ART. VIII.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
First Year Law
2022-2023

Article VIII. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

(Powers of the Supreme Court)
Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a
Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit
en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or
seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within
ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
 “

Sec. 4 (1) – Supreme Court justices: 90 days from vacancy

Sec. 9- “For the lower courts, the President shall issue the
appointments within ninety days from the submission of the
list.”
In re: Vallenzuela and Vallarta, Nov. 9, 1998– general v.
specific
De Castro v. JBC, 615 SCRA 666 (2010)
– Intent is to exclude the Supreme Court –
1. it does not say it is covered
2. arrangement of Articles
3. “any vacancy shall be filled”
 Review of Provisions:
 Art . VII, SECTION 15. Two months immediately before
the next presidential elections and up to the end of his
term, a President or Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein
will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
 Article VII, 1987 Constitution:
 SECTION 13. The President, Vice-President, the
Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or
assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in
this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure.
 SECTION 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as
otherwise provided in this Constitution, the
President may grant reprieves, commutations and
pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after
conviction by final judgment.
 Duterte appoints 2 new CA justices
 By CNN Philippines Staff
 Published May 19, 2022 12:56:00 PM Metro Manila
(CNN Philippines, May 19) – President Rodrigo Duterte
named two new associate justices of the Court of Appeals,
Malacañang confirmed on Thursday.

 Associate Justices Eleuterio Larisma Bathan and John

Zurbito Lee are the newest members of the appellate
court, replacing Japar Dimaampao who was appointed
associate justice of the Supreme Court last September,
and Dorothy Montejo-Gonzaga who resigned inNovember,
respectively.
 (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or
executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court
en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required
to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
 (3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with
the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in
the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no
case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When
the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc:
Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a
decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed
except by the court sitting en banc.
Cases to be decided en banc:
1. Constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement or law

[Elma v. Public Interest, 517 SCRA 337 (2007)

2. Constitutionality, application or operation of

presidential decrees, proclamations or orders,
instructions, ordinances
3. Cases or matters heard by a division when the required
majority in a division is not obtained; 
4. Cases where the Supreme Court modifies or reverses a
doctrine laid en banc or by a division;

5. Cases that may be included by the Supreme Court in the Rules

of Court.

NOT IN THE SECTION:

6. Administrative cases where the vote is for the dismissal of a
judge or otherwise to discipline him (Sec. 6)

7. Election contest for President or Vice and also Martial

Law/Habeas Corpus cases
 1999, No. 11: What are the cases that must be decided
by the Supreme Court en banc?
 1996, No. VII. Can five members of the Supreme Court
declare a municipal ordinance unconstitutional?
 1999, 11 (b): What does it mean when a Supreme
Court justice concurs in a decision pro hac vice?


 “for the occasion”

 “concur in the result”
 SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance,
or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
 (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public
interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months
without the consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure
for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.

 (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the
Civil Service Law.
Sec. 5. Powers of the Supreme Court: (Irreducible)
I. Judicial Power (Jurisdiction of SC)
A. Original jurisdiction (CONCURRENT ORIGINAL)
1. Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls
2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto
and habeas corpus
[3. Petitions for writ of amparo ahd habas data]

Gerochi v. Department of Energy, 527 SCRA 696 (2007) – injunction

Add also: EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL

1. Decide Election Contest involving Presidential and Vice
Presidential Elections (Sec. 3, Art. VII) (PET)
2. Review the factual basis for the declaration of Martial
Law or suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Sec. 18, Art. VII)
B. Appellate Jurisdiction 
 1. Constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, etc…
 2. Legality of any tax, imposts, assessments, toll, etc
 3. Jurisdiction of lower courts is in issue
 4. Criminal cases where the penalty is reclusion perpetua
or higher [People v. Esparas, 260 SCRA 539 (1996)]
 5. Error or question of law is involved
 Review Art. VIII, Sec. 2:

 Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to

define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court
of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5
hereof.
1992: Bar Question No. 7
Congress is considering new measures to encourage
foreign corporations to bring investments to the
Philippines. Congress has found that foreign investors
are deterred by the uncertain investment climate in
partly brought about by judicial intervention. Thus, it
passed a law saying: “No court or administrative
agency shall issue any restraining order or injunction
against the Central Bank. Is the law constitutional?
 Mantrust v. CA, 179 SCRA 136 (1989)
 2018, X. Ascertain the constitutionality of the following
acts: (2.5% each)

(b) A law prohibiting any court, other than the Supreme

Court, from issuing a writ of injunction against an
investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman
 Carpio-Morales v. OMB, 774 SCRA 431 (2015)
 Sec. 14 of the Ombudsman Act states:
 Section 14. Restrictions. - No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court
to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this
Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the
investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. Is
this valid?

