Session 8

Tan v Del Rosario classification as long as: (1) the standards that are used
therefor are substantial and not arbitrary, (2) the
Facts: 1. Two consolidated cases assail the validity of categorization is germane to achieve the legislative
RA 7496 or the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme purpose, (3) the law applies, all things being equal, to
("SNIT"), which amended certain provisions of the both present and future conditions, and (4) the
NIRC, as well as the Rules and Regulations promulgated classification applies equally well to all those belonging
by public respondents pursuant to said law. to the same class.
2. Petitioners posit that RA 7496 is unconstitutional as 2. What is apparent from the amendatory law is the
it allegedly violates the following provisions of the legislative intent to increasingly shift the income tax
Constitution system towards the schedular approach in the income
-Article VI, Section 26(1) — Every bill passed by the taxation of individual taxpayers and to maintain, by and
Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be large, the present global treatment on taxable
expressed in the title thereof. corporations. The Court does not view this classification
to be arbitrary and inappropriate.
- Article VI, Section 28(1) — The rule of taxation shall
be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a ISSUE 2: Whether or not public respondents exceeded
progressive system of taxation. their authority in promulgating the RR

- Article III, Section 1 — No person shall be deprived of No. There is no evident intention of the law, either
. . . property without due process of law, nor shall any before or after the amendatory legislation, to place in an
person be denied the equal protection of the laws. unequal footing or in significant variance the income tax
treatment of professionals who practice their respective
3. Petitioners contended that public respondents professions individually and of those who do it through a
exceeded their rule-making authority in applying SNIT general professional partnership.
to general professional partnerships. Petitioner contends
that the title of HB 34314, progenitor of RA 7496, is LUNG CENTER v QC
deficient for being merely entitled, "Simplified Net FACTS: Petitioner is a non-stock, non-profit entity
Income Taxation Scheme for the Self-Employed and established by virtue of PD No. 1823, seeks exemption
Professionals Engaged in the Practice of their from real property taxes when the City Assessor issued
Profession" (Petition in G.R. No. 109289) when the full Tax Declarations for the land and the hospital building.
text of the title actually reads, Petitioner predicted on its claim that it is a charitable
'An Act Adopting the Simplified Net Income Taxation institution. The request was denied, and a petition
Scheme For The Self-Employed and Professionals hereafter filed before the Local Board of Assessment
Engaged In The Practice of Their Profession, Amending Appeals of Quezon City (QC-LBAA) for reversal of the
Sections 21 and 29 of the National Internal Revenue resolution of the City Assessor. Petitioner alleged that as
Code,' as amended. Petitioners also contend it violated a charitable institution, is exempted from real property
due process. taxes under Sec 28(3) Art VI of the Constitution. QC-
LBAA dismissed the petition and the decision was
5. The Solicitor General espouses the position taken by likewise affirmed on appeal by the Central Board of
public respondents. Assessment Appeals of Quezon City. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgment of the CBAA.
6. The Court has given due course to both petitions.
ISSUE: 1. Whether or not petitioner is a charitable
ISSUE: Whether or not the tax law is unconstitutional institution within the context of PD 1823 and the 1973
for violating due process and 1987 Constitution and Section 234(b) of RA 7160.
NO. The due process clause may correctly be invoked 2. Whether or not petitioner is exempted from real
only when there is a clear contravention of inherent or property taxes.
constitutional limitations in the exercise of the tax
power. No such transgression is so evident in herein RULING: 1. Yes. The Court holds that the petitioner is a
case. charitable institution within the context of the 1973 and
1987 Constitution. Under PD 1823, the petitioner is a
1. Uniformity of taxation, like the concept of equal non-profit and non-stock corporation which, subject to
protection, merely requires that all subjects or objects of the provisions of the decree, is to be administered by the
taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike both in Office of the President with the Ministry of Health and
privileges and liabilities. Uniformity does not violate the Ministry of Human Settlements. The purpose for
1/9
Session 8

which it was created was to render medical services to substitution has always been accepted. The proposition
the public in general including those who are poor and of Tolentino concerns a mere matter of form. There is no
also the rich, and become a subject of charity. Under PD showing that it would make a significant difference if
1823, petitioner is entitled to receive donations, even if Senate were to adopt his over what has been done.
the gift or donation is in the form of subsidies granted by
the government. BENGZON v BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE

2. Partly No. Under PD 1823, the lung center does not It was alleged that Benjamin ―Kokoy‖ Romualdez and
enjoy any property tax exemption privileges for its real his wife together with the Marcoses unlawfully and
properties as well as the building constructed thereon. unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of the
Filipino people. That they obtained with the help of the
The property tax exemption under Sec. 28(3), Art. VI of Bengzon Law Office and Ricardo Lopa – Cory‘s brother
the Constitution of the property taxes only. This in law, among others, control over some of the biggest
provision was implanted by Sec.243 (b) of RA business enterprises in the country including
7160.which provides that in order to be entitled to the MERALCO, PCI Bank, Shell Philippines and Benguet
exemption, the lung center must be able to prove that: it Consolidated Mining Corporation.
is a charitable institution and; its real properties are
actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable Senator Juan Ponce Enrile subsequently delivered a
purpose. Accordingly, the portions occupied by the privilege speech alleging that Lopa took over various
hospital used for its patients are exempt from real government owned corporations which is in violation of
property taxes while those leased to private entities are the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Contained in
not exempt from such taxes. the speech is a motion to investigate on the matter. The
motion was referred to the Committee on Accountability
TOLENTINO V SECRETARY OF FINANCE of Public Officers or the Blue Ribbon Committee. After
committee hearing, Lopa refused to testify before the
Arturo Tolentino et al are questioning the committee for it may unduly prejudice a pending civil
constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known as the case against him. Bengzon likewise refused invoking his
Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino right to due process. Lopa however sent a letter to Enrile
averred that this revenue bill did not exclusively categorically denying his allegations and that his
originate from the House of Representatives as required allegations are baseless and malicious.
by Section 24, Article 6 of the Constitution. Even though
RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it passed the 3 Enrile subsequently took advantage of the Senate‘s
readings in the HoR, the same did not complete the 3 privilege hour upon which he insisted to have an inquiry
readings in Senate for after the 1st reading it was regarding the matter. The SBRC rejected Lopa‘s and
referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee Bengzon‘s plea.
thereafter Senate passed its own version known as
Senate Bill 1630. Tolentino averred that what Senate Claiming that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is
could have done is amend HB 11197 by striking out its poised to subpoena them and require their attendance
text and substituting it with the text of SB 1630 in that and testimony in proceedings before the Committee, in
way ―the bill remains a House Bill and the Senate excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose, in clear
version just becomes the text (only the text) of the HB‖. and blatant disregard of their constitutional rights, and to
(It‘s ironic however to note that Tolentino and co- their grave and irreparable damage, prejudice and injury,
petitioner Raul Roco even signed the said Senate Bill.) and that there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
ISSUE: Whether or not the EVAT law is procedurally Bengzon et al filed a petition for prohibition with a
infirm. prayer for temporary restraining order and/or injunctive
relief against the SBRC.
HELD: No. By a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court rejected
the challenge, holding that such consolidation was ISSUE: Whether or not the inquiry sought by the SBRC
consistent with the power of the Senate to propose or be granted.
concur with amendments to the version originated in the
HoR. What the Constitution simply means, according to HELD: No, the inquiry cannot be given due course. The
the 9 justices, is that the initiative must come from the speech of Enrile contained no suggestion of
HoR. Note also that there were several instances before contemplated legislation; he merely called upon the
where Senate passed its own version rather than having Senate to look into a possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA
the HoR version as far as revenue and other such bills No. 3019, otherwise known as ―The Anti-Graft and
are concerned. This practice of amendment by Corrupt Practices Act.‖ In other words, the purpose of
the inquiry to be conducted by the Blue Ribbon
2/9
Session 8

