REBUTALA, JONALIE R.

IN RE CUNANAN, 94 Phil. 534 In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953; ALBI ! CU A A " #$ AL%" &etitioners Facts' Under the (ules of Court )o*ernin) admission to the +ar" ,in order that a candidate -for admission to the Bar. ma/ +e deemed to ha*e &assed his e0aminations successfull/" he must ha*e o+tained a )eneral a*era)e of 15 &er cent in all su+2ects" 3ithout fallin) +elo3 54 &er cent in an/ su+2ect%5 -(ule 161" sec% 14" (ules of Court.% Belie*in) themsel*es as full/ 7ualified to &ractice la3 as those reconsidered and &assed +/ this court" and feelin) conscious of ha*in) +een discriminated a)ainst" unsuccessful candidates 3ho o+tained a*era)es of a fe3 &ercenta)e lo3er than those admitted to the Bar a)itated in Con)ress for" and secured in 1951 the &assa)e of 8enate Bill o% 16 3hich" amon) others" reduced the &assin) )eneral a*era)e in +ar e0aminations to 14 &er cent effecti*e since 1946% $he President *etoed the Bill ho3e*er Con)ress did not o*erride the *eto% !n 9une 1" 1953" President allo3ed the +ill to +ecome a la3 3ithout his si)nature% The Con !ess "asse# Re"$%lic Act 9&', also (no)n to %e the cont!o*e!sial Ba! Fl$n(e!+s Act o, -953 )hich has the title .An Act To Fi/ The Passin 0a!(s ,o! Ba! E/a1inations ,!o1 -942 $" to an# Incl$#in -9553. 8ection 1 of the (A 916 &ro*ides that an/ +ar candidate 3ho o+tained the follo3in) )eneral a*era)e in their corres&ondin) +ar e0amination /ear" 3ithout o+tainin) a )rade +elo3 54: in an/ su+2ect" shall +e allo3ed to ta;e and su+scri+e the oath of office as mem+er of the Phili&&ine Bar' from 1946 to 1951< 14:; 1956< 11:; 1953< 16:; 1954< 13:; and 1955< 14:% 8ection 6 of said (A &ro*ides that an/ +ar candidate 3ho o+tained a )rade of se*ent/<fi*e &er cent in an/ su+2ect in an/ +ar e0amination after 9ul/4" 1946 shall +e deemed to ha*e &assed in such su+2ect or su+2ects and such )rade or )rades shall +e included in com&utin) the &assin) )eneral a*era)e that said candidate ma/ o+tain in an/ su+se7uent e0aminations that he ma/ ta;e% 1"494 e0aminees 3ill +e +enefited +/ the (e&u+lic Act% Petitions 3ere filed" ho3e*er" 7uestionin) the *alidit/ of (e&u+lic Act 916% Iss$e' =hether or not (e&u+lic Act o% 916 is constitutional% 4el#5 $he Court held (e&u+lic Act 916 to +e "a!tl6 constit$tional" declarin) the &ortion in 8ection 1 referrin) to the 1946 to 1956 e0aminations and all of 8ection 6 as unconstitutional" and declarin) the remainin) &ortions of the la3 as *alid and shall continue in force% (e&u+lic Act 916 3as &assed to admit to the Bar those candidates 3ho suffered from insufficienc/ of readin) materials and inade7uate &re&aration +ecause of the aftermath of the 9a&anese occu&ation% $he Court declared some &arts $nconstit$tional +ecause'

1% Its declared &ur&ose is to admit candidates 3ho failed in the +ar e0aminations of 1946<1956" and 3ho are certainl/ inade7uatel/ &re&ared to &ractice la3% It o+li)es the $ri+unal to &erform somethin) contrar/ to reason and in an ar+itrar/ manner" and this is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional res&onsi+ilit/ of the 8u&reme Court% 6% It is a 2ud)ment re*o;in) the resolution of the Court on the &etitions of the >14 candidates 3ithout ha*in) e0amined their res&ecti*e e0amination &a&ers% In attem&tin) to do it directl/" (e&u+lic Act o% 916 *iolated the Constitution% 3% Con)ress has e0ceeded its le)islati*e &o3er to re&eal" alter and su&&lement the rules on admission to the Bar% 8uch additional or amendator/ rules are intended to re)ulate acts su+se7uent to its &romul)ation and should tend to im&ro*e and ele*ate the &ractice of la3" and these are 2ust considered