Lawyerly

GR No. 175356

2013-12-03

MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

An actual case or controversy exists when there is "a conflict of legal rights" or "an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution."[33] The Petition must therefore show that "the governmental act being challenged has a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it."[34] In this case, the tax deduction scheme challenged by petitioners has a direct adverse effect on them. Thus, it cannot be denied that there exists an actual case or controversy.

GR No. 208566

2013-11-19

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

In addition, the Court observes that the Philconsa ruling was actually riddled with inherent constitutional inconsistencies which similarly countervail against a full resort to stare decisis. As may be deduced from the main conclusions of the case, Philconsa's fundamental premise in allowing Members of Congress to propose and identify of projects would be that the said identification authority is but an aspect of the power of appropriation which has been constitutionally lodged in Congress. From this premise, the contradictions may be easily seen. If the authority to identify projects is an aspect of appropriation and the power of appropriation is a form of legislative power thereby lodged in Congress, then it follows that: (a) it is Congress which should exercise such authority, and not its individual Members; (b) such authority must be exercised within the prescribed procedure of law passage and, hence, should not be exercised after the GAA has already been passed; and (c) such authority, as embodied in the GAA, has the force of law and, hence, cannot be merely recommendatory. Justice Vitug's Concurring Opinion in the same case sums up the Philconsa quandary in this wise: ?Neither would it be objectionable for Congress, by law, to appropriate funds for such specific projects as it may be minded; to give that authority, however, to the individual members of Congress in whatever guise, I am afraid, would be constitutionally impermissible." As the Court now largely benefits from hindsight and current findings on the matter, among others, the CoA Report, the Court must partially abandon its previous ruling in Philconsa insofar as it validated the post-enactment identification authority of Members of Congress on the guise that the same was merely recommendatory. This postulate raises serious constitutional inconsistencies which cannot be simply excused on the ground that such mechanism is "imaginative as it is innovative." Moreover, it must be pointed out that the recent case of Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima[155] (Abakada) has effectively overturned Philconsa's allowance of post-enactment legislator participation in view of the separation of powers principle. These constitutional inconsistencies and the Abakada rule will be discussed in greater detail in the ensuing section of this Decision.

GR No. 208566

2013-11-19

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Recently, or in July of the present year, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) began its probe into allegations that "the government has been defrauded of some P10 Billion over the past 10 years by a syndicate using funds from the pork barrel of lawmakers and various government agencies for scores of ghost projects."[96] The investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of six (6) whistle-blowers who declared that JLN Corporation "JLN" standing for Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) had swindled billions of pesos from the public coffers for "ghost projects" using no fewer than 20 dummy NGOs for an entire decade. While the NGOs were supposedly the ultimate recipients of PDAF funds, the whistle-blowers declared that the money was diverted into Napoles' private accounts.[97] Thus, after its investigation on the Napoles controversy, criminal complaints were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, charging five (5) lawmakers for Plunder, and three (3) other lawmakers for Malversation, Direct Bribery, and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Also recommended to be charged in the complaints are some of the lawmakers' chiefs-of-staff or representatives, the heads and other officials of three (3) implementing agencies, and the several presidents of the NGOs set up by Napoles.[98]

GR No. 194368

2013-04-02

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ARLIC ALMOJUELA

BRION, J.

Further, SJO2 Almojuela's claim that he was denied equal protection of the laws because his co-workers were sentenced to lesser penalties has no legal basis. Citing Abakada Guro Partylist v. Purisima,[34] the CA pointed out that the equality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is equality under the same conditions and among persons similarly situated; when persons are under different factual circumstance, they may be treated differently.

GR No. 188056

2013-01-08

DACUDAO v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE GONZALES

BERSAMIN, J.

Thirdly, there is no question that DO No. 182 enjoyed a strong presumption of its validity. In ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Purisima,[14] the Court has extended the presumption of validity to legislative issuances as well as to rules and regulations issued by administrative agencies, saying: Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to respect. Such rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself. As such, they have the force and effect of law and enjoy the presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside with finality in an appropriate case by a competent court.[15]

GR No. 172642

2012-06-13

ESTATE OF NELSON R. DULAY v. ABOITIZ JEBSEN MARITIME

PERALTA, J.

It is clear from the above that the interpretation of the DOLE, in consultation with their counterparts in the respective committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as the DFA and the POEA is that with respect to disputes involving claims of Filipino seafarers wherein the parties are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the dispute or claim should be submitted to the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. It is only in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement that parties may opt to submit the dispute to either the NLRC or to voluntary arbitration. It is elementary that rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect.[8] Such rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself.[9] In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from this rule.

GR No. 164987

2012-04-24

LAWYERS v. SECRETARY OF BUDGET

MENDOZA, J.

