I. Introduction A.

Case Method Common features of reported opinions (Rombauer) a) Case Name b) Name of receiving court and date the opinion was released c) Headnotes numbered paragraphs that precede the opinion! written b" reporters or b" emplo"ees of publishers d) Name of the lower court whose decision is being received e) Concise statement of the case and of the appellate court#s $udgement or order f) Names of the parties# attorne"s g) Name of the author of the opinion h) Names of other $udges who $oined in the opinion Case %aw (&hapo) Briefing a Case: Parts of a Judicial Decision a) 'acts ( events between the parties that led to the litigation and tell how the case came before the court that is now deciding it ( facts relevant to the issue the court must decise and to the reasons for its decision ( relevant bac)ground* plaintiff and defendant* basis for plaintiff#s suit* relief the plaintiff is see)ing* procedural histor"* dispositive motions* lower court#s decision* grounds for that decision* part" who appealed b) Issues ( +uestions that the court must decide to resolve the dispute between the parties ( identif" rule of law that governs dispute and as) how it should appl" to the facts ( often more than one c) Holdings ( court#s decision on the +uestion that was actuall" before it ( dicta legal statements not related to the actual +uestion before it d) Reasoning ( e,plains and supports the court#s decision ( isolate the court#s reasoning from the facts and the holding of the case e) -olic" ( underl"ing legal decisions! goals that the decision(ma)er wishes to further Using parts of a Judicial Decision a) Reasoning b" Analog" ANA%./I0IN/ ( 1octrine of precedent ( Compare cases and ma)e distinctions between them ( 1ecide how the decisions of previous cases appl" to the new problem ( Analogous if cases resemble each other in important wa"s* such as relevant facts ( &ame facts* issues and reasoning must appl" e+uall" well to the facts ( .ffer probable proof for conclusions ( Assess all possible applications 1I&2IN/3I&HIN/ ( If cases are different* distinguish differences in facts re+uire court to appl" different rule ( Able to predict probable outcome of case b) Appl"ing -recedent ( 1etermine the facts relevant to the issue in the case and the reasons for the court#s holding ( 1etermine if the facts in the two cases are basicall" analogous or distinguishable ( Appl"ing precedent

.biter 1icta (Reed) ( 1ut" of court to e,pound and interpret not ma)e it ( A $udicial opinion is onl" binding in so far as it is relevant. 4hen it wanders from the point at issue* it no longer has for as an official utterance ( .biter is a gratuitious opinion which binds none ( 5ver" statement in an opinion is not to be condemned as unsound merel" because it ma" be classed as obiter ( It is an overflow of mind surcharged with )nowledge on the general sub$ect before the court ( 1o not condemn $udges and protect them against their old obiter dicta

PACU v SECRETARY OF EDUCATION 97 PHIL 806 DOCTRINE: FACTS: 2he petitioning colleges and universities re+uest that Act No. 6789 as amended b" Act No. :87; and Commonwealth Act No. <=8 be declared unconstitutional on several grounds* to wit> (<) the" deprive owners of schools and colleges as well as teachers and parents of libert" and propert" without due process of law* (6) the" deprive parents of their natural right and dut" to rear their children for civic efficienc"* and (:) the provisions of the said Act conferring to the &ecretar" of 5ducation unlimitied power and discretion to prescribe rules and standards constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power. Respondents* on the other hand* contend that (<) the matter constitutes no $usticiable controvers"* (6) petitioners are in estoppel to challenge the validit" of the said Act* and (:) the Acts are constitutionall" valid. ISSUE/RULING/RATIO: (<) 4.N the issue is $usticiable. No. 2he issue onl" becomes $usticiable when the petitioners will suffer* or has suffered* an in$ur" as a result of the statute. .n that note* the petitioners alread" have permits and are actuall" operating b" virtue of those permits. 2he" did not show that the respondent threathened to revo)e their permits. As such* the" do not need relief in the form the" are see)ing to obtain. (6) 4.N the statute creating the ?oard of 5ducational &urve" is unconstitutional. No. 2he power of the state to regulate educational institutions is provided for in the Constitution. 'urther* b" virtue of a stud" and surve" which reported that a great ma$orit" of the private educational institutions are mone"(ma)ing devices necessitates the e,ercise of the /overnment#s police power. (:) 4.N the statute constitutes unlawful delegation of power. No. 2he standards are left on the hands of the &ecretar" because he has the relevant e,pertise and e,perience to do so. 'urther* the standards have been in effect for :7 "ears without complaint. (@) 4.N the <A levied on receipts for e,penses in supervision is unconstitutional.2he legalit" falls within the original $urisdiction of the C'I. (;) 4.N the power to regulate the te,tboo)s to be used b" the private schools constitutes censorship. 2he issue is not a $usticiable controvers". 'urther* the petitioners have not shown that the an" te,t has been prohibited* or that petitioners refused or intend to refuse to submit some te,tboo)s* and are in danger of losing substantial priveleges or rights for refusing so. NOTES 2he criterion for $usticiabilit" illustrated in this case is whether or not there is an actual controvers".

PAMIL v TELERON 86 SCRA 413 DOCTRINE: 2o render a statute unconstitutional* = votes are needed to constitute a ma$orit". FACTS: '%$ 7 * $# n ' #.//,!$ ' ($n*$( '%$ !%"&&$n0$* +( v,#, n ,n$//$!',v$ 'r. Margarito R. /onBaga was elected and proclaimed municipal 7 Fustices> the challenged provision is no longer operative ma"or of Albu+uer+ue* ?ohol in <C7< either because it was superseded b" the <C:; Constitution -etitioner -amil* an aspirant for the office* filed a suit of +uo or repealed warranto (a hearing to determine b" what authorit" someone has Reasons for constitutional ob$ections> an office) for 'r. /onBaga#s dis+ualification based on Administrative Code (<C<7) &ec 6<7;> (<) 2he Revised Administrative Code was enacted in o DIn n !"#$ #%"&& '%$($ )$ $&$!'$* ( "++ ,n'$* ' " <C<7. 2he 1931 C n#','.', n e,plicitl" declares> DN ($&,0, .# '$#' shall be re+uired for the e,ercise of -.n,!,+"& //,!$ $!!&$#,"#',!#* soldiers in active civil or political rights.E 2he ban cannot survive. service* persons receiving salaries or compensation (6) 2he &C has had previous rulings invalidating &ections from provincial or national funds* or contractors for of the Revised Administrative Code on grounds of public wor)s of the municipalit".E being against the <C:; Constitution Respondent Fudge sustained the right of 'r. /onBaga to the (:) 2he challenged Administrative Code is* on its face* office of municipal ma"or inconsistent with the religious freedom guaranteed b" o He ruled that such statutor" ineligibilit" was impliedl" the Constitution. T *$!&"($ "# ,n$&,0,)&$ repealed b" the 5lection Code of <C7< $!!&$#,"#',!# ' "n2 $&$!',v$ ( "++ ,n',v$ //,!$ ,# o (Cited in F 2eehan)ee#s separate opinion> All persons ' ,-+ #$ " ($&,0, .# '$#'3 possessing the necessar" +ualifications* e,cept those (@) It is never too late to re(establish constitutional rights* e,pressl" dis+ualified b" the election code* are even if such statutes neglecting them had been eligible to run for public office.) accepted for a great length of time. -etitioner elevated the matter to the &C ; Fustices> such a prohibition against an ecclesiastic o He argues that there was no such implied repeal! the running for elective office is not unconstitutional. 2he statute is still in full force and effect following are their separate opinions. ISSUE: o CF Castro> &ec 6: of the E&$!', n C *$ / 1971 4oN 'r. /onBaga can be dis+ualified b" virtue of &ec 6<7; ,# / n ($&$v"n!$ ' S$! 4171 / '%$ of the Administrative Code A*-,n,#'("',v$ C *$. HOLDING: o Moreover* the proscription in &ec 6<7; does not Ges. prescribe a religious test RATIO: o 'or a later provision of law to be considered as 4hile 7 Fustices see) to affirm Fudge 2eleron#s decision* having repealed a prior provision* '%$($ -.#' the remaining ; members of the &C disagree! '%$ v '$ /

)$ #.!% ")# &.'$ ($+.0n"n!$ )$'5$$n '%$ '5 3 T%$($ ,# n n$. 5lection of ecclesiastics ma" spawn small religious wars instead of promote the general communit" welfare and peace

2he attac) on the continuing effectivit" of &ection 6<7; having failed it must be* as noted at the outset* given full force and application. -etition for certiorari granted. Respondent /onBaga ordered to immediatel" vacate the ma"oralt".

1issenting &even> 2he challenged provision was superseded b" the <C:; Constitution* the supreme law* which mandated that no religious test shall be re+uired for the e,ercise of political rights. &ec. 6<7; was also repealed b" the 5lection Code for ecclesiastics are no longer included in the enumeration of ineligible persons. Also* legislation that intends to repeal all former laws upon the sub$ect shows the legislative intent to repeal the former statutor" law. Minor 'ive> 'or a later provision to repeal a prior one there must be such absolute repugnance between the two. No such repugnance is discernible. &ec. 6<7; has neither been repealed nor superseded. 2he section also admitted no e,ception* therefore there can be none. 2he Court cannot rewrite the law under the guise of interpretation.

PARAS v COMELEC 464 SCRA 49 DOCTRINE: 2he spirit* rather than the letter of a law* determines its construction. 5ver" part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to its conte,t* and it must be considered together and )ept subservient to its general intent. FACTS: o In %abor 3nion vs. %etrondo(Monte$o* the &C -etitioner -aras is the incumbent -unong ?aranga" of considered the &H election as a regular local election -ula* Cabanatuan Cit". He won in <CC@. HOLDING: A petition for his recall as -unong ?aranga" was filed b" No. the registered voters of the baranga". RATIO: C.M5%5C resolved to approve the petition* scheduled the (<) 5ver" part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the petition signing on .ct <@* <CC;* and set the recall election conte,t (i.e. that ever" part of the statute must be considered together on Nov <:* <CC;. with the other parts* and )ept subservient to the general intent of the 6C.:8A of the registered voters signed the petition (the law whole enactment) re+uires onl" 6;A) T%$ $v,*$n' ,n'$n' / S$! 74 ,# ' #.)<$!' "n $&$!',v$ -etitioner opposed the recall election! it was deferred b" & !"& //,!,"& ' ($!"&& $&$!', n n!$ *.(,n0 %,# '$(- / C.M5%5C //,!$. -aragraph (b) construed together with paragraph (a) 1ec 9* <CC;> C.M5%5C set anew the recall election on merel" designates the period when such elective local 1ec <9* <CC; official ma" be sub$ect of a recall election* that is* *.(,n0 -etitioner filed before the Cabanatuan Cit" R2C a petition '%$ #$! n* 2$"( / %,# '$(- / //,!$. for in$unction* R2C issued a 2R. 2he provision is not with respect to an" other election or 2R. was lifted* petition dismissed! respondent and his term of office other than the office of the local elective counsel re+uired to e,plain wh" the" should not be cited for official concerned (because recall election is potentiall" contempt for misrepresenting that the baranga" recall was disruptive of the normal wor)ing of the local government without C.M5%5C approval unit necessitating additional e,penses) Fan ;* <CC9> C.M5%5C re(scheduled the recall election for (6) A statute should be interpreted in harmon" with the Constitution rd the : time on Fan <:* <CC9* hence the instant petition for &ec 7@ should not be in conflict with the Constitutional certiorari with urgent pra"er for in$unction mandate of &ec :* Art I of the Constitution> Denact a local ISSUES: government code which shall provide for a more responsive 4oN the petition for certiorari with urgent pra"er for and accountable local government structure instituted in$unction has merit through a s"stem of decentraliBation with $//$!',v$ o -etitioner argues* citing &ec 7@(b) of RA No. -$!%"n,#-# / ($!"&&* initiative* and referendum 7<98 or the %ocal /overnment Code> 6n ($!"&& -etitioner#s reading is too literal. #%"&& '"7$ +&"!$ 5,'%,n n$ 819 2$"( /( - '%$ N$v$('%$&$##= ($!"&& ,# n & n0$( + ##,)&$ )$!".#$ '%$ *"'$ / '%$ //,!,"&:# "##.-+', n ' //,!$ ( n$>' P.n n0 ?"("n0"2 $&$!', n ,# )"($&2 7 - n'%# n$ 819 2$"( ,--$*,"'$&2 +($!$*,n0 " ($0.&"( "5"2 8M"2 19979 & !"& $&$!', n3; -etition *,#-,##$* for having become - ' "n* "!"*$-,!. TRO as o Fan <: election is now barred because the &H issued b" the &C on Fan <6* <CC9 en$oining the recall election is made election was set b" RA No. 7=8= on the first +$(-"n$n'. Monda" of Ma" <CC9 and ever" : "ears thereafter @ILLANUE@A v CA 379 SCRA 463 DOCTRINE: FACTS: -etitioner Jillanueva filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against several parties including I?C(<:* which the labor arbiter ruled in favor of Jillanueva. I?C(<: appealed to the N%RC* filing a suret" bond supposedl" issued b" ?' /eneral Insurance Compan" and a confirmation letter from its -resident.(?oth documents were found to be falsified* so that criminal informations for falsification of public documents against a number of accused including respondent Jilladores were filed. After Jilladores was arraigned* the fiscal#s office submitted a Motion to Admit Amended Informations with the following

amendment> Kto the pre$udice of 'rancisco N. Jillanueva* Fr.* and of public interest and in violation of public faith and destruction of truth as therein proclaimed.E (granted). Jilladores filed a Motion for Reconsideration(denied). Jilladores then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA see)ing to annul the .rder admitting the amended informations as well as the .rder den"ing his motion for reconsideration. Although the petition was dismissed* the CA pronounced that Jillanueva is not the offended part" in the cases and that he could not have sustained damages from the falsifications. Jilladores then moved in the trial court to dis+ualif" Rico L Associates as private prosecutor of Jillanueva on the basis of the CA#s pronouncement. Jillanueva opposed the motion on the ground that the pronouncement is mere obiter dictum. 2he trial court denied the motion for dis+ualification. Jilladores sought reconsideration (denied). Jilladores then filed petition for certiorari with the CA see)ing annulment of the .rder den"ing his motion for dis+ualification and the .rder den"ing reconsideration.

2he CA reversed the .rders and directed that Jillanueva#s name appearing as he offended part" in the criminal cases be stric)en.(Jillanueva now comes to the &upreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari. ISSUE: wMn the pronouncement of the appellate court that petitioner Jillanueva* Fr. is not an offended part" in the criminal cases is obiter dictum (opinion e,pressed b" a court upon some +uestion of law which is not necessar" to the decision of the case before it* and as such is not binding as precedent). RATIO: ( 2he pronouncement touched upon a matter clearl" raised b" Jilladores in his petition assailing the admission of the amended informations. Among the issues therein was wMn Jillanueva is the offended part". ( An ad$udication on an" point within the issues presented b" the case cannot be considered as obiter dictum! this rule applies to all pertinent +uestions (even onl" incidentall" involved) presented and decided in the regular course of considering the case* and led to its conclusion (or an" statement on a matter on which the decision is based).

?. -hilippine legal s"stem 2he %egal &"stem* Anal"tical Reasoning* and %egal Authorities b" 1an /atma"tan Philippine Legal system ( mi,ture of civil law and common law ( most single importation is the introduction of a $udicial s"stem modelled in all its essential characteristics on the $udicial s"stem of the 3nited &tates ( &upreme Court initiall" respected the civil law tradition introduced b" &pain ( later held American Furisprudence was of transcendental importance ( -hilippine common law composed of Anglo(American and &panish principles and local complementar" laws ( &upreme Court interpreting laws and rendering decisions rel"ing on the theories and precedents of Anglo(American cases sub$ect to the limited e,ception of those instances where the remnants of the &panish written law present well(defined civil law theories and of the few cases where such precedents are inconsistent with local customs and institutions &tare decisis Fudicial interpretation of a statute and is of greater weight than that of an e,ecutive or administrative officer in the construction of other statutes of similar import. It is an invaluable aid in the construction or interpretation of statutes of doubtful meaning. &tare decisis et non +uieta movere one should follow past precedents and should not disturb what has been settled. &upreme Court has the constitutional dut" not onl" of interpreting and appl"ing the law in accordance with prior doctrines but also of protecting societ" from the improvidence and wantonness wrought b" needless upheavals in such interpretations and applications In order that it will come within the doctrine of stare decisis* must be categoricall" stated on an issue e,pressl" raised b" the parties! it must be a direct ruling* not merel" an obiter dictum .biter dictum opinion e,pressed b" a court upon some +uestion of law which is not necessar" to the decision of the case before it! not binding as a precedent 2he principle presupposes that the facts of the precedent and the case to which it is applied are substantiall" the same. 4here the facts are dissimilar* then the principle of stare decisis does not appl". 2he rule of stare decisis is not absolute. It does not appl" when there is a conflict between the precedent and the law. 2he dut" of the court is to forsa)e and abandon an" doctrine or rule found to be in violation of law in force Inferior courts as well as the legislature cannot abandon a precedent enunciated b" the &C e,cept b" wa" of repeal or amendment of the law itself Res Fudicata Attempt to litigate issues anew despite the fact that these have alread" settled in a case involving the same parties 'or res $udicata to appl"* the following re+uisites must occur> <) former $udgement or order must be final! 6) the $udgement or order must be on the merits! :) must have been rendered b" a court having $urisdiction over the sub$ect matter and the parties! and @) there must be* between the first and the second actions* identit" of parties* of sub$ect matter and of cause of action. %aw of the Case 4hatever is once irrevocabl" established as the controlling legal principle or decision continues to be the law of the case between the same parties in the same case* whether correct on general principles or not* so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.

In law of the case* the first $udgement is generall" not "et final. It relates entirel" to +uestions of law and is confined in its operation to subse+uent proceedings in the same case

Anal"tical Reasoning ( two methods> deduction and analogy - D$*.!', n has an established structure* consisting of a major premise, minor premise and a conclusion. 2he ma$or premise states a rule of law applicable to a class of a situation while the minor premise describes the facts of the client#s situation* and the conclusion states whether the right or dut" described in the rule of law has been demonstrated to e,ist under the facts of the client#s situation. ( An"& 02 is a form of logic b" which one reasons that because two items are ali)e in at least one respect* the" are ali)e in at least one other respect. It involves three steps> <) a law"er identifies a rule or holding announced in a prior case* 6) the law"er determines whether the facts are li)e those of a prior case :) the characteriBation of the facts as li)e or unli)e those of the precedent "ields the conclusion that the client#s legal situation should or should not have the same legal conse+uence as the facts in the precedent. 2he 1ecision ( must be concise, complete, correct and clear ( should compl" with the form* the procedure and the substantive re+uirements laid out in the Constitution* the rules of Court and circulars and orders of the &upreme court. ( Article =* &ec. <@ of the Constitution> No decision shall be rendered b" an" court without e,pressing therein clearl" and distinctivel" the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefore. ( in elarde !" #ocial Jusrice #ociety* the essential parts of a good decision include> <) S'"'$-$n' / '%$ !"#$ consists of a legal definition of the nature of the action. If in a criminal case* this part describes the specific charge and plea of the accused. If the case is being decided on appeal or on a petition for certoriari* the court of origin* the case number in the trial court and the dispositive portion of the assailed decision. 6) S'"'$-$n' / /"!'# A s"nthesiBe* summariBe and simplif". 2here are different wa"s of rel"ing the facts> a) ob$ective or reportorial method the $udge summariBes without comment the testimon" of each witness and the contents of each e,hibit! b) s"nthesis method the factual theor" of the plaintiff or prosecution and then that of the defendant is summariBed c) sub$ective method version of the facts accepted b" the $udge is simpl" narrated without e,plaining the parties# versions d) combination of ob$ective and sub$ective means testimon" of each witness is reported and the $udge formulates his or her own version of the facts :) I##.$# ( "##,0n-$n' / $(( (# factual and legal issues should be stated! all assigned errors @) C .(' (.&,n0 ( in which each issue is* as a rule* separatel" considered and resolved! full discussion of the specific errors or issues raised in the complaint or other issues the court deems essential to a $ust disposition. It is better to resolve procedural +uestions before substantive ones. ;) D,#+ #,',v$ + (', n In a criminal case* the disposition should include a finding of innocence or guilt* the specific crime committed* the participation of the accused* the penalt" imposed* the modif"ing circumstances* if an"* and the civil liabilit" and costs. In a civil case* the disposition should state whether the complaint or petition is granted or denied* the specific relief granted and the costs. ( 1I&-.&I2IJ5 N ?.1G. 2he dispositive portion cannot be found or inferred from the bod" of the decision. 2he portion of a decision that becomes the sub$ect of e,ecution if that ordained or decreed in the dispositive part but there are e,ceptions( a) when there is ambiguit" or uncertaint"* the bod" of the opinion ma" be referred to for purposes of construing the $udgement because the dispositive part of a decision must find support from the decision#s ratio decidendi! b) where e,tensive and e,plicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the bod" of the decision 2he &"llabus ( prepared b" the reporter who gives his understanding of the decision for the convenience of law"ers in reading reports ( not part of the court#s decision ( should not cite a s"llabus in place of the carefull" considered te,t in the decision of the court 2he Certification ( Art =* &ec <: ( meant to ensure the implementation of the re+uirement that decisions of the &upreme Court and lower collegiate courts are reached after consultation with the members of the court sitting en banc or in a division before the case is assigned to a member thereof for decision writing ( lac) of certification does not invalidate decision but serves as evidence of failure to observe certification re+uirement and holds accountable official responsible for omission ( Re+uired to be certified> $udicial cases* resolutions of the -residential 5lectoral 2ribunal ( Not re+uired to be certified> administrative cases* per curiam decision* minute resolution Memorandum 1ecision ( those which adopt b" reference the findings of facts and conclusions of law of inferior tribunals ( must not be limited to the dispositive portion but to state nature of the case* summariBe the facts with references to the record and contain a statement of applicable laws and $urisprudence and the tribunal#s assessments and conclusions on the case Per Curiam .pinions

( opinion of the Court in which $udges are all of one mind and the +uestion involved is so clear that it is not necessar" to elaborate it b" an e,tended discussion ( unsigned and decided b" the court ( usuall" resorted to for cases involving the imposition of death penalt" or administrative penalties Minute Resolutions ( decreed b" the court as final and e,ecutor where> <) a cases is patentl" without merit* 6) issues raised are factual in nature* :) the decision appealed from is supported b" substantial evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable laws* or @) it is clear from the records that the petition is filed merel" to forestall the earl" e,ecution of $udgement and for non(compliance with the rules ( not constitutionall" infirm because the" are not DdecisionsE .biter 1ictum ( not precedent! is a matter that was not raised e,pressl" and therefore* it was not a prere+uisite in disposing of the case ( remar) made or opinion e,pressed b" a $udge in a decision upon a case* incidentall" or collaterall" and not directl" upon the +uestion before the court* or upon a point not necessaril" involved in the determination of the cause! lac)s force of an ad$udication and is not to be regarded as such ( opinions entirel" unnecessar" for the decision of the case ( not binding as precedent within the stare decisis rule but ma" be followed if sufficientl" persuasive Authorit" ( an"thing that a court can rel" on in reaching its conclusion ( -rimar" authorit" is an" law that the court can rel" on in reaching its conclusions. 5,. &tatutes* regulations* constitutional provisions* e,ecutive orders* ordinances* treaties and other court opinions ( &econdar" authorit" is an" non(law source that the court can rel" in reaching its conclusion. 5,. %egal and nonlegal periodical literature* enc"clopedias* dictionaries and treatises ( 2wo t"pes> mandator" and persuasive a) Mandator" Authorit" ( whatever the court must rel" on in reaching its conclusion ( onl" primar" authorit" cannot be secondar" authorit" b) -ersuasive Authorit" ( whatever the court relies on when it is not re+uired to do so ( 6 )inds> prior court opinion which is persuasive* secondar" authorit" which is persuasive #ee Legal #ystem of the Philippines by $eliciano II. &tatutes and their 5nactment A. 1efinition %aws* generall" A whole bod" or s"stem of law Rule of conduct formulated and made obligator" b" legitimate power of the state Includes RA* -1* 5. (president in the e, of legislative power)* -residential issuances (ordinance power) Furisprudence* ordinances passed b" sanggunians of local government units. &tatutes* generall" An act of legislature (-hilippine Commission* -hil. %egislature* ?atasang -ambansa* Congress) -1#s of Marcos during the period of martial law <C7: Constitution 5. of A+uino revolutionar" period 'reedom Constitution Manner of referring to statutes -ublic Acts -hil Commission and -hil %egislature <C8<( <C:; Commonwealth Acts <C:9( <C@9 Republic Acts Congress <C@9( <C76* <C=7 O ?atas -ambansa ?atasang -ambansa Identification of laws serial number andMor title ?. Classification of &tatutes -ublic and -rivate -ublic affects the public at large general applies to the whole state and operates throughout the state ali)e upon all people or all of a class. &pecial relates to particular person or things of a class or to a particular communit"* individual or thing. %ocal %aw operation is confined to a specific place or localit" (e.g municipal ordinance)

-rivate applies onl" to a specific person or sub$ect.

-ermanent and temporar" statutes -ermanent ( one whose operation is not limited in duration but continues until repealed. 2emporar" ( duration is for a limited period of time fi,ed in the statute itself or whose life ceases upon the happening of an event. o 5.g. statute answering to an emergenc" .ther classes of statutes -rospective or retroactive according to application o R52R.AC2IJ5 %A4 one which ta)es awa" or impairs vested rights ac+uired under e,isting laws creates a new obligation and imposes a new dut" attaches a new disabilit" in respect of transactions or considerations alread" past o -R.&-R5C2IJ5 %A4 operates upon facts or transactions that occur after the statute ta)es effect loo)s and applies to the future. 1eclarator"* curative* mandator"* director"* substantive* remedial* penal according to operation According to form o Affirmative does not impliedl" repeal the prior law unless an intention to effect a repeal is manifest o Negative repeals all conflicting provisions unless the contrar" intention is disclosed C. -arts of a &tatute %" &itle Mandator" law ( 5ver" bill passed b" Congress shall embrace onl" one sub$ect which shall be e,pressed in the title thereof (Art 9* &ec 69 (<) <C=7 Constitution) 6 limitations upon legislation o 2o refrain from conglomeration* under one statute* of heterogeneous sub$ects o 2itle of the bill should be couched in a language sufficient to notif" the legislators and the public and those concerned of the import of the single sub$ect. -urposes of re+uirement (on < sub$ect) -rincipal purpose> to apprise the legislators of the ob$ect* nature* and scope of the provision of the bill and to prevent the enactment into law of matters which have not received the notice* action and stud" of the legislators. o 2o prohibit duplicit" in legislation In sum of the purpose o 2o prevent hodgepodgeM log(rolling legislation o 2o prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature o 2o fairl" apprise the people* through publication of the sub$ects of the legislation o 3sed as a guide in ascertaining legislative intent when the language of the act does not clearl" e,press its purpose! ma" clarif" doubt or ambiguit". How re+uirement construed %iberall" construed! It should not be given a technical interpretation If there is doubt* it should be resolved against the doubt and in favor of the constitutionalit" of the statute 4hen there is compliance with re+uirement Comprehensive enough ( Include general ob$ect If all parts of the law are related* and are germane to the sub$ect matter e,pressed in the title 2itle is valid where it indicates in broad but clear terms* the nature* scope and conse+uences of the law and its operations 2itle should not be a catalogue or inde, of the bill -rinciples appl" to titles of amendator" acts. o 5nough if it states Dan act to amend a specific statuteE Need not state the precise nature of the amendator" act. 3& %egislators have titles ending with the words Dand for other purposesE ( 3& is not sub$ect to the same Constitutional restriction as that embodied in the -hilippine Constitution) 4hen re+uirement not applicable Appl" onl" to bills which ma" thereafter be enacted into law 1oes not appl" to laws in force and e,isting at the time the <C:; Constitution too) effect.

No application to municipal or cit" ordinances.

5ffect of insufficienc" of title &tatute is null and void 4here* the sub$ect matter of a statute is not sufficientl" e,pressed in its title* onl" so much of the sub$ect matter as is not e,pressed therein is void* leaving the rest in force* unless the invalid provisions are inseparable from the others* in which case the nullit" the former vitiates the latter C n#','.', n= A('3 @I= S$!3 46 819 5ver" bill passed b" Congress shall embrace one sub$ect which shall be e,pressed in the title thereof LIDASAN v COMELEC 41 SCRA 496 DOCTRINE: No bill which ma" be enacted into law shall embrace more than one sub$ect which shall be e,pressed in the title of the bill. FACTS: with the constitutional re+uirement Republic Act @7C8 ( An Act Creating the Municipalit" of 1ianaton 1. 2he test of the sufficienc" of title is whether or not it is in the -rovince of %anao del &ur) is signed into law b" the Chief misleading 5,ecutive on Fune <=* <C99. a title (hich is so uncertain that the a!erage &ection <* RA @7C8 enumerated the barrios that will person reading it (ould not be informed of the constitute the new municipalit" of 1ianaton* -rovince of purpose of the enactment or put on in)uiry as to %anao del &ur. However* it came light later that of the 6< its contents, or (hich is misleading, either in barrios* onl" C are located in the -rovince of %anao del &ur referring to or indicating one subject (here while <6 barrios are located in the -rovince of Cotabato. another or different one is really embraced in August <;* <C97 Comelec issued a resolution which states that the act, or in omitting any e*pression or indication of the real subject or scope of the act, Dfor purposes of establishment of precincts* registration of voters is bad and for other election purposesE the new municipalit" of 1ianaton shall comprise the 66 barrios enumerated in RA @7C8 2. In determining sufficienc" of particular title its substance &eptember 7* <C97 Apprised b" this development* the .ffice of rather than its form should be considered, and the purpose the -resident* through the Assistant 5,ecutive &ecretar"* of the constitutional re)uirement, of gi!ing notice to all recommended to Comelec that the operation of the statute be persons interested, should be +ept in mind by the court suspended until Dclarified b" correcting legislationE 4ith the foregoing guidelines* the title of RA @7C8 is considered &eptember 68* <C97 Comelec stood b" its own interpretation misleading because not the slightest intimation is there that communities in the ad$acent province of Cotabato are incorporated in and declared that the statute Dshould be implemented unless this new municipalit" of %anao del &ur. declared unconstitutional b" the &upreme CourtE %egislation has two(pronged purpose> 2his triggered the petition at bar b" ?ara %idasan* a resident* <. creates the municipalit" of 1ianaton purportedl" from ta,pa"er and voter of the detached portion of -arang* Cotabato. twent"(one barrios in the towns of ?utig and ?alabagan* ISSUES "n* BUDGMENT: both in the province of %anao del &ur 1. C%$'%$( ( n ' RA 4790 v, &"'$# S$!', n 46819= A(',!&$ 6= 1987 6. dismembers two municipalities in Cotabato* a province C n#','.', n / ( ,n!&.*,n0 )"((, # ,n C '")"' ,n !($"',n0 '%$ different from %anao del &ur. M.n,!,+"&,'2 / D,"n"' n= L"n" *$& S.(D Y$# PP&ection 69(<)* Article 9* <C=7 Constitution 5ver" bill R$#+ n*$n'> the change in boundaries of the two provinces resulting passed b" the Congress shall embrace onl" one sub$ect in Kthe substantial diminution of territorial limitsK of Cotabato province which shall be e,pressed in the title thereof. is Kmerel" the incidental legal results of the definition of the boundar"K 1ual limitations upon legislative power posed b" the above provision of the municipalit" of 1ianaton and that* therefore* reference to the fact %" Congress is to refrain from conglomeration* under one that portions in Cotabato are ta)en awa" Kneed not be e,pressed in statute* of heterogeneous sub$ects. the title of the law.K '" 2he title of the bill is to be couched in a language SC> 2ransfer of a siBeable portion of territor" from one province to sufficient to notif" the legislators and the public and those another of necessit" involves reduction of area* population and income concerned of the import of the single sub$ect thereof. of the first and the corresponding increase of those of the other. 2his is PP Compliance is imperative because the as important as the creation of a municipalit". And "et* the title did not Constitution does not e,act of Congress the reflect this fact. obligation to read during its deliberations the entire te,t of the bill. 43 C%$'%$( ( n ' RA 4790 !"n ($-",n v"&,* ,/ '%$ 14 )"((, # /( PPIn fact* in the case of House ?ill <6@7* which '%$ +( v,n!$ / C '")"' ,# ($- v$* /( - '%$ !($"', n / '%$ n$5 became Republic Act @7C8* onl" its title was -.n,!,+"&,'2 / D,"n"' nD EF NO read from its introduction to its final approval in ?lac) Interpretation of %aws> 4hen part of a statute is held the House of Representatives where the bill* unconstitutional and the remainder valid* the parts will be separated being of local application* originated. and the constitutional portion upheld. ?ut when the parts are mutuall" Rationale> 2o inform the Congress as to the full impact of dependent L not separable* the entire statute must be void. the law and to apprise the people of the laws affecting them! 2o prohibit DriderE provision which is not germane to 2win functions of municipal corporations> the sub$ect matter of the bill <. instrumentalit" of the state in carr"ing out the functions of Ruling> Ges. government /uidelines in ascertaining whether or not the title of a statute conforms

agenc" of the communit" in the administration of local affairs 5,planator" note to House ?ill <6@7* now RA @7C8 2he territor" is now a progressive communit"! the aggregate population is large! and the collective income is sufficient to maintain an independent municipalit". 2his bill* if enacted into law* will enable the inhabitants concerned to govern themselves and en$o" the blessings of municipal autonom". D-rogressive communit"E refers to the 6< barrios and it cannot be ascertained if it is still true to the C barrios in %anao del &ur 33 C%$'%$( ( n ' '%$ +$',', n$( %"# &$0"& #'"n*,n0D Y$# Ruling > Ges. He is a +ualified voter in a barrio in Cotabato which would be incorporated in the new municipalit" of 1ianaton* %anao del &ur

6.

HELD: RA 4790 ,# *$!&"($* .n! n#','.', n"&3 C -$&$! ,# +( %,),'$* /( - ,-+&$-$n',n0 '%$ #"-$ / ( $&$!' ("& +.(+ #$#3 D,##$n': F$(n"n* = B3 Republic Act No. @7C8 deals with one sub$ect matter* the creation of the municipalit" of 1ianaton in the province of %anao del &ur. 2he title ma)es evident what is the sub$ect matter of such an enactment. 2he constitutional re+uirement is that no bill which ma" be enacted into law shall embrace more than one sub$ect which shall be e,pressed in the title of the bill. It is sufficient if the title be comprehensive enough reasonabl" to include the general ob$ect which the statute see)s to effect without e,pressing each and ever" end and means necessar" for the accomplishment of that ob$ect. It is the dut" of the court to give an Act of Congress a fairl" susceptible construction that will ma)e it not in conflict with the higher law.

TO?IAS v A?ALOS 439 SCRA 106 DOCTRINE: 2he Constitution does not re+uire Congress to emplo" in the title of an enactment* language of such precision as to mirror* full" inde, or catalogue all the contents and the minute details therein. It must be germane to the sub$ect matter. FACTS: and all the provisions are germane to that general sub$ect.K (#umulong !" Comelec, As ta,pa"ers and residents of mandalu"ong* petitioners assail b. 4.N it violates &ec ; (<) Art 9 of the <C=7 ConstiQ No the constitutionalit" of RA No. 797; (An Act Converting the Municipalit" of Mandalu"ong into a Highl" 3rbaniBed Cit" to be P$',', n$(#: 2he division of &an Fuan and Mandalu"ong )nown as Cit" of Mandalu"ong). into separate congressional districts has resulted in -rior to the enactment of the statute* Mandalu"ong and &an increase in the composition of the House of Fuan belonged to one legislative district Representatives be"ond that provided in &ec ;(<)* Art 9 of -ursuant to the %ocal /overnment Code* a plebiscite was held the Constitution. on April <8* <CC@. 2he turnout of the plebiscite was onl" <@.@<A R.&,n0> No. 2he 6;8 limit in &ec ; (<)* Art 9 of the of the voting population* but <=* 96< voted "es* while 7*C<< voted Constitution is not absolute as evident in the phrase Dunless no. 2hus* RA 797; was deemed ratified and in effect. otherwise provided b" lawE ISSUES 8(",#$* )2 '%$ +$',', n$(#9 "n* BUDGMENT: c. 4.N it violates &ec ; (@) Art 9 of the <C=7 ConstiQ No 13 C%$'%$( ( n ' A(' @III S$!49= RA N 7671 5%,!% +( v,*$# '%"' '%$ C,'2 / M"n*"&.2 n0 #%"&& %"v$ ,'# 5n &$0,#&"',v$ *,#'(,!' P$',', n$(: 2he assailed provision preempts the right of v, &"'$# +( v,#, n# ,n '%$ C n#','.', nD N Congress to reapportion legislative districts as provided in &ec ;(@)* Art 9 of the Constitution a. 4.N it violates &ec 69(<)* Art 9* <C=7 ConstiQ No &ec. 69(<). 5ver" bill passed b" the Congress shall R.&,n0> No. It was the Congress itself which drafted* embrace onl" one sub$ect which shall be e,pressed in the deliberated upon and enacted the assailed law* including title thereof. &ection @C thereof. -etitioners allege that the inclusion of the assailed &ection 43 C%$'%$( ( n ' '%$ +$ +&$ / S"n B."n #% .&* %"v$ )$$n -"*$ @C in the sub$ect law resulted in the latter embracing two ' +"(',!,+"'$ ,n '%$ +&$),#!,'$ n RA 7671 "# '%$ #"-$ ,nv &v$* " principal sub$ects* namel"> (<) the conversion of !%"n0$ ,n '%$,( &$0,#&"',v$ *,#'(,!'D N Mandalu"ong into a highl" urbaniBed cit"! and (6) the division of the congressional district of &an R.&,n0: No. 2he principal sub$ect involved in the plebiscite was the FuanMMandalu"ong into two separate districts. conversion of Mandalu"ong into a highl" urbaniBed cit"Sthe inhabitants of &anFuan were properl" e,cluded from the said plebiscite R.&,n0> No.2he creation of a separate congressional as the" had nothing to do with the change of status of Mandalu"ong. district for Mandalu"ong is not a sub$ect separate and distinct from the sub$ect of its conversion into a highl" urbaniBed cit" but is a natural and logical conse+uence of its conversion into a highl" urbaniBed cit". ?ecause &ec ;(:)* Art 9* <C=7 Consti provides that DR5ach cit" with a population of at least two hundred fift" thousand* or each province* shall have at least one representativeE %iberal construction of the Done title(one sub$ectE rule has been adopted DRIt should be sufficient compliance with such re+uirement if the title e,presses the general sub$ect 33 C%$'%$( ( n ' RA 7671 %"# ($#.&'$* ' 60$((2-"n*$(,n0;D N /err"mandering is the practice of creating legislative districts to favor a particular candidate or part" Ruling> Not 4orth" of credence. Rep Ronald 0amora* author of the law* is the incumbent of the former &an FuanMMandalu"ong district. He has been consistentl" winning in both localities. ?" dividing the district* his constituenc" has in fact been diminished and not favorable to him HELD: C n'$n', n# "($ *$v ,* / -$(,'3 T%$ +$',', n ,# DISMISED / ( &"!7 / -$(,'3

'" -nacting Clause 4ritten immediatel" after the title &tates the authorit" b" which the act is enacted T< ( -hil Commission D ?" authorit" of the -resident of the 3&* be it enacted b" the 3& -hilippine CommissionE T6 ( -hilippine %egislature( D b" authorit" of the 3&* be it enacted b" the -hilippine %egislatureE T: ( 4hen T6 became bicameral> D?e it enacted b" the &enate and House of Representatives of the -hilippines in legislature assembled and b" authorit" of the sameE T@ ( Commonwealth( D?e it enacted b" the National Assembl" of the -hilippines T; when T@ became bicameral> Dbe it enacted b" the &enate and House of Representatives in congress assembledE same <C@9( <C76M<C=7(present. T9 ?atasang -ambansa> D?e it enacted b" the ?atasang -ambansa in session assembledE T7 -1 D N.4 2H5R5'.R5* I UUUUUU -resident of the -hilippines* b" the powers vested in me b" the Constitution do hereb" decree as followsE T= 5. DNow* therefore* I* UUUU hereb" orderE ." Preamble 1efined prefator" statement or e,planation or a finding of facts* reciting the purpose* reason* or occasion for ma)ing the law to which it is prefi,edE 'ound after enacting clause and before the bod" of the law. 3suall" not used b" legislations because content of the preamble is written in the e,planator" note. ?ut -1s and 5.s have preambles. It is a part of the statute written immediatel" after its title* which states the purpose* reason for the enactment of the law. 3suall" e,press in whereas clauses. /enerall" omitted in statutes passed b"> -hil. Commission -hil. %egislature National Assembl" Congress of the -hil ?atasang -ambansa 2hese legislative bodies used the e,planator" note to e,plain the reasons for the enactment of statutes. 5,tensivel" used if -residential decrees issued b" the -resident in the e,ercise of his legislative power. 4hen the meaning of a statute is clear and unambiguous* the preamble can neither e,pand nor restrict its operation* much less prevail over its te,t. Nor can be used as basis for giving a statute a meaning. 4hen the statute is ambiguous* the preamble can be resorted to clarif" the ambiguit". -reamble is the )e" of the statute* to open the minds of the lawma)ers as to the purpose is achieved* the mischief to be remedied* and the ob$ect to be accomplished* b" the provisions of the legislature. Ma" decide the proper construction to be given to the statute. Ma" restrict to what otherwise appears to be a broad scope of law. It ma" e,press the legislative intent to ma)e the law appl" retroactivel" in which case the law has to be given retroactive effect. 5,. K4H5R5A&* under the <C7: Constitution the incumbent -resident as Head of /overnment and Chief of &tate at the time of its ratification is vested with e,traordinar" powers during the transition period and can continue as incumbent -resident even after the interim ?atasang -ambansa is organiBed and read" to discharge its functions!E /" Pur!ie( that part which tells what the law is about bod" of statute should embrace onl" one sub$ect should onl" one sub$ect matter* even there provisions should be allied and germane to the sub$ect and purpose of the bill. &tatue is usuall" divided into sections which contain a single proposition. -arts o short title 5I. D&ection <. &hort 2itle ( 2his Act shall be )nown as the KNational &ervice 2raining -rogram (N&2-) Act of 688<K.E o polic" section 5I. D&ec. 6. 1eclaration of -olic". It is hereb" affirmed the prime dut" of the government to serve and protect its citiBens.D o definition section 5I. D&ection :. 1efinition of 2erms ( 'or purposes of this Act* the following are hereb" defined as follows>E o administrative section o sections prescribing standards of conduct o sections imposing sanctions for violation of its provisions o transitor" provision o separabilit" clause o effectivit" clause

