Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
NO
- Section 11 of Act No. 1446 contravenes the
maxims which guide the operation of a democratic
government constitutionally established, and that it
would be improper and illegal for the members of the
Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, the
decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act
on the petition of the Manila Electric Company.
-The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands
represents one of the three divisions of power in our
government. It is judicial power and judicial power
only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Just
as the Supreme Court, as the guardian of
constitutional rights, should not sanction usurpations
by any other department of the government, so
should it as strictly confine its own sphere of
influence to the powers expressly or by implication
conferred on it by the Organic Act. The Supreme
Court and its members should not and cannot be
required to exercise any power or to perform any
trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
connected with the administering of judicial
functions.
-The Organic Act provides that the Supreme Court of
the Philippine Islands shall possess and exercise
jurisdiction as heretofore provided and such
10
11
12
HELD:
NO
- section 67 of the Judiciary Act providing for
investigation, suspension or removal of Judges,
specifically recites that "No District Judge shall be
separated or removed from office by the President of
the Philippines unless sufficient cause shall exist in
the judgment of the Supreme Court . . ." and it is
nowhere claimed, much less shown, that the
Commissioner of Land Registration is a District
Judge, or in fact a member of the Judiciary.
- petitioner's theory that the grant of "privileges of a
Judge of First Instance" includes by implication the
right to be investigated only by the Supreme Court
and to be suspended or removed upon its
recommendation, would necessarily result in the
same right being possessed by a variety of
executive officials upon whom the Legislature had
indiscriminately conferred the same privileges.
- Incidentally, petitioner's stand would also lead to
the conclusion that the Solicitor General, another
appointee of the President, could not be removed by
the latter, since the Appropriation Acts confer upon
the Solicitor General the rank and privileges of a
Justice of the Court of Appeals, and these Justices
are only removable by the Legislature, through the
process of impeachment (Judiciary Act, sec. 24, par.
2).
13
14
NATURE
Administrative complaint
FACTS
-Respondent Judge Macaraig was appointed to one
of the newly created CFI branches in Laguna, in
1970. At the time of appointment, he was Chief of
the Technical Staff of the DOJ, receiving salary
therefrom.
- After confirmation of his appointment by the COA,
respondent judge took his oath of office on June
1970. However, due to several delays in securing
the court sala (unavailability of funds for office
equipment and supplies, trouble securing the space
for the courtroom due to objections and
disagreement over price), he never had the chance
to actually perform the functions of a district judge.
After realizing that it might take sometime before he
could actually begin hearing cases in his court, he
decided to apply for an extended leave of absence.
The Sec. of Justice, however, asked him to forego
his leave and, instead, requested him to assist him,
without being extended a formal detail, which he
accepted.
- Having taken his oath as District Judge and,
drawing salary as judge but without performing his
functions as such, respondent was charged by Paz
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NATURE
Petition for certiorari and prohibition
FACTS
-Macalintal as taxpayer avers that Sections 19 and
25 of R.A. No. 9189 violate Article IX-A (Common
Provisions) of the Constitution, to wit: Section 1. The
Constitutional Commissions, which shall be
independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections, and the Commission on
Audit.
-He submits that the creation of the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee with the power
to review, revise, amend and approve the
Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated
by the COMELEC, R.A. No. 9189 intrudes into the
independence of the COMELEC which, as a
constitutional body, is not under the control of either
the executive or legislative departments of
government; that only the COMELEC itself can
promulgate rules and regulations which may be
changed or revised only by the majority of its
members; and that should the rules promulgated by
the COMELEC violate any law, it is the Court that
has the power to review the same via the petition of
any interested party, including the legislators.
-It is only on this question that respondent
COMELEC submitted its Comment. It agrees with
29
30
a)
Where the mailing system is fairly welldeveloped and secure to prevent occasion for fraud;
b)
Where there exists a technically established
identification system that would preclude multiple or
proxy voting; and
c)
Where the system of reception and custody of
mailed ballots in the embassies, consulates and
other foreign service establishments concerned are
adequate and well-secured.
Thereafter, voting by mail in any country shall be
allowed only upon review and approval of the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee.
