Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Ass vs Duenas vs House of Representatives Electoral

Executive Secretary
Tribunal

Gr No. 160756 | March 9, 2010

Gr No. 185401 | July 21, 2009

FACTS:
FACTS:

CREBA assails the imposition of the minimum
corporate income tax (MCIT) as being violative of the
due process clause as it levies income tax even if
there is no realized gain. They also question the
creditable withholding tax (CWT) on sales of real
properties classified as ordinary assets stating that (1)
they ignore the different treatment of ordinary assets
and capital assets; (2) the use of gross selling price or
fair market value as basis for the CWT and the
collection of tax on a per transaction basis (and not
on the net income at the end of the year) are
inconsistent with the tax on ordinary real properties;
(3) the government collects income tax even when the
net income has not yet been determined; and (4) the
CWT is being levied upon real estate enterprises but
not on other enterprises, more particularly those in
the manufacturing sector.
petitioner's votes.[9]... he HRET ordered that all ballot
ISSUE:
protest and counter-protest be collected and
Are the impositions of the MCIT on domestic
Petitioner Henry "Jun" Dueñas, Jr. and private
respondent Angelito "Jett" P. Reyes were rival
candidates for the position of congressman in the 2nd
legislative district of Taguig City After the... canvass of
the votes, petitioner was proclaimed the winner,
having garnered 28,564 votes[4] as opposed to
private respondent's 27,107 votes.[5] Not conceding
defeat, private respondent filed an election protest ad
cautelam,... He prayed for a revision/recount in 170[7]
of the 732 precincts in the 2nd legislative district of
Taguig City so that the true and real mandate of the
electorate may be ascertained. he alleged that he was
cheated in the protested precincts through insidious
and well-orchestrated... electoral frauds and
anomalies which resulted in the systematic reduction
of his votes and the corresponding increase in
boxes and other election materials involved in the
retrieved, and brought to its offices for custody.

corporations and     CWT on income from sales of real The HRET thereafter directed the revision of ballots
properties classified as       ordinary assets starting September 18, 2007.[13] Reception of
unconstitutional?
evidence of the contending parties followed after the
revision of ballots in 100% of the protested precincts
RULING:
and 25% pilot of the counter-protested precincts.

NO. MCIT does not tax capital but only taxes income The case was then submitted for resolution upon
as shown by the fact that the MCIT is arrived at by submission by the parties of their memoranda.

deducting the capital spent by a corporation in the
sale of its goods, i.e., the cost of goods and other
direct expenses from gross sales. Besides, there are
sufficient safeguards that exist for the MCIT: (1) it is
only imposed on the 4th year of operations; (2) the
law allows the carry forward of any excess MCIT paid
over the normal income tax; and (3) the Secretary of
Finance can suspend the imposition of MCIT in
justifiable instances.
in view of the discovery of fake/spurious ballots in
The regulations on CWT did not shift the tax base of a
real estate business’ income tax from net income to
GSP or FMV of the property sold since the taxes
In an order dated September 25, 2008, the HRET
directed the continuation of the revision and
appreciation of the remaining 75% of the counter-
protested precincts pursuant to Rule 88 of the HRET
Rules, "[i]t appearing that the [HRET] cannot
determine the true will of the... electorate from the
initial revision and appreciation of the 100% protested
precincts and 25% counter-protested precincts and
some of the protested and counter-protested
precincts."[14]It was the HRET's position that the
mere filing of a motion to withdraw/abandon the
unrevised precincts did not automatically divest the

withheld are in the nature of advance tax payments
and they are thus just installments on the annual tax
which may be due at the end of the taxable year. As
such the tax base for the sale of real property
classified as ordinary assets remains to be the net
taxable income and the use of the GSP or FMV is
because these are the only factors reasonably known
to the buyer in connection with the performance of
the duties as a withholding agent.
notwithstanding the revision of 100% of the protested
Neither is there violation of equal protection even if
the CWT is levied only on the real industry as the real
estate industry is, by itself, a class on its own and can
HRET of its jurisdiction over the same.the HRET
insists in its comment[30] that it did not commit any
grave abuse of discretion. It contends that there was
a sufficient and legitimate reason to proceed with the
revision of the remaining 75% counter-protested
precincts.Petitioner submits that there was no point in
continuing with the revision of the remaining 75% of
t h e c o u n t e r- p r o t e s t e d p r e c i n c t s b e c a u s e ,
precincts and25% of the counter-protested precincts,
petitioner's margin over... private respondent was still
more than a thousand votes.

be validly treated different from other businesses.

