CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 ARTICLE VIII - JUDICIAL and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse

DEPARTMENT (BASED ON THE UPDATED SYLLABUS) of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Judicial Power
Section 1, Article VIII Requisites of Judicial Review/Inquiry
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. As clearly stated in Angara v. Electoral Commission, the
courts' power of judicial review, like almost all powers
conferred by the Constitution, is subject to several limitations,
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
namely:
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
(1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of judicial power;
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
(2) the person challenging the act must have "standing"
instrumentality of the Government.
to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
MIRANDA VS AGUIRRE sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;
G.R. No. 133064 September 16 1999 (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity; and
FACTS: (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota
1994, RA No. 7720 effected the conversion of the municipality of the case.
of Santiago, Isabela, into an independent component city. July
4th, RA No. 7720 was approved by the people of Santiago in a A. Actual case or controversy
plebiscite. 1998, RA No. 8528 was enacted and it amended RA
No. 7720 that practically downgraded the City of Santiago from An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal right,
an independent component city to a component city. an opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. It is
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA No. 8528 for the "definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties
lack of provision to submit the law for the approval of the having adverse legal interest;" a real and substantial
people of Santiago in a proper plebiscite. controversy admitting of specific relief.
Respondents defended the constitutionality of RA No. 8528 An actual case or controversy means an existing case or
saying that the said act merely reclassified the City of Santiago controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not
from an independent component city into a component city. It conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would
allegedly did not involve any creation, division, merger, amount to an advisory opinion.
abolition, or substantial alteration of boundaries of local
government units, therefore, a plebiscite of the people of JURISPRUDENCE:
Santiago is unnecessary. They also questioned the standing of Lacson vs. Perez, GR No. 147780, May 10, 2001
petitioners to file the petition and argued that the petition raises Alunan III vs. Mirasol, GR No. 108399, July 31, 1997
a political question over which the Court lacks jurisdiction. Salonga vs. Pano, 134 SCRA 438
PACU vs. Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. 806
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the
petition at bar. LACSON VS. PEREZ
357 SCRA 756 G.R. No. 147780
RULING: May 10, 2001
Yes. RA No. 8528 is declared unconstitutional. That Supreme
Court has the jurisdiction over said petition because it involves Facts: President Macapagal-Arroyo declared a State of
not a political question but a justiciable issue, and of which only Rebellion (Proclamation No. 38) on May 1, 2001 as well as
the court could decide whether or not a law passed by the General Order No. 1 ordering the AFP and the PNP to
Congress is unconstitutional. suppress the rebellion in the NCR. Warrantless arrests of
several alleged leaders and promoters of the rebellion were
That when an amendment of the law involves creation, merger, thereafter effected. Petitioner filed for prohibition, injunction,
division, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of mandamus and habeas corpus with an application for the
local government units, a plebiscite in the political units directly issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of
affected is mandatory. preliminary injunction. Petitioners assail the declaration of
Proc. No. 38 and the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by
Petitioners are directly affected in the implementation of RA virtue thereof. Petitioners furthermore pray that the appropriate
No. 8528. Miranda was the mayor of Santiago City, Afiado was court, wherein the information against them were filed, would
the President of the Sangguniang Liga, together with 3 other desist arraignment and trial until this instant petition is
petitioners were all residents and voters in the City of Santiago. resolved. They also contend that they are allegedly faced with
It is their right to be heard in the conversion of their city through impending warrantless arrests and unlawful restraint being that
a plebiscite to be conducted by the COMELEC. Thus, denial of hold departure orders were issued against them.
their right in RA No. 8528 gives them proper standing to strike
down the law as unconstitutional. Issue: Whether or Not Proclamation No. 38 is valid, along with
the warrantless arrests and hold departure orders allegedly
Sec. 1 of Art. VIII of the Constitution states that: the judicial effected by the same.
power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes Held: President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the lifting of Proc.
the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies No. 38 on May 6, 2006, accordingly the instant petition has
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, been rendered moot and academic. Respondents have
declared that the Justice Department and the police authorities because under Art. IX, C, 2(1) of the Constitution the power to
intend to obtain regular warrants of arrests from the courts for enforce and administer "all laws and regulations relative to the
all acts committed prior to and until May 1, 2001. Under conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, authorities may only recall" is vested solely in the COMELEC; (2) the COMELEC
resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion had already in effect determined that there had been no
in suppressing the rebellion if the circumstances so warrant, previous elections for KB by calling for general elections for SK
thus the warrantless arrests are not based on Proc. No. 38. officers in every barangay without exception; and (3) the
Petitioners prayer for mandamus and prohibition is improper at "exemption" of the City of Manila was violative of the equal
this time because an individual warrantlessly arrested has protection clause of the Constitution because, according to the
adequate remedies in law: Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, DILG's records, in 5,000 barangays KB elections were held
providing for preliminary investigation, Article 125 of the between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992 but only in the
Revised Penal Code, providing for the period in which a City of Manila, where there were 897 barangays, was there no
warrantlessly arrested person must be delivered to the proper elections held on December 4, 1992.
judicial authorities, otherwise the officer responsible for such
may be penalized for the delay of the same. If the detention Petitioners sought this review on certiorari. They insist that the
should have no legal ground, the arresting officer can be City of Manila, having already conducted elections for the KB
charged with arbitrary detention, not prejudicial to claim of on May 26, 1990, was exempted from holding elections on
damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code. Petitioners were December 4, 1992. In support of their contention, they cite
neither assailing the validity of the subject hold departure 532(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991, which
orders, nor were they expressing any intention to leave the provides that:
country in the near future. To declare the hold departure orders
null and void ab initio must be made in the proper proceedings All seats reserved for the pederasyon ng mga sangguniang
initiated for that purpose. Petitioners prayer for relief regarding kabataan in the different sangguniang shall be deemed vacant
their alleged impending warrantless arrests is premature being until such time that the sangguniang kabataan chairmen shall
that no complaints have been filed against them for any crime, have been elected and the respective pederasyon presidents
furthermore, the writ of habeas corpus is uncalled for since its have been selected: Provided, That, elections for the
purpose is to relieve unlawful restraint which Petitioners are kabataang barangay conducted under Batas Pambansa Blg.
not subjected to. 337 at any time between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992
shall be considered as the first elections provided for in this
Petition is dismissed. Respondents, consistent and congruent Code. The term of office of the kabataang barangay officials
with their undertaking earlier adverted to, together with their elected within the said period shall be extended
agents, representatives, and all persons acting in their behalf, correspondingly to coincide with the term of office of those
are hereby enjoined from arresting Petitioners without the elected under this Code.
required judicial warrants for all acts committed in relation to or
in connection with the May 1, 2001 siege of Malacaang. Issue: Whether the case has been moot and academic.

ALUNAN ET AL. VS MIRASOL ET AL. Held: The Supreme Court held that the issue is not moot and it
G.R. No. 108399 is necessary in fact to decide the case on the issues raised by
July 31, 1997 the parties. The case comes with the rule that courts will
decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision dated capable of repetition and yet evade review. Rejecting the
January 19, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, contention of being moot and academic, the Supreme Court in
Manila nullifying an order of the DILG, which cancelled the the Southern Pacific Terminal case held:
general elections for the SK dated December 4, 1992 in the
City of Manila on the ground that the elections previously held The question involved in the orders of the Interstate Commerce
on May 26, 1990 served the purpose of the first SK under the Commission are usually continuing (as are manifestly those in
LGC of 1991 (R.A. 7160). the case at bar), and these considerations ought not to be, as
they might be, defeated, by short-term orders, capable of
On September 18, 1992, the DILG issued a resolution through repetition, yet evading review, and at one time the government,
then Secretary Rafael M. Alunan III exempting the City of and at another time the carriers, have their rights determined
Manila from holding its SK election on December 4, 1992. This by the Commission without a chance of redress.
was issued in relation to the letter of Joshue R. Santiago,
acting president of the KB City Federation of Manila. In its Moreover in Roa vs. Wade, the US Supreme Court explained:
resolution, the DILG stated: [W]hen, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact the litigation,
[A] close examination of . . . RA 7160 would readily reveal the the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the
intention of the legislature to exempt from the forthcoming pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate
Sangguniang Kabataan elections those kabataang barangay process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot,
chapters which may have conducted their elections within the pregnancy litigation seldom will survive. Our laws should not
period of January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992 under BP 337. be that rigid. Pregnancy provides a classic justification
Manifestly the term of office of those elected KB officials have for a conclusion of non-mootness. It truly could be capable of
been correspondingly extended to coincide with the term of repetition, yet evading review.
office of those who may be elected under RA 7160.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Manila, Branch 36 is REVERSED and the case filed against
RTC of Manila, which then issued an injunction ordering petitioner by private respondents is DISMISSED.
petitioners to desist from implementing the order of the DILG.
Trial of the case ensued and a Decision was issued holding
that the (1) the DILG had no power to "exempt" the City of SALONGA vs PAO
Manila from holding SK elections on December 4, 1992
 G.R. No. L-59524 February 18, 1985 Held: 1. No. The Court had already deliberated on this case, a
consensus on the Courts judgment had been arrived at, and a
draft ponencia was circulating for concurrences and separate
opinions, if any, when on January 18, 1985, respondent Judge
Facts: The petitioner invokes the constitutionally protected Rodolfo Ortiz granted the motion of respondent City Fiscal
right to life and liberty guaranteed by the due process clause, Sergio Apostol to drop the subversion case against the
alleging that no prima facie case has been established to petitioner. Pursuant to instructions of the Minister of Justice,
warrant the filing of an information for subversion against him. the prosecution restudied its evidence and decided to seek the
Petitioner asks the Court to prohibit and prevent the exclusion of petitioner Jovito Salonga as one of the accused in
respondents from using the iron arm of the law to harass, the information filed under the questioned resolution.
oppress, and persecute him, a member of the democratic
opposition in the Philippines. The court is constrained by this action of the prosecution and
the respondent Judge to withdraw the draft ponencia from
The case roots backs to the rash of bombings which occurred circulating for concurrences and signatures and to place it
in the Metro Manila area in the months of August, September once again in the Courts crowded agenda for further
and October of 1980. Victor Burns Lovely, Jr, one of the victims deliberations.
of the bombing, implicated petitioner Salonga as one of those
responsible. Insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to warrant the
filing of subversion charges is concerned, this decision has
On December 10, 1980, the Judge Advocate General sent the been rendered moot and academic by the action of the
petitioner a Notice of Preliminary Investigation in People v. prosecution.
Benigno Aquino, Jr., et al. (which included petitioner as a co-
accused), stating that the preliminary investigation of the 2. Yes. Despite the SCs dismissal of the petition due to the
above-entitled case has been set at 2:30 oclock p.m. on cases moot and academic nature, it has on several occasions
December 12, 1980 and that petitioner was given ten (10) rendered elaborate decisions in similar cases where mootness
days from receipt of the charge sheet and the supporting was clearly apparent.
evidence within which to file his counter-evidence. The
petitioner states that up to the time martial law was lifted on The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and
January 17, 1981, and despite assurance to the contrary, he controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or
has not received any copies of the charges against him nor rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar
any copies of the so-called supporting evidence. on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees.

