Taada v.

Tuvera, April 24, 1985 Issue:

Relevant Provisions: W/N publication in the Official Gazette is a requirement for a law to take effect.

Art. 4, Sec. 6, 1973 Constitution. The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, shall be afforded the citizen subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law. (Now Art. 3, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution with
slight changes)
Art. 2, Civil Code. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their
publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines*, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such
publication. (*as amended by EO 200)
Sec. 1, Commonwealth Act 638. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all
important legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the, Congress of the Philippines;
[2] all executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no general
applicability; [3] decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient importance to be so published; [4] such
documents or classes of documents as may be required so to be published by law; and [5] such
documents or classes of documents as the President of the Philippines shall determine from
time to time to have general applicability and legal effect, or which he may authorize so to be
published: Provided, that for the purpose of this section every order or document which shall
prescribe a penalty shall be deemed to have general applicability and legal effect: And
provided, further, that the term document as used in this section shall include any order,
regulation, rule, certificate, license, notice, or similar instrument issued, prescribed, or
promulgated by any executive department, bureau, office, commission, independent board,
agency, or instrumentality of the administrative branch of the Government, but not the
legislative or judicial branch of the Government.
Facts:
Held:
Yes.
Article 2 of the Civil Code states that Laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided. It does not, however, preclude the requirement of publication in the Official
Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of effectivity. This is further supported by
Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 which seeks to give the general public adequate notice of
the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without notice
and publication, the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat would lose its basis for application.
The publication of presidential issuances of a public nature and of general
applicability is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be
bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. Without
publication, the people have no means of knowing what presidential decrees have actually
been promulgated, much less a definite way of informing themselves of the specific contents
and texts of such decrees.
Why is this case important?
It established the doctrine that a person cannot be bound by a law that he is unaware
of. It also applied the doctrine of operative fact long before it was explained in Araullo.
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 or disregarded. In short, it nullifies the
void law or executive act but sustains its effects.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to

publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees,
letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of
implementation, and administrative orders. Petitioners invoke the right of the people to be
informed on matters of public concern as stated in Section VI, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine
Constitution.

