Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
Teodoro Santiago, Jr. vs Miss Juanita Bautista
Facts:
P was a pupil in Grade six at the public school named Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City. As the
school year was about to end, a Committee on the Rating of Students for Honor was constituted for the
purpose of selecting the honor students of its graduating class. After the deliberations of Rs, the committee
adjudged Socorro Media, Patricia Ligat, and P as first, second, third honors, respectively.
Three days before their graduation, P sought the invalidation of the ranking of the honor students.
According to P, he was a consistent honor pupil from Grade I to Grade V while Ligat has never been a
close rival of P, while Medina was coached and tutored during the vacation of 1964, resulting in the fair
lead he obtained.
He further cites instances wherein there are unjust and discriminating abused committed by Rs against P,
for the purpose of pulling him down.
P filed the present petition of certiorari before the SC.
Issue:

W/N judicial function can be exercised in this case

H/R:

No.
o

Certiorari is a special civil action instituted against any tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial functions.
In order that certiorari may be invoked, the following circumstances must exist:
There must be a specific controversy involving rights of persons or property and
said controversy is brought before a tribunal, board or officer for hearing and
determination of their respective rights and obligations.
o Judicial action is an adjudication upon the rights of parties who appear
or are brought before the tribunal by notice or process, and upon whose
claims some decision or judgment is rendered.
The tribunal, board, or officer before whom the controversy is brought must
have the power and authority to pronounce judgment and render a decision on
the controversy construing and applying the laws to that end.
o Judicial power has been defined as:
Authority to determine the rights of persons or property by
arbitrating between adversaries in specific controversies at the
instance of a party thereto
Authority vested in some court, officer or persons to hear and
determine when the rights of persons or property or the
propriety of doing an act is the subject matter of adjudication
Power conferred upon a public officer, involving the exercise
of judgment and discretion in the determination of questions
of right in specific cases affecting the interest of persons or
property, as distinguished from ministerial power or authority
to carry out the mandates of the law
Implies the construction of laws and the adjudication of legal
rights

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020

o
o

The tribunal, board or officer must pertain to that branch of the sovereign power
which belongs to the judiciary, or at least, which does not belong to the
legislative or executive department.
It is evident, upon the foregoing authorities, that the so-called committee on the rating of students
for honor whose actions are questioned in this case exercised neither judicial nor quasi-judicial
functions in the performance of its assigned task.
Even if it is to be assumed that judicial intervention might be sought, the order of dismissal must
be sustained for the failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 65, Section 1.

Ruling:
Petition dismissed.
Ferdinand Marcos vs Secretary Raul Manglapus
Facts:
P was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent People Power revolution and was forced into exile
in Hawaii.
President Aquinos ascension to power after the non-violent people power revolution has not been
unchallenged, as there were events that awakened the nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble
even from afar and to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers in the country:
o Armed threats to the Government (failed Coup of Gregorio Honasan)
o Communist insurgency and the secessionist movement in Mindanao
o Takeover of Channel 7 by rebel troops
Economic woes were also present, as there is an accumulated foreign debt and the plunder of the nation
attributed to P and his cronies have left the economy devastated.
P, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die.
o President Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the
stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to
rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of P and his family.
P filed the instant petition for mandamus and prohibition.
o M: order Rs to issue travel documents to P and his family
o P: enjoin the implementation of the Presidents decision
Issue:

H/R:

W/N the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines poses a serious threat to
national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return
No.
o

The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission cited by Ps show that the framers intended to
widen the scope of judicial review but they did not intend courts of justice to settle all actual
controversies before them.
It would appear clear that the second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1, defining
judicial power, specifically empowers the courts to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.
SC held that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from the oral arguments, and the facts
revealed during the briefing in chambers by the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the National
Security Adviser, wherein Ps and Rs were represented, there exist factual bases for the Presidents
decision.
The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the
Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to total
economic collapse.

