Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can
thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it
enters into business contracts.
Veterans Manpower vs CA
The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to be sued when it
enters into a contract. However, it does not apply where the contract relates
to the exercise of its sovereign functions.
The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil
When the state files an action, it divests itself of the sovereign character and
shed its immunity form suit, descending to the level of an ordinary litigant.
Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its
non-suability. Distinction must still be made between one which is executed in
the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in the
proprietary capacity.
State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from contract.
PNB vs. Pabalan
State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked with regard to funds of
public corporations.
[suable corporations] Public funds of corporations which can sue and be sued
are not exempt from gaarnishment.
Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan
Section 5
Chavez vs. Romulo
Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional right. The license to
carry a firearm is neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create
a vested right. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered
absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of police power. The maintenance
of peace and order, and the protection of the people against violence are
constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear firearm is to be
construed in connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties.
Section 6
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
-There is no violation of the principle of the separation of church and state. The
issuance and sale of the stamps in question may be said to be linked with an
event of a religious character, but the resulting propaganda, if any, received
by the Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose of the government. The
idea behind the issuance of the postage stamps was to attract tourists to our
country and not primarily the religious event.
- What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty , not mere religious
toleration. However, religious freedom is not inhibition of profound reverence
for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs.
Austria vs. NLRC
An ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church and its
members and relates to matter of faith, religious doctrines, worship and
governance of the congregation. Examples of these affairs in which the State
cannot meddle are proceedings for excommunication, ordination of religious
ministers, administration of sacraments, and other activities to which is
attached religious significance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship
of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee. It is purely
secular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or
doctrine of the church.
Section 10
Calalang vs. Williams
-Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and
economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the
promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent
elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extraconstitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all
governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
8
"Declaration of Principles and State Policies." The provisions under the Article
are generally considered not self-executing, and there is no plausible reason
for according a different treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like the
rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the provision does not contain any
judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for
legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give
rise to any cause of action before the courts.
Section 30
Legspi vs CSC
The constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is selfexecuting without the need for any ancillary act of legislation.
Valmonte vs de Villa
The constitutional right to information is limited on matters of public concern
and is further subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. However,
although citizens are afforded the right to information, the Constitution does
not accord them the right to compel the custodians of official records to
prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire
information of public concern.
Aquino-Sarmiento vs Morato
- When a committee or board is created as public in its very existence and
character such as the MTRCB, there can be no valid claim to privacy. Here,
decisions of Board and individual voting slips are public in character.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
In re Manzano
- Members of the SC and other courts shall not be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
- The committee performs administrative function* which under Section 12,
Article VIII of the Constitution prohibits members of the SC and other courts
established by law to be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions. To quote CJ Fernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig, he said
that while the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be
enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government precluding
its doctrine application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being
required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in character.
Administrative functions are those which involves the regulation and control
the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the
promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the
legislative or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the
organic law of its existence.
Angara vs. Electoral Commission
13
Daza v. Singson
Where the legality or validity of the act is in question and not the wisdom of
the act, the Court may take jurisdiction and decide on the acts validity. Even
in political questions the Court may take jurisdiction under the expanded
judicial power extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
(Judicial power includes the duty to
rights which are legally demandable
whether or not there has been a grave
or excess of jurisdiction on the part
Government.)
Delegation of Powers
Garcia v. Exec. Secretary
The Congress may authorize the President to fix tariff rates and duties subject
to such limitations and restrictions that they may impose. This is expressly
provided for in Art 6, Sec 28 par 2 of the Constitution.
Araneta v. Dinglasan
The delegation of emergency powers by Congress to the President may be
limited by Congress subject to restrictions it may provide. Congress may
withdraw the delegated power at any time. In this case, the emergency power
was withdrawn at the time Congress became able to exercise its legislative
duties again.
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA
The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all three branches of
government specifically in the case of the legislative. What can be delegated
is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced and not what the
law shall be since the ascertainment of the latter subject is within the
prerogative and determination of the legislature. Delegation of legislative
power is permitted and valid provided that is passes the two accepted testscompleteness test and the sufficient standard test. The reason for such
delegation is the increasing complexity of the task of the government and the
growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems
demanding its attention.
