Statcon Part 2

7/25/2019 Statcon Part 2

1/26

Rule on construction of ordinances vis--vis Statute

1. Primicias v. Urdaneta

The general rule is that a later law prevails over an earlier law. The ordinances validity

should be determined vis-a-vis RA 4136 the !mother statute" #not Act 3$$%& which was in

'orce at the time the criminal case was brought against (rimicias.

G.R. No. L-26702 October 18, 1979

U!N !UGU"#O $. PR%&%'%!", plainti)-appelleevs.#() &UN%'%P!L%#* O+ UR!N)#!, P!NG!"%N!N, )# !L., de'endants-appellants.

Ambrosio Padilla Law Oces for appellee.

Primicias, Castillo !acarae" for appellants.

) '!"#RO,J.:

The main issue in this appeal is the validity o' *rdinance +o. 3 ,eries o' 1$64 enacted onarch 131$64 by the unicipal ouncil o' /rdaneta (angasinan which was declared nulland void by the ourt o' 0irst nstance o' 2ingayen (angasinan in its decision dated une %$1$66 the dispositive portion o' which reads as 'ollows

57R70*R7 this ourt renders decision declaring *rdinance +o 3 ,eries o'1$64 to be null and void8 ma9ing the writ o' preliminary in:unction hereto'oreissued against the de'endant 0eli; r. 2oren>o ?. ,uyat and7stanislao Andrada 'rom en'orcing the said ordinance all throughout/rdaneta8 and ordering the said de'endants to return to the plainti) his drivers#sic& license + @1644 a copy o' which is 7;hibit (olice hie' ,uyat udge ,oriano and (atrolmanAndrada 'rom en'orcing the ordinance. The writ was issued and udge ,oriano was en:oined'rom 'urther proceeding in the criminal case.

A'ter trial the ourt o' 0irst nstance rendered the Guestioned decision holding that theordinance was null and void and had been repealed by Republic Act +o. 4136 otherwise9nown as the 2and Transportation and TraHc ode. +ow de'endants appellants hereinallege that the lower court erred in

1. declaring that unicipal *rdinance +o. 3 #,eries o' 1$64& o' /rdaneta is nulland void8

%. reGuiring the municipal council o' /rdaneta in the enactment o' saidordinance to give ma;imum allowable speed and to ma9e classi=cation o'highways8

3. holding that said ordinance is in conIict with section 3C par. b#4& o'

Republic Act 41368


2/26

4. reGuiring that said ordinance be approved by the 2and Transportationommissioner8

C. holding that said ordinance is not clear and de=nite in its terms8

6. issuing e;-parte a writ o' in:unction to restrain the proceedings in criminal

case no. 314@.

The ordinance in Guestion provides

,7T*+ 1 - That the 'ollowing speed limits 'or vehicular traHc along the+ational ighway and the (rovincial Roads within the territorial limits o'/rdaneta shall be as 'ollows

a. Thru crowded streets approaching intersections at Eblindcorners passing school >ones or thic9ly populated areas dulymar9ed with sign posts the ma;imum speed limit allowableshall be %@ 9ph.

,7T*+ % - That any person or persons caught driving any motor vehicleviolating the provisions o' this ordinance shall be =ned (1@.@@ 'or the =rsto)ense8 (%@.@@ 'or the second o)ense8 and (3@.@@ 'or the third andsucceeding o)enses the unicipal udge shall recommend the cancellation o'the license o' the o)ender to the otor JehicleEs *Hce #J*&8 or 'ailure topay the =ne imposed he shall su)er a subsidiary imprisonment in accordancewith law.

Appellants contend that the *rdinance is valid being Fpatterned a'ter and based on ,ectionC3 /par. 4 o' Act +o. 3$$% as amended #Revised otor Jehicle 2aw&.F n so arguingappellants 'ail to note that Act +o. 3$$% has been superseded by Republic Act +o. 4136 the2and Transportation and ETraHc ode which became e)ective on une %@ 1$64 about three

months a'ter the Guestioned ordinance was approved by /rdanetaEs unicipal ouncil. Thee;plicit repeal o' the a'oresaid Act is embodied in ,ection 63 Republic Act +o. 4136 to wit

Act +umbered thirty-nine hundred ninety-two #3$$%& as amended and alllaws e;ecutive orders ordinance resolutions regulations or paints thereo' inconIict with the provisions o' this Act are repealed.

Dy this e;press repeal and the general rule that a later law prevails over an earlier law 6appellants are in error in contending that Fa later enactment o' the law relating to the samesub:ect matter as that o' an earlier statute is not suHcient to cause an implied repeal o' theoriginal law.F (ursuant to ,ection 63 Republic Act +o. 4136 the ordinance at bar is thusplaced within the ambit o' Republic Act +o. 4136 and not Act +o. 3$$%. The validity o'*rdinance +o. 3 ,eries o' 1$64 must there'ore be determined vis-a-vis Republic Act +o.

4136 the Fmother statuteF so to spea9 which was in 'orce at the time the criminal case wasbrought against (rimicias 'or the violation o' the said ordinance.

An essential reGuisite 'or a valid ordinance is among others that is Fmust notcontravene . . . the statuteF 7'or it is a F'undamental principle that municipal ordinances arein'erior in status and subordinate to the laws o' the state.F 80ollowing this general rulewhenever there is a conIict between an ordinance and a statute the ordinance Fmust giveway. 9

,ince the *rdinance is aimed at regulating traHc hapter J TraHc Rules& Article #,peed2imits and Keeping to the Right& consisting o' sections 3C to 3B o' Republic Act +o. 4136particularly ,ections 3C 36 3B contain the provisions material to its validity. ,ection 3C #b&Republic Act +o. 4136 which too9 the place o' ,ection C3 par. #4& Act +o. 3$$% providesrestrictions as to speed thus

AL/ A22*5AD27 ,(77


3/26

%. *n through streets or per hour per hour

boulevards clear o' traHc with Fno

blind cornersF when so designated. 4@ 9m. 3@ 9m.

3. *n city and municipal per hour per hour

streets with light traHc when not

designated Fthrough streets.F 3@ 9m. 3@ 9m.

4. Through crowded streets ap per hour per hour

proaching intersection at Fblind cor

nersF passing school >ones passing

other vehicles which are stationary or

'or similar circumstances. %@ 9m. %@ 9m.

per hour per hour

A loo9 at the a'orecited section and ,ection 1 par. #a& o' the *rdinance shows that the latteris more or less a restatement only o' number #4& par. #b& ,ection 3C. As observed by thetrial court the *rdinance Fre'ers to only one o' the 'our classi=cations mentioned inparagraph #b& ,ection 3C.F 10limiting the rates o' speed 'or

vehicular traHc along the national highway and The provincial roads withinthe territorial limits o' /rdaneta to %@ 9ilometers per hour without regard towhether the road is an open country roads #si;& or through streets or

boulevards or city or municipal streets with light traHc.

11

As also 'ound correctly by the lower court the unicipal ouncil o' /rdaneta did not ma9eany classi=cation o' its thorough'ares contrary to the e;plicit reGuirement laid down by,ection 3B Republic Act +o. 4136 which provides

lassi=cation o' highways. - (ublic highways shall be properly classi=ed 'ortraHc purposes by the provincial board or city council having :urisdiction overthem and said provincial board municipal board or city council shall provideappropriate signs there'or sub:ect to the approval o' the ommissioner. tshall be the duty o' every provincial city and municipal secretary to certi'y tothe ommissioner the names locations and limits o' all Fthrough streetsFdesignated as such by the provincial board municipal board or council.

/nder this section a local legislative body intending to control traHc in public highways 12issupposed to classi'y =rst and then mar9 them with proper signs all to be approved by the2and Transportation ommissioner. To hold that the provisions o' ,ection 3B are mandatoryis sanctioned by a ruling 1that

statutes which con'er upon a public body or oHcer . . . power to per'orm actswhich concern the public interests or rights o' individuals are generallyregarded as mandatory although the language is permissive only since the areconstrued as imposing duties rather than con'erring privileges.

