Judicial Review

A. Separation of Powers In Re: Laureta and Maravilla, 148 S RA !8" #1$8%& In re LA'R()A I* )+( MA))(R ,- PR, ((.I*/S -,R .IS IPLI*AR0 A )I,* A/AI*S) A))0. 1(* (SLA, LA'R()A, A*. ,- ,*)(MP)PR, ((.I*/S A/AI*S) (2A MARA2ILLA3 IL'S)R( in /.R. *o. 484!5, entitled 6(2A MARA2ILLA3IL'S)R(, vs. +,*. I*)(RM(.IA)(APP(LLA)( ,'R), () AL /.R. *o. L3484!5Ma7 14, 1$8% -acts: Maravilla Illustre wrote to t8e 9ustices of t8e S , co:plainin; a<out t8e dis:issal of t8e 8er case #aland dispute involvin; lar;e estate& <7 a :inute3resolution. Illustre clai:s t8at it was an un9ust resolutiondeli<eratel7 and =nowin;l7 pro:ul;ated <7 t8e 1st .ivision, t8at it was railroaded wit8 suc8 8urr7 <e7ondt8e li:its of le;al and 9udicial et8ics. Illustre also t8reatened in 8er letter t8at, >t8ere is not8in; final in t8is world. )8is case is far fro: finis8d <7 a lon; s8ot.? S8e t8reatened t8at s8e would call for a press conference.Illustre@s letter <asicall7 attac=s t8e participation of Justice Pedro 0ap in t8e first division. It was esta<lis8ed t8at Justice 0ap was previousl7 a law partner of Att7. ,rdoneA, now t8e Sol;en and counsel for t8eopponents.)8e letters were referred to t8e S en <anc. )8e S clarified t8at w8en t8e :inute3resolution was issued,t8e presidin; 9ustice t8en was not Justice 0ap <ut Justice A<ad Santos #w8o was a<out to retire&, and t8atJustice 0ap was not aware t8at Att7 ,rdoneA was t8e opponents counsel. It was also :ade clear t8atJustice 0ap eventuall7 in8i<ited 8i:self fro: t8e case.Still, Illustre wrote letters to t8e ot8er 9ustices #*arvasa, +errera, ruA&, a;ain wit8 :ore t8reats to >eBposet8e =ind of 9udicial perfor:ance readil7 constitutin; travest7 of 9ustice.? )rue to 8er t8reats, Illustre later filed a cri:inal co:plaint <efore t8e )anod<a7an, c8ar;in; t8e Justiceswit8 =nowin;l7 renderin; an un9ust Minute Resolution. Justice 0ap and Sol;en ,rdoneA were also c8ar;edof usin; t8eir influence in t8e -irst .ivision in renderin; said Minute Resolution.Att7 LA'R()A was t8e counsel of Illustre. +e circulate copies of t8e co:plain to t8e press, wit8out an7cop7 furnis8ed t8e ourt, nor t8e Justices c8ar;ed. It was :ade to appear t8at t8e Justices were c8ar;edwit8 ;raft and corruption.)8e )anod<a7an dis:issed t8e co:plaint.*ow, t8e S is c8ar;in; t8e: wit8 conte:pt.)8e7 clai: t8at t8e letters were private co::unication, and t8at t8e7 did not intend to dis8onor t8e court. Issue : 1,* privac7 of co::unication was violated +eld : )8e letters for:ed part of t8e 9udicial record and are a :atter of concern for t8e entire court. )8ere is no vindictive reprisal involved 8ere. )8e ourt@s aut8orit7 and dut7 under t8e pre:ises is un:ista=a<le. It :ust act to preserve its 8onor and di;nit7 fro: t8e scurrilous attac=s of an irate law7er,:out8ed <7 8is client, and to safe;uard t8e :orals and et8ics of t8e le;al profession .e:etria vs. Al<a, 148 S RA "C8 #1$8%& -acts: Petitioners assail t8e constitutionalit7 of first para;rap8 of Sec 44 of P. 11%% #Dud;et Refor: .ecree of 1$%%&Eas concerned citiAens, :e:<ers of t8e *ational Asse:<l7, parties wit8 ;eneral

interest co::on to all people of t8e P8ilippines, and as taBpa7ersEon t8e pri:ar7 ;rounds t8at Section 44 infrin;es upon t8e funda:ental law <7 aut8oriAin; ille;al transfer of pu<lic :one7s, a:ountin; to undue dele;ation of le;islative powers and allowin; t8e President to override t8e safe;uards prescri<ed for approvin; appropriations. )8e Solicitor /eneral, for t8e pu<lic respondents, Fuestioned t8e le;al standin; of t8e petitioners and 8eld t8at one <ranc8 of t8e ;overn:ent cannot <e en9oined <7 anot8er, coordinate <ranc8 in its perfor:ance of duties wit8in its sp8ere of responsi<ilit7. It also alle;ed t8at t8e petition 8as <eco:e :oot and acade:ic after t8e a<ro;ation of Sec 14#5&, Article 2III of t8e 1$%! onstitution <7 t8e -reedo: onstitution #w8ic8 was w8ere t8e provision under consideration was enacted in pursuant t8ereof&, w8ic8 states t8at >*o law s8all <e passed aut8oriAin; an7 transfer of appropriations, 8owever, t8e PresidentG:a7 <7 law <e aut8oriAed to au;:ent an7 ite: in t8e ;eneral appropriations law for t8eir respective offices fro: savin;s in ot8er ite:s of t8eir respective appropriations.? Issue: 1. 1H* P. 11%% is constitutional ". 1H* t8e Supre:e ourt can act upon t8e assailed eBecutive act +eld: 1. *o. Sec 44 of P. 11%% undul7 overeBtends t8e privile;e ;ranted under Sec14#5& <7 e:powerin; t8e President to indiscri:inatel7 transfer funds fro: one depart:ent of t8e (Becutive .epart:ent to an7 pro;ra: of an7 depart:ent included in t8e /eneral Appropriations Act, wit8out an7 re;ard as to w8et8er or not t8e funds to <e transferred are actuall7 savin;s in t8e ite:. It not onl7 disre;ards t8e standards set in t8e funda:ental law, t8ere<7 a:ountin; to an undue dele;ation of le;islative powers, <ut li=ewise ;oes <e7ond t8e tenor t8ereof. Par. 1 of Sec. 44 puts all safe;uards to forestall a<uses in t8e eBpenditure of pu<lic funds to nau;8t. Suc8 constitutional infir:ities render t8e provision in Fuestion null and void. ". 0es. 18ere t8e le;islature or eBecutive acts <e7ond t8e scope of its constitutional powers, it <eco:es t8e dut7 of t8e 9udiciar7 to declare w8at t8e ot8er <ranc8es of t8e ;overn:ent 8as assu:ed to do as void, as part of its constitutionall7 conferred 9udicial power. )8is is not to sa7 t8at t8e 9udicial power is superior in de;ree or di;nit7. In eBercisin; t8is 8i;8 aut8orit7, t8e 9ud;es clai: no 9udicial supre:ac7I t8e7 are onl7 t8e ad:inistrators of t8e pu<lic will. Petition ;ranted. Par. 1, Sec. 44 ,- P. 11%% null and void. D. )8eor7 and Justification of Judicial Review An;ara vs. (lectoral o::ission, 4! P8il.1!$ #1$!4& Judicial Review Electoral Commission In t8e elections of Sept 1%, 1$!5, An;ara, and t8e respondents, Pedro 0nsua et al. were candidates voted for t8e position of :e:<er of t8e *ational Asse:<l7 for t8e first district of t8e Province of )a7a<as. ,n ,ct %, 1$!5, An;ara was proclai:ed as :e:<er3elect of t8e *A for t8e said district. ,n *ove:<er 15, 1$!5, 8e too= 8is oat8 of office. ,n .ec !, 1$!5, t8e *A in session asse:<led, passed Resolution *o. 8 confir:in; t8e election of t8e :e:<ers of t8e *ational Asse:<l7 a;ainst w8o: no protest 8ad t8us far <een filed. ,n .ec 8, 1$!5, 0nsua, filed <efore t8e (lectoral o::ission a >Motion of Protest? a;ainst t8e election of An;ara. ,n .ec $, 1$!5, t8e ( adopted a resolution, par. 4 of w8ic8 fiBed said date as t8e last da7 for t8e filin; of protests a;ainst t8e election, returns and Fualifications of :e:<ers of t8e *A, notwit8standin; t8e previous confir:ation :ade <7 t8e *A. An;ara filed a Motion to .is:iss ar;uin; t8at <7 virtue of t8e *A procla:ation, 0nsua can no lon;er protest. 0nsua ar;ued <ac= <7 clai:in; t8at ( procla:ation ;overns and t8at t8e ( can ta=e co;niAance of t8e election protest and t8at t8e ( cannot <e su<9ect to a writ of pro8i<ition fro: t8e S . ISS'(S: 18et8er or not t8e S 8as 9urisdiction over suc8 :atter.