To justify the nullification of the law or its implementation, there must be a clear and unequivocal, not a doubtful, breach of the Constitution. In case of doubt in the sufficiency of proof establishing unconstitutionality, the Court must sustain legislation because "to invalidate [a law] based on x x x baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the executive which approved it."[27] This presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and only when such a conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must be struck down.[28]

GR Nos. 177857-58

2012-01-24

PHILIPPINE COCONUT v. REPUBLIC

VELASCO JR., J.

Jurisprudence is consistent as regards the two tests, which must be complied with to determine the existence of a valid delegation of legislative power. In Abakada Guro Party List, et al. v. Purisima,[143] We reiterated the discussion, to wit: Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test. A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the delegate's authority, announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.

GR No. 181704

2011-12-06

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION MR. ROMULO A. PAGULAYAN v. MARGARITO B. TEVES

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima[4] (Abakada), we said of R.A. No. 9335: RA [No.] 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board). It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service, regardless of employment status.

GR No. 193459

2011-02-15

MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

On August 10, 2010, House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II, as chairperson of the Committee on Rules,[9] instructed Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr., Deputy Secretary General for Operations, through Atty. Cesar Pareja, Executive Director of the Plenary Affairs Department, to include the two complaints in the Order of Business,[10] which was complied with by their inclusion in the Order of Business for the following day, August 11, 2010.

GR No. 186616

2009-11-20

COMELEC v. CONRADO CRUZ

BRION, J.

Other than the Section 1, Article VIII route, courts can declare a law invalid when it is contrary to any provision of the Constitution. This requires the appraisal of the challenged law against the legal standards provided by the Constitution, not on the basis of the wisdom of the enactment. To justify its nullification, the breach of the Constitution must be clear and unequivocal, not a doubtful or equivocal one, as every law enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality.[15] These are the hurdles that those challenging the constitutional validity of a law must overcome.

GR No. 178160

2009-02-26

BASES CONVERSION v. COA

CARPIO, J.

The Court is not impressed. Every presumption should be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of RA No. 7227 and the burden of proof is on the BCDA to show that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution.[26] In Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima,[27] the Court held that:A law enacted by Congress enjoys the strong presumption of constitutionality. To justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and unequivocal one. To invalidate [a law] based on x x x baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the executive which approved it.

