Set 4&5 Case Digests

7/26/2019 Set 4&5 Case Digests

1/41

Title: SHIGENORI KURODA,petitioner, vs.Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI,

Brigadier General CALIXO DU!UE, Colonel MARGARIO ORALBA, Colonel

IRENEO BUENCONSEJO, Colonel "EDRO ABUENA, Major FEDERICO ARANAS,

MEL#ILLE S$ HUSSE% and ROBER "OR,respondents.

Reference: G$R$ No$ L&'((' Mar)* '(, +-

Facts:

Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and

Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Fores in !he "hilippines during a period

overing #$%&& and #$%%% 'ho is no' harged (efore a military Commission onvened

(y the Chief of Staff of the Armed fores of the "hilippines 'ith having unla'fully

disregarded and failed )to disharge his duties as suh ommand, permitting them to

ommit (rutal atroities and other high rimes against nonom(atant ivilians and

prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Fores in violation of the la's and ustoms of 'ar) *

omes (efore this Court see+ing to esta(lish the illegality of eutive rder /o. 01 of

the "resident of the "hilippines2 to en3oin and prohi(it respondents 4elville S. 5ussey

and 6o(ert "ort from partiipating in the proseution of petitioner7s ase (efore the

4ilitary Commission and to permanently prohi(it respondents from proeeding 'ith the

ase of petitioners.

Issue: Whether or not the doctrine of incorporation is applied.

Discussion:eutive rder /o. 01, esta(lishing a /ational 8ar Crimes ffie presri(ing rule and

regulation governing the trial of aused 'ar riminals, 'as issued (y the "resident of

the "hilippines on the 9$th days of July, #$%: !his Court holds that this order is valid and

onstitutional. Artile 9 of our Constitution provides in its setion &, that *

!he "hilippines renounes 'ar as an instrument of national poliy and adopts the

generally aepted priniples of international la' as part of the of the nation.

In aordane 'ith the generally aepted priniple of international la' of the present

day inluding the 5ague Convention the Geneva Convention and signifiant preedents

of international 3urisprudene esta(lished (y the ;nited /ation all those person military or

ivilian 'ho have (een guilty of planning preparing or 'aging a 'ar of aggression and of

the ommission of rimes and offenses onse


2/41

for ats ommitted in violation of the 5ague Convention and the Geneva Convention

(eause the "hilippines is not a signatory to the first and signed the seond only in #$%:.

It annot (e denied that the rules and regulation of the 5ague and Geneva onventions

form, part of and are 'holly (ased on the generally aepted prinipals of international

la'. In fats these rules and priniples 'ere aepted (y the t'o (elligerent nation the;nited State and Japan 'ho 'ere signatories to the t'o Convention, Suh rule and

priniples therefore form part of the la' of our nation even if the "hilippines 'as not a

signatory to the onventions em(odying them for our Constitution has (een deli(erately

general and etensive in its sope and is not onfined to the reognition of rule and

priniple of international la' as ontinued inn treaties to 'hih our government may have

(een or shall (e a signatory.

Furthermore 'hen the rimes harged against petitioner 'ere allegedly ommitted the

"hilippines 'as under the sovereignty of ;nited States and thus 'e 'ere e


3/41

Title:"HILI" MORRIS, INC$, BENSON . HEDGES /CANADA0, INC$, AND FABRI!UES

OF ABAC REUNIES, S$A$,petitioners vs.HE COUR OF A""EALS AND FORUNE

OBACCO COR"ORAION, respondents.

Reference:G$R$ No$ +11' J2l3 +(, +1Fa)456

At the rossroads are the t'o >9? ontending parties, plaintiffs vigorously asserting the

rights granted (y la', treaty and 3urisprudene to restrain defendant in its ativities of

manufaturing, selling, distri(uting and advertising its )4A6K) igarettes and no' omes

defendant 'ho ountered and refused to (e restrained laiming that it has (een

authori=ed temporarily (y the @ureau of Internal 6evenue under ertain onditions to do

so as aforestated oupled (y its pending appliation for registration of trademar+ )4A6K)

in the "hilippine "atent ffie. !his irumstane in itself has reated a dispute (et'een

the parties 'hih to the mind of the Court does not 'arrant the issuane of a 'rit of

preliminary in3untion.

Issue: Whether or not the doctrine of incorporation is applied.

Discussion:

"etitioner has never onduted any (usiness in the "hilippines. It has never promoted its

tradename or trademar+ in the "hilippines. It is un+no'n to Filipino eept the very fe'

'ho may have notied it 'hile travelling a(road. It has never paid a single entavo of ta

to the "hilippine government. ;nder the la', it has no right to the remedy it see+s. >at pp.1$-$#.?

Follo'ing universal a


4/41

Rulings:

In other 'ords, petitioners may have the apaity to sue for infringement irrespetive of

la+ of (usiness ativity in the "hilippines on aount of Setion 9#-A of the !rademar+

La' (ut the Caluya vs. 6amos, :$ "hil. 0%B E#$:%

& 4oran, 6ules of Court, #$:B ed., p. 1#?.


5/41

Title: SECREAR% OF JUSICE,petitioner, vs.HON$ RAL"H C$ LANION, "re5iding

J2dge, Regional rial Co2r4 o7 Manila, Bran)* '8, and MARK B$ JIMENE9,

respondents.

