cases pubcorp

8/18/2019 Cases Pubcorp

1/22

2. Limbona vs Mangelin

Facts:

* Petitioner was appointed member of theSanguniang Pampook, Regional AutonomousGovernment and was later elected Speakerof the Regional egislative Assembl!"

* #ongressman $atu invited petitioner in hiscapacit! as Speaker of the Assembl! forconsulations and dialogues on the recentand present political developments andother issues a%ecting Regions &' and '&&hopefull! resulting to chart the autonomousgovernments of the two regions asenvisioned and ma! prod the President toconstitute immediatel! the Regional#onsultative #ommission as mandated b!the #ommission"

* #onsistent with the said invitation,Petitioner addressed all Assembl!men thatthere shall be no session in (ovember as)our presence in the house committeehearing of #ongress take sic+ precedenceover an! pending business in batasangpampook "-

* &n de.ance of Petitioner/s advice, theAssembl! held a meeting on (ovember 0,1234, and unseated imbona from hisposition" imbona pra!s for the session to bedeclared null and void and that he still bedeclared Speaker of the Regional Assembl!"

* Pending the case, the S# also received aresolution from the Assembl! e5pellingimbona/s membership"

&ssue:

1" 6hether or not the e5pulsion is valid7

0" 6hether or not the courts of law have 8urisdiction over the autonomousgovernments or regions" 6hat is the e5tentof self9government given to the autonomous

governments of Region '&&

eld:

1" (o" the (ovember 0 and ;, 1234 sessionsare declared invalid since at the timeimbona called the )recess-, it was not asettled matter whether or not he could doso" Secondl!, the invitation b! the ouse of Representatives/ #ommittee on


2/22

government acting through the Presidentand the $epartment of ocal Government+"&f the Sangguniang Pampook of Region '&&+,then, is autonomous in the latter sensedecentraliation of power+ its acts are,debatabl! be!ond the domain of this #ourtin perhaps the same wa! that the internal

acts, sa!, of the #ongress of the Philippinesare be!ond our 8urisdiction" ut if it isautonomous in the former categor!decentraliation of administration+ onl!, itcomes unarguabl! under our 8urisdiction" Ane5amination of the ver! Presidential $ecreecreating the autonomous governments of uir! in

the validit! of the e5pulsion in >uestion,with more reason can we review thepetitionerBs removal as Speaker"

3. Lina vs Pano

Respondent ?on! #alvento was appointedagent of P#SE to install ?erminal E< 0I forthe operation of lotto" e asked ui,


3/22


4/22

En Oul! 2 and 0K, 0I1K, and on August H, 1K,and 04, 0I1K, the cases were heard on oralargument"

En Oul! 1H, 0I1K, the SNAE was orderede5tended until further orders of the #ourt"

?hereafter, the #ourt directed the parties tosubmit their respective memoranda withinsi5t! HI+ da!s and, at the same time posedseveral >uestions for their clari.cation onsome contentions of the parties"

Petitioners pra!ed to maintain the status>uo"

&SS=MS

6hether the R law is unconstitutional as itviolates Autonom! of ocal

GovemmentARuall! applied to the ARuireprivate health facilities and non9maternit!specialt! hospitals and hospitals owned andoperated b! a religious group to referpatients, not in an emergenc! or life9threatening case, as de.ned under Republic

Act (o" 3KLL, to another health facilit!which is convenientl! accessibleQ and b+allow minor9parents or minors who havesu%ered a miscarriage access to modemmethods of famil! planning without writtenconsent from their parents or guardiansQ

0+ Section 0Ka+l+ and the correspondingprovision in the R9&RR, particularl! Section; "0L thereof, insofar as the! punish an!healthcare service provider who fails and orrefuses to disseminate informationregarding programs and services onreproductive health regardless of his or her

religious beliefs"

K+ Section 0Ka+0+i+ and the correspondingprovision in the R9&RR insofar as the! allowa married individual, not in an emergenc! orlife9threatening case, as de.ned underRepublic Act (o" 3KLL, to undergoreproductive health procedures without theconsent of the spouseQ

L+ Section 0Ka+0+ii+ and the correspondingprovision in the R9&RR insofar as the! limitthe re>uirement of parental consent onl! toelective surgical procedures"