Rodriguez v. Gella
Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of the constitutional limitation of the
delegation of emergency powers. It is presumed that the National Assembly
intended it to be for a limited period. Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546,
which was anchored to the said Act are declared null and void and the
respondents are ordered to desist from appropriating, releasing and allotting
expending funds set aside therein.
15
People v. Vera
Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative power. The
powers of the government are distributed among three coordinate and
substantially independent organs: the legislative, the executive and the
judicial. Each of the departments of the government derives its authority from
the Constitution.
US vs. Ang Tang Ho
If the act within itself does not define a crime and is not complete, legislative
act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, the doing of which is
vested in the Gov, generally, the act is a delegation of legislative power, and is
thus unconstitutional and void.
Ynot vs. IAC
There is no standard that the officials must observe in determining to whom to
distribute the confiscated carabaos and carabeef. There is thus an invalid
delegation of legislatie power.
Tablarin vs. Gutierez
Because the necessity standards are set forth in the statute (RA No. 2383),
providing for standardization and regulation of education, delegation is valid.
Pelaez vs. Auditor General
The two tests (Completeness test and Sufficient Standard test) must be
applied together.
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita
Where the effectivity of the law is made dependent on the verification by the
executive of the existence of certain conditions, the verification is delegated to
the executive. (This is an example of contingent legislation - a valid delegation
of law execution).
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 5
Tobias v. Abalos
The creation of a new congressional district is but a natural consequence of a
municipalitys conversion into a city. The Constitution provides that a city
should have a population of at least 250,000 and is entitled to at least 1
representative.
Mariano Jr. v. Comelec
As decided in Tobias v. Abalos, the Constitution provides that the compositions
of the House should not be more than 250 members, unless otherwise
provided by law. The natural result in the creation of a new legislative from a
special law whose purpose is to convert a municipality into a city is sanctioned
by the Constitution.
16
Montejo v. Comelec
The Comelec has no power to reapportion districts but only to make minor
adjustments.
Republic Act No. 7941 An act providing for the election of the party-list
representatives through the party-list system and appropriating funds
therefrom.
Section 13
Zandueta vs. De la Costa
When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch of a Court of First
Instance of a judicial district by virtue of a legal and valid appointment,
accepts another appointment to preside over the same branch of the same
Court of First Instance, in addition of another Court of First Instance to the old
one, enters into the discharge of the functions of his new office and receives
the corresponding salary, he abandons his old office and cannot claim to be
entitled to repossess it or question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of
which his new appointment has been issued; and, said new appointment
having been disapproved by the Commission on Appointments of the National
Assembly, neither can he claim to continue occupying the office conferred
upon him by said new appointment, having ipso jure ceased in the discharge
of the functions thereof.
Section 14
Puyat vs. De Guzman
No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any
court without appellate jurisdiction, before any court in any civil case wherein
the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof is the
adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein any officer or employee of the
Government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office,or
before any administrative body.
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be interested financially in any contract
with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any governmentowned or controlled corporation, during his term of office.
He shall not accept employment to intervene in any cause or matter where he
may be called to act on account of his office.
Section 16
Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.
Where no provision of the Constitution, the laws or even the rules of the
Senate has been clearly shown to have been violated, disregarded or
overlooked, grave abuse of discretion cannot be imputed to Senate officials for
acts done within their competence and authority.
17
Sec. 21:
Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
- Investigation was not in aid of legislation where it merely aims at
determining whether a law is violated. To allow such investigation is to violate
separation of powers.
Arnault vs Nazareno
- Power of Investigation includes power to punish a contumacious witness for
contempt. Experience has shown that mere requests for information are
frequently unavailing.
- In aid of legislation - not difficult to satisfy. Necessity or lack of necessity
for legislative action is determined by the sum total of information to be
gathered as a result of investigation, and not by a fraction of such information
elicited from single question. It is sufficient that the question is germane to the
subject matter of inquiry. There is no need for it to be directly related or
connected to possible legislation.
Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability
- Exception to legislative inquiry: Executive Privilege (which is extended to all
close advisors of the President)
- It is wrong for Senate to punish one for contempt where executive privilege is
properly invoked.
- Senate's mistakes in the case at bar: (1) invitations to Neri did not include
possible statute; (2) contempt order lacks required # of votes; (3) Senate did
not first rule on the claim of executive privilege and instead dismissed Neri's
explanation; (4) rules of procedure on inquiries in aid of legislation not duly
published.
