D.

SEPARATION OF POWERS AND

CHECK & BALANCES HELD
When it is clear that a statute transgresses
ENDENCIA VS. DAVID the authority vested in the legislature by
FACTS the Constitution, it is the duly of the
This is a joint appeal from the decision of courts to declare the act unconstitutional.
the Court of First Instance in Manila Section 13, RA No. 590 is a clear example
declaring section 13 of RA No. 590 of interpretation or ascertainment of the
unconstitutional and ordering the meaning of the phrase found in section 9,
appellant Saturnino David as Collector Art. VIII of the Constitution which refers
of Internal Revenue to refund to Justice to the salaries of judicial officers. This act
Pastor Endencia and to Justice Fernando interpreting the Constitution or any part
Jugo the income tax collected on their thereof by the Legislature is an invasion
salary. When the SC held in the Perfecto of the well-defined and established
case that judicial officers exempt from province and jurisdiction of the
salary tax because the collection thereof Judiciary. The Legislature may not
was a decrease or diminution of their legally provide therein that a statue be
salaries which is prohibited by the interpreted in such a way that it may not
Constitution, the Congress thereafter violate a Constitutional prohibition, thus
promulgated RA No. 590, authorizing the unconstitutionality of Section 13 of
and legalizing the collection of income RA No. 590
tax on the salaries of judicial officers.

ISSUE BLAS F. OPLE v. RUBEN D. TORRES

Whether or not Section 13 of RA 590 is GR No. 127685, 1998-07-23 (
constitutional

Facts: A.O. No. 308 was published in four

Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate newspapers of general circulation on
Administrative Order No. 308 entitled January 22, 1997 and January 23, 1997.
"Adoption of a National Computerized On January 24, 1997, petitioner filed the
Identification Reference System" on two instant petition against respondents,
important constitutional grounds, viz: then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres
one, it is a usurpation of the power of and the heads of the government
Congress to... legislate, and two, it agencies, who as... members of the Inter-
impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's Agency Coordinating Committee, are
protected zone of privacy. We grant the charged with the implementation of A.O.
petition for the rights sought to be No. 308. On April 8, 1997, we issued a
vindicated by the petitioner need temporary restraining order enjoining its
stronger barriers against further erosion. implementation.

A.O. No. 308 was issued by President Petitioner contends:

Fidel V. Ramos on December 12, 1996
"A. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED
IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE C. THE FUNDS NECESSARY FOR
SYSTEM REQUIRES A LEGISLATIVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
ACT. THE ISSUANCE OF A.O. NO. 308 IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SYSTEM MAY BE SOURCED FROM
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS, THE BUDGETS OF THE CONCERNED
THEREFORE, AN AGENCIES;
UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION
OF THE D. A.O. NO. 308 [1996] PROTECTS
AN INDIVIDUAL'S INTEREST IN
LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE PRIVACY.[3]
CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES.
Issues:
B. THE APPROPRIATION OF Petitioner's sedulous concern for the
PUBLIC FUNDS BY THE PRESIDENT Executive not to trespass on the
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.O. lawmaking domain of Congress is
NO. 308 IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL understandable
USURPATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO Petitioner claims that A.O. No. 308 is not
APPROPRIATE PUBLIC FUNDS FOR a mere administrative order but a law
EXPENDITURE. and hence, beyond the power of the
President to issue. He alleges that A.O.
C. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.O. No. 308 establishes a system of
NO. 308 INSIDIOUSLY LAYS THE identification that is all-encompassing
GROUNDWORK FOR A SYSTEM in... scope, affects the life and liberty of
WHICH WILL VIOLATE THE BILL OF every Filipino citizen and foreign
RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE resident, and more particularly, violates
CONSTITUTION." their right to privacy.