;+ Section 0Ka+K+ and the correspondingprovision in the R9&RR, particularl! Section;"0L thereof, insofar as the! punish an!healthcare service provider who fails andorrefuses to refer a patient not in anemergenc! or life9threatening case, asde.ned under Republic Act (o" 3KLL, toanother health care service provider withinthe same facilit! or one which isconvenientl! accessible regardless of his orher religious beliefsQ

H+ Section 0Kb+ and the corresponding

provision in the R9&RR, particularl! Section; "0L thereof, insofar as the! punish an!public ocer who refuses to supportreproductive health programs or shall doan! act that hinders the full implementationof a reproductive health program, regardlessof his or her religious beliefsQ

4+ Section 14 and the correspondingprov1s1In in the R9&RR regarding the


5/22

rendering of pro bona reproductive healthservice in so far as the! a%ect theconscientious ob8ector in securing PhilealthaccreditationQ and

3+ Section K"Ila+ and Section K"I1 G+ of theR9&RR, which added the >uali.er

Cprimaril!C in de.ning abortifacients andcontraceptives, as the! are ultra vires and,therefore, null and void for contraveningSection La+ of the R aw and violatingSection 10, Article && of the #onstitution"

?he Status Nuo Ante Erder issued b! the#ourt on


6/22

&SS=MS:

a" whether # ;; of the $< is void forgoing be!ond the supervisor! powers of thePresident and for not having been published

b" whether the !earl! appropriationordinance enacted b! the #it! of


7/22

>uestion the legalit! of the provisions in thesaid ordinance granting additionalallowances to 8udges stationed in the saidcit!"

7. Abbas vs. COMELEC

G"R" (o" 32H;1 (ovember 1I, 1232

Facts:

?he present controvers! relates to theplebiscite in 1K+ provinces and 2+ cities in


8/22

ma8orit! of the votes cast b! the constituentunits in a plebiscite, and onl! thoseprovinces and cities where a ma8orit! vote infavor of the Erganic Act shall be included inthe autonomous region" ?he provinces andcities wherein such a ma8orit! is not attainedshall not be included in the autonomous

region" &t ma! be that even if anautonomous region is created, not all of thethirteen 1K+ provinces and nine 2+ citiesmentioned in Article &&, section 1 0+ of R"A"(o" H4KL shall be included therein" ?hesingle plebiscite contemplated b! the#onstitution and R"A" (o" H4KL will thereforebe determinative of 1+ whether there shallbe an autonomous region in


9/22

raised b! petitioners to challenge theconstitutionalit! of R"A" (o" H4KL, the #ourt.nds that petitioners have failed toovercome the presumption" ?he dismissal of these two petitions is, therefore, inevitable"

8. Codillea !oad Coali"ion vs COA

Facts:

ME 00I, issued b! the President in thee5ercise of her legislative powers under Art"'U&&&, sec" H of the #onstitution, created the#AR" &t was created to accelerate economicand social growth in the region and toprepare for the establishment of theautonomous region in the #ordilleras" &tsmain function is to coordinate the planningand implementation of programs andservices in the region, particularl!, to

coordinate with the local government unitsas well as with the e5ecutive departments of the (ational Government in the supervisionof .eld oces and in identif!ing, planning,monitoring, and accepting pro8ects andactivities in the region" &t shall also monitorthe implementation of all ongoing nationaland local government pro8ects in the region" ?he #AR shall have a #ordillera RegionalAssembl! as a polic!9formulating bod! and a#ordillera M5ecutive oard as animplementing arm" ?he #AR and theAssembl! and M5ecutive oard shal e5istuntil such time as the autonomous regional

government is established and organied" &nthese cases, petitioners principall! arguethat b! issuing M"E" (o" 00I the President, inthe e5ercise of her legislative powers priorto the convening of the .rst #ongress underthe 1234#onstitution, has virtuall! pre9empted #ongress from its mandated task of enacting an organic act and created anautonomous region in the #ordilleras"

&ssue: &s ME 00I is valid

eld:

@es" A reading of M"E" (o" 00I will easil!reveal that what it actuall! envisions is theconsolidation and coordination of thedeliver! of services of line departments andagencies of the (ational Government in theareas covered b! the administrative regionas a step preparator! to the grant of autonom! to the #ordilleras" &t does notcreate the autonomous region contemplatedin the #onstitution" &t merel! provides for

transitor! measures in anticipation of theenactment of an organic act and thecreation of an autonomous region" &n short,it prepares the ground for autonom!" ?hisdoes not necessaril! conTict with theprovisions of the #onstitution onautonomous regions, as we shall show later"


10/22

8uridical personalit!, unlike provinces, citiesand municipalities" (either is &t vested withthe powers that are normall! granted topublic corporations, e"g" the power to sueand be sued, the power to own and disposeof propert!, the power to create its ownsources of revenue, etc" As stated earlier,

the #AR was created primaril! to coordinatethe planning and implementation of programs and services in the covered areas" ?he creation of administrative regions forthe purpose of e5pediting the deliver! of services is nothing new" ?he &ntegratedReorganiation Plan of 1240, which wasmade as part of the law of the land b! virtueof P$ 1, established 11regions, laterincreased to 10, with de.nite regionalcenters and re>uired departments andagencies of the M5ecutive ranch of the(ational Government to set up .eld ocestherein" ?he functions of the regional ocesto be established pursuant to the

Reorganiation Plan are: 1+ to implementlaws, policies, plans, programs, rules andregulations of the department or agenc! inthe regional areasQ 0+ to provideeconomical, ecient and e%ective service tothe people in the areaQ K+ to coordinatewith regional oces of other departments,bureaus and agencies in the areaQ L+ tocoordinate with local government units inthe areaQ and ;+ to perform such otherfunctions as ma! be provided b! law" #AR isin the same genre as the administrativeregions created under the ReorganiationPlan, albeit under M"E" (o" 00I the operation

of the #AR re>uires the participation notonl! of the line departments and agencies of the (ational Government but also the localgovernments, ethno9linguistic groups andnon9governmental organiations in bringingabout the desired ob8ectives and theappropriation of funds solel! for thatpurpose"

&ssue: $id the creation of the #ARcontravened the constitutional guarantee of the local autonom! for the provinces Abra,enguet, &fugao, Jalinga9Apa!ao and


11/22

declare the non9rati.cation of the ErganicAct for the Region" ?he petitioners maintainthat there can be no valid #ordilleraAutonomous Region in onl! one province asthe #onstitution and Republic Act (o" H4HHre>uire that the said Region be composed of more than one constituent unit"

&ssue: ?he >uestion raised in this petition iswhether or not the province of &fugao, beingthe onl! province which voted favorabl! forthe creation of the #ordillera AutonomousRegion can, alone, legall! and validl!constitute such Region"

eld: ?he sole province of &fugao cannotvalidl! constitute the #ordillera AutonomousRegion"

&t is e5plicit in Article ', Section 1; of the1234 #onstitution" ?he ke!words V

provinces, cities, municipalities andgeographical areas connote that )region- isto be made up of more than one constituentunit" ?he term )region- used in its ordinar!sense means two or more provinces" ?his issupported b! the fact that the thirteen 1K+regions into which the Philippines is dividedfor administrative purposes are groupings of contiguous provinces" &fugao is a provinceb! itself" ?o become part of a region, it must 8oin other provinces, cities, municipalities,and geographical areas" &t 8oins other unitsbecause of their common and distinctivehistorical and cultural heritage, economic

and social structures and other relevantcharacteristics" ?he #onstitutionalre>uirements are not present in this case"

Article &&&, Sections 1 and 0 of Republic Act(o" H4HH provide that the #ordilleraAutonomous Region is to be administered b!the #ordillera government consisting of theRegional Government and local governmentunits" &t further provides that:

)SM#?&E( 0" ?he Regional Government shalle5ercise powers and functions necessar! forthe proper governance and development of

all provinces, cities, municipalities, andbaranga! or ili within the AutonomousRegion " " "- From these sections, it can begleaned that #ongress never intended that asingle province ma! constitute theautonomous region" Etherwise, we would befaced with the absurd situation of havingtwo sets of ocials, a set of provincialocials and another set of regional ocialse5ercising their e5ecutive and legislativepowers over e5actl! the same small area"

$%. !ai &anda &ema v Comelec

Facts:

?he Province of


12/22

&SS=M: 6hether or not RA 2I;L isunconstitutional" 6hether or not ARuirement so Sema/s contention isuntenable" En the other hand, AR


13/22

local government units, a plebiscite in thepolitical units directl! a%ected is mandator!"