The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed outright
on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality to bring the instant petition but was
quashed by the petitioners argument that since the subject of the petition concerns a public
right and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not show any
specific interest for their petition to be given due course.
Republic v. Pilipinas Shell, April 8, 2008
Relevant Provisions:
Art. 2, Civil Code. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their
publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines*, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such
publication. (*as amended by EO 200)
Sec. 3, Chapter 2, Book 7, Administrative Code of 1987. Filing. (1) Every agency shall file
with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule
adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within
three (3) months from the date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any
party or persons.
(2) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent functionary, shall carry out the
requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action.
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to
public inspection. (Emphasis provided.)
Facts:
On October 10, 1984, the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) was created under PD
1956 for the purpose of minimizing frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate
adjustments and/or increase in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum
products.
On December 4, 1991, the Office of Energy Affairs (OEA), now the DOE, informed the
respondent that their contribution to the OPSF for foreign exchange risk charge for the period
of December 1989 to March 1991 were insufficient. Respondent had a total underpayment of
P14,414,860.75. As a consequence of the underpayment, a surcharge of P11,654,782.31 was
imposed upon the respondent, pursuant to the MOF Circular No. 1-85, as amended by DOF
Circular No. 2-94, which provides that payment after the specified date shall be subject to a
surcharge of fifteen percent of the amount, if paid within thirty days from the due date plus
two percent per month if paid after thirty days.
On December 9, 1991, the OEA again advised the respondent of its additional
underpayment in the amount of P10,139,526.56 for the period of April 1991 to October 1991
and a surcharge of P2,806,656.65.
Respondent paid the OEA in full the principal amount but not the surcharge. It
argued that MOF Circular No. 1-85 is ineffective for failure to comply with Section 3 of Chapter
2, Book 7 of the Administrative Code of 1987 which provides that rules already in force on the
date of effectivity of the Administrative Code of 1987 which are not filed within three months
from the date of effectivity shall be rendered ineffective. Respondent also presented to the CA
Certifications dated February 9, 2004 and February 11, 2004 issued by the Office of the
National Administration Register (ONAR) stating that both said MOF and DOF circulars have
not been filed before the said office.
Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that (1) the respondent waived the requisite
registration of the said MOF when it paid in full the principal amount of underpayment and
that (2) the registration of the said MOF Circular is no longer necessary since the respondent
knew of its existence, despite its non-registration.
Issue:
W/N the registration of the said MOF was necessary for it to retain its effectivity.
Held:
Yes.
As held in Taada v. Tuvera, publication is indispensable in order that all statutes,
including administrative rules that are intended to enforce or implement existing laws, attain
binding force and effect. Also, under the Taada doctrine, said MOF is one of those issuances
which should be published before it becomes effective since it is intended to enforce PD 1956.
Furthermore, said MOF should also comply with the requirement stated under Section 3 of
Chapter 2, Book 7 of the Administrative Code of 1987 for rules that are already in force at the
time the Administrative Code of 1987 became effective.
These requirements of publication were put in place as safeguards against abuses on
the part of lawmakers and as guarantees to the constitutional right to due process and to
information on matters of public concern and, therefore, require strict compliance.
The Certifications presented by the respondent prove that said MOF and DOF
circulars have not been filed before the said office and petitioner was unable to controvert the
allegation that neither of the circulars were published in either the Gazette or a newspaper of
general circulation.
On petitioners first argument, the MOF as amended imposed surcharges while
respondents underpayment is based on the original MOF circular.
On petitioners second argument, strict compliance with the requirements of
publication cannot be annulled by a mere allegation that parties were notified of the existence
of the implementing rules concerned.
Why is this case important?
Just like Taada, this case highlights the importance of the strict requirement of the
publication of statutes and that even if the parties involved are already aware or have
knowledge of the unpublished statutes, this does not excuse the failure to comply with the
requirement. Failure to comply with the publication requirement will make a statute
ineffective. There is no loophole to this requirement.
Velarde v. Social Justice Society, April 28, 2004
Things You Need to be Aware of While Reading the Case:
Requisites of a Petition or Declaratory Relief
1. There is a justiciable controversy
2. The controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse
3. The party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy
4. The issue is ripe for judicial determination
Relief a specific coercive measure prayed for as a result of a violation of the rights of a plaintiff
or a petitioner.