minimum norms% It is therefore the &rimar/ and inherent &rero)ati*e of the 8u&reme Court to render the ultimate decision on 3ho ma/ +e admitted and ma/ continue in the &ractice of la3 accordin) to e0istin) rules% 4% $he reason ad*anced for the &retended classification of candidates" 3hich the la3 ma;es" is contrar/ to facts 3hich are of )eneral ;no3led)e and does not 2ustif/ the admission to the Bar of la3 students inade7uatel/ &re&ared% $he &retended classification is ar+itrar/% It is undou+tedl/ class le)islation% 5% Article 6 of (e&u+lic Act o% 916 is not em+raced in the title of the la3" contrar/ to 3hat the Constitution en2oins" and +ein) inse&ara+le from the &ro*isions of Article 1" the entire la3 is *oid% Because of lac; of *otes" the &ortion &ertainin) to the 1953<1955 is #ecla!e# *ali# an# shall contin$e in ,o!ce% IN RE 7IC8, 39 Phil. 4Facts' (% McCulloch ?ic;" is the editor and &ro&rietor of the Phili&&ines @ree Press" a &eriodical &u+lished 3ee;l/ in the cit/ of Manila% $here 3as a &u+lication of certain articles in that &a&er 3hich tends to o+struct the Ao*ernment of the Phili&&ine Islands in &olicies inau)urated for the &rosecution of the 3ar +et3een the United 8tates and the Aerman #m&ire" and other articles 3hich ha*e tended to create a feelin) of unrest and uneasiness in the communit/% Be is +ein) detained +ecause the Ao*ernor<Aeneral of the Phili&&ines ordered his de&ortation +ut +efore the Ao*ernor<Aeneral )a*e his order" there 3as an in*esti)ation in the manner and form &rescri+ed in 8ec% 69 of the Administrati*e Code% Petitioner, filed for a writ of habeas corpus so that he may be discharged from detention by the acting chief of police of the city of Manila. Iss$e5 =hether or not the Ao*ernor Aeneral could e0ercise the de&ortation &o3er in the a+sence of statutor/ authorit/C 4el#5 Des" the Ao*e rnor< Ae ner al has the &o3e r to instit ute a nd mai ntai n de&ortation &roceedin)s% $he discretionar/ &o3er to de&ort Eundesira+le aliens 3hose continued &resence in the Phili&&ine Islands is a menace to the &eace and safet/ of the communit/"E as an act of state" ha*in) +een conferred u&on the Ao*ernor<Aeneral" to +e e0ercised +/ him u&on his o3n o&inion as to 3hether the facts disclosed +/ an in*esti)ation had in accord 3ith section 69 of the Administrati*e Code 2ustif/ or

necessitate de&ortation in a &articular case" he is the sole and e0clusi*e 2ud)e of the e0istence of those facts" and no other tri+unal is at li+ert/ to re e0amine or contro*ert the sufficienc/ of the e*idence on 3hich he acted% IN RE E7ILLION, 94 :CRA 554 In the Matter of the IBP Mem+ershi& ?ues ?elin7uenc/ of Att/% MA(CIAL A% #?ILI! Facts' $he res&ondent Marcial A% #dillon is a dul/ licensed &racticin) attorne/ in the Phili&&ines% !n o*em+er 69" 1915" the Inte)rated Bar of the Phili&&ines -IBP. Board of Ao*ernors unanimousl/ ado&ted (esolution o% 15<65 in Administrati*e Case o% M??<1 -In the Matter of the Mem+ershi& ?ues ?elin7uenc/ of Att/% Marcial A% #dillon. recommendin) to the Court the remo*al of the name of the res&ondent from its (oll of Attorne/s for Estu++orn refusal to &a/ his mem+ershi& duesE to the IBP since the latterFs constitution not3ithstandin) due notice% $he res&ondent contends that the &ro*isions ' -a. &ar% 6 8ection 64" Article Ill of the IBP B/<La3s -remo*al of a delin7uent mem+erFs name from the (oll of Attorne/s. -+. 