Macalintal vs. Commission on Elections power to extend it.

Case  The Court applied the strict scrutiny test and

G.R. No. 263590 found that the postponement of the elections
Decision Date was not justified by a compelling state interest.
Jun 27, 2023  The law fails to meet the requirements of
The Supreme Court declares Republic Act No. 11935, substantive due process, as it does not serve a
which postponed the Barangay and Sangguniang legitimate government interest and is not
Kabataan Elections, as unconstitutional due to violations narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
of the freedom of suffrage and the prohibition against the
transfer of appropriations, reaffirming the importance of Case Summary (G.R. No. 263590)
upholding the Constitution and the separation of powers. Introduction
 The case of Macalintal v. Commission on
Facts: Elections revolves around the constitutionality of
 The case involves two consolidated petitions a law that postponed the barangay and
challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act sangguniang kabataan elections in the
No. 11935 (RA 11935). Philippines.
 RA 11935 postponed the Barangay and  The court examines the balance between the
Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) from right to suffrage and the power of Congress to
December 5, 2022, to the last Monday of October legislate.
2023.  The court ultimately declares the law as
 Petitioners: Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal and a unconstitutional due to violations of due process,
group of lawyers led by Atty. Alberto N. Hidalgo. the right to suffrage, and the independence of the
 Respondents: Commission on Elections Commission on Elections.
(COMELEC) and the Office of the President, Parties and Arguments
represented by Executive Secretary Lucas P.  The case involves two consolidated petitions.
Bersamin.  The first petition, filed by Atty. Romulo B.
 Petitioners argue that Congress overstepped its Macalintal, argues that Congress does not have
authority by postponing the elections, a power the power to postpone or cancel a scheduled
they claim is reserved for the COMELEC. election.
 They also contend that the law effectively  The petitioner also argues that the law allows
extends the terms of incumbent officials, which Congress to appoint barangay officials, which
they argue is unconstitutional. circumvents the requirement that these officials
 The Supreme Court issued a decision on June 27, must be elected.
2023.  Additionally, the petitioner claims that Congress
Issue: effectively amended a provision of the
1. Does Congress have the authority to postpone Constitution by arrogating the power to postpone
the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
Elections, or is this power exclusively vested in  The petitioner also argues that Congress does
the COMELEC? not have the power to extend the term of office
2. Does RA 11935 violate the constitutional right of of barangay officials.
suffrage by extending the terms of incumbent  Finally, the petitioner claims that the COMELEC
officials? has already stopped its preparations for the
3. Is the postponement of the elections justified by elections, and the President is expected to
a compelling state interest, and does it meet the recognize the incumbent officials in a holdover
requirements of substantive due process? capacity.
Ruling:  The second petition, filed by several lawyers,
 The Supreme Court declared RA 11935 asserts that the law violates the right to suffrage
unconstitutional. and equal access to opportunities for public
 The Court ruled that Congress does not have the service.
authority to postpone the elections, as this power  The petitioners argue that the law infringes on
is reserved for the COMELEC. the electorate's right to vote by postponing the
 The Court found that the law violates the elections, and it denies equal access to public
constitutional right of suffrage by extending the service by allowing incumbent officials to remain
terms of incumbent officials without a in office without being elected.
compelling state interest.  The petitioners also argue that the law violates
 The Court ordered that the BSKE should proceed the independence of the COMELEC by giving
as scheduled on the last Monday of October Congress the power to postpone elections.
2023.  The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
 The terms of the incumbent officials should be representing the respondents, argues that the
deemed to have ended on December 31, 2022. petitions fail to allege grave abuse of discretion,
Ratio: which is necessary for the court's expanded
 The power to postpone elections is vested in the jurisdiction.
COMELEC, as outlined in the Omnibus Election  The OSG maintains that Congress has the
Code. plenary power to legislate, including the power to
 By enacting RA 11935, Congress overstepped its postpone elections.
constitutional boundaries and assumed a  The OSG argues that the postponement does not
function reserved for the COMELEC. infringe on the right to suffrage, as it only adjusts
 The law effectively extends the terms of the date of the elections.
incumbent officials, violating the constitutional  The OSG also argues that there is no denial of
right of suffrage. equal access to opportunities for public service,
 While Congress has the power to fix the term of as the incumbent officials are not being
office for barangay officials, it does not have the appointed but are continuing to serve until their
 successors are elected. during oral arguments, involves the realignment
 The OSG contends that the holdover provision in of funds earmarked for the BSKE towards other
the law is valid. purposes, which is not within the authority of
 The OSG further argues that the petitioners have Congress.
failed to prove their entitlement to a temporary  The assailed law is argued to violate the equal
restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction. protection clause as it creates separate classes
Court's Ruling of barangay officials with different terms, not
 The court rules that the power to postpone applicable to future conditions.
elections is inherently included in the Congress'  Justice Caguioa concurs with the majority
broad and plenary power to legislate and opinion that the case is not moot and academic
specifically in its power to determine the term of and votes to grant the petition.
office of barangay officials. Concurring Opinion of Justice Lazaro-Javier
 The court rejects the argument that the power to  Justice Lazaro-Javier agrees with the majority
postpone elections belongs solely to the opinion that the case is not moot and academic.
COMELEC.  She concurs with the majority opinion that the
 The court also finds that the law violates due assailed law is unconstitutional and votes to
process, the right to suffrage, and the grant the petition.
independence of the COMELEC. Summary and Conclusion
 The court declares the law as unconstitutional.  The majority opinion concludes that the assailed
Summary and Conclusion law is unconstitutional as it violates the right of
 In summary, the court declares the law suffrage, the independence and fiscal autonomy
postponing the barangay and sangguniang of the COMELEC, and the equal protection clause.
kabataan elections as unconstitutional due to  The Court votes to grant the petition.
violations of due process, the right to suffrage,
and the independence of the COMELEC.
 The court upholds the power of Congress to
legislate and determine the term of office of
barangay officials.
Case Background and Issue
 The case involves the constitutionality of
Republic Act (RA) No. 11935, which postponed
the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan
Elections (BSKE) scheduled on December 5, 2022,
to a later date.
 The main issue is the clash between the right of
suffrage and the Congress' power to regulate
elections.
Mootness of the Case
 The Court rules that the case is not moot as it
involves a matter of public interest and the issue
is capable of repetition.
Constitutionality of the Assailed Law
 The majority opinion, written by Justice Marvic
Leonen, applies the rational basis test and
concludes that the temporary delay in the
conduct of barangay elections is a minor burden
on the right to suffrage and can be justified as
long as it bears a rational relation to a legitimate
state interest.
 Stricter standards may be applied in future cases
if warranted.
 Practical effects of postponing elections are
discussed, such as meticulous assessment and
logistical planning, release of public funds, and
impact on preparations made by the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC).
 The assailed law is argued to violate the
independence and fiscal autonomy of the
COMELEC as a constitutional commission.
 The realignment of funds by Congress goes
beyond its constitutional authority.
 The assailed law is argued to trample upon the
right of suffrage and violate international
covenants emphasizing the right to participate in
the government and the conduct of genuine
periodic elections.
 The assailed law is concluded to be
unconstitutional.
Concurring Opinion of Justice Caguioa
 Justice Caguioa agrees that the assailed law is
unconstitutional.
 The real reason behind the law, as uncovered
 Ruling:
1. The President is immune from suit and should be
excluded as a respondent in the case.
2. The writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper
remedies to assail the constitutionality of the
JMSU.
3. Direct recourse to the Supreme Court is justified
due to the serious and grave constitutional
questions involved.
4. The requisites of judicial review are present,
including an actual case or controversy, standing,
and the issue of constitutionality being the very
lis mota of the case.
5. The JMSU is declared unconstitutional for
allowing wholly-owned foreign corporations to
participate in the exploration of the country's
natural resources without observing the
safeguards provided in Section 2, Article XII of
the 1987 Constitution.
Ratio:
 The Supreme Court ruled that the President is
immune from suit during their tenure to preserve
Title the dignity of the high office.
Ocampo vs. Macapagal-Arroyo  The writs of certiorari and prohibition were
Case deemed appropriate to address the grave
G.R. No. 182734 constitutional questions raised by the petitioners.
Decision Date  Direct recourse to the Supreme Court was
Jan 10, 2023 justified due to the transcendental importance
Facts: and novelty of the issues involved.
 The case "Ocampo v. Macapagal-Arroyo"  The Court found that the requisites of judicial
involves a petition by several Philippine review were met, as the case presented an actual
legislators. controversy, the petitioners had standing, and the
 Petitioners include Representatives from Bayan constitutional issue was the heart of the
Muna Party-List, Anakpawis, Gabriela Women's controversy.
Party, and others.  On the merits, the Court held that the JMSU
 They challenged the constitutionality of the involved the exploration of natural resources,
Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic which must be under the full control and
Undertaking (JMSU). supervision of the State.
 The JMSU was signed on March 14, 2005, by the  The agreement did not comply with the
Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), China constitutional requirements for such activities, as
National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), and it was not signed by the President and did not
Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation involve financial or technical assistance
(PETROVIETNAM). agreements as prescribed by the Constitution.
 The agreement aimed to conduct joint research  The Court emphasized that the State's control
on petroleum resources in the South China Sea, and supervision over natural resources must be
covering 142,886 square kilometers. maintained, and the JMSU's provisions on joint
 It included a confidentiality clause and required ownership of information compromised this
government approval from the involved parties. control.
 Petitioners argued that the JMSU violated  The JMSU was thus declared unconstitutional
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine and void.
Constitution.
 They claimed it allowed foreign corporations to Case Summary (G.R. No. 182734)
explore Philippine territories without adhering to Case Background and Petitioner's Arguments
constitutional requirements.  The case involves the constitutionality of the
 Petitioners sought to annul the JMSU and Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic
prevent its implementation. Undertaking (JMSU) in the South China Sea.
 Respondents, including then-President Gloria  The petitioners argue that the JMSU violates
Macapagal-Arroyo, argued that the JMSU was a constitutional provisions on the exploration,
pre-exploration activity and did not violate the development, and utilization of natural resources.
Constitution.  They also argue that the President and other
 The case was brought directly to the Supreme government officials should be held accountable
Court, and the JMSU expired on June 30, 2008. for authorizing and permitting the execution of
Issue: the JMSU.
1. Whether the President may be impleaded as a Court Decision and Constitutional Violation
respondent.  The Supreme Court, in its decision written by
2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are Justice Gaerlan, declares the JMSU
proper to assail the constitutionality of the JMSU. unconstitutional for violating Section 2, Article XII
3. Whether the doctrine of hierarchy of courts was of the Constitution.
violated.  Section 2, Article XII states that the exploration,
4. Whether the requisites of judicial review are development, and utilization of natural resources
present. should be under the full control and supervision
5. Whether the JMSU is unconstitutional. of the State.
 The Court rules that the JMSU, which allows agreement, as it was not concurred in by at least
foreign-owned corporations to undertake large- two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
scale exploration of petroleum resources in the  Furthermore, the court rules that the provision in
South China Sea, does not fall under any of the the JMSU regarding the joint ownership of
modes provided in the Constitution for the State information compromises the State's control and
to undertake such activities. supervision over its natural resources.
Procedural Issues and Remedies  The court emphasizes that the exploration of
 The Court addresses procedural issues raised by natural resources is reserved for Filipinos and
the respondents. that the State cannot allow foreign corporations
 It rules that the President, being immune from to explore its natural resources without full
suit, should be excluded as a respondent in the control and supervision.
case. Conclusion and Declaration of Unconstitutionality
 It determines that the writs of certiorari and  The court declares the JMSU unconstitutional
prohibition are proper remedies to challenge the and void.
constitutionality of the JMSU.  It emphasizes the State's ownership and control
 The Court justifies its direct recourse to the case over its natural resources and the need for the
due to the serious and important constitutional President's involvement in agreements involving
questions involved, the paramount public interest, the exploration and utilization of these resources.
and the novelty of the issues.  The court also emphasizes the State's duty to
Conclusion and Declaration of Unconstitutionality protect and preserve its marine wealth for the
 The Supreme Court grants the petition and benefit of Filipino citizens.
declares the JMSU unconstitutional and void. Case Background and Mootness Issue
 It rules that the State has full control and  The case involves the Joint Marine Seismic
supervision over the exploration, development, Undertaking (JMSU) entered into by the China
and utilization of natural resources. National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC),
 The Court emphasizes the need for the Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation
President's involvement in agreements involving (PETROVIETNAM), and Philippine National Oil
the exploration and utilization of these resources. Company (PNOC) in the South China Sea.
 It also emphasizes the State's duty to protect and  The JMSU aimed to conduct joint research on
preserve its marine wealth for the benefit of the petroleum resource potential of a certain
Filipino citizens. area in the South China Sea.
Case Background and Petitioner's Arguments  However, the JMSU expired on June 30, 2008,
 The case involves the constitutionality of the making the case moot and academic.
Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Majority Opinion on Mootness and Constitutional
Undertaking (JMSU) in the Agreement Area in the Violation
South China Sea.  The majority opinion argues that the case falls
 The JMSU was entered into by the China National under the exceptions to the mootness rule,
Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), Vietnam Oil allowing the court to decide on the substantive
and Gas Corporation (VOGC), and the Philippine issues presented.
National Oil Company (PNOC) with the  It asserts that there was a grave violation of
authorization of their respective governments. Section 2, Article XII of the Philippine
 The JMSU allows for the exploration and Constitution, which pertains to the exploration,
potential extraction of natural resources in the development, and utilization of natural resources.
Agreement Area.  The case is also deemed to be of paramount
 The petitioners argue that the JMSU is public interest due to its implications on the
unconstitutional because it compromises the country's territory and natural resources.
State's ownership and control over its natural  Furthermore, the court has a duty to formulate
resources. guiding constitutional principles, and similar
 They claim that the provision in the JMSU, which agreements like the JMSU may be entered into in
states that the information acquired from the the future.
seismic survey shall be jointly owned by the Dissenting Opinion on Mootness and Limited
Parties, effectively forfeits the State's ownership Judicial Review
over its natural resources.  The dissenting opinion argues that the case
Respondents' Arguments and Court's Findings should be dismissed as moot and academic.
 The respondents argue that the provision in the  It emphasizes the importance of the actual case
JMSU regarding the joint ownership of or controversy requirement and the limited power
information does not diminish the State's control of judicial review.
and supervision over its resources.  The dissent argues that the JMSU has already
 They contend that the provision only pertains to expired, and there is no practical value in
the scientific data generated from the seismic adjudicating the issues concerning a terminated
survey and does not grant rights to extract or agreement.
share in the petroleum resources.  It also questions the characterization of the
 The court finds that the JMSU is unconstitutional JMSU as exploration activity, as the exact nature
because it was not entered into by the President, of the activities and their compliance with
as required by Article XII, Section 2 of the constitutional requirements were not sufficiently
Constitution. established.
 The court emphasizes that the President, as the  The dissent further argues that the case does not
head of state, is the chief architect of the meet the requirements for the exceptions to the
country's foreign policy and has the sole mootness rule, as there is no clear time
authority to negotiate with other states. constraint or reasonable expectation of
 The court also rejects the argument that the recurrence.
JMSU can be treated as an international Conclusion and Decision
  The majority opinion allows the court to decide for damages.
on the constitutionality of the JMSU despite its  The lower court dismissed the petition for lack of
expiration. merit, citing presidential immunity and the
 The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal discretionary nature of the President's foreign
of the case as moot and academic. affairs powers.
Issue:
1. Can the President be compelled through a writ of
mandamus to defend the national territory,
specifically the West Philippine Sea, against
Chinese incursions?
2. Does the President's immunity from suit extend
to this case?
3. Is the President's discretion in conducting foreign
affairs subject to judicial review?
Ruling:
1. The petition for mandamus is dismissed for lack
of merit.
2. The President is immune from suit during his
incumbency, regardless of the nature of the suit.
3. The President's discretion in conducting foreign
affairs is not subject to judicial review unless
there is a clear violation of constitutional or
statutory provisions.
Ratio:
 The Supreme Court emphasized that the
President is immune from suit during his
incumbency, as established in De Lima v. Duterte.
 This immunity applies regardless of the nature of
the suit filed against him.
 Even if the case were considered against the
Executive Secretary as the President's
representative, a writ of mandamus would not lie
in the petitioner's favor.
 According to Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, a mandamus petition can only compel the
performance of a ministerial duty, not a
discretionary act.
 The President's duty to defend the national
territory involves discretion, particularly in foreign
affairs.
 The President, as the chief architect of foreign
Title policy, has the exclusive power to conduct and
Esmero vs. Duterte manage the country's international relations.
Case  The Court cited Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., affirming
G.R. No. 256288 the President's broad discretion in foreign affairs,
Decision Date subject to constitutional and statutory limitations.
Jun 29, 2021  The petitioner failed to point to any law
specifically requiring the President to take the
Facts: actions he suggested, such as going to the UN or
 Atty. Romeo M. Esmero filed a Petition for the ICJ.
Mandamus against President Rodrigo R. Duterte  The Court concluded that the President's
on July 29, 2021. approach to addressing disputes with China,
 Esmero sought to compel President Duterte to whether militarily, diplomatically, or legally, falls
defend the West Philippine Sea against Chinese within his discretion and is not subject to judicial
incursions. intervention unless there is a clear abuse of
 He argued that the President should consider a discretion.
defensive war against China and invoke the  The petition was therefore dismissed.
Mutual Defense Agreement with the United
States. Case Summary (G.R. No. 256288)
 Esmero contended that the President's actions Case Background and Petitioner's Arguments
and pronouncements regarding the West  The case of Esmero v. Duterte involves petitioner
Philippine Sea should be subject to judicial Atty. Romeo M. Esmero seeking the issuance of
review. a writ of mandamus to compel President Rodrigo
 He claimed the President had unlawfully R. Duterte to defend the national territory,
neglected his duty to defend the national territory, particularly the West Philippine Sea, against
as established by the UN Arbitral Tribunal. Chinese incursions.
 Esmero stated that the President's inaction  The petitioner argues that it is the duty of the
harmed the livelihood of Filipino fishermen and government to protect the people and their rights,
their families. including the national territory, and that the
 He suggested that the Philippines should go to President should consider engaging in a
the United Nations Security Council and sue defensive war against China.
China before the International Court of Justice  The petitioner claims that the President's actions
 and pronouncements on the West Philippine Sea represented by Datu Reynante Buklas and Datu
are subject to judicial review and that there is Alicio Patac, along with the National Commission
unlawful neglect or inaction on the part of the on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as respondents.
President in defending the national territory.  The Mamanwa Tribes have occupied ancestral
 The petitioner further argues that the national domains in Surigao del Norte, recognized under
territory and exclusive economic zone are Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title No. R13-CLA-
recognized in international law, and that the 0906-048.
President's immunity from suit does not apply in  On February 21, 2010, the Mamanwa Tribes signed
this case. a Memorandum of Agreement with Shenzhou and
the NCIP for the exploration and exploitation of
 The petitioner proposes that the Philippines
mineral resources.
should go to the United Nations Security Council
 Shenzhou was believed to hold Mineral Production
and the International Court of Justice to seek
Sharing Agreement No. 102-98-XIII.
protection and demand damages from China.
 Commissioner Felecito L. Masagnay issued
Supreme Court's Decision
Compliance Certificate Control No. CCRXIII-19-02-
 The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for
13, certifying Shenzhou's compliance with required
lack of merit.
procedures.
 The Court cited its ruling in De Lima v. Duterte,  The Mamanwa Tribes later discovered that Claver
which states that the President is immune from Mineral Development Corporation, not Shenzhou,
suit during his incumbency, regardless of the was the true contractor.
nature of the suit.  Shenzhou failed to pay agreed royalties.
 The Court explains that a writ of mandamus  The Mamanwa Tribes filed a petition with the NCIP
cannot be used to control discretion and can only for the cancellation of Shenzhou's certificate.
be used to compel the performance of a pre-  On January 12, 2012, the NCIP declared the
existing duty. certificate void ab initio, ordered Shenzhou to cease
 The Court emphasizes that the President, as the mining operations, and return possession to the
guardian of the Philippine archipelago and the Mamanwa Tribes.
sole authority in the country's external affairs,  Shenzhou's appeal to the Court of Appeals was
has the discretion to address disputes with China. denied, leading to this petition for review on
 The Court further states that the decision on how certiorari.
to address disputes with China rests on the Issue:
political branches of government, and that the 1. Whether the NCIP correctly declared Compliance
Court should not substitute its discretion for that Certificate Control No. CCRXIII-19-02-13 void.
of the President. 2. Whether Commissioner Masagnay acted as a de
 The Court concludes that the petitioner failed to facto officer whose acts should be considered valid.
3. Whether the Mamanwa Tribes are entitled to royalty
show a clear legal right to the performance of the
payments.
act and a corresponding compelling duty on the
Ruling:
part of the President.
 The Supreme Court denied Shenzhou's petition
 Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
for review on certiorari.
Key Points
 It affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the
 The President is immune from suit during his
NCIP correctly declared the compliance certificate
incumbency, regardless of the nature of the suit.
void.
 A writ of mandamus can only be used to compel
 The Court ruled that Commissioner Masagnay was
the performance of a pre-existing duty and
not a de facto officer, and thus his acts were void.
cannot be used to control discretion.
 The Mamanwa Tribes were entitled to royalty
 The President, as the guardian of the Philippine payments with stipulated interest.
archipelago and the sole authority in the Ratio:
country's external affairs, has the discretion to  The Supreme Court held that the power to certify
address disputes with China. compliance with requirements concerning ancestral
 The decision on how to address disputes with domains and free, prior, and informed consent is
China rests on the political branches of vested in the NCIP.
government, and the Court should not substitute  The NCIP had delegated this power to its
its discretion for that of the President. chairperson, who could not further redelegate it to
 The petitioner failed to show a clear legal right to Commissioner Masagnay.
the performance of the act and a corresponding  The principle of non-delegation of delegated powers
compelling duty on the part of the President. (potestas delegata non delegari potest) was
violated when Chairperson Insigne authorized
Masagnay to sign the compliance certificate.
 Therefore, the certificate issued by Masagnay was
void.
Title  The Court also found that the doctrine of de facto
Shenzhou Mining Group Corp. vs. Mamanwa Tribes of officer did not apply because Masagnay was merely
Barangays Taganito and Urbiztondo designated as officer-in-charge and not appointed
Case to the position.
G.R. No. 206685  The NCIP's decision to void the certificate and order
Decision Date Shenzhou to cease mining operations was in line
Mar 16, 2022 with its mandate to protect the rights of indigenous
peoples.
Case Digest (G.R. No. 206685)  The Mamanwa Tribes' entitlement to royalties was
Facts: upheld based on constitutional and statutory
 The case involves Shenzhou Mining Group Corp. provisions ensuring their priority rights over natural
(petitioner) and the Mamanwa Tribes of Barangays resources within their ancestral domains.
Taganito and Urbiztondo, Claver, Surigao del Norte, Case Summary (G.R. No. 206685)
 Background and Parties Involved Secretary Proceso J. Alcala, et al. vs. Honorable Judge
 The case involves Shenzhou Mining Group Corp. Emmanuel C. Carpio, et al.
and the Mamanwa Tribes of Barangays Taganito Case
and Urbiztondo. G.R. No. 211146
 Shenzhou Mining Group Corp. is a mining company Decision Date
that was issued Compliance Certificate Control No. Apr 11, 2023
CCRXIII-19-02-13 by the National Commission on The Supreme Court granted petitions for certiorari,
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). nullifying the writs of preliminary injunction issued by
 The Mamanwa Tribes hold ancestral domain rights lower court judges that favored private respondents in
in Surigao del Norte. their rice importation cases, ruling that the respondents
Issue: Validity of Compliance Certificate lacked a clear legal right to import rice without the
 The Mamanwa Tribes filed a petition to cancel the necessary licenses from the National Food Authority.
compliance certificate issued to Shenzhou Mining Facts:
Group Corp.
 The case involves a dispute between private
 They claimed that the certificate was issued under respondents Joseph M. Ngo and Danilo G.
an invalid delegation of authority.
Galang against Secretary Proceso J. Alcala,
Memorandum of Agreement and Royalty Payments
representing the Department of Agriculture, the
 The Mamanwa Tribes entered into a Memorandum
National Food Authority (NFA), and the Bureau of
of Agreement with Shenzhou and the NCIP for the
Customs.
exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in
Barangay Cagdianao.
 The Bureau of Customs seized rice shipments
owned by the private respondents on December
 It was later discovered that Shenzhou was not the
12 and 13, 2013, due to alleged violations of
rightful holder of the Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement No. 102-98-XIII. importation regulations.