The counsel for Salonga was furnished a copy of an amended In dela Camara vs Enage (41 SCRA 1), the court ruled that:
complaint signed by Gen. Prospero Olivas, dated 12 March
1981, charging Salonga, along with 39 other accused with the The fact that the case is moot and academic should not
violation of RA 1700, as amended by PD 885, BP 31 and PD preclude this Tribunal from setting forth in language clear and
1736. On 15 October 1981, the counsel for Salonga filed a unmistakable, the obligation of fidelity on the part of lower
motion to dismiss the charges against Salonga for failure of the court judges to the unequivocal command of the Constitution
prosecution to establish a prima facie case against him. On 2 that excessive bail shall not be required.
December 1981, Judge Ernani Cruz Pano (Presiding Judge of
the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVIII, Quezon City) In Gonzales v. Marcos (65 SCRA 624) whether or not the
denied the motion. On 4 January 1982, he (Pano) issued a Cultural Center of the Philippines could validly be created
resolution ordering the filing of an information for violation of through an executive order was mooted by Presidential Decree
the Revised Anti-Subversion Act, as amended, against 40 No. 15, the Centers new charter pursuant to the Presidents
people, including Salonga. The resolutions of the said judge legislative powers under martial law. Nevertheless, the Court
dated 2 December 1981 and 4 January 1982 are the subject of discussed the constitutional mandate on the preservation and
the present petition for certiorari. It is the contention of Salonga development of Filipino culture for national Identity. (Article XV,
that no prima facie case has been established by the Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution).
prosecution to justify the filing of an information against him.
He states that to sanction his further prosecution despite the
In the habeas corpus case of Aquino, Jr., v. Enrile, 59 SCRA
lack of evidence against him would be to admit that no rule of
183), the fact that the petition was moot and academic did not
law exists in the Philippines today.
prevent this Court in the exercise of its symbolic function from
promulgating one of the most voluminous decisions ever
Issues: 1. Whether the above case still falls under an actual printed in the Reports.
case

2. Whether the above case dropped by the lower court still

deserves a decision from the Supreme Court
Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities vs (5) Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,
Inc, GR No. 155001, May 05, 2003
Secretary of Education (6) Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141
(7) Philconsa vs. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506
95 Phil. 806 Political Law Civic Efficiency
NOT PROPER PARTIES
(1) Cutaran vs. DENR, GR No. 134958, January 31, 2001
The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (2) Joya vs. PCGG, 225 SCRA 568
(PACU) assailed the constitutionality of Act No. 2706 as (3) Lacson vs. Perez, GR No. 147780, May 10, 2001
amended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No. 180. (4) IBP vs. Zamora, GR No. 141284, August 15, 2000
These laws sought to regulate the ownership of private schools
in the country. It is provided by these laws that a permit should
first be secured from the Secretary of Education before a
person may be granted the right to own and operate a private Francisco Tatad et al vs Secretary of Energy
school. This also gives the Secretary of Education the
discretion to ascertain standards that must be followed by Equal Protection Oil Deregulation Law
private schools. It also provides that the Secretary of Education
can and may ban certain textbooks from being used in schools.
Considering that oil is not endemic to this country, history
shows that the government has always been finding ways to
PACU contends that the right of a citizen to own and operate a alleviate the oil industry. The government created laws
school is guaranteed by the Constitution, and any law requiring accommodate these innovations in the oil industry. One such
previous governmental approval or permit before such person law is the Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1996 or RA
could exercise said right, amounts to censorship of previous 8180. This law allows that any person or entity may import or
restraint, a practice abhorrent to our system of law and purchase any quantity of crude oil and petroleum products
government. PACU also avers that such power granted to the from a foreign or domestic source, lease or own and operate
Secretary of Education is an undue delegation of legislative refineries and other downstream oil facilities and market such
power; that there is undue delegation because the law did not crude oil or use the same for his own requirement, subject
specify the basis or the standard upon which the Secretary only to monitoring by the Department of Energy. Tatad assails
must exercise said discretion; that the power to ban books the constitutionality of the law. He claims, among others, that
granted to the Secretary amounts to censorship. the imposition of different tariff rates on imported crude oil and
imported refined petroleum products violates the equal
ISSUE: Whether or not Act No, 2706 as amended is protection clause. Tatad contends that the 3%-7% tariff
unconstitutional. differential unduly favors the three existing oil refineries and
discriminates against prospective investors in the downstream
HELD: No. In the first place, there is no justiciable controversy oil industry who do not have their own refineries and will have
presented. PACU did not show that it suffered any injury from to source refined petroleum products from abroad.3% is to be
the exercise of the Secretary of Education of such powers taxed on unrefined crude products and 7% on refined crude
granted to him by the said law. products.

Second, the State has the power to regulate, in fact control, the ISSUE: Whether or not RA 8180 is constitutional.
ownership of schools. The Constitution provides for state
control of all educational institutions even as it enumerates HELD: The SC declared the unconstitutionality of RA 8180
certain fundamental objectives of all education to wit, the because it violated Sec 19 of Art 12 of the Constitution. It
development of moral character, personal discipline, civic violated that provision because it only strengthens oligopoly
conscience and vocational efficiency, and instruction in the which is contrary to free competition. It cannot be denied that
duties of citizenship. The State control of private education was our downstream oil industry is operated and controlled by an
intended by the organic law. oligopoly, a foreign oligopoly at that. Petron, Shell and Caltex
stand as the only major league players in the oil market. All
Third, the State has the power to ban illegal textbooks or those other players belong to the lilliputian league. As the dominant
that are offensive to Filipino morals. This is still part of the players, Petron, Shell and Caltex boast of existing refineries of
power of control and regulation by the State over all schools. various capacities. The tariff differential of 4% therefore works
to their immense benefit. Yet, this is only one edge of the tariff
B. The constitutional question must be raised by the differential. The other edge cuts and cuts deep in the heart of
proper party their competitors. It erects a high barrier to the entry of new
players. New players that intend to equalize the market power
of Petron, Shell and Caltex by building refineries of their own
(1) Tatad vs. Secretary, Department of Energy, GR No.
124360, November 5, 1997 will have to spend billions of pesos. Those who will not build
(2) Anti-graft League of the Philippines vs. CA, 260 SCRA refineries but compete with them will suffer the huge
236 disadvantage of increasing their product cost by 4%. They will
(3) Macasiano vs. National Housing Authority, 224 SCRA 236 be competing on an uneven field. The argument that the 4%
(4) The People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56) tariff differential is desirable because it will induce prospective
players to invest in refineries puts the cart before the horse. P110.00 per square meter in line with the objectives of P.D.
The first need is to attract new players and they cannot be 674. Petitioner never referred to such purchase as an illegal
attracted by burdening them with heavy disincentives. Without disbursement of public funds but focused on the alleged
new players belonging to the league of Petron, Shell and fraudulent reconveyance of said property to Ortigas because
Caltex, competition in our downstream oil industry is an idle the price paid was lower than the prevailing market value of
dream. neighboring lots. The first requirement, therefore, which would
make this petition a taxpayers suit is absent.
RA 8180 is unconstitutional on the ground inter alia that it
discriminated against the new players insofar as it placed 2) No. As a taxpayer, petitioner would somehow be adversely
them at a competitive disadvantage vis--vis the established oil affected by an illegal use of public money. When, however, no
companies by requiring them to meet certain conditions such unlawful spending has been shown, as in the case at bar,
already being observed by the latter. petitioner, even as a taxpayer, cannot question the transaction
validly executed by and between the Province and Ortigas for
Anti-Graft League of the Philippines vs. CA [G.R. No. the simple reason that it is not privy to said contract. In other
97787; August 1, 1996] words, petitioner has absolutely no cause of action, and
consequently no locus standi, in the instant case.

MACASIANO VS. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, 224

SCRA 236

FACTS: Petitioner seeks to have this Court declare as

Facts: PD 674 was issued by Pres. Marcos, establishing the unconstitutional Sections 28 and 44 of Republic Act No. 7279,
Technological Colleges of Rizal. It directed the Board to otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act
provide funds for the purchase of a site and the construction of of 1992. He predicates his locust standi on his being a
consultant of the Department of Public Works and Highways
the necessary structures thereon. The Province was able to
(DPWH) pursuant to a Contract of Consultancy on Operation
negotiate with respondent Ortigas & Co., Ltd. for the for Removal of Obstructions and Encroachments on Properties
acquisition of four parcels of land located in Ugong Norte, of Public Domain (executed immediately after his retirement on
Pasig. The projected construction, however, never 2 January 1992 from the Philippine National Police) and his
materialized because of the decimation of the Provinces being a taxpayer. As to the first, he alleges that said Sections
resources brought about by the creation of the Metro Manila 28 and 44 "contain the seeds of a ripening controversy that
Commission (MMC) in 1976. serve as drawback" to his "tasks and duties regarding
demolition of illegal structures"; because of the said sections,
he "is unable to continue the demolition of illegal structures
which he assiduously and faithfully carried out in the past."

Twelve years later, with the property lying idle and the Province As a taxpayer, he alleges that "he has a direct interest in
seeing to it that public funds are properly and lawfully
needing funds to propel its 5-year Comprehensive disbursed."
Development Program, the then incumbent Board passed
Resolution No. 87-205 dated October 15, 1987 authorizing the On 14 May 1993, the Solicitor General filed his Comment to
Governor to sell the same. The property was eventually sold the petition. He maintains that, the instant petition is devoid of
to Valley View Realty Development Corporation. merit for non-compliance with the essential requisites for the
exercise of judicial review in cases involving the
constitutionality of a law. He contends that there is no actual
case or controversy with litigants asserting adverse legal rights
or interests, that the petitioner merely asks for an advisory
Issue: 1) WON the action is a taxpayers suit. opinion, that the petitioner is not the proper party to question
the Act as he does not state that he has property "being
squatted upon" and that there is no showing that the question
2) WON petitioner has locus standi. of constitutionality is the very lis mota presented. He argues
that Sections 28 and 44 of the Act are not constitutionality
infirm.

Issue: Whether or not Petitioner has legal standing

Held: 1) No. To constitute a taxpayers suit, two requisites
must be met, namely, that public funds are disbursed by a Held: It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the
political subdivision or instrumentality and in doing so, a law is constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be
violated or some irregularity is committed, and that the determined by the courts unless that, question is properly
petitioner is directly affected by the alleged ultra vires act. raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to
a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality
must be very lis mota presented.

To reiterate, the essential requisites for a successful judicial

In the case at bar, disbursement of public funds was only made inquiry into the constitutionality of a law are:
in 1975 when the Province bought the lands from Ortigas at
(a) the existence of an actual case or controversy involving a 4221, and thereafter prohibit the said Court of First Instance
conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial determination, from taking any further action or entertaining further the
(b) the constitutional question must be raised by a proper aforementioned application for probation, to the end that the
property,
defendant Mariano Cu Unjieng may be forthwith committed to
(c) the constitutional question must be raised at the
opportunity, and prison in accordance with the final judgment of conviction
(d) the resolution of the constitutional question must be rendered by this court in said case (G. R. No. 41200).
necessary to the decision of the case. Issue: WON the People of the Philippines, through the
Solicitor General and Fiscal of the City of Manila, is a proper
A proper party is one who has sustained or is in danger of party in present case.
sustaining an immediate injury as a result of the acts or Held: Yes. The People of the Philippines, represented by the
measures complained of. It is easily discernible in the instant Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila, is a
case that the first two (2) fundamental requisites are absent. proper party in the present proceedings. The unchallenged rule
is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must
There is no actual controversy. Moreover, petitioner does not have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
claim that, in either or both of the capacities in which he is filing he has sustained or will sustained, direct injury as a result of its
the petition, he has been actually prevented from performing enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act 4221 really
his duties as a consultant and exercising his rights as a violates the constitution, the People of the Philippines, in
property owner because of the assertion by other parties of whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial
any benefit under the challenged sections of the said Act. interest in having it set aside. Of greater import than the
damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the
Judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo. Judicial power is mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the
the "right to determine actual controversies arising between enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-settled rule
adverse litigants." Wherefore, for lack of merit, the instant that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws
petition is DISMISSED with costs against the petitioner. SO
ORDERED. Agan Jr. v PIATCO
420 SCRA 575