Committee was to find out whether or not the relatives military personnel from testifying before legislative
of Cory, particularly Lopa, had violated the law in inquiries without her approval, Brig. Gen. Gudani and
connection with the alleged sale of the 36 or 39 Col. Balutan were relieved from their military posts and
corporations belonging to Kokoy to the Lopa Group. were made to face court martial proceedings. EO 464‘s
There appears to be, therefore, no intended legislation constitutionality was assailed for it is alleged that it
involved. Hence, the contemplated inquiry by the SBRC infringes on the rights and duties of Congress to conduct
is not really ―in aid of legislation‖ because it is not investigation in aid of legislation and conduct oversight
related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress, functions in the implementation of laws.
since the aim of the investigation is to find out whether
or not the relatives of the President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa ISSUE: Whether or not EO 464 is constitutional.
had violated Section 5 of RA No. 3019, the ―Anti-Graft HELD: The SC ruled that EO 464 is constitutional in
and Corrupt Practices Act‖, a matter that appears more
part. To determine the validity of the provisions of EO
within the province of the courts rather than of the 464, the SC sought to distinguish Section 21 from
legislature. Besides, the Court may take judicial notice Section 22 of Art 6 of the 1987 Constitution. The
that Mr. Ricardo Lopa died during the pendency of this Congress‘ power of inquiry is expressly recognized in
case. Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. Although
SENATE v ERMITA there is no provision in the Constitution expressly
investing either House of Congress with power to make
In 2005, scandals involving anomalous transactions investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may
about the North Rail Project as well as the Garci tapes exercise its legislative functions advisedly and
surfaced. This prompted the Senate to conduct a public effectively, such power is so far incidental to the
hearing to investigate the said anomalies particularly the legislative function as to be implied. In other words, the
alleged overpricing in the NRP. The investigating Senate power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an
committee issued invitations to certain department heads essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative
and military officials to speak before the committee as function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or
resource persons. Ermita submitted that he and some of effectively in the absence of information respecting the
the department heads cannot attend the said hearing due conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or
to pressing matters that need immediate attention. AFP change; and where the legislative body does not itself
Chief of Staff Senga likewise sent a similar letter. possess the requisite information – which is not
Drilon, the senate president, excepted the said requests infrequently true – recourse must be had to others who
for they were sent belatedly and arrangements were do possess it.
already made and scheduled. Subsequently, GMA issued
EO 464 which took effect immediately. Section 22 on the other hand provides for the Question
Hour. The Question Hour is closely related with the
EO 464 basically prohibited Department heads, Senior legislative power, and it is precisely as a complement to
officials of executive departments who in the judgment or a supplement of the Legislative Inquiry. The
of the department heads are covered by the executive appearance of the members of Cabinet would be very,
privilege; Generals and flag officers of the Armed very essential not only in the application of check and
Forces of the Philippines and such other officers who in balance but also, in effect, in aid of legislation. Section
the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered by the 22 refers only to Question Hour, whereas, Section 21
executive privilege; Philippine National Police (PNP) would refer specifically to inquiries in aid of legislation,
officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher and under which anybody for that matter, may be summoned
such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of and if he refuses, he can be held in contempt of the
the PNP are covered by the executive privilege; Senior House. A distinction was thus made between inquiries in
national security officials who in the judgment of the aid of legislation and the question hour. While
National Security Adviser are covered by the executive attendance was meant to be discretionary in the question
privilege; and Such other officers as may be determined hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation.
by the President, from appearing in such hearings Sections 21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and
conducted by Congress without first securing the complementary to each other, should not be considered
president‘s approval. as pertaining to the same power of Congress. One
specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries in
The department heads and the military officers who were aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit
invited by the Senate committee then invoked EO 464 to information that may be used for legislation, while the
except themselves. Despite EO 464, the scheduled other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour,
hearing proceeded with only 2 military personnel the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit
attending. For defying President Arroyo‘s order barring
3/9
Session 8

of Congress‘ oversight function. Ultimately, the power BELGICA v OCHOA

of Congress to compel the appearance of executive
officials under Section 21 and the lack of it under NATURE: These are consolidated petitions taken under
Section 22 find their basis in the principle of separation Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, all of which assail the
of powers. constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System.

