Arroyo vs De Venecia

Facts
This is a petition or prohibition challenging the validity of RA# 8240 which amends certain provisions of the NIRC by imposing
so-called “sin taxes” on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes. Petitioners are members of the HOR. They brought
this suit against respondents for violation of the rules of the House which petitioners claim are constitutionally mandated so
that their violation is tantamount to a violation of the Constitution. Only the proceedings of the HOR on the conference
committee report on H.No. 7198 are in question. Petitioners contend that RA# 8240 is null and void because it was passed in
violation of the rules of the House; that these rules embody the “constitutional mandate” in Art VI sec 16. The Solicitor General
filed a comment in behalf of all the respondents. Respondents’ defense is anchored on the principle of separation of powers
and the enrolled bill doctrine. They argue that the court is not the proper forum for the enforcement of the rules of the House
and that there is no justification for reconsidering the enrolled bill doctrine.

Issue
WON the court has the power to decide on the case?

Held
No, It is clear from the foregoing facts that what is alleged to have been violated in the enactment of RA# 8240 are merely
internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law. No rights of
private individuals are involved but only those of a member who, instead of seeking redress in the House, chose to transfer the
dispute to this court. The courts have no power to look into the internal proceedings of a House than members of that House
have to look over the shoulders of the justices, as long as no violation of constitutional provisions is shown.

Bengzon vs Blue Ribbon Committee

Facts
This is a petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin the respondents from
requiring the petitioners to testify and produce evidence at its inquiry into the alleged sale of the equity of Benjamin “Kokoy”
Romualdez to the Lopa Group in 36 or 39 corporations. After the EDSA revolution the Romualdez companies were sold for 5
million, without PCGG approval to a holding company and that Ricardo Lopa has effectively taken over the firms even pending
negotiations for the purchase of the corporation. Juan Ponce Enrile called upon the senate to look into the possible violation of
the law with regard to RA# 3019. It was later on refered to the Blue Ribbon Committee. Ricardo Lopa and Jose Bengzon both
decline to testify that his testimony may unduly prejudice the defendants in a civil case before the Sandiganbayan.

Issue
WON the congress can compel the petitioners to testify?

Held
The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not absolute or unlimited. The investigation
must be “in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedures” and that “the rights of persons
appearing in or affected by such inquires shall be respected” it follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights
must be respected.

Garcia vs Mata

Facts
The petitioner bought an action for Mandamus and Recovery of a sum of Money in the court to compel the respondents
Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff of AFP to reinstate him in the active commissioned service of the AFP, to
readjust his rank and to pay all the emoluments and allowances due to him from the time of his reversion to inactive status.
The court ruled that par. 11 of the Special Provisions for the AFP in RA# 1600 is invalid, unconstitutional and inoperative. The
petitioner argues that his reversion to inactive status was a violation of the provision, which prohibits the reversion to inactive
status of reserve officers on an active duty with at least 10 years of accumulated active commissioned service. The
respondents contend that the said provision has no relevance of pertinence to the budget in question or to any appropriation
item contained therein.

Issue
WON a provision contained in an act is embraced in the subject and is properly connected therewith
Held
The subject of RA 1600 as expressed in its title is restricted to “appropriating funds for the operation of the government” Any
provision contained in the body of the act that is fairly included in this restricted subject or any matter properly connected
therewith is valid and inoperative. But if a provision in the body of the act is not fairly included in its restricted subject, like the
provision relating to the policy matters of calling to active duty and reversion to inactive duty of reserve officers of the AFP,
such provision is inoperative and of no effect.

Garces vs Estenzo

Facts
This case is about the constitutionality of 4 resolutions of the barangay council of Valencia, Ormoc City, regarding the
acquisition of the wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer to be used in the celebration of his annual feast day. the controversy
arose after the mass when the parish priest refused to return that image to the barangay council on the pretext that it was the
property of the church because church funds were used for its acquisition. Father Osmena allegedly uttered defamatory
remarks against the barangay captain, Manuel Veloso, apparently in connection with the disputed image.

Issue
WON the image was purchased using church funds?