PEOPLE VS. VERA [G.R. NO. L-45685; NOVEMBER 16, Petition: Motions for Reconsideration by respondents of the
1937] decision of this court declaring the contracts for the NAIA IPT
III project null and void
Facts: Respondent herein, Hon. Jose O. Vera, is the Judge ad Petitioner: DEMOSTHENES P. AGAN, JR.
interim of the seventh branch of the Court of First Instance of Respondent: PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS
Manila, who heard the application of the defendant Mariano Cu CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
Unjieng for probation in the aforesaid criminal case. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The CFI of Manila, on January 8, 1934, rendered a judgment of AND COMMUNICATIONS and SECRETARY LEANDRO M.
conviction sentencing the defendant Mariano Cu Unjieng to an MENDOZA
indeterminate penalty ranging from four years and two months
Ponente: Puno
of prision correccional to eight years of prison mayor, to pay Date: January 21, 2004
the costs and with reservation of civil action to the offended
party, the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Upon Facts:
appeal, the court, on March 26, 1935, modified the sentence to On October 5, 1994, AEDC submitted an unsolicited proposal
an indeterminate penalty of from five years and six months of to the Government through the DOTC/MIAA for the
development of NAIA International Passenger Terminal III
prision correccional to seven years, six months and twenty-
(NAIA IPT III).
seven days of prison mayor, but affirmed the judgment in all
other respects. DOTC/MIAA invited the public for submission of competitive
Evidence as to the circumstances under which said motion for and comparative proposals to the unsolicited proposal of
leave to intervene as amici curiae was signed and submitted to AEDC. On September 20, 1996 a consortium composed of the
court was to have been heard on August 19, 1937. But at this Peoples Air Cargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. (Paircargo), Phil.
juncture, herein petitioners came to this court on extraordinary Air and Grounds Services, Inc. (PAGS) and Security Bank
Corp. (Security Bank) (collectively, Paircargo Consortium),
legal process to put an end to what they alleged was an
submitted their competitive proposal to the Prequalification
interminable proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Manila Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC).
which fostered "the campaign of the defendant Mariano Cu
Unjieng for delay in the execution of the sentence imposed by DOTC issued the notice of award for the NAIA IPT III project to
this Honorable Court on him, exposing the courts to criticism the Paircargo Consortium, which later organized into herein
and ridicule because of the apparent inability of the judicial respondent PIATCO. Hence, on July 12, 1997, the
machinery to make effective a final judgment of this court Government, through then DOTC Secretary Arturo T. Enrile,
and PIATCO, through its President, Henry T. Go, signed the
imposed on the defendant Mariano Cu Unjieng."
Concession Agreement for the Build-Operate-and-Transfer
This court may review the actuations of the aforesaid Court of Arrangement of the NAIA IPT III. On November 26, 1998, the
First Instance in criminal case No. 42649 entitled "The People 1997 Concession Agreement was superseded by the Amended
of the Philippine Islands vs. Mariano Cu Unjieng, et al.", more and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA) containing
particularly the application of the defendant Mariano Cu certain revisions and modifications from the original contract. A
Unjieng therein for probation under the provisions of Act No. series of supplemental agreements was also entered into by
the Government and PIATCO.
 b.) it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected
On September 17, 2002, various petitions were filed before this zone of privacy.
Court to annul the 1997 Concession Agreement, the ARCA and He also contended that the appropriation of public funds by the
the Supplements and to prohibit the public respondents president for the implementation of AO 308 is an
DOTC and MIAA from implementing them. This Court granted unconstitutional usurpation of the exclusive right of congress to
the said petitions and declared the 1997 Concession appropriate public funds for expenditure.
Agreement, the ARCA and the Supplements null and void.
Respondent PIATCO, respondent-Congressmen and AO 308 aims to establish a computerized system to properly
respondents-intervenors now seek the reversal of the said and efficiently identify persons seeking basic services on social
decision and pray that the petitions be dismissed. In the security and reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent
alternative, PIATCO prays that the Court should not strike transactions and misrepresentations.
down the entire 1997 Concession Agreement, the ARCA
and its supplements in light of their separability clause. Then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres and the heads of the
Respondent-Congressmen and NMTAI also pray that in the government agencies, who as members of the Inter-Agency
alternative, the cases at bar should be referred to arbitration Coordinating Committee, the respondents have the following
pursuant to the provisions of the ARCA. PIATCO-Employees counter arguments:
pray that the petitions be dismissed and remanded to the trial a.) The instant petition is not a justiciable case as would
courts for trial on the merits or in the alternative that the 1997 warrant a judicial review
Concession Agreement, the ARCA and the Supplements be b.) AO 308 was issued within the executive and
declared valid and binding. administrative powers of the president without
encroaching on the legislative powers of congress.
Issue: They also contend that A.O. No. 308 implements the
Whether or not the state can temporarily take over a business legislative policy of the Administrative Code of 1987.
affected with public interest c.) The funds necessary for the implementation of the ID
reference system may be sourced from the budgets of
Held: the concerned agencies
Yes. PIATCO cannot, by mere contractual stipulation, d.) AO 308 protects an individuals interest in privacy
contravene the constitutional provision on temporary takeover
and obligate the government to pay reasonable cost for the Issues:
use of terminal and/or terminal complex. a.) Whether or not Senator Ople has the standing to sue
and the justiciability of the case at bar.
Section 17, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution grants the State b.) Whether or not AO 308 is not merely an
in times of national emergency the right to temporarily take administrative order but a law and hence, beyond the
over the operation of any business affected with public interest. power of the President to issue (encroachment of
legislative power)
This right is an exercise of police power which is one of the c.) Whether or not AO 308 violates the right to privacy.
inherent powers of the State. Police power has been defined
as the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere Held:
with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general a.) Petitioner Ople as a Senator has legal standing to
welfare." It consists of two essential elements: (1) an bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of A.O.
imposition of restraint upon liberty or property and (2) the No. 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. As
power is exercised for the benefit of the common good. It is taxpayer and member of the Government Service
also settled that public interest on the occasion of a national Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can also impugn
emergency is the primary consideration when the government the legality of the misalignment of public funds and
decides to temporarily take over or direct the operation of a the misuse of GSIS funds to implement A.O. No. 308.
public utility or a business affected with public interest. The The ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not
nature and extent of the emergency is the measure of the affected by the fact that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308
duration of the takeover as well as the terms thereof. have yet to be promulgated. Petitioner Ople assails A.O. No.
308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on its face. His action is
Section 5.10(c), Article V of the ARCA provides that respondent not premature for the rules yet to be promulgated cannot cure
PIATCO shall be entitled to reasonable compensation for the its fatal defects. Moreover, the respondents themselves have
duration of the temporary takeover by GRP, which started the implementation of A.O. No. 308 without waiting for
compensation shall take into account the reasonable cost for the rules
the use of the Terminal and/orTerminal Complex. It clearly
obligates the government in the exercise of its police power to b.) An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the
compensate respondent PIATCO and this obligation is President which relates to specific aspects in the
offensive to the Constitution. Police power cannot be administrative operation of government.
diminished, let alone defeated by any contract for its
paramount consideration is public welfare and interest. The respondents argument that A.O. No. 308 implements the
legislative policy of the Administrative Code of 1987 was
Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998) rejected by the SC because the Administrative Code is a
Facts: general law which "incorporates in a unified document the
Senator Blas Ople prayed to invalidate Administrative Order major structural, functional and procedural principles of
No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized governance" and "embodies changes in administrative
Identification Reference System" on the following important structures and procedures designed to serve the people." AO
constitutional grounds: 308 establishes for the first time a National Computerized
a.) it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to Identification Reference System. Such a System requires a
legislate; delicate adjustment of various contending state policies-- the
primacy of national security, the extent of privacy interest
against dossier-gathering by government, the choice of
policies, etc. On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill into law,
making it as Republic Act No. 7663, entitled "AN ACT
They also argue that A.O. No. 308 is not a law because it APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
confers no right, imposes no duty, affords no protection, and GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY
creates no office. However, without the ID, a citizen will have ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED
difficulty exercising his rights and enjoying his privileges. Given AND NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (GAA of
this reality, the contention that A.O. No. 308 gives no right and 1994). On the same day, the President delivered his
imposes no duty cannot stand. Presidential Veto Message, specifying the provisions of the bill
he vetoed and on which he imposed certain conditions.
c.) AO 308 is a violation to the right to privacy. The
essence of privacy is the "right to be let alone." The Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member of
right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in several Congress to realign his allocation for operational expenses to
provisions of our Constitution. It is expressly any other expense category claiming that it violates Section 25,
recognized in several provisions of the Bill of Rights, Article 7 of the Constitution. Issues of constitutionality were
Civil Code and even the Revised Penal Code. raised before the Supreme Court.

The right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Petition prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare
Constitution, hence, it is the burden of government to show unconstitutional and void the provision under Article 16 of
that A.O. No. 308 is justified by some compelling state interest the Countrywide Development Fund and the veto of the
and that it is narrowly drawn. A.O. No. 308 is predicated on two President of the Special provision of Art XLVIII of the GAA of
considerations: (1) the need to provide our citizens and 1994.
foreigners with the facility to conveniently transact business
with basic service and social security providers and other There were 16 members of the Senate who sought for the
government instrumentalities and (2) the need to reduce, if not issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions and against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Department
misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services. of Budget and Management and the National Treasurer and
questions the constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the
The heart of A.O. No. 308 lies in its Section 4 which provides President in the items of the GAA of 1994 as well as the
for a Population Reference Number (PRN) as a "common constitutionality of the veto of the special provision in the
reference number to establish a linkage among concerned appropriation for debt services.
agencies" through the use of "Biometrics Technology" and
"computer application designs." It is noteworthy that A.O. No. Senator Tanada and Senator Romulo sought the issuance of
308 does not state what specific biological characteristics and the writs of prohibition and mandamus against the same
what particular biometrics technology shall be used to identify respondents. Petitioners contest the constitutionality of (1) the
people who will seek its coverage. Considering the banquet of veto on four special provisions added to items in the GAA of
options available to the implementors of A.O. No. 308, the fear 1994 for the AFP and DPWH; and (2) the conditions imposed
that it threatens the right to privacy of our people is not by the President inthe implementation of certain appropriations
groundless. for the CAFGUs, DPWH, and National Highway Authority.

