MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION vs. FIRME state has allowed itself to be sued.

state has allowed itself to be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign immunity,
G.R. No. L-52179 April 8, 1991 it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable."

Facts: Anent the issue of whether or not the municipality is liable for the torts committed by
A collision occurred involving a passenger jeepney owned by the Estate of its employee, the test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the
MacarioNieveras, a gravel and sand truck owned by Tanquilino Velasquez and a dump driver, acting in behalf of the municipality, is performing governmental or proprietary
truck of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and driven by Alfredo Bislig. Due functions.
to the impact, several passengers of the jeepney including LaureanoBaniña Sr. died as
a result of the injuries they sustained and four (4) others suffered varying degrees of Dual capacity of LGU.
physical injuries.
Municipal corporations exist in a dual capacity, and their functions are twofold. In one
On December 11, 1966, the private respondents instituted a compliant for damages they exercise the right springing from sovereignty, and while in the performance of the
against the Estate of Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot, owner and driver, duties pertaining thereto, their acts are political and governmental. Their officers and
respectively, of the passenger jeepney. However, the aforesaid defendants filed a Third agents in such capacity, though elected or appointed by them, are nevertheless public
functionaries performing a public service, and as such they are officers, agents, and
Party Complaint against the petitioner and the driver of a dump truck of petitioner.
servants of the state. In the other capacity the municipalities exercise a private,
proprietary or corporate right, arising from their existence as legal persons and not as
Petitioner filed its answer and raised affirmative defenses such as lack of cause of public agencies. Their officers and agents in the performance of such functions act in
action, non-suability of the State, prescription of cause of action and the negligence of behalf of the municipalities in their corporate or individual capacity, and not for the
the owner and driver of the passenger jeepney as the proximate cause of the collision. state or sovereign power."

Respondent Judge Romeo N. Firme ordered defendants Municipality of San Fernando, It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are suable because their
La Union and Alfredo Bislig to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiffs for funeral charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are
expenses. generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental
functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in a
proprietary capacity.
Private respondents stress that petitioner has not considered that every court,
including respondent court, has the inherent power to amend and control its process
and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. In the case at bar, the driver of the dump truck of the municipality insists that "he was
on his way to the Naguilian river to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of San
Fernando's municipal streets."
Issue: Whether or not the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion when
it deferred and failed to resolve the defense of non-suability of the State amounting to
lack of jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the regularity of the performance of
official duty is presumed pursuant to Section 3(m) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of
Court. Hence, We rule that the driver of the dump truck was performing duties or
Ruling: tasks pertaining to his office.

Non-suability of the state. We already stressed in the case of Palafox, et. al. vs. Province of IlocosNorte, the District
Engineer, and the Provincial Treasurer (102 Phil 1186) that "the construction or
The doctrine of non-suability of the State is expressly provided for in Article XVI, maintenance of roads in which the truck and the driver worked at the time of the
Section 3 of the Constitution, to wit: "the State may not be sued without its accident are admittedly governmental activities."
consent."Consent takes the form of express or implied consent.
After a careful examination of existing laws and jurisprudence, We arrive at the
Municipal corporations, for example, like provinces and cities, are agencies of the State conclusion that the municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its
when they are engaged in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the regular employee, who was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions.
sovereign immunity from suit. Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in the
performance of such functions because their charter provided that they can sue and be
sued.

"Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable
law and the established facts. The circumstance that a state is suable does not
necessarily mean that it is liable; on the other hand, it can never be held liable if it
does not first consent to be sued. Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the
FACTS: in Act No. 3083. Consent is implied when the government
enters into business contracts and also when the State files a
On December 16, 1965, a collision occurred involving a complaint. Municipal corporations are agencies of the State
passenger jeepney driven by Balagot and owned by the Estate of when they are engaged in governmental functions and therefore
Macario Nieveras, a gravel and sand truck driven by Jose should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit. Nevertheless,
Manandeg and owned by Tanquilino Velasquez and they are subject to suit even in the performance of such
a dump truck of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union functions because their charter provided that they can sue and
and driven by Alfredo Bislig. Several passengers of the jeepney be sued. However, the circumstance that a state is suable does
including Laureano Baniña Sr. died as a result of the injuries not necessarily mean that it is liable; on the other hand, it can
they sustained and 4 others suffered varying degrees of physical never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued.
injuries. Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has
allowed itself to be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign
The heirs of Baniña Sr. filed a complaint for damages against immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it
the Estate of Nieveras and Balagot. However, the can, that the defendant is liable.”
aforesaid defendants filed a Third Party Complaint against the Municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant
petitioner and the driver of a dump truck of petitioner. The case them the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are
was transferred to branch presided by Judge Firme. The heirs of generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge
Baniña Sr. amended the complaint wherein the petitioner and of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it
its regular employee Bislig were impleaded as defendants. Judge can be shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity
Firme in its decision rendered the Municipality of San Fernando Here, the driver of the dump truck of the municipality insists
and Bislig jointly and severally liable to pa funeral expenses, lot that “he was on his way to the Naguilian river to get a load of
expected earnings, moral damages and attorney’s fees. sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando’s municipal
streets.” In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the
ISSUE: regularity of the performance of official duty is presumed
pursuant to Section 3(m) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of
Whether or not petitioner was liable. Court.

RULING: Hence, the SC held that the driver of the dump truck was
performing duties or tasks pertaining to his office. Municipality
cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular
employee, who was then engaged in the discharge of
The petitioner cannot be held liable by virtue of the non- governmental functions.
suability of the State.

The general rule is that the State may not be sued except when it
gives consent to be sued (Article XVI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution.)
Express consent may be embodied in a general law or a special
law. The standing consent of the State to be sued in case of
money claims involving liability arising from contracts is found
 confidential communications were essential for the president to carry
out the duties assigned to the executive branch by the Constitution.
United States v. Nixon
The Court acknowledged the validity of these interests and that the
418 U.S. 683 (1974) president was entitled to a degree of executive privilege. This
privilege was not determined to be absolute. In this case, the interest
In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled in favor of the United States of President Nixon in keeping his communications secret conflicted
and against President Nixon. Chief Justice Burger, wrote the opinion with the interests of the judicial branch in providing a full and fair
for the Court, which concluded that presidents do enjoy a trial. A fair trial required full disclosure of all facts and relevant
constitutionally protected executive privilege, but that the privilege information. The justices asserted that the interests of the president
was not absolute. The Court decided that in this case, the President’s must be balanced against the interests of the judicial branch when
interest in keeping his communications secret was outweighed by the these interests conflict. The justices reasoned that the judiciary’s
interests of the judiciary in providing a fair trial with full factual interest in the “fair administration of criminal justice” outweighed
disclosure. President Nixon’s interest in keeping the content of his tapes secret.
One reason for this was that the only issue before the Court was
President Nixon’s attorneys first argued that the doctrine of whether the trial judge could privately inspect the tapes to determine
separation of powers prevented the Supreme Court from hearing this whether they were essential to a fair trial. The justices further stated
case at all. They asserted that because the judicial and executive that there would be cases in which the president’s need for
branches are separate, each with its own functions, the judicial confidentiality would outweigh the interests of the judicial branch,
branch should not be allowed to interfere with the functioning of the such as when the secret communication involved “military,
executive branch. The Court rejected this argument, responding that diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets.”
the case raised a constitutional question, and therefore clearly fell
within the functions of the judicial branch as interpreter of the
Constitution. To support this ruling, the justices cited the Court’s
decision in Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court declared that “it is
emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say
what the law is.”

President Nixon’s lawyers also asserted that the Court should find the
president was entitled to absolute executive privilege. This meant
that he could not be forced to reveal any of his confidential
communications unless he chose to. The lawyers set out two reasons
to support their argument. First, the president needed honest advice
from his advisors, and these advisors might be uncomfortable giving
advice if they knew that it could become public. Second, these
 Constitutional Issues
Does the separation of powers created by the Constitution provide the President with
an absolute power to withhold information from other branches of government? If the
power is not absolute, should President Nixon be able to claim executive privilege
under the aforementioned circumstances? Does the separation of powers allow for
the settlement of this dispute to reside in the executive branch or should it be settled
by the judicial branch? Does the claim of executive privilege damage the precedent
set by the 5th Amendment, which ensures due process?

