Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan and Zaldivar vs. Hon.

Raul Gonzalez, claiming to be and acting as

Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution
Nature: Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to review the decision of the
Sandiganbayan
Facts:
• Enrique Zaldivar, governor of the province of Antique
• Sought to restrain the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez
• From proceeding with the prosecution and hearing of criminal cases filed against him
• On the ground that said cases were filed by the Tanodbayan.
• The 1987 Consti provided that it is only the Ombudsman who has the authority to file
cases with the Sandiganbayan.

Issue: WON Tanodbayan had authority to file those cases for Sandiganbayan to prosecute and
hear.
Held: NO

Ratio:
1. Under the 1987 Consti, the Ombudsman (distinguished from Tanodbayan) is charged
with the duty to:
Section 13, par 1: Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public officer, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

2. The Tanodbayan of the 1973 Consti became the Office of the Special prosecutor that
shall continue to function and exercise it powers as now or hereafter may be provided
by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under the
Consti. (article 11, section 7)

3. Thus, beginning on February 2, 1987, the authority to conduct preliminary

investigations and direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan was
vested on the Ombudsman.

4. The Tanodbayan is now the subordinate of the Sandiganbayan and it can investigate
and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s authority or orders.

Office of the Tanodbayan: created by PB 1607

GRANTED; GONZALEZ ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS

AND FILING CRIMNIAL CASES WITH THE SANDIGANBAYAN OR OTHERWISE EXERCISNG THE
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Inting vs. Tanodbayan (1980 case)

Nature: Petition fro certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction and restraining order
Facts:
1. Inting filed complaints for perjury at the City Fiscal of Davao’s office, against Angelina
S. Salcedo (in latter’s personal data sheets, she indicated that she completed the 1-
year Secretarial Science course at USC in Cebu although she never enrolled in, and
neither did she complete the course) Salcedo is an appurtenant of the judicial staff of
the City Court of Davao
2. City Fiscal of Davao thru Special Counsel Rodrigo R. Duterte conducted preliminary
investigation.
3. found prima facie case for perjury and filed 3 separate counts of perjury under article
183 of RPC
4. Salcedo interposed appeal to the ministry of Justice.
5. Ministry of Justice forwarded records to Tanodbayan, pursuant to Section 10 (f) of the
PD No. 1630, which vests on the latter the power to file and prosecute offenses
committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office.
6. Tanodbayan Vicente Ericta reversed decision of City Fiscal.
7. directed city fiscal to move for dismissal of the 3 criminal cases for perjury against
Salcedo
Powers of Tanodbayan: PD 1603
Section 10 (a) he may investigate, on complaint by any person or on his own motion or initiative, any administrative act
whether amounting to any criminal offense or not of any administrative agency including any GOCC.

(f) he may file and prosecute civil and administrative cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses
committed by public officers and employees, including those in GOCC, in relation to their office.

Issue: WON Tanodbayan has jurisdiction and authority to review and nullify the resolutions of
the City Fiscal of Davao
Held: Yes

Ratio:
1. Tanodbayan has authority to file and prosecute Salcedo’s case even if it does not
involve graft and corrupt offices because it falls under such other offenses covered by
section 10 (f) of PD 1630
2. Act of perjury was in relation to Salcedo’s office. Section 18 of PD 1630 gives
Tanodbayan authority to conduct investigations and file case for such occurrence.
3. Tanodbayan therefore had authority to nullify and review resolutions of the City Fiscal
of Davao as the case involved the actions of a government official related to his office.

PETITION DISMISSED.

Orap, Vicente vs. Sandiganbayan represented by Justices Manuel Pamaran, Fernandez, and
Escareal (1985 case)

Nature: Petition for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the Sandiganbayan
Facts:
• Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor Rodolfo Aquino
• Charged Vicente Orap, presiding judge of the Municipal Court of Mangatarem,
Pangasinan
• With violation of Section 39e) of Rep Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act
• Juan Sison, then Chief Special prosecutor of the Tanodbayan approved information and
the latter was docketed as Crim. Cases Nos. SB-020, 021, 022.
• Clerk of Court, Melanio Fernandez was also charged.
• Orap contended that Tanodbayan had no power to conduct preliminary investigations,
file infos, and prosecute criminal cases against judges and their appurtenant judicial
staff.

Alleged crime of Orap: took sums of money from several persons in connection with the case
of People vs. Pepito Iglesias, for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, serious
physical injuries and damage to property

Issue Held/Ratio
WON Tanodbayan has authority to conduct NO.
preliminary investigation of the complaint As Ombudsman, his investigatory powers are
limited to complaints initiated against offices
and personnel of administrative agencies as
defined in Section 9(a) of PD 1607.
WON Tanodbayan had authority to file YES.
corresponding information before the As prosecutor, the authority of the
Sandiganbayan and prosecute the same Tanodbayan is plenary and without
exceptions.

Section 17 of PD 1607 empowers special

 prosecutors exclusive authority to conduct
preliminary investigation of all cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.

Section 19 gave the Office of the Chief Special

Prosecutor power to investigate employees
and officials who act in a manner warranting
criminal or disciplinary action

PETITION DISMISSED.
Tanodbayan has jurisdiction to investigate and file information.
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction to prosecute defined under section 4 of PD 1606.

Nixon:
PRESIDENCY

In the White House, the contradictions in Nixon were most obvious. He could be bold, yet also
cautious; effective, yet often inept. Working closely with his national security advisor (later,
secretary of state), Henry KISSINGER, he forsook the anti-Communist policies that he had
supported throughout most of his career in favor of DETENTE with the USSR and
rapprochement with the Communist government of China. In 1969 he began the Strategic
Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with the Soviet Union. In February 1972 he made a historic trip
to Beijing--where he was received by Mao Zedong--thus reversing the U.S. policy of not
recognizing the Communist government. In 1973, after 4 years of waging war in Vietnam--
including heavy bombing raids on North Vietnam (1972) and the invasion (1970) of Cambodia--
the administration managed to arrange a cease-fire that would last long enough to permit U.S.
withdrawal from the Indochinese war zone. After the Arab-Israel War in 1973, the efforts of
Henry Kissinger led to a cease-fire and troop disengagement in the Middle East.

Domestically, under the banner of "A New Federalism," Nixon attempted to shift important
elements of governmental power and responsibility back to state and local governments. He
cut back and opposed federal welfare services, proposed antibusing legislation, and used
wage-and-price controls to fight inflation. A combination of domestic and international
developments, notably the quintupling of oil prices by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) in 1973, led to the economic recession of 1974-75.

In 1972, Nixon swept to an overwhelming victory in the presidential election against his
Democratic challenger Sen. George S. MCGOVERN--but, ironically, the seeds of political
collapse had already been sown. During the campaign, a group of burglars working for the
Committee to Re-elect the President broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National
Committee at the Watergate office-apartment complex in Washington, D.C., apparently in
search of political intelligence. Attempts by the White House to stop or frustrate the ensuing
investigations ultimately failed when Nixon's own White House tape recordings revealed that
the president and his assistants had engaged in an obstruction of justice.

In the meantime he had been forced to drop Vice-President Spiro T. AGNEW, who resigned in
October 1973 after he was charged with corruption that began during his tenure as Baltimore
County executive. As the revelations of wrongdoing piled up, Nixon became preoccupied with
preserving his presidency. He jettisoned top assistants in the White House and fired Special
Prosecutor Archibald COX. After the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, required that he
supply Cox's successor, Leon JAWORSKI, with tape recordings of conversations with his
advisors, the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend (July 27-30, 1974) approval by
the full House of three articles of impeachment against the president. On Aug. 9, 1974, Nixon
resigned his office and was succeeded by Vice-President Gerald R. FORD, whom he had
selected to replace Agnew. A month after Nixon's resignation, Ford pardoned him for any
crimes he might have committed as president. Nixon accepted the pardon but insisted that his
mistakes had been personal and political, not criminal.

Watergate
Watergate is the popular name for the political scandal and constitutional crisis that began
with the arrest (June 17, 1972) of five burglars who broke into Democratic National Committee
headquarters at the Watergate office building in Washington, D.C. It ended with the
resignation (Aug. 9, 1974) of President Richard M. NIXON.

The burglars and two co-plotters--G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt--were indicted
(September 1972) on charges of burglary, conspiracy, and wiretapping. Four months later,
they were convicted and sentenced to prison terms by District Court Judge John J. Sirica, who
was convinced that pertinent details had not been unveiled during the trial and proffered
leniency in exchange for further information. As it became increasingly evident that the
Watergate burglars were tied closely to the Central Intelligence Agency and the Committee to
Re-elect the President (CRP), some of Nixon's aides began talking to federal prosecutors.

The defection of aides such as Jeb Stuart Magruder, assistant to CRP director John N.
MITCHELL, quickly implicated others in Nixon's inner circle. The Senate established (February
1973) an investigative committee headed by Sen. Sam ERVIN, Jr., to look into the growing
scandal. Amid increasing disclosures of White House involvement in the Watergate break-in
and its aftermath, Nixon announced the resignations of John Ehrlichman and H. R. Haldeman,
two of his closest advisors, and the dismissal of his counsel John W. Dean III.

Growing suspicion of presidential involvement in the scandal resulted in an intensification of

the investigation. Leaders in this inquiry included Judge Sirica, reporters for the Washington
Post, the Ervin committee, and Archibald COX, who was sworn in as special prosecutor in May
1973. Dean told the Ervin committee in June that Nixon had known of the cover-up. A month
later, former White House staff member Alexander Butterfield revealed that Nixon had secretly
tape-recorded conversations in his offices. Both Cox and the Ervin committee began efforts to
obtain selected tapes. Nixon, citing EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, refused to relinquish them and tried
to have Cox fired. On Oct. 20, 1973, Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson, refusing to dismiss
Cox, resigned in protest. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also refused and was fired. Nixon's
solicitor general, Robert H. Bork, who was next in command, then fired Cox. The "Saturday
night massacre," as the events of that evening became known, heightened suspicions that
Nixon had much to hide.

Leon Jaworski, who replaced Cox as special prosecutor on November 1, continued to press for
the tapes. On Mar. 1, 1974, a federal grand jury indicted seven men, including Haldeman,
Ehrlichman, Mitchell, and White House special counsel Charles Colson, for conspiracy to
obstruct justice. At the same time, the House Judiciary Committee began investigating the
Watergate affair and related matters.

The president released (April 30) edited transcripts--containing suspicious gaps--of Watergate-
related Oval Office conversations. Not satisfied, Judge Sirica subpoenaed additional tapes.
When Nixon refused, the case moved to the Supreme Court, which ruled (July 24) against him
by an 8-0 vote. The Court conceded that a president could withhold national security material
but insisted that Watergate was a criminal matter (see UNITED STATES V. RICHARD M. NIXON).

On July 27-30, the House Judiciary Committee, whose public hearings had disclosed evidence
of illegal White House activities, recommended that Nixon be impeached on three charges:
obstruction of justice, abuse of presidential powers, and trying to impede the impeachment
process by defying committee subpoenas. The committee rejected two other possible counts:
Nixon's unauthorized, secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and his use of public funds to
improve his private property.

A beleaguered President Nixon released three tapes to the public on Aug. 5, 1974. One
revealed that he had taken steps to thwart the FBI's inquiry into the Watergate burglary. The
tape made it clear that Nixon had been involved actively in the cover-up from its beginnings.
These disclosures destroyed the president's remaining congressional support. With House
impeachment inevitable and Senate conviction probable, Richard Nixon became (Aug. 9, 1974)
the first U.S. chief executive to resign.
 Clinton vs. Jones
Nature: Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
Facts:
• May 8, 1991, during an official conference at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock,
Arkansas where Clinton was governor.
• Danny Ferguson, former Arkansas State Police, persuaded her to leave her desk
(registration) and to visit the Governor in a business suite at the hotel.
• There, Clinton allegedly made abhorrent sexual advances that she vehemently
rejected.
• Subsequently, her superiors at work shanged her duties to ounish her for rejecting
those advances.
• Jones sought actual damamges of $75,000 and punitive damages of $100,000
• Clinton filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of presidential immunity.

Issue: WON Clinton could claim presidential immunity for unofficial acts performed before he
became president of the USA.
Held: NO
Ratio:
1. Presidential immunity can only be claimed if the President was performing an
official act.
2. Allowing the trial to proceed will not prejudice the function of the President.
a. His testimonies for discovery and for use at trial may be taken at the White
House
b. Such shall be acquired at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule
c. The President may choose not to be present at the trial.
3. The President cannot claim immunity from suits for money damages because in
this particular case, the suit did not arise out of his official act.
4. Immunities are grounded in the nature of the function performed, not the identity
of the actor who performed it.
5. Delaying the trial would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of
evidence, including the inability off witnesses to recall specific facts, or the
possible death of a party.

The Federal District Court has jurisdiction to decide this case. Like every other citizen who
properly invokes that jurisdiction, respondent has a right to an orderly disposition of her
claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the COA is affirmed.

Contents of Jones’ complaint:

1. Clinton deprived her of rights protected by the Constitution.
2. Clinton and Ferguson engaged in a conspiracy to violate her federal rights.
3. state common-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress
4. for defamation, embracing both the comments allegedly made to the press by
Ferguson and the statements of petitioner’s agents.

In Re. Raul M. Gonzalez

Nature: In re 1st Indorsement from Honorable Raul M. Gonzalez dated March 16, 1988
requesting Hon. Judge Marcelo Fernan to Comment on an Anonymous Letter-Complaint

Facts:
An anonymous letter by Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court was addressed to
Hon. Raul Gonzalez.
Contents of the letter:
• charges of disbarment brought by Mr. Miguel Cuenco against Justice Marcelo Fernan
• a request for Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez as Tanodbayan/Special Prosecutor to do something
about the case

February 12, 1988

The Court directed the Clerk of Court to furnish Mr. Gonzalez a copy of a resolution.
 Contents of the resolution:
• dismiss the charges made by Cuenco against Fernan
• require Cuenco to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for
making such unfounded accusations

Issue: WON a member of the Supreme Court can be charged with disbarment during his
incumbency
Held: NO

Ratio:
Article 8, section7, par 1 and article 9, section2 provide:
That members of the Supreme Court who are members of the Philippine bar may be removed
from office only by impeachment.

1. Such public officer cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any
other court with any offense which carries with it a penalty of removal from office, or
any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office.

2. To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member’s
incumbency would circumvent the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court
may be removed from office

• only by impeachment
• and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article 11 (2) of Consti
o culpable violation of the Constitution
o treason
o bribery
o graft
o corruption
o high crimes
o betrayal of public trust

Proper remedy for offending members of the SC who are members of the Philippine bar:
1. impeachment under sections 2 and 3 of article 11 of 1987 Consti
2. when tenure is terminated by impeachment, he may be held liable to answer wither:
a. criminally or
b. administratively (by disbarment proceedings)

• for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate
proceedings

The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Resolution upon Hon. Raul
Gonzalez and Mr. Miguel Cuenco.

In re Jarque
Nature:
Facts:
• November 18, 1995: letter by Cpt. Jose Rene N. Jarque, sworn to before Notary Public
Atty. Aida Balbastro: complaint of disbarment against Ombudsman Aniano Desierto for
“immorality and involvement in various illegal and immoral activities.
• The letter alleged that Desierto has an illegitimate daughter with Teresita Alferez by
the name of Desiree.

