1. De Jesus vs COA, G.R. No.

109023 August 12, 1998 FACTS: The pivotal issue raised in this petition is whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the payment of honoraria which they were receiving prior to the effectivity of Rep. Act 6758. Petitioners are employees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). Prior to July 1, 1989, they were receiving honoraria as designated members of the LWUA Board Secretariat and the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee. On July 1, 1989, Republic Act No. 6758 (Rep. Act 6758), entitled "An Act Prescribing A Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and For Other Purposes", took effect. Section 12 of said law provides for the consolidation of allowances and additional compensation into standardized salary rates which states that all allowances except for transportation and representation shall be deemed included in their respective compensation. To implement this act, DBM issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10), discontinuing without qualification effective November 1, 1989, all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary. Pursuant to the aforesaid Law and Circular, respondent Leonardo Jamoralin, as corporate auditor, disallowed on post audit, the payment of honoraria to the herein petitioners. ISSUE: DBM-CCC No. 10, is valid and effective HELD: In the present case under scrutiny, it is decisively clear that DBM-CCC No. 10, which completely disallows payment of allowances and other additional compensation to government officials and employees, starting November 1, 1989, is not a mere interpretative or internal regulation. It is something more than that. And why not, when it tends to deprive government workers of their allowances and additional compensation sorely needed to keep body and soul together. At the very least, before the said circular under attack may be permitted to substantially reduce their income, the government officials and employees concerned should be apprised and alerted by the publication of subject circular in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines to the end that they be given amplest opportunity to voice out whatever opposition they may have, and to ventilate their stance on the matter. This approach is more in

keeping with democratic precepts and rudiments of fairness and transparency. In light of the foregoing disquisition on the ineffectiveness of DBM-CCC No. 10 due to its non-publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the country, as required by law, resolution of the other issue at bar is unnecessary. 2. Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006 FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused power by issuing E.O. 464 Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and for Other Purposes. Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through its various Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP). The Committee of the Senate issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway project, others on the issues of massive election fraud in the Philippine elections, wire tapping, and the role of military in the so-called Gloriagate Scandal. Said officials were not able to attend due to lack of consent from the President as provided by E.O. 464, Section 3 which requires all the public officials enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress. ISSUE: Is Section 3 of E.O. 464, which requires all the public officials, enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress, valid and constitutional? RULING: No. The enumeration in Section 2 (b) of E.O. 464 is broad and is covered by the executive privilege. The doctrine of executive privilege is premised on the fact that certain information must, as a matter of necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of the public interest. The privilege being, by definition, an exemption from the obligation to

disclose information, in this case to Congress, the necessity must be of such high degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing that obligation in a particular case. Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from the executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of legislation. If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged, it must so assert it and state the reason therefor and why it must be respected. The infirm provisions of E.O. 464, however, allow the executive branch to evade congressional requests for information without need of clearly asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its reasons therefor. By the mere expedient of invoking said provisions, the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is frustrated. While EO 464 applies only to officials of the executive branch, it does not follow that the same is exempt from the need for publication. On the need for publishing even those statutes that do not directly apply to people in genera, Tanada v. Tuvera states: The term laws should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. An example is a law granting citizenship to a particular individual, like a relative of President Marcos who was decreed instant naturalization. It surely cannot be said that such a law does not affect the public although it unquestionably does not apply directly to all the people. The subject of the law is a matter of public interest which any member of the body politic may question in the political forums or, if he is a proper party, even in courts of justice. Although the above statement was made in reference to statutes, logic dictates that the challenged order must be covered by the publication requirement. As explained above, EO 464 has a direct effect on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. It is, therefore, a matter of public interest which members of the body politic may question before this Court. Due process thus requires that the people should have been apprised of this issuance before it was implemented. 3. People vs. Que Po Lay CITATION: 94 Phil 640 | GR No. 6791, March 29, 1954 FACTS: The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of US dollars, US checks and US money orders amounting to about $7000 but failed to sell the same to the Central Bank as required under Circular No. 20.