8ection 14 of the Court (ule < #ffect of non<&a/ment of dues and -c. 8ec% 9 of the Court (ule < Mem+ershi& dues -o+li)ation to &a/ mem+ershi& dues. is an in*asion of his constitutional ri)hts in the sense that he is +ein) com&elled" as a &re<condition to maintainin) his status as a la3/er in )ood standin)" to +e a mem+er of the IBP and to &a/ the corres&ondin) dues" and that as a conse7uence of this com&elled financial su&&ort of the said or)aniGation to 3hich he is admittedl/ &ersonall/ anta)onistic" he is +ein) de&ri*ed of the ri)hts to li+ert/ and &ro&ert/ )uaranteed to him +/ the Constitution% Bence" the res&ondent concludes" the a+o*e &ro*isions of the Court (ule and of the IBP B/<La3s are *oid and of no le)al force and effect% Iss$e5 =hether or not the res&ondent should +e dis+arred due to refusal to &a/ his mem+ershi& dues to IBPC 4el#5 Marcial #dillon 3as stric;en out from the (oll of Attorne/s of the Court for +ein) a delin7uent mem+er of the +ar% IBP is an official national +od/ of 3hich the la3/ers must +e a mem+er and are su+2ected to the rules &rescri+ed for the )o*ernance of the +ar% =hen he entered u&on the le)al &rofession" his &ractice of la3 and his e0ercise of the said &rofession" su+2ect to the &o3er of the +od/ and it re7uire him to conform to such re)ulations as mi)ht +e esta+lished +/ the &ro&er authorities for the common )ood" e*en to the e0tent of interferin) 3ith some of his li+erties% If he did not 3ish to su+mit himself to such reasona+le interference and re)ulation" he should not ha*e clothed the &u+lic 3ith an interest in his concerns% $o com&el a la3/er to +e a mem+er of the Inte)rated Bar is not *iolati*e of his constitutional freedom to associate% Inte)ration does not ma;e a la3/er a mem+er of an/ )rou& of 3hich he is not alread/ a mem+er% Be +ecame a mem+er of the Bar 3hen he &assed the Bar e0aminations% All that inte)ration actuall/ does is to &ro*ide an official national or)aniGation for the 3ell<defined +ut unor)aniGed and incohesi*e )rou& of 3hich e*er/ la3/er is a read/ a mem+er% Be is free to attend or not attend the meetin)s of his Inte)rated Bar Cha&ter or *ote or refuse to *ote in its elections as he chooses% $he onl/ com&ulsion to 3hich he is su+2ected is the &a/ment of annual

dues% $he 8u&reme Court" in order to further the 8tateHs le)itimate interest in ele*atin) the 7ualit/ of &rofessional le)al ser*ices" ma/ re7uire that the cost of im&ro*in) the &rofession in this fashion +e shared +/ the su+2ects and +eneficiaries of the re)ulator/ &ro)ram I the la3/ers% $he &ro*isions assailed do not infrin)e the constitutional ri)hts of the res&ondent as it is *alid e0ercise &o3er of the 8tate% $he ri)ht to &ractise la3 +efore the courts of this countr/ should +e and is a matter su+2ect to re)ulation and in7uir/% IN RE ;ARCIA, ' :CRA 994 I (#' P#$I$I! !@ A($U(! #@(# AA(CIA for admission to the Phili&&ine Bar 3ithout ta;in) the e0amination% Facts' Arturo #% Aarcia has a&&lied for admission to the &ractice of la3 in the Phili&&ines 3ithout su+mittin) to the re7uired +ar e0aminations% In his *erified &etition" he a*ers amon) others that he is a @ili&ino citiGen +orn in Bacolod Cit/ of @ili&ino &arenta)e% Be studied and finished the la3 course at Central Uni*ersit/ of Madrid )raduatin) there as ELicenciado #n ?erechoE% $hereafter he 3as allo3ed to &ractice the la3 &rofession in 8&ain% Be claims that under the &ro*ision of the $reat/ of Academic ?e)rees and the #0ercise of Professions +et3een the (e&u+lic of the Phili&&ines and the 8&ain" he is allo3ed to &ractice the la3 &rofession in the Phili&&ines 3ithout su+mittin) to the re7uired +ar e0aminations% Iss$e5 =hether or not the treat/ can modif/ admission to the Phili&&ine Bar% 4el#5 $he court resol*ed to den/ the &etition% $he &ro*ision of the $reat/ on Academic ?e)rees and the #0ercise of Professions +et3een the (e&u+lic of the Phili&&ines and the 8&anish 8tate cannot +e in*o;ed +/ a&&licant% $he $reat/ 3as intended to )o*ern @ili&ino citiGens desirin) to &ractice their &rofession in 8&ain" and the citiGens of 8&ain desirin) to &ractice their &rofessions in the Phili&&ines% A&&licant is a @ili&ino citiGen desirin) to &ractice the le)al &rofession in the Phili&&ines% Be is su+2ect to the la3s of the Phili&&ines and is not entitled to the &ri*ile)es e0tended to 8&anish nationals desirin) to &ractice in the Phili&&ines% $hat the &ri*ile)es &ro*ided in the $reat/ in*o;ed +/ Aarcia are made e0&ressl/ su+2ect to the la3s and re)ulations of the contractin) 8tate in 3hose territor/ it is desired to e0ercise the le)al &rofession% $he treat/ could not ha*e +een intended to modif/ the la3s and re)ulations )o*ernin) admission to the &ractice of la3 in the Phili&&ines for the reason the e0ecuti*e ma/ not im&in)e u&on the constitutional &ri*ile)e of the 8u&reme Court to &romul)ate rules for admission to the &ractice of the la3 in the countr/% $he &o3er to re&eal" alter or su&&lement such rules +ein) reser*ed onl/ to the con)ress%
IN RE MATEO A. VALENZUELA AND PLACIDO B. VALLARTE, 298 SCRA 408

In (e A&&ointments dated March 34" 199> of Bon% Mateo A% JalenGuela and Bon% Placido B% Jallarta as 9ud)es of the (e)ional $rial Court of Branch 66" Ba)o Cit/ and of Branch 64" Ca+ananatuan Cit/" res&ecti*el/%

Facts' (eferred to the Court en +anc are the a&&ointments si)ned +/ the President dated March 34" 199> of Bon% Mateo JalenGuela and Bon% Placido Jallarta as 2ud)es of the ($C of Ba)o Cit/ and Ca+anatuan Cit/" res&ecti*el/% $hese a&&ointments 3ere deli+erated" as it seemed to +e e0&ressl/ &rohi+ited +/ Art 1 8ec 15 of the Constitution' Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety." A+o*e constitutional &ro*ision &rohi+its the President from ma;in) an/ a&&ointments t3o months immediatel/ +efore the ne0t &residential elections and u& to the end of his term" e0ce&t tem&orar/ a&&ointments to e0ecuti*e &ositions 3hen continued *acancies therein 3ill &re2udice &u+lic ser*ice or endan)er &u+lic safet/% Iss$e5 =hether or not" durin) the &eriod of the +an on a&&ointments im&osed +/ 8ec% 15" Art% JII of the Constitution" the President is nonetheless re7uired to fill *acancies in the 2udiciar/" in *ie3 of 8ecs% 4 -1. and 9 of Art% JIII% 4el#5 $he Court resol*ed that the a&&ointments si)ned +/ the President last March 34" 199> of Bon% Mateo A% JalenGuela and Bon% Placido B% Jallarta as 9ud)es of the (e)ional $rial Court of Branch 66" Ba)o Cit/ and of Branch 64" Ca+anatuan Cit/" res&ecti*el/ is <OI7% $heir a&&ointments 3ere un7uestiona+l/ made durin) the &eriod of the +an% 8ec% 15" Art% JII of the Constitution states that" t3o months immediatel/ +efore the ne0t &residential elections and u& to the end of his term the President is neither re7uired to ma;e a&&ointments to the courts nor allo3ed to do so; and that 8ecs% 4-1. and 9 of Art% JIII sim&l/ mean that the President is re7uired to fill *acancies in the courts 3ithin the time frames &ro*ided therein unless &rohi+ited +/ 8ec% 15 of Art% JII% Conse7uentl/" the/ come 3ithin the o&eration of the first &rohi+ition relatin) to a&&ointments 3hich are considered to +e for the &ur&ose of +u/in) *otes or influencin) the election% =hile the fillin) of *acancies in the 2udiciar/ is undou+tedl/ in the &u+lic interest" there is no sho3in) in this case of an/ com&ellin) reason to 2ustif/ the ma;in) of the a&&ointments durin) the &eriod of the +an% @urther" there is a stron) &u+lic &olic/ for the &rohi+ition a)ainst a&&ointments made 3ithin the &eriod of the +an%
IN RE SOTTO, 82 PHIL 595