Justiciable Controversy an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicial
determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory.
Cause of Action an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of
another causing injury to the latter. Its essential requisites are:
1. A right in favor of the plaintiff
2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate
such right.
3. Such defendants act or omission is violative of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of obligation of the former to the latter.
Legal Standing or Locus Standi 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.
Interest a material interest in issue that is affected by the questioned act or instrument, as
distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question involved.
The proper proceedings (elementary procedure) before the trial court:
1. The trial court may, upon motion of the defendant, dismiss a complaint. A complaint
should contain a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which
the party pleading relies for his claim or defense. It should likewise clearly specify
the relief prayed for.
2. Upon the filing of the complaint and the payment of the requisite legal fees, the clerk
or court shall issue the corresponding summons to the defendant or the
respondents, with a directive that the defendant answer within 15 days, unless a
different period is fixed by the court. The summons shall also contain a notice that if
such answer is not filed, the plaintiffs shall take a judgment by default and may be
granted the relief applied for. The court, however, may allow an answer to be filed
after the time fixed upon such terms as may be just.
3. If the answer sets forth a counterclaim, it must be answered within 10 days from
service. A reply may be filed within 10 days from service of the pleading responded
to.
4. When an answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations of the
adverse partys pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on
such pleading. Meanwhile, a party seeking to recover upon a claim, a counterclaim,
or to obtain a declaratory relief, may, at any time after the answer thereto has been
served, move for a summary judgment in its favor. Similarly, a party against whom a
claim or a counterclaim is asserted or a declaratory relief sought, may, at any time,
move for a summary judgment in its favor. After the motion is heard, the judgment
sought shall be rendered if there is a showing that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact.
5. If the motion is denied, the movant may file an answer within the period originally
prescribed to file an answer, but not less than 5 days, computed from the receipt of
the notice of the denial. If the pleading is ordered to be amended, the defendant
shall file an answer within 15 days, counted from the service of the amended
pleading, unless the court provides a longer period.
6. After the last pleading has been served and filed, the case shall be set for pretrial,
which is a mandatory proceeding. A plaintiffs non-appearance, if without valid
cause, shall result in the dismissal of the action with prejudice, unless the court
orders otherwise. A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be a cause for
allowing the plaintiff to present evidence ex patre, and the court to render judgment
on the basis thereof.
7. The parties are required to file their pretrial briefs. Failure to do so shall have the
same effect as failure to appear at the pretrial. Upon the termination thereof, the
court shall issue an order reciting the matters taken up at the conference, the action
taken on them, the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements or
admissions, if any, made by the parties regarding any of the matters considered.
8. Thereafter, the case shall be set for trial, in which the parties shall adduce their
respective evidence in support of their claims or defenses. By their written consent
or upon the application of either party, or on its own motion, the court may also
order any or all of the issues to be referred to a commissioner, who is to be appointed
by it or to be agreed upon by the parties. The trial or hearing before the
commissioner shall proceed in all respects as it would if held before the court.
9. Upon completion of the proceedings, the commissioner shall file with the court a
written report on the matters referred by the parties. The report shall be set for
hearing, after which the court shall issue an order adopting, modifying, or rejecting
it in whole or in part; or recommitting it with instructions; or requiring the parties to
present further evidence before the commissioner or the court.
10. Finally, a judgment or final order shall be rendered. The decision shall be in writing,
personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based, signed by the issuing magistrate, and filed with the
clerk of court.
Relevant Provisions:
Art. 2, Sec. 6, 1987 Constitution. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
Facts:
 On January 28, 2003, respondent SJS filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief before
RTC Manila against petitioner Velarde and other religious leaders. SJS, a registered political
party, sought the interpretation of several constitutional provisions, specifically on the
separation of church and state and a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the acts
of religious leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office, or urging or requiring the
members of their flock to vote for a specified candidate.
Velarde and the other religious leaders sought the dismissal of the Petition on the
grounds that it does not state a cause of action and that there is no justiciable controversy.
The lower court ordered them to submit a pleading by way of advisement which was
immediately followed by another Order denying all the Motions to Dismiss. They subsequently
filed Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Reconsideration which were likewise denied by the
