Political law Case Digests 1

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTIONCOMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION (CHREA) VS. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004, July 21, 2006. (CRUZ) DOCTRINE: A proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. The 1987 Constitution expressly and unambiguously grants fiscal autonomy only to the Judiciary, the constitutional commissions, and the Office of the Ombudsman; CHR is not one of them. FACTS: On 14 February 1998, Congress passed Republic Act No. 8522, otherwise known as the General Appropriations Act of 1998. It provided for Special Provisions Applicable to All Constitutional Offices Enjoying Fiscal Autonomy. The last portion of Article XXXIII covers the appropriations of the CHR. On the strength of these special provisions, CHR promulgated Resolution No. A98-047 on 04 September 1998, adopting an upgrading and reclassification scheme among selected positions in the Commission. Annexed to said resolution is the proposed creation of ten additional plantilla positions, namely: one Director IV position, with Salary Grade 28 for the Caraga Regional Office, four Security Officer II with Salary Grade 15, and five Process Servers, with Salary Grade 5 under the Office of the Commissioners. On 19 October 1998, CHR issued Resolution No. A98-055 providing for the upgrading or raising of salary grade of the several positions in the Commission. To support the implementation of such scheme, the CHR, in the same resolution, authorized the augmentation of a commensurate amount generated from savings under Personnel Services. By virtue of Resolution No. A98-062 dated 17 November 1998, the CHR “collapsed” the vacant positions in the body to provide additional source of funding for said staffing modification. Among the positions collapsed were: one Attorney III, four Attorney IV, one Chemist III, three Special Investigator I, one Clerk III, and one accounting Clerk II. The CHR forwarded said staffing modification and upgrading scheme to the Department of Budget and Management [DBM] with a request for its approval, but the DBM secretary Benjamin Diokno denied the request on the following grounds:  It involved the elevation of the field units from divisions to services.  In the absence of a specific provision of law which may be used as a legal basis to elevate the level of divisions to a bureau or regional office, and the services to offices, such scheme should be denied.  Pursuant to Section 78 of the General Provisions of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) FY 1998, no organizational unit or changes in key positions shall be authorized unless provided by law or directed by the President, thus, the creation of a Finance Management Office and a Public Affairs Office cannot be given favorable recommendation.  Moreover, as provided under Section 2 of RA No. 6758, otherwise known as the Compensation Standardization Law, the Department of Budget and Management is directed to establish and administer a unified compensation and position classification system in the government. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Victorina Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119155, dated January 30, 1996, that DBM the sole power and discretion to administer the compensation and position classification system of the National Government.  Being a member of the fiscal autonomy group does not vest the agency with the authority to reclassify, upgrade, and create positions without approval of the CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION DBM. While the members of the Group are authorized to formulate and implement the organizational structures of their respective offices and determine the compensation of their personnel, such authority is not absolute and must be exercised within the parameters of the Unified Position Classification and Compensation System established under RA 6758 more popularly known as the Compensation Standardization Law. We therefore reiterate our previous stand on the matter. In light of the DBM’s disapproval of the proposed personnel modification scheme, the CSC-National Capital Region Office, through a memorandum dated 29 March 1999 recommended to the CSC-Central Office that the subject appointments be rejected owing to the DBM’s disapproval of the plantilla reclassification. Meanwhile, the officers of petitioner Commission on Human Rights Employees’ Association [CHREA], in representation of the rank and file employees of the CHR, requested the CSCCentral office to affirm the recommendation of the CSCRegional Office. CHREA stood its ground in saying that the DBM is the only agency with appropriate authority mandated by law to evaluate and approve matters of reclassification and upgrading, as well as creation of positions. The CSC-Central Office denied CHREA’s request in a Resolution dated 16 December 1999, and reversed the recommendation of the CSC-Regional Office that the upgrading scheme be censured. Petitioner CHREA elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the pronouncement of the CSC-Central Office and upheld the validity of the upgrading, retitling, and reclassification scheme in the CHR on the justification that such action is within the ambit of CHR’s fiscal autonomy. Petitioner elevated its case to the Supreme Court and successfully obtained the favorable action in its Decision dated 25 November 2004. Respondent then filed its Motion for Reconsideration. CONTENTION: ** Supreme Court erred when it ruled that there is no legal basis to support the contention that the CHR enjoys fiscal autonomy. ** Supreme Court erred in stating that the special provision of the RA No. 8522 did not specifically mention CHR as among those offices to which the special provision to formulate and implement organizational structures apply, but merely states its coverage to include constitutional commissions and offices enjoying fiscal autonomy; ** Supreme Court erred when it ruled that the CHR although admittedly a constitutional creation is nonetheless not included in the genus of the offices accorded fiscal autonomy by constitutional or legislative fiat. ** Supreme Court erred in deciding to reinstate the ruling dated 29 march 1999 of the civil service commission – national capital region; ** Supreme Court erred in deciding to disallow the Commission On Human Rights Resolution No. A98-047 dated September 04, 1998, Resolution No. A98-055 dated 19 october 1998 and Resolution No. A98-062 dated 17 November 1998 without the approval of the department of budget and management. ISSUES: 1. WON CHREA has the capacity to sue and/or the proper party 2. WON CHR is one of the constitutional bodies clothed with fiscal autonomy 3. WON approval of DBM is a condition precedent to the approval of the scheme HELD: 1. YES. On petitioner's personality to bring this suit, we held in a multitude of cases that a proper party is one who has CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015 POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. 13 Here, petitioner, which consists of rank and file employees of respondent CHR, protests that the upgrading and collapsing of positions benefited only a select few in the upper level positions in the Commission resulting to the demoralization of the rank and file employees. This sufficiently meets the injury test. Indeed, the CHR's upgrading scheme, if found to be valid, potentially entails eating up the Commission's savings or that portion of its budgetary pie otherwise allocated for Personnel Services, from which the benefits of the employees, including those in the rank and file, are derived. Further, the personality of petitioner to file this case was recognized by the CSC when it took cognizance of the CHREA's request to affirm the recommendation of the CSCNational Capital Region Office. CHREA's personality to bring the suit was a non-issue in the Court of Appeals when it passed upon the merits of this case. Thus, neither should our hands be tied by this technical concern. Indeed, it is settled jurisprudence that an issue that was neither raised in the complaint nor in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process. 2. NO. The 1987 Constitution expressly and unambiguously grants fiscal autonomy only to the Judiciary, the constitutional commissions, and the Office of the Ombudsman. As already settled in the assailed Decision of this Court, the creation of respondent may be constitutionally mandated, but it is not, in the strict sense, a constitutional commission. The creation of respondent may be constitutionally mandated, but it is not, in the strict sense, a constitutional commission. Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, plainly entitled “Constitutional Commissions,” identifies only the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit. The mandate for the creation of the respondent is found in Section 17 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution on Human Rights. Thus, the respondent cannot invoke provisions under Article IX of the 1987 Constitution on constitutional commissions for its benefit. It must be able to present constitutional and/or statutory basis particularly pertaining to it to support its claim of fiscal autonomy. The 1987 Constitution extends to respondent a certain degree of fiscal autonomy through the privilege of having its approved annual appropriations released automatically and regularly. However, it withholds from respondent fiscal autonomy, in its broad or extensive sense, as granted to the Judiciary, constitutional commissions, and the Office of the Ombudsman. The 1987 Constitution recognizes the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary in Article VIII, Section 3. Constitutional commissions are granted fiscal autonomy by the 1987 Constitution in Article IX, Part A, Section 5, a provision applied in common to all constitutional commissions. The Office of the Ombudsman enjoys fiscal autonomy by virtue of Article XI, Section 14, of the 1987 Constitution. Each of the afore-quoted provisions consists of two sentences stating that: (1) The government entity shall enjoy fiscal autonomy; and (2) its approved annual appropriation shall be automatically and regularly released. The respondent anchors its claim to fiscal autonomy on the fourth paragraph of Article XIII, Section 17, which provides that the approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly released. As compared to Article VIII, Section 3; Article IX, Part A, Section 5; and Article XI, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution on the Judiciary, the constitutional commissions, and the Office of the Ombudsman, respectively, Article XIII, Section 17(4) on the Commission of Human Rights (CHR) evidently does not contain the first sentence on the express grant of CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015 ANGELO MURILLO A. The question as to constitutionality of EO 7 serves no useful purpose since such issue is moot in its face in light of the enactment of R. STEVEN GATACELO. with more reasons. constitutional commissions. kowtow to the Salary Standardization Law. 193978.A. No.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION fiscal autonomy. the ConCom) would not have made specific enumerations in a statute (or the Constitution) had the intention not been to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly mentioned. Fiscal autonomy encompasses. No. use of savings and disposition of receipts. in the sense that it is entitled to the automatic and regular release of its approved annual appropriations. Accordingly. DOCTRINE: Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.Y. LORALYN LAZARO. The assailed Decision of this Court dated 25 November 2004 is hereby MODIFIED. all the same. or consequence implies the exclusion of all others.R. wherein the express mention of one person. This Court concludes that the 1987 Constitution extends to respondent a certain degree of fiscal autonomy through the privilege of having its approved annual appropriations released automatically and regularly. G. thing. among others. so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. February 28. all government offices must. and the Office of the Ombudsman. GALICIO VS. A moot case is “one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events. the fiscal autonomy contemplated in the constitution is enjoyed even before and. the imprimatur of the DBM must first be sought prior to implementation of any reclassification or upgrading of positions in government. It does not mean mere automatic and regular release of approved appropriations to agencies vested with such power in a very real sense. CHRISTINE CRUZ. declaring the respondent CHR as a constitutional body enjoying limited fiscal autonomy. EO 7 is constitutional. after the release of the appropriations. YES. 2012. and reproduces only the second sentence on the automatic and regular release of its approved annual appropriations. Operative herein is the rule of statutory construction. The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislature (or in this case. it withholds from respondent fiscal autonomy. nonetheless. It means independence or freedom regarding financial matters from outside control and is characterized by self direction or self determination. its entire reclassification scheme remains subject to the approval of the DBM. He is currently holding the position of Court Attorney IV and is assigned at the PhilHealth Regional Office CARAGA. RAMON MUNEZ. this Court shares the stance of the DBM that the grant of fiscal autonomy notwithstanding. budget preparation and implementation. 2014-2015 . 10149. Fiscal Autonomy defined. This Court staunchly holds that as prescinding from the legal and jurisprudential yardsticks discussed in length in the assailed Decision. 3. flexibility in fund utilization of approved appropriations. However. The Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. it is still required to conform to the Salary Standardization Law. as granted to the Judiciary. in its broad or extensive sense. AQUINO ET AL. expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Regardless of whether or not respondent enjoys fiscal autonomy. FACTS: The petitioner is a Filipino citizen and an employee of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth). rates and policies reviewed by the DBM and approved by the President because PD 1597 requires only the GOCCs to report to the President their plans and rates but the same does not give the President the power of control over the fiscal power of the GOCCs. 5. bonuses. on September 8. LORALYN LAZARO. 2014-2015 . Based on its findings that “officials and governing boards of various [GOCCs] and [GFIs] x x x have been granting themselves unwarranted allowances. allowances. and from increasing salary rates of and granting new or additional benefits and allowances to their employees. of all GOCC and GFI employees for an indefinite period to be set by the President. 4. Subsequently. EO 7 is an invalid issuance because it has no sufficient standards and is therefore arbitrary. PD 985 is not applicable as its basis because the GOCCs were subsequently granted the power to fix compensation long after such power has been revoked by PD 1597 and RA 6758. unreasonable and a violaton of substantive due process. GOCCs do not need to have its compensation plans. The acts of suspending and imposing moratorium are ultra vires acts because JR No.