Issue: WON the Court can make out a prima facie case for disbarment against Desierto based
on such letter-complaint.
Held: NO
Ratio:
1. The letter made very general allegations made y other, unknown and unnamed
sources.
 2. Even if the letter-complaint had succeeded in making out such a prima facie case, the
Court would still have to dismiss the complaints.

Article 8, section7, par 1 and article 9, section2 provide:

That members of the Supreme Court who are members of the Philippine bar may be removed
from office only by impeachment.

3. Such public officer cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any
other court with any offense which carries with it a penalty of removal from office, or
any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office.

4. To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member’s
incumbency would circumvent the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court
may be removed from office

• only by impeachment
• and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article 11 (2) of Consti
o culpable violation of the Constitution
o treason
o bribery
o graft
o corruption
o high crimes
o betrayal of public trust

Proper remedy for offending members of the SC who are members of the Philippine bar:
3. impeachment under sections 2 and 3 of article 11 of 1987 Consti
4. when tenure is terminated by impeachment, he may be held liable to answer wither:
a. criminally or
b. administratively (by disbarment proceedings)

• for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate
proceedings

Ocampo, IV vs. Ombudsman

Nature: Petition for review of the memorandum of the Ombudsman
Facts:
• November 27 1991: The Ombudsman issued a memorandum to the Office of the
Special Prosecutor disapproving the recommendation of the special prosecutors (Roger
Berbano, Sr. and Rodolfo Reynoso) that the criminal cases filed against Gov. Mariano
Un Ocampo III and his sons Mariano Ocampo IV be dismissed and that corresponding
motions to withdraw them be filed with the Sandiganbayan.
What did they do?
Marino Ocampo III, governor of Tarlac and president-chairman of the BOT of the
Lingkod Tarlac Foundation, Inc. in connivance with his son, loaned amount of money out of the
National Aid for LG funds of Tarlac to the New Territory Manufacturing Inc (then IMCOR) of
which the son was incorporator and stockholder, under terms and conditions grossly
disadvantageous to the government the same being interest-free, without collateral, and
without a definite date of repayment.

Issue: WON the Ombudsman has authority to order for the investigation to proceed despite the
recommendations of the special prosecutors to dismiss the same
Held: Yes.
Ratio:
1. The Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the
specificity and adequacy of the averments of the offense charged.
2. His actions were neither whimsical nor capricious because he sincerely believed that
there is sufficient evidence to indict both accused. Such rule is based not only upon
 respect of for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Consti to the
Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.
3. But take note: once a case has been filed with the Sandiganbayan, such court will have
full control of the case so much that the information may not be dismissed without
approval of the said court.

Additional info:
Criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either through preliminary or final injunction or a
writ of prohibition, except in the following instances:
1. to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
2. when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions;
3. when there is a pre-judicial question which is sub-judice;
4. when the acts of the office are without or in excess of authority
5. where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance, or regulation
6. when double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
8. where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
9. where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance
10. when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash
on that ground has been denied
11. preliminary injunction to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.

Venus vs. Desierto

Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition
Facts:
Petitioner: Municipal Mayor of Aklan
Respondents: Mars Regalado and Harry Abayon, members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Aklan

Events:
September 2, 1988: Resolution 19 was passed authorizing petitioner to negotiate and enter
into a contract with the Board of Liquidators in the Acquisition of the Garcia-Diapo Enterprise

September 6, 1988: petitioner proceeded to Manila and submitted to Wenceslao

Buenaventura, Director and gen. Manager of the BOL and offered to buy the lot on a
government-to-government basis at a price mutually acceptable to the parties

September 8, 1988:
• offer was rejected. ]
• Petitioner returned to New Washington and submitted to treasurer his voucher for
transpo expenses
• Asked Atty. Antonio Tabang, provincial auditor, as regards the municipality’s
participation in a public bidding.
• SB doubted whether NW can participate in the bidding

September 19, 1988: petitioner went to manila at his personal expense and participated in the
bidding.
He submitted the highest bid and thus the property was sold to him and a deed of
absolute sale was executed.
During his term, he allowed a portion of the lots to be used as garage for the
municipality’s fire truck and for the municipality’s mushroom culture laboratory

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Kalibo, Aklan

• Private respondents then filed complaint and charged petitioner with violation of
• Paragraph (h) of section 3 of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) as
amended.

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas:

 • dismissed the complaint on the ground that there existed no case for violation of
paragraph (h) of section 3 of RA 3019 as amended

Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez:

• disapproved resolution
• marginal note: to consider possible liability of petitioner for a violation of mentioned
act since there is pervading showing of bad faith on the part of petitioner in
maneuvering to acquire for himself a piece of property which he himself knew to be
badly needed by the municipality

Reraffled to Graft Investigation Officer I Carla Tanco of Office of Deputy Ombudsman:

• found prima facie evidence to proceed against petitioner
• Deputy Ombudsman of Visayas approved.

Office of Special Prosecutor Officer III Orlando Ines:

• found reasonable ground to charge Eriberto Venus of the violation
• Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E. kallos recommended Ines’ resolution
• Special prosecutor Leonardo Tamayo concurred
• Ombudsman Desierto approved.
• Info was filed with Sandiganbayan
• Petitioner filed a motion for recon with Victor Pascual, Special Prosecutor (found out
that petitioner had not violated said act and then recommended that the case be
dismissed)
• Ombudsman disapproved

Issue: WON the Ombudsman can reinvestigate a case already filed with the Sandiganbayan
Held: Yes
Ratio:
1. The Sandiganbayan allowed petitioner to file motion to reconsider the adverse
resolution of Special Prosecutor Ines.
2. Thru this, Sandiganbayan thus deferred to the authority of the Ombudsman to
reinvestigate the case and further assess or re-examine the facts.
3. The Sandiganbayan was willing to accept and adopt the final resolution of the Officer
of the Special Prosecutor and Ombudsman on the issue of whether of not the offense
charged was in fact committed by the petitioner
Crim. case dismissed: lack of reasonable ground to believe that petitioner violated said act.

Ynchausti & Co. vs Wright

Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court
Ben F. Wright: Auditor of the Philippine Islands
Ynchausti & Co: agent and operator of Venus: used in the coastwise trade of the Phil Islands
Facts:
• Ynchausti & Co, agent and operator of steamship Venus, used in the coastwise trade of
the Philippine Islands
• They acquired services in Hong Kong for the repair and reconstruction of the ship
(repair and overhaul of the thrust shaft and boilers)
• There were no adequate facilities in the Philippines to achieve such purpose.
• Upon Venus’ return to the Philippines,
• The Insular Collector of Customs asked petitioners to pay customs duty payable on
such repairs and reconstruction work.
• Petitioner paid said amount under protest.

• Petitioner claimed that such repairs and works should be exempted from the payment
of customs duty under

• Par 200, section 8, and par. 348, section 11 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909.

• After hearing the Internal Collector of Customs sustained the protest and ordered the
refund of the money through a warrant for Auditor Wright to sign in approval.
 • Wright refused to sign such.

Issue: WON countersignature of the COA may be compelled if it can be shown that:
1) the warrant has been legally drawn by the officer authorized by law to do so
2) and appropriation to which the warrant may be applied exists by virtue of law
3) an unexpended balance of the amount appropriated is available.

Held: YES

Ratio: The duty to countersign the warrant in this case is simply ministerial and it is not up to
the discretion of the Auditor to decide otherwise.

It was then necessary to find out if the 3 requisites needed to compel COA to countersign
warrant for refund were present in the case at bar.

Requisite Status
1. WON warrant has been legally drawn YES.
by the officer authorized by law to do
so • The Collector of Customs was given the
authority to investigate WON such
repairs undertaken by the operators of
Venus were necessary and such would
exempt them from customs duty.
• Representatives from several
Philippine firms testified that the
nature of the repair and overhaul
needed by Venus could not be done in
the Philippines due to lack of needed
facilities.
• Since it was found out that such
repairs were needed and that the Tariff
law does exempt them from customs
duty, the Collector of Customs was
authorized by law to issue a warrant to
be countersigned by the COA so that
the petitioners can be refunded for the
amount paid.

2. WON Venus and the repairs it undertook YES. Act of Congress of 1901 as amended by
were exempted from customs duty Act No. 2872 of the Philippine Legislature

• provides that repairs made in foreign

3. WON the law provides appropriations for
the asked refund
4. WON mandamus is the proper remedy
countries to vessels shall be subject to
provisions in par 348 of the Tariff law if
it could be shown that:
• such repairs can only be done
• in a foreign country
• reasonably
• economically
• and within reasonable time
YES. Act No. 357 as amended by Act No. 1515
provides:
• that to meet refunds of customs duties
or taxes
• erroneously and illegally collected
• by the Philippine Government,
• permanent annual appropriations are
provided
YES.
 • Countersigning of COA of a warrant
legally executed
• Is a ministerial function of the Insular
Auditor
• The writ of mandamus is the proper
remedy to compel an official to
perform and official duty

Matute vs. Hernandez

Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court
Jaime Hernandez: Auditor General of the Commonwealth of the Philippines
Facts:
• December 24, 1936: Matute entered into a contract with the Commonwealth of the
Philippines
• Through its Purchasing Agent
• With the consent and approval of it Secretary of Finance
• To supply government with fresh meat (hindquarters and brisket, boneless)
• For the entire month of January 1937.
• Subsequently, the City of Manila raised the fees in the municipal slaughterhouse from
2 to 3 and ½ cents per kilo.
• Petitioner asked Purchasing Agent that the price for the meat he offered to supply for
government be raised by 1 and ½ cents also.

• CE Unson, technical adviser to the President and Acting Purchasing Agent

• Granted request with the approval of Undersecretary of Finance Guillermo Gomez.

• Subsequently, petitioner supplied and delivered meat to Bureau of Prisons.

• However when the treasury warrant was sent to the Auditor general, he refused to
countersign it.

• Petitioner wanted court to compel auditor general to sign and consequently cash in
due amount.

Issues
1. WON Auditor General has the right and
power to judge the merits and legality of any
contract entered into by the Commonwealth
of the Philippines through the Purchasing
Agent
Held/Ratio
YES. Section 2 of Article 10:
• Auditor General has the duty to bring
to the attention of the proper
administrative officers expenditure of
funds or property, which, in his
opinion, are irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, or extravagant.
• Auditor General had to find out WON
disbursement was illegal.
(discretionary power, as opposed to
Wright case where the countersigning
was a ministerial duty)

2. WON the raise of prices in the City of YES.

Manila was illegal and void • It was not effected in accordance with
 the requirements of EO No. 16
• No public bidding had been held
• Auditor-General, Secretary of Justice,
or the Secretary of the dept was not
consulted
• Approval of the President was not
obtained

Guevara vs. Gimenez

Pedro Gimenez: Auditor General of the Philippines
Ismael Mathay: Auditor of the Central Bank
Guillermo Guevara: petitioner
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Mandamus.
Facts:
• Governor of Central bank, Miguel Cuaderno asked petitioner
• To cooperate with the legal counsel of CB
• In defending CB and its Monetary Board in Civil Case 41226
• Filed against them by one R. Marino Corpus.
• Accordingly, petitioner entered his appearance as counsel for the respondents.
• Resolution No. 1283 of the Monetary Board recognized the designation and provided
that the Governor arrange with Guevara the amount of fee which the latter will charge
the CB for handling the said cases.

Issue: WON CB’s governor’s designation of Guevara was a violation of Section 1664 of the
Revised Administrative Code, which vests on the Solicitor General the power to employ special
counsel

Held: NO
Ratio:
1. Petitioner was retained not by the government of the Philippines but by the CB, which
has a personality distinct and separate from that of the govt
2. He did not appear in the case as representative of the Solicitor General

Issue: WON Auditor General may now be compelled to pass in audit and approve the payment
of the amounts claimed by the petitioner

Held: YES

Ratio:
The Auditor General has the duty to approve and pass in audit the voucher for said
disbursements, if issued by the proper officer of said agency of the Government.
Since under the law, the Governor of the CB with its Monetary may employ special
legal counsel and approve payments for his services, the Auditor General has the duty to
disburse said amounts.

Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS

Facts:

In view of the government’s efforts at privatization, GSIS sold its Manila Hotel shares
(51%) at a bidding where only two parties participated: (1) Renong Berhad , a Malaysian firm
and (2) Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino firm.

Manila Prince offered a bid P2.40 lower than Renong Berhad’s (bidding was on a price
per share basis). Pending confirmation of Renong Berhad as the winner, Manila Prince wrote
GSIS to enjoin it from awarding the sale to Renong, saying they are now willing to match the
Malaysian firm’s bid. Manila Prince then wrote a cheque as bid security, which the GSIS refused
to accept.
Issues / Held / Ratio:

1. WON the Constitutional provision on preferring qualified Filipinos in the granting of

concessions, privileges, and rights involving the national patrimony and economy is self-
executing

Yes. Otherwise, the Consti would always require legislation before any of its provisions
could be considered binding. The Consti, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land,
cannot be held subordinate and cannot be paralyzed by a need for legislative acts.

2. WON “national patrimony” involved only public lands and natural resources

No. “National patrimony” also includes cultural heritage, of which the Manila Hotel has
been a symbol.

3. WON 51% of the controlling shares does not involve patrimony

No. Whoever controls the shares, controls the land and the hotel.

4. WON action is addressed against the State, not the GSIS

No. Although the GSIS possesses a distinct and separate personality, its acts are
considered “State action” (1) when they involve the performance of a public function, (2) when
the government is responsible for the action, and (3) when government authorized action.
GSIS activity has requisites (2) and (3), therefore they are actions of the State covered by the
Constitution.

Note: Court upheld nationalism and non-material values over foreign investment

** GSIS ordered to cease from selling to Renong Berhad; to accept matching bid of Manila
Prince

Peralta v. Mathay

Facts:

Petitioner is a trustee of the GSIS. The Auditor General said his Christmas bonus, cost
of living allowance and incentive bonus should be deducted from his retirement gratuity in
view of the Constitutional provision that no employee of the government may receive
additional or double compensation.

Issue: WON petitioner’s Christmas bonus, cost of living allowance and incentive bonus are
covered by the
Constitutuional prohibiton

Held: Yes.

Ratio: The law is clear. The GSIS act only grants per diems to trustees on a daily basis. Such
per diems are then considered as reimbursements or the amount they spend to fulfill their
duties. Allowances given to Peralta in this case, however are not considered reimbursements
and may not be granted. Between the GSIS act and the Constitution, the latter is supreme.

** Order of Auditor General affirmed.

Tanada v. Cuenco – sorry, lost my digest

Republic v. Imperial

Facts:

In 1941, Lopez Vito was first appointed to the Comelec.

 In 1945, the first set of Comelec commissioners were appointed. These were:

1. Lopez Vito, chairman, who shall serve for nine years until 1954
2. Francisco Enage, member, who shall serve for six years until 1951
3. Vicente Vera, member, who shall serve for three years until 1948

In 1947, Lopez Vito died. He was succeeded by Member Vera as Comelec

chairman.

In 1949, Respondent Perez was appointed to fill in Vera’s position, which was
vacated by his promotion to Chairmanship upon Vito’s death. Member Enage retired.

In 1951, Vera died. He was succeeded by respondent Imperial as Comelec

Chairman.

