1

Case Digest for Midterm Exams: Constitution Law 1

By: Jay-Ann C. Castillon 1-PLATO

1. People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887. GR No. L-18463

Facts:

August 20, 1920

Fernando M. Guerrero (Secretary of Phil. Senate), discovered that certain documents which constituted the records of testimony given by witnesses
in the investigation of oil companies had disappeared from his office. Shortly thereafter, the Governor-General convened a special session of the
Philippine Senate, and Mr. Guerrero informed them of the loss of the documents.

After the convening, Mr. Gregorio Perfecto (Editor at La Nacion newspaper publication) published an article insulting the members of the Philippine
senate regarding the disappearance of the records of the testimonies. Here, Mr. Perfecto was alleged to have violated Article 256 of the Spanish
Penal Code (SPC)

Issue: Whether or not Article 256 of the SPC is still in force and can be applied in the case at the bar.

Ruling: No. The Court stated that during the Spanish Government, Article 256 of the SPC was enacted to protect Spanish officials as representatives
of the King. However, the Court explains that in the present case, we no longer have Kings nor their representatives for the provision to protect.
Also, with the change of sovereignty over the Philippines from Spanish to American, it means that the invoked provision of the SPC had been
automatically abrogated. Hence, Article 256 of the SPC is considered no longer in force and cannot be applied to the present case. Therefore, the
respondent was acquitted.

2. Bureau of Fisheries vs. Commission on Audit, 562 SCRA 540 GR No. 169815

Facts: The BFAR Employees Union issued a resolution requesting the BFAR Central Office for a Food Basket Allowance. It justified its request on
the high cost of living which makes it hard to sustain even the four basic needs. On post-audit, COA disallowed the grant of Food Basket Allowance.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration and prayed for the lifting of the disallowance for being unconstitutional as it contravenes the fundamental
principle of the State enshrined under Sections 9 and 10, Article II of the 1987 Constitution:

Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people
from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of
life for all.

Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.

Issue: Is the disallowance in question unconstitutional?

Ruling: No. Social justice provisions of the Constitution are not self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They are merely
statements of principles and policies giving guidelines for legislation and they do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights. The petition
is DENIED Decision of COA-LAO is AFFIRMED.

3. BCDA vs. COA, 580 SCRA 295 GR No. 178160

Facts: Congress approved Republic Act (RA) No. 7227 creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA). The Board adopted a
new compensation and benefits scheme which included a P10, 000 year-end benefits (YEB) granted to each contractual employee, regular permanent
employee, and Board member.

February 20, 2003

State Auditor, IV Corazon V. Españo of the COA issued Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No. 2003-0047 stating that the grant of year-end
benefit to Board members was contrary to DBM Circular Letter No. 2002-2 dated January 2, 2002 (disallowing YEB to Board
Members/Consultants).

In a letter, BCDA President and Chief Executive Officer Rufo Colayco requested the reconsideration of Decision No. 2004-013. The COA affirmed
the disallowance of the YEB granted to the Board members and full-time consultants and held that the presumption of good faith did not apply to
them.

Issue:

1. Whether board members and consultants of BCDA are entitled to YEB.

Ruling:

1. No. Board Members and consultants are not entitled to YEB as per DBM circulars:

• DBM Circular Letter No. 2002-2 states that, "Members of the Board of Directors of agencies are not salaried officials of the government. As
non-salaried officials, they are not entitled to PERA, ADCOM, YEB, and retirement benefits unless expressly provided by law.

• DBM Circular Letter No. 2002-2 states that, "YEB and retirement benefits, are personnel benefits granted in addition to salaries. As fringe
benefits, these shall be paid only when the basic salary is also paid." Consultants do not receive salaries.
 2

2. No. Every presumption should be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of RA No. 7227 and the burden of proof is on the BCDA to show that
there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. A law enacted by Congress enjoys the strong presumption of constitutionality. To justify
its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and unequivocal one. BCDA fails to provide sufficient
proof of the unconstitutionality of RA 7227 (which limits BCDA's power to give compensation).

3. No. The State is not estopped from correcting a public officer’s erroneous application of a statute, and an unlawful practice, no matter how long,
cannot give rise to any vested right.

However, petitioners relied on Section 1 of RA 7227 which allows the Board to adopt compensation schemes and on the authorization of President
Ramos. They cannot be presumed to have faulted and denied good faith upon their receipt of the YEBs over the years.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Commission on Audit Decision No. 2007-020 dated 12 April 2007 is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the Board members and full-time consultants of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority are not required to refund
the year-end benefits they have already received.