Sec. 21 and 22:
Senate vs Ermita
- When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are
implementing the statutes, it is not imperative.
- The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory
process only to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.
- Appearance of department heads in question hour is discretionary.
- When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for the
department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of
privilege.
- EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE privilege based on doctrine of separation of powers,
exempting executive from disclosure requirements where such exemption is
necessary to the discharge of highly important executive responsibilities. It
covers categories of information not of persons.
Sec. 24:
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
- The phrase originate exclusively does not refer to the appropriations law
but to the appropriations bill. It is sufficient that the House of Rep. initiated the
passage of the bill.
19
Alvarez vs Guingona
- A bill of local application, such as one asking for the conversion of a
municipality into a city, is deemed to have originated from the House provided
that the bill of the House was filed prior to the filing of the bill in the Senate
even if, in the end, the Senate approved its own version.
- The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the
bill does not contravene the constitutional requirement as long as the Senate
does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.
Sec. 25:
Garcia vs Mata
- RIDER a provision not related to the appropriation act (is prohibited)
Demetria vs Alba
- transfer of appropriations prohibited
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds is exclusive.
- Case at bar: Congressmen are allowed to determine the necessity of
realignment, but House Speaker or Senate Pres. will have to approve the
realignment before items are realigned.
- Case at bar: Chief of Staff may not be give authority to realign
appropriations.
Sec. 26:
Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board
- Imposition of tax is sufficiently related to the regulation of video industry
where the title is comprehensive enough to include such subject (taxation)
related to the general purpose (creation of Videogram Board)
Phil. Judges Assoc. vs Prado
- Repeal/Withdrawal of franking privilege is germane to the object of the title,
which is to create postal service system. Hence, the same is embraced in the
title/
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (1)]
- Withdrawing tax exemptions granted before is embraced in the subject of the
title which is to widen the tax base
Tan vs Del Rosario
- 3 purposes of Sec. 3(1), Art. VI:
(a) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation
(b) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of
provisions which might be overlooked
(c) to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of legislation
Tobias vs Abalos
- Provision providing for a separate legislative district is germane to the
subject of the bill creating the City of Mandaluyong
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (2)]
- IF it is only the printing that is being dispensed by presidential certification,
the time saved would be so negligible as to be of any use in ensuring
immediate enactment. (Printing and Readings on separate days both
20
hold not more than two positions in the government. (Respondent's contention
that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is an exception would defeat the obvious legislative intent
which is to prohibit cabinet members from holding multiple offices.)
Aytona vs Castillo
- As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it cannot be reconsidered where
the appointee has qualified. Exception: ad interim appointments issued in the
last hours of an outgoing Chief Executive (midnight appointments made for
buying votes).
In re Valenzuela and Vallarta
- Sec. 15 (President shall not make appointments within 2 months prior to the
next Presidential election) is applicable to the members of the Judiciary.
- This sort of appointment is made for partisan considerations.
De Castro vs. JBC
Sec. 16:
Binamira vs Garrucho
- Appointment or designation involves exercise of discretion which cannot be
delegated. Even if it be assumed that the power could be exercised by Minister
of Tourism, it could be recalled by the President.
- Designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment, which
does not confer security of tenure.
Sarmiento vs Mison
- 4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:
(a) heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or
naval captain, and other whose appointments are vested in him in this
Constitution
(b) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law
(c) those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint
(d) officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law
vest in the President alone.
- Case at bar: Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of
Commissioner of Bureau of Customs because a bureau head is not among
those within the first group of appointments where consent of COA is required.
Bautista vs Salonga
- Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Chairman of
Commission of Human Rights because such appointment is not vested in the
President in the Constitution. The President appoints Chairman of CHR
pursuant to EO 163 (CHR Chairman is thus within the 3rd group of officers)
Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments
- The appointment of Sectoral Representatives requires confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. The seats reserved for sectoral representatives
may be filled by appointment by the President by express provision of Sec.7,
Article XVIII of the Constitution (hence, sectoral representatives are within the
1st group of officers)
- Exceptions to those officers within the 1st group: (1) Ombudsman and his
deputies, and (2) members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts.
24
Calderon vs Carale
- Confirmation by COA is required only for presidential appointees that are
within the 1st group of officers as mentioned in Sarmiento vs Mison.
