
grant of the authority to prescribe local
regulations, according to immemorial
practice, subject, of course, to the
interposition of the superior in cases of
necessity (People vs Vera). This recognizes
the fact that local legislatures are more
knowledgeable than the national lawmaking
body on matters of purely local concern, and
are in a better position to enact appropriate
legislative measures thereon.
D. Delegated tariff powers to the President:
Art. VI, Sec. 28(2): The Congress, may by
law, authorize the President, to fix within
specified limits, and subject to such
limitations and restrictions as it may impose,
tariff rates, import and export quotas,
tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties
or imposts within the framework of the
national development program of the
Government.
E. Delegated emergency powers: Art. VI,
Sec. 23(2): In times of war, or other
emergency, the Congress, may by law,
authorize the President, for a limited period of
time and subject to such restrictions as it may
prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and
proper to carry out declared national policy.
Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
Congress, such powers shall cease upon the
next adjournment thereof.

LAGMAN vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY:

Effective May 23, 2017, and for a period not
exceeding 60 days, President Rodrigo Roa
Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring
a state of martial law and suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the
whole of Mindanao.

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 8 of 123
Within the timeline set by Section 18, Article Congress and the Court to interfere with
VII of the Constitution, the President the President with the choice of any of
submitted to Congress on May 25, 2017, a these powers:
written Report on the factual basis of
Proclamation No. 216. The Report pointed out a) calling out the armed forces;
that for decades, Mindanao has been plagued which is the most benign and can
with rebellion and lawless violence which only only resort to this whenever it
escalated and worsened with the passing of becomes necessary to prevent or
time. Particularly, on May 23, 2017, a suppress lawless violence, invasion, or
government operation to capture the high- rebellion. (Not subject to review by
ranking officers of the Abu Sayyaff Group the Court)
(ASG) and the Maute Group was confronted
with armed resistance which escalated into b) suspending the privilege of the
open hostility against the government. writ of habeas corpus; May be
Through these groups' armed siege and acts exercised when there is actual
of violence directed towards civilians and invasion or rebellion, and public
government authorities, institutions and safety requires it subject to
establishments, they were able to take control limitations for a period of 60 days and
of major social, economic, and political review and possible revocation by
foundations of Marawi City which led to its Congress (Subject to review by the
paralysis. This sudden taking of control was Court);
intended to lay the groundwork for the
eventual establishment of a DAESH wilayat or c) declaring martial law; During this
province in Mindanao. The President then time, the president can exercise
chronicled in his Report the events which took legislative power (Subject to review
place on May 23, 2017 in Marawi City which by the Court).
impelled him to declare a state of martial law
and suspend the privilege of writ of habeas During a war, the president may issue
corpus. orders which has the effect of law, but
only in this area.
The Report highlighted the strategic location
of Marawi City and the crucial and significant The scope of the power of review of
role it plays in Mindanao, and the Philippines the Court under the 1987 Constitution
as a whole. In addition, the Report pointed out refers only to the determination of the
the possible tragic repercussions once Marawi sufficiency of the factual basis of the
City falls under the control of the lawless declaration for martial law and
groups. suspension for the privilege of habeas
corpus.
After the submission of the Report and the
briefings with the military and police As Commander-in-chief, the President
authorities, the Senate issued P.S. Resolution has to sole discretion to declare
No. 3888 expressing full support to the martial law and/or to suspend the
martial law proclamation and finding privilege of writ of habeas corpus,
Proclamation No. 216 "to be satisfactory, subject to the revocation of
constitutional and in accordance with the Congress and the review of the
law". In the same Resolution, the Senate Court.
declared that it found "no compelling reason
to revoke the same". The House of 2. Houses of Congress
Representatives likewise issued House A. Senate Composition: Art. VI, Sec. 2: The
Resolution No. 1050 expressing full support to Senate shall be composed of 24 Senators
the martial law proclamation. who hall be elected at large by the qualified
voters of the Philippines, as may be provided
RULING: The SC’s power to review the by law.
President’s proclamation of the Martial Law is
passive as the SC can only do the same if any TRILLANES vs PIMENTEL: Petitioner was
of the concerned citizen, in an appropriate charged of coup-de-tat and was sentenced to
proceeding, questioned the same, while imprisonment. When he ran for Senatorial
Congress’ power to review is automatic in the Elections, he was elected. The petitioner
sense that it may be activated by the contends that he shall be allowed to attend
Congress itself at any time after the the senatorial activities out of prison.
proclamation or suspension was made.
RULING: The duties imposed by the
- The President as the Commander-in-Chief mandate of the people are multifarious. The
wields the extraordinary powers of, and accused-appellant asserts that the duty to
that the Constitution disallows the legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 9 of 123
government. The accused-appellant is only second sentence of Section 5(3),
one of the 250 members of the House of Article VI of the Constitution provides
Representatives, not to mention the 24 “Each city with a population of at
members of the Senate, charged with the least 250,000, or each province, shall
duties of legislation congress continues to have at least one representative. This
function well in the physical absence of one provision draws a clear distinction
or a few of its members. Never has the call of between the entitlement of a city to a
particular duty lifted a prisoner into a district on one hand, and the
different classification from those others who entitlement of a province on the
are validly restrained by law. other. For a while a province is
entitled to at least a representative,
B. House of Representative with nothing mentioned about
a. Apportionment of legislative districts population, a city must first meet
a) Gerrymandering (Restraint): Art. a population minimum of at least
VI, Sec. 5(3), 1st sentence: The 250,000 in order to be similarly
House of Representatives shall be entitled.
composed of not more than 250
members, unless otherwise fixed by BAGABUYO vs COMELEC (Cagayan
law, who shall be elected from de Oro): The petitioner insists that
legislative districts apportioned RA 9371 converts and divides the City
among the provinces, cities and the of Cagayan de Oro as a LGU, and does
Metropolitan Manila area in not merely provide for the City’s
accordance with the number of their legislative apportionment. This
respective inhabitants, and on the argument essentially proceeds from a
basis of uniform and progressive misunderstanding of the
ration, and those, who, as provided by constitutional concepts of
law, shall be elected through a party- apportionment of legislative districts
list system of registered national, and division of LGUs. Legislative
regional, and sectoral parties or apportionment is defined as the
organizations. determination of the number of
representative which a State, country
b) Representation of cities and or other subdivision may send to a
provinces: Art. VI, Sec. 5(3), 2nd legislative. It is the allocation of seats
sentence: The party-list shall in a legislative body in proportion to
constitute 20% of the total number for the population; the drawing of voting
representatives including those under district lines so as to equalize
the party-list. For three consecutive population and voting power among
terms after the ratification of this the districts. Reapportionment, on
Constitution, ½ shall be filled, as may the other hand is the realignment or
be approved by law, by selection or change in legislative districts brought
election from the labor, peasant, about by changes in population and
urban poor, indigenous cultural mandated by the constitutional
communities, women, youth, and requirement of equality of
such other sectors as may be representation.
provided by law, except in religious
sector. In contrast with the equal
representation objective of Article VI,
Aquino vs COMELEC (Camarines Section 5 (talks about the equality of
Sur): The petitioner assails the representation), Article X, Section 10
validity of an ordinance giving for the expressly speaks of how local
reapportionment for the province of government units may be “created,
Camarines Sur. The law was allegedly divided, merged, abolished or its
unconstitutional for violating the boundary substantially altered. Its
minimum requirement of at least concern is the commencement, the
250,000 inhabitants per legislative termination, and the modification of
district. LGU’s corporate existence and
territorial coverage; and it speaks of
RULING: The constitutionality of a two specific standards that must be
law which was passed for the observed in implementing this
reapportionment for the province of concern, namely, the criteria
Camarines Sur is valid and established in the local government
constitutional. There is no specific code and approval by the majority of
provision in the Constitution that fixes the votes cast in a plebiscite in the
a 250,000 population that must political units directly affected. Thus,
compose a legislative district. The Article X, Section 10 requires
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 10 of 123
plebiscite for the creation, merger, age on the day
division, abolition or alteration of of the election.
boundary of a local government unit. Any youth
sectoral
RULING: The legislative district that representative
Article Vi, Section 5 speaks of may in who attains the
a sense, be called a political unit age of 30
because it is the bases for the during his term
election of member of the House shall be allowed
of Representatives and members to continue in
of the local legislative body. It is office until the
not a political subdivision through expiration of his
which the function of the term.
government is carried out.
PAGLAUM vs COMELEC:
In the case, there is not division, or Petitioners assails the decision of
any alteration to the City of Cagayan the COMELEC denying or refusing or
de Oro will be had. Thus, the law only cancelling their certificate of
speaks of the legal representation. candidacy for party-list system.

The law clearly provides that the basis These cases constitute 54 Petitions
for districting shall be the number of for Certiorari and Petitions for
inhabitants and not the number Certiorari and Prohibition filed by 52
of registered voters. party-list groups and organizations
assailing the Resolutions issued by
SEMA vs COMELEC (Shariff the Commission on Elections
Kabunsuan) (COMELEC) disqualifying them from
RULING: participating in the 13 May 2013
party-list elections, either by denial
b. Qualifications: of their petitions for registration
under the party-list system, or
House of Representatives; Qualifications cancellation of their registration and
Art. VI, Sec. 6 of Sec. 9, RA 7941 accreditation as party-list
1987 Constitution organizations.
i. Natural-born citizen i. Natural-born citizen
of the Philippines; of the Philippines; In disqualifying the petitioners,
ii. At least 25 years of ii. A registered voter; COMELEC used the criteria in Ang
age at the day of iii. A resident of the Bagong Bayani and BANAT which
election; Philippines for a are as follows:
iii. Able to read and period of not less a) All national, regional, and
write; than 1 year sectoral groups or organizations
iv. Except a party-list immediately must represent the
representative, a preceding the day of “marginalized and
registered voter in the election; underrepresented sectors, and
the district in which iv. Able to read and b) All nominees must belong to the
he shall be elected; write; “’marginalized and
v. Resident of the said v. A bona fide member underrepresented sector they
district for a period of the party or represent.
not less than 1 year organization which
immediately eh seeks to RULING: Under the party-list
preceding the day of represent for at system, an ideology-based or cause-
the election. least 90 days oriented political party is clearly
preceding the day of different from a sectoral party. A
the election, and political party is clearly different
vi. At least 25 years of from a sectoral party. A political
age on the day of party need not be organized as a
the election. sectoral party and need not
represent any particular sector.
In case of a There is no requirement in R.A. No.
nominee of the 7941 that a national or regional
youth sector: political party must represent a
Must be at least “marginalized and
25 but not more underrepresented” sector. It is
than 30 years of sufficient that the political party

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 11 of 123
consists of citizens who advocate their principal advocacy pertains to
the same ideology or platform, or the special interest and concerns of
the same governance principles and their sector. The sectors that are
policies, regardless of their “marginalized and
economic status as citizens. underrepresented” include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
Grounds for cancellation or refusal indigenous cultural communities,
of registration by COMELEC upon handicapped, veterans, and
verified complaint of any interested overseas workers. The sectors that
party or its own initiative, after due lack “well-defined political
notice and hearing: constituencies” include
a) It is a religious sect or professionals, the elderly, women,
denomination, organization, and the youth. National, regional,
association or organized for and sectoral parties or
religious purposes; organizations shall not be
b) It advocates violence or unlawful disqualified if some of their
means to seek its goal; nominees are disqualified,
c) It is a foreign party or provided that they have at least
organization; one nominee who remains
d) It is receiving support from any qualified.
foreign government, foreign
political party, foundation, c. Parliamentary immunities and
organization; privileges:
e) It violates or fails to comply with A. Freedom from arrest: Art. VI, Sec.
laws, rules or regulations 11: A Senator or a member of the House
relating to elections; of Representatives shall, in all offenses
f) Declares untruthful statements punishable by not more than six years
in its petition; imprisonment, be privileged from arrest
g) Ceased to exist for at least 1 while the Congress is in session. No
year; member shall be questioned nor be held
h) Fails to participate in the last 2 liable in any other place for any speech or
preceding elections or fails to debate in the Congress or in any
obtain at least 2% of the votes committee thereof.
cast under the party-list system
in the 2 preceding elections for PEOPLE vs JALOSJOS: The accused-
the constituency in which it has appellant, Romeo G. Jalosjos is a full-
registered. fledged member of Congress (first district
of Zamboanga del Norte) who is now
Three different groups may confined at the national penitentiary
participate in the party-list while his conviction for statutory rape on
system: two counts and acts of lasciviousness on
a) National party or six counts is pending appeal. The
organizations; accused- appellant filed this motion
b) Regional parties or asking that he be allowed to fully
organizations; discharge the duties of a Congressman,
c) Sectoral parties or including attendance at legislative
organizations. sessions and committee meetings despite
his having been convicted in the first
Political parties in party-list elections instance of a non-bailable offense. Does
can participate provided that they membership in Congress exempt an
registered under the party-list accused from statutes and rules which
system and do not field candidates apply to validly incarcerated persons in
in legislative district elections. A general?
political party, whether major or not,
that fields candidates in legislative Accused-appellant’s contention is that his
district elections can participate reelection cannot be rendered inutile by
only through its sectoral wings that any ruling, giving priority to any right or
can separately register under the interest – not even the police power of
party-list system. the State, and anchored with that the
RTC of Makati allowed him to leave his
Sectoral parties or organizations cell for official duties.
may either be “marginalized and
underrepresented” or lacking in RULING: Allowing the accused-appellant
“well-defined political to attend the congressional sessions and
constituencies.” It is enough that committee meetings for five times or
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 12 of 123
more a week will virtually make him a exercise of that liberty may occasion
free man with all the privileges offense."
appurtenant to his position.
It guarantees the legislator complete
The performance of legitimate and even freedom of expression without fear of
essential duties by public officers has being made responsible in criminal or
never been an excuse to free a person civil actions before the courts of any
validly in prison. other forum outside the Congress. But it
does not protect him from
The accused-appellant is only one of 250 responsibility before the legislative
members of the House of body itself whenever his words and
Representatives, not to mention the 24 conduct are considered by the latter
members of the Senate, charged with the disorderly or unbecoming a member
duties of legislation. Congress continues thereof, which the Court will not
to function well in the physical absence of interfere.
one or a few of its members. Depending
on the exigency of Government that has POBRE vs SANTIAGO: In his sworn
to be addressed, the President or the letter/complaint dated December 22,
Supreme Court can also be deemed the 2006, with enclosures, Antero J. Pobre
highest for that particular duty. invites the Court's attention to the
following excerpts of Senator Miriam
B. Speech and debate clause: Art. VI, Defensor-Santiago's speech delivered on
Sec. 11: A Senator or a member of the the Senate floor:
House of Representatives shall, in all
offenses punishable by not more than six x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am
years imprisonment, be privileged from foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I
arrest while the Congress is in session. No am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased,
member shall be questioned nor be held degraded. And I am not only that, I feel
liable in any other place for any speech or like throwing up to be living my middle
debate in the Congress or in any years in a country of this nature. I am
committee thereof. nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief
Justice Artemio Panganiban and his
OSMEÑA vs PENDATUN: The petitioner cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no
submitted to this Court a verified petition longer interested in the position (of Chief
for declaratory relief, certiorari, Justice) if I was to be surrounded by
prohibition, and preliminary injunction idiots. I would rather be in another
against the respondents and 14 other environment but not in the Supreme
Congressman. He asked for the Court of idiots x x x.
annulment of such Resolution on the
ground of infringement of his To Pobre, the foregoing statements
parliamentary immunity; he also asked, reflected a total disrespect on the part of
principally, that said members of the the speaker towards the then Chief
special committee be enjoined from Justice Panganiban and other members of
proceeding in accordance with it, the Court and constituted direct contempt
particularly the portion authorizing them of court. Pobre asked for disbarment
to require him to substantiate his charged proceedings and or other disciplinary
against the President, with admonition actions be taken against the lady senator.
that if he. Failed to do so, he must show
cause why the House, should not punish RULING: Any claim of an unworthy
him. (Imputations of bribery against the purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of
then President Garcia). the statement uttered by the member of
the Congress does not destroy the
RULING: Our Constitution enshrines privilege.
parliamentary immunity which is a
fundamental privilege cherished in every Legislators are immune from deterrents
legislative assembly of the democratic to the uninhibited discharge of their
world. Its purpose "is to enable and legislative duties, not for their private
encourage a representative of the public indulgence, but for the public good. The
to discharge his public trust with firmness privilege would be of little value if they
and success" for "it is indispensably could be subjected to the cost and
necessary that he should enjoy the fullest inconvenience and distractions of a trial
liberty of speech, and that he should be upon a conclusion of the pleader, or to
protected from the resentment of every the hazard of a judgment against them
one, however powerful, to whom the based upon a judge's speculation as to
the motives.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 13 of 123
August 27, 2009 by movant-intervenor
d. Disqualifications: Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC), and
B. Incompatible officers: Art. VI, Sec. the latter's Manifestation and Motion to
13, 1st Sentence: No Senator or Admit Attached Position Paper filed on
member of the House of Representatives December 23, 2009.
may hold any other office or employment
in the Government, or any subdivision, In the Decision, the Court held that
agency, instrumentality thereof, including respondent did not forfeit his seat in the
government-owned or controlled Senate when he accepted the
corporations or their subsidiaries, during chairmanship of the PNRC Board of
his term without forfeiting his seat. Governors, as "the office of the PNRC
Chairman is not a government office or
LIBAN vs GORDON: Petitioners are an office in a government-owned or
officers of the Board of Directors of the controlled corporation for purposes of the
Q.C. Red Cross Chapter while respondent prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the
is Chairman of the PNRC Board of 1987 Constitution." The Decision,
Governors. however, further declared void the PNRC
Charter "insofar as it creates the PNRC as
During respondent’s incumbency as a a private corporation" and consequently
member of the Senate of the Philippines, ruled that "the PNRC should incorporate
he was elected Chairman for the PNRC under the Corporation Code and register
during the meeting of the PNRC on 2006. with the Securities and Exchange
Petitioners alleged that by accepting such Commission if it wants to be a private
post, respondent has ceased to be a corporation."
member for the Senate as provided in
Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 A closer look at the nature of the PNRC
Constitution. Petitioner also contended would show that there is none like it not
that PNRC is a government-owned and just in terms of structure, but also in
controlled corporation. terms of history, public service and
official status accorded to it by the State
RULING: PNRC is a private organization and the international community. There is
performing public functions. PNRC is merit in PNRC's contention that its
cannot be seen as government-owned or structure is sui generis.
controlled corporation, neither its
volunteers be identified as government National Societies, such as the Philippine
personnel or as instruments of National Red Cross and its sister Red
government policy. Thus, the PNRC, Cross and Red Crescent Societies, have
under its charter is not controlled by the certain specificities deriving from the
Philippine Government. 1949 Geneva Convention and the
Statutes of the International Red Cross
A government-owned or controlled and Red Crescent Movement (the
corporation must be owned by the Movement). They are also guided by the
government, and in the case of a stock seven Fundamental Principles of the Red
corporation, at least a majority of its Cross and Red Crescent Movement:
capital stock must be owned by the Humanity, Impartiality, Neutrality,
government. In the case of a non-stock Independence, Voluntary Service, Unity
corporation, by analogy at least a and Universality.
majority of the members must be
government officials holding such A National Society partakes of a sui
membership by appointment or generis character. It is a protected
designation by the government. Under component of the Red Cross movement
this criterion, and as discussed earlier, under Articles 24 and 26 of the First
the government does not own or control Geneva Convention, especially in times of
PNRC. armed conflict. These provisions require
that the staff of a National Society shall
Resolution on the Motion for be respected and protected in all
Clarification and/or for circumstances. Such protection is not
Reconsideration dated January 18, ordinarily afforded by an international
2011: This resolves the Motion for treaty to ordinary private entities or even
Clarification and/or for Reconsideration non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
filed on August 10, 2009 by respondent This sui generis character is also
Richard J. Gordon (respondent) of the emphasized by the Fourth Geneva
Decision promulgated by this Court on Convention which holds that an
July 15, 2009 (the Decision), the Motion Occupying Power cannot require any
for Partial Reconsideration filed on change in the personnel or structure of a
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 14 of 123
National Society. National societies are
therefore organizations that are directly On August 2016, one of those who abstained
regulated by international humanitarian from voting manifested before the Plenary
law, in contrast to other ordinary private that those who did not vote for Speaker
entities, including NGOs. Alavarez convene and vote for the Minority
Leader. Respondent Suarez was elected as
However, in accordance with the the Minority Leader. The election process of
Fundamental Principle of Voluntary the Minority Leader was opposed by Lagman
Service of National Societies of the and alleged that the election was irregular
Movement, the PNRC must be and was a deviation from what the House is
distinguished from private and profit- doing before. His opposition, however, was
making entities. overruled and Suarez was declared as the
Minority Leader.
C. Forbidden acts: Art. VI, Sec. 13, 2 nd
Sentence: Neither he shall be appointed The petitioner filed the instant petition for
to any office which may have been mandamus, insisting that Baguilat should be
created or the emoluments thereof the recognized Minority Leader of the
increased during the terms for which he grounds that the. Long standing tradition in
was elected. the House where the candidate who
garnered the 2nd highest number of votes for
e. Election officers: Art. VI, Sec. 16(1): The Speakership automatically becomes the
Senate shall elect its President and the Minority Leader.
House for Representatives its Speaker, by a
majority vote of all its respective members. Respondent maintains that the election of
Minority Leader is an internal matter to the
Each house shall choose other officers as it House of the Representatives, thus, absent
may deem necessary. any finding of violation for the Constitution or
grave abuse of discretion, the SC cannot
BAGUILAT vs ALVAREZ: The petition interfere with such internal matters of
alleges that prior to the opening of the 17 th coequal branch of the government.
Congress on July 25, 2016, several news
articles surfaced about Rep. Suarez’s RULING: The deviation by the Lower house
announcement that he sought the adoption of the election process for the Minority
or anointment of President Duterte’s Leader is in accordance with the Constitution.
Administration as the “Minority Leader” to
lead a “cooperative minority” in the House of Section 16, Article VI, of the 1987
the Representatives and even purportedly Constitution reads: The Senate shall elect its
encamped himself in Davao shortly after the President and the House of Representatives,
May 2016 elections. its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its
respective Members.
That on July 25, 2016, it was alleged that the
respondents herein had an interchanged Each House shall choose such other officers
before the Plenary, wherein it was cited the as it may deem necessary.
following: 1) all those who vote for the
winning Speaker shall belong to the Majority Under this provision, the Speaker of the
and those who vote for the other candidates House of Representatives shall be elected by
shall belong to the Minority; 2) those who a majority vote of its entire membership.
abstain from voting shall likewise be Said provision also states that the House of
considered part of the Minority; and c) the Representatives may decide to have officers
Minority Leader shall be elected by the other than the Speaker, and that the method
members of the Minority. Thereafter, election and manner as to how these officers are
for the Speakership were held wherein chosen is something within its sole control.
Alvarez garnered 252 Members votes;
Baguilat, the petitioner herein garnered 7 Corollary thereto, Section 16 (3), Article
Members votes, 21 abstained to vote, and 1 VI26 of the Constitution vests in the House of
registering a no vote. Representatives the sole authority to, inter
alia, "determine the rules of its proceedings."
Petitioner hoped that as a “long standing These "legislative rules, unlike statutory
tradition” of the House – where the candidate laws, do not have the imprints of
who garnered the second highest number of permanence and obligatoriness during their
votes for Speakership automatically becomes effectivity. In fact, they 'are subject to
the Minority Leader, and that the petitioner revocation, modification or waiver at the
herein would be declared as the Minority pleasure of the body adopting them.' Being
Leader. However, the petitioner was not merely matters of procedure, their
declared as such. observance are of no concern to the courts,
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 15 of 123
for said rules may be waived or disregarded The instant petitions are bereft of any
by the legislative body at will, upon the allegation that respondents prevented
concurrence of a majority (of the House of the party-list groups in the House from
Representatives). Hence, as a general rule, participating in the election of members
the SC has no authority to interfere and of the HRET and the CA. Neither does it
unilaterally intrude into that exclusive realm, appear that after the May 11, 1998
without running afoul of Constitutional elections, the House barred the party-list
principles that it is bound to protect and representatives from seeking
uphold. Constitutional respect and a membership in the HRET or the CA.
becoming regard for the sovereign acts of a Rather, it appears from the available
coequal branch prevents the Court from facts that the party-list groups in the
prying into the internal workings of the House at that time simply refrained from
House, except when there is a grave abuse participating in the election process. The
of discretion. party-list representatives did not
designate their nominees even up to the
f. Electoral tribunals: Art. VI, Sec. 17: The time they filed the instant petitions, with
Senate and House of Representatives shall the predictable result that the House did
each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall not consider any party-list representative
be the sole judge of all contests relating to for election to the HRET or the CA. As the
election to the election, returns, primary recourse of the party-list
qualifications of their respective members. representatives lies with the House of
Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of Representatives, ‘the Court cannot
nine members, three of whom shall be resolve the issues presented by
Justices of the Supreme Court, and the petitioners at this time.
remaining six shall be members of the
Senate or the House of Representatives, as B. Functions; Art. VI, Sec. 17: The Senate
the case may be, who shall be chosen on the and House of Representatives shall each
basis of proportional representation from the have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be
political parties and the parties or the sole judge of all contests relating to
organizations registered under the party-list election to the election, returns,
system represented therein. The senior qualifications of their respective
Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be
Chairman. composed of nine members, three of
whom shall be Justices of the Supreme
A. Case: Court, and the remaining six shall be
PIMENTEL vs HRET: Petitioner prays members of the Senate or the House of
that the respondents be ordered to alter, Representatives, as the case may be,
reorganize, reconstitute and reconfigure who shall be chosen on the basis of
the composition of HRET and the proportional representation from the
Commission on Appointment to include political parties and the parties or
party-list representative in accordance organizations registered under the party-
with the Sections 17 and 18, Article Vi of list system represented therein. The
the Constitution. senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal
shall be its Chairman.
RULING: The Constitution expressly
grants to the House of Representatives VILANDO vs HRET: This is a petition for
the prerogative, within constitutionally certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised
defined limits, to choose from among its Rules of Court assailing the decision of
district and party-list representatives HRET dismissing the petitions for Quo
those who may occupy the seats allotted Warranto and declaring the respondent
to the House in the HRET and the CA. not disqualified as Member of the House
Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution of Representative representing the First
explicitly confers on the Senate and on District of Negros Oriental and its
the House the authority to elect among Resolution, denying the Motion for
their members those who would fill the Reconsideration.
12 seats for Senators and 12 seats for
House members in the Commission on In 2007, the respondent was
Appointments. Under Section 17, Article proclaimed as the representative by
VI of the Constitution, each chamber of the Board of Canvassers on the basis
Congress exercises the power to choose, of COMELEC Resolution. Meanwhile
within constitutionally defined limits, who petitions involving either the
among their members would occupy the disqualification or the proclamation of
allotted 6 seats of each chamber’s the respondent were filed before the
respective electoral tribunal. CMELEC which reached the Court. The
petitions questioned her citizenship.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 16 of 123
filed MR before COMELEC en Bank but
In 2009, petitioner Vilando, filed was denied.
before the HRET Quo Warranto
against the respondent. They alleged Four days thereafter, petitioner was
that she was born to a father (Julio proclaimed winner of the May 13, 2013
Sy), whose naturalization had not Elections. COMELEC issued an order
attained finality, and to a mother who stating with finality its previous decision
acquired the Chinese citizenship of on June 5, 2013, and on the same day,
Julio Sy from the time of her marriage petitioner took an oath. Petitioner comes
to the latter. Also, they invoked the to this Court alleging that COMELEC has
jurisdiction of the HRET for a no jurisdiction over a person who is
determination of Limkaichong's proclaimed the winner and who had
citizenship, which necessarily already taken oath. Thus, the petitioner
included an inquiry into the validity of contends that it is HRET has jurisdiction
the naturalization certificate of Julio over her and not COMELEC.
Sy.
RULING: HRET does not acquire
Vilando asserts that as an incident in jurisdiction over the issue of the
determining the eligibility of petitioner’s qualifications, as well as other
Limkaichong, the HRET, having the assailed COMELEC Resolutions. Unless a
plenary, absolute and exclusive petitioner is duly filed with the said
jurisdiction to determine her tribunal.
qualifications, can pass upon the
efficacy of the certificate of The jurisdiction of HRET begins only after
naturalization. the candidate is considered a Member of
the House of Representatives.
RULING: The power of HRET, no
matter how complete and exclusive, The Court has invariably held that once a
does not carry with it the authority to winning candidate has been proclaimed,
delve into the legality of the judgment taken his oath, and assumed office as a
of naturalization in the pursuit of Member of the House of Representatives,
disqualifying the respondent. To rule the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election
otherwise would operate as a contests relating to his election, returns,
collateral attack on the citizenship of and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s
the father which, as already stated, is own jurisdiction begins.
not permissible.
Thus, there must be concurrence of the
Well-settled is the principle that the following requisites:
judgments of the HRET are beyond a) A valid proclamation;
judicial interference. The only b) Proper oath;
instance where this Court may c) Assumption of office.
intervene in the exercise of its so-
called extraordinary jurisdiction is Thus, in this case, the petitioner took her
upon a determination that the oath but has not yet assumed office
decision or resolution of the HRET was which officially starts at noon of June
rendered without or in excess of its 30, 2013.
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion or upon a clear showing of VELASCO vs SPEAKER BELMONTE:
such arbitrary and improvident use of A registered voter filed with the
its power to constitute a denial of due COMELEC a petition to deny due
process of law, or upon a course the COC of Reyes due to
demonstration of a very clear several misrepresentation which the
unmitigated error, manifestly COMELEC first division granted.
constituting such grave abuse of Aggrieved, Reyes filed MR but was
discretion that there has to be a denied. However, despite the
remedy for such abuse. Resolution of the COMELEC, Reyes
was proclaimed as the winner of the
C. Jurisdiction said elections for the representative
REYES vs COMELEC (Marinduque): of Marinduque.
Respondent filed before COMELEC an
amended petition to deny due course or In the meantime, the Petitioner filed a
to cancel the COC of the petitioner on petition for certiorari before the
ground of material misrepresentation. COMELEC assailing the proceedings of
COMELEC First Division, on March 14, the PBOC and the proclamation null
2013, granted the petition, respondent
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 17 of 123
and void, but was denied, but was party-list groups that won seats in the
later reversed. lower house of Congress.

Petitioner alleges that he is the legal Petitioner is the first nominee of the
winner during the May 13, 2013 Aangat Tayo party-list organization
elections in accordance with final and that won a seat in the House of
executory resolutions of the Representatives during the 2007
COMELEC. elections. Respondents filed a Quo
Warranto proceedings before the
Velasco wrote several letters to Reyes HRET alleging that Aangat Tayo was
that she vacates the position of the not eligible for a party-list seat in the
representative of Marinduque. Also, House of Representative, since it did
wrote letters to Belmonte that the not represent the marginalized and
name for Reyes be deleted from the underrepresented sectors and that
roll of members of the House and that the petitioner himself did not belong
he administer oath upon the to the marginalized and
petitioner, but to no avail. Petitioner underrepresented sectors.
then filed with this Court a petition for
Mandamus. Petitioner contended that COMELEC
had already confirmed the status of
In her comment, Reyes contends that Aangat Tayo as a national
the petition is actually a Quo multisectoral party-list organization
Warranto and questions the representing the workers, youth,
jurisdiction of the Court since it is the urban poor, and elderly and that she
HRET which has jurisdiction over her. belonged to the women sector.
Petitioner pointed that the HRET had
RULING: Velasco is the proclaimed no jurisdiction over the petition for
winning candidate for the Quo Warranto since the respondent
Representative of the Lone District of collaterally attacked the registration
Marinduque Province. of Aangat Tayo as a party-list
organization, a matter which falls
The jurisdiction of the HRET begins within the jurisdiction of COMELEC.
only after the candidate is considered
a Member of the House of RULING: Republic Act (R.A.) 7941,
Representatives. And to be the Party-List System Act, vests in the
considered a Member of the House of COMELEC the authority to determine
Representatives, there must be a which parties or organizations have
concurrence of the following the qualifications to seek party-list
requisites: (1) a valid proclamation, seats in the House of Representatives
(2) a proper oath, and (3) assumption during the elections. Indeed, the HRET
of office. dismissed the petitions for quo
warranto filed with it insofar as they
Based on the above-quoted ruling of sought the disqualifications of Aangat
the Supreme Court, a valid Tayo and Bantay. Since petitioners
proclamation is the first essential Abayon and Palparan were not
element before a candidate can be elected into office but were chosen by
considered a Member of the House of their respective organizations under
Representatives over which the their internal rules, the HRET has no
Tribunal could assume jurisdiction. jurisdiction to inquire into and
Such element is obviously absent in adjudicate their qualifications as
the present cases as Regina Reyes' nominees.
proclamation was nullified by the
COMELEC, which nullification was What is inevitable is that Section 17,
upheld by the Supreme Court. On this Article VI of the Constitution provides
ground alone, the Tribunal is without that the HRET shall be the sole judge
power to assume jurisdiction over the of all contests relating to, among
present petitions since Regina Reyes other things, the qualifications of the
"cannot be considered a Member of members of the House of
the House of Representatives.” Representatives. Since, as pointed out
above, party-list nominees are
ABAYON vs COMELEC: These two "elected members" of the House of
consolidated cases were about the Representatives no less than the
authority of the HRET to pass upon district representatives are, the HRET
the eligibilities of the nominees of the has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon
their qualifications. By analogy with
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 18 of 123
the cases of district representatives, understanding of and influence
once the party or organization of the over the implementation of
party-list nominee has been legislation it has enacted. Clearly,
proclaimed and the nominee has oversight concerns post-enactment
taken his oath and assumed office as measures undertaken by Congress:
member of the House of (a) to monitor bureaucratic
Representatives, the COMELEC's compliance with program objectives,
jurisdiction over election contests (b) to determine whether agencies are
relating to his qualifications ends and properly administered, (c) to eliminate
the HRET's own jurisdiction begins. executive waste and dishonesty, (d)
to prevent executive usurpation of
g. Powers of Congress legislative authority, and (d) to assess
A. Legislative oversight functions executive conformity with the
a. Three kinds congressional perception of public
ABAKADA GURO vs PURISIMA: RA interest.
9335 or the Attrition Act of 2005 was
enacted to optimize the capability and The power of oversight has been held
collection of BIR and BOC. This law to be intrinsic in the grant of
encourages all the employees of BIR legislative power itself and integral to
and BOC to improve their revenue the checks and balances inherent in a
targets by providing a system of democratic system of government.
rewards and incentives.
Classifications:
The petitioner contends that the law a) Legislative Scrutiny: (Passive
merely makes the employees as process) aka Question Hours
bounty hunters and that it violates the which implies a lesser intensity
equal protection of the laws. and continuity of attention to
administrative operations. Its
The DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC and primary purpose is to determine
the CSC were tasked to promulgate economy and efficiency of the
and issue the implementing rules and operation of government
regulations to be approved by a joint activities. In the exercise of
Congressional Oversight Committee legislative scrutiny, Congress may
created for such purpose. request information and report
from the other branches of
The petitioners also assails the government. It can give
creation of a congressional oversight recommendations or pass
committee on the ground that it resolutions for consideration of the
violates the doctrine of separation for agency involved. (Ex. Budget
powers. While the legislative function hearings)
is deemed accomplished and b) Congressional Investigation:
completed upon the enactment and (Active process) which implies
approval of the law, the creation of more intense of digging into facts.
the congressional oversight The power of the Congress to
committee permits legislative conduct investigation.
participation in the implementation (Investigation such as the
and enforcement of the law. Napoles NGOs)
c) Legislative supervision:
RULING: Joint Congressional Connotes a continuing and
Oversight Committee: composed of 7 informed awareness on the part of
members from the Senate and 7 a congressional committee
members from the HR. The members regarding executive operations in
from the Senate shall be appointed by a given administrative area.
the Senate President, with at least 2 Congress exercises supervision
senators representing the minority. over administrative agencies
While the members of the HR shall be through Legislative Veto Power
appointed by the Speaker with at which typically utilizes veto
least 2 members representing the provisions when granting the
minority. After it has completed the President or an executive agency
IRR, it will become functus officio and the power to promulgate
cease to exist. regulations with the force of law.
These provisions require the
The power of oversight embraces President or an agency to present
all activities undertaken by the proposed regulations to
Congress to enhance its Congress, which retains a "right"
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 19 of 123
to approve or disapprove any contained the President's
regulation before it takes effect. instructions to COMELEC
Such legislative veto provisions Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano to
usually provide that a proposed manipulate in her favor results of
regulation will become a law after the 2004 presidential elections.
the expiration of a certain period These recordings were to become
of time, only if Congress does not the subject of heated legislative
affirmatively disapprove of the hearings conducted separately by
regulation in the meantime. committees of both Houses of
Congress.
As to the constitutionality of RA 9335;
From the moment the law becomes During the inquiry, several
effective, any provision of law that versions of the Hello Garci tapes
empowers Congress or any of its emerged, but the NCI submitted to
members to play any role in the the HR seven alleged original
implementation or enforcement of the tapes. The House Committee
law violates the principle of decided to suspend the hearings
separation of powers and is thus indefinitely but decided to prepare
unconstitutional. Under this principle, committee reports based on the
a provision that requires Congress or said recordings.
its members to approve the
implementing rules of a law after it Alarmed, the petitioner filed with
has already taken effect shall be the Court a Petition for Prohibition
unconstitutional, as is a provision that and Injunction so the House
allows Congress or its members to Committee be restrained from
overturn any directive or ruling made using the tapes which are
by the members of the executive contended to be illegally obtained.
branch charged with the
implementation of the law. Hence, the RULING: The Senate cannot be
provisions on the said law creating a allowed to continue with the
Joint Congressional Oversight conduct of the questioned
Committee to approve implementing legislative inquiry without duly
Rules and Regulations of the law is published rules of procedure, in
unconstitutional. clear derogation of the
constitutional requirement. The
b. The power of inquiry: Art. VI, Sec. requisite of publication of the rules
21: The Senate or the House of is intended to satisfy the basic
Representatives or any of its requirements of due process.
respective committees may conduct Publication is indeed imperative,
inquiries in aid of legislation in for it will be the height of injustice
accordance with its duly published to punish or otherwise burden a
rules of procedure. The rights of citizen for the transgression of a
persons appearing in or affected by law or rule of which he had no
such inquiries shall be respected. notice whatsoever, not even a
constructive one.
 Constitutional
requisites/limitations The publication of the Rules of
GARCILLIANO vs HOUSE OF Procedure in the website of the
REPRESENTATIVES: More than Senate, or in pamphlet form
three years ago, tapes ostensibly available at the Senate, is not
containing a wiretapped sufficient under the Tañada v.
conversation purportedly between Tuvera ruling which requires
the President of the Philippines publication either in the Official
and a high-ranking official of the Gazette or in a newspaper of
Commission on Elections general circulation.
(COMELEC) surfaced. They
captured unprecedented public  Executive privilege; kinds
attention and thrust the country SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES
into a controversy that placed the vs ERMITA: The former president
legitimacy of the present GMA issued EO 464 Ensuring
administration on the line, and Observance of the Principle of
resulted in the near-collapse of the Separation of Powers, Adherence
Arroyo government. The tapes, to the rule on Executive Privilege
notoriously referred to as the and Respect for Rights of Public
"Hello Garci" tapes, allegedly Officials Appearing in Legislative
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 20 of 123
Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. The separation of powers, exempts the
order states that appearance by executive from disclosure
heads of departments before requirements applicable to the
congress shall secure the consent ordinary citizen or organization
of the President prior appearing where such exemption is
before either House of Congress. necessary to the discharge of
highly important executive
The Committee of the Senate as a responsibilities involved in
whole, issued invitations to maintaining governmental
various officials of the Executive operations, and extends not only
Department to appear as resource to military and diplomatic secrets
speakers in a public hearing on but also to documents integral to
the railway project of the North an appropriate exercise of the
Luzon Railways Corporation. executive" domestic decisional
and policy making functions, that
Some of the high ranking public is, those documents reflecting the
officials, particularly that of the frank expression necessary in
AFT, were invited to appear on intra- governmental advisory and
such hearing. Then PGMA issued deliberative communications.
the EO 464, requiring that no
executive officials may attend the Exception to this rule is the right
hearing/investigation conducted to information does not extend to
by the Congress/Senate without matters recognized as “privileged
her consent. information” under the separation
of power by which the Court
And that the rules of meant Presidential
confidentiality based on executive conversations,
privilege is fundamental to the correspondences, and
operation of government and discussions in closed-door
rooted in the separation of powers Cabinet meetings. It also held
that information on military
under the Constitution. and diplomatic secrets and
those affecting national
Executive privilege covers all security, and information on
confidential or classified investigations of crimes by law
information between the President enforcement agencies before
and the public officers covered by the prosecution of the accused
this executive order, including, were exempted from the right
among others: to information.
- Conversations and
correspondence between the When the Congress exercised its
President and the public official power of inquiry, the only way
covered by this Executive for department heads to
Order. exempt themselves therefrom
- Military, diplomatic and other is by a valid claim of privilege.
national security matters
which in the interest of The only one executive official
national security should not be may be exempted from this
divulged. power, is the President on
- Information between inter- whom the executive power is
government agencies prior to vested, hence beyond the
the conclusion of treaties and reach of the Congress, except
executive agreements. by Impeachment.
- Closed-door meetings.
Kinds of Executive Privilege:
For defying President Arroyo’s a) Presumptive presidential
order barring military personnel communication privilege
from testifying before legislative NERI vs SENATE: The
inquiries without her approval, petitioner herein appeared for
some were relieved from their 11 hours before the
military posts and were made to respondent committee and
face court martial proceedings. testified on matters concerning
the National Broadband Project
RULING: This privilege, based on awarded by the DOTC to ZTE.
the constitutional doctrine of Petitioner narrated that he was
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 21 of 123
offered 200M to accept the AKBAYAN, ET. AL. vs
project. Upon inquiry in AQUINO: FACTS: Petitioners
connection with President are non-government
Arroyo, he claimed the organizations,
executive privilege. congresspersons, citizens and
Respondent committee, taxpayers and are seeking via
however, persisted in knowing petition for mandamus and
his testimony. The petitioner prohibition to obtain from
claimed of the presumptive respondent the full text of the
executive privilege Japan Philippine Economic
communication. Partnership Agreement (JPEPA)
including the Philippine and
RULING: Executive Privilege is Japanese offers submitted
not a personal privilege, but during the negotiation process
one that adheres to the Office and all pertinent attachments
of the President. It exists to and annexes thereto.
protect public interest, not to
benefit a particular public The respondent committee,
official. however, did not heed on the
request stating, among other
Presumptive presidential things, that the contract is still
communication is privilege. being negotiated. Hence, the
The Court held that there are petitioners contended that the
certain types of Committee violated their right
information which the to information on matters of
government may withhold public concern.
from the public, that there is
a governmental privilege RULING: Well-established is
against public disclosure that neither the right to
with respect to state secrets information nor the policy of
regarding military, diplomatic full public disclosure is not
and other national security absolute, there being matters
matters, and that the right to which, albeit public concern or
information does not extend to public interest, are recognized
matters recognized as as privileged in nature.
privileged information under
the separation of powers, by The information of inter-
which the Court meant government exchange prior to
Presidential conversations, the conclusion of treaties and
correspondences, and executive agreements may be
discussion in closed-door subject to reasonable
Cabinet meetings. safeguards for the sake of
national interest.
The power to enter into an
executive agreement is  Commander-in-chief clause
quintessential which is GUDANI vs SENGA:
defined as the most perfect Petitioners seek the annulment
embodiment of something, the of the directive from President
concentrated essence of Arroyo enjoining them and
substance. other military officers from
testifying before Congress
This in this case, the context in without the President’s
which the executive privilege consent.
is being invoked is that the
information sought to be Petitioners were high-ranking
disclosed might impair our officials of the AFP and were
diplomatic as well as economic invited to appear at a public
relations with the People’s hearing before the Senate
Republic of China. It is also Committee. The hearing was
settled that diplomatic about the alleged massive
negotiations are of privileged cheating during the election in
character. 2004 after a phone call
between President Arroyo and
b) Offers in treaty Garcilliano (Hello Garci).
negotiations
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 22 of 123
PGMA issued EO 464 enjoining It is from the viewpoint that
all officials of the executive the restrictions imposed on
department including the petitioner Kapunan an officer
military establishment from of the AFP, have to be
appearing in any legislative considered.
inquiry without her approval.
Critical to military discipline is
The petitioners were directed obedience to the military chain
by the respondent to appear of command. Willful
before the Office of the Provost disobedience of a superior
Marshal General (OPMG) for officer is punishable nu court-
investigation, but the martial under Article 65 of the
petitioners remained silent. Article of War. An individual
Thereafter, the petitioners soldier is not free to ignore the
were charged with violation of lawful orders or duties
Article of War 65, on willfully assigned by his immediate
disobeying a superior officer. superiors.

Petitioners characterize the Further, traditional

directive from PGMA requiring restrictions on members of the
her prior approval before any armed forces are those
AFP personnel appear before imposed on free speech and
Congress as a gag order, which mobility. It is integral to
violates the principle of military discipline that the
separation of powers in soldier’s speech be with the
government as it interferes consent and approval of the
with the investigation of the military commander.
Senate Committee conducted
in aid of legislation. The necessity of upholding the
ability to restrain speech
RULING: The commander-in- becomes even more
chief clause vests on the imperative if the soldier
President, as commander-in- desires to speak freely on
chief, absolute authority over political matters. The
the persons and actions of the constitution requires that the
members of the armed forces. armed forces shall be insulated
Such authority includes the from partisan politics and that
ability of the President to no member for the military
restrict the travel, movement shall engage directly or
and speech of military officers, indirectly in any partisan
activities which may otherwise political activity, except to
be sanctioned under the vote. Soldiers are
civilian law. constitutionally obliged to obey
a President they may dislike or
The Court is of the view that distrust.
such is justified by the
requirements of military Thus, the Court held that the
discipline. It cannot be President has constitutional
gainsaid that certain liberties authority to restrict, by virtue
of persons in the military of her power as commander-in-
service, including the freedom chief, and that as a
of speech, may be consequence a military officer
circumscribed by rules of who defies such injunction is
military discipline, because liable under military justice.
the effectiveness of the
military in fulfilling its duties Remedy to compel
under the law depends to a attendance. The Court held
large extent on the that the Congress has no
maintenance of discipline power to compel the
within its ranks. Hence, lawful attendance of a witness for a
orders must be followed testimony, only the Court can.
without question and rules The remedy of the Congress is
must be faithfully complied to seek judicial relief to
with, irrespective of a soldier’s compel, with conclusiveness,
personal views on the matter.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 23 of 123
attendance or non-attendance recourse must be had to others
in legislative inquiries. who possess it.

