June 27, 2019
Americans. So, they introduce this concept of the
What are those instances that where directly
resorted before the Supreme Court may be
warranted?
That was answered by the case of Private
Hospitals Association vs Medialdea. So, when
the genuine issues of constitutionality that must be
addressed at the most immediate time, no more
other resort or way within which you can get the
appropriate relief when the issues involved are of
transcendental importance in cases of first
impression wala pa siya na decidan na case, so
you go to the Supreme Court.
It can be entertained by the court and the
constitutional issues raised are better decided by
the Supreme Court because as you will learn later
on, the court not only the Supreme Court, have the
power of judicial review.
The time element or exigency in certain
situations and naay instances na if you would have
to resort to the trial court it would take so long.
Kailangan mog judgment to the highest court to be
able to get the relief. So, you can go to the
Supreme Court if you're able to establish your case
in that manner.
The past petition reviews and acts of a
constitutional organ. No other play speed and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that
petition includes customs dedicated by public
welfare and advancement of public policy or
amended by the broader interests of justice or the
order complained of were found to be patent
nullities appeal. It was considered as clearly an
inappropriate remedy. So just take note on those
instances.
So, we finish yesterday the what judicial review is
and the requirements of judicial review.
What are the functions of judicial review? Why
is it even exercised by the court?
First is that, it has this checking power and
the court negates the act and declare it as
unconstitutional if it is seen that the act is
inconsistent with the constitution. Now, there is this
legitimating function because the court can declare
that the act is not unconstitutional. This happened
before, it started when we were colonized by the
judicial review and so Filipinos when we were filling
up positions in the government including Congress
were issuing laws left and right and then these laws
were challenged before the Supreme Court.
What was the membership of the
Supreme Court during that time? It was
composed of the majority of which is composed of
Americans and the American policy gusto nila e
uphold. Naay mga policies sa America na
ginaimport sa Philippines. And there is that issue
regarding that policy that Supreme Court of the
Philippines composed of Americans or majority of
which are Americans would legitimize. Make it
legitimate. Katong mga acts that are consistent with
their policy, it also applicable now. Naa tay mga
instances where the Supreme Court would
legitimize an act. Like yung libingan ng mga bayani,
etc.
Symbolic, this is exercised even when the
conditions are not met simply because there is a
need for the court to lay down the rules of principles
which would serve as a guide for the bench and bar
for future acts of similar character. There are
instances where the decision of the Supreme Court
really has no practical value. For example, the party
is dead but because it is the pillar of justice, etc.
mao man iyang function. E defend gihapon sa
Supreme Court. If only to make it clear that it is not
abandoning the state that are a long moment
before it makes it clear that it is not abandoning its
duties despite the intervening event.
That happened in the case of Javier vs
COMELEC. There was this election contest
between two candidates in Antique. They were
candidates for the House of Representatives;
Pacificador and Javier. So, there was this heated
contest and patayan etc. The winner of the election
was Pacificador. And so, the loser, Javier, went to
COMELEC to protest the victory of Pacificador. And
later on, the COMELEC ruled in favor of the winner,
Pacificador. It was found out that COMELEC here
was very biased. There were several factors
enumerated here by the court. In the meantime,
because napildi si Javier sa COMELEC, wala
gidungog iyang protest. He went to the Supreme
Court. In the meantime when the case was still in
pending, he was gunned down. He died because
gipusil sya.
Did the Supreme Court in the case
because this happened? No. because very wise
or fluent discussion of the court. It talks only the
highest arbitrary of legal question and also the
conscience of the government. The citizens come
to the court in quest of law about we must also give
him justice.
Has the issue become moot and
academic? Number one, patay ang parties and
also the Batasang Pambansa has been abolished
because nagintervene pud dari ang Edsa
Revolution. But nevertheless, the court resolve the
issue and held na improper ang actuation sa
COMELEC here. It manifests by amounting to
grave abuse of discretion.
