NOTES & CASES IN POLITICAL LAW

(Constitutional Law 1) September, 2010 Prepared by: ATTY. LARRY D. GACAYAN Professor (Political Law Review, Constitutional Law I & II) COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS PRE-BAR REVIEWER CPRS PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Cagayan de Oro City, Za boanga City, I!oi!o City and "a#ao City$ E%CE&&ENT PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Bag'io City, (ani!a, Ceb' City, Naga City and Ta)!oban City$ POWER*A+S PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Bag'io City, (ani!a, Santiago City and Tagbi!aran City$ *O&, TRINIT, CO&&E-E PREBAR REVIEW CENTER (-enera! Santo. City$ COS(OPO&ITAN BAR REVIEW CENTER (Bag'io City$ LEX REVIEW CENTER +ni#er.ity o/ Panga.inan

"ag'pan City

PART I DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS

1. Define: a. Political Lawis that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory. P!"PL! #S. P!$%!&'"( )* Phil. ++,b. c. d. e. f. g. h. &onstitutional Law &onstitution .dministrative Law Law of Public "fficers Law on Public &orporations !lection Law Distinction between Political Law and &onstitutional Law

/. $ead: 0.&.$1"L. #S. 23D4! .S35&1"5( 11) S&$. ,, 'he provision in the &ode of &ommerce 0ade effective in the Philippines in 1++,- which prohibits 6udges( 6ustices( etc.( public officers- from engaging in business within the territorial 6urisdiction of their courts is political in nature and therefore( said provision was deemed abrogated when there was a change of sovereignty from Spain to the 3nited States at the turn of the century. Political laws are deemed abrogated if there is a change of sovereignty and unless re7enacted under the new sovereign( the same is without force and effect. *. 'he Supremacy of the &onstitution $ead: 1. 03'3& #S. &"0!L!&( *8 S&$. //+ /. 0.51L. P$15&! 9"'!L #S. 4S1S( /8, S&$. ):+ . constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation. 1t is supreme( imperious( absolute and unalterable e;cept by the authority from which it emanates. 1t has been defined as the
/

fundamental and paramount law of the nation. 1t prescribes the permanent framewor< of a system of government( assigns to the different departments their respective powers and duties( and establishes certain fi;ed principles on which government is founded. 'he fundamental conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered. 3nder the doctrine of constitutional supremacy( if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the e;ecutive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. 'hus( since the &onstitution is the fundamental( paramount and supreme law of the nation( it is deemed written in every statute and contract. .dmittedly( some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. 'heir provisions command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers who merely establish an outline of government providing for the different departments of the governmental machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of citizens. . provision which lays down a general principle( such as those found in .rt. 11 of the 1=+, &onstitution( is usually not self7e;ecuting. >ut a provision( which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation( or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be en6oyed or protected( is self7e;ecuting. 'hus a constitutional provision is self7 e;ecuting if the nature and e;tent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fi;ed by the constitution itself( so that they can be determined by an e;amination and construction of its terms( and there is no language indicating that the sub6ect is referred to the legislature for action. ). ?inds of &onstitution a- written or unwritten b- rigid and fle;ible c- cumulative or conventional

@. AMENDMENT OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION (Art. XVII) Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: [1] The Congress upon a vote of of a !embers" or [#] A constitutiona Convention. its

Section #. Amendments to this Constitution may i$e%ise be direct y proposed by the peop e through initiative upon a petition of at east 1#& of the tota number of registered voters, of %hich every egis ative district must be represented by at east '& of the registered voter therein. (o amendment under this Section sha be authori)ed %ithin five *+, years fo o%ing the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress sha provide imp ementation of the e-ercise of this right. for the

Section '. The Congress, by a vote of #.' of a its members, ca a constitutiona convention, or by a ma/ority vote of a its !embers, submit to the e ectorate the 0uestion of ca ing such a convention. Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof sha be va id %hen ratified by a ma/ority of the votes cast in a p ebiscite %hich sha be he d not ear ier than si-ty days nor ater than ninety days after the approva of such amendment or revision. Any amendment under Section # hereof sha be va id %hen ratified by a ma/ority of the votes cast in a p ebiscite %hich sha be he d not ater than ninety days after the certification by the C2!343C of the sufficiency of the petition. /::, >ar Auestion in Political Law: Auestion: 0ay &ongress by B votes of all its members whether voting 6ointly or separately- .0!5D any provision of the &onstitutionC

.nswer: 5o. 1t can only propose amendments by B votes of all its members. . provision is amended only after it was ratified by ma6ority of the votes cast during the plebiscite called to amend or re6ect the proposed amendments5"'!: .mendments to( or revision of the &onstitution is #.L1D only when approved by a ma6ority of the votes cast during the plebiscite( not by the votes of the 0embers of &ongress. /. $ead: $... 8,*@ $eDuisites for a valid peopleEs initiative to amend the &onstitutionF distinctions between amendment and revision. RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO ( together with 8(*/,(=@/ registered voters vs. '9! &"001SS1"5 "5 !L!&'1"5S( 4.$. 5o. 1,)1@*( "ctober /@( /::8( @:@ S&$. 18: &arpio( 2. %acts: Petitioners filed a Petition for 1nitiative and $eferendum with the &"0!L!& to amend the 1=+, Philippine &onstitution( particularly .rticles #1 and #11 to replace the present Presidential7>icameral system of government to Parliamentary73nicameral system using Section /( .rt. G#11 of the &onstitution. Petitioners claim that their petition was signed by 8(*/,(=@/ million voters all over the country and the same constitutes over 1/H of all the registered voters in the entire country and that more than *H of the registered voters in every legislative district signed the same in accordance with Section /( .rt. G#11 of the &onstitution. 'he petition to change the &onstitution involves sections 17, of .rticle #1F Sections 17) of .rticle #11 and an .rticle G#11 entitled I'ransitory ProvisionsJ. 'he petitioners prayed with the &"0!L!& that after due publication of their Petition( the &"0!L!& should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the votersE ratification: D" K"3 .PP$"#! '9! .0!5D0!5' "% .$'1&L!S #1 .5D #11 "% '9! 1=+, &"5S'1'3'1"5( &9.54154 '9! %"$0 "% 4"#!$50!5' %$"0 '9! P$!S1D!5'1.L >1&.0!$.L '" . 351&.0!$.L7P.$L1.0!5'.$K SKS'!0( .5D P$"#1D154 .$'1&L! G#111 .S '$.5S1'"$K P$"#1S1"5S %"$ '9! "$D!$LK S91%' %$"0 "5! SKS'!0 '" '9! "'9!$C 'he &"0!L!& dismissed the petition citing 01$1.0 D!%!5S"$ S.5'1.4" #S. &"0!L!&( /,: S&$. 1:8 where it was held that:
@

$. 8,*@ intended to include the System of 1nitiative on .mendments to the &onstitution( but is( unfortunately( 1nadeDuate to cover that system under Section /( .rt. G#11 of the &onstitution. ; ; ; . 'he foregoing brings us to the conclusion that $. 8,*@ is incomplete( inadeDuate or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the &onstitution is concerned. 1ts lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by IempoweringJ the &"0!L!& to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry the purposes of this act. &onsidering the said dismissal( petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme &ourt on &ertiorari and 0andamus alleging rave abuse of discretion and to set aside the &"0!L!&E Decision and to compel the latter to give due course to their initiative petition. '9! 1SS3!S: 1. L9!'9!$ '9! L.0>15" 4$"3PES P!'1'1"5 &"0PL1!S L1'9 S!&'1"5 /( .$'1&L! G#11 "% '9! &"5S'1'3'1"5 "5 .0!5D0!5'S '" '9! &"5S'1'3'1"5 '9$"349 P!"PL!ES 151'1.'1#!F /. L9!'9!$ '9! &"3$' S9"3LD $!#1S1' 1'S $3L154 15 D!%!5S"$7S.5'1.4" #S. &"0!L!&( D!&L.$154 '9.' $. 5". 8,*@ I15&"0PL!'!( 15.D!A3.'! "$ L.5'154 15 !SS!5'1.L '!$0S .5D &"5D1'1"5SJ '" 10PL!0!5' '9! 151'1.'1#! &L.3S! "5 P$"P"S.LS '" .0!5D '9! &"5S'1'3'1"5F and *. L9!'9!$ '9! &"0!L!& &"001''!D 4$.#! .>3S! "% D1S&$!'1"5 15 D!5K154 D3! &"3$S! '" '9! L.0>15" 4$"3PES P!'1'1"5. 9 ! L D: 'here is no merit to the petition. 'he Lambino group miserably failed to comply with the basic reDuirements of the &onstitution for conducting a peopleEs initiative. 'hus( there is even no need to revisit Santiago( as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino 4roupEs glaring failure to comply with the basic reDuirements of the &onstitution. .s such( there is li<ewise no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the &"0!L!&.

Section /( .rticle G#11 of the &onstitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a peopleEs initiative to propose amendments to the &onstitution. 'his Section provides: ISection /. .mendments to this &onstitution may li<ewise be D1$!&'LK P$"P"S!D >K '9! P!"PL! through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum 1/H- of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum *H- of the registered voters therein.J 'he deliberations of the &onstitutional &onvention vividly e;plain the meaning of the amendment Idirectly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petitionJ. 'hus: 0$. $"D$14": Let us loo< at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want to propose a constitutional amendment. 1S '9! D$.%' "% '9! P$"P"S!D &"5S'1'3'1"5.L .0!5D0!5' $!.DK '" >! S9"L5 '" '9! P!"PL! L9!5 '9!K .$! .S?!D '" S145C 0$. S3.$!M. 'hat can be reasonably assumed( 0adam President. 0$. $"D$14": Lhat does the sponsor meanC 'he draft is ready and shown to them before they signC 5ow( who prepares the draftC 0$. S3.$!M: 'he people themselves( 0adam PresidentN.s it is envisioned( any %ilipino can prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature. &learly( the framer !f the C!n t"t#t"!n "ntended that the $draft !f the %r!%! ed &!n t"t#t"!na' amendment( h!#'d )e $read* and h!+n( t! the %e!%'e $)ef!re the* ",n #&h %r!%! a'(. The framer %'a"n'* tated that $)ef!re the* ",n there " a'read* a draft h!+n t! them.( The framer a' ! $en-" "!ned( that the %e!%'e h!#'d ",n !n the %r!%! a' "t e'f )e&a# e the %r!%!nent m# t $%re%are the %r!%! a' and %a "t ar!#nd f!r ",nat#re.( 'he essence of amendments Idirectly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petitionJ 1S '9.' THE ENTIRE .RO.OSAL ON ITS FACE IS A .ETITION B/ THE .EO.LE. 'his means two /- essential elements must be present:

1. 'he people must author and must sign the entire proposal. 5o agent or representative can sign for and on their behalfF /. .s an initiative upon a petition( '9! P$"P"S.L 03S' >! !0>"D1!D 15 . P!'1'1"5. 'hese essential elements are present only if the full te;t of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who will e;press their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. 'hus( an amendment is ID1$!&'LK P$"P"S!D >K '9! P!"PL! '9$"349 151'1.'1#! 3P"5 . P!'11'"5 I "5LK 1% '9! P!"PL! S145 "5 . P!'1'1"5 '9.' "&5'.15S '9! %3LL '!G' "% '9! P$"P"S!D .0!5D0!5'S. 'he petitioners bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional reDuirements in gathering the signatures777that the petition contained( or incorporated by attachment( the full te;t of the proposed amendments. 'he Lambino 4roup did not attach to their present petition a copy of the document containing the proposed amendments and as such( the people signed initiative petition without <nowing the actual amendments proposed in the said initiative. 1nstead ( the alleged 8.* million people who signed the petition had to rely the representations of .tty. Lambino. &learly( .tty. Lambino and his group deceived the 8.* million signatories( and even the entire nation. /. . peopleEs initiative to change the &onstitution applies only to an amendment of the &onstitution and not to its revision. 1n contrast( &ongress and a &onstitutional &onvention can propose both amendments and revisions to the &onstitution. 'his is clear under Section 1 of .rt. G#11 of the &onstitution. Lhere the intent and language of the &onstitution under Section / of .rt. G#111 clearly withhold from the people the power to propose revisions to the &onstitution( the people cannot propose revisions even as they are empowered to propose amendments. 'he two are distinguished as follows: 56evision7 is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document O&onstitutionP. 1t may result in the rewriting whether the whole constitution( or the greater portion of it( or perhaps some of its important provisions. >ut whatever results the revision may produce( the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. 'hat intention and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the &onstitution to determine which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely new one. 5Amendment7 of the &onstitution( on the other hand( envisages a change or only a few specific provisions. 'he intention of an act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of
+

considering that possibility. 'he intention rather is to improve specific parts of the e;isting constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete( or dangerous( or misleading in their effect. (NOTE: 2n (ovember #8, #889, the Supreme Court in its 6eso ution of the !otion for 6econsideration of 4ambino, %hi e it denied the !otion for 6econsideration for ac$ of merit insofar as they %ant the peop e:s initiative petition to be presented to the peop e in a p ebiscite, it he d that ten *18, members voted to dec are that 6A (o. 9;'+ <S C2!=43T3 A(> A>3?@AT3 and therefore, peop e:s initiative may be avai ed of by the peop e provided they sha comp y %ith the strict re0uirements of Section #, Art. AB<< that the proposed amendments.s to the Constitution must be indicated in the petition itse f signed by the peop e.MIRIAM DEFENSOR0SANTIA1O2 et a'. V . COMELEC2 N!. 3456472 Mar&h 382 3885 9 :#ne 3;2 3885 1.R.

$. 8,*@ intended to include the System of 1nitiative on .mendments to the &onstitution( but is( unfortunately( 1nadeDuate to cover that system. Section / .rt. G#11 is not self7e;ecutory and unless &ongress provides for its implementation ( it would remain in the cold niche of the &onstitution. $. 8,*@ in all its /* sections mentions the word I&onstitutionJ only in section / and Section * as compared to the initiative on IstatutesJ and local legislation. 'he foregoing brings us to the conclusion that $. 8,*@ is incomplete( inadeDuate or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the &onstitution is concerned. 1ts lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by IempoweringJ the &"0!L!& to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry the purposes of this act. !numerate the steps to be followed and the reDuisites to be met in order that the people may proposed the amendments( repeal( amend or enact a law or provision of the &onstitution. *. Distinguish I$evisionJ from IamendmentJ of the &onstitution. 56evision7 is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document O&onstitutionP. 1t may result in the rewriting whether the whole constitution( or the greater portion of it( or perhaps some of its important provisions. >ut whatever results the revision may produce( the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. 'hat intention and plan must contemplate a
=

1:

consideration of all the provisions of the &onstitution to determine which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely new one. 5Amendment7 of the &onstitution( on the other hand( envisages a change or only a few specific provisions. 'he intention of an act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering that possibility. 'he intention rather is to improve specific parts of the e;isting constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete( or dangerous( or misleading in their effect. S15&"( #icente( P91L1PP15! P"L1'1&.L L.L). $ead: a) MABANAG vs. LOPEZ VITO, 78 Phil. 1 b) GONZALES vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 77 Th!"! is #$ %"$hibi&i$# '$" C$#("!ss &$ %"$%$s! a)!#*)!#&s &$ &h! C$#s&i&+&i$# a#* a& &h! sa)! &i)! ,all '$" &h! ,$#v!#i#( $' a C$#s&i&+&i$#al C$#v!#&i$# &$ a)!#* &h! C$#s&i&+&i$#. Th! -$"* .$"/ i# &h! %"$visi$# .0C$#("!ss, +%$# a v$&! $' 1 $' all i&s )!)b!"s2 OR 324 A ,$#s&i&+&i$#al C$#v!#&i$#/ +#*!" S!,&i$# 1, A"&. 5VII als$ )!a#s .AN6/. ,) TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC, 1 SCRA 772 .6$,&"i#! $' P"$%!" S+b)issi$#/ )!a#s all &h! %"$%$s!* a)!#*)!#&s &$ &h! C$#s&i&+&i$# shall b! %"!s!#&!* &$ &h! %!$%l! '$" &h! "a&i'i,a&i$# $" "!8!,&i$# a& &h! sa)! &i)!, #$& %i!,!)!al. *) SANI6A6 vs. COMELEC, 79 SCRA 999 !) ALMARIO vs. ALBA, 127 SCRA :; I' &h! <+!s&i$# "!(a"*i#( &h! %"$%$s!* a)!#*)!#& &$ &h! C$#s&i&+&i$# *!als -i&h i&s .#!,!ssi&=, !>%!*i!#,= $" -is*$)/, &h! sa)! is %$li&i,al i# #a&+"! a#* b!=$#* &h! %$-!" $' &h! ,$+"&s &$ *!,i*!. ') MIRIAM 6E?ENSOR SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 277 ACRA 17: PART II PREAMBLE 1. Purpose and !ffect of a Preamble. L!( the sovereign %ilipino people( imploring the aid of .lmighty 4od( in order to build a 6ust and humane society and establish a 4overnment that shall embody our
1:

11

ideals and aspirations( promote the common good( conserve and develop our patrimony( and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth( 6ustice( freedom( love( eDuality( and peace( do ordain and promulgate this &onstitution. /. .4L1P.K #S. $31M( 8) Phil. /:1 1t is almost trite to say now that in this country we en6oy both religious and civil freedom. .ll the officers of the 4overnment( from the highest to the lowest( in ta<ing their oath to support and defend the constitution( bind themselves to recognize and respect the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom( with its inherent limitations and recognized implications. 1t should be stated that what is guaranteed by our &onstitution is religious liberty( not mere religious toleration. $eligious freedom( however( as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not denial of its influence in human affairs. $eligion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his &reator is recognized. .nd( in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality( its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated. Lhen the %ilipino people( in the preamble of their &onstitution( implored Qthe aid of Divine Providence( in order to establish a government that shall embody their ideals( conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation( promote the general welfare( and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of independence under a regime of 6ustice( liberty and democracy(Q they thereby manifested reliance upon 9im who guides the destinies of men and nations. 'he elevating influence of religion in human society is recognized here as elsewhere. 1n fact( certain general concessions are indiscriminately accorded to religious sects and denominations. PART III ARTICLE I - THE NATIONAL TERRITORY Section 1. 'he national territory comprises the Philippine .rchipelago( with all the islands and waters embraced therein( and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or 6urisdiction( consisting of its terrestrial(
11

1/

fluvial( and aerial domains( including its territorial sea( the seabed( the subsoil( the insular shelves( and other submarine areas. 'he waters around( between and connecting the islands of the archipelago( regardless of their breadth and dimensions( form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. 1. Lhat is the most significant change in this .rticle( compared with those of the 1=*@ and 1=,* &onstitutionsC /. Lhat is the archipelago theory or archipelagic doctrineC *. 0ethods used in fi;ing the baseline from which the territorial belt is measured: a. 'he normal baseline method b. 'he straight baseline method ). $ead: 'he Law of the Sea: 1ts ma6or implications to the Philippines( by 2ustice 2orge $. &oDuia( p. *1( Philippine Law 4azette( #ol. +( 5o.1. @. $... *:)8 $... @))8 8. Definitions: a. 'erritorial sea b. 1nternal or inland waters c. high seas or international seas d. sea7bed e. sub7soil f. 1nsular shelves g. other submarine areas ,. $eason and effect of having an .rticle on the 5ational 'erritory. +. $ead: 1- =residentia >ecree (o. 1+C9 D Eune 11, 1C;F 0a<ing the ?alayaan 1sland 4roup O%reedomlandP as part of the Philippine 'erritory/ , =residentia >ecree (o. 1+CC D Eune 11, 1C;F Declaring the !;clusive !conomic Mone of the Philippines which is /:: nautical miles from its baselinePART IV ARTICLE II. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
1/

1*

AND STATE POLICIES

Section 1. The =hi ippines is a democratic and repub ican State. Sovereignty resides in the peop e and a government authority emanates from them. a. 'he basic principles underlying the 1=*@( 1=,* and 1=+, &onstitutions. b.0anifestations of a republican state. c. Define QstateQ COLLECTOR VS. CAMPOS R@E6A, 2 SCRA 29 d. !lements of a state. Define each: 1. people /. territory *. sovereignty ). government e. Different meanings of the word IpeopleJ as used 1. as inhabitants .rt. G111( Sec. 1F .rt. 111( Sec. /-F /. as citizens PreambleF .rt. 11( Sec. 1 R )F .rt. 111( Sec. ,-F *. as voters .rt. #11( Sec. )f. presidential R parliamentary forms of government $ead: 1. %$!! '!L!P9"5! L"$?!$S 351"5 #S. "PL!( 1:+ S&$. ,@, 'he government of the Philippines under the 1=,* &onstitution is Iessentially presidential with parliamentary features.J /. L!4.SP1 #S. S!&. "% %15.5&!( 11@ S&$. )1+ 'he form of government is Iessentially parliamentary with presidential features.J in the constitution:

1*

1)

g. 'wo7fold function of the government. $ead: 1)BACANI VS. NACOCO, 177 Phil. C$#s&i&+!#& 3Ma#*a&$"=4 ?+#,&i$#s) 2) ACC?A VS. C@GCO, 97 SCRA : ; Due to comple;ities of the changing society( the two7fold function of the government as classified by President Lilson is no longer relevant. h. Parents Patriae $ead: 1) GOVT. VS. MONTE 6E PIE6A6, 9B Phil 798 2) CABANAS VS. PILAPIL, B8 SCRA ; i. De 6ure govt.C De facto govt.C $ead: 1. .A315" #S. &"0!L!&( 8/ S&$. /,@ A$# &h! *! 8+"! as%!,&) 2. I# R!C S.'3$515" >!$03D!M( 1)@ S&$. 18: . government formed as a result of a peopleEs revolution( is considered de 6ure if it is already accepted by the family of nations or other countries li<e the 3nited States( 4reat >ritain( 4ermany( 2apan( and others. *. !strada vs. 0acapagal R Desierto( infra. 6. 'he three *- <inds of de facto governmentC $ead: &" ?10 &9.0 #S. #.LD!M '.5 ?!9( ,@ Phil. 11* There are e-era' <"nd !f de fa&t! ,!-ernment . a. 'he first( or government de facto in a proper legal sense( is that government that gets possession and control of( or usurps( by force or by the voice of the ma6ority( the rightful legal governments and maintains itself against the will of the latter( such as the government of !ngland under the &ommonwealth( first by Parliament and later by &romwell as Protector. b. 'he second is that which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the
1)

:8 AMi#is&"a#& 3)!"!l= *i"!,&$"=4 a#*

1@

enemy in the course of war( and which is denominated a government of paramount force( as the cases of &astine( in 0aine( which was reduced to >ritish possession in the war of 1+1/( and 'ampico( 0e;ico( occupied during the war with 0e;ico( by the troops of the 3nited States. c. .nd the third is that established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state of such as the government of the Southern &onfederacy in revolt not concerned in the present case with the first <ind( but only with the second and third <inds of de facto governments. Q>ut there is another description of government( called also by publicists a government de facto( but which might( perhaps( be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. 1ts distinguishing characteristics are 1-( that its e;istence is maintained by active military power with the territories( and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful governmentF and /-( that while it e;ists it necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who( by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force( do not become responsible( or wrongdoers( for those acts( though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. "n the other hand( laws of a political nature or affecting political relations( such as( among others( the right of assembly( the right to bear arms( the freedom of the press( and the right to travel freely in the territory occupied( are considered as suspended or in abeyance during the military occupation. .lthough the local and civil administration of 6ustice is suspended as a matter of course as soon as a country is militarily occupied( it is not usual for the invader to ta<e the whole administration into his own hands. 1n practice( the local ordinary tribunals are authorized to continue administering 6usticeF and 6udges and other 6udicial officers are <ept in their posts if they accept the authority of the belligerent occupant or are reDuired to continue in their positions under the supervision of the military or civil authorities appointed( by the &ommander in &hief of the occupant. 'hese principles and practice have the sanction of all publicists who have considered the sub6ect( and have been asserted by the Supreme &ourt and applied by the President of the 3nited States.
1@

18

'he doctrine upon this sub6ect is thus summed up by 9allec<( in his wor< on 1nternational Law #ol. /( p. )))-: Q'he right of one belligerent to occupy and govern the territory of the enemy while in its military possession( is one of the incidents of war( and flows directly from the right to conDuer. Le( therefore( do not loo< to the &onstitution or political institutions of the conDueror( for authority to establish a government for the territory of the enemy in his possession( during its military occupation( nor for the rules by which the powers of such government are regulated and limited. Such authority and such rules are derived directly from the laws war( as established by the usage of the of the world( and confirmed by the writings of publicists and decisions of courts in fine( from the law of nations. . . . 'he municipal laws of a conDuered territory( or the laws which regulate private rights( continue in force during military occupation( e;cepts so far as they are suspended or changed by the acts of conDueror. . . . 9e( nevertheless( has all the powers of a de facto government( and can at his pleasure either change the e;isting laws or ma<e new ones.Q 'he governments by the Philippine !;ecutive &ommission and the $epublic of the Philippines during the 2apanese military occupation being de facto governments( it necessarily follows that the 6udicial acts and proceedings of the courts of 6ustice of those governments( which are not of a political comple;ion( were good and valid( and( by virtue of the well7<nown princip e of post iminy *post iminiumin international law( remained good and valid after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the .merican and %ilipino forces under the leadership of 4eneral Douglas 0ac.rthur. .ccording to that well7<nown principle in international law( the fact that a territory which has been occupied by an enemy comes again into the power of its legitimate government of sovereignty( Qdoes not( e;cept in a very few cases( wipe out the effects of acts done by an invader( which for one reason or another it is within his competence to do. 'hus 6udicial acts done under his control( when they are not of a political comple;ion( administrative acts so done( to the e;tent that they ta<e effect during the continuance of his control( and the various acts done during the same time by private persons under the sanction of municipal law( remain good. Lere it otherwise( the whole social life of a community would be paralyzed by
18

1,

an invasionF and as between the state and the individuals the evil would be scarcely less( it would be hard for e;ample that payment of ta;es made under duress should be ignored( and it would be contrary to the general interest that the sentences passed upon criminals should be annulled by the disappearance of the intrusive government .Q 9all( 1nternational Law( ,th ed.( p. @1+.- .nd when the occupation and the abandonment have been each an incident of the same war as in the present case( post iminy applies( even though the occupant has acted as conDueror and for the time substituted his own sovereignty as the 2apanese intended to do apparently in granting independence to the Philippines and establishing the so7 called $epublic of the Philippines. 'aylor( 1nternational Law( p. 81@.l. Sovereignty: 1. legal /. political m. 'he doctrine of sovereignty as auto7limitationC $ead: 1. REAGAN VS. COMMISIONER O? INTERNAL REVEN@E, 97 SCRA ;:8

Q>y the .greement( it should be noted( the Philippine 4overnment merely consents that the 3nited States e;ercise 6urisdiction in certain cases. 'he consent was given purely as a matter of comity( courtesy( or e;pediency. 'he Philippine 4overnment has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of 6urisdiction over offenses committed therein. 3nder the terms of the treaty( the 3nited States 4overnment has prior or preferential but not e;clusive 6urisdiction of such offenses. 'he Philippine 4overnment retains not only 6urisdictional rights not granted( but also all such ceded rights as the 3nited States 0ilitary authorities for reasons of their own decline to ma<e use of. 'he first proposition is implied from the fact of Philippine sovereignty over the basesF the second from the e;press provisions of the treaty.Q Q5othing is better settled than that the Philippines being independent and sovereign( its authority may be e;ercised over its entire domain. 'here is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Lithin its limits( its decrees are supreme( its
1,

1+

commands paramount. 1ts laws govern therein( and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. 'hat is the e;tent of its 6urisdiction( both territorial and personal. 5ecessarily( li<ewise( it has to be e;clusive. 1f it were not thus( there is a diminution of sovereignty.Q 'hen came this paragraph dealing with the principle of auto7limitation: Q<t is to be admitted any state may, by its consent, e-press or imp ied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. 'here may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. 'hat is the concept of sovereignty as auto7limitation( which( in the succinct language of 2elline<( Qis the property of a state7force due to which it has the e;clusive capacity of legal self7 determination and self7restriction.Q A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the e-ercise of %hat other%ise is i imitab e competence.G 'he opinion was at pains to point out though that even then( there is at the most diminution of 6urisdictional rights( not its disappearance. 2. PEOPLE VS. GOZO, B9 SCRA 7: 9. COMMISSIONER VS. ROBERTSON, 1 9 SCRA 9;7 Salaries of .merican employees in the 3S >ases in the Philippines are not sub6ect to ta; by the Philippine 4overnment because that is what is provided for the $P 3S 0ilitary >asis .greement. #. Section #. The =hi ippines renounces %ar as an instrument of nationa po ice, adopts the genera y accepted princip es of internationa a% as part of the a% of the and and adheres to the po icy of peace, e0ua ity, /ustice, freedom, cooperation, and amity among a nations. a. difference between aggressive R defensive war b. $ead: 1. 0!2"%% #S. D1$!&'"$ "% P$1S"5S( =: Phil. ,: 'he Philippines adopts the 3niversal Declaration of 9uman $ights since it is a generally accepted principle of international law. .s such( it should be applied to illegal aliens li<e the petitioner so that it would be a violation of the said international law to detain him for an unreasonable length of time since no vessel from his country is willing to ta<e him.
1+

1=

Q'he meaning of Qreasonable timeQ depends upon the circumstances( specially the difficulties of obtaining a passport( the availability of transportation( the diplomatic arrangements concerned and the efforts displayed to send the deportee away. &onsidering that this 4overnment desires to e;pel the alien( and does not relish <eeping him at the peopleSs e;pense( we must presume it is ma<ing efforts to carry out the decree of e;clusion by the highest officer of the land. "n top of this presumption assurances were made during the oral argument that the 4overnment is really trying to e;pedite the e;pulsion of this petitioner. "n the other hand( the record fails to show how long he has been under confinement since the last time he was apprehended. 5either does he indicate neglected opportunities to send him abroad. .nd unless it is shown that the deportee is being indefinitely imprisoned under the pretense of awaiting a chance for deportation * or unless the 4overnment admits that it can not deport him or unless the detainee is being held for too long a period our courts will not interfere. /. ?3$"D. #S. 2.L.5D"51( +* Phil 1,1 Petitioner argues that respondent 0ilitary &ommission has no 2urisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of the 9ague &onvention on $ules and $egulations covering Land Larfare and the 4eneva &onvention because the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1=),. 1t cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the 9ague and 4eneva conventions form( part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of international law. 1n facts these rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nation the 3nited State and 2apan who were signatories to the two &onvention( Such rule and principles therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them for our &onstitution has been deliberately general and e;tensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and principle of international law as continued inn treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory. %urthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed the Philippines was under the sovereignty of 3nited States and thus we were eDually
1=

/:

bound together with the 3nited States and with 2apan to the right and obligation contained in the treaties between the belligerent countries. 'hese rights and obligation were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty. 1f at all our emergency as a free state entitles us to enforce the right on our own of trying and punishing those who committed crimes against crimes against our people. 1n this connection it is well to remember what we have said in the case of Laurel vs. 0isa ,8 Phil.( *,/-: *. S.L"54. #S. 9!$0"S"( =, S&$. 1/1 ). .43S'15 #S. !D3( ++ S&$. 1=@ 'he Heneva Convention on 6oad Signs and Signa s, is also considered part of the law of the Philippines since the same is a generally accepted principle of international law in accordance with the 1ncorporation clause of the &onstitution. @. 8. $!K!S #S. >.4.'S154(1/@ S&$. @@* $espondent 0ayor posed the issue of the applicability of "rdinance 5o. ,/=@ of the &ity of 0anila prohibiting the holding or staging of rallies or demonstrations within a radius of five hundred @::- feet from any foreign mission or chancery and for other purposes. 1t is to be admitted that it finds support 1n the previously Duoted Artic e ## of the Bienna Convention on >ip omatic 6e ations. 'here was no showing( however( that the distance between the chancery and the embassy gate is less than @:: feet. !ven if it could be shown that such a condition is satisfied. it does not follow that respondent 0ayor could legally act the way he did. 'he validity of his denial of the permit sought could still be challenged. 1t could be argued that a case of unconstitutional application of such ordinance to the e;ercise of the right of peaceable assembly presents itself. .s in this case there was no proof that the distance is less than @:: feet( the need to pass on that issue was obviated( Should it come( then the Dualification and observation of 2ustices 0a<asiar and Plana certainly cannot be summarily brushed aside. 'he high estate accorded the rights to free speech and peaceable assembly demands nothing less. Lithout saying that the "rdinance is obno;ious per se to the constitution( it cannot be validly invo<ed
/:

/1

whenever its application would collide with a constitutionally guaranteed right such as freedom of assembly andTor e;pression( as in the case at bar( regardless of whether the chancery of any foreign embassy is beyond or within @:: feet from the situs of the rally or demonstration. Section '. Civi ian authority is, at a times supreme over the mi itary. The armed forces of the =hi ippines is the protector of the peop e and the State. <ts goa is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the nationa territory. See also: .rt. #11( Sec. 1+ .rt. G#1( Sec. @ /.rt. G#1( Sec. @ )Section 1. The prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the peop e. The Hovernment may ca upon the peop e to defend the State and in the fu fi ment thereof, a citi)ens may be re0uired, under conditions provided by a%, to render persona and mi itary service. $ead: 1. PEOPLE VS. LAGMAN, :: Phil. 19 .Th! a%%!lla#&Ds a"(+)!#& &ha& h! *$!s #$& -a#& &$ 8$i# &h! a")!* '$",!s b!,a+s! .h! *$!s #$& -a#& &$ Eill $" b! Eill!*/ a#* &ha& .h! has #$ )ili&a"= i#,li#a&i$#/ is #$& a,,!%&abl! b!,a+s! i& is his $bli(a&i$# &$ 8$i# &h! a")!* '$",!s i# ,$##!,&i$# -i&h &h! .*!'!#s! $' &h! S&a&!/ %"$visi$# $' &h! C$#s&i&+&i$#. 2. PEOPLE VS. MANAFAO, 78 Phil. 721 9. P6177:, A+(+s& 8, 1;87 . E>!,. O"*!" N$. 2: Section +. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of ife, iberty, and property, and the promotion of the genera %e fare are essentia for the en/oyment by a the peop e of the b essings of democracy.

/1

//

Section 9. The separation of church and State sha be invio ab e. $ead: 1) PAMIL VS. TELERON, 8: SCRA 19 2) GERMAN VS. BARANGAN, 19B SCRA B1 5"'!: $ead the dissenting opinions in both cases*- "ther provisions: "ther provisions on church R state: 1. .$'. 111( Sec. @. 5o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion( or prohibiting the free e;ercise thereof. 'he free e;ercise and en6oyment of religious profession and worship( without discrimination or preference( shall forever be allowed. 5" $!L141"3S '!S' S9.LL >! $!A31$!D %"$ '9! !G!$&1S! "% &1#1L "$ P"L1'1&.L $149'S. /. .$'. #1( Sec. /+ *-. &haritable institutions( churches( mosDues( non7profit cemeteriesNactually( directly and e;clusively used for religious( charitable( or educational purposes shall be e;empt from ta;ation. *. .$'. #1( Sec. /= . /-. 5o public money or property shall be appropriated( applied( paid( for the benefit( directly or indirectly( for the use( benefit( or support of any sect( church( denomination or religion( e;cept when such priest( minister.. is assigned to the armed forces( or to any penal institution( or government orphanage or leprosarium. ). .$'. 1G( &( / @-. $eligious denominations and sects shall not be registeredNas political parties. 5"'!: $eligious organizations are also prohibited ion connection with sectoral representatives under .rt. #1@. .$'. G1#( Sec. * *-. .t the option in writing by parents( religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children in elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by religious authorities to which said children belong( without additional cost to the government.

Sections ;. The State sha pursue an independent foreign po icy. <n its re ations %ith other states the paramount consideration sha be nationa sovereignty, territoria integrity, nationa interest, and the right to se fD determination,

//

/*

Section F. The =hi ippines, consistent %ith the nationa interest, adopts and pursues a po icy of freedom from nuc ear %eapons in its territory. 1. meaning of Qnuclear7freeQ PhilippinesF /. . .rt. G#111( Secs. ) R /@ Sections C. The State sha promote a /ust and dynamic socia order that %i ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the peop e from poverty through po icies that provide ade0uate socia services, promote fu emp oyment, a rising standard of iving, and an improved 0ua ity of ife for a .. Section 18. The state sha promote socia /ustice in a phases of nationa deve opment. Section 11. The state va ues the dignity of every human person and guarantees fu respect for human rights. a. $ead together with entire provisions of .rticle G111 Section 1#. The State recogni)es the sanctity of fami y ife and sha protect and strengthen the fami y as a basic autonomous socia institution. <t sha e0ua y protect the ife of the mother and the ife of the unborn from conception. The natura and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civi efficiency and the deve opment of mora character sha receive the support the support of the government. 5"'!: %ather >ernas opines that this provision does not ta<e a stand on divorce. .s such( a Divorce Law to be passed by &ongress may or may not be unconstitutional. >ut definitely( a law allowing abortion ( other than therapeutic( is unconstitutional. 1. $ead together with the entire provisions of .rticle G#. /. $ead: a- 415S>!$4 #S. 5!L K"$?( *=: 3S 8/= 1=8=. law prohibiting the sale of Igirlie magazinesJ OboldC- is constitutional and does not violate the above provision. 'his is so because parents could buy said magazines for their children if they believe the same is already suitable to the understanding of their child. 'his is in accordance with this provision which states
/*

/)

that the parents have the Inatural and primary right in rearing their child for civic efficiencyNJ b- 0!K!$ #S. 5!>$.S?.( /8: 3S /8: 1=//c- P1!$&! #S. S"&1!'K "% S1S'!$S( /8+ 3S @1: 1=/@. law reDuiring small <ids to be enrolled in public schools only is unconstitutional since it interferes with the right of parents in rearing their children. 'hey have the right to choose which school is best suited for the development of their children without interference from the State. d- P.&3 #S. S!&$!'.$K "% !D3&.'1"5( =, Phil. +:8 e- &.>.5.S #S. P1L.P1L( @+ S&$. =) Section 1'. The State recogni)es the vita ro e of the youth in nationDbui ding and sha promote and protect their physica , mora , spiritua , inte ectua , and socia %e being. <t sha incu cate in the youth patriotism and nationa ism, and encourage their invo vement in pub ic and civic affairs. $ead: 1- PD 8+) /- PD =*@ *- PD 11:/ )- PD 8:*F see the ob6ectives of the law Sections 11. The State recogni)es the ro e of %omen in nation bui ding, and sha ensure the fundamenta e0ua ity before the a% of men and %omen. Section 1+. The State sha protect and promote the right to hea th of the peop e and insti hea th consciousness among them. Section 19. The State sha protect and advance the right of the peop e to a ba anced and hea thfu eco ogy in accord %ith the rhythm and harmony of nature. Section 1;. The State sha give priority to education, science and techno ogy, arts, cu ture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationa ism, acce erate socia progress, and promote human iberation and deve opment. 1- $ead together with .rticle G1# $ead :
/)

/@

#1LL!4.S #S. S3>1D"( 1:= S&$. 1 "P"S. #S. %.&'"$.5( 2uly *:( 1==*F 1n a broader sense( this petition bears upon the right of %ilipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of Qinter7generational responsibilityQ and Qinter7generational 6ustice.Q Specifically( it touches on the issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to Qprevent the misappropriation or impairmentQ of Philippine rainforests and Qarrest the unabated hemorrhage of the countrySs vital life support systems and continued rape of 0other !arth.Q 'he minors7petitioners have the personality to sue since the case deals with the timber licensing agreements entered into by the government which if not stopped would be pre6udicial to their future. 'his is so because the D!5$ holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations the natural resources of the country. 'he sub6ect matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not 6ust to several( but to all citizens of the Philippines. &onseDuently( since the parties are so numerous( it( becomes impracticable( if not totally impossible( to bring all of them before the court. Le li<ewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. 9ence( all the reDuisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 1/( $ule * of the $evised $ules of &ourt are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition( the latter being but an incident to the former. 'heir personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right( as hereinafter e;pounded( considers the Qrhythm and harmony of nature.Q 5ature means the created world in its entirety. = Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include( inter alia( the 6udicious disposition( utilization( management( renewal and conservation of the countrySs forest( mineral( land( waters( fisheries( wildlife( off7shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their e;ploration( development and utilization be eDuitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. 5eedless to say( every generation has a responsibility to the ne;t to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
/@

/8

en6oyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently( the minorsS assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes( at the same time( the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. 'he complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which( for the first time in our nationSs constitutional history( is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 18( .rticle 11 of the 1=+, &onstitution e;plicitly provides: Sec. 18. 'he State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. 'his right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of the same article: Sec. 1@. 'he State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. Lhile the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the >ill of $ights( it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self7preservation and self7perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. .s a matter of fact( these basic rights need not even be written in the &onstitution for they are assumed to e;ist from the inception of human<ind. 1f they are now e;plicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter( it is because of the well7founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the &onstitution itself( thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second( the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation( but also for those to

/8

/,

come generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. 'he right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. .s a matter of logic( by finding petitionersS cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional statements above noted( the &ourt is in effect saying that Section 1@ and Section 18- of .rticle 11 of the &onstitution are self7e;ecuting and 6udicially enforceable even in their present form. 'he implications of this doctrine will have to be e;plored in future casesF those implications are too large and far7reaching in nature even to be hinted at here. Section 1F. The State affirms abor as a primary socia economic force. <t sha protect the rights of %or$ers and promote their %e fare. 1- $ead together with Section *( .rticle G111( 1=+, &onstitution. /- &ompare it with Section =( .rticle 11( 1=,* &onstitution. *- $ead: a. VICTORIANO VS. ELIZAL6E POPE GORHERS @NION, B; SCRA B 'he right to religion prevails over contractual or legal rights. .s such( an 1glesia 5i ?risto member may refuse to 6oin a 3nion and despite the fact that there is a closed shop agreement in the establishment where he was employed( his employment could not be validly terminated for his non7membership in the ma6ority union therein. Section 1C. The State sha deve op a se fDre iant and independent nationa economy effective y contro ed by Ii ipinos.

See .rt. G11 Section #8. The State recogni)es the indispensab e ro e of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.

/,

/+

a. Do we practice the free enterprise system in the Philippines or is it the welfare state conceptC Distinguish the two. b. $ead: .&&%. #S. &34&"( *: S&$. 8)= AN$&!C R!a* &h! s!%a"a&! $%i#i$# $' '$")!" Chi!' I+s&i,! ENRIJ@E ?ERNAN6O $#l=) 'he Philippines never practiced the free enterprise system. 1t is the welfare7state concept which is being followed as shown by the constitutional provision on agrarian reform( housing( protection to laborN 5"'!( however( that the 1=+, &onstitution have provisions which provide for Ifree enterprisePHILIPPI ! C"C" #T $!SICCAT"RS VS% PHILIPPI ! C"C" #T A#TH"RIT&, 2'( SCRA 10) 0endoza( 2. 'he Philippine &onstitutions( starting from the 1=*@ document( 9.#! $!P3D1.'!D laiss!K 'ai"! or the doctrine of free enterprise- as an economic principle( and although the present &onstitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy( it nevertheless reserves to the government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. .s such( free enterprise does not call for the removal of Iprotective regulationsJ for the benefit of the general public. 'his is so because under .rt. G11( Sections 8 and =( it is very clear that the government reserves the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare and when the public interest so reDuires. Section #1. The State sha promote comprehensive rura deve opment and agrarian reform. a. $ead together with Secs. )71:( .rticle G111 of the 1=+, &onstitution b. $ead PD /, 7 as to the e;tent of land reform under the 0.$&"S regime c. $ead $. *+)) R 8*+=( as amended 7 '9! &"D! "% .4$.$1.5 $!%"$0S "% '9! P91L1PP15!S $ead the policy of the state on this matterd .$ead the &"0P$!9!5S1#! .4$.$1.5 $!%"$0 P$"4$.0 L.L( $. 5o. 88@, as signed into law by the President on 2une ,( 1=++.
/+

/=

e. $ead: .ssociation of Small Landowners vs. 9on. Secretary of .grarian $eform( 2uly 1)( 1=+= Sections ##. The State recogni)es and promotes the right of indigenous cu tura communities %ithin the frame%or$ of nationa unity and deve opment. 'o be discussed later with .rt. G( Secs. 1@7 /1.

"ther provisions on indigenous cultural communities: 1. .rt. #1( Sec. @ //. .rt. G( Secs. 1@ 7 /1 *. .rt. G11( Sec. @ ). .rt. G111( Sec. 8 @. .rt. G1#( Sec. 1, 8. .rt. G#1( Sec. 1/ Section #'. The State sha encourage nonDgovernmenta , community based, or sectora organi)ations that promote the %e fare of the nation. Section #1. The State recogni)es the vita ro e of communication and information in nationDbui ding. Section #+. The State sha ensure the autonomy of oca governments. a. Define La+&$#$)=L b. See .rt. G $ead the 1==1 5ew Local 4overnment &ode and enumerate its provisions evidencing QautonomyQ to local government units. Section #9. The State guarantee e0ua access to opportunities for pub ic service, and prohibit po itica dynasties as may be defined by a%. Section #;. The State sha maintain honesty and integrity in the pub ic service and ta$e positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.
/=

*:

'o be discussed under .rticle G1. a. Please see $. *:1=( 'he .nti74raft and &orrupt Practices .ct( as amended by $. *:),( PD ,, and >P 1=@.. b. PD ,)=( 2uly 1+( 1=,@( which grants immunity from prosecution to givers of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices in bribery other than graft cases against public officers. c. $. 1*,=. %orfeiture in favor of the State any property found to have been illegally acDuired by a public officer or employee. Section #F. Sub/ect to reasonab e conditions prescribed by a%, the State adopts and imp ements a po icy of pub ic disc osure of a its transactions invo ving pub ic interest.

Power of &ongress to conduct inDuiries in aid of legislationF Public disclosure of government transactions CAMILO L. SABIO - . 1ORDON ( 4.$. 5o. 1,)*):( "ctober 1,( /::8( @:) S&$. ,:) Sandoval74utierrez( 2. The Fa&t =

"n %ebruary /:( /::8( Senator 0iriam Defensor Santiago introduced Philippine Senate $esolution 5o. )@@ Senate $es. 5o. )@@-( 1O)P Idirecting an inDuiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines "verseas 'elecommunications &orporation P"'&-( Philippine &ommunications Satellite &orporation P91L&"0S.'-( and P91L&"0S.' 9oldings &orporation P9&- due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective >oard of Directors.J 'he pertinent portions of the $esolution read:

>HEREAS( in the last Duarter of /::@( the representation and entertainment e;pense of the P9& s<yroc<eted to P).* million( as compared to the previous yearEs mere P1:8 thousandF L9!$!.S( some board members established wholly owned P9& subsidiary called 'elecommunications &enter( 1nc. '&1-( where P9& funds are allegedly siphonedF in 1+ months( over P,* million had been
1O)P

.nne; I!J of the Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,)*1+.

*:

*1

allegedly advanced to '&1 without any accountability report given to P9& and P91L&"0S.'F L9!$!.S( the Phili%%i#! S&a"( in its 1/ %ebruary /::/ issue reported that the e;ecutive committee of Philcomsat has precipitately released P/8@ million and granted P1/@ million loan to a relative of an e;ecutive committee memberF to date there have been no payments given( sub6ecting the company to an estimated interest income loss of P11./@ million in /::)F L9!$!%"$!( )e "t re !'-ed that the %r!%er Senate C!mm"ttee ha'' &!nd#&t an "n?#"r* "n a"d !f 'e," 'at"!n2 !n the an!ma'!# '! e "n&#rred )* the .h"'"%%"ne O-er ea Te'e&!mm#n"&at"!n C!r%!rat"!n (.OTC)2 .h"'"%%"ne C!mm#n"&at"!n Sate''"te C!r%!rat"!n (.HILCOMSAT)2 and .h"'&!m at H!'d"n, C!r%!rat"!n (.HC) d#e t! the a''e,ed "m%r!%r"et"e "n the !%erat"!n )* the"r re %e&t"-e )!ard !f d"re&t!r . "n 0ay +( /::8( &hief of Staff $io &. 1nocencio( under the authority of Senator $ichard 2. 4ordon( wrote &hairman &amilo L. Sabio of the P&44( one of the herein petitioners( inviting him to be one of the resource persons in the public meeting 6ointly conducted by the C$))i&&!! $# G$v!"#)!#& C$"%$"a&i$#s a#* P+bli, E#&!"%"is!s and C$))i&&!! $# P+bli, S!"vi,!s. 'he purpose of the public meeting was to deliberate on Senate $es. 5o. )@@./O8P "n 0ay =( /::8( &hairman Sabio declined the invitation because of prior commitment.*O,P At the ame t"me2 he "n-!<ed Se&t"!n @()) !f E.O. N!. 3 earlier Duoted. "n .ugust 1:( /::8( Senator 4ordon issued a S+b%$!#a A* T!s&i'i,a#*+)()O+P approved by Senate President 0anuel #illar( reDuiring &hairman Sabio and P&44 &ommissioners R"&ard! A)&ede( N"&a "! C!nt"( Tere ! :a-"er and Nar&" ! Nar"! to appear in the public hearing scheduled on .ugust /*( /::8 and testify on what they <now relative to the matters specified in Senate $es. 5o. )@@. .ll were disregarded by the petitioners.

"n September 1/( /::8( at around 1::)@ a.m.( 0a6or 4eneral >ala6adia arrested &hairman Sabio in his office at 1$& >uilding( 5o. +/ !DS.( 0andaluyong &ity and brought him to the Senate premises where he was detained.

9ence( &hairman Sabio filed with the Supreme &ourt a petition for hab!as ,$"%+s against the Senate C$))i&&!! $# G$v!"#)!#& C$"%$"a&i$#s a#* P+bli, E#&!"%"is!s and C$))i&&!! $# P+bli, S!"vi,!s( their &hairmen( Senators $ichard 4ordon and 2o<er P. .rroyo and 0embers. 'he case was doc<eted as 4.$. 5o. 1,)*):.
/O8P *O,P )O+P

.nne; I%J of the Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,)*1+. .nne; I4J of the Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,)*1+. .nne; I.J of the Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,)*1+.

*1

*/

&hairman Sabio( &ommissioners .bcede( &onti( 5ario( and 2avierF and the P&44Es nominees .ndal and 2alandoni alleged: 'i"s&, respondent Senate &ommittees disregarded Section ) b- of !.". 5o. 1 without any 6ustifiable reasonF s!,$#*, the inDuiries conducted by respondent Senate &ommittees are not in aid of legislationF &hi"*, the inDuiries were conducted in the absence of duly published S!#a&! R+l!s $' P"$,!*+"! G$v!"#i#( I#<+i"i!s i# Ai* $' L!(isla&i$# F and '$+"&h, respondent Senate &ommittees are not vested with the power of contempt. 1n their &onsolidated &omment( the above7named respondents countered: 'i"s&, the issues raised in the petitions involve political Duestions over which this &ourt has no 6urisdictionF s!,$#*, Section ) b- has been repealed by the &onstitutionF &hi"*, respondent Senate &ommittees are vested with contempt powerF '$+"&h, SenateEs $ules of Procedure 4overning 1nDuiries in .id of Legislation have been duly publishedF 'i'&h, respondents have not violated any civil right of the individual petitioners( such as their (a) right to privacyF and ()) right against self7incriminationF and si>&h, the inDuiry does not constitute undue encroachment into 6usticiable controversies.

I S S U E=

1s Se&t"!n @()) !f E.O. N!. 3 re%ea'ed )* the 38A5 C!n t"t#t"!nB I "t "m%'ementat"!n +here"n the %et"t"!ner are eCem%t fr!m a%%ear"n, "n "n-e t",at"!n "n-!'-"n, the"r tran a&t"!n -"!'ate Se&t"!n 4A2 Art. II !f the C!n t"t#t"!nB

HELD=

Section ) b- of !.". 5o.1( which limits the power of legislative inDuiry by e;empting all P&44 members or staff from testifying in any 6udicial( legislative or administrative proceeding provides:

N! mem)er !r taff !f the C!mm" "!n ha'' )e re?#"red t! te t"f* !r %r!d#&e e-"den&e "n an* D#d"&"a'2 'e," 'at"-e !r adm"n" trat"-e %r!&eed"n, &!n&ern"n, matter +"th"n "t !ff"&"a' &!,n"Ean&e.

Said provision of !" 5o. 1 violates Section /+( .rt. 11 of the &onstitution which mandates that ISub6ect to reasonable conditions prescribed by law( the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.J
*/

**

$ead together with Section ,( .rticle 111( Sec. /:( .rt. #1 and Section 1( .rt. G1 of the 1=+, &onstitution. PART V ARTICLE VI - THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 1. The egis ative po%er sha be vested in the Congress of the =hi ippines %hich sha consist of a Senate and a Jouse of 6epresentatives, e-cept to the e-tent reserved to the peop e by the provision on initiative and referendum. a. Define legislative power 7 >asic concepts of the grant of legislative power: 1. it cannot pass irrepealable laws /. principle of separation of powers *. non7delegability of legislative powers 7 reason for principle that the legislature cannot pass irrepeablable laws 7 Separation of Powers $ead: a. ANGARA VS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION, :9 Phil. 19; b. PLANAS VS. GIL, :7 Phil. :2 ,. L@ZON STEVE6ORING VS. SSS, 9 SCRA 178 *. GARCIA VS. MACARAIG, 9; SCRA 17: e. >ondoc vs. 9$!'( Sept. /8( 1==1 f. D!%!5S"$ S.5'1.4" #S. &"0!L!&( /,: S&$. 1:8 b. 5ature of legislative power c. Lhat are the limitations to the grant of legislative powers to the legislatureC d. !;plain the doctrine of non7delegation power. e. Permissive delegation of legislative power. 1) S!,. 29 A2) $' A"&i,l! VI AE)!"(!#,= %$-!"s &$ &h! P"!si*!#& i# ,as! $' -a" $" $&h!" #a&i$#al !)!"(!#,=, '$" a li)i&!* %!"i$* a#* s+b8!,& &$ s+,h "!s&"i,&i$#s as C$#("!ss )a= %"$vi*!, &$ !>!",is! %$-!"s #!,!ssa"= a#* %"$%!" &$ ,a""= $+& a *!,la"!* #a&i$#al %$li,=. @#l!ss

**

*)

s$$#!" -i&h*"a-# b= R!s$l+&i$# $' C$#("!ss, s+,h %$-!"s shall ,!as! +%$# &h! #!>& a*8$+"#)!#& &h!"!$'. 2) S!,. 28 A2) $' A"&i,l! VI. Th! C$#("!ss )a= b= la-, a+&h$"iK! &h! P"!si*!#& &$ 'i> -i&hi# s%!,i'i!* li)i&s, a#* s+b8!,& &$ s+,h li)i&a&i$#s a#* "!s&"i,&i$#s as i& )a= i)%$s!, &a"i'' "a&!s, i)%$"& a#* !>%$"& <+$&as, &$##a(! a#* -ha"'a(! *+!s, a#* $&h!" *+&i!s $" i)%$s&s -i&hi# &h! '"a)!-$"E $' &h! #a&i$#al *!v!l$%)!#& %"$("a) $' &h! ($v!"#)!#&. M O&h!" !>,!%&i$#sC &"a*i&i$#al 9) 6!l!(a&i$# &$ l$,al ($v!"#)!#&s 'he reason behind this delegation is because the local government is deemed to <now better the needs of the people therein. a. See Section @ of .rticle G b. $ead: aa. R@BI VS. PROVINCIAL BOAR6, 9; Phil. ::7 bb. PEOPLE VS. VERA, :B Phil B: . law delegating to the local government units the power to fund the salary of probation officers in their area is unconstitutional for violation of the eDual protection of the laws. 1n areas where there is a probation officer because the local government unit appropriated an amount for his salaries( convicts may avail of probation while in places where no funds were set aside for probation officers( convicts therein could not apply for probation. d. $eason for the delegation ) 6!l!(a&i$# $' R+l!M)aEi#( %$-!" &$ a*)i#is&"a&iv! b$*i!s @- Delegation to the People Section /( .rt. G#11 of the &onstitution and Section */( .rticle #1777'he &ongress shall( as early as possible( provide for a system of initiative and referendum( and the e;ceptions therefrom( whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or re6ect any act or law or part thereof passed by the &ongress of local legislative body after the registration of a petition thereof signed by at least 1:H of the total number of registered voters( of which every legislative district must be represented by at least *H of the registered voters thereof. f. Delegation of rule7ma<ing power to administrative bodies. 1- Lhat is the completeness testC 'he sufficiency of standard testC $ead: 1. P!L.!M #S. .3D1'"$ 4!5!$.L( 1@ S&$. @8=

*)

*@

During the period from September ) to "ctober /=( 1=8) the President of the Philippines( purporting to act pursuant to Section 8+ of the $evised .dministrative &ode( issued !;ecutive "rders 5os. =* to 1/1( 1/) and 1/8 to 1/=F creating thirty7three **- municipalities 'he third paragraph of Section * of $epublic .ct 5o. /*,:( reads: >arrios shall not be created or their boundaries altered nor their names changed e;cept under the provisions of this .ct or by .ct of &ongress. Pursuant to the first two /- paragraphs of the same Section *: .ll barrios e;isting at the time of the passage of this .ct shall come under the provisions hereof. 3pon petition of a ma6ority of the voters in the areas affected( a new barrio may be created or the name of an e;isting one may be changed by the provincial board of the province( upon recommendation of the council of the municipality or municipalities in which the proposed barrio is stipulated. 'he recommendation of the municipal council shall be embodied in a resolution approved by at least two7 thirds of the entire membership of the said council: Provided( however( 'hat no new barrio may be created if its population is less than five hundred persons. 9ence( since 2anuary 1( 1=8:( when $epublic .ct 5o. /*,: became effective( barrios may Qnot be created or their boundaries altered nor their names changedQ e;cept by .ct of &ongress or of the corresponding provincial board Qupon petition of a ma6ority of the voters in the areas affectedQ and the Qrecommendation of the council of the municipality or municipalities in which the proposed barrio is situated.Q Petitioner argues( accordingly: Q1f the President( under this new law( cannot even create a barrio( can he create a municipality which is composed of several barrios( since barrios are units of municipalitiesCQ 0oreover( section 8+ of the $evised .dministrative &ode( upon which the disputed e;ecutive orders are based( provides:

*@

*8

'he 4overnor74eneral- President of the Philippines may by e;ecutive order define the boundary( or boundaries( of any province( subprovince( municipality( OtownshipP municipal district( or other political subdivision( and increase or diminish the territory comprised therein( may divide any province into one or more subprovinces( separate any political division other than a province( into such portions as may be reDuired( merge any of such subdivisions or portions with another( name any new subdivision so created( and may change the seat of government within any subdivision to such place therein as the public welfare may reDuire: Provided( 'hat the authorization of the Philippine Legislature- &ongress of the Philippines shall first be obtained whenever the boundary of any province or subprovince is to be defined or any province is to be divided into one or more subprovinces. Lhen action by the 4overnor74eneralPresident of the Philippines in accordance herewith ma<es necessary a change of the territory under the 6urisdiction of any administrative officer or any 6udicial officer( the 4overnor74eneral- President of the Philippines( with the recommendation and advice of the head of the Department having e;ecutive control of such officer( shall redistrict the territory of the several officers affected and assign such officers to the new districts so formed. $espondent alleges that the power of the President to create municipalities under this section does not amount to an undue delegation of legislative power( relying upon 0unicipality of &ardona vs. 0unicipality of >inaUgonan *8 Phil. @),-( which( he claims( has settled it. Such claim is untenable( for said case involved( not the creation of a new municipality( but a mere transfer of territory from an already e;isting municipality &ardona- to another municipality >inaUgonan-( li<ewise( e;isting at the time of and prior to said transfer See 4ovSt of the P.1. e; rel. 0unicipality of &ardona vs. 0unicipality( of >inaUgonan O*) Phil. @1+( @1=7@/:1- in conseDuence of the fi;ing and definition( pursuant to .ct 5o. 1,)+( of the common boundaries of two municipalities. 1t is obvious( however( that( whereas the power to fi; such common boundary( in order to avoid or settle conflicts of 6urisdiction between ad6oining municipalities( may parta<e of an administrative nature involving( as it does( the adoption of means and ways to carry into effect
*8

*,

the law creating said municipalities the authority to create municipal corporations is essentially legislative in nature. .lthough 1a &ongress may delegate to another branch of the 4overnment the power to fill in the details in the e;ecution( enforcement or administration of a law( it is essential( to forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers( that said law: a- be complete in itself it must set forth therein the policy to be e;ecuted( carried out or implemented by the delegate and b- fi; a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. 1ndeed( without a statutory declaration of policy( the delegate would in effect( ma<e or formulate such policy( which is the essence of every lawF and( without the aforementioned standard( there would be no means to determine( with reasonable certainty( whether the delegate has acted within or beyond the scope of his authority. 9ence( he could thereby arrogate upon himself the power( not only to ma<e the law( but( also and this is worse to unma<e it( by adopting measures inconsistent with the end sought to be attained by the .ct of &ongress( thus nullifying the principle of separation of powers and the system of chec<s and balances( and( conseDuently( undermining the very foundation of our $epublican system. Section 8+ of the $evised .dministrative &ode does not meet these well settled reDuirements for a valid delegation of the power to fi; the details in the enforcement of a law. 1t does not enunciate any policy to be carried out or implemented by the President. 5either does it give a standard sufficiently precise to avoid the evil effects above referred to. 1n this connection( we do not overloo< the fact that( under the last clause of the first sentence of Section 8+( the President: ... may change the seat of the government within any subdivision to such place therein as the public welfare may reDuire. .t any rate( the conclusion would be the same( insofar as the case at bar is concerned( even if we assumed
*,

*+

that the phrase Qas the public welfare may reDuire(Q in said Section 8+( Dualifies all other clauses thereof. 1t is true that in &alalang vs. Lilliams ,: Phil. ,/8- and People vs. $osenthal 8+ Phil. */+-( this &ourt had upheld Qpublic welfareQ and Qpublic interest(Q respectively( as sufficient standards for a valid delegation of the authority to e;ecute the law. >ut( the doctrine laid down in these cases as all 6udicial pronouncements must be construed in relation to the specific facts and issues involved therein( outside of which they do not constitute precedents and have no binding effect. 'he law construed in the &alalang case conferred upon the Director of Public Lor<s( with the approval of the Secretary of Public Lor<s and &ommunications( the power to issue rules and regulations to promote safe transit upon national roads and streets. 3pon the other hand( the $osenthal case referred to the authority of the 1nsular 'reasurer( under .ct 5o. /@+1( to issue and cancel certificates or permits for the sale of speculative securities. >oth cases involved grants to administrative officers of powers related to the e;ercise of their administrative functions( calling for the determination of Duestions of fact. 2 . T@PAS VS. OPLE, 197 SCRA 178 AM$s& "!%"!s!#&a&iv!) 9. @S VS. ANG TANG NO, 9 Phil. 1 .t its special session of 1=1=( the Philippine Legislature passed .ct 5o. /+8+( entitled Q.n .ct penalizing the monopoly and holding of( and speculation in( palay( rice( and corn under e;traordinary circumstances( regulating the distribution and sale thereof( and authorizing the 4overnor74eneral( with the consent of the &ouncil of State( to issue the necessary rules and regulations therefor( and ma<ing an appropriation for this purpose(Q the material provisions of which are as follows: Section 1. 'he 4overnor74eneral is hereby authorized( whenever( for any cause( conditions arise resulting in an e;traordinary rise in the price of palay( rice or corn( to issue and promulgate( with the consent of the &ouncil of State( temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the purpose of this .ct( to wit: a- 'o prevent the monopoly and hoarding of( and speculation in( palay( rice or corn.

*+

*=

.ugust 1( 1=1=( the 4overnor74eneral issued a proclamation fi;ing the price at which rice should be sold. .ugust +( 1=1=( a complaint was filed against the defendant( .ng 'ang 9o( charging him with the sale of rice at an e;cessive price as follows: 'he undersigned accuses .ng 'ang 9o of a violation of !;ecutive "rder 5o. @* of the 4overnor74eneral of the Philippines( dated the 1st of .ugust( 1=1=( in relation with the provisions of sections 1( / and ) of .ct 5o. /+8+( committed as follows: 'hat on or about the 8th day of .ugust( 1=1=( in the city of 0anila( Philippine 1slands( the said .ng 'ang 9o( voluntarily( illegally and criminally sold to Pedro 'rinidad( one ganta of rice at the price of eighty centavos P.+:-( which is a price greater than that fi;ed by !;ecutive "rder 5o. @* of the 4overnor74eneral of the Philippines( dated the 1st of .ugust( 1=1=( under the authority of section 1 of .ct 5o. /+8+. &ontrary to law. 3pon this charge( he was tried( found guilty and sentenced to five monthsS imprisonment and to pay a fine of P@::( from which he appealed to this court( claiming that the lower court erred in finding !;ecutive "rder 5o. @* of 1=1=( to be of any force and effect( in finding the accused guilty of the offense charged( and in imposing the sentence. 'he official records show that the .ct was to ta<e effect on its approvalF that it was approved 2uly *:( 1=1=F that the 4overnor74eneral issued his proclamation on the 1st of .ugust( 1=1=F and that the law was first published on the 1*th of .ugust( 1=1=F and that the proclamation itself was first published on the /:th of .ugust( 1=1=. 'he Duestion here involves an analysis and construction of .ct 5o. /+8+( in so far as it authorizes the 4overnor7 4eneral to fi; the price at which rice should be sold. 1t will be noted that section 1 authorizes the 4overnor74eneral( with the consent of the &ouncil of State( for any cause resulting in an e;traordinary rise in the price of palay( rice or corn( to issue and promulgate temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the purposes of the .ct. >y its very terms( the promulgation of temporary rules and emergency measures is left to the discretion of the 4overnor74eneral. 'he Legislature does not underta<e to specify or define under what conditions or for what reasons the 4overnor74eneral shall issue the proclamation( but says
*=

):

that it may be issued Qfor any cause(Q and leaves the Duestion as to what is Qany causeQ to the discretion of the 4overnor74eneral. 'he .ct also says: Q%or any cause( conditions arise resulting in an e;traordinary rise in the price of palay( rice or corn.Q 'he Legislature does not specify or define what is Qan e;traordinary rise.Q 'hat is also left to the discretion of the 4overnor74eneral. 'he .ct also says that the 4overnor74eneral( Qwith the consent of the &ouncil of State(Q is authorized to issue and promulgate Qtemporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the purposes of this .ct.Q 1t does not specify or define what is a temporary rule or an emergency measure( or how long such temporary rules or emergency measures shall remain in force and effect( or when they shall ta<e effect. 'hat is to say( the Legislature itself has not in any manner specified or defined any basis for the order( but has left it to the sole 6udgment and discretion of the 4overnor74eneral to say what is or what is not Qa cause(Q and what is or what is not Qan e;traordinary rise in the price of rice(Q and as to what is a temporary rule or an emergency measure for the carrying out the purposes of the .ct. 3nder this state of facts( if the law is valid and the 4overnor74eneral issues a proclamation fi;ing the minimum price at which rice should be sold( any dealer who( with or without notice( sells rice at a higher price( is a criminal. 'here may not have been any cause( and the price may not have been e;traordinary( and there may not have been an emergency( but( if the 4overnor74eneral found the e;istence of such facts and issued a proclamation( and rice is sold at any higher price( the seller commits a crime. >y the organic law of the Philippine 1slands and the &onstitution of the 3nited States all powers are vested in the Legislative( !;ecutive and 2udiciary. 1t is the duty of the Legislature to ma<e the lawF of the !;ecutive to e;ecute the lawF and of the 2udiciary to construe the law. 'he Legislature has no authority to e;ecute or construe the law( the !;ecutive has no authority to ma<e or construe the law( and the 2udiciary has no power to ma<e or e;ecute the law. Sub6ect to the &onstitution only( the power of each branch is supreme within its own 6urisdiction( and it is for the 2udiciary only to say when any .ct of the Legislature is or is not constitutional. .ssuming( without deciding( that the Legislature itself has the power to fi; the price at which rice is to be sold( can it delegate that power to another( and( if so( was that power legally delegated by .ct 5o. /+8+C 1n
):

)1

other words( does the .ct delegate legislative power to the 4overnor74eneralC >y the "rganic Law( all Legislative power is vested in the Legislature( and the power conferred upon the Legislature to ma<e laws cannot be delegated to the 4overnor74eneral( or any one else. 'he Legislature cannot delegate the legislative power to enact any law. 1f .ct no /+8+ is a law unto itself and within itself( and it does nothing more than to authorize the 4overnor74eneral to ma<e rules and regulations to carry the law into effect( then the Legislature itself created the law. 'here is no delegation of power and it is valid. "n the other hand( if the .ct within itself does not define crime( and is not a law( and some legislative act remains to be done to ma<e it a law or a crime( the doing of which is vested in the 4overnor74eneral( then the .ct is a delegation of legislative power( is unconstitutional and void. 'he act( in our 6udgment( wholly fails to provide definitely and clearly what the standard policy should contain( so that it could be put in use as a uniform policy reDuired to ta<e the place of all others( without the determination of the insurance commissioner in respect to maters involving the e;ercise of a legislative discretion that could not be delegated( and without which the act could not possibly be put in use as an act in conformity to which all fire insurance policies were reDuired to be issued. 'he result of all the cases on this sub6ect is that a law must be complete( in all its terms and provisions( when it leaves the legislative branch of the government( and nothing must be left to the 6udgment of the electors or other appointee or delegate of the legislature( so that( in form and substance( it is a law in all its details in presenti( but which may be left to ta<e effect in futuro, if necessary( upon the ascertainment of any prescribed fact or event. . TIO VS. VI6EOGRAM REG@LATORF BOAR6, 1B1 SCRA 278 B. ?REE TELEPNONE GORHERS @NION, 178 SCRA 7B7 AA''!,&i#( Na&i$#al i#&!"!s&) :. PNILCOMSAT VS. ALC@AZ, 6!,!)b!" 18, 1;8; %undamental is the rule that delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon the ground that some standard for its e;ercise is provided and that the legislature in ma<ing the delegation has prescribed the manner of the e;ercise of the delegated power. 'herefore(
)1

)/

when the administrative agency concerned( respondent 5'& in this case( establishes a rate( its act must both be non7 confiscatory and must have been established in the manner prescribed by the legislatureF otherwise( in the absence of a fi;ed standard( the delegation of power becomes unconstitutional. 1n case of a delegation of rate7 fi;ing power( the only standard which the legislature is reDuired to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is that the rate be reasonable and 6ust. 9owever( it has been held that even in the absence of an e;press reDuirement as to reasonableness( this standard may be implied. 1t becomes important then to ascertain the nature of the power delegated to respondent 5'& and the manner reDuired by the statute for the lawful e;ercise thereof. Pursuant to !;ecutive "rders 5os. @)8 and 1=8( respondent 5'& is empowered( among others( to determine and prescribe rates pertinent to the operation of public service communications which necessarily include the power to promulgate rules and regulations in connection therewith. .nd( under Section 1@ g- of !;ecutive "rder 5o. @)8( respondent 5'& should be guided by the reDuirements of public safety( public interest and reasonable feasibility of maintaining effective competition of private entities in communications and broadcasting facilities. Li<ewise( in Section 8 d- thereof( which provides for the creation of the 0inistry of 'ransportation and &ommunications with control and supervision over respondent 5'&( it is specifically provided that the national economic viability of the entire networ< or components of the communications systems contemplated therein should be maintained at reasonable rates. 11. "n another tac<( petitioner submits that the Duestioned order violates procedural due process because it was issued motu proprio( without notice to petitioner and without the benefit of a hearing. Petitioner laments that said order was based merely on an Qinitial evaluation(Q which is a unilateral evaluation( but had petitioner been given an opportunity to present its side before the order in Duestion was issued( the confiscatory nature of the rate reduction and the conseDuent deterioration of the public service could have been shown and demonstrated to respondents. Petitioner argues that the function involved in the rate
)/

)*

fi;ing7power of 5'& is ad6udicatory and hence Duasi7 6udicial( not Duasi7 legislativeF thus( notice and hearing are necessary and the absence thereof results in a violation of due process. $espondents admit that the application of a policy li<e the fi;ing of rates as e;ercised by administrative bodies is Duasi76udicial rather than Duasi7legislative: that where the function of the administrative agency is legislative( notice and hearing are not reDuired( but where an order applies to a named person( as in the instant case( the function involved is ad6udicatory. 5onetheless( they insist that under the facts obtaining the order in Duestion need not be preceded by a hearing( not because it was issued pursuant to respondent 5'&Ss legislative function but because the assailed order is merely interlocutory( it being an incident in the ongoing proceedings on petitionerSs application for a certificate of public convenienceF and that petitioner is not the only primary source of data or information since respondent is currently engaged in a continuing review of the rates charged. Le find merit in petitionerSs contention. 1n #igan !lectric Light &o.( 1nc. vs. Public Service &ommission( we made a categorical classification as to when the rate7filing power of administrative bodies is Duasi76udicial and when it is legislative( thus: 0oreover( although the rule7ma<ing power and even the power to fi; rates7 when such rules andTor rates are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given <ind throughout the Philippines7may parta<e of a legislative character( such is not the nature of the order complained of. 1ndeed( the same applies e;clusively to petitioner herein. Lhat is more( it is predicated upon the finding of fact7 based upon a report submitted by the 4eneral .uditing "ffice7that petitioner is ma<ing a profit of more than 1/H of its invested capital( which is denied by petitioner. "bviously( the latter is entitled to cross7e;amine the ma<er of said report( and to introduce evidence to disprove the contents thereof andTor e;plain or complement the same( as well as to refute the conclusion drawn therefrom by the respondent. 1n other words( in ma<ing said finding of fact( respondent performed a function parta<ing of a Duasi7

)*

))

6udicial character( the valid e;ercise of which demands previous notice and hearing. 'his rule was further e;plained in the subseDuent case of 'he &entral >an< of the Philippines vs. &loribel( et al. to wit: 1t is also clear from the authorities that where the function of the administrative body is legislative( notice of hearing is not reDuired by due process of law See "ppenheimer( .dministrative Law( / 0d. L.$. 1+@( /:)( supra( where it is said: S1f the nature of the administrative agency is essentially legislative( the reDuirements of notice and hearing are not necessary. 'he validity of a rule of future action which affects a group( if vested rights of liberty or property are not involved( is not determined according to the same rules which apply in the case of the direct application of a policy to a specific individual- ... 1t is said in ,* &.2.S. Public .dministrative >odies and Procedure( sec. 1*:( pages )@/ and )@*: S.side from statute( the necessity of notice and hearing in an administrative proceeding depends on the character of the proceeding and the circumstances involved. 1n so far as generalization is possible in view of the great variety of administrative proceedings( it may be stated as a general rule that notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative action where the administrative body acts in the e;ercise of e;ecutive( administrative( or legislative functionsF but where a public administrative body acts in a 6udicial or Duasi76udicial matter( and its acts are particular and immediate rather than general and prospective( the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is entitled to notice and hearing. 'he order in Duestion which was issued by respondent .lcuaz no doubt contains all the attributes of a Duasi76udicial ad6udication. %oremost is the fact that said order pertains e;clusively to petitioner and to no other. %urther( it is premised on a finding of fact( although patently superficial( that there is merit in a reduction of some of the rates charged7 based on an initial evaluation of petitionerSs financial statements7without affording petitioner the benefit of an e;planation as to what particular aspect or aspects of the financial statements warranted a corresponding rate reduction. 5o rationalization was offered nor were the attending contingencies( if any(
))

)@

discussed( which prompted respondents to impose as much as a fifteen percent 1@H- rate reduction. 1t is not far7 fetched to assume that petitioner could be in a better position to rationalize its rates vis7a7vis the viability of its business reDuirements. 'he rates it charges result from an e;haustive and detailed study it conducts of the multi7 faceted intricacies attendant to a public service underta<ing of such nature and magnitude. Le are( therefore( inclined to lend greater credence to petitionerSs ratiocination that an immediate reduction in its rates would adversely affect its operations and the Duality of its service to the public considering the maintenance reDuirements( the pro6ects it still has to underta<e and the financial outlay involved. 5otably( petitioner was not even afforded the opportunity to cross7e;amine the inspector who issued the report on which respondent 5'& based its Duestioned order. .t any rate( there remains the categorical admission made by respondent 5'& that the Duestioned order was issued pursuant to its Duasi76udicial functions. 1t( however( insists that notice and hearing are not necessary since the assailed order is merely incidental to the entire proceedings and( therefore( temporary in nature. 'his postulate is bereft of merit. g. 0ay rules and regulations promulgated by administrative bodiesTagencies have the force of lawC penal lawC 1n order to be considered as one with the force and effect of a penal law( what conditions must concurC See @.S. vs. GRIMMA@6, 227 @.S. B7: A1;11) $" &h! 1;87 PNILIPPINE CONSTIT@TION M a "!vi!-!" M P"i)!" b= ?R. IOAJ@IN BERNAS, 1;87 !*i&i$#. B. PEO. VS. ROSENTNAL, :8 Phil. 928 :. @S VS. BARRIAS, 11 Phil. 927 7. VILLEGAS VS. NI@ CNIONG TSAI PAO NO, 8: SCRA 277 h. >e egation to the peop e. See Section #*1, of Art. AB<<. i. &lassify the membership of the legislative department. 6. 0anner of election and selection 1- $ead again T@PAS VS. OPLE, 197 SCRA 178 Sections #. The Senate sha be composed of t%entyDfour Senators %ho sha be e ected at arge by the 0ua ified voters of the =hi ippines, as may be provided for by a%.

)@

)8

Section '. (o person sha be a Senator un ess he is a natura Dborn citi)en of the =hi ippines, and, on the day of the e ection, is at east '+ years of age, ab e to read and %rite, a registered voter, and a resident of the =hi ippines for not ess than # years immediate y preceding the day of the e ection. Section 1. The term of office of the Senators sha be siyears and sha commence, un ess other%ise provided by a%, at noon on the '8th day of Eune ne-t fo o%ing their e ection. (o Senator sha serve for more than t%o consecutive terms. Bo untary renunciation of the office for any ength of time sha not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the fu term for %hich he %as e ected. Aualifications( term of office( etc.( of a senator or member of the 9ouse of $epresentatives. Dr#,0te t"n, re?#"rement !n a'' &and"date )ef!re the"r &ert"f"&ate !f &and"da&* +"'' )e adm"tted )* the COMELEC2 #n&!n t"t#t"!na'. SOCIAL :USTICE SOCIET/ (S:S) DAN1EROUS DRU1S BOARD and .HILI..INE DRU1 ENFORCEMENT A1ENC/ (.DEA)2 ATT/. MANUEL :. LASERNA2 :R - . DAN1EROUS DRU1S BOARD and .HILI..INE DRU1 ENFORCEMENT AFUILINO F. .IMENTEL2 :R. V a. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS2 4.$. 5o. 1818@+( 5ovember *( /::+ VELASCO2 :R.2 E.= 1n these <indred petitions( the constitutionality of Section *8 of $epublic .ct 5o. $.- =18@( otherwise <nown as the C$)%"!h!#siv! 6a#(!"$+s 6"+(s A,& $' 2772( insofar as it reDuires mandatory drug testing of O1Pcandidates for public office(
)8

),

O/Pstudents of secondary and tertiary schools( O*Pofficers and employees of public and private offices( andO)P persons charged before the prosecutorEs office with certain offenses( among other personalities( is put in issue. .s far as pertinent( the challenged section reads as follows: S!&. *8. A+&h$"iK!* 6"+( T!s&i#(..uthorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the D"9 to safeguard the Duality of the test results. ; ; ; 'he drug testing shall employ( among others( two /- testing methods( the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. ; ; ; 'he following shall be sub6ected to undergo drug testing: ;;;; c- Students of secondary and tertiary schools.Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall( pursuant to the related rules and regulations as contained in the schoolEs student handboo< and with notice to the parents( undergo a random drug testing ; ; ;F d- "fficers and employees of public and private offices."fficers and employees of public and private offices( whether domestic or overseas( shall be sub6ected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the companyEs wor< rules and regulations( ; ; ; for purposes of reducing the ris< in the wor<place. .ny officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination( sub6ect to the provisions of .rticle /+/ of the Labor &ode and pertinent provisions of the &ivil Service LawF ;;;; f- .ll persons charged before the prosecutorEs office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than si; 8- years and one 1- day shall undergo a mandatory drug testF g- .ll candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test. 1n addition to the above stated penalties in this Section( those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall be sub6ect to the provisions of Section 1@ of this .ct. 1.R. N!. 3G3G7A A<+ili#$ J. Pi)!#&!l, I". v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s),

)+

"n December /*( /::*( the &ommission on !lections &"0!L!&- issued $esolution 5o. 8)+8( prescribing the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in connection with the 0ay 1:( /::) synchronized national and local elections. 'he pertinent portions of the said resolution read as follows: L9!$!.S( Section *8 g- of $epublic .ct 5o. =18@ provides: S!&. *8. A+&h$"iK!* 6"+( T!s&i#(.; ; ; ;;;; g- .ll candidates for public office ; ; ; both in the national or local government ha'' #nder,! a mandat!r* dr#, te t. L9!$!.S( Section 1( .rticle G1 of the 1=+, &onstitution provides that public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people( serve them with utmost responsibility( integrity( loyalty and efficiencyF L9!$!.S( by reDuiring candidates to undergo mandatory drug test( the public will <now the Duality of candidates they are electing and they will be assured that only those who can serve with utmost responsibility( integrity( loyalty( and efficiency would be elected ; ; ;. 5"L '9!$!%"$!( 'he O&"0!L!&P( pursuant to the authority vested in it under the &onstitution( >atas Pambansa >lg. ++1 "mnibus !lection &ode-( O$.P =18@ and other election laws( $!S"L#!D to promulgate( as it hereby promulgates( the following rules and regulations on the conduct of mandatory drug testing to candidates for public officeO:P S!&'1"5 1. C$v!"a(!.A'' &and"date f!r %#)'"& !ff"&e2 )!th nat"!na' and '!&a'2 "n the Ma* 3;2 4;;@ S*n&hr!n"Eed Nat"!na' and L!&a' E'e&t"!n shall undergo mandatory drug test in government forensic laboratories or any drug testing laboratories monitored and accredited by the Department of 9ealth. S!&. *. ; ; ; "n 0arch /@( /::)( in addition to the drug certificates filed with their respective offices( the &omelec "ffices and employees concerned shall submit to the Law Department two /- separate lists of candidates. 'he first list shall consist of those candidates who complied with the mandatory drug test while the second list shall consist of those candidates who failed to comply ; ; ;.

)+

)=

S!&. ). P"!%a"a&i$# a#* %+bli,a&i$# $' #a)!s $' ,a#*i*a&!s. >efore the start of the campaign period( the O&"0!L!&P shall prepare two separate lists of candidates. 'he first list shall consist of those candidates who complied with the mandatory drug test while the second list shall consist of those candidates who failed to comply with said drug test. ; ; ; S!&. @. E''!,& $' 'ail+"! &$ +#*!"($ )a#*a&$"= *"+( &!s& a#* 'il! *"+( &!s& ,!"&i'i,a&!.5o person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug test and filed with the offices enumerated under Section / hereof the drug test certificate herein reDuired. !mphasis supplied.Petitioner .Duilino A. Pimentel( 2r.( a senator of the $epublic and a candidate for re7election in the 0ay 1:( /::) elections( @O1P filed a Petition for &ertiorari and Prohibition under $ule 8@. 1n it( he see<s 1- to nullify Sec. *8 g- of $. =18@ and &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. 8)+8 dated December /*( /::* for being unconstitutional in that they impose a Dualification for candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1=+, &onstitutionF and /- to en6oin the &"0!L!& from implementing $esolution 5o. 8)+8. Pimentel invo<es as legal basis for his petition Sec. *( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution( which states: S!&'1"5 *. 5o person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural7 born citizen of the Philippines( and( on the day of the election( is at least thirty7five years of age( able to read and write( a registered voter( and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election. .ccording to Pimentel( the &onstitution only prescribes a ma;imum of five @Dualifications for one to be a candidate for( elected to( and be a member of the Senate. 9e says that both the &ongress and &"0!L!&( by reDuiring( via $. =18@ and $esolution 5o. 8)+8( a senatorial aspirant( among other candidates( to undergo a mandatory drug test( create an additional Dualification that all candidates for senator must first be certified as drug free. 9e adds that there is no provision in the &onstitution authorizing the &ongress or &"0!L!& to e;pand the Dualification reDuirements of candidates for senator. 1.R. N!. 375A5; S$,ial I+s&i,! S$,i!&= v. 6a#(!"$+s 6"+(s B$a"* a#* Phili%%i#! 6"+( E#'$",!)!#& A(!#,=1n its Petition for Prohibition under $ule 8@( petitioner Social 2ustice Society S2S-( a registered political party( see<s to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs >oard DD>@ O1P

$e7elected as senator in the /::) elections.

)=

@:

and the Philippine Drug !nforcement .gency PD!.- from enforcing paragraphs c-( d-( f-( and g- of Sec. *8 of $. =18@ on the ground that they are constitutionally infirm. %or one( the provisions constitute undue delegation of legislative power when they give unbridled discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. %or another( the provisions trench in the eDual protection clause inasmuch as they can be used to harass a student or an employee deemed undesirable. .nd for a third( a personEs constitutional right against unreasonable searches is also breached by said provisions. 1.R. N!. 37AG66 A&&=. Ma#+!l I. Las!"#a, I". v. 6a#(!"$+s 6"+(s B$a"* a#* Phili%%i#! 6"+( E#'$",!)!#& A(!#,=Petitioner .tty. 0anuel 2. Laserna( 2r.( as citizen and ta;payer( also see<s in his Petition for &ertiorari and Prohibition under $ule 8@ that Sec. *8 c-( d-( f-( and g- of $. =18@ be struc< down as unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional right to privacy( the right against unreasonable search and seizure( and the right against self7 incrimination( and for being contrary to the due process and eDual protection guarantees. The I #e !n 4ocus Standi %irst off( we shall address the 6usticiability of the cases at bench and the matter of the standing of petitioners S2S and Laserna to sue. .s respondents DD> and PD!. assert( S2S and Laserna failed to allege any incident amounting to a violation of the constitutional rights mentioned in their separate petitions.8O/P 1t is basic that the power of 6udicial review can only be e;ercised in connection with a b$#a 'i*! controversy which involves the statute sought to be reviewed. ,O*P >ut even with the presence of an actual case or controversy( the &ourt may refuse to e;ercise 6udicial review unless the constitutional Duestion is brought before it by a party having the reDuisite standing to challenge it.+O)P 'o have standing( one must establish that he or she has suffered some actual or threatened in6ury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the governmentF the in6ury is fairly traceable to the challenged actionF and the in6ury is li<ely to be redressed by a favorable action.=O@P 'he rule on standing( however( is a matter of procedureF hence( it can be rela;ed for non7traditional plaintiffs( li<e ordinary citizens( ta;payers( and legislators when the public interest so reDuires( such as when the matter is of transcendental importance( of overarching significance to society( or of paramount public interest.1:O8P 'here is no doubt that Pimentel( as senator of the Philippines and candidate for the 0ay 1:( /::) elections( possesses the reDuisite standing since he has substantial interests in the sub6ect matter of the petition( among other preliminary considerations. $egarding S2S and Laserna( this
8 ,

R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1@+8**-( pp. 1+)71+@. 6+)la$ v. COMELEC( 5o. L7@//)@( 2anuary //( 1=+:( =@ S&$. *=/( ):1. + O)P >ernas( '9! 1=+, &"5S'1'3'1"5 "% '9! $!P3>L1& "% '9! P91L1PP15!S: . &"00!5'.$K =*= /::*-. = O@P G$#Kal!s v. Na"vasa( 4.$. 5o. 1):+*@( .ugust 1)( /:::( **, S&$. ,**( ,):. 1: O8P Ta&a* v. S!,"!&a"= $' &h! 6!%a"&)!#& $' E#!"(= ( 4.$. 5os. 1/)*8: R 1/,+8,( 5ovember @( 1==,( /+1 S&$. **:( *)=F 6! G+ia v. COMELEC( 4.$. 5o. 1:),1/( 0ay 8( 1==/( /:+ S&$. )/:( )//.
O*P

O/P

@:

@1

&ourt is wont to rela; the rule on l$,+s s&a#*i owing primarily to the transcendental importance and the paramount public interest involved in the enforcement of Sec. *8 of $. =18@. The C!n !'"dated I #e 'he principal issues before us are as follows: 1- Do Sec. *8 g- of $. =18@ and &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. 8)+8 impose an additional Dualification for candidates for senatorC &orollarily( can &ongress enact a law prescribing Dualifications for candidates for senator in addition to those laid down by the &onstitutionC and /- .re paragraphs c-( d-( f-( and g- of Sec. *8( $. =18@ unconstitutionalC Specifically( do these paragraphs violate the right to privacy( the right against unreasonable searches and seizure( and the eDual protection clauseC "r do they constitute undue delegation of legislative powerC ."mente' .et"t"!n (C!n t"t#t"!na'"t* !f Se&. 6GH,I !f RA 83G7 and COMELEC Re !'#t"!n N!. G@AG) 1n essence( Pimentel claims that Sec. *8 g- of $. =18@ and &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. 8)+8 illegally impose an additional Dualification on candidates for senator. 9e points out that( sub6ect to the provisions on nuisance candidates( a candidate for senator needs only to meet the Dualifications laid down in Sec. *( .rt. #1 of the &onstitution( to wit: 1- citizenship( /- voter registration( *- literacy( )- age( and @residency. >eyond these stated Dualification reDuirements( candidates for senator need not possess any other Dualification to run for senator and be voted upon and elected as member of the Senate. 'he &ongress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these Dualification standards( as it cannot disregard( evade( or wea<en the force of a constitutional mandate(11O,P or alter or enlarge the &onstitution. PimentelEs contention is well7ta<en. .ccordingly( Sec. *8 g- of $. =18@ should be( as it is hereby declared as( unconstitutional. 1t is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the &onstitution( that issuance is null and void and has no effect. 'he &onstitution is the basic law to which all laws must conformF no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the &onstitution. 1/O+P 1n the discharge of their defined functions( the three departments of government have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the &onstitution. Lhatever limits it imposes must be observed.1*O=P &ongressE inherent legislative powers( broad as they may be( are sub6ect to certain limitations. .s early as 1=/,( in G$v!"#)!#& v. S%"i#(!"( the &ourt has defined( in the abstract( the limits on legislative power in the following wise:
11 1/ 1* O,P O+P

Pal)!" v. B$a"* $' E*+,a&i$#( /,8 5K /// 11 5! /d ++,. &ruz( &"5S'1'3'1"5.L L.L ) /:::-. O=P M+&+, v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s( 5o. L7*/,1,( 5ovember /8( 1=,:( *8 S&$. //+( /*).

@1

@/

Someone has said that the powers of the legislative department of the 4overnment( li<e the boundaries of the ocean( are unlimited. 1n constitutional governments( however( as well as governments acting under delegated authority( the powers of each of the departments ; ; ; are limited and confined within the four walls of the constitution or the charter( and each department can only e;ercise such powers as are necessarily implied from the given powers. 'he &onstitution is the shore of legislative authority against which the waves of legislative enactment may dash( but over which it cannot leap.1)O1:P 'hus( legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is sub6ect to substantive and constitutional limitations which circumscribe both the e;ercise of the power itself and the allowable sub6ects of legislation.1@O11P 'he substantive constitutional limitations are chiefly found in the >ill of $ights18O1/P and other provisions( such as Sec. *( .rt. #1 of the &onstitution prescribing the Dualifications of candidates for senators. 1n the same vein( the &"0!L!& cannot( in the guise of enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. *8 g-( validly impose Dualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the &onstitution prescribes. 1f &ongress cannot reDuire a candidate for senator to meet such additional Dualification( the &"0!L!&( to be sure( is also without such power. 'he right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of reDuirement not otherwise specified in the &onstitution.1,O1*P Sec. *8 g- of $. =18@( as sought to be implemented by the assailed &"0!L!& resolution( effectively enlarges the Dualification reDuirements enumerated in the Sec. *( .rt. #1 of the &onstitution. .s couched( said Sec. *8 g- unmista<ably reDuires a candidate for senator to be certified illegal7drug clean( obviously as a pre7condition to the validity of a certificate of candidacy for senator or( with li<e effect( a condition si#! <+a #$# to be voted upon and( if proper( be proclaimed as senator7elect . 'he &"0!L!& resolution completes the chain with the proviso that IOnPo person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug test.J #iewed( therefore( in its proper conte;t( Sec. *8 g- of $. =18@ and the implementing &"0!L!& $esolution add another Dualification layer to what the 1=+, &onstitution( at the minimum( reDuires for membership in the Senate. Lhether or not the drug7free bar set up under the challenged provision is to be hurdled before or after election is really of no moment( as getting elected would be of little value if one cannot assume office for non7compliance with the drug7testing reDuirement.

1) 1@

@: Phil. /@=( *:= 1=/,-. 2. >ernas( S.2.( '9! 1=+, &"5S'1'3'1"5 "% '9! $!P3>L1& "% '9! P91L1PP15!S: . &"00!5'.$K 8:) 1==8-. 18 O1/P 1d. 1, O1*P S!! concurring opinion in G$ v. C$))isi$# $# El!,&i$#s ( 4.$. 5o. 1),,)1( 0ay 1:( /::1( *@, S&$. ,*=( ,@*.
O11P

O1:P

@/

@*

1t ought to be made abundantly clear( however( that the unconstitutionality of Sec. *8 g- of $. =18@ is rooted on its having infringed the constitutional provision defining the Dualification or eligibility reDuirements for one aspiring to run for and serve as senator. S:S .et"t"!n (C!n t"t#t"!na'"t* !f Se&. 6GH&I2 HdI2 HfI2 and H,I !f RA 83G7) 'he drug test prescribed under Sec. *8 c-( d-( and f- of $. =18@ for secondary and tertiary level students and public and private employees( while mandatory( is a random and suspicionless arrangement. 'he ob6ective is to stamp out illegal drug and safeguard in the process Ithe well being of OtheP citizenry( particularly the youth( from the harmful effects of dangerous drugs.J 'his statutory purpose( per the policy7declaration portion of the law( can be achieved via the pursuit by the state of Ian intensive and unrelenting campaign against the traffic<ing and use of dangerous drugs ; ; ; through an integrated system of planning( implementation and enforcement of anti7drug abuse policies( programs and pro6ects.J1+O1)P 'he primary legislative intent is not criminal prosecution( as those found positive for illegal drug use as a result of this random testing are not necessarily treated as criminals. 'hey may even be e;empt from criminal liability should the illegal drug user consent to undergo rehabilitation. Secs. @) and @@ of $. =18@ are clear on this point: Sec. @). V$l+#&a"= S+b)issi$# $' a 6"+( 6!%!#*!#& &$ C$#'i#!)!#&, T"!a&)!#& a#* R!habili&a&i$#.. drug dependent or any person who violates Section 1@ of this .ct may( by himselfTherself or through hisTher parent( Oclose relativesP ; ; ; apply to the >oard ; ; ; for treatment and rehabilitation of the drug dependency. 3pon such application( the >oard shall bring forth the matter to the &ourt which shall order that the applicant be e;amined for drug dependency. 1f the e;amination ; ; ; results in the certification that the applicant is a drug dependent( heTshe shall be ordered by the &ourt to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a &enter designated by the >oard ; ; ;. ;;;; Sec. @@. E>!)%&i$# '"$) &h! C"i)i#al Liabili&= @#*!" &h! V$l+#&a"= S+b)issi$# P"$("a).. drug dependent under the voluntary submission program( who is finally discharged from confinement( shall be e;empt from the criminal liability under Section 1@ of this .ct sub6ect to the following conditions: ;;;; School children( the 3S Supreme &ourt noted( are most vulnerable to the physical( psychological( and addictive effects of drugs. 0aturing nervous systems of the
1+O1)P

$. =18@( Sec. /.

@*

@)

young are more critically impaired by into;icants and are more inclined to drug dependency. 'heir recovery is also at a depressingly low rate.1=O1@P 'he right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this 6urisdiction as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure /:O18P under Sec. /( .rt. 111/1O1,P of the &onstitution. >ut while the right to privacy has long come into its own( this case appears to be the first time that the validity of a state7decreed search or intrusion through the medium of mandatory random drug testing among students and employees is( in this 6urisdiction( made the focal point. 'hus( the issue tendered in these proceedings is veritably one of first impression. 3S 6urisprudence is( however( a rich source of persuasive 6urisprudence. Lith respect to random drug testing among school children( we turn to the teachings of V!"#$#ia S,h$$l 6is&"i,& 7I v. A,&$# V!"#$#ia- and B$a"* $' E*+,a&i$# $' I#*!%!#*!#& S,h$$l 6is&"i,& N$. ;2 $' P$&&a-a&$)i! C$+#&=( !& al. v. Ea"ls( !& al. B$a"* $' E*+,a&i$#-(//O1+P both fairly pertinent 3S Supreme &ourt7decided cases involving the constitutionality of governmental search. 1n V!"#$#ia( school administrators in #ernonia( "regon wanted to address the drug menace in their respective institutions following the discovery of freDuent drug use by school athletes. .fter consultation with the parents( they reDuired random urinalysis drug testing for the schoolEs athletes. 2ames .cton( a high school student( was denied participation in the football program after he refused to underta<e the urinalysis drug testing. .cton forthwith sued( claiming that the schoolEs drug testing policy violated( i#&!" alia( the %ourth .mendment/*O1=P of the 3S &onstitution. 'he 3S Supreme &ourt( in fashioning a solution to the issues raised in V!"#$#ia( considered the following: 1- schools stand i# l$,$ %a"!#&is over their studentsF /school children( while not shedding their constitutional rights at the school gate( have less privacy rightsF *- athletes have less privacy rights than non7athletes since the former observe communal undress before and after sports eventsF )- by 6oining the sports activity( the athletes voluntarily sub6ected themselves to a higher degree of school supervision and regulationF @- reDuiring urine samples does not invade a studentEs privacy since a student need not undress for this <ind of drug testingF and 8- there is need for the drug testing because of the dangerous effects of illegal drugs on the young.
1= /:

V!"#$#ia S,h$$l 6is&"i,& 7I v. A,&$#( @1@ 3.S. 8)8 1==@-( 881. O%l! v. T$""!s( 4.$. 5o. 1/,8+@( 2uly /*( 1==+( /=* S&$. 1)1( 18=F citing M$"'! v. M+&+,( 5o. L7 /:*+,( 2anuary *1( 1=8+( // S&$. )/)( )))7))@. /1 O1,P Sec. /. 'he right of the people to be secure in their persons( houses( papers( and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable( and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e;cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the 6udge after e;amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce( and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. // O1+P @*8 3.S. +// /::/-F cited in / >ernas( &"5S'1'3'1"5.L $149'S .5D S"&1.L D!0.5DS //)7//, /::)-. /* O1=P 'he right of the people to be secure in their persons( houses( papers( and effects( against unreasonable searches and seizures( shall not be violated( and no Larrants shall issue( but upon probable cause( supported by "ath or affirmation( and particularly describing the place to be searched( and the persons or things to be seized.
O18P

O1@P

@)

@@

'he 3S Supreme &ourt held that the policy constituted reasonable search under the %ourth/)O/:P and 1)th .mendments and declared the random drug7testing policy constitutional. 1n B$a"* $' E*+,a&i$#( the >oard of !ducation of a school in 'ecumseh( "<lahoma reDuired a drug test for high school students desiring to 6oin e;tra7curricular activities. Lindsay !arls( a member of the show choir( marching band( and academic team declined to undergo a drug test and averred that the drug7testing policy made to apply to non7athletes violated the %ourth and 1)th .mendments. .s !arls argued( unli<e athletes who routinely undergo physical e;aminations and undress before their peers in loc<er rooms( non7athletes are entitled to more privacy. 'he 3S Supreme &ourt( citing V!"#$#ia( upheld the constitutionality of drug testing even among non7athletes on the basis of the schoolEs custodial responsibility and authority. 1n so ruling( said court made no distinction between a non7athlete and an athlete. 1t ratiocinated that schools and teachers act in place of the parents with a similar interest and duty of safeguarding the health of the students. .nd in holding that the school could implement its random drug7testing policy( the &ourt hinted that such a test was a <ind of search in which even a reasonable parent might need to engage. 1n sum( what can reasonably be deduced from the above two cases and applied to this 6urisdiction are: 1- schools and their administrators stand i# l$,$ %a"!#&is with respect to their studentsF /- minor students have conte;tually fewer rights than an adult( and are sub6ect to the custody and supervision of their parents( guardians( and schoolsF *schools( acting i# l$,$ %a"!#&is( have a duty to safeguard the health and well7being of their students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be necessary to discharge such dutyF and )- schools have the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair( 6ust( and non7discriminatory. 4uided by V!"#$#ia and B$a"* $' E*+,a&i$#( the &ourt is of the view and so holds that the provisions of $. =18@ reDuiring mandatory( random( and suspicionless drug testing of students are constitutional. 1ndeed( it is within the prerogative of educational institutions to reDuire( as a condition for admission( compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. 'o be sure( the right to enroll is not absoluteF it is sub6ect to fair( reasonable( and eDuitable reDuirements. 'he &ourt can ta<e 6udicial notice of the proliferation of prohibited drugs in the country that threatens the well7being of the people(/@O/1P particularly the youth and school children who usually end up as victims. .ccordingly( and until a more effective method is conceptualized and put in motion( a random drug testing of students in secondary and tertiary schools is not only acceptable but may even be necessary if the safety and interest
/)

'he %ourth .mendment is almost similar to Sec. /( .rt. 111 of the &onstitution( e;cept that the latter limited the determination of probable cause to a 6udge after an e;amination under oath of the complainant and his witnesses. 9ence( pronouncements of the 3S %ederal Supreme &ourt and State .ppellate &ourt may be considered doctrinal in this 6urisdiction( unless they are manifestly contrary to our &onstitution. S!! 9errera( 9.5D>""? "5 .$$!S'( S!.$&9 .5D S!1M3$! + /::*-. /@ O/1P T$l!#&i#$ v. Al,$#,!l( 5o. L78*)::( 0arch 1+( 1=+*( 1/1 S&$. =/( =@7=8.