18et8er or not ( acted wit8out or in eBcess of 9urisdiction in ta=in; co;niAance of t8e election protest. +(L.: )8e S ruled in favor of An;ara. )8e S e:p8asiAed t8at in cases of conflict <etween t8e several depart:ents and a:on; t8e a;encies t8ereof, t8e 9udiciar7, wit8 t8e S as t8e final ar<iter, is t8e onl7 constitutional :ec8anis: devised finall7 to resolve t8e conflict and allocate constitutional <oundaries. )8at 9udicial supre:ac7 is <ut t8e power of 9udicial review in actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is t8e power and dut7 to see t8at no one <ranc8 or a;enc7 of t8e ;overn:ent transcends t8e onstitution, w8ic8 is t8e source of all aut8orit7. )8at t8e (lectoral o::ission is an independent constitutional creation wit8 specific powers and functions to eBecute and perfor:, closer for purposes of classification to t8e le;islative t8an to an7 of t8e ot8er two depart:ents of t8e ;overn:ent. )8at t8e (lectoral o::ission is t8e sole 9ud;e of all contests relatin; to t8e election, returns and Fualifications of :e:<ers of t8e *ational Asse:<l7. II. )+( ISS'(

.id t8e (lectoral o::ission act wit8out or in eBcess of its 9urisdiction in ta=in; co;niAance of t8e protest filed a;ainst t8e election of t8e petitioner notwit8standin; t8e previous confir:ation of suc8 election <7 resolution of t8e *ational Asse:<l7J III. )+( R'LI*/ [The Court DENIED the petition.] NO the Electoral Commission did not act without or in e!cess o" its #urisdiction in ta$in% co%ni&ance o" the protest "iled a%ainst the election o" the petitioner notwithstandin% the previous con"irmation o" such election '( resolution o" the National )ssem'l(. )8e (lectoral o::ission acted wit8in t8e le;iti:ate eBercise of its constitutional prero;ative in assu:in; to ta=e co;niAance of t8e protest filed <7 t8e respondent 0nsua a;ainst t8e election of t8e petitioner An;ara, and t8at t8e earlier resolution of t8e *ational Asse:<l7 cannot in an7 :anner toll t8e ti:e for filin; election protests a;ainst :e:<ers of t8e *ational Asse:<l7, nor prevent t8e filin; of a protest wit8in suc8 ti:e as t8e rules of t8e (lectoral o::ission :i;8t prescri<e. )8e ;rant of power to t8e (lectoral o::ission to 9ud;e all contests relatin; to t8e election, returns and Fualifications of :e:<ers of t8e *ational Asse:<l7, is intended to <e as co:plete and uni:paired as if it 8ad re:ained ori;inall7 in t8e le;islature. )8e eBpress lod;in; of t8at power in t8e (lectoral o::ission is an i:plied denial of t8e eBercise of t8at power <7 t8e *ational Asse:<l7. BBB. K)L8e creation of t8e (lectoral o::ission carried wit8 it e! necesitate rei t8e power re;ulative in c8aracter to li:it t8e ti:e wit8 w8ic8 protests intrusted to its co;niAance s8ould <e filed. K1L8ere a ;eneral power is conferred or dut7 en9oined, ever7 particular power necessar7 for t8e eBercise of t8e one or t8e perfor:ance of t8e ot8er is also conferred. In t8e a<sence of an7 furt8er constitutional provision relatin; to t8e procedure to <e followed in filin; protests <efore t8e (lectoral o::ission, t8erefore, t8e incidental power to pro:ul;ate suc8 rules necessar7 for t8e proper eBercise of its eBclusive power to 9ud;e all contests relatin; to t8e election, returns and Fualifications of :e:<ers of t8e *ational Asse:<l7, :ust <e dee:ed <7 necessar7 i:plication to 8ave <een lod;ed also in t8e (lectoral o::ission.

. Justicia<le and Political Muestions Miranda vs. A;uirre, /.R. *o. 1!!C44, Septe:<er 14, 1$$$ -A )S: 1$$4, RA *o. %%"C effected t8e conversion of t8e :unicipalit7 of Santia;o, Isa<ela, into an independent co:ponent cit7. Jul7 4t8, RA *o. %%"C was approved <7 t8e people of Santia;o in a ple<iscite. 1$$8, RA *o. 85"8 was enacted and it a:ended RA *o. %%"C t8at practicall7 down;raded t8e it7 of Santia;o fro: an independent co:ponent cit7 to a co:ponent cit7. Petitioners assail t8e constitutionalit7 of RA *o. 85"8 for t8e lac= of provision to su<:it t8e law for t8e approval of t8e people of Santia;o in a proper ple<iscite. Respondents defended t8e constitutionalit7 of RA *o. 85"8 sa7in; t8at t8e said act :erel7 reclassified t8e it7 of Santia;o fro: an independent co:ponent cit7 into a co:ponent cit7. It alle;edl7 did not involve an7 >creation, division, :er;er, a<olition, or su<stantial alteration of <oundaries of local ;overn:ent units,? t8erefore, a ple<iscite of t8e people of Santia;o is unnecessar7. )8e7 also Fuestioned t8e standin; of petitioners to file t8e petition and ar;ued t8at t8e petition raises a political Fuestion over w8ic8 t8e ourt lac=s 9urisdiction. ISS'(: 18et8er or not t8e ourt 8as 9urisdiction over t8e petition at <ar.

