Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY.
2019-2020
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
What does the judicial department do? Does it do anything?
The judicial department is the reason why we are studying the law.
The judicial department exercises judicial power.
Judicial power - the power to hear and decide cases pending between parties who have the
right to sue in courts of law and equity.
We already discussed about the four requirements insofar as judicial review is concerned.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies not necessarily
constitutional. Tanang mga normal, criminal case, civil case, pwede na siya madecidad sa
courts.
Judicial power also includes the power to determine whether or not there has been grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction so this is the expanded judicial
power of our courts.
What is the concept of jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction is the power to hear and decide cases so much so, that if the tribunal or entity,
quasi-judicial body, Court, has no jurisdiction, your case will not be decided. If it is so decided
and the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, over the parties, over the issues,
the decision of the tribunal will be void.
Dapat naay jurisdiction, dapat naa syay power to hear and decide cases.
What purports regular courts?
MTC, RTC, CTA, Sandiganbayan, CA, asa nila ginakuha ang ilahang jurisdiction, ang ilahang
power to hear and decide cases?
They get their power to do so by way of law. These courts are created by law. There are
different laws creating the Sandiganbayan or Court of Tax Appeals, so kaning mga laws ang
naga-enumerate sa cases nga naa silay jurisdiction.
Isa na sa pwede ninyo gamiton pag magkasohay na. “The Court has no jurisdiction, it should
not continue with this case. The case should be dismissed.”
Because gi-enumerate sa balaod ang mga cases nga pwede madecidad ani nga mga courts.
What about the Supreme Court? What is the law that gives it its power?
The Constitution. That is why dili pwede katong mga gipanglist nga mga instances in Article 8,
dili to pwede tanggalon by legislation because it is already provided by the Constitution.
Types of questions that may be presented before the Court:
 It could be a justiciable question or a political question.
Justiciable question
 It involves a given right legally demandable and enforceable.
 An act or omission violative of such right and a remedy granted by law.
 It can be resolved by applying the statutes or the Constitution.
 It involves the legality or constitutionality of a law or executive act.
 Justiciable siya because naay basis from which the Court may base its decision on, dili siya
magdetermine sa wisdom, sa question; but rather: “nag-violate ba ni sa balaod? Naa bay
right nga gina-violate diri sa Constitution?”
Political question
 Political questions do not call for the application of any law
 The question determines the wisdom of an act
 Example: Policy determining if -- “was it wise for Congress to have enacted the anti-VAWC
law because it is unfair to men?” It is not something na i-determine sa Court.
o If there is an issue against that VAWC, it should be constitutional or it should be
legal. You frame it in a sense na: it violates the equal protection clause or it
violates due process because wala siya niagi sa proper proceeding sa pagpasa sa
balaod --para mahimo siyang justiciable. But not nga “it’s unwise for Congress to
have [passed this law]” because it is already a political question.
 Political questions also involve exercise of discretion of the political departments of the
government.
 But, as we have learned in the cases that we have discussed, even if the question involves
the exercise of discretion, it is no longer beyond judicial inquiry. Because ang pag-exercise
sa discretion is subject to the expanded judicial power of the Court. If whether or not
there is grave abuse of discretion, pwede na siya i-determine by the Court.
 Political questions are those to be decided under the Constitution in their sovereign
capacity. For example, changing the form of government. Katong example sa validity sa
succession ni Cory Aquino as President, that is a political question because the people
themselves decided on it.
Page 1 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
One possible political question is, pag-adopt sa federal constitution na dili mo-follow sa
constitution. What if i-adopt sya sa people without following the [requirements] nga dapat
mosugot pud ang Senate by way of a Concon or Con-ass, what if i-ratify sa mga tao. Wala ta
kabalo, that could be an angle to validate the vote of the people if they so decide in favor of
federalism against the provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Just like what happened to the
Cory Aquino government nga wala gyud gi-follow ang provision sa 1973 Constitution sa pag
adopt sa 1987 Constitution.
Another form of political question is: Is there full discretionary authority given to a political
department? ---which as we said earlier is no longer the insurmountable barrier because given
na court’s power to determine that the exercise of a discretion was gravely abused.
Related to the discussion on judicial power is the matter of factual questions -When you
present a question before the Supreme Court, you cannot, as a general rule, present factual
matters. Dapat legal question, what the Court has to do is to apply the facts.
CUDIA VS PMA
This case is about the expulsion of a PMA cadet after he violated the Honor Code. He claims
that his expulsion was illegal. When the case reached the Supreme Court, one of the questions
was: Does this case involve a question of fact?
If it does, it should be dismissed by the Supreme Court, because the SC, as a general rule, does
not entertain questions of fact. Gina-observe sa Court ang hierarchy para pag-abot sa
Supreme Court, settled na ang facts by the lower courts.
Can the Courts decide on the questions of fact? Or does this case present a question of law?
There is a question of law when the issue does not call for the examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt
concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter. On the other hand,
there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of
the alleged facts. When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the
conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.
Example: Bar exam questions, settled na facts.
Here, the petition does not exclusively present factual matters for the Court to decide. So
legal ang question and therefore, cognizable by the Court.
Can courts interfere with military affairs?
The rule is that the Constitution entrusts the political branches to the political branches of the
government and not to the courts, the superintendents and control over the military. Because
the courts lack the competence and expertise necessary to evaluate military decisions.
Kaning expulsion ni Cudia involves such question. However, because of the expanded judicial
power of the Supreme Court, it can now determine whether or not, in the exercise of such
power, it necessitated exercise of discretion the Court can now check whether or not there
was grave abuse thereof.
This is the reason why there are views that the SC now is politicized. Aside from the fact that
it only requires a majority vote how the justices actually participated in the case to nullify a
law, expanded pa gyud ang power sa SC to nullify acts of the political branches. You can
deduce from those na pwede diay makialam si SC in political matters if it decides against or
for a policy, because it is allowed to do so in the Constitution.
Dili parehas sa una sa 1935 Constitution nga there is a higher number of justices required to
overturn a law or executive acts. That was two-thirds dapat. Why? Kana ang giimpose sa atoa
sa Americans. They did not trust our justices sa ilahang mga decisions, so dapat taas inyohang
number of votes kay dili pa mo kabalo mo-govern sa inyong selves.
With the 1987 Constitution, majority na lang.
FEBTC VS CHUA
Chua was dismissed by the bank because she was engaged in the multiple kiting transactions.
Kiting is the practice of depositing and drawing checks in two or more banks and taking
advantage of the time it takes for the second bank to collect funds from the first bank. It also
refers to illegally increasing the face value of a check by changing the numbers on the check.
Nakita to sa bangko so she was dismissed.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that there was illegal dismissal. This was reversed by the National
Labor Relations Commission. So valild ang dismissal. Now, the Court of Appeals reversed the
NLRC ruling that the bank’s appeal before th NLRC was not perfected, in other words, daog
na pud si Chua.
The bank raised the issue before the Supreme Court. Chua asserts that despite having
participated in the proceedings before the NLRC, argues that the NLRC should not entertain
the bank’s appeal.
Should the NLRC here have entertained the appeal?
Page 2 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Yes, because of the mere procedural lapse in the venue is not fatal to its cause. The general
rule is that although the jurisdiction may be re-issued -- diba gi-emphasize nato ganiha na if
the court or the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, for example
under the law, wala nakabutang nga kining case pwede nya madecidad or nilapas siya sa
katong amount or penalty na pwede marecognize sa court, that is an issue on the jurisdiction
on the subject matter -- that can be raised at any stage in the proceedings, even if maabot na
mo sa Supreme Court because that matter is conferred by law.
Nonetheless, naay exception to that rule. If dili nimo na siya ma-raised at the earliest time,
you may be estopped or may be barred from raising that issue on the ground of laches on
estoppel. While it is true that jurisdiction already subject matter of the case may be raised
anytime in the proceedings, since it is conferred by law, you can be barred on the ground of
estoppel to raise it. Here, she was estopped to do so.
CAWAD VS ABAD
This involves the Magna Carta to the Public Health Workers, RA 7305, which was signed into
a law to promote the social and economic well-being of health workers, their living and
working conditions and terms of employment, to develop their skills and capabilities to be
better equipped to deliver health projects and programs, and to encourage those with proper
qualifications and excellent abilities to join and remain in government service.
The DBM and Civil Service issued issuances, however, these were questioned because the
effects of the issuances diminished the benefits granted under the law by those who are
supposed to enjoy the same.
They challenged the validity of the issuances before the Court. The DBM and Civil Service
exercised their quasi-legislative power. The remedy availed of by those challenging the
validity of these issuances was by way of a petition for certiorari and prohibition. The
respondents question the remedies of Certiorari and Prohibition used by petitioners for the
assailed circulars were done in the exercise of their quasi-legislative, and not of their judicial
or quasi-judicial functions.
Can this be taken cognizance by the Court by way of a petition for certiorari?
The Court distinguished between this judicial function and quasi-judicial function.
Judicial functions involve the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of
the parties are, and then undertaking to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the
rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial functions apply to the actions and discretion of public
administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts, hold hearings, and draw
conclusions from them as a basis for their official action, in their exercise of discretion of a
judicial nature.
Example is NLRC - it exercises quasi-judicial power.
Here, they do not act in any judicial, or quasi-judicial or ministerial capacity because the DBM
and the Civil Service exercised their quasi-legislative power. The issuance and enforcement by
the Secretaries of the DBM, CSC and DOH of the questioned joint circulars were done in the
exercise of their quasi-legislative and administrative functions.
Quasi-legislative power - it is exercised by administrative agencies through the promulgation
of rules and regulations within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-
delegation of powers from the separation of the branches of the government.
TAKE NOTE: Here, the Court said that it is beyond the province of certiorari to declare the
aforesaid issuances illegal because petitions for certiorari declare to correct defects on
jurisdiction and not to correct any error committed by a court of officer exercising judicial and
quasi-judicial function, unless there is an issue on grave abuse of discretion.
So dili ni siya pwede correctible by certiorari. We have another set of cases that say that even
the exercise of legislative and quasi-legislative powers, mareview na by the Court. Anyway,
this is a deviation from the rule.
Also, this question of valid ba ning quasi-legislative power is beyond the territory of the writ
of prohibition because the limit of such case is only to maintain the administration of the case
in orderly channels. Therefore, dili sya nagamind kung valid ba na exercise on quasi-legislative
powers. In any case, the Court resolved on the validity of these issuances.
What we get from this case is that: naay instances nga very strict ang Court to the point nga
moingon siya na by way of a petition for certiorari, dili nila ni mareview ang exercise of quasi
legislative powers but we also have sets of cases nga nagaingon nga it is included in the power
of the courts to determine.
BARROSO VS OMELIO
There was a complaint for damages and attorneys fees against a certain Dennis Li and it
included a prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Attachment. Dennis Li, after he filed his answer,
the branch here granted the application for the Writ of Attachment. Dennis Li, on the other
hand filed a bond issued by Travellers Insurance and Surety Corporation, among other things.
Page 3 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Barroso filed a motion for approval of compromise agreement. There was now a compromise
but Dennis Li failed to pay the sums of money based on the compromise agreement. Barroso
moved for the execution of the Compromise Agreement. I-execute na, pero pag-abot sa
Execution, wala ni-comply ang usa ka party and the surety of the company went to another
RTC and filed a Declaration of Nullity, Prohibition, Injunction with Prayer for Writ of
Preliminary Injunction & Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), and Damages, which was raffled
to RTC-Br. 14. They filed a separate case to estopped the execution sa judgment in RTC Branch
16.
RTC Branch 14 interfered on the execution of judgment. Natingala ang other party sa separate
branch: Can this be done by an RTC, a co-equal branch enjoining an RTC as well?
The case reached the Supreme Court, involving the propriety of the acts of Judge Omelio.
What was the reasoning of the judge here.
Judge Omelio said he is aware of the doctrine of non-interference by a court against the order
of a coordinate Court. Equal sila. Only a Court of higher power can enjoin the acts of a lower
court. Kani RTC to RTC. Pero, the rule daw is NOT without an exception because For every
rule, there is an exception; for in every room, there is always a door. And this case is an
exception.
Is he correct?
So mali ang gihimo ni Judge Omelio here to interfere with the exercise of the power of a
coordinate court. Before we go to the main substance: Nidiretso daw si Barroso, diba we
discussed before where you can skirt the hierarchy of courts and you go directly to the
Supreme Court.
Does this case fall upon the exceptions that you may directly resort to the Supreme Court?
The Court said the exception to the general rule applies.
The Court here discussed the roles of the Courts in our lives:
 Trial courts - they do not only determine the facts from the evaluation of the evidence.
They also are competent to determine the issues of law which may include the validity of
an ordinance, statute or executive issuance
 Court of Appeals - An appellate court that reviews the determination of facts and law
made by the trial courts. It is collegiate in nature.
 Supreme Court - Leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or further reiterating - in the
light of new circumstances or in the light of some confusion of bench or bar - existing
precedents.
The Court emphasized the hierarchy here to stress na dapat dili ka modiretso sa iyaha in any
matter na feel nimo should be directly addressed by the Court.
From the full text:
The Court may exercise its discretion to act on special civil actions for certiorari filed directly
with it. Examples of cases that present compelling reasons are:
(1) those involving genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most
immediate time;
(2) those where the issues are of transcendental importance, and the threat to fundamental
constitutional rights are so great as to outweigh the necessity for prudence;
(3) cases of first impression, where no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower courts
on such issues;
(4) where the constitutional issues raised are better decided after a thorough deliberation by
a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the majority of those who participated in its
discussion;
(5) where time is of the essence;
(6) where the act being questioned was that of a constitutional body;
(7) where there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
that could free petitioner from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their
constitutional rights; and
(8) the issues involve public welfare, the advancement of public policy, the broader interest of
justice, or where the orders complained of are patent nullities, or where appeal can be
considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.
That is why we follow the hierarchy but there are numerous exceptions to this rule as
enumerated in this case and the Court applied the exceptions to this case because of the
amazing exercise of the judge here of his power - unbecoming conduct exhibited by the judge
in issuing an injunction against the orders of a co-equal court, violating the time-honored
principle that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgment or decrees
of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. So kung ka-level mo, dili mo pwede mag-
injunctionay sa isa’t-isa.
Why can’t they do that?
Because it would affect judicial stability. The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference
in the regular orders of judgment in a co-equal court is an elementary principle of judgment
in the administration of justice. The rationale for that rule is founded in the concept of
jurisdiction. A court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has
jurisdiction over Its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its
Page 4 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.
Dili pwede I-contempt by a court of coordinate jurisdiction. Here, there was a violation of that
rule - injunction against courts interfering with the exercise of each other’s jurisdiction. The
issuance of the writ here was improper and therefor correctible by certiorari by the Court.
The Judge here must be aware that that co-equal court had the exclusive jurisdiction or
authority to correct its own issuances. Dili na siya pwede ma-correct by a Court of coordinate
jurisdiction. Considering that gi-violate niya to nga rule, there is no question, therefore, that
subject writ of preliminary injunction is null and void.
[BARROSO vs OMELIO]
Coordinate court, RTC to RTC cannot enjoin each other because they are at the same level.
[CARPIO-MORALES vs CA]
When R.A. 6770 a law passed by Congress abrogated or took it upon itself to prohibit courts
below the Supreme Court from issuing an injunction stopping the investigations or
proceedings of the office of the Ombudsman. So basically, the question in that case:
Q: Can R.A. 6770 particularly Section 14 issue an injunction to delay the Ombudsman’s
investigation? Is it valid?
A: It cannot. Because the Court said as a general rule, Congress can promulgate laws that
establish the jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court. It can abolish courts by way of
a law. But once jurisdiction is acquired by a court over the matter and the matter involves the
proceedings within the court, that is something that the Congress can no longer interfere
with.
Q: What happens when a court acquires jurisdiction over a case?
A: That court may then exercise its jurisdiction acquired which is called judicial power.
So kato magfile ug kaso then pending na sya sa court.
Q: What can the court do?
A: They can exercise judicial power.
Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and all other courts established by law is defined
as the totality of powers a court exercises when it assumes jurisdiction and assumes and
decides a case.
Pwede mahimo sa court, as a general rule, anything to resolve the matter before it. This power
under Section 1 of Article 8 includes the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and of course, the expanded power of judicial
review to determine whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion.
Judicial power is never exercised in a vacuum. Why? Because the courts that exercise
jurisdiction which have acquired over a particular case conforms to the limits and parameters
of the Rules of Procedure duly promulgated by the Supreme Court. So kana ang bible or
guidelines sa court kung unsa ang pwede niya ma exercise when a case is filed before it and it
has acquired jurisdiction over the parties, the subject matter, the issues.
Q: Is the Congress totally devoid of any power over courts?
A: No. Because while the power to define prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of various
courts is vested to Congress, the power however to promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice in all courts belongs
exclusively to the Supreme Court. It has the power to promulgate rules to create rules of
procedure that is something that Congress cannot interfere with.
One of the powers of the Supreme Court under the Constitution is under Section 5 Paragraph
5:
- Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice in all courts.
Therefore it cannot be removed by law. In the previous constitution, the Congress was
allowed to interfere or change the rules issued by the SC. Now di na sya pwede. Congress has
no power to repeal, alter, supplement pleading, practice and procedure.
So how do we apply that in this case?
Now, we are talking here of the issuance of injunctive relief to parties against the proceedings
committed or pending in the office of the Ombudsman where a provision in RA 6770
proscribes the issuance or grant of such reliefs insofar as the parties seeking the same are
concerned against the office of the Ombudsman.
The Court said that cannot be done, that provision is unconstitutional because it talks about
a rule of procedure. Temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction
(WPI) both constitute temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action. They
are by nature ancillary as they are mere incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the
main action. These are something you can avail of in a pending matter before the court. In
Page 5 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
other words, they are preservative remedies in the protection of substantive rights, they are
regulatory processes meant to prevent a case from being mooted.
Is there a provision in the court that govern TROs and preliminary injuctions? YES. Rule 58,
etc.
Therefore, the Court declared that provision prohibiting courts from enjoining the office of
the Ombudsman as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
It is not within the purview of the legislature to grant or deny the power, more it is not within
the purview of the legislature to shape or fashion circumstances under which this inherently
judicial power may not be granted or denied because this is something that is granted to the
Supreme Court. By doing so, under this provision, Sec. 14 of RA 6770, it took away the power
of the courts to issue a TRO and WPI which is an encroachment upon the Supreme Court’s
constitutional rule-making authority.
[TANDOG vs BALINDONG]
There was an issue, naay ruling sa court. He wanted to avail of the bail. The court granted the
motion to bail despite the strong evidence. The aggrieved party argued that there was grave
abuse of discretion on the trial court when it allowed th``is person to be released on bail.
The Court said here that the case is already moot because the person released from bail was
already convicted in another case. In other words, his provisional liberty is forfeited kay
convicted na man sya. So no need to resolve this matter. Whatever judgement is reached in
this case will no longer have a practical legal effect. So this brings us back to the requirements
before the court can exercise judicial review.
- Actual case or controversy
(not yet rendered moot and academic)
Also, what the court observed here is that the person failed to observe the hierarchy of court.
As a rule, you cannot directly go to the Supreme Court. It should have been filed in the Court
of Appeals first then to the SC pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Although the
CA and the RTC have jurisdiction on writs on certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto. But even
with that concurrent jurisdiction, that commonality does not give this person unrestricted
freedom of choice in the forum to be used because we have to comply with the judicial
hierarchy.
Why is there a hierarchy in the first place?
Reason is two-fold:
1. It would be an imposition upon the precious time of the court to resolve more
important cases
2. It would cause an inevitable and resultant delay intended in the adjudication of the
cases pending before the court.
However, that is the general rule.
There are instances when can you directly go to the SC:
1. when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy;
2. when demanded by the broader interest of justice;
3. when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or
4. when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified
the immediate and direct handling of the case
Here, the Court dismissed the case because it did not fall under any of the given exceptions.
TAKE NOTE: Rule on the hierarchy of courts and the exceptions to the same.
[OSMENA vs ABAYA]
Grave abuse of discretion. There’s a selection here of he contractor to build this structure,
this international airport. Considering that this requires discretion as it would entail the
selection of the contractor, gi raise ang issue of the selection of the contractor before the SC
because the selection thereof was attended with grave abuse of discretion.
The Court said that, again, while naga study ta ug cases nga very frequent nato makita ang
grave abuse of discretion etc., it is not something that can easily be proved. It is only upon
clear showing of grave abuse of discretion that the courts will set aside the award of the
contract made by a government entity.
For example, you are challenging the decision of the CA on the ground that there is grave
abuse of discretion, you have to consider na niagi na na nga kaso with so many levels,
gidecidan nan a sa lower court and then gi-appeal. CA ruled in it, determined the facts, issues
and made a ruling. And you go to the SC ascribing the grave abuse of discretion. Then you
have to prove na tanan actuations by the court are attended by grave abuse of discretion.
Dapat mapakita nimo na nagpataka lang, arbitrarily exercise sa iyang power or that the
exercise of discretion here is really gravely abused. And its not just abuse of discretion but
must be GRAVE abuse of discretion.
Here, wala nya na prove because it went through the process and grave abuse was not
attended with such gravity. What does it tell us?
A: Courts can rule on issues where a government entity has exercised discretion.
Page 6 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
[PHILCONSA vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES]
Challenge on the comprehensive agreement of the Bangsamoro or constitutional grounds.
Among others, daghan syag provisions in the constitution nga gi-violate: the creation of an
autonomous unit which amend daw the Constitution because it does not follow the
prescribed procedure as to the creation thereof and it the challengers of this 2 agreements
likened the case in [PROVINCE OF COTABATO vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES] that
memorandum of agreement case on the ancestral domain between the RP and the MILF
where the agreement was unconstitutional. Is it the same? Should the agreements be
declared unconstitutional?
A: The Court did not resolve this case on its merits because the Court found that this is not an
issue ripe for adjudication.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies (so dapat naay
actual controversy). The courts’ judicial review power is limited to the actual case or
controversies and declines to issue advisory or opinions ____ academic question.
Q: When is there an actual case or controversy?
A: If the case involve a conflict of legal rights, assertion of legal claims, susceptible of judicial
resolution as distinguished from hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.
(e.g. If there is a provision in the law that you feel is unconstitutional because it violates equal
protection clause or remove from office because of this, etc.)
(e.g. Magpresent ka sa court, ”is federalism unconstitutional?” Where would the SC anchor
its decision nga wala pa may plebiscite, etc. It would result to a hypothetical situation that the
court would be constrained to render an advisory or an academic opinion.)
There must be contrast of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of
existing laws and jurisprudence. Here, there is no actual case or controversy requiring a full-
blown resolution on the principle issue of this case which is the constitutionality of these 2
agreements. Why? Because these agreements are not yet enforced, because this 2
agreements require the mandate of the enactment of the Bangsamoro Basic Law in order for
these agreements to be implemented. Naa na bay Bangsamoro Basic Law during this time?
Wala pa. The CAB and the FAB require the enactment of the BBL for the implementation and
without this law, these agreements will not be implemented.
Q: Can the court, with its plenary power, declare a proposed bill as unconstitutional or valid?
A: NO. It has no power to declare the unconstitutionality of the proposed bill because it would
be in the nature of rendering an advisory or an opinion in the proposed act of Congress. The
power of judicial review only comes into play AFTER the passage of the bill.
Unless enacted as law, the proposed BBL is not subject to judicial review.
Let’s go to the Supreme Court, how is it created?
Article 8 Section 1
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.
Article 8 Section 5: Powers of the Supreme Court
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgements and orders of lower courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or
any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
Page 7 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.
One of the issues is the remedy.
Q: If you want to appeal a case and you want to go to the Supreme court, what rule in the
Rules of Court shall govern?
A: Under Rule 45 – Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court. It provides a party appealing
by certiorari from a final judgement or a resolution of the CA, Sandiganbayan, the RTC or other
courts authorized by law may file to the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on
certiorari and this petition under Rule 45 raise only questions of law which will be distinctly
set forth.
TAKE NOTE:
The issue that you will be presenting before the Supreme Court through this remedy must
not involve an issue of fact. It must only involve a question of law. Otherwise, it will violate
the rule and will be dismissed by the Supreme Court.
What if questions of fact are raised in this petition?
[REPUBLIC vs DE GUZMAN]
There are exceptions to the rule when the Supreme Court may entertain petitions under this
rule and resolve issues of facts.
Q: What happens if questions of fact are presented to the SC?
A: If it falls under the enumerated exceptions under the rule as provided by jurisprudence,
then the Court may entertain it. Otherwise, dismiss.
In this case, there were questions of facts presented to the Court by way of Rule 45. The Court
said that this rule only allows an appeal by certiorari if there is a question of law, otherwise,
it cannot be availed of.
As a rule, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and this Court
will only review them under the following recognized exceptions:
(1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(2) when there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;
(4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts;
(5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case
and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;
(8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based;
(9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed
by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
and
(10)when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of
evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.
In this case, none of the exceptions apply therefore gidismiss ang case.
[CUA vs PEOPLE]
He was charged with malversation of public funds and he was convicted by the CA. He went
to the Supreme Court raising the sole issue that the prosecution failed to establish that his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the ground he did not steal this money. Can you present
this to the SC?
The Court said that NO. A question of whether an accused committed an offense or not is a
factual question which, as a general rule, will not be evaluated by the Court. The resolution
Page 8 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
of this issue necessarily requires the re-evaluation of the evidences presented by the parties.
This is a question of fact proscribed under Rule 45.
[LORZANO vs TABAYAG]
(recit) Lorzano and Tabayag were siblings. This property was owned by their father. Nagsabot
sila na in the meantime, na hangtod makagraduate akong anak ako sa maggamit sa property
and use the income…
(earthquake!!!)
We are still in the judiciary
[Lorzano vs Tabayag]
What are the types of cases that the supreme court entertain?
As a rule pwede lang niya i-entertain by way of, under the rules of court, are only questions
of law. So if you present the question of fact by the supreme court, as a general rule, it will
dismiss that case or it will not rule on those issues.
Such as in the case of Lorzano vs Tabayag, naay dispute sa family dili na iuli ang property to
the siblings because of the allegations kay ang nag gunit sa property, gibaligya na niya sa iyang
papa sa iyaha and alleged that the sale was a forgery and ning kaso sya sa court act claiming
na, the siblings sued for the court. again, are they related in relation to that agreement as well
asking the court for damages.
The court said that the question of forgery is a question of fact. That may have be determine
by the RTC and the CA in this case, the same is conclusive on the court.
What about the awarding of damages? It is also a question of fact,
[CHAVEZ vs JBC]
The supreme court has the power to promulgate the rules of procedure. It is also empowered
to relax the rules if required in circumstances (27:24)
So here, Chavez filed a petition for the wrong remedy in this case. The court, nevertheless
entertained the petition because of the gravity of the issues presented before the Supreme
Court dealing with the constitutional provision on the composition of the JBC. Gi relax sa
supreme court ang rule in this case.
When is there a question of law, when is there a question of fact?
QUESTION OF LAW- when the person who raises an issue as to what law shall apply on a given
set of facts. It does not involve on the examination of the formerly valid evidence presented.
Its resolution rests solely on the application of the law given under the circumstances.
QUESTION OF FACT- when the court is required to examine the truth and the falsity of the
facts presented. It invites a review of the evidence.
As a rule, only the questions of law will be entertained to the supreme court. But we also
learned last meeting in some instances pwede ireview sa supreme court ang facts.
TAKE NOTE of those exceptions to the general rule.
FROM THE BCDA VS REYES FULL TEXT:
Jurisprudence dictates that there is a “question of law” when the doubt or difference arises
as to what the law is on a certain set of facts or circumstances; on the other hand, there is a
“question of fact” when the issue raised on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the alleged
facts. The test for determining whether the supposed error was one of “law” or “fact” is not
the appellation given by the parties raising the same; rather, it is whether the reviewing court
can resolve the issues raised without evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question
of law; otherwise, it is one of fact.35 In other words, where there is no dispute as to the facts,
the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn from these facts are correct is a
question of law.36 However, if the question posed requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of
witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relationship
to each other, the issue is factual
[BCDA VS REYES]
Recent expropriation case. BCDA here did not agree on the validation of the property. Mahal
ra daw kaayo. They appealed on the ruling of the trial court, to the court of appeals under
rule 41. However, the CA dismissed that appeal because the question presented before it
were only questions of law. Dapat daw kung musaka sa CA, it should either be questions of
fact or Question of facts and law. Kani kay question of law, meaning the CA has now
jurisdiction. Remember. Under Rule 41 if you appeal from the RTC and you are only raising
question of law, in section 2 it provides that In all cases where only questions of law are raised
or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in
accordance with Rule 45
Page 9 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
So dapat ning diretso sya sa supreme court, kay in this case, the CA dismissed the case because
puro sya questions of law.
Did the CA commit and error in dismissing the appeal?
No
Under section 2 of rule 41 there are two modes of appealing a final judgement or order by
the RTC on the exercise on its original jurisdiction.
 if the issue raised involves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law, you can
go to the CA on ordinary appeal.
 if the issue raised involves only questions of law, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court
by petition for review by certiorari under rule 45 by the rules of court.
So here, namali iyang remedy, gidismiss sa CA, dapat ning adto sya sa supreme court. So tama
ang rule sa CA.
[REPUBLIC VS ORTIGAS]
Here it was a question of Law again presented before the CA. the court dismiss it because
under the rule 41, you must either raise a question of fact before it or question of fact and
law.
HELD: Tama ang gi himo sa CA kay Appeals from the decisions of the Regional Trial Court,
raising purely questions of law must, in all cases, be taken to the Supreme Court on a petition
for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.
So ang emphasis nato sa atong discussion dri na very technical is that the supreme court, as a
rule, only (recognizes?) question of law. It is also mandated in the rules of court, pasaka
katong question na mag appeal ka human imong questions is purely questions of law, you
bring that before the supreme court. Considering the question here involves a pure question
of law that the property should be conveyed by donation or otherwise, settled na ang facts,
ang law lang ang applicable, the appeal should have been filed to the supreme court, not on
the court of Appeals.
So kato ang power sa supreme court in so far as the reviewing the appeals purely questions
of law ang concern.
Another power of the supreme court under article 7, section 18.
Reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of martial law and the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus.
*Note* ( Please add the case of Lagman Vs Medialdea 2017 case) On the issue of whether or
not the extent, unsa ang extent sa the review powers of the supreme court, what is the proper
mode of vehicle by which a concerned party can invoke this power of the supreme court.
[LAGMAN VS MEDIALDEA]
Nag file ug petition si lagman et al. It is challenged by the solgen that it is not the appropriate
proceeding this petition to question the factual basis etc by the supreme court because it
should have been the petition for certiorari according to the solicitor general
The court said that you are wrong.
The appropriate proceeding in Article 7, section 18 does not refer to petition for certiorari
precisely because it delimits to the question to the factual basis, it does not talk about the
exercise of discretion, it does not fall on the supreme court to review the exercise of discretion
by the president. But rather, whether or not in declaring the martial law, suspending the
privilege of habeas corpus, the president had sufficient factual basis.
This procedure or this manner of questioning, the sufficiency of the factual basis therefore
gives under this provision of article 7, section 18, gives the supreme court this special court of
jurisdiction so far as this question is concern. Again, jurisdiction is covered by law. Walay
balaod, walay jurisdiction ning court in so far this issue is concerned. It is the law or
constitution that vests the jurisdiction of a tribunal.
Here, what is the law the gives the supreme court of the jurisdiction over the matter? It is the
constitution itself and it gives the supreme court the power to review the sufficient factual
basis and the suspension.
ARTICLE VII, section 4.
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.
Again, this appropriate proceeding does not refer to the petition of certiorari because
definitely lahi ang iexamine sa court so far as the factual basis is concern is reviewing the
question by in a petition for certiorari.
A petition for certiorari – A grave abuse of discretion
In Article 7, section 18- Factual basis
Page 10 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
So you cannot insist the petition should be a petition for certiorari, it could be complaint, it
could be a petition, it could be affidavit etc.
What is the purpose of giving the supreme court this power in the constitution?
It is to curtail the extent of the powers of the commander in chief. So there is a recognition
that the declarations that the president may do in this case are very powerful. To limit that,
gitagaan ang supreme court ug review powers in so far as checking whether there is a
sufficient factual basis. Because of the unique features of this remedy, any citizen may file it.
It limits the issue in the sufficiency of the factual basis, the court is given a limited time to
solve the case. It becomes SUI GENERIS procedure or remedy.