O/:P

@@

@8

of the student population( doubtless a legitimate concern of the government( are to be promoted and protected. 'o borrow from V!"#$#ia( IOdPeterring drug use by our 5ationEs schoolchildren is as important as enhancing efficient enforcement of the 5ationEs laws against the importation of drugsJF the necessity for the State to act is magnified by the fact that the effects of a drug7infested school are visited not 6ust upon the users( but upon the entire student body and faculty. /8O//P 5eedless to stress( the random testing scheme provided under the law argues against the idea that the testing aims to incriminate unsuspecting individual students. 2ust as in the case of secondary and tertiary level students( the mandatory but random drug test prescribed by Sec. *8 of $. =18@ for officers and employees of public and private offices is 6ustifiable( albeit not e;actly for the same reason. 'he &ourt notes in this regard that petitioner S2S( other than saying that Isub6ecting almost everybody to drug testing( without probable cause( is unreasonable( an unwarranted intrusion of the individual right to privacy(J/,O/*P has failed to show how the mandatory( random( and suspicionless drug testing under Sec. *8 c- and d- of $. =18@ violates the right to privacy and constitutes unlawful andTor unconsented search under .rt. 111( Secs. 1 and / of the &onstitution./+O/)P Petitioner LasernaEs lament is 6ust as simplistic( sweeping( and gratuitous and does not merit serious consideration. &onsider what he wrote without elaboration: 'he 3S Supreme &ourt and 3S &ircuit &ourts of .ppeals have made various rulings on the constitutionality of mandatory drug tests in the school and the wor<places. 'he 3S courts have been consistent in their rulings that the mandatory drug tests violate a citizenEs constitutional right to privacy and right against unreasonable search and seizure. 'hey are Duoted e;tensively hereinbelow./=O/@P 'he essence of privacy is the right to be left alone. *:O/8P 1n conte;t( the right to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted e;ploitation of oneEs person or from intrusion into oneEs private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a personEs ordinary sensibilities. *1O/,P .nd while there has been general agreement as to the basic function of the guarantee against unwarranted search( Itranslation of the abstract prohibition against Vunreasonable searches and seizuresE into wor<able broad guidelines for the decision of particular cases is a difficult tas<(J to borrow from C. Ca)a"a v. M+#i,i%al C$+"&.*/O/+P .uthorities are agreed though that the right to privacy yields to
/8 /,

R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1@+8**-( p. /:)( respondentsE &onsolidated 0emorandum. R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1@,+,:-( p. 1:. /+ O/)P Se&t"!n 3. 5o person shall be deprived of life( liberty( or property without due process of law( nor shall any person be denied the eDual protection of the laws. Se&. 4. 'he right of the people to be secure in their persons( houses( papers( and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable( and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e;cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the 6udge after e;amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce( and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. /= O/@P R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1@+8**-( p. =. *:O/8P O%l!( supra note 18( at 1@*F citing &ooley on 'orts( Sec. 1*@( #ol. 1( )th ed.( O1=*/P. *1 O/,P 8/ .m. 2ur. /d( P"iva,=( Sec. 1. */ O/+P *+, 3.S. @/*F cited in / >ernas( supra note 1+( at /*/.
O/*P

O//P

@8

@,

certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the stateEs e;ercise of police power. **
O/=P

.s the warrantless clause of Sec. /( .rt 111 of the &onstitution is couched and as has been held( IreasonablenessJ is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion.*)O*:P .nd whether a search at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is 6udged by the balancing of the government7mandated intrusion on the individualEs privacy interest against the promotion of some compelling state interest.*@O*1P 1n the criminal conte;t( reasonableness reDuires showing of probable cause to be personally determined by a 6udge. 4iven that the drug7testing policy for employeesWWand students for that matterWWunder $. =18@ is in the nature of administrative search needing what was referred to in V!"#$#ia as Iswift and informal disciplinary procedures(J the probable7cause standard is not reDuired or even practicable. >e that as it may( the review should focus on the reasonableness of the challenged administrative search in Duestion. 'he first factor to consider in the matter of reasonableness is the nature of the privacy interest upon which the drug testing( which effects a search within the meaning of Sec. /( .rt. 111 of the &onstitution( intrudes. 1n this case( the office or wor<place serves as the bac<drop for the analysis of the privacy e;pectation of the employees and the reasonableness of drug testing reDuirement. 'he employeesE privacy interest in an office is to a large e;tent circumscribed by the companyEs wor< policies( the collective bargaining agreement( if any( entered into by management and the bargaining unit( and the inherent right of the employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the wor<place. 'heir privacy e;pectation in a regulated office environment is( in fine( reducedF and a degree of impingement upon such privacy has been upheld. 2ust as defining as the first factor is the character of the intrusion authorized by the challenged law. $educed to a Duestion form( is the scope of the search or intrusion clearly set forth( or( as formulated in O%l! v. T$""!s( is the enabling law authorizing a search Inarrowly drawnJ or Inarrowly focusedJC*8O*/P 'he poser should be answered in the affirmative. %or one( Sec. *8 of $. =18@ and its implementing rules and regulations 1$$-( as couched( contain provisions specifically directed towards preventing a situation that would unduly embarrass the employees or place them under a humiliating e;perience. Lhile every officer and employee in a private establishment is under the law deemed forewarned that he or she may be a possible sub6ect of a drug test( nobody is really singled out in advance for drug testing. 'he goal is to discourage drug use by not telling in advance anyone when and who is to be tested. .nd as may be observed( Sec. *8 d- of $. =18@ itself prescribes what( in O%l!( is a narrowing ingredient by providing that the employees concerned shall be sub6ected to Irandom drug test as contained in the companyEs wor< rules and regulations ; ; ; for purposes of reducing the ris< in the wor< place.J
** O/=P

*@ *8

8/ .m. 2ur. /d( P"iva,=( Sec. 1,. V!"#$#ia R B$a"* $' E*+,a&i$#( supra notes 1@ R 1+. O*1P SEi##!" v. Rail-a= Lab$" E>!,+&iv!s Ass#.( )+= 3.S. 8:/( 81= 1=+=-F cited in V!"#$#ia( supra. O*/P Supra note 18( at 188 R 18=.
*)O*:P

@,

@+

%or another( the random drug testing shall be underta<en under conditions calculated to protect as much as possible the employeeEs privacy and dignity. .s to the mechanics of the test( the law specifies that the procedure shall employ two testing methods( i.e.( the screening test and the confirmatory test( doubtless to ensure as much as possible the trustworthiness of the results. >ut the more important consideration lies in the fact that the test shall be conducted by trained professionals in access7controlled laboratories monitored by the Department of 9ealth D"9- to safeguard against results tampering and to ensure an accurate chain of custody. *,O**P 1n addition( the 1$$ issued by the D"9 provides that access to the drug results shall be on the Ineed to <nowJ basisF *+O*)P that the Idrug test result and the records shall be O<eptP confidential sub6ect to the usual accepted practices to protect the confidentiality of the test results.J *=O*@P 5otably( $. =18@ does not oblige the employer concerned to report to the prosecuting agencies any information or evidence relating to the violation of the C$)%"!h!#siv! 6a#(!"$+s 6"+(s A,& received as a result of the operation of the drug testing. .ll told( therefore( the intrusion into the employeesE privacy( under $. =18@( is accompanied by proper safeguards( particularly against embarrassing lea<ages of test results( and is relatively minimal. 'o reiterate( $. =18@ was enacted as a measure to stamp out illegal drug in the country and thus protect the well7being of the citizens( especially the youth( from the deleterious effects of dangerous drugs. 'he law intends to achieve this through the medium( among others( of promoting and resolutely pursuing a national drug abuse policy in the wor<place via a mandatory random drug test.):O*8P 'o the &ourt( the need for drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough to override the individualEs privacy interest under the premises. 'he &ourt can consider that the illegal drug menace cuts across gender( age group( and social7 economic lines. .nd it may not be amiss to state that the sale( manufacture( or traffic<ing of illegal drugs( with their ready mar<et( would be an investorEs dream were it not for the illegal and immoral components of any of such activities. 'he drug problem has hardly abated since the martial law public e;ecution of a notorious drug traffic<er. 'he state can no longer assume a laid bac< stance with respect to this modern7day scourge. Drug enforcement agencies perceive a mandatory random drug test to be an effective way of preventing and deterring drug use among employees in private offices( the threat of detection by random testing being higher than other modes. 'he &ourt holds that the chosen method is a reasonable and enough means to lic< the problem. 'a<ing into account the foregoing factors( i.e.( the reduced e;pectation of privacy on the part of the employees( the compelling state concern li<ely to be met by the search(
*,

3nder Sec. , O*P of the D"9 1$$ 4overning Licensing and .ccreditation of Drug Laboratories( a laboratory is reDuired to use documented chain of custody procedures to maintain control and custody of specimens. *+ O*)P D"9 1$$ 4overning Licensing and .ccreditation of Drug Laboratories( Sec. , O1:.*P provides that the original copy of the test results form shall be given to the clientTdonor( copy furnished the D"9 and the reDuesting agency. *= O*@P 1d.( Sec. , O1:.)P. ): O*8P Secs. ), and )+ of $. =18@ charge the Department of Labor and !mployment with the duty to develop and promote a national drug prevention program and the necessary guidelines in the wor< place( which shall include a mandatory drafting and adoption of policies to achieve a drug7free wor<place.

O**P

@+

@=

and the well7defined limits set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing( we hold that the challenged drug test reDuirement is( under the limited conte;t of the case( reasonable and( !"($( constitutional. Li<e their counterparts in the private sector( government officials and employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions imposed by the &ivil Service law and other laws on public officers( all enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service.)1O*,P .nd if $. =18@ passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees( the more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants( who( by constitutional command( are reDuired to be accountable at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency.)/O*+P Petitioner S2SE ne;t posture that Sec. *8 of $. =18@ is ob6ectionable on the ground of undue delegation of power hardly commends itself for concurrence. &ontrary to its position( the provision in Duestion is not so e;tensively drawn as to give unbridled options to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. Sec. *8 e;pressly provides how drug testing for students of secondary and tertiary schools and officersTemployees of publicTprivate offices should be conducted. 1t enumerates the persons who shall undergo drug testing. 1n the case of students( the testing shall be in accordance with the school rules as contained in the student handboo< and with notice to parents. "n the part of officersTemployees( the testing shall ta<e into account the companyEs wor< rules. 1n either case( the random procedure shall be observed( meaning that the persons to be sub6ected to drug test shall be pic<ed by chance or in an unplanned way. .nd in all cases( safeguards against misusing and compromising the confidentiality of the test results are established. Lest it be overloo<ed( Sec. =) of $. =18@ charges the DD> to issue( in consultation with the D"9( Department of the 1nterior and Local 4overnment( Department of !ducation( and Department of Labor and !mployment( among other agencies( the 1$$ necessary to enforce the law. 1n net effect then( the participation of schools and offices in the drug testing scheme shall always be sub6ect to the 1$$ of $. =18@. 1t is( therefore( incorrect to say that schools and employers have unchec<ed discretion to determine how often( under what conditions( and where the drug tests shall be conducted. 'he validity of delegating legislative power is now a Duiet area in the constitutional landscape.)*O*=P 1n the face of the increasing comple;ity of the tas< of the government and the increasing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the many problems demanding its attention( resort to delegation of power( or entrusting to administrative agencies the power of subordinate legislation( has become imperative( as here. La erna .et"t"!n (C!n t"t#t"!na'"t* !f Se&. 6GH&I2 HdI2
&"D! "% &"5D3&' .5D !'91&.L S'.5D.$DS %"$ P3>L1& "%%1&!$S .5D !0PL"K!!S( Sec. /. )/ O*+P &"5S'1'3'1"5( .rt. G1( Sec. 1. )* O*=P Ta&a*( supra note 8( at *@1.
)1O*,P

@=

8:

HfI2 and H,I !f RA 83G7) 3nli<e the situation covered by Sec. *8 c- and d- of $. =18@( the &ourt finds no valid 6ustification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes. 1n the case of students( the constitutional viability of the mandatory( random( and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right to privacy when they see< entry to the school( and from their voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental authority of school authorities. 1n the case of private and public employees( the constitutional soundness of the mandatory( random( and suspicionless drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and reDuirement. Le find the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged before the public prosecutorEs office with criminal offenses punishable with si; 8- years and one 1- day imprisonment. 'he operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are IrandomnessJ and Isuspicionless.J 1n the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutorEs office( a mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless. 'he ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. 'hey are not randomly pic<edF neither are they beyond suspicion. Lhen persons suspected of committing a crime are charged( they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. 'he persons thus charged( by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutorEs office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing( if that be the case( do not necessarily consent to the procedure( let alone waive their right to privacy.))O):P T! "m%! e mandat!r* dr#, te t"n, !n the a&&# ed " a )'atant attem%t t! harne a med"&a' te t a a t!!' f!r &r"m"na' %r! e&#t"!n2 &!ntrar* t! the tated !)De&t"-e !f RA 83G7. Dr#, te t"n, "n th" &a e +!#'d -"!'ate a %er !n J r",ht t! %r"-a&* ,#aranteed #nder Se&. 42 Art. III !f the C!n t"t#t"!n. >!r e t"''2 the a&&# ed %er !n are -er"ta)'* f!r&ed t! "n&r"m"nate them e'-e . L9!$!%"$!2 the C!#rt re !'-e t! 4$.5' the %et"t"!n "n 1.R. N!. 3G3G7A and de&'are Sec. *8 g- !f $. =18@ and &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. 8)+8 a 35&"5S'1'3'1"5.LK and t! P.$'1.LLK 4$.5' the %et"t"!n "n 1.R. N! . 375A5; and 37AG66 )* de&'ar"n, Sec. *8 c- and d- !f $. =18@ &"5S'1'3'1"5.L2 )#t de&'ar"n, "t Sec. *8 f- 35&"5S'1'3'1"5.L. A'' &!n&erned a,en&"e are2 a&&!rd"n,'*2 %ermanent'* enD!"ned fr!m "m%'ement"n, Sec. *8 f- and g- !f $. =18@. N! &! t . Sections +. [1] The Jouse of representatives sha be composed of not more than #+8 members, un ess other%ise fi-ed by a%, %ho sha be e ected from egis ative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the !etropo itan !ani a area in accordance %ith the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those
))

L!$#a Pasi$# Vi+*a *! Ga",ia v. L$,si# ( 8@ Phil. 8+=( 8=@ 1=*+-F citing &ooley( &"5S'. L10. 8*: +th ed.-.

O):P

8:

81

%ho, as provided by a%, sha be e ected through a partyD ist system of registered nationa , regiona and sectora parties or organi)ations. [#] The partyD ist representatives sha constitute #8& of the tota number of representatives inc uding those under the partyD ist. Ior three *', consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, K of the seats a ocated to partyD ist representatives sha be fi ed, as provided by a%, by se ection or e ection from the abor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cu tura communities, %omen youth, and such other sectors, as may be provided by a%, e-cept the re igious sector. ['] 3ach egis ative district sha comprise, as far as practicab e, contiguous, compact and ad/acent territory. 3ach city %ith a popu ation of at east one hundred fifty thousand, or each province, sha have at east one representative. [1] Lithin ' years fo o%ing the return of every census, the Congress sha ma$e a reapportionment of egis ative districts based on standards provided in this section $e7apportionment of a single legislative district to ma<e it two /- li<e &agayan de "ro &ity. 0ust there be a plebiscite first before a law adding another legislative district to a city or province as a result of increase in its income and population is considered valid and enforceableC 1s Section 1:( .rt. G of the &onstitution applicable in the creation of additional legislative districtsC RO1ELIO BA1ABU/O VS. COMELEC2 1.R. N!. 35G85;2 De&em)er A2 4;;A >efore us is the petition for ,!"&i$"a"i( prohibition( and mandamus()@O1P with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary in6unction( filed by $ogelio >agabuyo %!&i&i$#!"- to prevent the &ommission on !lections COMELEC- from implementing $esolution 5o. ,+*,
)@ O1P

3nder $ule 8@ of the $ules of &ourt.

81

8/

on the ground that $epublic .ct 5o. =*,1)8O/P W the law that $esolution 5o. ,+*, implements W is unconstitutional. BACL1ROUND FACTS "n "ctober 1:( /::8( &agayan de "roEs then &ongressman &onstantino 4. 2araula filed and sponsored 9ouse >ill 5o. @+@=: I.n .ct Providing for the .pportionment of the Lone Legislative District of the &ity of &agayan De "ro.J),O*P 'his law eventually became $epublic .ct $...- 5o. =*,1. )+O)P 1t increased &agayan de "roEs legislative district from one to two. %or the election of 0ay /::,( &agayan de "roEs voters would be classified as belonging to either the first or the second district( depending on their place of residence. 'he constituents of each district would elect their own representative to &ongress as well as eight members of the Sa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#(s$*. Section 1 of $... 5o. =*,1 apportioned the &ityEs ba"a#(a=s as follows: L!(isla&iv! 6is&"i,&s O 'he lone legislative district of the &ity of &agayan De "ro is hereby apportioned to commence in the ne;t national elections after the effectivity of this .ct. 9enceforth( barangays >onbon( >ayabas( ?auswagan( &armen( Patag( >ulua( 1ponan( >ai<ingon( San Simon( Pagatpat( &anitoan( >alulang( Lumbia( Pagalungan( 'agpangi( 'aglimao( 'uburan( Pigsag7an( 'umpagon( >ayanga( 0ambuaya( Dansulihon( 'ignapoloan and >isigan shall comprise the first district while barangays 0acabalan( Puntod( &onsolacion( &amaman7an( 5azareth( 0acasandig( 1ndahag( Lapasan( 4usa( &ugman( %S &atanico( 'ablon( .gusan( Puerto( >ugo( and >alubal and all urban barangays from >arangay 1 to >arangay ): shall comprise the second district.)=O@P "n 0arch 1*( /::,( the &"0!L!& !# Ba#, promulgated $esolution 5o. ,+*,@:O8P implementing $... 5o. =*,1. Petitioner $ogelio >agabuyo filed the present petition against the &"0!L!& on 0arch /,( /::,.@1O,P "n 1: .pril /::+( the petitioner amended the petition to include the following as respondents: !;ecutive Secretary !duardo !rmitaF the Secretary of the Department of >udget and 0anagementF the &hairman of the &ommission on .uditF the 0ayor and the members of the Sa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#(s$* of &agayan de "ro &ityF and its >oard of &anvassers.@/O+P
)8 O/P ), O*P )+ )= @: @1 @/

I.n .ct Providing for the .pportionment of the Lone Legislative District of the &ity of &agayan De "ro.J R$ll$( p. /1). O)P I*., p. /@. O@P I*.( p. /@. O8P I*.( pp. /*7/). O,P I*.( pp. *7//. O+P I*.( pp. 8:7=*

8/

8*

1n as<ing for the nullification of $... 5o. =*,1 and $esolution 5o. ,+*, on constitutional grounds( the petitioner argued that the &"0!L!& cannot implement $... 5o. =*,1 without providing for the rules( regulations and guidelines for the conduct of a plebiscite which is indispensable for the division or conversion of a local government unit. 9e prayed for the issuance of an order directing the respondents to cease and desist from implementing $... 5o. =*,1 and &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. ,+*,( and to revert instead to &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. ,+:1 which provided for a single legislative district for &agayan de "ro. Since the &ourt did not grant the petitionerEs prayer for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary in6unction( the 0ay 1) 5ational and Local !lections proceeded according to $... 5o. =*,1 and $esolution 5o. ,+*,. 'he respondentEs &omment on the petition( filed through the "ffice of the Solicitor 4eneral( argued that: 1- the petitioner did not respect the hierarchy of courts( as the $egional 'rial &ourt RTC- is vested with concurrent 6urisdiction over cases assailing the constitutionality of a statuteF /- $... 5o. =*,1 merely increased the representation of &agayan de "ro &ity in the 9ouse of $epresentatives and Sa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#(s$* pursuant to Section @( .rticle #1 of the 1=+, &onstitutionF *- the criteria established under Section 1:( .rticle G of the 1=+, &onstitution only apply when there is a creation( division( merger( abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of a province( city( municipality( or ba"a#(a=F in this case( no such creation( division( merger( abolition or alteration of boundaries of a local government unit too< placeF and )- $... 5o. =*,1 did not bring about any change in &agayan de "roEs territory( population and income classificationF hence( no plebiscite is reDuired. 'he petitioner argued in his reply that: 1- pursuant to the &ourtEs ruling in 6!l Ma" v. PAGCOR(@*O=P the &ourt may ta<e cognizance of this petition if compelling reasons( or the nature and importance of the issues raised( warrant the immediate e;ercise of its 6urisdictionF /- &agayan de "ro &ityEs reapportionment under $... 5o. =*,1 falls within the meaning of creation( division( merger( abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of cities under Section 1:( .rticle G of the &onstitutionF *- the creation( division( merger( abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units involve a common denominator W the material change in the political and economic rights of the local government units directly affected( as well as of the people thereinF )- a voterEs sovereign power to decide on who should be elected as the entire cityEs &ongressman was arbitrarily reduced by at least one half because the Duestioned law and resolution only allowed him to vote and be voted for in the district designated by the &"0!L!&F @- a voter was also arbitrarily denied his right to elect the &ongressman and the members of the city council for the other legislative district( and 8- government
@* O=P

4.$. 5o. 1*+/=+( 5ovember /=( /:::( *)8 S&$. )+@. 8*

8)

funds were illegally disbursed without prior approval by the sovereign electorate of &agayan De "ro &ity.@)O1:P THE ISSUES 'he core issues( based on the petition and the partiesE memoranda( can be limited to the following contentious points: 1- Did the petitioner violate the hierarchy of courts ruleF if so( should the instant petition be dismissed on this groundC /- Does $... 5o. =*,1 merely provide for the legislative reapportionment of &agayan de "ro &ity( or does it involve the division and conversion of a local government unitC *- Does $... 5o. =*,1 violate the eDuality of representation doctrineC OUR RULIN1 EC&e%t f!r the " #e !f the h"erar&h* !f &!#rt r#'e2 +e f"nd the %et"t"!n t!ta''* +"th!#t mer"t. Th! hi!"a",h= %"i#,i%l!. $' ,$+"&s

'he Supreme &ourt has original 6urisdiction over petitions for certiorari( prohibition( )a#*a)+s( <+$ -a""a#&$( and hab!as ,$"%+s.@@O11P 1t was pursuant to this original 6urisdiction that the petitioner filed the present petition. Lhile this 6urisdiction is shared with the &ourt of .ppeals @8O1/P and the $'&s( a *i"!,& i#v$,a&i$# $' &h! S+%"!)! C$+"&Ds 8+"is*i,&i$# is all$-!* $#l= -h!# &h!"! a"! s%!,ial a#* i)%$"&a#& "!as$#s &h!"!'$", ,l!a"l= a#* !s%!,iall= s!& $+& i# &h! %!&i&i$#. $easons of practicality( dictated by an increasingly overcrowded doc<et and the need to prioritize in favor of matters within our e;clusive 6urisdiction( 6ustify the e;istence of this rule otherwise <nown as the .%"i#,i%l! $' hi!"a",h= $' ,$+"&s./ 0ore generally stated( the principle reDuires that recourse must first be made to the lower7ran<ed court e;ercising concurrent 6urisdiction with a higher court.@+O1)P
@,O1*P

.mong the cases we have considered sufficiently special and important to be e;ceptions to the rule( are petitions for ,!"&i$"a"i, prohibition( )a#*a)+s
@) O1:P

R$ll$( pp. 1/*71)+.

@@ O11P @8 O1/P @,

&"5S'1'3'1"5( .rticle #111( Section @ 1-. Sec. = 1-( >.P. >lg. 1/=. O1*P Sec. /1 1-( >.P. >lg. 1/=.

@+ O1)P

See: P!$%l! v. C+a"!s)a, 4.$. 5o. 8,,+,( .pril 1+( 1=+=( 1,/ S&$. )1@. 8)

8@

and <+$ -a""a#&$ against our nationEs lawma<ers when the validity of their enactments is assailed.@=O1@P 'he present petition is of this natureF its sub6ect matter and the nature of the issues raised W among them( whether legislative reapportionment involves a division of &agayan de "ro &ity as a local government unit W are reasons enough for considering it an e;ception to the principle of hierarchy of courts. .dditionally( the petition assails as well a resolution of the &"0!L!& !# ba#, issued to implement the legislative apportionment that $... 5o. =*,1 decrees. .s an action against a &"0!L!& !# ba#, resolution( the case falls under $ule 8) of the $ules of &ourt that in turn reDuires a review by this &ourt via a $ule 8@ petition for ,!"&i$"a"i.8:O18P %or these reasons( we do not see the principle of hierarchy of courts to be a stumbling bloc< in our consideration of the present case. Th! Pl!bis,i&! R!<+i"!)!#&. 'he petitioner insists that $... 5o. =*,1 converts and divides the &ity of &agayan de "ro as a local government unit( and does not merely provide for the &ityEs legislative apportionment. 'his argument essentially proceeds from a misunderstanding of the constitutional concepts of apportionment of legislative districts and division of local government units. Legislative a%%!rt"!nment is defined by >lac<Es Law Dictionary as &h! *!&!")i#a&i$# $' &h! #+)b!" $' "!%"!s!#&a&iv!s -hi,h a S&a&!, ,$+#&= $" $&h!" s+b*ivisi$# )a= s!#* &$ a l!(isla&iv! b$*=. 81O1,P 1t is &h! all$,a&i$# $' s!a&s i# a l!(isla&iv! b$*= i# %"$%$"&i$# &$ &h! %$%+la&i$#2 &h! *"a-i#( $' v$&i#( *is&"i,& li#!s s$ as &$ !<+aliK! %$%+la&i$# a#* v$&i#( %$-!" a)$#( &h! *is&"i,&s. 8/O1+P Rea%%!rt"!nment( on the other hand( is the "!ali(#)!#& $" ,ha#(! i# l!(isla&iv! *is&"i,&s b"$+(h& ab$+& b= ,ha#(!s i# %$%+la&i$# a#* )a#*a&!* b= &h! ,$#s&i&+&i$#al "!<+i"!)!#& $' !<+ali&= $' "!%"!s!#&a&i$#.8*O1=P .rticle #1 entitled Legislative Department- of the 1=+, &onstitution lays down the rules on legislative apportionment under its Section @ which provides: Sec. @ 1-. 1- 'he 9ouse of $epresentatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred fifty members unless otherwise fi;ed by law( who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces( cities( and the 0etropolitan 0anila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants( and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio( and those who( as provided by law( shall be elected through a party7list system of registered national( regional and sectoral parties or organizations.
@= O1@P 8: H3GI
81 8/ 8*

Sa#&ia($ v. G+i#($#a, I".( 4.$. 5o. 1*)@,,( 5ovember 1+( 1==+( /=+ S&$. ,@8.

See= Mautista v. C2!343C2 1.R. N! . 37@58G0852 O&t!)er 462 4;;62 @3@ SCRA 488. O1,P >lac<Es Law Dictionary( @th !dition( p. =1. O1+P &lapp( 2ames !.( Dictionary of Law /:::-( p. **. O1=P >lac<Es Law Dictionary( supra note 1,( p. 11*,.

8@

88

;;; *- !ach legislative district shall comprise( as far as practicable( continuous( compact( and ad6acent territory. !ach city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand( or each province( shall have at least one representative. )- Lithin three years following the return of every census( the &ongress shall ma<e a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. Separately from the legislative districts that legal apportionment or reapportionment spea<s of( are the local government units historically and generically referred to as Imunicipal corporationsJ- that the &onstitution itself classified into provinces( cities( municipalities and ba"a#(a=s.8)O/:P 1n its strict and proper sense( a municipality has been defined as Ia body politic and corporate constituted by the incorporation of the inhabitants of a city or town for the purpose of local government thereof.J8@O/1P 'he creation( division( merger( abolition or alteration of boundary of local government units( i.!., of provinces( cities( municipalities( and ba"a#(a=s( are covered by the .rticle on Local 4overnment .rticle G-. Section 1: of this .rticle provides: 5o province( city( municipality( or ba"a#(a= may be created( divided( merged( abolished( or its boundary substantially altered( e;cept in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and sub6ect to approval by a ma6ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political unit directly affected. 3nder both .rticle #1( Section @( and .rticle G( Section 1: of the &onstitution( the authority to act has been vested in the Legislature. 'he Legislature underta<es the apportionment and reapportionment of legislative districts(88O//P and li<ewise acts on local government units by setting the standards for their creation( division( merger( abolition and alteration of boundaries and by actually creating( dividing( merging( abolishing local government units and altering their boundaries through legislation. "ther than this( not much commonality e;ists between the two provisions since they are inherently different although they interface and relate with one another. 'he concern that leaps from the te;t of .rticle #1( Section @ is political representation and the means to ma<e a legislative district sufficiently represented
8) O/:P 8@ O/1P 88 O//P

&"5S'1'3'1"5( .rt. G( Sec. 1. 0artin( Public &orporations( $evised 1=+* !dition( p. @. .rticle #1( Section @F M$#&!8$ v. COMELEC( *1/ Phil. )=/ 1==@-.

88

8,

so that the people can be effectively heard. .s above stated( the aim of legislative apportionment is Ito eDualize population and voting power among districts.J 8,O/*P 9ence( emphasis is given to the number of people representedF the uniform and progressive ratio to be observed among the representative districtsF and accessibility and commonality of interests in terms of each district being( as far as practicable( continuous( compact and ad6acent territory. 1n terms of the people represented( every city with at least /@:(::: people and every province irrespective of population- is entitled to one representative. 1n this sense( legislative districts( on the one hand( and provinces and cities( on the other( relate and interface with each other. 'o ensure continued adherence to the reDuired standards of apportionment( Section @ )- specifically mandates reapportionment as soon as the given standards are met. 1n contrast with the eDual representation ob6ective of .rticle #1( Section @( .rticle G( Section 1: e;pressly spea<s of how local government units may be Icreated( divided( merged( abolished( or its boundary substantially altered.J 1ts concern is the commencement( the termination( and the modification of local government unitsE corporate e;istence and territorial coverageF and it spea<s of two specific standards that must be observed in implementing this concern( namely( the criteria established in the local government code and the approval by a ma6ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected. 3nder the Local 4overnment &ode $... 5o. ,18:- passed in 1==1( the criteria of income( population and land area are specified as verifiable indicators of viability and capacity to provide services.8+O/)P 'he division or merger of e;isting units must comply with the same reDuirements since a new local government unit will come into being-( provided that a division shall not reduce the income( population( or land area of the unit affected to less than the minimum reDuirement prescribed in the &ode.8=O/@P . pronounced distinction between .rticle #1( Section @ and( .rticle G( Section 1: is on the reDuirement of a plebiscite. 'he &onstitution and the Local 4overnment &ode e;pressly reDuire a plebiscite to carry out any creation( division( merger( abolition or alteration of boundary of a local government unit. ,: O/8P I# ,$#&"as&, #$ %l!bis,i&! "!<+i"!)!#& !>is&s +#*!" &h! a%%$"&i$#)!#& $" "!a%%$"&i$#)!#& %"$visi$#. 1n T$bias v. Abal$s,,1O/,P a case that arose from the
8, O/*P

Supra note 1+. Section ,( Local 4overnment &ode. &"5S'1'3'1"5( .rt. G( Sec. 1:.

8+ O/)P 8= O/@P

,: O/8P

S!&. 1:. Plebiscite $eDuirement. 7 5o creation( division( merger( abolition( or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units shall ta<e effect unless approved by a ma6ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the political unit or units directly affected. Said plebiscite shall be conducted by the &ommission on !lections &omelec- within one hundred twenty 1/:- days from the date of effectivity of the law or ordinance effecting such action( unless said law or ordinance fi;es another date.
4.$. 5o. 11),+*( December +( 1==)( /*= S&$. 1:8.

,1 O/,P

8,

8+

division of the congressional district formerly covering San 2uan and 0andaluyong into separate districts( we confirmed this distinction and the fact that no plebiscite is needed in a legislative reapportionment. 'he plebiscite issue came up because one was ordered and held for 0andaluyong in the course of its conversion into a highly urbanized city( while none was held for San 2uan. 1n e;plaining why this happened( the &ourt ruled that no plebiscite was necessary for San 2uan because the ob6ective of the plebiscite was the conversion of 0andaluyong into a highly urbanized city as reDuired by .rticle G( Section 1: the Local 4overnment &odeF the creation of a new legislative district only followed as a conseDuence. 1n other words( the apportionment alone and by itself did not call for a plebiscite( so that none was needed for San 2uan where only a reapportionment too< place. 'he need for a plebiscite under .rticle G( Section 1: and the lac< of reDuirement for one under .rticle #1( Section @ can best be appreciated by a consideration of the historical roots of these two provisions( the nature of the concepts they embody as heretofore discussed( and their areas of application. A Bi& $' Nis&$"=. 1n Ma,ias v. COMELEC(,/O/+P we first 6urisprudentially ac<nowledged the .merican roots of our apportionment provision( noting its roots from the fourteenth .mendment,*O/=P of the 3.S. &onstitution and from the constitutions of some .merican states. 'he Philippine "rganic .ct of 1=:/ created the Philippine .ssembly(,)O*:P the body that acted as the lower house of the bicameral legislature under the .mericans( with the Philippine &ommission acting as the upper house. Lhile the members of the Philippine &ommission were appointed by the 3.S. President with the conformity of the 3.S. Senate( the members of the Philippine .ssembly were elected by representative districts previously delineated under the Philippine "rganic .ct of 1=:/ pursuant to the mandate to apportion the seats of the Philippine .ssembly among the provinces as nearly as practicable according to population. 'hus( legislative apportionment first started in our country. 'he 2ones Law or the Philippine .utonomy .ct of 1=18 maintained the apportionment provision( dividing the country into 1/ senate districts and =: representative districts electing one delegate each to the 9ouse of $epresentatives. Section 18 of the .ct specifically vested the Philippine Legislature with the authority to redistrict the Philippine 1slands. 3nder the 1=*@ &onstitution( .rticle #1( Section @ retained the concept of legislative apportionment together with IdistrictJ as the basic unit of apportionmentF the concern was IeDuality of representation . . . as an essential
,/ O/+P

4.$. 5o. L71+8+)( September 1)( 1=81( 11* Phil. 1 1=81-.

,* O/=P

'he %ourteenth .mendment of the 3.S. &onstitution provides the basis for the reDuirement of an eDuitable apportionment scheme. S!! generally( C$l!("$v! v. G"!!#( */+ 3.S. @)=( cited in Ma,ias v. COMELEC( supra note /+.
P!$%l! v. Sa#&ia($( )* Phil 1/: 1=//-.

,) O*:P

8+

8=

feature of republican institutionsJ as e;pressed in the leading case of Ma,ias v. COMELEC.,@O*1P 'he case ruled that ineDuality of representation is a 6usticiable( not a political issue( which ruling was reiterated in M$#&!8$ v. COMELEC.,8O*/P 5otably( no issue regarding the holding of a plebiscite ever came up in these cases and the others that followed( as no plebiscite was reDuired. .rticle #111( Section / of the 1=,* &onstitution retained the concept of eDual representation Iin accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratioJ with each district being( as far as practicable( contiguous( compact and ad6acent territory. 'his formulation was essentially carried over to the 1=+, &onstitution( distinguished only from the previous one by the presence of party7list representatives. 1n neither &onstitution was a plebiscite reDuired. 'he need for a plebiscite in the creation( division( merger( or abolition of local government units was not constitutionally enshrined until the 1=,* &onstitution. 9owever( as early as 1=@=( $... 5o. //8) ,,O**P reDuired( in the creation of barrios by Provincial >oards( that the creation and definition of boundaries be .+%$# %!&i&i$# $' a )a8$"i&= $' &h! v$&!"s i# &h! a"!as a''!,&!*./ 1n 1=81( the &harter of the &ity of &aloocan $... 5o. */,+- carried this further by reDuiring that the IA,& shall &aE! !''!,& a'&!" a )a8$"i&= $' v$&!"s $' &h! M+#i,i%ali&= $' Cal$$,a# v$&! i# 'av$" $' &h! ,$#v!"si$# $' &h!i" )+#i,i%ali&= i#&$ a ,i&= i# a %l!bis,i&!. J 'his was followed up to 1=,/ by other legislative enactments reDuiring a plebiscite as a condition for the creation and conversion of local government units as well as the transfer of si&i$s from one legislative unit to another.,+O*)P 1n 1=,*( the plebiscite reDuirement was accorded constitutional status. 3nder these separate historical trac<s( it can be seen that the holding of a plebiscite was never a reDuirement in legislative apportionment or reapportionment. .fter it became constitutionally entrenched( a plebiscite was also always identified with the creation( division( merger( abolition and alteration of boundaries of local government units( never with the concept of legislative apportionment.
,@ O*1P ,8 O*/P

Supra note /+. 4.$. 5o. 11+,:/( 0arch 18( 1==@.

,, O**P

I.n .ct .mending the Laws 4overning Local 4overnments by 1ncreasing their .utonomy and $eorganizing Provincial 4overnments.J ,+ O*)P . plebiscite was a ,$#*i&i$ si#! <+a #$# in the creation of municipal corporations including( but not limited to( the following: 1- the &ity of .ngeles( $... *,::F /- the 0unicipality of Pio Duran in the Province of .lbay( $... *+1,F *- the Provinces of 5orthern Samar( !astern Samar and Lestern Samar( $... )//1F )- the Provinces of .gusan del 5orte and .gusan del Sur( $... )=,=. 'he prior approval of a ma6ority of the Dualified voters of certain si&i$s of the 0unicipality of .nilao was also reDuired before the transfer of the same si&i$s to the 0unicipality of >anate under $... )81) too< effect. 8=

,:

Na&+"! a#* A"!as $' A%%li,a&i$#. 'he 'e," 'at"-e d" tr"&t that .rticle #1( Section @ spea<s of may( in a sense( be called a political unit because it is the basis for the election of a member of the 9ouse of $epresentatives and members of the local legislative body. 1t is not( however( a political subdivision through which functions of government are carried out. 1t can more appropriately be described as a "!%"!s!#&a&iv! unit that may or may not encompass the whole of a city or a province( but unli<e the latter( it is not a corporate unit. 5ot being a corporate unit( a district does not act for and in behalf of the people comprising the districtF it merely delineates the areas occupied by the people who will choose a representative in their national affairs. 3nli<e a province( which has a governorF a city or a municipality( which has a mayorF and a ba"a#(a=( which has a %+#$#( ba"a#(a=, a district does not have its own chief e;ecutive. 'he role of the congressman that it elects is to ensure that the voice of the people of the district is heard in &ongress( not to oversee the affairs of the legislative district. 5ot being a corporate unit also signifies that it has no legal personality that must be created or dissolved and has no capacity to act. 9ence( there is no need for any plebiscite in the creation( dissolution or any other similar action on a legislative district. 'he local government units( on the other hand( are political and ,$"%$"a&! units. 'hey are the territorial and political subdivisions of the state. ,=O*@P 'hey possess legal personality on the authority of the &onstitution and by action of the Legislature. 'he &onstitution defines them as entities that &ongress can( by law( create( divide( abolish( mergeF or whose boundaries can be altered based on standards again established by both the &onstitution and the Legislature. +:O*8P . local government unitEs corporate e;istence begins upon the election and Dualification of its chief e;ecutive and a ma6ority of the members of its Sa#((+#ia#.+1O*,P .s a political subdivision( a local government unit is an Iinstrumentality of the state in carrying out the functions of government.J +/O*+P .s a corporate entity with a distinct and separate 6uridical personality from the State( it e;ercises special functions for the sole benefit of its constituents. 1t acts as Ian agency of the community in the administration of local affairsJ+*O*=P and the mediums through which the people act in their corporate capacity on local concerns. +)O):P 1n light of these roles( the &onstitution saw it fit to e;pressly secure the consent of
,= O*@P

M!&"$%$li&a# Ma#ila 6!v!l$%)!#& A+&h$"i&= v. B!lMAi" Villa(! Ass$,ia&i$#, I#, .( 4.$. 5o. 1*@=8/( 0arch /,( /:::( */+ S&$. +*8. +: O*8P &"5S'1'3'1"5( .rticle G( Secs. * and 1:F .Duilino Pimentel( 2r.( Th! L$,al G$v!"#)!#& C$*! $' 1;;1C Th! H!= &$ Na&i$#al 6!v!l$%)!#&( p. @. +1 O*,P Sec. 1)( Local 4overnment &ode. +/ O*+P Li*asa# v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s( 4.$. 5o. L7/+:+= "ctober /@( 1=8,( /1 S&$. )=8.
+* O*=P
+) O):P

Ibi*. Section 1@ of the Local 4overnment &ode provides: Political and &orporate 5ature of Local 4overnment 3nits. 7 !very local government unit created or recognized under this &ode is a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be e;ercised by it in conformity with law. .s such( it shall e;ercise powers as a political subdivision of the national government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory.

,:

,1

the people affected by the creation( division( merger( abolition or alteration of boundaries of local government units through a plebiscite. 'hese considerations clearly show the distinctions between a legislative apportionment or reapportionment and the division of a local government unit. 9istorically and by its intrinsic nature( a legislative apportionment does not mean( a#* *$!s #$& !v!# i)%l=( a division of a local government unit where the apportionment ta<es place. 'hus( the plebiscite reDuirement that applies to the division of a province( city( municipality or ba"a#(a= under the Local 4overnment &ode should not apply to and be a reDuisite for the validity of a legislative apportionment or reapportionment. 6.A. (o. C';1 and C2!343C 6es. (o. ;F'; $... 5o. =*,1 is( on its face( purely and simply a reapportionment legislation passed in accordance with the authority granted to &ongress under .rticle #1( Section @ )- of the &onstitution. 1ts core provision W Section 1 W provides: S!&'1"5 1. Legislative Districts. 'he lone legislative district of the &ity of &agayan de "ro is hereby apportioned to commence in the ne;t national elections after the effectivity of this .ct. 9enceforth( barangays >onbon( >ayabas( ?auswagan( &armen( Patag( >ulua( 1ponan( >ai<ingon( San Simon( Pagatpat( &anitoan( >alulang( Lumbia( Pagalungan( 'agpangi( 'aglimao( 'uburan( Pigsag7an( 'umpagon( >ayanga( 0ambuaya( Dansulihon( 'ignapoloan and >isigan shall comprise the first district while barangays 0acabalan( Puntod( &onsolacion( &amaman7an( 5azareth( 0acansandig( 1ndahag( Lapasan( 4usa( &ugman( %S &atanico( 'ablon( .gusan( Puerto( >ugo and >alubal and all urban barangays from >arangay 1 to >arangay ): shall comprise the second district. 3nder these wordings( no division of &agayan de "ro &ity as a political and corporate entity ta<es place or is mandated. &agayan de "ro &ity politically remains a single unit and its administration is not divided along territorial lines. 1ts territory remains completely whole and intactF there is only the addition of another legislative district and the delineation of the city into two districts for purposes of representation in the 9ouse of $epresentatives. 'hus( .rticle G( Section 1: of the &onstitution does not come into play and no plebiscite is necessary to validly apportion &agayan de "ro &ity into two districts. .dmittedly( the legislative reapportionment carries effects beyond the creation of another congressional district in the city by providing( as reflected in &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. ,+*,( for additional Sa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#s$* seats to be voted for along the lines of the congressional apportionment made. 'he
,1

,/

effect on the Sa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#s$*( however( is not directly traceable to $... 5o. =*,1 but to another law W $... 5o. 88*8+@O)1P W whose Section * provides: S!&'1"5 *. "ther &ities. 'he provision of any law to the contrary notwithstanding the &ity of &ebu( &ity of Davao( and any other city with more than one representative district shall have eight +- councilors for each district who shall be residents thereof to be elected by the Dualified voters therein( provided that the cities of &agayan de "ro( Mamboanga( >acolod( 1loilo and other cities comprising a representative district shall have twelve 1/councilors each and all other cities shall have ten 1:- councilors each to be elected at large by the Dualified voters of the said cities: Provided( 'hat in no case shall the present number of councilors according to their charters be reduced. 9owever( neither does this law have the effect of dividing the &ity of &agayan de "ro into two political and corporate units and territories. $ather than divide the city either territorially or as a corporate entity( the effect is merely to enhance voter representation by giving each city voter more and greater say( both in &ongress and in the Sa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#s$*. 'o illustrate this effect( before the reapportionment( &agayan de "ro had only one congressman and 1/ city council members citywide for its population of appro;imately @::(:::.+8O)/P >y having two legislative districts( each of them with one congressman( &agayan de "ro now effectively has two congressmen( each one representing /@:(::: of the cityEs population. 1n terms of services for city residents( this easily means better access to their congressman since each one now services only /@:(::: constituents as against the @::(::: he used to represent. 'he same goes true for the Sa#((+#ia#( Pa#(l+#(s$* with its ran<s increased from 1/ to 18 since each legislative district now has + councilors. 1n representation terms( the fewer constituents represented translate to a greater voice for each individual city resident in &ongress and in the Sa#((+#ia#F each congressman and each councilor represents both a smaller area and fewer constituents whose fewer numbers are now concentrated in each representative. 'he &ity( for its part( now has twice the number of congressmen spea<ing for it and voting in the halls of &ongress. Since the total number of congressmen in the country has not increased to the point of doubling its numbers( the presence of two congressman instead of one- from the same city cannot but be a Duantitative and proportional improvement in the representation of &agayan de "ro &ity in &ongress. E<+ali&= $' "!%"!s!#&a&i$#.

+@ O)1P +8 O)/P

!nacted into law on 5ovember 8( 1=+,. .s provided by &"0!L!& $es. 5o. ,+:1 that &"0!L!& $es. 5o. ,+*, superseded.

,/

,*

'he petitioner argues that the distribution of the legislative districts is uneDual. District 1 has only =*(,1= registered voters while District / has 1/,(:,1. District 1 is composed mostly of rural ba"a#(a=s while District / is composed mostly of urban ba"a#(a=s.+,O)*P 'hus( $... 5o. =*,1 violates the principle of eDuality of representation. . clarification must be made. 'he law clearly provides that the basis for districting shall be the #+)b!" $' &h! i#habi&a#&s of a city or a province( #$& &h! #+)b!" $' "!(is&!"!* v$&!"s therein. Le settled this very same Duestion in N!""!"a v. COMELEC++O))P when we interpreted a provision in $... 5o. ,188 and &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. /*1* that applied to the Province of 4uimaras. Le categorically ruled that the basis for districting is the number of inhabitants of the Province of 4uimaras by municipality based on the official 1==@ &ensus of Population as certified to by 'omas P. .frica( .dministrator of the 5ational Statistics "ffice. 'he petitioner( unfortunately( did not provide information about the actual population of &agayan de "ro &ity. 9owever( we ta<e 6udicial notice of the .ugust /::, census of the 5ational Statistics "ffice which shows that ba"a#(a=s comprising &agayan de "roEs first district have a total population of /@)(8))( while the second district has /==(*// residents. 3ndeniably( these figures show a disparity in the population sizes of the districts. +=O)@P 'he &onstitution( however( does not reDuire mathematical e;actitude or rigid eDuality as a standard in gauging eDuality of representation.=:O)8P 1n fact( for cities( all it as<s is that .!a,h ,i&= -i&h a %$%+la&i$# $' a& l!as& &-$ h+#*"!* 'i'&= &h$+sa#* shall hav! $#! "!%"!s!#&a&iv!,/ while ensuring representation for every province regardless of the size of its population. 'o ensure Duality representation through commonality of interests and ease of access by the representative to the constituents( all that the &onstitution reDuires is that every legislative district should comprise( as 'a" as %"a,&i,abl!( contiguous( compact( and ad6acent territory. 'hus( the &onstitution leaves the local government units as they are found and does not reDuire their division( merger or transfer to satisfy the numerical standard it imposes. 1ts
+, O)*P ++ H@@I += O)@P

R$ll$( p. ,1.
1.R. N!. 363@882 N!-em)er 352 38882 63A SCRA 665.

'otal Population by Province( &ity( 0unicipality and Ba"a#(a=: as of .ugust 1( /::, Xhttp:TTwww.census.gov.phTdataTsectordataT/::,TregionH/:1:.pdfY( last accessed 5ovember @( /::+. =: O)8P 9arlan( dissenting opinion in BaE!" v. Ca"", *8= 3. S. 1+8 citing Alli!* S&$"!s $' Ohi$ v. B$-!"s, *@+ 3.S. @// and M,G$-a# v. Ma"=la#*, *88 3.S. )/:( in which the Supreme &ourt ruled that the !Dual Protection &lause does not demand of legislation Ifinic<y or e;act conformity to abstract correlation ;;;. 'he &onstitution is satisfied if a legislature responds to the practical living facts with which it deals. 'hrough what precise points in a field of many competing pressures a legislature might most suitably have drawn its lines is not a Duestion for 6udicial re7e;amination. 1t is enough to satisfy the &onstitution that in drawing them the principle of reason has not been disregarded. .nd what degree of uniformity reason demands of a statute is( of course( a function of the comple;ity of the needs which the statute see<s to accommodate.J ,*

,)

reDuirements are satisfied despite some numerical disparity if the units are contiguous( compact and ad6acent as far as practicable. 'he petitionerEs contention that there is a resulting ineDuality in the division of &agayan de "ro &ity into two districts because the ba"a#(a=s in the first district are mostly rural ba"a#(a=s while the second district is mostly urban( is largely unsubstantiated. >ut even if bac<ed up by proper proof( we cannot Duestion the division on the basis of the difference in the ba"a#(a=sE levels of development or developmental focus as these are not part of the constitutional standards for legislative apportionment or reapportionment. Lhat the components of the two districts of &agayan de "ro would be is a matter for the lawma<ers to determine as a matter of policy. 1n the absence of any grave abuse of discretion or violation of the established legal parameters( this &ourt cannot intrude into the wisdom of these policies.=1O),P >HEREFORE2 we hereby DISMISS the petition for lac< of merit. %ormula in determining the party7list representatives 1s the /:H ceiling mandatoryC #eterans vs. &"0!L!& %ormula abandoned-

BARAN1A/ ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANS.ARENC/ (BANAT) 7 versus 7COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS 2 1.R. N!. 3584532 Ma* 4;;8 CAR.IO2 E.= The Ca e Petitioner in 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,1 >arangay .ssociation for 5ational .dvancement and 'ransparency >.5.'- in a petition for certiorari and mandamus(=/O1P assails the $esolution=*O/P promulgated on * .ugust /::, by the &ommission on !lections &"0!L!&- in 5>& 5o. :,7:)1 PL-. 'he &"0!L!&Es resolution in 5>& 5o. :,7:)1 PL- approved the recommendation of .tty. .lioden D. Dalaig( 9ead of the 5ational >oard of &anvassers 5>&Legal 4roup( to deny the petition of >.5.' for being moot. >.5.' filed before the &"0!L!& !n >anc( acting as 5>&( a P!&i&i$# &$ P"$,lai) &h! ?+ll N+)b!" $' Pa"&=MLis& R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s P"$vi*!* b= &h! C$#s&i&+&i$#.
=1 O),P

T$bias v. Abal$s( 4.$. 5o. L711),+*( December +( 1==)( /*= S&$. 1:8.

=/ =*

,)

,@

'he following are intervenors in 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,1: .rts >usiness and Science Professionals .>S-( .angat 'ayo .'-( and &oalition of .ssociations of Senior &itizens in the Philippines( 1nc. Senior &itizens-. Petitioners in 4.$. 5o. 1,=/=@ >ayan 0una( .bono( and .dvocacy for 'eacher !mpowerment 'hrough .ction( &ooperation and 9armony 'owards !ducational $eforms . 'eacher- in a petition for certiorari with mandamus and prohibition(=)O*P assails 5>& $esolution 5o. :,78:=@O)P promulgated on = 2uly /::,. 5>& 5o. :,78: made a partial proclamation of parties( organizations and coalitions that obtained at least two percent of the total votes cast under the Party7 List System. 'he &"0!L!& announced that( upon completion of the canvass of the party7list results( it would determine the total number of seats of each winning party( organization( or coalition in accordance with V!&!"a#s ?!*!"a&i$# Pa"&= v. COMELEC=8O@P V!&!"a#s-. !strella DL Santos( in her capacity as President and %irst 5ominee of the #eterans %reedom Party( filed a motion to intervene in both 4.$. 5os. 1,=/,1 and 1,=/=@. The Fa&t 'he 1) 0ay /::, elections included the elections for the party7list representatives. 'he &"0!L!& counted 1@(=@:(=:: votes cast for =* parties under the Party7List System.=,O8P "n /, 2une /::/( >.5.' filed a P!&i&i$# &$ P"$,lai) &h! ?+ll N+)b!" $' Pa"&=MLis& R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s P"$vi*!* b= &h! C$#s&i&+&i$# ( doc<eted as 5>& 5o. :,7:)1 PL- before the 5>&. >.5.' filed its petition because IOtPhe &hairman and the 0embers of the O&"0!L!&P have recently been Duoted in the national papers that the O&"0!L!&P is duty bound to and shall implement the V!&!"a#s ruling( that is( would apply the Panganiban formula in allocating party7list seats.J=+O,P 'here were no intervenors in >.5.'Es petition before the 5>&. >.5.' filed a memorandum on 1= 2uly /::,. "n = 2uly /::,( the &"0!L!&( sitting as the 5>&( promulgated 5>& $esolution 5o. :,78:. 5>& $esolution 5o. :,78: proclaimed thirteen 1*parties as winners in the party7list elections( namely: >uhay 9ayaan Kumabong >39.K-( >ayan 0una( &itizensE >attle .gainst &orruption &1>.&-( 4abrielaEs Lomen Party 4abriela-( .ssociation of Philippine !lectric &ooperatives .P!&-( . 'eacher( .<bayanZ &itizenEs .ction Party .?>.K.5-( .lagad( Luzon %armers Party >3'1L-( &ooperative75atco
=) =@ =8 =, =+

,@

,8

5etwor< Party &""P75.'&&"-( .na< Pawis( .lliance of $ural &oncerns .$&-( and .bono. Le Duote 5>& $esolution 5o. :,78: in its entirety below: L9!$!.S( the &ommission on !lections sitting !# ba#, as 5ational >oard of &anvassers( thru its Sub7&ommittee for Party7List( as of :* 2uly /::,( had officially canvassed( in open and public proceedings( a total of f"fteen m"''"!n t+! h#ndred e",ht* three th!# and "C h#ndred f"ft*0n"ne (3724A62G78) votes under the Party7List System of $epresentation( in connection with the 5ational and Local !lections conducted last 1) 0ay /::,F L9!$!.S( the study conducted by the Legal and 'abulation 4roups of the 5ational >oard of &anvassers reveals that the pro6ectedTma;imum total party7list votes cannot go any higher than "Cteen m"''"!n e-en h#ndred t+ent* three th!# and !ne h#ndred t+ent*0!ne (3G25462343) votes given the following statistical data: .r!De&tedMMaC"m#m .art*0L" t V!te E'e&t"!n f!r Ma* 4;;5

i. 'otal party7list votes already canvassedTtabulated ii. 'otal party7list votes remaining uncanvassedT untabulated i.e. canvass deferrediii. 0a;imum party7list votes based on 1::H outcome- from areas not yet submitted for canvass >ogo( &ebuF >ais &ityF Pantar( Lanao del 5orteF and Pagalungan( 0aguindanaoMaC"m#m T!ta' .art*0L" t V!te

1@(/+*(8@= 1(**,(:*/

1:/()*: 3G25462343

L9!$!.S( Section 11 of $epublic .ct 5o. ,=)1 Party7List System .ct- provides in part: 'he parties( organizations( and coalitions receiving at least two percent /H- of the total votes cast for the party7list system shall be entitled to one seat each: provided( that those garnering more than two percent /Hof the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes: provided( finally( that each party( organization( or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three *- seats.
,8

,,

L9!$!.S( for the /::, !lections( based on the above pro6ected total of party7list votes( the presumptive two percent /H- threshold can be pegged at three h#ndred th"rt* f!#r th!# and f!#r h#ndred "Ct*0t+! (66@2@G4) votesF L9!$!.S( the Supreme &ourt( in Ci&iK!#Ds Ba&&l! A(ai#s& C$""+%&i$# ACIBAC) v!"s+s COMELEC( reiterated its ruling in V!&!"a#s ?!*!"a&i$# Pa"&= v!"s+s COMELEC adopting a formula for the additional seats of each party( organization or coalition receving more than the reDuired two percent /H- votes( stating that the same shall be determined only after all party7list ballots have been completely canvassedF L9!$!.S( the parties( organizations( and coalitions that have thus far garnered at least three h#ndred th"rt* f!#r th!# and f!#r h#ndred "Ct*0t+! (66@2@G4) votes are as follows: RANL 1 / * ) @ 8 , + = .ART/MOR1ANINATIONM COALITION >39.K + >.K.5 035. : &1>.& : 4.>$1!L. 1 .P!& 1 . '!.&9!$ 8 .?>.K.5 / .L.4.D 8 >3'1L /
,,

VOTES RECEIVED 1(18*(/1 =,/(,* ,8:(/8 81:()@ @*+(=, ),8(:* ),:(+, )/*(:, ):@(:@

,+

1: 11 1/ 1* 1)

&""P75.'&" = >.'.S 1 .5.? P.L1S 8 .$& ) .>"5" 8 L9!$!.S( e;cept for >agong .lyansang 'agapagtaguyod ng .dhi<aing Sambayanan >.'.S-( against which an @RGENT PETITION ?OR CANCELLATIONPREMOVAL O? REGISTRATION AN6 6ISJ@ALI?ICATION O? PARTFMLIST NOMINEE AGi&h P"a=!" '$" &h! Iss+a#,! $' R!s&"ai#i#( O"*!") has been filed before the &ommission( doc<eted as SP& 5o. :,7 /@:( all the parties( organizations and coalitions included in the aforementioned list are therefore entitled to at least one seat under the party7list system of representation in the meantime. 5"L( '9!$!%"$!( by virtue of the powers vested in it by the &onstitution( the "mnibus !lection &ode( !;ecutive "rder 5o. 1))( $epublic .ct 5os. 88)8( ,188( ,=)1( and other election laws( the &ommission on !lections( sitting !# ba#, as the 5ational >oard of &anvassers( hereby $!S"L#!S to P.$'1.LLK P$"&L.10( sub6ect to certain conditions set forth below( the following parties( organizations and coalitions participating under the Party7List System:

*=:(:/ *+8(*8 *,8(:* **+(1= **,(:)

1 >uhay 9ayaan Kumabong / >ayan 0una * &itizens >attle .gainst &orruption ) 4abriela LomenEs Party @ .ssociation &ooperatives 8 .dvocacy for of Philippine 'eacher !lectric

>39.K >.K.5 035. &1>.& 4.>$1!L. .P!& . '!.&9!$

,+

!mpowerment

,=

'hrough .ction( &ooperation and 9armony 'owards !ducational $eforms( 1nc. , .<bayanZ &itizenEs .ction Party + .lagad = Luzon %armers Party 1: &ooperative75atco 5etwor< Party 11 .na< Pawis 1/ .lliance of $ural &oncerns 1* .bono .?>.K.5 .L.4.D >3'1L &""P75.'&&" .5.?P.L1S .$& .>"5" 'his is without pre6udice to the proclamation of other parties( organizations( or coalitions which may later on be established to have obtained at least two percent /H- of the total actual votes cast under the Party7List System. 'he total number of seats of each winning party( organization or coalition shall be determined pursuant to V!&!"a#s ?!*!"a&i$# Pa"&= v!"s+s COMELEC formula upon completion of the canvass of the party7list results. 'he proclamation of >agong .lyansang 'agapagtaguyod ng .dhi<aing Sambayanan >.'.S- is hereby deferred until final resolution of SP& 5o. :,7/@:( in order not to render the proceedings therein moot and academic. %inally( all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties( organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall li<ewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases. Let the &ler< of the &ommission implement this $esolution( furnishing a copy thereof to the Spea<er of the 9ouse of $epresentatives of the Philippines. S" original"$D!$!D.==O+P !mphasis in the

==

,=

+:

Pursuant to 5>& $esolution 5o. :,78:( the &"0!L!&( acting as 5>&( promulgated 5>& $esolution 5o. :,7,/( which declared the additional seats allocated to the appropriate parties. Le Duote from the &"0!L!&Es interpretation of the V!&!"a#s formula as found in 5>& $esolution 5o. :,7,/: L9!$!.S( on 2uly =( /::,( the &ommission on !lections sitting !# ba#, as the 5ational >oard of &anvassers proclaimed thirteen 1*- Dualified parties( organizationOsP and coalitions based on the presumptive two percent /Hthreshold of **)()8/ votes from the pro6ected ma;imum total number of party7list votes of 18(,/*(1/1( and were thus given one 1- guaranteed party7list seat eachF L9!$!.S( per $eport of the 'abulation 4roup and Supervisory &ommittee of the 5ational >oard of &anvassers( the pro6ected ma;imum total party7list votes( as of 2uly 11( /::,( based on the votes actually canvassed( votes canvassed but not included in $eport 5o. /=( votes received but uncanvassed( and ma;imum votes e;pected for Pantar( Lanao del 5orte( is 18(/81(*8=F and that the pro6ected ma;imum total votes for the thirteen 1*Dualified parties( organizations and coalitionOsP are as follows: .art*0L" t 1 / * ) @ 8 , + = 1: 11 >39.K >.K.5 035. &1>.& 4.>$1!L. .P!& . '!.&9!$ .?>.K.5 .L.4.D >3'1L &""P75.'&" .5.?P.L1S .r!De&ted t!ta' n#m)er !f -!te 1(1,+(,), =,,(),8 ,@@(=8) 8/1(,1+ 8//()+= )=/(*8= )8/(8,) )/*(1=: ):=(/=+ )1/(=/: *,:(18@
+:

+1

1/ 1*

.$& .>"5"

*,@(+)8 *):(1@1

L9!$!.S( based on the above $eport( B+ha= Na=aa# F+)ab$#( >uhay- obtained the highest number of votes among the thirteen 1*Dualified parties( organizations and coalitions( ma<ing it the Ifirst partyJ in accordance with V!&!"a#s ?!*!"a&i$# Pa"&= v!"s+s COMELEC ( reiterated in Ci&iK!#Ds Ba&&l! A(ai#s& C$""+%&i$# ACIBAC) v!"s+s COMELECF L9!$!.S( Dualified parties( organizations and coalitions participating under the party7list system of representation that have obtained one guaranteed 1- seat may be entitled to an additional seat or seats based on the formula prescribed by the Supreme &ourt in V!&!"a#sF L9!$!.S( in determining the additional seats for the Ifirst partyJ( the correct formula as e;pressed in V!&!"a#s( is: 5umber of votes of first party Proportion of votes of first 777777777777777777777 relative to total votes for 'otal votes for party7list system list system

party party7

wherein the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding off- shall entitle it to additional seats: .r!%!rt"!n !f -!te re&e"-ed )* the f"r t %art* !Dual to or at least 8H !Dual to or greater than )H but less than 8H Less than )H Add"t"!na' eat 'wo /additional seats "ne 1- additional seat 5o additional seat

L9!$!.S( applying the above formula( >uhay obtained the following percentage:
+1

+/

1(1,+(,), 77777777 18(/81(*8=

[ :.:,/)+ or ,./H

which entitles it to two /- additional seats. L9!$!.S( in determining the additional seats for the other Dualified parties( organizations and coalitions( the correct formula as e;pressed in V!&!"a#s and reiterated in CIBAC is( as follows: 5o. of votes of concerned party 5o. of additional .dditional seats for [ 7777777777777777777 ; seats allocated to a concerned party 5o. of votes of first party first party L9!$!.S( applying the above formula( the results are as follows: .art* L" t >.K.5 035. &1>.& 4.>$1!L. .P!& . '!.&9!$ .?>.K.5 .L.4.D >3'1L &""P75.'&" .5.?P.L1S .$& .>"5" .er&enta,e 1.8@ 1./+ 1.:@ 1.:@ :.+* :.,+ :.,1 :.8= :.8= :.8/ :.8* :.@, Add"t"!na' Seat 1 1 1 1 : : : : : : : :

+/

+*

5"L '9!$!%"$!( by virtue of the powers vested in it by the &onstitution( "mnibus !lection &ode( !;ecutive "rder 5o. 1))( $epublic .ct 5os. 88)8( ,188( ,=)1 and other elections laws( the &ommission on !lections !# ba#, sitting as the 5ational >oard of &anvassers( hereby $!S"L#!D( as it hereby $!S"L#!S( to proclaim the following parties( organizations or coalitions as entitled to additional seats( to wit:

.art* L" t >39.K >.K.5 035. &1>.& 4.>$1!L. .P!&

Add"t"!na' Seat / 1 1 1 1

'his is without pre6udice to the proclamation of other parties( organizations or coalitions which may later on be established to have obtained at least two per cent /H- of the total votes cast under the party7list system to entitle them to one 1guaranteed seat( or to the appropriate percentage of votes to entitle them to one 1- additional seat. %inally( all proclamation of the nominees of concerned parties( organizations and coalitions with pending disputes shall li<ewise be held in abeyance until final resolution of their respective cases. Let the 5ational >oard of &anvassers Secretariat implement this $esolution( furnishing a copy hereof to the Spea<er of the 9ouse of $epresentatives of the Philippines. S" "$D!$!D.1::O=P .cting on >.5.'Es petition( the 5>& promulgated 5>& $esolution 5o. :,7++ on * .ugust /::,( which reads as follows:

1::

+*

+)

'his pertains to the Petition to Proclaim the %ull 5umber of Party7List $epresentatives Provided by the &onstitution filed by the >arangay .ssociation for 5ational .dvancement and 'ransparency >.5.'-. .cting on the foregoing Petition of the >arangay .ssociation for 5ational .dvancement and 'ransparency >.5.'- party7list( .tty. .lioden D. Dalaig( 9ead( 5ational >oard of &anvassers Legal 4roup submitted his commentsTobservations and recommendation thereon O5>& :,7:)1 PL-P( which reads: COMMENTS M OBSERVATIONS= Petitioner >arangay .ssociation for 5ational .dvancement and 'ransparency >.5.'-( in its Petition to Proclaim the %ull 5umber of Party7List $epresentatives Provided by the &onstitution prayed for the following reliefs( to wit: 1. 'hat the full number 77 twenty percent /:H- 77 of Party7List representatives as mandated by Section @( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution shall be proclaimed. /. Paragraph b-( Section 11 of $. ,=)1 which prescribes the /H threshold votes( should be harmonized with Section @( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution and with Section 1/ of the same $. ,=)1 in that it should be applicable only to the first party7list representative seats to be allotted on the basis of their initialTfirst ran<ing. *. 'he *7seat limit prescribed by $. ,=)1 shall be appliedF and ). 1nitially( all party7list groups
+)

+@

shall be given the number of seats corresponding to every /H of the votes they received and the additional seats shall be allocated in accordance with Section 1/ of $. ,=)1( that is( in proportion to the percentage of votes obtained by each party7list group in relation to the total nationwide votes cast in the party7list election( after deducting the corresponding votes of those which were allotted seats under the /H threshold rule. 1n fine( the formulaTprocedure prescribed in the I.LL"&.'1"5 "% P.$'K7L1S' S!.'S( .55!G I.J of &"0!L!& $!S"L3'1"5 /+), dated /@ 2une 1==8( shall be used for OtheP purpose of determining how many seats shall be proclaimed( which party7list groups are entitled to representative seats and how many of their nominees shall seat OsicP. @. 1n the alternative( to declare as unconstitutional Section 11 of $epublic .ct 5o. ,=)1 and that the procedure in allocating seats for party7list representative prescribed by Section 1/ of $. ,=)1 shall be followed. RECOMMENDATION: Th! %!&i&i$# $' BANAT is #$- )$$& a#* a,a*!)i,. Th! C$))issi$# E# Ba#, i# NBC R!s$l+&i$# N$. 77M:7 %"$)+l(a&!* I+l= ;, 2777 "! I1n the 0atter of the &anvass of #otes and Partial Proclamation of the Parties( "rganizations and &oalitions Participating 3nder the Party7List System During the 0ay 1)( /::,

+@

+8

5ational and Local !lectionsJ "!s$lv!* a)$#( $&h!"s &ha& &h! &$&al #+)b!" $' s!a&s $' !a,h -i##i#( %a"&=, $"(a#iKa&i$# $" ,$ali&i$# shall b! *!&!")i#!* %+"s+a#& &$ &h! #eterans %ederation Party v!"s+s &"0!L!& '$")+la +%$# ,$)%l!&i$# $' &h! ,a#vass $' &h! %a"&=Mlis& "!s+l&s./ L9!$!%"$!( premises considered( the 5ational >oard of &anvassers $!S"L#!D( as it hereby $!S"L#!S( to approve and adopt the recommendation of .tty. .lioden D. Dalaig( 9ead( 5>& Legal 4roup( to D!5K the herein petition of >.5.' for being moot and academic. Let the Supervisory &ommittee implement this resolution. S" "$D!$!D.1:1O1:P >.5.' filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the ruling in 5>& $esolution 5o. :,7++. >.5.' did not file a motion for reconsideration of 5>& $esolution 5o. :,7++. "n = 2uly /::,( >ayan 0una( .bono( and . 'eacher as<ed the &"0!L!&( acting as 5>&( to reconsider its decision to use the V!&!"a#s formula as stated in its 5>& $esolution 5o. :,78: because the V!&!"a#s formula is violative of the &onstitution and of $epublic .ct 5o. ,=)1 $... 5o. ,=)1-. "n the same day( the &"0!L!& denied reconsideration during the proceedings of the 5>&.1:/O11P .side from the thirteen party7list organizations proclaimed on = 2uly /::,( the &"0!L!& proclaimed three other party7list organizations as Dualified parties entitled to one guaranteed seat under the Party7List System: .gricultural Sector .lliance of the Philippines( 1nc. .4.P-(1:*O1/P .na< 0indanao .015-(1:)O1*P and

1:1 1:/ 1:* 1:)

+8

+,

.n Laray.1:@O1)P Per the certification 1:8O1@P by &"0!L!&( the following party7list organizations have been proclaimed as of 1= 0ay /::+: .art*0L" t 1.1 1./ 1.* 1.) 1.@ 1.8 1., 1.+ 1.= 1.1 : 1.1 1 1.1 / 1.1 * 1.1 ) 1.1 @ >uhay >ayan 0una &1>.& 4abriela .P!& . 'eacher .<bayan .lagad >util &oop75atco OsicP .na< Pawis .$& .bono .4.P .015 N!. !f Seat( ) * / / / / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

'he proclamation of >agong .lyansang 'agapagtaguyod ng .dhi<aing Sambayanan >.'.S-( against which an 3rgent Petition for &ancellationT$emoval of $egistration and DisDualification of Party7list 5ominee with Prayer for the 1ssuance of $estraining "rder- has been filed before the &"0!L!&( was deferred pending final resolution of SP& 5o. :,7/@:. I #e >.5.' brought the following issues before this &ourt:
1:@ 1:8

+,

++

1. 1s the twenty percent allocation for party7list representatives provided in Section @ /-( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution mandatory or is it merely a ceilingC /. 1s the three7seat limit provided in Section 11 b- of $. ,=)1 constitutionalC *. 1s the two percent threshold and IDualifierJ votes prescribed by the same Section 11 b- of $. ,=)1 constitutionalC ). 9ow shall the party7list representatives be allocatedC1:,O18P >ayan 0una( . 'eacher( and .bono( on the other hand( raised the following issues in their petition: 1. $espondent &ommission on !lections( acting as 5ational >oard of &anvassers( committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< or e;cess of 6urisdiction when it promulgated 5>& $esolution 5o. :,78: to implement the %irst7Party $ule in the allocation of seats to Dualified party7list organizations as said rule: .. #iolates the constitutional principle of proportional representation. >. particularly: #iolates the provisions of $. ,=)1

1. 'he /7)78 %ormula used by the %irst Party $ule in allocating additional seats for the I%irst PartyJ violates the principle of proportional representation under $. ,=)1. /. 'he use of two formulas in the allocation of additional seats( one for the I%irst PartyJ and
1:,

++

+=

another for the Dualifying parties( violates Section 11 b- of $. ,=)1. *. 'he proportional relationships under the %irst Party $ule are different from those reDuired under $. ,=)1F &. #iolates the I%our 1nviolable ParametersJ of the Philippine party7 list system as provided for under the same case of V!&!"a#s ?!*!"a&i$# Pa"&=, !& al. v. COMELEC. 11. Presuming that the &ommission on !lections did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< or e;cess of 6urisdiction when it implemented the %irst7Party $ule in the allocation of seats to Dualified party7list organizations( the same being merely in consonance with the ruling in V!&!"a#s ?!*!"a&i$#s Pa"&=, !& al. v. COMELEC, the instant Petition is a 6usticiable case as the issues involved herein are constitutional in nature( involving the correct interpretation and implementation of $. ,=)1( and are of transcendental importance to our nation.1:+O1,P &onsidering the allegations in the petitions and the comments of the parties in these cases( we defined the following issues in our advisory for the oral arguments set on // .pril /::+: 1. 1s the twenty percent allocation for party7list representatives in Section @ /-( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution mandatory or merely a ceilingC /. 1s the three7seat limit in Section 11 b- of $. ,=)1 constitutionalC *. 1s the two percent threshold prescribed in Section 11 b- of $. ,=)1 to Dualify for one seat constitutionalC ).
1:+

9ow shall the party7list representative seats

+=

=:

be allocatedC @. Does the &onstitution prohibit the ma6or political parties from participating in the party7list electionsC 1f not( can the ma6or political parties be barred from participating in the party7list electionsC1:=O1+P The R#'"n, !f the C!#rt 'he petitions have partial merit. Le maintain that a Philippine7style party7list election has at least four inviolable parameters as clearly stated in V!&!"a#s. %or easy reference( these are: ?i"s&( the twenty percent allocation the combined number of all party7list congressmen shall not e;ceed twenty percent of the total membership of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( including those elected under the party listF S!,$#*, the two percent threshold only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party7list system are IDualifiedJ to have a seat in the 9ouse of $epresentativesF Thi"*, the three7seat limit each Dualified party( regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained( is entitled to a ma;imum of three seatsF that is( one IDualifyingJ and two additional seatsF ?$+"&h( proportional representation the additional seats which a Dualified party is entitled to shall be computed Iin proportion to their total number of votes.J11:O1=P 9owever( because the formula in V!&!"a#s has flaws in its mathematical interpretation of the term Iproportional representation(J this &ourt is compelled to revisit the formula for the allocation of additional seats to party7list organizations.
1:= 11:

=:

=1

(umber of =artyD4ist 6epresentatives: The Iormu a !andated by the Constitution Section @( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution provides: Section @. 1- 'he 9ouse of $epresentatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members( unless otherwise fi;ed by law( who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces( cities( and the 0etropolitan 0anila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants( and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio( and those who( as provided by law( shall be elected through a party7list system of registered national( regional( and sectoral parties or organizations. /'he party7list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party7list. %or three consecutive terms after the ratification of this &onstitution( one7half of the seats allocated to party7list representatives shall be filled( as provided by law( by selection or election from the labor( peasant( urban poor( indigenous cultural communities( women( youth( and such other sectors as may be provided by law( e;cept the religious sector. 'he first paragraph of Section 11 of $... 5o. ,=)1 reads: Section 11. N+)b!" $' Pa"&=MLis& R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s. 'he party7list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum /:H- of the total number of the members of the 9ouse of $epresentatives including those under the party7list. ;;; Section @ 1-( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution states that the I9ouse of $epresentatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members( unless otherwise fi;ed by law.J 'he 9ouse of $epresentatives shall be composed of district representatives and party7list representatives. 'he &onstitution
=1

=/

allows the legislature to modify the number of the members of the 9ouse of $epresentatives. Section @ /-( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution( on the other hand( states the ratio of party7list representatives to the total number of representatives. Le compute the number of seats available to party7list representatives from the number of legislative districts. "n this point( we do not deviate from the first formula in V!&!"a#s( thus: 5umber of seats available to legislative districts .+: 5umber of seats available to party7list representatives

;. /: [

'his formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of seats available for party7list representatives whenever a legislative district is created by law. Since the 1) th &ongress of the Philippines has //: district representatives( there are @@ seats available to party7list representatives. //: ;. /: [ @@

.+: .fter prescribing the ratio of the number of party7list representatives to the total number of representatives( the C!n t"t#t"!n 'eft the manner !f a''!&at"n, the eat a-a"'a)'e t! %art*0'" t re%re entat"-e t! the +" d!m !f the 'e," 'at#re. A ocation of Seats for =artyD4ist 6epresentatives: The Statutory 4imits =resented by the T%o =ercent Thresho d and the ThreeDSeat Cap .ll parties agree on the formula to determine the ma;imum number of seats reserved under the Party7List System( as well as on the formula to determine the guaranteed seats to party7list candidates garnering at least two7percent of the total party7list votes. 9owever( there are numerous interpretations of the provisions of $... 5o. ,=)1 on the allocation of $add"t"!na' eat ( under the Party7List System. V!&!"a#s produced the %irst
=/

=*

Party $ule(111O/:P and 2ustice #icente #. 0endozaEs dissent in V!&!"a#s presented 4ermanyEs 5iemeyer formula11/O/1P as an alternative. 'he &onstitution left to &ongress the determination of the manner of allocating the seats for party7list representatives. &ongress enacted $... 5o. ,=)1( paragraphs a- and b- of Section 11 and Section 1/ of which provide: Section 11. N+)b!" R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s. ; ; ; $' Pa"&=MLis&

1n determining the allocation of seats for the second vote(11*O//P the following procedure shall be observed: a'he parties( organizations( and coalitions shall be ran<ed from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections. b'he parties( organizations( and coalitions receiving at least two percent /H- of the total votes cast for the party7list system shall be entitled to one seat each: .r!-"ded2 That th! e ,arner"n, m!re than t+! %er&ent (4O) !f the -!te ha'' )e ent"t'ed t! add"t"!na' eat "n %r!%!rt"!n t! the"r t!ta' n#m)er !f -!te = Provided( finally( 'hat each party( organization( or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three *- seats. Section 1/. P"$,!*+"! i# All$,a&i#( S!a&s '$" Pa"&=MLis& R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s. 'he &"0!L!& shall tally all the votes for the parties( organizations( or coalitions on a nationwide basis( ran< them according to the number of votes received and allocate party7list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party( organization( or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party7list system. !mphasis supplied-

111 11/ 11*

=*

=)

1n 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,1( >.5.' presents two interpretations through three formulas to allocate party7list representative seats. 'he first interpretation allegedly harmonizes the provisions of Section 11 b- on the /H reDuirement with Section 1/ of $... 5o. ,=)1. >.5.' described this procedure as follows: a'he party7list representatives shall constitute twenty percent /:H- of the total 0embers of the 9ouse of $epresentatives including those from the party7list groups as prescribed by Section @( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution( Section 11 1st par.- of $. ,=)1 and &omelec $esolution 5o. /+), dated /@ 2une 1==8. Since there are //: District $epresentatives in the 1)th &ongress( there shall be @@ Party7List $epresentatives. .ll seats shall have to be proclaimed. b.ll party7list groups shall initially be allotted one 1- seat for every two per centum /Hof the total party7list votes they obtainedF provided( that no party7list groups shall have more than three *- seats Section 11( $. ,=)1-. c'he remaining seats shall( after deducting the seats obtained by the party7list groups under the immediately preceding paragraph and after deducting from their total the votes corresponding to those seats( the remaining seats shall be allotted proportionately to all the party7list groups which have not secured the ma;imum three *- seats under the /H threshold rule( in accordance with Section 1/ of $. ,=)1.11)O/*P %orty7four ))- party7list seats will be awarded under >.5.'Es first interpretation. 'he second interpretation presented by >.5.' assumes that the /H vote reDuirement is declared unconstitutional( and apportions the seats for party7list representatives by following Section 1/ of $... 5o. ,=)1. >.5.' states that the &"0!L!&: ashall tally all the votes for the parties( organizations( or coalitions on a nationwide basisF bran< them according to the number of votes
11)

=)

=@

receivedF and( callocate party7list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party( organization or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party7list system.11@O/)P >.5.' used two formulas to obtain the same results: one is based on the proportional percentage of the votes received by each party as against the total nationwide party7list votes( and the other is Iby ma<ing the votes of a party7list with a median percentage of votes as the divisor in computing the allocation of seats.J 118O/@P 'hirty7 four *)- party7list seats will be awarded under >.5.'Es second interpretation. 1n 4.$. 5o. 1,=/=@( >ayan 0una( .bono( and . 'eacher criticize both the &"0!L!&Es original /7)78 formula and the V!&!"a#s formula for systematically preventing all the party7list seats from being filled up. 'hey claim that both formulas do not factor in the total number of seats alloted for the entire Party7List System. >ayan 0una( .bono( and . 'eacher re6ect the three7 seat cap( but accept the /H threshold. .fter determining the Dualified parties( a second percentage is generated by dividing the votes of a Dualified party by the total votes of all Dualified parties only. 'he number of seats allocated to a Dualified party is computed by multiplying the total party7list seats available with the second percentage. 'here will be a first round of seat allocation( limited to using the whole integers as the eDuivalent of the number of seats allocated to the concerned party7list. .fter all the Dualified parties are given their seats( a second round of seat allocation is conducted. 'he fractions( or remainders( from the whole integers are ran<ed from highest to lowest and the remaining seats on the basis of this ran<ing are allocated until all the seats are filled up.11,O/8P Le e;amine what $... 5o. ,=)1 prescribes to allocate seats for party7list representatives. Section 11 a- of $... 5o. ,=)1 prescribes the ran<ing of the participating parties from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections. 'able 1.
11@ 118 11,

$an<ing of the participating parties from the highest to the

=@

=8

lowest based on the number of votes garnered during the elections.11+O/,P

Ran<

.art*

V!te Ran< 1arnered 1(18=(/*) =,=(:*= ,@@(8+8 8/1(1,1 81=(8@, )=:(*,= )88(11/ )/*(1)= ):=(++* ):=(18: *+@(+1: *,)(/++ *,:(/81 **=(==: **+(1+@ */+(,/) */1(@:* *1:(++= *::(=/* /)@(*+/ /*@(:+8 //+(=== //+(8*, /1+(+1+ /1,(+// /1*(:@+

.art*

V!te 1arnered ++(+8+ ,=(*+8 ,+(@)1 ,+()/) ,,(*/, ,@(/:: ,)(8+8 ,1(@)) 8/(//: 8:(==* @+(,1, @,(+,/ @,(:1/ @@(+)8 @)(,@1 @)(@// @1(,// @:(+*, @:(),+ )8(81/ )@(8/) )*(:8/ )/(/+/ *8(@1/ *)(+*@ *)(:=+

1 >39.K / >.K.5 035. * &1>.& ) 4.>$1!L. @ .P!& 8 . '!.&9!$ , .?>.K.5 + .L.4.D = &""P7 5.'&&" 1: >3'1L 11 >.'.S 1/ .$& 1* .5.?P.L1S 1) .>"5" 1@ .015 18 .4.P 1, .5 L.$.K 1+ K.&.P 1= %P2P0 /: 35170.D /1 .>S // ?.?3S. /* ?.>.'..5 /) .>.7.?" /@ .L1% /8 S!51"$ &1'1M!5S
11+

)+ ?.L.91 )= .P"1 @: >P @1 .9"5>.K.5 @/ >14?1S @* P0.P @) .?.P15 @@ P>. @8 4$!&"5 @, >'0 @+ . S01L! @= 5!L%%1 8: .?S. 81 >.4" 8/ >.5D1L. 8* .9"5 8) .S.9.5 0" 8@ .4>1.4Z 88 SP1 8, >.9.5D1 8+ .DD 8= .0.54 ,: .>.K P.$.? ,1 >.>.! ?. ,/ S> ,* .S.P

=8

=,

/, .' /+ #%P /= .5.D *: >.5.' *1 .54 ?.S.544. */ >.5'.K ** .>.?.D. *) 173'.? *@ '3&P *8 &"&"%!D *, .49.0 *+ .5.? *= .>.5S!Z P15.K ): P0 )1 .#! )/ S3.$. )* .SS.L.0 )) D1L. )@ .5& )8 S.5L.?.S ), .>&

1=,(+,/ 1=8(/88 1++(@/1 1,,(:/+ 1,:(@*1 18=(+:1 188(,), 18)(=+: 18/(8), 1@@(=/: 1)8(:*/ 1)1(+1, 1*:(*@8 11=(:@) 11:(,8= 11:(,*/ 11:()): 1:,(:/1 ==(8*8 =,(*,@ =:(:@+

,) P!P ,@ .>. 1L"544" ,8 #!5D"$S ,, .DD7'$1>.L ,+ .L0.5. ,= ..54.' ?. P1L1P15" +: ..PS +1 9.P1 +/ ..L.S +* S0 +) .4 +@ .4154 P15"K +8 .P" +, >1K.K.54 >3?1D ++ .'S += 30D2 =: >3?L"D %1L1P15. =1 LKP.D =/ ..7?.S"SK" =* ?.S.P1 TOTAL

**(=*+ **(=:* **(8=1 */(+=8 */(/@@ /=(1*: /8(/,1 /@(,+1 //(=)8 /:(,)) 18(=18 18(,/= 18()/1 18(/)1 1)(181 =())@ +(=1@ +(),1 +():8 8(//1 37287;28;;

'he first clause of Section 11 b- of $... 5o. ,=)1 states that Iparties( organizations( and coalitions receiving at least two percent /H- of the total votes cast for the party7list system shall be entitled to one seat each.J 'his clause guarantees a seat to the two7percenters. 1n 'able / below( we use the first /: party7list candidates for illustration purposes. 'he percentage of votes garnered by each party is arrived at by
=,

=+

dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by 1@(=@:(=::( the total number of votes cast for all party7list candidates. 'able /. 'he first /: party7list candidates and their respective percentage of votes garnered over the total votes for the party7list.11=O/+P V!te 1arnered V!te !-er T!ta' 1#aranteed 1arnered V!te f!r .art*0 Seat L" t2 "n O 1(18=(/*) =,=(:*= ,@@(8+8 8/1(1,1 81=(8@, )=:(*,= )88(11/ )/*(1)= ):=(++* ):=(18: *+@(+1: *,)(/++ *,:(/81 **=(==: **+(1+@ */+(,/) */1(@:* T!ta' 1+ K.&.P 1= %P2P0 /: 35170.D *1:(++= *::(=/* /)@(*+/ 1.=@H 1.+=H 1.@)H ,.**H 8.1)H ).,)H *.+=H *.++H *.:,H /.=/H /.8@H /.@,H /.@,H /.)/H /.*@H /.*/H /.1*H /.1/H /.:8H /.:/H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 35 : : :

Ran<

.art*

1 >39.K / >.K.5 035. * &1>.& ) 4.>$1!L. @ .P!& 8 . '!.&9!$ , .?>.K.5 + .L.4.D = &""P75.'&&" 1: >3'1L 11 >.'.S1/:O/=P 1/ .$& 1* .5.?P.L1S 1) .>"5" 1@ .015 18 .4.P 1, .5 L.$.K

%rom 'able / above( we see that only 1, party7list

11= 1/:

=+

==

candidates received at least /H from the total number of votes cast for party7list candidates. 'he 1, Dualified party7list candidates( or the two7percenters( are the party7list candidates that are Ientitled to one seat each(J or the guaranteed seat. 1n this first round of seat allocation( we distributed 1, guaranteed seats. 'he second clause of Section 11 b- of $... 5o. ,=)1 provides that Ithose garnering more than two percent /H- of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats "n %r!%!rt"!n t! the"r t!ta' n#m)er !f -!te .J 'his is where petitionersE and intervenorsE problem with the formula in V!&!"a#s lies. V!&!"a#s interprets the clause Iin proportion to their total number of votesJ to be "n %r!%!rt"!n t! the -!te !f the f"r t %art* . 'his interpretation is contrary to the e;press language of $... 5o. ,=)1. Le rule that( in computing the allocation of add"t"!na' eat ( the continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11 b- of $... 5o. ,=)1 is #n&!n t"t#t"!na'. 'his &ourt finds that the two percent threshold ma<es it mathematically impossible to achieve the ma;imum number of available party list seats when the number of available party list seats e;ceeds @:. 'he continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that /:H of the members of the 9ouse of $epresentatives shall consist of party7list representatives. 'o illustrate: 'here are @@ available party7list seats. Suppose there are @: million votes cast for the 1:: participants in the party list elections. . party that has two percent of the votes cast( or one million votes( gets a guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that the first @: parties all get one million votes. "nly @: parties get a seat despite the availability of @@ seats. >ecause of the operation of the two percent threshold( this situation will repeat itself even if we increase the available party7list seats to 8: seats and even if we increase the votes cast to 1:: million. 'hus( even if the ma;imum number of parties get two percent of the votes for every party( it is always impossible for the number of occupied party7list seats to e;ceed @: seats as long as the two percent threshold is present. Le therefore stri<e down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11 b- of $... 5o. ,=)1. 'he two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section @ /-( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution and prevents the attainment of Ithe broadest possible representation of
==

1::

party( sectoral or $epresentatives.J1/1O*:P

group

interests

in

the

9ouse

of

1n determining the allocation of seats for party7list representatives under Section 11 of $... 5o. ,=)1( the following procedure shall be observed: 7 'he parties( organizations( and coalitions shall be ran<ed from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections. 7 'he parties( organizations( and coalitions receiving at least two percent /H- of the total votes cast for the party7list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each. 7 'hose garnering sufficient number of votes( according to the ran<ing in paragraph 1( shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated. 7 !ach party( organization( or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three *- seats. 1n computing the additional seats( the guaranteed seats shall no longer be included because they have already been allocated( at one seat each( to every two7percenter. 'hus( the remaining available seats for allocation as Iadditional seatsJ are the ma;imum seats reserved under the Party List System less the guaranteed seats. %ractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a provision in $... 5o. ,=)1 allowing for a rounding off of fractional seats. 1n declaring the two percent threshold unconstitutional( we do not limit our allocation of additional seats in 'able * below to the two7percenters. 'he percentage of votes garnered by each party7list candidate is arrived at by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by 1@(=@:(=::( the total number of votes cast for party7list candidates. 'here are two steps in the second round of seat allocation. %irst( the percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats( *+( which is the difference between the @@ ma;imum seats reserved under the Party7List System and the 1, guaranteed seats of the two7percenters. 'he whole integer of the product of the percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds to a partyEs share in the remaining available seats. Second( we assign one party7list seat to each of the parties ne;t in
1/1

1::

1:1

ran< until all available seats are completely distributed. Le distributed all of the remaining *+ seats in the second round of seat allocation. %inally( we apply the three7seat cap to determine the number of seats each Dualified party7list candidate is entitled. 'hus: 'able *. Distribution of .vailable Party7List Seats

Ran k

Party

Votes Additio (B) Garner A lyi Guarant nal lus ed n$ t#e eed Seat Seats (!), in over t#ree "#ole Total seat inte$ Votes ca Votes ers for Garner Party ed List, in (First (Secon % Round) d Round) (B) (E) (C) (D) (A) 1,1(),2 +, )-),0+ ) -00,(' ( (21,11 (1),(0 ,)0,+) ,((,11 2 ,2+,1, ) ,0),'' -%++. (%1,. ,%-,. +%'). +%''. +%0-. 2%)2. 2%(0. 2%0-. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2%-) 2%++ 1%'0 1%,' 1%,' 1%11%11 1%01 1 + + 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A%

1 2 + , 0 ( '

*#HA& *A&A /# A CI*AC 1A*RI!LA AP!C A Tea23er A4*A&A ALA1A$

)1225+ C""P6
1//

1:1

1:/
17

ATCC" *#TIL *ATAS ARC A A4PA8I S A*" " A/I A1AP A 8ARA&

+ ,0),1( 0 +'0,'1 0 +-,,2' ' +-0,2( 1 ++),)) 0 ++',1' 0 +2',-2 , +21,00 + +10,'' ) +00,)2 + 2,0,+' 2 2+0,0' ( 22',)) ) 22',(+ 21','1 ' 21-,'2 2 21+,00 ' 1)-,'2 1)(,2( 2%0-. 2%,2. 2%+0. 2%+2. 2%1+. 2%12. 2%0(. 2%02. 1%)0. 1%'). 1%0,. 1%,-. 1%,,. 1%,+. 1%+-. 1%+-. 1%+,. 1%2,. 1%2+. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A% %A%
1:/

10 11 12 1+ 1, 10 1( 11' 1) 20 21 22 2+ 2, 20 2( 22'

&ACAP 9P:P/ # I6/A$ A*S 4A4#SA 4A*ATAA A*A6A4" ALI9 S! I"R CITI;! S AT V9P

1:*

( 2) +0 +1 A A$ *A AT A 1 4ASA 11 A *A TA& A*A4A$A 16#TA4 T#CP C"C"9!$ 1'',02 1 1--,02 ' 1-0,0+ 1 1(),'0 1 1((,-, 1(,,)' 0 1(2,(, 100,)2 0 1%1'. 1%11. 1%0-. 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 %A% %A% %A%

+2 ++ +, +0 +( Tota l

1%0(. 1%00. 1%0+. 1%02. 0%)'.