R'LI*/: 0es. RA *o. 85"8 is declared unconstitutional. )8at Supre:e ourt 8as t8e 9urisdiction over said petition <ecause it involves not a political Fuestion <ut a 9usticia<le issue, and of w8ic8 onl7 t8e court could decide w8et8er or not a law passed <7 t8e on;ress is unconstitutional. )8at w8en an a:end:ent of t8e law involves creation, :er;er, division, a<olition or su<stantial alteration of <oundaries of local ;overn:ent units, a ple<iscite in t8e political units directl7 affected is :andator7. Petitioners are directl7 affected in t8e i:ple3:entation of RA *o. 85"8. Miranda was t8e :a7or of Santia;o it7, Afiado was t8e President of t8e San;;unian; Li;a, to;et8er wit8 ! ot8er petitioners were all residents and voters in t8e it7 of Santia;o. It is t8eir ri;8t to <e 8eard in t8e conversion of t8eir cit7 t8rou;8 a ple<iscite to <e conducted <7 t8e ,M(L( . )8us, denial of t8eir ri;8t in RA *o. 85"8 ;ives t8e: proper standin; to stri=e down t8e law as unconstitutional. Sec. 1 of Art. 2III of t8e onstitution states t8at: t8e 9udicial power s8all <e vested in one Supre:e ourt and in suc8 lower courts as :a7 <e esta<lis8ed <7 law. Judicial power includes t8e dut7 of t8e courts of 9ustice to settle actual controversies involvin; ri;8ts w8ic8 are le;all7 de:anda<le and enforcea<le, and to deter:ine w8et8er or not t8ere 8as <een a ;rave a<use of discretion a:ountin; to lac= or eBcess of 9urisdiction on t8e part of an7 <ranc8 or instru3:entalit7 of t8e /overn:ent. -ranciso vs. +ouse of Rep., supra -A )S: )8e +R on its 1"t8 on;ress adopted a different rule on i:peac8:ent fro: t8at of t8e 11t8 on;ress. ,n June "", "CC", t8e +R adopted a resolution to investi;ate t8e dis<urse:ent of funds of t8e J.- under +ilario .avide. In June ", "CC!, for:er President (strada filed an i:peac8:ent co:plaint a;ainst 8ief Justice .avide for culpa<le violation of t8e onstitution, <etra7al of t8e pu<lic trust and ot8er 8i;8 cri:es. )8e +ouse o::ittee on Justice ruled t8at t8e i:peac8:ent co:plaint was 6sufficient in for:,6<ut voted to dis:iss t8e sa:e on ,cto<er "", "CC! for <ein; insufficient in su<stance. A da7 after dis:issin; t8e first i:peac8:ent co:plaint, a

"nd co:plaint was filed a;ainst .avide <ased on t8e investi;ation of fund dis<urse:ent of J.under .avide. Petitions were filed to declare t8e " nd i:peac8:ent unconstitutional for it violates t8e provision t8at no i:peac8:ent proceedin;s s8all <e initiated twice a;ainst t8e sa:e official. Petitions also clai: t8at t8e le;islative inFuir7 into t8e ad:inistration <7 t8e 8ief Justice of t8e J.- infrin;es on t8e constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and is a direct violation of t8e constitutional principle of fiscal autono:7 of t8e 9udiciar7. Senator AFuilino M. Pi:entel, Jr., in 8is own <e8alf, filed a Motion to Intervene and o::ent, pra7in; t8at 6t8e consolidated petitions <e dis:issed for lac= of 9urisdiction of t8e ourt over t8e issues affectin; t8e i:peac8:ent proceedin;s and t8at t8e sole power, aut8orit7 and 9urisdiction of t8e Senate as t8e i:peac8:ent court to tr7 and decide i:peac8:ent cases, includin; t8e one w8ere t8e 8ief Justice is t8e respondent, <e reco;niAed and up8eld pursuant to t8e provisions of Article NI of t8e onstitution.6 In su::ar7, petitioners plea for t8e S to eBercise t8e power of 9udicial review to deter:ine t8e validit7 of t8e second i:peac8:ent co:plaint. ISS'(: 1,* 9udicial review power eBtends to t8ose arisin; fro: i:peac8:ent proceedin;s +(L.: Power of 9udicial review is t8e power of t8e court to settle actual controversies involvin; ri;8ts w8ic8 are le;all7 de:anda<le and enforcea<le. Judicial review is indeed an inte;ral co:ponent of t8e delicate s7ste: of c8ec=s and <alances w8ic8, to;et8er wit8 t8e corollar7 principle of separation of powers, for:s t8e <edroc= of repu<lican for: of ;overn:ent and insures t8at its vast powers are utiliAed onl7 for t8e <enefit of t8e people for w8ic8 it serves. Separation of powers is not a<solute. )8e S is t8e final ar<iter to deter:ine if acts <7 t8e le;islature and t8e eBecutive is in violation of t8e onstitution. Moreover, t8e power of 9udicial review is eBpressl7 stated in t8e onstitution. O"nd I:peac8:ent co:plaint a;ainst 8ief Justice .avide is unconstitutional.

ISS'(S: 1. 18et8er or not t8e filin; of t8e second i:peac8:ent co:plaint a;ainst 8ief Justice +ilario /. .avide, Jr. wit8 t8e +ouse of Representatives falls wit8in t8e one 7ear <ar provided in t8e onstitution. ". 18et8er t8e resolution t8ereof is a political Fuestion P 8as resulted in a political crisis.

+(L.: 1. +avin; concluded t8at t8e initiation ta=es place <7 t8e act of filin; of t8e i:peac8:ent co:plaint and referral to t8e +ouse o::ittee on Justice, t8e initial action ta=en t8ereon, t8e :eanin; of Section ! #5& of Article NI <eco:es clear. ,nce an i:peac8:ent co:plaint 8as <een initiated in t8e fore;oin; :anner, anot8er :a7 not <e filed a;ainst t8e sa:e official wit8in a one 7ear period followin; Article NI, Section !#5& of t8e onstitution. In fine, considerin; t8at t8e first i:peac8:ent co:plaint, was filed <7 for:er President (strada a;ainst 8ief Justice +ilario /.