Reference: G$R$ No$ +1-(8 Jan2ar3 +:, ';;;

Facts:

n June #1, #$$$, the Hepartment of Justie reeived from the Hepartment of Foreign

Affairs ;.S. /ote er(ale /o. B99 ontaining a re


6/41

Setion 9, Artile II of the Constitution 'hih provides that )Ethe "hilippines renounes

'ar as an instrument of national poliy, adopts the generally aepted priniples of

international la' as part of the la' of the land, and adheres to the poliy of peae,

eIhong vs. 5ernande=, #B#

"hil. ## E#$: Gon=ales vs. 5ehanova, $ SC6A 9&B E#$0& In re2 Garia, 9 SC6A

$1% E#$0#? for the reason that suh ourts are organs of muniipal la' and are

aordingly (ound (y it in all irumstanes >Salonga Dap, op. cit., p. #&?. !he fat that

international la' has (een made part of the la' of the land does not pertain to or imply

the primay of international la' over national or muniipal la' in the muniipal sphere.

!he dotrine of inorporation, as applied in most ountries, derees that rules ofinternational la' are given eIbid.?.

Rulings:

In the "hilippine ontet, this Court7s ruling is invo+ed2

ne of the (asi priniples of the demorati system is that 'here the rights of

the individual are onerned, the end does not 3ustify the means. It is not enough

that there (e a valid o(3etive it is also neessary that the means employed to

pursue it (e in +eeping 'ith the Constitution. 4ere epedieny 'ill not euse

onstitutional shortuts. !here is no Assoiation of Small Lando'ners in the "hilippines,

In. vs. Seretary of Agrarian 6eform, #: SC6A &%&, &:-&:0 E#$1$?.!here an (e no dispute over petitioner7s argument that etradition is a tool of riminal


7/41

la' enforement. !o (e effetive, re


8/41

Title: GO#ERNMEN OF HE UNIED SAES OF AMERICA, ReSFA? transmitted them to the seretary of

3ustie >SJ? for appropriate ation, pursuant to Setion of "residential Heree >"H?

/o. #B0$, also +no'n as the tradition La'.

;pon learning of the re


9/41

implementation of etradition treaties to 'hih the "hilippines is a signatory,

understanding ertain postulates of etradition 'ill aid us in properly deiding the issues

raised here.

An etradition treaty presupposes that (oth parties thereto have eamined, and that (othaept and trust, eah others legal system and 3udiial proess. 4ore pointedly, our duly

authori=ed representatives signature on an etradition treaty signifies our onfidene in

the apaity and the 'illingness of the other state to protet the (asi rights of the person

sought to (e etradited.!hat signature signifies our full faith that the aused 'ill (e

given, upon etradition to the rea? there is

no flight ris+ and no danger to the ommunity and >(? there eist speial, humanitarian or

ompelling irumstanes. !he grounds used (y the highest ourt in the re


10/41

3udiial disretion in the ontet of the peuliar fats of eah ase.

n the other hand, ourts merely perform oversight funtions and eerise revie'

authority to prevent or eise grave a(use and tyranny. !hey should not allo'

ontortions, delays and )over-due proess) every little step of the 'ay, lest thesesummary etradition proeedings (eome not only inutile (ut also soures of

international em(arrassment due to our ina(ility to omply in good faith 'ith a treaty

partners simple re


11/41

Title: LAO H$ ICHONG, in *i5 on =e*al7 and in =e*al7 o7 o4*er alien re5iden45,

)or


12/41

which and through which the &tate seeks to attain or achieve

interest or welfare. &o it is that Constitutions do not dene the scope

or etent of the police power of the &tate' what they do is to set

forth the limitations thereof. The most important of these are the

due process clause and the equal protection clause.

Another su(ordinate argument against the validity of the la' is the supposed violation

there(y of the Charter of the ;nited /ations and of the Helaration of the 5uman 6ights

adopted (y the ;nited /ations General Assem(ly. 8e find no merit in the /ations

Charter imposes no strit or legal o(ligations regarding the rights and freedom of their

su(3ets >5ans Kelsen, !he La' of the ;nited /ations, #$# ed. pp. 9$-&9?, and the

Helaration of 5uman 6ights ontains nothing more than a mere reommendation or a

ommon standard of ahievement for all peoples and all nations > Id. p. &$.? !hat suh is

the import of the ;nited /ations Charter aid of the Helaration of 5uman 6ights an (e

inferred the fat that mem(ers of the ;nited /ations rgani=ations, suh as /or'ay and

Henmar+, prohi(it foreigners from engaging in retail trade, and in most nations of the

'orld la's against foreigners engaged in domesti trade are adopted.

!he !reaty of Amity (et'een the 6epu(li of the "hilippines and the 6epu(li of China of

April #1, #$%: is also laimed to (e violated (y the la' in ;. S. vs. !hompson, 91,

Fed. 9:, 90B?, and the same may never urtail or restrit the sope of the polie po'er

of the State >plaston vs. "ennsylvania, 1 L. ed. &$.?

Rulings:

*esuming what we have set forth above we hold that the disputed

law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to

national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail

business and free citi"ens and country from dominance and control'

that the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power

of the &tate, thru which and by which it protects its own personality

and insures its security and future' that the law does not violate the

equal protection clause of the Constitution because su+cient

grounds eist for the distinction between alien and citi"en in the

eercise of the occupation regulated, nor the due process of law

clause, because the law is prospective in operation and recogni"es

the privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation andreasonably protects their privilege' that the wisdom and e+cacy of


13/41

the law to carry out its ob$ectives appear to us to be plainly evident

as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but actually

necessary and that in any case such matter falls within the

prerogative of the -egislature, with whose power and discretion the

udicial department of the /overnment may not interfere' that theprovisions of the law are clearly embraced in the title, and this

su0ers from no duplicity and has not misled the legislators or the

segment of the population a0ected' and that it cannot be said to be

void for supposed con1ict with treaty obligations because no treaty

has actually been entered into on the sub$ect and the police power

may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other

conventional agreement.