- Congress may not expand the list of appointments needing confirmation.
- Case at bar: RA 6715, which requires the COA confirmation in appointments
of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners, transgresses Sec. 16, Art. VII. The
appointments of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners do not need COA
confirmation because they fall under the 3rd group of officers.
Tarrosa vs Singson
- affirmed the ruling in Calderon vs Carale
- Case at bar: Appointment of Central Bank Governor does not need COA
confirmation.
Flores vs Drilon
- A law which limits the President to only one appointee is an encroachment to
the prerogative of the President because appointment involves discretion to
choose who to appoint.
Luego vs Civil Service Commission
- CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment because of its belief that
another person was better qualified, which is an encroachment on the
discretion vested solely in the appointing authority.
- The permanent appointment made by the appointing authority may not be
reversed by CSC and call it temporary.
Pobre vs Mendieta
- The vacancy in the position of Chairman of the Professional Regulation
Commission cannot be filled by the Senior Associate Commissioner by
operation of law (or by succession) because it will deprive the President of the
power to appoint the Chairman.
Sec. 17
Drilon vs Lim
- Distinction between power and control:
An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. if they are
not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his
subordinate or he may even decide to do it by himself.
Supervision does not cover such authority. The supervisor merely sees to it
that rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does
he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed,
he may order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed
rules. He may not prescribe his own manner except to see to it that the rules
are followed.
(Note) Power of control pertains to power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify,
or set aside what a subordinate has done in the performance of his duties and
to substitute his judgment to that of the former [Mondano vs Silvosa]
Villena vs Secretary of the Interior
- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter ego principle) -acts of the
Secretaries of Executive Departments, when performed and promulgated in
the regular course of business or unless disapproved or reprobated by the
Chief Executive, are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive
- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is invested with the authority to order
25
the investigation of the charges against the petitioner and to appoint a special
investigator for that purpose.
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano
- Department heads are President's men of confidence. His is the power to
appoint them; his, too, is the privilege to dismiss them at pleasure. Normally,
he controls and directs their acts. Implicit then is his authority to go over,
confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by his department secretaries.
- Case at bar: The President, through his Executive Secretary, may undo an act
of the Director of Lands
City of Iligan vs Director of Lands
- The President has the power to grant portions of public domain to any
government entity like the City of Iligan because he has control over the
Director of Lands, who has direct executive control in the lease, sale or any
form of concession or disposition of the land of public domain.
Gascon vs Arroyo
- Case at bar: Executive Secretary has the power and authority to enter into
the Agreement to Arbitrate with the ABS CBN as he acted for and in behalf of
the President when he signed it.
Kilusan Bayan vs Dominguez
- An administrative officer has only such powers as are expressly granted to
him and those necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. These powers
should not be extended by implication beyond what may be necessary for
their just and reasonable execution.
Angangco vs Castillo
- The power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, but not with regard
to those officers or employees who belong to the classified service for as to
them the inherent power cannot be exercised
NAMARCO vs Arca
- Executive power of control extends to government-owned corporations.
Sec. 18:
Guazon vs De Villa
- The President has the power to ordain saturation drives. There is nothing in
the Constitution which denies the authority of the Chief Exec. to order police
actions to stop unabated criminality, rising lawlessness, and alarming
communist activities.
Ruffy vs Chief of Staff
- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided
by the Congress for the President as Commander in chief to aid him in
properly commanding the army and navy and enforcing discipline therein and
utilize under his order those of his authorized military representatives.
Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34
- Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions the accused be
entitled to a trial. The trial contemplated by the due process clause is trial by
judicial process. Military Commissions are not courts within the Philippine
judicial system. Judicial power is vested only in the courts. Military
commissions pertain to the executive department and are instrumentalities of
26
Sec. 18:
Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia
- The debt-relief contracts, providing for buy-back and bond-conversion
schemes, entered into pursuant to Financing Program are not beyond the
powers granted to the President under Sec. 20, Art. VII. The only restriction
that the Constitution provides, aside from the prior concurrence of the
Monetary Board, is that loans must be subject to limitations provided by law.
Accordingly, the contention that buy-back and bond-conversion schemes are
neither loans nor guarantees, and hence beyond the Presidents power to
execute, are without merit.