0" 1ther Clauses &eparabilit" clause it states that if an" provision of the act is declared invalid* the remainder shall not be affected thereb". It is not controlling and the courts ma" invalidate the whole statute where what is left* after the void part* is not complete and wor)able -resumption statute is effective as a whole its effect> to create in the place of such presumption the opposite of separabilit". DIf an" part or provision of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional* other provisions not affected thereb" shall remain in force and effect.E 5ffectivit" Clause D2his Act shall ta)e effect fifteen (<;) da"s after its publication in at least two (6) newspapers of general circulation.E Amendator" Clause D&ec. UUU* Art. UUU of RAM-1M5.UUUUU* as well as all laws* decrees* orders* rules and regulations and other issuances inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereb" deemed amended and modified accordingl".E Repealing Clause DAll other laws* decrees* orders* issuances* rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereb" repealed* amended or modified accordingl".E PRESIDENTIAL ISSUANCES= RULES AND ORDINANCES -residential issuances are those which the president issues in the e,ercise of ordinance power. i.e. 5.* A. (administrative orders)* proclamations* M. (memorandum orders)* MC (memorandum circulars)* and general or special orders. Have force and effect of laws. 5. o acts of the -resident providing for rules of a general or permanent character in the implementation or e,ecution of constitutionalM statutor" powers. o do not have the force and effect of laws enacted b" congress o different from 5. issued b" the -resident in the e, of her legislative power during the revolution -residential decree under the freedom constitution A. o acts of the -resident which relate to particular aspects of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head -roclamations o acts of the -resident fi,ing a date or declaring a statute or condition of public moment or interest* upon the e,istence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend M. o acts of the -resident on matters of administrative details or of subordinate or temporar" interest which onl" concern a particular officer or office of government MC o acts of the president on matters relating to internal administration which the -resident desires to bring to the attention of all or some of the departments* agencies* bureaus* or offices of the government* for information of compliance /eneral or &pecific .rder o Acts and commands of the -resident in his capacit" as Commander(in(Chief of the A'&upreme Court circulars! rules and regulations &ee Art =* &ec. ;(;) <C=7 Constitution &ee Art. 9* &ec. :8 <C=7 Constitution It has been held that a law which provides that a decision of a +uasi($udicial bod" be appealable directl" to the &C* if enacted without the advice and concurrence of the &C* ineffective o Remed" or applicable procedure go to CA Rules of Court product of the rule(ma)ing power of the &C o -ower to repeal procedural rules o No power to promulgate rules substantive in nature (unli)e the legislative department) &ubstantive rules if it affects or ta)es awa" vested rights! right to appeal -rocedural rules means of implementing e,isting right! where to file an appeal for transferring the venue Rules and regulations issued b" the administrative or e,ecutive officers in accordance with and authoriBed b" law* have the force and effect of law o Re+uisites for validit" Rules should be germane to the ob$ects and purposes of the law Regulations be not in contradiction with* but conform to* the standards that the law prescribes 2he be for the sole purpose of carr"ing into effect the general provisions of the law o %aw cannot be restricted or e,tended

o %aw prevails over regulations* if there are discrepancies Rule(ma)ing power of public administrative agenc" is a delegated legislative power if it enlarges or restricts such statute is invalid Re+uisites for delegating a statute b" legislative branch to another branch of government to fill in details* e,ecution* enforcement* or administration of lawR. the law must be> o Complete in itself o 'i, a standard which ma" be e,press or implied 5,ample of DstandardE simplicit" and dignit"! public interest! public welfare! interest of law and order! $ustice and e+uit" and substantial merit of the case! ade+uate and efficient instruction 5,ample> o Change of DandMorE to DorE invalid o Change of Dma"E(permissive) to DshallE (mandator") invalid (/rego v C.M5%5C pp 66)

Administrative rule and interpretation distinguished Rule Dma)esE new law with the force and effect of a valid law! binding on the courts even if the" are not in agreement with the polic" stated therein or with its innate wisdom Interpretation merel" advisor" for it is the courts that finall" determine what the law means Administrative construction is not necessaril" binding upon the courts! it ma" be set aside b" $udicial department (if there is an error of law* or abuse of power or lac) of $urisdiction or /A1 grave abuse of discretion) ?aranga" ordinance &angguniang baranga" smallest legislative bod"! ma" pass an ordinance b" ma$orit" of all its members! sub$ect to review b" &angguniang ba"anM panglungsod &angguniang ba"anM panglungsod ta)e action on the ordinance within :8 da"s from submission! if there#s inaction* it is presumed to be consistent with the municipal or cit" ordinance! if inconsistenc" is found* it will remand to the &angguniang baranga" Municipal ordinance %odged in the &angguniang ba"an Ma$orit" of the +uorum voting* ordinance is passed .rdinance sent to Ma"or within <8 da"s for approval or veto! if there#s ma"or#s inaction* ordinance is presumed approved! if vetoed and overridden b" 6M: of all members* ordinance is approved Approved ordinance is passed to &angguniang panlalawigan for review o 4ithin :8 da"s ma" invalidate in whole or in part and its action is final! if there#s inaction within :8 da"s* it is deemed valid Cit" ordinance Jested in &angguniang panglungsod Ma$orit" of the +uorum voting* ordinance is passed &ubmitted to Ma"or within <8 da"s o Approve o Jeto 6M: of all members approved o Inaction deemed approved If cit" or component cit" submit to &angguniang panlalawigan for review which shall ta)e action within :8 da"s* otherwise* it will be deemed valid -rovincial ordinance &angguniang panlalawigan ma$orit" of +uorum voting* passage of ordinance 'orwarded to the /overnor who within <; da"s from receipt shall o Approve o Jeto 6M: of all members approved o Inaction deemed approved 1. &teps in the enactment C n#','.', n= A('3 @I= S$!', n 46 849 No bill passed b" either House shall become law unless it has passed three readings on separate da"s* and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three da"s before its passage* e,cept when the -resident certifies to the necessit" of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamit" or emergenc". 3pon the last reading of a bill* no amendment thereto shall be allowed* and the vote thereon shall be ta)en immediatel" thereafter* and the yeas and nays entered in the Fournal. C n#','.', n= A('3 @I= S$!', n 47 (<) 5ver" bill passed b" the Congress shall* before it becomes a law* be presented to the -resident. If he approves the same he shall sign it! otherwise* he shall veto it and return the same with his ob$ections to the House where it originated* which shall enter the ob$ections at large in its Fournal and proceed to reconsider it. If* after such reconsideration* two(thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill* it shall be sent* together with the ob$ections* to the other House b" which it shall li)ewise be reconsidered* and if approved b" two(thirds of all the Members of that House* it shall

become a law. In all such cases* the votes of each House shall be determined b" "eas or na"s* and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Fournal. 2he -resident shall communicate his veto of an" bill to the House where it originated within thirt" da"s after the date of receipt thereof* otherwise* it shall become a law as if he had signed it. (6) 2he -resident shall have the power to veto an" particular item or items in an appropriation* revenue* or tariff bill* but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not ob$ect. %egislative power* generall" -ower to ma)e* alter and repeal laws Jested in congress <C=7 Constitution -resident <C7: L 'reedom (-1 and 5. respectivel") &angguniang baranga"* ba"an* panglungsod* panlalawigan onl" within respective $urisdiction ordinances Administrative or e,ecutive officer 1elegated power Issue rules and regulations to implement a specific law Congress legislative power 2he determination of the legislative polic" and its formulation and promulgation as a defined and binding rule of conduct. %egislative power ( plenar" e,cept onl" to such limitations as are found in the constitution -rocedural re+uirements* generall" -rovided in the constitution (for ?ills* RA) -rovided b" congress enactment of laws Rules of both houses of congress (provided also b" the Constitution) -assage of bill -roposed legislative measure introduced b" a member of congress for enactment into law &hall embrace onl" one sub$ect which shall be e,pressed in the title &igned b" authors 'ile with the &ecretar" of the House ?ills ma" originate from either lower or upper House 5,clusive to lower house Appropriation RevenueM tariff bills ?ills authoriBing increase of public debt ?ills of local application -rivate bills After : readings* approval of either house (see Art 9 &ec 69 (<)) &ecretar" reports the bill for first reading 'irst reading reading the number and title* referral to the appropriate committee for stud" and recommendation Committee hold public hearings and submits report and recommendation for calendar for second reading &econd reading bill is read in full (with amendments proposed b" the committee) unless copies are distributed and such reading is dispensed with o ?ill will be sub$ect to debates* motions and amendments o ?ill will be voted on o A bill approved shall be included in the calendar of bills for :rd reading 2hird reading bill approved on 6nd reading will be submitted for final vote b" "eas and na"s* ?ill approved on the :rd reading will be transmitted to the D.ther HouseE for concurrence (same process as the first passage) o If the D.ther HouseE approves without amendment it is passed to the -resident o If the D.ther HouseE introduces amendments* and disagreement arises* differences will be settled b" the Conference Committees of both houses o Report and recommendation of the 6 Conference Committees will have to be approved b" both houses in order to be considered pass -resident o Approves and signs o Jetoes (within :8 da"s after receipt) o Inaction If the -resident vetoes send bac) to the House where it originated with recommendation o 6M: of all members approves* it will be sent to the other house for approval o 6M: of the other house approves it shall become a law

o If president did not act on the bill within :8 da"s after receipt* bill becomes a law &ummar" : 3 5"2# / % 5 " ),&& )$! -$# " &"53 -resident signs inaction of president within :8 da"s after receipt vetoed bill is repassed b" congress b" 6M: votes of all its members* each house voting separatel".

H 5 " ?,&& ?$! -$# " L"5: E>!$(+' P House Rule I> ?ills* Resolutions* Messages* Memorials and -etitions P 'lowchart> %egislative -rocess <. -reparation of the bill 6. 'irst reading :. Committee consideration M action @. &econd reading ;. 2hird reading 9. 2ransmittal of the approved bill to the &enate 7. &enate action on approved bill of the House =. Conference committee C. 2ransmittal of the bill to the -resident <8. -residential action on the bill <<. Action on approved bill <6. Action on vetoed bill -R5-ARA2I.N .' 2H5 ?I%% 2he Member or the ?ill 1rafting 1ivision of the Reference and Research ?ureau prepares and drafts the bill upon the MemberVs re+uest. 'IR&2 R5A1IN/ <. 2he bill is filed with the ?ills and Inde, &ervice and the same is numbered and reproduced. 6. 2hree da"s after its filing* the same is included in the .rder of ?usiness for 'irst Reading. :. .n 'irst Reading* the &ecretar" /eneral reads the title and number of the bill. 2he &pea)er refers the bill to the appropriate CommitteeMs. C.MMI2255 C.N&I15RA2I.NMAC2I.N <. 2he Committee where the bill was referred to evaluates it to determine the necessit" of conducting public hearings. If the Committee finds it necessar" to conduct public hearings* it schedules the time thereof* issues public notice and invites resource persons from the public and private sectors* the academe and e,perts on the proposed legislation. If the Committee finds that no public hearing is needed* it schedules the bill for Committee discussionMs. 6. ?ased on the result of the public hearings or Committee discussions* the Committee ma" introduce amendments* consolidate bills on the same sub$ect matter* or propose a substitute bill. It then prepares the corresponding committee report. :. 2he Committee approves the Committee Report and formall" transmits the same to the -lenar" Affairs ?ureau. &5C.N1 R5A1IN/ <. 2he Committee Report is registered and numbered b" the ?ills and Inde, &ervice. It is included in the .rder of ?usiness and referred to the Committee on Rules. 6. 2he Committee on Rules schedules the bill for consideration on &econd Reading. :. .n &econd Reading* the &ecretar" /eneral reads the number* title and te,t of the bill and the following ta)es place> a. -eriod of &ponsorship and 1ebate b. -eriod of Amendments c. Joting which ma" be b"> i. viva voce ii. count b" tellers iii. division of the House! or iv. nominal voting 2HIR1 R5A1IN/ <. 2he amendments* if an"* are engrossed and printed copies of the bill are reproduced for 2hird Reading. 6. 2he engrossed bill is included in the Calendar of ?ills for 2hird Reading and copies of the same are distributed to all the Members three da"s before its 2hird Reading. :. .n 2hird Reading* the &ecretar" /eneral reads onl" the number and title of the bill. @. A roll call or nominal voting is called and a Member* if he desires* is given three minutes to e,plain his vote. No amendment on the bill is allowed at this stage. a. 2he bill is approved b" an affirmative vote of a ma$orit" of the Members present. b. If the bill is disapproved* the same is transmitted to the Archives. 2RAN&MI22A% .' 2H5 A--R.J51 ?I%% 2. 2H5 &5NA25 2he approved bill is transmitted to the &enate for its concurrence.

&5NA25 AC2I.N .N A--R.J51 ?I%% .' 2H5 H.3&5 2he bill undergoes the same legislative process in the &enate. C.N'5R5NC5 C.MMI2255 <. A Conference Committee is constituted and is composed of Members from each House of Congress to settle* reconcile or thresh out differences or disagreements on an" provision of the bill. 6. 2he conferees are not limited to reconciling the differences in the bill but ma" introduce new provisions germane to the sub$ect matter or ma" report out an entirel" new bill on the sub$ect. :. 2he Conference Committee prepares a report to be signed b" all the conferees and the Chairman. @. 2he Conference Committee Report is submitted for considerationMapproval of both Houses. No amendment is allowed. 2RAN&MI22A% .' 2H5 ?I%% 2. 2H5 -R5&I15N2 Copies of the bill* signed b" the &enate -resident and the &pea)er of the House of Representatives and certified b" both the &ecretar" of the &enate and the &ecretar" /eneral of the House* are transmitted to the -resident. -R5&I15N2IA% AC2I.N .N 2H5 ?I%% <. If the bill is approved the -resident* the same is assigned an RA number and transmitted to the House where it originated. 6. If the bill is vetoed* the same* together with a message citing the reason for the veto* is transmitted to the House where the bill originated. AC2I.N .N A--R.J51 ?I%% 2he bill is reproduced and copies are sent to the .fficial /aBette .ffice for publication and distribution to the implementing agencies. It is then included in the annual compilation of Acts and Resolutions. AC2I.N .N J52.51 ?I%% 2he message is included in the .rder of ?usiness. If the Congress decides to override the veto* the House and the &enate shall proceed separatel" to reconsider the bill or the vetoed items of the bill. If the bill or its vetoed items is passed b" a vote of two(thirds of the Members of each House* such bill or items shall become a law. Note> A $oint resolution having the force and effect of a law goes through the same process. Appropriations and revenue bills &ame as procedure for the enactment of ordinar" bills .nl" difference is that the" can onl" originate from the %ower House but the &enate ma" proposeM concur with the amendments %imitations of passage (as per Constitution) Art 9 &ec. 67 (6) o congress ma" not increase the appropriation recommended b" the -resident III o particular appropriation limited o procedure for Congress is the same to all other departmentM agencies (procedure for approving appropriations ) o special appropriations national treasurerM revenue proposal o no transfer of appropriations ,,, authorit" to augment o discretionar" funds for public purposes o general appropriations bills when re(enacted o -resident m" veto an" particular itemMs in an appropriation revenue* or tariff bill. Authentication of bills ?efore passed to the -resident Indispensable ?" signing of &pea)er and &enate -resident> Attestation 3nimpeachabilit" of legislative $ournals Fournal of proceedings Conclusive with respect to other matters that are re+uired b" the Constitution 1isputable with respect to all other matters ?" reason of public polic"* authenticit" of laws should rest upon public memorials of the most permanent character &hould be public Matters Re+uired to be 5ntered in the Fournal 2he Constitution re+uires that the following matters be contained in the $ournal> (a) 2he "eas and na"s on third and final reading of a bill WArt. JI* &ec. 69(6)X! (b) Jeto message of the -resident (i.e.* his ob$ection to a bill when he vetoes it) WArt. JI* &ec. 67(<)X! (c) 2he "eas and na"s on the repassing of a bill vetoed b" the -resident (Art. JI* &ec. 67(<)X! (d) 2he "eas and na"s on an" +uestion at the re+uest of <M; of the members present WArt. JI* &ec. <9(@)X

In addition* the $ournal contains the summar" of the proceedings. CIR v CTA 181 SCRA 349 DOCTRINE: An DitemE that the -resident can veto in a revenue bill shall mean the sub$ect of a particular )ind of ta, and ta, rate. FACTS: proprietors of restaurants* refreshment parlors* bars and other eating places which are maintained within the premises or compound of a Manila /olf L Countr" Club* Inc.* a non(stoc) corporation who hotel* motel or resthouses. maintains a golf course and operates a clubhouse with a lounge* bar L dining room e,clusivel" for its members L guests claims DECISION: that the" should have been e,empt from pa"ment of privilege 2he presidential veto referred merel" to the inclusion of hotels* ta,es were it not for the last paragraph of &ection <C<(A of RA No. 9<<8* otherwise )nown as K.mnibus 2a, %awK. motels* and rest houses in the 68A catererVs ta, brac)et but not to the whole section. It was then agreed b" the &C with then ?" virtue of RA No. 9<<8* the CIR assessed the Manila /olf and &olicitor /eneral 5stelito MendoBa and his associates that Countr" Club fi,ed ta,es as operators of golf lin)s and inclusion of hotels* motels* and rest houses in the 68A catererVs restaurant* and also percentage ta, (catererVs ta,) for its sale of ta, brac)et are KitemsK in themselves within the meaning of &ec. foods and fermented li+uorsMwines for the period covering 68(:)* Article JI of the <C:; Constitution. &eptember <C9C to 1ecember <C78 in the amount of -:6*;8@.C9 2he -etition is granted. &ec. <C<(A of RA 9<<8 is valid and in which the club protested claiming the assessment to be without basis because &ection @6 was vetoed b" then -resident enforceable* hence the Manila /olf and Countr" Club* Inc is Marcos. liable for the amount assessed against it. CIR denied the protestation of the club* who maintain that DItemE cannot refer to an entire section* as it would create absurd &ection @6 was not entirel" vetoed but merel" the words Khotel* situations where the -resident either approves an entire section motels* resthousesK on the ground that it might restrain the that includes a provision he or she finds unacceptable* or vetoing development of hotels which is essential to the tourism industr". an entire section at the e,pense of foregoing the collection of ISSUE: that )ind of ta, altogether. 5ven if -res. Marcos# veto had 4hether or not the presidential veto referred to the entire section or referred to an entire section* it would then be an ineffectual veto* merel" to the imposition of 68A ta, on gross receipt of operators or ma)ing the entire &ec. <C<(A in full force and effect. TOLENTINO v SEC3 OF FINANCE 431 SCRA 630 DOCTRINE: All appropriation* revenue or tariff bills* bills authoriBing increase of the public debt* bills of local application* and private bills shall originate e,clusivel" in the House of Representatives* but the &enate ma" +( + #$ or ! n!.( with amendments. It is not the law but the revenue bill which is re+uired to e,clusivel" originate from the H.R. -residential certification of a billYs necessit" dispenses the re+uirement of the billYs printing and distribution and separate da"s for readings. It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirel" new provision. F"!'#: constitutionalit" of RA 77<9 were underta)en. Z .n various dates between Ful" 66* <CC6* and August :<* <CC:* I##.$#: 4hether or not... several House ?ills* a &enate Resolution* and a &enate ?ill were <) RA 77<9 violates &ection 6@* Article JI* of the <C=7 Constitution (i.e. introduced* see)ing to amend certain provisions of the National bills of revenue shall originate e,clusivel" from the H.R.) Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) relative to the Jalue(Added 2a, (JA2.) 6) RA 77<9 violates &ec. 69(6)* Art. JI* of the Constitution (i.e. Dno bill Among these bills was House ?ill Number <<<C7 (in substitution of shall be passed unless it has passed three readings on separate da"s* H?s 6;:* 77<* 6@;8* 78::* =8=9* C8:8* C6<8* C6C7* <88<6* and and printed copies , , , have been distributed , , , e,cept when the <8<88). -resident certifies to the necessit" , , , WandX WuXpon the last reading of Z H? <<<C7 was approved on its second (November <<* <CC:) and a bill no amendment thereto shall be allowed.E) third (Nov. <7* <CC:) readings* and was transmitted to the &enate :) 2he ?CC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac) (Nov. <=* <CC:.) of or e,cess of $urisdiction when it DreconciledE &? <9:8 and H? <<<C7 Z 'ebruar" 7* <CC@> 2he &enate Committee on 4a"s and means @) RA 77<9 violates &ec. 69(<)* Art. JI* of the Constitution (D5ver" bill reported that it recommended for approval &enate ?ill Number <9:8 in passed b" Congress shall embrace onl" one sub$ect , , , e,pressed substitution of &? <<6C* ta)ing into consideration -&R 7:@ and H? in the title thereof.E) <<<C7. ;) RA 77<9 violates &ec. <* Art. III (?ill of Rights)* of the Constitution Z March 66* <CC@> -resident 'idel J. Ramos certified &? <9:8 for (due process and e+ual protection) immediate enactment Dto meet a public emergenc".E 9) RA 77<9 violates &ec. @* Art. III* of the Constitution (freedom of Z March 6@ <CC@> &? <9:8 was approved b" the &enate on its 6nd and speech) :rd readings* and transmitted to the House of Representatives (H.R) 7) RA 77<9 violates &ec. ;* Art. III* of the Constitution (free e,ercise of along with the re+uest for a conference regarding the disagreeing religion) provisions of &? <9:8 and H? <<<C7. =) RA 77<9 violates &ec. <8* Art. III* of the Constitution (non( Z .n April <:* <C* 68* 6<* and 6; <CC@* the ?icameral Conference impairment of the obligation of contracts) Committee (?CC) conducted various meetings to reconcile the C) RA 77<9 violates &ec. 6=(<)* Art. JI* of the Constitution (uniform proposals on the JA2. and e+uitable ta,ation) Z 2he H.R (April 67* <CC@) and &enate (Ma" 6* <CC@) agreed on the <8) RA 77<9 violates &ec. 6=(:)* Art. JI* of the Constitution (e,emption Conference Committee Report* and the -resident signed Republic Act from ta,ation of religions) Number 77<9 (2he 5,panded JA2 %aw) on Ma" ;* <CC@. &aid RA was published in 6 newspapers of general circulation on Ma" <6* <CC@ and D$!,#, n: %.&2 petitions 1I&MI&&51 became effective on Ma" 6=* <CC@. Ratio 1ecidendi> Z Jarious suits for certiorari and prohibition challenging the

<)

6)

1oes RA 77<9 violate &ec. 6@* Art. JI* of the <C=7 Constitution (i.e. bills of revenue shall originate e,clusivel" from the H.RQ) A) -etitioners> Ges. 1) It is the result of the consolidation of two distinct bills H? <<<C7 and &? <9:8. 2he Constitution +ualifies the verb Dshall originateE with the word De,clusivel"*E and the phrase Das on other billsE found in the American 'ederal Constitution is omitted. 2) 2he Constitution limits the &enate#s power to produce revenue bills compensates for its power to ratif" treaties. 3) &? <9:8 was passed not in substitution of H? <<<C7 but of another &? (<<6C)* the &enate merel" too) said H? into consideration in enacting said &?. B) &upreme Court> No. 1) It is not the law but the revenue bill which is re+uired to e,clusivel" originate from the H.R. A bill originating from it ma" undergo e,tensive changes in the &enate that it might be entirel" rewritten. 2) 2he powers being compared are different. %egislative power is vested in the Congress* comprised of the &enate and the H.R. 3) 2he result would be two bills on the same sub$ect. a) 2he Constitution simpl" means that the initiative for filing such a bill must come from the H.R as the" can be e,pected to be more sensitive of local needs. 1oes RA 77<9 violate &ec. 69(6)* Art. JI* of the Constitution (i.e. Dno bill shall be passed unless it has passed three readings on separate da"s* and printed copies , , , have been distributed , , , e,cept when the -resident certifies to the necessit" , , , WandX WuXpon the last reading of a bill no amendment thereto shall be allowedQE) A) -etitioners> Ges. 1) -residential certification of a bill#s necessit" onl" dispenses the re+uirement of the bill#s printing and distribution* 2) Certification was invalid because there was no emergenc". 3) 2he -resident certified &? <9:8 and not H? <<<C7. B) &C> No. 1) D3nlessE clause must be read in relation to the De,cept clause. Construing one Dre+uirementE and alienating the other would negate the premise of the De,ceptE clause* which is the need to secure the immediate enactment of a certified(urgent bill. 2) No member of the &enate saw fit to controvert the realit" of the factual basis of the certification.

:)

@)

3) 2he &enate was considering &? <9:8* not H? <<<C7. 2he -resident certified H? C6<8 which was also pending in the H.R an"wa". 1id the ?CC commit a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac) of or e,cess of $urisdiction when it DreconciledE &? <9:8 and H? <<<C7Q A) -etitioners> Ges. 1) ?CC included provisions found in neither H? nor &?* surreptitiousl" inserting them. 2) 2he ?CC* especiall" during the last two da"s of its session* met behind closed doors. 3) 3nder the rules of the &enate and the H.R* a conference committee can onl" act on differing provisions of &?s and H?s. B) &C> No. 1) It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirel" new provision. a) Phil" Judges 2ssociation !" Prado (<CC:) b) According to Heefe and .gul* the American s"stem permits conference committee members to draft essentiall" a new bill. c) If the committee can propose one or two amended provisions* then it can propose several. d) 2he report was not final but needed the approval of both houses. 2) .ften* the onl" wa" to reach an agreement on conflicting provisions is to meet behind closed doors with onl" the conferees present. 3) -arliamentar" rules are merel" procedural and the courts have no $urisdiction over them. 2he courts are concerned with the procedural re+uirements of the Constitution. &C> 4hatever doubts as to the formal validit" of RA 77<9 must be resolved in its favor. It is an enrolled bill. 2his rule is not absolute* as seen in 2storga !" illegas (<C7@). 1isregarding the enrolled status of the bill disrespects the other two departments of government. RA 77<9 violates &ec. 69(<)* Art. JI* of the Constitution (D5ver" bill passed b" Congress shall embrace onl" one sub$ect , , , e,pressed in the title thereof.E) A) -etitioner -hilippine Airlines* Inc. (-A%)> Ges. Neither H? <<<C7 nor &? <9:8 provided for the removal of -A%#s e,emption (granted through -residential 1eclaration Number <;C8) from pa"ing JA2. &aid removal was onl" done in the ?CC bill. B) &C> No. 1) 2he title states the purpose of the statute* and one wa" of achieving the

;)

9)

statute#s ob$ectives is to withdraw some e,emptions granted before. 2) -urpose of Congress embracing onl" one sub$ect to be e,pressed in the title is to prevent surprise upon members of the Congress and to inform the people of the pending legislation. 3) &ec. 6@ of -1 <;C8 provides that the franchise ma" be amended through special law. 1oes RA 77<9 violate &ec. <* Art. III (?ill of Rights)* of the Constitution (due process and e+ual protectionQ) &C> No. 2here is a hierarch" of values within the due process clause. 2he lac) of threat of immediate harm ma)es the need for $udicial intervention less evident* rendering an" discussion on the merits of the law academic. 1oes RA 77<9 violate &ec. @* Art. III* of the Constitution (freedom of speechQ) A) -etitioner -hilippine -ress Institute (--I)> Ges. 1) --I> It has withdrawn the e,emption previousl" granted to the press under &ec. <8: of the NIRC. 2) --I> 5ven though the e,emption was subse+uentl" restored b" administrative regulation with respect to the circulation income* --I claims the e,emption ma" be removed b" mere revocation of the &ecretar" of 'inance. 3) 2merican Bible #ociety !" City of 3anila (<C;7)* also cited b" -?&> license fee on those engaged in the business of general merchandise cannot appl" to appellant#s sale of bibles and religious literature. B) -etitioner -hilippine ?ible &ociet" (-?&)> Ges. &ec. of 'in.#s power to grant e,emptions is +uestionable 1) -ower to grant ta, e,emption is vested in Congress and re+uires ma$orit" vote to do so. 2) &ec.#s dut" is to e,ecute the law. C) &C> No. 1) v. --I> -ublishers of newspapers have no immunit" from the application of general laws. 2he" cannot invade rights and liberties of others* must answer for libel* ma" be punished for contempt* and must pa" e+uitable and nondiscriminator" ta,es. 2) v. --I> 5,emptions are merel" being removed. 3) v. --I> Cases cited b" the --I show overt discrimination of the press. RA 77<9 applies to a wide range of goods and services. 4) v. --I and -?I> In this case* the fee is not imposed for the e,ercise of a privilege but onl" for defra"ing part of the cost of registration. It is an administrative fee.

7)

1oes RA 77<9 violate &ec. ;* Art. III* of the Constitution (free e,ercise of religionQ)> (subsumed b" Issue T9.) =) 1oes RA 77<9 violate &ec. <8* Art. III* of the Constitution (non(impairment of the obligation of contractsQ) A) -etitioner Chamber of Real 5state and ?uilders Association (CR5?A)> Ges. Imposition of the JA2 on the sales and leases of real estate affects contracts entered into prior to the effectivit" of the law. B) &C> No. -arties cannot restrain the ta,ing power of the state. -rotecting contracts against impairment presupposes the maintenance of a government which retains ade+uate authorit" to secure the peace and good order of societ". C) 1oes RA 77<9 violate &ec. 6=(<)* Art. JI* of the Constitution (uniform and e+uitable ta,ationQ)> A) -etitioners> Ges. It is regressive. 1) 2ait> DJA2 pa"ment b" low(income households will be a higher proportion of their income than pa"ments b" higher(income households.E 2) As a result of the <8A JA2* ta, on consumption goods of those who are in the higher(income brac)et* which were ta,ed at a rate higher than <8A* has been reduced* while basic commodities which used to be ta,ed from : to ;A are now ta,ed at a higher rate. 3) -etitioner Cooperative 3nion of the -hilippines (C3-)> -oor and middle( income group will be hit harder than the rich. B) Respondents> No. 1) It distributes the ta, burden to as man" goods and services as possible* particularl" to those which are within the reach of higher(income groups. 2) 2he law e,empts basic goods and services. 3) /oods and properties sub$ect to the JA2 such as real properties* industrialMcommercialMscientific e+uipment* hotels* restaurants* tourist buses* etc.* are usedMconsumed primaril" b" higher( income groups. 4) %ac) of empirical data* especiall" b" CR5?A and --I ma)es discussion on the JA2#s progressivit" academic. <8) 1oes RA 77<9 violate &ec. 6=(:)* Art. JI* of the Constitution (e,emption from ta,ation of religionsQ)> (subsumed b" Issue T9.) 1issent Regalado* J.> <) How it was legislated into its present statutor" e,istence is not in serious dispute. 6) 2he -resident#s certification of &? <9:8 was invalid as it was a ta, bill* ergo* it not validl" originate from the &enate. :) &? <9:8 was approved Din substitution of &? <<6C*E while merel" Dta)ing into consideration -&R 7:@ and H? <<<C7.E

&? <9:8 was never filed in substitution of either -&R 7:@ or H? <<<C7. A) &olicitor /eneral#s (.&/) invocation of $lint !" #tone &racy Co" (<C<<) that Dthe power to concur in or propose amendments includes an amendment b" substitutionE is untenable. &aid case had an amendment of onl" one item in the statute. 2he .&/ repeatedl" cited 'lint without $ustif"ing it despite the obvious difference in circumstance. B) Amendment b" substitution when approved ta)es the place of the principal bill* which is supplanted and goes out of actualit"* according to a publication authoriBed b" the &enate and +uoted b" the .&/. C) 2o consolidate two bills is to unite them into one. In this case* this assumes that H? <<<C7 never became legall" ine,istent* however* the .&/#s theor" of amendment b" substitution eliminates the legal e,istence of H? <<<C7. D) &? <9:8#s legislative $ourne" is wrought with defects> it was a ta, bill that originated from the &enate. Its certification caused its consideration b" the ?CC. E) Respondents# dependence on Phil" Judges 2ssoc" is the same as their reliance on $lint. ?oth cases deal with the amendment of onl" one legislative item. 'ollowing such precedents would amount to blind adherence. F) 2he enrolled bill doctrine is no longer seen as absolute. In the 3nited &tates* cases such as 4(ynn !" 5ardee and D 6 7 2uto #upply, et al" !" Department of 8e!enue, et al" show the moving awa" from absolute obedience to the enrolled(bill doctrine. 1avide* FR.* J.> <) RA 77<9 is a revenue measure* as such* it must originate e,clusivel" in the H.R. A) -etitioner 2olentino correctl" asserts that on the face of the enrolled cop" of RA 77<9* it is a DConsolidation of H? <<<C7 and &? <9:8.E It is an illicit marriage of a bill that originated from the H.R and a bill that originated from the &enate. B) .nl" bill that could serve as a valid basis for RA 77<9 is H? <<<C7* which is the substitute bill recommended b" the House Committee on 4a"s and Means in substitution of the other H?s. It is interesting to note that H? <<<C7 was not certified* unli)e H? C6<8* which it substituted. After it passed the first reading in the &enate* their Committee on 4a"s and Means did not deliberate on it. &aid committee onl" acted on &? <<6C* which in turn prepared and proposed &? <9:8. It was &? <9:8 which was proposed and submitted for approval* in substitution of &? <<6C* not H? <<<C7. C) .&/#s citation of $lint is erroneous* as the statement that substitution can be supported as an amendment was merel" the summar" of the arguments of counsel on one of the companion cases.

6)

:)

@)

;)

D) Citing flint is not tenable as it onl" dealt with one amendment. E) I disagree with the view of the ma$orit" that the Constitution does not prohibit the filing in the &enate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House so long as action b" the &enate as a bod" is withheld pending receipt of the House bill. &? <<6C was filed on March <* <CC:* while H? <<<C7 was approved after its third reading on November <7* <CC:. F) &? <<6C is a revenue measure* which cannot even be validl" introducedMinitiated in the &enate* nor can it be substituted. RA 77<9 did not pass the re+uirement of being approved on its second and third readings which are to be on different da"s. A) 2he certification is void ab initio because it addressed to the &enate a bill which is prohibited from originating from it. B) Re+uesting a bicameral conference to reconcile H? <<<C7 and &? <9:8 is erroneous as H? <<<C7 was not submitted for or acted on its second and third readings in the &enate* and &? <9:8 was not sent to the H.R for its concurrence. ?oth chambers# actions amounted to a grave abuse of discretion b" re+uesting for a ?CC. A) As &? <9:8 was not a substitute bill for H? <<<C7 but for &? <96C* it had to be transmitted to the H.R to undergo three readings. B) H? <<<C7 was never acted upon b" the &enate on its second and third readings. 2he ?CC itself acted with a grave abuse of discretion. A) It assumed &? <9:8 could validl" originate in the &enate. B) It assumed &? <9:8 and H? <<<C7 had properl" passed both chambers. C) 5ven though Representative Favier wanted &? <9:8 to be the frame of reference* said bill was never transmitted to the H.R for its concurrence. 2he approval of the proposed bill b" both chambers did not cure its infirmities. A) 1octrine of ratification ma" cure minor procedural flaws but not in violation of the Constitution. 1) Neither &? (<96C and <9:8) could originate from the &enate as the" are ta, measures* nor were the" submitted to the H.R for its concurrence. 2) H? <<<C7 was not passed b" the &enate on its second and third readings. 3) Invo)ing the enrolled(bill doctrine is misplaced. a) Its origins render it void ab initio> the certification itself stated RA 77<9 was a consolidation of H? <<<C7 and &? <9:8. It did not originate e,clusivel" from the H.R.

b)

c)

2he enrolled(bill doctrine is of American origin* and is no longer absolute as the Court#s e,panded $urisdiction includes determining whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac) or e,cess of $urisdiction b" an" branch or instrumentalit" of the government. 5ven in the 3&* the enrolled(bill doctrine is under fire.

Romero* J.> <) ?" defining both DoriginateE and De,clusivel"*E and $u,taposing these with the legislative histor" of RA 77<9* it is without doubt that RA 77<9* indisputabl" a revenue measure* originated in the H.R in the form of H? 6;:* the first 5,panded JA2 bill. 6) 4hether or not the bills originated e,clusivel" in the H.R is a different matter. 2here were other amendator" bills to the JA2 that did not originate solel" in the H.R* such as -&R 7:@ and &? <<6C. :) &? <9:8#s failure to go through the motions in the H.R is fatal. 2he Constitution provides for a Congress with two chambers. @) 5ven though RA 77<9 is an enrolled bill* the changes introduced to it b" the ?CC are substantial. 2he ?CC e,ceeded its power and authorit". 5ven the approval of the ?CC#s output does not cure RA 77<9 as it is void ab initio. 2he enrolled(bill doctrine onl" applies to +uestions of procedural enactment of non(substantial alterations. ?ellosillo* J.> 2he Constitution clearl" mandates that bills of this t"pe e,clusivel" emanate from the H.R. 2here is no getting around it. Referring to American authorities is erroneous as the 3& Constitution differs on the matter. 1) $lint has no importance to this case as the bill in it originated from the %ower House* not from the &enate* and the amendment contested merel" covered a single provision. 2) Amendment b" substitution is onl" valid in the 3&.

-uno* J.> 2he ?CC added new provisions. 2he respondents $ustif" this incident thusl"> A) Respondents> ?CC has an e, post veto power (veto after approval of the bill b" both Houses.) 1) 2he respondents cite no constitutional provision* law* not even rules or regulations. 2) 2he rules of both Houses themselves do now support such a theor". 3) 2he Constitution onl" provides for a Congress with two chambers* not three. /iving ?CCs veto power in effect creates another chamber* even though the" do not represent the people. B) ?ill prepared b" ?CC was approved an"wa". 1) 2his ma" appl" to provisions which actuall" reconcile conflicts between H? <<<C7 and &? <9:8. 2) 2his does not appl" to additions and deletions entirel" new and not made to reconcile inconsistencies between the aforementioned bills. C) It was practice in the past Congresses for conference committees to insert new provisions in bills. 1) Customs and usages* according to Mason* are merel" subordinate to higher sources of rules such as the Constitution. D) 2he enrolled(bill doctrine precludes in+uir" as to the regularit" of the proceedings leading up to the enactment of RA 77<9. 1) ?eginning from the <C@8s* American courts have veered awa" from the rigidit" and unrealism of the enrolled( bill doctrine. 2) American courts have diverged as to the application of such a doctrine. 3) 3abanag !" Lope9 ito (<C@7)> 2he &C chose to follow &ec. :<: of the old Code of Civil -rocedure* which has long been repealed b" the Rules of Court. 2he $urisprudence and authorities it relies on* particularl" American ones* are under severe criticism.

ARROYO v DE @ENECIA 477 SCRA 468 DOCTRINE: Court ma" not in+uire into allegations of non(compliance of Congress with its internal rules if there is no showing that a constitutional re+uirement was violated. F"!'#: announced that he will +uestion the presence of a +uorum which he (2he petitioners assail the validit" of RA =6@8 which imposes Dsin never did. ta,esE on the manufacture and sale beer and cigarettes. (After that* Rep. Albano moved to approve the committee report. 2he (&aid law originated in the House of Representatives as H. No. 7<C=. Chairman as)ed for ob$ections but Rep. Arro"o did not hear it at first. (2he bicameral conference committee submitted its report to the 4hen the Chairman declared the committee report approved* Rep. House of Representatives (H.R) regarding H. No. 7<C= on November Arro"o simultaneousl" raised his ob$ection. 6<* <CC9. 1uring the sponsorship speech of Rep. Favier* Rep. Fo)er (2hen Rep. Albano moved to ad$ourn until @>88 ne,t 4ednesda". 2he Arro"o moved to ad$ourn for lac) of +uorum. Chairman approved the motion. (After a roll call* the Chair* 1eput" &pea)er 1aBa* declared the (2he bill was signed b" the &pea)er of H.R* the &enate -resident and presence of a +uorum the respective secretar" of each House on the same da". It was (Rep. Arro"o registered to interpellate. 1uring his interpellation* he signed b" the -resident on November 6<* <CC9.

(-etitioners claim that there were @ versions of the transcript of Rep. Arro"o#s interpellation but to e,pedite the resolution of the petition* the" concede to the correctness of the transcript relied upon b" the respondents. (-etitioners claim that RA =6@8 is void because it was enacted in violation of Art. JI* <9(:) of the Constitution which grants Congress the power to determine the rules of its proceedings. According to them* House rules were violated when the Chairman refused to recogniBe Rep. Arro"o when he raised his ob$ection to the adoption of the committee report. 2he" also alleged that the session was hastil" ad$ourned to prevent Rep. Arro"o from +uestioning the +uorum and as) for reconsideration. (Respondents argue that b" virtue of separation of powers* the &upreme Court must not interfere with the internal rules of Congress. ISSUE: 4.N RA =6@8 4A& JA%I1%G 5NAC251 Ges. 2he Congress did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its enactment. <. 2he Rules allegedl" violated were mere internal rules of H.R instead of constitutional re+uirements. -etitioners do not claim that there was no +uorum. 2he" onl" claim that the" were prevented from +uestioning it. Cases here and abroad show that the Court ma" not in+uire into allegations of non(compliance of Congress with its internal rules if there is no showing that a constitutional re+uirement was violated. 6. 2he e,panded $udicial power under &ec. <* Art. JIII of the Constitution did not completel" do awa" with the political +uestion doctrine. 2his case involves political +uestions. :. 2here was no showing that the passage of the law was railroaded. (2he &upreme Court accepted the e,planation that Rep. Arro"o and the Chairman were tal)ing simultaneousl" that is wh" the Chairman failed to recogniBe Rep. Arro"o. (2he" also noted the comment of the &olicitor /eneral that the manner of approval of said committee report was the same as the manner of approval of committee reports of other famous bills such as the one 5. 5vidence of due enactment

which eventuall" the %ocal /overnment Code. (2he Constitution also does not re+uired that "eas and na"s of members be ta)en ever" time the House has to vote. @. 3nder the enrolled bill doctrine* the signing of H. No. 7<C= b" the &pea)er of H.R and &enate -resident and the certification of the respective secretaries of each House was conclusive of its due enactment. (2he due enactment of RA =6@8 was also confirmed b" the $ournal of the House of Representatives. H$&*: -etition dismissed. S$+"("'$ O+,n, n: 8omero, J: Clarified that his opinion in 2olentino v. &ec. of 'inance cannot be applied to the present case because there is no breach of Constitutional provisions. .nl" internal rules are involved. In 2olentino* there was a violation of Constituional provision against amendments introduced upon the last reading of a bill. Puno, J> Concurring and dissenting opinion (Concur in the result but> a) 1id not agree that the issue was non($usticiable. He based his opinion on 3& decisions where the &upreme Court imposed its authorit" over the Congress for alleged violation of rules of procedures of the legislators. In the -hilippine setting* the Court has more reason to re$ect the political +uestion doctrine because of the e,panded $udicial power granted b" &ec. <* Art. JIII of the Constitution. b) He also ob$ected to the reliance on the enrolled bill doctrine because> <) It is appropriate onl" in 5ngland where it originated* and where there is no written Constitution and the legislative is supreme. 6) Man" courts in the 3& also have bro)en awa" with the rigidit" of the enrolled bill doctrine in light of contemporar" developments in lawma)ing. :) 3ncritical reliance to the enrolled bill doctrine is inconsistent with our Constitution and laws.