Title: RAMON A$ GON9ALES,petitioner, vs. RUFINO G$ HECHANO#A, a5 Ee)24ie

Se)re4ar3, MACARIO "ERALA, JR$, a5 Se)re4ar3 o7 De7en5e, "EDRO GIMENE9, a5

A2di4or General, CORNELIO BALMACEDA, a5 Se)re4ar3 o7 Co>>er)e and

Ind254r3, and SAL#ADOR MARINO, Se)re4ar3 o7 J254i)e,respondents.

Reference: G$R$ No$ L&'+:@ O)4o=er '', +(1

Facts:It is not disputed that on Septem(er 99, #$0&, respondent eutive Seretary

authori=ed the importation of 0:,BBB tons of foreign rie to (e purhased from private

soures, and reated a rie prourement ommittee omposed of the other respondents

herein for the implementation of said proposed importation. !hereupon, or Septem(er 9,

#$0&, herein petitioner, 6amon A. Gon=ales * a rie planter, and president of the Iloilo

"alay and Corn "lanters Assoiation, 'hose mem(ers are, li+e'ise, engaged in the

prodution of rie and orn * filed the petition herein, averring that, in ma+ing or

attempting to ma+e said importation of foreign rie, the aforementioned respondents )are

ating 'ithout 3urisdition or in eess of 3urisdition), (eause 6epu(li At /o. &%9

'hih allegedly repeals or amends 6epu(li At /o. 99B * epliitly prohi(its the

importation of rie and orn )the 6ie and Corn Administration or any other government

agency) that petitioner has no other plain, speedy and ade


14/41

Issue: Whether or not the municipal law prevails over the international law.

Discussion:

Indeed, the restritions imposed in said 6epu(li Ats are merely additionalto those

presri(ed in Common'ealth At /o. #&1, entitled )An At to give native produts anddomesti entities the preferene in the purhase of artiles for the Government.)

"ursuant to Setion # thereof2

!he "urhase and


15/41

legislative authority, he may not, (y eeutive agreement, enter into a transation 'hih

isprohibited(y statutes enated prior thereto.

As regards the #? All ases in 'hih the constitutionalityor validityof any

treaty, la', ordinane, or eeutive order or regulation is in


16/41

Title: IMBONG vs. OCHOA

Reference: G$R$ No$ ';-:+ A


17/41

under pain o! penalt,* to re!er patient to other intitution depite their

concientiou o+-ection

c$) WON the RH Law violate the "uarantee o! reli"iou !reedo' +, re.uirin"

would+e poue* a a condition !or the iuance o! a 'arria"e licene* to

attend a e'inar on parenthood* !a'il, plannin"* +reat!eedin" and in!ant

nutrition

4$ Ri"ht to privac, ('arital privac, and autono',)

5$ &reedo' o! epreion and acade'ic !reedo'

Discussion:

1$) a-orit, o! the e'+er o! the ourt +elieve that the .uetion o! when li!e

+e"in i a cienti2c and 'edical iue that hould not +e decided* at thita"e* without proper hearin" and evidence$ However* the, a"reed that

individual e'+er could epre their own view on thi 'atter$

Article * ection 1% o! the ontitution tate# he tate reco"ni6e the

anctit, o! !a'il, li!e and hall protect and tren"then the !a'il, a a +aic

autono'ou ocial intitution$ t hall e.uall, protect the li!e o! the 'other

and the li!e o! the un+orn !ro' conception$7

n it plain and ordinar, 'eanin" (a canon in tatutor, contruction)* the

traditional 'eanin" o! conception7 accordin" to reputa+le dictionarie cited

+, theponentei that li!e +e"in at !ertili6ation$ edical ource alo upport

the view that conception +e"in at !ertili6ation$

he !ra'er o! the ontitution alo intended !or (a) conception7 to re!er to

the 'o'ent o! !ertili6ation7 and (+) the protection o! the un+orn child upon

!ertili6ation$ n addition* the, did not intend to +an all contraceptive !or +ein"

uncontitutional8 onl, thoe that 9ill or detro, the !ertili6ed ovu' would +e

prohi+ited$ ontraceptive that actuall, prevent the union o! the 'ale per'

and !e'ale ovu'* and thoe that i'ilarl, ta9e action +e!ore !ertili6ation

hould +e dee'ed nona+ortive* and thu contitutionall, per'ii+le$

The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting the life of

the unborn child was to prevent the -egislature from passing a

measure prevent abortion.he ourt cannot interpret thi otherwie$The

*2 -aw is in line with this intent and actually prohibits abortion. :,

uin" the word or7 in de2nin" a+orti!acient (ection 4(a))* the RH Law

prohi+it not onl, dru" or device that prevent i'plantation +ut alo thoe

that induce a+ortion and induce the detruction o! a !etu inide the 'other;

wo'+$ he RH Law reco"ni6e that the !ertili6ed ovu' alread, ha li!e and

that the tate ha a +ounded dut, to protect it$However* the author o! the RR "ravel, a+ued their o