Arguments
For the United States: The President's power to claim executive privilege is not an
absolute one. Executive privilege may not be invoked to deny the courts access to
evidence needed in a criminal proceeding. This is a dispute that can properly be
heard in the federal courts.
Historical Background
For President Nixon: The constitutional scheme of separation of powers grants to
The early 1970s was a time of growing distrust in the National Government. The the President the privilege of withholding information from the other branches of
Pentagon Papers exposed the intentional deception of the American people about government. Furthermore, this power is absolute, and it is vital where high-level
Vietnam. Americans were shocked when the National Guard opened fire at a Kent communications are involved. In addition, this dispute should be resolved within the
State University protest following President Nixon's authorization for the United States executive branch, not by the courts.
to attack Cambodia. Four students were killed. Nixon would soon add more fuel to the
fire, attempting to cover up illegal actions by himself and his administration.
Decision and Rationale
Circumstances of the Case The Court ruled unanimously that President Richard Nixon had to surrender the
tapes. Chief Justice Warren Burger delivered the opinion of the Court. Burger wrote,
In June 1972, five men armed with cameras and bugging equipment were arrested “The impediment that an absolute, unqualified [executive] privilege would place in the
inside the Democratic National Committee's offices in the Watergate complex in way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal
Washington, D.C. Police soon discovered that the burglars worked, directly or prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art[icle] III.“
indirectly, for the Committee to Re-Elect the President. President Nixon and leaders
of his campaign denied any connection with the incident. Burger then turned his attention to the damage that a privilege of confidentiality would
cause to citizens' constitutional rights: “The right to the production of all evidence at a
The five men were convicted of burglary, along with E. Howard Hunt, Jr., a former criminal trial similarly has constitutional dimensions. The Sixth Amendment explicitly
Nixon aide, and G. Gordon Liddy, a lawyer for the Committee to Re-elect the confers upon every defendant in a criminal trial the right 'to be confronted with the
President. Shortly afterward, the presiding judge received a letter from one of the witnesses against him' and 'to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
convicted men. It spoke of payoffs to the burglars in return for their silence-the men favor.' Moreover, the Fifth Amendment also guarantees that no person shall be
had perjured themselves to protect others involved in the break-in. deprived of liberty without due process. It is the manifest duty of the courts to
vindicate those guarantees, and to accomplish that it is essential that all relevant and
In 1973, a Senate select committee began an investigation, and it became clear that admissible evidence be produced.“ The Court made it clear that the President could
top members of the Nixon administration were involved in a cover-up of the break-in not withhold evidence from an ongoing criminal prosecution of another person simply
and several other illegal actions. It was also discovered that Nixon had installed a because he was the President.
taping system that automatically recorded all of his conversations with his advisors. A
special prosecutor appointed to probe the Watergate scandal subpoenaed the tapes. Several days before, the House Judiciary Committee had approved three articles of
Nixon refused to release them, claiming they were protected under executive impeachment. On August 9, 1974, Nixon became the first President in U.S. history to
privilege. Nixon eventually released some of the tapes, but portions of them had been resign from the presidency. He did so in order to avoid going through the likely
erased. Finally, another special prosecutor asked the United States Supreme Court to prospect of being impeached by the full House of Representatives and convicted by
compel Nixon to release all of the tapes in their entirety. the Senate.
What is a summons?

A summons is an official notice of a lawsuit. It is given to the

person being sued. If you sue someone, they need to know
about it. This way, they can come to court and fight the lawsuit.
When you serve the defendant with a summons, you officially
tell that you are suing them. You must follow the rules for giving
the summons to the defendants to properly file your case. For
helpful videos on filing court papers, see the Law Basics Video
Series.

What is a subpoena?

A subpoena is a court order. You can use a subpoena to require

a person to come to court, go to a deposition, or give
documents or evidence to you. You must serve the subpoena
on the person.

