SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
De Leon v. ESGUERRA
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date,
therefore, the Proisional Constitution !ust be dee!ed to hae been superseded. "#ffectiity
is i!!ediately upon ratification$
Gonzales v. COMELEC
%ature of power to a!end the Constitution or to propose a!end!ents thereto& not inherent
power of Con'ress but of the people( constituent power of Con'ress
Tolentno v. COMELEC
The condition and li!itation that all the a!end!ents to be proposed by the sa!e conention
!ust be sub!itted in a )sin'le election* or plebiscite.
I!"on# v. COMELEC
Co!petence of Con'ress actin' as Constituent +sse!bly& +uthority to call constitutional
conention as Constituent +sse!bly in enactin' i!ple!entin' details.
San$a$ v. COMELEC
,Presidential e-ercise of le'islatie powers "and proposin' a!end!ents$ is alid in !artial
law.
,+!endin' process is a soerei'n act, althou'h the authority to institute the sa!e and the
procedure to be followed reside so!ehow in a particular body "Pres. .arcos$.
Santa#o v. COMELEC
The ri'ht of the people to directly propose a!end!ents to the Constitution throu'h the
syste! of initiatie would re!ain ento!bed in a cold niche until Con'ress proides for its
i!ple!entation. /ection 2 of +rticle 0122 is not self,e-ecutin'.
La!"no v. COMELEC
#ssence of people3s initiatie& "1$ people !ust author( "2$ they !ust si'n the proposal( "4$
proposal is e!bodied in petition
CONCEPT OF STATE
%a&an vs NACOCO
The !ere fact that the 5oern!ent happens to be a !a6or stoc7holder of a corporation does
not !a7e it a public corporation.
8istinction between constituent and !inistrant functions.
P'TA vs CIR
8istinction between constituent and !inistrant functions 9 obsolete.
5oern!ent has to proide for 'eneral welfare.
Gov. o( t)e P)l. Islan$s vs. Monte $e Pe$a$
8octrine of Parens Patriae "state as 'uardian of the people$
Transfer of soerei'nty( effect on laws&
, abro'ation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted soerei'n
"political law$.
, 'reat body of !unicipal law re'ardin' priate and do!estic ri'hts continue in force until
abro'ated or chan'ed by new ruler.
Co *! C)an vs. 'al$ez Tan *e)
Continuity of :aw& :aw, once established, continues until chan'ed by so!e co!petent
le'islatie power "not chan'ed by !ere chan'e of soerei'nty$
+ll acts and proceedin's of the 4 'o. depts. of a de facto 'oern!ent are 'ood and alid.
;inds of 8e facto 'oern!ent&
"1$ de facto proper 9 'oern!ent obtained by force or oice of the !a6ority
"2$ para!ount force 9 by !ilitary forces who inade the territory
"4$ independent 'oern!ent 9 established by inhabitants throu'h insurrection
<epublic of the Philippines "durin' =apanese occupation$ was a de facto 'oern!ent.
Peo+le vs Gozo
Principle of +uto,li!itation& Extent of Philippine sovereignty over American bases
Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine
territory.
La,-el vs Msa
%ature of +lle'iance to soerei'n& +bsolute and per!anent
#ffect of ene!y occupation& soerei'nty of the 'oern!ent 9 not transferred to occupier
R,((. v C)e( o( Sta((
The rule that laws of political nature or affectin' political relations are considered superseded
or held in abeyance durin' the !ilitary occupation, is intended for the 'oernin' of the ciil
inhabitants of the occupied territory and not for the ene!ies in ar!s.
STATE IMMUNITY
San$e-s v 'e-$ano
.ere alle'ation that a 'oern!ent functionary is bein' sued in his personal capacity will not
auto!atically re!oe hi! fro! the protection of the laws of public officers and doctrine of state
i!!unity
8octrine of state i!!unity applicable also to other states.
Re+,"l& v San$oval
/tate cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the incident( liability should fall on the
public officers who co!!itted acts beyond their authority
4 instances when suit is proper&
1. when sued by its na!e
2. when unincorporated 'oern!ent a'ency is sued
4. when the suit is a'ainst a 'oern!ent e!ployee but liability belon's to the 'oern!ent
Feste/o v Fe-nan$o
>fficer or e!ployee co!!ittin' the tort is personally liable and !aybe sued as any other
citi?en and held answerable for whateer in6ury
USA vs G,nto
+ state !ay be said to hae descended to the leel of an indiidual and can thus be dee!ed to
hae tacitly 'ien its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.
'ete-ans Man+o0e- vs CA
The state is dee!ed to hae 'ien tacitly its consent to be sued when it enters into a contract.
@oweer, it does not apply where the contract relates to the e-ercise of its soerei'n functions.
T)e Me--tt vs Gov1t o( t)e P)l
By consentin' to be sued, a state si!ply waies its i!!unity fro! suit. 2t does not thereby
concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his faor, or e-tend its liability
to any cause not preiously reco'ni?ed. 2t !erely 'ies re!edy to enforce a pre,e-istin' liability
and sub!it itself to the 6urisdiction of the court, sub6ect to its ri'ht to interpose any lawful
defense.
A!#a"le vs. C,en&a
The 'oern!ent, when it ta7es away a property fro! a priate land owner for public use
without 'oin' throu'h the le'al process of e-propriation or ne'otiated sale, the a''rieed
party !ay properly !aintain a suit a'ainst the 'oern!ent without thereby iolatin' the
doctrine of 'oern!ental i!!unity fro! suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetratin'
in6ustice to a citi?en.
Re+,"l& vs. San$#an"a.an
Ahen the state files an action, it diests itself of the soerei'n character and shed its i!!unity
for! suit, descendin' to the leel of an ordinary liti'ant.
Re+,"l& vs. Fel&ano
, failure to alle'e in the co!plaint the e-istence of consent by the /tate is a fatal defect
"construction !ust be strict a'ainst confer!ent of waier
, 2!!unity !ay be ino7ed by the courts at any pointBsta'e of the proceedin's.
USA vs. R,z
Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states& /tates !ay be sued when the
proceedin's arise out of co!!ercial transactions of the forei'n soerei'n.
T)e Hol. See v Rosa-o2 3-.
Pursuant to the 19C1 1ienna Conention on 8iplo!atic <elations, a diplo!atic enoy is
'ranted i!!unity fro! the ciil and ad!inistratie 6urisdiction of the receiin' state oer any real
action relatin' to priate i!!oable property situated in the territory of the receiin' state which
the enoy holds on behalf of the sendin' state for the purposes of the !ission
Re+,"l& vs. 'llaso-
, =ud'!ent a'ainst the /tate cannot be enforced by e-ecution. 2t !ay li!it clai!antDs action
only up to the co!pletion of proceedin's anterior to the state of e-ecution. Power of courts
end when 6ud'!ent is rendered. Esuability s. liabilityF
, Functions and public serices cannot be allowed to be paraly?ed or disrupted by the
disruption of public funds.
De+a-t!ent o( A#-&,lt,-e vs. NLRC
%ot all contracts entered into by the 'oern!ent operate as a waier of its non,suability.
8istinction !ust still be !ade between one which is e-ecuted in the e-ercise of its soerei'n
function and another which is done in the proprietary capacity.
/tate 'ies consent upon !oneyed clai! arisin' fro! contract.
PN% vs. Pa"alan
/tate i!!unity fro! suit cannot be alidly ino7ed with re'ard to funds of public corporations.
Esuable corporationsF Public funds of corporations which can sue and be sued are not e-e!pt
fro! 'aarnish!ent.
Ra.o vs. CFI o( %,la&an
The character of an incorporated a'ency allows it to sue and be sued without Gualification
%,-ea, o( P-ntn# vs. %,-ea, o( P-ntn# E!+lo.ees Asso&.
+cceptance of outside wor7 and pay!ent of oerti!e co!pensation does not !a7e wor7 of
Bureau of Printin' proprietary.
%on,suability of the /tate is aailable to the a'ency een if it is shown that it is en'a'ed not only
in 'oern!ental functions but also, incidentally, in proprietary enterprises "unincorporated
a'ency$.
Mo"l P)ls. E4+lo-aton2 In&. vs. CA
2f an a'encyHs function is dee!ed proprietary, if such is a necessary incident of the pri!ary
and 'o. function of such a'ency, such a'ency is not suable "for an unincorporated a'ency
only$.
Cvl Ae-ona,t&s A$!nst-aton v. Co,-t o( A++eals
, %ot all 'oern!ent entities whether corporate or not are i!!une fro! suits. 2!!unity fro!
suits is deter!ined by the character of the ob6ects for which the entity was or'ani?ed.
, /uits a'ainst /tate a'encies with relation to !atters in which they hae assu!ed to act in
priate or non,'oern!ental capacity, and arious suits a'ainst certain corporations created
by the /tate to en'a'e 2n !atters parta7in' !ore of the nature of ordinary business are not
re'arded as suits a'ainst the /tate.
M,n&+alt. o( San Fe-nan$o2 La Unon v. 3,$#e F-!e
The test of liability of the !unicipality depends on whether or not the drier actin' in behalf of
the !unicipality is perfor!in' 'oern!ental or proprietary functions. 2t has already been
re!ar7ed that !unicipal corporations are suable because their charters 'rant the! the
co!petence to sue and be sued. %eertheless, they are 'enerally not liable for torts
co!!itted by the! in the dischar'e of 'oern!ental functions and can be held answerable
only if it can be shown that they were actin' in a proprietary capacity. 2n per!ittin' such
entities to be sued, the state !erely 'ies the clai!ants the ri'ht to show the defendant was
not actin' in its 'oern!ental capacity when the in6ury was inflicted or that the case co!es
under the e-ceptions reco'ni?ed by law. Failin' this, the clai!ants cannot recoer.
M,n&+alt. o( San M#,el2 %,la&an v. Fe-nan$ez
.unicipal funds in possession of !unicipal and proincial treasurers are public funds e-e!pt
fro! e-ecution. .unicipal funds are held in trust for the people intended and used for the
acco!plish!ents of the purposes for which !unicipal corporations are created and that to
sub6ect said properties and public funds to e-ecution would !aterially i!pede, een defeat
and in so!e instance destroy said purposes.
M,n&+alt. o( Ma5at v. Co,-t o( A++eals
Ahen a !unicipality fails or refuses without 6ustifiable reason to effect pay!ent of a final
!oney 6ud'!ent rendered a'ainst it, the clai!ant !ay aail of the re!edy of !anda!us in
order to co!pel the enact!ent and approal of the necessary appropriation ordinance and the
correspondin' disburse!ent of !unicipal funds.
F,n$a!ental P-n&+les an$ State Pol&es
Se&ton 1
'llav&en&o v. L,5"an6
.ayorDs act is unconstitutional. 2t was not authori?ed by any law or ordinance. )>ur
'oern!ent is a 'oern!ent of laws and not of !en.*
Se&ton 7
*,-o$a v. 3alan$on6
thin7 =apanese :ieutenant,5eneral char'ed before the !ilitary co!!ission.
Hel$6 The Philippines can adopt the rules and re'ulations laid down on the @a'ue and
5enea Conentions notwithstandin' that it is not a si'natory thereto. 2t e!bodied 'enerally
accepted principles of international law bindin' upon all states.
A#,stn v. E$,6
thin7 trian'ular reflectori?ed early warnin' deices.
Hel$6 :e'islatie enact!ent is not necessary in order to authori?e the issuance of :>2
prescribin' the use of trian'ular reflectori?ed early warnin' deices. This is also an
illustration of 'enerally accepted principles of international law "Pacta sunt seranda$.
I&)on# v. He-nan$ez6
thin7 <etail Trade %ationali?ation :aw which is a'ainst the principle of Pacta sunt
seranda.Hel$6 the <etail Trade %ationali?ation :aw is not unconstitutional because it was
passed in the e-ercise of the police power which cannot be bar'ained away throu'h the
!ediu! of a treaty.
Gonzales v. He&)anova6
Prealence of %ational or .unicipal law oer 2nternational law& Constitution authori?es the
nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the funda!ental law, but also when it
runs counter to an act of Con'ress.
In -e Ga-&a
+ treaty cannot !odify re'ulations 'oernin' ad!ission to Philippine bar "that would be an
encroach!ent upon /upre!e Court by the #-ecutie$

Se&ton 8
I%P vs. 9a!o-a
the deploy!ent of the .arines does not constitute a breach of the ciilian supre!acy clause.
The callin' of the !arines in this case constitutes per!issible use of !ilitary asset for ciilian
law enforce!ent. - x x The li!ited participation of the .arines is eident in the proisions of
the :etter of 2nstruction ":>2$ itself, which sufficiently proides the !etes and bounds of the
.arinesD authority. 2t is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones char'e of the
isibility patrols at all ti!es, the real authority belon'in' to the P%P. 2n fact, the .etro .anila
Police Chief is the oerall leader of the P%P,.arines 6oint isibility patrols.