.avide, Jr., alon; wit8 seven associate 9ustices of t8is ourt, on June ", "CC! and referred to t8e +ouse o::ittee on Justice on Au;ust 5, "CC!, t8e second i:peac8:ent co:plaint filed <7 Representatives /il<erto . )eodoro, Jr. and -eliB 1illia: -uente<ella a;ainst t8e 8ief Justice on ,cto<er "!, "CC! violates t8e constitutional pro8i<ition a;ainst t8e initiation of i:peac8:ent proceedin;s a;ainst t8e sa:e i:peac8a<le officer wit8in a one37ear period. ".-ro: t8e fore;oin; record of t8e proceedin;s of t8e 1$84 onstitutional o::ission, it is clear t8at 9udicial power is not onl7 a powerI it is also a dut7, a dut7 w8ic8 cannot <e a<dicated <7 t8e :ere specter of t8is creature called t8e political Fuestion doctrine. 8ief Justice oncepcion 8astened to clarif7, 8owever, t8at Section 1, Article 2III was not intended to do awa7 wit8 6trul7 political Fuestions.6 -ro: t8is clarification it is ;at8ered t8at t8ere are two species of political Fuestions: #1& 6trul7 political Fuestions6 and #"& t8ose w8ic8 6are not trul7 political Fuestions.6 )rul7 political Fuestions are t8us <e7ond 9udicial review, t8e reason for respect of t8e doctrine of separation of powers to <e :aintained. ,n t8e ot8er 8and, <7 virtue of Section 1, Article 2III of t8e onstitution, courts can review Fuestions w8ic8 are not trul7 political in nature. La Du;al3D@Laan v. Ra:os, /.R. *o. 1"%88" .ec. C1, "CC4 -acts : ,n Jul7 "5, 1$8%, t8en President oraAon . AFuino issued (Becutive ,rder #(.,.& *o. "%$4 aut8oriAin; t8e .(*R Secretar7 to accept, consider and evaluate proposals fro: forei;n3owned corporations or forei;n investors for contracts or a;ree:ents involvin; eit8er tec8nical or financial assistance for lar;e3scale eBploration, develop:ent, and utiliAation of :inerals, w8ic8, upon appropriate reco::endation of t8e Secretar7, t8e President :a7 eBecute wit8 t8e forei;n proponent. ,n Marc8 !, 1$$5, t8en President -idel 2. Ra:os approved R.A. *o. %$4" to 6;overn t8e eBploration, develop:ent, utiliAation and processin; of all :ineral resources.6 R.A. *o. %$4" defines t8e :odes of :ineral a;ree:ents for :inin; operations, outlines t8e procedure for t8eir filin; and approval, assi;n:entHtransfer and wit8drawal, and fiBes t8eir ter:s. Si:ilar provisions ;overn financial or tec8nical assistance a;ree:ents. ,n April $, 1$$5, !C da7s followin; its pu<lication on Marc8 1C, 1$$5 in Mala7a and Manila )i:es, two newspapers of ;eneral circulation, R.A. *o. %$4" too= effect. S8ortl7 <efore t8e effectivit7 of R.A. *o. %$4", 8owever, or on Marc8 !C, 1$$5, t8e President entered into an -)AA wit8 1M P coverin; $$,!8% 8ectares of land in Sout8 ota<ato, Sultan Qudarat, .avao del Sur and *ort8 ota<ato. ,n Au;ust 15, 1$$5, t8en .(*R Secretar7 2ictor ,. Ra:os issued .(*R Ad:inistrative ,rder #.A,& *o. $53"!, s. 1$$5, ot8erwise =nown as t8e I:ple:entin; Rules and Re;ulations of R.A. *o. %$4". )8is was later repealed <7 .A, *o. $434C, s. 1$$4 w8ic8 was adopted on .ece:<er "C, 1$$4. ,n Januar7 1C, 1$$%, counsels for petitioners sent a letter to t8e .(*R Secretar7 de:andin; t8at t8e .(*R stop t8e i:ple:entation of R.A. *o. %$4" and .A, *o. $434C, ;ivin; t8e .(*R fifteen da7s fro: receipt to act t8ereon. )8e .(*R, 8owever, 8as 7et to respond or act on petitionersR letter. Petitioners clai: t8at t8e .(*R Secretar7 acted wit8out or in eBcess of 9urisdiction.

)8e7 pra7 t8at t8e ourt issue an order: #a& Per:anentl7 en9oinin; respondents fro: actin; on an7 application for -inancial or )ec8nical Assistance A;ree:entsI #<& .eclarin; t8e P8ilippine Minin; Act of 1$$5 or Repu<lic Act *o. %$4" as unconstitutional and null and voidI #c& .eclarin; t8e I:ple:entin; Rules and Re;ulations of t8e P8ilippine Minin; Act contained in .(*R Ad:inistrative ,rder *o. $434C and all ot8er si:ilar ad:inistrative issuances as unconstitutional and null and voidI and #d& ancellin; t8e -inancial and )ec8nical Assistance A;ree:ent issued to 1estern Minin; P8ilippines, Inc. as unconstitutional, ille;al and null and void. Issue : 18et8er or not Repu<lic Act *o. %$4" is unconstitutional. Rulin; : )8e ourt finds t8e followin; provisions of R.A. *o. %$4" to <e violative of Section ", Article NII of t8e onstitution and 8ere<7 declares unconstitutional and void: #1& )8e proviso in Section ! #aF&, w8ic8 defines 6Fualified person,6 to wit: Provided, )8at a le;all7 or;aniAed forei;n3owned corporation s8all <e dee:ed a Fualified person for purposes of ;rantin; an eBploration per:it, financial or tec8nical assistance a;ree:ent or :ineral processin; per:it. #"& Section "!, w8ic8 specifies t8e ri;8ts and o<li;ations of an eBploration per:ittee, insofar as said section applies to a financial or tec8nical assistance a;ree:ent, #!& Section !!, w8ic8 prescri<es t8e eli;i<ilit7 of a contractor in a financial or tec8nical assistance a;ree:entI #4& Section !5, w8ic8 enu:erates t8e ter:s and conditions for ever7 financial or tec8nical assistance a;ree:entI #5& Section !$, w8ic8 allows t8e contractor in a financial and tec8nical assistance a;ree:ent to convert t8e sa:e into a :ineral production3s8arin; a;ree:entI #4& Section 54, w8ic8 aut8oriAes t8e issuance of a :ineral processin; per:it to a contractor in a financial and tec8nical assistance a;ree:entI )8e followin; provisions of t8e sa:e Act are li=ewise void as t8e7 are dependent on t8e fore;oin; provisions and cannot stand on t8eir own: #1& Section ! #;&, w8ic8 defines t8e ter: 6contractor,6 insofar as it applies to a financial or tec8nical assistance a;ree:ent. Section !4, w8ic8 prescri<es t8e :aBi:u: contract area in a financial or tec8nical assistance a;ree:entsI Section !4, w8ic8 allows ne;otiations for financial or tec8nical assistance a;ree:entsI Section !%, w8ic8 prescri<es t8e procedure for filin; and evaluation of financial or tec8nical assistance a;ree:ent proposalsI Section !8, w8ic8 li:its t8e ter: of financial or tec8nical assistance a;ree:entsI Section 4C, w8ic8 allows t8e assi;n:ent or transfer of financial or tec8nical assistance