You cannot ignore a subpoena. A subpoena is a court order to

come to court. If you ignore the order, the court will hold you in
contempt. You could go to jail or face a large fine for ignoring
the subpoena. Subpoenas are used in both criminal and civil
cases. They can be given to anyone that might have helpful
information about the case. This can be testimony or documents
and evidence.
 EN BANC visited by typhoons, floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcanic action and
other calamities.
G.R. No. L-6266 February 2, 1953
Section 26 of Article VI of the Constitution provides that "in times of war
EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, SR., ETC., ET AL., petitioners, or other national emergency, the Congress may by law authorize the
vs. President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may
VICENTE GELLA, ETC., ET AL., respondents. prescribe, to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out a declared
national policy." Accordingly the National Assembly passed
Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr., Lorenzo M. Tañada, Claro M. Recto, Jose P. Commonwealth Act No. 671, declaring (in section 1) the national policy
Laurel, Jesus Barrera and Leon Ma. Guerrero for petitioner. that "the existence of war between the United States and other countries
Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Martiniano P. of Europe and Asia, which involves the Philippines makes it necessary to
Vivo for respondents. invest the President with extraordinary powers in order to meet the
resulting emergency," and (in section 2) authorizing the President,
"during the existence of the emergency, to promulgate such rules and
PARAS, C.J.:
regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the national policy
declared in section 1."
As a fitting foreword, it may be recalled that on a previous occasion, on
August 26, 1949 to be exact, this court had already passed upon the
As the Act was expressly in pursuance of the constitutional provision, it
status of Commonwealth Act No. 671, approved on December 16, 1941,
has to be assumed that the National Assembly intended it to be only for a
"declaring a state of total emergency as a result of war involving the
limited period. If it be contended that the Act has not yet been duly
Philippines and authorizing the President to promulgate rules and
repealed, and such step is necessary to a cessation of the emergency
regulations to meet such emergency." Five members held that the Act
powers delegated to the President, the result would be obvious
ceased to be operative in its totality, on May 25, 1946 (when the
unconstitutionality, since it may never be repealed by the Congress, or if
Congress convened in special session) according to Chief Justice Moran.
the latter ever attempts to do so, the President may wield his veto. This
Justice Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres in effect
eventuality has in fact taken place when the President disapproved
concluded that the powers delegated to the President had been
House Bill No. 727, repealing all Emergency Powers Acts. The situation
withdrawn as to matters already legislated upon by the Congress or on
will make the Congress and the President or either as the principal
which the latter had demonstrated its readiness or ability to act.
authority to determine the indefinite duration of the delegation of
Executive Orders No. 62 (dated June 21, 1947) regulating house and lot
legislative powers, — in palpable repugnance to the constitutional
rentals, No. 192 (dated December 24, 1948) regulating exports, Nos. 225
provision that any grant thereunder must be for a limited period,
and 226 (dated June 15,1949) the first appropriation funds for the
necessarily to be fixed in the law itself and not dependent upon the
operation of the Government from July 1, 1949 to June 30, 1950, and the
arbitrary or elastic will of either the Congress or the President.
second appropriating funds for election expenses in November 1949,
were therefore declared null and void for having been issued after Act
No. 671 had lapsed and/or after the Congress had enacted legislation on Although House Bill No. 727, had been vetoed by the President and did
the same subjects.1 not thereby become a regular statute, it may at least be considered as a
concurrent resolution of the Congress formally declaring the termination
of the emergency powers. To contend that the Bill needed presidential
More or less the same considerations that influenced our pronouncement
acquiescence to produce effect, would lead to the anomalous, if not
of August 26, 1949 are and should be controlling in the case now before
absurd, situation that, "while Congress might delegate its power by a
us, wherein the petitioners seek to invalidate Executive Orders Nos. 545
simple majority, it might not be able to recall them except by two-third
and 546 issued on November 10, 1952, the first appropriating the sum of
vote. In other words, it would be easier for Congress to delegate its
P37,850,500 for urgent and essential public works, and the second
powers than to take them back. This is not right and is not, and ought not
setting aside the sum of P11,367,600 for relief in the provinces and cities
to be the law."2
Act No. 671 may be likened to an ordinary contract of agency, whereby may be had to House Bill No. 727, hereinbefore referred to, repealing all
the consent of the agent is necessary only in the sense that he cannot be Emergency Powers Acts.
compelled to accept the trust, in the same way that the principal cannot
be forced to keep the relation in eternity or at the will of the agent. Neither Moreover, section 26 of Article VI of the constitution, in virtue of which Act
can it be suggested that the agency created under the Act is coupled with No. 671 was passed, authorizes the delegation of powers by the
interest. Congress (1) in times of war or (2) other national emergency. The
emergency expressly spoken of in the title and in section 1 of the Act is
The logical view consistent with constitutionality is to hold that the powers one "in time of war," as distinguished from "other national emergency"
lasted only during the emergency resulting from the last world war which that may arise as an after-effect of war or from natural causes such as
factually involved the Philippines when Act No. 671 was passed on widespread earthquakes, typhoons, floods, and the like. Certainly the
December 16, 1941. That emergency, which naturally terminated upon typhoons that hit some provinces and cities in 1952 not only did not result
the ending of the last world war, was contemplated by the members of from the last world war but were and could not have been contemplated
the National Assembly on the foresight that the actual state of war could by the legislators. At any rate, the Congress is available for necessary
prevent it from holding its next regular session. This is confirmed by the special sessions, and it cannot let the people down without somehow
following statement of President Quezon: "When it became evident that being answerable thereover.
we were completely helpless against air attack and that it was most
unlikely the Philippine Legislature would hold its next regular session As a matter of fact, the President, in returning to the Congress without his
which was to open on January 1, 1942, the National Assembly passed signature House Bill No. 727, did not invoke any emergency resulting
into history approving a resolution which reaffirmed the abiding faith of from the last world war, but only called attention to an impending
the Filipino people in, and their loyalty to, the United States. The emergency that may be brought about by present complicated and
Assembly also enacted a law granting the President of the Philippines all troubled world conditions, and to the fact that our own soldiers are
the powers that under the Philippine Constitution may be delegated to fighting and dying in Korea in defense of democracy and freedom and for
him in time of war."3 When President Quezon said "in time of war", he an the preservation of our Republic. The emergency thus feared cannot,
doubtedly meant such factual war as that then raging. however, be attributed to the war mentioned in Act No. 671 and fought
between Germany and Japan on one side and the Allied Powers on the
As early as July 26, 1948, the Congress categorically declared that "since other; and indications are that in the next world war, if any, the
liberation conditions have gradually returned to normal, but not so with communist countries will be aligned against the democracies. No
regard to those who have suffered the ravages of war and who have not departure can be made from the national policy declared in section 1 of
received any relief for the loss and destruction resulting therefrom," and Act No. 671. New powers may be granted as often as emergencies
that "the emergency created by the last war as regards these war contemplated in the Constitution arise.
sufferers being still existent, it is the declared policy of the state that as to
them the debt moratorium should be continued in force in a modified There is no point in the argument that the Philippines is still technically at
form."4 It is important to remember that Republic Act No. 342 in which this war with Japan pending the ratification of the peace treaty. In the first
declaration was made bore the approval of the President. Indeed, the place, Act No. 671 referred to a factual war. In the second place, the last
latter in his speech delivered on July 4, 1949, plainly proclaimed that world war was between the United States and Japan, the Philippines
"what emergencies it (the Republic) faces today are incidental passing being involved only because it was then under American sovereignty. In
rains artificially created by seasonal partisanship, very common among the third place, the United States had already signed the peace treaty
democracies but will disappear with the rains that follow the thunderclaps with Japan, and the Philippines has become an independent country
not later than November 8 of this year," — an admission, that such since July 4, 1946.
emergencies not only are not total but are not the result of the last war as
envisaged in Act No. 671. It is pointed out that the passage of House Bill No. 727 is inconsistent
with the claim that the emergency powers are non-existent. But, from the
If more is necessary to demonstrate the unmistakable stand of the debates in the House, it is patent that the Bill had to be approved merely
legislative department on the alleged existence of emergency, reference
to remove all doubts, especially because this Court had heretofore failed, objective, our Government is democratic in form and based on the
for lack of necessary majority, to declare Act No. 671 entirely inoperative. system of separation of powers. Unless and until changed or amended,
we shall have to abide by the letter and spirit of the Constitution and be
Reliance is placed on the petition of about seventy Congressmen and prepared to accept the consequences resulting from or inherent in
Senators and on House Resolution No. 99, urging the President to disagreements between, inaction or even refusal of the legislative and
release and appropriate funds for essential and urgent public works and executive departments. Much as it is imperative in some cases to have
for relief in the typhoon-stricken areas. It is enough to state, in reply, that prompt official action, deadlocks in and slowness of democratic
the said petition and resolution cannot prevail over the force and effect of processes must be preferred to concentration of powers in any one man
House Bill No. 727 formally passed by two chambers of the Congress. If or group of men for obvious reasons. The framers of the Constitution,
faith can be accorded to the resolution of one house, there is more however, had the vision of and were careful in allowing delegation of
reason for accepting the solemn declarations of two houses. legislative powers to the President for a limited period "in times of war or
other national emergency." They had thus entrusted to the good
Even under the theory of some members of this court that insofar as the judgment of the Congress the duty of coping with any national
Congress had shown its readiness or ability to act on a given matter, the emergency by a more efficient procedure; but it alone must decide
emergency powers delegated to the President had been pro because emergency in itself cannot and should not create power. In our
tanto withdrawn, Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546 must be declared democracy the hope and survival of the nation lie in the wisdom and
as having no legal anchorage. We can take judicial notice of the fact that unselfish patriotism of all officials and in their faithful adherence to the
the Congress has since liberation repeatedly been approving acts Constitution.
appropriating funds for the operation of the Government, public works,
and many others purposes, with the result that as to such legislative task Wherefore, Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546 are hereby declared null
the Congress must be deemed to have long decided to assume the and void, and the respondents are ordered to desist from appropriating,
corresponding power itself and to withdraw the same from the President. releasing, allotting, and expending the public funds set aside therein. So
If the President had ceased to have powers with regards to general ordered, without costs.
appropriations, none can remain in respect of special appropriations;
otherwise he may accomplish indirectly what he cannot do directly. Feria, Pablo and Tuason, JJ., concur.
Besides, it is significant that Act No. 671 expressly limited the power of Bengzon, J., concur in the result.
the President to that continuing "in force" appropriations which would
lapse or otherwise become inoperative, so that, even assuming that the
Act is still effective, it is doubtful whether the President can by executive
orders make new appropriations. The specific power "to continue in force
laws and appropriations which would lapse or otherwise become
Separate Opinions
inoperative" is a limitation on the general power "to exercise such other
powers as he may deem necessary to enable the Government to fulfill its
responsibilities and to maintain and enforce its authority." Indeed, to hold PADILLA, J., concurring:
that although the Congress has, for about seven years since liberation,
been normally functioning and legislating on every conceivable field, the "All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills . . . shall originate exclusively in
President still has any residuary powers under the Act, would necessarily the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur
lead to confusion and overlapping, if not conflict. with amendments."1 "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except
in pursuance of an appropriation made by law."2 The authority or power
Shelter may not be sought in the proposition that the President should be to appropriate government funds to be spent for public purposes is
allowed to exercise emergency powers for the sake of speed and lodged exclusively in the Congress because it is purely and essentially a
expediency in the interest and for the welfare of the people, because we legislative function. The legislative power to appropriate government
have the Constitution, designed to establish a government under a funds for public purposes lodged exclusively in the Congress may,
regime of justice, liberty and democracy. In line with such primordial however, be delegated to the President "in times of war or other national
emergency," "for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it to him by the Congress. But when it comes to withdrawal, termination or
may prescribe," "to carry out a declared national policy."3 This revocation of the legislative powers delegated to him his concurrence or
constitutional provision has no counterpart in the Constitution of the consent is not necessary. The absence of constitutional provision on how
United States of America and in those patterned after it. Under this it should be done and carried out is not due to an oversight or to an
provision of the Constitution several emergency powers acts, notably intention of the members of the Constitutional Convention to require the
Com. Acts Nos. 600 and 671, were passed.4 Being a deviation from the concurrence of the President to make there vocation valid and effective,
principle of separation of powers the delegation of legislative powers because, as heretofore stated, if such concurrence be required to make
authorized by the Constitution may validly be made only by adhering the revocation valid and effective, the law which delegated legislative
strictly to its spirit and letter. Pursuant thereto the legislative authority or powers to the President would or might offend against the very provision
power to be granted or delegated to the President by the Congress must of the Constitution which requires and ordains that such delegation be for
be "in times of war or other national emergency" and "for a limited period a limited period of time only, and because the refusal to concur in by a
and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe," and the Congress President bent on or inclined to continue exercising legislative powers
has to pass a law for that purpose. The reason why the Constitution is delegated to him would result in a delegation of legislative powers, at
silent on or does not provide for the manner the delegation of legislative least during his incumbency or tenure of office, regardless of whether the
powers may be withdrawn, revoked or ended, is because if it is for a reason or reasons for the grant of the authority to exercise such
limited period it lapses at the end of the period and because if the war or legislative powers have ceased to exist.
other national emergency which prompted it ceases the delegation of
legislative powers ceases also ipso facto. A law which delegates such It is contended, however, that in withdrawing, terminating or revoking the
powers to the President for an indefinite period would be unconstitutional legislative powers delegated to the President the Congress did so by
because it is against the express provision of the Constitution. It would be passing a bill evincing its intention to have his assent, which he refused
an abdication of legislative powers. If the law which delegates legislative to give, and for that reason the revocation of the legislative powers
powers does not fix or provide for a period of time within or during which delegated to him was ineffective for lack of such concurrence. To
the President may exercise them and there is dispute or doubt as to determine what the Congress intended when it passed the bill repealing
whether the national emergency which prompted the Congress to pass the Emergency Powers Acts — the Senate approved it unanimously —
the law delegating legislative powers to the President continues or has form must give way to substance. If the contention that in passing the bill
ceased, such dispute or doubt may be determined in an appropriate case repealing the Emergency Powers Acts the Congress intended to have the
by the courts. Another way of terminating such delegation is by the concurrence of the President be upheld, such a construction would
Congress itself which made the delegation. To withdraw, terminate or render the bill contradictory in itself, because in the explanatory notes of
revoke the delegation of legislative powers to the President a concurrent H. No. 692 introduced by Congressman Roy and H. No. 727 by
resolution would be sufficient.5 The concurrence of the President is Congressman Zosa, upon which the consolidated bill passed is based, it
superfluous and unnecessary, for if it be required then the law which is declared "that war had long ended," that "the need for the grant of such
delegated legislative powers to him would suffer from a fatal defect, vice, unusual powers to the President has disappeared," and that for that
or infirmity which would render such delegation unconstitutional for lack reason the Congress repealed all Emergency Powers Acts. The congress
of time limitation prescribed and ordained by the Constitution. could not have meant or intended to subordinate its opinion or judgment
that the war had ended and that the national emergency had ceased to
It is claimed that just as the delegation of legislative powers to the exist to that of the President, the legislative and not the executive being
President is to be made by means of a law which requires the the department of the Government exclusively clothed or vested with the
concurrence of the President, so the withdrawal, termination or authority and power to make such a declaration. In passing the bill the
revocation of the legislative powers delegated to him must also be with Congress committed a mistake in the matter of form but not of substance
his concurrence and approval. The reason for the requirements that a law because the latter is there in the explanatory note of the bill passed by
be passed to make the delegation of legislative powers valid and both houses, to wit: "that war had long ended," that "the need for the
effective is the fact that whereas the Congress may deem it wise and grant of such unusual powers to the President has disappeared," and that
expedient to make the delegation, the President may hold a different for that reason it repealed all the Emergency Powers Acts. After the
view. In other words, he has to concur and accept the powers delegated Congress had made that declaration the President could no longer
exercise the legislative powers delegated to him. It was a complete and
absolute revocation of the delegation of such powers. His veto of the bill
could not and did not have the effect of reviving or continuing the
delegation of legislative powers which had been revoked by the JUGO, J., concurring:
Congress, the only constitutional body empowered and authorized to
make the revocation.
In addition to the reasons set forth by Chief Justice Paras and Associate
Justice Padilla, I would like to make a few brief remarks:
For this reasons I am of the opinion that Executive Orders No. 545 and
546 which appropriate government funds for public works and relief for
Section 26 of Article VI of the Philippine Constitution provides as follows:
the victims of typhoons in some provinces of the Republic are of no
validity and legal effect because the President no longer had the authority
to issue such executive orders under the Emergency Powers Act which In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may
had been withdrawn or revoked by the Congress. The writ of prohibition by law authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to
prayed for should be granted. such restrictions as it may prescribed, to promulgate rules and
regulations to carry out a declared national policy.

Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 671, which is entitled "An Act

Declaring a State of Total Emergency as a Result of War Involving the
Philippines and Authorizing the President to Promulgate Rules and
BENGZON, J., concurring: Regulations to Meet such Emergency," reads as follows:

I have signed the majority opinion. But I also agree to the above views of The existence of war between the United States and other
Mr. Justice Padilla. countries of Europe and Asia, which involves the Philippines,
makes it necessary to invest the President with extraordinary
Labrador, J., concurs. powers in order to meet the resulting emergency.

Section 2 of said Commonwealth Act No. 671 invoking section 26, Article
VI, of the Constitution above-quoted, authorized the President during the
existence of the emergency caused by said war to promulgate rules and
REYES, J., concurring: regulations, etc.

It being repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution to let Commonwealth Executive Order No. 545, dated November 10, 1952, appropriating funds
Act No. 671 degenerate into a grant in perpetuity of legislative powers to for urgent and essential public works, states in its preamble, in
the Executive, and taking House Bill No. 727, approved by the Congress justification of said order, that the Congress in its last special session had
but vetoed by the President, as a for-the-record pronouncement on the failed to appraise funds for the immediate repairs and reconstruction of
part of the legislative branch of the Government that the emergency certain public buildings and public works, damages by the recent
which impelled it to delegate, through the said Commonwealth Act, typhoons, floods, and other calamities.
legislative powers to the President had already ceased, so that there was
no longer any need for the exercise of those delegated powers, and, Executive Order No. 564, dated November 10, 1952, also declared as its
lastly, considering that said Act does not have to be repealed by another cause that the Congress had failed in its last special session to provide
Act because, as an emergency measure, it repeals itself with the funds for relief to the victims of the recent typhoons, floods, draughts,
cessation of the emergency, I concur in this opinion of Mr. Justice Padilla. earthquakes, etc.
It will be seen that the authority given by the Constitution to the Congress To me, however, the more important point involved in the present case is
to delegate certain legislative powers to the President was for a limited not the validity of the two executive orders but rather the question of
time. This was naturally so, because an emergency cannot be of a long, whether or not Commonwealth Act No. 671 is still has emergency powers
unlimited or indefinite duration, for otherwise it would not be an under said Act. And the parties herein, not excluding the Chief Executive
emergency. and the Legislature, it is to be presumed, want this point definitely settled.
So, I proposed to devote the considerations in this modest dissenting
Commonwealth Act No. 671 was passed on December 16, 1941. opinion to this matter. The majority opinion states that in the emergency
Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546 were issued on November 10, 1952; cases of 1949, five members of this tribunal held that Commonwealth Act
that is, almost eleven years from the date Commonwealth Act No. 671 671 was still in force. Mr. Justice Padilla concurred in that opinion. With
was enacted. It is hard to conceive of an emergency which has lasted the concurrence of Mr. Justice Torres in my concurring and dissenting
almost eleven years. opinion I also held that Commonwealth Act. 671 was still in force. Mr.
Justice Bengzon in his dissenting opinion in those emergency cases said
The emergency contemplated by Commonwealth Act No. 671 was not that although he was favorably impressed by the reasons set forth by Mr.
same emergency invoked in said executive orders, for, whereas Justice Reyes and particular point — the existence or non-existence of
Commonwealth Act No. 671 refers to the emergency created by the the emergency powers of the President. So that even if we do not include
existence of war between the United States and other countries of Mr. Justice Bengzon, we can correctly say that four justices voted in
Europe involving the Philippines, the executive order above-mentioned those emergency cases in favor of the existence of emergency powers of
deal with the damages wrought by the recent typhoons, earthquakes, the President.
volcanic eruptions, etc., and the failure of the Congress to provide funds
for the repair and reconstruction of damaged buildings and public works In those emergency cases of 1949 I prepared a more or less extensive
and the relief of the victims. The recent typhoons, earthquakes, volcanic opinion in support of the theory that Commonwealth Act No. 671 was still
eruptions, etc. and the failure of the Congress to provide for them have in force. I wish to embody said opinion in the present opinion by
nothing to do with the war mentioned in said Commonwealth Act No. 671 reference, without prejudice to reproducing portions of the same.
and are not the consequences of said war.
I agree with the majority that Commonwealth Act 671 was to be in force
For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the majority opinion. only for a limited period of time, otherwise be unconstitutional; and that
limited period was co-extensive with the existence of the emergency. But
I emphatically disagree with the majority when it says:

That emergency, which naturally terminated upon the ending of

the last world war, was contemplated by the members of the
MONTEMAYOR, J., concurring and dissenting:
National Assembly on the foresight that the actual state of war
would prevent it from holding its next regular session.
With the majority I agree that Executive Order Nos. 545 and 546, — the
first appropriating P37,850,500 for urgent and essential public works, the
As regards the majority's view that emergency Act 671 because due to
second appropriating P11,367,600 for relief — are invalid, for the same
war delegated by Commonwealth Act 671 because due to emergency the
reasons given by me in dissenting opinion in cases G.R. No. L-2044,* L-
National Assembly would be unable to hold its regular session, I
2756,* and L-3054-56* commonly called the "Emergency Cases of 1949",
discussed and I hope I refused this theory in my dissenting opinion in the
namely, that the legislature had already withdrawn from the realm of
1949 emergency cases and I take the liberty of quoting a pertinent
presidential legislation or regulation under the emergency powers to
portion thereof:
delegate by Commonwealth Act No. 671, the power to appropriate funds
for the expenses of the Government and for other purposes.
I believe that, as I already had occasion to state though
incidentally, the real reason for the delegation of legislative
powers to the Chief Executive is not only because the Legislature legislations like the annual appropriation law for the fiscal year
is unable to meet due to a national emergency but also because 1949-50, appropriation founds for the elections to be held in
although it could and does actually meet, whether in regular or November, 1949, contained in Executive Orders Nos. 225 and
special session, it is not in a position and able to cope with the 226, involved in the present cases, and the proposed amendment
problems brought about by and raising from the emergency, to the Election Code etc., have not been passed by Congress in
problems which require urgent and immediate action. Certainly, its last session ending last May, 1949, which session lasted one
one man can act more quickly and expeditiously than about one hundred days. If we were to rely on the ordinary process of
hundred members of the Legislature, especially when they are legislation to meet a national emergency, by the time the
divided into Legislative chambers. That is why in times of necessary and needed law is passed, the situation sought to be
emergency, much as we in democratic countries dislike the remedied, or the problem sought to be solved may have become
system or idea of dictatorship, we hear of food dictator, fuel disastrous or ended in calamity or gone beyond legislations or
dictator, transportations which ordinarily belong to a council or any remedy. It would be too late. It would be like locking the
board or to a legislative body, are entrusted under certain stable door after the horse had been stolen.
limitations to one single official or individual.
Now, for some retrospect, The Philippine National Assembly
Supposing that during a national emergency and while the delegated its legislative powers because of the existence of a
legislature is in session, the legislature woke up one morning to state of national emergency as early as the year 1939. During it
find that there was extreme scarcity of imported foods, fuel, second special session of that year, it promulgated the following
building materials, equipment required in agriculture and industry, laws: (Commonwealth Acts Nos. 494, 496, 498 and 500).
etc., because of a monopoly, hoarding, injurious speculations,
manipulations, private controls and profiteering, or that there were At that time, September, 1939, the second world war was only in
widespread lockouts and strikes paralyzing transportation, Europe, quite far from the Philippines and had just begun. There
commerce and industry, or rampant espionage or sabotage was then no likelihood of the Philippines being involved in the
endangering the very life security of the necessary legislation in war. In fact, the Philippines did not get involved in the war until
order to cope with the situation and pass the necessary more than two years, in December, 1941. The National Assembly
emergency measures? was then free to meet either in regular or special sessions to
enact legislation to meet the emergency. In fact, it met in regular
We are all familiar with the practice and routine of enacting laws. session in January, 1940 lasting 100 days, excluding the several
A bill is introduced in the Legislature; it is referred to the special sessions held during those two years. And yet the
corresponding committee, it is studied by said committee, which Assembly delegated legislative powers to the President under
in some cases holds public hearings; the committee discusses section 26, Article VI of the Constitution. This is clear proof that,
the bill and sometimes introduces amendments; if the bill is not contrary to the theory of the majority opinion, the legislature
killed in the committee or shelved, it is submitted to the chamber delegated legislative powers to the President even when it could
for study, discussion, and possible amendment by all the meet and it actually met several times.
members; it is finally voted and if approved, it is sent to the other
house where it undergoes the same process; and if it is finally After passing the Acts just mentioned delegating legislative
approved by both houses of Congress, it is submitted to the Chief powers to the President, the Assembly in its fourth special
Executive for his study and approval or veto. All this may session on August 19, 1940 repeated and reiterated this practice
consume weeks or months as a result of which, ordinarily, many and policy by passing Commonwealth Act No. 600 delegating
bills finally approved by Congress could be sent to the President additional and more extensive legislative powers to the President
for approval or veto only after adjournment of the legislative in spite of the fact that the war was still far away in Europe and
session. And we should not overlook the fact that in some cases there was no danger or prospect of involving the Philippines, and
for lack of time or due to disagreement among the legislators or the legislature was still free to meet as in fact it met again in
between the two houses of Congress, important pieces of regular session in January, 1941. During its regular session
 begun that month and year, instead of stopping or ending the exercise his emergency powers during the existence of the emergency. It
legislative powers delegated to the President, because according does not say during the existence of the war.
to the theory of the majority opinion, the Legislature was able to
meet, the Assembly allowed them to continue by passing President Quezon is hardly the authority that the majority should quote to
Commonwealth Act No. 620 which merely amended section 1 of support its theory that emergency powers are given to the Chief
Commonwealth Act No. 600. I repeat that all this, far from Executive just because due to the emergency, the Legislature is unable
supporting the view of the President only because it could not to meet. It was President Quezon who was given emergency powers as
meet, fairly and squarely refutes said view. early as 1939 under Commonwealth Acts Nos. 494, 496, 498 and 500
when the war was still far away in Europe and we were not yet involved
As to the proposition in the majority opinion that the emergency and the National Assembly could still meet and actually did meet several
terminated with the war. I am afraid the majority confuses war with times in two years, 1940 and 1941, in regular and special sessions, and
emergency. They are two different and separate things and events. Even during those two years when the National Assembly was holding its
the Constitution (Article VI, section 26) which for purposes of reference is sessions, he was exercising his emergency powers and enacting
reproduced below, considers war and emergency as separate and legislation by means of Executive Orders. Evidently, he did not see any
distinct: incompatibility in the grant and exercise of emergency powers with the
ability of the Legislature to meet and in actually holding session, this, all
SEC. 26. In times of war or other national emergency, the contrary to the majority's contention.
Congress may by law authorize the President, for a limited period
and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to promulgate Hostilities incident to the last Pacific war have long ended since 1945; it
rules and regulations to carry out a declared national policy. does not however necessarily mean that the emergency resulting from
said war has ceased and that the disruption of trade dislocation of the
There maybe a national emergency without war. And so, when on the economy of the country, the destruction of public and private property,
occasion of a war, a national emergency ensues and is recognized and the breakdown in honesty and morality and the collapse of peace and
declared by Congress, said emergency may continue even if and when order, all resulting from that war have disappeared, and that everything
the war that started it is ended. War may and generally create an has returned to normalcy. In support of its theory that the emergency has
emergency, but the emergency thus created does not necessarily end ceased the majority makes reference to Republic Act 342 wherein it is
with the war. A war may last only several weeks or months but with the stated that conditions have gradually returned to normal. But this same
use of the modern weapons of warfare it may cause such devastation, law clearly says that the emergency created by the last war as regards
desolation and national suffering and collapse not only economically but war sufferers who have not received any relief for the loss or destruction
socially and morally that the resulting emergency may last for years. A resulting from the war, still exists and so postpones payment of their
destructive flood, tornado, tidal wave or volcanic eruption may last only debts or monetary obligations contracted before the war, for a period of
minutes or hours but the destruction that it leaves in its wake may take eight (8) years from and after the settlement of their war damage claims
weeks, months or years to repair, and the emergency thereby created by the United States-Philippine War Damage Commission. In other
may last that long. words, the Congress of the Philippines believes that at least as regards
war sufferers, the emergency resulting from the last war still exists, and
To bolster its contention the majority cites President Quezon's book "The will exists not only up to the time that their war damage claims are paid
Good Fight" pp. 204-205, wherein he speaks in time of war. I am afraid but for a period of eight years thereafter. This hardly supports the
the citation proves nothing. He merely said that the delegation was made majority's theory that everything is normal, and that there no longer is any
in time of war. He did not say or mean that the powers thus delegated emergency because the war has long ended.
were to be exercised only during the war. The main thing to be
considered and which calls for the exercise of the powers delegated is In connection with this question of whether or not there is still an
the emergency, not the war that merely started or caused it. emergency resulting from the last war and whether or not things and
Commonwealth Act 671 itself in its section 2 says that the President will conditions have returned to normal, I permit myself to reproduce a portion
of my dissenting opinion in the 1949 emergency cases:
The last logical question that one will naturally ask is: has the the seemingly regular mysterious supply to them of additional
emergency resulting from the war passed or does it still exists? firearms and ammunitions, there can be no peace and order; and
This is a fair and decisive question inasmuch as the existence of as to the barrio folk in Central Luzon and now, even in provinces
the emergency is, in my opinion, the test and the only basis of the bordering Central Luzon whose parents and relatives had been
operation or cessation of Act 671. The existence or non-existence killed by dissidents, whose women folk had been outraged by the
of the emergency resulting from the war is question of fact. It is same elements, whose homes had been looted and burned and
based on conditions obtaining among the people and in the whose very lives had been subjected to constant terror and peril,
country and perhaps even near and around it. It is a highly compelling them to leave their homes and their farms and
controversial question on which people may honestly differ. There evacuate to and be concentrated in the poblaciones to live there
are those who in all good faith believe and claim that conditions in utter discomfort and privation, it is said that it would be difficult
have returned to normal; that the people have now enough to eat, to convince these unfortunate people that normalcy has returned
sometime even more than they had before the war; that people and that there is no longer emergency resulting from the war. To
nowadays especially in the cities are better nourished and clothed further support the claim of the existence of an emergency, the
and transported and better compensated for their labor, and that menace of communism not only at home, particularly in Central
the President himself in his speeches, chats and messages had Luzon but from abroad, especially China, is invoked. And it is
assured the public that normal times have returned, that the asserted that all this is a result of the war.
problem of peace and order had been solved, that the finances of
the Government and the national economy are sound, and that To the above are those who claim and will add that since 1949 up to the
there is an adequate food supply. It is, therefore, claimed that present time, although rehabilitation progressed substantially, there are
there is no longer any emergency resulting from the war. still many people who have not achieved rehabilitation. The economy of
the country is still far from what it was before the war. It is being bolstered
On the other hand, it is asserted with equal vehemence in the temporarily by the millions of pesos being received by war veterans, their
opposite camp that conditions are still far from normal; that the widows and children in the form of pensions or insurance; by the millions
picture painted by the President in cheerful and reassuring colors being spent by the Mutual Security Agent (MSA) in the Philippines to
is based on over optimism and, as to be expected, calculated to rehabilitate agriculture, industry, commerce, etc.; by the millions being
show in bold relief the achievements of the administration, and so sent here by the United States in war materials, equipment, etc. in
should be considered with some allowance; that we are now relation with the United States military aid to the Philippines, and with the
importing more rice than before the war for the reason that many enforcement of the Import Control, Exchange Control and other laws all
rice farms are idle because of the farmers fear of or interference of a temporary nature intended to temper and minimize the financial and
by dissidents; that the problem of peace and order is far from economic crisis which otherwise would overwhelm the country. The
solved as shown by the frequent hold-ups, kidnappings, lootings coastwise trade is being maintained with ships originally built for and
and killing and organized banditry not only in Luzon but also in used during the war, converted provisionally into inter-island freight and
the Visayas and Mindanao; that whereas before the war, the passenger boats; and land transportation specially in the centers of
Constabulary force consisting of only about 6,000 officers and population like Manila is operated in great measure with vehicles (used
men could provide complete protection to life and property was jeeps) obtained from the Surplus Property Commission. Everything is on
adequate in all respects to enforce peace and order, now this a provisional basis. What will happen after these boats and motor
Constabulary enlarged to about 20,000 men, provided with vehicles wear out and become junk? Could they be readily replaced by
modern weapons and equipment and with the aid of thousands of their owners or operators? Sunken boats will clutter the harbors of the
civilian guards and of the Philippine Army and Air Force cannot country particularly Manila Bay, constituting a menace to navigation.
solve the peace and order problem; that the dissidents who are Squatters in great number are still a problem, claiming that they have
well-organized, armed and disciplined even attack and sack nowhere to go to live. Government and private buildings, and churches
towns and sometimes openly defy and engage the armed are still ruins, tenanted by squatters. Intramuros, the Walled City, in the
Government forces; that as long as more than 100,000 firearms very City of Manila is a living example of non-rehabilitation, with the
are loose and in the hands of irresponsible parties, not excluding hundreds and thousands of owners of lots therein either financially
unable to reconstruct or prohibited from rebuilding until the Government whom it claims to be high officials of the POLITBURO. In Sulu, the
has completed its plan about its reconstruction. Government waged an intensive campaign against Kamlon and his men
spending several million pesos and losing quite a number of soldiers and