<. 5nrolled ?ill 2heor" 5nrolled bill ?ills passed b" congress authenticated b" the &pea)er and the &enate -resident and approved b" the -resident Importing absolute verit" and is binding on the courts o It carries on its face a solemn assurance that it was passed b" the assembl" b" the legislative and e,ecutive departments. Courts cannot go behind the enrolled act to discover what reall" happened o If onl" for respect to the legislative and e,ecutive departments 2hus* if there has been an" mista)e in the printing of the bill before it was certified b" the officer of the assembl" and approved b" the Chief 5,ecutive* the remed" is b" amendment b" enacting a curative legislation not b" $udicial decree. 5nrolled bill and legislative $ournals ( Conclusive upon the courts If there is discrepanc" between enrolled bill and $ournal* enrolled bill prevails. 4ithdrawal of authentication* effect of &pea)er and &enate -resident ma" withdraw if there is discrepanc" between the te,t of the bill as deliberated and the enrolled bill. 5ffect> o Nullifies the bill as enrolled o %osses absolute verit" o Courts ma" consult $ournals MA?ANAG v LOPEG @ITO 78 PHIL 1 DOCTRINE: 5nrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts. FACTS: -etitioners include : senators and = representatives. 2he three senators were suspended b" senate due to election irregularities. 2he = representatives were not allowed to ta)e their seat in the lower House e,cept in the election of the House &pea)er. 2he" argued that some senators and House Reps were not considered in determining the re+uired [ vote (of each house) in order to pass the

Resolution (proposing amendments to the Constitution) which has been considered as an enrolled bill b" then. At the same time* the votes were alread" entered into the Fournals of the respective House. As a result* the Resolution was passed but it could have been otherwise were the" allowed to vote. If these members of Congress had been counted* the affirmative votes in favor of the proposed amendment would have been short of the necessar" three(fourths vote in either branch of Congress. -etitioners filed or the prohibition of the furtherance of the said resolution amending the constitution. Respondents argued that the &C cannot ta)e cogniBance of the case because the Court is bound b" the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill or resolution. ISSUE> 4hether or not the Court can ta)e cogniBance of the issue at bar. 4hether or not the said resolution was dul" enacted b" Congress. HELD: As far as loo)ing into the Fournals is concerned* even if both the $ournals from each House and an authenticated cop" of the Act had been presented* the disposal of the issue b" the Court on the basis of the $ournals does not impl" re$ection of the enrollment theor"* for* as alread" stated* the due enactment of a law ma" be proved in either of the two wa"s specified in section :<: of Act No. <C8 as amended. 2he &C found in the $ournals no signs of irregularit" in the passage of the law and did not bother itself with considering the effects of an authenticated cop" if one had been introduced. It did not do what the opponents of the rule of conclusiveness advocate* namel"* loo) into the $ournals behind the enrolled cop" in order to determine the correctness of the latter* and rule such cop" out if the

two* the $ournals and the cop"* be found in conflict with each other. No discrepanc" appears to have been noted between the two documents and the court did not sa" or so much as give to understand that if discrepanc" e,isted it would give greater weight to the $ournals* disregarding the e,plicit provision that dul" certified copies Dshall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.E PP5nrolled ?ill that which has been dul" introduced* finall" passed b" both houses* signed b" the proper officers of each* approved b" the president and filed b" the secretar" of state. &ection :<: of the old Code of Civil -rocedure (Act <C8)* as amended b" Act No. 66<8* provides> D.fficial documents ma" be proved as follows> . . . (6) the proceedings of the -hilippine Commission* or of an" legislatives bod" that ma" be provided for in the -hilippine Islands* or of Congress* b" the $ournals of those bodies or of either house thereof* or b" published statutes or resolutions* or b" copies certified b" the cler) of secretar"* or printed b" their order! -rovided* 2hat in the case of Acts of the -hilippine Commission or the -hilippine %egislature* when there is an e,istence of a cop" signed b" the presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies* it shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.E 2he &C is bound b" the contents of a dul" authenticated resolution (enrolled bill) b" the legislature. In case of conflict* the contents of an enrolled bill shall prevail over those of the $ournals.

CASCO PHIL3 CHEMICAL CO3 v GIMENEG 7 SCRA 347 DOCTRINE: 3pon mista)e in printing* curative statute b" amendment of Congress is needed not $udicial declaration* F"!'#: imposed upon urea formaldeh"de <. RA 698C D'oreign 5,change Margin 'ee %awE -etitioner> Durea formaldeh"deE should be construed as urea AN1 ( issued b" Central ?an) of the -hilippines (?&-) formaldeh"de ( Circular No. C; \ fi,es uniform margin fee of 6;A on foreign Court> urea formaldeh"de is a finished product which is patentl" e,change (fore,) transactions distinct from urea and formaldeh"de which are separate articles and ( to supplement* memorandum was passed establish some are raw materials (source> National Institute of &cience and e,emptions 2echnolog") 6. Casco -hilippine Chemical Co. Inc. (Casco) (6). -etitioner> ?ill approved in congress uses the con$unction AN1 ( engaged in the manufacture of s"nthetic resin glues* used in between terms and urea and formaldeh"de* as such it is the intention bonding lumber and veneer b" pl"wood and hardwood producers of congress to e,empt urea and formaldeh"de separatel" ( brought fore, for importation of urea and formaldeh"de (main raw /round> individual statements made on the floor of the &enate materials) Court> individual statements do not necessaril" reflect the view of the ( paid margin fee twice (-hp::*79;.@6 and -hp9*:@;.76) for two &enate much less indicate intent separate transactions (:). 5nrolled bill which uses urea formaldeh"de instead of urea AN1 :. Casco sought refund of the sums paid for margin fee formaldeh"de is conclusive ( /round> separate importation of urea and formaldeh"de is e,empt ( this has been passed b" Congress and approved b" the -resident from margin fee after all @. Auditor of ?&- refused ( if there has been an" mista)e in printing before it was certified b" ( /round> e,emption granted b" ?&- Monetar" ?oard for separate Congress and approved b" 5,ecutive* remed" should be amendment importations of urea and formaldeh"de not in accord with provision of or curative legislation and not $udicial decree since this would violate &ec. 6* -ar. IJIII of RA 698C separation of powers ;. Auditor /eneral affirmed upon appeal Ruling> 1ecision b" Auditor /eneral affirmed 9. Hence* this petition for review Notes> Rule on 5$usdem /eneries (of the same )inds* class* or natureK) I##.$: ( 4hen a list of two or more specific descriptors is followed b" more 4.N DureaE and Dformaldeh"deE are e,empt b" law from pa"ment of general descriptors* the otherwise wide meaning of the general margin fee. descriptors must be restricted to the same class* if an"* of the specific words that precede them. H$&*: N.. ( rule applies onl" where there is uncertaint" ( not controlling when purpose and intent would be hindered and R"', > defeated (<). &ec. 6* -ar. IJIII* RA 698C \ margin established shall not be

MORALES v SU?IDO 46 SCRA 110 DOCTRINE: In cases not e,pressl" re+uired to be entered on the $ournal* the 5nrolled ?ill 2heor" prevails in the event of an" discrepanc". F"!'#: official acts of their respective departments. ( 2he House submitted H? 9C;< to the &enate. &en. Rodrigo made an (Marshall 'ield L Co. J Clar) the signing b" the &pea)er of the H.R amendment in the &ec. <8 of the H?. However* somewhere in the and b" the -resident of the &enate of an enrolled bill is an official legislative process the phrase Dwho has served the police department attestation b" the two houses that such bill is the one that has passed of a cit" orE was dropped and onl" the Rodrigo amendment was Congress. And when the bill thus attested is signed b" the -resident retained. -etitioner argues that the version approved b" the &enate and deposited in the archives* its authentication as a bill that has was the one containing those phrases and not the one that was passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. submitted as the 5nrolled ?ill that was signed b" the -resident and (3& v -ons rule does not appl" because this case does not involve a became the -olice Act of <C99. If the phrase were there the -etitioner discrepanc" between an enrolled bill and the $ournal. could be appointed as Chief of -olice. -etitioner also said that the (5nrolled ?ill 2heor" was now controlling and in force in the change was onl" made in the proofreading of the bill* made b" an -hilippines supported b" the unanimous decision in Casco -hilippine emplo"ee and not b" the Congress. Chemical Co. J /imeneB. (?ut court did not sa" that in all cases the Fournal 5ntr" Rule must I##.$: "ield to the 5nrolled ?ill 2heor". 2here are certain matters that the <. 4.N the court can loo) into the matter and discover what reall" Constitution re+uires to be entered on the $ournal of each house. 2o happened. what e,tent the validit" of a legislative act ma" be affected b" a failure to have such matters entered on the $ournal* is a +uestion the court did H$&*: not decide. ( 3nder the enrolled bill theor" the court cannot go behind the enrolled (R.&$: In cases not e,pressl" re+uired to be entered on the $ournal* Act to discover what reall" happened. 2he respect due to the other the 5nrolled ?ill 2heor" prevails in the event of an" discrepanc". branches of the /overnment demands that the court act upon the faith and credit of what the officers of the said branches attest to as the D$!,#, n> Motion for Reconsideration is denied. FARINAS v EHEC SEC GR NO3 147387 DOCTRINE: F"!'#: 2wo petitions were filed see)ing to declare as unconstitutional &ection <@ of Republic Act No. C889 which repealed S$!', n 67 / ?"'"# P"-)"n#" ?&03 881 8T%$ O-n,).# E&$!', n C *$9* which provides> D&ec. 97. Candidates holding elective office. (( An" elective official* whether national or local* running for an" office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacit"* e,cept for -resident and Jice(-resident* shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidac".E RA No. C889 is entitled DAn Act to 5nhance the Holding of 'ree* .rderl"* Honest* -eaceful and Credible 5lections through 'air 5lection -ractices.E 2he petitioners argue that> o (a) 2he bill violates of &ection 69 (I)* Article JI of the Constitution* re+uiring ever" law to have onl" one sub$ect* which should be e,pressed in its title therefore constituting a rider. o (b) 2he bill violates the e+ual protection clause of the Constitution because it left intact &ection 99 thereof* which imposes a similar limitation to appointive officials (#ec" ::" Candidates holding appointi!e office or positions" - 2ny person holding a public appointi!e office or position, including acti!e members of the 2rmed $orces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in go!ernment-o(ned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy"," o (c) 2he bill violates the due process clause of the constitution due to &ec. <9 of the law* which provides that Dthis Act shall ta)e effect upon its approvalE. 2he respondents argued that> o (a) the petitioners have not shown the" have legal standing to institute the present suit because the" have not shown that the" have suffered harm as a result of passage of RA No. C889. o (b) the bill was dul" enacted b" invo)ing the Denrolled billE doctrine with proof through the signatures of the &enate -resident* &pea)er of the House and respective &ecretaries of both houses of congress. o (c) &ec. 97 is not a proscribed rider nor does it violate &ection 69 (I) of Article JI of the Constitution because the title is so broad that it encompasses all the processes involved in an election e,ercise. o (d) 2he repeal of &ection 97 is deemed fit in order to remove the DunfairnessE of considering an elective official ipso facto (b" the fact itself) resigned from his elective office because all elective officials are now placed on e+ual footing as the" are allowed to finish their respective terms even if the" run for an" office. o (e) RA No. C889 does not violate the e+ual protection clause of the Constitution because a substantial distinction e,ists between these two sets of officials. I##.$#: 4hether or not &ection <@ of RA No. C889 is unconstitutional H$&*: No. &ection <@ of RA No. C889 is not unconstitutional because it does not transcend constitutional limitationM legislative power. &ection <@ of RA C889 is not a rider. 2he court is convinced that the title and the ob$ectives of RA C889 are comprehensive enough to include the repeal of &ec 97 of the .mnibus 5lection Code. According to &ec 69 (I)* D5ver" bill passed b" the Congress shall embrace onl" one sub$ect* which shall be e,pressed in the title thereof.E 2he court laid down the rule that titles of statues should not be so narrowl" construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislationR It is sufficient if the title be comprehensive enough reasonabl" pressing each and ever" end and means necessar" or convenient for the accomplishing of that ob$ect.E &ection <@ of RA C889 is not a violation of the e+ual protection clause of the constitution. 2he court e,plained the nature of the e+ual protection guarantee that it merel" re+uires that all persons

shall be treated ali)e* under li)e circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities forced. &ubstantial distinctions clearl" e,ist between elective officials and appointive officials. 2he 5nrolled ?ill 1octrine is applicable in the case. 2he necessar" signatures are conclusive of its due enactment.

2he 5ffective Clause is defective. In 2a]ada v. 2uvera* the court ruled> DR the clause Yunless it is otherwise provided# refers to the date of effectivit" and not to the re+uirement of publication itself* which cannot in an" event be omitted. 2his clause does not mean that the legislator ma" ma)e the law effective immediatel" upon approval* or on an" other date without its previous publication.E

A?AIADA GURO PARTY LIST v EHEC SEC J CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OF PUNO IN ARROYO AND HERE #-- #-P282&FACTS Republic Act No. C::7 was enacted for reasons of fi,ing budget* generation of revenue* inade+uac" in fiscal allocation for education* compensation for health wor)ers* and a wider range of coverage for full value(added ta, benefits. 2he petitioners* however* +uestioned* not onl" the wisdom of the law* but also the perceived flaws in its passage. RA C::7 is a consolidation of three legislative bills namel"* House ?ill Nos. :;;; and :78;* and &enate ?ill No. <C;8. ?ecause of its provisions being in conflict with each other* the &enate agreed to re+uest the House of Representatives for a committee conference* in which the Conference Committee on the 1isagreeing -rovisions of House ?ill recommended the approval of its report. In due to that* the &enate and the House of Representatives did. .n Ma" 6@* 688;* the -resident signed in to law the consolidated House and &enate versions as Republic Act C::7. ?efore its effectivit" on Ful" <* 688;* the Court issued a temporar" restraining order en$oining government from implementing the law* in response to a series of petitions for certiorari and prohibition* +uestioning the constitutionalit" of the said Republic Act. ISSUES <) Can amendment proposals to revenue bills originate from the &enate without violating &ection 6@* Art. JI of the ConstitutionQ 6) 1id the 5JA2 law violate the Kno(amendment ruleK under &ection 69(6)* Art. JI of the ConstitutionQ :) 4hat are the powers and e,tent of authorit" of the ?icameral Conference CommitteeQ @) 1id the 5JA2 law* RA C::7* violate the constitutional mandate on uniformit" of ta,ationQ ;) Is the 5JA2 law* RA C::7* regressiveQ HELD <) Ges. &ection 6@* Art. JI of the Constitution states* KAll appropriation* revenue or tariff bills* bills authoriBing increase of the public debt* bills of local application* and private bills* shall originate e,clusivel" in the House of Representatives* but the &enate ma" propose or concur with amendments.K 2hus* &ection 6@* Art. JI of the Constitution does not contain an" prohibition or limitation on the e,tent of the amendments that ma" be introduced b" the &enate to the House revenue bill. 6) No. 2he Kno(amendment ruleK refers onl" to the procedure to be 6. Fournal 5ntr" Rule ASTORGA v @ILLEGAS 16 SCRA 714 DOCTRINE: F"!'#: ( In March <C9@ H? C699 (An Act 1efining the -owers* Rights and 1uties of the Jice(Ma"or of Manila etc.) was filed in the House. It was passed in the House on third reading wMo amendments. 4hen referred to the &enate for approval* upon second reading* substantial amendments were introduced b" &en. 2olentino* and approved b" the &enate. 4hen sent bac) to the House b" the &ecretar" of the &enate* the &enate(approved amendments were not included* but onl" &en. Ro,asY minor amendment on succession which was made b" his committee. 2he House approved this version. Copies were printed and attested b" presiding officers including &enate -resident et al. 2he -resident also signed it in Fune* and the bill became RA @89;. 2he -resident and &enate -resident would later withdraw their signatures upon learning the circumstances. Jice(Ma"or filed a petition for followed b" each house of Congress with regard to bills initiated in each of the aforementioned respective houses* regarding its transmission to the other house for its concurrence or amendment. &ection 69(6)* Art. JI of the Constitution does not mean that the introduction b" the ?icameral Conference Committee of amendments and modifications to disagreeing provisions in bills is prohibited. :) 2he power of the ?icameral Conference Committee is to reconcile or settle the differences in the two Houses# respective bills* but it is not limited to the conflicting provisions of the bills. It ma" include matters not found in the original bills but germane to the purpose thereof. If both Houses viewed the pronouncement made b" this Court in such cases as e,treme or be"ond what the" intended* the" had the power to amend their respective Rules to clarif" or limit even further the scope of the authorit" which the" grant to the ?icameral Conference Committee. -etitioners# grievance that* unfortunatel"* the" cannot bring about such an amendment of the Rules on the ?icameral Conference Committee because the" are members of the minorit"* deserves scant consideration. 2hat the ma$orit" of the members of both Houses refuse to amend the Rules on the ?icameral Conference Committee is an indication that it is still satisfied therewith. At an" rate* this is how democrac" wor)s ( the will of the ma$orit" shall be controlling. @) No. Article JI* &ection 6=(<) of the Constitution reads> K2he rule of ta,ation shall be uniform and e+uitable. 2he Congress shall evolve a progressive s"stem of ta,ation.K 3niformit" in ta,ation means that all ta,able articles or )inds of propert" of the same class shall be ta,ed at the same rate. 1ifferent articles ma" be ta,ed at different amounts provided that the rate is uniform on the same class ever"where with all people at all times. 2he 5JA2 law is uniform as it provides a standard rate of 8A or <8A (or <6A) on all goods and services. 3niform ta,ation does not deprive Congress of the power to classif" sub$ects of ta,ation* and onl" demands uniformit" within the particular class. ;) Ges* b" its nature it is regressive. ?ut the principle of progressive ta,ation has no relation with the JA2 s"stem inasmuch as the JA2 paid b" the consumer or business for ever" goods bought or services en$o"ed is the same regardless of income. In other words* the JA2 paid eats the same portion of an income* whether big or small. Hence* the petitions were 1I&MI&&51 and the temporar" restraining order issued b" the Court was lifted upon finalit" of the decision.

Mandamus and -rohibitor" In$unction to compel respondents to compl" with RA @89;. I##.$: <. 4.N RA @89; is valid (since the &enate -resident alread" withdrew his signature on the enrolled bill and said that it is not the version passed b" the senate) and 4.N the $ournal entr" rule and not the enrolled bill theor" should be adhered to* to prove the validit" of RA @89;. H$&*: ( RA @89; is not dul" enacted. ( 2he onl" statutor" basis of the enrolled bill theor" is &ec. :<: of Act <C8* as amended b" Act. No. 66<8 of the Rules of 5vidence in the old Code of Civil -rocedure which sa"s that a cop" signed b" the presiding officers and secretaries of the -hilippine %egislature shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such acts and of the due enactment thereof. ( ?ut the procedure of signing such acts is merel" a mode of authenticationMattestation. It#s not an approval because a bill is considered approve after it has passed both Houses. ( Arguing that the signatures are mandator" would be in effect giving the presiding officers veto power (veto power is onl" given to the -resident)* which in itself is a strong argument to the contrar". 2he Constitution doesn#t even provide that the presiding officers should

sign the bill before it is submitted to the -resident. ( -etitioner#s argument that the attestation of the presiding officer of Congress is conclusive proof of a bill#s due enactment* it is said* b" the respect due to a co(e+ual department of the government* is neutraliBed in this case b" the fact that the &enate -resident declared his signature on the bill to be invalid and issued a subse+uent clarification that the invalidation of his signature meant that the bill he had signed had never been approved b" the &enate. ( Absent such attestation as a result of the disclaimer* and conse+uentl" there being no enrolled bill to spea) of* what evidence is there to determine whether or not the bill has been dul" enactedQ In such a case the entries in the $ournal should be consulted. ( 2he $ournal discloses that substantial and length" amendments were introduced on the floor and approved b" the &enate but were not incorporated in the printed te,t sent to the -resident and signed b" him. ( In the face of the manifest error committed and subse+uentl" rectified b" the &enate -resident and b" the Chief 5,ecutive* for this Court to perpetuate that error b" disregarding such rectification and holding that the erroneous bill has become law would be to sacrifice truth to fiction and bring about mischievous conse+uences not intended b" the law(ma)ing bod". D$!,#, n: RA @89; is declared not to have been dul" enacted and therefore did not become law.

'. Jalidit" <. -resumption of constitutionalit" C n#','.', n= A('3 @III= S$!3 4 (<) 2he &upreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Fustice and fourteen Associate Fustices. It ma" sit en banc or in its discretion* in division of three* five* or seven Members. An" vacanc" shall be filled within ninet" da"s from the occurrence thereof. (6) All cases involving the constitutionalit" of a treat"* international or e,ecutive agreement* or law* which shall be heard b" the &upreme Court en banc* and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are re+uired to be heard en banc* including those involving the constitutionalit"* application* or operation of presidential decrees* proclamations* orders* instructions* ordinances* and other regulations* shall be decided with the concurrence of a ma$orit" of the Members who actuall" too) part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. (:) Cases or matters heard b" a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a ma$orit" of the Members who actuall" too) part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon* and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. 4hen the re+uired number is not obtained* the case shall be decided en banc> -rovided* that no doctrine or principle of law laid down b" the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division ma" be modified or reversed e,cept b" the court sitting en banc. -resumption of constitutionalit" 5ver" statute is presumed valid o %ies on how a law is enacted o 1ue respect to the legislative who passed and e,ecutive who approved o Responsibilit" of upholding the constitution rests not on the courts alone but on the legislative and e,ecutive branches as well Courts cannot in+uire into the wisdom or propriet" of laws 2o declare a law unconstitutional* the repugnanc" of the law to the constitution must be clear and une+uivocal All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionalit" of law! to doubt is to sustain 'inal arbiter of unconstitutionalit" of law is the &upreme Court 5N ?ANC (ma$orit" who too) part and voted thereon) Nonetheless* trial courts have $urisdiction to initiall" decide the issue of constitutionalit" of a law in appropriate cases Re+uisites for e,ercise of $udicial power 2he e,istence of an appropriate case Interest personal and substantial b" the part" raising the constitutional +uestion -lea that the function be e,ercised at the earliest opportunit" Necessit" that the constitutional +uestion be passed upon in order to decide the case Appropriate case ?ona fide case one which raises a $usticiable controvers" Fudicial power is limited onl" to real* actual* earnest* and vital controvers" Controvers" is $usticiable when it refers to matter which is appropriate for court review! pertains to issues which are inherentl" susceptible of being decided on grounds recogniBed b" law

Courts cannot rule on Dpolitical +uestionsE +uestions which are concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom (v. legalit") of a particular act or measure being assailed o Dseparation of powersE o However* Constitution e,pands the concept of $udicial review $udicial power includes the dut" of the courts of $ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legall" demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been /A1 amounting to lac) or e,cess of $urisdiction on the branch or the part of an" branchM instrumentalit" of the /overnment

&tanding to sue %egal standing or locus standi personalM substantial interest in the case such that the part" has sustained or will sustain direct in$ur" as a result of governmental act that is being challenged DinterestE an interest in issue affected b" the decree CitiBen ac+uires standing onl" if he can establish that he has suffered some actual or threatened concrete in$ur" as a result of the allegedl" illegal conduct of the government o 5.g. ta,pa"er when it is shown that public funds have been illegall" disbursed Member of the &enate or of the House has legal standing to +uestion the validit" of the -residential veto or a condition imposed on an item in an appropriations bills &C ma"* in its discretion* ta)e cogniBance of a suit which does not satisf" the re+uirement of legal standing o 5.g. calling b" the -resident for the deplo"ment of the -hilippine Marines to $oin the -N- in visibilit" patrols around the metro 4hen to raise constitutionalit" ,,, at the earliest possible opportunit" i.e. in the pleading it ma" be raised in a motion for reconsideration M new trial in the lower court! or in criminal cases at an" stage of the proceedings or on appeal in civil cases* where it appears clearl" that a determination of the +uestion is necessar" to a decision* and in cases where it involves the $urisdiction of the court below Necessit" of deciding constitutionalit" where the constitutional +uestion is of paramount public interest and time is of the essence in the resolution of such +uestion* adherence to the strict procedural standard ma" be rela,ed and the court* in its discretion* ma" s+uarel" decide the case where the +uestion of validit"* though apparentl" has become moot* has become of paramount interest and there is undeniable necessit" for a ruling* strong reasons of public polic" ma" demand that its constitutionalit" be resolved 2est of constitutionalit" R is what the Constitution provides in relation to what can or ma" be done under the statute* and not b" what it has been done under it. o If not within the legislative power to enact o If vague unconstitutional in 6 respects Jiolates due process %eaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carr"ing out its provisions o 4here there#s a change of circumstances i.e. emergenc" laws .rdinances (test of validit" are)> o It must not contravene the Constitution or an" statute o It must not be unfair or oppressive o It must not be partial or discriminator" o It must not prohibit but ma" regulate trade o It must be general and consistent with public polic" o It must not be unreasonable 5ffects of unconstitutionalit" It confers no rights Imposes no duties Affords no protection Creates no office In general* inoperative as if it had never been passed 6 views> o .rthodo, view unconstitutional act is not a law! decision affect A%% o Modern view less stringent! the court in passing upon the +uestion of unconstitutionalit" does not annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution! decisions affects parties .N%G and no $udgment against the statute! opinion of court ma" operate as a precedent! it does not repeal* supersede* revo)e* or annul the statute Invalidit" due to change of conditions 5mergenc" laws

It is deemed valid at the time of its enactment as an e,ercise of police power It becomes invalid onl" because the change of conditions ma)es its continued operation violative of the Constitution* and accordingl"* the declaration of its nullit" should onl" affect the parties involved in the case and its effects applied prospectivel"

-artial invalidit" /eneral rule> that where part of a statute is void as repugnant to the Constitution* while another part is valid* the valid portion* if separable from the invalid* ma" stand and be enforced 5,ception that when parts of a statute are so mutuall" dependent and connected* as conditions* considerations* inducements* or compensations for each other* as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole* the nullit" of one part will vitiate the rest such as in the case of &atad ! #ec of Department of -nergy and 2ntonio !" C13-L-C AL?A v E@ANGELISTA 100 PHIL 683 DOCTRINE: It must be shown that the statute violates the constitution clearl"* palpabl"* plainl"* and in such manner as to leave no doubt or hesitation in the mind of the court. 2he court presumes that ever" statute is valid. FACTS: b" law* b" which for a given period* either fi,ed b" law or enduring at ( -resident appoints Ala$ar as Jice(Ma"or of Cit" of Ro,as* but later the pleasure of the creating power* an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign function of government* to be e,ercised b" designates Alba in his stead as Jice(Ma"or. Ala$ar institutes +uo him for the benefit of the public. warranto in C'I that (a) He was appointed as Jice* (b) 2hat there ( 2he legislative intent of Congress can legall" and constitutionall" e,isted no vacanc"* (c) No legal cause for removal ma)e the tenure of certain officials dependent upon the pleasure of the Z C'I claims that the petitioner was entitled to remain in -resident. office. ( It is an established rule that when the law authoriBes a superior ( Alba appealed but in the meantime Ala$ar pra"s for immediate officer to remove a subordinate at pleasure his discretion in the e,ecution of $udgement and is granted. 4rit though was not e,ecuted e,ercise of the power of removal is absolute. As long as the removal is because Alba brought the matter to the superior courts. effected in accordance with the procedure prescribed b" law* it ma" Z 4rit then is ordered null and void because C'I lost not be declared invalid b" the courts* no matter how reprehensible and $urisdiction. un$ust the motives of the removal might be ( In the e,ercise of the power* Congress enacted Republic Act No. 98: ( 2his presumption is based upon the theor" of separation of powers on April <<* <C;<* creating the Cit" of Ro,as and providing* among which ma)es the enactment and repeal of laws e,clusivel" a others for the position of Jice(Ma"or and its tenure or period during legislative function. which the incumbent Jice(Ma"or % &*# //,!$ "' '%$ +&$"#.($ / '%$ ( As Chief Fustice Marshall said> DIt is but a decent respect due to the P($#,*$n' (section =* article II* Republic Act No. 98:). wisdom* the integrit"* and the patriotism of the legislative bod"* b" ( Alba argued that section 6;@; of the RAC wMc provides> which an" law is passed* to presume in favor of its validit"* until its DAppointment of Cit" .fficials. 2he -resident of the -hilippines shall violation of the constitution is proved be"ond all reasonable doubt. appoint* with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the (It should be remembered in this connection that before a legislature Congress of the -hilippines* the ma"or* the vice(ma"or . . . and he passes a bill* it is presumed that it has decided the measure to be ma" R5M.J5 at pleasure an" of the said officers . . .E* be declared constitutional! and when the e,ecutive approves that bill it is also incompatible with the constitutional inhibition that Dno officer or presumed that he has been convinced of its validit". emplo"ee in the Civil &ervice shall be removed or suspended e,cept ( 3nder these conditions* therefore* if a statute is reasonabl" for cause as provided b" lawE* because the two provisions are suspectible of two interpretations* one ma)ing it unconstitutional and mutuall" repugnant and absolutel" irreconciliable. other valid* it is the dut" of the court to adopt the second construction in order to save the measure. RULING: ( 4H5R5'.R5> Alba has no right to continue office. ( 2he replacement of Ala$ar is not removal but an e,piration of his Concepcion F* Concurring tenure. 3nder &ec. =* no fi,it" of tenure is provided. Hence* officer 2erm ( time during which the officer ma" claim to hold office as of right when the office is held at the pleasure of -resident* power of removal 2enure ( Represents the term during which the incumbent actuall" is e,ercisable b" his discretion as well. holds office ( A public office is the right* authorit" and dut"* created and conferred MORFE v MUTUC 44 SCRA 444 DOCTRINE: In the absence of a factual foundation* the lower court deciding the matter purel" Kon the pleadings and the stipulation of facts* the presumption of validit" must prevail. Courts can review on legalit" not wisdom of the act. F"!'#: of the petitioner* declaring the provision unconstitutional. ( 2he Congress enacted the Anti(/raft and Corrupt -ractices Act ( Herein defendant appealed. which aimed to prevent public officials and emplo"ees from committing A(0.-$n'#: acts of dishonest" and foster moralit" in public service. ( -laintiff> 2he provision as a re+uirement is oppressive and ( 2he Act provides for certain procedures in the pursuit of its goal* one unconstitutional.Corruption among officials and emplo"ees is of which is the declaration of the official#s or emplo"ee#s assets and presumed and cannot be trusted to desist from committing corrupt liabilities through a Dtrue detailed and sworn statementE upon practices. assumption of office and Dwithin the month of Fanuar" of ever" other ( 1efendant> 3pon assumption of public office and until such time as "ear thereafter.E he continues to discharge public trust* a government official is deemed ( Herein petitioner* as a government official* filed a petition challenging to have voluntaril" assumed the obligation to give the information the constitutionalit" of the said provision. 2he lower court ruled in favor about his personal affair. 2he public life of an emplo"ee cannot be

segregated from his private life. I##.$#: ( 4.N the periodical submission Dwithin the month of Fanuar" of ever" other "ear thereafterE of sworn statements of assets and liabilities of an official or emplo"ee violates due process being an oppressive e,ercise of police power! ( 4.N this re+uirement unlawfull" invades the constitutional right to privac"* unreasonable searches and seiBure* and prohibition against self(incrimination R.&,n0/R"', : ( 2he provision is C.N&2I232I.NA%. 2he decision of the lower court is thus reversed. ( &tatutes en$o" the presumption of validit". ( 2he re+uired periodical submission does not violate due process as it is not an oppressive e,ercise of police power. ( 1ue process is freedom from arbitrariness. ( 2o prevent a public office inherentl" decorated with the temptations to heed the call of greed and avarice from abuse is not arbitrariness. ( -olice power is the power to promote general welfare and public interest* in the course of which a curtailment of libert" is entailed. ( In this case* the police power is to promote moralit" in public service. Curtailment of libert" is allowable in view of this end* and for as long as due process is observed (investigation* hearings* etc.) ( 5rmita(Malate Hotel Case> 2he permissible scope of regulator" measure is wider when the libert" curtailed affects the right to propert"* rather than freedom of mind and of person. P Right to privac"* freedom from unreasonable searches and seiBure* and prohibition against self(incrimination are not invaded.

PRight to privac" ( Rational Relationship> the end sought and the means emplo"ed have rational relationship. Right to privac" is N.2 unconstitutionall" intruded upon. PRight to be free from unreasonable searches and seiBure D5ver" man is under obligation to give testimon"Ronl" under $udicial sanctions.E P-rohibition from self(incrimination ( No constitutional provision shall protect a man#s conduct from $udicial in+uir"* or aid him in fleeing from $ustice. ( An insult to the personal integrit" and official dignit" of public officialsQ 2HI& I& AN IN^3IRG IN2. 2H5 4I&1.M .' 2H5 %A4* which the Court is not in the position to decide. ( .nl" congressional power or competence* not the wisdom of the action ta)en ma" be the basis for declaring a statute invalid. 2his is as it ought to be. 2he principle of separation of powers has in the main wisel" allocated the respective authorit" of each department and confined its $urisdiction to such a sphere. (2here would then be intrusion not allowable under the Constitution if on a matter left to the discretion of a coordinate branch* the $udiciar" would substitute its own. If there be adherence to the rule of law* as there ought to be* the last offender should be courts of $ustice* to which rightl" litigants submit their controvers" precisel" to maintain unimpaired the supremac" of legal norms and prescriptions. (2he attac) on the validit" of the challenged provision li)ewise insofar as there ma" be ob$ections* even if valid and cogent on its wisdom cannot be sustained.

6. 4hen statutes* regulations and ordinances ta)e effect C,v,& C *$= A('3 4 %aws shall ta)e effect after fifteen da"s following the completion of their publication in the .fficial /aBette* unless it is otherwise provided. 2his Code shall ta)e effect one "ear after such publication. (<a) 1987 A*-,n C *$= ? 7 I= C%"+'$( 1= S$!3 18 4hen %aws 2a)e 5ffect. %aws shall ta)e effect after fifteen (<;) da"s following the completion of their publication in the .fficial /aBette or in a newspaper of general circulation* unless it is otherwise provided. 1987 A*-,n C *$= ? 7 @II= S$!', n 4E9 #ection '" Definitions" ( As used in this ?oo)> (<) KAgenc"K includes an" department* bureau* office* commission* authorit" or officer of the National /overnment authoriBed b" law or e,ecutive order to ma)e rules* issue licenses* grant rights or privileges* and ad$udicate cases! research institutions with respect to licensing functions! government corporations with respect to functions regulating private right* privileges* occupation or business! and officials in the e,ercise of disciplinar" power as provided b" law. (6) KRuleK means an" agenc" statement of general applicabilit" that implements or interprets a law* fi,es and describes the procedures in* or practice re+uirements of* an agenc"* including its regulations. 2he term includes memoranda or statements concerning the internal administration or management of an agenc" not affecting the rights of* or procedure available to* the public. (:) KRateK means an" charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms* including individual or $oint rates* tolls* classifications* or schedules thereof* as well as commutation* mileage* )ilometerage and other special rates which shall be imposed b" law or regulation to be observed and followed b" an" person. (@) KRule ma)ingK means an agenc" process for the formulation* amendment* or repeal of a rule. (;) KContested caseK means an" proceeding* including licensing* in which the legal rights* duties or privileges asserted b" specific parties as re+uired b" the Constitution or b" law are to be determined after hearing. (9) K-ersonK includes an individual* partnership* corporation* association* public or private organiBation of an" character other than an agenc". (7) K-art"K includes a person or agenc" named or admitted as a part"* or properl" see)ing and entitled as of right to be admitted as a part"* in an" agenc" proceeding! but nothing herein shall be construed to prevent an agenc" from admitting an" person or agenc" as a part" for limited purposes. (=) K1ecisionK means the whole or an" part of the final disposition* not of an interlocutor" character* whether affirmative* negative* or in$unctive in form* of an agenc" in an" matter* including licensing* rate fi,ing and granting of rights and privileges. (C) KAd$udicationK means an agenc" process for the formulation of a final order. (<8) K%icenseK includes the whole or an" part of an" agenc" permit* certificate* passport* clearance* approval* registration* charter* membership* statutor" e,emption or other form of permission* or regulation of the e,ercise of a right or privilege. (<<) K%icensingK includes agenc" process involving the grant* renewal* denial* revocation* suspension* annulment* withdrawal*

limitation* amendment* modification or conditioning of a license. (<6) K&anctionK includes the whole or part of a prohibition* limitation or other condition affecting the libert" of an" person! the withholding of relief! the imposition of penalt" or fine! the destruction* ta)ing* seiBure or withholding of propert"! the assessment of damages* reimbursement* restitution* compensation* cost* charges or fees! the revocation or suspension of license! or the ta)ing of other compulsor" or restrictive action. (<:) KReliefK includes the whole or part of an" grant of mone"* assistance* license* authorit"* privilege* e,emption* e,ception* or remed"! recognition of an" claim* right* immunit"* privilege* e,emption or e,ception! or ta)ing of an" action upon the application or petition of an" person. (<@) KAgenc" proceedingK means an" agenc" process with respect to rule(ma)ing* ad$udication and licensing. <. KAgenc" actionK includes the whole or part of ever" agenc" rule* order* license* sanction* relief or its e+uivalent or denial thereof. #ection ." $iling" (<) 5ver" agenc" shall file with the 3niversit" of the -hilippines %aw Center three (:) certified copies of ever" rule adopted b" it. Rules in force on the date of effectivit" of this Code which are not filed within three (:) months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of an" sanction against an" part" or persons. (6) 2he records officer of the agenc"* or his e+uivalent functionar"* shall carr" out the re+uirements of this section under pain of disciplinar" action. (:) A permanent register of all rules shall be )ept b" the issuing agenc" and shall be open to public inspection. #ection /" -ffecti!ity" - In addition to other rule(ma)ing re+uirements provided b" law not inconsistent with this ?oo)* each rule shall become effective fifteen (<;) da"s from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fi,ed b" law* or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public health* safet" and welfare* the e,istence of which must be e,pressed in a statement accompan"ing the rule. 2he agenc" shall ta)e appropriate measures to ma)e emergenc" rules )nown to persons who ma" be affected b" them. #ection 0" Publication and 8ecording. ( 2he 3niversit" of the -hilippines %aw Center shall> (<) -ublish a +uarter bulletin setting forth the te,t of rules filed with it during the preceding +uarter! and (6) Heep an up(to(date codification of all rules thus published and remaining in effect* together with a complete inde, and appropriate tables. #ection :" 1mission of #ome 8ules" (<) 2he 3niversit" of the -hilippines %aw Center ma" omit from the bulletin or the codification an" rule if its publication would be undul" cumbersome* e,pensive or otherwise ine,pedient* but copies of that rule shall be made available on application to the agenc" which adopted it* and the bulletin shall contain a notice stating the general sub$ect matter of the omitted rule and new copies thereof ma" be obtained. (6) 5ver" rule establishing an offense or defining an act which* pursuant to law* is punishable as a crime or sub$ect to a penalt" shall in all cases be published in full te,t. #ection ;" Distribution of Bulletin and Codified 8ules. ( 2he 3niversit" of the -hilippines %aw Center shall furnish one (<) free cop" each of ever" issue of the bulletin and of the codified rules or supplements to the .ffice of the -resident* Congress* all appellate courts and the National %ibrar". 2he bulletin and the codified rules shall be made available free of charge to such public officers or agencies as the Congress ma" select* and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or distribution costs. #ection <" Judicial =otice. ( 2he court shall ta)e $udicial notice of the certified cop" of each rule dul" filed or as published in the bulletin or the codified rules. #ection >" Public Participation" (<) If not otherwise re+uired b" law* an agenc" shall* as far as practicable* publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunit" to submit their views prior to the adoption of an" rule. (6) In the fi,ing of rates* no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (6) wee)s before the first hearing thereon. (:) In case of opposition* the rules on contested cases shall be observed. RA 7160= S$! 14E19 #ection 0/" 2ppro!al of 1rdinances" (a) 5ver" ordinance enacted b" the sangguniang panlalawigan* sangguniang panlungsod* or sangguniang ba"an shall be presented to the provincial governor or cit" or municipal ma"or* as the case ma" be. If the local chief e,ecutive concerned approves the same* he shall affi, his signature on each and ever" page thereof! otherwise* he shall veto it and return the same with his ob$ections to the sanggunian* which ma" proceed to reconsider the same. 2he sanggunian concerned ma" override the veto of the local chief e,ecutive b" two(thirds (6M:) vote of all its members* thereb" ma)ing the ordinance or resolution effective for all legal intents and purposes. (b) 2he veto shall be communicated b" the local chief e,ecutive concerned to the sanggunian within fifteen (<;) da"s in the case of a province* and ten (<8) da"s in the case of a cit" or a municipalit"! otherwise* the ordinance shall be deemed approved as if he had signed it. (c) .rdinances enacted b" the sangguniang baranga" shall* upon approval b" the ma$orit" of all its members* be signed b" the punong baranga".