The classi=cations which must be based on ,ection 3C are necessary in view o' ,ection 36which states that Fno provincial city or municipal authority shall enact or en'orce anyordinance or resolution speci'ying ma;imum allowable speeds other than those provided inthis Act.F n this case however there is no showing that the mar9ing o' the streets andareas 'alling under ,ection 1 par. #a& *rdinance +o. 3 ,eries o' 1$64 was done with theapproval o' the 2and Transportation ommissioner. Thus on this very ground alone the*rdinance becomes invalid. ,ince it lac9s the reGuirement imposed by ,ection 3B theprovincial city or municipal board or council is en:oined under ,ection 6% o' the 2and

Transportation and TraHc ode 'rom Fenacting or en'orcing any ordinance or resolution inconIict with the provisions o' this Act.F

Regarding the contention that the lower court erred in holding that said F*rdinance is notclear and de=nite in its terms.F 5e agree with the ourt a #uothat when the unicipalouncil o' /rdaneta used the phrase Fvehicular traHcF #,ection 1 *rdinance& it Fdid notdistinguish between passenger cars and motor vehicles and motor truc9s and buses.F 1Thisconclusion is bolstered by the 'act that nowhere in the *rdinance is Fvehicular traHcF


4/26

de=ned. onsidering that this is a regulatory ordinance its clearness de=niteness andcertainty are all the more important so that Fan average man should be able with due carea'ter reading it to understand and ascertain whether he will incur a penalty 'or particularacts or courses o' conduct.F 1/n comparison ,ection 3C#b& Republic Act +o. 4136 on which,ection 1 o' the *rdinance must be based stated that the rates o' speed enumeratedtherein re'er to motor vehicle 16speci'ying the speed 'or each 9ind o' vehicle. At the same

time to avoid vagueness Art. 11 ,ection 3 de=nes what a motor vehicle is and passengerautomobiles are.

*n the issue o' whether a writ o' in:unction can restrain the proceedings in riminal ase +o.314@ the general rule is that Fordinarily criminal prosecution may not be bloc9ed by courtprohibition or in:unction.F 177;ceptions however are allowed in the 'ollowing instances

1. 'or the orderly administration o' :ustice8

%. to prevent the use o' the strong arm o' the law in an oppressive andvindictive manner8

3. to avoid multiplicity o' actions8

4. to a)ord adeGuate protection to constitutional rights8

C. in proper cases because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or washeld invalid. 18

The local statute or ordinance at bar being invalid the e;ception :ust cited obtains in thiscase. ence the lower court did not err in issuing the writ o' in:unction against de'endants.oreover considering that Four law on municipal corporations is in principle patterned a'terthat o' the /nited ,tates F 19it would not be amiss 'or /s to adopt in this instance the rulingthat to en:oin the en'orcement o' a void ordinance Fin:unction has 'reGuently beensustained in order to prevent a multiplicity o' prosecutions under it.F 20

n view o' the 'oregoing the appealed decision is hereby aHrmed.

,* *R


5/26

)his is a #etition for certiorariandor #rohibition cha!!enging the va!idity of e#ub!ic -ct o( 80&;, which amends

certain #rovisions of the ationa! +nterna! evenue *ode by im#osing so

on the manufacture and sa!e of beer and cigarettes(

Petitioners are members of the ?ouse of e#resentatives( )hey brought this suit against res#ondents @ose de

4enecia, %#ea'er of the ?ouse of e#resentatives, 7e#uty %#ea'er au! 7aAa, "ajority .eader odo!fo -!bano, the

ecutive %ecretary, the %ecretary of Finance, and the *ommissioner of +nterna! evenue, charging vio!ation of theru!es of the ?ouse which #etitioners c!aim are 3constitutiona!!y mandated so that their vio!ation is tantamount to a

vio!ation of the *onstitution(

)he !aw originated in the ?ouse of e#resentatives as ?( o( B198( )his bi!! was a##roved on third reading on%e#tember 10, 1996 and transmitted on %e#tember 16, 1996 to the %enate which a##roved it with certain

amendments on third reading on ovember 1B, 1996( - bicamera! conference committee was formed to reconci!e

the disagreeing #rovisions of the ?ouse and %enate versions of the bi!!(

)he bicamera! conference committee submitted its re#ort to the ?ouse at 8 a(m( on ovember 01, 1996( -t 11:&8

a(m(, after a recess, e#( eCuie! @avier, chairman of the *ommittee on /ays and "eans, #roceeded to de!iver hiss#onsorshi# s#eech, after which he was inter#e!!ated( e#( oge!io %armiento was first to inter#e!!ate( ?e was

interru#ted when e#( -rroyo moved to adjourn for !ac' of quorum( e#( -ntonio *uenco objected to the motion

and as'ed for a head count( -fter a ro!! ca!!, the *hair =7e#uty %#ea'er au! 7aAa> dec!ared the #resence of aquorum.iD1Ee#( -rroyo a##ea!ed the ru!ing of the *hair, but his motion was defeated when #ut to a vote( )heinter#e!!ation of the s#onsor thereafter #roceeded(

Petitioner e#( @o'er -rroyo registered to inter#e!!ate( ?e was fourth in the order, fo!!owing e#( oge!io

%armiento, e#( dce! *( .agman and e#( nriCue arcia( +n the course of his inter#e!!ation, e#( -rroyo

announced that he was going to raise a Cuestion on the quorum, a!though unti! the end of his inter#e!!ation he never

did( /hat ha##ened thereafter is shown in the fo!!owing transcri#t of the session on ovember 01, 1996 of the?ouse of e#resentatives, as #ub!ished by *ongress in the news#a#er issues of 7ecember 5 and 6, 1996:

"( -.G-O( "r( %#ea'er, + move that we now a##rove and ratify the conference committee re#ort(

)? 7P)2 %P-H ="r( 7aAa>( -ny objection to the motionI

"( -O2O( /hat is that, "r( %#ea'erI

)? 7P)2 %P-H ="r( 7aAa>( )here being none, a##roved(

=ave!>

"( -O2O( o, no, no, wait a minute, "r( %#ea'er, + stood u#( + want to 'now what is the Cuestion that the

*hair as'ed the distinguished s#onsor(

)? 7P)2 %P-H ="r( 7aAa>( )here was a motion by the "ajority .eader for a##rova! of the re#ort, and

the *hair ca!!ed for the motion(

"( -O2O( Objection, + stood u#, so + wanted to object(

)? 7P)2 %P-H ="r( 7aAa>( )he session is sus#ended for one minute(

=+t was $:;1 #(m(>

=$:&; #(m(, the session was resumed>

)? 7P)2 %P-H ="r( 7aAa>( )he session is resumed(

"( -.G-O( "r( %#ea'er, + move to adjourn unti! four oJc!oc', /ednesday, net wee'(

)? 7P)2 %P-H ="r( 7aAa>( )he session is adjourned unti! four oJc!oc', /ednesday, net wee'(

=+t was $:&; #(m(>

On the same day, the bi!! was signed by the %#ea'er of the ?ouse of e#resentatives and the President of the %enate

and certified by the res#ective secretaries of both ?ouses of *ongress as having been fina!!y #assed by the ?ouse of

e#resentatives and by the %enate on ovember 01, 1996( )he enro!!ed bi!! was signed into !aw by President Fide!