... ...
...
is likewise unconstitutional as it violates Section 1,
Article IX-A mandating the independence of
constitutional commissions.
-The Solicitor General takes exception to his
prefatory statement that the constitutional challenge
must fail and agrees with the petitioner that Sections
19 and 25 are invalid and unconstitutional on the
ground that there is nothing in Article VI of the
Constitution on Legislative Department that would as
much as imply that Congress has concurrent power
to enforce and administer election laws with the
COMELEC; and by the principles of exclusio unius
est exclusio alterius and expressum facit
cessare tacitum, the constitutionally enumerated
31
32
33
34
35
36
c)
The second sentence of the first paragraph of
Section 19, to wit: "The Implementing Rules and
Regulations shall be submitted to the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee created by
virtue of this Act for prior approval;" and
d)
The second sentence in the second paragraph
of Section 25, to wit: "It shall review, revise, amend
and approve the Implementing Rules and
Regulations promulgated by the Commission" of the
same law;
for being repugnant to Section 1, Article IX-A of the
Constitution mandating the independence of
constitutional commission, such as COMELEC.
The constitutionality of Section 18.5 of R.A. No.
9189 is UPHELD with respect only to the authority
given to the COMELEC to proclaim the winning
candidates for the Senators and party-list
representatives but not as to the power to canvass
the votes and proclaim the winning candidates for
President and Vice-President which is lodged with
Congress under Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution.
The constitutionality of Section 5(d) is UPHELD.
Pursuant to Section 30 of R.A. No. 9189, the rest of
the provisions of said law continues to be in full force
and effect.
SEPARATE OPINION
37
I dissent from the majoritys ruling upholding the constitutionality of section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189, which allows an immigrant
or a permanent resident of a foreign country to vote for President, Vice-President, Senators and Party-List Representatives after
executing the required affidavit. I concur, however, with the majoritys ruling upholding the constitutionality of section 18.5 of Rep.
Act No. 9189 with respect to the authority given to the COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for Senators and Party-List
Representatives but not as to the power to canvass the votes and proclaim the winning candidates for President and Vice-President.
I also concur with the majority with respect to the unconstitutionality of sections 17.1, 19 and 25 of Rep. Act No. 9189 subjecting the
implementation of voting by mail, and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Act No. 9189 to be promulgated by
COMELEC, to prior review and approval by Congress.
38
39
40
41
42
43
readily
available,
congressional
investigation
involves a more intense digging of facts. The power
of Congress to conduct investigation is recognized
by the 1987 Constitution under section 21, Article
VI, viz:
The Senate or the House of
Representatives or any of its respective committee
may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or
affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
-But even in the absence of an express provision in
the Constitution, congressional investigation has
been held to be an essential and appropriate
auxiliary to the legislative function.
-American jurisprudence upholding the inherent
power of Congress to conduct investigation has
been adopted in our jurisdiction in Arnault v.
Nazareno, decided in 1950, when no provision yet
existed granting Congress the power to conduct
investigation. Upholding the power of the Senate to
punish Arnault for contempt, the Court ruled as
follows:
-Although there is no provision in the Constitution
expressly investing either House of Congress with
power to make investigations and exact testimony to
the end that it may exercise its legislative functions
advisedly and effectively, such power is so far
incidental to the legislative function as to be implied.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
OVER
60
61
62
63
64
65
JUDICIAL
REVIEW
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISION MAKING
-Judicial review of agency decisions is given special
emphasis in administrative law.
-that there should be judicial review is not contested,
the debate is on the purpose of such review.
-A radical view would subject not only the agency
conclusion of law but its determinations of fact policy
as well.
-the controlling principles frown upon a wide-ranging
or freewheeling type of judicial review.
-The courts, traditionally, have been confined to the
role of seeing to it that administrative agencies stay
within the limits of their power as defined in their
enabling statutes and protecting private rights by
checking arbitrariness in the administrative process.
