PEREZ vs PEOPLE (Judicial Review and Presumption of Constitutionality)

Facts: Petitioner Perez filed a review of his conviction for malversation of public
funds punishable under Article 217 of the RPC. He contended that the Article 217 of
the RPC, which relied upon in convicting him by the Sandiganbayan, is cruel and
thus violates Article 4 Section 19 of the Constitution. He also insist that the
punishment provided by the RPC was cruel considering that there was already
payment or reimbursement made by him to restituted his shortage of fund.
Issue: WON the Article 217 of the RPC is cruel and unusual. Thus, violates Article 3
Section 19 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution?
Held: NO. The SC held that the Petitioner was correctly convicted of malversation.
The SC held that the Article 217 of the RPC has strong presumption of
constitutionality. The Court stand that he who attacks the constitutionality of a law
has the onus probandi to show why such law is repugnant to the Constitution.
Failing to overcome its presumption of constitutionality, a claim that a law is cruel,
unusual or inhuman must fail.
DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA vs SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES (Plain Meaning
Rule)
Facts: The Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the
Court erred in concluding that the ARMM ELECTIONS are Local Elections, considering
that the Constitution gives the ARMM a Special Status and is separate and distinct
from ordinary Local Government Unit, as provided by Article 1 Section 1 of the
Constitution. The Petitioners also argue that even assuming that the Constitution
mandates the synchronization of elections, the ARMM elections are not covered by
this mandates since they are regional and not local elections.
Issue: WON. Regional Governments are considered Local Governments
Held: YES. The Constitution only mentions the National Governments and Local
Governments and does not make a distinction between the Local and Regional.
In construing provisions of the Constitution, the first rule is verbal legis that is
wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary
meaning except where technical terms are employed. In this principle, the Court
refer the meaning of the word local as understood in its ordinary sense. The Court
relied on the definition of the word local provided by the Websters 3 rd New
International Dictionary Unabridged, which refers to something that primarily
serves the needs of a particular limited district, often a community or minor political
subdivision. Obviously, the ARMM elections, which are held within the confines of
the ARMM fall within this definition.
BROKENSHIRE Inc. vs MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (MOLE) and
BROKENSHIRE EMPLOYEE-WORKERS UNION (All Courts Can Exercise Judicial
Review)
Facts: The Brokenshire Memorial Hospital Employee and Workers Union filed a
complaint for non-compliance of the provisions of the Wage Order No. 5 by the

Brokenshire Memorial Hospital Inc in the Reginal office of the MOLE Region XI. After
due hearing, the Regional Director rendered a decision in favor of the private
respondents. Judgement having become final and executory, the Regional Director
issued a Writ of Execution whereby some movable properties of the petitioner were
levied upon and its operating expenses kept with the bank were garnished. The
Petitioner contends that the public-respondent, the MOLE, the Regional Director
committed grave abuse of discretion in asserting exclusive jurisdiction and in not
certifying this case to the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC for a full-blown hearing on
the merits.
Issues: WON the Regional Office of MOLE has jurisdiction over the case
Held: YES provided that the requisites will be complied. Contrary to the claim of the
Petitioners that the original and exclusive jurisdiction over said money claims is
properly lodged in the Labor Arbiter and the Regional Director has no jurisdiction
over workers money claims, the SC ruled that the Regional Director exercises
concurrent jurisdiction with the Labor Arbiter over money claims provided that the
requisites prescribe in R.A. 6715 are present. 1)The claim is presented by an
employee or person employed in domestic or household service, or housekeeper
under the code; 2)The Claimant no longer being employed, does not seek
reinstatement; 3) The aggregate money claim of the employee or housekeeper does
not exceed 5 thousand pesos. In the case at bar, the 3 rd requisite is absent. Thus,
the SC REFFERED the case to the Labor Arbiter because the aggregate money claim
is more than 200K pesos which exceeds the 5 thousand pesos prescription of the
third requisite.
JAVIER vs COMELEC (Functions of Judicial Review)
Facts: Javier and Pacificador were rivals to be members of the Batasan on May
1984 in Antique. During election, Javier complained a tampering, falsification and
election violence which perpetuated by the armed men of Pacificador. The 2 nd
division of the COMELEC directed the board of canvassers of Antique to proceed
with the canvass but suspend the proclamation. On June 7, 1984, the same division
ordered to proclaim the winner Pacificador. Javier, on certiorari filed at the SC,
pointed out that the irregularities of the election must first be resolved before
proclaiming a winner. He also contest that one of the Commissioner must inhibit
himself as he was a former law partner of Pacificador. In February 1986, Javier was
gunned down. The Solicitor-General then moved to have the Petition close, it being
moot and academic by virtue of Javiers death.
Issue: WON there had been due process in the proclamation of Pacificador
Held: NO. The SC ruled that a decision by a COMELEC division of an election case
for Batasan members would not meet the Constitutional requirement (based on the
1973 Constitution) that they be decided en banc
IMBONG vs OCHOA (A Constitutional Question Raised at the Earliest Time
Possible; RIPENESS)