Is the victory here wala kay makuha na
practical value? Yes. But still ana ang Supreme
Court that let it be spread in records in this case
that if it were not for the supervening event that
have legally rendered it moot and academic, the
petition would have been granted and the decision
of the court would be set aside is violative of the
constitution. So, para lang mapakita sa mga tao na
it is functioning as an entity
Now we have ABS-CBN vs COMELEC
which talks about exit survey.
What is this exit survey? After the
election, naa didto si ABS-CBN sa gawas asking
“who do you vote for?”. It exited in a survey. That
was stop or enjoined by the COMELEC because
kani daw mga exit sirveys would cause confusion
kay what if dili consistent ang results sa survey sa
result sa elections, they will not believe anymore
the results of the election because of this election
survey so this was enjoined. And this enjoinment of
this election survey was challenge before the
Supreme Court. Violative daw among others the
right to free speech. Nevertheless, nahuman
nalang ang election wala gihapon na decidan sa
court. It was argued that the case was already
moot. The court said that it was not totally moot
because this case can happen again in the future.
Mag exit survey na pud, unya ang COMELEC e
enjoin napud.
To set aside the resolution of the issue now
will only postpone to the fact that it will only happen
again in the future elections. It also discussed here
the exceptions to the mootness doctrine. So even if
the case is moot and academic, the court will still
nevertheless discuss it provided that all the core
requisites are present. The court decided this case
because a fundamental right was involved here in
basic rights under the bill of rights and abuse the
right to free speech.
Now, Central Bank Employees vs
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Can a provision of
law which was initially valid becomes
subsequently unconstitutional on the ground
that its continued operation violates the equal
protection of the law? Valid ang law but if I
padayun pa siya og enforce vioaltive na siya on
equal protection. Why was this the issue?
There was this act RA 7653 which
compliments apparently discriminate against the
employees of the Bangko Sentral. Almost 3,000
employees, rank and file, because this law created
a paying structure that if your salary grade is 19
and below, dili ka makaenjoy the same benefit as
those whose salary grades are higher than yours.
Lahi ang inyuhang paying scale. Dili uniform.
despite you being in the same office.
So gi challenge ni, what is the difference in
the rank and file and the officers of the GSIS? They
challenge this for creating an arbitrary gratification
an unconstitutional fact between two classes of
employees in the BSP. As we said before the law is
presumed to be not unconstitutional.
Is this law unconstitutional? Ang defend
dari sa Central Bank is that this question is not
judicial. You are talking about a provision of law. If
you want to change that or its stability or
enforcement you do not go to the Supreme Court
but rather go to Congress to have the law
amended.
Is this a proper remedy? The court said
that no, because you're talking here of a challenge
against the law for violating a fundamental right
also in the Constitution bill of rights that is the equal
protection clause. So naay giviolate na provision,
justiciable sya.
Here, the Court said that the issue is
justiciable. And the court here emphasize that
courts have a duty rather than a power to
determine whether the branch of government here,
the legislative department, is kept within
constitutional limits. And this discussed lengthily
that this divide, violates the equal protection clause
and declares this provision unconstitutional. We
already introduced the concept or principle that the
court can exercise the power of judicial review.
It is not exclusive to the Supreme Court and
where do you find the provision? Article 8
Section 5.
Section 5 provides that the Supreme
Court shall have the following powers and
isa sa mga powers sa Supreme Court kay
number 2, review, revised, reverse, modify,
affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or
the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts.
So unsa ingon sa Supreme Court?
Pwede I review sa Supreme Court ning mga
judgment sa lower court that involves all cases in
which the constitutionality or validity in the treaties,
international or executive agreement, proclamation
order, law, instructions, ordinance, is in question.
So, the provision says, it can review a decision of
the lower court regarding the constitutionality of
these matters. In other words, naa nay nadecidan
sa lower court which can be decided now on the
Supreme Court on review. So, if there is nothing to
review, there is no reason for this provision to be
put here. So, basically saying that these lower
courts can rule on the constitutionality of these
matters subject to the review powers of the
Supreme Court. So, because of that it is recognize
that lower courts, not only the Supreme Courts,
have the power of judicial review.
Are all entities of the government can
exercise some form of judicial review or quasi-
judicial review? Can they declare an act or law
unconstitutional?