Inder the :>2, the police forces are tas7ed to brief or orient the soldiers on police patrol
procedures. 2t is their responsibility to direct and !ana'e the deploy!ent of the
!arines. 2t is, li7ewise, their duty to proide the necessary eGuip!ent to the .arines
and render lo'istic support to these soldiers. 2n iew of the fore'oin', it cannot be
properly ar'ued that !ilitary authority is supre!e oer ciilian authority.
2t is worth !entionin' that !ilitary assistance to ciilian authorities in arious
for!s persists in Philippine 6urisdiction. The Philippine e-perience reeals that it is not
aerse to reGuestin' the assistance of the !ilitary in the i!ple!entation and e-ecution
of certain traditionally )ciil* functions. - - - /o!e of the !ultifarious actiities wherein
!ilitary aid has been rendered, e-e!plifyin' the actiities that brin' both the ciilian and
the !ilitary to'ether in a relationship of cooperation are&
1. #lections(
2. +d!inistration of the Philippine %ational <ed Cross(
4. <elief and rescue operations durin' cala!ities and disasters(
J. +!ateur sports pro!otion and deelop!ent(
K. 8eelop!ent of the culture and the arts(
C. Conseration of the natural resources(
7. 2!ple!entation of the a'rarian refor! pro'ra!(
8. #nforce!ent of custo!s laws(
9. Co!posite ciilian,!ilitary law enforce!ent actiities(
1L. Conduct of licensure e-a!inations(
11. Conduct of nationwide test for ele!entary and hi'h school students(
12. +nti,dru' enforce!ent actiities(
14. /anitary inspections(
1J. Conduct of census wor7(
1K. +d!inistration of the Ciil +eronautic Board(
1C. +ssistance in installation of weather forecastin' deices(
17. Peace and order policy for!ulation in local 'oern!ent units.
This unGuestionably constitutes a 'loss on e-ecutie power resultin' fro! a
syste!atic, unbro7en, e-ecutie practice, lon' pursued to the 7nowled'e of Con'ress
and, yet, neer before Guestioned. Ahat we hae here is a !utual support and
cooperation between the !ilitary and ciilian authorities, not dero'ation of ciilian
supre!acy.
Se&ton :
Peo+le vs. La#!an
, Case at bar& accused is prosecuted for failure to re'ister for !ilitary serice under the
%ational 8efense +ct
, /C upheld the %ational 8efense +ct. To leae an or'ani?ation of an ar!y to the will of the
citi?ens would be to !a7e this duty of the 5oern!ent e-cusable should there be no
sufficient !en who olunteer to enlist therein.
Se&ton ;
C)avez vs. Ro!,lo
<i'ht to bear ar!s& 2t is statutory and not a constitutional ri'ht. The license to carry a firear!
is neither a property nor a property ri'ht. %either does it create a ested ri'ht. #en if it were
a property ri'ht, it cannot be considered absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of police
power. The !aintenance of peace and order, and the protection of the people a'ainst
iolence are constitutional duties of the /tate, and the ri'ht to bear firear! is to be construed
in connection and in har!ony with these constitutional duties.

Se&ton <
A#l+a. vs. R,z
,There is no iolation of the principle of the separation of church and state. The issuance and
sale of the sta!ps in Guestion !ay be said to be lin7ed with an eent of a reli'ious character,
but the resultin' propa'anda, if any, receied by the Catholic Church, was not the ai! and
purpose of the 'oern!ent. The idea behind the issuance of the posta'e sta!ps was to
attract tourists to our country and not pri!arily the reli'ious eent.
, Ahat is 'uaranteed by our Constitution is reli'ious liberty , not !ere reli'ious toleration.
@oweer, reli'ious freedo! is not inhibition of profound reerence for reli'ion and is not a
denial of its influence in hu!an affairs.
A,st-a vs. NLRC
an ecclesiastical affair inoles the relationship between the church and its !e!bers and
relates to !atter of faith, reli'ious doctrines, worship and 'oernance of the con're'ation.
#-a!ples of these affairs in which the /tate cannot !eddle are proceedin's for
e-co!!unication, ordination of reli'ious !inisters, ad!inistration of sacra!ents, and other
actiities to which is attached reli'ious si'nificance. 2n this case, what is inoled is the
relationship of the church as an e!ployer and the !inister as an e!ployee. 2t is purely
secular and has no relation whatsoeer with the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of the
church.
Se&ton 1=
Calalan# vs. Wlla!s
,/ocial 6ustice is neither co!!unis!, nor despotis!, nor ato!is!, nor anarchy, but the
hu!ani?ation of laws and the eGuali?ation of social and econo!ic forces by the /tate so that
6ustice in its rational and ob6ectiely secular conception !ay at least be appro-i!ated. /ocial
6ustice !eans the pro!otion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the 5oern!ent
of !easures calculated to insure econo!ic stability of all the co!petent ele!ents of society,
throu'h the !aintenance of a proper econo!ic and social eGuilibriu! in the interrelations of
the !e!bers of the co!!unity, constitutionally, throu'h the adoption of !easures le'ally
6ustifiable, or e-tra,constitutionally, throu'h the e-ercise of powers underlyin' the e-istence
of all 'oern!ents on the ti!e,honored principle of salus populi est supre!a le-. /ocial
6ustice, therefore, !ust be founded on the reco'nition of the necessity of interdependence
a!on' diers and dierse units of a society and of the protection that should be eGually and
eenly e-tended to all 'roups as a co!bined force in our social and econo!ic life, consistent
with the funda!ental and para!ount ob6ectie of the state of pro!otin' the health, co!fort,
and Guiet of all persons, and of brin'in' about Mthe 'reatest 'ood to the 'reatest nu!ber.*
Al!e$a vs. CA
,There e-ists a tenantDs ri'ht of rede!ption in su'ar and coconut lands. Pursuant to
+'ricultural :and <efor! Code of 19C4, it reco'ni?es share tenancy in su'ar lands which is
in consonance with the /tateDs pro!otion of social 6ustice wherein it !ay )re'ulate the
acGuisition, ownership, use, en6oy!ent and disposition of priate property, and eGuitably
diffuse propertyNownership and profits.*
On$o. .vs. I#na&o
,The principle of social 6ustice applied in this case is a !atter of protection, not eGuality. The
Court reco'ni?ed the ri'ht of the petitioner to the clai! of co!pensation because her son
was shown to hae died while )in the actual perfor!ance of his wor7.* To stren'then the
constitutional sche!e of social 6ustice and protection to labor, The Court !ade !ention that
)as between a laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the e!ployer, who has resources to
secure able le'al adice, the law has reason to de!and fro! the latter the stricter
co!pliance.*
Salon#a vs. Fa--ales
,The plea of social 6ustice of the plaintiff cannot be considered because it was shown that no
contract, either to sell or of sale, was eer perfected between hi! and the defendant. 2t !ust
be re!e!bered that social 6ustice cannot be ino7ed to tra!ple on the ri'hts of property
owners who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social 6ustice
consecrated in our Constitution was not intended to ta7e away ri'hts fro! a person and 'ie
the! to another who is not entitled thereto.
Se&ton 17
Me.e- vs. Ne"-as5a
2t is inco!petent for the 'oern!ent to prohibit the teachin' of a forei'n lan'ua'e to
students. There is nothin' har!ful in the lan'ua'e that will i!pair the upbrin'in' of the child.
Pe-&e vs. So&et. o( Sste-s
/tate !ay not reGuire children to attend only public schools. The child is not a creature of the
/tate.
'-t,o,so vs. M,n&+al 3,$#e
Oouthful >ffender& + person char'ed with an offense but found to be a youthful offender
could be proisionally released on reco'ni?ance at courtDs decision.
Se&ton 1:
PT>T Co. vs. NLRC
the /C held that the petitionerDs policy of not acceptin' or considerin' as disGualified fro!
wor7 any wo!an wor7er who contracts !arria'e, runs afoul of the test of, and the ri'ht
a'ainst, discri!ination, which is 'uaranteed all wo!en wor7ers under the Constitution. Ahile
a reGuire!ent that a wo!an e!ployee !ust re!ain un!arried !ay be 6ustified as a )bona
fide occupational Gualification* where the particular reGuire!ents of the 6ob would de!and
the sa!e, discri!ination a'ainst !arried wo!en cannot be adopted by the e!ployer as a
'eneral principle.
Se&ton 1<
O+osa vs. Fa&to-an
E2nter'enerational <esponsibility B 2nter'enerational =usticeF the 4J !inors duly 6oined by
their respectie parents pleadin' the cause of )inter,'enerational responsibility* and )inter,
'enerational 6ustice*, had a alid cause of action in Guestionin' the 'rant of Ti!ber :icensin'
+'ree!ents "T:+s$ for co!!ercial lo''in' purposes. The !inors filed the action for
the!seles as representin' )their 'eneration as well as 'enerations yet unborn*. The /C, on
the basis of /ection 1C, +rticle 22 lin7ed with the ri'ht to health, reco'ni?ed a )ri'ht to a
balanced and healthful ecolo'y* and )the correlatie duty to refrain fro! i!pairin' the
eniron!ent*.
LLDA v. CA
The i!!ediate response to the de!ands of necessities of protectin' ital public interests
'ies itality to the state!ent on ecolo'y e!bodied in the 8eclaration of Principles and /tate
Policies of the 1987 Constitution. +rticle 22, /ection 1C. +s a constitutionally 'uaranteed ri'ht
of eery person, it carries the correlatie duty of non,i!pair!ent. This is but the consonance
with the declared policy of the state to protect and pro!ote the ri'ht to health of the people
and instill health consciousness a!on' the!.
C>M T!"e- Co-+o-aton vs. Al&ala
>n the issue that the )total lo' ban* is a new policy which should be applied prospectiely
and not affect the ri'hts of petitioner ested under the Ti!ber :icensin' +'ree!ent "T:+$,
the /c held that this is not a new policy but a !ere reiteration of the policy of conseration
and protection the ri'ht to a balanced and healthful ecolo'y.
Se&ton 1?
PRC vs. De G,z!an
while it is true that the /C has upheld the constitutional ri'ht of eery citi?en to select a
profession or course of study sub6ect to fair, reasonable, and eGuitable ad!ission and
acade!ic reGuire!ents, the e-ercise of this ri'ht !ay be re'ulated pursuant to the police
power of the /tate to safe'uard health, !orals, peace, education, order, safety and 'eneral
welfare. Thus, persons who desire to en'a'e in the learned professions reGuirin' scientific or
technical 7nowled'e !ay be reGuired to ta7e an e-a!ination as a prereGuisite to en'a'in' in
their chosen careers. This re'ulation assu!es particular pertinence in the field of !edicine,
in order to protect the public fro! the potentially deadly effects of inco!petence and
i'norance.
PMMS2 In&. vs. CA
the Court said that the reGuire!ent that a school !ust first obtain 'oern!ent authori?ation
before operatin' is based on the /tate policy that educational pro'ra!s andBor operations
shall be of 'ood Guality and, therefore, shall at least satisfy !ini!u! standards with respect
to curricula, teachin' staff, physical plant and facilities and ad!inistratie and !ana'e!ent
iability.
Se&ton 1@
%e-na-$o vs. NLRC
The /C held that the .a'na Carta for 8isabled Persons !andates that Gualified disabled
persons be 'ranted the sa!e ter!s and conditions of e!ploy!ent as Gualified able bodied
e!ployees( thus, once hey hae attained the status of re'ular wor7ers, they should be
accorded all the benefits 'ranted by law, notwithstandin' written or erbal contracts to the
contrary. This treat!ent is rooted not !erely in charity or acco!!odation, but in 6ustice for
all.
Se&ton 1A
Ga-&a vs. %OI
B>2 co!!itted 'rae abuse of discretion because it repudiates the independent policy of
'oern!ent to run its affairs the way it dee!s best for the national interest.
#ery proision of the Constitution on the national econo!y and patri!ony is infused with
the spirit of national interest. The non,alienation of national resources, the /tate full control
oer the deelop!ent and utili?ation of contributions to the econo!ic 'rowth and 'eneral
welfare of the country and the re'ulation of forei'n inest!ent in accordance to national
'oals and priorities are too e-plicit not to be noticed and understood.
Se&ton 7=
Asso&aton o( P)l++ne Co&on,t Des&&ato-s vs. PCA,
the /C said that althou'h the Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it
neertheless reseres to the 5oern!ent the power to interene wheneer necessary for the
pro!otion of the 'eneral welfare as reflected in /ections C P 19 of +rticle 022.
Pest Mana#e!ent Asso&aton o( t)e P)l++nes vs. Fe-tlze- an$ Pest&$e
A,t)o-t., and P)a-!a&e,t&al an$ Healt)
Ca-e Asso&aton o( t)e P)l++nes vs. Se&. D,B,e III
8espite the fact that )our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy*, it
neertheless reseres to the 5oern!ent the power to interene wheneer necessary to
pro!ote the 'eneral welfare. Free enterprise does not call for re!oal of Hprotectie
re'ulationsD. 2t !ust be clearly e-plained and proen by co!petent eidence 6ust e-actly how
such protectie re'ulation would result in the restraint of trade.