a;ree:entsI Section 41, w8ic8 allows t8e wit8drawal of t8e contractor in an -)AAI )8e second and t8ird para;rap8s of Section 81, w8ic8 provide for t8e /overn:entRs s8are in a financial and tec8nical assistance a;ree:entI and Section $C, w8ic8 provides for incentives to contractors in -)AAs insofar as it applies to said contractorsI 18en t8e parts of t8e statute are so :utuall7 dependent and connected as conditions, considerations, induce:ents, or co:pensations for eac8 ot8er, as to warrant a <elief t8at t8e le;islature intended t8e: as a w8ole, and t8at if all could not <e carried into effect, t8e le;islature would not pass t8e residue independentl7, t8en, if so:e parts are unconstitutional, all t8e provisions w8ic8 are t8us dependent, conditional, or connected, :ust fall wit8 t8e:. 1+(R(-,R(, t8e petition is /RA*)(.. .. ReFuisites of Judicial Review 1. Actual ase or ontrovers7 Pre:aturit7: PA ' vs. Secretar7 of (ducation, $% P8il. 8C4 #1$55& -A )S:)8e P8ilippine Association of olle;es and 'niversities :ade a petition t8at Acts *o."%C4 ot8erwise =nown as t8e >Act :a=in; t8e Inspection and Reco;nition of private sc8oolsand colle;es o<li;ator7 for t8e Secretar7 of Pu<lic Instruction? and was a:ended <7 Act *o. !C%5 and o::onwealt8 Act *o. 18C <e declared unconstitutional on t8e ;rounds t8at 1& t8eact deprives t8e owner of t8e sc8ool and colle;es as well as teac8ers and parents of li<ert7 andpropert7 wit8out due process of LawI "& it will also deprive t8e parents of t8eir *atural Ri;8tsand dut7 to rear t8eir c8ildren for civic efficienc7 and !& its provisions conferred on t8eSecretar7 of (ducation unli:ited powers and discretion to prescri<e rules and standardsconstitute towards unlawful dele;ation of Le;islative powers.Section 1 of Act *o. "%C4 >It s8all <e t8e dut7 of t8e Secretar7 of Pu<lic Instruction to :aintain a ;eneral standard of efficienc7 in all private sc8ools and colle;es of t8e P8ilippines so t8at t8e sa:e s8all furnis8adeFuate instruction to t8e pu<lic, in accordance wit8 t8e class and ;rade of instruction ;ivenin t8e:, and for t8is purpose said Secretar7 or 8is dul7 aut8oriAed representative s8all 8aveaut8orit7 to advise, inspect, and re;ulate said sc8ools and colle;es in order to deter:ine t8e efficienc7 of instruction ;iven in t8e sa:e,? )8e petitioner also co:plain t8at securin; a per:it to t8e Secretar7 of (ducation <eforeopenin; a sc8ool is not ori;inall7 included in t8e ori;inal Act "%C4. And in support to t8e firstproposition of t8e petitioners t8e7 contended t8at t8e onstitution ;uaranteed t8e ri;8t of a citiAen to own and operate a sc8ool and an7 law reFuirin; previous ;overn:ental approval orper:it <efore suc8 person could eBercise t8e said ri;8t ,n t8e ot8er 8and, t8e defendant Le;alRepresentative su<:itted a :e:orandu: contendin; t8at 1& t8e :atters presented no 9usticia<le controvers7 eB8i<itin; unavoida<le necessit7 of decidin; t8e constitutional FuestionI "& Petitioners are in estoppels to c8allen;e t8e validit7 of t8e said act and !& t8e Act isconstitutionall7 valid. )8us, t8e petition for pro8i<ition was dis:issed <7 t8e court

.ISS'(:18et8er or not Act *o. "%C4 as a:ended <7 Act no. !C%5 and o::onwealt8 Act no. 18C :a7<e declared void and unconstitutionalJRA)I, .( I.(*)I:)8e Petitioner suffered no wron; under t8e ter:s of law and needs no relief in t8e for:t8e7 see= to o<tain. Moreover, t8ere is no 9usticia<le controvers7 presented <efore t8e court. Itis an esta<lis8ed principle t8at to entitle a private individual i::ediatel7 in dan;er of sustainin; a direct in9ur7 and it is not sufficient t8at 8e 8as :erel7 invo=e t8e 9udicial power todeter:ined t8e validit7 of eBecutive and le;islative action 8e :ust s8ow t8at 8e 8as sustainedco::on interest to all :e:<ers of t8e pu<lic. -urt8er:ore, t8e power of t8e courts to declarea law unconstitutional arises onl7 w8en t8e interest of liti;ant reFuire t8e use of 9udicialaut8orit7 for t8eir protection a;ainst actual interference. As suc8, Judicial Power is li:ited tot8e decision of actual cases and controversies and t8e aut8orit7 to pass on t8e validit7 of statutes is incidental to t8e decisions of suc8 cases w8ere conflictin; clai:s under t8econstitution and under t8e le;islative act assailed as contrar7 to t8e constitution <ut it isle;iti:ate onl7 in t8e last resort and it :ust <e necessar7 to deter:ined a real and vitalcontrovers7 <etween liti;ants. )8us, actions li=e t8is are <rou;8t for a positive purpose too<tain actual positive relief and t8e court does not sit to ad9udicate a :ere acade:ic Fuestionto satisf7 sc8olarl7 interest t8erein. )8e court 8owever, finds t8e defendant position to <esufficientl7 sustained and state t8at t8e petitioner re:ed7 is to c8allen;e t8e re;ulation not toinvalidate t8e law <ecause it needs no ar;u:ent to s8ow t8at a<use <7 officials entrusted wit8t8e eBecution of t8e statute does not per se de:onstrate t8e unconstitutionalit7 of suc8statute. ,n t8is p8ase of t8e liti;ation t8e court conclude t8at t8ere 8as <een no undue dele;ation of le;islative power even if t8e petitioners appended a list of circulars and:e:oranda issued <7 t8e .epart:ent of (ducation t8e7 fail to indicate w8ic8 of suc8 officialdocu:ents was constitutionall7 o<9ectiona<le for <ein; capricious or pain nuisance. )8erefore,t8e court denied t8e petition for pro8i<ition.

Mariano vs.

o:elec, /.R. *o. 11$@4$4 Marc8 C%, 1$$5

Facts: )wo petitions are filed assailin; certain provisions of RA %854, An Act onvertin; )8e Municipalit7 of Ma=ati Into a +i;8l7 'r<aniAed it7 to <e =nown as t8e it7 of Ma=ati, as unconstitutional. Section 5" of RA %854 is said to <e unconstitutional for it increasedt8e le;islative district of Ma=ati onl7 <7 special law in violation of Art. 2I, Sec. 5#4& reFuirin; a ;eneral reapportion:ent law to <e passed <7 on;ress wit8in ! 7ears followin; t8e return of ever7 census. Also, t8e addition of anot8er le;islative district in Ma=ati is not in accord wit8 Sec. 5#!&, Art. 2I of t8e onstitution for as of t8e 1$$C census, t8epopulation of Ma=ati stands at onl7 45C,CCC. Issue: 18et8er or not t8e addition of anot8er le;islative district in Ma=ati is unconstitutional Held: Reapportion:ent of le;islative districts :a7 <e :ade t8rou;8 a special law, suc8 as in t8e c8arter of a new cit7. )8e onstitution clearl7 provides t8at on;ress s8all <e co:posed of not :ore t8an "5C :e:<ers, unless ot8erwise fiBed <7 law. As t8us worded, t8e onstitution did not preclude on;ress fro: increasin; its :e:<ers8ip <7 passin; a law, ot8er t8an a ;eneral reapportion:ent law. )8is is eBactl7 w8at was done <7 on;ress in enactin; RA %854 and providin; for an increase in Ma=ati@s le;islative district. Moreover, to 8old t8at reapportion:ent can onl7 <e :ade t8rou;8 a ;eneral apportion:ent law, wit8 a review of all t8e le;islative districts allotted to eac8 local ;overn:ent unit nationwide, would create an ineFuita<le situation w8ere a new cit7 or province created <7 on;ress will <e denied le;islative representation for an indeter:inate period of ti:e. )8e intolera<le situations will deprive t8e people of a new cit7 or province a particle of t8eir soverei;nt7.