It also does not state whether encoding of data is limited to ISSUE:

biological information alone for identification purposes. The SG Whether or not the Congress have the legal standing to
claims that the adoption of the Identification Reference System question the validity of acts of the Executive.
will contribute to the "generation of population data for
development planning." This is an admission that the PRN will HELD:
not be used solely for identification but for the generation of The Court held that the members of Congress have the legal
other data with remote relation to the avowed purposes of A.O. standing to question the validity of acts of the Executive
No. 308. Clearly, the indefiniteness of A.O. No. 308 can give which injures them in their person or the institution of Congress
the government the roving authority to store and retrieve to which they belong. In the latter case, the acts cause
information for a purpose other than the identification of the derivative but nonetheless substantial injury which can be
individual through his PRN. questioned by members of Congress. In the absence of
a claim that the contract in question violated the rights of
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and Administrative petitioners or impermissibly intruded into the domain of the
Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Legislature, petitioners have no legal standing to institute the
Identification Reference System" declared null and void for instant action in their capacity as members of Congress.
being unconstitutional.
[G.R. No. 134958. January 31, 2001]
PHILCONSA VS. ENRIQUEZ PATRICIO CUTARAN, DAVID DANGWAS and PACIO DOSIL,
G.R. No. 113105, August 19 1994, 235 SCRA 506 petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT and
NATURAL RESOURCES, herein represented by SEC.
FACTS: VICTOR O. RAMOS, OSCAR M. HAMADA and GUILLERMO
House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation Bill of 1994 S. FIANZA, in his capacity as Chairman of Community
(GAB of 1994), was passed and approved by both houses of Special Task Force on Ancestral Lands (CSTFAL), Baguio
Congress on December 17, 1993. As passed, it City, respondents.
imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of
appropriations in the proposed budget previously submitted by FACTS: Cutaran et.al. assails the validity of DENR Special
the President. It also authorized members of Congress to Order31, Special Order 25, and Department Administrative
propose and identify projects in the "pork barrels" allotted to Order 2 for being issued without prior legislative authority.-
them and to realign their respective operating budgets. Special Order (SO) 31 (1990): Creation of a Special Task
force on acceptance, identification, evaluation and delineation Aquino, through former Executive Secretary Catalino
of ancestral land claims in the Cordillera Administrative Macaraig, Jr., authorized Chairman Caparas to sign
Region- Special Order (SO) 25: Creation of Special Task the Consignment Agreement allowing Christie's of New York to
Forces provincial and community environment and natural auction off the subject art pieces for and in behalf of the
resources offices for the identification, delineation and Republic of the Philippines. On 15 August 1990, PCGG,
recognition of ancestral land claims nationwide- DAO 2: through Chairman Caparas, representing the Government of
Implementing Rules and Guidelines of Special Order no. 25 the Republic of the Philippines, signed
The same year SO 31 was issued, relatives of petitioners filed the Consignment Agreement withChristie's of New York.
separate applications for Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim According to the agreement, PCGG shall consign
(CALC) for the land they occupy inside the Camp John Hay toCHRISTIE'S for sale at public auction the eighty-two Old
Reservation. -These petitions were denied. Also pursuant to Masters Paintings then found at the Metropolitan Museum of
the SOs, the heirs of A peg Carantes filed application for Manila as well as the silverware contained in seventy-one
CALC for some portions of land in the Camp John Hay cartons in the custody of the Central Bank of the Philippines,
Reservation, overlapping some of the land occupied by the and such other property as may subsequently be identified by
petitioners. The petitioners contend that if not for the PCGG and accepted by CHRISTIE'S to be subject to the
respondents timely resistance to the Orders, the petitioners provisions of the agreement.
would be totally evicted from their land.- Petitioners filed in the
CA petition to enjoin respondents from implementing Orders on On 26 October 1990, the Commission on Audit through then
ground that they are void for lack of legal basis. CA ruled that Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo submitted to President Aquino
SO31 has no force and effect for preempting legislative the audit findings and observations of COA on
prerogative for it was issued prior to the effectivity of RA7586 the Consignment Agreement of 15 August 1990 to the effect
(National Integrated Protected Systems), but it sustained that: the authority of former PCGG Chairman Caparas to enter
SO25and DAO 2 on the ground that they were issued pursuant into the Consignment Agreement was of doubtful legality; the
to powers delegated to DENR under RA7586.- Petitioners now contract was highly disadvantageous to the government;
contend that CA erred in upholding the validity of SO25 and PCGG had a poor track record in asset disposal by auction in
DAO 2 and seek to enjoin the DENR from processing the the U.S.; and, the assets subject of auction were historical
application of CALC of Heirs of Carantes. relics and had cultural significance, hence, their disposal was
prohibited by law.
ISSUE: WON SO 25 and DAO 2 are valid
After the oral arguments of the parties on 9 January 1991, we
HELD: Not a justiciable controversy. The petition was issued immediately our resolution denying the application for
prematurely filed. There is yet no justiciable controversy for the preliminary injunction to restrain the scheduled sale of the
court to resolve. The adverse legal interests involved are the artworks on the ground that petitioners had not presented a
competing claims of the petitioners and heirs of Carantes to clear legal right to a restraining order and that proper parties
possess a common piece of land. Since the CALC application had not been impleaded.
of the Heirs of Carantes has not yet been granted or issued,
and which the DENR may or may not grant, there is yet no On 11 January 1991, the sale at public auction proceeded as
actual or imminent violation of petitioners asserted right to scheduled and the proceeds of $13,302,604.86 were turned
possess the disputed land.- Definition of justiciable over to the Bureau of Treasury.
controversy: a definite and concrete dispute touching on the
legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests which Issues:
may be resolved by a court of law through the application of a (1) Whether or not petitioners have legal standing.
law.- Subject to certain well-defined exceptions, the courts will (2) Whether or not the Old Masters Paintings and antique
not touch an issue involving the validity of a law unless there silverware are embraced in the phrase "cultural treasure of the
has been a governmental act accomplished or performed that nation".
has a direct adverse effect on the legal right of the person (3) Whether or not the paintings and silverware are properties
contesting its validity. This Court cannot rule on the basis of of public dominion on which can be disposed of through the
petitioners speculation that the DENR will approve the joint concurrence of the President and Congress.
application of the heirs of Carantes. There must be an actual (4) Whether or not PCGG has complied with the due process
governmental act which directly causes or will imminently clause and other statutory requirements for the exportation and
cause injury to the alleged legal right of the petitioner to sale of the subject items.
possess the land before the jurisdiction of this Court may be (5) Whether or not the petition has become moot and
invoked. There is no showing that the petitioners were being academic, and if so, whether the above Issue warrant
evicted from the land by the heirs of Carantes under orders resolution from this Court.
from the DENR.
Held: This is premised on Sec. 2, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court
JOYA VS. PCGG [225 SCRA 568; G.R. No. 96541; 24 Aug which provides that every action must be prosecuted and
1993] defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, and that all
persons having interest in the subjectof the action and in
Facts: On 9 August 1990, Mateo A.T. Caparas, then Chairman obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs. The
of PCGG, wrote then President Corazon C. Aquino, requesting Court will exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is
her for authority to sign the proposed Consignment Agreement brought before it by a party who has the legal standing to raise
between the Republic of the Philippines through PCGG the constitutional or legal question. "Legal standing" means a
and Christie, Manson and Woods International, Inc concerning personal and substantial interest in the case such that the
the scheduled sale on 11 January 1991 of eighty-two) Old party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of
Masters Paintings and antique silverware seized from the governmental act that is being challenged. The term
Malacaang and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila alleged to "interest" is material interest, an interest in issue and to be
be part of the ill-gotten wealth of the late President Marcos, his affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in
relatives and cronies. On 14 August 1990, then President the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Moreover,
the interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one hand, a "national cultural treasures" is a unique object found
based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some locally, possessing outstanding historical, cultural, artistic
third and related party. and/or scientific value which is highly significant
and important to this country and nation. This Court takes note
There are certain instances however when this Court has of the certification issued by the Director of the Museum that
allowed exceptions to the rule on legal standing, as when a the Italian paintings and silverware subject of this petition do
citizen brings a case for mandamus to procure the not constitute protected cultural properties and are not among
enforcement of a public duty for the fulfillment of a public right those listed in the Cultural Properties Register of the National
recognized by the Constitution, and when a taxpayer questions Museum.
the validity of a governmental act authorizing
the disbursement of public funds. WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition for prohibition and
mandamus is DISMISSED.
Petitioners' arguments are devoid of merit. They lack basis in
fact and in law. The ownership of these paintings legally IBP vs. Zamora G.R. No.141284, August 15, 2000
belongs to the foundation or corporation or the members G.R. No.141284, August 15, 2000
thereof, although the public has been given the opportunity to
view and appreciate these paintings when they were placed on Facts: Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Sec.
exhibit. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution, the President directed the AFP
Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for
The confiscation of these properties by the Aquino the proper deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist
administration however should not be understood to mean that the PNP in preventing or suppressing criminal or lawless
the ownership of these paintings has automatically passed on violence. The President declared that the services of the
the government without complying with constitutional and Marines in the anti-crime campaign are merely temporary in
statutory requirements of due process and just compensation. nature and for a reasonable period only, until such time when
If these properties were already acquired by the government, the situation shall have improved. The IBP filed a petition
any constitutional or statutory defect in their acquisition and seeking to declare the deployment of the Philippine Marines
their subsequent disposition must be raised only by the proper null and void and unconstitutional.
parties the true owners thereof whose authority to recover
emanates from their proprietary rights which are protected by Issues:
statutes and the Constitution. Having failed to show that they (1) Whether or not the Presidents factual determination of the
are the legal owners of the artworks or that the valued pieces necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial
have become publicly owned, petitioners do not possess any review
clear legal right whatsoever to question their alleged (2) Whether or not the calling of the armed forces to assist the
unauthorized disposition. PNP in joint visibility patrols violates the constitutional
provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and the
Neither can this petition be allowed as a taxpayer's suit. civilian character of the PNP
Obviously, petitioners are not challenging any expenditure
involving public funds but the disposition of what they allege to Held:
be public properties. It is worthy to note that petitioners admit When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or
that the paintings and antique silverware were acquired from suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, he necessarily
private sources and not with public money. exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom.
Anent the second requisite of actual controversy, petitioners Under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution, Congress may
argue that this case should be resolved by this Court as an revoke such proclamation of martial law or suspension of the
exception to the rule on moot and academic cases; that privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the Court may review
although the sale of the paintings and silver has long been the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof. However, there is
consummated and the possibility of retrieving the treasure no such equivalent provision dealing with the revocation or
trove is nil, yet the novelty and importance of the Issue raised review of the Presidents action to call out the armed forces.
by the petition deserve this Court's attention. They submit that The distinction places the calling out power in a different
the resolution by the Court of the Issue in this case will category from the power to declare martial law and power to
establish future guiding principles and doctrines on the suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, otherwise,
preservation of the nation's priceless artistic and cultural the framers of the Constitution would have simply lumped
possessions for the benefit of the public as a whole. together the 3 powers and provided for their revocation and
review without any qualification.
For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be
an actual case of controversy one which involves a conflict The reason for the difference in the treatment of the said
of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible powers highlights the intent to grant the President the widest
of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic leeway and broadest discretion in using the power to call out
or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not because it is considered as the lesser and more benign power
cognizable by a court of justice. A case becomes moot and compared to the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of
academic when its purpose has become stale, such as the habeas corpus and the power to impose martial law, both of
case before us. Since the purpose of this petition for prohibition which involve the curtailment and suppression of certain basic
is to enjoin respondent public officials from holding the auction civil rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitating
sale of the artworks on a particular date 11 January 1991 safeguards by Congress and review by the Court.
which is long past, the Issue raised in the petition have
become moot and academic. In view of the constitutional intent to give the President full
discretionary power to determine the necessity of calling out
The cultural properties of the nation which shall be under the the armed forces, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show
protection of the state are classified as the "important cultural that the Presidents decision is totally bereft of factual basis.
properties" and the "national cultural treasures." On the other The present petition fails to discharge such heavy burden, as
there is no evidence to support the assertion that there exists would contravene the constitutional provision which provides
no justification for calling out the armed forces. the security of tenure of judges of the courts. He averred that
only the Supreme Court can remove judges NOT the
The Court disagrees to the contention that by the deployment Congress.
of the Marines, the civilian task of law enforcement is
militarized in violation of Sec. 3, Art. II of the Constitution. The ISSUE: Whether or not a judge like Judge De La Llana can be
deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the validly removed by the legislature by such statute (BP 129).
civilian supremacy clause. The calling of the Marines
constitutes permissible use of military assets for civilian law HELD: Yes. The SC ruled the following way: Moreover, this
enforcement. The local police forces are the ones in charge of Court is empowered to discipline judges of inferior courts and,
the visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to by a vote of at least eight members, order their dismissal.
the PNP Thus it possesses the competence to remove judges. Under
the Judiciary Act, it was the President who was vested with
Moreover, the deployment of the Marines to assist the PNP such power. Removal is, of course, to be distinguished
does not unmake the civilian character of the police force. The from termination by virtue of the abolition of the office.
real authority in the operations is lodged with the head of a There can be no tenure to a non-existent office. After the
civilian institution, the PNP, and not with the military. Since abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case of removal,
none of the Marines was incorporated or enlisted as members there is an office with an occupant who would thereby
of the PNP, there can be no appointment to civilian position to lose his position. It is in that sense that from the
speak of. Hence, the deployment of the Marines in the joint standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment of
visibility patrols does not destroy the civilian character of the security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for the
PNP. incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of
separation. As to its effect, no distinction exists between
C. The constitutional question must be raised at the removal and the abolition of the office. Realistically, it is devoid
earliest possible opportunity of significance. He ceases to be a member of the judiciary. In
the implementation of the assailed legislation, therefore, it
Umali vs. Guingona, GR No. 131124, March 21, 1999 would be in accordance with accepted principles of
FACTS: constitutional construction that as far as incumbent justices
Osmundo Umali was appointed Regional Director of BIR and judges are concerned, this Court be consulted and that its
by Pres. Ramos. Barely a year later, Ramos received view be accorded the fullest consideration. No fear need be
a confidential memorandum against petitioner for malfeasance, entertained that there is a failure to accord respect to the basic
misfeasance and nonfeasance9. Ramos then authorized principle that this Court does not render advisory opinions. No
Umalis preventive suspension and referred the complaint to question of law is involved. If such were the case, certainly
the PCAGC10 for investigation. PCAGC then issued a this Court could not have its say prior to the action taken by
resolution finding a prima facie evidence to support 6 of the 12 either of the two departments. Even then, it could do so but
charges against him. Hence, Ramos issued an administrative only by way of deciding a case where the matter has been put
order dismissing him with forfeiture of retirement and all in issue. Neither is there any intrusion into who shall be
benefits under the law. Umali contends that as Regional appointed to the vacant positions created by the
Director, he belongs to the Career Executive Service with reorganization. That remains in the hands of the Executive to
tenurial protection who can only be removed for cause even if whom it properly belongs. There is no departure therefore from
he is a presidential appointee under the direct authority of the the tried and tested ways of judicial power. Rather what is
President. sought to be achieved by this liberal interpretation is to
preclude any plausibility to the charge that in the exercise of
ISSUES the conceded power of reorganizing the inferior courts, the
Whether he may be validly removed from office. power of removal of the present incumbents vested in this
Tribunal is ignored or disregarded. The challenged Act would
HELD thus be free from any unconstitutional taint, even one not
Petitioner failed to prove that his is a CESO eligible, which readily discernible except to those predisposed to view it with
is fatal to the case.NEVERTHELESS, the court allowed him to distrust. Moreover, such a construction would be in accordance
retire with full benefits by the exercise of the Supreme Courts with the basic principle that in the choice of alternatives
equity powers. This is because the Commissioner of the BIR between one which would save and another which would
manifested to the Ombudsman that his office is no longer invalidate a statute, the former is to be preferred.
interested in pursuing the case, hence, giving no more basis to
the Administrative order. Ty vs. Trampe, 250 SCRA 500
G.R. No. 117577. December 1, 1995
D. The decision of the constitutional question must be
determinative of the case itself. It is the Lis Mota of the ALEJANDRO B. TY AND MVR PICTURE TUBE,
case INC., petitioners, vs. THE HON. AURELIO C. TRAMPE, in his
capacity as Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
GUALBERTO DE LA LLANA VS MANUEL ALBA Metro Manila, THE HON. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, THE
112 SCRA 294 Political law Constitutional Law Political MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR OF PASIG AND THE MUNICIPAL
Question if there is no question of law involved BP 129 TREASURER OF PASIG, respondents.