Also, the power of the supreme court to review the factual basis should intended the power
of congress to review the declaration of the president himself that court may need not wait
for congress to first exercise this power. The congress and supreme court can exercise this
review power of review power simultaneously.
Why? Because there are different. In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation or suspension, the Court considers only the information and data available to
the President prior to or at the time of the declaration. In addition, the courts review is
passive. Not passive in a sense na hulaton and congress but rather it waits for a someone, a
concern citizen, anyone, to file the appropriate proceeding, petition or pleading before the
court to initiate the proceeding to determine the factual basis.
On the otherhand, congress takes into consideration with the facts prior or during the
declaration and even after. Kay ang congress baya ang nay power to revoke or to extend. Kana
na mga data pwede na iconsider.
Unlike the Court I which does not look into the absolute correctness of the factual basis as
will be discussed below, Congress could probe deeper and further; it can delve into the
accuracy of the facts presented before it. So ganina gidiscuss nato dba na it is not the role of
the court to determine the accuracy or the factual basis.
Congress on the other hand can determine if the facts are accurate.
Congress' review mechanism is automatic in the sense that it may be activated by Congress
itself at any time after the proclamation or suspension was made.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
Another power of the supreme court is also acts as the presidential electoral tribunal.
Diba naa tay kaso karon pending? Pending pa ba? Ning gawas na ug resolution ang court in so
far as the results of the counting are concerned. Nag widen karon ang lead ni leni karon
against marcos.
So this was done by the supreme court as acting as the president electoral tribunal.
Where do we find this provision?
So the PET is the SUPREME COURT EN BANC
In Tecson v. COMELEC
[TECSON v. COMELEC]
Remember this case, the Fernando Poe, Jr. citizenship. Now, as the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal (PET), there is a question here on the jurisdiction of the COMELEC in taking
cognizance in deciding the citizenship issue affecting Fernando Poe, Jr. kay ang COMELEC ang
nag-decide eh, sa qualification in ni Fernando Poe, Jr. nag-question sila na this should be
decided not by the COMELEC but by the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), because we are
talking here about the presidential candidate.
Does the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) have the jurisdiction over the Presidential
candidates? No, why? Ang iyahang jurisdiction is already over as to the election qualifications
for president and vice president, meaning post-election scenario na siya, dili na candidate pa
ka, kung candidate pa ni sila it is the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) that has the
jurisdiction. Ordinary usage of words here characterizes a “contest” in reference to a post-
election scenario. So, mao to siya, the Presidential Election Tribunal (PET) does not have
jurisdiction to the qualifications and post-election scenarios.
In Legarda v. De Castro
[LEGARDA v. DE CASTRO]
Na-again ni sa case ni Santiago where she ran as a president and she lost so she filed a case
before the Presidential Election Tribunal (PET). Before the case was decided she ran and won
a seat in the Senate. What was the effect of that? The Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)
here, in Legarda v. De Castro was the same. Nag-away si Noli De Castro and Legarda, mga
news anchors for the position of the vice president of the Philippines. Legarda placed second
and filed before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). De Castro moved for its outright
dismissal but the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) confirmed its jurisdiction over the
protest. However, Legarda ran and won a seat in the Senate in the 2008 elections.
Page 11 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
What is the effect? The Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) dismissed here the protest on the
ground that the contest here was banned by Legarda.
In Makalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)
[MAKALINTAL v. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL]
Makalintal challenged the constitutionality of the Presidential Election Tribunal (PET), Why is
that the question? What is the basis of Makalintal here? Article VII, Section 4 talks about the
creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) and its duties. However, in Article VIII,
Section 12, there is a provision in the Constitution that the members of the Supreme Court
and of the other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions. So, according to Makalintal, the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal (PET), the Supreme Court exercises a quasi-judicial function prohibited in
the Article VIII, Section 12. Therefore the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is
unconstitutional. Is the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) unconstitutional? No, why? It is
created by the Constitution, therefore, how can it be unconstitutional. The court here said
that, in drafting the last paragraph of Article VII, Section 4, the constitution constitutionalized
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). The judicial powers granted to the Supreme Court by
the same constitution is plenary.
Is the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) exercising quasi-judicial powers? No, the judicial
grants judicial powers through Article VIII, Section 1. However, there is a provision creating
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) in the constitution. Does that embody in the
constitution and statues that the resolution of electoral protest contest as essentially an
exercise of quasi-judicial power when the Supreme Court as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal
(PET) resolves a presidential or vice presidential election protest it performs essentially a
quasi-judicial power.
The Supreme Court also has power over the constitutional commissions; the Commission of
Audit (COA), Civil Service Commission (CSC), Commission on Elections (COMELEC) under
Article IX-A, Section 7, paragraph 2, provides that unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, so meaning pwede siya ma-change, any decision, order, or ruling of
each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. So naa puy limitation, thirty days from
receipt of the aggrieved party by certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Now, what happened however, nag-pasa ang Congress ug Republic Act 7902 an act expanding
the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals amending BP 129 in this law added jurisdiction to the
Court of Appeals to act on issues and decisions, final judgments and resolutions, orders or
awards of the following tribunals in Regional Trial Court or quasi-judicial tribunals and etc.
and the civil service commission.
What does that mean? If you have a final judgment, decision, resolution or awards in the civil
service commission you do not go directly to the Supreme Court but first to the Court of
Appeals because of the Republic Act 7902, siya man ang naga gunit sa tatlo ka constitutional
commission. Pag Civil Service Commission, you go to the Court of Appeals first then after that
you go to the Supreme Court. What about the COMELEC and COA, wala pa man balaod na nag
change ani. So, sila they can go directly to the Supreme Court, asa man siya makita? As we
said earlier, Article IX-A, Section 7. It can also be found in Rule 65 of Rules of Court. What is
the regular period of certiorari? 60 days but because the constitution limits itself to 30 days,
so mao na ang period na imuhang ifollow. So same lang ang grounds pero lahi ang period
under Rule 65, 30 days from the final judgment.So remember ha, COA and COMELEC you go
directly to the Supreme Court but CSC you go first to the Court of Appeals.
Does the Congress have jurisdiction over the courts? Insofar as the courts lower than the
Supreme Court, pwede na nila ma-change, the Congress can totally abolish all the courts and
create a new court except of the Supreme Court.
Now, in Article VIII, Section 2, which states that Congress cannot deprive, so insofar as the
Supreme Court is concerned dili na pwede hilabtan sa Congress, na mag pasa ug balaod
changing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court particularly in the cases entertain a court
under Section 5. Unsa mani? In Article VIII, Section 2, General Rule, Congress shall have the
power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts, exception, but
may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 of
the Constitution. No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the
security of its members. So tenure does not attach.
Anyway, Congress creates courts, but it can attach on instances mentioned in Article VIII,
Section 5. What are those exceptional instances?
(1) The supreme court cannot exercise original jurisdiction affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, andiver peitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus. Original jurisdiction means pwede ka mudiretso sa
supreme court.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts. Those cases
involving
(a) constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.
Page 12 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interests may
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent
of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial court to avoid a miscarriage of justice. So
naa tay mga cases na the courts are already controlled by a party, particularly the
most prominent political figure. So you can resort to the court to change the venue
so you won’t be oppressed.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law,
the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under privileged.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the civil service
law.
Another important provision that we should take note of is Article VI, Section 30; no law shall
be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
So ang jurisdiction sa Supreme Court as enumerated in the Constitution under Article VIII,
Section 5 paragraph 2. Dili ni siya pwede dungagan sa Congress by way of a law. Ngano man?
The supreme court is swamped in a lot of cases and that too add cases by way of a law would
duly burden it, however, if it is with the court’s advice and concurrence, Congress can increase
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, because Article VI, Section 30, that no law shall be
passed increasing the jurisdiction of the court without its advice and concurrence. Now, we
have the case of First Lepanto Ceramics court of Appeals:
[FIRST LEPANTO VS CA]
The board of investments granted first lepanto's application to amend the certificate of
registration. Mariwasa contested this and filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision.
Mariwasa thereafter filed a petition for review with the court of appeals in so far as the
decision of the boi is concerned pursuant to a circular issued by the supreme court, circular
no. 1-91. This circular transferred the venue of appeals from decisions of boi to the court of
appeals.
Karon ang question ni lepanto "that should be dismissed by the ca because the law here, the
omnibus investments code of 1987 provides that ang jurisdiction to entertain appeal from the
boi is granted to the supreme court, not the ca". This circular 1-91 amended a substantive
law, kaning balaod na muingon na dapat muabot from the boi, you can go to the supreme
court. But by way of the circular, the sc is saying that it should be not the sc but the ca. So
which is which? Where do we file this appeal from the BOI?
Was article 82 of this law, repealed by circular 1-91?
Yes, but only in so far in the manner and method of engorcing the right of appeal is concerned.
In other words, what was changed by the sc here was the procedure. Your right to appeal is
still preserve, still intact. Ang gi-change lang nila is kung asa nimo i-file ang imuhang appeal.
Does the supreme court have the power to do that?
The court, pursuant to its power in article viii sec. 5, can promulgate rules concerning
pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts, and by way of implementation. It issued
circular 1-91 prescribing the rules governing appeals to the court of appeals from final orders
or decisions of the court of tax appeals and quasi-judicial agencies such has the boi. Although
this circular is not a law, it has the force and effect of law.
Can the supreme court do that?
Yes, because this talks about a procedure, rule of procedure in the courts.
What does circular 1-91 cover and what did it do? It only pertains to the procedure or the
method of enforcing the substantive right to appeal granted by law. In other words, the right
to appeal from decisions or final orders of the boi, remains and continues to be respected.
You can still appeal. Ang i-change lang is kung asa ka mag-appeal which can be done by the
supreme court.
Circular 1-91 simply transferred the venue of appeals of decisions of the boi to the ca and
provided a different period of appeal as well. Clearly, this circular effectively repealed or
superseded article 82 of e.o. 226 or the omnibus investments code of 1987 in so far as the
manner and method of enforcing the right to appeal from decisions of the boi are concerned.
[FABIAN VS DESIERTO]
Naay gikasuhan diri and it submit case before the office of the ombudsman and naay gi-
impose na penalty. She appealed the case directly to the supreme court pursuant to section
27 of ra 6770 or the ombudsman act.
Is this provision valid? The court said that this provision is unconstitutional. This provision
cannot validly authorize an appeal to the supreme court from decisions of office of the
Page 13 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. Mu-agi sa ka first sa court of appeals, dili
pwede diretso sa supreme court.
But is this found based on the law, under ra 6770? The court said that yes. That provision is
unconstitutional because of article 6 section 30. "no law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court as provided in this constitution without its advice
and concurrence,"
this provision in ra 6770 na pwede ka maka directly appeal sa imong administrative case to
the supreme court, violates that provision because it increased the appellate jurisdiction of
the supreme court. It did not secure its advice and concurrence.
Before we go to court martial proceedings, kinsa ang naay jurisdiction over pnp personnel?
the sandiganbayan, what court of court is it? Is it a court martial or regular court?
[REBUBLIC VS ASUNCION]
RA 6975 provides that "criminal cases involving pnp members shall be within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the regular courts." so unsa ang regular courts? In other words, gitanggal na sa
law karon ang jurisdiction over pnp. Sa una, imbes na court martial, karon gibutang na siya sa
regular courts. "regular courts" includes the sandiganbayan. Regular courts are those within
the judicial department of the government, namely, the supreme court and such lower courts
as may be established by law. Accordingly, the term regular court in ra 6975 means civil courts
is in line with the purpose of the law to remove jurisdiction of a court martial in criminal
involving pnp members and transferred it to civilian courts.
Why? Because during martial law, gi-militarize ang pnp. So karon, the constitution, civilian
ang character sa police force, dili na sila covered by the armed forces of the Philippines. And
accordingly, the criminal proceedings against PNP members are no longer cognizable by
court-martials, but rather by regular courts. Which includes among others, the
sandiganbayan. So civilian ang character sa pnp.
Courts martial, on the other hand, are not regular courts. They are not courts within the
Philippine judicial system they pertain to the executive department of the government and
are simply instrumentalities of the executive power. Otherwise stated, courts-martial are not
regular courts.
So kato ang mga administrative matters in so far as what the supreme court can or cannot
entertain, what are the exceptions to the rule.
Let's go to the concept of judicial review which we already discussed at the outset of this
course. Related ani na discussion ang operative fact doctrines, moot questions, and political
question doctrine.
Just for review purposes, what is this power of judicial review?
It is the supreme court's power or any court's power, lower courts power to declare a treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, etc.
unconstitutional. In other words, naa act na nahimo ang executive or legislative branch of the
government that is subject to the review of the court. It is the power of the courts to test the
validity of executive or legislative acts if it is in accordance with the constitution or if there
is grave abuse of discretion.
But before court can exercise this power of judicial review, 4 requisites must exist.
1. There must be an actual case or controversy
2. Locus standi
3. Raise at the earliest opportunity
4. It must be the very lis mota
SAFEGUARDS OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
Why do we have to safeguard judicial independence? Why do courts have to be independent?
Again, as we have discussed before, kay kung dili sila independent you would not seek any
recourse to courts anymore. Otherwise, magrule na karon kay wala na mutuo aning justice.
There must be safeguards to preserve judicial independence. Daghan ta'g mga statements ns
gibutang sa constitution para lang mapreserve ang judicial independence.
Appointments and qualifications under article viii sec 7.
1. "no person shall be appointed member of the supreme court or any lower collegiate court
[sandiganbayan, court of appeals, court of tax appeals] unless he is a natural-born citizen of
the philippines. A member of the supreme court must be at least forty years of age, and
must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice
of law in the philippines.
[kabalo na mo what practice of law is, sa inyo leg prof. 40 years old, 15 years of practice of
law or a judge of a lower court]
2. The congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person
may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the philippines and a member of
the philippine bar.
3. A member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity,
and independence.
What else? The creation of the judicial bar council. Magdetermine sila kinsa ang qualify to sit
in a position to be a judge, justice of the supreme court, naa ta'y JBC.
Page 14 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Members of the supreme court shall be appointed by the president of at least 3 nominees
prepared by jbc for every vacancy. That appointment by the president of the supreme court
justice and judges in the workforce need no confirmation from the commission on
appointments.
For supreme courts, it should be within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacation of the
office, dapat ma-appoint na dayon si justice sa supreme court.
For lower courts, the president shall issue appointment within 90 days from the submission
of the list.
So lahi pag lower court, si president mag elect in 90 days from submission of the list.
In section 4 of article VIII
"any vacancy [in the supreme court] shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence
thereof"
dili pwede na hulaton ni president ang list. Dapat the jbc should be well-aware na dapat
mahatag na nila ang list para ang president will be able to exercise his appointing power to fill
that position within 90 days of the occurrence of the vacation from office.
Unsa ang qualifications for you to be a justice of the sc or lower collegiate court?
- 40 years of age
- at least 15 years or more a judge or engaged in practice of law
-must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
Pwede ba magprescribe ug qualifications si congress for lower courts?
Sec. 7 article VIII.
The congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person may be
appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the philippines and a member of the Philippine
bar.
No person shall be appointed as judge unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member
of the Philippine Bar. So, mao lang to ang basic requirements in the Constitution; pwede pa
dungagan by Congress insofar as lower court judges are concerned.
As we also said earlier, pwede ang Congress - it has the power to prescribe the jurisdiction of
courts. It also has the power to reorganize courts but it cannot reorganize the Judiciary if it
undermines the security of tenure of its members. So, in other words, if the reorganization is
sought it must be done if good faith and that it would also not undermine the stability of
tenure of those na maapektohan sa reorganization. However, if there is a - naa tay mga cases
- gipang-abolish na dira tapos gipangalisdan and the Court said that if it's a valid abolition then
there is no reason for you to talk about tenure because wala kay tenure in an abolished office.
[IN RE: Valenzuela]
Anyway, still on the matter of appointments we have in IN RE: VALENZUELA regarding the a
midnight appointments prohibition. Is it applicable to the Judiciary? In In Re: Valenzuela the
Court said YES, applicable na siya.
But that case has been reversed with the case of De Castro vs. JBC.
[De Castro vs. JBC]
Here, the Court said that the prohibition under Section 7, Article 15 on midnight appointments
does not apply to appointments within a vacancy of the Supreme Court or to other
appointments to the Judiciary. Why? Because had it been the intention daw of the
Constitutional Commissioners to include the Judiciary in that midnight appointment - take
note that these judges, Justices, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court are presidential
appointees.
Si President ang mag-appoint sa ilaha from the list submitted to the President by the JBC.
Kato, gi-insist ni katong mga apektado diri nga person na this should be covered by the
midnight prohibtion ban. But the Court said: NO, walay apil ang Judiciary. It's not included in
the Executive Department. It's not included in Article 7, Section 15. By its exclusion from the
provision it means that it is not covered by the ban.
Separation of the three great departments by an express separation in the Constitution (i.e.
Article 6, 7, and 8) has a meaning, it recognizes the principle of separation of powers and the
Judiciary is a separate branch in the government. Had the framers intended to extend the
prohibition to midnight appointments prohibitions in Article 7, Section 15, to the appointment
to the members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so.
But do note that it even if it is done but is [inaudible 1:16:26], the Court said that it is no longer
binding. Moreover, it Article 8, Section 4 it uses "shall" kung when dapat ma-fill ang vacancy
as to the Supreme Court is concerned. An imperative operating to impose a duty that maybe
enforced and should not be disregarded. Kay ang nahitabo man gud diri is that nahulog sa
midnight appointments ang appointments sa Justice diri, pero naay requirement atong Article
Page 15 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
8, Section 4 na it shall be filled up within that period pero kung i-fill up nimo siya maging
midnight appointment.
So, asa ang atong i-follow? Kaning requirement na in Artilce 8 na to fill it up within that period
or the prohibition in Article 7. The Court said kaning Article 8, Section 4 ang imperative; "shall
be filled" within that period. Dili applicable ang midnight appointment prohibition. So, here
the Court explicitly reversed In Re: Valenzuela. Does the midnight prohibition apply also to all
other appointments in the Judiciary? Does the prohibition apply?
There is no question that one of the reasons underlying the adaption of Section 15 as part of
Article 7 was to eliminate midnight appointments from being made by an outgoing Chief
Executive which includes appointments in the Judiciary. The midnight appointment ban does
not apply also to appointments to anything - presidential appointees in the Judiciary. That's
something that he can do with the Supreme Court.
In the motion for reconsideration of this case, the Court upheld its own decision and the said
that In Re: Valenzuela is reversed.
[Re: Seniority Among Four]
Now, we have another case on appointments. We have RE: SENIORITY AMONG FOUR
appointments. On March 10, 2010, the Office of the President transmitted to the Supreme
Court the appointments of several CA Justices, and sa ranking sa list - kaning transmittal -
number 5 sa list is Antonio Valenzuela.
Very important ni sa ila nga ang seniority because naay mga privileges accorded to them,
among other things. However, in the appointment paper themselves katong mga Justices lahi
ang date of appointment. Si Justice Antonio Valenzuela was appointed later than his peers
pero in the transmittal ika-fifth siya sa na-appoint. So, she insists that we should follow this
list in the transmittal na ako ang grant diri. Dili kaning date sa akong appointment nga later
than the rest of my peers, therefore I should be more senior based ani katong statement. The
Court said, however, that we follow the date in the appointment as stated in that commission.
Appointment of public office is the unequivocal act of one who has authority of designating
or selecting an individual to discharge and perform the duties and functions of this office or
trust.
Now, when is the appointment deemed complete?
It is deemed complete once the last act required of the appointing authority has been comply
with.
What is this last act?
When the commission is signed by the executive or the appointing authority.
What is this commission?
It is a written memorial that grant your title to public office indubitable. This is known as the
commission.
For purposes of the completion of the appointment process, the appointment is complete
when the commission is signed by the executive, the appointing authority. The transmittal,
on the other hand, of the commission is an act which done after the appointment as already
been completed. So, katong transmittal na gina-anchor ni Justice Antonio Valenzuela it is not
in fact needed to effect her appointment. It is not required to complete the appointment but
only to facilitate the effectivity of the appointment by the appointee's receipt and acceptance
thereof. So, we follow the date of your appointment in the commission. Kung unsa ang date
didto, kung later ka na-appoint and nag-una tong mga... mao to ang more senior sa inyoha.
Another safeguard provided in the Constitution to preserve judicial independence is fiscal
autonomy, Articel 8, Section 3. What is special about the Supreme Court sa iyang pagka-
fiscally autonomous is that kung unsa ang gi-appropriate na budget sa iya last year it could it
either be in the succeeding year equal to that or more, dili pwede bawasan.
Article VIII, Section 3
Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not
be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.
So, dili parehas sa uban Constitutional offices nga if fiscal autonomy (i.e. The Civil Service, The
Constitutional Commissions, The Office of the Ombudsman) they enjoy fiscal autonomy but
not this privilege nga dili pwede bawasan ang ilang budget sa previous year. Ang Supreme
Court ang naga-enjoy ana nga privilege.
Anyway, what is fiscal autonomy?
Fiscal autonomy means freedom from a [inaudible 1:22:23 counsel of the call?].
Jouaqin Bernas on what is the meaning of fiscal autonomy and why has it been granted to the
Judiciary: The second sentence of Section 3 states the meaning of fiscal autonomy.
"Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly
Page 16 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
released." Fiscal autonomy is granted to the Supreme Court in order to strengthen its
independence.
Who enjoys?
The Judiciary; the Constitutional Commission; and the Ombudsman must have the
independence effects exclusively needed to discharge their constitutional [inaudible 01:22:31
majorities?].
Kay kung wala daw ni silay fiscal autonomy they who beholden to the directive of the political
branches of the government insofar as spending of there money is concerned. Magpkutang
sila karon kung mag-rely sila sa ilang budget... para mag-rely sila sa ilang kwarta aron maging
operative ilang office. Kung wala silay fiscal autonomy, the Executive with the Legislative
branch can impose conditions on the release of their money and, therefore, ma-impaire ilang
independence kay unsaon man namo wa man mi kwarta ah sige di nalang nato ni tanggalon
sa opisina ni si kuan... i-decide nalang namo ni case in favor of because wala tay budget if it
would do otherwise. So, to preserve that independence naa silay fiscal autonomy. The
impositions of restrictions and constraints on the manner by the independent constitutional
offices to allocate and utilize their fund is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violate not only
the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards to the Supreme Court the
independence and the separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of constitutional
system is based.
What is the power of this constitutional authority entail?
The power to allocate resources; the power to charge fees; the power to determine
compensation; disburse funds; the power not to be restricted insofar as the release of their
funds is concerned. Even if there is a revenue shortfall, funds must still be immediately
released to these institutions with fiscal autonomy. In other words, naa silay priority kung
magka-letse... wala nay kwarta ang gobyerno, unahon og release ang kwarta sa katong mga
naay fiscal autonomy.
[CSC vs. Department of Budget and Management]
We have the case of Civil Service Commission vs. DBM. The Civil Service it is an entity,
constitutional commission which enjoys fiscal autonomy. By the way, ma-observe nimo na
nga institutions nga naay fiscal autonomy the COA and the Constitutional Commissions, the
Ombudsman, and the Supreme Court, these are the main checkers of the acts of the other
departments. Sila ang murag naga-review. Supreme Court - judicial review; the COA - checks
the account, the spending of the money; Civil Service - insofar as hiring and firing of officials
are concerned; the COMELEC - insofar as election. So kani na mga entities they have these
powers to preserve as part of the checks and balances mechanism; that is why tagaan sila ani
na mga privilege as fiscal autonomy.
Now, we have the Civil Service Commission naa silay kwarta gi-allocate sa ilaha under the GAA
but a portion of which 5.8 million wala gi-release sa DBM sa ilaha because admittedly the
DBM said that walay... on the basis of its No Report, No Release Policy. So, because of this
condition wala diri ni-support ang the remaining... kay 5.8 million to the Civil Service
Commission.
Is that No Report, No Release Policy applicable to the institutions with fiscal autonomy? NO,
that condition is unconstitutional insofar as those entities that enjoy fiscal autonomy are
concerned. Automatic release of auto-approved(? - 1:25:56) their annual appropriations to
Civil Service, which is vested with fiscal autonomy, should be construed to mean that no
conditions for fund releases may be imposed. The Constitution grants the enjoyment of fiscal
autonomy only to the Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. To
hold that the Civil Service is subject to the holding or the reduction of funds in the event of a
revenue shortfall would raise it with the same level of those entities na walay fiscal autonomy.
And to subject it to conditions before it can release its funds would violate the doctrine of
fiscal autonomy. In fact, the GAA recognizes that premise nga dili nimo ma-subject to
conditions ang pag-release og kwarta aning mga institutions that enjoy fiscal autonomy. What
about if there is a revenue shortfall? Diba ang mag-unsa sa ilang budget nila ilahang ra man
ng ginamugna na mao ning kwarta na ma-spend subject gihapon siya sa availability of the
money.
In fact the GAA here recognizes that premise na dili nimo masubject to conditions ang
pagrelease sa kwarta aning mga institutions that enjoy fiscal autonomy. What about if there
is a revenue shortfall, meaning, diba kung mag unsa sila sa budget nila, ilaha ra man nang gina
mugna na mao ni among kwarta na maspend. Subject gihapon sya sa availability of the money,
so karon atong budget abot ni syag trillions so dapat pag request nila ana sa kwarta dapat naa
nay kwarta, but it doesn't mean na available dayon ang trillions dira in the offers.
What happens if there is a revenue shortfall? Meaning wala juy kwarta, or it's not meeting
the target para ma-fulfill or matagaan ug kwarta ning mga kaning as allocated in the GAA.
What if walay kwarta? Can fiscal institutions that enjoy fiscal autonomy be subject to the
restriction na dili sila mareleas-an ug kwarta because of this revenue shortfall?
The court said that this revenue shortfall, as a rule, should not affect institutions with fiscal
autonomy because they are to be given priority. But it does not mean na in all instances na
naay revenue shortfall, insulated sila sa ilang effects. The only instance na pwede masubject
Page 17 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
1:28:05 or [maapektuhan] sa revenue shortfall ang atoang mga institutions with fiscal
autonomy is that the shortfall is so severe so much so that all the institutions with fiscal
autonomy would not be given money. Katong mga gipangprioritize kato sila nga naay fiscal
autonomy, dili lang jud sila matagaan ug kwarta because of the revenue shortfall. That is the
only instance na pwede nimo maregulate ang pagrelease sa kwarta because of course,
giprioritize gani ninyo sila pero dili diay enough ang kwarta, you can now regulate that. Pero
kung dili inana ka-(intense) ang revenue shortfall, dili priority, so the institutions with fiscal
autonomy kay dili nimo isubject to conditions of release.
In such event, what is contemplated in that scenario is that total revenue collections are so
low that they're not sufficient to cover the total appropriations for all entities vested with
fiscal autonomy. In such event, it would be practically impossible to fulfill or fully release the
judiciary's appropriations or the other institutions with fiscal autonomy's appropriations for
that matter without violating the rights of the other entities with fiscal autonomy. So in that
very extreme circumstance, diha lang sya masubject to the availability of funds ang pag
release sa kwarta. Otherwise, not covered. Dili sya pwede isubject to conditions.
The purpose of emphasizing this case is special rule for the judiciary that sila appropriations
for the judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for
the previous year unlike the Ombudsman who was in the service of the Constitutional
Commission na pwede bawasan sa amount na giappropriate in the previous year. So swerte
ang mga naa sa judiciary.
Re: Clarifying and Strengthening the Organizational Structure and Administrative Set-Up of
the Philippine Judicial Academy A.M. No. 01-1-04-SC-PHILJA. January 31, 2006.
This talks about the Supreme Court promulgating a resolution which clarified and
strengthened the organizational structure of the Philippine Judicial Academy, and pursuant
to that resolution, it created the positions here of Chief Judicial Staff Officer and Supervising
Judicial Staff Officer with salary grades. Now karon ang gihimo sa Department of Budget and
Management was that pagkareceive nila aning 1:30:37 kaning mga purveyor or
creation of these offices, gibawasan nila. Ang katong si SC Chief Judicial Staff na Salary Grade
25 gihimog Salary Grade 24, si Supervising Judicial Staff Officer from Salary Grade 23 to Salary
Grade 22.
Tama ba ni na himuon sa DBM? The court said that no.
The issue here is whether the DBM's downgrading of the court's proposed positions and
reducing its salary grade--does it undermine the independence of the judiciary? Yes.
The task of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is simply to review the
compensation and benefits plan of the government agency or entity concerned and
determine if it complies with the prescribed policies and guidelines issued in this regard.
Thus, the role of the DBM is supervisorial in nature, its main duty being to ascertain that
the proposed compensation, benefits and other incentives to be given to [government]
officials and employees adhere to the policies and guidelines issued in accordance with
applicable laws.
On the other hand, the authority of the DBM to review Supreme Court issuances relative to
court personnel on matters of compensation is even more limited, circumscribed as it is by
the provisions of the Constitution, specifically Article VIII, Section 3 on fiscal autonomy and
Article VIII, Section 6 on administrative supervision over court personnel.
Article VIII
SECTION 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not
be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.
SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.
Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control. In downgrading the positions and
salary of SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer and SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer in the PHILJA,
the DBM overstepped its authority and encroached upon the Court’s fiscal autonomy and
supervision of court personnel as enshrined in the Constitution, in fine, a violation of the
Constitution itself.
But of course, the court said here that in creating these offices, the court was guided by law.
Of course, dili pwede na ang Supreme Court itself will be violating the law, recreating these
positions out of thin air without any legal basis. So, tig follow lang ang Supreme Court sa
1:32:30 and applicable guidelines here in creating these positions. But when the DBM
amended the salary grades, nireact na ang Supreme Court, this is a violation of its fiscal
autonomy. For the DBM to even venture to alter a Resolution of the Court is to violate the
basic principle of separation of powers.
Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased
by the Retired
Chief/Associate Justice of the Supreme Court A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC. July 31, 2012.
Lahi na valuation ang gigamit because the Supreme Court had its own computation. When it
was checked by the Commission on Audit, severely underpriced daw, gamay daw kaayo ang
baligya ani sa mga retired justices.
Page 18 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
The court emphasized here its judicial independence. Dili magprevail ang findings sa COA. The
courts may not be obstructed from their freedom to use or dispose of their funds for
purposes germane to their judicial functions.
And now applying the same to the present case, the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy is realized
through the actions of the Chief Justice when it promulgated this rule in the valuation. It
reflects the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary, it serves as the basis in allowing the sale of the
Judiciary’s properties to retiring Justices of the Supreme Court and the appellate courts.
Salary
Unsa ba nang mga benefits na atong madawat pag naa ta sa Supreme Court, pag naa ta sa
Judiciary.
Article VIII, Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance
in office, their salary shall not be decreased.
So ang Congress gihapon ang magbuhat kung pila ang sweldo. However, during their
continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased. So we will interpret that provision
later.
In the transitory provision of the Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 17, naay minimum, or
rather, gi-set na sweldo for those who would be Associate Justices of the Supreme Court upon
the adoption of the Constitution.
Article XVIII, Section 17. Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an
annual salary of three hundred thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, two hundred forty thousand pesos each; the Senators, the Members of the House of
Representatives, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of the
Constitutional Commissions, two hundred four thousand pesos each; and the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos each.
But since Article VIII, Section 10 allows the change of the salary, it can be done by way of law.
So karon, taas na kaayo ang sweldo sa mga Chief Justices, and Associate Justices, and judges
of lower courts, if only to preserve judicial independence.
Perfecto vs. Meer
We have an old case here prior to the 1973 and 1987 Constitution. Si Justice Perfecto here
did not want to pay his income tax on his sweldo. Kay giwithhold yung income tax sa iyang
sweldo, nabawasan daw iyang sweldo. And under the 1935 Constitution, bawal i-reduce ang
sweldo sa mga judges, including justices.The court here said that judicial officers are exempt
from the payment of income tax of their salaries because it would amount to the diminution
of their salaries.
But in the 1973 and 1987 Constitution, wala na to sya na rule. So reversed na na sya.
Endencia vs. David
Before we go there, naa pa ning Endencia vs. David. Karon, 1953 case. Gibutang sa balaod
that a deduction of the taxes on the judges and justices would not be equivalent or would not
amount to a diminution of their benefit. Ana ang Supreme Court, this provision is a
circumvention of what has already been settled, na dili pwede bawasan ang sweldo sa mga
justices and judges by way of deducting from their taxes. In other words, they are totally tax-
exempt.
But anyway, under the 1973 and 1978 Constitution, gitanggal na na sya na exception.