 The Mamanwa Tribes were not paid the agreed  The private respondents sought a writ of
royalties. preliminary injunction from the Regional Trial
NCIP Resolution and Invalid Delegation of Authority Court (RTC) in Davao City, claiming ownership of
 The NCIP issued Resolution No. A-004, series of the seized rice but failed to demonstrate that
2011, declaring that Commissioner Felecito L. they had obtained the necessary licenses for
Masagnay, who signed the compliance certificate, importation as mandated by the NFA under
did not have the authority to do so. Presidential Decree No. 4 and its amendments.
 Masagnay's authority was delegated to him by NCIP  The RTC issued orders favoring the private
Chairperson Eugenio A. Insigne. respondents, allowing them to secure a writ of
 However, the delegation was deemed invalid as the preliminary injunction against the government
power to sign compliance certificates had already officials.
been delegated to the chairperson of the NCIP.  The petitioners contested these orders, arguing
Court of Appeals Decision that the private respondents lacked a clear legal
 Shenzhou appealed to the Court of Appeals, which right to import rice without the requisite permits.
upheld the NCIP's decision.  The case was subsequently elevated to the
 The Court of Appeals ruled that Masagnay's signing Supreme Court for review.
of the compliance certificates was null and void. Issue:
 Shenzhou was ordered to cease its mining 1. Did the private respondents establish a clear
operations and return possession of the property to right to the rice shipments that warranted the
the Mamanwa Tribes. issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction?
 The Court of Appeals also upheld the Mamanwa 2. Was there an irreparable injury that justified the
Tribes' entitlement to royalty payments. issuance of the preliminary injunction?
Supreme Court Decision 3. Did the private respondents meet the burden of
 Shenzhou filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari proof necessary to obtain injunctive relief?
with the Supreme Court.
Ruling:
 Shenzhou argued that Masagnay should be  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
considered a de facto officer and his acts should
petitioners, nullifying the orders of the RTC that
not be nullified.
had granted the writ of preliminary injunction to
 The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating
the private respondents.
that Masagnay was never appointed or elected to
 The Court found that the private respondents did
the position he held and therefore could not be
not possess a clear legal right to import rice
considered a de facto officer.
without a license from the NFA and failed to
 The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals'
decision to declare the compliance certificate void
demonstrate a cause of action.
and ordered Shenzhou to cease its mining  Consequently, the Court declared the preliminary
operations, return possession of the property to the injunctions invalid and made the injunction
Mamanwa Tribes, and pay the agreed royalties. previously granted to the petitioners permanent.
Summary and Outcome Ratio:
 The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court  The Court's decision was based on the legal
of Appeals and the NCIP. principles governing the issuance of a writ of
 Compliance Certificate Control No. CCRXIII-19-02- preliminary injunction, emphasizing that the
13 was declared void due to an invalid delegation of applicant must demonstrate a clear and
authority. enforceable right, which the private respondents
 Shenzhou was ordered to cease its mining failed to do.
operations, return possession of the property to the  The Court noted that while the private
Mamanwa Tribes, and pay the agreed royalties. respondents claimed ownership of the rice
shipments, they did not possess the necessary
licenses for importation, which are prerequisites
under the law.
Title  Furthermore, the Court clarified that irreparable
 injury must be actual, substantial, and standing despite not being original parties. The court
demonstrable, and that the damages claimed by examined whether the case was moot due to the
the private respondents were quantifiable and enactment of Republic Act No. 11203 and whether
could be compensated through monetary petitioners demonstrated grave abuse of discretion.
damages. Ultimately, the court ruled that private respondents
 The ruling underscored the principle that lacked a clear legal right to import rice, leading to the
injunctions are extraordinary remedies that conclusion that the injunctions were improperly issued.
should not be granted when adequate legal  The case involved preliminary injunctions against
remedies exist, reinforcing the importance of BOC for rice shipments.
compliance with domestic laws governing  Petitioners challenged the injunctions, asserting
importation. standing.
 The court examined mootness due to Republic
Case Summary (G.R. No. 211146) Act No. 11203.
Supreme Court Ruling on Rice Importation Cases  The court ruled private respondents lacked clear
The Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed legal rights to import rice.
consolidated petitions (G.R. No. 211146 and G.R. No.  The conclusion was that the injunctions were
211375) challenging preliminary injunctions issued by improperly issued.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) judges. The injunctions Legality of Import Permits
prevented the Bureau of Customs (BOC) from seizing rice The Supreme Court addressed the legality of imposing
shipments imported by Joseph Mangupag Ngo and quantitative restrictions on rice imports, specifically the
Danilo G. Galang, who lacked National Food Authority requirement for NFA import permits. The Court ruled that
(NFA) import licenses. The Court emphasized that a writ private respondents did not possess a clear right to
of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy import rice without adhering to NFA guidelines, grounded
requiring a clear right and must be exercised cautiously. in Republic Act No. 8178. The authority to regulate import
The ruling involved complexities of rice importation laws, quotas lies with Congress, and rights related to
the Philippines' commitments under the World Trade importation must be explicitly granted by law. The ruling
Organization (WTO), and historical context regarding rice emphasized the separation of powers, asserting that the
imports. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled on executive branch manages foreign relations and
procedural and substantive issues, balancing regulatory negotiates with international bodies like the WTO.
authority and private rights in agricultural trade.  The Court addressed legality of quantitative
 The Supreme Court addressed consolidated restrictions on rice imports.
petitions regarding preliminary injunctions.  Private respondents lacked clear rights without
 The injunctions prevented BOC from seizing rice NFA guidelines.
shipments due to lack of NFA licenses.  Authority to regulate import quotas lies with
 The Court emphasized the extraordinary nature Congress.
of preliminary injunctions.  Rights related to importation must be explicitly
 The ruling involved complexities of rice granted by law.
importation laws and WTO commitments.  The ruling emphasized separation of powers in
 The Court balanced regulatory authority with foreign relations.
private rights in agricultural trade. WTO Protections for Developing Countries
Legal Dispute Over Rice Shipments The case discusses WTO Agreement provisions that
Joseph Mangupag Ngo and Danilo G. Galang sought to protect developing countries' interests in international
lift restrictions on their rice imports held by the BOC due trade. Amendments to the Agreement require varying
to alleged NFA guideline violations. Both plaintiffs levels of member consent, with specific protections for
claimed ownership of the rice shipments based on developing nations regarding tariff reductions and
agreements and payments made. The RTC granted subsidies. The WTO allows developing countries to
preliminary injunctions, finding that continued detention negotiate collectively, enhancing their bargaining power.
of the rice constituted a material invasion of their rights The case emphasizes the complexities of trade
and posed a risk of spoilage. The BOC, represented by agreements, dispute resolution mechanisms, and the
the Department of Agriculture, filed petitions for certiorari, social dimension of property rights, asserting that private
arguing that the courts erred in granting injunctions rights are subject to public law.
without clear legal rights established by the plaintiffs.  The case discusses WTO provisions protecting
The Supreme Court temporarily restrained the lower developing countries.
courts from proceeding with the injunctions, emphasizing  Amendments require varying levels of member
the need for a thorough examination of the legal issues consent.
surrounding the NFA's authority.  Specific protections exist for developing nations
 Ngo and Galang sought to lift restrictions on their on tariffs and subsidies.
rice imports.  The WTO allows collective negotiation for
 They claimed ownership based on agreements developing countries.
and payments.  The case emphasizes complexities of trade
 RTC granted injunctions due to material invasion agreements and public law.
of rights and spoilage risk. Ownership and Public Law
 BOC filed petitions arguing lack of clear legal The Supreme Court addressed the non-negotiability of
rights by plaintiffs. bills of lading and ownership transfer between Starcraft
 The Supreme Court temporarily restrained lower and Ngo. The Court affirmed that ownership can transfer
courts for thorough legal examination. prior to delivery, evidenced by Ngo's payment for the
Challenges to Preliminary Injunctions shipments. However, property rights are subject to public
The case involved a legal dispute regarding preliminary law and the state's police power, which can override
injunctions against the BOC concerning the seizure of individual rights for general welfare. The Court found that
rice shipments by private respondents. Petitioners, lower courts abused their discretion by issuing
including DA Secretary Alcala and Bureau Commissioner injunctions based solely on ownership claims without
Sevilla, challenged the injunctions, asserting they had considering existing laws.
  The Court addressed non-negotiability of bills of explicitly prohibited. The court found that private
lading and ownership transfer. respondents complied with necessary regulations and
 Ownership can transfer prior to delivery, were not required to secure an NFA import license due to
evidenced by payment. the expiration of special treatment provisions. The ruling
 Property rights are subject to public law and highlighted that the NFA cannot impose restrictions post-
state police power. expiration, as the Philippines is obligated to convert non-
 Lower courts abused discretion by issuing tariff measures into ordinary customs duties.
injunctions based on ownership claims.  The case discusses rice importation regulation
Temporary Restraining Order Issued within the WTO framework.
The case involves consolidated petitions challenging RTC  Citizens possess a property right to import
Orders that issued preliminary injunctions preventing the unless explicitly prohibited.
BOC from seizing illegal rice shipments. The Supreme  Private respondents complied with necessary
Court initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order to regulations.
halt the implementation of these orders. The Court  NFA cannot impose restrictions post-expiration
emphasized the need for caution in granting preliminary of special treatment.
injunctions, requiring proof of a clear legal right and  The Philippines must convert non-tariff measures
urgent need to prevent irreparable injury. Ultimately, the into customs duties.
Court upheld the restraining order, dissolving the lower
courts' injunctions due to the private respondents' failure
to establish clear rights. G.R. No. 257610. January 24, 2023 Albano vs.
 The case involves petitions challenging RTC COMELEC (Partylist)
Orders on preliminary injunctions.
 The Supreme Court issued a Temporary G.R. No. 223845
Restraining Order.
 Caution is required in granting preliminary Title
injunctions. Lucilo R. Bayron, City Mayor, et al. vs. Commission on
 Proof of clear legal right and urgent need is Audit
necessary. Case
 The Court upheld the restraining order, dissolving G.R. No. 253127
lower court injunctions. Decision Date
Nov 29, 2022
NFA Regulations and Legal Framework
The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission on Audit's
The court ruled that private respondents failed to
decision disallowing the Puerto Princesa City Government's
demonstrate a clear legal right to import rice, as Early and Voluntary Separation Incentive Program, declaring it
importation is heavily regulated by the NFA under various null and void for being ultra vires and contrary to national law
laws. The absence of a valid import permit constituted a prohibiting supplementary retirement plans for government
violation of the law, and claims based on pending employees.
requests for special treatment from the WTO were Facts:
deemed insufficient. The court found that lower courts  The case involves the Development Bank of the
gravely abused their discretion by issuing injunctions, Philippines (DBP) and the Commission on Audit (COA).
leading to the decision to vacate those orders.  DBP underwent a reorganization process, leading to
 The court ruled private respondents lacked clear the separation of several employees.

legal rights to import rice.  These separated employees claimed separation

benefits under Section 34 of the DBP Charter.
 Importation is heavily regulated by the NFA under
various laws.
 Section 34 entitles employees to gratuities and
benefits provided under existing laws and
 Absence of a valid import permit constituted a supplementary retirement plans adopted by the Bank.
legal violation.
 DBP argued that the separation benefits should be
 Claims for special treatment from the WTO were funded by the National Government as stipulated in
deemed insufficient. the Charter.
 Lower courts gravely abused discretion in issuing  COA disallowed the payment of these benefits, leading
injunctions. to the filing of the case.
Judicial Review and Trade Regulations  The case was decided on March 5, 2019, with a
The Supreme Court addressed the issuance of writs of consolidated case of DBP v. COA, G.R. 210922, on the
preliminary injunction by RTC judges favoring private same date.
respondents seeking the release of seized rice shipments. Issue:
The Court found that the judges had gravely abused their  Whether the separated employees of DBP are entitled
to separation benefits under Section 34 of the DBP
discretion, as private respondents failed to demonstrate
Charter.
a clear right to import rice under the WTO Agreement.
 Whether the National Government is liable to fund the
The dissenting opinion argued that private respondents
separation benefits as stipulated in the DBP Charter.
had established their right to import rice, highlighting the
Ruling:
complexities of trade regulations.
 The Court ruled that the separated employees of DBP
 The Court addressed issuance of preliminary are entitled to separation benefits under Section 34 of
injunctions by RTC judges. the DBP Charter.
 Judges gravely abused discretion in favoring  The Court held that the National Government is liable
private respondents. to fund the separation benefits as stipulated in the
 Private respondents failed to demonstrate a clear DBP Charter.
right under WTO Agreement. Ratio:
 A dissenting opinion argued that respondents  The Court's decision was based on the interpretation
of Section 34 of the DBP Charter.
had established their right.
NFA's Authority and Expiration of Special Treatment  Section 34 clearly states that employees separated
due to the reorganization are entitled to all gratuities
The case discusses the regulation of rice importation
and benefits provided under existing laws and
within the WTO framework, emphasizing that individual
supplementary retirement plans adopted by the Bank.
citizens possess a property right to import unless
 The provision specifies that any separation benefits further investigation.
and incentives granted by the Bank after June 1, 1986,  Nullification: Ordinance No. 438 and Resolution No.
should be funded by the National Government. 850-2010
 The Court emphasized that the language of the  Reason: Ultra vires, contrary to national law
Charter is explicit and leaves no room for alternative  Nature of EVSIP: Reward for long service, not
interpretation. separation pay
 The Court referenced previous jurisprudence to  Operative Fact Doctrine: Applies to those who received
support its decision, ensuring alignment with benefits in good faith
established legal principles and precedents.  COA's Decision: Affirmed
 The decision was made under the 1987 Philippine  Further Investigation: Referred to the Office of the
Constitution, which governs the interpretation and Ombudsman
application of laws in the country. Interpretation and Application of Employee Separation
Case Summary (G.R. No. 253127) Benefits
Background of the Case: Bayron et al. vs. Commission on The case involves the interpretation and application of
Audit (COA) various provisions related to employee separation benefits
In the case of Bayron et al. vs. Commission on Audit (COA), and termination due to reorganization, redundancy, or
the petitioners, who were officials of Puerto Princesa City, health reasons within the context of Philippine labor laws
contested COA's disallowance of payments made under and government regulations. Key statutes and previous
the city's Early & Voluntary Separation Incentive Program jurisprudence were cited to clarify the entitlements of
(EVSIP). This program was established by Ordinance No. employees, including separation pay and other benefits,
438 in 2010 with the aim of streamlining the city's when their employment is terminated due to organizational
workforce and rewarding long-serving employees. However, changes or health issues. The case also touches on the
COA disallowed these payments, arguing that the EVSIP procedural requirements for such terminations, including
was not authorized by any reorganization law and violated the necessity of prior approval from relevant authorities
existing laws that prohibit supplementary retirement plans and the role of the Department of Budget and Management
for government employees. in reviewing appropriation ordinances related to these
 Petitioners: Officials of Puerto Princesa City matters.
 Program: Early & Voluntary Separation Incentive  Context: Philippine labor laws and government
Program (EVSIP) regulations
 Ordinance: No. 438 (2010)  Key Issues: Employee separation benefits, termination
 COA's Argument: EVSIP not authorized by due to reorganization, redundancy, or health reasons
reorganization law, violates laws against  Statutes and Jurisprudence: Clarify entitlements of
supplementary retirement plans employees
Petitioners' Argument and Supreme Court's Decision  Procedural Requirements: Prior approval from relevant
The petitioners argued that the EVSIP was a valid early authorities
retirement plan and not a supplementary retirement
 Role of Department of Budget and Management:
package. Despite this, the Supreme Court denied the
Review of appropriation ordinances
petition, affirming COA's decision. The Court directed the
case to the Office of the Ombudsman for further Ong vs. Senate of the Philippines
investigation and noted that the petitioners' plea of good Case
faith would be evaluated by the Ombudsman. G.R. No. 257401
 Petitioners' Argument: EVSIP as a valid early Decision Date
retirement plan Mar 28, 2023
 Supreme Court's Decision: Denied the petition, The Supreme Court nullifies contempt orders against Ong and Yang
affirmed COA's decision for lack of due process, upholds constitutionality of provisions
punishing false testimony, and emphasizes the importance of
 Further Action: Case referred to the Office of the
respecting rights in legislative inquiries.
Ombudsman
\ Facts:
 Good Faith: To be evaluated by the Ombudsman
 The case involves two consolidated petitions for certiorari
Supreme Court's Ruling on Ordinance No. 438 and and prohibition filed by Linconn Uy Ong and Michael Yang
Resolution No. 850-2010 Hong Ming against the Senate of the Philippines and its
The Philippine Supreme Court ruled that Ordinance No. 438 Blue Ribbon Committee.
and Resolution No. 850-2010, which established the EVSIP,
 Ong, a member of the Board of Directors and Supply
were ultra vires (beyond the powers of the local Chain Manager of Pharmally Pharmaceuticals
government). The Court found that these local legislations Corporation, was cited in contempt and ordered arrested
contravened national laws, specifically Section 28(b) of by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee for allegedly
Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by Republic Act testifying falsely and evasively during a hearing on
No. 4968, which prohibits supplementary retirement or September 10, 2021.
pension plans other than those provided by the  Yang, a Chinese citizen and former Presidential Economic
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Adviser, was also cited in contempt and ordered arrested
 Ordinance and Resolution: No. 438 and No. 850-2010 for failing to attend hearings and for allegedly giving
 Court's Ruling: Ultra vires, contravened national laws evasive answers.
 Relevant Law: Section 28(b) of Commonwealth Act No.  The Senate's investigation was related to the Commission
186, as amended by Republic Act No. 4968 on Audit's (COA) report on the Department of Health's
expenditures for COVID-19.
 Prohibition: Supplementary retirement or pension
plans other than GSIS  The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee issued subpoenas to
Ong and Yang, who initially failed to appear, leading to
Nullification of Local Legislations and Affirmation of
their contempt citations and arrest orders.
COA's Decision
The Supreme Court declared Ordinance No. 438 and  Ong and Yang challenged the constitutionality of the
Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Resolution No. 850-2010 null and void for being ultra vires
Legislation and the Rules of the Senate Blue Ribbon
and contrary to national law. The Court emphasized that
Committee, particularly the provisions punishing for
the EVSIP was intended as a reward for long service rather
contempt the act of "testifying falsely or evasively."
than a form of separation pay, conflicting with existing
Issue:
national laws governing retirement and separation benefits. 1. Whether the assailed rules should be declared
The Court also noted that the operative fact doctrine unconstitutional.
applies only to those who received benefits in good faith. 2. Whether the Contempt Order dated September 10, 2021,
Consequently, the Commission on Audit's decision to against Ong should be nullified.
disallow the payments under the EVSIP was affirmed, and 3. Whether the Arrest Orders dated September 7, 2021, and
the case was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for September 10, 2021, and the Request for Issuance of
 Lookout Bulletin against Yang were issued without legal issued with grave abuse of discretion and that the
bases. phrase "testifies falsely or evasively" in the Senate
4. Whether Yang was deprived of his rights to counsel and rules is vague and unconstitutional.
to be heard.  They also challenge the legality of the Committee's
5. Whether Yang was compelled to answer questions and
request for the issuance of a lookout bulletin against
submit documents and information that are beyond the
Yang.
scope of the legislative inquiry, in violation of his right to
Power of the Legislature to Conduct Inquiries and
privacy.
Contempt
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court partly granted the petitions.
 The Court emphasizes that the power of legislative
investigation is broad and encompasses everything
 It nullified the Contempt Order dated September 10, 2021,
concerning the administration of existing laws and
against Ong and Yang for having been issued with grave
proposed statutes.
abuse of discretion.
 However, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the
 The Court recognizes the Legislature's inherent power
phrase "testifies falsely or evasively" in the Senate Rules of contempt, which allows it to enforce its inquiries
of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation and and compel the availability of information necessary
the Rules of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. for legislation.
Ratio:  The exercise of the contempt power is subject to
 The Court found that the Senate's power to conduct limitations, including conducting the inquiry in aid of
inquiries in aid of legislation is broad and includes the legislation, in accordance with the Legislature's
power to compel attendance and testimony. published rules of procedure, and respecting the rights
 This power is essential for the Senate to legislate wisely of persons appearing in or affected by the inquiries.
and effectively. Violation of Due Process Rights
 The Court also recognized the Senate's inherent power of  The Court finds that the Senate Committee satisfied
contempt as necessary to enforce its legislative functions. the first two limitations as the hearings were
 However, the Court held that the Senate Blue Ribbon conducted in aid of legislation and the rules on
Committee failed to accord petitioners their constitutional contempt were duly published.
right to due process.  However, the Committee failed to accord petitioners
 The Committee's precipitate act of citing petitioners in their rights to due process during the proceedings.
contempt and ordering their arrests without giving them  The Court specifically points out that the Contempt
the opportunity to be heard constituted grave abuse of Order finding Ong and Yang guilty of testifying falsely
discretion. and evasively lacks factual basis.
 The Court emphasized that while the Senate has the  The Court highlights the Committee's violation of
power to determine whether a witness is testifying falsely petitioners' rights to due process and unreasonable
or evasively, this determination requires a fair process
seizures.
that respects the rights of the individuals involved.
 The Court concludes that the Committee's actions
 The Court also found that the phrase "testifies falsely or
constitute grave abuse of discretion.
evasively" is not vague and can be understood by any
Transcendental Importance and Resolution of the Issues
person of common intelligence.
 Although the case was rendered moot by the
 The Court further ruled that the Senate's request for the
termination of the legislative inquiry and the voluntary
issuance of a lookout bulletin against Yang was not an
arbitrary exercise of power and was within the Senate's
release of Ong, the Court decides to resolve the issues
authority to ensure the availability of witnesses for its raised due to their transcendental importance and the
inquiry. grave abuse of discretion committed by the
Case Summary (G.R. No. 257401) Committee.
Parties Involved and Key Details  The Court rules that while the Senate has the power to
 Linconn Uy Ong and Michael Yang Hong Ming filed cite individuals in contempt during legislative inquiries,
petitions challenging the Contempt Order issued by the proper due process must be observed.
Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers  The Court nullifies the Contempt Order against Ong
and Investigations (Senate Blue Ribbon Committee). and Yang and emphasizes the importance of
 Ong challenges the Contempt Order and the respecting the rights of persons appearing in or
constitutionality of the Senate's rules on contempt. affected by legislative inquiries.
 Yang challenges the arrest orders and lookout bulletin
issued against him by the Senate Committee.
 The Court finds that the Senate Committee satisfied
the first two limitations of the contempt power, but
failed to accord due process to the petitioners during
the proceedings.
Title
 The Court highlights the Committee's violation of
Balag vs. Senate of the Philippines
petitioners' rights to due process and unreasonable
seizures.
Case
 The case was rendered moot by the termination of the
G.R. No. 234608
legislative inquiry and the voluntary release of Ong, but Decision Date
the Court decides to resolve the issues raised due to Jul 3, 2018
their importance and the Committee's abuse of
discretion. A petition is filed against the Senate of the Philippines to
 The Court rules that while the Senate has the power to annul and stop the implementation of a Contempt Order,
cite individuals in contempt during legislative inquiries, leading to a Supreme Court ruling that limits the period of
proper due process must be observed. imprisonment under the Senate's power of contempt during
 The Court nullifies the Contempt Order against Ong legislative inquiries to the duration of the inquiry.
and Yang and emphasizes the importance of Facts:
respecting the rights of persons appearing in or  The case involves petitioner Arvin R. Balag, who
affected by legislative inquiries. sought to annul and stop the implementation of a
Background and Petitions Contempt Order issued by the Senate Committee
 Ong and Yang were cited in contempt by the Senate on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs.
Committee for allegedly testifying falsely or evasively  The case arose from the death of Horacio Tomas T.
during the legislative inquiry on the transactions Castillo III, a first-year law student at the University
between Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corporation and
of Santo Tomas, allegedly due to hazing by the
the government.
Aegis Juris Fraternity.
 Ong and Yang argue that the contempt orders were
  Following Castillo's death on September 17, 2017, the rights of individuals, ensuring that the Senate's
Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri filed Senate Resolution power of contempt remains effective while
(SR) No. 504 on September 19, 2017, condemning protecting constitutional rights.
the incident and directing an investigation. Case Summary (G.R. No. 234608)
 Another resolution, SR No. 510, was filed by Senator Background of the Case
Paolo Benigno Aquino IV on September 20, 2017,  Horacio Tomas T. Castillo III, a law student, died
calling for an inquiry into Castillo's death. allegedly due to hazing conducted by the Aegis
 The Senate Committee on Public Order and Juris Fraternity.
Dangerous Drugs, chaired by Senator Panfilo  The Senate conducted an investigation into the
Lacson, along with other committees, invited Balag incident.
and others to a public hearing on September 25,  Balag, a member of the fraternity, was invited to
2017. attend the hearing but did not attend.
 Balag did not attend, but other fraternity members  Criminal complaints were filed against several
and university officials did. members of the fraternity, including Balag.