Respondents counter-argue: Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308

need not be the subject of a law, still it
A. THE INSTANT PETITION IS NOT cannot pass constitutional muster as an
A JUSTICIABLE CASE AS WOULD administrative legislation because
WARRANT A JUDICIAL REVIEW; facially it violates the right to privacy.
The essence of privacy is the "right to be
B. A.O. NO. 308 [1996] WAS ISSUED let alone.
WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OF THE Indeed, if we extend our judicial gaze we
PRESIDENT WITHOUT will find that the right of privacy is
ENCROACHING ON THE recognized and enshrined in several
LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF provisions of our Constitution.[33] It is
CONGRESS; expressly recognized in Section 3(1) of
the Bill of Rights:
"Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication Sec. 8. The right of the people, including
and correspondence shall be inviolable those employed in the public and private
except upon lawful order of the court, or sectors, to form unions, associations, or
when public safety or order requires societies for purposes not contrary to law
otherwise as prescribed by law." shall not be abridged.

Other facets of the right to privacy are Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to
protected in various provisions of the Bill be a witness against himself."
of Rights, viz:[34]
Ruling:
"Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due The right to privacy is one of the most
process of law, nor shall any person be threatened rights of man living in a mass
denied the equal protection of the laws. society. The threats emanate from
various sources-- governments,
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure journalists, employers, social scientists,
in their persons, houses, papers, and etc.[88] In the case at bar, the threat
effects against unreasonable searches comes from the executive... branch of
and seizures of whatever nature and for government which by issuing A.O. No.
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no 308 pressures the people to surrender
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall their privacy by giving information
issue except upon probable cause to... be about themselves on the pretext that it
determined personally by the judge after will facilitate delivery of basic services.
examination under oath or affirmation of Given the record-keeping power of the
the complainant and the witnesses he computer, only the indifferent will... fail
may produce, and particularly to perceive the danger that A.O. No. 308
describing the place to be searched and gives the government the power to
the persons or things to be seized. compile a devastating dossier against
unsuspecting citizens
x ...
x x. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is
granted and Administrative Order No.
Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of 308 entitled "Adoption of a National
changing the same within the limits Computerized Identification Reference
prescribed by law shall not be impaired System" declared null and void for being
except upon lawful order of the court. unconstitutional.
Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of Principles:
national security, public safety, or public
health, as... may be provided by law. right to privacy, which the revered Mr.
Justice Brandeis considered as "the most
x ... comprehensive of rights and the right
x x. most valued by civilized... men
The line that delineates Legislative and functions of the executive department,
Executive power is not indistinct. bureau and office, or interfere with the
Legislative power is "the authority, discretion of its officials.[19] Corollary to
under the Constitution, to make laws, the power of control, the President also
and to alter and repeal them."[8] The has the... duty of supervising the
Constitution, as the will of the people in enforcement of laws for the maintenance
their... original, sovereign and unlimited of general peace and public order. Thus,
capacity, has vested this power in the he is granted administrative power over
Congress of the Philippines.[9] The grant bureaus and offices under his control to
of legislative power to Congress is broad, enable him to discharge his duties
general and comprehensive.[10] The effectively.[20]
legislative body possesses plenary
power... for all purposes of civil Administrative power is concerned with
government.[11] Any power, deemed to the work of applying policies and
be legislative by usage and tradition, is enforcing orders as determined by
necessarily possessed by Congress, proper governmental organs.[21] It
unless the Constitution has lodged it enables the President to fix a uniform
elsewhere.[12] In fine, except as limited standard of administrative efficiency and
by the check the official conduct of his...
agents.[22] To this end, he can issue
Constitution, either expressly or administrative orders, rules and
impliedly, legislative power embraces all regulations.
subjects and extends to matters of
general concern or common interest.[13] Prescinding from these precepts, we hold
that A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that
While Congress is vested with the power is not appropriate to be covered by an
to enact laws, the President executes the administrative order. An administrative
laws.[14] The executive power is vested order is:
in the President.[15] It is generally "Sec. 3. Administrative Orders.-- Acts of
defined as the power to enforce and the President which relate to particular
administer the... laws.[16] It is the power aspects of governmental operation in
of carrying the laws into practical pursuance of his duties as administrative
operation and enforcing their due head shall be promulgated in
observance.[17] administrative orders.

