Case Digest Compilation

Constitutional Law 1

PACU vs Secretary of Education Third, the State has the power to ban illegal
GR No. L-5279 textbooks or those that are offensive to Filipino
October 31, 1955 morals. This is still part of the power of control and
regulation by the State over all schools.
Facts:
The Philippine Association of Colleges and
Joya vs. Presidential Commission on Good
Universities (PACU) assailed the constitutionality
Government (PCGG)
of Act No. 2706 as amended by Act No. 3075 and
GR No. 96541
Commonwealth Act No. 180. These laws sought to
August 24, 1993
regulate the ownership of private schools in the
country. It is provided by these laws that a permit
Doctrines:
should first be secured from the Secretary of
Education before a person may be granted the right
o 1. Requisites for exercise of judicial review: (1) that
to own and operate a private school. This also gives
the question must be raised by the proper party; (2)
the Secretary of Education the discretion to
that there must be an actual case or controversy;
ascertain standards that must be followed by private
(3) that the question must be raised at the earliest
schools. It also provides that the Secretary of
possible opportunity; and, (4) that the decision on
Education can and may ban certain textbooks from
the constitutional or legal question must be
being used in schools.
necessary to the determination of the case itself.
PACU contends that the right of a citizen to owno 2. LEGAL STANDING: a personal and substantial
and operate a school is guaranteed by the interest in the case such that the party has
Constitution, and any law requiring previous sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of
governmental approval or permit before such the governmental act that is being challenged.
person could exercise said right, amounts too 3. EXCEPTIONS TO LEGAL STANDING:
censorship of previous restraint, a practice Mandamus and Taxpayer's Suits
abhorrent to our system of law and government.o 4. REQUISITES FOR MANDAMUS: a writ of
PACU also avers that such power granted to the mandamus may be issued to a citizen only when
Secretary of Education is an undue delegation of the public right to be enforced and the concomitant
legislative power; that there is undue delegation duty of the state are unequivocally set forth in the
because the law did not specify the basis or the Constitution.
standard upon which the Secretary must exerciseo 5. WHEN TAXPAYER SUIT MAY PROSPER: A
said discretion; that the power to ban books granted taxpayer's suit can prosper only if the governmental
to the Secretary amounts to censorship. acts being questioned involve disbursement of
public funds upon the theory that the expenditure of
ISSUE: Whether or not Act No, 2706 as amended is
public funds by an officer of the state for the
unconstitutional.
purpose of administering an unconstitutional act
HELD: No. In the first place, there is no justiciable constitutes a misapplication of such funds, which
controversy presented. PACU did not show that it may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer.
suffered any injury from the exercise of theo 6. ACTUAL CONTROVERSY: one which involves a
Secretary of Education of such powers granted to conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal
him by the said law. claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case
must not be moot or academic or based on extra-
Second, the State has the power to regulate, in fact
legal or other similar considerations not cognizable
control, the ownership of schools. The Constitution
by a court of justice.
provides for state control of all educational
institutions even as it enumerates certain
FACTS:
fundamental objectives of all education to wit, the
development of moral character, personal discipline,
The Republic of the Philippines through the PCGG
civic conscience and vocational efficiency, and
entered into a Consignment Agreement with
instruction in the duties of citizenship. The State
Christie’s of New York, selling 82 Old Masters
control of private education was intended by the
Paintings and antique silverware seized from
organic law.
Malacanang and the Metropolitan Museum of
 Case Digest Compilation
Constitutional Law 1

Manila alleged to be part of the ill-gotten wealth of The term "interest" is material interest, an interest in
the late Pres. Marcos, his relatives and cronies. issue and to be affected by the decree, as
Prior to the auction sale, COA questioned the distinguished from mere interest in the question
Consignment Agreement, there was already involved, or a mere incidental interest. Moreover,
opposition to the auction sale. Nevertheless, it the interest of the party plaintiff must be personal
proceeded as scheduled and the proceeds of and not one based on a desire to vindicate the
$13,302,604.86 were turned over to the Bureau of constitutional right of some third and related party.
Treasury.
EXCEPTIONS TO LEGAL STANDING:
ISSUE: Mandamus and Taxpayer’s Suit:

o Whether or not PCGG has jurisdiction and There are certain instances however when this
authority to enter into an agreement with Court has allowed exceptions to the rule on legal
Christie’s of New York for the sale of the standing, as when a citizen brings a case for
artworks mandamus to procure the enforcement of a public
duty for the fulfillment of a public right recognized by
RULING: the Constitution, and when a taxpayer questions the
validity of a governmental act authorizing the
On jurisdiction of the Court to exercise judicial disbursement of public funds.
review
Petitioners claim that as Filipino citizens, taxpayers
The rule is settled that no question involving the and artists deeply concerned with the preservation
constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental and protection of the country's artistic wealth, they
act may be heard and decided by the court unless have the legal personality to restrain respondents
there is compliance with the legal requisites for Executive Secretary and PCGG from acting
judicial inquiry, namely: that the question must be contrary to their public duty to conserve the artistic
raised by the proper party; that there must be an creations as mandated by the 1987 Constitution,
actual case or controversy; that the question must particularly Art. XIV, Secs. 14 to 18, on Arts and
be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and, Culture, and R.A. 4846 known as "The Cultural
that the decision on the constitutional or legal Properties Preservation and Protection Act,"
question must be necessary to the determination of governing the preservation and disposition of
the case itself. But the most important are the first national and important cultural properties.
two (2) requisites. Petitioners also anchor their case on the premise
that the paintings and silverware are public
Standing of Petitioners properties collectively owned by them and by the
people in general to view and enjoy as great works
On the first requisite, we have held that one having of art. They allege that with the unauthorized act of
no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the PCGG in selling the art pieces, petitioners have
jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action. been deprived of their right to public property
This is premised on Sec. 2, Rule 3, of the Rules of without due process of law in violation of the
Court which provides that every action must be Constitution.
prosecuted and defended in the name of the real
party-in-interest, and that all persons having interest Petitioners' arguments are devoid of merit. They
in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief lack basis in fact and in law. They themselves
demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs. The Court allege that the paintings were donated by private
will exercise its power of judicial review only if the persons from different parts of the world to the
case is brought before it by a party who has the Metropolitan Museum of Manila Foundation, which
legal standing to raise the constitutional or legal is a non-profit and non-stock corporations
question. "Legal standing" means a personal and established to promote non-Philippine arts. The
substantial interest in the case such that the party foundation's chairman was former First Lady Imelda
has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result R. Marcos, while its president was Bienvenido R.
of the governmental act that is being challenged. Tantoco. On this basis, the ownership of these
Case Digest Compilation
Constitutional Law 1

paintings legally belongs to the foundation or

corporation or the members thereof, although the When a Taxpayer's Suit may prosper
public has been given the opportunity to view and
appreciate these paintings when they were placed Neither can this petition be allowed as a taxpayer's
on exhibit. suit. Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify
to challenge the legality of official acts done by the
Similarly, as alleged in the petition, the pieces of government. A taxpayer's suit can prosper only if
antique silverware were given to the Marcos couple the governmental acts being questioned involve
as gifts from friends and dignitaries from foreign disbursement of public funds upon the theory that
countries on their silver wedding and anniversary, the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the
an occasion personal to them. When the Marcos state for the purpose of administering an
administration was toppled by the revolutionary unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of
government, these paintings and silverware were such funds, which may be enjoined at the request of
taken from Malacañang and the Metropolitan a taxpayer. Obviously, petitioners are not
Museum of Manila and transferred to the Central challenging any expenditure involving public funds
Bank Museum. The confiscation of these properties but the disposition of what they allege to be public
by the Aquino administration however should not be properties. It is worthy to note that petitioners admit
understood to mean that the ownership of these that the paintings and antique silverware were
paintings has automatically passed on the acquired from private sources and not with public
government without complying with constitutional money.
and statutory requirements of due process and just
compensation. If these properties were already Actual Controversy
acquired by the government, any constitutional or
statutory defect in their acquisition and their For a court to exercise its power of adjudication,
subsequent disposition must be raised only by the there must be an actual case of controversy — one
proper parties — the true owners thereof — whose which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion
authority to recover emanates from their proprietary of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
rights which are protected by statutes and the resolution; the case must not be moot or academic
Constitution. Having failed to show that they are the or based on extra-legal or other similar
legal owners of the artworks or that the valued considerations not cognizable by a court of justice.
pieces have become publicly owned, petitioners do A case becomes moot and academic when its
not possess any clear legal right whatsoever to purpose has become stale, such as the case before
question their alleged unauthorized disposition. us. Since the purpose of this petition for prohibition
is to enjoin respondent public officials from holding
Requisites for a Mandamus Suit the auction sale of the artworks on a particular date
— 11 January 1991 — which is long past, the
Further, although this action is also one of issues raised in the petition have become moot and
mandamus filed by concerned citizens, it does not academic.
fulfill the criteria for a mandamus suit. In Legaspi v.
Civil Service Commission, this Court laid down the At this point, however, we need to emphasize that
rule that a writ of mandamus may be issued to a this Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a
citizen only when the public right to be enforced and suit which does not satisfy the requirements of an
the concomitant duty of the state are unequivocably actual case or legal standing when paramount
set forth in the Constitution. In the case at bar, public interest is involved. We find however that
petitioners are not after the fulfillment of a positive there is no such justification in the petition at bar to
duty required of respondent officials under the 1987 warrant the relaxation of the rule.
Constitution. What they seek is the enjoining of an
official act because it is constitutionally infirmed.
Moreover, petitioners' claim for the continued
enjoyment and appreciation by the public of the
artworks is at most a privilege and is unenforceable
as a constitutional right in this action for mandamus.
Case Digest Compilation
Constitutional Law 1