Facts' Att/% Jicente 8otto 3as re7uired to sho3 cause 3h/ he should not +e &unished for contem&t in connection 3ith his 3ritten statement of the 8u&reme CourtFs decision in the matter of An)el ParaGoFs case" 3hich 3as &u+lished in Manila $imes and in other ne3s&a&ers in the localit/% 8otto 3as )i*en ten da/s more +esides the fi*e ori)inall/ )i*en him to file his ans3er" and althou)h his ans3er 3as filed after the e0&iration of the &eriod of time )i*en him the said ans3er 3as admitted% Be does not den/ the authenticit/ of the statement as it has +een &u+lished% Be contends that under section 13" Article JIII of the Constitution" 3hich confers u&on this 8u&reme Court the &o3er to &romul)ate rules concernin) &leadin)" &ractice" and &rocedure" the 8u&reme Court has no &o3er to im&ose correctional &enalties u&on the citiGens" and it can onl/ im&ose fines and

im&risonment +/ *irtue of a la3" and has to +e &romul)ated +/ Con)ress 3ith the a&&ro*al of the Chief #0ecuti*e% @urther he ar)ued" in the e0ercise of the freedom of s&eech )uaranteed +/ the Constitution" the res&ondent made his statement in the &ress 3ith the utmost )ood faith and 3ith no intention of offendin) an/ of the ma2orit/ of the honora+le mem+ers of this hi)h $ri+unal" 3ho" in his o&inion" erroneousl/ decided the ParaGo case and he has not attac;ed" or intended to attac; the honest/ or inte)rit/ of an/ one% Iss$e5 =hether or not 8otto is )uilt/ of contem&t% 4el#5
Yes. $he &o3er to &unish for contem&t is inherent in all courts of su&erior statue" is a doctrine or &rinci&le uniforml/ acce&ted and a&&lied +/ the courts of last resort in the United 8tates" 3hich is a&&lica+le in this 2urisdiction since our Constitution and courts of 2ustice are &atterned in the said countr/%

Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or 3ron)ness" soundness or unsoundness of the decision of the court in a &endin) case made in )ood faith ma/ +e tolerated +ut if it is not 3ell ta;en and o+*iousl/ erroneous" it should" in no 3a/" influence the court in re*ersin) or modif/in) its decision% $he res&ondent does not merel/ criticiGe or comment on the decision of the ParaGo case" 3hich was then and still is pending reconsideration in Court. He branded members of the court as incompetent and narrow minded, and thus embarrass or obstruct the administration of justice. He also attacks the honesty and integrity of the Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the Justices of the Court into disrepute and degrading the administration of justice. s a member of the bar and an officer of the courts tty. !icente "otto, like any other, is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. #t is also well settled that an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts$ he may be remo%ed from office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant misconduct. &he court concurred in imposing upon respondent a fine of P1"444 3ith su+sidiar/ im&risonment and orderin) him to sho3 cause 3h/ he should not +e com&letel/ de&ri*ed of the &ri*ile)e of &racticin) the &rofession of a la3/er% IN RE TORRE:, ;.R. NO. -''339, 7ec. '9, -999 Facts' $he 3ife and children of con*icted felon =ilfredo 8umulon) $orres &ra/ for his immediate release from &rison on the )round that the e0ercise of the PresidentFs &rero)ati*e under 8ection 64 -i. of the (e*ised Administrati*e Code to determine the occurrence" if an/" of a +reach of a condition of a &ardon in *iolation of his ri)ht to due &rocess and the constitutional &resum&tion of innocence" constitutes a )ra*e a+use of discretion amountin) to lac; or e0cess of 2urisdiction% !f t3o counts of estafa $orres 3as con*icted +/ the Court of @irst Instance of Manila some time +efore 1919% $hese con*ictions 3ere affirmed +/ the Court of A&&eals% $he ma0imum sentence 3ould e0&ire on o*em+er 6" 6444% !n A&ril 1>" 1919" a conditional &ardon 3as )ranted to $orres +/ the