As head of the Executive Department, It must be in harmony with the law and
the President is the Chief Executive. He should be for the sole purpose of
represents the government as a whole implementing the law and carrying out
and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the legislative... policy
the officials and employees of his
department.[18] He has control over the
executive department,... bureaus and
offices. This means that he has the
authority to assume directly the
KILUSANG MAYO UNO vs. THE U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NEDA
History of the Case
G.R. No. 167798, APRIL 19, 2006
Seven men involved in the Watergate
FACTS: break-in, a break-in of the Democratic
National Committee's headquarters
President Arroyo issued EO 420 located in the Watergate complex, were
directing a unified ID system among the indicted by a federal grand jury.
various government agencies and President Richard Nixon was named by
GOCCs for the purpose of having a the grand jury as an unindicted co-
uniform ID for all government agencies. conspirator. Archibald Cox, who had
Kilusang Mayo Uno and others assailed been appointed as special prosecutor to
this EO for being a “usurpation of investigate the Watergate affair, obtained
legislative powers by the president” and a subpoena that required President
it infringes the citizens’ right to privacy. Nixon to deliver to the district court tape
recordings of his meetings with various
ISSUE: assistants. The president released certain
edited versions of the tapes to the public,
Whether or not: EO 420 on Unified ID but refused to yield the full transcripts to
System among government agencies the district court. Both Cox and the
infringes on the citizens right to privacy. president filed special petitions to have
(Executive Order 420 of April 13, 2005 the issue heard immediately by the U.S.
was issued for the adoption of a unified Supreme Court.
multi-purpose identification (ID) system
for the government) Summary of Arguments

RULING: No. All these years, the GSIS, President Nixon argued that the courts
SSS, LTO, Philhealth and other lacked the power to compel production
government entities have been issuing of the tapes. He asserted that because the
ID cards in the performance of their dispute was between the president and
governmental functions. There have the special prosecutor, it was purely an
been no complaints from citizens that the executive branch conflict not subject to
ID cards of these government entities judicial resolution. He also argued that it
violate their right to privacy, and in the was for the president, not the courts, to
ascertain the scope of the executive
collection and recording of personal
identification data. Moreover, EO 420 privilege. Finally, President Nixon
applies only to government entities that contended that even if the Court were the
already maintain ID systems and issue proper branch to decide the scope of the
ID cards pursuant to their regular privilege, the need for executive
functions under existing laws. EO 420 confidentiality justified the application
does not grant such government entities of the privilege in this case.
any power that they do not already
possess under existing laws.
The government contended that even if relevant facts in the adversary system is
the Court were to acknowledge the both fundamental and comprehensive."
existence of an executive privilege, the Chief Justice Burger asserted that the
need for evidence in this criminal trial claim of privilege did not rest on the
outweighed that privilege. ground that the tapes contained military
or diplomatic secrets; thus, it was
Decision: The Supreme Court, in an appropriate to subordinate the privilege
opinion written by Chief Justice Burger, to the search for truth in a criminal trial.
held that the tapes had to be turned over He was quick to note that this decision
to the district court for an in-chambers was based on a unique set of facts. The
inspection by the judge. Chief Justice president had asserted only a
Burger argued that this controversy was "generalized interest in confidentiality,"
appropriately before the Court, rather while the specific need for relevant
than within the president's discretion, evidence in a criminal trial is a
because "it is the duty of the courts to say requirement of the Fifth Amendment's
what the law is." Here, the position of guarantee of due process.
special prosecutor had been intended to
be highly independent, thus the Court Chief Justice Burger noted that in
was justified in resolving the conflict conducting the inspection of the
between Cox and the president. Chief president's tapes, "the District Court has
Justice Burger asserted that the executive a very heavy responsibility to see to it
privilege flows from the Constitution that Presidential conversations . . . are
and the Court is the ultimate interpreter accorded that high degree of respect due
of that Constitution; consequently, it was the President of the United States." Even
for the Court and not the president to under the circumstances, President
define the scope of the privilege. He then Nixon's communications were to receive
determined that the privilege was merely "the greatest protection consistent with
presumptive, rather than absolute; thus, the fair administration of justice."
it might be overcome in certain cases by
the "legitimate needs of the judicial Aftermath: Twelve days after the
process." Chief Justice Burger then decision, the president made an abridged
proceeded to balance the interests of the transcript of the tapes available to the
president and the prosecution. He began public. Fifteen days after the decision,
by noting that the president's right to President Nixon resigned. Significance:
secrecy was different from that of an While the outcome of the case was
ordinary individual: "A President and unfavorable to President Nixon, United
those who assist him must be free to States v. Nixon expanded the power of
explore alternatives in the process of the presidency. This was the first time the
shaping policies and making decisions Supreme Court acknowledged that an
and to do so in a way many would be executive privilege exists; the decision
unwilling to express except privately." thus resolved decades of controversy
Nonetheless, Cox had proven that the over the constitutionality of that
tapes were relevant to the government's privilege
case and "[t]he need to develop all
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. this case to Congress, the necessity must
ERMITA, 488 SCRA 1 be of such high degree as to outweigh the
public interest in enforcing that
ISSUE: Is Section 3 of E.O. 464, which obligation in a particular case.
requires all the public officials,
enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES
consent of the President prior to SILVERIO V. REPUBLIC OF THE
appearing before either house of PHILIPPINES (CASE DIGEST)
Congress, valid and constitutional?