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020
Ruling:
Petition dismissed.
Leo Echegaray vs Secretary of Justice
Facts:
January 4, 1999: SC issued a TRO, staying the execution of P scheduled on the same day. R assailed the
issuance of the TRO, arguing that the action of the SC not only violated the rule on finality of judgment but
also encroached on the power of the executive to grant reprieve.
This is a motion for reconsideration, filed by the Rs.
Issue:

W/N the SC has jurisdiction even after the finality of judgment

H/R:

Yes.
o

o
o

The finality of a judgment does not mean that the Court has lost all its powers nor the case. By
finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same.
Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains its jurisdiction to execute and enforce
it.
There is a difference between the jurisdiction of the court to execute its judgment and its
jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same.
The former continues even after the judgment has become final for the purpose
of enforcement of judgment; the latter terminates becomes final.
The power to control the execution of the decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction, and cannot
be subject of substantial subtraction for our Constitution vests the entirety of judicial power in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Rs submission that the SC has no jurisdiction to restrain the execution of P is untenable.
If this is to be accepted, this diminishes the independence of the judiciary.
Since the implant of republicanism in our soil, the courts have been conceded the
jurisdiction to enforce their final decisions.

Ruling:
MR dismissed.
US vs President Richard Nixon
Facts:
A result of a grand jury indictment against 7 defendants. R was named as one of the unindicted coconspirator and was ordered by the District Court upon subpoena, to produce certain tapes, memoranda,
and other writings related to specific meetings associated with the scandal.
R, claiming executive privilege, filed a motion to quash subpoena.
The court thereafter issued an order for an in-camera examination of the subpoenaed material, having
rejected the contentions that the dispute between him and the Special Prosecutor was non-justiciable as an
intra-executive conflict and that the judiciary lacked authority to review the Presidents assertion of
executive privilege.
The Special Prosecutor then filed in this Court a petition for certiorari.
Issue:

W/N the SC has jurisdiction to issue the subpoena

H/R:

Yes.

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020
o

o
o

Rs counsel argues that the federal courts should not intrude into areas committed to the other
branches of Government.
It has also been argued that the present dispute is essentially a jurisdictional dispute
within the Executive branch which he analogizes to a dispute between two congressional
committees.
SC held that the mere assertion of a claim of an intra-branch dispute has never operated to defeat
federal jurisdiction; justiciability does not depend on such a surface inquiry.
Congress has also vested in the Special Prosecutor the power to contest the invocation of
executive privilege in the process of seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of these
specially-delegated duties.

Ruling:
Petition granted.
Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines vs COMELEC
Facts:
Congress passed RA 8046 which authorized R to conduct a nationwide demonstration of a computerized
election system and allowed the poll body to pilot-test the system in the March 1996 elections in the
ARMM.
Congress enacted further RA 8436, authorizing R to use an automated election system (AES) for the
process of voting, counting votes and canvassing/consolidating the results of the national and local
elections.
R adopted in its Resolution 02-0170 a modernization program for the 2004 elections, and resolved to
conduct biddings for the three phases of its Automated Election System:
o Voter Registration and Validation System
o Automated Counting and Canvassing System
o Electronic Transmission
President Arroyo issued EO 172, which allocated the sum of P2.5 B to fund the AES for the 2004 elections.
Upon the rquest of R, she authorized the release of an additional P500 M. Subsequently, R issued an
Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid.
Five individuals and entities, including herein Ps wrote a letter to COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos,
Sr., protesting the award of the Contract to Mega Pacific Consortium due to glaring irregularities in the
manner in which the bidding process had been conducted. Citing therein the noncompliance with eligibility
as well as technical and procedural requirements, they sought a re-bidding.
o COMELEC Chairman Abalos, speaking through Atty. Jaime Paz, rejected the protest and declared
that the award would stand up to the strictest scrutiny.
P filed the present petition before the SC.
Issue:

W/N there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of R

H/R:

Yes.
o

In terms of bidding:
the certifications from DOST fail to divulge in what manner and by what standards or
criteria the condition, performance and/or readiness of the machines were re-evaluated
and re-appraised and thereafter given the passing mark.
The COMELEC awarded the Contract to the winning bidder partly on the basis of the
operation of the ACMs running a base software, which was nothing but a sample or a
demo software, and not the actual one that would be used on Election Day.
COMELEC also allowed MPC to participate in the bidding even though it was not
qualified to do so. Moreover, the Contract was eventually awarded to MPC. The law on
public bidding has been further desecrated by allowing the winner bidder to change and

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020
o

alter the subject of the contract (software), in effect, allowing a substantive amendment
without public bidding.
In terms of awarding:
There was no sign whatsoever of any joint venture agreement, consortium agreement,
memorandum of agreement, or business plan executed among the members of the
purported consortium.
It follows that during the bidding process, COMELEC had no basis at all for
determining that the alleged consortium really existed and was eligible and
qualified, and that the arrangements among the members were satisfactory and
sufficient to ensure compliance with the contract.

