SUI GENERIS

Part I. Case Analysis

1. Yes. There was legal basis of the action of the President XXXX in placing the
Provinces of Benguet, and Mountain Province under the state of emergency.

Under the Constitution, the President is vested calling out powers to direct the armed
forces to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence, including the
suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law. Such
calling-out power may be used when there is sufficient factual basis under the
circumstance.

In the case at bar, the President has sufficient factual basis to place the
aforementioned provinces under a state of emergency because a brutal massacre of
journalists in the Cordilleras just occurred. Such incident is already a sufficient factual
basis to suppress and prevent further incidents of lawless violence in the locality.

Therefore, President XXXX has legal basis in issuing Proclamaion 12345 placing the
Provinces of Benguet and Mountain Province under the state of emergency.

2. No. Lolita is not correct.

It is an elementary rule in statutory construction that all laws are presumed to be valid
and constitutional. The constitutional mandate of synchronization was not violated in
the promulgation of RA No. 10153 which postponed the regional elections in the
ARMM to be synchronized with the national and local elections.
Lolita assailed that regional elections in the ARMM is excluded from the
constitutional mandate of synchronization of national and local election since it is not
categorized as a regular LGU. In this case, the proof of unconstitutionality of the law
rests upon Lolita. Absent any such proof and following the presumption that all laws
are valid and constitutional, it must be construed that the synchronization of regional
elections in the ARMM with the national and local elections is valid and
constitutional.
Thus, Lolita’s argument is erroneous.
3. No. The filing of petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court is not proper.
The Rules of Court provides that petition for certiorari which may be filed before the
Supreme Court may be availed of following the hierarchy of courts.
In the given scenario, the petitioner filed the petition for certiorari right away before
the Supreme Court without raising the case to the Court of Appeals first pursuant to
the hierarchy of courts.
Hence, the filing of petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court without appealing
to the Court of Appeals is not in accordance with the hierarchy of courts.
4. No. The argument of Atty. Hilario Sy is not correct.
A law must pass the completeness and sufficient standard test in order to exercise the
delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. Under the law, the President
was given power to reorganize the executive branch.
SUI GENERIS

In the case, E.O. No. 378 amended Section 6 of E.O. No. 285 which provides for the
removal of the exclusive jurisdiction of the NPO over the printing services
requirements of government agencies and instrumentalities. In other words, President
Agatha Marcos has reorganized the function of the NPO by allowing government
agencies to procure printing services from private companies. Such reorganization of
an executive branch is a valid delegation of legislative power.
Ergo, Atty. Hilario Sy’s argument is erroneous.
5. Yes. Norma Ticoy can claim damages.

Article 19 of the Civil Code provides that every person must, in the exercise of his
rights and the performance of his duty, act with diligence, give everyone his due, and
act with good faith. Furthermore, action for damages may be claimed for violation of
public policy.

With the baseless complaints before the NLRC for the alleged non-payment of
salaries and wages and other benefits of the three former security guards, with the
investigation request to the PNP on the Alitaptap Security Agency, and with the
cancellation request of its license to operate, the said Agency has obtained besmirched
reputation which affected their income due to loss of contracts/projects. Such actions
of the former security guards which tremendously affected the income of their former
employer constitutes abuse of rights.

Therefore, Norma Ticoy can claim for damages.

6. Yes. The ban on donation between spouses during the marriage apply to common-law
relationships.
Article 133 of the Civil Code provides that every donation between spouses during
the marriage shall be void. In the rules of statutory construction, the spirit of the law is
given importance beyond the letters of the law in order to attain the intent of the
framers of the statute.
In the given situation, the donation of Jasper to his common-law spouse must be
declared void because the intent of the legislature in the provision enshrined under
Article 133 is to protect the successional rights of the spouses.
Thus, it can be concluded that Article 133 also applies to common-law relationships.
7. No. The Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of the above-mentioned question.

Under the enrolled bill theory, the certifications of the Speaker of the House and the
Senate President is conclusive evidence that the bill has passed all the proper
proceedings prior the approval of the President. In statutory construction, laws are
presumed to be valid, constitutional, and within the limitation of authority of the
legislature.

In the case, three senators and eight representatives were suspended during the
passing of the Resolution proposing for amendments to the Constitution. The
Supreme Court can only take cognizance of the case if there is an abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Indeed, in this case, the Supreme Court
can only presume on the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill and the presumption that
SUI GENERIS

the law was passed in regularity and within the limitation of authority of the
legislature.

Hence, the Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of the case.