Facts: RH Law (R.A. No. 10354) was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012.
Shortly after the President placed his imprimatur on the said law, Petitioners file for
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition of the said law. Petitioners are assailing the
constitutionality of RH Law. That it violates right to life of the unborn; it violates
right to health and right to protection against hazardous products; and it
violates right to religious freedom. The respondent pray for the dismissal of the
petitions due to the absence of actual case or controversy and the issues are not
yet RIPE for judicial determination because the RH Law has yet to be
implemented. That no one has been charged with violating its provisions and that
there is no showing that any of the petitioners right has been adversely affected by
its operations.
Issue: WON the Petition is RIPE for Judicial Review
Held: YES. The SC held in the case at bar, an actual case or controversy exists and
that the same is RIPE for Judicial Determination. Considering that the RH Law and
its implementing rules have already taken effect and that budgetary measures to
carry out the law had already been passed, it is evident that the subject petitions
present are justiciable controversy. The SC ruled that when an action of legislature
is serious alleged to have INFRINGE THE CONSTITUTION, it not only becomes a right
but also a duty of the Judiciary to settle the dispute.
IDEAL vs PSALM (A Constitutional Question Raised at the Earliest Time Possible;
MOOTNESS)
Facts: PSALM is a government-owned and controlled corporation created by virtue
of R.A. No. 9136, otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of
2001 (EPIRA). The said law mandated the PSALM to manage the orderly sale and
privatization of NPC generation assets. Sometime in August 2005, PSALM
commenced the privatization of the 246 megawatt AHEPP located on Norzaragay,
Bulacan. An invitation to bid was published on 3 major national newspaper. After
holding a pre-bid conference and forum discussions with various stakeholders,
PSALM received bids from 6 competing firms. On May 5, 2010, after a post-bid
evaluation, PSALM approved and confirmed the issuance of Notice of Award to the
highest bidder, K-Water which is foreign corporation. On May 19, 2010, the
Petitioners, IDEALS, file a petition for TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. One of
the argument of the IDEALS, which prompted them to file a petition is that
participation in bidding and award of contract to K-Water, a foreign corporation, is
unconstitutional. It is against the provision of the Constitution on the appropriation
and utilization of water as natural resource, as implemented by the Water Code of
the Philippine limiting water rights to Filipino citizens and corporation which are at
least 60% Filipino-owned. PSALM prayed for the dismissal of the Petition because
the present petition is rendered MOOT by the issuance of a Notice of Award in
favor of K-Water
Issue: WON the Petition is moot
Held: NO. The petition was filed as means of enforcing the States obligation to
protect the citizens. In this case, their right to water which was granted by the

Constitution itself and also to bar foreign corporation from exploiting our water
resources. If the impending sale of the AHEPP to K-Water indeed violates the
Constitution, it is duty of the Court to annul the contract ward as well as its
implementation.
BIRAOGO vs PTC of 2010 (A Party with a Personal and Substantial Interest)
Facts: A special civil action for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis BAROK
Biraogo in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Biraogo assails E.O. No.1 of H.E.
President Aquino, establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, for being
violative of the legislative power of Congress under Article 4 Section 1 of the
Constitution. As it usurps the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a
public office and to appropriate funds therefor. The Office of the Solicitor-General
(OSG) argues that as a taxpayer, Biraogo had no standing to question the EO No. 1
and the Budget of its operation. The OSG emphasize that funds to be used by E.O
No. 1 are to be taken from funds already appropriated by the Congress. Thus, it no
longer entail congressional action, in this case the power of Congress on spending,
because it will simply be an exercise of the President power over contingent funds.
Issue: WON Biraogo has a standing on the case
Held: NO. Biraogo has not shown that he sustained, or is in danger of sustaining,
any personal and direct injury attributable to the enforcement of E.O No. 1. The
court held that nowhere in his petition is an assertion of a clear right that may
justify his clamor for the Court to exercise judicial power. Biraogo has no standing to
this case because he doesnt have a personal and substantial interest which the
Court requires for its valid exercise of its power of Judicial Review.
TONDO MEDICAL CENTER vs CA (RATIO LEGIS ET ANIMA)
Facts: Petitioners filed for the nullification of the Health Sector Program Agenda
(HSRA) of the DOH and E.O. No. 102, that redirects the Functions and Operations of
the DOH, which was issued by then President Erap on May 24, 1999. Petitioners
alleged that the implementation of the aforementioned HSRA reforms had resulted
in making free medicine and medical services inaccessible to economically
disadvantage Filipino. They cites provisions of Article 2 of the Constitution as a legal
basis of their claim. Petitioners also contended that laws, such as E.O. No. 102,
which effects the reorganization of the DOH should be enacted by Congress in the
exercise of legislative functions. They argued that this E.O is in excess of the
Presidents authority.
Issue: WON the Article cited by the Petitioners are self-executing
Held: NO. The SC said that there are some provisions of the Constitution have
already been categorically declared by the SC as non-self-executing. In Tanada vs
Angara, the SC held that the Article 2 of the Constitution, which was cited by the
Petitioners as legal basis, are considered non-self-executing because such principles
are too broad and need legislative enactments before they implemented. With
regards to the claim of the Petitioners that EO No. 102 is in excess of the President
authority, the SC ruled that it has no basis. The SC have already ruled in several