Se&ton 71
ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM
#!inent do!ain is an inherent power of the /tate that enables it to forcibly acGuire priate
lands intended for public use upon pay!ent of 6ust co!pensation to the owner. Priate
ri'hts !ust yield to the irresistible de!ands of the public interest on the ti!e,honored
6ustification, as in the case of the policed power, that the welfare of the people is the
supre!e law.
Se&ton 7;
%ASCO 'S PAGCOR
:ocal +utono!y under 1987 Constitution si!ply !eans the decentrali?ation and does not
!a7e the local 'oern!ents soerei'n within the /tate or an i!periu! i!perio.
LIM%ONA 'S MANGELIN
8ecentrali?ation of ad!inistration is !erely dele'ation of ad!inistratie powers to the :5Is
in order to broaden the base of 'oern!ental power. 8ecentrali?ation of power is the
abdication by the national 'oern!ent powers.
Se&ton 7<
Pa!aton# vs. COMELEC
, There is no constitutional ri'ht to run for or hold public office and, particularly, to see7 the
presidency. Ahat is reco'ni?ed is !erely a priile'e sub6ect to li!itations i!posed by law.
/ection 2C, +rticle 22 of the Constitution neither bestows such a ri'ht nor eleates the
priile'e to the leel of an enforceable ri'ht. There is nothin' in the plain lan'ua'e of the
proision which su''ests such a thrust or 6ustifies an interpretation of the sort. The MeGual
accessM proision is a subsu!ed part of +rticle 22 of the Constitution, entitled M8eclaration of
Principles and /tate Policies.M The proisions under the +rticle are 'enerally considered not
self,e-ecutin', and there is no plausible reason for accordin' a different treat!ent to the
MeGual accessM proision. :i7e the rest of the policies enu!erated in +rticle 22, the proision
does not contain any 6udicially enforceable constitutional ri'ht but !erely specifies a
'uideline for le'islatie or e-ecutie action. The disre'ard of the proision does not 'ie rise
to any cause of action before the courts.
Se&ton 8=
Le#s+ vs CSC
The constitutional ri'ht to infor!ation on !atters of public concern is self,e-ecutin' without
the need for any ancillary act of le'islation.
'al!onte vs $e 'lla
The constitutional ri'ht to infor!ation is li!ited on !atters of public concern and is further
sub6ect to such li!itations as !ay be proided by law. @oweer, althou'h citi?ens are
afforded the ri'ht to infor!ation, the Constitution does not accord the! the ri'ht to co!pel
the custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, su!!aries and the li7e in their
desire to acGuire infor!ation of public concern.
AB,noCSa-!ento vs Mo-ato
, Ahen a co!!ittee or board is created as public in its ery e-istence and character such as
the .T<CB, there can be no alid clai! to priacy. @ere, decisions of Board and indiidual
otin' slips are public in character.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
In -e Manzano
, .e!bers of the /C and other courts shall not be desi'nated to any a'ency perfor!in'
Guasi,6udicial or ad!inistratie functions.
, The co!!ittee perfor!s ad!inistratie functionQ which under /ection 12, +rticle 1222 of the
Constitution prohibits !e!bers of the /C and other courts established by law to be
desi'nated to any a'ency perfor!in' Guasi,6udicial or ad!inistratie functions. To Guote C=
Fernando in 5arcia s. .acarai', he said that !hile the doctrine of separation of po!ers is
a relative theory not to be enforced !ith pedantic rigor" the practical demands of government
precluding its doctrine application" it cannot #ustify a member of the #udiciary being re$uired
to assume a position or perform a duty non%#udicial in character.&
Administrative functions are those !hich involves the regulation and control the conduct
and affairs of individuals for their o!n !elfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations
to better carry out the policy of the legislative or such as are devolved upon the
administrative agency by the organic la! of its existence.
An#a-a vs. Ele&to-al Co!!sson
, /eparation of powers as actual diision than obtained throu'h e-press proision
, =udiciary is the only Constitutional +rbiter to allocate Constitutional Boundaries
, =udicial /upre!acy R supre!acy of the Constitution asserted by the 6udiciary "not
supre!acy of the 6udiciary itself$
, =udicial <eiew is li!ited to +ctual :iti'ation. =udiciary does not pass upon Guestions of
wisdo!, 6ustice or e-pediency of liti'ation.
, The #lectoral Co!!ission is an independent, i!partial, and non,partisan tribunal. The sole
power to deter!ine contests re'ardin' the elections, returns, and Gualifications of the
!e!bers of the %ational +sse!bly has been transferred in totality to the #lectoral
Co!!ission. 2ts power is clear, co!plete, and e-clusie.
Easte-n S)++n# Lnes2 In&. vs. POEA
, :e'islatie discretion as to the substantie contents of the law cannot be dele'ated. Ahat
can be dele'ated is the discretion to deter!ine how the law !ay be enforced.
, Co!pleteness test and /ufficient /tandard Test&
Co!pleteness Test R co!plete in all its ter!s and conditions when it leaes the le'islature
such that what is left is !erely its enforce!ent.
/ufficient /tandard Test R adeGuate 'uidelines or li!itations in the law to !ap out the
boundaries of the dele'ateDs authority and preent the dele'ation fro! runnin' riot.
, /ubordinate :e'islation R dele'ated power to issue rules to carry out the 'eneral proision
of the statute. "+d!inistratie bodies i!ple!ent the broad policies by pro!ul'atin' their
supple!entary re'ulations.$
Cas"an# vs. AB,no
, Political Suestion R Guestion of policy( Guestion to be decided by the people in their
soerei'n capacity or full discretionary authority
, =usticiable Suestion R i!plies a 'ien ri'ht, le'ally de!andable and enforceable( an act or
o!ission iolatie of such ri'ht, and a re!edy, 'ranted or sanctioned by law for said breach
of ri'ht.
San$a$ v. COMELEC
>n whether the case is 6usticiable
Political Guestions are associated with the wisdo! of the le'ality of a particular act. Ahere
the orte- of the controersy refers to the le'ality or alidity of the contested act, that !atter
is definitely 6usticiable or non,political. 2f the Constitution proides how it !ay be a!ended,
the 6udiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure
followed or the authority assu!ed was alid or not.
>n whether the President !ay propose Constitutional a!end!ents
2f the President has been le'iti!ately dischar'in' the le'islatie functions of the interi!
+sse!bly, there is no reason why he cannot alidly dischar'e the function of that +sse!bly
to propose a!end!ents to the Constitution, which is but an ad6unct, althou'h peculiar, to its
'ross le'islatie power.
"%ote that at the ti!e Pre?. .arcos had le'islatie powers and there was no le'islatie
depart!ent at the ti!e$
Daza v. Sn#son
Ahere the le'ality or alidity of the act is in Guestion and not the wisdo! of the act, the Court
!ay ta7e 6urisdiction and decide on the actsD alidity. #en in political Guestions the Court
!ay ta7e 6urisdiction under the e-panded 6udicial power e-tended to it by +rt 8 /ec. 1 of the
Constitution.
")=udicial power includes the duty to settle actual controersies inolin' ri'hts which are
le'ally de!andable and enforceable, and to determine !hether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac' or excess of #urisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of Government.&(
Dele#aton o( Po0e-s
Ga-&a v. E4e&. Se&-eta-.
The Con'ress !ay authori?e the President to fi- tariff rates and duties sub6ect to such
li!itations and restrictions that they !ay i!pose. This is e-pressly proided for in +rt C, /ec
28 par 2 of the Constitution.
A-aneta v. Dn#lasan
The dele'ation of e!er'ency powers by Con'ress to the President !ay be li!ited by
Con'ress sub6ect to restrictions it !ay proide. Con'ress !ay withdraw the dele'ated power
at any ti!e. 2n this case, the e!er'ency power was withdrawn at the ti!e Con'ress beca!e
able to e-ercise its le'islatie duties a'ain.
Easte-n S)++n# Lnes vs. POEA
The principle of non,dele'ation of powers is applicable to all three branches of 'oern!ent
specifically in the case of the le'islatie. Ahat can be dele'ated is the discretion to
deter!ine how the law !ay be enforced and not what the law shall be since the
ascertain!ent of the latter sub6ect is within the prero'atie and deter!ination of the
le'islature. 8ele'ation of le'islatie power is per!itted and alid proided that is passes the
two accepted tests, co!pleteness test and the sufficient standard test. The reason for such
dele'ation is the increasin' co!ple-ity of the tas7 of the 'oern!ent and the 'rowin'
inability of the le'islature to cope directly with the !yriad proble!s de!andin' its attention.
Ro$-#,ez v. Gella
+ct %o. C71 was e-pressly in pursuance of the constitutional li!itation of the dele'ation of
e!er'ency powers. 2t is presu!ed that the %ational +sse!bly intended it to be for a li!ited
period. #-ecutie >rders %os. KJK and KJC, which was anchored to the said +ct are
declared null and oid and the respondents are ordered to desist fro! appropriatin',
releasin' and allottin' e-pendin' funds set aside therein.
Peo+le v. 'e-a
+ct %o. J221 is tanta!ount to an undue dele'ation of le'islatie power. The powers of the
'oern!ent are distributed a!on' three coordinate and substantially independent or'ans&
the le'islatie, the e-ecutie and the 6udicial. #ach of the depart!ents of the 'oern!ent
deries its authority fro! the Constitution.
US vs. An# Tan# Ho
2f the act within itself does not define a cri!e and is not co!plete, le'islatie act re!ains to
be done to !a7e it a law or a cri!e, the doin' of which is ested in the 5o, 'enerally, the
act is a dele'ation of le'islatie power, and is thus unconstitutional and oid.
Ynot vs. IAC
There is no standard that the officials !ust obsere in deter!inin' to who! to distribute the
confiscated carabaos and carabeef. There is thus an inalid dele'ation of le'islatie power.
Ta"la-n vs. G,te-ez
Because the necessity standards are set forth in the statute "<+ %o. 2484$, proidin' for
standardi?ation and re'ulation of education, dele'ation is alid.
Pelaez vs. A,$to- Gene-al
The two tests "Co!pleteness test and /ufficient /tandard test$ !ust be applied to'ether.
A"a5a$a G,-o Pa-t. Lst vs. E-!ta
Ahere the effectiity of the law is !ade dependent on the erification by the e-ecutie of the
e-istence of certain conditions, the erification is dele'ated to the e-ecutie. "This is an e-a!ple of
contingent legislation , a alid dele'ation of law e-ecution$.
LEGISLATI'E DEPARTMENT
Se&ton ;
To"as v. A"alos
The creation of a new con'ressional district is but a natural conseGuence of a !unicipalityDs
conersion into a city. The Constitution proides that )a city should hae a population of at
least 2KL,LLL* and is entitled to at least 1 representatie.
Ma-ano 3-. v. Co!ele&
+s decided in Tobias . +balos, the Constitution proides that the co!positions of the @ouse
should not be !ore than 2KL !e!bers, unless otherwise proided by law. The natural result
in the creation of a new le'islatie fro! a special law whose purpose is to conert a
!unicipality into a city is sanctioned by the Constitution.
Monte/o v. Co!ele&
The Co!elec has no power to reapportion districts but only to !a7e !inor ad6ust!ents.
<epublic +ct %o. 79J1 )+n act proidin' for the election of the party,list representaties
throu'h the party,list syste! and appropriatin' funds therefro!.
Se&ton 18
9an$,eta vs. De la Costa
Ahen a 6ud'e of first instance, presidin' oer a branch of a Court of First 2nstance of a
6udicial district by irtue of a le'al and alid appoint!ent, accepts another appoint!ent to
preside oer the sa!e branch of the sa!e Court of First 2nstance, in addition of another
Court of First 2nstance to the old one, enters into the dischar'e of the functions of his new
office and receies the correspondin' salary, he abandons his old office and cannot clai! to
be entitled to repossess it or Guestion the constitutionality of the law by irtue of which his
new appoint!ent has been issued( and, said new appoint!ent hain' been disapproed by
the Co!!ission on +ppoint!ents of the %ational +sse!bly, neither can he clai! to continue
occupyin' the office conferred upon hi! by said new appoint!ent, hain' ipso 6ure ceased
in the dischar'e of the functions thereof.
Se&ton 1:
P,.at vs. De G,z!an
%o .e!ber of the Batasan' Pa!bansa shall appear as counsel before any court without
appellate 6urisdiction, before any court in any ciil case wherein the 5oern!ent, or any
subdiision, a'ency, or instru!entality thereof is the aderse party, or in any cri!inal case
wherein any officer or e!ployee of the 5oern!ent is accused of an offense co!!itted in
relation to his office,or before any ad!inistratie body.