FACTS: In the exercise of its legislative G.R. No. 174689

power, the Senate of the Philippines, October 22, 2007
through its various Senate Committees, TOPIC: Change of Name, Sex Change
conducts inquiries or investigations in
aid of legislation. The Committee of the FACTS:
Senate issued invitations to various
officials of the Executive Department for
them to appear as resource speakers in a Silverio field a petition for the change of
public hearing on the railway project, his first name “Rommel Jacinto” to
others on the issues of massive election “Mely” and his sex from male to female
fraud in the Philippine elections, wire in his birth certificate in the RTC of
tapping, and the role of military in the so- Manila, for reason of his sex
called “Gloriagate Scandal”. Said reassignment. He alleged that he is a
officials were not able to attend due to male transsexual, he is anatomically male
lack of consent from the President as but thinks and acts like a female. The
provided by E.O. 464, Section 3 which RTC ruled in his favour, saying that it is
requires all the public officials in consonance with the principle of
enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the justice and equality. The Republic,
consent of the President prior to through the OSG, filed a petition for
appearing before either house of certiorari in the CA, alleging that there is
Congress no law allowing change of name by
reason of sex alteration. Petitioner filed a
DECISION: Partly Granted reconsideration but was denied. Hence,
this petition.
RATIO DECIDENDI: No. The
enumeration in Section 2 (b) of E.O. 464
is broad and is covered by the executive ISSUE: Whether or not a change in the
privilege. The doctrine of executive “name” and “sex” entries in birth
privilege is premised on the fact that certificates are allowed by reason of sex
certain information must, as a matter of reassignment.
necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit
of the public interest. The privilege RULING:
being, by definition, an exemption from
the obligation to disclose information, in
No. A change of name is a privilege and betrays and is disrespectful of the lawful
not a right. It may be allowed in cases order and directive of the Court.
where the name is ridiculous, tainted Furthermore, this contumacious
with dishonour, or difficult to conduct of refusing to abide by the
pronounce or write; a nickname is lawful directives issued by the Court has
habitually used; or if the change will likewise been considered as an utter lack
avoid confusion. The petitioner’s basis of of interest to remain with, if not
the change of his name is that he intends contempt of, the system. As to De
his first name compatible with the sex he Guzman’s drug use, the Chemistry
thought he transformed himself into thru Report is found to be substantial
surgery. The Court says that his true evidence. As dispensers of justice, all
name does not prejudice him at all, and members and employees of the
no law allows the change of entry in the Judiciary are expected to adhere strictly
birth certificate as to sex on the ground of to the laws of the land, one of which is
sex reassignment. The petition was RA No. 9165 which prohibits the use of
denied. dangerous drugs.