Chavez vs. JBC Held:

GR No. 202242
July 17, 2012 Yes. The word “Congress” used in Article VIII,
Section 8(1) of the Constitution is used in its generic
Facts:
sense. No particular allusion whatsoever is made on
whether the Senate or the House of
In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an
Representatives is being referred to, but that, in
eighth member was added to the JBC as two
either case, only a singular representative may be
representatives from Congress began sitting in the
allowed to sit in the JBC. The seven-member
JBC – one from the House of Representatives and
composition of the JBC serves a practical purpose,
one from the Senate, with each having one-half
that is, to provide a solution should there be a
(1/2) of a vote. Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate
stalemate in voting.
meetings held in 2000 and 2001, decided to allow
the representatives from the Senate and the House
It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a
of Representatives one full vote each. At present,
bicameral body refers to its primary function in
Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and
government – to legislate. In the passage of laws,
Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents)
the Constitution is explicit in the distinction of the
simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of
role of each house in the process. The same holds
the legislature. It is this practice that petitioner has
true in Congress’ non-legislative powers. An inter-
questioned in this petition. Respondents argued that
play between the two houses is necessary in the
the crux of the controversy is the phrase “a
realization of these powers causing a vivid
representative of Congress.” It is their theory that
dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount.
the two houses, the Senate and the House of
This, however, cannot be said in the case of JBC
Representatives, are permanent and mandatory
representation because no liaison between the two
components of “Congress,” such that the absence
houses exists in the workings of the JBC. Hence,
of either divests the term of its substantive meaning
the term “Congress” must be taken to mean the
as expressed under the Constitution. Bicameralism,
entire legislative department. The Constitution
as the system of choice by the Framers, requires
mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7)
that both houses exercise their respective powers in
members only.
the performance of its mandated duty which is to
The argument that a senator cannot represent a
legislate. Thus, when Section 8(1), Article VIII of the
member of the House of Representatives in the JBC
Constitution speaks of “a representative from
and vice-versa is, thus, misplaced. In the JBC, any
Congress,” it should mean one representative each
member of Congress, whether from the Senate or
from both Houses which comprise the entire
the House of Representatives, is constitutionally
Congress.
empowered to represent the entire Congress. It may
be a constricted constitutional authority, but it is not
Issue:
an absurdity.

Whether or not the current practice of the JBC to

Under the circumstances, the Court finds the
perform its functions with eight (8) members, two (2)
exception of the Doctrine of Operative Fact
of whom are members of Congress, runs counter to
applicable in this case and holds that
the letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution.
notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in
the current composition of the JBC, all its prior
official actions are nonetheless valid.
Case Digest Compilation
Constitutional Law 1

The Court has no power to add another member by However, petitioner Jelbert Galicto allegedly
judicial construction. questions the constitutionality of E.O 7 in his
capacity as a lawyer and as an employee of
The call for judicial activism fails to stir the PhilHealth Regional Office. As he allegedly stands
sensibilities of the Court tasked to guard the to be prejudiced by E.O 7 because it suspends or
Constitution against usurpation. The Court remains imposes a moratorium on the grant of salary
steadfast in confining its powers in the sphere increase and other benefits granted to the GOCC
granted by the Constitution itself. Judicial activism and GFI officials. Moreover, he claims interest in
should never be allowed to become judicial making sure that laws and orders by government
exuberance. In cases like this, no amount of officials are legally issued and implemented.
practical logic or convenience can convince the
Court to perform either an excision or an insertion Issue: Whether or not petitioner Galicto has a locus
that will change the manifest intent of the Framers. standi in bringing the petition before the Court.
To broaden the scope of congressional
representation in the JBC is tantamount to the Ruling:
inclusion of a subject matter which was not included No, the SC said that petitioner cannot claim legal
in the provision as enacted. True to its constitutional stance because petitioner is simply concerned
mandate, the Court cannot craft and tailor about his entitlement to future salary increases.
constitutional provisions in order to accommodate A public officer has a vested right only to salaries
all of situations no matter how ideal or reasonable already earned or accrued. Salary increases are a
the proposed solution may sound. To the exercise mere expectancy volatile and dependent on various
of this intrusion, the Court declines. variables in nature.
His assertion of legal impediment under Section 9 of
Galicto vs. Aquino III E.O 7 of any future increase in petitioner’s
GR No. 193978 compensation will only depend on usual factors
February 28, 2012 considered by proper authorities was misleading
and incorrect due to the concept of injury as an
Facts: element ofLocus standi. He only points out the
President Benigno Simeon Aquino III exposed denial of a reasonable expectation which is not a
anomalies in the financial management of the subject of harm to go against the law.
Metropolitan Waterworks Sewerage System, the His membership of Philippine Bar and a PhilHealth
National Power Corporation and the National Food official does not suffice to clothe his legal standing.
Authority. Thus, Petitioner failed to satisfy irreducible minimum
Because of this, the Senate prompted to conduct condition to trigger the exercise of judicial power.
legislative inquiries on the matter of activities of
GOCC and issued Resolution No. 17 s. 2010, STAT CON PRINCIPLE OF LOCUS STANDI
urging the President to order the immediate Locus Standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate
suspension of the unusually large and excessive to the court sufficient connection to and harm from
allowances, bonuses, incentives and other perks of the law or action challenged to support that party's
members of the governing boards of GOCC’s and participation in the case.
government financial institutions (GFIs). President The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by
Aquino issued E.O 7 strengthening the supervision the statute or action in question, and the harm
of compensation levels of GOCCs and GFIs by suffered will continue unless the court grants relief
controlling the grant of excessive salaries, in the form of damages or a finding that the law
allowances and other benefits. either does not apply to the party or that the law is
Case Digest Compilation
Constitutional Law 1