Sec. 21:
Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading (1961)
- The concurrence of the House of Congress is required by our fundamental
law in the making of treaties which are however distinct and different from
executive agreements which may be validly entered without such
concurrence.
Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec.
- The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to concurrence of the
Senate. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its
consent or concurrence to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of
the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its
consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion to ratify lies within
the President's competence alone.
- 4 steps in treaty-making process:
(a) negotiation
(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means of authenticating the instrument
and a symbol of good faith)
(c) ratification (formal act by which a statute confirms and accepts the
provisions of a treaty)
(d) exchange of instruments of ratification
- In the case at bar, the treaty was merely signed.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1:
Santiago vs Bautista
- The courts may not exercise judicial power when there is no applicable law.
- Case at bar: An award of honors to a student by a board of teachers may not
be reversed by a court where the awards are governed by no applicable law.
Daza v Singson
- Even if the issue presented was political in nature, the Court is still not be
precluded from resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon it
that now covers, in proper cases, even the political question.
- That where serious constitutional questions are involved, "the transcendental
importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled
promptly and definitely brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of
28
procedure."
Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals
- There can be no justification for judicial interference in the business of an
administrative agency, except when it violates a citizen's constitutional rights,
or commits a grave abuse of discretion, or acts in excess of, or without
jurisdiction.
- Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the Asset Privatization
Trust (administrative body), nor block, by an injunction, the discharge of its
functions and the implementation of its decisions in connection with the
acquisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it.
Malaga v Penachos, Jr.
- It was previously declared the prohibition pertained to the issuance of
injunctions or restraining orders by courts against administrative acts in
controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases.
The Court observed that to allow the courts to judge these matters would
disturb the smooth functioning of the administrative machinery. On issues
definitely outside of this dimension and involving questions of law, courts
could not be prevented by any law (in this case, P.D. No. 605) from exercising
their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
PACU v Secretary of Education
- Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases and controversies.
(Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might under the law
withdraw the permit of one of petitioners does not constitute a justiciable
controversy.)
- Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly
interest therein however intellectually solid the problem may be. This is
especially true where the issues "reach constitutional dimensions, for then
there comes into play regard for the court's duty to avoid decision of
constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes evasion.
Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC
- Considering that those contingencies mentioned by the petitioners may or
may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to
ripen to an actual case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig
(except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to raise this abstract issue
(city of Makati is involved). Worse, they raise this futuristic issue in a petition
for declaratory relief over which this Court has no jurisdiction.
Macasiano v National Housing Authority
-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the constitutionality of
an act of the legislature will not be determined by the courts unless that
question is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is
necessary to a determination of the case.
J. Joya v PCGG
29
is in question.
- In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts are advised to act with the
utmost circumspection, bearing in mind the consequences of a declaration of
unconstitutionality upon the stability of laws, no less than on the doctrine of
separation of powers. As the questioned act is usually the handiwork of the
legislative or the executive departments, or both, it will be prudent for such
courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of
this Court in the consideration of its validity, which is better determined after a
thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the
majority of those who participated in its discussion.
Larranaga v Court of Appeals
(Transfer the venue of the preliminary investigation from Cebu City to Manila
because of the extensive coverage of the proceedings by the Cebu media
which allegedly influenced the people's perception of petitioner's character
and guilt.)
- The Court recognizes that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain
circumstances can deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial. It
was previously held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must
be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not
simply that they might be, by the barrage in publicity.
- In the case at bar, nothing in the records shows that the tone and content of
the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the
fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel.
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals
- It is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control over cases
paced under its appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of
legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate
enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction can unnecessarily
burden the Court and thereby undermine its essential function of expounding
the law in its most profound national aspects.
Aruelo v Court of Appeals
- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC can not adopt a rule prohibiting the
filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts. The power to promulgate rules
concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts is vested on the
Supreme Court.
Javellana v DILG
(Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum
Circular No. 90-81 does not violate Article VIII. Section 5 of the Constitution.
Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power
and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law.)
- The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply
prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest
between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their
profession, in those instances where the law allows it.
33
SECTION 6
Maceda v Vasquez
- In the absence of any administrative action taken against a person by the
Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power of
administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the
doctrine of separation of powers.
- Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises
from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said
complaint and refer the same to the Court for determination whether said
Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative
duties.
Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.
- The rules even in an administrative case demands that if the respondent
Judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the
evidence presented against him should be competent and derived from direct
knowledge. The judiciary, to which respondent belongs, no less demands that
before its member could be faulted, it should be only after due investigation
and based on competent proofs, no less. This is all the more so when as in this
case the charges are penal in nature.
('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention and not a mere error of
judgment. It results that even if respondent were not correct in his legal
conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot be regarded as grave misconduct,
unless the contrary sufficiently appears.)
SECTION 10
Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed
express grant of exemption from payment of income tax to members of the
Judiciary, so as to "give substance to equality among the three branches of
Government.
SECTION 11
De La Llana v Alba
-Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security of tenure. This Court is
empowered "to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least
eight members, order their dismissal." Thus, it possesses the competence to
remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the President who was vested
with such power. Removal is, of course, to be distinguished from termination
by virtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a nonexistent office. After the abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case of
removal, there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his
position. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question
of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for the
incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of separation. As to
its effect, no distinction exists between removal and the abolition of the office.
34
which adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained
in the decisions of inferior tribunals.
SECTION 14 (not 16)
Valdez v Court of Appeals
- The (lower) court statement in the decision that a party has proven his case
while the other has not, is not the findings of facts contemplated by the
Constitution and the rules to be clearly and distinctly stated.
- This Court has said again and again that it is not a trier of facts and that it
relies, on the factual findings of the lower court and the appellate court which
are conclusive.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
A. COMMON PROVISIONS
Aruelo v. CA
The rule of the Commission should prevail if the proceeding is before a
Commission. But if the proceeding is before a court, the Rules of Court
prevails. (Sec. 6)
Cua v. Comelec
The 2-1 decision rendered by the First Division was a valid decision under
Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution. (Sec.7)
Vital-Gozon v. CA
Execution of the Civil Service Commission's decision should have been ordered
and effected by the Commission itself, when de la Fuente filed a motion
therefor. It declined to do so, however, on the alleged ground, as de la Fuente
claims he was told, that it "had no coercive powers
unlike a court
to
enforce its final decisions/resolutions." That proposition, communicated to de
la Fuente, of the Commission's supposed lack of coercive power to enforce its
final judgments, is incorrect. It is inconsistent with previous acts of the
Commission of actually directing execution of its decisions and resolutions,
which this Court has sanctioned in several cases; and it is not in truth a correct
assessment of its powers under the Constitution and the relevant laws
Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer
While it may be true that the lower court has the jurisdiction over
controversies dealing with the COMELEC's award of contracts, the same being
purely administrative and civil in nature, nevertheless, herein petitioner has no
cause of action on the basis of the allegations of its complaint.
"The Commission on Elections shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement
and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall
exercise all other functions which may be conferred upon it by law. It shall
decide, save those involving the right to vote, all administrative questions
affecting elections, including the determination of the number of location of
polling places, and the appointment of election inspectors and of other
election officials . . . The decisions, orders and rulings of the Commission shall
37
knowledge or skill.
Brillantes v. Yorac
The President has no authority to make designation of a Comelec Chairman in
an Acting Capacity. The choice of temporary Chairman in the absence of the
regular chairman comes under the discretion of the Comelec. It cannot be
exercised by the President. A designation As Acting Chairman is by its very
terms essentially temporary and therefore revocable at will. No cause need be
established to justify its revocation.
Lindo v. Comelec
Comelecs statement that fake and spurious ballots may have been introduced
to increase the votes of protestant cannot be made a basis for denying the
execution pending appeal.
Section 3
Sarmiento vs. Comelec
Pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. 7166, it provides:
"All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed
terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings
of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without
prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party.
However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence thus
far presented, the Commission determines that the petition appears
meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or
when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition
for certiorari."
Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro
All election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must be decided
by the COMELEC in division. Should a party be dissatisfied with the decision,
he may file a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. It is,
therefore, the decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en banc that, in
accordance with Art. IX, A, Section 7, "may be brought to the Supreme Court
on certiorari."
Section 4
National Press Club vs. Comelec
The Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the
exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during
plebiscite periods. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression
during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates.
In fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite.
Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs GMA
40
determine
whether
an
expenditure
41
of
government
agency
or
43