Petitioners are directl! a%ected in the imple9mentation of RA (o" 3;03" " km", which is lesser thanthe minimum area prescribed b! thegoverning statute

?he Supreme #ourt was in recess at thetime so the petition was not timel!considered" #onse>uentl!, petitioners .led asupplemental pleading on Oanuar! L, 123H,after the plebiscite sought to be restrainedwas held the previous da!, Oanuar! K"

&SS=M: 6( the plebiscite was legal andcomplied with the constitutional re>uisitesunder Article '&, Sec" K of the #onsititution,which states that 99

CSec" K" (o province, cit!, municipalit! orbarrio ma! be created, divided, merged,abolished, or its boundar! substantiall!altered e5cept in accordance with thecriteria established in the ocal Government#ode, and sub8ect to the approval b! ama8orit! of the votes in a plebiscite in theunit or units a%ected"C

M$: (E" &n interpreting the aboveprovision, the Supreme #ourt held thatwhenever a province is created, divided ormerged and there is substantial alteration of


14/22

the boundaries, Cthe approval of a ma8orit!of votes in the plebiscite in the unit or unitsa%ectedC must .rst be obtained"

?he creation of the proposed new provinceof (egros del (orte will necessaril! result inthe division and alteration of the e5isting

boundaries of (egros Eccidental"

CPlain and simple logic will demonstrate thattwo political units would be a%ected" ?he.rst would be the parent province of (egrosEccidental because its boundaries would besubstantiall! altered" ?he other a%ectedentit! would be composed of those in thearea subtracted from the mother province toconstitute the proposed province of (egrosdel (orte"C

?he Supreme #ourt further held that thecase of Governor Wosimo Paredes versus the

onorable M5ecutive Secretar! to thePresident, et al", G"R" (o" ;;H03, uentl! argues the pointsraised b! the petitioners"C

#onse>uentl!, the Supreme #ourtpronounced that the plebscite held on Oanuar! K, 123H has no legal e%ect for beinga patent nullit!"

C6MRMFERM, atas Pambansa lg" 33; ishereb! declared unconstitutional" ?heproclamation of the new province of (egrosdel (orte, as well as the appointment of theocials thereof is also declared null andvoid"

SE ER$MRM$"C

RA?&E: ?he #ourt is prepared to declare thesaid plebiscite held on Oanuar! K, 123H asnull and void and violative of the provisionsof Sec" K, Article '& of the #onstitution" ?he#ourt is not, however, disposed to direct theconduct of a new plebiscite, because we .ndno legal basis to do so" 6ith constitutionalin.rmit! attaching to the sub8ect atasPambansa lg" 33; and also because thecreation of the new province of (egros del(orte is not in accordance with the criteriaestablished in the ocal Government #ode,the factual and legal basis for the creation of such new province which should 8ustif! the

holding of another plebiscite does not e5ist"

$3. PADILLA )&. COMELEC

G"R" (o" 1IKK03 Ectober 12, 1220

$E#?R&(M )PetitionerBs contention that ourruling in ?an vs" #E


15/22

who would be economicall! dislocated b!the separation of a portion thereof have aright to vote in said plebiscite" Mvidentl!,what is contemplated b! the phase )politicalunits directl! a%ected,- is the pluralit! of political units, which would participate in theplebiscite" 1I ogicall!, those to be included

in such political areas are the inhabitants of the 10 baranga!s of the proposeduesting thePresident to declare the conversion of #abanatuan #it! into a highl! urbanied cit!=#+" ?he President issued PresidentialProclamation (o" L13, Series of 0I10,proclaiming the #it! of #abanatuan as an=# sub8ect to Crati.cation in a plebiscite b!the >uali.ed voters therein, as provided forin Section L;K of the ocal Government#ode of 1221"C