4( amos on ovember 00, 1996(

Petitioners c!aim that there are actua!!y four different versions of the transcri#t of this #ortion of e#( -rroyoJsinter#e!!ation: =1> the transcri#t of audio the transcri#t of the #roceedings from $:;; #(m( to $:&; #(m( of ovember 01,


6/26

1996, as certified by the *hief of the )ranscri#tion 7ivision on ovember 01, 1996, a!so obtained by e#( .agmanK

=$> the transcri#t of the #roceedings from $:;; #(m( to $:&; #(m( of ovember 01, 1996 as certified by the *hief of

the )ranscri#tion 7ivision on ovember 08, 1996, a!so obtained by e#( .agmanK and =&> the #ub!ished version

aboveCuoted( -ccording to #etitioners, the four versions differ on three #oints, to wit: =1> in the audio in the

transcri#t certified on ovember 01, 1996 the word 3no on !ine 1B a##ears on!y once, whi!e in the other versions it

is re#eated three timesK and =$> the #ub!ished version does not contain the sentence 3=2>ou better #re#are for a

Cuorum because + wi!! raise the Cuestion of the quorum, which a##ears in the other versions(

PetitionersJ a!!egations are vehement!y denied by res#ondents( ?owever, there is no need to discuss this #oint as#etitioners have announced that, in order to e#edite the reso!ution of this #etition, they admit, without conceding,

the correctness of the transcri#ts re!ied u#on by the res#ondents( Petitioners agree that for #ur#oses of this

#roceeding the word 3a##roved a##ears in the transcri#ts(

On!y the #roceedings of the ?ouse of e#resentatives on the conference committee re#ort on ?( o( B198 are inCuestion( PetitionersJ #rinci#a! argument is that (-( o( 80&; is nu!! and void because it was #assed in vio!ation

of the ru!es of the ?ouseK that these ru!es embody the 3constitutiona! mandate in -rt( 4+, L16=$> that 3each ?ouse

may determine the ru!es of its #roceedings and that, conseCuent!y, vio!ation of the ?ouse ru!es is a vio!ation of the

*onstitution itse!f( )hey contend that the certification of %#ea'er 7e 4enecia that the !aw was #ro#er!y #assed is

fa!se and s#urious(

"ore s#ecifica!!y, #etitioners charge that =1> in vio!ation of u!e 4+++, L$5 and u!e M4++, L1;$ of the ru!es of the

?ouse,iiD0Ethe *hair, in submitting the conference committee re#ort to the ?ouse, did not ca!! for theyeas or nays,

but sim#!y as'ed for its a##rova! by motion in order to #revent #etitioner -rroyo from Cuestioning the #resence of a

CuorumK =0> in vio!ation of u!e M+M, L110,iiiD$Ethe *hair de!iberate!y ignored e#( -rroyoJs Cuestion, 3/hat is that( ( ( "r( %#ea'erI and did not re#eat e#( -!banoJs motion to a##rove or ratifyK =$> in vio!ation of u!e M4+, L9B,iv

D&Ethe *hair refused to recogniAe e#( -rroyo and instead #roceeded to act on e#( -!banoJs motion and afterward

dec!ared the re#ort a##rovedK and =&> in vio!ation of u!e MM, LL101 for the ado#tion by each ?ouse of its ru!es of #roceedings, enforcement of the ru!es cannot be sought in the

courts ece#t insofar as they im#!ement constitutiona! reCuirements such as that re!ating to three readings on

se#arate days before a bi!! may be #assed( -t a!! events, res#ondents contend that, in #assing the bi!! which became

(-( o( 80&;, the ru!es of the ?ouse, as we!! as #ar!iamentary #recedents for a##rova! of conference committeere#orts on mere motion, were faithfu!!y observed(

+n his su##!ementa! comment, res#ondent 7e 4enecia denies that his certification of ?( o( B198 is fa!se and

s#urious and contends that under the journa! entry ru!e, the judicia! inCuiry sought by the #etitioners is barred(

+ndeed, @ourna! o( $9 of the ?ouse of e#resentatives, covering the sessions of ovember 0; and 01, 1996, showsthat 3On "otion of "r( -!bano, there being no objection, the Gody a##roved the *onference *ommittee e#ort on

?ouse Gi!! o( B198(viiDBE)his @ourna! was a##roved on 7ecember 0, 1996 over the !one objection of #etitioner

e#( .agman(viiiD8E

-fter considering the arguments of the #arties, the *ourt finds no ground for ho!ding that *ongress committed a

grave abuse of discretion in enacting (-( o( 80&;( )his case is therefore dismissed(

First( +t is c!ear from the foregoing facts that what is a!!eged to have been vio!ated in the enactment of (-( o(80&; are mere!y interna! ru!es of #rocedure of the ?ouse rather than constitutiona! reCuirements for the enactment of

a !aw, i.e., -rt( 4+, LL06


7/26

su##ort c!aims of autonomy of the !egis!ative branch to conduct its business free from interference by courts( ?ere

#etitioners cite the #rovision for the o##osite #ur#ose of invo'ing judicia! review(

Gut the cases, both here and abroad, in varying forms of e#ression, a!! deny to the courts the #ower to inCuire into

a!!egations that, in enacting a !aw, a ?ouse of *ongress fai!ed to com#!y with its own ru!es, in the absence of

showing that there was a vio!ation of a constitutiona! #rovision or the rights of #rivate individua!s( +n OsmeNa v(

Pendatun,i

D11Eit was he!d: 3-t any rate, courts have dec!ared that the ru!es ado#ted by de!iberative bodies aresubject to revocation, modification or waiver at the #!easure of the body ado#ting them(J -nd it has been said that

Par!iamentary ru!es are mere!y #rocedura!, and with their observance, the courts have no concern( )hey may be

waived or disregarded by the !egis!ative body(J *onseCuent!y, mere fai!ure to conform to #ar!iamentary usage wi!!not inva!idate the action =ta'en by a de!iberative body> when the reCuisite number of members have agreed to a

#articu!ar measure(J

+n nited %tates v( Ga!!in, @ose#h *o(,iiD10Ethe ru!e was stated thus: 3)he *onstitution em#owers each house to

determine its ru!es of #roceedings( +t may not by its ru!es ignore constitutiona! restraints or vio!ate fundamenta!rights, and there shou!d be a reasonab!e re!ation between the mode or method of #roceeding estab!ished by the ru!e

and the resu!t which is sought to be attained( Gut within these !imitations a!! matters of method are o#en to the

determination of the ?ouse, and it is no im#eachment of the ru!e to say that some other way wou!d be better, more

accurate, or even more just( +t is no objection to the va!idity of a ru!e that a different one has been #rescribed and in

force for a !ength of time( )he #ower to ma'e ru!es is not one which once eercised is ehausted( +t is a continuous#ower, a!ways subject to be eercised by the ?ouse, and within the !imitations suggested, abso!ute and beyond the

cha!!enge of any other body or tribuna!(

+n *rawford v( i!christ,iiiD1$Eit was he!d: 3)he #rovision that each ?ouse sha!! determine the ru!es of its

#roceedings does not restrict the #ower given to a mere formu!ation of standing ru!es, or to the #roceedings of thebody in ordinary !egis!ative mattersK but in the absence of constitutiona! restraints, and when eercised by a majority

of a constitutiona! quorum, such authority etends to a determination of the #ro#riety and effect of any action as it is

ta'en by the body as it #roceeds in the eercise of any #ower, in the transaction of any business, or in the

#erformance of any duty conferred u#on it by the *onstitution(

+n %tate e re!( *ity .oan %avings *o( v( "oore,ivD1&Ethe %u#reme *ourt of Ohio stated: 3)he #rovision forreconsideration is no #art of the *onstitution and is therefore entire!y within the contro! of the enera! -ssemb!y(

?aving made the ru!e, it shou!d be regarded, but a fai!ure to regard it is not the subject


8/26

u!es are hard!y #ermanent in character( )he #revai!ing view is that they are subject to revocation, modification or

waiver at the #!easure of the body ado#ting them as they are #rimari!y #rocedura!( *ourts ordinari!y have no

concern with their observance( )hey may be waived or disregarded by the !egis!ative body( *onseCuent!y, mere

fai!ure to conform to them does not have the effect of nu!!ifying the act ta'en if the reCuisite number of membershave agreed to a #articu!ar measure( )he above #rinci#!e is subject, however, to this Cua!ification( /here the

construction to be given to a ru!e affects #ersons other than members of the !egis!ative body the Cuestion #resented

is necessari!y judicia! in character( ven its va!idity is o#en to Cuestion in a case where #rivate rights are

invo!ved(viiiD18E

+n this case no rights of #rivate individua!s are invo!ved but on!y those of a member who, instead of see'ing redressin the ?ouse, chose to transfer the dis#ute to this *ourt( /e have no more #ower to !oo' into the interna!