lower court.
Through its discourse, the lower court opined at some point that the endorsement
of specific candidates in an election to any public office is a clear violation of the separation
clause. However, the trial court failed to include a dispositive portion in it assailed Decision.
Issues:
Procedural Issue:
Did the Petition for Declaratory Relief raise a justiciable controversy? Did it state a
cause of action? Did respondent have any legal standing to file the petition?
Substantive Issues:
1. Did the RTC Decision conform to the form and substance required by the
Constitution, the law and the Rules of Court?
2. May religious leaders like the petitioner be prohibited from endorsing
candidates for public office? Corollarily, may they be banned from campaigning
against said candidate?
Held:
Procedural Issues
Justiciable Controversy
Velarde contends that SJS failed to allege, much less establish before the trial court,
that there existed a justiciable controversy or an adverse legal interest between them and that
they had a legal right that was being violated or threatened to be violated by petitioner. He
further argued that SJS premised its action on mere speculations, contingent events, and
hypothetical issues that had not yet ripened into an actual controversy.
The SJS petition failed to meet the requirements for a justiciable controversy. The
Petition did not sufficiently state what specific legal right was violated by the religious leaders
and what particular act or acts of the religious leaders were in breach of his rights, the law, or
the Constitution. Furthermore, the Petition did not state the ultimate facts on which a pleading
party relies on for his claim. All that the 5-page Petition sought was an opinion of the trial court
on whether the speculated acts of the religious leaders violated the separation clause. Courts,
however, are proscribed from rendering advisory opinion.
Cause of Action
SJS asserts that in order to maintain a petition for declaratory relief, a cause of action
need not be alleged or proven and that there need not be any violation of a right, breach of
duty, or actual wrong committed by one party against the other.
Velarde, on the other hand, argues that the subject matter of an action for
declaratory relief should be a deed, a will, a contract, a statute, an executive order, a
regulation, or an ordinance. But the subject matter of the Petition is the constitutionality of an
act of a religious leader to endorse an elective candidate. Velarde contends that in the absence
of a valid subject matter, the Petition fails to state a cause of action.
The Petition has no explicit allegation that SJS had any legal right in its favor that it
sought to protect. It can only be inferred that the interest supposedly in their favor is that it
has thousands of members who are citizens-taxpayers-registered voters and who are keenly
interested in a judicial clarification of the constitutionality of the partisan participation of
religious leaders in Philippine politics and in the process to insure adherence to the
Constitution by everyone. But that is too general and does not suffice to constitute a legal right
or interest. It is not personal in character, too vague, highly speculative, and uncertain.
SJS tried to justify its claim by stating that the plaintiff in a declaratory judgment can
seek a judicial declaration of right for the purpose of guiding future conduct and that no actual
wrong need have been committed or loss have occurred in order to sustain the declaratory
judgment, although there must be no uncertainty that the loss will occur or that the asserted
rights will be invaded.
They, however, ignored the crucial point of their own reference that there must be
no uncertainty that the loss will occur or that the asserted rights will be invaded. The Petition
merely conjectured that the religious leaders might actively participate in politics.
Legal Standing
Velarde alleges that in seeking declaratory relief for the supposed unconstitutional
act, SJS has no legal interest since they failed to establish how the resolution of the issue would
benefit or injure it.
As taxpayers, SJS failed to state an actual allegation, whether express or implied, that
taxpayers money is being illegally disbursed. There was also no showing in the Petition for
Declaratory Relief that SJS as a political party and its members as registered voters would be
adversely affected by the alleged acts of the religious leaders if the question at issue was not
resolved. Lastly, the alleged interest of its members who are citizens-taxpayers-registered
voters is too general and beyond the contemplation of the standards set by jurisprudence.
Transcendental Importance
The Court deemed the constitutional issue raised in the Petition to be of paramount
interest to the Filipino people since the issue did not simply concern a delineation of the
separation the separation between church and state, but ran smack into the governance of
our country.
However, counsels for the parties, particularly for SJS, made no satisfactory
allegations or clarifications that would supply the deficiencies of the case.
Proper Proceedings Before the Trial Court (see above the procedure)
With respect to the initiatory pleading of the SJS, the Petition contained no
statement of the ultimate facts upon which SJS relied for its claim. It also did not specify the
relief it sought from the court but merely asked it to answer a hypothetical question.
With respect to the trial court proceedings, Velarde, along with the other religious
leaders, filed with the period set to file their respective answers. But apparently, contrary to
the requirement of Section 2 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, the Motions were not heard.
Worse, the Order purportedly resolving the Motions to Dismiss did not state any reason for
their denial, in contravention of Section 3 of the said Rule 16.
Pending the resolution of the subsequently filed Motions for Reconsideration, a
