8/10/2019 Judicial Review Digests

1/3

JOVITO R. SALONGA vs. HON. ERNANI CRUZ PAOGR 59524. February 18, 1985.

FACTS:

A rash of bombings occurred in the Metro Manila area in the months of August, September and

October of 1980. On September 1980, one Victor Burns Lovely, Jr., a Philippine-born American

citizen from Los Angeles, California, almost killed himself and injured his younger brother, Romeo,

as a result of the explosion of a small bomb inside his room at the YMCA building in Manila. Found

in Lovely's possession by police and military authorities were several pictures taken sometime in

May 1980 at the birthday party of former Congressman Raul Daza held at the latter's residence in a

Los Angeles suburb. Jovito R. Salonga and his wife were among those whose likenesses appeared

in the group pictures together with other guests, including Lovely. As a result of the serious injuries

he suffered, Lovely was brought by military and police authorities to the AFP Medical Center (V.

Luna Hospital)where he was place in the custody and detention of Col. Roman P. Madella, under the

over-all direction of General Fabian Ver, head of the National Intelligence and Security Authority(NISA). Shortly afterwards, Mr. Lovely and his two brothers, Romeo and Baltazar Lovely where

charged with subversion, illegal possession of explosives, and damage to property. Bombs once

again exploded in Metro Manila including one which resulted in the death of an American lady who

was shopping at Rustan's Supermarket in Makati and others which caused injuries to a number of

persons. The President's anniversary television radio press conference was broadcast. The younger

brother of Victor Lovely, Romeo, was presented during the conference. The next day, newspapers

came out with almost identical headlines stating in effect that Salonga had been linked to the various

bombings in Metro Manila. Meanwhile, Lovely was taken out of the hospital's intensive care unit and

transferred to the office of Col. Madella where he was held incommunicado for some time. More

bombs were reported to have exploded at 3 big hotels in Metro Manila. The bombs injured 9 people.

A meeting of the General Military Council was called for 6 October 1980. Minutes after the President

had finished delivering his speech before the International Conference of the American Society of

Travel Agents at the Philippine International Convention Center, as mall bomb exploded. Within the

next 24 hours, arrest, search, and seizure orders (ASSOs) were issued against persons, including

Salonga, who were apparently implicated by Victor Lovely in the series of bombings in Metro Manila.

Elements of the military went to the hospital room of Salonga at the Manila Medical Center where he

was confined due to his recurrent and chronic ailment of bronchial asthma and placed him under

arrest. The arresting officer showed Salonga the ASSO form which however did not specify the

charge or charges against him.

ISSUE:Whether the Court may still elaborate on a decision when the lower courts have dropped the case

against petitioner Salonga.

HELD:

8/10/2019 Judicial Review Digests

2/3

The setting aside or declaring void, in proper cases, of intrusions of State authority into areas

reserved by the Bill of Rights for the individual as constitutionally protected spheres where even the

awesome powers of Government may not enter at will is not the totality of the Court's functions. The

Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles,

precepts,doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of

protection given by constitutional guarantees. In dela Camara v. Enage (41 SCRA 1), the petitionerwho questioned a P1,195,200.00 bail bond as excessive and,therefore, constitutionally void,

escaped from the provincial jail while his petition was pending. The petition became moot because of

his escape but we nonetheless rendered a decision. In Gonzales v. Marcos (65 SCRA 624) whether

or not the Cultural Center of the Philippines could validly be created through an executive order was

mooted by Presidential Decree 15, the Center's new charter pursuant to the President's legislative

powers under martial law. Still, the Court discussed the constitutional mandate on the preservation

and development of Filipino culture for national identity. In the habeas corpus case of Aquino, Jr., v.

Enrile (59 SCRA183), during the pendency of the case, 26 petitioners were released from custody

and one withdrew his petition. The sole remaining petitioner was facing charges of murder,

subversion, and illegal possession of firearms. The fact that the petition was moot and academic didnot prevent the Court in the exercise of its symbolic function from promulgating one of the most

voluminous decision sever printed in the Reports. Herein, the prosecution evidence miserably fails to

establish a prima facie case against Salonga, either as a co-conspirator of a destabilization plan to

overthrow the government or as an officer or leader of any subversive organization. The

respondents have taken the initiative of dropping the charges against Salonga. The Court reiterates

the rule, however, that the Court will not validate the filing of an information based on the kind of

evidence against Salonga found in the records.

MARIANO V. COMELEC Facts:

Two petitions are filed assailing certain provisions of RA 7854, An Act Converting The Municipalityof Makati Into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati, as unconstitutional.Section52 of RA 7854 is said to be unconstitutional for it increased the legislative district of Makati only byspecial law in violation of Art. VI, Sec. 5(4)requiring a general reapportionment law to be passed byCongress within 3 years following the return of every census. Also, the addition of another legislativedistrict in Makati is not in accord with Sec. 5(3), Art. VI of the Constitution for as of the 1990 census,the population of Makati stands at only 450,000.

Issue:Whether or not the addition of another legislative district in Makati is unconstitutional

Held:Reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law, such as in the charter ofa new city. The Constitution clearly provides that Congress shall be composed of not more than 250members, unless otherwise fixed by law. As thus worded, the Constitution did not precludeCongress from increasing its membership by passing a law, other than a general reapportionmentlaw. This is exactly what was done by Congress in enacting RA 7854and providing for an increasein Makatis legislative district. Moreover, to holdthat reapportionment can only be made through ageneral apportionment law, with a review of all the legislative districts allotted to each localgovernment unit nationwide, would create an inequitable situation where a new city or province

8/10/2019 Judicial Review Digests

3/3

created by Congress will be denied legislative representation for an indeterminate period of time.The intolerable situations will deprive the people of a new city or province a particle of theirsovereignty. Petitioner cannot insist that the addition of another legislative district in Makati is notin accord with Sec.5(3), Art. VI of the Constitution for as of the 1990 census, the population of Makatistands at only 450,000. Said section provides that a city with a population of at least 250,000 shallhave at least one representative. Even granting that the population of Makati as of the 1990 census

stood at 450,000, its legislative district may still be increased since it has met the minimumpopulation requirement of 250,000