18/41

rede2ned the 'eanin" o! a+orti!acient +, uin" the ter' pri'aril,7$

Reco"ni6in" a a+orti!acient onl, thoe that pri'aril, induce a+ortion or the

detruction o! a !etu inide the 'other; wo'+ or the prevention o! the

!ertili6ed ovu' to reach and +e i'planted in the 'other; wo'+7 (ec$

3$01(a) o! the RR) would pave the wa, !or the approval o! contraceptive that'a, har' or detro, the li!e o! the un+orn !ro' conception/!ertili6ation$ hi

violate ection 1%* Article o! the ontitution$ &or the a'e reaon* the

de2nition o! contraceptive under the RR (ec 3$01(-))* which alo ue the

ter' pri'aril,7* 'ut +e truc9 down$

%$) =etitioner clai' that the ri"ht to health i violated +, the RH Law +ecaue

it re.uire the incluion o! hor'onal contraceptive* intrauterine device*

in-ecta+le and other a!e* le"al* nona+orti!acient and e>ective !a'il,

plannin" product and upplie in the National ?ru" &or'ular, and in the

re"ular purchae o! eential 'edicine and upplie o! all national hopital

(ection @ o! the RH Law)$ he, cite ri9 o! "ettin" dieae "ained +, uin"

e$"$ oral contraceptive pill$

o'e petitioner do not .uetion contraception and contraceptive per se$

Rather* the, pra, that the tatu .uo under RA 4%@ and 5@%1 +e 'aintained$

hee law prohi+it the ale and ditri+ution o! contraceptive without the

precription o! a dul,licened ph,ician$

he RH Law doe not intend to do awa, with RA 4%@(1@BB)$ 3ith *! 4567

in place, the Court believes adequate safeguards eist to ensure that

only safe contraceptives are made available to the public. n !ul2llin"

it 'andate under ec$ 10 o! the RH Law* the ?OH 'ut 9eep in 'ind theproviion o! RA 4%@# the contraceptives it will procure shall be from a

duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and that the

actual distribution of these contraceptive drugs and devices will be

done following a prescription of a qualied medical practitioner.

eanwhile* the requirement of &ection 7 of the *2 -aw is to be

considered 8mandatory9 only after these devices and materials have

been tested, evaluated and approved by the :#!. on"re cannot

deter'ine that contraceptive are a!e* le"al* nona+orti2cient and

e>ective7$

3$) he ourt cannot deter'ine whether or not the ue o! contraceptive or

participation in upport o! 'odern RH 'eaure (a) i 'oral !ro' a reli"iou

tandpoint8 or* (+) ri"ht or wron" accordin" to one; do"'a or +elie!$

However* the ourt ha the authorit, to deter'ine whether or not the RH Law

contravene the ontitutional "uarantee o! reli"iou !reedo'$

3a$) he tate 'a, purue it le"iti'ate ecular o+-ective without +ein"

dictated upon the policie o! an, one reli"ion$ o allow reli"iou ect to

dictate polic, or retrict other "roup would violate Article * ection 5 o! the

ontitution or the Cta+lih'ent laue$ hi would caue the tate to


19/41

adhere to a particular reli"ion* and thu* eta+lihe a tate reli"ion$ hu* the

tate can enhance it population control pro"ra' throu"h the RH Law even i!

the pro'otion o! contraceptive ue i contrar, to the reli"iou +elie! o! e$"$

the petitioner$

3+$) ection * %3* and %4 o! the RH Law o+li"e a hopital or 'edical

practitioner to i''ediatel, re!er a peron ee9in" health care and ervice

under the law to another accei+le healthcare provider depite their

concientiou o+-ection +aed on reli"iou or ethical +elie!$ hese

provisions violate the religious belief and conviction of a

conscientious ob$ector. They are contrary to &ection 67;6protected right must prevail over the e0ective

implementation of the law.

Ccludin" pu+lic health o


20/41

!a'il, plannin" 'ethod to +e included in the e'inar$ hoe who attend the

e'inar are !ree to accept or re-ect in!or'ation the, receive and the, retain

the !reedo' to decide on 'atter o! !a'il, li!e without the intervention o! the

tate$

4$) ection %3(a)(%)(i) o! the RH Law* which per'it RH procedure even withonl, the conent o! the poue under"oin" the proviion (dire"ardin" poual

content)* intrudes into martial privacy and autonomy and goes against

the constitutional safeguards for the family as the basic social

institution.=articularl,* ection 3* Article EF o! the ontitution 'andate

the tate to de!end# (a) the ri"ht o! poue to !ound a !a'il, in accordance

with their reli"iou conviction and the de'and o! reponi+le parenthood

and (+) the ri"ht o! !a'ilie or !a'il, aociation to participate in the

plannin" and i'ple'entation o! policie and pro"ra' that a>ect the'$ he

RH Law cannot in!rin"e upon thi 'utual deciion'a9in"* and endan"er the

intitution o! 'arria"e and the !a'il,$

he ecluion o! parental conent in cae where a 'inor under"oin" a

procedure i alread, a parent or ha had a 'icarria"e (ection o! the RH

Law) i alo anti!a'il, and violate Article * ection 1% o! the ontitution*

which tate# he natural and pri'ar, ri"ht and dut, o! parent in the

rearin" o! the ,outh !or civic e


21/41

parent in the develop'ent o! their children with the ue o! the ter'

pri'ar,7$ he ri"ht o! parent in up+rin"in" their ,outh i uperior to that o!

the tate$

he proviion o! ection 14 o! the RH Law and correpondin" proviion o!

the RR upple'ent (rather than upplant) the ri"ht and dutie o! the parent

in the 'oral develop'ent o! their children$

:, incorporatin" parentteacherco''unit, aociation* chool o6.A. /o.