Held
No, The wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint, San
Vicente Ferrer, and neither for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or the religious
beliefs of the barrio residents. One of the highlights of the fiesta was the mass. Consequently, the image of the patron said had
to be placed in the church when the mass was celebrated.

Aglipay vs Ruiz

Facts
The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, seeks the issuance from this court of a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent
Director of Posts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress. In
spite the protest of the petitioners attorney, the respondent publicly announced having sent to the United State the designs of
the postage stamps for printing. It is alleged that the respondent violated sec 13 art 6 of the constitution.

Issue
WON the respondent violated sec 13 art 6 of the constitution?

Held
No, the issuance of the postage stamps in question by the Director of Posts and the Secretary of Public Works and
Communication was not inspired by any sectarian feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination. No money
was derived from the sale of the stamps given to that church. The only purpose is to advertise the Philippines and attract more
tourists to this country.

Pascual vs Secretary of Public Works, et al.

Facts
Petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, as Provincial Governor of Rizal, instituted this action for declatory relief with injunction upon
the ground that RA# 920 it includes an item of 85,000 for the construction and improvement of the Pasig Feeder road
terminals. The said roads were a subdivision owned by respondent Zulueta. The petitioner prayed that the contested item of
RA# 920 be declared null and void and the alleged deed of donation of the feeder roads in question be declared
unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Issue
WON RA# 920 is unconstitutional?
Held
Yes, where a land on which projected feeder roads are to be constructed belongs to a private person, an appropriation made
by Congress for that purpose is null and void and a donation to the Government, made over 5 months after the approval and
effectively of the Act for the purpose of giving a semblance of legality to the appropriation does not cure the basic defect.

Sumulong vs Comelec

Facts
The Comelec acting under the authority of sec 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 adopted a resolution providing for the
appointment of election inspectors to be proposed by the political and persons named therein. Petitioner seeks to nullify the
resolution on the ground that sec 5 of Commonwealth Act. No. 657 is unconstitutional is so far as it requires that a political
party must have polled at least 10 per centum of total number of votes cast in the proceeding election In order to have the
right to propose the appointment of one inspector and his substitute. Petitioner contends that requirements in sec 5 is a
subject not expressed in the title of the Act, and that its inclusion in that section contravenes the provision in the constitution
that No bill which may be enacted into law shall embraced more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the
bill.

Issue
WON sec 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 is unconstitutional?

Held
No, The challenged provision of sec 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 has a necessary and proper connection with the
reorganization of the comelec, which is the subject expressed in the title of the Act. Under the Constitution the comelec is
empowered to decide administrative questions affecting the appointment of elections inspectors and other election officials. It
is germane to the general subject of the reorganization of the comelec.

Lindasan vs Comelec

Facts
Chief Executive signed into law House Bill# 1247 known as RA# 4790. Twelve barrios in two municipalities in the province of
Cotabato are transferred to the province of Lanao Del Sur. The office of President recommended to comelec that the operation
of the statute be suspended. Bara Lidasan, prays for the declaration of unconstitutionality of the said RA. Petitioner relies upon
the constitutional requirement that “No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall
be expressed in the title of the bill.”

Issue
WON the title of a statute conforms with the constitutional requirement?

Held
No, such title did not inform the members of the Congress as to the full impact of the law. It did not appraise the people in the
towns of Bulden and Parang in Cotobato and in the province of Cotobato itself that part of their territory is being taken away
from the towns and province and added to the adjacent province of Lanao del Sur.

Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance

Facts
The contention of petitioners is that in enacting RA# 7716 or the Expanded Value-Added Tax, Congress violated the
Constitution because, although H. No. 11197 had originated in the HOR it was not passed by the Senate but was simply
consolidated with the Senate version in the Conference Committee to produce the bill which the President signed into law. It
was stated that the bill was submitted in substitution of the Senate Bill# 1129.

Issue
WON there is a violation when the congress simply consolidated its bill with that of the Senate.

Held
No, There is really no difference between the senate preserving the House Bill up to the enacting clause and then writing its
own version following the enacting clause and, on the other hand, separately presenting a bill of its own on the same subject
matter. A bill originating in the HOR may undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be a rewriting of
the whole, as a result of the senate action, a distinct bill may be produced and to insist that a revenue statue must substantially
be the same as the House bill would be to deny the Senate’s power not only to concur with the amendments but also to
propose amendments.