0 0 0 0 0 %&

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 ''

%A% %A% %A% %A% %A%

.pplying the procedure of seat allocation as illustrated in 'able * above( there are @@ party7list representatives from the *8 winning party7list organizations. .ll @@ available party7list seats are filled. 'he additional seats allocated to the parties with sufficient number of votes for one whole seat( in no case to e;ceed a total of three seats for each party( are shown in column D-. =articipation of !a/or =o itica =arties in =artyD4ist 3 ections 'he &onstitutional &ommission adopted a multi7party system that a''!+ed a'' %!'"t"&a' %art"e t! %art"&"%ate "n the %art*0'" t e'e&t"!n . 'he deliberations of the &onstitutional &ommission clearly bear this out( thus: 0$. 0"5S"D. 0adam President( 1 6ust want to say that we suggested or proposed the party list system because we wanted to open up the political system to a pluralistic society through a multiparty system. ; ; ; >e are f!r !%en"n, #% the * tem2 and +e +!#'d '"<e -er* m#&h f!r the e&t!r t! )e there. That " +h* !ne !f the +a*
1:*

1:)

t! d! that " t! %#t a &e"'"n, !n the n#m)er !f re%re entat"-e fr!m an* "n,'e %art* that &an "t +"th"n the 7; a''!&ated #nder the %art* '" t * tem. ; ; ;. ;;; 0$. 0"5S"D. 0adam President( the candidacy for the 1=+ seats is not limited to political parties. 0y Duestion is this: .re we going to classify for e;ample &hristian Democrats and Social Democrats as political partiesC &an they run under the party list concept or must they be under the district legislation side of it onlyC 0$. #1LL.&"$'.. 1n reply to that Duery( 1 thin< these parties that the &ommissioner mentioned can field candidates for the Senate as well as for the 9ouse of $epresentatives. L"<e+" e2 the* &an a' ! f"e'd e&t!ra' &and"date f!r the 4; %er&ent !r 6; %er&ent2 +h"&he-er " ad!%ted2 !f the eat that +e are a''!&at"n, #nder the %art* '" t * tem. 0$. 0"5S"D. 1n other words( the &hristian Democrats can field district candidates and can also participate in the party list systemC 0$. #1LL.&"$'.. >h* n!tB >hen the* &!me t! the %art* '" t * tem2 the* +"'' )e f"e'd"n, !n'* e&t!ra' &and"date . 0$. 0"5S"D. 0ay 1 be clarified on thatC &an 351D" participate in the party list systemC 0$. #1LL.&"$'.. Kes( why notC F!r a '!n, a the* f"e'd &and"date +h! &!me fr!m the d"fferent mar,"na'"Eed e&t!r that +e ha'' de ",nate "n th" C!n t"t#t"!n. 0$. 0"5S"D. Suppose Senator 'aUada wants to run under >.K.5 group and says that he represents the farmers( would he DualifyC 0$. #1LL.&"$'.. 5o( Senator 'aUada would not Dualify.
1:)

1:@

0$. 0"5S"D. >ut 351D" can field candidates under the party list system and say 2uan dela &ruz is a farmer. Lho would pass on whether he is a farmer or notC 0$. '.D!". ?ay &ommissioner 0onsod( gusto <o lamang linawin ito. .!'"t"&a' %art"e 2 %art"&#'ar'* m"n!r"t* %!'"t"&a' %art"e 2 are n!t %r!h")"ted t! %art"&"%ate "n the %art* '" t e'e&t"!n "f the* &an %r!-e that the* are a' ! !r,an"Eed a'!n, e&t!ra' '"ne . 0$. 0"5S"D. Lhat the &ommissioner is saying is that all political parties can participate because it is precisely the contention of political parties that they represent the broad base of citizens and that all sectors are represented in them. Lould the &ommissioner agreeC 0$. '.D!". .ng punto lamang namin( pag pinayagan mo ang 351D" na isang political party( it will dominate the party list at mawawalang saysay din yung sector. Lalamunin mismo ng political parties ang party list system. 4usto <o lamang bigyan ng diin ang Ireserve.J 9indi ito reserve seat sa marginalized sectors. ?ung titingnan natin itong 1=+ seats( reserved din ito sa political parties. 0$. 0"5S"D. 9indi po reserved iyon <asi anybody can run there. >ut my Duestion to &ommissioner #illacorta and probably also to &ommissioner 'adeo is that under this system( would 351D" be banned from running under the party list systemC 0$. #1LL.&"$'.. 5o( as 1 said( UNIDO ma* f"e'd e&t!ra' &and"date . On that &!nd"t"!n a'!ne2 UNIDO ma* )e a''!+ed t! re," ter f!r the %art* '" t * tem. 0$. 0"5S"D. 0ay 1 inDuire from &ommissioner 'adeo if he shares that answerC 0$. '.D!". 'he same.
1:@

1:8

0$. #1LL.&"$'.. .#+ede %! an, UNIDO2 %er! a e&t!ra' '"ne . ;;;; 0$. "PL!. ; ; ; 1n my opinion( this will also create the stimulus for political parties and mass organizations to see< common ground. %or e;ample( we have the PDP7Laban and the 351D". 1 see no reason why they should not be able to ma<e common goals with mass organizations so that the very leadership of these parties can be transformed through the participation of mass organizations. .nd if this is true of the administration parties( this will be true of others li<e the Partido ng >ayan which is now being formed. 'here is no Duestion that they will be attractive to many mass organizations. 1n the opposition parties to which we belong( there will be a stimulus for us to contact mass organizations so that with their participation( the policies of such parties can be radically transformed because this amendment will create conditions that will challenge both the mass organizations and the political parties to come together. .nd the party list system is certainly available( although it is open to all the parties. 1t is understood that the parties will enter in the roll of the &"0!L!& the names of representatives of mass organizations affiliated with them. So that we may( in time( develop this e;cellent system that they have in !urope where labor organizations and cooperatives( for e;ample( distribute themselves either in the Social Democratic Party and the &hristian Democratic Party in 4ermany( and their very presence there has a transforming effect upon the philosophies and the leadership of those parties. 1t is also a fact well <nown to all that in the 3nited States( the .%L7&1" always vote with the Democratic Party. >ut the businessmen( most of them( always vote with the $epublican Party( meaning that there is no reason at all why political parties and mass organizations should not combine( reenforce( influence and interact with each other so that the very ob6ectives that we set in this
1:8

1:,

&onstitution for sectoral representation are achieved in a wider( more lasting( and more institutionalized way. 'herefore( 1 support this O0onsod7#illacortaP amendment. 1t installs sectoral representation as a constitutional gift( but at the same time( it challenges the sector to rise to the ma6esty of being elected representatives later on through a party list systemF and even beyond that( to become actual political parties capable of contesting political power in the wider constitutional arena for ma6or political parties. ; ; ; 1/*O*/P !mphasis supplied$... 5o. ,=)1 provided the details for the concepts put forward by the &onstitutional &ommission. Section * of $... 5o. ,=)1 reads: 6!'i#i&i$# $' T!")s. a- 'he party7list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives to the 9ouse of $epresentatives from national( regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the &ommission on !lections &"0!L!&-. &omponent parties or organizations of a coalition may participate independently provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate in the party7list system. b- . party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties. c- . political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform( principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which( as the most immediate means of securing their adoption( regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office. 1t is a national party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a ma6ority of the regions. 1t is a regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a ma6ority of the cities and
1/*

1:,

1:+

provinces comprising the region. d- . sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section @ hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of their sector( e- . sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics( employment( interests or concerns. f- . coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national( regional( sectoral parties or organizations for political andTor election purposes. &ongress( in enacting $... 5o. ,=)1( put the three7seat cap to prevent any party from dominating the party7list elections. 5either the &onstitution nor $... 5o. ,=)1 prohibits ma6or political parties from participating in the party7list system. "n the contrary( the framers of the &onstitution clearly intended the ma6or political parties to participate in party7list elections through their sectoral wings. 1n fact( the members of the &onstitutional &ommission voted down( 1=7//( any permanent sectoral seats( and in the alternative the reservation of the party7list system to the sectoral groups.1/)O**P 1n defining a IpartyJ that participates in party7list elections as either Ia political party or a sectoral party(J $... 5o. ,=)1 also clearly intended that ma6or political parties will participate in the party7list elections. !;cluding the ma6or political parties in party7list elections is manifestly against the &onstitution( the intent of the &onstitutional &ommission( and $... 5o. ,=)1. 'his &ourt cannot engage in socio7political engineering and 6udicially legislate the e;clusion of ma6or political parties from the party7list elections in patent violation of the &onstitution and the law. $ead together( $... 5o. ,=)1 and the deliberations of the &onstitutional &ommission state that ma6or political parties are allowed to establish( or form coalitions with( sectoral organizations for electoral or political purposes. 'here should not be a problem if( for e;ample( the Liberal Party participates in the party7list election through the ?abataang Liberal ng Pilipinas ?.L1P1-( its sectoral youth wing. 'he other ma6or political parties can thus
1/)

1:+

1:=

organize( or affiliate with( their chosen sector or sectors. 'o further illustrate( the 5acionalista Party can establish a fisherfol< wing to participate in the party7list election( and this fisherfol< wing can field its fisherfol< nominees. ?abali<at ng 0alayang Pilipino ?.0P1- can do the same for the urban poor. 'he Dualifications of party7list nominees are prescribed in Section = of $... 5o. ,=)1: J+ali'i,a&i$#s $' Pa"&=MLis& N$)i#!!s. 5o person shall be nominated as party7list representative unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines( a registered voter( a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one 1- year immediately preceding the day of the elections( able to read and write( b$#a 'i*! member of the party or organization which he see<s to represent for at least ninety =:- days preceding the day of the election( and is at least twenty7five /@- years of age on the day of the election. 1n case of a nominee of the youth sector( he must at least be twenty7five /@- but not more than thirty *:- years of age on the day of the election. .ny youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty *:- during his term shall be allowed to continue until the e;piration of his term. 3nder Section = of $... 5o. ,=)1( it is not necessary that the party7list organizationEs nominee Iwallow in poverty( destitution and infirmityJ1/@O*)P as there is no financial status reDuired in the law. 1t is enough that the nominee of the sectoral partyTorganizationTcoalition belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors(1/8O*@P that is( if the nominee represents the fisherfol<( he or she must be a fisherfol<( or if the nominee represents the senior citizens( he or she must be a senior citizen. 5either the &onstitution nor $... 5o. ,=)1 mandates the filling7up of the entire /:H allocation of party7list representatives found in the &onstitution. 'he &onstitution( in paragraph 1( Section @ of .rticle #1( left the determination of the number of the members of the 9ouse of $epresentatives to &ongress: I'he 9ouse of $epresentatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members( unless otherwise fi;ed by law( ; ; ;.J
1/@ 1/8

1:=

11:

'he /:H allocation of party7list representatives is merely a ceilingF party7list representatives cannot be more than /:H of the members of the 9ouse of $epresentatives. 9owever( we cannot allow the continued e;istence of a provision in the law which will systematically prevent the constitutionally allocated /:H party7list representatives from being filled. 'he three7seat cap( as a limitation to the number of seats that a Dualified party7list organization may occupy( remains a valid statutory device that prevents any party from dominating the party7list elections. Seats for party7list representatives shall thus be allocated in accordance with the procedure used in 'able * above. 9owever( by a vote of +7,( the &ourt decided to continue the ruling in V!&!"a#s disallowing ma6or political parties from participating in the party7list elections( directly or indirectly. 'hose who voted to continue disallowing ma6or political parties from the party7list elections 6oined &hief 2ustice $eynato S. Puno in his separate opinion. "n the formula to allocate party7list seats( the &ourt is unanimous in concurring with this %$#!#,ia. >HEREFORE( we .ARTIALL/ 1RANT the petition. Le SET ASIDE the $esolution of the &"0!L!& dated * .ugust /::, in 5>& 5o. :,7:)1 PL- as well as the $esolution dated = 2uly /::, in 5>& 5o. :,78:. Le declare unconstitutional the two percent threshold in the distribution of additional party7list seats. 'he allocation of additional seats under the Party7List System shall be in accordance with the procedure used in 'able * of this Decision. 0a6or political parties are disallowed from participating in party7list elections. 'his Decision is immediately e;ecutory. 5o pronouncement as to costs. .O>ER OF THE COMELEC TO RESOLVE LEADERSHI. DIS.UTES OF .ART/0LIST DR. HANS CHRISTIAN M. SENERIS VS. COMELEC2 1.R. N!. 35AG5A2 A%r"' 3G2 4;;8 VELASCO2 :R.2 E.= The Und" %#ted Fa&t 1n 1===( private respondent $obles was elected president and chairperson of >39.K( a party7list group duly registered with

11:

111

&"0!L!&.1/,O*P 'he constitution of >39.K provides for a three7year term for all its party officers( without re7election. 1/+O)P >39.K participated in the /::1 and /::) elections( with $obles as its president. .ll the reDuired 0anifestations of Desire to Participate in the said electoral e;ercises( including the &ertificates of 5omination of representatives( carried the signature of $obles as president of >39.K.1/=O@P "n 2anuary /8( /::,( in connection with the 0ay /::, elections( >39.K again filed a 0anifestation of its Desire to Participate in the Party7List System of $epresentation.1*:O8P .s in the past two elections( the manifestation to participate bore the signature of $obles as >39.K president. "n 0arch /=( /::,( $obles signed and filed a &ertificate of 5omination of >39.KEs nominees for the /::, elections containing the following names: i- $ene 0. #elarde( ii- 0a. &arissa &oscolluela( iiiLilliam 1rwin &. 'ieng( iv- 0elchor $. 0onsod( and v- 'eresita >. #illarama. !arlier( however( or on 0arch /,( /::,( petitioner 9ans &hristian SeUeres( holding himself up as acting president and secretary7 general of >39.K( also filed a &ertificate of 5omination with the &"0!L!&( nominating: i- himself( ii- 9ermenegildo &. Dumlao( iii.ntonio $. >autista( iv- #ictor Pablo &. 'rinidad( and v- !duardo &. Solangon( 2r.1*1O,P &onseDuently( on .pril 1,( /::,( SeUeres filed with the &"0!L!& a Petition to Deny Due &ourse to &ertificates of 5omination.1*/O+P 1n it( petitioner SeUeres alleged that he was the acting president and secretary7general of >39.K( having assumed that position since .ugust 1,( /::) when $obles vacated the position. Pushing the point( SeUeres would claim that the nominations made by $obles were( for lac< of authority( null and void owing to the e;piration of the latterEs term as party president. %urthermore( SeUeres asserted that $obles was( under the &onstitution(1**O=P disDualified from being an officer of any political party( the latter being the .cting .dministrator of the Light $ailway 'ransport .uthority L$'.-( a government7controlled corporation. $obles( so SeUeres would charge( was into a partisan political activity which civil service members( li<e the former( were en6oined from engaging in.

1/, 1/+ 1/= 1*: 1*1 1*/ 1**

111

11/

"n 0ay 1:( /::,( the 5ational &ouncil of >39.K adopted a resolution1*)O1:P e;pelling SeUeres as party member for his act of submitting a &ertificate of 5omination for the party. 'he resolution reads in part: >HEREAS2 9ans &hristian 0. SeUeres( without authority from the 5ational &ouncil( caused the filing of his &ertificate of 5omination with the &omelec last /, 0arch /::,. >HEREAS2 9ans &hristian 0. SeUeres( again without authority from the 5ational &ouncil( listed in his &ertificate of 5omination names of persons who are not even members of the >uhay party. >HEREAS2 9ans &hristian 0. SeUeres( <nowing fully well that the 5ational &ouncil had previously approved the following as its official nominees( to wit ; ; ; to the /::, Party7List electionsF and that 0r. 0elDuiades .. $obles was authorized to sign and submit the partyEs &ertificate of 5omination with the &omelecF and( with evident premeditation to put the party to public ridicule and with scheming intention to create confusion( still proceeded with the filing of his unauthorized certificate of nomination even nomination persons who are not members of >uhay. >HEREAS2 9ans &hristian 0. SeUeres( in view of the foregoing( underwent Party Discipline process pursuant to .rticle #11 of the &onstitution and >y7Laws of the Party. ;;;; >HEREAS2 after a careful e;amination of the OevidenceP on his case( the 5ational &ouncil found 9ans &hristian 0. SeUeres to have committed acts in violation of the constitution and by7laws of the party and decided to e;pel him as a member of the party. NO> THEREFORE2 be it RESOLVED as it is hereby RESOLVED that the 5ational &ouncil has decided to e;pel 9ans 0. SeUeres as a member of the party effective close of business hour of 1: 0ay /::,. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER2 that all rights and privileges pertaining to the membership of 9ans 0. SeUeres with the party are conseDuently cancelled.
1*)

11/

11*

BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER( that the President and &hairman of the 5ational &ouncil of >uhay( 0r. 0elDuiades .. $obles( is hereby authorized to cause the necessary filing of whatever documentsTletters before the 9ouse of $epresentatives andTor to any other entityTagencyTperson to removeTdrop 0r. SeUeresE name in the roll of members in the said lower house. 1*@O11P Later developments saw $obles filing a petition praying for the recognition of 2ose D. #illanueva as the new representative of >39.K in the 9ouse of $epresentatives for the remaining term until 2une *:( /::,.1*8 O1/P .ttached to the petition was a copy of the e;pelling resolution adverted to. .dditionally( $obles also filed on the same day an I3rgent 0otion to Declare 5ull and #oid the &ertificate of 5omination and &ertificates of .cceptance filed by 9ans &hristian 0. SeUeres( 9ermenegildo Dumlao( .ntonio $. >autista( #ictor Pablo 'rinidad and !duardo Solangon( 2r.J1*,O1*P "n 2uly = and 2uly 1+( /::,( respectively( the &"0!L!& issued two resolutions proclaiming >39.K as a winning party7list organization for the 0ay /::, elections entitled to three *- 9ouse seats.1*+O1)P 'his was followed by the issuance on 2uly 1=( /::, by the !# ba#, &"0!L!& of $esolution !.0. 5o. :,7:)* recognizing and declaring $obles as the president of >39.K and( as such( was the one Iduly authorized to sign documents in behalf of the party particularly the 0anifestation to participate in the party7list system of representation and the &ertification of 5omination of its nominees.J1*=O1@P !;plaining its action( &"0!L!& stated that since no party election was held to replace $obles as party president( then he was holding the position in a hold7over capacity.1):O18P 'he &"0!L!& disposed of the partisan political activity issue with the terse observation that SeUeresE arguments on the applicability to $obles of the prohibition on partisan political activity were unconvincing.1)1O1,P 'he dispositive portion of the &"0!L!& $esolution reads:
1*@ 1*8 1*, 1*+ 1*= 1): 1)1

11*

11)

>HEREFORE2 premises considered( this &ommission !n >anc- hereby recognizes 0elDuiades .. $obles as the duly authorized representative of >uhay 9ayaan Kumabong >uhay- and to act for and in its behalf pursuant to its &onstitution and >y7Laws. SO ORDERED.1)/O1+P "n 2uly /:( /::,( the first three *- listed nominees of >39.K for the 0ay /::, elections( as per the &ertificate of 5omination filed by $obles( namely $ene 0. #elarde( 0a. &arissa &oscolluela( and Lilliam 1rwin &. 'ieng( too< their oaths of office as >39.K party7list representatives in the current &ongress.1)*O1=P .ccordingly( on September *( /::,( the &"0!L!&( sitting as 5ational >oard of &anvassers( issued a &ertificate of Proclamation to >39.K and its nominees as representatives to the 9ouse of $epresentatives.1))O/:P .ggrieved( petitioner filed the instant petition. The I #e Lhether or not the &"0!L!& acted without or in e;cess of 6urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< or e;cess of 6urisdiction in issuing its challenged $esolution dated 2une 1=( /::,( which declared respondent $obles as the duly authorized representative of >39.K( and there is no appeal or any other plain( speedy or adeDuate remedy in the ordinary course of law e;cept the instant petition. 9!LD: 'he petition should be dismissed for lac< of merit. .et"t"!n f!r Cert"!rar" I an Im%r!%er Remed* . crucial matter in this recourse is whether the petition for certiorari filed by SeUeres is the proper remedy. . special civil action for certiorari may be availed of when the tribunal( board( or officer e;ercising 6udicial or Duasi76udicial functions has acted without or in e;cess of 6urisdiction and there is no appeal or any plain( speedy( and adeDuate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the
1)/ 1)* 1))

11)

11@

purpose of annulling the proceeding.1)@O/1P 1t is the Iproper remedy to Duestion any final order( ruling and decision of the &"0!L!& rendered in the e;ercise of its ad6udicatory or Duasi76udicial powers.J 1)8O//P %or certiorari to prosper( however( there must be a showing that the &"0!L!& acted with grave abuse of discretion and that there is no appeal or any plain( speedy and adeDuate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 1n the present case( a plain( speedy and adeDuate remedy in the ordinary course of law was available to SeUeres. 'he 1=+, &onstitution cannot be more e;plicit in this regard. 1ts .rticle #1( Section 1, states: Sec. 1,. 'he Senate and the 9ouse of $epresentatives shall each have an !lectoral 'ribunal which shall be the sole 6udge of all contests relating to the election( returns and Dualifications of their respective 0embers. ; ; ; 'his constitutional provision is reiterated in $ule 1) of the 1==1 $evised $ules of the !lectoral 'ribunal of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( to wit: $3L! 1). I+"is*i,&i$#.'he 'ribunal shall be the sole 6udge of all contests relating to the election( returns and Dualifications of the 0embers of the 9ouse of $epresentatives. 1n LaKa&i# v. N$+s! El!,&$"al T"ib+#al( the &ourt elucidated on the import of the word IsoleJ in .rt. #1( Sec. 1, of the &onstitution( thus: 'he use of the word VsoleE emphasizes the e;clusive character of the 6urisdiction conferred. 'he e;ercise of the power by the !lectoral &ommission under the 1=*@ &onstitution has been described as Vintended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature.E !arlier( this grant of power to the legislature was characterized by 2ustice 0alcolm as Vfull( clear and complete.E 3nder the amended 1=*@ &onstitution( the power was unDualifiedly reposed upon the !lectoral 'ribunal and it remained as full( clear and complete as that previously granted the legislature and the !lectoral &ommission. 'he same may be said with regard to the 6urisdiction of the !lectoral 'ribunals under the 1=+, &onstitution.J1),O/*P
1)@ 1)8 1),

11@

118

'hen came Ras+l v. COMELEC a#* A<+i#$MO"!&a( in which the &ourt again stressed that Ithe word VsoleE in Sec. 1,( .rt. #1 of the 1=+, &onstitution and Sec. /@: of the "mnibus !lection &ode underscore the e;clusivity of the 'ribunalEs 6urisdiction over election contests relating to its members.J1)+O/)P 'he 9ouse of $epresentatives !lectoral 'ribunalEs 9$!'Es- sole and e;clusive 6urisdiction over contests relative to the election( returns and Dualifications of the members of the 9ouse of $epresentatives Ibegins only after a candidate has become a member of the 9ouse of $epresentatives.J1)=O/@P 'hus( once a winning candidate has been proclaimed( ta<en his oath( and assumed office as a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( &"0!L!&Es 6urisdiction over elections relating to the election( returns( and Dualifications ends( and the 9$!'Es own 6urisdiction begins.1@:O/8P 1t is undisputed that the &"0!L!&( sitting as 5ational >oard of &anvassers( proclaimed >39.K as a winning party7list organization for the 0ay 1)( /::, elections( entitled to three *- seats in the 9ouse of $epresentatives.1@1O/,P 'he proclamation came in the form of two $esolutions dated 2uly =( /::, and 2uly 1+( /::,( 1@/O/+P respectively. Said resolutions are official proclamations of &"0!L!& considering it is >39.K that ran for election as party7list organization and not the >39.K nominees. 'he following day( on 2uly 1=( /::,( the &"0!L!& issued the assailed resolution declaring I0elDuiades .. $obles as the duly authorized representative of >uhay 9ayaan Kumabong >uhay- and to act in its behalf pursuant to its &onstitution and >y7Laws.J &"0!L!& affirmed that his &ertificate of 5omination was a valid one as it ruled that I$obles is the President of >uhay Party7List and therefore duly authorized to sign documents in behalf of the party particularly the 0anifestation to participate in the pary7list system of representation and the Cert"f"&ate !f N!m"nat"!n !f "t n!m"nee .J1@*O/=P 'he September *( /::, proclamation merely confirmed the challenged 2uly 1=( /::, $esolution. 'he 2uly 1=( /::, $esolution coupled with the 2uly =( /::, and 2uly 1+( /::, proclamations vested the $obles nominees the right to represent >39.K as its sectoral representatives.
1)+ 1)= 1@: 1@1 1@/ 1@*

118

11,

&onseDuently( the first three *- nominees in the &ertificate of 5omination submitted by $obles then too< their oaths of office before the &hief 2ustice on 2uly /:( /::, and have since then e;ercised their duties and functions as >39.K Party7List representatives in the current &ongress. Lithout a doubt( at the time SeUeres filed this petition before this &ourt on 2uly /*( /::,( the right of the nominees as party7list representatives had been recognized and declared in the 2uly 1=( /::, $esolution and the nominees had ta<en their oath and already assumed their offices in the 9ouse of $epresentatives. .s such( the proper recourse would have been to file a petition for <+$ -a""a#&$ before the 9$!' within ten 1:- days from receipt of the 2uly 1=( /::, $esolution and not a petition for certiorari before this &ourt.1@)O*:P Since SeUeres failed to file a petition for <+$ -a""a#&$ before the 9$!' within 1: days from receipt of the 2uly 1=( /::, $esolution declaring the validity of $oblesE &ertificate of 5omination( said $esolution of the &"0!L!& has already become final and e;ecutory. 'hus( this petition has now become moot and can be dismissed outright. .nd even if we entertain the instant special civil action( still( petitionerEs postulations are bereft of merit. A&t !f N!m"nat"n, I N!t .art" an .!'"t"&a' A&t"-"t* Petitioner SeUeres contends that $obles( acting as >39.K President and nominating officer( as well as being the .dministrator of the L$'.( was engaging in electioneering or partisan political campaign. 9e bases his argument on the &onstitution( which prohibits any officer or employee in the civil service from engaging( directly or indirectly( in any electioneering or partisan political campaign. 1@@O*1P 9e also cites Sec. ) of the &ivil Service Law which provides that Ino officer or employee in the &ivil Service ; ; ; shall engage in any partisan political activity.J Lastly( he mentions Sec. /8 i- of the "mnibus !lection &ode which ma<es it Ian election offense for any officer in the civil service to directly or indirectly ; ; ; engage in any partisan political activity.J 'his contention lac<s basis and is far from being persuasive. 'he terms IelectioneeringJ and Ipartisan political activityJ have well7 established meanings in the "mnibus !lection &ode( to wit: Section ,=. ; ; ; b- 'he term Velection campaignE or Vpartisan political activityE refers to an act designed to promote the
1@) 1@@

11,

11+

election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office which shall include: 1- %orming organizations( associations( clubs( committees( or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes andTor underta<ing any campaign for or against a candidateF /- 9olding political caucuses( conferences( meetings( rallies( parades( or other similar assemblies( for the purpose of soliciting votes andTor underta<ing any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidateF *- 0a<ing speeches( announcements or commentaries( or holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public officeF )- Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the election of any candidateF or @- Directly or indirectly soliciting votes( pledges or support for or against a candidate. The f!re,!"n, en#merated a&t "f %erf!rmed f!r the %#r%! e !f enhan&"n, the &han&e !f a %"rant f!r n!m"nat"!n f!r &and"da&* t! a %#)'"& !ff"&e )* a %!'"t"&a' %art*2 a,reement2 !r &!a'"t"!n !f %art"e ha'' n!t )e &!n "dered a e'e&t"!n &am%a",n !r %art" an e'e&t"!n a&t"-"t*. Public e;pression of opinions or discussions of probable issues in a forthcoming election or on attributes of or criticisms against probable candidates proposed to be nominated in a forth coming political party convention shall not be construed as part of any election campaign or partisan political activity contemplated under this .rticle. !mphasis supplied.4uided by the above perspective( $oblesE act of submitting a nomination list for >39.K cannot( without more( be considered electioneering or partisan political activity within the conte;t of the !lection &ode. %irst of all( petitioner did not aver that $obles committed any of the five @- acts defined in the aforeDuoted Sec. ,= b- of the &ode( let alone adduce proof to show the fact of commission.

11+

11=

Second( even if $obles performed any of the previously mentioned acts( Sec. ,= of the &ode is nonetheless uneDuivocal that if the same is done only for the Ipurpose of enhancing the chances of aspirants for nominations for candidacy to a public office by a political party( agreement( or coalition of parties(J it is not considered as a prohibited electioneering or partisan election activity. %rom this provision( one can conclude that as long as the acts embraced under Sec. ,= pertain to or are in connection with the nomination of a candidate by a party or organization( then such are treated as internal matters and cannot be considered as electioneering or partisan political activity. 'he twin acts of signing and filing a &ertificate of 5omination are purely internal processes of the party or organization and are not designed to enable or ensure the victory of the candidate in the elections. 'he act of $obles of submitting the certificate nominating #elarde and others was merely in compliance with the &"0!L!& reDuirements for nomination of party7list representatives and( hence( cannot be treated as electioneering or partisan political activity proscribed under by Sec. / )- of .rt. 1G >- of the &onstitution for civil servants. 0oreover( despite the fact that $obles is a nominating officer( as well as &hief of the L$'.( petitioner was unable to cite any legal provision that prohibits his concurrent positions of L$'. President and acting president of a party7list organization or that bars him from nominating. Last but not least( the nomination of #elarde( &oscolluela( 'ieng( 0onsod( and #illarama to the /::, party7list elections was( in the final analysis( an act of the 5ational &ouncil of >39.K. $oblesE role in the nominating process was limited to signing( on behalf of >39.K( and submitting the partyEs &ertificate of 5omination to the &"0!L!&.1@8O*/P 'he act of nominating >39.KEs representatives was veritably a direct and official act of the 5ational &ouncil of >39.K and not $oblesE. >e that as it may( it is irrelevant who among >39.KEs officials signs the &ertificate of 5omination( as long as the signatory was so authorized by >39.K. 'he alleged disDualification of $obles as nominating officer is indeed a non7issue and does not affect the act of the 5ational &ouncil of nominating #elarde and others. 9ence( the &ertificate of 5omination( albeit signed by $obles( is still the product of a valid and legal act of the 5ational &ouncil of >39.K. $oblesE connection with L$'. could not really be considered as a factor invalidating the nomination process. $H!'d0O-er( .r"n&"%'e A%%'"e Petitioner SeUeres further maintains that at the time the &ertificate of 5omination was submitted( $oblesE term as President of >39.K had
1@8

11=

1/:

already e;pired( thus effectively nullifying the &ertificate of 5omination and the nomination process. .gain( petitionerEs contention is untenable. .s a general rule( officers and directors of a corporation hold over after the e;piration of their terms until such time as their successors are elected or appointed. 1@, O**P Sec. /* of the &orporation &ode contains a provision to this effect( thus: Section /*. Th! b$a"* $' *i"!,&$"s $" &"+s&!!s.3nless otherwise provided in this &ode( the corporate powers of all corporations formed under this &ode shall be e;ercised( all business conducted and all property of such corporations controlled and held by the board of directors or trustees to be elected from among the holders of stoc<s( or where there is no stoc<( from among the members of the corporation( who shall hold office for one 1- year until their successors are elected and Dualified. 'he holdover doctrine has( to be sure( a purpose which is at once legal as it is practical. 1t accords validity to what would otherwise be deemed as dubious corporate acts and gives continuity to a corporate enterprise in its relation to outsiders.1@+O*)P 'his is the analogical situation obtaining in the present case. 'he voting members of >39.K duly elected $obles as party President in "ctober 1===. .nd although his regular term as such President e;pired in "ctober /::/( 1@=O*@P no election was held to replace him and the other original set of officers. 18:O*8P %urther( the constitution and by7laws of >39.K do not e;pressly or impliedly prohibit a hold7over situation. .s such( since no successor was ever elected or Dualified( $obles remained the President of >39.K in a Ihold7 overJ capacity. .uthorities are almost unanimous that one who continues with the discharge of the functions of an office after the e;piration of his or her legal termWWno successor having( in the meantime( been appointed or chosenWWis commonly regarded as a *! 'a,&$ officer( even where no provision is made by law for his holding over and there is nothing to indicate the contrary.181O*,P >y fiction of law( the acts of such *! 'a,&$ officer are considered valid and effective.18/O*+P

1@, 1@+ 1@= 18: 181 18/

1/:

1/1

So it must be for the acts of $obles while serving as a hold7over >uhay President. .mong these acts was the submission of the nomination certificate for the 0ay 1)( /::, elections. .s a final consideration( it bears to state that petitioner is estopped from Duestioning the authority of $obles as President of >39.K. .s a principle of eDuity rooted on natural 6ustice( the bar of estoppel precludes a person from going bac< on his own acts and representations to the pre6udice of another whom he has led to rely upon them.18*O*=P .gain( it cannot be denied that $obles( as >39.K President( signed all manifestations of the partyEs desire to participate in the /::1 and /::) elections( as well as all &ertificates of 5omination. 18)O):P 1n fact( the corresponding certificate for the /::) elections included petitioner as one of the nominees. During this time( $oblesE term as President had already e;pired( and yet( petitioner never Duestioned $oblesE authority to sign the &ertificate of 5omination. .s a matter of fact( petitioner even benefited from the nomination( because he earned a seat in the 9ouse of $epresentatives as a result of the partyEs success. 18@O)1P &learly( petitioner cannot now be heard to argue that $oblesE term as president of >39.K has long since e;pired( and that his act of submitting the &ertificate of 5omination and the manifestation to participate in the /::, elections is null and void. 9e is already precluded from doing so. >HEREFORE( the petition is DISMISSED. $esolution !.0. 5o. :,7:)* of the &"0!L!& dated 2uly 1=( /::, is AFFIRMED. 5o costs. Se&t"!n G. N! %er !n ha'' )e a mem)er !f the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e #n'e he " a nat#ra' )!rn &"t"Een !f the .h"'"%%"ne and2 !n the da* !f the e'e&t"!n2 " at 'ea t 47 *ear !f a,e2 a)'e t! read and +r"te2 and eC&e%t the %art*0'" t re%re entat"-e 2 a re," tered -!ter "n the d" tr"&t "n +h"&h he ha'' )e e'e&ted2 and a re "dent there!f f!r a %er"!d !f n!t 'e than 3 *ear "mmed"ate'* %re&ed"n, the da* !f the e'e&t"!n. $ead:
18* 18) 18@

1/1

1//

ANTONIO BEN1SON III VS. HOUSE OF RE.RESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and TEODORO CRUN2 675 SCRA 7@7 $ep. .ct 5o. /8*: ISec. 1. .ny person who had lost his Philippine &itizenship by rendering service to( or accepting commission in( the .rmed %orces of the 3nited States( or after separation from the .rmed %orces of the 3nited states( acDuired 3S citizenship( 0.K $!.&A31$! P91L1PP15! &1'1M!5S91P >K '.?154 .5 ".'9 "% .LL!41.5&! '" '9! $!P3>L1& "% '9! P91L1PP15!S .5D $!41S'!$154 '9! S.0! L1'9 '9! L"&.L &1#1L $!41S'$K 15 '9! PL.&! L9!$! 9! $!S1D!S "$ L.S' $!S1D!D 15 '9! P91L1PP15!S. 'he said "ath of allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other citizenship.J 1. Section /( .rticle 1#( Philippine &onstitution 1=+,

ISection /. 5atural born citizens are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform an act to acDuire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. 'hose who elect Philippine &itizenship in accordance with par. *\ ( Section 1 shall be deemed natural born citizens.J OCAM.O VS. HOUSE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and MARIO CRES.O2 a.<.a. MARL :IMENEN2 :#ne 372 4;;@ Lho ta<es the place of the winning candidate as a
\

I'hose born before 2anuary 1,( 1=,*( of %ilipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of ma6ority.J

1//

1/*

0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives who was disDualified after he was proclaimed as suchC %acts: 'he petitioner and 0ar< 2imenez were candidates for &ongressman of the 8th District of manila for the 0ay 1)( /::1 elections. 0ar< 2imenez won over the petitioner with */(:=, votes as against petitionerEs *1(*/= votes. Petitioner filed an electoral protest before the 9$!' based on the following grounds: 1P misreading of ballotsF /P falsification of election returnsF *Psubstitution of election returnsF )P use of mar<ed( spurious fa<e and stray ballotsF and @P presence of ballots written by one or two persons. "n 0arch 8( /::*( the 9$!' issued its Decision in the case of .>.5'!( !' .L. #S. 0.$1 &$!SP"( a.<.a. 0.$? 210!5!M( et al.( declaring 0ar< 2imenez I ineligible for the "ffice of $epresentative of Si;th District of 0anila for lac< of residence in the District. 0ar< 2imenez filed a 0otion for $econsideration which was denied. .s a result of said disDualification of 2imenez( the petitioner claimed that all the votes cast for the former should not be counted and since he garnered the second highest number of votes( he should be declared winner in the 0ay 1)( /::1 elections and be proclaimed the duly elected &ongressman of the 8th District of manila. 1ssues: 1. .re the votes of 0ar< 2imenez stray votes and should not be countedC /. Lhether the petitioner as second places should be proclaimed winner since the winner was disDualifiedC 9eld: 1. 'here must be a final 6udgment disDualifying a candidate in order that the votes of a disDualified candidate can be considered IstrayJ. 'his final 6udgment must be rendered >!%"$! '9! !L!&'1"5. 'his was the ruling in the case of &"D1LL. #S. D! #!5!&1.. 9ence( when a candidate has not been disDualified by final 6udgment during the election day he was voted for( the votes cast in his favor cannot be declared stray. 'o do so would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides. 'he
1/*

1/)

reason behind this is that the people voted for him bona fide and in the honest belief that the candidate was then Dualified to be the person to whom they would entrust the e;ercise of the powers of government. /. 'he subseDuent disDualification of a candidate who obtained the highest number of votes does not entitle the second placer to be declared the winner. 'he said principle was laid down as early as 1=1/ and reiterated in the cases of LABO VS. COMELEC2 ABELLA VS. COMELEC and DOMINO VS. COMELEC. (N!te2 h!+e-er2 that "f the d" ?#a'"f"&at"!n )e&ame FINAL )ef!re e'e&t"!n da* )#t t"''2 the -!ter e'e&ted h"m2 a"d -!te are &!n "dered tra* -!te and the $ e&!nd %'a&er( +"'' )e de&'ared the +"nner) Se&t"!n 5. The mem)er !f the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e ha'' )e e'e&ted f!r a term !f 6 *ear +h"&h ha'' )e,"n2 #n'e !ther+" e %r!-"ded )* 'a+2 at n!!n !n the 6;th da* !f :#ne neCt f!''!+"n, the"r e'e&t"!n. N! mem)er !f the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e ha'' er-e f!r a %er"!d !f m!re than 6 &!n e&#t"-e term . V!'#ntar* ren#n&"at"!n !f the !ff"&e f!r an* 'en,th !f t"me ha'' n!t )e &!n "dered a an "nterr#%t"!n "n the &!nt"n#"t* !f h" er-"&e f!r the f#'' term f!r +h"&h he +a e'e&ted. Se&t"!n A. Un'e !ther+" e %r!-"ded )* 'a+2 the re,#'ar e'e&t"!n !f the Senat!r and the Mem)er !f the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e ha'' )e he'd !n the e&!nd M!nda* !f Ma*.

1/)

1/@

a. "n the manner of nomination and appointment of representatives to the 9ose of $epresentatives.

Sectoral

$ead: 1. E>!,. O"*!" N$. 1;8, I+#! 18, 1;87 /.. 6ELES VS. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, S!%&!)b!" , 1;8; b. "n gerrymandering $ead: CENIZA vs. COMELEC, ;B SCRA 7:9 ). Section =. 1n case of vacancy in the Senate or in the 9ouse of $epresentatives( a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law( but the Senator or 0ember of the 9ouse of representatives thus elected shall serve only the une;pired term. $ead: 1. LOZA6A vs. COMELEC, 127 SCRA 997 COMELEC ,a##$& ,all a s%!,ial !l!,&i$# A'$" &h! l!(isla&iv! *is&"i,&s -h$s! C$#("!ss)!# "!si(#!* $" *i!* -hil! i# $''i,!) -i&h$+& a la- %ass!* b= C$#("!ss a%%"$%"ia&i#( '+#*s '$" &h! sai* %+"%$s!. 2. RA :: BMREC ?illi#( +% $' C$#("!ss Va,a#,=, 6!,!)b!" 28, 1;87 @. Section 1:. 'he salaries of Senators and 0embers of the 9ouse of $epresentatives shall be determined by law. 5o increase in said compensation shall ta<e effect until after the e;piration of the full term of all the members of the Senate and the 9ouse of representatives approving such increase. a. 9ow much is the present salary of the members of &ongressC P/:)(:::.:: OP1,(:::.:: per monthP as per Section 1,( .rt. G#111 of the &onstitution. 'he PresidentEs salary is P*::(:::.:: per annum( while the #P( Spea<er( Senate President and &hief 2ustice is P/):(:::.:: per annum. 'he &hairman of the &onstitutional &ommissions salary is P/:)(:::.:: and the members( P1+:(:::.:: per annum. b. $ead:

1/@

1/8

1. S!,&i$# 17, A"&i,l! 18) AP977,777.77 '$" &h! P"!si*!#&2 P2 7,777.77 '$" VP, S!#a&! P"!si*!#&2 S%!aE!"2 Chi!' I+s&i,!2 P27 ,777.77 '$" S!#a&$"s, R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s, Chai")!# $' CC2 P187,777.77 '$" )!)b!"s $' &h! C$#s&i&+&i$#al C$))issi$#s) 2. PNILCONSA VS. IIMENEZ, 1B SCRA 7;2 9. LIGOT VS. MATNAF, B: SCRA 829 8. Section 11. . Senator or 0ember of the 9ouse of representatives shall( in all offenses punishable by not more than 8 years imprisonment( be privileged from arrest while the &ongress is in session. 5o member shall be Duestioned nor be held liable in any other place for any debate in the &ongress or in any committee thereof. a. Privilege from arrest $ead: 0artinez vs. 0orfe(

b. %reedom of Speech and debate $ead: 1) OSMENA VS. PEN6AT@N, 17; Phil. 8:9 2) IIMENEZ VS. CABANGBANG, 17 SCRA 87: 5. Se&t"!n 34. A'' mem)er !f the Senate and the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e ha''2 #%!n a #m%t"!n !f !ff"&e2 ma<e a f#'' d" &'! #re !f the"r f"nan&"a' and )# "ne "ntere t . The* ha'' n!t"f* the H!# e &!n&erned !f a %!tent"a' &!nf'"&t !f "ntere t that ma* ar" e fr!m the f"'"n, !f a %r!%! ed 'e," 'at"!n !f +h"&h the* are a#th!r . A. Se&t"!n 36. N! Senat!r !r Mem)er !f the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e ma* h!'d an* !ther !ff"&e !r em%'!*ment "n the ,!-ernment2 !r an* #)d"-" "!n2 a,en&* !r "n tr#menta'"t* there!f2 "n&'#d"n, ,!-ernment0!+ned and &!ntr!''ed &!r%!rat"!n !r the"r #) "d"ar"e 2 d#r"n, h" term +"th!#t f!rfe"t"n, h" eat. Ne"ther ha'' he )e a%%!"nted t! an* !ff"&e +h"&h ma* ha-e )een &reated !r the em!'#ment there!f "n&rea ed d#r"n, the term f!r +h"&h he +a e'e&ted. $ead: 1) A6AZA vs. PACANA, 19B SCRA 91
1/8

1/,

A'&!" &aEi#( his $a&h as a )!)b!" $' &h! Ba&asa#( Pa)ba#sa AC$#("!ss), h! is *!!)!* &$ hav! "!si(#!* his %$si&i$# as G$v!"#$" $' Misa)is O"i!#&al b!,a+s! as a l!(isla&$", h! is #$& all$-!* &$ h$l* a#= $&h!" $''i,! i# &h! ($v!"#)!#&. 2) P@NZALAN vs. MEN6OZA, 1 7 SCRA 1B9 A %"$vi#,ial ($v!"#$" -h$ &$$E his $a&h as a )!)b!" $' &h! Ba&asa#( Pa)ba#sa as .a%%$i#&!* )!)b!"/ '$" b!i#( a )!)b!" $' &h! Cabi#!& is all$-!* &$ "!&+"# &$ his '$")!" %$si&i$# as G$v!"#$" i' h! "!si(#s '"$) &h! Ba&asa#. This is s$ b!,a+s! h! -as 8+s& a# .a%%$i#&!*/ )!)b!" as *is&i#(+ish!* '"$) &h! A*aKa Cas!. AN$&!C I& a%%!a"s &ha& a# a%%$i#&!* )!)b!" $' &h! Ba&asa# is %la,!* i# a b!&&!" %$si&i$# &ha# &h! !l!,&!* )!)b!"s) *- &ompare with Section 1:( .rt. #111 of the 1=,* &onstitution 8. Se&t"!n 3@. N! Senat!r !r Mem)er !f the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e ma* %er !na''* a%%ear a &!#n e' )ef!re an* &!#rt !f D# t"&e !r )ef!re the E'e&t!ra' Tr")#na' 2 !r ?#a "0D#d"&"a' )!d"e and !ther adm"n" trat"-e )!d"e . Ne"ther ha'' he2 d"re&t'* !r "nd"re&t'*2 )e "ntere ted f"nan&"a''* "n an* &!ntra&t +"th2 !r an* fran&h" e !r %e&"a' %r"-"'e,e ,ranted )* the 1!-ernment2 !r an* #)d"-" "!n2 a,en&* !r "n tr#menta'"t* there!f2 "n&'#d"n, an* ,!-ernment !+ned !r &!ntr!''ed &!r%!rat"!n2 !r "t #) "d"ar*2 d#r"n, h" term !f !ff"&e. He ha'' n!t "nter-ene "n an* matter )ef!re an* !ff"&e !f the ,!-ernment f!r h" %e&#n"ar* )enef"t !r +here he ma* )e &a''ed #%!n t! a&t !n a&&!#nt !f h" !ff"&e. $ead: 1- #1LL!4.S vs. L!4.SP1( 11* S&$. *= /- P3K.' vs. D! 43M0.5( 11* S&$. *1 Lhat could not be done directly could not li<ewise be done indirectly. So a member of &ongress who is a stoc<holder of the corporation involved in a case is not allowed to appear under the guise that he is appearing as such( not as counsel for the corporation. 3;. Se&t"!n 37. The C!n,re ha'' &!n-ene !n&e e-er* *ear !n the @th M!nda* !f :#'* f!r "t re,#'ar ea !n2
1/,

1/+

#n'e a d"fferent date " f"Ced )* 'a+2 and ha'' &!nt"n#e t! )e "n e "!n f!r #&h n#m)er !f da* a "t ma* determ"ne #nt"' 6; da* )ef!re the !%en"n, !f "t neCt re,#'ar e "!n2 eC&'# "-e !f Sat#rda* 2 S#nda* 2 and 'e,a' h!'"da* . The .re "dent ma* &a'' a %e&"a' e "!n at an* t"me. Se&t"!n 3G. H3I The Senate ha'' e'e&t "t .re "dent and the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e 2 "t S%ea<er2 )* a maD!r"t* -!te !f a'' "t re %e&t"-e mem)er . Ea&h h!# e ha'' &h!! e #&h !ther !ff"&er a "t ma* deem ne&e ar*. H4I A maD!r"t* !f ea&h h!# e ha'' &!n t"t#te a ?#!r#m t! d! )# "ne 2 )#t a ma''er n#m)er ma* adD!#rn fr!m da* t! da* and ma* &!m%e' the attendan&e !f a) ent mem)er "n #&h manner2 and #nder #&h %ena't"e 2 a #&h H!# e ma* %r!-"de. H6I Ea&h H!# e ma* determ"ne the r#'e !f "t %r!&eed"n, 2 %#n" h "t mem)er f!r d" !rder'* )eha-"!r2 and +"th the &!n&#rren&e !f 4M6 !f a'' "t mem)er 2 # %end !r eC%e' a Mem)er. A %ena't* !f # %en "!n2 +hen "m%! ed2 ha'' m!t eC&eed "Ct* da* . 5"'!: 1n the cases of:
1. 01$1.0

D!%!5S"$ S.5'1.4" #S. S.5D14.5>.K.5F and /. $!P. &!%!$15" P.$!D!S #S. S.5D14.5>.K.5( 7the Supreme &ourt held that a member of &ongress may also be suspended by the Sandiganbayan in accordance with Section 1* of $. *:1=. 'his preventive suspension applies to all public officials( including members of &ongress. "therwise( the same will be considered class legislation there will be violation of the eDual protection clause- if Senators and &ongressmen who commit the same is e;empt from the preventive suspension imposed therein. >ut the "rder of Suspension from the court shall be given to the Spea<er or Senate President for hisTher implementation.

1/+

1/=

"ther than the foregoing( a member of &ongress can be suspended by the &ongress itself. H@I Ea&h H!# e ha'' <ee% a D!#rna' !f "t %r!&eed"n, 2 and fr!m t"me t! t"me %#)'" h the ame2 eC&e%t"n, #&h %art a ma*2 "n "t D#d,ment2 affe&t nat"!na' e&#r"t*K and the *ea and na* !n an* ?#e t"!n ha''2 at the re?#e t !f !ne f"fth !f the mem)er %re ent2 )e entered "n the D!#rna'. Ea&h H!# e %r!&eed"n, . ha'' a' ! <ee% a re&!rd !f "t

HNe"ther H!# e d#r"n, the e "!n !f the C!n,re 2 ha'' +"th!#t the &!n ent !f the !ther2 adD!#rn f!r m!re than three da* 2 n!r t! an* %'a&e than that +h"&h the 4 H!# e ha'' )e "tt"n,. $ead: 1) AVELINO vs. C@ENCO, 89 Phil. 17, R!a* als$ &h! )$&i$# '$" "!,$#si*!"a&i$# *a&!* Ma",h 1 , 1; ; /- Disciplinary measures on erring members $ead: OSMENA vs. PEN6AT@N, 17; Phil. 8:9 *- Dual purpose for <eeping a 6ournal )- 2ournal entry and enrolled bill theoriesF which is conclusive over the otherC $ead: @.S. vs. PONS, 9 Phil. 72; Th! 8$+"#al %"!vails $v!" !>&"a#!$+s !vi*!#,! liE! a,,$+#&s $' #!-s%a%!" 8$+"#alis&s a#* "!%$"&!"s as &$ -ha& &h! %"$,!!*i#(s all ab$+&. b. MABANAG vs. LOPEZ VITO, 78 Phil. 1 CASCO PNIL. VS. GIMENEZ, 7 SCRA 9 7 'he enrolled bill prevails over the 6ournal. 1f the enrolled bill provides that it is urea formaldehyde is the one e;empt from ta;( and not urea and formaldehyde which appears in the 6ournal which was really approved( the former prevails and only &3$.'1#! L!41SL.'1"5 &"3LD &9.54! '9! S.0!( 5"' 23D1&1.L L!41SL.'1"5.
1/=

1*:

*. MORALES vs. S@BI6O, 27 Phil. 191 !. ASTORGA vs. VILLEGAS, B: SCRA 71 5"'!: 'he 6ournal prevails over the enrolled bill on all matters reDuired to be entered in the 6ournals( li<e yeas and nays on the final reading of a bill or on any Duestion at the reDuest of 1T@ of the members present. @- Differentiate a L"!(+la"L '"$) a Ls%!,ialL s!ssi$#. 11. Se&t"!n 35. The Senate and the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e ha'' ea&h ha-e an E'e&t!ra' Tr")#na' +h"&h ha'' )e the !'e D#d,e !f a'' e'e&t"!n &!nte t re'at"n, t! e'e&t"!n2 ret#rn 2 and ?#a'"f"&at"!n !f the"r re %e&t"-e mem)er . Ea&h E'e&t!ra' tr")#na' ha'' )e &!m%! ed !f 8 mem)er 2 6 !f +h!m ha'' )e D# t"&e !f the S#%reme C!#rt t! )e de ",nated )* the Ch"ef D# t"&e2 and the rema"n"n, "C ha'' )e mem)er !f the Senate !r H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e a the &a e ma* )e2 +h! ha'' )e &h! en !n the )a " !f %r!%!rt"!na' re%re entat"!n fr!m the %!'"t"&a' %art"e and the %art"e !r !r,an"Eat"!n re," tered #nder the %art*0'" t * tem re%re ented there"n. The en"!r D# t"&e "n the E'e&t!ra' tr")#na' ha'' )e "t Cha"rman. 2urisdiction of the !lectoral 'ribunals viz7a7viz the &"0!L!& to determine the Dualifications of 0embers of &ongress before and after proclamation. :OCEL/N S/ LIMLAICHON1 VS. COMELEC2 1.R. N!. 35AA630 642 A%r"' 32 4;;8 "nce a +"nn"n, &and"date has been %r!&'a"med( ta<en h" !ath( and a #med !ff"&e as a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( the D#r" d"&t"!n !f the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e E'e&t!ra' Tr")#na' )e,"n over election contests relating to his election( returns( and Dualifications( and mere a''e,at"!n a t! the "n-a'"d"t* !f her %r!&'amat"!n d!e n!t d"-e t the E'e&t!ra' Tr")#na' !f "t D#r" d"&t"!n. .t the core of these contentious consolidated petitions are: 3- the 2oint $esolution188O1P of the &ommission on !lections &"0!L!&- Second Division dated 0ay 1,( /::,( disDualifying 2ocelyn D. Sy Lim<aichong Lim<aichongfrom running as a congressional candidate for the %irst District of 5egros
188O1P

R$ll$ 4.$. 5os. 1,++*17*/-( pp. /)7*8.

1*:

1*1

"rientalF 4- the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, $esolution18,O/P dated 2une /=( /::,( affirming her disDualificationF and 6- the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, $esolution18+O*P dated .ugust 18( /::,( resolving that all pending incidents relating to her Dualifications should now be determined by the 9ouse of $epresentatives !lectoral 'ribunal 9$!'-. 'he facts are uncontroverted. "n 0arch /8( /::,( Lim<aichong filed with the &"0!L!& her &ertificate of &andidacy 18=O)P &"&- for the position of $epresentative of the %irst District of 5egros "riental. 1n the following wee<s( two /- petitions for her disDualification were instituted before the &"0!L!& by concerned citizens coming from her locality. "n .pril )( /::,( 5apoleon &amero( a registered voter of La Libertad( 5egros "riental( filed the petition for her disDualification on the ground that she lac<ed the citizenship reDuirement of a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives. 'he petition( which was doc<eted as SP. 5o. P!S- .:,7::8( 1,:O@P alleged that she is not a natural7born %ilipino because her parents were &hinese citizens at the time of her birth. "n .pril 11( /::,( $enald %. #illando( also a registered voter of the same locality( filed the second petition on the same ground of citizenship( doc<eted as SP. P!S- 5o. .:,7::,. 1,1O8P 9e claimed that when Lim<aichong was born( her parents were still &hinese citizens as the proceedings for the naturalization of 2ulio "ng Sy( her father( never attained finality due to procedural and substantial defects. >oth petitions prayed for the cancellation of Lim<aichongSs &"& and for the &"0!L!& to stri<e out her name from the list of Dualified candidates for the $epresentative of the %irst District of 5egros "riental. 1n her separate .nswers1,/O,P to the petitions( Lim<aichong claimed that she is a nat#ra'0)!rn F"'"%"n! since she was born to a nat#ra'"Eed F"'"%"n! father and a nat#ra'0)!rn F"'"%"n! m!ther2 who had reacDuired her status as such due to her husbandSs naturalization. 'hus( at the time of her birth on 5ovember =( 1=@=( nineteen 1=- days had already passed after her father too< his "ath of .llegiance on "ctober /1( 1=@= and after he was issued a &ertificate of 5aturalization on the same day. She contended that the &"0!L!& should dismiss the petitions outright for lac< of cause of action. &iting Sal,!*$ II v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s, P she averred that a petition filed before an election( Duestioning the Dualification of a candidate( should be based on Section ,+ in relation to Section ,) of the "mnibus !lection &ode "!& and not under Sections 8+ and ,) thereof in relation to Section 1 $ule /@ of the &"0!L!& $ules of Procedure and Section @ paragraph & *.a- of &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. ,+::. She also contended that the petitions were dismissible on the ground that they
18,O/P 18+O*P 18=O)P 1,:O@P 1,1O8P 1,/O,P

I*. at @*788. I*. at 1+171+*. I*. at ,). I*. at ,@7,,. I*. at +/7+,. I*. at 1::71)).

1*1

1*/

were in the nature of a collateral attac< on her and her fatherEs citizenships( in contravention of the well7established rule that attac< on oneSs citizenship may only be made through a direct action for its nullity. 'he &"0!L!& consolidated the two /- petitions and re7doc<eted them as SP. 5os. :,7/),1,*O1,P and :,7/)+(1,)O1+P entitled IN TNE MATTER O? TNE PETITION TO 6ISJ@ALI?F IOCELFN SF LIMHAICNONG ?ROM NER CAN6I6ACF AS ?IRST 6ISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE O? NEGROS ORIENTAL herein referred to as the disDualification cases-( which remained pending on 0ay 1)( /::,( when the 5ational and Local !lections were conducted. .fter the casting( counting and canvassing of votes in the said elections( Lim<aichong emerged as the +"nner with 8@(,:+ votes1,@O1=P or by a margin of ,(,)8 votes over another congressional candidate( "livia Paras 1,8O/:P Paras-( who obtained @,(=8/. "n 0ay 1@( /::,( Paras filed with the &"0!L!& a Ver* Ur,ent M!t"!n f!r Lea-e t! Inter-ene and t! S# %end the .r!&'amat"!n !f :!&e'*n S* L"m<a"&h!n, a >"nn"n, Cand"date !f the F"r t D" tr"&t !f Ne,r! Or"enta'.1,,O/1P 1n a 2oint $esolution1,+O//P dated 0ay 1,( /::,( the &"0!L!& Second Division granted the petitions in the disDualification cases( disDualified Lim<aichong as a candidate for $epresentative of the %irst District of 5egros "riental( directed the Provincial Supervisor of the &"0!L!& to stri<e out her name from the list of eligible candidates( and for the Provincial >oard of &anvassers P>"&- to suspend her proclamation. 'he P>"& received the 2oint $esolution of the &"0!L!& Second Division on the evening of 0ay 1,( /::,( and accordingly suspended the proclamation of Lim<aichong.1,=O/)P 'he following day( or on 0ay 1+( /::,( the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, issued Re !'#t"!n N!. A;G41+:O/@P adopting the policy7guidelines of n!t # %end"n, the
1,*O1,P 1,)O1+P

!ntitled Na%$l!$# Ca)!"$, P!&i&i$#!", v!"s+s I$,!l=# S. Li)Eai,h$#(, R!s%$#*!#&. !ntitled R!#al* ?. Villa#*$, P!&i&i$#!", v!"s+s I$,!l=# S. Li)Eai,h$#(, R!s%$#*!#&. 1,@O1=P R$ll$ 4.$. 5os. 1,++*17*/-( p. 1@/. 1,8O/:P R$ll$ 4.$. 5os. 1,=1*/7**-( p. 1:*. 1,,O/1P I*. at 1*@71)1. 1,+O//P R$ll$ A4.$. 5os. 1,++*17*/-, pp. /)7*@. 'he %!" ,+"ia) 2oint $esolution was unanimously signed by &ommissioners %lorentino .. 'uason( 2r. ret.-( $ene #. Sarmiento and 5icodemo '. %errer. 1,=O/)P R$ll$ 4.$. 5os. 1,=1*/7**-( pp. 18+718=( /:1. 1+:O/@P R$ll$ 4.$. 5os. 1,++*17*/-( pp. 1)@71)8. 'he resolution is entitled I1n the 0atter of .dopting the %ollowing Policy74uidelines on: 1- the Proclamation of Linning &andidates with Pending DisDualification &asesF /- Suspension of &anvassing andTor ProclamationF and *- 'ransfer of &anvassing #enue(J the pertinent portion of which is Duoted as follows: 'he &ommission( in upholding the sovereign will of the people and in the interest of 6ustice and fair play( RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES( to adopt the following policy7guidelines in connection with the 0ay 1)( /::, 5ational and Local !lections:

1*/

1**

%r!&'amat"!n !f +"nn"n, &and"date +"th %end"n, d" ?#a'"f"&at"!n &a e which shall be without pre6udice to the continuation of the hearing and resolution of the involved cases. "n 0ay /:( /::,( Lim<aichong filed with the &"0!L!& a M!t"!n f!r Re&!n "derat"!n !f the :!"nt Re !'#t"!n !f Ma* 352 4;;5 and Ur,ent M!t"!n t! L"ft the Order S# %end"n, .r!&'amat"!n.1+1O/8P "n 0ay //( /::,( Lim<aichong filed another motion for the lifting of the directive suspending her proclamation( insisting that she should be proclaimed as the winner in the congressional race pursuant to &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. +:8/.1+/O/,P "n same date( #illando( one of the petitioners in the disDualification cases( filed an Ur,ent Man"fe tat"!n C'ar"f*"n, COMELEC Re !'#t"!n N!. A;G4 +"th M!t"!n(1+*O/+P praying that the &"0!L!& should not lift the suspension of Lim<aichongEs proclamation. "n 0ay /@( /::,( the P>"&( in compliance with &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. +:8/( reconvened and proclaimed Lim<aichong as the duly elected 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives for the %irst District of 5egros "riental.1+)O/=P 'hereafter( or on 0ay *:( /::,( Paras filed with the &"0!L!& a .et"t"!n t! N#''"f* andM!r Ann#' the .r!&'amat"!n !f :!&e'*n S*0 L"m<a"&h!n, a F"r t D" tr"&t Re%re entat"-e !f Ne,r! Or"enta' "n re'at"!n t! the Ma* 352 4;;5 :!"nt Re !'#t"!n !f the COMELEC Se&!nd D"-" "!n(1+@ O*:P stating( among others( that Lim<aichongSs proclamation violated the earlier order of the &"0!L!& Second Division suspending her proclamation. 'he petition( doc<eted as SP& 5o. :,7/11( was dismissed by the &"0!L!& %irst Division(1+8O*1P ratiocinating that the disDualification cases were not yet final when Lim<aichong was proclaimed. .ccordingly( her proclamation which was valid

3) N! # %en "!n !f %r!&'amat"!n !f +"nn"n, &and"date +"th %end"n, d" ?#a'"f"&at"!n &a e 'here shall be no suspension of proclamation of winning candidates with pending disDualification cases before or after elections( involving issues of citizenship( non7residency( not being a registered voter( nuisance candidate( andTor violation of the election laws under Section 8+ of the "mnibus !lection &ode( %air !lections .ct and other related election laws. Th" %!'"&* h!+e-er ha'' )e +"th!#t %reD#d"&e t! the &!nt"n#at"!n !f the hear"n, and re !'#t"!n !f the "n-!'-ed &a e .
1+1O/8P 1+/O/,P

R$ll$ A4.$. 5o. 1,=1*/7**-( pp. *,7@/ I*. at 1),71)=. 1+*O/+P R$ll$ 4.$. 5os. 1,=1*/7**-( pp. 1@+718/. 1+)O/=P R$ll$ A4.$. 5os. 1,++*17*/-, p. 1@/. 1+@O*:P R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1,=1*/7**-( pp. 18@71=/. 1+8O*1P I* at */+7**). 'he $esolution was penned by the late &ommissioner $omeo .. >rawner and concurred in by &ommissioner $esurreccion M. >orra ret.-.

1**

1*)

or legal( effectively divested the &"0!L!& of its 6urisdiction over the cases. 'he &"0!L!& %irst Division e;plained its ruling in this wise: 'he &ommission has made its "ntent"!n "n " #"n, Re !'#t"!n N!. A;G4 very clear in that there shall be n! # %en "!n !f %r!&'amat"!n !f +"nn"n, &and"date +"th %end"n, d" ?#a'"f"&at"!n &a e "n-!'-"n,2 am!n, !ther 2 " #e !f &"t"Een h"%. .s the disDualification cases involving Lim<aichong were still pending reconsideration by the !# ba#,, the underlying policy which gave rise to the issuance of the $esolution: to respect the will of the %ilipino electorate( applies to the suspension of proclamation of the winning congressional candidate for the %irst District of 5egros "riental. >HEREFORE( the instant petition is dismissed. SO ORDERED. !mphasis oursDissatisfied( Paras moved for the reconsideration of the above $esolution.1+,O*/P 0eanwhile( in a $esolution1++O**P dated 2une /=( /::,( the &"0!L!& E# Ba#,( in an eDually divided vote of *:*( denied Lim<aichongEs motion for reconsideration of the 2oint $esolution of the &"0!L!& Second Division in the disDualification cases. "n 2uly *( /::,( Lim<aichong filed in the disDualification cases against her a Man"fe tat"!n and M!t"!n f!r C'ar"f"&at"!n andM!r T! De&'are the .et"t"!n a D" m" ed "n A&&!rdan&e +"th Se&t"!n G2 R#'e 3A !f the COMELEC R#'e !f .r!&ed#re.1+=O*@P She contended that( with her proclamation( her having ta<en her oath of office and her assumption of the position( the &"0!L!& was divested of 6urisdiction to hear the disDualification cases. She further contended that( following Section 8( 1=:O*8P $ule 1+ of the &"0!L!& $ules of Procedure( the disDualification cases would have to be
1+,O*/P

I*. at /1@7/*8. 'he &"0!L!& %irst Division denied ParasE motion on 2anuary /+( /::+ through an "mnibus "rder. R$ll$ O4.$. 5os. 1,++*17*/P( pp. )8*7)8,.1++O**P R$ll$ 4.$. 5os. 1,++*17*/-( pp. @*788. 1n the %!" ,+"ia) $esolution( then &"0!L!& &hairman >en6amin .. .balos( Sr.( &ommissioners $ene #. Sarmiento and 5icodemo '. %errer voted for the denial of Lim<aichongEs motion. 'he late &ommissioner $omeo .. >rawner also a former Presiding 2ustice of the &ourt of .ppeals- wrote a dissenting opinion( which was concurred with by retired &ommissioners $esurreccion M. >orra and %lorentino .. 'uason( 2r.( to the effect that Lim<aichongEs motion should be dismissed by the &"0!L!& for lac< of 6urisdiction. 1+=O*@P I*. at 1@=718*. 1=:O*8P Section 8( $ule 1+( &"0!L!& $ules of Procedure provides: S!&. 8. P"$,!*+"! i' O%i#i$# is E<+all= 6ivi*!*. 7 Lhen the &ommission !# ba#, is eDually divided in opinion( or the necessary ma6ority cannot be had( the case shall be reheard( and if on rehearing no decision is reached( the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the &ommissionF in appealed cases( the 6udgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmedF and in all incidental matters( the petition or motion shall be denied.

1*)

1*@

reheard( and if on rehearing( no decision would be reached( the action or proceedings should be dismissed( because the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, was eDually divided in opinion when it resolved her motion for reconsideration. "n an even date( Paras wrote the 9ouse of $epresentatives informing it of the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, $esolution dated 2une /=( /::, upholding the 2oint $esolution of the &"0!L!& Second Division dated 0ay 1,( /::,( which disDualified Lim<aichong as a congressional candidate.1=1O*,P 1n the i#&!"i)( then Spea<er of the 9ouse of $epresentatives 2ose de #enecia( 2r. De #enecia- allowed Lim<aichong to officially assume the office as a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives on 2uly /*( /::,( as shown in the 2ournal of the 9ouse of $epresentatives.1=/O*+P Despite Lim<aichongEs repeated pleas for the resolution of her manifestation and motion for clarification( 1=*O*=P the &"0!L!& did not resolve the same. 9ence( on .ugust 1( /::,( she filed with this &ourt a .et"t"!n f!r Certiorari1=)O):P under $ule 8@( in relation to $ule 8) of the 1==, $ules of &ivil Procedure doc<eted as 1.R. N! . 35AA63064 praying for the annulment of the 0ay 1,( /::, 2oint $esolution of the &"0!L!& Second Division and the 2une /=( /::, $esolution of the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, in the disDualification cases for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< of 6urisdiction. She averred that since she was already proclaimed on 0ay /@( /::, as $epresentative of the %irst District of 5egros "riental( had assumed office on 2une *:( /::,( and had started to perform her duties and functions as such( the &"0!L!& had lost its 6urisdiction and it is now the 9$!' which has 6urisdiction over any issue involving her Dualifications for the said office. "n .ugust 18( /::,( the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, ruled on Lim<aichongEs manifestation and motion for clarification(1=@O)1P with the following disDuisition: 1n view of the %r!&'amat"!n !f L"m<a"&h!n, and her subseDuent a #m%t"!n !f !ff"&e !n :#ne 6;2 4;;5( this &ommission rules that a'' %end"n, "n&"dent re'at"n, t! the ?#a'"f"&at"!n !f L"m<a"&h!n, h!#'d n!+ )e determ"ned )* the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e E'e&t!ra' Tr")#na' in accordance with the above7Duoted provision of the &onstitution. >HEREFORE( premises considered( this &ommission resolved( as it hereby resolves( that all pending incidents relating to
1=1O*,P 1=/O*+P

R$ll$ A4.$. 5os. 1,=1*/7**-( pp. /1*7/1). I*. at /*+7/@8. 1=*O*=P R$ll$ 4.$. 5os. 1,++*17*/-( pp. 18871,1. "n 2uly @( /::,( Lim<aichong filed an 3rgent 0otion to $esolve the 0anifestation and 0otion for &larification. "n 2uly 11( /::,( she filed a Second 0otion to $esolve said manifestation and motion. 1=)O):P I*. at *7/:. 1=@O)1P I*. at 1+171+*.

1*@

1*8

the Dualifications of 2ocelyn S. Lim<aichong as 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives should now be determined by the 9ouse of $epresentatives !lectoral 'ribunal. SO ORDERED. !mphasis ours"n .ugust /)( /::,( Louis >iraogo >iraogo-( as a citizen and a ta;payer( filed with the &ourt a .et"t"!n f!r .r!h")"t"!n and InD#n&t"!n +"th .re'"m"nar* InD#n&t"!n andM!r Tem%!rar* Re tra"n"n, Order 1=8O)/P under Section /( $ule 8@ of the 1==, $ules of &ivil Procedure( doc<eted as 1.R. N!. 35834;( see<ing to en6oin and permanently prohibit: a- De #enecia from allowing Lim<aichong to sit in the 9ouse of $epresentatives and participate in all its official activitiesF and b- Lim<aichong from holding office as its 0ember.1=,O)*P 0eanwhile( on .ugust /+( /::,( Paras has instituted before the &ourt a .et"t"!n f!r F#! >arrant!2 .r!h")"t"!n and Mandam# +"th .ra*er f!r the I #an&e !f a Tem%!rar* Re tra"n"n, Order andM!r >r"t !f .re'"m"nar* InD#n&t"!n1=+O))P under $ule 8@ of the 1==, $ules of &ivil Procedure( doc<eted as 1.R. N! . 358364066( see<ing( among others( the ouster of Lim<aichong from the 9ouse of $epresentatives on account of her disDualification and for the holding of special elections to fill the vacancy created by such.1==O)@P "n even date( the &"0!L!& Second Division promulgated a $esolution/::O)8P denying #illandoSs motion to suspend the proclamation of Lim<aichong( which denial was affirmed by the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, in a $esolution/:1O),P dated %ebruary 1( /::+. "n September @( /::+( #illando also filed with this &ourt a .et"t"!n f!r Certiorari and InD#n&t"!n +"th .re'"m"nar* InD#n&t"!n and Tem%!rar* Re tra"n"n, Order/:/O)+P under $ule 8@ of the 1==, $ules of &ivil Procedure( doc<eted as 1.R. N! . 3584@;0@3( contending( among others( that the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, gravely abused its discretion in issuing the .ugust 18( /::, $esolution/:*O)=P because it still acted on Limchai<ongEs manifestation and motion for clarification( notwithstanding that the same was not set for hearing and considering that its 2une /=( /::, $esolution had already become final and e;ecutory. .s the four )- petitions are interrelated( the &ourt resolved to consolidate them in its $esolutions dated September ) and 11( /::,.
1=8O)/P 1=,O)*P 1=+O))P 1==O)@P /::O)8P /:1O),P /:/O)+P /:*O)=P

R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1,=1/:-( pp. *7/1. I*. at 1=7/:. R$ll$ 4.$. 5os. 1,=1*/7**-( pp. *7,:. I*. at 8=7,:. R$ll$ A4.$. 5os. 1,++*17*/-( pp. )8+7),:. I*. at ),17)+1. R$ll$ 4.$. 5os. 1,=/):7)1-( pp. *7/+. S+%"a note )1.

1*8

1*,

'he &ourt heard the parties in oral argument on .ugust /8( /::+( during which the following issues were tac<led: 1.Lhether the proc amation of 4im$aichong by the =rovincia Moard of Canvassers of (egros 2rienta is va id" #.Lhether said proc amation divested the Commission on 3 ections of /urisdiction to reso ve the issue of 4im$aichongNs citi)enship" '.Lhether the Jouse of 6epresentatives 3 ectora Tribuna sha assume /urisdiction, in ieu of the C2!343C, over the issue of 4im$aichongNs citi)enship" 1. Lhether the C2!343C Second >ivision and the C2!343C 3n Manc correct y ru ed that 4im$aichong is dis0ua ified from running as a !ember of the Jouse of 6epresentatives on the ground that she is not a natura Dborn citi)en" +. Lhether the C2!343C dis0ua ification of 4im$aichong is fina and e-ecutory" and, 9. Lhether the Spea$er of the Jouse of 6epresentatives may be compe ed to prohibit 4im$aichong from assuming her duties as a !ember of the Jouse of 6epresentatives. "n same day( the &ourt reDuired the parties to simultaneously file within twenty /:- days their respective memoranda( after which the petitions shall be deemed submitted for resolution( with or without the memoranda. Se&t"!n G( Art"&'e VI of the 38A5 .h"'"%%"ne C!n t"t#t"!n provides for the Dualification of a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( thus: Se&t"!n G. 5o person shall be a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives unless he is a nat#ra'0)!rn &"t"Een !f the .h"'"%%"ne and( on the day of the election( is at least twenty7five years of age( able to read and write( and( e;cept the party7list representatives( a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected( and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election. Lhen Lim<aichong filed her &"&( she stated therein that she is a natural7 born %ilipino citizen. 1t was not true( according to the petitioners in the disDualification cases( because her father remained a &hinese citizen at the time of
1*,

1*+

her birth. 'he &"0!L!& Second Division has sided with &amero and #illando( and disDualified Lim<aichong to run as a congressional candidate in the %irst District of 5egros "riental for having failed to comply with the citizenship reDuirement. .ccordingly( her proclamation was ordered suspended notwithstanding that she obtained the highest number of votes during the elections. 5onetheless( she was proclaimed by the P>"& pursuant to the policy guidelines of &"0!L!& E# Ba#, $esolution 5o. +:8/( and she has since assumed her position and performed her functions as a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives. I Lhether 4im$aichong:s proc amation %as va id. 'he proclamation of Lim<aichong was valid. 'he &"0!L!& Second Division rendered its 2oint $esolution dated 0ay 1,( /::,. "n 0ay /:( /::,( Lim<aichong timely filed with the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, her motion for reconsideration as well as for the lifting of the incorporated directive suspending her proclamation. The f"'"n, !f the m!t"!n f!r re&!n "derat"!n effe&t"-e'* # %ended the eCe&#t"!n !f the Ma* 352 4;;5 :!"nt Re !'#t"!n ./:)O@:P Since the e;ecution of the 0ay 1,( /::, 2oint $esolution was suspended( there was no impediment to the valid proclamation of Lim<aichong as the winner. Section /( $ule 1= of the &"0!L!& $ules of Procedure provides: Sec. /. P!"i$* '$" ?ili#( M$&i$#s '$" R!,$#si*!"a&i$#. O . motion to reconsider a decision( resolution( order or ruling of a Division shall be filed within five @- days from the promulgation thereof. S#&h m!t"!n2 "f n!t pro forma2 # %end the eCe&#t"!n f!r "m%'ementat"!n !f the de&" "!n2 re !'#t"!n2 !rder and r#'"n,.

1n 1.R. N! . 358364066( Paras( however( maintained that Lim<aichong was a &hinese citizen who was disDualified to run as a congressional candidate by way of a final 6udgment of the &"0!L!&. Lith that( her proclamation was Duestionable and the same was done in open defiance of the 2oint $esolution dated 0ay 1,( /::, of the &"0!L!& Second Division. She also stressed that Lim<aichongSs proclamation was procedurally defective( it appearing that one of the P>"& members was not present on 0ay /@( /::,( and that it too< place in a restaurant and not at the provincial capitol. %inally( she argued that Lim<aichongEs proclamation was void in accordance with the &ourtSs pronouncement in the case of C$*illa v. 6! V!#!,ia./:@O@1P

/:)O@:P /:@O@1P

&"0!L!& $ules of Procedure( $ule 1=( Sec. /. ))/ Phil. 1*= /::/-.

1*+

1*=

'he "ffice of the Solicitor 4eneral "S4- filed its &omment on the petition of Paras( e;pressing its support for the position ta<en by the latter. . perusal of the arguments advanced by Paras and the "S4 does not sway the &ourt to rule against the validity of Lim<aichongEs proclamation. 5o less than the &"0!L!& %irst Division has sustained the validity of her proclamation when it dismissed( by way of a $esolution dated 2une /=( /::,( the petition filed by Paras to nullify the proclamation. 5ot only that. 'he &"0!L!& %irst Division has also adopted Lim<aichongEs argument that following her valid proclamation( the &"0!L!&Es 6urisdiction over the disDualification cases has ceased and that the same should be threshed out in the proper proceedings filed before the 9$!'. 5otably( the dismissal of ParasE petition was affirmed by the &"0!L!& in its "mnibus "rder dated 2anuary /+( /::+. 1n addition( the validity of Lim<aichongSs proclamation is in accordance with &"0!L!& E# Ba#, $esolution 5o. +:8/. 'he disDualification cases filed against her remained pending as a result of her timely motion for reconsideration. #illando in 1.R. N! . 3584@;0@3)( however( maintained that $esolution 5o. +:8/ is invalidF hence( it could not be used as basis to validate Lim<aichongSs proclamation. 9e argued that it must be published since it is a Ipolicy7guidelineJ in the e;ercise of the &"0!L!&Es rule7ma<ing power. .s such( it cannot supersede the 2oint $esolution of the Second Division which was rendered pursuant to the &"0!L!&Es Duasi76udicial power. 9is argument is specious. $esolution 5o. +:8/ is not only a policy7 guideline. 1t is also an administrative interpretation of the two /- provisions of the 1=+, &onstitution( namely: i- Section 1,(/:8O@/P .rticle #1 ii-F Section / /-(/:, O@*P .rticle 1G7&F Section 8/:+O@)P of $... 88)8F and Sections /)1/:=O@@P and /)*(/1:O@8P .rticle GG of the "!&% .s such( it does not have to comply with the due
Section 1,( .rticle #1( 1=+, &onstitution provides: Sec. 1,. 'he Senate and the 9ouse of $epresentatives shall each have an !lectoral 'ribunal which shall be the sole 6udge of all contests relating to the election( returns( and Dualifications of their respective members. !ach !lectoral 'ribunal shall be composed of nine members( three of whom shall be 2ustices of the Supreme &ourt to be designated by the &hief 2ustice( and the remaining si; shall be 0embers of the Senate or the 9ouse of $epresentatives( as the case may be( who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party7list system represented therein. 'he senior 6ustice in the !lectoral 'ribunal shall be its &hairman. /:,O@*P Section / /-( .rticle 1G7&( 1=+, &onstitution provides: Sec. /. 'he &ommission on !lections shall e;ercise the following powers and functions: ;;;; /- !;ercise e;clusive original 6urisdiction over all contests relating to the elections( returns( and Dualifications of all elective( regional( provincial( and city officials( and appellate 6urisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general 6urisdiction( or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited 6urisdiction. Decisions( final orders( or rulings of the &ommission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final( e;ecutory( and not appealable. /:+O@)P Section 8( $. 88)8( otherwise <nown as I.n .ct 1ntroducing .dditional $eforms in the !lectoral System and for other Purposes(J states:
/:8O@/P

1*=

1):

process reDuirement. 'he term IadministrativeJ connotes or pertains to Iadministration( especially management( as by managing or conducting( directing or superintending( the e;ecution( application( or conduct of persons or things.J 1t does not entail an opportunity to be heard( the production and weighing of evidence( and a decision or resolution thereon./11O@,P 'his is to be distinguished from IDuasi76udicial function(J a term which applies( among others( to the action or discretion of public administrative officers or bodies( who are reDuired to investigate facts( or ascertain the e;istence of facts( hold hearings( and draw conclusions from them( as a basis for their official action and to e;ercise discretion of a 6udicial nature./1/O@+P $esolution 5o. +:8/ is a valid e;ercise of the &"0!L!&Es constitutionally mandated power to promulgate its own rules of procedure relative to the conduct of the elections. /1*O@=P 1n adopting such policy7guidelines for the 0ay 1)( /::, 5ational and Local !lections( the &"0!L!& had in mind the ob6ective of upholding the sovereign will of the people and in the interest of 6ustice and fair play. .ccordingly( those candidates whose disDualification cases are still pending at the time of the elections( should they obtain the highest number of votes from the electorate( shall be proclaimed but that their
S!&. 8. E''!,& $' 6is<+ali'i,a&i$# Cas!. 7 .ny candidate who has been declared by final 6udgment to be disDualified shall not be voted for( and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. 1f for any reason a candidate is not declared by final 6udgment before an election to be disDualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election( the &ourt or &ommission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action( inDuiry or protest and( upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor( may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong. /:=O@@P Section /)1 of the "!& provides: S!&. /)1. 6!'i#i&i$#. 7 . pre7proclamation controversy refers to any Duestion pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the &ommission( or any matter raised under Sections /**( /*)( /*@ and /*8 in relation to the preparation( transmission( receipt( custody and appreciation of election returns. /1:O@8P Section /)* of the "!& provides: S!&. /)*. Iss+!s &ha& )a= b! "ais!* i# %"!M%"$,la)a&i$# ,$#&"$v!"s= . 7 'he following shall be proper issues that may be raised in pre7proclamation controversy: a- 1llegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers. b- 'he canvassed election returns are incomplete( contain material defects( appear to be tampered with or falsified( or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections /**( /*)( /*@ and /*8 of this &ode. c- 'he election returns were prepared under duress( threats( coercion( or intimidation( or they are obviously manufactured or not authenticF and d- Lhen the substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed( the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates. /11O@,P Villa"$sa v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s a#* A&&=. 6a# R!s&$" ( *,, Phil. )=,( @:8 1===-( citing the &oncurring "pinion of 2ustice .ntonio in @#iv!"si&= $' N+!va Ca,!"!s v. Ma"&i#!K( @8 S&$. 1)+ 1=,)-. /1/O@+P I*. at @:,( citing Mi*la#* I#s+"a#,! C$"%$"a&i$#( 1)* S&$. )@+ 1=+8-. /1*O@=P Section *( .rticle 1G7&( 1=+, &onstitution provides: Sec. *. 'he &ommission on !lections may sit !# ba#, or in two divisions( and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to e;pedite disposition of election cases( including pre7proclamation controversies. .ll such election cases shall be heard and decided in division( provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the &ommission !# ba#,.

1):

1)1

proclamation shall be without pre6udice to the continuation of the hearing and resolution of the involved cases. Lhereas( in this case( the &"0!L!& Second Division having failed to act on the disDualification cases against Lim<aichong until after the conduct of the elections( with her obtaining the highest number of votes from the electorate( her proclamation was properly effected by the P>"& pursuant to $esolution 5o. +:8/. 'he &ourt has held in the case of Pla#as v. COMELEC(/1)O8:P that at the time of the proclamation of Defensor( the respondent therein who garnered the highest number of votes( the Division $esolution invalidating his certificate of candidacy was not yet final. .s such( his proclamation was valid or legal( as he had at that point in time remained Dualified. Lim<aichongEs situation is no different from that of Defensor( the former having been disDualified by a Division $esolution on the basis of her not being a natural7born %ilipino citizen. Lhen she was proclaimed by the P>"&( she was the winner during the elections for obtaining the highest number of votes( and at that time( the Division $esolution disDualifying her has not yet became final as a result of the motion for reconsideration.

/1)O8:P

4.$. 5o. 18,@=)( 0arch 1:( /::8( )+) S&$. @/=( @*,.

1)1

1)/

11 Lhether, upon 4im$aichongNs proc amation, the J63T, instead of the C2!343C, shou d assume /urisdiction over the dis0ua ification cases. 1n her petition 1.R. N! . 35AA63064)( Lim<aichong argued that her proclamation on 0ay /@( /::, by the P>"& divested the &"0!L!& of its 6urisdiction over all issues relating to her Dualifications( and that 6urisdiction now lies with the 9$!'. >iraogo( on the other hand( believed otherwise. 9e argued in 1.R. N!. 35834;- that the issue concerning Lim<aichongEs disDualification is still within the e;clusive 6urisdiction of the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, to resolve because when Lim<aichong was proclaimed on 0ay /@( /::,( the matter was still pending resolution before the &"0!L!& E# Ba#,. Le do not agree. 'he &ourt has invariably held that once a winning candidate ha )een %r!&'a"med( ta<en h" !ath( and a #med !ff"&e as a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( the COMELECP D#r" d"&t"!n !-er e'e&t"!n &!nte t re'at"n, t! h" e'e&t"!n2 ret#rn 2 and ?#a'"f"&at"!n end 2 and the HRETP !+n D#r" d"&t"!n )e,"n ./1@O81P 1t follows then that the proclamation of a winning candidate divests the &"0!L!& of its 6urisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation. 'he party Duestioning his Dualification should now present his case in a proper proceeding before the 9$!'( the constitutionally mandated tribunal to hear and decide a case involving a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives with respect to the latterSs election( returns and Dualifications. 'he use of the word IsoleJ in Section 1,( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution and in Section /@:/18O8/P of the "!& underscores the e;clusivity of the !lectoral 'ribunalsS 6urisdiction over election contests relating to its members./1,O8*P Se&t"!n 35( Art"&'e VI of the 38A5 C!n t"t#t"!n provides: Sec. 1,. 'he Senate and the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e shall each have an !lectoral 'ribunal which shall be the !'e D#d,e !f a'' &!nte t re'at"n, t! the e'e&t"!n2 ret#rn 2 and
/1@O81P

Vi#K$#sMCha&$ v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s ( 4.$. 5o. 1,/1*1( .pril /( /::,( @/: S&$. 188( 1,=( citing A((aba$ v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s ( ))= S&$. )::( ):)7):@ /::@-F G+!""!"$ v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s( *=1 Phil. *))( *@/ /:::-. /18O8/P S!&. /@:. El!,&i$# ,$#&!s&s '$" Ba&asa#( Pa)ba#sa, "!(i$#al, %"$vi#,ial a#* ,i&= $''i,!s . 7 . sworn petition contesting the election of any 0ember of the >atasang Pambansa or any regional( provincial or city official shall be filed with the &ommission by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office( within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election. /1,O8*P Vi#K$#sMCha&$ v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s, s+%"a note 81( at 1,+( citing Ras+l v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s( *,1 Phil. ,8:( ,88 1===-.

1)/

1)*

?#a'"f"&at"!n !f the"r re %e&t"-e Mem)er . !ach !lectoral 'ribunal shall be composed of nine 0embers( three of whom shall be 2ustices of the Supreme &ourt to be designated by the &hief 2ustice( and the remaining si; shall be 0embers of the Senate or the 9ouse of $epresentatives( as the case may be( who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party7list system represented therein. 'he senior 2ustice in the !lectoral 'ribunal shall be its &hairman. &orollary thereto is R#'e 3@ of the 388A R#'e !f the HRET( as amended( which states: $3L! 1). I+"is*i,&i$#. M 'he 'ribunal is the !'e D#d,e of all contests relating to the e'e&t"!n( ret#rn ( and ?#a'"f"&at"!n of the 0embers of the 9ouse of $epresentatives.

'he &"0!L!& E# Ba#,( in its $esolution dated .ugust 18( /::,( had given paramount consideration to the two /- aforementioned provisions when it stated that: 1n view of the %r!&'amat"!n !f L"m<a"&h!n, and her s#) e?#ent a #m%t"!n !f !ff"&e !n :#ne 6;2 4;;5 ( this &ommission rules that a'' %end"n, "n&"dent re'at"n, t! the ?#a'"f"&at"!n !f L"m<a"&h!n, h!#'d n!+ )e determ"ned )* the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e E'e&t!ra' Tr")#na' in accordance with the above7Duoted provision of the &onstitution. >HEREFORE( premises considered( this &ommission resolved( as it hereby resolves( that all pending incidents relating to the Dualifications of 2ocelyn S. Lim<aichong as 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives should now be determined by the 9ouse of $epresentatives !lectoral 'ribunal. SO ORDERED. !mphasis supplied-

Lorth citing also is the ratiocination of the &"0!L!& %irst Division when it dismissed the petition of Paras see<ing the nullity of Lim<aichongSs proclamation( thus:

1)*

1))

'he present situation is similar not to the factual circumstances of C$*illa( which Paras invo<es( but rather to that in Pla#as which adheres to the general rule giving 6urisdiction to the 9ouse of $epresentatives !lectoral 'ribunal. .s at the time of Lim<aichongSs proclamation( her disDualification was not yet final( her proclamation was valid or legal. 'his &ommission no longer has 6urisdiction over the case. 'his( notwithstanding the Second DivisionSs directive suspending Lim<aichongSs proclamation. 'he &ommission has made its intention in issuing $esolution 5o. +:8/ very clear in that there shall be no suspension of proclamation of winning candidates with pending disDualification cases( involving( among others( issues of citizenship. .s the disDualification cases involving Lim<aichong were still pending reconsideration by the E# Ba#,( the underlying policy which gave rise to the issuance of the resolution: to respect the will of the %ilipino electorate( applies to the suspension of proclamation of the winning &ongressional candidate for the %irst District of 5egros "riental. >HEREFORE( the instant petition is D1S01SS!D. SO ORDERED. Petitioners in 4.$. 5os. 1,=1/:( 1,=1*/7**( and 1,=/):7)1- steadfastly maintained that Lim<aichongEs proclamation was tainted with irregularity( which will effectively prevent the 9$!' from acDuiring 6urisdiction. 'he fact that the proclamation of the winning candidate( as in this case( was alleged to have been tainted with irregularity does not divest the 9$!' of its 6urisdiction./1+O8)P 'he &ourt has shed light on this in the case of Vi#K$#sMCha&$(/1= O8@P to the effect that: 1n the present case( it is not disputed that respondent 3nico has already been proclaimed and ta<en his oath of office as a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives 'hirteenth &ongress-F hence( the &"0!L!& correctly ruled that it had already lost 6urisdiction over petitioner &hatoSs petition. 'he issues raised by petitioner &hato essentially relate to the canvassing of returns and
/1+O8)P /1=O8@P

LaKa&i# v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s( 4.$. 5o. L7+:::,( 2anuary /@( 1=++( 1@, S&$. **,( **+. S+%"a note 81( at 1+:.

1))

1)@

alleged invalidity of respondent 3nicoSs proclamation. 'hese are matters that are best addressed to the sound 6udgment and discretion of the 9$!'. Significantly( the allegation that respondent 3nicoSs proclamation is null and void does not divest the 9$!' of its 6urisdiction: ; ; ; O1Pn an electoral contest where the validity of the proclamation of a winning candidate who has ta<en his oath of office and assumed his post as congressman is raised( that issue is best addressed to the 9$!'. 'he reason for this ruling is self7evident( for it avoids duplicity of proceedings and a clash of 6urisdiction between constitutional bodies( with due regard to the peopleSs mandate. %urther( for the &ourt to ta<e cognizance of petitioner &hatoSs election protest against respondent 3nico would be to usurp the constitutionally mandated functions of the 9$!'.

1n fine( any allegations as to the invalidity of the proclamation will not prevent the 9$!' from assuming 6urisdiction over all matters essential to a memberEs Dualification to sit in the 9ouse of $epresentatives. 'he 1==+ 9$!' $ules( as amended( provide for the manner of filing either an election protest or a petition for <+$ -a""a#&$ against a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( to wit: $ule 18. El!,&i$# %"$&!s&. MM . verified petition contesting the election of any 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives shall be filed by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office( within ten 1:days after the proclamation of the winner. 'he party filing the protest shall be designated as the protestant while the adverse party shall be <nown as the protestee. ;;; $ule 1,. J+$ Ga""a#&$. 77 . verified petition for <+$ -a""a#&$ contesting the election of a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the $epublic of the Philippines shall be filed by any voter within ten 1:- days after the proclamation of the winner. 'he party filing the petition shall be designated as the petitioner while the adverse party shall be <nown as the respondent.
1)@

1)8

;;; $ule 1=. P!"i$*s N$#ME>&!#*ibl!. 77 'he ten7day period mentioned in $ules 18 and 1, is 6urisdictional and cannot be e;tended.

.ccordingly( after the proclamation of the winning candidate in the congressional elections( the remedy of those who may assail oneEs eligibilityTineligibilityTDualificationTdisDualification is to file before the 9$!' a petition for an election protest( or a petition for <+$ -a""a#&$, within the period provided by the 9$!' $ules. 1n Pa#(ili#a# v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s(//:O88P we ruled that where the candidate has already been proclaimed winner in the congressional elections( the remedy of petitioner is to file an electoral protest with the !lectoral 'ribunal of the 9ouse of $epresentatives. 'he P>"& proclaimed Lim<aichong as the winner on 0ay /@( /::,. 'hus( petitioners in 4.$. 5os. 1,=1/:( 1,=1*/7**( and 1,=/):7)1- should have filed either an election protest or petition for <+$ -a""a#&$ within ten days from 0ay /@( /::,. >ut they did not. 1n fact( to date( no petition of protest or petition for <+$ -a""a#&$ has been filed with the 9$!'. #erily( the ten7day prescriptive period for initiating a contest against Lim<aichong has long e;pired. 9owever( the said ten7day prescriptive period under the 1==+ 9$!' $ules d!e n!t a%%'* t! d" ?#a'"f"&at"!n &a e )a ed !n &"t"Een h"% . 3nder the 1=+, &onstitution( 0embers of the 9ouse of $epresentatives must be nat#ra'0)!rn &"t"Een n!t !n'* at the t"me !f the"r e'e&t"!n )#t d#r"n, the"r ent"re ten#re . >eing a continuing reDuirement( one who assails a memberSs citizenship or lac< of it may still Duestion the same at any time( the ten7day prescriptive period notwithstanding. 1n ?"ival*$ v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s,//1O8,P the &ourt held that: 'he argument that the petition filed with the &ommission on !lections should be dismissed for tardiness is not well7ta<en. 'he herein private respondents are see<ing to prevent %rivaldo from continuing to discharge his office as governor because he is disDualified from doing so as a foreigner. F#a'"f"&at"!n f!r %#)'"& !ff"&e are &!nt"n#"n, re?#"rement and m# t )e %! e ed n!t !n'* at the t"me !f a%%!"ntment !r e'e&t"!n !r a #m%t"!n !f !ff"&e )#t d#r"n, the !ff"&erJ ent"re ten#re. On&e an* !f the re?#"red ?#a'"f"&at"!n " '! t2 h" t"t'e ma* )e
//:O88P //1O8,P

4.$. 5o. 1:@/,+( 5ovember 1+( 1==*( //+ S&$. *8( )). 4.$. 5o. +,1=*( 2une /*( 1=+=( 1,) S&$. /)@. !mphasis supplied-

1)8

1),

ea !na)'* &ha''en,ed. If2 a*2 a fema'e 'e," 'at!r +ere t! marr* a f!re",ner d#r"n, her term and )* her a&t !r !m" "!n a&?#"re h" nat"!na'"t*2 +!#'d he ha-e the r",ht t! rema"n "n !ff"&e "m%'* )e&a# e the &ha''en,e t! her t"t'e ma* n!t '!n,er )e made +"th"n ten da* fr!m her %r!&'amat"!nC ; ; ; Th" C!#rt +"'' n!t %erm"t the an!ma'* !f a %er !n "tt"n, a %r!-"n&"a' ,!-ern!r "n th" &!#ntr* +h"'e !+"n, eC&'# "-e a''e,"an&e t! an!ther &!#ntr*. 'he fact that he was elected by the people of Sorsogon does not e;cuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and employment only to the citizens of this country. 'he Dualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone. The +"'' !f the %e!%'e a eC%re ed thr!#,h the )a''!t &ann!t &#re the -"&e !f "ne'",")"'"t*2 e %e&"a''* "f the* m" ta<en'* )e'"e-ed2 a "n th" &a e2 that the &and"date +a ?#a'"f"ed. O)-"!# '*2 th" r#'e re?#"re tr"&t a%%'"&at"!n +hen the def"&"en&* " 'a&< !f &"t"Een h"%. 1f a person see<s to serve in the $epublic of the Philippines( he must owe his total loyalty to this country alone( ab6uring and renouncing all fealty to any other state. 9owever( in assailing the citizenship of the father( the proper proceeding should be in accordance with Section 1+ of &ommonwealth .ct 5o. ),* which provides that: Sec. 1+. Ca#,!lla&i$# $' Na&+"aliKa&i$# C!"&i'i,a&! Iss+!*: 7 U%!n m!t"!n made "n the %r!%er %r!&eed"n, )* the S!'"&"t!r 1enera' !r h" re%re entat"-e2 !r )* the %r!%er %r!-"n&"a' f" &a'2 the &!m%etent D#d,e ma* &an&e' the nat#ra'"Eat"!n &ert"f"&ate " #ed and "t re," trat"!n "n the C"-"' Re," ter: 1. /. 1f it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegallyF 1f the person naturalized shall( within five years ne;t following the issuance of said naturalization certificate( return to his native country or to some foreign country and establish his permanent residence there: P"$vi*!*( 'hat the fact of the person naturalized remaining more than one year in his native country or the country of his former nationality( or two years in any other foreign country( shall be considered as %"i)a 'a,i! evidence of his intention of ta<ing up his permanent residence in the same: 1f the petition was made on an invalid declaration of intentionF 1f it is shown that the minor children of the person naturalized failed to graduate from a public or private high
1),

*. ).

1)+

@.

schools recognized by the "ffice of Private !ducation Onow >ureau of Private SchoolsP of the Philippines( where Philippine history( government or civics are taught as part of the school curriculum( through the fault of their parents either by neglecting to support them or by transferring them to another school or schools. . certified copy of the decree canceling the naturalization certificate shall be forwarded by the &ler< of &ourt of the Department of 1nterior Onow "ffice of the PresidentP and the >ureau of 2ustice Onow "ffice of the Solicitor 4eneralPF 1f it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be used as a dummy in violation of the constitutional or legal provisions reDuiring Philippine citizenship as a reDuisite for the e;ercise( use or en6oyment of a right( franchise or privilege. !mphasis supplied-

&learly( under law and 6urisprudence( it is the State( through its representatives designated by statute( that may Duestion the illegally or invalidly procured certificate of naturalization in the appropriate denaturalization proceedings. 1t is plainly not a matter that may be raised by private persons in an election case involving the naturalized citizenEs descendant. III Lhether the C2!343C Second >ivision and the C2!343C 3n Manc correct y dis0ua ified 4im$aichong on the ground that she is not a natura Dborn Ii ipino citi)en. 1n resolving the disDualification cases( the &"0!L!& Second Division relied on the entries in the doc<et boo< of the "S4( ///O8=P the only remaining record of the naturalization proceedings(//*O,:P and ruled on the basis thereof that the naturalization proceedings of 2ulio "ng Sy( Lim<aichongEs father( in Special &ase 5o. 1:)*( were null and void. 'he &"0!L!& Second Division adopted #illando and &ameroEs arguments that the "S4 was deprived of its participation in the said case for it was not furnished copies of the following: a- the 2uly =( 1=@, "rder of the &ourt of %irst 1nstance &%1- granting the petition for naturalizationF and b- the September /1( 1=@= "rder of the &%1 declaring 2ulio "ng Sy a %ilipino citizen. 'hus( when the latter too< his oath of allegiance on "ctober /1( 1=@=( it was e;actly *: days after his declaration as a naturalized %ilipino( or one day short of the reglementary period reDuired under Sections 11 and 1/ of &ommonwealth .ct 5o. ),*. Such defects were fatal to the naturalization proceedings of 2ulio "ng Sy and prevented the same from gaining finality. 'he &"0!L!& Second Division concluded that since 2ulio "ng Sy did not acDuire Philippine citizenship through the said naturalization proceedings( it
///O8=P //*O,:P

R$ll$ p. =,. I*. at 1,/ and 1,@.

1)+

1)=

follows that Lim<aichong remains a &hinese national and is disDualified to run as candidate and be elected as a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives. Le cannot resolve the matter of Lim<aichongEs citizenship as the same should have been challenged in appropriate proceedings as earlier stated. IV Lhether the C2!343CNs dis0ua ification of 4im$aichong is fina and e-ecutory. 1n resolving this issue( pertinent is the provision of Section 1* b-( $ule 1+ of the 1==* &"0!L!& $ules of Procedure: Sec. 1*. ?i#ali&= $' 6!,isi$#s $" R!s$l+&i$#s. W ; ; ; b- 1n Special .ctions and Special &ases( a decision or resolution of the &ommission !# ba#, shall become final and e;ecutory after five @- days from its promulgation unless restrained by the Supreme &ourt.

1n his 0emorandum dated 2une /,( /::+( >iraogo stated that the $esolution of the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, in the disDualification cases became final and e;ecutory after five @- days from its promulgation and that the same was not restrained by this &ourt pursuant to Section 1* b-( $ule 1+ of the 1==* &"0!L!& $ules of Procedure. 9e averred that since Lim<aichong received a copy of the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, $esolution dated 2une /=( /::, on 2uly *( /::,( she had until 2uly +( /::, within which to obtain a restraining order from the &ourt to prevent the same from becoming final and e;ecutory. 9owever( she did not do anything to that effect. >iraogo also averred that Lim<aichong is guilty of forum shoppingF hence( her petition must be dismissed by the &ourt. 1nstead of as<ing the &ourt for what >iraogo opined as a restraining order( Lim<aichong filed with this &ourt( on .ugust 1( /::,( her petition for ,!"&i$"a"i assailing the said &"0!L!& E# Ba#, $esolution pursuant to Section /(//)O,1P $ule 8)( in relation to $ule 8@( 1==, $ules of &ivil Procedure( postulating that she had thirty *:- days from 2uly )( /::, within which to file the petition( or until .ugust *( /::,. She cited Section ,( .rticle 1G of the 1=+, &onstitution(

//)O,1P

Section /. M$*! $' "!vi!-. 7 . 6udgment or final order or resolution of the &ommission on !lections and the &ommission on .udit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme &ourt on ,!"&i$"a"i under $ule 8@( e;cept as hereinafter provided.

1)=

1@:

which prescribes the power of this &ourt to review decisions of the &"0!L!&( //@ O,/P thus: SEC. 5. !ach &ommission shall decide by a ma6ority vote of all its 0embers any case or matter brought before it within si;ty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. . case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading( brief( or memorandum reDuired by the rules of the &ommission or by the &ommission itself. 3nless otherwise provided by this &onstitution or by law( any decision( order( or ruling of each &ommission may be brought to the Supreme &ourt on ,!"&i$"a"i by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.

1n his &omment on the petition( #illando prayed for the outright dismissal of Lim<aichongEs petition as a- it was filed beyond the reglementary periodF bLim<aichong engaged in prohibited forum shoppingF and c- Lim<aichong admitted that the issues raised have become moot and academic. 9e also sought to declare Lim<aichong in contempt of court for forum shopping. 'he &"0!L!&( through the "S4( also filed its &omment( praying for the denial of Lim<aichongSs petition and its dismissal for being moot( contending that: a- the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, $esolution dated .ugust 18( /::, has rendered the instant petition moot and academicF and b- Lim<aichong <nowingly and intentionally engaged in forum shopping. 'he "S4 argued that( without waiting for the resolution of her 0otion for &larification and two /- successive motions to resolve said motions which are pending before the &"0!L!& E# Ba#,( Lim<aichong filed the present petition to Duestion the 2oint $esolution dated 0ay 1,( /::, of the &"0!L!& Second Division( which issues were pending before the &"0!L!& E# Ba#,. 9er act of see<ing relief from this &ourt while there were several other incidents pending before the &"0!L!&( the final resolution in either one of which will amount to "!s 8+*i,a&a in the other( clearly showed forum shopping on her part. 1n her $eply to the above &omments( Lim<aichong countered that she did not engage in forum shopping( for had she waited for the &"0!L!& to rule on her manifestation and other motions( it would have resulted in the e;piration of the reglementary period for filing a petition for ,!"&i$"a"i before the &ourt.
//@O,/P

S$"ia#$, I". v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s, 4.$. 5os. 18))=87@:@( .pril /( /::,( @/: S&$. +:( 1:,( citing R!=!s v. RTC $' O"i!#&al Mi#*$"$, *1* Phil. ,/,( ,*) 1==@-.