The War Damage Commission has paid war damage claims, it is true, officers, with no decisive result, and it was only after Kamlon and his men
but only a portion of the amounts of the claims; and with prices as they had been promised executive clemency that they surrendered to the
are and the low purchasing power of the peso, complete rehabilitation of authorities, stood trial, were convicted and promptly pardoned. Some of
war sufferers and substantial repair of the war damage is impossible. The Kamlon's relatives with their followers are said to be still in the mountains
country is claiming reparations from Japan in the amount of eight (8) and forests and refuse to surrender unless offered the same conditions.
billion dollars. It is not known if Japan can or will ever pay them and Not long ago several hundred Chinese said to be dangerous communists
when. That is why the legislature in Republic Act 342 wisely postponed were rounded up in several towns and cities in the Philippines. About two
payment of debts and monetary obligations of sufferers, not up to the or three weeks ago, according to the papers the army authorities said
payment of their war damage claims, but eight years thereafter, realizing that up to that time they had through confiscation, capture, surrender and
perhaps that the amounts paid for war damage claims are inadequate to purchase, been able to collect about 40,000 loose firearms but that there
achieve complete rehabilitation. So the Legislature says that as to these still remained about 100,000 more to be accounted for. The other day the
war sufferers, the emergency still exists. And who has not suffered Provincial Commander of Lanao said that he is faced with the problem of
damage during the last war? eliminating or capturing ten outlaw bands in the province with about 700
followers, The hold-ups, massacres, raids and ambushes in different
We have not yet completely risen from the low level into which we had provinces, even near Manila have not ceased. As long as over 100,000
sunk during and immediately after the war, in public and private morality, loose firearms are still in the hands of lawless or irresponsible persons,
decency, honesty and personal integrity as witnessed by the more or less there can be no complete peace and order in the country. Before the war
rampant misappropriations and defalcations by public officials, corruption about 5,000 Constabulary soldiers and officers with an appropriation of
and malfeasance, bribery, ten percentage, guerrilla recognition and about three million pesos was able to maintain peace and order
veterans benefits rackets, dynamite fishing, etc. throughout the country. The Armed Forces of the Philippines including
the Constabulary of the country in 1949 numbered 37,000. Realizing that
this number was unable to maintain peace and order it was increased
When the President makes his inspections, especially in the troubled
substantially so that in 1952, it went up to 56,000 men and officers with
area, he is escorted by contingents of fully armed soldiers, sometimes
an appropriation of over P151,000,000, an amount by far larger than the
with machine guns and tanks. High officials of the Government using low
appropriation for the Department of Public Schools which gives
plate numbers of their cars, use high plate numbers called "security plate
instruction and education to school children and students. With the help
numbers" when travelling in the provinces to minimize the danger hold-
of thousands of temporary and special policemen, civilian guards and
ups and attacks by dissidents who are said to be after the high
commandos the army and the constabulary are still battling dissidents,
government officials. People are advised not to travel at night over
communists and bandits. Hundreds and thousands of families from
certain provincial highways even national roads.
Central Luzon, particularly Pampanga are still marooned in Manila,
Baguio and other centers of population, unable and afraid to return to
Peace and order still leaves much to be desired. In 1949 when the their homes, and a number of them more fearless and optimistic, who
emergency cases were decided, five justices held the opinion that there thought that peace and order in Central Luzon had been restored,
no longer was any emergency. But conditions of peace and order actually returned to their homes there but were kidnapped and liquidate. Farmers
worsened thereafter. There was an uprising or rebellion in Batangas by harvesting rice in some barrios in Central Luzon have to be guarded by
Medrano and his men after November, 1949, and it is said that unable to the armed forces so as not to be molested by the dissidents. Only
cope with the uprising and bring the rebels to justice the Government was yesterday the papers carried the news that 14,000 soldiers and officers
compelled to offer them amnesty. Since 1949 the HUKS and the have started an intensive campaign in Central and Southern Luzon
communists became stronger, in fact became so strong that they actually against lawless elements. All this, many people still honestly believe.
threatened the existence of the Government which was forced to
increase its army and wage campaigns not only in the field but also in
centers of population where it was able to arrest and prosecute those
Considering all this, one may well doubt that peace and order in the to withdraw said emergency powers on the theory that the emergency
country has gone back to normal, and that there is no longer any has ceased. To end and definitely settle this disagreement, we are called
emergency. And this emergency clearly is the result of the last war. The upon to render decision.
HUKS movement was born during that war and the hundreds of
thousands of loose firearms were also released and distributed In my dissenting opinion in the 1949 emergency cases I held that the
indiscriminately during that war. Lawlessness and banditry always follow President still had the emergency powers delegated to him under
a war, and it takes several years thereafter to restore peace and order. In Commonwealth Act 671. Three justices of this court held that same view
the face of all the foregoing which may regard as facts and realities, the as I did excluding one Justice who was favorably impressed with that
majority without any data in the form of evidence received at a hearing or view though he preferred not to vote directly upon it. Today, tho it seems
trial, but based perhaps on judicial notice and personal knowledge and in the tribunal, I am the lone dissenter on this proposition and so mine is
observation holds that everything has gone back to normal and that no reduced so to speak to the "voice in the wilderness," I still maintain the
longer is any emergency. same view, and there is reason to believe that there are many others who
subscribe to the same opinion. The Legislature in passing during its last
Personally, I cannot say that the emergency resulting from the last war session House Bill No. 727 repealing the latest Commonwealth Acts
still exists, but neither am I prepared to say that it no longer exists. It is including Commonwealth Act No. 671, delegating emergency powers to
such a controversial question upon which people may not and could the Chief Executive, must have believed and been satisfied that the
honestly differ. There are authorities to the effect that the existence or President still had those emergency powers otherwise, there would have
non-existence of an emergency calling for the exercise of emergency been no need of going to all the trouble and the tedious process of
powers is a political question which can be decided only by the political approving a bill withdrawing said powers from him. There would have
department, and that the courts are not called upon, neither are they been no necessity for the Legislature to repeal a law which it believed to
authorized to pass upon the question. This was one of the views be no longer operative. There is no reason or point in withdrawing
maintained in the concurring and dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Alex. something that is not there or that no longer exists.
Reyes concurred in by Mr. Justice Padilla in the 1949 emergency cases.
But assuming for a moment that this court had the authority to pass upon In previous sessions of the Legislature after Liberation there had been
this point and to bind the executive and legislative department with is talk or move to enact legislation withdrawing said emergency powers by
finding, I believe that we have no data or evidence on which to base our presumably the atmosphere was not favorable or the necessary votes to
finding. If the findings of courts on questions of facts are given authority pass the corresponding measure was not available. It was in the last
or binding effect it is because those findings are based on facts session of the Legislature that a bill was finally approved by both House
established during the hearing by means of evidence adduced by both of Congress. The Chief Executive, however, vetoed it and it was not
parties who given the right to present, cross-examine and impeach repassed over his veto. In spite of this, did the Legislature succeed in
witnesses, object to questions and object to the admission of evidence in withdrawing his emergency powers? The majority through a process of
general. In the present case no such hearing or trial for the reception of interpretation which to me, is strained and unwarranted, voted in the
evidence was ever had. Consequently, in my opinion we are not affirmative. I disagree. We should not forget that in House Bill No. 727
warranted in finding that there still exist or there no longer exists any the Legislature was not only expressing its wish and desire to withdraw
emergency resulting from the last Pacific War. the emergency powers of the President. It wanted to repeal the law or
laws delegating said emergency powers. A law can be repealed only by
It is the Legislature that granted or delegated the emergency powers or another law. Consequently, since House Bill No 727 did not become a
the Chief Executive to whom the delegation was made that decide law because of the veto of the President, it could not repeal the law or
whether or not the emergency continues. There has been lack of laws which it sought to abrogate.
agreement between the two departments on this point since the last
session of the Legislature. While the President up to a few weeks ago I agree with the majority and also with Mr. Justice Padilla that the
has been exercising his emergency still existed, because Commonwealth emergency powers delegated to the President could be withdrawn by
Act 671 provides that he may exercise those powers only during the means of a mere concurrent resolution. It is true that to delegate
emergency, the Legislature has passed House Bill No. 727 in an attempt emergency powers under section 26, Art. VI of the Constitution, a law is
necessary. It is because the Constitution expressly says so. Moreover, it willing to take the risk. Another possible reason why the Legislature
is not only convenient but equally necessary that a law should be passed chose to pass a bill instead of a mere concurrent resolution was that it
for that purpose in whose approval the Chief Executive takes part, sought and wanted the intervention and participation of the Chief
because after all he is the one to whom the delegation is made and who Executive himself in the withdrawal of the emergency powers so that he
would later exercise the powers so delegated. If he believes that there is would also share in the credit and the responsibility for said withdrawal. If
no emergency or that even if there were, it is not of sufficient magnitude he approved the bill there would be complete understanding between the
and seriousness as to call for the delegation and the exercise of two departments of the Government, and no hard feelings. Another
emergency powers, he may veto the bill of delegation and that would be reason not entirely improbable is that the decision to withdraw the
the end of it. It is far from likely that the bill would be repassed over his emergency powers from the Chief Executive was a compromise
veto because it would be futile and pointless to make delegation of arrangement between the two parties in the Legislature. We must
powers to an unwilling delegate who later would decline and refuse to remember that our government is run on the basis of the party system.
exercise them. But if he approves the bill of delegation and it becomes a The President at present happens to be the head of one of the two major
law then the delegation is complete, successful and effective for the parties in the Legislature. His party is in the minority in the Senate by two
exercise of the powers by the President would be assured. Not so with or three votes but is in the majority by quite a number of votes in the
the withdrawal of the powers delegated. The Constitution does not say or lower house. It is not conceivable that his party men in the two houses
require a law for such withdrawal and it may be withdrawn at any time consented and agreed to have the emergency powers withdrawn
even when the emergency which motivated said delegation still exists. In provided that the Chief Executive consented to and approved of it. And
such a case, the Legislature is the sole judge as to the necessity and so, they agreed to pass the bill for this purpose, but that they would not
advisability of the continuance or cessation of the exercise of emergency agree to concurrent resolution where the Chief Executive would be
powers by its delegate, the President. ignored and his emergency powers summarily withdrawn without
consultation and without his approval. This last view is in some measure
But how did the Legislature go about his attempt to withdraw the supported and borne out by the attitude of the Legislature when the
President's emergency powers? It had the choice of approving a mere House bill No. 727 was vetoed. The members of Congress knew that the
concurrent resolution or passing a bill. Both houses of the Legislature are remedy was to override his veto if they wanted to. The Senate approved
graced with the presence of constitutional lawyers and legal luminaries the bill unanimously and judging from that unanimity, at least in the upper
for whom I have great respect. They must have known that a concurrent house the 2/3 votes necessary to override the veto was available. But the
resolution was sufficient for the purpose. Atty. Recto, counsel for the fact is that the Legislature did not only fail to override the veto but it did
petitioners and member of the Senate knew it and in his oral argument not even make any attempt whatsoever to repass it over the President's
before this Tribunal, he said that the Legislature merely made a mistake veto. Added to this, it was a fact that, and this is by no means
because it could have just as well approved a concurrent resolution unimportant, in the month of September, 1952, that is, about two months
instead of passing a regular bill. after the veto of the bill, about sixty-seven Congressman and two
Senators filed a petition addressed to the President in which they not only
But to me, it is highly possible and not improbable that the Legislature recognized the existence of his emergency powers but even asked him to
knowing that it could withdraw the President's emergency powers by exercise the same for the purpose of releasing funds for public works
means of a concurrent resolution or by means of a law, deliberately and projects. Excluding the two Senators, the signers constituted more than
intentionally chose the latter for reasons of its own. The mistake the majority of the membership of the lower house. In other words, after
committed by the Legislature if any was that perhaps it believed that the the veto of the bill and after a failure whether intentionally or otherwise of
Chief Executive would not veto the bill; but veto it, he did and I am afraid the Legislative to override the veto, the majority of all the members of the
the Legislature has to abide by the consequences. The Legislature knew lower house believed that Congress failed to withdraw the President's
that in passing the bill and in submitting it to the Chief Executive as emergency powers and consequently, believed that he still had those
required by the Constitution, it had to be approved by him either with his powers, and was even requested to exercise the same. And on
signature or by letting it become a law without any action on his part. He November 8, 1952, the lower house of the Legislature passed Resolution
may also veto it. This was a hazard and a risk which the Legislature No. 99 strongly urging the President to exercise his emergency powers
assumed and of which it must have been perfectly aware. But they are and authorize the expenditure of funds for the relief to provinces visited
by typhoons and floods and other calamities and for other urgent [DIGEST]
essential public works projects. This official action of the Lower House
shows that one of the two Houses of Congress officially believes that the Rodriguez v. Gella Digest
emergency powers of the President had not been withdrawn. One view of
this action or inaction of the Legislature on the veto was that it could not
get the 2/3 votes in both houses to override the veto because some Rodriguez v Gella
members who voted in favor of the House Bill No. 727, particularly
G.R. No. L-6266 February 2, 1953
members of the party of the Chief Executive vetoing the bill and so either
approved the stand taken by him or acquiesced in it and took it in good Paras, C.J.:
grace and let the matter rest, at least for the time being.