Abakada Guro Party List vs Ermita

Facts
Before RA# 9337 took effect, petitioners filed a petition for prohibition. They question the constitutionality of Setions 4,5, and
6 of RA# 9337, amending sections 106,107 and 108 of the NIRC. Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties,
Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on imporatation of goods, and Sec 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of
properties. These question provisions contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the
Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%. Petitioenrs argue that the law is unconstitutional as it constitutes
abandonment by Congress of its exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under Art 6 sec 28(2) of the Constitution.

Issue
WON

Held
It is within the power of conference committee to include in its report an entirely new provision that is not found either in the
House bill or in the Senate bill. If the committee can propose an amendment consisting of one or two provisions, there is no
reason why it cannot propose several provisions, collectively considered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. So
long as such amendment is germane to the subject of the bills before the committee.

Ople vs Torres

Facts
The petition at bar is a commendable effort on the part of Senator Blas Ople to prevent the shrinking of the right to privacy.
Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate AO# 308 on two important grounds: one, it is a usurpation of the power of the
Congress to legislate, and two, it impermissible intrudes on our citizenry’s protected zone of privacy. Petitioner filed the
instant petition against respondents, then Executive Secretary Rubben Torres and the heads of the government agencies, who
as members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee, are charged with the implementation of AO# 308.

Issue
WON petitioner has a legal standing to sue?

Held
Petitioner Ople is a distinguish member of the Senate. As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the requisite standing to bring
suit raising the issue that the issuance of AO# 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. As taxpayer and member of GSIS,
petitioner can also impugn the legality of the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to implement AO#
308.

Jaworski vs PAGCOR

Facts
PAGCOR is a GOCC existing under PD# 1869. PAGCOR board of directors approved an instrument denominated as “grand of
authority and agreement for the operation of sports betting and internet gaming”, which granted SAGE the authority to
operate and maintain Sports Betting station in PAGCOR casinos locations, and internet gaming facilities to serve local and
international bettors, provided that to the satisfaction of PAGCOR , appropriate safeguards and procedures are established to
ensure the integrity and fairness of the games. Petitioner in his capacity as a member of the Senate and Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Games, Amusement and Sports files an instant petition praying that the grant of authority by PAGCOR in favor
of SAGE be nullified. He maintains that PAGCOR committed grave abuse of discretion and contend that PAGCOR is not
authotized under its legislative franchise to operate gambling on the internet.

Issue
WON PD# 1869 authorize PAGCOR to contract any part of its franchise to SAGE by authorizing the latter to operate internet
gambling?

Held
No, The grant of authority gives SAGE the privilege to actively participate, partake and shares PAGCOR’s franchise to operate
gambling activity. The grant of franchise is a special privilege that constitutes a right and duty to be performed by the grantee.
The grantee must not perform its activities arbitrarily and whimsically but must abide by the limits set by its franchise and
strictly adhere to its terms and conditionalities. The special privileges and franchises it receives are subject to the laws of the
state and limitations of its charter.

Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary

Facts
Three hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP stormed into the Oakwood Premiere apartments in Makati City.
Bewailing the corruption in the AFP the solidiers demanded the resignation of the President, the Secretary of defense and the
Chief of PNP. The president issued later in the day of Proclamation No 427 and General Order No. 4, both declaring a state of
rebellion and calling out the AFP to suppress the rebellion. Petitioner contend that sec 18 art 7 of the constitution does not
require the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the armed forces. They further submit that, because of the cessation of
the Oakwood occupation, there exists no sufficient factual basis for the proclamation by the President of a state of rebellion for
an indefinite period.

Issue
WON petitioners has legal standing to the case?

Held
No, Petitioners has no legal standing or locus standi to bring suit. Even assuming that petitioners are peoples organizations,
this status would not vest them with the requisite personality to question the validity of the presidential issuances. The gist of
the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that
concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional question.