Circular No. 20 was issued in the year 1949 but was published in the Official Gazette only on Nov. 1951 after the act or omission imputed to Que Po Lay. Que Po Lay appealed from the decision of the lower court finding him guilty of violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection with Sec 34 of RA 265 sentencing him to suffer 6 months imprisonment, pay fine of P1,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

ISSUE: Whether or not publication of Circular 20 in the Official Gazette is needed for it to become effective and subject violators to corresponding penalties. HELD: It was held by the Supreme Court, in an en banc decision, that as a rule, circular and regulations of the Central Bank in question prescribing a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective. This is based on the theory that before the public is bound by its contents especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be published for the people to be officially and specifically informed of such contents including its penalties. Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and acquit the appellant, with costs de oficio. 4. People vs Veridiano People v. Veridiano Digest, October 12, 1984 Civil Law, When laws take effect, Publication of laws Issue: w/n BP 22 which was circulated a month after private respondent issued the dishonored check is applicable Facts: On 2nd week of May in 1979, private respondent Benito Go Bio Jr. issued a check amounting to P200,000 to one Filipinas Tan. Said check was subsequently dishonored and despite repreated demands, the respondent failed to make the necessary payment hence the filing of charges against him for violation of BP 22 or the Bouncing Check law. Go Bio filed a Motion to Quash alleging that the information did not charge an offense on ground that BP 22 has not yet taken effect when the offense was committed on May 1979. Said law took into effect on June 29, 1979. The prosecution opposed the motion and contended that the date of the dishonor of the check --

September 26, 1979, is the date of the commission of the offense, hence BP 22 is applicable. The respondent judge granted Go Bio's motion and dismissed the criminal action. Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that BP 22 was published in the Official Gazette on April 4, 1979, and hence became effective 15 days thereafter or on April 24, 1979. PR contends however that said publication was only released on June 14, 1979 but since the questioned check was issued about the second week of May 1979, then he could not have violated BP 22 because it was not yet released for circulation at the time. Issue: W/N BP 22 was already in effect when the offense was committed HELD: NO. It is proved that the penal statute in question was made public or circulated only on June 14, 1979 and not on its printed date of April 9, 1979. Publication of the law is necessary so that the public can be apprised of the contents and or penalties of a penal statute before it can be bound by it. If a statute had not been published before its violation, then in the eyes of the law there was no such law to be violated. Hence, the accused could not have committed the alleged crime. When the alleged offense was committed there was still no law penalizing it. The term "publication" in BP 22 must be given the ordinary accepted meaning -- or to make known to the people in general. Moreover, if BP 22 intended to make the printed date of issue of the Gazette as the point of reference in the determination of its the effectivity, it could have provided a special effectivity provision. The effectivity clause of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 specifically states that "This Act shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette." The term "publication" in such clause should be given the ordinary accepted meaning, that is, to make known to the people in general. If the Batasang Pambansa had intended to make the printed date of issue of the Gazette as the point of reference in determining the effectivity of the statute in question, then it could have so stated in the special effectivity provision of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. 5. Service Exporters Inc., vs Torres Phil. Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Torres, 212 SCRA 298; G.R. No. 101279, August 6, 1992 Posted by Pius Morados on November 13, 2011 (Admin Law, DOLE, quasi-legislative power) Facts: DOLE Dept. Order No. 16 temporarily suspends the recruitment by private employment agencies of Filipino

DH going to Hong Kong in view of the need to establish mechanisms that will enhance the protection for the same. The DOLE, through POEA took over the business of deploying such HK-bound workers. Pursuant to the above order, POEA issued memorandum circular no. 30 providing guidelines on the government processing and deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to HK and the accreditation of HK recruitment agencies intending to hire Filipino domestic helpers, and the memorandum circular No. 30, pertaining to the processing of employment contracts of domestic workers for HK. Petitioner contends that respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of their rule-making authority in issuing said circulars. Issue: WON DOLE Department Order No. 16, Series of 1991 and POEA Memorandum Circulars Nos. 30 are valid

Held: Article 36 of the Labor Code grants the Labor Secretary the power to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement activities. The challenge administrative issuance discloses that the same fall within the administrative and police powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred upon the respondents. Nevertheless, they are legally invalid, defective and unenforceable for lack of power publication and filing in the Office of the National Administrative Register as required in Article 2 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Labor Code and Sections 3(1) and 4, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987 which provide: Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazatte, unless it is otherwise provided. . . . (Civil Code.) Art. 5. Rules and Regulations. The Department of Labor and other government agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall become effective fifteen (15) days after announcement of their adoption in newspapers of general circulation. (Emphasis supplied, Labor Code, as amended.) Sec. 3. Filing. (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center, three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months shall not thereafter be the basis of

any sanction against any party or persons. (Emphasis supplied, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987.) Sec. 4. Effectivity. In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by them. (Emphasis supplied, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987). For lack of proper publication, the administrative circulars in question may not be enforced and implemented. 6. Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders vs Department of Finance Secretary

Likewise, petitioner claims that RMC No. 47-91 is discriminatory and violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because while coconut farmers and copra producers are exempt, traders and dealers are not, although both sell copra in its original state. Petitioners add that oil millers do not enjoy tax credit out of the VAT payment of traders and dealers. Thus, the present petition for prohibition and injunction seeking to nullify Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 4791 and enjoin the collection by respondent revenue officials of the Value Added Tax (VAT) on the sale of copra by members of petitioner organization.