In the foregoing considerations on this point are true or could have been
true, then there would absolutely be no reason or warrant for the Facts:
majority's interpreting and considering House Bill No. 727 as a concurrent
1. Petitioners sought to invalidate Executive Orders (EO) 545 and 546 issued on
resolution sufficient to repeal the several laws mentioned in the bill and
November 10, 1952. EO 545 appropriated the sum of P37,850,500 for urgent and
withdraw the emergency powers of the President. In effect, the majority
essential public works, while EO 546 set aside the sum of P11,367,600 for relief in
decided to think for the Legislature and to do for the latter what it failed or
the provinces and cities visited by typhoons, floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcanic
perhaps did not want to do, namely, to withdraw the emergency powers
action and other calamities.
by means of a concurrent resolution. I repeat that both houses of
Congress with the legal talent and constitutional authorities, not only
among its distinguished members but also among its legal experts and
assistants, did neither wish nor intend to approve a mere concurrent 2. Section 26 of Article VI of the Constitution provides that "in times of war or other
resolution but deliberately and intentionally chose to pass a bill, — House national emergency, the Congress may by law authorize the President, for a limited
Bill No. 727 with full realization of the possibilities and chances of its period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to promulgate rules and
approval or rejection by the Chief Executive to whom it was submitted. regulations to carry out a declared national policy." Accordingly the National
Under these circumstances, the action of the majority is practically telling Assembly passed Commonwealth Act No. 671, declaring (in section 1) the national
the Legislature what it should have one and in finally doing it for said policy that "the existence of war between the United States and other countries of
Legislature in order to most easily achieve its purpose or wish might be Europe and Asia, which involves the Philippines makes it necessary to invest the
regarded by some as not only unwarranted but officious and uncalled for. President with extraordinary powers in order to meet the resulting emergency," and
(in section 2) authorizing the President, "during the existence of the emergency, to
In view of the foregoing reasons, I beg to disagree with the majority. promulgate such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the
national policy declared in section 1."