%either shall he, directly or indirectly be interested financially in any contract with, or in any
franchise or special priile'e 'ranted by the 5oern!ent, or any subdiision, a'ency or
instru!entality thereof, includin' any 'oern!ent,owned or controlled corporation, durin' his
ter! of office.
@e shall not accept e!ploy!ent to interene in any cause or !atter where he !ay be called
to act on account of his office.
Se&ton 1<
Santa#o vs. G,n#ona2 3-.
Ahere no proision of the Constitution, the laws or een the rules of the /enate has been
clearly shown to hae been iolated, disre'arded or oerloo7ed, 'rae abuse of discretion
cannot be i!puted to /enate officials for acts done within their co!petence and authority.
Avelno vs. C,en&o
The constitutional 'rant to the /enate of the power to elect its own president should not be
interfered with, nor ta7en oer, by the 6udiciary.
Ahen the constitution declares that a ma#ority of each )ouse& shall constitute a $uorum, it
does not !ean all of its !e!bers. .a6ority of all the !e!bers constitute the @ouse. @ence,
12 senators who unani!ously oted constitute a !a6ority of 24 senators "1L wal7ed out, 1
out of the country$.
OSMEDA 'S. PENDATUN
The @ouse is the 6ud'e of what constitutes disorderly behaior as conferred upon by the
Constitution. +lso, Con'ress has the inherent le'islatie prero'atie of suspension.
PAREDES2 3R. 'S SANDIGAN%AYAN
/andi'anbayan has the authority to suspend a district representatie in iolation of the +nti,
5raft :aw as it is bein' i!posed on the representatie %>T as a !e!ber of the @ouse.
U.S. 'S PONS
The Court !ay not 'o beyond the the recitals of the le'islatie 6ournals for the purpose of
deter!inin' the date of ad6ourn!ent when such 6ournal are clear and e-plicit. To inGuire the
eracity of 6ournals, when they are clear and e-plicit, would be to iolate both the letter and
spirit of the laws, to inade the coordinate and independent depart!ent of the 'oern!ent
and to interfere with the le'iti!ate powers and functions of the :e'islature.
CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO 'S GIMENE9
#nrolled bill doctrine, the ter! )urea for!aldehyde* is conclusie upon the courts as re'ards
the tenor of the !easure passed by the Con'ress and approed by the President.
Se&ton 1@
Daza vs Sn#son
, The sense of the Constitution is that the !e!bership in the C>+ !ust always reflect political
ali'n!ents and !ust ad6ust to chan'es. %owhere, howeer, in the Constitution reGuire that the party
!ust be a re'istered party.
Coseten# vs Mt-a
, #ndorse!ent of other representaties "in C>+$ cannot be counted in faor of a representatie if
they do not belon' to the latter3s party.
G,n#ona vs Gonzales
, Full co!ple!ent of 12 seats in C>+ is not !andatory
<oundin' out L.K to 1 is unconstitutional as it would deprie other parties of seats in C>+.
Se&. 716
%en#zon vs Senate %l,e R""on Co!!ttee
, 2nesti'ation was not in aid of le'islation where it !erely ai!s at deter!inin' whether a law is
iolated. To allow such inesti'ation is to iolate separation of powers.
A-na,lt vs Naza-eno
, Power of 2nesti'ation includes power to punish a contu!acious witness for conte!pt. #-perience
has shown that !ere reGuests for infor!ation are freGuently unaailin'.
, )2n aid of le'islation* , not difficult to satisfy. %ecessity or lac7 of necessity for le'islatie action is
deter!ined by the su! total of infor!ation to be 'athered as a result of inesti'ation, and not by a
fraction of such infor!ation elicited fro! sin'le Guestion. 2t is sufficient that the Guestion is 'er!ane
to the sub6ect !atter of inGuiry. There is no need for it to be directly related or connected to possible
le'islation.
Ne- vs Senate Co!!ttee on A&&o,nta"lt.
, #-ception to le'islatie inGuiry& #-ecutie Priile'e "which is e-tended to all close adisors of the
President$
, 2t is wron' for /enate to punish one for conte!pt where e-ecutie priile'e is properly ino7ed.
, /enate3s !ista7es in the case at bar& "1$ initations to %eri did not include possible statute( "2$
conte!pt order lac7s reGuired T of otes( "4$ /enate did not first rule on the clai! of e-ecutie
priile'e and instead dis!issed %eri3s e-planation( "J$ rules of procedure on inGuiries in aid of
le'islation 9 not duly published.
Se&. 71 an$ 776
Senate vs E-!ta
, Ahen Con'ress !erely see7s to be infor!ed on how depart!ent heads are i!ple!entin' the
statutes, it is not i!peratie.
, The )oersi'ht function* of Con'ress !ay be facilitated by co!pulsory process only to the e-tent
that it is perfor!ed in pursuit of le'islation.
, +ppearance of depart!ent heads in Guestion hour is discretionary.
, Ahen Con'ress e-ercises its power of inGuiry, the only way for the depart!ent heads to e-e!pt
the!seles therefro! is by a alid clai! of priile'e.
, #0#CIT21# P<212:#5# 9 priile'e based on doctrine of separation of powers, e-e!ptin'
e-ecutie fro! disclosure reGuire!ents where such e-e!ption is necessary to the dischar'e of
hi'hly i!portant e-ecutie responsibilities. 2t coers )cate'ories of infor!ation* not of persons.
Se&. 7:6
Tolentno vs Se&-eta-. o( Fnan&e
, The phrase )ori'inate e-clusiely* does not refer to the appropriations law but to the appropriations
bill. 2t is sufficient that the @ouse of <ep. initiated the passa'e of the bill.
Alva-ez vs G,n#ona
, + bill of local application, such as one as7in' for the conersion of a !unicipality into a city, is
dee!ed to hae ori'inated fro! the @ouse proided that the bill of the @ouse was filed prior to the
filin' of the bill in the /enate een if, in the end, the /enate approed its own ersion.
, The filin' in the /enate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill does not contraene
the constitutional reGuire!ent as lon' as the /enate does not act thereupon until it receies the
@ouse bill.
Se&. 7;6
Ga-&a vs Mata
, <28#< 9 a proision not related to the appropriation act "is prohibited$
De!et-a vs Al"a
, transfer of appropriations 9 prohibited
PHILCONSA vs En-B,ez
, The list of those who !ay be authori?ed to transfer funds is e-clusie.
, Case at bar& Con'ress!en are allowed to deter!ine the necessity of reali'n!ent, but @ouse
/pea7er or /enate Pres. will hae to approe the reali'n!ent before ite!s are reali'ned.
, Case at bar& Chief of /taff !ay not be 'ie authority to reali'n appropriations.
Se&. 7<6
To vs '$eo#-a! Re#,lato-. %oa-$
, 2!position of ta- is sufficiently related to the re'ulation of ideo industry where the title is
co!prehensie enou'h to include such sub6ect "ta-ation$ related to the 'eneral purpose "creation of
1ideo'ra! Board$
P)l. 3,$#es Asso&. vs P-a$o
, <epealBAithdrawal of fran7in' priile'e is 'er!ane to the ob6ect of the title, which is to create
postal serice syste!. @ence, the sa!e is e!braced in the titleB
Tolentno vs Se&-eta-. o( Fnan&e ESe&. 7< F1GH
, Aithdrawin' ta- e-e!ptions 'ranted before is e!braced in the sub6ect of the title which is to widen
the ta- base
Tan vs Del Rosa-o
, 4 purposes of /ec. 4"1$, +rt. 12&
"a$ to preent hod'e,pod'e or lo',rollin' le'islation
"b$ to preent surprise or fraud upon the le'islature by !eans of proisions which !i'ht be
oerloo7ed
"c$ to fairly apprise the people of the sub6ects of le'islation
To"as vs A"alos
, Proision proidin' for a separate le'islatie district is 'er!ane to the sub6ect of the bill creatin'
the City of .andaluyon'
Tolentno vs Se&-eta-. o( Fnan&e ESe&. 7< F7GH
, 2F it is only the printin' that is bein' dispensed by presidential certification, the ti!e saed would be
so ne'li'ible as to be of any use in ensurin' i!!ediate enact!ent. "Printin' and <eadin's on
separate days 9 both dispensable by pres. certification$
, Ahere no /enators controerted the reality of the factual basis of certification, 'rowin' bud'et
deficit !ay be considered as basis for presidential certification. /enators, in respondin' to the call of
the Pres. by otin' on the bill, !anifested their belief in the ur'ent need for certification of the bill.
Se&. 7?6
Tolentno vs Se&. o( Fnan&e
, 2t is within the power of a conference co!!ittee to include in its report an entirely new proision not
found in either @ouse Bill or /enate Bill. "+!end!ent in the nature of substitution is warranted as
lon' as a!end!ent is 'er!ane to the sub6ect !atter of the bill$
, to disre'ard the enrolled bill is to disre'ard the respect due the other 2 depart!ents.
Gonzales vs Ma&a-a#
, President can eto an ite!
, 8octrine of inappropriate proisions 9 a proision that is constitutionally inappropriate !ay be
sin'led out for eto if it is not an appropriation or reenue ite!. +n inappropriate proision in an
appropriations bill is an ite! in itself.
%en#zon vs D-lon
, President3s power to eto an ite! does not 'rant authority to eto part of an ite! "or proisions$.
, President cannot eto a law or repeal a law.
PHILCONSA vs En-B,ez
, Proisions that are 'er!ane to the specific appropriations cannot be etoed.
, <eGuire!ent of Con'ressional approal for release of funds for !oderni?ation of +FP can be
incorporated in separate bill and hence inappropriate. 2t was properly etoed.
, #-ecutie 2!pound!ent 9 refusal of the President to spend funds already allocated by Con'ress
for a specific purpose "the duty to i!ple!ent the law includes the duty to desist fro! i!ple!entin' it
when i!ple!entation would pre6udice public interest$. The Court, howeer, did not rule on this issue,
and rather declared the proision concernin' benefits of C+F5Is as an inappropriate proision.
Se&. 7@6
*a+at-an n# !#a Na#lln#5o$ sa Pl+nas vs Tan
, a ta- is considered unifor! when it operates with the sa!e force and effect in eery place where
the sub6ect !ay be found.
P-ovn&e o( A"-a vs 3,$#e He-nan$o
A"-a 'alle. Colle#e vs AB,no
, Ahere a lot is not used e-clusiely for educational purpose, it !ay be ta-ed if the use is not
incidental to the attain!ent of !ain purpose.
Tan vs Del Rosa-o
, Inifor!ity of ta-ation !eans&
"a$ standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
"b$ cate'ori?ation is 'er!ane to achiee le'islatie purpose
"c$ law applies, all thin's bein' eGual, to both present and future conditions
"d$ classification applies eGually well to all those belon'in' to the sa!e class
Se&. 7A6
Pas&,al vs Se&. o( P,"l& Wo-5s
, +ppropriation for a road owned by a priate indiidual is inalid because it is not for a public
purpose. /ubseGuent donation did not alidate the law because alidity of a statute depends upon
the power of Con'ress at the ti!e of its approal and not upon subseGuent eents.
A#l+a. vs R,z
, +ppropriation for special sta!p issue is alid as it is not specifically !ade to benefit a reli'ious
deno!ination but for a public purpose. The benefit acGuired by the Church is incidental only.
G,n#ona vs Ca-a#,e
, The +uto!atic <eappropriation :aw for sericin' forei'n debts is alid because the a!ount is fi-ed
by the para!eters of the law itself which reGuires the si!ple act of loo7in' into the boo7s of Treasure
"the a!ount is deter!inable$.
, Bud'etary process&
"a$ bud'et preparation
"b$ le'islatie authori?ation
"c$ bud'et e-ecution
"d$ bud'et accountability
Os!ena vs O-"os
, 2ncrease of petroleu! prices to resole the Ter!inal Fund Balance deficit is alid as it was a alid
e-ercise of police power.
PHILCONSA vs En-B,ez
, Por7 barrel proisions in the annual bud'et allowin' !e!bers of Con'ress to perfor! e-ecutie
function of spendin' !oney appropriated are not in iolation of separation of powers because
Con'ress itself had specified the uses of the fund and the power 'ien was !erely reco!!endatory
to the President who could approe or disapproe the reco!!endation.
Se&. 8=6
F-st Le+anto Ce-a!&s2 In&. vs CA
, B.P. Bl'. 129 'rantin' e-clusie appellate 6urisdiction to C+ oer the decisions of Guasi,6udicial
bodies is not superseded by >!nibus 2nest!ents Code of 1987 proidin' that decisions of B>2 are
appealable to /C because adice and concurrence of /C was not sou'ht.
Daz vs CA
, /ec. 1L of #> %o. 17L statin' )a party adersely affected by a decision of #<B !ay file a petition
with /C* was superseded by the Constitution statin' that 6urisdiction of /C cannot be !ade to
increase without its adice and concurrence.