 Legislative contempt: If the subject of investigation

ARNAULT vs NAZARENO: before the committee is within
The Senate investigated the the range for legitimate
purchase by the Government legislative inquiry and the
of 2 parcels of land. An proposed testimony of the
intriguing question that the witness was called relates to
Senate sought to resolve was that subject, obedience, to its
the apparent irregularity of the process may be enforces by
Government’s payment to the committee by
Ernest Burt, a non-resident imprisonment.
American Citizen. The Senate
sought to determine the who Further, the Senate had the
were responsible for and who authority to commit petitioner
benefited from the transaction for contempt for a term
at the expense of the beyond its period of legislative
Government. session. To deny such
committees the power of
Petitioner Arnault, the agent of inquiry with the process to
Burt in the subject enforce it would be to defeat
transactions, was one of the the very purpose for which
witnesses summoned by the that the power is recognized in
Senate to its hearings. In the the legislative body as an
course of the investigation, the essential and appropriate
petitioner repeatedly refused auxiliary to a legislative
to divulge the name of the function. It is but logical to say
person to whom he gave the that the power for self-
amount of P440,000, which he preservation is coexistent with
withdrew from the P1.5M the life to be preserved.
proceeds pertaining to the
parcels for land. Lastly, the petitioner cannot
invoke the right to self-
Arnault was therefore cited in incrimination. The fact that the
contempt by the Senate and testimony for a witness may
was committed to the custody tend to show that he has
of the Senate Sergeant-at- violated the law is not
arms for imprisonment until he sufficient to entitle him to
answers the questions. He claim the protection of the
thereafter filed a petition for constitutional provision against
habeas corpus directly with the self-incrimination, unless he
Court questioning the validity is at the same time liable
of his detention. to prosecution and
punishment for such
RULING: The Senate has the violation.
power to punish the petitioner
for contempt for refusing to NORECO vs SANGGUNIANG
answer the question of the PANGLUNGSOD OF
Senate. The Congress has the DUMAGUETE: An attempt by
power of inquiry with the respondent to punish non-
processes to enforce it, which members for legislative
is an essential and appropriate contempt was halted by this
auxiliary to the legislative special civil action of Certiorari
function. A legislative body and Prohibition with
cannot legislate wisely and Preliminary Injunction and/or
effectively in the absence of Restraining Order questioning
information respecting the the very existence of the
conditions which the legislation power in that local legislative
is intended to effect of change; body or in any of its
and where the legislative body committees.
does not itself possess the
requisite information – which is Petitioners were required by
not infrequently true – respondent to give their
testimonies at the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 24 of 123
Committee’s investigation in office as provided by law, but not by
connection with the pending impeachment.
legislation related to the
operations of public utilities in a) President
the City of Dumaguete where DAVID vs MACAPAGAL-
the petitioner NORECO II, had ARROYO: President Arroyo issued
its principal place of business. PP 1017 declaring a state of
Petitioners contended that the national emergency. Such
respondent has no power to proclamation is anchored from the
compel their attendance to Constitution Section 18, Article 7
give testimony, nor has any of the Philippine Constitution
power to order their arrest in which states that: "The President. .
case of failure to obey the . whenever it becomes
subpoena. necessary, . . . may call out (the)
armed forces to prevent or
Respondent contended that suppress. . .rebellion. . .," and in
they have inherent legislative my capacity as their Commander-
power to conduct in-Chief, do hereby command
investigations in aid of the Armed Forces of the
legislation. Philippines, to maintain law
and order throughout the
RULING: A line should be Philippines, prevent or
drawn between the powers of suppress all forms of lawless
the Congress as the repository violence as well as any act of
of the legislative power under insurrection or rebellion and
the Constitution, and those to enforce obedience to all the
that may be exercised by the laws and to all decrees, orders
legislative bodies of local and regulations promulgated
government units. The by me personally or upon my
Sangguniang Panglungsod, direction; and as provided in
may enact ordinances to Section 17, Article 12 of the
regulate the installation ang Constitution do hereby declare
maintenance of electric power a State of National Emergency.
lines, like prohibit the use of
inefficient power lines, in order In their presentation of the factual
to protect the city residents bases of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5,
from hazards these may pose. respondents stated that the
In aid of ordinance-making proximate cause behind the
power, said body or any of its executive issuances was the
committees may conduct conspiracy among some military
investigations similar to, but officers, leftist insurgents of the
not the same as, the New People’s Army (NPA), and
legislative investigations some members of the political
conducted by the national opposition in a plot to unseat or
legislature. The difference assassinate President Arroyo. They
lies in the lack of subpoena considered the aim to oust or
power and of the power to assassinate the President and
punish for contempt on the take-over the reigns of
part of the local legislative government as a clear and
bodies. present danger.

B. Power of impeachment During the dispersal of the rallyists

a. Subject officials: Art. XI, Sec. 2: along EDSA, police arrested
The President, Vice President, the (without warrant) petitioner
Members of the Supreme Court, the Randolf S. David, a professor at
Members of the Constitutional the University of the Philippines
Commissions, and the Ombudsman and newspaper columnist. Also
may be removed from the office, on arrested was his companion,
impeachment for, and conviction of, Ronald Llamas, president of party-
culpable violation of the Constitution, list Akbayan.
treason, bribery, graft and corruption,
other high crimes, or betrayal of On March 3, 2006, President
public trust. All other public officers Arroyo issued PP 1021 declaring
and employees may be removed from that the state of national
emergency has ceased to exist.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 25 of 123
the offense for which he was
RULING: It is not proper to charged is not related to his office
implead PGMA as respondent. as mayor.
Settled is the doctrine that the
President, during his tenure of RULING: The broad power of the
office or actual incumbency, may New Constitution vests the
not be sued in any civil or criminal respondent court with jurisdiction
case, and there is no need to over “public officers” and
provide for it in the Constitution or “employees”, including those in
law. It will degrade the dignity of government-owned or controlled
the high office of the President, corporations. There are
the Head of the State, if he can be exceptions, however, like the
dragged into court litigations while constitutional officers, particularly
serving as such. Furthermore, it is those declared to be removed by
important that he be freed from impeachment.
any form of harassment,
hindrance, or distraction to enable The Constitution (1973 viz 1987)
him to fully attend to the provides:
performance of his official duties
and functions. Unlike the Chief Justice Fernando:
legislative and judicial branch, Judgment in cases of
only one constitutes the executive impeachment shall be limited to
branch and anything which removal from office and
impairs his usefulness in the disqualification to hold any office
discharge of the many great and of honor, trust, or profit under the
important duties imposed upon Republic of the Philippines, but
him by the Constitution the party convicted shall
necessarily impairs the operations nevertheless be liable and
of the Government. However, this subject to prosecution, trial
does not mean that the President and punishment in accordance
is not accountable to anyone. Like with the law.
any other official, he remains
accountable to the people but he Impeachable Officers
may be removed from office only 1973 Constitution 1987 Constitution
in the mode provided by law and The President, Members The President, Vice
that is by impeachment. of the Supreme Court, President, the Members
and the Members of the of the Supreme Court,
b) Other impeachable officers Constitutional the Members of the
LECAROZ vs SANDIGANBAYAN: Commissions shall be Constitutional
The gist of the case is whether an removed from office on Commission, and the
impeachable officer can be impeachment for, and Ombudsman may be
charged criminally while holding conviction of, culpable removed from the
office. violation of the office, on impeachment
Constitution, treason, for, and conviction of,
In 1980, the petitioner (Mayor of bribery, other high culpable violation of the
Marinduque) was charged with crimes, or graft and Constitution, treason,
grave coercion filed before the corruption. bribery, graft and
respondent court. Petitioner was corruption, other high
then a public officer, and allegedly crimes, or betrayal of
to have committed the crime public trust. All other
charged in relation to his office, public officers and
that was to take control of a employees may be
gasoline station, and sell the removed from office as
gasoline therein to the public, and provided by law, but
thereby padlocking the same not by impeachment.
which deprived the owner the
possession thereof.
REPUBLIC vs SERENO: From 1986 to 2006, or for
Petitioner moved to quash the 20 years, respondent served as a member of faculty
information stating that the in UP College of Law, initially and temporary faculty
respondent court lacks jurisdiction member from 1986 to 1991, and thereafter as a
to entertain the case since the permanent faculty member until her resignation on
case should have been filed with 2006. As a regular faculty member, the respondent
the regular courts in Marinduque, by month by UP.
among others, on the ground that
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 26 of 123
the instant petition for Quo
Despite of having been employed Warranto against the respondent.
by UP from 1986 to 2006, the
record of UP only contain the SALN RULING:
for 1985, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994,
1995, 1996, 1997, and 2002. And As to Quo Warranto: Sec. 5, Art.
that based on records, no SALN VIII of the Constitution, in part,
filed by respondent for 1999 to provides that the SC shall exercise
2006 except 1998. Also, despite original jurisdiction over petitions
being employed as legal counsel for certiorari, prohibition,
of various government agencies mandamus, quo warranto, and
from 2003 to 2009, she did not file habeas corpus. When commences
SALN for these years, and even by the OSG, the venue for Quo
until she resigned from UP and Warranto shall be the RTC in Metro
when she supposedly re-entered Manila, CA, or SC.
the government in 2010.
While both the Quo Warranto and
During a special en banc meeting Impeachment proceedings may
of JBC, and upon examination as result from the ouster of the public
to compliance of the submission of officer, both differ.
documentary requirements by the
candidates for Chief Justice Quo Warranto Impeachment
position, the Executive Officer Political in nature. Judicial proceeding in
informed the Council that the Commenced by the nature.
respondent had not submitted her OSG or any person
SALNs for a period of 10 years. claiming to be entitled
The submission period for to the public office or
documentary requirements was position usurped or
extended since there were several unlawfully held or
candidates who failed to comply. exercised by another.
Against a person who To include all acts which
In spite of having failed to usurps, intrudes into, or are not punishable by
substantially complied with the unlawfully holds to the statutes as penal
documentary requirements exercise a public office offenses but,
(SALNs) for the chief justice or a franchise. nonetheless, render the
position, the respondent was officer unfit to continue
appointed by President Aquino as Against a public officer in office.
the Chief Justice. who does or suffers an
act which, by the a) Betrayal of
Hence, this petition for Quo provisions of law, public trust,
Warranto filed by the Republic. constitutes a ground for b) Inexcusable
The respondent contended that a the forfeiture of his negligence of
petition for Quo Warranto may be office, or. duty,
resorted to even in impeachable c) Tyrannical abuse
officers. of power,
Against an association d) Breach of official
The respondent contended that within the Philippines duty by
the Chief Justice of the Supreme without being legally malfeasance or
Court is, by express provision of incorporated or without misfeasance,
the Constitution, removable from lawful authority so to e) Cronyism,
office exclusively by act. f) favoritism,
impeachment. Thus, the g) and others to the
respondent pounds that as a prejudice of the
member of the SC, she is an public interest
impeachable officer. As such, the and which tend
respondent contends that Quo to bring the
Warranto proceedings cannot be office into
lodged against her when there is disrepute.
an impending impeachment case Determines whether an Involves the protection
against her. individual has the legal of public interest,
right to hold a public incorporating public law
The question in this is case is office he or she element, like a criminal
whether the SC can assume occupies. proceeding.
jurisdiction and give due course to Involves a judicial Initiated by the

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 27 of 123
determination of the government or the has right or title thereto may
eligibility or validity of community, be declared void.
the election or
appointment of a public Exercised by the Petition denied.
official based on legislative, as the
predetermined rules. representative of the b. Limitation: Art. XI, Sec. 3(5): The
sovereign, to vindicate House of Representatives shall have
the breach of trust the power to initiate all cases of
reposed by the people Impeachment:
in the hands of the
public officer by (5) No impeachment proceedings
determining the public shall be initiated against the same
officer’s fitness to stay official more than once within a period
in the office. of one year.
Refers to offices filled
by election, what is to c. Procedure:
be determined is the a) Initiation stage:
eligibility of the  If initiated by less than 1/3:
candidates elected. Art. XI, Sec. 3(2) and 3(3):
Can proceed independently and simultaneously. 3(2) A verified complaint for
The existence of other remedies against the impeachment may be filed by
usurper does not prevent the State from any Member of the House of
commencing a Quo Warranto proceeding. Representatives or by any
citizen upon a resolution of
As an impeachment court, the Senate's jurisdiction endorsement by any Member
and the effect of its pronouncement is as limited thereof, which shall be
under the Constitution - it cannot rule on the included in the Order of
constitutionality of an appointment of a Member of Business within ten session
the Supreme Court with .jurisprudential binding days referred to the proper
effect because rulings of the impeachment court, Committee within three
being a political rather than a judicial body, do not session days thereafter. The
form part of the laws of the land. Committee, after hearing, and
by a majority vote of all its
There can be no forum shopping in Members, shall submit its
the case at bar. The cause of report to the House within
actions for Quo Warranto and sixty session days from such
Impeachment are different; the referral, together with the
former question the legal title of corresponding resolution. The
one person to hold or exercise a resolution shall be calendared
public office, or the appointment for consideration by the House
thereof, while the latter indicts the within ten session days from
public officer for impeachable receipt thereof.
offenses.
3(3) A vote of at least 1/3 of
To construe Section 2. Article Xi of all the Members of the House
the Constitution as proscribing a shall be necessary either to
Quo Warranto petition is to affirm a favorable resolution
deprive the State of a remedy to with the Articles of
correct a public wrong arising from Impeachment for the
defective or void appointments. Committee, or override its
contrary resolution. The vote
While an appointment is an of each Member shall be
essentially discretionary executive recorded.
power, it is subject to the
limitations that the appointee  If initiated by 1/3: Art. XI,
should possess none of the Sec. 3(4): In case the verified
disqualifications but all the complaint or resolution of
qualifications required by law. impeachment is filed by at
Where the law prescribes least 1/3 of all the Members of
certain qualifications for a the House, the same shall
given office or position, courts constitute the Articles of
may determine whether the Impeachment, and trial by
appointee has the requisite Senate shall forthwith proceed.
qualifications, absent which,

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 28 of 123
b) Trial Stage: Art. XI, Sec. 3(7): (2) The President shall have the
Judgment in cases of power to veto any particular item or
impeachment shall not extend items in an appropriation, revenue, or
further than removal from office tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect
and disqualification to hold any the item or items to which he does
office under the Republic of the not object.
Philippines, but the party
convicted shall nevertheless be Message veto Pocket Veto
liable and subject to prosecution, Occurs when the bills Occurs when a bill fails
trial, and punishment according to presented by either to become a law
the law. House to the President because the President
is vetoed by the latter does not sign the bill
d. Consequence of conviction: Art. by sending a message and cannot return the
XI, Sec. 3(7): Judgment in cases of to the House where the bill to Congress within
impeachment shall not extend further bill originated stating 30 days. The veto can
than removal from office and the refusal and reasons be override by the
disqualification to hold any office therefor. Congress by a vote of
under the Republic of the Philippines, 2/3 of all its Members.
but the party convicted shall
nevertheless be liable and subject Partial veto Legislative veto
to prosecution, trial, and As a general rule, a Or the Congressional
punishment according to the law. partial veto is invalid. It veto which is a means
is allowed only for whereby the legislature
C. Limitations on legislative power particular items in can block or modify
a) Bills that originate exclusively in appropriation, revenue, administrative action
the House of Representatives: or tariff bill. The taken under a statute.
Art. VI, Sec. 24: All appropriations, president cannot veto
revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing part of an item (it must
increase of public debt, bills of local be an item) in an
application, and private bills shall appropriation bill while
originate exclusively in the House of approving the
Representatives, but the Senate may remaining portion of the
propose or concur with amendments. item.

b) Presidential veto and General veto power Item or line-veto

congressional override: Art. VI, power
Sec. 27: (1) Every bill passed by the The power of the Is the power of an
Congress shall, before it becomes a President to refuse or executive authority to
law, be presented to the President. If approve a bill or a joint nullify or cancel specific
he approves the same, he shall sign resolution of both item/s of a bill, usually
it; otherwise, he shall veto it and Houses and thus the general
return the same with his objection to prevent its enactment appropriations bill
the House where it originated, which into a law. (budget bill), without
shall enter its objections at large in its vetoing the entire
Journal and proceed to reconsider. If legislative package.
after such reconsideration, 2/3 of all
Members of such House shall agree to
pass the bill, it shall be sent, together
with the objections, to the other
House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by 2/3
of all the Members of that House, it
shall become a law. In all such cases,
the votes of each House shall be
determined by yeas or nays, and the
names of the Members voting for or
against shall be entered in its Journal.
The President shall communicate his
veto of any bill to the House where it
originated within 30 days after the
date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it
shall become a law as if he had signed
it.

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 29 of 123
VI. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT President of the Senate or, in case of his
1. The president inability, the Speaker of the House of
A. Qualifications of president: Art. VII, Sec. Representatives, shall then act as
2: No person may be elected President unless President until the President or Vice
he is a: President shall have been elected and
a) Natural-born citizen of the Philippines; qualified.
b) A registered voter;
c) Able to read and write; The Congress shall, by law, provide who
d) At least 40 years of age on the day of the shall serve as President in case of death,
election; permanent disability, or resignation of the
e) A resident of the Philippines for at least 10 Acting President. He shall serve until the
years immediately preceding the election. President or the Vice President shall have
been elected and qualified, and be subject
B. Presidential succession: to the same restrictions of powers and
a) If there is vacancy BEFORE the disqualifications as the Acting President.
beginning of the term: Art. VII, Sec.
7: The President-elect and Vice President- ESTRADA vs DISIERTO: This is a case
elect shall assume office at the beginning when President Estrada alleges that he is
of their terms. the President on leave while respondent
PGMA claims she is the President.
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the
Vice President-elect shall act as President In the May 11, 1998 elections petitioner
until the President-elect shall have was elected as the President while the
qualified. respondent PGMA was elected as Vice
President. From the beginning of his term,
If a President shall have not been chosen, the petitioner was plagued by plethora of
the Vice President-elect shall act as problems, among others, was being
President until a President shall have been accused of receiving millions of pesos
chosen and qualified. from jueteng lords.

If at the beginning of the term of the Senator Guingona, the Minority Leader
President, the President-elect shall have accused the petitioner of receiving P200M
died or have become permanently in jueteng and around P70M on excise tax
disabled, the Vice President-elect shall on cigarettes.
become President.
Calls for his resignation, and for
Where no President and Vice President impeachment have been had, but the
shall have been chosen or shall have petitioner did not resign.
qualified, or where both shall have died or
become permanently disabled, the On the month of November, the House
President of the Senate, or in case of his Speaker transmitted the Articles of
inability, the Speaker of the House of Impeachment signed by 115
Representatives shall act as President representatives, or more than 1/3 of all
until a President or a Vice President shall the members of the House of
have been chosen and qualified. Representatives to the Senate. By the
month of December, the impeachment
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the begun.
manner in which one who is to act as
President shall be selected until a On January 1999, by a vote of 11-10
President or a Vice President shall have Senate Judges decided not to open an
qualified, in case of death, permanent envelope allegedly containing an evidence
disability, or inability of the officials that the petitioner held P3.3B in a secret
mentioned in the next preceding bank account. A day after, the public
paragraph. prosecutors tendered their resignation as
a protest, and they also filed their
b) If there is PERMANENT vacancy manifestation of Withdrawal of
DURING the incumbency: Art. VII, Sec. Appearance with the impeachment
8: In case of death, permanent disability, tribunal.
removal from office or resignation of the
President, the Vice President shall become On January 18 a long line of people
the President to serve the unexpired term. holding candles formed a human chain
In case of death, permanent disability, from the Ninoy Aquino Monument on Ayala
removal from office, or resignation of both Avenue in Makati to EDSA Shrine
the President and Vice President, the demanding the petitioner’s resignation. On
January 19, the fall from power of the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 30 of 123
petitioner was inevitable. The petitioner investigation spiked the hate against him.
agreed to the holding of a snap election The Articles of Impeachment was signed
for President where he would not be a by 115 representatives or more than 1/3
candidate. Meanwhile, rallies calling for of the House of Representatives. His
the resignation of the Petitioner exploded political allies began deserting him.
in various parts of the country. January 20, Respondent quit as the Secretary of Social
was the day of surrender. Welfare, and the then Senate President
Drilon and Former Speaker Villar defected
Chief Justice Davide administered oath to with 47 representatives in tow. Then his
the respondent PGMA as the President of senior political advisers resigned together
the Philippines. with his Secretary of Trade and Industry.

He wrote a letter stating that the The Constitution deals with vacancies
petitioner is unable to exercise the powers occurring in the office of the President. 1)
and duties of the office, and thereby, by death of the incumbent; 2) his permanent
operation of law and the Constitution, the disability; 3) removal; or 4) resignation
Vice President shall be the Acting from Office.
President, but with reservations as to the
constitutionality and validity of the The resignation of the petitioner cannot be
respondent’s presidency. debuted. 1) he acknowledged the oath-
taking of the respondent as the President;
A day after the oath-taking of the 2) he emphasized he was leaving the
respondent, she requested with urgency Palace for the sake of peace and order; 3)
the Supreme Court to confirm her as the he expressed his gratitude to the people
President. She also started to discharge for the opportunity to serve them; 4) he
her duties and functions as the President. assured he will not shirk from any future
challenge that may come ahead in the
Thus, after the fall from his power, the same service of our country; 5)he called
cases filed against the petitioner started to on his supporters to join him in the
set in motion. Through a counsel, promotion of a constructive national spirit
petitioner filed a Quo Warranto of reconciliation and solidarity.
proceedings against the respondent. He
prayed for the judgment confirming The petitioner cannot even claim that he is
petitioner to be the lawful and incumbent a President on leave on the ground that he
president of the Philippines temporarily is merely unable to govern temporarily.
unable to discharge the duties of his That claim has been laid to rest by
office, and declaring respondent to have Congress and the decision that respondent
taken her oath as and to be holding office is the de jure President made by co-equal
of the President only in an acting capacity branch of the government cannot be
pursuant to the provisions of the reviewed by SC.
Constitution.
c) If TEMPORARY vacancy DURING the
The question is whether or not President incumbency: Art. VII, Sec. 11:
Estrada is a President on leave while Whenever the President transmits to the
respondent Arroyo is an acting president President of the Senate and the Speaker of
when she took her oath on January 20, the House of Representatives his written
2001. declaration that he is unable to discharge
the powers and duties of his office and
RULING: There must be an intent to until he transmits to them a written
resign and the intent must be coupled by declaration to the contrary, such powers
acts of relinquishment. and duties shall be discharged by the Vice
President as Acting President.
Whether or not the petitioner resigned has
to be determined from his acts and Whenever a majority of all Members of the
omissions before, during and after January Cabinet transmit to the President of the
20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
contemporaneous and posterior acts and Representative their written declaration
circumstantial( evidence bearing a that the President is unable to discharge
material relevance on the issue. Using the the powers and duties of his office, the
totality test the petitioner resigned as Vice President shall immediately assume
President. powers and duties as Acting President.

As the successive events have taken Thereafter, when the President transmits
place, the revelation of the petitioner’s to the President of the Senate and to the
misgovernance in the Blue Ribbon Speaker of the House of the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 31 of 123
Representatives his written declaration primary functions of his position, no
that no inability exists, he shall reassume appointive official shall hold any other
the powers and duties of his office. office or employment in the Government
Meanwhile, should the majority of all the or any subdivision, agency or
Members of the Cabinet transmit within 5 instrumentality thereof, including
days to the President of the Senate and to government-owned or controlled
the Speaker of the House of corporations or their subsidiaries.
Representatives their written declaration c) Elective (President and VP) and
that the President is unable to discharge appointive (Cabinet Secretaries,
the powers and duties of his office, the Usecs. and Asecs.): Art. VII, Sec. 13:
Congress shall decide the issue. For that The President, Vice President, the
purpose, the Congress shall convene, it I Members of the Cabinet, and their
not in session, within 48 hours, in deputies or assistants shall not, unless
accordance with its rules and without the otherwise provided in this Constitution,
need of call. hold any other office or employment
during their tenure. They shall not, during
If the Congress, within 10 days after said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice
receipt for the last written declaration, of, any other profession, participate in any
if not in session, within 12 days after it is business, or be financially interested in
required to assemble, determined by 2/3 any contract with, or any franchise, or
vote of both Houses, voting separately, special privilege granted by the
that the President is unable to discharge Government or any subdivision, agency,
the powers and duties of his office the instrumentality thereof, including
Vice President shall act as the President; government-owned or controlled
otherwise, the President shall continue corporations or their subsidiaries. They
exercising the powers and duties of his shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in
office. the conduct of their office.

2. Prohibitions: Art. VII, Sec. 13; relate with The spouse and relative by consanguinity
Art. XI, Sec. 16: or affinity within the fourth civil degree of
the President shall not during his tenure
Art. VII, Sec. 13: The President, Vice President, be appointed as members of the
the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or Constitutional Commissions, or the Office
assistances shall not, unless otherwise provided of Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
in this Constitution, hold any other office or Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of
employment during their tenure. They shall not, bureaus or offices, including government-
during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice owned or controlled corporations and their
any other profession, participate in any business, subsidiaries.
or be financially interested in any contract with,
or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by a. Art. VII, Sec. 3: There shall be a Vice
the Government or any subdivision, agency, or President who shall have the same
instrumentality thereof, including government- qualifications and term of office and be
owned or controlled corporations or their elected with an in the same manner as
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of the President. He may be removed
interest in the conduct of their office. from office in the same manner as the
President.
Art. XI, Sec. 16: No loan, guaranty, or other
form of financial accommodation for any business The Vice President may ba appointed
purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by as a Member of the Cabinet. Such
any government-owned or controlled bank or appointment requires no confirmation.
financial institution to the President, the Vice
President, the Members of the Cabinet, the b. Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1): Judicial and Bar
Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Council is hereby created under the
Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, or supervision for the Supreme Court
to any firm or entity in which they have composed of the Chief Justice as ex
controlling interest, during their tenure. officio Chairman, the Secretary of
Justice, and a representative of the
A. Rule on additional positions: Congress as ex officio Members, a
a) Elective: Art. IX-B, Sec.7, 1 st par.: No representative of the Integrated Bar, a
elective official shall be eligible for professor of law, a retired Member of
appointment or designation in any the Supreme Court, and a
capacity to any public office or position representative of the private sector.
during his tenure.
b) Appointive: Art. IX-B, Sec. 7, 2nd par.: c. Art. XII, Sec. 9: The Congress may
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the establish an independent economic
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 32 of 123
and planning agency headed by the Assistant Secretaries Constitution
President, which shall, after 2) Vice President is
consultations with the appropriate allowed to be
public agencies, various private appointed as a
sectors, and local government units, Cabinet Member.
recommend to congress, and 3) Secretary of
implement continuing integrated and Justice as Judicial
coordinated programs and policies for and Bar Council
national development. Member
4) President as
d. Doctrine of Qualified Political NEDA Head
Agency: Recognizes the 5) President to all
establishment of a single executive, all the executive
executives and administrative departments
organizations are adjuncts of the (Doctrine of
Executive Department, the heads of Political Qualified
the various executive departments are Agency)
assistants and agents of the Chief
Executive, and except in cases where e. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs
the Chief Executive is required by the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: (Members
Constitution or law to act in person or of the Cabinet, their deputies and
the exigencies of the situation demand assistants shall mean heads of
that he act personally, the multifarious executive departments, their
executive and administrative functions undersecretaries and assistant
of the Chief Executive are performed secretaries).
by and through the executive
departments, and the acts of the Assailed in this case is the
secretaries of such departments constitutionality of E.O. 284 issued by
performed and promulgated in the President Corazon Aquino in 1987
regular course of business are, unless disallowing the Members of the
disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Cabinet, undersecretary or assistant
Executive presumptively the acts of secretary or other appointive officials
the Chief Executive. of the Executive Department to hold
more than 2 positions in the
In other words, it means that the government, including the
department secretaries are alter egos government-owned or controlled
or assistants of the Presidents and corporation and their subsidiaries even
their accts are presumed to be those of if allowed by law or by the ordinary
the latter unless disapproved or functions of his position.
reprobated by him.
Petitioner maintain that this E.O.
RULES ON ADDITIONAL POSITION allows the members of the Cabinet,
Elective Officials No. their undersecretaries, and assistant
(Except the President Exception: secretaries to hold other government
and Vice President) Ex officio offices or positions in addition to their
capacity primary positions, even subject to the
Appointive Officials No. limitation imposed by the Constitution.
(Except the Cabinet Exception: (Applies only
Secretaries, if there is no conflict "Sec. 13. The President, Vice-
Undersecretaries, and between the two President, the Members of the
Assistant Secretaries) positions) Cabinet, and their deputies or
1) Unless, assistants shall not, unless
In-rank Cabinet otherwise otherwise provided in this
provided by the Constitution, hold any other office
law; or employment during their
2) By the primary tenure. They shall not, during said
functions of tenure, directly or indirectly
office. practice any other profession,
3) Ex officio participate in any business, or be
capacity financially interested in any
President, Vice No. contract with, or in any franchise,
President, Cabinet Exception: or special privilege granted by the
Secretaries, 1) Unless allowed Government or any subdivision,
Undersecretaries, and by the agency, or instrumentality thereof,

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 33 of 123
including government-owned or special privilege granted by the
controlled corporations or their Government or any subdivision,
subsidiaries. They shall strictly agency or instrumentality thereof,
avoid conflict of interest in the including government-owned or
conduct of their office.” controlled corporations or their subsidi
aries." These sweeping, all- embracing
It is alleged that the above provision prohibitions imposed on the President
prohibits public respondents, as and his official family, which
members of the Cabinet, along with prohibitions are not similarly imposed
other public officials, from holding any on other public officials or employees
other office or employment during such as the Members of Congress,
their tenure. members of the civil service in general
and members of the armed forces, are
That the E.O. 284 adds exceptions to proof of the intent of the 1987
Sec. 13, Article VII other than those Constitution to treat the President and
provided in the Constitution. According his official family as class by itself and
to the petitioners, by virtue of the to imposed upon said class stricter
phrase “unless otherwise provided in prohibitions.
the Constitution” the only exceptions
against holding any other office or While all other appointive officials in
employment in Government are those the civil service are allowed to hold
provided in the Constitution. Namely: other office or employment in the
1) The Vice President may be government during their tenure when
appointed as a Members of the such is allowed by law or by the
Cabinet, and 2) Secretary of Justice primary functions of their positions,
who is an ex-officio member of the members of the Cabinet, their deputies
Judicial and Bar Council. ad assistances may do so only when
expressly authorized by the
Does the prohibition in Section 13, Constitution itself. In other words,
Article VII of the Constitution insofar as Section 7, Article IX-B is meant to lay
the Cabinet members, their deputies or down the general rule applicable to all
assistants concerned admit of the elective and appointive public officials
broad exceptions made for appointive and employees, while Section 13,
officials in general under Section 7, par Article VII is meant to be the exception
(2), Article IX-B. applicable only to the President, the
Vice- President, Members of the
RULING: There is no dispute that the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.
prohibition against the President, Vice
President, the members of the Cabined f. Clarificatory en banc resolution in
and their deputies or assistants from G.R. No. 83896 (Civil Liberties
holding dual or multiple positions in Union vs Executive Secretary) and
the Government admit of certain G.R. No. 83815 (Anti-Graft League
exceptions. of the Philippines, Inc. vs
Secretary of Agrarian Reform):
Section 13, Article VII states that
“(T)he President, Vice-President, the CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs EXEC.
Members of the Cabinet, and their SECRETARY
deputies or assistants shall not, unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution, ANTI-GRAFT LEAGUE OF THE
hold any other office or employment PHILIPPINES INC, ET.AL. vs SEC.
during their tenure." In the latter OF AGRARIAN REFORM: (Read the
provision, the disqualification is case above).
absolute, not being qualified by the
phrase "in the Government." The
prohibition imposed on the President PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER INC vs
and his official family is all-embracing ELMA: This a petition for Certiorari,
and covers both public and private Prohibition, and Mandamus, with a
office or employment. prayer of TRO seeking to nullify the
appointment of herein respondent as
The second sentence provides: "They Chief Presidential Legal Counsel for
shall not, during said tenure, directly or being Contrary to Sec. 13, Art. VII and
indirectly, practice any other Sec. 7, par. 2, Art. IX-B.
profession, participate in any business,
or be financially interested in any On 1998, respondent was appointed
contract with, or in any franchise, or and took his oath of office as Chairman
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 34 of 123
of the PCGG. During his tenure as the drafting legal orders referred to him by
Chairman, respondent was appointed the President.
as CPLC. Petitioner contents that the
appointment was repugnant with the Although being a Chairman of PCGG
Constitution and maintained that does not fall within the language of the
respondent was holding incompatible Constitution pertaining to Members of
office. the Cabinet, their deputies and
assistants (Heads of the executive
The question is whether the PCGG departments, their undersecretaries,
Chairman can concurrently hold the and assistant secretaries), the general
position of CPLC. prohibition under Section 7, Article IX-B
and the appointments must still
RULING: While all other appointive comply with the standards of
officials in the civil service are allowed compatibility of officers laid down
to hold other office or employment in therein.
the government during their tenure
when such is allowed by law or by the g. Military: Art. XVI, Sec 5(4): No
primary functions of their positions, members of the armed forces in the
members of the Cabinet, their active service shall, at any time, be
deputies and assistants may do so appointed or designated in any
only when expressly authorized by capacity to a civilian position in the
the Constitution itself. Government including government-
owned or controlled corporations or
The general rule contained in Article any of their subsidiaries.
IX-B of the Constitution permits an
appointive official to hold more than 3. Presidential immunity
one office only if allowed by law or by SOLIVEN vs MAKASIAR: In 1988, the SOJ
the primary functions of his position. denied the petitioner’s Mr. and upheld the
Meaning, there should be no resolution of the Undersecretary of Justice
incompatibility between the two offices sustaining the City Fiscal’s finding of a prima
as such when one office is subordinate facie case against the petitioners. A second
to the other, in the sense that one MR was filed, but was denied. On appeal, the
office has the right to interfere with the President through the Executive Secretary
other. affirmed the resolution of the SOJ. Petitioner
contends that they have been denied the
In this case, an incompatibility exists administrative remedies available under the
between the positions of the PCGG law.
Chairman and the CPLC. The duties of
the CPLC include giving independent Also the petitioner Beltran contends that the
and impartial legal advice on the reasons which necessitates presidential
actions for the heads of various immunity from suit impose a correlative
executive departments and agencies disability to file suit. Petitioner contends that
and to review investigations involving if criminal proceedings ensue by virtue of the
heads of executive departments and President’s filing of her complaint-affidavit,
agencies, as well as other Presidential she may subsequently have to be a witness
appointees. The PCGG is under the for the prosecution, bringing her under the
executive department. As the CPLC, trial court’s jurisdiction. As to be a witness,
respondent will be required to give his the President is exposing herself to the
legal opinion on his own actions as possible contempt of court or perjury, thus,
PCGG Chairman and review defeating her immunity from suit.
investigation conducted by the
Presidential Anti-Graft Corruption RULING: The grant of the President’s
which may involve himself as PCGG immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of
Chairman. Presidential duties and functions free from
any hindrance or distraction, considering that
Hence, the primary functions of the being the Chief of Executive of the
PCGG is not required by the CPLC Government is a job that, aside from requiring
office. The PCGG is primarily involved all the officer holder’s time, also demands
in the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth, undivided attention.
the investigation of graft and
corruption cases assigned to him by This privilege, however, pertains to the
the President, and the adoption of President by virtue of the office and may be
measures to prevent the concurrence invoked only by the holder of the office; not
of corruption. On the other hand, the by any other person in the President’s behalf.
PCLC encompasses the review and/or Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 35 of 123
the President is complainant cannot raise the Philippines. However, it does not define
presidential privilege as a defense to prevent what is meant by “executive” although
the case from proceeding against such in the same article it touches on the
accused. exercise of certain powers by the
President such as the power of control
Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that over all executive departments,
would prevent the President from waiving the bureaus, and offices, the power to
privilege. Thus, if so minded the President execute laws, the appointing power,
may shed the protection afforded by the the power under the commander-in-
privilege and submit to the court’s chief clause, the power to grant
jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise reprieves, commutations and pardons,
the privilege or to waive it is solely the the power to grant amnesty with the
President’s prerogative. concurrence of Congress, the power to
contract or guarantee foreign loans,
4. Powers of the President: the power to enter into treaties or
A. Executive power: Art. VII, Sec. 1 and international agreements, the power to
17: (1) The executive power shall be submit the budget to Congress, and
vested in the President of the Philippines. the power to address Congress.

(17) The President shall control all of the The executive power, cannot be said to
executive departments, bureaus, offices. be limited only to execute laws since
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully there are certain powers of the
executed. President that do not deal with the
execution of laws. Executive power
a) Residual power: is more than the sum of specific
MARCOS vs MANGLAPUS: This is a powers so enumerated.
petitioner for Mandamus and
Prohibition asking the Court to issue It has been held that whatever power
travel documents to Mr. Marcos and inherent in the government that is
the immediate members of his family neither legislative nor judicial has to be
and to enjoin the implementation of executive.
the President’s decision to bar their
return to the Philippines. In the case, the power involved is the
President’s residual power to protect
The issue is basically one of power, the general welfare of the people.
whether or not, in the exercise of the
powers granted by the Constitution, B. Control power: Art. VII, Sec. 17: The
the President may prohibit the President shall control all of the executive
Marcoses from returning to the departments, bureaus, offices. He shall
Philippines. ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed.
The petitioners argued that their
assertion to return to the Philippines is a. The doctrine of qualified political
grounded on the Bill of Rights stating agency: Recognizes the establishment
that no person shall be deprived of life, of a single executive, all executives
liberty, or property without due and administrative organizations are
process of law, nor shall any person be adjuncts of the Executive Department,
denied the equal protection of the the heads of the various executive
laws; and the liberty of abode and of departments are assistants and agents
changing the same shall not be of the Chief Executive, and except in
impaired except upon lawful order of cases where the Chief Executive is
the court. Neither shall the right to required by the Constitution or law to
travel be impaired except it the act in person or the exigencies of the
interest of national security, public situation demand that he act
safety, or public health, as may be personally, the multifarious executive
provided by law. The petitioners assert and administrative functions of the
that the President has no power to Chief Executive are performed by and
impair the liberty of abode of the through the executive departments,
Marcoses because only the Court may and the acts of the secretaries of such
do so within the limits prescribed by departments performed and
law. promulgated in the regular course of
business are, unless disapproved or
RULING: The Constitution provides reprobated by the Chief Executive
that the executive power shall be presumptively the acts of the Chief
vested in the President of the Executive.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 36 of 123
be most effective in carrying out his
In other words, it means that the mandate.
department secretaries are alter egos
or assistants of the Presidents and POWER SECTOR ASSET AND
their accts are presumed to be those of LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT
the latter unless disapproved or CORPORATION (PSALM) vs
reprobated by him. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE: Petitioner is a government-
OCAMPO vs REAR ADMIRAL owned and controlled corporation
ENRIQUEZ: During the campaign created under RA 9136 aka the EPIRA
period of President Duterte, he told to manage the orderly sale,
that he would allow the burial of disposition, and privatization of the
President Marcos at the Libingan ng National Power Corporation generation
mga Bayani (LNMB). At noon of June assets, real estate and other
30, 2016, he formally assumed his disposable assets and Independent
office at the Rizal Hall in the Power Producer Contracts.
Malacañang Palace.
PSALM conducted public biddings for
On August 2016, public respondent the privatization of the Pantabangan-
Secretary of National Defense Delfin Masiway Plant and Magat Plant in
issued a Memorandum to the public September 2006.
respondent Chief of Staff of the AFP,
Visaya regarding the interment of On August 2007, the NPC received a
Marcos at the LNMB. letter from BIR demanding immediate
payment of P8.8B deficiency VAT for
Rear Admiral Enriquez, issued the the sale of Pantabangan-Masiway Plant
following directives to the Philippine and Magat Plant. The NPC indorsed
Army (PA) to implement the verbal BIR’s demand letter to herein
orders of the President. petitioner.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the BIR, NPC and PSALM entered into MOA
President to hold the interment and where NPC and PSALM remitted under
burial at LNMB, the petitioners filed protest to the BIR the said amount of
this petition. deficiency VAT.

RULING: As to the decision of PSALM filed with the DOJ a petition for
President Duterte: The SC agrees that adjudication of the dispute with the BIR
the decision involved a political to resolve the issue of whether the sale
question. of the power plants should be subject
to VAT. DOJ rules in favor of PSALM
The President’s decision to bury because it held that the disposition of
Marcos at the LNMB is not done the power plants in question was not
whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily, done in the regular course of business
out of malice, ill-will or personal bias. activity.

The Presidential power of control over BIR moved for reconsideration alleging
the executive department is a self- that DOJ had no jurisdiction since the
executing provision in the Constitution dispute involved tax laws administered
and does not require statutory by BIR and therefore within the
implementation, nor may its exercise jurisdiction of CTA.
be limited, much less be withdrawn, by
the legislature. BIR filed with the CA a petition for
certiorari seeking to set aside the
This is why president Duterte is not decision of DOJ on grounds of lack of
bound by the alleged 1992 Agreement jurisdiction.
between the former President Ramos
and the Marcos Family to have the CA held that since the dispute involves
remains of Marcos interred in Batac, tax, the case should have been filed
Ilocos Norte. As the incumbent with the CIR.
president, he is free to amend, revoke,
or rescind political agreements RULING: Contrary to the ruling of the
entered into by his predecessors, and CA, the SC finds that the DOJ is vested
to determine policies which he by law with jurisdiction over this case.
considered, based on informed The case involves a dispute between
judgment and presumed wisdom, will PSALM and NPC which are wholly
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 37 of 123
government owned corporations, and has decided or settled the dispute can
the BIR, a government office, over the the courts' jurisdiction be invoked.
imposition of VAT on the sale of two Until such time, the judiciary should
power plants. Under PD 242, all not interfere since the issue is not yet
disputes and claims solely between ripe for judicial adjudication.
government agencies and offices, Otherwise, the judiciary would infringe
including government-owned or on the President's exercise of his
controlled corporations shall be constitutional power of control over all
administratively settled or adjudicated the executive departments, bureaus,
by the SOJ, the SG, or the Government and offices.
Corporate Counsel, depending on the
issues and government agencies C. Power of general supervision: Art. X,
involved; and it was held that all Sec. 4 and 16: (4) The President of the
disputes between and among the Philippines shall exercise general
government agencies, bureaus, offices, supervision over local governments.
for the interpretation of or questions of Provinces with respect to component cities
fact and law shall be adjudicated by and municipalities, and cities and
the said bodies. municipalities with respect to component
barangays shall ensure that the acts of
It is only proper that intra- their component units are within the scope
governmental disputes be settled of their prescribed powers and functions.
administratively since the opposing
government offices, agencies and (16) The President shall exercise general
instrumentalities are all under the supervision over autonomous regions to
President's executive control and ensure that the laws are faithfully
supervision. executed.

The presidential power of control over GANZON vs CA: The petitioner (Mayor of
the executive branch of government Ilo-Ilo City) takes common issue on the
extends over all executive officers power of the President acting through the
from Cabinet Secretary to the lowliest Secretary of Local Government to suspend
clerk. and/or remove local officials.