Held: No. Thus, when Congress passed the first paragraph of Section 14,
RA 6770 and, in so doing, took away from the courts their power to issue a
TRO and/or WPI to enjoin an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman,
it encroached upon this Court's constitutional rule-making authority. Clearly,
these issuances, which are, by nature, provisional reliefs and auxiliary writs
created under the provisions of the Rules of Court, are matters of
procedure which belong exclusively within the province of this Court.
1. Can the RTC declare a law unconstitutional? [Planters
v. Fertiphil, 548 SCRA 485 (2008) ]
2. [Can the Court of Tax Appeals? [British American v.
Camacho, 562 SCA 511 (2008)]
3. Can the Ombudsman? [Estarija v. Ranada,492 SCRA
652 (2006)]
4. Can the Department of Agrarian Reform? Sta. Rosa v.
Amante, 453 SCRA 432 (2005)
5. Can a Municipal Trial Court declare a law
unconstitutional?
COURAGE v. Commissioner, G.R. No. 213446, July 3, 2018

Does the CTA have jurisdiction to rule on issues of constitutionality?

 Held: Yes. R.A. No. 9282, a special and later law than B. P. Blg. 129,
provides an exception to the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts
over actions questioning the constitutionality or validity of tax laws or
regulations. Except for local tax cases, actions directly challenging the
constitutionality or validity of a tax law or regulation or administrative
issuance may be filed directly before the CTA. Administrative issuances are
issued by the Commissioner under his power to make rulings or opinions in
connection with the implementation of the provisions of internal revenue
laws. Tax rulings, on the other hand, are official positions of the Bureau on
inquiries of taxpayers who request clarification on certain provisions of tax
laws or their implementing regulations. Hence, the determination of the
validity of these issuances clearly falls within the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction of the CTA under Section 7(1) of R. A. No. 1125, as amended,
subject to prior review by the Secretary of Finance, as required under
Republic Act No. 8424. [Recently reiterated in Games and Amusement v.
Klub Don Juan, GR No. 252189, Nov. 3, 2020/ St. Mary’s Academy v.
Henares, GR No. 230138, Jan. 13, 2021
 Bar Question, 2004, 10: In case there is an
irreconciliable conflict between a provision of the treaty
and a provision of the Constitution, in a jurisdiction and
legal system like ours, which should prevail: the
provision of the treaty or of the Constitution. Why?
Explain with reasons.
Bar Question, 2003, No. 6. In case of conflict between
and treaty and a statute, which will prevail?

“the latter in time rule” lex posterior derogat priori”

2020/2021 Bar Examination:
4. A provincial ordinance was passed setting a
province-wide curfew for all minors. This was
challenged through a suit filed before the Regional
Trial Court having territorial jurisdiction over the
province. The provincial legal officer sought the case's
dismissal on the lone ground that the Supreme Court
has sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine the
constitutionality of a treaty, law, or ordinance.
Should the provincial legal officer's prayer for
dismissal be granted? Explain
briefly.
II. Administrative Powers 
1. Temporary assignment of judges [not more than
six months without his consent]
2. Change of venue
3. Promulgate Rules of court
4. Appointment of its officials
5. Administrative supervision of courts and
personnel (Sec. 6)
 Can Congress enact a law amending the Rules of Court?

 Estipona v. Lobrigo, 837 SCRA 160 (2017) (Rule-Making Power)

 Section 23 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002," provides: “SEC 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. - Any person charged under any provision
of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on
plea-bargaining.” Is the provision valid?
  
 Held: The provision is unconstitutional. It encroaches on the rule-making power of the Supreme
Court under Sec. 5(5) Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution. As held in previous cases, the 1987
Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure. On the other hand, plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. It is
towards the provision of a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases in all courts that the rules on plea bargaining was introduced. As a way of disposing
criminal charges by agreement of the parties, plea bargaining is considered to be an "important,"
"essential," "highly desirable," and "legitimate" component of the administration of justice. To
reiterate, the Court's authority to promulgate rules on pleading, practice, and procedure is
exclusive and one of the safeguards of its institutional independence.