$:#B?, sans the oerive provisions of the assailed legislation. All the same, the priniple

of )no-a(ortion) and )non-oerion) in the adoption of any family planning method should

(e maintained.

856F6, the petitions are "A6!IALLD G6A/!H. Aordingly, the Court delares

6.A. /o. #B&% as /! ;/C/S!I!;!I/AL eept 'ith respet to the follo'ing

provisions 'hih are delared ;/C/S!I!;!I/AL2

#? Setion : and the orresponding provision in the 65-I66 insofar as they2 a?

rea?>l? and the orresponding provision in the 65-I66, partiularly

Setion .9% thereof, insofar as they punish any healthare servie provider 'ho

fails and or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and servies

on reprodutive health regardless of his or her religious (eliefs.

&? Setion 9&>a?>9?>i? and the orresponding provision in the 65-I66 insofar asthey allo' a married individual, not in an emergeny or life-threatening ase, as


22/41

defined under 6epu(li At /o. 1&%%, to undergo reprodutive health proedures

'ithout the onsent of the spouse

%? Setion 9&>a?>9?>ii? and the orresponding provision in the 65-I66 insofar as

they limit the rea?>&? and the orresponding provision in the 65-I66, partiularly

Setion .9% thereof, insofar as they punish any healthare servie provider 'ho

fails andor refuses to refer a patient not in an emergeny or life-threatening ase,

as defined under 6epu(li At /o. 1&%%, to another health are servie provider

'ithin the same faility or one 'hih is onveniently aessi(le regardless of his

or her religious (eliefs

0? Setion 9&>(? and the orresponding provision in the 65-I66, partiularly

Setion .9% thereof, insofar as they punish any pu(li offier 'ho refuses to

support reprodutive health programs or shall do any at that hinders the full

implementation of a reprodutive health program, regardless of his or her

religious (eliefs

:? Setion #: and the orresponding prov#s#Bn in the 65-I66 regarding the

rendering of pro (ona reprodutive health servie in so far as they affet the

onsientious o(3etor in seuring "hil5ealth areditation and

1? Setion &.Bl>a? and Setion &.B# G? of the 65-I66, 'hih added the a? of the 65 La' and

violating Setion #9, Artile II of the Constitution.

!he Status uo Ante rder issued (y the Court on 4arh #$, 9B#& as etended (y its

rder, dated July #0, 9B#& , is here(y LIF!H, insofar as the provisions of 6.A. /o.

#B&% 'hih have (een herein delared as onstitutional.

S 6H6H.


23/41

Set 5

Title:THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and HONGKONG & SHANGHAI

BANKING CORPORATION Petitioners, vs. OSE O. !ERA, "d#e

o$ t%e Co"rt o$

First Instane o$ 'ani(a, and 'ARIANO C) )NIENG, Res*ondents.

Reference: G.R. No. L+-/- Nove01er 2, 2345

Facts:

Petitioners %erein, t%e Peo*(e o$ t%e P%i(i**ine and t%e Hon#6on# and

S%an#%ai Ban6in# Cor*oration, are res*etive(7 t%e *(ainti$$ and t%e o$$ended

*art7, and t%e res*ondent %erein 'ariano C" )n8ien# is one o$ t%e

de$endants, in t%e ri0ina( ase entit(ed 9T%e Peo*(e o$ t%e P%i(i**ine Is(ands

vs. 'ariano C" )n8ien#, et a(.9, ri0ina( ase No. :3 o$ t%e Co"rt o$ First

Instane o$ 'ani(a and G.R. No. 2:;; o$ t%is o"rt. Res*ondent %erein, Hon.

ose O. !era, is t%e "d#e ad interi0 o$ t%e sevent% 1ran% o$ t%e Co"rt o$

First Instane o$ 'ani(a,


24/41

and res*onsi1i(ities 17 de(e#atin# t%at *o


25/41

*rovides t%at 9T%e Nationa( Asse01(7 0a7 17 (a< a"t%orie t%e President,

s"18et to s"% (i0itations and restritions as it 0a7 i0*ose, to $i= "otas, and tonna#e and


26/41

Title: HE UNIED SAES,plaintiff-appellee, vs.ANG ANG HO,defendant-appellant.

Reference:G$R$ No$ +@+'' Fe=r2ar3 '@, +''

Facts:At its speial session of #$#$, the "hilippine Legislature passed At /o. 9101, entitled

)An At penali=ing the monopoly and holding of, and speulation in, palay, rie, and orn

under etraordinary irumstanes, regulating the distri(ution and sale thereof, and

authori=ing the Governor-General, 'ith the onsent of the Counil of State, to issue the

neessary rules and regulations therefor, and ma+ing an appropriation for this purpose,)

August #, #$#$, the Governor-General issued a prolamation fiing the prie at 'hih

rie should (e sold.

August 1, #$#$, a omplaint 'as filed against the defendant, Ang !ang 5o, harging him

'ith the sale of rie at an eessive prie.