By this time, only two of the three Comelec seats at that time were occupied.

Issue: WON Imperial and Perez are legally continuing office as Chairman and Member of
Comelec respectively

Held: Yes

Ratio: The Court counted the respondent’s terms of office from 1941, when CA 567 was
implemented, completing the organization of the Comelec. The rules laid down are:

1. All initial appointments should start at the same date and;

2. Vacancies because of death, disability or resignation shall be filled only for the
unexpired term of the successor.

The Court ruled that to do otherwise would be to violate the rotational cycle
devised by the framers of the Constitution to ensure the continuity of the policies of the
Comelec. Also, with vacancies occurring only once every three years, a four-year
administration may not appoint more than one member of the Comelec at a time,
safeguarding against undue influence by the executive on the independent body.

According to the SC, the following occupied the seats during these times:

1941 1945 1947 1950

Chairman Vito Vito Vera Imperial
Term ends Term ends Term ends Term ends
1950 1950 1950 1959
Member Enage Enage Perez Perez
Term ends Term ends Term ends Term ends
1947 1947 1956 1956
Member vacant Vera Rovira vacant
Term ends Term ends Term ends Term ends
1944 1953 1953 1962

** In 1947, the first vacancy occurred when Chairman Vito died. The second vacancy
occurred when Enage retired.
 Ordinarily, resignation or death
creates a vacancy in the office. But the Court
said that Constitutional Commissions like the
Comelec are exceptions to the rule, saying
that anyone who succeeds as a member has
to deal with a shortened tenure.
Assuming the Comelec adopted the
ROC suppletorily, it does not have the power
to adopt rules on the disqualification of its
members because the Constitution provides
that its members may only be removed
through impeachment.

** Imperial’s term ends in 1959, Perez in The older De Vera should be able to
1956. Quo warranto dismissed. inhibit himself solely on the basis of ethics.

Note: (2) WON a person who has not served for

the full term of nine years in the Comelec
Republic v. Imperial held that any person, may be reappointed
once appointed, may not be reappointed to
the Commission regardless of tenure. Yes. The phrase “may not be
reappointed” is a continuation of the phrase
Compare this with an earlier case, “who shall serve office for a term of nine
Nacionalista Party v. De Vera, which held that years”. This does not warrant the
reappointment is valid so long as the person interpretation that members may not be
to be reappointed has not yet served the full reappointed when they have not served the
term of nine years. full term. In such cases, they may be
reappointed provided that (1) the
appointment does not preclude the
Nacionalista Party v. De Vera appointment of a new member and (2) a term
does not exceed nine years in all.
Facts:
** Petition dismissed
The petitioners, members of the
Note: De Vera inhibited himself from the
Nacionalista Party, sought to disqualify
deliberations.
Comelec chairman Vicente de Vera from
taking part in the Comelec deliberations
concerning the Nov. 1949 elections on two
grounds: Brillantes v. Yorac

1. De Vera’s son, Teodoro de Vera, Facts:

was a Liberal Party senatorial candidate
during said elections. Following Rules of Petitioner challenged the
Court, the older de Vera should be constitutionality of Yorac’s appointment as
disqualified. Acting Chairman of the Comelec by then
2. De Vera’s appointment as President Aquino.
Chairman is void ab initio, because he had
already served as member of Comelec prior Issue: WON Yorac’s appointment is
to his term as Chairman. Under the constitutional
Constitution, he was not entitled to any
reappointment. Held: No

Issues / Held / Ratio: Ratio:

(1) WON the Rules of Court applies to the 1. The Comelec, although it exercises
Comelec primarily executive functions, is an
independent constitutional body and is not
No. The Rules of Court, promulgated by under the control of the President. The
the Supreme Court, applies only to judicial discretion in filling out a vacancy in its
bodies under its general power of supervision. chairmanship shall belong to the commission
The Comelec is an independent, itself.
administrative body over which the Supreme
Court has jurisdiction only to the extent that 2. The lack of laws, similar to those rules that
it may review the Comelec’s decisions, guide the Supreme Court in filling out
ordinances or rulings on certiorari. vacancies, shall not diminish the
commission’s discretion. Otherwise
appointments revocable at will, would violate
the security of tenure and independence of
its members.
** Appointment held to be unconstitutional;
without prejudice to members of the Comelec
re-electing Yorac or somebody else until a
new Chairman is appointed by the President.
Besa vs. PNB
Nature: Original Petition in the Supreme Court.
Certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto
Facts:
• Tomas Besa was appointed Chief Legal
Counsel with the rank of Vice President of
PNB.
• By virtue of a resolution by PNB president
Roberto Benedicto, he became Consultant
on Legal Matters.
• Conrado Medina took over his position.
• PNB justified by saying that:
o The position of Chief Legal
Counsel carries a special
confidential relationship of lawyer
and client and thus they have the
prerogative to designate or
change its lawyer
o The transfer was made by the
Board in the exercise of its
powers, upon recommendation of
the PNB president
Resolution No. 1053: by BOD: shifted Besa to
Office of President as Consultant on Legal Matters,
without change in salary and other privileges
Issue: WON Besa’s transfer was illegal
Held: NO
Ratio:
1. The position of Chief Legal Counsel was a
highly confidential position and such
position’s term depends upon the will of
the appointing power.
2. Removal without just cause as a defense
applies only to officers and employees
enjoying a fixed term.
3. According to Chief Justice, a primarily
confidential officer cannot be removed.
His term merely expires according to
nature of job. Reyes says tenure of
confidential officers ends upon loss of
confidence.
4. Court also ruled that the position of Chief
Legal Counsel is primarily confidential and
secondarily technical.
Petition Dismissed.
Dario vs. Mison
Mison: Commissioner of Customs
Dario: Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of
Customs
Nature:
• March 25, 1986, Aquino promulgated
Proclamation No. 3
• “DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO
IMPLEMENT THE REFORMS MANDATED BY
THE PEOPLE, PROTECTING THEIR BASIC
RIGHTS, ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL
CONSTITUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
ORDERLY TRNASITION TO A GOVERNMENT
UNDER NEW CONSTITUTION”
• EO 127, Reorganization Program, was also
issued.
• Several acts and rules were issued to
comply with the proclamation.
• January 6, 1988, Mison issued a
memorandum for employees where the
latter shall be:
o Informed of their reappointment,
or
o Offered another position in the
same department or agency
o Informed of their termination
• As a result, Dario was one of the many
whose services were terminated subject to
normal clearances and possible receipt of
retirement benefits under existing laws,
rules, and regulations.
• Hereafter, the Civil Service Commission
reinstated hundreds of employees who
were separated by Mison.
• Mison charged the CSC with grave abuse
of discretion, a case that could be subject
to judicial review without prejudice to the
powers of CSC to have the final say to
cases involving its employees and officers.
• Dario invoked security of tenure.
Issues:
1. Is it constitutional to separate career civil
service employees not for cause but as a
result of the reorganization pursuant to
Proclamation 3 dated March 25m 1986?
Yes. Under Section 16 of Article
18: Transitory Provisions of the
Constitution. It also applies to
separations as results of
reorganization after the
ratification of the Consti.
2. Was there a valid reorganization in the
Bureau of Customs occurring at that time
which would validate Dario’s and several
others’ separation from office?
NO.
• NO change in the staffing pattern
prescribed by Section 34 of EO 127 was
made even after Mison took office.
 • Mison separated 394 Customs personnel
but replaced them with 522. This was
proof that such separations were not
made to improve the bureaucracy and
make them more efficient.
• It was also a defiance of President’s
directive to halt further lay-offs as a
consequence of reorganization.
• Mison did not follow procedures laid down
by EO 127 regarding lay-offs.
3. Could Mison remove Cesar Dario from
office?
No. Dario was a presidential
appointee and thus Mison had no
authority to terminate Dario.
Reinstated to positions.
Civil Service Commission vs. Salas
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a
decision of the COA.
Facts:
• PAGCOR Chairman appointed Salas as
Internal Security Staff member and
• Assigned him to the casino at the Manila
Pavilion Hotel.
• December 3, 1991: the BOD of PAGCOR
terminated his employment allegedly for
loss of confidence.
• The Intelligence Division of PAGCOR
reported that Salas was engaged in proxy
betting.
• Salas claimed that he was not a
confidential employee of PAGCOR and
thus should not be dismissed on the
ground of loss of confidence.
Issue: WON Salas was a confidential employee
Held: NO
Ratio:
1. PD No 1869, which created PAGCOR, also
included in section 16 that all employees
of the casinos and related services shall
be classified as confidential appointees.
However, under the Consti and the Admin
Code, classification of confidential
employees depends on the nature of their
work.(Section 2(2) of Article 9-B). Court
will have the final say as to whether
position is confidential or not.
• Court found that Salas did not enjoy ‘close
intimacy’ with PAGCOR, which would
otherwise place him under the category of
a confidential employee.
• He does not enjoy primarily close intimacy
that characterizes a confidential
employee. He does not even directly
report to the Office of the Chairman but to
the Area Supervisor who in turn
implements the directives of the Branch
Chief Security Officer.
• His compensation level belongs to Pay
Class 2 relative to the highest, Pay Class
12.
COA decision affirmed. Salas not reinstated.
Labo ‘tong digest na ‘to. Don’t depend on this.
SSS vs. CA
Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the
COA
Facts:
• June 9, 1987: officers and members
allegedly staged an illegal strike
• and barricaded the entrances to the SSS
Building
• preventing non-striking employees from
reporting for work and
• SSS members from transacting business
with the SSS.
REASON FOR STRIKE: SSS failed to act on union’s
demands which included among many other
things, the implementation of the provisions of the
old SSS-SSSEA CBD on check-off of union dues.
• The Public Sector Labor Management,
upon report of the strike, ordered strikers
to return to work.
• Strikers refused.
Issue: WON the employees of SSS have the right
to strike.
Held: NO
Ratio:
• EO No. 180 implemented the Consti
guarantee of the right of govt employees
to organize.
• However, section 14 thereof also provided
that the Civil Service Law and rules
governing concerted activities and strikes
in the govt service shall be observed,
subject to any legislation that may be
enacted by Congress.
• Such mentioned legislation was
Memorandum Circular 6 by CSC which
provided that ‘prior to the enactment by
Congress of applicable laws concerning
strike by government employees…enjoins
under pain of administrative sanctions, all
 govt officers and employees from staging
strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves,
walk-outs and other forms of mass action
which will result in temporary stoppage or
disruption of public service.
Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction over the case and
to issue a writ of injunction enjoining the
continuance of the strike.
Held: YES.
Ratio: It is the Public Sector Labor Management
that has jurisdiction over unresolved labor
disputes involving government employees. (thru
EO No. 180) However, it has not been granted by
law the authority to issue writs of injunction in
labor disputes within its jurisidiction.
Blaquera vs. Alcala
Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court.
Certiorari and Prohibition
Facts:
• Petitioners were paid incentive benefits for
the year 1992, pursuant to EO 292,
otherwise known as the Administrative
Code of 1987 and the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of EO 292.
• ADEPT members were granted incentive
bonus for 1992 pursuant to RA 6971 or the
Productivity Incentives Act of 1990.
• Corporate Auditor disallowed the act as it
was a violation of Admin Order 29.
• ADEPT questioned this action.
Issue: WON ADEPT members were covered by RA
6971 or the Productivity Incentives Act.
• NO. PTA, employer of ADEPT members, is
a government-owned and controlled
corporation with original charter subject to
Civil Service Law, Rules, and Regulations.
• It is already within the scope of the
incentives award system under Section 1,
Rule 10 of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing EO 292 issued by the Civil
Service Commission.
Issue: WON AO 29 and AO 268 are violative of EO
292 and hence null and void.
No. Part of control power of President.
Exercising his power of control by modifying the
acts of the respondents who granted incentive
benefits to their employees without appropriate
clearance from Office of the President. President,
not the Commission has the power to fix
incentives.
AO 29: Ramos, authorized the grant of
productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 in
the maximum amount of 1000
* return/refund of the excess within a period of 6
months to commence 15 days after issuance of
order
AO 268: enjoins the grant of productivity incentive
benefits without prior approval of the president
* Productivity incentive benefits in a maximum
amount equivalent to 30 percent of his 1 month
basic salary but not less than 2000.
• Constitutionality and Validity of
Administrative Order No. 29 and 268
Other petitioners granted incentives. No need
for refund coz there was no bad faith. ADEPT
not given incentives, as they are not covered
by RA 5971
COMELEC
Loong vs. COMELEC 305 SCRA 832
NATURE: Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari
Facts:
• Pursuant to RA No. 8436 prescribing the
adoption of an automated election system,
the May 11, 1998 regular elections in the
ARMM was decided upon with the aid of
counting machines.
• May 12, 1998: Atty. Tolentino, Jr. was
informed by some election inspectors and
watchers of discrepancies between votes
cast and the election returns for the
mayoralty candidates in the Municipality
of Pata.
• Upon submission of problem to the
technical experts of COMELEC, it was
discovered that the ballots were not
properly printed and such was the cause
of the wrong readings. Nothing was wrong
with the machines.
• Tolentino reported to COMELEC Main and
the latter issued Minute Resolution No. 98-
1747 ordering a manual count but only in
the municipality of Pata and the
subsequent MR No. 98-1796 laying down
rules for manual count
• Private resondent Tan was proclaimed
governor-elect of Sulu on the basis of the
manual count.
• Petitioners questioned validity of
resolutions.
 tension
Issues Held/Ratio
1. WON a petition for YES. Section 7, Article 9(A) f) even the military
certiorari and of Consti and police
prohibition under authorities
Rule 65 of ROC is the “unless provided by this unanimously
right remedy to Consti or by law, any recommended
invalidate the decision, order, or ruling of manual counting
disputed COMELEC each Commission may be
resolutions brought to the SC on g) petitioner Loong
certiorari by the aggrieved was not denied
party within 30 days from due process. They
receipt of copy thereof” were given chance
to oppose manual
The petition for counting, submit
certiorari was the proper written reports,
remedy for questions escort and observe
regarding FINAL orders, manual counting.
rulings, and decision of the
COMELEC rendered in the h) Automated
exercise of its adjudicatory counting could not
or quasi-judicial powers. push through. RA
2. WON COMELEC NO. The order for a manual 8436 only provided
committed GAD count was not arbitrary, that in case of
amounting to lack of capricious, or whimsical. breakdowns in one
jurisdiction in machine, other
ordering the manual Factual Bases: machines from
count. a) automated other
machines failed to municipalities may
read correctly the be used. However,
ballots in Pata in the case at bar,
(mayoralty there was nothing
candidate Anton wrong with the
Burahan got 0 machines but with
votes even if the ballots.
Chairman of the
Board of Election i) Under Section 2(1)
Inspectors and of Article 9 C:
others said they COMELEC is given
voted for him) the power to
enforce and
b) another got 100% administer all laws
of the votes and regulations
relative to the
c) technical experts conduct of an
confirmed that the election,
problem was plebiscite,
caused by the initiative,
improperly printed referendum, and
ballots recall.
3. Assuming manual NO.
d) in other count is illegal, WON Section 6 of the
municipalities, it is proper to call for Omnibus Election Code
ballots contained a special election for provides that a special
the wrong the position of election can only be held if
sequence code governor of Sulu there is a failure of
election such that no
e) failures of election occurs because of
automated force majeure, terrorism,
counting created fraud, or other analogous
post election cases.
 ground of post- and after due notice and
Plea for special election election terrorism hearing order the
should be submitted to suspension of the
COMELEC not to the SC. proclamation of a
COMELEC decides en banc candidate-elect or annul
by a majority vote of its any proclamation…”
members. (section 4 of RA
No. 7166) • part of its main
objective to
Only a special election insure free,
only for the position of orderly, and
governor would be honest elections.
discriminatory and will • Since the
violate equal protection of submission of
laws of other candidates returns were
for other positions. vitiated by post-
election terrorism,
Sanchez vs. COMELEC 114 SCRA 454 popular will was
Nature: Petitions for certiorari to review the prejudiced.
resolution of the COMELEC WON COMELEC has YE. Section 5 of Batasan
authority to call for a Pambansa Bilang 52.
Facts: special election “in case of violence,
• January 30, 1980 local elections terrorism, loss or
• Virgilio Sanchez: Nacionalista Party destruction of election
candidate for Municipal Mayor of San paraphernalia or records,
Fernando, Pampanga force majeure and other
• Armando Biliwang: Kilusang Bagong analogous cases…the
Lipunan candidate COMELEC shall, on the
basis of a verified petition
• Biliwang was proclaimed winner by
and after due notice and
Municipal Board of Canvassers
hearing, call for the
holding or continuation of
• February 1, 1980: Sanchez filed petition to the elections as soon as
declare null and void the elctions due to practicable”
alleged large-scale terrorism