1@:

1@1

'he 0ay 1,( /::, 2oint $esolution of the &"0!L!& Second Division disDualifying Lim<aichong and suspending her proclamation cannot yet be implemented considering that she timely filed a motion for reconsideration. 'hus( pursuant to Section 1* c-( $ule 1+ and Section / $ule 1= of the &"0!L!& $ules of Procedure( the 2oint $esolution has not yet attained finality for it to be implemented. 5otably( the seeming impropriety of the $esolution of the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, dated 2une /=( /::, has since been remedied by the promulgation of its $esolution dated .ugust 18( /::,( recognizing that it no longer has 6urisdiction over the disDualification cases following the valid proclamation of Lim<aichong and her assumption of office as a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives. V Lhether the Spea$er of the Jouse of 6epresentatives may be compe ed to prohibit 4im$aichong from assuming her duties as a !ember of the Jouse of 6epresentatives. >iraogoSs contention was that De #enecia//8O,*P should be stopped from entering Lim<aichongSs name in the $oll of 0embers of the 9ouse of $epresentatives because he has no power to allow an alien to sit and continue to sit therein as it would amount to an unlawful e;ercise of his legal authority. 0oreover( >iraogo opposes Lim<aichongEs assumption of office in the 9ouse of $epresentatives since she is not Dualified to sit therein( being a &hinese citizen and( thus( disDualified by virtue of a final and e;ecutory 6udgment of the &"0!L!& E# Ba#,. 9e relied on the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, $esolution dated 2une /=( /::,( which affirmed the &"0!L!& Second Division 2oint $esolution dated 0ay 1,( /::, disDualifying Lim<aichong from holding public office. 9e contended that the said $esolution dated 2une /=( /::, is already final and e;ecutoryF hence( it should be respected pursuant to the principle of "!s 8+*i,a&a. De #enecia( on the other hand( argued that he should not be faulted for honoring the proclamation of Lim<aichong( because it had the hallmar<s of regularity( and he had no power to e;clude any 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives )$&+ %"$%"i$. 1n their &omment on the petition( respondents De #enecia( !& al.( contended that the enrollment of a 0ember in the $oll of 0embers of the 9ouse of $epresentatives and hisTher recognition as such becomes the m"n" ter"a' d#t* of the Secretary 4eneral and the 9ouse of $epresentatives #%!n %re entat"!n )* #&h Mem)er !f a -a'"d Cert"f"&ate !f .r!&'amat"!n and Oath !f Off"&e.
//8O,*P

Lhen Spea<er 2ose De #enecia( 2r. was replaced by Spea<er Prospero 5ograles( petitioner >iraogo filed with the &ourt a $espectful 0anifestation with 0otion to $eplace $espondent 2ose De #enecia( 2r. with Prospero &. 5ograles( praying that the latter will replace the former as party7 respondent in 4.$. 5o. 1,=1/:( which the &ourt granted in its $esolution dated .pril 1( /::+.

1@1

1@/

$espondent 5ograles( as De #eneciaSs( substitute( filed a 0emorandum dated 2uly 18( /::+ stating that under the circumstances( the 9ouse of $epresentatives( and its officials( are without recourse e;cept to honor the validity of the proclamation of Lim<aichong until the same is canceled( revo<ed or nullified( and to continue to recognize her as the duly elected $epresentative of the %irst District of 5egros "riental until it is ordered by this &ourt( as it was in C$*illa, to recognize somebody else. 9e went on to state that after assumption by the 0ember7elect( or having acDuired a presumptively valid title to the office( the 9ouse of $epresentatives cannot( )$&+ %"$%"i$( cancel( revo<e( withdraw any recognition given to a sitting 0ember or to IremoveJ his name from its roll( as such would amount to a removal of such 0ember from his office without due process of law. #erily( it is only after a determination by the appropriate tribunal as in this case( the 9$!'-( pursuant to a final and e;ecutory order( that the 0ember does not have a right to the office i.!., not being a duly elected 0ember-( that the 9ouse of $epresentatives is directed to e;clude the said 0ember. 'heir contentions are meritorious. 'he unseating of a 0ember of the 9ouse of $epresentatives should be e;ercised with great caution and after the proper proceedings for the ouster has been validly completed. %or to arbitrarily unseat someone( who obtained the highest number of votes in the elections( and during the pendency of the proceedings determining oneEs Dualification or disDualification( would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides.//,O,)P >HEREFORE( premises considered( the petition in 1.R. N! . 35AA630 64 is 1RANTED and the 2oint $esolution of the &"0!L!& Second Division dated 0ay 1,( /::, in SP. 5os. :,7/), and :,7/)+ is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. .ll the other petitions 1.R. N! . 35834;( 358364066( 3584@;0@3- are hereby DISMISSED. $ead: 1) LAZATIN VS. COMELEC, G.R. N$. 87777, Ia#+a"= 2B, 1;88 2) ?IR6A@SI ABBAS, ET AL. VS. TNE SENATE ELECTORAL TRIB@NAL, O,&$b!" 27, 1;88 9)ENRILE VS. COMELEC Q SANCNEZ2 ENRILE VS. COMELEC Q RAZ@L AN6 SANCNEZ VS. COMELEC, A+(. 12, 1;87, 1B9 SCRA B7 . BON6OC VS. NRET, s+%"a 33. Se&t"!n 3A. There ha'' )e a C!mm" "!n !n A%%!"ntment &!n " t"n, !f the Senate .re "dent2 a eC0!f"&"! &ha"rman2 34 enat!r and 34 mem)er !f the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e 2 a the &a e ma* )e2 +h! ha'' )e &h! en !n the )a " !f %r!%!rt"!na' re%re entat"!n fr!m the %!'"t"&a' %art"e and the %art"e !r
//,O,)P

See C$*illa v. 6! V!#!,ia, ))/ Phil. 1*= /::/-.

1@/

1@*

!r,an"Eat"!n re," tered #nder the %art*0'" t * tem re%re ented there"n. The &ha"rman !f the &!mm" "!n ha'' n!t -!te2 eC&e%t "n &a e !f a t"e. The &!mm" "!n ha'' a&t !n a'' a%%!"ntment #)m"tted t! "t +"th"n 6; e "!n da* !f the C!n,re fr!m the"r #)m" "!n. The C!mm" "!n ha'' r#'e )* a maD!r"t* !f a'' the mem)er . $ead: 1. RA@L 6AZA VS. L@IS SINGSON, 6!,!)b!" 21, 1;8; I' &h! ,ha#(!s A-hi,h a"! %!")a#!#&) i# &h! %$li&i,al %a"&= a''ilia&i$#s $' &h! )!)b!"s $' C$#("!ss is s+bs&a#&ial s$ as &$ *"a)a&i,all= *!,"!as! &h! )!)b!"shi% $' $#! %a"&= -hil! "!*+,i#( &h! $&h!", &h! #+)b!" $' "!%"!s!#&a&iv!s $' &h! *i''!"!#& %a"&i!s i# &h! C$))issi$# $# A%%$i#&)!#&s )a= als$ b! ,ha#(!* i# %"$%$"&i$# &$ &h!i" a,&+al )!)b!"shi%s. ANOTEC I# C+#a#a# vs. Ta#, &h! )!)b!"shi% $' &h! S!#a&$"s -as $#l= .&!)%$"a"=/ s$ as #$& &$ "!s+l& i# &h! ,ha#(! $' )!)b!"shi% i# &h! C$))issi$# $# A%%$i#&)!#&s) 2. G@INGONA VS. GONZALES, O,&$b!" 27, 1;;2 Si#,! 12 S!#a&$"s a"! )!)b!"s $' &h! C$))issi$# $# A%%$i#&)!#&s, i# a**i&i$# &$ &h! S!#a&! P"!si*!#& as &h! h!a* &h!"!$', !v!"= &-$ A2) S!#a&$"s a"! !#&i&l!* &$ $#! A1) "!%"!s!#&a&iv! i# &h! C$))issi$#. Pa"&i!s, h$-!v!", a"! #$& all$-!* &$ ."$+#* $''/ &h!i" )!)b!"s, I.!., 7 S!#a&$"s a"! !#&i&l!* &$ 9 "!%"!s!#&a&iv!s i# &h! C$))issi$# $# A%%$i#&)!#&s, #$& si#,! 7P2 is $#l= 9.B. ?+"&h!", &h!"! is #$&hi#( i# &h! C$#s&i&+&i$# -hi,h "!<+i"!s &ha& &h!"! )+s& b! 2 )!)b!"s $' &h! C$))issi$#. I' &h! *i''!"!#& %a"&i!s *$ #$& ,$al!s,!, &h!# &h! %$ssibili&= &ha& &h! &$&al #+)b!" $' S!#a&$"s i# &h! CA is l!ss &ha# 12 is i#*!!* a "!ali&=. AE>a)%l!C LaEasMMM19 S!#a&$"s2 L6PMMM 11 S!#a&$"s. I# &his ,as!, LaEas is !#&i&l!* &$ : )!)b!"s i# &h! CA A19P2R :.B) -hil! LBP -$+l* hav! B )!)b!"s A11P2R B.B) 9. G@INGONA S. GONZALES, Ma",h 1, 1;;9 AR!s$l+&i$# $' &h! M$&i$# '$" R!,$#si*!"a&i$# $' &h! O,&$b!" 27, 1;;2 6!,isi$#) 'o be discussed later together with Sec. 18( .rt. #11.

1@*

1@)

1/7a. Se&t"!n 38. The e'e&t!ra' tr")#na' and the C!mm" "!n !n A%%!"ntment ha'' )e &!n t"t#ted +"th"n 6; da* after the Senate and the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e ha'' ha-e )een !r,an"Eed +"th the e'e&t"!n !f the .re "dent and the S%ea<er. The C!mm" "!n !n A%%!"ntment ha'' meet !n'* +h"'e the C!n,re " "n e "!n2 at the &a'' !f "t Cha"rman !r a maD!r"t* !f a'' "t mem)er 2 t! d" &har,e #&h %!+er and f#n&t"!n a are here"n &!nferred #%!n "t. 36. Se&. 4;. The re&!rd and )!!< !f a&&!#nt !f the C!n,re ha'' )e %re er-ed and )e !%en t! the %#)'"& "n a&&!rdan&e +"th 'a+2 and #&h )!!< ha'' )e a#d"ted )* the C!mm" "!n !n A#d"t +h"&h ha'' %#)'" h ann#a''* an "tem"Eed '" t !f am!#nt %a"d t! and eC%en e "n&#rred f!r ea&h mem)er. 3@. Se&t"!n 43. The Senate !r the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e !r an* !f "t re %e&t"-e &!mm"ttee ma* &!nd#&t "n?#"r"e "n a"d !f 'e," 'at"!n "n a&&!rdan&e +"th "t d#'* %#)'" hed r#'e !f %r!&ed#re. The r",ht !f %er !n a%%ear"n, "n !r affe&ted )* #&h "n?#"r"e ha'' )e re %e&ted. $ead: 1) ARNA@LT vs. NAZARENO, 87 Phil. 2;

I. witness who refuses to answer a Duery by the &ommittee may be detained during the term of the members imposing said penalty but the detention should not be too long as to violate the witnessE right to due process of law.J C!n,re m# t ha-e a d#'* %#)'" hed R#'e K !ther+" e2 the Senate !r the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e &!#'d n!t "n-e t",ate "n a"d !f 'e," 'at"!n. VIR1ILLO 1ARCILLANO VS. HOUSE OF REE.RESENTATIVES COMMITTEES ON .UBLIC INFORMATION ET AL2 De&em)er 462 4;;A 0ore than three years ago( tapes ostensibly containing a wiretapped conversation purportedly between the President of the Philippines and a high7ran<ing official of the &ommission on !lections &"0!L!&- surfaced. 'hey captured unprecedented public attention and thrust the country into a controversy that placed the legitimacy of the present administration on the line( and resulted in the near7 collapse of the .rroyo government. 'he tapes( notoriously referred to as the I9ello 4arciJ tapes( allegedly contained the PresidentEs instructions to &"0!L!& &ommissioner #irgilio 4arcillano to manipulate in her favor results of the /::) presidential elections. 'hese recordings were to become the

1@)

1@@

sub6ect of heated legislative hearings conducted separately by committees of both 9ouses of &ongress.//+
O1P

1n the 9ouse of $epresentatives 9ouse-( on 2une +( /::@( then 0inority %loor Leader %rancis 4. !scudero delivered a privilege speech( I'ale of 'wo 'apes(J and set in motion a congressional investigation 6ointly conducted by the &ommittees on Public 1nformation( Public "rder and Safety( 5ational Defense and Security( 1nformation and &ommunications 'echnology( and Suffrage and !lectoral $eforms respondent 9ouse &ommittees-. During the inDuiry( several versions of the wiretapped conversation emerged. >ut on 2uly @( /::@( 5ational >ureau of 1nvestigation 5>1- Director $eynaldo Lycoco( .tty. .lan Paguia and the lawyer of former 5>1 Deputy Director Samuel "ng submitted to the respondent 9ouse &ommittees seven alleged IoriginalJ tape recordings of the supposed three7hour taped conversation. .fter prolonged and impassioned debate by the committee members on the admissibility and authenticity of the recordings( the tapes were eventually played in the chambers of the 9ouse.//=O/P "n .ugust *( /::@( the respondent 9ouse &ommittees decided to suspend the hearings indefinitely. 5evertheless( they decided to prepare committee reports based on the said recordings and the testimonies of the resource persons./*:O*P .larmed by these developments( petitioner #irgilio ". 4arcillano 4arcillano- filed with this &ourt a Petition for Prohibition and 1n6unction( with Prayer for 'emporary $estraining "rder andTor Lrit of Preliminary 1n6unction /*1O)P doc<eted as 4.$. 5o. 1,:**+. 9e prayed that the respondent 9ouse &ommittees be restrained from using these tape recordings of the Iillegally obtainedJ wiretapped conversations in their committee reports and for any other purpose. 9e further implored that the said recordings and any reference thereto be ordered stric<en off the records of the inDuiry( and the respondent 9ouse &ommittees directed to desist from further using the recordings in any of the 9ouse proceedings./*/O@P Lithout reaching its denouement( the 9ouse discussion and debates on the I4arci tapesJ abruptly stopped. .fter more than two years of Duiescence( Senator Panfilo Lacson roused the slumbering issue with a privilege speech( I'he Lighthouse 'hat >rought Dar<ness.J 1n his discourse( Senator Lacson promised to provide the public Ithe whole unvarnished truth the whatEs( whenEs( whereEs( whoEs and whyEsJ of the alleged wiretap( and sought an inDuiry into the perceived willingness of telecommunications providers to participate in nefarious wiretapping activities. "n motion of Senator %rancis Pangilinan( Senator LacsonEs speech was referred to the Senate &ommittee on 5ational Defense and Security( chaired by Senator $odolfo >iazon( who had previously

//+O1P //=O/P /*:O*P /*1O)P /*/O@P

R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@-( p. 18+. R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1,:**+-( pp. ,7=. 1d. at =. 1d. at 17*+. 1d. at *87*+.

1@@

1@8

filed two bills/**O8P see<ing to regulate the sale( purchase and use of wiretapping eDuipment and to prohibit the .rmed %orces of the Philippines .%P- from performing electoral duties./*)O,P 1n the SenateEs plenary session the following day( a lengthy debate ensued when Senator $ichard 4ordon aired his concern on the possible transgression of $epublic .ct $...- 5o. )/:: /*@O+P if the body were to conduct a legislative inDuiry on the matter. "n .ugust /+( /::,( Senator 0iriam Defensor7 Santiago delivered a privilege speech( articulating her considered view that the &onstitution absolutely bans the use( possession( replay or communication of the contents of the I9ello 4arciJ tapes. 9owever( she recommended a legislative investigation into the role of the 1ntelligence Service of the .%P 1S.%P-( the Philippine 5ational Police or other government entities in the alleged illegal wiretapping of public officials./*8O=P "n September 8( /::,( petitioners Santiago $anada and "swaldo .gcaoili( retired 6ustices of the &ourt of .ppeals( filed before this &ourt a Petition for Prohibition with Prayer for the 1ssuance of a 'emporary $estraining "rder andTor Lrit of Preliminary 1n6unction(/*,O1:P doc<eted as 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@( see<ing to bar the Senate from conducting its scheduled legislative inDuiry. 'hey argued in the main that the intended legislative inDuiry violates $... 5o. )/:: and Section *( .rticle 111 of the &onstitution. /*+O11P .s the &ourt did not issue an in6unctive writ( the Senate proceeded with its public hearings on the I9ello 4arciJ tapes on September ,(/*=O1/P 1,/):O1*P and "ctober 1(/)1O1)P /::,. 1ntervening as respondents(/)/O1@P Senators .Duilino A. Pimentel( 2r.( >enigno 5oynoy &. .Duino( $odolfo 4. >iazon( Panfilo 0. Lacson( Loren >. Legarda( 0... 2amby ..S. 0adrigal and .ntonio %. 'rillanes filed their &omment/)*O18P on the petition on September /@( /::,. 'he &ourt subseDuently heard the case on oral argument./))O1,P "n "ctober /8( /::,( 0a6. Lindsay $e; Sagge( a member of the 1S.%P and one of the resource persons summoned by the Senate to appear and testify at its hearings( moved to intervene as petitioner in 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@./)@O1+P
/**O8P /*)O,P

R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@-( pp. /1@7//:. 1d. at 18=. /*@O+P .n .ct to Prohibit and Penalize Lire 'apping and "ther $elated #iolations of the Privacy of &ommunications and for "ther Purposes. /*8O=P R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@-( pp. 18=71,:. /*,O1:P 1d. at *71,. /*+O11P 1d. at ,71*. /*=O1/P 1d. at /). /):O1*P 1d. at )). /)1O1)P 0emorandum of $espondents71ntervenors( p. 8. /)/O1@P R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@-( pp. 8+7,:. /)*O18P 1d. at ,17=:. /))O1,P 1d. at 8/. 'he &ourt identified the following issues for discussion in the "ctober /( /::, "ral .rgument:
1. /. Lhether the petitioners have l$,+s s&a#*i to bring this suit. Lhether the $ules of Procedure of the Senate and the Senate &ommittees governing the conduct of inDuiries in aid of legislation have been published( in accordance with Section /1( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution. &orollarily: a- Lhether these $ules must be published by every &ongress. b- Lhat modeTs of publication will comply with the constitutional reDuirement.

/.
/)@O1+P

Lhether the inDuiry( which is centered on the so7called I4arci tapes(J violates Section *( .rticle 111 of the &onstitution andTor $epublic .ct 5o. )/::. 1d. at 88.0otion for Leave to 1ntervene and Petition7in71ntervention filed on "ctober /8( /::,.

1@8

1@,

"n 5ovember /:( /::,( the &ourt resolved to consolidate 4.$. 5os. 1,:**+ and 1,=/,@./)8O1=P 1t may be noted that while both petitions involve the I9ello 4arciJ recordings( they have different ob6ectivesthe first is poised at preventing the playing of the tapes in the 9ouse and their subseDuent inclusion in the committee reports( and the second see<s to prohibit and stop the conduct of the Senate inDuiry on the wiretapped conversation. 'he &ourt dismisses the first petition( 4.$. 5o. 1,:**+( and grants the second( 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@. 717 >efore delving into the merits of the case( the &ourt shall first resolve the issue on the partiesE standing( argued at length in their pleadings. 1n T$l!#&i#$ v. COMELEC,/),O/:P we e;plained that IVOlPegal standingE or l$,+s s&a#*i refers to a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct in6ury because of the challenged governmental act ; ; ;(J thus( generally( a party will be allowed to litigate only when 1- he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened in6ury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the governmentF /- the in6ury is fairly traceable to the challenged actionF and *- the in6ury is li<ely to be redressed by a favorable action./)+O/1P 'he gist of the Duestion of standing is whether a party has Ialleged such a personal sta<e in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional Duestions.J/)=O//P 9owever( considering that l$,+s s&a#*i is a mere procedural technicality( the &ourt( in recent cases( has rela;ed the stringent direct in6ury test. 6avi* v. Ma,a%a(alMA""$=$/@:O/*P articulates that a Iliberal policy has been observed( allowing ordinary citizens( members of &ongress( and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or validity of laws( regulations and rulings.J/@1O/)P 'he fairly recent Chav!K v. G$#Kal!s/@/O/@P even permitted a non7member of the broadcast media( who failed to allege a personal sta<e in the outcome of the controversy( to challenge the acts of the Secretary of 2ustice and the 5ational 'elecommunications &ommission. 'he ma6ority( in the said case( echoed the current policy that Ithis &ourt has repeatedly and consistently refused to wield procedural barriers as impediments to its addressing and resolving serious legal Duestions that greatly impact on public interest( in <eeping with the &ourtEs duty under the 1=+, &onstitution to determine
/)8O1=P /),O/:P /)+O/1P /)=O//P /@:O/*P /@1O/)P /@/O/@P

$esolution dated 5ovember /:( /::,. )8@ Phil. *+@( ):/ /::)-. T$l!#&i#$ v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s( id. P"$vi#,! $' Ba&a#(as v. R$)+l$( 4.$. 5o. 1@/,,)( 0ay /,( /::)( )/= S&$. ,*8( ,@@. 4.$. 5os. 1,1*=8( 1,1):=( 1,1)+@( 1,1)+*( 1,1)::( 1,1)+= and 1,1)/)( 0ay *( /::8( )+= S&$. 18:. 6avi* v. Ma,a%a(alMA""$=$( id. at /1+. 4.$. 5o. 18+**+( %ebruary 1@( /::+( @)@ S&$. ))1.

1@,

1@+

whether or not other branches of government have <ept themselves within the limits of the &onstitution and the laws( and that they have not abused the discretion given to them.J/@*O/8P 1n 4.$. 5o. 1,:**+( petitioner 4arcillano 6ustifies his standing to initiate the petition by alleging that he is the person alluded to in the I9ello 4arciJ tapes. %urther( his was publicly identified by the members of the respondent committees as one of the voices in the recordings. /@)O/,P "bviously( therefore( petitioner 4arcillano stands to be directly in6ured by the 9ouse committeesE actions and charges of electoral fraud. 'he &ourt recognizes his standing to institute the petition for prohibition. 1n 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@( petitioners $anada and .gcaoili 6ustify their standing by alleging that they are concerned citizens( ta;payers( and members of the 1>P. 'hey are of the firm conviction that any attempt to use the I9ello 4arciJ tapes will further divide the country. 'hey wish to see the legal and proper use of public funds that will necessarily be defrayed in the ensuing public hearings. 'hey are worried by the continuous violation of the laws and individual rights( and the blatant attempt to abuse constitutional processes through the conduct of legislative inDuiries purportedly in aid of legislation./@@O/+P 1ntervenor Sagge alleges violation of his right to due process considering that he is summoned to attend the Senate hearings without being apprised not only of his rights therein through the publication of the Senate $ules of Procedure 4overning 1nDuiries in .id of Legislation( but also of the intended legislation which underpins the investigation. 9e further intervenes as a ta;payer bewailing the useless and wasteful e;penditure of public funds involved in the conduct of the Duestioned hearings./@8O/=P 4iven that petitioners $anada and .gcaoili allege an interest in the e;ecution of the laws and that intervenor Sagge asserts his constitutional right to due process(/@,O*:P they satisfy the reDuisite personal sta<e in the outcome of the controversy by merely being citizens of the $epublic. %ollowing the &ourtEs ruling in ?"a#,is,$, I". v. Th! N$+s! $' R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s(/@+O*1P we find sufficient petitioners $anadaEs and .gcaoiliEs and intervenor SaggeEs allegation that the continuous conduct by the Senate of the Duestioned legislative inDuiry will necessarily involve the e;penditure of public funds./@=O*/P 1t should be noted that in ?"a#,is,$( rights personal to then &hief 2ustice 9ilario 4. Davide( 2r. had been in6ured by the alleged unconstitutional acts of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( yet the &ourt granted standing to the petitioners therein for( as in this case( they invariably invo<ed the vindication of their own rightsas ta;payers( members of &ongress( citizens( individually or in a class suit( and members of the bar and of the legal professionwhich were also supposedly violated by the therein assailed unconstitutional acts./8:O**P Li<ewise( a reading of the petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@ shows that the petitioners and intervenor Sagge advance constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this &ourt in view of their seriousness( novelty and weight as precedents. 'he issues are of transcendental and paramount
/@*O/8P /@)O/,P /@@O/+P /@8O/=P /@,O*:P /@+O*1P /@=O*/P /8:O**P

1d. $eply in 4.$. 5o. 1,:**+( pp. *87*,. R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@-( p. ). Petition7in71ntervention( p. *. 6avi* v. Ma,a%a(alMA""$=$( supra note /*( at //*. )8: Phil. +*: /::*-. ?"a#,is,$, I". v. Th! N$+s! $' R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s( id. at +=,. ?"a#,is,$, I". v. Th! N$+s! $' R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s( supra note *1( at +=@.

1@+

1@=

importance not only to the public but also to the >ench and the >ar( and should be resolved for the guidance of all./81O*)P 'hus( in the e;ercise of its sound discretion and given the liberal attitude it has shown in prior cases clima;ing in the more recent case of Chav!K( the &ourt recognizes the legal standing of petitioners $anada and .gcaoili and intervenor Sagge. 7 11 7 'he &ourt( however( dismisses 4.$. 5o. 1,:**+ for being moot and academic. $epeatedly stressed in our prior decisions is the principle that the e;ercise by this &ourt of 6udicial power is limited to the determination and resolution of actual cases and controversies. /8/O*@P >y actual cases( we mean e;isting conflicts appropriate or ripe for 6udicial determination( not con6ectural or anticipatory( for otherwise the decision of the &ourt will amount to an advisory opinion. 'he power of 6udicial inDuiry does not e;tend to hypothetical Duestions because any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal Duestions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. /8*O*8P 5either will the &ourt determine a moot Duestion in a case in which no practical relief can be granted. . case becomes moot when its purpose has become stale. /8)O*,P 1t is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot Duestion as a 6udgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or( in the nature of things( cannot be enforced./8@O*+P 1n 4.$. 5o. 1,:**+( petitioner 4arcillano implores from the &ourt( as aforementioned( the issuance of an in6unctive writ to prohibit the respondent 9ouse &ommittees from playing the tape recordings and from including the same in their committee report. 9e li<ewise prays that the said tapes be stric<en off the records of the 9ouse proceedings. >ut the &ourt notes that the recordings were already played in the 9ouse and heard by its members./88O*=P 'here is also the widely publicized fact that the committee reports on the I9ello 4arciJ inDuiry were completed and submitted to the 9ouse in plenary by the respondent committees./8,O):P 9aving been overta<en by these events( the 4arcillano petition has to be dismissed for being moot and academic. .fter all( prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an act about to be done( and not intended to provide a remedy for an act already accomplished./8+O)1P 7 111 7

/81O*)P /8/O*@P

Hil$sba=a#, I#,. v. G+i#($#a, I".( 4.$. 5o. 11**,@( 0ay @( 1==)( /*/ S&$. 11:( 1*=. 6+)la$ v. COMELEC( 1+) Phil. *8=( *,, 1=+:-. 'his case e;plains the standards that have to be followed in the e;ercise of the power of 6udicial review( namely: 1- the e;istence of an appropriate caseF /- an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional DuestionF *- the plea that the function be e;ercised at the earliest opportunityF and )- the necessity that the constitutional Duestion be passed upon in order to decide the case. /8*O*8P La B+(alMBDlaa# T"ibal Ass$,ia&i$#, I#,. v. Ra)$s( )8@ Phil. +8:( ++=7+=: /::)-. /8)O*,P R+'i#$ v. E#*"i(a( 4.$. 5os. 1*=@@) and 1*=@8@( 2uly /1( /::8( )=8 S&$. 1*( )8. /8@O*+P La#+Ka, I". v. F+,h!#(,$( 4.$. 5o. 1@,:**( 0arch /+( /::@( )@) S&$. 1*:( 1*+. /88O*=P R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1,:**+-( p. =. /8,O):P See news article ISeparate findings( no closureJ by 0ichael Lim 3mbac published in Th! Phili%%i#! 6ail= I#<+i"!" on 0arch /=( /::8F 5ews item I@ 9ouse committees in V4arciE probe file report on 0ondayJ published in Th! Ma#ila B+ll!&i# on 0arch /@( /::8. /8+O)1P Si)$#, I". v. C$))issi$# $# N+)a# Ri(h&s ( 4.$. 5o. 1::1@:( 2anuary @( 1==)( //= S&$. 11,( 1*@71*8F A(+s&i# v. 6! la ?+!#&!( +) Phil. @1@( @1, 1=)=-.

1@=

18:

.s to the petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@( the C!#rt ,rant the ame. The Senate &ann!t )e a''!+ed t! &!nt"n#e +"th the &!nd#&t !f the ?#e t"!ned 'e," 'at"-e "n?#"r* +"th!#t d#'* %#)'" hed r#'e !f %r!&ed#re2 "n &'ear der!,at"!n !f the &!n t"t#t"!na' re?#"rement. Section /1( .rticle #1 of the 1=+, &onstitution e;plicitly provides that IOtPhe Senate or the 9ouse of $epresentatives( or any of its respective committees may conduct inDuiries in aid of legislation i# a,,$"*a#,! -i&h i&s *+l= %+blish!* "+l!s $' %"$,!*+"! .J 'he reDuisite of publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic reDuirements of due process./8=O)/P Publication is indeed imperative( for it will be the height of in6ustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law or rule of which he had no notice whatsoever( not even a constructive one. /,:O)*P Lhat constitutes publication is set forth in .rticle / of the &ivil &ode( which provides that IOlPaws shall ta<e effect after 1@ days following the completion of their publication either in the "fficial 4azette( or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.J/,1O))P 'he respondents in 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@ admit in their pleadings and even on oral argument that the Senate $ules of Procedure 4overning 1nDuiries in .id of Legislation had been published in newspapers of general circulation only in 1==@ and in /::8. /,/O)@P Lith respect to the present Senate of the 1) th &ongress( however( of which the term of half of its members commenced on 2une *:( /::,( no effort was underta<en for the publication of these rules when they first opened their session. $ecently( the &ourt had occasion to rule on this very same Duestion. C$))i&&!! $# A,,$+#&abili&= $' P+bli, O''i,!"s a#* I#v!s&i(a&i$#s,/,*O)8P we said: 1n N!"i v. S!#a&!

Iourth( we find merit in the argument of the "S4 that respondent &ommittees li<ewise violated Section /1 of .rticle #1 of the &onstitution( reDuiring that the inDuiry be in accordance with the I d#'* %#)'" hed r#'e !f %r!&ed#re.J Le Duote the "S4Es e;planation: 'he phrase Iduly published rules of procedureJ reDuires the Senate of every &ongress to publish its rules of procedure governing inDuiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held every three *- years for one7half of the SenateEs membership( the composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. !ach Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit. N!t ha-"n, %#)'" hed "t 6u es of =rocedure, the #)De&t hear"n, "n a"d !f 'e," 'at"!n &!nd#&ted )* the 3@ th Senate2 are theref!re2 %r!&ed#ra''* "nf"rm. 2ustice .ntonio '. &arpio( in his Dissenting and &oncurring "pinion( reinforces this ruling with the following rationalization: 'he present Senate under the 1=+, &onstitution is no longer a continuing legislative body. 'he present Senate has twenty7four members( twelve of whom are elected every three years for a term of si;
/8=O)/P /,:O)*P

>ernas, Th! 1;87 C$#s&i&+&i$# $' &h! Phili%%i#!s, A C$))!#&a"= ( 1==8 ed.( p. 8,=. TaSa*a v. T+v!"a( //: Phil. )//( )*/7)** 1=+@-. /,1O))P .s amended on 2une 1+( 1=+, by !;ecutive "rder 5o. /:: entitled IProviding for the Publication of Laws !ither in the "fficial 4azette or in a 5ewspaper of 4eneral &irculation in the Philippines as a $eDuirement for their !ffectivityJ. /,/O)@P R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@-( p. 1,=F 0emorandum of $espondents71ntervenors( pp. =71:. /,*O)8P 4.$. 5o. 1+:8)*( 0arch /@( /::+( @)= S&$. ,,( 1*@71*8.

18:

181

years each. 'hus( the term of twelve Senators e;pires every three years( leaving 'e than a maD!r"t* !f Senat!r t! &!nt"n#e "nt! the neCt C!n,re . 'he 1=+, &onstitution( li<e the 1=*@ &onstitution( reDuires a ma6ority of Senators to Iconstitute a Duorum to do business.J .pplying the same reasoning in A"#a+l& v. NaKa"!#$, the Senate under the 1=+, &onstitution is not a continuing body because less than ma6ority of the Senators continue into the ne;t &ongress. 'he conseDuence is that the R+l!s $' P"$,!*+"! must be republished by the Senate after every e;piry of the term of twelve Senators./,)O),P 'he sub6ect was e;plained with greater lucidity in our R!s$l+&i$#/,@O)+P O# &h! M$&i$# '$" R!,$#si*!"a&i$#) in the same case( viK.: "n the nature of the Senate as a Icontinuing body(J this &ourt sees fit to issue a clarification. &ertainly( there is no debate that the Senate a an "n t"t#t"!n is Icontinuing(J as it is not dissolved as an entity with each national election or change in the composition of its members. 9owever( in the conduct of its day7 to7day business the Senate of each &ongress acts separately and independently of the Senate of the &ongress before it. 'he $ules of the Senate itself confirms this when it states: RULE XLIV UNFINISHED BUSINESS SEC. 346. 3nfinished business at the end of the session shall be ta<en up at the ne;t session in the same status. A'' %end"n, matter and %r!&eed"n, ha'' term"nate #%!n the eC%"rat"!n !f !ne (3) C!n,re ( but may be ta<en by the succeeding &ongress as if present for the first time. 3ndeniably from the foregoing( all pending matters and proceedings( i.e.( unpassed bills and even legislative investigations( of the Senate of a particular &ongress are considered term"nated upon the e;piration of that &ongress and it is merely optional on the Senate of the succeeding &ongress to ta<e up such unfinished matters( n!t "n the ame tat# ( but as if presented f!r the f"r t t"me. 'he logic and practicality of such a rule is readily apparent considering that the Senate of the succeeding &ongress which will typically have a different composition as that of the previous &ongress- should not be bound by the acts and deliberations of the Senate of which they had no part. 1f the Senate is a continuing body even with respect to the conduct of its business( then pending matters will not be deemed terminated with the e;piration of one &ongress but will( as a matter of course( continue into the ne;t &ongress with the same status. 'his dichotomy of the continuity of the Senate as an institution and of the opposite nature of the conduct of its business is reflected in its $ules. 'he $ules of the Senate i.e. the SenateEs main rules of procedure- states: RULE LI AMENDMENTS TO2 OR REVISIONS OF2 THE RULES

/,)O),P /,@O)+P

1d. at /=,7/=+. Dated September )( /::+.

181

18/

SEC. 36G. .t the start of each session in which the Senators elected in the preceding elections shall begin their term of office( the President may endorse the $ules to the appropriate committee for amendment or revision. 'he $ules may also be amended by means of a motion which should be presented at least one day before its consideration( and the vote of the ma6ority of the Senators present in the session shall be reDuired for its approval. RULE LII DATE OF TALIN1 EFFECT SEC. 365. 'hese $ules shall ta<e effect on the date of their adoption and shall remain in force until they are amended or repealed. Section 1*8 of the Senate $ules Duoted above ta<es into account the new composition of the Senate after an election and the possibility of the amendment or revision of the $ules at the start of each session in which the newly elected Senators shall begin their term. 9owever( it is evident that the Senate has determined that its main rules are intended to be valid from the date of their adoption until they are amended or repealed. Such language is conspicuously absent from the R+l!s. 'he R+l!s simply state I t-hese $ules shall ta<e effect seven ,- days after publication in two /- newspapers of general circulation.J 'he latter does not e;plicitly provide for the continued effectivity of such rules until they are amended or repealed. 1n view of the difference in the language of the two sets of Senate rules( it cannot be presumed that the $ules on legislative inDuiries- would continue into the ne;t &ongress. 'he Senate of the ne;t &ongress may easily adopt different rules for its legislative inDuiries which come within the rule on unfinished business. 'he language of Section /1( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution reDuiring that the inDuiry be conducted in accordance with the d#'* %#)'" hed r#'e !f %r!&ed#re is categorical. 1t is incumbent upon the Senate to publish the rules for its legislative inDuiries in each &ongress or otherwise ma<e the published rules clearly state that the same shall be effective in subseDuent &ongresses or until they are amended or repealed to sufficiently put public on notice. 1f it was the intention of the Senate for its present rules on legislative inDuiries to be effective even in the ne;t &ongress( it could have easily adopted the same language it had used in its main rules regarding effectivity. $espondents 6ustify their non7observance of the constitutionally mandated publication by arguing that the rules have never been amended since 1==@ and( despite that( they are published in boo<let form available to anyone for free( and accessible to the public at the SenateEs internet web page./,8O)=P
/,8O)=P

'S5( "ral .rguments( 0arch )( /::+( 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@-( pp. )1*7)1).

18/

18*

'he &ourt does not agree. 'he absence of any amendment to the rules cannot 6ustify the SenateEs defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of Section /1( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution. 'he organic law instructs( without more( that the Senate or its committees may conduct inDuiries in aid of legislation $#l= i# a,,$"*a#,! -i&h *+l= %+blish!* "+l!s $' %"$,!*+"!, a#* *$!s #$& )aE! a#= *is&i#,&i$# -h!&h!" $" #$& &h!s! "+l!s hav! +#*!"($#! a)!#*)!#&s $" "!visi$#. 'he constitutional mandate to publish the said rules prevails over any custom( practice or tradition followed by the Senate. 2ustice &arpioEs response to the same argument raised by the respondents is illuminating: 'he publication of the R+l!s $' P"$,!*+"! in the website of the Senate( or in pamphlet form available at the Senate( is not sufficient under the TaSa*a v. T+v!"a ruling which reDuires publication either in the "fficial 4azette or in a newspaper of general circulation. 'he R+l!s $' P"$,!*+"! even provide that the rules Ishall ta<e effect seven ,days after publication in two /- newspapers of general circulation(J precluding any other form of publication. Publication in accordance with TaSa*a is mandatory to comply with the due process reDuirement because the R+l!s $' P"$,!*+"! put a personEs liberty at ris<. . person who violates the R+l!s $' P"$,!*+"! could be arrested and detained by the Senate. 'he invocation by the respondents of the provisions of $... 5o. +,=/(/,,O@:P otherwise <nown as the !lectronic &ommerce .ct of /:::( to support their claim of valid publication through the internet is all the more incorrect. R.A. A584 &!n "der an e'e&tr!n"& data me a,e !r an e'e&tr!n"& d!&#ment a the f#n&t"!na' e?#"-a'ent !f a +r"tten d!&#ment !n'* f!r evidentiary purposes./,+O@1P 1n other words( the law merely recognizes the admissibility in evidence for their being the original- of electronic data messages andTor electronic documents./,=O@/P <t does not
/,,O@:P

!ntitled I.n .ct Providing for the $ecognition and 3se of !lectronic &ommercial and 5on7&ommercial 'ransactions and Documents( Penalties for 3nlawful 3se 'hereof and %or "ther Purposes(J approved on 2une 1)( /:::.
/,+H73I /,=O@/P

!CC <ndustria Sa es Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation 2 1.R. N!. 35;G662 O&t!)er 372 4;;52 76G SCRA @;A. (Em%ha " #%%'"ed.) Sections 8( , and 1: of $... 5o. +,=/ read:

18*

18)

ma$e the internet a medium for pub ishing a%s, ru es and regu ations. 4iven this discussion( the respondent Senate &ommittees( therefore( could not( in violation of the &onstitution( use its unpublished rules in the legislative inDuiry sub6ect of these consolidated cases. 'he conduct of inDuiries in aid of legislation by the Senate has to be deferred until it shall have caused the publication of the rules( because it can do so only Ii# a,,$"*a#,! -i&h i&s *+l= %+blish!* "+l!s $' %"$,!*+"!.J #ery recently( the Senate caused the publication of the Senate $ules of Procedure 4overning 1nDuiries in .id of Legislation in the "ctober *1( /::+ issues of Ma#ila B+ll!&i# and Mala=a. Lhile we ta<e 6udicial notice of this fact( the recent publication does not cure the infirmity of
Sec. 8. 4ega 6ecognition of >ata !essages. 7 1nformation shall not be denied legal effect( validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is in the data message purporting to give rise to such legal effect( or that it is merely referred to in that electronic data message. Sec. ,. 4ega 6ecognition of 3 ectronic >ocuments. W !lectronic documents shall have the legal effect( validity or enforceability as any other document or legal writing( and W a- Lhere the law reDuires a document to be in writing( that reDuirement is met by an electronic document if the said electronic document maintains its integrity and reliability( and can be authenticated so as to be usable for subseDuent reference( in that W (") The e'e&tr!n"& d!&#ment ha rema"ned &!m%'ete and #na'tered2 a%art fr!m the add"t"!n !f an* end!r ement and an* a#th!r"Eed &han,e2 !r an* &han,e +h"&h ar" e "n the n!rma' &!#r e !f &!mm#n"&at"!n2 t!ra,e and d" %'a*K and ("") The e'e&tr!n"& d!&#ment " re'"a)'e "n the '",ht !f the %#r%! e f!r +h"&h "t +a ,enerated and "n the '",ht !f a'' the re'e-ant &"r&#m tan&e . ()) .ara,ra%h (a) a%%'"e +hether the re?#"rement there"n " "n the f!rm !f an !)'",at"!n !r +hether the 'a+ "m%'* %r!-"de &!n e?#en&e f!r the d!&#ment n!t )e"n, %re ented !r reta"ned "n "t !r","na' f!rm. (&) >here the 'a+ re?#"re that a d!&#ment )e %re ented !r reta"ned "n "t !r","na' f!rm2 that re?#"rement " met )* an e'e&tr!n"& d!&#ment "f Q (") There eC" t a re'"a)'e a #ran&e a t! the "nte,r"t* !f the d!&#ment fr!m the t"me +hen "t +a f"r t ,enerated "n "t f"na' f!rmK and ("") That d!&#ment " &a%a)'e !f )e"n, d" %'a*ed t! the %er !n t! +h!m "t " t! )e %re ented= =rovided2 That n! %r!-" "!n !f th" A&t ha'' a%%'* t! -ar* an* and a'' re?#"rement !f eC" t"n, 'a+ !n f!rma'"t"e re?#"red "n the eCe&#t"!n !f d!&#ment f!r the"r -a'"d"t*. F!r e-"dent"ar* %#r%! e 2 an e'e&tr!n"& d!&#ment ha'' )e the f#n&t"!na' e?#"-a'ent !f a +r"tten d!&#ment #nder eC" t"n, 'a+ . 'his .ct does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic data messages or electronic documents( e;cept the rules relating to authentication and best evidence. Se&. 3;. O"i(i#al 6$,+)!#&s. Q (3) >here the 'a+ re?#"re "nf!rmat"!n t! )e %re ented !r reta"ned "n "t !r","na' f!rm2 that re?#"rement " met )* an e'e&tr!n"& data me a,e !r e'e&tr!n"& d!&#ment "f= (a) The "nte,r"t* !f the "nf!rmat"!n fr!m the t"me +hen "t +a f"r t ,enerated "n "t f"na' f!rm2 a an e'e&tr!n"& data me a,e !r e'e&tr!n"& d!&#ment " h!+n )* e-"den&e a iunde !r !ther+" eK and ()) >here "t " re?#"red that "nf!rmat"!n )e %re ented2 that the "nf!rmat"!n " &a%a)'e !f )e"n, d" %'a*ed t! the %er !n t! +h!m "t " t! )e %re ented. (4) .ara,ra%h (3) a%%'"e +hether the re?#"rement there"n " "n the f!rm !f an !)'",at"!n !r +hether the 'a+ "m%'* %r!-"de &!n e?#en&e f!r the "nf!rmat"!n n!t )e"n, %re ented !r reta"ned "n "t !r","na' f!rm. (6) F!r the %#r%! e !f #)%ara,ra%h (a) !f %ara,ra%h (3)= (a) the &r"ter"a f!r a e "n, "nte,r"t* ha'' )e +hether the "nf!rmat"!n ha rema"ned &!m%'ete and #na'tered2 a%art fr!m the add"t"!n !f an* end!r ement and an* &han,e +h"&h ar" e "n the n!rma' &!#r e !f &!mm#n"&at"!n2 t!ra,e and d" %'a*K and ()) the tandard !f re'"a)"'"t* re?#"red ha'' )e a e ed "n the '",ht !f the %#r%! e f!r +h"&h the "nf!rmat"!n +a ,enerated and "n the '",ht !f a'' re'e-ant &"r&#m tan&e .

18)

18@

the inDuiry sought to be prohibited by the instant petitions. 1nsofar as the consolidated cases are concerned( the legislative investigation sub6ect thereof still could not be underta<en by the respondent Senate &ommittees( because no published rules governed it( in clear contravention of the &onstitution. Lith the foregoing disDuisition( the &ourt finds it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised in the consolidated petitions. >HEREFORE( the petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,:**+ is DISMISSED( and the petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,=/,@ is 1RANTED. Let a writ of prohibition be issued en6oining the Senate of the $epublic of the Philippines andTor any of its committees from conducting any inDuiry in aid of legislation centered on the I9ello 4arciJ tapes. MA/ THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREI1N RELATIONS CONDUCT INVESTI1ATIONS IN AID OF LE1ISLATION FOR AN ALLE1ED ILLE1AL ACTS COMMITTED B/ .OLICE 1ENERALS IN MOSCO>2 RUSSIA >HICH IS OUTSIDE THE .HILI..INESB S.OUSES .N. DIRECTOR ELISEO DE LA .AN 9 MARIA FE DE LA .AN VS. SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREI1N AFFAIRS2 1.R. N!. 3A@A@82 Fe)r#ar* 362 4;;8 'his is a Petition for C!"&i$"a"i and Prohibition/+:O1P under $ule 8@ of the $ules of &ourt filed on "ctober /+( /::+ by petitioners7spouses 4eneral $et.- !liseo D. dela Paz 4en. Dela Paz- and 0rs. 0aria %e &. dela Paz 0rs. Dela Paz- assailing( allegedly for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion
/+:O1P

R$ll$( pp. *7/1.

18@

188

amounting to lac< or e;cess of 6urisdiction( the orders of respondent Senate %oreign $elations &ommittee respondent &ommittee-( through its &hairperson( Senator 0iriam Defensor7 Santiago Senator Santiago-( 1- denying petitionersE &hallenge to 2urisdiction with 0otion to Auash Subpoenae and /- commanding respondent Senate Sergeant7at7.rms 2ose >ala6adia( 2r. >ala6adiato immediately arrest petitioners during the Senate committee hearing last "ctober /*( /::+. 'he petition thus prays that respondent &ommittee be en6oined from conducting its hearings involving petitioners( and to en6oin >ala6adia from implementing the verbal arrest order against them. 'he antecedents are as follow W "n "ctober 8( /::+( a Philippine delegation of eight +senior Philippine 5ational Police P5P- officers arrived in 0oscow( $ussia to attend the ,,th 4eneral .ssembly Session of the 1nternational &riminal Police "rganization 1&P"-715'!$P"L in St. Petersburg from "ctober 871:( /::+. Lith the delegation was 4en. Dela Paz( then comptroller and special disbursing officer of the P5P. 4en. Dela Paz( however( was to retire from the P5P on "ctober =( /::+. "n "ctober 11( /::+( 4en. Dela Paz was apprehended by the local authorities at the 0oscow airport departure area for failure to declare in written form the 1:@(::: euros Oappro;imately P8(=*:(:::.::P found in his luggage. 1n addition( he was also found to have in his possession )@(::: euros roughly eDuivalent to P/(=,:(:::.::-. Petitioners were detained in 0oscow for Duestioning. .fter a few days( 4en. Dela Paz and the P5P delegation were allowed to return to the Philippines( but the $ussian government confiscated the euros. "n "ctober /1( /::+( 4en. Dela Paz arrived in 0anila( a few days after 0rs. Dela Paz. .waiting them were subpoenae earlier issued by respondent &ommittee for the investigation it was to conduct on the 0oscow incident on "ctober /*( /::+. "n "ctober /*( /::+( respondent &ommittee held its first hearing. 1nstead of attending the hearing( petitioners filed with respondent &ommittee a pleading denominated Chall!#(! &$ I+"is*i,&i$# -i&h M$&i$# &$ J+ash S+b%$!#a./+1O/P Senator
/+1O/P

1d. at /+.

188

18,

Santiago emphatically defended respondent &ommitteeEs 6urisdiction and commanded >ala6adia to arrest petitioners. 9ence( this Petition. Petitioners argue that respondent &ommittee is devoid of any 6urisdiction to investigate the 0oscow incident as the matter does not involve state to state relations as provided in paragraph 1/( Section 1*( $ule 1: of the Senate $ules of Procedure Senate $ules-. 'hey further claim that respondent &ommittee violated the same Senate $ules when it issued the warrant of arrest without the reDuired signatures of the ma6ority of the members of respondent &ommittee. 'hey li<ewise assail the very same Senate $ules because the same were not published as reDuired by the &onstitution( and thus( cannot be used as the basis of any investigation involving them relative to the 0oscow incident. $espondent &ommittee filed its &omment/+/O*P on 2anuary //( /::=. 'he petition must inevitably fail. ?i"s&. Section 18 *-( .rticle #1 of the Philippine &onstitution states: .Ea,h N$+s! shall *!&!")i#! &h! "+l!s $' i&s %"$,!!*i#(s./ 'his provision has been traditionally construed as a grant of full discretionary authority to the 9ouses of &ongress in the formulation( adoption and promulgation of its own rules. .s such( the e;ercise of this power is generally e;empt from 6udicial supervision and interference( e;cept on a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the power as will constitute a denial of due process./+*O)P 'he challenge to the 6urisdiction of the Senate %oreign $elations &ommittee( raised by petitioner in the case at bench( in effect( as<s this &ourt to inDuire into a matter that is within the full discretion of the Senate. 'he issue parta<es of the nature of a political Duestion that( in TaSa*a v. C+!#,$,/+)O@P was characterized as a Duestion which( under the &onstitution( is to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity( or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or
/+/O*P

1d. at 1/871*,. See M$""!"$ v. B$,a"( *, ".4. ))@. 1:: Phil. 1:1 1=@,-.

/+*O)P /+)O@P

18,

18+

e;ecutive branch of the government. %urther( pursuant to this constitutional grant of virtually unrestricted authority to determine its own rules( the Senate is at liberty to alter or modify these rules at any time it may see fit( sub6ect only to the imperatives of Duorum( voting and publication. 'hus( it is not for this &ourt to intervene in what is clearly a Duestion of policy( an issue dependent upon the wisdom( not the legality( of the SenateEs action. S!,$#*. !ven if it is within our power to inDuire into the validity of the e;ercise of 6urisdiction over the petitioners by the Senate %oreign $elations &ommittee( we are convinced that respondent &ommittee has acted within the proper sphere of its authority. Paragraph 1/( Section 1*( $ule 1: of the Senate $ules provides: 1/- C$))i&&!! $# ?$"!i(# R!la&i$#s. W %ifteen 1@- members. A'' matter re'at"n, t! the re'at"!n !f the .h"'"%%"ne +"th !ther nat"!n ,enera''*F diplomatic and consular servicesF the .ssociation of Southeast .sian 5ationsF the 3nited 5ations "rganization and its agenciesF multi7lateral organizations( all international agreements( obligations and contractsF and overseas %ilipinos. . reading of the above provision unmista<ably shows that the investigation of the 0oscow incident involving petitioners is well within the respondent &ommitteeEs 6urisdiction. The M! &!+ "n&"dent &!#'d &reate r"%%'e "n the re'at"!n )et+een the .h"'"%%"ne and R# "a . 4en. Dela Paz went to 0oscow in an official capacity( as a member of the Philippine delegation to the 15'!$P"L &onference in St. Petersburg( carrying a huge amount of IpublicJ money ostensibly to cover the e;penses to be incurred by the delegation. %or his failure to comply with immigration and currency laws( the $ussian government confiscated the money in his possession and detained him and other members of the delegation in 0oscow. %urthermore( the matter affects Philippine international obligations. Le ta<e 6udicial notice of the fact that the Philippines is a state7party to the 3nited 5ations &onvention .gainst &orruption and the 3nited 5ations &onvention .gainst
18+

18=

'ransnational "rganized &rime. 'he two conventions contain provisions dealing with the movement of considerable foreign currency across borders./+@O8P 'he 0oscow incident would reflect on our countryEs compliance with the obligations reDuired of state7parties under these conventions. 'hus( the respondent &ommittee can properly inDuire into this matter( particularly as to the source and purpose of the funds discovered in 0oscow as this would involve the PhilippinesE commitments under these conventions. Thi"*. 'he Philippine Senate has decided that the legislative inDuiry will be 6ointly conducted by the respondent &ommittee and the Senate &ommittee on .ccountability of Public "fficers and 1nvestigations >lue $ibbon &ommittee-. Pursuant to paragraph *8( Section 1*( $ule 1: of the Senate $ules( the >lue $ibbon &ommittee may conduct investigations on all matters relating to malfeasance( misfeasance and nonfeasance in office by officers and employees of the government( its branches( agencies( subdivisions and instrumentalities( and on any matter of public interest on its own initiative or brought to its attention by any of its members. 1t is( thus( beyond cavil that the >lue $ibbon &ommittee can investigate 4en. Dela Paz( a retired P5P general and member of the official P5P delegation to the 15'!$P"L &onference in $ussia( who had with him millions which may have been sourced from public funds. ?$+"&h. SubseDuent to Senator SantiagoEs verbal command to >ala6adia to arrest petitioners( the Philippine Senate issued a
/+@O8P

.rt. 1) /- of the Un"ted Nat"!n C!n-ent"!n A,a"n t C!rr#%t"!n provides W State parties shall consider implementing '!asibl! )!as+"!s &$ *!&!,& a#* )$#i&$" &h! )$v!)!#& $' ,ash a#* a%%"$%"ia&! #!($&iabl! i#s&"+)!#&s a,"$ss &h!i" b$"*!"s, s+b8!,& &$ sa'!(+a"*s &$ !#s+"! %"$%!" +s! $' i#'$")a&i$# a#* -i&h$+& i)%!*i#( i# a#= -a= &h! )$v!)!#& $' l!(i&i)a&! ,a%i&al . Such measures may include a reDuirement that individuals and businesses report the cross border transfer of substantial Duantities of cash and appropriate negotiable instruments. 'he Un"ted Nat"!n C!n-ent"!n A,a"n t Tran nat"!na' Or,an"Eed Cr"me provides W .rt. , 1-( !ach State Party: a- Shall i#s&i&+&! a ,$)%"!h!#siv! *$)!s&i, a#* "!(+la&$"= a#* s+%!"vis$"= "!(i)! '$" ba#Es a#* #$#Mba#E 'i#a#,ial i#s&i&+&i$#s a#*, -h!"! a%%"$%"ia&!, $&h!" b$*i!s %a"&i,+la"l= s+s,!%&ibl! &$ )$#!=Mla+#*!"i#(( within its competence( in order &$ *!&!" a#* *!&!,& all '$")s $' )$#!=Mla+#*!"i#(( which regime shall emphasize reDuirements for customer identification( record7<eeping and the reporting of suspicious transactionsF .rt. , /-: S&a&! Pa"&i!s shall ,$#si*!" i)%l!)!#&i#( '!asibl! )!as+"!s &$ *!&!,& a#* )$#i&$" &h! )$v!)!#& $' ,ash a#* a%%"$%"ia&! #!($&iabl! i#s&"+)!#&s a,"$ss &h!i" b$"*!"s, s+b8!,& &$ sa'!(+a"*s &$ !#s+"! %"$%!" +s! $' i#'$")a&i$# a#* -i&h$+& i)%!*i#( i# a#= -a= &h! )$v!)!#& $' l!(i&i)a&! ,a%i&al. Such measures may include a reDuirement that individuals and businesses report the cross7border transfer of substantial Duantities of cash and appropriate negotiable instruments. 3nderscoring supplied.-

18=

1,:

formal written "rder/+8O,P of arrest( signed by ten 1:- senators( with the Senate President himself approving it( in accordance with the Senate $ules. ?i'&h. 'he Philippine Senate has already published its $ules of Procedure 4overning 1nDuiries in .id of Legislation in two newspapers of general circulation./+,O+P Si>&h. 'he arrest order issued against the petitioners has been rendered ineffectual. 1n the legislative inDuiry held on 5ovember 1@( /::+( 6ointly by the respondent &ommittee and the Senate >lue $ibbon &ommittee( 4en. Dela Paz voluntarily appeared and answered the Duestions propounded by the &ommittee members. 9aving submitted himself to the 6urisdiction of the Senate &ommittees( there was no longer any necessity to implement the order of arrest. %urthermore( in the same hearing( Senator Santiago granted the motion of 4en. Dela Paz to dispense with the presence of 0rs. Dela Paz for humanitarian considerations./++O=P &onseDuently( the order for her arrest was effectively withdrawn. L9!$!%"$!( the petition is D1S01SS!D for lac< of merit and for being moot and academic. Power of &ongress to conduct investigation in aid of legislationF distinguish said power with its power to call department secretaries( etc.( during IDuestion hourJ SENATE OF THE .HILI..INES2 re%re ented )* SENATE .RESIDENT FRANLLIN DRILON2 ET AL.2 VS. EXEC. SEC. EDUARDO ERMITA2 ET AL.2 1.R. N!. 3G8552 A%r"' 4;2 4;;G &.$P1" 0"$.L!S( I.: 'he %acts:

/+8O,P /+,O+P /++O=P

R$ll$( pp. 1*+71*=. Publication was made in the "ctober *1( /::+ issues of the Ma#ila 6ail= B+ll!&i# and the Mala=a. R$ll$, p. 1)*.

1,:

1,1

1n the e;ercise of its legislative power( the Senate of the Philippines( through its various Senate &ommittees( conducts inDuiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for( i#&!" alia( the attendance of officials and employees of the e;ecutive department( bureaus( and offices including those employed in 4overnment "wned and &ontrolled &orporations( the .rmed %orces of the Philippines .%P-( and the Philippine 5ational Police P5P-. "n September /1 to /*( /::@( the &ommittee of the Senate as a whole issued invitations to various officials of the !;ecutive Department for them to appear on September /=( /::@ as resource spea<ers in a public hearing on the railway pro6ect of the 5orth Luzon $ailways &orporation with the &hina 5ational 0achinery and !Duipment 4roup hereinafter 5orth $ail Pro6ect-. 'he public hearing was spar<ed by a privilege speech of Senator 2uan Ponce !nrile urging the Senate to investigate the alleged overpricing and other unlawful provisions of the contract covering the 5orth $ail Pro6ect. 'he Senate &ommittee on 5ational Defense and Security li<ewise issued invitations dated September //( /::@ to the following officials of the .%P: the &ommanding 4eneral of the Philippine .rmy( Lt. 4en. 9ermogenes &. !speronF 1nspector 4eneral of the .%P #ice .dmiral 0ateo 0. 0ayugaF Deputy &hief of Staff for 1ntelligence of the .%P $ear .dmiral 'irso $. DangaF &hief of the 1ntelligence Service of the .%P >rig. 4en. 0arlu A. AuevedoF .ssistant Superintendent of the Philippine 0ilitary .cademy P0.- >rig. 4en. %rancisco #. 4udaniF and .ssistant &ommandant( &orps of &adets of the P0.( &ol. .le;ander %. >alutan( for them to attend as resource persons in a public hearing scheduled on September /+( /::@ on the following: 1Privilege Speech of Senator .Duilino A. Pimentel 2r.( delivered on 2une 8( /::@ entitled I>unye has Provided Smo<ing 4un or has "pened a &an of Lorms that Show 0assive !lectoral %raud in the Presidential !lection of 0ay /::@JF /- Privilege Speech of Senator 2inggoy !. !strada delivered on 2uly /8( /::@ entitled I'he Philippines as the Lire7'apping &apital of the LorldJF *- Privilege Speech of Senator $odolfo >iazon delivered on .ugust 1( /::@ entitled I&lear and Present DangerJF )- Senate $esolution 5o. /+@ filed by Senator 0aria .na &onsuelo 0adrigal W $esolution Directing the &ommittee on 5ational Defense and Security to &onduct an 1nDuiry( in .id of Legislation( and in the 5ational 1nterest( on the $ole of the 0ilitary in the So7called I4loriagate ScandalJF and @- Senate $esolution 5o. /=@ filed by Senator >iazon W $esolution Directing the &ommittee on 5ational Defense and Security to &onduct an 1nDuiry( in .id of Legislation( on the Lire7'apping of the President of the Philippines. .lso invited to the above7said hearing scheduled on September /+ /::@ was the .%P &hief of Staff( 4eneral 4eneroso S. Senga who( by letter dated September /,( /::@( reDuested for its postponement Idue to a pressing operational situation that demands OhisP utmost personal attentionJ while Isome of the invited .%P officers are currently attending to other urgent operational matters.J "n September /+( /::@( Senate President %ran<lin 0. Drilon received from !;ecutive Secretary !duardo $. !rmita a letter/+= dated September /,( /::@ Irespectfully
/+=

.nne; I>(J i*. at @/.

1,1

1,/

reDuestOingP for the postponement of the hearing Oregarding the 5orth$ail pro6ectP to which various officials of the !;ecutive Department have been invitedJ in order to Iafford said officials ample time and opportunity to study and prepare for the various issues so that they may better enlighten the Senate &ommittee on its investigation.J Senate President Drilon( however( wrote/=: !;ecutive Secretary !rmita that the Senators Iare unable to accede to Ohis reDuestPJ as it Iwas sent belatedlyJ and IOaPll preparations and arrangements as well as notices to all resource persons were completed Othe previousP wee<.J Senate President Drilon li<ewise received on September /+( /::@ a letter from the President of the 5orth Luzon $ailways &orporation 2ose L. &ortes( 2r. reDuesting that the hearing on the 5orth$ail pro6ect be postponed or cancelled until a copy of the report of the 3P Law &enter on the contract agreements relative to the pro6ect had been secured. "n September /+( /::@( the President of the Philippines issued !.". )8)( I!5S3$154 ">S!$#.5&! "% '9! P$15&1PL! "% S!P.$.'1"5 "% P"L!$S( .D9!$!5&! '" '9! $3L! "5 !G!&3'1#! P$1#1L!4! .5D $!SP!&' %"$ '9! $149'S "% P3>L1& "%%1&1.LS .PP!.$154 15 L!41SL.'1#! 15A31$1!S 15 .1D "% L!41SL.'1"5 35D!$ '9! &"5S'1'3'1"5( .5D %"$ "'9!$ P3$P"S!S(J which( pursuant to Section 8 thereof( too< effect immediately. 'he salient provisions of the "rder are as follows: S!&'1"5 1. A%%!a"a#,! b= N!a*s $' 6!%a"&)!#&s B!'$"! C$#("!ss. W 1n accordance with .rticle #1( Section // of the &onstitution and to implement the &onstitutional provisions on the separation of powers between co7eDual branches of the government( all heads of departments of the !;ecutive >ranch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either 9ouse of &ongress. Lhen the security of the State or the public interest so reDuires and the President so states in writing( the appearance shall only be conducted in e;ecutive session. S!&'1"5. /. Na&+"!, S,$%! a#* C$v!"a(! $' E>!,+&iv! P"ivil!(!. O a- 5ature and Scope. 7 'he rule of confidentiality based on e;ecutive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers under the &onstitution Al)$#&! vs. Vas<+!K, 4.$. 5o. =@*8,( /* 0ay 1==@-. %urther( $epublic .ct 5o. 8,1* or the &ode of &onduct and !thical Standards for Public "fficials and !mployees provides that Public "fficials and !mployees shall not use or divulge confidential or classified information officially <nown to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to pre6udice the public interest. !;ecutive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President and the public officers covered by this e;ecutive order( including:
/=:

.nne; I&(J i*. at @*.

1,/

1,*

1. /.

*. ). @.

&onversations and correspondence between the President and the public official covered by this e;ecutive order Al)$#&! vs. Vas<+!K 4.$. 5o. =@*8,( /* 0ay 1==@F Chav!K v. P+bli, Es&a&!s A+&h$"i&=( 4.$. 5o. 1**/@:( = 2uly /::/-F 0ilitary( diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged Al)$#&! vs. Vas<+!K( 4.$. 5o. =@*8,( /* 0ay 1==@F Chav!K v. P"!si*!#&ial C$))issi$# $# G$$* G$v!"#)!#&( 4.$. 5o. 1*:,18( = December 1==+-. 1nformation between inter7government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and e;ecutive agreements Chav!K v. P"!si*!#&ial C$))issi$# $# G$$* G$v!"#)!#&( 4.$. 5o. 1*:,18( = December 1==+-F Discussion in close7door &abinet meetings Chav!K v. P"!si*!#&ial C$))issi$# $# G$$* G$v!"#)!#&( 4.$. 5o. 1*:,18( = December 1==+-F 0atters affecting national security and public order Chav!K v. P+bli, Es&a&!s A+&h$"i&=( 4.$. 5o. 1**/@:( = 2uly /::/-. b- Lho are covered. W 'he following are covered by this e;ecutive order:

1. /. *. ). @.

Senior officials of e;ecutive departments who in the 6udgment of the department heads are covered by the e;ecutive privilegeF 4enerals and flag officers of the .rmed %orces of the Philippines and such other officers who in the 6udgment of the &hief of Staff are covered by the e;ecutive privilegeF Philippine 5ational Police P5P- officers with ran< of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the 6udgment of the &hief of the P5P are covered by the e;ecutive privilegeF Senior national security officials who in the 6udgment of the 5ational Security .dviser are covered by the e;ecutive privilegeF and Such other officers as may be determined by the President. S!&'1"5 *. .ppearance of "ther Public "fficials >efore &ongress. W .ll public officials enumerated in Section / b- hereof shall secure prior consent of the President prior to appearing before either 9ouse of &ongress to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers( adherence to the rule on e;ecutive privilege and respect for the rights of public officials appearing in inDuiries in aid of legislation. !mphasis and underscoring supplied. transparent government is one of the hallmar<s of a truly republican state. !ven in the early history of republican thought( however( it has been recognized that the head of government may <eep certain information confidential in pursuit of the public interest. !;plaining the reason for vesting e;ecutive power in only one magistrate( a distinguished delegate to the 3.S. &onstitutional &onvention said: IDecision( activity( secrecy( and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man( in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater numberF and in proportion as the number is increased( these Dualities will be diminished.J

1,*

1,)

&onsidering that no member of the e;ecutive department would want to appear in the above Senate investigations in aid of legislation by virtue of Proc. 5o. )8)( the petitioners filed the present petitions to declare the same unconstitutional because the President abused her powers in issuing !;ecutive "rder 5o. )8). 1 S S 3 ! S: 1. Lhether !.". )8) contravenes the power of inDuiry vested in &ongressF /. Lhether !.". )8) violates the right of the people to information on matters of public concernF and *. Lhether respondents have committed grave abuse of discretion when they implemented !.". )8) prior to its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. 9 ! L D: >efore proceeding to resolve the issue of the constitutionality of !.". )8)( ascertainment of whether the reDuisites for a valid e;ercise of the &ourtEs power of 6udicial review are present is in order. Li<e almost all powers conferred by the &onstitution( the power of 6udicial review is sub6ect to limitations( to wit: 1- there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the e;ercise of 6udicial powerF /- the person challenging the act must have standing to challenge the validity of the sub6ect act or issuanceF otherwise stated( he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained( or will sustain( direct in6ury as a result of its enforcementF *- the Duestion of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunityF and )- the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis )$&a of the case./=1 1nvo<ing this &ourtEs ruling in Na&i$#al E,$#$)i, P"$&!,&i$#is) Ass$,ia&i$# v. O#(%i#/=/ and Val)$#&! v. Phili%%i#! Cha"i&= S-!!%s&aE!s O''i,! (/=* respondents assert that to be considered a proper party( one must have a personal and substantial interest in the case( such that he has sustained or will sustain direct in6ury due to the enforcement of !.". )8)./=) 'he Supreme &ourt( however( held that when suing as a citizen( the interest of the petitioner in assailing the constitutionality of laws( presidential decrees( orders( and other regulations( must be direct and personal. 1n ?"a#,is$ v. N$+s! $' /=@ R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s( this &ourt held that when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right( the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the reDuirement of personal interest.
/=1 /=/ /=* /=) /=@

?"a#,is,$ v. N$+s! $' R!%"!s!#&a&iv!s( 4.$. 5o. 18:/81( 5ovember 1:( /::*( )1@ S&$. ))( 1**. 4.$. 5o. 8,,@/( .pril 1:( 1=+=( 1,1 S&$. 8@,. 4.$. 5o. ,+,18( September //( 1=+, res-. R$ll$ 4.$. 5o. 18=,,,-( p. 11,. S+%"a note *= at 1*8.

1,)

1,@

1 'he &ongress power of inDuiry is e;pressly recognized in Section /1 of .rticle #1 of the &onstitution which reads: S!&'1"5 /1. 'he Senate or the 9ouse of $epresentatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inDuiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. 'he rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inDuiries shall be respected. 3nderscoring supplied'he 1=*@ &onstitution did not contain a similar provision. 5onetheless( in A"#a+l& v. NaKa"!#$(/=8 a case decided in 1=@: under that &onstitution( the &ourt already recognized that the power of inDuiry is inherent in the power to legislate. A"#a+l& involved a Senate investigation of the reportedly anomalous purchase of the >uenavista and 'ambobong !states by the $ural Progress .dministration. .rnault( who was considered a leading witness in the controversy( was called to testify thereon by the Senate. "n account of his refusal to answer the Duestions of the senators on an important point( he was( by resolution of the Senate( detained for contempt. 3pholding the SenateEs power to punish .rnault for contempt( this &ourt held: .lthough there is no provision in the &onstitution e;pressly investing either 9ouse of &ongress with power to ma<e investigations and e;act testimony to the end that it may e;ercise its legislative functions advisedly and effectively( such power is so far incidental to the legislative function as to be implied. 1n other words( the power of inDuiry W with process to enforce it W is an essential and appropriate au;iliary to the legislative function. . legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or changeF and where the legislative body does not itself possess the reDuisite information W which is not infreDuently true W recourse must be had to others who do possess it. !;perience has shown that mere reDuests for such information are often unavailing( and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or completeF so some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed./=, . . . !mphasis and underscoring supplied'hat this power of inDuiry is broad enough to cover officials of the e;ecutive branch may be deduced from the same case. 'he power of inDuiry( the &ourt therein ruled( is co7e;tensive with the power to legislate. /=+ 'he matters which may be a proper sub6ect of legislation and those which may be a proper sub6ect of investigation are one. 1t follows that the operation of government( being a legitimate sub6ect for legislation( is a proper sub6ect for investigation.

/=8 /=, /=+

+, Phil. /= 1=@:-. S+%"a at )@( citing M,G"ai# v. 6a+(h!"&= /,* 3S 1*@( ), S. &t. *1=( ,1 L.!d. @+:( @: ..L.$. 1 1=/,-. I*. at )8.

1,@

1,8

Since &ongress has authority to inDuire into the operations of the e;ecutive branch( it would be incongruous to hold that the power of inDuiry does not e;tend to e;ecutive officials who are the most familiar with and informed on e;ecutive operations. .s discussed in A"#a+l&, the power of inDuiry( Iwith process to enforce it(J is grounded on the necessity of information in the legislative process. 1f the information possessed by e;ecutive officials on the operation of their offices is necessary for wise legislation on that sub6ect( by parity of reasoning( &ongress has the right to that information and the power to compel the disclosure thereof. %or one( as noted in B!#(K$# v. S!#a&! Bl+! Ribb$# C$))i&&!!, /== the inDuiry itself might not properly be in aid of legislation( and thus beyond the constitutional power of &ongress. Such inDuiry could not usurp 6udicial functions. Parenthetically( one possible way for &ongress to avoid such a result as occurred in B!#(K$# is to indicate in its invitations to the public officials concerned( or to any person for that matter( the possible needed statute which prompted the need for the inDuiry. 4iven such statement in its invitations( along with the usual indication of the sub6ect of inDuiry and the Duestions relative to and in furtherance thereof( there would be less room for speculation on the part of the person invited on whether the inDuiry is in aid of legislation. Section /1( .rticle #1 li<ewise establishes crucial safeguards that proscribe the legislative power of inDuiry. 'he provision reDuires that the inDuiry be done in accordance with the Senate or 9ouseEs duly published rules of procedure( necessarily implying the constitutional infirmity of an inDuiry conducted without duly published rules of procedure. Section /1 also mandates that the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inDuiries be respected( an imposition that obligates &ongress to adhere to the guarantees in the >ill of $ights. . distinction was thus made between inDuiries in aid of legislation and the Duestion hour. Lhile attendance was meant to be discretionary in the Duestion hour( it was compulsory in inDuiries in aid of legislation. Sections /1 and //( therefore( while closely related and complementary to each other( should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of &ongress. "ne specifically relates to the power to conduct inDuiries in aid of legislation( the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation( while the other pertains to the power to conduct a Duestion hour( the ob6ective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of &ongressE oversight function. Lhen &ongress merely see<s to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes which it has issued( its right to such information is not as imperative as that of the President to whom( as &hief !;ecutive( such department heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of duty. 1n such instances( Section //( in <eeping with the separation of powers( states that &ongress may only reDuest their appearance. 5onetheless( when the inDuiry in which &ongress reDuires their appearance
/==

4.$. +==1)( 5ov. /:( 1==1( /:* S&$. ,8,.

1,8

1,,

is Iin aid of legislationJ under Section /1( the appearance is mandatory for the same reasons stated in A"#a+l&.*:: 1n fine( the oversight function of &ongress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to the e;tent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation. 'his is consistent with the intent discerned from the deliberations of the &onstitutional &ommission. 3ltimately( the power of &ongress to compel the appearance of e;ecutive officials under Section /1 and the lac< of it under Section // find their basis in the principle of separation of powers. Lhile the e;ecutive branch is a co7eDual branch of the legislature( it cannot frustrate the power of &ongress to legislate by refusing to comply with its demands for information. Lhen &ongress e;ercises its power of inDuiry( the only way for department heads to e;empt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. 'hey are not e;empt by the mere fact that they are department heads. "nly one e;ecutive official may be e;empted from this power the President on whom e;ecutive power is vested( hence( beyond the reach of &ongress e;cept through the power of impeachment. Section 1( in view of its specific reference to Section // of .rticle #1 of the &onstitution and the absence of any reference to inDuiries in aid of legislation( must be construed as limited in its application to appearances of department heads in the Duestion hour is therefore &"5S'1'3'1"5.L. 1t is different insofar as Sections / and * are concerned. Section * of !.". )8) reDuires all the public officials enumerated in Section / b- to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of &ongress. 'he enumeration is broad. 1t covers all senior officials of e;ecutive departments( all officers of the .%P and the P5P( and all senior national security officials who( in the 6udgment of the heads of offices designated in the same section i.e. department heads( &hief of Staff of the .%P( &hief of the P5P( and the 5ational Security .dviser-( are Icovered by the e;ecutive privilege.J 'he enumeration also includes such other officers as may be determined by the President. 4iven the title of Section / I5ature( Scope and &overage of !;ecutive PrivilegeJ ( it is evident that under the rule of !8+s*!) (!#!"is( the determination by the President under this provision is intended to be based on a similar finding of coverage under e;ecutive privilege. Lhile there is no Philippine case that directly addresses the issue of whether e;ecutive privilege may be invo<ed against &ongress( it is gathered from Chav!K v. PEA that certain information in the possession of the e;ecutive may validly be claimed as privileged even against &ongress. 'hus( the case holds:

*::

S+%"a.

1,,

1,+

'here is no claim by P!. that the information demanded by petitioner is privileged information rooted in the separation of powers. 'he information does not cover Presidential conversations( correspondences( or discussions during closed7door &abinet meetings which( li<e internal7deliberations of the Supreme &ourt and other collegiate courts( or e;ecutive sessions of either house of &ongress( are recognized as confidential. 'his <ind of information cannot be pried open by a co7eDual branch of government. . fran< e;change of e;ploratory ideas and assessments( free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties( is essential to protect the independence of decision7ma<ing of those tas<ed to e;ercise Presidential( Legislative and 2udicial power. 'his is not the situation in the instant case.*:1 !mphasis and underscoring supplied'he claim of privilege under Section * of !.". )8) in relation to Section / b- is thus invalid %!" s!. 1t is not asserted. 1t is merely implied. 1nstead of providing precise and certain reasons for the claim( it merely invo<es !.". )8)( coupled with an announcement that the President has not given her consent. 1t is woefully insufficient for &ongress to determine whether the withholding of information is 6ustified under the circumstances of each case. 1t severely frustrates the power of inDuiry of &ongress. 1n fine( Section * and Section / b- of !.". )8) must be invalidated. / !." )8) li<ewise violates the constitutional provision on the right to information on matters of public concern. 'here are clear distinctions between the right of &ongress to information which underlies the power of inDuiry and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. %or one( the demand of a citizen for the production of documents pursuant to his right to information does not have the same obligatory force as a s+b%$!#a *+,!s &!,+) issued by &ongress. 5either does the right to information grant a citizen the power to e;act testimony from government officials. 'hese powers belong only to &ongress and not to an individual citizen. 'o the e;tent that investigations in aid of legislation are generally conducted in public( however( any e;ecutive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in such investigations necessarily deprives the people of information which( being presumed to be in aid of legislation( is presumed to be a matter of public concern. 'he citizens are thereby denied access to information which they can use in formulating their own opinions on the matter before &ongress opinions which they can then communicate to their representatives and other government officials through the various legal means allowed by their freedom of e;pression. 'hus holds Val)$#&! v. B!l)$#&!: 1t is in the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the peopleEs will. Ket( this open dialogue can be effective only to the e;tent that the citizenry is informed and thus able to formulate its will intelligently. "nly when the participants in
*:1

S+%"a note +/ at 1+=.

1,+

1,=

the discussion are aware of the issues and have access to information relating thereto can such bear fruit.*:/ !mphasis and underscoring supplied'he impairment of the right of the people to information as a conseDuence of !.". )8) is( therefore( in the sense e;plained above( 6ust as direct as its violation of the legislatureEs power of inDuiry. * 'he implementation of Proc. )8) before it was published in the "fficial 4azette as illegal. Due process thus reDuires that the people should have been apprised of this issuance before it was implemented. 'his is clear from the doctrine laid down in the case of '.5.D. #S. '3#!$.. L9!$!%"$!( the petitions are P.$'LK 4$.5'!D. Sections / b- and * of !;ecutive "rder 5o. )8) series of /::@-( I!5S3$154 ">S!$#.5&! "% '9! P$15&1PL! "% S!P.$.'1"5 "% P"L!$S( .D9!$!5&! '" '9! $3L! "5 !G!&3'1#! P$1#1L!4! .5D $!SP!&' %"$ '9! $149'S "% P3>L1& "%%1&1.LS .PP!.$154 15 L!41SL.'1#! 15A31$1!S 15 .1D "% L!41SL.'1"5 35D!$ '9! &"5S'1'3'1"5( .5D %"$ "'9!$ P3$P"S!S(J are declared #"1D. >engzon( 2r. vs. Senate >lue $ibbon &ommittee( 5ov. /:( 1==1 'his is a petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order andTor in6unctive relief( to en6oin the respondent Senate >lue $ibbon committee from reDuiring the petitioners to testify and produce evidence at its inDuiry into the alleged sale of the eDuity of >en6amin Q?o<oyQ $omualdez to the Lopa 4roup in thirty7si; *8- or thirty7nine *=- corporations. &oming to the specific issues raised in this case( petitioners contend that 1- the Senate >lue $ibbon &ommitteeSs inDuiry has no valid legislative purpose( i.e.( it is not done in aid of legislationF /- the sale or disposition of hte $omualdez corporations is a Qpurely private transactionQ which is beyond the power of the Senate >lue $ibbon &ommittee to inDuire intoF and *- the inDuiry violates their right to due process. 'he 1=+, &onstitution e;pressly recognizes the power of both houses of &ongress to conduct inDuiries in aid of legislation. 1'hus( Section /1( .rticle #1 thereof provides: 'he Senate or the 9ouse of $epresentatives or any of its respective committee may conduct inDuiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. 'he rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inDuiries shall be respected. 'he power of both houses of &ongress to conduct inDuiries in aid of legislation is not( therefore( absolute or unlimited. 1ts e;ercise is circumscribed by the afore7Duoted
*:/

4.$. 5o. ,)=*:( %ebruary 1*( 1=+=( 1,: S&$. /@8.

1,=

1+:

provision of the &onstitution. 'hus( as provided therein( the investigation must be Qin aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedureQ and that Qthe rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inDuiries shall be respected.Q 1t follows then that the rights of persons under the >ill of $ights must be respected( including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against oneSs self. 'he power to conduct formal inDuiries or investigations in specifically provided for in Sec. 1 of the Senate $ules of Procedure 4overning 1nDuiries in .id of Legislation. Such inDuiries may refer to the implementation or re7e;amination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or the formulation of future legislation. 'hey may also e;tend to any and all matters vested by the &onstitution in &ongress andTor in the Seante alone. .s held in 2ean L. .rnault vs. Leon 5azareno( et al.( 18 the inDuiry( to be within the 6urisdiction of the legislative body ma<ing it( must be material or necessary to the e;ercise of a power in it vested by the &onstitution( such as to legislate or to e;pel a member. 3nder Sec. ) of the aforementioned $ules( the Senate may refer to any committee or committees any speech or resolution filed by any Senator which in its 6udgment reDuires an appropriate inDuiry in aid of legislation. 1n order therefore to ascertain the character or nature of an inDuiry( resort must be had to the speech or resolution under which such an inDuiry is proposed to be made. . perusal of the speech of Senator !nrile reveals that he Senator !nrile- made a statement which was published in various newspapers on / September 1=++ accusing 0r. $icardo Q>abyQ Lopa of Qhaving ta<en over the %00& 4roup of &ompanies.Q .s a conseDuence thereof( 0r. Lopa wrote a letter to Senator !nrile on ) September 1=++ categorically denying that he had Qta<en over Q the %00& 4roup of &ompaniesF that former P&44 &hairman $amon Diaz himself categorically stated in a telecast interview by 0r. Luis >eltran on &hannel , on *1 .ugust 1=++ that there has been no ta<eover by him Lopa-F and that theses repeated allegations of a Qta<eoverQ on his LopaSs- part of %00& are baseless as they are malicious. 'he Lopa reply prompted Senator !nrile( during the session of the Senate on 1* September 1=++( to avail of the privilege hour( 1, so that he could repond to the said Lopa letter( and also to vindicate his reputation as a 0ember of the Senate of the Philippines( considering the claim of 0r. Lopa that his !nrileSs- charges that he Lopahad ta<en over the %00& 4roup of &ompanies are QbaselessQ and Qmalicious.Q 'hus( in his speech( 1+ Senator !nrile said( among others( as follows: 1t appeals( therefore( that the contemplated inDuiry by respondent &ommittee is not really Qin aid of legislationQ because it is not related to a purpose within the 6urisdiction of &ongress( since the aim of the investigation is to find out whether or not the relatives of the President or 0r. $icardo Lopa had violated Section @ $. 5o. *:1=( the Q.nti74raft and &orrupt Practices .ctQ( a matter that appears more within the
1+:

1+1

province of the courts rather than of the legislature. >esides( the &ourt may ta<e 6udicial notice that 0r. $icardo Lopa died during the pendency of this case. 1n 2ohn '. Lat<ins vs. 3nited States( /: it was held : ... 'he power of congress to conduct investigations in inherent in the legislative process. 'hat power is broad. it encompasses inDuiries concerning the administration of e;isting laws as well as proposed( or possibly needed statutes. 1t includes surveys of defects in our social( economic( or political system for the purpose of enabling &ongress to remedy them. 1t comprehends probes into departments of the %ederal 4overnment to e;pose corruption( inefficiency or waste. >ut broad as is this power of inDuiry( it is not unlimited. 'here is no general authority to e;pose the private affairs of individuals without 6ustification in terms of the functions of congress. 'his was freely conceded by Solicitor 4eneral in his argument in this case. 5or is the &ongress a law enforcement or trial agency. 'hese are functions of the e;ecutive and 6udicial departments of government. 5o inDuiry is an end in itselfF it must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate tas< of &ongress. 1nvestigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to QpunishQ those investigated are indefensible. emphasis supplied>road as it is( the power is not( however( without limitations. Since congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate( it cannot inDuire into matters which are within the e;clusive province of one of the other branches of the government. Lac<ing the 6udicial power given to the 2udiciary( it cannot inDuire into mattes that are e;clusively the concern of the 2udiciary. 5either can it supplant the !;ecutive in what e;clusively belongs to the !;ecutive. ... 0oreover( this right of the accused is e;tended to respondents in administrative investigations but only if they parta<e of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding. 1n 4alman vs. Pamaran( /8 the &ourt reiterated the doctrine in &abal vs. ?apuanan 8 S&$. 1:@=- to illustrate the right of witnesses to invo<e the right against self7incrimination not only in criminal proceedings but also in all other types of suit Le do not here modify these doctrines. 1f we presently rule that petitioners may not be compelled by the respondent &ommittee to appear( testify and produce evidence before it( it is only because we hold that the Duestioned inDuiry is not in aid of legislation and( if pursued( would be violative of the principle of separation of powers between the legislative and the 6udicial departments of government( ordained by the &onstitution. 1nvestigation in aid of legislationF !;ecutive Privilege ROMULO L. NERI VS. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILIT/ OF .UBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTI1ATIONS2 SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE2 AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURIT/2 1.R. N!. 3A;G@62 Mar&h 472 4;;A

1+1

1+/

L!"5.$D"7D! &.S'$"( 2. !n >ancTHE FACTS= "n .pril /1( /::,( the Department of 'ransportation and &ommunication D"'&- entered into a contract with Mhong Ging 'elecommunications !Duipment M'!for the supply of eDuipment and services for the 5ational >roadband 5etwor< 5>5Pro6ect in the amount of 3.S. ] */=()+1(/=: appro;imately P18 >illion Pesos-. 'he Pro6ect was to be financed by the PeopleEs $epublic of &hina. 1n connection with this 5>5 Pro6ect( various $esolutions were introduced in the Senate. .t the same time( the investigation was claimed to be relevant to the consideration of three *- pending bills in the Senate. $espondent &ommittees initiated the investigation by sending invitations to certain personalities and cabinet officials involved in the 5>5 Pro6ect. Petitioner was among those invited. 9e was summoned to appear and testify on September 1+( /:( and /8 and "ctober /@( /::,. 9owever( he attended only the September /8 hearing( claiming he was Iout of townJ during the other dates. 1n the September 1+( /::, hearing( businessman 2ose de #enecia 111 testified that several high e;ecutive officials and power bro<ers were using their influence to push the approval of the 5>5 Pro6ect by the 5!D.. 1t appeared that the Pro6ect was initially approved as a >uild7"perate7'ransfer >"'- pro6ect but( on 0arch /=( /::,( the 5!D. acDuiesced to convert it into a government7to7government pro6ect( to be financed through a loan from the &hinese 4overnment. "n September /8( /::,( petitioner testified before respondent &ommittees for eleven 11- hours. 9e disclosed that then &ommission on !lections &"0!L!&&hairman >en6amin .balos offered him P/:: 0illion in e;change for his approval of the 5>5 Pro6ect. 9e further narrated that he informed President .rroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe. 9owever( when probed further on what they discussed about the 5>5 Pro6ect( petitioner refused to answer( invo<ing Ie;ecutive privilegeJ. 1n particular( he refused to answer the Duestions on (a) whether or not President .rroyo followed up the 5>5 Pro6ect( *:*O8P ()) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it(*:)O,P and (&) whether or not she directed him to approve.*:@O+P 3nrelenting( respondent &ommittees issued a S+b%$!#a A* T!s&i'i,a#*+) to petitioner( reDuiring him to appear and testify on 5ovember /:( /::,. 9owever( in the Letter dated 5ovember 1@( /::,( !;ecutive Secretary !duardo
*:*O8P *:)O,P *:@O+P

'ranscript of the September /8( /::, 9earing of the respondent &ommittees( pp.=17=/. I*.( pp. 11)711@. I*.( pp. /,87/,,.

1+/

1+*

$. !rmita reDuested respondent &ommittees to dispense with petitionerEs testimony on the ground of e;ecutive privilege. 'he pertinent portion of the letter reads: Lith reference to the s+b%$!#a a* &!s&i'i,a#*+) issued to Secretary $omulo 5eri to appear and testify again on /: 5ovember /::, before the 2oint &ommittees you chair( it will be recalled that Sec. 5eri had already testified and e;haustively discussed the M'! T 5>5 pro6ect( including his conversation with the President thereon last /8 September /::,. .s<ed to elaborate further on his conversation with the President( Sec. 5eri as<ed for time to consult with his superiors in line with the ruling of the Supreme &ourt in S!#a&! v. E")i&a( )++ S&$. 1 /::8-. Specifically( Sec. 5eri sought guidance on the possible invocation of e;ecutive privilege on the following Duestions( to wit: a) >hether the .re "dent f!''!+ed #% the (NBN) %r!De&tB )) >ere *!# d"&tated t! %r"!r"t"Ee the NTEB &) >hether the .re "dent a"d t! ,! ahead and a%%r!-e the %r!De&t after )e"n, t!'d a)!#t the a''e,ed )r")eB %ollowing the ruling in S!#a&! v. E")i&a( the foregoing Duestions fall under conversations and correspondence between the President and public officials which are considered e;ecutive privilege Al)$#&! v. Vas<+!K( 4.$. =@8*,( /* 0ay 1==@F Chav!K v. PEA( 4.$. 1**/@:( 2uly =( /::/-. 'he conte;t in which e;ecutive privilege is being invo<ed is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the PeopleEs $epublic of &hina. 1n light of the above considerations( this "ffice is constrained to invo<e the settled doctrine of e;ecutive privilege as refined in S!#a&! v. E")i&a( and has advised Secretary 5eri accordingly. "n 5ovember /:( /::,( petitioner did not appear before respondent &ommittees. 'hus( on 5ovember //( /::,( the latter issued the show cause Letter reDuiring him to e;plain why he should not be cited in contempt. 'he Letter reads: Since you have failed to appear in the said hearing( the &ommittees on .ccountability of Public "fficers and 1nvestigations >lue $ibbon-( 'rade and &ommerce and 5ational Defense and Security reDuire you to show cause why you should not be cited in contempt under Section 8( .rticle 8 of the $ules of the &ommittee on .ccountability of Public "fficers and 1nvestigations >lue $ibbon-. 'he Senate e;pects your e;planation on or before / December /::,.

1+*

1+)

"n 5ovember /=( /::,( petitioner replied to respondent &ommittees( manifesting that it was not his intention to ignore the Senate hearing and that he thought the only remaining Duestions were those he claimed to be covered by e;ecutive privilege( thus: 1t was not my intention to snub the last Senate hearing. 1n fact( 1 have cooperated with the tas< of the Senate in its inDuiry in aid of legislation as shown by my almost 11 hours stay during the hearing on /8 September /::,. During said hearing( 1 answered all the Duestions that were as<ed of me( save for those which 1 thought was covered by e;ecutive privilege( and which was confirmed by the !;ecutive Secretary in his Letter 1@ 5ovember /::,. 1n good faith( after that e;haustive testimony( 1 thought that what remained were only the three Duestions( where the !;ecutive Secretary claimed e;ecutive privilege. 9ence( his reDuest that my presence be dispensed with. 1n addition( petitioner submitted a letter prepared by his counsel( .tty. .ntonio $. >autista( stating( among others that: (3) his petitioner- non7appearance was upon the order of the PresidentF and (4) his conversation with President .rroyo dealt with delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic matters relating to the impact of the bribery scandal involving high government officials and the possible loss of confidence of foreign investors and lenders in the Philippines. 'he letter ended with a reiteration of petitionerEs reDuest that he Ibe furnished in advanceJ as to what else he needs to clarify so that he may adeDuately prepare for the hearing. "n December ,( /::,( petitioner filed with this &ourt the present petition for ,!"&i$"a"i assailing the show cause Letter dated 5ovember //( /::,. $espondent &ommittees found petitionerEs e;planations unsatisfactory. Lithout responding to his reDuest for advance notice of the matters that he should still clarify( they issued the Order dated 2anuary *:( /::+( citing him in contempt of respondent &ommittees and ordering his arrest and detention at the "ffice of the Senate Sergeant7.t7 .rms until such time that he would appear and give his testimony. 'he said "rder states: ORDER %or failure to appear and testify in the &ommitteeEs hearing on 'uesday( September 1+( /::,F 'hursday( September /:( /::,F 'hursday( "ctober /@( /::,F and 'uesday( 5ovember /:( /::,( despite personal notice and Subpoenas .d 'estificandum sent to and received by him( which thereby delays( impedes and obstructs( as it has in fact delayed( impeded and obstructed the inDuiry into the sub6ect reported irregularities( .5D for failure to e;plain satisfactorily why he should not be cited for contempt 5eri letter of /= 5ovember /::,-( herein attached- ROMULO
1+)

1+@

L. NERI " here)* &"ted "n &!ntem%t !f th" ( "&) C!mm"ttee and !rdered arre ted and deta"ned "n the Off"&e !f the Senate Ser,eant0At0Arm #nt"' #&h t"me that he +"'' a%%ear and ,"-e h" te t"m!n*. 'he Sergeant7.t7.rms is hereby directed to carry out and implement this "rder and ma<e a return hereof within twenty four /)- hours from its enforcement. "n the same date( petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the above "rder.*:8O=P 9e insisted that he has not shown Iany contemptible conduct worthy of contempt and arrest.J 9e emphasized his willingness to testify on new matters( however( respondent &ommittees did not respond to his reDuest for advance notice of Duestions. 9e also mentioned the petition for ,!"&i$"a"i he filed on December ,( /::,. .ccording to him( this should restrain respondent &ommittees from enforcing the show cause Letter Ithrough the issuance of declaration of contemptJ and arrest. 1n view of respondent &ommitteesE issuance of the contempt Order( petitioner filed on %ebruary 1( /::+ a S+%%l!)!#&al P!&i&i$# '$" C!"&i$"a"i AGi&h @"(!#& A%%li,a&i$# '$" TROPP"!li)i#a"= I#8+#,&i$#), see<ing to restrain the implementation of the said contempt Order. "n %ebruary @( /::+( the &ourt issued a S&a&+s J+$ A#&! O"*!" (a) en6oining respondent &ommittees from implementing their ,$#&!)%& O"*!", ()) reDuiring the parties to observe the s&a&+s <+$ prevailing prior to the issuance of the assailed order( and (&) reDuiring respondent &ommittees to file their comment. Petitioner contends that respondent &ommitteesE show cause Letter and contempt Order were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< or e;cess of 6urisdiction. 9e stresses that his conversations with President .rroyo are I&and"d d" &# "!n meant t! eC%'!re !%t"!n "n ma<"n, %!'"&* de&" "!n .J .ccording to him( these discussions Id+e't !n the "m%a&t !f the )r")er* &anda' "n-!'-"n, h",h ,!-ernment !ff"&"a' !n the &!#ntr*J d"%'!mat"& re'at"!n and e&!n!m"& and m"'"tar* affa"r and the %! ")'e '! !f &!nf"den&e !f f!re",n "n-e t!r and 'ender "n the .h"'"%%"ne .J 9e also emphasizes that his claim of e;ecutive privilege is upon the order of the President and within the parameters laid down in S!#a&! v. E")i&a977[18] and @#i&!* S&a&!s v. R!=#$l*s.978[11] Lastly( he argues that he is precluded from disclosing communications made to him in official confidence under

*:8 *:, *:+

O=P O1:P O11P

See Letter dated 2anuary *:( /::+. )++ S&$. 1 /::8-. *)@ 3.S. 1 1=@*-.

1+@

1+8

Section ,*:=O1/P of $epublic .ct 5o. 8,1*( otherwise <nown as C$*! $' C$#*+,& a#* E&hi,al S&a#*a"*s '$" P+bli, O''i,ials a#* E)%l$=!!s, and Section /)*1:O1*P e- of $ule 1*: of the $ules of &ourt. $espondent &ommittees assert the contrary. 'hey argue that (3) petitionerEs testimony is material and pertinent in the investigation conducted i# ai* $' l!(isla&i$#F (4) there is no valid 6ustification for petitioner to claim e;ecutive privilegeF (6) there is no abuse of their authority to order petitionerEs arrestF and (@) petitioner has not come to court with clean hands. I S S U E S= 3. Lhat communications between the President and petitioner 5eri are covered by the principle of Ve;ecutive privilegeEC 3.a Did !;ecutive Secretary !rmita correctly invo<e the principle of e;ecutive privilege( by order of the President( to cover (") conversations of the President in the e;ercise of her e;ecutive and policy decision7ma<ing and ("") information( which might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the PeopleEs $epublic of &hinaC 3.). Did petitioner 5eri correctly invo<e e;ecutive privilege to avoid testifying on his conversations with the President on the 5>5 contract on his assertions that the said conversations $dea't +"th de'"&ate and en "t"-e nat"!na' e&#r"t* and d"%'!mat"& matter re'at"n, t! the "m%a&t !f )r")er* &anda' "n-!'-"n, h",h ,!-ernment !ff"&"a' and the %! ")'e '! !f &!nf"den&e !f f!re",n "n-e t!r and 'ender "n the .h"'"%%"ne (
*:=O1/P

Se&t"!n 5. .r!h")"ted A&t and Tran a&t"!n . W 1n addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the &onstitution and e;isting laws( the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: ; ; ; c- D" &'! #re andM!r m" # e !f &!nf"dent"a' "nf!rmat"!n. 0 .#)'"& !ff"&"a' and em%'!*ee ha'' n!t # e !r d"-#',e2 &!nf"dent"a' !r &'a "f"ed "nf!rmat"!n !ff"&"a''* <n!+n t! them )* rea !n !f the"r !ff"&e and n!t made a-a"'a)'e t! the %#)'"&2 e"ther= 1- T! f#rther the"r %r"-ate "ntere t 2 !r ,"-e #nd#e ad-anta,e t! an*!neK !r /- T! %reD#d"&e the %#)'"& "ntere t. *1:O1*P SEC. 4@. D" ?#a'"f"&at"!n )* rea !n !f %r"-"'e,ed &!mm#n"&at"!n . W 'he following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases. (e) . public officer cannot be e;amined during his term of office or afterwards( as to communications made to him in official confidence( when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by disclosure.

1+8

1+,

; ; ; within the principles laid down in S!#a&! v. E")i&a )++ S&$. 1 O/::8P-C 3.& Lill the claim of e;ecutive privilege in this case violate the following provisions of the &onstitution: Se&. 4A2 Art. II %ull public disclosure of all transactions involving public interestSe&. 52 Art. III 'he right of the people to information on matters of public concernSe&. 32 Art. XI Public office is a public trustSe&. 352 Art. VII 'he President shall ensure that the laws be faithfully e;ecutedand the due process clause and the principle of separation of powersC 4. Lhat is the proper procedure to be followed in invo<ing e;ecutive privilegeC 6. Did the Senate &ommittees gravely abuse their discretion in ordering the arrest of petitioner for non7 compliance with the subpoenaC H E L D= .t the core of this controversy are the two /- crucial Dueries( to wit: Iirst( are the communications elicited by the sub6ect three *Duestions covered by e;ecutive privilegeC A#* second, did respondent &ommittees commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt OrderB 'here is merit in the petition. .t the outset( a glimpse at the landmar< case of S!#a&! v. E")i&a911[1F] becomes imperative. S!#a&! draws in bold stro<es the distinction between the 'e," 'at"-e and !-er ",ht powers of the &ongress( as embodied under Sections /1 and //( respectively( of .rticle #1 of the
*11 O1+P

S+%"a.

1+,

1++

&onstitution( to wit: SECTION 43. 'he Senate or the 9ouse of $epresentatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inDuiries "n a"d !f 'e," 'at"!n in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. 'he rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inDuiries shall be respected. SECTION 44. 'he heads of department may upon their own initiative( with the consent of the President( or upon the reDuest of either 9ouse( or as the rules of each 9ouse shall provide( appear before and be heard by such 9ouse on any matter pertaining to their departments. Lritten Duestions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Spea<er of the 9ouse of $epresentatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. 1nterpellations shall not be limited to written Duestions( but may cover matters related thereto. Lhen the security of the state or the public interest so reDuires and the President so states in writing( the appearance shall be conducted in e;ecutive session. S!#a&! cautions that while the above provisions are closely related and complementary to each other( they should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of &ongress. Section /1 relates to the power to conduct inDuiries i# ai* $' l!(isla&i$#. 1ts aim is to elicit information that may be used for legislation. "n the other hand( Section // pertains to the power to conduct a Duestion hour( the ob6ective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of &ongressE oversight function. *1/O1=P Simply stated( while both powers allow &ongress or any of its committees to conduct inDuiry( their !)De&t"-e are different. 'his distinction gives birth to another distinction with regard to the use of compulsory process. 3nli<e in Section /1( &ongress &ann!t compel the appearance of e;ecutive officials under Section //. 'he &ourtEs pronouncement in S!#a&! v. E")i&a919[#8] is clear: Lhen &ongress merely see<s to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes which it has issued( its right to such information is not as imperative as that of the President to whom( as &hief !;ecutive( such department heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of duty. 1n such instances(
*1/ *1* O1=P O/:P

Ibi*. Ibi*.