 On October 11, 2017, a Subpoena Ad Testificandum  Subpoenas were issued to Balag, directing him to
was issued to Balag, requiring his attendance at a appear before the Senate committee and testify.
hearing on October 18, 2017.  Balag refused to answer certain questions during
 During the hearing, Balag repeatedly invoked his the hearing, invoking his right against self-
right against self-incrimination when asked if he incrimination.
was the president of the fraternity.  As a result, he was cited in contempt and ordered to
 This led to a motion by Senator Grace Poe to cite be detained by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms.
him in contempt, which was seconded by other Main Issue in the Case
senators.  The main issue is whether the Senate committees
 Balag was subsequently detained by the Senate acted with grave abuse of discretion in conducting
Sergeant-at-Arms. the legislative inquiry and citing Balag in contempt.
 Balag filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition,  Balag argues that the purpose of the inquiry was
arguing that the legislative inquiry was not in aid of not in aid of legislation but in aid of prosecution.
legislation but in aid of prosecution, and that his  He also contends that his right to due process and
rights to due process and against self-incrimination equal protection of laws was violated.
were violated.  Balag further argues that the Senate's exercise of
 The Supreme Court issued a temporary release its power of contempt was not judicious and
order for Balag on December 12, 2017, pending restrained.
resolution of the petition. Arguments of the Respondents
Issue:  The Senate of the Philippines and the Senate
1. Did the Senate Committees act with grave abuse of committees argue that Balag's refusal to answer
discretion in conducting the legislative inquiry and questions during the hearing constituted
citing Arvin Balag in contempt? contemptuous behavior.
Ruling:  They assert that the Senate's exercise of its power
 The Supreme Court ruled that the petition was moot of contempt was valid.
and academic.  The respondents also claim that the questions
 The Court found that there was no longer a asked were not incriminating and that Balag's
justiciable controversy as Balag had already been detention was justified.
released from detention and the Senate had Supreme Court Decision
concluded its legislative inquiry with the approval of  The Supreme Court determines that the petition has
Committee Report Nos. 232 and 233 and the become moot and academic because Balag has
passage of Senate Bill No. 1662. already been released from detention and the
 The Court addressed the issue of the duration of legislative inquiry has concluded.
detention for contempt ordered by the Senate,  However, the Court recognizes the need to address
ruling that it should only last until the termination of the issue of the duration of imprisonment under the
the legislative inquiry. Senate's power of contempt during legislative
Ratio: inquiries.
 The Court explained that the existence of an actual  The Court finds that the period of imprisonment
case or controversy is a prerequisite for judicial under the Senate's power of contempt should be
resolution. limited to the duration of the legislative inquiry.
 Since Balag was no longer detained and the  It states that an indefinite or unspecified period of
legislative inquiry had concluded, the case was detention violates a person's right to liberty.
moot.  The Court suggests that Congress may enact a law
 However, the Court decided to address the issue of or amend existing laws to extend the period of
the duration of detention for contempt due to its imprisonment for contempt beyond the duration of
paramount public interest and potential for the legislative inquiry if it deems necessary.
repetition. Conclusion
 The Court reviewed the Constitution, relevant laws,  The Court denies the petition as moot and
and jurisprudence, concluding that the period of academic.
imprisonment under the Senate's inherent power of  It establishes that the period of imprisonment under
contempt should only last until the termination of the Senate's power of contempt during legislative
the legislative inquiry. inquiries should be limited to the duration of the
 The Court emphasized that indefinite detention inquiry.
violates the constitutional right to liberty and that Title
the Senate's power of contempt is meant for self- Republic vs. Sereno
preservation, not punishment.
Case
 The Court also noted that Congress could enact a
G.R. No. 237428
law to extend the period of imprisonment for
Decision Date
contempt beyond the legislative inquiry if necessary.
Jun 19, 2018
 The Court balanced the interests of the Senate and
The Supreme Court of the Philippines grants a petition participated in the proceedings.
for quo warranto, declaring Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno 2. Bias and Inhibition:
disqualified from and guilty of unlawfully holding the  The court found that mere imputation of
position of Chief Justice due to her failure to file bias or partiality is insufficient for
Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, resulting inhibition.
in her ouster and the vacancy of the Chief Justice  Specific acts or conduct indicative of
position. arbitrariness or prejudice must be shown,
Facts: which Sereno failed to do.
 The case "Republic of the Philippines v. Sereno"  The allegations of bias were based on
involves the Republic of the Philippines, speculations and distortions of the
represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, justices' statements.
as the petitioner, and Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, 3. Jurisdiction:
the respondent.  The court reaffirmed its authority to
 The Supreme Court of the Philippines rendered decide the quo warranto action, citing
its decision on June 19, 2018. Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987
 The case arose from a petition for quo warranto Philippine Constitution, which grants the
filed by the Solicitor General, challenging Supreme Court original jurisdiction over
Sereno's qualification to hold the position of petitions for quo warranto.
Chief Justice due to her failure to file the required  The court also referenced past cases
Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth where it assumed jurisdiction over quo
(SALNs). warranto petitions against impeachable
 The lower court's decision, dated May 11, 2018, officers.
granted the petition, declaring Sereno 4. Prescription:
disqualified and guilty of unlawfully holding the  The court ruled that the one-year
office of Chief Justice. prescriptive period for filing a quo
 The decision was immediately executory, and the warranto petition does not apply to the
Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) was directed to State.
commence the application and nomination  The peculiar circumstances of the case,
process for the position. including Sereno's concealment of her
 Sereno filed an Ad Cautelam Motion for failure to file SALNs, precluded the strict
Reconsideration, arguing denial of due process, application of the prescriptive period.
bias of certain justices, lack of jurisdiction of the 5. Integrity:
court to oust an impeachable officer through quo  The court emphasized that the filing of
warranto, and that the petition was time-barred. SALNs is a constitutional and statutory
 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) obligation.
opposed the motion, asserting that the court had  Sereno's repeated failure to file her
jurisdiction and that Sereno's failure to file her SALNs and her non-submission to the
SALNs affected her integrity, a constitutional JBC affected her integrity.
requirement for her position.  The court concluded that Sereno did not
Issue: meet the constitutional requirement of
1. Was there a denial of due process in the handling proven integrity, rendering her
of Sereno's case? appointment as Chief Justice void ab
2. Should the six justices have inhibited themselves initio.
due to alleged bias?
3. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to oust Case Summary (G.R. No. 237428)
an impeachable officer through quo warranto? Background of the Case
4. Is the petition for quo warranto time-barred?  The case involves the denial of Maria Lourdes P.
5. Did Sereno possess the constitutional A. Sereno's motion for reconsideration by the
requirement of proven integrity for her position Supreme Court.
as Chief Justice?  The Court upheld its decision to grant the petition
Ruling: for quo warranto against Sereno, declaring her
1. The Supreme Court found no denial of due ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice and
process in Sereno's case. ousting her from the office.
2. The court ruled that the six justices were not  The Court reaffirmed its authority to decide the
required to inhibit themselves. quo warranto petition against an impeachable
3. The Supreme Court affirmed its jurisdiction to officer and declared the position of Chief Justice
decide the quo warranto action. vacant.
4. The court held that the petition for quo warranto Arguments of Sereno
was not time-barred.  Sereno filed a motion for reconsideration,
5. The court concluded that Sereno did not possess claiming denial of due process and bias on the
the constitutional requirement of proven integrity. part of six Justices who did not inhibit
Ratio: themselves from deciding the petition.
1. Due Process:  She argued that the Court did not have
 The court held that Sereno was not jurisdiction to remove an impeachable officer
denied due process. through quo warranto and that the issue of her
 She was given multiple opportunities to integrity should be determined by the Judicial
present her case, including filing her and Bar Council (JBC).
Comment, participating in oral Arguments of the Republic
arguments, and submitting a  The Republic, represented by the Office of the
Memorandum. Solicitor General, argued that Sereno's motion
 Her claim of denial of due process was lacked merit and that quo warranto was the
deemed preposterous as she actively appropriate remedy to remove an ineligible
 impeachable officer.
 The Republic contended that Sereno's repeated
failure to file her Statements of Assets, Liabilities,
and Net Worth (SALNs) affected her integrity and
eligibility for the Judiciary.
Court's Decision
 The Court found no reason to reverse its earlier
decision, rejecting Sereno's claims of denial of
due process and bias.
 The Court stated that mere imputation of bias is
not enough ground for inhibition and that acts or
conduct indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice
must be shown.
 The Court addressed Sereno's arguments
regarding jurisdiction, stating that its authority to
decide the quo warranto action against an
impeachable officer is expressly conferred by the
Constitution.
 The Court cited previous cases where it had
taken cognizance of quo warranto petitions
against impeachable officers.
 The Court emphasized that quo warranto and
impeachment are distinct proceedings, with quo
warranto determining a person's right or title to a
public office and impeachment addressing the
commission of impeachable offenses.
 The Court also rejected Sereno's argument that
the filing of SALNs does not relate to the
Constitutional qualification of integrity.
 The Court stated that the filing of SALNs is a
positive duty required from every public officer or
employee and is necessary to comply with the
Constitutional duty to submit a declaration under
oath of one's assets, liabilities, and net worth.
 The Court emphasized that integrity includes
adherence to the highest moral standards and
obedience to laws and legislations, and that
compliance with the law, including the filing of
SALNs, is a measure of integrity.
Conclusion
 The Court denied Sereno's motion for
reconsideration, upholding its decision to grant
the petition for quo warranto against her and
declaring the position of Chief Justice vacant.
 The Court reiterated its authority to decide the
quo warranto petition against an impeachable
officer and ordered the Judicial and Bar Council
to commence the application and nomination
process for the position of Chief Justice.
 3. Whether the COMELEC (En Banc) acted without
or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in denying the motion for
reconsideration and affirming the COMELEC
(Former First Division) Resolution:
 In ruling that petitioners failed to raise
new matters that would warrant the
Title reversal of the COMELEC (Former First
Buenafe vs. Commission on Elections Division) Resolution.
Case  In ruling that petitioners failed to raise
G.R. No. 260374 issues and provide grounds to prove that
Decision Date the evidence is insufficient to justify the
Jun 28, 2022 COMELEC (Former First Division)
A petition seeking to disqualify Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Resolution.
from running for President based on alleged false  In ruling that the petitioners failed to
representations and previous criminal cases is dismissed raise issues and provide grounds to
by the Supreme Court due to lack of compelling evidence, prove that the COMELEC (Former First
affirming his qualifications to run for office. Division) Resolution is contrary to law:
Facts:  Marcos, Jr. was perpetually
 The consolidated cases involve petitions disqualified from running for
challenging Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.'s candidacy public office.
for the presidency of the Philippines.  Marcos, Jr. was meted a penalty
 Petitioners in G.R. No. 260374, led by Fr. of imprisonment of more than
Christian B. Buenafe, sought to cancel Marcos, eighteen (18) months or for a
Jr.'s Certificate of Candidacy (COC) under crime involving moral turpitude.
Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC),  Failure to file income tax returns
alleging false material representations about his for four (4) consecutive years is
eligibility. inherently wrong and constitutes
 They argued that Marcos, Jr.'s prior conviction moral turpitude.
for failing to file income tax returns included the Ruling:
penalty of perpetual disqualification from public  The Supreme Court dismissed the consolidated
office. petitions and affirmed the COMELEC's
 Petitioners in G.R. No. 260426, led by Bonifacio resolutions.
Parabuac Ilagan, filed for disqualification under  The Court held that Marcos, Jr. is qualified to run
Section 12 of the OEC, claiming Marcos, Jr. was for President and that his COC is valid.
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.  The Court found that Marcos, Jr.'s failure to file
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City income tax returns does not constitute a crime
convicted Marcos, Jr. of failing to file income tax involving moral turpitude.
returns from 1982 to 1985, but the Court of  The penalty of perpetual disqualification was not
Appeals (CA) later acquitted him of tax evasion imposed by the CA.
and modified his penalty to a fine.  The Court ruled that the COMELEC did not
 The CA decision became final and executory. commit grave abuse of discretion in its decisions.
 The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Ratio:
dismissed both petitions, prompting the  The Court emphasized that the qualifications for
petitioners to seek relief from the Supreme Court, the presidency are set forth in the Constitution,
alleging grave abuse of discretion by the and Marcos, Jr. met these qualifications.
COMELEC.  The penalty of perpetual disqualification was not
Issue: explicitly imposed by the CA in its decision, so
1. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse Marcos, Jr. was not perpetually disqualified from
of discretion in refusing to cancel Marcos, Jr.'s holding public office.
COC and ruling that:  The failure to file income tax returns, in this case,
 The petition to cancel the COC should be did not involve moral turpitude, as there was no
summarily dismissed for combining evidence of fraudulent intent.
grounds for disqualification and  The principle of the immutability of final
cancellation of COC. judgments was highlighted, stating that the CA's
 Marcos, Jr.'s material representations in decision, having become final and executory,
his COC are not false. could no longer be altered.
 The accessory penalty of perpetual  The Court underscored the importance of
disqualification is not deemed imposed respecting the will of the electorate, as
by operation of law in the judgment of expressed in the votes cast in the 2022 National
conviction of Marcos, Jr. Elections.
 Marcos, Jr.'s status as a public officer at
the time of the offense is not a Case Summary (G.R. No. 260374)
conclusive and incontrovertible fact. Introduction
 Marcos, Jr. did not deliberately attempt  The case involves petitions seeking to disqualify
to mislead, misinform, or deceive the Ferdinand Marcos Jr. from running for President
electorate. in the 2022 National Elections.
2. Whether the COC of Marcos, Jr. should be  The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and
canceled and he should be declared as not ruled that Marcos Jr.'s Certificate of Candidacy is
having been a candidate in the 2022 National valid and he did not make false material
Elections. representations.
Parties and Arguments representation does not warrant disqualification.
 The case was filed by two groups of petitioners, Issue 2: Disqualification under Section 12 of the
Buenafe et al. and Ilagan et al. OEC
 They argued that Marcos Jr. made false material  The Court discusses whether the penalty of
representations in his Certificate of Candidacy perpetual disqualification was properly imposed
(COC) and should be disqualified from running on Marcos Jr.
for President.  The Court concludes that the penalty was not
 They cited his prior conviction for violation of the explicitly imposed in the decision of the Court of
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and Appeals (CA), which acquitted Marcos Jr. of
argued that he should be perpetually disqualified charges for non-payment of deficiency taxes but
from holding public office. found him guilty of failure to file ITRs.
Importance of Elections and Qualifications for  As a result, the penalty of perpetual
Public Office disqualification was not imposed on Marcos Jr.
 The Court emphasized the importance of  The Court determines that Marcos Jr. is not
elections as the cornerstone of democracy. disqualified under Section 12 of the Omnibus
 It stated that a candidate must not only obtain Election Code (OEC).
the highest number of votes but also hold the Validity of CA Decision and Imposition of Penalties
requisite qualifications and abide by the required  The Court addresses the argument that the CA
standards set by law. decision is void for failing to impose the penalty
Dismissal of Petitions of perpetual disqualification.
 After a careful study of the issues raised, the  The Court explains that penalties should be
Court dismissed the petitions. expressly stated in a decision, but the failure to
 It found that Marcos Jr. possesses all the do so does not render the decision void.
qualifications and none of the disqualifications to  The CA decision, despite its error in not imposing
run for President. the penalty, has already attained finality and
 The Court also ruled that his COC contains no cannot be modified.
false material representation and is therefore Failure to File ITRs and Moral Turpitude
valid.  The Court determines that failure to file ITRs
Previous Criminal Cases and Moral Turpitude does not involve moral turpitude.
 The Court considered the previous criminal  Previous cases are cited to distinguish between
cases against Marcos Jr. for violation of the offenses of false return, fraudulent return, and
NIRC. failure to file a return.
 It noted that while he was convicted for failure to  Only the first two offenses involve moral
file income tax returns and failure to pay income turpitude, while the third offense, which Marcos
taxes, the penalty of perpetual disqualification Jr. was convicted of, does not.
from public office was not imposed by the court. Alleged Non-Payment of Fines and Evasion of
 The Court emphasized that failure to file income Sentence
tax returns is not a crime involving moral  The Court rejects the argument that Marcos Jr.'s
turpitude and does not automatically result in alleged non-payment of fines constitutes evasion
disqualification from public office. of sentence and a violation of the law involving
Lack of Compelling Evidence of Disqualification moral turpitude.
 The Court concluded that there is no compelling  There is no evidence of a criminal prosecution
and unequivocal evidence of Marcos Jr.'s for evasion of service of sentence, making the
disqualification or failure to meet the argument baseless.
requirements for filing a COC. Conclusion
 It emphasized the importance of respecting the  The Court dismisses the petition for
will of the electorate and the need for a proper disqualification, as Marcos Jr. did not make false
and definitive ruling to dispel any doubts on the material representations in his CoC and is not
outcome of the elections. disqualified under Section 12 of the OEC.
Summary and Conclusion  The Court emphasizes that penalties should be
 The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions expressly stated in a decision, but the failure to
seeking to disqualify Ferdinand Marcos Jr. from do so does not render the decision void.
running for President.  The Court also clarifies that failure to file ITRs
 The Court ruled that his COC is valid and he did does not involve moral turpitude.
not make false material representations. Background and Petitions
 The Court emphasized the importance of  Two consolidated petitions were filed before the
elections and the need for a proper and definitive Commission on Elections (COMELEC) regarding
ruling to uphold the will of the electorate. the disqualification and cancellation of Ferdinand
Issue 1: False Material Representations in CoC R. Marcos, Jr.'s certificate of candidacy (COC) for
 Marcos Jr. represented in his CoC that he is the presidency.
eligible to run for President and has not been  The first petition argues that Marcos, Jr.
found liable for any offense carrying the penalty committed false material representation by
of perpetual disqualification. stating in his COC that he is eligible to run for
 The Court determines that the representation of president despite a prior conviction that carries
eligibility is not false, as Marcos Jr. has not been perpetual disqualification from holding public
disqualified from running for public office. office and participating in any election.
 However, the representation that he has not been  The second petition alleges that Marcos, Jr. was
found liable for any offense carrying the penalty convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
of perpetual disqualification is false, as he was Court's Decision on Dismissal of Petitions
convicted for failure to file income tax returns  The Court dismisses both petitions and upholds
(ITRs) for the years 1982 to 1985. the COMELEC's ruling.
 The Court concludes that this false  The Court examines whether Marcos, Jr.'s failure
 to file income tax returns, for which he was
convicted, constitutes a crime involving moral
turpitude.
 The Court concludes that the failure to file
income tax returns may or may not amount to tax
evasion, which is a crime involving moral
turpitude.
 The Court emphasizes that tax evasion involves
fraud and intentional efforts to reduce or defeat
taxes, while the failure to file income tax returns
may be due to various reasons and does not
necessarily involve fraudulent intent.
 The Court also considers whether Marcos, Jr.'s
conviction for failure to file income tax returns
should result in perpetual disqualification from
holding public office.
 The Court notes that the accessory penalty of
perpetual disqualification is typically attached to
specific principal penalties, but the provision in
the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) that
imposes perpetual disqualification does not
specify the principal penalty to which it attaches.
 The Court concludes that perpetual
disqualification should be considered an
accessory penalty and must be expressly
imposed in the decision.
 Since Marcos, Jr.'s conviction did not carry an
express imposition of perpetual disqualification,
he cannot be considered perpetually disqualified
from public office.
 Based on these findings, the Court determines
that Marcos, Jr.'s non-filing of income tax returns
does not involve moral turpitude and does not
warrant perpetual disqualification.
 Therefore, the COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in denying the petitions for
disqualification and cancellation of Marcos, Jr.'s
COC.
Importance of Respecting the Will of the Voters
 The Court emphasizes the importance of
respecting the will of the voters and the
democratic process.
 It acknowledges that the votes given to a winning
candidate, especially for the highest office of the
land, should not be disregarded.
 The Court commends the prompt action taken by
Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda in handling
the petitions.
Conclusion
 In conclusion, the Court dismisses the petitions
filed by Buenafe et al. and Ilagan et al., upholding
the COMELEC's ruling and allowing Marcos, Jr. to
run for the presidency.
 Issue:
 Did the Senate Electoral Tribunal commit grave
abuse of discretion in ruling that Mary Grace Poe-
Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino citizen
qualified to hold office as a Senator under Article
VI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution?
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for
Certiorari, ruling that the Senate Electoral
Tribunal did not act without or in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
 The Court affirmed that Mary Grace Poe-
Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino citizen
qualified to hold office as a Senator.
Ratio:
 The Court emphasized the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Senate Electoral Tribunal to judge the
qualifications of its members, as provided by
Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.
 The Court's review was limited to determining
whether there was grave abuse of discretion, not
to re-evaluate the Tribunal's findings.
 The SET's conclusions were consistent with a
reasonable interpretation of the Constitution,
considering the unique circumstances of
foundlings.
Title  The Constitution does not explicitly exclude
David vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal foundlings from being natural-born citizens.
Case  Substantial evidence, such as the circumstances
G.R. No. 221538 of Poe's abandonment and her physical features,
Decision Date supported the inference that she had Filipino
Sep 20, 2016 parentage.
A foundling's citizenship is questioned in a legal battle to
 The constitutional mandate to protect children's
unseat her as a Senator, but the court rules in her favor,
rights and ensure equal protection was
affirming her natural-born citizenship and qualification
highlighted, arguing that excluding foundlings
for office.
from natural-born status would be discriminatory.
 The Court referenced international norms and
Facts:
legislative acts that support the recognition of
 The case "David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal"
foundlings as citizens.
involves petitioner Rizalito Y. David challenging
 Poe's reacquisition of Philippine citizenship
the natural-born citizenship status of respondent
under Republic Act No. 9225 restored her natural-
Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares, a Senator of the
born status, making her eligible to hold public
Philippines.
office.
 Decided on September 20, 2016, under G.R. No.
221538, with Justice Leonen as the ponente.
Case Summary (G.R. No. 221538)
 David filed a Petition for Certiorari to nullify the Case Background and Petition
Senate Electoral Tribunal's (SET) November 17,
 The case revolves around the citizenship of
2015 Decision and December 3, 2015 Resolution,
Senator Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares, a
which dismissed his Petition for Quo Warranto.
foundling.
 David argued that Poe, a foundling with unknown
 Rizalito Y. David filed a Petition for Quo Warranto
biological parents, was not a natural-born citizen
to unseat Senator Poe-Llamanzares, arguing that
and thus unqualified to hold office under Article
she is not a natural-born citizen and therefore not
VI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution.
qualified to be a Senator.
 Poe was found as an infant outside the Parish
 The Senate Electoral Tribunal dismissed the
Church of Jaro, Iloilo, on September 3, 1968, and
petition, ruling that Senator Poe-Llamanzares is a
was later adopted by Ronald Allan Poe (Fernando
natural-born citizen based on the evidence
Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (Susan Roces).
presented.
 She became a registered voter in 1986, obtained Interpretation of Constitution's Provisions on
a Philippine passport in 1988, and was Citizenship and Rights of Foundlings
naturalized as an American citizen in 2001.
 The case delves into the interpretation of the
 Poe returned to the Philippines in 2005, Constitution's provisions on citizenship and the
reacquired her Philippine citizenship in 2006 rights of foundlings.
under Republic Act No. 9225, and renounced her
 The court emphasizes that the Constitution
American citizenship in 2010.
should not be read to exclude all foundlings from
 She was elected as a Senator in 2013. public service.
 David's petition was based on the claim that  When the parents of a foundling cannot be
Poe's foundling status disqualified her from discovered, but there is sufficient evidence to
being a natural-born citizen. infer that at least one parent is Filipino, the
 The SET ruled in favor of Poe, declaring her a foundling should be considered a natural-born
natural-born citizen, which David contested, citizen.
leading to the present case before the Supreme  Each foundling case is unique, and substantial
Court. proof may exist to show that a foundling is not
 natural-born. Importance of Equal Protection and Well-being of
Detailed Account of Senator Poe-Llamanzares' Children
Background  The court highlights the importance of equal
 The case provides a detailed account of Senator protection of the law and the promotion of the
Poe-Llamanzares' background as a foundling and well-being of children.
her subsequent adoption by Filipino parents.  Denying foundlings their natural-born citizenship
 It includes information about her education, would be discriminatory and undermine their
marriage, and children. development.
 It also discusses her acquisition and renunciation  Foundlings should be treated as Filipino citizens
of American citizenship, as well as her from birth and should not be subjected to
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship through discrimination or rendered stateless.
Republic Act No. 9225. Case Summary and Supreme Court Decision
Court's Conclusion and Reasoning  The case involves the determination of the
 The court concludes that Senator Poe- citizenship status of Mary Grace Poe-
Llamanzares is a natural-born citizen and Llamanzares, a foundling who ran for a seat in
qualified to hold office as a Senator. the Philippine Senate.