• COMELEC denied petition. Sanchez moved • Section 8 of

for recon. COMELEC reversed decision. Election Code of
1978 similarly
• COMELEC issued resolution which said provides.
read: • Special elctions
shall be called by
o Annulment and setting aside the the Commission
proclamation of winners of the for the purpose of
January 30, 1980 elections filling a vacancy
o To certify to the President/ Prime or a newly
Minister and the Batasan created elective
Pambansa the failure of election in position, as the
San Fernando so that remedial case may be.
legislation may be enacted and
that pending such enactment, the De Jesus vs. People 120 SCRA 760
President/PM may appoint the Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the
municipal officials of San resolution of the Sandiganbayan
Fernando.
Facts:
Issues • Defeated mayoral candidate of the
Held/Ratio Nacionalista party, Ananias Hibo, filed a
complaint with the COMELEC charging
WON COMELEC has YES: Section 175 of 1978
power to annul an Election Code • Rogelio de Jesus, then COMELEC registrar
entire municipal “It may, motu proprio of Casiguran,
election on the or upon written petition, • With violation of 1978 Election Code.
 • Copy of complaint—Ministry of Justice---
Provincial Fiscal of Sorsogon for
investigation
• Asst. Fiscals Manuel Genova and Delfin
Tarog of the Tanodbayan conducted the
investigation and issued a resolution
• Finding the existence of prima facie case
against petitioner for violation of section
89 and subsections of Section 178 of
Election Code of 1978.
• After approval by Tanodbayan, info was
filed before the Sandiganbayan.
• Petitioner question jurisdiction of
Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan over the
case.
What were the violations?
1. registered persons in order that they may
vote on election day
2. tampered reports on number of voters: 10,
727 instead of 10, 532
Issue: Who has the power to investigate,
prosecute, and try election offenses committed by
a public officer in relation to his office- COMELEC
and CFI or the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan?
Held: COMELEC
Section 2 of Article 12© of 1973 Consti:
COMELEC has power to enforce and administer all
laws relative to the conduct of elections
Section 182 of 1978 Election Code:
The Commission shall, thru its duly
authorized legal officer, have the power to
conduct preliminary investigation of all election
offenses punishable under this Code and to
prosecute the same. The Commission may avail of
the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the
government.
Had the employee not been an officer of
the COMELEC, regular courts would have
jurisdiction.
Section 4 of PD No. 1606 gives
Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over crimes or
offenses committed by public officers…In relation
to their office.
However, Section 184 of the Election Cod
also gave to the CFI the
National authority
Shipyards and to hear
Steel
Corp,
decide all election
boxes offenses without qualification
as to the statusCOMELEC
of the accused.
cancelled contract with ACME as the latter failed to sign contract within designated time
Javier vs. COMELEC 144 SCRA 194
Nature: Petition to review the decision of the
COMELEC
Issues here were rendered moot and academic.
Facts:
Candidates in Antique for the Batasan
Pambansa in May 1984 elections
• Evelio B. Javier: more popular support
• Arturo Pacificador: nominee of KBL
May 13, 1984: eve of elections: Pacificador and his
men allegedly ambushed and killed several
followers of Javier
• Javier then questioned the canvass of
elections but complaints were dismissed.
Pacificador was proclaimed winner.
• Pending petition, second division of
COMELEC, on June 7, 1984, ordered the
board to immediately convene and to
proclaim the winner without prejudice to
the outcome of the case before the
Commission.
Issue: WON 2nd Division of COMELEC had
jurisdiction and authority to proclaim Pacificador
the winner in election.
Held: NO
Ratio: Section 3 of Article 12-C:
“All election cases may be heard and
decided y division except contest involving
members of the Batasang Pambansa, which shall
be heard and decided en banc.”
Purpose: to ensure the most careful consideration
of such cases
*PD No. 1296: pre-proclamation controversy
Guevara vs. COMELEC 104 Phil 269
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court.
Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction
Facts:
• Jose Guevara published in the Sunday
Times an article entitled “Ballot Boxes
Contract Hit.
• COMELEC ordered him to show just cause
why he should not be punished for
contempt.
• COMELEC claimed that such article would
undermine the exclusive constitutional
function of Commission and its Chairman
Domingo Imperial and member Sixto
Brilliantes in the admin of all laws relative
to the conduct of elections.
andAcme Steel, Asiatic Steel to manufacture and supply COMELEC ballot
 IX. Courts and the Constitution
Issue: WON COMELEC had jurisdiction and
authority to investigate and punish petitioner for
contempt in connection with the alleged Marcos vs. Manglapus
publication
Held: NO Nature: Petition for mandamus and prohibition
Ratio: Facts:
• The controversy arose from the ministerial
act of the Commission in requisitioning for During the term of Cory Aquino, the
the necessary ballot boxes in connection Marcoses wanted to return to the Philippines but
with the elctions. were barred from doing so.
• It was a ministerial duty; it did not This is a petition for the court to order the
exercise any judicial function. respondents to issue travel documents to the
• Such being the case, it could not exercise Marcoses and to enjoin the implementation of the
power to punish contempt as postulated in President’s decision to bar their return to the
the law, for such power is inherently Philippines.
judicial in nature.
Issue: WON Cory had constitutional authority to
Libanan vs. HRET 283 SCRA 520 prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the
Nature: Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari Philippines. YES
Facts:
• May 28, 1997: HRET affirmed Sub-issues:
proclamation of Jose Tan Ramirez as duly
elected rep of Eastern Samar over Do the Marcoses have right to return to
Marcelino Libanan the Philippines? JUSTICIABLE QUESTION. COURT
• Libanan filed an election protest before HAS AUTHORITY.
HRET claiming, among other things, that
the May 8, 115 elections were marred by Is that a threat to national security?
massive electoral irregularities POLITICAL. PRESIDENT HAS POWER TO DECIDE.
perpetrated by Ramirez and his followers.
• Libanan prayed for HRET to issue an order Issue Held/ Ratio
to annul election and proclamation of WON president has YES.
Ramirez and thereafter so proclaim him as power to bar Article 2, Sec 4 and
duly elected Rep of Samar. Marcoses’ return 5:
• HRET said ballots had the required The President has
COMELEC watermarks and were thus obligation to protect the
valid. people, promote their
• Petitioners said the absence of the welfare and advance the
signature of the chairman of BEI deemed national interest.
ballots void. House Resolution
1342 even recognized
Issue: WON HRET committed GAD in ruling that power of President to
the absence of the signature of the Chairman of bar the return.
the BEI in the ballots did not render the ballots Resolution content: let
spurious them return (no
Held: NO implication of not
allowing president to bar
Failure of the BEI to sign the ballot shall return.
constitute an election offense. However, ballot WON president NO.
shall not be considered invalid. It merely renders acted arbitrarily in Declaration of threat
BEI Chairman accountable for such failure. determining the had factual bases:
(Section 24 of RA 7166) their return poses a • Marcoses were
threat to national driven out of the
Authenticating marks may be any of the following: interest and welfare country for
a) COMELEC watermark stealing millions
b) Signature or initials or thumbprint of from country’s
Chairman of BEI treasury.
c) Presence of red and blue fibers • Their return
would have
 posed violence to any
against State. court
appoint
ed, or
persons
James Madison vs. James Madison, Secretary of holding
State office,
under
Nature: the he
Facts: authorit
y of the
• The late president of the
United
USA, Mr. Adamas
States.
nominated the
petitioners to the Senate • Writ of
and got their consent manda
and advice. mus: to
require
• They were to serve as
any
justices of peace of the
person,
Columbia.
corpora
• Together with their
tion, or
appointment,
inferior
commissions were to be
court
granted for them.
• To fo
• Such commissions were
some
signed by the President
particul
and affixed, by Madison,
ar duty
as Secretary of State,
therein
with the seal of the
specifie
United States.
d,
• However, when
• Which
petitioners asked for
apperta
their commissions from
ins to
the Secretary of State,
their
the same were refused
office
of them.
and
• Petitioners wanted court duty
to order Madison to
• And
deliver the commissions.
which
the
court
has
previou
Issue Held/Ratio sly
1. Whether NO. determi
the Supreme The legal remedy for appeals ned to
Court can differs. be
award the writ • The conson
of mandamus writ of ant to
in any case manda right
mus in and
cases justice
warrant • In all
ed by cases
the where
principl a party
es and has a
usages right to
of law, have
can be anythin
issued g done
 • And bidding 30% to 51% of the outstanding shares of
has no the MHC. Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm won
other the bid.
specific Petitioners herein invoke the Filipino First
means policy in their bid to acquire 51% of the shares of
of the Manila Hotel Corporation, which owns the
compell Manila Hotel. They also invoked Sec 10, Article 12
ing its of the 1987 Consti and claimed that
perfor • since the Manila Hotel
mance. has been identified with
2. Whether YES. the Filipino nation, to all
Madbury has a The President signed intents and purposes, it
right to the Madbury’s commission and the has become part of the
commission Secretary of State had affixed national patrimony
he demands the seal of the US to it. At this • MHC i part of the Phils’
stage, his appointment was tourism industry and
deemed independent of the thus is part of the
executive. Healso now had legal national economy
rights arising from his contemplated in section
appointment; a commission was 10 of Article 12.
one such right. Respondents maintain that FPP is not a
3. WON in the YES. self-executing policy but requires implementing
present case, The Secretary of State has legislation.
the court may two capacities: as an agent of
award a the President, he would not be Issue: WON petitioners have right to 51% of the
mandamus to liable to a mandamus. shares of Manila Hotel over the supposed winner,
James As a ministerial officer of the Renong Berhad, of the GSIS bid.
Madison, US, he is liable to a mandamus. HELD: YES
Secretary of The fixing of a seal to the
State commissions was one of his Ratio:
ministerial duties together with • National patrimony
his job as recorder of the deeds includes not only rich
of land, letters patent, and of natural resources but
commissions. also cultural heritage
As such, he has duties and mental ability or
assigned him by law, faculty of our people.
In the execution of which he is • Court ruled that Manila
independent of all control, Hotel is part of our
But that of laws. national patrimony as it
has always been mute
witness to the history of
this nation (naks!).
Malabo ‘tong digest na ‘to kaya basahin nyo ulit • Manila Hotel is also part
ang case. of the national economy.
• It is then accorded the
Constitutional protection
provided for in Section
10 of Article 12.

• When a foreign firm

offers the highest bid to
grants and privileges
covering national
Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS economy, the Filipino
Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. will have to be allowed
Prohibition and Mandamus to match the bid of the
foreign entity. This was
Facts: done and the petitioners
Controversy arose when GSIS in it outbid the Malaysian
privatization program decided to sell thru public
 firm the second time
around.
• Such practice gives life
and meaning to section
10 of article 12.
Peralta vs. Mathay
Nature: Appeal from a decision of the Auditor
General
Facts:
Pedro Peralta, trustee of the GSIS, was
granted:
• optional retirement
gratuity of Php 40,
336.07 covering
amounts cost of living
allowances, incentive
bonus, and Christmas
bonus.
• Such amounts were not
passed in audit
• Auditor General Mathay
holds that such amounts
should be deducted from
Peralta’s gratuity
Issue: WON Peralta was entitled those mentioned
separate amounts which were non-deductible from
the amount he already received from GSIS as
trustee
Held: NO
Ratio:
Under the GSIS act Peralta was only entitle
25 pesos for each day of actual attendance in
session.
Additional bonuses by way of an incentive
are part of the constitutional ban against officials
receiving additional or double compensation.
had already nominated Laurel, Lopez, and himself
for the Electoral Tribunal position.
Issue: WON Court has jurisdiction over the
question of the composition of the Senate House
Tribunal
Held: YES
Ratio: The case is a question of whether or not
there was a violation of Section 17, Article 6 of the
Constitution
“ Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of 9
members, three of whom shall be justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
Justice, the remaining six shall be Members of the
Senate or the House of Reps, as the case may be,
who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and the
parties or organizations registered under the
party-list system represented therein.”
Issue: WON the selection and election of Delgado
and Cuenco was a violation of the Constitution
Held: YES
Ratio: Although the Consti provision required 9
members for the Electoral Tribunal, the Senate
composition at that time made it impossible for
such requirement to be met. There was only one
member from the minority party, Senator Tañada.
To give 5 seats to the Nacionalista party would
defeat the spirit of the law.
The spirit behind the requirement of proportional
representation in the Electoral Tribunal was to
ensure impartiality in the decisions of elections,
results, and qualifications of the members of
either house.
Santiago vs. Guingona
Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court.
Quo Warranto
Facts:
Based on the votes of seven lakas-NUCD-
UMDP senators, senator Guingona was voted and
formally recognized as minority leader of the
Senate.

Senator Santiago and Senator Tatad

alleged that Guingona had been usurping;
Tañada vs. Cuenco unlawfully holding and exercising the position of
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Senate minority leader, a position that, according
Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction to them belonged to Senator Tatad.

Facts: This petition for quo warranto under Rule

In the selection of Members of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal, the Senate, upon the
nomination of Primicias, elected Delgado and
Cuenco from the Nacionalista Party exceeding the
maximum 3 seats given to the party with the
largest number of votes in the Senate. Primicias
66, Section 5, Rules of Court, sought to ouster
Guingona as minority leader of the Senate and the
declaration of Tatad as the rightful minority
leader.
Quo Warranto:
• an action for the usurpation of office or
franchise or against a corporation
• for violation of its charter or for misuse,
non-use or forfeiture
• of its rights and privileges
Issues:

1. WON the Court has jurisdiction over the

petition
Held: Yes the court has jurisdiction. It is a well-
settled doctrine that jurisdiction is determined
by the allegations of the complaint or the
petition. In the case at bar, Santiago clearly
claimed that there was a violation of Sec 16(1)
Article 6 of the Constitution in the process of
selecting a minority leader
2. WON there was an actual violation of the
Consti
Held: The court ruled that no violation of the
Constitution occurred. Law simply states that
the senate president will be voted by a
majority of the members; that is more than
one-half. Nowhere in the law does it say that
those who didn’t vote for the person who won
the position of senate president immediately
form part of the minority.
3. WON Guingona was guilty of usurping;
unlawfully holding and exercising the
position of minority leader

4. WON Fernan erred in recognizing Tatad as

minority leader

3 and 4: held: as for issues 3 and 4, the court

ruled that it no longer had jurisdiction on the
matter as it was an issue of discipline to be
resolved by the senate as an independent
body.