religious leader filed a Motion to suspend the filing of the parties memoranda but instead of
separately resolving the pending Motions, the trial court again transgressed the Rules of Court
when it immediately proceeded to issue its Decision, even before tackling the issues raised in
the Motions.
Furthermore, the RTC issued its Decision without allowing the parties to file their
answers. Consequently, there was no joinder if the issues. If it allowed the filing of the answers,
the trial court would have known the, as the Oral Argument revealed, that the religious leaders
had not committed or threatened to commit the act attributed to them.
The trial court also failed to give notice of the Petition to the OSG, which was entitled
to be heard upon questions involving the constitutionality or validity of statutes.
The trial court acted with inexplicable haste, with total ignorance of the law, and
with grave abuse of discretion.
Substantive Issues
Fundamental Requirements of a Decision (see below)
The Constitution commands that no decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based and that no
petition for review or motion for reconsideration shall be refused due course or denied without
stating the basis therefor.
Section of Rule 36 of the Rules on Civil Procedure also provides that a judgment or
final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing personally and directly
prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based,
signed by him and filed with the clerk of court.
Section 2 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure also provides that
the judgment must be written in the official language, personally, and directly prepared by
the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts
proved or admitted by the accused and the law upon which the judgment is based.
The Court also issued Administrative Circular No. 1 prompting all judges to make
complete findings of facts in their decisions, and scrutinize closely the legal aspects of the case
in the light of the evidence presented. They should avoid the tendency to generalize and form
conclusion s without detailing the facts from which such conclusions are deduced.
It is obvious that the assailed Decision contains no statement of facts or of the courts
findings as to the probable facts and without expressly stating the final conclusion reached or
specifying the relief granted, the trial judge ends her Decision with the clause SO ORDERED.
The significance of the factual findings lies in the value of the decision as a precedent.
It will be impossible to apply the ruling in the future if there is no point of factual comparison.
The lower court also did not include a dispositive portion in its Decision. The
dispositive portion is important because it is the investitive or controlling factor that
determines and settles the rights of the parties and the questions presented therein. The
Decisions leaves the Court in the dark to its final resolution.
SJS insists that the dispositive portion can be found in the body of the Decision. The
statement that SJS grounds its contention on, however, is merely a part of the opinion of the
trial court and does not conclusively declare the rights or obligations of the parties to the
Petition. Neither does it grant any relief as required of a dispositive portion.
Failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Religious Leaders Endorsement of Candidates for Public Office
The petition failed to state directly the ultimate facts that it relied upon for its claim.
During the Oral Argument, counsel for SJS candidly admitted that there were no factual
allegations in its Petition. Neither were there factual findings in the assailed Decision. The
Decision was rendered in clear violation of the Constitution and so it is void and deemed legally
inexistent. Consequently, there is nothing for the Court to review, affirm, reverse, or even just
modify.
Why is this case important?
This case (Justice Panganiban) provided the essential parts of a decision which should always
be present so as not to make any confusion or misinterpretation on the part of the readers,
particularly the parties involved.
1. Statement of the Case this part states the legal definition of the nature of the
action. It states whether the action is a civil or criminal case, as well as whether
the case is being decided on appeal or on a petition for certiorari, the court of
origin, the case number in the trial court, and the dispositive portion of the
assailed decision.
2. Statement of Facts there are different ways of relating the facts of the case.
First, under the objective or reportorial method, the judge summarizes without
comment the testimony of each witness and the contents of each exhibit.
Second, under the synthesis method, the factual theory of the plaintiff or
prosecution and then that of the defendant or defense, is summarized
according to the judges best light. Third, in the subjective method, the version
of the facts accepted by the judge is simply narrated without explaining what
the parties versions are. Finally, through a combination of objective and
subjective means, the testimony of each witness is reported and the judge then
formulates his or her own version of the facts. In addition, the reasoning of the
lower court or body whose decision is under review should be laid out, in order
that the parties may clearly understand why the lower court ruled in a certain
way, and why the reviewing court either finds no reason to reverse it or
concludes otherwise.
3. Issue or Assignment of Errors both factual and legal issues should be stated.
When the appellant presents repetitive issues or when the assigned errors do
not strike at the main issue, these may be restated in clearer and more coherent
terms. Though not specifically questioned by the parties, additional issues may
also be included if deemed important for substantial justice to be rendered.
4. The Courts Ruling contains a full discussion of the specific errors or issues