While the executive branch is a co-equal branch of the FACTS: The NBI Investigation was spawned by sworn
legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of Congress to affidavits of six (6) whistle-blowers who declared that
legislate by refusing to comply with its demands for JLN Corporation (Janet Lim Napoles) had swindled
information. When Congress exercises its power of billions of pesos from the public coffers for "ghost
inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt projects" using dummy NGOs. Thus, Criminal
themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. complaints were filed before the Office of the
They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are Ombudsman, charging five (5) lawmakers for Plunder,
department heads. Only one executive official may be and three (3) other lawmakers for Malversation, Direct
exempted from this power — the President on whom Bribery, and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
executive power is vested, hence, beyond the reach of Practices Act. Also recommended to be charged in the
Congress except through the power of impeachment. It complaints are some of the lawmakers‘ chiefs -of-staff
is based on her being the highest official of the executive or representatives, the heads and other officials of three
branch, and the due respect accorded to a co-equal (3) implementing agencies, and the several presidents of
branch of government which is sanctioned by a long- the NGOs set up by Napoles.
standing custom. The requirement then to secure Whistle-blowers alleged that" at least P900 Million from
presidential consent under Section 1, limited as it is only royalties in the operation of the Malampaya gas project
to appearances in the question hour, is valid on its face. off Palawan province intended for agrarian reform
For under Section 22, Article VI of the Constitution, the beneficiaries has gone into a dummy NGO. Several
appearance of department heads in the question hour is petitions were lodged before the Court similarly seeking
discretionary on their part. Section 1 cannot, however,
that the "Pork Barrel System" be declared
be applied to appearances of department heads in unconstitutional
inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not bound in
such instances to respect the refusal of the department G.R. No. 208493 – SJS filed a Petition for Prohibition
head to appear in such inquiry, unless a valid claim of seeking that the "Pork Barrel System" be declared
privilege is subsequently made, either by the President unconstitutional, and a writ of prohibition be issued
herself or by the Executive Secretary. permanently

When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how G.R. No. 208566 - Belgica, et al filed an Urgent Petition
department heads are implementing the statutes which it For Certiorari and Prohibition With Prayer For The
has issued, its right to such information is not as Immediate Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
imperative as that of the President to whom, as Chief and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction seeking that the
Executive, such department heads must give a report of annual "Pork Barrel System," presently embodied in the
their performance as a matter of duty. In such instances, provisions of the GAA of 2013 which provided for the
Section 22, in keeping with the separation of powers, 2013 PDAF, and the Executive‗s lump-sum,
states that Congress may only request their appearance. discretionary funds, such as the Malampaya Funds and
Nonetheless, when the inquiry in which Congress the Presidential Social Fund, be declared
requires their appearance is ‗in aid of legislation‘ under unconstitutional and null and void for being acts
Section 21, the appearance is mandatory for the same constituting grave abuse of discretion. Also, they pray
reasons stated in Arnault. that the Court issue a TRO against respondents

NOTES: The SC ruled that Section 1 and Section 2a are UDK-14951 – A Petition filed seeking that the PDAF be
valid. The rest invalid. declared unconstitutional, and a cease and desist order be
issued restraining President Benigno Simeon S. Aquino
On March 6, 2008, President Arroyo issued III (President Aquino) and Secretary Abad from
Memorandum Circular No. 151, revoking Executive releasing such funds to Members of Congress
Order No. 464 and Memorandum Circular No. 108. She
advised executive officials and employees to follow and ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article
abide by the Constitution, existing laws and and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar
jurisprudence, including, among others, the case of thereto are unconstitutional considering that they violate
Senate v. Ermita when they are invited to legislative the principles of/constitutional provisions on (a)
inquiries in aid of legislation. separation of powers; (b) non-delegability of legislative
4/9
Session 8