PH Consitutional Association vs Enriquez

Facts
House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation Bill of 1994 was passed and approved by both houses of Congress. As passed,
it imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of appropriations in the proposed budget previously submitted by the
President. It also authorized members of the Congress to propose and identify projects in the pork barrels allotted to them and
to realign their respective operating budgets. The president signed the bill into law.
The petitioners prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare as unconstitutional and void Art XLI on the Countrywide
Development Fund, the special provision in art 1 and art XLVIII on the Appropriation for Debt Service and the veto of the
President of the Special Provision of Art XLVIII of the GAA of 1994.

Issue

Held
A member of the Senate, and of the HOR for that matter, has the legal standing to question the validity of a presidential veto or
a condition imposed on an item in an appropriation bill. Where the veto is claimed to have been made without or in excess of
the authority vested on the President by the constitution, the issue of an impermissible intrusion of the Executive into the
domain of the Legislature arises. An act of the executive which injures the institution of Congress causes a derivative but
nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned by a member of the Congress.

Kilosbayan, Inc vs Morato

Facts
Kilosbayan, Inc. is an organization described in its petition as composed of civic-spirited citizens, pastors, priests, nuns and lay
leaders. As, a result in the case of Kilosbayan vs Guingona invalidating the contract of lease between PCSO and PGMC on the
ground that it had been made in violation of the charter of the PCSO, the parties entered into negotiations for a new agreement
that would be consistent with the latter’s charter and conformable to the courts decision. Its trustees are also suing in their
individual and collective capacities as “taxpayers and concerned citizens.” The other petitioners are members of the Congress.
Respondents question the right of petitioners to bring this suit on the ground that, not being parties to the contract of lease,
which they seek to nullify, they have no personal and substantial interest. Petitioners on the other hand contend that the
ruling in the previous case sustaining their standing to challenge the validity of the first contract for the operation of lottery is
now the law of the case and therefore the question of their standing can no longer be reopened.

Issue
WON the doctrine of “law of the case” is applicable?

Held
No, if the complaint is not grounded on the impairment of the powers of the congress, legislators do not have standing to
question the validity of any law or official action. The doctrine of “law of the case” is not applicable considering the fact that
while this case is a sequel to the previous case, it is not its continuation. The doctrine applies only when a case before a court
second time after a ruling by an appellate court.

Zandueta vs De la Costa

Facts
This is a quo warranto proceeding instituted by Honorable Francisco Zandueta against Hon. Sixto de la Costa to obtain from
this court a judgement declaring the respondent to be illegally occupying the office of judge of the 5 th Branch of the Court of
first instance of Manila, 4th Judicial District, ousting him from said office, and holding that the petitioner is entitled to continue
occupying the office in question by placing him in possession thereof. Petitioner receive from the president of the
Commonwealth a new ad interim appointment as judge of first instance,this time of the 4 th Judicial District, with authority to
preside over the courts of Manila and Palawan. The respondent admits of some of the allegations. He contend that petitioner is
estopped from attacking the constitutionality of Commonwelath Act# 145 for having accepted his new appointment as judge.

Issue
WON the petitioner may proceed to question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which the new ad interim
appointment.

Held
When the petitioner abandoned his old office, he 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 appoitnemnt having been disapproved by the
Commission of Appointment of the National Assembly, neither 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.

IBP vs Zamora

Facts
Pres. Estrada commanded the eployement of Philippine Marines to join PNP in visibility Pstrols around the metropolis in view
of the alarming increase in violent crimes in metro manila. Task force Tulungan would be plac under the leadership of police
chief in Metro Manila. IBP filed instant petition to annul LOI, to be declared the deployement of the Philippine Marines
unconstitutional. They alleged that Marines in Metro Manila is violative because there is no emergency situation, derogation og
art. 1 sec 3 of constitution.

Issue
WON calling of armed forces to assists PNP in joint visibility patrols violates the constitutional provisions on civilian
supremacy over military?

Held
No, deployment of the marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy clause, as evident in the provisions of
LOI, it is the head of a civilian institution, the PNP and not the military that has the authority over said operation. The marines
render nothing more than assistance required in conducting the patrols. What we have here is mutual support and
cooperation between the military and civilian authorities not derogation of civilian supremacy.