#roceedings of a ?ouse than members of that ?ouse have to !oo' over our shou!ders, as !ong as no vio!ation of

constitutiona! #rovisions is shown(

Petitioners must rea!iAe that each of the three de#artments of our government has its se#arate s#here which theothers may not invade without u#setting the de!icate ba!ance on which our constitutiona! order rests( 7ue regard for

the wor'ing of our system of government, more than mere comity, com#e!s re!uctance on our #art to enter u#on an

inCuiry into an a!!eged vio!ation of the ru!es of the ?ouse( /e must according!y dec!ine the invitation to eercise our

#ower(

)econd( Petitioners, Cuoting former *hief @ustice oberto *once#cionJs s#onsorshi# in the *onstitutiona!*ommission, contend that under -rt( 4+++, L1, 3nothing invo!ving abuse of discretion Dby the other branches of the

governmentE amounting to !ac' or ecess of jurisdiction is beyond judicia! review(iD19E+m#!icit in this statement

of the former *hief @ustice, however, is an ac'now!edgment that the jurisdiction of this *ourt is subject to the case

and controversy reCuirement of -rt( 4+++, L5 and, therefore, to the reCuirement of a justiciab!e controversy beforecourts can adjudicate constitutiona! Cuestions such as those which arise in the fie!d of foreign re!ations( For whi!e

-rt( 4+++, L1 has broadened the sco#e of judicia! inCuiry into areas norma!!y !eft to the #o!itica! de#artments to

decide, such as those re!ating to nationa! security,D0;Eit has not a!together done away with #o!itica! Cuestions such

as those which arise in the fie!d of foreign re!ations( -s we have a!ready he!d, under -rt( 4+++, L1, this *ourtJsfunction

is mere!y DtoE chec' whether or not the governmenta! branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutiona! !imits of

its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view( +n the absence of a showing ( ( ( DofE grave abuse of discretionamounting to !ac' of jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the *ourt to eercise its corrective #ower( ( ( ( +t has no

#ower to !oo' into what it thin's is a##arent error(iD01E

+f, then, the estab!ished ru!e is that courts cannot dec!are an act of the !egis!ature void on account mere!y of

noncom#!iance with ru!es of #rocedure made by itse!f, it fo!!ows that such a case does not #resent a situation in

which a branch of the government has 3gone beyond the constitutiona! !imits of its jurisdiction so as to ca!! for the

eercise of our -rt( 4+++, L1 #ower(

-1ird( Petitioners c!aim that the #assage of the !aw in the ?ouse was 3rai!roaded( )hey c!aim that e#( -rroyowas sti!! ma'ing a Cuery to the *hair when the !atter dec!ared e#( -!banoJs motion a##roved(

/hat ha##ened is that, after e#( -rroyoJs inter#e!!ation of the s#onsor of the committee re#ort, "ajority .eader

odo!fo -!bano moved for the a##rova! and ratification of the conference committee re#ort( )he *hair ca!!ed outfor objections to the motion( )hen the *hair dec!ared: 3)here being none, a##roved( -t the same time the *hairwas saying this, however, e#( -rroyo was as'ing, 3/hat is that ( ( ( "r( %#ea'erI )he *hair and e#( -rroyo

were ta!'ing simu!taneous!y( )hus, a!though e#( -rroyo subseCuent!y objected to the "ajority .eaderJs motion, the

a##rova! of the conference committee re#ort had by then a!ready been dec!ared by the *hair, symbo!iAed by its

banging of the gave!(

Petitioners argue that, in accordance with the ru!es of the ?ouse, e#( -!banoJs motion for the a##rova! of theconference committee re#ort shou!d have been stated by the *hair and !ater the individua! votes of the "embers

shou!d have been ta'en( )hey say that the method used in this case is a !egis!atorJs nightmare because it suggests

unanimity when the fact was that one or some !egis!ators o##osed the re#ort(

o ru!e of the ?ouse of e#resentatives has been cited which s#ecifica!!y reCuires that in cases such as this

invo!ving a##rova! of a conference committee re#ort, the *hair must restate the motion and conduct a viva voce ornomina! voting( On the other hand, as the %o!icitor enera! has #ointed out, the manner in which the conference

committee re#ort on ?( o( B198 was a##roved was by no means a uniCue one( +t has basis in !egis!ative #ractice(

+t was the way the conference committee re#ort on the bi!!s which became the .oca! overnment *ode of 1991 and

the conference committee re#ort on the bi!!s amending the )ariff and *ustoms *ode were a##roved(

+n 195B, the #ractice was Cuestioned as being contrary to the ru!es of the ?ouse( )he #oint was answered by

"ajority .eader -rturo "( )o!entino and his answer became the ru!ing of the *hair( "r( )o!entino said:

"r( )o!entino( )he fact that nobody objects means a unanimous action of the ?ouse( +nsofar as the matter of

#rocedure is concerned, this has been a #recedent since + came here seven years ago, and it has been the #rocedure in

this ?ouse that if somebody objects, then a debate fo!!ows and after the debate, then the voting comes in(

( ( ( (


9/26

"r( %#ea'er, a #oint of order was raised by the gent!eman from .eyte, and + wonder what his attitude is now on his

#oint of order( + shou!d just !i'e to state that + be!ieve that we have had a substantia! com#!iance with the u!es(

)he u!e invo'ed is not one that refers to statutory or constitutiona! reCuirement, and a substantia! com#!iance, to

my mind, is sufficient( /hen the *hair announces the vote by saying 3+s there any objectionI and nobody objects,then the *hair announces 3)he bi!! is a##roved on second reading( +f there was any doubt as to the vote, any

motion to divide wou!d have been #ro#er( %o, if that motion is not #resented, we assume that the ?ouse a##roves

the measure( %o + be!ieve there is substantia! com#!iance here, and if anybody wants a division of the ?ouse he can

a!ways as' for it, and the *hair can announce how many are in favor and how many are against(iiD00E

+ndeed, it is no im#eachment of the method to say that some other way wou!d be better, more accurate and evenmore just(iiiD0$E)he advantages or disadvantages, the wisdom or fo!!y of a method do not #resent any matter for

judicia! consideration(ivD0&E+n the words of the (%( *ircuit *ourt of -##ea!s, 3this *ourt cannot #rovide a second

o#inion on what is the best #rocedure( otwithstanding the deference and esteem that is #ro#er!y tendered to

individua! congressiona! actors, our deference and esteem for the institution as a who!e and for the constitutiona!command that the institution be a!!owed to manage its own affairs #rec!udes us from even attem#ting a diagnosis of

the #rob!em(vD05E

or does the *onstitution reCuire that theyeasand the nays of the "embers be ta'en every time a ?ouse has to

vote, ece#t on!y in the fo!!owing instances: u#on the !ast and third readings of a bi!!,viD06Eat the reCuest of one Petitioners are thus sim#!y ban'ing on the change

in the membershi# of the *ourt(

"oreover, as a!ready noted, the due enactment of the !aw in Cuestion is confirmed by the @ourna! of the ?ouse of

ovember 01, 1996 which shows that the conference committee re#ort on ?( o( B198, which became (-( o(80&;, was a##roved on that day( )he 'ee#ing of the @ourna! is reCuired by the *onstitution( -rt( 4+, L16=&>

#rovides:

ach ?ouse sha!! 'ee# a @ourna! of its #roceedings, and from time to time #ub!ish the same, ece#ting such #arts as

may, in its judgment, affect nationa! securityK and theyeasand nayson any Cuestion sha!!, at the reCuest of one


11/26

faith of what has been dec!ared to be !aw sha!! not be destroyed tomorrow, or at some remote #eriod of time, by facts

resting on!y in the memory of individua!s( -s a!ready noted, the bi!! which became (-( o( 80&; is shown in the