Respondent #Euestion will necessaril! anddirectl! a%ect the mother province of (uevaMci8a" is main argument is that Section L;Kof the G# should be interpreted incon8unction with Sec" 1I, Art" ' of the#onstitution" e argues that while theconversion in >uestion does not involve thecreation of a new or the dissolution of ane5isting cit!, the spirit of the #onstitutionalprovision calls for the people of the localgovernment unit G=+ directl! a%ected tovote in a plebiscite whenever there is amaterial change in their rights andresponsibilities" ?he phrase C>uali.ed voters

thereinC used in Sec" L;K of the G# shouldthen be interpreted to refer to the >uali.edvoters of the units directl! a%ected b! theconversion and not 8ust those in thecomponent cit! proposed to be upgraded"

?he #E


16/22

&ssue:

6hether the >uali.ed registered voters of the entire province of (ueva Mci8a or onl!those in #abanatuan #it! can participate inthe plebiscite called for the conversion of #abanatuan #it! from a component cit! into

an =#"

eld:

1" Sec" L;K of the G# should be interpretedin accordance with Sec" 1I, Art" ' of the#onstitution" ?he power to create, divide,merge, abolish or substantiall! alterboundaries of provinces, cities,municipalities or baranga!s, which ispertinent in the case at bar, is essentiall!legislative in nature" ?he framers of the#onstitution have, however, allowed for thedelegation of such power in Sec" 1I, Art" '

of the #onstitution

as long as 1+ the criteria prescribed in theG# is met and 0+ the creation, division,merger, abolition or the substantialalteration of the boundaries is sub8ect to theapproval b! a ma8orit! vote in a plebiscite"

6ith the twin criteria of standard andplebiscite satis.ed, the delegation to G=sof the power to create, divide, merge,abolish or substantiall! alter boundaries hasbecome a recognied e5ception to thedoctrine of non9delegation of legislativepowers"

ikewise, legislative power was delegated tothe President under Sec" L;K of the G#>uoted earlier, which states:

Section L;K" $ut! to $eclare ighl!=rbanied Status" &t shall be the dut! of the President to declare a cit! as highl!urbanied within thirt! KI+ da!s after itshall have met the minimum re>uirementsprescribed in the immediatel! precedingSection, upon proper application thereforand rati.cation in a plebiscite b! the>uali.ed voters therein"

&n this case, the provision merel! authoriedthe President to make a determination onwhether or not the re>uirements under Sec"L;0

of the G# are complied with" ?he provisionmakes it ministerial for the President, upon

proper application, to declare a componentcit! as highl! urbanied once the minimumre>uirements, which are based on certi.ableand measurable indices under Sec" L;0, aresatis.ed" ?he mandator! language CshallCused in the provision leaves the Presidentwith no room for discretion"

?he #ourt concludes that the source of thedelegation of power to the G=s under Sec"H of the G# and to the President under Sec"L;K of the same code is none other thanSec" 1I, Art" ' of the #onstitution"

0" &n the more recent case of


17/22

ocials of #abanatuan #it! act within thescope of its prescribed powers andfunctions,KI to review e5ecutive ordersissued b! the cit! ma!or, and to approveresolutions and ordinances enacted b! thecit! council"K1 ?he province will also bedivested of 8urisdiction over disciplinar!

cases concerning the elected cit! ocials of the new =#, and the appeal process foradministrative case decisions againstbaranga! ocials of the cit! will also bemodi.ed accordingl!"K0 ikewise, theregistered voters of the cit! will no longer beentitled to vote for and be voted upon asprovincial ocials"

&n view of these changes in the economicand political rights of the province of (uevaMci8a and its residents, the entire provincecertainl! stands to be directl! a%ected b!the conversion of #abanatuan #it! into an

=#" Following the doctrines in ?an andPadilla, all the >uali.ed registered voters of (ueva Mci8a should then be allowed toparticipate in the plebiscite called for thatpurpose"

&SS=M: 6as the plebiscite conducted in theareas comprising the proposed uire respondent #ommissionon Mlections to order the elections formembers of the Sangguniang Panglungsodand Sangguniang a!an in the four citiesand thirteen towns of