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION On July 26. 7. 3. 6. bonuses and incentives of members of the Board of Directors/Trustees until December 31. Aquino. 2010. 2.” EO 7 provided for the guiding principles and framework to establish a fixed compensation and position classification system for GOCCs and GFIs. Pres. 2010 and precluded the Board of Directors. and (2) a suspension of all allowances. 2010. and for Other Purposes. except salary adjustments under EO 8011 and EO 900. stock options. 17 “urging the President to order the immediate suspension of the unusually large and apparently excessive allowances. bonuses. Series of 2009 is not applicable as legal basis because it had not ripened into law. RAMON MUNEZ. 4. He contended that: 1. incentives and other perks of members of the governing boards of [GOCCs] and [GFIs]. EO 7 is null and void for lack of legal basis. It ordered (1) a moratorium on the increases in the salaries and other forms of compensation. ANGELO MURILLO A. EO 7 is by substance a law which is a derogation of congressional prerogative and is therefore unconstitutional. STEVEN GATACELO. Heeding the call of Congress. which was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. a power which is a legislative grant and which could not be revoked or modified by an executive fiat.Y. issued EO 7. Pres. the Senate of the Philippines (Senate) conducted an inquiry in aid of legislation on the reported excessive salaries.” the Senate issued Senate Resolution No. he is affected by the implementation of EO 7. It took effect on September 25. entitled “Directing the Rationalization of the Compensation and Position Classification System in the [GOCCs] and [GFIs]. Aquino made public in his first State of the Nation Address the alleged excessive allowances. and other benefits [as well as other] irregular and abusive practices. CONTENTIONS: **The petitioner claims that as a PhilHealth employee. EO 7 involves the determination and discretion as to what the law shall be and is therefore invalid for its usurpation of legislative power. Consistent with the decision of the SC in Pimentel vs CHRISTINE CRUZ. Trustees and/or Officers of GOCCs from granting and releasing bonuses and allowances to members of the board of directors. JR No. 4 does not expressly authorize the President to exercise such powers. 2010. and other benefits of GOCCs and government financial institutions (GFIs). EO 7 is invalid for divesting the Board of Directors of the GOCCs of their power to fix the compensation. incentives. bonuses and other benefits of Officers and Members of the Board of Directors of the Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System – a government owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) which has been unable to meet its standing obligations. Meanwhile. In this case. as a general rule. Petitioner lacks locus standi. the President should be dropped as a party respondent as he is immune from suit. the petitioner’s signature does not indicate his PTR Number. They also advocate the validity of Joint Resolution (J. In addition. 02-8-13-SC. 2. mandatory. 3. 2. which they point to as the authority for issuing EO 7. allowances. the absence of such right deprives the petitioner of legal standing to assail EO 7. we are not convinced that the petitioner has demonstrated that he has a personal stake or material interest in the outcome of the case because his interest. 2011. if any.[15] otherwise known as the “GOCC Governance Act of 2011. LORALYN LAZARO. They claim that the President exercises control over the governing boards of the GOCCs and GFIs. **As defense of respondents. certiorari is not applicable to this case. the following are procedural defects as grounds for the dismissal of the petition: 1. Thus. 10149. 7. thus. ISSUES: 1. (2) the injury CHRISTINE CRUZ. the same cannot “infuse” or give the petitioner locus standi under the transcendental importance or paramount public interest doctrine. 4.” Section 11 of RA 10149 expressly authorizes the President to fix the compensation framework of GOCCs and GFIs. 2014-2015 . Whether or not petitioner has locus standi.) No. STEVEN GATACELO. and 6. ANGELO MURILLO A. the curtailment of future increases in his salaries and other benefits cannot but be characterized as contingent events or expectancies. No.M.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION Aguirre Case. the petitioner failed to attach a board resolution or secretary’s certificate authorizing him to question EO 7 in behalf of PhilHealth. EO 7 is only directory and not HELD: 1. a party is allowed to “raise a constitutional question” when (1) he can show that he will personally suffer some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government. To be sure. Congress enacted Republic Act (R.Y. In the present case. on June 6. therefore. NO. Whether or not EO 7 is valid. EO 7 was issued in accordance with law for the purpose of controlling the grant of excessive salaries. 5.R.” This requirement of standing relates to the constitutional mandate that this Court settle only actual cases or controversies. the petitioner lacks locus standi. 4. RAMON MUNEZ.A. is speculative and based on a mere expectancy.) No. he can fix their compensation packages. the jurat of the Verification and Certification of NonForum Shopping failed to indicate a valid identification card as provided under A. he has no vested rights to salary increases and. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Compliance Number and Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Number. incentives and other benefits to GOCC and GFI employees. The gist of the question on 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 questions. We note that while the petition raises vital constitutional and statutory questions concerning the power of the President to fix the compensation packages of GOCCs and GFIs with possible implications on their officials and employees. Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. such aspect is not something that just anybody with some grievance or pain may assert. Not only does it assure the vigorous adversary presentation of the case. No. The petition was dismissed for its patent formal and procedural infirmities and for having been mooted by subsequent events. RAMON MUNEZ. If the asserted injury is more imagined than real. Jurisprudence defines interest as "material interest. then the courts may end up being importuned to decide a matter that does not really justify such an excursion into constitutional adjudication. has expressly empowered the President to establish the compensation systems of GOCCs and GFIs. as well as other entities covered by the law. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. Congress. For the Court to still rule upon the supposed unconstitutionality of EO 7 will merely be an academic exercise The petition has been mooted by supervening events. as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION is fairly traceable to the challenged action. Indeed. he “stands to be prejudiced by [EO] 7. such as the President. and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. is not asserting a public right for which he is entitled to seek judicial protection. This means that. The new law amended R. the President is now authorized to fix the compensation framework of GOCCs and GFIs. the rationale goes to the very essence of representative democracies. 7875 and other laws that enabled certain GOCCs and GFIs to fix their own compensation frameworks. The rationale for this constitutional requirement of locus standi is by no means trifle. which suspends or imposes a moratorium on the grants of salary increases or new or increased benefits to officers and employees of GOCC[s] and x x x curtail[s] the prerogative of those officers who are to fix and determine his compensation. more importantly. subordinate. The respondents meanwhile argue that the petitioner is not a real party-in-interest since future increases in salaries and other benefits are merely contingent events or expectancies. we cannot ignore or excuse the blatant failure of the petitioner to provide a Board Resolution or a Secretary’s Certificate from PhilHealth to act as its representative.A. In this regard. It has to be direct and substantial to make it worth the court’s time. or is merely superficial and insubstantial. 2. the President can now reissue an EO containing these same provisions without any legal constraints. It has been held that as to the element of injury. 2014-2015 . it must suffice to warrant the Judiciary’s overruling the determination of a coordinate. ANGELO MURILLO A. in this case. democratically elected organ of government. LORALYN LAZARO. 10149. the law now authorizes the President to fix the compensation and position classification system for all GOCCs and GFIs. The issue is rendered moot. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. it has been pointed out that the present case has already been rendered moot by CHRISTINE CRUZ. Since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a material and personal interest in the issue in dispute. Because of the transitory nature of EO 7. too. YES. or a mere incidental interest. thru R. the petitioner contends that as an employee of PhilHealth. With the enactment of the GOCC Governance Act of 2011. STEVEN GATACELO.” The petitioner also claims that he has standing as a member of the bar in good standing who has an interest in ensuring that laws and orders of the Philippine government are legally and validly issued and implemented. The petitioner. No.A." To support his claim that he has locus standi to file the present petition. or consequential interest. as well as the effort of inquiry into the constitutionality of the acts of another department of government. and the clear approval by Congress. he cannot also be considered to have filed the present case as a representative of PhilHealth.Y. contingent. RAMON MUNEZ. Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate. February 3. 1986. 1997 Manila Hotel is part of our national patrimony. the Constitution should be considered selfexecuting rather than non-self-executing. S. No.300. as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources. and financial support to strengthen the profitability and performance of the Manila Hotel.) Petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation. the new law amended R. 10149 amending the provisions in the charters of GOCCs and GFIs empowering their board of directors/trustees to determine their own compensation system. 10149. the law now authorizes the President to fix the compensation and position classification system for all GOCCs and GFIs. In the words of the eminent constitutional law expert.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION these supervening events: (1) the lapse on December 31.” “[A]n action is considered ‘moot’ when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead[. so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. which bid for the same number of shares at P44. “the Court normally [will not] Petition was DISMISSED. Joaquin Bernas. No. and (2. 7875 and other laws that enabled certain GOCCs and GFIs to fix their own compensation frameworks.” With the enactment of the GOCC Governance Act of 2011.. GSIS decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent MHC. with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator.58 per share.A. MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS.Y. In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated: (1. ANGELO MURILLO A. No.R. National patrimony refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines.A.A. as well as other entities covered by the law. As may be gleaned from these provisions. CHRISTINE CRUZ. in favor of the grant of authority to the President to perform this act.000 shares at P41.J.” This is the present situation here. 50 dated December 8. a Filipino corporation.] or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence. a Malaysian firm. but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.00 per share. Simply stated. or P2. FACTS: Pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. LORALYN LAZARO.42 more than the bid of petitioner. GSIS ET AL. G. DOCTRINE: In case of doubt. the President can now reissue an EO containing these same provisions without any legal constraints. A moot case is “one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events. Fr. the President is now authorized to fix the compensation framework of GOCCs and GFIs. This means that. The winning bidder is to provide management expertise and/or an international marketing/reservation system. No. which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15. one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties x x x.) Renong Berhad. 2014-2015 . there is nothing for the x x x court to resolve as [its] determination x x x has been overtaken by subsequent events. 122156. Any further discussion of the constitutionality of EO 7 serves no useful purpose since such issue is moot in its face in light of the enactment of R. 2010 of Section 10 of EO 7 that suspended the allowances and bonuses of the directors and trustees of GOCCs and GFIs. STEVEN GATACELO. and (2) the enactment of R. entertain a petition touching on an issue that has become moot because x x x there would [be] no longer x x x a ‘flesh and blood’ case for the Court to resolve. the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares. 2.. 10. STEVEN GATACELO. second par. and exclusive marine zone as cited in the first and second paragraphs of Sec. Thus.. Thus. On 18 October 1995 the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from perfecting and consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm. second par. minerals. For the bidding rules mandate that if for any reason. While petitioner speaks of the guests who have slept in the hotel and the events that have transpired therein which make the hotel historic. GSIS may offer this to the other Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per share. forests or timber.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary contracts. On 17 October 1995. Art. for the said provision to operate. It is a proud legacy of an earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in the nobility and sacredness of independence and its power and capacity to release the full potential of the Filipino people. it has become a part of the national patrimony. 10.. ANGELO MURILLO A. the hotel business of respondent GSIS being a part of the tourism industry is unquestionably a part of the national economy. 51% CHRISTINE CRUZ. To all intents and purposes. **Respondents contended that Sec. all forces of potential energy. of the 1987 Constitution is merely a statement of principle and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires implementing legislation(s). XII. these alone do not make the hotel fall under the patrimony of the nation. XII. LORALYN LAZARO. Certainly. CONTENTION: **Petitioner invokes Sec. 1987 Constitution. petitioner came to this Court on prohibition and mandamus. flora and fauna and all marine wealth in its territorial sea. a government-owned and controlled corporation. the mandate of the Constitution is addressed to the State. 