Clearly, the President's constitutional This petition originated from a series of

power of control over all the executive administrative complaints, ten in number,
departments, bureaus and offices filed against him by various city officials
cannot be curtailed or diminished by sometime in 1988, on various charges,
law. "Since the Constitution has given among them, are abuse of authority,
the President the power of control, oppression, grave misconduct, disgraceful
with all its awesome implications, it is and immoral conduct, intimidation,
the Constitution alone which can culpable violation of the Constitution, and
curtail such power."36 This. arbitrary detention.
constitutional power of control of
the President cannot be Among others, the complaints are as
diminished by the CTA. Thus, if follows: Allegedly, the petitioner, using an
two executive offices or agencies excuse the exigency of service and the
cannot agree, it is only proper and interest of the public, pulled a certain Rosa
logical that the President, as the Caram (one of the complainants) out of
sole Executive who under the her rightful office where her qualifications
Constitution has control over both are best suited, and assigned her to a
offices or agencies in dispute, work that should be a function of a non-
should resolve the dispute instead career service employee. To make the
of the courts. The judiciary should matter worse, a utility worker in the office
not intrude in this executive of the Public Service, whose duties are
function of determining which is alien to the complainant’s duties and
correct between the opposing functions, has been detailed to take her
government offices or agencies, place.
which are both under the sole
control of the President. Under his As to another complainant, Dra. Ortigoza,
constitutional power of control, she claims that the respondent
the President decides the dispute handpicked her to perform tasks not
between the two executive offices. befitting her position as Assistant City
The judiciary cannot substitute its Health Officer of Ilo-Ilo; that her salary was
decision over that of the withheld without cause.
President. Only after the President
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 38 of 123
Finding probable grounds and reasons, the (through the Secretary of Local
respondent Secretary issued preventive Government) to proceed against local
suspension against the petitioner. Before officials administratively, the Constitution
the CA, the petitioner filed for petition for contains no prohibition.
prohibition against the order of the
respondent, but was dismissed. The Control has been defined as the power of
Petitioner contends that the Secretary of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set
Local Government is devoid, in any event, aside what a subordinate officer had done
of any authority to suspend and remove in the performance of his duties and to
local officials. substitute the judgment of the former to
test of the latter.
Hence this petition.
Supervision on the other hand means
RULING: The issue in question in this case “overseeing or the power or authority of
is whether or not the Secretary of Local an officer to see that subordinate officers
Government, as the President’s alter ego perform their duties.”
can suspend/remove local officials.
As the Constitution itself declares, local
The decision of the CA affirmed. It is to be autonomy means “a more responsive and
noted that in meting out the suspensions, accountable local government structure
the Secretary of Local Government acted instituted through a system of
in consonance with the specific legal decentralization. The Constitution, as we
provision of the LGC: observed, does nothing more than to
break up the monopoly of the national
Sec. 63. Preventive Suspension. – government over the affairs of local
Preventive suspension may be governments and as put by political
imposed by the Minister of Local adherents, to “liberate the local
Government if the respondent is a governments from the imperialism of
provincial or city official, by the Manila.” Autonomy, however, is not meant
provincial governor if the respondent is to end the relation of partnership and
an elective municipal, or by the city or interdependence between the central
municipal mayor of the respondent is administration and local government units,
an elective barangay official. or otherwise, to usher in a regime of
federalism.
Preventive suspension may be
imposed at any time after the issues Petition denied.
are joined, when there is reasonable
ground to believe that the respondent D. Power of appointment: Art. VII, Sec.
has committed the act or acts 13 to 16:
complained of, when the evidence of (13) The President, Vice President, the
culpability is strong, when the gravity Members of the Cabinet, and their
of the offense so warrants, or when deputies or assistants shall not, unless
the continuance in office of the otherwise provided in this Constitution,
respondent could influence the hold any other office or employment
witnesses or pose a threat to the during their tenure. They shall not, during
safety and integrity for the records and said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice
other evidence. In all cases, preventive any other profession, participate in any
suspension shall not extend beyond business, or be financially interested in
sixty days after the start of said any contract with or in any franchise, or
suspension. special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency,
At the expiration of sixty days, the instrumentality thereof, including
suspended official shall be deemed in government-owned or controlled
office without prejudice to the corporations or their subsidiaries. They
continuation of the proceedings shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in
against him until its termination. the conduct of their office.
However, if the delay in the
proceedings of the case is due to his The spouse and relatives by consanguinity
fault, neglect or request, the time for or affinity within the fourth civil degree of
the delay shall not be counted in the President shall not during his tenure
computing the time of suspension. be appointed as. Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office
The constitution did nothing more, of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
however, and insofar as existing Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of
legislation authorizes the President bureaus or offices, including government-
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 39 of 123
owned or controlled corporations and their TEMPORARY:
subsidiaries. Is an acting
appointment; is
(14): Appointments extended by an extended to one who
Acting Presidents shall remain effective, may not possess the
unless revoked by the elected President requisite qualifications
within 90 days from his assumption or or eligibility required by
reassumption of office. law for the position, and
is revocable at will,
(15): 2 months immediately before the without the necessity of
next presidential elections up to the end of just cause or valid
his term, a President or Acting President investigation, except, if
shall not make appointments, except the temporary
temporary appointments to executive appointment is only for
positions when continued vacancies fixed period, the
therein will prejudice public service or revocation of which
endanger public safety. shall be at the said
period.
(16): The President shall nominate and,
with the consent of the Commission on An appointment for a
Appointments, appoint the heads of the term of five years with
executive departments, ambassadors, the provision of “unless
other public ministers and consuls, or sooner terminated” is
officers of the armed forces form the rank held to be not revocable
of colonel or naval captain, and other at will. Hence, the
officers whose appointments are vested in person so appointed
him in this Constitution. He shall also can only be terminated
appoint all other officers of the by valid cause.
Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law, and those Regular appointment Ad interim
whom he may be authorized by law to appointment
appoint. The Congress, may, by law, vest One made by the One made by the
the appointment of other officers lower in President while the President while the
rank in the President alone, in the courts, Congress is in session Congress is not in
or in the heads of departments, agencies, after the nomination is session, before
commissions, or boards. confirmed by the confirmation by the
Commission on Commission on
The President shall have the power to Appointments, and Appointments.
make appointments during the recess of continues until the end
the Congress, whether voluntary or of the term.
involuntary, but such appointments shall
be effective only until after disapproval by Takes effect after the Immediately effective
the Commission on Appointments or until confirmation by the and ceases to be valid if
the next adjournment of the Congress. Commission on disapproved or
Appointments. bypassed by the
Appointment Designation Commission on
Selection by the The imposition of Appointments upon the
authority vested with additional duties, next adjournment of
the power, of an usually by law, on a Congress.
individual who is to person already in public
perform the functions of office. It is a permanent
a given office. appointment, and its
A mere designation being subject to
PERMANENT: does not confer security confirmation does not
Is extended to a person of tenure, as the person alter its permanent
who has met all the designated occupies the character.
requisite qualifications, position only in an Both appointment can be used only when referring
including the eligibility acting capacity. to the 4 categories of appointments made by the
required, for the president:
position, and thus, a. Heads of executive departments;
protected by the b. Ambassadors, other public ministers and
Constitution in relation consuls;
to security of tenure. c. Officers of the armed forces of the
Philippines, from rank of colonel to naval
captain;
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 40 of 123
d. Officers whose appointments are vested in
the President under the Constitution. In 1946, the petitioner herein was
appointed by the President as the
STEPS IN APPOINTMENT: Provincial Fiscal of Negros Oriental.
A. Regular Appointment: The appointment was confirmed by the
1. Nomination by the President; Commission on Appointment (COA). He
2. Confirmation by the Commission on took his oath of office and thereafter
Appointments; performed the duties and functions of
3. Issuance of the Commission; his office.
4. Acceptance of the appointment by the
appointee. In 1949, upon the recommendation of
B. Ad interim Appointment: SOJ, the President nominated the
1. Appointment by the appointing petitioner to the post of Provincial
authority; Fiscal of Tarlac. On the same date, the
2. Issuance of the Commission; President nominated for the position of
3. Acceptance of the appointment by the Provincial Fiscal of Negros Oriental the
appointee. herein respondent. Both nominations
were simultaneously confirmed by the
NOTE: If an appointment is to be made for a COA in 1949.
career service, the certificate of attestation of the
Commission of the Civil Service is required. Petitioner neither accepted the
appointment nor assumed office as
Ad interim Appointment in an Fiscal of Tarlac, but the respondent
appointment acting capacity took his oath of office (the post of
One made by the It is an appointment in Fiscal of Tarlac) in Manila. Upon arrival
President while the temporary nature. in Negros Oriental, the respondent
Congress is not in notified the petitioner of his intention
session, before It is a stop-gap measure to take over the office the following
confirmation by the intended to fill an office day, but the petitioner objected. In an
Commission on for a limited period of appearance before Judge Narvasa,
Appointments. time until the petitioner asked that respondent’s
appointment of a appearance be stricken from the
Immediately effective permanent occupant to record, but was denied.
and ceases to be valid if the office.
disapproved or When petitioner requested for the
bypassed by the NOTE: payment of his salary for the period
Commission on Temporary from June 1949, as Provincial Fiscal of
Appointments upon the appointments are valid. Negros Oriental, the provincial auditor
next adjournment of The power to appoint is and treasurer turned down his request
Congress. essentially executive in and instead paid the respondent of the
nature and the said salary.
It is a permanent legislature may not
appointment, and its interfere with the The question in this case is to who has
being subject to exercise of this the right to hold the office by virtue of
confirmation does not executive power the appointment.
alter its permanent except in those
character. instances when the RULING: As to whether the
Constitution expressly nomination and confirmation by the
allow it to interfere. Commission on Appointments alone,
Extended only during May be extended at any without the petitioner’s acceptance
the recess of time that there is a created a vacancy in the post of
Congress. vacancy in the office. Provincial Fiscal of Negros Oriental so
that the respondent could be lawfully
Are submitted to the Are not submitted to appointed to said vacancy. The SC held
Commission on Congress for that the appointment to a government
Appointments for confirmation or pot like that of the Provincial Fiscal
confirmation or rejection. involves many steps.
rejection.
1. The nomination by the
a) Steps in the appointing process: President;
LACSON vs ROMERO: This is a Quo 2. The confirmation by the
Warranto proceeding filed directly with Commission on Appointments
the SC, and the right to the position in of such nomination to make it
the Office of Provincial Fiscal of Negros valid and permanent;
Oriental.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 41 of 123
3. The acceptance of the representative of the Integrated Bar
appointee of the appointment. shall serve for 4 years, the professor of
law for 3 years, the retired justice for 2
The first and second steps are mere years, and the representative of
offer of a post. The last necessary step private sector for 1 year.
to make the appointment complete
and effective rests solely with the Art. IX-B, Sec. 1(2): The Chairman
appointee himself – acceptance. and the Commissioners (CSC) shall be
appointed by the President with the
As to whether the President even with consent of the Commission on
the concurrence or consent of the Appointments for a term of 7 years,
Commission on Appointment may without reappointment. Of those first
remove a Provincial Fiscal without appointed, the Chairman shall hold
cause. The Constitution itself denied office for 7 years, a Commissioner for 5
such right. The Constitution provides years, and another Commissioner for 3
that “no officer or employee in the civil years, without reappointment.
service shall be removed or suspended Appointment to any vacancy shall be
except for cause as provided by law”. only for the unexpired term for the
predecessor. In no case shall any
Art. II, Sec. 4: The prime duty of the Member be appointed or designated in
Government is to serve and protect the a temporary or acting capacity.
people. The Government may call upon
the people to defend the State and, in Art. IX-C, Sec. 1(2): The Chairman
the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may and Commissioners (COMELEC) shall
be required, under the conditions be appointed by the President with the
provided by law, to render personal consent of Commission on
military or civil service (Posse Appointments for a term of 7 years
comitatus). without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, three Member shall hold
b) Presidential appointees: office for 7 years, two Members for 5
a. Requires CA confirmation: years, and the last Members for 3
years, without reappointment.
Art. VII, Sec. 16, 1st par. Viz Art. Appointment to a vacancy shall be only
VIII, Sec. 8(2); Art. IX-B, Sec. 1(2), for the unexpired term of the
Art. IX-C, Sec. 1(2), Art. IX-D, Sec. predecessor. In no case shall any
1(2), and Art. X, Sec. 18. Member be appointed or designated in
a temporary or acting capacity.
Art. VII, Sec. 16, 1st par.: The
President shall nominate and, with the Art. IX-D, Sec. 1(2): The Chairman
consent of Commission on and the Commissioners (COA) shall be
Appointments, appoint the heads of appointed by the President with the
the executive departments, consent of the Commission on
ambassadors, other public ministers Appointments for a term of 7 years
and consuls, or officers of the armed without reappointment, of those first
forces from the rank of colonel or naval appointed, the Chairman shall hold
captain, and other officers whose office for 7 years, one Commissioner
appointments are vested in him in this for 5 years, and the other
Constitution. He shall also appoint all Commissioner for 3 years, without
other officers of the Government reappointment. Appointment to any
whose appointments are not otherwise vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
provided for by law, and those whom portion of the term of the predecessor.
he may be authorized by law to In no case shall any Member be
appoint. The Congress, may, by law, appointed or designated in a
vest the appointment of other officers temporary or acting capacity.
lower in rank in the President alone, in
the courts, or in the heads of Art. X, Sec. 18: The Congress shall
departments, agencies, commissions, enact an organic act for each
or boards. autonomous region with the assistance
an participation of the regional
Art. VIII, Sec. 8(2): The regular consultative commission composed of
Members of the Council (JBC) shall be representatives appointed by the
appointed by the President for a term President from a list of nominees from
of 4 years with the consent of the multisectoral bodies. The organic act
Commission on Appointments. Of the shall define the basic structure of
Members first appointed, the government from the region consisting
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 42 of 123
of the executive department and vacancy. Considering its independence
legislative assembly, both of which as a constitutional body, the JBC has
shall be elective and representative of the discretion and wisdom to perform
the constituent political units. The its mandate in any manner as long as
organic acts shall likewise provide for it is consistent with the Constitution.
special courts with personal, family, According to the JBC, its new practice
and property law jurisdiction consistent of "clustering," in fact, is more in
with the provision of this Constitution accord with the purpose of the JBC to
and national laws. rid the appointment process to the
Judiciary from political pressure as the
The creation of the autonomous region President has to choose only from the
shall be effective when approved by nominees for one particular vacancy.
majority of the votes cast by the Otherwise, the President can choose
constituent units in a plebiscite called whom he pleases, and thereby
for that purpose, provided that only completely disregard the purpose for
provinces, cities, and geographic areas the creation of the JBC. The JBC
voting favorably in such plebiscite shall clarifies that it numbered the
be included in the autonomous region. vacancies, not to influence the order of
precedence, but for practical reasons,
b. By the president alone: i.e., to distinguish one list from the
others and to avoid confusion.
Art. VII, Sec. 16, 2nd sentence: x x x
He shall also appoint all other officers The JBC maintains that it did not
of the Government whose exceed its authority, and in fact it only
appointments are not otherwise faithfully complied with the literal
provided for by law, and those whom language of the Constitution when it
he may authorized by law to appoint. x prepared six short lists for the six
xx vacancies for Associate Justice in the
Sandiganbayan.
Art. VII, Sec. 3, 2nd par.: The Vice
President may be appointed as a JBC posits that clustering is a matter of
Member of the Cabinet. Such legal and operational necessity for the
appointment requires no confirmation. JBC and the only safe standard
operating procedure for making short
c. Requires JBC nomination: lists.

Art. VIII, Sec. 9: The Members of the RULING: The clustering of nominees
Supreme Court and judges of lower for the 6 vacancies in the
courts shall be appointed by the Sandiganbayan by the JBC impaired
President from a list of at least 3 the President’s power to appoint and
nominees prepared by the Judicial and to determine the seniority of the
Bar Council for every vacancy. Such newly-appointed Sandiganbayan
appointments need no confirmation. Associate Justices.

For the lower courts, the President The JBC invokes its independence,
shall issue the appointments within 90 discretion, and wisdom, and maintains
days from the submission of the list. that it deemed it wiser and more in
accord with Article VIII, Section 9 of the
Art. XI, Sec. 9: The Ombudsman and 1987 Constitution to cluster the
his Deputies shall be appointed by the nominees for the six simultaneous
President from a list of at least 6 vacancies for Sandiganbayan Associate
nominees prepared by the Judicial Bar Justice into six separate short lists. The
Council, and from a list of 3 nominees independence and discretion of the
for every vacancy thereafter. Such JBC, however, is not without limits. It
appointments shall require no cannot impair the President's
confirmation. All vacancies shall be power to appoint members of the
filled within 3 months after they occur. Judiciary and his statutory power
to determine the seniority of the
AGUINALDO vs PRES. AQUINO III: newly-appointed Sandiganbayan
The JBC asserts that in submitting six Associate Justices.
short lists for six vacancies, it was only
acting in accordance with the clear and In its Decision dated November 29,
unambiguous mandate of Article VIII, 2016, the Court ruled that the
Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution for clustering impinged upon the
the JBC to submit a list for every President's appointing power in the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 43 of 123
following ways: The President's option nominations for 8 vacancies in the
for every vacancy was limited to the CA.
five to seven nominees in each cluster.
Once the President had appointed a The Chief Justice received an
nominee from one cluster, then he was official communication from the
proscribed from considering the other Executive Secretary transmitting
nominees in the same cluster for the the appointments of 8 Associate
other vacancies. Justices of CA duly signed a day
immediately before the
c) Limitations on the appointing commencement of the ban on
power of the president: appointments, which implies that
a. Relatives: Art. VII, Sec. 13, 2 nd the President Office did not agree
par.: The spouse and relatives by with the hypothesis.
consanguinity or affinity within the
4th civil degree of the President The President, addressed to the
shall not during his tenure be JBC, requested the transmission of
appointed as members of the the “list of final nominees” for the
Constitutional Commissions, or the vacancy in view for the 90 days
Office of the Ombudsman, or as imposed by the Constitution. In
Secretaries, Undersecretaries, behalf of the JBC, the Chief Justice
chairman or heads of bureaus, sent the reply that no session had
including government-owned or been scheduled after the May
controlled corporations and their elections for the reason that they
subsidiaries. apparently did not share the same
view proposed by the JBC shown by
b. Midnight appointment: Art. VII, the uniformly dated March 11,
Sec. 15: Two months immediately 1998 appointments. However, it
before the next presidential appeared that the SOJ and the
elections and up to the end of his other members of the Council took
term, a President or Acting action without waiting for the Chief
President shall not make Justice’s reply. This prompted the
appointments, except temporary Chief Justice to call for a meeting
appointments to executive on May 7. On that day, CJ received
positions when continued a letter from the President in reply
vacancies therein will prejudice of the May 6 letter where the
public service or endanger public President expressed his view that
safety. Article VII, Sec. 15 only applied to
executive appointments, the whole
IN RE: HON. VALENZUELA AND article being entitled “Executive
VALLANTA: In 1998, the President Department:. He posited that
signed appointments of Hon. appointments in the Judiciary have
Valenzuela and Hon. Vallanta as special and specific provisions, as
judges of RTC of Bago City and follows:
Cabanutan City, respectively.
These appointments were Art. VIII, Sec. 4: The Supreme Court
deliberated, as it seemed to be shall be composed of a Chief
expressly prohibited by Art. VII, Justice and 14 Associate Justices. It
Sec. 15 for the Constitution. may sit en banc or in its discretion,
in divisions of 3, 5 or 7 Members.
A meeting was held on March 1998 Any vacancy shall be filled within
by the JBC to discuss the 90 days from occurrence thereof.
constitutionality of appointments to
the CA in light of the forthcoming Art. VIII, Sec. 9: The Members of
1998 Presidential elections. Senior the Supreme Court and judges of
Associate Justice Regalado, the lower courts shall be appointed
Consultant of the Council and by the President from the list of at
Member of the 1986 Constitutional least 3 nominees prepared by the
Commission, was in the position Judicial and Bar Council for every
that “election ban had no vacancy. Such appointments need
application to the CA based on the no confirmation.
Commission’s records. This
hypothesis was then submitted to On May 21, CJ received from
the President for consideration Malacañang the appointments of 2
together with the Council’s judges of the RTC mentioned.
Considering the pending
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 44 of 123
proceedings and deliberation on interest, there is no compelling
this matter, the Court resolved by reason to justify such appointments
refraining the appointees from within 2 months appointment ban.
taking their oath. However, Judge
Valenzuela took oath in May 14, Section 15 of Article VII is directed
1998 claiming he did so without against two types of appointments:
knowledge on the on-going 1) those made for buying votes;
deliberations. It should be noted and 2) those made for partisan
that the originals of the considerations. The first refers to
appointment for both judges have those appointments made within
been sent to and received by the CJ the 2 months preceding a
on May 12 and is still in the latter’s Presidential election and are similar
office and had not been to those which are declared
transmitted yet. According to Judge election.
Valenzuela, he did so because of
the May 7 Malacañang copy of his In view of Valenzuela’s oath taking,
appointment. the authenticity of the letter of
which was not verified from Office
In construing Article VII and VIII, of the Court Administrator, SC
when there are no presidential reiterated the standing practice
election, Art. VIII shall apply where and procedures in appointments to
vacancies in SC shall be filled the Judiciary that originals of all
within 90 days otherwise appointments are to be sent by the
prohibition in Article VII must be Office of the President to the Office
considered where the President of the Chief Justice. The Clerk of
shall not make any appointments. Court of the SC, in the Chief
According to Fr. Bernas, the reason Justice’s behalf will advise the
for the prohibition is in order not to appointee of their appointment as
tie the hands of the incoming well as the fate of commencement
President through midnight of the prerequisite orientation
appointments. seminar to be conducted by the
Philja for new judges.
The question in this case is whether
or not the President can fill ATTY. VELICARIA-GERAFIL vs
vacancies in the judiciary pursuant OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:
to Article CIII, Sec. 4 and 9, during Prior to the conduct of May 2010
the appointment ban period stated elections, PGMA issued more than
in Article VII, Sec. 15. 800 appointments to various
position in several government
RULING: Article VIII, Sec. 4 and 9, offices. Thus, for purposes of May
simply mean that the President is 2010 elections, March 10 was the
required to fill vacancies in the cut-off date for valid appointments
courts within the time frame and the next day would be the start
provided therein unless of the appointment ban on
prohibited by Art. VII Sec. 15. midnight appointments. Section 15,
Thus, the President is neither Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
required to make appointments to recognizes as an exception to the
the courts nor allowed to do so. ban on midnight appointments only
Likewise, the prohibition on “temporary appointments to
appointments comes only once executive positions when continued
every 6 years. vacancies therein will prejudice
public service or endanger public
The Supreme Court, in an en banc safety.” None of the petitioners
decision, declared the claim that their appointments fall
appointments signed by the under this exception.
President of Hon. Valenzuela and
Hon. Vallarta void. They are The petitioners herein were
ordered to ceased and desist from appointed and scheduled after the
discharging the office of Judge of March 11, 2010, which were within
Courts to which they were the period of the appointment ban.
respectively appointed on the said
date. They come within the On June 2010, President Aquino III
operation of the prohibition on issued EO 2 recalling, withdrawing
appointments. While the filing of and revoking all the appointments
judiciary vacancies is in the public made by PGMA which violated the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 45 of 123
Constitution ban on midnight immediately before the next
appointment. presidential elections and up to the
end of the term of the outgoing
The petitioners filed for Petition for president does not apply to
Certiorari seeking to nullify the EO vacancies in the Supreme Court
2 issued by Pres. Aquino III.
The ban on midnight appointments
The question in this case is whether is placed in Article VII, not in Article
the appointments to herein VIII, because it limits an executive,
petitioners are midnight not a judicial, power.
appointment.
DE RAMA vs CA: Upon his
RULING: All of the petitioners’ assumption to the position of
appointments are void and are Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon,
violative of the Constitution. petitioner Conrado L. de Rama
wrote a letter dated July 13,
DE CASTRO vs JBC: This is a 1995 to the Civil Service
Motion for Reconsideration on the Commission (or CSC), seeking
March 17, 2010 decision of the the recall of the appointments
Court. The said decision directs the of fourteen (14) municipal
Judicial and Bar Council to resume employees.
its proceedings for the nomination
of candidates to fill the vacancy Petitioner de Rama justified his
created by the compulsory recall request on the allegation
retirement of Chief Justice Reynato that, the appointments of the
S. Puno by May 17, 2010, and to said employees were
prepare the short list of nominees "midnight" appointments of the
and submit it to the incumbent former mayor, Ma. Evelyn S.
President. Movants argue that the Abeja, done in violation of Article
disputed constitutional provision, VII, Section 15 of the 1987
Art. VII, Sec. 15 and Art. VIII, Sec. Constitution, which provides:
4(1), clearly intended the ban on
midnight appointments to cover Section 15. Two months
the members of the Judiciary, and immediately before the next
they contended that the principle presidential elections and up to the
of stare decisis is controlling, and end of his term, a President or
insisted that the Court erred in Acting President shall not make
disobeying or abandoning the appointments, except temporary
Valenzuela ruling. appointments to executive
positions when continued
The question in this case is whether vacancies therein will prejudice
or not the Constitutional ban on public service or endanger public
midnight appointments extends to safety.
the Members of the Judiciary.
Petitioner de Rama withheld the
RULING: The Constitutional payment of their salaries. The
Commission did not extend to the Legal and Quasi-Judicial Division of
Judiciary the ban on presidential the CSC issued an Order finding
appointments during the period that since the claimants-employees
stated in Sec. 15, Art. VII. The had assumed their respective
deliberations that the dissent of positions and performed their
Justice Carpio Morales quoted from duties pursuant to their
the records of the Constitutional appointments, they are therefore
Commission did not concern either entitled to receive the salaries and
Sec. 15, Art. VII or Sec. 4(1), Art. benefits appurtenant to their
VIII, but only Sec. 13, Art. VII, a positions. The CSC denied
provision on nepotism. petitioner's request for the
recall of the appointments of
Election ban on appointments does the fourteen employees, for lack of
not extend to the Supreme Court. merit. The CSC also cited Rule V,
The Court upheld its March 17, Sections 9 and 10 of the Omnibus
2010 decision ruling that the Rules, and declared that the
prohibition under Art. VII, Sec. 15 of appointments of the said
the Constitution against employees were issued in
presidential appointments accordance with pertinent laws.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 46 of 123
Thus, the same were effective these were "midnight
immediately, and cannot be appointments" that are forbidden
withdrawn or revoked by the under Article VII, Section 15 of the
appointing authority until Constitution.
disapproved by the CSC.
In truth and in fact, there is no law
CSC denied petitioner's motion for that prohibits local elective officials
reconsideration. Court of Appeals from making appointments during
issued a Resolution dated May 16, the last days of his or her tenure.
1997 which held that there was no Petitioner certainly did not raise the
abuse of the power of appointment issue of fraud on the part of the
on the part of the outgoing mayor. outgoing mayor who made the
appointments. Neither did he allege
Court of Appeals denied for lack of that the said appointments were
merit the petition for review. tainted by irregularities or
Petitioner filed a motion for anomalies that breached laws and
reconsideration arguing that the regulations governing
appellate court erred in upholding appointments. His solitary reason
the CSC's resolutions despite the for recalling these appointments
following defects: was that they were, to his personal
belief, "midnight appointments"
I. No screening process and no which the outgoing mayor had no
criteria were adopted by the authority to make.
Personnel Selection Board in
nominating the respondents; The prohibition on appointment
II. No posting in three (3) ban applies only to appointments
conspicuous public places of notice made by the President and/or
of vacancy as required by the rules Acting President.
and the law;
III. Merit and fitness requirements c. Losing candidate: Art. IX-B,
were not observed by the selection Sec. 6: No candidate who has lost
board and by the appointing in any election shall, within 1 year
authority as required by the Civil after such election, be appointed to
Service rules; any office in the Government of
any government-owned or
IV. Petitioner has valid grounds to controlled corporations or in any of
recall the appointments of its subsidiaries.
respondents.
d. Military: Art. XVI, Sec. 5(4): No
In a Resolution dated October 20, member of the armed forces in the
1997, the Court of Appeals denied active service shall, at any time, be
the motion for reconsideration. appointed or designated in any
Hence, the instant petition for capacity to a civilian position in the
review on certiorari. Government including government-
owned or controlled corporation or
The question in this case is whether any of their subsidiaries.
or not the appointments made by
the outgoing Mayor are valid. e. Members of the constitutional
commissions: Art. IX-(B), (C),
RULING: Yes! The CSC correctly (D), Sec. 1(2)
ruled that the constitutional
prohibition on so-called "midnight Art. IX-B, Sec. 1(2): The
appointments," specifically those Chairman and the Commissioners
made within two (2) months (CSC) shall be appointed by the
immediately prior to the next President with the consent of the
presidential elections, applies only Commission on Appointments for a
to the President or Acting term of 7 years, without
President. reappointment. Of those first
appointed, the Chairman shall hold
The records reveal that when the office for 7 years, a Commissioner
petitioner brought the matter of for 5 years, and another
recalling the appointments of the Commissioner for 3 years, without
fourteen (14) private respondents reappointment. Appointment to any
before the CSC, the only reason he vacancy shall be only for the
cited to justify his action was that unexpired term for the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 47 of 123
predecessor. In no case shall any COA from February 4, 2008 to April
Member be appointed or 14, 2008. Subsequently, on April
designated in a temporary or 18, 2008, Villar was nominated and
acting capacity. appointed as Chairman of the
COA. Shortly thereafter, on June 11,
Art. IX-C, Sec. 1(2): The 2008, the Commission on
Chairman and Commissioners Appointments confirmed his
(COMELEC) shall be appointed by appointment. He was to serve as
the President with the consent of Chairman of COA, as expressly
Commission on Appointments for a indicated in the appointment
term of 7 years without papers, until the expiration of the
reappointment. Of those first original term of his office as COA
appointed, three Member shall hold Commissioner or on February 2,
office for 7 years, two Members for 2011.
5 years, and the last Members for 3
years, without reappointment. Challenged in this recourse, Villar,
Appointment to a vacancy shall be in an obvious bid to lend color of
only for the unexpired term of the title to his hold on the
predecessor. In no case shall any chairmanship, insists that his
Member be appointed or appointment as COA Chairman
designated in a temporary or accorded him a fresh term of seven
acting capacity. (7) years which is yet to lapse. He
would argue, in fine, that his term
Art. IX-D, Sec. 1(2): The of office, as such chairman, is up
Chairman and the Commissioners to February 2, 2015, or 7 years
(COA) shall be appointed by the reckoned from February 2, 2008
President with the consent of the when he was appointed to that
Commission on Appointments for a position.
term of 7 years without
reappointment, of those first Before the Court could resolve this
appointed, the Chairman shall hold petition, Villar, via a letter dated
office for 7 years, one February 22, 2011 addressed to
Commissioner for 5 years, and the President Benigno S. Aquino III,
other Commissioner for 3 years, signified his intention to step down
without reappointment. from office upon the appointment
Appointment to any vacancy shall of his replacement. True to his
be only for the unexpired portion of word, Villar vacated his position
the term of the predecessor. In no when President Benigno Simeon
case shall any Member be Aquino III named Ma. Gracia Pulido-
appointed or designated in a Tan (Chairman Tan) COA Chairman.
temporary or acting capacity. This development has rendered
this petition and the main issue
FUNA vs COA CHAIR: Petitioner tendered therein moot and
challenges the constitutionality of academic.
the appointment of Reynaldo A.
Villar as Chairman of the Although deemed moot due to the
Commission on Audit and intervening appointment of
accordingly prays that a judgment Chairman Tan and the resignation
issue declaring the of Villar, We consider the instant
unconstitutionality of the case as falling within the
appointment. requirements for review of a moot
and academic case, since it asserts
On February 7, 2004, President at least four exceptions to the
Macapagal-Arroyo appointed mootness rule discussed in David,
Reynaldo A. Villar (Villar) as the namely: there is a grave violation
third member of the COA for a term of the Constitution; the case
of seven (7) years starting February involves a situation of exceptional
2, 2004 until February 2, 2011. character and is of paramount
public interest; the constitutional
Following the retirement of issue raised requires the
Carague (COA Chairman) on formulation of controlling principles
February 2, 2008 and during the to guide the bench, the bar and the
fourth year of Villar as COA public; and the case is capable of
Commissioner, Villar was repetition yet evading review.
designated as Acting Chairman of
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 48 of 123
Petitioner now asseverates the further qualified by the third
view that Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D) of the sentence of Sec. 1(2), Article IX (D)
1987 Constitution proscribes that “the appointment to any
reappointment of any kind within vacancy shall be only for the
the commission, the point being unexpired portion of the term of
that a second appointment, be it the predecessor.” In addition, such
for the same position promotional appointment to the
(commissioner to another position position of Chairman must conform
of commissioner) or upgraded to the rotational plan or the
position (commissioner to staggering of terms in the
chairperson) is a prohibited commission membership such that
reappointment and is a nullity ab the aggregate of the service of the
initio. Commissioner in said position and
the term to which he will be
The question in this case is whether appointed to the position of
the respondent’s appointment as Chairman must not exceed seven
COA chairman while sitting in that years so as not to disrupt the
body and after having served for 4 rotational system in the
years of his 7 year term as COA commission prescribed by Sec.
Commissioner is valid in light of the 1(2), Art. IX(D).
term limitations imposed by the
Constitution. As long as the aggregate sum of
term of year is 7 years, there is
RULING: The Court finds nothing wrong with promotional
petitioner’s position bereft of merit. appointment, but shall in no case it
The flaw lies in regarding the word be considered as a fresh period of 7
“reappointment” as, in context, years.
embracing any and all species of
appointment. The rule is that if a d) Limitation on the appointments
statute or constitutional provision is extended by an Acting President:
clear, plain and free from Art. VII, Sec. 14: Appointments
ambiguity, it must be given its extended by an Acting President shall
literal meaning and applied without remain effective, unless revoked by
attempted interpretation. the elected President within 90 days
from his assumption or reassumption
The first sentence is unequivocal of office.
enough. The COA Chairman shall
be appointed by the President for a E. Military power of the commander-in-
term of seven years, and if he has chief clause: Art. VII, Sec. 18: The
served the full term, then he can President shall be the Commander-in-Chief
no longer be reappointed or of all armed forces of the Philippines and
extended another appointment. In whenever it becomes necessary, he may
the same vein, a Commissioner call out such armed forces to prevent or
who was appointed for a term of suppress lawless violence, invasion or
seven years who likewise served rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion,
the full term is barred from being when the public safety requires it, he may,
reappointed. In short, once the for a period not exceeding sixty days,
Chairman or Commissioner shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
have served the full term of seven corpus or place the Philippines or any part
years, then he can no longer be thereof under martial law. Within forty-
reappointed to either the position eight hours from the proclamation of
of Chairman or Commissioner. The martial law or the suspension of the
obvious intent of the framers is to privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the
prevent the president from President shall submit a report in person
“dominating” the Commission by or in writing to the Congress. The
allowing him to appoint an Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at
additional or two more least a majority of all its Members in
commissioners. regular or special session, may revoke
such proclamation or suspension, which
On the other hand, the provision, revocation shall not be set aside by the
on its face, does not prohibit a President. Upon the initiative of the
promotional appointment from President, the Congress may, in the same
commissioner to chairman as long manner, extend such proclamation or
as the commissioner has not suspension for a period to be determined
served the full term of seven years, by the Congress, if the invasion or
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 49 of 123
rebellion shall persist and public safety “direct injury” resulting from
requires it. “illegal arrest” and “unlawful
search” committed by police
The Congress, if not in session, shall, operatives pursuant to PP 1017.
within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in During the hearing, the Solicitor
accordance with its rules without any need General argued that the issuance
of a call. of PP 1017 and G.O. 5 have factual
basis, and contended that the
The Supreme Court may review, in an intent of the Constitution is to give
appropriate proceeding filed by any full discretionary powers to the
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis President in determining the
of the proclamation of martial law or the necessity of calling out the armed
suspension of the privilege of the writ or forces. The petitioners did not
the extension thereof, and must contend the facts stated by the
promulgate its decision thereon within Solicitor General.
thirty days from its filing.
The question in this case is whether
A state of martial law does not suspend or not the PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5
the operation of the Constitution, nor is constitutional.
supplant the functioning of the civil courts
or the legislative assemblies, nor authorize RULING: First provision: “By virtue
the conferment of jurisdiction on military of the power vested upon me by
courts and agencies over civilians where Section 18, Article VII … do hereby
civil courts are able to function, nor command the Armed Forces of the
automatically suspend the privilege of the Philippines, to maintain law and
writ. order throughout the Philippines,
prevent or suppress all forms of
The suspension of the privilege of the writ lawless violence as well any act of
shall apply only to persons judicially insurrection or rebellion”
charged for rebellion or offenses inherent
in or directly connected with the invasion. Second provision: “and to enforce
obedience to all the laws and to
During the suspension of the privilege of all decrees, orders and regulations
the writ, any person thus arrested or promulgated by me personally or
detained shall be judicially charged within upon my direction;”
three days, otherwise he shall be released.
Third provision: “as provided in
a) Calling out powers Section 17, Article XII of the
a. Requisite: There is either lawless Constitution do hereby declare a
violence, invasion, and/or rebellion. State of National Emergency.”

b. DAVID vs ARROYO: On February PP 1017 is partially constitutional

24, 2006, President Arroyo issued insofar as provided by the first
PP No. 1017 declaring a state of provision of the decree.
emergency. On the same day,
PGMA issued G.O. No. 5 First Provision: Calling Out
implementing PP1017, directing the Power.
members of the AFP and PNP "to
immediately carry out the The only criterion for the
necessary and appropriate actions exercise of the calling-out
and measures to suppress and power is that “whenever it
prevent acts of terrorism and becomes necessary,” the
lawless violence.” President may call the armed
forces “to prevent or suppress
David, et al. assailed PP 1017 on lawless violence, invasion or
the grounds that (1) it encroaches rebellion.” (Integrated Bar of the
on the emergency powers of Philippines v. Zamora)
Congress; (2) it is a subterfuge to
avoid the constitutional President Arroyo’s declaration
requirements for the imposition of of a “state of rebellion” was
martial law; and (3) it violates the merely an act declaring a
constitutional guarantees of status or condition of public
freedom of the press, of speech moment or interest, a
and of assembly. They alleged declaration allowed under Section
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 50 of 123
4, Chap 2, Bk II of the Revised No. 1, Series of 2009, declaring a
Administration Code. Such state of emergency in the province
declaration, in the words of of Sulu. The Proclamation cited the
Sanlakas, is harmless, without legal kidnapping incident as a ground for
significance, and deemed not the said declaration, describing it
written. In these cases, PP 1017 is as a terrorist act pursuant to the
more than that. In declaring a Human Security Act (R.A. 9372). It
state of national emergency, also invoked Section 465 of the
President Arroyo did not only rely Local Government Code of 1991
on Section 18, Article VII of the (R.A. 7160), which bestows on the
Constitution, a provision calling on Provincial Governor the power to
the AFP to prevent or suppress carry out emergency measures
lawless violence, invasion or during man-made and natural
rebellion. She also relied on disasters and calamities, and to call
Section 17, Article XII, a provision upon the appropriate national law
on the State’s extraordinary power enforcement agencies to suppress
to take over privately-owned public disorder and lawless violence. In
utility and business affected with the Proclamation, Tan called upon
public interest. Indeed, PP 1017 the PNP and the Civilian Emergency
calls for the exercise of an Force (CEF) to set up checkpoints
awesome power. Obviously, such and chokepoints, conduct general
Proclamation cannot be deemed search and seizures including
harmless. arrests, and other actions
necessary to ensure public safety.
To clarify, PP 1017 is not a
declaration of Martial Law. It is Petitioners, Jamar Kulayan, et al.
merely an exercise of President claimed that Proclamation No. 1-09
Arroyo’s calling-out power for was issued ultra vires, and thus null
the armed forces to assist her and void, for violating Sections 1
in preventing or suppressing and 18, Article VII of the
lawless violence. Constitution, which grants the
President sole authority to exercise
c. KULAYAN vs TAN: The calling-out emergency powers and calling-out
powers contemplated under the powers as the chief executive of
Constitution is exclusive to the the Republic and commander-in-
President. An exercise by another chief of the armed forces.
official, even if he is the local chief
executive, is ultra vires, and may The question in this case is whether
not be justified by the invocation of the Governor as local chief
Section 465 of the Local executive can exercise the calling-
Government Code. out power of the President.

Three members from the RULING: It has already been

International Committee of the Red established that there is one
Cross (ICRC) were kidnapped in the repository of executive powers, and
vicinity of the Provincial Capitol in that is the President of the
Patikul, Sulu. Andres Notter, Republic. This means that when
Eugenio Vagni, and Marie Jean Section 1, Article VII of the
Lacaba, were purportedly Constitution speaks of executive
inspecting a water sanitation power, it is granted to the
project for the Sulu Provincial Jail President and no one else.
when they were seized by three Corollarily, it is only the President,
armed men who were later as Executive, who is authorized to
confirmed to be members of the exercise emergency powers as
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). provided under Section 23, Article
VI, of the Constitution, as well as
A Local Crisis Committee, later what became known as the calling-
renamed Sulu Crisis Management out powers under Section 7, Article
Committee (Committee) was then VII thereof.
formed to investigate he
kidnapping incident. The d. Subject to judicial review:
Committee convened under the IBP vs ZAMORA: In view of the
leadership of respondent Tan, the alarming increase in violent crimes
Provincial Governor of Sulu. in Metro Manila especially in
Governor Tan issued Proclamation Monumento Circle North Edsa,
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 51 of 123
Araneta Shopping Center, which feature the team-up of PNP
Greenhills, SM Megamall, and and Marines, does not violate the
among others, President Estrada, in civilian supremacy clause in the
a verbal directive, ordered the PNP Constitution.
and Marines to conduct joint
visibility patrols for the purpose of The question in this case is whether
crime prevention and suppression. or not the President’s
The Secretary of Defense, the Chief determination of the necessity of
of Staff of AFP, the Chief of the PNP calling the armed forces is subject
and the Secretary of Interior and to judicial review.
Local Government were tasked to
implement and execute the said RULING: The Presidents factual
order. In compliance, a Letter of determination of the necessity of
Instruction was formulated the Marines in crime prevention
detailing the manner by which the and suppression together with PNP
joint visibility patrols called TASK is not subject to judicial review
FORCE TULUNGAN would be because the same involves a
conducted, under the leadership of political question.
Police Chief of Metro Manila.
Bestowed under the Constitution to
The President invoking his powers the President the full discretionary
under Section 18, Article VII of the power to call out the armed forces
Constitution, directed the AFP Chief and to determine the necessity for
and PNP Chief to coordinate with the exercise of such power under
each other for the proper Section 18, Art VII, the Court held
deployment and utilization of the that the President has already
Marines to assist the PNP in crime determined the necessity and
prevention, and that the President factual basis for calling the armed
further expressed that such forces in aid of law enforcement
deployment of Marines is merely and in the exercise of constitutional
temporary and for a reasonable power.
period only, until such time
situation would improve. b) Power to suspend the privilege of
writ of habeas corpus:
The IBP then filed an instant a. Requisites?
petition to annul LOI 02/2000 and  Rebellion as ground,
to declare the deployment of quantum of proof:
Marines null and void and
unconstitutional arguing that there LAGMAN vs EXECUTIVE
is no emergency situation obtains SECRETARY: Effective May 23,
in MM as would justify such 2017, and for a period not
deployment and a derogation of exceeding 60 days, President
Article II, Section 3; that such Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued
deployment constitutes an Proclamation No. 216 declaring
insidious incursion by the military a state of martial law and
in a civilian function of government suspending the privilege of the
in derogation of Article XVI, Section writ of habeas corpus in the
5 (4); and such deployment creates whole of Mindanao.
a dangerous tendency to rely on
the military to perform civilian Within the timeline set by
functions of the government. Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution, the President
The Court in its Resolution required submitted to Congress on May
the SolGen to file his Comment on 25, 2017, a written Report on
the petition over which the SolGen the factual basis of
defends the constitutionality of the Proclamation No. 216. The
act of the President in deploying Report pointed out that for
the Marines, contending, among decades, Mindanao has been
others, that petitioner has no legal plagued with rebellion and
standing; that the question of lawless violence which only
deployment of Marines is not escalated and worsened with
proper for judicial scrutiny since the passing of time.
the same involves a political Particularly, on May 23, 2017, a
question; that the organization and government operation to
conduct of police visibility patrols capture the high-ranking
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 52 of 123
officers of the Abu Sayyaff (a) There is no rebellion or
Group (ASG) and the Maute invasion in Marawi City or in
Group was confronted with any part of Mindanao.
armed resistance which
escalated into open hostility The acts of terrorism in
against the government. Mindanao do not constitute
Through these groups' armed rebellion since there is no
siege and acts of violence proof that its purpose is to
directed towards civilians and remove Mindanao or any
government authorities, part thereof from allegiance
institutions and establishments, to the Philippines, its laws,
they were able to take control or its territory. The petition
of major social, economic, and labels the flying of ISIS flag
political foundations of Marawi by the Maute Group in
City which led to its paralysis. Marawi City and other
This sudden taking of control outlying areas as mere
was intended to lay the propaganda and not an
groundwork for the eventual open attempt to remove
establishment of a DAESH such areas from the
wilayat or province in allegiance to Philippine
Mindanao. The President then Government. It contends
chronicled in his Report the that the Maute Group is a
events which took place on May mere private army, citing as
23, 2017 in Marawi City which basis the alleged interview
impelled him to declare a state of Ver, Files with Joseph
of martial law and suspend the Franco wherein the latter
privilege of writ of habeas allegedly mentioned that
corpus. the Maute Group is more of
a "clan's private militia
The Report highlighted the latching into the ISIS brand
strategic location of Marawi City theatrically to inflate
and the crucial and significant perceived capability". The
role it plays in Mindanao, and Lagman Petition then posit
the Philippines as a whole. In that if at all, there is only a
addition, the Report pointed out threat of rebellion in Marawi
the possible tragic City which is akin to
repercussions once Marawi City "imminent danger" of
falls under the control of the rebellion, which is no longer
lawless groups. a valid ground for the
declaration of martial law.
After the submission of the
Report and the briefings with (b) The President's Report
the military and police contained "false, inaccurate,
authorities, the Senate issued contrived and hyperbolic
P.S. Resolution No. 3888 accounts”
expressing full support to the
martial law proclamation and (c) The President's Report
finding Proclamation No. 216 mistakenly included the
"to be satisfactory, attack on the military
constitutional and in outpost in Butig, Lanao del
accordance with the law". In the Sur in February 2016, the
same Resolution, the Senate mass jail break in Marawi
declared that it found "no City in August 2016, the
compelling reason to revoke the Zamboanga siege, the
same". The House of Davao market bombing, the
Representatives likewise issued Mamasapano carnage and
House Resolution No. 1050 other bombing incidents in
expressing full support to the Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat,
martial law proclamation. and Basilan, as additional
factual bases for the
The Lagman Petition claims that proclamation of martial law.
the declaration of martial law It contends that these
has no sufficient factual basis events either took place
for the reasons that: long before the conflict in
Marawi City began, had long
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 53 of 123
been resolved, or with the • The purpose of the uprising
culprits having already been is either to remove from the
arrested allegiance to the
Government or its laws; or
(d) The President acted alone the territory of the
and did not consult the Philippines or any part
military establishment or thereof, any body of land,
any ranking official before naval or other armed forces,
making the proclamation. or to deprive the Chief
Executive or Congress,
(e) It was shown that the wholly or partially of any of
military was successful in their powers and
pre-empting the ASG and prerogatives.
the Maute Group's plan to
take over Marawi City and In determining the existence
other parts of Mindanao; the of rebellion, the President
number of foreign fighters only needs to convince
allied with ISIS was himself that there is a
"undetermined", which probable cause or evidence
indicates that there are only showing that more likely
a meager number of foreign than not a rebellion was
fighters who can lend committed or is being
support to the Maute Group. committed.

RULING: A state of martial law PARAMETERS FOR

is peculiar because the DETERMINING THE
President, at such a time, SUFFICIENCY OF
exercises police power, which is FACTUAL BASIS:
normally a function of the • Actual rebellion or
Legislature. In particular, the invasion;
President exercises police • Public Safety requires it;
power, with the military’s  There is probable cause
assistance, to ensure public for the president to
safety and in place of believe that there is
government agencies which for actual rebellion or
the time being are unable to invasion.
cope with the condition in a
locality, which remains under
the control of the State.