@ourna!( ?ence its due enactment has been du!y #roven(

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

+t wou!d be an unwarranted invasion of the #rerogative of a coeCua! de#artment for this *ourt either to set aside a!egis!ative action as void because the *ourt thin's the ?ouse has disregarded its own ru!es of #rocedure, or to a!!ow

those defeated in the #o!itica! arena to see' a rematch in the judicia! forum when #etitioners can find their remedy in

that de#artment itse!f( )he *ourt has not been invested with a roving commission to inCuire into com#!aints, rea! or

imagined, of !egis!ative s'u!!duggery( +t wou!d be acting in ecess of its #ower and wou!d itse!f be gui!ty of graveabuse of its discretion were it to do so( )he suggestion made in a case!viiiD&8Emay instead a##ro#riate!y be made

here: #etitioners can see' the enactment of a new !aw or the re#ea! or amendment of (-( o( 80&;( +n the absence

of anything to the contrary, the *ourt must assume that *ongress or any ?ouse thereof acted in the good faith be!ief

that its conduct was #ermitted by its ru!es, and deference rather than disres#ect is due the judgment of that body(!i

D&9E

+H!FO!%the #etition for certiorariand #rohibition is 7+%"+%%7(

The 7nrolled Dill aO/nder the enrolled bill doctrine the signing o' . Dill+o. 1B$ by the ,pea9er o' the ouse and the (resident o' the ,enate and the certi=cationby the secretaries o' both ouses o' ongress that it was passed on +ovember %1 1$$6 areconclusive o' its due enactment.+actsA petition was =led challenging the validity o' RA B%4@ which amends certain provisions o'the +ational nternal Revenue ode. (etitioners who are members o' the ouse o'Representatives charged that there is violation o' the rules o' the ouse which petitionersclaim are constitutionally-mandated so that their violation is tantamount to a violation o' theonstitution.The law originated in the ouse o' Representatives. The ,enate approved it with

certain amendments. A bicameral con'erence committee was 'ormed to reconcile thedisagreeing provisions o' the ouse and ,enate versions o' the bill. The bicameralcommittee submitted its report to the ouse.


12/26

i !3e4o &abana5 vs Loe ito

+!'#" (etitioners include 3 senators and B representatives. The three senators were suspendedby senate due to election irregularities. The B representatives were not allowed to ta9e their seatin the lower ousee;cept in the election o' the ouse,pea9er. They argued that some senators

and house Reps were not considered in determining the reGuired vote #o' each house& in orderto pass the Resolution #proposing amendments to the onstitution& S which has been consideredas an enrolled bill by then. At the same time the votes were already entered into the ournals o'the respective ouse. As a result the Resolution was passed but it could have been otherwisewere they allowed to vote. ' these members o' ongress had been counted the aHrmative votesin 'avor o' the proposed amendment would have been short o' the necessary three-'ourths vote ineither branch o' ongress. (etitioners =led or the prohibition o' the 'urtherance o' the saidresolution amending the constitution. Respondents argued that the , cannot ta9e cogni>ance o'the case because the ourt is bound by the conclusiveness o' the enrolled bill or resolution.

%""U) 5hether or not the ourt can ta9e cogni>ance o' the issue at bar. 5hether or not the saidresolution was duly enacted by ongress.

()LAs 'ar as loo9ing into the ournals is concerned even i' both the :ournals 'rom each ouseand an authenticated copy o' the Act had been presented the disposal o' the issue by the ourton the basis o' the :ournals does not imply re:ection o' the enrollment theory 'or as alreadystated the due enactment o' a law may be proved in either o' the two ways speci=ed in section313 o' Act +o. 1$@ as amended. The , 'ound in the :ournals no signs o' irregularity in the passageo' the law and did not bother itsel' with considering the e)ects o' an authenticated copy i' one hadbeen introduced. t did not do what the opponents o' the rule o' conclusiveness advocate namelyloo9 into the :ournals behind the enrolled copy in order to determine the correctnesso' the latterand rule such copy out i' the two the :ournals and the copy be 'ound in conIict with each other.+o discrepancy appears to have been noted between the two documentsand the court did not sayor so much as give to understandthat i' discrepancy e;isted it would give greater weight to the

:ournals disregarding the e;plicit provision that duly certi=ed copies !shall be conclusive proo' o'the provisions o' such Acts and o' the due enactment thereo'."

7nrolled Dill S that which has been duly introduced =nally passed by both houses signed by theproper oHcers o' each approved by the president and =led by the secretary o' state.

,ection 313 o' the old odeo' ivil (rocedure #Act 1$@& as amended by Act +o. %%1@ provides!*Hcial documents may be proved as 'ollows . . . #%& the proceedings o' the (hilippineommission or o' any legislatives body that may be provided 'or in the (hilippine slands or o'ongress by the :ournals o' those bodies or o' either house thereo' or by publishedstatutes orresolutions or by copies certi=ed by the cler9 o' secretary or printedby their order8 (rovided Thatin the case o' Acts o' the (hilippine ommission or the (hilippine 2egislature when there is ane;istence o' a copy signed by the presiding oHcers and secretaries o' said bodies it shall beconclusive proo' o' the provisions o' such Acts and o' the due enactment thereo'."

#e "' is bond b te contents o: a d3 atenticated reso3tion ;enro33ed bi33< b te3e5is3atre. %n case o: con=ict, te contents o: an enro33ed bi33 sa33 revai3 over toseo: te 4orna3s.

ii&abana5 v. Loe ito

+!'#" This is a petition 'or prohibition to prevent the en'orcement o' a congressional resolutiondesignated UVWResolution o' both houses proposing an amendment to the onstitution o' the

(hilippines to be appended as an ordinance thereto.UV The petitioners contend that their votewere not ta9en into consideration in reGuiring that in amending the constitution the law reGuires3X4 o' the votes o' the member o' the ongress thus arriving in the Guestion o' constitutionality o'the said resolution.

%""U)" 5hether or not the ourt has :urisdiction and whether or not the :ournals can beinvestigated against the conclusiveness o' the enrolled bills.

()L (etition is dismissed without cost. The ourt held that to go behind the enrolled bills whichwere already authenticated and to investigate the :ournals amounts to disregard o' the respectdue to the coeGual and independent department o' the state and it would be an inGuisition intothe conduct o' the members o' the legislature a very delicate power the 'reGuent e;ercise o'which must lead to con'usion in the administration o' the law.


13/26

'asco 'emica3 'o. vs Gimene

+acts o: te 'ase

asco hemical o. which is engaged in the manu'acture o' synthetic resin glues used in bonding

lumber and veneer by plywood and hardwood producers bought 'oreign e;change 'or theimportation o' urea and 'ormaldehyde which are the main raw materials in the production o' the

said glues. They paid (336C.4% in +ovember and


14/26

()L/rea 'ormaldehyde is not a chemical solution. t is the synthetic resin 'ormed as acondensation product 'rom de=nite proportions o' urea and 'ormaldehyde under certain conditionsrelating to temperature acidity and time o' reaction. This produce when applied in water solutionand e;tended with ine;pensive =llers constitutes a 'airly low cost adhesive 'or use in themanu'acture o' plywood. F/rea 'ormaldehydeF is clearly a =nished product which is patentlydistinct and di)erent 'rom FureaF and F'ormaldehydeF as separate articles used in themanu'acture o' the synthetic resin 9nown as Furea 'ormaldehydeF The opinions o' any member o'ongress does not represent the entirety o' the ongress itsel'. 5hat is printed in the enrolled billwould be conclusive upon the courts. t is well settled that the enrolled bill M which uses the termFurea 'ormaldehydeF instead o' Furea and 'ormaldehydeF M is conclusive upon the courts asregards the tenor o' the measure passed by ongress and approved by the (resident. ' there hasbeen any mista9e in the printing o' the bill be'ore it was certi=ed by the oHcers o' ongress andapproved by the 7;ecutive M on which the , cannot speculate without :eopardi>ing the principleo' separation o' powers and undermining one o' the cornerstones o' our democratic system M theremedy is by amendment or curative legislation not by :udicial decree.