-Even if the enabling statutes of these agencies are
silent with regard to judicial review, the Supreme
Court has consistently held that this does not
foreclose the possibility of such review. In one case
it held that it is generally understood that as to
administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or
legislative power there is an underlying power in the
courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on the
question of law ad jurisdiction even though no right
of review is given by statute. The purpose of judicial
review is to keep the administrative agency within its
66
67
68
69
70
HELD
1. NO
Ratio The
Reasoning On the basis of all the provisions
regarding the Office of the Ombudsman, SolicitorGeneral insists that the authority of the Ombudsman
is sufficiently broad enough to cloth it with sufficient
power to look into the alleged irregularities in the
bidding conducted by the MWSS
- The reason for the creation of the Ombudsman in
the 1987 Consti and for the grant to it of broad
investigative authority, is to insulate said office from
the long tentacles of officialdom that are able to
penetrate judges' and fiscals' offices, and others
involved in the prosecution of erring public officials,
and through the exertion of official pressure and
influence, quash, delay, or dismiss investigations
into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by
public officers. It was deemed necessary, therefore,
to create a special office to investigate all criminal
complaints against public officers regardless of
whether or not the acts or omissions complained of
are related to or arise from the performance of the
duties of their office. The Ombudsman Act makes
perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman
encompasses
'all
kinds
of
malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance that
have been committed by any officer or employee as
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
LEDESMA v CA (DESIERTO)
G.R. No. 161629
YNARES-SANTIAGO; July 29, 2005
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari to reverese and set
aside CA decision
FACTS
- Atty Ronaldo Ledesma is the chaiman of the 1st
division of the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) of the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID).
Agusto Somalio with the Fact Finding and
Intelligence Bureau (FIIB) of the Office of the
Ombudsman filed a complaint requesting for an
investigation on alleged anomalies durrounding the
extension of the Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs)
of 2 foreigners. The FIIB investigation revealed 7
other cases of TRV extensions with similar
irregularities.
- The FIIB, as nominal complainant filed with
Adjudication Bureau (AAB) of the Office of the
Ombudsman a formal complaint against the
petitioner. Atty. Artherl Caronongan (board member)
and Ma. Elena Ang (exec asst) were also charged
administratively. The case against the petitioner was
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
HELD
1.YES
Ratio The authority to create municipal corporations
is essentially legislative in nature. In the language of
other courts, it is "strictly a legislative function" or
solely and exclusively the exercise of legislative
power." Although Congress may delegate to another
branch of the Government the power to fill in the
details in the execution, 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 executed, carried out or
implemented by the delegate and (b) fix a standard
- the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or
determinable to which the delegate must conform in
the performance of his functions.
Reasoning Section 68 of the Revised Administrative
Code does not meet these well settled requirements
for a valid delegation of the power to fix the details in
the enforcement of a law.
- "Public welfare" and "public interest," are sufficient
standards for a valid delegation of the authority to
execute the law. But, the doctrine laid down in
Calalang v Williams must be construed in relation to
the specific facts and issues involved - grants to
administrative officers of powers related to the
exercise of their administrative functions, calling for
120
121
122
123
EDU v ERICTA
35 SCRA 481
FERNANDO; October 24, 1970
NATURE
Petition for certiorari and prohibition
FACTS
-Galo, on his behalf and that of other motorists, filed
on May 20, 1970 a suit for certiorari and prohibition
with preliminary injunction assailing the validity of
the Reflector Law as an invalid exercise of the police
power, for being violative of the due process clause.
-This he followed on May 28, 1970 with a
manifestation wherein he sought as an alternative
remedy that, in the event that respondent Judge
would hold said statute constitutional, Administrative
Order No. 2 of the Land Transportation
Commissioner, implementing such legislation be
nullified as an undue exercise of legislative power.
-On May 28, 1970, respondent Judge ordered the
issuance of a preliminary injunction directed against
the enforcement of such administrative order.
-SolGen filed MFR
-On June 9, 1970, respondent Judge denied the
motion for reconsideration of the order of injunction,
hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition
124
ISSUE
WON Admninstrative Order No. 2 is invalid for being
contrary to the principle of non-delegation of
legislative power.
HELD
No.