PBA vs Comelec

Facts
Petitioners questios the constitutionality of BP Blg 883 which calls for special national elections on February 7, 1986 for the
offices of President and Vice President. The said provision allows the president to continue holding office after the calling of
the special election. Senator Pelaez content that the President’s letter of resignation did not create actual vacancy required in
sec 9 art 7 of the constitution. The letter states that the president will vacate his position only when the election is held and
after the winner is proclaimed and qualified as president by taking his oath ten days after his proclamation.

Issue
WON BP Blg 883 is unconstitutional?
Held
No, there weren’t enough votes to declare BP unconstitutional. The issue turned into a political question which can be truly
decided only by the people in their sovereign capacity.
Nitafan vs Commissioner

Facts
Petitioners who were appointed and qualified judges presiding over branches 52, 19, and 53 respectively on RTC, NCJR all
stations in Manila, seek to prohibit and perpetually enjoin respondents from making any deduction of withholding taxes from
their salaries. They contend that any tax withheld from their emoluments or compensation as judicial officer constitutes a
decrease or diminution of their salaries.

Issue
WON the members of the judiciary are exempt from paying income tax?

Held
No, the court hereby makes of record that it had disregarded the ruling in Perfecto vs Meer and Endencia vs David. The court
since then has authorized the continuation of the deduction of withholding tax from the members of the SC, as well as from the
salaries of all other members of the Judiciary.

Rimeo Gustillo vs Real Sr

Facts
Gustilo charged judge Real Sr, of MTC of Vicorias-Manapala, Negros Occidentalof gross misconduct, gross incompetence, gross
ignorance of law and violation of anti-graft and corrupt practices for recounting of ballots of percent 27 and 27-A or Barangay
Punta Mesa, Manapla, Negros Occidental. Petitioner is a candidate as punong barangay and his opponent is Wenddy Libo-on,
the incumbent punong barangay. Both of them garnered 819 votes. the complainant was proclaimed as the winner. Weddy file
an election protest and sought the recounting of ballots in 2 precints. Respondent judge issued TRO an annulled the
proclamation of complainant.

Issue
WON respondent judge committed grave abuse of error?

Held
Yes, a judge is expected to know the jurisdictional boundaries of courts and quasi-judicial bodies like comelec as mapped out
by constitution and statues to act only within said limits. Respondent judge wantonly usurped a power exclusively vested to
comelec.

Araullo vs Aquino

Facts
Jingoy Estrada delivered a privilege speech in senate that some senators received 50 million as incentive for voting for
impeachment of Chief Justice Corona. Secretary Abad issued a public statement explaining that the funds released to the
senators had been part of DAP and had been released to the senators based on their letter or request for funding. he contend
that the funds were taken form unreleased appropriations under personnel services, unproggramed funds, carry over
appropriations unreleased from the previous year, budgets from slow-moving items/project that had been released to support
faster disbursing project.

Issue
WON DAP violates the system of checks and balances?

Held
Yes, the grant of funds under DAP to some legislators for their silence about the issue and anomalies surrounding the DAP.
DAP allowed legislators to identify DAPs, authorize them to take part in the implementation and execution of GAA which is of
the executive. It constitute undue and unjustified legislative encroachment in the function of executive.

Magtajas vs Pryce Property Corp.

Facts
When PAGCOR announce the opening of a casino in Cagayan De Oro City, the Sanggunian Panlungsod enacted ordinance#
3353, which prohibits the issuance of permit and cancelling existing business permit. The court of appeals declared the
ordinances as invalid and issued writ prayer. PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by PD# 1869 to help centralize and
regulate all games of chance including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of Philippines.

Issue
WON the issued ordinance is valid?

Held
Yes, The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. Congress has consulted its own wisdom which the court. Gambling is
not illegal per se. There is nothing in the constitution categorically proscribing or penalizing gambling or for that matter. It is
left to the Congress to deal with the activity as it sees fit. It is settled that questions regarding the wisdom, morality or
practicability of statutes are not addressed to the judiciary but may be resolved only by the legislative and executive
departments, to which the function belongs in our scheme of government.