Doctrine:
OFFICE OF COURT
A resolution of the Supreme Court
ADMINISTRATOR VS. REYES should not be construed as a mere
request, and should be complied with
Summary: promptly and completely. Such failure
to comply betrays, not only a
Mr. Rene De Guzman, herein private recalcitrant streak in character, but also
respondent and clerk of RTC Nueva disrespect for the lawful order and
Ecija was in charge of the preparation directive of the Court.
and transmission of records on appeal.
In numerous occasions, Judge Sta.
Romana would remind him of his work, Facts:
even personally confronting him.
Despite Judge Sta. Romana’s reminders, Mr. Rene De Guzman (private
De Guzman failed to deliver his tasks. respondent), clerk of RTC Nueva
This prompted Judge Sta. Romana to Ecija, was in charge of the preparation
have De Guzman undergo a drug test, to and transmission of the records on
which he was found positive of using appeal.
marijuana and shabu. De Guzman was
then directed by the Court to submit a
• Judge Sta. Romana would often
comment, but failed to do so.
remind him about the transmittal
of records of the appealed
The Court ruled that De Guzman was cases for more than a dozen
indeed adept at ignoring the Court’s times, even personally
directives. Such failure to comply confronting De Guzman
 • De Guzman would often dismiss his privilege of being an employee of the
the subject in ridicule and with Court - YES. De Guzman is adept at
empty assurance that the task is ignoring the Court’s directives. In fine,
done the Court agree with the OCA that by
his repeated and contumacious conduct
May 24, 2004 – the attitude of De of disrespecting the Court's directives
Guzman seemingly bordering on the makes him guilty of gross misconduct.
irrational prompted Judge Sta. Romana
to have De Guzman undergo a drug test
There have been numerous times in the
past wherein De Guzman was required
• The examination yielded by the Supreme Court to transmit
positive for marijuana and records, submit affidavits and replies,
Methamphetamine (shabu), both but ultimately failed to do so. The Court
dangerous drugs is firm at this juncture, not to tolerate
• De Guzman was required on such disrespectful behavior.
September 2007 to submit a
Comment, but failed to do so
Office of the Court Administrator vs.
Clerk of Court Ganzan
De Guzman complied with the Court’s
directive only on March 2008, to which
he claims that he failed to receive a copy A resolution of the Supreme Court
of the September 2007 resolution; the should not be construed as a mere
Court then referred De Guzman’s letter request, and should be complied with
to the Office of the Court Administrator promptly and completely.
(OCA)

• Such failure to comply betrays,

The OCA recommended that the instant not only a recalcitrant streak in
matter be re-docketed as a regular character, but also disrespect for
administrative case and that De the lawful order and directive of
Guzman be found guilty of gross the Court.
misconduct and accordingly be • Furthermore, this contumacious
dismissed conduct of refusing to abide by
the lawful directives issued by
the Court has likewise been
• De Guzman was again required
by the Court to submit a considered as an utter lack of
interest to remain with, if not
Comment, but he ignored the
contempt of, the system.
directive which amounted to his
waiver of submitting a Comment • Ganzan's transgression is
highlighted even more by the fact
that she is an employee of the
Issues Ratio: Judiciary, who, more than an
ordinary citizen, should be aware
WoN De Guzman is guilty of gross of her duty to obey the orders and
misconduct and has already forfeited
 processes of the Supreme Court performance of his functions à
without delay. numerous cases were found to be
“sleeping” in his drawer
On De Guzman’s use of illegal drugs