10. Since Manila Hotel is part of the national patrimony and its business also unquestionably part of the national economy petitioner should be preferred after it has matched the bid offer of the Malaysian firm. Art. perhaps apprehensive that respondent GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by respondent GSIS and consummated with Renong Berhad. applies. 1987 Constitution. the constitutional provision invoked is still inapplicable since what is being sold is only 51% of the outstanding shares of the corporation. any transaction involving 51% of the shares of stock of the MHC is clearly covered by the term national economy. waters.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad which respondent GSIS refused to accept. not to respondent GSIS which possesses a personality of its own separate and distinct from the Philippines as a State. What is more. RAMON MUNEZ. XII. to which Sec. second par. Art. XII. fisheries. of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. not the hotel building nor the land upon which the building stands. Since 51% of the shares of the MHC carries with it the ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned by respondent GSIS.Y.” Granting that this provision is self-executing. petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS dated 28 September 1995 matched the bid price of P44. there must be existing laws “to lay down conditions under which business may be done. Manila Hotel does not fall under the term national patrimony which only refers to lands of the public domain. Granting that the Manila Hotel forms part of the national patrimony. petroleum and other mineral oils. coal. 2014-2015 . Art. wildlife. The omission from a constitution of any express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be self-executing. Apparently.” hence. the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares. A provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation. But. Respondents postulate that the privilege of submitting a matching bid has not yet arisen since it only takes place if for any reason. STEVEN GATACELO. The mere fact that legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not render such a provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation. ANGELO MURILLO A. Sec. mandated to implement section 10. the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-executing unless the contrary is clearly intended. of Art XII is couched in such a way as not to make it appear that it is nonself-executing but simply for purposes of style. Whether or not the shares of Manila Hotel is part of the national national economy and patrimony covered by the protective mantle of the Constitution. Whether or not the provisions of the constitution is self-executing 2. further the exercise of constitutional right and make it more available. petitioner should have questioned it right from the beginning and not after it had lost in the bidding. 3. 2014-2015 . Thus the submission by petitioner of a matching bid is premature since Renong Berhad could still very well be awarded the block of shares and the condition giving rise to the exercise of the privilege to submit a matching bid had not yet taken place. Moreover. prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement. 10. second par. LORALYN LAZARO.Y. YES. so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms. or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected. the legislature is not precluded from enacting further laws to enforce the constitutional provision so long as the contemplated statute squares with the Constitution. The rule is that a selfexecuting provision of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject. and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action. RAMON MUNEZ. certainly. Whether GSIS is included in the term “State. Subsequent legislation however does not necessarily mean that the subject CHRISTINE CRUZ. is self-executing. Whether or not the Filipino First policy should be applied HELD: 1. or place reasonable safeguards around the exercise of the right. paragraph 2 of Article XII of the Constitution 4. the legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution. further the operation of such a provision. In self-executing constitutional provisions. but any legislation must be in harmony with the constitution.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION of the equity of the MHC cannot be considered part of the national patrimony. A constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself. provide a convenient remedy for the protection of the rights secured or the determination thereof. The prevailing view is that in case of doubt. Minor details may be left to the legislature without impairing the self-executing nature of constitutional provisions. ISSUES: 1. if the disposition of the shares of the MHC is really contrary to the Constitution.. Y.. if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right. and concessions covering national economy and patrimony. mines and other natural resources but also the mental ability or faculty of our people. 2014-2015 . Therefore. provision is not. Ubi jus ibi remedium. second par. While it was restrictively an American hotel when it first opened in 1912. independence and nationhood. by itself. RAMON MUNEZ. the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony. Dubbed as the Official Guest House of the Philippine Government it plays host to dignitaries and official visitors who are accorded the traditional Philippine hospitality. Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony. because of credible CHRISTINE CRUZ. Art. 51% of the MHC cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice stands. It also refers to our intelligence in arts. as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources. fully Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate. consequently. such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance. and from which all legislations must take their bearings. sciences and letters. we should develop not only our lands. When our Constitution mandates that [i]n the grant of rights. so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual control and management of the hotel. It is per se judicially enforceable. For sure. loves and frustrations of the Filipinos. 2. its existence is impressed with public interest. (3) For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to the triumphs and failures. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory. its own historicity associated with our struggle for sovereignty. And when our Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject. it means just that . positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. privileges. STEVEN GATACELO. ANGELO MURILLO A. a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission explained (1) The patrimony of the Nation that should be conserved and developed refers not only to our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race. 10. YES. (2) Manila Hotel has become a landmark . Where there is a right there is a remedy. Sec.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION constitutional enforceable. but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. It was called the Cultural Center of the 1930’s. the term patrimony pertains to heritage. As regards our national patrimony. LORALYN LAZARO. Formerly a concourse for the elite. it immediately evolved to be truly Filipino. it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines. 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the majority and controlling stock. forests. NOTE: The term “qualified Filipinos” simply means that preference shall be given to those citizens who can make a viable contribution to the common good. It was the site of the festivities during the inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth. In its plain and ordinary meaning. the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing. Verily.qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. it has since then become the venue of various significant events which have shaped Philippine history.a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation. In this instance. Accordingly. It was pre-qualified by respondent GSIS in accordance with its own guidelines so that the sole inference here is that petitioner has been found to be possessed of proven management expertise in the hotel industry. as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources. Joaquin G. the term patrimony pertains to heritage. YES. privileges. privileges. Bernas.” Without doubt therefore the transaction. respondents maintain that the provision is not selfexecuting but requires an implementing legislation for its enforcement. the word qualified is also determinable. i. and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. In the granting of economic rights.” (2) when the government is so significantly involved with the private actor as to make the government responsible for his action. sciences and letters. ANGELO MURILLO A. The patrimony of the Nation that should be conserved and developed refers not only to our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race. is not just any commodity to be sold to the highest bidder solely for the sake of privatization. LORALYN LAZARO. It is evident that the act of respondent GSIS in selling 51% of its share in respondent MHC comes under the second and third categories of “state action.J.” When the Constitution addresses the State it refers not only to the people but also to the government as elements of the State. YES. or it has an overall management and marketing proficiency to successfully operate the Manila Hotel.. 4. Opposing. and concessions. a government instrumentality deriving its authority from the State.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION competence and efficiency.” Lastly. the acts of persons distinct from the government are considered “state action” covered by the Constitution (1) when the activity it engages in is a “public function. or it has significant equity ownership in another hotel company. When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony.Y.” the latter shall be chosen over the former.. it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines. RAMON MUNEZ. when a choice has to be made between a “qualified foreigner” and a “qualified Filipino. In its plain and ordinary meaning. is in fact a transaction of the State and therefore subject to the constitutional command. It certainly does NOT mandate the pampering and preferential treatment to Filipino citizens or organizations that are incompetent or inefficient. and. for that matter. 2014-2015 . since such an indiscriminate preference would be counterproductive and inimical to the common good. a constitutional mandate directed to the State is correspondingly directed to the three (3) branches of government.e. although entered into by respondent GSIS. As correctly pointed out by Fr. The Manila Hotel or. Petitioner was so considered by respondent GSIS and selected as one of the qualified bidders. Corollarily. S. this fact alone makes the sale of the assets of respondents GSIS and MHC a “state action. the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos is invoked by petitioner in its bid to acquire 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) which owns the historic Manila Hotel. In this case the subject constitutional injunction is addressed among others to the Executive Department and respondent GSIS. In constitutional jurisprudence. It also refers to our intelligence in arts. 3. It is undisputed that the sale of 51% of the MHC could only be carried out with the prior approval of the State acting through respondent Committee on Privatization. they ask whether the 51% shares form part of the national economy and CHRISTINE CRUZ. 51% of the MHC. (3) when the government has approved or authorized the action. but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. in the grant of rights. The Filipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. STEVEN GATACELO. a multinational company and one of the ten largest public companies in Malaysia. KILOSBAYAN.line lottery system for the purpose of increasing its revenue base and diversifying its sources of funds. acting through Executive Secretary Guingona and/or Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Corona. company or entity" pursuant to its CHRISTINE CRUZ. The President. GUINGONA ET AL. After learning of the same.Y. The bidding rules expressly provide that the highest bidder shall only be declared the winning bidder after it has negotiated and executed the necessary contracts. priests. FACTS: PCSO decided to establish an on. For in choosing the awardee respondents are mandated to abide by the dictates of the 1987 Constitution the provisions of which are presumed to be known to all the bidders and other interested parties. the PGMC claims that the Berjaya Group undertook to reduce its equity stakes in PGMC to 40% by selling 35% out of the original 75% foreign stockholdings to local investors. They claim that the Office of the President. 113375 May 5. and the PCSO gravely abused their discretion and/or functions tantamount to lack of jurisdiction and/or authority in respectively. Office of the President announced that it had given the respondent PGMC the go-signal to operate the country's online lottery system and that the corresponding implementing contract would be submitted thereafter. VS. Considering the Constitution’s citizenship requirement. No. LORALYN LAZARO. Moreover. set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. and secured the requisite approvals. RAMON MUNEZ. pastors. and national renewal. association. an agreement denominated as "Contract of Lease" was finally executed by respondent PCSO and respondent PGMC. became interested to offer its services and resources to PCSO. approved it on 20 December 1993. 2014-2015 .POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION patrimony covered by the protective mantle of the Constitution. Berjaya Group Berhad organized with some Filipino investors a Philippine corporation known as the Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC). KILOSBAYAN sent an open letter to Presidential Ramos strongly opposing the setting up to the on-line lottery system on the basis of serious moral and ethical considerations.R. nor are they under obligation to enter into one with the highest bidder. Since the Filipino First Policy provision of the Constitution bestows preference on qualified Filipinos the mere tending of the highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder will be declared the winning bidder. respondents are not bound to make the award yet. the Berjaya Group Berhad. per the press statement issued by the Office of the President. justice. which was intended to be the medium through which the technical and management services required for the project would be offered and delivered to PCSO. 1994 GATACELO DOCTRINE: A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may. a non-stock domestic corporation composed of civic-spirited citizens. in the exercise of its discretion. nuns. STEVEN GATACELO. In the present case. Resultantly. Nevertheless. GSIS was directed to cease and desist from selling the shares of Manila Hotel Corporation and to accept the matching bid of petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation to purchase the subject shares. ANGELO MURILLO A. they alleged that PCSO is prohibited from holding and conducting lotteries "in collaboration. G. want to nullify the said contract. and lay leaders who are committed to the cause of truth. KILOSBAYAN ET AL. association or joint venture with any person. As an initial step. it should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it is not yet the winning bidder. along with Senators Webb and Tañada and Representative Joker Arroyo acting in their capacities as members of Congress and as taxpayers and concerned citizens of the Philippines. STEVEN GATACELO. brushing aside. Corona. brushing aside. Inc. nor is PCSO sharing its franchise. and moral wellbeing of the people even in the remotest barangays of the country and the counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering as the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. this Court hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier which the respondents tried to take advantage of. this Court had declared that it is not devoid of discretion as to whether or not it should be entertained. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social. if we must. ISSUE: WON petitioners have locus standi. 2014-2015 . among others. In the landmark Emergency Powers Cases. 2012 DOCTRINE: Any kind of interference on how these retirement privileges CHRISTINE CRUZ. It declared: With particular regard to the requirement of proper party as applied in the cases before us. The issues it raised are of paramount public interest. SC finds the instant petition to be of transcendental importance to the public. Secretary of Agrarian Reform.Y. and that the petitioners do not appear to have the legal standing or real interest in the subject contract and in obtaining the reliefs sought. NO. technicalities of procedure. ANGELO MURILLO A. And even if. LORALYN LAZARO. association or joint venture' with PGMC.e. technicalities of procedure. and PCSO assert similar counter-arguments. strictly speaking. RAMON MUNEZ. Guingona..POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION charter. the building and maintenance of a lottery system to be used by PCSO in the operation of its lottery franchise) and not a co-operator of the lottery franchise with PCSO. Several cases were cited to bolster this claim. (i. it is still within the wide discretion of the Court to waive the requirement and so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious constitutional questions raised. Likewise. a Congressional franchise is required before any person may be allowed to establish and operate said telecommunications system. Insofar as taxpayers' suits are concerned. In the first Emergency Powers Cases. The Court dismissed the objective that they were not proper parties and ruled that the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely. and one of those was from Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines. set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. economic. if we must. The legal standing then of the petitioners deserves recognition and. this Court brushed aside this technicality because the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely. PGMC asserts that it is merely an independent contractor for a piece of work. they are not covered by the definition. We have since then applied this exception in many other cases. in the exercise of its sound discretion.M. in the exercise of its discretion. RE: COA OPINION ON THE COMPUTATION OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY THE RETIRED CHIEF/ ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT A. HELD: Yes. 'in collaboration. Meanwhile. 11-7-10-SC JULY 31. ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality of several executive orders issued by President Quirino although they were invoking only an indirect and general interest shared in common with the public. A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may. vs. we hold that the same is satisfied by the petitioners and intervenors because each of them has sustained or is in danger of sustaining an immediate injury as a result of the acts or measures complained of. or that it enjoys an open discretion to entertain the same or not. it must be able to command adequate resources for that purpose. 03-12-01. the Constitution itself grants the Judiciary fiscal autonomy in the handling of its budget and resources. but also in relation with the constitutional provisions on judicial independence and the existing jurisprudence and Court rulings on these matters. not only violates the fiscal autonomy and independence of the Judiciary. If the judicial branch is to perform its primary function of adjudication. 2014-2015 . FACTS: Office of the General Counsel of the Commission on Audit (COA) found that an underpayment amounting to P221.M. This authority. but also encroaches upon the constitutional duty and privilege of the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court En Banc to manage the Judiciary’s own affairs. ANGELO MURILLO A. Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution. it is hoped. as a general proposition. Thus. in two previous instances involving two retired Court of Appeals Associate Justices. No. any form of interference by the Legislative or the Executive on the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy amounts to an improper check on a co-equal branch of government. the division. ISSUE: WON COA’s interference. RAMON MUNEZ. must be read not only in light of the Court’s fiscal autonomy. judicial independence can be “broken down into two distinct concepts: decisional independence and institutional independence. violates the judiciary’s autonomy.”On the other hand. The COA’s authority to conduct post-audit examinations on constitutional bodies granted fiscal autonomy is provided under Section 2(1).50 resulted when five retired Supreme Court justices purchased from the Supreme Court the personal properties assigned to them during their incumbency in the Court. would avoid any single branch from lording its power over the other branches or the citizenry.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION and benefits are exercised and availed of. institutional independence “describes the separation of the judicial branch from the executive and legislative branches of government. the authority of legislatures to control the purse in the first instance is unquestioned. 35 and its guidelines in the appraisal and disposal of government property since these were issued in 1997. HELD: Yes. To achieve this purpose. Atty. in this case. when it should have applied the formula found in COA Memorandum No. in compliance with the Resolution of the Court En Banc in A. however. Candelaria. As a matter of fact. lack of independence would result in the inability of one branch of government to check the arbitrary or self-interest assertions of another or others. The COA attributed this underpayment to the use by the Property Division of the Supreme Court of the wrong formula in computing the appraisal value of the purchased vehicles. the divided power must be wielded by co-equal branches of government that are equally capable of independent action in exercising their respective mandates. Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer. 98569-A4. STEVEN GATACELO. noting that this was the first time that the COA questioned the authority of the Court in using CFAG Joint Resolution No. More importantly.” While. LORALYN LAZARO.” Decisional independence “refers to a judge’s ability to render decisions free from political or popular influence based solely on the individual facts and applicable law.021. 35 and its guidelines. The concept of the independence of the three branches of government extends from the notion that the powers of government must be divided to avoid concentration of these powers in any one branch. recommended that the Court advise the COA to respect the in-house computation based on the CFAG formula. the COA upheld the in-house appraisal of government property using the formula found in the CFAG guidelines.Y. This authority to exercise (or to compel the exercise of) legislative power over the national purse (which at first blush appears to CHRISTINE CRUZ. the Property Division erroneously appraised the subject motor vehicles by applying Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) Joint Resolution No. According to the COA. by providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite of October 16. the referendum shall have the effect of a plebiscite within the contemplation of Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution. ANGELO MURILLO A. Soon. to wit: (1) Do you want martial law to be continued? (2) Whether or not you want martial law to be continued. 1976 By way of a long standing tradition.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION be a violation of concepts of separateness and an invasion of legislative autonomy) is necessary to maintain judicial independence and is expressly provided for by the Constitution through the grant of fiscal autonomy under Section 3. the President issued PD No. and of the Supreme Court En Banc. as its head. L-44640 OCTOBER 12. Article VIII. NO. 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve. The Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy is realized through the actions of the Chief Justice. the assembly. The questions ask. but also encroaches upon the constitutional duty and privilege of the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court En Banc to manage the Judiciary’s own affairs.Y. 1033. STEVEN GATACELO. The En Banc Resolution also deems the grant of the privilege as a form of additional retirement benefit that the Court can grant its officials and employees in the exercise of its power of administrative supervision. 1031. availed of. and this includes the authority to handle and manage the retirement applications and entitlements of its personnel as provided by law and by its own grants. its replacement.R. providing for a legislative body. The Decree recites in its "whereas" clauses that the people's continued opposition to the convening of the National Assembly evinces their desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment. Any kind of interference on how these retirement privileges and benefits are exercised and DOCTRINE: The amending process both as to proposal and ratification raises a judicial question. The Judiciary has full flexibility to allocate and utilize (its) resources with the wisdom and dispatch that (its) needs require. CHRISTINE CRUZ. COMELEC G. 35 is a part of the Court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to determine the manner the granted retirement privileges and benefits can be availed of. In the context of the grant now in issue. 2014-2015 . partly based on the intention to reward long and faithful service. the period of its existence. SANIDAD VS. the President issued PD No. which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16. the Court has the power to administer the Judiciary’s internal affairs. the length of the period for tile exercise by the President of his present powers. As the Court En Banc’s Resolution reflects. the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary serves as the basis in allowing the sale of the Judiciary’s properties to retiring Justices of the Supreme Court and the appellate courts. the issues of martial law. the sale to the retired Justices of specifically designated properties that they used during their incumbency has been recognized both as a privilege and a benefit. FACTS: President Marcos issued PD. Under this administrative authority. 991. amending PD No. No. LORALYN LAZARO. stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16. 991 calling for a national referendum on October 16. RAMON MUNEZ. 1976. not only violates the fiscal autonomy and independence of the Judiciary. the use of the formula provided in CFAG Joint Resolution No. among other things. in the exercise of administrative control and supervision of the courts and its personnel. 1976. This has become an established practice within the Judiciary that even the COA has previously recognized. do you approve the following amendments to the Constitution? For the purpose of the second question. the powers of such replacement. Thereafter. Issues: 1. docketed as L. WON Pablo and Pablito Sanidad have locus standi. was instituted by VICENTE M. On September 30. the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis. privileges. asserting that the power to propose amendments to. On the other hand. Pablo and Pablito Sanidad. the Solicitor General principally maintains that petitioners have no standing to sue. his son RAUL... to restrain the implementation of Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming ReferendumPlebiscite of October 16. the President need not consult the people via referendum. WON the amendment process is justiciable. 2. the issue raised is political in nature. to lift Martial Law. at this state of the transition period.44714. Article XVII of the Constitution. rights. 3) The incumbent President shall convene the interim Batasang Pambansa and preside over its sessions until the Speaker shall have been elected. or revision of the Constitution during the transition period is expressly conferred on the interim National Assembly under Section 16. docketed as L-44684. the submission of the proposed amendments in such a short period of time for deliberation renders the plebiscite a nullity. They contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. 3. and allowing 15-. and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN. only the incumbent President has the authority to exercise constituent power. an interim Batasang Pambansa shall be established. The incumbent President shall be the Prime Minister and he shall continue to exercise all his powers even after the interim Batasang Pambansa is organized and ready to discharge its functions. It is now an ancient rule that Presidential Decrees may be contested by one who will sustain direct injuries as CHRISTINE CRUZ. propose Held: 1. WON President Marcos can amendments to the Constitution. 1976 by RAUL M. Yes. STEVEN GATACELO.3 Still another petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction was filed on October 5. Pablo and Pablito Sanidad possess locus standi. LORALYN LAZARO. another action for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction. GUZMAN. 2) Batasang Pambansa shall have the same powers and its members shall have the same functions. RAMON MUNEZ. there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution. JR. 2014-2015 . commenced a suit for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16. 1976. which confines the right of suffrage to those citizens of the Philippines 18 years of age and above. We find the petitions in the three entitled cases to be devoid of merit. responsibilities. GONZALES. As a consequence. a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention. and disqualifications as the interim National Assembly and the regular National Assembly and the members thereof...POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION And some of the proposed amendments were: 1) In lieu of the interim National Assembly. a referendum-plebiscite is untenable under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973. beyond judicial cognizance of this Court. and among others. father and son.year olds to vote would amount to an amendment of the Constitution. These last petitioners argue that even granting him legislative powers under Martial Law. the referendum-plebiscite is a step towards normalization. ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. the incumbent President cannot act as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution. the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution. Should the contrary be found. is in form a delegated and hence a limited power. can declare whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed was valid or not. executive agreement. and 1033. Moreover. 1031 appropriates the sum of Eight Million Pesos to carry out its provisions. within the competence of this Court to pass upon.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION a result of its enforcement. We deem it sound to exercise that discretion affirmatively so that the authority upon which the disputed Decrees are predicated may be inquired into. The implementing Presidential Decree Nos. upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds. The amending process both as to proposal and ratification raises a judicial question. Yes. 2. thus the issue of the validity of said Decrees is plainly a justiciable one. Rather than calling the National Assembly to constitute itself into a constituent assembly. pars. the power to propose amendments to the constitution resides in the interim National Assembly in the period of transition (See. If the Constitution provides how it may be amended. Under the terms of the 1973 Constitution. The amending. 3. 1. XVI. 2014-2015 . as regards taxpayer's suits. laws providing for the disbursement of public funds may be enjoined. the regularity of the procedure for amendments. this Court enjoys that open discretion to entertain the same or not." The Supreme Court has the last word in the construction not only of treaties and statutes. Article X of the new Constitution provides: "All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty. ANGELO MURILLO A. Section 2 (2). 991. The interest of the petitioners as taxpayers in the lawful expenditure of these amounts of public money sufficiently clothes them with that personality to litigate the validity of the Decrees appropriating said funds. or law may shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court en banc and no treaty. LORALYN LAZARO. but his constitutional authority to perform such act or to assume the power of a constituent assembly. The normal course has not been followed. like all other powers organized in the Constitution. For the present case. 1 and 2 of Art. STEVEN GATACELO.Y. but also of the Constitution itself. RAMON MUNEZ. executive agreement. Whether the amending process confers on the President that power to propose amendments is therefore a downright justiciable question. written in lambent words in the very Constitution sought to be amended. Yes. Unavoidably. At the instance of taxpayers. Transitory provisions). Presidential Decree No. 1033 to the people in a Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. which commonly purport to have the force and effect of legislation are assailed as invalid. or law may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of at least ten Members. There are two periods contemplated in the CHRISTINE CRUZ. the actuation of the President would merely be a brutum fulmen [empty threat]. raises a contestable issue. 991 carries all appropriation of Five Million Pesos for the effective implementation of its purposes. the power to propose amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative of the regular National Assembly (Sec. the incumbent President undertook the proposal of amendments and submitted the proposed amendments thru Presidential Decree What is in the heels of the Court is not the wisdom of the act of the incumbent President in proposing amendments to the Constitution. and the regular National Assembly in its active session. so that the Supreme Court is vested with that authorities to determine whether that power has been discharged within its limits. After that period. 1031. 1973 constitution). The breadth of Presidential Decree No. 15. However.e. in the exercise of that judgment. the amending process may be initiated by the proposals of the (1) regular National Assembly upon a vote of threefourths of all its members. 164987 April 24. the power to propose amendments to the Constitution lies in the interim National Assembly upon special call by the President (See. LORALYN LAZARO. 2014-2015 . with the interim National Assembly not convened and only the Presidency and the Supreme Court in operation. LAMP vs. the General Appropriations Act of 2004 (GAA) is silent and.. ANGELO MURILLO A. there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution. of course. in the period of transition. Would it then be within the bounds of the Constitution and of law for the President to assume that constituent power of the interim Assembly vis-avis his assumption of that body's legislative functions? The answer is yes.000. which is but adjunct. the President decided not to call the interim National Assembly. The power then to legislate is constitutionally consigned to the interim National Assembly during the transition period. thereby impeding the objective of a crisis government "to end the crisis and restore normal times. that Presidential initiative to reduce into concrete forms the constant voices of the people reigns supreme. are mere agents of the people. the four requisites must be present. the use and release of priority development assistance fund in the amount of ₱8. However the calling of a Constitutional Convention may be submitted to the electorate in an election voted upon by a majority vote of all the members of the National Assembly." In these parlous times. or (2) by a Constitutional Convention called by a vote of two-thirds of all the Members of the National Assembly.00. 2012 LAZARO DOCTRINE: In order for a court to exercise the power of judicial review. the initial convening of that Assembly is a matter fully addressed to the judgment of the incumbent President. the Supreme Court possesses no capacity to propose amendments without constitutional infractions. If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly. prohibits an automatic or direct allocation of lump sums to individual senators and congressmen for the funding of projects. FACTS: The GAA of 2004 provides. i. constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions. harking to the dictates of the sovereign will. therefore. No. And. SEC. OF DBM G. Parenthetically.000. period of normalcy and period of transition. For the President to shy away from that actuality and decline to undertake the amending process would leave the governmental machineries at a stalemate or create in the powers of the State a destructive vacuum. It does not empower individual Members of CHRISTINE CRUZ.327. In times of transition. RAMON MUNEZ. amendments may be proposed by a majority vote of all the Members of the National Assembly upon special call by the interim Prime Minister. This. among others.Y. is not to say that the President has converted his office into a constituent assembly of that nature normally constituted by the legislature. STEVEN GATACELO. 15 of the Transitory Provisions).POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION constitutional life of the nation. Again. although peculiar. like the President now. the President opted to defer convening of that body in utter recognition of the people's preference. Rather. In times of normally. to its gross legislative power. Likewise. by its very constitution. the urges of absolute necessity render it imperative upon the President to act as agent for and in behalf of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution.R. After all. According to LAMP (LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY AND POVERTY). media reports cited by the petitioner deserve scant consideration especially the accusation that corrupt legislators have allegedly proposed cuts or slashes from their pork barrel. “the rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained. The plaintiff may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person. and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance. said allocation and identification of projects were the main features of the ‘pork barrel’ system technically known as Countrywide Development Fund (CDF). otherwise stated. to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power. “The omission of the PDAF provision to specify sums as ‘allocations’ to individual Members of Congress is a ‘casus omissus’ signifying an omission intentionally made by Congress that this Court is forbidden to supply. Anent locus standi. direct injury as a result of its enforcement. or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or CHRISTINE CRUZ. 9206 of CY 2004). he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained. the issue of ripeness is generally treated in terms of actual injury to the plaintiff. In our jurisdiction. the power of judicial review is subject to limitations. In this case. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. RAMON MUNEZ. in turn.” Respondents contend that the petition miserably lacks legal and factual grounds. taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. Hence. 2014-2015 . Hence. Nothing of the sort is now seen in the present law (R. a question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. as taxpayers. direct injury as a result of its enforcement. the Court should decline the petitioner’s plea to take judicial notice of the supposed iniquity of PDAF because there is no concrete proof that PDAF. or will sustained. LORALYN LAZARO. select and identify programs and projects to be funded out of PDAF. Undeniably.” Hence. the plaintiff. LAMP is of the conclusion that “the pork barrel has become legally defunct under the present state of GAA 2004. This affords “ripeness” to the present controversy. A finding of unconstitutionality would necessarily be tantamount to a misapplication of public funds which. STEVEN GATACELO. ANGELO MURILLO A. or will sustain. asserts a “public right” in assailing an allegedly illegal official action. According to LAMP.A. Without probative value. “In previous GAAs. as citizens and taxpayers.” or as a “citizen” or “taxpayer.” Thus.Y. No. cause injury or hardship to taxpayers. RULING: Yes. in the guise of “pork barrel. LAMP would somehow be adversely affected by this. the petitioner contested the implementation of an alleged unconstitutional statute.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION Congress to propose. ISSUE: WON the mandatory requisites for the exercise of judicial review are met in this case.” In public suits. and could be suing as a “stranger. representing the general public. the practice of direct allocation and release of funds to the Members of Congress and the authority given to them to propose and select projects is the core of the law’s flawed execution resulting in a serious constitutional transgression involving the expenditure of public funds. Like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution.” is a source of “dirty money” for unscrupulous lawmakers and other officials who tend to misuse their allocations. surmises and conjectures are not sufficient bases for the Court to strike down the practice for being offensive to the Constitution. 127325 March 19. 2014-2015 . The Court sees no need to review or reverse the standing pronouncements in the said case.Y. STEVEN GATACELO. the Court is of the view that the petition poses issues impressed with paramount public interest. Section 4 of Article VII. Although the possibility of this unscrupulous practice cannot be entirely discounted. AND SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE X OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION?” After complying with the order of the COMELEC. to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials. and with the following proposition: “DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. reasons: (1) The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. (ADDITIONAL INFO) The petition was dismissed by the court. the sufficient interest preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation required in taxpayers’ suits is established. Lastly. that the provisions sought to be amended are Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI. the petition was set for hearing. the authority granted the Members of Congress to propose and select projects was already upheld in Philconsa case. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Attached to the petition is a copy of a "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution" embodying the proposed amendments which consist in the deletion from the aforecited sections of the provisions concerning term limits.R. in the claim that PDAF funds have been illegally disbursed and wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF ARTICLE VI. by People's Initiative" (hereafter. and Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution. (3) Republic Act No. The petition is seriously wanting in establishing that individual Members of Congress receive and thereafter spend funds out of PDAF. inadequate. LAMP should be allowed to sue. SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE VII. The Delfin Petition alleged. 1997 DOCTRINE: RA 6735 is incomplete. No. the COMELEC directed Delfin and the oppositors to file their "memoranda and/or oppositions/memoranda" within five days. The petitioners herein (Santiago. 6735 provides for the effectivity of the law after publication in print media. namely. Jesus S. RAMON MUNEZ. or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. LORALYN LAZARO. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. Thus. the constitutional boundaries between the Executive and the Legislative in the budgetary process remain intact. This indicates that the Act CHRISTINE CRUZ. ANGELO MURILLO A. Moreover. and on local legislation. on statutes. FACTS: Private respondent Atty. However. unlike in the other modes of initiative. Here. (2) It is true that R. warranting the assumption of jurisdiction over the petition. The ramification of issues involving the unconstitutional spending of PDAF deserves the consideration of the Court. Ongpin) filed a special civil action for prohibition for the ff. Padilla. Taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditures of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public moneys. This remains as valid case law. So long as there is no showing of a direct participation of legislators in the actual spending of the budget. Delfin filed with public respondent COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the Constitution. which are specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III. No. 6735 provides for three systems of initiative. After hearing their arguments. among others.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION unconstitutional law. it failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution. COMELEC G. initiative on the Constitution.A. Delfin Petition). No such law has been passed. in whole or in part. That section is silent as to amendments on the Constitution. the primacy of interest. LORALYN LAZARO.