	GR No. 175356 2013-12-03	MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEL CASTILLO, J.
An actual case or controversy exists when there is "a conflict of legal rights" or "an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution."[33] The Petition must therefore show that "the governmental act being challenged has a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it."[34] In this case, the tax deduction scheme challenged by petitioners has a direct adverse effect on them. Thus, it cannot be denied that there exists an actual case or controversy.
	GR No. 208566 2013-11-19	GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In addition, the Court observes that the Philconsa ruling was actually riddled with inherent constitutional inconsistencies which similarly countervail against a full resort to stare decisis. As may be deduced from the main conclusions of the case, Philconsa's fundamental premise in allowing Members of Congress to propose and identify of projects would be that the said identification authority is but an aspect of the power of appropriation which has been constitutionally lodged in Congress. From this premise, the contradictions may be easily seen. If the authority to identify projects is an aspect of appropriation and the power of appropriation is a form of legislative power thereby lodged in Congress, then it follows that: (a) it is Congress which should exercise such authority, and not its individual Members; (b) such authority must be exercised within the prescribed procedure of law passage and, hence, should not be exercised after the GAA has already been passed; and (c) such authority, as embodied in the GAA, has the force of law and, hence, cannot be merely recommendatory. Justice Vitug's Concurring Opinion in the same case sums up the Philconsa quandary in this wise: ?Neither would it be objectionable for Congress, by law, to appropriate funds for such specific projects as it may be minded; to give that authority, however, to the individual members of Congress in whatever guise, I am afraid, would be constitutionally impermissible." As the Court now largely benefits from hindsight and current findings on the matter, among others, the CoA Report, the Court must partially abandon its previous ruling in Philconsa insofar as it validated the post-enactment identification authority of Members of Congress on the guise that the same was merely recommendatory. This postulate raises serious constitutional inconsistencies which cannot be simply excused on the ground that such mechanism is "imaginative as it is innovative." Moreover, it must be pointed out that the recent case of Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima[155] (Abakada) has effectively overturned Philconsa's allowance of post-enactment legislator participation in view of the separation of powers principle. These constitutional inconsistencies and the Abakada rule will be discussed in greater detail in the ensuing section of this Decision.
	GR No. 208566 2013-11-19	GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Recently, or in July of the present year, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) began its probe into allegations that "the government has been defrauded of some P10 Billion over the past 10 years by a syndicate using funds from the pork barrel of lawmakers and various government agencies for scores of ghost projects."[96] The investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of six (6) whistle-blowers who declared that JLN Corporation "JLN" standing for Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) had swindled billions of pesos from the public coffers for "ghost projects" using no fewer than 20 dummy NGOs for an entire decade. While the NGOs were supposedly the ultimate recipients of PDAF funds, the whistle-blowers declared that the money was diverted into Napoles' private accounts.[97] Thus, after its investigation on the Napoles controversy, criminal complaints were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, charging five (5) lawmakers for Plunder, and three (3) other lawmakers for Malversation, Direct Bribery, and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Also recommended to be charged in the complaints are some of the lawmakers' chiefs-of-staff or representatives, the heads and other officials of three (3) implementing agencies, and the several presidents of the NGOs set up by Napoles.[98]
	GR No. 194368 2013-04-02	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ARLIC ALMOJUELA BRION, J.
Further, SJO2 Almojuela's claim that he was denied equal protection of the laws because his co-workers were sentenced to lesser penalties has no legal basis. Citing Abakada Guro Partylist v. Purisima,[34] the CA pointed out that the equality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is equality under the same conditions and among persons similarly situated; when persons are under different factual circumstance, they may be treated differently.
	GR No. 188056 2013-01-08	DACUDAO v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE GONZALES BERSAMIN, J.
Thirdly, there is no question that DO No. 182 enjoyed a strong presumption of its validity. In ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Purisima,[14] the Court has extended the presumption of validity to legislative issuances as well as to rules and regulations issued by administrative agencies, saying: Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to respect. Such rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself. As such, they have the force and effect of law and enjoy the presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside with finality in an appropriate case by a competent court.[15]
	GR No. 172642 2012-06-13	ESTATE OF NELSON R. DULAY v. ABOITIZ JEBSEN MARITIME PERALTA, J.
It is clear from the above that the interpretation of the DOLE, in consultation with their counterparts in the respective committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as the DFA and the POEA is that with respect to disputes involving claims of Filipino seafarers wherein the parties are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the dispute or claim should be submitted to the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. It is only in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement that parties may opt to submit the dispute to either the NLRC or to voluntary arbitration. It is elementary that rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect.[8] Such rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself.[9] In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from this rule.
	GR No. 164987 2012-04-24	LAWYERS v. SECRETARY OF BUDGET MENDOZA, J.
To justify the nullification of the law or its implementation, there must be a clear and unequivocal, not a doubtful, breach of the Constitution. In case of doubt in the sufficiency of proof establishing unconstitutionality, the Court must sustain legislation because "to invalidate [a law] based on x x x baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the executive which approved it."[27] This presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and only when such a conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must be struck down.[28]
	GR Nos. 177857-58 2012-01-24	PHILIPPINE COCONUT v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
Jurisprudence is consistent as regards the two tests, which must be complied with to determine the existence of a valid delegation of legislative power. In Abakada Guro Party List, et al. v. Purisima,[143] We reiterated the discussion, to wit: Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test. A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the delegate's authority, announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.
	GR No. 181704 2011-12-06	BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION MR. ROMULO A. PAGULAYAN v. MARGARITO B. TEVES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima[4] (Abakada), we said of R.A. No. 9335: RA [No.] 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board). It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service, regardless of employment status.
	GR No. 193459 2011-02-15	MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES, J.
On August 10, 2010, House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II, as chairperson of the Committee on Rules,[9] instructed Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr., Deputy Secretary General for Operations, through Atty. Cesar Pareja, Executive Director of the Plenary Affairs Department, to include the two complaints in the Order of Business,[10] which was complied with by their inclusion in the Order of Business for the following day, August 11, 2010.
	GR No. 186616 2009-11-20	COMELEC v. CONRADO CRUZ BRION, J.
Other than the Section 1, Article VIII route, courts can declare a law invalid when it is contrary to any provision of the Constitution. This requires the appraisal of the challenged law against the legal standards provided by the Constitution, not on the basis of the wisdom of the enactment. To justify its nullification, the breach of the Constitution must be clear and unequivocal, not a doubtful or equivocal one, as every law enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality.[15] These are the hurdles that those challenging the constitutional validity of a law must overcome.
	GR No. 178160 2009-02-26	BASES CONVERSION v. COA CARPIO, J.
The Court is not impressed. Every presumption should be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of RA No. 7227 and the burden of proof is on the BCDA to show that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution.[26] In Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima,[27] the Court held that:A law enacted by Congress enjoys the strong presumption of constitutionality. To justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and unequivocal one. To invalidate [a law] based on x x x baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also of the executive which approved it.

ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST v. PURISIMA