HELD: DISMISSED. In the same way that laws must have the benefit of public hearing, it is generally required that before a legislative rule is adopted there must be hearing. In this connection, the Administrative Code of 1987 provides: (1) Public Participation. If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon. (3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. 4 In addition such rule must be published. 5 On the other hand, interpretative rules are designed to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing. Accordingly, in considering a legislative rule a court is free to make three inquiries: (i) whether the rule is within the delegated authority of the administrative agency; (ii) whether it is reasonable; and (iii) whether it was issued pursuant to proper procedure. But the court is not free to substitute its judgment as to the desirability or wisdom of the rule for the legislative body, by its delegation of administrative judgment, has committed those questions to administrative judgments and not to judicial judgments. In the case of an interpretative rule, the inquiry is not into the validity but into the correctness or propriety of the rule. As a matter of power a court, when confronted with an interpretative rule, is free to (i) give the force of law to

Facts: Petitioner Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders, Inc. is a domestic corporation whose members, individually or collectively, are engaged in the buying and selling of copra in Misamis Oriental. On the other hand, respondents represent departments of the executive branch of government charged with the generation of funds and the assessment, levy and collection of taxes and other imposts. It alleges that prior to the issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) 47-91 on June 11, 1991, which implemented Value Added Tax (VAT) Ruling 19090, copra was classified as agricultural food product under Section 103(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code and, therefore, exempt from VAT at all stages of production or distribution. The petitioner contends that the Bureau of Food and Drug of the Department of Health and not the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) is the competent government agency to determine the proper classification of food products. It cites the opinion of Dr. Quintin Kintanar of the Bureau of Food and Drug to the effect that copra should be considered "food" because it is produced from coconut which is food and 80% of coconut products are edible. The respondents, on the contrary, argue that the opinion of the BIR, as the government agency charged with the implementation and interpretation of the tax laws, is entitled to great respect.

the rule; (ii) go to the opposite extreme and substitute its judgment; or (iii) give some intermediate degree of authoritative weight to the interpretative rule. 6 In the case at bar, we find no reason for holding that respondent Commissioner erred in not considering copra as an "agricultural food product" within the meaning of 103(b) of the NIRC. As the Solicitor General contends, "copra per se is not food, that is, it is not intended for human consumption. Simply stated, nobody eats copra for food." That previous Commissioners considered it so, is not reason for holding that the present interpretation is wrong. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is not bound by the ruling of his predecessors. 7 To the contrary, the overruling of decisions is inherent in the interpretation of laws. 7. Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs Board of Transportation Taxicab Operators vs. The Board of Transportation GR L-59234, 30 September 1982 En Banc, Melencio-Herrera (J): 12 concur, 2 concur in the result FACTS: To insure that only safe and comfortable units are used as public conveyances and in order that the commuting public may be assured of comfort, convenience, and safety, the Board of Transportation (BOT) issued Memorandum Circular phasing out the old and dilapidated taxis. Pursuant to OT circular, respondent Director of the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT) issued Implementing Circular formulating a schedule of phase-out of vehicles to be allowed and accepted for registration as public conveyances. The Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc., Felicisimo Cabigao and Ace Transportation filed a petition for "Certiorari, Prohibition and mandamus with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order", to declare the nullity of Memorandum Circular of the BOT and Memorandum Circular of the BLT. ISSUES: Whether or not the implementation and enforcement of the assailed memorandum circulars violate the petitioners' constitutional rights to (1) Equal protection of the law; (2) Substantive due process; and (3) Protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification and standard. HELD: On Procedural and Substantive Due Process: Petitioners cannot justifiably claim that they were deprived of procedural due process. Neither can they state with certainty that public respondents had not availed of other sources of inquiry prior to issuing the challenged