power; (c) checks and balances; (d) accountability; (e) TO USE THE SAME FUND FOR ANY
political dynasties; and (f) local autonomy. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT HE MAY SO
DETERMINE AS A ―PRIORITY‖. VERILY, THE
2. Whether or not the phrases (under Section 8 of PD LAW DOES NOT SUPPLY A DEFINITION OF
910,116 relating to the Malampaya Funds, and under ―PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, relating PROJECTS‖ AND HENCE, LEAVES THE
to the Presidential Social Fund, are unconstitutional PRESIDENT WITHOUT ANY GUIDELINE TO
insofar as they constitute undue delegations of CONSTRUE THE SAME.
legislative power.
ARAULLO v AQUINO
HELD: 1. Yes, the PDAF article is unconstitutional.
The post-enactment measures which govern the areas of When President Benigno Aquino III took office, his
project identification, fund release and fund realignment administration noticed the sluggish growth of the
are not related to functions of congressional oversight economy. The World Bank advised that the economy
and, hence, allow legislators to intervene and/or assume needed a stimulus plan. Budget Secretary Florencio
duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget ―Butch‖ Abad then came up with a program called the
execution. This violates the principle of separation of Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
powers. Congress‗role must be confined to mere
oversight that must be confined to: (1) scrutiny and (2) The DAP was seen as a remedy to speed up the funding
investigation and monitoring of the implementation of of government projects. DAP enables the Executive to
laws. Any action or step beyond that will undermine the realign funds from slow moving projects to priority
separation of powers guaranteed by the constitution. projects instead of waiting for next year‘s appropriation.
So what happens under the DAP was that if a certain
Thus, the court declares the 2013 pdaf article as well as government project is being undertaken slowly by a
all other provisions of law which similarly allow certain executive agency, the funds allotted therefor will
legislators to wield any form of post-enactment authority be withdrawn by the Executive. Once withdrawn, these
in the implementation or enforcement of the budget, funds are declared as ―savings‖ by the Executive and
unrelated to congressional oversight, as violative of the said funds will then be reallotted to other priority
separation of powers principle and thus unconstitutional. projects. The DAP program did work to stimulate the
economy as economic growth was in fact reported and
2. Yes. Sec 8 of PD 910- the phrase ―and for such portion of such growth was attributed to the DAP (as
other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the noted by the Supreme Court).
President‖‖ constitutes an undue delegation of legislative
power insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient Other sources of the DAP include the unprogrammed
standard to adequately determine the limits of the funds from the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
President‗s authority with respect to the purpose for Unprogrammed funds are standby appropriations made
which the Malampaya Funds may be used. It gives the by Congress in the GAA.
President wide latitude to use the Malampaya Funds for
any other purpose he may direct and, in effect, allows Meanwhile, in September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada
him to unilaterally appropriate public funds beyond the made an exposé claiming that he, and other Senators,
purview of the law.‖ received Php50M from the President as an incentive for
voting in favor of the impeachment of then Chief Justice
Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993- the Renato Corona. Secretary Abad claimed that the money
phrases: was taken from the DAP but was disbursed upon the
request of the Senators.
(b) "to finance the priority infrastructure development
projects‖ was declared constitutional. IT INDICATED This apparently opened a can of worms as it turns out
PURPOSE ADEQUATELY CURTAILS THE that the DAP does not only realign funds within the
AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT TO SPEND THE Executive. It turns out that some non-Executive projects
PRESIDENTIAL SOCIAL FUND ONLY FOR were also funded; to name a few: Php1.5B for the CPLA
RESTORATION PURPOSES WHICH ARISE FROM (Cordillera People‘s Liberation Army), Php1.8B for the
CALAMITIES. MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front), P700M for the
Quezon Province, P50-P100M for certain Senators each,
(b)‖ and to finance the restoration of damaged or P10B for Relocation Projects, etc.
destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may be directed
and authorized by the Office of the President of the This prompted Maria Carolina Araullo, Chairperson of
Philippines‖ was declared unconstitutional.IT GIVES the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, and several other
THE PRESIDENT CARTE BLANCHE AUTHORITY concerned citizens to file various petitions with the
5/9
Session 8

Supreme Court questioning the validity of the DAP. allowed by the Constitution to make realignment of
Among their contentions was: funds, however, such transfer or realignment should only
be made ―within their respective offices‖. Thus, no
DAP is unconstitutional because it violates the cross-border transfers/augmentations may be allowed.
constitutional rule which provides that ―no money shall But under the DAP, this was violated because funds
be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriated by the GAA for the Executive were being
appropriation made by law.‖ transferred to the Legislative and other non-Executive
agencies.
Secretary Abad argued that the DAP is based on certain
laws particularly the GAA (savings and augmentation Further, transfers ―within their respective offices‖ also
provisions thereof), Sec. 25(5), Art. VI of the contemplate realignment of funds to an existing project
Constitution (power of the President to augment), Secs. in the GAA. Under the DAP, even though some projects
38 and 49 of Executive Order 292 (power of the were within the Executive, these projects are non-
President to suspend expenditures and authority to use existent insofar as the GAA is concerned because no
savings, respectively). funds were appropriated to them in the GAA. Although
Issues: I. Whether or not the DAP violates the principle some of these projects may be legitimate, they are still
―no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in non-existent under the GAA because they were not
pursuance of an appropriation made by law‖ (Sec. 29(1), provided for by the GAA. As such, transfer to such
Art. VI, Constitution). projects is unconstitutional and is without legal basis.