The Court held in the 1951 case

of Montenegro v. Castaneda
that the authority to decide
whether there is a state of
rebellion requiring the
suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus is
lodged with the President and
his decision thereon is final and
conclusive upon the courts

The extraordinary powers of

suspending the privilege for the
writ of habeas corpus and/or
declaring martial law may be
exercised only when there is
actual invasion or rebellion, and
public safety requires it.

Rebellion: For rebellion to

exists, the following elements
must be present:
• Public uprising,
• Taking arms against the
Government,
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 54 of 123
VII. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Bank, Bacolod City who is the godmother of
1. Concept one of their sons.
a. Judicial power, traditional and expanded
meaning Petitioner's infidelity spawned a series of
fights that left private respondent physically
Article VIII, Section 1: The judicial power and emotionally wounded. In one of their
shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in quarrels, petitioner grabbed private
such lower courts, as may be established by respondent on both arms and shook her with
law. such force that caused bruises and
hematoma. At another time, petitioner hit
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts private respondent forcefully on the lips that
of justice to settle actual controversies caused some bleeding. Petitioner sometimes
involving rights which are legally demandable turned his ire on their daughter, Jo-Ann, who
and enforceable, and to determine whether or had seen the text messages he sent to his
not there has been a grave abuse of paramour and whom he blamed for squealing
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on on him. He beat Jo-Ann on the chest and
the part of any branch or instrumentality of slapped her many times. When private
the Government. respondent decided to leave petitioner, Jo-Ann
begged her mother to stay for fear that if the
GARCIA vs DRILON latter leaves, petitioner would beat her up.
Doctrine: The mere fact that an officer is Even the small boys are aware of private
required by law to inquire into the existence respondent's sufferings. Their 6- year- old son
of certain facts and to apply the law thereto in said that when he grows up, he would beat up
order to determine what his official conduct his father because of his cruelty to private
shall be and the fact that these acts may respondent.
affect private rights do not constitute an
exercise of judicial powers. All the emotional and psychological turmoil
drove private respondent to the brink of
Assailed herein is the constitutionality of RA despair. On December 17, 2005, while at
9262 as being violative of the equal protection home, she attempted suicide by cutting her
and due process clauses, and an undue wrist. She was found by her son bleeding on
delegation of judicial power to barangay the floor. Petitioner simply fled the house
officials. instead of taking her to the hospital. Private
respondent was hospitalized for about seven
FACTS: The respondent herein filed for (7) days in which time petitioner never
herself and on behalf of her minor children a bothered to visit, nor apologized or showed
TPO before the RTC of Bacolod City against pity on her. Since then, private respondent
the petitioner herein. She claimed to be a has been undergoing therapy almost every
victim of physical abuse, emotional, week and is taking anti-depressant
psychological and economic violence as a medications.
result of marital infidelity on the part of the
petitioner, with threats of deprivation of After private respondent confronted him
custody of her children and of financial about the affair, petitioner forbade her to hold
support. office at JBTC Building, Mandalagan, where all
the businesses of the corporations are
Private respondent described herself as a conducted, thereby depriving her of access to
dutiful and faithful wife, whose life revolved full information about said businesses. Until
around her husband. On the other hand, the filing of the petition a quo, petitioner has
petitioner, who is of Filipino- Chinese descent, not given private respondent an accounting of
is dominant, controlling, and demands the businesses the value of which she had
absolute obedience from his wife and helped raise to millions of pesos.
children. He forbade private respondent to
pray, and deliberately isolated her from her Finding reasonable ground to believe that an
friends. When she took up law, and even imminent danger of violence against the
when she was already working part time at a private respondent and her children exists or
law office, petitioner trivialized her ambitions about to recur, the RTC issued a TPO effective
and prevailed upon her to just stay at home. for 30 days.
He was often jealous of the fact that his
attractive wife still catches the eye of some The TPO has been extended, and continued
men, at one point threatening that he would for another 30 days after each expiration until
have any man eyeing her killed. further order of the court. The petitioner filed
with the CA a petition for prohibition alleging
Things turned worse when the petitioner took the constitutionality of RA9262 which includes
up affair with a bank manager for Robinson’s among others, that the said law allows undue
delegation of judicial power to barangay
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 55 of 123
officials in relation to the issuance of
Barangay Protection Orders. , but was denied As clearly delimited by the aforequoted
for failure to raise the issue of provision, the BPO issued by the Punong
constitutionality. Also, his MR was denied. Barangay or, in his unavailability, by any
available Barangay Kagawad, merely orders
ISSUE[S]: WON RA9262 is unconstitutional the perpetrator to desist from (a) causing
because it allows an undue delegation of physical harm to the woman or her child; and
judicial power to the barangay officials. (2) threatening to cause the woman or her
child physical harm. Such function of the
RULING: There is no undue delegation of Punong Barangay is, thus, purely executive in
judicial power to barangay officials. nature, in pursuance of his duty under the
Local Government Code to “enforce all laws
Petitioner contends that protection orders and ordinances,” and to “maintain public
involve the exercise of judicial power, which, order in the barangay.”
under the Constitution, is placed upon the
Supreme Court and such other lower courts as We have held that “(t)he mere fact that an
may be established by law, and thus protests officer is required by law to inquire into the
the delegation of power to barangay officials existence of certain facts and to apply the law
to issue orders. The pertinent provisions thereto in order to determine what his official
reads, as follows. conduct shall be and the fact that these acts
may affect private rights do not constitute an
Sec. 14. Barangay Protection Orders (BPOSs): exercise of judicial powers.”
who may Issue: Barangay Protection Orders
(BPOs) refer to the protection order issued by In the same manner as the public prosecutor
the Punong Barangay ordering the perpetrator ascertains through a preliminary inquiry or
to desist from committing acts under Section proceeding “whether there is reasonable
5(1) and (b) of this Act. A Punong Barangay ground to believe that an offense has been
who received applications for a BPO shall committed and the accused is probably guilty
issue the protection order to the applicant on thereof,” the Punong Barangay must
the date of filing after ex parte determination determine reasonable ground to believe that
of the basis of the application. If the Punong an imminent danger of violence against the
Barangay is unavailable to act on the woman and her children exists or is about to
application for a BPO, the application shall be recur that would necessitate the issuance of a
acted upon by any available Barangay. BPO. The preliminary investigation conducted
Kagawad. If the BPO is issued by a Barangay by the prosecutor is, concededly, an
Kagawad, the order must be accompanied by executive, not a judicial, function. The same
an attestation by the Barangay Kagawad, holds true with the issuance of a BPO.
that:
We need not even belabor the issue raised by
The Punong Barangay was unavailable at the petitioner that since barangay officials and
time of the issuance of the BPO. BPOs shall be other law enforcement agencies are required
effective for fifteen (15) days. Immediately to extend assistance to victims of violence
after the issuance of an ex parte BPO, the and abuse, it would be very unlikely that they
Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad shall would remain objective and impartial, and
personally serve a copy of the same on the that the chances of acquittal are nil. As
respondent, or direct any barangay official to already stated, assistance by barangay
effect its personal service. officials and other law enforcement agencies
is consistent with their duty to enforce the law
The parties may be accompanied by a non- and to maintain peace and order.
lawyer advocate in any proceeding before the
Punong Barangay. Petition denied.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts Political question doctrine: Refers “to
of justice to settle actual controversies those questions which, under the Constitution,
involving rights which are legally demandable are to be decided by the people in their
and enforceable, and to determine whether or sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
not there has been a grave abuse of discretionary authority has been delegated to
discretion amounting to lack or excess of the legislative or executive branch of the
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or government. It is concerned with issues
instrumentality of the Government. On the dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
other hand, executive power "is generally particular measure.”
defined as the power to enforce and
administer the laws. It is the power of carrying VINUYA vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
the laws into practical operation and enforcing Doctrine: Political questions refer “to those
their due observance." questions which, under the Constitution, are
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 56 of 123
to be decided by the people in their sovereign RULING: The Court held that the petition
capacity, or in regard to which full lacks merit. From a domestic law perspective,
discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Department has the exclusive
the legislative or executive branch of the prerogative to determine whether to espouse
government. It is concerned with issues petitioners’ claims against Japan.
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
particular measure.” To support its ruling, the Court explained the
concept of political question. Political
FACTS: Petitioners are all members of the questions refer “to those questions which,
MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit under the Constitution, are to be decided by
organization registered with the SEC, the people in their sovereign capacity, or in
established for the purpose of providing aid to regard to which full discretionary authority
the victims of rape by Japanese military forces has been delegated to the legislative or
in the Philippines during the Second World executive branch of the government. It is
War. As narrated in the historical background concerned with issues dependent upon the
provided in the case, the Japanese army wisdom, not legality of a particular measure.”
attacked villages and systematically raped the
women as part of the destruction of the One type of case of political questions
village during the Second World War. As a involves questions of foreign relations. It is
result of the actions of their Japanese well-established that “the conduct of the
tormentors, the petitioners have spent their foreign relations of our government is
lives in misery, having endured physical committed by the Constitution to the
injuries, pain and disability, and mental executive and legislative–‘the political’–
emotional suffering. departments of the government, and the
propriety of what may be done in the exercise
Petitioners claimed that since 1998, they have of this political power is not subject to judicial
approached the Executive Department inquiry or decision.” are delicate, complex,
through the DOJ, DFA and OSG, requesting and involve large elements of prophecy. They
assistance in filing a claim against the are and should be undertaken only by those
Japanese officials and military officers who directly responsible to the people whose
ordered the establishment of the “comfort welfare they advance or imperil. But not all
women stations in the Philippines. However, cases implicating foreign relations present
said officials declined to assist the petitioners, political questions, and courts certainly
and took the position that the individual possess the authority to construe or invalidate
claims for compensation have already been treaties and executive agreements. However,
fully satisfied by Japan’s compliance with the the question whether the Philippine
Peace Treaty between the Philippines and government should espouse claims of its
Japan. nationals against a foreign government is a
foreign relations matter, the authority for
Petitioners argued that the comfort women which is demonstrably committed by our
system constituted a crime against humanity, Constitution not to the courts but to the
sexual slavery, and torture. They alleged that political branches. In this case, the Executive
the prohibition against these international Department has already decided that it is to
crimes is jus cogens norms from which no the best interest of the country to waive all
derogation is possible, as such, the Philippine claims of its nationals for reparations against
government is in breach of its legal obligation Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. The
not to afford impunity for crimes against wisdom of such decision is not for the courts
humanity. Respondents maintain that all to question.
claims of the Philippines and its nationals
relative to the war were dealt with in the San The President, not Congress, has the better
Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the opportunity of knowing the conditions which
bilateral Reparations Agreement of 1956. In prevail in foreign countries, and especially is
addition, respondents argue that the this true in time of war. He has his
apologies made by Japan have been confidential sources of information. He has his
satisfactory, and that Japan had addressed agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and
the individual claims of the women through other officials. The Executive Department has
the atonement money paid by the Asian determined that taking up petitioners’ cause
Women's Fund. would be inimical to our country’s foreign
policy interests, and could disrupt our
ISSUE[S]: WON the Executive Department relations with Japan, thereby creating serious
committed grave abuse of discretion in not implications for stability in this region. For the
espousing petitioners' claims for official to overturn the Executive Department’s
apology and other forms of reparations determination would mean an assessment of
against Japan the foreign policy judgments by a coordinate
political branch to which authority to make
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 57 of 123
that judgment has been constitutionally superseding conflicting treaties and custom.
committed. From a municipal law perspective, Jus cogens norms are considered peremptory
certiorari will not lie. As a general principle, in the sense that they are mandatory, do not
where such an extraordinary length of time admit derogation, and can be modified only
has lapsed between the treaty’s conclusion by general international norms of equivalent
and our consideration – the Executive must be authority.
given ample discretion to assess the foreign
policy considerations of espousing a claim OCAMPO, ET AL. vs. REAR ADMIRAL
against Japan, from the standpoint of both the ERNESTO ET AL.
interests of the petitioners and those of the Doctrine: The Judicial Branch cannot decide
Republic, and decide on that basis if apologies questions "in regard to which full discretionary
are sufficient, and whether further steps are authority has been delegated to the
appropriate or necessary. legislative or executive branch of the
government"
In the international sphere, traditionally, the
only means available for individuals to bring a FACTS: During the campaign period for the
claim within the international legal system has 2016 Presidential Election, then candidate
been when the individual is able to persuade Rodrigo R. Duterte publicly announced that he
a government to bring a claim on the would allow the burial former President
individual’s behalf. By taking up the case of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng Mga
one of its subjects and by resorting to Bayani ("LNMB"). Duterte won the May 9,
diplomatic action or international judicial 2016 elections.
proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality
asserting its own right to ensure, in the On August 7, 2016, Defense Secretary Delfin
person of its subjects, respect for the rules of N. Lorenzana issued a Memorandum to AFP
international law. Within the limits prescribed Chief of Staff General Ricardo R. Visaya
by international law, a State may exercise regarding the interment of former President
diplomatic protection by whatever means and Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng Mga
to whatever extent it thinks fit, for it is its own Bayani.
right that the State is asserting. Should the
natural or legal person on whose behalf it is On August 9, 2016, AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto
acting consider that their rights are not C. Enriquez issued a directive to the Philippine
adequately protected, they have no remedy in Army on the Funeral Honors and Service for
international law. All they can do is resort to President Marcos.
national law, if means are available, with a
view to furthering their cause or obtaining Dissatisfied with the foregoing issuance, the
redress. All these questions remain within the petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and
province of municipal law and do not affect Prohibition and Petition for Mandamus and
the position internationally. Prohibition with the Court.

Even the invocation of jus cogens norms and ISSUE[S]: WON the issue involves political
erga omnes obligations will not alter this question.
analysis. Petitioners have not shown that the
crimes committed by the Japanese army RULING: YES
violated jus cogens prohibitions at the time
the Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the The Court agrees with the OSG that President
duty to prosecute perpetrators of international Duterte's decision to have the remains of
crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a
attained the status of jus cogens. The term political question that is not a justiciable
erga omnes (Latin: in relation to everyone) in controversy. In the excercise of his powers
international law has been used as a legal under the Constitution and the Administrative
term describing obligations owed by States Code of 1987 to allow the interment of Marcos
towards the community of states as a whole. at the LNMB, which is a land of the public
Essential distinction should be drawn between domain devoted for national military cemetery
the obligations of a State towards the and military shrine purposes, President
international community as a whole, and Duterte decided a question of policy based on
those arising vis-à-vis another State in the his wisdom that it shall promote national
field of diplomatic protection. By their very healing and forgiveness. There being no taint
nature, the former are the concern of all of grave abuse in the exercise of such
States. In view of the importance of the rights discretion, as discussed below, President
involved, all States can be held to have a legal Duterte's decision on that political question is
interest in their protection; they are outside the ambit of judicial review.
obligations erga omnes. The term “jus
cogens” (literally, “compelling law”) refers to In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal
norms that command peremptory authority, basis to hold that there was a grave abuse of
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 58 of 123
discretion amounting to lack or excess of constitutionality must be raised at the
jurisdiction which would justify the Court to earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue
interpose its authority to check and override of constitutionality must be the very lis
an act entrusted to the judgment of another mota of the case.
branch. Truly, the President’s discretion is not
totally unfettered. “Discretion is not a free One of the requirements for this court
spirited stallion that runs and roams wherever to exercise its power of judicial review
it pleases but is reined in to keep it from is the existence of an actual
straying. In its classic formulation, ‘discretion controversy. This means that there
is not unconfined and vagrant’ but ‘canalized must be “an existing case or
within banks that keep it from controversy that is appropriate or ripe
overflowing.”‘186 At bar, President Duterte, for determination, not conjectural or
through the public respondents, acted within anticipatory, lest the decision of the
the bounds of the law and jurisprudence. court would amount to an advisory
Notwithstanding the call of human rights opinion.”
advocates, the Court must uphold what is
legal and just. And that is not to deny Marcos FACTS: This case involves the
of his rightful place at the LNMB. For even the proposed bills abolishing the Judiciary
Framers of our Constitution intend that full Development Fund and replacing it
respect for human rights is available at any with the “Judiciary Support Fund.”
stage of a person’s development, from the Funds collected from the proposed
time he or she becomes a person to the time Judiciary Support Fund shall be
he or she leaves this earth. remitted to the national treasury and
Congress shall determine how the
There are certain things that are better left for funds will be used.
history -not this Court -to adjudge. The Court
could only do so much in accordance with the Petitioner Rolly Mijares prays for the
clearly established rules and principles. issuance of a writ of mandamus in
Beyond that, it is ultimately for the people order to compel this court to exercise
themselves, as the sovereign, to decide, a its judicial independence and fiscal
task that may require the better perspective autonomy against the perceived
that the passage of time provides. In the hostility of Congress. In his petition,
meantime, the country must move on and let Mijares alleges that he is a Filipino
this issue rest.” citizen, and a concerned taxpayer.
That he filed this petition as part of his
b. Requisites for the proper exercise of the “continuing crusade to defend and
power of judicial review uphold the Constitution”. That he is
a) Actual case or controversy concerned about the threats against
 Cases the judiciary after this court
promulgated Priority Development
IN THE MATTER OF: SAVE THE Assistance Fund (PDAF) case on
SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL November 19, 2013 and Disbursement
INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL Acceleration Program (DAP) case on
AUTONOMY MOVEMENT vs. July 1, 2014. The complaint implied
ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY that certain acts of members of
DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND Congress and the President after the
REDUCTION OF FISCAL AUTONOMY promulgation of these cases show a
Doctrine: The power of judicial threat to judicial independence when
review, like all powers granted by the in the first week of July 2014, Ilocos
Constitution, is subject to certain Norte Representative Rodolfo Fariñas
limitations — Petitioner must comply filed House Bill No. 4690, which would
with all the requisites for judicial require this court to remit its Judiciary
review before this court may take Development Fund collections to the
cognizance of the case. The requisites national treasury. A week later, Iloilo
are: (1) there must be an actual case Representative Niel Tupas, Jr., filed
or controversy calling for the exercise House Bill No. 4738 entitled “The Act
of judicial power; (2) the person Creating the Judicial Support Fund (JSF)
challenging the act must have the under the National Treasury, repealing
standing to question the validity of the for the purpose Presidential Decree No.
subject act or issuance; otherwise 1949. On the same day, President
stated, he must have a personal and Aquino III addressed the nation urging
substantial interest in the case such the SC to review its decision in the
that he has sustained, or will sustain, PDAF and DAF cases.
direct injury as a result of its
enforcement; (3) the question of
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 59 of 123
ISSUE[S]: Whether or not petitioner appropriate Regional Trial Court to
Rolly Mijares has sufficiently shown determine any question of
grounds for this court to grant the construction or validity arising, and
petition and issue a writ of mandamus? for a declaration of his rights or
duties, thereunder.
RULING: No! The SC resolves to deny
the petition. The power of judicial An action for reformation of an
review, like all powers granted by the instrument, to quiet title to real
Constitution, is subject to certain property or remove clouds
limitations. Petitioner must comply therefrom, or to consolidate
with all the requisites for judicial ownership under Article 1607 o the
review before this court may take Civil Code, may be brought under
cognizance of the case. The this Rule.
requisites are: (1) there must be
an actual case or controversy • International court of justice:
calling for the exercise of judicial Art 96, Chapter XIV of the UN
power; (2) the person challenging Charter: The General Assembly of
the act must have the standing to the Security Council may request
question the validity of the subject the International Court of Justice to
act or issuance; otherwise stated, give an advisory opinion on any
he must have a personal and legal question.
substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained, or will Other groups of the United Nations
sustain, direct injury as a result of and specialized agencies, which
its enforcement; (3) the question may at any time be so authorized by
of constitutionality must be raised the General Assembly, may also
at the request advisory opinions for the
earliest opportunity; and (4) the Court on legal questions arising
issue of constitutionality must be within the scope of their activities.
the very lis mota of the case.
 Moot and academic
One of the requirements for this court INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE
to exercise its power of judicial review ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH
is the existence of an actual APPLICATIONS vs GREENPEACE
controversy. This means that there SOUTHEAST ASIA PHILIPPINES
must be “an existing case or Doctrine: The Court is not
controversy that is appropriate or ripe empowered to decide moot questions
for determination, not conjectural or or abstract propositions, or to declare
anticipatory, lest the decision of the principles or rules of law which cannot
court would amount to an advisory affect the result as to the thing in
opinion.” issue in the case before it. In other
words, when a case is moot, it
In this case, Petitioner’s becomes non-justiciable.
allegations show that he wants
this court to strike down the An action is considered "moot" when
proposed bills abolishing the it no longer presents a justiciable
Judiciary Development Fund. This controversy because the issues
court, however, must act only involved have become academic or
within its powers granted under dead or when the matter in dispute
the Constitution. This court is not has already been resolved and hence,
empowered review proposed bills one is not entitled to judicial
because a bill is not a law. intervention unless the issue is likely
to be raised again between the
 Advisory opinion parties. There is nothing for the court
• Declaratory relief – Sec. 1, Rule to resolve as the determination
63 of the Rules of Court, as thereof has been overtaken by
amended: Who may file the subsequent events.
petition – Any person interested
under a deed, will, contract or other Case law states that the Court will
written instrument, or whose rights decide cases, otherwise moot, if:
are affected by a statute, executive first, there is a grave violation of the
order or regulation, ordinance, or Constitution; second, the exceptional
any other governmental regulation character of the situation and the
may, before breach or violation paramount public interest are
thereof, bring an action in the involved; third, when the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 60 of 123
constitutional issue raised requires On March 16, 2010 and June 28, 2010,
formulation of controlling principles to the Bureau of Plant Industries (BPI)
guide the bench, the bar, and the issued two (2)-year Biosafety Permits
public; and fourth, the case is or field testing of Bt talong after
capable of repetition yet evading UPLB's field test proposal
review. Thus, jurisprudence satisfactorily completed biosafety risk
recognizes these four instances as assessment for field testing pursuant
exceptions to the mootness principle. to the Department of Agriculture's
(DA) Administrative Order No. 8,
FACTS: The instant case arose from series of 2002 (DAO 08-2002), which
the conduct of field trials for provides for the rules and regulations
"bioengineered eggplants," known for the importation and release into
as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant the environment of plants and plant
(Bt talong), administered pursuant to products derived from the use of
the Memorandum of modern biotechnology. Consequently,
Undertaking (MOU) entered into by field testing proceeded in approved
herein petitioners University of the trial sites in North Cotabato,
Philippines Los Baños Foundation, Inc. Pangasinan, Camarines Sur, Davao
(UPLBFI) and International Service for City, and Laguna.
the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications, Inc. (ISAAA), and the On April 26, 2012, respondents
University of the Philippines Mindanao Greenpeace Southeast Asia
Foundation, Inc. (UPMFI), among (Philippines) (GPSEA), Magsasaka at
others. Bt talong contains the crystal Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng
toxin genes from the soil Agrikultura (MASIPAG), and others
bacterium Bt, which produces (respondents) filed before the Court a
the CrylAc protein that is toxic to Petition for Writ of
target insect pests. Continuing Mandamus and Writ
The Cry1Ac protein is said to be of Kalikasan with Prayer for the
highly specific to lepidopteran Issuance of a Temporary
larvae such as the fruit and shoot Environmental Protection Order
borer, the most destructive insect (TEPO) (petition for Writ
pest to eggplants. of Kalikasan) against herein
petitioners the Environmental
From 2007 to 2009, petitioner Management Bureau (EMB) of the
University of the Philippines Los Baños Department of Environment and
(UPLB), the implementing institution Natural Resources (DENR), the BPI
of the field trials, conducted a and the Fertilizer and Pesticide
contained experiment on Bt Authority (FPA) of the DA, UPLBFI, and
talong under the supervision of the ISAAA, and UPMFI, alleging that the Bt
National Committee on Biosafety of talong field trials violated their
the Philippines (NCBP). The NCBP, constitutional right to health and a
created under Executive Order No. balanced ecology considering, among
(EO) 430, is the regulatory body others, that: (a) the Environmental
tasked to: (a) "identify and evaluate Compliance Certificate (ECC), as
potential hazards involved in initiating required by Presidential Decree No.
genetic engineering experiments or (PD) 1151, was not secured prior to
the introduction of new species and the field trials; (b) the required public
genetically engineered organisms and consultations under the Local
recommend measures to minimize Government Code (LGC) were not
risks" and (b) ''formulate and review complied with; and (c) as a regulated
national policies and guidelines on article under DAO 08-2002, Bt
biosafety, such as the safe conduct of talong is presumed harmful to human
work on genetic engineering, pests health and the environment, and that
and their genetic materials for the there is no independent, peer-
protection of public health, reviewed study showing its safety for
environment[,] and personnel[,] and human consumption and the
supervise the implementation environment. Further, they contended
thereof." Upon the completion of the that since the scientific evidence as to
contained experiment, the NCBP the safety of Bt talong remained
issued a Certificate therefor stating insufficient or uncertain, and that
that all biosafety measures were preliminary scientific evaluation
complied with, and no untoward shows reasonable grounds for
incident had occurred. concern, the precautionary principle

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 61 of 123
should be applied and, thereby, the principle applies in this case since
field trials be enjoined. the risk of harm from the field
trials of Bt talong remains
ISSUE[S]: Whether the case should uncertain and there exists a
be dismissed on the basis of being possibility of serious and
moot and academic. irreversible harm. The Court
RULING: YES, the case should be observed that eggplants are a staple
dismissed. THE CASE does not fall vegetable in the country that is
under the two exceptions of (a) mostly grown by small-scale farmers
the exceptional character of the who are poor and marginalized; thus,
situation and the paramount given the country's rich biodiversity,
public interest is involved; and the consequences of contamination
(b) the case is capable of and genetic pollution would be
repetition yet evading review disastrous and irreversible.
The Court likewise agreed with the CA
To resolve respondents' petition for in not dismissing the case for being
Writ of Kalikasan on its merits, would moot and academic despite the
be tantamount to an unnecessary completion and termination of the Bt
scholarly exercise for the Court to talong field trials, on account of the
assess alleged violations of health and following exceptions to the
environmental rights that arose from mootness principle: (a) the
a past test case whose bearings do exceptional character of the
not find any - if not minimal -- situation and the paramount
relevance to cases operating under public interest is involved; and
today's regulatory framework. (b) the case is capable of
repetition yet evading review.
The Court discerns that there are two
(2) factors to be considered Further, the Court noted that while
before a case is deemed one the provisions of DAO 08-2002 were
capable of repetition yet evading observed, the National Biosafety
review: (1) the challenged action Framework (NBF) established under
was in its duration too short to be EO 514, series of 2006 which requires
fully litigated prior to its public participation in all stages of
cessation or expiration; and (2) biosafety decision-making, pursuant
there was a reasonable to the Cartagena Protocol on
expectation that the same Biosafety which was acceded to by
complaining party would be the Philippines in 2000 and became
subjected to the same action. effective locally in 2003, was not
complied with. Moreover, the field
Here, respondents cannot claim that testing should have been subjected to
the duration of the subject field tests Environmental Impact Assessment
was too short to be fully litigated. It (EIA), considering that it involved new
must be emphasized that the technologies with uncertain results.
Biosafety Permits for the subject field
tests were issued on March 16, 2010 Thus, the Court permanently enjoined
and June 28, 2010, and were valid for the field testing of Bt talong. In
two (2) years. However, as aptly addition, it declared DAO 08-2002 null
pointed out by Justice Leonen, and void for failure to consider the
respondents filed their petition for provisions of the NBF. The Court also
Writ of Kalikasan only on April 26, temporarily enjoined any application
2012 - just a few months before the for contained use, field testing,
Biosafety Permits expired and when propagation, commercialization, and
the field testing activities were importation of genetically modified
already over. Obviously, therefore, organisms until a new administrative
the cessation of the subject field tests order is promulgated in accordance
before the case could be resolved was with law.
due to respondents' own inaction. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed their
motion for reconsideration.
The Court’s first Ruling:
The Court's Ruling on Motion for
The Court denied the petitions and Reconsideration
accordingly, affinned with
modification the ruling of the The Court grants the motions for
CA. Agreeing with the CA, the Court reconsideration on the ground of
held that the precautionary; mootness.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 62 of 123
recognizes these four instances as
As a rule, the Court may only exceptions to the mootness
adjudicate actual, ongoing principle.
controversies. The requirement of the
existence of a "case" or an "actual In the December 8, 2015 Decision of
controversy" for the proper exercise the Court, it was held that (a) the
of the power of judicial review present case is of exceptional
proceeds from Section 1, Article VIII of character and paramount public
the 1987 Constitution: interest is involved, and (b) it is
likewise capable of repetition yet
Section 1. The judicial power shall be evading review. Hence, it was
vested in one Supreme Court and in excepted from the mootness
such lower courts as may be principle. However, upon a closer
established by law. scrutiny of the parties'
arguments, the Court reconsiders
Judicial power includes the duty of the its ruling and now finds merit in
court of justice to settle actual petitioners' assertion that the
controversies involving rights which case should have been dismissed
are legally demandable and for being moot and academic, and
enforceable, and to determine that the aforesaid exceptions to
whether or not there has been a the said rule should not have
grave abuse of discretion amounting been applied.
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government. (Emphasis I. On the paramount public
supplied) interest exception.

Accordingly, the Court is not Jurisprudence in this jurisdiction has

empowered to decide moot questions set no hard-and-fast rule in
or abstract propositions, or to declare determining whether a case involves
principles or rules of law which cannot paramount public interest in relation
affect the result as to the thing in to the mootness principle. However, a
issue in the case before it. In other survey of cases would show that, as a
words, when a case is moot, it common guidepost for application,
becomes non-justiciable. there should be some perceivable
benefit to the public which demands
An action is considered "moot" the Court to proceed with the
when it no longer presents a resolution of otherwise moot
justiciable controversy because questions.
the issues involved have become
academic or dead or when the In the foregoing cases, no perceivable
matter in dispute has already benefit to the public - whether rational
been resolved and hence, one is or practical - may be gained by
not entitled to judicial resolving respondents' petition for
intervention unless the issue is Writ of Kalikasan on the merits.
likely to be raised again between
the parties. There is nothing for To recount, these cases, which
the court to resolve as the stemmed from herein respondents
determination thereof has been petition for Writ of Kalikasan, were
overtaken by subsequent events. mooted by the undisputed expiration
of the Biosafety Permits issued by the
Nevertheless, case law states that the BPI and the completion and
Court will decide cases, otherwise termination of the Bt talong field trials
moot, if: first, there is a grave subject of the same. These incidents
violation of the effectively negated the necessity for
Constitution; second, the exceptional the reliefs sought by respondents in
character of the situation and the their petition for Writ of Kalikasan as
paramount public interest are there was no longer any field test to
involved; third, when the enjoin. Hence, at the time the CA
constitutional issue raised requires rendered its Decision dated May 17,
formulation of controlling principles to 2013, the reliefs petitioner sought and
guide the bench, the bar, and the granted by the CA were no longer
public; and fourth, the case is capable of execution.
capable of repetition yet evading
review. Thus, jurisprudence
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 63 of 123
As the matter never went beyond the
field-testing phase, none of the II. The case is not one capable of
foregoing tasks related to propagation repetition yet evading review.
were pursued or the requirements
therefor complied with. Thus, there Likewise, contrary to the Court's
are no guaranteed after-effects to earlier ruling, these cases do not fall
the already concluded Bt under the "capable of repetition yet
talong field trials that demand an evading review" exception.
adjudication from which the
public may perceivably benefit. The Court notes that the petition for
Any future threat to the right, of Writ of Kalikasan specifically raised
herein respondents or the public in issues only against the field testing
general to a healthful and balanced of Bt talong under the premises 'of
ecology is therefore more imagined DAO 08,..2002, i.e., that herein
than real. petitioners failed to: (a) fully inform
the eople regarding the health,
In fact, it would appear to be more environment, and other hazards
beneficial to the public to stay a involved; and (b) conduct any valid
verdict on the safeness of Bt talong - risk assessment before conducting
or GMOs, for that matter - until an the field trial. As further pointed out
actual and justiciable case properly by Justice Leonen, the reliefs sought
presents itself before the CourtTrue did not extend far enough to enjoin
enough, the concluded field tests ·- the use of the results of the field trials
like those in these cases – would yield that have been completed. Hence, the
data that may prove useful for future petition's specificity prevented it from
studies and analyses. If at all, falling under the above exception to
resolving the petition for Writ the mootness rule.
of Kalikasan would unnecessarily
arrest the results of further research More obviously, the supersession of
and testing on Bt talong, and even DAO 08-2002 by JDC 01-2016 clearly
GMOs in general, and hence, tend to prevents this case from being one
hinder scientific advancement on the capable of repetition so as to warrant
subject matter. review despite its mootness.

More significantly, it is clear that no As earlier adverted to, with the

benefit would be derived by the public issuance of JDC 01-2016, a new
in assessing the merits of field trials regulatory framework in the conduct
whose parameters are not only of field testing now applies.
unique to the specific type of Bt
talong tested, but are now, in fact, Based on the foregoing, it is apparent
rendered obsolete by the supervening that the regulatory framework now
change in the regulatory framework applicable in conducting risk
applied to GMO field testing. To be assessment in matters involving the
sure, DAO 08-2002 has already been research, development, handling,
superseded by Joint Department movement, and release into the
Circular No. 1, series of 2016 (JDC 01- environment of genetically modified
2016), which provides a substantially plant and plant products derived from
different regulatory framework from the use of modem biotechnology is
that under DAO 08-2002 as will be substantially different from that which
detailed below. Thus, to resolve was applied to the subject field trials.
respondents' petition for Writ In this regard, it cannot be said that
of Kalikasan on its merits, would be the present case is one capable of
tantamount to an unnecessary repetition yet evading review.
scholarly exercise for the Court to
assess alleged violations of health and The issues in these cases involve
environmental rights that arose from factual considerations which are
a past test case whose bearings do peculiar only to the controversy at
not find any - if not minimal -- hand since the petition for Writ
relevance to cases operating under of Kalikasan is specific to the field
today's regulatory framework. testing of Bt talong and does not
involve other GMOs.
Therefore, the paramount public
interest exception to the mootness At this point, the Court discerns that
rule should not have been there are two (2) factors to be
applied.1âwphi1 considered before a case is
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 64 of 123
deemed one capable of repetition healthful ecology, and to health. A
yet evading review: (1) the cursory perusal of the petition for Writ
challenged action was in its of Kalikasan filed by respondents on
duration too short to be fully April 26, 2012 before the Court shows
litigated prior to its cessation or that they essentially assail herein
expiration; and (2) there was a petitioners' failure to: (a) fully infom1
reasonable expectation that the the people regarding the health,
same complaining party would be environment, and other hazards
subjected to the same action. involved; and (b) conduct any valid
risk assessment before conducting
Here, respondents cannot claim that the field trial. However, while the
the duration of the subject field tests provisions of DAO 08-2002 were
was too short to be fully litigated. It averred to be inadequate to
must be emphasized that the protect (a) the constitutional right of
Biosafety Permits for the subject field the people to a balanced and
tests were issued on March 16, 2010 healthful ecology since "said
and June 28, 2010, and were valid for regulation failed, among others, to
two (2) years. However, as aptly anticipate 'the public implications
pointed out by Justice Leonen, caused by the importation of GMOs in
respondents filed their petition the Philippines"'; and (b) "the people
for Writ of Kalikasan only on April from the potential harm these
26, 2012 - just a few months genetically modified plants and
before the Biosafety Permits genetically modified organisms may
expired and when the field- cause human health and the
testing activities were already environment, [and] thus, x x x fall
over. Obviously, therefore, the short of Constitutional compliance,"
cessation of the subject field respondents merely prayed for
tests before the case could be its amendment, as well as that of
resolved was due to respondents' the NBF, to define or incorporate "an
own inaction. independent, transparent, and
comprehensive scientific and socio-
Moreover, the situation respondents economic risk assessment, public
complain of is not susceptible' to information, consultation, and
repetition. As discussed above, DAO participation, and providing for their
08-2002 has already been superseded effective implementation, in accord
by JDC 01-2016. Hence, future with international safety
applications for field testing will be standards[.]"This attempt to assail the
governed by JDC 01-2016 which, as constitutionality of the public
illustrated, adopts a regulatory info1mation and consultation
framework that is substantially requirements under DAO 08-2002 and
different from that of DAO 08-2002. the NBF constitutes a collateral attack
on the said provisions of law that runs
Therefore, it was improper for the afoul of the wdlsettled rule that the
Court to resolve the merits of the constitutionality of a statute cannot
case which had become moot in be collaterally attacked as
view of the absence of any valid constitutionality issues must be
exceptions to the rule on pleaded directly and not
mootness, and to thereupon rule collaterally. Verily, the policy of the
on the objections against the courts is to avoid ruling on
validity and consequently nullify constitutional questions and to
DAO 08-2002 under the premises presume that the acts of the political
of the precautionary principle. departments are valid, absent a clear
other issues: ruling on the and unmistakable showing to the
constitutionality of DAO 08-2002. contrary, in deference to the doctrine
of separation of powers. This means
In fact, in relation to the latter, it is that the measure had first been
observed that the Court should not carefuliy studied by the executive
have even delved into the department and found to be in accord
constitutionality of DAO 08-2002 as it with the Constitution before it was
was merely collaterally finally enacted and approved.
challenged by respondents, based
on the constitutional precepts of the All told, with respondents'
people's rights to infonnation on petition for Writ of Kalikasan
matters of public concern, to public already mooted by the expiration
participation, to a balanced and of the Biosafoty Permits and the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 65 of 123
completion of the field trials ISSUE[S]: WON the respondents
subject of these cases, and with have no legal standing to pursue the
none of the exceptions to the instant case at bar.
mootness principle properly
attending, the Court grants the RULING: Yes. The respondents
instant motions for reconsideration have legal standing. The established
and hereby dismisses the aforesaid rule that the constitutionality of a
petition. With this pronouncement, no law or administrative issuance can
discussion on the substantive merits be challenged by anyone who will
of the same should be made. sustain a direct injury as a result of
enforcement. This has been
 Proper party (locus standi or legal satisfied in the case at bar.
standing)
• General rule: direct injury test The broad subject of the prohibited
HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY vs importation is “all types of used
SOUTHWING HEAVY motor vehicles”. Respondents would
INDUSTRIES. definitely suffer a direct injury from
Doctrine: the implementation of the assailed
E.O. because their certificate of
FACTS: Assailed in this petition is registration and the tax exemption
the decision of the RTC of Olongapo authorize them to trade or/and
City declaring Article 2, Section 3.21 import new and used motor vehicles
of the E.O. 156 which prohibits the spare parts, except used cars. Other
importation into the country, types of motor vehicles imported
inclusive of the Special Economic and/or traded by the respondents
and Freeport Zone or the Subic Bay and not falling within the category
Freeport, of used vehicles, subject of used cars would thus be
to few exceptions, unconstitutional. subjected to the ban to the
prejudice of their business.
PGMA through Executive Secretary
Romulo issued E.O. 156 entitled EXCEPTIONS:
“Providing for a Comprehensive OPOSA vs. FACTORAN
Industrial Policy and Directions for Doctrine: The petitioners’
the Motor Vehicle Development personality to sue in behalf of
Program and Its Implementing the succeeding generations can
Guidelines. only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility
The issuance of the assailed E.O. insofar as the right to a
spawned 3 actions for declaratory balanced and healthful ecology
relief all seeking its validity. is concerned. X x x Needless to
say, every generation has a
The petitioners contend that the responsibility to the next to
E.O. is valid and applicable to the preserve that rhythm and harmony
entire country, including the for the full enjoyment of a balanced
Freeport. In support of their and healthful ecology. Put a little
arguments, they raised procedural differently, the minors' assertion of
and substantive issues barring on their right to a sound environment
the constitutionality of the assailed constitutes, at the same time, the
proviso. The procedural issues are: performance of their obligation to
1) the lack of legal standing of the ensure the protection of that right
respondents, the propriety of for the generations to come.
challenging the E.O. 156 in
declaratory relief proceeding and FACTS: The principal plaintiffs
the applicability of a judgments on therein, now the principal
the pleadings in this case. petitioners, are all minors duly
represented and joined by their
Petitioners argued that the respective parents. The original
respondents will not be affected by defendant was the Honorable
the assailed E.O. for the reason that Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then
their certificate of registration and Secretary of the Department of
tax exemption do not authorize Environment and Natural Resources
them to engage in the importation (DENR). His substitution in this
and/or trading of used cars. petition by the new Secretary, the
Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 66 of 123
subsequently ordered upon proper generations can only be based
motion by the petitioners. on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility
The complaint was filed for insofar as the right to a
themselves and others who are balanced and healthful ecology
equally concerned about the is concerned.
preservation of said resource
but are "so numerous that it is Such a right, as hereinafter
impracticable to bring them all expounded, considers the "rhythm
before the Court." The minors and harmony of nature." Nature
further asseverate that they means the created world in its
"represent their generation as entirety. Such rhythm and harmony
well as generations yet unborn." indispensably include, inter alia, the
Consequently, it is prayed for that judicious disposition, utilization,
judgment be rendered: management, renewal and
conservation of the country's forest,
. . . ordering defendant, his mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
agents, representatives and wildlife, off-shore areas and other
other persons acting in his natural resources to the end that
behalf to — their exploration, development and
(1) Cancel all existing timber utilization be equitably accessible to
license agreements in the the present as well as future
country; generations. Needless to say,
(2) Cease and desist from every generation has a
receiving, accepting, processing, responsibility to the next to
renewing or approving new preserve that rhythm and
timber license agreements. harmony for the full enjoyment
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . of a balanced and healthful
such other reliefs just and ecology. Put a little differently,
equitable under the premises." the minors' assertion of their
right to a sound environment
On 22 June 1990, the original constitutes, at the same time,
defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., the performance of their
filed a Motion to Dismiss the obligation to ensure the
complaint based on two (2) grounds, protection of that right for the
namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no generations to come.
cause of action against him and
(2) the issue raised by the The complaint focuses on one
plaintiffs is a political question. specific fundamental legal right —
the right to a balanced and healthful
On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge ecology which, for the first time in
issued an order granting the our nation's constitutional history, is
aforementioned motion to dismiss. solemnly incorporated in the
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant fundamental law. Section 16, Article
special civil action for certiorari. II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly
provides:
ISSUE[S]: Whether or not: (1) the
plaintiffs have no cause of Sec. 16. The State shall protect
action against the government and advance the right of the
and (2) the issue raised by the people to a balanced and
plaintiffs is a political question. healthful ecology in accord with
the rhythm and harmony of
RULING: Yes! This case, however, nature.
has a special and novel element. This right unites with the right to
Petitioners minors assert that they health which is provided for in
represent their generation as well as the preceding section of the
generations yet unborn. same article:
Sec. 15. The State shall protect
We find no difficulty in ruling and promote the right to health
that they can, for themselves, of the people and instill health
for others of their generation consciousness among them.
and for the succeeding
generations, file a class suit. While the right to a balanced
Their personality to sue in and healthful ecology is to be
behalf of the succeeding found under the Declaration of
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 67 of 123
Principles and State Policies and right or rights of the other; and
not under the Bill of Rights, it its essential elements are legal
does not follow that it is less right of the plaintiff, correlative
important than any of the civil obligation of the defendant, and
and political rights enumerated act or omission of the defendant
in the latter. Such a right belongs in violation of said legal right.
to a different category of rights
altogether for it concerns nothing In Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 25
less than self-preservation and self- this Court held:
perpetuation — aptly and fittingly
stressed by the petitioners — the . . . A timber license is an
advancement of which may even be instrument by which the State
said to predate all governments and regulates the utilization and
constitutions. As a matter of fact, disposition of forest resources to
these basic rights need not even be the end that public welfare is
written in the Constitution for they promoted. A timber license is
are assumed to exist from the not a contract within the purview
inception of humankind. The right to of the due process clause; it is
a balanced and healthful ecology only a license or privilege, which
carries with it the correlative duty to can be validly withdrawn
refrain from impairing the whenever dictated by public
environment. interest or public welfare as in
this case.
Thus, the right of the petitioners
(and all those they represent) to a A license is merely a permit or
balanced and healthful ecology is as privilege to do what otherwise would
clear as the DENR's duty — under its be unlawful, and is not a contract
mandate and by virtue of its powers between the authority, federal,
and functions under E.O. No. 192 state, or municipal, granting it and
and the Administrative Code of 1987 the person to whom it is granted;
— to protect and advance the said neither is it property or a property
right. right, nor does it create a vested
right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168).
POLITICAL QUESTION Thus, this Court held that the
The first part of the authority granting of license does not create
represents the traditional concept of irrevocable rights, neither is it
judicial power, involving the property or property rights (People
settlement of conflicting rights as vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576).
conferred as law. The second part of
the authority represents a Since timber licenses are not
broadening of judicial power to contracts, the non-impairment
enable the courts of justice to clause, which reads:
review what was before forbidden
territory, to wit, the discretion of the Sec. 10. No law impairing, the
political departments of the obligation of contracts shall be
government. passed, cannot be invoked.