Se&. 876
S,"& %a. Met-o+oltan A,t)o-t. vs COMELEC
, 2nitiatie is entirely the wor7 of electorate( the process of la!%ma'ing by the people themselves
, <eferendu! consists !erely of the electorate approving or re#ecting !hat has been dra!n up or
enacted by a legislative body.
, Case at bar& C>.#:#C erred in i!ple!entin' a <esolution when respondents filed petition for
2nitiatie and not <eferendu!.
EIECUTI'E DEPARTMENT
Se&. 16
Ma-&os vs Man#la+,s
, The President has )residual powers.* The President is !ore than the su! of specific powers
enu!erated in the Constitution.
, Ahat is not part of the le'islatie and 6udicial depart!ents is dee!ed part of the e-ecutie.
, The 1987 Constitution proided for a li!itation of specific powers of the President, particularly
those relatin' to the co!!ander,in,chief clause, but not a di!inution of the 'eneral 'rant of
e-ecutie power.
Solven vs Ma5asa-
, The priile'e of i!!unity fro! suit is to assure the e-ercise of Presidential duties free fro! any
hindrance or distraction considerin' that bein' the Chief #-ecutie de!ands undiided attention.
, The priile'e pertains to the President by irtue of the office and !ay be ino7ed only by the holder
of the office. There is nothin' which prohibits the President to waie this priile'e.
Est-a$a vs Dese-to
, + non,sittin' President does not en6oy i!!unity fro! suit "i!!unity is only durin' the tenure$
, #en a sittin' President is not i!!une fro! suit for non,official acts or fro! wron'doin'. "Public
office is a public trust. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the /tate and
the officer who acts ille'ally is not actin' as such but stands in the sa!e footin' as any other
trespasser.$
Se&. 186
Do-o!al vs San$#an"a.an
, /ec /ec. 14, +rt. 122 is applicable in a case where the accused has not si'ned any docu!ent of
any bid of the fa!ily corporation of which he is a !e!ber, sub!itted to any 'oern!ent depart!ent.
, Case at bar& Petitioner has at least an indirect interest with the transaction with 8#C/ and %.OC.
Cvl L"e-tes Unon vs E4e&,tve Se&-eta-.
, #> %o. 28J is unconstitutional insofar it allows a !e!ber of the Cabinet to hold not !ore than two
positions in the 'oern!ent. "<espondent3s contention that /ec. 7, +rt. 20,B is an e-ception would
defeat the obious le'islatie intent which is to prohibit cabinet !e!bers fro! holdin' !ultiple
offices.$
A.tona vs Castllo
, +s a rule, once an appoint!ent is issued, it cannot be reconsidered where the appointee has
Gualified. #-ception& ad interi! appoint!ents issued in the last hours of an out'oin' Chief #-ecutie
"!idni'ht appoint!ents 9 !ade for buyin' otes$.
In -e 'alenz,ela an$ 'alla-ta
, /ec. 1K "President shall not !a7e appoint!ents within 2 !onths prior to the ne-t Presidential
election$ is applicable to the !e!bers of the =udiciary.
, This sort of appoint!ent is !ade for partisan considerations.
De Cast-o vs. 3%C
Se&. 1<6
%na!-a vs Ga--,&)o
, +ppoint!ent or desi'nation inoles e-ercise of discretion which cannot be dele'ated. #en if it be
assu!ed that the power could be e-ercised by .inister of Touris!, it could be recalled by the
President.
, 8esi'nation is considered only an actin' or te!porary appoint!ent, which does not confer security
of tenure.
Sa-!ento vs Mson
, J 'roups of officers who! the President shall appoint&
"a$ heads of the e-ecutie depart!ents, a!bassadors, other public !inisters and consuls,
officers of the ar!ed forces fro! the ran7 of colonel or naal captain, and other whose appoint!ents
are ested in hi! in this Constitution
"b$ all other officers of the 5oern!ent whose appoint!ents are not otherwise proided for
by law
"c$ those who! the President !ay be authori?ed by law to appoint
"d$ officers lower in ran7 whose appoint!ents the Con'ress !ay by law est in the President
alone.
, Case at bar& Confir!ation of C>+ is not needed in appoint!ent of Co!!issioner of Bureau of
Custo!s because a bureau head is not among those !ithin the first group of appoint!ents where
consent of C>+ is reGuired.
%a,tsta vs Salon#a
, Confir!ation of C>+ is not needed in appoint!ent of Chair!an of Co!!ission of @u!an <i'hts
because such appoint!ent is not ested in the President in the Constitution. The President appoints
Chair!an of C@< pursuant to #> 1C4 "*)R *hairman is thus within the 4
rd
group of officers$
J,ntosCDeles vs Co!!sson o( A++ont!ents
, The appoint!ent of /ectoral <epresentaties reGuires confir!ation by the Co!!ission on
+ppoint!ents. The seats resered for sectoral representaties !ay be filled by appoint!ent by the
President by e-press proision of /ec.7, +rticle 01222 of the Constitution "hence, sectoral
representatives are within the +
st
group of officers$
, #-ceptions to those officers within the 1
st
'roup& "1$ >!buds!an and his deputies, and "2$
!e!bers of the /upre!e Court and 6ud'es of lower courts.
Cal$e-on vs Ca-ale
, Confir!ation by C>+ is reGuired only for presidential appointees that are within the 1
st
'roup of
officers as !entioned in /ar!iento s .ison.
, Con'ress !ay not e-pand the list of appoint!ents needin' confir!ation.
, Case at bar& <+ C71K, which reGuires the C>+ confir!ation in appoint!ents of %:<C Chair!an
and Co!!issioners, trans'resses /ec. 1C, +rt. 122. The appoint!ents of ,-R* *hairman and
*ommissioners do not need C>+ confir!ation because they fall under the .
rd
group of officers.
Ta--osa vs Sn#son
, affir!ed the rulin' in Calderon s Carale
, Case at bar& +ppoint!ent of Central Ban7 5oernor does not need C>+ confir!ation.
Flo-es vs D-lon
, + law which li!its the President to only one appointee is an encroach!ent to the prero'atie of the
President because appoint!ent inoles discretion to choose who to appoint.
L,e#o vs Cvl Se-v&e Co!!sson
, C/C is without authority to reo7e an appoint!ent because of its belief that another person was
better Gualified, which is an encroach!ent on the discretion ested solely in the appointin' authority.
, The per!anent appoint!ent !ade by the appointin' authority !ay not be reersed by C/C and
call it te!porary.
Po"-e vs Men$eta
, The acancy in the position of Chair!an of the Professional <e'ulation Co!!ission cannot be
filled by the /enior +ssociate Co!!issioner by operation of law "or by succession$ because it will
deprie the President of the power to appoint the Chair!an.
Se&. 1?
D-lon vs L!
, 8istinction between power and control&
+n officer in control lays down the rules in the doin' of an act. if they are not followed, he !ay,
in his discretion, order the act undone or re,done by his subordinate or he !ay een decide to do
it by hi!self.
Supervision does not coer such authority. The superisor !erely sees to it that rules are
followed, but he hi!self does not lay down such rules, nor does he hae the discretion to !odify
or replace the!. 2f the rules are not obsered, he !ay order the wor7 done or re,done but only to
confor! to the prescribed rules. @e !ay not prescribe his own !anner e-cept to see to it that the
rules are followed.
"%ote$ Po!er of control pertains to power of an officer to alter, !odify, nullify, or set aside what a
subordinate has done in the perfor!ance of his duties and to substitute his 6ud'!ent to that of the
for!er E.ondano s /ilosaF
'llena vs Se&-eta-. o( t)e Inte-o-
, /octrine of 0ualified Political Agency 1alter ego principle( %acts of the /ecretaries of #-ecutie
8epart!ents, when perfor!ed and pro!ul'ated in the re'ular course of business or unless
disapproed or reprobated by the Chief #-ecutie, are presu!ptiely the acts of the Chief #-ecutie
, Case at bar& /ecretary of the 2nterior is inested with the authority to order the inesti'ation of the
char'es a'ainst the petitioner and to appoint a special inesti'ator for that purpose.
La&sonCMa#allanes Co.2 In&. vs Pano
, 8epart!ent heads are President3s )!en of confidence.* @is is the power to appoint the!( his, too,
is the priile'e to dis!iss the! at pleasure. %or!ally, he controls and directs their acts. 2!plicit then
is his authority to 'o oer, confir!, !odify or reerse the action ta7en by his depart!ent secretaries.
, Case at bar& The President, throu'h his #-ecutie /ecretary, !ay undo an act of the 8irector of
:ands
Ct. o( Il#an vs D-e&to- o( Lan$s
, The President has the power to 'rant portions of public do!ain to any 'oern!ent entity li7e the
City of 2li'an because he has control oer the 8irector of :ands, who has direct e-ecutie control in
the lease, sale or any for! of concession or disposition of the land of public do!ain.
Gas&on vs A--o.o
, Case at bar& #-ecutie /ecretary has the power and authority to enter into the +'ree!ent to
+rbitrate with the +B/ CB% as he acted for and in behalf of the President when he si'ned it.
*l,san %a.an vs Do!n#,ez
, +n ad!inistratie officer has only such powers as are e-pressly 'ranted to hi! and those
necessarily i!plied in the e-ercise thereof. These powers should not be e-tended by i!plication
beyond what !ay be necessary for their 6ust and reasonable e-ecution.
An#an#&o vs Castllo
, The power to re!oe is inherent in the power to appoint, but not with re'ard to those officers or
e!ployees who belon' to the classified serice for as to the! the inherent power cannot be
e-ercised

NAMARCO vs A-&a
, #-ecutie power of control e-tends to 'oern!ent,owned corporations.
Se&. 1@6
G,azon vs De 'lla
, The President has the power to ordain saturation dries. There is nothin' in the Constitution which
denies the authority of the Chief #-ec. to order police actions to stop unabated cri!inality, risin'
lawlessness, and alar!in' co!!unist actiities.
R,((. vs C)e( o( Sta((
, Courts !artial are si!ply instru!entalities of the e-ecutie power, proided by the Con'ress for the
President as Co!!ander in chief to aid hi! in properly co!!andin' the ar!y and nay and
enforcin' discipline therein and utili?e under his order those of his authori?ed !ilitary
representaties.
Ola#,e- vs Mlta-. Co!!sson No. 8:
, 8ue process of law de!ands that in all cri!inal prosecutions the accused be entitled to a trial. The
trial conte!plated by the due process clause is trial by 6udicial process. .ilitary Co!!issions are not
courts within the Philippine 6udicial syste!. =udicial power is ested only in the courts. .ilitary
co!!issions pertain to the e-ecutie depart!ent and are instru!entalities of the President as
co!!ander,in,chief to aid hi! in enforcin' discipline in the ar!ed forces.
J,lona vs Gene-al Co,-t Ma-tal
G,$an vs Sen#a
, The President has constitutional authority to preent a !e!ber of the ar!ed forces fro! testifyin'
before a le'islatie inGuiry, by irtue of her power as co!!ander,in,chief, and that as a
conseGuence, a !ilitary officer who defies such in6unction is liable under !ilitary 6ustice. +t the sa!e
ti!e, the Court also holds that any cha!ber of Con'ress which see7s the appearance befoe it of a
!ilitary officer a'ainst the consent of the President has adeGuate re!edies under law to co!pel
such attendance. +ny !ilitary officer who! the Con'ress su!!ons to testify before it !ay be
co!pelled to do so by the President. 2f the President is not so inclined, the President !ay be
co!!anded by 6udicial order to co!pel the attendance of the !ilitary officer. Final 6udicial orders
hae the force of the law of the land which the President has the duty to faithfully e-ecute.
Se&. 1A6
To--es vs Gonzales
, + 6udicial pronounce!ent is not necessary in deter!inin' whether the conditions in the pardon are
iolated. The deter!ination of whether there is a iolations of the conditions rests e-clusiely in the
sound 6ud'!ent of the President.
Monsanto vs Fa&to-an
, Pardon i!plies 'uilt. Ahile it reliees the party pardoned fro! all punitie conseGuences of his
cri!inal act, it reliees hi! fro! nothin' !ore. 2t does not, therefore, restore a conicted felon to
public office forfeited by reason of coniction.
Peo+le vs Salle2 3-.
, Pardon !ay be 'ranted only by final 6ud'!ent. Ahere the 6ud'!ent of coniction is still pendin'
appeal, e-ecutie cle!ency !ay not yet be 'ranted. Before an appellant !ay be 'ranted pardon, he
!ust first as7 for the withdrawal of his appeal.
Ga-&a vs COA
, President3s 'rant of e-ecutie cle!ency to a person dis!issed fro! his office pursuant to an
ad!inistratie case "but where the latter has been acGuitted in a cri!inal case based on the sa!e
facts alle'ed in the cri!inal case$ entitles the latter to auto!atic reinstate!ent and bac7wa'es.