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION covers only laws and not constitutional amendments because the latter take effect only upon ratification and not after publication. as its history reveals. ANGELO MURILLO A. considering that in the order of things. approved or rejected. 2014-2015 . the Act does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. No. They can only do so with respect to "laws. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law. contrary to the assertion of public respondent COMELEC. no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. initiative on RULING: No. it could have provided for a subtitle therefor. No. Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. neither the COMELEC nor any other government department. since the COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of the right of initiative to amend the Constitution.” First. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws.Y. ordinances. is ultra vires insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution provides for the exercise of the right of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative. (4) COMELEC Resolution No. and resolutions. as the case may be. — The power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly propose. not to revision thereof. ISSUE: WON RA 6735 is sufficient insofar as amendments to the Constitution is concerned. amended or repealed. However.A. recognized and guaranteed. therefore. (6) Finally. As pointed out earlier. ordinances. or reject. or office has realigned funds for the purpose. the CHRISTINE CRUZ. in the case of initiative on the Constitution. enact. agency. initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. This provision is not self-executory. (Emphasis supplied). laws. Section 5. approve or reject. the provisions of the Constitution sought to be amended. The said section reads: Sec. among other things. unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative.A. or resolutions. approve.The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. Third. while the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III). Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people's initiative. intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. paragraph (c) requires. RAMON MUNEZ. 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution. It does not include. enact. If Congress intended R. or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed. the Constitution" through the system of initiative. which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on national laws and local laws. STEVEN GATACELO. ordinances. or hierarchy of values. it is not in full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to "provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right. The Court agrees that R. That word is neither germane nor relevant to said section. statement of the proposed law sought to be enacted. 2300 adopted to govern "the conduct of initiative on the Constitution and initiative and referendum on national and local laws. 6735 was. The inclusion of the word "Constitution" therein was a delayed afterthought. 2. in whole or in part. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and is. Statement and Policy. (5) The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution. The people are not accorded the power to "directly propose." Second. as among the contents of the petition. outside the power of the people's initiative. the Constitution. No. Petitioner Jovito R. It is "local initiative" if what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law. in all of its twenty-three sections. Victor. Lovely and his two brothers. The second time was in the afternoon of August 31. On September 20. Romeo stated that Victor did not bring any bag with him on that day when he went to the petitioner's residence and did not carry a bag when he left. 6735. and seizure orders (ASSOs) were issued against persons who were apparently implicated by Victor Lovely in the series of bombings in Metro Manila. RA. cities. precepts. (d) reiterates the constitutional requirements as to the number of voters who should sign the petition. Arrest. merely (a) mentions. and barangays can pass. an obvious downgrading of the more important or the paramount system of initiative. Romeo stated that he had driven his elder brother. 1980 when he brought Victor only to the gate of the petitioner's house. Mr. 1980. LORALYN LAZARO. California. almost killed himself and injured his younger brother. Salonga and his wife were among those whose likenesses appeared in the group pictures together with other guests. to complete the classification under subtitles there should have been a subtitle on initiative on amendments to the Constitution.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national and local laws. as a result of the explosion of a small bomb inside his room at the YMCA building in Manila. The next day. Makati." if what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a national law. search. The first time was on August 20. or a law which only Congress can pass. 6735 thus delivered a humiliating blow to the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it a reluctant lip service. There was. provinces. therefore.. doctrines. Elements of the military went to the hospital room of the petitioner at the Manila Medical Center where he was confined due to his recurrent and chronic ailment of bronchial asthma and placed him under arrest. R. including Lovely. a Philippine-born American citizen from Los Angeles. No. 2014-2015 . PAÑO 134 SCRA 438 G. Romeo. ordinance. municipalities. the word "Constitution" in Section 2. 5 SALONGA vs. The petitioner states that he was not informed why CHRISTINE CRUZ. No.R. RAMON MUNEZ. L-59524 February 18. The petitioner was transferred against his objections from his hospital arrest to an isolation room without windows in an army prison camp at Fort Bonifacio. Hence. It is "national initiative. One of them was herein petitioner. ANGELO MURILLO A. Jr. newspapers came out with almost Identical headlines stating in effect that petitioner had been linked to the various bombings in Metro Manila. Found in Lovely's possession by police and military authorities were several pictures taken sometime in May. In his interview. and damage to property. FACTS: A rash of bombings occurred in the Metro Manila area in the months of August. As to initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The younger brother of Victor Lovely. (c) speaks of "plebiscite" as the process by which the proposition in an initiative on the Constitution may be approved or rejected by the people. 1980 at the birthday party of former Congressman Raul Daza held at the latter's residence in a Los Angeles suburb.Y.A. or resolution which only the legislative bodies of the governments of the autonomous regions. Romeo and Baltazar Lovely were charged with subversion. was presented during the conference. the President's anniversary television radio press conference was broadcast. 1980. Neither did he return that day to pick up his brother. (b) defines "initiative on the Constitution" and includes it in the enumeration of the three systems of initiative in Section 3. to the petitioner's house in Greenhills on two occasions. STEVEN GATACELO. One Victor Burns Lovely. illegal possession of explosives. Romeo. and (e) provides for the date of effectivity of the approved proposition. Romeo did not enter the petitioner's residence. or rules. September and October of 1980. 1985 DOCTRINE: The Court exercised the power of judicial review even if the issue had become moot and academic since it has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles. ANGELO MURILLO A. Insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to warrant the filing of subversion charges is concerned. It is the contention of the petitioner that no prima facie case has been established by the prosecution to justify the filing of an information against him. 1997.R. doctrines. MUÑEZ DOCTRINE: CHRISTINE CRUZ. This case falls under the exception that the Court has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles. 2014-2015 . of intrusions of State authority into areas reserved by the Bill of Rights for the individual as constitutionally protected spheres where even the awesome powers of Government may not enter at will is not the totality of the Court's functions. May 2. and a draft ponencia was circulating for concurrences and separate opinions. RAMON MUNEZ. either as a co-conspirator of a destabilization plan to overthrow the government or as an officer or leader of any subversive organization. LORALYN LAZARO. a consensus on the Court's judgment had been arrived at. The respondent judge denied the motion. this decision has been rendered moot and academic by the action of the prosecution. the petitioner was released for humanitarian reasons from military custody and placed "under house arrest in the custody of Mrs. doctrines. when on January 18. as amended. Recent developments in this case serve to focus attention on a not too well known aspect of the Supreme Court's functions. Pursuant to instructions of the Minister of Justice. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees. the respondents agree with the Court’s earlier finding that the prosecution evidence miserably fails to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. STEVEN GATACELO. We were constrained by this action of the prosecution and the respondent Judge to withdraw the draft ponencia from circulating for concurrences and signatures and to place it once again in the Court's crowded agenda for further deliberations. that this Court will not validate the filing of an information based on the kind of evidence against the petitioner found in the records. The Court had already deliberated on this case. Subsequently.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION he was transferred and detained. No. The counsel for petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the charges against petitioner for failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against him. if any. He issued a resolution ordering the filing of an information for violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Act. TANADA VS ANGARA G. Lydia Salonga" still without the benefit of any investigation or charges. The Court reiterates the rule. 1985. against forty (40) people. In this case. The resolutions of the respondent judge are now the subject of the petition. precepts. respondent Judge Rodolfo Ortiz granted the motion of respondent City Fiscal Sergio Apostol to drop the subversion case against the petitioner. or rules. They have taken the initiative of dropping the charges against the petitioner. including herein petitioner. The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles. ISSUE: WON the Court in this case may still exercise the power of judicial review even if the issue has become moot and academic. however. The setting aside or declaring void. precepts.Y. 118295. the prosecution restudied its evidence and decided to seek the exclusion of petitioner Jovito Salonga as one of the accused in the information filed under the questioned resolution. in proper cases. RULING: Yes. nor was he ever investigated or questioned by any military or civil authority. or rules. or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by said international body. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution. it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. Resolution No. through the reduction of tariffs on its exports. the Philippine Government represented by its Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention. provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. a “free market” espoused by WTO. HELD: (1) NO. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators. STEVEN GATACELO. it will only exercise its constitutional duty “to determine whether or not there had been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction” on the part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO Agreement and its three annexes. this Court will not review the wisdom of the decision of the President and the Senate in enlisting the country into the WTO. Neither will it rule on the propriety of the government’s economic policy of reducing/removing tariffs. Article XII. 1994. Article II. 2014-2015 . and Sections 10 and 12. The WTO opens access to foreign markets. it becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide. The duty to adjudicate remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld. 1994. AND SECS. (2) NO. are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits. quantitative restrictions. ANGELO MURILLO A. 10 AND 12. LORALYN LAZARO. 97 was adopted by the Philippine Senate to ratify the WTO Agreement. Rizalino Navarro. Article II of the Constitution. it becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide. (2) WHETHER OR NOT THE WTO AGREEMENT CONTRAVENE SEC. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement. ISSUE/S: (1) WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION INVOLVES A POLITICAL QUESTION. On April 15.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the WTO agreement as it violates Sec 19. subsidies. ARTICLE XII. particularly agricultural and industrial products. taxes. especially its major trading partners.Y. signed the Final Act binding the Philippine Government to submit to its respective competent authorities the WTO (World Trade Organization) Agreements to seek approval for such. ARTICLE II. Once a controversy as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court. 19. In deciding to take jurisdiction over this petition. restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. RAMON MUNEZ. OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION. providing for the “Filipino first” policy. it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. FACTS: This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. The duty to adjudicate remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld. “declaration of principles and state policies”. providing for the development of a self reliant and independent national economy. Once a controversy as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court. Rather. The petition raises a justiciable controversy. Thus. and other import/trade barriers. On December 14. They are CHRISTINE CRUZ. . services and investments into the country. Facts: During the wee hours of July 27. 1 and 13 thereof. This requirement lies at the very heart of the judicial function. privileges and concessions covering national economy and patrimony” and not to every aspect of trade and commerce. 2014-2015 . They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation. (2) by mandating the State to “adopt measures that help make them competitive. 