1935 and 1973 Constitutions: … Rule making power… “ which however, may be repealed,
altered or supplemented by the Batasang Pambansa”
 Power to Admit to the Practice of Law
 Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, G.R. No. 230642, Sept. 10,
2019
 R.A. No. 7662 created the Legal Education Board, an
executive agency which was made separate from the Department
of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), but attached thereto
solely for budgetary purposes and administrative support. Among
the orders issued by the LEB was Memorandum Order No. 7,
Series of 2016 (LEBMO No. 7-2016) pursuant to its power to
"prescribe the minimum standards for law admission" under
Section 7(e) of R.A. No. 7662. The Order required all those
seeking admission to the basic law course to take and pass a
nationwide uniform law school admission test, known as the
PhiLSAT. Does this encroach on the power of the Supreme Court
to regulate “admission to the practice of law?
Held: No. The power of the Supreme Court to regulate admission to
the bar does not extend to the regulation of law schools. Such is
an executive function, and a valid exercise of police power. The
Court has never promulgated a rule directly regulating legal
education. In the exercise of its power to promulgate rules
concerning the admission to the practice of law, the Court has
prescribed the subjects covered by, as well as the qualifications of
candidates to the bar examinations. It is beyond argument that
these are the requisites and qualifications for admission to the
practice of law and not for admission to the study of law.
Provisions of the Rules of Court are directed towards applicants
for admission to the bar and applicants for admission to the bar
examinations - consistent with the Court's power to promulgate
rules concerning admission to the practice of law.
 Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, G.R. No. 230642,
Sept. 10, 2019
 Section 7(g) of R.A. No. 7662 grants the Legal
Education Board the power to establish a law practice
internship as a requirement for taking the bar
examinations. SEC. 7. Powers and Functions. - x x x
(g) to establish a law practice internship as a
requirement for taking the Bar xxx. Is this an
encroachment on the power of the Supreme Court to
regulate admission to the practice of law?
Held: Yes. The jurisdiction to determine whether an applicant may
be allowed to take the bar examinations belongs to the Court. In
fact, under the whereas clauses of the Revised Law Student
Practice Rule, the Court now requires the completion of clinical
legal education courses, which may be undertaken either in a law
clinic or through an externship, as a prerequisite to take the bar
examinations. Under Section 7(g), the power of the LEB is no
longer confined within the parameters of legal education, but now
dabbles on the requisites for admissions to the bar examinations,
and consequently, admissions to the bar. This is a direct
encroachment upon the Court's exclusive authority to promulgate
rules concerning admissions to the bar and should, therefore, be
struck down as unconstitutional.
 Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, G.R. No. 230642,
Sept. 10, 2019
 Section 7(h) of R.A. No. 7662 provides that the
Legal Education Board has the power: (h) to adopt a
system of continuing legal education. For this purpose,
the [LEB] may provide for the mandatory attendance of
practicing lawyers in such courses and for such duration
as the [LEB] may deem necessary.” Is this provision
constitutional?
Held: No. By its plain language, the clause "continuing legal
education" under Section 2, par. 2, and Section 7(h) of R.A. No.
7662 unduly give the LEB the power to supervise the legal
education of those who are already members of the bar.
Inasmuch as the LEB is authorized to compel mandatory
attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and for such
duration as the LEB deems, necessary, the same encroaches upon
the Court's power to promulgate rules concerning the Integrated
Bar. The mandatory continuing legal education of the members of
the bar is, in fact, covered by B.M. No. 850 or the Rules on
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) dated August 22,
2000 which requires members of the bar from completing, every
three years, at least 36 hours of continuing legal education
activities approved by the MCLE Committee directly supervised by
the Court.
Bar Question 2009, No 1: True or False: Is the following
constitutional?