void or can be nullified. This is called the 1996 and the Office of the Government Corporate
"something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has Counsel under its Opinion No. 150 dated June 14,
standing because they directly will be harmed by 1996.[2] Thus, PAGCOR started the operation of jai-
alai frontons.
the conditions for which they are asking the court for
relief. A person cannot bring a suit challenging On May 6, 1999, petitioner Raoul B. del
the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can Mar initially filed in G.R. No. 138298 a Petition for
demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be Prohibition to prevent respondent PAGCOR from
managing and/or operating the jai-alai or Basque
harmed by the law.
pelota games, by itself or in agreement with Belle
Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks Corporation, on the ground that the controverted act
standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case is patently illegal and devoid of any basis either
without considering the merits of the claim of from the Constitution or PAGCORs own Charter.
unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law
However, on June 17, 1999, respondent
unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for PAGCOR entered into an Agreement with private
the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to respondents Belle Jai Alai Corporation (BELLE) and
lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing Filipinas Gaming Entertainment Totalizator
by action of law. Corporation (FILGAME) wherein it was agreed that
BELLE will make available to PAGCOR the required
DEL MAR vs PAGCOR infrastructure facilities including the main fronton, as
Raoul Del Mar vs Philippine Amusement and well as provide the needed funding for jai-alai
Gaming Corporation, et. Al. operations with no financial outlay from PAGCOR,
G.R. No. 138298 June 19, 2001 while PAGCOR handles the actual management
and operation of jai-alai.[3]
FACTS Thus, on August 10, 1999, petitioner Del Mar
filed a Supplemental Petition for
These two consolidated petitions concern the Certiorari questioning the validity of said
issue of whether the franchise granted to the Agreement on the ground that PAGCOR is without
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation jurisdiction, legislative franchise, authority or power
(PAGCOR) includes the right to manage and to enter into such Agreement for the opening,
operate jai-alai. establishment, operation, control and management
of jai-alai games.
First, we scour the significant facts. The
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation is a A little earlier, or on July 1, 1999, petitioners
government-owned and controlled corporation Federico S. Sandoval II and Michael T. Defensor
organized and existing under Presidential Decree filed a Petition for Injunction, docketed as G.R.
No. 1869 which was enacted on July 11, No. 138982, which seeks to enjoin respondent
1983. Pursuant to Sections 1 and 10 of P.D. No. PAGCOR from operating or otherwise managing the
1869, respondent PAGCOR requested for legal jai-alai or Basque pelota games by itself or in joint
advice from the Secretary of Justice as to whether venture with Belle Corporation, for being patently
or not it is authorized by its Charter to operate and illegal, having no basis in the law or the
manage jai-alai frontons in the country. In its Constitution, and in usurpation of the authority that
Opinion No. 67, Series of 1996 dated July 15, 1996, properly pertains to the legislative branch of the
the Secretary of Justice opined that the authority government. In this case, a Petition in
of PAGCOR to operate and maintain games of Intervention was filed by Juan Miguel Zubiri
chance or gambling extends to jai-alai which is a alleging that the operation by PAGCOR of jai-alai is
form of sport or game played for bets and that the illegal because it is not included in the scope of
Charter of PAGCOR amounts to a legislative PAGCORs franchise which covers only games of
franchise for the purpose.[1] Similar favorable chance.
opinions were received by PAGCOR from the Office Petitioners Raoul B. del Mar, Federico S.
of the Solicitor General per its letter dated June 3, Sandoval II, Michael T. Defensor, and intervenor
Case Digest Compilation
Constitutional Law 1