Clearly, that only courts vested with judicial
power can exercise judicial review. You have to be
a court in the first place.
So, how are courts created? They are
created by law.
The question is that, ang lowest in the
hierarchy is the MTC, does MTC have the power
to declare a law unconstitutional? MTC’s do not
have that power.
Why? Because (1) ang ways by which you
can challenge ang mga vehicles or mga remedies
na pwede nimo ma avail to challenge a law, like
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, these pleadings
may only be filed before RTC.
In BP 129, the law that created this courts,
wala didto gienumerate ang power sa MTCs to
decide constitutional issues or entertain katong
mga vehicles or petition na makaquestion sa
validity or constitutionality of a law. That is my
submission.
Also, in jurisprudence, wala pay nakita na
nagstart siya sa MTC na ang MTC ang nagdecide
na unconstitutional ang law.
(2) quasi-judicial bodies do not exercise
judicial powers. So kanang mga labor arbitrate,
SEC, they do not have the power to render a law
unconstitutional. Its only the courts. And the lower
courts decision as to the law’s unconstitutionality, is
subject to review by the Supreme Court as explicitly
stated in the constitutional provision we earlier
stated.
Ynot vs IAC
We have this executive order that issued
this executive order have the force and effect of law
that penalize those who illegally smuggle or
transport carabaos and carabids.
What is the penalty? Kwaon or confiscate
immediately ang imuhang carabao if you
transporting it against this provision of executive
order.
Katong mga gipangkuha na carabao, they
went to the RTC to enjoin the actions of those who
are enforcing this executive order. Gichallenge pud
nila ang constitutionality aning EO because it
violated their right to due process.
Why is it that it violated their due
process? Pagdakop pa lang i confiscate na. Walay
hearing etc. and you are depriving someone of his
property.
 Now sa RTC sya gifile and was confronted
with this issue, it did not rule in it, saying it did not
have the power to rule whether or not this EO was
unconstitutional or not.
So, the question here is that can the
lower courts rule on the constitutionality of a
statutes? Here an EO, yes. While lower courts
should observe a becoming modesty in examining
constitutional questions, they are not prevented
from resolving the same whenever warranted
subject only to review by the highest tribunal.
Makita nimo ang provision nga tong giingon ganiha
na gisite sa Supreme Court dari. Revise, review,
reverse decisions of lower courts involving the
constitutionality of the enumerated earlier which
includes this executive order that simply mean that
the resolution of such cases may be made in the
first instance in the lower courts.
So, it should have been resolved by the trial
court at that level.
Is the measure here unconstitutional?
Yes. it violates due process
We have Brokenshire vs Minister. This
hospital in Davao, na tay mga employees and naay
gi issue na wage order number five ang minister of
labour required minimum wage in this locality. Wala
ni gi follow sa Brokenshire. It failed to continue to
comply with this wage order. So, gikasuhan karon
sa mga empleyado ang Brokenshire for violating
this. And the arguments of Brokenshire is that wage
order is unconstitutional. He presented this
question before the NLRC, labor arbiter, and later
on, abot sila sa NLRC, Brokenshire argued that the
NLRC should declare this wage order
unconstitutional.
Can the NLRC do that? No. Only courts.
The Supreme Court is vested by the constitution
that are the ultimate in declare a law
unconstitutional of course this includes courts not
quasi-judicial body.
Ongsuko vs Malones this deals with the
unconstitutionality of an ordinance issued by the
Sangguniang Bayan because gipass siya without
the observing the proper procedure. Aside from
violating due process nag illegal pud daw siya
because it's not consistently the law. Anyway, i
present siya sa RTC.
Can be resolved by RTC, the
constitutionality or legality of this ordinance?
Yes. This is a question, a pure question of
law which is within the competence and restriction
of the RTC to resolve. And an ordinance can be
declared unconstitutional or not by the trial court
subject to review by the Supreme Court.
Is this ordinance valid?
No. It did not follow the proper procedure
laid down in the Local Government Code for the
passage of an ordinance the most important tool
which is the hearing requirement.