#ection 00" eto Po(er of the Local Chief -*ecuti!e" (a) 2he local chief e,ecutive ma" veto an" ordinance of the sanggunian panlalawigan* sangguniang panlungsod* or sanggunian ba"an on the ground that it is ultra vires or pre$udicial to the public welfare* stating his reasons therefor in writing. (b) 2he local chief e,ecutive* e,cept the punong baranga"* shall have the power to veto an" particular item or items of an appropriations ordinance* an ordinance or resolution adopting a local development plan and public investment program* or an ordinance directing the pa"ment of mone" or creating liabilit". In such a case* the veto shall not affect the item or items which are not ob$ected to. 2he vetoed item or items shall not ta)e effect unless the sanggunian overrides the veto in the manner herein provided! otherwise* the item or items in the appropriations ordinance of the previous "ear corresponding to those vetoed* if an"* shall be deemed reenacted. (c) 2he local chief e,ecutive ma" veto an ordinance or resolution onl" once. 2he sanggunian ma" override the veto of the local chief e,ecutive concerned b" two(thirds (6M:) vote of all its members* thereb" ma)ing the ordinance effective even without the approval of the local chief e,ecutive concerned. #ection 0:" 8e!ie( of Component City and 3unicipal 1rdinances or 8esolutions by the #angguniang Panlala(igan" (a) 4ithin three (:) da"s after approval* the secretar" to the sanggunian panlungsod or sangguniang ba"an shall forward to the sangguniang panlalawigan for review* copies of approved ordinances and the resolutions approving the local development plans and public investment programs formulated b" the local development councils. (b) 4ithin thirt" (:8) da"s after the receipt of copies of such ordinances and resolutions* the sangguniang panlalawigan shall e,amine the documents or transmit them to the provincial attorne"* or if there be none* to the provincial prosecutor for prompt e,amination. 2he provincial attorne" or provincial prosecutor shall* within a period of ten (<8) da"s from receipt of the documents* inform the sangguniang panlalawigan in writing of his comments or recommendations* which ma" be considered b" the sangguniang panlalawigan in ma)ing its decision. (c) If the sangguniang panlalawigan finds that such an ordinance or resolution is be"ond the power conferred upon the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang ba"an concerned* it shall declare such ordinance or resolution invalid in whole or in part. 2he sangguniang panlalawigan shall enter its action in the minutes and shall advise the corresponding cit" or municipal authorities of the action it has ta)en. (d) If no action has been ta)en b" the sangguniang panlalawigan within thirt" (:8) da"s after submission of such an ordinance or resolution* the same shall be presumed consistent with law and therefore valid. #ection 0;" 8e!ie( of Barangay 1rdinances by the #angguniang Panlungsod or #angguniang Bayan" (a) 4ithin ten (<8) da"s after its enactment* the sangguniang baranga" shall furnish copies of all baranga" ordinances to the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang ba"an concerned for review as to whether the ordinance is consistent with law and cit" or municipal ordinances. (b) If the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang ba"an* as the case ma" be* fails to ta)e action on baranga" ordinances within thirt" (:8) da"s from receipt thereof* the same shall be deemed approved. (c) If the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang ba"an* as the case ma" be* finds the baranga" ordinances inconsistent with law or cit" or municipal ordinances* the sanggunian concerned shall* within thirt" (:8) da"s from receipt thereof* return the same with its comments and recommendations to the sangguniang baranga" concerned for ad$ustment* amendment* or modification! in which case* the effectivit" of the baranga" ordinance is suspended until such time as the revision called for is effected. #ection 0<" -nforcement of Disappro!ed 1rdinances or 8esolutions" - An" attempt to enforce an" ordinance or an" resolution approving the local development plan and public investment program* after the disapproval thereof* shall be sufficient ground for the suspension or dismissal of the official or emplo"ee concerned. #ection 0>" -ffecti!ity of 1rdinances or 8esolutions" (a) 3nless otherwise stated in the ordinance or the resolution approving the local development plan and public investment program* the same shall ta)e effect after ten (<8) da"s from the date a cop" thereof is posted in a bulletin board at the entrance of the provincial capitol or cit"* municipal* or baranga" hall* as the case ma" be* and in at least two (6) other conspicuous places in the local government unit concerned. (b) 2he secretar" to the sanggunian concerned shall cause the posting of an ordinance or resolution in the bulletin board at the entrance of the provincial capitol and the cit"* municipal* or baranga" hall in at least two (6) conspicuous places in the local government unit concerned not later than five (;) da"s after approval thereof. 2he te,t of the ordinance or resolution shall be disseminated and posted in 'ilipino or 5nglish and in the language understood b" the ma$orit" of the people in the local government unit concerned* and the secretar" to the sanggunian shall record such fact in a boo) )ept for the purpose* stating the dates of approval and posting. (c) 2he gist of all ordinances with penal sanctions shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the province where the local legislative bod" concerned belongs. In the absence of an" newspaper of general circulation within the province* posting of such ordinances shall be made in all municipalities and cities of the province where the sanggunian of origin is situated. (d) In the case of highl" urbaniBed and independent component cities* the main features of the ordinance or resolution dul" enacted or adopted shall* in addition to being posted* be published once in a local newspaper of general circulation within the cit"> -rovided* 2hat in the absence thereof the

ordinance or resolution shall be published in an" newspaper of general circulation. 4hen laws ta)e effect Art 6 CC ( D,,, laws to be effective must be published either in the .fficial /aBette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the countr"E o 2he effectivit" provision refers to all statutes* including those local and private* unless there are special laws providing a different effectivit" mechanism for particular statutes &ec <= Chapter ; ?oo) < of Administrative Code 5ffectivit" of laws o default rule <;(da" period o must be published either in the ./ or newspaper of general circulation in the countr"! publication must be full 2he clause Dunless it is otherwise providedE solel" refers to the <;(da" period and not to the re+uirement of publication 4hen -residential issuances* rules and regulations ta)e effect 2he -resident#s ordinance power includes the authorit" to issue 5.* A.* -roclamations* M.* MC and general or specific orders Re+uirement of publication applies e,cept if it is merel" interpretative or internal in nature not concerning the public 6 t"pes> o 2hose whose purpose is to enforce or implement e,isting law pursuant to a valid delegation or to fill in the details of a statute! re+uires publication o 2hose which are merel" interpretative in nature or internal! does not re+uire publication Re+uirements of filing (<C=7 Administrative Code)> o 5ver" agenc" shall file with the 3- %aw Center : certified copies of ever" rule adopted b" it. Rules in force on the date of effectivit" of this Code which are not filed within : months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of an" sanction against an" part"M persons 4hen local ordinance ta)es effect 3nless otherwise stated* the same shall ta)e effect <8 da"s from the date a cop" is posted in a bulletin board at the entrance of the provincial capitol or cit"* municipalit" or baranga" hall* AN1 in at least 6 other conspicuous places in the local government unit concerned 2he secretar" to the &angguinian concerned shall cause the posting not later than ; da"s after approval! te,t will be disseminated in 5nglish or 2agalog! the secretar" to the &angguinian concerned shall record such fact in a boo) )ept for that purpose* stating the dates of approval and posting /ist of ordinance with penal sanctions shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the respective province concerned! if N. newspaper of general circulation in the province* -.&2IN/ shall be made in all municipalities and cities of the province where the &anggunian of origin is situated 'or highl" urbaniBed and independent component cities* main features of the ordinance* in addition to the posting re+uirement shall be published once in a local newspaper. In the absence of local newspaper* in an" newspaper of general circulation o Highl" urbaniBed cit" minimum population of 688*888 and with latest annual income of at least ;8M -hp &tatutes continue in force until repealed -ermanentM indefinite law once established continues until changed b" competent legislative power. It is not changed b" the change of sovereignt"* e,cept that of political nature 2emporar" in force onl" for a limited period* and the" terminate upon e,piration of the term stated or upon occurrence of certain events! no repealing statute is needed 2erritorial and personal effect of statutes All people within the $urisdiction of the -hilippines TANADA v TU@ERA 146 SCRA 446 DOCTRINE: F"!'#: ( Invo)ing the peopleVs right to be informed on matters of public concern* a right recogniBed in the Constitution* as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the ./ or otherwise effectivel" promulgated* petitioners see) a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish* andMor cause the publication in the .fficial /aBette of various -1s* %.Is* general orders* proclamations* 5.s* letters of implementation and administrative orders. ( Respondents contend* among others that publication in the ./ is not a sine +ua non re+uirement for the effectivit" of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivit" dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in +uestion contain special provisions as to the date the" are to ta)e effect* publication in the ./ is indispensable for their effectivit". I##.$: 4hether publication is still re+uired in light of the clause Dunless otherwise providedE R.&,n0: <. 2he clause Dunless it is otherwise providedE in Article 6 of the Civil Code* refers to the date of effectivit" and not to the re+uirement of

publication itself* which cannot in an" event be omitted. 6. 2his clause does not mean that the legislature ma" ma)e the law effective immediatel" upon approval* or on an" other date* without its previous publication. 2he legislature ma" in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen(da" period shall be shortened or e,tended. :. -ublication re+uirements applies to (<) all statutes* including those of local application and private laws! (6) presidential decrees and e,ecutive orders promulgated b" the -resident in the e,ercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validl" delegated b" the legislature or directl" conferred b" the Constitution! (:) Administrative rules and regulations for the purpose of enforcing or implementing e,isting law pursuant also to a valid delegation! (@) Charter of a cit" notwithstanding that it applies to onl" a portion of the national territor" and directl" affects onl" the inhabitants of that place! (;) Monetar" ?oard circulars to _ill in the details of the Central ?an) Act which that bod" is supposed to enforce.. 2he publication of all presidential issuances Kof a public natureK or Kof general applicabilit"K is mandated b" law. 2he clear ob$ect of the law is to give the general public ade+uate notice of the various laws wMc are to regulate their actions

and conduct as citiBens. 'urther* publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. R"', n"&$: <. 4ithout such notice and publication* there would be no basis for the application of the ma,im Kignorantia legis non e,cusat.K It would be the height of in$ustice to punish or otherwise burden a citiBen for the transgression of a law of wMc he had no notice whatsoever* not even a constructive one. It is needless to sa" that the publication of presidential issuances Kof a public natureK or Kof general applicabilit"K is a re+uirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person ma" be bound b" law* he must first be officiall" and specificall" informed of its contents. 2he &upreme Court declared that all laws as above defined shall immediatel" upon their approval* or as soon thereafter as possible* be published in full in the .fficial /aBette* to become effective onl" after <; da"s from their publication* or on another date specified b" the legislature* in accordance with Article 6 of the Civil Code

YAOIASIN v COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 180 SCRA 191 DOCTRINE: Administrative rules not needed to be published if applied for particular persons or internal administration. FACTS: be published in the .fficial /aBette* does not appl" to CM. No. 68(=7 .n Ma" 67* <C==* the -hilippine Coast /uard seiBed C888 bagsMsac)s which is onl" an administrative order of the Commissioner of Customs of refined sugar* which were being unloaded from the MMJ 2acloban* addressed to his subordinates* the customs collectors. Commonwealth and turned them over to the custod" of the ?ureau of Customs. 2he Act No. 9:= (an Act to -rovide for the 3niform -ublication and petitioner presented a sales invoice from the Fordan 2rading of Iloilo to 1istribution of the .fficial /aBette) enumerates what shall be prove that the sugar was purchased locall". 2he 1istrict Collector of published in the .fficial /aBette besides legislative acts and Customs* however* proceeded with the seiBure of the bags of sugar. resolutions of a public nature of the Congress of the -hilippines. 'urthermore* petitioner ob$ected to the enforcement of Customs 5,ecutive and administrative orders and proclamations* shall also be Memorandum .rder No. 68(=7* upon which the automatic review of published in the .fficial /aBette* e,cept such as have no general decisions b" the Commissioner of Customs was based. Accordingl"* applicabilit". CM. No. 68(=7 re+uiring collectors of customs to compl" such issuance was not published in the .fficial /aBette strictl" with &ection <6 of the -lan* is an issuance which is addressed ISSUE: 4hether or not administrative issuances are considered laws onl" to particular persons or a class of persons (the customs which re+uire publication in the .fficial /aBette for their effectivit". collectors). It need not be published* on the assumption that it has RULING: It depends. Article 6 of the Civil Code* which re+uires laws to been circulariBed to all concerned. PHILIPPINE @ETERANS ?ANI UNION v @EGA GR N 3 101364 DOCTRINE: 'or effectivit" clauses provided with specific dates* it will ta)e effect immediatel" upon approval. FACTS: proceedings of the ban) alleging further that RA 7<9C became ( In <C=;* Central ?an) of the -hilippines filed a petition for assistance effective onl" on March <8* <CC6 or <; da"s after its publication in the in the li+uidation of the -hilippine Jeterans ?an) (-J?)* in the R2C of .fficial /aBette on 'ebruar" 6@* <CC6. Manila ?ranch :C. 2hereafter* the -J? emplo"ees union herein ISSUE: 4hether or not RA 7<9C became effective on Fanuar" 6* <CC6. petitioner filed claim for accrued and unpaid emplo"ee wages and HELD: 2he &upreme Court upheld that while as a rule laws ta)e effect benefits. after <; da"s following completion of their publication in the .fficial ( .n Fanuar" 6* <CC6* RA 7<9C (An Act to Rehabilitate the -J?) which /aBette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the -hilippines* the was signed into law b" -res. CoraBon A+uino and which was legislature has the authorit" to provide for e,ceptions as indicated in published in the .fficial /aBette on 'ebruar" 6@* <CC6. the clause Dunless otherwise providedE. Citing 2anada vs 2uvera* this ( 2hereafter* petitioners filed with the labor tribunals their residual clause refers to the date of effectivit" and not to the re+uirement of claims for benefits and for reinstatement upon reopening of the ban). publication* which cannot in an" event be omitted. 2he reason is that ( In Ma" <CC6* Central ?an) issued a certificate of authorit" allowing such omission would affect due process in so far as it would den" the the -J? to reopen despite the late mandate for rehabilitation and public )nowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it. reopening* respondent Fudge Jega continued with the li+uidation REPU?LIC v PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP3 GR N 3 173918 DOCTRINE: Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement e,isting law pursuant also to a valid delegation. FACTS: <.) .n 1ecember @* <CC< for the period 1ecember <C=C to March .n .ctober <8* <C=@ the government created the .il -rice <CC8>-<@* @<@* =98. 7;! &tabiliBation 'und (.-&').2he .ffice of 5nerg" Affairs (now 1.5)* 6.) .n 1ecember C* <CC< for the period April <CC< .ctober <CC<> informed -ilipinas &hell that their foreign e,change ris) charge was -<8* <:C* ;69. ;9.2he" also charged surcharges of><)-<<* 9;@* insufficient> 7=6.:<*6)- 6* =89* 9;9. 9; pursuant to M.' CIRC3%AR No. <(=;* as

amended b" 1.' 6(C@>6. Remittance of pa"ment to the .-&' as provided for under &5C2I.N ; of M.' .rder No. <<(=; made not later than the 68th of the month following the month of remittance of the foreign e,change pa"ment of the import or themonth of pa"ment to thte domestic producers in case of locall" produced crude. -eriod after the specified date shall be sub$ect to a surcharge of <;A of theamount* id paid within :8 da"s from due date* plus 6A per month if paidafter :8 da"s.-ilipinas &hell $ustified its calculations pursuant to a valid interpretation of theM.'s but nonetheless paid the principal amount of its underpa"ment> -6@*;;@* :=7. :< but not the surcharges.1.5 re+uired &hell to pa" the surcharges sub$ect to proceeding against&hell#s Irrevocable &tandb" %etter of Credit.&hell appealed to the .ffice of the -resident.2he .ffice of the -resident affirmed 1.5.CA reversed the .ffice of the -resident* M.' CIRC3%AR <(=; as amended wasineffective for failure to compl" with the re+uirement to file with .NAR. :) 5ven if the Circular was issued before the effectivit" of 2he AdministrativeCode of <C=7* ?oo) 7* Chapter 6* &5C2I.N : specifies that rules alread" inforce at the date of effectivit" of the Administrative Code of <C=7 must befiled within : months from the effectivit" of the code. ISSUE: 4.N the M.' CIRC <(=; was effectiveQ HELD: No RATIO: &hell did not waive the re+uisite publication and filing of M.' CIRC <(=; b" pa"ing the principal amount of its underpa"ment. Citing 2anada J. 2uvera (<C=9) * &C enunciated that publication isindispensible in order that statures* including administrative rules that areintended to enforce or implement e,isting laws* attain binding force andeffect>4e hold therefore that all statutes* including those of local applicationand private laws* shall be published as a condition for their effectivit"*which shall begin fifteen da"s after publication unless a differenteffectivit" date is fi,ed b" the legislature.Covered b" this rule are presidential decrees and e,ecutive orderspromulgated b" the -resident in the e,ercise of legislative powerswhenever the same are validl" delegated b" the legislature or* atpresent* directl" conferred b" the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement e,isting law pursuantalso to a valid delegation. (5mphasis provided.)-ublication and filing are safeguards against abuses on the part of lawma)ersand as guarantees to the constitutional right to due process and toinformation on matters of public concern* and therefore* re+uire compliance. Citing> National Association of 5lectricit" Consumers for Reforms J.5nerg" Regulator" ?oard (6889)* &C emphasiBed that both publicationand filing of administrative issuances intended to enforce e,isting laws aremandator" for the effectivit" of said issuances>Nowhere from the above narration does it show that the /RAMImplementing Rules was published in the .fficial /aBette or in anewspaper of general circulation.&ignificantl"* the effectivit" clauses of both the /RAM and IC5RAImplementing Rules uniforml" provide that the" shall ta)e effectimmediatel".2hese clauses made no mention of their publication in either the .fficial/aBette or in a newspaper of general circulation.Moreover* per the Certification dated Fanuar" <<* 6889 of the .ffice of the National Administrative Register (.NAR)* the said implementingrules and regulations were not li)ewise filed with the

said office incontravention of the Administrative Code of <C=7.Appl"ing the doctrine enunciated in 2a`aada v. 2uvera * the Court haspreviousl" declared as having no force and effect the followingadministrative issuances> (<.) Rules and Regulations issued b" the Foint Ministr" of Health( Ministr" of %abor and 5mplo"ment Accreditation Committee regarding theaccreditation of hospitals* medical clinics and laboratories! (6.) %etter of Instruction No. <@<9 ordering the suspension of pa"ments due and pa"able b" distressed copper mining companies to thenational government! (:.) Memorandum Circulars issued b" the -hilippine .verseas5mplo"ment Administration regulating the recruitment of domestic helpersto Hong Hong! (@.) Administrative .rder No. &.C-5C =C(8=(8< issued b" the-hilippine International 2rading Corporation regulating applications forimportation from the -eoplebcds Republic of China! (;.) Corporation Compensation Circular No. <8 issued b" the1epartment of ?udget and Management discontinuing the pa"ment of other allowances and fringe benefits to government officials andemplo"ees! and (9.) -.5A Memorandum Circular No. 6 &eries of <C=: which providedfor the schedule of placement and documentation fees for privateemplo"ment agencies or authorit" holders.In all these cited cases* the administrative issuances +uestioned thereinwere uniforml" struc) down as the" were not published or filed with theNational Administrative Register..n the other hand* in Republic v. 5,press 2elecommunications Co.* Inc *the Court declared that the <CC: Revised Rules of the National2elecommunications Commission had not become effective despite thefact that it was filed with the National Administrative Register becausethe same had not been published at the time.2he Court emphasiBed therein that publication in the .fficial /aBette ora newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine +ua non beforestatutes* rules or regulations can ta)e effect.In this case* the /RAM Implementing Rules must be declaredineffective as the same was never published or filed with the NationalAdministrative Register.2o show that there was compliance with the publication re+uirement*respondents M5RA%C. and the 5RC dwell lengthil" on the fact thatparties* particularl" the distribution utilities and consumer groups* weredul" notified of the public consultation on the 5RC#s proposedimplementing rules.2hese parties participated in the said public consultation and evensubmitted their comments thereon. However* the fact that the parties participated in the publicconsultation and submitted their respective comments is notcompliance with the fundamental rule that the /RAMImplementing Rules* or an" administrative rules whose purposeis to enforce or implement e,isting law* must be published inthe .fficial /aBette or in a newspaper of general circulation. 2he re+uirement of publication of implementing rules of statutes ismandator" and ma" not be dispensed with altogether even if* as in thiscase* there was public consultation and submission b" the parties of their comments. (5mphasis provided.) 1I&-.&I2I.N> -etition is 15NI51. CA is A''IRM51

:. Manner of computing time C,v,& C *$= A('3 13 4hen the laws spea) of "ears* months* da"s or nights* it shall be understood that "ears are of three hundred si,t"(five da"s each! months* of thirt" da"s! da"s* of twent"(four hours! and nights from sunset to sunrise. If months are designated b" their name* the" shall be computed b" the number of da"s which the" respectivel" have. In computing a period* the first da" shall be e,cluded* and the last da" included. (7a)

4here a statute re+uires the doing of an act within a specified number of da"s* such as ten da"s from notice* it means ten calendar da"s and N.2 ten wor)ing da"s 5.g. < "ear from .ct. @* <C@9 is .ct. @* <C@7 If last da" falls on a &unda" or holida"* the act can still be done the following da" -rinciple of De,clude the first* include the lastE 1.5& N.2 A--%G to the computation of the period of prescription of a crime* in which rule* is that if the last da" in the period of prescription of a felon" falls on a &unda" or legal holida"* the information concerning said felon" cannot be filed on the ne,t wor)ing da"* as the offense has b" then alread" prescribed PN? v CA 444 SCRA 134

CEEI 7 DAYS N '$: <) Notices of sale under &ection : Act No. :<:; as amended b" Act No. @<<= on e,tra $udicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage are re+uired to be posted for not less that twent" da"s in at least three public places of the municipalit" or cit" where the propert" is situated 6) If propert" is worth more than @88* such notices shall be published once a wee) for atleast three consecutive wee)s in a news paper of general circulation in the municipalit" or cit" F"!'#: <) 5pifanio dela CruB mortgaged to -N? 6 parcels of land and -N? allegedl" unlawfull" foreclosed the propert" 6) -N1 consolidated ownership unto himself and sold the parcels to third part" :) -N? claims that the foreclosure* consolidation of ownership and sale to third part" were all valid @) -N? counterclaims for damages and other e+uitable remedies ;) : promissor" notes were signed in e,change for the 6 parcels located at ?unlo* ?ocaue ?ulacan with 2orrens titles (no. <97@: area of :*<8C s+m.! no. ;7=7 around 9<8 s+m.)Sstood a residential commercial building 9) %ots were under the common names of the 5pifanio dela CruB* his brother 1elfin and his sister Maria 7) -romissor" notes were as follows> a) 'or -<6*888 dated &eptember 6* <C;= pa"able within 9C da"s (date of maturit"SNov. <8* <C;=) b) 'or -@888*dated &ept. 66* <C;= pa"able within @C da"s (date of maturit"SNov. <8* <C;=) c) 'or -@888 dated Fune :8* <C;= and pa"able within <68 da"s (date of maturit"SNov* <8* <C;=) =) &ept 9* <C9<(Att" Ramon delos Re"es (-N?) presented under AC2 N.. :<:; a foreclosure petition (sheriffYs office* malolos ?ulacan) C) .ctober 68* <C9<Stwo lots were sold or auctioned off with -N? as the highest bidder for -6=*C8=.@9 <8) March 7* <C9:Ssheriff leopoldo -alad e,ecuted 'inal 1eed of &ale <<) Fanuar" <;* <C9:Scertificate of sale in favor of -N? e,ecuted b" -alad <6) March <C* <C9:Sfinal 1eed of &ale registered in the ?ulacan Registr" of -ropert" <:) -laintiff did not bu" bac) the landSFune @* <C78Sland was sold to Conrado de Jera and Marina de Jera in a edeed of conditional sale LOCER COURT: dismissed instant complaint against -N?. Counterclaim against 5pifanio dela cruB was also dismissed for the Court does not believe that the complaint had been made in bad faith. Not satisfied with $udgment plaintiff appealed the case presenting alleged errors in the decision of the lower court 1ecision of CA> construed the publication of the notices on March 6=* April << and <6* <C9C as a fatal announcementSreversed the

$udgment appealed fromS declared void* inter alia* the auction sale of the foreclosed pieces of realt"* the final deed of sale and the consolidation of ownership R$"# n#: <) 2he notices of sale re+uirements were not metSpublished on March 6= ('rida") * april << ('rida") and April <6* <C9C(&aturda") (re+uirement> notice of auction sale be epublished once a wee) for at least three consecutive wee)s) 6) Rule is that statutor" provisions governing publication of notice of mortgage foreclosure must be strictl" complied with* and that even the slight deviations from therefrom will invalidate the notice and render the sale atleast null and void :) It has been held that failure to advertise a mortgage foreclosure sale in compliance with statutor" re+uirements constitutes a $urisdictional defect invalidating the sale and that a substantial error or omission in a notice of sale will render the notice insufficient and vitiate the sale @) 2herefore* the court had no choice but to declare the auction sale as absolutel" void in view of the fact that the highest bidder and purchaser in said auction sale was defendant(appellee ban). ;) 2he Certificate of &ale* the 'inal deed of sale and affidavit of consolidation are li)ewise of no legal effect COMPUTATION OF TIME ACCORDING TO PN?: 2here was no breach of the proviso since after the first publication on March 6=* <C9C* the second notice was published on April <<* <C9C (last da" of the second wee)) while the third publication on April <6* <C9C (announced as first of ne,t wee)) ( It is enough that the second publication be made on the da" within the second wee) and the third publication* on an" da" within the third wee) ( 2his refers onl" to the dates of publication and not that there was non(compliance with the publication re+uirement PRI@ATE RESPONDENT: ( ?elieves that the period between each publication must never be less than seven consecutive da"s COURT: ( 5rroneous impression that the da" on which the first publication was made* or on MArch 6=* <C9C* should be e,cluded pursuant to the third paragraph of Article <: of the New Civil Code ( Conceded that Article <: is completel" silent as to the definition of what a ewee) is ( 2erm was interpreted to mean a period of time consisting of seven consecutive da"s (Moreno* -hilippine %aw dictionar") ( A 455H M5AN& &5J5N 1AG& IN%C3&IJ5 .' 1AG .' -3?%ICA2I.N ( 2herefore first wee) must cover March 6=(April :* second wee) april @(april <8 and third wee) from april <<(<9.Scannot be e+uated with compliance with law DECISION OF SC: 2he petition for certiorari and intervention are hereb" dismissed and the decision of the CA dated April <7* <CC< is hereb" affirmed

@IREBEN v NLRC 11 SCRA 347 4here a statute re+uires the doing of an act within a specified number of da"s* such as ten da"s from notice* it means ten calendar da"s and N.2 ten wor)ing da"s NS? DECISION> JirFen shipping and Marine &ervices Inc* to pa" the d) 4hen it failed and refused to admit and ta)e into account the following complainant seamen who have not withdrawn the case> Addendum agreement dated 1ecember 67* <C7=(to enlighten N%RC a) 5arned wages from <9 to <C April <C7C on the I2' problem b) 4ages corresponding to une,pired portion of their contract as e) 4hen it ordered the petitioner to pa" the respondents their wages ad$usted b" the compan" on < mar <C7C and other bonuses c) Ad$usted representation allowances f) In still including R.M5. AC.&2A as beneficiar" when in fact he d) Jacation pa"( f monthYs pa" after 9 months of service and f alread" signed statement of satisfaction of $udgment monthYs pa" after completion of < "ear contract g) ?ecause the N&? decision became final and e,ecutor for failure of e) 2an)er service bonusS<M6 monthYs pa" aid respondents to serve on the petitioner a cop" of their A--5A% f) 5arned overtime pa" for < to <C april <C7C AN1 M5M.RAN13M .' A--5A% within ten (<8) da"s reglementar" &ecretariat of N&? directed to issue within ; da"s from receipt of period for appeal and even after the e,piration of said period decision the necessar" clearances to the suspended seamen. SOLICITOR GENERAL:# CLAIMS F"!'#: <) -rivate respondentsY conduct was uncalled for* while wor)ers are <) -rivate respondents have a manning contract for < "ear with free to as) for wage increase* the" should not use threat or such petitioner (representing principal H"oei 2an)er Co %td.) nature and in such situation as to put the emplo"er at their complete 6) Manning contract approved b" N&? merc" and with no choice but to accede to their demands :) -etitioner and respondents e,ecuted side contract to pa" I2' rates 6) 2here was a valid $ustification of the part of the petitioner and or its when it calls on an" I2' controlled foreign port * private respondents principal to terminate the manning contract would return to petitioners the amount paid to them ($ust to satisf" 2' SC RULINGS re+uirements) Ful" C* <C=8> said decision received b" respondents @) March 6:* <C7C> one of private respondents sent a cable to Ful" 6:* <C=8( filed memorandum of appeal (<@ da"s after) petitioner demanding ;8A increase in wages as the best and onl" Article 66: of %abor Code> appeals should be made within <8 da"s solution to from receipt of decisionSthis meaning calendar da"s and not solve I2' problems (while in Australia* I2' controlled port) wor)ing da"s ;) 1ue to ethreat and intimidation petitioner replied on March 6@* 2he law has commanded that labor cases be promptl" if not <C7C proposing an increase of 6;A on basic pa" plus special preemptoril" dispose of compensation for the particular vo"age Jeril"* the Minister of %abor has no legal power to amend or alter in 9) March 69* <C7C> petitioner wrote to N&? denouncing the conduct of an" material sense whatever the law private respondentsSdemands amounting to g:*8C9.;8M month itself une+uivocall" specifies or fi,es 7) ?ecause of conduct and breach of contract H"oei 2an)er Co %td.! Acosta should not have been included as beneficiar" since he 2erminated the manning contract in a letter dated April @* <C7C alread" signed satisfaction of $udgment effective April <7* <C7C Article <6 of %abor code( dut" of the state to protect the good name =) April 9* <C7C> petitioner wrote to N&? to as) permission to cancel of the -hilippines abroad and dut" of the N&? to secure the best manning contract with petitioner on April <7* <C7C possible terms and conditions of emplo"ment for seamen C) April <8* <C7C> N&? through 5,ec 1ir. Cresencio C. 1a"ao* wrote All manning contracts should be approved b" the N&? and it petitioner authoriBing it to cancel the manning contract cannot <8) &eamen disembar)ed in Fapan and repatriated to the -hils be altered without approval of N&? <<) &eamen filed complaint with N&? for illegal dismissal and non( recogniBes rights of seamen to see) high wages but it could not pa"ment of wages however use threat and intimidation or force <6) N&? found the termination $ustified -owers of N%RC in relation to the wor)s and actuations of the N&? <:) &eamen appealed to N%RC and it reversed the decision of N&? is onl" appellate according to Article 68 read in relation to Article and re+uired pa"ments demanded b" seamenStermination without 66:* over +uestions of law* since as to factual matters* it ma" valid cause e,ercise such appellate $urisdiction onl" eif errors in the findings of 2hus this petition> fact are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or I##.$#: in$ur" to the appellant. <) Respondent N%RC acted without or in e,cess of $urisdiction with /eneral practice is to have side contracts(issue of bad faith)Sthe grave abuse of discretion in said N&? case nos. 66;8(7C and 66;6( said contracts are not meant at all to alter or modif" the contracts 7C in the following reasons> approved b" the N&?Sthe" are purported to enforce them to the a) 4hen it ad$udged the petitioner Jir($en liable to the respondents( letter* ma)ing it clearer that even if the ships have to call at I2' seamen for terminating its emplo"ment contracts controlled ports* the same shall remain to be the real and binding despite authorit" from N&? agreement between the parties in intentional disregard of whatever b) 4hen it concluded that there is nothing on record to show that the I2' ma" e,tract. seaman made an" threat that the" would complain or report to I2' 4H5R5'.R5> petition herein is /RAN251. 1ecision of the N%RC their low wage rates if their demand or proposal was not met complained hereb" is &52 A&I15* the decision of the N&? should c) 4hen it concluded that the respondent(seamen acted within &2AN1. No their rights when the" imposed upon their emplo"er their demands for costs. salar" and wage increase in disregard of e,isting manning contracts CIR v AICHI

GR N 3 184843 DOCTRINE: ( 2he CIR has <68 da"s* from the date of the submission of the complete documents within which to grant or den" the claim for Issues> refundMcredit of input vat. In case of full or partial denial b" the CIR* the <. 4hether or not the claim for refund was filed within the prescribed ta,pa"er#s recourse is to file an appeal before the C2A within :8 da"s period from receipt of the decision of the CIR. However* if after the <68(da" 6. 4hether or not the simultaneous filing of the administrative and the period the CIR fails to act on the application for ta, refundMcredit* the $udicial claims contravenes &ection 66C of the NIRC* which re+uires remed" of the ta,pa"er is to appeal the inaction of the CIR to C2A the prior filing of an administrative claim* and violates the doctrine of within :8 da"s. e,haustion of administrative remedies ( A ta,pa"er is entitled to a refund either b" authorit" of a statute e,pressl" granting such right* privilege* or incentive in his favor* or under the principle of solutio indebiti re+uiring the return of ta,es erroneousl" or illegall" collected. In both cases* a ta,pa"er must prove not onl" his entitlement to a refund but also his compliance with the procedural due process. ( As between the Civil Code and the Administrative Code of <C=7* it is the latter that must prevail being the more recent law* following the legal ma,im* %e, posteriori derogat priori. ( 2he phrase Dwithin two (6) "ears , , , appl" for the issuance of a ta, credit certificate or refundE under &ubsection (A) of &ection <<6 of the NIRC refers to applications for refundMcredit filed with the CIR and not to appeals made to the C2A. F"!'#: -etitioner filed a claim of refundMcredit of input vat in relation to its Bero(rated sales from Ful" <* 6886 to &eptember :8* 6886. 2he C2A 6nd 1ivision partiall" granted respondent#s claim for refundMcredit. -etitioner filed a Motion for -artial Reconsideration* insisting that the administrative and the $udicial claims were filed be"ond the two("ear period to claim a ta, refundMcredit provided for under &ections <<6(A) and 66C of the NIRC. He reasoned that since the "ear 688@ was a leap "ear* the filing of the claim for ta, refundMcredit on &eptember :8* 688@ was be"ond the two("ear period* which e,pired on &eptember 6C* 688@. He cited as basis Article <: of the Civil Code* which provides that when the law spea)s of a "ear* it is e+uivalent to :9; da"s. In addition* petitioner argued that the simultaneous filing of the administrative and the $udicial claims contravenes &ections <<6 and 66C of the NIRC. According to the petitioner* a prior filing of an administrative claim is a Dcondition precedentE before a $udicial claim can be filed. 2he C2A denied the M-R thus the case was elevated to the C2A 5n ?anc for review. 2he decision was affirmed. 2hus the case was elevated to the &upreme Court. Respondent contends that the non(observance of the <68(da" period given to the CIR to act on the claim for ta, refundMcredit in &ection <<6(1) is not fatal because what is important is that both claims are filed within the two("ear prescriptive period. In support thereof* respondent cited Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Jictorias Milling Co.* Inc. W<:8 -hil <6 (<C9=)X where it was ruled that Dif the CIR ta)es time in deciding the claim* and the period of two "ears is about to end* the suit or proceeding must be started in the C2A before the end of the two("ear period without awaiting the decision of the CIR.E /3 Application of &tatutes C n#','.', n= A(',!&$ III= S$!', n 44 > No e* post facto la( or bill of attainder shall be enacted. E> + #' /"!' &"5 After the fact! an act or fact occurring after some previous related act Held> <. Ges. As ruled in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant -agbilao Corporation (/.R. No. <76<6C* &eptember <6* 688=)* the two("ear period should be rec)oned from the close of the ta,able +uarter when the sales were made. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. -rimetown -ropert" /roup* Inc (/.R. No. <96<;;* August 6=* 6887* ;:< &CRA @:9)* we said that as )$'5$$n '%$ C,v,& C *$= 5%,!% +( v,*$# '%"' " 2$"( ,# $K.,v"&$n' ' 361 *"2#= "n* '%$ A*-,n,#'("',v$ C *$ / 1987= 5%,!% #'"'$# '%"' " 2$"( ,# ! -+ #$* / 14 !"&$n*"( - n'%#= ,' ,# '%$ &"''$( '%"' -.#' +($v",& )$,n0 '%$ - ($ ($!$n' &"5= / && 5,n0 '%$ &$0"& -">,-= L$> + #'$(, (, *$( 0"' +(, (,3 2hus* appl"ing this to the present case* the two("ear period to file a claim for ta, refundMcredit for the period Ful" <* 6886 to &eptember :8* 6886 e,pired on &eptember :8* 688@. Hence* respondent#s administrative claim was timel" filed. 6. Ges. 4e find the filing of the $udicial claim with the C2A premature. &ection <<6(1) of the NIRC clearl" provides that the CIR has D<68 da"s* from the date of the submission of the complete documents in support of the application Wfor ta, refundMcreditX*E within which to grant or den" the claim. In case of full or partial denial b" the CIR* '%$ '">+"2$(:# ($! .(#$ ,# ' /,&$ "n "++$"& )$/ ($ '%$ CTA 5,'%,n 30 *"2# /( - ($!$,+' / '%$ *$!,#, n / '%$ CIR. However* if after the <68(da" period the CIR fails to act on the application for ta, refundMcredit* the remed" of the ta,pa"er is ' "++$"& '%$ ,n"!', n / '%$ CIR ' CTA 5,'%,n 30 *"2#. &ubsection (A) of &ection <<6 of the NIRC states that Dan" JA2( registered person* whose sales are Bero(rated or effectivel" Bero(rated ma"* within two "ears after the close of the ta,able +uarter when the sales were made* appl" for the issuance of a ta, credit certificate or refund of creditable input ta, due or paid attributable to such sales.E 2he phrase Dwithin two (6) "ears , , , appl" for the issuance of a ta, credit certificate or refundE refers to applications for refundMcredit filed with the CIR and not to appeals made to the C2A. 2he case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Jictorias Milling* Co.* Inc. is inapplicable as the ta, provision involved in that case is &ection :89* now &ection 66C of the NIRC. &ection 66C does not appl" to refundsMcredits of input JA2. 2he premature filing of respondent#s claim for refundMcredit of input JA2 before the C2A warrants a dismissal inasmuch as no $urisdiction was ac+uired b" the C2A.

?,&& / A''",n*$( A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a $udicial determination of guilt. 2he constitutional ban against bill of attainder serves to implement the principle of separation of powers b" confining legislatures to rule(ma)ing and thereb" forestalling legislative usurpation of the $udicial function. C,v,& C *$= A(',!&$ 4 A %aws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrar" is provided. 1987 A*-,n,#'("',v$ C *$= S$!', n 19 ( Prospecti!ity" %aws shall have prospective effect unless the contrar" is e,pressl" provided R$v,#$* P$n"& C *$= A(',!&$ 44 ? 8etroacti!e effect of penal la(s. -enal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as the" favor the person guilt" of a felon"* who is not a habitual criminal* as this term is defined in Rule ; of Art 96 of this code* although at the time of publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. -rospective and retroactive statutes* defined -rospective o operates upon facts or transactions that occur after the statute ta)es effect o loo)s and applies to the future. Retroactive o %aw which creates a new obligation* imposes a new dut" or attaches a new disabilit" in respect to a transaction alread" past. o A statute is not made retroactive because it draws on antecedent facts for its operation* or part of the re+uirements for its action and application is drawn from a time antedating its passage. %aws operate prospectivel"* generall" It is a settled rule in statutor" construction that statutes are to be construed as having onl" prospective operation* unless the intendment of the legislature is to give them a retroactive effect* e,pressl" declare or necessaril" implied from the language used. -resumption against retroactivit" -resumption is that all laws operate prospectivel"* unless the contrar" clearl" appears or is clearl"* plainl" and une+uivocall" e,pressed or necessaril" implied. In case of doubt> resolved against the retroactive operation of laws If statute is susceptible of construction other than that of retroactivit" or will render it unconstitutional( the statute will be given prospective effect and operation. -resumption is strong against substantive laws affecting pending actions or proceedings. No substantive statute shall be so construed retroactivel" as to affect pending litigations. 4ords or phrases indicating prospectivit" Indicating prospective operation> o A statute is to appl" DhereafterE or DthereafterE o Dfrom and after the passing of this ActE o Dshall have been madeE o Dfrom and afterE a designated date D&hallE implies that the law ma)es intend the enactment to be effective onl" in future" &tatutes have no retroactive but prospective effect> o DIt shall ta)e effect upon its approvalE o &hall ta)e effect on the date the -resident shall have issued a proclamation or 5...* as provided in the statute Retroactive statutes* generall" 2he Constitution does not prohibit the enactment of retroactive statutes which do not impair the obligation of contract* deprive persons of propert" without due process of law* or divest rights which have become vested* or which are not in the nature of e* post facto laws. &tatutes b" nature which are retroactive> o Remedial or curative statutes o &tatutes which create new rights o &tatute e,pressl" provides that it shall appl" retroactivel" o 4here it uses words which clearl" indicate its intent STATUTES GI@EN PROSPECTI@E EFFECT -enal statutes* generall" -enal laws operate prospectivel". Art. 6< of the R-C provides that Dno felon" shall be punishable b" an" penalt" not prescribed b" law prior to its commission. -rovision is recognition to the universall" accepted principle that no penal law can have a retroactive effect* no act or omission shall be held to be a crime* nor its author punished* e,cept b" virtue of a law in force at the time the act was committed.

=ullum crimen sine poena, nulla poena sine legis ? there is no crime without a penalt"* there is no penalt" without a law.

-* post facto law Constitution provides that no e* post facto law shall be enacted. It also prohibits the retroactive application of penal laws which are in the nature of e* post facto laws. -* post facto laws are an" of the following> o %aw ma)es criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done* and punishes such act o %aw which aggravates a crime* ma)es it greater than it was* when committed o %aw which changes the punishment L inflicts a greater punishment than that anne,ed to the crime when committed o %aw which alters the legal rules of evidence* authoriBes conviction upon less or different testimon" than the law re+uired at the time of the commission of the offense o %aw which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies onl"* but in effect imposes penalt" or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful o %aw which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled* such as protection of a former conviction or ac+uittal* or proclamation of amnest". 2est if e* post facto clause is violated> 1oes the law sought to be applied retroactivel" ta)e from an accused an" right vital for protection of life and libert"Q &cope> applies onl" to criminal or penal matters It does N.2 appl" to laws concerning civil proceedings generall"* or which affect or regulate civil or private rights or political privilege ?ill of attainder Constitution provides that no bill of attainder shall be enacted. ?ill of attainder legislative act which inflicts punishment without $udicial trial 5ssence> substitution of a legislative for a $udicial determination of guilt &erves to implement the principle of separation of powers b" confining the legislature to rule(ma)ing L thereb" forestalling legislative usurpation of $udicial functions. Histor"> ?ill of Attainder was emplo"ed to suppress unpopular causes L political minorities* and this is the evil sought to be suppressed b" the Constitution. How to spot a ?ill of Attainder> o &ingling out of a definite minorit" o Imposition of a burden on it o A legislative intent o retroactive application to past conduct suffice to stigmatiBe ?ill of Attainder is ob$ectionable because of its e* post facto features. Accordingl"* if a statute is a ?ill of Attainder* it is also an e* post facto law. 4hen penal laws applied retroactivel" -enal laws cannot be given retroactive effect* e,cept when the" are favorable to the accused. Art.66 of R-C Dpenal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as the" favor the person guilt" of a felon"* who is not a habitual criminal* as this term is defined in Rule ; Art 96 of the Code * although at the time of the application of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. 2his is not an e* post facto law. 5,ception to the general rule that all laws operate prospectivel". Rule is founded on the principle that> the right of the state to punish and impose penalt" is based on the principles of $ustice. $a!orabilia sunt amplianda, adiiosa restrigenda ? Conscience and good law $ustif" this e,ception. 5,ception was inspired b" sentiments of humanit" and accepted b" science. 6 laws affecting the liabilit" of accused> o In force at the time of the commission of the crime during the pendenc" of the criminal action* a statute is passed reducing the degree of penalt" eliminating the offense itself removing subsidiar" imprisonment in case of insolvenc" to pa" the civil liabilit" prescription of the offense such statute will be applied retroactivel" and the trial court before the finalit" of $udgment or the appellate court on appeal from such $udgment should ta)e such statute in consideration. o 5nacted during or after the trial of the criminal action 5,ceptions to the rule> o 4hen accused is habitual delin+uent o 4hen statute provides that it shall not appl" to e,isting actions or pending cases /eneral rule> An amendator" statute rendering an illegal act prior to its enactment no longer illegal is given retroactive effect does not appl" when amendator" act specificall" provides that it shall onl" appl" prospectivel".

&tatutes substantive in nature &ubstantive law o creates* defines or regulates rights concerning life* libert" or propert"* or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for administration of public affairs. o that part of law which creates* defines L regulates rights* or which regulates rights or duties which give rise to a cause of action o that part of law which courts are established to administer o when applied to criminal law> that which declares which acts are crimes and prescribe the punishment for committing them o Cannot be construed retroactivel" as it might affect previous or past rights or obligations &ubstantive rights o .ne which includes those rights which one en$o"s under the legal s"stem prior to the disturbance of normal relations. Cases with substantive statutes> 5ffects on pending actions &tatutes affecting substantive rights ma" not be given retroactive operation so as to govern pending proceedings. ^ualification of rule A substantive law will be construed as applicable to pending actions if such is the clear intent of the law. 2o promote social $ustice or in the e,ercise of police power* is intended to appl" to pending actions As a rule* a case must be decided in the light of the law as it e,ists at the time of the decision of the appellate court* where the statute changing the law is intended to be retroactive and to appl" to pending litigations or is retroactive in effect 2his rule is true though it ma" result in the reversal of a $udgment which as correct at the time it was rendered b" the trial court. 2he rule is sub$ect to the limitation concerning constitutional restrictions against impairment of vested rights &tatutes affecting vested rights A vested right or interest ma" be said to mean some right or interest in propert" that has become fi,ed or established and is no longer open to doubt or controvers" Rights are vested when the right to en$o"ment* present or prospective* has become the propert" of some particular person or persons* as a present interest 2he right must be absolute* complete and unconditional* independent of a contingenc" A mere e,pectanc" of future benefit or a contingent interest in propert" founded on anticipated continuance of e,isting laws does not constitute a vested right Inchoate rights which have not been acted on are not vested

A statute ma" not be construed and applied retroactivel" under the following circumstances> o if it impairs substantive right that has become vested! o as disturbing or destro"ing e,isting right embodied in a $udgment! o creating new substantive right to fundamental cause of action where none e,isted before and ma)ing such right retroactive! o b" arbitraril" creating a new right or liabilit" alread" e,tinguished b" operation of law %aw creating a new right in favor of a class of persons ma" not be so applied if the new right collides with or impairs an" vested right ac+uired before the establishment of the new right nor* b" the terms of which is retroactive* be so applied if> o it adversel" affects vested rights o unsettles matter alread" done as re+uired b" e,isting law o wor)s in$ustice to those affected thereb"

&tatutes affecting obligations of contract An" contract entered into must be in accordance with* and not repugnant to* the applicable law at the time of e,ecution. &uch law forms part of* and is read into* the contract even without the parties e,pressl" sa"ing so. %aws e,isting at the time of the e,ecution of contracts are the ones applicable to such transactions and not later statutes* unless the latter provide that the" shall have retroactive effect. %ater statutes will not* however* be given retroactive effect if to do so will impair the obligation of contracts* for the Constitution prohibits the enactment of a law impairing the obligations of contracts. An" law which enlarges* abridges* or in an" manner changes the intention of the parties necessaril" impairs the contract itself A statute which authoriBes an" deviation from the terms of the contract b" postponing or accelerating the period of performance which it prescribes* imposing conditions not e,pressed in the contract* or dispensing with those which are however minute or apparentl" immaterial in their effect upon the contract* impairs the obligation* and such statute should not therefore be applied retroactivel". As between two feasible interpretations of a statute* the court should adopt that which will avoid the impairment of the contract. If the contract is legal at it inception* it cannot be rendered illegal b" a subse+uent legislation.