ISSUE:

The core issue for our determination is whether the

HRET committed grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing members of the Batasang Pambansa and elective
Resolution No. 08-353 dated November 27, 2008.
provincial and city officials.”

“Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en

RULING:
banc or in three divisions. All election casesa may be
t the risk of unduly encroaching on the exclusive heard and decided by divisions except contests
prerogative of the HRET as the sole judge of election involving members of the Batasang Pambansa, which
contests involving its members, the Court cannot shall be heard and decided en banc. Unless
substitute its own sense or judgment for that of the otherwise provided by law, all election cases shall be
HRET on the issues of whether the evidence decided within ninety days from the date of their
presented during the... initial revision could affect the submission for decision.”

officially proclaimed results and whether the

continuation of the revision proceedings could lead to RULING:

a determination of the true will of the electorate.

The S.C. decided to resolve the case even if the
Since the HRET possessed the authority to motu Batasang Pambansa had already been abolished by
propio continue a revision of ballots, it also had the... the Aquino government, and even if Javier had
wherewithal to carry it out. It thus ordered the already died in the meantime. This was because of its
disbursement of its own funds for the revision of the desire for this case to serve as a guidance for the
ballots in the remaining counter-protested precincts.
future. Thus it said: “The Supreme Court is not only
the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the
conscience of the government. The citizen comes to
us in quest of law but we must also give him justice.
Javier vs COMELEC
The two are not always the same. There are times
Gr No. L-68379-81 | Sept 22,1986
when we cannot grant the latter because the issue
has been settled and decision is no longer possible
according to law. But there are also times when
although the dispute has disappeared, as in this case,
FACTS:
it nevertheless cries out to be resolved. Justice
The petitioner Evelio Javier and the private demands that we act, then, not only for the
respondent Arturo Pacificador were candidates in vindication of the outraged right, though gone, but
Antique for the Batasang Pambansa election in May also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the
1984;
future.”

2.    Alleging serious anomalies in the conduct of the b.    The S.C. held on the main issue that in making
elections and the canvass of the election returns, the COMELEC the sole judge of all contests involving
Javier went to the COMELEC to prevent the the election, returns and qualifications of the
impending proclamation of his rival;
members of the Batasang Pambansa and elective
3.    On May 18, 1984, the Second Division of the provincial and city officials, the Constitution intended
COMELEC directed the provincial board of to give it full authority to hear and decide these cases
canvassers to proceed with the canvass but to from beginning to end and on all matter related
suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate thereto, including those arising before the
until further orders;
proclamation of the winners.

4.    On June 7, 1984, the same Second Division
ordered the board to immediately convene and to
proclaim the winner without prejudice to the outcome
of the petition filed by Javier with the COMELEC;
banc.
The decision rendered by the Second Division alone
was therefore set aside as violative of the
Constitution. The case should have been decided en

5.   On certiorari with the S.C. the proclamation made c.    Pre-proclamation controversies became known
by the Board of Canvasser was set aside as and designated as such only because of Sec. 175 of
premature, having been made before the lapse of the the 1978 Election Code. The 1973 Constitution could
5 – day period of appeal, which the petitioner not have therefore been intended to have divided
seasonably made;
contests between pre and post proclamation when
6.    On July 23, 1984 the Second Division itself that Constitution was written in 1973.

proclaimed Pacificador the elected assemblyman of d.    The word “contests” should not be given a
Antique.
restrictive meaning; on the contrary, it should receive
the widest possible scope conformably to the rule
ISSUE:
that the words used in the Constitution should be
Was the Second Division of the COMELEC, interpreted liberally. As employed in the 1973
authorized to promulgate its decision of July 23, 1984 Constitution, the term should be understood as
proclaiming Pacificador the winner in the election ?
referring to any matter involving the title or claim of
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSITUTION:
title to an elective office, made before or after the
The applicable provisions of the 1973 Constitution are proclamation of the winner, whether or not the
Art. XII-C, secs. 2 and 3, which provide:
contestant is claiming the office in dispute.