Sa"ello vs DECS
, Pardon "in a cri!inal case$ frees the indiidual fro! all the penalties and disabilities and restores
hi! to all his ciil ri'hts. +lthou'h such pardon !ay restore a person3s eli'ibility to public office, it
does not entitle hi! to auto!atic reinstate!ent. @e should apply for reappoint!ent to said office.
, ECo!pare with 5arcia s C>+F
Lla!as vs O-"os
, 2n 'rantin' the power of e-ecutie cle!ency, the Constitution does not distin'uish between cri!inal
and ad!inistratie cases.
Se&. 1@6
Constantno2 3-. vs C,sa
, The debt,relief contracts, proidin' for buy,bac7 and bond,conersion sche!es, entered into
pursuant to Financin' Pro'ra! are not beyond the powers 'ranted to the President under /ec. 2L,
+rt. 122. The only restriction that the Constitution proides, aside fro! the prior concurrence of the
.onetary Board, is that loans !ust be sub6ect to li!itations proided by law. +ccordin'ly, the
contention that buy,bac7 and bond,conersion sche!es are neither )loans* nor )'uarantees,* and
hence beyond the PresidentDs power to e-ecute, are without !erit.
Se&. 716
Co!!ssone- o( C,sto!s vs Easte-n Sea T-a$n# F1A<1G
, The concurrence of the @ouse of Con'ress is reGuired by our funda!ental law in the !a7in' of
treaties which are howeer distinct and different fro! e-ecutie a'ree!ents which !ay be alidly
entered without such concurrence.
P!entel2 3-. vs E4e&. Se&.
, The power to ratify is ested in the President, sub6ect to concurrence of the /enate. The role of the
/enate is li!ited only to 'iin' or withholdin' its consent or concurrence to the ratification. @ence, it
is within the authority of the President to refuse to sub!it a treaty to the /enate or hain' secured its
consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion to ratify lies within the President3s
co!petence alone.
, J steps in treaty,!a7in' process&
"a$ ne'otiation
"b$ si'nin' of the treaty "si!ply a !eans of authenticatin' the instru!ent and a sy!bol of
'ood faith$
"c$ ratification "for!al act by which a statute confir!s and accepts the proisions of a treaty$
"d$ e-chan'e of instru!ents of ratification
, 2n the case at bar, the treaty was !erely si'ned.
3UDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Se&. 16
Santa#o vs %a,tsta
, The courts !ay not e-ercise 6udicial power when there is no applicable law.
, Case at bar& +n award of honors to a student by a board of teachers !ay not be reersed
by a court where the awards are 'oerned by no applicable law.
Daza v Sn#son
, #en if the issue presented was political in nature, the Court is still not be precluded fro!
resolin' it under the e-panded 6urisdiction conferred upon it that now coers, in proper
cases, een the political Guestion.
, That where serious constitutional Guestions are inoled, Mthe transcendental i!portance to
the public of these cases de!ands that they be settled pro!ptly and definitely brushin'
aside, if we !ust, technicalities of procedure.M
Mant-,ste S.ste!s v Co,-t o( A++eals
C There can be no 6ustification for 6udicial interference in the business of an ad!inistratie
a'ency, e-cept when it iolates a citi?en3s constitutional ri'hts, or co!!its a 'rae abuse of
discretion, or acts in e-cess of, or without 6urisdiction.
, Courts !ay not substitute their 6ud'!ent for that of the +sset Priati?ation Trust
"ad!inistratie body$, nor bloc7, by an in6unction, the dischar'e of its functions and the
i!ple!entation of its decisions in connection with the acGuisition, sale or disposition of
assets transferred to it.
Mala#a v Pena&)os2 3-.
, 2t was preiously declared the prohibition pertained to the issuance of in6unctions or
restrainin' orders by courts a'ainst ad!inistratie acts in controersies inolin' facts or the
e-ercise of discretion in technical cases. The Court obsered that to allow the courts to 6ud'e
these !atters would disturb the s!ooth functionin' of the ad!inistratie !achinery. >n
issues definitely outside of this di!ension and inolin' Guestions of law, courts could not be
preented by any law "in this case, P.8. %o. CLK$ fro! e-ercisin' their power to restrain or
prohibit ad!inistratie acts.
PACU v Se&-eta-. o( E$,&aton
C =udicial power is li!ited to the decision of actual cases and controersies.
".ere apprehension that the /ecretary of #ducation !i'ht under the law withdraw the per!it
of one of petitioners does not constitute a 6usticiable controersy.$
, Courts do not sit to ad6udicate !ere acade!ic Guestions to satisfy scholarly interest therein
howeer intellectually solid the proble! !ay be. This is especially true where the issues
Mreach constitutional di!ensions, for then there co!es into play re'ard for the court3s duty to
aoid decision of constitutional issues unless aoidance beco!es easion.
Ma-ano2 3-. v COMELEC
, Considerin' that those contin'encies !entioned by the petitioners !ay or !ay not happen,
petitioners !erely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or
controersy. Petitioners who are residents of Ta'ui' "e-cept .ariano$ are not also the proper
parties to raise this abstract issue "city of .a7ati is inoled$. Aorse, they raise this futuristic
issue in a petition for declaratory relief oer which this Court has no 6urisdiction.
Ma&asano v Natonal Ho,sn# A,t)o-t.
,2t is a rule fir!ly entrenched in our 6urisprudence that the constitutionality of an act of the
le'islature will not be deter!ined by the courts unless that Guestion is properly raised and
presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a deter!ination of the case.
3. 3o.a v PCGG
, The rule is settled that no Guestion inolin' the constitutionality or alidity of a law or
'oern!ental act !ay be heard and decided by the court unless there is co!pliance with the
le'al reGuisites for 6udicial inGuiry, na!ely& that the Guestion !ust be raised by the proper
party( that there !ust be an actual case or controersy( that the Guestion !ust be raised at
the earliest possible opportunity( and, that the decision on the constitutional or le'al Guestion
!ust be necessary to the deter!ination of the case itself. But the !ost i!portant are the first
two "2$ reGuisites.
, %ot eery action filed by a ta-payer can Gualify to challen'e the le'ality of official acts done
by the 'oern!ent. + ta-payer3s suit can prosper only if the 'oern!ental acts bein'
Guestioned inole disburse!ent of public funds upon the theory that the e-penditure of
public funds by an officer of the state for the purpose of ad!inisterin' an unconstitutional act
constitutes a !isapplication of such funds, which !ay be en6oined at the reGuest of a
ta-payer.
Le#as+ v Cvl Se-v&e Co!!sson
, 2t beco!es apparent that when a .anda!us proceedin' inoles the assertion of a public
ri'ht, the reGuire!ent of personal interest is satisfied by the !ere fact that the petitioner is a
citi?en, and therefore, part of the 'eneral MpublicM which possesses the ri'ht.
,MPublicM is a co!prehensie, all,inclusie ter!. Properly construed, it e!braces eery
person.
D,!lao v COMELEC
, For one, there is a !is6oinder of parties and actions. >ne petitioner does not 6oin other
petitioners in the burden of their co!plaint, nor do the latter 6oin the for!er in his. They,
respectiely, contest co!pletely different statutory proisions.
, For another, there are standards that hae to be followed in the e-ercise of the function of
6udicial reiew, na!ely& "1$ the e-istence of an appropriate case( "2$ an interest personal and
substantial by the party raisin' the constitutional Guestion( "4$ the plea that the function be
e-ercised at the earliest opportunity( and "J$ the necessity that the constitutional Guestion be
passed upon in order to decide the case.
%,#na. Const. an$ Dev1t. Co-+. v La-on
, The doctrine holds that only when the act co!plained of directly inoles an ille'al
disburse!ent of public funds raised by ta-ation will the ta-payer3s suit be allowed. The
essence of a ta-payer3s ri'ht to institute such an action hin'es on the e-istence of that
reGuisite pecuniary or !onetary interest.
, 2t is not enou'h that the ta-payer,plaintiff sufficiently show that he would be benefited or
in6ured by the 6ud'!ent or entitled to the aails of the suit as a real party in interest.
*los"a.an v G,n#ona2 3-.
, + party3s standin' before this Court is a procedural technicality which it !ay, in the e-ercise
of its discretion, set aside in iew of the i!portance of the issues raised.
, 2n line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary ta-payers, !e!bers of
Con'ress, and een association of planters, and non,profit ciic or'ani?ations were allowed
to initiate and prosecute actions before this Court to Guestion the constitutionality or alidity
of laws, acts, decisions, rulin's, or orders of arious 'oern!ent a'encies or
instru!entalities.
PHILCONSA v En-B,ez
, The /enators hae le'al standin' to Guestion the alidity of the eto. Ahen a eto was
!ade in e-cess of the authority of the President, it i!per!issibily intrudes into the do!ain of
the :e'islature. + !e!ber of Con'ress can Guestion an act of the #-ecutie which in6ures
Con'ress as an institution.
Tata$ v Ga-&a2 3-.
,The preailin' doctrines in ta-payer3s suits are to allow ta-payers to Guestion contracts
entered into by the national 'oern!ent or 'oern!ent,owned or controlled corporations
alle'edly in contraention of the law and to disallow the sa!e when only !unicipal contracts
are inoled "6ust li7e in Bu'nay case since no public !oney was inoled$.
O+osa v Fa&to-an2 3-.
, C:+// /I2T& The sub6ect !atter of the co!plaint is of co!!on and 'eneral interest not
6ust to seeral, but to all citi?ens of the Philippines. ConseGuently, since the parties are so
nu!erous, it beco!es i!practicable, if not totally i!possible, to brin' all of the! before the
court.
, Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeedin' 'enerations can only be based on the
concept of inter'enerational responsibility insofar as the ri'ht to a balanced and healthful
ecolo'y is concerned.
, %eedless to say, eery 'eneration has a responsibility to the ne-t to presere that rhyth!
and har!ony for the full en6oy!ent of a balanced and healthful ecolo'y. Put a little differently,
the !inorsU assertion of their ri'ht to a sound eniron!ent constitutes, at the sa!e ti!e, the
perfor!ance of their obli'ation to ensure the protection of that ri'ht for the 'enerations to
co!e.
Loza$a v COMELEC
C +s ta-payers, petitioners !ay not file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alle'ed
that ta- !oney is bein' ille'ally spent. 2t is only when an act co!plained of, which !ay
include a le'islatie enact!ent or statute, inoles the ille'al e-penditure of public !oney
that the so,called ta-payer suit !ay be allowed.
, The unchallen'ed rule is that the person who i!pu'ns the alidity of a statute !ust hae a
personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain,
direct in6ury as a result of its enforce!ent. Concrete in6ury, whether actual or threatened, is
that indispensable ele!ent of a dispute which seres in part to cast it in a for! traditionally
capable of 6udicial resolution. Ahen the asserted har! is a M'enerali?ed 'rieanceM shared
in substantially eGual !easure by all or a lar'e class of citi?ens, that har! alone nor!ally
does not warrant e-ercise of 6urisdiction.
*los"a.an v Mo-ato
, The otin' on petitioners3 standin' in the preious case was a narrow one, seen "7$
!e!bers sustainin' petitioners3 standin' and si- "C$ denyin' petitioners3 ri'ht to brin' the
suit. The !a6ority was thus a tenuous one that is not li7ely to be !aintained in any
subseGuent liti'ation. 2n addition, there hae been char'es in the !e!bership of the Court,
with the retire!ent of =ustice Cru? and Bidin and the appoint!ent of the writer of this opinion
and =ustice Francisco. 5ien this fact it is hardly tenable to insist on the !aintenance of the
rulin' as to petitioners3 standin'.
SECTION 8
%en#zon v L!
, Ahat is fiscal autono!yV 2t conte!plates a 'uarantee of full fle-ibility to allocate and utili?e
their resources with the wisdo! and dispatch that their needs reGuire. 2t reco'ni?es the
power and authority to ley, assess and collect fees, fi- rates of co!pensation not e-ceedin'
the hi'hest rates authori?ed by law for co!pensation and play plans of the 'oern!ent and
allocate and disburse such su!s as !ay be proided by law or prescribed by the! in the
course of the dischar'e of their functions. Fiscal autono!y !eans freedo! fro! outside
control.
, The =udiciary, the Constitutional Co!!issions, and the >!buds!an !ust hae the
independence and fle-ibility needed in the dischar'e of their constitutional duties. The
i!position of restrictions and constraints on the !anner the independent constitutional
offices allocate and utili?e the funds appropriated for their operations is anathe!a to fiscal
autono!y and iolatie not only of the e-press !andate of the Constitution but especially as
re'ards the /upre!e Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the
entire fabric of our constitutional syste! is based
SECTION :
L!5et5a Sons Mlln#2 In&. v Co,-t o( A++eals2 et.al.
, <eor'ani?ation is purely an internal !atter of the Court to which petitioner certainly has no
business at all.
, The Court with its new !e!bership is not obli'ed to follow blindly a decision upholdin' a
party3s case when, after its re,e-a!ination, the sa!e calls for a rectification.