As worded, the new provision vests WHEREFORE, being impressed with

in the judiciary, and particularly the merit, the instant Petition is hereby
Supreme Court, the power to rule GRANTED, and the challenged Order
upon even the wisdom of the of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991
decisions of the executive and the dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is
legislature and to declare their acts hereby set aside. The petitioners
invalid for lack or excess of may therefore amend their
jurisdiction because tainted with complaint to implead as defendants
grave abuse of discretion. The the holders or grantees of the
catch, of course, is the meaning of questioned timber license
"grave abuse of discretion," which is agreements.
a very elastic phrase that can
expand or contract according to the DAVID vs MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
disposition of the judiciary. Doctrine: Locus standi is defined as
“a right of appearance in a court of
A cause of action is defined as: justice on a given question.” In
. . . an act or omission of one private suits, standing is governed
party in violation of the legal
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 68 of 123
by the “real-parties-in interest” rule officers, leftist insurgents of the New
as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of People’s Army (NPA), and some
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as members of the political opposition
amended. It provides that “every in a plot to unseat or assassinate
action must be prosecuted or President Arroyo. They considered
defended in the name of the real the aim to oust or assassinate the
party in interest.” Accordingly, the President and take-over the reins of
“real-party-in interest” is “the party government as a clear and present
who stands to be benefited or danger.
injured by the judgment in the suit
or the party entitled to the avails of The following were considered as
the suit.” Succinctly put, the additional factual bases for the
plaintiff’s standing is based on his issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5:
own right to the relief sought. the bombing of telecommunication
towers and cell sites in Bulacan and
By way of summary, the following Bataan; the raid of an army outpost
rules may be culled from the cases in Benguet resulting in the death of
decided by this Court. Taxpayers, three soldiers; and the directive of
voters, concerned citizens, and the Communist Party of the
legislators may be accorded Philippines ordering its front
standing to sue, provided that the organizations to join 5,000 Metro
following requirements are met: Manila radicals and 25,000 more
from the provinces in mass protests.
 The cases involve constitutional
issues; Immediately, the Office of the
 For taxpayers, there must be a President announced the
claim of illegal disbursement of cancellation of all programs and
public funds or that the tax activities related to the 20th People
measure is unconstitutional; Power I anniversary celebration. It
 For voters, there must be a revoked permits to hold rallies.
showing of obvious interest in Members of the Kilusang Mayo Uno
the validity of the election law in (KMU) and the National Federation
question; of Labor Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno
 For concerned citizens, there (NAFLU-KMU), who marched from
must be a showing that the various parts of Metro Manila to
issues raised are of converge at the EDSA Shrine, were
transcendental importance violently dispersed by anti-riot
which must be settled early; and police. UP Professor and columnist
 For legislators, there must be a Randolf David, Akbayan party-list
claim that the official action president Ronald Llamas, and
complained of infringes upon members of the KMU and NAFLU-
their prerogatives as legislators. KMU were arrested without
a warrant. In the early morning of
FACTS: On February 24, 2006, as February 25, 2006, operatives of the
the nation celebrated the 20th Criminal Investigation and Detection
Anniversary of the Edsa People Group (CIDG) raided the Daily
Power I, President Arroyo issued PP Tribune offices in Manila and
1017 declaring a state of national confiscated news stories,
emergency. documents, pictures, and mock-ups
of the Saturday issue. Policemen
On the same day, the President were stationed inside the editorial
issued G.O. No. 5 implementing PP and business offices, as well as
1017. G.O No. 5 sets the standards outside the building. A few minutes
which the Armed Forces of the after the search and seizure at the
Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine Daily Tribune offices, the police
National Police (PNP) should follow surrounded the premises of another
in the suppression and prevention of pro-opposition paper, Malaya, and
acts of lawless violence. its sister publication, the
tabloid Abante. The PNP warned
In their presentation of the factual that it would take over any media
bases of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, organization that would not follow
respondents stated that the “standards set by the government
proximate cause behind the during the state of national
executive issuances was the emergency.”
conspiracy among some military
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 69 of 123
On March 3, 2006, exactly one week a showing that there is necessity
from the declaration of a state of to do so.”
national emergency, President
Arroyo issued Presidential 4. In G.R. No. 171483, petitioners
Proclamation No. 1021 (PP 1021), KMU, NAFLU-KMU, and their
declaring that the state of national members averred that PP 1017
emergency has ceased to exist and and G.O. No. 5 are
lifting PP1017. unconstitutional because (1) they
arrogate unto President Arroyo
In the interim, these seven (7) the power to enact laws and
petitions challenging the decrees; (2) their issuance was
constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.O. without factual basis;
No. 5 were filed with this Court. and (3) they violate freedom of
Three (3) of these petitions expression and the right of the
impleaded President Arroyo as people to peaceably assemble to
respondent. redress their grievances.

1. In G.R. No. 171396, petitioners 5. In G.R. No. 171400, petitioner

Randolf S. David, et al. assailed Alternative Law Groups, Inc.
PP 1017 on the grounds that (1) it (ALGI) alleged that PP 1017 and
encroaches on the emergency G.O. No. 5 are unconstitutional
powers of Congress; (2) it is a because they violate (a) Section
subterfuge to avoid the 4 of Article II, (b) Sections
constitutional requirements for 1, 2, and 4 of Article III, (c)Section
the imposition of martial law; 23 of Article VI, and (d) Section
and (3) it violates the 17 of Article XII of the
constitutional guarantees of Constitution.
freedom of the press, of speech
and of assembly. 6. In G.R. No. 171489, petitioners
Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz et
2. In G.R. No. 171409, petitioners al., alleged that PP 1017 is an
Ninez Cacho-Olivares “arbitrary and unlawful exercise
and Tribune Publishing Co., by the President of her Martial
Inc. challenged the CIDG’s act of Law powers.” And assuming that
raiding the Daily Tribune offices PP 1017 is not really a declaration
as a clear case of “censorship” or of Martial Law, petitioners argued
“prior restraint.” They also that “it amounts to an exercise
claimed that the term by the President of emergency
“emergency” refers only to powers without congressional
tsunami, typhoon, hurricane and approval.” In addition, petitioners
similar occurrences, hence, there asserted that PP 1017 “goes
is “absolutely no emergency” beyond the nature and function
that warrants the issuance of PP of a proclamation as defined
1017. under the Revised Administrative
Code.”
3. In G.R. No. 171485, petitioners
herein are Representative Francis 7. And lastly, in G.R. No. 171424,
Joseph G. Escudero, and twenty petitioner Loren B. Legarda
one (21) other members of the maintained that PP 1017 and G.O.
House of Representatives, No. 5 are “unconstitutional for
including Representatives Satur being violative of the freedom of
Ocampo, Rafael Mariano, Teodoro expression, including its cognate
Casiño, Liza Maza, and Josel rights such as freedom of the
Virador. They asserted that PP press and the right to access to
1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitute information on matters of public
“usurpation of legislative concern, all guaranteed under
powers“; “violation of freedom of Article III, Section 4 of the 1987
expression” and “a declaration of Constitution.” In this regard, she
martial law.” They alleged that stated that these issuances
President Arroyo “gravely abused prevented her from fully
her discretion in calling out the prosecuting her election protest
armed forces without clear and pending before the Presidential
verifiable factual basis of the Electoral Tribunal.
possibility of lawless violence and

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 70 of 123
In respondents’ Consolidated prosecute actions involving the
Comment, the Solicitor General constitutionality or validity of laws,
countered that petitioners in G.R. regulations and rulings.
Nos. 171400 (ALGI), 171424
(Legarda), 171483 (KMU et al.), Thus, the Court has adopted a rule
171485 (Escudero et al.) and that even where the petitioners
171489 (Cadiz et al.) have no legal have failed to show direct injury,
standing. they have been allowed to sue
under the principle of
ISSUE[S]: WON the petitioners “transcendental importance.”
have legal standing.
By way of summary, the following
RULING: Locus standi is defined as rules may be culled from the cases
“a right of appearance in a court of decided by this Court. Taxpayers,
justice on a given question.” In voters, concerned citizens, and
private suits, standing is governed legislators may be accorded
by the “real-parties-in interest” rule standing to sue, provided that the
as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of following requirements are met:
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended. It provides that “every EXCEPTION TO DIRECT INJURY:
action must be prosecuted or Instances where persons are
defended in the name of the real allowed by the Court to continue an
party in interest.” Accordingly, the actions even without suffering direct
“real-party-in interest” is “the party injuries from the suit.
who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit 1. For taxpayers, there must
or the party entitled to the avails of be a claim of illegal
the suit.” Succinctly put, the disbursement of public funds
plaintiff’s standing is based on his or that the tax measure is
own right to the relief sought. unconstitutional;
2. For voters, there must be a
This Court adopted the “direct showing of obvious interest
injury” test in our jurisdiction. in the validity of the election
In People v. Vera, it held that the law in question;
person who impugns the validity of 3. For concerned citizens,
a statute must have “a personal and there must be a showing that
substantial interest in the case such the issues raised are of
that he has sustained, or will sustain transcendental importance
direct injury as a result.” which must be settled early;
The Vera doctrine was upheld in a and
litany of cases. 4. For legislators, there must
be a claim that the official
However, being a mere procedural action complained of
technicality, the requirement infringes upon their
of locus standi may be waived by prerogatives as legislators.
the Court in the exercise of its 5. In the case of Oposa vs
discretion. This was done in Factoran, the
the 1949 Emergency Powers intergenerational
Cases, Araneta v. Dinglasan, where responsibility by reason of
the “transcendental importance” of the right to a healthful and
the cases prompted the Court to act balance ecology.
liberally. Such liberality was neither 6. In the case of Resident
a rarity nor accidental. In Aquino v. Marine Mammals, the
Comelec, this Court resolved to pass steward of nature,
upon the issues raised due to the 7. In Lagman Case, a citizen’s
“far-reaching implications” of the suit for purposes of
petition notwithstanding its questioning the factual basis
categorical statement that of declaration of Martial Law.
petitioner therein had no personality 8. In Padilla Congress, citizen’s
to file the suit. Indeed, there is a suit invoking public right.
chain of cases where this liberal
Now, the application of the above
policy has been observed, allowing
principles to the present petitions.
ordinary citizens, members of
Congress, and civic organizations to

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 71 of 123
The locus standi of petitioners members may suffer as a
in G.R. No. 171396, particularly consequence of the issuance of PP
David and Llamas, is beyond doubt. No. 1017 and G.O. No. 5.
The same holds true with petitioners In Integrated Bar of the Philippines
in G.R. No. 171409, Cacho-Olivares v. Zamora, the Court held that the
and Tribune Publishing Co. Inc. mere invocation by the IBP of its
They alleged “direct injury” duty to preserve the rule of law and
resulting from “illegal arrest” and nothing more, while undoubtedly
“unlawful search” committed by true, is not sufficient to clothe it with
police operatives pursuant to PP standing in this case. This is too
1017. Rightly so, the Solicitor general an interest which is shared
General does not question their by other groups and the whole
legal standing. citizenry. However, in view of the
transcendental importance of the
In G.R. No. 171485, the opposition issue, this Court declares that
Congressmen alleged there was petitioner have locus standi.
usurpation of legislative powers.
They also raised the issue of In G.R. No. 171424, Loren Legarda
whether or not the concurrence of has no personality as a taxpayer to
Congress is necessary whenever the file the instant petition as there are
alarming powers incident to Martial no allegations of illegal
Law are used. Moreover, it is in the disbursement of public funds. The
interest of justice that those fact that she is a former Senator is
affected by PP 1017 can be of no consequence. She can no
represented by their Congressmen longer sue as a legislator on the
in bringing to the attention of the allegation that her prerogatives as a
Court the alleged violations of their lawmaker have been impaired by PP
basic rights. 1017 and G.O. No. 5. Her claim that
she is a media personality will not
In G.R. No. 171400, (ALGI), this likewise aid her because there was
Court applied the liberality rule no showing that the enforcement of
in Philconsa v. Enriquez, Kapatiran these issuances prevented her from
Ng Mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan pursuing her occupation. Her
ng Pilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, Association submission that she has pending
of Small Landowners in the electoral protest before the
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Presidential Electoral Tribunal is
Agrarian Reform, Basco v. Philippine likewise of no relevance. She has
Amusement and Gaming not sufficiently shown that PP 1017
Corporation, and Tañada v. will affect the proceedings or result
Tuvera, that when the issue of her case. But considering once
concerns a public right, it is more the transcendental
sufficient that the petitioner is a importance of the issue involved,
citizen and has an interest in the this Court may relax the standing
execution of the laws. rules.

In G.R. No. 171483, KMU’s assertion It must always be borne in mind that
that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violated the question of locus standi is but
its right to peaceful assembly may corollary to the bigger question of
be deemed sufficient to give it legal proper exercise of judicial power.
standing. Organizations may be This is the underlying legal tenet of
granted standing to assert the rights the “liberality doctrine” on legal
of their members. We take judicial standing. It cannot be doubted that
notice of the announcement by the the validity of PP No. 1017 and G.O.
Office of the President banning all No. 5 is a judicial question which is
rallies and cancelling all permits for of paramount importance to the
public assemblies following the Filipino people. To paraphrase
issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. Justice Laurel, the whole of
Philippine society now waits with
In G.R. No. 171489, bated breath the ruling of this Court
petitioners, Cadiz et al., who are on this very critical matter. The
national officers of the Integrated petitions thus call for the application
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) have no of the “transcendental importance”
legal standing, having failed to doctrine, a relaxation of the
allege any direct or potential injury standing requirements for the
which the IBP as an institution or its petitioners in the “PP 1017 cases.”
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 72 of 123
ISSUE[S]: Whether or not herein
Thus, this Court holds that all the petitioner has locus standi over the
petitioners herein have locus standi. case?

CONCERNED CITIZEN; RULING: No. Defined as a right of

TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE appearance in a court of justice on a
OCAMPO vs REAR ADMIRAL given question, locus standi requires
ENRIQUEZ that a party alleges such personal
Doctrine: As concerned citizens, stake in the outcome of the
petitioners are also required to controversy as to assure that
substantiate that the issues raised concrete adverseness which
are of transcendental importance, of sharpens the presentation of issues
overreaching significance to society, upon which the court depends for
or of paramount public interest. In illumination of difficult constitutional
cases involving such issues, the questions. Unless a person has
imminence and clarity of the threat sustained or is in imminent danger
to fundamental constitutional rights of sustaining an injury as a result of
outweigh the necessity for an act complained of, such proper
prudence. party has no standing. Petitioners,
who filed their respective petitions
FACTS: During the campaign period for certiorari, prohibition and
for the 2016 Presidential Election, mandamus, in their capacities as
then candidate Rodrigo R. Duterte citizens, human rights violations
(Duterte) publicly announced that victims, legislators, members of the
he would allow the burial of former Bar and taxpayers, have no legal
President Ferdinand E. Marcos standing to file such petitions
(Marcos) at the Libingan Ng Mga because they failed to show that
Bayani (LNMB). He won the May 9, they have suffered or will suffer
2016 election, garnering 16,601,997 direct and personal injury as a result
votes. At noon of June 30, 2016, he of the interment of Marcos at the
formally assumed his office at the LNMB.
Rizal Hall in the Malacanang Palace.
As concerned citizens, petitioners
On August 7, 2016, public are also required to substantiate
respondent Secretary of National that the issues raised are of
Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana issued transcendental importance, of
a Memorandum to the public overreaching significance to society,
respondent Chief of Staff of the or of paramount public interest. In
Armed Forces of the Philippines cases involving such issues, the
(AFP), General Ricardo R. Visaya, imminence and clarity of the threat
regarding the interment of Marcos to fundamental constitutional rights
at the LNMB. outweigh the necessity for
prudence. In Marcos v. Manglapus,
On August 9, 2016, respondent AFP the majority opinion observed that
Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez the subject controversy was of
issued directives to the Philippine grave national importance, and that
Army (PA) Commanding General to the Court's decision would have a
provide services, honors and other profound effect on the political,
courtesies for the late Former economic, and other aspects of
President Ferdinand E. Marcos national life. The ponencia explained
during his interment in the libangan that the case was in a class by itself,
ng mga Bayani. unique and could not create
precedent because it involved a
Dissatisfied with the issuance of dictator forced out of office and into
Rear Admiral Enriquez, herein exile after causing twenty years of
petitioner and several others filed a political, economic and social havoc
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition in the country and who, within the
in their capacities as human rights short space of three years (from
advocates or human rights 1986), sought to return to the
violations victims as defined under Philippines to die.
Section 3 (c) of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 10368 (Human Rights Victims At this point in time, the interment
Reparation and Recognition Act of of Marcos at a cemetery originally
2013). established as a national military
cemetery and declared a national
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 73 of 123
shrine would have no profound no room for any other construction
effect on the political, economic, or interpretation. The same is
and other aspects of our national life indicative of the Framers' intent that
considering that more than twenty- Congress may designate only one
seven (27) years since his death and representative to the JBC. Had it
thirty (30) years after his ouster been otherwise, they could have, in
have already passed. Significantly, no uncertain terms, so provided.
petitioners failed to demonstrate a This Court further articulated that in
clear and imminent threat to their the context of JBC representation,
fundamental constitutional rights. the term "Congress" must be taken
to mean the entire legislative
LEGISLATOR’S SUIT department as no liaison between
UMALI vs. JBC the two houses exists in the
Doctrine: workings of the JBC. There is no
mechanism required between the
FACTS: This Petition Senate and the House of
for Certiorari and Mandamus by Representatives in the screening
Rep. Umali, current Chair of the and nomination of judicial officers.
House of Representatives Moreover, this Court, quoting the
Committee on Justice, impugns the keen observation of Retired
present-day practice of six-month Supreme Court Associate Justice
rotational representation of Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, who is
Congress in the Judicial and Bar also a JBC Consultant, stated that
Council (JBC) for it unfairly deprives the ex officio members of the JBC
both Houses of Congress of their full consist of representatives from the
participation in the said body. The three main branches of government,
aforementioned practice was to wit: the Chief Justice of the
adopted by the JBC in light of the Supreme Court representing the
ruling in Chavez v. JBC. judiciary, the Secretary of Justice
representing the executive, and a
As an overview, in Chavez, the representative of the Congress
constitutionality of the practice of representing the legislature. It can
having two representatives from be deduced therefrom that the
both houses of Congress with one unmistakable tenor of Section 8(1),
vote each in the JBC, thus, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
increasing its membership from was to treat each ex officio member
seven to eight, was challenged. With as representing one co-equal branch
that, this Court examined the of government having equal say in
constitutional provision that states the choice of judicial nominees.
the composition of the JBC, that is, Now, to allow the legislature to have
Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 more than one representative in the
Constitution, which reads: JBC would negate the principle of
equality among these three
SECTION 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar branches of the government, which
Council is hereby created under the is enshrined in the Constitution.
supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex The subsequent MR was denied
officio Chairman, the Secretary of where this Court reiterated that
Justice, and a representative of the Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987
Congress as ex officio Members, a Constitution providing for "a
representative of the Integrated Bar, representative of the Congress" in
a professor of law, a retired Member the JBC is clear and unambiguous
of the Supreme Court, and a and does not need any further
representative of the private sector. interpretation. Besides, this Court is
not convinced that the Framers
Following a painstaking analysis, simply failed to adjust the aforesaid
this Court, in a Decision dated July constitutional provision, by sheer
17, 2012, declared the said practice inadvertence, to their decision to
of having two representatives from shift to a bicameral form of
Congress with one vote each in the legislature. Even granting that there
JBC unconstitutional. This Court was, indeed, such omission, this
enunciated that the use of the Court cannot supply the same.
letter "a" preceding representative Following the rule of casus
of the Congress" in the aforequoted omissus, that is, a case omitted is to
provision is unequivocal and leaves be held as intentionally omitted, this
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 74 of 123
Court cannot under its power of 1. If he is suing as a citizen,
interpretation supply the omission the assertion of a public
even if the same may have resulted right satisfies the
from inadvertence or it was not requirement of personal
foreseen or contemplated for to do interest.
so would amount to judicial 2. If he is a taxpayer, it is
legislation. Ergo, this Court has enough to assert that
neither power nor authority to add there is illegal
another member in the JBC simply expenditure of public
by judicial construction. funds.
3. As for a legislator, upon
The respondent JBC contends that assertion that the actions
the petitioner has no legal standing of the government
for the reason he has not acquired a infringe his prerogatives
resolution from both Houses as a legislator.
authorizing him to sue.
Each member of the Congress has a
ISSUE[S]: WON the petitioner has legal standing to sue even without
legal standing in his capacity as a an enabling resolution for that
chairman of the House of the purpose as long as the questioned
Representatives Committee on acts invade the powers,
Justice and Ex Officio Member of the prerogatives and privileges of
JBC without the requisite resolution Congress.
form both Houses of Congress
authorizing him to sue as a member The SC upheld, in the case at bar,
thereof, which absence is a fatal the legal standing of the Petitioner
defect rendering this Petition as a member of the House of the
dismissible. Representatives and as the
Chairman of its Committee on
RULING: Yes. Petitioner has legal Justice to assail the alternate
standing as a member of the representation of Congress in the
Congress to sue. JBC, which arrangement led to the
non-counting of his votes in its En
Legal standing is defined as a Bank deliberation last December 2
personal and substantial interest in and 9, 2016 as it allegedly adversely
a case such that the party has affects Congress’ prerogative to be
sustained or will sustain direct injury fully represented before the said
as a result of the challenged body.
governmental act. It requires
personal stake in the outcome of the For now, SC overthrew the Chavez
controversy as to assure the case for it is in accord with the
concrete adverseness which constitutional mandate of giving
sharpens the presentation of issues Congress “a representative” in the
upon which the court so largely JBC. In the same manner, the
depends for illumination of difficult adoption of the rotational scheme
constitutional question. will not in any way deprive Congress
of tis full participation in the JBC for
With the definition, a party will be such an arrangement is also in line
allowed to litigate only when he can with the constitutional mandate.
demonstrate that;
LEGISLATOR’S SUIT
1. He has personally suffered SAGUISAG vs OCHOA
some actual or threatened Doctrine: In the case of suits
injury because of the initiated by the legislators
allegedly illegal conduct of themselves, the Court has
the government. recognized their standing to
2. The injury is fairly traceable question the validity of any official
to the challenged action; action that they claim infringes the
3. The injury is likely to be prerogatives, powers, and privileges
redressed by the remedy vested by the Constitution in their
being sought. office.

Exceptions: Legislators have the standing "to

maintain inviolate the prerogatives,
powers, and privileges vested by the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 75 of 123
Constitution in their office and are Then two petitions for certiorari
allowed to sue to question the were thereafter filed before the
validity of any official action n, Court assailing the constitutionality
which they claim infringes their of EDCA. They primarily argue that it
prerogatives as legislators." As should have been in the form of a
legislators, they must clearly show treaty concurred in by the Senate,
that there was a direct injury to not an executive agreement. On 10
their persons or the institution to November 2015, months after the
which they belong. oral arguments were concluded and
the parties ordered to file their
FACTS: This petition before the respective memoranda, the
Court questioning the Senators adopted Senate Resolution
constitutionality of the Enhanced No. 105. The resolution expresses
Defense Cooperation Agreement the "strong sense" of the Senators
(EDCA) between the Republic of the that for EDCA to become valid and
Philippines and the U.S. Petitioners effective, it must first be transmitted
allege that respondents committed to the Senate for deliberation and
grave abuse of discretion amounting concurrence.
to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when they entered into EDCA with ISSUE[S]: WON petitioners
the U.S., claiming that the Saguisag et. al. have the legal
instrument violated multiple standing to file suit against the
constitutional provisions. In reply, executive agreement between the
respondents argue that petitioners Republic and the U.S.?
lack standing to bring the suit. To
support the legality of their actions, RULING: The petitioners have no
respondents invoke the 1987 legal standing. The present petition
Constitution, treaties, and judicial cannot be qualified as a citizens’,
precedents. taxpayers’, or legislators’ suit.

The EDCA authorizes the U.S. As to citizen’s suit, the petitioners

military forces to have access to and were not able to specify the public
conduct activities within certain right which would be violated by the
"Agreed Locations" in the country. It EDCA.
was not transmitted to the Senate
on the executive's understanding As to taxpayer’s suit, the
that to do so was no longer petitioners admitted that the
necessary. Accordingly, in June Government had not yet
2014, the Department of Foreign appropriated or actually disbursed
Affairs (DFA) and the U.S. Embassy public funds for the purpose of
exchanged diplomatic notes implementing the agreement.
confirming the completion of all Hence, the EDCA was not created
necessary internal requirements for for appropriation of public funds.
the agreement to enter into force in
the two countries. As to legislator’s suit, the
petitioners while being members of
According to the Philippine the House of the Representatives,
government, the conclusion of EDCA have not standing. Legislators have
was the result of intensive and standing to “maintain inviolate the
comprehensive negotiations in the prerogatives, powers, and privileges
course of almost two years. After vested by the Constitution in their
eight rounds of negotiations, the office and are allowed to sue to
Secretary of National Defense and question the validity of an official
the U.S. Ambassador to the action, which they claim infringes
Philippines signed the agreement on their prerogatives as legislators.
28 April 2014. President Benigno S.
Aquino III ratified EDCA on 6 June However, the power to concur in a
2014. The OSG clarified during the treaty or an international agreement
oral arguments that the Philippine is an institutional prerogative
and the U.S. governments had yet granted by the Constitution to the
to agree formally on the specific Senate, not the entire Legislature.
sites of the Agreed Locations
mentioned in the agreement. Thus, the one having legal standing
should be the Senate and not the

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 76 of 123
House of the Representatives, second sub-phase of the project.
where the petitioners were part of. Since the well was to be drilled in
the marine waters of Aloguinsan and
STEWARD OF NATURE: WRIT OF Pinamungajan, where the Tañon
KALIKASAN: The writ is a remedy Strait was declared a protected
available to a natural or juridical seascape in 1988, JAPEX agreed to
person, entity authorized by law, comply with the Environmental
people’s organization, non- Impact Assessment requirements
governmental organization, or any pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
public interest group accredited by or 1586.
registered with any government
agency, on behalf of persons whose JAPEX began to drill an exploratory
constitutional right to a balanced and well, with a depth of 3,150 meters,
healthful ecology is violated, or near Pinamungajan town in the
threatened with violation by an western Cebu Province. This drilling
unlawful act or omission of a public lasted until February 8, 2008
official or employee, or private
individual or entity, involving On 17 December 2007, two
environmental damage of such separate original petitions were filed
magnitude as to prejudice the life, commonly seeking that the
health or property of inhabitants in two implementation of SC-46 be
or more cities or provinces. enjoined for violation of the 1987
Constitution.
MARINE MAMMALS vs SEC.
REYES The petitioners in G.R. No. 180771
Doctrine: are the “Resident Marine Mammals”
(comprised of toothed whales,
FACTS: Before Us are two dolphins, porpoises, and other
consolidated Petitions filed under cetacean species) which inhibit the
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court, waters in and around the Tañon
concerning Service Contract No. 46 Strait, joined by “Stewards” Gloria
(SC-46), which allowed the Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza
exploration, development, and Eisma-Osorio as their legal
exploitation of petroleum resources guardians and friends seeking their
within Tañon Strait, a narrow protection. Also impleaded as
passage of water situated between unwilling co-petitioner is former
the islands of Negros and Cebu. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

On June 13, 2002, the Government In G.R. No. 181527, the

of the Philippines, acting through petitioners are the Central
the DOE, entered into a Geophysical Visayas Fisherfolk
Survey and Exploration Contract- DevelopmentCenter (FIDEC), a non-
102 (GSEC-102) with JAPEX. This stock, non-profit, non-governmental
contract involved geological and organization established for the
geophysical studies of the Tañon welfare of the marginal
Strait. fisherfolk in Region VII and
representatives of the
On December 21, 2004, DOE and subsistence fisherfolk of the
JAPEX formally converted GSEC-102 municipalities of Aloguinsan and
into SC-46 for the exploration, Pinamungajan, Cebu.
development, and production of
petroleum resources in a block The respondents in both petitions
covering approximately 2,850 are: the late Angelo T. Reyes, DOE
square kilometers offshore the Secretary; Jose L.Atienza, DENR
Tañon Strait. Secretary; Leonardo Sibbaluca,
DENR-Region VII Director
From May 9 to 18, 2005, JAPEX andChairman of Tañon Strait
conducted seismic surveys in and PAMB; JAPEX, a Japanese
around the Tañon Strait. A multi- company; and Supply
channel sub-bottom profiling OilfieldServices, Inc. (SOS) as the
covering approximately 751 alleged Philippine agent of JAPEX.
kilometers was also done to Their counter-allegation provide that
determine the area's underwater “Resident Marine Mammals” and
composition. JAPEX committed to “Stewards” have no legal standing
drill one exploration well during the to file the petition.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 77 of 123
Although this petition was filed in
ISSUE[S]: WON the petitioners 2007, years before the effectivity of
have legal standing to sue to the Rules of Procedure for
represent the marine mammals. Environmental Cases, it has been
consistently held that rules of
RULING: The issue of whether or procedure “may be retroactively
not even inanimate objects should applied to actions pending and
be given legal standing before undetermined at the time of their
courts of law is not new in the field passage and will not violate any
of animal rights and environmental right of a person who may feel that
law. he is adversely affected, inasmuch
as there is no vested rights in rules
Inanimate objects are sometimes of procedure.”
parties in litigation. A ship has a
legal personality, a fiction found Elucidating on this doctrine, the
useful for maritime purposes. The Court, in Systems Factors
corporation sole - a creature of Corporation v. National Labor
ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable Relations Commission (399 Phil. 721
adversary and large fortunes ride on (2000) held that:
its cases. The ordinary corporation
is a “person” for purposes of the Remedial statutes or statutes
adjudicatory processes, whether it relating to remedies or modes of
represents proprietary, spiritual, procedure, which do not create new
aesthetic, or charitable causes. or take away vested rights, but only
operate in furtherance of the
So it should be as respects valleys, remedy or confirmation of rights
alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, already existing, do not come within
estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of the legal conception of a retroactive
trees, swampland, or even air that law, or the general rule against
feels the destructive pressures of retroactive operation of statutes.
modern technology and modem life. Statutes regulating the procedure of
The river, for example, is the living the courts will be construed as
symbol of all the life it sustains or applicable to actions pending and
nourishes—fish, aquatic insects, undetermined at the time of their
water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, passage. Procedural laws are
bear, and all other animals, retroactive in that sense and to that
including man, who are dependent extent, x x x.
on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its
sound, or its life. The river as Moreover, even before the Rules of
plaintiff speaks for the ecological Procedure for Environmental Cases
unit of life that is part of it. Those became effective, the Court had
people who have a meaningful already taken a permissive position
relation to that body of water— on the issue of locus standi in
whether it be a fisherman, a environmental cases. In Oposa, the
canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger— Court allowed the suit to be brought
must be able to speak for the values in the name of generations yet
which the river represents and unborn “based on the concept of
which are threatened with intergenerational responsibility
destruction. insofar as the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is concerned.”
The primary reason animal rights Furthermore, the right to a balanced
advocates and environmentalists and healthful ecology, a right that
seek to give animals and inanimate does not even need to be stated in
objects standing is due to the need our Constitution as it is assumed to
to comply with the strict exist from the inception of
requirements in bringing a suit to humankind, carries with it the
court. Our own 1997 Rules of Court correlative duty to refrain from
demand that parties to a suit be impairing the environment.
either natural or juridical persons, or
entities authorized by law. It further In light of the foregoing, the need to
necessitates the action to be give the Resident Marine Mammals
brought in the name of the real legal standing has been eliminated
party-in-interest, even if filed by a by our Rules, which allow any
representative, viz.: Filipino citizen, as a steward of
nature, to bring a suit to enforce our
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 78 of 123
environmental laws. It is worth Initially the respondent FPIC denied
noting here that the Stewards are that the leak was from their
joined as real parties in the Petition pipelines, but upon investigation of
and not just in representation of the the UP National Institute of
named cetacean species. The Geological Sciences, the leak was
Stewards, Ramos and Eisma-Osorio, found to be from the White Oil
having shown in their petition that Pipeline of the respondent.
there may be possible violations of
laws concerning the habitat of the The respondent denied liability as to
Resident Marine Mammals, are the leaks, putting the blame from
therefore declared to possess the the construction of the roads.
legal standing to file this petition.
West Tower Condominium
STEWARD OF NATURE: WRIT OF interposed this present petition for
KALIKASAN the Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan on
WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM vs behalf of the residents of West
FIRST PHILIPPINES INDUSTRIAL Tower and in representation of the
CORPORATION surrounding communities in
Barangay Bangkal, Makati.
Doctrine: The rule allows juridical
persons to file the petition for the The Court issued the WOK with
Writ of Kalikasan on behalf of TEPO requiring the respondents to
persons whose constitutional right cease and desist from operating the
to a balance and healthful ecology is two pipelines, and check the
violated, or threatened with integrity of its structure.
violation.
The respondent interposed that the
FACTS: This is a petition for the petitioners have no legal capacity to
issuance of Writ of Kalikasan institute the petition, and there was
following the leak in the pipeline no allegation that the environmental
owned by First Philippine Industrial damage affected the inhabitants of
Corporation in Makati City. 2 or more cities or provinces, and
that the continued operation of the
The respondent operates two pipeline should be allowed in the
pipelines which are designed to interest of maintaining adequate
provide more than double the petroleum supply to the public.
standard safety allowance against
leakage, considering that they are ISSUE[S]: Whether petitioner West
made of heavy duty steel that can Tower Corp. has the legal capacity
withstand more than twice the to represent the other petitioners
current operating pressure and are and, whether the other petitioners,
buried at a minimum depth for 1.5 apart from the residents of West
meters, which is deeper than the US Tower and Barangay Bangkal, are
Department of Transportation real parties-in-interest.
standard of 0.9 meters.
RULING: Yes. Petitioner West Tower
In May 2010, a leakage from one of Corporation has the legal capacity
the pipelines was suspected after to represent the other petitioners
the residents of West Tower and that the other petitioners apart
Condominium started to smell gas from the residents of West Tower
within the condominium, located in Condominium and Barangay
the basement 2. The leak was Bangkal are real parties in interest.
reported to the Police Department
of Makati City, which called the West Tower Corp. represents the
Bureau of Fire Protection. common interest of its unit owners
and residents, and has the legal
Due to the leakage which started standing to file and pursue the
from two-drum leak to 15-20 drums instant petition. While a
a day, the sump pit of the condominium corporation has
condominium was ordered shut limited powers under RA 4726,
down by the City of Makati and otherwise known as The
eventually the fumes compelled the Condominium Act, it is empowered
residents to abandon their to pursue actions in behalf of its
respective condos. members. In this case, the
condominium corporation is the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 79 of 123
management body of West Tower
and deals with everything that may FACTS: The petitioners seek to
affect some or all of the compel the:
condominium unit owners or users. 1. Road Sharing Principle in all
roads;
It is of no moment that only five 2. Divide all roads lengthwise,
residents of West Tower signed their ½ for all weather sidewalk
acquiescence to the filing of the and bicycling, the other half
petition for the issuance of the Writ for Filipino-made transport
of Kalikasan, as the merits of such vehicles;
petition is not measured by the 3. Submit a time-bound action
number of persons who signified plan to implement the Road
their assent thereto, but on the Sharing Principle throughout
existence of a prima facie case of a the country;
massive environmental disaster. As 4. That the Office of the
to the residents of Barangay President, Cabinet Members
Bangkal, they are similarly situated and public officials to reduce
with the unit owners and residents their fuel consumption by
of West Tower and are real parties- 50% and to take public
in-interest to the instant case, if transportation 50% of the
they so wish to join the petitioners. time;
5. The DPWH to demarcate and
On the other hand, the Court ruled delineate the rod right of way
that the fact that no board in all roads and sidewalks;
resolution was submitted by West 6. DMB to instantly release
Tower Corp. authorizing Manuel Dy funds for Road User’s Tax.
Chuaunsu, Jr. to sign the Verification
and Certification of Non-forum To address the clamor for a more
Shopping is irrelevant. The records tangible response to climate
show that petitioners submitted a change, PGMA issued AO 171 which
notarized Secretary's created Presidential Task Force on
Certificate attesting that the Climate Change in 2007, and the AO
authority of Chuaunsu to represent 254 mandating the DOTC to be the
the condominium corporation in lead agency of the Task Force Group
filing the petition is from the on Fossil Fuels.
resolution of the total membership
of West Tower Corp. issued during On the same year, Congress passed
their meeting with the requisite the Climate Change Act, which
quorum. It is, thus, clear that it was created the Climate Change
not the Board of West Tower Corp. Commission which absorbed the
which granted Chuaunsu the functions of the PTFCC and become
authority but the full membership of the lead policy-making body of the
the condominium corporation itself. government.

For the intervention of other The petitioners herein are seeking

petitioners, the Court ruled that the to implement the Road-Sharing
filing of a petition for the issuance of Principle, and who are carless
a Writ of Kalikasan under Sec. 1, people for the Philippines, Parents
Rule 745 of the Rules of Procedure representing their children of the
for Environmental Cases does not future and Car-owners who would
require that a petitioner be directly rather not have cars if good public
affected by an environmental transportation were safe,
disaster. The rule clearly allows convenient, accessible, available
juridical persons to file the petition and reliable. They are claiming that
on behalf of persons whose they are entitled to the issuance of
constitutional right to a balanced the writ due to alleged failure and
and healthful ecology is violated, or refusal of the respondents to
threatened with violation. perform ac act mandated by
environmental laws and violation of
WRIT OF KALIKASAN AND WRIT OF environmental laws resulting to
CONTINUING MANDAMAUS environmental damage of such
SEGOVIA vs CLIMATE CHANGE magnitude as to prejudice the life,
COMMISSION liberty or property of all Filipinos.

Doctrine:
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 80 of 123
In gist, the petitioners contend that
respondents’ failure to implement 1. There is actual or threatened
environmental protection laws and violation of the constitutional
execute issuances resulted in right to a balanced and
continued degradation of air quality, healthful ecology;
particularly Metro Manila, in 2. The actual or threatened
violation for the petitioner’s violation arises from an
constitutional right to a balanced unlawful act or omission of a
and healthful ecology. public official or employee, or
private individual or entity;
The respondents contend the and
petitioner have no legal standing 3. The actual or threatened
and that petitioners failed to adhere violation involves or will lead
to the doctrine of hierarchy of to an environmental damage
courts. Also, the respondents of such magnitude as to
contend that the petitioners are not prejudice the life, health or
entitled to continuing mandamus for property of inhabitants in two
the reason: or more cities or provinces.

1. There is no showing of a It is imperative that the party

direct or personal injury or a seeking for the issuance for
clear right to the thing the writ show that an
demanded. environmental rule, law or
2. The writ will not compel a regulation was violated or
discretionary act or anything would be violated. In this
not in a public officer’s duty case, the petitioners failed to
to do. show that respondents are
3. DBM cannot be compelled to guilty of an act or omission
make an instant release of that constitutes a violation of
funds as the same requires the petitioners’ right to a
appropriation made by law. balanced and healthful
4. The use of Road User’s Tax ecology.
needs a prior approval of the
Road Board. Similarly, the continuing mandamus
cannot be issued on the following
ISSUE[S]: WON the petitioners grounds:
have standing to file the petition.
1. The petitioners failed to
RULING: The SC agreed with the prove direct or personal
petitioners. They have standing. injury arising from acts
attributable to the
The RPEC did liberalize the respondents to be entitled to
requirements on standing, allowing the writ.
the filing of citizen’s suit for the 2. The Road-Sharing Principle is
enforcement of rights and precisely as it is
obligations under environmental denominated – a principle. It
laws. However, there is difference cannot be considered as
between a petition for the absolute imposition to
issuance of writ of Kalikasan, encroach upon the province
wherein it is sufficient that the of public respondents to
person filing represents the determine the manner by
inhabitants prejudiced by the which this principle is applied
environmental damage subject or considered in their policy
of the writ and a petition for the decisions, which are not
issuance of writ of continuing ministerial in nature.
mandamus which is only Mandamus lies to compel the
available to one who is performance of duties which
personally aggrieved by the are purely ministerial in
unlawful acts or omission. nature, not those that are
discretionary.
In this case however, the petitioner
failed to establish the requisites for In this case, there is no showing of
the issuance of writ of Kalikasan, unlawful neglect on the part of the
which are as follows: respondents to perform any act that

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 81 of 123
the law specifically enjoins a duty. propaganda and not an open
The petitioners are seeking to attempt to remove such areas from
compel the respondents to do the allegiance to the Philippine
discretionary acts not ministerial Government and deprive the Chief
acts. Executive of the assertion and
exercise of his powers and
Petition dismissed. prerogatives therein.

JUDICIAL REVIEW ON MARTIAL LAW The Lagman Petition insists that

PROCLAMATION AND SUSPENSION during the briefing, representatives
OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF of the military and defense
HABEAS CORPUS authorities did not categorically
Art. VII, Sec. 18 (3rd par): x x x admit nor deny the presence of an
The Supreme Court may review, in ISIS threat in the country but that
an appropriate proceeding filed by they merely gave an evasive
any citizen, the sufficiency of the answer that "there is ISIS in the
factual basis of the proclamation of Philippines". The Lagman Petition
martial law or the suspension of the also avers that Lt. Gen. Salvador
privilege of the writ or the extension Mison, Jr. himself admitted that the
thereof, and must promulgate its current armed conflict in Marawi
decision thereon within 30 days City was precipitated or initiated by
from its filing. the government in its bid to capture
Hapilon. Based on said statement, it
LAGMAN vs EXECUTIVE concludes that the objective of the
SECRETARY Maute Group's armed resistance
Doctrine: The only requisite for was merely to shield Hapilon and
standing to challenge the validity of the Maute brothers from the
the suspension is that the government forces, and not to lay
challenger be a citizen. He need not siege on Marawi City and remove its
be even a taxpayer. allegiance to the Philippine
Republic.
Court can take judicial cognizance of
the fact that petitioners in the Second, the Lagman Petition claims
Lagman Petition are all citizen of the that the declaration of martial law
Philippines since Philippine has no sufficient factual basis
citizenship is a requirement for because the President's Report
them to be elected as contained "false, inaccurate,
representatives. contrived and hyperbolic accounts".

FACTS: Effective May 23, 2017, and Third, the Lagman Petition claims
for a period not exceeding 60 days, that the declaration of martial law
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte has no sufficient factual basis since
issued Proclamation No. 216 the President's Report mistakenly
declaring a state of martial law and included the attack on the military
suspending the privilege of the writ outpost in Butig, Lanao del Sur in
of habeas corpus in the whole of February 2016, the mass jail break
Mindanao. in Marawi City in August 2016, the
Zamboanga siege, the Davao
Petitioner Lagman and other market bombing, the Mamasapano
Representatives of the House of carnage and other bombing
Representative alleged that the incidents in Cotabato, Sultan
declaration of martial law has no Kudarat, and Basilan, as additional
sufficient factual basis because factual bases for the proclamation of
there is no rebellion or invasion in martial law. It contends that these
Marawi City or in any part of events either took place long before
Mindanao. It argues that acts of the conflict in Marawi City began,
terrorism in Mindanao do not had long been resolved, or with the
constitute rebellion since there is no culprits having already been
proof that its purpose is to remove arrested.
Mindanao or any part thereof from
allegiance to the Philippines, its Fourth, the Lagman Petition claims
laws, or its territory. It labels the that the declaration of martial law
flying of ISIS flag by the Maute has no sufficient factual basis
Group in Marawi City and other considering that the President acted
outlying areas as mere alone and did not consult the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 82 of 123
military establishment or any Resolution No. 1050 expressing full
ranking official before making the support to President Duterte and
proclamation. finding no reason to revoke
Proclamation No. 216. By such
Finally, the Lagman Petition claims resolution, the House of
that the President's proclamation of Representatives is declaring that it
martial law lacks sufficient factual finds no reason to review the
basis owing to the fact that during sufficiency of the factual basis of the
the presentation before the martial law declaration, which is in
Committee of the Whole of the direct contrast to the views and
House of Representatives, it was arguments being espoused by the
shown that the military was even petitioners in the Lagman Petition.
successful in pre-empting the ASG
and the Maute Group's plan to take Considering, however, the trend
over Marawi City and other parts of towards relaxation of the rules on
Mindanao; there was absence of any legal standing, as well
hostile plan by the Moro Islamic as the transcendental issues
Liberation Front; and the number of involved in the present Petitions, the
foreign fighters allied with ISIS was Court will exercise judicial self-
"undetermined" which indicates that restraint, and will not venture into
there are only a meager number of this matter. After all, "the Court is
foreign fighters who can lend not entirely without discretion to
support to the Maute Group. accept a suit which does not satisfy
the requirements of a [bona
Based on the foregoing fide] case or of standing.
argumentation, the Lagman Petition Considerations paramount to [the
asks the Court to: (1)"exercise its requirement of legal standing] could
specific and special jurisdiction to compel assumption of jurisdiction."
review the sufficiency of the factual In any case, the Court can take
basis of Proclamation No. 216"; and judicial cognizance of the fact that
(2) render "a Decision voiding and petitioners in the Lagman Petition
nullifying Proclamation No. 216" for are all citizens of the Philippines
lack of sufficient factual basis. since Philippine citizenship is a
requirement for them to be elected
ISSUE[S]: May Lagman’s petition as representatives. We will therefore
prosper the fact that they are consider them as suing in their own
members of the House of behalf as citizens of this country.
Representative, in contravention to Besides, respondents did not
the mandate of the Constitution question petitioners' legal standing.
under Article VII Section 18 par. 3?
• Prohibition against third-party
RULING: Yes! Section 18 of Article standing “as applied and facial
VII which provides that any challenges.
citizen may file the appropriate SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
proceeding to assail the sufficiency ENGAGEMENT NETWORK INC. vs
of the factual basis of the ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL
declaration of martial law or the Doctrine: Facial challenge on the
suspension of the privilege of the ground of overbreadth and vagueness
writ of habeas corpus. "[T]he only doctrines have special application only
requisite for standing to challenge to free-speech cases and are not
the validity of the suspension is that appropriate for testing the validity
the challenger be a citizen. He need of penal statues.
not even be a taxpayer."
FACTS: These are consolidated
In the Lagman Petition, however, petitions challenging the
petitioners therein did not constitutionality of RA 9372 or An Act to
categorically mention that they are Secure the State and Protect our People
suing's citizens but merely referred from Terrorism, otherwise known as the
to themselves as duly elected Human Security Act of 2007.
Representatives. That they are
suing in their official capacities as Petitioners-organizations assert locus
Members of Congress could have standi on the basis of being suspected
elicited a vigorous discussion communist fronts by the government,
considering the issuance by the especially the military; whereas
House of Representatives of House
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 83 of 123
individual petitioners invariably invoke (CPP) and its armed wing, the
the transcendental importance doctrine National People’s Army (NPA). The
and their status as citizens and tagging, according to petitioners, is
taxpayers. tantamount to the effects of
proscription without following the
Also, the petitioners assail the law for procedure under the law. The
being intrinsically vague and petition of BAYAN-ST, et al. in G.R.
impermissibly broad the definition of No. 179461 pleads the same
the crime of terrorism under the said allegations.
Act in that terms like widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the The Court cannot take judicial notice
populace and coerce the government to of the alleged tagging of petitioners.
give in to an unlawful demand are No ground was properly established
nebulous, leaving law enforcement by petitioners for the taking of
agencies with no standard to measure judicial notice. Petitioners
the prohibited acts. apprehension is insufficient to
substantiate their plea. That no
ISSUE[S]: specific charge or proscription under
1. WON the petitioners have locus RA 9372 has been filed against
standi. them, three years after its
2. WON RA9372 can be assailed on its effectivity, belies any claim
face (facial challenge) based on the of imminence of
ground of overbreadth doctrine. their perceived threat emanating
from the so-called tagging.
RULING:
1. No. The petitioners lack legal The same is true with
standing. Petitioners have not petitioners KMU, NAFLU AND
presented any personal stake in the CTUHR in G.R. No. 178554, who
outcome of the controversy. None of merely harp as well on their
them face any charge under RA supposed link to the CPP and
9372. NPA. They fail to particularize how
the implementation of specific
KARAPATAN, Hustisya, provisions of RA 9372 would result
Desaparecidos, SELDA, in direct injury to their organization
EMJP and PCR, petitioners in G.R. and members.
No. 178890, allege that they have
been subjected to close security Petitioners Southern Hemisphere
surveillance by state security forces, Engagement Network and Atty.
their members followed by Soliman Santos Jr. in G.R. No.
suspicious persons and vehicles with 178552 also conveniently state that
dark windshields, and their offices the issues they raise are of
monitored by men with military transcendental importance, which
build. They likewise claim that they must be settled early and are of far-
have been branded as enemies of reaching implications, without
the State. mention of any specific provision of
RA 9372 under which they have
Even conceding such gratuitous been charged, or may be
allegations, the Office of the charged. Mere invocation of human
Solicitor General (OSG) correctly rights advocacy has nowhere been
points out that petitioners have yet held sufficient to clothe litigants
to show any connection between the with locus standi. Petitioners must
purported surveillance and show an actual, or immediate
implementation of RA9372. danger of sustaining, direct injury as
a result of the laws enforcement. To
BAYAN, GABRIELA, KMP, MCCCL, rule otherwise would be to corrupt
COURAGE, KADAMAY, SCW, LFS, the settled doctrine of locus standi,
Anakbayan, PAMALAKAYA, ACT, as every worthy cause is an interest
Migrante, HEAD and Agham, shared by the general public.
petitioner-organizations in G.R. No.
178581, would like the Court to Neither can locus standi be
take judicial notice of conferred upon individual
respondents alleged action of petitioners as taxpayers and
tagging them as militant citizens. A taxpayer suit is proper
organizations fronting for the only when there is an exercise of
Communist Party of the Philippines the spending or taxing power of
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 84 of 123
Congress, whereas citizen standing outweighed by the possibility that
must rest on direct and personal the protected speech of others may
interest in the proceeding. be deterred and perceived
grievances left to fester because of
RA 9372 is a penal statute and does possible inhibitory effects of overly
not even provide for any broad statutes.
appropriation from Congress for its
implementation, while none of the This rationale does not apply to
individual petitioner-citizens has penal statutes. Criminal statutes
alleged any direct and personal have general in terrorem effect
interest in the implementation of resulting from their very existence,
the law. and, if facial challenge is allowed for
this reason alone, the State may
It bears to stress that generalized well be prevented from enacting
interests, albeit accompanied by the laws against socially harmful
assertion of a public right, do not conduct. In the area of criminal law,
establish locus standi. Evidence of a the law cannot take chances as in
direct and personal interest is key. the area of free speech.