-It is not to be lost sight of that under Republic Act
No. 4136, of which the Reflector Law is an
amendment, petitioner, as the Land Transportation
Commissioner, may, with the approval of the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications,
issue rules and regulations for its implementation as
long as they do not conflict with its provisions
-It is a fundamental principle flowing from the
doctrine of separation of powers that Congress
may not delegate its legislative power to the two
other branches of the government, subject to the
exception that local governments may over local
affairs participate in its exercise.
-What cannot be delegated is the authority under
the Constitution to make laws and to alter and
repeal them; the test is the completeness of the
statute in all its term and provisions when it
leaves the hands of the legislature.
-To determine whether or not there is an undue
delegation of legislative power the inquiry must be
directed to the scope and definiteness of the
125
126
regulations.
-The standard may be either express or implied.
If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily
met. The standard though does not have to be
spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the
policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole.
In the Reflector Law, clearly the legislative objective
is public safety.
-Justice Laurel: The principle of non-delegation
"has been made to adapt itself the complexities
of modern governments, giving rise to the
adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of
"subordinate legislation" not only in the United
States and England but in practically all modern
governments. Accordingly, with the growing
complexity of modern life, the multiplication of
the subjects of governmental regulation, and the
increased difficulty of administering the laws,
there is a constantly growing tendency toward
the delegation of greater powers by the
legislature and toward the approval of the
practice by the courts."
-Justice J. B. L. Reyes in People vs. Exconde: "It is
well establish in this jurisdiction that, while the
making of laws is a non-delegable activity that
corresponds
exclusively
to
Congress,
nevertheless the latter may constitutionally
delegate authority to promulgate rules and
127
128
129
130
131
132
FACTS
-Petitioner filed with the Ministry of Labor a notice of
strike for unfair labor practices allegedly committed
by private respondent company inviolation of their
existing collective bargaining agreement, particularly
the unilateral and arbitrary implementation of a Code
of Conduct to the detriment and interest of its
members.
-Several conciliation meetings called by the Ministry
followed. Thereafter, the Ministry of Labor pursuant
to law, certified the labor dispute to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration and the holding of any strike
at private respondent establishment was enjoined.
Hearing was subsequently conducted whereas
private respondent agreed to the indefinite
preventive suspension of the provisions of the Code
of Conduct, the principal cause of the controversy.
-In a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court,
petitioner union submits that Batas Pambansa Blg.
130 insofar as it amends Article 264 of the Labor
Code delegating to the Minister of Labor the power
and discretion to assume jurisdiction and/or certify
strikes for compulsory arbitration to the NLRC, and
in effect make or unmake the law on free collective
bargaining, is an undue delegation of legislative
powers and is contrary to the assurance of the State
to the workers' right to self organization and
collective bargaining. Such power, according to
133
134
135
FACTS
By virtue of Republic Act No. 5514, PHILCOMSAT
was granted "a franchise to establish, construct,
maintain and operate in the Philippines, at such
places as the grantee may select, station or stations
and associated equipment and facilities for
international satellite communications." Under this
franchise, it was likewise granted the authority to
"construct and operate such ground facilities as
needed to deliver telecommunications services from
the communications satellite system and ground
terminal or terminals."
Pursuant to said franchise, petitioner puts on record
that it undertook the certain activities and
established the various installations:
By designation of the Republic of the Philippines, the
petitioner is also the sole signatory for the
Philippines in the Agreement and the Operating
Agreement
relating
to
the
International
Telecommunications
Satellite
Organization
(INTELSAT) of 115 member nations, as well as in
the Convention and the Operating Agreement of the
International
Maritime
Satellite
Organization
(INMARSAT) of 53 member nations, which two
global commercial telecommunications satellite
corporations were collectively established by various
states in line with the principles set forth in
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
and
148
SANTIAGO v COMELEC
Title:
MIRIAM
DEFENSOR
SANTIAGO,
ALEXANDER PADILLA, and MARIA ISABEL
ONGPIN, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS,
JESUS
DELFIN,
ALBERTO
PEDROSA & CARMEN PEDROSA, in their
capacities as founding members of the People's
Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action
(PIRMA),respondents.
SENATOR RAUL S. ROCO, DEMOKRASYAIPAGTANGGOL ANG KONSTITUSYON (DIK),
MOVEMENT
OF
ATTORNEYS
FOR
BROTHERHOOD INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM,
INC. (MABINI), INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
(IBP),
and
LABAN
NG
DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LABAN), petitionersintervenors.
Date: March 19, 1997
Ponente: Davide, Jr. J.
Facts:
On 6 December 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed
with the Commission on Elections a "Petition to
Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of
Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" (Delfin
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
FACTS
- EO 6199, which prohibited the transportation in
interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum and
the products produced or withdrawn from storage in
excess of the amount permitted to be produced or
withdrawn from storage by any State law or valid
regulation or order prescribed by any board,
commission, officer, or other duly authorized agency
of a State, was enacted, pursuant to sec 9(c) of title
1 of the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16,
193, which states that 'The President is authorized
to prohibit the transportation in interstate and foreign
commerce of petroleum and the products thereof
produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the
amount permitted to be produced or withdrawn from
storage by any State law or valid regulation or order
prescribed by any board, commission, officer, or
other duly authorized agency of a State. Any
violation of any order of the Pres issued under the
provisions of this subsection shall be punishable by
fine of not to exceed $1k, or imprisonment for not to
exceed 6 months, or both.
- EO 6204, based on sec 10(a) of the NIRA,
authorizing the Pres 'to prescribe such rules and
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
purposes' of title 1 and providing that 'any violation
of any such rule or regulation shall be punishable by
158
159
'If any subdivision into quotas of production allocated to any State shall be made within a State any production by any person, as
person is defined in Article I, Section 3 of this code in excess of any such quota assigned to him, shall be deemed an unfair trade
practice and in violation of this code.'
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
Sec. 232 in full reads as: "Upon request of the head of any department or agency, upon application of an interested party, or upon
his own motion, the Secretary of the Treasury (hereinafter referred to as the 'Secretary') shall immediately make an appropriate
investigation, in the course of which he shall seek information and advice from, and shall consult with, the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Commerce, and other appropriate officers of the United States, to determine the effects on the national security of
imports of the article which is the subject of such request, application, or motion. The Secretary shall, if it is appropriate and after
reasonable notice, hold public hearings or otherwise afford interested parties an opportunity to present information and advice
relevant to such investigation. The Secretary shall report the findings of his investigation under this subsection with respect to the
effect of the importation of such article in such quantities or under such circumstances upon the national security and, based on
such findings, his recommendation for action or inaction under this section to the President within one year after receiving an
application from an interested party or otherwise beginning an investigation under this subsection. If the Secretary finds that such
article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national
security, he shall so advise the President and the President shall take such action, and for such time, as he deems necessary to
adjust the imports of such article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security, unless the
President determines that the article is not being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as
to threaten to impair the national security."
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
LOVINA v MORENO
9 SCRA 557
REYES, J.B.L: November 29, 1963
NATURE: Appeal from a decision of the Court of
First Instance of Manila
FACTS:
- The cause started by a petition of numerous
residents of the said municipality to the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications, complaining
that appellees had blocked the "Sapang Bulati", a
navigable river in Macabebe, Pampanga, and
asking that the obstructions be ordered removed,
under the provisions of Republic Act No. 2056.
- After notice and hearing to the parties, the said
Secretary found the constructions to be a public
nuisance in navigable waters ordered the land
owners, spouses Lovina, to remove five (5)
closures of Sapang Bulati; otherwise, the Secretary
would order their removal at the expense of the
respondent.
- After receipt of the decision, the respondent filed a
petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila to
restrain the Secretary from enforcing his decision.
The trial court, after due hearing, granted a
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
BOOK VII
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Scope. - This Book shall be applicable
to all agencies as defined in the next succeeding
section, except the Congress, the Judiciary, the
Constitutional
Commissions,
military
establishments in all matters relating exclusively to
Armed Forces personnel, the Board of Pardons
and Parole, and state universities and colleges.