1++

1+=

Section //( in <eeping with the separation of powers( states that &ongress may only "!<+!s& their appearance. 5onetheless( when the inDuiry in which &ongress reDuires their appearance is Vin aid of legislationE under Section /1( the appearance is )a#*a&$"= for the same reasons stated in A"#a+l&. < The Communications 3 icited by the Three *', ?uestions are Covered by 3-ecutive =rivi ege Le start with the basic premises where the parties have conceded. 'he power of &ongress to conduct inDuiries i# ai* $' l!(isla&i$# is broad. 'his is based on the proposition that a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change. *1)O/1P 1nevitably( ad6unct thereto is the compulsory process to enforce it. >ut( the power( broad as it is( has limitations. 'o be valid( it is imperative that it is done in accordance with the Senate or 9ouse duly published rules of procedure and that the rights of the persons appearing in or affected by such inDuiries be respected. 'he power e;tends even to e;ecutive officials and the only way for them to be e;empted is through a valid claim of e;ecutive privilege. *1@O//P 'his directs us to the consideration of the Duestion 00 " there a re&!,n"Eed &'a"m !f eCe&#t"-e %r"-"'e,e de %"te the re-!&at"!n !f E.O. @G@B AD There is a 6ecogni)ed C aim of 3-ecutive =rivi ege >espite the 6evocation of 3.2. 191 .t this 6uncture( it must be stressed that the revocation of !.". )8) does not in any way diminish our concept of e;ecutive privilege. 'his is because this concept has &onstitutional underpinnings. 3nli<e the 3nited States which has further accorded the concept with statutory status by enacting the ?"!!*$) $' I#'$")a&i$# A,&91:[#'] and the ?!*!"al A*vis$"= C$))i&&!! A,&,917[#1] the Philippines has retained its constitutional
*1) *1@ O/1P O//P

*18O/*P *1, O/)P

A"#a+l& v. NaKa"!#$( +, Phil */ 1=@:S!#a&! v. E")i&a, p. @+. @ 3.S. &. ^ @@/ @1 3.S. &. app.

1+=

1=:

origination( occasionally interpreted only by this &ourt in various cases. 'he most recent of these is the case of S!#a&! v. E")i&a where this &ourt declared unconstitutional substantial portions of !.". )8). 1n this regard( it is worthy to note that !;ecutive !rmitaEs Letter dated 5ovember 1@( /::, limits its bases for the claim of e;ecutive privilege to S!#a&! v. E")i&a, Al)$#&! v. Vas<+!K,918[#+] and Chav!K v. PEA.91;[#9] 'here was never a mention of !.". )8). Lhile these cases( especially S!#a&! v. E")i&a,927[#;] have comprehensively discussed the concept of e;ecutive privilege( we deem it imperative to e;plore it once more in view of the clamor for this &ourt to clearly define the communications covered by e;ecutive privilege. 'he Ni>$# and %$s&MGa&!"(a&! ,as!s established the broad contours of the %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e.*/1O/+P 1n @#i&!* S&a&!s v. Ni>$#,922[#C] the 3.S. &ourt recognized a great public interest in preserving $the &!nf"dent"a'"t* !f &!n-er at"!n that ta<e %'a&e "n the .re "dentJ %erf!rman&e !f h" !ff"&"a' d#t"e .( 1t thus considered presidential communications as I%re #m%t"-e'* %r"-"'e,ed.J .pparently( the presumption is founded on the I.re "dentJ ,enera'"Eed "ntere t "n &!nf"dent"a'"t*.J 'he privilege is said to be necessary to guarantee the candor of presidential advisors and to provide I the .re "dent and th! e +h! a " t h"mR +"th freed!m t! eC%'!re a'ternat"-e "n the %r!&e !f ha%"n, %!'"&"e and ma<"n, de&" "!n and t! d! ! "n a +a* man* +!#'d )e #n+"''"n, t! eC%re eC&e%t %r"-ate'*.( 1n I# R!C S!al!* Cas!,929['8] the 3.S. &ourt of .ppeals delved deeper. 1t ruled that there are two /- <inds of e;ecutive privilegeF one is the %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e and( the other is the de'")erat"-e %r!&e %r"-"'e,e. 'he former pertains to $&!mm#n"&at"!n 2 d!&#ment !r !ther mater"a' that ref'e&t %re "dent"a' de&" "!n0ma<"n, and de'")erat"!n and that the .re "dent )e'"e-e h!#'d rema"n &!nf"dent"a'.( 'he latter includes Sad-" !r* !%"n"!n 2 re&!mmendat"!n and de'")erat"!n &!m%r" "n, %art !f a %r!&e )* +h"&h ,!-ernmenta' de&" "!n and %!'"&"e are f!rm#'ated.( .ccordingly( they are characterized by mar<ed distinctions.
*1+O/@P *1= O/8P

*/:O/,P */1

*//O/=P */*O*:P

)** Phil. @:8 /::/-. 4.$. 5o. 1*:,18( December =( 1==+( *8: S&$. 1*/ -. S+%"a. O/+P &$S $eport for &ongress( Presidential &laims of !;ecutive Privilege: 9istory( Law( Practice and $ecent Developments at p. /. )1+ 3.S. 8+*. I# R!C S!al!* Cas! N$. =87*1/)( 2une 1,( 1==,.

1=:

1=1

.re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e applies to de&" "!n0ma<"n, !f the .re "dent while( the de'")erat"-e %r!&e %r"-"'e,e( to de&" "!n0 ma<"n, !f eCe&#t"-e !ff"&"a' . 'he f"r t is rooted in the constitutional principle of separation of power and the PresidentEs uniDue constitutional roleF the e&!nd on common law privilege. 3nli<e the de'")erat"-e %r!&e %r"-"'e,e( the %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e applies t! d!&#ment "n the"r ent"ret*2 and &!-er f"na' and %! t0de&" "!na' mater"a' a +e'' a %re0de'")erat"-e !ne */)O*1P .s a conseDuence( congressional or 6udicial negation of the %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e is always sub6ect to greater scrutiny than denial of the de'")erat"-e %r!&e %r"-"'e,e. 'urning on who are the officials covered by the %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e( I# R!C S!al!* Cas! confines the privilege only to Lhite 9ouse Staff that has Ioperational pro;imityJ to direct presidential decision7ma<ing. 'hus( the privilege is meant to encompass only those functions that form the core of presidential authority( involving what the court characterized as IDuintessential and non7delegable Presidential power(J such as commander7in7chief power( appointment and removal power( the power to grant pardons and reprieves( the sole7 authority to receive ambassadors and other public officers( the power to negotiate treaties( etc.*/@O*/P 0a6ority of the above 6urisprudence have found their way in our 6urisdiction. 1n Chav!K v. PCGG92:['F], this &ourt held that there is a Igovernmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military( diplomatic and other security matters.J 1n Chav!K v. PEA,*/,O*=P there is also a recognition of the confidentiality of Presidential conversations( correspondences( and discussions in closed7 door &abinet meetings. 1n S!#a&! v. E")i&a( the concept of %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e is fully discussed. .s may be gleaned from the above discussion( the claim of e;ecutive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the sub6ect of inDuiry relates to a power te;tually committed by the &onstitution to the President( such as the area of military and foreign relations. 3nder our &onstitution( the President is the repository of the commander7in7chief( */+ O):P appointing(*/=O)1P pardoning(**:O)/P and diplomatic**1O)*P powers.
*/)O*1P */@O*/P

I*. &$S $eport for &ongress( Presidential &laims of !;ecutive Privilege: 9istory( Law( Practice and $ecent Developments at pp. 1+71=. */8 O*+P *8: Phil. 1** 1==+-. */,O*=P S+%"a. */+ O):P Section 1+( .rticle #11. */= O)1P Section 18( .rticle #11. **: O)/P Section 1=( .rticle #11. **1 O)*P Section /: and /1( .rticle #11.

1=1

1=/

&onsistent with the doctrine of separation of powers( the information relating to these powers may en6oy greater confidentiality than others. 'he above cases( especially( Ni>$#, I# R! S!al!* Cas! and I+*i,ial Ga&,h, somehow provide the elements of %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e( to wit: 3) 'he protected communication must relate to a IDuintessential and non7delegable presidential power.J 'he communication must be authored or Isolicited and receivedJ by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. 'he 6udicial test is that an advisor must be in Ioperational pro;imityJ with the President. 'he %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e remains a Dualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adeDuate need( such that the information sought Ili<ely contains important evidenceJ and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.**/O))P

3)

4)

1n the case at bar( !;ecutive Secretary !rmita premised his claim of e;ecutive privilege on the ground that the communications elicited by the three *- Duestions Ifall under conversation and correspondence between the President and public officialsJ necessary in Iher e;ecutive and policy decision7ma<ing processJ and( that Ithe information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the PeopleEs $epublic of &hina.J Simply put( the bases are %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e and e;ecutive privilege on matters relating to d"%'!ma&* !r f!re",n re'at"!n . 3sing the above elements( we are convinced that( indeed( the communications elicited by the three *- Duestions are covered by the %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e. Iirst( the communications relate to a IDuintessential and non7delegable powerJ of the President( i.e. the power to enter into an e;ecutive agreement with other countries. 'his authority of the President to enter into !>!,+&iv! a("!!)!#&s without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine 6urisprudence.***O)@P Second, the communications are
**/O))P

&$S $eport for &ongress( Presidential &laims of !;ecutive Privilege: 9istory( Law Practice and $ecent Developments( s+%"a.. ***O)@P >ernas( S.2.( 'he 1=+, &onstitution of the $epublic of the Philippines( . &ommentary( /::* !d. p. =:*.

1=/

1=*

IreceivedJ by a close advisor of the President. 3nder the Ioperational pro;imityJ test( petitioner can be considered a close advisor( being a member of President .rroyoEs cabinet. A#* third( there is no adeDuate showing of a compelling need that would 6ustify the limitation of the privilege and of the #na-a"'a)"'"t* of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. 'he third element deserves a lengthy discussion. @#i&!* S&a&!s v. Ni>$# held that a claim of e;ecutive privilege is sub6ect to )a'an&"n, a,a"n t !ther "ntere t. 1n other words( confidentiality in e;ecutive privilege is n!t a) !'#te'* protected by the &onstitution. 'he 3.S. &ourt held: O5Peither the doctrine of separation of powers( nor the need for confidentiality of high7level communications( without more( can sustain an absolute( unDualified Presidential privilege of immunity from 6udicial process under all circumstances. 'he foregoing is consistent with the earlier case of Ni>$# v. Si"i,a, where it was held that %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n are presumptively privileged and that the presumption can be overcome only by mere showing of public need by the branch see<ing access to conversations. 'he courts are en6oined to resolve the competing interests of the political branches of the government Iin the manner that preserves the essential functions of each >ranch.J **@O),P 9ere( the record is bereft of any categorical e;planation from respondent &ommittees to show a compelling or citical need for the answers to the three *- Duestions in the enactment of a law. 1nstead( the Duestions veer more towards the e;ercise of the legislative oversight function under Section // of .rticle #1 rather than Section /1 of the same .rticle. S!#a&! v. E")i&a ruled that the $the !-er ",ht f#n&t"!n !f C!n,re ma* )e fa&"'"tated )* &!m%#' !r* %r!&e !n'* t! the eCtent that "t " %erf!rmed "n %#r #"t !f 'e," 'at"!n.( 1t is conceded that it is difficult to draw the line between an inDuiry i# ai* $' l!(isla&i$# and an inDuiry in the e;ercise of oversight function of &ongress. 1n this regard( much will depend on the content of the Duestions and the manner the inDuiry is conducted.
99 [19]

$espondent &ommittees argue that a claim of e;ecutive privilege does not guard against a possible disclosure of a crime or wrongdoing. Le see no dispute on this. 1t is settled in @#i&!* S&a&!s v. Ni>$#99:[1F] that Idemonstrated( specific need for evidence in %end"n, &r"m"na' tr"a'J
**) **@O),P **8 O)+P O)8P

1@= 3.S. .pp. D&. @+( )+, %. /d ,:: D.&. &ir. 1=,*-. @.S. v. Ni>$#( )1+ 3.S. 8+* 1=,)S+%"a.

1=*

1=)

outweighs the PresidentEs Igeneralized interest in confidentiality.J 9owever( the present caseEs distinction with the Ni>$# case is very evident. 1n Ni>$#( there is a pending criminal proceeding where the information is reDuested and it is the demands of due process of law and the fair administration of criminal 6ustice that the information be disclosed. 'his is the reason why the 3.S. &ourt was Duic< to I '"m"t the &!%e !f "t de&" "!n.J 1t stressed that it is $n!t &!n&erned here +"th the )a'an&e )et+een the .re "dentJ ,enera'"Eed "ntere t "n &!nf"dent"a'"t* C C C and &!n,re "!na' demand f!r "nf!rmat"!n.( 3nli<e in Ni>$#( the information here is elicited( not in a criminal proceeding( but in a legislative inDuiry. 1n this regard( S!#a&! v. E")i&a stressed that the validity of the claim of e;ecutive privilege depends not only on the ground invo<ed but( also( on the %r!&ed#ra' ett"n, or the &!nteCt in which the claim is made. %urthermore( in Ni>$#, the President did not interpose any claim of need to protect military( diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets. 1n the present case( !;ecutive Secretary !rmita categorically claims e;ecutive privilege on the grounds of %re "dent"a' &!mm#n"&at"!n %r"-"'e,e in relation to her e;ecutive and policy decision7ma<ing process and diplomatic secrets. $espondent &ommittees further contend that the grant of petitionerEs claim of e;ecutive privilege violates the constitutional provisions on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern.**,O@:P Le might have agreed with such contention if petitioner did not appear before them at all. >ut petitioner made himself available to them during the September /8 hearing( where he was Duestioned for eleven 11- hours. 5ot only that( he e;pressly manifested his willingness to answer more Duestions from the Senators( with the e;ception only of those covered by his claim of e;ecutive privilege. 'he right to public information( li<e any other right( is sub6ect to limitation. Section , of .rticle 111 provides: 'he right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. .ccess to official records( and to documents( and papers pertaining to official acts( transactions( or decisions( as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development( shall be afforded the citizen( #)De&t t! #&h '"m"tat"!n a ma* )e %r!-"ded )* 'a+. 'he provision itself e;pressly provides the limitation( i.e. a ma* )e %r!-"ded )* 'a+ . Some of these laws are Section , of $epublic .ct $...- 5o. 8,1*( **+O@1P .rticle //=**=O@/P of the
**, O@:P

&iting Section ,( .rticle * of the &onstitution.

1=)

1=@

$evised Penal &ode( Section * <- *):O@*P of $... 5o. *:1=( and Section /) e-*)1O@)P of $ule 1*: of the $ules of &ourt. 'hese are in addition to what our body of 6urisprudence classifies as confidential *)/O@@P and what our &onstitution considers as belonging to the larger concept of e;ecutive privilege. &learly( there is a recognized public interest in the confidentiality of certain information. Le find the information sub6ect of this case belonging to such <ind. 0ore than anything else( though( the right of &ongress or any of its &ommittees to obtain information i# ai* $' l!(isla&i$# cannot be eDuated with the peopleEs right to public information. 'he former cannot claim that every legislative inDuiry is an e;ercise of the peopleEs right to information. 'he distinction between such rights is laid down in S!#a&! v. E")i&aC 'here are( it bears noting( clear distinctions between the
**+O@1P

Section ,. Prohibited .cts and 'ransactions. W 1n addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the &onstitution and e;isting laws( the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: ; ; ; c- Disclosure andTor misuse of confidential information. 7 Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge( confidential or classified information officially <nown to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public( either: 1- 'o further their private interests( or give undue advantage to anyoneF or (4) 'o pre6udice the public interest. **=H74I .rticle //=. $evelation of secrets by an officer. W An* %#)'"& !ff"&er +h! ha'' re-ea' an* e&ret <n!+n t! h"m )* rea !n !f h" !ff"&"a' &a%a&"t*2 !r ha'' +r!n,f#''* de'"-er %a%er !r &!%"e !f %a%er !f +h"&h he ma* ha-e &har,e and +h"&h h!#'d n!t )e %#)'" hed2 ha'' #ffer the %ena't"e !f prision correcciona "n "t med"#m and maC"m#m %er"!d 2 %er%et#a' %e&"a' d" ?#a'"f"&at"!n and a f"ne n!t eC&eed"n, 42;;; %e ! "f the re-e'at"!n !f #&h e&ret !r the de'"-er* !f #&h %a%er ha'' ha-e &a# ed er"!# dama,e t! the %#)'"& "ntere tK !ther+" e2 the %ena't"e !f prision correcciona "n "t m"n"m#m %er"!d2 tem%!rar* %e&"a' d" ?#a'"f"&at"!n and a f"ne n!t eC&eed"n, 7;; %e ! ha'' )e "m%! ed. *): H76I Section *. &orrupt practices of public officers. Q In add"t"!n t! a&t !r !m" "!n !f %#)'"& !ff"&er a'read* %ena'"Eed )* eC" t"n, 'a+2 the f!''!+"n, ha'' &!n t"t#te &!rr#%t %ra&t"&e !f an* %#)'"& !ff"&er and are here)* de&'ared t! )e #n'a+f#'= <- D"-#',"n, -a'#a)'e "nf!rmat"!n !f a &!nf"dent"a' &hara&ter2 a&?#"red )* h" !ff"&e !r )* h"m !n a&&!#nt !f h" !ff"&"a' %! "t"!n t! #na#th!r"Eed %er !n 2 !r re'ea "n, #&h "nf!rmat"!n "n ad-an&e !f "t a#th!r"Eed re'ea e date. *)1H7@I Sec. /). DisDualification by reason of privileged communications. Q The f!''!+"n, %er !n &ann!t te t"f* a t! matter 'earned "n &!nf"den&e "n the f!''!+"n, &a e= C C C (a) . public officer cannot be e;amined during his term of office or afterwards( as to communications made to him in official confidence( when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. *)/O@@P 1n Chav!K v. P+bli, Es&a&!s A+&h$"i&=( s+%"a., the Supreme &ourt recognized matters which the &ourt has long considered as confidential such as Iinformation on military and diplomatic secrets( information affecting national security( and information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused.J 1t also stated that Ipresidential conversations( correspondences( or discussions during close7door cabinet meetings which( li<e internal deliberations of the Supreme &ourt or other collegiate courts( or e;ecutive sessions of either 9ouse of &ongress( are recognized as confidential. Such information cannot be pried7open by a co7eDual branch of government.

1=@

1=8

right of &ongress to information which underlies the power of inDuiry and the right of people to information on matters of public concern. %or one( the demand of a citizen for the production of documents pursuant to his right to information does not have the same obligatory force as a s+b%$!#a *+,!s &!,+) issued by &ongress. 5either does the right to information grant a citizen the power to e;act testimony from government officials. 'hese powers belong only to &ongress( not to an individual citizen. Th# 2 +h"'e C!n,re " &!m%! ed !f re%re entat"-e e'e&ted )* the %e!%'e2 "t d!e n!t f!''!+2 eC&e%t "n a h",h'* ?#a'"f"ed en e2 that "n e-er* eCer&" e !f "t %!+er !f "n?#"r*2 the %e!%'e are eCer&" "n, the"r r",ht t! "nf!rmat"!n. 'he members of respondent &ommittees should not invo<e as 6ustification in their e;ercise of power a right properly belonging to the people in general. 'his is because when they discharge their power( they do so as public officials and members of &ongress. >e that as it may( the right to information must be balanced with and should give way( in appropriate cases( to constitutional precepts particularly those pertaining to delicate interplay of e;ecutive7legislative powers and privileges which is the sub6ect of careful review by numerous decided cases. MD The C aim of 3-ecutive =rivi ege is =roper y <nvo$ed Le now proceed to the issue 77 %hether the c aim is proper y invo$ed by the =resident. 2urisprudence teaches that for the claim to be properly invo<ed( there must be a formal claim of privilege( lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter.J *)*O@8P . formal and proper claim of e;ecutive privilege reDuires a Iprecise and certain reasonJ for preserving their confidentiality.*))O@,P 'he Letter dated 5ovember 1,( /::, of !;ecutive Secretary !rmita satisfies the reDuirement. 1t serves as the formal claim of privilege. 'here( he e;pressly states that Ith" Off"&e " &!n tra"ned t! "n-!<e the ett'ed d!&tr"ne !f eCe&#t"-e %r"-"'e,e a ref"ned "n Senate v. 3rmita2 and ha ad-" ed Se&retar* Ner" a&&!rd"n,'*.J "bviously( he is referring to the "ffice of the President. 'hat is more than enough compliance. 1n S!#a&! v. E")i&a( a less categorical letter was even ad6udged to be
*)* *)) O@8P O@,P

@#i&!* S&a&!s v. R!=#$l*s( s+%"a.. @#i&!s S&a&!s v. A"&i,l! $' 6"+(( )* %.$.D. at 1=:.

1=8

1=,

sufficient. Lith regard to the e;istence of Iprecise and certain reason(J we find the grounds relied upon by !;ecutive Secretary !rmita specific enough so as not Ito leave respondent &ommittees in the dar< on how the reDuested information could be classified as privileged.J 'he case of S!#a&! v. E")i&a only reDuires that an allegation be made Iwhether the information demanded involves military or diplomatic secrets( closed7door &abinet meetings( etc.J 'he particular ground must only be specified. 'he enumeration is not even intended to be comprehensive.J *)@O@+P 'he following statement of grounds satisfies the reDuirement: 'he conte;t in which e;ecutive privilege is being invo<ed is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the PeopleEs $epublic of &hina. 4iven the confidential nature in which these information were conveyed to the President( he cannot provide the &ommittee any further details of these conversations( without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to protect. .t any rate( as held further in S!#a&! v. E")i&a, *)8O@=P the &ongress must not reDuire the e;ecutive to state the reasons for the claim with such particularity as to compel disclosure of the information which the privilege is meant to protect. 'his is a matter of respect to a coordinate and co7 eDual department. << 6espondent Committees Committed Hrave Abuse of >iscretion in <ssuing the Contempt 2rder 1t must be reiterated that when respondent &ommittees issued the show cause Letter dated 5ovember //( /::,( petitioner replied immediately( manifesting that it was not his intention to ignore the Senate hearing and that he thought the only remaining Duestions were the three *- Duestions he claimed to be covered by e;ecutive privilege. 1n addition thereto( he submitted .tty. >autistaEs letter( stating that his non7 appearance was upon the order of the President and specifying the reasons why his conversations with President .rroyo are covered by e;ecutive privilege. B!th &!rre %!nden&e "n&'#de an eC%re "!n !f h" +"''"n,ne t! te t"f* a,a"n2 %r!-"ded he $)e f#rn" hed "n ad-an&e( &!%"e !f the ?#e t"!n . Lithout responding to his reDuest for advance list
*)@O@+P *)8

S!#a&! v. E")i&a, s+%"a., p. 8*. O@=P I*.( citing @.S. v. R!=#$l*s, *)@ 3.S. 1( ,* S. &t. @/+( =, L. !d. ,/,( */ ..L. $. /d *+/ 1=@*-.

1=,

1=+

of Duestions( respondent &ommittees issued the Order dated 2anuary *:( /::+( citing him in contempt of respondent &ommittees and ordering his arrest and detention at the "ffice of the Senate Sergeant7.t7.rms until such time that he would appear and give his testimony. 'hereupon( petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration( informing respondent &ommittees that he had filed the present petition for ,!"&i$"a"i. $espondent &ommittees committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt Order in view of five @- reasons. Iirst, there being a legitimate claim of e;ecutive privilege( the issuance of the contempt "rder suffers from constitutional infirmity. Second, respondent &ommittees did not comply with the reDuirement laid down in S!#a&! v. E")i&a that the invitations should contain the Ipossible needed statute which prompted the need for the inDuiry(J along with Ithe usual indication of the sub6ect of inDuiry and the ?#e t"!n relative to and in furtherance thereof.J &ompliance with this reDuirement is imperative( both under Sections /1 and // of .rticle #1 of the &onstitution. 'his must be so to ensure that the rights of both persons a%%ear"n, "n !r affe&ted by such inDuiry are respected as mandated by said Section /1 and by virtue of the e;press language of Section //. 3nfortunately( despite petitionerEs repeated demands( respondent &ommittees did not send him an advance list of Duestions. Third, a reading of the transcript of respondent &ommitteesE 2anuary *:( /::+ proceeding reveals that only a minority of the members of the Senate >lue $ibbon &ommittee was present during the deliberation. *),O81P Section 1+ of the R+l!s $' P"$,!*+"! G$v!"#i#( I#<+i"i!s i# Ai* $' L!(isla&i$# provides that: I'he &ommittee( )* a -!te !f maD!r"t* of all its members( may punish for contempt any witness before it who disobeys any order of the &ommittee or refuses to be sworn or to testify or to answer proper Duestions by the &ommittee or any of its members.J &learly( the needed vote is a maD!r"t* of all the members of the &ommittee. .pparently( members who did not actually participate in the deliberation were made to sign the contempt "rder. 'hus( there is a cloud of doubt as to the validity of the contempt "rder dated 2anuary *:( /::+. Iourth, we find merit in the argument of the "S4 that respondent &ommittees li<ewise violated Section /1 of .rticle #1 of the &onstitution(
*),O81P

'rancript of the 2anuary *:( /::+ proceedings( p. /=.

1=+

1==

reDuiring that the inDuiry be in accordance with the I d#'* %#)'" hed r#'e !f %r!&ed#re.J Le Duote the "S4Es e;planation: 'he phrase Vduly published rules of procedureE reDuires the Senate of every &ongress to publish its rules of procedure governing inDuiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held every three *- years for one7half of the SenateEs membership( the composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. !ach Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit. N!t ha-"n, %#)'" hed "t 6u es of =rocedure2 the #)De&t hear"n, "n a"d !f 'e," 'at"!n &!nd#&ted )* the 3@th Senate2 are theref!re2 %r!&ed#ra''* "nf"rm. And fifth, respondent &ommitteesE issuance of the contempt "rder is arbitrary and precipitate. 1t must be pointed out that respondent &ommittees did not f"r t pass upon the claim of e;ecutive privilege and inform petitioner of their ruling. 1nstead( they curtly dismissed his e;planation as IunsatisfactoryJ and simultaneously issued the "rder citing him in contempt and ordering his immediate arrest and detention. . fact worth highlighting is that %et"t"!ner " n!t an #n+"''"n, +"tne . 9e manifested several times his readiness to testify before respondent &ommittees. 9e refused to answer the three *- Duestions because he was ordered by the President to claim e;ecutive privilege. 1t behooves respondent &ommittees to first rule on the claim of e;ecutive privilege and inform petitioner of their finding thereon( instead of peremptorily dismissing his e;planation as Iunsatisfactory.J 3ndoubtedly( respondent &ommitteesE actions constitute grave abuse of discretion for being arbitrary and for denying petitioner due process of law. 'he same Duality afflicted their conduct when they (a) disregarded petitionerEs motion for reconsideration alleging that he had filed the present petition before this &ourt and ()) ignored petitionerEs repeated reDuest for an advance list of Duestions( if there be any aside from the three *- Duestions as to which he claimed to be covered by e;ecutive privilege. !ven the courts are repeatedly advised to e;ercise the power of contempt 6udiciously and sparingly with utmost self7restraint with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court( not for retaliation or vindication. *)+O8*P $espondent &ommittees should have e;ercised the same restraint( after all petitioner is not even an ordinary witness. 9e holds a high position in a co7eDual
*)+ O8*P

R$*"i(+!K v. I+*(! B$#i'a,i$, ..0. 5o. $'27==71@1:( 5ovember 8( /:::( *)) S&$.

@1=.

1==

/::

branch of government. 1n this regard( it is important to mention that many incidents of 6udicial review could have been avoided if powers are discharged with circumspection and deference. &oncomitant with the doctrine of separation of powers is the mandate to observe respect to a co7eDual branch of the government. 1n this present crusade to Isearch for truth(J we should turn to the fundamental constitutional principles which underlie our tripartite system of government( where the Legislature enacts the law( the 2udiciary interprets it and the !;ecutive implements it. 'hey are considered separate( co7eDual( coordinate and supreme within their respective spheres but( imbued with a system of chec<s and balances to prevent unwarranted e;ercise of power. 'he &ourtEs mandate is to preserve these constitutional principles at all times to <eep the political branches of government within constitutional bounds in the e;ercise of their respective powers and prerogatives( even if it be in the search for truth. 'his is the only way we can preserve the stability of our democratic institutions and uphold the $ule of Law. 'he respondents7&ommittees were therefore stopped from calling the petitioner and as< the three *- Duestions mentioned above in connection with his conversations with the President being covered by the Ie;ecutive privilegeJ rule. Power of &ongress to conduct inDuiries in aid of legislationF $ight to PrivacyF Public disclosure of government transactionsF right to information on matters of public concernF accountability of public officersF and right against self7incriminationF CAMILO L. SABIO - . 1ORDON ( 4.$. 5o. 1,)*):( "ctober 1,( /::8( @:) S&$. ,:) Sandoval74utierrez( 2. The Fa&t =

"n %ebruary /:( /::8( Senator 0iriam Defensor Santiago introduced Philippine Senate $esolution 5o. )@@ Senate $es. 5o. )@@-( *)=O)P Idirecting an inDuiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines "verseas 'elecommunications &orporation P"'&-( Philippine &ommunications
*)=O)P

.nne; I!J of the Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,)*1+.

/::

/:1

Satellite &orporation P91L&"0S.'-( and P91L&"0S.' 9oldings &orporation P9&- due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective >oard of Directors.J

"n 0ay +( /::8( &hief of Staff $io &. 1nocencio( under the authority of Senator $ichard 2. 4ordon( wrote &hairman &amilo L. Sabio of the P&44( one of the herein petitioners( inviting him to be one of the resource persons in the public meeting 6ointly conducted by the C$))i&&!! $# G$v!"#)!#& C$"%$"a&i$#s a#* P+bli, E#&!"%"is!s and C$))i&&!! $# P+bli, S!"vi,!s. 'he purpose of the public meeting was to deliberate on Senate $es. 5o. )@@.*@:O8P

"n 0ay =( /::8( &hairman Sabio declined the invitation because of prior commitment.*@1O,P At the ame t"me2 he "n-!<ed Se&t"!n @()) !f E.O. N!. 3 earlier Duoted.

3nconvinced with the above &ompliance and !;planation( the C$))i&&!! $# G$v!"#)!#& C$"%$"a&i$#s a#* P+bli, E#&!"%"is!s and the C$))i&&!! $# P+bli, S!"vi,!s issued an "rder*@/O1*P directing 0a6or 4eneral 2ose >ala6adia $et.-( Senate Sergeant7.t7.rms( to place &hairman Sabio and his &ommissioners under arrest for contempt of the Senate. The Order )ear the a%%r!-a' !f Senate .re "dent V"''ar and the maD!r"t* !f the C!mm"ttee J mem)er .

"n September 1/( /::8( at around 1::)@ a.m.( 0a6or 4eneral >ala6adia arrested &hairman Sabio in his office at 1$& >uilding( 5o. +/ !DS.( 0andaluyong &ity and brought him to the Senate premises where he was detained.

9ence( this petition.

I S S U E=

&rucial to the resolution of the present petitions is the fundamental issue of whether Se&t"!n @()) !f E.O. N!. 3 " re%ea'ed )* the 38A5 C!n t"t#t"!n. "n
*@:O8P *@1O,P *@/O1*P

.nne; I%J of the Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,)*1+. .nne; I4J of the Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,)*1+. .nne; IDJ of the petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,)*1+.

/:1

/:/

this lone issue hinges the merit of the contention of &hairman Sabio and his &ommissioners that their refusal to appear before respondent Senate &ommittees is 6ustified. $anged against it is .rticle #1( Section /1 of the 1=+, &onstitution granting respondent Senate &ommittees the power of legislative inDuiry. 1t reads:

The Senate !r the H!# e !f Re%re entat"-e !r an* !f "t re %e&t"-e &!mm"ttee ma* &!nd#&t "n?#"r"e "n a"d !f 'e," 'at"!n "n a&&!rdan&e +"th "t d#'* %#)'" hed r#'e !f %r!&ed#re. The r",ht !f %er !n a%%ear"n, "n !r affe&ted )* #&h "n?#"r"e ha'' )e re %e&ted.

"n the other arm of the scale is Section ) b- of !.". 5o.1 limiting such power of legislative inDuiry by e;empting all P&44 members or staff from testifying in any 6udicial( legislative or administrative proceeding( thus:

N! mem)er !r taff !f the C!mm" "!n ha'' )e re?#"red t! te t"f* !r %r!d#&e e-"den&e "n an* D#d"&"a'2 'e," 'at"-e !r adm"n" trat"-e %r!&eed"n, &!n&ern"n, matter +"th"n "t !ff"&"a' &!,n"Ean&e.

'he &ongressE power of inDuiry has been recognized in foreign 6urisdictions long before it reached our shores through M,G"ai# v. 6a+(h!"&=,9B9 [1+] cited in A"#a+l& v. NaKa"!#$.9B [19] 1n those earlier days( .merican courts considered the power of inDuiry as "nherent in the power to legislate.

1n A"#a+l&( the Supreme &ourt adhered to a similar theory . &iting M,G"ai#( it recognized that the power of inDuiry is I an e ent"a' and a%%r!%r"ate a#C"'"ar* t! the 'e," 'at"-e f#n&t"!n2J thus: .lthough there is no provision in the I&onstitution e;pressly investing either 9ouse of &ongress with power to ma<e investigations and e;act testimony to the end that it may e;ercise its legislative functions advisedly and effectively( such power is so
*@*O1@P *@)O18P

/,* 3.S. 1*@( ), S. &t. *1=( ,1 L. !d. @+:( @: ..L.$. 1 1=/,-. 5o. L7 *+/:( +, Phil. /= 1=@:-.

/:/

/:*

far incidental to the legislative function as to be implied. 1n other words( the %!+er !f "n?#"r* Q +"th %r!&e t! enf!r&e "t Q " an e ent"a' and a%%r!%r"ate a#C"'"ar* t! the 'e," 'at"-e f#n&t"!n. A 'e," 'at"-e )!d* &ann!t 'e," 'ate +" e'* !r effe&t"-e'* "n the a) en&e !f "nf!rmat"!n re %e&t"n, the &!nd"t"!n +h"&h the 'e," 'at"!n " "ntended t! affe&t !r &han,eK and +here the 'e," 'at"!n )!d* d!e n!t "t e'f %! e the re?#" "te "nf!rmat"!n Q +h"&h " n!t "nfre?#ent'* tr#e Q re&!#r e m# t )e had t! !ther +h! %! e "t.J

Dispelling any doubt as to the Philippine &ongressE power of inDuiry( provisions on such power made their maiden appearance in .rticle #111( Section 1/ of the 1=,* &onstitution. *@@O1+P 'hen came the 1=+, &onstitution incorporating the present .rticle #1( Section 1/. Lhat was therefore "m%'"&"t under the 1=*@ &onstitution( as influenced by .merican 6urisprudence( became eC%'"&"t under the 1=,* and 1=+, &onstitutions.*@8O1=P

5otably( the 1=+, &onstitution recognizes the power of investigation( not 6ust of &ongress( but also of I an* !f "t &!mm"ttee.J 'his is significant because it constitutes a d"re&t &!nferra' !f "n-e t",at!r* %!+er upon the committees and it means that the mechanisms which the 9ouses can ta<e in order to effectively perform its investigative function are also available to the committees.*@,O/:P

1t can be said that the &ongressE power of inDuiry has gained more solid e;istence and e;pansive construal. 'he &ourtEs high regard to such power is rendered more evident in S!#a&! v. E")i&a,9B8[#1] where it categorically ruled that $the %!+er !f "n?#"r* " )r!ad en!#,h t! &!-er !ff"&"a' !f the eCe&#t"-e )ran&h.( #erily( the &ourt reinforced the doctrine in A"#a+l& that $the !%erat"!n !f ,!-ernment2 )e"n, a 'e,"t"mate #)De&t f!r 'e," 'at"!n2 " a %r!%er #)De&t f!r "n-e t",at"!n( and that Ithe %!+er !f "n?#"r* " &!0 eCten "-e +"th the %!+er t! 'e," 'ate.(

&onsidering these 6urisprudential instructions( Section ) b- is directly repugnant with .rticle #1( Section /1. Section ) b- eCem%t the .C11 mem)er and taff fr!m the C!n,re J %!+er !f "n?#"r*. 'his cannot be countenanced. 5owhere in the &onstitution is any provision granting such e;emption. 'he &ongressE power of inDuiry( being broad( encompasses
*@@O1+P *@8O1=P *@,O/:P *@+O/1P

P+#$( Lecture on L!(isla&iv! I#v!s&i(a&i$#s a#* &h! Ri(h& &$ P"iva,=( at p. //. B!"#as S.I.( Th! 1;87 C$#s&i&+&i$# $' &h! R!%+bli, $' &h! Phili%%i#!s, /::* !d. at p.,*,. B!"#as S.I.( Th! 1;87 C$#s&i&+&i$# $' &h! R!%+bli, $' &h! Phili%%i#!s, /::* !d. at p.,*=. 4.$. 5o. 18=,,,( .pril /:( /::8.

/:*

/:)

everything that concerns the administration of e;isting laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.*@=O//P 1t even e;tends $t! ,!-ernment a,en&"e &reated )* C!n,re and !ff"&er +h! e %! "t"!n are +"th"n the %!+er !f C!n,re t! re,#'ate !r e-en a)!'" h.J*8:O/*P P&44 belongs to this class.

&ertainly( a mere provision of law cannot pose a limitation to the broad power of &ongress( in the absence of any constitutional basis.

%urthermore( Section ) b- is also inconsistent with .rticle G1( Section 1 of the &onstitution stating that: IP+bli, $''i,! is a %+bli, &"+s&. P+bli, $''i,!"s a#* !)%l$=!!s )+s& a& all &i)!s b! a,,$+#&abl! &$ &h! %!$%l!, s!"v! &h!) -i&h +&)$s& "!s%$#sibili&=, i#&!("i&=, l$=al&=, a#* !''i,i!#,=, a,& -i&h %a&"i$&is) a#* 8+s&i,!, a#* l!a* )$*!s& liv!s.J

'he provision presupposes that since an incumbent of a public office is invested with certain powers and charged with certain duties pertinent to sovereignty( the powers so delegated to the officer are held "n tr# t f!r the %e!%'e and are t! )e eCer&" ed "n )eha'f !f the ,!-ernment or !f a'' &"t"Een +h! ma* need the "nter-ent"!n !f the !ff"&er . S#&h tr# t eCtend t! a'' matter +"th"n the ran,e !f d#t"e %erta"n"n, t! the !ff"&e. In !ther +!rd 2 %#)'"& !ff"&er are )#t the er-ant !f the %e!%'e2 and n!t the"r r#'er .6G3H4@I

Section ) b-( being in the nature of an immunity( " "n&!n " tent +"th the %r"n&"%'e !f %#)'"& a&&!#nta)"'"t*. 1t places the P&44 members and staff beyond the reach of courts( &ongress and other administrative bodies. In tead !f en&!#ra,"n, %#)'"& a&&!#nta)"'"t*2 the ame %r!-" "!n !n'* "n t"t#t"!na'"Ee "rre %!n ")"'"t* and n!n0a&&!#nta)"'"t*. 1n P"!si*!#&ial C$))issi$# $# G$$* G$v!"#)!#& v. P!Sa,9:2[#+] 2ustice %lorentino P. %eliciano characterized as IobiterJ the portion of the ma6ority opinion barring( on the basis of Sections ) a- and b- of !.". 5o. 1( a civil case for damages filed against the P&44 and its &ommissioners. 9e eloDuently opined:

'he above underscored portions are( it is respectfully submitted( clearly $bi&!". It " "m%!rtant t! ma<e &'ear that the C!#rt " n!t here "nter%ret"n,2 m#&h 'e #%h!'d"n, a -a'"d
*@=O//P *8:O/*P *81O/)P *8/O/@P

Ga&Ei#s v. @#i&!* S&a&!s( *@) 3.S. 1,+ 1=@,-( pp. 1=)71=@. Se#a&! v. E")i&a, I*. 6! L!$#, 6! L!$#, I". 'he Law on Public "fficers and !lection Law( p. /. 5o. L7,,88*( .pril 1/( 1=++( 1@= S&$. @@+.

/:)

/:@

and &!n t"t#t"!na'2 the '"tera' term !f Se&t"!n @ (a)2 ()) !f ECe&#t"-e Order N!.3. 1f Section ) a- were given its literal import as immunizing the P&44 or any member thereof from civil liability I'$" a#=&hi#( *$#! $" $)i&&!* in the discharge of the tas< contemplated by this "rder(J the constitutionality of Section ) awould( in my submission( be open to most serious doubt. %or so viewed( Section ) a- would institutionalize the irresponsibility and non7accountability of members and staff of the P&44( a notion that is clearly repugnant to both the 1=,* and 1=+, &onstitution and a privileged status not claimed by any other official of the $epublic under the 1=+, &onstitution. ; ; ;. ; ; ; ; ; ;

It +!#'d eem &!n t"t#t"!na''* !ffen "-e t! #%%! e that a mem)er !r taff mem)er !f the .C11 &!#'d n!t )e re?#"red t! te t"f* )ef!re the Sand",an)a*an !r that #&h mem)er +ere eCem%ted fr!m &!m%'*"n, +"th !rder !f th" C!#rt.

Chav!K v. Sa#*i(a#ba=a#9:9[#9] reiterates the same view. 1ndeed( Section ) b- has been frowned upon by this &ourt even before the filing of the present petitions.

NE1ROS ORIENTAL II ELECTRIC COO.ERATIVE VS. SAN11UNIAN1 .AN1LUN1SOD OF DUMA1UETE CIT/2 1.R. N!. 54@842 N!-. 72 38A52 377 SCRA @43 Petitioners contend that the respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete is bereft of the power to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses( nor the power to order the arrest of witnesses who fail to obey its subpoena. 1t is further argued that assuming the power to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses to be lodged in said body( it cannot be e;ercised in the investigation of matters affecting the terms and conditions of the franchise granted to 5"$!&" 11 which are beyond the 6urisdiction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. $espondents( for their part( claim that inherent in the legislative functions performed by the respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod is the power to conduct investigations in aid of legislation and with it( the power to punish for contempt in inDuiries on matters within its 6urisdiction $ollo( p. )8-. 1t is also the position of the respondents that the contempt power( if not e;pressly granted( is necessarily implied from the powers
*8*O/8P

1=* S&$. /+/ 1==1-.

/:@

/:8

granted the Sangguniang Panlungsod $ollo( pp. )+7)=-. %urthermore( the respondents assert that an inDuiry into the installation or use of inefficient power lines and its effect on the power consumption cost on the part of Dumaguete residents is well7within the 6urisdiction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and its committees. 1. . line should be drawn between the powers of &ongress as the repository of the legislative power under the &onstitution( and those that may be e;ercised by the legislative bodies of local government unit( e.g. the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete which( as mere creatures of law( possess delegated legislative power. Lhile the &onstitution does not e;pressly vest &ongress with the power to punish non7members for legislative contempt( the power has nevertheless been invo<ed by the legislative body as a means of preserving its authority and dignity .rnault v. 5azareno( +, Phil. /= O1=@:P-F .mault v. >alagtas( =, Phil. *@+ O1=@@P-( in the same way that courts wield an inherent power to Qenforce their authority( preserve their integrity( maintain their dignity( and ensure the effectiveness of the administration of 6ustice.Q &ommissioner v. &loribel( 1/, Phil. ,18( ,/* O1=8,PF 1n re ?elly *@ Phil. =)) =@: O1=18P( and other cases-. 'he e;ercise by &ongress of this awesome power was Duestioned for the first time in the leading case of .rnault v. 5azareno( +, Phil. /= O1=@:P- where this &ourt held that the legislative body indeed possessed the contempt power. >ut no person can be punished for contumacy as a witness before either 9ouse( unless his testimony is reDuired in a matter into which that 9ouse has 6urisdiction to inDuire. ?ilbourn vs. 'hompson( /8( L.ed.( *,,.'he principle that &ongress or any of its bodies has the power to punish recalcitrant witnesses is founded upon reason and policy. Said power must be considered implied or incidental to the e;ercise of legislative power. 9ow could a legislative body obtain the <nowledge and information on which to base intended legislation if it cannot reDuire and compel the disclosure of such <nowledge and information( if it is impotent to punish a defiance of its power and authorityC Lhen the framers of the &onstitution adopted the principle of separation of powers( ma<ing each branch supreme within the real of its respective authority( it must have intended each departmentSs authority to be full and complete( independently of the otherSs authority or power. .nd how could the authority and power become complete if for every act of refusal every act of defiance( every act of contumacy against it( the legislative body must resort to the 6udicial department for the appropriate remedy( because it is impotent by itself to punish or deal therewith( with the affronts committed against its authority or dignity. . . .rnault v. >alagtas( L78,)=( 2uly *:( 1=@@F =, Phil. *@+( *,: O1=@@P-.
/:8

/:,

'he aforeDuoted pronouncements in the two .rnault cases( supra( bro<e ground in what was then an une;plored area of 6urisprudence( and succeeded in supplying the raison dS etre of this power of &ongress even in the absence of e;press constitutional grant. Lhether or not the reasons for upholding the e;istence of said power in &ongress may be applied mutatis mutandis to a Duestioned e;ercise of the power of contempt by the respondent committee of a city council is the threshold issue in the present controversy. *. 'he e;ercise by the legislature of the contempt power is a matter of self7preservation as that branch of the government vested with the legislative power( independently of the 6udicial branch( asserts its authority and punishes contempts thereof. 'he contempt power of the legislature is( therefore( sui generis( and local legislative bodies cannot correctly claim to possess it for the same reasons that the national legislature does. 'he power attaches not to the discharge of legislative functions per se but to the character of the legislature as one of the three independent and coordinate branches of government. 'he same thing cannot be said of local legislative bodies which are creations of law. ). 'o begin with( there is no e;press provision either in the 1=,* &onstitution or in the Local 4overnment &ode >atas Pambansa >lg. **,granting local legislative bodies( the power to subpoena witnesses and the power to punish non7members for contempt. .bsent a constitutional or legal provision for the e;ercise of these powers( the only possible 6ustification for the issuance of a subpoena and for the punishment of non7 members for contumacious behaviour would be for said power to be deemed implied in the statutory grant of delegated legislative power. >ut( the contempt power and the subpoena power parta<e of a 6udicial nature. 'hey cannot be implied in the grant of legislative power. 5either can they e;ist as mere incidents of the performance of legislative functions. 'o allow local legislative bodies or administrative agencies to e;ercise these powers without e;press statutory basis would run afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. 'hese cannot be presumed to e;ist in favor of the latter and must be considered as an e;ception to Sec. ) of >.P. **, which provides for liberal rules of interpretation in favor of local autonomy. Since the e;istence of the contempt power in con6unction with the subpoena power in any government body inevitably poses a potential derogation of individual rights( i.e. compulsion of testimony and punishment for refusal to testify( the law cannot be liberally construed to have impliedly granted such powers to local legislative bodies. 1t cannot be lightly presumed that the sovereign people( the ultimate source of all government powers( have reposed
/:,

/:+

these powers in all government agencies. 'he intention of the sovereign people( through their representatives in the legislature( to share these uniDue and awesome powers with the local legislative bodies must therefore clearly appear in pertinent legislation. 'here being no provision in the Local 4overnment &ode e;plicitly granting local legislative bodies( the power to issue compulsory process and the power to punish for contempt( the Sanggunian Panlungsod of Dumaguete is devoid of power to punish the petitioners 'orres and 3mbac for contempt. 'he .d79oc &ommittee of said legislative body has even less basis to claim that it can e;ercise these powers. 33. Se&t"!n 44. The head !f de%artment ma* #%!n the"r !+n "n"t"at"-e2 +"th the &!n ent !f the .re "dent2 !r #%!n the re?#e t !f e"ther H!# e2 a the R#'e !f ea&h H!# e ha'' %r!-"de2 a%%ear )ef!re and )e heard )* #&h H!# e !n an* matter %erta"n"n, t! the"r de%artment . >r"tten ?#e t"!n ha'' )e #)m"tted t! the .re "dent !f the Senate !r the S%ea<er !f the HR at 'ea t 6 da* )ef!re the"r &hed#'ed a%%earan&e. Inter%e''at"!n ha'' n!t )e '"m"ted t! +r"tten ?#e t"!n 2 )#t ma* n!t &!-er matter matter re'ated theret!. >hen the e&#r"t* !f the State !r the %#)'"& "ntere t ! re?#"re and the .re "dent ! tate "n +r"t"n,2 the a%%earan&e ha'' )e &!nd#&ted "n eCe&#t"-e e "!n. Se&t"!n 46 H3I The C!n,re 2 )* a -!te !f 4M6 !f )!th H!# e "n a D!"nt e "!n a em)'ed2 -!t"n, e%arate'*2 ha'' ha-e the !'e %!+er t! de&'are the eC" ten&e !f a tate !f +ar. H4I In t"me !f +ar !r !ther nat"!na' emer,en&*2 the C!n,re ma*2 )* 'a+2 a#th!r"Ee the .re "dent2 f!r a '"m"ted %er"!d and #)De&t t! #&h re tr"&t"!n a "t ma* %re &r")e2 t! eCer&" e %!+er ne&e ar* and %r!%er t! &arr* !#t a de&'ared nat"!na' %!'"&*. Un'e !!ner +"thdra+n )* a re !'#t"!n !f the C!n,re 2 #&h %!+er ha'' &ea e #%!n the neCt adD!#rnment there!f. a. 5ote the limitations and restrictions for the delegation. b. 5ote also that it could be withdrawn by mere resolution. c. Lhat is referred to by the phrase Qne;t ad6ournmentCQ

34.

/:+

/:=

d. $ead: 1) ARANETA VS. 6INGLASAN, 8 Phil. 9:; M &h! 'i"s& !)!"(!#,= %$-!"s ,as!s 2) RO6RIG@EZ VS. GELLA, ;2 Phil. :79 M &h! s!,$#* !)!"(!#,= %$-!"s ,as!s. 9) R!%+bli, A,& N$. :82:, 6!,.27, 1;8; -hi,h ("a#&s !)!"(!#,= %$-!"s &$ P"!si*!#& A<+i#$. 1*. Sections /). .ll appropriations( revenue or tariff bills( bills authorizing increase of the public debt( bills of local application( and private bills shall originate e;clusively in the 9ouse of representatives( but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. 5"'!: 1n 'olentino vs. Secretary of %inance( the Supreme &ourt held that the !7#.' Law is constitutional even if the same was the #!$S1"5 which came from the Senate( not from the 9ouse of $epresentatives. 'his is so because the Senate is allowed to Ipropose amendmentsJ to bills which must e;clusively originate from the 9ouse of $epresentatives. 1). Section /@ O1P 'he &ongress may not increase the appropriation recommended by the President for the operation of the government as specified in the budget. 'he form( content( and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law. O/ 5o provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. .ny provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates. O*P 'he procedure in approving appropriations for the &ongress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. O)P . special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended( and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the national treasurer( or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein. O@P 5o law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriationsF however( the President( the President of the Senate( the Spea<er of the house of $epresentatives( the &hief 6ustice of the Supreme &ourt( and the heads of the constitutional commissions may( by law( be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

/:=

/1:

O8P Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for the purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and sub6ect to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law. O,P 1f( by the end of any fiscal year( the &ongress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year( the general appropriations law for the preceding year shall be deemed reenacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the &ongress. $ead: 6EMETRIA vs. ALBA, 1 8 SCRA 278 1,. Section /8. O1P !very bill passed by the &ongress shall embrace only one sub6ect which shall be e;pressed in the title thereof. O/P 5o bill shall be passed unless it has passed * readings on separate days( and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its members * days before its passage( e;cept when the President certifies as to its necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. 3pon the last reading of the bill( no amendment thereto shall be allowed( and the vote thereon shall be ta<en immediately thereafter( and the yeas and nays entered in the 2ournal. $ead: 1) TIO VS. VI6EOGRAM REG@LATORF BOAR6, 1B1 SCRA 278 2) 6E LA CR@Z VS. PARAS, 129 SCRA B:; 9) INS@LAR L@MBER VS. CTA, 17 SCRA 717 2) LI6ASAN VS. COMELEC, 21 SCRA ;: 'he case Duestions the law entitled Q.n .ct &reating the 0unicipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del SurQ( but which includes barrios located in another province &otabato to be spared from attac< planted upon the constitutional mandate that Q5o bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one sub6ect which shall be e;pressed in the title of the billQC Doubtless( as the statute stands( twelve barrios in two municipalities in the province of &otabato are transferred to the province of Lanao del Sur. 'his brought about a change in the boundaries of the two provinces. .pprised of this development( on September ,( 1=8,( the "ffice of the President( through the .ssistant !;ecutive Secretary( recommended to &omelec that the operation of the statute be suspended until Qclarified by correcting legislation.Q

/1:

/11

&omelec( by resolution of September /:( 1=8,( stood by its own interpretation( declared that the statute Qshould be implemented unless declared unconstitutional by the Supreme &ourt.Q 1t may be well to state( right at the outset( that the constitutional provision contains dual limitations upon legislative power. %irst. &ongress is to refrain from conglomeration( under one statute( of heterogeneous sub6ects. Second. 'he title of the bill is to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and those concerned of the import of the single sub6ect thereof. "f relevance here is the second directive. 'he sub6ect of the statute must be Qe;pressed in the titleQ of the bill. 'his constitutional reDuirement Qbreathes the spirit of command.Q &ompliance is imperative( given the fact that the &onstitution does not e;act of &ongress the obligation to read during its deliberations the entire te;t of the bill. 1n fact( in the case of 9ouse >ill 1/),( which became $epublic .ct ),=:( only its title was read from its introduction to its final approval in the 9ouse of $epresentatives where the bill( being of local application( originated. "f course( the &onstitution does not reDuire &ongress to employ in the title of an enactment( language of such precision as to mirror( fully inde; or catalogue all the contents and the minute details therein. 1t suffices if the title should serve the purpose of the constitutional demand that it inform the legislators( the persons interested in the sub6ect of the bill( and the public( of the nature( scope and conseDuences of the proposed law and its operation. .nd this( to lead them to inDuire into the body of the bill( study and discuss the same( ta<e appropriate action thereon( and( thus( prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislators. 'he test of the sufficiency of a title is whether or not it is misleadingF and( which technical accuracy is not essential( and the sub6ect need not be stated in e;press terms where it is clearly inferable from the details set forth( a title which is so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on inDuiry as to its contents( or which is misleading( either in referring to or indicating one sub6ect where another or different one is really embraced in the act( or in omitting any e;pression or indication of the real sub6ect or scope of the act( is bad. 1n determining sufficiency of particular title its substance rather than its form should be considered( and the purpose of the constitutional reDuirement( of giving notice to all persons interested( should be <ept in mind by the court. Lith the foregoing principles at hand( we ta<e a hard loo< at the disputed statute. 'he title Q.n .ct &reating the 0unicipality of Dianaton( in
/11

/1/

the Province of Lanao del SurQ + pro6ects the impression that solely the province of Lanao del Sur is affected by the creation of Dianaton. 5ot the slightest intimation is there that communities in the ad6acent province of &otabato are incorporated in this new Lanao del Sur town. 'he phrase Qin the Province of Lanao del Sur(Q read without subtlety or contortion( ma<es the title misleading( deceptive. %or( the <nown fact is that the legislation has a two7pronged purpose combined in one statute: 1- it creates the municipality of Dianaton purportedly from twenty7one barrios in the towns of >utig and >alabagan( both in the province of Lanao del SurF and /- it also dismembers two municipalities in &otabato( a province different from Lanao del Sur. 'he baneful effect of the defective title here presented is not so difficult to perceive. Such title did not inform the members of &ongress as to the full impact of the lawF it did not apprise the people in the towns of >uldon and Parang in &otabato and in the province of &otabato itself that part of their territory is being ta<en away from their towns and province and added to the ad6acent Province of Lanao del SurF it <ept the public in the dar< as to what towns and provinces were actually affected by the bill. 'hese are the pressures which heavily weigh against the constitutionality of $epublic .ct ),=:. B) ALALAFAN VS. NAPOCOR, 2 SCRA 172 :) COR6ERO VS. CABAT@AN6O, : SCRA 18 7) TATA6 VS. SECRETARF O? ENERGF, N$v!)b!" B, 1;;7, 281 SCRA 997 1+. Section /,. O1P !very bill passed by &ongress shall( before it becomes a law( be presented to the President. 1f he approves the same( he shall sign it( otherwise( he shall veto it and return the same with his ob6ections to the 9ouse where it originated( which shall enter the ob6ections at large in its 6ournal and proceed to reconsider it. 1f( after such consideration ( /T* of all the members of such 9ouse shall agree to pass the bill( it shall be sent( together with the ob6ections ( to the other 9ouse by which it shall li<ewise be reconsidered( and if approved by /T* of all the members of that 9ouse( it shall become a law. 1n all such cases( the votes of each house shall be determined by yeas or nays( and the names of the members voting for or against shall be entered in its 6ournal. 'he President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the 9ouse where it originated within *: days after the date of receipt thereofF otherwise( it shall become a law as if he signed it. O/P 'he President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation( revenue or tariff bill( but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not ob6ect. 1- $ead: a. BENGZON VS. SECRETARF O? I@STICE, :2 Phil. ;12
/1/

/1*

b. BOLINAO ELECTRONICS VS. VALENCIA, 11 SCRA 8: ,. NEPTALI GONZALES VS. MACARAIG, N$v!)b!" 1;, 1;;7 Section @@ of the .ppropriations .ct of 1=+= Section @@ O%K S+=P hereinafter-( which was vetoed by the President( reads: S!&. @@. Prohibition .gainst the $estoration or 1ncrease of $ecommended .ppropriations Disapproved and Tor $educed by &ongress: 5o item of appropriation recommended by the President in the >udget submitted to &ongress pursuant to .rticle #11( Section // of the &onstitution which has been disapproved or reduced in this .ct shall be restored or increased by the use of appropriations authorized for other purposes by augmentation. .n item of appropriation for any purpose recommended by the President in the >udget shall be deemed to have been disapproved by &ongress if no corresponding appropriation for the specific purpose is provided in this .ct. Le Duote below the reason for the Presidential veto: 'he provision violates Section /@ @- of .rticle #1 of the &onstitution. 1f allowed( this Section would nullify not only the constitutional and statutory authority of the President( but also that of the President of the Senate( the Spea<er of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( the &hief 2ustice of the Supreme &ourt( and 9eads of &onstitutional &ommissions( to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriation. . careful review of the legislative action on the budget as submitted shows that in almost all cases( the budgets of agencies as recommended by the President( as well as those of the Senate( the 9ouse of $epresentatives( and the &onstitutional &ommissions( have been reduced. .n unwanted conseDuence of this provision is the inability of the President( the President of the Senate( Spea<er of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( the &hief 2ustice of the Supreme &ourt( and the heads of &onstitutional &ommissions to augment any item of appropriation of their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations even in cases of calamity or in the event of urgent need to accelerate the implementation of essential public services and infrastructure pro6ects. 1 am vetoing this provision for the reason that it violates Section /@ @- of .rticle #1 of the &onstitution in relation to Sections )) and )@ of P.D. 5o. 11,, as amended by $... 5o. 88,: which authorizes the President to use savings to augment any item of appropriations in the !;ecutive >ranch of the 4overnment. 'he fundamental issue raised is whether or not the veto by the President of Section @@ of the 1=+= .ppropriations >ill Section @@ %KS+=-( and subseDuently of its counterpart Section 18 of the 1==: .ppropriations >ill Section 18 %KS=:-( is unconstitutional and without effect.

/1*

/1)

'he focal issue for resolution is whether or not the President e;ceeded the item veto power accorded by the &onstitution. "r differently put( has the President the power to veto QprovisionsQ of an .ppropriations >illC Petitioners contend that Section @@ %K S+=- and Section 18 %KS=:- are provisions and not items and are( therefore( outside the scope of the item veto power of the President. 'he veto power of the President is e;pressed in .rticle #1( Section /, of the 1=+, &onstitution reading( in full( as follows: Sec. /,. /'he President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation( revenue( or tariff bill( but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not ob6ect. Paragraph 1- refers to the general veto power of the President and if e;ercised would result in the veto of the entire bill( as a general rule. Paragraph /- is what is referred to as the item veto power or the line7veto power. 1t allows the e;ercise of the veto over a particular item or items in an appropriation( revenue( or tariff bill. .s specified( the President may not veto less than all of an item of an .ppropriations >ill. 1n other words( the power given the !;ecutive to disapprove any item or items in an .ppropriations >ill does not grant the authority to veto a part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of the same item. 1t is to be noted that the counterpart provision in the 1=+, &onstitution .rticle #1( Section /, O/P( supra-( is a verbatim reproduction e;cept for the public official concerned. 1n other words( also eliminated has been any reference to the veto of a provision. 'he vital Duestion is: should this e;clusion be interpreted to mean as a disallowance of the power to veto a provision( as petitioners urgeC 'he terms item and provision in budgetary legislation and practice are concededly different. .n item in a bill refers to the particulars( the details( the distinct and severable parts . . . of the bill >engzon( supra( at =18-. 1t is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose &ommonwealth v. Dodson( 11 S.!.( /d 1/:( 1/)( 1/@( etc.( 1,8 #a. /+1-. 'he 3nited States Supreme &ourt( in the case of >engzon v. Secretary of 2ustice /== 3.S. )1:( )1)( @, S.&t /@/( +1 L. !d.( *1/declared Qthat an SitemS of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of money( not some general provision of law( which happens to be put into an appropriation bill.Q 1t is our considered opinion that( notwithstanding the elimination in .rticle #1( Section /, /- of the 1=+, &onstitution of any reference to the veto of a provision( the e;tent of the PresidentSs veto power as previously defined by the 1=*@ &onstitution has not changed. 'his is because the eliminated proviso merely pronounces the basic principle that a distinct and severable part of a bill may be the
/1)

/1@

sub6ect of a separate veto >engzon v. Secretary of 2ustice( 8/ Phil.( =1/( =18 1=/8-F / >!$5.S( 2oaDuin( S.2.( 'he &onstitution of the $epublic of the Philippines( 1st ed.( 1@)71@@( O1=++P-. 'he restrictive interpretation urged by petitioners that the President may not veto a provision without vetoing the entire bill not only disregards the basic principle that a distinct and severable part of a bill may be the sub6ect of a separate veto but also overloo<s the &onstitutional mandate that any provision in the general appropriations bill shall relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein and that any such provision shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates 1=+, &onstitution( .rticle #1( Section /@ O/P-. 1n other words( in the true sense of the term( a provision in an .ppropriations >ill is limited in its operation to some particular appropriation to which it relates( and does not relate to the entire bill. >ut even assuming arguendo that provisions are beyond the e;ecutive power to veto( we are of the opinion that Section @@ %K S+=- and Section 18 %K S=:- are not provisions in the budgetary sense of the term. .rticle #1( Section /@ /- of the 1=+, &onstitution provides: Sec. /@ /5o provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. .ny such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates. !;plicit is the reDuirement that a provision in the .ppropriations >ill should relate specifically to some Qparticular appropriationQ therein. 'he challenged QprovisionsQ fall short of this reDuirement. %irstly( the vetoed QprovisionsQ do not relate to any particular or distinctive appropriation. 'hey apply generally to all items disapproved or reduced by &ongress in the .ppropriations >ill. Secondly( the disapproved or reduced items are nowhere to be found on the face of the >ill. 'o discover them( resort will have to be made to the original recommendations made by the President and to the source indicated by petitioners themselves( i.e.( the QLegislative >udget $esearch and 0onitoring "fficeQ .nne; >71 and >7/( Petition-. 'hirdly( the vetoed Sections are more of an e;pression of &ongressional policy in respect of augmentation from savings rather than a budgetary appropriation. &onseDuently( Section @@ %K S+=- and Section 18 %K S=:- although labelled as Qprovisions(Q are actually inappropriate provisions that should be treated as items for the purpose of the PresidentSs veto power. 9enry v. !dwards O1=,,P *)8 S $ep. /d( 1@,71@+-. 2ust as the President may not use his item7veto to usurp constitutional powers conferred on the legislature( neither can the legislature deprive the 4overnor of the constitutional powers conferred on him as chief e;ecutive officer of the state by including in a general appropriation bill matters more properly enacted in separate legislation. 'he 4overnorSs constitutional power to veto bills of
/1@

/18

general legislation ... cannot be abridged by the careful placement of such measures in a general appropriation bill( thereby forcing the 4overnor to choose between approving unacceptable substantive legislation or vetoing QitemsQ of e;penditure essential to the operation of government. 'he legislature cannot by location ot a bill give it immunity from e;ecutive veto. 5or it circumvent the 4overnorSs veto power over substantive legislation by artfully drafting general law measures so that they appear to be true conditions or limitations on an item of appropriation. "therwise( the legislature would be permitted to impair the constitutional responsibilities and functions of a co7eDual branch of government in contravention of the separation of powers doctrine ... Le are no more willing to allow the legislature to use its appropriation power to infringe on the 4overnorSs constitutional right to veto matters of substantive legislation than we are to allow the 4overnor to encroach on the constitutional powers of the legislature. 1n order to avoid this result( we hold that( when the legislature inserts inappropriate provisions in a general appropriation bill( such provisions must be treated as items for purposes of the 4overnorSs item veto power over general appropriation bills. Petitioners maintain( however( that &ongress is free to impose conditions in an .ppropriations >ill and where conditions are attached( the veto power does not carry with it the power to stri<e them out( citing &ommonwealth v. Dodson 11 S! /d 1*:( supra- and >olinao !lectronics &orporation v. #alencia 5o. L7/:,):( 2une *:( 1=8)( 11 S&$. )+8-. 1n other words( their theory is that Section @@ %KS+=- and Section 18 %KS=:- are such conditionsTrestrictions and thus beyond the veto power. 'here can be no denying that inherent in the power of appropriation is the power to specify how money shall be spentF and that in addition to distinct QitemsQ of appropriation( the Legislature may include in .ppropriation >ills Dualifications( conditions( limitations or restrictions on e;penditure of funds. Settled also is the rule that the !;ecutive is not allowed to veto a condition or proviso of an appropriation while allowing the appropriation itself to stand %airfield v. %oster( supra( at */:-. 'hat was also the ruling in >olinao( supra( which held that the veto of a condition in an .ppropriations >ill which did not include a veto of the items to which the condition related was deemed invalid and without effect whatsoever. 'he Power of augmentation and 'he #alidity of the #eto 'he President promptly vetoed Section @@ %KS+=- and Section 18 %KS=:- because they nullify the authority of the &hief !;ecutive and heads of different branches of government to augment any item in the 4eneral .ppropriations Law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations( as guaranteed by .rticle #1( Section /@ @- of the &onstitution. Said provision reads: Sec. /@. @5o law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriationsF however( the President( the President of the Senate( the Spea<er of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( the &hief 2ustice of the Supreme &ourt( and the heads of &onstitutional &ommissions may( by law( be authorized to augment any item in the
/18

/1,

general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. !mphasis ours-. 1f( indeed( the Legislature believed that the e;ercise of the veto powers by the !;ecutive were unconstitutional( the remedy laid down by the &onstitution is crystal clear. . Presidential veto may be overriden by the votes of two7thirds of members of &ongress 1=+, &onstitution( .rticle #1( Section /,OlP( supra-. >ut &ongress made no attempt to override the Presidential veto. PetitionersS argument that the veto is ineffectual so that there is Qnothing to overrideQ citing >olinao- has lost force and effect with the e;ecutive veto having been herein upheld. e. >!54M"5 #S. D$1L"5( .pril 1@( 1==/

1n the case at bar( the veto of these specific provisions in the 4eneral .ppropriations .ct is tantamount to dictating to the 2udiciary how its funds should be utilized( which is clearly repugnant to fiscal autonomy. 'he freedom of the &hief 2ustice to ma<e ad6ustments in the utilization of the funds appropriated for the e;penditures of the 6udiciary( including the use of any savings from any particular item to cover deficits or shortages in other items of the 2udiciary is withheld. Pursuant to the &onstitutional mandate( the 2udiciary must en6oy freedom in the disposition of the funds allocated to it in the appropriations law. 1t <nows its priorities 6ust as it is aware of the fiscal restraints. 'he &hief 2ustice must be given a free hand on how to augment appropriations where augmentation is needed. %urthermore( in the case of 4onzales v. 0acaraig 1=1 S&$. )@/ O1==:P-( the &ourt upheld the authority of the President and other <ey officials to augment any item or any appropriation from savings in the interest of e;pediency and efficiency. 'he &ourt stated that: 'here should be no Duestion( therefore( that statutory authority has( in fact( been granted. .nd once given( the heads of the different branches of the 4overnment and those of the &onstitutional &ommissions are afforded considerable fle;ibility in the use of public funds and resources Demetria v. .lba( supra-. 'he doctrine of separation of powers is in no way endangered because the transfer is made within a department or branch of government- and not from one department branch- to another. 'he &onstitution( particularly .rticle #1( Section /@ @- also provides: Sec. /@. @- 5o law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriationsF however( the President( the President of the Senate( the Spea<er of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( the &hief 2ustice of the Supreme &ourt( and the heads of &onstitutional &ommissions may( by law( be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

/1,

/1+

1n the instant case( the vetoed provisions which relate to the use of savings for augmenting items for the payment of the pension differentials( among others( are clearly in consonance with the abovestated pronouncements of the &ourt. 'he veto impairs the power of the &hief 2ustice to augment other items in the 2udiciarySs appropriation( in contravention of the constitutional provision on Qfiscal autonomy.Q 111 %inally( it can not be denied that the retired 2ustices have a vested right to the accrued pensions due them pursuant to $. 1,=,. 'he right to a public pension is of statutory origin and statutes dealing with pensions have been enacted by practically all the states in the 3nited States State e; rel. 0urray v( $iley( )) Del @:@( 8/ ./d /*8-( and presumably in most countries of the world. Statutory provisions for the support of 2udges or 2ustices on retirement are founded on services rendered to the state. Lhere a 6udge has complied with the statutory prereDuisite for retirement with pay( his right to retire and draw salary becomes vested and may not( thereafter( be revo<ed or impaired. 4ay v. Lhitehurst( )) So ad )*:'hus( in the Philippines( a number of retirement laws have been enacted( the purpose of which is to entice competent men and women to enter the government service and to permit them to retire therefrom with relative security( not only those who have retained their vigor but( more so( those who have been incapacitated by illness or accident. 1n re: .mount of the 0onthly Pension of 2udges and 2ustices Starting %rom the Si;th Kear of their $etirement and .fter the !;piration of the 1nitial %ive7year Period of $etirement( 1=: S&$. *1@ O1==:P-. .s early as 1=@*( $ep. .ct 5o. =1: was enacted to grant pensions to retired 2ustices of the Supreme &ourt and &ourt of .ppeals. 'his was amended by $. 1,=, which provided for an automatic ad6ustment of the pension rates. 'hrough the years( laws were enacted and 6urisprudence e;pounded to afford retirees better benefits. P.D. 5o. 1)*+( for one( was promulgated on 2une 1:( 1=,+ amending $. =1: providing that the lump sum of @ years gratuity to which the retired 2ustices of the Supreme &ourt and &ourt of .ppeals were entitled was to be computed on the basis of the highest monthly aggregate of transportation( living and representation allowances each 2ustice was receiving on the date of his resignation. 'he Supreme &ourt in a resolution dated "ctober )( 1==:( stated that this law on gratuities covers the monthly pensions of retired 2udges and 2ustices which should include the highest monthly aggregate of transportation( living and representation allowances the retiree was receiving on the date of retirement. 1n $e: .mount of the 0onthly Pension of 2udges and 2ustices( supra'he rationale behind the veto which implies that 2ustices and &onstitutional officers are unduly favored is( again( a misimpression.
/1+

/1=

1mmediately( we can state that retired .rmed %orces officers and enlisted men number in the tens of thousands while retired 2ustices are so few they can be immediately identified. 2ustices retire at age ,: while military men retire at a much younger age some retired 4enerals left the military at age @: or earlier. Ket the benefits in $ep. .ct 5o. 1,=, are made to apply eDually to both groups. .ny ideas arising from an alleged violation of the eDual protection clause should first be directed to retirees in the military or civil service where the reason for the retirement provision is not based on indubitable and constitutionally sanctioned grounds( not to a handful of retired 2ustices whose retirement pensions are founded on constitutional reasons. 'he provisions regarding retirement pensions of 6ustices arise from the pac<age of protections given by the &onstitution to guarantee and preserve the independence of the 2udiciary. 'he &onstitution e;pressly vests the power of 6udicial review in this &ourt. .ny institution given the power to declare( in proper cases( that act of both the President and &ongress are unconstitutional needs a high degree of independence in the e;ercise of its functions. "ur 6urisdiction may not be reduced by &ongress. 5either may it be increased without our advice and concurrence. 2ustices may not be removed until they reach age ,: e;cept through impeachment. .ll courts and court personnel are under the administrative supervision of the Supreme &ourt. 'he President may not appoint any 2udge or 2ustice unless he or she has been nominated by the 2udicial and >ar &ouncil which( in turn( is under the Supreme &ourtSs supervision. "ur salaries may not be decreased during our continuance in office. Le cannot be designated to any agency performing administrative or Duasi7 6udicial functions. Le are specifically given fiscal autonomy. 'he 2udiciary is not only independent of( but also co7eDual and coordinate with the !;ecutive and Legislative Departments. .rticle #111 and section *:( .rticle #1( &onstitution.ny argument which see<s to remove special privileges given by law to former 2ustices of this &ourt and the ground that there should be no Qgrant of distinct privilegesQ or Qpreferential treatmentQ to retired 2ustices ignores these provisions of the &onstitution and( in effect( as<s that these &onstitutional provisions on special protections for the 2udiciary be repealed. 'he integrity of our entire constitutional system is premised to a large e;tent on the independence of the 2udiciary. .ll these provisions are intended to preserve that independence. So are the laws on retirement benefits of 2ustices. "ne last point. 'he "ffice of the Solicitor 4eneral argues that: . . . 0oreover( by granting these benefits to retired 2ustices implies that public funds( raised from ta;es on other citizens( will be paid off to select individuals who are already leading private lives and have ceased performing public service. Said the 3nited States Supreme &ourt( spea<ing through 0r. 2ustice 0iller: Q'o lay
/1=

//:

with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen( and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals . . . is nonetheless a robbery because it is done under the forms of law . . .Q Law .ssociation #. 'ope<a( /: Lall. 8@@&omment( p. 18'he above arguments are not only specious( impolite and offensiveF they certainly are unbecoming of an office whose top officials are supposed to be( under their charter( learned in the law. &hief 2ustice &esar >engzon and &hief 2ustice Auerube 0a<alintal( 2ustices 2.>.L. $eyes( &ecilia 0uUoz Palma( !fren Plana( #icente .bad Santos( and( in fact( all retired 2ustices of the Supreme &ourt and the &ourt of .ppeals may no longer be in the active service. Still( the Solicitor 4eneral and all lawyers under him who represent the government before the two courts and whose predecessors themselves appeared before these retirees( should show some continuing esteem and good manners toward these 2ustices who are now in the evening of their years. .ll that the retirees as< is to be given the benefits granted by law. 'o characterize them as engaging in QrobberyQ is intemperate( abrasive( and disrespectful more so because the argument is unfounded. 1f the &omment is characteristic of "S4 pleadings today( then we are sorry to state that the then Duality of research in that institution has severely deteriorated. 1n the first place( the citation of the case is( wrong. 'he title is not L.L .ssociation v. 'ope<a but &itizenSs Savings and Loan .ssociation of &leveland( "hio v. 'ope<a &ity /: Lall. 8@@F +, 3.S. ,/=F // Law. !d. )@@ O1+,)P. Second( the case involved the validity of a statute authorizing cities and counties to issue bonds for the purpose of building bridges( waterpower( and other public wor<s to aid private railroads improve their services. 'he law was declared void on the ground that the right of a municipality to impose a ta; cannot be used for private interests. 'he case was decided in 1+,). 'he world has turned over more than ):(::: times since that ancient period. Public use is now eDuated with public interest. Public money may now be used for slum clearance( low7cost housing( sDuatter resettlement( urban and agrarian reform where only private persons are the immediate beneficiaries. Lhat was QrobberyQ in 1+,) is now called Qsocial 6ustice.Q 'here is nothing about retirement benefits in the cited case. "bviously( the "S4 lawyers cited from an old te;tboo< or encyclopedia which could not even spell QloanQ correctly. 4ood lawyers are e;pected to go to primary sources and to use only relevant citations. 'he &ourt has been deluged with letters and petitions by former colleagues in the 2udiciary reDuesting ad6ustments in their pensions 6ust so they would be able to cope with the everyday living e;penses not to mention the high cost of medical bills that old age entails. .s 2ustice &ruz aptly stated in 'eodoro 2. Santiago v. &".( 4.$. 5o. =//+)( 2uly 1/( 1==1-F
//:

//1

$etirement laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of the retiree because their intention is to provide for his sustenance( and hopefully even comfort( when he no longer has the stamina to continue earning his livelihood. .fter devoting the best years of his life to the public service( he deserves the appreciation of a grateful government as best concretely e;pressed in a generous retirement gratuity commensurate with the value and length of his services. 'hat generosity is the least he should e;pect now that his wor< is done and his youth is gone. !ven as he feels the weariness in his bones and glimpses the approach of the lengthening shadows( he should be able to lu;uriate in the thought that he did his tas< well( and was rewarded for it. %or as long as these retired 2ustices are entitled under laws which continue to be effective( the government can not deprive them of their vested right to the payment of their pensions. L9!$!%"$!( the petition is hereby 4$.5'!D. 'he Duestioned veto is S!' .S1D! as illegal and unconstitutional. 'he vetoed provisions of the 1==/ .ppropriations .ct are declared valid and subsisting. 'he respondents are ordered to automatically and regularly release pursuant to the grant of fiscal autonomy the funds appropriated for the sub6ect pensions as well as the other appropriations for the 2udiciary. 'he resolution in .dministrative 0atter 5o. =17+7//@7&. dated 5ovember /+( 1==1 is li<ewise ordered to be implemented as promulgated. /- Lhat is a Qpoc<et vetoCQ *- Lhat are the three ways by which a bill becomes a lawC *. P91L&"5S. #S. !5$1A3!M( /*@ S&$. @:8 Lhat is the so7called Ie;ecutive impoundmentJC 1t means that although an item of appropriation is not vetoed by the President( he however refuses for whatever reason( to spend funds made possible by &ongress. 1t is the failure to spend or obligate budget authority of any type. Proponents of impoundment have invo<ed at least three *- principal sources of authority of the President. O1P authority to impound given to him by &ongress( either e;pressly or impliedlyF O/P the e;ecutive power drawn from his power as &ommander7in7chiefF and O*P the %aithful e;ecution clause of the &onstitution. 5ote that in this case the S& held that the &ountryside Development %und &D%of &ongressmen and Senators is &"5S'1'3'1"5.L because the same is Iset aside for Vinfrastructure( purchase of ambulances and computers and other priority pro6ects and activities( and credit facilities to Dualified beneficiaries as proposed and identified by said Senators and &ongressmen.

//1

///

1=.

Section /+. O1P 'he rule of ta;ation shall be uniform and eDuitable. 'he &ongress shall evolve a progressive system of ta;ation. O/P 'he &ongress( may by law( authorize the President to fi; within specified limits( and sub6ect to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose( tariff rates( import and e;port Duotas( tonnage and wharfage dues( and other duties or imposts within the framewor< of the national development program of the government. O*P &haritable institutions( churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto( mosDues( non7profit cemeteries( and all lands( buildings( and improvements( actually( directly( and e;clusively used for religious( charitable( or educational purposes shall be e;empt from ta;ation. O)P 5o law granting any ta; e;emption shall be passed without the concurrence of a ma6ority of all the members of the &ongress. Section /=. 1- 5o money shall be paid out of the treasury e;cept in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. 5o public money or property shall be appropriated( applied( paid or employedNdirectly or indirectly for the benefit( use( or support of any sect( denomination( or system of religionNe;cept when such preacher( priestN is assigned to the .%P( or to any penal institution( or government orphanage or leprosarium. .ll money collected on any ta; for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. 1f the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned( the balance( if any( shall be transferred to the general funds of the 4overnment. $ead: 1. Ga",ia vs. E>!,+&iv! S!,., 211 SCRA 21; 1Ma) PEPSI COLA VS. TNE CITF O? B@T@AN, 2 SCRA 78; 2) PROVINCE O? ABRA VS. NERNAN6O, 177 SCRA 17 9) APOSTOLIC PRE?ECT O? BAG@IO VS. TREAS@RER, 71 Phil. B 7 - P.S&3.L #S. S!&$!'.$K "% P3>L1& L"$?S( 11: Phil. **1 *- .4L1P.K #S. $31M( 8) Phil. /:1 ) MAN@EL ALBA VS. PEREZ, G.R. N$. :B;17, S!%&. 2 , 1;87 $espondent Dr. %rancisco .. Perez was named outstanding 9ealth Lor<er for 1=+: by the 0inistry of 9ealth on 2anuary //( 1=+1. >eing such an awardee( Dr. Perez was granted by the 0inistry of 9ealth a two7step salary increase in
///

//*

accordance with the merit increase program as enunciated in Letter of 1nstructions L"1- 5o. @8/. 'hereafter( the 0inistry of 9ealth reDuested the Sangguniang Panglunsod of San Pablo &ity( which is paying Dr. PerezS salary in full to appropriate the amount corresponding to the merit increase in its current budget. %or lac< of legal basis( the >ureau of Local 4overnment opposed the proposed merit increase because the provisions of L"1 5o. @8/ apply only to officialsTemployees in the national government( and conseDuently( awardee Dr. Perez was not entitled thereto( since he is an employee of the local government as provided for in the charter of San Pablo &ity. 'his prompted Dr. Perez to reDuest the 0inistry of 9ealth to ma<e the corresponding allocation to issue a notice of salary ad6ustment effective 2anuary 1( 1=+1. 'he 0inister of 2ustice( upon a Duery made by the 0inistry of 9ealth( in his "pinion 5o. 1,,( Series of 1=+1( dated 5ovember /:( 1=+1( ac<nowledged that the merit increase program applies only to the officialsTemployees of the national government but declared Dr. Perez as one such official or employee and concluded that the 0inistry of 9ealth should pay the merit increase to him. $elying on such opinion( the 0inistry of 9ealth issued to respondent Dr. Perez on December 1( 1=+1 a notice of salary ad6ustment which release of the amount was denied by the "ffice of the >udget and 0anagement which insisted that the awardee is an employee of the local or city government who is not covered by the merit increase program. Dr. Perez made his appeal therefrom to the 0inistry of 9ealth who forwarded it( recommending favorable action thereon to the "ffice of the President of the Philippines. 'he latter referred the appeal to the 0inister of the >udget who affirmed his earlier decision of disallowing the merit increase and reiterating the same reasons. . petition for mandamus to compel the "ffice of the >udget and 0anagement to pay the merit increase was filed by Dr. Perez before the lower court which granted the aforementioned favorable decision( sub6ect matter of the present petition for review on certiorari before 3s by petitioners arguing that: 1. 'he position of private respondent as the &ity 9ealth "fficer of San Pablo &ity is embraced in Sec. , of Pres. Decree P.D.- 5o. 11*8 which states among other things that the salary plan provided for in Sec. + of the same decree shall cover the &ity "fficer( among other officials( whose salary shall be paid out of city funds and therefore a local government employee whose position does not appear in the list of national government employees defined under another law P.D. =+@-. /. 'he constitution provides that no money shag be paid out of the 'reasury e;cept in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Since there is no such appropriation( the 0inister of the >udget cannot be compelled to release the amount for the payment of the merit salary increase because such allocation entails the e;ercise of 6udgment and discretion of the 0inister of the >udget which cannot be controlled by mandamus. *. 'he decision declaring respondent Dr. Perez as an employee of the national government would have far reaching effects such that all other city health officers and local officials similarly situated would also be so entitled to an
//*

//)

personal benefits given to national employee. Dr. PerezSs e;emplary accomplishment which merited for him the grant to a two7step increase must yield to the overriding economic consideration of availability of funds which the government must set aside for the purpose. Le do not agree with the arguments set down by petitioners. Private respondent invites "ur attention to the &ity &harter of San Pablo &ity &. _@/:1( Sec. +,( 0ay ,( 1=):- more specifically( .rt. 1# thereof( which provides that the position of a &ity 9ealth "fficer is not included among the heads of the regular departments of the city but included among the national officials performing municipal functions under the direct control of the 9ealth 0inister and not the city mayor as provided for in .rt. G1# of the same charter. Such principle is reiterated in the Decentralization .ct of 1=8, which shows that the appointing authority is the 9ealth 0inister and not the local officials. Petitioner 0inister of the >udget admitted thru the testimony of its representative( .lice S. 'orres( chief of the &ompensation and Position &lassification and a specialist thereon that the &ity 9ealth "fficer is under the administrative and technical supervision of the 0inistry of 9ealth p. 8=( tsn( 2une 18( 1=+*( p. ,/( $ollo-. >e it noted that( Section , of PD 11*8 relied upon by petitioners provides that the basic salary of the &ity 9ealth "fficer is paid from city funds. 9owever( the last paragraph of the same Sec. ,( e;cludes the city health officer from the classification of local government official as can be gathered from the phrase Q... e;cept those occupied by a- officials whose compensation is fi;ed in the constitution( Presidential Decrees and other laws and b- officials and employees who are under the direct supervision and control of the 5ational 4overnment or its agencies and who are paid wholly or partially from national funds.Q Provincial and city health officers are all considered national government officials irrespective of the source of funds of their salary because the preservation of health is a national service. .lso their positions are partially funded by the national government. Some are receiving one7half of their salary from the national funds and the other one7half from local funds. Le cannot li<ewise ignore the opinions of the 0inistry of 2ustice cited by private respondent to wit: 1- "pinion 5o. /8( Series of 1=,8 which categorically rules that Q"fficials and employees of provincial and city health offices render service as officials and employees of the >ureau of 9ealth 0inistry of 9ealthand they are for that reason not local but national officials under the direct supervision and control of the 0inistry of 9ealthF /- "pinion 5o. 1,,( Series of 1=+1( which is specific and definitive that the private respondent is a national government employee and the 0inistry of 9ealth should pay the merit increase awarded to him. 1n this 1=+1 opinion( it was e;plained in detail how the said funds corresponding to his merit increase could be legally disbursed contrary to the unfounded speculations e;pressed by the petitioners.

//)

//@

Lastly( there is no basis in petitionerSs allegations that they cannot be compelled by mandamus as the appropriation is not authorized by law and it is discretionary on the part of the 0inistry of the >udget whether or not to allocate. $espondent Dr. Perez has been proven to be a national government official( hence covered by the merit promotion plan of the government more particularly the 9ealth 0inistry wherein private respondent is its lone beneficiary for the year 1=+: in $egion 1#. 1t thus becomes the ministerial duty of the >udget 0inister to approve the reDuest for allotment. 9aving failed to do so( he could be compelled by mandamus. /:. Section *:. 5o law shall be passed increasing the appellate 6urisdiction of the Supreme &ourt as provided in the &onstitution without its advice and concurrence. TERESITA FABIAN VS. HONORABLE ANIANO DESIERTO2 1.R. N!. 3485@42 Se%tem)er 3G2 388A) $egalado( 2. Section /, of $. 8,,: or the "mbudsman .ct of 1=+= provides: I1n all administrative disciplinary cases( orders( directives or decisions of the "ffice of the "mbudsman may be appealed to the Supreme &ourt by filing a petition for &ertiorari within 1: days from receipt of the written notice of the order( directive or decision or denial of the 0otion for $econsideration in accordance with $ule )@ of the $ules of &ourtJ 1ssue: 1s Section /, of $. 8,,: constitutionalC 9eld: Section /, of $. 8,,: is unconstitutional since it increases the appellate 6urisdiction of the Supreme &ourt without its advice and consent as provided under Section *:( .rticle #1 of the 1=+, &onstitution. .s e;plained in %1$S' L!P.5'" &!$.01&S 15&. #S. &.( /*, S&$. @1=( the aforesaid constitutional provision Iwas intended to give the Supreme &ourt a measure of control over cases placed under its appellate 6urisdiction. "therwise( the enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate 6urisdiction would unnecessarily burden the &ourt.J .ppeal of cases decided by the "ffice of the "mbudsman covered by Section /, of $. 8,,: shall be filed with the &ourt of .ppeals.
//@

//8

$ead:

MAN@EL ALBA VS. PEREZ, G.R. N$. :B;17, S!%&. 2 , 1;87

/1. Sections */. 'he &ongress( shall( as early as possible( provide for a system of initiative and referendum( and the e;ceptions therefrom( whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or re6ect any law or part thereof passed by the &ongress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefore signed by at least 1:H of the total number of registered voters( of which every legislative district must be represented by at least *H of the registered voters thereof. $ead again $. 8,*@ R S.5'1.4" #S. &"0!L!& R P1$0. PART VII ARTICLE VII - THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Section 1. 'he e;ecutive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. 1. a. Define e;ecutive power b. 0ay the President refuse to enforce a law on the ground that in his opinion it is unconstitutionalC 5o. "therwise( he will be violating the doctrine of separation of powers because by doing so( he will be arrogating unto himself the power to interpret the law( not merely to implement it. $ead: 1) L.S. MOON Q CO. VS. NARRISON, 9 Phil.98 2) GOVTT. VS. SPRINGER, B7 Phil. B2;, "!a* als$ &h! s!%a"a&! $%i#i$#. 9) VALLEF TRA6ING VS. C?I, 171 SCRA B71 Lhat is the e;tent of the e;ecutive or administrative orders that may be issued by the President as the &hief !;ecutive( under the .dministrative &ode of 1=+,C *LAS "PL! VS% R#*! T"RR!S, !T AL% 4.$. 5o. 1/,8+@( 2uly /*( 1==+ Puno( 2.

//8

//,

%acts: "n December 1/( 1==8( then President %1D!L #. $.0"S issued .dministrative "rder 5o. *:+ entitled I.D"P'1"5 "% . 5.'1"5.L &"0P3'!$1M!D 1D!5'1%1&.'1"5 $!%!$!5&! SKS'!0J. 'he ." see<s to have all %ilipino citizens and foreign residents to have a Population $eference 5umber P$5- generated by the 5ational Statistics "ffice 5S"- through the use of >1"0!'$1&S '!&95"L"4K . 'he ." was Duestioned by Senator "ple on the following grounds: 1. 'he establishment of the P$5 without any law is an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislative powers of the &ongress of the PhilippinesF /. 'he appropriation of public funds for the implementation of the said ." is unconstitutional since &ongress has the e;clusive authority to appropriate funds for such e;penditureF and *. 'he ." violates the citizenEs right to privacy protected by the >ill of $ights of the &onstitution. 9eld: 1. 'he ." establishes a system of identification that is all7encompassing in scope( affects the life and liberty of every %ilipino citizens and foreign residents and therefore( it is supposed to be a law passed by &ongress that implements it( not by an .dministrative "rder issued by the President. .dministrative Power( which is supposed to be e;ercised by the President( is concerned with the wor< of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. 1t enables the President to fi; a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and chec< the official conduct of his agents. Prescinding from the foregoing precepts( ." *:+ involves a sub6ect that is not appropriate to be covered by an .dministrative "rder. .n administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of the government. 1t must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. 'he sub6ect of ." *:+ therefore is beyond the power of the President to issue and it is a usurpation of legislative power. /. 'he ." li<ewise violates the right to privacy since its main purpose is to provide a Icommon reference number to establish a lin<age among concerned agencies through the use of >1"0!'$1&S '!&95"L"4K. >iometry is the science of the application of statistical methods to biological factsF a mathematical analysis of a biological data. 1t is the confirmation of an individualEs identity through a fingerprint( retinal scan( hand geometry or facial features. 'hrough the P$5( the government offices has the chance of
//,

//+

building a huge and formidable information base through the electronic lin<age of the files of every citizen. 'he data( however( may be gathered for gainful and useful government purposesF but the e;istence of this vast reservoir of personal information constitutes a covert invitation to misuse( a temptation that may be too great for some of our authorities to resist. %urther( the ." does not even tells us in clear and uneDuivocal terms how these informations gathered shall be handled. 1t does not provide who shall control and access the data and under what circumstances and for what purpose. 'hese factors are essential to safeguard the privacy and guaranty the integrity of the information. 'he computer lin<age gives other government agencies access to the information. K!'( '9!$! .$! 5" &"5'$"LS '" 43.$D .4.15S' L!.?.4! "% 15%"$0.'1"5S. L9!5 '9! .&&!SS &"D! "% '9! &"5'$"L P$"4$.0S "% '9! P.$'1&3L.$ &"0P3'!$ SKS'!0 1S >$"?!5( .5 15'$3D!$( L1'9"3' %!.$ "% S.5&'1"5 "$ P!5.L'K( &.5 0.?! 3S! "% '9! D.'. %"$ L9.'!#!$ P3$P"S!( "$ L"$S!( 0.51P3L.'! '9! D.'. S'"$!D L1'915 '9! SKS'!0. ." 5o. *:+ is unconstitutional since it falls short of assuring that personal information gathered about our people will be used only for specified purposes thereby violating the citizenEs right to privacy. Sections /. 5o person shall be elected President unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines( a registered voter( able to read and write( at least forty years o f age on the day of the election( and a resident o f the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding the election. Section *. 'here shall be a #ice President who shall have the same Dualifications and term of office and be elected with and in the same manner as the President. 9e may be removed from "ffice in the same manner as the President. 'he #ice President may be appointed as a 0ember of the cabinet. Such appointment reDuires no confirmation. 5ote: Section 1*( .rt. #11. 'he President( #ice President( the members of the cabinet( and their deputies or assistants shall not( unless otherwise provided in this &onstitution( hold any other office or employment during their tenureN

//+

//=

Section +( .rticle #111. 'he 2udicial and >ar &ouncil77777Secretary of 2ustice.. Section /( .rticle G1. 'he President( #P( Nmay be removed from office( on impeachment for( and conviction of( culpable violation of the &onstitution( treason( bribery( graft and corruption( other high crimes( or betrayal of public trust. Section ). 'he President and the #ice President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of si; years which shall begin at noon on the *:th day of 2une ne;t following their election and shall end at noon of the same date si; years thereafter. 'he President shall not be eligible for any reelection. 5o person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than ) years shall be Dualified for election to the same office at any time. 5o #ive President shall serve for more than / successive terms. #oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected. 'he returns of every election for President and #ice President duly certified by the >oard of canvassers of each province or city shall be transmitted to the congressN. 'he candidate having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected( but in case two or more shall have an eDual number of votes( one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a ma6ority of all the members of both 9ouses of &ongress voting separately. Section @N"ath Section 8. $esidenceNSalary may not be decreasedNnot increased until after the e;piration of his termsNshall not received any other emolument from the government of from any source during their tenure. Section ,. ..shall assume office at the beginning of their terms. NP R #P not Dualified( the Senate President shall act as President or the Spea<er( if SP is not yet Dualified..
//=

/*:

&ongress shall pass a law if the SP R Spea<er are not Dualified to act as PresidentN Section =. #P is vacant( the President shall nominate from the Senate of 9$ and who shall become #P upon confirmation of ma6ority vote of the members of the Senate R 9 of $ voting separately. Section 1:. N1n case of vacancy in the office of the President and #P( &ongress shall convene on the *rd day after the vacancy to enact a law calling for special election to be held not later than 8: daysNthe law is deemed certified under Section /8( par. / of .rt. #1 and shall become a law upon *rd reading.. Special elections cannot be postponed but no special election if the vacancy occurs within 1+ months before the ne;t presidential election. Section 11. Lhen President transmits to &ongress his written declaration of inability to perform his duties( the #P shall be acting President until the President transmits another declaration to the contrary. Lhen ma6ority of the members of the cabinet transmit to the Senate President a written declaration that the President is unable to perform his duties( the #P shall act as the President. 1f the President transmits to the SP his declaration that there is no disability( he shall reassume his post but if the ma6ority of all the members of the &abinet still insists that the President is unable to discharge his powers( &"54$!SS S9.LL D!&1D! '9! 1SS3!. 1' 03S' &"5#!5! L1'915 )+ 9"3$S if not in session without need of a call. 1f /T* of both 9ouses( voting separately( determines that the President is unable to discharge his powers( the #P shall act as President. "therwise( the President shall continue e;ercising his powers and duties of his office.
/*:

/*1

Section 1/. 1n case of serious illness of the President( the public shall be informed of the state of his health. 'he members of the cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the &hief of the .%P shall not be denied access to the President. a. Aualifications( disDualifications( term of office( etc.( of the President and #ice7 President. b. See: Sec. 1, of .rt. G#111. c. $ead: PNILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION VS. COMELEC, 1 7 SCRA B9 ATh! s#a% %"!si*!#&ial !l!,&i$# ,as!) *. Sections ,71/ a. 5ote the order of succession to the office of the President and #ice President b. Auery: 1s President 4loria 0acapagal .rroyo a de 6ure or a de facto PresidentC 1f de 6ure( how did she succeedC $esignation or permanent disability of former President !stradaC 2"S!P9 !2!$&1'" !S'$.D. #S. D!S1!$'"( 4.$. 5os. 1)8,1:71@ and 1)8,*+( 0arch /( /::1 Puno( 2 O!n >ancP % . & ' S: 1. "n 1* 5ovember /:::( the Spea<er of the 9ouse of $epresentatives transmitted to the Senate the .rticles of 1mpeachment charging petitioner 2oseph !strada with bribery( graft and corruption( betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the &onstitution. 'he impeachment of petitioner resulted from disclosures made by 1locos Sur 4overnor( Luis &havit Singson in "ctober( /::: that petitioner had received payments from illegal 6ueteng operations and e;cise ta;esF 'he impeachment trial began on :, December /:::. . highlight of the December /::: hearings was the testimony of &L.$1SS. "&.0P" of the !Duitable W P&1 >an< that she witnessed petitioner affi;ing the signature of I2"S! #!L.$D!J on ban< documents involving a P@:: 0 investment agreementF /. "n 18 2anuary /::1( the issue of whether or not to open what has been dubbed as the ISecond !nvelopeJ arose before the impeachment court. 'he envelope allegedly contained proof that petitioner held P*.* > in a secret ban< account under the name
/*1

/*/

I2"S! #!L.$D!J. 'he motion to open the said envelope was struc< down by the senator76udges by a vote of 1171:. 'he public and private prosecutors wal<ed out of the trial to protect the ruling. 9ours after the controversial ruling( the public began to rally at the !DS. S9$15!F the rally continued in the following daysF *. "n 2anuary 1,( /::1( the public prosecutors tendered their collective resignation to the Spea<er. 'hey also filed a 0anifestation of L1'9D$.L.L "% .PP!.$.5&! with the 1mpeachment &ourt. 'hereafter( Senator $oco moved for the indefinite postponement of the impeachment proceedings. &hief 2ustice Davide granted the sameF ). 1n the afternoon of 1= 2anuary( /::1( the &hief of Staff of the .%P withdrew his support to President !strada. 'he same is true with the P5P &hief and ma6ority of the members of the !strada &abinetF @. 1n early hours of /: 2anuary /::1( negotiations for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power began between petitionerEs representatives and that of respondent 4L"$1. 0.&.P.4.L7.$$"K"( then #ice President. Later in the morning( .rroyo reportedly reDuested the &hief 2ustice to administer her oath. 'he letter( sent through fa; was Duoted thus by 2ustice #itug in his concurring opinion( as follows: I'he undersigned respectfully informs this 9onorable &ourt that 2oseph !6ercito !strada is permanently incapable of performing the duties of his office resulting in his permanent disability to govern and serve his une;pired term. .lmost all of his cabinet members have resigned and the Philippine 5ational Police have withdrawn their support for 2oseph !6ercito !strada. &ivil society has li<ewise refused to recognize him as President. I1n view of this( 1 am assuming the position of the President of the Philippines. .ccordingly( 1 would li<e to ta<e my oath as President of the $epublic before the 9onorable &hief 2ustice 9ilario Davide( 2r. today( /: 2anuary /::1( 1/::: noon at !DS. S9$15!( Auezon &ity( 0etro 0anila. I0ay 1 have the honor to invite the members of the 9onorable &ourt to attend the oath7ta<ingJ. 8. .t 1/ noon( .rroyo was sworn in by &hief 2ustice Davide as the 1) th President of the $epublic of the Philippines. .t /:*: p.m.( petitioner and his family left 0alacanang Palace. Petitioner issued the following statement:

/*/

/**

I.t 1/ oEcloc< noon today( #ice President 4loria 0acapagal7.rroyo too< her oath as President of the $epublic of the Philippines. Lhile along with many other legal minds of our country( 1 have strong and serious doubts about the legality and constitutionality of her Proclamation as President( 1 do not wish to be a factor that will prevent the restoration of unity and order in our civil society. 1t is for this reason that 1 now leave 0alacanang Palace( the seat of the Presidency of this country( for the sa<e of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. 1 leave the palace of our people with gratitude for the opportunities given to me for service to our people. 1 will not shir< from any future challenges that may come ahead in the same service of our country. 1 call all my supporters and followers to 6oin me in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. 0ay the .lmighty bless our country and beloved people. 0abuhayJ I Sgd.- 2oseph !6ercito !stradaJ ,. Petitioner also sent copies of the following letter to the Senate President and Spea<er of the 9ouse of $epresentatives on /: 2anuary /::1. 'he copy for the 9ouse Spea<er was sent at +:*: a.m.. .nother copy was transmitted to the Senate President and received only at =::: p.m. ISir: >y virtue of the provisions of Section 11( .rt. #11 of the &onstitution( 1 am hereby transmitting this declaration that 1 am unable to e;ercise the powers and duties of my office. >y operation of law and the &onstitution( the #ice President shall be .cting President. Sgd.- 2oseph !6ercito !stradaJ +. Prior to the events of 2anuary( /::1( 8 cases had been filed before the "ffice of the "mbudsman .niano Desierto. . special panel was created to investigate these cases.