Ruling:
Petition granted.
Re: Request for Copy of 2008 SALN and Personal Data Sheet or CV of the Justices of the Supreme Court and
Officers and Employees of the Judiciary
Facts:
Rowena Paraan, Research Director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), sought
copies of the SALN of the Justices of the SC for the year 2008. She also requested for copies of the
Personal Data Sheet or the CV of the Justices of the SC for the purpose of updating their database of
information on government officials.
o Karol Ilagan, a researcher-writer also of the PCIJ, likewise sought for copies of the SALN and
PDS of the the CA Justices for the same purpose.
Then Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario submitted its Memorandum and its Resolution,
recommending the creation of a Committee on Public Disclosure that would take over the functions of the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) with respect to requests for copies of, or access to personal
documents of members of the Judiciary.
It was the consensus of the Justices of the Courts and the various judges associations that while the
Constitution holds dear the right of the people to have access to matters of concern, the Constitution also
holds sacred the independence of the Judiciary.
P filed the present petition before the SC.
Issue:

W/N the SALN of the Justices be accessed via the right to information

H/R:

Yes.
o

o
o
o

Article III, Section 7 is relevant in the issue of public disclosure of SALN and other documents of
public officials:
The right of people to information on matters of public information shall be recognized.
Access to official records x x x shall be afforded the citizen, subject to limitations as may
be provided by law.
Under a republican system of government, governmental institutions and agencies operate within
the limits of the authority conferred by the people.
The right of information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full public
disclosure and honesty in the public service; it is meant to enhance the widening role of the
citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in government.
Like all constitutional guarantees, the right of information, with its companion right of access to
official records, is not absolute.
Peoples right to know is limited to matters of public concern and is further subject to
limitations provided by law.
Jurisprudence has provided the following limitations:
o National security matters and intelligence information

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020
Trade secrets and banking transactions
Criminal matters
Other confidential information such as confidential or classified
information officially known to public officers and employees by
reason of their office and not made available to the public as well as
diplomatic correspondence, closed-door Cabinet meetings and
executive sessions of houses of Congress, and the internal deliberations
of the Supreme Court
While no prohibition could stand against access to official records, such as the SALN, the same is
undoubtedly subject to regulation.
RA 6713
SC notes the valid concerns that there may be possible illicit motives of some individuals in their
requests for access to such personal information and their publications.
Custodians of public documents must not concern themselves with such motives.
o
o
o

o
o

Ruling:
Petition granted.
In the Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary Action against Atty. Wenceslao Laureta
Facts:
Eva Illustre wrote threatening letters to Justices Andres Narvasa, Ameurfina Herrera, Isagani Cruz, and
Florentino Feliciano, all members of the First Division of the SC.
The same letter also stated that a press conference with TV and radio coverage would be held, in an attempt
to disparage the SC regarding her petition.
Atty. Wenceslao Lauretas participation might be that she likely wrote the threatening letters sent to the
Justices in Illustres name.
After having lost her case before the SC, Rs filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the Tanodbayan; complaint
dismissed.
Issue:

W/N the Members of the SC acted in bad faith in its Minute Resolution

H/R:

No.
o

o
o

Illustre has lost three times in court, and by virtue of res judicata, the Escolin Decision and the
Javellana Resolution served as final judgment of the case.
Rs still took take case to the Tanodbayan, and charging the Justices with having rendered
an unjust extended Minute Resolution with deliberate bad faith.
It follows that a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
on the ground that such a collective decision is unjust cannot prosper; nor can
RPC, Article 204 be applicable, as this refers to individual judges, not collective
bodies like divisions.
To subject to the threat of investigation and prosecution a judge, more so a Member of the
Supreme Court, for official acts done by him in good faith and in the regular exercise of official
duty and judicial functions is to subvert and undermine that very independence of the judiciary,
and subordinate the judiciary to the executive.
Resolutions of the SC as a collegiate court, whether en banc or a division, speak for themselves
and are entitled to full faith and credence and are beyond investigation or inquiry under the same
principle of conclusiveness of enrolled bills of the legislature.
To allow litigants to go beyond the Courts Resolution and claim that the members acted with
deliberate bad faith and rendered an unjust resolution would be to destroy the authenticity,
integrity and conclusiveness of such collegiate acts and resolutions.