Juan Miguel Zubiri, are suing as taxpayers and in amusement and recreation, including sports,
their capacity as members of the House of gaming pools (basketball, football, lotteries, etc) and
Representatives representing the First District of such other forms of amusement and recreation
Cebu City, the Lone Congressional District of including games of chance, which may be allowed
Malabon-Navotas, the Third Congressional District by law within the territorial jurisdiction of the
of Quezon City, and the Third Congressional District Philippines.
of Bukidnon, respectively. In construing a statute, courts have to take the
thought conveyed by the statute as a whole;
construe the constituent parts together, ascertain
ISSUE the legislative intent from the whole act, consider
each and every provision thereof in the light of the
PAGCOR filed a motion for reconsideration seeking general purpose of the statute; and endeavor to
to reverse the decision of the court which enjoined make every part effective, harmonious and sensible.
(cease and desist order; prohibit) PAGCOR from Verga legis non est recendum – from the words of a
managing, maintaining and operating jai-alai games statute there should be no departure.
and from enforcing the agreement entered into by Petitioners Raoul Del Mar contends that they have
them for that purpose. brought the present suit in their capacity as
Whether or not PAGCOR has a franchise to operate taxpayers and legislators. For a taxpayer’s suit to
jai-alai. prosper, the petitioners (del mar) must have locus
standi (legal standing). No public fund raised by
HELD taxation is involved in this case. No spending
The SC denied the motions for reconsideration due powers of Congress are involved nor is there an
to lack of required number of votes because only 7 allegation of illegal disbursement of funds.
justices voted to grant the motions. Taxpayer’s suit – the act complained directly
involves the illegal disbursement of public funds
Opinions of Justices: derived from taxation.
PUNO
Justice Puno denied the motion for reconsideration VITUG
of PAGCOR. PD 1869 is an express amendment of Justice Vitug grant the petition to enjoin PAGCOR
PDs 1067-A, 1067-B, 1067-C, 1399 and 1622. It is from operating jai-alai through BELLE and
clear in the PAGCOR charter that it does not FILGAME or through any other agency and denies
include those games of chance covered by an the petition to prohibit PAGCOR from itself
existing franchise. Since Jai Alai has an existing managing or operating those games. PAGCOR’s
franchise to operate. It could not have been the charter states “to establish and operate clubs and
intent of Congress to grant franchises to operate jai- casinos for amusement and recreation, including
alai to 2 entities within the same jurisdiction. PD games of chance” is broad enough to allow
1869 suffers from the vice of vagueness since PAGCOR to operate all kinds of sports and gaming
PAGCOR had to seek the legal opinions of not just pools, inclusive of jai-alai BUT NOT in joint ventre
1 but several government agencies. To begin with, agreement with BELLE and FILGAME. The grant of
PAGCOR was not authorized to centralize and a franchise is a purely legislative act that cannot be
integrate all games of chance that have existing delegated to PAGCOR without violating the
franchises. And the repeal of PD 810 did not have Constitution.
any effect on the franchise of PAGCOR. In
contending that jai-alai is impliedly included in DE LEON
Section 10 of PD 1869, PAGCOR is suggesting that Justice de Leon granted the petition filed by
an illegal act may be legalized by mere implication PAGCOR.
of law. Section 10 of PD 1869
Section 10. Nature and term of franchise – “ x x x
MELO authority to operate and maintain gambling casinos,
Justice Melo granted the motion for reconsideration. clubs and other recreation or amusement places,
PAGCOR’s charter states that it is allowed to sports, gaming pools, i.e. basketball, football,
establish and operate clubs and casinos, for lotteries, etc. x x x”
Case Digest Compilation
Constitutional Law 1