/**

/*)

"n 2anuary //( /::1( petitioner was directed to file his counter7affidavit and affidavit of his witnessesF =. "n %ebruary @( /::1( petitioner filed these cases to prohibit the respondent from investigating the charges of plunder( bribery and graft and corruption on the ground that he is immune from suitF "n %ebruary 8( /::1( the petitioner filed the petition doc<eted as 4$ 5o. 1)8,*+ for Duo warranto against .rroyo praying that he be declared the lawful President of the Philippines and respondent 40. merely as acting President on account of his temporary disability. 1 S S 3 ! S: 1. D" '9! &.S!S .' >.$ 15#"L#! . P"L1'1&.L A3!S'1"5 .5D .$! >!K"5D '9! 23$1SD1&'1"5 "% '9! S3P$!0! &"3$' '" D!&1D!C /. D1D P!'1'1"5!$ !S'$.D. $!S145 .S P$!S1D!5'C *. 1S '9! P!'1'1"5!$ '!0P"$.$1LK 35.>L! '" .&' .S P$!S1D!5'C ). D"!S '9! P!'1'1"5!$ !52"K 100351'K %$"0 S31'C 1% S"( '" L9.' !G'!5'C @. S9"3LD '9! P$"S!&3'1"5 "% !S'$.D. >! !52"15!D D3! '" P$!23D1&1.L P3>L1&1'KC 9 ! L D: 1 5o( the cases do not involve political Duestion. 1n 'anada vs. &uenco( 1:* Phil. 1:@1 O1=@,P( it was held that political Duestions refer to Ithose Duestions which( under the &onstitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity( or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative and e;ecutive branches of the government. 1t is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom( not the legality of a particular measure.J 'he 1=+, &onstitution narrowed the reach of the political Duestion doctrine when it e;panded the power of 6udicial review of the court( not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable( but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< or e;cess of 6urisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. 15 support of the contention that the cases involve political Duestions( the respondents cited the cases of L.LK!$SE L!.4! %"$ . >!''!$ P91L1PP15!S #S.
/*)

1:.

/*@

P$!S1D!5' &"$.M"5 .A315"( 0ay //( 1=+8 and related cases. 'he court pointed out that in those cases( it held that the government of President .Duino was the result of a successful but peaceful revolution by the %ilipino people. 'he %reedom &onstitution itself declared that the .Duino government was installed through the direct e;ercise of the power of the %ilipino people Iin defiance of the 1=,* &onstitution( as amended.J 15 contrast( the .rroyo government is not revolutionary in character. 'he oath of President .rroyo too< at the !DS. Shrine is an oath under the 1=+, &onstitution where she swore to preserve and defend the 1=+, &onstitution. 'he !DS. 1 that installed President .Duino and !DS. 11 which installed .rroyo are different because the first involves the e;ercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. !DS. 11 is an e;ercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the "ffice of the President. !DS. 1 is e;tra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the sub6ect of 6udicial review( but !DS. 11 is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the #ice President as President are sub6ect to 6udicial review. !DS. 1 presented a political Duestion( !DS. 11 involves legal Duestions. 'herefore( the present cases involve legal Duestions reDuiring the proper interpretation of provisions of the 1=+, &onstitution on the scope of presidential immunity from suit and the correct calibration of the right of petitioner against pre6udicial publicity. 11 3sing the totality test( the S& held that petitioner !strada resigned as President. $esignation is not a high level abstraction. 1t is a factual Duestion and its elements are beyond Duibble: there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinDuishment. 'he validity of a resignation is not governed by any formal reDuirement as to form. 1t can be written. 1t can be e;press. 1t can be implied. .s long as the resignation is clear( it must be given legal effect. Since !strada did not write a letter of resignation before evacuating the 0alacanang Palace on 2anuary /:( /::1( the determination of whether he resigned should be based on his acts and omission before( during and after /: 2anuary /::1. '91S 1S '9! '"'.L1'K '!S'( '9! '"'.L1'K "% P$1"$( &"5'!0P"$.5!"3S .5D P"S'!$1"$ %.&'S .5D &1$&30S'.5'1.L !#1D!5&! >!.$154 0.'!$1.L $!L!#.5&! '" '9! 1SS3!. 'he diary of former !;ecutive Secretary .ngara as serialized in the Philippine Daily 1nDuirer on %ebruary )78( /::1 gives an Iauthoritative window on the state of mind of the petitioner.J 'hese are:

/*@

/*8

a. "n 2anuary 1=( /::1 at the height of the !DS. protest( !strada called for a snap presidential election in 0ay /::1 and made it on record that he will not be a candidate. 1t is an indication that he had given up the presidency even at that time since his term is supposed to be up to /::)F b. !strada did not ob6ect to the suggestion that he consider a Idignified e;itJ and that he be allowed to go abroad with enough fundsF c. !stradaEs statement that he was guaranteed by &hief of Staff .ngelo $eyes that he would be given a @7day grace period in the palace which shows that he had reconciled himself to the reality that he had to resignF d. During the negotiations between the !strada and .rroyo groups in the early morning of 2anuary /:( /::1( the resignation of the petitioner was treated as a factF e. During the 1st round of negotiations( !strada said IPagod na pagod na a<o. .yo<o masyado nang masa<it. Pagod na a<o sa red tape( intrigaJ. 'he court held that this was a Ihigh grade evidenceJ that he had resigned. 'he S& held that Iayo<o naJ are words of resignation. f. 'he PresidentEs act of leaving the palace on 2anuary /:( /::1 confirmed his resignation. PetitionerEs press release( Ihis final act and farewellJ( ac<nowledged the oath7ta<ing of .rroyo as President( his reservation about its legality. 9e said he was leaving the palace for the sa<e of peace and order. 9e did not say that he was leaving as a result of a disability and was going to re7assume the presidency as soon as the disability appears 111 5". 'he court held that the petitioner has in fact resigned and his claim of inability was laid to rest by &ongress. 'he decision that respondent .rroyo is the de 6ure President( made by a co7eDual branch of the government( cannot be reviewed by the &ourt. >oth 9ouses of &ongress had recognized that .rroyo is the President when they passed $esolution Ie;pressing their support to the administration of 9er !;cellency 4loria 0acapagal .rroyo( President of the PhilippinesJ which was passed on 2anuary /)( /::1F another resolution dated 2anuary /)( /::1 Ie;pressing full support to the assumption into office by #P .rroyo as President of the PhilippinesJF and the $esolution dated %ebruary ,( /::1 Iconfirming President .rroyoEs nomination of Senator 'eopisto 4uingona( 2r. as #ice President of the Philippines.J >oth 9ouses also sent bills for the 5ew President 40.- to sign into law. 'herefore( the &ourt has no 6urisdiction to review the claim of temporary disability and could not revise the decision of &ongress recognizing .rroyo as President without transgressing the principle of separation of powers. 1#

/*8

/*,

5". .s a non7sitting President( !strada en6oys no immunity from the criminal charges of plunder( bribery and graft and corruption filed against him. Li<ewise( the argument that he should first be convicted in the impeachment proceedings before he could be charged criminally is without merit since the impeachment court has ad6ourned indefinitely insofar as the case against him is concerned. 'o follow his line of argument would put a perpetual bar against his prosecution. 1n fact( the &onstitutional &ommission in its deliberations show that even if the case against an impeachable officer has become moot as a result of his resignation( the proper criminal and civil cases may be filed against him. .lso( as held in $!: S.'3$515" >!$03D!M( 1)@ S&$. 18:( an incumbent President is immune from suit or from being brought to court >3' 5"' >!K"5D. 1n 51G"5 #S. %1'S4!$.LD( )@, 3S ,*1( the 3S Supreme &ourt held that the immunity of the President from civil damages covers only official acts. 1n the 1==, case of &L15'"5 #S. 2"5!S( @/: 3S 8+1( the 3S Supreme &ourt held that the presidentEs immunity from suits for money damages arising out of official acts is inapplicable to unofficial conduct. %inally( the constitutional provision that a public office is a public trust would be Idevalued if we sustain petitionerEs claim that a non7sitting President en6oys immunity from suit for criminal acts committed during his incumbency.J # 5". 'he S& held that the evidence presented by the petitioner is insufficient for the &ourt to rule that the preliminary investigation by respondent Desierto be en6oined. 'he claim of the petitioner( based on news reports( that the "mbudsman had pre6udged his case is not sufficient ground to stop the investigation. .s held in 0.$'!L15" #S. .L!2.5D$"( */ S&$. 1:8( Ito warrant a finding of pre6udicial publicity( there must be an actual pre6udice777there must be allegation and proof that the 6udges have been unduly influenced. 'he accuracy of the reports cited by the petitioner could not be the sub6ect of 6udicial notice since the "mbudsman is entitled to the presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance of official duty. 5"'!: "n .pril ,( /::1( the 0otion for $econsideration of !strada of the above decision was denied for lac< of merit.). Section 1*. 'he President( #P( 0embers of the &abinet or their assistants shall not( unless otherwise provided in this &onstitution( hold any other office or employment during their tenure.. 'hey shall not during their tenure( directly or indirectly practice any profession( participate in any business or be financially interested in any contract withN
/*,

/*+

the government or any government owned or controlled corporation or their subsidiaries. 'hey shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. $ead: 1. P@NZALAN VS. MEN6OZA, 1 7 SCRA 1B9 2. A6AZA VS. PACANA, 19B SCRA 91 *. "pinion 5o. 1@@( Series of 1=++ by the Secretary of 2ustice ). !;ecutive "rder 5o. /+) @. &ivil Liberties 3nion vs. !;ec. Sec.( %ebruary //( 1==1 @ Sections 1) .ppointments e;tended by an .cting President shall remain effective( unless revo<ed by the elected President within =: days from his assumption of office. Section 1@. 'wo months immediately before the ne;t presidential election and up to the end of his term( a President or .cting President shall not ma<e appointments( e;cept temporary appointments to e;ecutive positions when continued vacancies therein will pre6udice public service or endanger public safety. 5"'!: Section =( .rticle #111. 'he President shall issue the appointments within =: days from the submission of the list$ead: 1) AFTONA VS. CASTILLO, SCRA 1 2) PAMANTASAN VS. IAC, 1 7 SCRA 22 8. Section 18. 'he President shall nominate and( with the consent of the &ommission on .ppointments( appoint the heads of the e;ecutive departments( ambassadors( other public ministers and consuls( or officers of the armed forces from the ran< of colonel or naval captain( and other officers are vested in him in this &onstitution. 9e shall also appoint all other officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law( and those whom he may be authorized by law to appointN 'he President shall have the power to ma<e appointments during the recess of the &ongress( whether voluntary or compulsory( but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the &ommission on .ppointments or until the ne;t ad6ournment of the &ongress. a. $ead: 'emporary .ppointments for members of the &abinetF .d interim appointments. S!5. .A31L15" P10!5'!L( et al.( vs. !G!&. S!&$!'.$K !D3.$D" !$01'.( et al.( ),/ S&$. @+,
/*+

/*=

&arpio( 2. %acts: 1. "n 2uly /8( /::)( &ongress commenced its $egular Session. "n .ugust /@( /::)( the &ommission on appointments was constitutedF /. Lhile &ongress was in session( the President issued appointments as .cting Secretaries to the following: a. .rthur Kap to the Department of .gricultureF b. .lberto $omulo to the Department of %oreign affairsF c. $aul 4onzales to the Department of 2usticeF d. %lorencio .bad to the Department of !ducationF e. .velino &ruz( 2r. to the Department of 5ational DefenseF f. $ene #illa to the Department of .grarian $eformF g. 2oseph Durano to the Department of 'ourismF and h. 0ichael Defensor to the Department of !nvironment and 5atural $esources. *. "n September +( /::)( the petitioners Duestioned said appointments as I.cting SecretaryJ as 35&"5S'1'3'1"5.L since &ongress was in session and it was an act of circumventing the power of the &ommission on .ppointments confirm the said appointments. 'hey claimed that Iwhile &ongress is in session( there can be no appointments( whether regular or acting( to a vacant position of an office needing confirmation by the &ommission on .ppointments( without first having obtained its consent.J ). "n September //( /::)( &ongress ad6ourned its sessionF @. "n September /*( /::)( the president issued Iad7interim appointmentsJ to the above7named appointees to the departments to which they were previously appointed in an acting capacityF 8. 'hereafter( the respondents moved for the dismissal of this case on the ground that it is now moot and academic considering the issuance of ad7interim appointments and subseDuent submission of the appointments of the above7named members of the cabinet to the &ommission on .ppointments for confirmation. 1 s s u e s: 1. Shall the case be dismissed since it is already moot and academicC /. Do all the petitioners have the personality to sueC *. Lere the temporary appointments made while &ongress was in session to positions sub6ect of confirmation by the &ommission on .ppointments unconstitutionalC 9 e l d: 1. Lhile it is a rule that courts should not decide moot cases( the courts( as an e;ception( will rule on it if it is capable of repetition yet evading review
/*=

/):

'"L!5'15" #S. &"0!L!&( )/: S&$. )*+F .&"P #S. S!&$!'.$K 43154"5.( *+* S&$. @,,F #1"L. #S. 9"5. .L35.5 111( /,, S&$. ):=F .L35.5 111 #S. 01$.S"L( /,8 S&$. @:1-. /. "nly those members of the &ommission on .ppointments have the personality to sue and not the other petitioners who are not. Lhile it was held in S.5L.?.S #S. !G!&3'1#! S!&$!'.$K( )/1 S&$. 8@8 that members of &ongress have the personality to sue if the PresidentEs act has the effect of impairing the powers of &ongress( the same is not applicable in this case. 'his is so because the &ommission on .ppointments is independent from &ongress itself. President .rroyoEs issuance of acting appointments while &ongress is in session impairs no power of &ongress. *. 'he temporary appointments are valid. 'he power to appoint is essentially e;ecutive in nature and the legislature may not interfere with the e;ercise of this e;ecutive power e;cept in those instances when the &onstitution e;pressly allows it to interfere. 'he essence of an appointment in an acting capacity is its temporary nature. 1t is a stop7gap measure intended to fill an office for a limited time until the appointment of a permanent occupant to the office. 1n case of vacancy in an office occupied by an alter ego of the President( such as the office of a department secretary( the President must necessarily appoint an alter ego of her choice as acting secretary before the permanent appointee of her choice could assume office. &ongress( through a law cannot impose on the President the obligation of automatically appointing the 3ndersecretary as her alter ego. 9e must be of the PresidentEs confidence and provided that the temporary appointment does not e;ceed one 1- year. 'here is a need to distinguish ad interim appointments and appointments in an acting capacity. Lhile both are effective upon acceptance( ad interim appointments are e;tended only during the recess of &ongress( whereas acting appointments may be e;tended any time that there is a vacancy. 0oreover( ad interim appointments are submitted to the &ommission on .ppointments for confirmation or re6ectionF acting appointments are not submitted to the &ommission on appointments. .cting appointments are a way of temporarily circumventing the need of confirmation by the &ommission on .ppointments. 1. CAL6ERON VS. CARALE, A%"il 29, 11;;2 1Ma) @LPIANO SARMIENTO III VS. SALVA6OR MISON, G.R. N$. 7;77 , 6!,. 17, 1;87, 1B: SCRA B ; 2. MARF CONCEPCIONMBA@TISTA VS. TNE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, A%"il, 19,1;8; 2MA TERESITA 6ELES, ET AL. VS. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, S!%&!)b!" , 1;8; 9 RA?AEL VS. EMBROI6ERF AN6 APPAREL CONTROL BOAR6, 21 SCRA 99: OLIVEROSMTORRE VS. BAFOT, B8 SCRA 2722
/):

/)1

B :

. TARROSA VS. SINGSON, Ma= 2B, 1;; 2 NIERE VS. C?I, B SCRA 1:B

b. Distinguish ad6ournment from recess. c. Differentiate the status of an appointment made by the President while &ongress is in session compared to that when it is in recess. ,. Section 1,( 'he President shall have control of all the e;ecutive departments ( bureaus and offices. 9e shall ensure that the laws be faithfully e;ecuted. PresidentEs &ontrol over the e;ecutive departmentF usurpation of legislative powers and infringement on the citizenEs right to privacy ?1L3S.54 0.K" 35" #S. !G!&3'1#! S!&$!'.$K !D3.$D" !$01'.( !' .L.( .pril 1=( /::8 R 2une /:( /::8 >.K.5 035. #S. !G!&3'1#! S!&$!'.$K !D3.$D" !$01'.( !' .L.( .pril 1=( /::8 R 2une /:( /::8 &arpio( 2. President 4loria 0acapagal7.rroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 5o. )/: that mandates the .doption of a 3nified( 0ulti7purpose 1dentification System by all 4overnment .gencies in the !;ecutive Department. 'his is so despite the fact that the Supreme &ourt held in an !n >anc decision in 1==+ "PL! #S. !G!&3'1#! S!&$!'.$K $3>!5 '"$$!S .dministrative "rder 5o. *:+O5ational computerized 1dentification $eference SystemP issued by then President %idel #. $amos that the same is unconstitutional because Ia national 1D card system reDuires legislation because it creates a new national data collection and card issuance system( where none e;isted beforeJ. 'he Supreme &ourt li<ewise held that !" *:+ as unconstitutional for it violates the citizenEs right to privacy. >ased on the "ple ruling( the petitioners claimed that Proclamation 5o. )/: is unconstitutional on two /- grounds: a. usurpation of legislative powersF and b. it infringes on the citizenEs right to privacy 9eld:

/)1

/)/

1. 'he issuance by the President of Proclamation 5o. )/: is not a usurpation of legislative powers. 'his is so because !" )/: applies only to government entities that already maintain 1D systems and issue 1D cards pursuant to their regular functionsNand does not grant such government entities any power that they do not already posses under e;isting laws. 1t is not similar to ." *:+ because it does not create a notional 1D system since it the same applies only to the e;ecutive branch of the government( including government owned and controlled corporations but not the 6udiciary nor the independent constitutional commissions. 'his only shows that !" )/: does not establish a national 1D system because legislation is needed to establish a single 1D system which is compulsory to all branches of the government. !" )/: ma<es e;isting sectoral card systems of the government entities li<e the 4S1S( SSS( Philhealth and Land 'ransportation "ffice less costly( more efficient( reliable and user7 friendly to the public. %inally( the issuance of Proclamation 5o. )/: is a proper sub6ect of e;ecutive issuance under the PresidentE constitutional power of control over government entities in the e;ecutive department as well as under the PresidentEs constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully e;ecuted. /. 'he said !;ecutive "rder 5o. )/: does not violate the citizenEs right to privacy since it does not reDuire all the citizens to be issued a national 1D as what happened in ." *:+. "nly those dealing or employed with the said government entities who are reDuired to provide the reDuired information for the issuance of the said 1D. a. Distinguish the power of control over the power of supervision b. $ead: 1. Sa#&$s vs. E>!,. S!,., A%"il 17, 1;;2 1Ma. Ma,!*a vs. Ma,a"ai(, I"., 1;7 SCRA 771 1Mb. E,h!,h! vs. CA, 1;8 SCRA B77 'he act of the !;ecutive Secretary in reversing the decision of the Secretary of the D!5$ allowing the payment of the bac<wages of petitioner is considered an act of the President and therefore valid in accordance with the doctrine of Dualified political agency. 1M,. Ga#K$# vs. CA, 277 SCRA 271 'he petitions of 0ayor 4anzon originated from a series of administrative complaints( ten in number( filed against him by various city officials sometime in 1=++( on various charges( among them( abuse of authority( oppression( grave misconduct( disgraceful and immoral conduct( intimidation( culpable violation of the &onstitution( and arbitrary detention. 1 'he personalities involved are
/)/

/)*

2oceleehn &abaluna( a cler< at the city health officeF Salvador &abaluna( her husbandF Dr. %elicidad "rtigoza( .ssistant &ity 9ealth "fficerF 0ansueto 0alabor( #ice70ayorF $olando Dabao( Dan Dalido( 4erman 4onzales( Larry "ng( and !duardo Pefia $edondo members of the Sangguniang PanglunsodF and Pancho !rbite( a barangay tanod. .nother administrative case was filed by Pancho !rbite( a barangay tanod( appointed by former mayor $osa ". &aram. "n 0arch 1*( 1=++( without the benefit of charges filed against him and no warrant of arrest was issued( !rbite was arrested and detained at the &ity 2ail of 1loilo &ity upon orders of petitioner. 1n 6ail( he was allegedly mauled by other detainees thereby causing in6uries 9e was released only the following day. %inding probable grounds and reasons( the respondent issued a preventive suspension order on .ugust 11( 1=++ to last until "ctober 11(1=++ for a period of si;ty 8:- days. 'hen the ne;t investigation was set on September /1( 1=++ and the petitioner again as<ed for a postponement to September /8(1=++. "n September /8( 1=++( the complainants and petitioner were present( together with their respective counsel. 'he petitioner sought for a postponement which was denied. 1n these hearings which were held in 0ala the petitioner testified in .dm. &ase 5o. &71:/=+ and 1:/==. 9e was again ordered suspended. Le come to the core Duestion: Lhether or not the Secretary of Local 4overnment( as the PresidentSs alter ego( can suspend andTor remove local officials. 1t is the petitionersS argument that the 1=+, &onstitution no longer allows the President( as the 1=*@ and 1=,* &onstitutions did( to e;ercise the power of suspension andTor removal over local officials. .ccording to both petitioners( the &onstitution is meant( first( to strengthen self7rule by local government units and second( by deleting the phrase /1 as may be provided by law to strip the President of the power of control over local governments. 1t is a view( so they contend( that finds support in the debates of the &onstitutional &ommission. 'he provision in Duestion reads as follows: Sec. ). 'he President of the Philippines shall e;ercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities( and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. 1t modifies a counterpart provision appearing in the 1=*@ &onstitution( which we Duote:

/)*

/))

Sec. 1:. 'he President shall have control of all the e;ecutive departments( bureaus( or offices( e;ercise general supervision over all Local governments as may be provided by law( and ta<e care that the laws be faithfully e;ecuted. 'he petitioners submit that the deletion of Qas may be provided by lawQis significant( as their argument goes( since: 1- the power of the President is Qprovided by lawQ and /- hence( no law may provide for it any longer. 1t is to be noted that in meting out the suspensions under Duestion( the Secretary of Local 4overnment acted in consonance with the specific legal provisions of >atas >lg. **,( the Local 4overnment &ode( we Duote: Sec. 8/. 5otice of 9earing. Lithin seven days after the complaint is filed( the 0inister of local 4overnment( or the sanggunian concerned( as the case may be( shall reDuire the respondent to submit his verified answer within seven days from receipt of said complaint( and commence the hearing and investigation of the case within ten days after receipt of such answer of the respondent. 5o investigation shall be held within ninety days immediately prior to an election( and no preventive suspension shall be imposed with the said period. 1f preventive suspension has been imposed prior to the aforesaid period( the preventive suspension shall be lifted. Sec. 8*. Preventive Suspension. 1Preventive suspension may be imposed by the 0inister of Local 4overnment if the respondent is a provincial or city official( by the provincial governor if the respondent is an elective municipal official( or by the city or municipal mayor if the respondent is an elective barangay official. 'he issue( as the &ourt understands it( consists of three Duestions: 1- Did the 1=+, &onstitution( in deleting the phrase Qas may be provided by lawQ intend to divest the President of the power to investigate( suspend( discipline( andTor remove local officialsC /- 9as the &onstitution repealed Sections 8/ and 8* of the Local 4overnment &odeC *- Lhat is the significance of the change in the constitutional languageC 1t is the considered opinion of the &ourt that notwithstanding the change in the constitutional language( the charter did not intend to divest the legislature of its right or the President of her prerogative as conferred by e;isting legislation to provide administrative sanctions against local officials. 1t is our opinion that the omission of Qas may be provided by lawQ- signifies nothing more than to underscore local governmentsS autonomy from congress and to brea< &ongressS QcontrolQ over local government affairs. 'he &onstitution did not( however( intend( for the sa<e of local autonomy( to deprive the legislature of all authority over municipal corporations( in particular( concerning discipline.
/))

/)@

'he petitioners are under the impression that the &onstitution has left the President mere supervisory powers( which supposedly e;cludes the power of investigation( and denied her control( which allegedly embraces disciplinary authority. 1t is a mista<en impression because legally( QsupervisionQ is not incompatible with disciplinary authority as this &ourt has held 1t is true that in the case of 0ondano vs. Silvosa( @1 "ff. 4az.( 5o. 8 p. /++)( this &ourt had occasion to discuss the scope and e;tent of the power of supervision by the President over local government officials in contrast to the power of control given to him over e;ecutive officials of our government wherein it was emphasized that the two terms( control and supervision( are two different things which differ one from the other in meaning and e;tent. 'hus in that case the &ourt has made the following digression: Q1n administration law supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. 1f the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the former may ta<e such action or step as prescribed by law to ma<e them perform their duties. &ontrol( on the other hand( means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify of set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the 6udgment of the former for that of the latter.Q >ut from this pronouncement it cannot be reasonably inferred that the power of supervision of the President over local government officials does not include the power of investigation when in his opinion the good of the public service so reDuires( as postulated in Section 8) c- of the $evised .dministrative &ode. ... ;;; ;;; ;;;

Q&ontrolQ has been defined as Qthe power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the 6udgment of the former for test of the latter.Q *8 QSupervisionQ on the other hand means Qoverseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. *, .s we held( *+ however( QinvestigatingQ is not inconsistent with QoverseeingQ( although it is a lesser power than QalteringQ. 'he impression is apparently e;acerbated by the &ourtSs pronouncements in at least three cases( Lacson v. $oDue( *= 9ebron v. $eyes( ): and 0ondano v. Silvosa( )1 and possibly( a fourth one( Pelaez v. .uditor 4eneral.)/ 1n Lacson( this &ourt said that the President en6oyed no control powers but only supervision Qas may be provided by law(Q )* a rule we reiterated in 9ebron( and 0ondano. 1n Pelaez( we stated that the President Qmay not . . . suspend an elective official of a regular municipality or ta<e any disciplinary action against him( e;cept on appeal from a decision of the corresponding provincial board.Q )) 9owever( neither Lacson nor 9ebron nor 0ondano categorically banned the &hief !;ecutive from e;ercising acts of disciplinary authority because she did
/)@

/)8

not e;ercise control powers( but because no law allowed her to e;ercise disciplinary authority. 'hus( according to Lacson: 'he contention that the President has inherent power to remove or suspend municipal officers is without doubt not well ta<en. $emoval and suspension of public officers are always controlled by the particular law applicable and its proper construction sub6ect to constitutional limitations. 1n 9ebron we stated: .ccordingly( when the procedure for the suspension of an officer is specified by law( the same must be deemed mandatory and adhered to strictly( in the absence of e;press or clear provision to the contrary7which does not et with respect to municipal officers ... 1n 0ondano( the &ourt held: ... 'he &ongress has e;pressly and specifically lodged the provincial supervision over municipal officials in the provincial governor who is authorized to Qreceive and investigate complaints made under oath against municipal officers for neglect of duty( oppression( corruption or other form of maladministration of office( and conviction by final 6udgment of any crime involving moral turpitude.Q .nd if the charges are serious( Qhe shall submit written charges touching the matter to the provincial board( furnishing a copy of such charges to the accused either personally or by registered mail( and he may in such case suspend the officer not being the municipal treasurer- pending action by the board( if in his opinion the charge by one affecting the official integrity of the officer in Duestion.Q Section +8 of the $evised .dministration &ode adds nothing to the power of supervision to be e;ercised by the Department 9ead over the administration of ... municipalities ... . 1f it be construed that it does and such additional power is the same authority as that vested in the Department 9ead by section ,= c- of the $evised .dministrative &ode( then such additional power must be deemed to have been abrogated by Section 11: l-( .rticle #11 of the &onstitution. 'he &ourt does not believe that the petitioners can rightfully point to the debates of the &onstitutional &ommission to defeat the PresidentSs powers. 'he &ourt believes that the deliberations are by themselves inconclusive( because although &ommissioner 2ose 5olledo would e;clude the power of removal from the President( &ommissioner >las "ple would not. 'he &ourt is conseDuently reluctant to say that the new &onstitution has repealed the Local 4overnment &ode( >atas >lg. *,. .s we said( QsupervisionQ and QremovalQ are not incompatible terms and one may stand with the other
/)8

/),

notwithstanding the stronger e;pression of local autonomy under the new &harter. Le have indeed held that in spite of the approval of the &harter( >atas >lg. **, is still in force and effect. .s the &onstitution itself declares( local autonomy means Qa more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization.Q NOTEC Th! s+,,!ssiv! s+s%!#si$#s $' &h! Ma=$", h$-!v!", -as *!,la"!* i#vali* b= &h! S+%"!)! C$+"&. 1M*) 0"5D.5" #S. S1L#"S.( =, Phil. 1)* 'he petitioner is the duly elected and Dualified mayor of the municipality of 0ainit( province of Surigao. "n /, %ebruary 1=@) &onsolacion #da. de 0osende filed a sworn complaint with the Presidential &omplaints and .ction &ommittee accusing him of 1- rape committed on her daughter &aridad 0osendeF and /- concubinage for cohabiting with her daughter in a place other than the con6ugal dwelling. "n 8 0arch the .ssistant !;ecutive Secretary indorsed the complaint to the respondent provincial governor for immediate investigation( appropriate action and report. "n 1: .pril the petitioner appeared before the provincial governor in obedience to his summons and was served with a copy of the complaint filed by the provincial governor with provincial board. "n the same day( the provincial governor issued .dministrative "rder 5o. + suspending the petitioner from office. 'hereafter( the Provincial >oard proceeded to hear the charges preferred against the petitioner over his ob6ection. 'he &onstitution provides: Q'he President shall have control of all the e;ecutive departments( bureaus( or offices( e;ercise general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law( and ta<e care that the laws be faithfully e;ecuted.Q 3nder this constitutional provision the President has been invested with the power of control of all the e;ecutive departments( bureaus( or offices( but not of all local governments over which he has been granted only the power of general supervision as may be provided by law. 'he Department head as agent of the President has direct control and supervision over all bureaus and offices under his 6urisdiction as provided for in section ,= c- of the $evised .dministrative &ode( but he does not have the same control of local governments as that e;ercised by him over bureaus and offices under his 6urisdiction. Li<ewise( his authority to order the investigation of any act or conduct of any person in the service of any bureau or office under his department is confined to bureaus or offices under his 6urisdiction and does not e;tend to local governments over which( as already stated( the President e;ercises only general supervision as may be provided by law. 1f the provisions of section ,= c- of the $evised .dministrative &ode are to be construed as conferring upon the corresponding department head direct control( direction( and supervision over all local governments and that for the reason he may order the investigation of an official
/),

/)+

of a local government for malfeasance in office( such interpretation would be contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1( section 1:( .rticle #11( of the &onstitution. 1f Qgeneral supervision over all local governmentsQ is to be construed as the same power granted to the Department 9ead in section ,= c- of the $evised .dministrative &ode( then there would no longer be a distinction or difference between the power of control and that of supervision. 1n administrative law supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. 1f the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the former may ta<e such action or step as prescribed by law to ma<e them perform their duties. &ontrol( on the other hand( means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the 6udgment of the former for that of the latter. Such is the import of the provisions of section ,= c- of the $evised .dministrative &ode and *, of .ct 5o. )::,. 'he &ongress has e;pressly and specifically lodged the provincial supervision over municipal officials in the provincial governor who is authorized to Qreceive and investigate complaints made under oath against municipal officers for neglect of duty( oppression( corruption or other form of maladministration of office( and conviction by final 6udgment of any crime involving moral turpitude.Q / .nd if the charges are serious( Qhe shall submit written charges touching the matter to the provincial board( furnishing a copy of such charges to the accused either personally or by registered mail( and he may in such case suspend the officer not being the municipal treasurer- pending action by the board( if in his opinion the charge be one affecting the official integrity of the officer in Duestion.Q * Section +8 of the $evised .dministrative &ode adds nothing to the power of supervision to be e;ercised by the Department 9ead over the administration of . . . municipalities . . .. 1f it be construed that it does and such additional power is the same authority as that vested in the Department 9ead by section ,= c- of the $evised .dministrative &ode( then such additional power must be deemed to have been abrogated by section 1: 1-( .rticle #11( of the &onstitution. 1n Lacson vs. $oDue( )= "ff. 4az. =*( this &ourt held that the power of the President to remove officials from office as provided for in section 8) b- of the $evised .dministrative &ode must be done Qconformably to lawFQ and only for disloyalty to the $epublic of the Philippines he Qmay at any time remove a person from any position of trust or authority under the 4overnment of the Philippine 1slands- Philippines.Q .gain( this power of removal must be e;ercised conformably to law. 1n the indorsement to the provincial governor the .ssistant !;ecutive Secretary reDuested immediate investigation( appropriate action and report on the complaint indorsed to him( and called his attention to section /1=* of the $evised .dministrative &ode which provides for the institution of 6udicial proceedings by the provincial fiscal upon direction of the provincial governor. 1f the indorsement of the .ssistant !;ecutive Secretary be ta<en as a designation of the provincial governor to investigate the petitioner( then he would only be acting as agent of the
/)+

/)=

!;ecutive( but the investigation to be conducted by him would not be that which is provided for in sections /1++( /1+= and /1=: of the $evised .dministrative &ode. 'he charges preferred against the respondent are not malfeasances or any of those enumerated or specified in section /1++ of the $evised .dministrative &ode( because rape and concubinage have nothing to do with the performance of his duties as mayor nor do they constitute or involveQ neglect of duty( oppression( corruption or any other form of maladministration of office.Q 'rue( they may involve moral turpitude( but before the provincial governor and board may act and proceed in accordance with the provisions of the $evised .dministrative &ode referred to( a conviction by final 6udgment must precede the filing by the provincial governor of charges and trial by the provincial board. !ven the provincial fiscal cannot file an information for rape without a sworn complaint of the offended party who is /+ years of age and the crime of concubinage cannot be prosecuted but upon sworn complaint of the offended spouse. ) 'he charges preferred against the petitioner( municipal mayor of 0ainit( province of Surigao( not being those or any of those specified in section /1++ of the $evised .dministrative &ode( the investigation of such charges by the provincial board is unauthorized and illegal. 'he suspension of the petitioner as mayor of the municipality of 0ainit is( conseDuently( unlawful and without authority of law. 17e. &arpio vs. !;ec. Sec.( /:8 S&$. /=: 17f. 0alayan vs. &.( /1* S&$. 8): ,. L.&S"570.4.LL.5!S #S. P.5"( /1 S&$. +=@ Sec. 1:. 'he President shall have control of the ministries. &onstitution( .rt. #111=,*

&ontrol means Qthe power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify( or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the 6udgment of the former for that of the latter.Q 9ebron vs. $eyes( 1:) Phil. 1,@- 'he President can( by virtue of his power of control( review( modify( alter or nullify any action( or decision of his subordinate in the e;ecutive departments( bureaus or offices under him. "liveros7'orre vs. >ayot( @+ S&$. /,/F .ng7.ngco vs. &astillo( et al.( 11+ Phil. 1)8+-. 9e can e;ercise this power motu proprio without need of any appeal from any party. "liveros7'orre vs. >ayot( supra-. 'he President is not e;pected to perform in person an the multifarious e;ecutive and administrative functions. 'he "ffice of the !;ecutive Secretary is an au;illary unit which assists the President. 3nder our constitutional set7up( the !;ecutive Secretary acts for and in behalf of the President: and by authority of the President( he has undisputed 6urisdiction to affirm( modify( or even reverse any order of the Secretary of 5atural $esources and other &abinet Secretaries. Lhere the !;ecutive Secretary acts Qby authority of the PresidentQ his decision is that of the President. Lacson70agallanes &o.( 1nc. vs. Pano( /1 S&$. +=@-.

/)=

/@:

9) ) B) :) 7) 8)

LACSON VS. ROJ@E, ;2 Phil. B: VILLAL@Z VS. ZAL6IVAR, 1B SCRA 717 VILLENA VS. SECRETARF O? INTERIOR, :7 Phil. B1 ALAIAR VS. ALBA, 177 Phil. :89 ?REE TELEPNONE GORHERS @NION VS. OPLE, 178 SCRA 7B7 OLIVEROS TORRE VS. BAFOT, B8 SCRA 272

c. Lhat is the doctrine of Aualified Political agencyC see the separate opinion of %ormer &hief 2ustice %!$5.5D" in the L.&S"57 0.4.LL.5!S #S. P.5" &.S!d. Powers which must be e;ercised personally by the President and could and could not be delegated to any cabinet memberC Doctrine of Dualified political agencyF personality to sueF when the said doctrine does not apply &"5S'.5'15" and the %$!!D"0 %$"0 D!>' &".L1'1"5 #S. &31S1.( et al.( ),/ S&$. @:@ 'inga( 2. % a c t s: 'he petition see<s to stop the respondents from e;ecuting additional debt7relief contracts or foreign borrowings in connection with the Philippine &omprehensive %inancing Program for 1==/ and to compel the Secretary of 2ustice to institute criminal and administrative cases against respondents. 'he respondents negotiated with the foreign commercial ban< creditors a multi7 option financing pac<age in connection with the countryEs foreign debt. 'his includes a cash buybac< of portions of the Philippine foreign debt at a discount. 'he second option allows creditors to convert e;isting Philippine debt instruments into bonds or securities. Petitioners characterize the %inancing Program as beyond the powers of the President under Section /:( .rticle #11 of the &onstitution. 1 s s u e s: 1. Do the petitioners have the personality to sueC /. 0ay the respondents contract and guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the $epublic of the PhilippinesC Stated otherwise( may the President delegate such power to her subordinatesC 9 e l d:
/@:

/@1

1. 'he petitioners as ta; payers have the personality to sue. 'hey are suing as citizens of the Philippines and a s ta;payers. 'he recent trend on locus standi has veered towards a liberal treatment in ta;payerEs suits. 1n 'atad vs. 4arcia( 2r. O/)* S&$. )*8P the supreme &ourt held that ta;payers are allowed to Duestion contracts entered into by the national government or government owned and controlled corporations .LL!4!DLK 15 &"5'$.#!5'1"5 "% L.L. /. 'he petitioners claim that the President Ialone and personallyJ can validly bind the country in contracting foreign debt under Section /: ( .rticle #11 of the &onstitution. 'he contention is without merit. 'he Secretary of %inance( as alter ego of the President regarding the Isound and efficient management of the financial resources of the government( has the power to implement the policy which was publicly e;pressed by the president herself. 'his is in connection with the doctrine of Dualified political agency. Lhile there are instances where the President must act personally and not through his secretaries li<e the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus( proclamation of martial law or pardoning power O#illena vs. Secretary of 1nterior( 8, Phil. )@1P( negotiation with foreign creditors may be done by the Secretary of %inance or the 4overnor of &entral >an<. 'he petition was therefore dismissed. +. Section 1+. 'he President shall be the commander7in7chief of all the armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary( he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence( invasion or rebellion. 1n case of invasion or rebellion( when the public safety reDuires it( he may( for a period not e;ceeding 8: days( suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Lithin )+ hours from the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus( the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the &ongress. 'he &ongress voting 6ointly( ( by a vote of at least a ma6ority of all its members in regular or special session( may revo<e such proclamation or suspension( which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. 3pon the initiative of the President( the &ongress may( in the same manner e;tend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the &ongress( if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety reDuires it. 'he &ongress( if not in session( shall( within /) hours following such proclamation or suspension( convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. 'he Supreme &ourt may review( in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen( the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ or the e;tension thereof( and must promulgate its decision thereon within *: days from its filing.

/@1

/@/

. state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the &onstitution( nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies( nor authorize the conferment of 6urisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function( nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ. 'he suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons 6udicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ( any person thus arrested or detained shall be 6udicially charged within * days( otherwise( he shall be released. a. 'a<e special notice of the grounds for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of 9abeas &orpus declaration of 0artial Law. b. &ompare it with the provisions of the 1=*@ and 1=,* &onstitution on this sub6ect. Lhat are the restrictions imposed on the President in the e;ercise of such emergency powersC Lhat are the effects of e;ercises of emergency powers to the 6udicial systemC &ommander7in7chief provisionF Legal standing to Duestion a presidential proclamationF moot and academic cases when courts still has to decide itF state of rebellion and state of national emergency distinguished P$"%. $.5D"L% S. D.#1D\( L"$!5M" '.`.D. 111( $"5.LD LL.0.S( 9. 9.$$K L. $"A3!( 2$.( 2"!L $31M >3'3K.5( $"4!$ $. $.K!L( 4.$K S. 0.LL.$1( $"0!L $!4.L.D" >.4.$!S( &9$1S'"P9!$ %.&. >"L.S'14 #S. 4L"$1. 0.&.P.4.L7.$$"K"( .S P$!S1D!5' .5D &"00.5D!$7157&91!%( !G!&3'1#! S!&$!'.$K !D3.$D" !$01'.( 9"5. .#!L15" &$3M 11( S!&$!'.$K "% 5.'1"5.L D!%!5S!( 4!5!$.L 4!5!$"S" S!54.( &91!% "% S'.%%( .$0!D %"$&!S "% '9! P91L1PP15!S( D1$!&'"$ 4!5!$.L .$'3$" L"01>."( &91!%( P91L1PP15! 5.'1"5.L P"L1&!( 51`!M &.&9"7"L1#.$!S P3>L1S9154 &".( 15&.( .5D '$1>35!

4.$. 5o. 1,1*=8 0ay *( /::8

\

&onsolidated with si; 8- other Petitions

/@/

/@*

7 versus 7 9"5"$.>L! S!&$!'.$K !D3.$D" !$01'. .5D 9"5"$.>L! D1$!&'"$ 4!5!$.L .$'3$" &. L"01>."( S.5D"#.L743'1!$$!M( I.: Th! ,as!sC 'hese seven ,- consolidated petitions for ,!"&i$"a"i and prohibition allege that in issuing Presidential Proclamation 5o. 1:1, PP 1:1,- and 4eneral "rder 5o. @ 4.". 5o. @-( President 4loria 0acapagal7.rroyo committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners contend that respondent officials of the 4overnment( in their professed efforts to defend and preserve democratic institutions( are actually trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected by the &onstitution. 9ence( such issuances are void for being unconstitutional. Th! ?a,&sC "n %ebruary /)( /::8( as the nation celebrated the /:th .nniversary of the E*sa P!$%l! P$-!" I( President .rroyo issued PP 1:1, declaring a state of national emergency( thus: 5"L( '9!$!%"$!( 1( 4loria 0acapagal7.rroyo( President of the $epublic of the Philippines and &ommander7in7&hief of the .rmed %orces of the Philippines( by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 1+( .rticle , of the Philippine &onstitution which states that: I'he President. . . whenever it becomes necessary( . . . may call out the- armed forces to prevent or suppress. . .rebellion. . .(J and in my capacity as their &ommander7in7&hief( do hereby command the .rmed %orces of the Philippines( to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines( prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees( orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my directionF and as provided in Section 1,( .rticle 1/ of the &onstitution do hereby declare a State of 5ational !mergency. She cited the following facts as bases: L9!$!.S( over these past months( elements in the political opposition have conspired with authoritarians of the e;treme Left represented by the 5D%7&PP75P. and the e;treme $ight( represented by military adventurists W the historical enemies of the democratic Philippine State W who are now in a tactical alliance and engaged in a concerted and
/@*

/@)

systematic conspiracy( over a broad front( to bring down the duly constituted 4overnment elected in 0ay /::)F L9!$!.S( these conspirators have repeatedly tried to bring down the PresidentF L9!$!.S( the claims of these elements have been rec<lessly magnified by certain segments of the national mediaF L9!$!.S( this series of actions is hurting the Philippine State W by obstructing governance including hindering the growth of the economy and sabotaging the peopleEs confidence in government and their faith in the future of this countryF L9!$!.S( these actions are adversely affecting the economyF L9!$!.S( these activities give totalitarian forces of both the e;treme Left and e;treme $ight the opening to intensify their avowed aims to bring down the democratic Philippine StateF L9!$!.S( .rticle /( Section ) of the our &onstitution ma<es the defense and preservation of the democratic institutions and the State the primary duty of 4overnmentF L9!$!.S( the activities above7described( their conseDuences( ramifications and collateral effects constitute a clear and present danger to the safety and the integrity of the Philippine State and of the %ilipino peopleF "n the same day( the President issued 4. ". 5o. @ implementing PP 1:1,( thus: L9!$!.S( over these past months( elements in the political opposition have conspired with authoritarians of the e;treme Left( represented by the 5D%7&PP75P. and the e;treme $ight( represented by military adventurists 7 the historical enemies of the democratic Philippine State W and who are now in a tactical alliance and engaged in a concerted and systematic conspiracy( over a broad front( to bring down the duly7 constituted 4overnment elected in 0ay /::)F L9!$!.S( these conspirators have repeatedly tried to bring down our republican governmentF L9!$!.S( the claims of these elements have been rec<lessly magnified by certain segments of the national mediaF

/@)

/@@

L9!$!.S( these series of actions is hurting the Philippine State by obstructing governance( including hindering the growth of the economy and sabotaging the peopleEs confidence in the government and their faith in the future of this countryF L9!$!.S( these actions are adversely affecting the economyF L9!$!.S( these activities give totalitarian forcesF of both the e;treme Left and e;treme $ight the opening to intensify their avowed aims to bring down the democratic Philippine StateF L9!$!.S( .rticle /( Section ) of our &onstitution ma<es the defense and preservation of the democratic institutions and the State the primary duty of 4overnmentF L9!$!.S( the activities above7described( their conseDuences( ramifications and collateral effects constitute a clear and present danger to the safety and the integrity of the Philippine State and of the %ilipino peopleF L9!$!.S( Proclamation 1:1, date %ebruary /)( /::8 has been issued declaring a State of 5ational !mergencyF 5"L( '9!$!%"$!( 1 4L"$1. 0.&.P.4.L7.$$"K"( by virtue of the powers vested in me under the &onstitution as President of the $epublic of the Philippines( and &ommander7in7&hief of the $epublic of the Philippines( and pursuant to Proclamation 5o. 1:1, dated %ebruary /)( /::8( do hereby call upon the .rmed %orces of the Philippines .%Pand the Philippine 5ational Police P5P-( to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence in the countryF 1 hereby direct the &hief of Staff of the .%P and the &hief of the P5P( as well as the officers and men of the .%P and P5P( to immediately carry out the necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of terrorism and lawless violence. "n 0arch *( /::8( e;actly one wee< after the declaration of a state of national emergency and after all these petitions had been filed( the President lifted PP 1:1,. She issued Proclamation 5o. 1:/1 which reads: L9!$!.S( pursuant to Section 1+( .rticle #11 and Section 1,( .rticle G11 of the &onstitution( Proclamation 5o. 1:1, dated %ebruary /)( /::8( was issued declaring a state of national emergencyF L9!$!.S( by virtue of 4eneral "rder 5o.@ and 5o.8 dated %ebruary /)( /::8( which were issued on the basis of Proclamation 5o.
/@@

/@8

1:1,( the .rmed %orces of the Philippines .%P- and the Philippine 5ational Police P5P-( were directed to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines( prevent and suppress all form of lawless violence as well as any act of rebellion and to underta<e such action as may be necessaryF L9!$!.S( the .%P and P5P have effectively prevented( suppressed and Duelled the acts lawless violence and rebellionF 5"L( '9!$!%"$!( 1( 4L"$1. 0.&.P.4.L7.$$"K"( President of the $epublic of the Philippines( by virtue of the powers vested in me by law( hereby declare that the state of national emergency has ceased to e;ist. 1mmediately( the "ffice of the President announced the cancellation of all programs and activities related to the /:th anniversary celebration of E*sa P!$%l! P$-!" IF and revo<ed the permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local governments. 2ustice Secretary $aul 4onzales stated that political rallies( which to the PresidentEs mind were organized for purposes of destabilization( are cancelled. Presidential &hief of Staff 0ichael Defensor announced that I-a""a#&l!ss a""!s&s a#* &aE!M$v!" $' 'a,ili&i!s, i#,l+*i#( )!*ia, ,a# al"!a*= b! i)%l!)!#&!*.J*8) 3ndeterred by the announcements that rallies and public assemblies would not be allowed( groups of protesters members of Hil+sa#( Ma=$ @#$ O?03P and 5ational %ederation of Labor 3nions7Hil+sa#( Ma=$ @#$ O5.%L37?03P-( marched from various parts of 0etro 0anila with the intention of converging at the !DS. shrine. 'hose who were already near the !DS. site were violently dispersed by huge clusters of anti7riot police. 'he well7trained policemen used truncheons( big fiber glass shields( water cannons( and tear gas to stop and brea< up the marching groups( and scatter the massed participants. 'he same police action was used against the protesters marching forward to &ubao( Auezon &ity and to the corner of Santolan Street and !DS.. 'hat same evening( hundreds of riot policemen bro<e up an !DS. celebration rally held along .yala .venue and Paseo de $o;as Street in 0a<ati &ity.*8@ .ccording to petitioner Hil+sa#( Ma=$ @#$( the police cited PP 1:1, as the ground for the dispersal of their assemblies. During the dispersal of the rallyists along !DS.( police arrested without warrant- petitioner $andolf S. David( a professor at the 3niversity of the Philippines and newspaper columnist. .lso arrested was his companion( $onald Llamas( president of party7list AEba=a#.
*8) *8@

Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,1*=8( p. @. Police action in various parts of 0etro 0anila and the reactions of the huge crowds being dispersed were broadcast as Ibrea<ing newsJ by the ma6or television stations of this country.

/@8

/@,

.t around 1/:/: in the early morning of %ebruary /@( /::8( operatives of the &riminal 1nvestigation and Detection 4roup &1D4- of the P5P( on the basis of PP 1:1, and 4.". 5o. @( raided the 6ail= T"ib+#! offices in 0anila. 'he raiding team confiscated news stories by reporters( documents( pictures( and moc<7ups of the Saturday issue. Policemen from &amp &rame in Auezon &ity were stationed inside the editorial and business offices of the newspaperF while policemen from the 0anila Police District were stationed outside the building.*88 . few minutes after the search and seizure at the 6ail= T"ib+#! offices( the police surrounded the premises of another pro7opposition paper( 0alaya( and its sister publication( the tabloid .bante. 'he raid( according to Presidential &hief of Staff 0ichael Defensor( is .)!a#& &$ sh$- a Us&"$#( %"!s!#,!,D &$ &!ll )!*ia $+&l!&s #$& &$ ,$##iv! $" *$ a#=&hi#( &ha& -$+l* h!l% &h! "!b!ls i# b"i#(i#( *$-# &his ($v!"#)!#&./ 'he P5P warned that it would ta<e over any media organization that would not follow .s&a#*a"*s s!& b= &h! ($v!"#)!#& *+"i#( &h! s&a&! $' #a&i$#al !)!"(!#,=./ Director 4eneral Lomibao stated that .i' &h!= *$ #$& '$ll$- &h! s&a#*a"*s O a#* &h! s&a#*a"*s a"! M i' &h!= -$+l* ,$#&"ib+&! &$ i#s&abili&= i# &h! ($v!"#)!#&, $" i' &h!= *$ #$& s+bs,"ib! &$ -ha& is i# G!#!"al O"*!" N$. B a#* P"$,. N$. 1717 O -! -ill "!,$))!#* a U&aE!$v!".D/ 5ational 'elecommunicationsE &ommissioner $onald Solis urged television and radio networ<s to .,$$%!"a&!/ with the government for the duration of the state of national emergency. 9e as<ed for .bala#,!* "!%$"&i#(/ from broadcasters when covering the events surrounding the coup attempt foiled by the government. 9e warned that his agency will not hesitate to recommend the closure of any broadcast outfit that violates rules set out for media coverage when the national security is threatened.*8, .lso( on %ebruary /@( /::8( the police arrested &ongressman &rispin >eltran( representing the A#aE%a-is Party and &hairman of Hil+sa#( Ma=$ @#$ ?03-( while leaving his farmhouse in >ulacan. 'he police showed a warrant for his arrest dated 1=+@. >eltranEs lawyer e;plained that the warrant( which stemmed from a case of inciting to rebellion filed during the 0arcos regime( had long been Duashed. >eltran( however( is not a party in any of these petitions. Lhen members of petitioner ?03 went to &amp &rame to visit >eltran( they were told they could not be admitted because of PP 1:1, and 4.". 5o. @. 'wo members were arrested and detained( while the rest were dispersed by the police. $etired 0a6or 4eneral $amon 0ontaUo( former head of the Philippine &onstabulary( was arrested while with his wife and golfmates at the "rchard 4olf and &ountry &lub in DasmariUas( &avite.
*88 *8,

Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,1)::( p. 11. Ibi*.

/@,

/@+

.ttempts were made to arrest A#aE%a-is $epresentative Satur "campo( $epresentative $afael 0ariano( Ba=a# M+#a $epresentative 'eodoro &asiUo and 4abriela $epresentative Liza 0aza. Ba=a# M+#a $epresentative 2osel #irador was arrested at the P.L 'ic<et "ffice in Davao &ity. Later( he was turned over to the custody of the 9ouse of $epresentatives where the I>atasan @J decided to stay indefinitely. 9ence( these Petitions. 1 s s u e s: .. P$"&!D3$.L: 1- Lhether the issuance of PP 1:/1 renders the petitions moot and academic. /- Lhether petitioners in 1,1)+@ !scudero !& al.-( 4.$. 5os. 1,1):: .L41-( 1,1)+* ?03 !& al.-( 1,1)+= &adiz !& al.-( and 1,1)/) Legarda- have legal standing. >. S3>S'.5'1#!: 1- Lhether the Supreme &ourt can review the factual bases of PP 1:1,. /- Lhether PP 1:1, and 4.". 5o. @ are unconstitutional. a. %acial &hallenge b. &onstitutional >asis c. .s .pplied &hallenge 1. P$"&!D3$.L IM M$$& a#* A,a*!)i, P"i#,i%l!

&ourts may e;ercise the power of 6udicial review only when the following reDuisites are present: 'i"s&, there must be an actual case or controversyF s!,$#*, petitioners have to raise a Duestion of unconstitutionalityF &hi"*, the constitutional Duestion must be raised at the earliest opportunityF and '$+"&h, the decision of the constitutional Duestion must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. $espondents maintain that the first and second reDuisites are absent( hence( we shall limit our discussion thereon. .n actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal right( an opposite legal claims susceptible of 6udicial resolution. 1t is Idefinite and concrete( touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interestFJ a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief. 'he Solicitor 4eneral refutes the e;istence of such actual case or controversy( contending that the present petitions were rendered Imoot and academicJ by President .rroyoEs issuance of PP 1:/1.
/@+

/@=

Such contention lac<s merit. . moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a 6usticiable controversy by virtue of supervening events(*8+ so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. 4enerally( courts decline 6urisdiction over such case*8= or dismiss it on ground of mootness. 'he &ourt holds that President .rroyoEs issuance of PP 1:/1 did not render the present petitions moot and academic. During the eight +- days that PP 1:1, was operative( the police officers( according to petitioners( committed illegal acts in implementing it. .re PP 1:1, and 4.". 5o. @ constitutional or validC Do they 6ustify these alleged illegal actsC 'hese are the vital issues that must be resolved in the present petitions. 1t must be stressed that Ian unconstitutional act is not a law( it confers no rights( it imposes no duties( it affords no protectionF it is in legal contemplation( inoperative.J 'he Imoot and academicJ principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. &ourts will decide cases( otherwise moot and academic( if: 'i"s&, there is a grave violation of the &onstitution Province of >atangas vs. $omulo( .$. 5o. 1@/,,)( 0ay /,( /::)( )/= S&$. ,*8-. s!,$#*( the e;ceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved Lacson vs. Perez( 4.$. 5o. 1),,+:( 0ay 1:( /::1( *@, S&$. ,@8-F &hi"*, when constitutional issue raised reDuires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench( the bar( and the public Province of >atangas vs. $omulo-F and '$+"&h, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review AlbaSa v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s, 4.$. 5o. 18**:/( 2uly /*( /::)( )*@ S&$. =+( A,$% v. G+i#($#a, I"., 4.$. 5o. 1*)+@@( 2uly /( /::/( *+* S&$. @,,( Sa#laEas v. E>!,+&iv! S!,"!&a"=( 4.$. 5o. 1@=:+@( %ebruary *( /::)( )/1 S&$. 8@8. .ll the foregoing e;ceptions are present here and 6ustify this &ourtEs assumption of 6urisdiction over the instant petitions. Petitioners alleged that the issuance of PP 1:1, and 4.". 5o. @ violates the &onstitution. 'here is no Duestion that the issues being raised affect the publicEs interest( involving as they do the peopleEs basic rights to freedom of e;pression( of assembly and of the press. 0oreover( the &ourt has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts( doctrines or rules. 1t has the symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar( and in the present petitions( the military and
*8+ *8=

P"$vi#,! $' Ba&a#(as v. R$)+l$( 4.$. 5o. 1@/,,)( 0ay /,( /::)( )/= S&$. ,*8. R$=al Ca"($ C$"%$"a&i$# v. Civil A!"$#a+&i,s B$a"*, 4.$. 5os. 1:*:@@7@8( 2anuary /8( /::)( )/1 S&$. /1F V*a. 6! 6aba$ v. C$+"& $' A%%!als( s+%"a.

/@=

/8:

the police( on the e;tent of the protection given by constitutional guarantees.*,: .nd lastly( respondentsE contested actions are capable of repetition. &ertainly( the petitions are sub6ect to 6udicial review. IIM L!(al S&a#*i#( 1n view of the number of petitioners suing in various personalities( the &ourt deems it imperative to have a more than passing discussion on legal standing or l$,+s s&a#*i. L$,+s s&a#*i is defined as Ia right of appearance in a court of 6ustice on a given Duestion.J*,1 1n private suits( standing is governed by the Ireal7parties7in interestJ rule as contained in Section /( $ule * of the 1==, $ules of &ivil Procedure( as amended. 1t provides that Ievery action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.J .ccordingly( the Ireal7party7in interestJ is Ithe party who stands to be benefited or in6ured by the 6udgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.J*,/ Succinctly put( the plaintiffEs standing is based on his own right to the relief sought. 'he difficulty of determining l$,+s s&a#*i arises in public suits. 9ere( the plaintiff who asserts a Ipublic rightJ in assailing an allegedly illegal official action( does so as a representative of the general public. 9e may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person. 9e could be suing as a Istranger(J or in the category of a Icitizen(J or Vta;payer.J 1n either case( he has to adeDuately show that he is entitled to see< 6udicial protection. 1n other words( he has to ma<e out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a IcitizenJ or Ita;payer. &ase law in most 6urisdictions now allows both IcitizenJ and Ita;payerJ standing in public actions. 'he distinction was first laid down in B!a+,ha)% v. SilE(*,* where it was held that the plaintiff in a ta;payerEs suit is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizenEs suit. 1n the former( the plaintiff is affected by the e;penditure of public funds( while in the latter( he is but the mere instrument of the public concern. .s held by the 5ew Kor< Supreme &ourt in P!$%l! !> "!l Cas! v. C$lli#s :*,) I1n matter of mere public right( howeverNthe people are the real partiesN1t is at least the right( if not the duty( of every citizen to interfere and see that a public offence be properly pursued and punished( and that a public grievance be remedied.J Lith respect to ta;payerEs suits( T!"" v. I$"*a#*,@ held that Ithe right of a citizen and a ta;payer to maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of public funds to his in6ury cannot be denied.J
*,:

Sal$#(a v. C"+K PaS$, !& al., 5o. L7 @=@/)( %ebruary 1+( 1=+@( 1*) S&$. )*+. >lac<Es Law Dictionary( 8th !d. 1==1( p. =)1. Sal$#(a v. Ga"#!" Ba"#!s Q C$., ++ Phil. 1/@ 1=@1-. /,@ ?y =1( 1/: SL/d ,8@ 1=*+-. 1= Lend. @8 1+*,-. /*/ 5& )+( @= S!/d *@= 1=@:-.

*,1
*,/ *,* *,) *,@

/8:

/81

9owever( to prevent 6ust about any person from see<ing 6udicial interference in any official policy or act with which he disagreed with( and thus hinders the activities of governmental agencies engaged in public service( the 3nited State Supreme &ourt laid down the more stringent Idirect in6uryJ test in E> Pa"&! L!vi&&(*,8 later reaffirmed in Til!s&$# v. @ll)a#.*,, 'he same &ourt ruled that for a private individual to invo<e the 6udicial power to determine the validity of an e;ecutive or legislative action( he must show that he has sustained a direct in6ury as a result of that action( and it is not sufficient that he has a general interest common to all members of the public. 'his &ourt adopted the Idirect in6uryJ test in our 6urisdiction. 1n P!$%l! v. V!"a( it held that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have Ia personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained( or will sustain direct in6ury as a result.J 'he V!"a doctrine was upheld in a litany of cases( such as( C+s&$*i$ v. P"!si*!#& $' &h! S!#a&!(*,= Ma#ila Ra,! N$"s! T"ai#!"sD Ass$,ia&i$# v. 6! la ?+!#&!(*+: Pas,+al v. S!,"!&a"= $' P+bli, G$"Es*+1 and A#&iMChi#!s! L!a(+! $' &h! Phili%%i#!s v. ?!li>.*+/
*,+

9owever( being a mere procedural technicality( the reDuirement of l$,+s s&a#*i may be waived by the &ourt in the e;ercise of its discretion. 'his was done in the 1=)= !mergency Powers &ases( A"a#!&a v. 6i#(lasa#(*+* where the Itranscendental importanceJ of the cases prompted the &ourt to act liberally. Such liberality was neither a rarity nor accidental. 1n A<+i#$ v. C$)!l!,(*+) this &ourt resolved to pass upon the issues raised due to the Ifar7reaching implicationsJ of the petition notwithstanding its categorical statement that petitioner therein had no personality to file the suit. 1ndeed( there is a chain of cases where this liberal policy has been observed( allowing ordinary citizens( members of &ongress( and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or validity of laws( regulations and rulings.*+@
*,8 *,, *,+ *,= *+: *+1 *+/ *+*

*:/ 3.S. 8**. *1+ 3.S. ))8. 8@ Phil. @8 1=*,-. 4.$. 5o. 11,( 5ovember ,( 1=)@ 3nreported-. 4.$. 5o. /=),( 2anuary 11( 1=@= 3nreported-. 11: Phil. **1 1=8:-. ,, Phil. 1:1/ 1=),-. +) Phil. *8+ 1=)=- 'he &ourt held: I.bove all( the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely( brushing aside( if we must( technicalities of procedure.J L75o. ):::)( 2anuary *1( 1=,@( 8/ S&$. /,@. TaOada v. Tuvera, 4.$. 5o. 8*=1@( .pril /)( 1=+@( 1*8 S&$. /,( where the &ourt held that where the Duestion is one of public duty and the enforcement of a public right( the people are the real party in interest( and it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen interested in the e;ecution of the lawF 4egaspi v. Civi Service Commission , 4.$. 5o. ,/11=( 0ay /=( 1=+,( 1@: S&$. @*:( where the &ourt held that in cases involving an assertion of a public right( the reDuirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen and part of the general public which possesses the right. Papatiran ng mga (ag i ing$od sa =amaha aan ng =i ipinas, <nc. v. Tan , L. 5o. +1*11( 2une *:( 1=++( 18* S&$. *,1( where the &ourt held that ob6ections to ta;payersE lac< of personality to sue may be disregarded in determining the validity of the #.' lawF

*+)

*+@

/81

/8/

'hus( the &ourt has adopted a rule that even where the petitioners have failed to show direct in6ury( they have been allowed to sue under the principle of Itranscendental importance.J Pertinent are the following cases: 1- Chav!K v. P+bli, Es&a&!s A+&h$"i&=,*+8 where the &ourt ruled that the enforcement of the constitutional right to information and the eDuitable diffusion of natural resources are matters of transcendental importance which clothe the petitioner with l$,+s s&a#*iF A2- Ba($#( Al=a#sa#( MaEaba=a# v. Za)$"a,*+, wherein the &ourt held that Igiven the transcendental importance of the issues involved( the &ourt may rela; the standing reDuirements and allow the suit to prosper despite the lac< of direct in6ury to the parties see<ing 6udicial reviewJ of the #isiting %orces .greementF *- Li) v. E>!,+&iv! S!,"!&a"=(*++ while the &ourt noted that the petitioners may not file suit in their capacity as ta;payers absent a showing that I>ali<atan :/7:1J involves the e;ercise of &ongressE ta;ing or spending powers( it reiterated its ruling in Ba($#( Al=a#sa#( *+= MaEaba=a# v. Za)$"a, that in cases of transcendental importance( the cases must be settled promptly and definitely and standing reDuirements may be rela;ed. >y way of summary( the following rules may be culled from the cases decided by this &ourt. 'a;payers( voters( concerned citizens( and legislators may be accorded standing to sue( provided that the following reDuirements are met:

A bano v. 6eyes, 4.$. 5o. +*@@1( 2uly 11( 1=+=( 1,@ S&$. /8)( where the &ourt held that while no e;penditure of public funds was involved under the Duestioned contract( nonetheless considering its important role in the economic development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration involved( public interest was definitely involved and this clothed petitioner with the legal personality under the disclosure provision of the &onstitution to Duestion it. Association of Sma 4ando%ners in the =hi ippines, <nc. v. Sec. of Agrarian 6eform, 4.$. 5o. ,+,)/( 2uly 1)( 1=+=( 1,@ S&$. *)*( where the &ourt ruled that while petitioners are strictly spea<ing( not covered by the definition of a Iproper party(J nonetheless( it has the discretion to waive the reDuirement( in determining the validity of the implementation of the &.$P. Hon)a es v. !acaraig, Er .( 4.$. 5o. +,8*8( 5ovember 1=( 1==:( 1=1 S&$. )@/( where the &ourt held that it en6oys the open discretion to entertain ta;payerEs suit or not and that a member of the Senate has the reDuisite personality to bring a suit where a constitutional issue is raised. !aceda v. !acaraig, Er., 4.$. 5o. ++/=1( 0ay *1( 1==1( 1=, S&$. ,,1( where the &ourt held that petitioner as a ta;payer( has the personality to file the instant petition( as the issues involved( pertains to illegal e;penditure of public moneyF 2smeOa v. Come ec , 4.$. 5o. 1::*1+( 1::*:+( 1::)1,(1::)/:( 2uly *:( 1==1( 1== S&$. ,@:( where the &ourt held that where serious constitutional Duestions are involved( the Itranscendental importanceJ to the public of the cases involved demands that they be settled promptly and definitely( brushing aside technicalities of proceduresF >e Huia v. Come ec , 4.$. 5o. 1:),1/( 0ay 8( 1==/( /:+ S&$. )/:( where the &ourt held that the importance of the issues involved concerning as it does the political e;ercise of Dualified voters affected by the apportionment( necessitates the brushing aside of the procedural reDuirement of l$,+s s&a#*i.
*+8 *+,
*++

4.$. 5o. 1**/@:( 2uly =( /::/( *+) S&$. 1@/. 4.$. 5os. 1*+@,:( 1*+@,/( 1*+@+,( 1*+8+:( 1*+8=+( "ctober 1:( /:::( *)/ S&$. ))=. 4.$. 5o. 1@1))@( .pril 11( /::/( *+: S&$. ,*=. S+%"a.

*+=

/8/

/8*

1. /. *. ). @.

the cases involve constitutional issuesF for ta;payers( there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the ta; measure is unconstitutionalF for voters( there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in DuestionF for concerned citizens( there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled earlyF and for legislators( there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators.

Significantly( recent decisions show a certain toughening in the &ourtEs attitude toward legal standing. 1n Hil$sba=a#, I#,. v. M$"a&$(*=: the &ourt ruled that the status of Hil$sba=a# as a peopleEs organization does not give it the reDuisite personality to Duestion the validity of the on7line lottery contract( more so where it does not raise any issue of constitutionality. 0oreover( it cannot sue as a ta;payer absent any allegation that public funds are being misused. 5or can it sue as a concerned citizen as it does not allege any specific in6ury it has suffered. 1n T!l!,$))+#i,a&i$#s a#* B"$a*,as& A&&$"#!=s $' &h! Phili%%i#!s, I#,. v. C$)!l!,(*=1 the &ourt reiterated the Idirect in6uryJ test with respect to concerned citizensE cases involving constitutional issues. 1t held that Ithere must be a showing that the citizen personally suffered some actual or threatened in6ury arising from the alleged illegal official act.J 1n La,s$# v. P!"!K(*=/ the &ourt ruled that one of the petitioners( Laba# #( 6!)$E"a&iE$#( Pili%i#$ LDP-( is not a real party7in7interest as it had not demonstrated any in6ury to itself or to its leaders( members or supporters. 1n Sa#laEas v. E>!,+&iv! S!,"!&a"=(*=* the &ourt ruled that only the petitioners who are members of &ongress have standing to sue( as they claim that the PresidentEs declaration of a state of rebellion is a usurpation of the emergency powers of &ongress( thus impairing their legislative powers. .s to petitioners Sa#laEas, Pa"&i*$ Ma#((a(a-a, a#* S$,ial I+s&i,! S$,i!&= ( the &ourt declared them to be devoid of standing( eDuating them with the LDP in La,s$#.
*=: *=1 *=/ *=*

4.$. 5o. 11+=1:( 5ovember 18( 1==@( /@: S&$. 1*:. 4.$. 5o. 1*/=//( .pril /1( 1==+( /+= S&$. **,. 4.$. 5o. 1),,+:( 1),,+1( 1),,==( 1),+1:( 0ay 1:( /::1( *@, S&$. ,@8. 4.$. 5o. 1@=:+@( %ebruary *( /::)( )/1 S&$. 8@8.

/8*

/8)

5ow( the application of the above principles to the present petitions. 'he l$,+s s&a#*i of petitioners in 4.$. 5o. 1,1*=8( particularly David and Llamas( is beyond doubt. 'he same holds true with petitioners in 4.$. 5o. 1,1):=( &acho7"livares and T"ib+#! Publishing &o. 1nc. 'hey alleged Idirect in6uryJ resulting from Iillegal arrestJ and Iunlawful searchJ committed by police operatives pursuant to PP 1:1,. $ightly so( the Solicitor 4eneral does not Duestion their legal standing. 1t must always be borne in mind that the Duestion of l$,+s s&a#*i is but corollary to the bigger Duestion of proper e;ercise of 6udicial power. 'his is the underlying legal tenet of the Iliberality doctrineJ on legal standing. 1t cannot be doubted that the validity of PP 5o. 1:1, and 4.". 5o. @ is a 6udicial Duestion which is of paramount importance to the %ilipino people. 'o paraphrase 2ustice Laurel( the whole of Philippine society now waits with bated breath the ruling of this &ourt on this very critical matter. 'he petitions thus call for the application of the Itranscendental importanceJ doctrine( a rela;ation of the standing reDuirements for the petitioners in the IPP 1:1, cases.J 'his &ourt holds that all the petitioners herein have l$,+s s&a#*i. 1ncidentally( it is not proper to implead President .rroyo as respondent. Settled is the doctrine that the President( during his tenure of office or actual incumbency( *=) may not be sued in a#= civil or criminal case( and there is no need to provide for it in the &onstitution or law. 1t will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President( the 9ead of State( if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. 9owever( this does not mean that the President is not accountable to anyone. Li<e any other official( he remains accountable to the people *=@ but he may be removed from office only in the mode provided by law and that is by impeachment.*=8 >. S3>S'.5'1#! I. R!vi!- $' ?a,&+al Bas!s

'he issue of whether the &ourt may review the factual bases of the PresidentEs e;ercise of his &ommander7in7&hief power has reached its distilled point 7 from the indulgent days of Ba",!l$# v. BaE!" and M$#&!#!("$ v. Cas&a#!*a to the volatile era of La#sa#( v. Ga",ia, A<+i#$, I". v. E#"il!, a#* Ga",iaMPa*illa v. E#"il!. 'he tug7 of7war always cuts across the line defining Ipolitical Duestions(J particularly those Duestions Iin regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
*=)

%rom the deliberations of the &onstitutional &ommission( the intent of the framers is clear that the immunity of the President from suit is concurrent only with his tenure and not his term. De Leon( Phili%%i#! C$#s&i&+&i$#al La-( #ol. /( /::) !d.( p. *:/-. Section 1( .rticle G1 of the &onstitution provides: Public "ffice is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people( serve them with utmost responsibility( integrity( loyalty and efficiency( act with patriotism and 6ustice( and lead modest lives.

*=@

*=8

Ibi*.( Sec. /.

/8)

/8@

legislative or e;ecutive branch of the government.J Ba",!l$# a#* M$#&!#!("$ were in unison in declaring that the authority to decide whether an e;igency has arisen belongs to the President and his decision is final and conclusive on the courts. La#sa#( too< the opposite view. 'here( the members of the &ourt were unanimous in the conviction that the &ourt has the authority to inDuire into the e;istence of factual bases in order to determine their constitutional sufficiency. %rom the principle of separation of powers( it shifted the focus to the system of chec<s and balances( Iunder which the President is supreme( ; ; ; only i' and -h!# he acts within the sphere allotted to him by the >asic Law( and the authority to determine whether or not he has so acted is vested in the 2udicial Department( -hi,h i# &his "!s%!,&( is( in turn( constitutionally s+%"!)!.J 1n 1=,*( the unanimous &ourt of La#sa#( was divided in A<+i#$ v. E#"il!. 'here( the &ourt was almost evenly divided on the issue of whether the validity of the imposition of 0artial Law is a political or 6usticiable Duestion. 'hen came Ga",iaMPa*illa v. E#"il! which greatly diluted La#sa#(. 1t declared that there is a need to re7e;amine the latter case( ratiocinating that Iin times of war or national emergency( the President must be given absolute control for the very life of the nation and the government is in great peril. 'he President( it intoned( is answerable only to his conscience( the People( and 4od.J 'he I#&!("a&!* Ba" $' &h! Phili%%i#!s v. Za)$"a MM a recent case most pertinent to these cases at bar 77 echoed a principle similar to La#sa#(. Lhile the &ourt considered the PresidentEs Icalling7outJ power as a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom( it stressed that Ithis does not prevent an e;amination of whether such power was e;ercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was e;ercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion.J 'his ruling is mainly a result of the &ourtEs reliance on Section 1( .rticle #111 of 1=+, &onstitution which fortifies the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. 3nder the new definition of 6udicial power( the courts are authorized not only Ito settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable(J but also Ito determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< or e;cess of 6urisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.J 'he latter part of the authority represents a broadening of 6udicial power to enable the courts of 6ustice to review what was before a forbidden territory( to wit( the discretion of the political departments of the government. 1t spea<s of 6udicial prerogative not only in terms of power but also of duty. .s to how the &ourt may inDuire into the PresidentEs e;ercise of power( La#sa#( adopted the test that I6udicial inDuiry can ($ #$ '+"&h!" than to satisfy the &ourt #$& that the PresidentEs decision is ,$""!,&,J but that Ithe President did not act a"bi&"a"il=.J 'hus( the standard laid down is not correctness( but arbitrariness. 1n I#&!("a&!* Ba" $' &h! Phili%%i#!s( this &ourt further ruled that Iit is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the PresidentEs decision is totally bereft of factual basisJ and that if he fails( by way of proof( to support his assertion( then Ithis &ourt cannot underta<e an independent investigation beyond the pleadings.J Petitioners failed to show that President .rroyoEs e;ercise of the calling7out power( by issuing PP 1:1,( is totally bereft of factual basis. . reading of the Solicitor
/8@

/88

4eneralEs &onsolidated &omment and 0emorandum shows a detailed narration of the events leading to the issuance of PP 1:1,( with supporting reports forming part of the records. 0entioned are the escape of the 0agdalo 4roup( their audacious threat of the Ma(*al$ 6M6a=( the defections in the military( particularly in the Philippine 0arines( and the reproving statements from the communist leaders. 'here was also the 0inutes of the 1ntelligence $eport and Security 4roup of the Philippine .rmy showing the growing alliance between the 5P. and the military. Petitioners presented nothing to refute such events. 'hus( absent any contrary allegations( the &ourt is convinced that the President was 6ustified in issuing PP 1:1, calling for military aid. 1ndeed( 6udging the seriousness of the incidents( President .rroyo was not e;pected to simply fold her arms and do nothing to prevent or suppress what she believed was lawless violence( invasion or rebellion. 9owever( the e;ercise of such power or duty must not stifle liberty. II. C$#s&i&+&i$#ali&= $' PP 1717 a#* G.O. N$. B 'he operative portion of PP 1:1, may be divided into three important provisions( thus: ?i"s& %"$visi$#C Iby virtue of the power vested upon me by Section 1+( .rtilce #11 N do hereby command the .rmed %orces of the Philippines( to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines( prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well any act of insurrection or rebellionJ S!,$#* %"$visi$#C Iand to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees( orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my directionFJ Thi"* %"$visi$#C Ias provided in Section 1,( .rticle G11 of the &onstitution do hereby declare a State of 5ational !mergency.J %irst Provision: &alling7out Power

'he first provision pertains to the PresidentEs calling7out power. 1n Sa#laEas v. E>!,+&iv! S!,"!&a"= A4.$. 5o. 1@=:+@( %ebruary *( /::)( )/1 S&$. 8@8- this &ourt( through 0r. 2ustice Dante ". 'inga( held that Section 1+( .rticle #11 of the &onstitution reproduced as follows:

/88

/8,

Sec. 1+. 'he President shall be the &ommander7in7&hief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary( he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence( invasion or rebellion. 1n case of invasion or rebellion( when the public safety reDuires it( he may( for a period not e;ceeding si;ty days( suspend the privilege of the writ of hab!as ,$"%+s or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Lithin forty7eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of hab!as ,$"%+s( the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the &ongress. 'he &ongress( voting 6ointly( by a vote of at least a ma6ority of all its 0embers in regular or special session( may revo<e such proclamation or suspension( which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. 3pon the initiative of the President( the &ongress may( in the same manner( e;tend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the &ongress( if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety reDuires it. grants the President( as &ommander7in7&hief( a IseDuenceJ of graduated powers. %rom the most to the least benign( these are: the calling7out power( the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of hab!as ,$"%+s( and the power to declare 0artial Law. &iting I#&!("a&!* Ba" $' &h! Phili%%i#!s v. Za)$"a(*=, the &ourt ruled that the only criterion for the e;ercise of the calling7out power is that Iwhenever it becomes necessary(J the President may call the armed forces Ito prevent or suppress lawless violence( invasion or rebellion.J A"! &h!s! ,$#*i&i$#s %"!s!#& i# &h! i#s&a#& ,as!s C .s stated earlier( considering the circumstances then prevailing( President .rroyo found it necessary to issue PP 1:1,. "wing to her "fficeEs vast intelligence networ<( she is in the best position to determine the actual condition of the country. 3nder the calling7out power( the President may summon the armed forces to aid him in suppressing lawless violence( invasion and rebellion. 'his involves ordinary police action. >ut every act that goes beyond the PresidentEs calling7out power is considered illegal or +l&"a vi"!s. %or this reason( a President must be careful in the e;ercise of his powers. 9e cannot invo<e a greater power when he wishes to act under a lesser power. 'here lies the wisdom of our &onstitution( the greater the power( the greater are the limitations. 1t is pertinent to state( however( that there is a distinction between the PresidentEs authority to declare a Istate of rebellionJ in Sa#laEas- and the authority to proclaim a state of national emergency. Lhile President .rroyoEs authority to declare a Istate of rebellionJ emanates from her powers as &hief !;ecutive( the statutory authority cited in Sa#laEas was Section )( &hapter /( >oo< 11 of the $evised .dministrative &ode of 1=+,( which provides: S!&. ). W Proclamations. W .cts of the President fi;ing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest(
*=,

S+%"a.

/8,

/8+

upon the e;istence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend( shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an e;ecutive order. President .rroyoEs declaration of a Istate of rebellionJ was merely an act declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest( a declaration allowed under Section ) cited above. Such declaration( in the words of Sa#laEas( is harmless( without legal significance( and deemed not written. 1n these cases( PP 1:1, is more than that. 1n declaring a state of national emergency( President .rroyo did not only rely on Section 1+( .rticle #11 of the &onstitution( a provision calling on the .%P to prevent or suppress lawless violence( invasion or rebellion. She also relied on Section 1,( .rticle G11( a provision on the StateEs e;traordinary power to ta<e over privately7owned public utility and business affected with public interest. 1ndeed( PP 1:1, calls for the e;ercise of an awesome power. "bviously( such Proclamation cannot be deemed harmless( without legal significance( or not written( as in the case of Sa#laEas. Se2on< Pro=ision> ?Ta@e CareA Power 'he second provision pertains to the power of the President to ensure that the laws be faithfully e;ecuted. 'his is based on Section 1,( .rticle #11 which reads: S!&. 1,. 'he President shall have control of all the e;ecutive departments( bureaus( and offices. 9e shall ensure that the laws be faithfully e;ecuted. .s the !;ecutive in whom the e;ecutive power is vested( *=+ the primary function of the President is to enforce the laws as well as to formulate policies to be embodied in e;isting laws. 9e sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. >efore assuming office( he is reDuired to ta<e an oath or affirmation to the effect that as President of the Philippines( he will( among others( Ie;ecute its laws.J *== 1n the e;ercise of such function( the President( if needed( may employ the powers attached to his office as the &ommander7in7&hief of all the armed forces of the country():: including the Philippine 5ational Police):1 under the Department of 1nterior and Local 4overnment.):/ Petitioners( especially $epresentatives %rancis 2oseph 4. !scudero( Satur "campo( $afael 0ariano( 'eodoro &asiUo( Liza 0aza( and 2osel #irador argue that PP 1:1, is unconstitutional as it arrogated upon President .rroyo the power to enact laws and decrees in violation of Section 1( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution( which vests the
*=+ *==
)::

Section 1( .rticle #11 of the &onstitution. Section @( .rticle #11 of the &onstitution. Section 1+( .rticle #11 of the &onstitution.

):1

Section 8( .rticle G#1 of the &onstitution.

):/

See $epublic .ct 5o. 8=,@.

/8+

/8=

power to enact laws in &ongress. 'hey assail the clause Ito enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees( orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.J PetitionersE contention is understandable. . reading of PP 1:1, operative clause shows that it was lifted):* from %ormer President 0arcosE Proclamation 5o. 1:+1( which partly reads: 5"L( '9!$!%"$!( 1( %!$D15.5D !. 0.$&"S( President of the Philippines by virtue of the powers vested upon me by .rticle #11( Section 1:( Paragraph /- of the &onstitution( do hereby place the entire Philippines as defined in .rticle 1( Section 1 of the &onstitution under martial law and( in my capacity as their &ommander7in7&hief( do hereby command the .rmed %orces of the Philippines( to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines( prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees( orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction. Le all <now that it was PP 1:+1 which granted President 0arcos legislative power. 1ts enabling clause states: Ito enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees( orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.J 3pon the other hand( the enabling clause of PP 1:1, issued by President .rroyo is: to enforce obedience to all the laws and &$ all decrees( orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.J Is i& -i&hi# &h! *$)ai# $' P"!si*!#& A""$=$ &$ %"$)+l(a&! .*!,"!!s/V PP 1:1, states in part: Ito enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees ; ; ; promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.J President .rroyoEs ordinance power is limited to e;ecutive orders( proclamations( administrative orders( etc. She cannot issue decrees similar to those issued by %ormer President 0arcos under PP 1:+1. Presidential Decrees are laws which are of the same category and binding force as statutes because they were issued by the President in the e;ercise of his legislative power during the period of 0artial Law under the 1=,* &onstitution.):) 'his &ourt rules that the assailed PP 1:1, is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President .rroyo the authority to promulgate Idecrees.J Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the Legislature. Section 1( .rticle #1 categorically states that
):*

1ronically( even the ,th Lhereas &lause of PP 1:1, which states that I A"&i,l! 2, S!,&i$# $' $+" C$#s&i&+&i$# ma$es the defense a#* %"!s!"va&i$# of &h! *!)$,"a&i, i#s&i&+&i$#s a#* &h! State &h! %"i)a"= *+&= $' G$v!"#)!#&/ replicates more closely Section /( .rticle / of the 1=,* &onstitution than Section )( .rticle / of the 1=+, &onstitution which provides that( IOtOhe prime duty of the 4overnment is to er-e and %r!te&t the %e!%'e.J .gpalo( S&a&+&$"= C$#s&"+,&i$#, ?$+"&h E*i&i$#, 1==+( p. 1( citing L!(as%i v. Mi#is&"= $' ?i#a#,!( 11@ S&$. )1+ 1=+/-F Ga",iaMPa*illa v. P$#,!ME#"il!( s+%"a. A<+i#$ v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#, s+%"a.

):)

/8=

/,:

IOtPhe legislative power shall be vested in the &ongress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a 9ouse of $epresentatives.J 'o be sure( neither 0artial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can 6ustify President .rroyoEs e;ercise of legislative power by issuing decrees. Ca# P"!si*!#& A""$=$ !#'$",! $b!*i!#,! &$ all *!,"!!s a#* la-s &h"$+(h &h! )ili&a"=C .s this &ourt stated earlier( President .rroyo has no authority to enact decrees. 1t follows that these decrees are void and( therefore( cannot be enforced. Lith respect to Ilaws(J she cannot call the military to enforce or implement certain laws( such as customs laws( laws governing family and property relations( laws on obligations and contracts and the li<e. She can only order the military( under PP 1:1,( to enforce laws pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless violence. T3ir< Pro=ision> Power to Ta@e "=er 'he pertinent provision of PP 1:1, states: ; ; ; and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees( orders( and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my directionF and as provided in Section 1,( .rticle G11 of the &onstitution do hereby declare a state of national emergency. 'he import of this provision is that President .rroyo( during the state of national emergency under PP 1:1,( can call the military not only to enforce obedience Ito all the laws and to all decrees ; ; ;J but also to act pursuant to the provision of Section 1,( .rticle G11 which reads: Sec. 1,. 1n times of national emergency( when the public interest so reDuires( the State may( during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it( temporarily ta<e over or direct the operation of any privately7owned public utility or business affected with public interest. During the e;istence of the state of national emergency( PP 1:1, purports to grant the President( without any authority or delegation from &ongress( to ta<e over or direct the operation of any privately7owned public utility or business affected with public interest. 'his provision was first introduced in the 1=,* &onstitution( as a product of the Imartial lawJ thin<ing of the 1=,1 &onstitutional &onvention. ):@ 1n effect at the time of its approval was President 0arcosE Letter of 1nstruction 5o. / dated September //( 1=,/
):@

Section 1,( .rticle G1# of the 1=,* &onstitution reads: I1n times of national emergency when the public interest so reDuires( the State may temporarily ta<e over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.J

/,:

/,1

instructing the Secretary of 5ational Defense to ta<e over I &h! )a#a(!)!#&, ,$#&"$l a#* $%!"a&i$# $' &h! Ma#ila El!,&"i, C$)%a#=, &h! Phili%%i#! L$#( 6is&a#,! T!l!%h$#! C$)%a#=, &h! Na&i$#al Ga&!"-$"Es a#* S!-!"a(! A+&h$"i&=, &h! Phili%%i#! Na&i$#al Rail-a=s, &h! Phili%%i#! Ai" Li#!s, Ai" Ma#ila Aa#*) ?ili%i#as O"i!#& Ai"-a=s . . . '$" &h! s+,,!ss'+l %"$s!,+&i$# b= &h! G$v!"#)!#& $' i&s !''$"& &$ ,$#&ai#, s$lv! a#* !#* &h! %"!s!#& #a&i$#al !)!"(!#,=.J Petitioners( particularly the members of the 9ouse of $epresentatives( claim that President .rroyoEs inclusion of Section 1,( .rticle G11 in PP 1:1, is an encroachment on the legislatureEs emergency powers. . distinction must be drawn between the PresidentEs authority to declare Ia state of national emergencyJ and to e;ercise emergency powers. 'o the first( as elucidated by the &ourt( Section 1+( .rticle #11 grants the President such power( hence( no legitimate constitutional ob6ection can be raised. >ut to the second( manifold constitutional issues arise. Section /*( .rticle #1 of the &onstitution reads: S!&. /*. 1- 'he &ongress( by a vote of two7thirds of both 9ouses in 6oint session assembled( voting separately( shall have the sole power to declare the e;istence of a state of war. /- 1n times of war or other national emergency( the &ongress may( by law( authorize the President( for a limited period and sub6ect to such restrictions as it may prescribe( to e;ercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. 3nless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the &ongress( such powers shall cease upon the ne;t ad6ournment thereof. 1t may be pointed out that the second paragraph of the above provision refers not only to war but also to Iother national emergency.J 1f the intention of the %ramers of our &onstitution was to withhold from the President the authority to declare a Istate of national emergencyJ pursuant to Section 1+( .rticle #11 calling7out power- and grant it to &ongress li<e the declaration of the e;istence of a state of war-( then the %ramers could have provided so. &learly( they did not intend that &ongress should first authorize the President before he can declare a Istate of national emergency.J 'he logical conclusion then is that President .rroyo could validly declare the e;istence of a state of national emergency even in the absence of a &ongressional enactment. >ut the e;ercise of emergency powers( such as the ta<ing over of privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest( is a different matter. 'his reDuires a delegation from &ongress. &ourts have often said that constitutional provisions in %a"i )a&!"ia are to be construed together. "therwise stated( different clauses( sections( and provisions of a constitution which relate to the same sub6ect matter will be construed together and
/,1

/,/

considered in the light of each other.):8 &onsidering that Section 1, of .rticle G11 and Section /* of .rticle #1( previously Duoted( relate to national emergencies( they must be read together to determine the limitation of the e;ercise of emergency powers. 4enerally( &ongress is the repository of emergency powers. 'his is evident in the tenor of Section /* /-( .rticle #1 authorizing it to delegate such powers to the President. &ertainly( a body cannot delegate a power not reposed upon it. 9owever( <nowing that during grave emergencies( it may not be possible or practicable for &ongress to meet and e;ercise its powers( the %ramers of our &onstitution deemed it wise to allow &ongress to grant emergency powers to the President( sub6ect to certain conditions( thus: 1- 'here must be a war or other emergency. /- 'he delegation must be for a limited period only. *- 'he delegation must be sub6ect to such restrictions as the &ongress may prescribe. )- 'he emergency powers must be e;ercised to carry out a national policy declared by &ongress.):, %ollowing our interpretation of Section 1,( .rticle G11( invo<ed by President .rroyo in issuing PP 1:1,( this &ourt rules that such Proclamation does not authorize her during the emergency to temporarily ta<e over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest without authority from &ongress. Let it be emphasized that while the President alone can declare a state of national emergency( however( without legislation( he has no power to ta<e over privately7 owned public utility or business affected with public interest. 'he President cannot decide whether e;ceptional circumstances e;ist warranting the ta<e over of privately7 owned public utility or business affected with public interest. 5or can he determine when such e;ceptional circumstances have ceased. Li<ewise( without legislation, the President has no power to point out the types of businesses affected with public interest that should be ta<en over. 1n short( the President has no absolute authority to e;ercise all the powers of the State under Section 1,( .rticle #11 in the absence of an emergency powers act passed by &ongress. L9!$!%"$!( the Petitions are partly granted. 'he &ourt rules that PP 1:1, is &"5S'1'3'1"5.L insofar as it constitutes a call by President 4loria 0acapagal7 .rroyo on the .%P to prevent or suppress lawless violence. 9owever( the provisions of PP 1:1, commanding the .%P to enforce laws not related to lawless violence( as well as decrees promulgated by the President( are declared 35&"5S'1'3'1"5.L. 1n addition( the provision in PP 1:1, declaring national emergency under Section 1,(
):8 ):,

.ntieau( &onstitutional &onstruction( 1=+/( p./1. &ruz( Philippine Political Law( 1==+( p. =).

