Gracia vs. Executive Secretary Facts: On November 1990, the president issued Executive Order No.

438 which imposed additional taxes and charges to imported goods- an additional duty of 5% ad valorem to 9% ad valorem. By July of 1991 the Department of Finance requested the Tariff Commission to initiate the process required by the tariff code for the imposition of a specific levy on crude oils and other petroleum products. This resulted to a public hearing, to give all parties involved an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in support of their respective positions. However through EO 475 the rates were again reduced from 9% to 5% except the different petroleum products, which will continue to be charged with 9% plus a special duty (EO 478) of P.95 per liter, or P151.05 per barrel. The petitioner presents then this Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to that assails the validity of the two executive orders (EO 477 and 478). He contends that the EO orders issued would violate the rules of separation of powers, as the acts issued are clearly not within the jurisdiction of the executive department. He also claims that said orders are in contrast with Sec 401 of the Tariff and Custom Code or the protection of local industries, which should only be the goal of imposition of tariff impositions. Issues: Whether or not 1.)EO 475 and 478 are constitutional and 2.) whether or not violative of Sec 401 of the Tariff and Custom Code? Held: Executive orders in question are both constitutional and in accordance with the Tariff and Custom code. Ratio: 1. Although the enactment of bills primarily belongs to the Legislative rather than the Executive, the questioned bills cannot be considered to void prima facie. Sec 28 (2) of Art VI of the Constitutions states that the congress may authorize the president to fix with in specified limits and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose: tariff rates, import and export quotas etc to aid in the national development program of the government. Thus, there is explicit constitutional permission that authorizes the executive to enact rules and orders similar to the executive orders in question. Furthermore Sec 104 and 401 of Custom Code says that Presidential decrees that seeks to amend the existing laws with regard to imposition of tariff shall be adopted and will automatically be part of the code. The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) shall be the one to recommend to the president to increase or decrease import duty. The only limitation given is that the tariff shall not go below 10% neither can it go beyond 100%. EO 478 and 475 have nothing to do with violating the protection of local industries. In fact it even works for it advantage especially for crude oils since we only produce minimal quantities. Also tariffs are set not only to protect local industry but also to pool substantial revenue for the government. Custom duties are levied and imposed entirely whether or not there is an existing local industry to protect

2.

