SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

De Leon v. ESGUERRA

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. (Effectivity is immediately upon ratification)

Gonzales v. COMELEC

Nature of power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto: not inherent power of Congress but of the people; constituent power of Congress

Tolentino v. COMELEC

The condition and limitation that all the amendments to be proposed by the same convention must be submitted in a single election or plebiscite.

Imbong v. COMELEC

Competence of Congress acting as Constituent Assembly: Authority to call constitutional convention as Constituent Assembly in enacting implementing details.

Sanidad v. COMELEC

-Presidential exercise of legislative powers (and proposing amendments) is valid in martial law.

-Amending process is a sovereign act, although the authority to institute the same and the procedure to be followed reside somehow in a particular body (Pres. Marcos).

Santiago v. COMELEC

The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed in a cold niche until Congress provides for its implementation. Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-executing.

Lambino v. COMELEC

Essence of people's initiative: (1) people must author; (2) they must sign the proposal; (3) proposal is embodied in petition

CONCEPT OF STATE

Bacani vs NACOCO

The mere fact that the Government happens to be a major stockholder of a corporation does not make it a public corporation.

Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions.

PVTA vs CIR

Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions obsolete.

Government has to provide for general welfare.

Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad

Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the people)

Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:

- abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted sovereign (political law).

- great body of municipal law regarding private and domestic rights continue in force until abrogated or changed by new ruler.

Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh

Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues until changed by some competent legislative power (not changed by mere change of sovereignty)

All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of a de facto government are good and valid.

Kinds of De facto government:

(1) de facto proper government obtained by force or voice of the majority

(2) paramount force by military forces who invade the territory

(3) independent government established by inhabitants through insurrection

Republic of the Philippines (during Japanese occupation) was a de facto government.

People vs Gozo

Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine sovereignty over American bases Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory.

Laurel vs Misa

Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and permanent

Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the government not transferred to occupier

Ruffy v Chief of Staff

The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered superseded or held in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory and not for the enemies in arms.

STATE IMMUNITY

Sanders v Veridiano

Mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of the laws of public officers and doctrine of state immunity

Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other states.

Republic v Sandoval

State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the incident; liability should fall on the public officers who committed acts beyond their authority

3 instances when suit is proper:

1. when sued by its name

2. when unincorporated government agency is sued

3. when the suit is against a government employee but liability belongs to the government

Festejo v Fernando

Officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable and maybe sued as any other citizen and held answerable for whatever injury

USA vs Guinto

A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.

Veterans Manpower vs CA

The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to be sued when it enters into a contract. However, it does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.

The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil

By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense.

Amigable vs. Cuenca

The government, when it takes away a property from a private land owner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetrating injustice to a citizen. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan When the state files an action, it divests itself of the sovereign character and shed its immunity form suit, descending to the level of an ordinary litigant.

Republic vs. Feliciano

- failure to allege in the complaint the existence of consent by the State is a fatal defect (construction must be strict against conferment of waiver

- Immunity may be invoked by the courts at any point/stage of the proceedings.

USA vs. Ruiz

Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states: States may be sued when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign.

The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.

Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state which the envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission

Republic vs. Villasor

- Judgment against the State cannot be enforced by execution. It may limit claimants action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the state of execution. Power of courts end when judgment is rendered. [suability vs. liability]

- Functions and public services cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the disruption of public funds.

Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC

Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its non-suability. Distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in the proprietary capacity.

State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from contract.

PNB vs. Pabalan

State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked with regard to funds of public corporations.

[suable corporations] Public funds of corporations which can sue and be sued are not exempt from gaarnishment.

Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan

The character of an incorporated agency allows it to sue and be sued without qualification

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Assoc.

Acceptance of outside work and payment of overtime compensation does not make work of Bureau of Printing proprietary.

Non-suability of the State is available to the agency even if it is shown that it is engaged not only in governmental functions but also, incidentally, in proprietary enterprises (unincorporated agency).

Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CA

If an agencys function is deemed proprietary, if such is a necessary incident of the primary and gov. function of such agency, such agency is not suable (for an unincorporated agency only).

Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals

- Not all government entities whether corporate or not are immune from suits. Immunity from suits is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity was organized.

- Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in which they have assumed to act in private or non-governmental capacity, and various suits against certain corporations created by the State to engage In matters partaking more of the nature of ordinary business are not regarded as suits against the State.

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme

The test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver acting in behalf of the municipality is performing governmental or proprietary functions. It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the state merely gives the claimants the right to show the defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was inflicted or that the case comes under the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimants cannot recover.

Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez

Municipal funds in possession of municipal and provincial treasurers are public funds exempt from execution. Municipal funds are held in trust for the people intended and used for the accomplishments of the purposes for which municipal corporations are created and that to subject said properties and public funds to execution would materially impede, even defeat and in some instance destroy said purposes.

Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals

When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable reason to effect payment of a final money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds.

Fundamental Principles and State Policies

Section 1

Villavicencio v. Lukban:

Mayors act is unconstitutional. It was not authorized by any law or ordinance. Our government is a government of laws and not of men.

Section 2

Kuroda v. Jalandoni:

think Japanese Lieutenant-General charged before the military commission.

Held: The Philippines can adopt the rules and regulations laid down on the Hague and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding that it is not a signatory thereto. It embodied generally accepted principles of international law binding upon all states.

Agustin v. Edu:

think triangular reflectorized early warning devices.

Held: Legislative enactment is not necessary in order to authorize the issuance of LOI prescribing the use of triangular reflectorized early warning devices. This is also an illustration of generally accepted principles of international law (Pacta sunt servanda).

Ichong v. Hernandez:

think Retail Trade Nationalization Law which is against the principle of Pacta sunt servanda.Held: the Retail Trade Nationalization Law is not unconstitutional because it was passed in the exercise of the police power which cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty.

Gonzales v. Hechanova:

Prevalence of National or Municipal law over International law: Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also when it runs counter to an act of Congress.

In re Garcia

A treaty cannot modify regulations governing admission to Philippine bar (that would be an encroachment upon Supreme Court by the Executive)

Section 3

IBP vs. Zamora

the deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of the marines in this case constitutes permissible use of military asset for civilian law enforcement. x x x The limited participation of the Marines is evident in the provisions of the Letter of Instruction (LOI) itself, which sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of the Marines authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones charge of the visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, the Metro Manila Police Chief is the overall leader of the PNP-Marines joint visibility patrols.

Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on police patrol

procedures. It is their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the

marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary equipment to the Marines

and render logistic support to these soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be

properly argued that military authority is supreme over civilian authority.

It is worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian authorities in various

forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The Philippine experience reveals that it is not

averse to requesting the assistance of the military in the implementation and execution

of certain traditionally civil functions. x x x Some of the multifarious activities wherein

military aid has been rendered, exemplifying the activities that bring both the civilian and

the military together in a relationship of cooperation are:

1. Elections;

2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross;

3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and disasters;

4. Amateur sports promotion and development;

5. Development of the culture and the arts;

6. Conservation of the natural resources;

7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program;

8. Enforcement of customs laws;

9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities;

10. Conduct of licensure examinations;

11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary and high school students;

12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;

13. Sanitary inspections;

14. Conduct of census work;

15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautic Board;

16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting devices;

17. Peace and order policy formulation in local government units.

This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power resulting from a

systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress

and, yet, never before questioned. What we have here is a mutual support and

cooperation between the military and civilian authorities, not derogation of civilian

supremacy.Section 4People vs. Lagman

- Case at bar: accused is prosecuted for failure to register for military service under the National Defense Act - SC upheld the National Defense Act. To leave an organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.

Section 5

Chavez vs. Romulo

Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional right. The license to carry a firearm is neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create a vested right. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of police power. The maintenance of peace and order, and the protection of the people against violence are constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear firearm is to be construed in connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties.

Section 6

Aglipay vs. Ruiz

-There is no violation of the principle of the separation of church and state. The issuance and sale of the stamps in question may be said to be linked with an event of a religious character, but the resulting propaganda, if any, received by the Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose of the government. The idea behind the issuance of the postage stamps was to attract tourists to our country and not primarily the religious event.

- What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty , not mere religious toleration. However, religious freedom is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs.

Austria vs. NLRC

an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church and its members and relates to matter of faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of the congregation. Examples of these affairs in which the State cannot meddle are proceedings for excommunication, ordination of religious ministers, administration of sacraments, and other activities to which is attached religious significance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee. It is purely secular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of the church.Section 10

Calalang vs. Williams

-Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number.