3. House Bill No. 727 sought to repeal all Emergency Powers Acts but was vetoed by the
President. HB 727 may at least be considered as a concurrent resolution of the
Congress to formally declare the termination of the emergency powers.
 ISSUE: Whether or not the Executive Orders are still operative has any residuary powers under the Act, would necessarily lead to
confusion and overlapping, if not conflict.

NO.

5. The framers of the Constitution, however, had the vision of and were
careful in allowing delegation of legislative powers to the President for a
1. EOs 545 and 546 must be declared as having no legal anchorage. The Congress has limited period "in times of war or other national emergency." They had
since liberation repeatedly been approving acts appropriating funds for the operation
thus entrusted to the good judgment of the Congress the duty of coping
of the Government, public works, and many others purposes, with the result that as to
such legislative task the Congress must be deemed to have long decided to assume
with any national emergency by a more efficient procedure; but it alone
the corresponding power itself and to withdraw the same from the President. must decide because emergency in itself cannot and should not create
power. In our democracy the hope and survival of the nation lie in the
wisdom and unselfish patriotism of all officials and in their faithful
2. CA 671 was in pursuance of the constitutional provision, it has to be assumed that
adherence to the Constitution.
the National Assembly intended it to be only for a limited period. If it be contended
that the Act has not yet been duly repealed, and such step is necessary to a
cessation of the emergency powers delegated to the President, the result would be
obvious unconstitutionality, since it may never be repealed by the Congress, or if the Act 671 may be likened to an ordinary contract of agency whereby the consent of
latter ever attempts to do so, the President may wield his veto. the agent is necessary only in the sense that he cannot be compelled to accept the
trust, in the same way, that the principal cannot be forced to keep the relation in
eternity or the will of the agent. The logical view consistent with constitutionality is
to hold that the power lasted only during the emergency resulting from the last
3. If the President had ceased to have powers with regards to general appropriations, world war. That emergency, which naturally terminated upon the ending of the last
none can remain in respect of special appropriations; otherwise he may accomplish world war, was contemplated by the members of the National Assembly. Shelter
indirectly what he cannot do directly. Besides, it is significant that Act No. 671 may not be sought in the proposition that the President should be allowed to
expressly limited the power of the President to that continuing "in force" exercise emergency powers for the sake of speed and expediency in the interest and
appropriations which would lapse or otherwise become inoperative, so that, even for the welfare of the people because we have the Constitution designed to establish
a government under a regime of justice, liberty and democracy, and since our
assuming that the Act is still effective, it is doubtful whether the President
government is based on the system of separation of powers. Wherefore, EO Nos. 545
can by executive orders make new appropriations. and 546 are declared null and void.

The Ordinance Power is the rulemaking authority of the President of

the Philippines defined in Book III, Title I, Chapter II of
4. The specific power "to continue in force laws and appropriations which Administrative Code of 1987
would lapse or otherwise become inoperative" is a limitation on the
general power "to exercise such other powers as he may deem Executive orders according to Book III, Title I, Chapter II, Section 2
necessary to enable the Government to fulfil its responsibilities and to of Administrative Code of 1987, refer to the "Acts of the President
maintain and enforce its authority." Indeed, to hold that although the
providing for rules of a general or permanent character in
Congress has, for about seven years since liberation, been normally
implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers."
functioning and legislating on every conceivable field, the President still
Executive Order No. 292, which instituted the Administrative Code of
1987, is an example of an executive order.