A law fixing the passing grade in the Bar

examinations at 70% with no grade lower than 40% in
any subject, is constitutional.
Bar Question 2008, No. 13: [Also asked in 2013, No. 4]
Congress enacted a law establishing the right to a trial
by jury of an accused charged with a felony or offense
punishable with reclusion perpetual or life
imprisonment. The law provides for the qualifications
of prospective jury members, the guidelines to be
observed by the judge and the lawyers in jury selection
including the grounds for challenging the selection of
jury members, and the methodology for jury
deliberations. Is the law constitutional?
 2015, No. 11. (2) Differentiate the rule-making power or the
power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules under Section
5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and judicial legislation.
(2%)
 Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018
 Manalo was married to a Japanese national. Later, she filed a petition for divorce against her husband before
a Japanese court. After it was granted on Dec. 6, 2011, she sought to have the record of her marriage in the
Office of the Civil Registrar of San Jose, Manila, cancelled. Considering that Art. 26, paragraph 2, of the Family
Code, only provides that: Where a marriage between Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law ,” should the petition be granted?
 Held: Yes. While the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for valid classification and that its decision is
accorded recognition and respect by the court of justice, such classification may be subjected to judicial review.
The deference stops where the classification violates a fundamental right, or prejudices persons accorded special
protection by the Constitution. In this case, there is no real and substantial difference between a Filipino who
initiated a foreign divorce proceedings and a Filipino who obtained a divorce decree upon the instance of his or her
alien spouse. In the eyes of the Philippine and foreign laws, both are considered as Filipinos who have the same
rights and obligations. The circumstances surrounding them are alike. Were it not for Paragraph 2 of Article 26,
both are still married to their foreigner spouses who are no longer their wives/husbands. Hence, to make a
distinction between them based merely on the superficial difference of whether they initiated the divorce
proceedings or not is utterly unfair. Indeed, the treatment gives undue favor to one and unjustly discriminates
against the other.
 As it stands now: (WHERE A DIVORCE IS VALIDLY OBTAINED BY EITHER SPOUSE]
 2016, -XX-
 Under Sec. 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
shall have the power to "promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice and procedure in all courts xxx." Section 23 of R.A. No.
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
provides that "any person charged under any provision of this Act
regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of
the provision on plea-bargaining." Patricio, a user who was
charged with alleged sale of shabu but who wants to enter a plea
of guilt to a charge of possession, questions the constitutionality
of Sec. 23 on the ground that Congress encroached on the rule-
making power of the Supreme Court under Sec. 5, Article VIII. He
argues that plea-bargaining is procedural in nature and is within
the exclusive constitutional power of the Court. Is Patricio correct?
Explain your answer. (5%)
, Power of Judicial Review – The Supreme
Court’s power to declare a treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or
regulation unconstitutional.
  

Purpose: To ensure that all governmental organs are

acting within the confines of the Constitution.
Requisites: As applied challenge-
1. Actual case or controversy
2. Question raised by the proper party (standing)
3. Earliest opportunity
4. Necessity for the determination of the case itself. 
 
 

  Bar Question, 1994, No. 2. Assume that the

constitutional question raised in the petition before
the Supreme Court is the lis mota of the case, give
at least two other requirements before the court will
exercise judicial power.

When is there no need to establish the presence of

the 4 requisites? [Facial Challenges]
 
 
 
 
 
 Romualdez v. COMELEC, 573 SCRA 639 (2008): Sec.
45, RA 9189: The following shall be considered
election offenses under this Act.

1. Violations of any of the provisions of this act.

Constitutional: “void for vagueness” ‘facial
invalidation” facial challenge as distinguished from
“as applied challenge”
Exceptions: Freedom of Speech, religion, right to
travel, privacy and “other fundamental rights.
 1. Case or Controversy: There is a dispute involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.

 No advisory opinion:

Tan v. People, 290 SCRA 117 (1998) – charged with

illegal logging, he challenged the constitutionality of PD
No. 705, penalizing possession of bark, grass, shrub.
 Liban v. Gordon, 593 SCRA 68 (2009)
 During Richard Gordon’s incumbency as member of the Senate, he was
elected Chairman of the Board of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC).
The PNRC was specially created in 1947 by RA No. 95 in compliance with the
country’s obligations under the Geneva Convention of July 27, 1929. Did
Gordon forfeit his seat in the Senate in accordance with Sec. 13, Art. VI of the
Constitution, prohibiting a Senator from holding any office or employment in a
government-owned or controlled corporation?
 Held: No. The PNRC, while created by RA No. 95, is not a government-owned
and controlled corporation, but a private corporation performing governmental
functions. government official. Not being a government-official or employee,
the PNRC Chairman does not hold a government office or employment. The
PNRC Charter, insofar as it creates the PNRC is void since the constitution
prohibits Congress from enacting a law creating a private corporation.

[In Liban v. Gordon, 639 SCRA 309 (2011), the Supreme Court reconsidered the
portion of the Decision insofar as the holding that that RA No. 95 was
unconstitutional).”
 Moot and Academic Controversies

 Pangilinan, et al. v. Cayetano, GR No. 238875, March 16, 2021

 On March 16, 2018, the Philippines formally submitted its Notice of Withdrawal to
the United Nations Secretary General from the International Criminal Court or the
Rome Statute. This was received by the Secretary General the following day. Under
the terms of the Treaty, the withdrawal shall take effect within one year from notice.
On May 16, 2018, six Senators filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning
the withdrawal. On March 19, 2019, the ICC announced the the Philippines’
departure from the ICC took effect on March 17, 2019. Is there a justiciable
controversy?
 Held: No. The Declaration from the ICC settles any doubt on whether there are
lingering and factual occurrences that may be adjudicated. No longer is there any
unsettled incident demanding resolution. Any discussion on the Philippine’s
withdrawal is at this juncture, merely a matter of theory. … However, even prior to
the filing of these Petitions, the President had already completed the irreversible act
of withdrawing from the Rome Statute. (The Court cannot reverse it or grant any
relief to petitioners.)
Moot and Academic: [Barangay Elections: Macalintal Petition]
Exceptions: [David v. Macapagal, 489 SCRA 160 (2006)] /
Province of Cotabato v. GRP, 568 SCRA 402 (2008)