“Section 2. Be the sole judge of all contests relating e.    There was also a denial of due process. One of
to the election, returns and qualifications of all the members of the Second Division, Commissioner
Jose Opinion was a law partner of Pacificador. He
denied the motion to disqualify him from hearing the RULING

case. The Court has repeatedly and consistently No. Petition dismissed.

demanded “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge” The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to
as the indispensable imperative of due process. To command and to expedite,not to inquire and to
bolster that requirement we have held that the judge adjudicate.Here, Quizon prayed that COMELEC be
must not only be impartial but must also appear to be ordered to resolve the petition for

impartial as an added assurance to the parties that disqualification. However, pending resolution of the
his decision will be just.
instant petition for mandamus, the COMELEC issued
itsResolution on the petition for disqualification
rendering the instant case moot.Hence, since what is
Quizon vs COMELEC
sought to be done by COMELEC has been
Gr No. 177927 | Feb 15, 2008
accomplished, there is nothing else that the Court

can order the COMELEC to perform.As a general rule,

the writ of mandamus lies to compel the performance
of a ministerial duty. When the act

sought to be performed involves the exercise of

discretion, the respondent may only be directed by
FACTS:

Mandamus to

Petitioner Quizon and private respondent Puno were

act but not to act in one way or the other. 

congressional candidates during the May 14, 2007

The denial of due course or cancellation of one’s
national

c e r t i fi c a t e o f c a n d i d a c y i s n o t w i t h i n t h e
and local elections. Quizon filed a Petition for
administrative powers of the Commission, but rather
Disqualification and Cancellation of Certificate of
calls for the exercise of its quasi-judicial

Candidacy against

functions.Hence, the Court may only compel

Puno alleged that Puno failed to meet the residency
COMELEC to exercise such discretion and resolve
requirement prior to the day of election.

the matter but it

may not control the manner of exercising such

 

discretion

Puno’s claim in his Certificate of Candidacy (COC)

that he is a resident of Antipolo City for four years and
sixmonths before May 14, 2007 but he was in fact a
resident of Quezon City.Quizon also filed a ABSCBN vs COMELEC

Supplement to the petition claiming that Puno cannot Gr No. 133486| Jan 28, 2000

validly be a candidate for a

congressional seat in the First District of Antipolo City

since he indicated in his COC that he was running in
theFirst District of the Province of Rizal which is a FACTS:

different legislative district.Quizon then filed this Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of
Petition for Mandamus alleging that the COMELEC the Rules of Court assailing COMELEC en banc
had not rendered a judgment on the
Resolution No. 98-1419 dated April 21, 1998. In the
above-mentioned petitions and that the unreasonable said Resolution, the poll body

delay in rendering judgment deprived him of his right “RESOLVED to approve the issuance of a restraining
to be declared as the winner and assume the position order to stop ABS-CBN or any other groups, its
of member of the House of Representatives.
agents or representatives from conducting such exit
COMELEC RULING
survey and to authorize the Honorable Chairman to
Comelec dismissed Quizon’s Petition and held that
issue the same.”

