You are on page 1of 4

1. SIMON VS.

CSC
FACTS: Amado Villafuerte retired from his position as Adiministrative officer IV in the Health Dept. of the City Gov. of Quezon City. OIC Brigido Simon Jr. as representative of the mayor appointed petitioner Alex Abila to fill the vacancy left by Villafuerte. Florentina Eleria filed a protest with the Merit Protection Board in respect of Abilas appointment so the Board endorsed the petition to OIC Reynaldo Bernardo who dismissed the petition. Eleria appealed to the Board and it revoked the appointment of Abila and appointed Eleria instead on the ground that though both have the qualifications Eleria has the edge since she is next in rank to the vacant position. Abila appealed to the Civil Service Commission but it only affirmed the decision of the Board. So Abila Appealed to the SC to reverse the decision. ISSUE: Whether or not the CSC committed a grave abuse of discretion in revoking the appointment made by the OIC acting as representative of the mayor. RULING: Yes. The CSC has no authority to substitute its own judgment for that of the official authorized by law to make an appointment to the government service. The power of appointment is the discretion of the head of office or the appointing authority. The Civil Service Commission has no power of appointment except over its own personnel. Neither does it have the authority to review the appointments made by other offices except only to ascertain if the appointee possesses the required qualifications. In the present case it is indisputable that both Eleria and Abila have the qualifications so CSC has no authority to review the appointment. 3. FIRESTONE CERAMICS VS. CA FACTS: 99 hectares of land presumptively belonging to the Republic of the Philippines was adjudicated to private individuals by a court alleged to be without jurisdiction. Because of this petitioners submitted to the Supreme Court motion to refer to the court en banc. The court said that since the matter had not yet acted upon by the 3rd division it is premature

but it also said that the action of the 3rd division on the matter would just be tentative. ISSUE: Whether or not the matter can be considered as an en banc case. RULING: Yes. Part of the residual power of this court is to hear cases en banc. One determination for a case to be heard en banc is when the majority of the actual membership of SC may deem a case of sufficient importance to merit its attention. The members of SC voted 9-5 in favour of the motion to hear the case en banc for they consider the case to be important due to the enormous value of the area of land in litigation which is claimed to be government property.

4. TAN VS. MACAPAGAL


FACTS: October 6, 1971 by Eugene A. Tan, Silvestre J. Acejas and Rogelio V. Fernandez, respectively, of Roxas City, Romblon and Davao City, for declaratory relief as taxpayers, but purportedly suing on behalf of themselves and the Filipino people, in assailing the validity of the LaurelLeido Resolution, 1 dealing with the range of the authority of the 1971 Constitutional Convention, would have this Court declare that it is "without power, under Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution and Republic Act 6132, to consider, discuss and adopt proposals which seek to revise the present Constitution through the adoption of a form of government other than the form now outlined in the present Constitution [the Convention being] merely empowered to propose improvements to the present Constitution without altering the general plan laid down therein." ISSUE: Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the petition. RULING: No. The statute must first be enacted for it to be ripe for adjudication. Prior to that stage, the judiciary had to keep its hands off. The doctrine of separation of powers calls for the other departments being left alone to discharge their duties as they see fit. The judiciary as Justice Laurel asserted "will neither direct nor restrain executive [or legislative] action ... ." It is a prerequisite that something had by then been accomplished or performed by either branch

before a court may come into the picture. At such a time, it may pass on the validity of what was done but only "when ... properly challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding." More specifically, as long as any proposed amendment is still unacted on by it, there is no room for the interposition of judicial oversight. Only after it has made concrete what it intends to submit for ratification may the appropriate case be instituted. Until then, the courts are devoid of jurisdiction.

minimum age req. because of this they cannot allege that they have been denied such application or DOLE threatened to den such application. There was no actual controversy which is the first req. for the courts to resolve the issue of constitutionality, thus allowing the petition to prosper would be similar to rendering an advisory opinion in a hypothetical case, and such undertaking is beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

5. FERNANDEZ VS. TORRES


FACTS: On November 20, 1991 DOLE issued a circular which provides additional requirements, conditions, and procedures for the deployment of performing artists. It provides that the performing artist must be at least 23 years old. It is also provided in the circular that the Sec. of Labor and Employment may for justifiable reasons, exempt performing artists from the coverage of the circular. Petitioners Fernandez, Domingo, Mendoza and others classified themselves to be performing artists of ages 18 to 22 years. They assailed the constitutionality of the circular alleging that it violates the equal protection clause and due process clause of the Constitution. The Solicitor General commented that the petition must fail because it is premature. ISSUE: Whether or not the court can exercise its judicial power to resolve the question of constitutionality in the present case. RULING: No. It is a settled rule that a constitutional question will not be heard and resolved by the court unless the ff. requirements of judicial inquiry are met: (1) the existence of actual case or controversy. (2) the party raising the constitutionality must have a personal and substantial interest in the resolution of the case. (3) the controversy must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. (4) the resolution of the issue must be indispensable for the determination of the controversy. The petitioners failed to allege or have refrained from alleging that they had previously applied to the Sec. of DOLE for the exemption from the

MACASIANO VS. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY FACTS: The petitioner seeks to have the court declare sections 28 and 44 of RA no. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act f 1992 to be unconstitutional. The sections are about discouraging demolition as a practice but it may be allowed under certain situations. He said that being the consultant of DPWH on Operation for Removal of Obstructions and Encroachment on Properties of Public Domain and being a tax payer gave him the right to question the constitutionality of the law. He alleged that such sections are drawbacks on his duties regarding the demolition of illegal structures. ISSUE: Whether or not this court can resolve the issue of constitutionality. RULING: No. 2 requisites for the court to resolve the issue of constitutionality are lacking. There is no actual controversy for he did not show that the law actually prevented him from doing his duties. He is not also the proper party for his duty as a consultant are: (1) to train DWPH personnel in the techniques and methods of demolishing illegal structures, (2) to provide advice to the Sec. regarding prioritization of areas to be cleared, (3) to conduct field inspection and others but it is not his duty to actually demolish obstructions. He cannot also be affected by the RA for he is not a private owner of an urban property so he has no right to challenge the provisions. Thus the Court cannot exercise its judicial power which is the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants.