II. Whether or not the DAP realignments can be These DAP transfers are not ―savings‖ contrary to what
considered as impoundments by the executive. was being declared by the Executive. Under the
definition of ―savings‖ in the GAA, savings only occur,
III. Whether or not the DAP realignments/transfers are among other instances, when there is an excess in the
constitutional. funding of a certain project once it is completed, finally
discontinued, or finally abandoned. The GAA does not
IV. Whether or not the sourcing of unprogrammed funds refer to ―savings‖ as funds withdrawn from a slow
to the DAP is constitutional. moving project. Thus, since the statutory definition of
savings was not complied with under the DAP, there is
V. Whether or not the Doctrine of Operative Fact is
no basis at all for the transfers. Further, savings should
applicable.
only be declared at the end of the fiscal year. But under
HELD: I. No, the DAP did not violate Section 29(1), the DAP, funds are already being withdrawn from
Art. VI of the Constitution. DAP was merely a program certain projects in the middle of the year and then being
by the Executive and is not a fund nor is it an declared as ―savings‖ by the Executive particularly by
appropriation. It is a program for prioritizing the DBM.
government spending. As such, it did not violate the
IV. No. Unprogrammed funds from the GAA cannot be
Constitutional provision cited in Section 29(1), Art. VI
used as money source for the DAP because under the
of the Constitution. In DAP no additional funds were
law, such funds may only be used if there is a
withdrawn from the Treasury otherwise, an
certification from the National Treasurer to the effect
appropriation made by law would have been required.
that the revenue collections have exceeded the revenue
Funds, which were already appropriated for by the GAA,
targets. In this case, no such certification was secured
were merely being realigned via the DAP.
before unprogrammed funds were used.
II. No, there is no executive impoundment in the DAP.
V. Yes. The Doctrine of Operative Fact, which
Impoundment of funds refers to the President‘s power to
recognizes the legal effects of an act prior to it being
refuse to spend appropriations or to retain or deduct
declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is
appropriations for whatever reason. Impoundment is
applicable. The DAP has definitely helped stimulate the
actually prohibited by the GAA unless there will be an
economy. It has funded numerous projects. If the
unmanageable national government budget deficit
Executive is ordered to reverse all actions under the
(which did not happen). Nevertheless, there‘s no
DAP, then it may cause more harm than good. The DAP
impoundment in the case at bar because what‘s involved
effects can no longer be undone. The beneficiaries of the
in the DAP was the transfer of funds.
DAP cannot be asked to return what they received
III. No, the transfers made through the DAP were especially so that they relied on the validity of the DAP.
unconstitutional. It is true that the President (and even However, the Doctrine of Operative Fact may not be
the heads of the other branches of the government) are applicable to the authors, implementers, and proponents