SECTION ;
D-lon v L!
, The Constitution ests in the /upre!e Court appellate 6urisdiction oer final 6ud'!ents and
orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or alidity of any treaty,
international or e-ecutie a'ree!ent, law, presidential decree, procla!ation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or re'ulation is in Guestion.
, 2n the e-ercise of this 6urisdiction, lower courts are adised to act with the ut!ost
circu!spection, bearin' in !ind the conseGuences of a declaration of unconstitutionality
upon the stability of laws, no less than on the doctrine of separation of powers. +s the
Guestioned act is usually the handiwor7 of the le'islatie or the e-ecutie depart!ents, or
both, it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a beco!in' !odesty, to defer to the
hi'her 6ud'!ent of this Court in the consideration of its alidity, which is better deter!ined
after a thorou'h deliberation by a colle'iate body and with the concurrence of the !a6ority of
those who participated in its discussion.
La--ana#a v Co,-t o( A++eals
"Transfer the enue of the preli!inary inesti'ation fro! Cebu City to .anila because of the
e-tensie coera'e of the proceedin's by the Cebu !edia which alle'edly influenced the
people3s perception of petitioner3s character and 'uilt.$
, The Court reco'ni?es that perasie and pre6udicial publicity under certain circu!stances
can deprie an accused of his due process ri'ht to fair trial. 2t was preiously held that to
warrant a findin' of pre6udicial publicity there !ust be alle'ation and proof that the 6ud'es
hae been unduly influenced, not si!ply that they !i'ht be, by the barra'e in publicity.
, 2n the case at bar, nothin' in the records shows that the tone and content of the publicity
that attended the inesti'ation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and i!partiality of
the 8>= Panel.
F-st Le+anto Ce-a!&s2 In&. v Co,-t o( A++eals
C 2t is intended to 'ie the /upre!e Court a !easure of control oer cases paced under its
appellate 6urisdiction. For the indiscri!inate enact!ent of le'islation enlar'in' its appellate
6urisdiction. For the indiscri!inate enact!ent of le'islation enlar'in' its appellate 6urisdiction
can unnecessarily burden the Court and thereby under!ine its essential function of
e-poundin' the law in its !ost profound national aspects.
A-,elo v Co,-t o( A++eals
C Constitutionally spea7in', the C>.#:#C can not adopt a rule prohibitin' the filin' of
certain pleadin's in the re'ular courts. The power to pro!ul'ate rules concernin' pleadin's,
practice and procedure in all courts is ested on the /upre!e Court.
3avellana v DILG
"/ection 9L of the :ocal 5oern!ent Code of 1991 and 8:5 .e!orandu! Circular %o. 9L,
81 does not iolate +rticle 1222. /ection K of the Constitution. %either the statute nor the
circular trenches upon the /upre!e Court3s power and authority to prescribe rules on the
practice of law.$
, The :ocal 5oern!ent Code and 8:5 .e!orandu! Circular %o. 9L,81 si!ply prescribe
rules of conduct for public officials to aoid conflicts of interest between the dischar'e of their
public duties and the priate practice of their profession, in those instances where the law
allows it.
SECTION <
Ma&e$a v 'asB,ez
, 2n the absence of any ad!inistratie action ta7en a'ainst a person by the Court with re'ard
to his certificates of serice, the inesti'ation bein' conducted by the >!buds!an
encroaches into the Court3s power of ad!inistratie superision oer all courts and its
personnel, in iolation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
, Ahere a cri!inal co!plaint a'ainst a =ud'e or other court e!ployee arises fro! their
ad!inistratie duties, the >!buds!an !ust defer action on said co!plaint and refer the
sa!e to the Court for deter!ination whether said =ud'e or court e!ployee had acted within
the scope of their ad!inistratie duties.
RaB,za v 3,$#e Castane$a2 3-.
, The rules een in an ad!inistratie case de!ands that if the respondent =ud'e should be
disciplined for 'rae !isconduct or any 'raer offense, the eidence presented a'ainst hi!
should be co!petent and deried fro! direct 7nowled'e. The 6udiciary, to which respondent
belon's, no less de!ands that before its !e!ber could be faulted, it should be only after
due inesti'ation and based on co!petent proofs, no less. This is all the !ore so when as in
this case the char'es are penal in nature.
"3.isconduct3 also i!plies 3a wron'ful intention and not a !ere error of 6ud'!ent. 2t results
that een if respondent were not correct in his le'al conclusions, his 6udicial actuations
cannot be re'arded as 'rae !isconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently appears.$
SECTION 1=
Nta(an v Co!!ssone- o( Inte-nal Reven,e
, The clear intent of the Constitutional Co!!ission was to delete the proposed e-press 'rant
of e-e!ption fro! pay!ent of inco!e ta- to !e!bers of the =udiciary, so as to M'ie
substance to eGuality a!on' the three branches of 5oern!ent.*
SECTION 11
De La Llana v Al"a
,=udiciary +ct does not iolate 6udicial security of tenure. This Court is e!powered Mto
discipline 6ud'es of inferior courts and, by a ote of at least ei'ht !e!bers, order their
dis!issal.M Thus, it possesses the co!petence to re!oe 6ud'es. Inder the =udiciary +ct, it
was the President who was ested with such power. <e!oal is, of course, to be
distin'uished fro! ter!ination by irtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure
to a non,e-istent office. +fter the abolition, there is in law no occupant. 2n case of re!oal,
there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. 2t is in that sense that
fro! the standpoint of strict law, the Guestion of any i!pair!ent of security of tenure does
not arise. %onetheless, for the incu!bents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of
separation. +s to its effect, no distinction e-ists between re!oal and the abolition of the
office. <ealistically, it is deoid of si'nificance. @e ceases to be a !e!ber of the 6udiciary.
Peo+le v Ga&ott2 3-.
, To reGuire the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all ad!inistratie !atters or
cases re'ardless of the sanctions, i!posable or i!posed, would result in a con'ested doc7et
and undue delay in the ad6udication of cases in the Court, especially in ad!inistratie
!atters, since een cases inolin' the penalty of repri!and would reGuire action by the
Court en banc.
, Oet, althou'h as thus de!onstrated, only cases inolin' dis!issal of 6ud'es of lower
courts are specifically reGuired to be decided by the Court en banc, in co'ni?ance of the
need for a thorou'h and 6udicious ealuation of serious char'es a'ainst !e!bers of the
6udiciary, it is only when the penalty i!posed does not e-ceed suspension of !ore than one
year or a fine of P1L,LLL.LL, or both, that the ad!inistratie !atter !ay be decided in
diision.
SECTION 17
In Re6 Manzano
C +s incu!bent <TC =ud'es, they for! part of the structure of 'oern!ent. Their inte'rity
and perfor!ance in the ad6udication of cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. +s
public officials, they are trustees of an orderly society. #en as non,!e!bers of
ProincialBCity Co!!ittees on =ustice, <TC 6ud'es should render assistance to said
Co!!ittees to help pro!ote the landable purposes for which they e-ist, but only when such
assistance !ay be reasonably incidental to the fulfill!ent of their 6udicial duties.
SECTION 1:
N&os In$,st-al Co-+ v Co,-t o( A++eals
, The Court is not duty bound to render si'ned decisions all the ti!e. 2t has a!ple discretion
to for!ulate decisions andBor !inute resolutions, proided a le'al basis is 'ien, dependin'
on its ealuation of a case.
, +s it is settled that an order dis!issin' a case for insufficient eidence is a 6ud'!ent on the
!erits, it is i!peratie that it be a reasoned decision clearly and distinctly statin' therein the
facts and the law on which it is based.
Men$oza v CFI
, Ahat is e-pected of the 6udiciary Mis that the decision rendered !a7es clear why either
party preailed under the applicable law to the facts as established. %or is there any re'id
for!ula as to the lan'ua'e to be e!ployed to satisfy the reGuire!ent of clarity and
distinctness. The discretion of the particular 6ud'e in this respect, while not unli!ited, is
necessarily broad. There is no sacra!ental for! of words which he !ust use upon pain of
bein' considered as hain' failed to abide by what the Constitution directs.M
, The proision has been held to refer only to decisions of the !erits and not to orders of the
trial court resolin' incidental !atters such as the one at bar. "content of the resolution&
incident in the prosecution of petitioner$
%o--o!eo v Co,-t o( A++eals
, The Court re!inds all lower courts, lawyers, and liti'ants that it disposes of the bul7 of its
cases by !inute resolutions and decrees the! as final and e-ecutory, as where a case is
patently without !erit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision
appealed fro! is supported by substantial eidence and is in accord with the facts of the
case and the applicable laws, where it is clear fro! the records that the petition is filed
!erely to forestall the early e-ecution of 6ud'!ent and for non,co!pliance with the rules.
The resolution denyin' due course or dis!issin' the petition always 'ies the le'al basis.
, Ahen the Court, after deliberatin' on a petition and any subseGuent pleadin's,
!anifestations, co!!ents, or !otions decides to deny due course to the petition and states
that the Guestions raised are factual or no reersible error in the respondent court3s decision
is shown or for so!e other le'al basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient co!pliance
with the constitutional reGuire!ent.
, .inute resolutions need not be si'ned by the !e!bers of the Court who too7 part in the
deliberations of a case nor do they reGuire the certification of the Chief =ustice.
*o!ats, In$,st-es FP)ls.G In& v Co,-t o( A++eals
, 2t has lon' been settled that this Court has discretion to decide whether a M!inute
resolutionM should be used in lieu of a full,blown decision in any particular case and that a
!inute <esolution of dis!issal of a Petition for <eiew on Certiorari constitutes an
ad6udication on the !erits of the controersy or sub6ect !atter of the Petition. 2t has been
stressed by the Court that the 'rant of due course to a Petition for <eiew is Mnot a !atter of
ri'ht, but of sound 6udicial discretion( and so there is no need to fully e-plain the Court3s
denial. For one thin', the facts and law are already !entioned in the Court of +ppeals3
opinion.M

P-,$ental %an5 v Cast-o
C The Constitutional !andate that Mno . . . !otion for reconsideration of a decision of the
court shall be . . . denied without statin' the le'al basis thereforM is inapplicable in
ad!inistratie cases. +nd een if it were, said <esolution stated the le'al basis for the denial
and, therefore, adhered faithfully to the Constitutional reGuire!ent. M:ac7 of !erit,M which
was one of the 'rounds for denial, is a le'al basis.
,"certification issue$ The reGuire!ent of a certification refers to decisions to 6udicial cases
and not to ad!inistratie cases. Besides, since the decision was a per curiam decision, a
for!al certification is not reGuired.
Ol an$ Nat,-al Gas Co!!sson v Co,-t o( A++eals
, The constitutional !andate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without
e-pressin' therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not
preclude the alidity of M!e!orandu! decisionsM which adopt by reference the findin's of
fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.
SECTION 1: Fnot 1<G
'al$ez v Co,-t o( A++eals
, The "lower$ court state!ent in the decision that a party has proen his case while the other
has not, is not the findin's of facts conte!plated by the Constitution and the rules to be
clearly and distinctly stated.
, This Court has said a'ain and a'ain that it is not a trier of facts and that it relies, on the
factual findin's of the lower court and the appellate court which are conclusie.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
+. C>..>% P<>12/2>%/
A-,elo v. CA
The rule of the Co!!ission should preail if the proceedin' is before a Co!!ission. But if
the proceedin' is before a court, the <ules of Court preails. "/ec. C$
C,a v. Co!ele&
The 2,1 decision rendered by the First 8iision was a alid decision under +rticle 20,+,
/ection 7 of the Constitution. "/ec.7$
'talCGozon v. CA
#-ecution of the Ciil /erice Co!!ission3s decision should hae been ordered and effected
by the Co!!ission itself, when de la Fuente filed a !otion therefor. 2t declined to do so,
howeer, on the alle'ed 'round, as de la Fuente clai!s he was told, that it Mhad no coercie
powers unli7e a court to enforce its final decisionsBresolutions.M That proposition,
co!!unicated to de la Fuente, of the Co!!ission3s supposed lac7 of coercie power to
enforce its final 6ud'!ents, is incorrect. 2t is inconsistent with preious acts of the
Co!!ission of actually directin' e-ecution of its decisions and resolutions, which this Court
has sanctioned in seeral cases( and it is not in truth a correct assess!ent of its powers
under the Constitution and the releant laws
Fl+nas En#nee-n# an$ Ma&)ne S)o+ v. Fe--e-
Ahile it !ay be true that the lower court has the 6urisdiction oer controersies dealin' with
the C>.#:#C3s award of contracts, the sa!e bein' purely ad!inistratie and ciil in nature,
neertheless, herein petitioner has no cause of action on the basis of the alle'ations of its
co!plaint.
