Consti 1Case Digests

8/11/2019 Consti 1Case Digests

1/21

Consti Case Digests

1. Macariola Vs. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77

Facts: On June 8, 1963, respondent Judge Elias Asuncion rendered a decision in Civil Case3010 final for lack of an appeal.

On Octoer 16, 1963, a pro!ect of partition "as su#itted to Judge Asuncion. $%e pro!ect ofpartition of lots "as not signed & t%e parties t%e#selves ut onl& & t%e respective counsel ofplaintiffs and petitioner 'ernardita (. )acariola. $%e Judge approved it in %is order datedOctoer *3, 1963.

One of t%e lots in t%e pro!ect of partition "as +ot 118, "%ic% "as sudivided into - lotsdeno#inated as +ot 118 A E. /r. Arcadio alapon oug%t +ot 118E on Jul& 31, 196, "%o"as issued transfer of certificate of $itle 2o, *338 of t%e (egister of /eeds of $acloan Cit&. On)arc% 6, 196-, alapon sold a portion of t%e lot to Judge Asuncion and %is "ife.

On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and alapon conve&ed t%eir respective s%ares andinterest inn +ot 118E to t%e $raders )anufacturing 4is%ing 5ndustries 5nc. Judge Asuncion"as t%e resident and %is "ife 7ictoria "as t%e ecretar&. $%e Asuncions and alapons "erealso t%e stock%older of t%e corporation.

(espondent )acariola c%arged Judge Asuncion "it% Acts uneco#ing a Judge for violatingt%e follo"ing provisions: Article 191, par. - of t%e 2e" Civil Code, Article 1, par. 1 - of t%eCode of Co##erce, ec. 3 par ; of (A 3019 also kno"n as t%e Antiraft Corrupt ractice

Act., ec. 1*, (ule %et%er or 2ot t%e respondent Judge violated t%e #entioned provisions.

Ruling: 2o. Judge Asuncion did not violate t%e #entioned provisions constituting of Actsuneco#ing a Judge ut "as re#inded to e #ore discreet in %is private and usinessactivities.

(espondent Judge did not u& t%e lot 118E directl& on t%e plaintiffs in Civil Case 2o. 3010 utfro# /r. alapon "%o earlier purc%ased t%e lot fro# 3 of t%e plaintiffs. >%en t%e Asuncionoug%t t%e lot on )arc% 6, 196- fro# /r. alapon after t%e finalit& of t%e decision "%ic% %e

rendered on June 8, 1963 in Civil Case 2o 3010 and %is t"o orders dated Octoer and2ove#er, 1963. $%e said propert& "as no longer t%e su!ect of litigation.

5n t%e case at ar, Article 1 of Code of Co##erce %as no legal and inding effect and cannotappl& to t%e respondent. ?pon t%e sovereignt& fro# t%e pain to t%e ? and to t%e (epulic oft%e %ilippines, Art. 1 of t%is Code of Co##erce, "%ic% sourced fro# t%e panis% Code ofCo##erce, appears to %ave een arogated ecause "%enever t%ere is a c%ange in t%esovereignt&, political la"s of t%e for#er sovereign are auto#aticall& arogated, unless t%e& arereenacted & Affir#ative Act of t%e 2e" overeign.


2/21

Asuncion cannot also e %eld liale under t%e par. ;, ec. 3 of (A 3019, citing t%at t%e pulicofficers cannot partake in an& usiness in connection "it% t%is office, or intervened or take partin %is official capacit&. $%e Judge and %is "ife %ad "it%dra"n on Januar& 31, 196= fro# t%ecorporation and sold t%eir respective s%ares to 3rd parties, and it appears t%at t%e corporation

did not enefit in an& case filed & or against it in court as t%ere "as no case filed in t%e differentranc%es of t%e Court of 4irst 5nstance fro# t%e ti#e of t%e drafting of t%e Articles of5ncorporation of t%e corporation on )arc% 1*, 1966 up to its incorporation on Januar& 9, 196=.$%e Judge reali@ed earl& t%at t%eir interest in t%e corporation contravenes against Canon *-.

2. G.R. No. 12215 Fe!ruar" #$ 1%%7

Manila &rince 'otel (s. GSIS

$%is is a etition for ro%iition and )anda#us on t%e grounds of $%e4ilipino 4irst olic& ens%rined in t%e 198= Constitution i.e., in t%e

grant of rig%ts, privileges, and concessions covering t%e national

econo#& and patri#on&, t%e tate s%all give preference to ualified

4ilipinos.

Facts: $%e controvers& arose "%en respondent overn#ent ervice

5nsurance &ste# B5, pursuant to t%e privati@ation progra# of t%e

%ilippine overn#ent under rocla#ation 2o. -0 dated 8 /ece#er 1986,

decided to sell t%roug% pulic idding 30D to -1D of t%e issued and

outstanding s%ares of respondent );C. $%e "inning idder, or t%eeventual strategic partner, is to provide #anage#ent epertise andFor

an international #arketingFreservation s&ste#, and financial support to

strengt%en t%e profitailit& and perfor#ance of t%e )anila ;otel.

5n a close idding, (enong 'er%ad, a )ala&sian fir# edged )anila rince

;otel, a 4ilipion fir# & a #argin of *.* per s%are for 1-,300,000

s%ares. rior to t%e declaration of t%e "inning idder, t%e petitioner

#atc%ed t%e offer of (enong 'er%ad and sent a #anagerGs c%eck as id

securit& "%ic% t%e respondent 5 refused to accept.

etitioners %erein invoked ec 10, par *, Article


3/21

legislationBs . . . $%us, for t%e said provision to Operate, t%ere #ust

e eisting la"s to la& do"n conditions under "%ic% usiness #a& e

done.

A#ong ot%er t%ings, t%at even if suc% is t%e case, )anila ;otel does not

fall under t%e ter# national patri#on&. $%at, granting t%at t%e )anila;otel for#s part of t%e national patri#on&, t%e constitutional provision

invoked is still inapplicale since "%at is eing sold is onl& -1D of

t%e outstanding s%ares of t%e corporation, not t%e %otel uilding nor

t%e land upon "%ic% t%e uilding stands. $%at, su#ission & petitioner

of a #atc%ing id is pre#ature since (enong 'er%ad could still ver& "ell

e a"arded t%e lock of s%ares and t%e condition giving rise to t%e

eercise of t%e privilege to su#it a #atc%ing id %ad not &et taken

place. And finall&, t%e pra&er for pro%iition grounded on grave ause

of discretion s%ould fail since respondent 5 did not eercise its

discretion in a capricious, "%i#sical #anner, and if ever it did ause

its discretion it "as not so patent and gross as to a#ount to an evasion

of a positive dut& or a virtual refusal to perfor# a dut& en!oined &

la". i#ilarl&, t%e petition for #anda#us s%ould fail as petitioner %as

no clear legal rig%t to "%at it de#ands and respondents do not %ave an

i#perative dut& to perfor# t%e act reuired of t%e# & petitioner.

Issue:

1. >%et%er or not ec. 10, second par., Art. %et%er or not t%e )anila ;otel is part of t%e national patri#on&.3. >%et%er or not t%e #atc%ing id is pre#ature

. >%et%er or not t%ere "as grave ause of discretion on t%e part of t%e

respondents in refusing t%e #atc%ing id of t%e petitioner.

'el):5n t%eir resolution of t%e case, t%e upre#e Court %eld t%at,

ince t%e Constitution is t%e funda#ental, para#ount and supre#e la" of

t%e nation, it is dee#ed "ritten in ever& statute and contract.

A provision "%ic% la&s do"n a general principle, suc% as t%ose found in

Art. 55 of t%e 198= Constitution, is usuall& not selfeecuting. 'ut a

provision "%ic% is co#plete in itself and eco#es operative "it%out t%e

aid of supple#entar& or enaling legislation, or t%at "%ic% supplies

sufficient rule & #eans of "%ic% t%e rig%t it grants #a& e en!o&ed or

protected, is selfeecuting. $%us a constitutional provision is

selfeecuting if t%e nature and etent of t%e rig%t conferred and t%e

liailit& i#posed are fied & t%e constitution itself, so t%at t%e& can

e deter#ined & an ea#ination and construction of its ter#s, and t%ere


4/21

is no language indicating t%at t%e su!ect is referred to t%e

legislature for action.

?nless it is epressl& provided t%at a legislative act is necessar& to

enforce a constitutional #andate, t%e presu#ption no" is t%at all

provisions of t%e constitution are selfeecuting 5f t%e constitutionalprovisions are treated as reuiring legislation instead of

selfeecuting, t%e legislature "ould %ave t%e po"er to ignore and

practicall& nullif& t%e #andate of t%e funda#ental la".

$%e C furt%er ackno"ledged t%at suc% provision is #andator&. And t%us

t%e petition is granted.

#. *ana)a (s Angara$

272 SCRA 1+

Facts: On April 1-, 199, t%e %ilippine overn#ent represented & its ecretar& of t%e

/epart#ent of $rade and 5ndustr& signed t%e 4inal Act inding t%e %ilippine overn#ent to

su#it to its respective co#petent aut%orities t%e >$O B>orld $rade Organi@ation Agree#ents

to seek approval for suc%. On /ece#er 1, 199, (esolution 2o. 9= "as adopted & t%e

%ilippine enate to ratif& t%e >$O Agree#ent .$%is is a petition assailing t%e constitutionalit&

of t%e >$O agree#ent as it violates sec 19,Article 55,providing for t%e develop#ent of a self

reliant and independent national econo#&, and ections 10 and 1* ,Article %et%er or not t%e (esolution 2o. 9= ratif&ing t%e >$O Agree#ent is unconstitutional

Ruling: 2o, t%e upre#e Court ruled t%e (esolution 2o. 9= is not unconstitutional. As

provided a treat& engage#ent is not a #ere oligation ut creates a legall& inding oligation on

t%e parties. A state "%ic% %as contracted valid international oligations is ound to #ake its

legislations suc% #odifications as #a& e necessar& to ensure t%e fulfill#ent of t%e oligations

undertaken. >%ile t%e constitution #andates a ias in favor of 4ilipino goods, services, laor

and enterprises, at t%e sa#e ti#e, it recogni@es t%e need for usiness ec%ange "it% t%e rest of

t%e "orld on t%e ases of eualit& and reciprocit& and li#its protection of 4ilipino interests onl&

against foreign co#petition and trade practices t%at are unfair.


5/21

4. ,ASC- VS. &AGC-R

FAC*S: etitioners, Att&. ;u#erto 'asco, seek to annul t%e %ilippine A#use#ent anda#ing Corporation BACO( C%arter / 1869, ecause it is allegedl& contrar& to #orals,pulic polic& and order. $%e& also clai# t%at / 1869 is contrar& to t%e declared national polic&of t%e ne" restored de#ocrac& and t%e peopleGs "ill as epressed in t%e 198= Constitution.

$%e decree is said to %ave a ga#ling o!ective and t%ere is contrar& to ections 11, 1* and13 of Article 55, ec. 1 of Article 7555 and ection 3 B* of Article


6/21

Issue: >%et%er or not (A ==16 violates Art. 75, ecs. * and *6B* of t%e Constitution

'el): $%e argu#ent t%at (A ==16 did not originate eclusivel& in t%e ;ouse of

(epresentatives as reuired & Art. 75, ec. * of t%e Constitution "ill not ear anal&sis. $o

egin "it%, it is not t%e la" ut t%e revenue ill "%ic% is reuired & t%e Constitution to originateeclusivel& in t%e ;ouse of (epresentatives. $o insist t%at a revenue statute and not onl& t%e ill

"%ic% initiated t%e legislative process cul#inating in t%e enact#ent of t%e la" #ust sustantiall&

e t%e sa#e as t%e ;ouse ill "ould e to den& t%e enateKs po"er not onl& to concur "it%

a#end#ents ut also to propose a#end#ents. 5ndeed, "%at t%e Constitution si#pl& #eans is

t%at t%e initiative for filing revenue, tariff or ta ills, ills aut%ori@ing an increase of t%e pulic

det, private ills and ills of local application #ust co#e fro# t%e ;ouse of (epresentatives on

t%e t%eor& t%at, elected as t%e& are fro# t%e districts, t%e #e#ers of t%e ;ouse can e

epected to e #ore sensitive to t%e local needs and prole#s. 2or does t%e Constitution

pro%iit t%e filing in t%e enate of a sustitute ill in anticipation of its receipt of t%e ill fro# t%e

;ouse, so long as action & t%e enate as a od& is "it%%eld pending receipt of t%e ;ouse ill.

$%e net argu#ent of t%e petitioners "as t%at . 2o. 1630 did not pass 3 readings on separate

da&s as reuired & t%e Constitution ecause t%e second and t%ird readings "ere done on t%e

sa#e da&. 'ut t%is "as ecause t%e resident %ad certified . 2o. 1630 as urgent. $%e

presidential certification dispensed "it% t%e reuire#ent not onl& of printing ut also t%at of

reading t%e ill on separate da&s. $%at upon t%e certification of a ill & t%e resident t%e

reuire#ent of 3 readings on separate da&s and of printing and distriution can e dispensed

"it% is supported & t%e "eig%t of legislative practice.

. ilos!a"an (s. Morato 3G.R. No. 11+%1. ul" 17$ 1%%56

FAC*S: L$M%is suit "as filed seeking to declare t%e E+A invalid on t%e ground t%at it issustantiall& t%e sa#e as t%e Contract of +ease nullified in t%e first case Ldecision in .(. 2o.1133=- BNilosa&an, 5ncorporated v. uingona, *3* C(A 110 B199 invalidating t%e Contractof +ease et"een t%e %ilippine C%arit& "eepstakes Office BCO and t%e %ilippine a#ing)anage#ent Corp. B)CM. etitioners #aintain B1 t%at t%e Euip#ent +ease Agree#entBE+A is a different lease contract "it% none of t%e vestiges of a !oint venture "%ic% "ere foundin t%e Contract of +ease nullified in t%e prior case B* t%at t%e E+A did not %ave to e su#ittedto a pulic idding ecause it fell "it%in t%e eception provided in E.O. 2o. 301, 1 Be B3 t%att%e po"er to deter#ine "%et%er t%e E+A is advantageous to t%e govern#ent is vested in t%e'oard of /irectors of t%e CO B t%at for lack of funds t%e CO cannot purc%ase its o"nonline lotter& euip#ent and %as %ad to enter into a lease contract B- t%at "%at petitioners areactuall& seeking in t%is suit is to furt%er t%eir #oral crusade and political agenda, using t%e Courtas t%eir foru#.


7/21

ISS/: >%et%er or not t%e E+A et"een t%e %ilippine C%arit& "eepstakes Office and t%e%ilippine a#ing )anage#ent Corp. is invalid.

'/0D: 2O. etition for pro%iition, revie" andFor in!unction "as dis#issed. ertinent to t%eissue, t%e C %eld:

B3 t%at t%e E+A is valid as a lease contract under t%e Civil Code and is not contrar& to t%ec%arter of t%e %ilippine C%arit& "eepstakes Office

B t%at under 1BA of its c%arter B(.A. 1169, t%e %ilippine C%arit& "eepstakes Office %asaut%orit& to enter into a contract for t%e %olding of an online lotter&, "%et%er alone or inassociation, collaoration or !oint venture "it% anot%er part&, so long as it itself%olds or conductssuc% lotter& and

B- $%at t%e Euip#ent +ease Agree#ent BE+A in uestion did not %ave to e su#itted to

pulic idding as a condition for its validit&.

RA*I-:

E.O. 2o. 301, 1 applies onl& to contracts for t%e purc%ase of supplies, #aterials andeuip#ent. 5t does not refer to contracts of lease of euip#ent like t%e E+A. $%e provisions onlease are found in 6 and = ut t%e& refer to t%e lease of privatel&o"ned uildings or spacesfor govern#ent use or of govern#ento"ned uildings or spaces for private use, and t%eseprovisions do not reuire pulic idding. 5t is t%us difficult to see %o" E.O. 2o. 301 can eapplied to t%e E+A "%en t%e onl& feature of t%e E+A t%at #a& e t%oug%t of as close to acontract of purc%ase and sale is t%e option to u& given to t%e CO. An option to u& is not ofcourse a contract of purc%ase and sale.

5ndeed t%e uestion is not "%et%er co#pared "it% t%e for#er !oint venture agree#ent t%epresent lease contract is PL#oreM advantageous to t%e govern#ent.Q $%e uestion is "%et%erunder t%e circu#stances, t%e E+A is t%e #ost advantageous contract t%at could e otainedco#pared "it% si#ilar lease agree#ents "%ic% t%e CO could %ave #ade "it% ot%er parties.etitioners %ave not s%o"n t%at #ore favorale ter#s could %ave een otained & t%e COor t%at at an& rate t%e E+A, "%ic% t%e CO concluded "it% t%e )C, is disadvantageous tot%e govern#ent.

7. *-ND- M/DICA0 C/N*/R /M&0-//S V. CA

FAC*S: resident Estrada issued Eecutive Order 2o. 10*, entitled P(edirecting t%e 4unctions

and Operations of t%e /epart#ent of ;ealt%,Q "%ic% provided for t%e c%anges in t%e roles,functions, and organi@ational processes of t%e /O;. ?nder t%e assailed eecutive order, t%e

/O; refocused its #andate fro# eing t%e sole provider of %ealt% services to eing a provider

of specific %ealt% services and tec%nical assistance, as a result of t%e devolution of asic

services to local govern#ent units.

Issue: >O2 EO10* is constitutionalH


8/21


9/21

.(. 2o. 1=1396, )a& 3 *006

FAC*S: On 4eruar& *, *006, as t%e nation celerated t%e *0t% Anniversar& of t%e Edsaeople o"er 5, resident Arro&o issued residential rocla#ation 2o. 101= B101= declaring a state of national e#ergenc&. On t%e sa#e da&, t%e resident issued eneralOrder 2o. - B.O. 2o. - i#ple#enting 101=. $%e proi#ate cause e%ind t%e eecutive

issuances "as t%e conspirac& a#ong so#e #ilitar& officers, leftist insurgents of t%e 2e"eopleKs Ar#& B2A, and so#e #e#ers of t%e political opposition in a plot to unseat orassassinate resident Arro&o. $%e& considered t%e ai# to oust or assassinate t%e residentand takeover t%e reigns of govern#ent as a clear and present danger. All progra#s andactivities related to t%e *0t% anniversar& celeration of Edsa eople o"er 5 are cancelled.+ike"ise, all per#its to %old rallies issued earlier & t%e local govern#ents are revoked. Justiceecretar& (aul on@ales stated t%at political rallies, "%ic% to t%e residentKs #ind "ereorgani@ed for purposes of destaili@ation, are cancelled. residential C%ief of taff )ic%ael/efensor announced t%at P"arrantless arrests and takeover of facilities, including #edia, canalread& e i#ple#ented.Q /uring t%e dispersal of t%e rall&ists along E/A, police arrestedB"it%out "arrant petitioner (andolf . /avid, a professor at t%e ?niversit& of t%e %ilippines andne"spaper colu#nist.

Eactl& one "eek after t%e declaration of a state of national e#ergenc&, t%e resident lifted 101= & issuing rocla#ation 2o. 10*1.

ISS/: >%et%er or not t%e issuance of 10*1 renders t%e petitions #oot and acade#ic.

'/0D: )oot and acade#ic case one t%at ceases to present a !usticiale controvers& & virtueof supervening events, so t%at a declaration t%ereon "ould e of no practical use or value.enerall&, courts decline !urisdiction over suc% case or dis#iss it on ground of #ootness.

$%e Court %olds t%at resident Arro&oKs issuance of 10*1 did not render t%e presentpetitions #oot and acade#ic. /uring t%e eig%t B8 da&s t%at 101= "as operative, t%e policeofficers, according to petitioners, co##itted illegal acts in i#ple#enting it. Are 101= and.O. 2o. - constitutional or validH /o t%e& !ustif& t%ese alleged illegal actsH $%ese are t%e vitalissues t%at #ust e resolved in t%e present petitions. 5t #ust e stressed t%at Panunconstitutional act is not a la", it confers no rig%ts, it i#poses no duties, it affords noprotection it is in legal conte#plation, inoperative.Q

$%e P#oot and acade#icQ principle is not a #agical for#ula t%at can auto#aticall& dissuade t%ecourts in resolving a case. Courts "ill decide cases, ot%er"ise #oot and acade#ic,if: first, t%ere is a grave violation of t%e Constitution second, t%e eceptional c%aracter of t%esituation and t%e para#ount pulic interest is involved t%ird, "%en constitutional issue raised

reuires for#ulation of controlling principles to guide t%e enc%, t%e ar, and t%epulic and fourt%, t%e case is capale of repetition &et evading revie".

All t%e foregoing eceptions are present %ere and !ustif& t%is CourtKs assu#ption of !urisdictionover t%e instant petitions. etitioners alleged t%at t%e issuance of 101= and .O. 2o. -violates t%e Constitution. $%ere is no uestion t%at t%e issues eing raised affect t%e pulicKsinterest, involving as t%e& do t%e peopleKs asic rig%ts to freedo# of epression, of asse#l&and of t%e press. )oreover, t%e Court %as t%e dut& to for#ulate guiding and controlling


10/21

constitutional precepts, doctrines or rules. 5t %as t%e solic function of educating t%e enc%and t%e ar, and in t%e present petitions, t%e #ilitar& and t%e police, on t%e etent of t%eprotection given & constitutional guarantees. And lastl&, respondentsK contested actions arecapale of repetition. Certainl&, t%e petitions are su!ect to !udicial revie".

%. ,iraogo (s &9iliine *rut9 Co;;ission

When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any

superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the

legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution

to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties

in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.

Justice Jose . +aurel

Facts: $%e genesis of t%e foregoing cases can e traced to t%e events prior to t%e %istoric )a&

*010 elections, "%en t%en enator 'enigno i#eon Auino 555 declared %is staunc%

conde#nation of graft and corruption "it% %is slogan, Nung "alang corrupt, "alang #a%irap.

$%e 4ilipino people, convinced of %is sincerit& and of %is ailit& to carr& out t%is nole o!ective,

catapulted t%e good senator to t%e presidenc&.

$%e first case is .(. 2o. 19*93-, a special civil action for pro%iition instituted & petitioner

+ouis 'iraogo B'iraogo in %is capacit& as a citi@en and tapa&er. 'iraogo assails Eecutive

Order 2o. 1 for eing violative of t%e legislative po"er of Congress under ection 1, Article 75 of

t%e Constitution as it usurps t%e constitutional aut%orit& of t%e legislature to create a pulic office

and to appropriate funds t%erefor.

$%e second case, .(. 2o. 193036, is a special civil action for certiorari and pro%iition filed &

petitioners Edcel C. +ag#an, (odolfo '. Alano Jr., i#eon A. /atu#anong, and Orlando '.

4ua, r. Bpetitionerslegislators as incu#ent #e#ers of t%e ;ouse of (epresentatives.

$%us, at t%e da"n of %is ad#inistration, t%e resident on Jul& 30, *010, signed Eecutive Order

2o. 1 estalis%ing t%e %ilippine $rut% Co##ission of *010 B$rut% Co##ission.

Issues:

1. >%et%er or not t%e petitioners %ave t%e legal standing to file t%eir respective petitions and

uestion Eecutive Order 2o. 1

*. >%et%er or not Eecutive Order 2o. 1 violates t%e principle of separation of po"ers &

usurping t%e po"ers of Congress to create and to appropriate funds for pulic offices, agencies

and co##issions

3. >%et%er or not Eecutive Order 2o. 1 supplants t%e po"ers of t%e O#uds#an and t%e /OJ


11/21

. >%et%er or not Eecutive Order 2o. 1 violates t%e eual protection clause and

-. >%et%er or not petitioners are entitled to in!unctive relief.

'el):

Legal Standing of the Petitioners

$%e Court, %o"ever, finds reason in 'iraogoKs assertion t%at t%e petition covers #atters of

transcendental i#portance to !ustif& t%e eercise of !urisdiction & t%e Court. $%ere are

constitutional issues in t%e petition "%ic% deserve t%e attention of t%is Court in vie" of t%eir

seriousness, novelt& and "eig%t as precedents. >%ere t%e issues are of transcendental and

para#ount i#portance not onl& to t%e pulic ut also to t%e 'enc% and t%e 'ar, t%e& s%ould e

resolved for t%e guidance of all.?ndoutedl&, t%e 4ilipino people are #ore t%an interested to

kno" t%e status of t%e residentKs first effort to ring aout a pro#ised c%ange to t%e countr&.

$%e Court takes cogni@ance of t%e petition not due to over"%el#ing political undertones t%at

clot%e t%e issue in t%e e&es of t%e pulic, ut ecause t%e Court stands fir# in its oat% to

perfor# its constitutional dut& to settle legal controversies "it% overreac%ing significance to

societ&.

Power of the President to Create the ruth Commission

$%e C%ief EecutiveKs po"er to create t%e Ad %oc 5nvestigating Co##ittee cannot e douted.

;aving een constitutionall& granted full control of t%e Eecutive /epart#ent, to "%ic%

respondents elong, t%e resident %as t%e oligation to ensure t%at all eecutive officials ande#plo&ees fait%full& co#pl& "it% t%e la". >it% AO *98 as #andate, t%e legalit& of t%e

investigation is sustained. uc% validit& is not affected & t%e fact t%at t%e investigating tea#

and t%e CAC %ad t%e sa#e co#position, or t%at t%e for#er used t%e offices and facilities of

t%e latter in conducting t%e inuir&.

Power of the ruth Commission to !nvestigate

$%e distinction et"een t%e po"er to investigate and t%e po"er to ad!udicate "as delineated &

t%e Court in CariRo v. Co##ission on ;u#an (ig%ts.-9 $%us:

$%e legal #eaning of investigate is essentiall& t%e sa#e: Bto follo" up step & step & patient

inuir& or oservation. $o trace or track to searc% into to ea#ine and inuire into "it% care

and accurac& to find out & careful inuisition ea#ination t%e taking of evidence a legal

inuir& to inuire to #ake an investigation, investigation eing in turn descried as Ban

ad#inistrative function, t%e eercise of "%ic% ordinaril& does not reuire a %earing. * A# J*d

Ad# + ec. *-= an inuir&, !udicial or ot%er"ise, for t%e discover& and collection of facts

concerning a certain #atter or #atters.


12/21

5n t%e legal sense, ad!udicate #eans: $o settle in t%e eercise of !udicial aut%orit&. $o

deter#ine finall&. &nonous "it% ad!udge in its strictest sense and ad!udge #eans: $o

pass on !udiciall&, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or conde#n. . 5#plies a !udicial

deter#ination of a fact, and t%e entr& of a !udg#ent.

4inall&, no"%ere in Eecutive Order 2o. 1 can it e inferred t%at t%e findings of t%e $C are to

e accorded conclusiveness. )uc% like its predecessors, t%e /avide Co##ission, t%e 4eliciano

Co##ission and t%e Senarosa Co##ission, its findings "ould, at est, e reco##endator& in

nature. And eing so, t%e O#uds#an and t%e /OJ %ave a "ider degree of latitude to decide

"%et%er or not to re!ect t%e reco##endation. $%ese offices, t%erefore, are not deprived of t%eir

#andated duties ut "ill instead e aided & t%e reports of t%e $C for possile indict#ents for

violations of graft la"s.

"iolation of the #$ual Protection Clause

$%e petitioners assail Eecutive Order 2o. 1 ecause it is violative of t%is constitutional

safeguard. $%e& contend t%at it does not appl& euall& to all #e#ers of t%e sa#e class suc%

t%at t%e intent of singling out t%e previous ad#inistration as its sole o!ect #akes t%e $C an

adventure in partisan %ostilit&. $%us, in order to e accorded "it% validit&, t%e co##ission #ust

also cover reports of graft and corruption in virtuall& all ad#inistrations previous to t%at of for#er

resident Arro&o.

$%e eual protection clause is ai#ed at all official state actions, not !ust t%ose of t%e legislature.

5ts in%iitions cover all t%e depart#ents of t%e govern#ent including t%e political and eecutive

depart#ents, and etend to all actions of a state den&ing eual protection of t%e la"s, t%roug%

"%atever agenc& or "%atever guise is taken.

Appl&ing t%ese precepts to t%is case, Eecutive Order 2o. 1 s%ould e struck do"n as violative

of t%e eual protection clause. $%e clear #andate of t%e envisioned trut% co##ission is to

investigate and find out t%e trut% concerning t%e reported cases of graft and corruption during

t%e previous ad#inistrationonl&. $%e intent to single out t%e previous ad#inistration is plain,

patent and #anifest. )ention of it %as een #ade in at least t%ree portions of t%e uestioned

eecutive order.

%ecision

$%e issue t%at see#s to take center stage at present is "%et%er or not t%e upre#e Court, in

t%e eercise of its constitutionall& #andated po"er of Judicial (evie" "it% respect to recent

initiatives of t%e legislature and t%e eecutive depart#ent, is eercising undue interference. 5s

t%e ;ig%est $riunal, "%ic% is epected to e t%e protector of t%e Constitution, itself guilt& of

violating funda#ental tenets like t%e doctrine of separation of po"ersH $i#e and again, t%is

issue %as een addressed & t%e Court, ut it see#s t%at t%e present political situation calls for

it to once again eplain t%e legal asis of its action lest it continuall& e accused of eing a


13/21

%indrance to t%e nationKs t%rust to progress.

>;E(E4O(E, t%e petitions are (A2$E/. Eecutive Order 2o. 1 is %ere& declared

?2CO2$5$?$5O2A+ insofar as it is violative of t%e eual protection clause of t%e Constitution.

As also pra&ed for, t%e respondents are %ere& ordered to cease and desist fro# carr&ing out

t%e provisions of Eecutive Order 2o. 1.

O O(/E(E/.

1. 0AM& VS. S/C -F ,DG/* AND MANAG/M/N*

FAC*S: 4or consideration of t%e Court is an original action for certiorari assailing t%econstitutionalit& and legalit& of t%e i#ple#entation of t%e riorit& /evelop#ent Assistance 4undB/A4 as provided for in (epulic Act B(.A. 9*06 or t%e eneral Appropriations Act for *00BAA of *00.

etitioner +a"&ers Against )onopol& and overt&B+A), a group of la"&ers "%o %ave andedtoget%er "it% a #ission of dis#antling all for#s of political, econo#ic or social #onopol& in t%ecountr&. According to +A), t%e aove provision is silent and, t%erefore, pro%iits an auto#aticor direct allocation of lu#p su#s to individual senators and congress#en for t%e funding ofpro!ects. 5t does not e#po"er individual )e#ers of Congress to propose, select and identif&progra#s and pro!ects to e funded out of /A4.4or +A), t%is situation runs afoul against t%e principle of separation of po"ers ecause in

receiving and, t%ereafter, spending funds for t%eir c%osen pro!ects, t%e )e#ers of Congress ineffect intrude into an eecutive function. 4urt%er, t%e aut%orit& to propose and select pro!ectsdoes not pertain to legislation. P5t is, in fact, a nonlegislative function devoid of constitutionalsanction,Q8 and, t%erefore, i#per#issile and #ust e considered not%ing less t%an#alfeasance.(EO2/E2$K O5$5O2: t%e perceptions of +A) on t%e i#ple#entation of /A4 #ustnot e ased on #ere speculations circulated in t%e ne"s #edia preac%ing t%e evils of porkarrel.

ISS/S: 1 "%et%er or not t%e #andator& reuisites for t%e eercise of !udicial revie" are #et int%is case and * "%et%er or not t%e i#ple#entation of /A4 & t%e )e#ers of Congress isunconstitutional and illegal.

'/0D:

5.A uestion is ripe for ad!udication "%en t%e act eing c%allenged %as %ad a direct adverseeffect on t%e individual c%allenging it. 5n t%is case, t%e petitioner contested t%e i#ple#entation ofan alleged unconstitutional statute, as citi@ens and tapa&ers. $%e petition co#plains of illegaldisurse#ent of pulic funds derived fro# taation and t%is is sufficient reason to sa& t%at t%ereindeed eists a definite, concrete, real or sustantial controvers& efore t%e Court.


14/21

+OC? $A2/5: $%e gist of t%e uestion of standing is "%et%er a part& alleges Psuc% apersonal stake in t%e outco#e of t%e controvers& as to assure t%at concrete adverseness "%ic%s%arpens t%e presentation of issues upon "%ic% t%e court so largel& depends for illu#ination ofdifficult constitutional uestions. ;ere, t%e sufficient interest preventing t%e illegal ependiture of#one& raised & taation reuired in tapa&ersK suits is estalis%ed. $%us, in t%e clai# t%at/A4 funds %ave een illegall& disursed and "asted t%roug% t%e enforce#ent of an invalid or

unconstitutional la", +A) s%ould e allo"ed to sue.

+astl&, t%e Court is of t%e vie" t%at t%e petition poses issues i#pressed "it% para#ount pulicinterest. $%e ra#ification of issues involving t%e unconstitutional spending of /A4 deservest%e consideration of t%e Court, "arranting t%e assu#ption of !urisdiction over t%e petition.

55.$%e Court rules in t%e negative.

5n deter#ining "%et%er or not a statute is unconstitutional, t%e Court does not lose sig%t of t%epresu#ption of validit& accorded to statutor& acts of Congress. $o !ustif& t%e nullification of t%ela" or its i#ple#entation, t%ere #ust e a clear and uneuivocal, not a doutful, reac% of t%eConstitution. 5n case of dout in t%e sufficienc& of proof estalis%ing unconstitutionalit&, t%eCourt #ust sustain legislation ecause Pto invalidate La la"M ased on aseless suppositionis an affront to t%e "isdo# not onl& of t%e legislature t%at passed it ut also of t%e eecutive"%ic% approved it.Q

$%e petition is #iseral& "anting in t%is regard. 2o convincing proof "as presented s%o"ingt%at, indeed, t%ere "ere direct releases of funds to t%e )e#ers of Congress, "%o actuall&spend t%e# according to t%eir sole discretion. /evoid of an& pertinent evidentiar& support t%atillegal #isuse of /A4 in t%e for# of kickacks %as eco#e a co##on eercise ofunscrupulous )e#ers of Congress, t%e Court cannot indulge t%e petitionerKs reuest forre!ection of a la" "%ic% is out"ardl& legal and capale of la"ful enforce#ent.

O(N 'A((E+:

$%e )e#ers of Congress are t%en reuested & t%e resident to reco##end pro!ects andprogra#s "%ic% #a& e funded fro# t%e /A4. $%e list su#itted & t%e )e#ers of Congressis endorsed & t%e peaker of t%e ;ouse of (epresentatives to t%e /'), "%ic% revie"s anddeter#ines "%et%er suc% list of pro!ects su#itted are consistent "it% t%e guidelines and t%epriorities set & t%e Eecutive.Q33 $%is de#onstrates t%e po"er given to t%e resident toeecute appropriation la"s and t%erefore, to eercise t%e spending per se of t%e udget.

As applied to t%is case, t%e petition is seriousl& "anting in estalis%ing t%at individual )e#ersof Congress receive and t%ereafter spend funds out of /A4. o long as t%ere is no s%o"ing ofa direct participation of legislators in t%e actual spending of t%e udget, t%e constitutional

oundaries et"een t%e Eecutive and t%e +egislative in t%e udgetar& process re#ain intact.

N-*/S:

O>E( O4 J?/5C5A+ (E75E>:B1 t%ere #ust e an actual case or controvers& calling for t%e eercise of !udicial po"erB* B* t%e person c%allenging t%e act #ust %ave t%e standing to uestion t%e validit& of t%e


15/21

su!ect act or issuance ot%er"ise stated, %e #ust %ave a personal and sustantial interest int%e case suc% t%at %e %as sustained, or "ill sustain, direct in!ur& as a result of its enforce#entB3 B3 t%e uestion of constitutionalit& #ust e raised at t%e earliest opportunit& andB B t%e issue of constitutionalit& #ust e t%e ver& lis #ota of t%e case.

11. C9a(e< (s. ,C

Facts: $%e case is a #otion for reconsideration filed & t%e J'C in a prior decision renderedJul& 1=, *01* t%at J'CKs action of allo"ing #ore t%an one #e#er of t%e congress to representt%e J'C to e unconstitutional (espondent contends t%at t%e p%rase P a representative ofcongressQ refers t%at ot% %ouses of congress s%ould %ave one representative eac%, and t%att%ese t"o %ouses are per#anent and #andator& co#ponents of PcongressQ as part of t%eica#eral s&ste# of legislature. 'ot% %ouses %ave t%eir respective po"ers in perfor#ance oft%eir duties. Art 7555 ec 8 of t%e constitution provides for t%e co#ponent of t%e J'C to e =#e#ers onl& "it% onl& one representative fro# congress.Issue:>F2 t%e J'CKs practice of %aving #e#ers fro# t%e enate and t%e ;ouse of(epresentatives to e unconstitutional as provided in Art 7555 ec 8 of t%e constitution.'el):$%e practice is unconstitutional t%e court %eld t%at t%e p%rase Pa representative ofcongressQ s%ould e construed as to %aving onl& one representative t%at "ould co#e fro#eit%er %ouse, not ot%. $%at t%e fra#ers of t%e constitution onl& intended for one seat of t%e J'Cto e allotted for t%e legislative. $%e #otion "as denied.

12. &lanters &ro)ucts Inc (s Ferti9il Cor G.R. No. 1 Marc9 14$ 2+

FAC*S:etitioner 5 and respondent 4ertip%il are private corporations incorporated under

%ilippine la"s, ot% engaged in t%e i#portation and distriution of fertili@ers, pesticides and

agricultural c%e#icals. )arcos issued +etter of 5nstruction B+O5 16-, i#posing a capital

recover& co#ponent of %p10.00 per ag of fertili@er. $%e lev& "as to continue until adeuate

capital "as raised to #ake 5 financiall& viale. 4ertip%il re#itted to t%e 4ertili@er and esticide

Aut%orit& B4A, "%ic% "as t%en re#itted t%e depositor& ank of 5. 4ertip%il paid 6,689,1

to 4A fro# 198- to 1986.After t%e 1986 Edsa (evolution, 4A voluntaril& stopped t%e

i#position of t%e 10 lev&. 4ertip%il de#anded fro# 5 a refund of t%e a#ount it re#itted,

%o"ever 5 refused. 4ertip%il filed a co#plaint for collection and da#ages, uestioning t%e

constitutionalit& of +O5 16-, clai#ing t%at it "as un!ust,unreasonale, oppressive, invalid and

an unla"ful i#position t%at a#ounted to a denial of due process.5 argues t%at 4ertip%il %as no

locus standi to uestion t%e constitutionalit& of +O5 2o. 16- ecause it does not %ave apersonal and sustantial interest in t%e case or "ill sustain direct in!ur& as a result of its

enforce#ent. 5t asserts t%at 4ertip%il did not suffer an& da#age fro# t%e i#position ecause

incidence of t%e lev& fell on t%e ulti#ate consu#er or t%e far#ers t%e#selves, not on t%e seller

fertili@er co#pan&.

ISS/:>%et%er or not 4ertip%il %as locus standi to uestion t%e constitutionalit& of +O5 2o.

16-.>%at is t%e po"er of taationH


16/21

R0ING:4ertip%il %as locus standi ecause it suffered direct in!ur& doctrine of standing is a

#ere procedural tec%nicalit& "%ic% #a& e "aived. $%e i#position of t%e lev& "as an eercise

of t%e taation po"er of t%e state. >%ile it is true t%at t%e po"er to ta can e used as an

i#ple#ent of police po"er, t%e pri#ar& purpose of t%e lev& "as revenue generation. 5f t%e

purpose is pri#aril& revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of t%e real and sustantial purposes,

t%en t%e eaction is properl& called a ta. olice po"er and t%e po"er of taation are in%erent

po"ers of t%e tate. $%ese po"ers are distinct and %ave different tests for validit&. olice po"er

is t%e po"er of t%e tate to enact legislation t%at #a& interfere "it% personal liert& or propert&

in order to pro#ote t%e general "elfare, "%ile t%e po"er of taation is t%e po"er to lev& taes to

e used for pulic purpose. $%e #ain purpose of police po"er is t%e regulation of a e%avior or

conduct, "%ile taation is revenue generation. $%e la"ful su!ects and la"ful #eans tests

are used to deter#ine t%e validit& of a la" enacted under t%e police po"er. $%e po"er of

taation, on t%e ot%er %and, is circu#scried & in%erent and constitutional li#itations.

1#. 0eague o Cities (. Co;elec

Action:$%ese are consolidated petitions for pro%iition "it% pra&er for t%e issuance of a "rit ofpreli#inar& in!unction or te#porar& restraining order filed & t%e +eague of Cities of t%e%ilippines, Cit& of 5loilo, Cit& of Cala&og, and Jerr& . $reRas assailing t%e constitutionalit& oft%e su!ect Cit&%ood +a"s and en!oining t%e Co##ission on Elections BCO)E+EC andrespondent #unicipalities fro# conducting pleiscites pursuant to t%e Cit&%ood +a"s.

Fact:/uring t%e 11t% Congress, Congress enacted into la" 33 ills converting 33 #unicipalities intocities. ;o"ever, Congress did not act on ills converting * ot%er #unicipalities into cities./uring t%e 1*t% Congress, Congress enacted into la" (epulic Act 2o. 9009 B(A 9009, "%ic%took effect on 30 June *001. (A 9009 a#ended ection -0 of t%e +ocal overn#ent Code &increasing t%e annual inco#e reuire#ent for conversion of a #unicipalit& into a cit& fro# *0#illion to 100 #illion. $%e rationale for t%e a#end#ent "as to restrain, in t%e "ords of enator

Auilino i#entel, Pt%e #ad rus%Q of #unicipalities to convert into cities solel& to secure a largers%are in t%e 5nternal (evenue Allot#ent despite t%e fact t%at t%e& are incapale of fiscalindependence.

After t%e effectivit& of (A 9009, t%e ;ouse of (epresentatives of t%e 1*t% Congress adoptedJoint (esolution 2o. *9, "%ic% soug%t to ee#pt fro# t%e 100 #illion inco#e reuire#ent in

(A 9009 t%e * #unicipalities "%ose cit&%ood ills "ere not approved in t%e 11t% Congress.;o"ever, t%e 1*t% Congress ended "it%out t%e enate approving Joint (esolution 2o. *9.

