Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary
194 SCRA 317
FACTS: Consolidated petitions are being resolved jointly as both seek for the declaration of the
unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 (EO No. 284) issued by former President Corazon
C. Aquino on July 25, 1987.
EO No. 284 allows members of the Cabinet, their Undersecretaries and Assistant Secretaries to
hold other than their government positions in addition to their primary positions
ISSUE: Whether or not EO No. 284 is constitutional.
HELD: The Court ruled in the negative.
It has been held that in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be
accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful
provision will be examined in the light of the history of the times and the condition and
circumstances under which the Constitution was framed.
The legislative intent of both Constitutional provisions is to prevent government officials from
holding multiple positions in the government for self enrichment which is a betrayal of public
trust.
Pamatong v. Comelec
G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004
FACTS:
Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President. Respondent COMELEC
declared petitioner and 35 others as nuisance candidates who could not wage a nationwide
campaign and/or are not nominated by a political party or are not supported by a registered
political party with a national constituency.
ISSUE:
Is there a constitutional right to run for or hold public office?
RULING:
No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is merely a privilege subject to
limitations imposed by law. It neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level
of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the provision which suggests
such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort.
Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows a right nor
elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. Like the rest of the policies enumerated
in Article II, the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but
merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action. The disregard of this provision does
not give rise to any cause of action before the courts
Aquino v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183
FACTS: The petitioners having been arrested and held pursuant to General Order No. 2 of the
President (September 22, 1972), "for being participants or for having given aid and comfort in
the conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to take over the Government
by force ...", filed the petitions for habeas corpus. General Order No. 2 was issued by the President
in the exercise of the powers he assumed by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081 (September 21,
1972) placing the entire country under martial law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the validity of Proclamation No. 1081 is subject to judicial inquiry
HELD: The duty remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld The power
is inherent in the Judicial
Department, by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers
Estarija v. Ranada, G.R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006
Facts:
On August 31, 2000, the Ombudsman rendered a decision in the administrative case, finding
Estarija guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. Estarija seasonably filed a motion for
reconsideration. Estarija claimed that dismissal was unconstitutional since the Ombudsman did
not have direct and immediate power to remove government officials, whether elective or
appointive, who are not removable by impeachment. He maintains that under the 1987
Constitution, the Ombudsman’s administrative authority is merely recommendatory, and that
Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989", is unconstitutional
because it gives the Office of the Ombudsman additional powers that are not provided for in the
Constitution
Held:
where it upheld the constitutionality of Sections 15, 21 and 25 of R.A. 6770, and ruled that the
Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from governmentservice an erring
public official, other than a Member of Congress or of the Judiciary
Salazar v. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145
Facts: Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the POEA, charged
petitioner with illegal recruitment. Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a
telegram directing him to appear to the POEA regarding the complaint against him. On the
same day, after knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, public
respondent Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 to
petitioner.
Issue: Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of
Labor) can validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor
Code
Held: Under the new Constitution, “. . . no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”. Mayors and
prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of seizure or arrest. The Closure and Seizure Order
was based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court held, “We reiterate that the
Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence,
the authorities must go through the judicial process.
LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO
(G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986)
FACTS:
1. On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 announcingthat
she and Vice President Laurel were taking power.
2. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino
government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a
direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of
the Philippines."
ISSUE:
Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate.
HELD:
Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the
Realm of politics where only the people are the judge. The Court further held that:
1. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the
Entire country;
2. It is not merely a de fact on government but in fact and law a de jure government; and
3. The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government.
De Leon vs Esguerra
GR 78059, Aug. 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 602
Facts:
Alfredo de Leon won as barangay captain and other petitioners won as councilmen of barangay
dolores, taytay, Rizal. On February 9, 1987, de leon received memo antedated December 1,
1986 signed by OIC Gov. Benhamin Esguerra, February 8, 1987, designating Florentino Magno,
as new captain by authority of minister of local government and similar memo signed February
8, 1987, designated new councilmen.
Issue:
Whether or not designation of successors is valid.
Held:
No, memoranda has no legal effect.
1. Effectivity of memoranda should be based on the date when it was signed. So, February 8,
1987 and not December 1, 1986.
2. February 8, 1987, is within the prescribed period. But provisional constitution was no longer
in effect then because 1987 constitution has been ratified and its transitory provision, Article
XVIII, sec. 27 states that all previous constitution were suspended.
3. Constitution was ratified on February 2, 1987. Thus, it was the constitution in effect.
Petitioners now acquired security of tenure until fixed term of office for barangay officials has
been fixed. Barangay election act is not inconsistent with constitution.
Tolentino vs COMELEC
Political Law – Amendment to the Constitution
FACTS:
The Constitutional Convention of 1971 scheduled an advance plebiscite on the proposal to lower
the voting age from 21 to 18, before the rest of the draft of the Constitution (then under
revision) had been approved. Tolentino et al filed a motion to prohibit such plebiscite and the
same was granted by the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition will prosper.
HELD: The propose amendments shall be approved by a majority of the votes cast at an
election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for ratification. Election here is
singular which meant that the entire constitution must be submitted for ratification at one
plebiscite only. Furthermore, the people were not given a proper “frame of reference” in
arriving at their decision because they had at the time no idea yet of what the rest of the
revised
Constitution would ultimately be and therefore would be unable to assess the proposed
amendment in the light of the entire document. This is the “Doctrine of Submission” which
means that all the proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be presented to the people
for the ratification or rejection at the same time, NOT piecemeal.