Nitafan vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
So kani, mga judges, they sought to prohibit or perpetually enjoin the CIR from withholding
taxes from their salaries because it would amount to a decrease or diminution of their salaries.
Is the deduction of the withholding tax of their salaries a diminution on their salaries? No.
Asa man nila gianchor ilang argument? Under the 1935 Constitution, bawal bawasan. Under
the 1973 Constitution, gidugangan ug provision para maklaro na kaning withholding tax of the
justices and judges would not amount to a diminution of, anent the provision in the 1973, "No
salary or any form of emolument of any public officer or employee, including constitutional
officers, shall be exempt from payment of income tax."
So may explicit provision in the 1987 Constitution. Therefore, wala na itong exception.
However, in the 1987
Constitution, nawala na to na provision. And it is in their argument na nirevert daw ta sa 1935
rule, na exempt na from taxes ang atong mga judges and justices.
The 1987 Constitution does not contain a provision similar to Section 6, Article XV of the 1973
Constitution. The court said that when it reviewed the deliberations of the 1986
Constitutional Commissioners, it negated such contention.
Page 19 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
The Court hereby makes of record that it had then discarded the ruling in Perfecto vs. Meer
and Endencia vs. David, infra, that declared the salaries of members of the Judiciary exempt
from payment of the income tax and considered such payment as a diminution of their
salaries during their continuance in office. The Court hereby reiterates that the salaries of
Justices and Judges are properly subject to a general income tax law applicable to all income
earners and that the payment of such income tax by Justices and Judges does not fall within
the constitutional protection against decrease of their salaries during their continuance in
office.
So mao na to sya, dili dapat exempt.
Another way to preserve judicial independence is to secure your tenure. Where do we find
this provision?
Article VIII, Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall
hold office during good behavior until they reached the age of seventy years or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have
the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority
of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.
70 years, mao ni sya ang maximum, kung uugod-ugod, kung 70 years naka, compulsory,
iparetire naka. Until they reach the age of 70 years old, or become incapacitated to discharge
the duties of their office, or a renewed purpose.
So kani lang ang limited grounds na matanggal ang judge or justice sa judiciary. Also:
Article VIII, Section 2(2). No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines
the security of tenure of its Members.
What is security of tenure?
The guarantee of security of tenure in the Constitution means that an employee cannot be
dismissed from the service or causes other than the provided by law and only after due
process is afforded to the employee.
So, dili ta pwede basta basta katanggal, you are already and appointee, holding public office
because you have generally nakaenjoy ka ug security of tenure. Naa puy officials in the
government that do not enjoy such security of tenure, you will learn that in Admin law.
So, naa tay case, Alba – BP 129 provided that judges and justices of inferior courts from the
CA, MTC except the Sandiganbayan and CTA unless appointed to the inferior courts
established by the same law would be considered separated from the judiciary. Naay en
masse pananggal sa mga justices and judges under BP 129. This was challenged because it
violated the security of tenure. The Court said that this is valid because naay tay – valid
abolition of their office. Nothing is well settled in our law that
Nothing is better settled in our law than that the abolition of an office within the competence
of a legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no infirmity. The ponencia of Justice
J.B.L. Reyes in Cruz v. Primicias, Jr. 38 reiterated such a doctrine: "We find this point urged by
respondents, to be without merit. No removal or separation of petitioners from the service is
here involved, but the validity of the abolition of their offices. This is a legal issue that is for
the Courts to decide. It is well-known rule also that valid abolition of offices is neither removal
nor separation of the incumbents. ... And, of course, if the abolition is void, the incumbent is
deemed never to have ceased to hold office. The preliminary question laid at rest, we pass to
the merits of the case. As well-settled as the rule that the abolition of an office does not
amount to an illegal removal of its incumbent is the principle that, in order to be valid, the
abolition must be made in good faith."
Was the abolition here done in good faith? YES. In fact, good faith is presumed.
Now, the tenure, nanigulang nako sa akoang position unya karon tanggalon nako ninyo aning
BP 129. petitioners contend that the abolition of the existing inferior courts collides with the
security of tenure enjoyed by incumbent Justices and judges under Article X, Section 7 of the
Constitution. There was a similar provision in the 1935 Constitution. It did not, however, go
as far as conferring on this Tribunal the power to supervise administratively inferior courts.
The Court said that the removal must be distinguished with termination by virtue of abolition
of office. There will be no tenure to a non-existent office. After this law, wala na daw naga
exist imohang office. That’s abolition which is done in good faith. Asa man ka mangita ug
tenure diha.
Moreover, this Court is em powered "to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of
at least eight members, order their dismissal." 76 Thus it possesses the competence to remove
judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the President who was vested with such
power. 77 Removal is, of course, to be distinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition
of the office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office. After the abolition, there is in
law no occupant. In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who would thereby
lose his position. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of any
impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for the incumbents of inferior
Page 20 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
courts abolished, the effect is one of separation. As to its effect, no distinction exists between
removal and the abolition of the office. Realistically, it is devoid of significance.
Another way to preserve judicial independence is the way you remove power – Justices and
judges.
Section 11, Article VIII
The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good
behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the
duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of
lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
Kinsa gani ang pwede magtanggal sa associate SC Justices? It’s the Impeachment Court, or
pwede pud sya by way of quo warranto. So, mao na siya. Very difficult to remove justices of
the SC.
Insofar as the justices and judges of lower courts, kinsa ang magtanggal sa ilaha? It is the SC
en banc that has administrative disciplinary authority. No other entity.
In fact, kato pung discipline sa mga SC – very jealous and SC insofar as its disciplinary
jurisdiction is concerned. Kasuhan na? No, dili pwede kasuhan na outside. Dapat idetermine
sa ang administrative liability by the judiciary. The Court itself. That is why lisud pud
magpatanggal ug court employee (other than justices) kung walay basis. That’s why mao na
siya. To preserve their judicial independence.
So as a rule, you cannot go the Civil Service Commission because, ang magdetermine sa
ilahang liability will be the Court itself. Lahi pud ang rule however, if criminal cases.
So kato ha, judges, associate SCJ, by way of impeachment and quo warranto. Justices and
judges of lower courts – SC en banc.
We have the case of IN RE GONZALEZ insofar as the disbarment of the Chief Justice here.
Gifile-an ug disbarment case ang Chief Justice. Does the disbarment complaint prosper? One
of the continuing qualifications of the Chief Justice or a judge or an associate Justice of the
SC, is that the person must be a continuing member of the bar. Dapat lawyer sya. So, kani si
SC Associate Justice gipadisbar nimo you are to defend seeking to remove the person from
office. Therefore, you are violating the rule that the only way to remove an individual is by
way of either impeachment or quo warranto.
A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a Member of the Philippine Bar
as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office only by
impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public
officer. Further, such public officer, during his incumbency, cannot be charged criminally
before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offence which carries with it the
penalty of removal from office, or any penalty service of which would amount to removal
from office.
Here, the persons – to the disbar was the Chief Justice of the Philippines may only be removed
from office by way of impeachment. Mao ning isa ka cases na gicite ni Sereno sa iyahang
pleadings. Karon nag change na ang rule (impeachment & quo warranto)
To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member's
incumbency, would in effect be to circumbent and hence to run afoul of the constitutional
mandate theat Members of the Court may be removed from office only by impeachment for
and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article XI (2) of the Constitution.
The broad power of the New Constitution vests the respondent court with jurisdiction over
"public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled
corporations." There are exceptions, however, like constitutional officers, particularly those
declared to be removed by impeachment. Section 2, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution
provides:
Sec. 2 The President, the Members of the Supreme Court, and the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction
of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, other high crimes, or graft and
corruption."
Thus, the above provision proscribes removal from office of the aforementioned constitutional
officers by any other method; otherwise, to allow a public officer who may be removed solely
by impeachment to be charged criminally while holding his office, would be violative of the
clear mandate of the fundamental law.
What is the remedy if you want to remove that officer from the office? Impeachment or quo
warranto.
ADD THE CASE OF REPUBLIC vs SERENO.
Because this talks about the other way you can remove an impeachable officer. Particularly,
an associate Chief Justice of Supreme Court, by way of QUO WARRANTO.
Page 21 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Nagfile si Gadon, suspended na for practice for 1 year. Impeachment complaint – naghearing
hearing sa HoR, na didto nadiscover na wala siya nagsubmit si Justice Sereno sa iyahang mga
SALNs as required by law. So because of this, naay complaint for quo warranto gifile against
her. A basic qualification for a judge, and moreso, Justice – the requirement of integrity kay
wala siya nagfile sa iyahang SALN, therefore disqualified sya for continuing her office.
The argument of Sereno in that Quo Warranto was that she was an impeachable officer, there
is already an impeachment complaint in the HoR, she can only be removed from office by way
of impeachment, pursuant to all the previous jurisprudence of the SC, mandating that
impeachable officers may only be removed from office by way of impeachment.
The Republic on the other hand argues that, you do not challenge or contest the power of the
independency of the impeachment complaint or the power of the impeachment court.
Rather, they are instituting this quo warranto petition of the lower Court because we are
trying to question your qualification to remain in that office or enough to have it appointed
to such office in the first place.
May justices of the SC be removed through quo warranto proceedings? YES. In the case.
Gidistinguish karon sa Court as we discuss before an impeachment vs quo warranto.
Impeachment, there must be oath na giviolated that -- impeachable offenses: treason,
bribery, etc. katong mga grounds. When we talk about quo warranto
Emphatically, quo warranto proceeding is an action by the government against individuals
unlawfully holding an office. Section 1, Rule 66 provides:
Section 1. Action by Government against individuals. An action for the usurpation of public
office, position or franchise may be commenced by verified petition brought in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines against:
(a) person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises public office, position
or franchise;
(b) public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes ground
for the forfeiture of his office; or
(c) An association which acts as corporation within the Philippines without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.
The remedy of quo warranto is vested in the people, and not in any private individual or
group, because disputes over title to public office are viewed as public question of
governmental legitimacy and not merely private quarrel among rival claimants.94
Because of difference as to the grounds, as to where it will be filed, as to the remedies during
the proceedings are concerned, these are therefore separate and distinct, proceeding
independently and simultaneously. They differ in jurisdiction, they differ in grounds, they
differ in applicable rules pertaining to their - filing and dismissal and they differ in their
implications.
Now, question, nadiscuss na nato ang difference sa quo warranto and impeachment when we
talk about it in the legislative department. What I want to emphasize here is the qualification
of Sereno. The Court said here, diba ang main issue here is her non-filing of her SALNs. Does
it involve, does it speak over integrity? Just because she did not file her SALNs as mandated
by law?
The Court said that Compliance with the Constitutional and statutory requirement of filing of
SALN intimately relates to person's integrity.
So, unsa ba ang purpose aning SALN? The SALN is a document that enumerates your assets,
liabilities and your net worth. Mamonitor sa public ang movement sa imohang assets,
liabilities and net worth while you are still in the service. You are required to file that, para
Makita ang baseline sa imohang properties, beginning balance so to speak. Tapos, you are
required to file that every year and also ang retirement.
Question: Dako kayo ang increase sa iyahang property. Mamonitor karon sa public ngano
mani? Nganong taas kayo ang increase sa property? What if I do not file a SALN kay wala lang,
Dili siya required, dili lang nako feel. You may be subject to administrative and criminal
sanctions under the law. Also, what if sige, magfile ko ug SALN pero akoang ibutang didto kay
fictitious lang, piso lang. Donation lang ang property. What if I do that para ang akoang
balance kay negative?
That is also a ground for administrative and criminal liability under the law.
So dapat in other words, faithful imohang pagreflect sa imohang SALN. Faithful pud ang
imohang pagreflect pagfile sa SALN. To fulfil and to monitor your asset/ networth.
In this case, she did not. It was proved here that wala niya na file iyahang SALN regularly and
the Court said that filing of a SALN is a constitutional and statutory requirement. So, that she
Page 22 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
did not file it, she violated no only the law not only the Constitution and with more reason to
be a Chief Justice na ikaw ang mucomply or muobey ani na balaod.
Does the filing of SALN bear no relation to the Constitutional qualification of integrity? NO. It
has a direct relation to your integrity, moral fitness or character.
So, anyway, mao to siya. She failed to do it, she violated the law, she violated the Constitution
therefore wala siyay integrity, dili siya qualified sa position as Assoc Chief Justice. The quo
warranto was granted and she was removed from the office as if she never sat as Chief Justice
of the SC in the first place.
The MFR of this case, it was argued that the Senate issued a resolution claiming that this
precedent – because it violated the separation of power.
The Court said, there is no violated separation of powers here because the Court did not say
in the original decision na walay power ang impeachment court to proceed with that
impeachment proceeding. Ang similarity lang sa impeachment proceeding and quo warranto,
is that it may result to removal of office of that individual. Other than that, wala na silay
similarity. There is nothing violative or intrusive of the Senate’s power to remove the officials
in the main decision.
To disabuse wandering minds, there is nothing violative or intrusive of the Senate's power to
remove impeachable officials in the main Decision. In fact, in the said assailed Decision, We
recognized that the Senate has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
We have extensively discussed therein that the Court merely exercised its Constitutional duty
to resolve a legal question referring to respondent's qualification as a Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court. We also emphasized that this Court's action never intends to deprive the
Congress of its mandate to make a determination on impeachable officials' culpability for acts
committed while in office. We even explained that impeachment and quo warranto may
proceed independently and simultaneously, albeit a ruling of removal or ouster of the
respondent in one case will preclude the same ruling in the other due to legal impossibility
and mootness.
Quo warranto is not a figment of imagination or invention of this Court. It is a mandate boldly
enshrined in the Constitution52 where the judiciary is conferred original jurisdiction to the
exclusion of the other branches of the government. Quo warranto, not impeachment, is the
constitutional remedy prescribed to adjudicate and resolve questions relating to
qualifications, eligibility and entitlement to public office. Those who chose to ignore this fact
are Constitutionally blind.
Another way to preserve the independence of the judiciary is the prohibition on Article 8,
Section 12.
Article 8, Section 12, 1987 Philippine Constitution:
The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
To preserve ang ilang function is only judicial.
IN RE: DESIGNATION OF JUDGE RODOLFO U. MANZANO AS MEMBER OF THE ILOCOS NORTE
PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE.
Judge Rodolfo Manzano was designated as a member of Ilocos Norte provincial committee
on Justice pursuant to an EO order. Is his designation allowed by the Constitution? No, it is
not allowed because the members of SC and other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
The Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice performs administrative functions.
What is the basis of this rule or prohibition? The doctrine of separation of powers is the basis.
You cannot justify that a member of the judiciary is compelled to perform a function that is
non-judicial in nature. The essence of the trust deposed in him as a judge is only to decide.
Only a higher court can pass on his actuation. He is not a subordinate of an executive or
legislative official, however eminent.
If i-pursue niya ang designation, then now he can be subjected to the discretion of the
reviewing authority, which is the Executive Department. So, violation siya. It is indispensable
that there will be no exception to the rigidity of this rule. As expected of a judge, he is to be
confined to the task of adjudication. Nevertheless, RTC judges can be assistants to this
committees to help promote the laudable purposes for which they exist, it is such that they
cannot function or be designated to those committees to perform quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.
Now we go to the concept of Judicial Restraint, which is related to the concept of Judicial
Review and Constitutional Supremacy. As a rule, the concept of Judicial Supremacy does not
mean that the Judiciary is the most powerful branch of government. It means that it is the
department tasked to interpret the constitution and the constitution is the highest law of the
land which controls all departments. This is why the court has the power to review their
actuations if they are consistent to the constitution---this is the power of Judicial Review.
Page 23 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
FRANCISCO JR. vs. HOUSE
In the case of Francisco Jr. vs House, the issue here is the second impeachment complaint
against the incumbent Chief Justice. One of the issues raised here was, this impeachment
proceeding was a political question exercised by our representatives: our Congressmen and
Senators [political act daw ang impeachment kaya political question ang issue].
The court emphasized the concept of Judicial Restraint before discussing the issues. Courts,
as a rule, should restrain themselves from resolving constitutional issues considering there is
a presumption of constitutionality in the acts of other co-equal branches of government.
Unless, of course, there is a violation on the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion.
The purpose of Judiciary is, it is the only constitutional organ which is to be called upon to
determine the proper allocation of powers between several departments and among the
integral constitutional units thereof. The Constitution itself places the limitations and
restrictions in the exercise of power of our government agencies. In relation to the
impeachment, the constitution limits the filing of impeachment complaint within 1 year from
the initiation of impeachment proceeding to file another impeachment complaint [once every
year lang, counting starts from the initiation of last impeachment case].
The limitation can be used by the court to justify its ruling kasi may legal basis. "Is there
compliance to the constitution or not?" This is the court exercising Judicial Supremacy in
interpreting the constitution, particularly this limitation on the filing of impeachment
complaints. Why does it have that power? Because it is inherent in all courts as a necessary
consequence of judicial power to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
deemed demandable and enforceable. Now, balik na tayo sa main issue.
Ang impeachment proceedings beyond Judicial Review. Impeachment is a political action
which cannot assume judicial character. Hence, any question involving it is beyond the reach
of Judicial Review. The Court said, it is within the power of Judicial Review. Why? It is clear in
the Constitution ang limitation on the excercise of this power [pag initiate ng impeachment].
Naay requisites, pila to kabuok, how is it initiated, unsa ang grounds, unsa pud ang period (1
year prohibition). The court said, that in adopting the constitution, did the people did not
express their will in adopting those limitations in the constitution? In other words, the people
also spoke through the constitution. This shows that the constitution did not intend to leave
the matter on the sole discretion of Congress. The Constitution provided for a certain well-
defined limits or judicially discoverable standards for determining the validity of exercise of
discretion through the power of Judicial Review.
If the question involves a requirement in the constitution or a limitation (in the exercise of
such power), then it is within the reach of Judicial Review.
The second impeachment complaint here is constitutional [wala, share lang daw ni sir].
CENTRAL BANK vs. BANGKO SENTRAL
[Note: Sir was jumping from one point to another. Some texts were deleted to make the
thought of the discussion more coherent and organized. Please listen to the recording while
reading this part if there is any confusion.]
Can a provision of law, initially valid, become subsequently unconstitutional, on the ground
that its continued operation would violate the equal protection of the law?
Yes. [deleted part]. We're talking about the provision of the law that's now become
oppressive and violative of the equal protection clause.
Do you remember this case? Yung privileges na ginahatag sa upper officials ng Central Bank
which are not given to those of the lower employees? Gi-challenge ito sa court that it is
violative of the Equal Protection Clause.
[deleted part. The next paragraph means exactly the same as the one deleted].
The general rule on Constitutional challenges is: the Court must exercise judicial restraint in
deciding questions of constitutionality, recognizing the broad discretion given to Congress in
exercising its legislative power. [This part is from the full text which sir was explaining].
However, exercise of power is not absolute. if the challenge to the statute is premised on the
denial of a fundamental right, or the perpetuation of prejudice against persons favored by the
Constitution with special protection, judicial scrutiny ought to be more strict. If there is a
violation in the constitution, the court is duty-bound to apply the provisions of the
constitution [placed the sentence here from the deleted paragraph]. The duty of courts is to
strike down any law repugnant to the constitution and the rights it enshrines.
Again, as a rule, ang act sa other branches of government dili na hilabtan sa court unless you
can show that there is a violation of the constitution or grave abuse of discretion.
AASJ vs. DATUMANONG
The issue is the constitutionality of RA 9225 (AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE
CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP PERMANENT). It cheapens daw the Philippine
Citizenship.
As a rule, the courts must assume that the legislature is ever conscious of the borders and
edges of its plenary powers, and passed laws with full knowledge of the facts and for the
Page 24 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
purpose of promoting what is right and advancing the welfare of the majority. Hence, in
determining whether the acts of the legislature are in tune with the fundamental law, we
must proceed with judicial restraint and act with caution and forbearance. The doctrine of
separation of powers demands no less. However, if there is a violation of the Constitution of
grave abuse of discretion, the court will no longer restrain itself because it has the duty to
resolve the issue of constitutionality.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
Article 8, Section 8, 1987 Philippine Constitution.
A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a
representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar,
a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the
private sector.
(2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four
years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed,
the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for
three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for
one year.
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary.
It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.
Subject to CA confirmation. And their term is only for 4 years [probating? 2:116:47]. The
council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the judiciary. They
may exercise such other functions and duties that the supreme court may assign to them.
Now take note of the terms of office of these regular members.
Members first appointed, the representative of the integrated bar shall serve for 4 years,
the professor of law for 3 years, retired justice for 2 years, and the representative of the
private sector for 1 year.
Unsa ang TUMONG ani nga provision? ang tumong niya is that after naay staggard ilang
terms. Si representative of integrated bar mag serve siyag 4 years, after mahuman niya
iyang 4 years ang next na I appoint sa iyaha mag serve n apud ug 4 years. Si professor of law
3 years. So meaning pag human sa iyang 3 year term, ang next nga iappoint sa iyaha would
now enjoy the full 4 year term. Makita nimo nga katong dili magsunod sunod ang ilahang
terms. Dili in 1 time, silang tanan matanggal ato nga position kay staggard man ang ilang
terms. Si retired justice for 2 years, si first appointee to this position 2 years iyang I serve.
And then ang next appointee na chief justice would now be enyoying a full 4 year term. In
other words in no time therefore nga ang composition sa jbc would be zero kay staggard
ang ilang mga terms.
DE CASTRO VS. JBC
Talks about the safeguard given by the JBC insofar as the appointments to the judiciary are
concerned. Remember that these presidential appointees kaning mga justices of the supreme
court, associate justices of collegiate courts, and judges of the lower courts, they are all
appointed by the president but they need not be confirmed by the CA because they already
went to the sifting process by JBC. The framers need not to extend the prohibition to midnight
appointments to the judiciary because of the establishment of the JBC. They already subjected
these people to the unhurried and deliberate prior process of the JBC to ensure that they
would no longer be midnight appointments to the judiciary. Also, the intervention of the JBC
eliminates the danger that the appointments to the judiciary would deviate for the purpose
of buying votes in the incoming presidential elections or to satisfy partisal consideration. So
gi sala na daw ang gi pang appoint sa president through the JBC na independent sila, qualified
sila to hold that office.
Now in the DE CASTRO VS. JBC, one of the issues presented here is the filing of the writ of
mandamus against the JBC to compel them to submit the list of nominees for this position to
the president.
Can you compel the JBC by way of a writ of mandamus to do its duty? The court said YES!
Insofar as to the transmittal of the list of nominees to the president is concerned, kay duty na
nila, diba? Naay set period in the constitution na dapat ma transmit nila ang list or ma fill upan
dapat na ni president. So in other words, naay time limit si JBC kung dili na niya ma compel
kanang mga dapat mu follow, compellable na siya by mandamus to fulfill that duty. For
mandamus to lie against the JBC, there should be an unexplained delay in its part in
recommending nominees to the Judiciary, that is in submitting the list to the president. So
mao na siya ang pwede nimo ma compel si jbc to fulfill that duty, submit that list. But insofar
as including this nominee to the short, they exercise now discretion. Dili na nimo ma compel
by way of mandamus kay dili naman nila na duty to include that person. they are now
exercising discretion. What a mandamus requires is the compulsion to do a duty.
Here, and principal function sa council is recommend appointees to the judiciary. There must
be a list of at least 3 nominees prepared and submitted to the president and there is a time
frame. So therefore it must comply to these duties. If it does not, it delays the submission of
the list; pwede na siya ma compel by way of mandamus. The duty of the JBC is to submit a list
of nominees before the start of the president mandatory 90 day period to appoint justice of
Page 25 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
the supreme court as embodied in the constitution and that si president must fill that vacated
position within 90 days from the vacation of that office. therefore, dapat si JBC naka submit
na siya ug short list prior to the start of that 90 day period because that 90 day period is given
to the president to appoint associate justice of the supreme court. If the JBC does not do that,
pwede sila ma compel sa mandamus.
Insofar as katong judges of the lower courts are concerned, lahi ang time frame sa ilaha. The
president is given 90 days from the submission of the list from the JBC to him. so didto
magstart ang 90 day period.
Chavez vs. JBC
Remember, 7 members gi himo nilang 8. According to the supreme court that is
unconstitutional. Single representative from congress; “a representative,” verba legis. Clear
ang language sa law.
Jardeleza vs. Sereno
Jardeleza is now an associate justice of the supreme court. What happened here however is
ang manner in which he was excluded by the JBC in the shortlist. Ang nag decline diri is si
justice Abad. Before his retirement, the JBC announced the opening for the application for..
the nominees kung kinsa ang gusto mu puli sa iyang position. Many candidates applied
including Jardeleza; he was included in the name of the candidates as well as to the schedule
of the oral arguments.
However, naay rule ang JBC under rule 10 of JBC-009 section 2 that (this is the unanimity rule)
if there is a question insofar as the requirement of integrity is concerned, before ka ma apil
sa shortlist, you must acquire the unanimous vote of the JBC. Now, chief justice Sereno
invoked that rule against Jardeleza because of the following reasons: gi question iyang ability
to discharge the duties of his office over his handling of an international arbitration case for
the government; alleged extra-marital affairs, and acts of insider training. These issues were
raised for the first time in the June 30, 2014 meeting of the JBC. So on that day, gi ask si
Jardeleza kay gi raise man ni sa council. And then he made himself available, however he
asked for a period to be able to defend himself from the charges. Nevertheless, wala siya gi
tagaan ato nga period because gi release na sa JBC ang list, wala na siya didto.
The JBC denied his request for the deferment of the proceedings for him to defend himself
and proceeded to vote for the nominees to be included in the shortlist. His name was not
included. And so he went to the supreme court to challenge this denial to his right to due
process.
The JBC on the other hand argued that you are not entitled to the right of due process in the
council. It is not an administrative tribunal; its not a judicial tribunal among other things.
So first, can the court assume jurisdiction over this case? Yes
Can the court and JBC be compelled to the writ of mandamus to include Jardeleza in the
shortlist? No because wala nay duty ang JBC to include him. It requires the exercise of
discretion and deliberation.
Can, by way of Certiorari, pwede ba ma question ni Jardeleza ang procedure na gi follow
against him by the JBC? Yes kay discretion man ang gi exercise diri. So pwede na siya by
certiorari.
Lets go to the discussion of the court.
Can the Supreme court rule on this case? Yes because under se A Judicial and Bar Council is
hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court. So the supreme court checks or
gi follow ba sa procedure ang JBC. Supervision is the power to oversight or authority to see
the subordinate officers whether they perform to their duties.
Mandamus? According to the supreme court the writ of mandamus is not available here.
"Mandamus lies to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to
compel the performance of a discretionary duty. There is no question that the JBC’s duty to
nominate is discretionary and therefore it may not be compelled to do something.
Third, the remedy of Certiorari. The JBC argued that its not exercising a judicial or quasi-
judicial function, “nganong i-certiorari man mi nimo?” if this tribunal or entity does not
exercise judicial or quasi-judicial, there is no question therefore insofar as discretion is
concerned; “wala man mi nag rule on anything.”
The court said a petition for certiorari is a proper remedy to question the act of any branch or
instrumentality of the government on the ground of grave abuse of discretion even if the
latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. So the JBC admittedly
does not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions but nevertheless exercise discretion in
this case. Therefore, reviewable by Certiorari.
Now lets go to substantial issues raised by Jardeleza in his complaint. He is challenging the
applicability of this unanimity rule provided in JBC-009 Section 10 Rule 2. The rule provides:
SEC. 2. Votes required when integrity of a qualified applicant is challenged. - In every case
where the integrity of an applicant who is not otherwise disqualified for nomination is raised
or challenged, the affirmative vote of all the Members of the Council must be obtained for
the favorable consideration of his nomination.
Page 26 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
So kung naay issue on integrity, dapat ma convince nimo ang unanimous JBC composition
para ma apil ka sa shortlist. So elicits elicits the rule that a higher voting requirement is
absolute in cases where the integrity of an applicant is questioned.
Now, so, it [transcends] the rule na [inaudible] voting is required. It's absolutely [faces] when
the integrity from an [act] [inaudible] this question. Simple put, when the integrity question
arises the voting requirement for this overt conclusion to alienate to a judicial host becomes
unanimous. Instead of the normal majority vote. So, kung walay question diri na integrity,
majority lang sa JBC ang tagaan [2:29:57 - 2:30:00].
Diri na question diri ang integrity kaning gi invoke ni ang unanimity rule, unanimous vote ang
kelangan. So, this applies only judicial or applicants [born] to witness its challenge. If finds no
application when the question is unrelated to an applicant's moral character or his integrity.
Does this rule, the unanimity rule, apply to Jardeleza's case? Is there an issue in his integrity
here?
The court said, so unsa tong grounds against him? Iyaha daw pag handle sa case, international
case, that is not an issue about integrity because the handling of a case, your adoption of a
specific legal strategy is normal than he deviated from what your peers or your colleagues,
advice you to do. It's normal.
Is adoption the specific legal strategy in the handling of the case, is not relevant and logical
challenge against his moral character. This was a mere disagreement in the legal strategy as
express by a group of international lawyers. The approach taken by him in that case was
opposed to that referred by the legal team but the court said that does not question his
integrity. Disagreement in legal opinion is but a normal if not essential form of interaction
among members of the legal community. He as a lawyer has complete discretion of what legal
strategy to [use].
So the question is not about integrity. What about his extra marital affairs? Yes, kana, apil na
na sa imong integrity. Naa ba kay mga kabit or whatever. It touches on your moral uprightness
or fitness. It is a question on integrity. With a deliberate participation of extra marital affairs
is a disgraceful stain of one's ethical and moral principle. What about the insider trading
allegation? Yes, that is also one question on integrity.
Therefore, in so far as those two grounds are concern, mag apply ang unanimity rule.
However, so dapat makuha ni Jardeleza ang unanimous vote. What happened here however,
was that, he was able to prove na gina deny sya sa iyang right to due process. Now, first of all,
it the right to due process available in the JBC? Yes. He argues that he should have been inform
of the accusations against him in writing. He was not even informed of the basis for that
decisions, he was not even given opportunity to defend himself that he was not given ample
time to defend himself.
So, is the right to due process available in the JBC? As we said earlier yes, why is that? The
court notes that the JBC is unique. They are distinct from criminal proceedings, the JBC
proceedings because they do not find [inaudible tangina] of the accused. Its duties are merely
to recommend qualified nominees to the president and cannot be compared to the duty of
courts to determine the commission of an offense, however, the court do not accept [laps of
???(sorry inaudible gyud)] the argument that an applicant's access to the rights afforded
under the due process clause is discretionary from the part of the JBC. While the facets of
criminal and administrative due process are not strictly applicable to JBC proceedings
therefore peculiarity is insufficient to justify the conclusion that due process is not
demandable.
Why? In JBC proceeding, an aspiring judge or justice, justifies his qualifications for the office.
He presents his proof of scholastic records, among other things. The fact that the proceedings
is sui generis is a personal discretion does not automatically delegate an applicants
entitlement to due process. So, in other words, if you are entitled to due process, in fact there
is a governing JBC rule in so far due process is concern, that is applicable to Jardeleza.
So, the court subscribes to the view that in cases or objection to an applicants qualifications
is raised the observance of due process naay delegates to render [inaudible] the fulfillment of
the JBC to recommend. So, kana, wa may issue iyang qualification as in this case you are given
the right to due process. If he denies the due of objections he is afforded the chance to protest
so that JBC will also be given the chance to view with clearer understanding of the situation.
So, the court cannot accept a situation when the JBC is given a full rate with the application
of the fundamental rights when a persons integrity is put into question.
Was he deprive of due process? Yes, he was not given a reasonable opportunity and sufficient
time to intelligently muster his response. He because of the violation of these rights, what
happened here was that, the council required him to appeal before it and instantaneously
provide his defense. Unsaon pag defend sa imong self no? At the same time didto pa nimo
nahibal an ang allegations against you. In criminal proceedings gani tagaan pa kag period to
rebut the failure of affidavit to prepare your defense.
Here, he should have been given, was he given the opportunity to do so? To be able to defend
himself? Yes, but he was not given a reasonable chance to muster a defense. No, because he
was given, merely given, merely asked to appear in a meeting where he would be right then
Page 27 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
and there subjected to an inquiry. So, karon, na violate niya ang right to due process maapil
na sya sa shortlist?
Thats what happened here, gi apil sya sa shortlist. And he was appointed to the position.
Whether or not he may be included in the shortlist? Yes, the conclusion of the court is hinge
on the following critical courts:
(1) there was a misapplication of the unanimity rule against him in the mandate of the legal
strategy case.