8. Yes. The reassignment of Christian Kent is a valid exercise of management

prerogative.
Management prerogative and sound discretion can be exercised by management as
long as employee’s rights are not abused. With the management prerogative and
sound discretion, management can create its own policies on transfers of employees
from one place assignement to another as long as it does not constitute demotion.
In the scenario at hand, the transfer of Christian Kent from the position of Product
Assurance Officer to the position of Provincial Coordinator in La Union does not
constitute a demotion because the two positions occupy the same level with the same
work conditions, salary and benefits.
Thus, Christian Kent’s reassignment is a valid exercise of management prerogative.
9. Aristotle is an independent contractor of Pajie Homes.
Under the employer-employee relationship, the employer must hold control over the
employee and the employee must receive regular salary and other benefits from his
employer. This must be explicit in a contract between the two parties in order to
establish their actual relationship.
In the case, Aristotle was appointed as marketing director of Pajie Homes where he
consistently marketed real estate inventories of the corporation on an exclusive basis.
However, there is no employer-employee relationship between the two because first,
Aristotle only receive commission upon actual sale of the real estate and Pajie Homes
does not hold any control over Aristotle’s actions although he performed necessary
and desirable tasks to the business.
Therefore, Aristotle is not an employee but a mere independent contractor of Pajie
Homes.
10. Yes. Roderick Mendoza is entitled for bail.
Under the bill of rights, any crime punishable by reclusion perpetua, except when the
evidence of guilt is strong, shall be bailable. Further, the chain of custody in the buy-
bust operation must be strictly preserved so as to ensure that proper procedures have
been undertaken prior the taking of the accused. Jurisprudence also favored an
accused, in upholding his right to bail due to absence of strong evidence of guilt.
In the case at hand, the preservation of Roderick Mendoza’s chain of custody was not
established during the buy-bust operation. Thus, he is entitled for bail.
Part II. Statutory Principles
A. Compare and contrast the following terms:

1. Extrinsic aids are used for construction which means going beyond the text
while intrinsic aids are used for interpretation of the statutes by using the
literal meaning of the text. Extrinsic aids include contemporary construction,
SUI GENERIS

contemporary circumstances, policy, judicial construction, legislative

construction, executive construction, and commentaries from legal experts.
Meanwhile, intrinsic aids include the title of the statute, its preamble, the texts,
words, and phrases, its context, the heading and marginal notes.
2. Constitutional amendment includes a minor change in the constitution which
can be done through the legislature, or by people’s initiative. Meanwhile,
constitutional revision requires a major change in the constitution such as the
change of government to parliamentary which must be done either through a
constitutional convention or people’s initiative.

3. Liberal construction is meant to interpret the statute beyond the literal text
while strict construction is a stringent construction or interpretation of laws
that must only rely on what has been written. In some instances, penal laws are
strictly construed against the State and in favor of the accused. Tax laws, being
burdensome, are strictly construed against the taxing authority and in favor of
the taxpayer. Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of the laborer.
Remedial laws are also liberally construed.

4. Implied repeal is repeal by implication while express repeal is repeal through

an enactment repealing prior statute. The repeal of a repealed statute does not
revive the old statute if the repeal is expressed but jurisprudence also provides
that repeal of a repealed statute revives the old statute if the repeal is by
implication.

5. As a general rule, laws are applied prospectively or when it takes effect.

However, retroactive application of statute can operate by express provision in
a law or when there is no impairment of vested rights. For penal laws,
retroactive application is not allowed because it can become an ex post facto
law. However, retroactive application may operate if it is favorable to the
accused who is not a habitual delinquent.

B. Discussion and Illustration

1. Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a

whole. This means that a holistic approach must be considered where the
legislative intent can be ascertained in all parts of the statute. For instance, a
law provides that “every donation between spouses during the marriage shall
be void”. The legislative intent of the framers of the statute is not exclusive
with spouses but also to common-law relationships.

2. Effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the
people adopting it. This means that the effect of the law must be seen in the
intent of the framers of the statute and to the people adopting it because laws
are given to provide guides and rules to people in achieving a specific
objective. For example, the Universal Health Care Act provides for a no-
billing policy for all patients who will avail of the ward room of a government
hospital. The effect of this law is given to the intent of the framers who aims
to reduce the burden from hospital bills of not only indigents but other people
who wants to avail it. Also, the effect of this law for the people adopting the
SUI GENERIS

said law is for all people to have equitable health care which is also subsidized
by PhilHealth.

3. Conflicting constitutional provisions should, whenever possible, be

harmonized. The Constitution must be construed harmoniously and as a
whole. In the Constitution, it was stated that people shall have the right to
liberty and property and attainment of social justice is also enshrined in the
Constitution. In the case of Calalang, he claimed that the ban of animal-loaded
vehicles in the street of Manila is a violation of the people’s right to liberty
and property and social justice cannot be attained due to such law. However,
the Supreme Court ruled that liberty must not prevail over authority because
society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority prevail over liberty
because by then, individual will fall into slavery. It was ruled that the intent of
the law on the ban of animal-loaded vehicles is for protection and attainment
of social justice. Thus, the Constitution is construed harmoniously and as a
whole.

4. Penal laws, as a general rule, are to be given prospective application. Penal

laws are strictly construed against the State and in favor of the accused.
Retroactive application is not allowed because it can become an ex post facto
law which impairs vested rights. For example, if a law is passed where the law
increased the punishment from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, such
must be given a prospective application so as not to impair vested rights of
people accused of the same crime but the same was done prior the enactment
of the law.

5. In pari materia means that the laws are enacted with one subject, one intent,
and the same level. In a case where a couple filed for declaration of nullity of
marriage due to psychological incapacity, it was argued that the couple were
in pari materia due because the husband cannot assume his essential marital
obligations while the wife was a pathological liar. In the case, it was ruled that
assuming arguendo, the declaration of nullity of marriage due to psychological
incapacity will still prosper following Article 36 of the Family Code.