 It emphasizes that her status as a foundling does  The Senate Electoral Tribunal ruled that Poe-
not diminish her rights as a citizen. Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino citizen and
 The Senate Electoral Tribunal made a reasonable qualified to hold office as a Senator.
interpretation of the law based on the evidence  The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
presented. challenging the SET's decision.
 The court notes that its ruling does not decide  The Supreme Court upheld the SET's ruling and
the citizenship of every single foundling, as each dismissed the petition.
case is unique and requires substantial proof.  The Court emphasized the rights and protection
Determination of Natural-Born Citizenship of of foundlings, the importance of equality and
Foundlings human dignity, and the laws and international
 The case involves the determination of the treaties that support the presumption of natural-
natural-born citizenship of a foundling in the born citizenship for foundlings.
Philippines.  The Court held that Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-
 The court discusses different methods of born Filipino citizen qualified to hold office as a
constitutional interpretation and emphasizes Senator.
considering the purpose and aims of the
Constitution, related legislative enactments,
international norms, and contemporaneous
construction.
 The court highlights the weakness of inferring
meaning from the intent of the framers or the
original understanding of the individuals who
adopted the Constitution.
Court's Conclusion Based on Textual Reading of the
Constitution
 The court concludes that the foundling in
question is a natural-born citizen based on a
plain textual reading of the Constitution.
 It harmonizes Article IV, Section 2, which defines
natural-born citizens, with Section 1(2), which
enumerates who are citizens of the Philippines.
 The court considers the factual circumstances of
the case, including evidence of the foundling's
Filipino parentage.
Burden of Proof and Presumption for Foundlings
 The court rejects the argument that the burden of
proof is on the foundling to prove Filipino
parentage.
 The burden of proof lies on the party making the
allegations, which in this case is the petitioner.
 There is a presumption that all foundlings found
in the Philippines are born to at least one Filipino
parent and are thus natural-born citizens, unless
there is substantial proof otherwise.
Legislative Enactments and International Treaties
 The court supports its conclusion by referencing
legislative enactments, such as the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act and the Inter-Country
Adoption Act, which include foundlings as
Filipino children.
 The court mentions the ratification of
international treaties, such as the Convention on
the Rights of the Child and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
protect the rights of foundlings and prohibit
discrimination based on birth status.
 under Republic Act No. 9225.
 Poe filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for
President in the 2016 elections, declaring herself
a natural-born Filipino citizen with a residency of
ten years and eleven months.
 Several petitions were filed against her COC,
questioning her citizenship and residency
qualifications.
 The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ruled
against her, leading to the cancellation of her
COC.
 Poe then filed petitions for certiorari with the
Supreme Court, challenging the COMELEC's
resolutions.
Issue:
1. Did Grace Poe commit material
misrepresentation in her COC by declaring
herself a natural-born Filipino citizen?
2. Did Grace Poe meet the ten-year residency
requirement for presidential candidates as
mandated by the Constitution?
Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that Grace Poe did not
commit material misrepresentation in her COC
regarding her natural-born Filipino citizenship.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that Grace Poe met the
ten-year residency requirement for presidential
candidates.
Ratio:
 The Supreme Court found that the COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion in its
resolutions.
 The Court held that foundlings are presumed to
be natural-born citizens under both domestic and
international law.
 The statistical probability and circumstantial
evidence strongly indicated that Poe's parents
were Filipinos.
 The Court noted that the 1935 Constitutional
Convention intended to include foundlings as
citizens.
 The Court emphasized that the COMELEC does
not have the jurisdiction to determine the
qualifications of presidential candidates, which is
Title
the sole prerogative of the Presidential Electoral
Poe-Llamanzares vs. Commission on Elections
Tribunal.
Case
 On the issue of residency, the Court found that
G.R. No. 221697
Poe had sufficiently demonstrated her intent to
Decision Date
permanently reside in the Philippines since May
Mar 8, 2016
24, 2005, supported by substantial evidence.
A foundling named Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe
 The Court concluded that Poe's declaration of
Llamanzares, also known as Grace Poe, challenges the
ten years and eleven months of residency in her
Commission on Elections' resolutions questioning her
2015 COC was made in good faith and was not a
qualifications to run for the presidency in the 2016
material misrepresentation.
elections, leading to a Supreme Court ruling in her favor,
declaring her qualified to run for President of the
Case Summary (G.R. No. 221697)
Philippines.
Background of the Case
 The case revolves around the qualifications of
Facts:
Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares, also
 Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares,
known as Grace Poe, to run for the presidency in
known as Grace Poe, was found abandoned as a
the 2016 elections in the Philippines.
newborn in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo on
 The Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
September 3, 1968.
questioned her qualifications, leading to a
 She was adopted by celebrity spouses Ronald
Supreme Court ruling in her favor.
Allan Kelley Poe (Fernando Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa
Grace Poe's Background and Adoption
Sonora Poe (Susan Roces).
 Grace Poe was found abandoned as a newborn
 Grace Poe pursued her education in the United
in a church in Iloilo City in 1968.
States, married Teodoro Misael Daniel V.
 She was adopted by celebrity couple Ronald
Llamanzares, and became a naturalized
Allan Kelley Poe and Jesusa Sonora Poe in 1974.
American citizen in 2001.
 In 2005, it was discovered that her adoption was
 She returned to the Philippines in 2005 and
not properly documented, and she obtained a
reacquired her Philippine citizenship in 2006
new birth certificate in 2006 with her adoptive
 parents' names. legislators.
Poe's Citizenship and Residency  Petitioners include Representatives from Bayan
 Poe registered as a voter in 1986 and obtained a Muna Party-List, Anakpawis, Gabriela Women's
Philippine passport in 1988. Party, and others.
 She pursued her studies in the United States and  They challenged the constitutionality of the
became a naturalized American citizen in 2001. Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic
 She returned to the Philippines in 2005 and Undertaking (JMSU).
reestablished her domicile in the country.  The JMSU was signed on March 14, 2005, by the
 She renounced her American citizenship in 2010 Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), China
and was appointed as the Chairperson of the National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), and
Movie and Television Review and Classification Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation
Board. (PETROVIETNAM).
Petitions Against Poe's Qualifications  The agreement aimed to conduct joint research
 Several petitions were filed against Poe, on petroleum resources in the South China Sea,
questioning her citizenship and residency covering 142,886 square kilometers.
qualifications for the presidency.  It included a confidentiality clause and required
 The COMELEC Second Division issued a government approval from the involved parties.
resolution canceling her certificate of candidacy,  Petitioners argued that the JMSU violated
which was later affirmed by the COMELEC En Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine
Banc. Constitution.
 The COMELEC argued that foundlings like Poe  They claimed it allowed foreign corporations to
cannot be considered natural-born citizens and explore Philippine territories without adhering to
that she did not meet the residency requirement. constitutional requirements.
Poe's Petitions to the Supreme Court  Petitioners sought to annul the JMSU and
 Poe filed petitions for certiorari with the Supreme prevent its implementation.
Court, arguing that the COMELEC had no  Respondents, including then-President Gloria
jurisdiction to decide on her qualifications and Macapagal-Arroyo, argued that the JMSU was a
that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen. pre-exploration activity and did not violate the
 The Supreme Court ruled in her favor, declaring Constitution.
her qualified to run for president.  The case was brought directly to the Supreme
 The Court cited international law, domestic Court, and the JMSU expired on June 30, 2008.
legislation, and the intention of the framers of the Issue:
Philippine Constitution to support its decision. 1. Whether the President may be impleaded as a
Supreme Court's Ruling respondent.
 The Court emphasized that foundlings are 2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are
entitled to a nationality and are presumed to be proper to assail the constitutionality of the JMSU.
citizens of the country where they are found. 3. Whether the doctrine of hierarchy of courts was
 It also recognized the principle of jus sanguinis, violated.
which grants citizenship based on blood 4. Whether the requisites of judicial review are
relationship. present.
 The Court concluded that Poe is a natural-born 5. Whether the JMSU is unconstitutional.
Filipino citizen and that she met the residency Ruling:
requirement for the presidency. 1. The President is immune from suit and should be
Importance of the Case excluded as a respondent in the case.
 The case highlights the importance of protecting 2. The writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper
the rights of foundlings and ensuring equal remedies to assail the constitutionality of the
opportunities for all individuals to participate in JMSU.
the democratic process. 3. Direct recourse to the Supreme Court is justified
 The Court's decision affirmed the rights of due to the serious and grave constitutional
foundlings and recognized their status as natural questions involved.
-born Filipino citizens. 4. The requisites of judicial review are present,
 The decision also emphasized the importance of including an actual case or controversy, standing,
avoiding discrimination and upholding the and the issue of constitutionality being the very
principles of justice and fairness. lis mota of the case.
5. The JMSU is declared unconstitutional for
allowing wholly-owned foreign corporations to
Title participate in the exploration of the country's
Ocampo vs. Macapagal-Arroyo natural resources without observing the
Case safeguards provided in Section 2, Article XII of
G.R. No. 182734 the 1987 Constitution.
Decision Date Ratio:
Jan 10, 2023  The Supreme Court ruled that the President is
immune from suit during their tenure to preserve
The Supreme Court declares the Tripartite Agreement for the dignity of the high office.
Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU)  The writs of certiorari and prohibition were
unconstitutional for violating constitutional provisions on deemed appropriate to address the grave
the exploration, development, and utilization of natural constitutional questions raised by the petitioners.
resources, while ruling that the President is immune from  Direct recourse to the Supreme Court was
suit and should be excluded as a respondent in the case. justified due to the transcendental importance
Facts: and novelty of the issues involved.
 The case "Ocampo v. Macapagal-Arroyo"  The Court found that the requisites of judicial
involves a petition by several Philippine review were met, as the case presented an actual
 controversy, the petitioners had standing, and the Case Background and Petitioner's Arguments
constitutional issue was the heart of the  The case involves the constitutionality of the
controversy. Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic
 On the merits, the Court held that the JMSU Undertaking (JMSU) in the Agreement Area in the
involved the exploration of natural resources, South China Sea.
which must be under the full control and  The JMSU was entered into by the China National
supervision of the State. Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), Vietnam Oil
 The agreement did not comply with the and Gas Corporation (VOGC), and the Philippine
constitutional requirements for such activities, as National Oil Company (PNOC) with the
it was not signed by the President and did not authorization of their respective governments.
involve financial or technical assistance  The JMSU allows for the exploration and
agreements as prescribed by the Constitution. potential extraction of natural resources in the
 The Court emphasized that the State's control Agreement Area.
and supervision over natural resources must be  The petitioners argue that the JMSU is
maintained, and the JMSU's provisions on joint unconstitutional because it compromises the
ownership of information compromised this State's ownership and control over its natural
control. resources.
 The JMSU was thus declared unconstitutional  They claim that the provision in the JMSU, which
and void. states that the information acquired from the
seismic survey shall be jointly owned by the
Case Summary (G.R. No. 182734) Parties, effectively forfeits the State's ownership
Case Background and Petitioner's Arguments over its natural resources.
 The case involves the constitutionality of the Respondents' Arguments and Court's Findings
Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic  The respondents argue that the provision in the
Undertaking (JMSU) in the South China Sea. JMSU regarding the joint ownership of
 The petitioners argue that the JMSU violates information does not diminish the State's control
constitutional provisions on the exploration, and supervision over its resources.
development, and utilization of natural resources.  They contend that the provision only pertains to
 They also argue that the President and other the scientific data generated from the seismic
government officials should be held accountable survey and does not grant rights to extract or
for authorizing and permitting the execution of share in the petroleum resources.
the JMSU.  The court finds that the JMSU is unconstitutional
Court Decision and Constitutional Violation because it was not entered into by the President,
 The Supreme Court, in its decision written by as required by Article XII, Section 2 of the
Justice Gaerlan, declares the JMSU Constitution.
unconstitutional for violating Section 2, Article XII  The court emphasizes that the President, as the
of the Constitution. head of state, is the chief architect of the
 Section 2, Article XII states that the exploration, country's foreign policy and has the sole
development, and utilization of natural resources authority to negotiate with other states.
should be under the full control and supervision  The court also rejects the argument that the
of the State. JMSU can be treated as an international
 The Court rules that the JMSU, which allows agreement, as it was not concurred in by at least
foreign-owned corporations to undertake large- two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
scale exploration of petroleum resources in the  Furthermore, the court rules that the provision in
South China Sea, does not fall under any of the the JMSU regarding the joint ownership of
modes provided in the Constitution for the State information compromises the State's control and
to undertake such activities. supervision over its natural resources.
Procedural Issues and Remedies  The court emphasizes that the exploration of
 The Court addresses procedural issues raised by natural resources is reserved for Filipinos and
the respondents. that the State cannot allow foreign corporations
 It rules that the President, being immune from to explore its natural resources without full
suit, should be excluded as a respondent in the control and supervision.
case. Conclusion and Declaration of Unconstitutionality
 It determines that the writs of certiorari and  The court declares the JMSU unconstitutional
prohibition are proper remedies to challenge the and void.
constitutionality of the JMSU.  It emphasizes the State's ownership and control
 The Court justifies its direct recourse to the case over its natural resources and the need for the
due to the serious and important constitutional President's involvement in agreements involving
questions involved, the paramount public interest, the exploration and utilization of these resources.
and the novelty of the issues.  The court also emphasizes the State's duty to
Conclusion and Declaration of Unconstitutionality protect and preserve its marine wealth for the
 The Supreme Court grants the petition and benefit of Filipino citizens.
declares the JMSU unconstitutional and void. Case Background and Mootness Issue
 It rules that the State has full control and  The case involves the Joint Marine Seismic
supervision over the exploration, development, Undertaking (JMSU) entered into by the China
and utilization of natural resources. National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC),
 The Court emphasizes the need for the Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation
President's involvement in agreements involving (PETROVIETNAM), and Philippine National Oil
the exploration and utilization of these resources. Company (PNOC) in the South China Sea.
 It also emphasizes the State's duty to protect and  The JMSU aimed to conduct joint research on
preserve its marine wealth for the benefit of the petroleum resource potential of a certain
Filipino citizens. area in the South China Sea.
 However, the JMSU expired on June 30, 2008,
making the case moot and academic.
Majority Opinion on Mootness and Constitutional
Violation Title
 The majority opinion argues that the case falls Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Director-General
under the exceptions to the mootness rule, Case
allowing the court to decide on the substantive G.R. No. 167798
issues presented. Decision Date
 It asserts that there was a grave violation of Apr 19, 2006
Section 2, Article XII of the Philippine
Constitution, which pertains to the exploration, The Supreme Court upholds the validity of Executive
development, and utilization of natural resources. Order No. 420, ruling that it is a valid exercise of
 The case is also deemed to be of paramount executive power and does not violate the citizen's right to
public interest due to its implications on the privacy, aiming to streamline and harmonize government
country's territory and natural resources. ID systems for improved service delivery.
 Furthermore, the court has a duty to formulate Facts:
guiding constitutional principles, and similar  The case "Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director-
agreements like the JMSU may be entered into in General" involves two consolidated petitions for
the future. certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule
Dissenting Opinion on Mootness and Limited 65 of the Rules of Court.
Judicial Review  The petitions seek the nullification of Executive
 The dissenting opinion argues that the case Order No. 420 (EO 420) on the grounds of
should be dismissed as moot and academic. unconstitutionality.
 It emphasizes the importance of the actual case  EO 420, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-
or controversy requirement and the limited power Arroyo on April 13, 2005, mandates all
of judicial review. government agencies and government-owned
 The dissent argues that the JMSU has already and controlled corporations to streamline and
expired, and there is no practical value in harmonize their identification (ID) systems.
adjudicating the issues concerning a terminated  Petitioners in G.R. No. 167798 include Kilusang
agreement. Mayo Uno, National Federation of Labor Unions-
 It also questions the characterization of the Kilusang Mayo Uno (NAFLU-KMU), and several
JMSU as exploration activity, as the exact nature individuals.
of the activities and their compliance with  Petitioners in G.R. No. 167930 include
constitutional requirements were not sufficiently representatives from Bayan Muna, Gabriela
established. Women’s Party, Anakpawis, and other
 The dissent further argues that the case does not organizations.
meet the requirements for the exceptions to the  Petitioners argue that EO 420 usurps legislative
mootness rule, as there is no clear time functions and infringes on the citizen's right to
constraint or reasonable expectation of privacy.
recurrence.  Respondents include the Director-General of the
Conclusion and Decision National Economic and Development Authority
 The majority opinion allows the court to decide (NEDA) and the Secretary of the Department of
on the constitutionality of the JMSU despite its Budget and Management, among others.
expiration.  The lower courts did not resolve the issues,
 The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal leading to the petitions being brought before the
of the case as moot and academic. Supreme Court.
Issue:
 Does EO 420 constitute a usurpation of
legislative power by the President?
 Does EO 420 infringe on the citizen's right to
privacy?
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and
declared EO 420 valid.
Ratio:
On the Alleged Usurpation of Legislative Power:
 The Court ruled that EO 420 does not constitute
a usurpation of legislative power.
 EO 420 applies only to government entities that
issue ID cards as part of their functions under
existing laws.
 These entities have been issuing ID cards even
before EO 420, and the order merely directs them
to adopt a unified multi-purpose ID system to
reduce costs, increase efficiency, and improve
public service delivery.
 The President's constitutional power of control
over the Executive department allows for such
directives.
 EO 420 does not establish a national ID system
but rather harmonizes existing sectoral ID
systems within the Executive branch.
  The President's power of control is self-executing Court Decision
and does not require additional legislation.  The Supreme Court dismisses the petitions and
On the Alleged Infringement of the Right to Privacy: upholds the validity of Executive Order No. 420.
 The Court found that EO 420 does not infringe on  The executive order is deemed a valid exercise of
the right to privacy. executive power and does not violate the
 The data to be collected and recorded under EO citizen's right to privacy.
420 are limited to 14 specific items, which are  The Court highlights the importance of a reliable
routine for personal identification purposes. ID system for government entities and the need
 The order includes stringent safeguards to for reasonable safeguards to protect privacy
protect the confidentiality of the data, such as rights.
limiting access to authorized personnel and
requiring personal or written authorization for
data disclosure.
 Prior to EO 420, government entities had more
discretion in the data they collected, and there G.R. No. 241494
were no complaints of privacy violations.
 EO 420, by standardizing and limiting the data Title
collected, actually enhances privacy protections Pangilinan vs. Cayetano
compared to the disparate systems that existed Case
before. G.R. No. 238875
 The Court distinguished EO 420 from the national Decision Date
ID system in Ople v. Torres, noting that EO 420 Mar 16, 2021
does not create a new system but harmonizes The Supreme Court rules that the President of the
existing ones and includes specific privacy Philippines cannot unilaterally withdraw from
safeguards. international agreements without the concurrence of the
 In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Senate, invalidating the country's withdrawal from the
validity of EO 420, finding it a proper exercise of Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
executive power aimed at improving government Facts:
efficiency and service delivery without infringing  The case "Pangilinan v. Cayetano" involves three
on legislative authority or the right to privacy. consolidated petitions.
 Petitioners include Senators Francis "Kiko" N.
Case Summary (G.R. No. 167798) Pangilinan, Franklin M. Drilon, Paolo Benigno
Case Background and Petitions "Bam" Aquino IV, Leila M. De Lima, Risa
 The case involves two consolidated petitions Hontiveros, and Antonio "Sonny" F. Trillanes IV,
challenging the validity of Executive Order No. the Philippine Coalition for the International
420. Criminal Court (PCICC), and the Integrated Bar of
 The petitioners argue that the executive order the Philippines (IBP).
violates the citizen's right to privacy and  Respondents are Alan Peter S. Cayetano,
encroaches on the legislative power of Congress. Salvador C. Medialdea, Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr.,
Validity of Executive Order No. 420 and Salvador S. Panelo.
 The Supreme Court upholds the validity of  The petitions challenge President Rodrigo
Executive Order No. 420. Duterte's unilateral withdrawal of the Philippines
 The Court rules that the executive order is a valid from the Rome Statute of the International
exercise of executive power and does not violate Criminal Court (ICC) without Senate concurrence.
the citizen's right to privacy.  President Duterte announced the withdrawal on
 The executive order aims to streamline and March 15, 2018, and it was formally submitted to
harmonize government ID systems to reduce the United Nations on March 16, 2018.
costs and improve service delivery.  Petitioners argue the withdrawal is
 The data to be collected and recorded under the unconstitutional as it bypasses the Senate's
unified ID system is limited to specific required concurrence.
information necessary for identification purposes.  The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed
Executive Power and Legislative Power the petitions on grounds of mootness, as the
 The Court rejects the argument that the withdrawal had already been acknowledged by
executive order encroaches on the legislative the ICC and had taken effect.
power of Congress. Issue:
 The President has the authority to issue 1. Whether the consolidated petitions present an
executive orders to ensure the efficient and cost- actual, justiciable controversy.
effective administration of government 2. Whether the executive can unilaterally withdraw
departments and agencies. from a treaty without legislative action.
 The executive order does not create a new 3. Whether the withdrawal from the Rome Statute is
national ID system but rather harmonizes valid, binding, and effectual.
existing ID systems of government entities. 4. Whether the Philippines' withdrawal from the
Right to Privacy Rome Statute places the country in breach of its
obligations under international law.
 The Court points out that the right to privacy
5. Whether the withdrawal diminishes the Filipino
does not bar the adoption of reasonable ID
people's protection under international law.
systems by government entities.
Ruling:
 Other countries have compulsory national ID
systems, and a reliable ID system is necessary
 The Supreme Court dismissed the consolidated
petitions for being moot.
for government entities to effectively perform
their functions.  The Court ruled that the petitions failed to
present a justiciable controversy as the
 The Court emphasizes the need for reasonable
withdrawal from the Rome Statute had already
safeguards to protect privacy rights.
 been completed and acknowledged by the ICC. relations are not beyond the judiciary's reach and
 The Court found that the petitioners lacked the that the judiciary has the power and duty to
requisite standing to file the petitions. uphold the Constitution.
 The issues raised were not ripe for judicial  It emphasizes the importance of an actual case
determination. or controversy and the justiciability of the issues
Ratio: presented.
 The Court emphasized the importance of Petitions Challenging Withdrawal from Rome
justiciability, noting it can only rule on actual Statute
controversies involving rights that are legally  The case involves several petitions challenging
demandable and enforceable. the constitutionality of the Philippines'
 The petitions were deemed moot because the withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the
withdrawal from the Rome Statute had already International Criminal Court (ICC).
been completed and acknowledged by the ICC,  The petitioners argue that the President's
making judicial intervention futile. withdrawal from the treaty without the
 The Court discussed the President's role as the concurrence of the Senate is unconstitutional
primary architect of foreign policy, noting the and violates the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
President has discretion to withdraw from Analysis of Issues Raised in the Petitions
treaties, but this discretion is not absolute and  The Supreme Court provides a detailed analysis
must be exercised within the bounds of the of the issues raised in the petitions.
Constitution and existing laws.  It discusses the nature of treaties and
 The Senate had not taken any formal action to international agreements and the process by
assert its prerogative to require concurrence for which they are entered into and withdrawn from.
withdrawal, weakening the petitioners' case.  The Court emphasizes that treaties are binding
 The Court found that the petitioners failed to on the Philippines once they are ratified by the
demonstrate a direct, substantial, and material Senate and that withdrawal from a treaty must
injury resulting from the withdrawal, which is also be authorized by law.
necessary to establish standing in court.  The Court further explains that the President
cannot unilaterally withdraw from international
Case Summary (G.R. No. 238875) agreements where the Senate has concurred and
Case Background and Dismissal of Petitions imposed a condition that withdrawal must also
 The case involves petitions challenging the be with its concurrence.
Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute,  The Senate's power to concur with treaties
which established the International Criminal includes the power to impose conditions for its
Court (ICC). concurrence, and any withdrawal must be
 The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, anchored on a determination that the treaty runs
ruling that the President has the discretion to afoul of the Constitution.
unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if it is  The Court also clarifies that matters of foreign
unconstitutional or contrary to a prior statute. relations are not purely political questions
 The Court emphasized that the withdrawal does beyond the reach of the judiciary.
not diminish the protection of human rights  The Constitution grants the Supreme Court the
within the Philippine legal system. power to review the constitutionality or validity of
 The Court clarified that the President's discretion treaties, international agreements, and other
on withdrawing from a treaty is not absolute and executive acts.
must be within the authority granted by the  The Court distinguishes between treaties and
Constitution and existing laws. generally accepted principles of international law,
 The Court also discussed the process of treaty- stating that while treaties must be ratified by the
making and the distinction between treaties and Senate to be incorporated into domestic law,
executive agreements. generally accepted principles of international law
 The Court concluded that the petitions failed on are automatically incorporated into Philippine law.
procedural grounds and that the President's Mootness of the Petitions and Lack of Standing
withdrawal from the Rome Statute was valid and  The Court concludes that the petitions are moot
effective. because the Philippines has already completed
Interpretation of the Philippine Constitution the withdrawal process and the International
 The case involves the interpretation of the Criminal Court has accepted the withdrawal.