raised in the complaint as well as of other issues the court deems essential to a
just disposition of the case. Where there are several issues, each one of them
should be separately addressed, as much as practicable. The respective
contentions of the parties should also be mentioned.
5. The Disposition or Dispositive Portion in a criminal case, the disposition should
include a finding of innocence or guilt, the specific crime committed, the penalty
imposed, the participation of the accused, the modifying circumstances if any,
and the civil liability and costs. In case an acquittal is decreed, the court must
order the immediate release of the accused, if detained, order the director of
the Bureau of Corrections to report, within a maximum of 10 days from notice,
the exact date when the accused were set free. In a civil case as well as in a
special civil action, the disposition should state whether the complaint or
petition is granted or denied, the specific relief granted, and the costs. The
following test of completeness may be applied. First, the parties should know
their rights and obligations. Second, they should know how to execute the
decision under alternative contingencies. Third, there should be no need for
further proceedings to dispose of the issues. Fourth, the case should be
terminated by according to the proper relief. The proper relief usually
depends upon what the parties seek in their pleadings.
Lazatin v. Desierto, June 5, 2009
Things You Need to be Aware of While Reading the Case:
Stare decisis et non quieta movere (stare decisis for short) for the sake of certainty, a
conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are
substantially the same.
Approach used in Constitutional Interpretation:
Ratio legis interpretation in accordance with the intent of the framers.
Relevant Provisions:
Art. 11, Sec. 13 (8), 1987 Constitution. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following
powers, functions, and duties:
(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such
functions or duties as may be provided by law.
Facts:
On July 22, 1998, the Fact-Finding Bureau and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of
the Ombudsman filed a Complaint-Affidavit charging herein petitioners with Illegal Use of
Public Funds as defined and penalized under Art. 220 of the RPC and violation of Section 3,
Paragraph (a) and (e) of RA 3019.
The complaint alleged that there were irregularities in the use by then Congressman
Carmello Lazatin of his Countrywide Development Fund and that he, with the help of the other
petitioners, received as claimant 18 checks amounting to over 4 million pesos.
After a preliminary investigation, the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation
Bureau (EPIB) issued a Resolution recommending the filing against petitioners of 14 counts
each of Malversation of Public Funds and violation of Section 3 of RA 3019. The resolution was
approved by the Ombudsman and the cases were filed before the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioners, filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation
which were granted by the Sandiganbayan.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) subsequently submitted to the
Ombudsman its Resolution which recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of evidence.
The Ombudsman, however, ordered the Office of the Legal Affairs (OLA) to review the OSP
Resolution. The OLA recommended that the OSP Resolution be disapproved and the OSP be
directed to proceed with the trial of the cases against petitioners. The Ombudsman adopted
the OLA Memorandum thereby disapproving the OSP Resolution and ordering the prosecution
of the cases.
Issue:
W/N the Ombudsman has the power to overturn the OSPs Resolution.
Held:
Yes.
The petitioners assert that under Art. 11, Sec. 13 of the 1987 Constitution, the
Ombudsmans power is limited to watching, investigating, and recommending the filing of
proper cases against erring officials and that it does not grant them the power to prosecute
and that the power to prosecute belongs to the OSP which is a separate and distinct entity
from the Ombudsman under the Constitution and that consequently, RA 6770 is
unconstitutional for making the OSP an organic component of the Ombudsman.
This issue has long been decided by the Court. In Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman,
it was held that giving prosecutorial powers to the Ombudsman is in accordance with the
Constitution as Art. 11, Sec. 13 (8) provides that the Ombudsman shall exercise such other
functions as may be prescribed by law.
In the Records of the Constitutional Commission, it was also found that the framers
intended that the legislature may take away the powers of the Tanodbayan (now OSP) and
transfer it to the Ombudsman.
Petitioners also assert that the Court should revisit its ruling on the constitutionality
of RA 6770 and abandon the principle of stare decisis. Petitioners, however, have not shown
any strong, compelling reason to convince the Court that it should abandon the principle. They
have not shown how or why it would be grave abuse of discretion for the Ombudsman, who
has been validly conferred by law with the power of control and supervision over the OSP, to
disapprove or overturn any resolution issued by the latter.
Why is this case important?
Under the syllabus, this case is included under Judicial Power and Case Law so I think
that though this case primarily involves constitutional interpretation, the important issue in
this case was the assertion of the petitioners that the Court should abandon the doctrine of
stare decisis. In this case, the Court explained that the abandonment of the doctrine of stare
decisis should be based only on strong and compelling reasons and only upon the showing that
circumstances attendant in a particular case override the great benefits derived by our judicial
system from the doctrine.
Nitafan v. CIR, July 23, 1987