Petitioner cannot insist t8at t8e addition of anot8er le;islative district in Ma=ati is not in accord wit8 Sec. 5#!&, Art. 2I of t8e onstitution for as of t8e 1$$C census, t8e population of Ma=ati stands at onl7 45C,CCC. Said section provides t8at a cit7 wit8 a population of at least "5C,CCC s8all 8ave at least one representative. (ven ;rantin; t8at t8epopulation of Ma=ati as of t8e 1$$C census stood at 45C,CCC, its le;islative district :a7 still <e increased since it 8as :et t8e :ini:u:population reFuire:ent of "5C,CCC. Montesclaros v. Facts: Petitioners sou;8t to prevent t8e postpone:ent of t8e "CC" SQ election to a later date since doin; so :a7 render t8e: unFualified to vote or <e voted for in view of t8e a;e li:itation set <7 law for t8ose w8o :a7 participate. )8e SQ elections was postponed since it was dee:ed 6operationall7 ver7 difficult6 to 8old <ot8 SQ and Daran;a7 elections si:ultaneousl7 in Ma7 "CC". Petitioners also sou;8t to en9oin t8e lowerin; of a;e for :e:<ers8ip in t8e SQ. Issue: 18et8er or not t8ere was ;rave a<use of discretion a:ountin; to lac= or eBcess of 9urisdiction i:puta<le to respondents. Held: )8e ourt 8eld t8at, in t8e present case, t8ere was no actual controvers7 reFuirin; t8e eBercise of t8e power of 9udicial review. 18ile see=in; to prevent a postpone:ent of t8e Ma7 4, "CC" SQ elections, petitioners are nevert8eless a:ena<le to a resettin; of t8e SQ elections to an7 date not later t8an Jul7 15, "CC". RA *o. $144 8as reset t8e SQ elections to Jul7 15, "CC", a date accepta<le to petitioners. 'nder t8e sa:e law, on;ress :erel7 restored t8e a;e reFuire:ent in P. *o. 484, t8e ori;inal c8arter of t8e SQ, w8ic8 fiBed t8e :aBi:u: a;e for :e:<ers8ip in t8e SQ to 7out8s less t8an 18 7ears old. Petitioners do not 8ave a vested ri;8t to t8e per:anence of t8e a;e reFuire:ent under Section 4"4 of t8e Local /overn:ent ode of 1$$1. RA $144 w8ic8 resets and prescri<es t8e Fualifications of candidates and voters for t8e SQ elections was 8eld to <e applica<le on t8e Jul7 15 "CC" election. It@s constitutionalit7 not 8avin; <een assailed in t8e first place. )8e ourt ruled t8at petitioners 8ad no personal and su<stantial interest in :aintainin; t8is suit, t8at t8e petition presented no actual 9usticia<le controvers7, t8at petitioners did not cite an7 provision of law t8at is alle;ed to <e unconstitutional, and t8at t8ere was no ;rave a<use of discretion on t8e part of pu<lic respondents. Mootness: Atlas -ertiliAer v. Sec, .AR, /.R. *o. $!1CC, June 1$,1$$% Facts: )8is is a consolidated case Fuestionin; t8e constitutionalit7 Sections ! #<&, 11, 1!, 14 #d&, 1% and !" of RA 445%. )8at t8e said provision eBtends a;rarian refor: to aFuaculture lands even as Sec. 4 of Art. NIII of t8e onstitution li:its a;rarian refor: onl7 to a;ricultural lands. )8e said provisions <ein; violative of t8e eFual protection clause of t8e onstitution <7 si:ilarl7 treatin; of aFuaculture and a;riculture lands w8en t8e7 are differentl7 situated. )8at t8e said provisions distort e:plo7:ent <enefits and <urdens in favor of aFuaculture e:plo7ees and a;ainst ot8er industrial wor=ers even as Section 1 and ! of Art. NIII of t8e onstitution :andates t8e State to pro:ote eFualit7 in econo:ic and e:plo7:ent opportunities and t8at t8e Fuestioned provisions o:elec, /.R. *o. 15""$5, Jul7 C$, "CC"

deprived petitioner of its ;overn:ent3induced invest:ents in aFuaculture even as Sec. " and ! of Art. NIII of t8e onstitution :andate t8e State to respect t8e freedo: of enterprise and t8e ri;8t of enterprises to reasona<le returns of invest:ents and to eBpansion and ;rowt8. In t8e petitionerRs ar;u:ent t8e7 contended t8at in t8e case of LuA -ar:s, Inc v. Secretar7 of A;rarian and Refor:, t8e ourt 8as alread7 ruled i:pliedl7 t8at lands devoted to fis8in; are not a;ricultural lands. )8at in aFuaculture, fis8ponds and prawn far:s, t8e use of land is onl7 incidental to and not t8e principal factor in productivit7 and 8ence, as 8eld in t8e a<ove3 :entioned case, t8e7 too s8ould <e eBcluded fro: RA 445% 9ust as land devoted to livestoc=, swine, and poultr7 8ave <een eBcluded for t8e sa:e reason. 18ile t8is case is pendin; RA %881 was approved <7 on;ress a:endin; RA 445%. Issue: 18et8er or not t8e said provisions of RA 445% are unconstitutional. Ruling: )8e Fuestion re;ardin; t8e constitutionalit7 of t8e a<ove3:entioned provisions 8as <eco:e :oot and acade:ic wit8 t8e passa;e of RA %881 and RA %881 eBpressl7 stat t8at fis8ponds and prawn far:s are eBcluded fro: t8e covera;e of RA 445% Lacson v. PereA, /.R. *o. 14%%8C, Ma7 1C, "CC1 Facts: President Macapa;al3Arro7o declared a State of Re<ellion #Procla:ation *o. !8& on Ma7 1, "CC1 as well as /eneral ,rder *o. 1 orderin; t8e A-P and t8e P*P to suppress t8e re<ellion in t8e * R. 1arrantless arrests of several alle;ed leaders and pro:oters of t8e >re<ellion? were t8ereafter effected. Petitioner filed for pro8i<ition, in9unction, :anda:us and 8a<eas corpus wit8 an application for t8e issuance of te:porar7 restrainin; order andHor writ of preli:inar7 in9unction. Petitioners assail t8e declaration of Proc. *o. !8 and t8e warrantless arrests alle;edl7 effected <7 virtue t8ereof. Petitioners furt8er:ore pra7 t8at t8e appropriate court, w8erein t8e infor:ationa;ainst t8e: were filed, would desist arrai;n:ent and trial until t8is instant petition is resolved. )8e7 also contend t8at t8e7 are alle;edl7 faced wit8 i:pendin; warrantless arrests and unlawful restraint <ein; t8at 8old departure orders were issued a;ainst t8e:. Issue: 18et8er or *ot Procla:ation *o. !8 is valid, alon; wit8 t8e warrantless arrests and 8old departure orders alle;edl7 effected <7 t8e sa:e. Held: President Macapa;al3Arro7o ordered t8e liftin; of Proc. *o. !8 on Ma7 4, "CC4, accordin;l7 t8e instant petition 8as <een rendered :oot and acade:ic. Respondents 8ave declared t8at t8e Justice .epart:ent and t8e police aut8orities intend to o<tain re;ular warrants of arrests fro: t8e courts for all acts co::itted prior to and until Ma7 1, "CC1. 'nder Section 5, Rule 11! of t8e Rules of ourt, aut8orities :a7 onl7 resort to warrantless arrests of personssuspected of re<ellion in suppressin; t8e re<ellion if t8e circu:stances so warrant, t8us t8e warrantless arrests are not <ased on Proc. *o. !8. Petitioner@s pra7er for :anda:us and pro8i<ition is i:proper at t8is ti:e <ecause an individual warrantlessl7 arrested 8as adeFuate re:edies in law: Rule 11" of t8e Rules of ourt, providin; for preli:inar7 investi;ation, Article 1"5 of t8e Revised Penal ode, providin; for t8e period in w8ic8 a warrantlessl7 arrested person :ust <e delivered to t8e proper 9udicial aut8orities, ot8erwise t8e officerresponsi<le for suc8 :a7 <e penaliAed for t8e dela7 of t8e sa:e. If t8e detention s8ould 8ave no le;al ;round, t8e arrestin; officer can <e c8ar;ed wit8 ar<itrar7 detention, not pre9udicial to clai: of da:a;es under Article !" of t8e ivil ode. Petitioners were neit8er assailin; t8e validit7 of t8e su<9ect 8old departure orders, nor were t8e7 eBpressin; an7 intention to leave t8e countr7 in t8e near future. )o declare t8e 8old departure orders null and void a< initio :ust <e :ade in t8e proper proceedin;s initiated for t8at purpose.