Now we already discussed yesterday this
concept of a political question.
If it is a political question, the courts will not
touch it because political siya. The Supreme Court
is not supposed to be meddling with political affairs.
This power exercised by majoritarian bodies,
normally the Congress including the executive. So
dapat as much as possible, dili pwede makialam
ang Supreme Court.
Now take note that before the 1935
Constitution, a majority lang kailangan sa vote sa
mga justices to declare an act or law
unconstitutional. After the 1935 constitution, it
required a 2/3 vote from the justices of the
Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional.
So, during that time 1935 to the 1987 Constitution,
very not political ang Supreme Court. Lisod kaayo I
achieve ang two-thirds vote to declare a law
unconstitutional.
But now, under the 1987 constitution it
reverted to the requirements of majority lang which
is 50% plus one. And so now our Supreme Court is
actually given so to speak political powers. Ngano
man? Because it cannot set aside a law to be
inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s own
interpretation of the Constitution. So, naa siyay
political power. And if kusgan ang kapit sa other
branches of the government then, that would the
point thing.
Anyway, what is a political question?
A political question refers to a question
which under the Constitution is to be decided
by the people in their sovereign capacit. For
example, kanang pag ratify sa plebiscite or kanang
mga votes. Pagratify sa Constitution by a plebiscite,
that is a political question the courts cannot set
aside because the people have already spoken for
in regards to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to a specific branch of the
government, legislative or executive, that in the
exercise of such power is political. So, the court will
not substitute its own wisdom if that act or that
power is lodged exclusively on one branch as a
rule.
But, because of the expansion of the power
of judicial review and under the 1987 Constitution,
ang power sa Supreme Court is dili lang to review it
is not only limited to those acts which are
inconsistent with the Constitution, ni expand siya,
because it now can declare an act to have been
done with grave abuse of discretion.
So katong gipang ingon nato ganiha, katong acts
na gihatag ang power exclusively, they would
require therefore if they want to exercise the power
and exercise of discretion. If gi exercise nila ning
power, etc. Even if that require that involves
wisdom or the application in a sense political,
pwede na I set aside sa Supreme Court as long as
ma pakita nga naay grave abuse of discretion.
So, that is powerful. The Supreme Court
right now is.
Oposa vs Factoran. We discussed this
case in passing in some of the earlier cases which
talks about a case filed by Oposa et al. Young
children, who are concerned about the preservation
of our forest, so they sued the secretary of the
DENR and all the timber, land, concessionaires.
They prayed for the cancellation of all existing
timber license agreement, to cease and desist from
these contracts approving new timber license
agreement.
One of the arguments raised by the kalaban
of these children was that this is a political
question. In this case, it started in the lower court
and later on it went to the Supreme Court, does
this raised a political question?
No. The court said here that this provision
which widen the power of the Supreme Court in an
Article VIII Section 1.
Article VIII Section 1 - Judicial power
includes the duty of the courts to object this to
settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable.
So kana siya ang general concept of judicial
power
Article VIII Section 1 - and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.
This second part is the broadening of
judicial power to enable courts of justice to review
what was before forbidden territory which is the
exercise of discretion of the political departments of
the government.
So even karon, with expanded power of the
court even though wisdom of the decisions of the
executive and legislature, it may be declared void
because they are exercise with grave abuse of
discretion. So very powerful ang court.
Velarde vs SJS talks about political
question vs justiciable question.
When is a question justiciable?
Well if it is something that is not political. (1)
It involves an issue between the parties conflicting
interests not required application of law or (2) if it is
a question involves a violation of the constitution.
Here, ang nahitabo is that religious leaders
here where endorsing candidates for elective office.
And this was challenge because this is inconsistent
with the prevailing laws and issuances of the
COMELEC.
Isa sa mga issues here, it is this even as a
justiciable controversy? The courts said that this
is not. Why? Because walay actual case.
A judicial controversy, refers to an existing
case or controversy that is appropriate or right for
determination.
In this case the petitioner here may be
speculated or anticipated without factual mooring
that a religious, Velarde et al, had endorse or
threatened to endorse a candidate. So, wala nila
gipakita at the outset na naa silay case to begin
with.