Santiago Vs. Guingona Facts: On July 31 1998, Senators Miriam Santiago and Francisco Tatad instituted a petition under Rule 66 of Rules of Courts, seeking ot oust Sen. Teofisto Guingona as minority leader of the senate and declare Sen. Tatad instead. According to their affidavits, the Senate of the Philippines convened on July 27 1998 fot the first regular session of the Eleventh Congress. The composition of the senate were as follows: 10 Laban ng Masang Pilipino (LAMP); 7 Lakas-NUCD-UMPD; 1 member each for LP, Aksyon Demekratiko, People Reform Party and Gabay Bayan; and 2 independent members. There are 23 members of the senate in total. Their agenda for that day was the election of officers. Sen. Blas Ople nominated Sen Fernan as Senate President, while Sen Santiago nominated Sen Tatad for the same position. Fernan won by a vote of 20-2. Senator Ople was then voted to be President pro Tempore and Sen Franklin Drilon as majority leader. Sen Tatad thereafter manifested, with the agreement of Senator Santiago, allegedly the only other member of the minority; he was assuming the position of Minority Leader. Thereafter, a debate ensued as who should constitute the senate minority and ultimately who shall take the position of Minority Leader. In the end, it was Sen Teofisto Guingona who was elected. Thus the petition. For senator Santiago, those who voted for the winning Senate president constitutes the Majortiy while those who voted for the losing candidate forms the minority.The two who voted for Tatd was himself and Sen Santiago. Clearly, Sen Guingona is not included in the said minority. Issues: 1.) Does the court have Jurisdiction over the petition? 2.) was there actual violation of the constitution with regard to the determination of najority/minority? 3.) was respondent guingona usurping the position of senate president 4.) Did Sen Fernan committed grave abuse of discretion in recognizing Respondent Guingona as the minority leader? Held: 1.)yes, the court has jurisdiction, however they cannot settle disputes within the Senate when it concerns those of internal rules of procedures. 2.) No. Teofisto Guingona was rightfully elected. 3.) No, there is no sufficient proof filed by the petitioners. 4.) No there was no grave abuse of discretion. Ratio: 1.) The constitution does not provide for laws that shall govern the office of a minority leader in the senate. The judiciary is primarily concerned not with the determination or review of facts but mostly on the illegality and unconstitutionality of laws or actions and grave abuse of discretion, settlement of disputes, controversies or conflicts involving rights and duties of the parties. It does not concern itself with internal procedures of the House. However, because issues on unconstitutionality is involved as well as issues on grave abuse of discretion, the courts asserted their power to settle such disputes. 2.) Majority in elections refers to 50% + 1, but in the senate when members vote for Majority/Minority leaders they refer to political parties. Thus referring to the tally given above, LAMP is considered to be the majority, while the rest of the other parties constitute the minority. And the only requirement for a senator to be voted as minority/majority leader is to be a member of the minority/majority party. Guingona is a member of Lakas, a minority party, thus, he has the right to be e a minority leader in the senate. 3.) Usurpation refers to unauthorized arbitrary assumption and the exercise of power by one with out the color of title or who is not entitled by law thereto. In this case, no sufficient proof of a clear and indubitable franchise to the office of the senate minority. Guingona was rightfully elected. 4.) Grave abuse of discretion means that there is capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. It must be so gross that it amounts to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The courts held that Sen Fernan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. There was no capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. According to

the supreme court where there is no provision of the constitution, the laws or even the rules of the senate has been clearly shown to have been violated, grave abuse of discretion cannot be imputed to senate officials.

Arroyo vs. De Venecia The petition for Certioratri was filed by certain members of the House of Representatove against Jose de Venecia et. Al. for violation of the Rules of House which are said to be constitutionally mandated. Thus their violation is tantamount to a violation of the constitution. Facts:A bicameral conference was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the house and the senate versions of the bill regarding Sin Taxes. The conference committee submitted its report to the house at 8 a.m. on November 21 1996. At 11:48 that same day Rep. Javier of the Committee on ways and Means , proceeded to deliver his sponsorship speech and was interpolated by Rep Javier Sarmiento. He was interrupted by Rep Joker Arroyo who moved to adjourn the meeting for the lack of quorum. Rep Cuenco objected and asked for a head count. A presence of quorum was declared thereafter. Arroyo appealed but was defeated. Arroyo then registered to interpolate and was fourth in order. Arroyo alleged that he was repeatedly ignored and blocked by the Deputy Speaker when he again tried to challenge the presence of a quorum and raise other questions as well. The Bill was later signed by the two houses. Petitioners principal argument is that the Bill on Sin Taxes must be declared null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the House which according to them was constitutionally mandated. They cited Art VI 16(3) which states each house may determine the rules of its proceedings and that consequently to violate the house rules is tantamount to violating the COnstitutuiion itself. Issue: whether or not the violation of house rules is tantamount to a violation of the constitution? Held: No, there was no violation of the constitution. Petition is dismissed. Ratio: the petition claims of a violation of internal rules of procedure of the house rather than the constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law. Petitioners do not claim that there was no quorum but only that a maneuver of the rules prevented Arroyo from questioning the presence of a quorum. It has been held before that parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their observance the courts have no concern. A mere failure to conform to such rules does not invalidate the action and legislative acts shall also not be declared invalid for non compliance with these rules. Petitioners were not able to prove the absence of a quorum. And according to the courts in the absence of constitutional restraints and when exercised by the majority of the quorum all proceeding shall be considered valid. With regard to the different version of what really transpired during the controversial session, the courts primarily referred to the journals kept by the congress. Art VI 16(4) provides: each house shal keep a journal of its proceedings and from time to time publish the same. Excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, affect national security: and the yeas and the nays on any question shall at the request of one fifth of the member present, be entered in the journal.

Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado Facts: Sec 35 of RA 7354 as implemented by the Philippine Postal Corporation. These measures withdraw the franking privilege from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and other judiciary courts. Petitioners argue that the Republic Act is unconstitutional on the grounds that: (1) Its title embraces more than one subject and does not express its purposes; (2) it did not pass the required readings in both houses of Congress and printed copies of the bill in its final form were not distributed among the members before its passage and (3) it is discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of the judiciary. Issues/Held/Ratio: 1. Article VI Sec 26 (1) of the Constitution provides, Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. The purpose of this rule is to prevent hodgepodge or log rolling legislation, to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature and to fairly appraise the people through such publication of legislative proceedings. The issue raised by the petitioner is untenable. And the Supreme Court disagrees with their arguments. The title of the bill is not required to be an index to the body of the act or to be comprehensive as to cover every single detail of the measure. It has been said that as long as the tile fairly indicates the general subject and reasonably covers all the provisions of the act and is not calculated to mislead to the legislature or the people, there is sufficient compliance. 2. Art VI sec 26(2), provides that no bill shall be passed unless it has passed three readings on separate days. Its goal is to make sure that there are no conflicting provisions and to add to insufficient or vague ones as well. Casco Philippines vs. Gimenez has laid down the rule that an enrolled bill is conclusive upon the judiciary, except in matters that have to be entered in the journals. These journals are consequently binding upon the Supreme Court. These arguments are also declined by the Supreme Court. 3. The Republic Act is held to be discriminatory. The equal protection clause is embraced in the concept of due process. It simply means that same rules shall apply to people in the same class. It is equality among equals. The courts said that the bill in question violates the equal protection clause. It is unfair for the law to deny the franking privilege to the judiciary, the branch of government that uses the mail system the most while not denying such privilege to other branches of the government. In sum, the Supreme Court sustained RA 7354 against the attack that its subject is not expressed in its title and that it was not passed in accordance with the prescribed procedure (issue 1 and 2. However, they annul Sec 35 as it violates the equal protection law.

Bengzon Vs. Drilon Facts: On June 20 1953, Republic Act 910 was enacted to provide the retirement pensions of Justices of the Supreme Court Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals who have rendered at least 20 years service either in the judiciary or in any other branch of the government or in both or having reached the age of 70. The retired justice shall receive during the residue of his natural life the salary, which he was receiving at the time of his retirement or resignation. However on Presidential Marcos issued a Presidential Decree 644 on January 25 1975 the said law has been repealed which authorized the adjustment of the pension of the retired Justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, etc. to the prevailing rates of salaries. In 1990, the congress reenacted the provision of RA 910. However President Corazon Aquino, vetoed the bill and said that the government should not grant distinct privileges to selct group of officials whose retirement benefits under existing laws already enjoy preferential treatment over those of the vast majority of our civil service servants. The petitioners arguments rely on four assertions: 1) the subject veto is not an item veto 2) the veto by the Executive is violative of doctrine of separation of powers. 3) The veto deprives the retired justices of their rights to the pensions due to them 4) The questioned veto impairs the Fiscal Autonomy Issues/Held/Ratio: In a constitutional government such as ours, the rule of law must always prevail. The constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other law must conform and to which all persons, including the highest official of this land must defer. the supreme court agrees that the executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all. He or she cannot act like an editor, crossing out specific lines , provisions or paragraph that he or she dislikes. The constitution provides that only a particular item may be vetoed. An item in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct, the severable parts of the bill. President Aquino cannot be considered to have vetoed this item. What were vetoesd were methods or systems placed by congress to insure that permanent and continuing obligations to certain officials