President of the Phili&&ines on condition that &etitioner 3ould Enot a)ain *iolate an/ of the &enal la3s of the Phili&&ines% $orres acce&ted the conditional &ardon and 3as conse7uentl/ released from confinement% !n Ma/ 61" 19>6" the Board of Pardons and Parole resol*ed to recommend to the President the cancellation of the conditional &ardon &re*iousl/ )ranted to $orres +ecause he had +een char)ed 3ith t3ent/ counts of estafa +efore" and con*icted of sedition +/" the (e)ional $rial Court of KueGon Cit/% $he President cancelled the conditional &ardon of $orres and then Minister of 9ustice e&tali A% AonGales issued E+/ authorit/ of the PresidentE an !rder of Arrest and (ecommitment a)ainst $orres% $he &etitioner 3as accordin)l/ arrested and confined in Muntinlu&a to ser*e the une0&ired &ortion of his sentence% Iss$e5 =hether or not the e0ercise of the PresidentFs &rero)ati*e under 8ection 64 -i. of the (e*ised Administrati*e Code *iolates $orresH ri)ht to due &rocess and the constitutional &resum&tion of innocence constitutes a )ra*e a+use of discretion amountin) to lac; or e0cess of 2urisdictionC 4el#5 $he instant &etition for habeas corpus 3as ?I8MI88#? for lac; of merit% A conditional &ardon is in the nature of a contract +et3een the so*erei)n &o3er or the Chief #0ecuti*e and the con*icted criminal to the effect that the former 3ill release the latter su+2ect to the condition that if he does not com&l/ 3ith the terms of the &ardon" he 3ill +e recommitted to &rison to ser*e the une0&ired &ortion of the sentence or an additional one% Under 8ection 64 -i. of the (e*ised Administrati*e Code" the Chief #0ecuti*e is authoriGed to order Ethe arrest and re<incarceration of an/ such &erson 3ho" in his 2ud)ment" shall fail to com&l/ 3ith the condition" or conditions of his &ardon" &arole" or sus&ension of sentence%E It is no3 a 3ell<entrenched rule in this 2urisdiction that this e0ercise of &residential 2ud)ment is +e/ond 2udicial scrutin/% Conditional &ardon and its re*ocation are solel/ *ested in the President% Courts ha*e no authorit/ to interfere 3ith the )rant +/ the President of a &ardon to a con*icted criminal and there is no +asis for the courts to effectuate the reinstatement of a conditional &ardon re*o;ed +/ the President in the e0ercise of &o3ers undis&utedl/ solel/ and a+solutel/ lod)ed in his office% IBP *s. =A0ORA, 339 :CRA 9Facts' Pres% #strada ordered the de&lo/ment of the Phil% Marines to 2oin the Phili&&ine ational Police in *isi+ilit/ &atrols around the metro&olis follo3 an alarmin) increase in *iolent crimes in Metro Manila" $he Pres% in*o;ed his Comm%<in<Chief &o3ers under 8ec 1>" Art JII of the Constitution% $he President declared that the ser*ices of the Marines in the anti<crime cam&ai)n are merel/ tem&orar/ in nature and for a reasona+le &eriod onl/" until such time 3hen the situation shall ha*e im&ro*ed% $he Inte)rated Bar of the Phili&&ines -IBP. see;s to nullif/ the order on constitutional )rounds% IBP contended that there 3as no emer)enc/ or a state of ,la3less *iolence5 to authoriGe the callin) of A@P to assist the P P in &re*entin) or su&&ressin) crimes% Iss$e >s?5 =hether or not &etitioner has le)al standin);