MThe Co!!ission on #lections shall hae e-clusie char'e of the enforce!ent and
ad!inistration of all laws relatie to the conduct of elections and shall e-ercise all other
functions which !ay be conferred upon it by law. 2t shall decide, sae those inolin' the
ri'ht to ote, all ad!inistratie Guestions affectin' elections, includin' the deter!ination of
the nu!ber of location of pollin' places, and the appoint!ent of election inspectors and of
other election officials . . . The decisions, orders and rulin's of the Co!!ission shall be
sub6ect to reiew by the /upre!e Court.M
Mateo v. CA
The hirin' and firin' of e!ployees of 'oern!ent,owned and controlled corporations are
'oerned by the proisions of the Ciil /erice :aw and <ules and <e'ulations.
/C <eised +d!inistratie Circular %o. 1,9K. Final resolutions of the Ciil /erice
Co!!ission shall be appealable to the Court of +ppeals. 2n any eent, whether under the old
rule or the present rule, <e'ional Trial Courts hae no 6urisdiction to entertain cases
inolin' dis!issal of officers and e!ployees coered by the Ciil /erice :aw.
CI'IL SER'ICE COMMISSION
/ection 2
TUPAS v. NHC
Ciil serice now coers only 'oern!ent,owned or controlled corporations with ori'inal or
le'islatie charters, that is those created by an act of Con'ress or by special law, and not
those incorporated under and pursuant to a 'eneral le'islation.
%@C is not coered by ciil serice so its e!ployees undoubtedly hae the ri'ht to for!
unions or e!ployees3 or'ani?ations. The ri'ht to unioni?e or to for! or'ani?ations is now
e-plicitly reco'ni?ed and 'ranted to e!ployees in both the 'oern!ental and the priate
sectors.
De los Santos v. Malla-e
The office of city en'ineer is neither pri!arily confidential, policy,deter!inin', nor hi'hly
technical. These positions !entioned are e-cluded fro! the !erit syste! and dis!issal at
pleasure of officers and e!ployees appointed therein is allowed by the Constitution. Thus,
the city en'ineer cannot be re!oed without 6ust cause.
Salaza- v. Mat)a.
The tenure of officials holdin' pri!arily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence
because their ter! of office lasts only as lon' as confidence in the! endures.
Co-+,s v. C,a$e-no
@i'hly technical e!ployees cannot be re!oed by reason of lac7 or loss of confidence by
the one !a7in' the appoint!ent.
L,e#o v. Cvl Se-v&e Co!!sson
The C/C has no authority to disapproe or reo7e a per!anent appoint!ent on the 'round
that another person is better Gualified than the appointee. The C/C is not e!powered to
deter!ine the 7ind or nature of the appoint!ent e-tended by the appointin' officer, its
authority bein' li!ited to approin' or reiewin' the appoint!ent in the li'ht of the
reGuire!ents of the Ciil /erice :aw. +pproal is !ore appropriately called an attestation,
that is, of the fact that the appointee is Gualified for the position to which he has been na!ed.
P-ovn&e o( Ca!a-nes S,- v. CA
:ac7 of ciil serice eli'ibility !a7es an appoint!ent te!porary( thus, the appoint!ent is
reocable at any ti!e "without a fi-ed and definite ter!$ or dependent upon the pleasure of
the appointin' power. >btainin' the ciil serice le'ibility later on does not ipso facto conert
a te!porary appoint!ent into a per!anent one.
SSS E!+lo.ees Asso&aton v. CA
The ri'ht of 'oern!ent e!ployees to or'ani?e does not include the ri'ht to stri7e.
/ection 7
Cvl L"e-tes Unon v. E4e&,tve Se&-eta-.
Ahile all other appointie officials in the ciil serice are allowed to hold other office or
e!ploy!ent in the 'oern!ent durin' their tenure when such is allowed by tlaw and the
pri!ary function of their office, Cabinet !e!bers, their deputies, and assistants !ay only do
so when e-pressly authori?ed by the Constitution itself.
Flo-es v. D-lon
The proiso which states, )Proided, howeer, that for the first year of its operations fro! the
effectiity of this +ct, the !ayor of the City of >lon'apo shall be appointed as the chair!an
and chief e-ecutie officer of the /ubic +uthority*, iolates the constitutional prohibition
a'ainst appoint!ent or desi'nation of electie officials to other 'oern!ent posts.
/ection 8
J,!son v. Ozaeta
The e!ploy!ent of a person as an a'ent collector is not itself unlawful because there is no
inco!patibility between aid appoint!ent and his e!ploy!ent as 8eputy Proincial Treasurer
and .unicipal Treasurer. There is no le'al ob6ection to 'oern!ent official occupyin' two
'oern!ent offices and perfor!in' functions to both as lon' as there is no inco!patibility.
The Constitutional prohibition refers to double appoint!ents and perfor!ance of functions of
!ore than one office.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
/ection 1
Ca.etano v. Monso$
Practice of law !eans any actiity, in or out of court, which reGuires the application of law,
le'al procedure, 7nowled'e, trainin' and e-perience. To en'a'e in the practice of law is to
perfor! those acts which are characteristics of the profession. 5enerally, to practice law is to
'ie notice or render any 7ind of serice which deice or serice reGuires the use in any
de'ree of le'al 7nowled'e or s7ill.
%-llantes v. Yo-a&
The President has no authority to !a7e desi'nation of a Co!elec Chair!an in an +ctin'
Capacity. The choice of te!porary Chair!an in the absence of the re'ular chair!an co!es
under the discretion of the Co!elec. 2t cannot be e-ercised by the President. + desi'nation
+s +ctin' Chair!an is by its ery ter!s essentially te!porary and therefore reocable at will.
%o cause need be established to 6ustify its reocation.
Ln$o v. Co!ele&
Co!elecDs state!ent that fa7e and spurious ballots !ay hae been introduced to increase
the otes of protestant cannot be !ade a basis for denyin' the e-ecution pendin' appeal.
/ection 4
/ar!iento s. Co!elec
Pursuant to /ection 1C of <.+. 71CC, it proides&
M+ll pre,procla!ation cases pendin' before the Co!!ission shall be dee!ed ter!inated at
the be'innin' of the ter! of the office inoled and the rulin's of the boards of canassers
concerned shall be dee!ed affir!ed, without pre6udice to the filin' of a re'ular election
protest by the a''rieed party. @oweer, proceedin's !ay continue when on the basis of the
eidence thus far presented, the Co!!ission deter!ines that the petition appears
!eritorious and accordin'ly issues an order for the proceedin' to continue or when an
appropriate order has been issued by the /upre!e Court in a petition for certiorari.M
<eyes s. <TC of >riental .indoro
+ll election cases, includin' pre,procla!ation controersies, !ust be decided by the
C>.#:#C in diision. /hould a party be dissatisfied with the decision, he !ay file a !otion
for reconsideration before the C>.#:#C en banc. 2t is, therefore, the decision, order or
rulin' of the C>.#:#C en banc that, in accordance with +rt. 20, +, /ection 7, M!ay be
brou'ht to the /upre!e Court on certiorari.M
/ection J
%ational Press Club s. Co!elec
The Co!elec has also been 'ranted the ri'ht to superise and re'ulate the e-ercise by
!edia practitioners the!seles of their ri'ht to e-pression durin' plebiscite periods. .edia
practitioners e-ercisin' their freedo! of e-pression durin' plebiscite periods are neither the
franchise holders nor the candidates. 2n fact, there are no candidates inoled in a plebiscite.
Teleco!!unications and Broadcast +ttorneys of the Philippines s 5.+
2t is ar'ued that the power to superise or re'ulate 'ien to the C>.#:#C under +rt. 20,C,
/ection J of the Constitution does not include the power to prohibit. 2n the first place, what
the C>.#:#C is authori?ed to superise or re'ulate by +rt. 20,C, /ection J of the
Constitution, a!on' other thin's, is the use by !edia of infor!ation of their franchises or
per!its, while what Con'ress "not the C>.#:#C$ prohibits is the sale or donation of print
space or air ti!e for political ads. 2n other words, the ob6ect of superision or re'ulation is
different fro! the ob6ect of the prohibition. 2t is another fallacy for petitioners to contend that
the power to re'ulate does not include the power to prohibit. This !ay hae force if the
ob6ect of the power were the sa!e.
+dion' s. C>.#:#C
The postin' of decals and stic7ers on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other !oin'
ehicles needs the consent of the owner of the ehicle. @ence, the preference of the citi?en
beco!es crucial in this 7ind of election propa'anda not the financial resources of the
candidate. Ahether the candidate is rich and, therefore, can afford to doleout !ore decals
and stic7ers or poor and without the !eans to spread out the nu!ber of decals and stic7ers
is not as i!portant as the ri'ht of the owner to freely e-press his choice and e-ercise his
ri'ht of free speech. The owner can een prepare his own decals or stic7ers for postin' on
his personal property. To stri7e down this ri'ht and en6oin it is i!per!issible encroach!ent of
his liberties.
/anidad s. C>.#:#C
Co!elec spaces and Co!elec radio ti!e !ay proide a foru! for e-pression but they do not
'uarantee full disse!ination of infor!ation to the public concerned because they are li!ited
to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or teleision ti!es.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
/#CT2>% 2
5I#1+<+ 1/ 52.#%#W
The +uditor,5eneral has no !adate to disapproe e-penditures which in his opinion are
e-cessie and e-traa'ant. @is authority is li!ited to the auditin' in e-penditures of funds
and properties. such function is li!ited to a deter!ination of whether there is a law
appropriatin' funds for a 'ien purpose( whether a contract entered !ade by the proper
officer has been entered in confor!ity with the said appropriation law( whether the 'oods
and serices coered by the said contract hae been deliered or rendered in pursuance
thereof, as attested by the proper officer( and whether pay!ent therefore has been
authori?ed by the officials of the correspondin' depart!ent or bureau. 2f these reGuire!ents
hae been fulfilled, it is the !inisterial duty of the +uditor 5eneral to approe and pass in
audit the oucher and treasury warrant for said pay!ent. %o discretion to disapproe said
pay!ent on the 'round that contract was unwise or unreasonable.
><>C2> 1/ C>+
To deter!ine whether an e-penditure of a 'oern!ent a'ency or instru!entality is irre'ular,
unnecessary, e-cessie, e-traa'ant and unconscionable, the C>+ should not be bound by
the opinion of the le'al counsel of a particular a'ency. :e'al counsel can only offer le'al
adice.
>/.#%+ 1/ C>+
+ co!pro!ise a'ree!ent between a !unicipal corporation "Cebu City$ and the parents of
icti! "/pouses dela Cerna$ was constitutional. The participation of the city in an a!icable
settle!ent and eentual e-ecution of a co!pro!ise is indubitable within the power and
authority of a !unicipal corporation. %otably, the co!pro!ise a'ree!ent was sub!itted to
its le'islatie council, which approed it confor!ably with its established rules and
procedure.
/+.B#:2 1/ P<>12%C# >F 2/+B#:+
C>+ has the re'ulatory power to ensure that 'oern!ent funds and properties are fully
protected and consered and that irre'ular unnecessary, e-cessie, or e-traa'ant
e-penditures or uses of funds owned by, or pertainin' to the 5oern!ent or any of its
subdiisions, a'encies of instru!entalities are preented.
BI/T+.+%T# 1/ C>+
8iscretion e-ercised by C>+ in the denial of the appeal "on the decision of a <e'ional
+uditor$ is within its power. +lso, conclusions of a Board of 8irectors of a 'oern!ent,
owned and controlled corporation in safe'uardin' the proper use of the 'oern!entDs and
peopleDs property cannot preail oer the constitutional !andate on C>+.
/+:25I.B+ 1/ C>+
/upre!e Courts power to reiew C>+ decisions refers to !oney !atters and not to
ad!inistratie cases "rape case s. auditin' e-a!iner,respondent$ inolin' the discipline of
its personnel.
/#CT2>% 4
P@2: +2<:2%#/ 1/ C>+ "!ore on section 2$
C>+ has the e-clusie authority, sub6ect to li!itations, to define the scope of its audit and
e-a!ination, establish the techniGues and !ethods reGuired therefore. C>+ can adopt as
its own, si!ply by reiteration or by reference, without the necessity of repro!ul'ation,
already e-istin' rules and re'ulations. 2t !ay also e-pand the coera'e thereof to a'encies
or instru!entalities under its audit 6urisdiction. C>+ can adised P+: to desist fro! biddin'
the its fuel upon e-piration of contracts
B+5+T/2%5 1/ C>..2TT## >% P<21+T2W+T2>%
C>+, the a'ency that adopted the rules on biddin' procedure to be followed by 'oern!ent
offices and corporations, upheld the le'ality of biddin' althou'h there is only one offeror "2
were disGualified, bid below floor price and technical reasons$ since the C>+ Circular does
not spea7 of accepted bids but of offerors, without distinction as to whether they were
disGualified. The interpretation of an a'ency of its own rules should be 'ien !ore wei'ht
than the interpretation by the a'ency of the law it is !erely tas7ed to ad!inister.