Almeda vs. CA

-There exists a tenants right of redemption in sugar and coconut lands. Pursuant to Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, it recognizes share tenancy in sugar lands which is in consonance with the States promotion of social justice wherein it may regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse propertyownership and profits.Ondoy .vs. Ignacio

-The principle of social justice applied in this case is a matter of protection, not equality. The Court recognized the right of the petitioner to the claim of compensation because her son was shown to have died while in the actual performance of his work. To strengthen the constitutional scheme of social justice and protection to labor, The Court made mention that as between a laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the employer, who has resources to secure able legal advice, the law has reason to demand from the latter the stricter compliance.Salonga vs. Farrales

-The plea of social justice of the plaintiff cannot be considered because it was shown that no contract, either to sell or of sale, was ever perfected between him and the defendant. It must be remembered that social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social justice consecrated in our Constitution was not intended to take away rights from a person and give them to another who is not entitled thereto.

Section 12Meyer vs. Nebraska

It is incompetent for the government to prohibit the teaching of a foreign language to students. There is nothing harmful in the language that will impair the upbringing of the child.

Pierce vs. Society of Sisters

State may not require children to attend only public schools. The child is not a creature of the State.

Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge

Youthful Offender: A person charged with an offense but found to be a youthful offender could be provisionally released on recognizance at courts decision.

Section 14

PT&T Co. vs. NLRC

the SC held that the petitioners policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and the right against, discrimination, which is guaranteed all women workers under the Constitution. While a requirement that a woman employee must remain unmarried may be justified as a bona fide occupational qualification where the particular requirements of the job would demand the same, discrimination against married women cannot be adopted by the employer as a general principle.

Section 16

Oposa vs. Factoran

[Intergenerational Responsibility / Intergenerational Justice] the 34 minors duly joined by their respective parents pleading the cause of inter-generational responsibility and inter-generational justice, had a valid cause of action in questioning the grant of Timber Licensing Agreements (TLAs) for commercial logging purposes. The minors filed the action for themselves as representing their generation as well as generations yet unborn. The SC, on the basis of Section 16, Article II linked with the right to health, recognized a right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.LLDA v. CA

The immediate response to the demands of necessities of protecting vital public interests gives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 16. As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but the consonance with the declared policy of the state to protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala

On the issue that the total log ban is a new policy which should be applied prospectively and not affect the rights of petitioner vested under the Timber Licensing Agreement (TLA), the Sc held that this is not a new policy but a mere reiteration of the policy of conservation and protection the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.Section 17

PRC vs. De Guzman

while it is true that the SC has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements, the exercise of this right may be regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety and general welfare. Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. This regulation assumes particular pertinence in the field of medicine, in order to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance.

PMMS, Inc. vs. CA

the Court said that the requirement that a school must first obtain government authorization before operating is based on the State policy that educational programs and/or operations shall be of good quality and, therefore, shall at least satisfy minimum standards with respect to curricula, teaching staff, physical plant and facilities and administrative and management viability.Section 18

Bernardo vs. NLRC

The SC held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabled persons be granted the same terms and conditions of employment as qualified able bodied employees; thus, once hey have attained the status of regular workers, they should be accorded all the benefits granted by law, notwithstanding written or verbal contracts to the contrary. This treatment is rooted not merely in charity or accommodation, but in justice for all.Section 19

Garcia vs. BOI

BOI committed grave abuse of discretion because it repudiates the independent policy of government to run its affairs the way it deems best for the national interest.

Every provision of the Constitution on the national economy and patrimony is infused with the spirit of national interest. The non-alienation of national resources, the State full control over the development and utilization of contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country and the regulation of foreign investment in accordance to national goals and priorities are too explicit not to be noticed and understood.

Section 20

Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PCA,

the SC said that although the Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary for the promotion of the general welfare as reflected in Sections 6 & 19 of Article XII.

Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide

Authority, and Pharmaceutical and Health

Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque IIIDespite the fact that our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. Free enterprise does not call for removal of protective regulations. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade.Section 21

ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner. Private rights must yield to the irresistible demands of the public interest on the time-honored justification, as in the case of the policed power, that the welfare of the people is the supreme law.

Section 25

BASCO VS PAGCOR

Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution simply means the decentralization and does not make the local governments sovereign within the State or an imperium imperio.

LIMBONA VS MANGELIN

Decentralization of administration is merely delegation of administrative powers to the LGUs in order to broaden the base of governmental power. Decentralization of power is the abdication by the national government powers.

Section 26

Pamatong vs. COMELEC

- There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office and, particularly, to seek the presidency. What is recognized is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles and State Policies." The provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-executing, and there is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any cause of action before the courts.