In 1981, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled An Act Facts:

Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor and On 06 January 1994, respondent Assessor sent a notice of
for Other Purposes, was passed. Gualberto De la Llana, a assessment respecting certain real properties of petitioners
judge in Olongapo, was assailing its validity because, first of located in Pasig, Metro Manila. In a letter dated 18 March
all, he would be one of the judges that would be removed 1994, petitioners through counsel "request(ed) the Municipal
because of the reorganization and second, he said such law Assessor to reconsider the subject assessments Not satisfied,
petitioners on 29 March 1994 filed with the Regional Trial Court JANCOM filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
of the National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 163, presided Pasig City to declare the GMMSWMC Resolution and the acts
over by respondent Judge, a Petition for Prohibition with prayer of MMDA calling for the bids for and authorizing the forging of a
for a restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to new contract for the Metro Manila waste management as
declare null and void the new tax assessments and to enjoin illegal, unconstitutional and void, and to enjoin them from
the collection of real estate taxes based on said assessments. implementing the Resolution and making another award. The
In a Decision dated 14 July 1994, respondent Judge denied trial court ruled in favor of JANCOM which was subsequently
the petition "for lack of merit." affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declared
the contract valid and perfected, albeit ineffective and
Issue: unimplementable pending the approval by the President.
Whether Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991, repealed the provisions of JANCOM and MMDA later entered into negotiations to modify
Presidential Decree No. 921. certain provisions of the contract which were embodied in a
draft Amended Agreement which bore no signature of the
Ruling: parties. JANCOM then filed before the Pasig City RTC an
In disposing of the above issues against petitioners, the Omnibus Motion for a writ of execution which upon its
court a quo ruled that the schedule of market values and the issuance, was challenged by GMMSWMC and MMDA. The
assessments based thereon prepared solely by respondent Court of Appeals however affirmed the RTC Order.
assessor are valid and legal, they having been prepared in
accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Code ISSUE: Whether or not contract is ineffective and
of 1991 (R.A. 7160). It held also that said Code had effectively unimplentable until and unless it is approved by the President
repealed the previous law on the matter, P.D. 921, which
required, in the preparation of said schedule, joint action by all HELD: The only question before the Court is whether or not
the city and municipal assessors in the Metropolitan Manila there is a valid and perfected contract between the parties. As
area. R.A. 7160 has a repealing provision (Section 534) and, if to necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the contract, these are
the intention of the legislature was to abrogate P.D. 921, it outside the realm of judicial adjudication. These considerations
would have included it in such repealing clause, as it did in are primarily and exclusively a matter for the President to
expressly rendering of no force and effect several other decide. While the Court recognizes that the garbage problem is
presidential decrees. Hence, any repeal or modification of P.D. a matter of grave public concern, it can only declare that the
921 can only be possible under par. contract in question is a valid and perfected one between the
parties, but the same is still ineffective or unimplementable
SUPREME COURT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CREATION until and unless it is approved by the President, the contract
a.) MMDA vs. Jancom, G.R. 147465, April 10, 2002 itself providing that such approval by the President is
b.) People vs. Gacott, G.R. No. 116049, July 13, 1995 necessary for its effectivity.

GMMSWMC VS JANCOM In issuing the alias writ of execution, the trial court in effect
494 SCRA 280 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales J.) ordered the enforcement of the contract despite this Courts
unequivocal pronouncement that albeit valid and perfected, the
If the contract provides that it shall be effective until and unless contract shall become effective only upon approval by the
it is approved by the President, the same shall first be President.
approved to be valid and enforceable.
PEOPLE V. GACOTT
FACTS: President Fidel Ramos issued Presidential G.R. NO. 116049 MARCH 20, 1995
Memorandum Order no. 202 creating an Executive Committee Bidin, J.
(EC) to oversee and develop waste-to-energy projects for the
waste disposal sites in Rizal and Carmona under the Build- Facts:
Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme. Respondent Jancom On February 2, 1994, a complaint for violation of the Anti-
International Development Projects Pty. Limited of Australia Dummy Law (C.A. No. 108) was filed by Asst. City Prosecutor
was one of the bidders for the Rizal Site which subsequently Perfecto E. Pe against respondents Strom and Reyes. The
entered into a partnership with its co-respondent Asea Brown accused filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss the criminal case
Boveri under the firm name Jancom Environmental contending that since the power to prosecute is vested
Corporation (JANCOM). Consequently, EC declared JANCOM exclusively in the Anti-Dummy Board under Republic Act No.
as the sole complying bidder of the Rizal Waste Disposal Site 1130, the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa has no power or
hence a Contract for the BOT implementation of the Solid authority to file the same. The prosecution filed an opposition
Waste Management Project for the Rizal Site was entered pointing out that the Anti-Dummy Board has already been
between Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste abolished by Letter of Implementation No. 2, Series of 1972.
Management Committee (GMMSWMC) and Metro Manila Despite such opposition, however, respondent judge granted
Development Authority (MMDA), and JANCOM. The contract the motion espousing the position that the Letter Of
was submitted for approval to President Ramos who Implementation relied upon by the City Fiscal is not the law
subsequently endorsed it to then incoming President Joseph E. contemplated in Article 7 of the New Civil Code which can
Estrada. Owing to the clamor of the residents of Rizal, the repeal another law such as R.A. 1130. Thus, respondent judge
Estrada administration ordered the closure of the San Mateo in the assailed order of March 18, 1994 held that the City
landfill. GMMSWMC thereupon adopted a Resolution not to Prosecutor has no power or authority to file and prosecute the
pursue the contract with JANCOM, citing as reasons therefore case and ordered that the case be quashed.
the passage of Republic Act 8749, otherwise known as the
Clean Air Act of 1999, the non-availability of the San Mateo Issue:
site, and costly tipping fees. whether or not respondent judge in granting the Motion to
Quash gravely abused his discretion as to warrant the
issuance of a writ of certiorari
 The Office of the President modified its decision which had
Held: already become final and executory.
Yes. The error committed by respondent judge in dismissing
the case is quite obvious in the light of P.D. No. 1, LOI No. 2 FACTS:
and P.D. No. 1275 aforementioned. The intent to abolish the On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President (OP) issued
Anti-Dummy Board could not have been expressed more a win-win Resolution which reopened case O.P. Case No. 96-
clearly than in the aforequoted LOI. Even assuming that the C-6424. The said Resolution substantially modified its March
City Fiscal of Puerto Princesa failed to cite P.D. No. 1 in his 29, 1996 Decision. The OP had long declared the said
opposition to the Motion to Quash, a mere perusal of the text of Decision final & executory after the DARs Motion for
LOI No. 2 would have immediately apprised the respondent Reconsideration was denied for having been filed beyond the
judge of the fact that LOI No. 2 was issued in implementation 15-day reglementary period.
of P.D. No. 1. Paragraph 1 of LOI No. 2 reads:
The SC then struck down as void the OPs act, it being in gross
Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1 dated September 23, disregard of the rules & basic legal precept that accord finality
1972, Reorganizing the Executive Branch of the National to administrative determinations.
Government, the following agencies of the Department of
Justice are herebyreorganized or activated in accordance with
The respondents contended in their instant motion that the
the applicable provisions of the Integrated Reorganization Plan
win-win Resolution of November 7, 1997 is not void since it
and the following instructions: . . . (emphasis supplied).
seeks to correct an erroneous ruling, hence, the March 29,
1996 decisioncould not as yet become final and executory
General, Presidential Decrees, such as P.D No. 1, issued by
as to be beyond modification. They further explained that the
the former President Marcos under his martial law powers
DARs failure to file their Motion for Reconsideration on time
have the same force and effect as the laws enacted by
was excusable.
Congress. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Aquino
vs. Comelec, (62 SCRA 275 [1975]), all proclamations, orders,
ISSUE:
decrees, instructions and acts promulgated, issued, or done by
Was the OPs modification of the Decision void or a valid
the former President are part of the law of the land, and shall
exercise of its powers and prerogatives?
remain valid, legal, binding, and effective, unless modified,
1. Whether the DARs late filing of the Motion for
revoked or superseded by subsequent proclamations, orders,
Reconsideration is excusable.
decrees, instructions, or other acts of the President. LOI No. 2
2. Whether the respondents have shown a justifiable reason
is one such legal order issued by former President Marcos in
for the relaxation of rules.
the exercise of his martial law powers to implement P.D. No. 1.
3. Whether the issue is a question of technicality.
Inasmuch as neither P.D. No. 1 nor LOI No. 2 has been
expressly impliedly revised, revoked, or repealed, both
HELD:
continue to have the force and effect of law.
1.
No.
Indeed, Section 3, Article XVII of the Constitution explicitly
Sec.7 of Administrative Order No. 18, dated February 12,
ordains:
1987, mandates that decisions/resolutions/orders of the
Office of the President shallbecome final after the lapse
Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,
of 15 days from receipt of a copy therof xxx unless a
proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive
Motion for Reconsideration thereof is filed within such period.
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain
The respondents explanation that the DARs office procedure
operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.
made it impossibleto file its Motion for Reconsideration on
time since the said decision had to be referred to its different
Instances when SC may sit en banc
departments cannot be considered a valid justification. While
1) When there is a need to overturn the decision of the
there is nothing wrong with such referral, the DAR must not
division;
disregard the reglementary period fixed by law, rule or
2) When there is a need to overturn a doctrine or principle of
regulation.
law laid down by the court;
The rules relating to reglementary period should not be
3) When a division cant reach a decision
made subservient to the internal office procedure of an
4) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
administrative body.
international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be
2.
heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases
No. The final & executory character of the OP Decision can no
which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en
longer be disturbed or substantially modified. Res judicata has
banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application,
set in and the adjudicated affair should forever be put to rest.
or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
Procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be
and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the
decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members
adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the
delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration
case and voted thereon.
of justice. TheConstitution guarantees that all persons shall
have a right to the speedy disposition of their cases
Cases vs. matters
before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative
Fortich vs. Corona, GR No. 131457, August 19, 1999
bodies.
While a litigation is not a game of technicalities, every case
Fortich vs Corona 398 SCRA 685
must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed
100 SCAD 781
procedure to ensure an orderly & speedy administration of
298 SCRA 685
justice. The flexibility in the relaxation of rules was never
1998
intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the
rules with impunity.
A liberal interpretation & application of the rules of
procedure can only be resorted to in proper cases and Sec. 11 of Act 1446 provides:
under justifiable causes and circumstances.
3. Whenever any franchise or right of way is granted to any
No. It is a question of substance & merit. other person or corporation, now or hereafter in
A decision/resolution/order of an administrative body, court or existence, over portions of the lines and tracks of the
tribunal which is declared void on the ground that the same grantee herein, the terms on which said other person or
was rendered Without or in Excess of Jurisdiction, or with corporation shall use such right of way, and the
Grave Abuse of Discretion, is a mere technicality of law or compensation to be paid to the grantee herein by such
procedure. Jurisdiction is an essential and mandatory other person or corporation for said use, shall be fixed
requirement before a case or controversy can be acted on. by the members of the Supreme Court sitting as a board
Moreover, an act is still invalid if done in excess of of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. final.
In the instant case, several fatal violations of law were
committed. These grave breaches of law, rules & settled Said Act provides that for every
jurisprudence are clearly substantial, not of technical nature. franchise granted, terms as to the
When the March 29, 1996 OP Decision was declared final and usage and compensation to be paid to
executory, vested rights were acquired by the petitioners, and the grantee shall be fixed by the
all others who should be benefited by the said Decision. members of the Supreme Court sitting
In the words of the learned Justice Artemio V. Panganiban as board of arbitrators, a majority vote
in Videogram Regulatory Board vs CA, et al., just as a losing is required and this is final
party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed
period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy Pursuant to said Act, MERALCO filed a petition before the
the finality of the resolution of his/her case. court requesting the members of the Supreme Court sitting as
board of arbitrators to fix the terms upon which certain
Appointments and qualifications transportation companies shall be permitted to use the Pasig
- Article VIII, Section 7(1) bridge of the MERALC
- Article VIII, Section 8(5)
- Article VIII, Section 9 Copies were sent to affected transpo company (one of which is
the Pasay Transpo) and to Atty-Gen which disclaimed any
Section 7. interest.
1. No person shall be appointed Member of the
Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless ISSUES: Whether or not the members of the Supreme Court
he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A can sit as arbitrators and fix the terms and
Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty compensation as is asked of them in this case
years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or
more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the HELD: No
practice of law in the Philippines.