1. there is a grave violation of the Constitution

2. the exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest involved
3. the issue raised requires formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public
4. the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
2. Locus Standi –

General Rule: Only those with personal and

substantial interest in the outcome of the case, or those
who will sustain or has sustained a direct injury can
challenge the constitutionality of a law.
 
In re: Saturnino Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160 (1986)
 IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000)
  
 Following an alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila, President
Estrada ordered the deployment of the Philippine Marines to join visibility patrols
around the metropolis. The President invoked his Commander-In-Chief powers under
Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution. The Integrate Bar of the Philippine (IBP) seeks to
nullify the order on constitutional grounds. Does it have standing?
  
 Held: Locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
challenged act. In this case, the IBP primarily anchors its standing on its alleged
responsibility to uphold the Constitution. The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to
preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to
clothe it with standing. That is too general an interest which is shared by other groups
and the whole citizenry. IBP’s fundamental purpose which is to elevate the standards
of the law profession and improve the administration of justice cannot be affected by
the deployment of the Marines.
 Some modifications on standing:
  1. Any citizen –
 a. Martial law/habeas corpus/
 b. Public rights – Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744 (1998) [right to
information on matters of public concern]]
c. Question of transcendental importance:
 Tatad v. Secretary, 281 SCRA 330 (1997) (Oil Derregulation Law
 Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997) (Philippine Mmembership with the WTO]
 Bayan Muna v. Executive Secretary, 342 SCRA 449 (2000) (Validity of Visting Forces
Agreement]
   2. Voters – validity of election laws/affecting right as voter [Quinto
v. COMELEC, 606 SCRA 258 (2009)
 3. Taxpayers – illegal disbursement of funds or to challenge a
revenue law [Macalintal v. PET,635 SCRA 783 (2010); Chavez v.
PCGG, id.]
 4. Legislator – act which infringes on his prerogative as legislators
 Senate v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006) 
  
 On Sept. 28, 2005, President Macapagal-Arroyo issued EO 464 requiring heads of executive departments
and those lower in  rank to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of
Congress. Invoking the executive order, Executive Secretary Ermita wrote the Senate that certain officials
summoned to appear by the Senate could do so, not having been able to secure the consent of the President.
Does the Senate or any of its individual members have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the order?
  
 Held: Yes. That the Senate of the Philippines has a fundamental right essential not only for intelligent public
decision-making in a democratic system, but more especially for sound legislation is not disputed. E.O. 464,
however, allegedly stifles the ability of the members of Congress to access information that is crucial to law-
making. Verily, the Senate, including its individual members, has a substantial and direct interest over the
outcome of the controversy and is the proper party to assail the constitutionality of E.O. 464. Indeed,
legislators have standing to maintain inviolate the prerogative, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution
in their office and are allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which they claim infringes
their prerogatives as legislators.

 See also, Ople v. Torres

 293 SCRA 141 (1998)
 Pangilinan, et al. v. Cayetano, GR No. 238875,
March 16, 2021

 Filed by 6 Senators—
 Held: While individual legislators are generally given standing on
issues that affect their standing as legislators, in this case they have no
locus standi. The Senate resolution expressing its sense that a
concurrence is needed was not calendared or acted upon. The Senate
as a collegial body has not chosen to assert any right. Thus, petitioners
cannot come to this court with a case that is already foreclosed by their
own institution’s inaction.
 5. Environmental law cases – Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA
792 (1993): Gave standing to minors and those not yet born

 Resident Marine Mamals v. Secretary, 756 SCRA 513 (2015)

 Do animals, like Toothed Whales, Dolphines, Porpoises
and other Cetacan Species, represented and joined in by
stewards who are human beings, have standing to sue in
environmental cases to restrain the exploration, development
and exploitation of petroleum resources that threaten their
existence?