Section 30

Legspi vs CSC

The constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is self-executing without the need for any ancillary act of legislation.Valmonte vs de VillaThe constitutional right to information is limited on matters of public concern and is further subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. However, although citizens are afforded the right to information, the Constitution does not accord them the right to compel the custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire information of public concern.

Aquino-Sarmiento vs Morato

- When a committee or board is created as public in its very existence and character such as the MTRCB, there can be no valid claim to privacy. Here, decisions of Board and individual voting slips are public in character.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

In re Manzano

- Members of the SC and other courts shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.

- The committee performs administrative function* which under Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution prohibits members of the SC and other courts established by law to be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. To quote CJ Fernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig, he said that while the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government precluding its doctrine application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in character. Administrative functions are those which involves the regulation and control the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislative or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence.

Angara vs. Electoral Commission

- Separation of powers as actual division than obtained through express provision

- Judiciary is the only Constitutional Arbiter to allocate Constitutional Boundaries

- Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of the Constitution asserted by the judiciary (not supremacy of the judiciary itself)

- Judicial Review is limited to Actual Litigation. Judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of litigation.

- The Electoral Commission is an independent, impartial, and non-partisan tribunal. The sole power to determine contests regarding the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly has been transferred in totality to the Electoral Commission. Its power is clear, complete, and exclusive.

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA

- Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced.

- Completeness test and Sufficient Standard Test:

Completeness Test = complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that what is left is merely its enforcement.

Sufficient Standard Test = adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.

- Subordinate Legislation = delegated power to issue rules to carry out the general provision of the statute. (Administrative bodies implement the broad policies by promulgating their supplementary regulations.)

Casibang vs. Aquino

- Political Question = question of policy; question to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or full discretionary authority

- Justiciable Question = implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable; an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law for said breach of right.

Sanidad v. COMELEC

On whether the case is justiciable

Political questions are associated with the wisdom of the legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. If the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed was valid or not.

On whether the President may propose Constitutional amendments

If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but an adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative power.

(Note that at the time Prez. Marcos had legislative powers and there was no legislative department at the time)

Daza v. Singson

Where the legality or validity of the act is in question and not the wisdom of the act, the Court may take jurisdiction and decide on the acts validity. Even in political questions the Court may take jurisdiction under the expanded judicial power extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

(Judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government.)

Delegation of Powers

Garcia v. Exec. Secretary

The Congress may authorize the President to fix tariff rates and duties subject to such limitations and restrictions that they may impose. This is expressly provided for in Art 6, Sec 28 par 2 of the Constitution.

Araneta v. Dinglasan

The delegation of emergency powers by Congress to the President may be limited by Congress subject to restrictions it may provide. Congress may withdraw the delegated power at any time. In this case, the emergency power was withdrawn at the time Congress became able to exercise its legislative duties again.

Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA

The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all three branches of government specifically in the case of the legislative. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced and not what the law shall be since the ascertainment of the latter subject is within the prerogative and determination of the legislature. Delegation of legislative power is permitted and valid provided that is passes the two accepted tests- completeness test and the sufficient standard test. The reason for such delegation is the increasing complexity of the task of the government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention.

Rodriguez v. Gella

Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of the constitutional limitation of the delegation of emergency powers. It is presumed that the National Assembly intended it to be for a limited period. Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546, which was anchored to the said Act are declared null and void and the respondents are ordered to desist from appropriating, releasing and allotting expending funds set aside therein.

People v. Vera

Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative power. The powers of the government are distributed among three coordinate and substantially independent organs: the legislative, the executive and the judicial. Each of the departments of the government derives its authority from the Constitution.US vs. Ang Tang HoIf the act within itself does not define a crime and is not complete, legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, the doing of which is vested in the Gov, generally, the act is a delegation of legislative power, and is thus unconstitutional and void.

Ynot vs. IACThere is no standard that the officials must observe in determining to whom to distribute the confiscated carabaos and carabeef. There is thus an invalid delegation of legislatie power.

Tablarin vs. Gutierez

Because the necessity standards are set forth in the statute (RA No. 2383), providing for standardization and regulation of education, delegation is valid.

Pelaez vs. Auditor GeneralThe two tests (Completeness test and Sufficient Standard test) must be applied together.

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita

Where the effectivity of the law is made dependent on the verification by the executive of the existence of certain conditions, the verification is delegated to the executive. (This is an example of contingent legislation - a valid delegation of law execution).