6/9
Session 8

of the DAP if it is so found in the appropriate tribunals respondents, respectively, who are not permitted to
that they have not acted in good faith. contradict them or subsequently take a position contrary
to or inconsistent with such admissions.[83]
REPUBLIC v SANDIGANBAYAN
The sum of $304,372.43 should be held as the only
FACTS: One of the foremost concerns of the Aquino known lawful income of respondents since they did not
Government in February 1986 was the recovery of the file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL), as
unexplained or ill-gotten wealth reputedly amassed by required by law, from which their net worth could be
former President and Mrs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, their determined. Besides, under the 1935 Constitution,
relatives, friends and business associates. Thus, the very Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could not receive any
first Executive Order (EO) issued by then President other emolument from the Government or any of its
Corazon Aquino upon her assumption to office after the subdivisions and instrumentalities.[84] Likewise, under
ouster of the Marcoses was EO No. 1, issued on the 1973 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as President
February 28, 1986. It created the Presidential could not receive during his tenure any other emolument
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and charged from the Government or any other source.[85] In fact,
it with the task of assisting the President in the "recovery his management of businesses, like the administration of
of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President foundations to accumulate funds, was expressly
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, prohibited under the 1973 Constitution:
subordinates and close associates, whether located in the
Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or Article VII, Sec. 4(2) The President and the Vice-
sequestration of all business enterprises and entities President shall not, during their tenure, hold any other
owned or controlled by them during his administration, office except when otherwise provided in this
directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage Constitution, nor may they practice any profession,
of their public office and/or using their powers, participate directly or indirectly in the management of
authority, influence, connections or relationship." any business, or be financially interested directly or
indirectly in any contract with, or in any franchise or
In all the alleged ill-gotten wealth cases filed by the special privilege granted by the Government or any other
PCGG, this Court has seen fit to set aside technicalities subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
and formalities that merely serve to delay or impede including any government owned or controlled
judicious resolution. This Court prefers to have such corporation.
cases resolved on the merits at the Sandiganbayan. But
substantial justice to the Filipino people and to all parties Article VII, Sec. 11 No Member of the National
concerned, not mere legalisms or perfection of form, Assembly shall appear as counsel before any court
should now be relentlessly and firmly pursued. Almost inferior to a court with appellate jurisdiction, x x x.
two decades have passed since the government initiated Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested
its search for and reversion of such ill-gotten wealth. The financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or
definitive resolution of such cases on the merits is thus special privilege granted by the Government, or any
long overdue. If there is proof of illegal acquisition, subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof including
accumulation, misappropriation, fraud or illicit conduct, any government owned or controlled corporation during
let it be brought out now. Let the ownership of these his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter
funds and other assets be finally determined and before any office of the government for his pecuniary
resolved with dispatch, free from all the delaying benefit.
technicalities and annoying procedural sidetracks.
Article IX, Sec. 7 The Prime Minister and Members of
Issue: Whether or not President Marcos committed the Cabinet shall be subject to the provision of Section
prohibited and inhibited acts as a president during his 11, Article VIII hereof and may not appear as counsel
term of office before any court or administrative body, or manage any
business, or practice any profession, and shall also be
Held: Yes subject to such other disqualification as may be provided
Ratio: It is settled that judicial admissions may be made: by law.
(a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course Their only known lawful income of $304,372.43 can
of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or therefore legally and fairly serve as basis for determining
stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial the existence of a prima facie case of forfeiture of the
proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case.[82] Thus, Swiss funds.
facts pleaded in the petition and answer, as in the case at
bar, are deemed admissions of petitioner and

7/9
Session 8

Respondents argue that petitioner was not able to as the 14th President. Estrada and his family later left
establish a prima facie case for the forfeiture of the Malacañang Palace. Erap, after his fall, filed petition for
Swiss funds since it failed to prove the essential prohibition with prayer for WPI. It sought to enjoin the
respondent Ombudsman from ―conducting any further
elements under Section 3, paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of
proceedings in cases filed against him not until his term
RA 1379. As the Act is a penal statute, its provisions are as president ends. He also prayed for judgment
mandatory and should thus be construed strictly against ―confirming Estrada to be the lawful and incumbent
the petitioner and liberally in favor of respondent President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily
Marcoses. unable to discharge the duties of his office.

We hold that it was not for petitioner to establish the ISSUE(S):

