Case Digest: Emmanuel Pelaez vs. The Auditor General

FACTS:

From September 4, 1964 to October 29, 1964 the President of the Philippines issued executive orders to create thirty-three municipalities pursuant to Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code.  Public funds thereby stood to be disbursed in the implementation of said executive orders. 

Suing as a private citizen and taxpayer, Vice President Emmanuel Pelaez filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction against the Auditor General.  It seeks to restrain from the respondent or any person acting in his behalf, from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in implementation of the executive orders aforementioned.

ISSUE:

Whether the executive orders are null and void, upon the ground that the President does not have the authority to create municipalities as this power has been vested in the legislative department.

RULING:

Section 10(1) of Article VII of the fundamental law ordains:

“The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus or offices, exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law, and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The power of control under this provision implies the right of the President to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as may be vested by law in the officers of the executive departments, bureaus, or offices of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers.  This power is denied by the Constitution to the Executive, insofar as local governments are concerned.  Such control does not include the authority to either abolish an executive department or bureau, or to create a new one.  Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code does not merely fail to comply with the constitutional mandate above quoted, it also gives the President more power than what was vested in him by the Constitution. 

The Executive Orders in question are hereby declared null and void ab initio and the respondent permanently restrained from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in implementation of said Executive Orders or any disbursement by the municipalities referred to.

Case Digest: Tobias vs. Abalos

G.R.No. L-114785             08 December 1994

PONENTE: BIDIN, J.

FACTS:

Prior to Republic Act No., 7675 also known as “An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong”, Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative district.  A plebiscite was held for the people of Mandaluyong whether or not they approved of the said conversion.  The plebiscite was only 14.41% of the said conversion.  Nevertheless, 18,621 voted “yes” whereas “7, 911” voted “no”.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the ratification of RA7675 was unconstitutional citing Article VI, Sections 5(1), 4 and 26(1)

HELD/RULING:

For the purposes of discussion, let’s breakdown all of the claimed violations to the 1987 Constitution.

Section 26(1). Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.

The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the subject of its conversion.  Moreover, a liberal construction of the “one-title-one-subject” rule has been liberally adopted by the court as to not impede legislation (Lidasan v. Comelec).

Sec. 5(1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations.

The Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by law.  The emphasis on the latter clause indicates that the number of the House of Representatives may be increased, if mandated via a legislative enactment.  Therefore, the increase in congressional representation is not unconstitutional.

Sec. 5(4). Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in this section.

The argument on the violation of the above provision is absurd since it was the Congress itself which drafted, deliberated upon and enacted the assailed law.

The petition is thereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

Confusing Concepts: Initiative vs. Referendum

The difference between an initiative and referendum is oftentimes a subject of confusion.  This difference has been further discussed in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. COMELEC.  The below overview has been provided for the purposes of simple elaboration.


In the enactment of Sec. 3, Republic Act 6735,  "Initiative and Referendum Act," the difference between one term from the other is discussed.

(a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose.

x x x

(c) "Referendum" is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for the purpose.

(Emphasis has been supplied.)

It has also been noted by Justice Isagani Cruz that in most cases when a referendum would become a law if there is no action on the provided by the electors.


The table below also provides a head-to-head difference of the two concepts.

	Initiative	Referendum
Initial Source	The people	The Congress
Congress intervention?	No	Yes
Nature	Proposal by the people	Approval or rejection by the people
Scope	Amendments only	Amendments and revision

Case Digest: Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. vs. Gimenez and Mathay

G.R. No. L-17931                 28 February 1963

Ponente: Concepcion, J.

FACTS:

On July 1, 1959, pursuant to Republic Act No. 2609 (Foreign Exchange margin Fee Law), the Central Bank of the Philippines fixed a uniform margin fee of 25% foreign exchange transactions.  Petitioner Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc., a manufacturer of resin glues, had bought foreign exchange for the importation of urea and formaldehyde – raw materials for the said glues – and were thus paying for the margin fees required.

Relying upon Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board of the said bank declaring that the separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is exempt from the said fee, the petitioner sought for a refund of the margin fees that had been paid.  This was denied by the Auditor of the said Bank stating that the claim was not in accord with the provisions of section 2, paragraph XVIII of R.A. 2609.

ISSUE: Whether “urea” and “formaldehyde” are exempt by law from the payment of the aforesaid margin fee

HELD/RULING:

“Urea” and “formaldehyde” is not exempt from law.

The pertinent portion of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2609 reads:

The margin established by the Monetary Board pursuant to the provision of section one hereof shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for the importation of the following:

x x x           x x x           x x x

XVIII. Urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard when imported by and for the exclusive use of end-users. (Emphasis provided.)

Urea formaldehyde is different from urea and formaldehyde, the former being a finished product.  It is well settled that the enrolled bill – which uses the term “urea formaldehyde” instead of “urea and formaldehyde” – is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President.  The courts cannot speculate that there had been an error in the printing of the bill as this shall violate the principle of separation of powers.  Shall there have been any error in the printing, the remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree.