lOMoARcPSD|9483460
Statcon-Module-1-Digest
Law (San Beda University)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
David v. Arroyo
Facts:
On Feb 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the Edsa People
Power 1, President Arroyo declared a state of national emergency.
Pres. GMA cited the following factual basis for declaring a state of national emergency:
o Members of the Magdalo Group indicted in the Oakwood mutiny, escaped their
detention cell, vowing to remain defiant and elude arrest at all costs. They called
upon the people to “show and proclaim our displeasure at the sham regime. Let
us demonstrate our disgust, not only by going to the streets in protest, but
also by wearing red bands on our left arms.”
o Authorities got hold of a document “Oplan Hackle 1” detailing bombings and
attacks during the PMA Alumni homecoming in Baguio City. The plot was to
assassinate Cabinet members and the President. A bomb indeed exploded.
o Lt. San Juan was recaptured in a communist safehouse. Found in his possession
were 2 flash disks containing minutes of the meetings between the Magdalo
and the NPA, a tape recorder, audio cassette cartridges, diskettes, and copies of
subservisive documents.
o Prior to Lt. San Juan’s arrest, he announced through DZRH that the “Magdalo D-
day would be on February 24,2006, the 20th Anniversary of EDSA 1”
President GMA issued PP 1107 declaring a national state of emergency. Shortly
thereafter, she issued G.O. No. 5 implementing PP 1017. (G.O. 5 called out the AFP
and PNP to prevent and suppress lawless violence and acts of terrorism)
Petitioner’s cited events after the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5
President GMA cancelled all programs and activities related to the celebration of EDSA
1 and revoked the permits to hold rallies.
Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor announced that “warrantless arrests
and take-over of facilities, including media, can already be implemented”
However, KMU, NAFLU still held rallies and public assemblies. They were
violently dispersed.
During the dispersal of rallyists, police arrested petitioner Randolf S. David, and
his companion, Ronald Llamas.
CIDG on the basis of PP 1017 and GO No 5 raided the Daily Tribune offices and
confiscated news stories, documents, pictures, and mock-ups. Shortly thereafter,
the same happened to Malaya and Abante.
Petitioner’s contention:
Constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5
Issue: Whether or not PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 is constitutional
Ruling:
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President Arroyo the authority to
promulgate decrees. Legislative power is within the province of the Legislature. Article
6, Section 1 states that “Legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representative.”
PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it allowed the take-over of privately-owned
public utility or business affected with public interest. Such action requires a delegation
from Congress.
o Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency powers. Certainly, a body
cannot delegate a power not reposed upon it.
o However, knowing that during grave emergencies, it may not be possible or
practicable for Congress to meet and exercise its powers, the Framers of our
Constitution deemed it wise to allow Congress to grant emergency powers to
the President, subject to certain conditions: (1) There must be a war or other
emergency, (2) Delegation must be for a limited period only, (3) The delegation
must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may prescribe, (4) The
emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by
Congress.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
Facts:
President Ferdinand Marcos issued PD 991 calling for a national referendum for the
Citizens Assemblies to resolve the issues of martial law, the assembly, its replacement,
the powers of such replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period
for tile exercise by the President of his present powers.
22 days thereafter, the President issued another related decree (PD 1031)
which amended PD 991 by providing for the manner of voting and canvass of
votes in barangays applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite.
Then, he issued another decree (PD 1033), stating the questions to be submitted to the
people in the referendum-plebiscite. The Decree recites in its whereas clauses that the
people’s continued opposition to the convening of the National Assembly evinces their
desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment,
providing for a legislative body, which will be submitted directly to the people in the
referendum-plebiscite. (PLEASE READ THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN THE FULL CASE)
Pablo and Pablito Sanidad seek to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting
the referendum-plebiscite and to declare without force and effect PD 991 and 1033
insofar as they propose amendments to the Constitution.
Petitioner’s contention:
The 1935 and 1973 Constitution does not grant the President to exercise the power
to propose amendments to the new Constitution.
Granting that he has legislative powers under Martial Law, the incumbent President
cannot act as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Issue: Whether or not President Marcos has power to propose and/or amend the Constitution.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition.
If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the
interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of
that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but adjunct,
although peculiar, to its gross legislative power. However, this does not mean the
President converted his office into a constituent assembly of that nature normally
constituted by the legislature. The urges of absolute necessity render it imperative
upon the President to act as agent for and in behalf of the people to propose
amendments to the Constitution.
For the President to shy away from that actuality to decline to undertake the amending
process would leave the governmental machineries at a stalemate. In these parlous
times, that Presidential initiative to reduce into concrete forms the constant voices
of the people reigns supreme. Constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions,
like the President, are mere agents of the people.
In the Philippines, a republican and unitary state, sovereignty “resides in the people
and all government authority emanates from them”
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
The concept of popular sovereignty means that the constitutional legislator, namely
the people is the sovereign. The people may thus write into the Constitution their
convictions on any subject they choose in absence of express constitutional
prohibition. The Constitution is based, therefore, upon a self-limiting decision of the
people when they adopt it.
Liang v People (Disclaimer: IDK how this relates to bicameralism)
Facts:
Petitioner is an economist working with the ADB (Asian Development Bank)
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
He was charged before the MeTC for allegedly uttering defamatory words against
his fellow worker Joyce Cabal. (2 counts of grave oral defamation)
Petitioner was arrested and his custody was turned over to the Security Officer of ADB.
The MeTC judge received an “office of protocol” from the DFA stating that petitioner is
covered by immunity from legal process.
MeTC dismissed the 2 criminal cases.
The People appealed the MeTC decision to the RTC and the RTC reversed the MeTC’s
decision. The petitioner then filed a petition arguing that he is immune from suit
before the SC.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner is immune from suit by virtue of the “office of protocol”
Ruling:
No, the petitioner is not entitled to immunity from suit. A perusal of Section 45 of the
Agreement would show that immunity does not cover unofficial acts. The immunity
in Section 45 is not absolute.
Chavez v. JBC
Facts:
The present action stemmed from the unexpected departure of former CJ
Renato Corona and the nomination of petitioner, as his potential successor.
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
Prompted by the clamor to rid the process of appointments to the Judiciary of the
evils of political pressure and partisan activities, the members of the Constitutional
Commission saw it wise to create a separate, competent and independent body to
recommend nominees to the President.
Thus, it conceived a body, representative of all the stakeholders in the
judicial appointment process and called it the Judicial and Bar Council.
From the moment of the creation of the JBC, Congress designated 1 representative to
sit in the JBC to act as one of the ex-officio members.
Pursuant to the constitutional provision that Congress is entitled to 1 representative, each
House sent a representative to the JBC, not together, but alternately or by rotation.
The 7-member composition of the JBC was substantially altered because an 8 th
member was added to the JBC as the 2 representatives from Congress began sitting
simultaneously in the JBC, with each having ½ of a vote.
Issue: Whether or not the Constitution allows 2 representatives from Congress
sitting simultaneously in the JBC
Ruling:
It is unconstitutional.
IN the interpretation of the constitutional provisions, the Court firmly relief on the
basic postulate that the Framers meant what they say. Every word employed in the
Constitution must be interpreted to exude its deliberate intent which must be
maintained inviolate against disobedience and defiance.
In opting to use the singular letter “a” to describe “representative of Congress” the
Filipino people through the Framers intended that Congress be entitled to only 1 seat
in the JBC. Had the intention been otherwise, the Constitution could have, in no
uncertain terms, so provided.
A reading of the Constitution would reveal that several provisions were indeed adjusted as
to be in tune with the shift to bicameralism. In those provisions, the bicameral nature of
Congress was recognized and, clearly, the corresponding adjustments were made as to
how a matter would be handled and voted upon by its 2 houses.
The Congress has 2 houses and the need to recognize the existence and the role of
each house is essential considering that the Constitution employs precise language in
laying down the functions which particular House plays.
Whether in the exercise of its legislative or its non-legislative functions, the dichotomy of
each House must be acknowledged and recognized considering the interplay between
these 2 Houses.
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance
Facts:
VAT (Value-Added Tax) is levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and
properties as well as or exchange of services.
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
It is equivalent to 10% of gross selling price or gross value in money of goods
or properties sold, bartered or exchanged or of the gross receipts from the
sale or exchange or services.
R.A. 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT System and enhance
its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code.
On various dates, several bills were introduced in the HoR seeking to amend certain
provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code relative to VAT. This bill was referred
to the House Ways and Means Committee which recommended for approval a
substitute measure.
This bill was considered on second and third reading and was sent to the Senate.
It was stated that the bill was being submitted in substitution of Senate Bill 1129.
The Senate began consideration of the bill. It was approved on the 2nd and 3rd reading.
The House Bill and the Senate Bill were referred to a conference committee to
consolidate the bills.
Then the bill was returned to the HoR, it was approved. Same with the Senate. It
was submitted to the President and was subsequently signed and took effect after
publication.
Petitioner’s contention:
RA 7716 did not “originate exclusively” in the HoR as required in the
Constitution because in fact it is the result of the consolidation of 2 distinct bills.
They argue that to be considered as to having originated in the House, R.A. 7716
must retain the essence of HB 11197
Issue: Whether or not the law is invalid as it did not “originate exclusively” from the Hor
as argued by petitioner
Ruling:
The law remains valid.
It is the bill – not the law that is required to originate exclusively from the House of
Representatives. A bill originating in the House may undergo extensive changes in the
Senate and may result in a rewriting of the whole. To argue otherwise would deprive
the Senate the power “to concur with amendments” but also to propose amendments
thus violating the coequality of legislative power of the 2 houses of Congress and in fact
make the House superior to the Senate.
The Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff, or tax bills,
bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application
must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that they can be expected
to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other hand, the senator,
who are elected at large, are expected to approach the same problems from the
national perspective.
The Constitution does not prohibit the Senate filing a substitute bill in anticipation of
its receipt of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate is withheld
pending receipt of the House bill.
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
In re: Cunanan
Facts:
This case is about R.A. 972 also known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953.
Considering the varying difficulties of the different bar examinations held since 1946
and the varying decree of strictness with which the examination papers were graded,
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
this court passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who obtained an average
of only:
o 72% in 1946
o 69% in 1947
o 75% in 1950-1953
Unsuccessful candidates believing themselves as fully qualified to practice law as those
reconsidered and passed by this court, those who obtained a grade lower than those
admitted, agitated Congress whom passed a bill reducing the passing general average
in the Bar Exam.
The author of R.A. 972 has for its object, to admit to the Bar those candidates
who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation.
Issue: Whether or not R.A. 972 or the Bar Flunkers act is unconstitutional
Ruling:
The law is unconstitutional.
By its declared objective, the law is contrary to public interest because it qualifies
1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of
the profession. Public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation and
efficiency, precisely more so as legal problem evolved by the times become more
difficult. To the legal profession is entrusted the protection of life, honor, and civil
liberties.
In the Philippine setting, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement
of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been
disputably a judicial function and responsibility.
Even considering the power granted to Congress by our Constitution to repeal, alter,
supplement the rules promulgated by this Court regarding the admission to the practice
of law, to our judgment and proposition that the admission, suspension, disbarment
and reinstatement of the attorneys is a legislative function, properly belonging to
Congress is unacceptable.
The power to repeal, alter and supplement the rules does not signify nor permit that
Congress substitute or take the place of this Tribunal in the exercise of its primary
power on the matter. Its power is limited to repeal, modify or supplement the existing
rules on the matter.
Being coordinate and independent branches, the power to promulgate and enforce
rules regarding the admission to the practice of law, and the concurrent power to repeal
alter and supplement them may and should be exercised with the respect that each
owes to the other.
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
Ang Nars Party List v Exec. Sec.
Facts:
Pres. GMA approved R.A. 9173 which provides that the minimum base pay of nurses
working in the public health institutions shall not be lower than salary grade 15.
Senate Pres. Juan Ponce Enrile and Speaker of the House Prospero C. Nograles approved
Joint Resolution No. 4 authorizing the President to modify the compensation and
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
position classification system of civilian personnel and the base pay schedule of
military and uniformed personnel.
Pres. GMA approved Joint Resolution No. 4 which provided that some laws,
including R.A. 9173 are amended and the others are repealed.
Rep. Paquiz wrote a letter to Secretary Ona of DOH inquiring about the non-
implementation of R.A. 9173 (Remember this is the law that said Salary Grade 15 are
for nurses)
He garnered responses that were prejudicial against him. The reply was, although the
law expressly provides for SG-15 for nurses, its implementation would distort the
hierarchical relationships of medical, and allied positions, as well as other positions in
the bureaucracy. Likewise, the proposed upgrading entry level would further strain
the government coffers.
Issue: Whether or not respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in asserting that the
entry level for government nurses should only be SG-11 and disregarding the provisions of
R.A. 9173
Ruling:
The Court upholds the validity of R.A. 9173 but dismiss the petitioners’ prayer to
compel its implementation.
Under the Constitution, only a bill becomes a law.
A joint resolution is not a bill and its passage does not enact the joint resolution into a
law even if it follows requirements prescribed in the Constitution for enacting a bill
into a law.
In any event, neither the Rules of the Senate nor the Rules of the HoR can amend
the constitution which recognizes that only a bill can become a law.
There is no language in our present Constitution, providing that a joint resolution can
be enacted into law if the same procedure for enacting a law is followed. Tha language
of the Constitution is plain, simple and clear. There is no need for interpretation.
Granting that our Constitution borrowed from the U.S. does not necessarily mean we
adopted the latter in whole. What our Constitution adopted is that a bill can be
enacted into law. The express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies
the exclusion of all others.
The Congress has no power to amend the constitutional provision to transform, at
the discretion of Congress, a joint resolution into a law by merely following the
procedure prescribed by the Constitution for the enactment of a bill into a law. The
procedure cannot be made to depend on the vagaries of every Congress.
The Court cannot grant petitioners’ prayer to compel implementation of R.A. 9173
as this needs an appropriation of public funds through a law.
Par. 16 of Joint Resolution No. 4 and Section 6 of E.O. 811 are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
Belgica v. Ochoa
Facts: (Please read in full, masyadong mahaba pag itype lahat)
The first controversy surrounding Pork Barrel erupted when former Marikina City Rep.
Romeo Candazo blew the lid on the huge sums of gov’t money that regularly went
into the pockets of legislators in the form of kickbacks.
He stated that the standard operating procudere among legislators was a
kickback between 19-52% for each project.
Other sources of kickbacks were public funds intended for medicine and textbooks.
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
The NBI probed into allegations that the gov’t has been defrauded of some 10B
Pesos over the past decade by a syindicate.
The investigation spawned and declared that JLN (Janet Lim Napoles) Corporation
had swindled billions for ghost projects using no fewer than 20 dummy NGO’s. The
money was diverted into Napoles’ private accounts. Criminal complaints were filed
before the Ombudsman.
The CoA (Commission on Audit) released a 3-year audit stating that 8.3B in PDAF and
32B in VILP were found to have been made nationwide. (Congressional Pork Barrel)
Presidential Pork Barrel alleged had at least 900M from royalties in the Malampaya
gas project has gone into a dummy NGO.
The scheme was that Congress had the discretion in identifying the project, its
funding, and its realignment.
Petitioners were seeking that the Pork Barrel System be declared unconstitutional.
Issue: Whether or not the Pork Barrel System is unconstitutional
Ruling:
Petitions are partly granted. (Partly unconstitutional)
The principle of separation of powers refers to the constitutional demarcation of the
3 fundamental powers of govt. The Congress belongs the power to make law; to the
Executive belongs the power to enforce laws; and to the judicial branch, belongs the
power to interpret laws. Each branch is supreme within its own sphere.
The concept stems from the notion that powers from the gov’t must be divided to
avoid concentration of these powers in any one branch.
There is a violation of the separation of powers principle when one branch of
gov’t unduly encroaches on the domain of another.
The enforcement of the budget is indisputably a function constitutionally assigned to the
EXECUTIVE.
The LEGISLATIVE should not cross over the field of implementing the national
budget since it is within the domain of the Executive.
The Court held in another case that: Congress enters the picture when it deliberates or
acts on the budget proposals of the president. In the exercise of its own judgment and
wisdom, formulates an appropriation act precisely following the process established by
the Constitution, which specifies that no money may be paid from the Treasury except
in accordance with an appropriation made by law.
Upon approval and passage of the GAA Congress’ law-making role necessarily comes to an
end and from there the Executive’s role of implementing the national budget begins.
However, Congress may still exercise its oversight function but must be confined to: (1)
scrutiny based primarily on Congress’ power of appropriation and the budget hearings
conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to appear
before and be heard by either House on any matter pertaining to their departments and
its power confirmation; and (2) investigation and monitoring implementation of laws
pursuant to the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed
by the Constitution.
Clearly from the acts of Congress, they overstepped their function.
Abakada Guro Party-List v Purisima
Facts:
R.A. 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of
the BIR and BOC. The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees
to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions.
Any incentive or reward is taken from the fund allocated in proportion to their
contribution in the excess collection of the targeted amount of tax revenue.
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
The DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC and the CSC were tasked to promulgate and issue
the implementing rules and regulations of R.A. 9335 to be approved by the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee.
Petitioners’ contention:
The creation of a congressional oversight committee on the ground that it violates
the separation of powers.
Issue:
Whether or not the creation of a congressional oversight committee violates the separation
of powers
Ruling:
Yes, it violates the separation of powers.
Section 12 of R.A. 9355 provides that the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee
function is to approve the implementing rules and regulations and thereafter cease
to exist.
The Court recognizes the power of oversight of the legislative which is an integral part
to the system of checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of gov’t. It is not
unconstitutional per se.
However, to forestall the danger of congressional encroachment, the Constitution
imposes 2 basic and related constraints on Congress. (1) It may not vest itself, any of
its committees or its members with either executive or judicial power, and (2) when it
exercises its legislative power, it must follow the single, finely wrought and
exhaustively considered, procedures.
Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and
interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have force of law and are
entitled to respect. Such rules and regulations partake the nature of a statute and are
just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself.
Congress, in the guise of assuming the role of an overseer, may not pass upon their
legality by subjecting them to its stamp of approval without disturbing the separation
of powers. In exercising discretion to approve or disapprove an IRR based on whether
or not they conformed to R.A. 9355, Congress arrogated judicial power unto itself, a
power exclusively vested in this Court by the Constitution.
Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate
Facts:
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9483460
Downloaded by Mary Ann Ambita (bagbaggad@gmail.com)