Circulars for the Board gave a wide range of choice in gathering necessary information or data in the formulation of any policy, plan or program. It is not mandatory that it should first call a conference or require the submission of position papers or other documents from operators or persons who may be affected, this being only one of the options open to the Board, which is given wide discretionary authority. Furthermore, as public contend it is impractical to subject every taxicab to constant and recurring evaluation, not to speak of the fact that it can open the door to the adoption of multiple standards, possible collusion, and even graft and corruption. A reasonable standard must be adopted to apply to an vehicles affected uniformly, fairly, and justly. The span of six years supplies that reasonable standard. The product of experience shows that by that time taxis have fully depreciated, their cost recovered, and a fair return on investment obtained. They are also generally dilapidated and no longer fit for safe and comfortable service to the public specially considering that they are in continuous operation practically 24 hours everyday in three shifts of eight hours per shift. With that standard of reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness, the requirement of due process has been met. On Equal Protection of the Law: The law being enforced in Metro Manila only and was directed solely towards the taxi industry does not violate their right to equal protection of the law for the traffic conditions are not the same in every city, a substantial distinction exists so that infringement of the equal protection clause can hardly be successfully claimed. The State, in the exercise, of its police power, can prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. It can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of society. It may also regulate property rights. In the language of Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando "the necessities imposed by public welfare may justify the exercise of governmental authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded". In so far as the non-application of the assailed Circulars to other transportation services is concerned, it need only be recalled that the equal protection clause does not imply that the same treatment be accorded all and sundry. It applies to things or persons identically or similarly situated. It permits of classification of the object or subject of the law provided classification is reasonable or based on substantial distinction, which make for real differences, and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. What is required under the equal protection clause is the uniform operation by legal means so that all persons under identical or similar circumstance would be accorded the same treatment both

in privilege conferred and the liabilities imposed. The challenged Circulars satisfy the foregoing criteria. Evident then is the conclusion that the questioned Circulars do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. To declare a law unconstitutional, the infringement of constitutional right must be clear, categorical and undeniable. Hence, the Writs prayed for are denied and was dismissed.

8.

People vs Santos, October 18, 1977

The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Augusta A. Santos of violation of section 28 of Fish and Game Administrative Order No. 2 and penalized by section 29 thereof committed as follows: That on or about April 29, 1935, within 1,500 yards north of Cavalry Point, Corregidor Island, Province of Cavite, P.I., the said accused Augusta A. Santos, the registered owner of two fishing motor boats Malabon II and Malabon III, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally have his said boats, manned and operated by his fishermen, fish, loiter and anchor without permission from the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce within three (3) kilometers from the shore line of the Island of Corregidor over which the naval and military authorities of the United States exercise jurisdiction. Section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2 relative to fish and game, issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, provides as follows: 28. Prohibited fishing areas. No boats licensed in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 4003 and this order to catch, collect, gather, take, or remove fish and other sea products from Philippine waters shall be allowed to fish, loiter, or anchor within 3 kilometers of the shore line of islands and reservations over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval or military authorities of the United States, particularly Corregidor, Pulo Caballo, La Monja, El Fraile, and Carabao, and all other islands and detached rocks lying between Mariveles Reservation on the north side of the entrance to Manila Bay and Calumpan Point Reservation on the south side of said entrance: Provided, That boats not subject to license under Act No. 4003 and this order may fish within the areas mentioned above only upon receiving written permission therefor, which permission may be granted by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce upon recommendation of the military or naval authorities concerned. HELD: Act No. 4003 contains no similar provision prohibiting boats not subject to license from fishing within three kilometers of the shore line of islands and reservations over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval

and military authorities of the United States, without permission from the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce upon recommendation of the military and naval authorities concerned. Inasmuch as the only authority granted to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, by section 4 of Act No. 4003, is to issue from time to time such instructions, orders, rules, and regulations consistent with said Act, as may be necessary and proper to carry into effect the provisions thereof and for the conduct of proceedings arising under such provisions; and inasmuch as said Act No. 4003, as stated, contains no provisions similar to those contained in the above quoted conditional clause of section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2, the conditional clause in question supplies a defect of the law, extending it. This is equivalent to legislating on the matter, a power which has not been and cannot be delegated to him, it being exclusively reserved to the then Philippine Legislature by the Jones Law, and now to the National Assembly by the Constitution of the Philippines. Such act constitutes not only an excess of the regulatory power conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, but also an exercise of a legislative power which he does not have, and therefore said conditional clause is null and void and without effect (12 Corpus Juris, 845; Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660; U.S. vs. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1; U.S. vs. Barrias, 11 Phil. 327). A violation of this paragraph may be proceeded against under section 45 of the Federal Penal Code. 9. United States vs Panlilio The information charges: That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1913, all of the carabaos belonging to the above-named accused having been exposed to the dangerous and contagious disease known as rinderpest, were, in accordance with an order of duly-authorized agent of the Director of Agriculture, duly quarantined in a corral in the barrio of Masamat, municipality of Mexico, Province of Pampanga, P. I.; that, on said place, the said accused, Adriano Panlilio, illegally and voluntarily and without being authorized so to do, and while the quarantine against said carabaos was still in force, permitted and ordered said carabaos to be taken from the corral in which they were then quarantined and conducted from one place to another; that by virtue of said orders of the accused, his servants and agents took the said carabaos from the said corral and drove them from one place to another for the purpose of working them. The defendant demurred to this information on the ground that the acts complained of did not constitute a crime. The demurrer was overruled and the defendant duly excepted and pleaded not guilty.