Dispositive:
The Court has already upheld the
validity and constitutionality of ACCORDINGLY, Rene de Guzman,
the mandatory but random drug Clerk, Regional Trial Court of Guimba,
testing of officers and employees of both Nueva Ecija, Branch 31, is
public and private offices hereby DISMISSED from the service
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits,
• Government officials and except accrued leave credits, and
employees like their counterparts disqualification from reinstatement or
in the private sector are to be held appointment to any public office,
with a high standard of ethics in including government-owned or
their service. They are required to controlled corporations.
be accountable at all times and to
serve with utmost responsibility MAMISCAL V. ABDULLAH
and efficiency.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mamiscal had
In this case, De Guzman never validly effected a divorce from his wife is
challenged the authenticity of the a matter that must first be addressed by
Chemistry Report to which he was the Shari'a Circuit Court which, under
found positive of using marijuana and the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the
shabu. Philippines (Muslim Code),enjoys
exclusive original jurisdiction
• This finding constitutes more
than substantial evidence, which FACTS: Mamiscal and Adelaidah
is what is required in decided to have divorce repudiated
administrative proceedings Adelaidahs (talaq) embodied in an
agreement (kapasadan) but later on they
The Court being a temple of justice has reconciled. Despite such, Adelaidah still
the basic duty and responsibility of filed the Certificate of Divorce (COD)
dispensing justice. As dispensers of with the office of Abdullah for
justice, all members and employees of registration. Albeit the same was not
the Judiciary are expected to adhere signed by Mamiscal it was annotated in
strictly to the laws of the land, one of the certificate that it was executed in the
which is Republic Act No. 9165 which presence of two witnesses and in
prohibits the use of dangerous drugs. accordance with Islamic Law. Abdullah
then issued the Certificate of Registration
of Divorce finalizing the same.
De Guzman’s use of prohibited drugs DECISION: WHEREFORE, the
has greatly affected his efficiency in the administrative matter against Macalinog
S. Abdullah, Clerk of Court II, Shari'a Arroyo vs De Venecia G.R. No. 127255
Circuit Court, Marawi City, for August 14, 1997 Mendoza, J.:
partiality, violation of due process,
dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming a (Topic: Separation of Powers)
court employee is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction, without prejudice. The Facts: This is a petition for certiorari
complaint of Baguan M. Mamiscal challenging the validity of RA 8242 (Tax
against Macalinog S. Abdullah is hereby Reform Act) for being passed despite
REFERRED to the Office of the Mayor, violations of the internal rules of the
Marawi City and the Civil Service House of Representatives (HOR).
Commission for appropriate action. Petitioners, members of the HOR,
brought this suit against respondents De
RATIO DECIDENDI: The Court ruled Venecia (speaker of the House), et al, on
that they do not have jurisdiction to the ground that R.A. No. 8240 is null and
impose the proper disciplinary action void because it was passed in violation of
against civil registrars. Shari’a Circuit the rules of the House; that these rules
Court which, under the Code of Muslim embody the "constitutional mandate" in
Personal Laws of the Philippines Art. VI, Section 16(3) that "each House
(Muslim Code) enjoys exclusive original may determine the rules of its
jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating proceedings" and that, consequently,
to divorce. The civil registrar is the violation of the House rules is a violation
person charged by law for the recording of the Constitution itself. Petitioners
of vital events and other documents alleged that during the proceedings, he
affecting the civil status of persons. The was effectively prevented from
Civil Registry Law embraces all acts of questioning the presence of a quorum
civil life affecting the status of persons and that the session was hastily
and is applicable to all persons residing adjourned, and the bill certified by
in the Philippines. The test of jurisdiction Speaker De Venecia to prevent petitioner
is the nature of the offense and not the from formally challenging the existence
personality of the offender. The fact that of a quorum and asking for a
the complaint charges Abdullah for reconsideration. Respondents' defense is
"conduct unbecoming of a court anchored on the principle of separation
employee" is of no moment. Well-settled of powers and the enrolled bill doctrine.
is the rule that what controls is not the They argued that enforcement of the
designation of the offense but the actual rules cannot be sought in the courts
facts recited in the complaint. Unless except insofar as they implement
jurisdiction has been conferred by some constitutional requirements such as that
legislative act, no court or tribunal can relating to three readings on separate
act on a matter submitted to it. days before a bill may be passed.