Petitioners@ pra7er for relief re;ardin; t8eir alle;ed i:pendin; warrantless arrests is pre:ature <ein; t8at no co:plaints 8ave <een filed a;ainst t8e: for an7 cri:e, furt8er:ore, t8e writ of 8a<eas corpus is uncalled for since its purpose is to relieve unlawful restraint w8ic8 Petitioners are not su<9ected to. Petition is dis:issed. Respondents, consistent and con;ruent wit8 t8eir underta=in; earlier adverted to, to;et8er wit8 t8eir a;ents, representatives, and all persons actin; in t8eir <e8alf, are 8ere<7 en9oined fro: arrestin; Petitioners wit8out t8e reFuired 9udicial warrants for all acts co::itted in relation to or in connection wit8 t8e Ma7 1, "CC1 sie;e of MalacaSan;. (Bceptions to Mootness: Sanla=as vs. (Becutive Secretar7, /.R. 15$C85, -e<ruar7 C!, "CC4 Facts: .urin; t8e wee 8ours of Jul7 "%, "CC!, so:e t8ree38undred 9unior officers and enlisted :en of t8e A-P, actin; upon insti;ation, co::and and direction of =nown and un=nown leaders 8ave seiAed t8e ,a=wood Duildin; in Ma=ati. Pu<licl7, t8e7 co:plained of t8e corruption in t8e A-P and declared t8eir wit8drawal of support for t8e ;overn:ent, de:andin; t8e resi;nation of t8e President, Secretar7 of .efense and t8e P*P 8ief. )8ese acts constitute a violation of Article 1!4 of t8e Revised Penal ode, and <7 virtue of Procla:ation *o. 4"% and /eneral ,rder *o. 4, t8e P8ilippines was declared under t8e State of Re<ellion. *e;otiations too= place and t8e officers went <ac= to t8eir <arrac=s in t8e evenin; of t8e sa:e da7. ,n Au;ust 1, "CC!, <ot8 t8e Procla:ation and /eneral ,rders were lifted, and Procla:ation *o. 4!5, declarin; t8e essation of t8e State of Re<ellion was issued. In t8e interi:, 8owever, t8e followin; petitions were filed: #1& SA*LAQAS A*. PAR)I., */ MA*//A/A1A 2S. (N( ')I2( S( R()AR0, petitioners contendin; t8at Sec. 18 Article 2II of t8e onstitution does not reFuire t8e declaration of a state of re<ellion to call out t8e A-P, and t8at t8ere is no factual <asis for suc8 procla:ation. #"&SJS ,fficersHMe:<ers v. +on. (Becutive Secretar7, et al, petitioners contendin; t8at t8e procla:ation is a circu:vention of t8e report reFuire:ent under t8e sa:e Section 18, Article 2II, co::andin; t8e President to su<:it a report to on;ress wit8in 48 8ours fro: t8e procla:ation of :artial law. -inall7, t8e7 contend t8at t8e presidential issuances cannot <e construed as an eBercise of e:er;enc7 powers as on;ress 8as not dele;ated an7 suc8 power to t8e President. #!& Rep. Suplico et al. v. President Macapa;al3Arro7o and (Becutive Secretar7 Ro:ulo, petitioners contendin; t8at t8ere was usurpation of t8e power of on;ress ;ranted <7 Section "! #"&, Article 2I of t8e onstitution. #4& Pi:entel v. Ro:ulo, et al, petitioner fears t8at t8e declaration of a state of re<ellion 6opens t8e door to t8e unconstitutional i:ple:entation of warrantless arrests6 for t8e cri:e of re<ellion. Issue: 18et8er or *ot Procla:ation *o. 4"% and /eneral ,rder *o. 4 are constitutionalJ 18et8er or *ot t8e petitioners 8ave a le;al standin; or locus standi to <rin; suitJ Held: )8e ourt rendered t8at t8e <ot8 t8e Procla:ation *o. 4"% and /eneral ,rder *o. 4 are constitutional. Section 18, Article 2II does not eBpressl7 pro8i<it declarin; state or re<ellion. )8e President in addition to its o::ander3in3 8ief Powers is conferred <7 t8e onstitution eBecutive powers. It is not disputed t8at t8e President 8as full discretionar7 power to call out t8e ar:ed forces and to deter:ine t8e necessit7 for t8e eBercise of suc8 power. 18ile t8e ourt :a7 eBa:ine w8et8er t8e power was eBercised wit8in constitutional li:its or in a :anner constitutin; ;rave a<use of discretion, none of t8e petitioners 8ere 8ave, <7 wa7 of proof, supported t8eir assertion t8at t8e President acted wit8out factual <asis. )8e issue of t8e circu:vention of t8e report is of no :erit as t8ere was no indication t8at :ilitar7 tri<unals 8ave replaced civil courts or t8at :ilitar7 aut8orities 8ave ta=en over t8e functions of ivil ourts. )8e issue of usurpation of t8e le;islative power of t8e on;ress is of no :o:ent since t8e President, in declarin; a state of