A law b" the terms of which a transaction or agreement would be illegal cannot be given retroactive effect so as to nullif" such transactions or agreement e,ecuted before said law too) effect.

Repealing and amendator" acts &tatutes which repeal earlier or prior laws operate prospectivel"* unless the legislative intent to give them retroactive effect clearl" appears. Although a repealing state is intended to be retroactive* it will not be so construed if it will impair vested rights or the obligations of contracts* or unsettle matters that had been legall" done under the old law. Repealing statutes which are penal in nature are generall" applied retroactivel" if favorable to the accused* unless the contrar" appears or the accused is otherwise not entitled to the benefits of the repealing act. 4hile an amendment is generall" construed as becoming a part of the original act as if it had alwa"s been contained therein * it ma" not be given a retroactive effect unless it is so provided e,pressl" or b" necessar" implication and no vested right or obligations of contract are thereb" impaired. 2he general rule on the prospective operation of statutes also applies to amendator" acts STATUTES GI@EN RETROACTI@E EFFECT -rocedural laws 2he general law is that the law has no retroactive effect. 5,ceptions> o procedural laws o curative laws* which are given retroactive operation -rocedural laws o ad$ective laws which prescribe rules and forms of procedure of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion o the" refer to rules of procedure b" which courts appl"ing laws of all )inds can properl" administer in$ustice o the" include rules of pleadings* practice and evidence o Applied to criminal law* the" provide or regulate the steps b" which one who commits a crime is to be punished. o Remedial statutes or statutes relating to modes of procedure( which do not create new or ta)e awa" vested rights* but onl" operate in furtherance of the remed" or confirmation of the rights alread" e,isting* do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law* or the general rule against the retroactive operation of statutes. o A new statute which deals with procedure onl" is presumptivel" applicable to all actions those which have accrued or are pending. o &tatutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. 2he retroactive application of procedural laws is not> o violative of an" right of a person who ma" feel that he is adversel" affected! o nor constitutionall" ob$ectionable. 8ationale: no vested right ma" attach to* nor arise from* procedural laws. A person has no vested right in an" particular remed"* and a litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case* whether civil or criminal* of an" other than the e,isting rules of procedure Curative statutes curative remedial statutes are healing acts the" are remedial b" curing defects and adding to the means of enforcing e,isting obligations the rule to curative statutes is that if the thing omitted or failed to be done* and which constitutes the defect sought to be removed or made harmless* is something which the legislature might have dispensed with b" a previous statute* it ma" do so b" a subse+uent one curative statutes are intended to suppl" defects* abridge superfluities in e,isting laws* and curb certain evils. 2he" are designed and intended* but has failed of e,pected legal conse+uence b" reason of some statutor" disabilit" or irregularit" in their own action. 2he" ma)e valid that which* before the enactment of the statute* was invalid. 2heir purpose is to give validit" to acts done that would have been invalid under e,isting laws* as if e,isting laws have been complied with %imitations of rule remedial statutes will not be given retroactive effect if to do so would impair the obligations of contract or disturb vested rights onl" administrative or curative features of the statute as will not adversel" affect e,isting rights will be given retroactive operation the e,ception to the foregoing limitations of the rule is a remedial or curative statute which is enacted as a police power measure &tatutes of this t"pe ma" be given retroactive effect even though the" impair vested rights or the obligations of contract* if the legislative intent is to give them retrospective operation 8ationale: 2he constitutional restriction against impairment against obligations of contract or vested rights does not preclude the legislature from enacting statutes in the e,ercise of its police power -olice power legislations as a rule* statutes which are enacted in the e,ercise of police power to regulate certain activities* are applicable not onl" to those activities or transactions coming into being after their passage* but also to those alread" in e,istence

8ationale: the non(impairment of the obligations of contract or of vested rights must "ield to the legitimate e,ercise of power* b" the legislature* to prescribe regulations to promote the health* morals* peace* education* good order* safet" and general welfare of the people An" right ac+uired under a statute or under a contract is sub$ect to the condition that it ma" be impaired b" the state in the legitimate e,ercise of its police power* since the reservation of the essential attributes of sovereign power is deemed read into ever" statute or contract as a postulate of the legal order

&tatutes relating to prescription /eneral rule> a statute relating to prescription of action* being procedural in nature* applies to all actions filed after its effectivit". In other words* such a statute is both> o prospective in the sense that it applies to causes that accrued and will accrue after it too) effect* and o retroactive in the sense that it applies to causes that accrued before its passage However* a statute of limitations will not be given retroactive operation to causes of action that accrued prior to its enactment if to do so will remove a bar of limitation which has become complete or disturb e,isting claims without allowing a reasonable time to bring actions thereon &tatutes relating to appeals 2he right to appeal from an adverse $udgment* other than that which the Constitution grants* is statutor" and ma" be restricted or ta)en awa" A statute relating to appeals is remedial or procedural in nature and applies to pending actions in which no $udgment has "et been promulgated at the time the statute too) effect. &uch statute* li)e other statutes* ma" not however be construed retroactivel" so as to impair vested rights. Hence* a statute which eliminates the right to appeal and considers the $udgment rendered in a case final and unappealable* destro"s the right to appeal a decision rendered after the statute went into effect* but N.2 the right to prosecute an appeal that has been perfected before the passage of the law* for in the latter case* the right of the appellant to appeal has become vested under the old law and ma" not therefore be impaired. &tature shortening the period for ta)ing appeals is to be given prospective effect and ma" not be applied to pending proceedings in which $udgment has alread" been rendered at the time of its enactment e,cept if there#s clear legislative intent. PEOPLE v SUMILANG /.R. No. %(@C<=7 (1ecember <=* <C@9) DOCTRINE: -rocedural laws are retrospective if pending. &tatutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. FACTS: guerilla. 2he attorne" pra"s that the reading of the sentence be suspended and that petitioner be allowed to file whatever 2he petitioner was convicted of the crime of arson and pleading that ma" be allowed b" this Honorable 2ribunal sentenced to the indeterminate penalt" from ; "ears and @ necessar" for the protection of the rights of the petitioner. months and 6< da"s of prision correctional to <8 "ears and < da" ISSUE: of prision ma"or. 4MN the petition to suspend reading of sentence and to file pleading or .n appeal* both the CA and the &C affirmed the sentence of the motion should be granted. lower court. HELD: ?ased on the records* a cop" of the resolution of the Court No. It is a well established rule of statutor" construction that den"ing the motion for reconsideration was mailed to the statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed petitioner#s attorne". as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of However* the attorne" alleges in his petition that he did not their passage. receive the notice because then he was alread" hiding in the -rocedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that mountains of %aguna as a guerilla officer of the Mar)ings e,tent. TIU SAN v REPU?LIC DOCTRINE: 5,pressed intent to ta)e effect in pending cases. FACTS: 15CI&I.N>Ges. ?" virtue of &ec @ of R.A. No. ;:8* e,cept with -etitioner* 2iu &an alias Angel /omeB was denied certificate of reference to the date of the hearing of the petition naturaliBation on Fune :* <C;: b" the court dueto his conviction fornaturaliBation* the said Act was meant to have a on April 6;* <C;6 for a violation of a municipal ordinance of retrospective operation. 2his section of the Act provides> 2his %ucena* ^ueBon that occurredduring the intervening two "ears Act shall ta)e effect upon its approval* and shall appl" to cases from promulgation of the decision for naturaliBation dated Ful" pending in court and to those where the applicant has not "et <:* <C;8pursuant to R.A. No. ;:8. ta)en the oath of citiBenship.. 2he petitioner alleged that* with reference to R.A. No. ;:8 &ec. < &tatute> An applicant ma" be allowed to ta)e his oath as a citiBen clause (:)* thisprovision is not applicable to the case at bar after 6 "ears from the promulgation of the decision granting his since the violation of the aforementioned ordinance petition for naturaliBation if he can show that during the occurredprior to the enactment of the said R.A. No. ;:8. intervening period Dhe has not been convicted of an" offense or violation of government rulesE I&&35>&hould R.A. ;:8 be given retrospective effectQ .R Held> law did not ma)e an" distinction between mala in se and whether the conviction of an applicant for naturaliBation for violation of a municipal ordinance would dis+ualif" him from mala prohibita" Conviction of the applicant from violation of ta)ing his oath as a citiBen. municipal ordinance is comprehended within the statute and precludes applicant from ta)ing his oath. 2he illegal timber"ard is still present up to time of promulgation.

CHA@EG v COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS 9 SCRA 414 819639 DOCTRINE: Amendment does not give successional right especiall" if it impairs a substantive right. F"!'#: A+uilino de los Re"es bought of a parcel of Riceland with the cultivate the land himself personall" RE. intention of wor)ing it himself but he could not ta)e possession of the I##.$: Can R.A. No. 669: be applied retroactivel"Q land because the then incumbent tenant* -ablo ChaveB* did not want D$!,#, n: N.. Republic Act 669: cannot be applied retroactivel". to surrender the land to its new owner. According to -ablo ChaveB his ( &ince the law in force on .ctober 6<* <C;=* when the tenant -ablo son 5ugenio ChaveB was wor)ing the land for him* he was 7@ "ears of ChaveB died* was Republic Act <<CC* under which the tenanc" age alread". relationship between him and respondent 1e los Re"es was ( A+uilino de los Re"es filed a petition with this Court against -ablo terminated b" reason of such death* the subse+uent enactment of ChaveB as)ing for authorit" to dispossess said tenant but suit was Republic Act 669: did not operate to confer upon petitioner an" dismissed. successional right to continue as tenant. ( 2hen* -ablo ChaveB died of old age (senilit") on .ctober 6<* <C;=. ( In 3lpiendo v. CAR the Court ruled that D2he amendment to section 4hen he died the law governing tenant and landowner relation is C* Republic Act No. <<CC b" Republic Act No. 669: providing for the Republic Act No. <<CC. 3nder this statute the tenanc" relationship continuance of the relationship in the event of the tenant#s death or between the petitioner ChaveB and respondent 1e los Re"es was incapacit" Dbetween the landholder and one member of the tenant#s terminated b" reason of such death. immediate farm household who is related to the tenant within the ( .n April =* <C;C 5ugenio ChaveB filed a petition* this time R.A. No. second degree of consanguinit" and who shall cultivate the land <<CC was amended b" R.A. No. 669:. 3nli)e R.A. No. <<CC* he himself personall" RE which too) effect on <C Fune <C;C* cannot be amendment provides for the continuance of the relationship in the applied retroactivel".E 2o hold otherwise would la" open this particular event of the tenant#s death or incapacit" Dbetween the landholder and provision of the law to the ob$ection of unconstitutionalit"* on the one member of the tenant#s immediate farm household who is related ground that it impairs a substantive right that has alread" become to the tenant within the second degree of consanguinit" and who shall vested. CE?U PORTLAND CEMENT CO3 v COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL RE@ENUE /.R. No. 68;9: (.ctober 6C* <C9=) DOCTRINE: A statute operates prospectivel" onl" and never retroactivel"* unless the legislative intent to the contrar" is made manifest either b" the e,press terms of the statute or b" necessar" implication. In ever" case of doubt* the doubt must be resolved against the retrospective effect. 2a, laws operate prospectivel"* whether the" enact* amend* or repeal. FACTS: 2he case involves petitionerVs claim for refund of sales ta, paid 4hile the purpose of the amendment* as mentioned in the from November <C;@ to March <C;;* and ad valorem ta, paid from April <C;; to &eptember <C;9 from the sale of A-. e,planator" note to the bill* was not onl" to Kaccelerate the -ortland cement produced b" petitioner. collection of mining ro"alties and ad valorem ta,es but also clarif" the doubt of the ta,(pa"ing public on the interpretative &ince <C;6* however* petitioner had been protesting the scope of the two terms*K. imposition of the sales ta, on its A-. -ortland cement* and on It certainl" could not have been the intention of the lawma)ers to Fanuar" <C;:* it also protested the pa"ment of the ad valorem ta,es. -etitioner claimed for refund and brought its case to the unsettle previousl" consummated transactions between the Court of 2a, Appeals. ta,pa"er and the /overnment. -etitioner contends that the percentage ta,es collected b" A statute operates prospectivel" and never retroactivel"* unless respondent are refundable since under RA <66C (effective Fune contrar" is made manifest b" the legislative intent either <C;;)* producers of cement are e,empt from the pa"ment of said e,pressl" or b" necessar" implication. 1oubt must be resolved ta,. 2he Court of 2a, Appeals ruled otherwise. against retroactivit". ISSUE: Nothing in the statute shows the legislative intent for retroactive 4hether RA <66C applies prospectivel" or retroactivel". effect. 2he use of the word DshallE shows that it was intended for HELD: future effect. A statute operates prospectivel" onl" and never retroactivel"* Congress discussions made no mention of the ta,es previousl" unless the legislative intent to the contrar" is made manifest collected either b" the e,press terms of the statute or b" necessar" 2a, laws operate prospectivel"* whether the" enact* amend* or implication. In ever" case of doubt* the doubt must be resolved repeal against the retrospective effect. DE@ELOPMENT ?ANI OF THE PHILIPPINES v COURT OF APPEALS /.R. No. %(6=77@ ('ebruar" 6=* <C=8) DOCTRINE: Curative statutes appl" retroactivel". FACTS: 2he ?oard of /overnors appropriated mone" to purchase land for a housing pro$ect for its emplo"ees who shall pa" for them in monthl" installments for 68 "ears. However* the area sold was then part of a bigger parcel of land and because the subdivision plan for the area was still pending

approval b" the ?ureau of %ands* the sales agreement between the 1?- and the -HHC was not presented immediatel" for registration b" the 1?-. 1?- e,pressed its doubts as to whether it could ac+uire the propert" in +uestion for the intended purpose of a housing pro$ect in the light of the then &ec. <: of RA =;. However* without the )nowledge of the 1?-* a portion of the propert" including the <;C lots sold to the 1?-* were segregated and a separate certificate of title was issued for the segregated portion in the name of -HHC wherein there was no annotation whatsoever to the title. 2hen* RA :<@7 was enacted* amending certain provisions of the 1?- Charter (RA =;)* among which was &ec. <:.

ISSUE: 4MN there is retroactivit" of the amendment of &ec. <: of RA =;* b" RA :<@7. HELD: Ges. .ne of the purposes of Congress when it enacted RA :<@7* b" amending &ec. <: of RA =;* was to erase an" doubts regarding the legalit" of the ac+uisition b" the 1?- of the <;C lots from the -HHC for the housing pro$ect which it intended to establish for its emplo"ees who did not "et have houses of their own. It is* therefore* a curative statute to render valid the ac+uisition b" the 1?- of the <;C lots from the -HHC.

TAC:AN v COURT OF APPEALS DOCTRINE: Contracts are construed at the time the" were entered into. A repealing statute cannot be given retroactive effect when substantive statute was e,isting at the time the contract was entered into. FACTS: CA voided the transfer of land to 2ac(An March <C98> Att". 'elipe /. 2ac(An represented brothers 5leuterio o It applied &ec <@; of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and and Ma,imino Acopiado* accused of frustrated murder and theft of &ulu (because the brothers were Non(Christians but &ubanons) large cattle in Mun. Court of New -i]an* 0amboanga del Norte o &tates that no contract shall be made with non(Christian tribes A+(,& 4= 1960> a D1eed of ^uitclaimE was created b" 2ac(An* which for the pa"ment or deliver" of mone" or an" real propert"* unless states that the borthers were to conve" to him a parcel of land (: it is e,ecuted before a $udge of a court of record* $ustice or hectares) as his fees for representing them! it was ac)nowledged au,iliar" $ustice of the peace* or notar" public* and it must bear before a notar" public the approval of the provincial governor o Contracts made in violation are null and void 6 da"s after> the brothers told 2ac(An that the" were terminating his services because their wives and parents did not agree with the Hence* present petition conve"ance of the land! but he continued to represent them -etitioner argues that since the revocation was made after Ac+uitted and dismissed for frustrated murder and theft* the complaint was filed* it cannot affect his right to the land respectivel" which has alread" vested April 6* <C9<> 5leuterio sold his share of the land previousl" He also argues that Admin Code of Mindanao and &ulu conve"ed to 2ac(An to Fesus -aghasian and -ilar %ibetario* who was repealed b" RA No. @6;6 on B.n$ 19= 1961* hence the did not ta)e possession of the same approval was not even necessar" Fune <C9@> 2ac(An appointed Irineo Jille$o as his overseer in the ISSUE: 4MN RA No. @6;6 has retroactive effect HELD: No. land RA2I.> B.&2 4= 1964> 2ac(An secured approval of /overnor of 0amboaga 1uring the material times of the case* <) when the deed was del Norte to the 1eed of ^uitclaim e,ecuted* 6) when the approval of the governor was given and o Approval revo)ed on A+(,& 14= 1961 revo)ed* the Administrative Code of the Mindanao and &ulu were in .ct. 7* <C9@> filed a complaint against the brothers* -aghasian* and full force and effect %ibetario (C'I of 01N) for him to be declared owner of the land and 2he said Admin Code was substantive in nature! the repealing the subse+uent sale be annulled statute cannot be given retroactive effect C'I decided in favor of 2ac(An EUGENIO v DRILON /.R. No. <8C@8@ (Fanuar" 66* <CC9) DOCTRINE: If there is e,pressed intent for a law to have retroactive effect* it will appl" even in contracts. 2he intent of the statute is the law. FACTS: he made for the lot sold to the spouses. -rivate Respondent purchased on installment basis from -etitioner claims that the 5,ec. &ec. erred in appl"ing -.1. C;7 -etitioner* two lots. sa"ing it should have not been given retroactive effect and that non(development does not $ustif" the non(pa"ment of the -rivate respondent suspended pa"ment of his amortiBations amortiBations. because of nondevelopment on the propert". ISSUE: -etitioner then sold one of the two lots to spouses Relevo and 4MN the 5,ecutive &ecretar" acted with grave abuse of discretion the title was registered under their name. when he decided -.1. C;7 will be given retroactive effect. Respondent pra"ed for annulment of sale and reconve"ance of HELD: the lot to him. No. Respondent 5,ecutive &ecretar" did not act with grave abuse of Appl"ing -.1. C;7 K2he &ubdivision and Condominium ?u"ersV discretion and -.1. C;7 is to given retroactive effect so as to cover -rotective 1ecreeK* the Human &ettlements Regulator" even those contracts e,ecuted prior to its enactment in <C79. -.1. C;7 Commission ordered -etitioner to complete the development* did not e,pressl" provide for retroactivit" in its entiret"* but such can reinstate -rivate RespondentVs purchase contract over one lot be plainl" inferred from the unmista)able intent of the law. K2he intent and immediatel" refund him of the pa"ment (including interest) of the statute is the law.K ALUNAN III v MIRASOL

FACTS: R2C ruled in favor of the private respondents* ordered &ec @6: of the %/C of <CC< (' 7 $//$!' B"n3 1= 1994) petitioners to desist from implementing the 1I%/ order and to provides for an &H in ever" baranga" (chairman* 7 members* perform the specified pre(election activities secretar"* treasurer) -etitioners went to the &C* insisting that because the Cit" of &ec ;:6(a)> first election shall be held :8 da"s after the ne,t Manila alread" had an election on M"2 46= 1990* it was local election e,empted from holding elections on 1ec. @* <CC6* citing %/C* &ec. ;:6(d) <st local election under the code> Ma" <<* <CC6 o &tated that elections held for the )abataang baranga" &H elections scheduled for &ept :8* <CC6 (postponed)* then conducted under ?- ::7 bet. Fan <* <C== and Fan <* <CC6 1ec. @* <CC6 through a C.M5%5C resolution (which also shall be considered as the <st election under the Code placed the &H elections under the direct control and o P$',', n$(# "(0.$: #",* +( v,#, n #% .&* "++&2 ' supervision of the 1I%/) $&$!', n# ! n*.!'$* )$/ ($ '%$ $//$!',v,'2 / '%$ ! *$ &ept. <=* <CC<> 1I%/* through then &ec. Alunan III issued a ISSUE: 4MN &ec. ;:6(d) has retroactive effect letter(resolution e,empting Cit" of Manila from holding HELD: Ges. elections for &H on the ground that the elections held on Ma" RATIO: 69* <CC8 for Habataang ?aranga" (precursor of &H) were to be &ec ;:6(d) is a curative law. It was enacted to validate an act considered the first under the code (conducted bet. Fan <* done in the past which otherwise would be invalid under e,isting <C== and Fan <* <CC6 under ?- ::7) laws. 2hus* it has retroactive effect -rivate respondents* claiming to represent members of the Hatipunan ng Habataan* filed a paetition in the R2C of Manila to set aside the 1I%/ decision SU?IDO= BR v SANDIGAN?AYAN FACTS: o 2he" also contend that penal laws should not be given 'iled Ful" 6=* <CC; (but dated Ful" <7* <CC;) > petitioners retroactive application if the" are unfavorable to the accused (R-C 66) ?a"ani &ubido* Fr. (then a Commissioner of the ?ureau of Immigration and 1eportation ?I1) and Rene -arina (then a ?I1 &andiganba"an denied the Motion to ^uash. 6nd motion for &pecial Agent) were charged with Arbitrar" 1etention reconsideration denied. o 2he" allegedl" issued and implemented a warrant of arrest Hence* present petition for one Fames F. Ma)simu) on Fune 6;* <CC6* even as the ISSUE: 4MN RA 7C7; should be applied retroactivel" to the case ?I1 decision re+uiring Ma)simu)#s deportation has not "et HELD: Ges. become final and e,ecutor" RATIO: o He was detained for @: da"s 2he alleged commission of the crime happened < "ear* <8 Aug. 6=* <CC;> arraignment was scheduled months* and 6< da"s before RA 7C7; too) effect Aug. 6=* <CC;> petitioners filed a Motion to ^uash because 2hus* &ec @ of -1 <989* prior to the amendment* contains the according to them* in view of the effectivit" of RA 7971 applicable provisions 8+( v,*$* / ( '%$ ($ (0"n,L"', n / '%$ S"n*,0"n)"2"nM o states that offenses committed b" public officers and "-$n*$* PD 1606 !($"',n0 '%$ S"n*,0"n)"2"n9 n M"2 16= emplo"ees in relation to their office punishable b" penalties 1991* the &andiganba"an had no $urisdiction over both the higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for 9 "ears offense and the accused. are within the &andiganba"an#s $urisdiction o &aid RA should be given prospective application o prescribed penalt" for their case is prision ma"or (9 "ears o A' '%$ ',-$ '%$ !"#$ 5"# /,&$*= S.),* 5"# "&($"*2 " and < da" to <6 "ears) +(,v"'$ +$(# n= %"v,n0 )$$n #$+"("'$* /( - '%$ #$(v,!$ o plus* it was committed while the" were in performance of n F$)3 48= 1991 "n* )$!".#$ P"(,n" * $# n ' %"v$ " their official functions #"&"(2 0("*$ / 647; 8,3$3 n n$ / '%$- /"&& .n*$( '%$ RA 7C7; is not a penal law but a procedural law !"'$0 (,$# ,n S$!3 4 / RA 79719 o -enal laws> laws that prohibit certain acts and establish o 2he" also argued that Arbitrar" 1etention did not fall under penalties for their violation DCrimes Committed b" -ublic .fficersE of the R-C but under -rocedural laws> prescribes rules and forms of procedure of DCrimes Against the 'undamental %aw of the &tate*E hence enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion* or those not covered b" RA 7C7; which refer to rules of procedure b" which courts appl"ing laws of o 2he case should have been filed with the R2C of Manila all )inds can properl" administer $ustice GULUETA v AIA ?RECERY FACTS: Ma" <C* <CC7> A?#s motion for recon was denied 0ulueta is a dealer and operator of an outlet selling Asia A.03 18= 1997: A? /,&$* )$/ ($ '%$ CA " +$',', n / ( ?rewer"#s beer !$(', ("(, Mar. :8* <CC6> 0ulueta filed before the Iloilo R2C a complaint CA set aside the R2C#s rulings* on the ground that the two against A? for breach of contract* specific performance and cases do not have a common issue of law (Iloilo case deals damages with 4MN A? breached its dealership contract while the Ma)ati Ful" 7* <CC@> A? filed with Ma)ati R2Ca complaint for the case deals with 0ulueta#s indebtedness) collection of a sum of mone" (-@9:*<87.7;) corresponding Hence* present petition 0ulueta#s debt to A? -etitioner argues that the Ma)ati R2C#s orders consolidating Fan. :* <CC7> 0ulueta moved for the consolidation of the cases the cases could no longer be assailed because the CA petition 'eb. <:* <CC7> Ma)ati R2C* through Fudge -arentala* granted for certiorari was filed be"ond the reglementar" 98(da" period the motion

prescribed in the 1997 R$v,#$* R.&$# / C,v,& P( !$*.($= 5%,!% ' 7 $//$!' n B.&2 1= 1997 Ma" 6:* <CC7> A? received the order den"ing the motion for recon (98 da"s after \ Ful" 66* <CC7* but filed CA petition on Aug <=) Reglementar" period before the <CC7 Rules was C8 da"s (C8 da"s after \ Aug. 6<) ISSUE: 4MN <CC7 Revised Rules should appl" retroactivel" to the case HELD: Ges. -etition for certiorari was filed late! R2C decision reinstated. RATIO:

/eneral rule> laws have no retroactive effect Remedial or procedural laws are e,ceptions because the" don#t create new or ta)e awa" vested rights but onl" operate in furtherance of the remed" or confirmation of such rights 2he" ma" appl" to cases pending at the time of their passage Although the period for filing the petition was shortened* A? was not deprived of that right o 2here are no vested rights to rules of procedure o C8(da" limit was not a vested right! it was merel" a discretionar" prerogative of the courts 3pon the effectivit" of the <CC7 Rules* A?#s law"ers still had 6< da"s to file

REPU?LIC v COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: o CA applied &ec @* Rule 9; of the <CC7 Rules of Civil April <C* <CC;> A :*@C7 s+. m. propert" of respondent 'e -rocedure* which too) effect on &ept <* <CC= Manuel located in 2e$eros* Rosario* Cavite was declared b" the o P( v,*$# '%"' '%$ 60E*"2 +$(, * #%"&& )$ ! .n'$* /( National Historical Institute as a historical landmar) (Resolution '%$ ($!$,+' / '%$ "##",&$* *$!,#, n= (*$( ( ($# &.', nM No. 6) 98(da" period will be interrupted if motion for recon is filed. If o 2his is in line with the Centennial Celebration of -hil. denied* the respondent ma" file certiorari within the remaining period Independence! gov#t embar)ed on several commemorative Centennial 'reedom 2rail pro$ects 98 da"s from Fune :* <CC=> Aug. 6 1ec. @* <CC7> government (thru National Centennial ?ut since motion for recon was filed on Fune <7* <CC= Commission) filed a complaint for e,propriation against 'e (after <@ da"s)* respondent has @9 da"s left (after .ct. Manuel and Metroban) (bec. the land was mortgaged b" 'e to <6* <CC=) or until Nov. 67* <CC= Metroban) and was e,tra$udiciall" foreclosed b" Metroban) on Nov. 68* <CC7) o ?$/ ($: 60E*"2 +$(, * #%"&& )$ ! .n'$* /( - '%$ ($!$,+' / '%$ (*$( *$n2,n0 '%$ - ', n / ( ($! n#,*$("', n Ma" 67* <CC=> Cavite R2C dismissed the petition for lac) of cause of action 98 da"s from .ct. <6* <CC=> 1ec. <<* <CC= (<) No prior determination b" the -res. As to the Fan <:* 6888> CA denied motion for recon necessit"Mwisdom of the e,ercise of the right of eminent domain Hence* present petition (6) No prior written authorit" for the &olicitor /eneral to Republic argues that the CA should not have applied the institute the e,propriation case "-$n*-$n' ' S$!', n 4= R.&$ 61 / '%$ 1997 R.&$# / C,v,& P( !$*.($= 5%,!% ' 7 $//$!' n S$+'3 1= 1998 B.n$ 3= 1998> petitioner received a cop" of the R2C decision ISSUE: 4MN the amendment should be given retroactive affect HELD: Ges. ?ut the said rule reverted to its original on &ept. <<* Fune <7* <CC=> republic filed a motion for recon 688<. RATIO: .ct. 9* <CC=> motion for recon denied S$+'3 11= 4001: A3M3 N 3 00E4E03ESC ' 7 $//$!'= 5%,!% "0",n +( v,*$* '%"' '%$ 60E*"2 +$(, * #%"&& )$ ! .n'$* O!'3 14= 1998: ! +2 / '%$ (*$( *$n2,n0 '%$ - ', n /( - '%$ ($!$,+' / '%$ (*$( *$n2,n0 '%$ - ', n / ( ($!$,v$* )2 ($+.)&,! ($! n#,*$("', n 3nder this rule* the petitioner filed the certiorari on the 98th da" D$!3 11= 1998 : ($+.)&,! /,&$* +$',', n / ( !$(', ("(, )$/ ($ from receipt of the order den"ing its motion for recon '%$ CA &ince the amending rule is procedural or remedial in character* it does not create new or remove vested rights and can therefore be Mar. <;* <CCC> CA dismissed petition for having been filed out applied retroactivel" of time H. Amendment* Revision* Codification and Repeal C,v,& C *$= A(',!&$ 7 %aws are repealed onl" b" subse+uent ones* and their violation or non(observance shall not be e,cused b" disuse or custom or practice to the contrar". 4hen the laws declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution* the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or e,ecutive acts* orders and regulations shall be valid onl" when the" are not contrar" to the laws or the Constitution.

1987 A*-,n,#'("',v$ C *$= S$!', n# 41 "n* 44 &ec. 6<. =o @mplied 8e!i!al of 8epealed La("- 4hen a law which e,pressl" repeals a prior law itself repealed* the law first repealed shall not be thereb" revived unless e,pressl" so provided. &ec. 66. 8e!i!al of La( @mpliedly 8epealed. ( 4hen a law which impliedl" repeals a prior law is itself repealed* the prior law shall thereb" be revived* unless the repealing law provides otherwise. AMENDMENT -ower to Amend 2he legislature has the authorit" to amend* sub$ect to constitutional re+uirements* an" e,isting law. Authorit" to amend is part of the legislative power to enact* alter and repeal laws. 2he &C in the e,ercise of its rule(ma)ing power or of its power to interpret the law* has no authorit" to amend or change the law* such authorit" being the e,clusive to the legislature. How amendment effected Amendment the change or modification* b" deletion* alteration* of a statute which survives in its amended form. 2he amendment of a statute is effected b" the enactment of an amendator" act modif"ing or altering some provisions of a statute either e,pressl" or impliedl". 5,press amendment done b" providing in the amendator" act that specific sections or provisions of a statute be amended as recited therein or as common indicated* Dto read as follows.E Amendment b" implication 5ver" statute should be harmoniBed with other laws on the same sub$ect* in the absence of a clear inconsistenc". %egislative intent to amend a prior law on the same sub$ect is shown b" a statement in the later act that an" provision of law that is inconsistent therewith is modified accordingl". Implied Amendment( when a part of a prior statute embracing the same sub$ect as the later ma" not be enforced without nullif"ing the pertinent provision of the latter in which event* the prior act is deemed amended or modified to the e,tent of repugnanc". 4hen amendment ta)es effect <; da"s following its publication in the .fficial /aBette or newspaper of general circulation* unless a date is specified therein after such publication. How amendment is construed* generall" &tatute and amendment read as a whole Amendment act is ordinaril" construed as if the original statute has been repealed and a new independent act in the amended form had been adopted. Amended act is regarded as if the statute has been originall" enacted in it amended form. Read in a connection with other sections as if all had been enacted in the same statute* as if all had been enacted in the same statute. 4here an amendment leaves certain portions of an act unchanged* such portions are continued in force* with the same meaning and effect the" have before the amendment. 4here an amendator" act provides that an e,isting statute shall be amended to read as recited in the amendator" act* such portions of the e,isting law as are retained either literall" or substantiall" Meaning of law changed b" amendment An amended act should be given a construction different from the law prior to its amendment* for its is presumed that the legislature would not have amended it had not it not wanted to change its meaning. -rior to the introduction of the amendment* the statute had a different meaning which the amendment changed in all the particulars touching which a material change in the language of the later act e,ists. 1eliberate selection of language in the amendator" act different from that of the original act indicates that the legislature intended a change in the law or in its meaning. Amendment .perates -rospectivel" An amendment will not be construed as having a retroactive effect* unless the contrar" is provided or the legislative intent to give it a retroactive effect is necessaril" implied from the language used and onl" if no vested right is impaired. 5ffect of Amendment on Jested Rights After a statute is amended* the original act continues to be in force with regard to all rights that had accrued prior to the amendment or to obligations that were contracted under the prior act and such rights and obligations will continue to be governed b" the law before its amendment. Not applied retroactivel" so as to nullif" such rights. 5ffect of amendment on $urisdiction Furisdiction of a court to tr" cases is determined b" the law in force at the time the action is instituted. Furisdiction remains with the court until the case is finall" decided therein.

RE@ISION AND CODIFICATION /enerall" -urpose> to restate the e,isting laws into one statute and simplif" complicated provisions* and ma)e the laws on the sub$ect easil" found. Construction to harmoniBe different provisions -resumption> author has maintained a consisted philosoph" or position. 2he different provisions of a revised statute or code should be read and construed together. Rule> a code enacted as a single* comprehensive statute* and is to be considered as such and not as a series of disconnected articles or provisions. 4hat is omitted is deemed repealed all parts and provisions of the old laws that are omitted in the revised statute or code are deemed repealed* unless the statute or code provides otherwise Reason> revision or codification is* b" its ver" nature and purpose* intended to be a complete enactment on the sub$ect and an e,pression of the whole law thereon* which thereb" indicates intent on the part of the legislature to abrogate those provisions of the old laws that are not reproduced in the revised statute or code. -ossible onl" if the revised statute or code was intended to cover the whole sub$ect to is a complete and perfect s"stem in itself. Rule> a subse+uent statute is deemed to repeal a prior law if the former revises the whole sub$ect matter of the former statute. 4hen both intent and scope clearl" evince the idea of a repeal* then all parts and provision of the prior act that are omitted from the revised act are deemed repealed. Change in phraseolog" It is a well settled rule that in the revision or codification of statutes* neither an alteration in phraseolog" nor the admission or addition of words in the later statute shall be held necessaril" to alter the construction of the former acts. 4ords which do not materiall" affect the sense will be omitted from the statute as incorporated in the revise statute or code* or that some general idea will be e,pressed in brief phrases. If there has been a material change or omission* which clearl" indicates an intent to depart from the previous construction of the old laws* then such construction as will effectuate such intent will be adopted. Continuation of e,isting laws. A codification should be construed as the continuation of the e,isting statutes. 2he codifiers did not intend to change the law as it formerl" e,isted. 2he rearrangement of sections or parts of a statute* or the placing of portions of what formerl" was a single section in seprate sections* does not operate to change the operation* effect of meaning of the statute* unless the changes are of such nature as to manifest clearl" and unmista)abl" a legislative intent to change the former laws.

REPEAL -ower to repeal -ower to repeal a law is as complete as the power to enact one. 2he legislature cannot in and of itself enact irrepealable laws or limit its future legislative acts. Repeal* generall" Repeal> total or partial* e,press or implied 2otal repeal revo)ed completel" -artial repeal leaves the unaffected portions of the statute in force. A particular or specific law* identified b" its number of title* is repealed is an e,press repeal. All other repeals are implied repeals. 'ailure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal an" e,isting law* unless an irreconcilable inconsistenc" and repugnanc" e,ist in the terms of the new and old laws* latter situation falls under the categor" of an implied repeal. Repealed onl" b" the enactment of subse+uent laws. 2he change in the condition and circumstances after the passage of a law which is necessitated the enactment of a statute to overcome the difficulties brought about b" such change does not operate to repeal the prior law* nor ma)e the later statute so inconsistent with the prior act as to repeal it. Repeal b" implication 4here a statute of later date clearl" reveals an intention on the part of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the sub$ect* that intention must be given effect. 2here must be a sufficient revelation of the legislative intent to repeal. Intention to repeal must be clear and manifest

/eneral rule> the latter act is to be construed as a continuation not a substitute for the first act so far as the two acts are the same* from the time of the first enactment. 2wo categories of repeals b" implication 4here provisions in the two acts on the same sub$ect matter are in an irreconcilable conflict and the later act to the e,tent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier. If the later act covers the whole sub$ect of the earlier one and is clearl" intended as a substitute* it will operate similarl" as a repeal of the earlier act.

Irreconcilable inconsistenc" Implied repeal brought about b" irreconcilable repugnanc" between two laws ta)es place when the two statutes cover the same sub$ect matter! the" are so clearl" inconsistent and incompatible with each other that the" cannot be reconciled or harmoniBed and both cannot be given effect* once cannot be enforced without nullif"ing the other. Implied repeal earlier and later statutes should embrace the same sub$ect and have the same ob$ect. In order to effect a repeal b" implication* the later statute must be so irreconcilabl" inconsistent and repugnant with the e,isting law that the" cannot be made to reconcile and stand together. It is necessar" before such repeal is deemed to e,ist that is be shown that the statutes or statutor" provisions deal with the same sub$ect matter and that the latter be inconsistent with the former. the fact that the terms of an earlier and later provisions of law differ is not sufficient to create repugnance as to constitute the later an implied repeal of the former. Implied repeal b" revision or codification Revised statute is in effect a legislative declaration that whatever is embraced in the new statute shall prevail and whatever is e,cluded there from shall be discarded. Must be intended to cover the whole sub$ect to be a complete and perfect s"stem in itself in order that the prior statutes or part thereof which are not repeated in the new statute will be deemed impliedl" repealed .ther forms of implied repeal 2he most powerful implication of repeal is that which arises when the later of two laws is e,pressed in the form of a universal negative. 2here is a clear distinction between affirmative and negative statutes in regard to their repealing effects upon prior legislation. Affirmative statute does not impliedl" repeal the prior law unless an intention to effect a repeal is manifest* A negative statute repeals all conflicting provisions unless the contrar" intention is disclosed. %egislative intent to repeal is also shown where it enacts something in general term and afterwards it passes another on the same sub$ect* which though e,pressed in affirmative language introduces special conditions or restrictions 2he subse+uent statute will usuall" be considered as repealing b" implication the former regarding the matter covered b" the subse+uent act. 2he e,press repeal of a provision of law from which an e,ecutive official derives his authorit" to enforce another provision of the same law operates to repeal b" implication the latter and to deprive the official of the authorit" to enforce it. 2he enactment of a statute on a sub$ect* whose purpose or ob$ect is diametricall" opposed to that of an earlier law on the same sub$ect which thereb" deprives it of its reason for being* operates to repeal b" implication the prior law* even though the provisions of both laws are not inconsistent. DAll laws or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are hereb" repealed or modified accordingl"*E construed. Nature of repealing clause Not e,press repealing clauses because it fails to identif" or designate the act or acts that are intended to be repealed. A clause* which predicates the intended repeal upon the condition that a substantial conflict must be found on e,isting and prior acts of the same sub$ect matter. 2he presumption against implied repeal and the rule on strict construction regarding implied repeal appl" e, proprio vigore. %egislature is presumed to )now the e,isting law so that if repeal of particular or specific law or laws is intended* the proper step is to so e,press it. Repeal b" implication not favored -resumption is against inconsistenc" or repugnanc" and* accordingl"* against implied repeal %egislature is presumed to )now the e,isting laws on the sub$ect and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes. A construction which in effect will repeal a statute altogether should* if possible* be re$ected. In case of doubt as to whether a later statute has impliedl" repealed a prior law on the same sub$ect* the doubt should be resolved against implied repeal. As between two laws* one passed later prevails Leges posteriors priores contrarias abrogant (later statute repeals prior ones which are not repugnant thereto.) Applies even if the later act is made to ta)e effect ahead of the earlier law. As between two acts* the one passed later and going into effect earlier will prevail over one passed earlier and going into effect later.

/eneral law does not repeal special law* generall" A general law on a sub$ect does not operate to repeal a prior special law on the same sub$ect* unless it clearl" appears that the legislature has intended b" the later general act to modif" or repeal the earlier special law. -resumption against implied repeal is stronger when of two laws* one is special and the other general and this applies even though the terms of the general act are broad enough to include the matter covered b" the special statute. 4eneralia specialibus non derogant ? a general law does not nullif" a specific or special law 2he legislature considers and ma)es provision for all the circumstances of the particular case. Reason wh" a special law prevails over a general law> the legislature considers and ma)es provision for all the circumstances of the particular case. /eneral and special laws are read and construed together* and that repugnanc" between them is reconciled b" constituting the special law as an e,ception to the general law. /eneral law "ields to the special law in the specific law in the specific and particular sub$ect embraced in the latter. Applies irrespective of the date of passage of the special law. 4hen special or general law repeals the other. 2here is alwa"s a partial repeal where the later act is a special law. 5ffects of repeal* generall" Appeal of a statute renders it inoperative as of the date the repealing act ta)es effect. Repeal is b" no means e+uivalent to a declaration that the repealed statute is invalid from the date of its enactment. 2he repeal of a law does not undo the conse+uences of the operation of the statute while in force* unless such result is directed b" e,press language or b" necessar" implication* e,cept as it ma" affect rights which become vested when the repealed act was in force. .n $urisdiction* generall" Neither the repeal nor the e,planation of the law deprives the court or administrative tribunal of the authorit" to act on the pending action and to finall" decide it. /eneral rule> where a court or tribunal has alread" ac+uired and is e,ercising $urisdiction over a controvers"* its $urisdiction to proceed to final determination of the cause is not affected b" the new legislation repealing the statute which originall" conferred $urisidiction. Rule> once the court ac+uires $urisdiction over a controvers"* it shall continue to e,ercise such $urisdiction until the final determination of the case and it is not affected b" subse+uent legislation vesting $urisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal admits of e,ceptions. Repeal or e,piration of a statute under which a court or tribunal originall" ac+uired $urisdiction to tr" and decide a case* does not ma)e its decision subse+uentl" rendered thereon null and void for want of authorit"* unless otherwise provided. In the absence of a legislative intent to the contrar"* the e,piration or repeal of a statute does not render legal what* under the old law* is an illegal transaction* so as to deprive the court or tribunal the court or tribunal of the authorit" to act on a case involving such illegal transaction. 4here a law declares certain importations to be illegal* sub$ect to forfeiture b" the Commissioner of Customs pursuant to what the latter initiated forfeiture proceedings* the e,piration of the law during the pendenc" of the proceedings does not divest the Commissioner of Customs of the $urisdiction to continue to resolve the case* nor does it have the effect of ma)ing the illegal importation legal or of setting aside the decision of the commissioner on the matter. .n $urisdiction to tr" criminal case .nce a $urisdiction to tr" a criminal case is ac+uired* that $urisdiction remains with the court until the case is finall" determined. A subse+uent statute amending or repealing a prior act under which the court ac+uired $urisdiction over the case with the effect of removing the courts# $urisdiction ma" not operate to oust $urisdiction that has alread" attached. .n actions* pending or otherwise Rule> repeal of a statute defeats all actions and proceedings* including those* which are still pending* which arose out of or are based on said statute. 2he court must conform its decision to the law then e,isting and ma"* therefore* reverse a $udgment which was correct when pronounced in the subordinate tribunal* if it appears that pending appeal a statute which was necessar" to support the $udgment of the lower court has been withdrawn b" an absolute repeal. .n vested rights repeal of a statute does not destro" or impair rights that accrued and became vested under the statute before its repeal. 2he statute should not be construed so as to affect the rights which have vested under the old law then in force* or as re+uiring the abatement of actions instituted for the enforcement of such rights. Rights accrued and vested while a statute is in force ordinaril" survive its repeal. 2he constitution forbids the state from impairing* b" enactment or repeal of a law* vested rights or the obligations of contract* e,cept in the legitimate e,ercise of police power. .n contracts 4here a contract is entered into b" the parties on the basis of the law then obtaining* the repeal or amendment of said law will not affect the terms of the contract nor impair the right of the parties thereunder.