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020
Ruling:
Illustre held in contempt; Atty. Laureta found guilty of grave professional misconduct
Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring Integrity
Facts:
Shortly after the promulgation of the SC decision in Vinuya vs Executive Secretary (the Vinuya decision),
the case involving the Filipino comfort women during the Japanese occupation, an MR was filed, asserting
that the Vinuya decision was plagiarized from different sources, and that the true intents of the plagiarized
sources were twisted by the ponente, Justice Mariano del Castillo, to suit the arguments laid down in the
decision.
In response to this controversy, the faculty of UP College of Law came up with a statement entitled
Restoring Integrity: Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the
Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court (Restoring Integrity Statement),
which statement alleged plagiarism against Justice del Castillo, treating the same not only as an established
fact, but as a truth. The statement was posted online and at the Colleges bulletin board and was submitted
to the SC.
SC ruled against the UP faculty; MR filed by UP Law professors Tristan Catindig and Carina Laforteza.
Issue:

W/N UP Law Faculty should be cited for contempt

H/R:

No.
o

Established jurisprudence tells us that the incidents of contumacious speech and/or behavior
directed against the Court on the part of a lawyer may be punishable either as contempt or an
ethical violation, or both in the discretion of the Court.

Ruling:
MR denied.
Manila Electric Company vs Pasay Transportation Company
Facts:
Ps requested the members of the SC, sitting as a board of arbitrators, to fix the terms upon which certain
transportation companies shall be permitted to use the Pasig bridge of P and the compensation to be paid to
P by such transportation. This relates to the validity of Act 1446 1, Section 11 and to the legal right of the
members of the SC, sitting as board of arbitrators, to act on the petition.
Act 1446, Section 11 provides:
o Whenever any franchise or right of way is granted to any other person or corporation, now or
hereafter in existence, over portions of the lines and tracks of the grantee herein, the terms on
which said other person or corporation shall use right of way, and the compensation to be paid to
the grantee herein by such other person or corporation for said use, shall be fixed by the members
of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be
final.
When the petition of P was filed in SC, it was ordered that P be required to serve copies on the AttorneyGeneral and the transportation companies, one of which is R.
Issue:

W/N the members of the SC can sit as arbitrators and fix the terms and compensation as asked of them by P

H/R:

No.

1 An Act granting a franchise to Charles Swift to construct, maintain, operate an electric railway x x x

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020
o

The Supreme Court represents one of the three divisions of power in our government. It is judicial
power, and judicial power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Just as the SC, as the
guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction usurpations by any other department of the
government, so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or
by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act.
The SC and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to
perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the
administration of judicial functions.
The Organic Act provides that the SC shall possess and exercise jurisdiction as heretofore
provided and such additional jurisdiction as shall hereafter be prescribed by law.

Ruling:
Petition denied.
Commissioner Antonio Noblejas, Land Registration vs Secretary Claudio Teehankee, Justice
Facts:
P is the duly appointed, confirmed, and qualified Commissioner of Land Registration, a position created by
RA 1151. Section 2 of the said Act states that the Commissioner is declared entitled to the same
compensation, emoluments and privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.
R coursed to P a letter, requiring him to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against P for
approving or recommending approval of subdivision, consolidation and consolidated-subdivision plans
covering areas greatly in excess of the areas covered by the original titles.
o P replied, that as he enjoyed the rank, privileges, emoluments and compensation of a CFI Judge,
he could only be suspended and investigated in the same manner as a CFI Judge, and the papers
relative to his case should be submitted to the SC for action.
P received a communication signed by the Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, whereby,
based on findings, P was hereby suspended upon receipt, pending investigation.
P filed a petition before the SC, reiterating the contentions advanced in his letter to R, claiming lack of
jurisdiction and abuse of discretion.
o R admits the fact, but denied that P exercises judicial functions or that P may be considered a CFI
Judge within the purview of the Judiciary Act and Revised Rules of Court.
Issue:

H/R:

W/N the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be investigated by the SC, in view of the
conferment upon him by the Statutes mentioned of the rank and privileges of the CFI Judge
No.
o