'asco Pi3iine 'emica3 Gimene

+!'#" This is a petition 'or review o' a decision o' the Auditor ?eneral denying a claim 'or re'und

o' petitioner asco (hilippine hemical o. nc. The entral Dan9 issued irculars =;ing a uni'ormmargin 'ee o' %CY on 'oreign e;change transactions. The ban9 also issued memorandumestablishing the procedure 'or the applications 'or e;emption 'rom the payment o' said 'ee asprovided by RA %6@$.A,* is a manu'acturing =rm engaged in the ma9ing o' plywood and othersimilar items wherein one o' their production inputs is /R7A and 0*RA2


15/26

The Auditor ?eneral ?imene> aHrmed the ruling o' D(s auditor. asco maintains that the term!urea 'ormaldehyde" appearing in this provision should be construed as !urea and 'ormaldehyde"e 'urther contends that the bill approved in ongress contained the copulative con:unction !and"between the terms !urea" and !'ormaldehyde" and that the members o' ongress intended toe;empt !urea" and !'ormaldehyde" separately as essential elements in the manu'acture o' thesynthetic resin glue called !urea 'ormaldehyde" not the latter a =nished product citing in supporto' this view the statements made on the Ioor o' the ,enate during the consideration o' the billbe'ore said ouse by members thereo'.

%""U) 5hether or not the term !urea 'ormaldehyde" should be construed as !urea and'ormaldehyde".

()L /rea 'ormaldehyde is not a chemical solution. t is the synthetic resin 'ormed as acondensation product 'rom de=nite proportions o' urea and 'ormaldehyde under certain conditionsrelating to temperature acidity and time o' reaction. This produce when applied in water solutionand e;tended with ine;pensive =llers constitutes a 'airly low cost adhesive 'or use in themanu'acture o' plywood. !/rea 'ormaldehyde" is clearly a =nished product which is patentlydistinct and di)erent 'rom !urea" and !'ormaldehyde" as separate articles used in themanu'acture o' the synthetic resin 9nown as !urea 'ormaldehyde" The opinions o' any member o'

ongress does not represent the entirety o' the ongress itsel'. 5hat is printed in the enrolled billwould be conclusive upon the courts. t is well settled that the enrolled bill M which uses the term!urea 'ormaldehyde" instead o' !urea and 'ormaldehyde" M is conclusive upon the courts asregards the tenor o' the measure passed by ongress and approved by the (resident. ' there hasbeen any mista9e in the printing o' the bill be'ore it was certi=ed by the oHcers o' ongress andapproved by the 7;ecutive M on which the , cannot speculate without :eopardi>ing the principleo' separation o' powers and undermining one o' the cornerstones o' our democratic system M theremedy is by amendment or curative legislation not by :udicial decree.

P)OPL) v PUR%"%&!

(reamble

+!'#"1. %6 petitions 'or review were =led by the (eople involving one basic Guestiono'law%.These (etitions or appeals involve three ourts o' 0irst nstance namely0anila Dranch J presided by on. Amante (. (urisima #1(etitions&0 anila Dranch LJpresided by on. a;imo A. aceren #B(etitions& and0 ,amar with on. 5enceslao . (olopresiding #1 (etition&3.There were in'ormation =led charging the respective accused o' Fillegall possession o' deadlyweaponF which is a violation o' (< +o. $. The accused =led motion to Guash o' these in'ormationwhich the three :udges mentioned above granted on common ground that the n'ormation did notallege 'acts which constitute the o)ense penali>ed by (< +o. $ because it 'ailed to state oneessential element o' the crime which is

that the carrying outside o' the accusedEs residence o' a bladed pointed or blunt weapon is in'urtherance or on the occasion o' connected with or related to subversion insurrection orrebellion organi>ed lawlessness or public disorder. 4.(R7,


16/26

%""U)5*+ the acts o' the accused is a violation o' (< $ par. 3

()L+*. The case is denied.

R!#%O There are two elements o' the o)ense stated in (< $.1. The carrying outside oneEsresidence o' any bladed blunt or pointed weaponetc. not used as a necessary tool or implement'or a livelihood8 and%. That the act o' carrying the weapon was either in 'urtherance o' or to abetor inconnection with subversion rebellion insurrection lawless violence criminalitychaos orpublic disorder. t is the second element which removes the act o' carrying a deadly weaponi' concealed outside o' the scope o' the statute or the city ordinance mentionedabove. n otherwords a simple act o' carrying any o' the weapons described in thepresidential decree is not acriminal o)ense in itsel'. 5hat ma9es the act criminalor punishable under the decree is themotivation behind it. 5ithout thatmotivation the act 'alls within the purview o' the city ordinanceor some statutewhen the circumstances so warrant.

vTopic J. 2A5,%. (arts o' a law8 #c& (reamble

Peo3e v )cave $C ,RA 663 #1$B@

&+acts 0iscal Abundio R. 7llo =led separate in'ormations against si;teen people 'or sGuattingwhich was punishable under (< +o. %. 0ve o' the in'ormations were ra\ed to udge Jicente

7chave> r. The udge dismissed the =ve in'ormations be'ore the accused could be arraigned. *ne

o' the udgeEs grounds 'or the dismissal was that under the rule o' e:usdem generis the decree

does not apply to the cultivation o' a gra>ing land. The =scal as9ed that the dismissal order be

reconsidered.

%sses 5hether (< +o. % which penali>es sGuatting and similar acts applies to agriculturallands.

R3in5>(e3d +o. The court ruled that (< +o. % does not apply to pasture lands because itspreamble shows that it was intended to apply to sGuatting in urban communities or more

particularly to illegal lconstructions in sGuatter areas made by well-to-do individuals. The sGuatting

complained o' involves pasture lands in rural areas.

Peo3e vs. )cave, G.R. No. L-77/7-61 anar 28, 1980,

G.R. No. L-77/7-61 anar 28, 1980

#() P)OPL) O+ #() P(%L%PP%N)", !$UN%O R. )LLO, !s t !ssistant o: Provincia3$oo3 %')N#) ) L! ")RN!. R., as com3ainant a33 rivate rosector, petitionersvs.(ON. %')N#) $. )'(!)", R., as d5e o: te 'ort o: +irst %nstance o: $oo3 $ranc%%, !NO !'ULLO, G)RON%&O ORO*!N, &!R%O !P!R%'%, RUP)R#O '!)" and &O)"#O ""U)LLO, respondents.

!?U%NO,J.:p

The legal issue in this case is whether (residential es sGuatting andsimilar acts applies to agricultural lands. The decree #which too9 e)ect on August %@ 1$C&provides

,7T*+ 1. Any person who with the use o' 'orce intimidation or threat or ta9ingadvantage o' the absence or tolerance o' the landowner succeeds in occupying orpossessing the property o' the latter against his will 'or residential commercial orany other purposes shall be punished by an imprisonment ranging 'rom si; monthsto one year or a =ne o' not less than one thousand nor more than =ve thousand

pesos at the discretion o' the court with subsidiary imprisonment in case o'insolvency. #%nd paragraph is omitted.&

The record shows that on *ctober %C 1$ 0iscal Abundio R. 7llo =led with the lower courtseparate in'ormations against si;teen persons charging them with sGuatting as penali>ed by(residential


17/26

cultivate a portion o' the said gra>ing land8 said cultivating has rendered a nuisanceto and has deprived the pasture applicant 'rom the 'ull use thereo' 'or which theland applied 'or has been intended that is preventing applicantEs cattle 'rom gra>ingthe whole area thereby causing damage and pre:udice to the said applicant-possessor-occupant Atty. Jicente de la ,erna r. #sic&

0ive o' the in'ormations wherein Ano


18/26

subsidiary imprisonment in case o' insolvency. #,ee (eople vs. 2apasaran 1@@ (hil. 4@.&

The rule o' e$usdem "eneris#o' the same 9ind or species& invo9ed by the trial court does not applyto this case. ere the intent o' the decree is unmista9able. t is intended to apply only to urbancommunities particularly to illegal constructions. The rule o' e$usdem "enerisis merely a tool o'statutory construction which is resorted to when the legislative intent is uncertain #?enato

ommercial orp. vs. ourt o' Ta; Appeals 1@4 (hil. 61C61B8 %B ..,. 1@4$-C@&.

57R70*R7 the trial courtEs order o' dismissal is aHrmed. +o costs.