;pon this harge, he 'as tried, found guilty and sentened to five months7 imprisonment

and to pay a fine of "BB, from 'hih he appealed to this ourt, laiming that the lo'er

ourt erred in finding eutive rder /o. & of #$#$, to (e of any fore and effet, in

finding the aused guilty of the offense harged, and in imposing the sentene.

Issue: Whether or not there is an undue delegation of power.

Discussion:

!hese deisions hold that the legislative only an enat a la', and that it annot delegate

it legislative authority.

!he line of leavage (et'een 'hat is and 'hat is not a delegation of legislative po'er is

pointed out and learly defined. As the Supreme Court of 8isonsin says2

!hat no part of the legislative po'er an (e delegated (y the legislature to any

other department of the government, eeutive or 3udiial, is a fundamental

priniple in onstitutional la', essential to the integrity and maintenane of the

system of government esta(lished (y the onstitution.

8here an at is lothed 'ith all the forms of la', and is omplete in and of itself,

it may (e provided that it shall (eome operative only upon some ertain at or

event, or, in li+e manner, that its operation shall (e suspended.

!he legislature annot delegate its po'er to ma+e a la', (ut it an ma+e a la' to

delegate a po'er to determine some fat or state of things upon 'hih the la'

ma+es, or intends to ma+e, its o'n ation to depend.

!he la' says that the Governor-General may fi )the maimum sale prie that the

industrial or merhant may demand.) !he la' is a general la' and not a loal or speialla'.


27/41

!he prolamation underta+es to fi one prie for rie in 4anila and other and different

pries in other and different provines in the "hilippine Islands, and delegates the po'er

to determine the other and different pries to provinial treasurers and their deputies.

5ere, then, you 'ould have a delegation of legislative po'er to the Governor-General,

and a delegation (y him of that po'er to provinial treasurers and their deputies, 'ho)are here(y direted to ommuniate 'ith, and eeute all instrutions emanating from

the Hiretor of Commere and Industry, for the most effetive and proper enforement of

the a(ove regulations in their respetive loalities.) !he issuane of the prolamation (y

the Governor-General 'as the eerise of the delegation of a delegated po'er, and 'as

even a su( delegation of that po'er.

Rulings:

!he promulgation of temporary rules and emergeny measures is left to the disretion of

the Governor-General. !he Legislature does not underta+e to speify or define under

'hat onditions or for 'hat reasons the Governor-General shall issue the prolamation,

(ut says that it may (e issued )for any ause,) and leaves the


28/41

Title: EASERN SHI""ING LINES, INC$, petitioner, vs."HILI""INE O#ERSEAS

EM"LO%MEN ADMINISRAION /"OEA0, MINISER OF LABOR AND

EM"LO%MEN, HEARING OFFICER ABDUL BASAR and KAHLEEN D$ SACO,

respondents.

Reference:G$R$ No$ @((11 O)4o=er +:, +::

Facts:

!he private respondent in this ase 'as a'arded the sum of "#$9,BBB.BB (y the

"hilippine verseas mployment Administration >"A? for the death of her hus(and.

!he deision is hallenged (y the petitioner on the prinipal ground that the "A had

no 3urisdition over the ase as the hus(and 'as not an overseas 'or+er.

!he petitioner immediately ame to this Court, prompting the Soliitor General to move

for dismissal on the ground of non-ehaustion of administrative remedies.

Issue:Whether or not thete is an undue delegation of power.

Discussion:

!he "hilippine verseas mployment Administration 'as reated under eutive rder

/o. :$:, promulgated on 4ay #, #$19, to promote and monitor the overseas employment

of Filipinos and to protet their rights. It replaed the /ational Seamen @oard reated

earlier under Artile 9B of the La(or Code in #$:%. ;nder Setion %>a? of the said

eeutive order, the "A is vested 'ith )original and elusive 3urisdition over allases, inluding money laims, involving employee-employer relations arising out of or

(y virtue of any la' or ontrat involving Filipino ontrat 'or+ers, inluding seamen.)

!hese ases, aording to the #$1 6ules and 6egulations on verseas mployment

issued (y the "A, inlude )laims for death, disa(ility and other (enefits) arising out of

suh employment.

!he a'ard of "#1B,BBB.BB for death (enefits and "#9,BBB.BB for (urial epenses 'as

made (y the "A pursuant to its 4emorandum Cirular /o. 9, 'hih (eame effetive

on Fe(ruary #, #$1%. !his irular presri(ed a standard ontrat to (e adopted (y (oth

foreign and domesti shipping ompanies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas

employment. A similar ontrat had earlier (een re


29/41

first test, the la' must (e omplete in all its terms and onditions 'hen it leaves the

legislature suh that 'hen it reahes the delegate the only thing he 'ill have to do is

enfore it. ;nder the suffiient standard test, there must (e ade


30/41

Title: EMMANUEL "ELAE9, petitioner, vs.HE AUDIOR GENERAL,respondent.

Reference. G$R$ No$ L&'1:'8 De)e>=er '-, +(8

Facts:Huring the period from Septem(er % to to(er 9$, #$0% the "resident of the "hilippines,

purporting to at pursuant to Setion 01 of the 6evised Administrative Code, issued

eutive rders /os. $& to #9#, #9% and #90 to #9$ reating thirty-three >&&?

muniipalities enumerated in the margin.#Soon after the date last mentioned, or on

/ovem(er #B, #$0% petitioner mmanuel "elae=, as ie "resident of the "hilippines

and as tapayer, instituted the present speial ivil ation, for a 'rit of prohi(ition 'ith

preliminary in3untion, against the Auditor General, to restrain him, as 'ell as his

representatives and agents, from passing in audit any ependiture of pu(li funds in

implementation of said eeutive orders andor any dis(ursement (y said muniipalities.