(2) While Jardeleza’s alleged extra-marital affair and acts of insider trading fall within the
contemplation of a "question on integrity" and would have warranted the application of the
"unanimity rule," he was not afforded due process in its application.
(3) The JBC, as the sole body empowered to evaluate applications for judicial posts, exercises
full discretion on its power to recommend nomineesto the President. The sui generischaracter
of JBC proceedings, however, is not a blanket authority to disregard the due process
(4) He was denied of due process when he was neither formally informed on the questions of
his integrity nor to provide a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense with the
foregoing, the court is compelled to rule that he should have been included in the shortlist to
the vacated position.
Diba, gi negate sa SC ang unanimity rule because of the violation of the right to due process
in this case. However, the court said that by who means does it intend to strike down this
unanimity rule because it reflects to JBC policies and its wisdom and its selection of its
nominees. Even so, the court efuses to turn a blind eye on the palpable defects in its
implementation and the ensuing treatment that Jardeleza received before the Council. So this
basis, wala gi declare na unconstitutional ang unanimity rule kaya lang because of the
violation of his rights here and the applicability of that rule to him na deny sya of his right to
due process. Nya ang effect kay na include sya sa list. Nevertheless he had 4 out of 6 votes.
So, gisulod sya sa list.
Villanueva vs JBC
The JBC adopted or required a 5 years service of judges of first level courts before they can
qualify as applicants to second level courts. Is that additional requirement impose by the JBC?
Is that even imposed in the constitution? Yes, why? The JBC is mandated to recommend. Its
his function, appointees to the judiciary, only those nominated by it may be appointed by the
President.
The minimum requirement for judges in the constitution are kuan lang no, while it has been
provided kadto lang nag limitation. Citizen of the Philippines, age requirement, this does not
preclude the JBC from having its own set of rules and procedures and providing policies to
effectively ensure its mandate. It carry now its main function the JBC has the authority to set
the standards/criteria in choosing its nominees for every vacancy in the judiciary, subject only
to the minimum qualifications required by the Constitution and law for every position. So, in
other words, kaning minimum qualifications kay gibutang sa constitution, pwede pa
dungangan.
The ultimate goal of the JBC is to recommend nominees and not simply to fill up judicial
vacancies in order to promote an effective and efficient administration of justice. Is there a
violation of the equal protection of laws, kay if you are a nominee nga dili judge of sitting in a
first level court, apparently this could not apply to you. The court said that there's no violation
of the equal protection clause. Because the rule amidst of the exception, just a valid
classification.
Aguinaldo vs Aquino
Remember this case, kadtong lumping of clusering scheme in the JBC, employed during the
stint of CJ Sereno as ex officio chairman, the court said that this clustering scheme is
unconstitutional. While the JBC has the power to recommend to the president, he cannot
unduly restrict his power to appoint by adopting this kind of mechanism. It impaired the
presidents power to appoint members of the judiciary and to determine the seniority of the
duly appointed justices. This clustering scheme may be use as a device to favor or prejudice
qualified nominee.
There are no objective criteria establish or guidelines for the clustering of the nominees by
the JBC. So, remember the case, di ba mao to 6 openings kabook justices in the
Sandiganbayan. So,the JBC is mandate to submit to the president 3 nominees for each open
position. So, its at least 18. Nag submit si JBC ug more than 30 kabook nominees shortlisted,
but in the shortlist gi separate nila, in this division kani maalis, pila kabook, 6 kabook justices
imong pilian. So on, and so forth.
The president appointed not using that clustering but gi appoint niya, even if [with this
position] gi appoint didto sa other list, he did not follow that clustering scheme. The court
said, that is allowed. Because in the first place, the clustering scheme is invalid. The minimum
requirement of the JBC here is to submit the nominees of at least 3 for every vacancy has
been met. They could not however adapt this clustering scheme to unduly deny the
appointing powers of the president. Especially if the clustering scheme has no particular
objective, standard or criteria.
Supreme Court
Page 28 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
The Supreme Court – Art. VIII
Kailangan inviolate ang iyahang independence, there are several provisions in the
Constitution laid down to protect its independence. It is a Constitutional body which cannot
be abolished by law because it is created by the Constitution.
The members of the Supreme Court are removal only by impeachment, and now, quo
warranto. The Supreme Court may not be deprived of its original and appellate jurisdiction by
law. Its appellate jurisdiction may be increased but cannot be done without its advice and
concurrence.
It has administrative over all inferior courts and personnel, ang murag HR sa iyang sariling
teritoryo. It has exclusive power to discipline judges, justices of inferior courts, employees of
the judiciary, also. They enjoy security of tenure. They cannot remove anyone without due
process. Members of the Supreme Court and the judiciary cannot be designated to any agency
performing any administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
Salaries of judges cannot be reduced. The judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy. The Supreme
Court promulgates the Rules of Court and that cannot be amended by Congress. It also
appoints the officials and employees of the judiciary.
Now what is the composition of the Supreme Court?
It is on Article VIII, Section 4. It shall be composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices.
So there are 15 justices, all in all. 1 CJ and 14 Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its
discretion in 3, 5 or 7 members and any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the
occurrence thereof.
Remember the case of De Castro vs. JBC which talks about the 90-day period which the
President should fill up the vacancy in the Supreme Court. In so far as the other lower courts
are concerned, 90 days to appoint the appointee within 90 days from the receipt of the short
list from the JBC.
Paragraph 2 of the same section talks about when the Supreme Court decides on cases
involving the constitutionality of a treaty or international or executive agreement or law
which shall be heard by the SC en banc.
So, kani na mga instances, dapat en banc and all other cases which the Rules of Court required
to be heard en banc including those involving the constitutionality, application, operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions and other regulations shall be
decided by the majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations of the
cases voted thereon.
Cases or matters heard by the division shall be decided with the concurrence of the majority
of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon and in no case, without the concurrence of at least 3 of its members.
If it is a division of 3 members, how many justices have to vote to validly resolve the case?
It must be unanimous, 3.
What if it is a division of 5 members?
Majority which is 3. In no case, without the concurrence of at least 3 of such members.
When the required number is not obtained? (Tie or if there is no majority)
The case shall be decided en banc. So, it is raised from the division; provided, that the no
doctrine or principle of law laid down in a decision rendered en banc or in a division be
modified by the Court sitting en banc.
So, sometimes, you’ll see that there is a prevailing rule. Tapos later on, naay bag-ong decision
na inconsistent with the previous rule but the new decision is decided in a division.
Can that be done? Can that ruling in that division abrogate or overturn that previous decision
of the SC that is inconsistent with it even if it was decided in a division?
No because to overturn a rule that was decided by the Court in a division or en banc, it must
be the Court en banc that changes that rule.
So, pwde nila i-argue na inconsistent with the previous rule. Pero pag-tan-aw nimo, ay,
division lang diay ana ang nag-rule ana, pwde nimo siya i-argue if you are in favor or against
the applicability of the new decision na it’s not decided by the SC en banc and therefore, it
did not reverse the earlier ruling because it is only the Court en banc that can reverse a ruling
of a Court division preceded principle of law laid down by the Court division or by the Court
en banc.
SC Resolution 2-89 on the guidelines in the referral to the Court en banc of cases assigned to
a division. So, nag-start ang case sa is aka division sa SC, kani ang guidelines kung when siya
irefer to the SC en banc.
Page 29 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
1. The Supreme Court sits either en banc or in Divisions of three, five or seven Members
(Sec. 4[1],Article VIII, 1987 Constitution). At present the Court has three Divisions of five
Members each.
2. A decision or resolution of a Division of the Court, when concurred in by a majority of its
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in a case and voted
thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members, is a
decision or resolution of the Supreme Court (Section 4[3]. Article VIII, 1987 Constitution).
3. The Court en banc is not an Appellate Court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division
may be appealed.
4. At any time after a Division takes cognizance of a case and before a judgment or
resolutions of a Division may refer the case en consulta to the Court en banc which, after
consideration of the reasons of the Division for such referral may return the case to the
Division or accept the case for decision or resolution.
4a. Paragraph [f] of the Resolution of this Court of 23 February 1984 in Bar Matter No. 205
[formerly item 6, en banc Resolution dated 29 September 1977], enumerating the cases
considered as en banc cases, states:
f. Cases assigned to a division including motions for reconsideration which in the opinion of
at least three (3) members merit the attention of the Court en banc and are acceptable by a
majority vote if the actual membership of the Court en banc.
5. A resolution of the Division denying a party's motion for referral to the Court en banc of
any Division case, shall be final and not appealable to the Court en banc.
6. When a decision or resolution is referred by a Division to the Court en banc, the latter
may, in the absence of sufficiently important reasons, decline to take cognizance of the
same, in which case, the decision or resolution shall be returned to the referring Division.
7. No motion for reconsideration of the action of the Court en banc declining to take
cognizance of a referral by a Division, shall be entertained.
8. This Circular shall take effect on March 1, 1989
Now, so, take note of that guideline.
So, unsa ang mag-compose sa SC?
1 CJ and 14 Associate Justices.
It can sit en banc in 3, 5 or 7 members. If there is a vacancy in the SC, dapat mafill up within
90 days from the vacancy thereof. If there is a vacancy in any of the courts below the SC, it
must be filled up within 90 days from the receipt of the President of the shortlist submitted
by the JBC.
There are instances when the Court has to decide cases en banc. For example,
constitutionality of a treaty, international agreement, executive agreement or law,
constitutionality, application or operation of presidential decrees, proclamation or orders,
instructions, ordinance and regulations.
Instances when a case is heard by a division but the required majority is not obtained. Tabla,
dili maresolve against. Dili maresolve in favor. Then, that can be raised to SC en banc.
Cases where the SC modifies or reverses a doctrine laid by the Court in a division or en banc,
only the SC en banc can reverse that or modify it.
Also, the SC en banc decides to vote or determines an issue regarding the dismissal of a judge.
And in cases when the Court acts as the PET, the PET is composed of the SC en banc.
Now, if there’s an issue about the constitutionality of a law, pila ka buok ang minimum number
sa justices of the SC en banc can rule in its constitutionality? For example, there is a law passed
which is in favor to all of us; i.e. tanggalon na ang ENDO, wala na tong probatiomary period,
pag-appoint nimo, hired dayun ka, regular dayun ka.
So, if there is a question on the constitutionality of that law, how many justices, at least, can
decide on the constitutionatlity?
The SC is composed of 15 justices. So, unsa ang majority ana? One-half plus 1? 8 justices.
And if 8 justices are present, they can do business. And out of the 8 justices, pila ang majority?
5, so in other words, 5 justices can already declare a law unconstitutional.
In the previous Constitution, the 1935 Constitution, 2/3 ang kailangan. Karon, majority nalang.
Public Interest vs. Elma
The issue here is about appointment. Elma filed an Omnibus Motion where Elma sought
reconsideration of the Court’s decision in the previous case, Public Interest vs. Elma 2006.
Iyahang prayer pud sa iyang Omnibus Motion is to elevate the case to the SC en banc.
The Court said that this is not an issue that may lead the Court to convene en banc to resolve.
Why?
It talks about the constitutionality of its current appointment but not the constitutionality of
a law, treaty or agreement; and therefore, in the list of the cases the Court must decide en
banc, iyahang appointment is not one of the cases kelangan ang Court mag-sit en banc.
What about the fact that it modifies the previous doctrines laid down by the Court?
Page 30 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
The Court said that the issue did not modify any doctrine. So, it’s not one of the cases to be
decided by the Court en banc.
City of Tagaytay vs. Guerrero
Where the Court faced with a case na gidecidean na sa SC in a previous case, naa na siyay GR
number, 106812.
The Court said that in this case, the foregoing ponencia in GR 106812 is the controlling
precedent in the matters being raised by the instant case anew. Therefore, as a rule, the Court
cannot digress from its ruling.
In fact, the ruling in that instant case has become final and executory. Therefore, as a general
rule, cannot be disputed, relitigated or reopened.
Why?
Because reasons of public policy, judicial orderliness, economy, judicial time, interests of
litigants, peace and order of society all requires that stability be accorded the solemn and final
judgements of courts or tribunals of competent jurisdiction.
Lain pud na every time na magpresent ang SC ug kaso, mag-change na pud, mag-reverse na
pud, etc. So, depende na sa Court. Not all the time, especially if you present a compelling case
to reverse the doctrine that the Court will reverse the same. Kay kelangan stable. Ang atuang
profession baya and even laws rely on stability and predictability.
There are provisions in the Rules of Court that govern cases filed before the SC. For civil cases,
we have Rule 56. In Sec. 1, it talks about the cases where the Court has original jurisdiction.
Meaning, pwde ka mudiretso sa SC mufile aning mga kasuha. But of course, sometimes, the
Court will dismiss, i-endorse sa lower courts on the ground of hierarchy.
Kaning mga original cases, petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus, disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary, attorneys, cases
affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls may be filed originally in the SC.
Now, there are cases na appealed in the SC. Mas daghan ni sila. In fact, Article VIII enumerates
the many instances where the Court exercises appellate jurisdiction.
An appeal by the SC may be taken by a petition for review on certiorari except in criminal
cases where the penalty imposed is death, RP or life imprisonment.
In Section VIII of Rule 56, it talks about what happens if the Court en banc cannot get the
majority. Meaning, kuntahay, 14 ka justices and nag-hear atong kaso, so dapat 7-7, dili
madecidean ang case.
Where the Court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be
had, the case shall be again deliberated on. Kung tie, mag-deliberate na pud and if after such
deliberation, the decision is reached. The original action commenced at the Court shall be
dismissed.
In other words, kung unsa man tong gi-appeal will be sustained. The judgment or order shall
stand affirmed and all incidental matters or motions in the petition shall be denied.
The Rules of Court also provides for the cases to be appealed before the SC in criminal cases
pertaining to Rule 125. The same provision in Sec. 3 in so far as the SC en banc is equally
divided; it’s in the same rule. When the SC en banc is equally divided or the necessary majority
cannot be had on whether to acquit the appellant, the accused, the case shall be deliberated
upon.
Nisaka ang case on appeal before the SC en banc, so magdecide and Court, tabla. Mag-
redeliberate. The Court will deliberate again and if no decision is reached, the judgment of
conviction in the lower court shall be reversed and the accused shall be acquitted. So, mao
ang distinction sa criminal case sa civil case.
The manner of voting and the number or votes required
The SC hears or decides cases either by division or by en banc.
What about the voting?
The voting follows the rule, commonly known as the Shifting Majority.
What is this Shifting Majority?
It means that the only votes of the majority present in the session, there being a quorum, is
required.
Again, previously, in the 1935 Constitution, 2/3 ang required. Karon, majority of the justices,
there being a quorum, lang to rule on that issue.
We first determine that there is a quorum. Kung 15 justices, to have a quorum, dapat more
than half which is 8.
Page 31 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
So, kung naa nay quorum, makadecide na pud sila sa kaso by a mere majority vote. As we said
earlier, the majority of 8 is 5.
However, kung ang magdecide sa case is a division, even if pag 3 justices na, what if 3 justices
and 2 justices voted for the party and 1 justice does not? Would that become a valid decision
of the SC?
No. because there is a requirement under the Constitution that there must be at least 3
justices. So, kung magdecide ang SC division of 3, dapat unanimous sila.
What is the basis of the quorum?
We have AM 10-4-20-SC, Rule 2, Sec. 2.
Sec. 2. Quorum of the Courts en banc. – eight members shall constitute a quorum of the Court.
In the absence of the Chief Justice, the most senior Associate Justice present shall chair the
sessions of the Court.
Composition and quorum in a division is in Sec. 5.
Sec. 5. Composition and Quorum of a Division – Unless the Court en banc decrees otherwise,
a quorum shall consist of a majority of all the Members of the Division, and an absent or a
non-participating regular Member of a Division may be replaced at the request of the regular
Members by a Member designated from another Division in order to constitute a quorum.
So, pursuant to this Administrative Matter, kung nay division of 5, pila ang kelangan na
quorum? 3. Kung mag decideni sila, pila man ang kelangan na quorum? 3 also. Because in no
case, dili pwede mubaba og 3 ang decision.
LEAGUE OF CITIES VS. COMELEC
Take note of this very interesting case.
th
FACTS: What happened is that during the 11 Congress, 57 cityhood bills were filed before
the HR. 33 became laws. So, naa tay bag-ong 33 na Cities. And 24 bills were not acted upon.
Then in the meantime, nay change in the income requirement in the LGC na gi-introduce.
Diba ang minimum requirement is only P20 million? Then, it was proposed to be increased to
P100 million. Katong nabilin na 24 Cities, they wanted to be a City. But, they wanted to be
exempted from that P100 million requirement. So, they filed individual bills to be exempted
from the applicability of the P100 million income requirement.
Ultimately, 16 municipalities were all exempted from the change of the income requirement
and they all became Cities. They were approved, included therein is Mati City.
Now, the cityhood laws were challenged before the SC. And in Nov. 18, 2008 by a vote of 6:5
(6 in favor), the Court ruled that the laws were unconstitutional. So, Mati is no longer a City
after that.
Now, nag MR ang League of Cities on March 31, 2009. And the Court in that case achieved a
6:6 tie vote on MR. unsa gani ang effect if dili ma-achieve and required majority in that MR?
kung unsa tong decision sa SC in the original petition, mao to ang mag-govern. So, denied ang
MR, affirmed ang original decision.
Now, there is a second MR filed on April 28, 2009 which is denied again by the SC by a tie
vote. 6-6. Now, on May 2009, there was a motion to amend the April 28 2009 resolution
denying the 2nd MR. eventually, the decision became final and executory on May 21, 2009. In
other words, on that date, that cityhood laws were unconstitutional.
However, on December 21, 2009, the SC reversed the Nov. 18, 2008 decision despite the fact
that it already become final and executory. Tapos nag MR napud, 3rd MR on Aug 24, 2010.
And the Court reversed the Dec 21, 2009 decision reinstating the original decision that the
cityhood laws were unconstitutional.
Now, another MR was filed on September 2010. And finally, in that case, the SC reversed the
Aug 24, 2010 decision. Thus, ultimately holding that these laws were NOT unconstitutional.
They are valid.
So, Makita nimo na diba naa tay rules of court that govern the stability of the decisions, etc.
katong mga principles na gipang disuss na dapat maging final ang mga decisions. But in this
case, Kapila pa nag flip flop ang SC. Murag ika-upat sila nagchange sa ilang mind.
How did the SC justify its decision?
So, in this 2009 case, this is the decision na nag-reverse sa original decision which is ang
original is unconstitutional ang cityhood laws. Meaning, not unconstitutional, valid sila.
Are the laws valid in this case? Yes.
Now, going to the discussion on the manner by which they still entertained this case despite
the fact na nagging final na ang decision.
Page 32 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Because, here, ang MR dawn a gi-present sa SC while it was decided by the court en banc
presented questions of constitutionality on the laws.
Pursuant to Article VIII, Sec. 4(2), All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en
banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc,
including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be
decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
In other words, katong pag MR, even if MR siya, but it touched on issues on constitutionality,
kelangan gihapon mag decide ang court by a majority vote. Dili pwede na undecided ang vote.
So, the Court is saying here that even if MR to siya, mag-apply n inga rule – na it should be a
decision of the court by a majority because it still talked about the constitutionality of a law.
Issue: WON the required vote set forth in that provision, is it limited to the initial vote on the
petition or to subsequent voting on the MR?
Held: the Court said that it applies to MR particularly dealing with the constitutionality of the
laws. Because at the end of the day, the single issue that matters and the vote that really
counts really turn on the constitutionality of the cityhood laws. And be it remembered that
the inconclusive 6-6 tie vote reflected in the April 28, 2009 Resolution was the last vote on
the issue of whether or not the cityhood laws infringe the Constitution. So, dili pwede na mag-
tie mo, dapat ma-break ang tie because the constitutionality of the law is in question here.
There is that argument that AM 99-1-09-SC that what happens if the SC kung equally divided
in opinion?
The original action commenced in the court shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, the
judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental matters, the
petition or motion shall be denied.
Diba nag-apply man ning the petition or motion should be denied because there was a tie
vote pursuant to this AM?
That Court said that despite that rule, the court said that it has its own power to suspend its
own rules when the ends of justice would be served thereby. It can relax its own rules in order
to resolve the case and bring about what is the required vote what justice entails.
Ultimately in this case, by vote of 6-4, the court granted the MR and held that the cityhood
laws were valid and NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And pinaka recent ani na decision is ang April 2011. But before that, nay decision ang SC on
Feb 2011 where the Court said that we understand nag flipflop mi, ana ang SC we should not
be restricted by technical rules of procedure at the expense of the transcendental interest of
justice and equity. In the April 2011 decision, the Court reiterated its decision that the actions
stated by the Court en banc were strictly in accordance with the Rules of Court and it Internal
Procedure.
And, again, whether the principle of immutability of judgments and bar by res judicata apply
herein, suffice it to state that the succession of the events recounted herein indicates that the
controversy about the 16 Cityhood Laws has not yet been resolved with finality because of
the 6-6 tie votes. As such, the operation of the principle of immutability of judgments did not
yet come into play. For the same reason is an adherence to the doctrine of res judicata not
yet warranted, especially considering that the precedential ruling for this case needed to be
revisited and set with certainty and finality.
So, as of now, the cityhood laws are NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Now, there are requirement in the Constitution in so far as the Courts are concerned. Art. VIII,
Sec. 14 provides:
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly
and distinctly 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 therefor.
Why is that?
Dapat man gud kung nay decision ana, it should be nakabutang dira and mga fact, reason,
judgement, so that you’ll be guided kung nganong ing-ana ang decision sa SC. It is pursuant
to the basic requirements of Due Process. To be notified why it was decided that way and also
to guide the losing party as to how he/she will raise an error pursuant to that decision.
There are 2 basic requirements in so far as the decisions of the Court are concerned:
(1) Formal Requirements
(2) Substantial Requirements.
Page 33 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Formal Requirements
If it is the SC or any court, there is a formal requirement of certification that the case was
reached upon prior consultation. Normally, if the case is deliberated by the SC, it would be
assigned to a member for the writing of a decision after a voting has been had. So, after the
voting is reached, the case is now assigned to a member of the Court to write for the majority.
Other formal requirements would be if there is a dissent, the dissenting opinion must have to
be written. Or, if there is an extension or refusal to participate, the participation of the division
must also be indicated.
Is there such thing na decision sa Court na oral? No. No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based. So, it must be a written decision.
Substantive Requirements
The decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts of the law on which it is based. Again,
this is part of due process so you will know how the court thought about your case, how they
reach a decision. So, kung ma-violate ang imong due process the effect is that the proceeding
is rendered null and void.
Dapat ba naay format sa decision? Dapat ing-ani ang title, kani ang sulod sa decision, dapat
ing-ani katas ang decision, ani kadaghan ang number of words?
The Court said that, no. compliance with the requirements is met if the decision express
clearly and distinctly the facts of the law on which it is based. Bisag 1 paragraph lang siya but
it talks clearly and distinctly the facts of the law, then there is compliance with that.
In fact, there are decisions that we call as memorandum decisions, which simply copies
portions of the lower Court subject of the review. The Rules of Court do not make these
memorandum decisions invalid because as long as it substantially complied with the
requirement that the facts and the law in the decision are stated then it is valid.
Ex: the court finds the following facts, the issues, the ruling of the lower court is this, the court
affirms. There is nothing wrong with that. for as long as there are presentation of facts and
the law is applied to the decision, then that would suffice.
We have cases here where the court in question violated that rule.
MANGELEN v. CA
Facts: the respondent appellate court here adopted the factual findings of the Trial Court held
that the Trial court did not commit any reversible error.
Now, the losing party filed a MR in the IAC. and later on, granting that MR, the IAC said that
the movants have good and valid defenses as a amplified in their motion for reconsideration
and their reply to Opposition which in fairness to the lower court, We will not point out, since
this is default case so that any decision of the lower court will not in any way be preempted
in the interest of justice. Reversing the original decision.
Issue: Is that compliance with the requirement of the Constitution?
Held: The Court said that NO. the challenged decision here, that decision granting the MR,
leaves much to be desired.
The first decision was valid. Katong gi-adopt ni appellate court and decision sa lower court
with the facts, the laws, the ruling. With that considered, katong pag reverse karon ni IAC sa
iyahang original decision necessitated a full-blown decision as to why it reversed its decision.
Dili pwede na good ang iyahang decision or valid.
Good and valid defenses in their submissions reversing the original decision.
Such decision had to be completely overturned or set aside upon he filing of an MR in the
subsequent action via resolution and modify decision such resolution or decision should
likewise state the facts and the legal foundations relied upon particularly because its reversing
its own ruling.
The court, in this case, violated the manner or requirements as to how decisions shall be
crafted.
GERMAN MACHINERIES vs. ENDAYA
The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Endaya and the NLRC affirmed its decision
with modification. The GM petitioned for MR, but the same was denied by the NLRC.
It elevated now by way of Certiorari before the CA and the latter issued a resolution dismissing
the resolution for certiorari. It was now challenged before the CA because in that resolution
because it was not expressfully and distinctively the facts and the law which is due in this
case.
The court said that the assailed resolution here of the CA is not a decision contemplated under
Art. 8 Sec. 14 of the Constitution.
Page 34 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
The mandate is only applicable only in cases that are submitted for decision. It will not apply
whether matter is submitted to the court for resolution particularly of it denies due force to
a petition and state the legal basis thereof for example - minute resolutions which are stated
in a one-page decision.
The court said that it is valid. In this case, the CA denied due course and outrightly dismissed
the petition of certiorari on the grounds that factual issues had been passed by the NLRC. The
court said that, since its factual findings are in agreement with the findings of the labor
arbiter, the same are binding and conclusive upon the CA and so when the CA dismissed the
case by resolution, the court said that the these legal bases is in conformity with the decision
on the Constitution.
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
There is a demurer of evidence and it was granted by the Sandiganbayan. Demurer to
evidence meaning, the pieces of evidence were already presented by the prosecution and the
latter already rest its case. Now, it is the turn of the defense to present its evidence. In the
meantime, before the demurer to evidence be filed with or without leave of court, you are
basically asking the court to dismiss the case right there and then because the prosecution
failed to establish its case.
The guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not established or it failed to establish in the first
place, the prosecution its case, they failed to hit the elements etc. Basically, it is a motion to
dismiss.
Now, the Sandiganbayan granted the demurer to evidence, the state complained thereafter
on the ground that the facts and laws were not written for the grant of demurer be valid.
The court said that there was a compliance with such a requirement. A demurer to evidence
must likewise comply with that because it is nevertheless a decision which decides the case.
Just because it was decided by the court prior to the full presentation of evidence of both
parties, it is nevertheless a decision. In fact, the effect of the demurer to evidence, it granted
acquittal of the accused and therefore if the latter is acquitted, the rule on double jeopardy
shall be applied.
In the threat of the demurer to evidence, the case will be full blown, and the court said that it
was done in this case.
LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE
The CA affirming with modification the decision of the Trial Court. What was challenged here
is the verbatim VERBATIM COPYING OF THE CA not only the facts but also the arguments and
discussions including the legal authorities in disposing of the bill of one party.
ISSUE: Can verbatim copy be done?
HELD:
Yes, because the decisions states clearly the facts and the laws upon which the same is based.
This decision also talks about the forms of decisions:
There are actually decisions of the lower court that the court (sufree) for the sustain because
they substantially or sufficiently complied with the Constitutional Requirement even if much
to be decide in terms of their clarity, coherence, and comprehensibility, provided that they
still set up the facts and the law upon which the same was based.
What happens when the rule is violated? ----no facts and no law
HELD: There will be a denial of the right to due process. The losing party is supposed to know
why he/she lost so he/she may appeal to the higher court. If not compliant with the
requirement of the Constitution, it leaves the parties in darkness as to how it was reached
and it is prejudicial to the losing party, who will now be unable to pinpoint the possible error
of the court for review by a higher tribunal. Considering that it violates the right to due process
among others, the decision will be considered void.
What about memorandum decisions?
The act of the trial court completely copying the memorandum submitted by a party
nevertheless stating the facts and the law, can that be done by the RTC and the CA?
YES, although it is not a good practice, the court has said that it is not illegal in the act of the
trial court completely copying the memorandum submitted by a party provided that a
decision clearly and sufficiently states sufficient findings of fact and the law of which the
findings are based especially if the decision will to be used is the sole bases because there is
no other way by which the court can dispose the case in the manner it was presented by one
of the parties.
If what was stated in the decision is the existing law, controlling precedent, then the court
may be bound by that. It is unnecessary for the court to craft a new wordings of decision to
give due credence therefor.
Page 35 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
AS A RULE: IT IS NOT ILLEGAL, ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD NOT BE THE PRACTICE, BUT IT IS NOT
ILLEGAL.
What is a memorandum decision anyway?
It is a decision which adopts by reference the findings and facts and conclusions of law
contained in the decisions of the inferior courts and this may be validly resorted to on the
grounds of EXPEDIENCY, PRACTICALITY, CONVENIENCE, and DOCKET STATUS. The court said
that these kinds of decisions are valid.
When JUDICIARY is talked about, it is therefor included the topic referring to the PERIOD by
which the cases are decided.
JUSTICE DELAYED, JUSTICE DENIED (kaya sagutin mo na ako, cheret)
The Constitution, however, provides for mandatory periods for courts to decide the case.
Is this being followed?
Art. 8 Sect. 15
All cases or matters filed after effectivity of this Constitution.
For Supreme Court Decision, for the resolution of the Supreme Court ---- must be resolved in
24th month from the day of submission ----SUBMISSION/RESOLUTION.
Meaning, all court proceedings, after receiving all the documents, the case is now ripe for
adjudication, it is now submitted for resolution.
Unless reduced by the SC, 12 months for all lower collegiate courts and 3 months for all other
courts.
A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the
last pending pleading, brief, or memorandum, required by the rules of court or the court itself.
What happens if the mandatory period expires , especially with the SC?
Article 8 Sec. 15 Paragraph 4 - despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the
court without prejudice to such responsibility as may be incurred in the consequences thereof
shall decide or resolve the matter submitted for determination without further dealings. In
other words, the Constitution is saying that decide it nevertheless, but you can be
administratively sued for the delay in the promulgation of the decision thereof - JUSTICE
DELAYED, JUSTICE DENIED.
The courts are very slow in deciding cases. It corrodes the image of the court, when the case
is filed before the court and there is a tendency that such decision will be promulgated after
the entire Philippines has been covered with sea waters.
There are also cases by which there are shorter deadlines for example the decision of the
Supreme Court when there is a case filed before it to determine the factual basis of Martial
Law or the Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus where the court has
promulgated it s decision within 30 days from its filing. THIS IS AN EXCEPTION CASE FORM
THE 24,12, and 3 months rule from the date the case is submitted for resolution.
Here, if there is a Martial Law or Suspension, 30 days from filing of the petition for pleading.
We have cases whereby the Judges of the Courts were subjected to disciplinary proceedings:
OCA vs. FUENTES
There are plenty of case loads under the chamber of Judge, which he failed to decide within
the reglementary 90-day period.
The Judge made an excuse that he is not a resident of the place where the court is located -
that his chamber is in Bohol, but he lives in Osamis City, thus he has to go home from time to
time upon proper leave to visit his family, which process has affected his health and greatly
hampered his case disposition.
The SC penalized him administratively because prior judges are mandated to decide and
resolve cases within 90 days form the submission for decision or resolution. Sometimes the
case would reach 20 years, 12 years, and it is then the prosecution stops producing and
receiving evidence then it is thereafter the court shall issue an order that was submitted for
decision - it then the 12 months or 24, even if it was filed 20 years before.
The Judges and Justices are required to comply with this constitutionally set periods otherwise
they might be held liable administratively.
If you were a judge, and in the abovementioned case, there was a valid reason,and that the
judge several complaints regarding body pain. The court said that it is not unmindful of the
situation of this judge. It remained sympathetic to him. And therefore what we could have
done is to file a request for an extension of time to decide the case, but here he did not make
Page 36 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
such request. Therefore, the judge was not granted since he never asked permission at all ,
he should have asked for more for extension for good reasons.
IN RE CARBONEL
The same, why is it required to render decision of the cases with dispatch?
The trial judge shall all times act with efficiency and probity. Why? the effect if he delays is
that the delay in the disposition of cases is a major culprit in the erosion of the public faith
and confidence to the Judicial System.
As judges have the sworn duty to administer justice without due delay. We are nation of Law
therefor we should not put the same in our ow hands. Nevertheless, sometimes we have to
play the practical aspect of such recourse because of the current situation of our court.
As future lawyers good in practice, great lawyers with integrity, as much as possible, we
should not file or so letigious ---- keep on filing cases. As much as possible, we try to settle.