Section 2. Definitions. - As used in this Book:
(1) "Agency" includes any department, bureau,
office, commission, authority or officer of the
National Government authorized by law or
executive order to make rules, issue licenses,
grant rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases;
research institutions with respect to licensing
functions; government corporations with
respect to functions regulating private right,
privileges, occupation or business; and officials
in the exercise of disciplinary power as
provided by law.
(2) "Rule" means any agency statement of
general applicability that implements or
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
43 Phil 259
JOHNS; March 29, 1922
NATURE
Petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus
FACTS
- The Tariff Act of 1913, conferred legal right on
Olsen and Co. to export from the Phil. Islands into
the US cigars which it manufactured from tobacco
grown in the Phil. Islands In 1916, Phil. Legislature
enacted Act. No. 2613 entitled "An Act to improve
the methods of production and the quality of tobacco
in the Philippine and to develop the export trade
therein," The Collector of Internal Revenue then
promulgated Administrative Order No. 35, known as
"Tobacco Inspection Regulations."
- Olsen applied to the Collector of Internal Revenue
(CIR) for such a certificate re the 10,00 cigars
manufactured by it from tobacco grown and
produced in the Philippine Islands.
- Olsen alleged that CIR wrongfully and unlawfully
refused to issue such certificate of origin "on the
ground that said cigars were not manufactured of
long filler tobacco produced exclusively in the
provinces of Cagayan, Isabela or Nueva Vizcaya."
Despite such refusal, Olsen applied to the Insular
Collector of Customs for the certificate of origin, and
207
208
ISSUE
WON the CIR exceeded his rule-making powers as
shown in Sec.9 of the Adm. Order 35.
HELD
YES.
Ratio The authority of the Collector of Internal
Revenue to make any rules and regulations must be
founded upon some legislative act, and that they
must follow and be within the scope and purview of
the act.
Reasoning
- It will be noted that the power of the Collector of
Internal Revenue to make rules and regulations is
confined to the making of rules and regulations for
the classification, making, and packing of tobacco,
and that such power is further limited to the making
of such rules for the classification, marking, and
packing of tobacco as may be necessary to secure
leaf tobacco of good quality and its handling under
sanitary conditions. It is for such purpose only that
the Collector of Internal Revenue is authorized to
make any rules or regulations.
- Analyzing the power conferred, it will be found that
the provisions of the legislative act are NOT limited
to the provinces of Cagayan, Isabela, or Nueva
Vizcaya, or to any province, and that there is no
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
FACTS
- Petitioner Atty. Augusto Toledo was appointed by
then Comelec Chairman Ramon Felipe as Manager
of the Education and Information Department of the
Comelec. At the time of his appointment, petitioner
was already more than 57 years old. However, no
prior request for exemption from the provisions of
Sec. 22, Rule III of the Civil Service Rules on
Personnel Action and Policies (CSRPAP) was
secured. Said provision prohibits the appointment of
persons 57 years old or above into the government
service without prior approval by the Civil Service
Commission (CSC). Petitioner officially reported for
work and assumed the functions of his office.
- Public respondent Comelec, upon discovery of the
lack of authority required under the CSRPAP, issued
Resolution No. 2066, which declared Toledos
appointment void ab initio. Petitioner appealed the
foregoing Resolution to public respondent CSC.
CSC promulgated Resolution No. 89-468 which
disposed of the appeal, declaring the appointment
merely voidable and not void ab initio, and declaring
Toledo a de facto officer from the time he assumed
to office to the issuance of Comelec Resolution No.
2066.
ISSUE
WON Sec. 22, Rule III of the CSRPAP is valid
224
HELD
NO
Ratio The provision on 57-year old persons in the
Revised Civil Service Rules cannot be accorded
validity. It is entirely a creation of the CSC, having no
basis in the law which it was meant to implement. It
cannot be related to or connected with any specific
provision of the law which it is meant to carry into
effect. It was therefore an unauthorized act of
legislation on the part of the CSC.
Reasoning RA 2260, establishing the CSC and
authorizing it to prescribe and enforce rules for
carrying into effect the provisions of the law,
contained no provision prohibiting appointment or
reinstatement in the Government service of any
person who was already 57 years old, or otherwise
requiring that some limitation as regards to age be
placed on employment in the Government service.