5ffect of repeal of ta, laws Rule favoring a prospective construction of statutes is applicable to statutes which repeal ta, laws. &uch statute is not made retroactive* a ta, assessed before the repeal is collectible afterwards according to the law in force when the assessment or lev" was made. 5ffect of repeal and reenactment &imultaneous repeal and reenactment of a statute does not affect the rights and liabilities which have accrued under the original statute* since the reenactment neutraliBes the repeal and continues the law in force without interruption. 2he repeal of a penal law* under which a person is charged with violation thereof and its simultaneous reenactment penaliBing the same act done b" him under the old law* will not preclude the accused#s prosecution* nor deprive the court of the $urisdiction to tr" and convict him. 5ffect of repeal of penal laws 4here the repeal is absolute* so that the crime no longer e,ists* prosecution of the person charged under the old law cannot be had and the action should be dismissed. 4here the repeal of a penal law is total and absolute and the act which was penaliBed b" a prior law ceases to be criminal under the new law* the previous offense is obliterated. 2hat a total repeal deprives the courts of $urisdiction to tr"* convict* and sentence* persons* charged with violations of the old law prior to the repeal. Repeal of a statute which provides an indispensable element in the commission of a crime as defined in the R-C li)ewise operates to deprive the court of the authorit" to decide the case* rule rests on the same principle as that concerning the effect of a repeal of a penal law without +ualification. Reason> the repeal of a penal law without dis+ualification is a legislative act of rendering legal what is previousl" decreed as illegal* so that the person who committed it is as if he never committed an offence 5,ception> where the repealing act reenacts the statute and penaliBes the same act previousl" penaliBed under the repealed law* the act committed before reenactment continues to be a crime* and pending cases are not thereb" affected. 4here the repealing act contains a saving clause providing that pending actions shall not be affected* the latter will continue to be prosecuted in accordance with the old law. 1istinction as to effect of repeal and e,piration of law In absolute repeal* the crime is obliterated and the stigma of conviction of an accused for violation of the penal law before its repeal is erased. 5ffect of repeal of municipal charter 2he repeal of a charter destro"s all offices under it* and puts an end to the functions of the incumbents. 2he conversation of a municipalit" into a cit" b" the passage of a charter or a statute to that effect has the effect of abolishing all municipal offices then e,isting under the old municipalit" offices then the e,isting under the old municipalit"* save those e,cepted in the charter itself. Repeal or nullit" of repealing law* effect of 4hen a law which e,pressl" repeals a prior law is itself repealed* the law first repealed shall not thereb" revived unless e,pressl" so provided 4here a repealing statute is declared unconstitutional* it will have no effect of repealing the former statute* the former or old statute continues to remain in force.

SARCOS v3 CASTILLO /.R. No. %(6C7;; (Fanuar" :<* lC9C) 2his case e,plains wh" legislative purpose to determine legislative intent 'ran)furter o %egislative words are not inert but derived vitalit" from the obvious purposes at which the" are aimed o %egislation wor)ing instrument of government and not merel" as a collection of 5nglish words ?en$amin Natham CardoBo o %egislation is more than a composition o It is an active instrument of government which means that laws have ends to be achieved Holmes o 4ords are fle,ible o 2he general purpose is a more important aid to the meaning than an" rule which grammar or formal logic ma" la" down o Courts are apt to err b" stic)ing too closel" to the words of law where those words import a polic" that goes be"ond them DOCTRINE: 2he deliberate selection of language other than that used in an earlier act is indicative that a change in the law was intended. 4hen dealing with elective posts* the necessit" for restricted construction is greater. 4e must loo) at the legislative intent of the whole law. FACTS:

-etitioner* the elected Ma"or of ?arobo* &urigao del &ur* was charged with misconduct and dishonest" in office b" Respondent* the -rovincial /overnor of &urigao del &ur. 2he act* constituting the alleged dishonest" and misconduct in office consisted in the alleged connivance of -etitioner with certain private individuals in the cutting and selling of timber or logs for their own use and benefit* to the damage and pre$udice of the public and of the government. -etitioner answered that he merel" used the mone" for the sale of police uniforms. And on the basis of such administrative complaint* -etitioner was placed .n*$( +($v$n',v$ #.#+$n#, n b" Respondent pursuant to &ec. ;* of RA No. ;<=;* otherwise )nown as the 1ecentraliBation Act of lC97. &ec. 6<== of RAC provides for the power of the provincial governor to investigate complaints and inflict punishment against municipal officers for maladministration of office and final $udgement of an" crime involving moral turpitude. RA ;<=; repeals previous law

ISSUE: 4MN Respondent is vested with power to order such preventive suspension under the 1ecentraliBation Act of lC97. HELD: No. &ec. 6<== provides that the provincial governor can order preventie suspension if the charge against a municipal official was one affecting his official integrit". 3nder RA ;<=;* it is the provincial board which has been granted the power. 2he new law e,plicitl" stated that the power of suspension was vested on the -rovincial ?oard. 2he purpose of this was to prevent partisan considerations b" vesting the power on a board where no one person ma" have monopol" over the power of suspension. It also grants local governments greater freedom. 2he -rovincial /overnor ma" no longer have the power of preventive suspension over a Municipal Ma"or. Ma"or of ?arobo is therefore reinstated and -rovincial ?oard is en$oined in the disposition of peitioner#s administrative complaint.

MECANO v COMMISSION ON AUDIT /.R. No. <8:C=6 (1ecember <<* <CC6) DOCTRINE: Repeal of statute b" implication is not favored. In order to effect a repeal b" implication* the later statute must be so irreconcilabl" inconsistent and repugnant with the e,isting law that the" cannot be made to reconcile and stand together. FACTS: ($"# n '%"' '%$ #"-$ #$!', n 5"# n ' ($E#'"'$* n ( ($E $n"!'$* ,n '%$ A*-,n,#'("',v$ C *$ / 1987. He Antonio Mecano is a 1irector II of N?I who was hospitaliBed commented that the claim ma" be filed with 5CC for cholec"stitis in less than two wee)s from which he considering that the illness of Mecano occurred after the incurred medical and hospitaliBation e,penses* the total effectivit" of the Administrative Code of <C=7. amount of which he is claiming from C.A. 'ebruar" 7* <CC6 3sec Montenegro returned Mecano#s Ma" <<* <CC8 thru a memo to 1irector %im of N?I* Mecano claim to 1irector %im with the advice that Mecano ma" re+uested for reimbursement for his e,penses on the elevate the matter to &upreme Court if he so desires. ground that he is entitled to the benefits under &ec. 9CC of CONTENTIONS: RAC> DIn case of sic)ness caused b" or connected directl" Petitioner: &ec. 9CC of RAC was not repealed b" the with the performance of some act in the line of dut"* the Administrative Code of <C=7 based on .pinion No. 7: of &ec. 1epartment head ma" in his discretion authoriBe the 1rilon. In the event that his claim is filed in 5CC* as pa"ment of the necessar" hospital fees.E suggested b" C.A* he would still not be barred from filing a claim Fune 66* <CC8 1irector %im forwarded Mecano#s claim under &ec. 9CC of RAC. (thru <st 5ndorsement) to the &ecretar" of Fustice together 8espondent: with the comment and recommendation of Chief* %51 of the (6) 2he enactment of the Administrative Code of <C=7 N?I. 'inding Mecano#s illness to be service(connected* the operated to revo)e or supplant in its entiret" the RAC Committee on -h"sical 5,amination of the 1epartment of of <C<7. 'rom the Dwhereas clausesE of the Fustice favorabl" recommended the pa"ment of Mecano#s new Administrative Code* it can be gleaned that it was the intent claim. of the legislature to repeal the old Code. November 6<* <CC8 in a @th 5ndorsement* the then 3sec (6) 5mplo"ment(related sic)ness* in$ur" or death is ade+uatel" ?ello of Fustice 1epartment returned Mecano#s claim to covered b" 5CC#s -rogram under -1 969 such that to allow 1irector %im having considered the statements of C.A simultaneous recover" of benefits Chairman that the RAC 1917 )$,n0 ($&,$* .+ n )2 under both laws on account of the same contingenc" would be M$!"n 5"# ($+$"&$* )2 '%$ A*-,n,#'("',v$ C *$ / unfair and un$ust to the /overnment. 19873 ISSUE: 4hether or not the enactment of the Administrative Code In response* Mecano re(submitted his claim to 1irector %im of <C=7 operates to repeal the Revised Administrative Code of with the cop" / O+,n, n N 3 73 of then &ec. of Fustice <C<7. 'ran)lin 1rilon stating that the issuance of the Administrative RULING: No. 2he enactment of the Administrative Code of <C=7 Code of <C=7 aid not operate to repeal or abrogate in its did not operate to repeal the Revised Administrative Code of entiret" the RAC* the particular &ec. 9CC of RAC. <C<7. 2he Repealing Clause indicated in &ec. 67 of the Ma" <8* <CC< 1irector %im transmitted anew Mecano#s Administrative Code of <C=7 is n ' "n $>+($## ($+$"&,n0 !&".#$ claim to then 3sec ?ello for favorable consideration. because it fails to identif" or designate the act or acts that are Ful" 6* <CC< &ec. 1rilon forwarded Mecano#s claim to the intended to be C.A Chairman. repealed. Fanuar" <9* <CC6 C.A Chair 1omingo denied Mecano#s It is a clause which predicates the intended repeal under the claim on the ground that &ec. 9CC of RAC has been condition that a substantial conflict must be found in e,isting repealed b" the Administrative Code of <C=7= # &$&2 / ( '%$ and prior acts.

2he failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal an" e,isting law* unless an irreconcilable inconsistenc" and repugnanc" e,ist in the terms of the new and old laws. 2his latter situation falls under the categor" of an ,-+&,$* ($+$"&3 Comparing the two Codes* it is apparent that the new Code does not cover nor attempt to cover the entire sub$ect matter of the .ld Code. 2here are several matters treated in the .ld Code which are not found in the new Code* such as the provisions on notaries public* the leave law* the public bonding law* militar" reservations* claims for sic)ness benefits under &ec. 9CC and still others. It is a well(settled rule of statutor" construction that ($+$"&# / #'"'.'$# )2 ,-+&,!"', n "($ n ' /"v ($*. 2he

presumption is against inconsistenc" and repugnanc" for the legislature is presumed to )now the e,isting laws on the sub$ect and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes. P-52I2I.N /RAN251 AN1 C.A 4A& .R15R51 2. /IJ5 135 C.3R&5 2. -52I2I.N5R#& C%AIM '.R ?5N5'I2&. A**,', n"& In/ : 2wo Categories of Implied Repeal> (<)4here provisions in the two acts on the same sub$ect matter are in "n ,(($! n!,&")&$ ! n/&,!'* the later act to the e,tent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. (6) If the later act ! v$(# '%$ 5% &$ #.)<$!' / '%$ $"(&,$( n$ "n* ,# !&$"(&2 ,n'$n*$* "# " #.)#','.'$* it will operate to repeal the earlier law.

US v SOLIMAN DOCTRINE: 4hen a law which repeals a prior law b" implication is itself repealed* the repeal of the repealing law revives the prior law. FACTS: <9C7 has been e,pressl" repealed b" the enactment of the Administrative Code which became effective on Ful" <* <C<9. &oliman was charged with estafa! however* he filed sworn 2hus* the repeal of said law criminaliBing his actions e,tinguishes statement as evidence in support of the estafa case against him his criminal responsibilit". which was in effect and e,tra$udicial confession of guilt. ISSUE: 4hether or not the e,press repeal of Act No. <9C7 b" the He* however* contends that he was merel" coerced b" the police Administrative Code e,tinguishes the criminal responsibillit" of the to submit the false testimon" to certain material allegations of accusedQ fact. He was ac+uitted for estafa on the ground that there was HELD: No. -rovisions on per$ur" in Act. 6<@6 or -enal Code impliedl" reasonable doubt whether the e,tra$uidicial confessions was repealed b" section : of Act No. <9C7 are revived b" the e,press made voluntaril" but was still made liable for per$ur". repeal of Act No. <9C7 b" the enactment of the Administrative Code 2he trial court convicted him for the crime of per$ur" in (Act No. 69;7). However* the penalt" which should be imposed is that accordance with Act No. <9C7 and sentenced him to 9 months one which is more favorable to the convict. 2hus* the penalt" is imprisonment and -:88 fine. He contends that since his reduced from si, months imprisonment and -:88 fine to a penalt" of @ $udgement was rendered on November 6:* <C<;* section : of Act months and < da" of arresto ma"or and a fine of -7;. LAGMAN v CITY OF MANILA /.R. No. %(6::8; (Fune :8* <C99) DOCTRINE: A special law and later enactment prevails. FACTS: March 68* <C96 ( -etitioner was granted a license of public convenience to operate <; auto truc)s with fi,ed routes and regular terminal for the transportation of passengers (?ocaue ?ulacan to -arana+ue) and freight under firm name DMarco 2ransitE and began operating <6 passenger buses along his authoriBed line. Fune <7* <C9@ ( 2he Municipal ?oard of Manila pursuant to &ec <=* RA @8C which authoriBes the municipal board to regulate public vehicles within the cit"* establish bus terminals and regulate entrance of provincial utilit" vehicles into the cit"* enacted .rdinance No. @C=9* entitled KAn .rdinance Rerouting 2raffic on Roads and &treets within the Cit" of Manila* and 'or .ther -urposes.K August <7* <C9@ 5nforcement of ordinance and prevented petitioner from operating his buses e,cept for 6 shuttle buses. -etitioner contends that ordinance is illegal as the roads which he was authoriBed to operate are national roads which according to CA No. ;@= are sub$ect to the regulation of the &ecretar" of -ublic 4or)s and Communications and not the municipal board. Also* the power conferred b" RA @8C does not include right to enact ordinance which amended or modified the certificate of public convenience granted b" -ublic &ervice Commission. ISSUE: 4MN the enactment and enforcement of .rdinance No. @C=9 is unconstitutional* illegal* ultra vires* and null and void. HELD: CA No. ;@= has alread" been repealed b" &ec. 67 of RA C<7. More importantl"* RA @8C is a special law and of later enactment than C.A. No. ;@= and the -ublic &ervice %aw* so that even if conflict e,ists between the provisions of the former act and the latter acts* RA @8C should prevail over both Commonwealth Acts. Moreover* the powers conferred b" law upon the -ublic &ervice Commission were not designed to den" or supersede the regulator" power of local governments over motor traffic.

HAGAD v GOGODADOLE DOCTRINE: Repeals b" implication are not favoured ever" statute must be so interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as to form a uniform s"stem of $urisprudence. FACTS: impose administrative sanctions against local officials as well as to effect their preventive suspension with the .ffice of the Administrative complaints were filed to the .mbudsman against -resident and thus shifting the power to sanction investigations the Ma"or* Jice Ma"or and other officials of Mandaue Cit". and preventive suspensions from the .mbudsman as provided in 2he respondents contended that the .mbudsman do not have the .mbudsman Act. primar" $urisdiction because the later enactment of the %ocal 2he respondents filed a preliminar" writ of in$unction in the R2C /overnment Code ( which vests the power to investigate and

of Mandaue to prevent further investigation of the .mbudsman and were granted. ISSUE: 4hether or not the .mbudsman under RA 9778 is divested of his authorit" to conduct administrative investigations over local elective officials b" virtue of subse+uent enactment of the %ocal /overnment Code HELD: No. 2here is nothing in the %ocal /overnment Code to indicate

that it has repealed* whether e,pressl" or impliedl"* the pertinent provisions of the .mbudsman Act. 2he" are not inconsistent or irreconcilable. 2he presumption is that the legislature have )nown the e,isting laws on the sub$ect and not enacted conflicting statutes. 2he %ocal /overnment Code merel" shifted the power from the Minister of %ocal /overnment to the .ffice of the -resident.

PEOPLE v PIMENTEL DOCTRINE: 4here the repeal of a penal law is total and absolute and the act which was penaliBed b" a prior law ceases to be criminal under the new law* the previous offense is obliterated as this is favourable to the accused. FACTS: (Illegal -ossession)does not charge him with the separate and distinct crime of &ubversion in the same Information but simpl" <C=:> Antonio 2u$an was charged with &ubversion under RA <788 describes the mode or manner b" which the violation of &ec. < of (the Anti(&ubversion %aw) before the R2C of Manila -1 <=99 was committed so as to +ualif" the penalt" to death. o Fune ;* <CC8> Arrested 7 "ears later 2here is onl" one offense charged in the information and it is Fune <@* <CC8> he was charged with Illegal -ossession of 'irearm clear from the title of the law. -revious charge of subversion is and Ammunition in 'urtherance of &ubversion under -1 No. <=99 different and based on RA <788. &ubversion and illegal before the R2C of Ma)ati information can co(e,ist. 2herefore* he could be charged under Ful" <9* <CC8> his counsel filed a motion to +uash the information both laws filed in Ma)ati R2C on the ground of double $eopard" No double $eopard" as re+uisites not complete. 'irst case not "et o Contends that illegal possession of firearms and ammunition convicted. should be absorbed in the crime of &ubversion H.45J5R* RA <788 is totall" repealed b" RA 79:9 on .ct. <6* <CC8> R2C granted motion to +uash &eptember 66* <CC6. 2he latter governs as this action is still Ma" 67* <CC<> CA affirmed the R2C ruling pending. 2he sentence no longer e,ists. 2otal repeal deprives the -resent petition> -etitioner contends double $eopard" courts of $urisdiction to tr"* convict and sentence persons ISSUE: charged with violation of the old law prior to the repeal. st nd 13 4hether or not < and 6 Information are for &ubversion .ffense of illegal possession is now bailable and has reduced 43 4hether or not private respondent was placed in double $eopard" penalt" under RA =6C@ enacted on <CC7. with the filing of &econd Information for Illegal -ossession of 'irearm 2he repealing law is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual and Ammunition in 'urtherance of &ubversion. delin+uent! it should be given retroactive effect HELD: 2he repeal was categorical* definite* and absolute! there was no 3nder -1 <=99* &ection < (<)* the mere possession of an saving clause unlicensed firearm is the crime itself! subversion onl" increases 2he legislative intent of totall" abrogating the old anti(subversion the imposable penalt"! therefore* it#s different from the act law is clear punishable under RA <788* which is subversion itself It would be illogical to tr" and sentence the accused for an offense He has not even been arraigned in the first criminal action for that no longer e,ist! subversion is no longer a crime subversion -unishable 9 "rs. Ma,imum! detained for more than 7 "rs! immediate 2he Information filed against -imentel in violation of -1 <==9 release is in order REPU?LIC v MARCOPPER MINING CORP3 MAHIM: @nterpretare et concordare le)ibus est optimus interpretendi. 5ver" statute must be so interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as to form a uniform s"stem of $urisprudence. DOCTRINE: Repeal of laws b" implication is not favoured and that courts must generall" assume their congruent application. FACTS: MMC appealed the cease and desist orders to the .ffice of the MMC was issued a temporar" permit to operate a tailings sea -resident disposal s"stem for the period .ct. :<* <C=; to .ct. 6<* <C=9 Ma" 6* <C==> .ffice of the -res denied re+uests MMC filed for e,tension before permit e,pired Ma" 9* <C==> -artial Motion for Recon &ept. 68* <C=9> National -ollution Control Commission (N-CC) Ma" <:* <C==> granted ordered MMC to cease and desist from discharging mine tailings o 4ith said order* the .ffice of the -res ordered MMC to remit into Calancan ?a" -:8*888 a da" starting Ma" <:* <C== to the 5colog" 2rust 'und ?ut N-CC issued a new temporar" permit dated Nov. <<* <C=9* to (52') for the rehabilitation of the Calancan ?a"! issued a 2R. e,pire on 'eb.<8* <C=7 Fune :8* <CC<> MMC stopped discharging its tailings in the ?a" 'eb. ;* <C=7> MMC re+uested for e,tension of its temporar" permit Ful" C* <CC<> MMC filed a motion manifesting that it would Fune <8* <C=7> N-CC was abolished and its powers were discontinue its deposits to the 52' integrated into the 5nvironmental Management ?ureau and into the 'eb. ;* <CC:> .ffice of the -res dismissed MMC#s initial appeal* -ollution Ad$udication ?oard (-A?) affirmed the cease and desist order and lifted its 2R. April <<* <C==> 15NR &ecretar"* as Chairman of -A?* directed Fan. 66* <CC7> &ta. CruB* Marindu+ue Ma"or 4ilfredo Red informed MMC to cease and desist from discharging mine tailings into the -A? that MMC stopped remitting Calancan ?a" Apr. 6:* <CC7> -A? ruled that MMC#s obligation to remit subsists Apr. <;* <C==> a telegraphic order was issued b" the 15NR 3&5C and since the order was lifted onl" on 'eb. ;* <CC:* its obligation en$oining immediate compliance b" MMC of the cease and desist stopped onl" then order of Apr. << Fan. 7* <CC=> CA set aside the -A? order

o CA "++&,$* RA 7944 8P%,&,++,n$ M,n,n0 A!' / 1991 8M,n,n0 A!'9= "++( v$* n M"(3 3= 19919 o &ec. 97> grants the mines regional director the power to issue orders or to ta)e appropriate measures to remed" an" practice connected with mining or +uarr"ing operations! &ec. <<;> general repealing clause o -rior to the passage of said Act* the -AC had $urisdiction to act on pollution(related matters in the mining business o OSG "(0.$# '%"' '%$ M,n,n0 A!' *,* n ' "-$n* ( ($+$"& RA 3931 8B.n$ 18= 19649 "# "-$n*$* )2 PD 984 / 1976 8N"', n"& P &&.', n C n'( & D$!($$ / 19769 A 5%$($ PA? %"# ".'% (,'2 v$#'$* )2 EO 194 o 85. <C6 of <C=7 created the -A? giving it ad$udication powers over pollution cases under RA :C:< and -1 C=@) ISSUE: Has the -A? under RA :C:< been divested of authorit" to tr" and hear pollution cases connected with mining operations b" virtue of subse+uent enactment of RA 7C@6Q

HELD: -rovisions of RA 7@C6 (-hilippine Mining Act of <CC;) do not repeal RA :C:< (National -ollution Control 1ecree of <C79) as amended b" -1 C=@ and 5. <C6. RA 7@C6 does not contain an" provision which categoricall" and e,pressl" repeals the provisions of -ollution Control %aw. 2here is also no implied repeal. -A? has power to issue* renew or den" permits for discharge of mine tailings. Mines regional director in 7@C6 is complementar" to -ollution Ad$udication ?oard in RA :C:<. He has e,press administrative and regulator" powers over mining operations and installations but no ad$udicative powers over complaints for violations of pollution control statutes and regulations. -A? has $urisdiction to act and rule on complaints on violation of pollution laws. However* MMC must be declared not to have arrears in deposits as 52' has sufficient funds to underta)e rehabilitation.

CITY GO@ERNMENT OF SAN PA?LO v REYES MAHIM: -*pressio unius est esclusio alterius. 5,press mention of one person* thing* act or conse+uence e,cludes all others. F("n!%,#$ '">: RA 7160 A &0! ($+$"& RA 3648= 4340 "n* +* 111810N / 1N n ' 4N $>$-+'$*9 I-+&,$* ($+$"& FACTS: M5RA%C. filed before the R2C to declare .rdinance No. ;9 null Act No. :9@= granted the 5scudero 5lectric &ervice Compan" and void insofar as it imposes franchise ta, and to claim for a legislative franchise to maintain and operate and electric light and refund power s"stem in &an -ablo and nearb" municipalities Court ruled in favor of M5RA%C. o &ec <8 provides that the grantee shall pa" unto the municipal o %/C did not e,pressl" or impliedl" repeal the ta, e,emption of treasur" a ta, e+ual to 6A of the gross earnings IN %I53 of an" M5RA%C. under its charter and all ta,es of an" )ind ISSUE: 4MN the %/C repealed the provision on M5RA%C.#s charter 'ranchise transferred to M5RA%C. under RA 6:@8 regarding its ta, e,emption HELD: G5&. &ept. <<* <C7@> -1 ;;< was enacted! reiterated the ta, provisions RATIO: above* pa"able now to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue %/C &ec <:7> Notwithstanding an" e,emption granted b" an" law Fan <* <CC6> RA 7<98 or the %/C of <CC< too) effect or other special law* the province ma" impose ta,R o AuthoriBes provinces and cities to impose a ta, on business &ec. <;<> &cope of ta,ing powers (rates) franchises at a rate not e,ceeding ;8A of <A of the gross &ec. <C:> 2a, e,emptions are hereb" withdrawn annual receipts of the preceding calendar "ear .ct. ;* <CC6> the &angguniang -anlungsod of &an -ablo Cit" &ec. ;:@ repeals cit" charters* among others* which are enacted .rdinance No. ;9 or the Revenue Code of the Cit" of &an inconsistent with it -ablo It was an implied repeal (because it did not e,pressl" state o &ec. 6.8C imposed a ta, on business franchises of ;8A of <A of repealing RA :9@=) gross annual receipts Moreover* %/C e,pressl" provides for those given the ta, o Cit" 2reasurer demanded from M5RA%C. (priv. resp.) pa"ment e,emption> <)local water districts* 6) cooperatives dul" registered of said franchise ta, under RA 9C:=* :) non(stoc) and non(profit hospitals and M5RA%C. paid Dunder protestE from <CC@(<CC9 (-<*=;7*7<<.97) educational institutions %/C provided for an e,press* albeit general* withdrawal of such e,emptions or privileges BUAN v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES DOCTRINE: FACTS: -etitioners insist that the R2C didn#t have $urisdiction to hear and ?rg". 2alipapa* Novaliches* ^C ?rg". Chairman Fuan* and decide the cases filed because the imposable penalt" for the Hagawads de Fesus* Carreon* and /alguerra were charged with charges does not e,ceed 9 "ears violation of &ec 69< (o) of the .mnibus 5lection Code o 3nder &ec. 6 of RA 79C<* which amended ?- <6C* the first(level o Fuan and de Fesus allegedl" used a JH' radio transreceiver courts are the metropolitan trial courts* municipal trial courts* and owned b" the ?rg". gov#t of 2alipapa for their election campaigns municipal circuit trial courts o Carreon and /alguerra allegedl" used a tric"cle owned b" the ISSUE: 4MN the R2C has $urisdiction over the cases HELD: G5&. ?rg". gov#t of 2alipapa for their political campaigns RATIO: Apr. :* <CC7> R2C of ^C issued an .rder suspending all accused 3nder &ec. 69= of the .mnibus 5lection Code (?- ==<) states that for 98 da"s the R2C shall have e,clusive $urisdiction over an" criminal action CA upheld R2C order for violation of the said Code* regardless of the penalt" prescribed* o -reventive suspension authoriBed under &ec. <: of RA :8<C e,cept those relating to failure to register or vote (M2C or Me2C) (Anti(/raft and Corrupt -ractices Act) Hence* present petition

4MN their offense falls under RA :8<C* and therefore would warrant &ince the .mnibus 5lection Code is a special law* it must be suspension. Ges* because the .m. 5lection Code is a complement to construed as an e,ception to the general law (?- <6C as amended RA :8<C b" RA 79C<) &ubstantive> LAM?INO v COMELEC DOCTRINE: If a later law is irreconcilabl" inconsistent with a prior law* the later law prevails. 2here is logrolling when the initiative petition incorporates an unrelated sub$ect matter in the same petition and this invalidates whole petition. Amendment changes a part of the Constitution without altering basic principles while revision constitutes an overhaul of the Constitution. FACTS: o 2hose who signed could not have )nown the following changes> 'eb. <;* 6889> Raul %. %ambino and 5rico ?. Aumentado (%ambino <) 2erm limits on members of legislature will be lifted 6) Members of the interim parliament will determine the /roup) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to e,piration of their own term of office change the <C=7 Consti :) 2he interim parliament shall convene to propose further Aug. 6;* 6889> filed a petition with C.M5%5C to hold a plebiscite to amendments or revisions to the Consti ratif" their petition under RA 97:; (Initiative and Referendum Act) 2he initiative violates &ec. 6* Art. IJII of the Consti disallowing o 2he" alleged that their petition had the support of 9*:67*C;6 revision through initiatives individuals constituting at least <6A of all registered voters* with o -eople#s initiative to change the Consti applies onl" to an each legislative district represented b" at least :A of its amendment of the Consti and not to its revision registered voters! claimed that C.M5%5C had verified the o A-$n*-$n'> change that adds* reduces* or deletes without signatures altering the basic principle involved! piecemeal changes (li)e -roposed changes will shift the ?icameral(-residential s"stem to a changing the voting age* adding a +ualification for Constitutional 3nicameral(-arliamentar" form of gov#t offices* etc.) -roposed +uestion> D1. G.3 A--R.J5 2H5 AM5N1M5N2 .' o R$v,#, n> a total overhaul of the Constitution! change that alters AR2IC%5& JI AN1 JII .' 2H5 <C=7 C.N&2I232I.N* CHAN/IN/ a basic principle in the Constitution* li)e altering the principle of 2H5 '.RM .' /.J5RNM5N2 'R.M 2H5 -R5&5N2 separation of powers or the s"stem of chec)s(and(balances! ?ICAM5RA%(-R5&I15N2IA% 2. A alters the substantial entiret" of the constitution* as when the 3NICAM5RA%-AR%IAM5N2ARG &G&25M* AN1 -R.JI1IN/ change affects substantial provisions of the constitution AR2IC%5 IJIII A& 2RAN&I2.RG -R.JI&I.N& '.R 2H5 o O."n',"',v$ '$#'> as)s whether the proposed change is so .R15R%G &HI'2 'R.M .N5 &G&25M 2. 2H5 .2H5RQE e,tensive in its provisions as to change directl" the substantial Aug. :<* 6889> C.M5%5C denied the petition due course for lac) of entiret" of the constitution b" the deletion or alteration of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the numerous provisions Constitution o O."&,'"',v$ '$#'> whether the change will accomplish such far -etitioners appealed to the &C* opposed b" various groups and reaching changes in the nature of the basic governmental plan people o .nl" Congress or a Constitutional Convention can propose both ISSUE> 4MN the C.M5%5C committed grave abuse of discretion in amendments and revisions den"ing due course to the %ambino /roup#s petition o (2hree modes of amending (i.e. changing) the Constitution> HELD: N.. <) 2hrough Congress* upon a :M@ vote of all its Members RATIO: 6) 2hrough and ConCon 2he initiative petition does not compl" with &ec 6 of Art. IJII of the :) -eople#s intiative) Consti on 1irect -roposal b" the -eople o 3nder both tests* the intiative is a revision o 2he draft of the proposed amendment should be read" and show <) ^3AN2I> Art JI (%egislature) and Art JII (5,ecutive)* <8; to the people before the" sign the proposal! the proposal must be provisions embodied in the petition! the people must )now what the" are 6) ^3A%I> alters the basic plan of the government* from signing presidential to parliamentar"* from bicameral to unicameral o 2here is not a single word* phrase* or sentence of the te,t of the legislature! : co(e+ual branches reduced to 6! leg and e,ec %ambino group#s proposed changes in the signature sheet that merged! abolition of the .ffice of the -resident and one the" passed around. chamber of Congress o Neither does the sheet sa" that the proposed changes are o Radical overhaul of the e,isting separation of powers attached to it. o -eople#s iniatives* which do not have fi,ed and identifiable o 2he" never alleged in their petitions that the" circulated printed deliberative bodies or recorded proceedings* are allowed to copies of the draft petition with the signature sheets! onl" in their underta)e onl" amendments and not revisions repl" to the interventions o -52I2I.N 15NI51 o 5ven if the" did circulate it* the" admitted that the" printed onl" <88*888 copies (<8 signatures per signature sheet)* nowhere near the 9.: M signatories

IIDA v SENATE DOCTRINE: FACTS: thereafter (to s"nchroniBe it with regular national and local elections) Fune :8* 68<<> RA <8<;: was enacted! it reset the ARMM elections from Aug. =* 68<< to 6nd Monda" of Ma" 68<:* and ever" : "rs

o Also granted the -res the power to appoint .ICs as Regional /ov* Regional Jice /ov* and Members of the Regional %egislative Assembl" who will sit until the Ma" 68<: elections Aug. <* <C=C> RA 6734 was enacted! An Act -roviding for an .rganic Act for the ARMM! plebiscite held on Nov. 9* <CC8 (%anao del &ur* Maguindanao* &ulu* and 2awi(tawi became ARMM) o &cheduled the <st regular elections between 98 and C8 da"s from the date of ratification Mar. :<* 688<> RA C8;@ reset the regular elections for the ARMM regional officials to the 6nd Monda" of &ept. 688< o Ratified in a plebiscite on Aug. <@* 688<! ?asilan and Marawi vited to $oin ARMM Fune 66* 688<> RA 9140 was passed* resetting the <st regular elections from 6nd Monda" of &ept. to Nov. 69* 688< &ept. 6<* 688@> RA 9333 was passed to reset the ARMM regional elections to 6nd Monda" of August 688; and on the same da" ever" : "ears thereafter o Not ratified in a plebiscite Ne,t elections* pursuant to RA C::: should have been held on Aug. =* 68<<* but on Fune :8* 68<<* RA 10113 was enacted* resetting the ARMM elections to Ma" 68<: Jarious petitioners filed various petitions against RA <8<;:#s constitutionalit" &ept. <:* 68<<> &C issued a 2R. en$oining the implementation of RA <8<;:* ordering the incumbent elective officials of ARMM to continue to perform their functions should the cases not be decided b" the end of their term on &ept. :8* 68<< ISSUE: 4MN RA <8<;: is unconstitutional -etitioners contend that RAs C<@8* C:::* and <8<;: amend RA C8;@ and should have complied with the superma$orit" vote (6M:) and plebiscite re+uirements under &ec. < L :* Art. IJII of RA C8;@ S$!', n 13 C n#,#'$n' 5,'% '%$ +( v,#, n# / '%$ C n#','.', n= '%,# O(0"n,! A!' -"2 )$ ($"-$n*$* ( ($v,#$* )2 '%$ C n0($## / '%$ P%,&,++,n$# .+ n " v '$ / '5 E'%,(*# 84/39 / '%$ M$-)$(# / '%$ H .#$ / R$+($#$n'"',v$# "n* / '%$ S$n"'$ v ',n0 #$+"("'$&23 S$!', n 33 An2 "-$n*-$n' ' ( ($v,#, n / '%,# O(0"n,! A!' #%"&& )$! -$ $//$!',v$ n&2 5%$n "++( v$* )2 " -"< (,'2 / '%$ v '$ !"#' ,n " +&$),#!,'$ !"&&$* / ( '%$ +.(+ #$= 5%,!% #%"&& )$ %$&* n ' $"(&,$( '%"n #,>'2 8609 *"2# ( &"'$( '%"n n,n$'2 8909 *"2# "/'$( '%$ "++( v"& / #.!% "-$n*-$n' ( ($v,#, n3 - 2he" also allege that <8<;: failed to compl" with the :(reading re+uirement - 2he" also allege that <8<;: violated the right of suffrage of the people of ARMM III. 2he Constitution

- Challenge the -resident#s power to appoint .ICs HELD: N.. RATIO: &"nchroniBation is a recogniBed constitutional mandate (as shown b" 2ransitor" -rovisions of the <C=7 Constitution) -resident certified RA <8<;: as urgent! e,empted from : readings on : separate da"s Neither RA C::: nor RA <8<;: amends RA C8;@! C8;@ onl" provided for the schedule of the first ARMM elections! a need e,isted for the Congress to fi, the date of subse+uent elections! 9333 "n* 10113 *,* n ' !%"n0$ ( ($v,#$ "n2 +( v,#, n ,n 9014 no need for plebiscite Ev$n "##.-,n0 '%"' '%$2 *,* "-$n* 9014= '%$ #.+$(-"< (,'2 v '$ ($K.,($-$n' %"# ' )$ #'(.!7 * 5n / ( 0,v,n0 9014 '%$ !%"("!'$( / "n ,(($+$"&")&$ &"5 )2 ($K.,(,n0 - ($ '%"n 5%"' '%$ ! n#','.', n *$-"n*# o 2he consti onl" re+uires that as long as ma$orit" of the members of the H.R or &enate are present* a +uorum e,ists and with +uorum* a ma$orit" vote is sufficient to enact laws o 2he current Congress cannot bind itself or its successors b" enacting irrepealable laws! cannot bind the future legislatureMgeneration to its present will o %imits the repealing power of the Congress T%$ P&$),#!,'$ ($K.,($-$n' / S$!3 3 / RA 9014 $>!$##,v$&2 $n&"(0$* '%$ +&$),#!,'$ ($K.,($-$n' / S$!3 18= A('3 H / '%$ C n#', o Consti states that plebiscite is re+uired onl" for the creation of autonomous regions and for determining which provinces will be included o 2hus* onl" amendments or revisions constitutionall"(essential to the organic act need a plebiscite (assuming the superma$orit" and plebiscite re+uirements are valid) a) ?asic structure of the regional government b) Fudicial s"stem c) %egislative powers of the regional government 1ate of elections does N.2 fall under these 4ith regard to the -resident#s power to appoint .ICs o It was the best option considering that the other options are (<) holdover of current officials (will e,tend their terms :("ear terms! terms are specified in the Consti) and (6) special elections (C.M5%5C cannot simpl" hold special elections without an enabling law) Appointment is o)a"* since the appointing power is inherentl"

Constitution defined fundamental law which sets up a form of government and defines and delimits the powers thereof and those of its officers* reserving to the people themselves plenar" sovereignt" written charter enacted and adopted b" the people b" which a government for them is established permanent in nature thus it does not onl" appl" to e,isting conditions but also to future needs basicall" it is the fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation absolute and unalterable e,cept b" amendments all other laws are e,pected to conform to it .rigin and histor" of the -hilippine Constitutions <C:; Constitution People !" Linsangan e,plained as to how this Constitution came about> 2"dings(Mcduffie %aw( allowed the 'ilipinos to adopt a constitutions but sub$ect to the conditions prescribed in the Act. o Re+uired : steps> drafting and approval of the constitution must be authoriBed

it must be certified b" the -resident of the 3& it must be ratified b" the people of the -hilippines at a plebiscite <C7: Constitution o adopted in response to popular clamor to meat the problems of the countr" o March <9* <C97> Congress passed Resolution No.6* which was amended b" Resolution No. @* calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution <C=7 Constitution o after 51&A Revolution o also )nown as the <C=7 Charter

A. -urpose* .b$ective -rimar" purpose of constitutional construction primar" tas) of constitutional construction is to ascertain the intent or purpose of the framers of the constitution as e,pressed in its language purpose of our Constitution> to protect and enhance the people#s interests Constitution construed as enduring for ages Constitution is not merel" for a few "ears but it also needs to endure through a long lapse of ages CHYD ?ecause it governs the life of the people not onl" at the time of its framing but far into the indefinite future it must be adaptable to various crisis of human affairs but it must also be solid permanent and substantial Its stabilit" protects the rights* libert"* and propert" of the people (rich or poor) It must be construed as a d"namic process intended to stand for a great length of time to be progressive and not static 4hat it is N.2> o It should N.2 change with emergencies or conditions o It should N.2 be infle,ible o It should N.2 be interpreted narrowl" 4ords emplo"ed should not be construed to "ield fi,ed and rigid answers because its meaning is applied to meet new or changed conditions as the" arise Courts should construe the constitution so that it would be consistent with reason* $ustice and the public interest NITAFAN v CIR 114 SCRA 484 819879 DOCTRINE: FACTS: : R2C(NCR $udges are see)ing to have the Court prohibit the respondents CIR and the '. of the &C from ma)ing an" deductions in their salaries with withholdingMincome ta,es 2he" contend that pursuant to &ec. <8* Art. JIII of the <C=7 Constitution* their salaries could not be decreased during their continuance in office and a ta, corresponds to a decrease in income ?ecause in the <C7: Constitution* there was a particular provision that stated that> DNo salar" or an" form of emolument of an" public officer or emplo"ee* including constitutional officers* shall be e,empt from pa"ment of income ta,.E (&ec. 9* Art. IJ) 2his provision was removed from the <C=7 Constitution I&&35> 4MN the ta,ing of their incomes are the decrease in income envisioned b" the constitution H5%1> G5&. RA2I.> 2he clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed e,press grant of e,emption from pa"ment of income ta, to members of the Fudiciar"* so as to Kgive substance to e+ualit" among the three branches of /overnmentK in the words of Commissioner Rigos. 1eliberations> it was further e,pressl" made clear* speciall" with regard to 'r. ?ernasV accepted amendment to the amendment of Commissioner Rigos* that the salaries of members of the Fudiciar" would be sub$ect to the general income ta, applied to all ta,pa"ers &omehow* this clear intent was not clearl" set forth b" the provision 1raft proposal of &ec. <8> DRtheir salary shall not be diminished nor subjected to income ta*A ?ut the deliberations show that the Commissioners saw this as a violation of the principle of uniform ta,ation and e+ual protection Commissioner Rigos proposed to remove Dnor sub$ected to income ta,E (and change diminished to decreased) 'r. ?ernas proposed to add Dbut ma" be sub$ect to general income ta,E so as not to revert to the rulings in -erfecto vs. Meer and 5ndencia and Fugo vs. 1avid* which upheld the ta, e,emption ?ut after the suspension of the session* 'r. ?ernas again announced that the provision will now read D1uring their continuance in office* their salar" shall not be decreased.E but with the understanding that the <C7: provision on the non(granting of ta, e,emption will be replicated in the <C=7 Constitution At an" rate* it was finall" approved* with the understanding that the -erfection and 5ndencia rulings will not appl" T%$ *$)"'$#= ,n'$(+$&&"', n# "n* +,n, n# $>+($##$* ($0"(*,n0 '%$ ! n#','.', n"& +( v,#, n ,n K.$#', n .n',& ,' 5"# /,n"&&2 "++( v$* )2 '%$ C --,##, n *,#!& #$* '%"' '%$ '(.$ ,n'$n' / '%$ /("-$(# / '%$ 1987 C n#','.', n /.n*"-$n'"& +(,n!,+&$ / ! n#','.', n"& ! n#'(.!', n: '%$ ,n'$n' / '%$ /("-$(# / '%$ (0"n,! &"5 "n* / '%$ +$ +&$ "* +',n0 ,' #% .&* )$ 0,v$n $//$!' ,' -"2 "&# )$ #"/$&2 "##.-$* '%"' '%$ +$ +&$ ,n ("',/2,n0 '%$ C n#','.', n 5$($ 0.,*$* -",n&2 )2 '%$ $>+&"n"', n //$($* )2 '%$ /("-$(# It would be a strained construction to read into the provision an e,emption from ta,ation in the light of the discussion in the Constitutional Commission.