18/22

$ecree (o" 30L" 0; (or would mandamuslie, it being provided therein that CtheSangguniang a!an shall be composed of asman! baranga! captains as ma! bedetermined and chosen b! the #ommission,and such number of representatives fromother sectors of the societ! as ma! be

appointed b! the President uponrecommendation of the #ommission"C 0H ?he Solicitor General can, thereforeplausibl! assert: C?his demonstrates thatthe petitionBs charge, that there is no dul!constituted Sangguniang a!an, in


19/22

invalid for non9compliance with theminimum population re>uirement"

&ssue:

6hether or not a population of 0;I,III isan indispensable constitutional re>uirementfor the creation of a new legislative districtin a province"

eld:

An! law dul! enacted b! #ongress carrieswith it the presumption of constitutionalit!"0L efore a law ma! bedeclared unconstitutional b! this #ourt,there must be a clear showing that aspeci.c provision of the fundamental lawhas been violated or transgressed" 6henthere is neither a violation of a speci.c

provision of the #onstitution nor an! proof showing that there is such a violation, thepresumption of constitutionalit! will prevailand the law must be upheld" ?o doubt is tosustain"0;

?here is no speci.c provision in the#onstitution that .5es a 0;I,III minimumpopulation that must compose a legislativedistrict"

?he second sentence of Section ;K+, ArticleU& of the #onstitution, succinctl! provides:)Mach cit! with a population of at least two

hundred .ft! thousand, or each province,shall have at least one representative"-

?he provision draws a plain and cleardistinction between the entitlement of a cit!to a district on one hand, and theentitlement of a province to a district on theother" For while a province is entitled to atleast a representative, with nothingmentioned about population, a cit! must.rst meet a population minimum of 0;I,IIIin order to be similarl! entitled"

?he use b! the sub8ect provision of a comma

to separate the phrase )each cit! with apopulation of at least two hundred .ft!thousand- from the phrase )or eachprovince- point to no other conclusion thanthat the 0;I,III minimum population isonl! re>uired for a cit!, but not for aprovince" 0H

Plainl! read, Section ;K+ of the #onstitutionre>uires a 0;I,III minimum populationonl! for a cit! to be entitled to arepresentative, but not so for a province"

Apropos for discussion is the provision of theocal Government #ode on the creation of a

province which, b! virtue of and uponcreation, is entitled to at least a legislativedistrict" ?hus, Section LH1 of the ocalGovernment #ode states:

Re>uisites for #reation" a+ A province ma!be created if it has an average annualincome, as certi.ed b! the $epartment of Finance, of not less than ?went! millionpesos P0I,III,III"II+ based on 1221constant prices and either of the followingre>uisites:

i+ a contiguous territor! of at least two

thousand 0,III+ s>uare kilometers, ascerti.ed b! the ands


20/22

* En I; Oune 1232, the uo warranto withthe R?# in Gumaca, Nueon, against theocials of the


21/22

invalid under e5isting laws, as if e5istinglaws have been complied with,C are validl!accepted in this 8urisdiction, sub8ect to theusual >uali.cation against impairment of vested rights"00

* All considered, the de 8ure status of the

uestioned and onl!because it had laid claim to an area that isapparentl! desired for its revenue" ?he Stateand even the


22/22

* )uirement for thecreation of municipalities applies onl! tonew municipalities created for the .rst timeunder the #onstitution it cannot be appliedto municipalities created before"K"* M"E" (o" 0;3 does not sa! that Sinacabancomprises onl! the barrios now baranga!s+

therein mentioned" 6hat it sa!s is that)Sinacaban contains- those barrios" ?hereason for this is that the technicaldescription, containing the metes andbounds of a municipalit!/s territor!, iscontrolling" ?he trial court correctl! ordereda relocation surve! as the onl! means of determining the boundaries of themunicipalit! X conse>uentl! to whichmunicipalit! the baranga!s in >uestionbelong"

* An! alteration of boundaries that is not inaccordance with the law is not the carr!inginto e%ect of the law but its amendment and a resolution of a provincial oarddeclaring certain barrios part of one oranother municipalit! that is contrar! to thetechnical description of the territor! of the

municipalit! is not binding" &f Resolution (o"44 of the Provincial oard of

cases pubcorp

Documents