Gaming – the act or practice of playing games for

stakes REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RODOLFO B.
Et cetera (etc) – depends largely on the context of ALBANO, RR., REP. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG,
the instrument, description and enumeration of the and REP. ORLANDO B. FUA, SR., petitioner, v.
matters preceeding the term and subject to which it EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND MANAGEMENT
is applied. When used in a statute, the words SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD, respondent.
should be given their usual and natural signication.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION G.R. No. 193036. December 7, 2010
- when words and phrases of a statute
are clear and unequivocal, their MENDOZA, J.:
meaning must be determined from the
language employed and the statute
must be taken to mean exactly what it FACT:
says.
Del Mar says that there is no specific mention of jai E.O No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth
alai and there should have been an express Commission (PTC) of 2010 was signed by
mention of jai alai. If that would be the case, it President Aquino. The said PTC is a mere branch
would render ineffective the use of the word “etc” in formed under the Office of the President tasked to
the said law. investigate reports of graft and corruption committed
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION by third-level public officers and employees, their
- a statute is to be favored and must be co-principals, accomplices and accessories during
adopted if reasonably possibly, which the previous administration and submit their findings
will give meaning to every word, clause, and recommendations to the President, Congress
and sentence of the statute and and the Ombudsman. However, PTC is not a quasi-
operation and effect to every part and judicial body, it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve,
provision of it. settle or render awards in disputes between parties.
Del Mar says that the operations of jai alai was a Its job is to investigate, collect and asses evidences
legislative grant by Marcos to a corporation gathered and make recommendations. It has
controlled by his in-laws, the Philippine Jai Alai and subpoena powers but it has no power to cite people
Amusement Corporation (PJAC). in contempt or even arrest. It cannot determine for
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION such facts if probable cause exist as to warrant the
- it is improper to inquire into the motives filing of an information in our courts of law.
that influenced the legislative body
except when those motives are Petitioners contends the Constitutionality of the E.O.
disclosed (revealed) by the statute on the grounds that.
itself.\
Del Mar insist that PAGCOR was created to operate
games of chance or gaming pools for which no • It violates separation of powers as
franchises have been granted. it arrogates the power of Congress to create a
The fact that there was an existing jai alai franchise public office and appropriate funds for its operation;
of PJAC the time PD 1869 went into effect does not • The provisions of Book III, Chapter
mean that jai alai can never be the subject of 10, Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987
PAGCOR’s franchise upon repeal of PJAC’s cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1 because the delegated
franchise. PAGCOR was primarily created to authority of the President to structurally reorganize
maximize potential sources of revenue. the Office of the President to achieve economy,
simplicity, and efficiency does not include the power
to create an entirely new office was inexistent like
LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO, petitioner, v. THE the Truth Commission;
PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010, • The E.O illegally amended the
respondent. Constitution when it made the Truth Commission
and vesting it the power duplicating and even
G.R No. 192935. December 7, 2010
Case Digest Compilation
Constitutional Law 1

exceeding those of the Office of the Ombudsman included in the General Appropriations Act or
and the DOJ. approved after its enactment.”
• It violates the equal protection
clause
Demetria averred that this is unconstitutional for it
ISSUE: violates the 1973 Constitution.

WHETHER OR NOT the said E.O is ISSUE: Whether or not Paragraph 1, Section 44, of
unconstitutional.
PD 1177 is constitutional.

RULING: HELD: No. The Constitution provides that no law

Yes, E.O No. 1 should be struck down as it is shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
violative of the equal protection clause. The Chief appropriations, however, the President, the Prime
Executive’s power to create the Ad hoc
Investigating Committee cannot be doubted. Having Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the
been constitutionally granted full control of the
Supreme Court, and the heads of constitutional
Executive Department, to which respondents
belong, the President has the obligation to ensure commissions may by law be authorized to augment
that all executive officials and employees faithfully
comply with the law. With AO 298 as mandate, the any item in the general appropriations law for their
legality of the investigation is sustained. Such respective offices from savings in other items of
validity is not affected by the fact that the
investigating team and the PCAGC had the same their respective appropriations.
composition, or that the former used the offices and
facilities of the latter in conducting the inquiry. However, paragraph 1 of Section 44 of PD 1177

Demetria vs Alba unduly overextends the privilege granted under the

GR No. 71977 Constitution. It empowers the President to
December 7, 2010
indiscriminately transfer funds from one department,
Facts: bureau, office or agency of the Executive
Department to any program, project or activity of
Demetrio Demetria et al as taxpayers and members
any department, bureau or office included in the
of the Batasan Pambansa sought to prohibit Manuel
General Appropriations Act or approved after its
Alba, then Minister of the Budget, from disbursing
enactment, without regard as to whether or not
funds pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1177 or
the funds to be transferred are actually savings
the Budget Reform Decree of 1977. Demetria
in the item from which the same are to be taken,
assailed the constitutionality of paragraph 1, Section
or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of
44 of the said PD. This Section provides that:
augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be
“The President shall have the authority to transfer
any fund, appropriated for the different departments, made. It does not only completely disregard the
bureaus, offices and agencies of the Executive standards set in the fundamental law, thereby
Department, which are included in the General
Appropriations Act, to any program, project or amounting to an undue delegation of legislative
activity of any department, bureau, or office
powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof.
Case Digest Compilation
Constitutional Law 1

RESPONDENT’S POSITION: the perceptions of

Indeed, such constitutional infirmities render the LAMP on the implementation of PDAF must not be
provision in question null and void. based on mere speculations circulated in the news
media preaching the evils of pork barrel.
But it should be noted, transfers of savings within
ISSUES:
one department from one item to another in the
1) whether or not the mandatory requisites for the
GAA may be allowed by law in the interest of
exercise of judicial review are met in this case; and
expediency and efficiency. There is no transfer from 2) whether or not the implementation of PDAF by
the Members of Congress is unconstitutional and
one department to another here. illegal.