What else? How did they envision it to
make it a case?
They said that kani daw mga naga endorse
aning mga religious leaders are successful daw
sila. They would be able to win because of the
endorsement and then this would enable them to
control the government. And the court said that this
premise is highly speculative and merely
theoretical. So walay justiciable controversy.
Speculation does not give rise to an
actionable right.
Now, we have the case of Vinuya vs
Romulo involving the Malayang Lolas. They were
comfort women during the time of the Japanese
occupation and they were molested etc, during that
time. ang karon tigulang na sila, they want to ask
for damages, payment from Japan for the horror
that they experience during the time they wanted to
present their claim to Japan.
So, what was the process?
They have to course that through the
Department of Foreign Affairs. They presented their
quandary before the DFA and it was rejected.
Why? Because there is already a treaty daw
entered between the Philippines and Japan that
already waive all their claims claim but only to
preserve the peaceful relations pf these countries.
There is already this general waiver of claims made
by the Philippines government in the treaty with
Japan. So gi reject ang ilahang claim sa DFA. And
they wen tot the Supreme Court to force the
executive through the DFA to present their claim
before Japan. The court said na dili niya pwede ma
compel ning executive branch in this case, to
present their claim before Japan.
How did the supreme court rule? How
did it decide that way?
It fits behind the veil of political question, the
doctrine of political question. Again, political
questions are those decided by people in their
sovereign capacity for full discretionary authority is
given to the legislative or executive branch of the
government.
So, is this an example of a case that
presents a political question?
The court said, yes. Why ? Because it
involves foreign relation and the head of our foreign
relations, the President. And the president he acts
through his secretary. And so kaning si DFA is one
of those secretaries. Whatever the secretary does
is presumed to have been done by the president.
Now kani siya, gihatag ni siya na power to the
president himself which is now exercised by his
agent, the DFA. And because this power was given
to the president, dili ni siya pwede according to the
Supreme Court e set aside niya because it involves
a political question.
Now, is this rule absolute that if it
involves foreign relations, the courts would no
longer be able to decide it?
No. Not all cases implicating foreign
relations political question. For example, if it
involves a treaty, which undergoes a specific
process. It involves foreign relations pero justiciable
question siya. This requires the exercise of
discretion of the executive and the court said that it
cannot substitute its own wisdom or discretion as
what was done by DFA when it rejected the claim
of Lola. It is the sole organ of the country that who
represents the state is the Chief Executive.
In the motion for reconsideration in this
case, the court affirm this decision and said that
extreme caution must be observed in the exercise
of its power of judicial review. Here, the
Constitution is entrusted to the executive
department to conduct foreign relations for the
Philippines. Whether or not to expound? the claim
here against the government of Japan is left to the
exclusive determination and judgment to the
executive department in which the court cannot
intervene it or question because it involves the
exercise of wisdom of that department.
We have subsequent cases where the court
would hide behind the veil of political question, like
the case of Abellana vs Executive Secretary which
we discussed before katong pagratify sa 1973
Constitution. The people to the people’s assembly
have decided. So, it cannot set aside the power of
sovereignty by the people. And karon, naa tay mga
cases, libingan ng mga bayani, etc.
In Saguisag vs Ochoa, we have here the
case involving, as we discuss earlier, the validity of
the EDCA. Because, this EDCA allowed foreign
troops in the Philippines but it was entered between
us and the Americans by a mere executive
agreement. So gichallenge ning EDCA for being
not in the proper form as required by the
Constitution.
Ang isa sa mga defenses here, to defend
the validity of EDCA, this question presented by the
Court is political. While the court recognized here
that that political question doctrine is no longer
insurmountable obstacle before the Supreme Court
because it has been granted expanded judicial
powers. So here, the court still decided the case.
Now, does this case involve a political
question, the question whether or not the EDCA
is valid?
The court said that no. Why? It was not
exclusively deal with the exercise of the President
of his foreign relations powers. But rather, the
question here is whether or not the EDCA is ratified
or conferred by the process laid down by the
Constitution. The issue is not political, but rather
legal. Kung tama ba ang imong gihimo sa
Constitution.