Respondent is a resident of the 1st District of The Resolution was issued by the Comelec allegedly
Antipolo City, and is thus qualified to run as a upon “information from [a] reliable source that ABS-
Member of the House of Representatives of the same CBN (Lopez Group) has prepared a project, with PR
district. Quizon filed a motion for reconsideration with groups, to conduct radio-TV coverage of the elections
the COMELEC En Banc which remains x x x and to make [an] exit survey of the x x x vote
unresolved.Puno argues that the petition for during the elections for national officials particularly
mandamus was mooted by the Resolution of the for President and Vice President, results of which
COMELEC Second Division. Healso alleged that the shall be [broadcast] immediately.” The electoral body
petition must be dismissed for the act sought to be believed that such project might conflict with the
performed is a discretionary and not a
official Comelec count, as well as the unofficial quick
ministerial duty; and for failure of Quizon to show that count of the National Movement for Free Elections
he is entitled to the writ
(Namfrel). It also noted that it had not authorized or
deputized Petitioner ABS-CBN to undertake the exit
survey.

ISSUE:
On May 9, 1998, this Court issued the Temporary
Whether the Petition for Mandamus was properly Restraining Order prayed for by petitioner. We
filed.
directed the Comelec to cease and desist, until
further orders, from implementing the assailed
Resolution or the restraining order issued pursuant Courts of First Instance have no jurisdiction to
thereto, if any. In fact, the exit polls were actually entertain actions assailing the constitutionality of
conducted and reported by media without any statutes or treaties, because section 10 of Article VIII
difficulty or problem.
of the Constitution prescribes that — No treaty or law
The solicitor general contends that the petition is may be declared unconstitutional without the
moot and academic, because the May 11, 1998 concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the
election has already been held and done with. (Supreme) Court.

Allegedly, there is no longer any actual controversy

before us.
ISSUE:

Are trial courts vested with jurisdiction to decide on

ISSUE:
the constitutionality of statutes or treaties?

Is the “moot and academic” principle a magical

formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in RULING:

resolving a case?
YES.

[T]he Constitution itself inhibits Congress from

RULING:
depriving the Supreme Court —

No.
of its jurisdiction to  review, revise, reverse, modify,
The issue is not totally moot. While the assailed or affirm on  appeal, certiorari  or  writ of error, as
Resolution referred specifically to the May 11, 1998 the law or the rules of court may provide, final
election, its implications on the people’s fundamental judgments and decrees of inferior courts in —

freedom of expression transcend the past election. (1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
The holding of periodic elections is a basic feature of any treaty, law, ordinance or executive orders or
our democratic government. By its very nature, exit regulations is in question (Emphasis supplied).

polling is tied up with elections. To set aside the
resolution of the issue now will only postpone a task
that could well crop up again in future elections.
constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of
In any event, in Salonga v. Cruz Pano, the Court had
occasion to reiterate that it “also has the duty to
formulate guiding and controlling constitutional
principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. It has the
symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the
extent of protection given by constitutional
guarantees.” Since the fundamental freedoms of
Plainly the Constitution contemplates that the inferior
courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving
appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in
cases where such constitutionality happens to be in
issue. Construing both provisions together, it is
readily discerned that the two-third vote of the
Supreme Court, required by Section 10 of Article VIII,
conditions only the decisions of the Supreme Court in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

speech and of the press are being invoked here, we

have resolved to settle, for the guidance of posterity,
whether they likewise protect the holding of exit polls
and the dissemination of data derived therefrom.

Tuason vs Court of Appeals

Gr No. L-18128| Dec 26, 1961

FACTS:

Bruna Rosete and Tranquilino Dizon, petitioned the

Court of First Instance to suspend the order of
demolition of their houses, on the ground that they
were tenants of the Tatalon Estate; that Republic Act
No. 2616, after specifically authorizing the
expropriation of the Tatalon Estate. However, Judge
Nicasio Yatco of the Court of First Instance of Quezon
City denied the suspension because no expropriation
proceedings had been actually filed. On certiorari, the
Court of Appeals ordered the issuance ex parte of the
preliminary injunction.

Respondent Tuason & Company, Inc., moved to

dissolve the preliminary injunction of the Court of
Appeals, that the prohibition proceedings a question
of constitutionality of a statute is not appealable to
the Court of Appeals; It is urged by amicus curiae that