"etitioner alleges that said eeutive orders are null and void, upon the ground that said

Setion 01 has (een impliedly repealed (y 6epu(li At /o. 9&:B and onstitutes an

undue delegation of legislative po'er.


Discussion:

!he Congress may delegate to another (ranh of the Government the po'er to fill in the

details in the eeution, enforement or administration of a la', it is essential, to forestalla violation of the priniple of separation of po'ers, that said la'2 >a? (e omplete in itself

* it must set forth therein the poliy to (e eeuted, arried out or implemented (y the

delegate* and >(? fi a standard * the limits of 'hih are suffiiently determinate or

determina(le * to 'hih the delegate must onform in the performane of his funtions.

Indeed, 'ithout a statutory delaration of poliy, the delegate 'ould in effet, ma+e or

formulate suh poliy, 'hih is the essene of every la' and, 'ithout the

aforementioned standard, there 'ould (e no means to determine, 'ith reasona(le

ertainty, 'hether the delegate has ated 'ithin or (eyond the sope of his authority.

5ene, he ould there(y arrogate upon himself the po'er, not only to ma+e the la', (ut,

also * and this is 'orse * to unma+e it, (y adopting measures inonsistent 'ith the end

sought to (e attained (y the At of Congress, thus nullifying the priniple of separation of

po'ers and the system of he+s and (alanes, and, onse


31/41

... may hange the seat of the government 'ithin any su(division to such place

therein as the public "elfare may re#uire.

Rulings:Insofar as the ase at (ar is onerned, even if 'e assumed that the phrase )as the

pu(li 'elfare may re


32/41

offies implies no more than the authority to assume diretly the funtions thereof or to

interfere in the eerise of disretion (y its offiials. 4anifestly, such control does not

include the authority either to abolish an executive department or bureau or to create a

ne" one. As a onse


33/41

Title: ABAKADA GURO "AR% LIS vs.ERMIA

Reference: G$R$ No$ +(:;8( Se=er +, ';;8

Facts:

"etitionersA%AKA&A G'R( "arty List,et al., "imentel, Jr.,et al., and sudero,et al.

ontend in ommon that Setions %, and 0 of 6.A. /o. $&&:, amending Setions #B0,

#B: and #B1, respetively, of the /I6C giving the "resident the stand)by authorityto

raise the A! rate from #BM to #9M 'hen a ertain ondition is met, onstitutes undue

delegation of the legislative po'er to ta.

"etitioners allege that the grant of the stand)by authorityto the "resident to inrease the

A! rate is a virtual a(diation (y Congress of its elusive po'er to ta (eause suhdelegation is not 'ithin the purvie' of Setion 91 >9?, Artile I of the Constitution, 'hih

provides2

!he Congress may, (y la', authori=e the "resident to fi 'ithin speified limits, and may

impose, tariff rates, import and eport


34/41

)the *egislative po"er shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines "hich shall

consist of a !enate and a +ouse of Representatives.) !he po'ers 'hih Congress is

prohi(ited from delegating are those 'hih are stritly, or inherently and elusively,

legislative. "urely legislative po'er, 'hih an never (e delegated, has (een desri(ed

as the a24*ori43 4o >a?e a )o>e *en i4 5*all 4a?ee77e)4 and a5 4o *o> i4 5*all =e aa3 no4 =e done, and delega4ion o7 a24*ori43 or di5)re4ion

a5 4o i45 ee)24ion 4o =e eer)i5ed 2nder and in ade$ !he Constitution is thus not to (e regarded as denying

the legislature the neessary resoures of flei(ility and pratia(ility.

Rulings:

*e 54an)e5 are 52)* a5 re2ire 4*e aini54ra4ie a)4ion i5 4o =e

4a?en, and 4*a4, 2nder o4*er )ir)2>54an)e5, di77eren4 or no a)4ion a4 all i5 4o =e

4a?en$ *a4 i5 4*25 le74 4o 4*e ad>ini54ra4ie o77i)ial i5 no4 4*e legi5la4ie

de4er>ina4ion o7 *a4 en4 o7

*a4 4*e 7a)45 o7 4*e )a5e re2ire 4o =e done a))ording 4o 4*e 4er>5 o7 4*e la =3

*i)* *e i5 goerned$ *e e77i)ien)3 o7 an A)4 a5 a de)lara4ion o7 legi5la4ie ill

>254, o7 )o2r5e, )o>e 7ro> Congre55, =24 4*e a5)er4ain>en4 o7 4*e )on4ingen)3

2a3 =e le74 4o 52)* agen)ie5 a5 i4 >a3


35/41

de5igna4e$ *e legi5la42re, 4*en, >a3


36/41

Title: ABAKADA GURO "AR% LIS vs."URISIMA

Reference: G$R$ No$ +((@+8 A2g254 +-, ';;:

Facts:

!his petition for prohi(ition see+s to prevent respondents from implementing

and enforing 6epu(li At >6A? $&& >Attrition At of 9BB?.

6A $&& 'as enated to optimi=e the revenue-generation apa(ility and

olletion of the @ureau of Internal 6evenue >@I6? and the @ureau of Customs

>@C?. !he la' intends to enourage @I6 and @C offiials and employees to

eeed their revenue targets (y providing a system of re'ards and santions

through the reation of a 6e'ards and Inentives Fund >Fund? and a6evenue "erformane valuation @oard >@oard?. It overs all offiials and

employees of the @I6 and the @C 'ith at least si months of servie,

regardless of employment status.

!he HF, H@4, /HA, @I6, @C and the Civil Servie Commission >CSC?

'ere tas+ed to promulgate and issue the implementing rules and regulations

of 6A $&&, to (e approved (y a Joint Congressional versight Committee

reated for suh purpose.

"etitioners assert that the la' unduly delegates the po'er to fi revenuetargets to the "resident as it la+s a suffiient standard on that matter.


Discussion:

!'o tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative po'er2 >#? the

ompleteness test and >9? the suffiient standard test. A la' is omplete 'hen

it sets forth therein the poliy to (e eeuted, arried out or implemented (y

the delegate. It lays do'n a suffiient standard 'hen it provides ade


37/41

not affeted (y suh delaration of invalidity shall remain in fore and

effet.

!he separa(ility lause of 6A $&& reveals the intention of the legislature to

isolate and detah any invalid provision from the other provisions so that thelatter may ontinue in fore and effet. !he valid portions an stand

independently of the invalid setion. 8ithout Setion #9, the remaining

provisions still onstitute a omplete, intelligi(le and valid la' 'hih arries

out the legislative intent to optimi=e the revenue-generation apa(ility and

olletion of the @I6 and the @C (y providing for a system of re'ards and

santions through the 6e'ards and Inentives Fund and a 6evenue

"erformane valuation @oard.

Rulings:

8here Congress delegates the formulation of rules to implement the la' it

has enated pursuant to suffiient standards esta(lished in the said la', the

la' must (e omplete in all its essential terms and onditions 'hen it leaves

the hands of the legislature. And it may (e deemed to have left the hands of

the legislature 'hen it (eomes effetive (eause it is only upon effetivity of

the statute that legal rights and o(ligations (eome availa(le to those entitled

(y the language of the statute. Su(3et to the indispensa(le re


38/41

and effetive even 'ithout the approval of the Joint Congressional versight

Committee.


39/41

Title: !A!AH vs.!5 H"A6!4/! F /6GD

Reference: G.6. /o. #9%&0B /ovem(er , #$$:

Facts:"resident 4aros through Setion 1 of "residential Heree /o. #$0, reated the il

"rie Sta(ili=ation Fund >"SF? to ushion the effets of free? of 6epu(li At

/o. :0&1, the H shall, upon approval of the "resident, implement the full deregulationof the do'nstream oil industry not later than 4arh #$$:. As far as pratia(le, the H


40/41

shall time the full deregulation 'hen the pries of rude oil and petroleum produts in the

'orld mar+et are delining and 'hen the ehange rate of the peso in relation to the ;S

dollar is sta(le.

"etitioners urge that the phrases Oas far as pratia(le,P Odeline of rude oil pries in the'orld mar+etP and Osta(ility of the peso ehange rate to the ;S dollarP are am(ivalent,

unlear and inonrete in meaning. !hey su(mit that they do not provide the

Odeterminate or determina(le standardsP 'hih an guide the "resident in his deision to

fully deregulate the do'nstream oil industry.


Discussion:

!he po'er of Congress to delegate the eeution of la's has long (een settled (y this

Court. As early as #$#0 in Compania General de !a(aos de Filipinas vs. !he @oard of

"u(li ;tility Commissioners, 9#this Court thru, 4r. Justie 4oreland, held that Othe true

distintion is (et'een the delegation of po'er to ma+e the la', 'hih neessarily

involves a disretion as to 'hat it shall (e, and onferring authority or disretion as to its

eeution, to (e eerised under and in pursuane of the la'. !he first annot (e done

to the latter no valid o(3etion an (e made.P ver the years, as the legal engineering of

mens relationship (eame more diffiult, Congress has to rely more on the pratie of

delegating the eeution of la's to the eeutive and other administrative agenies. !'o

tests have (een developed to determine 'hether the delegation of the po'er to eeutela's does not involve the a(diation of the po'er to ma+e la' itself. 8e delineated the

metes and (ounds of these tests in astern Shipping Lines, In. S. "A, thus2

!here are t'o aepted tests to determine 'hether or not there is a valid delegation of

legislative po'er, vi=2 the ompleteness test and the suffiient standard test. ;nder the

first test, the la' must (e omplete in all its terms and onditions 'hen it leaves the

legislative suh that 'hen it reahes the delegate the only thing he 'ill have to do is to

enfore it. ;nder the suffiient standard test, there must (e ade


41/41

spare the statute, if it an, from onstitutional infirmity.P

Rulings:

Given the groove of the Courts rulings, the attempt of petitioners to stri+e do'n setion# on the ground of undue delegation of legislative po'er annot prosper. Setion # an

hurdle (oth the ompleteness test and the suffiient standard test. It 'ill (e noted that

Congress epressly provided in 6.A. /o. 1#1B that full deregulation 'ill start at the end of

4arh #$$:, regardless of the ourrene of any event. Full deregulation at the end of

4arh #$$: is mandatory and the eutive has no disretion to postpone it for any

purported reason. !hus, the la' is omplete on the

Set 4&5 Case Digests

Documents

Transcript of Set 4&5 Case Digests