 Bar Question, 1995: What are the requisites for a tax-payer’s

suit to prosper?
 PHAPI v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 234448, Nov. 6, 2018
 The Private Hospitals Associaion of the Philippines (PHAPi) -
an organization of privately-owned clinics, hospitals, and other
health facilities - seeks to declare as unconstitutional and void the
duty imposed upon hospitals, medical practitioners and employees
to prevent actual death or injury under Section 1; the penal
provisions under Section 4; the presumption of liability clause
under Section 5; and the reimbursement and tax deduction clause
under Sections 7 and 8, all of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10932
otherwise known as an Act Strengthening the Anti-Hospital
Deposit Law. Does it have standing?
 White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, GR No. 122846, Jan.
20, 2009
What is “third-party” standing?
Litigants have a right to bring actions on behalf of third
parties, provided three important criteria are satisfied:
the litigant must have suffered an ‘injury-in-fact,’ thus
giving him or her a "sufficiently concrete interest" in the
outcome of the issue in dispute; the litigant must have a
close relation to the third party; and there must exist
some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his
or her own interests. (Also applies to “facial challenges”]
 3. Earliest Opportunity –
 A. Vertical Concept:

The party must raise the issue of constitutionality in his

pleadings before the first tribunal with jurisdiction to
rule on the constitutional issue, otherwise it is waived
Examples:
 Sta. Rosa v. Amante

 453 SCRA 432 (2005) - DAR – CA – Supreme Court

 Estarija v. Ranada

 492 SCRA 652 (2006) - OMB – CA – Supreme Court

B. Horizontal Concept:
1. Macalintal v. PET, 635 SCRA 738 (2010)
 Petitioner, a prominent election lawyer, questioned the legality of the
creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. However, in the election protest
filed by Fernado Poe, Jr., he appeared before the tribunal representing respondent
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
 Held: Petitioner’s standing is imperiled by his appearance as counsel for former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the election protest filed by 2004
presidential candidate Fernando Poe, Jr. before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal,
because judicial inquiry requires that the constitutional question be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity. Such appearance as counsel before the Tribunal
would have been the first opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the
Tribunal’s constitution. Petitioner is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the
PET before which tribunal he had ubiquitously appeared and had acknowledged its
jurisdiction in 2004. His failure to raise a seasonable constitutional challenge at
that time, coupled with his unconditional acceptance of the Tribunal’s authority
over the case he was defending, translates to the clear absence of an
indispensable requisite for the proper invocation of this Court’s power of judicial
review.
2. Falcis III, v. Civil Registrar General, Sept. 3, 2019
Falcis, a lawyer who claims to be gay, seeks to declare Art. 2 and
Art. 2 of the Family Code, which limits marriage only between and
male and a female person.
Held: It does not escape this Court’s notice that the Family Code
was enactec in 1987. This petition was filed only in 2015.
Petitioner, as a member of the Philippine Bar, has been aware of
the Family Code and its allegedly repugnant provisions, since at
least his freshman year in law school. It is then extraordinary for
him to claim, first, that he has been continually injured by the
existence of the Family Code; and second, that he raised the
unconstitutionality of Arts. 1 and 2 at the earliest
opportunity.
3. ANGKLA v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 246816, September 15, 2020

But the third requisite - - the question of constitutionality must

be raised at the earliest possible opportunity - - is absent here.

RA 7941 was enacted in 1995. In 2009, the Court settled the

interpretation of Section 11(b) in BANAT. The Court takes judicial
notice of the fact that, thereafter, petitioner ANGKLA was
proclaimed as a winning party-list organization in the 2013 and
2016 party-list elections. XXX
Petitioners ANGKLA and SBP had therefore benefited from
the BANAT doctrine in the previous elections.
 How did the Supreme Court managed to justify declaring Art. 992
of the Civil Code when it was not raised at the trial court?
 Aquino v. Aquino, G.R. No. 208912/G.R. No. 209018. December 7,
2021.
 1. There is a distinction between a challenge to the
constitutionality of a legal provision and revising the interpretation
of a legal provision to make it more harmonious with the
Constitution and, whenever applicable, provisions of treaties…
 2. As the Constitution is the fundamental law of our land its
provisions are deemed written in every statute and contract…
Because of this, it is within the Court’s power and duty to declare
void all laws repulsive to the Constitution and a law.
 3. In her May 27, 2015 Memorandum, Angela alleged that the
continuing inclusions of grandparents and other direct ascendants
in Art. 992 of the Civil Code violates the equal protection clause.
 4. Necessity - The court will only resolve the question of
constitutionality if there is no other was to settle the controversy.

(Judicial Restraint)
BAR QUESTIONS:
 Bar Q: 1992/6 – The Phil. Environmentalists’ Organization for

Nature, a duly recognized non-governmental organization, intends

to file suit to enjoin the Phil. Government from allocating funds to
operate a power plant at Mt. Tuba in a southern island. They
claim that there was no consultation with the indigenous cultural
community who will be displaced from ancestral lands essential to
their livelihood and indispensable to their religious practices.
 1. The organizations is based in Makati. All its officers
live and work in Makati. Not one of its officers or
members belongs to the affected tribe. Do they have
standing?