 =hether or not the PresidentFs factual determination of the necessit/ of callin) the armed forces is su+2ect to 2udicial re*ie3" and" =hether or not the callin) of the armed forces to assist the P P in 2oint *isi+ilit/ &atrols *iolates Article II 8ec% 3 of the Constitution -constitutional &ro*isions on ci*ilian su&remac/ o*er the militar/ and the ci*ilian character of the P P.% 4el#5 $he &etition 3as dismissed% IBP had not sho3n that the President had committed )ra*e a+use of discretion in issuin) his command% $he 7uestion of de&lo/ment of the Marines is not &ro&er for 2udicial scrutin/ since the same in*ol*es a &olitical 7uestion; that the or)aniGation and conduct of &olice *isi+ilit/ &atrols" 3hich feature the team< u& of one &olice officer and one Phili&&ine Marine soldier" does not *iolate the ci*ilian su&remac/ clause in the Constitution% IBP 3as not a &ro&er &art/ to raise the challen)e% IBP failed to assert +asis in su&&ort of its locus standi% $he mere in*ocation +/ the IBP of its dut/ to &reser*e the rule of la3 and nothin) more" 3hile undou+tedl/ true" is not sufficient to clothe it 3ith standin) in this case% $he Court does not automaticall/ assume 2urisdiction o*er actual constitutional cases +rou)ht +efore it% $he Court hesitates to rule on is FF&olitical 7uestions%E $he reason is that &olitical 7uestions are concerned 3ith issues de&endent u&on the 3isdom" not the le)alit/" of a &articular act or measure +ein) assailed% Moreo*er" the &olitical 7uestion +ein) a function of the se&aration of &o3ers" the courts 3ill not normall/ interfere 3ith the 3or;in)s of another co<e7ual +ranch unless the case sho3s a clear need for the courts to ste& in to u&hold the la3 and the Constitution% PRU7ENTIAL BAN8 *s. CA:TRO, -59 :CRA 242 Facts' $he case at +ar relates to the dis+arment of Att/% Ben2amin M% Arecia% Prudential Ban; instituted an administrati*e case and as; the court for the initiation of &roceedin)s for his dis+arment or sus&ension in connection 3ith his actuations in a ci*il case - " acro Textile ills !orporation, Plaintiff, vs. Prudential "ank # Trust !o., Aka The Prudential "ank and "enjamin "aens del $osario, %otary Public for &ue'on !ity, (efendants"." 3here he re&resented the &laintiff% Iss$e5 =hether or not the CourtHs decision *iolates the Constitution since it lac;s certification +/ the Chief 9ustice that the conclusions of the Court 3ere reached in consultation +efore the case 3as assi)ned to a mem+er for the 3ritin) of the o&inion of the Court% =hether or not a constitutional &ro*ision has +een disre)arded in the CourtFs Minute (esolution dated 9anuar/ 16" 19>>% 4el#5 $he certification re7uirement refers to decisions in 2udicial" not administrati*e cases% @rom the *er/ +e)innin)" resolutionsLdecisions of the Court in administrati*e cases ha*e not +een accom&anied +/ an/ formal certification% 8uch a certification 3ould +e a su&erfluit/ in administrati*e cases% But e*en if such a certification 3ere re7uired" it is +e/ond dou+t that the conclusions of the Court in its decision 3ere

arri*ed at after consultation and deli+eration% $he si)natures of the mem+ers 3ho actuall/ too; &art in the deli+erations and *oted attest to that% o constitutional &ro*ision has +een disre)arded either in the CourtFs Minute (esolution" dated 9anuar/ 16"19>>" den/in) the motion for reconsideration Efor lac; of merit" the issues raised therein ha*in) +een &re*iousl/ dul/ considered and &assed u&on%E It +ears re&eatin) that this is an administrati*e case so that the Constitutional mandate that Eno %%% motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall +e %%% denied 3ithout statin) the le)al +asis thereforeE is ina&&lica+le% And e*en if it 3ere" said (esolution stated the le)al +asis for the denial and" therefore" adhered faithfull/ to the Constitutional re7uirement% ELac; of merit"E 3hich 3as one of the )rounds for denial" is a le)al +asis