GOLD CREEI MINING v RODRIGUEG 66 PHIL 419 819389 DOCTRINE: FACTS: -rior to Nov. <;* <C:; (when the <C:; Constitution too) effect)* /C applied for patent or title to a mining claim in ?enguet* Mountain -rovince However* because the <C:; Constitution too) effect on Nov. <;* <C:;* the respondents &ec. of Agriculture and Commerce and 1irector of ?ureau of Mines* refused to approve the application* issue the patent or title for the mining claim* and to prepare the necessar" documents to be approved b" the -resident* invo)ing &ec <* Art. III of the Constitution which states in part> o Natural resources* with the e,ception public agriculture land* shall not be alienated* and no license* concession* or lease for the e,ploitation* development* or utiliBation of an" of the natural resources shall be granted for a period e,ceeding twent"(five "ears* renewable for another twent"(five "ears. ISSUE: 4MN the respondents can be compelled b" the court to issue the patent license to the petitioner HELD: N.. RATIO: It should be borne in mind that ! n#','.', n"& +( v,#, n# -.#' )$ +($#.-$* ' %"v$ )$$n /("-$* "n* "* +'$* ,n &,0%' "n* .n*$(#'"n*,n0 / +(, ( "n* $>,#',n0 &"5# "n* 5,'% ($/$($n!$ ' '%$ 2he location of the mining claim was perfected before the <C:; Constitution too) effect 2hus* as ruled in Mc1aniel vs. Apacible and Cuisia* a valid location of a mining claim segregated the area from public domain 2he ta)ing effect of the <C:; Constitution should not affect rights alread" fi,ed under it 2hus* the mining claim does not fall under the prohibition of &ec < of Art <6

CIR v GUERRERO 41 SCRA 180 819679 ?. %anguage How language of constitution construed primar" source in order to ascertain the constitution is the %AN/3A/5 itself 2he words that are used are broad because it aims to cover all contingencies 4ords must be understood in their common or ordinar" meaning e,cept when technical terms are emplo"ee o 4HGQ ?ecause the fundamental law if essentiall" a document of the people 1o not construe the constitution in such a wa" that its meaning would change 4hat if the words used have both general and restricted meaningQ Rule> general prevails over the restricted unless the contrar" is indicated. BM TUASON v LTA 31 SCRA 413 819709 DOCTRINE: FACTS: Aug. :* <C;C> RA No. 69<9 too) effect without e,ecutive approval It provides for the e,propriation of the 2atalon 5state in ^C $ointl" owned b" FM 2uason* /regorio Araneta and Co.* and 'lorencio 1eudor* et. al. (%ands constitute a certain portion of the &ta. Mesa Heights &ubdivision Nov. <7* <C98> FM 2uason filed a petition for prohibition before the R2C to en$oin the %2A from implementing the e,propriation Fan. <8* <C9:> R2C held RA 69<9 as unconstitutional and granted petition ISSUE: 4MN RA 69<9 is unconstitutional HELD: N.. RATIO> 2he &C loo)ed into the constitutional power of Congress to authoriBe the e,propriation of lands o Art. IIII* &ec. @ provides> K2he Congress ma" authoriBe* upon pa"ment of $ust compensation* the e,propriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots and conve"ed at cost to individuals.K In loo)ing at the relevant Constitutional provisions> it is to be assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are couched e,press the ob$ective sought to be attained 2he" are to be given their ordinar" meaning e,cept where technical terms are emplo"ed constitution is not primaril" a law"er#s document! it should be easil" understood b" the people o ?ased on the postulate that the framers and the people mean what the" sa" It is obvious that the Congress has the power to e,propriate* under the Art <: provision. 2he Congress has a broad grant of e,propriation* which is ver" apparent in the Constitutional provision

CI@IL LI?ERTIES UNION v EHEC SEC 194 SCRA 317 819919 DOCTRINE: FACTS: Ful" 6;* <C=7* -res. CoraBon A+uino issued 5. No. 6=@ providing that o &ec. <> DA member of the Cabinet* undersecretar" or assistant secretar" or other appointive officials of the 5,ecutive 1epartment ma"* in addition to his primar" position* hold not more than two positions in the government and government corporations and receive the corresponding compensation therefor.E -etitioners assailed the said 5.* alleging that it is unconstitutional for being contrar" to &ec <: of Art JII of the <C=7 Constitution which provides

o &ec. <:. 2he -resident* Jice(-resident* the Members of the Cabinet* and their deputies or assistants shall not* unless otherwise provided in this Constitution* hold an" other office or emplo"ment during their tenure. 2he" shall not* during said tenure* directl" or indirectl" practice an" other profession* participate in an" business* or be financiall" interested in an" contract with* or in an" franchise* or special privilege granted b" the /overnment or an" subdivision* agenc"* or instrumentalit" thereof* including government(owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. 2he" shall strictl" avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. ISSUE: 4MN 5. 6=@ is unconstitutional HELD: G5&. C. Rules of Construction

RATIO: 2he phrase Kunless otherwise provided in this ConstitutionK must be given a literal interpretation to refer onl" to those particular instances cited in the Constitution itself* to wit> the Jice(-resident being appointed as a member of the Cabinet under &ection :* par. (6)* Article JII! or acting as -resident in those instances provided under &ection 7* pars. (6) and (:)* Article JII! and* the &ecretar" of Fustice being e*officio member of the Fudicial and ?ar Council b" virtue of &ection = (<)* Article JIII. &till* the prohibition under &ection <:* Article JII is not to be interpreted as covering positions held without additional compensation in e*officio capacities as provided b" law and as re+uired b" the primar" functions of the concerned officialVs office

SARMIENTO v MISON 116 SCRA 149 819879 DOCTRINE: FACTS: -etitioners brought this suit for prohibition in their capacit" as ta,pa"ers* members of the ?ar and law professors* see)ing to en$oin respondent Commissioner of Customs from performing his functions on the ground that his appointment* wMo confirmation b" the CA* is unconstitutional. ISSUE: 4MN &alvador Mison was validl" appointed as Commissioner of Customs HELD: G5&. RATIO: Art. JII* &ec. <9* as originall" proposed b" the Committee on 5,ecutive -ower of the <C=9 Con Com read> o &ec. <9. 2he -resident shall nominate and* with the consent of a Commission on Appointment* shall appoint the heads of e,ecutive departments and bureaus* ambassadors* other public ministers and consuls* or officers of the armed forces from the ran) of colonel or naval captain and all other officers of the /overnment whose appointments are not otherwise provided for b" law* and those whom he ma" be authoriBed b" law to appoint. 2he Congress ma" b" law vest the appointment of inferior officers in the -resident alone* in the courts* or in the heads of departments. However* on motion of Comm. 'oB* 6 changes were approved in the te,t of the provision. o (<) to delete the phrase Kand bureaus*K o (6) to place a period (.) after the word KcaptainK and substitute the phrase Kand allK wM the phrase KH5 &HA%% A%&. A--.IN2 ANG.K 2hus* as it currentl" stands* and / && 5,n0 '%$ "!!$+'$* (.&$ n ! n#','.', n"& "n* #'"'.' (2 ! n#'(.!', n '%"' "n $>+($## $n.-$("', n / #.)<$!'# $>!&.*$# '%$(# n ' $n.-$("'$** it would follow that onl" those appointments to positions e,pressl" stated in the first group re+uire the consent (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments

I?P v GAMORA 338 SCRA 81 840009 DOCTRINE: FACTS: 2hen -resident 5strada ordered the -N- and the Marines to conduct $oint visibilit" patrols for the purpose of crime prevention and suppression. In compliance with the presidential mandate* the -N- Chief* through -olice &uperintendent 5dgar Aglipa"* formulated a %etter of Instruction 86M6888 (the D%.IE) which detailed the manner b" which the $oint visibilit" patrols* called 2as) 'orce &ulungan, would be conducted. 2his 2as) 'orce &ulungan is placed under the leadership of the -olice Chief of Metro Manila. 2he -resident confirmed his verbal directive on the deplo"ment of the Marines in a Memorandum dated 44 B"n."(2 4000 wherein he e,presses his desire to improve the peace and order situation in Metro Manila. Invo)ing his powers as Commander(in(Chief under &ection <=* Article JII of the Constitution* the -resident directed the A'- Chief of &taff and the -N- Chief to coordinate with each other for the proper deplo"ment and utiliBation of the Marines to assist the -Nin preventing or suppressing criminal or lawless violence. .n 17 B"n."(2 4000* the Integrated ?ar of the -hilippines (the DI?-E) filed the instant petition to annul %.I 86M6888 and to declare the deplo"ment of the -hilippine Marines* null and void* and unconstitutional* arguing that> o MAIN AR/3M5N2 T <> 2he deplo"ment of the -hilippine Marines in Metro Manila is violative of the Constitution* in that> A) No emergenc" situation obtains in Metro Manila as would $ustif"* even onl" remotel"* the deplo"ment of soldiers for law enforcement wor)! hence* said deplo"ment is in derogation of Article II* section : of the Constitution! ?) &aid deplo"ment constitutes an insidious incursion b" the Militar" in a civilian function of government (law enforcement) in derogation of Article IJI* section ;(@) of the Constitution! C) &aid deplo"ment creates a dangerous tendenc" to rel" on the Militar" to perform the civilian functions of government. o MAIN AR/3M5N2 T 6> In militariBing law enforcement in Metro Manila* '%$ "*-,n,#'("', n ,# .n5,'',n0&2 -"7,n0 '%$ M,&,'"(2 - ($ + 5$(/.& '%"n 5%"' ,' #% .&* ($"&&2 )$ .n*$( '%$ C n#','.', n3 ISSUE: 4MN %.I 86M6888 is unconstitutional. HELD: N.. RATIO: .n the DNo emergenc"E argument> o the power involved ma" be no more than the maintenance of peace and order and promotion of the general welfare o 2he power of the -resident to )eep the peace is not limited merel" to e,ercising the commander(in(chief powers in times of emergenc" or to leading the &tate against e,ternal and internal threats to its e,istence.

 2here is a clear te,tual commitment under the Constitution to bestow on the -resident full discretionar" power to call out the armed forces and to determine the necessit" for the e,ercise of such power. &ection <=* Article JII of the Constitution* which embodies the powers of the -resident as Commander(in(Chief* provides in part> o 2he -resident shall be the Commander(in(Chief of all armed forces of the -hilippines and whenever it becomes necessar"* he ma" call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence* invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion* when the public safet" re+uires it* he ma"* for a period not e,ceeding si,t" da"s* suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus* or place the -hilippines or an" part thereof under martial law.

3nder the foregoing provisions* Congress ma" revo)e such proclamation or suspension and the Court ma" review the sufficienc" of the factual basis thereof. However* there is no such e+uivalent provision dealing with the revocation or review of the -resident#s action to call out the armed forces. T%$ *,#',n!', n +&"!$# '%$ !"&&,n0 .' + 5$( ,n " *,//$($n' !"'$0 (2 /( - '%$ + 5$( ' *$!&"($ -"(',"& &"5 "n* '%$ + 5$( ' #.#+$n* '%$ +(,v,&$0$ / '%$ 5(,' / habeas corpus= '%$(5,#$= '%$ /("-$(# / '%$ C n#','.', n 5 .&* %"v$ #,-+&2 &.-+$* ' 0$'%$( '%$ '%($$ + 5$(# "n* +( v,*$* / ( '%$,( ($v !"', n "n* ($v,$5 5,'% .' "n2 K."&,/,!"', n. -*pressio unius est e*clusio alterius. 4here the terms are e,pressl" limited to certain matters* it ma" not* b" interpretation or construction* be e,tended to other matters Moreover* 'r. ?ernas comments> ?ut when he e,ercises this lesser power of calling on the Armed 'orces* when he sa"s it is necessar"* it is m" opinion that his $udgment cannot be reviewed b" an"bod"

MARCELINO v CRUG 141 SCRA 11 819839 DOCTRINE: FACTS: -etitioner was charged with rape before the C'I of RiBal Rested his case on August @* <C7; Attorne"s for both parties (Marcelino and -eople)* moved for time to submit their memoranda C'I granted the motion* giving them :8 da"s to submit -etitioner submitted on time* but the -eople did not &ept. @* <C7;> case was submitted for decision .n the date set for the promulgation of the decision (Nov. 6=* <C7; or =; da"s from &ept. @)* counsel for the accused raised the issue of loss of $urisdiction because the case for failure of the C'I to decide the case within C8 da"s from submission thereof for decision A certification dated Fanuar" 69* <C79 was for the complaining witness* and the counsel for the accused* respectivel"* were posted in /race -ar) -ost .ffice on D$!$-)$( 4= 1971. 2hese notices were received b" the respective addressees on 1ecember = and C* <C7;. Fan. <C* <C79> petitioner filed present petition before &C -etitioner alleges that the three(month period prescribed b" &ection <<WlX of Article I of the <C7: Constitution* being a constitutional directive* is mandator" in character and that non(observance thereof results in the loss of $urisdiction of the court over the unresolved case. o &5C. << W<X. 3pon the effectivit" of this Constitution* the ma,imum period within which a case or matter shall be decided or resolved from the date of its submission* shall be eighteen months for the &upreme court* and* unless reduced b" the &upreme Court* twelve months for all inferior collegiate courts* and '%($$ - n'%# / ( "&& '%$( ,n/$(, ( ! .('#3 ISSUE: 4MN the C'I lost its $urisdiction over petitioner. HELD: N.. &he rendition of the judgment in trial courts refers to the filing of the signed decision (ith the cler+ of court" &here is no doubt that the constitutional pro!ision cited by petitioner refers to the rendition of judgment and not to the promulgation thereof" &hus, it is this date that should be considered in determining (hether or not respondent judge had resol!ed the case (ithin the allotted period" @ndeed, the date of promulgation of a decision could not ser!e as the rec+oning date because the same necessarily comes at a later date, considering that notices ha!e to be sent to the accused as (ell as to the other parties in!ol!ed, an e!ent (hich is beyond the control of the judge" 2s pointed out in People !" Court of 2ppeals, the promulgation of a judgment in the trial court does not necessarily coincide (ith the date of its deli!ery by the judge of the cler+ of court. Moreover* the provision cited is merel" director"* not mandator" 2he established rule is that Kconstitutional provisions are to be construed as mandator"* unless b" e,press provision or b" necessar" implication* a different intention is manifest.K K2he difference between a mandator" and a director" provision is often determined on grounds of e,pedienc"* the reason being that less in$ur" results to the general public b" disregarding than b" enforcing the letter of the law.K 2he phraseolog" of the provision in +uestion indicates that it falls within the e,ception rather than the general rule. ?" the phrase Kunless reduced b" the &upreme Court*K it is evident that the period prescribed therein is sub$ect to modification b" this Court in accordance with its prerogative under &ection ;W;X of Article I of the New Constitution to Kpromulgate rules concerning pleading* practice and procedure in all courts ... K And there can be no doubt that said provision* having been incorporated for reasons of e,pedienc"* relates merel" to matters of procedure. 2lbermarle 1il 6 4as Co" !" 3orris, declares that constitutional provisions are director"* and not mandator"* where the" refer to matters merel" procedural.

CO v ELECTORAL TRI?UNAL 199 SCRA 694 DOCTRINE: FACTS: Respondents declared Fose .ng Fr.* elected representative of

Northern &amar* as a natural born 'ilipino citiBen. -etitioners contend that based on the <C=7 Constitution* Fose .ng* Fr. who was born on Fune <C* <C@= (during which the <C:; Constitution was operative)* is not a natural born 'ilipino citiBen having been born to a Chinese father* Fose .ng Chuan and a 'ilipina mother Agrifina %ao. ISSUE: <. 4MN people who have elected -hilippine citiBenship under the <C:; Constitution are to be considered natural born 'ilipino citiBens. 6. 4MN this provision should be applied retroactivel". HELD:

Ges. 3nder of Art. @ &ec. < par. : of the Constitution* children born of 'ilipino mothers before Fanuar" <7* <C7: shall be accorded natural born status if the" elect -hilippine citiBenship upon reaching the age of ma$orit". 2he" need not perform an" act of DelectionE granted that his father was naturaliBed and declared a 'ilipino citiBen b" <C;7* when he was onl" C "ears old. 2he provision in +uestion must be applied retroactivel" since it see)s to remed" the ine+uitable situation under the <C:; Constitution wherein people born of 'ilipino fathers and alien mothers were considered natural born while children born of 'ilipino mothers and alien fathers were not

PERFECTO v MEER GR3 N 3 LE4348 819109 DOCTRINE: FACTS: In April* <C@7 the Collector of Internal Revenue re+uired Mr. Fustice /regorio -erfecto to pa" income ta, upon his salar" as member of this Court during the "ear <C@9. After pa"ing the amount (-=86)* he instituted this action in the Manila C'I contending that the assessment was illegal* his salar" not being ta,able for the reason that imposition of ta,es thereon would reduce it in violation of the Constitution. o Article =* section C provides that the members of the &upreme Court and all $udges of inferior courts Kshall receive such compensation as ma" be fi,ed b" law* which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.K C'I upheld his contention* and re+uired the refund of the amount collected. 2he defendant Collector of IR appealed. ISSUE: 4MN ta,es to salaries of members of the Fudiciar" correspond to diminution thereof HELD: G5&. RATIO: Appl"ing various 3& cases* the logical conclusion ma" be reached that although Congress ma" validl" declare b" law that salaries of $udges appointed thereafter shall be ta,ed as income (.VMalle" vs. 4oodrough) it ma" not ta, the salaries of those $udges already in office at the time of such declaration because such ta,ation would diminish their salaries (5vans vs. /ore! Miles vs. /raham). 2he ne,t sentence reads> K3ntil the Congress shall provide otherwise* the Chief Fustice of the &upreme Court shall receive an annual compensation of -<9*888* and each associate Fustice* -<;*888.K 4herefore* unless and until our %egislature approves an amendment to the Income 2a, %aw e,pressl" ta,ing Kthat salaries of $udges thereafter appointedK* the .VMalle" case is not relevant* i.e. the salaries of $udges cannot be ta,ed as it corresponds to a decrease in their salaries And even then* the ta,es cannot appl" to those $udges currentl" in office

ENDENCIA v DA@ID GR N 3 LE6311E16 819139 DOCTRINE: FACTS: C'I of Manila declared section <: of RA No. ;C8 unconstitutional* and ordered 1avid as Collector of IR to refund to Fustice 5ndencia -<*7@@.@;* representing the income ta, collected on his salar" as Associate Fustice of the CA in <C;<* and to Fustice Fugo -6*:@;.@9* representing the income ta, collected on his salar" from Fanuar" <*<C;8 to .ctober <C* <C;8* as -residing Fustice of the CA* and from .ctober 68* <C;8 to 1ecember :<*<C;8* as Associate Fustice of the &C C'I held that under the doctrine laid down in -erfecto vs. Meer* the collection of income ta,es from the salaries of Fustice Fugo and Fustice 5ndencia was a diminution of their compensation and therefore was in violation of the Constitution of the -hilippines* and so ordered the refund of said ta,es Immediatel" after the promulgation of the -erfecto ruling* Congress enacted RA ;C8 o &5C <:. No salar" wherever received b" an" public officer of the Republic of the -hilippines shall be considered as e,empt from the income ta,* pa"ment of which is hereb" declared not to be diminution of his compensation fi,ed b" the Constitution or b" law ?" legislative fiat as enunciated in section <:* RA. ;C8* Congress sa"s that ta,ing the salar" of a $udicial officer is not a decrease of compensation. T%,# ,# " !&$"( $>"-+&$ / ,n'$(+($'"', n or ascertainment of the meaning of the phrase Kwhich shall not be diminished during their continuance in office*K found in section C* Article JIII of the Constitution* referring to the salaries of $udicial officers. 2his act of interpreting the Constitution or an" part thereof b" the %egislature is an ,nv"#, n / '%$ 5$&&E*$/,n$* "n* $#'")&,#%$* +( v,n!$ "n* <.(,#*,!', n / '%$ B.*,!,"(2 If the Congress be allowed to interpret laws* a final court determination of a case based on a $udicial interpretation of the law of the Constitution ma" be undermined or even annulled b" a subse+uent and different interpretation of the law or of the Constitution b" the %egislative department 2he interpretation and application of the Constitution and of statutes is within the e,clusive province and $urisdiction of the Fudicial department in enacting a law* the %egislature ma" not legall" provide for its own interpretation* t"ing the hands of the courts in their tas) of later interpreting said statute* esp. when such interpretation runs counter to a previous Court interpretation

MAGTOTO v MANGUERA 63 SCRA 4 819719 DOCTRINE: FACTS: &ection 68* Article IJ of the <C7: Constitution granted* for the first time* to a person under investigation for the commission of an offense* the right to counsel and to be informed of such right.

o No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. An" person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel* and to be informed of such right. No force* violence* threat* intimidation* or an" other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. An" confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. In the : criminal cases (/.R. Nos. %(:768<(86* :7@6@ and :=C6C)* the respondent $udges declared certain confessions of the accused as admissible as evidence even if the" were obtained even if the said accused were not informed of their right to remain silent and their right to be informed of such right ISSUE: 4MN the said confessions are admissible as evidence HELD> G5&. RATIO: 2he constitutional provision has and should be given a prospective and not a retrospective effect. A confession obtained from a person under investigation for the commission of an offense* who has not been informed of his right

(to silence and) to counsel* is inadmissible in evidence if the same had been obtained after the effectivit" of the <C7: Constitution on Fanuar" <7* <C7:. Conversel"* such confession is admissible in evidence against the accused* if the same had been obtained before the effectivit" of the New Constitution* even if presented after Fanuar" <7* <C7:* and even if he had not been informed of his right to counsel* since no law gave the accused the right to be so informed before that date. ?ecause the confessions of the accused in /.R. Nos. %(:768<(86* :7@6@ and :=C6C were ta)en before the effectivit" of the New Constitution in accordance with the rules then in force* no right had been violated as to render them inadmissible in evidence although the" were not informed of Ktheir right to remain silent and to counsel*K Kand to be informed of such right*K because. N #.!% (,0%' $>,#'$* "' '%$ ',-$3 C n#','.', n"& +( v,#, n# "# " (.&$ #% .&* )$ 0,v$n +( #+$!',v$ $//$!'

CALDERON v CARALE GR N 91636 819949 DOCTRINE: FACTS: &ec. <9* Art. JII of the <C=7 Constitution which provides> &ec. <9. 2he -resident shall nominate and* with the consent of the Commission on Appointments* appoint the heads of the e,ecutive departments* ambassadors* other public ministers and consuls* or officers of the armed forces from the ran) of colonel or naval captain* and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the /overnment whose appointments are not otherwise provided for b" law* and those whom he ma" be authoriBed b" law to appoint. 2he Congress ma"* b" law* vest the appointment of other officers lower in ran) in the -resident alone* in the courts* or in the heads of departments* agencies* commissions* or boards. 2he -resident shall have the power to ma)e appointments during the recess of the Congress* whether voluntar" or compulsor"* but such appointments shall be effective onl" until disapproval b" the Commission on Appointments or until the ne,t ad$ournment of the Congress. 'rom the cases &armiento vs. Mison* Mar" Concepcion ?autista v. &alonga* and 2eresita ^uintos 1eles* et al. v. 2he Commission on Constitutional Commissions* et al.* the following doctrines were established> <. Confirmation b" the Commission on Appointments is re+uired onl" for presidential appointees mentioned in the first sentence of &ection <9* Article JII* including* those officers whose appointments are e,pressl" vested b" the Constitution itself in the president (li)e sectoral representatives to Congress and members of the constitutional commissions of Audit* Civil &ervice and 5lection). 6. Confirmation is not re+uired when the -resident appoints other government officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for b" law or those officers whom he ma" be authoriBed b" law to appoint (li)e the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights). Also* as observed in 3ison* when Congress creates inferior offices but omits to provide for appointment thereto* or provides in an unconstitutional manner for such appointments* the officers are considered as among those whose appointments are not otherwise provided for b" law. In March <C=C* RA97<; was passed* amending -1@@6 or the %abor Code The Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners and other Commissioners shall all be appointed by thePresident, subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Appointments to an" vacanc" shall come from the nominees of the sector which nominated the predecessor. 2he 5,ecutive %abor Arbiters and %abor Arbiters shall also be appointed b" the -resident* upon recommendation of the &ecretar" of %abor and 5mplo"ment* and shall be sub$ect to the Civil &ervice %aw* rules and regulations. -resident Cor" A+uino appointed the Chairman and Commissioners of the N%RC representing the public* wor)ers and emplo"ers sectors. 2he appointments stated that the appointees ma" +ualif" and enter upon the performance of the duties of the office. After said appointments* then %abor &ecretar" 'ran)lin 1rilon issued Administrative .rder No. <9<* series of <C=C* designating the places of assignment of the newl" appointed commissioners. 2he present petition for prohibition +uestions the constitutionalit" and legalit" of the permanent appointments* without submitting the same to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation ISSUE: 4MN Congress ma"* by la(, add to the Constitutional list of officials appointed b" the -resident that are sub$ect to confirmation b" the CA HELD: N.. RATIO: 2he N%RC Chairman and Commissioners fall within the second sentence of &ection <9* Article JII of the Constitution* or under Kthird groupsK of appointees referred to in 3ison* i.e. those whom the -resident ma" be authoriBed b" law to appoint. 2herefore it is unconstitutional for the Congress to enact a law re+uiring CA confirmation for additional officials because <. it amends b" legislation* the first sentence of &ec. <9* Art. JII of the Constitution b" adding thereto appointments re+uiring confirmation b" the Commission on Appointments! and 6. it amends b" legislation the second sentence of &ec. <9* Art. JII of the Constitution* b" imposing the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments on appointments which are otherwise entrusted onl" with the -resident.

 1eciding on what laws to pass is a legislative prerogative. 1etermining their constitutionalit" is a $udicial function. 2he rulings in 3ison, Bautista and Buintos-Deles have interpreted Art. JII* &ec. <9 consistentl" in one manner. %egislation cannot e,pand it after it has been interpreted b" the &C. &ubsection :* &ection <8* Art. JII of the <C:; Constitution provided> 2he -resident shall nominate and with the consent of the Commission on Appointments* shall appoint the heads of the e,ecutive departments and bureaus* officers of the Arm" from the ran) of colonel* of the Nav" and Air 'orces from the ran) of captain or commander* and all other officers of the /overnment whose

appointments are not herein otherwise provided for* and those whom he ma" be authoriBed b" law to appoint! . . . (5,panded powers* as compared to the <C=7 version) 2he solution to the apparent problem* if indeed a problem* is not $udicial or legislative but constitutional. A future constitutional convention or Congress sitting as a constituent (constitutional) assembl" ma" then consider either a return to the <C:; Constitutional provisions or the adoption of a h"brid s"stem between the <C:; and <C=7 constitutional provisions. 3ntil then* it is the dut" of the Court to appl" the <C=7 Constitution in accordance with what it sa"s and not in accordance with how the legislature or the e,ecutive would want it interpreted

1. Aids in constructionMinterpretation Aids to construction* generall" apart from its language courts ma" refer to the following in construing the constitution> o histor" o proceedings of the convention o prior laws and $udicial decisions o contemporaneous constructions o conse+uences of alternative interpret(tations these aids are called e,traneous aids because though their effect is not in precise rules their influence describes the essentials of the process (remember preambleQ ganito lang din "un) Realities e,isting at time of adoption! ob$ect to be accomplished Histor" basicall" helps in ma)ing one understand as to how and wh" certain laws were incorporated into the constitution. In construing constitutional law* the histor" must be ta)en into consideration because there are certain considerations rooted in the historical bac)ground of the environment at the time of its adoption (%egaspi v. Minister of 'inance) -roceedings of the convention R3%5> If the language of the constitutional provision is plain it is not necessar" to resort to e,trinsic aids 5IC5-2I.N> when the intent of the framer doesn#t appear in the te,t or it has more than one construction. Intent of a constitutional convention member doesn#t necessaril" mean it is also the people#s intent 2he proceedings of the convention are usuall" in+uired into because it sheds light into what the framers of the constitution had in mind at that time. (refers to the debates* interpretations and opinions concerning particular provisions) Contemporaneous construction and writings ma" be used to resolve but not to create ambiguities In construing statutes* contemporaneous construction are entitled to great weight however when it comes to the constitution it has no weight and will not be allowed to change in an" wa" its meaning. 4ritings of delegates has persuasive force but it depends on two things> o if opinions are based on fact )nown to them and not established it is immaterial o on legal hermeneutics* their conclusions ma" not be a shade better in the e"es of the law. -revious laws and $udicial rulings framers of the constitution is presumed to be aware of prevailing $udicial doctrines concerning the sub$ect of constitutional provisions. 2H3& when courts adopt principles different from prior decisions it is presumed that the" did so to overrule said principle Changes in phraseolog" ?efore a constitution is ratified it undergoes a lot of revisions and changes in phraseolog" (e,. deletion of words) and these changes ma" be in+uired into to ascertain the intent or purpose of the provision as approved H.45J5R mere deletion* as negative guides* cannot prevail over the positive provisions nor is it determinative of an" conclusion. Certain provisions in our constitution (from <C:; to the present) are mere reenactments of prior constitutions thus these changes ma" indicate an intent to modif" or change the meaning of the old provisions. Conse+uences of alternative constructions conse+uences that ma" follow from alternative construction of doubtful constitutional provisions constitute an important factor to consider in construing them. if a provision has more than one interpretation* that construction which would lead to absurd* impossible or mischievous conse+uences must be re$ected.

e.g. director" and mandator" interpretation> Art. = &ec <;(<) re+uires $udges to render decision within specific periods from date of submission for decision of cases (construed as director" because if otherwise it will cause greater in$ur" to the public)

Constitution construed as a whole provision should not be construed separatel" from the rest it should be interpreted as a whole and be harmoniBed with conflicting provisions so as to give them all force and effect. sections in the constitution with a particular sub$ect should be interpreted together to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution. Mandator" or director" R3%5> constitutional provisions are to be construed as mandator" unless a different intention is manifested. 4h"Q ?ecause in a constitution* the sovereign itself spea)s and is la"ing down rules which for the time being at least are to control ali)e the government and the governed. failure of the legislature to enact the necessar" re+uired b" the constitution does not ma)e the legislature is illegal. -rospective or retroactive R3%5> constitution operates prospectivel" onl" unless the words emplo"ed are clear that it applies retroactivel" Applicabilit" of rules of statutor" construction 1octrines used in #armiento !" 3ison is a good e,ample in which the &C applied a number of rules of statutor" construction. Issue> whether or not the appointment of a Commissioner of Customs is sub$ect to confirmation b" the Commission on appointments LEGASPI v MINISTER OF FINANCE 111 SCRA 418 819849 DOCTRINE: FACTS: Jalentino %. %egaspi* incumbent member of the interim ?atasang -ambansa* pra"ed for the &C to declare -1 <=@8 Kgranting ta, amnest" and filing of statement of assets and liabilities and some other purposesK unconstitutional -res. Marcos issued the -1 pursuant to Amendment No. 9 of the Constitution proclaimed in full force and effect as of .ctober 67* <C79 pursuant to -roclamation No. <;C;* which granted him legislative powers %egaspi contends> under the <C7: Constitution K(2)he legislative power shall be vested in a ?atasang -ambansaK (&ec. <* Article JIII) and the -resident ma" grant amnest" onl" with concurrence of the ?atasang -ambansa (&ec. <<* Art. JII)! 'urther* Amendment No. 9 is not one of the powers granted the -resident b" the Constitution as amended on April 7* <C=< 2here is also the +uestion of whether the -resident retained his legislative power after the temporar" lifting of Martial %aw and after the Constitution was amended on April 7* <C=< ISSUE: 4MN the Amendment No. 9 of the <C7: Constitution as approved in <C79 was repealed b" omission b" the April 7* <C=< amendment HELD: N.. RATIO: 5,amining closel" how the <C=< amendments altered Amendment No. 6 (amendment creating the ?-)* it will be readil" seen that the onl" change consisted of the non(inclusion of the Kincumbent -residentK as member of the assembl" in pursuance of the fundamental ob$ective to separate the -residenc" from the regular legislative bod" and thereb" establish in our countr" a modified form of parliamentar" government 2herefore* what we have now is still the interim ?atasang -ambansa created in <C79. It then follows that its legislative authorit" cannot be more e,clusive now after <C=< amendments than when it was originall" created in <C79 Constitutional law is not simpl" the literal application of the words of the Charter. 2he ancient and familiar rule of constitutional construction that the meaning conve"ed b" its language* albeit plain* do not onl" portra" current events and developments but must li)ewise consider its historical roots and the environment at the time of its adoption 2his is to perceive the law as being written as part and parcel thereof. Historical precedents> It is to be recalled that the said amendment was formulated in .ctober <C79* more than full" four "ears after the whole -hilippines was first placed under martial law pursuant to -roclamation <8=< dated &eptember 6<* <C76. -urpose> (<) the +uelling of nationwide subversive activities characteristic not onl" of a rebellion but of a state of war fanned b" a foreign power of a different Ideolog" from ours* and not e,cluding the stopping effectivel" of a brewing* if not a strong separatist movement in Mindanao* and (6) the establishment of a New &ociet" b" the institution of disciplinar" measures 2he purpose of Amendment No. 9 is that the -hilippines be henceforth spared of martial law unless manifest e,treme situations should ever demand it. to ma)e the proclamation of martial law remotest* but nevertheless enable the government to meet emergencies effectivel"* the" conceived the Idea of granting to the -resident (-rime Minister) the power endowed to him b" Amendment No 9

MONTEBO v COMELEC 144 SCRA 411 819919 DOCTRINE: FACTS: 1ecember 6C* <CC@* it promulgated Resolution No. 67:9 where* among others* it transferred the municipalit" of Capoocan of the &econd 1istrict of %e"te and the municipalit" of -alompon of the 'ourth 1istrict to the 2hird 1istrict of %e"te. 2he composition of the 'irst 1istrict which includes the municipalit" of &olosa and the composition of the 'ifth 1istrict were not disturbed. Cirilo Ro" /. Monte$o* representing the 'irst 1istrict of %e"te* pleads for the annulment of section < of Resolution No. 67:9*

redistricting certain municipalities in %e"te* on the ground that it violates the principle of e+ualit" of representation. He alleged that the 'irst 1istrict has <7=*9== registered voters while the &econd 1istrict has <;9*@96 registered voters or a difference of 66*669 registered voters. 2o diminish the difference* he proposed that the municipalit" of &olosa (from his district) with 7*7888 registered voters be transferred from the 'irst to the &econd 1istrict. he argues that C.M5%5C violated Kthe constitutional precept that as much as practicable one manVs vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as anotherVs.K Intervenor &ergio A.'. Apostol* representing the &econd 1istrict* vigorousl" opposed the inclusion of &olosa in his district. Issue involves the unprecedented e,ercise b" the C.M5%5C of the legislati!e po(er of redistricting and reapportionment. ISSUE: 4MN C.M5%5C has the constitutional power to transfer municipalities from one district to another HELD: N.. RATIO: 2he basic powers of respondent C.M5%5C* as enforcer and administrator of our election laws* are spelled out in blac) and white in section 6(c)* Article II of the Constitution. C.M5%5C relies on the .rdinance appended to the <C=7 Constitution as the source of its po(er of redistricting (hich is traditionally regarded as part of the po(er to ma+e la(s &aid .rdinance provides> o &ec. <. 'or purposes of the election of Members of the House of Representatives of the 'irst Congress of the -hilippines under the Constitution proposed b" the <C=9 Constitutional Commission and subse+uent elections* and until otherwise provided b" law* the Members thereof shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces* cities* and the Metropolitan Manila Area as o &ec. 6. T%$ C --,##, n n E&$!', n# ,# %$($)2 $-+ 5$($* ' -"7$ minor adjustments / '%$ ($"++ (', n-$n' %$($,n -"*$3

o &ec. :. An" province that ma" hereafter be created* or an" cit" whose population ma" hereafter increase to more than two hundred fift" thousand shall be entitled in the immediatel" following election to at least one Member or such number of Members as it ma" be entitled to on the basis of the number of its inhabitants and according to the standards set forth in paragraph (:)* &ection ; of Article JI of the Constitution. T%$ number of Members "++ (', n$* ' '%$ +( v,n!$ .' / 5%,!% #.!% n$5 +( v,n!$ 5"# !($"'$* ( 5%$($ '%$ !,'2= 5% #$ + +.&"', n %"# # ,n!($"#$*= ,# 0$ 0("+%,!"&&2 & !"'$* shall be correspondingly adjusted by the Commission on Elections ).' #.!% "*<.#'-$n' #%"&& n ' )$ -"*$ 5,'%,n n$ %.n*($* "n* '5$n'2 *"2# )$/ ($ '%$ $&$!', n3 2he .rdinance was made necessar" because -roclamation No. : of -resident CoraBon C. A+uino* ordaining the provisional Constitution of the Republic of the -hilippines* abolished the Batasang Pambansa. &he then e,ercised legislative powers under the -rovisional Constitution. 'rom the deliberations> 2he Constitutional Commission denied to the C.M5%5C the major power of legislative apportionment as it itself e,ercised the power. &ection 6 of the .rdinance onl" empowered the C.M5%5C Kto ma)e minor ad$ustments of the reapportionment herein made.K Meaning of minor clarified b" Comm. 1avide> meaning to say, for instance, that (e may ha!e forgotten an inter!ening municipality in the enumeration, (hich ought to be included in one district. &hat (e shall consider a minor amendment. &ection : of the .rdinance did not also give the respondent C.M5%5C an" authorit" to transfer municipalities from one legislative district to another district. 2he power granted b" &ection : to the respondent C.M5%5C is to adjust the number of members (not municipalities) Kapportioned to the province out of which such new province was created. . . .K &ec. < of the ordinance was annulled b" the &C

@ERA v A@ELINO 77 PHIL 194 819469 F"!'#: over that case* as well as this one. ( In Ma" 6;* <C@9* the -hilippine &enate passed a resolution e,cluding ( 2he &enate did not e,ceed its powers. Independent of an" &enators(elect Fose .. Jera* Ramon 1io)no* and Fose 5. Romero constitutional or statutor" grant* it still has the power to in+uire into the from ta)ing their seats in the &enate while the election protest against credentials of an" member and that member#s right to participate in its them was still pending. 2he protest involved alleged electoral fraud deliberations. due to Dcertain specified acts of terrorism and violenceE in -ampanga* . 2he assignment of contests regarding elections to the 5lectoral ?ulacan* Nueva 5ci$a* and 2arlac. 2ribunal does not negate this power. ( -etitioners are now filing this action against the &enate resolution* ( It ma" also be approached in the viewpoint of the &enate e,ercising pra"ing for its annulment and compelling respondents to let them ta)e its powers under Art. JI* &ec. <8 (:) of the <C:; Constitution to set its their seats. own rules for its proceedings* and it e,ercises this power to I##.$#: promulgate orders to maintain its prestige and dignit". It could be said ( 4.N the Court had $urisdiction over the case to have done this in this case in order to ma)e sure that these ( 4.N the &enate has e,ceeded its powers &enators reall" were elected properl". ( 4.N it was respondents# legall" inescapable dut" to permit ( &ection <6 of Commonwealth Act 76; provides that those who are petitioners to ta)e their seats elected are to come to Manila and assume office* but it does not impl" ( 4.N respondents can be called to account for their votes regarding that the House could not den" admission in the case of the assailed resolution dis+ualification. H$&*: ( 2he Constitution provides* under Art. JI* &ec. <;* that &enators and ( 1ue to the separation of powers* the Court has no actual $urisdiction Congressmen cannot be +uestioned in an" other place for an" speech over the case. It had alread" established this in Ale$andrino vs. or debate made in Congress. 2herefore* the Court cannot +uestion or ^ueBon. It is however alleged that the ruling in Angara vs. 5lectoral permit respondents to +uestion the votes made regarding the Commission modified this doctrine! this is not true as the Court resolution before it. specificall" cited Ale$andrino in Angara to $ustif" their lac) of $urisdiction CI@IL LI?ERTIES UNION v EHEC SEC

FACTS: -etitioners maintain that the 5,ecutive .rder which* in effect* allows members of the Cabinet* their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition to their primar" positions. 2his runs counter to Art. 7* &ec. <: of the Constitution which provides that the -resident* Jice(-resident* the Members of the Cabinet* and their deputies and assistants shall not* unless otherwise provided b" the Constitution* hold an" other office or emplo"ment during their tenure. ISSUE: 4MN the prohibition in Art. 7* &ec. <: admits of the broad e,ceptions made for appointive officials in general under Art. C(?* &ec. 7* par. 6. HELD: No. A foolproof "ardstic) in constitutional construction is the intention

underl"ing the provision. 2he practice of holding multiple offices or positions in the government would lead to abuses b" unscrupulous public officials who too) the scheme for purposes of self(enrichment* particularl" during the Marcos era. 2he +ualif"ing phrase Dunless otherwise provided in this ConstitutionE of &ec. <:* Art. 7 cannot possibl" refer to the broad e,ceptions of &ec. 7* Art. C(? of the <C=7 Constitution. 2he former is meant to la" down the general rule of holding multiple offices applicable to all elective public officials and emplo"ees while the latter is meant for the e,ception of the -resident* Jice(-resident* members of the Cabinet* their deputies and assistants. 2o construe otherwise would be to render nugator" and meaningless the manifest intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution. 5... 6=@ is therefore declared null and void.

LA ?UGALE?:LAAN v RAMOS GR N 3 147884 840049 DOCTRINE: Court upholds the constitutionalit" of the -hilippine Mining %aw* its Implementing Rules and Regulations ( insofar as the" relate to financial and technical agreements ( as well as the sub$ect 'inancial and 2echnical Assistance Agreement ('2AA). F"!'#: Dever" contract entered into in accordance with this WconstitutionalX 2he -etition for -rohibition and Mandamus before the Court provision within thirt" da"s from its e,ecution.E In contrast to this challenges the constitutionalit" of (<) Republic Act 7C@6 (2he e,press mandate of the -resident and Congress in the e,ploration* -hilippine Mining Act of <CC;)! (6) its Implementing Rules and development and utiliBation (513) of natural resources* Article III of Regulations (15NR Administrative .rder W1A.X C9(@8)! and (:) the the Constitution is silent on the role of the $udiciar". However* should 'inancial and 2echnical Assistance Agreement ('2AA) dated :8 March the -resident andMor Congress gravel" abuse their discretion in this <CC;* e,ecuted b" the government with 4estern Mining Corporation regard* the courts ma" (( in a proper case (( e,ercise their residual (-hilippines)* Inc. (4MC-). dut" under Article JIII. Clearl" then* the $udiciar" should not inordinatel" interfere in the e,ercise of this presidential power of .n 67 Fanuar" 688@* the Court en banc promulgated its 1ecision* control over the 513 of our natural resources. granting the -etition and declaring the unconstitutionalit" of certain provisions of RA 7C@6* 1A. C9(@8* as well as of the entire '2AA 3nder the doctrine of separation of powers and due respect for co( e,ecuted between the government and 4MC-* mainl" on the finding e+ual and coordinate branches of government* the Court must restrain that '2AAs are service contracts prohibited b" the <C=7 Constitution. itself from intruding into polic" matters and must allow the -resident 2he 1ecision struc) down the sub$ect '2AA for being similar to service and Congress ma,imum discretion in using the resources of our contracts*WCX which* though permitted under the <C7: Constitution* countr" and in securing the assistance of foreign groups to eradicate were subse+uentl" denounced for being antithetical to the principle of the grinding povert" of our people and answer their cr" for viable sovereignt" over our natural resources* because the" allowed foreign emplo"ment opportunities in the countr". D2he $udiciar" is loath to control over the e,ploitation of our natural resources* to the pre$udice interfere with the due e,ercise b" coe+ual branches of government of of the 'ilipino nation. their official functions.E As aptl" spelled out seven decades ago b" Fustice /eorge Malcolm* DFust as the &upreme Court* as the guardian 2he 1ecision +uoted several legal scholars and authors who had of constitutional rights* should not sanction usurpations b" an" other criticiBed service contracts for* inter alia* vesting in the foreign department of government* so should it as strictl" confine its own contractor e,clusive management and control of the enterprise* sphere of influence to the powers e,pressl" or b" implication conferred including operation of the field in the event petroleum was discovered! on it b" the .rganic Act.E %et the development of the mining industr" control of production* e,pansion and development! nearl" unfettered be the responsibilit" of the political branches of government. And let control over the disposition and sale of the products not the Court interfere inordinatel" and unnecessaril". 2he Constitution discoveredMe,tracted! effective ownership of the natural resource at of the -hilippines is the supreme law of the land. It is the repositor" of the point of e,traction! and beneficial ownership of our economic all the aspirations and hopes of all the people. resources. According to the 1ecision* the <C=7 Constitution (&ection 6 of Article III) effectivel" banned such service contracts. &ubse+uentl"* 2he Constitution should be read in broad* life(giving stro)es. It should Jictor .. Ramos (&ecretar"* 1epartment of 5nvironment and Natural not be used to strangulate economic growth or to serve narrow* Resources W15NRX)* Horacio Ramos (1irector* Mines and parochial interests. Rather* it should be construed to grant the /eosciences ?ureau WM/?(15NRX)* Ruben 2orres (5,ecutive -resident and Congress sufficient discretion and reasonable leewa" to &ecretar")* and the 4MC (-hilippines) Inc. filed separate Motions for enable them to attract foreign investments and e,pertise* as well as to Reconsideration. secure for our people and our posterit" the blessings of prosperit" and peace. 2he Court full" s"mpathiBe with the plight of %a ?ugal ?#laan I##.$: and other tribal groups* and commend their efforts to uplift their 4hether or not the Court has a role in the e,ercise of the power of communities. However* the Court cannot $ustif" the invalidation of an control over the 513 of our natural resourcesQ otherwise constitutional statute along with its implementing rules* or the nullification of an otherwise legal and binding '2AA contract. 2he H$&*: Court believes that it is not unconstitutional to allow a wide degree of 2he Chief 5,ecutive is the official constitutionall" mandated to Denter discretion to the Chief 5,ecutive* given the nature and comple,it" of into agreements with foreign owned corporations.E .n the other hand* such agreements* the humongous amounts of capital and financing Congress ma" review the action of the -resident once it is notified of re+uired for large(scale mining operations* the complicated technolog"

needed* and the intricacies of international trade* coupled with the &tate#s need to maintain fle,ibilit" in its dealings* in order to preserve and enhance our countr"#s competitiveness in world mar)ets. .n the basis of this control standard* the Court upholds the constitutionalit" of

the -hilippine Mining %aw* its Implementing Rules and Regulations ( insofar as the" relate to financial and technical agreements ( as well as the sub$ect 'inancial and 2echnical Assistance Agreement ('2AA).