Sec. 8 (5) The Supreme Court represents one of the three

The Council shall have the principal function of recommending divisions of power in our government. It is judicial
appointees to the judiciary. It may exercise such other power and judicial power only which is exercised by
functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it. the Supreme Court. Just as the Supreme Court, as the
guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction
Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of usurpations by any other department of the
lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of government, so should it as strictly confine its own
at least three nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by
Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no implication conferred on it by the Organic Act.
confirmation.
The Supreme Court and its members should not and
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointment cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform
within ninety days from the submission of the list. any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
connected with the administering of judicial functions
NO NON-JUDICIAL WORK FOR JUDGES
Article VIII, Section 12 The Organic Act provides that the Supreme Court of
Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other the Philippine Islands shall possess and exercise
courts established by law shall not be designated to any jurisdiction as heretofore provided and such additional
agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function. jurisdiction as shall hereafter be prescribed by law
(sec. 26).
- Meralco vs. Pasay Trans Co., 57 Phil. 600 (1933)
When the Organic Act speaks of the
- Garcia vs. Macaraig, 30 SCRA 106 (1969)
exercise of "jurisdiction" by the
Supreme Court, it could not only
G.R. No. L-37878 November 25, 1932
mean the exercise of "jurisdiction"
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner,
by the Supreme Court acting as a
vs.
court, and could hardly mean the
PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., ET
exercise of "jurisdiction" by the
AL., respondents.
 members of the Supreme Court, exercising administrative authority over the courts. The line
sitting as a board of arbitrators between what a judge may do and what he may not do in
collaborating or working with other offices or officers under the
A board of arbitrators is not a "court" in any proper other great departments of the government must always be
sense of the term, and possesses none of the kept clear and jealously observed, lest the principle of
jurisdiction which the Organic Act contemplates shall separation of powers on which our government rests by
be exercised by the Supreme Court. mandate of the people thru the Constitution be gradually
eroded by practices purportedly motivated by good intentions
The power conferred on this court is exclusively in the interest of the public service.
judicial, and it cannot be required or authorized to The fundamental advantages and the necessity of the
exercise any other. . . . Its jurisdiction and powers and independence of said three departments from each other,
duties being defined in the organic law of the limited only by the specific constitutional precepts on check
government, and being all strictly judicial, Congress and balance between and among them, have long been
cannot require or authorize the court to exercise any acknowledged as more paramount than the serving of any
other jurisdiction or power, or perform any other duty. temporary or passing governmental conveniences or
exigencies. It is thus of grave importance to the judiciary under
section 11 of Act No. 1446 contravenes the maxims our present constitutional scheme of government that no judge
which guide the operation of a democratic government of even the lowest court in this Republic should place himself
constitutionally established, and that it would be in a position where his actuations on matters submitted to him
improper and illegal for the members of the Supreme for action or resolution would be subject to review and prior
Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, the decision of a approval and, worst still, reversal, before they can have legal
majority of whom shall be final, to act on the petition of effect, by any authority other than the Court of Appeals or the
the Manila Electric Company Supreme Court, as the case may be. Needless to say, the
Court feels very strongly that it is best that this practice is
PAZ GARCIA VS CATALINO MACARAIG, JR. discontinued.
December 8, 2011
SALARY
39 SCRA 106 Political Law Separation of Powers ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 10
Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the
FACTS: Judge Catalino Macaraig, Jr. took his oath as Judge of Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of
the CFI of Laguna and San Pablo City on June 29, 1970. The lower courts shall be fixed by law. During the continuance in
court, being one of the 112 newly created CFI branches, had to office, their salary shall not be decreased.
be organized from scratch. From July 1, 1970 to February 28,
1971, Macaraig was not able to assume the duties and JUDGE DAVID NITAFAN VS COMMISSIONER OF
functions of a judge due to the fact that his Court Room can INTERNAL REVENUE
not be properly established due to problems as to location and
as to appropriations to make his Court up and running. When 152 SCRA 284 Political Law Constitutional Law The
Macaraig realized that it would be some time before he could Judicial Department Judicial Autonomy Income Tax
actually preside over his court, he applied for an extended Payment By The Judiciary
leave (during the 16 years he had worked in the Department of Judge David Nitafan and several other judges of the Manila
Justice, he had, due to pressure of duties, never gone on Regional Trial Court seek to prohibit the Commissioner of
extended leave, resulting in his forfeiting all the leave benefits Internal Revenue (CIR) from making any deduction of
he had earned beyond the maximum ten months allowed by withholding taxes from their salaries or compensation for such
the law). The Secretary of Justice, however, convinced would tantamount to a diminution of their salary, which is
Macaraig to forego his leave and instead to assist the unconstitutional. Earlier however, or on June 7, 1987, the
Secretary, without being extended a formal detail, whenever Court en banc had already reaffirmed the directive of the Chief
he was not busy attending to the needs of his court. Justice which directs the continued withholding of taxes of the
Paz Garcia on the other hand filed a complaint alleging that justices and the judges of the judiciary but the SC decided to
Macaraig is incompetent, dishonest and has acted in violation rule on this case nonetheless to settle the issue once and for
of his oath as a judge. Garcia said that Macaraig has not all.
submitted the progress of his Courts as required by law. And ISSUE: Whether or not the members of the judiciary are
that Macaraig has received salaries as a judge while he is fully exempt from the payment of income tax.
aware that he has not been performing the duties of a judge. HELD: No. The clear intent of the framers of the Constitution,
Also questioned was the fact that a member of the judiciary is based on their deliberations, was NOT to exempt justices and
helping the the DOJ, a department of the executive oi charge judges from general taxation. Members of the judiciary, just like
of prosecution of cases. members of the other branches of the government, are subject
ISSUE: Whether or not Macaraig has acted with incompetence to income taxation. What is provided for by the constitution is
and dishonesty as Judge. that salaries of judges may not be decreased during their
HELD: No. Macaraigs inability to perform his judicial duties continuance in office. They have a fix salary which may not be
under the circumstances mentioned above does not constitute subject to the whims and caprices of congress. But the salaries
incompetence. Macaraig was, like every lawyer who gets his of the judges shall be subject to the general income tax as well
first appointment to the bench, eager to assume his judicial as other members of the judiciary.
duties and rid himself of the stigma of being a judge without a But may the salaries of the members of the judiciary be
sala, but forces and circumstances beyond his control increased?
prevented him from discharging his judicial duties. Yes. The Congress may pass a law increasing the salary of the
On the other hand, none of these is to be taken as meaning members of the judiciary and such increase will immediately
that the Court looks with favor at the practice of long standing, take effect thus the incumbent members of the judiciary (at the
to be sure, of judges being detailed in the DOJ to assist the time of the passing of the law increasing their salary) shall
Secretary even if it were only in connection with his work of benefit immediately.
Congress can also pass a law decreasing the salary of the Administrative Case No. 3135. Insofar as Administrative Case
members of the judiciary but such will only be applicable to No. 3135 is concerned, the Court treated this pleading as a
members of the judiciary which were appointed AFTER the Motion for Reconsideration. By a per curiam Resolution dated
effectivity of such law. 15 April 1988, the Court denied with finality Mr Cuenco's
Note: This case abandoned the ruling in Perfecto vs Meer and Motion for Reconsideration.
in Endencia vs David
ISSUE:
TENURE Whether or not a Supreme Court justice can be disbarred
a.) Article VIII, Section 11 during his term of office.
b.) Article VIII, Section 2 par. 2
RULING:
Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of A public officer (such as Justice Fernan) who under the
the lower court shall hold office during good behavior until they Constitution is required to be a Member of the Philippine Bar
reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be
discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be charged
banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer.
or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members Further, such public officer, during his incumbency, cannot be
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan, or any other
case and voted in thereon. court, with any offense which carries with it the penalty of
removal from office.
Section 2 (2) No law shall be passed reorganizing the
Another reason why the complaint for disbarment should be
Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its
dismissed is because under the Constitution, members of the
Members.
SC may be removed only by impeachment. The above
provision proscribes removal from office by any other method.
REMOVAL Otherwise, to allow such public officer who may be removed
Article XI Accountability of Public Officers solely by impeachment to be charged criminally while holding
his office with an office that carries the penalty of removal from
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of office, would be violative of the clear mandate of the
the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Constitution.
Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from
office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation The effect of impeachment is limited to the loss of position and
of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers the Republic. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall
and employees may be removed from office as provided by not extend further than removal from office
law, but not by impeachment. and disqualification to hold any office. But the party convicted
shall nevertheless be held liable and subject to prosecution,
In Re: Raul M. Gonzalez trial and punishment according to law.
Adm. Matter No. 88-4-5433
160 SCRA 771 The court is not saying that its Members or other constitutional
Facts: officers are entitled to immunity from liability for possibly
The Court CONSIDERED the 1st Indorsement dated 16 March criminal acts or for alleged violation of the Canons of Judicial
1988 from Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez, "Tanodbayan/Special; Ethics or other supposed misbehavior. What the court is saying
Prosecutor" forwarding to Mr. Justice Marcelo B. Fernan a is that there is a fundamental procedural requirement that must
"letter-complaint, dated 14 December 1987 with enclosure of be observed before such liability may be determined and
the Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court," together enforced. A member of the Supreme Court must first be
with a telegram of Miguel Cuenco, for "comment within ten (10) removed from office, via the constitutional route
days from receipt hereof." Mr. Justice Fernan had brought this of impeachment, and then only may he be held liable either
1st Indorsement to the attention of the Court en banc in view of criminally or administratively (that is, disbarment), for any
the important implications of policy raised by said 1st wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in
Indorsement. appropriate proceedings.
Gonzales was the Tanodbayan or Special Prosecutor. He
forwarded to Mr. Justice Marcelo B. Fernan a letter- FISCAL AUTONOMY
complaint. The letter was said to be from Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
concerned employees of the SC (an anonymous letter). Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the
The letter was originally addressed to Gonzales referring to the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous
charges for disbarment sought by Mr. Miguel Cuenco against year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly
Justice Fernan, and asking him (Gonzales) to do something released.
about it.
The Court furnished to Mr. Raul M. Gonzales a copy of the per JURISDICTION
curiam Resolution in which, the Court Resolved to dismiss the Article VIII, Section 1
charges made by complaint Cuenco against Mr.Justice Fernan Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
for utter lack of merit. In the same Resolution, the Court Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Resolved to require complainant Cuenco to show cause why
he should not be administratively dealt with for making
unfounded serious accusations against Mr. Justice Fernan. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
Upon request of Mr. Cueco, the Court had granted him an actual controversies involving rights which are legally
extension of up to 30 March 1988, Mr. Cuenco filed a pleading demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
which appears to be an omnibus pleading relating to, inter alia, there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he
instrumentality of the Government. may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines
Article VIII, Section 2 par. 1 or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours
from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define,
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts
submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The
but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its
cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set
Article VIII, Section 5 aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation
powers: or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and it.
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus. The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or following such proclamation or suspension, convene in
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may accordance with its rules without need of a call.
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding
validity of any treaty, international or filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
executive agreement, law, presidential proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
ordinance, or regulation is in question. decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
imposed in relation thereto. Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
lower court is in issue. jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. privilege of the writ.
e. All cases in which only an error or question
of law is involved. The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in
stations as public interest may require. Such or directly connected with invasion.
temporary assignment shall not exceed six months
without the consent of the judge concerned. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within
miscarriage of justice. three days, otherwise he shall be released.
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, DELIBERATIONS
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal a.) Prudential Bank vs. Castro. 158 SCRA 646 (1988)
assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall b.) Consing vs. Court of Appeals, 177SCRA 14 (1989)
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all PRUDENTIAL BANK V CASTRO, 158 SCRA 646
courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, And neither does the rule apply to administrative cases
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of decided by the SC itself, as it held in Prudential Bank v. Castro,
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies 158 SCRA 646. This is regarding minute resolution.
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court. "No constitutional provision is disregarded in the SC's Minute
6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in Resolution denying a motion for reconsideration 'for lack of
accordance with the Civil Service Law. merit, the issues raised therein having been previously duly
considered and passed upon. In an administrative case, the
constitutional mandate that 'no *** motion for reconsideration of
Article VI, Section 30 a decision of the court shall be *** denied without stating the
Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate legal basis therefor is inapplicable. And even if it were, said
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this resolution stated the legal basis for the denial, and, therefore,
Constitution without its advice and concurrence. adhered faithfully to the constitutional requirement. 'Lack of
merit,' as a ground for denial is legal basis.
Article VII, Section 18
FAST FACTS: The case at bar relates with the disbarment of
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of Atty. Grecia (resp).
all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or Contentions c/o Resp
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of
 CJ Claudio Teehankee should have voluntary inhibited To ensure that the decision is rendered by a court as a whole,
himself from the proceedings. CJ was prejudicial against not merely by a member of the same
Greciathat he rendered a decision against Grecia (disbarment)
To ensure that decisions are arrived only after deliberation,
. The Courts decision violates the Constitution in that it lacks exchange of ideas, and concurrence of majority vote
certification by the CJ that the conclusions of the Court
werereached in consultation before the case was assigned to a ISSUE: W/N absence of certification by the Court of Appeals
member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. renders that decision invalid.