Judiciary Act, Section 67 states that:

No district judge shall be removed from office xx x x
Nowhere it is claimed or shown that the Commissioner of Land Registration is a
District Judge, or in fact, a member of the Judiciary at all.
Ps assertion that the grant of privileges of a CFI Judge includes by implication the right to be
investigated only by the Supreme Court and to be suspended or removed upon its
recommendation, is untenable.
Even if the Legislature intended to include in the general grant of privileges the right to
be investigated by the Supreme Court and to be suspended upon the recommendation, it
would result to a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Ruling:
Petition denied.
Director of Prisons vs Ang Cho Kio
Facts:

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020

R had been charged, tried, and convicted of various offenses committed in the Philippines and was
sentenced to suffer penalties for a total of 45 years imprisonment. After serving 6.5 years of his sentence,
R was granted conditional pardon by the President of the Philippines, on the condition that R will
voluntarily leave the Philippines upon his release and never return to this country.
o R accepted the conditions of his pardon and left for Taipeh.
Almost after 7 years, R arrived at the Manila International Airport, travelling under the name Ang Ming
Huy. He had a 72-hour stopover in Manila. Friends of R invited him to stay longer in the Philippines.
R was identified by inspector in the Immigration Bureau as the Ang Cho Kio who was deported to Taipeh.
With his identity having been established, R was arrested and the immigration authorities conducted an
investigation regarding his presence in the Philippines. The immigration authorities did not allow R to
proceed with his trip to Honolulu.
The Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, ordered him recommitted to prison to serve the
unexpired portion of the sentence that were imposed on him for having violated the conditions of his
pardon.
R filed for MR; Executive Secretary failed to act on MR; P filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus
with CFI Rizal, impleading P as respondents; CFI Judge dismissed petition; P appealed to CA; CA denied
appeal.
The majority opinion of the CA decision contains the recommendation that R be sent out at once from this
country and that he be allowed to leave Muntinlupa Prisons under guard only when he has been booked for
outward flight at the Manila International Airport so as to avoid the possibility of any further violation of
his conditional pardon.
Solicitor-General filed with the CA an MR, praying for the deletion of the recommendation, to allow R to
leave the country.

Issue:

W/N the recommendations of the CA justices are valid

H/R:

No.
o

The recommendatory power of the courts are limited to those expressly provided in the law.
RPC, Article 5:
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress
and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision x x x
The recommendation in the majority opinion is not authorized under the provision of the RPC. CA
was not called upon to review any sentence imposed on R, as the petition is a habeas corpus.
It may be said that the recommendation embodied in the majority decision simply
represents the private opinion of the three justices.
SC held that the better practice should be that the decision should contain only
opinion that is relevant to the question that is before the court.

Ruling:
Petition denied.
Juanito Mariano Jr. vs COMELEC
Facts:
Ps assail RA 78592, Section 51 on the grounds that it attempts to alter or restart the 3-consecutive term limit
for local elective officials, disregarding the terms previously served by them, colliding with Article VI,
Section 7 and Article X, Section 8.
Issue:

W/N the challenge to the constitutionality of the questioned law is with merit

2 An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020
H/R:

No.
o

SC held that it cannot entertain the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 51.
Requirements before a litigant can challenge the constitutionality of a law:
Actual case or controversy
Question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party
Constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
Decision on the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination
of the case itself
Ps have far from complied with these requirements, as the petition is premised on the occurrence
of many contingent events.
Ps merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or
controversy.

Ruling:
Petition dismissed.
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs COMELEC
Facts:
Congress enacted RA 7227 which provided for the creation of the Subic Economic Zone. The same law
likewise created P to implement the declared national policy of converting the Subic military reservation
into alternative productive uses.
In 1992, the American navy turned over the Subic military reservation to the Philippine government.
Immediately, P commenced the implementation of its task
In a municipal resolution (Pambayang Kapasyahan 10), the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan agreed
to the inclusion of the municipality of Morong as parts of the Subic Special Economic Zone in accordance
with RA 72273. Private R filed a petition with SB Morong to annul the municipal resolution:
o Petition stated that conditions have to be met before Morong would have to agree to be included as
part of the SSEZ:
Giving back of the virgin forests to Bataan; exclude Grande Island in the SSEZ; allow
every city of Morong, Hermosa, Dinalupihan to establish own SEZ, etc.
Petition remained unacted by the Municipality of Morong; Private R resorted to their power of initiative
under the LGC of 1991 by soliciting the required number of signatures. Unknown to private R, the ViceMayor and Presiding officer of SB Morong wrote a letter to the Executive Director of COMELEC
requesting the denial of the petition for initiative/referendum as it would promote divisiveness; R en banc
denied petition for initiative of P.
P filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus.
o C: disallowance of the initiation of a local initiative
o M: command R to schedule the continuation of the signing of petition and thereafter set a date for
the initiative
Issue:

H/R:

W/N there is an existence of an actual case or controversy

Deliberating on the issue, the Court agrees with private R that the municipal resolution is still in the
proposal stage; it is not yet an approved law. Should the people reject it, then there would be nothing to
contest and to adjudicate. It is only when the people have voted for it and it has become an approved
ordinance or resolution that rights and obligations may be enforced or implemented thereunder.

3 Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020
o

At this point, it is merely a proposal and the writ of prohibition cannot issue upon a mere
conjecture or possibility.
Constitutionally speaking, courts may decide only actual controversies, not hypothetical
questions or cases.

Ruling:
Petition granted; initiative is the main subject
Senator Wigberto Taada vs Senator Edgardo Angara
Facts:
Following WWII, global financial leaders held a conference to discuss global economy. This eventually led
to the establishment of the three great institutions:
o International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank)
o International Monetary Fund
o International Trade Organization
ITO failed to materialize. Instead, there was the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs. It was on the
Uruguay Round that the WTO was established.
The World Trade Organization is an institution regulating trade among nations, including the reduction of
tariff and barriers.
Ps filed a case, assailing the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to develop
a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos, to give preference to
qualified Filipinos and to promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally
produced goods.
Issue:

W/N the instant petition presents a justiciable controversy

H/R:

Yes.
o

Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it
becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute.
Once a controversy as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision is
raised before the Court, it becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by
constitutional mandate to decide.
The jurisdiction of the SC to adjudicate the matters raised in the petition is clearly set out in the
Constitution:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involving
right which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Ruling:
Petition dismissed.
Alfredo Tano vs Governor Salvador Socrates
Facts:
The Sangguinang Panglungsod ng Puerto Princesa City enacted Ordinance 15-92 entitled An Ordinance
Banning the Shipment of all Live Fish and Lobster outside Puerto Princesa City x x x
To implement the said ordinance, then Acting Mayor Amado Lucero issued Office Order 23, which
required any person engaged or intending to engage in any business, trade, occupation, calling or
profession or having in his possession any of the articles for which a permit is required to be had, to obtain
first a Mayors and authorizing and directing to check or conduct necessary inspections on cargoes
containing live fish and lobster being shipped out from Puerto Princesa.

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020

Issue:

H/R:

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial Government of Palawan enacted Resolution 33, a Resolution
prohibiting the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling
aquatic organisms.
Rs implemented the said ordinances, thereby depriving all the fishermen of the whole province of Palawan
and the City of Puerto Princesa of their only means of livelihood as well as the marine merchants from
performing their lawful occupation and trade.
o Ps were even charged criminally, in violation of the aforementioned enactments.
Without seeking redress from the concerned LGUs, Ps directly invoked the original jurisdiction of the SC
by filing the present petition.
W/N the enactments deprived Ps of due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted them from
the practice of their trade, in violation of Article XII, Section 2 and Article XIII, Sections 2 and 7
o Article XII, Section 2: The State shall protect the nations marine wealth x x x
o Article XIII, Section 2: promotion of social justice
o Article XIII, Section 7: the State shall protect subsistence fishermen x x x
No.
o

o
o

Ruling:

The ground available for such motions do not constitute an offense because the ordinances in
questions are constitutional.
Even assuming that Ps have a cause of action ripe for certiorari, there has been a clear
disregard of the hierarchy of courts, and no special and important reasons or exceptional
and compelling circumstance has been adduced why direct recourse to the SC should be
allowed.
While SC has concurrent jurisdiction with RTC and the CA to issue writs of
certiorari x x x, such concurrence gives Ps no unrestricted freedom of choice of
court forum.
o Hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should serve as
a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the
extraordinary writs.
After a scrutiny of the challenged Ordinances and the provisions of the Constitution, SC held Ps
contentions baseless.
There is absolutely no showing that any of the Ps qualifies as a subsistence or marginal
fishermen:
A marginal fisherman is an individual engaged in fishing whose margin of return
or reward in his harvest of fish as measured by existing price levels is barely
sufficient to yield a profit or cover the cost of gathering the fish, while a
subsistence fisherman is one whose catch yields but the irreducible minimum for
his livelihood.
o One of the Ps is self-described as a private association composed of
Marine Merchants.
Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any right to subsistence fishermen; it merely
recognizes that the State may allow cooperative fish farming with priority to subsistence
fishermen.
SC adds that the ordinances find full support under RA 7611, known as the Strategic
Environmental Plan for Palawan Act.
It is clear that the objectives of the subject ordinances are:
Establish a closed season for the species of fish or aquatic animals covered
therein
Protect the coral in the marine waters

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020

Petition dismissed.

In re Subpoena of Acting Director Aleu Amante

Facts:
A criminal complaint was filed by complainants Lozano for the alleged violation by retired SC CJ Hilario
Davide, Jr, and retired Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
Issue:

H/R:

W/N the Ombudsman has authority to issue a subpoena duces tecum for compulsory attendance of
witnesses and the production of documents and information relating to matters under its investigation
No.
o

o
o

A first step in considering whether a criminal complaint is within the authority of the Ombudsman
to entertain is to consider the nature of the powers of the SC.
SC, by constitutional design, is supreme in its task of adjudication; judicial power is
vested solely in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law.
The said constitutional scheme cannot be subverted through a criminal
complaint that seeks to revive and re-litigate matters that have been long been
laid to rest by the Court.
o Such criminal complaint is a collateral attack on a judgment of the SC
that, by constitutional mandate, is final and already beyond question.
As held in In re Wenceslao Laureta, SC unequivocally ruled that insofar as the SC and its
Divisions are concerned, a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the
ground that a collective decision is unjust cannot prosper, and that parties cannot re-litigate in
another forum the final judgment of the SC.
Consistent with the nature of the power of the SC under the constitutional scheme, only the SC
not the Ombudsman can declare an SC judgment to be unjust.
A criminal complaint based on the legal correctness of the official acts of Justices of the Supreme
Court cannot prosper and should not be entertained; this is not to say that Members of the Court
are absolutely immune from suit during their term, for they are not.
The Constitution provides that the appropriate recourse against them is to seek their
removal from office if they are guilty of culpable violation of the Constitution, and high
crimes, or betrayal of public trust; only after removal can they be criminally proceeded
against for their transgressions.

Ruling:
Atty. Lozano and Lozano-Endriano ordered to explain in writing why they should be penalized as members
of the Bar.

Atty. Romulo Macalintal vs PET

Facts:
P questions the constitution of the PET as an illegal and unauthorized progeny of Article VII,
Section 4 of the Constitution:
o The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.
While P concedes that the SC is authorized to promulgate its own rules for the purpose, he chafes
at the creation of a purportedly separate tribunal complemented by a budget allocation, a seal, a
set of personnel and confidential employees, to effect the constitutional mandate.

Article VIII Case Digests

Constitutional Law I
G-Notes | C-2020
Issue:

W/N PET essentially performs a judicial power

H/R:

Yes.
o

The traditional grant of judicial power is found in Article VIII, Section 1. Consistent with the
presidential system of government, the function of dealing with the settlement of disputes,
controversies or conflicts involving rights, duties or prerogatives that are legally demandable and
enforceable is apportioned to the courts of justice.
The 1987 Constitution expanded judicial power to include the duty of the courts to settle actual
controversies which are legally demandable and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government; the
power was expanded, but it remained absolute.
The set-up embodied in the Constitution and statutes characterizes the resolution of electoral
contests as essentially an exercise of judicial power.
It is beyond cavil that when the SC, as PET, resolves a presidential or vice-presidential
election contest, it performs what is essentially a judicial power, as the landmark case of
Angara vs Electoral Commission held:
It would be inconceivable if the Constitution had not provided for a mechanism
by which to direct the course of government along constitutional channels.
The present Constitution has allocated to the Supreme Court the task of deciding presidential and
vice-presidential election contests, with full authority in the exercise thereof.

Ruling:
Petition dismissed.