DE CASTRO v B?C GR N 191004 840109 J M"< (,'2 O+,n, n "n* C"(+, M ("&$# D,##$n' DOCTRINE: Constitutional draftsmanship st"le is the wea)est aid in arriving at a constitutional construction FACTS: c. PHILCONSA: -erfunctor" understanding of &ec. <;* Art. JII of the <C=7 Constitution is affecting the F?C#s 2his case is based on multiple cases field with dealt with the proper e,ercise of its Dprincipal function of controvers" that has arisen from the forthcoming compulsor" recommending appointees to the Fudiciar" b" re+uirement of Chief Fustice -uno on Ma" <7* 68<8 or seven submitting onl" to the -resident (not the ne,t) Da list of da"s after the presidential election. at least three nominees prepared b" the F?C for .n 1ecember 66* 688C* Congressman Matias J. 1efensor* an e, ever" vacanc"E from which members of the &C and officio member of the F?C* addressed a letter to the F?C* $udges of the lower courts ma" be appointed. Also* re+uesting that the process for nominations to the office of the the ruling in alen9uela should be reviewed. Chief Fustice be commenced immediatel". d. P$("&'":3andamus can compel the F?C to In its Fanuar" <=* 68<8 meeting en banc* the F?C passed a immediatel" transmit to the -resident* within a resolution stating that the" have unanimousl" agreed to start the reasonable time its list of nominees in the event the process of filling up the position of Chief Fustice to be vacated on Court decides that the -resident can appoint a CF Ma" <7* 68<8 upon the retirement of the incumbent Chief even during the election ban. Fustice. ?3 OSG: As a result* the F?C opened the position of Chief Fustice for a. 4rit of prohibition cannot issue to prevent the F?C application or recommendation* and published for that purpose from performing its principal function under the its announcement in the -hilippine 1ail" In+uirer and the Constitution to recommend appointees. -hilippine &tar. b. F?C#s function to recommend is a Dcontinuing In its meeting of 'ebruar" =* 68<8* the F?C resolved to proceed process*E which does not begin with each vacanc" or to the ne,t step of announcing the names of the following end with each nomination because the goal is Dto candidates to invite to the public to file their sworn complaint* submit the list of nominees to Malaca]ang on the ver" written report* or opposition* if an"* not later than 'ebruar" 66* da" the vacanc" arises.E 68<8. c. -etitioner &oriano#s theor" that it is the &upreme Although it has alread" begun the process for the filling of the Court* not the -resident* who has the power to position of Chief Fustice -uno in accordance with its rules* the appoint the Chief Fustice* is incorrect* and proceeds F?C is not "et decided on when to submit to the -resident its list from his misinterpretation of the phrase Dmembers of of nominees for the position due to the controvers" in this case the &upreme CourtE found in &ection C* Article JIII of being unresolved. the Constitution as referring onl" to the Associate 2he compiled cases which led to this case and the petitions of Fustices* to the e,clusion of the Chief Fustice. intervenors called for either the prohibition of the F?C to pass the d. A writ of mandamus can issue to compel the F?C to shortlist* mandamus for the F?C to pass the shortlist* or that the submit the list of nominees to the -resident* act of appointing the ne,t Chief Fustice b" /MA is a midnight considering that its dut" to prepare the list of at least appointment. three nominees is un+ualified* and the submission of the list is a ministerial act that the F?C is mandated to A precedent fre+uentl" cited b" the parties is the @n 8e perform under the Constitution! as such* the F?C* the 2ppointments Dated 3arch .C, %>>< of 5on" 3ateo 2" nature of whose principal function is e,ecutive* is not alen9uela and 5on" Placido B" allarta as Judges of the 8&C of vested with the power to resolve who has the Branch :', Bago City and of Branch '/, Cabanatuan City, authorit" to appoint the ne,t Chief Fustice and* respecti!ely* shortl" referred to here as the alen9uela case, b" therefore* has no discretion to withhold the list from which the Court held that &ection <;* Article JII prohibited the the -resident. e,ercise b" the -resident of the power to appoint to $udicial e. 4rit of mandamus cannot issue to compel the F?C to positions during the period therein fi,ed. include or e,clude particular candidates as nominees* A(0.-$n'#: considering that there is no imperative dut" on its part A3 P$',', n$(#: to include in or e,clude from the list particular a. D$ C"#'( : 2he F?C* in not submitting the list of individuals* but* on the contrar"* the F?C#s nominees* is arrogating unto itself Dthe $udicial determination of who it nominates to the -resident is function that is not conferred upon it b" the an e,ercise of a discretionar" dut". Constitution*E which has limited it to the tas) of f. 2he .&/ contends that the incumbent -resident ma" recommending appointees to the $udiciar". appoint the ne,t Chief Fustice* because the b. S (,"n : F?C committed a grave abuse of discretion prohibition under &ection <;* Article JII of the in unanimousl" deciding to open the searc* Constitution does not appl" to appointments in the nomination and selection process for the position of &upreme Court. It argues that an" vacanc" in the CF* because the appointing authorit" for the said &upreme Court must be filled within C8 da"s from its position is the &upreme Court itself* the -resident#s occurrence* pursuant to &ection @(<)* Article JIII of authorit" being limited to the appointment of the the Constitution Members of the &C.

g.

h.

in their deliberations on the mandator" period for the appointment of &upreme Court Fustices* the framers neither mentioned nor referred to the ban against midnight appointments* or its effects on such period* or vice versa ii. Had the framers intended the prohibition to appl" to &upreme Court appointments* the" could have easil" e,pressl" stated so in the Constitution* which e,plains wh" the prohibition found in Article JII (5,ecutive 1epartment) was not written in Article JIII (Fudicial 1epartment)! iii. the framers also incorporated in Article JIII ample restrictions or limitations on the -resident#s power to appoint members of the &upreme Court to ensure its independence from Dpolitical vicissitudesE and its Dinsulation from political pressures*E such as stringent +ualifications for the positions* the establishment of the F?C* the specified period within which the -resident shall appoint a &upreme Court Fustice. Although alen9uela involved the appointment of R2C Fudges* the situation now refers to the appointment of the ne,t Chief Fustice to which the prohibition does not appl"! that* at an" rate* JalenBuela even recogniBed that there might be Dthe imperative need for an appointment during the period of the ban*E li)e when the membership of the &upreme Court should be Dso reduced that it will have no +uorum* or should the voting on a particular important +uestion re+uiring e,peditious resolution be dividedE i. alen9uela also recogniBed that the filling of vacancies in the Fudiciar" is undoubtedl" in the public interest* most especiall" if there is an" compelling reason to $ustif" the ma)ing of the appointments during the period of the prohibition. there are now undeniabl" compelling reasons for the incumbent -resident to appoint the ne,t Chief Fustice> i. a deluge of cases involving sensitive political issues is D+uite e,pectedE ii. the Court acts as the -residential 5lectoral 2ribunal (-52)* which* sitting en banc* is the sole $udge of all contests relating to the election* returns* and +ualifications of the -resident and Jice -resident and* as such* has Dthe power to correct manifest errors on the statement of votes (&.J) and certificates of canvass (C.C)E iii. if histor" has shown that during ordinar" times the Chief Fustice was appointed immediatel" upon the occurrence of the vacanc"* from the time of the effectivit" of the Constitution* there is now even more reason to appoint the ne,t Chief Fustice immediatel" upon the retirement of Chief Fustice -uno iv. should the ne,t Chief Fustice come from among the incumbent Associate Fustices of the &upreme Court* thereb" causing a vacanc"* it also becomes incumbent upon the F?C to start the selection process for

i.

the filling up of the vacanc" in accordance with the constitutional mandate. C3 In'$(v$n (#: a. In'$(v$n (# T"n= CTLOP= ?AYAN $' "&3= C (v$("= I?P D"v" *$& S.(= "n* NUPL ta)e the position that 1e Castro#s petition was bereft of an" basis* because under &ection <;* Article JII* the outgoing -resident is constitutionall" banned from ma)ing an" appointments from March <8* 68<8 until Fune :8* 68<8* including the appointment of the successor of Chief Fustice -uno. Hence* mandamus does not lie to compel the F?C to submit the list of nominees to the outgoing -resident if the constitutional prohibition is alread" in effect. 2an adds that the prohibition against midnight appointments was applied b" the Court to the appointments to the Fudiciar" made b" then -resident Ramos* with the Court holding that the dut" of the -resident to fill the vacancies within C8 da"s from occurrence of the vacancies (for the &upreme Court) or from the submission of the list (for all other courts) was not an e,cuse to violate the constitutional prohibition. b. In'$(v$n (# T"n= U)"n = ? ,#$(= C (v$("= NULP= ?AYAN $' "&3= "n* ?$&& $' "& . oppose the insistence that alen9uela recogniBes the possibilit" that the -resident ma" appoint the ne,t Chief Fustice if e,igent circumstances warrant the appointment* because that recognition is obiter dictum! and aver that the absence of a Chief Fustice or even an Associate Fustice does not cause epic damage or absolute disruption or paral"sis in the operations of the Fudiciar". c. In'$(v$n (#U)"n = ? ,#$(= NUPL= C (v$("= "n* L,- maintain that the .mnibus 5lection Code penaliBes as an election offense the act of an" government official who appoints* promotes* or gives an" increase in salar" or remuneration or privilege to an" government official or emplo"ee during the period of @; da"s before a regular election! that the provision covers all appointing heads* officials* and officers of a government office* agenc" or instrumentalit"* including the -resident! that for the incumbent -resident to appoint the ne,t Chief Fustice upon the retirement of Chief Fustice -uno* or during the period of the ban under the .mnibus 5lection Code* constitutes an election offense! that even an appointment of the ne,t Chief Fustice prior to the election ban is fundamentall" invalid and without effect because there can be no appointment until a vacanc" occurs! and that the vacanc" for the position can occur onl" b" Ma" <7* 68<8. d. In'$(v$n (? ,#$( adds that 1e Castro#s pra"er to compel the submission of nominees b" the F?C to the incumbent -resident is off(tangent because the position of Chief Fustice is still not vacant! that to spea) of a list* much more a submission of such list* before a vacanc" occurs is glaringl" premature! that the proposed advance appointment b" the incumbent -resident of the ne,t Chief Fustice will be unconstitutional! and that no list of nominees can be submitted b" the F?C if there is no vacanc". e. A&& '%$ ,n'$(v$n (#E ++ #,' (# submit that &ection <;* Article JII ma)es no distinction between the )inds of appointments made b" the -resident! and that the Court* in JalenBuela* ruled that the appointments b"

f.

g.

h.

i.

the -resident of the two $udges during the prohibition period were void. In'$(v$n (42%.- posits that &ection <;* Article JII of the <C=7 Constitution does not appl" onl" to the appointments in the 5,ecutive 1epartment* but also to $udicial appointments* contrar" to the submission of -HI%C.N&A! that &ection <; does not distinguish! and that JalenBuela alread" interpreted the prohibition as applicable to $udicial appointments. In'$(v$n ( CTLOP further posits that petitioner &oriano#s contention that the power to appoint the Chief Fustice is vested* not in the -resident* but in the &upreme Court* is utterl" baseless* because the Chief Fustice is also a Member of the &upreme Court as contemplated under &ection C* Article JIII! and that* at an" rate* the term DmembersE was interpreted in Jargas v. RillaroBa (/.R. No. %(<9<6* 'ebruar" 69* <C@=) to refer to the Chief Fustice and the Associate Fustices of the &upreme Court! that -HI%C.N&A#s pra"er that the Court pass a resolution declaring that persons who manifest their interest as nominees* but with conditions* shall not be considered nominees b" the F?C is diametricall" opposed to the arguments in the bod" of its petition! that such glaring inconsistenc" between the allegations in the bod" and the relief pra"ed for highlights the lac) of merit of -HI%C.N&A#s petition! that the role of the F?C cannot be separated from the constitutional prohibition on the -resident! and that the Court must direct the F?C to follow the rule of law* that is* to submit the list of nominees onl" to the ne,t dul" elected -resident after the period of the constitutional ban against midnight appointments has e,pired. O++ #,' ( I?P D"v" *$& S.( opines that the F?C because it is neither a $udicial nor a +uasi($udicial bod" has no dut" under the Constitution to resolve the +uestion of whether the incumbent -resident can appoint a Chief Fustice during the period of prohibition! that even if the F?C has alread" come up with a short list* it still has to bow to the strict limitations under &ection <;* Article JII! that should the F?C defer submission of the list* it is not arrogating unto itself a $udicial function* but simpl" respecting the clear mandate of the Constitution! and that the application of the general rule in &ection <;* Article JII to the Fudiciar" does not violate the principle of separation of powers* because said provision is an e,ception. O++ #,' (# NUPL= C (v$("= L,- "n* ?AYAN $' "&3 state that the F?C#s act of nominating appointees to the &upreme Court is purel" ministerial and does not involve the e,ercise of $udgment! that there can be no default on the part of the F?C in submitting the list of nominees to the -resident* considering that the call for applications onl" begins from the occurrence of the vacanc" in the &upreme Court! and that the commencement of the process of screening of applicants to fill the vacanc" in the office of the Chief Fustice onl" begins from the retirement on Ma" <7* 68<8* for* prior to this date* there is no definite legal basis for an" part" to claim that the submission or non(submission of the list of nominees to the -resident b" the F?C is a matter of right under law.

6. :. @.

4.N there is $usticiable controvers" that is ripe for $udicial determinationQ 4.N the incumbent -resident can appoint the ne,t Chief FusticeQ 4.N mandamus and prohibition will lie to compel the submission of the shortlist of nominees b" the F?CQ

H$&*/R"', : 13 Y$#3 P$',', n$(# %"v$ &$0"& #'"n*,n0 )$!".#$ #.!% ($K.,($-$n' / ( '%,# !"#$ 5"# 5",v$* )2 '%$ C .('3 %egal standing is a peculiar concept in constitutional law because in some cases* suits are not brought b" parties who have been personall" in$ured b" the operation of a law or an" other government act but b" concerned citiBens* ta,pa"ers or voters who actuall" sue in the public interest.E ?ut even if* strictl" spea)ing* the petitioners Dare not covered b" the definition* it is still within the wide discretion of the Court to waive the re+uirement and so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious constitutional +uestions raised.E 43 Y$#3 T%$($ ,# " <.#',!,")&$ ,##.$ 4e hold that the petitions set forth an actual case or controvers" that is ripe for $udicial determination. 2he realit" is that the F?C alread" commenced the proceedings for the selection of the nominees to be included in a short list to be submitted to the -resident for consideration of which of them will succeed Chief Fustice -uno as the ne,t Chief Fustice. Although the position is not "et vacant* the fact that the F?C began the process of nomination pursuant to its rules and practices* although it has "et to decide whether to submit the list of nominees to the incumbent outgoing -resident or to the ne,t -resident* ma)es the situation ripe for $udicial determination* because the ne,t steps are the public interview of the candidates* the preparation of the short list of candidates* and the Dinterview of constitutional e,perts* as ma" be needed.E 2he resolution of the controvers" will surel" settle with finalit" the nagging +uestions that are preventing the F?C from moving on with the process that it alread" began* or that are reasons persuading the F?C to desist from the rest of the process. 33 Y$#3 "3 P( %,),', n .n*$( #$!', n 11= "(',!&$ v,, * $# n ' "++&2 ' "++ ,n'-$n'# ' /,&& " v"!"n!2 ,n '%$ S.+($-$ C .(' ( ' '%$( "++ ,n'-$n'# ' '%$ <.*,!,"(23

2wo constitutional provisions seemingl" in conflict> 2he first* &ection <;* Article JII (5,ecutive 1epartment)* provides> #ection %0" &(o months immediately before the ne*t presidential electionsand up to the end of his term, a President or 2cting President shall not ma+e appointments , e*cept temporary appointments to e*ecuti!e positions (hen continued !acancies therein (ill prejudice public ser!ice or endanger public safety" 2he other* &ection @ (<)* Article JIII (Fudicial 1epartment)* states> #ection /" D%," &he #upreme Court shall be composed of a

I##.$#: <. 4.N the petitioners have legal standingQ

Chief Justice andfourteen 2ssociate Justices" @t may sit en banc or in its discretion, in di!ision of three, fi!e, or se!en 3embers" 2ny !acancy shall be filled (ithin ninety days from the occurrence thereof" First" 2he records of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the framers devoted time to meticulousl" drafting* st"ling* and arranging the Constitution. &uch meticulousness indicates that the organiBation and arrangement of the provisions of the Constitution were not arbitraril" or whimsicall" done b" the framers* but purposel" made to reflect their intention and manifest their vision of what the Constitution should contain. 2he Constitution consists of <= Articles* three of which embod" the allocation of the awesome powers of government among the three great departments* the %egislative (Article JI)* the 5,ecutive (Article JII)* and the Fudicial 1epartments (Article JIII). 2he arrangement was a true recognition of the principle of separation of powers that underlies the political structure As can be seen* Article JII is devoted to the 5,ecutive 1epartment* and* among others* it lists the powers vested b" the Constitution in the -resident. 2he presidential power of appointment is dealt with in &ections <@* <; and <9 of the Article. Had the framers intended to e,tend the prohibition contained in &ection <;* Article JII to the appointment of Members of the &upreme Court* the" could have e,plicitl" done so. 2he" could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the provisions. 2he" would have easily and surely written the prohibition made e,plicit in &ection <;* Article JII as being e+uall" applicable to the appointment of Members of the &upreme Court in Article JIII itself* most li)el" in &ection @ (<)* Article JIII. Although alen9uela came to hold that the prohibition covered even $udicial appointments* it cannot be disputed that the alen9uela dictum did not firml" rest on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. Moreover* the usage in &ection @(<)* Article JIII of the word shall an imperative* operating to impose a dut" that ma" be enforced should not be disregarded. 2hereb"* &ections @(<) imposes on the -resident the imperati!eduty to ma)e an appointment of a Member of the &upreme Court within C8 da"s from the occurrence of the vacanc". 2he failure b" the -resident to do so will be a clear disobedience to the Constitution. 2he C8(da" limitation fi,ed in &ection @(<)* Article JIII for the -resident to fill the vacanc" in the &upreme Court was undoubtedl" a special provision to establish a definite mandate for the -resident as the appointing power* and cannot be defeated b" mere $udicial interpretation in alen9uela to the effect that &ection <;* Article JII prevailed because it was Dcouched in stronger negati!e language.E econd! &ection <;* Article JII does not appl" as well to all other appointments in the Fudiciar". 2here is no +uestion that one of the reasons underl"ing the adoption of &ection <; as part of Article JII was to eliminate midnightappointments from being made b" an outgoing Chief 5,ecutive. /iven the bac)ground and rationale for the prohibition in &ection <;* Article JII* we have no doubt that the Constitutional Commission confined the prohibition to appointments made in the 5,ecutive 1epartment. 2he framers did not need to e,tend the prohibition to appointments in the Fudiciar"* because their establishment of the F?C and their sub$ecting the nomination and screening of candidates for $udicial positions to the unhurried and deliberate prior process of the F?C ensured that there would no longer be midnight appointments to the Fudiciar". Indeed* the creation of the F?C was precisely intended to de(politiciBe the Fudiciar" b" doing awa" with the intervention of the Commission on Appointments.

Third! As earlier stated* the non(applicabilit" of &ection <;* Article JII to appointments in the Fudiciar" was confirmed b" then &enior Associate Fustice Regalado to the F?C itself when it met on March C* <CC= to discuss the +uestion raised b" some sectors about the Dconstitutionalit" of ,,, appointmentsE to the Court of Appeals in light of the forthcoming presidential elections. He assured that Don the basis of the (Constitutional) Commission#s records* the election ban had no application to appointments to the Court of Appeals.E 2his confirmation was accepted b" the F?C* which then submitted to the -resident for consideration the nominations for the eight vacancies in the Court of Appeals. Fourth! .f the 6: sections in Article JII* three (i"e.* &ection <@* &ection<;* and &ection <9) concern the appointing powers of the -resident. &ection <@* &ection <;* and &ection <9 are obviousl" of the same character* in that the" affect the power of the -resident to appoint. 2he fact that &ection <@ and &ection <9 refer onl" to appointments within the 5,ecutive 1epartment renders conclusive that &ection <; also applies onl" to the 5,ecutive 1epartment. 2his conclusion is consistent with the rule that ever" part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the conte,t , i"e" that ever" part must be considered together with the other parts* and )ept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. Fifth! 2o hold li)e the Court did in alen9uela that &ection <; e,tends to appointments to the Fudiciar" further undermines the intent of the Constitution of ensuring the independence of the Fudicial 1epartment from the 5,ecutive and %egislative 1epartments. &uch a holding will tie the Fudiciar" and the &upreme Court to the fortunes or misfortunes of political leaders v"ing for the -residenc" in a presidential election. Conse+uentl"* the wisdom of having the new -resident* instead of the current incumbent -resident* appoint the ne,t Chief Fustice is itself suspect* and cannot ensure $udicial independence* because the appointee can also become beholden to the appointing authorit". In contrast* the appointment b" the incumbent -resident does not run the same ris) of compromising $udicial independence* precisel" because her term will end b" Fune :8* 68<8. i"th3 2he argument has been raised to the effect that there will be no need for the incumbent -resident to appoint during the prohibition period the successor of Chief Fustice -uno within the conte,t of &ection @ (<)* Article JIII* because an"wa" there will still be about @; da"s of the C8 da"s mandated in &ection @(<)* Article JIII remaining. 2he argument is flawed* because it is focused onl" on the coming vacanc" occurring from Chief Fustice -uno#s retirement b" Ma" <7* 68<8. It ignores the need to appl" &ection @(<) to e!ery situation of a vacanc" in the &upreme Court. &ection @ (:)* Article JII re+uires the regular elections to be held on the second Monda" of Ma"* letting the elections fall on Ma" =* at the earliest* or Ma" <@* at the latest. If the regular presidential elections are held on Ma" =* the period of the prohibition is <<; da"s. If such elections are held on Ma" <@* the period of the prohibition is <8C da"s. 5ither period of the prohibition is longer than the full mandator" C8(da" period to fill the vacanc" in the &upreme Court. 2he result is that there are at least <C occasions (i"e.* the difference bet(een the shortest possible period of the ban of <8C da"s and the C8(da" mandator" period for appointments) in which the outgoing -resident would be in no position to compl" with the constitutional dut" to fill up a vacanc" in the &upreme Court. It is safe to assume that the framers of the Constitution could not have intended such an absurdit". eventh3 As a matter of fact* in an e*treme case* we can even raise a doubt on whether a F?C list is necessar" at all for the -resident an" -resident to appoint a Chief Fustice if the appointee is to come from

the ran)s of the sitting $ustices of the &upreme Court. &ec. C* Article JIII sa"s> ***" &he 3embers of the #upreme Court *** shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for any !acancy" #uch appointments need no confirmation" ,,, 2he provision clearl" refers to an appointee coming into the &upreme Court from the outside* that is* a non(member of the Court aspiring to become one. It spea)s of candidates for the &upreme Court* not of those who are alread" members or sitting $ustices of the Court* all of whom have previousl" been vetted b" the F?C. 43 N 3 C(,' / -"n*"-.# * $# n ' &,$ "0",n#' '%$ B?C3 3andamus shall issue when an" tribunal* corporation* board* officer or person unlawfull" neglects the performance of an act that the law specificall" en$oins as a dut" resulting from an office* trust* or station. It is proper when the act against which it is directed is one addressed to the discretion of the tribunal or officer. 3andamus is not available to direct the e,ercise of a $udgment or discretion in a particular wa". 'or mandamus to lie* the following re+uisites must be complied with> (a) the plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded! (b) it must be the dut" of the defendant to perform the act* because it is mandated b" law! (c) the defendant unlawfull" neglects the performance of the dut" en$oined b" law! ( d) the act to be performed is ministerial* not discretionar"! and ( e) there is no appeal or an" other plain* speed" and ade+uate remed" in the ordinar" course of law. 13 N 3 C(,' / +( %,),', n * $# n ' &,$ "0",n#' '%$ B?C 2he conclusion is ineluctable that onl" the -resident can appoint the Chief Fustice. Hence* &oriano#s petition for prohibition in /.R. No. <C<8:6* which proposes to prevent the F?C from intervening in the process of nominating the successor of Chief Fustice -uno* lac)s merit. .n the other hand* the petition for prohibition in /.R. No. <C<:@6 is similarl" devoid of merit. 2he challenge mounted against the composition of the F?C based on the allegedl" unconstitutional allocation of a vote each to the e, officio members from the &enate and the House of Representatives* thereb" pre$udicing the chances of some candidates for nomination b" raising the minimum number of votes re+uired in accordance with the rules of the F?C* is not based on the petitioners# actual interest* because the" have not alleged in their petition that the" were nominated to the F?C to fill some vacancies in the Fudiciar". 2hus* the petitioners lac) locus standi on that issue. D,##$n',n0 O+,n, n: C"(+, M ("&$#= B3

Constitutional draftsmanship st"le is the wea)est aid in arriving at a constitutional construction. It is a precept* that inferences drawn from title* chapter or section headings are entitled to ver" little weight. And so must reliance on sub( headings* or the lac) thereof* to support a strained deduction be given the weight of helium. <. Concededl"* the allocation of three Articles in the Constitution devoted to the respective d"namics of the three 1epartments was deliberatel" adopted b" the framers to allocate the vast powers of government among the three 1epartments in recognition of the principle of separation of powers. 6. 2he e+uation* however* does not end there. &uch )ind of formulation detaches itself from the concomitant s"stem of chec)s and balances. &ection se+uencing alone of &ections <@* <; and <9 of Article JII* as e,plained in the fourth ratiocination* does not suffice to signif" functional structuring. 2he establishment of the F?C is not sufficient to curtail the evils of midnight appointments in the $udiciar" 2he Constitutional Commission (ConCom) saw it fit to provide for a comprehensive ban on midnight appointments* finding that the establishment of the F?C is not enough to safeguard or insulate $udicial appointments from politiciBation. 2o hold that the ban on midnight appointments applies onl" to e,ecutive positions* and not to vacancies in the $udiciar" and independent constitutional bodies* is to ma)e the prohibition practicall" useless. It bears noting that &ection <;* Article JII of the Constitution alread" allows the -resident* b" wa" of e,ception* to ma)e temporar" appointments in the 5,ecutive 1epartment during the prohibited period. 3nder this view* there is virtuall" no restriction on the -resident#s power of appointment during the prohibited period. o 2he general rule is clear since the prohibition applies to A%% )inds of midnight appointments. 2he Constitution made no distinction. It bears noting that the Court had spo)en in one voice in alen9uela. 2he ponencia should not hastil" reverse* on the sole basis of Fustice Regalado#s opinion* the Court#s unanimous en banc decision penned b" Chief Fustice Andres Narvasa* and concurred in b"* inter alia* Associate Fustices who later became Chief Fustices Hilario1avide* Fr.* Artemio-anganiban and Re"nato -uno. 2he &upreme Court can function effectivel" during the midnight appointments ban without an appointed Chief Fustice. 2o begin with* $udicial power is vested in one &upreme Court and not in its individual members* much less in the Chief Fustice alone. Notabl"* after Chief Fustice -uno retires* the Court will have <@ members left* which is more than sufficient to constitute a +uorum.

5. &elf(5,ecuting -rovisions /enerall"* constitutional provisions are self(e,ecuting R3%5> constitutional provisions are self e,ecuting e,cept when provisions themselves e,pressl" re+uire legislations to implement them. &5%' 5I5C32IN/ -R.JI&I.N&( provisions which are complete b" themselves and becomes operative without the aid of supplementar" legislation. Fust because legislation ma" supplement and add or prescribe a penalt" does not render such provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation. In case of 1oubtQ Construe such provision as self e,ecuting rather than non(self e,ecuting. TANADA v ANGARA

474 SCRA 18 819979 DOCTRINE: FACTS: 4hether or not the 42. agreement impairs -hilippine April <; <CC@> &ecretar" for 1epartment of 2rade and Industr" sovereignt" b" imposing limits on its legislative and $udicial RiBalino Navarro* representing the gov#t of the -hils* signs the power. final act of approval of the 42. agreement HELD: 1ecember C <CC@> -resident Ramos see)s concurrence No. regarding -& <8=: (DConcurring in the Ratification of the No. Agreement 5stablishing the 4orld 2rade .rganiBationE) RATIO: 1ecember <@ <CC@> &enate adopts Resolution C7 (DResolved* as (re> Art. II) &tate principles are not self(e,ecuting. it is hereb" resolved* that the &enate concur* as it hereb" (re> Art. III) -urpose is protection from unfair e,changes with the concurs* in the ratification b" the -resident of the -hilippines rest of the world* not isolationism (note DcompetitiveE in &ec. <6) of the Agreement 5stablishing the 4orld 2rade .rganiBationE) -hilippine sovereignt" is actuall" sub$ect to limitations the &tate 1ecember <9 <CC@> -resident Ramos ratifies 42. agreement agrees to* as a member of the famil" of nations. 2he Constitution 1ecember 6C <CC@> 2anada et al file petition declaring 42. does not envision a hermit(li)e isolationism for the -hilippines. agreement unconstitutional -hilippines $oining the 3N (N adopting the concept of sovereignt" ISSUES: as Dauto(limitationE 4hether or not the 42. agreement goes against Art. II &ec. <C* and Art. III &ec <8 and <6 of the Constitution. MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v GSIS 467 SCRA 408 DOCTRINE: F"!'#: 2he /overnment &ervice Insurance &"stem (/&I&)* pursuant to the privatiBation program of the -hilippine /overnment under -roclamation ;8 dated = 1ecember <C=9* decided to sell throughpublic bidding :8A to ;<A of the issued and outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC). In a closebidding held on <= &eptember <CC; onl" two bidders participated> Manila -rince Hotel Corporation* a'ilipino corporation* which offered to bu" ;<A of the MHC or <;*:88*888 shares at -@<.;= per share*and Renong ?erhad* a Mala"sian firm* with I22(&heraton as its hotel operator* which bid for the samenumber of shares at -@@.88 per share* or -6.@6 more than the bid of petitioner. -ending thedeclaration of Renong ?erhard as the winning bidderMstrategic partner and the e,ecution of thenecessar" contracts* the Manila -rince Hotel matched the bid price of -@@.88 per share tendered b"Renong ?erhad in a letter to /&I& dated 6= &eptember <CC;. Manila -rince Hotel sent a manager#schec) to the /&I& in a subse+uent letter* but which /&I& refused to accept. .n <7 .ctober <CC;*perhaps apprehensive that /&I& has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale of ;<A of the MHC ma" be hastened b" /&I& and consummated with Renong ?erhad* Manila -rinceHotel came to the Court on prohibition and mandamus. I##.$8#9: Z 4hether the provisions of the Constitution* particularl" Article III &ection <8* are self(e,ecuting. Z 4hether the ;<A share is part of the national patrimon". H$&*: ( A provision which la"s down a general principle* such as those found in Article II of the <C=7Constitution* is usuall" not self(e,ecuting. ?ut a provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementar" or enabling legislation* or that which supplies sufficient rule b" means of which the right it grants ma" be en$o"ed or protected* is self(e,ecuting. ( 2hus a constitutional provision is self(e,ecuting if the nature and e,tent of the right conferred and the liabilit" imposed are fi,ed b" the constitution itself* so that the" can be determined b" an e,amination and construction of its terms* and there is no language indicating that the sub$ect is referred to the legislature for action. In self(e,ecuting constitutional provisions* the legislature ma" still enact legislation to facilitate the e,ercise of powers directl" granted b" the constitution* further the operation of such a provision* prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement* provide a convenient remed" for the protection of the rights secured or the determination thereof* or place reasonable safeguards around the e,ercise of the right. ( 2he mere fact that legislation ma" supplement and add to or prescribe a penalt" for the violation of a self(e,ecuting constitutional provision does not render such a provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation. 2he omission from a constitution of an" e,press provision for a remed" for enforcing a right or liabilit" is not necessaril" an indication that it was not intended to be self(e,ecuting. (2he rule is that a self(e,ecuting provision of the constitution does not necessaril" e,haust legislative power on the sub$ect* but an" legislation must be in harmon" with the constitution* further the e,ercise of constitutional right and ma)e it more available. &ubse+uent legislation however does not necessaril" mean that the sub$ect constitutional provision is not* b" itself* full" enforceable. ( As against constitutions of the past* modern constitutions have been generall" drafted upon a different principle and have often become in effect e,tensive codes of laws intended to operate directl" upon the people in a manner similar to that of statutor" enactments* and the function of constitutional conventions has evolved into one more li)e that of a legislative bod". Hence* unless it is e,pressl" provided that a legislative act is necessar" to enforce a constitutional mandate* the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self( e,ecuting. ( If the constitutional provisions are treated as re+uiring legislation instead of self(e,ecuting* the legislature would have the power to ignore and practicall" nullif" the mandate of the fundamental law. In fine* &ection <8* second paragraph* Art. III of the <C=7 Constitution is a mandator"* positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. 'rom its ver" words the provision does not re+uire an" legislation to put it in operation. In its plain and ordinar" meaning* the term patrimon" pertains to heritage. ( 4hen the Constitution spea)s of national patrimon"* it refers not onl" to the natural resources of the -hilippines* as the Constitution could have ver" well used the term natural resources* but also to the cultural heritage of the 'ilipinos. It also refers to 'ilipino#s intelligence in arts* sciences and letters. In the present case* Manila Hotel has become a landmar)* a living testimonial of -hilippine heritage. 4hile it was restrictivel" an American hotel when it first opened in <C<6* a concourse for the elite* it has since then become the venue of various significant events which have shaped -hilippine histor".

( In the granting of economic rights* privileges* and concessions* especiall" on matters involving national patrimon"* when a choice has to be made between a D+ualified foreignerE and a D+ualified 'ilipino*E the latter shall be chosen over the former. 2he &upreme Court directed the /&I&* the Manila Hotel Corporation* the Committee on -rivatiBation and the .ffice of the /overnment Corporate Counsel to

cease and desist from selling ;<A of the &hare of the MHC to Renong ?erhad* and to accept the matching bid of Manila -rince Hotel at -@@ per shere and thereafter e,ecute the necessar" agreements and document to effect the sale* to issue the necessar" clearances and to do such other acts and deeds as ma" be necessar" for the purpose.

OPOSA v FACTORAN 444 SCRA 794 819939 DOCTRINE: F"!'#> ( 2he controvers" has its genesis in Civil Case No. C8(77 which was filed before ?ranch 99 (Ma)ati* Metro Manila) of the Regional 2rial Court (R2C)* National Capital Fudicial Region. 2he principal plaintiffs therein* now the principal petitioners* are all minors dul" represented and $oined b" their respective parents. ( 2he complaint was instituted as a ta,pa"ersV class suit and alleges that the plaintiffs Kare all citiBens of the Republic of the -hilippines* ta,pa"ers* and entitled to the full benefit* use and en$o"ment of the natural resource treasure that is the countr"Vs virgin tropical forests.K 2he same was filed for themselves and others who are e+uall" concerned about the preservation of said resource but are Kso numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court.K 2he minors further asseverate that the" Krepresent their generation as well as generations "et unborn.K ( Conse+uentl"* it is pra"ed for that $udgment be rendered> . . . ordering defendant* his agents* representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to S (<) Cancel all e,isting timber license agreements in the countr"! (6) Cease and desist from receiving* accepting* processing* renewing or approving new timber license agreements. and granting the plaintiffs K. . . such other reliefs $ust and e+uitable under the premises.K I##.$: ( 4hether or not minor petitioners have legal standing (locus standi) to file complaint. R.&,n0: ( Ges* minor petitioners have legal standing (locus standi) to file complaint. 2his case* however* has a special and novel element. -etitioners minors assert that the" represent their generation as well as generations "et unborn. ( &upreme Court finds no difficult" in ruling that the" can* for themselves* for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations* file a class suit. 2heir personalit" to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can onl" be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibilit" insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecolog" is concerned. ( &uch a right* as hereinafter e,pounded* considers the Krh"thm and harmon" of nature.K Nature means the created world in its entiret". &uch rh"thm and harmon" indispensabl" include* inter alia* the $udicious disposition* utiliBation* management* renewal and conservation of the countr"Vs forest* mineral* land* waters* fisheries* wildlife* off(shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their e,ploration* development and utiliBation be e+uitabl" accessible to the present as well as future generations. ( Needless to sa"* ever" generation has a responsibilit" to the ne,t to preserve that rh"thm and harmon" for the full en$o"ment of a balanced and healthful ecolog". -ut a little differentl"* the minorsV assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes* at the same time* the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

GAM?OA v TE@ES GR N 3 176173 840119 DOCTRINE: F"!'#: -etition to nullif" sale of shares of stoc) of -hilippine 2elecommunications Investment Corporation b" government through the Inter(Agenc" -rivatiBation Council* to Metro -acific Assets Holdings* Inc.* an affiliate of 'irst -acific Compan" %imited* a Hong Hong(based investment management compan" and a shareholder of -%12. -etitioner +uestioned the sale on the ground that it involved an indirect sale of <6M shares (9.:A of the outstanding common shares) of -%12 owned b" -2IC to 'irst -acific. 2he sale caused 'irst -acific#s common shareholding in -%12 to increase from :8.7 to :7* increasing its total common shareholdings of foreigners in -%12 to =<.@7A. 2his* according to the petitioner* violates &ection <<* Article III of the <C=7 -hilippine Constitution which limits foreign ownership of the capital of a public utilit" to not more than @8A. I##.$: 1oes DcapitalE in &ec<<* ArtIII refer to the total common shares onl"* or to the total outstanding capital stoc) (combined total of common and non(voting preferred shares) of -%12* a public utilit"Q H$&*: DCapitalE refers onl" to shares of stoc) entitled to vote in the election of directors of a public utilit"* or* in the instant case* to the total common shares of -%12. &ec<<* ArtIII> D&ection <<. No franchise* certificate* or an" other form of authoriBation for the operation of a public utilit" shall be granted e,cept to citiBens of the -hilippines or to corporations or associations organiBed under the laws of the -hilippines* at least si,t" per centum of whose capital is owned b" such citiBens ,,,E Capital does not refer to the total outstanding capital stoc) comprising both common and non(voting preferred shares Wof -%12X. .ne of the rights of a stoc)holder is the right to participate in the control or management of the corporation* e,ercised through voting in the election of directors that control or manages the corporation. In absence of articles of incorporation den"ing voting rights to preferred shares* the same have voting rights as common shares. ?ut preferred shares are often e,cluded from control* on the theor" that the preferred shareholders are merel" investors in the corporation for income in the same manner as bondholders. ,,,. Capital onl" refers to common shares. If preferred shares have right to vote* then DcapitalE will include the preferred shares. In short* the term DcapitalE in &ection <<* Article III of the Constitution refers onl" to shares of stoc) that can vote in the election of directors. Mere legal title is insufficient to meet the 98 percent 'ilipino(owned DcapitalE re+uired in the Constitution. 'ull beneficial ownership of 98 percent of the outstanding capital stoc)* coupled with 98 percent of the voting rights* is re+uired. 2he legal and beneficial ownership of 98 percent of the outstanding capital stoc) must rest in the hands of 'ilipino nationals in accordance with the constitutional mandate. .therwise* the corporation is Dconsidered as non(-hilippine nationalWsX.E 2o consture capital as both common and non(voting contravenes constitution where &tate Dshall develop a

national econom" effectivel" controlled b" 'ilipinos.E '. 2he -reamble AGLIPAY v RUIG GR N 3 41419 819379 DOCTRINE: -reamble shows the drive to uplift the government and FACTS: ( No* there was no violation committed. ( 2he 1irector of -osts* Fuan RuiB* announced on Ma" <C:9 that he ( 2he petition for a writ of prohibition was denied* without shall order the issues of postage stamps commemorating the pronouncement as to costs. celebration in the Cit" of Manila of the 2hirt"(third international R"', : 5ucharistic Congress* organiBed b" the Roman Catholic Church. ( 5ven though the writ of prohibition is generall" used to restrain or ( /regorio Aglipa" protested against this and re+uested to denounce control the performance onl" of $udicial or +uasi($udicial functions* it the matter to the -resident of the -hilippines. CAN be granted in cases where it is necessar" for the orderl" ( 1espite of the petitioner#s protest* RuiB publicl" announced having administration of $ustice* or to prevent the use of the strong arm of the sent to the 3nited &tates the designs of the postage stamps for law in an oppressive or vindictive manner (to stop an officer or person printing. whose acts are without or in e,cess of his authorit") ( &tamps were issued and then sold some. Aglipa" filed for a petition ( 2he 1irector of -osts issued the postage stamps in +uestion under for a writ of prohibition* in his desire to prohibit the sale of the the provisions of Act No. @8;6 of the -hilippine %egislature. And under remaining unsold stamps. this law* his actions of creating and selling the stamps are $ustified I##.$#: under his discretion as long as it is done as often as ma" be deemed ( 4hether or not the writ of prohibition is the proper legal remed" in advantageous to the /overnment. the case. P'urthermore* Act No. @8;6 contemplates no religious purpose in view. ( 4hether or not the respondent has violated the Constitution (more 2he sale of the stamps has no direct relation to the Church. 2here was specificall" Article JI* &ection 6:* -aragraph :) in issuing and selling merel" the intent to ta)e advantage of the event* highlighting the fact postage stamps commemorative of the 2hirt"(third International that the 5ucharistic Congress was held at Manila* the seat of 5ucharistic Congress. Congress. H$&*: 2hus* it is proven that there was no constitutional infraction in the case ( Ges* the writ of prohibition could have been a proper legal remed".