In Macalintal vs. COMELEC, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act, allowing Filipinos abroad to vote without meeting the residency requirement. However, it ruled that only Congress can canvass votes and proclaim winners for President and Vice President, not COMELEC.
In Gonzales vs. Macaraig, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s authority to veto specific provisions in an appropriations bill, including conditions or restrictions, without vetoing the entire bill. This decision affirmed the President’s line-item veto power as a check on legislative appropriations.
The Supreme Court declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional due to legislators’ post-enactment involvement in fund allocation, violating the separation of powers. The Court emphasized that only the Executive branch should implement laws, reinforcing the constitutional boundaries between legislative and executive functions.
The Supreme Court invalidated Executive Order No. 464, which required presidential consent for executive officials to attend congressional inquiries. The Court emphasized that such a requirement undermines legislative oversight and the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The Supreme Court invalidated the Philippine Truth Commission’s creation, ruling it unconstitutional due to its exclusive focus on investigating the previous administration, which violated the equal protection clause. The Court emphasized that while the President can establish fact-finding bodies, these must operate within constitutional boundaries.
Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission [December 7, 2010] Read More »
The Supreme Court ruled that the President’s creation of municipalities via executive orders was unconstitutional, as this legislative power cannot be delegated without clear standards. The Court emphasized that establishing municipalities is a legislative function requiring explicit guidelines to prevent separation of powers violations.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RH Law, emphasizing its role in providing access to family planning and reproductive health services. However, it struck down provisions that penalized healthcare providers who refuse services based on religious beliefs, protecting individual conscience rights.