Marcoses other lawful income or income from 1. WoN the petition presents a justiciable controversy.
legitimately acquired property for the presumption to 2. WoN Estrada resigned as President.
3. WoN Arroyo is only an acting President.
apply because, as between petitioner and respondents,
4. WoN the President enjoys immunity from suit.
the latter were in a better position to know if there were 5. WoN the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined
such other sources of lawful income. And if indeed there due to prejudicial publicity.
was such other lawful income, respondents should have
specifically stated the same in their answer. Insofar as RULING:
petitioner Republic was concerned, it was enough to
specify the known lawful income of respondents. 1. Political questions- "to those questions which, under
the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
Section 9 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations provides sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
that, in determining prima facie evidence of ill-gotten discretionary authority has been delegated to the
legislative or executive branch of the government. It is
wealth, the value of the accumulated assets, properties concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not
and other material possessions of those covered by legality of a particular measure."
Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2 must be out of proportion Legal distinction between EDSA People Power I EDSA
to the known lawful income of such persons. The People Power II:
respondent Marcos couple did not file any Statement of
Assets and Liabilities (SAL) from which their net worth EDSA I EDSA II
could be determined. Their failure to file their SAL was exercise of the people exercise of people power
power of of freedom of speech and
in itself a violation of law and to allow them to
revolution which freedom of assembly to
successfully assail the Republic for not presenting their overthrew the whole petition the government
SAL would reward them for their violation of the law. government. for redress of grievances
which only affected the
ESTRADA v ARROYO office of the President.
intra constitutional and
FACTS: It began in October 2000 when allegations of extra constitutional and the resignation of the
wrong doings involving bribe-taking, illegal gambling, the legitimacy of the new sitting President that it
and other forms of corruption were made against Estrada government that resulted caused and the succession
before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. On from it cannot be the of the Vice President as
November 13, 2000, Estrada was impeached by the Hor subject of judicial review President are subject to
and, on December 7, impeachment proceedings were judicial review.
begun in the Senate during which more serious
presented a political
allegations of graft and corruption against Estrada were
question; involves legal questions.
made and were only stopped on January 16, 2001 when
11 senators, sympathetic to the President, succeeded in
suppressing damaging evidence against Estrada. As a The cases at bar pose legal and not political questions.
result, the impeachment trial was thrown into an uproar The principal issues for resolution require the proper
as the entire prosecution panel walked out and Senate interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987
President Pimentel resigned after casting his vote against Constitution: Sec 1 of Art II, and Sec 8 of Art VII, and
Estrada. the allocation of governmental powers under Sec 11 of
Art VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the
On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their scope of presidential immunity from suit. They also
support for Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA involve the correct calibration of the right of petitioner
Shrine. Estrada called for a snap presidential election to against prejudicial publicity.
be held concurrently with congressional and local
elections on May 14, 2001. He added that he will not run 2. Elements of valid resignation: (a)an intent to resign
in this election. On January 20, SC declared that the seat and (b) acts of relinquishment. Both were present when
of presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada President Estrada left the Palace.
―constructively resigned his post‖. At noon, Arroyo took Totality of prior contemporaneous posterior facts and
her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA circumstantial evidence— bearing material relevant
8/9
Session 8

issues—President Estrada is deemed to have resigned— system does not use the jury system, the judge, who is a
constructive resignation. learned and legally enlightened individual, cannot be
SC declared that the resignation of President Estrada easily manipulated by mere publicity. The Court also
could not be doubted as confirmed by his leaving said that Estrada did not present enough evidence to
Malacañan Palace. In the press release containing his show that the publicity given the trial has influenced the
final statement: judge so as to render the judge unable to perform.
1. He acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as Finally, the Court said that the cases against Estrada
President; were still undergoing preliminary investigation, so the
2. He emphasized he was leaving the Palace for the sake publicity of the case would really have no permanent
of peace and in order to begin the healing process (he did effect on the judge and that the prosecutor should be
not say that he was leaving due to any kind of disability more concerned with justice and less with prosecution.
and that he was going to reassume the Presidency as
soon as the disability disappears);
3. He expressed his gratitude to the people for the
opportunity to serve them as President (without doubt
referring to the past opportunity);
4. He assured that he will not shirk from any future
challenge that may come in the same service of the
country;
5. He called on his supporters to join him in promotion
of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
solidarity.
Intent to resign—must be accompanied by act of
relinquishment—act or omission before, during and after
January 20, 2001.

3. The Congress passed House Resolution No. 176

expressly stating its support to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
as President of the Republic of the Philippines and
subsequently passed H.R. 178 confirms the nomination
of Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. As Vice President. Senate
passed HR No. 83 declaring the Impeachment Courts as
Functius Officio and has been terminated. It is clear is
that both houses of Congress recognized Arroyo as the
President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the
premise that the inability of Estrada is no longer
temporary as the Congress has clearly rejected his claim
of inability.
The Court therefore cannot exercise its judicial power
for this is political in nature and addressed solely to
Congress by constitutional fiat. In fine, even if Estrada
can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot
successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the
ground that he is merely unable to govern temporarily.
That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the
decision that Arroyo is the de jure, president made by a
co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by
this Court.

4. The cases filed against Estrada are criminal in

character. They involve plunder, bribery and graft and
corruption. By no stretch of the imagination can these
crimes, especially plunder which carries the death
penalty, be covered by the alleged mantle of immunity
of a non-sitting president. He cannot cite any decision of
this Court licensing the President to commit criminal
acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from
liability. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials
are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally
is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as
any trespasser.

5. No. Case law will tell us that a right to a fair trial and
the free press are incompatible. Also, since our justice
9/9