Things You Need to be Aware of While Reading the Case:

Approach used in Constitutional Interpretation:

Ratio Legis interpretation in accordance with the intent of the framers.

Relevant Provisions:

Art. 8, Sec. 10, 1987 Constitution. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices
of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their
continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.

Facts:

Petitioners, all of whom are Judges with stations in Manila, seek to prohibit and/or
perpetually enjoin the respondents from making any deduction of withholding taxes from their
salaries. They submit that any tax withheld from their salaries as judicial officers constitutes
diminution of their salaries, contrary to Art. 8, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution.

Issue:

W/N Art. 8, Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution mandates the exemption of the salary
of Judges from any income tax.

Held:

No.

Petitioners assert that because the 1987 Constitution does not contain a provision
similar to Art. 15, Sec. 6 of the 1973 Constitution which expressly provides that no salary shall
be exempt from payment of income tax, the intent of the framers is to revert to the original
concept of non-diminution of salaries of judicial officers.

The draft proposal of the disputed provision contained the phrase their salary shall
not be diminished nor subject to income tax. During the debates, however, objections were
raised claiming that such special privileges on taxation might be a violation of the principle of
uniformity in taxation and the equal protection clause and that in trying to erect a bastion of
justice, they might end up with a fortress of privileges which is also a violation of the equal
protection clause because the same privileges may not be enjoyed in the remotest degree by
other employees of the government.

Fr. Bernas, one of the framers, also explained that in putting a period after the word
decreased, it is on the understanding that the doctrine in Perfecto v. Meer and Dencia v.
David, which provided for their exclusion from income tax, will no longer apply.
Chavez v. JBC, July 17, 2012 Relevant Provisions:

Things You Need to be Aware of While Reading the Case: Art. 8, Sec. 8, 1987 Constitution. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the
supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the
Requisites of the Power of Judicial Review Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a
1. Actual case or controversy representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme
2. Locus standi Court, and a representative of the private sector.
3. The question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity (2) The regular Members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four
4. The issue of the constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed,
Locus Standi Requirements for Taxpayers, Voters, Concerned Citizens and Legislators the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for
three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for
1. The case involves a constitutional issue one year.
2. For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that
the tax measure is unconstitutional (3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall
3. For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election keep a record of its proceedings.
law in question (4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined
4. For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations
transcendental importance which must be settled early for the Council.
5. For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes
upon their prerogative as legislators. (5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary.
It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.
Determinants of Transcendental Importance
Facts:
1. The character of the funds or other assets involved in the case
2. The presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition In 1994, the composition of the JBC was substantially altered. Instead of having only
by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government 7 members, an 8th member was added as 2 representatives from Congress began sitting in the
3. The lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in the questions JBC, one from HOR and one from the Senate, each having of a vote. Then, in 2000 and 2001,
being raised. the JBC En Banc decided to allow the said representatives one full vote each.