/,/

/,*

.rticle #11 of the &onstitution is &"5S'1'3'1"5.L( but such declaration does not authorize the President to ta<e over privately7owned public utility or business affected with public interest without prior legislation. 'he warrantless arrest of $andolf S. David and $onald LlamasF the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the ?03 and 5.%L37?03 members during their rallies( in the absence of proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless violence( invasion or rebellion and violating >P ++:F the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press( as well as the warrantless search of the T"ib+#! offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials( are declared 35&"5S'1'3'1"5.L. 1- $ead: /- 'he 9abeas &orpus &ases a. BARCELON VS. BAHER, B Phil. 87 A1;7B) b. MONTENEGRO VS. CASTANE6A, ;1 Phil. 882 A1;B2) ,. LANSANG VS. GARCIA, 2 SCRA 8 *. GARCIAMPA6ILLA VS. PONCE ENRILE, 121 SCRA 72 A%"il 27, 1;89 !. MORALES VS. I@AN PONCE ENRILE, 121 SCRA 72 A%"il 2:, 1;89 '. OLAG@ER VS. MILITARF COMMISSION, G.R. N$. B BB8, Ma= 22, 1;87 (. ROLAN6O ABA6ILLA VS. GEN. RAMOS, 1B: SCRA ;7 h. I@AN PONCE ENRILE VS. I@6GE SALAZAR, I+#! B, 1;;7 i. P!$%l! vs. 6$#a&$, 1;8 SCRA 127 /- 'he 0artial Law cases a. AJ@INO VS. ENRILE, B; SCRA 189 b. AJ@INO VS. MILITARF COMMISSION, :9 SCRA B : ,. G@MA@A VS. ESPINO, ;: SCRA 72 *. LEGASPI VS. MINISTER 11B SCRA 18 A$# &h! %$ssibl! $%&i$#s availabl! &$ &h! %"!si*!#& i# ,as! $' la-'+l vi$l!#,!) =. Section 1=. !;cept in cases of impeachment( or as otherwise provided in this &onstitution( the President may grant reprieves( commutations( and pardons( and remit fines and forfeitures( after conviction by final 6udgment. 9e shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a ma6ority of all the members of &ongress. a. Define: reprieve( commutation( pardon( amnesty b. See .rticle 1G7&( Section @ of the 1=+, &onstitution and .rticle @ of the $evised Penal .ct *+8-

/,*

/,)

Section @( .rt. 1G7&. 5o pardon( amnesty( parole( or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws( rules and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the &ommission. c. $ead: 1- >.$$1"A315'" #S. %!$5.5D!M( +/ Phil. 8)/ .mnesty must be distinguished from pardon. O1P Pardon is granted by the &hief !;ecutive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned( because the courts ta<e no notice thereofF while amnesty by Proclamation of the &hief !;ecutive with the concurrence of &ongress( and it is a public act of which the courts should ta<e 6udicial notice. O/P Pardon is granted to one after conviction of ordinary crimes- F while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses( generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. O*P Pardon loo<s forward and relieves the offender from the conseDuences of an offense of which he has been convicted( that is( it abolished or forgives the punishment( and for that reason it does QQnor wor< the restoration of the rights to hold public office( or the right of suffrage( unless such rights be e;pressly restored by the terms of the pardon(Q and it Qin no case e;empts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentenceQ article *8( $evised Penal &ode-. while amnesty loo<s bac<ward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself( it so overloo<s and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. section 1:O8P( .rticle #11( Philippine &onstitutionF State vs. >laloc<( 8/ 5.&.( /)/( /),F 1n re >riggs( 1*@ 5.&.( 11+F ), S.!. ):/.( ):*F !; parte Law( *@ 4..( /+@( /=8F State e; rel .nheuser>usch >rewing .ssSn. vs. !by( 1,: 0o.( )=,F ,1 S.L @/( 81F >urdic< vs 3nited States( 5.K.( *@ S. &t.( /8,F /,1F /*8 3.S.( ,=F @= Law. ed.( ),8.O)P Pardon is complete with the act of the President while .mnesty is valid only with the concurrence of the ma6ority of the members of all the members of &ongress. 2) VERA VS. PEOPLE, 7 SCRA 1B2 >efore one may validly apply for e;ecutive clemency pardon or amnestyhe 03S' .D01' 9.#154 &"001''!D '9! .&'S L91&9 $!S3L'!D 15 91S 10P$1S"50!5'. *- &$1S'">.L #S. L.>$.D"$( ,1 Phil. *)
/,)

/,@

)- P!"PL! #S. 2"S!( ,@ Phil. 81/ @- @- P!L">!L" #S. P.L.'15"( ,/ Phil. ))1 8- P!"PL! #S. P.S1L.5( 1) S&$. 8=) ,- L!4.SP1 #S. 0151S'!$( 11@ S&$. )1+ +- 0"5S.5'" #S. %.&'"$.5(%ebruary( 1=+= 'he principal Duestion raised in this petition for review is whether or not a public officer( who has been granted an absolute pardon by the &hief !;ecutive( is entitled to reinstatement to her former position without need of a 5ew appointment. 1n a decision rendered on 0arch /@( 1=+*( the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Salvacion .. 0onsanto then assistant treasurer of &albayog &ityand three other accused( of the comple; crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents and sentenced them to imprisonment of four )- years( two /- months and one 1- day of prision correccional as minimum( to ten 1:years and one 1- day of prision mayor as ma;imum( and to pay a fine of P*(@::. 'hey were further ordered to 6ointly and severally indemnify the government in the sum of P)(+=/.@: representing the balance of the amount defrauded and to pay the costs proportionately. Petitioner 0onsanto appealed her conviction to this &ourt which subseDuently affirmed the same. She then filed a motion for reconsideration but while said motion was pending( she was e;tended on December 1,( 1=+) by then President 0arcos absolute pardon which she accepted on December /1( 1=+). >y reason of said pardon( petitioner wrote the &albayog &ity treasurer reDuesting that she be restored to her former post as assistant city treasurer since the same was still vacant. PetitionerSs letter7reDuest was referred to the 0inistry of %inance for resolution in view of the provision of the Local 4overnment &ode transferring the power of appointment of treasurers from the city governments to the said 0inistry. 1n its )th 1ndorsement dated 0arch 1( 1=+@( the %inance 0inistry ruled that petitioner may be reinstated to her position without the necessity of a new appointment not earlier than the date she was e;tended the absolute pardon. 1t also directed the city treasurer to see to it that the amount of P)(+=/.@: which the Sandiganbayan had reDuired to be indemnified in favor of the government as well as the costs of the litigation( be satisfied. See<ing reconsideration of the foregoing ruling( petitioner wrote the 0inistry on .pril 1,( 1=+@ stressing that the full pardon bestowed on her has wiped out the crime which implies that her service in the government has never been interrupted and therefore the date of her reinstatement should correspond to the date of her preventive suspension which is .ugust 1( 1=+/F
/,@

/,8

that she is entitled to bac<pay for the entire period of her suspensionF and that she should not be reDuired to pay the proportionate share of the amount of P)(+=/.@:. / 'he 0inistry of %inance( however( referred petitionerSs letter to the "ffice of the President for further review and action. "n .pril 1@( 1=+8( said "ffice( through Deputy !;ecutive Secretary %ulgenio S. %actoran( 2r. held: Le disagree with both the 0inistry of %inance and the petitioner because( as borne out by the records( petitioner was convicted of the crime for which she was accused. 1n line with the governmentSs crusade to restore absolute honesty in public service( this "ffice adopts( as a 6uridical guide 0iranda v. 1mperial( ,, Phil. 1=88-( the $esolution of the Sandiganbayan( /nd Division( in People v. Lising( &rim. &ase 5o. 88,@( "ctober )( 1=+@( that acDuittal( not absolute pardon( of a former public officer is the only ground for reinstatement to his former position and entitlement to payment of his salaries( benefits and emoluments due to him during the period of his suspension pendente lite. n fact( in such a situation( the former public official must secure a reappointment before he can reassume his former position. ... .nent the civil liability of 0onsanto( the $evised Penal &ode e;pressly provides that Qa pardon shall in no case e;empt the culprit from payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.Q Sec. *8( par. /-. 15 #1!L "% '9! %"$!4"154( this "ffice holds that Salvacion .. 0onsanto is not entitled to an automatic reinstatement on the basis of the absolute pardon granted her but must secure an appointment to her former position and that( notwithstanding said absolute pardon( she is liable for the civil liability concomitant to her previous conviction. 9er subseDuent motion for reconsideration having been denied( petitioner filed the present petition in her behalf Le gave due course on "ctober 1*( 1=+,. PetitionerSs basic theory is that the general rules on pardon cannot apply to her case by reason of the fact that she was e;tended e;ecutive clemency while her conviction was still pending appeal in this &ourt. 'here having been no final 6udgment of conviction( her employment therefore as assistant city treasurer could not be said to have been terminated or forfeited. 1n other words( without that final 6udgment of conviction( the accessory penalty of forfeiture of office did not attach and the status of her employment remained Qsuspended.Q 0ore importantly( when pardon was issued before the final verdict of guilt( it was an acDuittal because there was no offense to spea< of. 1n effect( the President
/,8

/,,

has declared her not guilty of the crime charged and has accordingly dismissed the same. 1t is well to remember that petitioner had been convicted of the comple; crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents and sentenced to imprisonment of four years( two months and one day of prision correccional as minimum( to ten years and one day of prision mayor as ma;imum. 'he penalty of prision mayor carries the accessory penalties of temporary absolute disDualification and perpetual special disDualification from the right of suffrage( enforceable during the term of the principal penalty. 'emporary absolute disDualification bars the convict from public office or employment( such disDualification to last during the term of the sentence. !ven if the offender be pardoned( as to the principal penalty( the accessory penalties remain unless the same have been e;pressly remitted by the pardon. 'he penalty of prision correccional carries( as one of its accessory penalties( suspension from public office. 'he propositions earlier advanced by petitioner reveal her inadeDuate understanding of the nature of pardon and its legal conseDuences. 'his is not totally une;pected considering that the authorities on the sub6ect have not been wholly consistent particularly in describing the effects of pardon. 'he benign mercy of pardon is of >ritish origin( conceived to temper the gravity of the ?ingSs wrath. >ut Philippine 6urisprudence on the sub6ect has been largely influenced by .merican case law. Pardon is defined as Qan act of grace( proceeding from the power entrusted with the e;ecution of the laws( which e;empts the individual( on whom it is bestowed( from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. 1t is the private( though official act of the e;ecutive magistrate( delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended( and not communicated officially to the &ourt. ... . pardon is a deed( to the validity of which delivery is essential( and delivery is not complete without acceptance.Q .t the time the antecedents of the present case too< place( the pardoning power was governed by the 1=,* &onstitution as amended in the .pril ,( 1=+1 plebiscite. 'he pertinent provision reads: 'he President may( e;cept in cases of impeachment( grant reprieves( commutations and pardons( remit fines and forfeitures( and with the concurrence of the >atasang Pambansa( grant amnesty. 'he 1=+1 amendments had deleted the earlier rule that clemency could be e;tended only upon final conviction( implying that clemency could be given even before conviction. 'hus( petitionerSs unconditional pardon was granted even as her appeal was pending in the 9igh &ourt. 1t is worth
/,,

/,+

mentioning that under the 1=+, &onstitution( the former limitation of final conviction was restored. >ut be that as it may( it is our view that in the present case( it is not material when the pardon was bestowed( whether before or after conviction( for the result would still be the same. 9aving accepted the pardon( petitioner is deemed to have abandoned her appeal and her unreversed conviction by the Sandiganbayan assumed the character of finality. 9aving disposed of that preliminary point( we proceed to discuss the effects of a full and absolute pardon in relation to the decisive Duestion of whether or not the plenary pardon had the effect of removing the disDualifications prescribed by the $evised Penal &ode. 1n Pelobello v. Palatino( Le find a reiteration of the stand consistently adopted by the courts on the various conseDuences of pardon: Q... we adopt the broad view e;pressed in &ristobal v. Labrador( 4.$. 5o. ),=)1( December ,( 1=):( that sub6ect to the limitations imposed by the &onstitution( the pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by legislative actionF that an absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed but removes all disabilities resulting from the conviction. ... L-e are of the opinion that the better view in the light of the constitutional grant in this 6urisdiction is not to unnecessarily restrict or impair the power of the &hief !;ecutive who( after an inDuiry into the environmental facts( should be at liberty to atone the rigidity of the law to the e;tent of relieving completely the party ... concerned from the accessory and resultant disabilities of criminal conviction. . pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offenderF and when the pardon is full( it releases the punishment and blots out of e;istence the guilt( so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense. 1f granted before conviction( it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities( conseDuent upon conviction( from attachingF if granted after conviction( it removes the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rightsF it ma<es him( as it were( a new man( and gives him a new credit and capacity. Such generalities have not been universally accepted( recognized or approved. 'he modern trend of authorities now re6ects the unduly broad language of the 4arland case reputed to be perhaps the most e;treme statement which has been made on the effects of a pardon-. 'o our mind( this is the more realistic approach. Lhile a pardon has generally been regarded as blotting out the e;istence of guilt so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as though he never committed the offense( it does not operate for all purposes. 'he very essence of a pardon is forgiveness or remission of guilt. Pardon implies guilt. 1t does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof. 1t does not wash out the moral stain. 1t involves forgiveness and not forgetfulness.
/,+

/,=

'he better considered cases regard full pardon at least one not based on the offenderSs innocence- as relieving the party from all the punitive conseDuences of his criminal act( including the disDualifications or disabilities based on the finding of guilt. >ut it relieves him from nothing more. Q'o say( however( that the offender is a Qnew manQ( and Qas innocent as if he had never committed the offenseFQ is to ignore the difference between the crime and the criminal. . person ad6udged guilty of an offense is a convicted criminal( though pardonedF he may be deserving of punishment( though left unpunishedF and the law may regard him as more dangerous to society than one never found guilty of crime( though it places no restraints upon him following his conviction.Q . pardon loo<s to the future. 1t is not retrospective. 1t ma<es no amends for the past. 1t affords no relief for what has been suffered by the offender. 1t does not impose upon the government any obligation to ma<e reparation for what has been suffered. QSince the offense has been established by 6udicial proceedings( that which has been done or suffered while they were in force is presumed to have been rightfully done and 6ustly suffered( and no satisfaction for it can be reDuired.Q 'his would e;plain why petitioner( though pardoned( cannot be entitled to receive bac<pay for lost earnings and benefits. %inally( petitioner has sought e;emption from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon her by the sentence. 'he &ourt cannot oblige her. &ivil liability arising from crime is governed by the $evised Penal &ode. 1t subsists notwithstanding service of sentence( or for any reason the sentence is not served by pardon( amnesty or commutation of sentence. PetitionerSs civil liability may only be e;tinguished by the same causes recognized in the &ivil &ode( namely: payment( loss of the thing due( remission of the debt( merger of the rights of creditor and debtor( compensation and novation . =. Lllamas vs. !;ec. Sec. "rbos( "ct. 1@( 1==1 'he case before 3s calls for a determination of whether or not the President of the Philippines has the power to grant e;ecutive clemency in administrative cases. 1n connection therewith( two important Duestions are also put in issue( namely( whether or not the grant of e;ecutive clemency and the reason therefore( are political Duestions beyond 6udicial review( and whether or not the Duestioned act was characterized by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< of 6urisdiction. Petitioner $odolfo D. Llamas is the incumbent #ice74overnor of the Province of 'arlac and( on 0arch 1( 1==1 he assumed( by virtue of a decision of the "ffice of the President( the governorship p. 1( Petition-. Private respondent 0ariano 3n "campo 111 is the incumbent 4overnor of the Province of 'arlac and was suspended from office for a period of =: days. Public respondent "scar
/,=

/+:

"rbos was the !;ecutive Secretary at the time of the filing of this petition and is being impleaded herein in that official capacity for having issued( by authority of the President( the assailed $esolution granting e;ecutive clemency to respondent governor. >y virtue of the aforeDuoted $esolution( respondent governor reassumed the governorship of the province( allegedly without any notification made to the petitioner. Petitioner posits that the issuance by public respondent of the 0ay 1@( 1==1 $esolution was Qwhimsical( capricious and despotic( and constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting lac< of 6urisdiction(Q p. 8( petition- basically on the ground th e;ecutive clemency could be granted by the President only in criminal cases as there is nothing in the statute boo<s or even in the &onstitution which allows the grant thereof in administrative cases. Petitioner also contends that since respondent governor refused to recognize his suspension having reassumed the governorship in gross defiance of the suspension order-( e;ecutive clemency cannot apply to himF that his rights to due process were violated because the grant of e;ecutive clemency was so sudden that he was not even notified thereofF and that despite a finding by public respondent of impropriety in the loan transaction entered into by respondent governor( the former failed to 6ustify the reduction of the penalty of suspension on the latter. Petitioner further alleges that the e;ecutive clemency granted by public respondent was Qthe product of a hocus7pocus strategyQ p. 1( 0anifestation with 0otion( etc.- because there was allegedly no real petition for the grant of e;ecutive clemency filed by respondent governor. >atas Pambansa >lg. **, provides: Sec. 8*. Preventive Suspension. 1- Preventive suspension may be imposed by the 0inister of Local 4overnment if the respondent is a provincial or city official( ... /Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are 6oined( when there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of( when the evidence of culpability is strong( when the gravity of the offense s warrants( or when the continuance in office of the respondent coul influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity the records and other evidence. 1n all cases( preventive suspension shall not e;tend beyond si;ty days after the start of said suspension. *.t the e;piration of si;ty days( the suspended official shall be deemed reinstated in office without pre6udice to the continuation the proceedings against him until its termination. !mphasis suppliedLet us first deal with the issue on 6urisdiction. $espondent govemor avers that since under the &onstitution discretionary authority is granted to the
/+:

/+1

President on the e;ercise of e;ecutive clemency( the same constitutes a political Duestion which is beyond 6udicial review. Such a rule does not hold true in the case at bar. Lhile it is true that courts cannot inDuire into the manner in which the PresidentSs discretionary powers are e;ercised or into the wisdom for its e;ercise( it is also a settled rule that when the issue involved concerns the validity of such discretionary powers or whether said powers are within the limits prescribed by the &onstitution( Le will not decline to e;ercise our power of 6udicial review. .nd such review does not constitute a modification or correction of the act of the President( nor does it constitute interference with the functions of the President. 1n this connection( the case of 'anada and 0acapagal vs. &uenco( et al.( 1:* Phil. 1:@1( is very enlightening( and Le Duote: !lsewhere in this treatise the well7<nown and well7established principle is considered that it is not within the province of the courts to pass 6udgment upon the policy of legislative or e;ecutive action. Lhere( therefore( discretionary powers are granted by the &onstitution or by statute( the manner in which those powers are e;ercised is not sub6ect to 6udicial review. 'he courts( therefore( concern themselves only with the Duestion as to the e;istence and e;tent of these discretionary powers. .s distinguished from the 6udicial( the legislative and e;ecutive departments are spo<en of as the political departments of government because in very many cases their action is necessarily dictated by considerations of public or political policy. 'hese considerations of public or political policy of course will not permit the legislature to violate constitutional provisions( or the e;ecutive to e;ercise authority not granted him by the &onstitution or by statute( but( within these limits( they do permit the departments( separately or together( to recognize that a certain set of facts e;ists or that a given status e;ists( and these determinations( together with the conseDuences that flow therefrom( may not be traversed in the courts. Lilloughby on the &onstitution of the 3nited States( #ol. *( p. 1*/8-. 1n the case at bar( the nature of the Duestion for determination is not purely political. 9ere( we are called upon to decide whether under the &onstitution the President may grant e;ecutive clemency in administrative cases. Le must not overloo< the fact that the e;ercise by the President of her power of e;ecutive clemency is sub6ect to constitutional limitations. Le will merely chec< whether the particular measure in Duestion has been in accordance with law. 1n so doing( Le will not concern ourselves with the reasons or motives which actuate the President as such is clearly beyond our power of 6udicial review. PetitionerSs main argument is that the President may grant e;ecutive clemency only in criminal cases( based on .rticle #11( Section 1= of the &onstitution which reads:

/+1

/+/

Sec. 1=. !;cept in cases of impeachment( or as otherwise pro vided in this &onstitution( the President may grant reprieves( commutations( and pardons( and remit fines and forfeitures( after conviction by final 6udgment. 9e shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a ma6ority of all the members of the &ongress. !mphasis supplied.ccording to the petitioner( the Dualifying phrase Qafter conviction by final 6udgmentQ applies solely to criminal cases( and no other law allows the grant of e;ecutive clemency or pardon to anyone who has been Qconvicted in an administrative case(Q allegedly because the word QconvictionQ refers only to criminal cases par. //7b( c( d( Petition-. Petitioner( however( describes in his very own words( respondent governor as one who has been Qconvicted in an administrative caseQ par. //7a( petition-. 'hus( petitioner concedes that the word QconvictionQ may be used either in a criminal case or in an administrative case. 1n Layno( Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan( 1*8 S&$. @*8( Le ruled: %or misfeasance or malfeasance ... any Oelective officialP could ... be proceeded against administratively or ... criminally. 1n either case( his culpability must be established ... 0oreover( applying the doctrine Q3bi le; non distinguit( nec nos distinguire debemos(Q Le cannot sustain petitionerSs view. 1n other words( if the law does not distinguish( so Le must no distinguish. 'he &onstitution does not distinguish between which cases e;ecutive clemency may be e;ercised by the President( with the sole e;clusion of impeachment cases. >y the same to<en( if e;ecutive clemency may be e;ercised only in criminal cases( it would indeed be unnecessary to provide for the e;clusion of impeachment cases from the coverage of .rticle #11( Section 1= of the &onstitution. %ollowing petitionerSs proposed interpretation( cases of impeachment are automatically e;cluded inasmuch as the same do not necessarily involve criminal offenses. 1n the same vein( Le do not clearly see any valid and convincing reason why the President cannot grant e;ecutive clemency in administrative cases. 1t is "ur considered view that if the President can grant reprieves( commutations and pardons( and remit fines and forfeitures in criminal cases( with much more reason can she grant e;ecutive clemency in administrative cases( which are clearly less serious than criminal offenses. . number of laws impliedly or e;pressly recognize or support the e;ercise of the e;ecutive clemency in administrative cases. d. 1s breach of the condition of pardon sub6ect to 6udicial reviewC $ead: '"$$!S #S. 4"5M.L!S( 1@/ S&$. /,/

/+/

/+*

"n 1+ .pril 1=,=( a conditional pardon was granted to the petitioner by the President of the Philippines on condition that petitioner would Qnot again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. Should this condition be violated( he will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law.Q Petitioner accepted the conditional pardon and was conseDuently released from confinement. "n /1 0ay 1=+8( the >oard of Pardons and Parole the Q>oardQ- resolved to recommend to the President the cancellation of the conditional pardon granted to the petitioner. 1n ma<ing its recommendation to the President( the >oard relied upon the decisions of this &ourt in 'esoro vs. Director of Prisons 8+ Phil. 1@) O1=*=P- and !spuelas vs. Provincial Larden of >ohol 1:+ Phil. *@8 O1=8:P-. 'he evidence before the >oard showed that on // 0arch 1=+/ and /) 2une 1=+/( petitioner had been charged with twenty counts of estafa in &riminal &ases 5os. A71=8,/ and A7/:,@8( which cases were then on /1 0ay 1=+8- pending trial before the $egional 'rial &ourt of $izal Auezon &ity-. 'he record before the >oard also showed that on /8 2une 1=+@( petitioner had been convicted by the $egional 'rial &ourt of $izal Auezon &ity- of the crime of sedition in &riminal &ase 5o. A7//=/8F this conviction was then pending appeal before the 1ntermediate .ppellate &ourt. 'he >oard also had before it a letter report dated 1) 2anuary 1=+8 from the 5ational >ureau of 1nvestigation Q5>1Q-( addressed to the >oard( on the petitioner. Per this letter( the records of the 5>1 showed that a long list of charges had been brought against the petitioner during the last twenty years for a wide assortment of crimes including estafa( other forms of swindling( grave threats( grave coercion( illegal possession of firearms( ammunition and e;plosives( malicious mischief( violation of >atas Pambansa >lg. //( and violation of Presidential Decree 5o. ,,/ interfering with police functions-. Some of these charges were 1dentified in the 5>1 report as having been dismissed. 'he 5>1 report did not purport to be a status report on each of the charges there listed and 1dentified. "n + September 1=+8( the President cancelled the conditional pardon of the petitioner. "n 1: "ctober 1=+8( the respondent 0inister of 2ustice issued Qby authority of the PresidentQ an "rder of .rrest and $ecommitment against petitioner. 'he petitioner was accordingly arrested and confined in 0untinlupa to serve the une;pired portion of his sentence. Petitioner now impugns the validity of the "rder of .rrest and $ecommitment. 9e claims that he did not violate his conditional pardon since he has not been convicted by final 6udgment of the twenty /:- counts of estafa charged in &riminal &ases 5os. A71=8,/ and A7/:,@8 nor of the crime of sedition in &riminal &ase 5o. A7//=/8. * Petitioner also contends that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before he was arrested and recommitted to prison( and accordingly claims he has been deprived of his rights under the due process clause of the &onstitution.

/+*

/+)

'he issue that confronts us therefore is whether or not conviction of a crime by final 6udgment of a court is necessary before the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the balance of his original sentence. 'his issue is not novel. 1t has been raised before this &ourt three times in the past. 'his &ourt was first faced with this issue in 'esoro Director of Prison. 'esoro( who had been convicted of the crime of falsification of public documents( was granted a parole by the then 4overnor74eneral. "ne of the conditions of the parole reDuired the parolee Qnot OtoP commit any other crime and OtoP conduct himself in an orderly manner.Q 'wo years after the grant of parole( 'esoro was charged before the 2ustice of the Peace &ourt of San 2uan( $izal( with the crime of adultery said to have been committed with the wife of 'esoroSs brother7in7law. 'he fiscal filed with the &ourt of %irst 1nstance the corresponding information which( however( was dismissed for non7appearance of the complainant. 'he complainant then went before the >oard of 1ndeterminate Sentence and charged 'esoro with violation of the conditions of his parole. .fter investigation by the parole officer( and on the basis of his report( the >oard recommended to the President of the Philippines the arrest and recommitment of the petitioner. 'esoro contended( among other things( that a Q6udicial pronouncement to the effect that he has committed a crimeQ is necessary before he could properly be ad6udged as having violated his conditional parole. .ddressing this point( this &ourt( spea<ing through then 0r. 2ustice 0oran( held that the determination of whether the conditions of 'esoroSs parole had been breached rested e;clusively in the sound 6udgment of the 4overnor74eneral and that such determination would not be reviewed by the courts. .s 'esoro had consented to place his liberty on parole upon the 6udgment of the power that had granted it( we held that Qhe Ocould notP invo<e the aid of the courts( however erroneous the findings may be upon which his recommitment was ordered.Q 'hus( this &ourt held that by accepting the terms under which the parole had been granted( 'esoro had in effect agreed that the 4overnor74eneralSs determination rather than that of the regular courts of law- that he had breached one of the conditions of his parole by committing adultery while he was conditionally at liberty( was binding and conclusive upon him. 1n Sales vs. Director of Prisons( the petitioner had been convicted of the crime of frustrated murder. .fter serving a little more than two years of his sentence( he was given a conditional pardon by the President of the Philippines( Qthe condition being that he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines and that( should this condition be violated( he shall be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law.Q + !ight years after the grant of his conditional pardon( Sales was convicted of estafa and sentenced to three months and eleven days of arresto mayor. 9e was thereupon recommitted to prison to serve the une;pired portion of his original sentence. Sales raised before this &ourt two principal contentions. %irstly( he argued that Section 8) i- of the $evised .dministrative
/+)

/+@

&ode had been repealed by .rticle 1@= of the $evised Penal &ode. 9e contended( secondly( that Section 8) i- was in any case repugnant to the due process clause of the &onstitution .rticle 111 O1P( 1=*@ &onstitution-. 'his &ourt( through 0r. 2ustice "zaeta spea<ing for the ma6ority( re6ected both contentions of Sales. 1n !spuelas vs. Provincial Larden of >ohol( the petitioner had been convicted of the crime of inciting to sedition. Lhile serving his sentence( he was granted by the President a conditional pardon Qon condition that he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.Q !spuelas accepted the conditional pardon and was released from confinement. Sometime thereafter( he was convicted by the 2ustice of the Peace &ourt in 'agbilaran( >ohol( of the crime of usurpation of authority. 9e appealed to the &ourt of %irst 1nstance. 3pon motion of the provincial fiscal( the &ourt of %irst 1nstance dismissed the case provisionally( an important prosecution witness not having been available on the day set for trial. . few months later( upon recommendation of the >oard of Pardons and Parole( the President ordered his recommitment to prison to serve the une;pired period of his original sentence. 'he status of our case law on the matter under consideration may be summed up in the following propositions: 1. 'he grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditional pardon are purely e;ecutive acts which are not sub6ect to 6udicial scrutiny. /. 'he determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon( and the proper conseDuences of such breach( may be either a purely e;ecutive act( not sub6ect to 6udicial scrutiny under Section 8) i- of the $evised .dministrative &odeF or it may be a 6udicial act consisting of trial for and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon under .rticle 1@= of the $evised Penal &ode. Lhere the President opts to proceed under Section 8) i- of the $evised .dministrative &ode( no 6udicial pronouncement of guilt of a subseDuent crime is necessary( much less conviction therefor by final 6udgment of a court( in order that a convict may be recommended for the violation of his conditional pardon. *. >ecause due process is not s!)%!" !& +#i<+! 6udicial process( and because the conditionally pardoned convict had already been accorded 6udicial due process in his trial and conviction for the offense for which he was conditionally pardoned( Section 8) i- of the $evised .dministrative &ode is not afflicted with a constitutional vice. &$3M( 2.( dissenting: 'he petitioner challenges his recommitment( claiming he has not violated the condition of his pardon Qthat he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.Q 'he government bases its stand on the case of !spuelas v.
/+@

/+8

Provincial Larden of >ohol( 1:+ Phil. *@*( where it was held( in connection with a similar condition( that mere commission of a crime( as determined by the President( was sufficient to 6ustify recommitment. &onviction was considered not necessary. 1 would grant the petition. 'here is no Duestion that the petitioner is facing a long list of criminal charges( but that certainly is not the issue. 'he point is that( as many as such charges may be( none of them so far has resulted in a final conviction( without which he cannot be recommitted under the condition of his pardon. 0ere accusation is not synonymous with guilt. People v. Dramayo( )/ S&$. @=-. . prima facie case only 6ustifies the filing of the corresponding information( but proof beyond reasonable doubt is still necessary for conviction. 0anifestly( an allegation merely accuses the defendant of a crime: it is the conviction that ma<es him a criminal. 1n other words( a person is considered to have committed a crime only if he is convicted thereof( and this is done not by his accuser but by the 6udge. 'hat this conviction must be pronounced by the 6udge and no other is too obvious a proposition to be disputed. 'he e;ecutive can only allege the commission of crime and thereafter try to prove it through indubitable evidence. 1f the prosecution succeeds( the court will then affirm the allegation of commission in a 6udgment of conviction. e. .mnesty to rebels $ead: P"$,la)a&i$# N$. 87, ?!b"+a"= 28, 1;87 1:. Sections /:. 'he President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the $epublic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the 0onetary >oard( and sub6ect to such limitations as may be provided for by law. 'he 0onetary >oard shall( within *: days from the end of every Duarter of the calendar year( submit to the &ongress a complete report of its decisions on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the government or government owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt( and containing other matters as may be provided for by law. Se&t"!n 43. N! treat* !r "nternat"!na' a,reement ha'' )e -a'"d and effe&t"-e #n'e &!n&#rred "n )* at 'ea t 4M6 !f a'' the mem)er !f the Senate. 5"'!: Please see Section /@( .rt. 1+. .fter the e;piration in 1==1 of the .greement between the $epublic of the Philippines and the 3S. concerning 0ilitary
/+8

/+,

>ases( foreign military bases( troops( or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines e;cept under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and( when the &ongress so reDuires( ratified by a ma6ority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose( and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.1s the visiting forces agreement between the Philippines and the 351'!D S'.'!S void and unconstitutionalC 1s it a self7e;ecuting treaty that can be implemented without ratification by the 3S Senate though ratified by the Philippine SenateC SUNETTE NICOLAS * SOMBILON2 vs. ALBERTO ROMULO2 "n h" &a%a&"t* a Se&retar* !f F!re",n Affa"r K RAUL 1ONNALEN2 "n h" &a%a&"t* a Se&retar* !f :# t"&eK EDUARDO ERMITA2 "n h" &a%a&"t* a ECe&#t"-e Se&retar*K RONALDO .UNO2 "n h" &a%a&"t* a Se&retar* !f the Inter"!r and L!&a' 1!-ernmentK SER1IO A.OSTOL2 "n h" &a%a&"t* a .re "dent"a' Le,a' C!#n e'K and LMC.L. DANIEL SMITH2 1.R. N!. 357AAA2 %ebruary 11( /::= ANCUNA2 E.= 'he facts are not disputed. $espondent Lance &orporal LT&PL- Daniel Smith is a member of the 3nited States .rmed %orces. 9e was charged with the crime of rape committed against a %ilipina( petitioner herein( sometime on 5ovember 1( /::@( as follows: 'he undersigned accused L&pl. Daniel Smith( Ssgt. &had >rian &arpentier( Dominic Duplantis( ?eith Sil<wood and 'imoteo L. Soriano( 2r. of the crime of $ape under .rticle /887. of the $evised Penal &ode( as amended by $epublic .ct +*@*( upon a complaint under oath filed by Suzette S. 5icolas( which is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as .nne; I.(J committed as follows: I'hat on or about the %irst 1st- day of 5ovember /::@( inside the Subic >ay %reeport Mone( "longapo &ity and within the 6urisdiction of this 9onorable &ourt( the above7named accusedEs si,-( being then members of the 3nited States 0arine &orps( e;cept 'imoteo L. Soriano( 2r.( conspiring( confederating together and mutually helping one another( with lewd design and by means of force( threat and intimidation( with abuse of superior strength and ta<ing advantage of the into;ication of the victim( did then and
/+,

/++

there willfully( unlawfully and feloniously se;ually abuse and have se;ual intercourse with or carnal <nowledge of one Suzette S. 5icolas( a //7year old unmarried woman inside a Stare; #an with Plate 5o. L?%718/( owned by Starways 'ravel and 'ours( with "ffice address at +=:: P. #ictor St.( 4uadalupe( 0a<ati &ity( and driven by accused 'imoteo L. Soriano( 2r.( against the will and consent of the said Suzette S. 5icolas( to her damage and pre6udice. &"5'$.$K '" L.L.J):+O1P Pursuant to the #isiting %orces .greement #%.- between the $epublic of the Philippines and the 3nited States( entered into on %ebruary 1:( 1==+( the 3nited States( at its reDuest( was granted custody of defendant Smith pending the proceedings. During the trial( which was transferred from the $egional 'rial &ourt $'&- of Mambales to the $'& of 0a<ati for security reasons( the 3nited States 4overnment faithfully complied with its underta<ing to bring defendant Smith to the trial court every time his presence was reDuired. "n December )( /::8( the $'& of 0a<ati( following the end of the trial( rendered its Decision( finding defendant Smith guilty( thus: L9!$!%"$!( premises considered( for failure of the prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence against accused STS4'. &9.D >$1.5 &.$P!5'!$( LT&PL. ?!1'9 S1L?L""D .5D LT&PL. D"0151& D3PL.5'1S( all of the 3S 0arine &orps assigned at the 3SS !sse;( are hereby .&A31''!D to the crime charged. 'he prosecution having presented sufficient evidence against accused LT&PL. D.51!L 2. S01'9( also of the 3S 0arine &orps at the 3SS !sse;( this &ourt hereby finds him 431L'K >!K"5D $!.S"5.>L! D"3>' of the crime of $.P! defined under .rticle /887.( paragraph 1 a- of the $evised Penal &ode( as amended by $... +*@*( and( in accordance with .rticle /887>( first paragraph thereof( hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of "!,l+si$# %!"%!&+a together with the accessory penalties provided for under .rticle )1 of the same &ode. Pursuant to .rticle #( paragraph 5o. 1:( of the #isiting %orces .greement entered into by the Philippines and the 3nited States( accused LT&PL. D.51!L 2. S01'9 shall serve his sentence in the facilities that shall( thereafter( be agreed upon by appropriate Philippine and 3nited States authorities. Pending agreement on such facilities( accused LT&PL.
):+O1P

.nne; I>J of $'& Decision( &. "$ll$( p. )@.

/++

/+=

D.51!L 2. S01'9 is hereby temporarily committed to the 0a<ati &ity 2ail. .ccused LT&PL. D.51!L 2. S01'9 is further sentenced to indemnify complainant S3M!''! S. 51&"L.S in the amount of P@:(:::.:: as compensatory damages plus P@:(:::.:: as moral damages. .s a result( the 0a<ati court ordered Smith detained at the 0a<ati 6ail until further orders. "n December /=( /::8( however( defendant Smith was ta<en out of the 0a<ati 6ail by a contingent of Philippine law enforcement agents( purportedly acting under orders of the Department of the 1nterior and Local 4overnment( and brought to a facility for detention under the control of the 3nited States government( provided for under new agreements between the Philippines and the 3nited States( referred to as the $omulo7 ?enney .greement of December 1=( /::8 which states: 'he 4overnment of the $epublic of the Philippines and the 4overnment of the 3nited States of .merica agree that( in accordance with the #isiting %orces .greement signed between our two nations( Lance &orporal Daniel 2. Smith( 3nited States 0arine &orps( be returned to 3.S. military custody at the 3.S. !mbassy in 0anila. Sgd.- ?$1S'1! .. ?!55!K $epresentative of the 3nited States of .merica D.'!: 1/71=7:8 Sgd.- .L>!$'" 4. $"03L" $epresentative of the $epublic of the Philippines D.'!: December 1=( /::8aa

and the $omulo7?enney .greement of December //( /::8 which states: 'he Department of %oreign .ffairs of the $epublic of the Philippines and the !mbassy of the 3nited States of .merica agree that( in accordance with the #isiting %orces .greement signed between the two nations( upon transfer of Lance &orporal Daniel 2. Smith( 3nited States 0arine &orps( from the 0a<ati &ity 2ail( he will be detained at the first floor( $owe 23S0.4- >uilding( 3.S. !mbassy &ompound in a room of appro;imately 1: ; 1/ sDuare feet. 9e will be guarded round the cloc< by 3.S. military personnel. 'he Philippine police and 6ail authorities( under the direct supervision of the Philippine Department of 1nterior and Local 4overnment D1L4- will have access to the place of detention to ensure the 3nited States is in compliance with the terms of the #%.. 'he matter was brought before the &ourt of .ppeals which decided on 2anuary /( /::,( as follows:

/+=

/=:

L9!$!%"$!( all the foregoing considered( we resolved to D1S01SS the petition for having become moot.):=O*P 9ence( the present actions. 9!LD: Petitioners contend that the Philippines should have custody of defendant LT&PL Smith because( first of all( the #%. is void and unconstitutional. 'his issue had been raised before( and this &ourt resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the #%.. 'his was in Ba=a# v. Za)$"a()1:O)P brought by Ba=a#( one of petitioners in the present cases. .gainst the barriers of "!s 8+*i,a&a vis7b7vis Ba=a#( and s&a"! *!,isis vis7b7vis all the parties( the reversal of the previous ruling is sought on the ground that the issue is of primordial importance( involving the sovereignty of the $epublic( as well as a specific mandate of the &onstitution. 'he provision of the &onstitution is .rt. G#111( Sec. /@ which states: Sec. /@. .fter the e;piration in 1==1 of the .greement between the Philippines and the 3nited States of .merica concerning 0ilitary >ases( foreign military bases( troops( or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines e;cept under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and( when the &ongress so reDuires( ratified by a ma6ority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose( and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. 'he reason for this provision lies in history and the Philippine e;perience in regard to the 3nited States military bases in the country. 1t will be recalled that under the Philippine >ill of 1=:/( which laid the basis for the Philippine &ommonwealth and( eventually( for the recognition of independence( the 3nited States agreed to cede to the Philippines all the territory it acDuired from Spain under the 'reaty of Paris( plus a few islands later added to its realm( e;cept certain naval ports andTor military bases and facilities( which the 3nited States retained for itself. 'his is noteworthy( because what this means is that &lar< and Subic and the other places in the Philippines covered by the $P73S 0ilitary >ases .greement of 1=), were not Philippine territory( as they were e;cluded from the cession and retained by the 3S. .ccordingly( the Philippines had no 6urisdiction over these bases e;cept to the e;tent allowed by the 3nited States. %urthermore( the $P73S 0ilitary >ases .greement
):=O*P )1:O)P

R$ll$( pp. =:71/,. 4.$. 5o. 1*+@,:( "ctober 1:( /:::( *)/ S&$. ))=.

/=:

/=1

was never advised for ratification by the 3nited States Senate( a disparity in treatment( because the Philippines regarded it as a treaty and had it concurred in by our Senate. SubseDuently( the 3nited States agreed to turn over these bases to the PhilippinesF and with the e;piration of the $P73S 0ilitary >ases .greement in 1==1( the territory covered by these bases were finally ceded to the Philippines. 'o prevent a recurrence of this e;perience( the provision in Duestion was adopted in the 1=+, &onstitution. 'he provision is thus designed to ensure that any agreement allowing the presence of foreign military bases( troops or facilities in Philippine territory shall be eDually binding on the Philippines and the foreign sovereign State involved. 'he idea is to prevent a recurrence of the situation in which the terms and conditions governing the presence of foreign armed forces in our territory were binding upon us but not upon the foreign State. .pplying the provision to the situation involved in these cases( the Duestion is whether or not the presence of 3S .rmed %orces in Philippine territory pursuant to the #%. is allowed Iunder a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate ;;; and re&!,n"Eed a a treat* )* the !ther &!ntra&t"n, State.J 'his &ourt finds that it is( for two reasons. %irst( as held in Ba=a# v. Za)$"a()11O@P the #%. was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the 3nited States as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the 3nited States government. 'he fact that the #%. was not submitted for advice and consent of the 3nited States Senate does not detract from its status as a binding international agreement or treaty recognized by the said State. %or this is a matter of internal 3nited States law. 5otice can be ta<en of the internationally <nown practice by the 3nited States of submitting to its Senate for advice and consent agreements that are policyma<ing in nature( whereas those that carry out or further implement these policyma<ing agreements are merely submitted to &ongress( under the provisions of the so7called &aseWMabloc<i .ct( within si;ty days from ratification.)1/O8P 'he second reason has to do with the relation between the #%. and the $P73S 0utual Defense 'reaty of .ugust *:( 1=@1. 'his earlier agreement was signed and duly ratified with the concurrence of both the Philippine Senate and the 3nited States Senate. 'he $P73S 0utual Defense 'reaty states:)1*O,P
)11O@P )1/

S+%"a( note ). O8P 'he &ase7Mabloc<i .ct( 1 3.S.&. 11/b a- 1=,8 ed.( Supp 1#-. S!! also G!i#b!"(!" v. R$ssi( )@8 3.S. /@ 1=+/-( in which the 3.S. Supreme &ourt sustained recognition as a ItreatyJ of agreements not concurred in by the 3.S. Senate.

/=1

/=/

03'3.L D!%!5S! '$!.'K >!'L!!5 '9! $!P3>L1& "% '9! P91L1PP15!S .5D '9! 351'!D S'.'!S "% .0!$1&.. Signed at Lashington( .ugust *:( 1=@1. 'he Parties of this 'reaty $eaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles of the &harter of the 3nited 5ations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments( and desiring to strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific area. $ecalling with mutual pride the historic relationship which brought their two peoples together in a common bond of sympathy and mutual ideals to fight side7by7side against imperialist aggression during the last war. De "r"n, t! de&'are %#)'"&'* and f!rma''* the"r en e !f #n"t* and the"r &!mm!n determ"nat"!n t! defend them e'-e a,a"n t eCterna' armed atta&<2 so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the Pacific area. De "r"n, f#rther t! tren,then the"r %re ent eff!rt f!r &!''e&t"-e defen e f!r the %re er-at"!n !f %ea&e and e&#r"t* pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific area. .greeing that nothing in this present instrument shall be considered or interpreted as in any way or sense altering or diminishing any e;isting agreements or understandings between the $epublic of the Philippines and the 3nited States of .merica. 9ave agreed as follows: .$'1&L! 1. 'he parties underta<e( as set forth in the &harter of the 3nited 5ations( to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and 6ustice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relation from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the 3nited 5ations.

)1*

O,P

'he $P73S 0utual Defense 'reaty was signed in Lashington( D.&. on .ugust *:( 1=@1. 1ts ratification was advised by the 3S Senate on 0arch /:( 1=@/( and the 3S President ratified the 'reaty on .pril 1@( 1=@/. 'he 'reaty was concurred in by the $P Senate( S.$. 5o. +)( 0ay 1/( 1=@/. 'he Philippine instrument of ratification was signed by the $P President on .ugust /,( 1=@/. 'he .greement entered into force on .ugust /,( 1=@/ upon the e;change of ratification between the Parties. 'his .greement is published in 11 D%. 'S 5o. 1( p. 1*F 1,, 35'S( p. 1**F * 3S' *+),7*=@/. 'he $P Presidential proclamation of the .greement( Proc. 5o. *)1( S. 1=@/( is published in )+ ".4. )//) .ug. 1=@/-.

/=/

/=*

.$'1&L! 11. 1n order more effectively to achieve the ob6ective of this 'reaty( the .art"e e%arate'* and D!"nt'* )* e'f0he'% and m#t#a' a"d +"'' ma"nta"n and de-e'!% the"r "nd"-"d#a' and &!''e&t"-e &a%a&"t* t! re " t armed atta&<. .$'1&L! 111. 'he Parties( through their %oreign 0inisters or their deputies( will consult together from time to time regarding the implementation of this 'reaty and whenever in the opinion of either of them the territorial integrity( political independence or security of either of the Parties is threatened by e;ternal armed attac< in the Pacific. .$'1&L! 1#. !ach Party recognizes that an armed attac< in the Pacific area on either of the parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes. .ny such armed attac< and all measures ta<en as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security &ouncil of the 3nited 5ations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security &ouncil has ta<en the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. .$'1&L! #. %or the purpose of .rticle 1#( an armed attac< on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attac< on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties( or on the island territories under its 6urisdiction in the Pacific "cean( its armed forces( public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific. .$'1&L! #1. 'his 'reaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the &harter of the 3nited 5ations or the responsibility of the 3nited 5ations for the maintenance of international peace and security. .$'1&L! #11. 'his 'reaty shall be ratified by the $epublic of the Philippines and the 3nited 5ations of .merica in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been e;changed by them at 0anila. .$'1&L! #111. 'his 'reaty shall remain in force indefinitely. !ither Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other party. 15 L1'95!SS L9!$!"% the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this 'reaty.

/=*

/=)

D"5! in duplicate at Lashington this thirtieth day of .ugust( 1=@1. %or the $epublic of the Philippines: Sgd.$"03L" Sgd.!L1M.LD! Sgd.%$.5&1S&" Sgd.0.&.P.4.L %or the 3nited States of .merica: Sgd.- D!.5 .&9!S"5 Sgd.2"95 %"S'!$ D3LL!S Sgd.- '"0 &"55.LLK Sgd..L!G.5D!$ L1L!K)1)O+P &learly( therefore( 6oint $P73S military e;ercises for the purpose of developing the capability to resist an armed attac< fall sDuarely under the provisions of the $P73S 0utual Defense 'reaty. 'he #%.( which is the instrument agreed upon to provide for the 6oint $P73S military e;ercises( is simply an implementing agreement to the main $P7 3S 0ilitary Defense 'reaty. 'he Preamble of the #%. states: 'he 4overnment of the 3nited States of .merica and the 4overnment of the $epublic of the Philippines( $eaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles of the &harter of the 3nited 5ations and their desire to strengthen international and regional security in the Pacific areaF Reaff"rm"n, the"r !)'",at"!n #nder the M#t#a' Defen e Treat* !f A#,# t 6;2 3873F N!t"n, that fr!m t"me t! t"me e'ement !f the Un"ted State armed f!r&e ma* -" "t the Re%#)'"& !f the .h"'"%%"ne F &onsidering that &!!%erat"!n )et+een the Un"ted State and the Re%#)'"& !f the .h"'"%%"ne %r!m!te the"r &!mm!n e&#r"t* "ntere t F
)1)O+P

&.$L"S 2".A315 #1&!5'!

P. 0. 2.

D1"SD.D"

!mphasis supplied.

/=)

/=@

$ecognizing the desirability of defining the treatment of 3nited States personnel visiting the $epublic of the PhilippinesF 9ave agreed as follows:)1@O=P .ccordingly( as an implementing agreement of the $P73S 0utual Defense 'reaty( it was not necessary to submit the #%. to the 3S Senate for advice and consent( but merely to the 3S &ongress under the &aseWMabloc<i .ct within 8: days of its ratification. 1t is for this reason that the 3S has certified that it recognizes the #%. as a binding international agreement( i.!.( a treaty( and this substantially complies with the reDuirements of .rt. G#111( Sec. /@ of our &onstitution.)18O1:P 'he provision of .rt. G#111( Sec. /@ of the &onstitution( is complied with by virtue of the fact that the presence of the 3S .rmed %orces through the #%. is a presence Iallowed underJ the $P73S 0utual Defense 'reaty. Since the $P73S 0utual Defense 'reaty itself has been ratified and concurred in by both the Philippine Senate and the 3S Senate( there is no violation of the &onstitutional provision resulting from such presence. 'he #%. being a valid and binding agreement( the parties are reDuired as a matter of international law to abide by its terms and provisions. 'he #%. provides that in cases of offenses committed by the members of the 3S .rmed %orces in the Philippines( the following rules apply: .rticle # &riminal 2urisdiction ;;; 8. 'he custody of any 3nited States personnel over whom the Philippines is to e;ercise 6urisdiction shall immediately reside with 3nited States military authorities( if they so reDuest( from the commission of the offense until completion of all 6udicial proceedings. 3nited States military authorities shall( upon formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay( ma<e such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or 6udicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. 1n e;traordinary cases( the Philippine 4overnment shall present its position to the 3nited States 4overnment regarding custody( which the 3nited States 4overnment shall ta<e into full account. 1n the event Philippine 6udicial proceedings are not completed within one year( the 3nited States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. 'he one year period will not include the time
)1@O=P )18O1:P

!mphasis supplied. S!! Letter of .mbassador 'homas &. 9ubbard Duoted in Ba=a#( *)/ S&$. ))=( )=1.

/=@

/=8

necessary to appeal. .lso( the one year period will not include any time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed because 3nited States authorities( after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused( fail to do so. Petitioners contend that these underta<ings violate another provision of the &onstitution( namely( that providing for the e;clusive power of this &ourt to adopt rules of procedure for all courts in the Philippines .rt. #111( Sec. @O@P-. 'hey argue that to allow the transfer of custody of an accused to a foreign power is to provide for a different rule of procedure for that accused( which also violates the eDual protection clause of the &onstitution .rt. 111( Sec. 1.-. .gain( this &ourt finds no violation of the &onstitution. 'he eDual protection clause is not violated( because there is a substantial basis for a different treatment of a member of a foreign military armed forces allowed to enter our territory and all other accused.)1,O11P 'he rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter oneEs territory is immune from local 6urisdiction( e;cept to the e;tent agreed upon. 'he Status of %orces .greements involving foreign military units around the world vary in terms and conditions( according to the situation of the parties involved( and reflect their bargaining power. >ut the principle remains( i.!.( the receiving State can e;ercise 6urisdiction over the forces of the sending State only to the e;tent agreed upon by the parties.)1+O1/P .s a result( the situation involved is not one in which the power of this &ourt to adopt rules of procedure is curtailed or violated( but rather one in which( as is normally encountered around the world( the laws including rules of procedure- of one State do not e;tend or apply W eC&e%t t! the eCtent a,reed #%!n W to sub6ects of another State due to the recognition of e;traterritorial immunity given to such bodies as visiting foreign armed forces. 5othing in the &onstitution prohibits such agreements recognizing immunity from 6urisdiction or some aspects of 6urisdiction such as custody-( in relation to long7 recognized sub6ects of such immunity li<e 9eads of State( diplomats and members of the armed forces contingents of a foreign State allowed to enter another StateEs territory. "n the contrary( the &onstitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. .rt. 11( Sec. /-. .pplying( however( the provisions of #%.( the &ourt finds that there is a different treatment when it comes to detention as against custody. 'he moment the accused has to be detained( !.(.( after conviction( the rule that governs is the following provision of the #%.:
)1, )1+O1/P
O11P

S!!( the summation of the rule on eDual protection in 1S.4.51 .. &$3M( &"5S'1'3'1"5.L L.L( pp. 1/*71*= /::,-( and the authorities cited therein. S!! Dieter %lec<( !d.( 'he 9.5D>""? "% '9! L.L "% #1S1'154 %"$&!S ( ";ford: /::1.

/=8

/=,

.rticle # &riminal 2urisdiction ;;; Sec. 1:. 'he confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of 3nited States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and 3nited States authorities. 3nited States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance. 1t is clear that the parties to the #%. recognized the difference between custody during the trial and detention after conviction( because they provided for a specific arrangement to cover detention. .nd this specific arrangement clearly states not only that the detention shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by authorities of both parties( but also that the detention shall be Iby Philippine authorities.J 'herefore( the $omulo7 ?enney .greements of December 1= and //( /::8( which are agreements on the detention of the accused "n the Un"ted State Em)a * ( are not in accord with the #%. itself because such detention is not Iby Philippine authorities.J $espondents should therefore comply with the #%. and negotiate with representatives of the 3nited States towards an agreement on detention facilities under Philippine authorities as mandated by .rt. #( Sec. 1: of the #%.. 5e;t( the &ourt addresses the recent decision of the 3nited States Supreme &ourt in M!*!lli# v. T!>as @@/ 3S aaa 5o. :87=+)( 0arch /@( /::+-( which held that treaties entered into by the 3nited States are not automatically part of their domestic law unless these treaties are self7e;ecuting or there is an implementing legislation to ma<e them enforceable. "n %ebruary *( /::=( the &ourt issued a $esolution( thus: I4.$. 5o. 1,@+++ Suzette 5icolas = Sombilon v. .lberto $omulo( et al.-F 4.$. 5o. 1,8:@1 2ovito $. Salonga( et al. v. Daniel Smith( et al.-F and 4.$. 5o. 1,8/// >agong .lyansang 0a<abayan O>.K.5P( et al. v. President 4loria 0acapagal7.rroyo( et al.-. 'he parties( including the Solicitor 4eneral( are reDuired to submit within three *- days a &ommentT0anifestation on the following points: 1. Lhat is the implication on the $P73S #isiting %orces .greement of the recent 3S Supreme &ourt decision in I$s! E"#!s&$ M!*!lli# v. T!>as( dated 0arch /@( /::+( to the effect that treaty stipulations that are not self7e;ecutory can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effectF and that( while treaties may comprise international commitments( they are not domestic law
/=,

/=+

unless &ongress has enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be Iself7e;ecutoryJ and is ratified on these termsC /. Lhether the #%. is enforceable in the 3S as domestic law( either because it is self7e;ecutory or because there e;ists legislation to implement it. Lhether the $P73S 0utual Defense 'reaty of .ugust *:( 1=@1 was concurred in by the 3S Senate and( if so( is there proof of the 3S Senate advice and consent resolutionC Peralta( 2.( no part.J

*.

.fter deliberation( the &ourt holds( on these points( as follows: %irst( the #%. is a self7e;ecuting .greement( as that term is defined in M!*!lli# itself( because the parties intend its provisions to be enforceable( precisely because the .greement is intended to carry out obligations and underta<ings under the $P73S 0utual Defense 'reaty. .s a matter of fact( the #%. has been implemented and e;ecuted( with the 3S faithfully complying with its obligation to produce LT&PL Smith before the court during the trial. Secondly( the #%. is covered by implementing legislation( namely( the &ase7 Mabloc<i .ct( 3S& Sec. 11/ b-( inasmuch as it is the very purpose and intent of the 3S &ongress that e;ecutive agreements registered under this .ct within 8: days from their ratification be immediately implemented. 'he parties to these present cases do not Duestion the fact that the #%. has been registered under the &ase7Mabloc<i .ct. 1n sum( therefore( the #%. differs from the #ienna &onvention on &onsular $elations and the Av!#a decision of the 1nternational &ourt of 2ustice 1&2-( sub6ect matter of the M!*!lli# decision. 'he &onvention and the 1&2 decision are not self7 e;ecuting and are not registrable under the &ase7Mabloc<i .ct( and thus lac< legislative implementing authority. %inally( the $P73S 0utual Defense 'reaty was advised and consented to by the 3S Senate on 0arch /:( 1=@/( as reflected in the 3S &ongressional $ecord( +/ nd &ongress( Second Session( #ol. =+ W Part /( pp. /@=)7/@=@. 'he framers of the &onstitution were aware that the application of international law in domestic courts varies from country to country. .s Lard 5. %erdinandusse states in his 'reatise( D1$!&' .PPL1&.'1"5 "% 15'!$5.'1"5.L &$1015.L L.L 15 5.'1"5.L &"3$'S( some countries reDuire legislation whereas others do not. 1t was not the intention of the framers of the 1=+, &onstitution( in adopting .rticle G#111( Sec. /@( to reDuire the other contracting State to convert their system to
/=+

/==

achieve alignment and parity with ours. 1t was simply reDuired that the treaty be recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. Lith that( it becomes for both parties a binding international obligation and the enforcement of that obligation is left to the normal recourse and processes under international law. %urthermore( as held by the 3S Supreme &ourt in G!i#b!"(!" v. R$ssi()1=O1*P an e;ecutive agreement is a ItreatyJ within the meaning of that word in international law and constitutes enforceable domestic law visMWMvis the 3nited States. 'hus( the 3S Supreme &ourt in G!i#b!"(!" enforced the provisions of the e;ecutive agreement granting preferential employment to %ilipinos in the 3S >ases here. .ccordingly( there are three types of treaties in the .merican system: 1. /. *. .rt. 11( Sec. / treaties W 'hese are advised and consented to by the 3S Senate in accordance with .rt. 11( Sec. / of the 3S &onstitution. !;ecutiveW&ongressional .greements: 'hese are 6oint agreements of the President and &ongress and need not be submitted to the Senate. Sole !;ecutive .greements. W 'hese are agreements entered into by the President. 'hey are to be submitted to &ongress within si;ty 8:- days of ratification under the provisions of the &ase7Mabloc<i .ct( after which they are recognized by the &ongress and may be implemented.

.s regards the implementation of the $P73S 0utual Defense 'reaty( military aid or assistance has been given under it and this can only be done through implementing legislation. 'he #%. itself is another form of implementation of its provisions. >HEREFORE( the petitions are .ARTL/ 1RANTED( and the &ourt of .ppealsE Decision in &.74.$. SP 5o. =,/1/ dated 2anuary /( /::, is MODIFIED. 'he #isiting %orces .greement #%.- between the $epublic of the Philippines and the 3nited States( entered into on %ebruary 1:( 1==+( is U.HELD a &!n t"t#t"!na'( but the $omulo7?enney .greements of December 1= and //( /::8 are DECLARED n!t "n a&&!rdan&e +"th the VFA( and respondent Secretary of %oreign .ffairs is hereby ordered to forthwith negotiate with the 3nited States representatives for the appropriate agreement on detention facilities under Philippine authorities as provided in .rt. #( Sec. 1: of the #%.( pending which the s&a&+s <+$ shall be maintained until further orders by this &ourt. 'he &ourt of .ppeals is hereby directed to resolve without delay the related matters pending therein( namely( the petition for contempt and the appeal of LT&PL Daniel Smith from the 6udgment of conviction.

)1=O1*P

S+%"a, 5ote 8.

/==

*::

Section //. 'he President shall submit to the &ongress within *: days from the opening of every regular session( as the basis of the general appropriations bill( a budget of e;penditures and sources of financing( including receipts from e;isting and proposed revenue measures. Section /*. 'he President shall address the &ongress at the opening of its regular session. 9e may also appear before it at any other time. $ead: Distinctions between 'reaty and e;ecutive agreements. 1) GONZALES VS. NECNANOVA, ; SCRA 287 2) TAN SIN VS. 6EPORTATION BOAR6, 17 Phil. 8:8 9) COMMISSIONER O? C@STOMS VS. EASTERN, 9 SCRA 9B1 . I,h$#( vs. N!"#a#*!K, 171 Phil. 11BB 11. 3nder the present &onstitution( is the president immune from suit in relation to acts performed by him or by his subordinates by virtue of his specific orders during his tenure considering that the immunity from suit provision under the 1=,* &onstitution was already deletedC $ead: 1- Section 1,( .rticle #11 of the 1=,* &onstitution with the 1=+) amendments. 2) NI6ALGO VS. MARCOS, 87 SCRA B98 9) CARILLO VS. MARCOS, A%"il :, 1;81 ). 0.G10" S"L1#!5 #S. 23D4! 0.?.S1.$( 5ov. 1@( 1=++ P.$' #111 .$'1&L! #111 7 '9! 23D1&1.L D!P.$'0!5' 1. Section 1. 'he 6udicial power shall be vested in one Supreme &ourt and in such other courts as may be established by law. 2udicial power includes the duty of the courts of 6ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable( and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< or in e;cess of 6urisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. a. Lhat is 6udicial powerC $ead: Ba*+a vs. CBA, ?!b"+a"= 1 , 1;;1 b. $estrictions to the e;ercise of 6udicial power Political Duestion doctrine $ead: 1) IAVELLANA VS. E5EC@TIVE SECRETARF, B7 SCRA 97 2) 6E LA LLANA VS. ALBA, 112 SCRA 2;
*::

*:1

9) ALMARIO VS. ALBA, 127 SCRA :; A Lhen the Duestion deals with the necessity( e;pediency and wisdom of a particuar act( the same is political and not 6usticiable. R!a* a(ai# ENRILE VS. I@6GE SALAZAR, I+#! B, 1;;7 b71. Definition of political Duestion $ead: 1. Sanidad vs. &omelec( ,* S&$. *** Political Duestions are neatly associated with the wisdom( not the legality of a particular act. Lhere the vorte; of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act( the matter is definitely 6usticiable or non7political/. 2avellana vs. !;ec. Secretary( @: S&$. *: *. 'anada vs. &uenco( 1:* Phil. Political Duestions are Duestions to be answered by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority is vested to the e;ecutive or legislative branch of the government). 4onzales vs. &"0!L!&( /1 S&$. ,,) Lhen the cru; of the problem deals with the validity of an act( it is 6usticiablec. &ases on 6udicial power in general 1/*)@8L"P!M #S. $"G.S( 1, S&$. ,@8 S.5'1.4" #S. >.3'1S'.( */ S&$. 1++ $.D1"L!.L'9 #S. .4$.&.D.( +8 Phil. )/= 5">L!2.S #S. '!!9.5?!!( /* S&$. ):@ L15. #S. P3$1S10.( +/ S&$. /)) 4.$&1. #S. 0.&.$.14(*= S&$. 1:8

). Section /. 'he &ongress shall have the power to define( prescribe( and apportion the 6urisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme &ourt of its 6urisdiction over cases enumerated in Section @ hereof. 5o law shall be passed reorganizing the 6udiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members. *. Section *. 'he 6udiciary shall en6oy fiscal autonomy. .ppropriations for the 6udiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and( after approval( shall be automatically and regularly released. ). Section ). 1- 'he Supreme &ourt shall be composed of a &hief 2ustice and 1) associate 6ustices. 1t may sit en banc or in its discretion( in divisions of *( @ or seven members. .ny vacancy shall be filled within =: days from the occurrence thereof.
*:1

*:/

/- .ll cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty( international or e;ecutive agreement( or law( which shall be heard by the Supreme &ourt en banc( including those involving the constitutionality( application( or operation of presidential decrees( proclamations( orders( instructions( ordinances( and other regulations( shall be decided with the concurrence of a ma6ority of the members who actually too< part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. *- &ases or matters heard by a divisions hall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a ma6ority of the members who actually too< part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon( and in no case( without the concurrence of at least * of such members. Lhen the reDuired number is not obtained( the case shall be decided en banc: Provided( that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed e;cept by the court sitting en banc. $ead: 1) VARGAS VS. RILLORAZA, 87 Phil. 2;7 2) VIRMIEN SNIPPING VS. NLRC, 12B SCRA B77 9. IAN6@SAF VS. CA, 172 SCRA 97: 'o be decided by the Supreme &ourt en banc 1. 1nvolving the constitutionality of any law( treaty( etc.F /. Lhen there is conflict of the decisions of / or more divisions of the Supreme &ourtF *. Lhen a case is referred to by the division to the banc and the same was accepted by the latterF ). 1n death penalty casesF ). Section @. 'he Supreme &ourt shall have the following powers: 1- !;ercise original 6urisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors( other public ministers and consuls( and over petitions for certiorari( prohibition( mandamus( Duo warranto( and habeas corpus. /- $eview( revise( reverse( modify( or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the $ules of &ourt may provide( final 6udgments and orders of lower courts in: a- .ll cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty( international or e;ecutive agreement( law( presidential decree( proclamation( order( instruction( ordinance( or regulation is in DuestionF b- .ll cases involving the legality of any ta;( impost( assessment( or toll( or any penalty imposed in relation theretoF

*:/

*:*

c- .ll cases in which the 6urisdiction of any lower court is in issueF d- .ll criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higherF e- .ll cases in which only an error or Duestion of law is involved. *- .ssign temporarily 6udges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may reDuire. Such temporary assignment shall not e;ceed 8 months without the consent of the 6udge concerned. )- "rder a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of 6ustice. @- Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights( pleading ( practice ( and procedure in all courts( the admission to the practice of law( the 1ntegrated >ar( and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and ine;pensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases( shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade( and shall not diminish( increase or modify substantive rights. $ules of procedure of special courts and Duasi76udicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme &ourt. 8- .ppoint all officials and employees of the 6udiciary in accordance with the civil service law. $!.D: 0aniago vs. &.( /@* S&$. on the limitation of the $ulesNnot to diminish( increase or modify substantive rights. a. Lhat is the power of 6udicial reviewC Lhat are its reDuisitesC D1S"0.54&"P #S. 9"5. S10!"5 D.'30.5"54( ))) S&$. /:* $eDuisites for the e;ercise of 6udicial power. 'he following are the reDuisites for the e;ercise of 6udicial power: a. 'here must be before the court a case calling for the e;ercise of 6udicial reviewF b. 'he Duestion before the court must be ripe for 6udicial ad6udicationF c. 'he person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challengeF d. 'he Duestion of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunityF and e. 'he issue of constitutionality must be the very lis )$&a of the case.
*:*

*:)

7 Distinguish 6udicial power from 6udicial review. $ead: 1. ?!"#a#*!K vs. T$""!s, 27; SCRA :77 1Ma. Sa#&$s III vs. N$"&h-!s& Ai"li#!s, 217 SCRA 2B: 1M,) ANGARA VS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION, :9 Phil. 19; 2) 6@MLAO VS. COMELEC, ;B SCRA 9;2 9. NEPA VS. ONGPIN, 171 SCRA :B7 . Alli!* B"$a*,as&i#( C!#&!" vs. R!%., O,&. 18, 1;;1 @. Lagamy vs. &.( 1== S&$. @:1 a71. %unctions of 2udicial $eview 1- legitimizing function /- chec<ing function *- symbolic or educational function $ead: aa. SALONGA VS. PANO, 19 SCRA 98 bb. IAVIER VS. COMELEC, 1 SCRA 1; b. "n personality to sue 1s there a difference as to the QpersonalityQ reDuirement if the law being Duestioned involves disbursement of public funds and on the other hand( if it does not . Standing to Duestion the validity of an !;ecutive "rder which does not involve disbursement of public fundsF $eDuisites before the President may issue e;ecutive "rders in furtherance of police power. !G!&3'1#! S!&$!'.$K( !' .L. #S. S"3'9L154 9!.#K 15D3S'$1!S( )+/ S&$. 8,* Knares7Santiago( 2 "n December 1/( /::/( President .rroyo issued !" 1@8 entitled IP$"#1D154 %"$ . &"0P$!9!5S1#! 15D3S'$1.L P"L1&K .5D D1$!&'1"5S %"$ '9! 0"'"$ #!91&L! D!#!L"P0!5' P$"4$.0 .5D 1'S 10PL!0!5'154 431D!L15!S.J 3nder Section *.1 of the said !"( '9! 10P"$'.'1"5 15'" '9! &"35'$K( 15&L3S1#! "% %$!!P"$'( "% .LL 'KP!S "% 3S!D 0"'"$ #!91&L!S 1S P$"91>1'!D.
*:)

*:@

'he private respondent( which has a business of importing all <inds of used motor vehicles Duestioned the constitutionality of said !". 1 s s u e s: 1. Does the private respondent have the personality to sue or to Duestion the constitutionality of !" 1@8C /. Does the President have the authority to promulgate !" to promote police power li<e in this caseC *. 1s !" 1@8 constitutionalC 9eld: 1. 'he private respondent has the personality to sue to Duestion the constitutionality of an administrative issuance because it will sustain a direct in6ury as a result of its enforcement. $espondents would suffer a direct in6ury if said !" will be implemented because in its &ertificate of $egistration ( it is allowed importTtrade used motor vehicles and spare parts. &learly( it would suffer pre6udice if importation of all motor vehicles( not only used cars will be prohibited. /. 'he President is authorized to issue an e;ecutive order provided it complies with the following reDuisites: a. 1ts promulgation must be authorized by the legislatureF b. 1t must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedureF c. 1t must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislatureF and d. 1t must be reasonable. 'here is no Duestion that no less than .rt. #1( Section /+ O/P of the &onstitution authorizes &ongress to in turn authorize the President by law( within specified limits( and sub6ect to such restrictions and limitations( to fi; tariff rates( import and e;port DuotasNJ. Li<ewise( the 'ariff and &ustoms &ode li<ewise delegates to the President similar powers. *. 1s the !" prohibiting the importation of all motor vehicles( not only used cars constitutionalC 1n this case( while the first two reDuisites are present( the *rd is not. 'his is so because it is not within the powers of the President to prohibit the importation of other vehicles( not only cars( even in the %reeport Mones li<e
*:@

*:8

Subic which is allowed by $. ,//,. 'he !" therefore is +l&"a vi"!s or beyond the limits of the authority conferred on the President because it tries to supplant or modify the &onstitution( its enabling statute and other e;isting laws. 'he )th reDuisite is not also present because the same is unreasonable since it li<ewise prohibit the entry of used motor vehicles into the %reeport which is owed by law( $. ,//,. $ead: 1) PASC@AL VS. SEC. O? P@BLIC GORHS, 117 Phil. 991 2) SANI6A6 VS. COMELEC, 79 SCRA 999 9) 6@MLAO VS. COMELEC, ;B SCRA 9;2 9Ma. R!a* a(ai# NEPA VS. ONGPIN, 171 SCRA B7 . Hil$sba=a# vs. G+i#($#a, Ma= B, 1;; $ead this very carefully because it changes the original concept of personality to sue when public funds are involved or not. /. '.'.D #S. 4.$&1.( .pril 8( 1==@( /)* S&$. )*8 !ven though no public funds are involved and that petitioner is not directly in6ured by the contract( he has the personality to Duestion the same if it involves national interest*. >345.K &"5S'$3&'1"5 #S. L.$"5( 1,: S&$. /): 1f the contract is for local consumption only( and that the petitioner is not directly in6ured by the said contract which does not involve the disbursement of public funds( the petitioner has no personality to suec. 0ay inferior courts also e;ercise the power of 6udicial review in the light of the reDuirement of Section ) /- of .rticle #111C $ead: K5"' #S. 1.&( 0arch /:( 1=+, d. 'hree views on the effects of declaration of unconstitutionality of a law $ead: 1) NORTON VS. SNELBF CO@NTF, 118 @S 2B 2) SNEPPAR6 VS. BARREN, 1; @S BB9 9) 6E AGBAFANI VS. PNB, 98 SCRA 2; ) REP@BLIC VS. NERE6A, 11; SCRA 11 B) REP@BLIC VS. C?I, 127 SCRA 1B1 e. 'ransfer of venue in criminal cases $ead: 1) PEOPLE VS. G@TIERREZ, 9: SCRA 172 2) PEOPLE VS. SOLA, 179 SCRA 9;9 9) PEOPLE VS. PILOTIN, :B SCRA :9B f. $ule ma<ing powerF note the limitations

*:8

*:,

$ead: 1) B@STOS VS. L@CERO, 81 Phil. : 8 2) N@NEZ VS. SAN6IGANBAFAN, 111 SCRA 99 g. "n admission to the bar $ead: 1. IN RE C@NANAN, ; Phil. B9 2. ZAL6EVAR VS. GONZALES, O,&. 7, 1;88 R!C I#*!'i#i&! s+s%!#si$# i)%$s!* $# RA@L GONZALES) g71. 0ay law students practice law before the courtsC $eDuisitesC $ead: Ci",+la" N$. 1;, iss+!* b= &h! S+%"!)! C$+"& h. "n the integration of the bar $ead: IN RE E6ILLON, 8 SCRA BB $# 6!,!)b!" 1;, 1;8:

8. Section 8. 'he Supreme &ourt shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. $ead: 6E G@ZMAN VS. PEOPLE, 11; SCRA 997

). Sections ,. 1- 5o person shall be appointed member of the Supreme &ourt or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. . member of the Supreme &ourt must be at least ): years of age( and must have been for 1@ years or more a 6udge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. /- 'he &ongress shall prescribe the Dualifications of 6udges of lower courts( but no person may be appointed 6udge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine >ar. *- . member of the 6udiciary must be a person of proven competence( integrity( probity and independence. Section +. . 6udicial and bar &ouncil777composition&hief 2ustice( Secretary of 2ustice( $epresentative of &ongress( 1ntegrated >ar( Professor of Law( retired 6ustice and representative of the private sector.. 'he regular members777term of ) years777&ommission on .ppointments

*:,

*:+

Sec. =. 'he members of the Supreme &ourt and 6udges of lower court shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the 2udicial and >ar &ouncil for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation. %or the lower courts( the President shall issue the appointments within =: days from the submission of the list. a. $ead: 1. 3K vs. 2udge &apulong( .pril ,( 1==* /. &ourt .dministrator vs. 2udge 4ines b. $ead: !;ec. "rder 5o./18( 2uly 1:( 1=+,( creating the 2udicial and >ar council +. Section 1:. 'he salary of the &hief 2ustice and the associate 6ustices of the Supreme &ourt( and the 6udges of the lower courts shall be fi;ed by law. During their continuance in office( their salary shall not be decreased. a. See Sec. 1,( .rt. G#111 b. $ead: 1) NITA?AN VS. COMMISSIONER, 1B2 SCRA 28 2) PER?ECTO VS. MEER, 8B Phil. BB2 9) EN6ENCIA VS. 6AVI6, ;9 Phil. :;: =. Section 11. 'he 0embers of the Supreme &ourt and 6udges of the lower court shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of ,: years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. 'he Supreme &ourt en banc shall have the power to discipline 6udges of lower courts( or order their dismissal by a vote of ma6ority of the members who actually too< part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. $ead: 1) OCAMPO VS. SECRETARF O? I@STICE, B1 O.G. 1 7 2) 6E LA LLANA VS. ALBA, 112 SCRA 2;

1:. Section 1/. 'he members of the Supreme &ourt and other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing Duasi76udicial or administrative functions. $ead: 1) GARCIA VS. MACARAIG, 9; SCRA 17: 2) MANILA ELECTRIC VS. PASAF TRANSPORTATION, B7 Phil. :7 9) LOPEZ VS. RO5AS, 17 SCRA 7B: ) IN REC I@6GE RO6OL?O MANZANO, O,&$b!" B, 1;88

*:+

*:=

11. Sections 1*. 'he conclusions of the Supreme &ourt in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a member for the writing o f the opinion o f the court. . certification to this effect signed by the &27777.ny member who too< no part or dissentedNmust state the reason therefor. 'he same procedure in all lower collegiate courts. Section 1). 5o decision shall be rendered by any court without e;pressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. 5o petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. $ead: 1) AIR ?RANCE VS. CARRASCOSO, 18 SCRA 1BB 2) V6A 6E ESPIRIT@ VS. C?I, 7 SCRA 9B 9) B@SCAFNO VS. ENRILE, 172 SCRA 7 ) MANGCA VS. COMELEC, 112 SCRA 279 B) VALLA6OLI6 VS. INCIONG, 121 SCRA 27B :) NAPOLCOM VS. LOO6, 127 SCRA 7B7 8) N@NAL VS. CA, 1:; SCRA 9B: ;) Ma#(!l!# vs. CA, 21B SCRA 297 $eDuirement that the decision shall state clearly and distinctly state the law and the facts on which it is based. >!D$3M #S. "%%1&! "% '9! "0>3DS0.5( )+) S&$. )@/ &arpio70orales( 2. . trial courtEs omission to specify the offense committed( or the specific provision of the law violated( is not in derogation of the constitutional reDuirement that every decision must clearly and distinctly state the law and the facts on which it was based or the factual and legal bases for the conclusions reached by the trial court as long as the legal basis can be inferred from the discussion in the decision. %urther( the reDuirement that the Idecision shall state clearly and distinctly state the law and the facts on which it is basedJ applies only to a decision of a court of 6ustice covered by .rt. #111 of the &onstitutionP( not the "ffice of the "mbudsman. 4!$0.5 0.&915!$1!S &"$P"$.'1"5 #S. !5D.K.( ))) S&$. */= Lhen Section 1)( .rticle #111 of the &onstitution shall be complied with by the courts.
*:=

*1:

Section 1)( .rt. #111 of the &onstitution provides that Ino decision shall be rendered by any court without e;pressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. 'his constitutional provision applies only to cases submitted for decision( i.e.( given due course and after the filing of briefs or memoranda andTor other pleadings( >3' 5"' L9!$! . $!S"L3'1"5 1S 1SS3!D D!5K154 D3! &"3$S! '" '9! P!'1'1"5 .5D S'.'154 '9! L!4.L >.S1S '9!$!%"$ li<e Ithe petition raised are factual or there is no reversible error in the respondentEs court decisionJ( there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional reDuirement. 1n this case ( the &ourt of .ppeals dismissed the Petition for &ertiorari filed by the petitioner on the grounds that the factual issues had already been passed upon by the 5L$&( and since its factual findings are in agreement with that of the Labor .rbiter( the same are binding and conclusive upon the &ourt of .ppeals. 'his complies with the constitutional reDuirement under Section 1)( .rt. #111 of the &onstitution 1/. Section 1@. 1- .ll cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this &onstitution must be decided or resolved within /) months from date of submission for the Supreme &ourt( and unless reduced by the Supreme &ourt( 1/ months for all lower collegiate courts( and * months for all other lower courts. /- . case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading( brief or memorandum reDuired by the $ules of &ourt or by the court itself. )- !ven after the lapse7777the court shall still decide without further delay. Section 18. 'he Supreme &ourt shall( within *: days from the opening of each regular session of the &ongress( submit to the President and the &ongress an annual report on the operations and activities of the 6udiciary. $ead: 1) CORP@S VS. CA ;8 SCRA 2 2) MALACORA VS. CA, 117 SCRA 9B 9) MARCELINO VS. CR@Z, 121 SCRA B1 ) 6E ROMA VS. CA, 1B2 SCRA 27B @- .dministrative &ircular 5o. 1( issued by the Supreme &ourt thru &91!% 23S'1&! &L.3D1" '!!9.5?!! on 2anuary /+( 1=++( particularly par. 11 thereof. 1*. Section 18 PART IB ARTICLE IX - CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
*1:

*11

1. . R > 7 Sections 17+ Section ,. !ach &ommission shall decide by a ma6ority vote of all its members any case brought before itN3nless otherwise provided by this &onstitution or by law( any decision( order or ruling of each commission may be brought to the S& on &ertiorari by the aggrieved party within *: days from receipt thereof. 5"'!: Section 1( $ule )* allows the &ourt of .ppeals to have appellate 6urisdiction over decisions of the &S& in accordance with $. ,=:/Section /( .rticle 1G7>. 'he civil service embraces all branches( subdivisions( instrumentalities( and agencies of the government( including government owned and controlled corporations L1'9 "$1415.L &9.$'!$S. O/P .ppointments in the &S shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable( and e;cept as to positions which are policy determining( primarily confidential or highly technical( by competitive e;amination. O@P 'he right to self7organization shall not be denied to government employees. Policy determining is one charged with laying down of principal or fundamental guidelines or rules( such as that head of a department. Primarily confidential position is one denoting not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which ensures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings or betrayals of the personal trust on confidential matters of the state !;ample: &hief Legal &ounsel of the P5>( >esa vs. P5>( ** S&$. **:9ighly technical position reDuires the appointee thereto to possess technical s<ill or training in the supreme or superior degree. Section 8. 5o candidate who has lost in any election shall( within one year after such election( be appointed to any office in the government or any government owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries. a. 4overnment and controlled corporations $ead: 'hese cases were decided under the 1=,* constitution where it was held that employees of government owned and controlled corporations( with or without charters are within the 6urisdiction of the &ivil Service &ommission. 3nder the 1=+, &onstitution( there is now a distinction and only those with original charters shall be under the &S& while those created under the &orporation &ode are not.

*11

*1/

1) 2) 9) )

NNC VS. I@CO, 19 SCRA 172 MGSS VS. NERNAN6EZ, 1 9 SCRA :72 J@IMPO VS. TANO6BAFAN, 6!,!)b!" 2, 1;8:, PAL VS. C?I, Ia#+a"= 8, 1;87

1 : SCRA

b. &hec<ing function of the &S& $ead: 1) 6E LOS SANTOS VS. MALLARE, 87 Phil. 28; 2) ME6ALLA VS. SAFO, 179 SCRA B87 9) MAT@RAN VS. MAGLARA, 119 SCRA 2:8 ) 6E G@ZMAN VS. S@BI6O, 127 SCRA 9 :) CENTRAL BANH VS. CSC, A%"il 17, 1;8; b71. Security of 'enure 1. Ali) vs. CSC, 6!,!)b!" 2, 1;;1 2. Ma"$h$)bsa" vs. Al$#&$, ?!b"+a"= 2B, 1;;1 b7/. Power of the &S& to change appointee selected by 9ead of "ffice 1. Pa#is vs. CSC, ?!b. 2, 1;; 1Mb. N$)! I#s+"a#,! vs. CSC, Ma",h 1;, 1;;9 1M,. M!*!#illa vs. CSC, ?!b"+a"= 1;, 1;;1 2. Si)%a$ vs. CSC, N$v!)b!" 1B, 1;;7 9. Ba""$K$ vs. CSC a#* Val!#&i#$ I+lia#, I+#! 2B, 1;;1 . La%i#i* vs. CSC, Ma= 1 , 1;;1 B. Sa#&ia($ vs. CSC, 178 SCRA 799 :. O"b$s vs. CSC, S!%&. 12, 1;;7 7. T!$l$($ vs. CSC, N$v. 8, 1;;7 8. Gas%a" vs. CSC, O,&. 18, 1;;7 ;. L+!($ vs. CSC, 1 9 SCRA 927 c. Primarily confidential $ead: 1) CA6IENTE VS. SANTOS, 1 2 SCRA /+: Provincial Legal "fficer is a primarily confidential office( but not his assistant2) SAMSON VS. CA, 1 B SCRA 'he &ity Legal officer is a primarily confidential officerd. 9ighly technicalTpolicy determining 1) 6E LOS SANTOS VS. MALLARE, 87 Phil. 28;
*1/

*1*

2) ME6ALLA VS. SAFO, 179 SCRA B87 9) MAT@RAN VS. MAGLARA, 119 SCRA 2:8 ) 6E G@ZMAN VS. S@BI6O, 127 SCRA 9 B) ANZAL6O VS. CLAVE, 11; SCRA 9B9 e. Dismissal for cause $ead: 1) ANGMANGCO VS. CASTILLO, ; SCRA :1; 2) VILLAL@Z VS. ZAL6IVAR, 1B SCRA 717 9) NERNAN6EZ VS. VILLEGAS, 1 SCRA B ) BRIONES VS. OSMENA, 17 Phil. B88 B) CORP@Z VS. C@A6ERNO, 19 SCRA 17B :) CRISTOBAL VS. MELCNOR, 78 SCRA 17B 7) INGLES VS. M@T@C, 2: SCRA 171 8) ALCOLALO VS. TANT@ICO, 89 SCRA 78; ;) ABROT VS. CA, 11: SCRA :8 17) GINSON VS. M@N. O? M@RCIA, 1B8 SCRA 1 11) MARCELINO VS. TANT@ICO, I+l= 7, 1;8: 12) CA6IENTE VS. SANTOS, I+#! 11, 1;8: f. 0ay govSt. employees form unions for purposes of collective bargaining and to stri<e against the governmentC $ead: 1) ALLIANCE O? GOVT. GORHERS VS. MOLE, 12 SCRA 1 2) E>!,+&iv! O"*!" N$. 187 , I+#! 1, 1;87 a+&h$"iKi#( ($v&. !)%l$=!!s &$ '$") +#i$#s. 9) SANTOS VS. FATCO, 17: Phil. 7 B ) PEOPLE VS. 6E VENECIA, 1 SCRA 8: @. SSS!. vs. &ourt of .ppeals( 1,@ S&$. 8+8 :. NSC vs. NLRC, 1:8 SCRA 129 g. 0ay government employees be removed without government reorganizationC $ead: $. 88@8( 2une 1:( 1=++ ( .n act to protect the security of tenure of civil service officers and employees in the implementation of government reorganization. $ead also 1) 6ARIO VS. MISON, A+(+s& 8, 1;8; 2) ?LOREZA VS. ONGPIN, ?!b"+a"= 2:, 1;;7 9) MEN6OZA VS. J@IS@MBING, I+#! , 1;;7 . 6OTC vs. CSC, O,&$b!" 9, 1;;1 B. R$)+al*!K vs. CSC, A+(+s& 12, 1;;9
*1*

cause as a result of a

*1)

:. T$"i$ vs. CSC, 27; SCRA :77 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ C"//ISSI" " !L!CTI" S

/. &( Section 1N..any appointment for any vacancy shall only be for the une;pired termN1n no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. Section /. PowersN.enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of election( plebiscite( initiative( referendum and recallN.original 6urisdiction over all contests relating to the elections( returns( and Dualifications of all elective regional( provincial and city officials and appellate 6urisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by courts of general 6urisdiction and elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited 6urisdiction. a. b. c. d. Deputize law enforcement agencies( including the .S%P.. $egister political parties( e;cept religious groups %ile complaints for violation of election laws $egulate the en6oyment or utilization of all franchises for the operation of transportation and other public utilities( media of communication..

a. 'erm of &"0!L!& &ommissioners $ead: 1. B"illa#&!s vs. F$"a,, 6!,. 18, 1;;1 1Ma) NP VS. 6E VERA, 9B Phil. 12: 2) REP@BLIC VS. IMPERIAL, ;: Phil 777 b. Power to enforce and administer laws relative to the conduct of elections. $ead: 1) TICZON VS. COMELEC, 179 SCRA :71 2) SANCNEZ VS. BILIGANG, 11 SCRA B /- S.5&9!M #S. >1L1L.54( 11) S&$. )@) b71. Powers of the &"0!L!& 1. PANGILINAN VS. COMELEC, NOVEMBER 18, 1;;9 2. NPC VS. COMELEC, 277 SCRA 1 9. Lab$ vs. C$)!l!,, 211 SCRA 2;7 c. Sole 6udge of all election contests $ead: 1) GABATAN VS. COMELEC, 122 SCRA 1 2) GA6 VS. COMELEC, Ma= 2:, 1;87 9) @PPMHBL VS. COMELEC, I+#! , 1;87
*1)

*1@

) 6E?ERIA VS. PARAS, 1 1 SCRA B18 d. Distinguish referendum from plebiscite $ead: SANI6A6 VS. COMELEC, 79 SCRA 999 e. &ases to be decided by the &"0!L!& !5 >.5& "$ 15 D1#1S1"5 $ead: C@A VS. COMELEC, 1B: SCRA B82 f. $egulation and control of public utilities li<e '# stations during the election period $ead: @NI6O VS. COMELEC, 17 SCRA 17 g. !lection inspectors $ead: HBL VS. COMELEC, 6!,!)b!" 11, 1;8: h. .re decisions of the &"0!L!& appealableC 1f so( to what courtC "n what ground or groundsC $ead: 1. Gali*$ vs. C$)!l!,, Ia#+a"= 18, 1;;1 2. Ga",ia vs. 6! I!s+s, Ma",h , 1;;2 *. .rt. 1G7D( Secs. 17) Powers of the &". $ead: 1. Cal&!> vs. COA, 278 SCRA 72: 2. B+s&a)a#&! vs. COA, 21: SCRA 19 9. O"$,i$ vs. COA, 219 SCRA 17; P.$' G .$'1&L! G 7 L"&.L 4"#!$50!5' 1. Sections 1 R /. ..shall en6oy localTfiscal autonomy P$"#15&! "% >.'.54.S #S. 9"5. .L>!$'" $"03L"( !' .L.( 0ay /,( /::) Local .utonomyF automatic release of funds of Local 4overnment 3nits( particularly the 1$..

*1@

*18

'he petitioner is Duestioning the constitutionality of the 4eneral .ppropriations .ct of 1===( /::: and /::1 insofar as they uniformly earmar<ed for each year the amount of P@> of the 1nternal $evenue .llotment 1$.- for the Local 4overnment Service !Dualization %und L4S!%- and imposed conditions for the release thereof. Li<ewise( the President of the Philippines issued !;ecutive "rder 5o. )+ entitled I!stablishing a Program fro Devolution .d6ustment and !Dualization I with the purpose of facilitating the process of enhancing the capacities of L43Es in the discharge of the functions and services devolved tot hem by the national government agencies concerned pursuant to the Local 4overnment &ode. 1ssue: 0ay the &ongress or the President impose conditions for the use of the 1$. by the different local government unitsC 9eld: 'he provision of the 4.. for the years 1===( /::: and /::1 are unconstitutional as they encroach on the fiscal autonomy of the local government units in violation of the &onstitution. .nd even if this case is already moot and academic because said provisions have been implemented( there is a possibility that the same be incorporated in the future 4.. or it is capable of repetition and as such( it must be decided before another 4.. is enacted. 1t behooves this &ourt to ma<e a categorical ruling on the substantive issue now to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench( bar and the public. Li<ewise( the act of the President as embodied in !" 5o. )+ is unconstitutional because it amounts to control to local government units when the PresidentEs power over local government units is confined to general supervision( not power of control. 'he distinctions of the two powers were enunciated in Drilon vs. Lim( /*@ S&$. 1*@. 'hus: .n officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. 1f they are not followed( he may in his discretion( order the act undone or re7done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself. Supervision does not cover such authority. 'he supervisor merely sees to it that the rules are followed( but he himself does not lay down such rules( nor does he have any discretion to modify or replace them. 1f the rules are not observed( he may order the wor< done or re7done but only to conform to the prescribed rules. 9e may not prescribe his own manner of doing the act. 9e has no 6udgment on this matter e;cept to see to it that the rules are followed. Section /+8 of the Local 4overnment &ode is very clear since it provides that the share of each local government unit shall be released without need of any further action(
*18

*1,

D1$!&'LK '" '9! P$"#15&1.L( &1'K( 0351&1P.L "$ >.$.54.K '$!.S3$!$ as the case may be on a Duarterly basisNand which may not be the sub6ect to any lien or holdbac< that may be imposed by the national government for whatever purpose. %inally( Section /( .rt. G of the &onstitution e;pressly mandates that the local government units shall en6oy local autonomy as well as Section /@( .rt. 11 of the &onstitution. /. Section *.. there shall be a L4& which shall provide a more responsive and accountable local government with effective mechanisms of recall( initiative and referendumN. $ead: 1- 1==1 Local 4overnment &ode on $ecall( reDuisites( grounds and procedures- and other important aspects. /. !;ec. "rder /)= $esidence reDuirement for local government positions. '!SS D30P1'701&9!L!5. #S. >".D"( !' .L.( ),@ S&$. /=:

&arpio( 2. %acts: 'he petitioner who is the daughter of $ep. 'omas Dumpit( / nd District of La 3nion( filed her &ertificate of &andidacy for 0unicipal 0ayor of .goo( La 3nion for the 0ay( /::) elections. 'he respondents filed a case for her disDualification on the ground that she is a registered voter of 5aguilian ( La 3nion and only transferred her registration as a voter to San 2ulian Lest( .goo( La 3nion( on "ctober /)( /::*. 9er presence in San 2ulian Lest( .goo( La 3nion was noticed only after her certificate of candidacy. >arangay officials claimed in an affidavit that she is not a resident of the said >arangay. 'he petitioner countered that she acDuired a new domicile in San 2uan Lest when she purchased from her father a residential lot on .pril 1=( /::* and she even designated a person as careta<er of her residential house. 9eld: Lhile residence and domicile are synonymous( domicile of origin is not easily lost. 'o successfully effect a change of domicile( the following reDuisites must be present:
*1,

*1+

1. an actual removal or actual change of domicileF /. a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new oneF and *. acts which correspond with the purpose. 1n the case of petitioner while she bought a parcel of land in San 2ulian Lest( .goo( La 3nion on .pril 1=( /::*( property ownership is not an indicia of the right to vote or voted for an office. 'o effect a change of residence( there must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. 'he intent to remain in the new domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time( change of domicile or residence must be voluntary and the residence a the place chose for the new domicile must be actual. 1n the case at bar( what was constructed by the petitioner on said lot was a beach house which is at most a temporary place of rela;ation. 1t can hardly be considered a place of residence. %inally( in the Special Power of attorney designating a careta<er with a monthly salary of P/(@::.::( it was shown that she is a resident of San 2ulian Lest( .goo( La 3nion and 5o. 8 butterfly St.( #alle #erde 8( Pasig( 0emtro 0anila. 'his shows that she has a number of residences and the acDuisition of another one does not automatically ma<e the recently acDuired residence her new domicile. 'ess Dumpit70ichelenaEs cancellation of &ertificate of &andidacy for 0unicipal 0ayor of .goo( La 3nion( is therefore valid. /7a. $ecall a. Lhat are the reDuisites under the Local 4overnment &ode of 1==1C b. $ead: 1. Ga",ia vs. COMELEC, O,&$b!" B, 1;;9 2. Sa#,h!K vs. C$)!l!,, Ia#+a"= 2 , 1;;1 *. Section ). 'he President shall e;ercise general supervision over local governmentsN $ead: MON6ANO VS. SILVOSA, ;7 Phil. 1 9 @. Sections @.. Shall have the power to create their own revenuesN 8. Section 8..shall have a 6ust share in the national ta;es which shall be automatically released to them.. $ead: 1. Bas,$ vs. Pa(,$", 1;7 SCRA B2 1Ma. Phili%%i#! P!&"$l!+) C$"%. vs. M+#i,i%ali&= $' Pililla, 1;8 SCRA 82 1Mb) GILLIAM LINES VS. CITF O? OZAMIS, B: SCRA B;7 1M,. Es&a#isla$ vs. N$#. C$s&al!s, Ma= 8, 1;;1 2) VELASCO VS. BLAS, 11B SCRA B 7
*1+

*1=

9) 6E LA CR@Z VS. PARAS, 129 SCRA B:; ) M@NICIPALITF O? ECNAG@E VS. ABELLERA, 6!,!)b!" 12, 1;8:, 1 : SCRA B) PNILIPPINE GAME?OGL COMMISSION VS. LAC, 6!,!)b!" 17, 1;8:, 1 : SCRA :. M@NICIPALITF O? MALOLOS VS. LIBANGAN SA MALOLOS, 1B; SCRA B2B Section +. 'he term of office of elective local officials shall be not more than * consecutive terms. #oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. *! :A/I *"R:A VS% C"/!L!C, an< :"S! T% CAPC", :R%, 4.$. 5o. 1**)=@( September *( 1==+ 0endoza( 2. 1ssue: Lhether a #ice 0ayor who succeeds to the "ffice of the 0ayor by operation of law and serves the remainder of the term is considered to have served a term for the purpose of the three7term limit on local officials as provided under the Local 4overnment &ode. 9eld: 5o. .rticle G( Section + of the &onstitution provides: Section. 'he term of office of elective local officials( e;cept barangay officials( shall be determined by law( which shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. #oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. 'he above provision of the &onstitution is restated in Section )* ObP of $. 5o. ,18:( the Local 4overnment &ode. 'he term limit for local elective officials must be ta<en to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position. &onseDuently( 1' 1S 5"' !5"349 '9.' .5 15D1#1D3.L 9.S S!$#!D '9$!! &"5S!&3'1#! '!$0S 15 .5 !L!&'1#! L"&.L "%%1&!( 9! 03S' .LS" 9.#! >!!5 !L!&'!D '" '9! S.0! P"S1'1"5 %"$ '9! S.0! 530>!$ "% '10!S >!%"$! '9! D1SA3.L1%1&.'1"5 &.5 .PPLK.
*1=

*/:

&learly( therefore( before the disDualification could apply( the following reDuisites must be present: 1. the local official must have been elected for the same position O!;ample: 0ayorP three timesF and /. the local official must have served three consecutive terms as 0ayor. 1n the present case( only the /nd reDuisite is present since in 1=++( the private respondent was not a candidate for 0ayor in 1=++ but as #ice 0ayor though he succeeded the elected mayor in 1=+=. 1t was only in 1==/ and 1==@ that he was a candidate for 0ayor. .s such( he could still be a candidate for 0ayor in the 0ay( 1==+ elections. 5"'!: .pplying the above doctrine( 0.K"$ 0.3$1&1" D"0"4.5 of >aguio &ity is not prohibited from running for &ity 0ayor of >aguio in the /::1 elections because he was not elected as &ity 0ayor in 1==/ though he served as &ity 0ayor since 1==/ as a result of the disDualification of $.0"5 L.>"( 2$.. 9is 1==/7 1==@ term was not by election but by operation of law. 1t was only in 1==@ and 1==+ that he was a candidate for &ity 0ayor / times- though he served * '!$0S as 0ayor. 'he first reDuisite before the disDualification applies to him is not presentROMEO LONNANIDA VS. COMELEC2 :#'* 4A2 38882 633 SCRA G;4 'he petitioner was elected 0ayor for three *- consecutive terms. During his *rd term 1==@ elections-( he was proclaimed the winner but his opponent filed an election protest and two /- months before the ne;t election and ) months before the end of his * rd term ( the &"0!L!& declared his opponent to be the winner and was able to occupy the position of 0ayor for / months. 1s he entitled to run for the position of mayor in the election after he was declared a loser during his *rd term but he almost completed * termsC 9eld: Kes because in order that the prohibition shall apply to him( the following reDuisites must be present: 1. the local official must have been elected for the same position O!;ample: 0ayorP three timesF and /. the local official must have fully served three consecutive terms as 0ayor. 1n this case( he was not elected to the position * times because he lost during the *rd time though he served the office for / years and 1: months. Li<ewise even assuming that he won the *rd election( he did not fully serve the term of * years. 1t is not enough
*/:

*/1

that an individual has served * consecutive terms in an elective local office( he must have also been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disDualification can apply. .r!h")"t"!n t! r#n f!r m!re than 6 &!n e&#t"-e term . FEDERICO T. MONTEBON - . COMELEC 9 ELEANOR ONDO/2 1.R. N!. 3A;@@@ ( .pril +( /::+ Petitioners 0ontebon( "ndoy and respondent Potencioso( 2r. were candidates for municipal councilor of the 0unicipality of 'uburan( &ebu for the 0ay 1)( /::, Synchronized 5ational and Local !lections. "n .pril *:( /::,( petitioners and other candidates)/:O)P for municipal councilor filed a petition for disDualification against respondent with the &"0!L!& alleging that respondent had been elected and served three consecutive terms as municipal councilor in 1==+7/::1( /::17/::)( and /::)7 /::,. 'hus( he is proscribed from running for the same position in the /::, elections as it would be his fourth consecutive term. 1n his answer( respondent admitted that he had been elected for three consecutive terms as municipal councilor. 9owever( he claimed that the service of his second term in /::17/::) was interrupted on 2anuary 1/( /::) when he succeeded as vice mayor of 'uburan due to the retirement of #ice 0ayor Petronilo L. 0endoza. &onseDuently( he is not disDualified from vying for the position of municipal councilor in the /::, elections. 1n the hearing of 0ay 1:( /::,( the parties were directed to file their respective memoranda. 1n petitionersE memorandum( they maintained that respondentEs assumption of office as vice7mayor in 2anuary /::) should not be considered an interruption in the service of his second term since it was a voluntary renunciation of his office as municipal councilor. 'hey argued that( according to the law( voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the official concerned was elected. "n the other hand( respondent alleged that a local elective official is not disDualified from running for the fourth consecutive time to the same office if there was an interruption in one of the previous three terms. "n 2une /( /::,( the &"0!L!& %irst Division denied the petition for disDualification ruling that respondentEs assumption of office as vice7mayor should be considered an interruption in the continuity of his service. 9is second term having been

)/:O)P

2esus &. 0endoza( 'eopisto &. Prosia( 2r.( 5icolas K. !dillon( !rnesto >. &aga( .lbaerto '. 4allarde( and !ugenio 0. .rigo.

*/1

*//

involuntarily interrupted( respondent should thus not be disDualified to see< reelection as municipal councilor.)/1O@P "n appeal( the &"0!L!& E# Ba#, upheld the ruling of the %irst Division( as follows: $espondentEs assumption to the office of the vice7mayor of 'uburan in 2anuary /::) during his second term as councilor is not a voluntary renunciation of the latter office. 'he same therefore operated as an effective disruption in the full service of his second term as councilor. 'hus( in running for councilor again in the 0ay 1)( /::, !lections( respondent is deemed to be running only for a second consecutive term as councilor of 'uburan( the first consecutive term fully served being his /::)7/::, term. Petitioner 0ontebonEs and "ndoyEs 2une =( /::, manifestation and omnibus motion are hereby declared moot and academic with the instant disposition of their motion for reconsideration. L9!$!%"$!( premises considered( petitionersE reconsideration is hereby D!51!D for lac< of merit. S" "$D!$!D.)//O8P Petitioners filed the instant petition for ,!"&i$"a"i on the ground that the &"0!L!& committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< or e;cess of 6urisdiction in ruling that respondentEs assumption of office as vice7mayor in 2anuary /::) interrupted his /::17/::) term as municipal councilor. 'he petition lac<s merit. 'he 1=+, &onstitution bars and disDualifies local elective officials from serving more than three consecutive terms in the same post. Section +( .rticle G thereof states: Sec. +. 'he term of office of elective local officials( e;cept barangay officials( which shall be determined by law shall be three years and no such officials shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. #oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. Section )* of the Local 4overnment &ode also provides: Sec. )*. 'erm of "ffice. motion for

)/1O@P )//O8P

R$ll$( p. *). I*. at /,7/+.

*//

*/*

5o local elective official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms in the same position. #oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official concerned was elected. 1n L$#Ka#i*a v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s ()/*O,P the &ourt held that the two conditions for the application of the disDualification must concur: 3) that the !ff"&"a' &!n&erned ha )een e'e&ted f!r three &!n e&#t"-e term "n the ame '!&a' ,!-ernment %! tK and 4) that he ha f#''* er-ed three &!n e&#t"-e term . )/)O+P 1n B$"8a, I". v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s ()/@O=P the &ourt emphasized that the term limit for elective officials must be ta<en to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position. 'hus( for the disDualification to apply( it is not enough that the official has been elected three consecutive timesF he must also have served three consecutive terms in the same position.)/8O1:P Lhile it is undisputed that respondent was elected municipal councilor for three consecutive terms( the issue lies on whether he is deemed to have fully served his second term in view of his assumption of office as vice7mayor of 'uburan on 2anuary 1/( /::). S#&&e "!n "n '!&a' ,!-ernment !ff"&e " )* !%erat"!n !f 'a+ .)/,O11P Section )))/+O1/P of $epublic .ct 5o. ,18:( otherwise <nown as the Local 4overnment &ode( provides that if a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the vice mayor( the highest ran<ing sanggunian member shall become vice mayor. 'hus: S!&. )). P!")a#!#& Va,a#,i!s i# &h! O''i,!s $' &h! G$v!"#$", Vi,! G$v!"#$", Ma=$", a#* Vi,! Ma=$". W a- 1f a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor( the vice governor or vice mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. 1f a permanent vacancy occurs in the offices of the governor( vice governor( mayor or vice mayor( the highest ran<ing sanggunian member or( in case of his permanent inability( the second highest ran<ing sanggunian member( shall become the governor( vice governor( mayor or vice mayor( as the case may be. SubseDuent vacancies in the said office shall be filled automatically by the other sanggunian members according to their ran<ing as defined herein. ; ; ;
)/*O,P )/)O+P

*,: Phil. 8/@ 1===-. I*. at 8*8. )/@O=P *@8 Phil. )8, 1==+-. )/8O1:P I*. at ),+. )/,O11P See B$"8a, I". v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s( *@8 Phil. )8,( ),87),, 1==+-. )/+O1/P S!&. )). P!")a#!#& Va,a#,i!s i# &h! O''i,!s $' &h! G$v!"#$", Vi,! G$v!"#$", Ma=$", a#* Vi,! Ma=$". W a- 1f a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor( the vice governor or vice mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. 1f a permanent vacancy occurs in the offices of the governor( vice governor( mayor or vice mayor( the highest ran<ing sanggunian member or( in case of his permanent inability( the second highest ran<ing sanggunian member( shall become the governor( vice governor( mayor or vice mayor( as the case may be. SubseDuent vacancies in the said office shall be filled automatically by the other sanggunian members according to their ran<ing as defined herein. ; ; ;.

*/*

*/)

1n this case( a permanent vacancy occurred in the office of the vice mayor due to the retirement of #ice 0ayor 0endoza. $espondent( being the highest ran<ing municipal councilor( succeeded him in accordance with law. 1t is clear therefore that his assumption of office as vice7mayor can in no way be considered a voluntary renunciation of his office as municipal councilor. 1n L$#Ka#i*a v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s ( the &ourt e;plained the concept of voluntary renunciation as follows: 'he second sentence of the constitutional provision under scrutiny states( V#oluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which he was elected.E 'he clear intent of the framers of the constitution to bar any attempt to circumvent the three7 term limit by a voluntary renunciation of office and at the same time respect the peopleEs choice and grant their elected official full service of a term is evident in this provision. #oluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced term in the computation of the three term limitF conversely( "n-!'#ntar* e-eran&e fr!m !ff"&e f!r an* 'en,th !f t"me h!rt !f the f#'' term %r!-"ded )* 'a+ am!#nt t! an "nterr#%t"!n !f &!nt"n#"t* !f er-"&e.)/=O1*P (!mphasis added'hus( respondentEs assumption of office as vice7mayor in 2anuary /::) was an involuntary severance from his office as municipal councilor( resulting in an interruption in the service of his /::17/::) term. 1t cannot be deemed to have been by reason of voluntary renunciation because it was by operation of law. Le Duote with approval the ruling of the &"0!L!& that W 'he legal successor is not given any option under the law on whether to accept the vacated post or not. Section )) of the Local 4overnment &ode ma<es no e;ception. "nly if the highest7ran<ing councilor is permanently unable to succeed to the post does the law spea< of alternate succession. 3nder no circumstances can simple refusal of the official concerned be considered as permanent inability within the contemplation of law. !ssentially therefore( the successor cannot refuse to assume the office that he is mandated to occupy by virtue of succession. 9e can only do so if for some reason he is permanently unable to succeed and occupy the post vacated. ;;;; 'hus( succession by law to a vacated government office is characteristically not voluntary since it involves the performance of a public duty by a government official( the non7performance of which e;poses said official to possible administrative and criminal charges of
)/=O1*P

S+%"a note , at 8*+.