,* *R


19/26

ence the deployment o' the arines in the :oint visibility patrols does not destroy the civilian

character o' the (+(.

viGona3es v NarvasaG.R. +o. 14@B3C August 14 %@@@

+acts*n en and as ta;payer he see9s to en:oin the ommission on Audit 'rom passingin audit e;penditures 'or the (R and the presidential consultants advisers andass is tants . (et i t ioner a l so prays that the 7;ecut ive ,ecretary be compel ledthrough a mandamus to 'urnish the petitioner with in'ormation reGuesting the names o'e;ecutive oHcials holding multiple positions in government copies o' their appointments and a list o' therecipients o' lu;ury vehicles sei>ed by the Dureau o' ustoms and turned over to alaca]ang

.%sse5hether or not petitioner possesses the reGuisites o' =ling a suit as a citi>en and as ta; payer.

()L The ourt ruled that the petitioner did not have standing to bring suit as citi>en. (etitionerdid not in 'act show what particulari>ed interest they have to bring the suit. As civic leaders they still 'all shorto' the reGuirements to maintain action. Their interest in assailing the 7* does not

present to be o ' a direct and personal character. 0urthermore they do not sustain orare in immediate danger o' sustaining some direct in:ury as a result o' its en'orcement. As ta;payers pet i t ioners cannot a t tac9 the 7*. There i s no appropr ia t ion granted ' romongress but only an authori>ation by the president. There being e;ercise by ongress o' itsta;ing and spending power petitioner cannot be allowed to Guestion the (Rs creation. Thepetitioner has 'ailed to show that he is a real party in interest. 5ith regards to the petitioners reGuest o'disclosure to public in'ormation the ourt upheld that citi>ens may invo9e be'ore the courts theright to in'ormation. 5hen a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion o' a public right thereGuirement o' personal interest is satis=ed by the mere 'act that the petitioner is a citi>en.The,upreme ourt dismissed the petition with the e;ception that respondent 7;ecutive,ecretary is ordered to 'urnish petitioner with the in'ormation reGuested.

vii

R!&ON !. GON@!L)",petitioner, vs. (ON. !NR)" R. N!R!"!, as 'airman,PR)P!R!#OR* 'O&&%""%ON ON 'ON"#%#U#%ON!L R)+OR&"A (ON. RON!LO $.@!&OR!, as )Bective "ecretarA 'O&&%""%ON ON !U%#A RO$)R#O !)N#!!O, asPresidentia3 'ons3tant on 'onci3 o: )conomic !dvisers>)conomic !CairsA !NG)L%#O '.$!N!*O, as Presidentia3 !dviser :or>on Po3itica3 !CairsA )RON%'! %GN!'%O-ON)", asPresidentia3 !ssistant> !ointment "ecretar ;%n car5e o: aointmentsen and ta;payer assails the constitutionality o' the creation o'the (reparatory ommission on onstitutional Re'orm #(R& and o' the positions o' presidentialconsultants advisers and assistants. (etitioner as9s this ourt to en:oin the (R and thepresidential consultants advisers and assistants 'rom acting as such and to en:oin 7;ecutive,ecretary Ronaldo D. ^amora 'rom en'orcing their advice and recommendations. n additionpetitioner see9s to en:oin the ommission on Audit 'rom passing in audit e;penditures 'or the(R and the presidential consultants advisers and assistants. 0inally petitioner prays 'or anorder compelling respondent ^amora to 'urnish petitioner with in'ormation on certain matters.

*n anuary %B %@@@ respondent on. Andres R. +arvasa impleaded in his capacity as hairman

o' the (R =led his omment to the (etition. The rest o' the respondents who are beingrepresented in this case by the ,olicitor ?eneral =led their omment with this ourt on arch %@@@. (etitioner then =led a onsolidated Reply on April %4 %@@@ whereupon this case wasconsidered submitted 'or decision.

(. Preparator) Commission on Constitutional Reform

The (reparatory ommission on onstitutional Re'orm #(R& was created by (resident 7strada on+ovember %6 1$$B by virtue o' 7;ecutive *rder +o. 43 #7.*. +o. 43& in order !to study andrecommend proposed amendments andXor revisions to the 1$B onstitution and the manner o'implementing the same."N1O(etitioner disputes the constitutionality o' the (R on two grounds.0irst he contends that it is a public oHce which only the legislature can create by way o' a law. N%O,econdly petitioner asserts that by creating such a body the (resident is intervening in a process

'rom which he is totally e;cluded by the onstitution S the amendment o' the 'undamental charter.N3O


20/26

t is alleged by respondents that with respect to the (R this case has become moot andacademic. 5e agree.

An action is considered !moot" when it no longer presents a :usticiable controversy because theissues involved have become academic or dead.N4O/nder 7.*. +o. 43 the (R was instructed tocomplete its tas9 on or be'ore une 3@ 1$$$.NCOowever on 0ebruary 1$ 1$$$ the (resident

issued 7;ecutive *rder +o. @ #7.*. +o. @& which e;tended the time 'rame 'or the completion o'the commissions wor9 vi* S

,7T*+ 6. ,ection B is hereby amended to read as 'ollows

Time 0rame. The ommission shall commence its wor9 on @1 anuary 1$$$ and complete thesame on or be'ore 31 en.

A ta;payer is deemed to have the standing to raise a constitutional issue when it is establishedthat public 'unds have been disbursed in alleged contravention o' the law or the onstitution.N13O


21/26

Thus payers action is properly brought only when there is an e;ercise by ongress o' its ta;ing orspending power.N14OThis was our ruling in a recent case wherein petitioners Telecommunicationsand Droadcast Attorneys o' the (hilippines #T727DA(& and ?A +etwor9 nc. Guestioned thevalidity o' section $% o' D.(. +o. BB1 #otherwise 9nows as the !*mnibus 7lection ode"& reGuiringradio and television stations to give 'ree air time to the ommission on 7lections during thecampaign period.N1COThe ourt held that petitioner T727DA( did not have any interest as ata;payer since the assailed law did not involve the ta;ing or spending power o' ongress.N16O

any other rulings have premised the grant or denial o' standing to ta;payers upon whether ornot the case involved a disbursement o' public 'unds by the legislature. n Sanidad v. Commissionon /lectionsN1Othe petitioners therein were allowed to bring a ta;payers suit to Guestion severalpresidential decrees promulgated by then (resident arcos in his legislative capacity calling 'or anational re'erendum with the ourt e;plaining that S

...NiOt is now an ancient rule that the valid source o' a statute S (residential ation prescribed by the onstitution that money may be paid out o'the Treasury while appropriation made b) lawre'ers to _the act o' the legislature setting apart orassigning to a particular use a certain sum to be used in the payment o' debt or dues 'rom the,tate to its creditors. "N%1OThe 'unds used 'or the (R were ta9en 'rom 'unds intended 'or the*Hce o' the (resident in the e;ercise o' the hie' 7;ecutives power to trans'er 'unds pursuant tosection %C #C& o' article J o' the onstitution.

n the =nal analysis it must be stressed that the ourt retains the power to decide whether or notit will entertain a ta;payers suit.N%%On the case at bar there being no e;ercise by ongress o' itsta;ing or spending power petitioner cannot be allowed to Guestion the creation o' the (R in hiscapacity as a ta;payer but rather he must establish that he has a !personal and substantialinterest in the case and that he has sustained or will sustain direct in:ury as a result o' itsen'orcement."N%3On other words petitioner must show that he is a real party in interest - that hewill stand to be bene=ted or in:ured by the :udgment or that he will be entitled to the avails o' thesuit.N%4O+owhere in his pleadings does petitioner presume to ma9e such a representation.