Approach used in Constitutional Interpretation:
Verba legis literal meaning of the text.
Reasoning behind verbal egis:
1. It is assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are couched
express the objective sought to be attained.
2. The Constitution is not a lawyers document but essentially that of the
people, in whose consciousness it should ever be present as an important
condition for the rule of law to prevail.
Ratio legis interpretation in accordance with the intent of the framers.
Noscitur a sociis the meaning of a word may be known from accompanying words. (This was
not discussed in class which is weird because its written in bold in the case. This is like a
minimalists version of ut res magis because in the sense that it only uses the accompanying
words to interpret a provision instead of using the whole Constitution.)
This case was triggered by the unexpected departure of Chief Justice Renato Corona
on May 29, 2012 and the nomination of former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez, petitioner,
as his potential successor.
The petitioner grounds his arguments on 6 main issues: (1) that Art. 8, Sec. 8 (1) of
the 1987 Constitution is clear, definite, and needs no interpretation in that the JBC shall only
have one representative from Congress, (2) the framers of the Constitution clearly envisioned,
contemplated, and decided on a JBC composed of only 7 members, (3) had the framers
intended that the JBC be composed of one member from the HOR and one from the Senate,
they could have easily done so, (4) the composition of the JBC providing for 3 ex-officio
members is purposely designed for a balanced representation of each of the three branches
of the government, (5) one of the 2 members of the JBC from Congress has no right, not even
right, to sit in the JBC and perform the duties and functions of a member thereof, and (6) the
JBC cannot conduct valid proceedings as its composition is illegal and unconstitutional.
Respondents argue that the two houses are permanent and mandatory components
of Congress, such that the absence of either divests the term of its substantive meaning as
expressed under the Constitution and that bicameralism, as the system of choice by the
framers, requires that both houses exercise their respective powers in the performance of its
mandated duty which is to legislate. They further allege that when the JBC was established,
the framers originally envisioned a unicameral legislative body, thereby allocating only one
seat for National Assembly in the JBC and that, unfortunately, the phrase was not modified
to jive with the change to bicameralism. According to them, if the framers were made aware
of the consequence of having a bicameral legislature instead of a unicameral one, they would
have made the corresponding adjustment in the representation of Congress in the JBC.
They argue that the literal adherence to the language of the provision would produce
absurdity and incongruity to the bicameral nature of Congress and that it would deprive a
house of Congress of its representation.
The issue is also of transcendental importance as the allegations of the constitutional
violations in this case are not empty political questions. The allegations are substantiated by
facts and deserve an evaluation from the Court.
Composition of the JBC
As much as possible, the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense
they have in common use. The provision is clear and unambiguous. Petitioner correctly pointed
out that the use of the singular letter a preceding the representative of Congress is
unequivocal and leaves no room for any other construction. Had it been the intent of the
framers to have more than one representative from the Congress to the JBC, they could have
expressly provided it.

Issues: Applying the principles of verba legis and noscitur a sociis, it becomes apparent that
the word Congress as used in the disputed provision is in its generic sense.
1. W/N the conditions sine qua non for the exercise of the power of judicial review have
been met in this case. Looking into the intent of the framers, it is also undeniable that it was intended that
2. W/N the current practice of the JBC to perform its functions with 8 members, 2 of the JBC be composed of 7 members only. It was overwhelmingly repeated in the records that
whom are members of Congress, runs counter to the letter and spirit of the 1987 the JBC is composed and limited to only 7 members. It is also worth noting that the purpose of
Constitution. having 7 members in the JBC is to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting.
Having 2 members from Congress, even if each only has vote could muddle the JBCs voting
Held: process, especially when a tie is reached.

Power of Judicial Review Retired Justice Ynares-Santiago, a JBC consultant, also explained that there is no
dichotomy when Congress interacts with the other two co-equal branches of the government
Respondents claim that petitioner has no real interest in questioning the in keeping with the principle of equality among the three branches.
constitutionality of the JBCs composition is correct. The petitioner failed to manifest his
acceptance of his recommendation to the position of Chief Justice, thereby divesting him of a
substantial interest in the controversy. Also, being aware that the current composition of the
JBC has been in practice since 1994, the petitioners silence for 18 years shows that the issue
does not comply with the earliest possible opportunity requirement.

However, due to its serious implications, both to government processes and the
sanctity of the Constitution, the Court deems it more prudent to take cognizance of the case.
Also, the petitioner, suing as taxpayer, concerned citizen, and a nominee to the position of
Chief Justice has the requisite legal standing to file the case since the JBC derives derives its
financial resources from taxes.

The Court also disagrees with the respondents contention that petitioner lost his
standing to sue because he is not an official nominee for the post of Chief Justice. The JBCs
duty is not limited to the nominations for Chief Justice. A vast number of aspirants to judicial
posts all over the country may be affected by the Courts ruling. More importantly, the legality
of the very process of nominations to the positions in the Judiciary is the nucleus of the
controversy. The claim that the composition of the JBC is illegal and unconstitutional is an
object of concern, not just for a nominee to a judicial post, but for all citizens who have the
right to seek judicial intervention for rectification of legal blunders.