This prohibition was purely a creation of the CSC.
The power vested in the CSC was to implement the
law or put it into effect, not to add to it; to carry the
law into effect or execution, not to supply perceived
omissions in it.
Disposition
The petition is GRANTED
225
226
227
228
229
230
Petitioners Arguments:
-DAR: Admin Order No. 9 is a valid exercise of its
rule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA
6657. The issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by
the Landbank was a substantial compliance with
Section 16(e) of RA 6657.
-Landbank: the issuance of the Certificates of
Deposits is in consonance with Circular Nos. 29, 29A and 54 of the Land Registration Authority where
the words "reserved/deposited" were also used.
ISSUES
1. WON CA erred in declaring as null and void DAR
Admin Order No. 9 (1990) insofar as it provides for
the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposit in
cash or in bonds
2. WON CA erred in holding that private respondents
are entitled as a matter of right to the immediate and
provisional release of the amounts deposited in trust
pending the final resolution of the cases it has filed
for just compensation.
HELD
1. NO.
-Section 16(e) of RA 6657: Procedure for Acquisition
of Private Lands. (e) Upon receipt by the landowner
of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection
or no response from the landowner, upon the
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
ISSUE
WON the CAs act of nullifying NTC Memorandum
Circular No. 1-1-93 and NTC Memorandum Circular
No. 3-1-93 was a collateral attack against the
aforecited circulars and an unnecessary and abusive
exercise of the courts power to nullify administrative
regulations.
HELD
NO.
Ratio Administrative regulations derive their validity
from the statute that they were, in the first place,
intended to implement.
Reasoning Memorandum Circulars 1-1-93 and 3-193 are on their face null and void ab initio for being
unabashedly contrary to law. They were nullified by
respondent Court of Appeals because they are
absolutely illegal and, as such, are without any force
and effect. The fact that implementation of these
illegal
regulations
has
resulted
in
the
institutionalization of the one-man rule in the NTC, is
not and can never be a ratification of such an illegal
practice. At the least, these illegal regulations are
an erroneous interpretation of E.O. No. 546 and in
the context of and its predecessor laws.
At the
most, these illegal regulations are attempts to
validate the one-man rule in the NTC as executed by
238
239
240
241
o
By limiting the purpose of reg. to merely
monitoring volumes of production and admin. Of
quality standards, PCA in effect abdicates its role
and leaves it almost completely to market forces
how the industry will develop
- Constitution Art.XII
o
Sec.6 ...duty of the State to promote
distributive justice and to intervene when the
common good so demands
o
Sec.19 State shall regulate or prohibit
monopolies when public interest so requires
o
Any change in policy must be made by the
legislative dept of the govt. The regulatory system
has been set up by law. It is beyond the power of
an administrative agency to dismantle it.
Decision Petition GRANTED; resolution NULL and
VOID
BLAS OPLE V RUBEN TORRES
G.R. No. 127685
PUNO; JULY 23, 1998
FACTS
- Senator Blas Ople sought to invalidate A.O 308
entitled Adoption of a National Computerized
Identification Reference System" on the grounds
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
ISSUE
WON petitioners appeal before the Office of the
President was filed within the reglementary period.
HELD
NO.
- In SGMC Realty Corporation v. Office of the
President it was settled that the period within which
to appeal the decision of the Board of
Commissioners of HLURB to the Office of the
President is 15 days from receipt of the assailed
decision, pursuant to Section 1521 of Presidential
Decree No. 957 (Subdivision and Condominium
Buyers Protection Decree) and Section 222 of
Presidential Decree No. 1344.
- We find petitioners contention bereft of merit,
because of its reliance on a literal reading of cited
rules without correlating them to current laws as well
as presidential decrees on the matter.
Section 27 of the 1994 HLURB Rules of Procedure
provides as follows:
Section 27. Appeal to the Office of the President.Any party may, upon notice to the Board and the
other party, appeal the decision of the Board of
Commissioners or its division to the Office of the
President within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof
pursuant to and in accordance with Administrative
Order No. 18, of the Office of the President dated
271
272
273