The judge here failed to comply with the mandatory period within which he should decide the
case therefore he was held administratively liable.
JUDGE BALUNGAG
Under the Constitution, and the Code of Judicial Conduct, there is a period within which the
court must decide the case. All cases or matters must be decided or resolved for collegiate
courts 12 months, lower courts 3 months, otherwise, the judge will be held liable. JUSTICE
DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. If the judge fails to do that, he can be held liable for gross
inefficiency, warranting the impositions of administrative sanctions upon him.
The judge may ask for extension and the same may be granted by the court – within which
the court must decide the case.
All cases or matters must be decided or resolved for collegiate courts –12 months, for lower
courts – 3 months. Otherwise, liable administratively because justice delayed is justice denied.
If the judge fails to do that he may be held liable for gross inefficiency warranting the
imposition of administrative sanctions.
Now, the rule is tempered if the judge can ask for extension the same is granted by the court.
In this case, he did not do so. there was no request and reason and did not comply to the
period to decide the case. therefore, he was held liable administratively.
The court has also emphasized the rule-making powers. So much so, that in the 1987
Constitution, it cannot be amended by the Congress unlike the previous constitution where
the Congress can amend by way of law. But now, it is an exclusive power by the Supreme
Court. This can be found: Article 8 Section 5 par 5 (Promulgate Rules)
YLAYA VS GACOTT
This case talks about the nature of disbarment proceedings. Just note here that disbarment
proceedings are Sui Generis. It may be initiated by the court motu proprio or it can be initiated
by the party. parties are given due process, here the due process was given to the lawyer. He
was administratively sanctioned here for fooling his client in executing SPA and sold the
client’s property to his relatives. So there was betrayal of trust and he was punished by the
Supreme Court.
ASTIPONA VS LOBRIGO
This talks about the provision on constitutionality of Section 23 of RA 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act because it prohibits the one to avail plea bargain. The
court declared this specific provision as unconstitutional because this talks about a matter of
procedure before the courts that should not be interfered by the Congress. Plea Bargaining
can be found on the Rules of Court particularly Rule 116 on arraignment and plea and Rule
118 on pre-trial. So it is a procedural rule therefore plea bargaining cannot be prohibited by a
law.
ECHEGARAY VS SECRETARY
Echegaray a rapist, sentenced to death penalty by lethal injection. However, he went to the
Supreme Court and challenged the provision of IRR of RA 8177 (concerning Death Penalty and
lethal injection).
Can the court in that case declare a valid several provisions of the IRR? and it also made in
the decision that respondents are enjoined from enforcing and implementing RA 8177 until
the IRR is appropriately amended.
So can the Supreme Court suspend the decision of the lower court which is final and
executory? (Because it affects judicial independence)
It was held that the Court has no jurisdiction to restrain the execution of Echegaray because
it diminishes the independence of the Judiciary. The court has the power to regulate the
execution of their judgments. Just because the judgment is final, its execution is different.
Therefore, the person can still avail remedies pursuant to the execution. It is a long process.
One of the remedies is the power of the court, for valid reasons to not execute the decision.
So the court said that it is within its power to do so because it is within the Rules of Courts.
The court wants to emphasize in this case that change in the phraseology of the 1987
Constitution which now excluded the power of congress to modify the rules of procedure
Page 37 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
promulgated by the Supreme Court. (unlike the previous Constitutions) now, the rule making
power of the court is expanded but most importantly the 1987 Constitution took away the
power of the Congress repeal, alter, or supplement rules dealing and concerning practice and
procedure. So this power is no longer shared with the Congress as well as with the Executive.
Article 8 Section 6 gives the Supreme Court Administrative Supervision (Remember the
definition of supervision: higher authority makes sure that those below him or her complies
in their duties, and it also includes the power of discipline and sanctions for non-compliance)
What is the extent of the Administrative Supervision power of the Supreme Court? – Among
others it can temporarily assign judges but not more than 6 months without the consent of
the judge concerned. The court can also change the venue of where the case is pending to
avoid miscarriage justice.
Now, going to the matter of supervision of lower courts we have the case of:
CAOIBES VS OMBUDSMAN
(Case where two judges where fighting and punching each other over furniture)
Caoibes requested to return the executive table he borrowed from Alombres so they punched
each they punched each other. Eventually, Judge Alombres filed in the office of Ombudsman.
Because these are public officials and it involves a furniture in the judiciary, so they filed
before the Ombudsman. He prayed that criminal charges should be filed against Judge
Caoibes before the Sandiganbayan.
Judge Alombres also filed and administrative conplaint before the Supreme Court praying for
the dismissal of Caiobes on the ground of grave misconduct. What did the office of
Ombudsman do when it received the complaint? So the complaint was entertained and
required respondent (Caiobes) to file a CA. Now what did Caiobes do? He went to the Supreme
Court on the argument that it is not the office of the Ombudsman but the Supreme Court has
authority (take note this is a criminal case not an administrative matter) he argued that they
are both members of the bench therefore they are under the control and supervision of the
Supreme Court.
So, does the office of ombudsman have jurisdiction to resolve this criminal case against Judge
Caiobes?
The office of the Ombudsman cannot entertain this criminal case against a judge because the
ombudsman cannot determine for itself of a criminal complaint against a judge because it
involves and administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against
judges filed before the Supreme Court for determination if the administrative aspect is
invoked therein. In other words, if you file a case in the office of Ombudsman it is required to
refer that case in the Supreme Court. Then the Supreme Court will determine if there is an
administrative matter here or is this criminal matter. So it must undergo the Supreme court,
the same holds true regardless whether the administrative case based on the act subject to
the complaint is already pending with the court.
Why? Aside from the fact the Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is
informed of it, he should give due respect and recognition to the administrative authority of
the court because in determining whether an administrative matters is involved the court
passes not only an administrative liability but also other administrative concerns. So the
Ombudsman cannot dictate and bind the court on its findings if the case has administrative
implications or not because it will deprive the Supreme Court of its administrative
prerogatives.
FUENTES VS OMBUDSMAN
This happened in Davao, talks about the building in flyover. The court administrator here of
the Supreme Court directed Judge Fuentes and Sheriff Paralisan to comment on the report
recommending the filing of an administrative complaint on the sheriff and on the other
persons responsible for the anomalous implementation of the writ of execution.
In the meantime, there is also a criminal case filed in the Ombudsman and eventually the
office of the deputy Ombudsman from Mindanao field a criminal case charging judge Fuentes
with the violation of the anti-graft law. Also, there is a recommendation in the same action
document of the office of Ombudsman that the judge should be administratively charged
before the Supreme Court.
So the office of the Ombudsman therefore decided there is a criminal liability and at the same
time criminal liability. Can the ombudsman do that?
No. the ombudsman may not initiate or investigate criminal or administrative complaint
before his office against a judge pursuant to his powers to investigate public officers. He must
endorse the case to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. Why? Article 8 Section 6 vests
exclusively the supreme Court with Administrative supervision over all courts and court
personnel.
ADAJAR VS DEVELOS
So they were court employees and Adajar filed misconduct complaint before the office of
Ombudsman arguing that the issue is not related to their job. What did the office of
Ombudsman do? It took cognizance of the case. was it proper?
Page 38 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
It was not proper (especially this is an administrative complaint). Why? It is only the Supreme
Court who can oversee the judges and court personnel’s compliance with all laws and take
the proper administrative action against them of they commit any violation. so it is only the
supreme court who can determine if it is part of its job. No other branch of the government
can intrude into this power without impairing the doctrine of the separation of powers. The
office of the Ombudsman should not took cognizance and dismissed the case but should have
referred instead into the Supreme Court
*ADAJAR V. DEVELOS*
What should it have done? It should have, as you said earlier. Ha? Unsaon niya sa Supreme
Court? I-refer. I-endorse. Ang instant complaint to the Supreme Court for appropriate action
instead of resolving the same. So here, the decision rendered by the office of the ombudsman
dismissing the case did not have any force and effect on the present administrative case
involving the Supreme Court. Thank you.
*CIVIL SERVICE V. RAMONEDA PITA*
Here, prior sya nagging empleyado sa Court, she was an officer of another government
agency. Gifile-an syag administrative case because she was not honest in her PDS, katong
required document kay dili sya its administrative jurisdiction over this person considering,
so mao tong general rule, mag kuan ta ani, dili namo nii-comply na resolution because this
person is now a member of the judiciary and only the Supreme Court has administrative
jurisdiction over her. However the court said that, considering that the Civil Service already
conducted both fact finding and formal investigations and this person was already given due
process in the Civil Service, it found no reason why it should not replicate what the Civil Service
has done *inaudible*
So, GENERAL RULE, dili na basta2 iadopt sa SC but here nahuman na man ang proceedings so
pwede nila iadopt tong decision and implement the corresponding penalty against this
person. What was interesting here was that kato lagi, nahimo na syang empleyado by the SC
by that time nga naa nay decision ang CSC.
*IN RE: REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE*
Atty. Candelaria of the SC requested the SC for guidance or clarification on the applicability of
IRR of RA 10154, that the retiring employee shall seek clearance of pendency or non-pendency
of administrative case for his/her employee, CSC, office of the ombudsman or in case of
presidential appointees, from the office of the president.
Covered ba daw ang mga muretire na empleyado sa judiciary ani nga IRR. Did this bind the
employees of the judiciary?
NO, because the Constitution exclusively vests in the supreme court administrative
supervision over all courts and court personnel. It oversees the court’s personnels compliance
with all laws and takes the proper administrative action against them for any violation thereof.
The court rules that the provision here which requires the retiring government employees of
the judiciary to secure a prior clearance should not be made applicable to them.
Why? Because it would disregard the Court’s constitutionally inscribed power of
administrative supervision over its personnel. In fact retiring court personnel are already
required to secure a prior clearance of non-pendency or pendency of administrative cases
from the court making these additional clearances superfluous. However, insofar as pending
criminal cases are concerned, it’s a different matter. It must however be noted that since the
Constitution accords to the judiciary, administrative supervision over its personnel, a different
treatment for the clearance requirements obtains with respect to criminal cases.
So kung naa kay pending na criminal case, in a specific agency, normally since you are a
government official, gina file na sa office of the ombudsman kay mao na ang naga prosecute.
So asa ka mangayo ug clearance to determine if you have a pending criminal case? The same
office. Valid sya insofar as that kind of clearance is concerned. You secure it with the office of
the ombudsman kay criminal matter man sya.
Among the administrative powers of the court also as we said earlier, assign judges to other
stations in the interest of the public, order a change of venue, and more importantly,
discipline judges.
The disciplinary power of the SC over these court employees including judges, and justices of
Courts below the SC is found in Art. VIII, Sec. 11.
The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good
behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the
duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges
of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
*PEOPLE V. GACOTT*
There was an administrative case filed against Judge Gacott for grave abuse of discretion. So
administrative case sya, padulong kay Supreme Court, the second division of the SC, meaning
Page 39 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
dili court en banc, naglay down sa penalty against him of reprimand and fine for gross
ignorance of the law. He did not accept that penalty, so he filed an MR before the SC, arguing
that it should have been the SC en banc that has the power to discipline judges of lower courts.
And it is only the full court and not a division thereof that could administratively punish him.
WON the full court, not a division can administratively punish the lower court judge.
The court said there are two situations contemplated in Sec. 11, Art 8. The first clause which
states that the SC en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts is a
declaration of the grant of that disciplinary power to, and the determination of the procedure
for the exercise of by the SC en banc. The second clause which refers to the second situation
contemplated here, as the intention separated by a comma, declares on the other hand, the
Court en banc can order their dismissal, the dismissal of judges by a vote of majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations in the issue on the case and voted
thereon. Pursuant to that provision, the Court issued Bar Matter No. 209 where the court
provided that the following cases are considered en banc cases included diri ang cases with
the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the judiciary,
disbarment of a lawyer, or either, the suspension of any of them for a period of more than
one year or a fine exceeding ten thousand or both.
Thus, only in those cases will it necessitate the court en banc’s recognition over the case. It is
only when the penalty imposed is based on the foregoing as enumerated that, that
administrative matter will be decided by the SC en banc. Here, ang giimpose sa iyahana
penalty is only reprimand and fine of 10,000 considering that mao to ang giimpose sa iyahana
penalty, then it need not be decided by the SC en banc. Moreover, a decision or resolution of
the SC division is nevertheless a decision or resolution of the SC itself.
Now, the court has also the power to appoint its officials and employees under Art. VIII, Sec
5, par. 6.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
Who appoints judges and justices? It is the President who appoints judges and justices.
Who appoints employees of the SC? Below katong mga presidential appointees, kaya na sila
iappoint by the Supreme Court.
So anyway we have qualifications for appointment. Remember katong discussion nato tung
requirement for you to become a justice of the SC. What about judges of lower courts? In Sec.
7 par. 2. Art VIII
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person
may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the
Philippine Bar.
So the basic constitutional requirement for you to be a judge is that you must be a citizen of
the Philippines, wala gispecify kung natural-born, and a member of the Philippine Bar. But
under BA 129, so this is the law, it prescribes for the qualifications of the following judges:
RTC: Natural-born, at least 35 years of age, and must have been for at least 10 years engaged
in the practice of law or public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of
law as an indispensable requisite
MTC/MTCC/MCTC: Natural-born citizen, at least 30 years of age, at least 5 years engaged in
the practice of law or held public office in the Philippines requiring the admission to the
practice of law as an indispensable requisite.
And remember the previous case we discussed na nag-add ug additional requirement ang JBC
na kung judge ka of a first level court dapat 5 years kanag practice before you can be
appointed to a higher level court or to a second level court, and the court said that is a valid
additional requirement. Anyway, so kadto ang mga requirements under BP 129.
Now, kinsa ang nagasift sa mga applicants to the judiciary? What entity? It is the JBC. As we
discussed already and remember sa matter on appointment, it is for purposes of
appointment, it is the commission, kadtong document nga nagabutang didton a appointed
ka, it is the date of the commission kung when sya giapprove or gisign sa appointing authority
that determines your seniority as held in the case of
SENIORITY AMONG FOUR APPOINTMENTS.
The earlier the date of the commission, the more senior the justice or appointee is.
SALARY? We discussed that already. The salary of the Chief Justice and Justices of the SC, and
judges of the lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their salary
shall not be decreased.
Congress however has the power to reorganize the judiciary, as we discussed before no, it is
the law that determines the jurisdiction of our courts, it can abolish all the courts below the
SC if it deems na proper sya or it can create new courts, establish the jurisdiction of courts
among other things. But, ang iyahang prohibition lang is that dili niya pwede machange kung
unsa tong jurisdiction sa SC nag ibutang na sa Constitution itself because that would be
constitutional amendment.
Also, the Congress may increase the appellate jurisdiction of the SC but it cannot do so without
its advice and concurrence.
Page 40 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Also, no law can be passed reorganizing the judiciary if it undermines the security of tenure
of its members but we already know the case of
DE LA LLAMA V. ALBA.
Katongpag-abolish samga lower courts, the court said that if the abolition of the office is done
in good faith, then there is no violation of the right to security of tenure. Such as what
happened here. Why? Because there can be no tenure to a non-existent office. Actual
abolition there is in law no occupant, in case of removal, kani on the other hand, there is an
office with an occupant who would lose his position but in abolition there is no such office
within which you could anchor your tenure on. Especially if the abolition is not in good faith.
Removal of justices and judges. So SC justices are only removable by impeachment and quo
warranto. What about judges of lower courts of SC? Discipline by the SC.
PEOPLE V. GACOTT
As we discussed earlier diba, ang first clause talks about the general grant of the power to the
SC to discipline but there is a separation in the second clause insofar as dismissal and the
imposition of heavier penalties are concerned. So kadto tong mga instances where the SC en
banc ang mag deliberate but if dili ing-ato, dismissal, disbarment of a lawyer, suspension of
any of them for more than one year or a fine of more than ten thousand or both. Dili na sya
necessarily needed to be discussed by the SC en banc.
Jurisdiction, remember that the SC has original and appellate jurisdiction? And we discussed
earlier the instances nga pwede marecognize ni SC in its original jurisdiction katong, particular
tung pleading in the first instance. Now let’s talk about the appellate jurisdiction of the SC
under Art. VIII, Sec. 5. Remember katong nagsugod pa ta aninga course, katong power of
judicial review, when we asked, can the lower courts decide the constitutionality of a law,
ordinance? Can they?
YES.Because the SC has the appellate power to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, final judgments and orders of lower courts in example, all cases in which
the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, in other words, naa nay original decision subject
to appeal to the SC. So in the first case, nagdecide na ang lower court ato nga matter, the
constitutionality of kato, treaty kana sya etc.
Now, remember the case of
YNOT V. IAC.
Katong carabao? The court said that, it did not rule on the validity of the executive order here
because according to the court you cannot declare laws as unconstitutional, only the SC can
do that. The court said, you can do that. The court has declared that the lower court should
observe modesty in examining constitutional questions, you are nonetheless, not prevented
from resolving the same whenever warranted subject to review by the SC.
Mandatory period for resolution, decision of cases:
ADAO V. JUDGE LORENZO
Wala sya nag-ask for an extension of time to decide the case, wala niya na-fulfill ang period
under the Constitution and under the rules nga dapat madecide na nya ang case
administratively held liable. He cannot also use as excuse the administrative and criminal
complaints filed against him to justify his delay in the because according to him daghan kayo
kog ginaatubang na mgaproblema, walakoy time magresolve, that’s not a valid excuse.
Now we are done with the judiciary, now let’s go to the Constitutional Commissions.
So, unsa ni sila? Unsa ni ngmga constitutional commissions? So timan-e tulo ra ni sila kabuok.
COA, COMELEC, CSC
Art. IX-A, Sec. 1
The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
Asa man diraang CHR? WALA. So walasyagi-enumerate dirasa Constitutional Commission.
Now, these constitutional commissions are placed in the Constitution as one of the checks
and balances mechanism. To check the excesses of the different branches of the government.
And ang COA, diba i-audit niya ang pag spend sa kwarta, ang CSC, icheck niya kung tama baang
appointment process, promotion, removal among other things, and the COMELEC insofar as
the electoral processes are concerned. So importante kayo ilang role. Therefore, they must
be accorded independence. And the Constitution provides general safeguards for their
independence. What are they?
These commissions are constitutionally created, and therefore they cannot be abolished by
statute. So since the CHR is not a constitutional commission, pwedesyamaabolish by statute.
Anyway, each is conferred certain powers and functions which cannot be reduced by statute,
they are independent, expressly described by the Constitution to be so, chairman and
members are fairly given a long term of office for 7 years, they can only be removed by
Page 41 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
impeachment, and now quo warranto, chairman and members may not be reappointed or
appointed in an acting capacity, their salaries are relatively higher, they enjoy, these
commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy. They may promulgate their own rules of procedure, the
chairman and members are subject to certain disqualifications to strengthen their integrity,
and the commissions may appoint their own officials and employees in accordance with Civil
Service Law.
There are prohibitions for members and chairman of these Constitutional Commissions:
1. No member of the constitutional commission shall during his tenure hold any other
office or employment, pareha sa kastrikto didto sa executive department, hold any
other office or employment, wala gispecify kung government ba or not
2. Engage in the practice of any profession
3. Engage in the active management and control of any business, which in any way may
be affected by the functions of his office, so the general rule, kung negosyante ka and
if Nakita nimo nga naa nay conflict of interest, you have to divest your interest.
4. They cannot be financially interested directly or indirectly in other contracts with or
in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries.
Now, nay discussion kadtong prohibitions. But before we go there, let’s talk about the nature
of the CHR.
CHR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. CHR
Where the court described the, among others, the nature of the CHR. First, it enjoys a limited
form of fiscal autonomy. The CHR is not among the class of constitutional commissions as
expressed because, klaro didto sa gimention nato na provision nga tulo ra sila kabuok
recognized as constitutional commission. CHR, you’re not one of us. So, dili sya constitutional
commission. Nor there is legal basis to support the contention of the CHR that it enjoys the
fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the constitutional commissions. Fiscal autonomy entails freedom
from outside control, allocate and utilize its own funds, dispatch its needs as its needs may
inquire.
Now, settled under the Constitution and jurisprudence that the only entities that enjoy full
fiscal autonomy are the judiciary, the 3 commissions, CSC, COMELEC, COA, and the office of
the ombudsman. Neither that the fact that the CHR’s grant was admitted as a member of the
CFAG, the constitutional fiscal autonomy group, that it is clothed with fiscal autonomy
because that privilege is not granted by membership but rather, by a constitutional provision.
CHR, although admittedly a constitutional creation, gina mandatesa constitution ang pag
create ani nga entity is nonetheless not included in the genus of offices accorded fiscal
autonomy by the constitutional or legislative fiat. So, kato, naa lang syay, lahi ang iyahang
nature, insofar as the three other commissions are concerned. It is not therefore as powerful
as the other three.
So going back to the Constitutional Commissions and the prohibitions against its members
and chairman, Art. IX-A, sec.2 ang mga prohibitions.
We also learned that the CHR is not part of the 3 constitutional commissions. Now, in the case
of
Ifurung vs. Carpio-Morales,
the court defined what a commission is. Because the issue is the applicability of Rotational
Plan to the Office of the Ombudsman. (Katong rotational plan sa 3 (Constitutional
Commissions), applicable basa ombudsman?)
But the Court said that it’s not a commission. A Commission is a board or commission officially
appointed and empowered to perform certain acts or exercise certain jurisdiction.
Commissions are composed of members, so it’s a collegial body, where decision nailahanggi
reach is done through consensus, majority of the body.
But that is not applicable to the Office of the Ombudsman because it is governed by one
individual, and that is the Ombudsman.
The rotational plan: What is the import?
Nganongnaay rotational plan ningmga constitutional commissions nato? The requirement in
the Constitution. Tanawonninyosa Constitution… Ang start sa term sakatong first nagipang
appoint sa Constitutional Commissions is staggered. Ang 1st is to serve 7 years, the next is 5
and then the next is 3. But the Subsequent appointments will enjoy the 7 year term. Which is
angnahitabo is that every 3 years, there would be a new commissioner. Para every 3 years,
magappointsi president ng commissioner.
So that’s the point no? Para dilinimomacontrolangisaka commission by appointing all of the
members during his term
The Constitution adopted a regular rotation or cycle in the membership of the Constitutional
Commissions; by having subsequent members appointable only once every 3 years. The
intention to have only one position vacant every 3 years [5:02], so that NO PRESIDENT CAN
APPOINT MORE THAN 1 COMMISSIONER, thereby preserving and safeguarding the
independence and impartiality of the commission as a body.
Page 42 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
For the operation of this Rotational Plan to succeed, or to exist in the first place, the Following
Rules must be present:
1. That the terms of the 3 commissioners should start at a common date:
perodilisilasabaysabay mag expire angmga appointments. Kay katonguna, si
chairman: 7 years. Ang next: 5 years; ang next, kay 3 years.
So definitely, mas earlier magexpireang appointment ni 3rd appointee. Pulihandiayni
new appointee, who will now enjoy a 7 year term. Ang second appointee, mag expire
pudiyahang appointment after 5 years, taposilisdannagihaponsyani new appointee
with a 7 year term. So karun, bantug staggered angilahang term, so dili ma-appoint
all at once by the same president.
2. Any vacancy due to death, resignation, or disability before the expiration of the term
of the commissioner; For example na [taichik???] (patay) after 2 years, unya 7 years
angiyang term, naa pay 5 years: The new appointee to that, will only be able to serve
5 years; dilipwedenasi new appointee will be given 7 years as a new fresh period
because mabunkagnakaronang term. So karon, dapatkungunsaang term
nanabilinatongnamatay, na disable, or nagresignna commissioner, maolangpud tong
i-enjoy ni new appointee para mapreserveang 7 years rotational scheme.
Let’s go the particular commissions. Let’s first start with
Civil Service Commission.
Makita natosyasaArticle IX-B
Sec. 1, IX-B provides that “The Civil Service shall be administered by the Civil Service
Commission, composed of 1 Chairman + 2 Commissioners (total: 3 lang in the Civil Service
Commission) (Requirements): 1) Who shall be natural born citizens, and 2) at the time of their
appointment, at least 35 years old, 3) with proven capacity for public administration, 4) and
must not have been candidates for any elected position in the elections immediately
preceding their appointment.
Now, pag appoint sailaha, naa pay requirements insofar as their confirmation is concerned?
Yes. The Chairman and commissioners shall be appointed by the president upon the consent
of the CA for a term 7 years without reappointment. Because para ma insulate sila from
presidential influence, muagisila screening body which is the Commission of Appointments
(CA) para naapu’y check and balances ang Legislative Department. Giappointganini President,
but di makapasasa CA, then dilipwede… Kailangani-approve syasa CA.
Now, of those first appointed, the chairman shall hold office for 7 years, a commissioner for
5 years, then another commissioner for 3 years without reappointment.
So this provision talks about the Rotational Scheme, and also the Prohibition against
Reappointment (Reapportment??) .In other words, if commissioner naka, nag serve naka for
X number of years, you cannot be reappointed anymore as a commissioner under the same
commission. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the
predecessor to preserve the Rotational Scheme. In no case shall any member be appointed
designated in a temporary or in an Acting Capacity. This last sentence emphasizes the
independence of the Constitutional Commissions. Kung Acting or Temporary Capacity ka, you
are beholden to the discretion or the whims of the appointing authority.
(Syaangmagbuotsaimuha. “You know what, you’re no longer following my directives,
tanggalonnatika, unsa man ka, temporary appointee langka”) NO. Dapat permanent ang
appointment ni Constitutional Commissioners, as they are supposed to be Independent. So
dilisilamacontrol by the executive, by making their positions subject to the approval or the
continuing whim of this appointing authority.
Naapudsilayprohibition: The 1) spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the
4th Civil Degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as members of the
Constitutional Commission. (Dilipwede because dapat independent ang Constitutional
Commission)
So the Civil Service Commission is composed of
 1 Chairman; and
 2 Commissioners
What are the Qualifications?
 Natural Born
 At least 35 years of age at the time of the appointment
 Proven Capacity for Public Administration
 Not a candidate in Election Immediately preceding Appointment
Term of Office?
 7 years without reappointment
What Is the Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?
The Civil Service Commission checks kungkinsabaninggipangappointsa Government offices:
Are they Qualified? Nameetbanilaangmga qualifications required by that position?
So silaangnagasala.
Page 43 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
The Constitution grants the CSC administration over the entire Civil Service. The Civil Service
embraces every branch, agency, division, and instrumentality of the government, including
GOCCs; and the Civil Service is classified into Career and Non-Career service positions.
Career and Non-Career Positions.
Career Positions are characterized by their 1) entrance by the usual tests of merit and fitness,
and 2) tenure which is limited to a period specified by law,… co terminus with the appointing
authority or subject to his pleasure, limited to the duration of a particular project.
Non-Career Position includes elective officials with their personal and confidential staff. This
means that these elected officials and their staff are, nevertheless, even if elected by the
people, are subject to the rules of the Civil Service Commission. So if mag prescribe ang Civil
Service ng Uniform + Office Hours, we cannot deviate from that Civil Service. It is evident that
the CSC has been granted by the Constitution and the and the Admin Code, the Jurisdiction
over Civil Service Commission over the Government, whether career or Non-Career.
Barcelona v. Lim [11:56]
This talks about the Rule-making powers of the Civil Service Commission. Isa nasaiyangmga
powers ay ang mag promulgate ug rules of proceeding. Ilahang rules to govern the Civil
Service, increase its efficiency, etc.
What happened here was that ni-appeal syasa Civil Service Commission, but surreptitiously
daw gi-amend sa civil service commission angilang rules, so angtanang penalty naiyanggi-
appeal sa Civil Service, would be implemented. (Gituyojudni CSC na.Ang previous Rule is that
the penalty would not be enforced pending appeal. But because of the amendment, ma-apply
nakaronang penalty saiyaha. He alleged that it was prejudicial. The Court said that the CSC
has the power to amend the Civil Service Rules, which includes the rules for appeal to the Civil
Service.
YES. The Civil Service has the power and authority to amend, the Civil Service Rules whenever
it needs the amendment necessary. And the insinuation that this Change was made for the
sole purpose of hurting his appeal is a mere product of his imagination.
However, the court said here that kungnaa man amendment ang Civil Service sakanilang rules,
ang amendment is Prospective in Application. Dilipwede tong ma prejudice angmga acts
nanahitabona prior to the amendment.
Here, that’s what happened. Naaymga amendment to the Civil Service Rules pertaining to the
execution of the decision appealed, dili covered karonsicomplainant, because the
amendment happened after nainstituteniyaangkanyang appeal. Therefore, the amendment
here has no retroactive effect.That’s the General Rule (GR) for Amendments of laws, because
laws are prospective in nature, unless otherwise provided. So here, the amendment must be
applied prospectively, even if the Civil Service has the power to Amend the Civil Service Rule.
Mamiscal v Abdullah
Katong Court employee and at the same time kay Register in that locality? So anyway,
gikasuhansya in his capacity as a Civil Register gikasuhansya before the Supreme Court.
Tama banasa Supreme Court gifile?
The Court held that no. The Court noted that this person is wearing 2 hats. Pwedesyang Civil
Register, pwedepudsyang Clerk of Court. Considering that the act involved here is pursuant
to her duties as a Civil Registrar, kinsaangnaay jurisdiction (administrative) over her?
Definitely not the Supreme Court. It could be the Mayor of that Locality, or the Civil Service
Commission. The authority of the mayor to exercise supervision over this person is not
exclusive. The Civil Service Commission as the Central Personnel Agency of the Government
has the power to appoint and to discipline employees and to hear and decide administrative
cases instituted by, brought directly or on appeal. You may institute a case against a person
sa CSC or sa Mayor, pursuant to this Case.
DOF v. Dela Cruz. [15:40]
Nagissue DOF ng EO 140 which created the Customs Policy Research Office. Pursuant to the
creation of this office, naay 27 BOC personnel nagipang detail didto. Nagreklamosilasa validity
aning EO 140 before the RTC.
Now, it is argued that this matter talks about the movement of personnel in the DOF, it is not
the court who has jurisdiction, rather it is the CSC.
The Court said No. It is NOT the CSC that has Jurisdiction. Why? Because it is not only about
the movement of the Personnel, but rather, it is about the Constitutionality of this Executive
Order. Here, the petition filed in the RTC went beyond questioning the detail of these
employees. The Validity and the Constitutionality of this Issuance, therefore it is within the
power of the CSC to decide on (???)
Now, going to the substantive issue of this case, the court held that EO140 is Unconstitutional.
Because angpag detail samga employees went beyond the period, (in fact walanagprescribeng
period kung unsasilakadugaymagstaydidtosa kung asasilagidetail. It should have been
specified.) accordingly, gi strike down syasa SC as Unconstitutional.
Torres v De Leon
Page 44 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Talks about where do we lodge a labor case against the PNRC (Philippine National Red Cross)
(In Libat v. Gordon, the PNRC is a Sui Generis institution, therefore cases against it must be
filed on a case to case basis) (walay hard and fast rule)
Naay issue karonsamgaempleyadong PNRC. Gifilenilaang case sa Civil Service. However, the
CSC promulgated a resolution dismissing the appeal. Now, it is challenged that the Civil Service
has Jurisdiction over this employment agency because the PNRC is not a GOCC, so dilisya
covered by the CSC. The Civil Service Commission has Jurisdiction over the Entire Civil Service
including the GOCCs with original Charter. So angkanilang Argument is that the PNRC is a Sui
Generis Institution, dilidapatsya covered by the CSC. It should be the Labor Arbiters.
Does the CSC have Jurisdiction over the personnel’s actions over the PNRC? Yes.
Although the in Libat v Gordon, the Court held that the PNRC is not a GOCC, is of Sui Generis
Character, it now requires the court to approach controversies on a case to case basis. But
the court held here the ruling the CSC has jurisdiction over the PNRC because the issue here
is the enforcement of labor laws and penal statutes which, in this particular matter the PNRC
can be treated as a GOCC in such issues. Insofar as personnel matters, PNRC can be
considered as a GOCC. And since the PNRC has an original Charter, Covered sya by the CSC.
Take note: Covered ang PNRC sa CSC.
As we said earlier, the Civil Service has the power to approve or disapprove appointments.
In Sec. 3, Art IX-B, the Civil Service Commission, as the Central Personnel Agency of the
Government, (Basically the HR Department of the Government), shall establish a career
service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,
progressiveness, and courtesy in the Civil Service. So naanisilay rules nagina-issue for the
compliance of all in the Civil Service. It shall strengthen the Merit and Reward system para
angpagsulodsamga government employees will not be based on the Palakasan System, but
rather the Merit and Reward; integrate all human resources development programs for all
levels and ranks, and institutionalize the management climate conducive to public culpability.