/uring t%e 13t% Congress, t%e ;ouse of (epresentatives readopted Joint (esolution 2o. *9 asJoint (esolution 2o. 1 and for"arded it to t%e enate for approval. ;o"ever, t%e enate againfailed to approve t%e Joint (esolution. 4ollo"ing t%e advice of enator Auilino i#entel, 16#unicipalities filed, t%roug% t%eir respective sponsors, individual cit&%ood ills. $%e 16 cit&%oodills contained a co##on provision ee#pting all t%e 16 #unicipalities fro# t%e 100 #illioninco#e reuire#ent in (A 9009.


17/21

On ** /ece#er *006, t%e ;ouse of (epresentatives approved t%e cit&%ood ills. $%e enatealso approved t%e cit&%ood ills in 4eruar& *00=, ecept t%at of 2aga, Ceu "%ic% "as passedon = June *00=. $%e cit&%ood ills lapsed into la" BCit&%ood +a"s on various dates fro# )arc%to Jul& *00= "it%out t%e residentKs signature.

$%e Cit&%ood +a"s direct t%e CO)E+EC to %old pleiscites to deter#ine "%et%er t%e voters in

eac% respondent #unicipalit& approve of t%e conversion of t%eir #unicipalit& into a cit&.

etitioners filed t%e present petitions to declare t%e Cit&%ood +a"s unconstitutional for violationof ection 10, Article < of t%e Constitution, as "ell as for violation of t%e eual protection clause.etitioners also la#ent t%at t%e "%olesale conversion of #unicipalities into cities "ill reduce t%es%are of eisting cities in t%e 5nternal (evenue Allot#ent ecause #ore cities "ill s%are t%esa#e a#ount of internal revenue set aside for all cities under ection *8- of t%e +ocalovern#ent Code.

Issue:$%e petitions raise t%e follo"ing funda#ental issues:1. >%et%er t%e Cit&%ood +a"s violate ection 10, Article < of t%e Constitution and*. >%et%er t%e Cit&%ood +a"s violate t%e eual protection clause.

'el):>e grant t%e petitions.$%e Cit&%ood +a"s violate ections 6 and 10, Article < of t%e Constitution, and are t%usunconstitutional.

4irst, appl&ing t%e 100 #illion inco#e reuire#ent in (A 9009 to t%e present case is aprospective, not a retroactive application, ecause (A 9009 took effect in *001 "%ile t%ecit&%ood ills eca#e la" #ore t%an five &ears later.

econd, t%e Constitution reuires t%at Congress s%all prescrie all t%e criteria for t%e creation ofa cit& in t%e +ocal overn#ent Code and not in an& ot%er la", including t%e Cit&%ood +a"s.

$%ird, t%e Cit&%ood +a"s violate ection 6, Article < of t%e Constitution ecause t%e& prevent afair and !ust distriution of t%e national taes to local govern#ent units.

4ourt%, t%e criteria prescried in ection -0 of t%e +ocal overn#ent Code, as a#ended &(A 9009, for converting a #unicipalit& into a cit& are clear, plain and una#iguous, needing noresort to an& statutor& construction.

4ift%, t%e intent of #e#ers of t%e 11t% Congress to ee#pt certain #unicipalities fro# t%ecoverage of (A 9009 re#ained an intent and "as never "ritten into ection -0 of t%e +ocal

overn#ent Code.

it%, t%e delierations of t%e 11t% or 1*t% Congress on unapproved ills or resolutions are notetrinsic aids in interpreting a la" passed in t%e 13t% Congress.

event%, even if t%e ee#ption in t%e Cit&%ood +a"s "ere "ritten in ection -0 of t%e +ocalovern#ent Code, t%e ee#ption "ould still e unconstitutional for violation of t%e eualprotection clause.


18/21

14. 'acien)a 0uisita Incororate) (s &resi)ential Agrarian Reor; Council$ et al.$

Facts:$%e C en anc voted 110 dis#issing t%e petition filed & ;+5 Affir# "it% #odificationst%e resolutions of t%e residential Agrarian (efor# Council BA(C for revit& revoking;acienda +uisita 5nc. B;+5 for revit& tock /istriution lan B/ and placing t%e su!ectland in ;+ under co#pulsor& coverage of t%e CA( of t%e govern#ent.

$%ereafter, t%e C voting 6- averred t%at t%ere are operative facts t%at occurred in t%epre#ises. $%e C t%ereat declared t%at t%e revocation of t%e / s%all, & application of t%eoperative fact principle, give t%e -*96 ualified 4ar#"orkers 'eneficiaries B4>'s for revit& toc%oose "%et%er t%e& "ant to re#ain as ;+5 stock%olders or c%oose actual land distriution.Considering t%e pre#ises, /A( i##ediatel& sc%eduled a #eeting regarding t%e effects of t%eirc%oice and t%erefro# proceeded to secret voting of t%eir c%oice.

$%e parties, t%ereafter, filed t%eir respective )otion for (econsideration regarding t%e CKsdecision.

Issue:

1 >%et%er or not operative fact doctrine is applicale in t%e said case.

* >%et%er or not ec. 31 of (.A. 66-= unconstitutional.

3 >%et%er or not t%e 10&ear period pro%iition on t%e transfer of a"arded lands under (A 66-=lapsed on )a& 10, 1999, since ;acienda +uisita "ere placed under CA( coverage t%roug% t%e/OA sc%e#e on )a& 11, 1989, and t%us t%e ualified 4>'s s%ould no" e allo"ed to sellt%eir land interests in ;acienda +uisita to t%ird parties, "%et%er t%e& %ave full& paid for t%e landsor notH

>%et%er or not ualified 4>'s s%all e entitled to t%e option of re#aining as stock%older e

reconsidered.

Ruling:

1 Operative 4act /octrine is applicale to t%e instant case. $%e court ruled t%at t%e doctrine is not

li#ited onl& to invalid or unconstitutional la" ut also to decisions #ade & t%e president or t%ead#inistrative agencies t%at %ave t%e force and effect of la"s, especiall& if t%e said decisionsproduced acts and conseuences t%at #ust e respected. $%at t%e i#ple#entation of A(Cresolution approving / of ;+5 #anifested suc% rig%t and enefits favorale to t%e 4>'s

* $%e C said t%at t%e constitutionalit& of ec. 31 of (.A. 66-= is not t%e lis #ota of t%e case andit "as not raised at t%e earliest opportunit& and did not rule on t%e constitutionalit& of t%e la"


19/21

3 $%e C ruled t%at it %as not &et lapsed on )a& 10, 1999, and ualified 4>'s are not allo"ed tosell t%eir land interest in ;+ to t%ird parties $%at t%e start of t%e counting of t%e pro%iitiveperiod s%all e ten &ears fro# t%e issuance and registration of t%e E#ancipation atent BE forrevit& or Certificate of +and O"ners%ip A"ard BC+OA for revit&, and considering t%at t%eEs and C+OAs %ave not &et een issued, t%e pro%iitive period %as not started &et.