Philippine Constitution regarding the power of  It also finds that the petitioners lack standing to
the President to withdraw from international bring the case and that the issues raised are not
agreements. of transcendental importance that would warrant
 The court examines the concept of "generally the Court's intervention.
accepted principles of international law" and its Writ of Mandamus and Pacta Sunt Servanda
incorporation into Philippine law.  The Court explains that the petitions are not
 It discusses the hierarchy of laws, with statutes proper subjects for a writ of certiorari or
having preeminence over international mandamus because they do not involve judicial
agreements. or quasi-judicial acts.
 The court explores the role of the Senate in the  It emphasizes that the writs are remedies to
treaty-making process and the requirement of address jurisdictional excesses or the neglect of
Senate concurrence for the validity and effectivity duties by public officers.
of treaties.  The Court rejects the argument that the
 It emphasizes that the President does not have President's withdrawal violates the principle of
unbridled authority to withdraw from treaties and pacta sunt servanda, stating that the withdrawal
that any withdrawal must be in accordance with was done in accordance with the provisions of
the Constitution and existing laws. the Rome Statute itself.
 The court further clarifies that matters of foreign  It notes that the Philippines' withdrawal does not
 affect its obligations under the treaty while it was
a party to it.
Rejection of Foreign Precedent and Conclusion
 The Court dismisses the argument that the South
African case on withdrawal from the ICC is
binding precedent, as foreign judgments are not
binding in the Philippines.
 It highlights the differences in the constitutional
provisions and governmental structures between
the Philippines and South Africa.
 Overall, the Court upholds the constitutionality of
the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome
Statute and dismisses the petitions.

Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association vs. Duque

III
Case
G.R. No. 173034
Decision Date
Oct 9, 2007
The court ruled that certain provisions in the Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of the Milk
Code were null and void, as they extended coverage to
young children beyond 12 months old, imposed an
absolute ban on advertising and promotion, and imposed
additional labeling requirements, while upholding the
labeling requirements and advertising regulations that
were in accordance with the Milk Code.
Facts:
 The case "Pharmaceutical and Health Care
Association of the Philippines v. Duque III" (G.R.
No. 173034) was decided on October 9, 2007, by
the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
 The petitioner challenged the validity of
Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 2006-0012, also
known as the Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulations (RIRR) of Executive Order No. 51
(Milk Code).
 Respondents included Health Secretary
Francisco T. Duque III and other officials from
the Department of Health (DOH).
 The Milk Code, issued by President Corazon
Aquino in 1986, aimed to promote breastfeeding
and regulate the marketing of breastmilk
substitutes.
 The RIRR, issued on May 15, 2006, extended the
coverage of the Milk Code to children beyond 12
months old, imposed an absolute ban on
advertising and promotion of breastmilk
substitutes, and added new labeling
requirements.
 The petitioner argued that these provisions were
unconstitutional and exceeded the scope of the
Milk Code.
 The case was brought to the Supreme Court after
the petitioner sought a Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) on June 28, 2006, which was
granted on August 15, 2006.
 The Court held oral arguments on June 19, 2007,
and subsequently issued its decision.
Issue:
 1. Whether the petitioner is a real party-in-interest.  The petitioner, Pharmaceutical and Health Care
2. Whether the RIRR issued by the DOH is Association of the Philippines, argues that the
constitutional. RIRR is not valid as it contains provisions that are
3. Whether the RIRR is in accord with the provisions not constitutional and go beyond the law it is
of the Milk Code. supposed to implement.
4. Whether pertinent international agreements  The main issue raised in the petition is whether
entered into by the Philippines are part of the law the Department of Health (DOH) acted without or
of the land and may be implemented by the DOH in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
through the RIRR. discretion, in promulgating the RIRR.
5. Whether Sections 4, 5(w), 22, 32, 47, and 52 of Standing of the Petitioner
the RIRR violate the due process clause and are  The Court determines that the petitioner, as an
in restraint of trade. association representing members in the
6. Whether Section 13 of the RIRR on Total Effect pharmaceutical and health care industry, has the
provides sufficient standards. legal personality to represent its members and
Ruling: assert their concerns.
1. The Court ruled that the petitioner is a real party-  The petitioner is considered a real party-in-
in-interest. interest and has the right to bring the case.
2. The Court declared Sections 4(f), 11, and 46 of Compliance with the Milk Code
the RIRR null and void for being ultra vires.  The Court determines that the RIRR extends the
3. The Court upheld the rest of the provisions of the coverage of the Milk Code to young children
RIRR as being in consonance with the Milk Code. beyond 12 months old, which is within the scope
4. The Court ruled that the pertinent international of the Milk Code.
agreements are not part of the law of the land  The RIRR also recognizes that breastmilk
unless transformed into domestic law through substitutes may be a proper and possible
local legislation. substitute for breastmilk in certain instances.
5. The Court found that Sections 4, 5(w), 22, 32, 47,  The Court concludes that the RIRR is consistent
and 52 of the RIRR do not violate the due process with the provisions of the Milk Code.
clause and are not in restraint of trade. Constitutionality of the RIRR
6. The Court found that Section 13 of the RIRR on  The Court determines that the RIRR, which
Total Effect provides sufficient standards. implements the Milk Code, is a valid exercise of
Ratio: the DOH's regulatory powers.
 The Court held that the petitioner, as an  The RIRR does not violate the due process clause
association representing the pharmaceutical and or restrain trade.
health care industry, has the legal standing to file
 However, certain provisions of the RIRR are
the suit on behalf of its members.
declared null and void for being vague and
 The Court emphasized that international overbroad.
agreements, such as the International Code of International Agreements and the Law of the Land
Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS) and
 The Court determines that international
various World Health Assembly (WHA)
agreements invoked by the respondents, such as
Resolutions, do not automatically become part of
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
domestic law unless transformed through local
the Child and various World Health Assembly
legislation.
Resolutions, are not part of the law of the land.
 The Milk Code, which is a domestic law, did not  These international agreements have not been
adopt the absolute prohibition on advertising
transformed into domestic law through local
found in the ICMBS.
legislation.
 The Court found that the DOH exceeded its Court's Decision
authority by imposing an absolute ban on
 The Court upholds the validity of the labeling
advertising and promotion of breastmilk
requirements and advertising regulations under
substitutes, as this was not provided for in the
the RIRR.
Milk Code.
 Certain provisions of the RIRR are declared null
 The Court also ruled that the additional labeling and void.
requirements and administrative sanctions
 The Court affirms the power of the DOH to
imposed by the RIRR were beyond the scope of
regulate the marketing and distribution of
the Milk Code.
breastmilk substitutes in accordance with the
 However, the Court upheld the other provisions Milk Code.
of the RIRR, finding them consistent with the Milk
Case Background and Petitioner's Argument
Code's objective of promoting breastfeeding and
 The case involves a challenge to the validity of
ensuring the proper use of breastmilk substitutes.
certain provisions of Administrative Order No.
 The Court concluded that the RIRR's provisions 2006-0012 (RIRR) issued by the Department of
on the prohibition of donations, the involvement
Health (DOH) in the Philippines.
of milk companies in policymaking, and the
 The RIRR implements the Milk Code, which aims
dissemination of information to health
to promote and protect breastfeeding and
professionals were reasonable regulations that
regulate the marketing and distribution of
did not constitute an illegal restraint of trade or
breastmilk substitutes.
violate the due process clause of the
 The petitioner argues that certain provisions of
Constitution.
the RIRR are unconstitutional and violate the Milk
Code.
Case Summary (G.R. No. 173034)
Coverage of the Milk Code
Case Background and Petitioner's Argument
 The petitioner claims that the Milk Code only
 The case involves a challenge to the validity of
applies to children aged 0-12 months old.
certain provisions in the Revised Implementing
 The Court finds that the coverage of the Milk
Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of the Milk Code.
Code is not dependent on the age of the child but
 on the kind of product being marketed.
 The law treats infant formula, bottle-fed
complementary food, and breastmilk substitute
as separate and distinct product categories.
 Therefore, the RIRR provisions regarding these
products are valid.
Recognition of Breastmilk Substitutes
 The petitioner argues that the RIRR does not
recognize that breastmilk substitutes may be a
proper substitute for breastmilk.
 The Court finds that the RIRR does recognize that
in certain cases, the use of breastmilk
substitutes may be proper.
 Therefore, this argument is dismissed.
Validity of Labeling Requirements and Advertising
Regulations
 The petitioner alleges that the labeling
requirements and advertising regulations under
the RIRR are invalid.
 The Court examines the regulatory powers of the
DOH and finds that it has the authority to control
information regarding breastmilk substitutes.
 The RIRR provisions regarding labeling and
advertising are consistent with the Milk Code and
are therefore valid.
Administrative Sanctions
 The petitioner claims that the RIRR provisions
regarding administrative sanctions are beyond
the authority of the DOH.
 The Court agrees and declares these provisions
null and void.
 The DOH does not have the power to impose
administrative fines without an express grant of
authority.
Donations and Research Assistance
 The petitioner argues that the RIRR provisions
Title
regarding donations and research assistance are
Colmenares vs. Duterte
unreasonable and oppressive.
Case
 The Court finds that these provisions are in
G.R. No. 245981
accordance with the Milk Code and are therefore
Decision Date
valid.
Aug 9, 2022
Restraint of Trade and Due Process
 The petitioner claims that the RIRR provisions are The case of Colmenares v. Duterte involves loan
in restraint of trade and violate the due process
agreements for infrastructure projects in the Philippines,
clause of the Constitution.
with the court ruling that the agreements are valid and
 The Court disagrees and finds that the provisions constitutional but emphasizing the importance of
are a reasonable regulation of an industry that transparency and caution in future agreements.
affects public health and welfare. Facts:
Court's Decision
 The case involves two consolidated petitions for
 The Court declares certain provisions of the RIRR prohibition with applications for injunctive relief.
null and void, but upholds the validity of the rest
 The petitions challenge the constitutionality of
of the provisions.
two loan agreements: the Chico River Pump
 The Court lifts the temporary restraining order on Irrigation Project (CRPIP) Loan Agreement and
the implementation of the RIRR, except for the the New Centennial Water Source-Kaliwa Dam
nullified provisions. Project (NCWS) Loan Agreement.
 Petitioners include Neri J. Colmenares, various
party-list representatives, and other individuals.
 Respondents are President Rodrigo R. Duterte
and several high-ranking government officials.
 The loan agreements were executed between the
Philippine Government (represented by the
Department of Finance) and the Chinese state-
owned Export-Import Bank of China.
 The CRPIP Loan Agreement was signed on April
10, 2018, and the NCWS Loan Agreement on
November 20, 2018.
 Petitioners argue that the agreements are
unconstitutional and illegal, citing issues such as
lack of prior concurrence from the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Monetary Board,
preferential treatment to Chinese contractors,
 and confidentiality clauses violating the right to designate Chinese law and arbitral tribunals, are
information. valid under the principle of party autonomy in
Issue: contracts. There was no evidence that these
1. Whether the petitions should be dismissed for clauses are contrary to law, morals, or public
failing to establish the requisites of judicial policy.
review, non-observance of the hierarchy of courts,
and the unavailability of the remedy of prohibition. Case Summary (G.R. No. 245981)
2. Whether the respondents should release the Background and Parties Involved
documents sought by the petitioners.  The case involves two consolidated petitions
3. Whether the loan agreements are challenging the validity of loan agreements
unconstitutional due to: between the Philippine government and China.
 Lack of prior concurrence from the BSP  The petitioners include various party-list
Monetary Board. representatives and individuals.
 Defeating the constitutional policy to  The loan agreements are with the Export-Import
give preference to qualified Filipinos. Bank of China (EXIM Bank) and are for the
 Containing arbitration clauses skewed in financing of two infrastructure projects: the
favor of the Chinese lender. Chico River Pump Irrigation Project (CRPIP) and
 Including a waiver of immunity clause the New Centennial Water Source-Kaliwa Dam
offending constitutional provisions on Project (NCWS).
national economy and patrimony. Procedural Issues
Ruling:  The Supreme Court addresses procedural issues,
1. The Supreme Court ruled to drop the President including the standing of the petitioners and the
as a respondent due to presidential immunity, but applicability of the remedy of prohibition.
judicial review and prohibition were deemed  The Court determines that the petitioners have
viable for the other issues. standing to bring the case and that prohibition is
2. The Court declared that the loan agreements a viable remedy in this situation.
were executed with the necessary BSP Monetary Disclosure of Loan Documents
Board concurrence, thus complying with the  The Court notes that the issue of the disclosure
constitutional requirement. of loan documents has been rendered moot
3. The Court found that the confidentiality clauses since the respondents have already provided the
in the loan agreements unduly restrict public requested documents.
access to information on foreign loans, violating  However, the Court emphasizes that the
the constitutional right to information. confidentiality clauses in the loan agreements
4. The Court ruled that the loan agreements do not unduly restrict public access to information on
violate the constitutional policy to give foreign loans.
preference to qualified Filipinos or procurement  The Court clarifies that the Constitution
laws, as they are part of executive agreements mandates the availability of such information to
exempt from such laws. the public and that confidentiality should be
5. The Court held that the arbitration clauses in the limited to specific exceptions, such as national
loan agreements do not violate the constitutional security matters or trade secrets.
policy on the pursuit of independent foreign Prior Concurrence of the Monetary Board
relations.  The Court addresses the issue of whether the
Ratio: loan agreements were executed with the
1. The Court emphasized that the President enjoys necessary prior concurrence of the Monetary
immunity from suit during his tenure, hence Board (MB) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
President Duterte should be dropped as a (BSP).
respondent. The issues raised are of  The Court determines that the loan agreements
transcendental importance and capable of did undergo the required procedure, including
repetition yet evading review, justifying judicial obtaining the MB's Approval-in-Principle and Final
intervention. Approval.
2. The Court noted that the BSP Monetary Board Violation of Constitutional Policy and Procurement
had given its approval-in-principle and final Laws
approval for the loan agreements, thus satisfying  The Court rules on the argument that the loan
the constitutional requirement for prior agreements violate the Constitutional policy to
concurrence. Approval-in-principle allows give preference to qualified Filipinos and
negotiations to proceed, and final approval circumvent procurement laws.
ensures consistency with the initial approval.  The Court finds that the loan agreements are
3. The Court found that the confidentiality clauses consistent with the Constitutional provisions and
in the loan agreements are too sweeping and jurisprudence, which allow for foreign
violate the constitutional mandate for public investments and competition as long as they do
access to information on government-contracted not undermine the public good or exploit Filipino
foreign loans. Such information should be citizens.
proactively made available to the public. Conclusion
4. The Court ruled that the loan agreements, as part
 The Court concludes that, except for the issue of
of executive agreements, are exempt from the
the confidentiality clauses, the loan agreements
Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184).
do not violate the Constitution or procurement
The preference for qualified Filipinos does not
laws.
imply a monopoly for Filipino nationals. The
 The Court advises government agencies to be
agreements incorporated some procedures from
more cautious in agreeing to confidentiality
procurement laws, and the projects would still
clauses in future loan agreements.
benefit the public.
5. The Court held that the arbitration clauses, which
GR No. 260458

ADDITIONAL CASES:
Title
Trillanes IV vs. Castillo-Marigomen
Case
G.R. No. 223451
Decision Date
Mar 14, 2018
Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV is sued for damages after
making defamatory statements about Antonio L. Tiu, with
the court ruling that Trillanes' statements were not
protected by parliamentary immunity and that Tiu's
complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for
damages.
Facts:
 The case involves a Petition for Certiorari filed by
Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV against Hon.
Evangeline C. Castillo-Marigomen, Presiding
Judge of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 101,
and Antonio L. Tiu.
 Trillanes challenges the RTC's orders dated May
19, 2015, and December 16, 2015, which denied
his motion to dismiss Tiu's complaint for
 damages. accusing him of being a "front" or "dummy" for
 Tiu's complaint arose from Trillanes' alleged former Vice President Jejomar Binay in relation
defamatory statements made during media to the Hacienda Binay.
interviews, accusing Tiu of being a "front" or  Tiu claimed that these statements tarnished his
"dummy" for former Vice President Jejomar reputation and caused him financial losses.
Binay regarding the so-called Hacienda Binay.  Trillanes argued that his statements were
 Tiu, a businessman, claimed these statements protected by parliamentary immunity and that Tiu
tarnished his reputation and caused a significant failed to state a cause of action.
drop in the stock prices of his companies, Court's Ruling on Parliamentary Immunity
AgriNurture, Inc. and Greenergy Holdings, Inc.  The court ruled that Trillanes' statements were
 Trillanes argued that his statements were not protected by parliamentary immunity.
protected by parliamentary immunity and his  Trillanes made the defamatory statements
constitutional rights to free speech and during media interviews, which are not part of his
expression. official duties as a senator.
 The RTC denied Trillanes' motion to dismiss,  Parliamentary immunity only applies to
leading to the filing of the present petition. statements made within the context of official
Issue: duties.
1. Did the RTC err in denying Trillanes' motion to  Therefore, Trillanes' statements were not
dismiss based on parliamentary immunity and protected by parliamentary immunity.
failure to state a cause of action? Court's Ruling on Cause of Action
2. Are Trillanes' statements protected by  The court found that Tiu's complaint sufficiently
parliamentary immunity under the 1987 stated a cause of action for damages.
Constitution?  Tiu's complaint provided enough evidence to
3. Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case, or support his claim that Trillanes' statements
should it be handled by the Senate or the voters? caused him harm.
Ruling:  Trillanes' argument that Tiu failed to state a
 The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, cause of action was rejected by the court.
affirming the RTC's orders denying Trillanes' Trillanes' Petition for Certiorari
motion to dismiss.  Trillanes filed a petition for certiorari with the
 The Court ruled that Trillanes' statements made court after his motion to dismiss and motion for
during media interviews are not protected by reconsideration were denied.
parliamentary immunity.  He argued that there was a threat to his
 The Court held that the RTC has jurisdiction over parliamentary immunity and his rights to freedom
the case, as the statements were made outside of speech and expression.
the legislative process and are not covered by  Trillanes sought direct application to the court
parliamentary immunity. without observing the doctrine of hierarchy of
Ratio: courts.
 The Supreme Court emphasized that Court's Dismissal of the Petition
parliamentary immunity under Section 11, Article  The court dismissed Trillanes' petition, stating
VI of the 1987 Constitution protects lawmakers that the doctrine of hierarchy of courts should
from being questioned for any speech or debate have been observed.
in Congress or its committees.  Trillanes failed to present an "exceptionally
 This immunity does not extend to statements compelling reason" to justify his direct
made outside the legislative process, such as application to the court.
media interviews.  The court held that Trillanes' statements in
 The Court cited the case of Jimenez v. media interviews were not covered by
Cabangbang, clarifying that the privilege of parliamentary immunity.
speech or debate applies only to utterances  Trillanes' rights to freedom of speech and
made in the performance of official functions expression were not violated by the court's ruling.
within the legislative sphere. Court's Decision on Preliminary Hearing
 Trillanes' statements were made during media  The court ruled that a preliminary hearing was
interviews and were not part of any legislative not warranted in this case.
activity, thus falling outside the scope of  Trillanes' defense of lack of cause of action
parliamentary immunity. required a full-blown trial to determine the
 The Court also noted that the RTC has veracity and probative value of the evidence.
jurisdiction over the case, as it involves a civil  Therefore, a preliminary hearing was not
action for damages based on alleged defamatory necessary and the court affirmed the lower
statements, which is within the courts' authority court's orders denying Trillanes' motion to
to adjudicate. dismiss and motion for reconsideration.
 The issue of whether Tiu's complaint sufficiently
stated a cause of action should be determined
based on the allegations in the complaint, which, Title
if hypothetically admitted, would enable the court Dela Cruz vs. Ochoa, Jr.
to render a judgment. Case
 The Court concluded that the petition lacked G.R. No. 219683
merit and should be dismissed. Decision Date
Jan 23, 2018
Case Summary (G.R. No. 223451) The case involves the constitutionality of the Motor
Background of the Case Vehicle License Plate Standardization Program in the
 Antonio L. Tiu filed a defamation lawsuit against Philippines, with the Court ruling that the appropriation
Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV. for the program was valid and constitutional, and that no
 Trillanes made defamatory statements about Tiu, unconstitutional transfer of funds took place.
 appropriations of money were detailed in the FY
Facts: 2014 Budget, providing the necessary specificity
 The case "Dela Cruz v. Ochoa, Jr." (G.R. No. for a valid line-item appropriation that the
219683) was decided on January 23, 2018, by the President could veto.
Philippine Supreme Court En Banc.  The Court dismissed the petition for certiorari
 Petitioners: Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz and Hon. and prohibition, declaring the use of the
Gustavo S. Tambunting, Members of the House appropriation under the 2014 GAA for the MVPSP
of Representatives and taxpayers. as constitutional.
 Respondents: Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa Jr.,  The temporary restraining order issued on June
Executive Secretary; Hon. Joseph Emilio A. 14, 2016, was lifted.
Abaya, Secretary of the DOTC; Hon. Florencio B.
Abad, Secretary of the DBM; and Hon. Rosalia V.
De Leon, National Treasurer.
 Petitioners challenged the implementation of the
Motor Vehicle License Plate Standardization
Program (MVPSP) by the LTO using funds from
the 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA).
 The case followed Jacomille v. Abaya, where the
Court dismissed the petition due to the 2014
GAA's appropriation for the MVPSP, rendering it
moot.
 Petitioners argued the transfer of funds for the
MVPSP was unconstitutional and deprived the
President of veto powers.
 The DOTC, through the LTO, initiated the MVPSP
to supply new standardized license plates,
starting the procurement process on February 20,
2013.
 The project faced delays and irregularities,
including inadequate budgetary appropriations in
the 2013 GAA and lack of required Multi-Year
Obligational Authority (MYOA) from the DBM.
 The project was eventually funded under the
2014 GAA.
 The Commission on Audit (COA) issued several
Audit Observation Memoranda and a Notice of
Disallowance, citing irregularities.
 Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari
and prohibition, challenging the constitutionality
of the MVPSP's implementation using 2014 GAA
funds.
Issue:
1. Did the 2014 GAA include an appropriation for
the implementation of the MVPSP?
2. Was the use of the appropriation under the 2014
GAA for the implementation of the MVPSP
constitutional?
Ruling:
1. The Court ruled that the 2014 GAA did include an
appropriation for the MVPSP.
2. The Court declared that the use of the
appropriation under the 2014 GAA for the
implementation of the MVPSP was constitutional.
Ratio:
 The Court's decision was based on the principle
of stare decisis, referencing its earlier ruling in
Jacomille v. Abaya.
 The 2014 GAA contained an appropriation for the
MVPSP, which "cured" any defects in the
procurement process.
 The doctrine of stare decisis was applied to
ensure consistency and stability in judicial
decisions.
 The appropriation for Motor Vehicle Registration
and Driver's Licensing Regulatory Services in the
2014 GAA naturally included the MVPSP, as plate
-making is integral to the registration process.
Title
 The increase in the LTO's 2014 budget to cover Araullo vs. Aquino III
the MVPSP was discussed and approved during
Case
budget hearings in Congress, indicating
G.R. No. 209287
legislative intent to fund the MVPSP.
Decision Date
 The Court clarified that the specific
Feb 3, 2015 statutory definition of savings violated Section
The Araullo v. Aquino III case involves the challenge to 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
the constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration  Cross-border transfers of savings from the
Program (DAP) in the Philippines, with the Court ruling Executive to other branches of government are
that certain aspects of the DAP are unconstitutional, explicitly prohibited.
including the withdrawal of unobligated allotments and  Unprogrammed funds could only be used if
cross-border transfers of savings, while also applying the actual revenue collections exceeded the original
doctrine of operative fact to protect the validity of certain revenue targets, a condition that was not met.
projects and programs.  The doctrine of operative fact was applied to
protect the validity of completed projects and
Facts: programs funded by the DAP, recognizing the
 The case of Araullo v. Aquino III was decided on potential inequity and injustice of nullifying these
February 3, 2015. projects.
 Petitioners, including Maria Carolina P. Araullo,  This doctrine did not extend to the officials
Judy M. Taguiwalo, and Henri Kahn, challenged responsible for the DAP, who could still be held
the constitutionality of the Disbursement accountable in proper tribunals
Acceleration Program (DAP).
 The DAP was implemented by President Benigno Case Summary (G.R. No. 209287)
Simeon C. Aquino III, Executive Secretary Paquito Summary of the Araullo v. Aquino III Case
N. Ochoa, Jr., and Budget Secretary Florencio B.  The case involves the challenge to the
Abad. constitutionality of the Disbursement
 The DAP aimed to accelerate government Acceleration Program (DAP) in the Philippines.
spending to stimulate economic growth.  The Court ruled that certain aspects of the DAP
 Petitioners argued that aspects of the DAP, such are unconstitutional, including the withdrawal of
as the withdrawal of unobligated allotments and unobligated allotments and cross-border
cross-border transfers of savings, violated the transfers of savings.