Now, the Civil Service has the authority to approve or disapprove appointments. It is to check
whether the appointee possesses the appropriate Civil Service Eligibility for required
qualification. It does not include the authority to make the appointment itself, or to direct the
or to direct the appointing authority to change the employment status of an employee. It can
only inquire into the eligibility of the person chosen to fill a position, and if it finds the person
qualified, it must so attest. If not, the appointment must be disapproved. Of course, you may
file administrative cases civil servants, covered by the Civil Service before the CSC.
Members of the Commission.
Composed of 1 Chairman, 2 members; and there is a prohibition on their reappointment.
What does reappointment mean? Kung giappointka as member, you cannot be reappointed
as member; kunggiapppointka as chairman, you cannot be reappointed as chairman. But,
pwedeka pa maappoint from Commissioner to Chairman? We’ll have a case on that.
So, mao to.
1) Composed of 3 individuals; 2) 7 year term; 3) the appointment cannot be in an acting or
temporary capacity.
Who appoints the members of the Civil Service Commission? President, subject to the
approval of the Commission of Appointments (CA).
Nacionalista Party v Bautista (1949) [22:18]
1949 case, so under the 1935 Constitution, but the Doctrine Applies. Because the President
here designated Angelo Bautista, the current SolGen as Acting member of the Comelec.
The Court said that this was prohibited!
This was decided prior to the 1987 Constitution. Now, under the 1987 Constitution, explicit
na: In no case the members of the Commissions (Here the commission involved is the
Comelec) in an acting or temporary Capacity.
Brilliantes v. Yorac
Decided under the 1987 Constitution.
Because of the Coup attempt, against the President, the President created a fact finding
commission chaired by HilarioDavide who was at the time the Chairman of the Comelec. So,
na-vacate ang position ng Chairman of the Comelec. What the President here did was that he
appointed Yorac, an associate Commissioner, temporarily as Chairman of the Comelec. So gi-
challenge karnang validity of that temporary appointment; (it’s not an appointment, it’s a
Designation. A Designation by the President of as a member of this commission as acting.)
Can that be done by the president? Temporary? Samtangwalapa’y mag fill sa position ni
Chairman?
The Court said that INVALID. That has the semblance of a Temporary Appointment. In no case
shall any member of the commission be appointed or designated in atemporary or Acting
Capacity.The Rule is such so that they would not be under the control of the President of the
Philippines in the discharge of their respective functions. They are supposed to be
independent: Being part of the Checks and Balances mechanism installed to check the
excesses of the acts of the branches of the Government.
Page 45 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
So, what is the Solution here? 3 man dapatna members? Nawalaang chairman,
nabilinangduhaka members.
The Court proposed a solution here that this should be an internal matter that should be
resolved by the members themselves. So silalangmagdecide kung sinosakanilaangmaging
Acting Chairman, and not the President.
Republic v. Imperial (25:00)
Decided prior to the 1987 Constitution.
The discussion here talks about the Rotational Plan. Here, they were trying to discuss WON
reappointment was possible. The term of the Commissioners prior to the 1987 Constitution
was 9 years. They argued that if you were appointed for only 3 years, you can be reappointed
for another 6 years. Or you can be reappointed to serve the unexpired term of the incumbent
who has died, you can be reappointed provided that it does not exceed 9 years. Mao to
angkanilang proposition.
The Supreme Court said that the appointment was still not possible because of the so-called
Rotational Plan. The Purpose of the Rotational Plan: is to protect and safeguard the
independence of the Constitutional Commissions. They are performing very delicate checks
and balances functions; They must maintain their independence from other branches of
Government.
So,if there is a vacancy before the Expiration of the term of that member or chairman, the
appointee will only serve the Unexpired Term. And that appointee, after he or she finishes
that term, cannot be reappointed.
Gaminde v COA
Gaminde was appointed as Commissioner of the CSC on June 11, 1993. And then, the COA
disallowed her sweldo after Feb. 2, 1992 because mao to ang expiration saiyahang
appointment. Ang argument niya is that it (Sweldo) should not have been disallowed… (27:02)
It Should not have been disallowed because I was appointed June 11 1993 and my term is 7
years so i add mo ang 7 years it should be june 11, 2000 or something to that effect but coa
however found out that imuhang term did not start on the date of your appointment but
rather katong date saimonggi succeed nga member. Didto mag start, kung late imongpagka
appoint, that is no longer the problem of the rotational scheme so in other words, nilapasna
ka saimuhang term og 1 year so dapatgi disallow imuhangsweldo for one year, imagine that
ha nagadawatkagsweldo then all of a sudden tagalonlangsaimuha because you were mistaken
anyway the court here addressed that issue, tama ang COA appointment ended 7 years after
the expiration of her predecessor. Kanus.adiay nag expire ang term saiyang predecessor, it
was on february 2 1992. Ngano man dihana date nag start ang term? But before we go there,
the court emphasized this rotational plan.
In Republic vs Imperial, the court emphasized this rotational plan which requires two
conditions which must be present for its workability.
First, The terms of the first three commissioners should start in a common day ( sosabaysila
mag start, of course ang mahitabolangkatong first comissioners ang isa/duha earlier
langmahumaniyang term. Ang isamahuman 3 years, ang isamahuman 5 years, mahumaniyang
term, but they start on a common date. Under the 1987 Constitution when should be the
starting date of their terms? It should be on February 02 1987, that is the day of the effectivity
of the Constitution, dira mag start tanan term sa constitutional commissioners and that any
vacancy due to death resignation or disability before the expiration of the term should be
filled with the unexpired balance of the term para dili ma bungkag ang rotational scheme.) So
mao to siya, they must all start from a common date, in this case, the common date of all
constitutional commissioners must be on february 02, 1987 or the date of the adoption of the
1987 constitution, the date it was ratified.
So kaninggipulihanniGamuindeang iyahang term apparently nag end onfebruary 2 1992 kay
katosiya ang secondappointee na 5 years ra ang term. So pagkahumansaiyang term which was
on february 2 1992 siyana ang nipuli and she will now have to serve 7 years not from the date
of appointment niyanga belated, one year after pa, but on february 2 1992 pag start so mao
to tama ang COA nakatona date nag start and therefore nag expire pudiyang appointment in
february 02 after 7 years on february 2 1999 so mao tong time na nag expire.
So unsanalang tong sweldoniyanagi enjoy niya 1 year thereafter, the court said
dilinakailangani reimburse coz she was an officer, a defacto officer serving that position in
good faith and thus entitled to receive her salary. So take note of the rotational scheme ha its
kind of tricky, take note of the two conditions para mag work ang rotational scheme
1.They all start in a common date; and
2. If there is a vacancy prior to the expiration of the term of commissioner, the filling member
will serve only the remaining portion of that vacated position.
To strengthen the independence of the constitutional commissions among others they are
empowered to appoint their own officials and employees, they also have their salary which is
quite big and provided by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure, isa pa is that
they enjoy what kind of autonomy? Fiscal Autonomy.
Page 46 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Howevernaapudsilaymga disqualification, they cannot just like the strict prohibition of the
executive department that cabinet members hold any other office. It does not distinguish
kung government or private, no member of the constitutional commission shall during his
tenure hold any other office or employment neither shall he be engaged in practice of any
profession orin the act of management control any business. What else? Dili silabastabasta
ma matanggal form office because the constitutional commissioners are removable form
office only by impeachment or quo warranto.
Appeal of the Civil Service Commission
Remember dibasatulo ka commissions under the constitution appealable ilahangmga
decisions to the supreme court under petition for certiorari but this can be changed by law
that is why na change ang mode of appeal kung asa mu agi ang appeal sa civil service, mu
agisasiya first sa Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court, insofar to the COA and COMELEC
pwedenaka mu diretso of file sa Supreme Court rule 64 in relation to rule 65
Anyway we have the case of Tagablanca vs civil Service.
What happened here, a member of the PNP, lahi ang nag take sa exam niya, so nakitasa civil
service, lahiimongnawngoglahi ang name sa nag take sa exam, lahiimong picture diri etc. So
giimbestigahansiyasa Civil Service Commission, he argued that this should be determined by
the NAPOLCOM because I am part of the police force and it is the NAPOLCOM that has
disciplinary jurisdiction over me, kinsa ang naayjursidiction? Civil Service or NAPOLCOM? The
court said the Civil Service. The Court emphasized the power of the civil service; Central
personnel agency of the government it brings all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities
and agencies of the government including GOCC’s with original charter, moreover the case
involved here pertains to an act that is administered by the civil service commission, it talks
about the administration of an exam which is under the direct control and supervision of the
civil service commission, and therefore the commission can take cognizance of the complaint
against him, not necessarily the NAPOLCOM.
Scope of the Civil Service Commission
Mao nani Article 9-b section 2 (1) unsa ang extent, kinsa ang covered by the civil service law.
Nganoimportante man ni? Kay para ma determine nato kung naayempliyadodiha, naasiyay
labor issue, kinsa ang naayjursidiction over them, is that the labor code or the labor arbiter or
is it the civil service commission. Kinsa ang covered by the Civil Service the Civil Service
embraces all divisions, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the government, so
definitely katomga government offices are covered under the Civil service Commission
including GOCC’s with original charter now ang imporatantenai note diri is that the 1987
Constitution instituted this explicit provision nadapat ang GOCC has an original charter, why
is that? Kay naa man gudtaymga GOCC’s without original charter unsay example ana?
Kanangmga private enterprises nagipanpalitsagobyerno, makuha ang controlling interest,
mahimonasiyang Government controlled corporation,
question, does the civil service have jursidiction over that if there is a labor issue? No more
under the 1987 constitution because walasiyay original charter. To Clarify that case,
importantesiya because of that labor issue.
Bliss Development vs Peret Calleja
Decided by the Court, made an explicit kaning change sa 1987 constitution, nakabutangdiri is
that prior to the 1987 Constitution, 1973, maoningnakasulat “the Civil service embraces every
branch, agency, division, instrumentality of the government including GOCC’s” walay
distinction but under the 1987 constitution including GOCC’s with original charter. Therefore
under the 1987 Constitution the civil service GOCC’s with original charters and therefore by
clear implication, The civil service does not include GOCC’s which do not have original
charters, those which are organized as subsidiaries from GOCC’s under the general
corporation law. So kung GOCC ka gikanpero you were organized by the corporation code of
the Philippines, walay jurisdiction ang civil service commission saimuha so kato ang clearcutna
rule karon.
Juco vs NLRC
A 1997 case, kinsa ang naay jurisdiction over huco, a project engineer of the National Housing
Corporation, the court said that the National Housing Corporation is a GOCC which does not
have an original charter, it was incorporated under the general corporation code and
therefore considering that dilesiya GOCC with original charter, kinsa man ang naay
jurisdiction? Is it the civil service commission? No more, it is the labor arbiter, the NLRC and
therefore ang mga laws na mag govern samgaempleyadoanangamga GOCC’s nawalay original
charter would be the labor code and not the civil service rules. The Civil Service now only
covers GOCC’s with original charters having been incorporated under the corporation law, the
National Housing Corporation is governed by the Labor Code and found under the jurisdiction
of the National Labor Relations Commission NLRC.
HDMF vs COA
Here naay incentives ngagihatagning RA6971 an act to encourage productivity and maintain
industrial peace by providing incentives to both labor and capital. Karon pursuant to this law
ang HDMF, unsaganing ang common term, the PAGIBIG si HDMF, pursuant to that law nag
hatagsiyaog productivity incentive bonuses however the COA disallowed the bonuses on the
ground that this law excludes agencies that are covered by the Civil Service Commission,
Page 47 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
considering that the PAGIBIG is a GOCC with and original charter, kinsagani ang naay
jurisdiction over saiyaha?
Yes the Civil Service, therefore excluded siyasa applicability aningmgabalaudpara
makahatagogmga incentives and the court said here natamasi COA. The legislature intended
that RA6971 to cover only GOCC’s incorporated under the general corporation law, therefore
it will not apply to GOCC’s with original charters, in this case the HDMF is a GOCC with original
charter, it is created by special law under, particularly PD 1752 as such the HDMF or the
PAGIBIG is covered by the civil service law accordingly it is excluded from the coverage of this
RA6971.
PNB vs Teyano
Now in this case teyano, vice president and manager of the bank and 8 other employees of
the PNB was administratively charged before the PNB hearing committee. Now after
investigation of gross neglect they appealed to the civil service commission however on the
meantime the PNB ceased to be a GOCC because it was converted into a private banking
institution by executive order number 118.
Now pending ang case karonsa civil service, so nag appeal karon ang mgaempliyadosa civil
service commission kay gipang dismiss man silasa PNB, siningsakasilasa civil service
commission. Ana ang PNB, the civil service no longer has jurisdiction because private entity
nanisi PNB, is the PNB correct? Does EO 118 have the effect of removing from the jurisdiction
of the civil service commission, the appeal of the employees here which was already pending
before the EO 118 that converted PNB into a private institution.
The Court said it did not have the effect of removing the jurisdiction of the civil service. This
EO 80 also known as the revised charter of the PNB (Sir would sometimes mix EO 80 and EO
118) converted the bank into a private financial banking institution and therefore of its
conversion it would no longer be covered by the civil service commission and the COA
however, by no stretch of intelligent and reasonable construction that the provisions of this
executive order be interpreted in a way to divest the civil service of its jurisdiction over
pending disciplinary cases committed by an employee of the bank at the time the bank was
still a GOCC, so therefore by the mere issuance of this EO, dilipwedena ma dismiss tanan cases
pending already sa civil service because naprivate na ang bank, mag padayun tong mga cases
na pending before the civil service commission, the EO would therefore now affect
subsequent cases filed by employees after the conversion of the PNB into a private banking
institution.
It will not however have any effect proactively sakatongmga pending cases before the civil
service commission. So walagi apply retroactively ang EO 80 and so the civil service retain its
jurisdiction over the appeal of the employees here despite of the conversion of the bank to a
private institution.
So lets go to the COMELEC, paspaskaayo ta diba?
Article 9-c there shall be a commission on elections, pila kabuok ang members sa COMELEC?
It compose of a chairman and 6 commissioners so 1 plus 6 equals 7 who shall be natural born
citizens of the philippines and at the time of their appointment at least 35 years of age, holder
of a college degree and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the
immediate proceeding elections however, a majority thereof, how many ang majority sa 7? 4
including the chairman shall be members of the Philippine bar who have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least 10 years, and musunodkaron ang inyong favorite case sa legal
profession
Cayetano vs Monsod
Which talks about what constitutes practice of law, kay mao to gi appoint dirisi Christian
Monsod as a commissioner of the COMELEC, Cayettano opposed the nomination of this
Monsod because he did not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the
practice of law for at least 10 years.
The position of Cayettano was that this Monsod was not a litigator, walasiyanaga appear sa
court, nagashagitshagitdidtosa judge whatever, kanang normal namakitaninyosa TV na
practice quote and quote saabugadona mag appear sa court day in and day out, maona ang
argument niCayettano. So what are the requirements? Here Monsod was nominated to be a
chairman of the COMELEC which under the Constitution must be a member of the Bar and
practicing law for at least 10 years, so the Court had to define what practice of law is.
Practice of law is the rendition of services requiring the knowledge and application of legal
principles and techniques to serve the interest of another. It is not limited to appearing in
court or advising or assisting in the conduct of litigation but embraces the preparation of
pleadings and papers incident to action, special proceedings, conveyance, preparation of legal
instrument and giving of legal advice to clients, simply put, the practice of law means any
activity in and out of court which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience and to engage in the practice of law is to engage in those acts which
are characteristics of the profession.
In this case is Monsod qualified? Yes because unsa man ang iyang work? Lawyer economist,
lawyer manager, lawyer legislator etc. he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least
10 years, qualified siya to the position.
Page 48 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
The same prohibition on the relatives of the President, they cannot be appointed to the
COMELEC, what else? Kinsa ang mag appoint sa members of the COMELEC, the Chairman and
the commissioner shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, pila ka years ang term sa commissioner sa COMELEC? 7 years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the chairman shall hold office for 7 years that one
commissioner for 5 years and the other commissioners for 3 years without reappointments,
anyway naagihapoy rotational scheme so far as the COMELEC is concerned.
Again ha dilipasabotnakatong first appointee three years ang mu sunodniya kay 3 years
langpud, ang sunodna ma appoint saiyaha 7 years na ang term, katoratosasugod ang 3-5-og 7
para ma start-an lang tong rotational scheme. Kato to ha ayawmo ka libogana. So the
rotational scheme applies also to the COMELEC.
The COMELEC also has the power to appoint on officials on employees, naapudsilay salary
nadilipwede ma reduce during their tenure but can be changed by law, we also have
disqualifications such as same no for all Constitutional Commissioners na cannot hold any
other office or employment, cannot engage in the practice of his profession or actively
manage his business which would affect the functions of his office. Removal, impeachment
and now quo warranto.
So again the composition of the COMELEC 1 chairman and then 6 commissioners, natural born
citizen, at least 35 years at the time of appointment, proven capacity for public
administration, not a candidate for an elective position, and majority including the chairman
must be a member of the Philippine bar with at least 10 years experience or being engaged in
the practice of law.
Unsa ang powers sa COMELEC? Daghandyudkaayosiyag powers as enumerated in section 2 of
article 9-c. The COMELEC shall exercise the following powers and functions. So lets not isaisa
everything here coz you will encounter this again in election laws, peroimportante ang first
provisions no. Enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum and recall. So kato if the people want to initiate, exercise the power of
initiative etc. muadtosilasa COMELEC, diba remember those cases katong gusto nila mag
amend sa constitution, dibaningadto man silasa COMELEC. Exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction of all contests relating to the elections returns and qualifications of elective
regional provincial and city officials and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving
elective municipal officials decided by trial courts with general jurisdiction or involving
directive barangay officials (inaudible) ay makitanasadnininyosa election law dont worry.
How does the COMELEC vote? Just like every other Commission, each commission shall decide
by a majority vote of all its members kung 7 kabuok members ang COMELEC, pila man kabuok
ang dapat mag vote sa majority? 4, what if 6 langsilakabuok, ang isakay vacantna position,
pila ka majority ang kailangan? 4 gihapondiba, di man pwede3 , so 4 gihaponsiya. Anyway so
each commission shall decide a majority vote of all its members in any matter brought before
it within 60 days from the date of its submission for resolution or decision.
Where do you appeal the decision of the COMELEC en banc, you want to challenge it ,asa man
ka muadtona court? Supreme Court. Ang nag lahilangdyud kay ang civil service commission
na first you have to go to the CA.
Now the commission on elections may sit en banc or in two divisions and shall promulgate its
rules and procedure in order to expedite the disposition of election cases including pre
proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division
provided that motions for reconsideration of divisions shall be decided by the COMELEC en
banc. So first na mag decide atonamga issues kay ang COMELEC division and if mag MR ka, its
no longer in the same division but rather the COMELEC en banc.
So we have the Case of Barro vs COMELEC, nag labannasila for this position of punong
barangay.....
What is the recourse under the law? Draw lots. Because the party favoured shall be
proclaimed as duly elected barangay chairman. Kadtong napilde na party sa draw lots niadto
sa RTC thereafter the records of the case were forwarded to the COMELEC. The first division
of the COMELEC dismissed the case. Kadtong napilde na party filed an MR in the first division
in the COMELEC. Can the COMELEC take cognizance and deny it? Tama ba ang gibuhat sa
COMELEC? NO. Because kung naay gi-file nga MR sa COMELEC division, ang magdecide kay
COMELEC EN BANC pursuant to section 9-C, Art. 3 of the Constitution. The COMELEC division
deprived the COMELEC en banc to rule on the MR. Dapat wala nag take cognizance ang
COMELEC division sa MR but rather gisaka didto sa COMELEC EN BANC. Gi-remand sa SC ang
case didto sa COMELEC first division for the disposition kay mali man tong pag decide sa MR.
That’s the end of the case when the court decided the merits for MR
CAGAS v. COMELEC
Doctrine: A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) in an election protest may not directly assail the order in this Court
through a special civil action for certiorari. It must be included in an appeal of the decision of
the COMELEC EN BANC. The remedy is to seek the review of the interlocutory order during
the appeal of the decision of the Division in due course.
Kung naay Interlocutory order gina-issue ang RTC abg recourse nimo ana kay Rule 65 alleging
grave abuse of discretion, di man na nimo maappeal kay di man na final decision of the court.
Ang premise dire karon kay si Bautista, nag issue ang COMELEC division og interlocutory order
Page 49 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
dismissing the MOTION to DISMISS. Since the dismissal of the MOTION TO DISMISS is an
interlocutory order because it did not dispose of the entire case. Naa kay case, gi-dismiss ang
imong MOTION to DISMISS, unsa man mahitabo sa case? Magpadayon sya diba because gi
dismiss ang imong motion to dismiss eh. It did not resolve the case, it only resolve the
incidental matter. Ang remedy ana kay ang grave abuse of discretion muadto ka sa SC. The
proper remedy is muagi sa ka sa COMELEC EN BANC mag appeal sa ka sa imong arguments
with the MR, kung napilde ka didto sa division of the COMELEC. Do not go directly to the SC.
However, the court noted an exception: you were able to establish that there was a
commission of a grave abuse discretion. Pwede ka mudiretso sa SC if ma-establish nimo ni
para ma-question nimo ang interlocutory order. Pag dili nimo ma-establish is the usual way is
to mag-appeal ka sa imong MR didto sa COMELEC EN BANC
Jalosjos v. COMELEC
We are reminded again when the jurisdiction of the COMELEC ends and the jurisdiction of the
electoral tribunals begin.
1.) Valid proclamation
2.) Proper oath
3.) Assumption of office
This was further modified by Reyes v. COMELEC, the assumption starts on June 30. Kung wala
pa nag June 30 tapos naay issue sa imong proclamation , sa imong oath, you cannot claim na
ang HRET ang naay jurisdiction. Ang COMELEC ang naay jurisdiction ana. What if naka take
na ka og oath, naka assume ka na sa imong office, pero naay issue sa imong proclamation.
Nag file og kaso sa COMELEC prior sa imong proclamation, assumption of office. Then, the
COMELEC ruled na invalid imong proclamation but nonetheless, naka oath ka, naka assume
kag office. It would appear na nawala ang isa sa mga qualifications sa jurisdiction sa HRET to
decide the case. Dili ma-resolve ang case by the HRET tungod kulang ang requirements sa
jurisdiction. Mao ng nahitabo sa case ni Reyes v. COMELEC. Not only decided prior to her
assumption of office on June 30, but rather even if nag assumed na sya sa office naay issue
ang validity sa iyang proclamation. The Court said that na invalid imong proclamation
therefore, the HRET does not have the jurisdiction over the case but the COMELEC.
Lokin v. COMELEC
Ang issue dire, he wanted to be seated as the second nominee of this partylist. He wanted to
compel the COMELEC to proclaim him as the second nominee of this partylist. He filed the
case in the SC, the COMELEC said that this is not something that you can file to the SC, this
case should be reported to the HRET kay nakalingkod naman ang inyuhang nominee. Member
na sya sa HoR.
The Court said na mali ang COMELEC, because the issue of Lokin has nothing to do with the
qualification, election, return of the member of the HoR rather the issue is to be seated as the
second nominee of this partylist. therefore, dili ang HRET naay jurisdiction dire but ang SC kay
dili man about sa qualification, election, and return ang issue. And, wala may gustong
ipatanggal si Lokin na member sa HoR gusto lang jud niya na mahimong second nominee sa
ilang partylist. mao ra jud daw na ang issue sa iyang life ingon si Sir Gil.
Sevilla v. COMELEC
They were candidates for the position of barangay captains. Naabot sa SC ang ilang kaso ha.
2010 barangay elections. The election protest was filed before the MeTC which dismissed the
same. Si So, nag file og MR instead of an appeal but it was denied. Niadto sya sa COMELEC by
way petition certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC 2nd division granted
the petition.
The COMELEC EN BANC however, nag MR karon ang losing party, dismiss the appeal of Sevilla
kay napilde man siya sa division, so nisaka sya sa COMELEC ENBANC. Pero ang boto sa
COMELEC EN BANC kay nag tie 3-3 which means gi-affirmed lang nila ang decision sa 2nd
division. Tama ba ang gihimo sa COMELEC? Nakuha ba ang required number of votes? NO.
The Court said NO. What is required for the COMELEC EN BANC is that dapat makuha ang
majority votes kapag mag decide. 3-3 is not majority. Here, lacks legal effect as it is not a
majority decision required by the Constitution and by the Comelec Rules of Procedure. The
Court previously ruled that a majority vote requires a vote of four members of the Comelec
en banc. In essence, based on the 3-3 voting, the Comelec en banc did not sustain the Comelec
Second Division’s findings on the basis of the three concurring votes by Commissioners Tagle,
Velasco and Yusoph; conversely, it also did not overturn the Comelec Second Division on the
basis of the three dissenting votes by Chairman Brillantes, Commissioner Sarmiento and
Commissioner Lim, as either side was short of one (1) vote to obtain a majority decision. Recall
that under Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution, a majority vote of all the members of
the Commission en banc is necessary to arrive at a ruling.
In other words, the vote of four (4) members must always be attained in order to decide,
irrespective of the number of Commissioners in attendance. Thus, for all intents and
purposes, the assailed October 6, 2012 Resolution of the Comelec en banc had no legal effect
whatsoever except to convey that the Comelec failed to reach a decision and that further
action is required.
WHAT IS THE REMEDY? Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Dapat naay hearing para
madecide, para mag vote na pud usab and thereafter if nag tie gihapon after hearing, naa syay
mga effects. The COMELEC En Banc
Page 50 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Reyes v. COMELEC
(Problematic ang iyang proclamation)
She was proclaimed a winner in May 2013 elections as a member of the HoR. She was
proclaimed on mAy 17, 2013. The COMELEC en banc issued a certificate of finality declaring
her to be disqualified to take the office. Nevertheless, she took the office. The certificate of
finality na disqualified sya, it happened on May 14, 2013. In other words, dili jud sya qualified
to be proclaimed as winner and therefore, kung invalid iyang proclamation, invalid pud iyang
oath. She has not yet assumed office which starts on June 30, 2013 (noon).
She argued that she is already a member of the HoR, therefore, the case should be filed before
the HRET. The Court said na mali si Reyes, kay invalid na imong proclamation. Prior sa iyang
assumption of office, natanggal na ang requirement na valid proclamation before the HRET
can get hold of her case. Dapat naay valid proclamation, proper oath, and assumption of office
para naay jurisdiction ang HRET. Moreover, the date of assumption of office is noon on June
30 as provided by the Constitution. Thus, until such time, the COMELEC has the jurisdiction.
Here, wala niya na meet ang requirements.
On MR in the COMELEC, before she was proclaimed as a winner there was already a
disposition on the qualification on the position to run for office na disqualified sya. Therefore,
ang iyang proclamation kay was defective at the outset. Wala niya na meet ang 3
requirements before the HRET can have jurisdiction over her case because she was never a
member of the HoR in the first place.
Legaspi v. COMELEC
Legaspi filed before the COMELEC to disqualify several political opponents. Na-raffle iyang
kaso didto sa COMELEC first division. Naay 2 decisions ang COMELEC sa case: The COMELEC
first division disqualified some of those political opponents, and refer the criminal aspect to
the legal department of the COMELEC.
The losing party kadtong gipang disqualify sa COMELEC went to the COMELEC en banc and
filed an MR. The COMELEC en banc took a vote for the MR at that time it only had 6 incumbent
members but only 5 of the members participated in the voting. Pila dapat gane makuha na
votes para makaingon ta naay majority sa COMELEC en banc? At least 4 votes. Nag decide ang
COMELEC en banc, with regard to the electoral aspect of the issue kadtong disqualification sa
mga candidates is 3-2 so wala nakaabot og 4.
With regard sa criminal aspect, nakuha ang 4-1, nakuha dire ang majority. Insofar as to the 3-
2 vote, it decided to conduct a rehearing pursuant to its rules. Nag rehear karon ang COMELEC
en banc but it took another vote but failed to reach the majority consensus on that issue, 3-2
gihapon. Therefore, nag take effect karon ang salient provision Sec. 6. Procedure if Opinion is
Equally Divided. – When the Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary
majority cannot be had, the case shall be reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached,
the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission; in
appealed cases judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and in all incidental
matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
Kadtong issue sa disqualification sa candidates, since wala man nakakuha og majority vote sa
COMELEC en banc nag take effect karon ang.. if it is originally commenced case that will be
dismiss. Dili na karon disqualified ang gipang disqualified. Tama ba ang COMELEC? YES. How
does the COMELEC reached its decision? The COMELEC en banc is first required to rehear the
case or matter that it cannot decide or resolve by the necessary majority. When a majority still
cannot be had after the rehearing, however, there results a failure to decide on the part of the
COMELEC en banc. The provision then specifies the effects of the COMELEC en banc’s failure
to decide:
1. If the action or proceeding is originally commenced in the COMELEC, such action or
proceeding shall be dismissed;
2. In appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; or
3. In incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
Wala na disqualified ang opponents tungod wala nakuha ang majority vote sa COMELEC en
banc, ang argument ni Legaspi an action can only be considered as having been "originally
commenced in the commission" under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules when that
action was originally filed before the COMELEC en banc itself and, as such, is the very matter
pending before it.
In other words, ang argument ni Legaspi kay this is an appealed decision. Therefore, kung
appealed ang akong decision, kung unsa tong decision sa COMELEC division kay masustain
because wala nakuha ang majority.
The court said that it was an originally commenced petition filed by the COMELEC when you
filed it in the COMELEC division. The action commenced was an original action, it was
definitely an action that was filed originally before the COMELEC even if he did not file it in
the COMELEC en banc because gi file niya ang case sa COMELEC itself, it was also heard by
the COMELEC division. Ang decision sa division kay decision pud sa COMELEC. Murag SC ba
ang decision sa division kay decision pud sa SC itself. The rules of the COMELEC provide
instances kung kanus-a originally commenced ang decision.
Page 51 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
The phrase "originally commenced in the commission" in Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC
Rules is worded in plain language and, therefore, must be construed in its ordinary and natural
sense.25 It simply means what it says. The phrase is meant to cover any action or proceeding
that is filed, at the first instance, before the COMELEC—whether sitting in division or en banc—
as contradistinguished from cases that are merely appealed to it. Petitioner’s view that
restricts such phrase to include only those actions or proceedings that are originally filed with
the COMELEC en banc itself.
So pag file nimo ana it is an original commenced case, you need not to file it before the
COMELEC en banc para ma consider na as originally commenced case. Gusto ni Legaspi na
mag-apply tong dili makuha ang majority, na murag appeal lang. Kung appealed to sya na
case, masustain ang decision sa COMELEC decision. Niingon ang SC na dili ni sya appealed
case but an action or proceeding originally commenced in the COMELEC. If ang MR dili nimo
makuha ang vote, the action or proceeding originally commenced shall be dismissed. Mao
tong effect sa petition ni Legaspi. Can the case heard by the en banc considering the appeal
such that the required majority vote in the appealed case has not reached the order or appeal
to stand affirm? NO, because it is not an appeal. This is an MR of an originally commenced
action before the COMELEC division. It is a continuation of a normal course of that petition.
The act of filing MR with the COMELEC en banc from a decision of a division in an election case
as but "part" of such single and integrated process and is "not an appeal" from the latter to
the former:
At best, the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc of a decision or
resolution of the division of the COMELEC should be viewed as part of one integrated
process. It is still part of the original action which was commenced in the COMELEC division,
it was an originally filed case, ang MR wala nakuha ang majority vote, dismissed ang case.
Unsa ang effects if the COMELEC did not get the required vote? Rehearing then vote na pud.
If di gihapon makuha ang required majority vote? Mag depende if original action ba, appealed
ba na case or it is a motion or incident.
Caballero v. COMELEC
Nag RA 9225 sya, nidagan sya for local position, wala niya na meet ang residency requirement
because he had to prove it. His allegation is that automatic daw upon reacquisition of the PH
citizenship. The Court said that he has to prove that he reacquired his domicile. Insofar as we
are concerned, kani ang main issue: Caballero argued that ang pag file daw sa kaso violated
several rules of procedures of the COMELEC therefore, denying his right because of the failure
to follow those procedures which resulted the dismissal of the case. The Court said that rules
of the COMELEC shall be liberally construed. The COMELEC may even relax its own rules like
the SC. As a general rule, statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally construed
in order that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by
mere technical objections.