2. No, the Court stated that the facial A statute or act suffers from the
challenge on the ground of defect of vagueness when it lacks
overbreadth and vagueness comprehensible standards that men
doctrines have special application of common intelligence must
only to free-speech cases and necessarily guess at its meaning
are not appropriate for testing and differ as to its application. It is
the validity of penal statutes. repugnant to the Constitution in two
respects: (1) it violates due process
The Court outlined the schools of for failure to accord persons,
thought on whether the void-for- especially the parties targeted by it,
vagueness and overbreadth fair notice of the conduct to avoid;
doctrines are equally applicable and (2) it leaves law enforcers
grounds to assail a penal statute. It unbridled discretion in carrying out
held (by citing the cases of its provisions and becomes an
Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan and arbitrary flexing of the Government
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan) that the muscle.
two doctrines have special
application only to free-speech The overbreadth doctrine,
cases, and are not appropriate for meanwhile, decrees that a
testing the validity of penal statute. governmental purpose to control or
Citing the Separate Opinion of prevent activities constitutionally
Justice Mendoza (important): subject to state regulations may not
be achieved by means which sweep
A facial challenge is allowed to be unnecessarily broadly and thereby
made to a vague statute and to one invade the area of protected
which is overbroad because of freedoms.
possible "chilling effect" upon
protected speech. The theory is that A facial challenge is likewise
"when statutes regulate or proscribe different from an as-applied
speech and no readily apparent challenge.
construction suggests itself as a
vehicle for rehabilitating the Distinguished from an as-
statutes in a single prosecution, the applied challenge which considers
transcendent value to all society of only facts affecting real litigants,
constitutionally protected a facial invalidation is an
expression is deemed to justify examination of the entire law,
allowing attacks on overly broad pinpointing its flaws and defects,
statutes with no requirement that not only on the basis of its actual
the person making the attack operation to the parties, but also on
demonstrate that his own conduct the assumption or prediction that its
could not be regulated by a statute very existence may cause others
drawn with narrow specificity." The not before the court to refrain from
possible harm to society in constitutionally protected speech or
permitting some unprotected activities.
speech to go unpunished is

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 85 of 123
The allowance of a facial challenge therein assailed penal statute,
in free speech cases is justified by unlike in the present case. This
the aim to avert the chilling effect means that the petitioners herein
on protected speech, the exercise of are not actually charged with the
which should not at all times be violation of RA 9372, hence, void-
abridged. As reflected earlier, this for-vagueness doctrine still cannot
rationale is inapplicable to plain be applied.
penal statutes that generally bear
an in terrorem effect in deterring There is no merit in the claim that
socially harmful conduct. In fact, the RA 9372 regulates speech so as to
legislature may even forbid and permit a facial analysis of its validity
penalize acts formerly considered
innocent and lawful, so long as it In insisting on a facial challenge on
refrains from diminishing or the invocation that the law
dissuading the exercise of penalizes speech, petitioners
constitutionally protected rights. contend that the element of
unlawful demand in the definition of
The Court reiterated that there are terrorism must necessarily be
critical limitations by which a transmitted through some form of
criminal statute may be challenged expression protected by the free
and underscored that an on-its-face speech clause.
invalidation of penal statutes x x x
may not be allowed. The argument does not
persuade. What the law seeks to
Since a penal statute may only be penalize is conduct, not speech.
assailed for being vague as
applied to petitioners, a limited Before a charge for terrorism may
vagueness analysis of the definition be filed under RA 9372, there must
of terrorism in RA 9372 is legally first be a predicate crime actually
impermissible absent an actual or committed to trigger the operation
imminent charge against them of the key qualifying phrases in the
other elements of the crime,
While Estrada did not apply the including the coercion of the
overbreadth doctrine, it did not government to accede to an
preclude the operation of the unlawful demand. Given the
vagueness test on the Anti-Plunder presence of the first element, any
Law as applied to the therein attempt at singling out or
petitioner, finding, however, that highlighting the communicative
there was no basis to review the law component of the prohibition cannot
on its face and in its entirety. It recategorize the unprotected
stressed that statutes found conduct into a protected speech.
vague as a matter of due
process typically are invalidated Petitioners notion on the
only 'as applied' to a particular transmission of message is entirely
defendant. inaccurate, as it unduly focuses on
just one particle of an element of
In this jurisdiction, the void-for- the crime. Almost every commission
vagueness doctrine asserted under of a crime entails some mincing of
the due process clause has been words on the part of the offender
utilized in examining the like in declaring to launch overt
constitutionality of criminal criminal acts against a victim, in
statutes. In at least three cases, the haggling on the amount of ransom
Court brought the doctrine into play or conditions, or in negotiating a
in analyzing an ordinance penalizing deceitful transaction.
the non-payment of municipal tax
on fishponds, the crime of illegal IN FINE, Estrada and the other cited
recruitment punishable under Article authorities engaged in a vagueness
132(b) of the Labor Code, and the analysis of the therein subject penal
vagrancy provision under Article statute as applied to the therein
202 (2) of the Revised Penal petitioners inasmuch as they
Code. Notably, the petitioners in were actually charged with the
these three cases, similar to those pertinent crimes challenged on
in the vagueness grounds. The Court in
two Romualdez and Estrada cases, said cases, however, found no basis
were actually charged with the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 86 of 123
to review the assailed penal statute constitutional rights. The
on its face and in its entirety. government of course, asserts that
the law merely seeks to reasonably
As earlier reflected, petitioners have put order into cyberspace activities.
established neither an actual Punish wrongdoings, and prevent
charge nor a credible threat of hurtful attacks on the system.
prosecution under RA 9372. Even
a limited vagueness analysis of the ISSUE[S]: WON the provisions of
assailed definition of terrorism is the Cybercrime law are valid and
thus legally impermissible. The constitutional – Section 5: Aiding or
Court reminds litigants that judicial Abetting and Attempt in the
power neither contemplates Commission of Cybercrime.
speculative counseling on a statutes
future effect on hypothetical RULING: Section 5 of the
scenarios nor allows the courts to be Cybercrime Law
used as an extension of a failed Section 5 provides:
legislative lobbying in Congress. Sec. 5. Other Offenses. The
following acts shall also constitute
Petitions are dismissed. an offense:

DISINI vs SECRETARY OF
1. Aiding or Abetting in the
JUSTICE
Commission of Cybercrime. Any
Doctrine: In an "as applied"
person who willfully abets or aids
challenge, the petitioner who claims
in the commission of any of the
a violation of his constitutional right
offenses enumerated in this Act
can raise any constitutional ground
shall be held liable.
– absence of due process, lack of
2. Attempt in the Commission of
fair notice, lack of ascertainable
Cybercrime. Any person who
standards, overbreadth, or
willfully attempts to commit any
vagueness. Here, one can challenge
of the offenses enumerated in
the constitutionality of a statute
this Act shall be held liable.
only if he asserts a violation of his
own rights. It prohibits one from
assailing the constitutionality of the Petitioners assail the
statute based solely on the violation constitutionality of Section 5 that
of the rights of third persons not renders criminally liable any person
before the court. This rule is also who willfully abets or aids in the
known as the prohibition against commission or attempts to commit
third-party standing. any of the offenses enumerated as
cybercrimes. It suffers from
FACTS: The cybercrime law aims to overbreadth, creating a chilling and
regulate the access to and use of deterrent effect on protected
the cyberspace. Using his laptop or expression.
computer, a person connects to the
internet, a system that links him to The Solicitor General contends,
other computers and enable him, however, that the current body of
among other things to access virtual jurisprudence and laws on aiding
libraries; post billboard like notices, and abetting sufficiently protects
messages including photos and the freedom of expression of
videos; advertise and promote "netizens," the multitude that avail
goods or services; inquire and do themselves of the services of the
business with institutional entities internet. He points out that existing
like governmental agencies, banks, laws and jurisprudence sufficiently
etc; communicate in writing or by delineate the meaning of "aiding or
voice with any person through his abetting" a crime as to protect the
email addresses or telephone. innocent. The Solicitor General
argues that plain, ordinary, and
Herein, the petitioners assail the common usage is at times sufficient
validity of several provisions of the to guide law enforcement agencies
cybercrime law (RA10175). in enforcing the law.

Petitioners claim that the means Libel in the cyberspace can of

adopted by the cybercrime law for course stain a person’s image with
regulating undesirable cyberspace just one click of the mouse.
activities violate certain of their Scurrilous statements can spread
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 87 of 123
and travel fast across the globe like raise any constitutional ground
bad news. Moreover, cyberlibel – absence of due process, lack
often goes hand in hand with of fair notice, lack of
cyberbullying that oppresses the ascertainable standards,
victim, his relatives, and friends, overbreadth, or vagueness.
evoking from mild to disastrous Here, one can challenge the
reactions. Still, a governmental constitutionality of a statute
purpose, which seeks to regulate only if he asserts a violation of
the use of this cyberspace his own rights. It prohibits one
communication technology to from assailing the
protect a person’s reputation and constitutionality of the statute
peace of mind, cannot adopt means based solely on the violation of
that will unnecessarily and broadly the rights of third persons not
sweep, invading the area of before the court. This rule is
protected freedoms. Griswold v. also known as the prohibition
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). against third-party standing.

If such means are adopted, self- But this rule admits of

inhibition borne of fear of what exceptions. A petitioner may for
sinister predicaments await internet instance mount a "facial"
users will suppress otherwise robust challenge to the
discussion of public issues. constitutionality of a statute
Democracy will be threatened and even if he claims no violation of
with it, all liberties. Penal laws his own rights under the
should provide reasonably clear assailed statute where it
guidelines for law enforcement involves free speech on grounds
officials and triers of facts to of overbreadth or vagueness of
prevent arbitrary and discriminatory the statute.
enforcement. (Adonis) G.R. No.
203378. The terms "aiding or The rationale for this exception
abetting" constitute broad sweep is to counter the "chilling effect"
that generates chilling effect on on protected speech that comes
those who express themselves from statutes violating free
through cyberspace posts, speech. A person who does not
comments, and other messages. know whether his speech
constitutes a crime under an
Hence, Section 5 of the overbroad or vague law may
cybercrime law that punishes simply restrain himself from
"aiding or abetting" libel on the speaking in order to avoid being
cyberspace is a nullity. charged of a crime. The
overbroad or vague law thus
When a penal statute chills him into silence.
encroaches upon the freedom of As already stated, the cyberspace is
speech, a facial challenge an incomparable, pervasive medium
grounded on the void-for- of communication. It is inevitable
vagueness doctrine is that any government threat of
acceptable. The inapplicability punishment regarding certain uses
of the doctrine must be of the medium creates a chilling
carefully delineated. As Justice effect on the constitutionally-
Antonio T. Carpio explained in protected freedom of expression of
his dissent in Romualdez v. the great masses that use it. In this
Commission on Elections,65 "we case, the particularly complex web
must view these statements of of interaction on social media
the Court on the inapplicability websites would give law enforcers
of the overbreadth and such latitude that they could
vagueness doctrines to penal arbitrarily or selectively enforce the
statutes as appropriate only law.
insofar as these doctrines are
used to mount ‘facial’ Section 5 with respect to Section
challenges to penal statutes not 4(c)(4) is unconstitutional. Its
involving free speech." vagueness raises apprehension on
the part of internet users because of
In an "as applied" challenge, the its obvious chilling effect on the
petitioner who claims a violation freedom of expression, especially
of his constitutional right can since the crime of aiding or abetting
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 88 of 123
ensnares all the actors in the Government for a redress of
cyberspace front in a fuzzy way .In grievances.
the absence of legislation tracing
the interaction of netizens and their While the Court has withheld the
level of responsibility such as in application of facial challenges to
other countries, Section 5, in strictly penal statues, it has
relation to Section 4(c)(4) on Libel, expanded its scope to cover statues
Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited not only regulating free speech, but
Commercial Communications, and also those involving religious
Section 4(c)(2) on Child freedom, and other fundamentals
Pornography, cannot stand scrutiny. rights. For unlike its counterpart in
the U.S., the Court, under its
But the crime of aiding or abetting expanded jurisdiction, is mandated
the commission of cybercrimes by the Fundamental Law not only to
under Section 5 should be permitted settle actual controversies involving
to apply to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal rights which are legally demandable
Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal and enforceable, but also to
Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data determine whether or not there has
Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on been a grave abuse of discretion
System Interference, Section 4(a)(5) amounting to lack or excess of
on Misuse of Devices, Section 4(a) jurisdiction on the part of any
(6) on Cyber-squatting, Section 4(b) branch or instrumentality of the
(1) on Computer-related Forgery, Government.”
Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related
Fraud, Section 4(b)(3) on Computer- FACTS: Despite calls to withhold
related Identity Theft, and Section support thereto, however, Republic
4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of these Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise
offenses borders on the exercise of known as the Responsible
the freedom of expression. Parenthood and Reproductive
Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was
IMBONG vs OCHOA enacted by Congress on December
21, 2012.
Doctrine: In relation to locus
standi, the "as applied challenge" Shortly after the President placed
embodies the rule that one can his imprimatur on the said law,
challenge the constitutionality of a challengers from various sectors of
statute only if he asserts a violation society came knocking on the doors
of his own rights. of the Court, beckoning it to wield
the sword that strikes down
The rule prohibits one from constitutional disobedience. Aware
challenging the constitutionality of of the profound and lasting impact
the statute grounded on a violation that its decision may produce, the
of the rights of third persons not Court now faces the controversy, as
before the court. This rule is also presented in fourteen petitions and
known as the prohibition against 2 petitions-in-intervention.
third-party standing.
A perusal of the foregoing petitions
The concept of expanded judicial shows that the petitioners are
review of the Supreme Court, the assailing the constitutionality of RH
facial challenge to the Law on the following grounds: The
constitutionality laws is no longer RH Law violates the right to life of
limited to laws which violate the the unborn, the right to health and
freedom of speech but applies to all the right to protection against
violations of fundamental rights hazardous products, and to religious
under the Bill of Rights. freedom, equal protection clause,
involuntary servitude, among
A facial challenge is one that is others.
launched to assail the validity of
statues concerning not only It is also argued that the RH Law
protected speech, but also all other providing for the formulation of
rights (in the First Amendment mandatory sex education in schools
[U.S.]) including religious freedom, should not be allowed as it is an
freedom of the press, and the rights affront to their religious beliefs.
of the people to peaceably
assemble, and to petition the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 89 of 123
The respondents, aside from one that is launched to assail the
traversing the substantive validity of statutes concerning not
arguments of the petitioners, pray only protected speech, but also all
for the dismissal of the petitions for other rights in the First Amendment.
the principal reasons that 1] there is These include religious freedom,
no actual case or controversy and, freedom of the press, and the right
therefore, the issues are not yet ripe of the people to peaceably
for judicial determination.; 2] some assemble, and to petition the
petitioners lack standing to question Government for a redress of
the RH Law; and 3] the petitions are grievances. After all, the
essentially petitions for declaratory fundamental right to religious
relief over which the Court has no freedom, freedom of the press and
original jurisdiction. peaceful assembly are but
component rights of the right to
The OSG submits that as an "as one's freedom of expression, as
applied challenge," it cannot they are modes which one's
prosper considering that the thoughts are externalized.
assailed law has yet to be enforced
and applied to the petitioners, and In this jurisdiction, the application of
that the government has yet to doctrines originating from the U.S.
distribute reproductive health has been generally maintained,
devices that are abortive. It claims albeit with some modifications.
that the RH Law cannot be While this Court has withheld the
challenged "on its face" as it is not a application of facial challenges to
speech-regulating measure. strictly penal statutes, it has
expanded its scope to cover
The petitioners, for their part, statutes not only regulating free
invariably invoke the speech, but also those involving
"transcendental importance" religious freedom, and other
doctrine and their status as citizens fundamental rights. The underlying
and taxpayers in establishing the reason for this modification is
requisite locus standi. simple. For unlike its counterpart in
the U.S., this Court, under its
ISSUE[S]: Whether or not the Court expanded jurisdiction, is mandated
may exercise its power of judicial by the Fundamental Law not only to
review over the controversy. settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable
RULING: Yes. Even if the and enforceable, but also to
constitutionality of the RH Law may determine whether or not there has
not be assailed through an "as- been a grave abuse of discretion
applied challenge, still, the Court amounting to lack or excess of
has time and again acted liberally jurisdiction on the part of any
on the locus standi requirement. It branch or instrumentality of the
has accorded certain individuals Government. Verily, the framers of
standing to sue, not otherwise Our Constitution envisioned a
directly injured or with material proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant
interest affected by a Government with its duty to maintain the
act, provided a constitutional issue supremacy of the Constitution.
of transcendental importance is Consequently, considering that the
invoked. The rule on locus standi is, foregoing petitions have seriously
after all, a procedural technicality alleged that the constitutional
which the Court has, on more than human rights to life, speech and
one occasion, waived or relaxed, religion and other fundamental
thus allowing non-traditional rights mentioned above have been
plaintiffs, such as concerned violated by the assailed legislation,
citizens, taxpayers, voters or the Court has authority to take
legislators, to sue in the public cognizance of these kindred
interest, albeit they may not have petitions and to determine if the RH
been directly injured by the Law can indeed pass constitutional
operation of a law or any other scrutiny. To dismiss these petitions
government act. on the simple expedient that there
exist no actual case or controversy,
In United States (US) constitutional would diminish this Court as a
law, a facial challenge, also known reactive branch of government,
as a First Amendment Challenge, is acting only when the Fundamental
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 90 of 123
Law has been transgressed, to the More specifically, petitioners posit
detriment of the Filipino people. that the Curfew Ordinances
encourage arbitrary and
Locus standi or legal standing is discriminatory enforcement as there
defined as a personal and are no clear provisions or detailed
substantial interest in a case such standards on how law enforcers
that the party has sustained or will should apprehend and properly
sustain direct injury as a result of determine the age of the alleged
the challenged governmental act. It curfew violators. They further argue
requires a personal stake in the that the law enforcer's apprehension
outcome of the controversy as to depends only on his physical
assure the concrete adverseness assessment, and, thus, subjective
which sharpens the presentation of and based only on the law
issues upon which the court so enforcer's visual assessment of the
largely depends for illumination of alleged curfew violator, although the
difficult constitutional questions. lists of exemptions do not cover the
range and breadth of legitimate
In relation to locus standi, the activities or reasons as to why
"as applied challenge" embodies minors would be out at night, and,
the rule that one can challenge hence, proscribe or impair the
the constitutionality of a statute legitimate activities of minors during
only if he asserts a violation of curfew hours.
his own rights. The rule
prohibits one from challenging ISSUE[S]: WON the curfew
the constitutionality of the ordinances is void for vagueness for
statute grounded on a violation containing insufficient enforcement
of the rights of third persons parameters, which leaves the
not before the court. This rule is enforcing authorities unbridled
also known as the prohibition discretion to carry out its provisions.
against third-party standing.
RULING: No. A statute or an act
SAMAHAN NG MGA suffers from the defect of vagueness
PROGESIBONG KABATAAN when it lacks comprehensible
(SPARK) vs QUEZON CITY standards that men of common
Doctrine: In overbreadth analysis, intelligence must necessarily guess
challenges are permitted to raise at its meaning and differ as to its
the rights of third parties; and the application. It is repugnant to the
court invalidates the entire statute Constitution in two respects:
"on its face," not merely "as applied
for" so that the overbroad law 1. It violates the due process
becomes unenforceable until a for failure to accord persons,
properly authorized court construes especially the parties
it more narrowly targeted by it, fair notice of
the conduct to avoid;
FACTS: President Duterte 2. It leaves law enforcers
implemented a nationwide curfew unbridled discretion in
for minors. Several LGUs carrying out its provisions
implemented curfew ordinances and becomes an arbitrary
through police operations known as flexing of the Government
Oplan Rody, including Manila, muscle.
Quezon City and Navotas, which are
the subject of this petition. The The petitioners only bewail the lack
Ordinances declared curfew on of enforcement parameters to guide
hours between 10 pm - 4 am for the local authorities in the proper
children below 18 years old. apprehension of suspected
Petitioners SPARK filed the petition offenders. They do not assert any
arguing among others that that the confusion as to what conduct the
Curfew Ordinances are subject ordinances prohibit or not
unconstitutional because they: x x x prohibit by only point to the
(b) Suffer from overbreadth by ordinances’ lack of enforcement
proscribing or impairing legitimate guidelines.
activities of minors during curfew
hours; Void for vagueness petition is
denied.

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 91 of 123
c) The constitutional question must "timber" should include "lumber" which is a
raised at the earliest opportunity "product or derivative after the timber is
Exceptions: cut.
• In criminal cases, the question can be On September 24, 1991, the lower
raised at any time at the discretion of court, issued an order quashing the
the court; information. It held that the distinction
• In civil cases, the question can be between "timber" and "lumber" is not
raised at any stage for the proceedings artificial nor a matter of semantics as the
if necessary for the determination of law itself distinguishes the two terms. Sec.
the case itself; and 3(q) of P.D. No. 705 classifies "timber" as a
• In every case, except when there is forest product while Sec. 3(aa) thereof
estoppel, it can be raised at any stage if considers "lumber" as a finished wood
it involves the jurisdiction of the court. product. Adding that unlicensed cutting,
gathering and/or collecting of "timber" is
d) The lis mota of the case/necessarily of penalized under Sec. 68 while sale of
deciding constitutional question "lumber" without compliance with grading
LALICAN vs VERGARA rules established by the government is
Doctrine: Even if all the requisites for prohibited by Sec. 79, the lower court
judicial review of a constitutional matter categorically stated that:
are present in a case, the Supreme Court
will not pass upon a constitutional question Logically, lumber, being a
unless it is the lis mota of the case or if the manufactured wood product, poses no
case can be disposed of on some other more danger to forest lands by being
grounds, such as the application of the cut, gathered, collected or removed. It
statute or general law. (Laurel vs Garcia is in fact, only bought and sold. Thus,
G.R. Nos. 92013 & 92047, July 25, 1990) Sec. 68 cannot be made to apply to
lumber.
FACTS: On July 23, 1991, an information
for illegal possession of "timber" as defined The court, however, refrained from
in Sec. 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 exploring the constitutional issues raised
(The Forestry Reform Code of the by petitioner upon a holding that the case
Philippines) as amended by Executive could be resolved on some other grounds
Order No. 277, was filed by the City or issues.
Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa City against
petitioners for having in their possession, The prosecution filed a motion for the
custody and control 1,800 board feet of reconsideration of this Order. It stressed
assorted species and dimensions of lumber that to consider a person who had made
on board two (2) passenger jeeps, with a lumber out of timber as not criminally liable
value of Fourteen Thousand Pesos is an absurd interpretation of the law.
(P14,000.00). Moreover, the prosecution underscored the
facts that when apprehended, the accused
On August 23, 1991, petitioner Lalican filed presented an expired Private Land Timber
a motion to quash the information on the Permit No. 030140 dated February 10,
ground that the facts charged did not 1991 and that the two jeeps bearing the
constitute an offense. Contending that Sec. product were not equipped with certificates
68 of P.D. No. 705 refers to "timber and of transport agreement. Added to this was
other forest products" and not to "lumber," the fact that, if the product were indeed
and asserting that "timber" becomes lumber, then the accused could have
"lumber" only after it is sawed into beams, presented a certificate of lumber origin,
planks or boards, petitioner alleged that lumber sale invoices in case of sale, tally
said decree "does not apply to 'lumber.'" sheets and delivery receipts for
He added that the law is "vague and transportation from one point to another.
standardless" as it does not specify the
authority or the legal documents required On June 10, 1992, the lower court issued
by existing forest laws and regulations. the herein questioned order setting aside
Hence, petitioner asserted that the the quashal Order of the previous judge. It
information should be quashed as it declared that from the law itself, it is
violated his constitutional rights to due evident that what is sought to be penalized
process and equal protection of the law. is not the possession, without the required
legal documents, of timber only but also of
The prosecution opposed the motion to "other forest products." It stated that even
quash on the ground that it is not for the if lumber is not timber, still, lumber is a
courts to determine the wisdom of the law forest product and possession thereof
nor to set out the policy of the legislature without legal documents is equally
which deemed it proper that the word
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 92 of 123
prohibited by the law which includes market," Simply put, lumber is
"wood" in the definition of forest products. a processed log or timber.

ISSUE[S]: It is settled that in the absence of

1. Whether Sec. 68 of P.D. No. 705 legislative intent to the contrary, words and
specifies or includes "lumber" in the phrases used in a statute should be given
phrase "timber or other forest their plain, ordinary, and common usage
products." meaning. And insofar as possession
2. Constitutionality of Sec. 68 of P.D. No. of timber without the required legal
705. documents is concerned, Section 68 of P.D.
No. 705, as amended, makes no distinction
RULING: between raw or processed timber. Neither
should we. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos
(1) The petition is devoid of merit. distinguere debemus.

Sec. 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended by To exclude possession of "lumber" from the
Executive Order No. 277 provides: acts penalized in Sec. 68 would certainly
emasculate the law itself. A law should not
Sec. 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or be so construed as to allow the doing of an
collecting Timber, or Other Forest act which is prohibited by law, nor so
Products Without License. — Any person interpreted as to afford an opportunity to
who shall cut, gather, collect, remove defeat compliance with its terms, create an
timber or other forest products from inconsistency, or contravene the plain
any forest land, or timber from words of the law. After all, the phrase
alienable or disposable public land, or "forest products" is broad enough to
from private land, without any encompass lumber which, to reiterate, is
authority, or possess timber or other manufactured timber. Hence, to mention
forest products without the legal lumber in Sec. 68 would merely result in
documents as required under existing tautology.
forest laws and regulations, shall be
punished with the penalties imposed Even should it be conceded that lumber is
under Articles 309 and 310 of the not timber and is thus not covered by the
Revised Penal Code xxxxx prohibition, still it cannot be denied that
lumber is a forest product and possession
In the recent case of Mustang, Lumber, thereof without legal documents is equally
Inc. v. Court of Appeals9 this Court, thru and, to the same extent, prohibited. Sec.
Justice Hilario Davide, held: 3(q) of PD 705 as amended or otherwise
known as the Revised Forestry Code
The Revised Forestry Code contains no defines forest products, viz., . . .
definition of either timber or lumber.
While the former is included in forest Stress must be given to the term WOOD
products as defined in paragraph (q) of embodied in the definition of forest product
Section 3, the latter is found in (supra). If we are to follow the rather
paragraph (aa) of the same section in tangential argument by the accused that
the definition of "Processing plant," lumber is not timber, then, it will be very
which reads: easy for a person to circumvent the law. He
could stealthily cut timber from any forest,
(aa) Processing plant is any have it sawn into lumber and escape
mechanical set-up, machine or criminal prosecution. It is rather too narrow
combination of machine used for the an interpretation. But the law also provided
processing of logs and other forest a plug for the loophole. If lumber is not
raw materials into lumber, veneer, timber, then surely, lumber is wood.
plywood, wallboard, blockboard,
paper board, pulp, paper or other (2) With respect to the constitutionality of
finished wood product. Sec. 68 of P.D. No. 705 which petitioner
would have this Court consider, this Court
This simply means that lumber is a has always desisted from delving on
processed log or processed forest raw constitutional issues. Thus, even if all the
material. Clearly, the Code uses the requisites for judicial review of a
term lumber in its ordinary or common constitutional matter are present in a
usage. In the 1993 copyright edition of case, this Court will not pass upon a
Webster's Third New International constitutional question unless it is
Dictionary, lumber is defined, inter alia, as the lis mota of the case or if the case
"timber or logs after being prepared for the can be disposed of on some other

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 93 of 123
grounds, such as the application of Government Code had indeed not been
the statute or general law. observed. (Petition originally dismissed by
the Court due to failure to submit certified
The Court can well take judicial notice of true copy of the decision, but reinstated it
the deplorable problem of deforestation in anyway).
this country, considering that the
deleterious effects of this problem are now ISSUE[S]: WON the lower court has the
imperiling our lives and properties, more jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality
specifically, by causing rampaging floods in of Section 187 of the LGC.
the lowlands. While it is true that the rights
of an accused must be favored in the RULING: Yes. BP 129 vests in the regional
interpretation of penal provisions of law, it trial court’s jurisdiction over all civil cases
is equally true that when the general in which the subject of the litigation is
welfare and interest of the people are incapable of pecuniary estimation.
interwoven in the prosecution of a crime, Moreover, Article X, Section 5(2), of the
the Court must arrive at a solution only Constitution vests in the Supreme Court
after a fair and just balancing of interests. appellate jurisdiction over final judgments
This the Court did in arriving at the and orders of lower courts in all cases in
foregoing interpretation of Sec. 68 of the which the constitutionality or validity of any
Revised Forestry Reform Code. This task, treaty, international or executive
however, has not at all been a difficult one agreement, law, presidential decree,
considering that, contrary to petitioner's proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance,
assertion, his rights to due process and or regulation is in question.
equal protection of the law have not been
clearly shown to have been jeopardized. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower
courts are advised to act with the utmost
DOCTRINE OF PURPOSEFUL circumspection, bearing in mind the
HESITATION consequences of a declaration of
DRILON vs LIM unconstitutionality upon the stability of
laws, no less than on the doctrine of
Doctrine: Doctrine of purposeful separation of powers.
hesitation. [The doctrine that charges every
court, including the Supreme Court,] with In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower
the duty of a purposeful hesitation before courts are advised to act with the utmost
declaring a law unconstitutional, on the circumspection, bearing in mind the
theory that the measure was first carefully consequences of a declaration of
studied by the executive and legislative unconstitutionality upon the stability of
departments and determined by them to laws, no less than on the doctrine of
be in accordance with the fundamental law separation of powers. As the questioned act
before it was finally approved. is usually the handiwork of the legislative
or the executive departments, or both, it
FACTS: The principal issue in this case is will be prudent for such courts, if only out
the constitutionality of Section 187 of the of a becoming modesty, to defer to the
Local Government Code. higher judgment of the Supreme Court in
the consideration of its validity, which is
The Secretary of Justice (on appeal to him better determined after a thorough
of four oil companies and taxpayer) deliberation by a collegiate body and with
declared Ordinance No. 7794 (Manila the concurrence of the majority of those
Revenue Code) null and void for non- who participated in its discussion.
compliance with the procedure in the
enactment of tax ordinances and for It is also emphasized that every court,
containing certain provisions contrary to including the Supreme Court, is
law and public policy. charged with the duty of a purposeful
hesitation before declaring a law
The RTC, however, revoked the Secretary’s unconstitutional, on the theory that
resolution and sustained the ordinance. It the measure was first carefully
declared Sec. 187 of the LGC as studied by the executive and the
unconstitutional because it vests on the legislative departments and
Secretary the power of control over LGUs in determined by them to be in
violation of the policy of local autonomy accordance with the fundamental law
mandated in the Constitution. The before it was finally approved. To doubt
Secretary argues that the annulled Section is to sustain, The presumption of the
187 is constitutional and that the constitutionality can be overcome only by
procedural requirements for the enactment the clearest showing that there was indeed
of tax ordinances as specified in the Local an infraction of the Constitution, and only
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 94 of 123
when such a conclusion is reached by the been passed. It is therefore stricken from
required majority may the Court the statute books and considered never to
pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it have existed at all. Not only the parties but
cannot escape, that the challenged act all persons are bound by the declaration of
must be struck down. unconstitutionality, which means that no
one may thereafter invoke it nor may the
DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT courts be permitted to apply it in
REPUBLIC vs CA subsequent cases. It is, in other words, a
Doctrine: total nullity.

FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines has The second or modern view is less
sought the expropriation of certain portions stringent. Under this view, the court in
of land owned by the private respondents passing upon the question of
for the widening and concreting of the constitutionality does not annul or repeal
Nabua-Bato-Agos Section, Philippine-Japan the statute if it finds it in conflict with the
Highway Loan (PJHL) road. While the right Constitution. It simply refuses to recognize
of the Republic is not now disputed, the it and determines the rights of the parties
private respondents, however, demand that just as if such statute had no existence.
the just compensation for the property The court may give its reasons for ignoring
should be based on fair market value and or disregarding the law, but the decision
not that set by Presidential Decree No. 76, affects the parties only and there is no
as amended, which fixes payment on the judgment against the statute. The opinion
basis of the assessment by the assessor or or reasons of the court may operate as a
the declared valuation by the owner, precedent for the determination of other
whichever is lower. The Regional, Trial similar cases, but it does not strike the
Court ruled for the private respondents. statute from the statute books; it does not
When elevated to it, the Court of Appeals repeal, supersede, revoke, or annul the
affirmed the trial court's decision. Hence, statute. The parties to the suit are
the instant petition by the Republic. concluded by the judgment, but no one
else is bound.
In Export Processing Zone Authority
("EPZA") vs. Dulay, etc. et al., this Court The orthodox view is expressed in Article 7
held the determination of just of the Civil Code, providing that "when the
compensation in eminent domain to be a courts declare a law to be inconsistent with
judicial function and it thereby declared the Constitution, the former shall be void
Presidential Decree No. 76, as well as and the latter shall govern. . . .
related decrees, including Presidential
Decree No. 1533, to the contrary extent, as The strict view considers a legislative
unconstitutional and as an impermissible enactment which is declared
encroachment of judicial prerogatives. The unconstitutional as being, for all legal
ruling, now conceded by the Republic was intents and purposes, a total nullity, and it
reiterated in subsequent is deemed as if had never existed. Here, of
course, we refer to the law itself being per
ISSUE[S]: WON the declaration of nullity of se repugnant to the Constitution. It is not
the law in question should have always the case, however, that a law is
prospective, not retroactive, application. constitutionally faulty per se. Thus, it may
well be valid in its general import, but
RULING: The Supreme Court ruled in favor invalid in its application to certain factual
of the private respondents. situations. To exemplify, an otherwise valid
law may be held unconstitutional only
Instruction is the brief treatise made by Mr. insofar as it is allowed to operate
Justice Isagani A. Cruz, whose words we retrospectively such as, in pertinent cases,
quote — when it vitiates contractually vested rights.
To that extent, its retroactive application
There are two views on the effects of a may be so declared invalid as impairing the
declaration of the unconstitutionality of a obligations of contracts.
statute.
A judicial declaration of invalidity, it is also
The first is the orthodox view. Under this true, may not necessarily obliterate all the
rule, as announced in Norton v. Shelby, an effects and consequences of a void act
unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers occurring prior to such a declaration. Thus,
no right; it imposes no duties; it affords no in our decisions on the moratorium
protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal laws, we have been constrained to
contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not recognize the interim effects of said laws
prior to their declaration of
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 95 of 123
unconstitutionality, but there we have Supreme Court and of other courts
likewise been unable to simply ignore established by law shall not be designated to
strong considerations of equity and fair any agency performing quasi-judicial or
play. So also, even as a practical matter, a administrative functions.
situation that may aptly be described
as fait accompli may no longer be open for Art. XI, Sec 2: The President, the Vice
further inquiry, let alone to be unsettled by President, the Members of the Supreme Court,
a subsequent declaration of nullity of a the Members of the Constitutional
governing statute. Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be
removed from office, on impeachment for,
The instant controversy, however, is too far conviction of, culpable violations of the
distant away from any of the above Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
exceptional cases. To this day, the corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
controversy between the petitioner and the public trust. All other public officers and
private respondents on the issue of just employees may be removed from office as
compensation is still unresolved, partly provided by law, but not by impeachment.
attributable to the instant petition that has
prevented the finality of the decision Art. VIII Secs 10, 11 (2nd sentence), 5 (3,
appealed from. The fact of the matter is 5, and 6): [10] The Salary of Chief Justice
that the expropriation cases, involved in and the Associate Justices of the Supreme
this instance, were still pending appeal Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be
when the EPZA ruling was rendered and fixed by law. During their continuance in
forthwith invoked by said parties. office, salary shall not be decreased. [11, 2nd
sentence] x x x The Supreme Court en banc
In fine, we hold that the appellate court in shall have the power to discipline judges of
this particular case committed no error in lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote
its appealed decision. of majority of the Members who actually took
part in the deliberations on the issues in the
2. Safeguard of judicial independence case and voted thereon. x x x, The Supreme
A. Constitutional safeguards: Art. VI, Sec Court shall have the following powers [5: 3]
30: No law shall be passed increasing the Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as other stations as public interest may require.
provided in this Constitution without its advice Such temporary assignment shall not exceed
and concurrence. 6 months without the consent of the judge
concerned. [5:5] Promulgate rules concerning
Art. VIII, Sec 2: The Congress shall the the protection and enforcement for
power to define, prescribe, and apportion the constitutional rights, pleadings, practice, and
jurisdiction of various courts by may not procedure in all courts, the admission to the
deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
Art. VIII, Sec 3, and 4(1): [3] The Judiciary procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for shall be uniform for all courts of the same
the Judiciary may not be reduced by the grade, and shall not diminish, increase,
legislature below the amount appropriated for modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure
the previous year and, after approval, shall be of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
automatically and regularly released. 4[1]: shall remain effective unless disapproved by
The Supreme Court shall be composed of a the Supreme Court. [5:6] Appoint all officials
Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. and employees of the Judiciary in accordance
It may sit en banc, or in its discretion, in with the Civil Service Law. [6] The Supreme
divisions of three, five, seven Members. Any Court shall have administrative supervision
vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the over all courts and the personnel thereof.
occurrence thereof.
CASE TITLE: RE: COA OPINION ON THE
Art. VIII, Sec 9 (last sentence of 1 st par): COMPUTATION OF THE APPRAISED
x x x Such appointments need no VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED
confirmation. x x x BY THE RETIRED CHIEF/ASSOCIATE
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT. A.M.
Art. VIII, Sec 11 (1st sentence) and 12: NO. 11-7-10-SC JULY 31, 2012
[11, 1st sentence] The Members of the
Supreme Court and judges of lower courts FACTS: In June 8, 2010, the Legal Services
shall hold office during good behavior until Sector, Office of the General Counsel of the
they reached the age of 70 years or become Commission on Audit (COA) issued an opinion
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their which found that an underpayment amounting
office. x x x [12] The Members of the to P221,021.50 resulted when five (5) retired
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 96 of 123
Supreme Court justices purchased from the independence "refers to a judge’s ability to
Supreme Court the personal properties render decisions free from political or popular
assigned to them during their incumbency in influence based solely on the individual facts
the Court. The COA attributed this and applicable law." On the other hand,
underpayment to the use by the Property institutional independence "describes the
Division of the Supreme Court of the wrong separation of the judicial branch from the
formula in computing the appraisal value of executive and legislative branches of
the purchased vehicles. government."

The COA avers that the court should have One of the most important aspects of judicial
applied the formula found in COA independence is the constitutional grant of
Memorandum No. 98-569-A dated August 5, fiscal autonomy. While, as a general
1998. Instead of applying Constitutional Fiscal proposition, the authority of legislatures to
Autonomy Group (CFAG) Joint Resolution No. control the purse in the first instance is
35 dated April 23, 1997 and its guidelines, in unquestioned, any form of interference by the
compliance with the Resolution of the Court Legislative or the Executive on the Judiciary’s
En Banc dated March 23, 2004 in A.M. No. 03- fiscal autonomy amounts to an improper
12-01. check on a co-equal branch of government. If
the judicial branch is to perform its primary
In her Memorandum dated August 10, 2010, function of adjudication, it must be able to
Atty. Candelaria, from the Office of command adequate resources for that
Administrative Services, recommended that purpose.
the Court advise the COA to respect the in-
house computation based on the CFAG The use of the formula provided in CFAG Joint
formula, noting that this was the first time Resolution No. 35 is a part of the Court’s
that the COA questioned the authority of the exercise of its discretionary authority to
Court in using CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35 determine the manner the granted retirement
and its guidelines in the appraisal and privileges and benefits can be availed of. Any
disposal of government property since these kind of interference on how these retirement
were issued in 1997. privileges and benefits are exercised and
availed of, not only violates the fiscal
The court contended that full autonomy, autonomy and independence of the Judiciary,
among others, contemplates the guarantee of but also encroaches upon the constitutional
full flexibility in the allocation and utilization duty and privilege of the Chief Justice and the
of the Judiciary’s resources, based on its own Supreme Court En Banc to manage the
determination of what it needs. The Court Judiciary’s own affairs.
thus has the recognized authority to allocate
and disburse such sums as may be provided IN RE FIRST ENDORSEMENT FROM
or required by law in the course of the HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ DATED
discharge of its functions. To allow the COA to 16 MARCH 1988 REQUESTING
substitute the Court’s policy in the disposal of HONORABLE JUSTICE MARCELO B.
its property would be tantamount to an FERNAN TO COMMENT ON AN
encroachment into this judicial prerogative. ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT.