1987 Philippine Constitution.  The Court applied the doctrine of operative fact
 The Supreme Court initially ruled on July 1, 2014, to protect the validity of certain projects and
that specific acts under the DAP were programs.
unconstitutional.  The respondents filed a Motion for
 Both respondents and petitioners filed motions Reconsideration, arguing that the Court
for reconsideration, leading to the February 3, mischaracterized the issues and unnecessarily
2015, resolution. constitutionalized the case.
Issue:  The Court denied the motion, stating that the
1. Did the DAP violate the 1987 Philippine issues raised in the case are constitutional in
Constitution by allowing the withdrawal of nature and that the Court has the power of
unobligated allotments and cross-border judicial review.
transfers of savings?  The Court clarified its ruling on the definition of
2. Can the President augment appropriations from savings, stating that unobligated allotments
savings that were not legitimately generated? cannot be declared as savings without first
3. Is the use of unprogrammed funds without determining if any of the three instances of
exceeding the original revenue targets savings exist.
constitutional?  The Court also clarified that cross-border
4. Does the doctrine of operative fact apply to the transfers of savings are unconstitutional.
DAP and its implementors?  The Court further clarified that unprogrammed
Ruling: funds can only be released if the total revenues
1. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier decision exceed the target.
that the withdrawal of unobligated allotments  The Court addressed the respondents' argument
and cross-border transfers of savings under the that the presumption of good faith was violated,
DAP were unconstitutional. stating that the presumption of good faith still
2. The Court clarified that augmentation from stands and that the doctrine of operative fact
savings is only valid if the savings were does not apply to the authors, proponents, and
legitimately generated, which was not the case implementors of the DAP unless there are
for many DAP-funded projects. concrete findings of good faith in their favor.
3. The use of unprogrammed funds without  The Court upheld the efficacy of the DAP-funded
exceeding the original revenue targets was projects under the doctrine of operative fact.
declared void and illegal. Background of the Araullo v. Aquino III Case
4. The doctrine of operative fact applies to the DAP-  The case involves the Disbursement Acceleration
funded projects that can no longer be undone but Program (DAP) in the Philippines, which was
does not apply to the authors, proponents, and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
implementors of the DAP unless there are
 The Court ruled that the DAP violated the
concrete findings of good faith by the proper
principle of separation of powers and the
tribunals.
prohibition against the transfer and
Ratio:
augmentation of funds under the Constitution.
 The Supreme Court's decision was based on  The DAP allowed the transfer of appropriations
several constitutional principles and legal
from one branch of government to another, used
interpretations.
funds that were not savings, and funded projects
 The power to augment appropriations is strictly that were not included in the General
limited by the Constitution to savings that are Appropriations Acts.
legitimately generated. Application of the Doctrine of Operative Fact
 The withdrawal of unobligated allotments and  The Court discussed the doctrine of operative
their reallocation as savings without fulfilling the fact, which allows the effects of an
 unconstitutional law or act to remain in place if civil, and administrative liability.
nullifying them would result in inequity and  The operative fact doctrine recognizes that acts
injustice. done in good faith and in reliance on an
 The Court applied this doctrine to the DAP- unconstitutional law prior to its invalidity are
funded projects, recognizing the impact on the effective and cannot be undone.
beneficiaries and the country as a whole if the  However, this doctrine does not apply to the
projects were nullified. authors, proponents, and implementors of the
 However, the Court clarified that the doctrine unconstitutional DAP, as they did not rely on its
does not validate or constitutionalize an validity.
unconstitutional law.  The Court clarified that it does not have
Court's Decision on the Motion for Reconsideration jurisdiction to determine criminal, civil, or
 The Court partially granted the motion for administrative liability, and any ruling on good
reconsideration filed by the respondents, but faith or bad faith is only for the purpose of the
denied the motion for partial reconsideration filed constitutional issue before the Court.
by the petitioners. Conclusion of the Case
 The Court modified its previous decision to  The Court found that the DAP was
declare certain acts and practices under the DAP unconstitutional and illegal for violating the
unconstitutional, including the withdrawal of Constitution and the doctrine of separation of
unobligated allotments and the cross-border powers.
transfers of savings.  The Court applied the operative fact doctrine to
 The Court also declared void the use of the projects, works, and programs funded by the
unprogrammed funds without exceeding the DAP, as they were undertaken in good faith and
original revenue targets. cannot be undone.
Justices' Opinions and Clarifications  The doctrine does not apply to the authors,
 The Chief Justice and several Justices concurred proponents, and implementors of the DAP, as
with the decision, while one Justice filed a they did not rely on its validity.
separate opinion and another Justice took no  The Court recommended that the Commission
part in the case. on Audit conduct an audit of the projects funded
 The Court upheld its exercise of judicial review in by the DAP.
the case, stating that it had the authority to
determine whether grave abuse of discretion had
been committed by the government.
 The Court clarified that its interpretation of the
Constitution and the laws governing the national
budget was necessary in resolving the case.
Details of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
 The DAP was a budgetary program implemented
by the Executive Department in the Philippines.
 It allowed the withdrawal of unobligated
allotments from implementing agencies and the
cross-border transfer of savings to augment the
appropriations of other offices outside the
Executive.
Arguments and Rulings on Constitutionality and
Augmentation
 The petitioners argued that the augmentations
made under the DAP were unconstitutional and
illegal because they exceeded the maximum
amount recommended by the President in the
proposed budget and because they augmented
items that were not deficient.
 The Court found this argument unavailing, as
there is no limit set in the Constitution on the
power to augment, and the magnitude of the
augmentations is not a ground to declare them
unconstitutional.
 The burden of proof is on the challengers to
show that the augmentations were done with
grave abuse of discretion, such as to defeat the
legislative will or without a real deficiency in the
original appropriation.
 The Court also addressed the issue of whether
the President has the power to discontinue slow-
moving projects, and found that the President
does have this power under certain provisions.
 The Court found that the DAP program led to
economic growth and there is no proof to the
contrary.
Clarifications on the Operative Fact Doctrine and
Liability
 The Court discussed the distinction between the
operative fact doctrine and the issue of criminal,
 President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet,
and their deputies or assistants from holding any
other office or employment during their tenure.
 This prohibition is absolute and covers both public
and private offices or employment.
 The Court noted that the practice of holding
multiple offices became prevalent during the
Marcos regime, leading to abuses and self-
enrichment by public officials.
 The 1987 Constitution sought to remedy these
abuses by imposing stricter prohibitions on high-
ranking officials.
 The Court clarified that the prohibition does not
apply to ex-officio positions held without
additional compensation, as these are
considered part of the primary functions of the
Title officials' offices.
Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary  The Court concluded that Executive Order No.
Case 284, by allowing multiple positions, directly
G.R. No. 83896 contravened the express mandate of Section 13,
Decision Date Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Feb 22, 1991  Consequently, the Court ordered the respondents
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in Civil to relinquish their additional positions and
Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, declaring Executive declared Executive Order No. 284 null and void.
Order No. 284 unconstitutional and clarifying that Cabinet
members can hold additional positions in an ex-officio Case Summary (G.R. No. 83896)
capacity or positions necessary for their primary functions, Case Background and Petitioners' Argument
but not unrelated positions.
 The case of Civil Liberties Union v. Executive
Facts:
Secretary involves the constitutionality of
 The case involves two consolidated petitions (G.R. Executive Order No. 284.
Nos. 83896 and 83815) filed by the Civil Liberties
 Executive Order No. 284 allows members of the
Union and the Anti-Graft League of the Philippines,
Cabinet, their undersecretaries, and assistant
Inc., along with Crispin T. Reyes.
secretaries to hold additional government
 The petitions are against the Executive Secretary
positions in addition to their primary positions.
and several Cabinet members.
 The challenge is against the constitutionality of  The petitioners argue that this executive order
Executive Order No. 284, issued by President
violates Section 13, Article VII of the Philippine
Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987. Constitution, which prohibits Cabinet members
 Executive Order No. 284 allowed Cabinet members, from holding any other office or employment
undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, and other during their tenure.
appointive officials of the Executive Department to Supreme Court Ruling and Explanation
hold up to two additional positions in the  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
government and government corporations, with petitioners and declared Executive Order No. 284
corresponding compensation. unconstitutional.
 Petitioners argued that this Executive Order violated  The Court clarified that Cabinet members can
Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. hold additional positions in an ex-officio capacity
 Section 13, Article VII prohibits the President, Vice- or positions necessary for their primary functions,
President, members of the Cabinet, and their but they cannot hold unrelated positions.
deputies or assistants from holding any other office  The prohibition in Section 13, Article VII applies
or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise specifically to the President, Vice-President,
provided in the Constitution. Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or
 Petitioners sought a declaration of the assistants.
unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 and Intent of the Framers of the Constitution
the issuance of writs of prohibition and mandamus.  The intent of the framers of the Constitution was
 The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the to prevent abuses and conflicts of interest that
Philippines on February 22, 1991, with Chief Justice may arise from public officials holding multiple
Fernan as the ponente.
offices.
Issue:
 The practice of designating Cabinet members to
1. Does Executive Order No. 284, which allows Cabinet
head or sit as members of various government
members and other high-ranking officials to hold
agencies and corporations became prevalent
additional positions in the government, violate
Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution? during the martial law regime of former President
2. Can the exceptions provided under Section 7, Ferdinand Marcos, leading to abuses and self-
paragraph (2), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution enrichment by unscrupulous officials.
be applied to the prohibition under Section 13, Ex-Officio Positions and Related Duties
Article VII?  The prohibition in Section 13, Article VII does not
Ruling: cover ex-officio positions held without additional
1. The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No. compensation and required by the primary
284 is unconstitutional. functions of the official's office.
2. The Court held that the exceptions under Section 7,  Ex-officio positions are derived from the official's
paragraph (2), Article IX-B do not apply to the title or office and performed as a consequence of
prohibition under Section 13, Article VII. that office.
Ratio:
 Additional duties and functions imposed on
 The Supreme Court emphasized the framers' Cabinet members must be related to their
intention to impose a stricter prohibition on the
 primary functions and should not result in the MVPSP's implementation using 2014 GAA
conflicts or inconsistencies. funds.
Practical Concerns and Efficient Government Issue:
Functioning 1. Did the 2014 GAA include an appropriation for the
 The Court acknowledged the practical concerns implementation of the MVPSP?
raised by the respondents regarding the 2. Was the use of the appropriation under the 2014
GAA for the implementation of the MVPSP
operations of the government if a strict
constitutional?
application of the prohibition is followed.
Ruling:
 However, the Court emphasized that the
1. The Court ruled that the 2014 GAA did include an
concentration of attention, knowledge, and
appropriation for the MVPSP.
expertise of Cabinet members in their primary 2. The Court declared that the use of the appropriation
positions is crucial for the efficient and effective under the 2014 GAA for the implementation of the
functioning of the government. MVPSP was constitutional.
Conclusion and Qualification Ratio:
 The Court granted the petitions and declared  The Court's decision was based on the principle of
Executive Order No. 284 unconstitutional. stare decisis, referencing its earlier ruling in
 Any per diem, allowances, or other emoluments Jacomille v. Abaya.
received by the respondents for actual services  The 2014 GAA contained an appropriation for the
rendered in the questioned positions may be MVPSP, which "cured" any defects in the
retained by them. procurement process.
 The doctrine of stare decisis was applied to ensure
consistency and stability in judicial decisions.
 The appropriation for Motor Vehicle Registration
and Driver's Licensing Regulatory Services in the
2014 GAA naturally included the MVPSP, as plate-
making is integral to the registration process.
Title  The increase in the LTO's 2014 budget to cover the
Dela Cruz vs. Ochoa, Jr. MVPSP was discussed and approved during budget
Case hearings in Congress, indicating legislative intent to
G.R. No. 219683 fund the MVPSP.
Decision Date  The Court clarified that the specific appropriations
Jan 23, 2018 of money were detailed in the FY 2014 Budget,
The case involves the constitutionality of the Motor Vehicle providing the necessary specificity for a valid line-
License Plate Standardization Program in the Philippines, item appropriation that the President could veto.
with the Court ruling that the appropriation for the program  The Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and
was valid and constitutional, and that no unconstitutional prohibition, declaring the use of the appropriation
transfer of funds took place. under the 2014 GAA for the MVPSP as
constitutional.
Facts:  The temporary restraining order issued on June 14,
 The case "Dela Cruz v. Ochoa, Jr." (G.R. No. 219683) 2016, was lifted.
was decided on January 23, 2018, by the Philippine
Supreme Court En Banc. Case Summary (G.R. No. 219683)
 Petitioners: Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz and Hon. Case Background and Petitioners
Gustavo S. Tambunting, Members of the House of  The case involves the constitutionality of the
Representatives and taxpayers. implementation of the Motor Vehicle License Plate
 Respondents: Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa Jr., Executive Standardization Program (MVPSP) in the
Secretary; Hon. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, Secretary Philippines.
of the DOTC; Hon. Florencio B. Abad, Secretary of  The petitioners are members of the House of
the DBM; and Hon. Rosalia V. De Leon, National Representatives and taxpayers.
Treasurer.  They argue that the program was funded through
 Petitioners challenged the implementation of the an unconstitutional transfer of funds and
Motor Vehicle License Plate Standardization undermined the President's veto power.
Program (MVPSP) by the LTO using funds from the Previous Ruling in Jacomille v. Ochoa Jr.
2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA).  The case originated from a previous ruling in
 The case followed Jacomille v. Abaya, where the Jacomille v. Ochoa Jr., which challenged the legality
Court dismissed the petition due to the 2014 GAA's of the procurement for the MVPSP.
appropriation for the MVPSP, rendering it moot.  The Court dismissed Jacomille's petition as moot
 Petitioners argued the transfer of funds for the and academic due to the appropriation of funds for
MVPSP was unconstitutional and deprived the the project.
President of veto powers.  The Court stated that Congress had appropriated
 The DOTC, through the LTO, initiated the MVPSP to the full budget for the MVPSP, and therefore, it
supply new standardized license plates, starting the could not question the wisdom of the legislative
procurement process on February 20, 2013. department in appropriating the funds.
 The project faced delays and irregularities, including Implementation of the MVPSP
inadequate budgetary appropriations in the 2013  The Department of Transportation and
GAA and lack of required Multi-Year Obligational Communications (DOTC) is responsible for
Authority (MYOA) from the DBM. implementing the MVPSP.
 The project was eventually funded under the 2014  The MVPSP aims to supply new standardized
GAA. license plates for motor vehicles.
 The Commission on Audit (COA) issued several  The Land Transportation Office (LTO), a line agency
Audit Observation Memoranda and a Notice of of the DOTC, is tasked with registering motor
Disallowance, citing irregularities. vehicles and issuing license plates.
 Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari  The MVPSP was formulated to address issues such
and prohibition, challenging the constitutionality of as the proliferation of dilapidated and illegible
 license plates and the difficulty in identifying  The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Neri,
counterfeit plates. upholding the claim of executive privilege and finding the
Unconstitutionality of the Appropriation for the MVPSP Senate Committees to have committed grave abuse of
 The petitioners argue that the appropriation for the discretion.

MVPSP under the Motor Vehicle Registration and  The Senate Committees filed a motion for reconsideration,
which is the subject of the resolution dated September 4,
Driver's Licensing Regulatory Services in the
2008.
General Appropriations Act (GAA) was
Issue:
unconstitutional. 1. Whether there is a recognized presumptive presidential
 They claim that the MVPSP did not appear as a communications privilege in the Philippine legal system.
specific item in the 2014 National Expenditure 2. Whether the communications elicited by the three
Program (NEP), and therefore, it constituted a lump- questions are covered by executive privilege.
sum appropriation that undermined the President's 3. Whether the Senate Committees have shown that the
veto power. communications elicited by the three questions are
critical to the exercise of their functions.
Court's Rejection of the Petitioners' Arguments
4. Whether the Senate Committees committed grave abuse
 The Court rejects the petitioners' arguments and of discretion in issuing the contempt order.
affirms that there was a valid appropriation for the Ruling:
MVPSP under the GAA. 1. The Supreme Court affirmed that there is a recognized
 It explains that the appropriation for motor vehicle presumptive presidential communications privilege in the
registration naturally included plate-making, as Philippine legal system.
plate-making was an integral component of the 2. The Court held that the communications elicited by the
three questions are covered by executive privilege.
registration process.
3. The Court found that the Senate Committees failed to
 The Court also notes that the increase in the LTO's show that the communications elicited by the three
2014 budget, which covered the MVPSP, was questions are critical to the exercise of their functions.
approved by Congress. 4. The Court ruled that the Senate Committees committed
 Therefore, the Court concludes that the MVPSP was grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt order
properly funded and implemented. against Neri.
Application of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis Ratio:
1. Presumptive Presidential Communications Privilege:
 The Court emphasizes the doctrine of stare decisis,
which means that once the Court has laid down a  The Court recognized that presidential
principle of law, it should adhere to that principle in communications are presumptively privileged,
future cases with substantially similar facts. citing previous cases such as Almonte v.
Vasquez and Chavez v. PEA.
 The Court applies this doctrine to the present case, as
the legality of the MVPSP had already been settled in a
 This privilege is fundamental to the operation of
government and is rooted in the separation of
previous ruling.
powers under the Constitution.
Conclusion and Decision
 The presumption is not absolute and can be
 The Court dismisses the petition and declares the use
overturned by a compelling need for disclosure.
of the appropriation for the MVPSP as constitutional.
2. Coverage of Executive Privilege:
 The temporary restraining order that had been issued  The Court held that the communications
to halt the release and distribution of license plates is between Neri and President Arroyo are covered
lifted by executive privilege.
 The privilege applies to communications that
Title relate to a quintessential and non-delegable
Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers power of the President, are received by a close
and Investigations advisor, and where there is no compelling need
Case for disclosure shown by the Senate Committees.
G.R. No. 180643
 The privilege is meant to protect candid and
Decision Date
objective discussions necessary for presidential
Sep 4, 2008
decision-making.
The case of Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public
3. Critical Need for Information:
Officers and Investigations involves a dispute over the invocation of
executive privilege by the President to prevent the disclosure of  The Court found that the Senate Committees
certain information during a legislative inquiry, ultimately resulting failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the
in the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the President's claim of information covered by the executive privilege.
executive privilege and finding the Senate Committees to have  The Senate could still legislate on the NBN
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a contempt order project without the specific details of the
against Neri. The case delves into the complexities of executive privileged communications.
privilege, the balancing of public interests, and the interpretation of  The Senate Committees had other sources of
the Senate's rule-making power, with a focus on the specific details information and witnesses to rely on for their
of the NBN-ZTE broadband deal and the communication between investigation.
Neri and the President. 4. Grave Abuse of Discretion:
 The Court ruled that the Senate Committees
Facts: committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing
 Romulo L. Neri, then Chairman of the National Economic the contempt order against Neri.
and Development Authority (NEDA), was involved in a  The Court highlighted several procedural lapses,
dispute with the Senate Committees on Accountability of including the failure to provide Neri with an
Public Officers and Investigations, Trade and Commerce, advance list of questions and the lack of a
and National Defense and Security. majority vote in the Senate Committees'
 The conflict arose from Neri's refusal to answer questions decision to cite Neri for contempt.
during a Senate inquiry into the National Broadband  The Senate Committees acted arbitrarily and
Network (NBN) project awarded to Zhong Xing precipitately in issuing the contempt order
Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE). without adequately addressing Neri's claim of
 Neri invoked executive privilege, claiming the information executive privilege.
sought was confidential communications between him
and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Case Summary (G.R. No. 180643)
 The Senate Committees issued a contempt order against Case Background and Facts
Neri for his refusal to answer, leading to his arrest and  The case revolves around the invocation of executive
detention. privilege by the President to prevent the disclosure of
 Neri filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, certain information during a legislative inquiry.
challenging the Senate's contempt order.  The National Broadband Project (NBN Project) is at the
 center of the case, a project awarded by the Department Raul M. Gonzalez, Alberto G. Romulo, Rene C. Villa, and
of Transportation and Communications to Zhong Xing Arthur C. Yap as acting secretaries.
Telecommunications Equipment.  The appointments were made while Congress was in
 Petitioner Romulo Neri disclosed during a Senate hearing session, and the Commission on Appointments was
that he was offered a bribe in exchange for his approval constituted on August 25, 2004.
of the NBN Project.
 Respondents took their oath of office and assumed
 Neri refused to answer questions regarding the their duties as acting secretaries.
President's involvement, invoking executive privilege.
 On September 23, 2004, President Arroyo issued ad
Court's Ruling on Executive Privilege
interim appointments to the respondents as
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the President's claim
secretaries of their respective departments.
of executive privilege.
 Petitioners argued that these appointments were
 The Court found that the communications elicited by the
unconstitutional as they were made without the
questions were covered by executive privilege, as they
consent of the Commission on Appointments while
related to a quintessential and non-delegable power of the
Congress was in session.
President and were received by a close advisor of the
President. Issue:
 The Court also found that the respondent Committees  Is the appointment of respondents as acting
failed to show a compelling need for the information that secretaries by President Arroyo without the consent of
would justify the limitation of the privilege. the Commission on Appointments while Congress is in
Importance of Executive Privilege session constitutional?
 The Court emphasized that executive privilege exists to Ruling:
protect public interest and ensure candid and objective  The Supreme Court ruled that the petition has no merit
communication between the President and his/her and dismissed the petition for certiorari and
advisors. prohibition.
 It recognized the importance of confidentiality in matters Ratio:
involving foreign negotiations and the potential impact on  The Court held that the power to appoint is essentially
diplomatic and economic relations. executive in nature, and the legislature may not
 The Court highlighted the need to balance the public's interfere with the exercise of this executive power
right to information and the President's need for except in instances where the Constitution expressly
confidentiality in the exercise of her functions. allows it.
Role of Congress and Limitations on Investigative  Limitations on the executive power to appoint are
Powers
construed strictly against the legislature.
 The Court rejected the argument that the information
 The Commission on Appointments, although
sought by the respondent Committees was critical to their
composed of members of Congress, exercises
legislative functions.
executive powers when it gives or withholds consent
 It emphasized that the role of Congress is to make laws,
to presidential appointments.
not to determine guilt or investigate wrongdoing.
 The Court addressed the issue of mootness, stating
 The Court stated that investigations conducted solely to
that the question of the constitutionality of the
gather incriminatory evidence are indefensible and that
President's appointment of department secretaries in
Congress cannot supplant the executive or judicial
an acting capacity while Congress is in session is
branches in their respective roles.
Conclusion
capable of repetition yet evading review, thus
warranting resolution.
 The Court upheld the President's claim of executive
privilege and found the respondent Committees to have  Regarding the petitioners' standing, the Court found
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the that only Senators Enrile, Lacson, Angara, Ejercito-
contempt order against Neri. Estrada, and Osmeña, who were members of the
 The Court emphasized the importance of executive Commission on Appointments, had standing to file the
privilege, the need to balance public interests, and the petition. The other petitioners, who were not members
limitations on Congress's investigative powers. of the Commission, did not have standing.
 On the constitutionality of the appointments, the Court
ruled that the President can issue appointments in an
acting capacity to department secretaries without the
consent of the Commission on Appointments even
Title
while Congress is in session.
Pimentel, Jr. vs. Ermita
Case  The Court cited Section 16, Article VII of the 1987
G.R. No. 164978 Constitution and Section 17, Chapter 5, Title I, Book III
Decision Date of Executive Order No. 292, which allows the President
Oct 13, 2005 to temporarily designate an officer already in the
A group of senators filed a petition to declare unconstitutional government service or any other competent person to
the appointments made by President Arroyo without the perform the functions of an office in the executive
consent of the Commission on Appointments, but the Supreme branch.
Court ruled that the appointments were constitutional, stating  Acting appointments are temporary and cannot
that the power to appoint is essentially executive in nature and exceed one year, thus preventing abuse.
the legislature cannot interfere except in instances when  The Court found no abuse in the present case as
limitations on the executive power to appoint are strictly President Arroyo issued ad interim appointments to
construed against the legislature. the respondents immediately upon the recess of
Congress.
Facts:
 In "Pimentel, Jr. v. Ermita," G.R. No. 164978, decided Case Summary (G.R. No. 164978)
on October 13, 2005, a group of senators filed a Case Background and Appointments Made
petition for certiorari and prohibition.  In the case of Pimentel, Jr. v. Ermita, a group of
 Petitioners included Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Edgardo senators filed a petition to declare unconstitutional the
J. Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada, appointments made by President Arroyo without the
Jinggoy E. Estrada, Panfilo M. Lacson, Alfredo S. Lim, consent of the Commission on Appointments.