LAMP vs. The Secretary of Budget and HELD:

Management I.
GR No. 180989 A question is ripe for adjudication when the act
February 7, 2012 being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on
the individual challenging it. In this case, the
Facts: petitioner contested the implementation of an
alleged unconstitutional statute, as citizens and
For consideration of the Court is an original action taxpayers. The petition complains of illegal
for certiorari assailing the constitutionality and disbursement of public funds derived from taxation
legality of the implementation of the Priority and this is sufficient reason to say that there indeed
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) as provided exists a definite, concrete, real or substantial
for in Republic Act (R.A.) 9206 or the General controversy before the Court.
Appropriations Act for 2004 (GAA of 2004). LOCUS STANDI: The gist of the question of
standing is whether a party alleges “such a personal
Petitioner Lawyers Against Monopoly and stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
Poverty(LAMP), a group of lawyers who have assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens
banded together with a mission of dismantling all the presentation of issues upon which the court so
forms of political, economic or social monopoly in largely depends for illumination of difficult
the country. According to LAMP, the above constitutional questions. Here, the sufficient interest
provision is silent and, therefore, prohibits an preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised
automatic or direct allocation of lump sums to by taxation required in taxpayers’ suits is
individual senators and congressmen for the established. Thus, in the claim that PDAF funds
funding of projects. It does not empower individual have been illegally disbursed and wasted through
Members of Congress to propose, select and the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional
identify programs and projects to be funded out of law, LAMP should be allowed to sue.
PDAF. Lastly, the Court is of the view that the petition
poses issues impressed with paramount public
For LAMP, this situation runs afoul against the interest. The ramification of issues involving the
principle of separation of powers because in unconstitutional spending of PDAF deserves the
receiving and, thereafter, spending funds for their consideration of the Court, warranting the
chosen projects, the Members of Congress in effect assumption of jurisdiction over the petition.
intrude into an executive function. Further, the II.
authority to propose and select projects does not The Court rules in the negative.
pertain to legislation. “It is, in fact, a non-legislative In determining whether or not a statute is
function devoid of constitutional sanction,”8 and, unconstitutional, the Court does not lose sight of the
therefore, impermissible and must be considered presumption of validity accorded to statutory acts of
nothing less than malfeasance. Congress. To justify the nullification of the law or its
implementation, there must be a clear and
unequivocal, not a doubtful, breach of the
Case Digest Compilation
Constitutional Law 1

Constitution. In case of doubt in the sufficiency of (4) (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very
proof establishing unconstitutionality, the Court lis mota of the case.
must sustain legislation because “to invalidate [a
law] based on x x x baseless supposition is an DELA LLANA VS COA
affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that
passed it but also of the executive which approved NAKA PDF SYA DI NAKO MA COMPILE UG APIL
it.” KAY KAY DILI MA COPY
The petition is miserably wanting in this regard. No
convincing proof was presented showing that,
indeed, there were direct releases of funds to the
Members of Congress, who actually spend them G.R. No. 208566 November 19, 2013
according to their sole discretion. Devoid of any GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA JOSE M.
pertinent evidentiary support that illegal misuse of VILLEGAS JR. JOSE L. GONZALEZ REUBEN M.
PDAF in the form of kickbacks has become a ABANTE and QUINTIN PAREDES SAN
common exercise of unscrupulous Members of DIEGO, Petitioners,
Congress, the Court cannot indulge the petitioner’s vs.
request for rejection of a law which is outwardly HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
legal and capable of lawful enforcement. PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR, et al, Respondents
PORK BARREL: PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The Members of Congress are then requested by
the President to recommend projects and programs NATURE:
which may be funded from the PDAF. The list These are consolidated petitions taken under Rule
submitted by the Members of Congress is endorsed 65 of the Rules of Court, all of which assail the
by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System.
the DBM, which reviews and determines whether
such list of projects submitted are consistent with FACTS:
the guidelines and the priorities set by the The NBI Investigation was spawned by sworn
Executive.”33 This demonstrates the power given to affidavits of six (6) whistle-blowers who declared
the President to execute appropriation laws and that JLN Corporation (Janet Lim Napoles) had
therefore, to exercise the spending per se of the swindled billions of pesos from the public coffers for
budget. "ghost projects" using dummy NGOs. Thus,
As applied to this case, the petition is seriously Criminal complaints were filed before the Office of
wanting in establishing that individual Members of the Ombudsman, charging five (5) lawmakers for
Congress receive and thereafter spend funds out of Plunder, and three (3) other lawmakers for
PDAF. So long as there is no showing of a direct Malversation, Direct Bribery, and Violation of the
participation of legislators in the actual spending of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Also
the budget, the constitutional boundaries between recommended to be charged in the complaints are
the Executive and the Legislative in the budgetary some of the lawmakers’ chiefs -of-staff or
process remain intact. representatives, the heads and other officials of
_______________ three (3) implementing agencies, and the several
NOTES: presidents of the NGOs set up by Napoles.
POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: Whistle-blowers alleged that" at least P900 Million
(1) there must be an actual case or controversy from royalties in the operation of the Malampaya
calling for the exercise of judicial power; gas project off Palawan province intended for
(2) (2) the person challenging the act must have the agrarian reform beneficiaries has gone into a
standing to question the validity of the subject act or dummy NGO. Several petitions were lodged before
issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a the Court similarly seeking that the "Pork Barrel
personal and substantial interest in the case such System" be declared unconstitutional
that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as
a result of its enforcement; G.R. No. 208493 – SJS filed a Petition for
(3) (3) the question of constitutionality must be Prohibition seeking that the "Pork Barrel System" be
raised at the earliest opportunity; and
Case Digest Compilation
Constitutional Law 1