The consideration of who comprises the

minority is for the legislature to decide upon.

Petition dismissed as no violation of constitution

manifested by alleged usurpation was established.

Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice

Nature:

Facts:

On June 25, 1996:

• Leo Echagaray was convicted
• For raping his 10 year old daughter of his common law wife
• And was given the death penalty.
 Petitioner now files this case with the following contentions:
• that R.A. No. 8177 and its implementing rules do not pass constitutional muster for:
(a) violation of the constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment,
(b) violation of our international treaty obligations,
(c) being an undue delegation of legislative power, and (d) being discriminatory.
RA no. 8177: lethal injection as the method for the imposition of death penalty
Issues
1. WON lethal injection violates Section 19,
Article 3 of the Constitution
Par. 2 Section 19 of Article 3:
“The employment of physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be
dealt with by law.”
2. WON reimposition of the death penalty violates
international treaty obligations
3. WON RA no. 8177 is undue delegation of
legislative power to the Secretary of Justice and the
Director of Bureau of Corrections
4. WON section 19 of the rules and regulations to
implement RA No. 8177 is invalid.
Held/Ratio
NO.
• Although the Director of Prisons is not a
trained phlebotomist, section 1 of the third
par. Of RA 8177 requires that prior to the
execution, all involved personal shall be
trained in the task so as to avoid inflicting
unnecessary pain. The Consti protects
convicts only from punishment which are
inherently cruel and degrading.
• The pain experienced in lethal injection is
only incidental to the execution not its main
feature.
NO
• International Convention on Civil and
Political Rights recognizes that capital
punishment is an allowable limitation on the
right to life but should be limited to most
serious crimes (Article 6, section 2)
• The Philippines did not sign nor ratify the
Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming
at the Abolition of the Death Penalty.
NO.
• It is a form of delegation of legislative
authority to administrative bodies.
Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the Bureau
of Corrections which drafted the details for the lethal
injection execution is a constituent unit of the
Department of Justice tasked to take charge of the
administration of the correctional system.
• The Secretary of Justice is thus tasked to
supervise the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections in promulgating the Lethal
Injection Manual in consultation with the
DOH
YES.
• Section 19: Execution Procedure delegates
the making of the Lethal Injection Manual
solely to the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections but does not include the
Secretary of Justice’s authority or mode of
approval or review for such manual.
• Second paragraph of section 19 requires the
confidentiality of the contents of the manual
even with respect to convict and to the
public at large.
• 2nd paragraph violates Section 7 of Article 3
of Consti: the right of people to information

5. WON Section 17 of the Rules and Regulations to
Implement R.A. No. 8177 is invalid for being
discriminatory and contrary to law. (Suspension of
the Execution of the Death Sentence)
on matters of public concern.
• No legal impediment exists for the convict to
have access to the contents of the manual.
YES.
* Section 17 provides suspension of death penalty for
3 years for pregnant women. This is a violation of
Article 83 of the RPC which only suspends execution
to a year. Where there is conflict between an
implementing law and a congressional statute, the
statute must remain.

Respondents are hereby enjoined from enforcing and implementing Republic Act No. 8177 until the
aforesaid Sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177 are
appropriately amended, revised and/or corrected in accordance with this Decision.

CASE OF PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

Arroyo vs. De Venecia

Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and prohibition

Certiorari: to annul or modify the proceedings of any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial function
without or excess of its jurisdiction or with GAOD as the law requires.

Facts:
Petitioners wanted RA 8240 to be declared null and void because
• it was passed in violation of the rules of the house
• that these rules embody the Consti mandate (Section 16 par 3 of Article 6) ‘that each House may
determine the rules of its proceedings and
• that a violation of the rules is a violation of the Consti itself.

What happened?
Representative Arroyo approved the conference committee report with Arroyo’s pending question of
the presence of a quorom.

RA 8240: amends certain provisions of the National Internal revenue Code by imposing so-called sin taxes
(actually specific taxes) on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes.

Issue: WON Congress committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting RA No. 8240.
(it was necessary to find out if Congress acted in GAOD to determine Court’s jurisdiction on the case)

Held: NO
Ratio:
1. The alleged violations were merely that of internal rules of procedure of the House rather than
constitutional requirements for the enactment of the law.
2. The Courts cannot declare an act of legislature void on account of noncompliance of rules of
procedure. Besides:
• no rule of the House of Representatives was cited which specifically requires that in cases involving
approval of a conference committee report, that Chair must restate the motion and conduct nominal
voting.
• The manner by which House No. 7198 was approved was not a unique one
• Local Government Code of 1991 was approved in the same manner
• The Consti does not require that yeas and nays be taken every time the House has to vote except:
a) upon the last and 3rd reading of bill
b) at the request of 1/5 of the members
c) in repassing a bill over the veto of the President
3. Rep. Arroyo waived his objection when session reconvened.
4. Under the enroleed bill doctrine, the signing of H. No 7198 are conclusive of its due enactment.
Lopez vs. Roxas

Nature: Prohibition with preliminary injunction

Facts:

• On the November 9, 1965 general elections,

• Congress elected Fernando Lopez Vice President of the Philippines
• For getting more votes than respondent Gerardo Roxas.

• January 5, 1966, Roxas filed a petition at the Presidential Electoral Tribunal contesting the victory of
Lopez.

• Petitioner contended that Presidential Electoral Tribunal should not be allowed to hear the case
because
• Republic Act No. 1793, creating said Tribunal, is "unconstitutional", and that, "all proceedings taken
by it are a nullity."
Issues:
1. WON RA No. 1793 is inconsistent with the Constitution because the latter does not provide for
election protests involving the office of the President and the vice president as this would prejudice
the tenure of the president and the vice president
HELD: NO
RATIO:
A protest regarding the validity of the victory of a presidential or vice presidential candidate
does not in any way prejudice his tenure. The protest, in the first place, is a question of the validity of
such person’s authority to be president or vice president.
If it is discovered that such candidate won because of tampered ballots and the like, then his
victory would be invalid.

2. WON it is illegal to allow members of the Supreme Court to sit in the Presidential Electoral Tribunal as
this would be a violation of the separation of powers.
HELD: NO
RATIO:
a) the power to judge to judge matters concerning the election, returns and qualifications…is
essentially judicial
b) Upon the other hand, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal has the judicial power to determine
whether or not said duly certified election returns have been irregularly made or tampered
with, or reflect the true results of the elections in the areas covered by each, and, if not, to
recount the ballots cast, and, incidentally thereto, pass upon the validity of each ballot or
determine whether the same shall be counted, and, in the affirmative, in whose favor, which
Congress has no power to do.

Borromeo vs. Mariano • Feburay 25, 1920: He was appointed

Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court
Facts:
• July 1, 1914: Andres Borromeo was took
office as Judge of the 24th Judicial District
Judge of the 21st Judicial District.
• Fermin Mariano took his place even if he
consistently refused to accept the
appointment to the 21st Judicial District.
Issue: WON a Judge of First Instance may be made
a judge of another district without his consent
Held: NO
Ratio:
Section 155 of the Administrative Code
provides:
• Judges of First Instance are appointed
judges of the first instance to specific
judicial districts,
• Until they retire, resign, or are removed
through impeachment.
• They can only serve as temporary judges
in other districts to try land registration
cases or when assigned to vacation duty.
* Appointment to another district does not
automatically create a vacancy in the former
district because
• only until the judge appointed to another
district gives his consent can there be a
vacancy
Additional Facts:
During this period, judges of first instance are:
1. appointed by the Governor General
2. to serve until they reach the age of 65
years
3. commissioned to a specific district
Act NO. 396 (an obsolete law!)
• Allowed the transfer of judges to different
districts by order of the Civil Governor
with the consent of the Commission
• Repealed by Act No 2347: Judiciary
Reorganization Act and Admin Acts of
1916 and 1917
Radiowealth Inc. vs. Agregado
Nature: petition to review by certiorari a decision
of the Auditor General
Facts:
• January 7, 1949, the Clerk of the Supreme
Court certified the purchase of Webster
teletalk and Webster Telephone Speakers
for the Supreme Court, were of urgent
character and necessary to public Service.
• January 10, 1949: C.L. Dacanay,
Presidential appointee to the position of
Chairman of the Property requisition
Committee disapproved the purchase and
installation of such apparatus.
• Radiowealth Inc. took the matter up to the
Auditor General.
• The Auditor General also disapproved the
issuance of the amount for payment as
this was a violation of section 2044 of the
Revised Administrative Code because
such purchase was not due to an
emergency pertaining to life and property.
Issue: WON the Property requisition Committee
and the Auditor General had the authority to
disapprove such purchase and refuse to release
funds for such purchase respectively.
HELD: NO.
RATIO:
• Allowing the Property Requisition
Committee (which was a creation of the
Executive) and the Auditor General to
prevent the purchase of such materials
would be a violation to the doctrine of
separation of powers.
• Legislative and executive branches are
barred from interfering with the powers of
the courts to adjudicate cases and to
administer justice
• And from interfering in the said branch’s
acquisition of books, office equipment,
and other material necessary to the
convenient transaction of the judicial
body’s business.
# Administrative Code allows the supervision
of the Bureau of Supplies on matters
regarding supplies but only for departments,
offices, and bureaus. The Supreme Court does
not fall under any of those classifications.
In re Sotto:
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court.
Contempt.
Facts:
• SC held Angel Pazaro in contempt of court
for refusing to divulge the source of a
news published in his paper.
• As a result, Atty. Sotto issued written
statement declaring the SC’s mistake in
deciding the mentioned case as a result of
 misinterpretation of the Press Freedom
Law (Republic Act No. 53) which he
authored.
• In the same statement, he further
suggested a complete reorganization of
the Supreme Court.
• SC required Sotto to appear in court to
answer to questions regarding the
statement as he would be punished for
contempt of court.
• Sotto refused.
ISSUE: WON SC’s decision to hold Sotto in
contempt of Court was a violation of his freedom
of speech guaranteed by the Constitution
HELD: NO.
RATIO:
• Sotto’s statement threatened the stability
of the judicial system and created the
possibility of the furthering people’s
mistrust in the SC’s capability to
administer justice.
• Had he only criticized or commented on
the correctness or wrongness of the
decision in good faith, he would not have
been held in contempt of court.
• However, he also:
a) intimidated members of the court
with the presentation of a bill to
reorganize the Supreme Court
b) called for the changing of the
members of the SC which he
labeled as incompetent and
narrow minded
c) embarrassed or obstructed the
administration of justices
Noblejas vs. Tehankee
Nature: Petition for a writ of prohibition with
preliminary injunction to restrain the Secretary of
Justice from investigating the official actuations of
the Commissioner of Land Registration, and to
declare inoperative his suspension by the
Executive Secretary pending investigation
Facts:
• Secretary of Justice Teehanke required in
Noblejas as Commissioner of Land
Registration to explain
• why the no disciplinary action should b
taken against Noblejas for
• approving or recommending approval of
subdivision, consolidation and
consolidation-subdivision plans covering
areas greatly in excess of the areas
covered by the original titles
• March 17, 1968, Teehankee, with the
authority of the President, suspended
Noblejas due to gross negligence and
conduct prejudicial to public interest.
Issue: WON the Commissioner of Land Registration
may only be investigated by the Supreme Court,
in view of the conferment upon him by the
Statutes heretofore mentioned (Rep. Act 1151 and
Appropriation Laws) of the rank and privileges of a
Judge of the Court of First Instance.
HELD: NO
RATIO:
• Republic Act No. 1151 which created the
position of Commissioner of Land
Registration entitled him to entitled to the
same compensation, emoluments and
privileges as those of a Judge of the Court
of First Instance.
• Similar grants are also given to:
a) Judicial Superintendent of the Department
of Justice
b) Assistant Solicitors General, seven in
number
c) City Fiscal of Quezon City
d) Securities and Exchange Commissioner
• However, such grant does not include
exemption from investigation except with
confernment of SC. Such grant only
applies to judicial bodies.
• Commissioner of Land Registration is not
a District Judge nor any member of the
judiciary.
• Its so-called judicial functions in settling
conflicts or doubts from the Register of
Deeds is only incidental to its
administrative function
DISMISSED.
Schneckenburger vs. Moran
Nature: Original Action in the SC. Prohibition:
Facts:
• Petitioner was an honorary consul of
Uruguay at Manila.
 • Was charged with the crime of falsification
of private documents.
• Claimed diplomatic immunity based on:

Issue: WON an honorary consul has diplomatic

immunity from SC jurisdiction to try his case.

HELD: NO

Ratio:
1. A consul is not entitled to
privileges and immunities of an
ambassador or minister.
2. He is subject to the laws and
regulations of the country to
which he is accredited.
3. Phil Consti conferred original
jurisdiction in all cases affecting
ambassadors, other public
ministers, and consuls to the SC.
Original jurisdiction is not equal to
exclusive jurisdiction. CFI Manila
has authority to try case.
4. Article 15, section 2 of the 1935
Consti provided that the laws of
the Phil Islands in force at the time
of the adoption of the Consti were
to continue in force until the
inauguration of the
Commonwealth

PETITION DENIED

Vargas vs. Rilloraza

Nature: Original Action in the SC. Certiorari.

1935 Consti!!
Facts:
The constitutionality of Section 14 of the People’s Court Act (CA Act No. 682) was questioned in this
case.

Issue
1. WON Congress had power to add to the pre-
existing grounds of disqualification of a Justice of the
Supreme Court
2. WON a person may act as a Justice of the Supreme
Court who has not been duly appointed by the
President and confirmed by the COA, even only as a
designee
3. WON section 14’s approval of a judge of FI, Judge-
at-large of FI, or Cadastral Judge is valid and that the
mentioned judges can ‘sit temporarily’ as justice of
the Supreme Court to complete the quorum in cases
where a justice may not sit and vote when the
accused is a person who held office or position under
either or both the Phil ExeCom or the Phil Rep or any
B,I, A thereof
Held/Ratio
NO.
• Disqualification by virtue of membership in
either or both the Philippine ExeCom and the
Phil republic or any branch, instrumentality
and/or agency thereof, is not mandated in
the Consti
• ALL members of the Supreme Court cannot
be deprived of the authority over criminal
cases where the penalty may be death or life
imprisonment (treason has such penalty)
• Deprivation of a judge’s authority is
deprivation of judicial power.
NO.
• Judges of mentioned courts only have the ff.
requirement: section 6, article 8
a) should have practiced law for a period of not
less that five years or have held during a like
period within the Philippines an officer
requiring a lawyer’s diploma
• However, Justices of the SC are required to
be at least 40 years old and
• Have served for 10 years or more as judge of
a court or record or engaged in the practice
of law in the Philippines
NO.
• No temporary composition of the Supreme
Court is allowed in the Constitution
• Section 14 of said act does not satisfy the
constitutional requirement of appointment
such that members of the SC must be
appointed by the President with the consent
of the COA.