$%e C ruled in t%e affir#ative, giving ualified 4>'s t%e option to re#ain as stock%older

IE, t%e ruling in t%e Jul& -, *011 /ecision t%at t%e ualified 4>'s e given an option tore#ain as stock%olders of ;+5 s%ould e reconsidered.

L$%e Court reconsidered its earlier decision t%at t%e ualified 4>'s s%ould e given an option tore#ain as stock%olders of ;+5, inas#uc% as t%ese ualified 4>'s "ill never gain control Lovert%e su!ect landsM given t%e present proportion of s%are%oldings in ;+5. $%e Court noted t%at t%es%are of t%e 4>'s in t%e ;+5 capital stock is L!ustM 33.*96D. $%us, even if all t%e %olders of t%is33.*96D unani#ousl& vote to re#ain as ;+5 stock%olders, "%ic% is unlikel&, control "ill nevere in t%e %ands of t%e 4>'s. Control #eans t%e #a!orit& of LsicM -0D plus at least one s%are oft%e co##on s%ares and ot%er voting s%ares. Appl&ing t%e for#ula to t%e ;+5 stock%oldings, t%e

nu#er of s%ares t%at "ill constitute t%e #a!orit& is *9-,11*,101 s%ares B-90,--,**0 total ;+5capital s%ares divided & * plus one L1M ;+5 s%are. $%e 118,391,9=6.8- s%ares su!ect to t%e/ approved & A(C sustantiall& fall s%ort of t%e *9-,11*,101 s%ares needed & t%e 4>'sto acuire control over ;+5.M

$%e C A($5A++I (A2$E/ t%e #otions for reconsideration of respondents A(C, et al.,$%e 6,*96 original 4>'s s%all forfeit and relinuis% t%eir rig%ts over t%e ;+5 s%ares of stockissued to t%e# in favor of ;+5. $%e ;+5 Corporate ecretar& s%all cancel t%e s%ares issued tot%e said 4>'s and transfer t%e# to ;+5 in t%e stocks and transfer ook. $%e ,*06 nonualified4>'s s%all re#ain as stock%olders of ;+5.

15. *a=a)a (s. Cuenco

Constitutional Law & Political 'uestionFAC*S:After t%e 19-- elections, #e#ers of t%e enate "ere c%osen. $%e enate "asover"%el#ingl& occupied & t%e 2acionalista art&. $%e lone opposition senator "as +oren@o./iosdado on t%e ot%er %and "as a senatorial candidate "%o lost t%e id ut "as contesting itefore t%e E$. 'ut prior to a decision t%e E$ "ould %ave to c%oose its #e#ers. 5t isprovided t%at t%e E$ s%ould e co#posed of 9 #e#ers 3 !ustices, 3 senators fro# t%e#a!orit& part& and 3 senators fro# t%e #inorit& part&. 'ut since t%ere is onl& one #inorit&senator t%e ot%er t"o E$ #e#ers supposed to co#e fro# t%e #inorit& "ere filled in & t%e2. +oren@o assailed t%is process. o did /iosdado ecause %e dee#ed t%at if t%e E$ "ould


20/21

e do#inated & 2 senators t%en %e, as a #e#er of t%e +ieralista "ill not %ave an& c%ancein %is election contest. Cuenco et al B#e#ers of t%e 2 averred t%at t%e C cannot takecogni@ance of t%e issue ecause it is a political uestion. Cuenco argued t%at t%e po"er toc%oose t%e #e#ers of t%e E$ is vested in t%e enate alone and t%e re#ed& for +oren@o and/iosdado is not to raise t%e issue efore !udicial courts ut rat%er to leave it efore t%e ar ofpulic opinion.

ISS/: >%et%er or not t%e issue is a political uestion.'/0D: $%e C took cogni@ance of t%e case and ruled in favor of +oren@o and /iosdado. $%eter# Political 'uestionconnotes "%at it #eans in ordinar& parlance, na#el&, a uestion ofpolic&. 5t refers to t%ose uestions "%ic%, under t%e Constitution, are to e decided & t%epeople in t%eir sovereign capacit& or in regard to "%ic% full discretionar& aut%orit& %as eendelegated to t%e legislative or eecutive ranc% of t%e govern#ent. 5t is concerned "it% issuesdependent upon t%e "isdo#, not legalit&, of a particular #easure.

1. I,& (s. >a;ora

.(. 2o. 11*8 August 1- *000 LJudicial (evie" Civilian supre#ac& clauseM

FAC*S:

5nvoking %is po"ers as Co##anderinC%ief under ec 18, Art. 755 of t%e Constitution,

resident Estrada, in veral directive, directed t%e A4 C%ief of taff and 2 C%ief to

coordinate "it% eac% ot%er for t%e proper deploent and ca#paign for a te#porar& period onl&.

$%e 5' uestioned t%e validit& of t%e deploent and utili@ation of t%e )arines to assist t%e

2 in la" enforce#ent.

ISS/:

1. >o2 t%e residentGs factual deter#ination of t%e necessit& of calling t%e ar#ed forces is

su!ect to !udicial revie".

*. >o2 t%e calling of A4 to assist t%e 2 in !oint visiilit& patrols violate t%e constitutional

provisions on civilian supre#ac& over t%e #ilitar&.

R0ING:

1. $%e po"er of !udicial revie" is set fort% in ection 1, Article 7555 of t%e Constitution, to "it:

ection 1. $%e !udicial po"er s%all e vested in one upre#e Court and in suc% lo"er courts as

#a& e estalis%ed & la".

Judicial po"er includes t%e dut& of t%e courts of !ustice to settle actual controversies involving

rig%ts "%ic% are legall& de#andale and enforceale, and to deter#ine "%et%er or not t%ere %as

een grave ause of discretion a#ounting to lack or ecess of !urisdiction on t%e part of an&

ranc% or instru#entalit& of t%e overn#ent.


21/21

>%en uestions of constitutional significance are raised, t%e Court can eercise its po"er of

!udicial revie" onl& if t%e follo"ing reuisites are co#plied "it%, na#el&: B1 t%e eistence of an

actual and appropriate case B* a personal and sustantial interest of t%e part& raising t%e

constitutional uestion B3 t%e eercise of !udicial revie" is pleaded at t%e earliest opportunit&

and B t%e constitutional uestion is t%e lis #ota of t%e case.

*. $%e deploent of t%e )arines does not constitute a reac% of t%e civilian supre#ac&

clause. $%e calling of t%e )arines in t%is case constitutes per#issile use of #ilitar& assets for

civilian la" enforce#ent. $%e participation of t%e )arines in t%e conduct of !oint visiilit& patrols

is appropriatel& circu#scried. 5t is t%eir responsiilit& to direct and #anage t%e deploent of

t%e )arines. 5t is, like"ise, t%eir dut& to provide t%e necessar& euip#ent to t%e )arines and

render logistical support to t%ese soldiers. 5n vie" of t%e foregoing, it cannot e properl& argued

t%at #ilitar& aut%orit& is supre#e over civilian aut%orit&. )oreover, t%e deploent of t%e

)arines to assist t%e 2 does not un#ake t%e civilian c%aracter of t%e police force. 2eit%er

does it a#ount to an Pinsidious incursionQ of t%e #ilitar& in t%e task of la" enforce#ent inviolation of ection -B, Article

Documents

Consti 1Case Digests