6.

7.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST AATORNEYS OF THE PHIL. AND GMA VS. COMELEC FACTS: The petitioners assailed the validity of BP No. 881 requiring that radio and tv time be given free to the COMELEC during election period. They asserted that it violates the constitution because it takes property without due process of law and it denies radio and TV companies the equal protection of laws. ISSUE: Whether or not BP Blg. 881is unconstitutional. RULING: No. radio and TV broadcasting companies which are given franchise do not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images, they are merely given the temporary privileged of using them, and being a privilege the grantee may be burdened with some form of public service and in this case free airtime. Granting the privilege to operate to those companies and supervising such the state spends public funds, it would be strange if the state cannot require the grantee to render public service by giving free airtime for the COMELEC to reach the population on important public issue. Broadcast media have free speech rights but they are also public trustees charged with duty of ensuring that the people have access to the diversity of views on political issues. The right of the people is paramount to the autonomy of broadcast media. Therefore to affirm the validity of BP blg. 881 is likewise to uphold the peoples right to information on matters of public concern.

9. BAYAN VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY


FATCS: The petitioners participated in a rally and alleged that they were violently dispersed by policemen implementing batas Pambansa No. 880 which states the no permit no rally policy. The petitioners assailed the validity of the said BP and alleged that it is against freedom of the people to peaceable assemble and petition the gov. for redress of grievances which is embedded in the Consti. ISSUE: Whether or not BP no. 880 is unconstitutional.

RULING: No. BP no. 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simple regulates the time, place and manner of the assemblies. The permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present danger to public order, safety, convenience, morals or health, this a recognized exception to the freedom of expression rule as agreed in the international convention. If the assembly brings about a clear and present danger to public order and safety then it cannot be considered as a peaceful assembly which is the one contemplated in the Constitution thus the government has the right to restrict such assembly to protect the people. 11. NITAFAN VS. COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUES FACTS: Petitioners are judges who seek to prohibit the Commission of internal revenue from making any deduction of withholding taxes from their salaries. They alleged that the act of deducting from their salaries violates Sec. 10 Article VIII of the Const. which states that during their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased. ISSUE: Whether or not tax deductions from the salaries of judges violates Sec. 10 Article VIII of the Const. RULING: No. their salaries are subject to the general income tax law applied to all taxpayers. The court referred to the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the commissioners as representative of the people expressly intended that judicial officers shall not be exempt from paying taxes and they be subject to the general income tax law. What is contemplated in sec 10 is the authority of Congress to fix the salary of the members of the bench, the prohibition contemplated in the section is for the Congress.

12. PEOPLE VS. GACOTT JR.


FACTS: Judge Gacott of RTC in Puerto Princesa dismissed a criminal case, however his order was annulled by the SC and reprimanded him for gross ignorance of the law with a fine of 10k. Respondent judge filed a motion for reconsideration and it was heard by a division of SC. Judge Gacott questions the competence of the 2nd division contending that his case must be heard en

banc and resolving his case in a division would result to a violation of Sec. 11 Article VIII of the constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the motion of Judge Gacott can be heard en banc under Sec. 11 Article VIII of the Constitution. RULING: No. This case was heard en banc because the judge insistently dwells on constitutional grounds not because it is contemplated in Sec. 11 Article VIII of the Constitution. The mentioned section in the Constitution contemplates to things. (1) the power of SC to discipline judges of lower courts and (2) to dismiss a judge by a vote of majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations. It is not intended that all administrative disciplinary cases should be heard and decided en banc for it will result in absurdity. According to the Rules of Supreme Court disciplinary cases against a judge may be heard en banc if the suspension is more than 1 year and the fine exceeds 10k. Since the case in not about dismissal but only disciplinary action and such action involves only 10k the case therefore may be heard in a division.

would be a clear violation of Sec. 12 Article VIII of the Consti. which states that members of the court shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. However, judges may assist such committees to help promote their purposes without being a member of such committee.

13. IN RE JUDGE MANZANO


FACTS: Judge Manzano Executive judge of RTC in Ilocos Norte sent a letter to the Supreme Court stating that he was designated by the Provincial Gov. as a member of Ilocos Norte Provincial Committie on Justice. He also requested that he be authorized to accept the appointment and alleged that since such appointment is not a violation of Sec. 12, Art. VIII of the Constitution it will not amount to abandonment of his position as executive judge and membership in said committee is also part of the primary functions of an executive judge. ISSUE: Whether or not such appointment is a violation of Sec. 12 Art. VIII of the Constitution. RULING: Yes. Upon examination of the function of the Ilocos Norte Committee on Justice it was discovered that it perform administrative functions for it regulates and control the conduct and affairs of individuals and it promulgates rules and regulations to carry out policies developed by the administrative agencies and the legislature. It