re<ellion and in callin; out t8e ar:ed forces, was :erel7 eBercisin; a weddin; of 8er 8ief (Becutive and o::ander3in3 8ief powers. )8ese are purel7 eBecutive powers, vested on t8e President <7 Sections 1 and 18, Article 2II, as opposed to t8e dele;ated le;islative powers conte:plated <7 Section "! #"&, Article 2I. )8e fear on warrantless arrest is unreasona<le, since an7 person :a7 <e su<9ect to t8is w8et8er t8ere is re<ellion or not as t8is is a cri:e punis8a<le under t8e Revised Penal ode, and as lon; as a valid warrantless arrest is present. Le;al standin; or locus standi 8as <een defined as a personal and su<stantial interest in t8e case suc8 t8at t8e part7 8as sustained or will sustain direct in9ur7 as a result of t8e ;overn:ental act t8at is <ein; c8allen;ed. )8e ;ist of t8e Fuestion of standin; is w8et8er a part7 alle;es 6suc8 personal sta=e in t8e outco:e of t8e controvers7 as to assure t8at concrete adverseness w8ic8 s8arpens t8e presentation of Issue upon w8ic8 t8e court depends for illu:ination of difficult constitutional Fuestions. Dased on t8e fore;oin;, petitioners Sanla=as and PM, and SJS ,fficersHMe:<ers 8ave no le;al standin; to sue. ,nl7 petitioners Rep. Suplico et al. and Sen. Pi:entel, as Me:<ers of on;ress, 8ave standin; to c8allen;e t8e su<9ect issuances. It sustained its decision in P8ilippine onstitution Association v. (nriFueA, t8at t8e eBtent t8e powers of on;ress are i:paired, so is t8e power of eac8 :e:<er t8ereof, since 8is office confers a ri;8t to participate in t8e eBercise of t8e powers of t8at institution. Pi:entel v. (r:ita, /.R. 144$%8, ,cto<er 1!, "CC5 Facts: )8is is a petition to declare unconstitutional t8e appoint:ents issued <7 President /loria Macapa;al3Arro7o #>President Arro7o?& t8rou;8 (Becutive Secretar7 (duardo R. (r:ita #>Secretar7 (r:ita?& to -lorencio D. A<ad, Avelino J. ruA, Jr., Mic8ael ). .efensor, Josep8 +. .urano, Raul M. /onAaleA, Al<erto /. Ro:ulo, Rene . 2illa, and Art8ur . 0ap #>respondents?& as actin; secretaries of t8eir respective depart:ents. ,n Au;ust "CC4, Arro7o issued appoint:ents to respondents as actin; secretaries of t8eir respective depart:ents. on;ress ad9ourned on "" Septe:<er "CC4. ,n "! Septe:<er "CC4, President Arro7o issued ad interi: appoint:ents to respondents as secretaries of t8e depart:ents to w8ic8 t8e7 were previousl7 appointed in an actin; capacit7. Issue: Is President Arro7o@s appoint:ent of respondents as actin; secretaries wit8out t8e consent of t8e o::ission on Appoint:ents w8ile on;ress is in session, constitutionalJ Held: 0es. )8e power to appoint is essentiall7 eBecutive in nature, and t8e le;islature :a7 not interfere wit8 t8e eBercise of t8is eBecutive power eBcept in t8ose instances w8en t8e onstitution eBpressl7 allows it to interfere. Li:itations on t8e eBecutive power to appoint are construed strictl7 a;ainst t8e le;islature. )8e scope of t8e le;islature@s interference in t8e eBecutive@s power to appoint is li:ited to t8e power to prescri<e t8e Fualifications to an appointive office. on;ress cannot appoint a person to an office in t8e ;uise of prescri<in; Fualifications to t8at office. *eit8er :a7 on;ress i:pose on t8e President t8e dut7 to appoint an7 particular person to an office. +owever, even if t8e o::ission on Appoint:ents is co:posed of :e:<ers of on;ress, t8e eBercise of its powers is eBecutive and not le;islative. )8e o::ission on Appoint:ents does not le;islate w8en it eBercises its power to ;ive or wit88old consent to presidential appoint:ents. Petitioners contend t8at President Arro7o s8ould not 8ave appointed respondents as actin; secretaries <ecause >in case of a vacanc7 int8e ,ffice of a Secretar7, it is onl7 an 'ndersecretar7 w8o can <e desi;nated as Actin; Secretar7.?

)8e essence of an appoint:ent in an actin; capacit7 is its te:porar7 nature. It is a stop3;ap :easure intended to fill an office for a li:ited ti:e until t8e appoint:ent of a per:anent occupant to t8e office. In case of vacanc7 in an office occupied <7 an alter e;o of t8e President, suc8 as t8e office of a depart:ent secretar7, t8e President :ust necessaril7 appoint an alter e;o of 8er c8oice as actin; secretar7 <efore t8e per:anent appointee of 8er c8oice could assu:e office. on;ress, t8rou;8 a law, cannot i:pose on t8e President t8e o<li;ation to appoint auto:aticall7 t8e undersecretar7 as 8er te:porar7 alter e;o. An alter e;o, w8et8er te:porar7 or per:anent, 8olds a position of ;reat trust and confidence. on;ress, in t8e ;uise of prescri<in; Fualifications to an office, cannot i:pose on t8e President w8o 8er alter e;o s8ould <e. )8e office of a depart:ent secretar7 :a7 <eco:e vacant w8ile on;ress is in session. Since a depart:ent secretar7 is t8e alter e;o of t8e President, t8e actin; appointee to t8e office :ust necessaril7 8ave t8e President@s confidence. )8us, <7 t8e ver7 nature of t8e office of a depart:ent secretar7, t8e President :ust appoint in an actin; capacit7 a person of 8er c8oice even w8ile on;ress is in session. )8at person :a7 or :a7 not <e t8e per:anent appointee, <ut practical reasons :a7 :a=e it eBpedient t8at t8e actin; appointee will also <e t8e per:anent appointee. )8e law eBpressl7 allows t8e President to :a=e suc8 actin;appoint:ent. Section 1%, 8apter 5, )itle I, Doo= III of (, "$" states t8at >KtL8e President :a7 te:poraril7 desi;nate an officer alread7 in t8e ;overn:ent service or an7 ot8er co:petent person to perfor: t8e functions of an office in t8e eBecutive <ranc8.? )8us, t8e President :a7 even appoint in an actin; capacit7 a person not 7et in t8e ;overn:ent service, as lon; as t8e President dee:s t8at personco:petent. -inall7, petitioners clai: t8at t8e issuance of appoint:ents in an actin; capacit7 is suscepti<le to a<use. Petitioners fail to consider t8at actin; appoint:ents cannot eBceed one 7ear as eBpressl7 provided in Section 1%#!&, 8apter 5, )itle I, Doo= III of (, "$". )8e law 8as incorporated t8is safe;uard to prevent a<uses, li=e t8e use of actin; appoint:ents as a wa7 to circu:vent confir:ation <7 t8e o::ission on Appoint:ents. Ad3interi: appoint:ents :ust <e distin;uis8ed fro: appoint:ents in an actin; capacit7. Dot8 of t8e: are effective upon acceptance. Dut ad3interi: appoint:ents are eBtended onl7 durin; a recess of on;ress, w8ereas actin; appoint:ents :a7 <e eBtended an7 ti:e t8ere is a vacanc7. Moreover ad3interi: appoint:ents are su<:itted to t8e o::ission on Appoint:ents for confir:ation or re9ectionI actin; appoint:ents are not su<:itted to t8e o::ission on Appoint:ents. Actin; appoint:ents are a wa7 of te:poraril7 fillin; i:portant offices <ut, if a<used, t8e7 can also <e a wa7 of circu:ventin; t8e need for confir:ation <7 t8e o::ission on Appoint:ents. +owever, we find no a<use in t8e present case. )8e a<sence of a<use is readil7 apparent fro: President Arro7o@s issuance of ad interi: appoint:ents to respondents i::ediatel7 upon t8e recess of on;ress, wa7 <efore t8e lapse of one 7ear.