*/)

*/@

dereliction of duty and neglect in the performance of public functions. 1t is therefore more compulsory and obligatory rather than voluntary.)*:O1)P T(R))*T)R+ L,+,T F-R BARA.GA/ !APTA,.S0 NICASIO BOLOS2 :R. VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RE/ AN1ELES CINCONIE1UE2 1.R. N!. 3A@;A42 Mar&h 352 4;;8 'he facts are as follows: %or three consecutive terms( petitioner was elected to the position of P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= of >arangay >i<ing( Dauis( >ohol in the >arangay !lections held in 1==)( 1==, and /::/. 1n 0ay /::)( while sitting as the incumbent P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= of >arangay >i<ing( petitioner ran for 0unicipal &ouncilor of Dauis( >ohol and won. 9e assumed office as 0unicipal &ouncilor on 2uly 1( /::)( leaving his post as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a=. 9e served the full term of the Sa#((+#ia#( Ba=a# position( which was until 2une *:( /::,. 'hereafter( petitioner filed his &ertificate of &andidacy for P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= of >arangay >i<ing( Dauis( >ohol in the "ctober /=( /::, Ba"a#(a= and Sa#((+#ia#( Haba&aa# !lections. $espondent $ey .ngeles &inconiegue( the incumbent P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= and candidate for the same office( filed before the &"0!L!& a petition for the disDualification of petitioner as candidate on the ground that he had already served the three7term limit. 9ence( petitioner is no longer allowed to run for the same position in accordance with Section +( .rticle G of the &onstitution and Section )* b- of $... 5o. ,18:. &inconiegue contended that petitionerEs relinDuishment of the position of P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= in 2uly /::) was voluntary on his part( as it could be presumed that it was his personal decision to run as municipal councilor in the 0ay 1)( /::) 5ational and Local !lections. 9e added that petitioner <new that if he won and assumed the position( there would be a voluntary renunciation of his post as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a=. 1n his .nswer( petitioner admitted that he was elected as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= of >arangay >i<ing( Dauis( >ohol in the last three consecutive elections of 1==)( 1==, and /::/. 9owever( he countered that in the 0ay 1)( /::) 5ational and Local !lections( he ran and won as 0unicipal &ouncilor of Dauis( >ohol. >y reason of his assumption of office as Sa#((+#ia#( Ba=a#
)*:O1)P

R$ll$( p. /8.

*/@

*/8

member( his remaining term of office as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a=( which would have ended in /::,( was left unserved. 9e argued that his election and assumption of office as Sa#((+#ia#( Ba=a# member was by operation of lawF hence( it must be considered as an involuntary interruption in the continuity of his last term of service. Pursuant to Section 1: of &"0!L!& $esolution 5o. +/=, dated September 8( /::,( the petition was heard by the Provincial !lection Supervisor of >ohol. 3pon completion of the proceedings( the evidence( records of the case( and the 9earing "fficerEs action on the matter were endorsed to and received by the &ommission on 5ovember /1( /::,. 'he issue before the &"0!L!& was whether or not petitionerEs election( assumption and discharge of the functions of the "ffice of Sa#((+#ia#( Ba=a# member can be considered as voluntary renunciation of his office as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= of >arangay >i<ing( Dauis( >ohol which will render unbro<en the continuity of his service as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= for the full term of office( that is( from /::) to /::,. 1f it is considered a voluntary renunciation( petitioner will be deemed to have served three consecutive terms and shall be disDualified to run for the same position in the "ctober /=( /::, elections. >ut if it is considered as an involuntary renunciation( petitionerEs service is deemed to have been interruptedF hence( he is not barred from running for another term. 1n a $esolution)*1O1P dated 0arch )( /::+( the %irst Division of the &"0!L!& ruled that petitionerEs relinDuishment of the office of P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= of >i<ing( Dauis( >ohol( as a conseDuence of his assumption of office as Sa#((+#ia#( Ba=a# member of Dauis( >ohol( on 2uly 1( /::)( was a voluntary renunciation of the "ffice of P+#$#( Ba"a#(a=. 'he dispositive portion of the $esolution reads: L9!$!%"$!( in view of the foregoing( the &ommission %irst Division- 1RANTS the petition. $espondent NICASIO BOLOS2 :R.( having already served as Punong >arangay of >arangay >i<ing( Dauis( >ohol for three consecutive terms is hereby DISFUALIFIED from being a candidate for the same office in the "ctober /=( /::, >arangay and S? !lections. &onsidering that respondent had already been proclaimed( said proclamation is hereby ANNULLED. Succession to said office shall be governed by the provisions of Section )) of the Local 4overnment &ode.)*/O/P PetitionerEs motion for reconsideration was denied by the &"0!L!& !# ba#, in a $esolution)**O*P dated .ugust ,( /::+.
)*1O1P )*/O/P )**O*P

R$ll$( pp. 1@7/*. I*. at //. I*. at /)7/,.

*/8

*/,

9ence( this petition for ,!"&i$"a"i raising this lone issue: L9!'9!$ "$ 5"' '9! 9"5"$.>L! &"001SS1"5 "5 !L!&'1"5S .&'!D L1'9"3' "$ 15 !G&!SS "% 1'S 23$1SD1&'1"5 .0"35'154 '" L.&? "% 23$1SD1&'1"5 "$ L1'9 4$.#! .>3S! "% D1S&$!'1"5 15 D1SA3.L1%K154 OP!'1'1"5!$P .S . &.5D1D.'! %"$ P35"54 >.$.54.K 15 '9! "&'">!$ /=( /::, >.$.54.K .5D S.544351.54 ?.>.'..5 !L!&'1"5S .5D( S3>S!A3!5'LK( .553LL154 91S P$"&L.0.'1"5.)*)O)P 'he main issue is whether or not there was voluntary renunciation of the "ffice of P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= by petitioner when he assumed office as 0unicipal &ouncilor so that he is deemed to have fully served his third term as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a=( warranting his disDualification from running for the same position in the "ctober /=( /::, Ba"a#(a= and Sa#((+#ia#( Haba&aa# !lections. Petitioner contends that he is Dualified to run for the position of P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= in the "ctober /=( /::, Ba"a#(a= and Sa#((+#ia#( Haba&aa# !lections since he did not serve continuously three consecutive terms. 9e admits that in the 1==)( 1==, and /::/ Ba"a#(a= elections( he was elected as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= for three consecutive terms. 5onetheless( while serving his third term as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a=( he ran as 0unicipal &ouncilor of Dauis( >ohol( and won. "n 2uly 1( /::)( he assumed office and( conseDuently( left his post as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= by operation of law. 9e averred that he served the full term as member of the Sa#((+#ia#( Ba=a# until 2une *:( /::,. "n "ctober /=( /::,( he filed his &ertificate of &andidacy for P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= and won. 9ence( the &"0!L!& gravely abused its discretion in disDualifying him as a candidate for P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= since he did not complete his third term by operation of law. 'he argument does not persuade. 'he three7term limit for elective local officials is contained in Section +( .rticle G of the &onstitution( which provides: Sec. +. 'he term of office of elective local officials( e;cept barangay officials( which shall be determined by law( shall be three years( and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. #oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.

)*)O)P

I*. at +.

*/,

*/+

6avi* v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s)*@O@P elucidates that the &onstitution did not e;pressly prohibit &ongress from fi;ing any term of office for ba"a#(a= officials( thereby leaving to the lawma<ers full discretion to fi; such term in accordance with the e;igencies of public service. 'he discussions in the &onstitutional &ommission showed that the term of office of ba"a#(a= officials would be IOaPs may be determined by law(J and more precisely( IOaPs provided for in the Local 4overnment &ode.J)*8O8P Section )* b- of the Local 4overnment &ode provides that ba"a#(a= officials are covered by the three7term limit( while Section )* c-)*,O,P thereof states that the term of office of ba"a#(a= officials shall be five @- years. 'he cited provisions read( thus: Sec. )*. T!") $' O''i,!. W ; ; ; b- 5o local elective official shall serve for more than three *- consecutive terms in the same position. #oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official concerned was elected.

,+0O@P ,+(O8P

4.$. 5o. 1/,118( .pril +( 1==,( /,1 S&$. =:( 1:). I*. at 1:)71:@. 0$. 5"LL!D". "ne clarificatory Duestion( 0adam President. Lhat will be the term of the office of barangay officials as provided forC 0$. D.#1D!. .s may be determined by law. A %r!-"ded f!r "n the L!&a' 1!-ernment C!deB /e . ;;; ;;; ;;;

0$. 5"LL!D". 0$. D.#1D!.

'9! P$!S1D!5'. 1s there any other commentC 1s there any ob6ection to this proposed new section as submitted by &ommissioner Davide and accepted by the &ommitteeC 0$. $"D$14". 0adam President( does this prohibition to serve for more than three consecutive terms apply to barangay officialsC

0$. D.#1D!. 0adam President( the voting that we had on the terms of office did not include the barangay officials because it was then the stand of the &hairman of the &ommittee on Local 4overnments that the term of barangay officials must be determined by law. So it is now for the law to determine whether the restriction on the number of reelections will be included in the Local 4overnment &ode. 0$. $"D$14". 0$. D.#1D!. Kes. So that is up to &ongress to decide.

0$. $"D$14". 1 6ust wanted that clear in the record.

)*,O,P

.s amended by $... 5o. +@/)( which too< effect on 0arch 11( 1==+.

*/+

*/=

c- 'he term of barangay officials and members of the sangguniang <abataan shall be for five @- years( which shall begin after the regular election of barangay officials on the second 0onday of 0ay 1==,: P"$vi*!*( 'hat the sangguniang <abataan members who were elected in the 0ay 1==8 elections shall serve until the ne;t regular election of barangay officials. S$,"a&!s v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s)*+O+P held that the rule on the three7 term limit( embodied in the &onstitution and the Local 4overnment &ode( has two parts: ; ; ; The f"r t %art %r!-"de that an e'e&t"-e '!&a' !ff"&"a' &ann!t er-e f!r m!re than three &!n e&#t"-e term . 'he clear intent is that only consecutive terms count in determining the three7term limit rule. The e&!nd %art tate that -!'#ntar* ren#n&"at"!n !f !ff"&e f!r an* 'en,th !f t"me d!e n!t "nterr#%t the &!nt"n#"t* !f er-"&e. 'he clear intent is that involuntary severance from office for any length of time interrupts continuity of service and prevents the service before and after the interruption from being 6oined together to form a continuous service or consecutive terms. .fter three consecutive terms( an elective local official cannot see< immediate reelection for a fourth term. 'he prohibited election refers to the ne;t regular election for the same office following the end of the third consecutive term. )*=O=P 1n L$#Ka#i*a v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s,)):O1:P the &ourt stated that the second part of the rule on the three7term limit shows the clear intent of the framers of the &onstitution to bar any attempt to circumvent the three7term limit by a voluntary renunciation of office and at the same time respect the peopleEs choice and grant their elected official full service of a term. 'he &ourt held that two conditions for the application of the disDualification must concur: 1- that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same government postF and /- that he has fully served three consecutive terms.))1O11P 1n this case( it is undisputed that petitioner was elected as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= for three consecutive terms( satisfying the first condition for disDualification. Lhat is to be determined is whether petitioner is deemed to have voluntarily renounced his position as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= during his third term
)*+O+P )*=O=P )):O1:P ))1O11P

4.$. 5o. 1@)@1/( 5ovember 1/( /::/( *=1 S&$. )@,. I*. at )8,. 4.$. 5o. 1*@1@:( 2uly /+( 1===( *11 S&$. 8:/( 81*. I*. at 811.

*/=

**:

when he ran for and won as Sa#((+#ia#( Ba=a# member and assumed said office. 'he &ourt agrees with the &"0!L!& that there was voluntary renunciation by petitioner of his position as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a=. 'he &"0!L!& correctly held: 1t is our finding that 5icasio >olos( 2r.Es relinDuishment of the office of Punong >arangay of >i<ing( Dauis( >ohol( as a conseDuence of his assumption to office as Sangguniang >ayan member of Dauis( >ohol( on 2uly 1( /::)( is a voluntary renunciation. .s conceded even by him( respondent petitioner hereinhad already completed two consecutive terms of office when he ran for a third term in the >arangay !lections of /::/. Lhen he filed his certificate of candidacy for the "ffice of Sangguniang >ayan of Dauis( >ohol( in the 0ay 1:( /::) OelectionsP( he was not deemed resigned. 5onetheless( all the acts attending his pursuit of his election as municipal councilor point out to an intent and readiness to give up his post as Punong >arangay once elected to the higher elective office( for it was very unli<ely that respondent had filed his &ertificate of &andidacy for the Sangguniang >ayan post( campaigned and e;horted the municipal electorate to vote for him as such and then after being elected and proclaimed( return to his former position. 9e <new that his election as municipal councilor would entail abandonment of the position he held( and he intended to forego of it. .bandonment( li<e resignation( is voluntary.))/O1/P 1ndeed( petitioner was serving his third term as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= when he ran for Sa#((+#ia#( Ba=a# member and( upon winning( assumed the position of Sa#((+#ia#( Ba=a# member( thus( voluntarily relinDuishing his office as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= which the &ourt deems as a voluntary renunciation of said office. Petitioner erroneously argues that when he assumed the position of Sa#((+#ia#( Ba=a# member( he left his post as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= by operation of lawF hence( he did not fully serve his third term as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a=. 'he term Ioperation of lawJ is defined by the Philippine Legal !ncyclopedia))*O1*P as Ia term describing the fact that rights may be acDuired or lost by the effect of a legal rule without any act of the person affected.J >lac<Ss
))/O1/P ))*O1*P

R$ll$( pp. 1+71=. 2ose .gaton $. Sibal( copyright 1=+8.

**:

**1

Law Dictionary also defines it as a term that Ie;presses the manner in which rights( and sometimes liabilities( devolve upon a person by the mere application to the particular transaction of the established rules of law( without the act or cooperation of the party himself.J)))O1)P .n interruption in the service of a term of office( by operation of law( is e;emplified in M$#&!b$# v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s.))@O1@P 'he respondent therein( Sesinando %. Potencioso( 2r.( was elected and served three consecutive terms as 0unicipal &ouncilor of 'uburan( &ebu in 1==+7/::1( /::17/::)( and /::)7/::,. 9owever( during his second term( he succeeded as #ice70ayor of 'uburan due to the retirement of the #ice70ayor pursuant to Section )) of $... 5o. ,18:.))8O18P PotenciosoEs assumption of office as #ice70ayor was considered an involuntary severance from his office as 0unicipal &ouncilor( resulting in an interruption in his second term of service.)),O1,P 'he &ourt held that it could not be deemed to have been by reason of voluntary renunciation because it was by operation of law.))+O1+P 9ence( Potencioso was Dualified to run as candidate for municipal councilor of the 0unicipality of 'uburan( &ebu in the 0ay 1)( /::, Synchronized 5ational and Local !lections. %urther( in B$"8a, I". v. C$))issi$# $# El!,&i$#s,))=O1=P respondent therein( 2ose '. &apco( 2r.( was elected as #ice70ayor of Pateros on 2anuary 1+( 1=++ for a term ending on 2une *:( 1==/. "n September /( 1=+=( &apco became 0ayor( by operation of law( upon the death of the incumbent( &esar >or6a. 'hereafter( &apco was elected and served as 0ayor for two more terms( from 1==/ to 1==+. "n 0arch /,( 1==+( &apco filed a &ertificate of &andidacy for 0ayor of Pateros in the 0ay 11( 1==+ election. &apcoEs disDualification was sought on the ground that he would have already served as 0ayor for three consecutive terms by 2une *:( 1==+F hence( he would be ineligible to serve for another term. 'he &ourt declared that the term limit for elective local officials must be ta<en to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve the same elective position.)@:O/:P 'he &ourt held that &apco was Dualified to run again as mayor in the ne;t election because he was not elected to the office of mayor in the first term but simply found himself thrust into it by operation of law. )@1O/1P 5either had he served the full term because he only continued the service( interrupted by the
)))O1)P ))@O1@P

Si;th !dition( copyright 1==:. 4.$. 5o. 1+:)))( .pril =( /::+( @@1 S&$. @:. ))8O18P S!&. )). P!")a#!#& Va,a#,i!s i# &h! O''i,!s $' &h! G$v!"#$", Ma=$", a#* Vi,! Ma=$" . a- 1f a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor( the vice7governor or vice7mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. 1f a permanent vacancy occurs in the offices of the governor( vice7governor( mayor or vice7mayor( the highest ran<ing sanggunian member or in case of his permanent inability( the second highest ran<ing sanggunian member( shall become the governor( vice governor( mayor or vice7mayor( as the case may be. SubseDuent vacancies in the said office shall be filled automatically by the other sanggunian members according to their ran<ing as defined herein. ; ; ; )),O1,P S+%"a note 1@. ))+O1+P I*. ))=O1=P 4.$. 5o. 1**)=@( September *( 1==+( /=@ S&$. 1@,. )@:O/:P I*. at 18=. )@1O/1P I*. at 1,:.

**1

**/

death( of the deceased mayor.)@/O//P 'he vice7mayorEs assumption of the mayorship in the event of the vacancy is more a matter of chance than of design.)@*O/*P 9ence( his service in that office should not be counted in the application of any term limit.)@)O/)P 1n this case( petitioner did not fill in or succeed to a vacancy by operation of law. 9e instead relinDuished his office as P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= during his third term when he won and assumed office as Sa#((+#ia#( Ba=a# member of Dauis( >ohol( which is deemed a voluntary renunciation of the "ffice of P+#$#( Ba"a#(a=. 1n fine( the &"0!L!& did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac< or e;cess of 6urisdiction in issuing the $esolutions dated 0arch )( /::+ and .ugust ,( /::+( disDualifying petitioner from being a candidate for P+#$#( Ba"a#(a= in the "ctober /=( /::, Ba"a#(a= and Sa#((+#ia#( Haba&aa# !lections. >HEREFORE( the petition is DISMISSED. 'he &"0!L!& $esolutions dated 0arch )( /::+ and .ugust ,( /::+ are hereby AFFIRMED. @. Se&t"!n 3;. N! %r!-"n&e2 &"t*2 m#n"&"%a'"t* !r )aran,a* ma* )e &reated2 d"-"ded2 mer,ed !r a)!'" hed2 !r "t )!#ndar* #) tant"a''* a'tered2 eC&e%t "n a&&!rdan&e +"th the &r"ter"a e ta)'" hed "n the L1C and #)De&t t! the a%%r!-a' )* a maD!r"t* !f the -!te &a t "n a %'e)" &"te "n the %!'"t"&a' #n"t d"re&t'* affe&ted. $ead: 1) PARE6ES VS. E5EC@TIVE SECRETARF, 128 SCRA : 2) LOPEZ VS. METRO MANILA COMMISSION, 19: SCRA :99 9) TAN VS. COMELEC, 1 2 SCRA 727AI' a %"$vi#,! $" &$-# is ,"!a&!* '"$) a# !>is&i#( %"$vi#,! $" &$-#, #$& $#l= &h! "!(is&!"!* v$&!"s $' &h! #!-l=M,"!a&!* %"$vi#,! $" &$-# shall %a"&i,i%a&! b+& als$ &h! "!(is&!"!* v$&!"s $' &h! %"$vi#,! $" ,i&= -h!"! &h! #!l$,al ($v!"#)!#& +#i& -as &aE!# b!,a+s! &h!= a"! als$ .*i"!,&l= a''!,&!*/. ) Pa*illa vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 79B 8. Sections 1171) $ead:
)@/O//P )@*O/*P )@)O/)P

I*. I*. at 18+. I*.

**/

***

1) CENIZA VS. COMELEC, ;B SCRA 7:9 /- Differentiate a highly urbanized city from a component city See >P **,( Sections 18/718+,. Sections 1@7/1 1s there a &ordillera .utonomous $egionC a. $ead: !;ec. "rder 5o. //: b. O"*ill$ vs. C$)!l!,, 1;2 SCRA 177 AI' $#l= $#! P"$vi#,! $" $#l= $#! ,i&= $' &h! C$"*ill!"as -ill v$&! i# 'av$" $' a+&$#$)=, s+,h is #$& !#$+(h &$ ,$#s&i&+&! a R!(i$#. Th!"! )+s& a& l!as& b! &-$ A2) %"$vi#,!s $" $#! %"$vi#,! a#* &h! Ci&= $' Ba(+i$ '$" '$") a R!(i$#) P.$' G1 .$'1&L! G1 7 .&&"35'.>1L1'K "% P3>L1& "%%1&!$S 1. Sections 1. Public "ffice is a public trust. CAMILO L. SABIO - . 1ORDON2 1.R. N!. 35@6@;2 O&t!)er 352 4;;G2 7;@ SCRA 5;@ Sandoval74utierrez( 2. The Fa&t =

"n %ebruary /:( /::8( Senator 0iriam Defensor Santiago introduced Philippine Senate $esolution 5o. )@@ Senate $es. 5o. )@@-()@@O)P Idirecting an inDuiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines "verseas 'elecommunications &orporation P"'&-( Philippine &ommunications Satellite &orporation P91L&"0S.'-( and P91L&"0S.' 9oldings &orporation P9&- due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective >oard of Directors.J

"n 0ay +( /::8( &hief of Staff $io &. 1nocencio( under the authority of Senator $ichard 2. 4ordon( wrote &hairman &amilo L. Sabio of the P&44( one of the herein petitioners( inviting him to be one of the resource persons in the public meeting 6ointly conducted by the C$))i&&!! $# G$v!"#)!#& C$"%$"a&i$#s a#* P+bli, E#&!"%"is!s and C$))i&&!! $# P+bli, S!"vi,!s. 'he purpose of the public meeting was to deliberate on Senate $es. 5o. )@@.)@8O8P

)@@O)P )@8O8P

.nne; I!J of the Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,)*1+. .nne; I%J of the Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,)*1+.

***

**)

"n 0ay =( /::8( &hairman Sabio declined the invitation because of prior commitment.)@,O,P At the ame t"me2 he "n-!<ed Se&t"!n @()) !f E.O. N!. 3.

I S S U E=

&rucial to the resolution of the present petitions is the fundamental issue of whether Se&t"!n @()) !f E.O. N!. 3 " re%ea'ed )* the 38A5 C!n t"t#t"!n. .ssuming that it has not been repealed( is it not inconsistent with Section 1( .rt. G1 which states that public office is a public trustC 'he petition has no merit. Section ) b- of !.". 5o.1 limits the power of legislative inDuiry by e;empting all P&44 members or staff from testifying in any 6udicial( legislative or administrative proceeding( thus:

N! mem)er !r taff !f the C!mm" "!n ha'' )e re?#"red t! te t"f* !r %r!d#&e e-"den&e "n an* D#d"&"a'2 'e," 'at"-e !r adm"n" trat"-e %r!&eed"n, &!n&ern"n, matter +"th"n "t !ff"&"a' &!,n"Ean&e.

Section ) b- is also inconsistent with .rticle G1( Section 1 of the &onstitution stating that: IP+bli, $''i,! is a %+bli, &"+s&. P+bli, $''i,!"s a#* !)%l$=!!s )+s& a& all &i)!s b! a,,$+#&abl! &$ &h! %!$%l!, s!"v! &h!) -i&h +&)$s& "!s%$#sibili&=, i#&!("i&=, l$=al&=, a#* !''i,i!#,=, a,& -i&h %a&"i$&is) a#* 8+s&i,!, a#* l!a* )$*!s& liv!s.J

'he provision presupposes that since an incumbent of a public office is invested with certain powers and charged with certain duties pertinent to sovereignty( the powers so delegated to the officer are held "n tr# t f!r the %e!%'e and are t! )e eCer&" ed "n )eha'f !f the ,!-ernment or !f a'' &"t"Een +h! ma* need the "nter-ent"!n !f the !ff"&er . S#&h tr# t eCtend t! a'' matter +"th"n the ran,e !f d#t"e %erta"n"n, t! the !ff"&e. In !ther +!rd 2 %#)'"& !ff"&er are )#t the er-ant !f the %e!%'e2 and n!t the"r r#'er .@7AH4@I

Section ) b-( being in the nature of an immunity( " "n&!n " tent +"th the %r"n&"%'e !f %#)'"& a&&!#nta)"'"t*. 1t places the P&44 members and staff beyond the reach of courts( &ongress and other administrative bodies. In tead !f en&!#ra,"n,
)@,O,P )@+O/)P

.nne; I4J of the Petition in 4.$. 5o. 1,)*1+. 6! L!$#, 6! L!$#, I". 'he Law on Public "fficers and !lection Law( p. /.

**)

**@

%#)'"& a&&!#nta)"'"t*2 the ame %r!-" "!n !n'* "n t"t#t"!na'"Ee "rre %!n ")"'"t* and n!n0a&&!#nta)"'"t*. 1n P"!si*!#&ial C$))issi$# $# G$$* G$v!"#)!#& v. P!Sa, B;[#+] 2ustice %lorentino P. %eliciano characterized as IobiterJ the portion of the ma6ority opinion barring( on the basis of Sections ) a- and b- of !.". 5o. 1( a civil case for damages filed against the P&44 and its &ommissioners. 9e eloDuently opined:

'he above underscored portions are( it is respectfully submitted( clearly $bi&!". It " "m%!rtant t! ma<e &'ear that the C!#rt " n!t here "nter%ret"n,2 m#&h 'e #%h!'d"n, a -a'"d and &!n t"t#t"!na'2 the '"tera' term !f Se&t"!n @ (a)2 ()) !f ECe&#t"-e Order N!.3. 1f Section ) a- were given its literal import as immunizing the P&44 or any member thereof from civil liability I'$" a#=&hi#( *$#! $" $)i&&!* in the discharge of the tas< contemplated by this "rder(J the constitutionality of Section ) a- would( in my submission( be open to most serious doubt. %or so viewed( Section ) a- would institutionalize the irresponsibility and non7 accountability of members and staff of the P&44( a notion that is clearly repugnant to both the 1=,* and 1=+, &onstitution and a privileged status not claimed by any other official of the $epublic under the 1=+, &onstitution. ; ; ;. It +!#'d eem &!n t"t#t"!na''* !ffen "-e t! #%%! e that a mem)er !r taff mem)er !f the .C11 &!#'d n!t )e re?#"red t! te t"f* )ef!re the Sand",an)a*an !r that #&h mem)er +ere eCem%ted fr!m &!m%'*"n, +"th !rder !f th" C!#rt.

Chav!K v. Sa#*i(a#ba=a# :7[#9] reiterates the same view. 1ndeed( Section ) b- has been frowned upon by this &ourt even before the filing of the present petitions.

/. Sections 1/771+ a. 1mpeachment( officers of the government who are impeachable( grounds( limitations for its e;ercise( procedure( etc. . . ROM@LO, !& al vs. FNIG@EZ, !& al, 1 1 SCRA 2:9 I&ulpable violation of the constitution( treason( bribery( graft and corruption( other high crimes( or betrayal of public trustJ 2udgment in cases of impeachment shall not e;tend further than removal from office and disDualification to hold any other office under the $epublic of the Philippines but shall nevertheless be liable to prosecution( trial and punishment according to law.
)@=O/@P )8:O/8P

5o. L7,,88*( .pril 1/( 1=++( 1@= S&$. @@+. 1=* S&$. /+/ 1==1-.

**@

**8

$ead: FRANCISCO VS. S.EALER :OSE DE VENECIA2 ET AL2 @37 SCRA @@2 N!-em)er 3;2 4;;6 Lhen is an impeachment complaint deemed to be a bar to the filing of another complaint within a 17year periodC . verified impeachment complaint bars the filing of another complaint against an impeachable official within a period of 1 year after the same was received by the 9ouse of $epresentatives and referred by the Spea<er to the appropriate committee for its study and recommendation. 1t is deemed initiated under .rt. G1( Section * O@P after the referral to the &ommittee by the Spea<er. 'o IinitiateJ refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint &"3PL!D L1'9 &"54$!SS '.?154 151'1.L .&'1"5 "% S.1D &"0PL.15'.J a71. Degree of loyalty( etc. of government employee. $ead: Li)MA",! vs. A",!, 27B SCRA 21 c. 'he S.5D14.5>.K.5 .5D '.5"D>.K.5 D!&$!!S $ead: 1- PDSs 1)+8( 1+),( 18:8( 18:, and 18*: /- !;ec. "rder /)) 9) N@NEZ VS. SAN6IGANBAFAN, 111 SCRA 99 ) MANG@BAT VS. SAN6IGANBAFAN, 1 7 SCRA 78 B) GABISON VS. 6E LOS ANGELES, 1B1 SCRA :1 :) ZAL6EVAR VS. RA@L GONZALES, A%"il 27, R!s$l+&i$# $' &h! M$&i$# '$" R!,$#si*!"a&i$# *a&!* 1; Ma= 1;88 :) BAGASO VS. SAN6IGANBAFAN, 1BB SCRA 1B 7) 6E IES@S VS. PEOPLE, 127 SCRA 7:7 8) J@IMPO VS. TANO6BAFAN, 6!,!)b!" 2, 1;8:, 1 : SCRA ;) INTING VS. TANO6BAFAN, ;7 SCRA ; b71 Lho prosecutes public officialsC !;ception $ead: 1. C$"%+K vs. Ta#$*ba=a#, 1 ; SCRA 281 c. DisDualification of public officer
**8

1;88 a#* &h!

**,

$ead: 1) MINOR VS. AGB@, A%"il 17, 1;87 2) MANARLIHA P@BLISNING VS. TAGLE, 1 2 SCRA BB9 Power of the "mbudsman to suspend or dismiss public officials. 5ot only to recommend but to directly dismiss or suspend public officials. REMIA F. BONCALON - . COMELEC2 1.R. N!. 353A342 De&em)er 4@2 4;;A. FUISUMBIN12 E. 'he antecedent facts are as follows: "n 5ovember /@( 1==,( Loida &. .rabelo( @G3H7I the State .uditor 11 of >ago &ity( 5egros "ccidental( conducted an audit on the cash accounts of >oncalon( a &ashier 1# at >ago &ity 'reasurerEs "ffice. 'he audit revealed a cash shortage of P1(:/*(+/=.@8.@G4HGI
)81O@P )8/O8P

.rabello in some parts of the records. R$ll$, pp. @/7@*. ;;;; 1- 'he &ity &ashier 1#( $emia %. >oncalon( was short of .32;462A48.7G on her cash accountability at the time of the e;amination due to falsification( undocumented and overstated disbursements( undeposited collection and in connivance with $enato L. Diy( 0anager and !rnesto Sa7onoy( &ashier( both of P5>7$>( >ago &ity >ranch( in violation of .rticles 1,1( /1, and /// of the $evised Penal &odeF The &a h h!rta,e +a arr"-ed at a f!''!+ = >alance of .ccountability as of 5ovember /@( 1==, per cashboo< 7 .DD: Debits to .ccountability %ictitious entry in the official &ashboo< for deposit under %ictitious $eport of Daily &ollections and Deposits 5o. 1:17=,1:1+*8 dated 1:T*1T=, %ictitious entry of payroll 5o. 1))*/ in the $eport of &ash Disbursement 5o. 1:17=,:8==) dated +T1+T=, and in the official cashboo< of the accountable "fficer "verstatement of total of $eport of &ash Disbursement 5o. 1:17=,:8==) dated @T*:T=, .mount of collection for the months of 2une and .ugust 1==, not deposited T!ta' A#d"ted A&&!#nta)"'"t* a !f N!-. 472 3885 Le = Cred"t t! A&&!#nta)"'"t* Ca h and Va'"d &a h "tem &!#nted P

),(1:8.1)

P 1(:1=(@*@./1

/(@@:.::

1(8)).:/

1::.** . 32;462A48.7G . 32;5;2867.5;

**,

**+

'he state auditor also discovered( upon verification from the depository ban<( that the entry in >oncalonEs cashboo< pertaining to the deposit of P1(:1=(@*@./1 on "ctober *1( 1==, was false. Deposits totaling said amount were made only on 5ovember /@( 1==, and December //( 1==,( in the amounts of P/::(:::.:: and P+1=(@*@./1( respectively. 1n view of the audit findings( >oncalon was administratively charged with dishonesty before the "ffice of the "mbudsman #isayas-. 'he case was doc<eted as "0>7#1S7.D07==7:)++. >oncalon denied accountability for any cash shortage and averred that she was informed by the state auditor of the alleged shortage only on "ctober 1( 1==+( or after she had gone on a commuted leave of absence from .pril 1*( 1==+ to 2uly 1@( 1==+( wherein she was cleared of money and property accountability and paid the corresponding money value of said leave.@G6H5I She also contended that had the state auditor e;amined her safe( she would have found the bundles of money worth P+1=(@*@./1( which she had overloo<ed.@G@HAI 4raft 1nvestigation "fficer 41"- 1 .lvin >utch !. &aUares recommended the dismissal of the case since the Duestioned amounts were already accounted for. 9e also said that the erroneous entry of deposit in >oncalonEs cashboo< can only be considered as an administrative lapse( sub6ect only to the admonition of the erring public officer. 3pon review( Director #irginia Palanca7Santiago( "ffice of the "mbudsman #isayas-( reversed the recommendation of 41" 1 &aUares. She ruled that the untimely deposit of the Duestioned amount only means that >oncalon was in possession of the money and had made use of it. %urther( her act of falsifying an entry of deposit in her cashboo<( which is an official document( signifies want of integrity on her part as she had the disposition to betray( cheat or defraud the government. @G7H8I >oncalon sought reconsideration( but to no avail. 'hus( she appealed to the &ourt of .ppeals. 1n the Decision dated %ebruary /,( /::)( the &ourt of .ppeals found >oncalon guilty of dishonesty under Section /*( $ule G1# of the "mnibus $ules on &ivil Service. &iting the &ash !;amination 0anual( the &ourt of .ppeals stressed that entries in the cashboo< are the direct and personal responsibility of every cash accountable officer. .nd should they be duly permitted to be assisted by subordinates in case of heavy volume of wor<( the wor< of their subordinates still remains under their close and strict supervision. 'he &ourt of .ppeals also emphasized that when >oncalon certified under oath that she Iproduced all her cash( treasury( warrants( chec<s( money orders( cash items( paid vouchers( unused accountable

at the t"me !f the eCam"nat"!n SHORTA1E !mphasis ours.&. "$ll$( pp. /*7/). 1d. at /8. 1d. at 1+7/1.

@523;G.3@ . 32;462A48.7G

)8*O,P )8)O+P )8@O=P

**+

**=

forms( etc. to the .uditorT!;aminer on 5ovember /@( 1==,(J she cannot later claim that she simply failed to notice the bundles of money in her safe.@GGH3;I 'he 'all$ of the decision reads( >HEREFORE2 the instant petition is hereby DENIED. .ccordingly( the finding of the "ffice of the "mbudsman holding petitioner guilty of dishonesty and meting the penalty of dismissal from government service with forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disDualification of holding public office is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.@G5H33I .ggrieved( >oncalon filed this petition contending that: 1. '9! 9"5"$.>L! &"3$' "% .PP!.LS 4$.#!LK !$$!D 15 3P9"LD154 P!'1'1"5!$ES D1S01SS.L %$"0 '9! S!$#1&! L1'9 %"$%!1'3$! "% .LL >!5!%1'S .5D P!$P!'3.L D1SA3.L1%1&.'1"5 '" 9"LD P3>L1& "%%1&! .L'9"349 '9! "0>3DS0.5 9.S 5" P"L!$ '" D1S01SS P3>L1& "%%1&1.LS .5D !0PL"K!!SF 11. '9! 9"5"$.>L! &"3$' "% .PP!.LS 4$.#!LK !$$!D 15 3P9"LD154 P!'1'1"5!$ES D1S01SS.L %$"0 '9! S!$#1&!( D!SP1'! '9! %.&' '9.' S9! 9.S 5"' 15&3$$!D .5K S9"$'.4!F '9.' S9! 9.S >!!5 &L!.$!D "% 0"5!K .5D P$"P!$'K .&&"35'.>1L1'KF '9.' S9! 9.S .&&"35'!D '9! %35DS 15 9!$ &3S'"DK .5D 5" D.0.4! 9.S >!!5 &.3S!D '" '9! &1'K "% >.4"F and 111 '9! 9"5"$.>L! &"3$' "% .PP!.LS 4$.#!LK !$$!D 15 3P9"LD154 P!'1'1"5!$ES D1S01SS.L %$"0 '9! S!$#1&! D!SP1'! '9! .>S!5&! "% P$""% >3' $!L1.5&! 0!$!LK "5 P$!S30P'1"5S( &"52!&'3$!S .5D 15%!$!5&!S '9.' .$! 01S'.?!5.@GAH34I !ssentially( the issues for resolution are: 1- Did the &ourt of .ppeals err in upholding >oncalonEs dismissal from service on the ground of dishonestyC and /- I the Om)#d man em%!+ered t! d" m" %#)'"& !ff"&"a' and em%'!*ee "n adm"n" trat"-e &a e C
)88O1:P )8,O11P )8+O1/P

R$ll$( pp. */7*). 1d. at *8. 1d. at 1,.

**=

*):

Petitioner contends that the alleged shortage was already accounted for in the 5ovember /@( 1==, and December //( 1==, ban< deposits. She e;plains that the late deposits of the said amounts were due to her failure to notice the same in her safe( as they were in bundles. She also argues that the posting of entries in her cashboo< was already delegated to her subordinates due to her multifarious duties and functions as &ashier 1#. .s such( the entry of deposit dated "ctober *1( 1==, may only have been an unintended mista<e of her subordinates( considering that it was the last day of the month and holiday season followed. She further avers that for liability to attach( notice and demand must be made upon her to afford her due process( but to the contrary( the state auditor informed her only on "ctober 1( 1==+ or more than ten months after the audit( and after she had gone on an approved leave of absence wherein she was cleared of money and property accountability and paid the money value of said leave. 1nvo<ing Ma*a"a#( v. Sa#*i(a#ba=a#,@G8H36I she finally contends that mere absence of funds is not sufficient proof of conversion( nor is her mere failure to turn over the funds at any given time sufficient to ma<e a %"i)a 'a,i! case( for conversion must be affirmatively proved( either by direct evidence or by the production of facts from which conversion necessarily follows. 'he "ffice of the Solicitor 4eneral "S4-( for respondent "ffice of the "mbudsman #isayas-( maintains that the &ourt of .ppeals did not err in upholding >oncalonEs dismissal because the cash shortage and false entry of deposit remained undisputed. !ven assuming that it was her subordinates who posted the said entry in her cashboo<( still( she should have ta<en the necessary precautions to verify the truthfulness of each entry therein. >ut she did not. 'hus( her e;planation( that she overloo<ed the P+1=(@*@./1 inside her safe as they were in bundles( was purely an alibi( too flimsy to accept. .fter a 6udicious evaluation of the submissions and pieces of evidence of both parties( we are in agreement that petitioner is( indeed( guilty of dishonesty. %irst( this &ourt finds no basis for >oncalonEs protestations that she was deprived of due process of law merely because the state auditor belatedly notified her of the alleged cash shortage. 1n administrative proceedings( such as in the case at bar( procedural due process simply means the opportunity to e;plain oneEs side or the opportunity to see< a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.@5;H3@I 9ere( we ta<e note that >oncalon was given every opportunity to e;plain her side in her letters to the state auditor dated "ctober @( 1==+( @53H37I "ctober 1=( 1==+@54H3GI and
)8=O1*P ),:O1)P

4.$. 5o. 11/*1)( 0arch /+( /::1( *@@ S&$. @/@( @*@. Casi)i"$ v. Ta#*$(, 4.$. 5o. 1)81*,( 2une +( /::@( )@= S&$. 8/)( 8**. ),1O1@P &. "$ll$( p. *). ;;;; Dear 0iss .rabelo: ;;;; &onsidering the big amount involved and the lapse of timeN 1 respectfully reDuest that 1 be given a time of at least three *- wee<s within sic- to go over my records to determine the basis of such findings. ;;;; ),/O18P 1d. at *@. ;;;;

*):

*)1

December 1:( 1==+.@56H35I She was further heard in person during investigation by the graft investigating officer( as well as by the Director of the "ffice of the "mbudsman #isayas-( and she was able to participate in all the stages of the administrative proceedings. Despite all these( she could not 6ustify the averred cash shortage as of 5ovember /@( 1==,. 'he &ourt ac<nowledges that indeed( as claimed by petitioner( when auditor .rabelo made her demand on "ctober /( 1==+ upon the petitioner to restitute P1(:/*(+/=.@8@5@H3AI the same had already been settled and as of the said date the discrepancies found in connection with the 5ovember /@( 1==, audit had already been ironed out. &onsidering that the demand was made at the time when the amounts had already been produced( then the %"i)a 'a,i! evidence that missing funds were put to personal use( which presumption .rticle /1, of the $evised Penal &ode supplies i# ,$##!,&i$# -i&h &h! '!l$#= $' )alv!"sa&i$#( did not arise. B+& the absence of the said %"i)a 'a,i! evidence does not necessarily eDuate to an absence of administrative liability on the part of petitioner. 1t is undisputed that: 1- Petitioner had the duty to deposit in the ban< the amount of P1(:1=(@*@./1 by "ctober *1( 1==,F /- Such amount was not deposited on "ctober *1( 1==,F *- 'he entry in petitionerEs cashboo< of a deposit on "ctober *1( 1==, in the amount of P1(:1=(@*@./1 is falseF )- 'he amount was deposited in two tranches W
1- $e W undeposited amount "ne 0illion 5ineteen 'housand %ive 9undred 'hirty %ive R /1T1:: P1(:1=(@*@./1-N "f the amount of P1(:1=(@*@./1( the .4;;2;;;.;; was already de%! "ted !n N!-em)er 472 3885 when the e;amination was conducted per deposit slip copy hereto attached. 'he balance of .A382767.43 was de%! "ted !n De&em)er 442 3885 per deposit slip copies hereto attached. The ma'' de'a* "n affe&t"n, the de%! "t +a d#e t! the -!'#me !f +!r< "n the !ff"&e and "n the %re%arat"!n !f the ne&e ar* %a%er re'at"-e heret!. >e that as it is( this OdeficiencyP has already been long ad6usted. !mphasis supplied.;;;; ),*O1,P 1d. at *8. ;;;; 1- H!+ the h!rta,e !f .32;462A48.7G !&&#rred. 'he shortage of P1(:/*(+/=.@8 is not( strictly spea<ing( a shortage because the amounts( li<e the .4;;2;;; was already de%! "ted +"th the )an< at the t"me !f the &a h eCam"nat"!n which you failed to consider in the auditF the amount of .A382767.43 was already bundled and prepared read* f!r de%! "tFN The e d"fferen&e +ere )r!#,ht a)!#t )e&a# e !f the m#'t"far"!# d#t"e !f a &a h"er and 'a&< !f %r!%er'* tra"ned %er !nne'. 'he "ffice of the cashier handling several funds among them the 4eneral fund includes 1nfra and 5algu- 'rust %und and Special !ducational %und has only nine =- personnel. /- H>h* theI de%! "t !f .4;;2;;;.;; and .A382767.43 made !n N!-em)er 472 3885 and De&em)er 442 3885 re %e&t"-e'*2 +ere n!t %re ented t! *!# (eCam"ner) d#r"n, the &a h &!#nt 'a t N!-em)er 472 3885. During the cash e;amination( on your demand( all my cash( cash items and other papers related to such e;amination( were presented to you. 1f you have missed some of them in your cash count I &!#'d n!t )e )'amed f!r them )e&a# e m* attent"!n +a ne-er &a''ed )* *!# f!r an* d" &re%an&* . %rom 5ovember /@( 1==,( the date of the e;amination( it was only on "ctober 1( 1==+ that you formally notified me of the discrepancies you found in my accounts( a lapse of more than ten 1:- months. Since a cash e;amination is to be done continOuPously and completely( after a lapse of a reasonable time of more than five @- months without any report of a discrepancy in my accounts as &ashier( 1 was confident my accountabilities were o<ay. 'hat is why your letter of "ctober 1( 1==+ was a complete surprise. !mphasis and underscoring supplied.;;;; ),) O1+P P/::(::: was deposited on 5ovember /@( 1==,( as evidenced by the deposit slipF P+1=(@*@./1 was deposited on December //( 1==,( as evidenced by the deposit slipF P)(1=).@/ was refunded and deposited under ".$. 5o. :@/,8:1 as evidenced by the ".$. and deposit slipF P1::.:* which represents errors in recording of P:.*:( P1:: and P:.:* were already ta<en up and recorded as entries. &. "$ll$( pp. *@ R @@-.

*)1

*)/

P/::(::: on 5ovember /@( 1==, and P+1=(@*@./1 on December //( 1==,. 'hese circumstances star<ly spea< of an irregularity that calls for an e;planation on the part of the responsible officer. Petitioner wants to pass off the matter as an innocent error on her part. 9er e;planation however fails to convince us that the sub6ect entry was an honest mista<e or innocuous error. 9er claim that the cash of P+1=(@*@./1 was in the safe when the audit was conducted on 5ovember /@( 1==,( is contradicted by her certification that she produced all her cash items( which amounted to only P),(1:8.1) in total( before the state auditor on the said date. .lso( her claim of having overloo<ed the bundles of money that were 6ust sitting in her safe is far too incredible to believe. !vidence( to be worthy of credit( must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself. Stated otherwise( it must be natural( reasonable and probable as to ma<e it easy to believe.@57H38I 'here is no test of the truth of human testimony e;cept its conformity to human <nowledge( observation( and e;perience( and that whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of 6udicial cognizance.@5GH4;I 1n the instant case( the sub6ect Ioverloo<edJ sum would comprise( at the very least( eight bundles of P1(::: peso bills plus other notes and coins. 'his stash is simply too bul<y and noticeable to be overloo<ed( especially in the face of an ongoing audit and cash e;amination. 1t is more reasonable to believe the certification which states that the cash items at the time of the audit amounted to only P),(1:8.1). Petitioner( by ma<ing or allowing the ma<ing of the sub6ect false entry of deposit( made it appear that the money was already out of her possession and that it was already in the ban<( when the truth was that the money was not yet in the ban< and was actually unaccounted for. 'he fact that +#*a&!* deposit slipTs were used to support the entry of deposit as of "ctober *1( 1==, in the cashboo< is already irregular. 'he undisputed and totally une;plained odd fact that the total amount was s%li& i#&$ &-$ deposits that were separately made -!!Es a'&!" the entire sum was supposed to have been deposited on a single day 77 "ctober *1( 1==, 77 underscores the irregularity. Such acts when connected together paint a clear picture of deliberateness( not innocent error. 'he same manifests bad faith or( at the very least( each of the said acts constitutes gross negligence amounting to bad faith. 'he circumstance that the entry of deposit on "ctober *1( 1==, was never corrected to reflect the fact of non7deposit of the amount on that date and the fact of the corresponding deposits of P/::(::: on 5ovember /@( 1==, and P+1=(@*@./1 on December //( 1==, further underscores the conclusion that the matter was not an innocuous error. >ishonesty is defined as $the &!n&ea'ment !r d" t!rt"!n !f tr#th "n a matter !f fa&t re'e-ant t! !neJ !ff"&e !r &!nne&ted +"th the %erf!rman&e !f h" d#t*.( @55H43I 'he unsatisfactorily e;plained fa' e entr* of deposit in the amount of P1(:1=(@*@./1 on "ctober *1( 1==, clearly constitutes dishonesty.
),@
O1=P

),8

Sa'!(+a"* S!,+"i&= A(!#,=, I#,. v. T$#(,$, 4.$. 5o. 18@,**( December 1)( /::8( @11 S&$. 8,( +)F P!$%l! v. Villa'l$"!s( 4.$. 5os. 1*@:8*78)( December @( /::1( *,1 S&$. )/=( ))/. O/:P Sa'!(+a"* S!,+"i&= A(!#,=, I#,. v. T$#(,$( id.F P!$%l! v. Es,ala#&!( 4.$. 5o. 1:88**( December 1( 1==)( /*+ S&$. @@)( @8*.
O/1P

),,

Al'$#s$ v. O''i,! $' &h! P"!si*!#&( 4.$. 5o. 1@::=1( .pril /( /::,( @/: S&$. 8)( +,. *)/

*)*

Second( her 6ustification that she did not prepare or post the said entry of deposit deserves scant consideration because it appears to be a mere feeble attempt to shift the blame to her subordinates. .s e;plicitly provided in the &ash !;amination 0anual( entries in her cashboo< are her personal and direct responsibility even in instances when she can delegate the tas< to a subordinate due to a heavy volume of wor<. 0oreover( it is highly unacceptable for a public officer li<e petitioner to attribute the lac< of diligence in wor< to the day of the month it was performed( i.!., last day of the month and the fact that holiday season followed. Due diligence at wor< should be observed at all times. 'hird( her liability cannot be mitigated( much less can she be e;onerated( because no pecuniary damage was allegedly incurred by the government on account of the late deposits of the public money in the depository ban<. .s a cash7accountable officer( her duty is to immediately deposit the various funds she received with the authorized government depositories. 'his duty is clearly set out in &ommission on .udit &ircular 5o. =17*8+@5AH44I which states: Se&. @G7. De%! "t !f C!''e&t"!n . Q The treasurerT&a h"er ha'' de%! "t "nta&t a'' h" &!''e&t"!n a +e'' a a'' &!''e&t"!n t#rned !-er t! h"m )* the &!''e&t!r Mte''er +"th the a#th!r"Eed de%! "t!r* )an< da"'* !r n!t 'ater than the neCt )an<"n, da*. 9e shall summarize the collections and deposits accomplishing the &ashierT'reasurerEs $eport of Daily &ollections and Deposits &'$D&D-( Prov. %orm 5o. /1* a- in three copies. 'he original and duplicate( together with the original and duplicate copies of the DS&.%Es and the deposit slips and the duplicates of official receipts( shall be submitted daily to the accountant. 'he third copies of the &'$D&D and the DS&.%s shall be retained by the treasurerTcashier. 1n the case of municipalities where travel time to the depository ban< is more than one day( deposit of collections shall be made at least once a wee<( or as soon as the collections reach P1:(:::. &learly( petitioner is not supposed to <eep funds in her custody for longer than a wee<. . failure to ma<e a timely turnover of the cash received by her constitutes( not 6ust gross negligence in the performance of her duty( but gross dishonesty( if not malversation.@58H46I Lastly( Ma*a"a#( cannot be considered as precedent in the case at bar because the former is a criminal case for malversation while the instant case is an administrative case for dishonesty. 1t is not amiss to point out that public servants ought to e;hibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity( for no less than the &onstitution mandates that a public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees are accountable to the
),+
O//P

),=

15S'1'3'154 . 4"#!$50!5' .&&"35'154 .5D .3D1'154 0.53.L .5D P$!S&$1>154 1'S 3S!( which too< effect on 2anuary 1( 1==/. O/*P See C$#,!"#!* Ci&iK!# v. Gab"al, I"., ..0. 5o. P7:@7/:=+( December 1@( /::@( ),+ S&$. 1*( //.

*)*

*))

people( and must serve with utmost responsibility( integrity( loyalty( and efficiency( as well as act with patriotism and 6ustice( and lead modest lives.@A;H4@I 'hese constitutionally7enshrined principles( oft7repeated in our decisions( are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments( but they are wor<ing standards in accord with the StateEs policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. A%"$%$s the second issue( petitioner contends in her defense that the power of the "mbudsman concerning penalty after an investigation of public officials or employees is merely recommendatory. 'hus( it cannot directly impose sanctions against them. "n the other hand( the "S4 maintains that the prevailing doctrine( as enunciated by us in 4edesma v. Court of Appea s,@A3H47I " that the %!+er !f the Om)#d man +"th re,ard t! "m%! "n, an&t"!n " n!t mere'* ad-" !r* )#t mandat!r*. "n this point( we find that the stance of the "S4 is correct. Le have repeatedly held in a catena of precedents(@A4H4GI aside from L!*!s)a( that the "mbudsman has the power to directly impose the penalty of removal( suspension( demotion( fine( censure( or prosecution of an erring public official( other than a member of &ongress and the 2udiciary( within the e;ercise of its administrative disciplinary authority as provided for in Section 1* *-(@A6H45I .rticle G1 of the 1=+, &onstitution( and Section 1@ *- @A@H4AI of $epublic .ct 5o. 8,,:.@A7H48I 'he clear and precise discussion of 2ustice &arpio on the matter in O''i,! $' &h! O)b+*s)a# v. C$+"& $' A%%!als @AGH6;I is worth repeating here( to wit:
)+:O/)P

Section 1( .rticle G1( 1=+, Philippine &onstitution. SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people( serve them with utmost responsibility( integrity( loyalty( and efficiency( act with patriotism and 6ustice( and lead modest lives. )+1O/@P 4.$. 5o. 1818/=( 2uly /=( /::@( )8@ S&$. )*,. )+/ O/8P Ba"ill$ v. G!"vasi$( 4.$. 5o. 1@@:++( .ugust *1( /::8( @:: S&$. @81F O''i,! $' &h! O)b+*s)a# v. Ma*"ia(a, 4.$. 5o. 18)*18( September /,( /::8( @:* S&$. 8*1F O''i,! $' &h! O)b+*s)a# v. C$+"& $' A%%!als, 4.$. 5o. 18+:,=( 2uly 1,( /::,( @/, S&$. ,=+F Balbas&"$ v. I+#i$, 4.$. 5o. 1@)8,+( 2uly 1,( /::,( @/, S&$. 8+:F O''i,! $' &h! O)b+*s)a# v. Sa#&ia($, 4.$. 5o. 181:=+( September 1*( /::,( @** S&$. *:@. )+*O/,P S!,&i$# 19. 'he "ffice of the "mbudsman shall have the following powers( functions( and duties: ;;;; *- Direct the officer concerned to ta<e appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault( and re&!mmend his removal( suspension( demotion( fine( censure( or prosecution( and en #re &!m%'"an&e there+"th. !mphasis ours.;;;; )+) O/+P S!&. 1@. P$-!"s, ?+#,&i$#s a#* 6+&i!s. O 'he "ffice of the "mbudsman shall have the following powers( functions and duties: ;;;; *- Direct the officer concerned to ta<e appropriate action against a public officer or employee at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty reDuired by law( and recommend his removal( suspension( demotion( fine( censure( or prosecution( and ensure compliance therewithF !r enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section /1 of this .ct: P"$vi*!*( 'hat the refusal by any officer without 6ust cause to comply with an order of the "mbudsman to remove( suspend( demote( fine( censure( or prosecute an officer or employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty reDuired by law shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officerF !mphasis and underscoring ours.;;;; )+@ O/=P .5 .&' P$"#1D154 %"$ '9! %35&'1"5.L .5D S'$3&'3$.L "$4.51M.'1"5 "% '9! "%%1&! "% '9! "0>3DS0.5( .5D %"$ "'9!$ P3$P"S!S( approved on 5ovember 1,( 1=+=. )+8O*:P Supra note /8( at +:,7+:+.

*))

*)@

Lhile Section 1@ *- of $. 8,,: states that the "mbudsman has the power to Irecommend ; ; ; removal( suspension( demotion ; ; ;J of government officials and employees( the same Section 1@ *- also states that the "mbudsman in the alternative may I enf!r&e "t d" &"%'"nar* a#th!r"t* a %r!-"ded "n Se&t"!n 43J of $. 8,,:. 'he word I!rJ in Section 1@ *- before the phrase Ienforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section /1J grants the "mbudsman this alternative power. Section /1@A5H63I of $. 8,,: vests in the "mbudsman Id" &"%'"nar* a#th!r"t* !-er a'' e'e&t"-e and a%%!"nt"-e !ff"&"a' !f the 1!-ernmen t(J e;cept impeachable officers( members of &ongress( and the 2udiciary. .nd under Section /@ of $. 8,,:( the "mbudsman may impose in administrative proceedings the I%ena't* ran,"n, fr!m # %en "!n +"th!#t %a* f!r !ne *ear t! d" m" a' with forfeiture of benefits or a fine ranging from five thousand pesos P@(:::.::- to twice the amount malversed( illegally ta<en or lost( or both at the discretion of the "mbudsman ; ; ;.J &learly( under $ep. .ct 5o. 8,,: the "mbudsman has the power to directly impose administrative penalty on public officials or employees. >HEREFORE2 the Decision dated %ebruary /,( /::) and $esolution dated %ebruary 1)( /::8 of the &ourt of .ppeals in &.74.$. SP 5o. ,1=11( finding petitioner guilty of DISHONEST/ and dismissing her from government service( with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disDualification to hold public office( are hereby AFFIRMED. $ead: B+!#as!*a vs. ?lavi!", S!%&!)b!" 21, 1;;9 PART BI ARTICLE XIII - SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS 1. Secs. 171= /. .d6udicatory Power of the &ommission on 9uman $ights
)+,
O*1P

S!&. /1. O''i,ials S+b8!,& &$ 6is,i%li#a"= A+&h$"i&=2 E>,!%&i$#s. c The Off"&e !f the Om)#d man ha'' ha-e d" &"%'"nar* a#th!r"t* !-er a'' e'e&t"-e and a%%!"nt"-e !ff"&"a' !f the 1!-ernment and its subdivisions( instrumentalities and agencies( including 0embers of the &abinet( local government( government7owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries( e;cept over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over 0embers of &ongress( and the 2udiciary. *)@

*)8

$ead: 1. Ca"i#$ vs. CNR, 6!,!)b!" 2, 1;;1 2. EPZA vs. CNR, A%"il 1 , 1;;2 $ead also: 1) S@M@LONG VS. G@ERRERO, G.R. N$. LM 8:8B, S!%&. 97, 1;87 2) 6IZON VS. GEN. E6@AR6O, G.R. N$. B;118, Ma",h 9, 1;88 *- !;ec. "rder 5o. 18*( 0ay @( 1=+,( Declaring the effectivity of the creation of the &ommission on 9uman $ights as provided for under the 1=+, &onstitution. )- 0emorandum "rder 5o. /:( 2uly )( 1=+8 PART BIII ARTICLE XIV - EDUCATION, SCIENCE, etc.. 1. Secs. 171= a. $ead: $. 88@@7'he %ree Secondary !ducation .ct of 1=++ be en/oyed in a

Section + [#] Academic freedom sha institutions of higher earning. b. Lhat is academic freedomC #!$K 10P"$'.5': /::, >.$ A3!S'1"5-

3nder the 1=,* &onstitution( I.cademic freedom shall by en6oyed B/ ALL institutions of higher learningJ while under the 1=+, Philippine &onstitution( I.cademic freedom shall be en6oyed IN ALL institutions of higher learning.J 1n short( before( "5LK 15S'1'3'1"5S "% 9149!$ L!.$5154 !52"K .&.D!01& %$!!D"0 35D!$ '9! 1=,* &"5S'1'3'1"5 L91L! 35D!$ '9! 1=+, &"5S'1'3'1"5( .&.D!01& %$!!D"0 1S .LS" !52"K!D >K '9! '!.&9!$S .5D P$"%!SS"$S .S L!LL .S S'3D!5'S( .S1D! %$"0 '9! S&9""L. .cademic freedomF due process in disciplinary actions involving studentsF right to cross7e;amine is not part of due process in investigations involving students. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSIT/ VS. COURT OF A..EALS2 HON.>ILFREDO D. RE/ES2 "n h" &a%a&"t* a .re "d"n, :#d,e !f Bran&h 6G2 Re,"!na' Tr"a' C!#rt !f Man"'a2 THE COMMISSION ON
*)8

*),

HI1HER EDUCATION2 THE DE.ARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND S.ORTS2 ALVIN A1UILAR2 :AMES .AUL BUN1UBUN12 RICHARD REVERENTE and ROBERTO VALDES2 :R.2 1.R. N!. 3458A;2 De&em)er 382 4;;5 RE/ES2 R.T.2 E.= THE FACTS= P$1#.'! respondents .lvin .guilar( 2ames Paul >ungubung( $ichard $everente and $oberto #aldes( 2r. are members of 'au 4amma Phi %raternity who were e;pelled by the De La Salle 3niversity DLS3- and &ollege of Saint >enilde &S>- )++O1P 2oint Discipline >oard because of their involvement in an offensive action causing in6uries to petitioner 2ames Kap and three other student members of Domino Lu; %raternity. "n 0arch /=( 1==@( 2ames Kap was eating his dinner alone in 0anangEs $estaurant near La Salle( when he overheard two men bad7mouthing and apparently angry at Domino Lu;. 9e ignored the comments of the two. Lhen he arrived at his boarding house( he mentioned the remar<s to his two other brods while watching television. 'hese two brods had earlier finished eating their dinner at 0anangEs. 'hen( the three( together with four other persons went bac< to 0anangEs and confronted the two who were still in the restaurant. >y admission of respondent >ungubung in his testimony( one of the two was a member of the 'au 4amma Phi %raternity. 'here was no rumble or physical violence then. .fter this incident( a meeting was conducted between the two heads of the fraternity through the intercession of the Student &ouncil. 'he 'au 4amma Phi %raternity was as<ing for an apology. IHaila#(a# #( apologyJ in the words of respondent .guilar. >ut no apology was made. "n 0arch /@( 1==@( 'en minutes before his ne;t class at 8::: p.m.( 2ames Kap went out of the campus using the !ngineering 4ate to buy candies across 'aft .venue. .s he was about to re7cross 'aft .venue( he heard heavy footsteps at his bac<. !ight to ten guys were running towards him. 9e panic<ed. 9e did not <now what to do. 'hen( respondent >ungubung punched him in the head with something heavy in his hands W I%a"a#( <nuc<les.J $espondents $everente and Lee were behind Kap( punching him. $espondents >ungubung and #aldes who were in front of him( were also punching him. .s he was lying on the street( respondent .guilar <ic<ed him. People shoutedF guards arrivedF and the group of attac<ers left. Kap could not recognize the other members of the group who attac<ed him. Lith respect to respondent Papio( 0r. Kap said I hi#*i E$ #aEi&a a#( )+Eha #i=a, hi#*i E$ #aEi&a s+)+#&$E si=a .J Lhat 0r. Kap saw was a long haired guy also running with the group.
)++O1P

&ollege of Saint >enilde is an educational institution which is part of the De La Salle System.

*),

*)+

'he mauling incidents were a result of a fraternity war. 'he victims( namely: petitioner 2ames Kap and Dennis Pascual( !ricson &ano( and 0ichael Perez( are members of the IDomino Lu; %raternity(J while the alleged assailants( private respondents .lvin .guilar( 2ames Paul >ungubung( $ichard $everente and $oberto #aldes( 2r. are members of I'au 4amma Phi %raternity(J a rival fraternity. 'he ne;t day( 0arch *:( 1==@( petitioner Kap lodged a complaint )+=O,P with the Discipline >oard of DLS3 charging private respondents with Idirect assault.J Similar complaints)=:O+P were also filed by Dennis Pascual and !ricson &ano against .lvin Lee and private respondents #aldes and $everente. 'hus( cases entitled I6! La Sall! @#iv!"si&= a#* C$ll!(! $' S&. B!#il*! v. Alvi# A(+ila" AABMBSMP;1B217B), Ia)!s Pa+l B+#(+b+#( AABMPSMP;29 79), R$b!"& R. Val*!s, I". ABSMBSMAPMP;29B78:), Alvi# L!! AE66P; :292B), Ri,ha"* R!v!"!#&! AABMMGTP;1B9897) a#* Malvi# A. Pa%i$ AABM MGTP;2B1227)J were doc<eted as Discipline &ase 5o. =)=@7*7/@1/1. 'he Director of the DLS3 Discipline "ffice sent separate notices to private respondents .guilar( >ungubung and #aldes( 2r. and $everente informing them of the complaints and reDuiring them to answer. Private respondents filed their respective answers.)=1O=P Said notices issued by De La Salle Discipline >oard uniformly stated as follows: Pl!as! b! i#'$")!* &ha& a 8$i#& a#* !>%a#*!* 6is,i%li#! B$a"* ha* b!!# ,$#s&i&+&!* &$ h!a" a#* *!lib!"a&! &h! ,ha"(! a(ai#s& =$+ '$" vi$la&i$# $' CNE6 O"*!" N$. a"isi#( '"$) &h! -"i&&!# ,$)%lai#&s $' Ia)!s Fa%, 6!##is C. Pas,+al, a#* E"i,s$# F. Ca#$. F$+ a"! *i"!,&!* &$ a%%!a" a& &h! h!a"i#( $' &h! B$a"* s,h!*+l!* $# A%"il 1;, 1;;B a& ;C77 a.). a& &h! B"$. C$##$# Nall '$" =$+ a#* =$+" -i&#!ss!s &$ (iv! &!s&i)$#= a#* %"!s!#& !vi*!#,! i# =$+" b!hal'. F$+ )a= b! assis&!* b= a la-=!" -h!# =$+ (iv! =$+" &!s&i)$#= $" &h$s! $' =$+" -i&#!ss!s. O# $" b!'$"! A%"il 18, 1;;B, =$+ a"! '+"&h!" *i"!,&!* &$ %"$vi*! &h! B$a"*, &h"$+(h &h! 6is,i%li#! O''i,!, -i&h a lis& $' =$+" -i&#!ss!s as -!ll as &h! s-$"# s&a&!)!#& $' &h!i" %"$%$s!* &!s&i)$#=. F$+" 'ail+"! &$ a%%!a" a& &h! s,h!*+l!* h!a"i#( $" =$+" 'ail+"! &$ s+b)i& &h! lis& $' -i&#!ss!s a#* &h! s-$"# s&a&!)!#& $' &h!i" %"$%$s!* &!s&i)$#= -ill b! ,$#si*!"!* a -aiv!" $# =$+" %a"& &$ %"!s!#& !vi*!#,! a#* as a# a*)issi$# $' &h! %"i#,i%al a,& ,$)%lai#!* $'.
)+=O,P )=:O+P )=1O=P

1d. at 1/,. 1d. at 1/+71/=. 1d. at 1*:71**.

*)+

*)=

?$" =$+" s&"i,& ,$)%lia#,!.)=/O1*P During the proceedings before the >oard on .pril 1= and /+( 1==@( private respondents interposed the common defense of alibi. "n 0ay *( 1==@( the DLS37&S> 2oint Discipline >oard issued a $esolution )=*O1+P finding private respondents guilty. 'hey were meted the supreme penalty of automatic e;pulsion()=)O1=P pursuant to &9!D "rder 5o. ). )=@O/:P 'he dispositive part of the resolution reads: L9!$!%"$!( considering all the foregoing( the >oard finds respondents .L#15 .431L.$ .>7>S0T=1@/1:@-( 2.0!S P.3L >3543>354 .>7PS0T=/*)):*-( .L#15 L!! !DDT=)8/*/@:- and $1&9.$D #. $!#!$!5'! .>704'T=1@*+*,- guilty of having violated &9!D "rder 5o. ) and thereby orders their automatic e;pulsion. 1n the case of respondent 0.L#15 .. 04'T=/@1//,-( the >oard acDuits him of the charge. S" "$D!$!D.)=8O/1P Private respondents separately moved for reconsideration)=,O//P before the "ffice of the Senior #ice7President for 1nternal "perations of DLS3. 'he motions were all denied in a Letter7$esolution)=+O/*P dated 2une 1( 1==@. "n 2une @( 1==@( private respondent .guilar filed with the $'&( 0anila( against petitioners a petition for ,!"&i$"a"i and in6unction under $ule 8@ of the $ules of &ourt with prayer for temporary restraining order '$"- andTor writ of preliminary in6unction. 1t was doc<eted as &ivil &ase 5o. =@7,)1// and assigned to respondent 2udge of >ranch *8. 'he petition essentially sought to annul the 0ay *( 1==@ $esolution of the DLS37
)=/O1*P

P.P1"

.>7

1d. at 1*). 1d. at 1*=71@:. )=)O1=P 0anual of $egulations for Private Schools 1==/-( Sec. ,, c- provides that eC%#' "!n is Ian e;treme penalty of an erring pupil or student consisting of his e;clusion from admission to any public or private school in the Philippines and which reDuires the prior approval of the Secretary. 'he penalty may be imposed for acts or offenses constituting gross misconduct( dishonesty( hazing( carrying deadly weapons( immorality( selling andTor possession of prohibited drugs such as mari6uana( drug dependency( drun<enness( hooliganism( vandalism( and other serious school offenses such as assaulting a pupil or student or school personnel( instigating or leading illegal stri<es or similar concerned activities resulting in the stoppage of classes( preventing or threatening any pupil or student or school personnel from entering the school premises or attending classes or discharging their duties( forging or tampering with school records or school forms( and securing or using forged school records( forms and documents.J )=@O/:P R$ll$, pp. 1@171@*. )=8O/1P 1d. at 1@:. )=,O//P 1d. at 1/+)71*:). )=+O/*P 1d. at 1,/71,+.
)=*O1+P

*)=

*@:

&S> 2oint Discipline >oard and the 2une 1( 1==@ Letter7$esolution of the "ffice of the Senior #ice7President for 1nternal .ffairs. 'he following day( 2une 8( 1==@( respondent 2udge issued a '$" )==O/)P directing DLS3( its subordinates( agents( representatives andTor other persons acting for and in its behalf to refrain and desist from implementing $esolution dated 0ay *( 1==@ and Letter7 $esolution dated 2une 1( 1==@ and to immediately desist from barring the enrollment of .guilar for the second term of school year SK- 1==@. "n 2une ,( 1==@( the &9!D directed DLS3 to furnish it with copies of the case records of Discipline &ase 5o. =)=@7*7/@1/1(@::O/+P in view of the authority granted to it under Section ,, c- of the 0anual of $egulations for Private Schools 0$PS-. "n the other hand( private respondents >ungubung and $everente( and later( #aldes( filed petitions7in7intervention@:1O/=P in &ivil &ase 5o. =@7,)1//. $espondent 2udge also issued corresponding temporary restraining orders to compel petitioner DLS3 to admit said private respondents. "n 2une 1=( 1==@( petitioner Sales filed a motion to dismiss@:/O*:P in behalf of all petitioners( e;cept 2ames Kap. "n 2une /:( 1==@( petitioners filed a supplemental motion to dismiss@:*O*1P the petitions7in7intervention. "n September /:( 1==@( respondent 2udge issued an "rder @:)O*/P denying petitionersE respondents there- motion to dismiss and its supplement( and granted private respondentsE petitioners there- prayer for a writ of preliminary in6unction. Despite the said order( private respondent .guilar was refused enrollment by petitioner DLS3 when he attempted to enroll on September //( 1==@ for the second term of SK 1==@71==8. 'hus( on September /@( 1==@( .guilar filed with respondent 2udge an urgent motion to cite petitioners respondents there- in contempt of court.@:@O*)P .guilar also prayed that petitioners be compelled to enroll him at DLS3 in accordance with respondent 2udgeEs "rder dated September /:( 1==@. "n September /@( 1==@( respondent 2udge issued@:8O*@P a writ of preliminary in6unction( ordering ddDe La Salle not to implement its decision e;pelling private respondents. "n "ctober 18( 1==@( petitioner DLS3 filed with the &. a petition for ,!"&i$"a"i@:,O*,P &.74.$. SP 5o. *+,1=- with prayer for a '$" andTor writ of preliminary in6unction to en6oin the enforcement of
)==O/)P @::O/+P

1d. at 1+:. 1d. at /:+. @:1O/=P 1d. at /1:7/*8. @:/O*:P 1d. at /*,7/)8. @:*O*1P 1d. at /),7/,@. @:)O*/P 1d. at 1118711/). @:@O*)P 1d. at 1@8*71@,1. @:8O*@P 1d. at 11)711@. @:,O*,P 1d. at **87*=/.

*@:

*@1

respondent 2udgeEs September /:( 1==@ "rder and writ of preliminary in6unction dated September /@( 1==@. "n .pril 1/( 1==8( the &. granted petitionersE prayer for preliminary in6unction. "n 0ay 1)( 1==8( the &9!D issued its Duestioned $esolution 5o. 1+17=8( summarily disapproving the penalty of e;pulsion for all private respondents. .s for .guilar( he was to be reinstated( while other private respondents were to be e;cluded. @:+ O*+P 'he $esolution states: $!S"L3'1"5 1+17=8 $!S"L#!D '9.' '9! $!A3!S' "% '9! D! L. S.LL! 351#!$S1'K DLS3-( '.%' .#!53!( 0.51L. %"$ '9! .PP$"#.L "% '9! P!5.L'K "% !GP3LS1"5 10P"S!D "5 0$. .L#15 .431L.$( 2.0!S P.3L >3543>354( $">!$' $. #.LD!S( 2$.( .L#15 L!! .5D $1&9.$D #. $!#!$!5'! >!( .S 1' 1S 9!$!>K 1S( D1S.PP$"#!D. $!S"L#!D %3$'9!$( '9.' '9! &"001SS1"5 D1$!&' '9! DLS3 '" 100!D1.'!LK !%%!&' '9! $!15S'.'!0!5' "% 0$. .431L.$ .5D '9! L"L!$154 "% '9! P!5.L'K "% 0$. 2.0!S P.3L >3543>354( 0$. $">!$ $. #.LD!M( 2$.( si,0$. .L#15 L!! .5D 0$. $1&9.$D #. $!#!$!5'! FROM EX.ULSION TO EXCLUSION.@:=O*=P Despite the directive of &9!D( petitioner DLS3 again prevented private respondent .guilar from enrolling andTor attending his classes( prompting his lawyer to write several demand letters@1:O):P to petitioner DLS3. 1n view of the refusal of petitioner DLS3 to enroll private respondent .guilar( &9!D wrote a letter dated 2une /8( 1==8 addressed to petitioner Auebengco reDuesting that private respondent .guilar be allowed to continue attending his classes pending the resolution of its motion for reconsideration of $esolution 5o. 1+17=8. 9owever( petitioner Auebengco refused to do so( prompting &9!D to promulgate an "rder dated September /*( 1==8 which states: .cting on the above7mentioned reDuest of 0r. .guilar through counsel en6oining De La Salle 3niversity DLS3- to comply with &9!D $esolution 1+17=8 R!C E>%+lsi$# Cas! $' Alvi# A(+ila", !& al. v. 6LS@ directing DLS3 to reinstate 0r. .guilar and finding the urgent reDuest as meritorious( there being no other plain and speedy remedy available( considering the set deadline for enrollment this current '$10!S'!$( and
@:+O*+P

0anual of $egulations for Private Schools 1==/-( Sec. ,, b- provides that eC&'# "!n is Ia penalty in which the school is allowed to e;clude or drop the name of the erring pupil or student from the school rolls for being undesirable( and transfer credentials immediately issued.J @:=O*=P R$ll$, pp. 1/@71/8. @1:O):P 1d. at 1@==718:8.

*@1

*@/

in order to prevent further pre6udice to his rights as a student of the institution( DLS3( through the proper school authorities( is hereby directed to allow 0r. .lvin .guilar to provisionally enroll( pending the &ommissionEs $esolution of the instant 0otion for $econsideration filed by DLS3. 5otwithstanding the said directive( petitioner DLS3( through petitioner Auebengco( still refused to allow private respondent .guilar to enroll. 'hus( private respondent .guilarEs counsel wrote another demand letter to petitioner DLS3.@11O)/P 0eanwhile( on 2une *( 1==8( private respondent .guilar( using &9!D $esolution 5o. 1+17=8( filed a motion to dismiss @1/O)*P in the &.( arguing that &9!D $esolution 5o. 1+17=8 rendered the &. case moot and academic. "n 2uly *:( 1==8( the &. issued its Duestioned resolution granting the motion to dismiss of private respondent .guilar. "n "ctober /+( 1==8( petitioners reDuested transfer of case records to the Department of !ducation( &ulture and Sports D!&S- from the &9!D.@1*O)8P Petitioners claimed that it is the D!&S( not &9!D( which has 6urisdiction over e;pulsion cases( thus( necessitating the transfer of the case records of Discipline &ase 5o. =)=@7*7/@1/1 to the D!&S. "n 5ovember )( 1==8( in view of the dismissal of the petition for ,!"&i$"a"i in &.74.$. SP 5o. *+,1= and the automatic lifting of the writ of preliminary in6unction( private respondent .guilar filed an urgent motion to reiterate writ of preliminary in6unction dated September /@( 1==@ before respondent $'& 2udge of 0anila.@1)O),P "n 2anuary ,( 1==,( respondent 2udge issued its Duestioned order granting private respondent .guilarEs urgent motion to reiterate preliminary in6unction. 'he pertinent portion of the order reads: 1n light of the foregoing( petitioner .guilarEs urgent motion to reiterate writ of preliminary in6unction is hereby granted( and respondentsE motion to dismiss is denied. 'he writ of preliminary in6unction dated September /@( 1==@ is declared to be in force and effect. 9ence( this case. I S S U E S=
@11O)/P @1/O)*P

1d. at 18:@718:8. 1d. at )*@7)*+. @1*O)8P 1d. at @1+7@//. @1)O),P 1d. at @/*7@*:.

*@/

*@*

&an petitioner DLS3 invo<e its right to academic freedom in support of its decision to e;pel the private respondentsC H E L D= S"n&e De La Sa''e Un"-er "t* " an "n t"t#t"!n !f h",her 'earn"n,2 "t enD!* a&adem"& freed!m +h"&h "n&'#de the r",ht t! determ"ne +h!m t! adm"t a "t t#dent . Section @ /-( .rticle G1# of the &onstitution guaranties all institutions of higher learning academic freedom. 'his institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself( its aims and ob6ectives( and how best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public interest calls for some restraint. @1@O,)P .ccording to present 6urisprudence( academic freedom encompasses the independence of an academic institution to determine for itself 1- who may teach( /- what may be taught( *- how it shall teach( and )- who may be admitted to study.@18O,@P >h"'e La Sa''e " ent"t'ed t! "n-!<e a&adem"& freed!m "n "t a&t"!n a,a"n t "t t#dent 2 the %ena't* !f eC%#' "!n "m%! ed )* DLSU !n %r"-ate re %!ndent " d" %r!%!rt"!nate t! the"r m" deed. 1t is true that schools have the power to instill discipline in their students as subsumed in their academic freedom and that Ithe establishment of rules governing university7student relations( particularly those pertaining to student discipline( may be regarded as vital( not merely to the smooth and efficient operation of the institution( but to its very survival.J@1,O=)P 'his power( however( does not give them the untrammeled discretion to impose a penalty which is not commensurate with the gravity of the misdeed. 1f the concept of proportionality between the offense committed and the sanction imposed is not followed( an element of arbitrariness intrudes. 'hat would give rise to a due process Duestion.@1+O=@P Le agree with respondent &9!D that under the circumstances( the penalty of e;pulsion is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the acts committed by private respondents >ungubung( $everente( and #aldes( 2r. !ach of the two mauling incidents lasted only for few seconds and the victims did not suffer any serious in6ury. Disciplinary measures especially where they involve suspension( dismissal or e;pulsion(
@1@O,)P

Mi"ia) C$ll!(! ?$+#*a&i$#, I#,. v. C$+"& $' A%%!als, ):1 Phil. )*1( )@@7)@8 /:::-( citing Ta#($#a# v. PaS$, 4.$. 5o. L7)@1@,( 2une /,( 1=+@( 1*, S&$. /)@( /@87/@,. @18O,@P R!(i#$ v. Pa#(asi#a# C$ll!(!s $' S,i!#,! a#* T!,h#$l$(=, 4.$. 5o. 1@81:=( 5ovember 1+( /::)( ))* S&$. @8. 'he Ifour essential freedoms of a universityJ were formulated by 0r. 2ustice %eli; %ran<furter of the 3nited States Supreme &ourt in his concurring opinion in the leading case of S-!!K= v. N!- Na)%shi"!( *@) 3S /*)( 1 L. !d. /d 1*11( ,, S. &t. 1/:*. @1,O=)P See note +,( at 88*788). @1+O=@P Malaba#a# v. Ra)!#&$, /1) Phil. *1=( **: 1=+)-.

*@*

*@)

cut significantly into the future of a student. 'hey attach to him for life and become a mortgage of his future( hardly redeemable in certain cases. "fficials of colleges and universities must be an;ious to protect it( conscious of the fact that( appropriately construed( a disciplinary action should be treated as an educational tool rather than a punitive measure.@1=O=8P .ccordingly( petitioner DLS3 may e;clude or drop the names of the said private respondents from its rolls for being undesirable( and transfer credentials immediately issued( not !GP!L. $ead: 1.TNE @NIVERSITF O? TNE PNILIPPINES VS. CO@RT O? APPEALS, ?!b"+a"= ;, 1;;9 17a. TNE @NIVERSITF O? TNE PNILIPPINES VS. NON. AFSON, A+(+s& 17, 1;8; 17c. 3P >".$D "% $!4!5'S #S. &.( .ugust *1( 1=== .cademic %reedom includes the power of a 3niversity to $!#"?! a degree or honor it has conferred to a student after it was found out that the studentEs graduation was obtained through fraud. .cademic freedom is given a wide sphere of authority. 1f an institution of higher learning can decide on who can and cannot study in it( it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates. .cademic %reedom 1t is an atmosphere in which there prevail the four essential freedom of a university to determine for itself on academic grounds a. who may teach( b. what may be taught( c. how it shall be taught( and d. who may be admitted to studyQS !mphasis suppliedF citing Sinco( Philippine Political Law( )=1( 1=8/- and the concurring opinion of 2ustice %ran<furter in Sweezy v. 5ew 9ampshire *@) 3S /*) O1=@,P-. 1Mb- 4.$&1. #S. %.&3L'K .D01SS1"5( 8+ S&$. /,, QLhat is academic freedomC >riefly put( it is the freedom of professionally Dualified persons to inDuire( discover( publish and teach the truth as they see it in the field of their competence. 1t is sub6ect to no control or authority e;cept the
@1=O=8P

R@BEN

R$ll$, p. @1@.

*@)

*@@

control or authority of the rational methods by which truths or conclusions are sought and established in these disciplines.Q Q'he personal aspect of freedom consists in the right of each university teacher recognized and effectively guaranteed by society to see< and e;press the truth as he personally sees it( both in his academic wor< and in his capacity as a private citizen. 'hus the status of the individual university teacher is at least as important( in considering academic freedom( as the status of the institutions to which they belong and through which they disseminate their learning.QS MONTEMAFOR VS. ARANETA @NIVERSITF ?O@N6ATION VILLAR VS. TIP, A%"il 17, 1;8B MALABANAN VS. RAMENTO,12; SCRA 9B; BELENA VS. PMI ALC@AZ VS. PSBA, Ma= 2, 1;88 :Ma) ALC@AZ VS. PSBA, S!%&!)b!" 2;, 1;8; AR!s$l+&i$# $# &h! M$&i$# '$" R!,$#si*!"a&i$#) R!a* als$ &h! *iss!#&i#( $%i#i$# $' I+s&i,! Sa")i!#&$ 7) TONGONAN VS. PANO, 197 SCRA 2 : 8) ATENEO VS. CA, 1 B SCRA 177 ;) G@ZMAN VS. N@, 1 2 SCRA 77: 17) ANGELES VS. SISON, 112 SCRA 2: 11. Ta# vs. CA, 1;; SCRA 212 12. C$l!(i$ *!l S&$. Ni#$ vs. NLRC, 1;7 SCRA :11 19. 6!a# R!=!s vs. CA, 1 . @P vs. CA, ?!b"+a"= ;, 1;;9 1B. A&!#!$ vs. I+*(! Ca%+l$#(, Ma= 27, 1;;9 P.$' G1# .$'1&L! G#1 7 4!5!$.L P$"#1S1"5S 1. Sections 171/ !;ec. "rder 5o. /8) a. &onsent is either !;press or 1mplied b. !;press 1. general law aa. &... */, bb. .ct *:+*( Sec. 1 cc. .rt. /1+: par. 8( 5ew &ivil &ode $... *+8dd. PD 1+:,( 2anuary 18( 1=+1 /. Special law $ead: MERRITT VS. GOVERNMENT, 9 Phil. 911
*@@

2) 9) ) B) :)

*@8

c. 1mplied 1. Lhen the government institutes a suitF State immunity from suitF when government officers initiate a suit against a private party( it descends to the level of a private individual susceptible to counterclaims $!P3>L1& "% '9! P91L1PP15!S #S. S.5D14.5>.K.5 and $">!$'" >!5!D1&'"( )+) S&$. 11= 4arcia( 2. Lhen the State through the Presidential &ommission on 4ood 4overnment P&44- filed a complaint against a private individual before the Sandiganbayan and thereafter( enters into a compromise agreement ( it cannot later on invo<e immunity from suit. Lhere the State itself is no less than the plaintiff in the main case( immunity from suit cannot be invo<ed because when a state( through its duly authorized officers ta<es the initiative in a suit against a private party( it thereby descends to the level of a private individual and thus opens itself to whatever counterclaims or defenses the latter may have against it. Lhen the State enters into contract( through its officers or agents( in furtherance of a legitimate aim or purpose and pursuant to a constitutional legislative authority( whereby mutual and reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom( the State may be sued even without its e;press consent( precisely because by entering into a contract the sovereign descends to the level of the citizen. 1ts consent to be sued is implied from the very act of entering into such contract( breach of which on its part gives the corresponding right of the other party to the agreement. /. Lhen the government engages in business or enters into a contractF and *. $ead: aa. MINISTERIO VS. C?I $' C!b+, 7 SCRA ATh! ($v!"#)!#& ,a##$& vali*l= i#v$E! S&a&! i))+#i&= i# ,$##!,&i$# -i&h a s+i& 'il!* b= i#*ivi*+als -h$s! la#*s -!"! +s!* b= &h! ($v!"#)!#& '$" "$a*s &$ ,$ll!,& 8+s& ,$)%!#sa&i$# $' &h!i" %"$%!"&=. T$ *$ s$ -$+l* b! &$ all$- &h! S&a&! &$ ,a+s! i#8+s&i,! &$ i&s ,i&iK!# a#* !#"i,h i&s!l' &$ &h! %"!8+*i,! $' i&s %!$%l!. bb. @.S. VS. R@IZ, 19: SCRA ,,. TORIO VS. ?ONTANILLA, 8B SCRA B;; 3L$,al ($v!"#)!#& +#i&s a"! liabl! '$" &h! *!a&h $" i#8+"i!s as a "!s+l& $' &h! ,$lla%s! $' &h! s&a(! b+il& b= &h! &$-# '$" &h! &$-# 'i!s&a si#,! h$l*i#( $' a &$-# 'i!s&a is i# &h! !>!",is! $' i&s b+si#!ss $"
*@8

*@,

%"$%"i!&a"= '+#,&i$# b!,a+s! &h!"! is #$ la- &ha& "!<+i"!s &$-#s &$ h$l* a# a##+al &$-# 'i!s&a.4 **. COMMISSIONER VS. SAN 6IEGO, 91 SCRA :1: !!. @SA vs. I@6GE J@INTO, !& al., ?!b"+a"= 2:, 1;;7 a#* &h! ,as!s ,i&!* &h!"!i# ''. R!%+bli, $' &h! Phili%%i#!s vs. I+*(! Sa#*$val, Ma",h 1;, 1;;9 ((. G=li! vs. Ra"a#(, 27; SCRA 9B7 hh. V!&!a#s vs. CA, 21 SCRA 28: 1mmunity from suitF effect of a void contract with the governmentF un6ust enrichment D!P.$'0!5' "% 9!.L'9 #S. &.#. &.5&9!L.( et al.( ),@ S&$. /1+ &arpio70orales( 2. %acts: 'he D"9 entered into three owner Wconsultant agreements with the private respondents covering infrastructure pro6ects for the >aguio 4eneral 9ospital and 0edical &enter >490&-( the >atangas $egional 9ospital and the &orazon L. 0ontelibano 0emorial regional 9ospital in >acolod &ity. 'he agreements for the three *- pro6ects are almost identical. 'his reDuires the private respondents to prepare: detailed architectural and engineering design plansF technical specifications and detailed estimates of cost of construction of the hospital( including the preparation of bid documents and reDuirementsF and construction supervision until completion of hand7over and issuance of final certificate. Lhile the .greements were witnessed by the respective &hief .ccountants of the hospitals and were duly approved by the Department of 9ealth( the former did not issue corresponding certificates of availability of funds to cover the professional or consultancy fees. 'he D"9 through is authorized representative( wrote separate letters to the respective chiefs of hospitals confirming the acceptance of private respondentsE complete &ontract or >id Documents for each pro6ect and $!&"00!5D!D '9! P.K0!5' "% ,.@H "% '9! P$"2!&' .LL"&.'1"5 '" P$1#.'! $!SP"5D!5'S .S &"5S3L'.5&K %!!S. During the construction of the pro6ects( various deficiencies in the performance of the agreed scope of private respondentsE wor< were allegedly discovered which were not communicated to the private respondents. Due to such alleged deficiencies( petitioner withheld payment of the consultancy fees due to
*@,

*@+

private respondent. 5either did petitioner return the documents( plans( specifications and estimates submitted by private respondents. &onsidering the refusal of the D"9 to pay said fees despite repeated demands( the private respondents submitted the dispute to the &onstruction 1ndustry .rbitration &ommission &1.&-. .fter the presentation of evidence by both parties( the .rbitrator issued his decision dated 0arch *:( 1=== sentencing the D"9 to pay the private respondents to pay P*()=/(,1*.:: for services performed and completed for and accepted by D"9. 'he said amount shall earn interest at 8H per annum from the date of the award until the decision becomes final. 'hereafter( the principal and the interest accrued as of such time shall earn interest at 1/H per annum. 'he D"9 filed a Petition for $eview under $ule )* before the &ourt of .ppeals but was dismissed for being filed out of time. .s such( on motion of the private respondents( the .rbitrator issued a Lrit of !;ecution . 1ssue: Lhether or not the &1.& has 6urisdiction to entertain the suit considering that the .greements( being to promote the heath and well7being of the citizens( is in furtherance of the stateEs sovereign and governmental power and therefore( 10035! %$"0 S31'. 9eld: 1n their 0emorandum before the Supreme &ourt( the D"9( for the first time( raised the nullity of the three *- agreements from the very beginning for failure to include therein a certification of availability of funds which is reDuired under e;isting laws( particularly the .uditing &ode of the Philippines( PD 1))@. .s such( the fees of the private respondents shall not be based on the pro6ect fund allocation but on the basis of reasonable value or on the principle of Duantum meruit. Lhile the agreement is indeed void ab initio for violation of e;isting laws( the D"9 is liable to pay the private respondents their consultancy services based on Duantum merit to be determined by the &ommission on .udit. 'he invocation of immunity from suit is without merit. 'his is so because the government has already received and accepted the benefits rendered. 'o refuse payment as a result of the stateEs immunity from suit would be to allow the government to un6ustly enrich itself at the e;pense of another. &iting !slao vs. &".( 1=@ S&$. ,*:). 'ests of Suability for incorporated government
*@+

*@=

$ead: aa. RAFO VS. C?I O? B@LACAN, 117 SCRA B:

Ev!# i' &h! Na&i$#al P$-!" C$"%$"a&i$# is a ($v!"#)!#& $''i,! %!"'$")i#( ($v!"#)!#&al '+#,&i$#s 3&$ %"$vi*! !l!,&"i,i&= '$" &h! !#&i"! ,$+#&"= a#* $"*i#a"il=, i& sh$+l* hav! b!!# i))+#! '"$) s+i&4 i& ,a# b! s+!* b!,a+s! i&s ,ha"&!" )a#*a&!s &ha& i& ,a# s+! a#* b! s+!*. bb. .54.' $1#!$ 1$$14.'1"5 SKS'!0 #S. &1$( 1:/ Phil. ,+= @. 'ests of Suability for an unincorporated govt. agency government agency $ead: NATIONAL AIRPORTS CORP. VS. TEO6ORO, ;1 Phil 279 ,,. bb. SANTIAGO VS. REP@BLIC, 87 SCRA 2; A?ail+"! $' &h! ($v!"#)!#& &$ '+l'ill i&s $bli(a&i$# i# ,$##!,&i$# -i&h a l$& *$#a&!* b= a %"iva&! i#*ivi*+al &$ &h! ($v!"#)!#& !#&i&l!s &h! '$")!" &$ 'il! a ,as! '$" &h! "!v$,a&i$# $' &h! sai* *$#a&i$#. Th! S&a&! ,a##$& "ais! &h! *!'!#s! $' S&a&! I))+#i&= si#,! i& sh$+l* #$& b! all$-!* &$ %"$'i& '"$) i&s $-# ill!(al a,& $' #$& ,$)%l=i#( -i&h i&s $bli(a&i$#. ,,. PNB VS. PABALAN, 89 SCRAB;B **. REP@BLIC VS. P@RISIMA, 78 SCRA 77 !!. MOBIL PNIL. VS. C@STOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, 18B SCRA 1127 ''. B@REA@ O? PRINTING VS. B@REA@ O? PRINTING EMPLOFEES ASSOCIATION, 1 SCRA 9 7 hh. METRAN VS. PARE6ES, 7; Phil. 81; ii. SANTOS VS. SANTOS, ;2 Phil. 281 88. MALAFAN INS@RANCE VS. SMITN BELL, N$v. 17, 1;87 EE. SFJ@IA VS. ALME6A LOPEZ, 8 Phil. 91 ll. LIM VS. BROGNELL, IR., 177 Phil. 9 )). CARABAO INC. VS. SPC, 9B SCRA 22 ##. @.S.A. vs. R@IZ, 19: SCRA 87 I6ure imperiiJ777is the same as governmental functionF and I6us gestionesJ777is the same as business or proprietary function. LOIDA F. SHAUF and :ACOB SHAUF - . HON. COURT OF A..EALS2 DON E. DET>ILER and ANTHON/2 1.R. N!. 8;63@ N!-em)er 452 388; Petitioner Loida A. Shauf( a %ilipino by origin and married to an .merican who is a member of the 3nited States .ir %orce( applied for the vacant position of
*@=

bb.

*8:

4uidance &ounselor( 4S 1,1:7=( in the >ase !ducation "ffice at &lar< .ir >ase( for which she is eminently Dualified. .s found by the trial court( she received a 0aster of .rts degree from the 3niversity of Sto. 'omas( 0anila( in 1=,1 and has completed *) semester hours in psychology7guidance and /@ Duarter hours in human behavioral scienceF she has also completed all course wor< in human behavior and counseling psychology for a doctoral degreeF she is a civil service eligibleF and( more importantly( she had functioned as a 4uidance &ounselor at the &lar< .ir >ase at the 4S 1,1:7= level for appro;imately four years at the time she applied for the same position in 1=,8. &ontrary to her e;pectations( petitioner Loida A. Shauf was never appointed to the position occupied by 0rs. .balateo whose appointment was e;tended indefinitely by private respondent Detwiler. %eeling aggrieved by what she considered a shabby treatment accorded her( petitioner Loida A. Shauf wrote the 3.S. &ivil Service &ommission Duestioning the Dualifications of !dward 1sa<son. 'hereafter( said commission sent a communication addressed to private respondent Detwiler( 1: finding !dward 1sa<son not Dualified to the position of 4uidance &ounselor( 4S 1,1:7=( and reDuesting that action be ta<en to remove him from the position and that efforts be made to place him in a position for which he Dualifies. Petitioner Loida A. Shauf avers that said recommendation was ignored by private respondent Detwiler and that 1sa<son continued to occupy said position of guidance counselor. Petitioner Loida A. Shauf li<ewise wrote the >ase &ommander of &lar< .ir >ase reDuesting a hearing on her complaint for discrimination. &onseDuently( a hearing was held on 0arch /=( 1=,+ before the 3.S. Department of .ir %orce in &lar< .ir >ase. >efore the Department of .ir %orce could render a decision( petitioner Loida A. Shauf filed a complaint for damages( dated .pril /,( 1=,+( against private respondents Don Detwiler and .nthony Persi before the $egional 'rial &ourt( >ranch L#1 at .ngeles &ity( doc<eted as &ivil &ase 5o. /,+*( for the alleged discriminatory acts of herein private respondents in maliciously denying her application for the 4S 1,1:7= position. Private respondents( as defendants in &ivil &ase 5o. /,+*( filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that as officers of the 3nited States .rmed %orces performing official functions in accordance with the powers vested in them under the Philippine7.merican 0ilitary >ases .greement( they are immune from suit. 'he motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court. . motion for reconsideration was li<ewise denied. Petitioners aver that private respondents are being sued in their private capacity for discriminatory acts performed beyond their authority( hence the
*8:

*81

instant action is not a suit against the 3nited States 4overnment which would reDuire its consent. Private respondents( on the other hand( claim that in filing the case( petitioners sought a 6udicial review by a Philippine court of the official actuations of respondents as officials of a military unit of the 3.S. .ir %orce stationed at &lar< .ir >ase. 'he acts complained of were done by respondents while administering the civil service laws of the 3nited States. 'he acts sued upon being a governmental activity of respondents( the complaint is barred by the immunity of the 3nited States( as a foreign sovereign( from suit without its consent and by the immunity of the officials of the 3nited States .rmed %orces for acts committed in the performance of their official functions pursuant to the grant to the 3nited States .rmed %orces of rights( power and authority within the bases under the 0ilitary >ases .greement. 1t is further contended that the rule allowing suits against public officers and employees for unauthorized acts( torts and criminal acts is a rule of domestic law( not of international law. 1t applies to cases involving the relations between private suitors and their government or state( not the relations between one government and another from which springs the doctrine of immunity of a foreign sovereign. 'he rule that a state may not be sued without its consent( now e;pressed in .rticle G#1( Section *( of the 1=+, &onstitution( is one of the generally accepted principles of international law that we have adopted as part of the law of our land under .rticle 11( Section /. 'his latter provision merely reiterates a policy earlier embodied in the 1=*@ and 1=,* &onstitutions and also intended to manifest our resolve to abide by the rules of the international community. Lhile the doctrine appears to prohibit only sects against the state without its consent( it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. 'he rule is that if the 6udgment against such officials will reDuire the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same( such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them( the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded. 1t must be noted( however( that the rule is not so all7encompassing as to be applicable under all circumstances. 1t is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law and in6urious to the rights of plaintiff. .s was clearly set forth by 2ustice Maldivar in Director of the >ureau of 'elecommunications( et al. vs. .ligaen etc.( et al. Q1nasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers( unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the State( and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts( for the protection of his rights( is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. 1n the same tenor( it has been said that an action at law or
*81

*8/

suit in eDuity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground that( while claiming to act for the State( he violates crime invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff( under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have( is not a suit against the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be sued without its consent. 'he rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an in6ustice. 'hey state that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invo<ed where the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. 'he cloa< of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in their individual capacity. 'his situation usually arises where the public official acts without authority or in e;cess of the powers vested in him. 1t is a well7settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith( or beyond the scope of his authority or 6urisdiction. 'he agents and officials of the 3nited States armed forces stationed in &lar< .ir >ase are no e;ception to this rule. 1n the case of 3nited States of .merica( et al. vs. 4uinto( etc.( et al.( ante we declared: 1t bears stressing at this point that the above observations do not confer on the 3nited States of .merica blan<et immunity for all acts done by it or its agents in the Philippines. 5either may the other petitioners claim that they are also insulated from suit in this country merely because they have acted as agents of the 3nited States in the discharge of their official functions. PART BV ARTICLE XVIII - TRANSITORY PROVISIONS 1. Sections 17/, /. P&44 &ases $ead: a. R!%+bli, vs. Sa#*i(a#ba=a#, 277 SCRA B97 a.M1 BATAAN SNIPFAR6 AN6 ENGINEERING COMPANF VS. PNILIPPINE COMMISSION ON GOO6 GOVERNMENT, Ma= 27, 1;87, 1B7 SCRA 181 b. RICAR6O SILVERIO VS. PCGG, G.R. N$. 77: B, O,&. 2:, 1;87,1BB SCRA :7 ,. HGONG, !& al vs. PCGG, G.R. N$. 7; 8 , 6!,!)b!" 7, 1;87,1B: SCRA 222 *. PALM AVEN@E REALTF 6EVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. PCGG, G.R. N$. 7:2;:, A+(+s& 91, 1;87,1B9 SCRA B7; !. LIGAFGAF P@BLISNING, INC. VS. PCGG, A%"il 1B, 1;88,1:7 SCRA '. PCGG VS. PENA, 1B; SCRA BB: (. E>!,+&iv! O"*!" N$. 27B
*8/

*8*

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

*8*