Now, we have the case of Diocese of
Bacolod vs. COMELEC. This case involves the
printing of a tarp. Tarp siya during election. So
nakabutang didto sa tarp on one side “Same
buhay.” Those senators that are against the RH law
and senators to approve the RH law. And this tarp
daw during elections was violating the size
requirements. Pag ing ani na time you have a
propaganda here against candidates. So, since this
involves candidates, pwede maregulate inyong
materials. Unya pagtan aw nila, na dako ra kayo
ang size, it should be taken out or at least
minimize.
It was not followed by the Diocese because
they claim among others that they have the right to
free speech. And this compulsion by the
COMELEC to remove this tarp violates such right.
And the COMELEC still insisted. Gipangsulatan
ning mga involved aning tarp telling them that they
will be prosecuted by the law. And the case
reached the Supreme Court.
One of the arguments raised here was that
this question was a political question according to
COMELEC. The court said that this is not a political
question. In any case, the court said when political
questions are involved, the Constitution limits the
determination to whether or not there is a grave
abuse of discretion for lack of jurisdiction. So there
is already a recognition here that even if the matter
presented here before the Supreme Court is
political because of the extended power of the
Supreme Court to review these acts, to determine
whether or not there is GAD?, it can still be resolve
by the Supreme Court. If grave abuse is not
established, the court will not substitute its
judgment for that of the official concern and decide
the matter in which by law is for the latter alone to
decide.
So, here, mas ginaholster sa Supreme
Court ang ilahang powers. Even if we have been
presented by a political question, the case makes
out. The party can establish that here is grave
abuse of discretion even if it involves the exercise
of discretion of one of the branches of government.
That can be decided by the court.
The determination on whether an issue truly
involves a political or nonjusticiable question lies in
the answer to the question on whether they are
constitutionally imposed limits on the powers or
functions conferred upon the political body.
So, unsa ang tan awun sa court? Nga
nay gihimo na act?
Consistent ba siya sa Constitution? Naa bay
limit giimpose? Nag exceed ba siya sa limitations?
If there are, these limitations, courts are duly bound
to examine whether the branch of instrumentality of
the government properly acted within such limits.
Take note that almost every act of the
Constitution na ginahatag sa atong branches of
government are subject to that all-encompassing
requirement must not be exercised with grave
abuse of discretion. So ikaw, if you want to
challenge that act which involves an exercise of
discretion in the specific branch of government, you
can claim that it exceeded this threshold therefore
they should be entertained by the Supreme Court.
So, in this case, what is the limit?
Aside from the fact na grave abuse of
discretion daw tung pagissue atong orders to take
down the tarp, naa puy fundamental right na
giinvolve dari na curtail daw. And that is the right to
free speech. And since there is a constitutional right
involve, this case is no longer political but rather
justiciable.
Now what happens? We have been
talking left and right whether or not the act is
valid or not. Constitutional or not. What
happens if an act, law, ordinance, etc. is
declared unconstitutional?
There are two views of thought. The
orthodox view is that, its not a law, it’s a personal
right imposes no duties a course of protection to
which an office is inoperative as if it was not passed
at all. It’s as if it did not exist.
Where is this rule anchored on in the
Civil Code?
Article VII, when the court declares a law to
be inconsistent, the former shall be void and the
latter shall govern. So kung void siya, it will not
exist at all. So, wala kay maclaim from a void
unconstitutional act. So that’s the old view.

The newer view is the operative fact
doctrine. Despite the fact that this law, act, or
ordinance in question is declared to be
unconstitutional, there was a time when it was not
yet unconstitutional and during that time na valid
siya, people relied on it. Diba as we learned before,
laws are presumed to be constitutional, presumed
to be valid. They are not presumed to be
unconstitutional. So, if it is valid, you have to follow
it. There was a time na gifollow pa sila in good faith.
And if that law is declared in the future to be
unconstitutional, you should have been faulted for
doing your job in following that law. So, naay
consequences for you following the law.