Statutes for providing election are to be liberally construed in order the people’s choice for
public officer may not be defeated by mere technical objection. Why? The liberality is for the
purpose of promoting the effective and efficient implementation of its objectives which is
ensuring the holding of a honest, orderly, peaceful, credible elections. So liberal ang
construction sa rules sa COMELEC here.
We have the case of KABATAAN VS COMELEC, which challenges the validity of RA 10369,
kadtong biometric requirement, dapat mag paregisterkasaimong biometrics before you can
go , so siKabataan Party, gi challenge nila because daghan pa daw kayo mga registered voters
napag set sa COMELEC, walakapabiometrics and therefore they will be disenfranchised,
dilisilamakaboto because of this arbitrary requirement. This law mandates the COMELEC to
implement to implement a mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters, to
establish a clean, completepermanent , updated list of voters. So required, mandated under
this law that voters who (15:20-15-21) last day of filing of application for registration shall be
deactivated. Kung dilikamakapag biometrics, madeactivateka, imong status as a voter,
dilikamakaboto.
So angkabataan party list went to the Supreme Court to challenge the validity of this law and
rules of procedure promulgated by the comelec pursuant to this law on the ground it violates
the fundamental right to suffrage. Is there a violation of that right? The court said that No. Is
the right to vote a natural right? Is it something na inherent. Is it a right in the first place? The
Court said that the right to vote is not a natural right but is a right created by law. Suffrage is
a privilege granted by the state to such persons or classes as are most likely to exercise it for
public good.
Now let’s go to Article V of the Constitutiton Section, dilinanatoidiscusskaysa Election Law na.
Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law.
In other words ,pwedekaidisqualifiy by law. Who are these 18 years of age. So nay
requirement, 18 dapatka and who should have resided in the Philippines for one year.
Naapajud residency requirement. In the place where they propose to 6 months immediately
preceeding the election.
No literacy, property and other requirement must be imposed on the exercise of Suffrage.
These are the constitutional provision where you can see that the right to vote may be
regulated by law provided that no literacy ,property, others substantive requirement shall be
Page 52 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
imposed on the exercise of such right. In other words, the exercise of the right to suffrage is
not absolute. It is a privilege. We may disqualified by law.
Therefore it emphasizes the phrase in the provision, the franchise nature of the right to
suffrage, the state therefore may regulate the right by imposing statutory disqualifications
with a restriction that amounts to illiteracy, property or other substantive requirement.
Now, kani bang pag impose of biometrics, is it other substantive requirement? Na
bawaliimposedidtosa right to vote? The court said that no. Clarifying this phrase “other
substantive requirement”, the Court went to the Constitutional deliberation.
The Court interpreted it na it carries the same tact as the other standards, alienating a
particular class based on socio-economic considerations irrelevant to the right of suffrage
such as the payment of taxes. So kining other substantive requirement would be construed
similarly kadtungsamga words nakaubanniya like property. Anyway.
The Court interpreted it not same level on payment of taxes and so on. In other words,
kadtong biometrics requirement Is not prohibited because it did not add substantive
requirement as prohibited by the Constitution. So anyway, registration is not a qualification
to vote, properly speaking, the concent of qualification is different from the concent of
registration which is regarded as only as the means by which a person’s qualification to vote
is determined.
In fact the act of registering is only one step towards voting. It is not one of the elements that
makes a citizen qualified to vote. One may be a qualified voter without exercising the right to
vote. Registration is a form of regulation and not a qualification for the right to suffrage. Diba?
Naga paregistergane ta as a voter before the makavote, wala man lage ta nagreklamolagenga
nay biometrics? Reklamo ka kay nalate ka ug paregister. Registration is a mere procedural
requirement which does not fall among the limitation like literacy and other substantive
requirement. So kani again, the biometrics requirement, the registration, it is not prohibited,
it is allowed by law. In the first place, the right of suffrage is not an absolute right, it can be
regulated by law.
Englevs COMELEC
What we need to take note of this case is the rules and regulations on the conduct of elections
are mandatory before the election but when they are sought to be enforced after the election,
they have to be directory only. Kay nahumannaang election, especially if they will be depriving
votes without any fault on their part. So mao to sya no? because of interpretation of
mandatory requirement on the form, ma disenfranchised tong mga voters who voted for this
candidate. The Court said that they should interpret this requirements after the election since
these requirements pertain to form literally. Otherwise, we will be defeating the will of the
people. Technicalities, and procedural niceties in election cases should not be made to stand
in the way of the electorate.
RIVERA vs COMELEC
This just talks about the instance, kungkanus-a mag set-in ang jurisdiction sa HRET over the
members of the House of Representatives. Here, citing Reyes vs COMELEC, once a winning
candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, they have assumed office, and be a member
of the house, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over that person ends and it is now the Electoral tribunal
concerned that has jurisdiction over them. But of course, remember the requirements,
kungnawalaang is aka requirements like kung walanasya nag oath, walajudsya nag assume pa
ug office.
Abayonvs HRET
Talks about the power of HRET to annul the result of the election as distinguished from the
power of the COMELEC to declare a failure of elections. So ang grounds diridaw, nagfilesilaug
protest before the HRET because of massive fraud, vote buying, intimidation , employment of
illegal and fraudulent process. The HRET decided to annul the results of the election insofar
as to the specific locality where result is concerned. Now katong argument kadtongsanapildisa
HRET kay the HRET do not have the power to do that, it is the power of the COMELEC.
COMELEC raangmakadecidekung failure ba of elections.
The Court had to distinguish, What the HRET did here is that it annulled the elections and
what it did was different from the COMELEC’s power to declare a failure of election. The
Constitution no less grants the HRET to the exclusive jurisdiction to decide on cases and it
includes the issues on fraud, other irregularities committed during or after the elections.
So apilnasa power of HRET to determine. Consequently, the annulment of election results is
the power concomitant to the HRET’s constitutional mandate to determine validity of the
title of the contesting. It may annul election results still in its determination of fraud, and
other electoral irregularities that existed. What about the power of the COMELEC under the
law under RA 7166to declare a failure of elections.
The Court said that it is a different power , the COMELEC exercise a quasi-judicial function, so
it decides election contests not otherwise reserved to other electoral tribunals. The COMELEC
does not however exercise quasi-judicial function when it declares a failure of election
pursuant to RA 7166 rather it is pursuant to an administrative function. What is the difference
between the two? The annulment of elections and the declaration of failure of elections.
Page 53 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
First, the former, annulment of elections is but a result of a judicial power or function of the
electoral tribunal. Failure of elections is in the exercise of COMELEC’s administrative power.
Second, HRET annuls an election in connection to the election contest before it, whereas the
declaration of a failure of elections of the COMEELC relates to the entire election in the
concerned precint. As such in annulling the election, the HRET does so only in determining
who the candidates garnered the majority of the legal votes cast. The COMELEC when it
declares a failure of elections has the objective of holding or continuing the elections which
were not held or suspended or if there was one resulted to failure to elect. When the
COMELEC declares a failure of elections, special elections will have to be conducted. There is
no overlapping in their jurisdiction because when COMELEC declares it is in its administrative
capacity, in contrast, when an ET declares, it does in its quasi-judicial function.
APPEAL
Ang decision sa COMELEC, asa man nimonaisaka? Before the Supreme Court. Dilinakamuagiug
CA. Only the CSC. Because what is provided by the law is that otherwise provided by law, any
appeal will be before the Supreme Court.
What is the applicable rule in the Rules of Court? Rule 64in relation to Rule 65. Ang difference
is that ang ground naimongiraise, Petition for Certiaori eh. Comelec en banc,
isakanimosaSupreme Court, angimong allegation na there is grave abuse of discretion but ang
difference langkayangperod. The normal period is 60 days if it is a question involving the
COMELEC or the COA. 30 days. So maonasyaang difference sa period. The grounds are the
same.
Garcesvs Court of Appeals
This talks about the transfer of a COMELEC employee from one office to another. So
dilimusugotmatransfer so niadtosyasa RTC, nifileug petition ug petition for Mandamus with
prohibitary injunction para dilisyamatanggalsaiyangginapalagpotsalainglugar. It is argued that
it is not the RTC which has the jurisdiction as COMELEC has. The Court said that the RTC is the
applicable tribunal kaydilikapwedemudirechosa Supreme Court. Why? Decisions, rulings or
orders of the COMELEC that may be brought to the SC are those which may relate to the
COMELEC’s exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving elective regional,
provincial, local and city officials. Here we are talking about a personal (27:32) within the
COMELEC. In this case, what is being assailed is COMELEC’s choice, and this is an
administrative duty which is hardly for the Supreme Court to entertain by way of a petition
for certiaori, So what court has the power to determine this issue? It is the RTC.
So we are done with the COMELEC, so now let us go to the last Constitutional Commission
which is the Commission on Audit, what are the qualifications for you to be a commissioner
of COA. Article IX-D Section provides for that.
Article IX-D Section 1
There shall be a Commission on Audit, composed of a Chairman and two commissioners who
shall be natural born citizens of the Philippines and at the time of their appointment at least
thirty-five years of age, certified public accountants, with not less than ten years of auditing
experience, or members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of Law
for atleast ten years, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the
elections immediately preceding their appointment. At no time shall all Members of the
Commission belong to the same profession.
So tan-awunnmopilaganeang Civil Service? 3. Ang COMELEC? 7. Ang COA? 3, SO imotanawun
para dilikakalimotsa number of commissioners. So tan-awunnimoang number of letters, CSC,
3, COA, 3 , ang COMELEC, 7. (Moment of mindfuck).
Who appoints the members of the COA? The president with the concurrence of CA.
Pilaila term? 7 years without reappointment with stagard scheme.
The COA, to preserve its independence, its personnel and their salary cannot be decreased
during their tenure. They also have fiscal autonomy. To preserve their independence, relatives
of the President cannot be appointed as members of the COA or any Constitutional
Commission. And members of Constitutional Commission during their tenure, practice any
profession or actively manage or control a business.
Removal of COA, through impeachment or quo warranto.
Duty and Power
Article IX-D Section 2
(1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority and duty to examine, audit, and
settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of , and expenditures or uses of
funds and property, owned or held in trust by or pertaining to the Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters and on a post-audit basis.
Parehosa Civil Service, giqualifyna kung GOCC kanaanakay original charter. You are created
by law, nay law nagcreatesaimoha. Kung GOCC ka with no original charter, you are not within
Page 54 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
the audit jurisidiction of COA. Post-audit basis, pasabotananahitabonaang transaction,
taposdihapakaiaudit, kanisila,
Article IX-D Section 2(1)
(a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy
under this Constitution;
(b) autonomous state colleges and universities;
(c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and
(d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or
through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to
such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity.
However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the
Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are
necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of
the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and
other supporting papers pertaining thereto.
The COA has also the exclusive authority subject to Article IX-D Section 2(2)
(2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to
define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required
therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for
the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or
unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties.
Daghankaayonisilag accounting rules sa COA. Every now and then naasilamgabagona rules,
usahaywalapajud repeal. Anyway the COA is entitled to do that including the disallowance of
irregular, extravagant and unnecessary expenses or uses of government funds and property.
Basically, the COA is the auditor of the Government. Iauditnyaang public funds if you are
within if audit jurisdiction as stated. Very expansive iyang power. Main issues usually
namuabotsa Supreme Court whether or not the COA has the jurisdiction over this entity in
the first place.
Boys Scout of the Philippines?
Is it subject to audit of COA? Yes, with a juridical personality that is created by law. So always
ask, unsaba nature aning Boy Scout of the Philippines, the Chief Boy Scout of the Philippines
is the President of the Philippines, so maonalangimong guide. The President is a public officer,
so ma subject sya of audit. So ma construe nimona public ang character sa Boy Scout of the
Philippines although it is not a GOCC, it performs a governmental function therefore it is
subject to audit of COA.
Now let’s go to the power of COA and issue of rotational scheme.
Velosovs COA
Because the City Council of Manila enacted an ordinance which, it granted a conferment of
EPSA, Exemplary Public Service Award, to elected local officials who have retired after being
elected to 3 consecutive terms of the same office. In other words, ginarewardananing
ordinance naniangimongpagka consecutively elected.
Unsapasabotana? Mas gwapomagstaykasaimo position para makakuhakaani award?
Incentive for you to do everything, Char!. Karun nag-award2 nasilaug EPSA tasgi disallow sa
COA by way of an audit. First gi memo sa COA kaywalay basis then later nagripenedsya into a
notice of disallowance. Karun, nagreklamoangempleyadosa City countil of Manila on the
ground that what the COA did here was to nullified a duly enacted ordinance which can only
be done by the courts and not the COA, is it correct?
The court said that No, tama anggibuhatsa COA dire. Under the Constitution, the COA is
vested with the authority to determine, including local governments if it complied with local
laws and regulations in disbursing public funds and to disallow illegal or irregular
disbursements of public funds.
In fact, COA’s jurisdiction extends, to the government, any of its subdivisions and agencies,
instrumentalities and GOCCs with original charters. The COA’s jurisdiction is cannot be taken
by law because it is vested by the Constitution. Because of the wide scope of COA’s powers,
it has the power to determine if the expenditure was extravagant, illegal, and it can validly do
so pursuant to the Constitution. The COA has the power to disapprove payments which it
finds excessive and disadvantageous to the government among other things. So valid
anggibuhatsa COA as it found that the expense here was without legal basis.
COCOFED VS REPUBLIC
RA 6260 created the coconut investment company and to administer the coconut investment
fund. Now, there were laws to implements on how to implement the CIF. One of the laws
here is PD 961,One of the provisions there is the exemption provision, that the funds shall not
be construed as special and fiduciary funds and not part of the general funds of the national
government.
The intention being is that the funds and disbursements are owned by those holding them in
their private capacity. So the effect therefore, Meaning by this is despite being the
Page 55 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
contribution of farmers to the common funds for the alleviation of the coconut industry and
therefore it should have the nature of a public fund, angginahimoanina provision of law is that
it exempts a certain fund from the audit jurisdiction of COA. IS that exemption valid?
The Court said that these provisions are unconstitutional for they explicitly take away the coco
levy funds from the coffers of public funds and privatize the revenues beyond the COA’s
powers. It violates Section IX-B Section 2 which defined the powers of COA. Under here, no
law shall be passed exempting the entity of the government or any public funds from the
jurisdiction of COA. Dili to syapwedemachange by law. Declaring the funds to be special funds
Why has the COA have jurisdiction? Because under Art 9B section 3 no laws shall be passed
exempting any entity of the government or its subsidiary in any guise whatsoever, or any
vestment of public funds from the jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit. Why does the COA
have jurisdiction over these coco levy funds? Because they are special public funds, therefore
hindi to siyapwede ma change by law. I-change nimoang characteristic ananga fund so that it
will be exempted from the auditors jurisdiction of the COA. Declaring the said funds is
[pertaking?] the nature of the public fund therefore, subject to private appropriation removes
them from the coffer of the public funds of the government and makes them impervious to
coa’s auditors [diction?] clearly this provision divests the coa of its constitutional related
function and undermines its constitutional independence.
We have the case of Verzosa vs Carague is the cooperative development authority, its
activities -spending of the money, subject to COA audit? Here there was a procurement
transaction, mahal kayo ilanggipangpalitna computer and gi-disallow karonsa COA angpag
spend atonga money.
Unsa may effect kunggipa-disallow? Kita nabamoug notice of disallowance? I-
listanatanandiraang kung kinsaang involved sa transaction with the directive to either account
for the funds, disallowed siya, give back, i-return ang funds kay disallowed siya.
Ibaliknimotananimonggi-gasto, of course kungkinsa tong affected i-appeal judnilana. Anyway,
the issue here is that does the COAhave the power to do that on the cooperative development
authority? Yes, COA has jurisdiction over the cooperative development authority in so far as
the spending of its money is concerned. Because it is a public institution that is part of the
government and it spends public funds.
Delos Santos vs COA, talks about the spending of the PDAF of this certain congressman.
Gihatagniyaangiyang PDAF, katong valid paniang PDAF sauna, pwede man niya ma direct, mao
to ang effect sa PDAF ma-identify kung asa I-gastoangkwarta, gihatagniyasa hospital and then,
the hospital entered into a memorandum of agreement and then nakitadidtonakatongang
payment for the purchase of these medical instruments were full of irregularities and so
because of that the COA audited it, disallowed it and rendered those responsible [solidarily]
liable for the transaction.
Can the COA do that? Can it impose solidary liability to all involved in the transaction?
Yes, the COA is endowed with enough latitude do determine, prevent and, disallow irregular,
unnecessary, extensive, extravagant or, unconscionable expenditures of government funds.
What about the involvement of the people here? The court said that the officials involved
here should have been deeply involved with the implementation of this program using those
funds. Therefore, they cannot feign ignorance as to how the irregularities came about,
therefore solidary ilang liability in so far as the transaction is concerned.
Let’s go to the case of Funa vsVillar which talks about the rotational [speed?], it also talks
about the promotion. What happened in Funa vs Villar is that GMA appointed Carague as
chairman of COA for a term of 7 years from Feb 2, 2001 to Feb 2, 2008,
Now siVillar on the other was a COA commissioner appointed from Feb 2, 2004 to Feb 2, 2011,
so sabaysilasa COA nagtrabaho. Later on, Carague retired as COA chairman,
nahumanniyaiyang term in other words, He finished his term so what is the effect?
Angmusunodsaiya will have to fill in, and then the term nai-enjoy atongmupulisaiya would be
the full 7 years kayni-retire man to iyanggipulihanwala man namatay or na disabled, had it
been that way katong mu fill-up would take the remaining portion but since nag fully serve
man sa chairman iyang term, angkatongmupulisaiya must enjoy the full 7 years. So Carague
retired as a COA chairman, now Villar was nominated and appointed as the chairman of the
COA, in other words from commissioner nahimosiyaug COA chairman. Now, he was to serve
as chairman of the COA until the expiration of his original term of his office which was in Feb
2, 2011.
In other words, I continue langniya to nabilinniyana term as COA commissioner but now he is
the COA chairman. So unsay effect? Pilanasiyaka years nag serve as commissioner,
pagmusakasiya as chairman, katongnabilinnalangna period angiyang is serve as term of the
COA chairman. Perodiba as we said earlier kungkinsa man angmupulikay COA chairman must
enjoy the 7 years. So karonsiFuna, niadtosa Supreme Court to challenge the appointment of
Villar because number one, this is prohibited, this is a reappointment of a COA commissioner
of a constitutional commission and number two, ang period na mag serve siVillar as COA
chairman would violate the rotational scheme of the constitution.
So lets go to the first issue, is this appointment of Villar from COA commissioner to COA
chairman proscribed by the constitution, is this a prohibited reappointment?
Page 56 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Dibabawal? under the constitution, serve for a term of 7 years without reappointment.
According to Funa this is a reappointment, commissioner siyaniyakaron COA gihaponsiyana
commissioner, gi- reappoint siya. But the court said on that first issue is that there is nothing
in the Art9B section 1 that explicitly precludes a promotional reappointment in other words,
this is not a reappointment because when we talk about a reappointment it is a lateral
reappointment, kung unsatungimong previous position maolangpud to angihatagsaimoha.
But from here from commissioner nahimosiyaug chairman, so na promote siya. So the court
said that the provision does not prohibit promotion appointment, there is nothing in that
provision that explicitly [percludes?] promotional appointment from commissioner to
chairman. However, okay langna ma promote ka there are still conditions in the constitution
that have to be met before you can qualify to that promotion.
First rule: Dili bawalang promotional appointment under the constitution. Again, the COA
chairman should be appointed by the president for a term of 7 years, and if he has served the
full term, he can no longer be reappointed, the same rule applies for the commissioners once
you served the 7 years, you can no longer be reappointed. However, the provision on its
[face?] does not prohibit a promotional appointment, so pwedeka ma promote,
musakakasaimong position from commissioner to chairman. Angbawal again is kung chairman
katapos reappoint ka to chairman or commissioner ka then I-reappoint ka as commissioner.
However, even if valid ang promotional appointment it has to comply to the following
requirements
First, the commissioner to be appointed has not yet served the full term of 7 years. Kay musaka
man siyadiba? So dapatnaasiyanabilinna term. Further qualified by the third sentence of this
provision that the appointed to any vacancy shall only be for the unexpired portion of the term
of the predecessor. What are the conditions? Such promotional appointment to the position
of chairman must conform to the rotational plan or the standard terms in the commission and
that the aggregate service of the commissioner in said position and the term naiyang I-serve
as chairman must not exceed 7 years so that it will not disrupt the rotational system.
So is that even possible? Na from commissioner kataposmahimokaug chairman naimuhang
term dilimulapasug 7 years total and then katongpag serve pudnimosa term as chairman,
dilipudmulapassakatong term nga full term, sakatongdapat ma appoint as chairman.
Pwedebana? Mahitabobajudna situation? The court said that it can happen, in so far as Villar
is concerned here, diliniya to pwede ma enjoy. Why? Ang result man gud if he is to be
appointed, promotionally appointed as chairman would that- [fragment]. Take note ha,
angiyang predecessor nahumaniyang term through retirement, so meaning
angpulihannivillar, the person who would succeed, katong nag retire nga chairman would
have to enjoy 7 years, however siVillarkaron nag serve nasiya as commissioner for a number
of years, so kung I-appoint iyakaron promotionally as chairman of COA dilinaniya to ma fulfil
ang 7 year term any other will be unconstitutional since it will ruin the structure.
Kuntahay two years nalangnabilinsaiya but he is required by the constitution whoever is to fill
up the position to spend 7 years, violation nasiya of the constitution, his appointment here
was a promotional appointment which is not proscribed perodilisiya mu qualify because,
number one, diliniya ma enjoy ang 7 year term, katung mu pulikay chairman and,
dilipudsiyapwedetagaanug fresh 7 years because mulapasnasiyasaiyang full 7 years as a
member of constitutional, COA in this case.
So, is it even possible namahitabona when the court can have a valid promotion take place?
It happens when there is a commissioner who has not served his full term is to serve the term
of the chairman, promotional man, so from member kamahimokaug chairman, he will now
serve the term of the chairman for the balance of the latters’ term and the total of his tenure
as commissioner and chairman should not exceed 7 years. Unsamanana instance
namahitabo? It only happens when the chairman leaves the office by death, disability and,
resignation
why? Because when that happens naa pay mabilinna balance. For example, on his 4th year
namataysiya, so pila pa ka years angnabilin? Three years kay seven years man iyang term.
Karonnaatay constitutional commissioner dirina nag serve pa siyaug 4 years palangpud so,
naa pa siyanabilinnga 3 years, so pwedesiya mu-resign or ma-promote to that position para
makuhaniya to ang three years. So katolangna instance, dapat mag coincide. Si COA
commissioner therefore must have still have the remaining number of years to serve the
position nagi-fill up and number two, the position nana-vacate must be vacated by means of
death, disability, impeachment or resignation such that naa pay nabilinna term, naa pay
balance to be filled up, and in no case namulapasug 7 years ang total term anini commissioner
as member and COA chairman in total. Kanusamanamahitabo? It’s somehow impossible
namahitabo.
So these are the rules laid down by the supreme court in this case. The appointment of the
members of any of the three constitutional commissions after the expiration of the uneven
terms of their office, of the first set of commissioners shall always be for a fixed term of 7
years, that is to set the ball rolling in so far as the rotational scheme is concerned and the
appointment of less and lesser period is void and unconstitutional because you are supposed
to serve a 7 year term, so dilipwedenaimuhang I fill na position kayna vacate siya by reason
of finishing the term of the predeccessor . Meaning, nadapatang term naimong I-enjoy is 7
years, di kapwedenai-appoint dirana o “two years langka ha?” because it will ruin the
Page 57 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
rotational scheme, so dapat kung nay open na position dira that is not caused by death or
resignation, impeachment or disability you fill that 7 years.
Number two, the appointing authority can validly shorten the full term of 7 years in case of
the expiration of the term, as this will result to the distortion of the rotational system
prescribed by the constitution.
Number three, appointments to vacancies resulting to certain causes: death, resignation,
disability, and impeachment shall only be for the unexpired portion, para dilipud ma ruin ang
rotational scheme.
Walatay issue diri kung siVillardilisiya from the commissioner unyanahimosiyaug chairman,
had it been some other person nadiligikansa COA, okay langsaiyanai-fill niyatung remaining
portion or iyangi-meet tung 7 years na term because gi-vacate man siya by the chairman due
to expiration of his term, ang problem here is Villar is already from the COA, nag serve
nasiyaugpilaka years as a commissioner, pwedesiya ma promote but angdiliniya ma meet
angkatong 7 years na mandatory period. Again,appointments to vacancies resulting to certain
causes: death, resignation, disability, and impeachment shall only be for the period remaining.
[Number four?] Members of the commission who were appointed for a full term of 7 years
and have served the entire period are barred from the appointment to any position in the
commission
[Number] Five, a commissioner who resigns after serving the commission for less than 7 years,
just like Villar here, is eligible for the appointment to the position of chairman for the
unexpired portion, so possible again, nag serve nakasa COA as a member tapos ma promote
ka as chairman, provided such appointment is not covered by the banned reappointment
because it is a promotional appointment not a free appointment, provided that the aggregate
period of the length of service as commissioner and the unexpired period of the term of the
predecessor will not exceed 7 years and provided further that the vacancy in the position of
chairman resulted from death, resignation, disability, or removal by impeachment. So ikaw
kung gusto momagpapromote kung gikankasa COA member, mag pray kanamamataytung
chairman tapos I pray pudnimona mag swakimung schedule and period nanaa pay
mabilindidtonadili pa mulapasug 7 years. So lisud-lisudsiya prayer.
Anyways, Funa vs. Meco. Remember this case? Katung gusto niFuna again naipa-audit
angmeco, because it is covered by the COA’s audit jurisdiction and the [court?] has decided
that meco is a non-governmental entity, However there are funds being collected by the meco
pertaining to verification fees that it was authorized to collect under law, and these said public
funds are subject to the audit jurisdiction of the COA, so as a general rule, meco is not subject
to the audit jurisdiction of COA since it is a non-governmental entity but in so far as the public
funds naiyanggina collect it is subject to COA’s jurisdiction. Meco is a sui generis entity that is
a non-government entity beyond the COA’s jurisdiction.
TESDA vs COA
O kani, naamga extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses incurred by the TESDA nanakitasa
auditor by the COA na for subject for disallowance, and gi-disallow sa COA. Was the COA
correct in disallowing it? Yes, it is generally accorded complete discretion in the exercise of its
constitutional duty and the court generally sustains its decisions in recognition of its expertise
in the laws it is entrusted to enforce.
However is the COA completely insulated from the courts power? No, because again
expanded jurisdiction of the supreme court or any courts for that matter, if there is a violation
or if there is a grave abuse of discretion, the court can set aside any exercise its discretion
with the COA.
NHA vs COA
This talks about the award of the [port?] in a litigation against the NHA, awarding attorney’s
fees, and the court said, Remember katongmga money claims, we first subject that to COA’s
approval pursuant to PD 1445, So again, katong cases nagatudlosaatoana it is not advisable if
it is a money claim against the government, the first route should be COA, file kadidtoug
necessary pleading petition in order for COA to determine if it is a valid money claim and if it
so determines, it will rule on the matter.
PARAISO ABAN vs COA
Kaninaay, katiwaliansa AFP RSBS, that the AFP RSBS kasabwatdiriang [budget corps?] so
apilsiyasapag audit sa COA, to be complicit in the irregularities, and the court reminded that
the parties here that the exercise of the COA of its general audit powers is among the
mechanisms of the checks and balances instituted in the constitution, and the COA’s power
and authority to determine and audit these funds, here the COA can disallow irregular,
expensive, and extravagant use of funds. What does the court do with the COA’s findings?
As a general rule, it will not only sustain the decision of the COA not only on the basis of the
doctrine of separation of powers but also from the presumed expertise on the laws there are
entrusted to enforce unless it is a grave abuse of discretion. In this case the court agreed that
the COA, that the internal audit and verification conducted by [here?] failed to demonstrate
the degree of diligence and good faith required in the performance of their sworn duty to
safeguard the assets of this institution. So kato, naging negligent siya, apilsiyasapag audit
nakasabwatsiya among other things and that liable siya for the transaction.
Page 58 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
For the case of Nayong Pilipino vs Pulido Tan, is that the Nayong Pilipino Incorporated
subject to the COA’s jurisdiction? Yes, COA is the guardian of public funds, the said broad
powers etc, it has audit jurisdiction in this Nayong Pilipino.
Case of Reyes vs COA, on the appeal of the decisions of COA, asaganikamo-appeal? If you
want to question the decision of COA? You’d go to the supreme court, Rule 64 in relation to
rule 65, 30 day period from receipt of decision, unsaimong ground? Grave abuse of discretion
or grounds provided in rule 65.
In Reblora vs AFP, nag file siyaug appeal sa decision sa COA, before the court of appeals.
Under rule 45 before the supreme court, questions of law. Tama baiyanggihimo? No, dapat
through rule 65, grave abuse of discretion, rule 64 in relation of rule 65. In rule 45 petition
before the supreme court, the court is tasked to examine the questions of law, it is not similar
to rule 65 petition which examines if there is grave use of discretion. So mali, gi dismiss sa
court iyang case.
Provisions on National Economy and Patrimony.
One of the most important is the concept of this regalian doctrine.
Regalian Doctrine – the doctrine, state owns all lands and waters of the public domain. In
other words, when the matter involved public domain, the presumption is that it is owned by
the State. And when is it public domain and the State wants to give it to the inhabitants, it can
do so of course, it is the State that verdicts the distribution thereof.
Question is, what if the land in question is already private? So we have a case on that. Anyway,
the general rule is that you apply the regalian doctrine – the state owns all lands and waters
of the public domain. And we enjoy this the resources, we are enjoying the same by
permission by the state. And if the State wants it back, to get these resources back, parcels of
land, it can do so because, it owns..because among others the regalia doctrine and also,
naapudsyay power to exercise in a (public) domain. Related nisiladuha.
Is regalian doctrine found in the Constitution? Yes. It’s in Article XII, Section 2.
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces ofpotential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State.With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated.
The exploration, development,and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State.
The State may directlyundertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint
venture, or production-sharing agreements withFilipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.
Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not
more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by
law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other
than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.
The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea,
and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino
citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino
citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and
fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical or financialassistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oilsaccording to the general terms and conditions
provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth andgeneral welfare of
the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local
scientificand technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with
this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
The only forum of land that we can only dispose of are agricultural lands. When is a parcel of
land considered agricultural?
Article XII, Section 3 provides:
Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and
nationalparks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law
according to the uses which they may bedevoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall
be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associationsmay not hold such
alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five
Page 59 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
years,renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand
hectares in area. Citizens of thePhilippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares,
or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof bypurchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject
to the requirements ofagrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands
of the public domain which may be acquired,developed, held, or leased and the conditions
therefor.
Out of the four lands (agricultural, forest, mineral, national parks), only agricultural lands and
pwedengmadispose or ma alienate.
Section 3 – take note that this provision talks about lands of the public domain. So mao to ang
concept ngregalian doctrine, a state, as a general rule, owns all resources, all public domain.
CHAVEZ vs Public Estates Authority– which talks extensively on this concept. How did this
come about? Sometime 1973, the government, the commissioner of public highways engaged
to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas in the Manila Bay. To build the Manila-Cavite
Coastal Road. The president Marcos issued a Presidential Decree creating this Public Estates
Authority. Now, the president also passed the PEA to reclaim the land including foreshore and
submerged areas of the same date he transferred to the PEA all the lands reclaimed in the
foreshore and offshore of Manila Bay - Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project.
So grabesi PEA, daghannasiyag parcels of land na reclaimed by the State, now under its
authority and disposal. Now, thereafter the President issued a memo that PEA to amend its
contract, this entity this CDCP (Construction and Development Corporation of the
Philippines), so that all future works in the coastal road shall be owned and funded by the
PEA. And then, the next President issued a special patent transferring tothe PEA the parcels
of land solely claimed under (by) the Coastal Road Project. So ang owner karon it would
appear na claimed by the PEA and the issuance of TCT.
The PEA entered into a joint venture agreement, with a private corporation named AMARI to
develop the FREEDOM ISLANDS which is located in those reclaimed areas, the subject of this
case.
However, so kato , ang issue nanahitabodiri is that naay agreement between the PEA and the
AMARI – which is a private Corporation, after they finish the project, itransferang ownership
sakatong lands to this AMARI, this private entity. So that is why, Chavez went to the SC
assailed the validity of the sale to AMARI as these are lands of the public domain, a violation
of the constitution.