159085 February 3. some three-hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP. frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair. Government Service Insurance System. especially Secs.” However. is limited by the "case and controversy" requirement of Art. there are enough balancing provisions in the Constitution to allow the Senate to ratify the Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement. et al. Publicly.” Broad constitutional principles need legislative enactments to implement them. While the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods. SANLAKAS VS. command and direction of known and unknown leaders have seized the Oakwood Building in Makati. apart from merely laying down general principles relating to the national economy and patrimony. In fact.” It is true that in the recent case of Manila Prince Hotel vs. ANGELO MURILLO A. second par. The jurisdiction of this Court. this Court held that “Sec. VIII. domestic materials and locally-produced goods”. It is per se judicially enforceable. 2004 MUÑEZ DOCTRINE: Only real parties in interest or those with standing. It did not shut out foreign investments.. STEVEN GATACELO. Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory. 10. as the constitutional provision itself states. On the other hand. If the executive and the legislature failed to heed the directives of the article. the available remedy was not judicial but political. CHRISTINE CRUZ. acting upon instigation. it does not prohibit them either. it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity. It refers to exceptions rather than the rule. The Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. and by the legislature in its enactment of laws. LORALYN LAZARO. even in cases involving constitutional questions. RAMON MUNEZ. and (3) by requiring the State to “develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. 10 and 12 of Article XII. They were rather directives addressed to the executive and to the legislature. as the case may be. The issue here whether. 2003. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation. It is what differentiates decision making in the courts from decisionmaking in the political departments of the government and bars the bringing of suits by just any party. demanding the resignation of the President. Secretary of Defense and the PNP Chief. NO. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY G.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review. the Constitution then ordains the ideals of economic nationalism (1) by expressing preference in favor of qualified Filipinos “in the grant of rights. §5. as a rule. it is enforceable only in regard to “the grants of rights. And we hold that there are. goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy.R. may invoke the judicial power. should be read and understood in relation to the other sections in said article. With these goals in context. they complained of the corruption in the AFP and declared their withdrawal of support for the government.Y. Secs. privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony” and in the use of “Filipino labor. especially the poor and marginalized classes and sectors of Philippine society. On August 1. both the Proclamation and General Orders were lifted. et al. Petitioners Sanlakas and PM assert that: a. protect. commanding the President to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law. 435. uphold. Petitioners are committed to defend and assert human rights. of the citizens. 18 Article VII of the Constitution does not require the declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the AFP. and that there is no factual basis for such proclamation. A CHRISTINE CRUZ. Article VII. STEVEN GATACELO. and by virtue of Proclamation No. petitioner fears that the declaration of a state of rebellion "opens the door to the unconstitutional implementation of warrantless arrests" for the crime of rebellion. (4) Pimentel v. (3) Rep. 427 and General Order No. Finally. petitioners contending that the proclamation is a circumvention of the report requirement under the same Section 18. defend. Members of the petitioner organizations resort to mass actions and mobilizations in the exercise of their Constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and their freedom of speech and of expression under Section 4. As a basic principle of the organizations and as an important plank in their programs. (2)SJS Officers/Members v. That petitioner SJS officers/members are taxpayers and citizens does not necessarily endow them with standing. President Macapagal-Arroyo and Executive Secretary Romulo. v. et al. §5. VIII. including political and civil rights.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION These acts constitute a violation of Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code. even in cases involving constitutional questions. the following petitions were filed: (1) SANLAKAS AND PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA VS. declaring the Cessation of the State of Rebellion was issued. the Philippines was declared under the State of Rebellion. however. and welfare of the people. 2014-2015 ." this status would not vest them with the requisite personality to question the validity of the presidential issuances Only real parties in interest or those with standing. The jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Article VI of the Constitution. and promote the rights. Even assuming that petitioners are "people's organizations. and Proclamation No. petitioners are committed to assert. b. In the interim. is limited by the "case and controversy" requirement of Art. 427 and General Order No. petitioners contending that there was usurpation of the power of Congress granted by Section 23 (2). as the case may be. interests. ANGELO MURILLO A. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. they contend that the presidential issuances cannot be construed as an exercise of emergency powers as Congress has not delegated any such power to the President. This requirement lies at the very heart of the judicial function.Y. may invoke the judicial power. petitioners contending that Sec. Romulo. Issues: (1) WON Petitioners have legal standing. Hon. Suplico et al. Executive Secretary. It is what differentiates decisionmaking in the courts from decisionmaking in the political departments of the government and bars the bringing of suits by just any party. LORALYN LAZARO. as a vehicle to publicly ventilate their grievances and legitimate demands and to mobilize public opinion to support the same. 2003. RAMON MUNEZ. 4 are constitutional? Held: (1) No. (2) Whether or Not Proclamation No. Negotiations took place and the officers went back to their barracks in the evening of the same day. R. 427 and General Order No. Article VI. ANGELO MURILLO A. otherwise moot and academic. (2) Yes. a citizen will be allowed to raise a constitutional question only when he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government. NO. the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved. Courts will decide cases. and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. and as long as a valid warrantless arrest is present. supported their assertion that the President acted without factual basis. 171396 May 3. when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench. was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. Article VII. 2014-2015 . as opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated by Section 23 (2). The President in addition to its Commander-in-Chief Powers is conferred by the Constitution executive powers. No such illegal disbursement is alleged. On the other hand. Seven suits were filed contesting the validity of the said proclamations.Y. Article VII does not expressly prohibit declaring state or rebellion. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO G. and the public. These are purely executive powers. instructing the armed forces to carry out the necessary measures to prevent and suppress terrorism and violence. since any person may be subject to this whether there is rebellion or not as this is a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code. 4 are constitutional. third. there is a grave violation of the Constitution. One week later. Section 18. Again. vested on the President by Sections 1 and 18. the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action. 2006 MUÑEZ DOCTRINE: The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Issues: 1) Are PP 1017 and GO 5 unconstitutional? 2) Did the issuance of PP 1021 render PP1017 and GO 5 moot and academic? CHRISTINE CRUZ. in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces. The Court rendered that the both the Proclamation No. no such injury is alleged in this case. The fear on warrantless arrest is unreasonable. none of the petitioners here have. STEVEN GATACELO. the bar. second. declaring that Communist insurgents as well as political opponents have conspired in order to bring down her government. While the Court may examine whether the power was exercised within constitutional limits or in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. the case is capable of repetition yet evading review Facts: PGMA. and fourth. issued Proclamation 1017 declaring a state of national emergency and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress lawless violence and rebellion and enforce obedience to laws and decrees. The issue of usurpation of the legislative power of the Congress is of no moment since the President. LORALYN LAZARO. if: first. by way of proof. It is not disputed that the President has full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to determine the necessity for the exercise of such power.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION taxpayer may bring suit where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. She issued General Order 5 to implement the said PP. DAVID VS. she issued PP 1021 lifting the declaration of the state of national emergency. RAMON MUNEZ. The issue of the circumvention of the report is of no merit as there was no indication that military tribunals have replaced civil courts or that military authorities have taken over the functions of Civil Courts. ANGELO MURILLO A. Certainly. No. the bench and the bar. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed”. the following rules may be culled from the cases decided by this Court. VII. Petitioners alleged that the issuance of PP 1017 and G. The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. the bar. An otherwise "moot" case may still be decided "provided the party raising it in a proper case has been and/or continues to be prejudiced or damaged as a direct result of its issuance. and the public. 2014-2015 . Additional Info: By way of summary. (4) for concerned citizens. otherwise moot and academic. there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators. 5 violates the Constitution. respondents’ contested actions are capable of repetition. And lastly. and PARTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it allows the President to promulgate decrees. Moreover. the assailed PP is PARTLY CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it calls out the Armed Forces. so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. (3) for voters. and fourth. Thus. Courts will decide cases. the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved." The present case falls right within this exception to the mootness rule pointed out by the Chief Justice. Taxpayers. thereby encroaching on a legislative function. bureaus and offices. if: first.O. there is a grave violation of the Constitution. this does not grant the President the authority to make decrees. RAMON MUNEZ. courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness. there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional. voters. the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. third. which provides that “The President shall have control of all the executive departments. and legislators may be accorded standing to sue. All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify this Court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the instant petitions. which is essentially a legislative function. 2) A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events. There is no question that the issues being raised affect the public’s interest. Art. the petitions are subject to judicial review. Generally.Y. there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question. It has the symbolic function of educating (2) for taxpayers. While the Constitution grants the President the “take care” power under §17. there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early. provided that the following requirements are met: (1) the cases involve constitutional issues. This is the underlying legal tenet of CHRISTINE CRUZ. LORALYN LAZARO. second. on the extent of the protection given by constitutional guarantees. concerned citizens. involving as they do the people’s basic rights to freedom of expression. It must always be borne in mind that the question of locus standi is but corollary to the bigger question of proper exercise of judicial power. and in the present petitions. STEVEN GATACELO. the Court has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts. doctrines or rules. the military and the police.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION Held: 1) Partly. of assembly and of the press. when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench. and (5) for legislators. 5 is a judicial question which is of paramount importance to the Filipino people. The petitions thus call for the application of the "transcendental importance" doctrine. No. The court dismissed the consolidated petitions on the ground that the same have become moot and academic. 1017 and G. 190293 MARCH 20. 2014-2015 . STEVEN GATACELO. The lifting of martial law and restoration of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao was a supervening event that removed any justiciable controversy.190302.R. Here. On December 4. It cannot be doubted that the validity of PP No. the existence of an actual case/controversy is an essential requisite of judicial review. President Arroyo submitted her report to Congress in accordance with Section 18. the President issued Presidential Proclamation 1963. ISSUE: FACTS: These cases are about the constitutionality of a presidential proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus in 2009 in a province in Mindanao which were withdrawn after just eight days. gunned down and buried under shoveled dirt 57 innocent civilians on a highway in Maguindanao. the petitions in these cases have become moot and the Court has nothing to review. lifting martial law and restoring the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao. Kidding aside. Consequently. Joke. You’ll be off the hook. 2012 MURILLO DOCTRINE: Impose martial law for flimsy reasons and revoke the same before the Congress acts on it. the whole of Philippine society now waits with bated breath the ruling of this Court on this very critical matter. The issues raised must not be moot and academic.Y. President Arroyo withdrew Proclamation 1959 before the joint houses of Congress. 2009 President Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1959 declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in that province except for identified areas of the Moro Islamic W/N the courts can still pass upon the constitutionality of the Presidential Proclamation HELD: NO. could act on the same. a relaxation of the standing requirements for the petitioners in the "PP 1017 cases. declaring a state of emergency in Maguindanao. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which required her. 190294. Fortun and the other petitioners in G. Liberation Front. in joint session. to submit to that body a report of her action. On December 9. and 190380 brought the present actions to still challenge the constitutionality of President Arroyo’s Proclamation 1959 affecting Maguindanao. allegedly led by the ruling Ampatuan family. 190293. Sultan Kudarat. 190307. President Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1946 on November 24. 190301. 2009 Congress. LORALYN LAZARO. ANGELO MURILLO A. Two days later (December 6." FORTUN VS MACAPAGAL ARROYO GR NO. 2009).POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION the "liberality doctrine" on legal standing. two days later (December 12) before Congress could even act on the issue. which had in fact convened.O. To paraphrase Justice Laurel. However. CHRISTINE CRUZ. and Cotabato City to prevent and suppress similar lawless violence. Petitioners Philip Sigfrid A. In response to this. On November 23. 190356. 2009 heavily armed men. within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution to review the validity of the President’s action. RAMON MUNEZ. convened pursuant to Section 18. (2) the situation is of exceptional character and of paramount public interest. RAMON MUNEZ. 6. specifically the right to peaceful assembly. 2014-2015 . some of them in toto and others only Sections 4. and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. as well as the policy of CPR. to be more sound and logical.Y. otherwise moot and academic. no rally" policy and the CPR policy recently announced. I find Proclamation No. if (1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution. The third group (Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU)." and that "those arrested stand to be charged with violating BP 880 and other offenses. which regulates the rights of people to peaceably assemble and organize. arrested and detained when a peaceful mass action they held on September 26. et al. ANGELO MURILLO A. and the public.) allege that they are citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and that their rights as organizations and individuals were violated when the rally they participated in on October 6. Respondents. on the other hand. given the transcendental importance of the issues raised in the present petitions.) who allege that they were injured. Arroyo. are affected by BP 880 and the policy of "Calibrated Preemptive Response" (CPR) being followed to implement it. 1959 by dismissing the cases on the ground of mootness sets a very dangerous precedent to the leaders of this country that they could easily impose martial law or suspend the writ without any factual or legal basis at all. the bar. There’s a lengthy dissenting opinion from Justice Antonio Carpio. 12. All petitioners assail BP 880. They seek to stop violent dispersals of rallies under the "no permit. 2005 was preempted and violently dispersed by the police. In David v. they would simply lift the same and escape possible judicial rebuke. 880.S. et al.) alleges that they conduct peaceful mass actions and that their rights as organizations and those of their individual members as citizens.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION P. Courts are not prevented from deciding cases. Moreover. and 14(a). which seems. the Court may relax the standing requirement and allow a suit to prosper even where there is no direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review. Basically. et al. 2005 was violently dispersed by policemen implementing BP 880. The second group consists of 26 individual petitioners (Jess del Prado. a proper party is one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining injury as a result of the act/law complained of. 5. FACTS: The case concerns the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa No. argue that petitioners have no standing because they have not presented any evidence that they had been "injured. this Court held that the "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that automatically dissuades courts in resolving a case. Failing to determine the constitutionality of Proclamation No. personally. And I quote: “I dissent from the majority's dismissal of the petitions as moot." ISSUE: CHRISTINE CRUZ.” BAYAN VS SECRETARY ERMITA GR NO. arrested or detained because of BP 880 and the CPR. STEVEN GATACELO. 2006 DOCTRINE: In a judicial review. 1959 unconstitutional for lack of factual basis as required in Section 18. LORALYN LAZARO. he argued that the case must not be considered moot and academic just because the President already lifted the proclamation before the Congress can even have the chance to act on it. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution for the declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ. and before this Court could review such declaration. The first petitioners (Bayan. 169838 APRIL 25. (3) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench. 13(a). P. 2009 DOCTRINE: The existence of an actual case or controversy is essential for judicial review. Harry L. 2009 ruling of the Supreme Court. Petitioners seek a reconsideration of the September 10. "there is a high probability that the use of PCOS machines in the May 2010 elections will result in failure of elections". and jurisprudence. Their right as citizens to engage in peaceful assembly and exercise the right of petition. ROQUE VS COMELEC GR NO. and the constitutionality of BP 880 is sustained. and mandamus to nullify the contractaward of the 2010 Election Automation Project to the joint venture of Total Information Management Corporation (TIM) and Smartmatic International Corporation (Smartmatic). ISSUE: W/N the Court reconsideration should grant the said motion for HELD: NO. X X X Both public and private respondents. either advances issues or theories not raised in the petition for certiorari.. upon the other hand. FACTS: This case is a motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners of the September 10. and "COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it signed x x x the CHRISTINE CRUZ. RAMON MUNEZ. The conjectural and speculative nature of the first issue raised is reflected in the very manner of its formulation and by statements. such as "the public pronouncements of public respondent COMELEC x x x clearly show that there is a high probability that there will be automated failure of elections". insist that petitioners’ motion for reconsideration should be held devoid of merit. statutes. is directly affected by B. Jr. 2009 Decision on many issues or grounds. denying the petition of H. have challenged such action as contrary to law and dispersed the public assemblies held without the permit. "the unaddressed logistical nightmares—and the lack of contingency plans that should have been crafted as a result of a pilot test—make an automated failure of elections very probable". Mere speculations and conjectures cannot be the basis of a sound judgment. No. Petitioners’ threshold argument delves on possibilities. 880 which requires a permit for all who would publicly assemble in the nation’s streets and parks. 188456 SEPTEMBER 10. for the most part. Respondents. one of which is: 1. purposely engaged in public assemblies without the required permits to press their claim that no such permit can be validly required without violating the Constitutional guarantee.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION W/N petitioners have legal standing to file the case in court HELD: YES.Y. and respondents. and mandamus. are directed to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section 15 of BP 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country. They have. but only to pray that the Board of Election Inspectors be ordered to manually count the ballots after the printing and electronic transmission of the election returns. Petitioners aver that the contract was made in violation of the Constitution. 2014-2015 . LORALYN LAZARO. Intervening petitioner also interposed a similar motion. as guaranteed by the Constitution. prohibition. the petitions are granted in part. The petitions are dismissed in all other respects. and argues along speculative and conjectural lines. Roque. STEVEN GATACELO. on the other hand. Petitioners’ standing cannot be seriously challenged. et al. for certiorari. The Comelec’s public pronouncements show that there is a "high probability" that there will be failure of automated elections. ANGELO MURILLO A. in fact. prohibition. on matters that may or may not occur. more particularly the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments. because the motion. 2012 DOCTRINE: Ut magis valeat quam pereat. ANGELO MURILLO A. and several unknown persons. petitioners claim that "there are very strong indications that Private Respondents will not be able to provide for telecommunication facilities for areas without these facilities. In a way. Mendoza has a pending motion for reconsideration before Deputy Ombudsman Gozales III (petitioner) which dragged on for nine months (without any justifiable reason for the long delay). 196232: Acting Deputy Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman charged Major General Carlos F. surely. No. FACTS: G.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION contract for full automation x x x despite the likelihood of a failure of elections. 196231-32 SEPTEMBER 4. Juan Paulo Garcia and Timothy Mark Garcia." This argument. Moving still to another issue. ISSUE: W/N the Office of the President has jurisdiction to exercise administrative disciplinary power over a Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor who belong to the constitutionallycreated Office of the Ombudsman CHRISTINE CRUZ. 6770. recommending to the President the dismissal of petitioner from the service and the filing of appropriate charges against her Deputies and Assistants before the appropriate government office for having committed acts and/or omissions tantamount to culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. Garcia. their sons Ian Carl Garcia. No. 3.Y. Motion for reconsideration was. denied." Speculations and conjectures are not equivalent to proof. with Plunder and Money Laundering before the Sandiganbayan. They aver that only the Ombudsman has the power to impose sanctions on them.R. G. the contract. his wife Clarita D. RAMON MUNEZ. Gonzales’ negligence was blamed. cannot be the basis of a sound judgment. The laws have to be interpreted as a whole. therefore. if any. Ration legis et anima. being again highly speculative. the Office of the President recommended his removal from office as Deputy Ombudsman. a possible breach of a contractual stipulation is not a legal reason to prematurely rescind. STEVEN GATACELO. The laws have to be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers. This was seen by the IIRC as one of the main reasons why Mendoza became motivated to hostage innocent tourists. much less annul. At the conclusion of these public hearings.foreigners and tourists as his victims. No. 196231: The case deals with the Manila hostage crisis committed by Manila Police District Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza . 196231 and G. the Committee on Justice passed and adopted Committee Resolution No. is without evidentiary value and hardly provides a ground for the Court to nullify the automation contract. Due to this. LORALYN LAZARO. which gives the President the power to dismiss a Deputy Ombudsman of the Office of the Ombudsman. Garcia. GONZALES III VS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT GR NO. Surely. they have little. While a motion for reconsideration may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered—and this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration—the hard reality is that petitioners have failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action.A.R. otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989. The cases. Apparently. the hostage drama was ignited by Mendoza’s frustration regarding the case filed against him which warranted his removal from office. which are violations under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and grounds for removal from office under the Ombudsman Act.R. 2014-2015 . G.) No.R. 196232 primarily seek to declare as unconstitutional Section 8(2) of Republic Act (R. probative value and. No. A harmonious construction of these two apparently conflicting provisions in R. Congress simply filled a gap in the law without running afoul of any provision in the Constitution or existing statutes. RAMON MUNEZ. that would exercise the power of administrative discipline over the Deputy Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor without in the least diminishing the constitutional and plenary authority of the Ombudsman over all government officials and employees. Indubitably. authorizes Congress to provide for the removal of all other public officers. grants the President express power of removal over a Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor. for that matter. Such legislative design is simply a measure of "check and balance" intended to address the lawmakers' real and valid concern that the Ombudsman and his Deputy may try to protect one another from administrative liabilities. By enacting Section 8(2) of R. while Section 21 of R. No 6770 leads to the inevitable conclusion that Congress had intended the Ombudsman and the President to exercise concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction over petitioners as Deputy Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor. LORALYN LAZARO.in the same Organic Act was to provide for an external authority.Y. denied. which is by impeachment under Section 2 of the same Article.A. Petitioners cannot insist that they should be solely and directly subject to the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman. whether appointive or elective. 6770. Section 8(2). thus.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION HELD: YES. through the person of the President. The challenge to the constitutionality of Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act is. no constitutional provision similarly dealing with the removal from office of a Deputy Ombudsman. CHRISTINE CRUZ. ANGELO MURILLO A. For.Section 8(2) and Section 21 . In fact. or a Special Prosecutor. there is. on the other hand.A. respectively. The Ombudsman's administrative disciplinary power over a DeputyOmbudsman and Special Prosecutor is not exclusive. While the Ombudsman's authority to discipline administratively is extensive and covers all government officials. By granting express statutorypower to the President to removea Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor. 2014-2015 . however. the manifest intent of Congress in enacting both provisions .A. the Constitution itself. who are not subject to impeachment. with the exception only of those officials removable by impeachment such authority is by no means exclusive. under Section 2. While the removal of the Ombudsman himself is also expressly provided for in the Constitution. STEVEN GATACELO. Congress merely filled an obvious gap inthe law. including the Deputy Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor. 6770 declares the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority over all government officials.