Issue: Whether or not the Congress

committed a grave abuse of discretion in
enacting R.A. No. 8240.
Ruling: NO. In this case, no rights of CASE 2017-0028: REPRESENTATIVE
private individuals are involved but only TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.,
those of a member who, instead of REPRESENTATIVE EDCEL C.
seeking redress in the House, chose to LAGMAN, REPRESENTATIVE RAUL
transfer the dispute to this Court. We A. DAZA, REPRESENTATIVE EDGAR
have no more power to look into the R. ERICE, REPRESENTATIVE
internal proceedings of a House than EMMANUEL A. BILLONES,
members of that House have to look over REPRESENTATIVE TOMASITO S.
our shoulders, as long as no violation of VILLARIN, and REPRESENTATIVE
constitutional provisions is shown. GARY C. ALEJANO, Petitioners, -
Petitioners must realize that each of the versus – SPEAKER PANTALEON D.
three departments of our government ALVAREZ, MAJORITY LEADER
has its separate sphere which the others RODOLFO C. FARINAS, and
may not invade without upsetting the REPRESENTATIVE DANILO E.
delicate balance on which our SUAREZ, Respondents (G.R. NO.
constitutional order rests. Due regard for 227757, 25 JULY 2017, PERLAS-
the working of our system of BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: WHEN
government, more than mere comity, WILL SUPREME COURT INTERFERE
compels reluctance on our part to enter WITH PROCEEDINGS OF
upon an inquiry into an alleged violation CONGRESS?)(BRIEF TITLE: REPR.
of the rules of the House. We must BAGUILAT JR ET AL VS. SPEAKER
accordingly decline the invitation to ALVAREZ ET AL)
exercise our power. It would be an
unwarranted invasion of the prerogative DISPOSITIVE:
of a coequal department for this Court
either to set aside a legislative action as “WHEREFORE, the petition is
void because the Court thinks the House DISMISSED.
has disregarded its own rules of
procedure, or to allow those defeated in SO ORDERED.”
the political arena to seek a rematch in
the judicial forum when petitioners can SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
find their remedy in that department
itself. WHEREFORE, the petition for WHAT IS THIS CASE ALL ABOUT?
certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.
THIS CASE CONCERNS AN
INTERNAL MATTER OF A COEQUAL,
POLITICAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT WHICH, ABSENT
ANY SHOWING OF GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, CANNOT BE
JUDICIALLY INTERFERED WITH.

However, as may be gleaned from the

circumstances as to how the House had
conducted the questioned proceedings departments of government, will not
and its apparent deviation from its review the wisdom, merits or propriety
traditional rules, the Court is hard- of such action, it will, however, strike it
pressed to find any attending grave down on the ground of grave abuse of
abuse of discretion which would warrant discretion.29 This stems from the
its intrusion in this case. By and large, expanded concept of judicial power,
this case concerns an internal matter of a which, under Section 1, Article VIII of the
coequal, political branch of government 1987 Constitution, expressly “includes
which, absent any showing of grave the duty of the courts of justice to settle
abuse of discretion, cannot be judicially actual controversies involving rights
interfered with. To rule otherwise would which are legally demandable and
not only embroil this Court in the realm enforceable, and to determine whether or
of politics, but also lead to its own breach not there has been a grave abuse of
of the separation of powers doctrine.33 discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Verily, “[i]t would be an unwarranted jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
invasion of the prerogative of a coequal instrumentality of the Government.”
department for this Court either to set Case law decrees that “[t]he foregoing
aside a legislative action as void [only] text emphasizes the judicial
because [it] thinks [that] the House has department’s duty and power to strike
disregarded its own rules of procedure, down grave abuse of discretion on the
or to allow those defeated in the political part of any branch or instrumentality of
arena to seek a rematch in the judicial government including Congress. It is an
forum when petitioners can find their innovation in our political law. As
remedy in that department itself.” explained by former Chief Justice
Roberto Concepcion: 30
BUT CAN THE COURT STILL
INTERFERE WITH THE [T]he judiciary is the final arbiter on the
PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS? question of whether or not a branch of
government or any of its officials has
YES. THIS IS THE EXCEPTION. WHILE acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
THE COURT IN TAKING jurisdiction or so capriciously as to
JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS constitute an abuse of discretion
QUESTIONING AN ACT OF THE amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This
POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF is not only a judicial power but a duty to
GOVERNMENT, WILL NOT REVIEW pass judgment on matters of this nature.
THE WISDOM, MERITS OR
PROPRIETY OF SUCH ACTION, IT Accordingly, this Court “will not shirk,
WILL, HOWEVER, STRIKE IT DOWN digress from or abandon its sacred duty
ON THE GROUND OF GRAVE ABUSE and authority to uphold the Constitution
OF DISCRETION. in matters that involve grave abuse of
Of course, as in any general rule, there discretion brought before it in
lies an exception. While the Court in appropriate cases, committed by any
taking jurisdiction over petitions officer, agency, instrumentality or
questioning an act of the political department of the govemment.”