cases that the President may direct the reorganization of government entities under
Executive Department. This is also sanctioned by the Article VIII Section 17 of the
Constitution and as well as other Statutes.
DUMALAO et. al. vs COMELEC (Transcendental Importance and Paramount Public
Interest)
Facts: Petitioner Dumlao, former governor of Nueva Viscaya who filed his COC for
Governor in forthcoming January 20, 1980 elections, questioned the
constitutionality of Sec 4 B.P. Blg. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to equal
protection and due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Dumlao alleged that the
provision is directed insidiously against him. Petitioners Igot and Salipantan, both
taxpayer and qualified voters assail the validity of B.P. Blg. 51 Sections 4 & 7 and
B.P. Blg. 52 Sections 1 & 6. Petioners prayed that the provisions they challenged
must be declared null and void. However, the Petitioners has fallen short for 3
requisites for the exercise of Judicial Review. In the requisite of Actual Case and
Controversy, Dumlao assails the constitutionality of B.P. Blg. 52 Section 4 as being
contrary to equal protection of rights. Yet, Dumlao has not been affected by the
provisions because NO PETITIONER for his disqualification has been filed before the
COMELEC. In the requisites of Proper Party with a personal and substantial
interest, Petioners Igot and Salapantan have instituted this case as a taxpayers
suit but the provisions they contested doesnt involve disbursement of public funds.
In the requisite of Unavoidability of Constitutional Question, the question must
properly raise and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a
determination of the case. This case is not an appropriate case.
Issue: WON a Judicial Review would proceed even with the lack of essential
requisites
Held: In this case, YES. The SC relaxed the adherence to the strict procedural
standards due to the PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST involved and the proximity of
the election which will be held only a few days hence. Dumlaos challenge on the
provision is belied by the fact that several petitions were filed in the COMELEC to
disqualify candidates based on that provisions. The contention of Igot and
Salapantan about BP Blg 52 Section 4 Paragraph 2 which is violative of the
constitutional presumption of innocence has also been heard by the SC because the
provision is a violation of right granted by the Constitution itself. The aforesaid
provisions were declared null and void.
TELEBAP and GMA Inc. vs COMELEC (A Party with a Personal and Substantial
Interest)
Facts: TELEBAP is an organization of lawyers of radio and TV broadcasting
companies. They are suing as citizens, taxpayers, and registered voters. The other
Petitioner, GMA network Inc. operates radio and TV broadcasting station in the
Philippines under a franchise granted by Congress. Petitioners challenge the
constitutionality of the B.P. Blg. 881 Section 92 on the ground that it takes property
without due process and just compensation. This provisions mandate the Radio and
TV broadcasting companies to give a free airtime for the COMELEC commercials

during election periods. That this provision denies radio and TV Broadcasting
companies the equal protection of laws and that it is during election Period.
Issue: WON, TELEBAP has standing on the case as an organization suing as citizen,
taxpayer and registered voter
Held: NO. TELEBAP is held without legal standing in the case. As an organization
suing as citizen, TELEBAP has no standing. Citizen will be allowed to raise
constitutional question when he can show that he has personally suffered some
actual or threatened injury as a result of illegal conduct of the government.
TELEBAP have not shown that they have suffered harm as a result of the operation
of the aforesaid provision. As an organization suing as registered voters, TELEBAP
has no claim to this case because it does not concern their right of suffrage. And as
taxpayers, TELEBAP has no standing to this case because it does not involve the
exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending power. Thus, TELEBAP has no legal
standing in this case due to the LACK OF PERSONAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.