22/26

((. Presidential Consultants, Advisers, Assistants

The second issue raised by petitioner concerns the presidential consultants. (etitioner alleges thatin 1$$C and 1$$6 the (resident created seventy #@& positions in the *Hce o' the (resident andappointed to said positions twenty #%@& presidential consultants twenty-two #%%& presidentialadvisers and twenty-eight #%B& presidential assistants.N%CO(etitioner asserts that as in the case o'

the (R the (resident does not have the power to create these positions. N%6O

onsistent with the abovementioned discussion on standing petitioner does not have thepersonality to raise this issue be'ore the ourt. 0irst o' all he has not proven that he has sustainedor is in danger o' sustaining any in:ury as a result o' the appointment o' such presidential advisers.,econdly petitioner has not alleged the necessary 'acts so as to enable the ourt to determine i'he possesses a ta;payers interest in this particular issue. /nli9e the (R which was created byvirtue o' an e;ecutive order petitioner does not allege by what oHcial act whether it be by meanso' an e;ecutive order administrative order memorandum order or otherwise the (residentattempted to !create" the positions o' presidential advisers consultants and assistants. Thus it isunclear what act o' the (resident petitioner is assailing. n support o' his allegation petitionermerely anne;ed a copy o' the (hilippine ?overnment ed by the Dureau o' ustoms and turned over toalacanang.N%O

The right to in'ormation is enshrined in ,ection o' the Dill o' Rights which provides that S

The right o' the people to in'ormation on matters o' public concern shall be recogni>ed. Access tooHcial records and to documents and papers pertaining to oHcial acts transactions or decisionsas well as to government research data used as basis 'or policy development shall be a)orded theciti>en sub:ect to such limitations as may be provided by law.

/nder both the 1$3N%BOand 1$B onstitution this is a sel'-e;ecutory provision which can beinvo9ed by any citi>en be'ore the courts. This was our ruling in Le"aspi v. Civil ServiceCommissionN%$Owherein the ourt classi=ed the right to in'ormation as a public right and !when a3m4andamusproceeding involves the assertion o' a public right the reGuirement o' personalinterest is satis=ed by the mere 'act that the petitioner is a citi>en and there'ore part o' thegeneral _public which possesses the right." owever ongress may provide 'or reasonableconditions upon the access to in'ormation. ,uch limitations were embodied in Republic Act +o.613 otherwise 9nows as the !ode o' onduct and 7thical ,tandards 'or (ublic *Hcials and7mployees" which too9 e)ect on arch %C 1$B$. This law provides that in the per'ormance o'their duties all public oHcials and employees are obliged to respond to letters sent by the publicwithin ='teen #1C& wor9ing days 'rom receipt thereo' and to ensure the accessibility o' all publicdocuments 'or inspection by the public within reasonable wor9ing hours sub:ect to the reasonableclaims o' con=dentiality.N3@O

7laborating on the signi=cance o' the right to in'ormation the ourt said in 1aldo*a v.2imaanoN31Othat !NtOhe incorporation o' this right in the onstitution is a recognition o' the'undamental role o' 'ree e;change o' in'ormation in a democracy. There can be no realisticperception by the public o' the nations problems nor a meaning'ul democratic decisionma9ing i'they are denied access to in'ormation o' general interest. n'ormation is needed to enable themembers o' society to cope with the e;igencies o' the times." The in'ormation to which the public

is entitled to are those concerning !matters o' public concern" a term which !embraceNsO a broadspectrum o' sub:ects which the public may want to 9now either because these directly a)ecttheir lives or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest o' an ordinary citi>en. nthe =nal analysis it is 'or the courts to determine in a case by case basis whether the matter atissue is o' interest or importance as it relates to or a)ects the public." N3%O

Thus we agree with petitioner that respondent ^amora in his oHcial capacity as 7;ecutive,ecretary has a constitutional and statutory duty to answer petitioners letter dealing withmatters which are unGuestionably o' public concern S that is appointments made to public oHcesand the utili>ation o' public property. 5ith regard to petitioners reGuest 'or copies o' theappointment papers o' certain oHcials respondent amora is obliged to allow the inspection andcopying o' the same sub:ect to the reasonable limitations reGuired 'or the orderly conduct o'oHcial business.N33O

57R70*R7 the petition is dismissed with the e;ception that respondent ^amora is ordered to'urnish petitioner with the in'ormation reGuested.


23/26

,* *Ral8

6. That the a'orementioned ordinance is invalid being in violation o' the law8

. That Petitioner being engaged and duly licensed in the guard and watchmen business hascontracted to guard and has in 'act guards assigned to watch the 5ac9 5ac9 ?ol' and ounty lubat andaluyong Ri>al8

B. That his rights as one engaged in ?uard and watchmens business are a)ected by the

ordinance a'oresaid.

57R70*R7 it is most respectively prayed o' this onorable ourt that :udgment be rendereddeclaring the unicipal *rdinance +o. 13 series o' 1$46 o' the municipality o' andaluyong Ri>alon ,eptember %% 1$46 null and void it being violative o' the law." #Rec. App. pp. 1-3.&

The 2efendants represented by the provincial =scal moved on arch 14 1$C% 'or the dismissal o'the petition on the ground o' lac9 o' a cause o' action or 'or a bill o' particulars 'or 'ailure o' thepetition to speci'y which particular law was allegedly violated by the ordinance in Guestion. Thesaid motion was set 'or hearing on arch 1$ 1$C%. *n arch 1 Plainti5s counsel =led a writtenmotion to postpone the hearing o' 2efendants motion to dismiss or 'or a bill o' particularsbecause he was to appear in a registration proceeding in (ampanga on the same date. The ourthowever denied the motion 'or postponement in its order o' arch 1$ 1$C% and at the sametime granted 2efendants motion to dismiss and ordered the dismissal o' the petition. Plainti5

moved but 'ailed to have the order o' dismissal reconsidered so he appealed to this court. 0orsome reason or another the records were sent to the ourt o' Appeals which 'orwarded the caseto us 'or raising only Guestions o' law.

5e =nd no merit in the appeal.

n the =rst place the motion was not made with the three days advance notice reGuired by therules #Rule %6& and the lower court had discretion to re'use to hear a motion on shorter notice.

n the second place motions 'or continuance are addressed to the sound discretion o' the trialcourt and we cannot consider the lower courts denial o' Appellants motion to postpone an abuseo' discretion 'or as it correctly held Appellantwas represented by the law =rm o' acapagal(un>alan and Zabut8 chan roblesvirtualawlibraryso the absence o' one attorney did not e;cuse the'ailure o' another member o' the law =rm to appear at the date o' the hearing. And even grantingthat Attorney anilao was sole counsel 'or Appellant he had no right to assume that his motion topostpone would be granted #specially on less than 3 days notice& and should have sent arepresentative at the hearing in his behal' to argue the merits o' his motion 'or continuance orelse he could have simply submitted a written answer or reply to the motion to dismiss or even


24/26

amended his petition.

n the third place Appellants petition was correctly dismissed by the ourt below 'or 'ailure toallege 'acts suHcient to constitute a cause o' action. The rule is that a person who Guestions thevalidity o' a statute or law must show that he has sustained or is in immediate danger o'sustaining some direct in:ury as the result o' its en'orcement #ustodio vs. (resident o' ,enate#4% *). ?a>. 1%43& +ovember 1$4C8 chan roblesvirtualawlibraryanila Race orse TrainersAssn. vs.


25/26

(etitioners 2oren>o . Tanada et. al. invo9ed due process in demanding the disclosureo' a number o' (residential ette. n a comment reGuired by the solicitor general he claimed =rstthat the motion was a reGuest 'or an advisory opinion and there'ore be dismissed. And on theclause !unless otherwise provided" in Article % o' the new civil code meant that the publicationreGuired therein was not always imperative that the publication when necessary did not have tobe made in the oHcial ga>ette.

%sses

#1& 5hether or not all laws shall be published in the oHcial ga>ette.

#%& 5hether or not publication in the oHcial ga>ette must be in 'ull.

(e3d

#1& The court held that all statute including those o' local application shall be published ascondition 'or their e)ectivity which shall begin 1C days a'ter publication unless adi)erent e)ectivity date is =;ed by the legislature.

#%& The publication must be 'ull or no publication at all since its purpose is to in'orm thepublic o' the content o' the laws.

i;

;

;i

;ii

;iii

;iv

;v

;vi

;vii

;viii

;i;

;;

;;i

;;ii

;;iii

;;iv

;;v

;;vi

;;vii


26/26

;;viii

;;i;

;;;

;;;i

;;;ii

;;;iii

;;;iv

;;;v

;;;vi

;;;vii

;;;viii

;;;i;

;l

;li

;lii

;liii

;liv

;lv

;lvi

;lvii

;lviii

;li;

Statcon Part 2

Documents

Transcript of Statcon Part 2