People vs. Gutierrez

Nature: Petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction to annul and set aside an order of
the CFI, Ilocos Sur.

Facts:
May 22, 1970: a group of armed persons descended on barrio Ora Cento, Bantay, Ilocos Sur and set
fire to various houses.
• they also went to Ora Este and burned houses also killing a woman named Vicenta
Balboa

June 10, 1970: Provincial Fiscals and prosecutors from the DOJ filed:
• Criminal Case 47-V for arson with homicide
• Criminal Case 48-V for arson
• Charged 17 of the respondents with 82 others who conspired in the act
• Trial was set for July 27-29, 1970

June 15, 1970:

• Secretary of Justice issued Administrative Order No. 221
 o Authorized Judge Lino Añover
o Of the Circuit Criminal Court of the 2nd Judicial District
o Of San Fernando, La Union
o To hold special term in
o Ilocos Sur
o From and after July 1, 1970

June 18, 1970:

• Secretary of Justice issued Administrative Order No. 226
o Authorize Judge Mario Gutierrez
o To transfer the cases to
o The Circuit Criminal Court
o In the interest of justice and
o Pursuant to Rep. At 5179
o As implement by Ad. Order Nos. 258 and 274 of DOJ

June 22, 1970: prosecution sought to move trial of case to Circuit Criminal Court to ensure security of
witnesses and personal safety.
• respondent judge refused to transfer the case and reasoned out that since the
accused had already pleaded, transfer was no longer to be heard of.
• Under Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 5179 request for change of venue from SC should
have been done at the very inception of the cases.

Petitioners filed this case to set aside decision of respondent judge and to try the cases at either San
Fernando or Baguio City.

Issue: WON the Secretary of Justice has the power to determine what court should hear specific cases
Held: NO

Ratio:
• violated doctrine for the separation of powers
• Republic Act. No. 5179 creating that Circuit Criminal Court did not and does not
authorize the Secretary of Justice to transfer thereto specified and individual cases.
(Although in this case, Secretary of Justice authorized, not ordered judges to
transfer cases. La siyang violation actually)
• The change of venue in trying cases is in the interest of truth of justice. I the case
at bar, witnesses said they were willing to testify as long as the proceedings would
not be in Ilocos.

Writs of certiorari and mandamus prayed for are GRANTED.

Added info: Section 14(a) of Rule 110 of Revised Rules of Court: criminal cases should be tried in the places
where they were committed
However, said section has 5 exceptions:
a) piracy
b) extra-territorial offenses contemplated in Article 2
c) continuing offenses
d) criminal and civil actions arising from written defamation
e) where the application of general rule would prevent a fair and impartial inquiry into the actual
facts of the case

In re Cunanan

Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court

Facts:
Republic Act No. 972 popularly known as the ‘Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953’ was enacted on June 21,
1953 without executive approval. (Senator Pablo Angeles David authored the bill)
As a result, 1, 094 unsuccessful bar candidates were to be benefited by the act.
Purpose of the law: to overcome insufficiency of reading materials and the inadequacy of the preparation of
these students when they took the bar (after the war daw kasi)

Issue: WON Republic Act No. 972 was unconstitutional

Held: YES.

Ratio:
1. It was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.
2. Legislature exceed in its power to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission to Bar. It is
the job of the Supreme Court to render ultimate decision as to who is fit to practice law.
3. Inadequate preparation is not a valid excuse for flunking the bar and is an arbitrary classification of
people taking the bar. Inadequately prepared students should not be lawyers in the first place.
4. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law.

Republic Act No. 972: An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from Nineteen Hundred and
Forty-Six Up to and Including Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Five

Section 1: passing rate became 70 percent

Section 2” any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in any subject in any bar examination
after July 4th, 1946 shall be deemed to have passed in such subject or subjects and such grade or grades
shall be included in computing the passing general average that said candidate may obtain in any
subsequent examinations that he may take.

In re IBP
Facts:
On September 17, 1971, Marcos enacted Republic Act 6397 providing for the Integration of the
Philippine Bar and Appropriating Funds therefor. (source of law: House Bill No. 3277)
Integration mean the official unification of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines.
• requires membership
• and financial support
• aimed to make the law profession more efficient and effective.

Issues
1. WON Court has power to integrate the Philippine
Bar
2. WON integration is constitutional
a) compelling membership: constitutional?
b) Membership fee: constitutional?
3. WON Court should ordain the integration of the
Bar at this time.
Held/Ratio
YES.
Under Article 8, Section 3, the SC has the power
‘ to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts and the admission to the
practice of law.
The ACT neither confers a new power or
restricts Court’s inherent power but is a mere
legislative declaration that integration will promote
public interest.
YES.
On the question of compelled membership,
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any
group of which he is already a member.
On the question of compelled payment of fee, it
was reasoned out that such amount would only be
incidental to its purpose. The State may only
‘discipline’ the bar if it poses a fee that results to an
unconstitutional burden.
YES.
Integration in other countries has resulted to:
• improved discipline among
members
• more meaningful
participation of lawyers
 • hay marami pala..tingnan
niyo na lang org
Majority of local associations of lawyers have
already approved of the bar. 96.45 per cent of
lawyers also approved integration

Lansang vs. Garcia

Nature:

Facts:
Two hand grenade explosions occurred on August 21, 1971 at Plaza Miranda where the Liberal Party
of the Philippines was holding a public meeting for the presentation of its candidates for the November 8,
1971 elections. Eight persons were killed and many were injured.
As a result, Marcos issued Proclamation No. 889, suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.
Petitioners sought for writs of habeas corpus after being arrested without a warrant therefore and
detained. They questioned the validity of Proclamation No. 889.

Issue
1. WON Proclamation No. 889 violated par. 4
section 1 of article 3 and par 2, section 10 of
article 7 of Consti
Held/Ratio
No.
Petitioners initially contended that the
proclamation was made based solely on the
idea that there was a conspiracy and intent to
rise in arms among several groups in the
country.
However, court held that with the
modifications thru Proclamation No. 889-A,
Marcos declared that the ‘enemy groups’ had
already entered into the conspiracy and have
in fact joined together to engage in armed
insurrection and rebellion.
The Plaza Miranda incident was only one
among the many violent incidences that
brought forth such proclamation.

2. WON there was invasion, insurrection, or YES.

rebellion or imminent danger therof
WON public safety required the suspension of
the privilege
3. WON petitioners are covered by said
proclamation as amended
The existence of the CPP and the NPA were
clear proof of the state of rebellion and
insurrection of the country.
These groups believe that force and
violence are indispensable to the attainment
of their goal.
YES.
President had in his possession records of
killings of several government officials by the
CPP, bombings of the COMELEC building,
MERALCO, and others.
YES.
They have been charged for a violation of
the Anti-Subversion Act and were then
covered by the proclamation.

IN case of invasion, insurrection or rebellion, the President can: 1) call out the armed forces
2) suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
3) put Philippines or any part therof under martial law
 Lacson vs. Romero
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court

Facts:
July 25, 1946: Antonio Lacson was appointed by President as provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental

August 6, 1946: Comm on Appointments confirmed appointment

August 10, 1946: took oath

May 17, 1949: President nominated Lacson to post of provincial fiscal of Tarlac upon recommendation of
Secretary of Justice

Romero was nominated for Negros Oriental.

May 19, 1949: both nominations were confirmed by COA.

Lacson neither accepted nomination nor assumed Tarlac office. However after said event:

• Romero appeared in Negros Courts as prov fiscal

• Paguia, the Auditor and Alfabeto, the Treasurer refused to give Lacson salary because they already
believed Romero to be the provincial fiscal.

Agabin question: Ahh, what are the steps for the aah… appointment of fiscal?
1. nomination by President
2. to make nomination valid and permanent, COA must confirm
3. acceptance thereof by the appointee manifested thru his assumption of office

Issues
1. WON COA’s appointment of Lacson to Tarlac
created a vacancy in the Negros fiscal office
2. WON nomination and confirmation of Lacson to
Tarlac served as removal of Lacson from office
3. WON President can remove at any time, a fiscal he
himself appointed to office
Held/Ratio
NO.
Since Lacson declined to accept the nomination,
there was no vacancy.
YES.
However, no reason was presented as to why
Lacson was to be removed. He did not even accept
nomination.
NO.
Article 12 section 4 provides that ‘no officer or
employee in the civil service shall be removed or
suspended for causes provided by law.’
Section 671 of RAC as amended by
Commonwealth Act No. 177 section 8 classifies
provincial fiscals as person embraced in unclassified
civil service.

Final Decision: Lacson is provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental

Anu-ano ba causes for a civil service officer’s removal from office?

1. Section 686 of RAC: falsification of DTR

2. Section 687: political activity and contribution to political fund
3. drunkenness, gambling, immoral conduct

What is the Civil Service Commission?

• a vigorous and non-partisan instrument for development of an honest and efficient civil service
• Chairman, 2 commissioners, 35 yrs old on day of election, natural born citizens, did not run for office
in elections immdtly preceding appointment
Question to Sir: Had the transfer really constituted a promotion, can it be said that it was valid?
 Garcia vs. Executive Secretary
Nature: Original Petition in the Supreme Court.
Quo Warranto and prohibition with preliminary
injunction.
Facts:
On February 18, 1962, Dr. Paulino Garcia,
presidential appointee for the position of
Chairman of the National Science Development
Board was subjected to a preventive suspension of
60 days by the Executive Secretary.
The reason for such act was the need to
investigate on his acts of dishonesty and other
violations of the RPC (administrative cases).
Juan Salcedo Jr. was then appointed as
Acting Chairman.
Petitioner wanted:
a) to be reinstated to his position
after April 19, 1962; the last day of
his 60 day suspension despite the
fact that investigation was still no
over
b) the court to declare Salcedo guilty
of unlawfully holding the position
of Chairman
Issue: WON Section 35 of Civil Service Act applied
to Garcia, a presidential appointee.
Section 35 of Civil Service Act: Lifting the
preventive Suspension Pending Administrative
Investigation- When the admin case against the
officer of employee under preventive suspension
is not finally decided by the Commissioner of Civil
Service within a period of 60 days after the date of
suspension, the respondent shall be reinstated in
the service. IF the respondent officer or employee
is exonerated, he shall be restored to his position
with full pay for the period of suspension.
Held/Ratio: YES
The provision only provides for officers
and employees. No specific mention of WON that
official is a presidential appointee.
The suspension is not meant to be a
penalty for the crime. It is an administrative
disciplinary action.
It is not necessary that the Commissioner
of Civil Service would eventually decide the case.
It is assumed that the cases of all civil service
officers would pass through the Commissioner of
Civil Service for scrutiny and investigation.
Effect: Garcia reinstated.
Salcedo asked to vacate.
Mondano, Jose VS. Silvosa, et. al.
(gov of Surigao)
Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court.
Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction
Facts:
At the endorsement to the provincial
governor of Surigao, the Assistant Executive
Secretary requested for immediate investigation
of Jose Mondano’s acts of rape and concubinage.
Mondano was mayor of Mainit, Surigao
Admin Order NO. 8 suspended Mondano
and investigation commenced.
Issue: WON said investigation was valid
Held/Ratio: No
Section 2188 of RAC: provincial governor
is authorized to receive and investigate
complaints made under oath against municipal
officers for neglect of duty, oppression, corruption,
or other form of maladministration of office, and
conviction by final judgment of any crime of moral
turpitude.
The provincial fiscal himself could not file
a complaint of rape without sworn statement of
offended party.
Decision: Investigation was illegal and
unauthorized.
Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board
Nature: Appeal from the decision of CFI, Manila
Facts:
CFI denied petition for writs of habeas
corpus and/or prohibition, certiorari, and
mandamus for his case.
On May 12, 1952, Special Prosecutor
Emilio L. Galang charged petitioner before the
Deportation Board.
The crimes:
• purchasing $130,000 with license from
Central Bank and remitted it to Hong Kong
• attempted bribery of Phil and US officials
(Chief of the Intelligence Division of the CB
and member of US Air Force)
In effect Deportation Board issued a warrant
of arrest for petitioner (E.O. No 398, series of
1951). Upon fixing of bonds, petitioner was
temporarily set free.
 Petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of
Issues: the General Court Martial of the Philippine Army
1. WON President has authority to deport over the case.
aliens
Held: Yes. They also sought for the records of their
Section 69 of Act NO. 2711 of RAC: cases’ proceedings to be reviewed by the
No alien can be deported by prexy EXCEPT Supreme Court.
upon prior investigation, conducted by said
executive or his authorized agent, of the Issues:
ground upon which such action is 1. WON petitioners were under jurisdiction
contemplated. of General Court Martial of the Philippine Army

* In effect, Prexy (Quezon, May 29, 1936) Held: YES

created the Deportation Board to conduct
investigations.
2. WON Deportation Board also has authority
to file warrants of arrest
Yes but only after investigation has resulted to
the actual order of deportation.
Arrest would have been necessary for
deportation to take effect.
However, in the case at bar, investigations
were still ongoing and no order for deportation
was yet made.
Garcia, Francisco, Adeva, and Fortus were
still officers of the Bolo Area deriving authority
from the General Headquarters of the 6th Military
Division when they killed Jurado.
The Japanese occupation did not invalidate
the existence of the Philippine Army and the
status of officers drafted to carry out military
activities. These officers did not cease in their
active duty during the occupation.
2. WON Supreme Court had power of judicial
review over the case
held: NO

Decision: E.O. No 398, series of 1951: declared “Court Martials are agencies of executive
illegal character and one of the authorities for the
ordering of courts martial has been held to be
Deportation may be effected in 2 ways: attached to the constitutional functions of the
1. by order of President, after due President as Commander-in-chief,
investigation, pursuant to Section 69 of independent of legislation.”
the RAC
2. by Commissioner of Immigration, upon
recommendation by the Board of
Commissioners under Section 37 of
Commonwealth Act No. 613

Crime was an act profiteering, hoarding or

blackmarketing of US dollars

Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff

Nature: Original Action in the SC. Prohibition

Facts:
Ramon Ruffy, Jose L. Garcia, Prudente
Francisco, Dominador Adeva, and Adres Fortus
allegedly killed Lt. Col Jurado.
At the time of the time, Ruffy was already
relieved of his assignment as Commanding
Officer, Bolo Battalion.

However, the other four remained officers

of the Bolo Area of the 6th Military Division.
Kuroda vs. Jalandoni

Nature: Original Action in the SC. Prohibition

Facts:
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly Liuetentant General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding
General of the Japanse Imperial Forces in the Philippines during the period covering 1943 and 1944,
• who is now charged before a Military Commission
• convened by the Chief of Staff of the AFP with
• having unlawfully disregarded and failed
• to discharge his duties as such commander
• to control the operations of members of his command,
• permitting them to commit brutal crimes against civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese
Forces
• in violation of the law and customs of war

Petitioner questions:
• the constitutionality of E.O. No 68
• the participation of Melville Hussey and Robert Port in the proceedings of the case

Issues:
Issues Held/Ratio
1. WON E.O. No 68 was constitutional YES.
• established a National War Crimes • Section 3 of Article 2 provides: The
Office Philippines renounces war as an
• prescribed rules and regulations instrument of national policy, and
governing the trial of accused war adopts the generally accepted
criminals principles of international law as part
• issued by President on July 29, 1947 of the law of the nation.
• Part of President’s power as
Commander-in-Chief to consummate
unfinished aspect of war, namely, the
trial and punishment of war criminals.
• Although Philippines was not a
signatory of the Hague Convention,
the crime was committed when we
were under the US, a signatory
country.
• Had we not been under US, it would
still have been valid becoz said E.O.
was pursuant to the general
application of national policy against
war.
2. WON 2 American attorneys, Hussey and YES.
Port can participate in the case even if they
were not qualified to practice law in the • Military Commission is a special
Philippines under Rules of Court military tribunal governed by special
law not Rules of Court.
• Lawyers appearing in Military
Commission need not be lawyers
qualified to practice law in the
Philippines.