Jamby A.S. Madrigal, and Sergio R. Osmeña III.  The appointments were made to Florencio B. Abad,
 They sought to declare unconstitutional the Avelino J. Cruz, Jr., Michael T. Defensor, Joseph H.
appointments made by President Gloria Macapagal- Durano, Raul M. Gonzalez, Alberto G. Romulo, Rene
Arroyo through Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita. C. Villa, and Arthur C. Yap as acting secretaries of
 Appointments were made to Florencio B. Abad, Avelino their respective departments.
J. Cruz, Jr., Michael T. Defensor, Joseph H. Durano,  The appointments were made between August 15,
 2004, and August 23, 2004. as Chairman of the Presidential Commission on
Argument of the Petitioners Good Government (PCGG) on October 30, 1998, and
 The petitioners argued that the appointments were later as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC).
unconstitutional because they were made without  Petitioners' Argument: Elma's concurrent
the consent of the Commission on Appointments appointments violated Section 7, paragraph 2,
while Congress was in session. Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution due to the
 They contended that only undersecretaries could be incompatibility of the offices.
designated as acting secretaries in case of a  Duties of CPLC: Include giving independent and
vacancy in the office of a secretary. impartial legal advice and reviewing investigations
 They claimed that appointments, whether regular or involving heads of executive departments, including
acting, to a vacant position of an office needing the PCGG Chairman.
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments,  Lower Court Ruling: In favor of the petitioners,
could not be made while Congress was in session declaring the concurrent appointments
without first obtaining its consent. unconstitutional.
Supreme Court's Ruling on Constitutionality  Respondent's Action: Elma sought reconsideration
 The Supreme Court ruled that the appointments and clarification of the decision and elevation of the
were constitutional. case to the Court en banc through an Omnibus
 The Court held that the power to appoint is Motion dated August 14, 2006.
essentially executive in nature and cannot be  Solicitor General's Action: Filed a similar Omnibus
interfered with by the legislature, except in Motion on behalf of the respondents on August 11,
instances when the limitations on the executive 2006.
power to appoint are strictly construed against the Issue:
legislature. 1. Are the concurrent appointments of Magdangal B.
 The Court stated that the scope of the legislature's Elma as PCGG Chairman and CPLC unconstitutional
interference in the executive's power to appoint is due to the incompatibility of the offices?
limited to the power to prescribe the qualifications 2. Does the ruling render both appointments void?
to an appointive office. 3. Should the case be elevated to the Court en banc
 The Court emphasized that Congress cannot for resolution?
appoint a person to an office in the guise of Ruling:
prescribing qualifications to that office, nor can it 1. Unconstitutionality: Yes, the concurrent
impose on the President the duty to appoint any appointments of Magdangal B. Elma as PCGG
particular person to an office. Chairman and CPLC are unconstitutional due to the
Standing of the Petitioners incompatibility of the offices.
 The Court addressed the issue of standing, stating 2. Effect on Appointments: No, the ruling does not
that only the members of the Commission on render both appointments void. Instead, Elma had
Appointments who were petitioners in the case had effectively vacated his first office as PCGG
standing. Chairman when he accepted the second office as
 The prerogatives of the members of the CPLC.
Commission on Appointments were impaired by the 3. Elevation to Court en banc: No, the case should not
President's appointments, giving them standing in be elevated to the Court en banc as it does not
the case. involve the constitutionality of any treaty, law, or
agreement, but merely the application of
 The other petitioners, who were members of
constitutional provisions.
Congress but not members of the Commission on
Ratio:
Appointments, did not have standing in the case.
Conclusion and Dismissal of the Petition  Constitutional Violation: The Supreme Court ruled
that the concurrent appointments of Magdangal B.
 The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling
Elma as PCGG Chairman and CPLC were
that the appointments made by President Arroyo
unconstitutional because they violated Section 7,
without the consent of the Commission on
paragraph 2, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution,
Appointments were constitutional.
which prohibits holding incompatible offices.
 The Court held that the President has the power to
appoint acting secretaries even while Congress is in
 Conflict of Interest: The duties of the CPLC include
providing independent and impartial legal advice
session.
and reviewing investigations involving heads of
 Congress cannot interfere with the executive's
executive departments, including the PCGG
power to appoint, except in prescribing
Chairman, creating a conflict of interest and making
qualifications to an appointive office.
the offices incompatible.
 Section 13, Article VII: This section, which restricts
the holding of multiple offices, did not apply in this
case as neither the PCGG Chairman nor the CPLC is
Title
a secretary, undersecretary, or assistant secretary.
Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Elma
 Primary Functions: Even if Section 13, Article VII did
Case
apply, the primary functions of the PCGG Chairman
G.R. No. 138965
do not require the appointment as CPLC, and the
Decision Date
waiver of remuneration for the second appointment
Mar 5, 2007
does not cure the defect of incompatibility.
The court declares the concurrent appointments of Elma as
PCGG Chairman and CPLC as unconstitutional due to being
 Vacating Office: Elma's acceptance of the second
office as CPLC effectively vacated his first office as
incompatible offices, but the ruling does not render both
PCGG Chairman, following the common-law rule on
appointments void.
incompatibility of offices.
Facts:  Motion Denied: The Court denied the respondents'
motion for reconsideration and for elevation of the
 Petitioners: Public Interest Center, Inc., Laureano T.
case to the Court en banc, stating that the case did
Angeles, and Jocelyn P. Celestino.
not involve the constitutionality of any treaty, law, or
 Respondents: Magdangal B. Elma and Ronaldo
agreement, and thus did not require en banc
Zamora.
consideration.
 Appointments: Magdangal B. Elma was appointed
 No Modification: The decision did not modify the
ruling in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,
and Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89 specifies that Title
the Court en banc is not an appellate court for Career Executive Service Board vs. Commission on
decisions or resolutions of a Division Audit
Case
Background and Appointments G.R. No. 212348
 The case involves the concurrent appointments of Decision Date
Magdangal B. Elma as Chairman of the Presidential Jun 19, 2018
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and The court rules that the Commission on Audit did not
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC).
commit grave abuse of discretion in disallowing
 Elma was appointed as PCGG Chairman on October monetary benefits granted by the Career Executive
30, 1998, and later accepted the appointment as
Service Board, but officials and employees are not
CPLC.
required to refund the amounts due to their good faith.
 Elma waived any remuneration for the second Facts:
appointment.
 The case "Career Executive Service Board v.
Unconstitutionality of Concurrent Appointments
Commission on Audit" (G.R. No. 212348) was
 The Court declared that the concurrent
decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines
appointments of Elma as PCGG Chairman and
on June 19, 2018.
CPLC were unconstitutional.
 The Court ruled that this violated Section 7, par. 2,  The petitioner, Career Executive Service Board
Article IX-B of the Constitution. (CESB), was represented by Executive Director
Maria Anthonette Velasco-Allones.
 The strict prohibition under Section 13, Article VII of
the Constitution did not apply in this case, as  Respondents included the Commission on Audit
neither the PCGG Chairman nor the CPLC is a (COA), the Audit Team Leader of CESB, and the
secretary, undersecretary, or assistant secretary. Supervising Auditor of the National Government
 However, if the rule under Section 13, Article VII Sector.
were applicable, the incompatibility of these two  The dispute arose from COA Decision No. 2010-
offices would be even more evident. 121, which upheld a Notice of Disallowance (ND)
 Section 13, Article VII allows for the concurrent regarding payments made to CESB officials and
holding of positions only when the second post is employees for Calendar Years 2002 and 2003.
required by the primary functions of the first  Payments were made under a Collective
appointment and is exercised in an ex-officio Negotiation Agreement (CNA) with the employee
capacity. organization Samahan ng Kawaning Nagkakaisa
 In this case, the primary functions of the PCGG sa Diwa, Gawa at Nilalayon (SANDIGAN).
Chairman do not require the appointment as CPLC.  The questioned benefits included fringe benefits,
Effect on Appointments rice subsidy allowances, birthday cash gifts,
 The Court ruled that Elma's concurrent Christmas groceries, loyalty awards, retirement
appointments as PCGG Chairman and CPLC were benefits, and funeral assistance.
unconstitutional.
 An Audit Observation Memorandum raised
 However, this did not render both appointments concerns about the legality of these payments,
void.
leading to ND No. 2004-67, which claimed the
 According to the common-law rule on payments lacked legal authority.
incompatibility of offices, Elma effectively vacated
 CESB's appeals against the disallowance were
his first office as PCGG Chairman when he
unsuccessful, resulting in COA's affirmation of
accepted the second office as CPLC.
the decision.
Motion for Reconsideration and Referral to Court En
Banc
Issue:
 The Court denied the respondents' motion for  Did the COA commit grave abuse of discretion in
reconsideration, as no substantial arguments were affirming the disallowance of the monetary
presented that had not already been addressed. benefits granted by the CESB?
 The Court also rejected the respondents' motion to  Did the COA err in ordering the refund of the
refer the case to the Court en banc. amounts received by the CESB employees?
 The issue at hand was the constitutionality of Ruling:
Elma's concurrent appointments, not the  The Supreme Court ruled that the COA did not
constitutionality of any treaty, law, or agreement. commit grave abuse of discretion in disallowing
 The mere application of constitutional provisions the monetary benefits granted by the CESB.
does not require the case to be heard and decided  The Court modified the COA's decision, stating
en banc. that CESB officials and employees who received
 The decision in this case does not modify the ruling the disallowed benefits were not required to
in another case. refund the amounts due to their good faith.
 The Court en banc is not an appellate court to Ratio:
which decisions or resolutions of a division may be  The Court emphasized the COA's role as the
appealed. guardian of public funds, as established by the
Conclusion 1987 Constitution.
 The Court declared the concurrent appointments of  The COA acted within its constitutional mandate
Elma as PCGG Chairman and CPLC as to prevent irregular and unauthorized
unconstitutional due to being incompatible offices. government expenditures.
 The Court denied the respondents' motion for  The CESB's argument that the benefits were
reconsideration and for elevation of the case to the
justified by savings and authorized by the
Court en banc.
Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
was rejected.
 The Court noted that the DBM lacked authority to
determine benefits under the CNA, and CESB had
 no legal authority to use its savings for such  Therefore, the Court declared that the CESB
payments. officials and employees are not required to
 Benefits provided were not subject to negotiation refund the disallowed amounts due to their good
under existing laws. faith.
 The Court acknowledged the good faith of CESB Conclusion
officials and employees, asserting they acted  The Supreme Court upheld the disallowance of
under the honest belief that the payments were the monetary benefits granted by the CESB.
lawful.  However, the officials and employees of CESB
 This good faith was deemed sufficient to absolve are exempted from refunding the amounts due to
them from any obligation to refund the their good faith.
disallowed amounts, aligning with previous
jurisprudence emphasizing fairness in public
service.
Title
Lagman vs. Pimentel III
Case Background and Disallowed Monetary Benefits
Case
 The case involves the disallowance of monetary G.R. No. 235935
benefits granted by the Career Executive Service Decision Date
Board (CESB) to its officials and employees. Feb 6, 2018
The Court upholds the constitutionality of the extension of martial law
 The CESB granted various monetary benefits in in Mindanao, citing an ongoing rebellion and the President's discretion,
2002 and 2003 based on a Collective Negotiation while emphasizing the Congress' authority to extend martial law if
Agreement (CNA) with the Samahan ng public safety requires it.
Kawaning Nagkakaisa sa Diwa, Gawa at
Facts:
Nilalayon (SANDIGAN), an organization of its
 On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued
employees. Proclamation No. 216, declaring martial law and suspending
 The benefits included fringe benefits, rice the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao due to
subsidy allowance, birthday cash gift, Christmas the rebellion by the Maute Group and other rebel factions.
grocery, loyalty award, retirement benefits, and  The initial proclamation was for 60 days, and Congress
supported it after the President's report.
funeral assistance.
Notice of Disallowance by the Commission on Audit  The Supreme Court upheld the proclamation's
constitutionality in Lagman v. Medialdea.
(COA)
 On July 22, 2017, Congress extended martial law until
 The Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice December 31, 2017.
of Disallowance (ND) stating that the payment of  Despite the liberation of Marawi City on October 17, 2017, the
these monetary benefits had no legal support. President requested another extension on December 8, 2017,
 The COA argued that the benefits were not citing ongoing threats from various rebel groups.

allowed under existing laws and regulations and  Congress, in a joint session on December 13, 2017, adopted
Resolution of Both Houses No. 4, extending martial law in
were not negotiable under the CNA.
Mindanao for another year, from January 1 to December 31,
 The COA also found that the CESB did not have 2018.
the legal authority to use its savings for the  Several petitioners challenged this decision, leading to
payment of these benefits. consolidated cases before the Supreme Court.
Appeal and Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition Issue:
1. Does the persistence of rebellion in Mindanao justify the
 The CESB appealed the COA's decision, but the extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege
COA affirmed the disallowance of the monetary of the writ of habeas corpus?
benefits. 2. Does public safety require the extension of martial law in
Mindanao?
 The CESB then filed a petition for certiorari and
3. Is the inclusion of the New People's Army (NPA) rebellion as
prohibition before the Supreme Court, arguing a basis for the extension valid?
that the COA committed grave abuse of 4. Is the one-year period of extension reasonable and justified?
discretion in affirming the disallowance and Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that there is sufficient factual basis
ordering the refund of the amounts received by
for the extension of martial law in Mindanao, as the rebellion
the CESB employees. persists.
Supreme Court Decision and Legal Grounds 2. The Court found that public safety requires the extension of
 The Supreme Court upheld the COA's martial law in Mindanao.
3. The inclusion of the NPA rebellion as a basis for the
disallowance of the monetary benefits, stating
extension is valid.
that it was based on cogent legal grounds. 4. The one-year period of extension is reasonable and justified.
 The Court emphasized that the COA has the Ratio:
power to determine and disallow irregular,  The Court emphasized that the persistence of rebellion by
unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or various groups, including the Maute Group, the Bangsamoro
Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF), and the Abu Sayyaf Group
unconscionable expenditures of government
(ASG), justifies the extension of martial law.
funds.
 The Court noted that these groups continue to recruit, train,
 The CESB's argument that it had the authority to and plan attacks, posing a significant threat to public safety.
grant the benefits based on a Department of  The inclusion of the NPA rebellion was deemed valid as it
Budget and Management (DBM) circular was intensified its activities, contributing to the overall threat in
rejected by the Court, as the DBM did not have Mindanao.

the authority to determine and authorize the  The Court found the one-year extension reasonable, given the
complexity and scale of the threats, and the need for a
additional compensations agreed upon in the comprehensive approach to ensure public safety and order.
CNA.  The Court underscored the importance of the President's
Recognition of Good Faith discretion and Congress' authority in determining the
 The Court recognized the good faith of the CESB necessity and duration of martial law, provided there is
sufficient factual basis and adherence to constitutional
officials who authorized the payment of the
safeguards.
benefits and the employees who received them. Additional Facts:
 The Court cited previous rulings that good faith  The case involves the extension of martial law in Mindanao,
can be a valid defense for public officials and Philippines, initiated by President Rodrigo Duterte.
employees who received disallowed payments.  On December 8, 2017, President Duterte requested Congress
 to extend martial law and the suspension of the privilege of Court's Ruling
the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao for one year, from  The court ruled that the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) must
January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018. associate an act of rebellion with terrorism in order to involve
 This request was based on letters from AFP Chief of Staff itself during a state of martial law.
General Rey Leonardo B. Guerrero and Secretary of National  The court clarified that martial law does not automatically
Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana, citing ongoing threats from curtail civil liberties and individual freedom, as the
various terrorist groups, including remnants of the Maute Constitution provides safeguards to protect human rights.
Group, the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF), and
the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG).
 The alleged human rights violations are deemed irrelevant in
determining the sufficiency of factual basis for extending
 The President's letter highlighted the continued recruitment martial law.
and training activities of these groups, their financial and
logistical build-up, and their plans for future attacks.
 The court held that the President cannot be sued during his
tenure due to presidential privilege of immunity from suit.
 Congress, after a joint session and extensive debate,
 The Congress was deemed an indispensable party to the
approved the extension through Resolution of Both Houses
case, and the court found that the failure to implead the entire
No. 4 on December 13, 2017.
Congress was a procedural misstep.
 The petitioners challenged the extension, arguing that there
 The court clarified that the doctrine of conclusiveness of
was no sufficient factual basis for it and that the extension
judgment does not bar the examination of the persistence of
violated constitutional limits on the duration of martial law.
rebellion in Mindanao.
Additional Issue:
1. Is there sufficient factual basis for the one-year extension of
martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus in Mindanao?
2. Did Congress act within its constitutional authority in
extending martial law for one year?
3. Does the extension of martial law violate the constitutional
mandate of a limited duration for such declarations? Title
Additional Ruling: Saint Wealth Ltd. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue
 The Supreme Court ruled that there was sufficient factual Case
basis for the extension of martial law in Mindanao.
G.R. No. 252965
 The Court found that the threats from various terrorist groups,
Decision Date
including the Maute Group, BIFF, and ASG, justified the
extension. Dec 7, 2021
 The Court held that Congress acted within its constitutional The Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of tax
authority in extending martial law for one year. regulations and laws challenged by offshore-based
 The Court determined that the extension did not violate the Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs), ruling
constitutional mandate of a limited duration for martial law that they do not violate the constitutional rights of the
declarations.
petitioners and are within the powers of the Bureau of
Additional Ratio:
Internal Revenue (BIR).
 The Court's decision was based on the evidence presented by
the President and the AFP, which showed that the remnants
of terrorist groups continued to pose a significant threat to Facts:
public safety in Mindanao.  The case involves consolidated petitions by Saint
 The Court noted that the recruitment and training activities of Wealth Ltd. and other offshore-based Philippine
these groups, their financial and logistical build-up, and their
Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs) against the
plans for future attacks justified the extension of martial law.
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the
 The Court emphasized that the Constitution grants Congress
the authority to determine the period of extension for martial Department of Finance (DOF).
law, and that Congress had acted within this authority in  Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of
approving the one-year extension. Section 11 (f) and (g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
 The Court further held that the extension did not violate the 11494, also known as the Bayanihan to Recover
constitutional mandate of a limited duration for martial law
declarations, as the Constitution allows for extensions if the
as One Act (Bayanihan 2 Law).
conditions for martial law persist.  They also contested Revenue Regulations (RR)
No. 30-2020, Revenue Memorandum Circular
Case Summary (G.R. No. 235935) (RMC) No. 64-2020, RMC No. 102-2017, and RMC
Background of the Case
No. 78-2018.
 The case involves consolidated petitions challenging the
constitutionality of the extension of martial law and  These regulations imposed various taxes on
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in POGOs, including a 5% franchise tax on gross
Mindanao, Philippines. gaming revenues and other taxes on non-gaming
 The petitioners argue that there is insufficient factual basis operations.
for the extension and that the President should be held
 Petitioners argued that these tax impositions
accountable for non-compliance with constitutional
requirements. violated their constitutional rights and were
 The Court is asked to determine the scope and standards of beyond the powers of the BIR.
judicial review in this case.  The Supreme Court decided the case on
Arguments of the Petitioners December 7, 2021, with Justice Gaerlan as the
 The petitioners argue that there is no sufficient factual basis ponente.
for the extension of martial law in Mindanao.
Issue:
 They claim that there is no actual rebellion in Mindanao and
1. Whether Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2
that the President and Congress failed to provide clear
evidence to justify the extension. Law and the Assailed Tax Issuances are
 Petitioners also raise concerns about human rights violations unconstitutional for being riders and violating the
and the suppression of civil liberties under martial law. "one subject, one title" rule.
Arguments of the Respondents 2. Whether the BIR's imposition of taxes on
 The respondents argue that the extension of martial law is offshore-based POGO licensees violates the
necessary due to the ongoing rebellion in Mindanao and the
principles of territoriality and uniformity of
threat to public safety.
taxation.
 They assert that the burden of proof lies with Congress and
that the extension enjoys the presumption of constitutionality. 3. Whether the BIR's revenue issuances have a
Issues to be Determined by the Court statutory basis and are within the scope of its
 The Court must determine whether there is sufficient factual quasi-legislative powers.
basis for the extension of martial law in Mindanao. Ruling:
 The Court must also determine whether the extension  The Supreme Court granted the petitions.
violates the Constitution.
  Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law, RR  The case discusses the issue of whether
No. 30-2020, RMC No. 64-2020, RMC No. 102- offshore-based POGO licensees are considered
2017, and RMC No. 78-2018 were declared null to be "doing business" in the Philippines and
and void. subject to taxation.
 The Court ruled that these provisions and  Various tests are discussed, including the
issuances were unconstitutional and had no Substance Test, Contract Test, Intention Test,
statutory basis for imposing taxes on offshore- and Actual Performance Test.
based POGO licensees.  The court concludes that offshore-based POGO
Ratio: licensees are not considered to be "doing
 The Court found Section 11 (f) and (g) of the business" in the Philippines.
Bayanihan 2 Law unconstitutional for being riders,  Limited presence in the Philippines and
as they introduced new tax measures not related transactions not performed within the country's
to the law's subject of providing COVID-19 relief. jurisdiction support this conclusion.
 The Bayanihan 2 Law was intended as a Challenges of Taxing the Digital Economy
temporary relief measure, not a tax measure, and  The court acknowledges the complexities
the imposition of new taxes was not brought about by the digital economy, particularly
contemplated by its title or purpose. in relation to online gaming and gambling.
 The BIR's revenue issuances lacked statutory  Revised tax treaties and laws are needed to
basis, as the PAGCOR Charter did not authorize address these challenges.
the imposition of taxes on offshore-based POGO Unconstitutionality of Section 11 (f) and (g) of the
licensees. Bayanihan 2 Law
 The principle of territoriality in taxation was  The court declares that these provisions are
violated, as the income-generating activities of unconstitutional for being riders.
offshore-based POGOs occurred outside the  They go beyond the scope of the law's title and
Philippines. are not related to its purpose.
 The BIR overstepped its quasi-legislative powers Conclusion and Validity of Tax Impositions
by issuing regulations that effectively amended  Offshore-based POGO licensees are not subject
existing laws without congressional approval. to taxation in the Philippines.
 Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law are
invalidated.
Case Summary (G.R. No. 252965)  The validity of the imposition of a 5% franchise
Case Background and Petitions tax on POGO Licensees should be resolved in a
 The case involves the constitutionality of tax separate case.
regulations and laws challenged by offshore-
based Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators
(POGOs). Title
 Two petitions were filed by Saint Wealth Ltd. and Mohamed vs. Republic
other offshore-based POGO licensees. Case
 The petitioners sought to annul and set aside G.R. No. 220674
various tax issuances, including Section 11 (f) Decision Date
and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law. Dec 2, 2021
 The tax issuances imposed a 5% franchise tax on A Sudanese national's application for Philippine citizenship
is denied by the Supreme Court due to failure to comply with
the gross bets or turnovers earned by POGOs, as
filing period, lack of sufficient evidence, and void premature
well as income tax, value-added tax (VAT), and
administration of oath of allegiance.
other applicable taxes on income from non-
gaming operations.
Facts:
Constitutional Rights Violation Claims
 Sefyan Abdelhakim Mohamed, a Sudanese national,
 The petitioners argued that the tax regulations married Filipino citizen Lailanie N. Piano.
and laws violated their constitutional rights,
 Arrived in Manila in 1991 and recognized as a
including the right to equal protection and due convention refugee in 2005.
process.
 Works as a Public Relations Officer at the Qatar
 They claimed that there was no reasonable Embassy with a monthly income of $800.
classification between offshore-based POGO  Applied for Philippine citizenship on June 2, 2006,
licensees and Philippine-based entities. and filed a Declaration of Intention with the Office
 They also argued that the tax impositions were of the Solicitor General (OSG).
arbitrary and confiscatory.  Submitted a Supplemental Declaration of Intention
Supreme Court Decision on July 20, 2007, stating an additional name.
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bureau  Filed a Petition for Naturalization before the
of Internal Revenue (BIR) and upheld the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch
constitutionality of the tax regulations and laws. 114, on August 21, 2007.
 Offshore-based POGO licensees are not liable to  RTC granted his application on October 7, 2009,
pay a 5% franchise tax for income derived from ruling he had all qualifications and no
their gaming operations. disqualifications for naturalization.
 Offshore-based POGO licensees are not liable to  Moved to take his oath as a Filipino citizen on
pay income tax, VAT, and other applicable taxes September 20, 2011; RTC granted this motion on
for income derived from their non-gaming September 24, 2012.
operations.  Took his oath on October 24, 2012.
 Section 11 (f) and (g) of the Bayanihan 2 Law are  OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), citing
unconstitutional for being riders, as they were not procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.
related to the purpose of the law.  CA reversed the RTC's decision on February 25,
Clarification on Taxability of Offshore-based POGO 2015, dismissing Mohamed's petition for
Licensees naturalization without prejudice.