 2. Would your answer be different if the Phililline Power

Corporation, a private company, were to operate the
plant? [Would they have standing?]
 2007, VIII. The Provincial Governor of Bataan
requested the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) to release it Internal Revenue
Allocation (IRA) of P100 million for the current budget
year. However, the General Appropriations Act
provided that the IRA may be released only if the
province meets certain conditions as determined by an
oversight council created by the President.
 A. [Is this requirement valid?]
 B. The Provincial Governor is a party-mate of the
President. May the Bataan Representative instead file
a petition to compel the DBM to release the funds?
 2014, No. XI. In keeping with the modern age of instant anSd incessant
information and transformation, Congress passed Cybercrime Prevention
Act to regulate access to and use of the amenities of the cyberspace. While
ostensibly the law is intended to protect the interests of society, some of its
provisions were also seen as impermissibly invading and impairing widely
cherished liberties of the people particularly the freedom of expression.
Before the law could even be implemented, petitions were filed in the
Supreme Court questioning said provisions by people who felt threatened,
for themselves as well as for the benefit of others who may be similarly
affected but not minded enough to challenge the law. The Solicitor General
countered that there is no basis for the exercise of the power of judicial
review since there has yet been no violation of the law, and therefore,
there is no actual case or controversy to speak of, aside from the fact that
the petitioners have no locus standi since they do not claim to be in
imminent danger of being prosecuted under the law. Can the Court proceed
to decide the case even if the law has not yet become effective? (4%)
 What is the effect if a law is declared unconstitutional?
 1. Orthodox view- an unconstitutional act is not law.
It is as if the law did not exist.
 2. Modern view- It has no retroactive effect, it
affects only the parties before it. [“operative fact
doctrine”

Planters v. Fertiphil, 548 SCRA 485 (2008): What

do we follow?
 Mandanas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 199802, April 10, 2019
 In 2018, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Sec. 284 of the Local
Government Code which provided that the just share of LGUs in the national taxes
shall be based on the “national internal revenue taxes”, thereby excluding
customs duties, among other taxes. Since the LGC was enacted in 1991, are
LGUs entitled to arrears from that time?
 Held: No. The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or
executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative
fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored. In short,
it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects. It provides an
exception to the general rule that a void or unconstitutional law produces no
effect. But its use must be subjected to great scrutiny and circumspection, and it
cannot be invoked to validate an unconstitutional law or executive act, but is
resorted to only as a matter of equity and fair play. It applies only to cases where
extraordinary circumstances exist, which have met the stringent conditions that
will permit its application. Thus, the effect of our declaration of the
unconstitutionality of Section 284 of the LGC as far as they limited the source of
the just share of the LGUs to the NIRTs is prospective.
 B.17.
 In 2014, Congress enacted an appropriation law containing a provision that
gives individual legislators the discretion to determine, post-enactment,
how much funds would go to a specific project or beneficiary which they
themselves also determine. Consequently, disbursements were made in the
interim pursuant thereto.
 Eventually, Mr. Z filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the
statutory provision on the grounds that it violates the separation of powers
principle.
 On the other hand, certain Congressman argued that there was nothing
wrong with the provision because, after all, the power to appropriate
belongs to Congress.
 (a) xxx
 (b) Assuming that the provision is declared unconstitutional,
should the disbursements made pursuant thereto be returned in
light of the doctrine of operative fact? Explain. (2.5%)
Sec. 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

MACEDA V. VASQUEZ, 221 SCRA 464 (1993): (Ombudsman)

A. Administrative  - NO JURISDICTION
B. Criminal: Distinguish
1. Act relates to his administrative duties –
Supreme Court
2. Act does not relate – OMB can proceed
independently  

(This applies as well to the DOJ, Provincial

Prosecutor and City Prosecutor]
 
 
 Garcia v. Miro, 582 SCRA 127 (2009)
  
 Garcia was a Municipal Circuit Trial Court judge in Negros Occidental. Due to a vehicular
accident, a complaint for the crime of murder and the administrative offenses of grave
misconduct and abuse of authority were filed against him before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Subsequently, the Ombudsman investigator conducting the preliminary investigation charged
him in court with Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, but he referred the administrative
complaints to the Office of the Court Administrator. Did the Ombudsman have jurisdiction to
conduct the preliminary investigation?
  