Estrada vs. Desierto

Facts:
 Cases at bar:

1. Petition for prohibition with a prayer for a write of preliminary injunction for Case Nos. until his
term as President is over : (February 5, 2001) Court G.R. No. 146710-15

OMB 0-00-1629: Ramon A. October 23, Bribery and graft and corruption
Gonzales 2000

Volunteers November 17, Plunder, forfeiture, graft and

OMB 0-00-1754: Against Crime 2000 corruption
and Corruption

Graft Free November 24, Plunder, forfeiture, graft and

OMB 0-00-1755: Philippines 2000 corruption, bribery, perjury,
Foundation, Inc. serious misconduct

Romeo November 28, Malversation of public funds, illegal

OMB 0-00-1756: Capulong, et. al. 2000 use of public funds and property,
plunder, etc.

OMB 0-00-1757: Leonard de Vera, Bribery, plunder, indirect bribery,

et. al. violation of PD 1602, PD 1829, PD
46, and RA 7080

Ernesto B. December 4, Plunder, graft and corruption

OMB 0-00-1758: Francisco, Jr. 2000

2. Quo Warranto: confirm him as lawful and incumbent President of the Philippines temporarily
unable to discharge his duties. (February 6, 2001) Court GR No. 146738

Issue Held/Ratio
1. WON the petitions present a justiciable YES.
controversy Section 1, Article 8 Consti: but also to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of government

• EDSA 2 is intra constitutional. Arroyo swore

under 1987 Consti. Such action poses legal
questions as to the constitutional validity of
her presidency.
• The issues for resolution require proper
interpretation of certain provisions in the
Consti.
• The issues call for a ruling on the scope of
presidential immunity from suit.
• They also involve interpretation of
petitioner’s right against prejudicial
publicity.
2. If 1 is yes, WON Estrada resigned as YES.
President (section 8, Article 7)
Totality test: Was there intent to resign?

WON Estrada is only temporarily unable to act
as President
3. WON conviction in the impeachment
proceedings is a condition precedent for the
criminal prosecution of Estrada.
If not, WON whether Estrada is immune
from criminal prosecution
4. WON the prosecution of Estrada should be
enjoined on the ground of prejudicial publicity
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED.
Was the intent coupled with acts of
relinquishment?
Based on Angara diary, Estrada himself requested
that they help each other to ensure a peaceful and
orderly transfer of power. Here, intent to resign was
implied.
Negotiations soon followed. The terms of the
negotiations included:
a. 5 day transition period after resignation
b. guarantee of safety of petitioner and family
c. agreement to open 2nd envelope to clear
petitioner’s name
No argument as to whether or not the terms of
negotiations implied willingness to resign was
made by petitioner.

NO.
Congress had already declared support for Gloria as
President.
Court no longer has power of judicial review on
legislative branch’s act of recognizing legitimacy of
Arroyo government.
NO.
The walk out aborted the impeachment trial.
Estrada resigned. No need for impeachment in
order allow suits to be filed against him.
Feb. 7, 2001=Senate Resolution No. 83-
Recognizing that the Impeachment Court is Functus
Officio
No post-tenure immunity for cases like plunder,
bribery, graft and corruption
NO.
There is not enough evidence to warrant this
Court to enjoin the prelim investigation of the
petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman.
Publicity per se does not create bias.
IBP vs. Zamora

Nature: Special Action for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for issuance of a temp. restraining order

Petitioner sought to nullify order of Pres. Estrada commanding the deployment of the Phil. Marines to
join PNP in visibility patrols around metropolis.
Such deployment was to be temporary.

Invoked: Section 18, Article 7 of Consti

Powers as Commander-in-Chief

Issue: WON such order was constitutional Held: YES

Issue Held/ Ratio

1. WON petitioner has legal standing NO.

Petitioner does not possess requisites of

2. WON President’s action of deployment is
subject to judicial review
3. WON the act violates the constitutional
provisions on civilian supremacy over the military
and the civilian character of PNP
standing to raise the issues in the petition.
IBP has failed to present a specific and
substantial interest in the resolution of the case.
The National President signed the petition
without a formal board resolution authorizing hi to
file action.
NO.
Deployment of military personnel falls under
the Commander-in-Chief powers of president
(Section 18, Article 7) to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.
NO.
Characteristic of deployment:
• permissible use of military assets for
civilian law enforcement (done in
elections, administration of Red Cross,
anti-drug enforcement activities etc.)
• marines under the leadership of the Metro
Manila Police Chief
• even equipment of Marines: from PNP

Marcos vs. Manglapus

Nature: Petition for mandamus and prohibition

Facts:

During the term of Cory Aquino, the Marcoses wanted to return to the Philippines but were barred
from doing so.
This is a petition for the court to order the respondents to issue travel documents to the Marcoses
and to enjoin the implementation of the President’s decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

Issue: WON Cory had constitutional authority to prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. YES

Sub-issues:

Do the Marcoses have right to return to the Philippines? JUSTICIABLE QUESTION. COURT HAS
AUTHORITY.

Is that a threat to national security? POLITICAL. PRESIDENT HAS POWER TO DECIDE.

 Issue
WON president has power to bar Marcoses’ return
WON president acted arbitrarily in determining
the their return poses a threat to national interest
and welfare
Held/ Ratio
YES.
Article 2, Sec 4 and 5:
The President has obligation to protect the
people, promote their welfare and advance the
national interest.
House Resolution 1342 even recognized power
of President to bar the return. Resolution content:
let them return (no implication of not allowing
president to bar return.
NO.
Declaration of threat had factual bases:
• Marcoses were driven out of the country
for stealing millions from country’s
treasury.
• Their return would have posed violence
against State.

Araneta, Salvador vs. Gatmaitan

Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction.

Facts:
San Miguel Bay became the center for the dispute over trawl fishing.
Sustenance fishermen complained about the operations alleging that those operations depleted the
resources of that marine area.
In effect, President issued E.O.s 22, 66, and 80 which had the effect of prohibiting trawl fishing in the
said area.

Issues: Held/Ratio
1. WON President has authority to issue E.O.s 22, YES.
66, and 80 Section 10(1) of Article 7 of Consti gives
president control over executive departments.
Dept of Agriculture and Natural Resources is
subject to the general supervision and control of
Pres.
2. WON E.O.s were valid VALID and issued with authority of law
3. WON it was undue delegation of powers to NO.
President Act no. 4003 of Legislature as amd. By
Commonwealth Act No. 471 intended to prohibit
devices like trawl nets that deplete food supply
from sea and it authorized Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources who in turn is under
supervision of President.

Aytona, Dominador vs. Castillo, Andres

Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction.

Facts:
December 29, 1961: Garcia appointed Dominador Aytona as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank
Aytona takes oath

December 30, 1961: Macapagal assumed presidential position

December 31, 1961: Macapagal issued Administrative Order No. 2 all ad interim appointments made
by Garcia after December 13, 1961 (when Macapagal was proclaimed by Congress).

January 1, 1962: Macapagal appointed Andres Castillo for CB position

Issue:
WON Aytona’s appointment was valid
HELD:
No.

• Malacañan submitted appointments on the same day they were issued.

• Commission on Appointments was not in session
• After proclamation, Garcia’s administration was caretaker administration.
• Such appointments obstruct political policies of successor

POI: The President has authority to issue ad interim appointments if:

a. there are vacancies
b. the appointees have been approved by Commission on Appointments (by way of advice)

Sarmiento, Ulpiano vs. Mison (Comm of the Bureau of Customs)

Nature: Petition for prohibition

Facts:
Petitioners sought to prohibit in their appointed jobs:
Salvador Mison: Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs
Guillermo Carague: Secretary of the Department of Budget

Petitioners alleged that those appointments were void by reason of its not having been confirmed by
the Commission on Appointments.

Teka…may right be prexy to appoint? OO NAMAN

Section 16, Article 7 of 1987 Consti: “The President shall nominate, and with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, appoint …”

Who can the President appoint?

a. heads of exe depts., ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed
forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointment are
vested in him in this Consti
b. all other officers of the govt whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law
c. those whom the president may be authorized by law to appoint
d. officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone

* The first groups requires consent and confirmation by COA (by virtue of statutory construction)

Issue: WON Commission on Appointments’confirmation was required for mentioned presidential

appointments to be valid.

Held:

No.
Only the first group of appointees requires explicitly the need for consent and confirmation.
The second sentence of provision says: He shall also appoint…
No explicit reference to the need of COA’s consent was then mentioned.

Appointments valid.
Demetria vs. Alba • PD 1177 overextends powers of President.
• Allowed him to indiscriminately transfer
Nature: Petition for prohibition with preliminary funds from one dept to another.
injunction to review the constitutionality of the
first paragraph of Section 44 of Presidential
Decree No. 1177 (Budget reform Decree of 1977)

Facts:
Petitioners, members of the National
Assembly/Batasan Pambansa questioned the
constitutionality of the presidential decree.
• authorizes illegal transfer of public money
• does not specify purpose and objective of
proposed transfer of funds
• allows president to override the
safeguards in approving appropriations
• undue delegation of legislative powers to
executive
• such transfers are without or excess or
their jurisdiction

Issue: WON PD No. 1177 is unconstitutional.

Held:

PD No. 1177 is unconstitutional and void.

P.D. No. 1177 paragraph 1 of Section 44:

The President shall have the authority to
transfer any fund, appropriated for the different
departments, bureaus, offices and agencies of the
Executive Department, which are included in the
General Appropriation Act, to any program,
project or activity of any department, bureau, or
office included in the General Appropriations Act
or approved after its enactment.

Vs.

Section 16 (5), Article 8 of 1973 Consti:

No law shall be passed authorizing any
transfer of appropriations, however, the President,
the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
constitutional commission may by law be
authorized to augment any item in the general
appropriations law for their respective offices from
savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.

• President could only transfer funds to

augment an item.
• Such transfer may be made if there are
savings.
Tañada vs. Angara
Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari
Facts:
Respondent Rizalino Navarro, then Secretary of the Dept of Trade and Industry signed the Final Act
Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations (Final Act)

Petitioners sought:
1. for the nullification, on constitutional grounds, of the concurrence (Senate Resolution No. 97) of
the Philippine Senate in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement
Establishing the WTO
2. for the prohibition of its implementation

Issues
1. WON Court has jurisdiction
2. WON WTO agreement violated Consti mandate
on economic nationalism
3. WON WTO Agreement unduly limits legislative
power
(a provision in the agreement says that
Congress could not pass laws for national
interest and general welfare if it were
inconsistent with agreement)
Held/Ratio
YES.
Petitioners alleged that WTO agreement
violated the Consti mandate to ‘develop a self-
reliant and independent national economy
effectively controlled by Filipinos (Sec 19, Art
2) xxx to give preference to qualified Filipinos
(Sec 10, Art 12) and to promote the
preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic
materials, and locally produced goods (Section
12, Art 12).
NO.
While the Consti mandates economic
nationalism, it also:
• recognizes the need for business
exchange with the world
• exchanges need to be based on
equality and reciprocity
• Consti is only against unfair foreign
competition.
• Consti does not rule out foreign
competition.
WTO provided:
* protection for weak economies thru one-
on-one negotiations with developed
countries
YES but that is not unconstitutional per se.
• Treaties do limit absoluteness of
sovereignty.
• By surrendering state power, nations
reap greater benefits which are results
of the provisions of international law

Constitutional!

Emmanuel Pelaez vs. Auditor General

Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition with preliminary injunction

Facts:
Emmanuel Pelaez, vice president of the Phils. instituted this special civil, for a writ of prohibition with
preliminary injunction, against the auditor general and his reps and agents, from passing in audit any
expenditure of public funds in the implementation of the ff. exe. orders from the prexy which the latter
claimed as pursuant to Sec. 68 of the Rev.Admin. Code.

E.O. Nos 93-21, E.O. 121, E.O. 124, E.O. Nos 126-129 ( creating 33 municipalities)
 Section 68 of Rev. Admin Code
-grants the prexy the power to create municipalities with the necessary stipulations provided by the
legislative branch

Pelaez maintained that section 68 of the Rev. Admin. Code had already been repealed by Section 3
of Republic Act. No. 2370.
“ Barrios shall not be created or their boundaries altered nor their names changed except under the
provisions of this Act or by Act of Congress.”

Teka, di ba iba naman ung pinag-usapan ng dalawang laws? As in barrios and municipalities?
- Oo nga. Pero ang logic kasi dito, barrios make up municipalities and because the president is not
granted the power to create barrios, lalo na kaya ang municipalities which are made up of barrios.

Issue:
WON the president has authority to create new municipalities

Held:
The court granted the petition on ff grounds:

1. The creation of municipalities is not an administrative function but one, which is essentially and
eminently legislative in character. (Section 3 of rep. Act 2370). It is only administrative in as
much as it allows the adoption of means and way to carry into effect the law creating the said
municipalities.
2. Section 10 (1) of Article VII of Consti- grants prexy control over exe. institutions and general
supervision of LGs as prov. By law. This only grants him the authority to check whether the
offices are performing their duties as provided by law. In the case at bar, the prexy did more than
that. By creating new municipalities, he is in effect submitting local officials to submit to his
dictation, something denied of him by consti.
3. Sec. 68 of Rev. Admin Code must be deemed repealed by the subsequent adoption of the 1935
Consti, which grants the prexy control over exe. branches and units (e.g. municipalities) but not
the power to create or abolish new ones (this one’s legislative)

E.O.s declared NULL and Void.

May opinions pa. Basahin nyo na lang. It’s’ like historical kasi so medyo fun siya. (boink.)


J. Antonio Araneta vs Fiscal of Manila, Eugenio Angeles

Nature: Prohibition and Mandamus

Facts:
Maraming kaso pala ‘to.

1. J. Antonio Araneta
- under prosecution for the violation of E.O. No. 62
- E.O. No. 62-regulates rentals for houses and lots for residential buildings
- Prays of writ of prohibition to judge and fiscal
2. Leon Ma. Guerrero
- E.O. NO. 192- aims to control exports from the Phils. ( pertinent to case at bar: forbids export
of shoes)
- Seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Admin. Of the Sugar Quota Office and the
Commissioner of Customs to permit the exportation of shoes
3. Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr (pres. Of Nacionalista party)
- E.O. No. 225- appropriates funds for the operation of the Gov. of the Phils.
- Applies for writ of prohibition to restrain the treasurer of the Phils from disbursing money
under this E.O.
4. Antonio Barredo
- E.O. No 226- appropriates Php 6,000,000 to defray expenses in connection with and
incidental to the holding of elections to be held in Nov. 1949
 - Asks court to prevent respondents from disbursing such amount
E.O.s in question: 62, 192, 225, 226

Basic premise of the petitioners: such E.O.s are null and void because Emergency Powers Act
(Commonwelath Act NO. 671) have ceased to exist.