declared unconstitutional, and a writ of prohibition of laws. Any action or step beyond that will
be issued permanently undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by
G.R. No. 208566 - Belgica, et al filed an Urgent the constitution.
Petition For Certiorari and Prohibition With Prayer
For The Immediate Issuance of Temporary Thus, the court declares the 2013 pdaf article as
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary well as all other provisions of law which similarly
Injunction seeking that the annual "Pork Barrel allow legislators to wield any form of post-
System," presently embodied in the provisions of enactment authority in the implementation or
the GAA of 2013 which provided for the 2013 enforcement of the budget, unrelated to
PDAF, and the Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary congressional oversight, as violative of the
funds, such as the Malampaya Funds and the separation of powers principle and thus
Presidential Social Fund, be declared unconstitutional.
unconstitutional and null and void for being acts
constituting grave abuse of discretion. Also, they
pray that the Court issue a TRO against 2. Yes. Sec 8 of PD 910- the phrase “and for
respondents such other purposes as may be hereafter directed
by the President”‖ constitutes an undue delegation
UDK-14951 – A Petition filed seeking that the PDAF of legislative power insofar as it does not lay down a
be declared unconstitutional, and a cease and sufficient standard to adequately determine the
desist order be issued restraining President limits of the President‘s authority with respect to the
Benigno Simeon S. Aquino III (President Aquino) purpose for which the Malampaya Funds may be
and Secretary Abad from releasing such funds to used. It gives the President wide latitude to use the
Members of Congress Malampaya Funds for any other purpose he may
direct and, in effect, allows him to unilaterally
ISSUES: appropriate public funds beyond the purview of the
1. Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all law.”
other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar
thereto are unconstitutional considering that they Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993-
violate the principles of/constitutional provisions on the phrases:
(a) separation of powers; (b) non-delegability of
legislative power; (c) checks and balances; (d) (b) "to finance the priority infrastructure
accountability; (e) political dynasties; and (f) local development projects” was declared constitutional.
autonomy. IT INDICATED PURPOSE ADEQUATELY
2. Whether or not the phrases (under Section 8 CURTAILS THE AUTHORITY OF THE
of PD 910,116 relating to the Malampaya Funds, and PRESIDENT TO SPEND THE PRESIDENTIAL
under Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD SOCIAL FUND ONLY FOR RESTORATION
1993, relating to the Presidential Social Fund, are PURPOSES WHICH ARISE FROM CALAMITIES.
unconstitutional insofar as they constitute undue
delegations of legislative power. (b)” and to finance the restoration of damaged or
destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be
HELD: directed and authorized by the Office of the
1. Yes, the PDAF article is unconstitutional. The President of the Philippines” was declared
post-enactment measures which govern the areas unconstitutional.IT GIVES THE PRESIDENT
of project identification, fund release and fund CARTE BLANCHE AUTHORITY TO USE THE
realignment are not related to functions of SAME FUND FOR ANY INFRASTRUCTURE
congressional oversight and, hence, allow PROJECT HE MAY SO DETERMINE AS A
legislators to intervene and/or assume duties that ―PRIORITY‖. VERILY, THE LAW DOES NOT
properly belong to the sphere of budget execution. SUPPLY A DEFINITION OF ―PRIORITY
This violates the principle of separation of powers. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS‖
Congress‘role must be confined to mere oversight AND HENCE, LEAVES THE PRESIDENT
that must be confined to: (1) scrutiny and (2) WITHOUT ANY GUIDELINE TO CONSTRUE THE
investigation and monitoring of the implementation SAME.