HELD & RATIO: As to CJ Teehankees voluntary inhibition. HELD: NO. The certification requirement imposed by the
Petition denied for lack of legal and factual basis. After a 1987 constitution was meant to ensure the implementation of
member has given an opinion on the merits of a given case, he the constitutional requirement that decisions of the Supreme
may not be disqualified from participating in the proceedings Court and lower collegiate courts, such as the CA,
because a litigant cannot be permitted to speculate upon the Sandiganbayan and CTA, are reached after consultation with
action of the Court and raise an objection of this sort after the members of the court sitting en banc or in a division before
decision has already been rendered. It should be made of the case is assigned to a member thereof for decision writing.
record that at no time during the deliberations on the case did
the CJ show any ill willnor any sign of vindictiveness much less The absence would not necessarily mean that the case
any attempt to exact vengeance for past affront against Grecia. submitted for decision had not been reached in consultation
before being assigned to one member for the writing of the
As to the lack of certification.This requirement is only opinion of the court since the regular performance of official
present in judicial decisions, not in admin istrative duty is presumed. The lack of certification serves as an
cases, like a disb arment proceeding. Even if such evidence of failure to observe the certification requirement but
certification were required, it is beyond doubt that it would not have the effect of invalidating the decision.
the conclusions of the Court in its decision were arrived at after
consultation and deliberations and voted attest to that. Per The absence of certification does not invalidate a decision. It is
curiam decision opinion of the court as a whole; there is no only evidence for failure to observe the requirement. There
ponente. For cases where the court does not want to expose could be an administrative case on the ground of lack of
the identity of the ponente. certification