 Held: Yes. Supervision over all inferior courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice
of the Court of Appeals to the lowest ranked court employee, is vested by the Constitution in
the Supreme Court. However, that prerogative only extends to administrative supervision. As
such, the Ombudsman cannot encroach upon this Court’s task to oversee judges and court
personnel and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation of
the laws of the land. In this case, however, the criminal case filed against him was in no way
related to the performance of his duties as a judge. It is for Reckless Imprudence under Art.
365 of the Revised Penal Code and, therefore, the Ombudsman had jurisdiction to conduct the
preliminary investigation and file the information in court.
 CSC v. Andal, 608 SCRA 370 (2009)
  
 Andal holds the position of Security Guard II in the Sandiganbayan. In January 2000, he
filed an application to take the Career Service Professional Examination-Computer Assisted Test
(CSPE-CAT), took the exam and passed with a rating of 81.03%. It appeared later that based
on the Picture Seat Plan, someone else took the examination for him. The CSC charged him
with dishonesty and dismissed him from government service. Considering that under Sec. 28,
Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations which provides that the CSC "shall
have original disciplinary jurisdiction over all its officials and employees and over all cases
involving civil service examination anomalies or irregularities", does the Commission have
jurisdiction?
 Held: No. The CSC's authority and power to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases
are not in dispute. The question is whether the CSC's disciplinary jurisdiction extends to court
personnel. In this case, it encroached upon the Supreme Court's power of administrative
supervision over court personnel. Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that
the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel
thereof. What the CSC should have done was to refer the administrative case for dishonesty
against respondent to the Office of the Court Administrator for appropriate action instead of
resolving the case.
 Agcaoili, Jr., v. Farinas, G.R. No. 232395, July 3, 2018
 After the House Committee on Good Government held in contempt six (6)
provincial officials of Ilocos Norte, they filed a petition for Habeas Corpus before the
Court of Appeals. Acting on the petition, the CA ordered the Seargeant-at-Arms of the
Court of Appeals to produce the bodies of the detainees at a particular date and time.
In turn, the House Committee unanimously voted to issue a Show Cause Order
against the three Justices of the CA's Special Fourth Division, directing them to explain
why they should not be cited in contempt by the House of Representatives. Can
Congress cite the justices for contempt?
 Held: No. While Congressional powers are indeed awesome, such could not be used
to deprive the Court of its constitutional duty to supervise judges of lower courts in
the performance of their official duties. The fact remains that the CA Justices are non-
impeachable officers. As such, authority over them primarily belongs to this Court. No
other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the
doctrine of separation of powers. Concomitantly, the principle of separation of powers
also serves as one of the basic postulates for exempting the Justices, officials and
employees of the Judiciary and for excluding the Judiciary's privileged and confidential
documents and information from any compulsory processes which very well includes
the Congress' power of inquiry in aid of legislation. Such exemption has been
jurisprudentially referred to as judicial privilege as implied from the exercise of judicial
power expressly vested in one Supreme Court and lower courts created by law.
Judge Fider-Reyes v. Everglory Metal, G.R. No. 238709, October 6,
2021

Can the Court of Appeals held a lower court judge guilty of

contempt?
Held: No. Sec. 6, Art. VIII, of the 1987 Constitution grants to
the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts
and personnel thereof. In lodging the power to discipline
judges of lower courts exclusively with the Supreme Court, it
curtailed in the same breath the inherent power of the CA to
punish for contempt. The CA have no authority to discipline
judges or even the court personnel of lower courts. At most,
the CA can only recommend to the Court the necessary
disciplinary action.
Lessons:
1. SC extends this to mean an exclusive power to
discipline; and
2. Exclusive power to pardon its personnel or to grant
“judicial clemency”

 Bar Q: 2004/3: An NLRC Commissioner is facing a

complaint before the OMB for violation of the Anti-Graft
Law. He contends that under the law creating the
NLRC, he has the rank of a justice of the Court of
Appeals. Hence the OMB has no jurisdiction over him.
Is he correct?
 2012, No. 5. Judge Red is the Executive Judge of Green City.
Red is known to have corrupt tendencies and has a reputation
widely known among practicing lawyers for accepting bribes.
Ombudsman Grey, wishing to "clean up" the government from
errant public officials, initiated an investigation on the alleged
irregularities in the performance of duties of Judge Red.
(1) Judge Red refused to recognize the authority of the Office of the
Ombudsman over him because according to him, any
administrative action against him or any court official or
employee falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. Decide with reasons. (5%)
(2) Does the Ombudsman have authority to conduct investigation
over crimes or offenses committed by public officials that are
NOT in connection or related at all to the official’s discharge of
his duties and functions? Explain. (3%)