2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS AND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Uploaded By

Nffvtazragrkcreg96

Pages

Rating

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 105371 November 11, 1993

THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION, duly rep. by its President, BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS,

Vice-President for Legal Affairs, MARIANO M. UMALI, Director for Pasig, Makati, and Pasay,

Metro Manila, ALFREDO C. FLORES, and Chairman of the Committee on Legal Aid, JESUS G.

BERSAMIRA, Presiding Judges of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Quezon City and

Branches 160, 167 and 166, Pasig, Metro Manila, respectively: the NATIONAL CONFEDERATION

OF THE JUDGES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, composed of the METROPOLITAN TRIAL

COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION rep. by its President. REINATO QUILALA of the MUNICIPAL

TRIAL CIRCUIT COURT, Manila; THE MUNICIPAL JUDGES LEAGUE OF THE PHILIPPINES rep. by

its President, TOMAS G. TALAVERA; by themselves and in behalf of all the Judges of the

Regional Trial and Shari'a Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Courts throughout the

Country, petitioners,

vs.

HON. PETE PRADO, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and

Communications, JORGE V. SARMIENTO, in his capacity as Postmaster General, and the

PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORP., respondents.

CRUZ, J.:

The basic issue raised in this petition is the independence of the Judiciary. It is asserted by the

petitioners that this hallmark of republicanism is impaired by the statute and circular they are here

challenging. The Supreme Court is itself affected by these measures and is thus an interested party that

should ordinarily not also be a judge at the same time. Under our system of government, however, it

cannot inhibit itself and must rule upon the challenge, because no other office has the authority to do so.

We shall therefore act upon this matter not with officiousness but in the discharge of an unavoidable

duty and, as always, with detachment and fairness.

The main target of this petition is Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 as implemented by the Philippine Postal

Corporation through its Circular No.

92-28. These measures withdraw the franking privilege from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,

the Regional Trial Courts, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Land

Registration Commission and its Registers of Deeds, along with certain other government offices.

The petitioners are members of the lower courts who feel that their official functions as judges will be

prejudiced by the above-named measures. The National Land Registration Authority has taken common

cause with them insofar as its own activities, such as sending of requisite notices in registration cases,

affect judicial proceedings. On its motion, it has been allowed to intervene.

The petition assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7354 on the grounds that: (1) its title embraces more

than one subject and does not express its purposes; (2) it did not pass the required readings in both

Houses of Congress and printed copies of the bill in its final form were not distributed among the

members before its passage; and (3) it is discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of the

Judiciary.

We approach these issues with one important principle in mind, to wit, the presumption of the

constitutionality of statutes. The theory is that as the joint act of the Legislature and the Executive, every

statute is supposed to have first been carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was

finally enacted. Hence, unless it is clearly shown that it is constitutionally flawed, the attack against its

validity must be rejected and the law itself upheld. To doubt is to sustain.

We consider first the objection based on Article VI, Sec. 26(l), of the Constitution providing that "Every

bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title

thereof."

The purposes of this rule are: (1) to prevent hodge-podge or "log-rolling" legislation; (2) to prevent

surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which the title gives no intimation,

and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and (3) to fairly

apprise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made, of the subject

of legislation that is being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon, by

petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire.

It is the submission of the petitioners that Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 which withdrew the franking

privilege from the Judiciary is not expressed in the title of the law, nor does it reflect its purposes.

R.A. No. 7354 is entitled "An Act Creating the Philippine Postal Corporation, Defining its Powers,

Functions and Responsibilities, Providing for Regulation of the Industry and for Other Purposes

Connected Therewith."

The objectives of the law are enumerated in Section 3, which provides:

The State shall pursue the following objectives of a nationwide postal system:

a) to enable the economical and speedy transfer of mail and other postal matters, from

sender to addressee, with full recognition of their privacy or confidentiality;

b) to promote international interchange, cooperation and understanding through the

unhampered flow or exchange of postal matters between nations;

c) to cause or effect a wide range of postal services to cater to different users and

changing needs, including but not limited to, philately, transfer of monies and valuables,

and the like;

d) to ensure that sufficient revenues are generated by and within the industry to finance

the overall cost of providing the varied range of postal delivery and messengerial

services as well as the expansion and continuous upgrading of service standards by the

same.

Sec. 35 of R.A. No. 7354, which is the principal target of the petition, reads as follows:

Sec. 35. Repealing Clause. — All acts, decrees, orders, executive orders, instructions,

rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are

repealed or modified accordingly.

All franking privileges authorized by law are hereby repealed, except those provided for

under Commonwealth Act No. 265, Republic Acts Numbered 69, 180, 1414, 2087 and

5059. The Corporation may continue the franking privilege under Circular No. 35 dated

October 24, 1977 and that of the Vice President, under such arrangements and

conditions as may obviate abuse or unauthorized use thereof.

The petitioners' contention is untenable. We do not agree that the title of the challenged act violates the

Constitution.

The title of the bill is not required to be an index to the body of the act, or to be as comprehensive as to

cover every single detail of the measure. It has been held that if the title fairly indicates the general

subject, and reasonably covers all the provisions of the act, and is not calculated to mislead the

legislature or the people, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.

To require every end and means necessary for the accomplishment of the general objectives of the

statute to be expressed in its title would not only be unreasonable but would actually render legislation

impossible.

As has been correctly explained:

The details of a legislative act need not be specifically stated in its title, but matter

germane to the subject as expressed in the title, and adopted to the accomplishment of

the object in view, may properly be included in the act. Thus, it is proper to create in the

End of Preview - Want to read all 8 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 105371 November 11, 1993 THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION, duly rep. by its President, BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, Vice-President for Legal Affairs, MARIANO M. UMALI, Director for Pasig, Makati, and Pasay, Metro Manila, ALFREDO C. FLORES, and Chairman of the Committee on Legal Aid, JESUS G. BERSAMIRA, Presiding Judges of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Quezon City and Branches 160, 167 and 166, Pasig, Metro Manila, respectively: the NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF THE JUDGES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, composed of the METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION rep. by its President. REINATO QUILALA of the MUNICIPAL TRIAL CIRCUIT COURT, Manila; THE MUNICIPAL JUDGES LEAGUE OF THE PHILIPPINES rep. by its President, TOMAS G. TALAVERA; by themselves and in behalf of all the Judges of the Regional Trial and Shari'a Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Courts throughout the Country, petitioners, vs. HON. PETE PRADO, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications, JORGE V. SARMIENTO, in his capacity as Postmaster General, and the PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORP., respondents. CRUZ, J.: The basic issue raised in this petition is the independence of the Judiciary. It is asserted by the petitioners that this hallmark of republicanism is impaired by the statute and circular they are here challenging. The Supreme Court is itself affected by these measures and is thus an in ...
Purchase document to see full attachment