Resolution v Decision Resolution does not decide the case; VOTING

dilatory; i.e. dismissal of a case for lack of merit. Cruz vs. DENR, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000
FACTS:
Decision when the court has given due course; must state Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for
facts and law prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing
the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No.
Consing v CA, 177 SCRA 14 (1989) 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations
Merlin Consing (pet) sold a house and lot to Caridad (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and
Santos. Provided in their contract of sale were its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful
particular terms of payment in which the purchase price deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public
shall be paid installment basis, plus interest). In the process, domain as well as minerals and other natural resources
Santos defaulted in her payments. Consing demanded for her therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section
payment and had planned to resort to court litigation. Santos 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
expressed her willingnessto settle her obligation. However, this
is upon the condition that the Consings comply with all the laws ISSUE:
and regulations onsubdivision and after payment to her Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?
damages as a consequence of the use of a portion of her lot as
a subdivision road. In response, the Consings submitted a HELD:
revised subdivision plan. No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution.
Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to
CFI Decision Santos was fully justified in refusing to pay the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their
further her monthly amortizations because although ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the
Consing submitted a revised plan and may have corrected ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights
irregularities and/or have complied with the legal requirements granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources
for the operation of their subdivision, he cannot escape liability in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners and
to Santos for having sold to her portions of the roads or streets occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the
denominated as right-of-way right to the small scale utilization of these resources, and at the
same time, a priority in their large scale development and
Contention c/o Consing: CA did not comply with the exploitation.
certification requirement.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not
Purpose of certification requirement part of the lands of the public domain. They are private lands
and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of
To ensure that all court decisions are reached after private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant
consultation with members of the court en banc or division, as from the State. However, the right of ownership and
the case may be possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is a
limited form of ownership and does not include the right to
alienate the same.
 application, and the court after notice to the parties, shall order
REQUIREMENTS AS TO DECISIONS such land registered subject to the encumbrance created by a
Article VIII, Sections 13-14 said instruments, or order the decree of registration issued in
Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the property
submitted to it for the decision en banc or in division shall be has been conveyed by said instruments. . . .
reached in consultation before the case the case assigned to a A stranger or a third party may be dealt with in the land
Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A registration proceedings. The only requirements of the law are:
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the
issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case interested party together with a motion that the same be
and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or considered in relation with the application; and (2) that prior
dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must notice be given to the parties to the case. And the peculiar
state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be facts and circumstances obtaining in this case show that these
observed by all lower collegiate court. requirements have been complied with in this case.
Dissenting Opinion (Justice Aquino):
It is not lawful and just that the two lots in litigation should be
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without registered in the name of Daniel Cruz. The registration in his
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law name is not proper because he did not intervene in the land
on which it is based. registration proceeding; he did not defray the expenses
thereof, and he has not paid to Generoso Mendoza, or his
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a widow, Diega de Leon, the sum of P6,000 as the price of the
decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied parcel of land.
without stating the legal basis therefor.
Sin perjuicio judgment judgment consisting only of the
Mendoza vs. CFI, 66 SCRA 96 dispositive portion is not valid.
GENEROSO MENDOZA VS COURT OF APPEALS
a.) Valladolid vs. Inciong, 121 SCRA 205 (1992)
March 20, 2012 b.) Nunal vs. COA, 169 SCRA 356 (1989)
84 SCRA 76 Civil Law Land Titles and Deeds Judgment
Confirms Title In whose name may title be dealt with Sec VALLADOLID v. INCIONG
29, PD 1529 G.R. No. L-52364 March 25, 1983 (FIRST DIVISION)
In 1964, it was proven that a parcel of land located in Sta. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.
Maria, Bulacan, is owned by Mendoza. Mendoza applied for a FACTS:
title. During pendency of the application before the land Ricardo Valladolid, petitioner, in was employed by JRM in 1977
registration court, Mendoza sold the land to Daniel Cruz. The as a telephone switchboard operator. He was subsequently
contract of sale was admitted in court in lieu of the pending transferred to the position of clerk-collector by the president of
application for land title. The registration court rendered a JRM. The transfer was motivated by the interception of
decision in July 1965, ordering the registration of the two business and confidential matters to a competitor hotel by
parcels of land in the name of Cruz subject to the usufructuary (allegedly) Villadolid who was then working as a switchboard
rights of Mendoza. operator and while serving in his capacity as clerk/collector,
The decision became final and executory. In 1968, however, copies of Accounts Receivables reached the competitor hotel
upon failure of Cruz to pay Mendoza, Mendoza petitioned that (Tropicana Apartment- Hotel) although said copies were not
the title issued in the name of Cruz be cancelled. The land referred to them. That to finally and fully confirmed suspicions
registration court ruled in favor of Mendoza on the ground that that Ricardo Valladolid was the person responsible for the
the court erred in its earlier decision in issuing the land title to aforementioned disclosures, a plan for the entrapment was
Cruz who was not a party to the application of title initiated by conceived by the Copacabana Apartment- Hotel. After the
Mendoza. Cruz appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor entrapment scheme had been effected, Valladolid filed a
of Cruz. written request for a 5 day vacation leave which was extended
ISSUE: Whether or not the title can be dealt with in the name to 30 days. When he went back to work, JRM refused to admit
of a third party. him and instead asked him to resign. RM maintains that
HELD: Yes. The Court of Appeals ruling must be sustained. Valladolid left the office that same day and never returned,
First of all, it was proven that Mendoza caused the registration because he was reprimanded for his unauthorized absences.
in the name of Cruz pursuant to their contract of sale. Second, Valladolid later on filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with
Mendoza overlooks Section 29 of the Land Registration Act vacation and sick leave pay.
which expressly authorizes the registration of the land subject The Ministry ruled that the application for clearance with
matter of a registration proceeding in the name of the buyer preventive suspension is denied and respondent (JRM) is
(Cruz) or of the person to whom the land has been conveyed hereby ordered to reinstate complainant (Valladolid) to his
by an instrument executed during the interval of time between former position without backwages and without loss of seniority
the filing of the application for registration and the issuance of rights. Valladolid appealed the foregoing order to the Minister
the decree of title. of Labor seeking modification of the same, praying for the
SEC. 29. After the filing of the application and before the award of backwages from the time he was illegally dismissed
issuance of the decree of title by the Chief of the General Land but the Deputy Minister of Labor (Inciong) dismissed both
Registration Office, the land therein described may be dealt appeals after finding "no sufficient justification or valid reason
with and instruments relating thereto shall be recorded in the to alter, modify, much less reverse the Order appealed from.
office of the register of deeds at any time before issuance of ISSUE:
the decree of title, in the same manner as if no application had WON the non-award of backwages raised by Valladolid
been made. The interested party may, however, present such claiming that the Orders of Deputy Minister of Labor are
instruments to the Court of First Instance instead of presenting contrary to law and evidence.
them to the office of the register of deeds, together with a WON JRM was deprived of due process when the Deputy
motion that the same be considered in relation with the Minister of Labor sustained the finding of respondent Regional
Director that there is no evidence to support the dismissal of
private respondent. ACT AS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (PET)
HELD: Article VII, Section 4 par. 4
Petitions for certiorari are DENIED. The returns of every election for President and Vice-President,
RATIO: duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or
Loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the
employee. Proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee's President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of
misconduct is not required, it being sufficient that there is some canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty
basis for the same or that the employer has reasonable ground days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the
to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in
and his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of
and confidence demanded of his position. However, as this the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner
was Valladolid's first offense, as found by the Regional provided by law, canvass the votes.
Director, dismissal from the service is too harsh a punishment, The person having the highest number of votes shall be
considering that he had not been previously admonished, proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an
warned or suspended for any misdemeanor. Besides as clerk- equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith
collector, he need not be given access to facts relative to the be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both
business of Copacabana, which, if divulged to Tropicana would Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
be to the former's prejudice.
The Regional Director ruled that the absences of Valladolid
were unauthorized but did gross neglect of duty or The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of
abandonment of work which requires deliberate refusal to the certificates.
resume employment or a clear showing in terms of specific
circumstances that the worker does not intend to report for The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole
work. But as Valladolid had been AWOL, no error was judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
committed by respondent Regional Director in ordering his qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may
reinstatement without backwages. promulgate its rules for the purpose
JRM cannot claim that it was deprived of due process
considering that applications for clearance have to be
summarily investigated and a decision required to be rendered ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS
within ten (10) days from the filing of the opposition. As this Supervision of lower courts
Court had occasion to hold there is no violation of due process
where the Regional Director merely required the submission of Article VIII, Section 6
position papers and resolved the case summarily thereafter.
The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof.
PERIODS FOR DECIDING CASES
(1) Article VIII, Section 15
Temporarily assign judges to other stations in public
Section 15. interest
1. All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Article VIII, Section 5(3)
Constitution must be decided or resolved within Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as
twenty-four months from date of submission for the public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall
Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme not exceed six months without the consent of the judge
Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, concerned.
and three months for all other lower courts.
2. A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid
pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules miscarriage of justice
of Court or by the court itself. Article VIII, Section 5(4)
3. Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a
Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice
of justice.
or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a
copy thereof attached to the record of the case or
matter, and served upon the parties. The certification Appointment of officials and employees of entire judiciary
shall state why a decision or resolution has not been Article VIII, section 5(6)
rendered or issued within said period. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in
4. Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory accordance with the Civil Service Law.
period, the court, without prejudice to such
responsibility as may have been incurred in Promulgate rules concerning the enforcement and
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case protection of constitutional rights
or matter submitted thereto for determination, without A.M. 02-1-07-SC, Jan. 21, 2002
further delay. In Re: Request for Creation of a Special Division, A.M. No.
02-1-09-SC, January 21, 2002, it was held that it is within the
(2) Article VII, Section 18 par. 3 competence of the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its power
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding to promulgate rules governing the enforcement and protection
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the of constitutional rights and rules governing pleading, practice
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of and procedure in all courts, to create a Special Division in the
the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its Sandiganbayan which will hear and decide the plunder case
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. against former President Estrada.
 respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the
Promulgate Rules Concerning Pleading, Practice and embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in the
Procedure Admission to the Practice of Law government of the Republic. The responsibility of Gonzalez to
uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not
(1) Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316 (1988) to promote distrust in the administration of justice is heavier
(2) In re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534 (1954) than that of a private practicing lawyer.
(3) Aguirre vs. Rana, Bar Matter No. 1036, June 10, 2003
Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but
ENRIQUE ZALDIVAR VS RAUL GONZALEZ his criticisms must be bona fide. In the case at bar, his
166 SCRA 316 Legal Ethics Contemptuous Language statements, particularly the one where he alleged that
Duty of a Lawyer members of the Supreme Court approached him, are of no
relation to the Zaldivar case.
FACTS: Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was
charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti- The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then practice of law.
Tanodbayan who was investigating the case. Zaldivar then filed
with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and IN: RESOLUTION CUNANAN, ET. AL
Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to 18 MARCH 1954
investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. The
Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and FACTS OF THE CASE:
Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to temporarily In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar of
restrain from investigating and filing informations against unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino Cunanan et.
Zaldivar. al petitioners.

Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much
filed criminal informations against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had public interest and concern as R.A. 972 popularly known as the
a newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored Bar Flunkers Act of 1953. Generally a candidate is deemed
one on the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Courts issuance passed if he obtains a general ave of 75% in all subjects w/o
of the TRO is a manifestation theta the rich and influential falling below 50% in any subject, although for the past few
persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] exams the passing grades were changed depending on the
it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given strictness of the correcting of the bar examinations (1946-
due course. 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70% 1949-74%, 1950-1953 75%).

Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as
The Supreme Court then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side. those reconsidered and passed by the S.C., and feeling that
Gonzalez stated that the statements in the newspapers were they have been discriminated against, unsuccessful candidates
true; that he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that who obtained averages of a few percentages lower than those
he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court, to point out admitted to the bar went to congress for, and secured in 1951
where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He also Senate Bill no. 12, but was vetoed by the president after he
said, even attaching notes, that not less than six justices of the was given advise adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the
Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to go slow senate then approved senate bill no. 372 embodying
on Zaldivar and to not embarrass the Supreme Court. substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill then
became law on June 21, 1953
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.
Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its author, to
HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered from
clearly constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparations.
disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. His statements By and large, the law is contrary to public interest since it
necessarily imply that the justices of the Supreme Court qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had inadequate preparation
betrayed their oath of office. Such statements constitute the for the practice of law profession, as evidenced by their failure
grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such in the exams.
statements very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme
Court and, through the Court, the entire system of ISSUES OF THE CASE:
administration of justice in the country. Due to the far reaching effects that this law would have on the
legal profession and the administration of justice, the S.C.
Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free would seek to know if it is CONSTITUTIONAL.
speech. What Gonzalez seems unaware of is that freedom of An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for
speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is the practice of the law that should be developed constantly and
not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on maintained firmly.
occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the The Judicial system from which ours has been derived, the act
requirements of equally important public interests. One of of admitting, suspending, disbarring, and reinstating attorneys
these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress and the S.C.
equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice
There is no antinomy between free expression and the integrity of law. The primary power and responsibility which the
of the system of administering justice. constitution recognizes continue to reside in this court.
Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the law
Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, seeks to cure are not the rules set in place by the S.C. but
is also a Special Prosecutor who owes duties of fidelity and the lack of will or the defect in judgment of the court, and this
power is not included in the power granted by the Const. to despite the fact that he is not yet a member of the Bar. The
Congress, it lies exclusively w/in the judiciary. right to practice law is not a right but a privilege extended to
Reasons for Unconstitutionality: those morally upright and with the proper knowledge and skills.
1. There was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional It involves strict regulation, one of which is on the moral
responsibility of the Supreme Court. character of its members. Passing the bar is not the only
2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should
and only the S.C. may revise or alter them, in attempting to do know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still
so R.A. 972 violated the Constitution. had to be performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be
3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of
supplement the rules on admission to the bar (since the rules Attorneys. Because the court finds respondent not morally fit to
made by congress must elevate the profession, and those be admitted in the Bar, notwithstanding the fact that he already
rules promulgated are considered the bare minimum.) took his oath, he was denied admission to the bar.
4. It is a class legislation
5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
contrary to what the constitution enjoins, and being inseparable Article VIII, Section 8
from the provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void.
Section 8.
HELD:
Under the authority of the court: 1. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under
1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of
examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the said law the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the
are unconstitutional and therefore void and w/o force and Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the
effect. Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of
2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired
subsequent to the approval of the law (1953- 1955) is valid and Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative
shall continue in force. (those petitions by the candidates who of the private sector.
failed the bar from 1946 to 1952 are denied, and all the 2. The regular members of the Council shall be
candidates who in the examination of 1953 obtained a GEN appointed by the President for a term of four years
Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a grade of below 50% in any subject with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.
are considered as having passed whether they have filed Of the Members first appointed, the representative of
petitions for admissions or not.) the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the
professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for
AGUIRRE V RANA B.M. NO. 1036 JUNE 10, 2000 two years, and the representative of the private sector
for one year.
FACTS: Respondent is a successful bar passer who was 3. The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the
allowed only to take oath but not to sign the roll of attorneys Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a
pending the resolution of the complaint of the petitioner who record of its proceedings.
charges respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave 4. The regular Members of the Council shall receive
misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. such emoluments as may be determined by the
Apparently, the respondent appeared as counsel to an election Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in
candidate before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.
(MBEC) of Masbate before he took his oath and signed the 5. The Council shall have the principal function of
rolls of attorneys. In his comment, respondent alleges he only recommending appointees to the judiciary. It may
provide specific assistance and advice not as a lawyer but as a exercise such other functions and duties as the
person who knows the law. He contends that he did not sign Supreme Court may assign to it.
the pleadings as a lawyer. The Office of the Bar Confidant was
tasked to investigate and its findings disclosed that according
to the minutes of the meeting of the MBEC, the respondent AUTOMATIC RELEASE OF APPROPRIATION FOR THE
actively participated in the proceeding and signed in the JUDICIARY
pleading as counsel for the candidate. Article VIII, Section 3
ISSUE: WON the respondent is fit for admission to the bar.
Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the
HELD: The court held that respondent did engaged in
legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous
unauthorized practice of law. It held that all the activities he
year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly
participated during that time involves the practice of law
released.