Act. No 671. An act declaring a state of total emergency as a result of war involving the Phils. And
authorizing the president to promulgate rules and regulations to meet such emergency.

Bakit legal ‘to despite sepation of powers?

Section 26 of article 6 in the Consti: the Congress may grant the prexy te power to promulgate rules
and reg. To carry out declared natl policy, given nec. Stipulations only in time of war or other national
emergency.

Issue:
WON the E.O.s included in the case at bar are null and void.

Held:
The court held that E.O.s Nos. 62, 192, 225, and 226 were null and void; issued without authority of law
as they were issued after May 25, 1946 when Congress first met ion regular session and Act no. 671
became inoperative.

Legal Basis:
Act No. 671 Section 3: limits the emergency powers of prexy to the time the legislature was prevented
from holdings sessions due to enemy action or other causes brought on by war

“ the prexy shall as soon as practicable upon the convening of the Congress of the Phils report thereto all
the rules and regulations promulgated by him under the powers herein granted.” (in effect, as soon as
this meeting occurs, the emergency powers or the prexy are deemed inoperative unless reenacted with
authority from legislature)

mas makapal pa ung pages for opinions compared to pages for the court’s decision. Kakastress.
______________________________________________

People and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp vs. Jose O. Vera, judge ad interim of the CFI of Manila

Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and prohibition

Facts:
Petitioners pray for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and of prohibition so that the CFI of Manila
may not entertain further the application for probation of Mariano Cu Unjieng. In effect, the latter would be
committed to prison in accordance with the final judgment of conviction rendered by court.

Final Conviction: indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 years and two months of prision correctional to 8
years of prision mayor, to pay costs and with reservation of civil action to Hongkong and Shanghai Banks.

Wait… ano ba ‘tong case ni Mariano Cu Unjieng?

Ahmm, di ko yata nadiscover kung ano ginawa niya. Basta crim. Case ‘to. So malamang Mariano did
sumthin bad against Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corps. (grabe. Duh nito ah.)

Issue:
1. WON the constitutionality of Act. No. 4221 has been properly raised in these proceedings
• Act 4221- Probation Act
- prescribes in detailed manner the procedure for granting probation to accused
persons after their conviction has become final and before they have served their
sentence
Held: the constitutional issue has been sufficiently presented not only in the Sc but also in the trial
court. Judge Vera however declined to pass upon the question on the ground that the private
prosecutor had no authority to raise the question because his rights were not affected by the statute.
 Simply stated, the constitutionality of any statute is relevant to every person who will be, sooner or
later, affected by it. The People of the Philippines, thus have every right to raise the question of
constitutionality of such statute which may, sooner or later, affect them (huh? Intindihan nyo ba?)

Possible Sir Agabin Question: But was it right to raise the issue of constitutionality only after the
proceedings of the case? Shouldn’t they have done that before?

Possible Answer: In most cases, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity. However, the exception to that general rule applies to cranial cases wherein the
question may be raised for the first time at any stage of proceedings either in the trail court or on
appeal if it is nec. to the decision of the case.
2. if issue 1 is in the affirmative, WON said act is constitutional.
The constitutionality of Act 4221 is challenged on 3 grounds:
1. it encroaches upon the pardoning power of the executive (probation is different from pardon. It is
a purely judicial act which does not exempt probationer from the entire punishment which the
law inflicts. Executive pardon is against the crim. law which binds and directs judges.

Added info: definitions

Pardon: an act of grace, a remission of guilt, a forgiveness of offense
Commutation: a remission of a part of the punishment, a substitution of a less penalty for the one originally
imposed
Reprieve or respite: withholding of sentence for an interval of time
2. it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power (the court ruled in the affirmative.
Because Act 4221 is improper and is an unlawful delegation of leg. Power, it is deemed
unconstitutional and void. Decisions of the judicial bodies are deemed final. Act 4221 may delay
or modify such decision by virtue of the authority vested by legislature on it. Di nga tlga ‘to
pwede di ba?)
3. it denies equal protection of laws

Act 4221 is unconstitutional and void.

Writ of prohibtion is granted.
______________________________________________
US vs. ANG TANG HO

Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Manila

Facts:

Act No. 2868

An act penalizing the monopoly and hoarding of,
and speculation in, palay, rice, and corn under
extraordinary circumstances…yada yada yada.

On August 1, 1919, the Governor-General issued a proclamtion fixing the price at which rice should be
sold (E.O. No. 53).

On August 8, 1919, Ang Tang Ho was charged and subsequently found gulity with a violation of the
mentioned proclamation for selling rice at an excessive price ( .80/ganta).

Issue: WON E.O. No. 53 is constitutional and valid.

Held:
The court ruled that E.O. No 53 is unconstitutional and void.

Act No. 2868 is a general rule regarding the regulation of palay, rice, and corn sales. It does not
however grant the Governor General the power to fix the prices of rice without justifiable cause. Such specific
stipulations are for the legislature to decide.
(basahin niyo ung orig to get the full idea of what the act was all about.)

Gualberto J. De La Llana (judge Brnach 2, City Court of Olongapo) vs. Manuel Alba, Minister of Budget
Nature: Petition directly filed with the Supreme Court for the adjudication of the Constitutionality of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129

Facts:

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129: An Act Reorganizing the

Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for
Other Purposes.

* Cabinet Bill no. 42…sponsored by Chairman of the Committee on Justice, Human Rights, and Good Govt.

Petitioners sought to enjoin Minister of Budget, Chairman of the Commission on Audit, and Minister of
Justice from taking any action in implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129

Issue: WON Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is unconstitutional

Held:

The court’s opinion was: Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is not unconstitutional.

1. lack of standing of petitioners?

Judge de la Llana and the other petitioners are members of the bar. They are not devoid of any
personal and substantial interest over the issue of the constitutionality of the statute in dispute.

2. arbitrariness of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129

Petitioners did not take notice of context of the promulgation of such statute.

On August 7, 1980, a Presidential Committee on Judicial reorganization was organized thru an E.O.
which was later amended by E.O. N0. 619-A dated September 5, 1980.
3. the law is simply a response to the need for institutional reforms which would result in:
a. more efficiency in the disposal of cases
b. improvement of quality of justice
c. modifications of court jurisdictions

* Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 also results in the abolition of certain inferior courts in the process of modifying
court jurisdictions. However, this is not a violation of powers since such abolitions will be done in good faith
and for the attainment of a better judicial system as was the intended purpose of the statue in the first place.

Olaguer vs. Military Commission No. 34

Nature: Petitions for certiorari and prohibition to review the order of the Military Commission No. 34

Facts:
• May 30, 1980: petitioners were charged for subversion (PD No. 885-Revised Anti-Subversion Law)
• upon the recommendation of the respondent Judge Advocate General (Gen. Hamilton Dimaya)
and
• the approval of the respondent Minister of National Defense (Juan Ponce Enrile)

Respondent Chief of Staff of AFP (General Romeo Espino) created the Military Commission No. 34 to
try the case.

July 30, 1980: amended charges to: 1) unlawful possession of explosives and incendiary devices; 2)
conspiracy to assassinate Marcoses; 3) conspiracy to assassinate Messrs. Tangco, Roño, and Corpus;
 5) arson of 9 buildings 6) attempted murder of Messrs. Leonardo Perez, Valencia, and Generals
Espino and Ver 7) conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, and inciting to rebellion

Petitioners claimed that:

• military commissions cannot try civilians for offenses committed during martial law
• the proceedings of Military Commission No. 34 violated due process of law

Issues
1. WON military commissions can try civilians for
offenses committed during martial law when civil
courts were open
2. WON Military Commission NO. 34 violated due
process of law (unconstitutional)
Held/Ratio
NO.
• Military Tribunals are executive
institutions.
• Provided by legislature for the President
as Commander-in-Chief
• To aid him in properly commanding the
army and navy and enforcing discipline
therein
• Case at bar involves criminal offenses.
Only judiciary can interpret what
constitutes criminal offense
• Besides, Proclamation No. 2045 (January
17, 1981-lifted martial law) divest Military
Commission No. 34 of its ‘supposed’
authority to try civilians.
YES.
• violated Section 18, Article 7: state of
martial does not suspend Consti nor shall
it supplant functioning of civil courts to
military tribunals (gist lang ‘to)
• so long as civil courts are open,
proceedings have to be done in those
places except when the offenses are
merely administrative in nature

Decision: Military Commission NO. 34: unconstitutional

Execution of petitioners permanently suspended

Ang-Angco vs. Castillo

Nature: Original Petition in the SC. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory
injunction

Facts:
• Commissioner of Customs Manuel Manahan filed an administrative complaint against Collector of
Customs Ang-Angco;
• For grave neglect of duty and
• observance of a conduct prejudicial to the interest of the customs service

IN RESPONSE TO THAT:
• President Magsaysay created a committee to investigate on Ang-Angco’s case.
• At the time of Magsaysay’s death, investigation was still ongoing.
 • After Magsaysay’s death,
• Executive Secretary Castillo, with authority from President,
• Rendered final judgment on Ang-Angco’s case finding the latter
• GUILTY of conduct prejudicial to the best interst of the customs service
• And considered him resigned from the position.

Wait…ano case ni Ang-Angco??

He authorized the release of Pepsi-Cola’s 1,188 units of concentrates which were held by customs for
lack of dollar allocation or remittance to foreign exchange.
He did that under the verbal expression of approval of release by Secretary of Finance Hernandez.
Initially, he did not issue approval because he said Collector of Customs had no jurisdiction over case.

Issue: WON Executive Secretary, with authority from President can render final judgment on an
administrative case without submitting such direct action to the Commissioner of Civil Service and remove
official from office

Held: NO

Ratio:
Under Section 16(i) of the Civil Service Act of 1959:
• the Commissioner of Civil Service has original and exclusive jurisdiction to decided administrative
cases of all officers and employees in the classified service
• limitation to that provision: the Commissioner’s decision may be appealed to the Civil Service
Board of Appeals, whose decision shall be final (Section 18, Republic Act 2260)

But..aah..does the President have aah..the power to remove anybody from office?

Yes.
• Section 79 of RAC provides an implied vested power on President, as Department Head of the
Civil Service Commission.
• HOWEVER, it also provides that the removal should be pursuant to Civil Service Act of 1959 AND
• Civil Service Act of 1959 provides that officers and employees who belong to the classified
service (Collector of Customs is an example) shall be tried by the Commissioner of Civil Service
or the Civil Service Board of Appeals. (grabe ang galing ng logic ng decision na ‘to. to quote a
friend: what an orgasmic piece of legislation)
• AND President’s control is only refers to matters of general policy: means a settled or definite
course or method adopted and followed by govt

Also, officials cannot be arbitrarily removed from office by heads (section 4, article 12 of Consti).

Decision: Ang-Angco reinstated to position.

Monsanto vs. Factoran

Nature: Petition to review the resolution of the Deputy Executive Secretary

Facts:
• March 25, 1983: Sandiganbayan convicted Salvacion Mosanto (then assistant
treasurer of Calbayog City)
• And three other accused
• Of the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents

THEN:
 • petitioner appealed and filed a motion of reconsideration upon court’s decision to
affirm prior ruling of conviction.
• During the pendency of the motion, Marcos granted petitioner absolute pardon.
• Petitioner then asked for reinstatement to her position but was denied by Fulgenio
Factoran, then Deputy Executive Secretary.
• Factoran said reappointment was necessary.

Issue: WON a public officer. Who has been granted an absolute pardon by the Chief executive,
is entitled to reinstatement to her former position without need of a new appointment

Held: NO.

Ratio:
• The petitioner was convicted by Sandiganbayan of estafa has an accessory penalty
of temporary absolute disqualification.
• Temporary absolute disqualification bars convict from public office; this lasts until
end of term of sentence.
• The effect of Marcos’ pardon was simply to remove principal penalty BUT NOT the
accessory penalty UNLESS the pardon expressly provides that accessory penalties
are to be removed also.
• WHY?? Because pardon is not necessarily a declaration that no crime was
committed.
• Pardon excuses one from serving the punishment of the crime but does not
dissolve the crime itself.

Decision: Not reinstated to office. No backpays or paybacks ba tama na term?

Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion

Nature: Petition for…

Facts:

Issue: WON private respondent Mark Jimenez is entitled to the due process right to notice and
hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.

Held: NO.

Ratio:
1. PD No. 1069 (RP-US Extradition Treaty) provides the time when an extraditee shall be
furnished a copy of the petition for extradition.
• it does not provide the right of the extraditee to demand from the Secretary of
Justice copies of the extradition request from US while the request is still
undergoing evaluation

2. giving the private respondent copy of the request might serve as notice to flee
3. Private respondent assailed that an extradition proceeding is like a criminal proceeding
and thus he has the right to a notice and a hearing HOWEVER, COURT SAID:
a. extradition proceedings do not involve determination of guilt
b. extradition is summary in nature; crim is full blown
c. extradition: president has final discretion to extradite him
THUS:
• due process safeguards do not necessarily apply to the former
4. Was provisional arrest a threat to his liberty?
No. Provisional arrest happens only upon receipt of request for extradition. US had not
requested for that arrest
 5. Was warrant of arrest for the temporary detention a threat to his liberty?
No. It was only issued upon filing of the petition for extradition. In the case at bar,
extradition process was still at evaluation level. Threat to respondent’s liberty was
hypothetical.

Decision: no need to provide copies. REVERSED.

Lansang vs. Garcia

Nature:

Facts:
Two hand grenade explosions occurred on August 21, 1971 at Plaza Miranda where the
Liberal Party of the Philippines was holding a public meeting for the presentation of its
candidates for the November 8, 1971 elections. Eight persons were killed and many were
injured.
As a result, Marcos issued Proclamation No. 889, suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.
Petitioners sought for writs of habeas corpus after being arrested without a warrant
therefore and detained. They questioned the validity of Proclamation No. 889.

Issue
1. WON Proclamation No. 889 violated par. 4
section 1 of article 3 and par 2, section 10 of
article 7 of Consti
Held/Ratio
No.
Petitioners initially contended that the
proclamation was made based solely on the
idea that there was a conspiracy and intent to
rise in arms among several groups in the
country.
However, court held that with the
modifications thru Proclamation No. 889-A,
Marcos declared that the ‘enemy groups’ had
already entered into the conspiracy and have
in fact joined together to engage in armed
insurrection and rebellion.
The Plaza Miranda incident was only one
among the many violent incidences that
brought forth such proclamation.

2. WON there was invasion, insurrection, or YES.

rebellion or imminent danger therof
WON public safety required the suspension of
the privilege
3. WON petitioners are covered by said
proclamation as amended
The existence of the CPP and the NPA were
clear proof of the state of rebellion and
insurrection of the country.
These groups believe that force and
violence are indispensable to the attainment
of their goal.
YES.
President had in his possession records of
killings of several government officials by the
CPP, bombings of the COMELEC building,
MERALCO, and others.
YES.
They have been charged for a violation of
the Anti-Subversion Act and were then
covered by the proclamation.
 IN case of invasion, insurrection or rebellion, the President can: 1) call out the armed forces
2) suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus
3) put Philippines or any part therof under
martial law