4. Magallona vs. Ermita, 655 SCRA 476 GR No. 187167

Facts: Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522 in March 2009 demarcating the maritime baseline of the Philippine archipelago. The former
is a rectangular baseline based on the Treaty of Paris and UNCLOS I while the latter followed a straight baseline method prescribed by UNCLOS III.
Measurement of maritime zones will begin from these baselines.

Petitioners in their capacity as taxpayers, citizens, and legislators assailed the constitutionality of RA 9522:- it reduces the territory of the Philippines
in violation of the Constitution and it opens the country to the maritime passage of vessels and aircraft of other states to the detriment of the economy,
sovereignty, national security and of the Constitution as well. They added that the classification of the Regime of Islands would be prejudicial to the
lives of the fishermen.

Issues:

1. WON the petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit; and
2. WON RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

Ruling:

1. No. The SC ruled the suit is not a taxpayer or legislator, but a citizen suit, since it is the citizens who will be directly injured benefitted in affording
relief over the remedy sought.

2. No. The SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 9522. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory. It is just a codified norm
that regulates the .conduct of states.

The RA 9522 is a baseline law to mark out base points along coasts, serving as geographic starting points. Also, RA 9522 includes provisions that
enforce our claims to the KIG, SS, and Sabbah. Hence the Petition was DISMISSED.

5. Tanada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 GR No. 118295

Facts: In 1994, the WTO Agreement was signed by the Philippines through the DTI Secretary, and then later ratified by then President Fidel Ramos
with the concurrence of the Senate.

In the same year, a Rule 65 petition was filed seeking to assail the Senate’s ratification of the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987
Constitution to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos, to give preference to qualified Filipinos,
and to promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials, and locally produced goods.

Issue: Whether the provisions of the WTO Agreement and its annexes contravene the Philippine Constitution.

Ruling: No. The WTO Agreement is not violative of the Constitution because the constitutional policy of a “self-reliant and independent national
economy” does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods, and services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor
“mendicancy.”

6. Belgica vs. Executive Secretary GR No. 208566, November 19, 2013 GR No. 208566

Facts: In July 2013, the NBI probed into the allegations that “the government has been defrauded of some PHP 10 Billion over the past 10 years”
using the Pork Barrel funds from lawmakers and various government agencies. Six whistle-blowers declared JLN Corporation for swindling the said
amount using 20 dummy NGOs. The petitioners seek that the annual Pork Barrel system is declared unconstitutional, null, and void for acts that
constitute grave abuse of discretion. It’s this system that provided for the 2013 PDAF Article and the Executive’s lump-sum, discretionary funds.

Issue: Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws are unconstitutional considering that they violate the
principles of constitutional provisions on (a) separation of powers; (b) non-delegability of legislative power; (c) checks and balances; (d)
accountability; and (e) local autonomy

Ruling:

1. Yes.

(A.) The 2013 PDAF Article violated the principle of separation of powers because legislators have been accorded post-enactment authority in the
areas of fund release and alignment, not only that, they have also identified projects; all three of which aren’t related to the function of Congressional
Oversight but of duties that belong to the budget execution which should be done by the Executive Department.

(B.) The 2013 PDAF Article violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative powers because the power to appropriate must be exercised only
through legislation by the whole legislative body but the article allowed individual legislators to dictate how much of the fund would go to a specific
project that they determine.
 3

(C.) The 2013 PDAF Article violated the principle of checks and balances, particularly the item-veto power because it deprives the President of the
chance to veto an item since the item of appropriation appears only after the passage of the GAA through the legislator’s identification which is already
outside of the law.

(D.) The 2013 PDAF Article violates the principle of accountability since it gives the legislators a direct and financial interest turning them into
financially-interested partners instead of visualizers or disinterested observers since they check on the activities they participated in instead of justly
scrutinizing or monitoring which is under the duty of Congressional oversight.

(E.) The 2013 PDAF Article violates the principle of local autonomy because senators, who are national officers, who do not represent the locality
receive funding which is supposed for local development projects that should be based on specific peculiarities of the district and on economic and
geographic indicators; there’s an intervention in purely local matters.

7. Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. 582 SCRA 254 GR No. 167614

Facts: Petitioner was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. (respondents) under a Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA)-approved Contract of Employment with the condition that he will receive a monthly salary of $1400 for 12 months.

On the date of his departure, the petitioner was constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer with a
monthly salary of US$1,000.00, upon the assurance and representation of respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of April 1998
but Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make the petitioner Chief Officer.

Petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a Complaint against respondents for constructive dismissal and for payment of his money claims.

The LA rendered a decision in accordance with the provision of RA 8042, thus,

Sec. 10. Money Claims. - In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the
worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with the interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

Following the said provision the LA applied the law and awarded the amount representing 3 months’ salary.