And despite, the PEA and the AMARI signed that amended joint venture agreement.
Now, is the joint venture agreement –amended, are they consistent to the Constitution? Is it
valid for the PEA to dispose of these reclaimed foreshore areas? In discussing the conclusion
to this case, the Court discussed the concept of this regalian doctrine, that
The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is rooted in the
Regalian doctrine which holds that the State owns all lands and waters of the public domain.
Now, asa may gikuhaningregalian doctrine? Something that is created by the Constitutional
Commisisoners?
Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all "lands, territories and
possessions" in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown.
The King, as the sovereign ruler and representative of the people, acquired and owned all
lands and territories in the Philippines except those he disposed of by grant or sale to private
individuals.
The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions adopted the Regalian doctrine substituting, however,
the State, in lieu of the King, as the owner of all lands and waters of the public domain. The
Regalian doctrine is the foundation of the time-honored principle of land ownership that "all
lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to
the public domain."43 Article 339 of the Civil Code of 1889, which is now Article 420 of the Civil
Code of 1950, incorporated the Regalian doctrine.
The subsequent Constitutions adopted the Regalian doctrine substituting the crown for the
State. It is now the state as the owner of all the lands and waters of the public domain.
The subsequent constitutions adopted the Regalian doctrine, substituting the crown for the
state. It is now the state as the owner of the lands, waters of the public domain. This doctrine
is founded on the principle of land ownership, that all lands acquired by the government
either by purchase or by grant belong to the public domain.
Under the 1987 Constitution, all natural resources owned by the state except for alienable
agricultural lands are considered public domain; therefore, if not alienated by the state, or
naasyay public purpose, it cannot be alienated. In fact the 1987 constitution, continues
banning Private Corporation from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
Page 60 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Ang public domain kay dilipwedepalitonni private corporation, pwedelang ma-lease for 25
years, and extendible for another 25 years. What is the reason nganongdilipwede ma-dispose
arbitrarily ang lands of the public domain?
To equitably diffuse land ownership, or to encourage 'owner-cultivatorship and the economic
family-size farm' and to prevent a recurrence of cases like the instant case. Huge landholdings
by corporations or private persons had spawned social unrest.".Unsa man angmabilinsa
Filipinos? Yuta sakaang? What is the practical reason of the ban?
It strengthens the constitutional limitation of the individual from acquiring more than the
allowable area of alienable lands of the public domain. Without the constitutional ban,
individuals who already acquired the maximum area of alienable lands of the public domain
could easily set up corporations to acquire more alienable public lands.
An individual could own as many corporations as his means would allow him. An individual
could even hide his ownership of a corporation by putting his nominees as stockholders of the
corporation. The corporation is a convenient vehicle to circumvent the constitutional
limitation on acquisition by individuals of alienable lands of the public domain. Going back to
the issue, is Amari can acquire the parcels of land here? Na gipang reclaim by the state,
particularly the submerged portion of the Manila Bay? Under the JVA dilidaw limited
pagkuhani Amari didtosagipang reclaimed areas, apilpuddaw tong mga submerged portions
meaning kadtongdagatapilsa contract, 367.5 hectares of reclaimed areas, several hectares of
submerged lands. Can it be done? The court said the submerged portions of the Manila Bay
are part of the public domain.
Therefore, the disposal thereof will be subject to state authority. The mere reclamation by
the PEA does not mean automatically convert this inalienable natural resources into alienable
or disposable lands. What do you mean by reclamation? Tubigsyagibutanganogyuta para
matukuranog whatever unsay matukod. The fact nagibuhatnasa state, it does not mean na
alienable because kana na area kay it still a part of the public domain. Naasyay purpose which
is public dilisyabasta-bastana that by act alone, ma-alienate sya. does not convert these
inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable or disposable lands of the public
domain. There must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed
lands as alienable or disposable and open to disposition or concession.
Moreover, these reclaimed lands cannot be classified as alienable or disposable if the law has
reserved them for some public or quasi-public use. Aside sana nay declaration na ma-alienate
sya, ireclaimsya, ialienatesya, dapat nay declaration na there is no other public use of that
property. It is only then, napwedesya ma-dispose sa private individual. Otherwise, it is still
owned by the state, and may not be subject to alienation. As to the 157 hectares of the
reclaimed lands comprising Freedom Islands now covered and owned by the PEA, these are
alienable lands for public domain. These lands may be leased to private corporations but they
may not be sold or ang ownership ma-transfer because of the constitutional limitation naang
corporations cannot own public land in the Ph.
Not all the lands here are considered disposable. No one could reclaim from the sea without
permission from the State because the sea is property of public dominion. What about the
submerged area here? The JVA does not only cover the Freedom Islands but also the
submerged areas. There is no legislative or Presidential act classifying these submerged
areas as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain open to disposition. Definitely,
dilijudsya ma-alienate by the state to the private corporation such as the Amari. What are the
requirements for a reclaimed area be alienated?
1. Ireclaimnimosya if submerged area sya
2. Transform these properties into agricultural lands by the appropriate authority
3. Officially classify them as alienable or disposable and open to disposition
4. The government will declare these lands that are no longer needed for public
service
Only then can these reclaimed lands be considered alienable or disposable lands of the public
domain and within the commerce of man. By mere executive order declaring PEA shall own
these properties did not automatically subject them to alienation. Dapaticlassifysya as
agricultural land, alienable, and no longer for public use. Pwedenanimosyaidispose.
Who is the authority that can classify these lands as inalienable lands? Under the constitution,
it is the DENR. Absent two official acts – a classification that these lands are alienable or
disposable and open to disposition and a declaration that these lands are not needed for
public service, lands reclaimed by PEA remain inalienable lands of the public
domain. Therefore, dili pa pwede ma-dispose kay wala pa man gi-declare na inalienable sya
in the first place.
So absent the following acts: 1) Classification that these lands are alienable or disposable, and
2) a declaration that these lands are no longer needed for public service, the lands reclaimed
here by the PEA remained inalienable lands of the public domain.
Therefore, dili pa syapwedei-dispose of. Kay wala pa man gi-declare na inalienable sya in the
first place. Only an official classification in the form of a declaration can convert inalienable
lands into alienable or disposable lands.
Does the PPA have authority to sell these lands to private corporations? (NO)
Page 61 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
No. Because the Constitution explicitly prohibits the sale of these public lands to corporations.
Dilipwedemadispose of angmga reclaimed public lands without complying with the foregoing
requisites. Therefore, angkanilangameded JVA (Joint Venture Agreement) that effected their
agreement is contrary to the Constitution.
To allow [23:32] (?) vast areas of land of reclaimed areas (?), the lands here would be
transferred to the PEA and to be considered as private lands automatically will sanction a
gross violation of the Constitutional Ban on the private corporations acquiring inalienable land
of the public Domain.
So because of the violation of the Foregoing Constitutional provisions, these agreements are
null and void.
Yinlu-Bicol v Trans-Asia Oil (Take Note of this Case)
GR: Lands of the Public Domain are owned by the State.
What about private lands? This is the case which discusses the concept of Private property
vis-à-vis a vested right. Now there are 13 mining claims here located in CamarinesNorte,
owned by Philippine Iron Mines Inc, and eventually nabaligyasyato Yinlu-Bicol.
Now, another entity, Trans-Asia Oil and Development Corporation, explored the areas that
were covered by the grants to Yinlu. So karon, inconsistent naangilahang coverage area. Yinlu
is asserting that “I am the owner of these Mineral Grants”, and then, there is this entity
nanaga explore anina area. And so Yinlu went to the DENR to ask for to ask for a favourable
ruling to ask kungsinobajudangpwedemaka exploit anina area.
So the DENR ruled in favour of Yinlu-Bicol. When it reached the Court of Appeals, the CA
reversed the ruling of the DENR, which was already affirmed by the Office of the President,
on the ground that the Patents granted to Yinlu-Bicol were not registered under PD 463. So,
the patents lapsed, and therefore had no [26:39](??? Mumbles ???)
Now, before we go to the matter of the lapse of the patents, covered ba by the Regalian
Doctrine, in the first place, ang Mineral Grants? Take note that the Mineral Claims of PIMI
(Phil Iron Mining), katonggipalitanniYinlu-Bicol, katong Mineral Grants, were owned by it prior
to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution (It was owned by it (PIMI) since 1930. And, unsa
man ang prevailing organic law at that time? It was the Philippine Bill of 1902. And Sec. 37 of
that Organic Law provided that the holder of the Mineral Claims so located is entitled to all
the minerals that lie within that Claim, but they could not mine outside the boundaries of that
Claim. And so, it was only under the 1935 Constitution nagiadopt eventually saatong Country,
angRegalian Doctrine.
In other words, ang Mineral Claims here would constitute as private property. I-apply banato
retroactively ang 1935 Constitution nakaning Mineral Claims nagigrantsa entity would now be
covered by the Regalian Doctrine? NO.
No. Because the Constitution, as a rule, is prospective in Application. Under the 1935, 1973,
and 1987 Constitution, these mineral lands are no longer subject to alienation.
Dilinapwedenabastabastanaibaligyalang, because it is the State that governs how these are
supposed to be exploited. But, the court said here that walanisyanacoverna restriction
because they have already granted to this entity prior to the effectivity of the 1935
Constitution. So in other words, as a rule, hands off naang state insofar as how these mineral
claims will be disposed of. A mining claim, perfected under the law, is a Property in the highest
sense of the term which can be sold and conveyed, and passed by descent, and is not subject
to the disposal of the government.
Note: One of the Exceptions to the Regalian Doctrine: Vested Rights, or Property that is
already declared private, PRIOR to the adoption of our country of the Regalian Doctrine.
(Remember: PUBLIC LANDS or Public domain, or Natural Resources of the Public Domain
Covered by the Regalian Doctrine and may be regulated by the State.)
Kani, Private nasya, prior to the Regalian Doctrine adoption of that rule. So dilisya covered by
rule of non-disposal. Owned by the Original owner since 1930, and ultimately transferred to
Yinlu-Bicol. Thus, the lands and Minerals covered by YINLU’s mining patent are private
properties. The Government, whether the DENR or NGP could not alienate or dispose of the
lands or minerals through the Grants given to the other entity, Trans-Asia, or any other person
or entity because Yinlu had acquired exclusive rights to explore, develop, or utilize the
minerals therein, and to legally transfer or assign such exclusive rights.
(So walanagapplyangRegalian Doctrine kay prior to the adoption of the Regalian Doctrine
itself, and considered as Private Property.)
Should the mining patents here no longer be recognized because they were not registered
under existing laws?
The court held that No. It is already a Vested Right. And if there is a requirement of
Registration imposed by law to recognize these rights, Dapatbigyankang chance (the owner)
to follow what is prescribed by the law. It was not shown here that (Yinlu) was notified of the
procedure, or that the DENR issued a directive for Yinlu to comply with such a registration
requirement. In any case, it can comply with the same after it is notified by the DENR to
comply with it. So by the fact nawalagiregister, did not mean na automatically dilinasya ma-
recognize. In the first place, 1) it is already considered as Private Property; and, 2) Yinlu people
already acquired a vested right over it. When you acquire a vested right over something, it
cannot be taken from you without complying with the requirement of due process.
Page 62 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Republic v. Alaminos Ice Plant
This Ice Plant corporation filed an application for a parcel of land which was granted by the
trial court. (31:37)
We have Republic vsAlaminos Ice Plant where this ice plant corporation filed application for
the registration for land which was granted by the trial court. This was appealed by the office
of the Solicitor general on the ground that this applicant failed to submit an evidence that this
parcel of land sought to be registered is already considered alienable and disposable and it
also failed to prove specific acts of possession, apparently ang reason nganoginaparegisterni,
kininga property was that it was in an open, continuous, exclusive, possession of the property.
Now, what was the piece of evidence that this ice plant has to prove na alienable naninga
property para mavalidatenaang decision sa trial court naihatagnasa entity
naniangtitulosayuta. It presented a certification from CENRO, DENR certifying that land falls
within an alienable and disposable area. Is that certification enough?
The court said that it is not. Ang requirements for land registration, is in registration
proceedings, is it the republic that proves that this part of land is alienable and disposable?
Or is it the applicant that has to prove that this parcel of land is already alienable or disposable.
Kinsa man angmagprove? Ang state or ang applicant?
It is the applicant! It is because the presumption is that the property forms part of public
domain and under the Regalian doctrine, it is owned by the state. So ikaw as the applicant,
you have to prove that this parcel of land has been classified as alienable and subject to
alienation. Under the RegalianDoctrine, embodied in our Constitution, decrees that all lands
of the public domain belong to the State, the source of any asserted right to any ownership
of land.
Corollary to the doctrine, lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State. So there is a presumption that the state owns this. Hence,
while a burden of proof in registration proceedings exists, it is this:
that of overcoming the presumption of State ownership of lands of the public
domain.Logically, such burden lies on the person applying for registration What must be
proved for that person? the applicant must present incontrovertible evidence that the land
subject of the application is alienable or disposable. Is the presentation of the certificate of
CENRO and DENR enough to classify this land as alienable and disposable?
No! it was held that it was not enough for the CENRO or the Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources Office (PENRO) to certify that a certain parcel of land is alienable and
disposable in order for said land to be registrable. he applicant for land registration must
prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of
the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for
registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or
CENRO.
In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification
approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the
official records. So katong certificates kaydili enough. So the reliance of CA on that
cettification, to validate the registration was wrong. Here the ice plant failed to present the
required document to overcome the presumption that this parcel of land is owned by the
state and therefore not yet alienable and disposable.
We have already discussed the case of Republic vs Provincial Government,katong reservoir
saMalampaya Gas somewhere in the province of Palawan and the province’s share of the
proceeds. One of the arguments raised to counteract that assertion by the province that it is
entitled to a share in the proceeds, is that gi invoke sa Republic kiningRegalian doctrine and
Federal paramountcy doctrine. Are these doctrines applicable? Are these valid grounds to
uphold the right of the state? The court said that these doctrines do not apply in this case.
Why? In the first place the province is not claiming ownership over the resources there. What
is wants is a share on the ground that it is part of its territory. Under the local government
code, nasyay certain share samga enterprises so the province is conceding that it is owned by
the state, we are not taking ownership of it, it is just that under the law, we are entitled to a
share in the exploration, whatever is earned in that area. Now basin iasksa exam or sainyong
bar exam, what is this Federal Paramountcy doctrine?
This doctrine is derived from Supreme Court cases in the United States, where the federal
government and various coastal states disputed ownership and control of the territorial sea.
It is argued by the national government here that it is the national government, the federal
government that remains to have full dominion or ownership right over the natural resources,
it is the federal government rather than the state that has paramount rights and powers over
that resource. Mao naanggiinvokesa solicitor general. The court said that dili mag-apply ang
federal paramountcy doctrine here.
First is that the US constitution or ilangmgabalaoddidto does not have the equitable sharing
provision accorded between the national government ang local government units.
Page 63 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Second, the Philippines is not composed of states that were previously independent nations.
Third, the resolution of these cases does not necessitate distinguishing between dominium
and imperium since neither determines the LGU's entitlement to the equitable share under
Section 7 of Article X.
Fourth, the Court is not called upon to determine who between the Province of Palawan and
the National Government has the paramount or dominant right to explore or exploit the
natural resources in the marginal sea or beyond because the provincial government here
conceded that it is not claiming ownership of these resources only a share in the revenues.
dominium and imperium (4) the court is not even called upon to determine who between the
province and the national government has paramount and dominant rights because the
province here conceded that this is owned by the State its not claiming ownership again of
these resources, only a share in the revenues derived from that endeavor.
Now gi discuss nato ang case ganiha na there is a presumption na if there is a parcel of land
sought to be registered by private individuals, gusto niya ma claim ang ownership. The
presumption is that, that parcel of land is owned by the state. However does that presumption
apply in reversion proceedings?
So we have the case of Republic vs Espinosa
We have this parcel of land which was granted to Espinosa by way of cadastral proceedings,
after the proceedings, gi issuehan si Espinosa og original certificate of title in that proceedings,
gi prove ni Espinosa na siya ang owner of the property and he is entitled to it.
Now later on the State through the Sol Gen filed a complaint for annulment of title or
reversion of land to get that property back, claiming that, that property is timberland, diba
out of the 4 types of land in the Philippines isa lang ang alienable, if it is an agricultural land,
so katong mga national park, timberlands, they are not supposed to be alienated, ang State
ang mag govern kung unsaon pag exploit ani na mga lands. So ang State is claiming na kaning
gi issue na yuta-a ni, mali ni, this forms part of the timberland and the state declared them to
be inalienable. Kinsa ba in the first place ang naay burden of proof karon to prove if this parcel
of land is alienable in the first place.
Now if it is a land registration proceeding as discussed earlier, katong ikaw private person
claiming registration over the land, it is the applicant that has the burden of
proving/overcoming the presumption of state ownership. You must establish controvertible
evidence that the lands registered is already alienable and disposable.
In cadastral proceedings that is precisely what you do, cadastral proceedings are governed by
the usual rules of procedure, practice and evidence so much so that cadastral degree and the
certificate of title granted after such proceedings means you prove all the requisite
jurisdictional facts meaning if hatagan kag cadastral decree after the proceedings, you are
entitled to the claimed lot, as such a cadastral decree is a judgement which adjudicates
ownership after proving the jurisdictional facts.
So here kaning si Espinosa bale gi grant-an man siya og cadastral decree og titulo sa yuta
having being granted such, he can be presumed to have overcome the presumption that the
land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. So karon kinsa na ang naay
presumption in a reversion proceeding to prove na this is inalienable. Does Espinosa need to
prove that again? Na alienable imong property, proving anew this reversion proceedings.
no , it is now the state that needs to overcome that presumption or the fact here na private
na ning property na naka register kang Espinosa, it is now the state that has now to prove that
this parcel of land is timberland. Having been granted such a decree, Espinosa is presumed to
have overcome the presumption that his property is state owned. So he enjoys that benefit,
now when does the state anyway avail of reversion proceedings?
Reversion is the right of the state pursuant to the regalian doctrine to revert land back to the
mass of the public domain, it is proper when the land is fraudulently awarded and disposed
off to private individuals and corporations, there are also instances when the land is alienated
by oversight and the State can get that property back by way of reversion. In this case there
was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on part of Espinosa that he employed those
things in order to acquire these properties and therefore wala karon na prove ni state, dili
karon ma prove ni state na proper ang pag revert sa property back into the public domain,
the burden of proof in reversion proceedings is on the State to prove that the property was
classified here as inalienable public land.
Baliktad na kay reversion naman, owned na ni siya by the private individual and the state
explaining that this is inalienable it has to prove that it is indeed inalienable.
Same doctrine in Republic vs Heirs of Cabrera
Which all talks about reversion proceedings, the power to classify and reclassify lands lies
solely with the executive department particularly to DENR. There are 5 types of categories of
lands; Forest, Agricultural, Timber, Mineral, and National Park so out of these 5 classes of land
isa lang ang pwede ang ma alienate, kato na siya ang agricultural land. Automatic ba na pag
agricultural land ang property pwede na ni i alienate sa state, pwede na ni siya paliton ni
private individual? Dile diba, naa pa kay processo.
Page 64 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Aside sa declaration na alienable ni siya, naa pa tong declaration na its no longer for public
use. In turn the classification of unclassified lands to the public domain and the reclassification
of those previously classified are governed by existing laws and these laws empower certain
agencies and individuals to classify these lands; the president and the secretary of agriculture
and commerce, so DENR secretary.
In reversion proceedings, the state bears the burden of proving the property in question was
inalienable at the time it was decreed because again, decreed naman siya to a private
individual, now the state has the burden to prove na that decree should not have been
granted, here the property, reversion proceedings siya eh so the state has to prove that it is
inalienable, the court said that it failed to prove that the property her was classified as forest
land, therefore the private owner here retains ownership over these properties.
Leonidas vs Vargas
Talks about the requisites for the confirmation and registration of an imperfect and
incomplete title, you will discuss this very very extensively in land titles. There is a law PD 1529
which allows you to register a parcel of land which you are claiming na imuha nang gi possess
na for more than more than 30 years, so pwede diay na? It seems under 1529 kinsa ang pwede
mak apply, in section 4-b the following persons may apply in the power of court an application
for the registration of title to land number 1 so kinsa mani sila. (1) Those who by themselves
or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bonafide claim of ownership. So apparently by mere possession
Those who by themselves or to their predecessors and interests have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership. So apparently by [hale?]
possession, Unsaganisasiyana concept? Kanang by mere passage of time do you acquire it?
Acquisitive [prescription?]. So kato, the mere fact nanagpuyokaatona property, characterized
as open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession and ownership you can actually apply
for a registration over the [sale?] under this law. If you avail of that provision, you want to
prove nevertheless that the subject land you are occupying is already disposable and
alienable. [For as part?] of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain.
Number two, that you are predecessors and interests have been in open continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and that this possession was under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 and this are all the requirements for you to be able to perfect
your title over that property, pursuant to the [mode?] provided by the law, here the applicant
failed to prove those three requirements. Kanipalang requirement that forms part of the
disposable and alienable lands, so mubalikkasaatongmga discussions ganina, when is a public
land already classified as disposable and alienable?
When is it considered napwedena ma-baligya by the state or ma-dispose na by the state? So
diba nag discuss ta ganihasamga requirements? Isa nasamga pieces of evidence
naipakitanimo if you want to perfect your title under this [mode?]
In Republic vs RomerSy Realty, the court emphasized here that this incorporation - RomerSy
Realty, filed an application of registration for a parcel of land somewhere in Cagayan de Oro,
this was opposed by the office of the Solicitor General on the ground that the lands of the
[beregistered? 48:47] exceeds the 12 hectare limit for confirmation of an imperfect title set
forth by the law. Is it subject to that limitation? First of all, where is this 12 hectare limitation
found?
It is under Article 12 section 3 of the constitution, lands of public domain etc. … citizens of the
Philippines may not lease more than 500 hectares or acquire not more than 12 hectares
thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant. But this 12 hectare limitation is imposable or is
only imposed on lands of public domain. So if you are trying to get property that is already
considered as private, meaning na private nasiya, dilinasiya part of public domain, the
limitation will not attach. So by clear language of Article 12 section 3 katung 12 hectare
limitation applies only to lands of the public domain. Private lands are therefore outside the
prohibitions and limitations stated by the [late? 49:55], so matingalanalang ta nanaaymga
corporations nanaga own ug thousands of thousands of hectares, or individuals owning
thousands and thousands of hectares of land, apparently those are private properties
nanakuhapudnila from private owners, so dilina ma-apply tung 12 hectare limitation only
applies if it is a public land sought to be acquired on the onset, so walani apply ang 12 hectare
limitation diri, in so far as the restriction is [proclations? 50:30] because it is already private
property.
Now there are provisions in the constitution that emphasize [nationalist] citizenship
requirements, unsa man ang point nganonaa may inganina provisions? Reserved are atoang
natural resources to the Filipinos, para dilisila ma – refuse samga aliens or dili qualified to own
in the state, unsay example?
Article 12 section 2 on the exploration and development of natural resources, the state may
undertake the exploitation thereof or may enter joint venture agreements or production with
Filipino citizens or corporations owned by Filipinos atleast 60 percent of which, whose capital
of which is owned by citizens. [ma-leyn? 51:28] wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial
sea, and exclusive economic zone are reserved for the use and enjoyment exclusively of
Page 65 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Filipino citizens. Can this provision be used to further argument that the EEZ is exclusive to
the Filipinos? Probably. Take note that not only provisions in the constitution are self –
executing, so this could be a non self – executing provision because murasiyaug statement of
a policy.
What else? The president may enter into agreements with foreign owned corporations,
involving either technical or financial assistance for large scale exploration of minerals,
petroleum, and other minerals.
There are certain industries in the Philippines that are reserved to Filipinos, in Article 16
section 11, unsa man ang example ani? Ownership and management of mass media shall be
limited to citizens of the Philippines or corporations, cooperatives or associations wholly
owned and managed by such citizens. Kinsa man ngakasoni? Yes [class answer 52:39].
The advertising industry is impressed with public interests and there [tension? 52:45]
regulated by law, only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations where at least 70
percent of the capital is owned by Filipinos shall be allowed to engage in the advertising
industry.
Franchises, Article 12 section 11, no franchise, certificate, or any form of authorization from
the operation of a public utility. Unsay example ani public utility? Unsamga application of
franchise? (class answers). Public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines
or to corporations and associations organized under laws of the Philippines, at least the 60
percent – capital of which is owned by such citizens and no such franchise, certificate of
authorization shall last for a period longer than 50 years.
Lands, we already talked about that earlier. Another provision important in Article 12 is
section 7, save in cases of hereditary succession. No private land shall be transferred to
convey; except to individuals, corporations, and associations qualified to acquire or own lands
of the public domain. So kanisiyana restriction on private lands I-relate nimosiyasa
restrictions of public lands as to who can own the state. Section 8, natural born citizens of the
Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship may get transferring of private lands
subject to limitations provided by law. So there are laws that you will discuss in land titles
nanaga govern anina provision.
There are laws that we will discuss in land titles. Particularly kadtongpwedeng ma-own samga
former citizens of the Philippines. What else? Practice of profession which includes our
profession Art. XII sec. 4 save the cases prescribed by law. Basta Filipino citizens whether
natural born or naturalized. Lawyers may be natural born or naturalized.
Concept of Social Justice
What is Social Justice?
It can be found Art II, Sec. 10
SECTION 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
Article 12, Sec 15
SECTION 15. The Congress shall create an agency to promote the viability and growth of
cooperatives as instruments for social justice and economic development.
Article 13, Secs. 1 and 2
SECTION 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect
and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and
political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political
power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of
property and its increments.
SECTION 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic
opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
What is the concept of Social Justice?
The provisions in Social justice are very broad? Unsa man ni self-executing or not self-
executing? Not self-executing. Therefore, before you can assert any right, there must be an
implementing law. They are mere statements of principles and policies and give effect to
them, legislation is required
What is social justice?
Social justice is the humanization of laws, it is the equalization of social and economic forces
and by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least
be approximated.Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the
adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the
competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through
the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of
powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of
saluspopuliest suprema lex.
It is not limited to social inequities but also includes political and cultural inequities.Social
justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State.
CHR
Page 66 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
It can be found in Article XIII, Sec. 17
Human Rights
SECTION 17. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on
Human Rights.
(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the
Bar. The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the
Commission shall be provided by law.
(3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human
Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers.
(4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and
regularly released.
Is CA confirmation required for the approval of the appointment of the members of the CHR?
NO.
How was the CHR created? It was created by law executive order 163 it is pursuant to this
appointing powers of the president. CHR Commissioner is not included in the Constitutional
Commission. CA confirmation is not required. The appointment of the members of the
Constitutional Commission requires the approval of the CA. The same requirement is not
present in the appointment of the Commissioner of CHR, therefore dilina required ang
approval sa CA sa appointment sa Commissioner of CHR. Where did the president get her
power to appoint the members of the CHR? BY LAW. If she is authorized by law to appoint
them then, she can appoint them; therefore, the law that created the CHR gave the president
the power to appoint its member, and she appointed accordingly. No need for CA
confirmation.
What are the powers of the CHR? Is it correct that the CHR can intervene in all forms of human
rights violations?
Under article 13, section 18 enumerates the powers of the CHR
Simon Case
Gipang-demolished ang properties samgatao. Angmgataoniadtosa CHR to ask for relief, they
wanted to stop the demolition. The CHR ruled in their favour and ordered kungkinsa tong nag
demolish (local government) to restitute these people P200K for them rebuild whatever was
demolished. Gi-challenge angauthoitysa CHR to do that or even entertain such complaint. The
Court ruled that, the CHR is not a quasi-judicial body, it was not meant by the Constitution to
give CHR this quasi-judicial powers. The power of the CHR is mere investigative or fact-finding
body. All it can do is to investigate.
CHR for quasi-judical powers.
What therefore is the power of the CHR? It is a mere investigative or fact finding body. All it
can do is to investigate, fact finding investigation, and issue are commendation. The most that
may be conceded to the commission by way of adjudicative power, is that it can investigate,
meaning it can receive evidence and findings of fact but it is not given adjudicatory, quasi
judicial or judicial power because it cannot impose, if there are issue orders pursuant to
whatever it binds. Dili siyamaka apply the law, to whatever factual conclusion it may derive
from its investigation. It cannot authoritatively settle the issue. Muagipakasa proper channel
so limited land judsiya to fact finding.
What is the extent of its investigatory powers? It can investigate all forms of human rights
violation involving civil and political rights.
So what are these rights?
Civil rights are those rights that belong to every citizen of the country. Unsamanisila?
Property, marriage, contracts, etc.
What about political right?
The right to participate in the establishment of government, the right to suffrage, the right to
hold public office.
So under the constitution, the CHR can investigate these rights. However, the court went over
to the declaration of constitutional commission to interpret kung unsabajud ang limitation sa
power sa CHR.
The court noted that the deliberations, the consitutionalcommisioners envisioned that the
CHR will focus its attention to the more severe cases of human rights violations.
Examples: protection of rights of political detainees, treatment of prisoners, prevention of
torture, fair trial, cases of disappearances, salvaging and other crimes committed against the
religious. Inana ang nakuhasa SC sa discussions sa constitutional commission.
Page 67 of 69
 Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020
Nevertheless, the court did not and the constitutional commissioners also were careful in
making a delineation. The delegates did not take comfort in making a conclusive delineation
of the CHRs scope of investigatorial jurisdiction. Congress may provide for other cases of
violations that the CHR may examine, investigate. So in other words, you cannot conclusively
say that the CHR is limited to violations lang by the state. Because apparently, the
constitutional commissions did not make that line.
Nevertheless, looking at the standards set by the constitutional commissioners in making this
CHR, mag focus dawdapat ang CHR on the most severe violations of human rights.
(Full text) It is a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize resources with the wisdom
and dispatch that their needs require. It allows them to to levy, assess and collect fees, fix
rates of compensation not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for compensation
and pay plans of the government and allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by
law or prescribed by them in the course of the discharge of their functions.
Create offices within their organization kung gusto nila understaffed silamaghimosilagmga
positions and mag set sila ug pila ang sweldoaningmgatawhana. Does CHR enjoys such a
privilege? No. Kato lang. limited langsiya. Regular, release dli pwede 1:08:39 ug condition.
Limited form of fiscal autonomy.

Is there a severe violation of human right involved here? Katongpag demolish sailangmga
stalls? Well for lay people, for us, we do not namurag severe nasiyana violation in taking the
property, the living of these individuals. But the court said that it is not, dilisiya as such a grave
violation of the human rights warranting CHR intervention. These violations can hardly fall in
the compartment of human rights violations involving civiil and political rights intended by
the constitution.
So CHR has no adjudicatory power, all it can do is investigate and make recommendations and
file that whatever ang result sailang fact finding with the appropriate tribunal or for
administrative agency to take appropriate action. It cannot even impose or issue orders or
grant reliefs because it is a mere investigative body.
Does it have contempt powers tho?
Yes, naasiyay power to contempt if there is a violation of its rules of procedure but not insofar
as the violation of the orders it would issue because in the first place, it is not authorized to
issue such orders.
And what is the effect? Its benefit is that it is given the benefit of having its approved annual
appropriations released automatically and regularly but nothing more.
Again, the grant of fiscal autonomy to those who enjoy it to its fullest extent is more extensive
that the mere regular release of approved annual appropriation.
Who are the agencies that enjoy this full fiscal autonomy?
Judiciary, Constitutional Commissions and the Office of the Ombudsman. Silalang ang naay
full grant. Not the CHR.
But it is wrong to say nawalay fiscal autonomy ang CHR. Naasiyay fiscal autonomy to a limited
extent. Because the regular release of appropriations is part, an aspect of fiscal autonomy.
That ends Constitutional Law I.

And finally, the CHRs concept of fiscal autonomy.

As we said earlier in Art 13, Sec 17, the approved annual appropriations of the CHR shall be
automatically and regularly released.

Does this mean that the CHR already has full fiscal autonomy?
No, it has fiscal autonomy but to a limited extent and that is for its appropriations as provided
in the law to be automatically and regularly released. Meaning, the disbursing agency cannot
impose conditions on the release of such funds. But insofar as fiscal autonomy in its fullest
sense, allowing th is agency to use their savings, to collect fees, to use their monies, pursuant
to their own will. This is not something that is enjoyed by the CHR.

What is fiscal autonomy again?

Page 68 of 69
Constitutional Law 1 1-Manresa Atty. Gil Garcia II SY. 2019-2020

Page 69 of 69