ISSUE[S]: Whether or not the opinion of the Doctrine: A Member of the Supreme Court
COA violates the fiscal autonomy and must first be removed from office via the
independence of the Judiciary? constitutional route of impeachment under
Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of the 1987
RULING: Yes, the opinion of the COA violates Constitution. Should the tenure of the
the fiscal autonomy and independence of the Supreme Court Justice be thus terminated by
Judiciary. impeachment, he may then be held to answer
either criminally or administratively (by
The COA's authority to conduct post-audit disbarment proceedings) for any wrong or
examinations on constitutional bodies granted misbehavior that may be proven against him
fiscal autonomy is provided under Section in appropriate proceedings.
2(1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution.
This authority, however, must be read not FACTS: The Court considered the 1st
only in light of the Court's fiscal autonomy, Indorsement dated 16 March 1988 from Mr.
but also in relation with the constitutional Raul M. Gonzalez, "Tanodbayan/ Special;
provisions on judicial independence and the Prosecutor" forwarding to Mr. Justice Marcelo
existing jurisprudence and Court rulings on B. Fernan a "letter-complaint, dated 14
these matters. December 1987 with enclosure of the
Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court,"
Judicial independence can be "broken down together with a telegram of Miguel Cuenco,
into two distinct concepts: Decisional for "comment within ten (10) days from
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 97 of 123
receipt hereof." Mr. Justice Fernan had holding his office with an office that carries
brought this 1st Indorsement to the attention the penalty of removal from office, would be
of the Court en banc in view of the important violative of the clear mandate of the
implications of policy raised by said 1st Constitution.
Indorsement.
The effect of impeachment is limited to the
Gonzales was the Tanodbayan or Special loss of position and disqualification to hold
Prosecutor. He forwarded to Mr. Justice any office of honor, trust or profit under the
Marcelo B. Fernan a letter-complaint. The Republic. Judgment in cases of impeachment
letter was said to be from concerned shall not extend further than removal from
employees of the SC (an anonymous letter). office and disqualification to hold any office.
But the party convicted shall nevertheless be
The letter was originally addressed to held liable and subject to prosecution, trial
Gonzales referring to the charges for and punishment according to law.
disbarment sought by Mr. Miguel Cuenco
against Justice Fernan, and asking him The court is not saying that its Members or
(Gonzales) to do something about it. other constitutional officers are entitled to
immunity from liability for possibly criminal
The Court furnished to Mr. Raul M. Gonzales a acts or for alleged violation of the Canons of
copy of the per curiam Resolution in which, Judicial Ethics or other supposed misbehavior.
the Court Resolved to dismiss the charges What the court is saying is that there is a
made by Cuenco against Mr.Justice Fernan for fundamental procedural requirement that
utter lack of merit. In the same Resolution, must be observed before such liability may be
the Court Resolved to require complainant determined and enforced. A member of the
Cuenco to show cause why he should not be Supreme Court must first be removed
administratively dealt with for making from office, via the constitutional route
unfounded serious accusations against Mr. of impeachment, and then only may he
Justice Fernan. Upon request of Mr. Cueco, the be held liable either criminally or
Court had granted him an extension of up to administratively (that is, disbarment),
30 March 1988, Mr. Cuenco filed a pleading for any wrong or misbehavior that may
which appears to be an omnibus pleading be proven against him in appropriate
relating to, inter alia, Administrative Case No. proceedings.
3135. Insofar as Administrative Case No. 3135
is concerned, the Court treated this pleading The above rule rests on the fundamental
as a Motion for Reconsideration. By a per principles of judicial independence and
curiam Resolution dated 15 April 1988, the separation of powers. The rule is important
Court denied with finality Mr Cuenco's Motion because judicial independence is important.
for Reconsideration. Without the protection of this rule, Members
of the Supreme Court would be brought
ISSUE[S]: Whether or not a Supreme Court against them by unsuccessful litigants or their
justice can be disbarred during his term of lawyers or by other parties who, for any
office. number of reasons might seek to affect the
exercise of judicial authority by the Court.
RULING: A public officer (such as Justice
Fernan) who under the Constitution is MACEDA vs OMBUDSMAN VASQUEZ
required to be a Member of the Philippine Bar Doctrine: Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987
as a qualification for the office held by him Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme
and who may be removed from office only by Court administrative supervision over all
impeachment, cannot be charged with courts and court personnel, from the Presiding
disbarment during the incumbency of such Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the
public officer. Further, such public officer, lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of
during his incumbency, cannot be charged this power, it is only the Supreme Court that
criminally before the Sandiganbayan, or any can oversee the judges' and court personnel's
other court, with any offense which carries compliance with all laws, and take the proper
with it the penalty of removal from office. administrative action against them if they
commit any violation thereof. No other branch
Another reason why the complaint for of government may intrude into this power,
disbarment should be dismissed is without running afoul of the doctrine of
because under the Constitution, separation of powers.
members of the SC may be removed only
by impeachment. The above provision FACTS: Respondent Atty. Napoleon A. Abiera
proscribes removal from office by any other of the PAO, in his complaint-affidavit filed
method. Otherwise, to allow such public before the Office of the Ombudsman, alleged
officer who may be removed solely by that petitioner Bonifacio Maceda, Presiding
impeachment to be charged criminally while Judge of Branch 12 of the RTC of Antique, had
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 98 of 123
falsified his Certificate of Service 1 dated the Court of Appeals down to the lowest
February 6, 1989, by certifying "that all civil municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this
and criminal cases which have been power, it is only the Supreme Court that can
submitted for decision or determination for a oversee the judges' and court personnel's
period of 90 days have been determined and compliance with all laws, and take the proper
decided on or before January 31, 1998," when administrative action against them if they
in truth and in fact, petitioner knew that no commit any violation thereof. No other branch
decision had been rendered in five (5) civil of government may intrude into this power,
and ten (10) criminal cases that have been without running afoul of the doctrine of
submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera separation of powers.
further alleged that petitioner similarly
falsified his certificates of service for the The Ombudsman cannot justify its
months of February, April, May, June, July and investigation of petitioner on the powers
August, all in 1989; and the months beginning granted to it by the Constitution, for such a
January up to September 1990, or for a total justification not only runs counter to the
of seventeen (17) months. specific mandate of the Constitution granting
supervisory powers to the Supreme Court
Petitioner filed an ex-parte motion to refer the over all courts and their personnel, but
case to the Supreme Court, which was denied likewise undermines the independence of the
by the Ombudsman. His motion for judiciary.
reconsideration was likewise denied, and was
instead ordered to file his counter-affidavit Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer the
and controverting evidences. Hence, this matter of petitioner's certificates of service to
petition for certiorari with prayer for this Court for determination of whether said
preliminary mandatory injunction and/or certificates reflected the true status of his
temporary restraining order. pending case load, as the Court has the
necessary records to make such a
Petitioner contends that he had been granted determination. The Ombudsman cannot
by the Supreme Court an extension of 90 days compel this Court, as one of the three
to decide the aforementioned cases. He branches of government, to submit its
likewise contends that the Ombudsman has records, or to allow its personnel to testify on
no jurisdiction over the case despite this this matter, as suggested by public
Court's ruling in Orap vs. Sandiganbayan, respondent Abiera in his affidavit-complaint.
since the offense charged arose from the
judge's performance of his official duties, The rationale for the foregoing
which is under the control and supervision of pronouncement is evident in this case.
the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Administratively, the question before the
investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes Court is this: should a judge, having been
an encroachment into the Supreme Court's granted by this Court an extension of time to
constitutional duty of supervision over all decide cases before him, report these cases in
inferior courts. his certificate of service? As this question had
not yet been raised with, much less resolved
ISSUE[S]: Whether the Office of the by this Court, how could the Ombudsman
Ombudsman could entertain a criminal resolve the present criminal complaint that
complaint for the alleged falsification of a requires the resolution of said question?
judge’s certification submitted to the Supreme
Court, and assuming it can, whether a referral In fine, where a criminal complaint against a
should be made first to the Supreme Court. Judge or other court employee arises from
their administrative duties, the Ombudsman
RULING: No. must defer action on said complaint and refer
the same to this Court for determination
The Court, however, agreed that in the whether said Judge or court employee had
absence of any administrative action taken acted within the scope of their administrative
against him by this Court with regard to his duties.
certificates of service, the investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches DE VERA vs JUDGE PELAYO
into the Court's power of administrative Doctrine: No other entity or official of the
supervision over all courts and its personnel, Government, not the prosecution or
in violation of the doctrine of separation of investigation service of any other branch, not
powers. any functionary thereof, has competence to
review a judicial order or decision -- whether
Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution final and executory or not -- and pronounce it
exclusively vests in the Supreme Court erroneous so as to lay the basis for a criminal
administrative supervision over all courts and or administrative complaint for rendering an
court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 99 of 123
unjust judgment or order. That prerogative declaration" that the decision or order in
belongs to the courts alone. question is indeed "unjust." The
pronouncement may result from either:
FACTS: Petitioner is not a member of the bar,
possessing some awareness of legal principles a. An action for certiorari or prohibition in a
and procedures, and he represented himself higher court impugning the validity of the
in this petition. judgment or
b. An administrative proceeding in the
In August 1996. Petitioner instituted with the Supreme Court against the judge precisely
RTC Pasig City (the public respondent held the for promulgating an unjust judgment or
case filed) a special civil action for certiorari, order.
prohibition and mandamus to enjoin the
municipal trial court from proceeding with the Likewise, the determination of whether a
complaint for ejectment against the herein judge has maliciously delayed the disposition
petitioner. of the case is also an exclusive judicial
function.
In July 1998, the trial court denied the
petitioner’s application for a temporary "To repeat, no other entity or official of the
restraining order. His MR was denied. Government, not the prosecution or
investigation service of any other branch, not
In September 1998, the petitioner filed with any functionary thereof, has competence to
Office of the Ombudsman an affidavit- review a judicial order or decision -- whether
complaint against herein public respondent, final and executory or not -- and pronounce it
accusing him of violating Articles 206 and 207 erroneous so as to lay the basis for a criminal
of the RPC and RA3019. or administrative complaint for rendering an
unjust judgment or order. That prerogative
In October 1998, Associate Graft Investigation belongs to the courts alone”.
Officer submitted an Evaluation Report
recommending referral of petitioner’s AMPONG vs CSC
complaint to the Supreme Court. The Doctrine: The Constitution provides that the
Assistant Ombudsman approved the said Supreme Court is given exclusive
recommendation but the case was referred to administrative supervision over all courts and
the Supreme Court, and the case was judicial personnel. xxx xxx xxx The bottom
terminated and closed insofar as the line is administrative jurisdiction over a court
Ombudsman office is concerned. employee belongs to the Supreme Court,
regardless of whether the offense was
The petitioner moved for the reconsideration committed before or after employment in the
of the Evaluation Report, but was denied. judiciary.
Petitioner contends that since his complaint
involved a criminal charge against the FACTS: While working as a public-school
respondent judge, it was within the authority teacher in Saranggani Province, Sarah
of the Ombudsman and not the Supreme Ampong was persuaded by her first cousin to
Court to resolve whether a crime was impersonate the latter’s wife and take the
committed and the judge prosecuted therefor. 1991 professional board examination for
Hence, this petition. teachers. Compelled by strong sense of family
ties, she took the said examination as Evelyn
ISSUE[S]: WON the Ombudsman has Decir, her cousin’s wife. Two years later,
jurisdiction to entertain criminal charges filed Ampong was appointed as Interpreter III in
against a judge of the regional trial court in RTC Alabel and Decir worked as a public-
connection with his handling of cases before school teacher. In 1994, Civil Service Regional
the court. Office – Davao City found out that it was
Ampong who took and passed the PBET exam
RULING: No. The Ombudsman did not and not Decir. After finding an existence of
exercise his power in an arbitrary or despotic prima facie case against Decir and Ampong
manner by reason of passion, prejudice or during the preliminary investigation, CSRO
personal hostility when it referred the case to formally charged them. Decir, in her answer,
the Supreme Court. denied the charges against her. However,
Ampong voluntarily appeared before the
The issues have been settled in the case of In CSRO and admitted her wrongdoing. She also
Re: Joaquin Borromeo. There, the SC laid voluntarily waived her rights to avail the
down the rule that before a civil or criminal service of a legal counsel even if she was
action against a judge for a violation of Art. reminded to exercise her right.
204 and 205 (knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment or order) can be entertained, there CSC found them guilty of dishonesty,
must first be "a final and authoritative judicial dismissing them in their service. Ampong
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 100 of 123
moved for reconsideration, arguing that CSC admitted to the offense charged that she
lost jurisdiction over her due to her impersonated Decir and took the PBET exam
appointment as a court interpreter and thus, it in the latter’s place. The Court also held that
was the Supreme Court who has the exclusive while a party’s right to the assistance of
authority to discipline her. CSC denied her counsel is sacred in proceedings criminal in
motion for reconsideration, stating that it nature, there is no such requirement in
could not allow mockery on the country’s administrative proceedings. Emphasizing on
administrative disciplinary system. She, then, the non-tolerance of dishonesty in the
filed a petition for review under Rule 43 Judiciary, the Court pointed out being a
before the CA. However, said court dismissed judicial employee was not a hindrance for
the petition for lack of merit, declaring that Ampong to get the penalty she deserved and
Ampong was estopped from assailing the that had the Court been aware of her
jurisdiction of CSC and that a member of the dishonesty, she would not been appointed as
judiciary may be under the jurisdiction of two a court interpreter.
different bodies. Hence, the instant petition.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition for lack
ISSUE[S]: Whether the CSC has of merit.
administrative jurisdiction over an employee
of the Judiciary for acts committed while said CONCHITA MORALES vs JEJOMAR BINAY
employee was still with the Executive or Doctrine: The breach of Congress in
Education Department prohibiting provisional injunctions, such as in
the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770,
RULING: The Court held that CSC has no does not only undermine the constitutional
administrative jurisdiction but ruled against allocation of powers; it also practically dilutes
the petition by reason on the ground of a court’s ability to carry out its functions. This
estoppel. is so since a particular case can easily be
mooted by supervening events if no
While the CSC has the administrative provisional injunctive relief is extended while
jurisdiction over civil service, including the court is hearing the same.
irregularity and anomaly with examinations;
however, the Constitution provides that the FACTS: A complaint affidavit was filed before
Supreme Court is given exclusive the Office of the Ombudsman against Binay,
administrative supervision over all courts and Jr. and other public officers and employees of
judicial personnel. By virtue of this power, it is the City Government of Makati accusing them
only the Supreme Court that can oversee the of Plunder and violation of The Anti-Graft and
judges and court personnel’s compliance with Corrupt Practices Act," in connection with the
all laws, rules and regulations. It may take the five (5) phases of the procurement and
proper administrative action against them if construction of the Makati City Hall Parking
they commit any violation. No other branch of Building.
government may intrude into this power,
without running afoul of the doctrine of Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and
separation of powers. prohibition filed by Conchita Carpio Morales,
in her capacity as the Ombudsman, assailing
After citing similar cases and comparing them the Resolution dated March 16, 2015 of CA
to Ampong (NOTE: In those cases, the judicial which granted Binay, Jr.'s prayer for the
employee committed dishonesty after their issuance of TRO against the implementation
appointment in the judiciary, Ampong of the Joint Order preventively suspending him
committed the act before her appointment), and several other public officers and
the Court ruled that the bottom line is employees of the City Government of Makati,
administrative jurisdiction over a court for 6 months without pay.
employee belongs to the Supreme Court,
regardless of whether the offense was The Ombudsman’s argument against the CA’s
committed before or after employment in the lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the
judiciary. The Court added that the standard main petition, and her corollary prayer for its
procedure is for the CSC to bring its complaint dismissal, is based on her interpretation of
against a judicial employee before Section 14, RA 6770, or the Ombudsman Act,
the OCA. Records show that the CSC did not which reads in full:
adhere to this procedure in the present case.
Section 14. Restrictions. – No writ of
However, the Court was constrained to uphold injunction shall be issued by any court to
the ruling of the CSC based on the principle delay an investigation being conducted by
of estoppel. The Court ruled that Ampong was the Ombudsman under this Act, unless
estopped from attacking CSC’s jurisdiction there is a prima facie evidence that the
since apart from her full participation in the subject matter of the investigation is
proceedings before the CSC, petitioner
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 101 of 123
outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the paragraph of Section 27, RA 6770- attempts
Ombudsman. to effectively increase the Supreme Court’s
appellate jurisdiction without its advice and
No court shall hear any appeal or concurrence, it is therefore concluded that the
application for remedy against the former provision is also unconstitutional and
decision or findings of the Ombudsman, perforce, invalid. Contrary to the
except the Supreme Court, on pure Ombudsman’s posturing, Fabian should
question of law. squarely apply since the above-stated
Ombudsman Act provisions are in part
The Ombudsman’s maintains that the first materia in that they “cover the same specific
paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 textually or particular subject matter,” that is, the
prohibits courts from extending provisional manner of judicial review over issuances of
injunctive relief to delay any investigation the Ombudsman.
conducted by her office. Despite the usage of
the general phrase “[n]o writ of injunction
The concept of Ombudsman
shall be issued by any court,” the
independence.
Ombudsman herself concedes that the
prohibition does not cover the Supreme Court.
Section 5, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution
guarantees the independence of the Office of
ISSUE[S]: WON the first and second
the Ombudsman:
paragraphs of Sec. 14 of R.A. No. 6770 are
unconstitutional and violative of the principle
Section 5. There is hereby created the
of judicial independence?
independent Office of the Ombudsman,
composed of the Ombudsman to be known as
RULING: The first paragraph is declared
Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least
INEFFECTIVE until the Court adopts the same
one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas[,] and
as part of the rules of procedure through an
Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military
administrative circular duly issued; The
establishment may likewise be appointed.
second paragraph is declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INVALID.
With the advent of the 1987 Constitution, a
new Office of the Ombudsman was created by
The Court rules that when Congress passed
constitutional fiat. Unlike in the 1973
the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770
Constitution, its independence was expressly
and, in so doing, took away from the courts
and constitutionally guaranteed. Its objectives
their power to issue a TRO and/or WPI to
are to enforce the state policy in Section 27,
enjoin an investigation conducted by the
Article II and the standard of accountability in
Ombudsman, it encroached upon this Court’s
public service under Section 1, Article XI of
constitutional rule-making authority. Through
the 1987 Constitution. These provisions read:
this provision, Congress interfered with a
provisional remedy that was created by this
Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty
Court under its duly promulgated rules of
and integrity in the public service and take
procedure, which utility is both integral and
positive and effective measures against graft
inherent to every court’s exercise of judicial
and corruption.
power. Without the Court’s consent to the
proscription, as may be manifested by an
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public
adoption of the same as part of the rules of
officers and employees must, at all times, be
procedure through an administrative circular
accountable to the people, serve them with
issued therefor, there thus, stands to be a
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
violation of the separation of powers principle.
efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and
lead modest lives.
In addition, it should be pointed out that the
breach of Congress in prohibiting provisional
More significantly, Gonzales III explained the
injunctions, such as in the first paragraph of
broad scope of the office's mandate, and in
Section 14, RA 6770, does not only undermine
correlation, the impetus behind its
the constitutional allocation of powers; it also
independence:
practically dilutes a court’s ability to carry out
its functions. This is so since a particular case
Under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987
can easily be mooted by supervening events if
Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman is
no provisional injunctive relief is extended
envisioned to be the "protector of the people"
while the court is hearing the same.
against the inept, abusive, and corrupt in the
Government, to function essentially as a
Since the second paragraph of Section 14, RA
complaints and action bureau. This
6770 limits the remedy against “decision or
constitutional vision of a Philippine
findings” of the Ombudsman to a Rule 45
Ombudsman practically intends to make the
appeal and thus – similar to the fourth
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 102 of 123
Ombudsman an authority to directly check autonomy. In general terms, the framers of
and guard against the ills, abuses and the Constitution intended that these
excesses , of the bureaucracy. Pursuant to 'independent' bodies be insulated from
Section 13 (8), Article XI of the 1987 political pressure to the extent that the
Constitution, Congress enacted RA No. 6770 absence of 'independence' would result in the
to enable it to further realize the vision of the impairment of their core functions"
Constitution. Section 21 of RA No. 6770
provides: (2) "[T]he Judiciary, the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have
Section 21. Official Subject to Disciplinary the independence and flexibility needed in the
Authority; Exceptions. - The Office of the discharge of their constitutional duties. The
Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority imposition of restrictions and constraints on
over all elective and appointive officials of the the manner the independent constitutional
Government and its subdivisions, offices allocate and utilize the funds
instrumentalities, and agencies, including appropriated for their operations is anathema
Members of the Cabinet, local government, to fiscal autonomy and violative not only [of]
government-owned or controlled corporations the express mandate of the Constitution, but
and their subsidiaries, except over officials especially as regards the Supreme Court, of
who may be removed only by impeachment or the independence and separation of powers
over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary. upon which the entire fabric of our
constitutional system is based";164 and
As the Ombudsman is expected to be an
"activist watchman," the Court has upheld its (3) "[T]he constitutional deliberations explain
actions, although not squarely falling under the Constitutional Commissions' need for
the broad powers granted [to] it by the independence. In the deliberations of the
Constitution and by RA No. 6770, if these 1973 Constitution, the delegates amended the
actions are reasonably in line with its official 1935 Constitution by providing for a
function and consistent with the law and the constitutionally-created Civil Service
Constitution. Commission, instead of one created by law,
on the premise that the effectivity of this body
The Ombudsman's broad investigative and is dependent on its freedom from the
disciplinary powers include all acts of tentacles of politics. In a similar manner, the
malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the
of all public officials, including Members of the Commission on Audit highlighted the
Cabinet and key Executive officers, during developments in the past Constitutions
their tenure. To support these broad powers, geared towards insulating the Commission on
the Constitution saw it fit to insulate the Office Audit from political pressure."165
of the Ombudsman from the pressures and
influence of officialdom and partisan politics At bottom, the decisive ruling in Gonzales III,
and from fear of external reprisal by making it however, was that the independence of the
an "independent" office, x x x. Office of the Ombudsman, as well as that of
the foregoing independent bodies, meant
xxxx freedom from control or supervision of the
Executive Department:
Given the scope of its disciplinary authority,
the Office of the Ombudsman is a very [T]he independent constitutional commissions
powerful government constitutional agency have been consistently intended by the
that is considered "a notch above other framers to be independent from executive
grievance-handling investigative bodies." It control or supervision or any form of political
has powers, both constitutional and statutory, influence. At least insofar as these bodies are
that are commensurate, with its daunting task concerned, jurisprudence is not scarce on how
of enforcing accountability of public officers. the "independence" granted to these bodies
prevents presidential interference.
Gonzales III is the first case which grappled
with the meaning of the Ombudsman's In Brillantes, Jr. v. Yorac (G.R. No. 93867,
independence vis-a-vis the independence of December 18, 1990, 192 SCRA 358), we
the other constitutional bodies. Pertinently, emphasized that the Constitutional
the Court observed: Commissions, which have been characterized
under the Constitution as "independent," are
(1) "[T]he independence enjoyed by the Office not under the control of the President, even if
of the Ombudsman and by the Constitutional they discharge functions that are executive in
Commissions shares certain characteristics - nature. The Court declared as unconstitutional
they do not owe their existence to any act of the President's act of temporarily appointing
Congress, but are created by the Constitution the respondent in that case as Acting
itself; additionally, they all enjoy fiscal
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 103 of 123
Chairman of the [Commission on Elections]
"however well-meaning" it might have been. Evidently, all three aspects of independence
intend to protect the Office of the
In Bautista v. Senator Salonga (254 Phil. 156, Ombudsman from political harassment and
179 [1989]), the Court categorically stated pressure, so as to free it from the "insidious
that the tenure of the commissioners of the tentacles of politics."
independent Commission on Human Rights
could not be placed under the discretionary That being the case, the concept of
power of the President. Ombudsman independence cannot be invoked
as basis to insulate the Ombudsman from
xxxx judicial power constitutionally vested unto the
courts. Courts are apolitical bodies, which are
The kind of independence enjoyed by the ordained to act as impartial tribunals and
Office of the Ombudsman certainly cannot be apply even justice to all. Hence, the
inferior - but is similar in degree and kind - to Ombudsman's notion that it can be exempt
the independence similarly guaranteed by the from an incident of judicial power - that is, a
Constitution to the Constitutional provisional writ of injunction against a
Commissions since all these offices fill the preventive suspension order - clearly strays
political interstices of a republican democracy from the concept's rationale of insulating the
that are crucial to its existence and proper office from political harassment or pressure.
functioning.
ESTIPONA vs LOBRIGO
Thus, in Gonzales III, the Court declared Doctrine: While the power to define,
Section 8 (2), RA 6770, which provides that prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
"[a] Deputy or the Special Prosecutor, may be various courts is, by constitutional design,
removed from office by the President for any vested unto Congress, the power to
of the grounds provided for the removal of the promulgate rules concerning the protection
Ombudsman, and after due process," partially and enforcement of constitutional rights,
unconstitutional insofar as it subjected the pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts
Deputy Ombudsman to the disciplinary belongs exclusively to this Court.
authority of the President for violating the
principle of independence. Meanwhile, the FACTS: Challenged in this petition for
validity of Section 8 (2), RA 6770 was certiorari and prohibition is the
maintained insofar as the Office of the Special constitutionality of Section 23 of RA No. 9165,
Prosecutor was concerned since said office or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
was not considered to be constitutionally of 2002”, which provides:
within the Office of the Ombudsman and is,
hence, not entitled to the independence the SEC 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision.- Any
latter enjoys under the Constitution. person charged under any provision of this
Act regardless of the imposable penalty
As may be deduced from the various shall not be allowed to avail of the
discourses in Gonzales III, the concept of provision on plea-bargaining.
Ombudsman's independence covers three (3)
things: Petitioner Estipona is accused for Possession
of Dangerous Drugs (0.084 grams of
First: creation by the Constitution, which Methamphetamine Hydrocloride or Shabu)
means that the office cannot be abolished, penalized under RA No. 9165. On June 15,
nor its constitutionally specified functions and 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the
privileges, be removed, altered, or modified Accused to Enter into a Plea-Bargaining
by law, unless the Constitution itself allows, or Agreement, praying to withdraw his not
an amendment thereto is made; guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea of
guilty on lower offense of Possession of
Second: fiscal autonomy, which means that Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
the office "may not be obstructed from [its] Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs with a
freedom to use or dispose of [its] funds for penalty of rehabilitation. He argued that
purposes germane to [its] Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates: (1)
functions;168hence, its budget cannot be the intent of the law expressed in paragraph
strategically decreased by officials of the 3, Section 2 thereof; (2) the rule-making
political branches of government so as to authority of the Supreme Court under
impair said functions; and Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution; and (3) the principle of
Third: insulation from executive supervision separation of powers among the three equal
and control, which means that those within branches of the government. Respondent RTC
the ranks of the office can only be disciplined Judge denied his Motion.
by an internal authority.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 104 of 123
ISSUE[S]: Whether or not Section 23 of RA Doctrine:
No. 9165 is unconstitutional as it encroached
upon the power of the Supreme Court to FACTS: This resolves the complaint of
promulgate rules of procedure? Baguan M. Mamiscal (Mamiscal) against
respondent Macalinog S. Abdullah (Abdullah),
RULING: Yes! Section 23 of Republic Act No. Clerk of Court, Shari'a Circuit Court, Marawi
9165 is declared unconstitutional for being City, for partiality, violation of due process,
contrary to the rule-making authority of the dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a
SC under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 court employee.
Constitution which explicitly provides:
In his complaint, Mamiscal averred that on
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the September 26, 2010, he and his wife,
following powers: Adelaidah Lomondot (Adelaidah) had a heated
argument. In a fit of anger, Mamiscal decided
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the to divorce his wife by repudiating her
protection and enforcement of constitutional (talaq). The repudiation was embodied in an
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all agreement (kapasadan) signed by Mamiscal
courts, Xxx and Adelaidah.

The power to promulgate rules of pleading, The next day, Adelaidah left their conjugal
practice and procedure is now our exclusive dwelling in Iligan City and went back to her
domain and no longer shared with the family's home in Marinaut, Marawi City. A few
Executive and Legislative departments. The days later, during the obligatory period of
rule making power of this Court was waiting ('iddah), Mamiscal had a change of
expanded. This Court for the first time was heart and decided to make peace with his
given the power to promulgate rules wife. For the purpose, he sent their common
concerning the protection and enforcement of relatives to see Adelaidah and make peace
constitutional rights. The Court was also with her on his behalf.
granted for the first time the power to
disapprove rules of procedure of special Almost five (5) months later, however, on
courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But most February 23, 2011, Adelaidah filed the
importantly, the Constitution took away the Certificate of Divorce (COD), dated September
power of Congress to repeal, alter, or 26, 2010, with the office of Abdullah for
supplement rules concerning pleading, registration. Although unsigned, the
practice and procedure. In fine, the power to certificate, purportedly executed by Mamiscal,
promulgate rules of pleading, practice and certified that he had pronounced talaq in the
procedure is no longer shared by this Court presence of two (2) witnesses and in
with Congress, more so with the Executive. accordance with Islamic Law for the purpose
of effecting divorce from Adelaidah. A
In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, then notation on the certificate stated that it was
Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Reynato being filed together with the kapasadan.
S. Puno traced the history of the Court's rule-
making power and highlighted its evolution On the same day, Abdullah, in the exercise of
and development. x x x It should be stressed his duty as both Clerk of Court and Circuit
that the power to promulgate rules of Civil Registrar, issued the Invitation notifying
pleading, practice and procedure was granted the couple and their representatives to
by our Constitutions to this Court to enhance appear before the Shari'a Circuit Court on
its independence, for in the words of Justice February 28, 2011, in order to constitute the
Isagani Cruz "without independence and Agama Arbitration Council (AAC) that would
integrity, courts will lose that popular trust so explore the possibility of reconciling the
essential to the maintenance of their vigor as spouses.
champions of justice." Hence, our
Constitutions continuously vested this power On March 24, 2011, Abdullah issued the
to this Court for it enhances its independence. Certificate of Registration of Divorce (CRD)
finalizing the divorce between Mamiscal and
To reiterate, the Court's authority to Adelaidah.
promulgate rules on pleading, practice, and
procedure is exclusive and one of the Mamiscal sought the revocation of the CRD,
safeguards of plea bargaining, as a rule and a questioning the validity of the kapasadan on
practice, has been existing in our jurisdiction which the CRD was based. In his motion,
since July 1, 1940, when the 1940 Rules took Mamiscal contended that the kapasadan was
effect. invalid considering that he did not prepare the
same. Moreover, there were no witnesses to
MAMISCAL vs CLERK OF COURT its execution. He claimed that he only signed
MACALINOG the kapasadan because of Adelaidah's
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 105 of 123
threats. Circuit Registrar of Muslim divorces. It
has been said that the test of jurisdiction is
Mamiscal also questioned the validity of the the nature of the offense and not the
COD, denying that he had executed and filed personality of the offender. The fact that the
the same before the office of Abdullah. complaint charges Abdullah for "conduct
Insisting that he never really intended to unbecoming of a court employee" is of no
divorce his wife, Mamiscal pointed out the fact moment. Well-settled is the rule that what
that on December 13, 2010, before the controls is not the designation of the offense
expiration of the 'iddah, he wrote his wife to but the actual facts recited in the complaint.
inform her that he was revoking the Verily, unless jurisdiction has been conferred
repudiation he made on September 26, 2010 by some legislative act, no court or tribunal
and the kapasadan they entered into on the can act on a matter submitted to it
same day because he did it on the "spur of
the moment."14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary The Court rules in the negative. The civil
registrar is the person charged by law for the
For Mamiscal, the CRD should be declared recording of vital events and other documents
invalid considering that: a) he was deprived of affecting the civil status of persons. The Civil
due process because the AAC, before which Registry Law embraces all acts of civil life
he and his children were supposed to express affecting the status of persons and is
their sentiments regarding the divorce, was applicable to all persons residing in the
yet to be constituted; b) three days before the Philippines.
issuance of the CRD, Professor Mustafa
Lomala M. Dimaro, appeared before Judge Cali To ensure the proper registration of all facets
to discuss the possibility of reconciliation of the civil life of Muslim Filipinos throughout
between the parties; and c) their children, the country, Article 81 of the Muslim Code
Adelah Rima and Nairn Mamiscal, prayed that provides:
the trial court advise their mother not to
proceed with the divorce. In addition to the Article 81. District Registrar. The Clerk of
revocation of the CRD, Mamiscal also prayed Court of the Shari' a District Court shall, in
that Abdullah order the reconvening of the addition to his regular functions, act as
AAC and, thereafter, grant the restoration of District Registrar of Muslim Marriages,
his marital rights with Adelaidah. Divorces, Revocations of Divorces, and
Conversions within the territorial
On April 20, 2011, Abdullah denied Mamiscal's jurisdiction of said court. The Clerk of
motion. In sustaining the divorce between Court of the Shari'a Circuit Court shall
Mamiscal and Abdullah, Abdullah opined that act as Circuit Registrar of Muslim
it was simply his ministerial duty to receive Marriages, Divorces, Revocations of
the COD and the attached kapasadan filed by Divorces, and Conversions within his
Adelaidah. Abdullah also noted that when the jurisdiction.
AAC was convened during the February 28,
2010 hearing, only Mamiscal and his In view of the above-quoted provision, it
representatives appeared. Considering the becomes apparent that the Clerk of Court of
fact that Adelaidah manifested her opposition the Shari'a Circuit Court enjoys the privilege
in writing to any reconciliation with her of wearing two hats: first, as Clerk of Court of
husband and the fact that the 90-day period the Shari'a Circuit Court, and second, as
of 'iddah had already lapsed, Abdullah ruled Circuit Registrar within his territorial
that any move to reconstitute the AAC would jurisdiction. Although the Constitution vests
have been futile because the divorce between the Court with the power of administrative
Mamiscal and his wife had already become supervision over all courts and its
final and irrevocable. personnel, this power must be taken with due
regard to other prevailing laws.
ISSUE[S]: Whether this Court has jurisdiction
to impose administrative sanction against Thus, Article 185 of the Muslim Code provides:
Abdullah for his acts.
Article 185. Neglect of duty by registrars.
RULING: No, the court has no jurisdiction
Any district registrar or circuit registrar
over the case. The Court does not have
who fails to perform properly his duties in
jurisdiction to impose the proper
accordance with this Code shall be
disciplinary action against civil registrars.
penalized in accordance with Section
While he is undoubtedly a member of the
18 of Act 3753.
Judiciary as Clerk of Court of the Shari'a
Circuit Court, a review of the subject
Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 3753 is the
complaint reveals that Mamiscal seeks to hold
primary law that governs the registry of civil
Abdullah liable for registering the divorce and
status of persons. To ensure that civil
issuing the CRD pursuant to his duties as
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 106 of 123
registrars perform their duties under the law, 3, 5, or 7 Members. Any vacancy shall be filled
Section 18 of C.A. No. 3753 provides: within 90 days from the occurrence thereof.

Section 18. Neglect of duty with reference [7-1] No person shall be appointed a Member
to the provisions of this Act. Any local of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate
registrar who fails to properly perform court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
his duties in accordance with the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court
provisions of this Act and of the must be at least 40 years of age and, must
regulations issued hereunder, shall be have been for 15 years or more judge of a
punished for the first offense, by an lower court or engaged in the practice of law
administrative fine in a sum equal to his in the Philippines.
salary for not less than fifteen days nor
more than three months, and for a second [7-2] The Congress shall prescribe the
or repeated offense, by removal from the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no
service. person may be appointed judge thereof unless
he is a citizen of the Philippines and a Member
The same Act provides: of the Philippine Bar.

Section 2. Civil Registrar-General his duties [7-3] A Member of the Judiciary must be a
and powers. - The director of the National person of proven competence, integrity,
Library shall be Civil Registrar-General and probity, and independence.
shall enforce the provisions of this Act. The
Director of the National Library, in his capacity B. Decision-making
as Civil Registrar-General, is hereby a. Sessions of the SC and vote required
authorized to prepare and issue, with the to render a decision or resolution:
approval of the Secretary of Justice,  En Banc: Art. VIII, 4(2) and (3) 2nd
regulations for carrying out the purposes of and 3rd sentence, and Sec. 11, 2nd
this Act, and to prepare and order printed the sentence
necessary forms for its proper compliance. In
the exercise of his functions as Civil Registrar- Art. VIII, 4(2): All cases involving the
General, the Director of the National Library constitutionality of a treaty,
shall have the power to give orders and international or executive agreement,
instructions to the local Civil registrars with which shall be heard by the Supreme
reference to the performance of their duties Court en banc, and all other cases
as such. It shall be the duty of the Director of which under the Rules of Court are
the National Library to report any violation of required to be heard en banc, including
the provisions of this Act and all those involving the constitutionality,
irregularities, negligence or application, or operation of presidential
incompetency on the part of the officers decrees, proclamations, orders,
designated as local civil registrars to the instructions, ordinances, and other
(Chief of the Executive Bureau or the regulations, shall be decided will the
Director of the Non-Christian Tribes) concurrence of a majority of the
Secretary of the Interior, as the case Members who actually took part in the
may be, who shall take the proper deliberations on the issues in the case
disciplinary action against the offenders. and voted thereon.

Prescinding from the foregoing, it becomes 4(3) 2nd and 3rd sentence: When the
apparent that this Court does not have required number is not obtained, the
jurisdiction to impose the proper case shall be decided en banc;
disciplinary action against civil registrars. Provided that no doctrine or principle
While he is undoubtedly a member of the or law laid down by the court in a
Judiciary as Clerk of Court of the Shari'a decision rendered en banc or in
Circuit Court, a review of the subject division may be modified or reversed
complaint reveals that Mamiscal seeks to hold except by the court sitting en banc.
Abdullah liable for registering the divorce and
issuing the CRD pursuant to his duties as SM LAND vs BCDA
Circuit Registrar of Muslim divorces. Doctrine: All cases involving the
constitutionality of a treaty,
3. The supreme court international or executive agreement,
A. Composition, qualifications a; and or law, which shall be heard by the
vacancy Supreme Court en banc, and all other
Art. VIII, Sec. 4(1) and Sec. 7: [4-1] The cases which under the Rules of Court
Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief are required to be heard en banc,
Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may including those involving the
sit en banc, or in its discretion, in divisions of constitutionality, application, or
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 107 of 123
operation of presidential decrees, 4. The favorable vote of at least
proclamations, orders, instructions, two-thirds of the Court En
ordinances, and other regulations, Banc's actual membership must
shall be decided with the concurrence be mustered for the second
of a majority of the Members who motion for reconsideration to be
actually took part in the deliberations granted.
on the issues in the case and voted
thereon Unfortunately for respondent-
movants, the foregoing
Sec. 3, Rule 2 of The Internal Rules requirements do not obtain in the
of the Supreme Court case at bench:

Section 3. Court en banc matters and 1. The movants failed to explain

cases. – The Court en banc shall act why granting the same would
on the following matters and cases: be in the higher interest of
(l) Division cases where the subject justice;
matter has a huge financial impact on
2. Court's ruling in this case has
businesses or affects the welfare of a
already attained finality and an
community;
Entry of Judgment (March 18,
ISSUE[S]: 2015) has
1. WON the 2nd MR should be granted. correspondingly been issued.
2. WON the court sitting en banc The Court, therefore, no longer
should take cognizance of the case. has jurisdiction to modify the
Decision granting SMLI's
RULING: petition for its finality and
(1) NO. IT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED, executoriness consequently
a second motion for rendered it immutable.
reconsideration, a prohibited
pleading under Section 2, Rule 56,4
in relation to Sec. 2, Rule 52 of the
(2) NO, THE COURT EN BANC NEED
Rules of Court. The rule NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE
categorically states: "no second CASE. All cases involving the
motion for reconsideration of a constitutionality of a treaty,
judgment or final resolution by the international or executive
same party shall be entertained agreement, or law, which shall be
under SEC. 3. Second motion for heard by the Supreme Court en
reconsideration. - The Court shall banc, and all other cases which
not entertain a second motion for under the Rules of Court are
reconsideration, and any exception required to be heard en banc,
to this rule can only be granted in including those involving the
the higher interest of justice by the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees,
Court en banc upon a vote of at
proclamations, orders, instructions,
least two-thirds of its actual
ordinances, and other regulations,
membership the following elements shall be decided with the
are required for a second motion concurrence of a majority of the
for reconsideration to be: Members who actually took part in
the deliberations on the issues in
1. The motion should satisfactorily the case and voted thereon.
explain why granting the same
would be in the higher interest Here, it is well to recall that the
of justice; President did not issue any said
2. The motion must be made executive order or presidential
before the ruling sought to be issuance in intimating to the BCDA
reconsidered attains finality; that he wishes for the competitive
3. If the ruling sought to be challenge to be cancelled. There
was no document offered that was
reconsidered was rendered by
signed by either the Chief
the Court through one of its
Executive or the Executive
Divisions, at least three (3) Secretary, for the President, to that
members of the said Division effect. The situation, therefore,
should vote to elevate the case does not involve a presidential
to the Court En Banc; and order or instruction within the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 108 of 123
contemplation of Sec. 4(2), Article Land, Inc.'s proposal of P38,500.00
VIII of the Constitution, and, was below the market value of the
consequently, does not fall within property. BCDA claims that the
the jurisdiction of the Court en property was already appraised at
banc. P78,000.00 to P500,000.00 by
Cuervo Appraisers, the Bureau of
MOTION DENIED Internal Revenue, and the
IN THIS CASE: 3 JUDGES Government Service Insurance
CONCURRED System. Compelling government to
2 JUDGES DISSENTED dispose the property at P38,500.00
would entail a loss of about P13
DISSENT: LEONEN billion.

1. Reconsideration cannot be Our internal rules mandate this

summarily denied on the ground court En Banc to act on matters
that judgment had already been that may have an impact on
entered and had already become businesses or community welfare,
final and executory on March 18, or on matters that merit this court
2015.The Entry of Judgment is En Banc's attention. Cases
procedurally infirm and should be involving these matters should be
vacated. This case not only deals referred to this court En Banc. They
with properties entrusted with should not be confined to the
BCDA, it also impacts the status of consciousness of a five-member
our national defense and security Division. This court En Banc should
on the ground that the AFP be given an opportunity to
Modernization Program is determine for itself whether a case
dependent on funds appropriated is of sufficient importance to merit
for that purpose under the National the full court's consideration.
Budget and from revenues
generated from the development or  In division: Art. VIII, Sec. 4(3) 1st
disposition of military reservations. sentence: Cases or matters heard by
a division shall be decided or resolved
The Motion for Leave to File Second with the concurrence of a majority of
Motion for Reconsideration and to the Members who actually took part in
Admit the Attached Second Motion the deliberations on the issues in the
for Reconsideration contained a case and voted thereon, and in no case
Motion for the Court en banc to without the concurrence of at least 3 of
Take Cognizance of this Case such Members.
and/or to Set the Case for Oral
Argument Before the Court en  Procedure if the necessary
banc. Based on their captions, both majority cannot be had.
the Motion for Leave to File Second Sec. 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of
Motion for Reconsideration and the Court: Where the court en banc is
Second Motion for Reconsideration equally divided in opinion, or the
were addressed to this court En necessary majority cannot be had, the
Banc and not to the Third Division. case shall be again deliberated on, and
if after such deliberation no decision is
For these reasons, Bases reached, the original action
Conversion and Development commenced in court shall be
Authority's Second Motion for dismissed; in appealed cases, the
Reconsideration should be referred judgment or order appealed from shall
to this court En Banc. The En Banc stand affirmed; and on all incidental
should be allowed to determine for matters, the petition or motion shall be
itself whether a case involves denied.
matters that are of sufficient
importance to require the In relation to Sec. 2, Rule 12 od
participation of a full court. the Internal Rules of the Supreme
Court.
The competitive challenge process Section 2. Tie voting in the Court en
can be terminated upon finding banc.
that it is inconsistent with national
policies and public interest when (a) In civil cases, including special
the BCDA later found that SM Land, proceedings and special civil
Inc.'s proposal would not yield the actions, where the Court en banc is
best value for government. SM equally divided in option or the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 109 of 123
necessary majority vote cannot be [15-4] Despite the expiration of the
had, the Court shall deliberate on it applicable mandatory period, the court,
anew. If after such deliberation still without prejudice to such responsibility as
no decision is reached, the Court may have been incurred in consequence
shall, in an original action filed with thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or
it, dismiss the case; in appealed matter submitted thereto for
cases, it shall affirm the judgment determination without further delay.
or order appealed from.
SESBREÑO vs CA
(b) In criminal cases, when the Doctrine: Section 11 (2), Article X of the
Court en banc is equally divided in 1973 Constitution, which reads:
option of the necessary majority SEC. 11. x x x
cannot be had, the Court shall
deliberate on it anew. If after such (2) With respect to the Supreme Court
deliberation still no decision is and other collegiate appellate courts,
reached, the Court shall reverse when the applicable maximum
the judgement of conviction of the period shall have lapsed without
lower court and acquit the accused. the rendition of the corresponding
decision or resolution because the
(c) When, in an administrative case necessary vote cannot be had, the
against any of the Justices of the judgment, order, or resolution
appealed courts or any of the appealed from shall be deemed
Judges of the trial Courts, the affirmed x x x
impossible penalty is dismissal and
the Court en banc is equally That provision is not found in the
divided in opinion or the majority present Constitution. The court, under
vote required by the Constitution the 1987 Constitution, is now mandated to
for dismissal cannot be had, the decide or resolve the case or matter
Court shall deliberate on the case submitted to it for determination within
anew. If after such deliberation still specified periods. Even when there is
no decision is reached, the Court delay and no decision or resolution is
shall dismiss the administrative made within the prescribed period,
case, unless a majority vote there is no automatic affirmance of
decides to impose a lesser penalty. the appealed decision.

(d) Where the Court en banc is FACTS: On January 26, 1970, Mrs. Rosario
equally divided in opinion of the Sen and other camineros hired the
majority vote required by the petitioner to prosecute Civil Cases Nos. R-
Constitution for annulling any 109335 and R-11214,6 evidenced by an
treaty, international or executive Agreement, the terms of which read as
agreement, law, presidential follows:
decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation AGREEMENT
cannot be had, the Court shall WE, the undersigned, hereby agree to
deliberate on the case anew. If pay Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño, thirty
such deliberation still no decision is (30%) percent of whatever back
reached, the Court shall deny the salaries, damages, etc. that we may
challenge to the constitutionally of recover in the mandamus and other
the act. cases that we are filing or have filed
against the Province of Cebu, the
(e) In all matters incidental to the Provincial Governor,
main action where the Court en
banc is equally divided in opinion, The camineros obtained favorable
the relief sought shall be denied. judgment when the Court of First Instance
(now RTC) of Cebu ordered that they be
b. Period to decide cases: reinstated to their original positions with
Art. VIII, Sec. 15(1) and (4): [15-1] All back salaries, together with all privileges
cases or matters filed after the effectivity and salary adjustments or increases.
of this Constitution must be decided or
resolved within 24 months from the date When respondent Eduardo R. Gullas (Gov.
of submission for the Supreme Court, and Gullas) assumed the position of governor
unless, reduced by the Supreme Court, 12 of Cebu, he proposed the compromise
months for all lower collegiate courts, and settlement of all mandamus cases then
3 months for all other lower courts. pending against the province.