Issue: Whether or not, the said provision is unconstitutional.

Ruling: Yes. The subject clause "or for three months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of
Republic Act No. 8042 is DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Resolution of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED to the effect that the petitioner
is AWARDED his salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his employment contract consisting of nine months and 23 days computed at the rate of
US$1,400.00 per month.

8. People vs. Pomar, 46 Phil 440 GR No. 22008

Facts: Julio Pomar, the manager, and person - in charge of La Flor de la Isabela, a tobacco factory pertaining to and corporation duly authorized to
transact business in Manila, employed Macaria Fajardoa as a cigar maker. She was granted a vacation leave by reason of pregnancy.

October 26, 1923

A case was filed against defendant Pomar for failing to pay Fajardo her regular wages corresponding to 30 days before and 30 days after her delivery
and confinement, in accordance with the provision of the Act. 3071 which states that;

“Section 13-Every person, firm or corporation owning or managing a factory, shop or place of labor of any description shall be obliged to grant to any
woman employed by it as a laborer who may be pregnant, thirty days’ vacation with pay before and another thirty days after confinement: Provided,
That the employer shall not discharge such laborer without just cause, under the penalty of being required to pay to her wages equivalent to the total
of two months counted from the day of her discharge.”

The judge found the defendant guilty of the alleged offense. From that sentence, the defendant appealed contending that his actions did not constitute
any offense because the provision of Act No. 3071 is unconstitutional.

Issue: Whether or not the provisions of sections 13 and 15 of Act No. 3071 are a reasonable and lawful exercise of the police power of the state.

Ruling: No. the law has deprived, every person, firm, or corporation owning or managing a factory, shop, or place of labor of any description within
the Philippine Islands, of his right to enter into contracts of employment upon such terms as he and the employee may agree upon. The law
creates a term in every such contract, without the consent of the parties. Such persons are, therefore, deprived of their liberty to contract. The
constitution of the Philippine Islands guarantees every citizen his liberty and one of his liberties is the liberty to contract. The rule in this jurisdiction is,
that the contracting parties may establish any agreements, terms, and conditions they may deem advisable, provided they are not contrary to law,
morals, or public policy. (Art. 1255, Civil Code.)

For all of the foregoing reasons, the provisions of section 13, of Act No. 3071 of the Philippine Legislature, are unconstitutional and void, in that they
violate and are contrary to the provisions of the first paragraph of section 3 of the Act of Congress of the United States of August 29, 1916. (Vol. 12,
Public Laws, p. 238.)

9. Lambino vs. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 GR No. 174153

Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 constitution, they filed a petition
with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support
of 6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the 1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of
Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. The proposed changes will shift the present bicameral-presidential form of government to
unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to a lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago vs.
Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative petitions.
 4

Issue: Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the
Constitution through a people’s initiative.

Ruling: No. According to the SC, the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a people’s initiative. The Initiative
Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People. The petitioners failed to show the
court that the initiative signer must be informed at the time of the signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading”
which renders the initiative void. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives.
The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between “amendment” and “revision, it is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2
art 17 of the constitution may propose only amendments to the constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change,
therefore a constitutes a revision.

10. Javellana vs. Tayo, 6 SCRA 1048 GR No. 18919

Facts: The petitioners are duly elected and qualified members of the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Buenavista, Iloilo; and the respondent
at the time the acts herein below complained of took place, was and still is the duly-elected and qualified Mayor of the Municipality. The Municipal
Council of Buenavista (Council) unanimously approved Resolution No. 5, Series of 1960 which set the regular sessions of the Council and which
resolution was duly approved by the respondent. At the time and place set for the regular session of the Council, the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, 2 Councilors,
and the Secretary were absent. The six councilors, who are the petitioners, in this case, were present and they proceeded to elect among themselves
a temporary presiding officer and Acting Secretary to take notes of the proceedings. Having thus elected a temporary presiding officer and a secretary
of the Council, they proceeded to do business. At the subsequent Council meetings, the Mayor, Vice Mayor, 2 Councilors, and Secretary were still
not around. When the Minutes of the Proceeding was presented to the Mayor, the latter refused to act upon said minutes, or particularly to approve
or disapprove the resolution as approved by the Council, the Mayor declaring the sessions above referred to as null and void and not in accordance
with.

Issue: Whether or not the sessions held by the Council were valid.

Ruling: Yes. This Court (the trial court), after perusal of all the records of this case, has reached the conclusion that the sessions held by the petitioner
during the absence of the respondent Mayor were perfectly valid and legal. The attendance of the Mayor is not essential to the validity of the session
as long as there is a quorum constituted in accordance with the law.

*Trial Court Decision AFFIRMED.