  Mohamed sought reconsideration, which was  The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision,
denied, leading to this petition before the Supreme emphasizing the importance of ensuring that only
Court. fully qualified individuals are granted Philippine
Issue: citizenship through naturalization.
1. Did Mohamed comply with the one-year period  The burden of proof rests upon the applicant to
required for filing the Declaration of Intention before show strict compliance with the requirements of
the petition for naturalization? the law.
2. Did Mohamed provide sufficient evidence to prove  Mohamed failed to comply with the one-year filing
his qualifications and absence of disqualifications requirement and introduced a substantial change in
for naturalization? his declaration of intention, affecting the
3. Was the administration of Mohamed's oath of government's ability to investigate his qualifications.
allegiance valid?  Mohamed also failed to provide sufficient evidence
Ruling: of his qualifications and character, and his
1. No, Mohamed did not comply with the one-year witnesses' testimonies were general and lacked
period required for filing the Declaration of Intention personal knowledge.
before the petition for naturalization.  His premature oath of allegiance was rendered void.
2. No, Mohamed did not provide sufficient evidence to Clarification on the 1951 Refugee Convention
prove his qualifications and absence of
 The Court clarified that the 1951 Refugee
disqualifications for naturalization.
Convention, to which the Philippines is a signatory,
3. No, the administration of Mohamed's oath of
does not waive all the legal requirements for
allegiance was not valid.
naturalization.
Ratio:
 While the Convention aims to facilitate and expedite
 The Supreme Court emphasized that naturalization the naturalization of refugees, it must be read in
is a statutory privilege, not a right, requiring strict
consonance with Philippine statutory requirements.
compliance with all legal requirements.
 Mohamed's status as a convention refugee does
 Mohamed's filing of his petition for naturalization not exempt him from complying with the law.
less than one year after submitting his
Denial of Mohamed's Petition and Remand to the RTC
Supplemental Declaration of Intention was a
 The Court denied Mohamed's petition and affirmed
jurisdictional defect.
the CA's decision, with modifications.
 The one-year period is crucial for the OSG to
 The case was remanded to the RTC for further
investigate the applicant's qualifications.
proceedings.
 Mohamed failed to provide sufficient evidence,
 The OSG was given a fresh period of one year to
such as a medical certificate, to prove his mental
conduct its investigation and submit compliance to
and physical fitness.
the RTC.
 The testimonies of his witnesses were general and
 This decision aligns with the intent of the 1951
lacked specific facts to support his qualifications.
Refugee Convention and the country's commitment
 The administration of Mohamed's oath of to facilitating the naturalization of refugees.
allegiance was premature, occurring before the
expiration of the Government's period to appeal,
rendering it void.
 The Court reiterated that naturalization laws must
be strictly construed in favor of the government and
against the applicant.
 The case was remanded to the RTC for further
proceedings, with the OSG given a fresh one-year
period to investigate Mohamed's qualifications, in
line with the Philippines' international commitments
under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Title
Republic vs. Provincial Government of Palawan
Case
Background of the Case G.R. No. 170867
 Sefyan Abdelhakim Mohamed, a Sudanese national, Decision Date
applied for Philippine citizenship through Jan 21, 2020
naturalization. The case revolves around the entitlement of the Province
 Mohamed is married to a Filipino citizen and is of Palawan to a share in the proceeds of the Camago-
recognized as a convention refugee. Malampaya Natural Gas Project, with the Supreme Court
 He filed his application in 2006 and was granted ultimately ruling that the province is not entitled to such
naturalization by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in share due to its limited territorial jurisdiction and the
2009. absence of a basis for equity.
 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed
the decision, arguing that Mohamed failed to Facts:
comply with the required filing period and provide  The case "Republic of the Philippines v.
sufficient evidence. Provincial Government of Palawan" involves the
Reversal of Decision by the Court of Appeals entitlement of the Province of Palawan to a share
 The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's in the proceeds from the Camago-Malampaya
decision in 2015. Natural Gas Project.
 The CA found that Mohamed filed his petition for  The Republic, through the Department of Energy
naturalization less than one year after submitting
(DOE), Department of Finance (DOF), and
his Supplemental Declaration of Intention, violating
Department of Budget and Management (DBM),
the one-year filing requirement.
entered into Service Contract No. 38 on
 Mohamed also failed to provide competent
December 11, 1990, with Shell Philippines
evidence to prove his mental and physical fitness.
Exploration B.V. and Occidental Philippines for
 His oath of allegiance was administered
drilling natural gas reservoirs in the Camago-
prematurely.
Malampaya area, about 80 kilometers from
Supreme Court's Affirmation of the CA's Decision
 mainland Palawan. Malampaya area, which is located in the
 The contract established a 60-40 production continental shelf and beyond the province's land
sharing scheme, with the national government area.
receiving 60% of the net proceeds and the  The Court emphasized that a local government
service contractors receiving 40%. unit's territorial jurisdiction is limited to its land
 Over time, the service contractors were replaced area unless expanded by law to include maritime
by a consortium including Shell B.V., Shell areas.
Philippines LLC, Chevron Malampaya LLC, and  The Constitution and the Local Government Code
PNOC Exploration Corporation. do not grant Palawan jurisdiction over the
 On February 17, 1998, President Fidel V. Ramos continental shelf where the natural gas reservoirs
issued Administrative Order No. 381, indicating are located.
that part of the national government's 60% share  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the
would be allocated to the concerned local Sea (UNCLOS) confers rights over the continental
government units, including Palawan. shelf to the sovereign state, not to any local
 The Department of Finance later opined that government unit. Therefore, the rights over the
Palawan was not entitled to a share as its Camago-Malampaya area pertain to the national
territorial jurisdiction did not extend beyond 15 government.
kilometers from its coastline.  The Court ruled that the State cannot be
 Despite this, negotiations continued, and various estopped by the acts of its officials, such as the
agreements were made, including an Interim issuance of Administrative Order No. 381 and
Agreement in 2005 and a Provisional Executive Order No. 683, which recognized
Implementation Agreement in 2007, which Palawan's share in the proceeds. These acts do
allowed for the release of funds to Palawan for not have the force of law to alter the territorial
development projects. jurisdiction defined by the Constitution and the
 The Province of Palawan filed a Petition for Local Government Code.
Declaratory Relief in 2003, seeking judicial  The principle of equity does not apply in this case.
determination of its rights under various laws The environmental and socio-economic impacts
and orders. of the Natural Gas Project have been addressed
 The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of through the Environmental Compliance
Palawan in 2005, but the Republic filed a Petition Certificate issued to the Shell Consortium, which
for Review with the Supreme Court in 2006. includes provisions for an Environmental
 The case was consolidated with another petition Guarantee Fund to cover any potential damages.
filed by Bishop Pedro Dulay Arigo and others,  The funds released to Palawan under Executive
who challenged the validity of Executive Order No. Order No. 683 were intended to augment the
683 and the Provisional Implementation province's resources for its constituents and
Agreement. should not be returned.
 The Supreme Court ultimately ruled on December
4, 2018, that Palawan was not entitled to a share Background of the Case
in the proceeds, a decision reaffirmed upon  The case involves the entitlement of the Province
motions for reconsideration in 2020. of Palawan to a share in the proceeds of the
Issue: Camago-Malampaya Natural Gas Project.
1. Is the Province of Palawan entitled to a 40%  The Supreme Court ruled that the province does
equitable share in the proceeds from the not have territorial jurisdiction over the project
Camago-Malampaya Natural Gas Project under and is not entitled to a share.
Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution and Contract and Expectations
Section 290 of the Local Government Code?  The Republic, through the Department of Energy,
2. Does the Province of Palawan have territorial entered into a service contract with Shell
jurisdiction over the Camago-Malampaya natural Philippines Exploration B.V. and Occidental
gas reservoirs? Philippines for the drilling of natural gas
3. Can the State be estopped by the acts of its reservoirs in the Camago-Malampaya area.
officials in recognizing Palawan's share in the  The contract provided for a 60-40 production
proceeds? sharing scheme, with the national government
4. Is the Province of Palawan entitled to a share in receiving 60% of the net proceeds and the
the proceeds based on equity? service contractors receiving 40%.
Ruling:  Later, the service contractors were replaced by a
1. The Supreme Court ruled that the Province of consortium of Shell B.V., Shell Philippines LLC,
Palawan is not entitled to a 40% equitable share Chevron Malampaya LLC, and PNOC Exploration
in the proceeds from the Camago-Malampaya Corporation.
Natural Gas Project.  President Fidel V. Ramos issued a directive
2. The Court held that the Province of Palawan does stating that the Province of Palawan was
not have territorial jurisdiction over the Camago- expected to receive about US$2.1 billion from the
Malampaya natural gas reservoirs. total government share of US$8.1 billion
3. The Court ruled that the State cannot be throughout the contract's 20-year period.
estopped by the acts of its officials in  The Department of Finance took the position that
recognizing Palawan's share in the proceeds. the province did not have a share in the national
4. The Court found that the Province of Palawan is wealth from the proceeds of the Natural Gas
not entitled to a share in the proceeds based on Project.
equity. Petition for Declaratory Relief
Ratio:  Negotiations were held between the national
 The Supreme Court clarified that under existing government and the Province of Palawan to
law, the Province of Palawan does not have determine the province's expected share in the
territorial jurisdiction over the Camago- net proceeds of the project.
 Since the national government would not grant respect and should be upheld unless in clear
the province's expected share, the province filed conflict with the law.
a petition for declaratory relief seeking a judicial Proximity and Environmental Repercussions
determination of its rights.  The Province of Palawan argues that it should be
 The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the entitled to its share based on equity, considering
Province of Palawan, but the Republic filed a its proximity to the Natural Gas Project and the
petition for review before the Supreme Court. potential environmental repercussions.
Supreme Court Decision  The Court notes that the environmental and
 In its December 4, 2018 decision, the Supreme socio-economic impact of the project has been
Court reversed the trial court's decision and addressed through an Environmental Compliance
declared that the Province of Palawan was not Certificate, which includes provisions for
entitled to a share in the proceeds of the Natural environmental monitoring, rehabilitation, and
Gas Project. compensation for affected fisherfolks.
 The Court held that the province did not have Executive Order and Funds
territorial jurisdiction over the project, as its  The Court also considers the Executive Order
jurisdiction is limited to its land area and does issued by then President Macapagal-Arroyo,
not extend to marine waters beyond 15 which authorized the release of funds to the
kilometers from its coastline. Province of Palawan for development projects.
Motion for Reconsideration  The Court finds that the Province of Palawan
 The Province of Palawan filed a motion for need not return the funds it received, as it was a
reconsideration, arguing that the Camago- reasonable presumption that both the national
Malampaya gas reservoirs are within its territorial government and the province intended to provide
jurisdiction. for the general welfare at the time the funds were
 It also argued that it is entitled to its share based made available.
on equity, as it is the nearest local government Final Decision
unit capable of providing immediate assistance  In conclusion, the Supreme Court denies the
and services in the area. motions for reconsideration and affirms its
 The Republic countered that there is no law previous decision.
granting the province territorial jurisdiction over  The Province of Palawan is not entitled to an
the continental shelf where the gas reservoirs are equitable share in the proceeds of the Natural
located. Gas Project, as the Camago-Malampaya
 The Court upheld its previous decision, stating reservoirs are not within its territorial jurisdiction.
that the province's territorial jurisdiction does not  The Province of Palawan is also not required to
extend to the gas reservoirs and that the return the funds it received under functus officio.
principle of equity does not apply in this case.
Interpretation of Local Government Code
 This case involves the interpretation and
implementation of Article 290 of the Local
Government Code, which provides for the
equitable share of local government units in the
proceeds of natural resources within their
territorial jurisdiction.
 The specific issue in this case is whether the
Province of Palawan is entitled to an equitable
share in the proceeds of the Natural Gas Project.
 The Supreme Court clarifies that the territorial
jurisdiction of a local government unit extends
not only to the land area but also to the waters
found inland and any area that is part of its
seabed, subsoil, or continental margin.
 However, the Court notes that none of the maps
or relevant laws conclusively prove that the
Camago-Malampaya natural gas reservoirs are
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Province of
Palawan.
Prior Acts and Recognition
 The Court also considers the prior acts of the
Republic, which repeatedly recognized the
Province of Palawan's entitlement to its claimed
share in the Natural Gas Project.
 The Court acknowledges that the Province of
Palawan relied on these prior recognitions and
cannot be faulted for doing so.
 The executive branch also made efforts to fulfill
its commitments to the Province of Palawan,
including the execution of an Interim Agreement
and a Provisional Implementation Agreement.
 However, the Court emphasizes that the
executive branch's interpretation and
Title
implementation of the equitable share and
Rehman Sabir vs. Department of Justice-Refugees and
territorial jurisdiction provisions in Article 290 of
Stateless Persons Protection Unit
the Local Government Code are entitled to great
Case Partial Reconsideration
G.R. No. 249387 In the case of Rehman Sabir vs. Department of Justice-
Decision Date Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit (DOJ-
Mar 8, 2023 RSPPU), the Supreme Court addressed a Motion for Partial
The Supreme Court denied Rehman Sabir's motion for Reconsideration filed by Sabir. Sabir sought to be declared a
partial reconsideration, upholding the remand of his refugee bona fide refugee due to religious persecution in Pakistan.
application to the DOJ-RSPPU for further proceedings, The Court upheld its previous decision to remand the case
emphasizing the shared burden of proof between the to the DOJ-RSPPU for further proceedings, emphasizing the
applicant and the protection officer in evaluating claims of need for a fair and thorough evaluation of Sabir's claims.
persecution.  Sabir filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
 He sought recognition as a bona fide refugee due to
Facts: religious persecution.
 Petitioner Rehman Sabir sought to be declared a  The Supreme Court upheld its decision to remand
bona fide refugee due to fear of religious the case for further evaluation.
persecution in Pakistan. Introduction of DOJ Circular No. 024, Series of 2022
 Sabir claimed he faced forced conversion to Islam The Court noted the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 024,
and threats to his life, supported by country of series of 2022, which introduced significant changes to the
origin information (COI) on Christian persecution in refugee status determination process. These changes
Pakistan. included the principle of non-refoulement and a streamlined
 The Department of Justice-Refugees and Stateless application procedure. The Circular also clarified the shared
Persons Protection Unit (DOJ-RSPPU) initially burden of proof between the applicant and the protection
denied his application, focusing on his non- officer.
prosecution for blasphemy rather than the core  DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022, was
issue of religious persecution. introduced.
 Sabir's appeal to the Court of Appeals was also  Significant changes included the principle of non-
denied, leading him to file a petition with the refoulement.
Supreme Court.  The application procedure was streamlined.
 On August 2, 2022, the Supreme Court partly  The Circular clarified the shared burden of proof.
granted his petition, reversing the Court of Appeals' Emphasis on Fair Evaluation and Active Assistance
decision and remanding the case to the DOJ-RSPPU The Court stressed that refugee applications should be
for further proceedings. evaluated on their merits. It emphasized that the protection
 Sabir filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration on officer must actively assist applicants in substantiating their
December 27, 2022, seeking to be declared a bona claims. The case was remanded to the DOJ-RSPPU for re-
fide refugee outright. examination in accordance with the new guidelines.
 The Supreme Court found no cogent reason to  Refugee applications should be evaluated on their
reconsider its initial ruling. merits.
Issue:  Protection officers must actively assist applicants.
1. Should Rehman Sabir be declared a bona fide  The case was remanded for re-examination under
refugee based on his claims of religious new guidelines.
persecution? Shared and Collaborative Burden in Refugee Status
2. Did the DOJ-RSPPU fail in its duty to ascertain and Determination
evaluate all relevant facts in Sabir's case? The Philippine Supreme Court case involves the application
Ruling: process for refugee status, emphasizing the shared and
1. The Supreme Court did not declare Rehman Sabir a collaborative burden between the applicant and the
bona fide refugee outright. protection officer. The applicant must provide a full and
2. The Court affirmed that the DOJ-RSPPU failed in its accurate account of their claim, while the protection officer
duty to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts, must ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts.
necessitating a remand for further proceedings.  The application process involves a shared and
Ratio: collaborative burden.
 The Supreme Court emphasized that determining  Applicants must provide a full and accurate account
refugee status involves a shared and collaborative of their claim.
burden between the applicant and the protection  Protection officers must ascertain and evaluate all
officer. relevant facts.
 The applicant must provide an accurate, full, and DOJ-RSPPU's Failure and Remand for Re-examination
credible account of their claim. The Court found that the Department of Justice-Refugees
 The protection officer has a duty to actively assist and Stateless Persons Protection Unit (DOJ-RSPPU) failed
in ascertaining and evaluating all relevant facts. to fulfill its duty, leaving the Court without a factual basis to
 The DOJ-RSPPU failed in this duty by focusing on rule definitively on the petitioner's refugee status. The case
irrelevant issues and not adequately considering the was remanded for re-examination by the DOJ-RSPPU,
COI on Christian persecution in Pakistan. following guidelines that balance the State's duty to protect
 The Court highlighted changes introduced by DOJ refugees with the need to ensure only qualified individuals
Circular No. 024, series of 2022, which aims to are granted refugee status. The motion for partial
establish a fair and efficient procedure for status reconsideration was denied with finality.
determination and institutionalize mechanisms for  DOJ-RSPPU failed to fulfill its duty.
assisting Persons of Concern (POC).  The Court lacked a factual basis to rule definitively
 The Circular emphasizes the principle of non- on the refugee status.
refoulement and enumerates specific rights for  The case was remanded for re-examination.
applicants, including access to legal counsel and  Guidelines balance the State's duty to protect
protection from forcible return. refugees with ensuring only qualified individuals are
 The Court concluded that Sabir's application should granted refugee status.
be evaluated on its merits following the guidelines  The motion for partial reconsideration was denied
laid out in the 2022 Circular, and remanded the case with finality.
to the DOJ-RSPPU for further proceedings.
Case Summary (G.R. No. 249387)
Supreme Court's Decision on Rehman Sabir's Motion for
 supported by sufficient evidence?
Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of
Roberto's proclamation was tainted with grave
Title abuse of discretion and violated his right to due
Uy, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections process.
Case 2. The Supreme Court found that the COMELEC En
G.R. No. 260650 Banc's declaration of Frederico as a nuisance
Decision Date candidate was also tainted with grave abuse of
Aug 8, 2023 discretion and lacked sufficient evidence.
The case involves the suspension of the winning Ratio:
candidate's proclamation and the cancellation of a  The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC En
nuisance candidate's Certificate of Candidacy (CoC), with Banc's suspension of Roberto's proclamation
the Supreme Court ruling that the suspension was a was improper because it was based on an
violation of due process and lacked sufficient evidence, undated and irregular order, and Roberto was not
while also affirming the proper assumption of office by given an opportunity to be heard, violating his
the winning candidate as a Member of the House of right to due process.
Representatives.  The Court emphasized that the COMELEC's
authority to suspend proclamations is limited to
Facts: cases involving disqualification under specific
 In the 2022 elections, four candidates vied for the grounds, which did not apply to the nuisance
position of Zamboanga del Norte's first district candidate proceedings against Frederico.
representative: Roberto "Pinpin" T. Uy, Jr.  The Court also found that the COMELEC En
(Roberto), Romeo "Kuya Jonjon" M. Jalosjos, Jr. Banc's declaration of Frederico as a nuisance
(Romeo), Frederico "Kuya Jan" P. Jalosjos candidate was unsupported by substantial
(Frederico), and Richard Amazon. evidence.
 On November 16, 2021, Romeo filed a Verified  The COMELEC failed to adequately prove that
Petition before the Commission on Elections Frederico had no bona fide intention to run for
(COMELEC) to declare Frederico a nuisance office, and the alleged similarity in nicknames
candidate and to cancel his Certificate of was insufficient to declare him a nuisance
Candidacy (CoC). candidate.
 Romeo alleged that Frederico had no bona fide  The Court noted that Frederico's membership in
intention to run for public office and that his a political party and his campaign activities
nickname "Kuya Jan" was confusingly similar to indicated a genuine intention to run.
Romeo's nickname "Kuya Jonjon."  Consequently, the Court set aside the COMELEC
 Frederico countered that he had a genuine En Banc's Order and Resolution, annulled
intention to run, supported by his membership in Romeo's proclamation, and directed the
the National Unity Party (NUP) and his campaign COMELEC to proclaim Roberto as the winner.
activities.
 On April 19, 2022, the COMELEC Second Division Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
declared Frederico a nuisance candidate, leading  The Supreme Court ruled that it had jurisdiction
to the cancellation of his CoC. to review the decisions and orders of the
 Frederico sought reconsideration, but the COMELEC.
elections proceeded on May 9, 2022.  The Court held that the House of Representatives
 Romeo then filed a motion to suspend Roberto's Electoral Tribunal (HRET) did not have
proclamation based on partial and unofficial jurisdiction over the case.
results, asserting that Frederico's votes should  The Court emphasized its constitutional duty to
be credited to him. review the COMELEC's decisions.
 The Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC)
received an "advanced copy" of a COMELEC En Case Summary (G.R. No. 260650)
Banc Order to suspend Roberto's proclamation, Background of the Case
which was undated and lacked complete  The case involves the suspension of the winning
signatures. candidate's proclamation and the cancellation of
 Despite initial dissent, the PBOC eventually a nuisance candidate's Certificate of Candidacy
suspended Roberto's proclamation. (CoC).
 Roberto filed an urgent petition before the  The Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of
COMELEC and later a Petition for Certiorari, the winning candidate's proclamation was a
Prohibition, and Mandamus before the Supreme violation of due process and lacked sufficient
Court. evidence.
 On June 7, 2022, the COMELEC En Banc denied  The Court affirmed the proper assumption of
Frederico's Motion for Reconsideration and office by the winning candidate as a Member of
directed that his votes be credited to Romeo. the House of Representatives.
 Frederico then filed a Petition for Certiorari Allegations against Frederico P. Jalosjos
before the Supreme Court.  Romeo M. Jalosjos, Jr. filed a petition to declare
 The Supreme Court issued a Status Quo Ante Frederico P. Jalosjos a nuisance candidate and
Order, and the case was consolidated for review. to cancel his CoC.
Issue:  Romeo alleged that Frederico had no bona fide
1. Was the suspension of Roberto's proclamation intention to run for public office and that his
by the COMELEC En Banc proper and in surname and nickname were confusingly similar
accordance with due process? to Romeo's.
2. Was the declaration of Frederico as a nuisance  The COMELEC Second Division declared
candidate by the COMELEC En Banc justified and Frederico a nuisance candidate and cancelled his
 CoC.
Suspension of Roberto "Pinpin" T. Uy, Jr.'s
Proclamation
 After the elections, Romeo filed a motion to
suspend the proclamation of the leading
candidate, Roberto "Pinpin" T. Uy, Jr., based on
the partial and unofficial results.
 The Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC)
received an "advanced copy" of a COMELEC En
Banc Order directing the suspension of Roberto's
proclamation.
 The PBOC suspended Roberto's proclamation
based on this order, despite its irregularities.
Petitions before the COMELEC and Supreme Court
 Roberto filed a petition before the COMELEC to
direct the PBOC to proclaim him as the winning
candidate.
 Roberto also filed a petition before the Supreme
Court, questioning the suspension of his
proclamation.
 The COMELEC En Banc denied Frederico's
motion for reconsideration and directed that his
votes be credited to Romeo.
 Both Roberto and Frederico filed separate
petitions before the Supreme Court, which were
later consolidated.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
 The Supreme Court ruled that it had jurisdiction
to review the decisions and orders of the
COMELEC.
 The Court held that the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) did not have
jurisdiction over the case.
 The Court emphasized its constitutional duty to
review the COMELEC's decisions.
Violation of Due Process
 The Court ruled that the COMELEC's suspension
of Roberto's proclamation was a violation of due
process.
 The suspension order was based on an
"advanced copy" of the COMELEC En Banc Order,
which lacked necessary signatures and
certifications.
 Roberto was not given the opportunity to be
heard before his proclamation was suspended,
violating his right to due process.
Declaration of Frederico as a Nuisance Candidate
 The Court found that the COMELEC's declaration
of Frederico as a nuisance candidate was tainted
with grave abuse of discretion.
 The COMELEC failed to provide sufficient
evidence to support its finding that Frederico had
no bona fide intention to run for public office.
 Frederico's membership in a political party and
his financial capacity to wage a campaign were
evidence of his bona fide intention.
 There was no significant possibility of voter
confusion due to the similarity of the candidates'
surnames and nicknames.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
 The Court ruled that Roberto should be
proclaimed as the winning candidate and
affirmed his assumption of office as a Member
of the House of Representatives.
 The COMELEC En Banc Order and Resolution
were declared null and void.
 The Court dismissed the petitions and lifted the
Status Quo Ante Order.
 The HRET was directed to proclaim Romeo as
the winner of the election.