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 110 of 123
Apparently, the camineros waived their shall have lapsed without the rendition
right to reinstatement embodied in the CFI of the corresponding decision or
decision and the province agreed that it resolution because the necessary vote
immediately pay them their back salaries cannot be had, the judgment, order, or
and other claims. This Court adopted said resolution appealed from shall be
compromise agreement in our decision deemed affirmed
dated December 18, 1979.
That provision is not found in the present
In view of the finality of the above Constitution. The court, under the 1987
decision, the camineros, through their new Constitution, is now mandated to decide or
counsel (who substituted for the resolve the case or matter submitted to it
petitioner), moved for its execution. for determination within specified periods.
Even when there is delay and no
However, a problem arose when the decision or resolution is made within
respondents directly paid in full the the prescribed period, there is no
camineros’ money claims and did not automatic affirmance of the appealed
withhold that portion which corresponds to decision. The appellate court, therefore,
petitioner’s fees. cannot be faulted in not affirming the
RTC’s decision. While we do not tolerate
Thus, petitioner filed the complaint for delay in the disposition of cases, we
Damages (Thru Breach of Contract) and cannot dismiss appealed cases solely
Attorney’s Fees against the Province of because they had been pending in court
Cebu, the provincial governor, treasurer, for a long period, especially when the
auditor, and engineer in their official and appeal is highly meritorious as in the
personal capacities, as well as against his present case.
former clients (the camineros).
Despite its deficiencies, respondent’s
On August 23, 1982, petitioner moved to appellant’s brief is sufficient in form and
dismiss the case against the camineros substance as to apprise the appellate
after he had entered into an agreement court of the essential facts and nature of
with them and settled their differences. the case, as well as the issues raised and
The case, however, proceeded against the the laws necessary for the disposition of
respondents. the same. Thus, we sustain the CA’s
decision to rule on the merits of the
On October 18, 1992, the RTC rendered a appeal instead of dismissing it on mere
decision in favor of the petitioner and technicality.
against the respondent province of Cebu.
On appeal, the CA reversed the trial OTHER MATTERS: Petitioner’s claim for
court’s decision and dismissed the attorney’s fees was evidenced by an
complaint. agreement for attorney’s fees voluntarily
executed by the camineros where the
Petitioner cites the cases of Malacora v. latter agreed to pay the former "thirty
Court of Appeals and Flora v. Pajarillaga (30%) percent of whatever back salaries,
where this Court held that an appealed damages, etc. that they might recover in
case which had been pending beyond the the mandamus and other cases that they
time fixed by the Constitution should be were filing or have filed." Clearly, no fixed
"deemed affirmed." amount was specifically provided for in
their contract nor was a specified rate
ISSUE[S]: Whether or not an appealed agreed upon on how the money claims
case which had been pending beyond the were to be computed. The use of the word
time fixed by the Constitution should be "whatever" shows that the basis for the
"deemed affirmed. computation would be the amount that the
court would award in favor of the
RULING: No! The petition is bereft of camineros.
merit.
We cannot ascribe bad faith to the
We cannot apply the cited cases to the respondents who directly paid the
one at bench because they were decided camineros the amounts due them. The
on the basis of Section 11 (2), Article X of records do not show that when they did
the 1973 Constitution, which reads: so, they induced the camineros to violate
SEC. 11. x x x their contract with the petitioner; nor do
the records show that they paid their
(2) With respect to the Supreme Court obligation in order to cause prejudice to
and other collegiate appellate courts, the petitioner. The attendant
when the applicable maximum period circumstances, in fact, show that the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 111 of 123
camineros acknowledged their liability to motions and other pending incidents
the petitioner and they willingly fulfilled before the different divisions of the
their obligation. Sandiganbayan, amounting to
incompetence, inefficiency, gross neglect
RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES of duty and misconduct in office without
BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN the need to conduct a formal investigation
Doctrine: of the charges in view of the admission of
PJ Garchitorena in his compliance report.
FACTS: On July 31, 2000, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) through its ISSUE[S]: What is the reglementary
National President, Arthur D. Lim, period within which the Sandiganbayan
submitted to the Supreme Court a must decide/resolve cases falling within its
resolution asking for the Court to conduct jurisdiction?
an inquiry into the causes of delay in the
resolution of incidents and motions and in RULING: Period To Decide/Resolve
the decision of cases before the Cases - There are two views. The first
Sandiganbayan. This resolution was view is that from the time a case is
prompted by numerous complaints from submitted for decision or resolution, the
IBP members about serious delays by the Sandiganbayan has twelve (12) months to
said trial court in their disposition of cases. decide or resolve it. The second view is
that as a court with trial function, the
On August 8, 2000, the SC required Sandiganbayan has three (3) months to
Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis decide the case from the date of
Garchitorena to comment on the issue and submission for decision.
submit a list of their pending matters.
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the
On September 27, 2000, the SC received 1987 Constitution provides:
Sandiganbayan’s compliance report
showing a total of 415 cases that have "Sec. 15. (1) All cases or matters filed
remained undecided long beyond the after the effectivity of this Constitution
reglementary period. must be decided or resolved within
twenty-four months from date of
On November 21, 2000, the SC directed submission to the Supreme Court, and,
Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo to unless reduced by the Supreme Court,
conduct a judicial audit of the twelve months for all lower collegiate
Sandiganbayan. courts, and three months for all other
lower courts.
On January 26, 2001, OCA Benipayo
submitted his report stating the various (2) A case or matter shall be deemed
reasons for the Sandiganbayan’s delays submitted for decision or resolution
such as: upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief or memorandum required by the
1. Failure of the Office of the Special Rules of Court or by the court itself.
Prosecutor to submit reinvestigation
report despite the lapse of several This Constitutional provision does not
years; apply to the Sandiganbayan. The
2. Filing of numerous incidents such as provision refers to regular courts of
Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Quash, lower collegiate level.
Demurrer to Evidence, etc. that
remain unresolved for years; The Sandiganbayan is not a regular court
3. Suspension of proceedings because of but a special one. The Sandiganbayan was
a pending petition for certiorari and originally empowered to promulgate its
prohibition with the Supreme Court; own rules of procedure. However, on
4. Cases remain unacted upon or have March 30, 1995, Congress repealed the
no further settings despite the lapse of Sandiganbayan’s power to promulgate its
considerable length of time; and own rules of procedure and instead
5. Unloading of cases already submitted prescribed that the Rules of Court
for decision even if the ponente is still promulgated by the Supreme Court shall
in service. apply to all cases and proceedings filed
with the Sandiganbayan.
The SC hence consider ex mero motu the
Resolution of the IBP as an administrative Under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the
complaint against PJ Francis E. Constitution, Rules of procedure
Garchitorena for serious delays in the of special courts and quasi-judicial
decision of cases and in the resolution of
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 112 of 123
bodies shall remain effective unless power” tantamount to abuse. Such
disapproved by the Supreme Court. inconsistency denigrates public trust in its
objectivity and dependability.
In his report, the Court Administrator
would distinguish between cases which The ratio decidendi in the aforecited cases
the Sandiganbayan has cognizance of in applies mutatis mutandis (with the
its original jurisdiction, and cases which fall necessary changes) to the
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Sandiganbayan. The Court Administrator
posits that since in the first class of cases, The Sandiganbayan ought to be the first
the Sandiganbayan acts more as a trial to observe its own rules. It cannot suspend
court, then for that classification of cases, its rules, or except a case from its
the three (3) month reglementary period operation.
applies. For the second class of cases, the
Sandiganbayan has the twelve-month RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT
reglementary period for collegiate CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL
courts. We do not agree. COURT – BRANCH 56, MANDAUE CITY,
CEBU
The law creating the Sandiganbayan,
P.D. No. 1606 is clear on this issue. It Doctrine: The report disclosed that
provides: during the audit, the trial court has: (1) a
Sec. 6. Maximum period for total caseload of 1,431 cases consisting of
termination of cases as far as 555 civil cases and 876 criminal cases; (2)
practicable, the trial of cases before 15 cases submitted for decision, but were
the Sandiganbayan once commenced already beyond the reglementary period;
shall be continuous until terminated [1] (3) two cases with pending incidents
and the judgment shall be rendered awaiting resolution, which were beyond
within three (3) months from the date the reglementary period;[2] and (4) 247
the case was submitted for decision. cases, which had remained dormant for a
considerable length of time.
On September 18, 1984, the
Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules, It was further reported that Branch 56 did
thus: not observe an organized record
Sec. 3 Maximum Period to Decide management. No system was being
Cases The judgment or final order of a followed to facilitate the monitoring of the
division of the Sandiganbayan shall be status of cases. The court records were
rendered within three (3) months from found to be in disarray as: (1) court
the date the case was submitted for records of terminated and archived cases
decision. were mixed with active cases; (2) copies
of orders, pleadings and other documents
Given the clarity of the rule that does not were not chronologically attached to the
distinguish, we hold that the three (3) case folders; (3) copies of the minutes of
month period, not the twelve (12) month the hearings/proceedings were left
period, to decide cases applies to the unattached to the case folders and were
Sandiganbayan. merely kept in a separate file; and (4)
loose copies of orders, pleadings and other
In Department of Agrarian Reform documents were found merely inserted in
Adjudication Board (DARAB) v. Court of the case folders.
Appeals, the Court faulted the DARAB for
violating its own rules of procedure. We In a Resolution dated March 26, 2008, the
reasoned that the DARAB does not have Court granted the request of Judge Vestil
unfettered discretion to suspend its own for the release of his retirement benefits,
rules. We stated that the DARAB “should provided the amount of One Hundred
have set the example of observance of Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) shall be
orderly procedure.” Otherwise, it would retained/withheld therefrom to answer for
render its own Revised Rules of Procedure whatever adverse decision the Court may
uncertain and whose permanence would impose on him in relation to the instant
be dependent upon the instability of its case.
own whims and caprices.
The audit team maintained, however, that
Similarly, in Cabagnot v. Comelec, this except for Civil Case No. MAN- 3084 and
Court held that the Commission on Criminal Cases Nos. DU-9650 and DU-
Elections ought to be the first one to 11862 which were inadvertently included
observe its own Rules. Its departure from as submitted for decision but were in fact
its own rules constitutes “arrogance of already decided or still pending trial, all
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 113 of 123
other cases reported in the audit report
suffered undue delay in its disposition. It is the duty of a judge to take note of the
While, Judge Vestil claimed that certain cases submitted for his decision or
cases were decided within the resolution and to see to it that the same
reglementary period, he, however, also are decided within the 90-day period fixed
admitted that while he was able to by law, and failure to resolve a case within
prepare the decisions, the same remained the required period constitutes gross
unpromulgated within the reglementary inefficiency. A judge ought to know the
period. With regard to the 247 dormant cases submitted to him for decision or
cases, while he immediately acted upon resolution and is expected to keep his own
its resolution, he however, offered no record of cases so that he may act on
explanation for the delay in the resolution them promptly.
thereof.
4. The judicial and bar council:
On August 8, 2007, Judge Vestil Art. VIII, Sec. 8 and 9: [8] (1) A Judicial and Bar
compulsorily retired from service. Council is hereby created under the
supervision of the Supreme Court composed
Later, on July 6, 2009, the OCA, in its of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the
Report, found Judge Vestil guilty of undue Secretary of Justice, and a representative of
delay in deciding cases and recommended the Congress as ex officio Members, a
that a fine of twenty thousand pesos representative of the Integrated Bar, a
(P20,000.00) be deducted from the one professor of law, a retired Member of the
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) Supreme Court, and a representative of the
previously withheld from his retirement private sector.
benefits. However, in so far as Atty.
Cabahug is concerned, the instant matter (2) The regular Members of the Council shall
was recommended to be considered as be appointed by the President for a term of
closed and terminated. four years with the consent of the Commission
on Appointments. Of the Members first
On August 19, 2009, the Court resolved to appointed, the representative of the
consider the instant complaint CLOSED Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the
and TERMINATED in so far as Atty. professor of law for three years, the retired
Cabahug is concerned. Justice for two years, and the representative
of the private sector for one year.
On October 12, 2009, Judge Vestil
manifested that since his retirement in (3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be
2007, he had already undergone several the Secretary ex officio of the Council and
medical examinations and presently his shall keep a record of its proceedings.
continuous medication costs at least
P500.00 daily. Judge Vestil, thus, prays for (4) The regular Members of the Council shall
the resolution of the instant complaint receive such emoluments as may be
against him and the subsequent release of determined by the Supreme Court. The
the P100,000.00 which was previously Supreme Court shall provide in its annual
withheld from his retirement benefits upon budget the appropriations for the Council.
his retirement.
(5) The Council shall have the principal
ISSUE[S]: WON the finding of the Audit function of recommending appointees to the
Team that Judge Vestil is guilty of undue Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions
delays be sustained. and duties as the Supreme Court may assign
to it.
RULING: Yes. as correctly pointed out by
the OCA, it is not enough that he pens his [9] The Members of the Supreme Court and
decision; it is imperative to promulgate judges of lower courts shall be appointed
the same within the mandated period. The by the President from a list of at least
lack of staff that will prepare and type the three nominees prepared by the Judicial
decision is equally inexcusable to justify and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such
the delay in the promulgation of the cases. appointments need no confirmation.

We cannot overemphasize the Courts For the lower courts, the President shall
policy on prompt resolution of disputes. issue the appointments within ninety days
Justice delayed is justice denied. Failure to from the submission of the list.
resolve cases submitted for decision within
the period fixed by law constitutes a CHAVEZ vs JBC
serious violation of Section 16,[4] Article III Doctrine:
of the Constitution.
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 114 of 123
FACTS: The case is in relation to the process
of selecting the nominees for the vacant seat The respondents further argue that the
of Supreme Court Chief Justice following allowance of two (2) representatives of
Renato Corona’s departure. Congress to be members of the JBC does not
render JBC’s purpose of providing balance
Originally, the members of the Constitutional nugatory; that the presence of two (2)
Commission saw the need to create a members from Congress will most likely
separate, competent and independent body to provide balance as against the other six (6)
recommend nominees to the President. Thus, members who are undeniably presidential
it conceived of a body representative of all the appointees
stakeholders in the judicial appointment
process and called it the Judicial and Bar Supreme Court held that it has the power of
Council (JBC). review the case herein as it is an object of
concern, not just for a nominee to a judicial
In particular, Paragraph 1 Section 8, Article post, but for all the citizens who have the
VIII of the Constitution states that “(1) A right to seek judicial intervention for
Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created rectification of legal blunders.
under the supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio ISSUE[S]: Whether the practice of the JBC to
Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a perform its functions with eight (8) members,
representative of the Congress as ex officio two (2) of whom are members of Congress,
Members, a representative of the Integrated defeats is with the letter and spirit of the 1987
Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of Constitution.
the Supreme Court, and a representative of
the private sector.” In compliance therewith, RULING: No. The current practice of JBC in
Congress, from the moment of the creation of admitting two members of the Congress to
the JBC, designated one representative from perform the functions of the JBC is violative of
the Congress to sit in the JBC to act as one of the 1987 Constitution. As such, it is
the ex officio members. unconstitutional.

In 1994 however, the composition of the JBC One of the primary and basic rules in
was substantially altered. Instead of having statutory construction is that where the words
only seven (7) members, an eighth (8th) of a statute are clear, plain, and free from
member was added to the JBC as two (2) ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning
representatives from Congress began sitting and applied without attempted interpretation.
in the JBC – one from the House of It is a well-settled principle of constitutional
Representatives and one from the Senate, construction that the language employed in
with each having one-half (1/2) of a vote. the Constitution must be given their ordinary
During the existence of the case, Senator meaning except where technical terms are
Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman employed. As such, it can be clearly and
Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously unambiguously discerned from Paragraph 1,
sat in JBC as representatives of the Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
legislature. that in the phrase, “a representative of
Congress,” the use of the singular letter “a”
It is this practice that petitioner has preceding “representative of Congress” is
questioned in this petition. unequivocal and leaves no room for any other
construction. It is indicative of what the
The respondents claimed that when the JBC members of the Constitutional Commission
was established, the framers originally had in mind, that is, Congress may designate
envisioned a unicameral legislative body, only one (1) representative to the JBC. Had it
thereby allocating “a representative of the been the intention that more than one (1)
National Assembly” to the JBC. The phrase, representative from the legislature would sit
however, was not modified to aptly jive with in the JBC, the Framers could have, in no
the change to bicameralism which was uncertain terms, so provided.
adopted by the Constitutional Commission on
July 21, 1986. The respondents also contend Moreover, under the maxim noscitur a sociis,
that if the Commissioners were made aware where a particular word or phrase is
of the consequence of having a bicameral ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of
legislature instead of a unicameral one, they various meanings, its correct construction
would have made the corresponding may be made clear and specific by
adjustment in the representation of Congress considering the company of words in which it
in the JBC; that if only one house of Congress is founded or with which it is associated.
gets to be a member of JBC would deprive the Every meaning to be given to each word or
other house of representation, defeating the phrase must be ascertained from the context
principle of balance. of the body of the statute since a word or
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 115 of 123
phrase in a statute is always used in It is clear, therefore, that the Constitution
association with other words or phrases and mandates that the JBC be composed of seven
its meaning may be modified or restricted by (7) members only. Thus, any inclusion of
the latter. Applying the foregoing principle to another member, whether with one whole
this case, it becomes apparent that the word vote or half (1/2) of it, goes against that
“Congress” used in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of mandate. Section 8(1), Article VIII of the
the Constitution is used in its generic sense. Constitution, providing Congress with an
No particular allusion whatsoever is made on equal voice with other members of the JBC in
whether the Senate or the House of recommending appointees to the Judiciary is
Representatives is being referred to, but that, explicit. Any circumvention of the
in either case, only a singular representative constitutional mandate should not be
may be allowed to sit in the JBC countenanced for the Constitution is the
supreme law of the land. The Constitution is
Considering that the language of the subject the basic and paramount law to which all
constitutional provision is plain and other laws must conform and to which all
unambiguous, there is no need to resort persons, including the highest officials of the
extrinsic aids such as records of the land, must defer. Constitutional doctrines
Constitutional Commission. Nevertheless, must remain steadfast no matter what may be
even if the Court should proceed to look into the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to
the minds of the members of the sway and accommodate the call of situations
Constitutional Commission, it is undeniable and much more tailor itself to the whims and
from the records thereof that it was intended caprices of the government and the people
that the JBC be composed of seven (7) who run it.
members only. The underlying reason leads
the Court to conclude that a single vote may JERDELEZA vs CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO
not be divided into half (1/2), between two Doctrine:
representatives of Congress, or among any of
the sitting members of the JBC for that FACTS: The present case sprang from the
matter. compulsory retirement of Associate Justice
Roberto Abad. The JBC announced the
With the respondents’ contention that each opening for application or recommendation
representative should be admitted from the for the said vacated position. Petitioner
Congress and House of Representatives, the Francisco Jerdeleza was nominated from said
Supreme Court, after the perusal of the position, then incumbent Solicitor General of
records of Constitutional Commission, held the Republic. Upon acceptance of the
that “Congress,” in the context of JBC nomination, Jerdeleza was included in the
representation, should be considered as one names of candidates, as well as in the
body. While it is true that there are still schedule of public interviews. On May 29,
differences between the two houses and that 2014, Jerdeleza was interviewed by the JBC.
an inter-play between the two houses is
necessary in the realization of the legislative In a meeting, Chief Justice Sereno and JBC ex-
powers conferred to them by the Constitution, officio Chairperson manifested that she would
the same cannot be applied in the case of JBC be invoking Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009
representation because no liaison between against him. Jerdeleza was then directed to
the two houses exists in the workings of the "make himself available" before the JBC on
JBC. No mechanism is required between the June 30, 2014, during which he would be
Senate and the House of Representatives in informed of the objections to his integrity.
the screening and nomination of judicial Consequently, Jerdeleza filed a letter-petition
officers. Hence, the term “Congress” must be praying that the Court, in the exercise of its
taken to mean the entire legislative constitutional power of supervision over the
department. JBC, issue an order: 1) directing the JBC to
give him at least five (5) working days written
The framers of Constitution, in creating JBC, notice of any hearing of the JBC to which he
hoped that the private sector and the three would be summoned; 2) allowing him to cross-
branches of government would have an active examine his oppositors and supporting
role and equal voice in the selection of the witnesses; 3) directing the JBC to reset the
members of the Judiciary. Therefore, to allow hearing scheduled on June 30, 2014 to
the Legislature to have more quantitative another date; and 4) directing the JBC to
influence in the JBC by having more than one disallow Chief Justice Sereno from
voice speak, whether with one full vote or participating in the voting on June 30, 2014 or
one-half (1/2) a vote each, would “negate the at any adjournment thereof where such vote
principle of equality among the three would be taken for the nominees for the
branches of government which is enshrined in position vacated by Associate Justice Abad.
the Constitution.” During the June 30, 2014 meeting of the JBC,
incumbent Associate Justice Carpio appeared
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 116 of 123
as a resource person to shed light on a integrity traces its roots to the exercise of
classified legal memorandum that would his discretion as a lawyer and nothing
clarify the objection to Jerdeleza’s integrity as else. No connection was established
posed by Chief Justice Sereno. According to linking his choice of a legal strategy to a
the JBC, Chief Justice Sereno questioned treacherous intent to trounce upon the
Jerdeleza’s ability to discharge the duties of country’s interests or to betray the
his office as shown in a confidential legal Constitution. Disagreement in legal
memorandum over his handling of an opinion is but a normal, if not an essential
international arbitration case for the form of, interaction among members of
government, of which CJ Sereno characterized the legal community. A lawyer has
his integrity as dubious. complete discretion on what legal strategy
to employ in a case entrusted to him
Later in the afternoon of the same day, and provided that he lives up to his duty to
apparently denying Jerdeleza’s request for serve his client with competence and
deferment of the proceedings, the JBC diligence, and that he exert his best
continued its deliberations and proceeded to efforts to protect the interests of his client
vote for the nominees to be included in the within the bounds of the law. Consonantly,
shortlist. Thereafter, the JBC released the a lawyer is not an insurer of victory for
subject shortlist of four nominees which clients he represents. An infallible grasp of
excluded Jerdeleza. legal principles and technique by a lawyer
is a utopian ideal. Stripped of a clear
Based on the aforementioned resolution’s showing of gross neglect, iniquity, or
declaration as to his availment of a remedy in immoral purpose, a strategy of a legal
law, Jerdeleza filed the present petition for mind remains a legal tactic acceptable to
certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the some and deplorable to others. It has no
Rules of Court with prayer for the issuance of direct bearing on his moral choices. The
a TRO, seeking to compel the JBC to include Court cannot consider CJ Sereno’s
him in the list of nominees for Supreme Court invocation of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009
Associate Justice, on the grounds that the JBC as conformably within the contemplation
and Chief Justice Sereno acted in grave abuse of the rule. To fall under Section 2, Rule 10
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of of JBC-009, there must be a showing that
jurisdiction in excluding him, despite having the act complained of is, at the least,
garnered a sufficient number of votes to linked to the moral character of the person
qualify for the position, and the non- and not to his judgment as a professional.
availability of due process. What this disposition perceives, therefore,
is the inapplicability of Section 2, Rule 10
ISSUE[S]: of JBC-009 to the original ground of its
1. WON the issues raised against Jerdeleza invocation.
befit “questions or challenged on
integrity” as contemplated under Section Furthermore, in the performance of this
2, Rule 10 of JBC-009. sacred duty, the JBC itself admits, as
2. WON the right to due process is available stated in the "whereas clauses" of JBC-
in the course of JBC Proceedings in cases 009, that qualifications such as
where an objection or opposition to an "competence, integrity, probity and
application is raised. independence are not easily determinable
as they are developed and nurtured
RULING: through the years." Additionally, "it is not
(1) No, the issue against Jerdeleza as possible or advisable to lay down iron-clad
counsel of the Republic on an rules to determine the fitness of those who
international disagreement does not aspire to become a Justice, Judge,
score on his character of integrity. Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman."
The Court states that while CJ Sereno Given this realistic situation, there is a
claims that the invocation of Section 2, need "to promote stability and uniformity
Rule 10 of JBC-009 was not borne out of a in JBC’s guiding precepts and principles." A
mere variance of legal opinion but by an set of uniform criteria had to be
"act of disloyalty" committed by Jerdeleza established in the ascertainment of
in the handling of a case, the fact remains "whether one meets the minimum
that the basis for her invocation of the rule constitutional qualifications and possesses
was the "disagreement" in legal strategy qualities of mind and heart expected of
as expressed by a group of international him" and his office. Likewise for the sake
lawyers. The approach taken by Jerdeleza of transparency of its proceedings, the JBC
in that case was opposed to that preferred had put these criteria in writing, now in
by the legal team. For said reason, the form of JBC-009. True enough,
criticism was hurled against his "integrity." guidelines have been set in the
The invocation of the "unanimity rule" on determination of competence; probity and
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 117 of 123
independence; soundness of physical and
mental condition; and integrity. As The Court concludes that the right to due
disclosed by the guidelines and lists of process is available and thereby
recognized evidence of qualification laid demandable as a matter of right. The
down in JBC-009, "integrity" is closely Court does not brush aside the unique and
related to, or if not, approximately special nature of JBC proceedings. Indeed,
equated to an applicant’s good reputation they are distinct from criminal proceedings
for honesty, incorruptibility, irreproachable where the finding of guilt or innocence of
conduct, and fidelity to sound moral and the accused is sine qua non. The JBC’s
ethical standards. That is why proof of an constitutional duty to recommend
applicant’s reputation may be shown in qualified nominees to the President cannot
certifications or testimonials from be compared to the duty of the courts of
reputable government officials and non- law to determine the commission of an
governmental organizations and offense and ascribe the same to an
clearances from the courts, NBI, and the accused, consistent with established rules
police, among others. In fact, the JBC may on evidence. Even the quantum of
even conduct a discreet background check evidence required in criminal cases is far
and receive feedback from the public on from the discretion accorded to the JBC.
the integrity, reputation and character of
the applicant, the merits of which shall be The fact that a proceeding is sui generis
verified and checked. As a qualification, and is impressed with discretion, however,
the term is taken to refer to a virtue, such does not automatically denigrate an
that, "integrity is the quality of person’s applicant’s entitlement to due process. It
character." is well-established in jurisprudence that
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
(2) Yes, due process is available in the are sui generis in that they are neither
course of JBC’s proceeding and purely civil nor purely criminal; they
demandable as a matter of right involve investigations by the Court into
despite the fact that JBC is of its own the conduct of one of its officers, not the
kind. In Jerdeleza’s position he argues trial of an action or a suit. Hence, in the
that 1] he should have been informed of exercise of its disciplinary powers, the
the accusations against him in writing; 2] Court merely calls upon a member of the
he was not furnished the basis of the Bar to account for his actuations as an
accusations, that is, "a very confidential officer of the Court with the end in view of
legal memorandum that clarifies the preserving the purity of the legal
integrity objection"; 3] instead of heeding profession and the proper and honest
his request for an opportunity to defend administration of justice by purging the
himself, the JBC considered his refusal to profession of members who, by their
explain, during the June 30, 2014 meeting, misconduct, have proved themselves no
as a waiver of his right to answer the longer worthy to be entrusted with the
unspecified allegations; 4] the voting of duties and responsibilities pertaining to
the JBC was railroaded; and 5] the alleged the office of an attorney. In such posture,
"discretionary" nature of Sections 3 and 4 there can be no occasion to speak of a
of JBC-009 is negated by the subsequent complainant or a prosecutor. On the
effectivity of JBC-010, Section 1(2) of whole, disciplinary proceedings are
which provides for a 10-day period from actually aimed to verify and finally
the publication of the list of candidates determine, if a lawyer charged is still
within which any complaint or opposition qualified to benefit from the rights and
against a candidate may be filed with the privileges that membership in the legal
JBC Secretary; 6] Section 2 of JBC-010 profession evoke.
requires complaints and oppositions to be
in writing and under oath, copies of which Notwithstanding being "a class of its own,"
shall be furnished the candidate in order the right to be heard and to explain one’s
for him to file his comment within five (5) self is availing. The Court subscribes to the
days from receipt thereof; and 7] Sections view that in cases where an objection to
3 to 6 of JBC-010 prescribe a logical, an applicant’s qualifications is raised, the
reasonable and sequential series of steps observance of due process neither
in securing a candidate’s right to due negates nor renders illusory the fulfillment
process. The JBC counters these by of the duty of JBC to recommend. This
insisting that it is not obliged to afford holding is not an encroachment on its
Jerdeleza the right to a hearing in the discretion in the nomination process.
fulfillment of its duty to recommend. The Actually, its adherence to the precepts of
JBC, as a body, is not required by law to due process supports and enriches the
hold hearings on the qualifications of the exercise of its discretion. When an
nominees. applicant, who vehemently denies the
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 118 of 123
truth of the objections, is afforded the integrity resulted in Jerdeleza’s deprivation
chance to protest, the JBC is presented of his right to due process.
with a clearer understanding of the
situation it faces, thereby guarding the UMALI vs JBC
body from making an unsound and Doctrine:
capricious assessment of information
brought before it. The JBC is not expected FACTS: This Petition for Certiorari and
to strictly apply the rules of evidence in its Mandamus by Rep. Umali, current Chair of
assessment of an objection against an the House of Representatives Committee
applicant. Just the same, to hear the side on Justice, impugns the present-day
of the person challenged complies with the practice of six-month rotational
dictates of fairness for the only test that representation of Congress in the Judicial
an exercise of discretion must surmount is and Bar Council (JBC) for it unfairly
that of soundness. deprives both Houses of Congress of their
full participation in the said body. The
The Court explains that the JBC must give aforementioned practice was adopted by
great weight and substance to the fact the JBC in light of the ruling in Chavez v.
that it gave Jerdeleza the opportunity to JBC.
answer the allegations against him. It
underscores the fact that Jerdeleza was As an overview, in Chavez, the
asked to attend the June 30, 2014 meeting constitutionality of the practice of having
so that he could shed light on the issues two representatives from both houses of
thrown at him. During the said meeting, Congress with one vote each in the JBC,
Chief Justice Sereno informed him that in thus, increasing its membership from
connection with his candidacy for the seven to eight, was challenged. With that,
position of Associate Justice of the this Court examined the constitutional
Supreme Court, the Council would like to provision that states the composition of
propound questions on the following the JBC, that is, Section 8(1), Article VIII of
issues raised against him: 1] his the 1987 Constitution, which reads:
actuations in handling an international
arbitration case not compatible with public SECTION 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar
interest; 2] reports on his extra-marital Council is hereby created under the
affair in SMC; and 3] alleged insider supervision of the Supreme Court
trading which led to the "show cause" composed of the Chief Justice as ex
order from the Philippine Stock Exchange. officio Chairman, the Secretary of
As Jerdeleza himself admitted, he declined Justice, and a representative of the
to answer or to explain his side, as he Congress as ex officio Members, a
would not want to be "lulled into waiving representative of the Integrated Bar, a
his rights." Instead, he manifested that his professor of law, a retired Member of
statement be put on record and informed the Supreme Court, and a
the Council of the then pendency of his representative of the private sector.
letter-petition with the Court en banc. (Emphasis supplied.)
When Chief Justice Sereno informed
Jerdeleza that the Council would want to Following a painstaking analysis, this
hear from him on the three (3) issues Court, in a Decision dated July 17, 2012,
against him, Jerdeleza reasoned out that declared the said practice of having two
this was precisely the issue. He found it representatives from Congress with one
irregular that he was not being given the vote each in the JBC unconstitutional. This
opportunity to be heard per the JBC rules. Court enunciated that the use of the
He asserted that a candidate must be singular
given the opportunity to respond to the letter "a" preceding "representative of the
charges against him. He urged the Chief Congress" in the aforequoted provision is
Justice to step down from her pedestal and unequivocal and leaves no room for any
translate the objections in writing. other construction or interpretation. The
Towards the end of the meeting, the Chief same is indicative of the Framers' intent
Justice said that both Jerdeleza’s written that Congress may designate only one
and oral statements would be made part representative to the JBC. Had it been
of the record. After Jerdeleza was excused otherwise, they could have, in no
from the conference, Justice Lagman uncertain terms, so provided. This Court
suggested that the voting be deferred, but further articulated that in the context of
the Chief Justice ruled that the Council had JBC representation, the term "Congress"
already completed the process required must be taken to mean the entire
for the voting to proceed. Thus the Court legislative department as no liaison
held that the determination that the between the two houses exists in the
application of the "unanimity rule" on workings of the JBC. There is no
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 119 of 123
mechanism required between the Senate during its En Banc deliberations held last
and the House of Representatives in the December 2 and 9, 2016. Instead, the
screening and nomination of judicial petitioner's votes were simply placed in an
officers. Moreover, this Court, quoting the envelope and sealed subject to any further
keen observation of Retired Supreme disposition as this Court may direct in a
Court Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares- proper proceeding. This is the root of the
Santiago, who is also a JBC Consultant, present controversy that prompted the
stated that the ex officio members of the petitioner to file the instant Petition
JBC consist of representatives from the for Certiorari and Mandamus based on the
three main branches of government, to following grounds:
wit: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
representing the judiciary, the Secretary of ISSUE[S]: WON this Court's ruling
Justice representing the executive, and a in Chavez (regarding examined the
representative of the Congress constitutional provision that states the
representing the legislature. It can be composition of the JBC, that is, Section
deduced therefrom that the unmistakable 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution)
tenor of Section 8(1), Article VIII of the applies as stare decisis to the present
1987 Constitution was to treat each ex case.
officio member as representing one co-
equal branch of government having equal RULING: Before delving into the above-
say in the choice of judicial nominees. stated issues, this Court would like to note
Now, to allow the legislature to have more that this Petition was primarily filed
than one representative in the JBC would because of the non-counting of the
negate the principle of equality among petitioner's votes in the JBC En Banc
these three branches of the government, deliberations last December 2 and 9, 2016
which is enshrined in the Constitution. held for the purpose of determining,
among others, who will be the possible
The subsequent MR was denied where this successors of the then retiring Associate
Court reiterated that Section 8(1), Article Justices of the Supreme Court Perez and
VIII of the 1987 Constitution providing Brion, whose retirements were set on
for "a representative of the Congress" in December 14 and 29, 2016, respectively.
the JBC is clear and unambiguous and
does not need any further interpretation. On the application of Chavez as stare
Besides, this Court is not convinced that decisis in this case. The petitioner strongly
the Framers simply failed to adjust the maintains that Chavez must be revisited
aforesaid constitutional provision, by sheer and reversed due to its unexecutability.
inadvertence, to their decision to shift to a But the JBC insists that the arguments
bicameral form of legislature. Even herein are mere rehash of those
granting that there was, indeed, such in Chavez, hence, already barred by the
omission, this Court cannot supply the doctrine of stare decisis. Also, there is no
same. Following the rule of casus cogent reason for Chavez's reversal.
omissus, that is, a case omitted is to be
held as intentionally omitted, this Court This Court takes another glance at the
cannot under its power of interpretation arguments in Chavez and compares them
supply the omission even if the same may with the present arguments of the
have resulted from inadvertence or it was petitioner. A careful perusal, however,
not foreseen or contemplated for to do so reveals that, although the petitioner
would amount to judicial legislation. Ergo, questioned the JBC's adoption of the six-
this Court has neither power nor authority month rotational representation of
to add another member in the JBC simply Congress leading to the non-counting of
by judicial construction. his votes in its En Banc deliberations last
December 2 and 9, 2016, the supporting
In light of these Decision and Resolution, arguments hereof still boil down to the
both Houses of Congress agreed on a six- proper interpretation of Section 8(1),
month rotational representation in the JBC, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
wherein the House of Representatives will Hence, being mere rehash of the
represent Congress from January to June arguments in Chavez, the application of
and the Senate from July to December.This the doctrine of stare decisis in this case is
is now the current practice in the JBC. It is inevitable. More so, the petitioner failed to
by reason of this arrangement that the present strong and compelling reason not
votes cast by the petitioner for the to rule this case in the same way that this
selection of nominees for the vacancies of Court ruled Chavez.
then retiring Supreme Court Associate
Justices Jose P. Perez (Perez) and Arturo As stated in the beginning of
Brion (Brion) were not counted by the JBC this ponencia, stare decisis et non quieta
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 120 of 123
movere is a doctrine which means to another co-equal branch in the matter of
adhere to precedents and not to unsettle its JBC representation.
things which are established. This is
embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code of This Court cannot succumb to the
the Philippines which provides, thus: argument that Congress, being composed
of two distinct and separate chambers,
ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or cannot represent each other in the JBC.
interpreting the laws or the Again, as this Court explained
Constitution shall form a part of the in Chavez, such an argument is misplaced
legal system of the Philippines. because in the JBC, any member of
Congress, whether from the Senate or the
Here, the facts are exactly the same as House of Representatives, is
in Chavez, where this Court has already constitutionally empowered to represent
settled the issue of interpretation of the entire Congress. It may be a
Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 constricted constitutional authority, but it
Constitution. Truly, such ruling may not be is not an absurdity. To broaden the scope
unanimous, but it is undoubtedly a of congressional representation in the JBC
reflection of the wisdom of the majority of is tantamount to the inclusion of a subject
members of this Court on that matter which was not included in the
matter. Chavez cannot simply be regarded provision as enacted. True to its
as an erroneous application of the constitutional mandate, the Court cannot
questioned constitutional provision for it craft and tailor constitutional provisions in
merely applies the clear mandate of the order to accommodate all situations no
law, that is, Congress is entitled to only matter how ideal or reasonable the
one representative in the JBC in the same proposed solution may sound. To the
way that its co-equal branches are. exercise of this intrusion, the Court
declines.
As this Court declared in Chavez, Section
8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is While it is true that Section 8(1), Article
clear, categorical and unambiguous. Thus, VIII of the 1987 Constitution did not
it needs no further construction or explicitly state that the JBC shall be
interpretation. Time and time again, it has composed of seven members, however,
been repeatedly declared by this Court the same is implied in the enumeration of
that where the law speaks in clear and who will be the members thereof. And
categorical language, there is no though it is unnecessary for the JBC
room for interpretation, only composition to be an odd number as no
application. tie-breaker is needed in the preparation of
a shortlist since judicial nominees are not
The wordings of Section 8(1), Article VIII of decided by a "yes" or "no" vote, still, JBC's
the 1987 Constitution are to be considered membership cannot be increased from
as indicative of the final intent of its seven to eight for it will be a clear
Framers, that is, for Congress as a whole violation of the aforesaid constitutional
to only have one representative to sit in provision. To add another member in the
the JBC. This Court, therefore, cannot JBC or to increase the representative of
simply assume that the Framers merely by Congress to the JBC, the remedy is not
oversight failed to consider the bicameral judicial but constitutional amendment.
nature of Congress in drafting the same.
As further laid down in Chavez, the In sum, this Court will not
Framers were not keen on adjusting the overthrow Chavez for it is in accord with
provision on congressional representation the constitutional mandate of giving
in the JBC as it was not in the exercise of Congress "a representative" in the JBC. In
its primary function, which is to legislate. the same manner, the adoption of the
Notably, the JBC was created to support rotational scheme will not in any way
the executive power to appoint, and deprive Congress of its full participation in
Congress, as one whole body, was merely the JBC for such an arrangement is also in
assigned a contributory non-legislative line with that constitutional.
function. No parallelism can be drawn
between the representative of Congress in JUDGE VILLANUEVA vs JBC
the JBC and the exercise by Congress of its Doctrine:
legislative powers under Article VI and  JBC does not fall within the scope of a
constituent powers under Article XVII of tribunal, board, or officer exercising
the Constitution. Congress, in relation to judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
the executive and judicial branches of  The Supreme Court has power of
government, is constitutionally treated as supervision over the JBC.

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 121 of 123
 In carrying out its main function, the Rights for Equal Opportunity of
JBC has the authority to set the Employment. The petitioner also asserted
standards/criteria in choosing its that the requirement of the Prejudicature
nominees for every vacancy in the Program mandated by Section 104 of
judiciary, subject only to the minimum Republic Act (R.A.) No. 85575 should not
qualifications required by the be merely directory and should be fully
Constitution and law for every position. implemented. He further alleged that he
has all the qualifications for the position
FACTS: This is a petition for Prohibition, prescribed by the Constitution and by
Mandamus, and Certiorari to assail the Congress, since he has already complied
policy of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), with the requirement of 10 years of
requiring five years of service as judges of practice of law.
first-level courts before they can qualify as
applicant to second-level courts, on the As a defense, the respondent posited that:
ground that it is unconstitutional, and was (1) the writ of certiorari and prohibition
issued with grave abuse of discretion. cannot issue to prevent the JBC from
performing its principal function under the
The petitioner was appointed as the Constitution to recommend appointees to
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit the Judiciary because the JBC is not a
Trial Court, Compostela-New Bataan, tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
Poblacion, Compostela Valley Province, function; (2) the remedy of mandamus
which is a first-level court. On September and declaratory relief will not lie because
27, 2013, he applied for the vacant the petitioner has no clear legal right that
position of Presiding Judge in the following needs to be protected; (3) the equal
Regional Trial Courts (RTCs): Tagum City; protection clause is not violated because
Davao City; and Prosperidad, Agusan Del the classification of lower court judges
Sur. who have served at least five years and
those who have served less than five
In a letter, JBC's Office of Recruitment, years is valid as it is performance and
Selection and Nomination, informed the experience based; and (4) there is no
petitioner that he was not included in the violation of due process as the policy is
list of candidates for the said stations. On merely internal in nature.
the same date, the petitioner sent a letter,
through electronic mail, seeking ISSUE[S]:
reconsideration of his non-inclusion in the 1. WON the writ of certiorari and
list of considered applicants and prohibition can be issued to prevent
protesting the inclusion of applicants who the JBC from performing its principal
did not pass the prejudicature function under the Constitution to
examination. recommend appointees to the
Judiciary, JBC being not a tribunal
The petitioner was informed by the JBC
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
Executive Officer, through a letter, that his
function.
protest and reconsideration was duly
noted by the JBC en banc. However, its 2. WON the writ of mandamus can be
decision not to include his name in the list issued to assail JBC’s policy
of applicants was upheld due to the JBC's 3. WON the petition for declaratory relief
long-standing policy of opening the chance is proper in this case.
for promotion to second-level courts to, 4. WON the policy of JBC requiring five
among others, incumbent judges who years of service as judges of first-level
have served in their current position for at courts before they can qualify as
least five years, and since the petitioner applicant to second-level courts is
has been a judge only for more than a constitutional.
year, he was excluded from the list. This
caused the petitioner to take recourse to RULING:
this Court. 1. Yes, the remedies of certiorari and
prohibition are tenable.
In his petition, he argued that: (1) the
Constitution already prescribed the The present Rules of Court uses two
qualifications of an RTC judge, and the JBC special civil actions for determining and
could add no more; (2) the JBC’s five-year correcting grave abuse of discretion
requirement violates the equal protection amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
and due process clauses of the In this case, it is clear that the JBC does
Constitution; and (3) the JBC’s five-year not fall within the scope of a tribunal,
requirement violates the constitutional board, or officer exercising judicial or
provision on Social Justice and Human quasi-judicial functions. In the process of
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 122 of 123
selecting and screening applicants, the judicial declaration of the parties' rights or
JBC neither acted in any judicial or quasi- duties thereunder. In this case, the
judicial capacity nor assumed unto itself petition for declaratory relief did not
any performance of judicial or quasi- involve an unsound policy. Rather, the
judicial prerogative. However, since the petition specifically sought a judicial
formulation of guidelines and criteria, declaration that the petitioner has the
including the policy that the petitioner now right to be included in the list of applicants
assails, is necessary and incidental to the although he failed to meet JBC's five-year
exercise of the JBC's constitutional requirement policy. Again, the Court
mandate, a determination must be made reiterates that no person possesses a legal
on whether the JBC has acted with grave right under the Constitution to be included
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in the list of nominees for vacant judicial
excess of jurisdiction in issuing and positions. The opportunity of appointment
enforcing the said policy. to judicial office is a mere privilege, and
not a judicially enforceable right that may
Moroever, the Court can appropriately be properly claimed by any person.
take cognizance of this case by virtue of
the Court's power of supervision over the Therefore, by virtue of the Court's
JBC. Jurisprudence provides that the power supervisory duty over the JBC and in the
of supervision is the power of oversight, or exercise of its expanded judicial power,
the authority to see that subordinate the Court assumes jurisdiction over the
officers perform their duties. Following this present petition. But in any event, even if
definition, the supervisory authority of the the Court will set aside procedural
Court over the JBC is to see to it that the infirmities
JBC complies with its own rules and
procedures. Thus, when the policies of the 4. Yes, the policy of JBC requiring
JBC are being attacked, then the Court, five years of service as judges of
through its supervisory authority over the first-level courts before they can
JBC, has the duty to inquire about the qualify as applicant to second-
matter and ensure that the JBC complies level courts is constitutional.
with its own rules.
Under the Constitution, the JBC is
2. No, the remedy of mandamus mandated to recommend appointees to
cannot be availed of by the the judiciary. While the 1987 Constitution
petitioner in assailing JBC's policy. has provided the qualifications of
members of the judiciary, this does not
It is essential to the issuance of a writ of preclude the JBC from having its own set
mandamus that the applicant should have of rules and procedures and providing
a clear legal right to the thing demanded policies to effectively ensure its mandate.
and it must be the imperative duty of the
respondent to perform the act required. The functions of searching, screening, and
The remedy of mandamus, as an selecting are necessary and incidental to
extraordinary writ, lies only to compel an the JBC’s principal function of choosing
officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a and recommending nominees for
discretionary one. Clearly, the use of vacancies in the judiciary for appointment
discretion and the performance of a by the President. However, the
ministerial act are mutually exclusive. Constitution did not lay down in precise
Clearly, to be included as an applicant to terms the process that the JBC shall follow
second-level judge is not properly in determining applicants’ qualifications.
compellable by mandamus inasmuch as it In carrying out its main function, the JBC
involves the exercise of sound discretion has the authority to set the
by the JBC. standards/criteria in choosing its nominees
for every vacancy in the judiciary, subject
3. No, the petition for declaratory only to the minimum qualifications
relief is improper. required by the Constitution and law for
every position.
An action for declaratory relief should be
filed by a person interested under a deed, JBC’s ultimate goal is to recommend
a will, a contract or other written nominees and not simply to fill up judicial
instrument, and whose rights are affected vacancies in order to promote an effective
by a statute, an executive order, a and efficient administration of justice.
regulation or an ordinance. The relief Given this pragmatic situation, the JBC had
sought under this remedy includes the to establish a set of uniform criteria in
interpretation and determination of the order to ascertain whether an applicant
validity of the written instrument and the meets the minimum constitutional
Edited By: Political Law Review:
Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.
 123 of 123
qualifications and possesses the qualities
expected of him and his office. Thus, the
adoption of the five-year requirement
policy applied by JBC to the petitioner’s
case is necessary and incidental to the
function conferred by the Constitution to
the JBC.

Edited By: Political Law Review:

Domingo, John Rowie, B. Atty. Enan Flores, LL.M.