Prior to its declaration on its
unconstitutionality, which must be recognize.
So, we have this old case, Serrano de
Abgayani vs PNB. Here, we have a debtor, so
nangutang siya sa PNB and gi mortgage niya iyang
property. Now, the period to foreclose a mortgage
was under the Civil Code, 10 years. Now,
nagpadayun tung time, wala pa nakabayad si
debtor, but in the meantime wala siya gi foreclose
sa bank. In the meantime, nagpass of executive
order ang president, EO 32, which extended a
moratorium. Ang effect sa moratorium here is
during the effectivity of the order, dili ka pwede
magforeclose og mortagage. so, later on, the
executive order was declared unconstitutional. So
karon, a few days nalang, naglapas na ang
prescriptive period for the mortgage, giforeclose
karon sa bank. Ang defense sa debtor was that
their right to foreclose this mortgage is already
prescribed. Too late na.
Ang defend sa PNB is that it could not
foreclose this mortgage because of the executive
order. So dapat, you should deduct the time which
this executive order imposed on it in the PNB.
Pagcompute nimo sa time na pwede nimo
magforeclose ang mortgage.
Ang argument ni landowner is that the
Supreme Court already declared that order
unconstitutional, therefore void siya to begin with.
So, katung period na nagstop na wala giallow tung
pagforeclose, dili nimo siya e recognize at all ang
executive order.
Do we recognize this EO or not?
If we recognize it, pwede pa makasingil si
bank, if not, then dili na pwede makasingil si bank.
The court discuss here the two views, the
orthodox view that the constitutional act does not
become the source of any right or duty. It cannot
justify any act taken by it. It did not exist in the first
place. That’s the old view. What is the weakness of
this view? This view is not realistic. It does admit
prior to the declaration of nullity this legislative or
executive act must have been import or complied
with. We are not prophets, that we can predict that
this law will be declared unconstitutional in the
future that you would say “I will not follow this law
because it will be declared null and void.”
While that law is not yet unconstitutional,
you follow it.
The operative fact doctrine says here that
the actual existence of a statute prior to its
declaration of unconstitutionality is an operative
fact. It was operative. And there are consequences
which cannot be justly ignored. The past cannot
always be erased by a new judicial declaration. Dili
ta pwede magmove on dayun because we have
this operative fact doctrine. We follow the law
during that time na valid pa siya.
In this case, the court applied the operative
fact doctrine.
The question here is that, can this
operative fact doctrine reverse the orthodox
view? Dili na jud bah ta mag go to orthodox
view? Operative fact ba always when there is a
declaration of unconstitutionality of a law?
The court emphasize in the subsequent
cases including Aldovino vs Alunan that the
applicability of the operative fact doctrine relies or is
dependent on whether or not it would give result to
equity. So, you cannot apply this operative fact
doctrine if it would result in inequity or injustice.
What happened in Aldovino vs Alunan?
There is this Executive Order 120, which
reorganize the Ministry of Tourism. And because of
this EO, gitanggal tanan ang empleyado sa
ministry. So niadto sila sa Supreme Court. They
challenge this issuance and they were able to get a
favorable ruling from the court. The court said that
that executive order in unconstitutional. Because it
is unconstitutional, they went to court to get back
their wages. Illegal man ang ilang dismissal from
the Ministry of Tourism. They were not able to
enjoy their salaries and benefits because of this
unconstitutional act.
Ang defense sa state here is that we apply
the operative fact doctrine. When that executive
order was still in effect, valid ang dismissal sa
employees. Therefore, dapat dili sila swelduhan.
Who is right?
The court here applies this general rule, or
the orthodox rule and that is an unconstitutional act
is not a law or has no right or duty. The effect is
that its as if the employees where not separated
from their service.
Why is the orthodox view applied by the
Supreme Court?
Because, it would result to injustice if imong
i apply ang operative fact doctrine. The fact that
they were not assume office and exercise their
duties is attributable to the continuing refusal of the
public respondents to take them unless the obtain
court order. It will result to inequity. However, if it
does not result to inequity, then the operative fact
doctrine may be applied by the court.