Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Political LAW: Supreme Court Decisions Penned by Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, JR
Political LAW: Supreme Court Decisions Penned by Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, JR
Circle 2016
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
Digested by: DC 2016 Members
Editors:
Tricia Lacuesta
Lorenzo Gayya
Cristopher Reyes
Macky Siazon
Janine Arenas
Ninna Bonsol
Lloyd Javier
POLITICAL
LAW
Supreme Court decisions penned by Associate Justice
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
1|P a ge
2.
Whether or not the Agreement, which has not been submitted to the Senate for
concurrence, contravenes the Rome Statute and other treaties.
Ruling:
1.
Yes. Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, as expressed in Art II of the 1987
Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of
the law of the land. An exchange of notes falls into the category of inter-governmental agreements,
which is an internationally accepted form of international agreement. Hence, the Non-Surrender
Bilateral Agreement in the exchange note is a recognized mode of concluding a legally binding
international written contract among nations.
2.
No. An act of the executive branch with a foreign government must be afforded great
respect. This authority of the President to enter into executive agreements without the concurrence
of legislators is provided by the inviolable doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative,
executive and judicial branches of the government. Thus, absent any clear contravention of the law,
the courts should exercise utmost caution in declaring any executive agreement invalid.
DELEGATION OF POWERS
SM LAND, INC. V. BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
G.R. No. 203655, March 18, 2015, VELASCO JR., J.
Administrative issuances, such as the NEDA JV Guidelines, duly promulgated pursuant to the
rule-making power granted by statute, have the force and effect of law.
2|P a ge
3|P a ge
Whether or not the pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to
the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general.
4|P a ge
Whether or not the cleaning of the Manila Bay is a ministerial act which can be compelled by
mandamus.
1.
No. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in the
Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of
Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance
with intergenerational implications. Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal
provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the men and women
representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep
the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be
a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
2.
Yes. While the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may entail a decision-making
process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is
ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. The MMDAs duty in this regard is
spelled out in Sec. 3(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7924 creating the MMDA which states that
Solid waste disposal and management which include formulation and implementation of
policies, standards, programs and projects for proper and sanitary waste disposal. It shall
likewise include the establishment and operation of sanitary land fill and related
facilities and the implementation of other alternative programs intended to reduce, reuse
and recycle solid waste. The MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be
noted, is set forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its
charter as well.
LEGISLATURE
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY(SJS) v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD(DDB) and PHILIPPINE DRUG
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY(PDEA)
G.R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008, VELASCO, JR., J.
The right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by
unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution.
Facts:
SJS, a registered political party, seeks to prohibit the DDB and PDEA from enforcing
paragraphs (g) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the ground that it is constitutionally infirm because it
imposes an additional qualification for a senator- mandatory drug testing. Pimentel Jr. and Atty.
Laserna Jr. also seek the nullification of said law, including the COMELEC Res. No. 6486 which
implements the former.
Issue:
Whether or not Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Res. No. 6486 impose an additional
qualification for candidates for senator.
5|P a ge
Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED), Manuel V. Del Rosario, Domingo P.
Espina, Salvador P. Vallares, Joselito A. Moraleda, et al. v. Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. 177857-58 January 24, 2012, Velasco Jr., J.
The general principle of taxation is that tax levied for special purpose shall be treated as a
special fund and paid out of such purpose only. It cannot be treated as private funds to be disbursed or
invested for the benefit of private individuals in their private capacities.
Facts:
Republic Act 6260 was enacted creating the Coconut Investment Company (CIC) to administer
the Coconut Investment Fund (CIF) which imposes a levy on every sale of copra. The seller was
issued Cocofund receipts for levy of such sales. The fund was placed under the disposition of Cocofed,
the national association of coconut producers having the largest membership. The Philippine
Coconut Authority also had its share of the coco levy funds. When martial law started in 1972, several
presidential decrees were issued to improve the coconut industry through collection and use of the
coco levy fund, two of which are:
PD 961 and PD 1468 which both provide that the CCSF and CDIF shall not be construed as
special and/or fiduciary funds, or as part of the general funds of the government. The intention is for
the said funds to belong to coconut farmers in their private capacities.
It is a contention that PD 961 and PD1468 is unconstitutional because the funds collected by
PCA are in the nature of a special fund which should be disbursed only for the special purpose for
which it is collected.
Issue:
Whether or not the PDs issued are unconstitutional for declaring the funds which the PCA is
authorized to collect or as part of the funds of the government.
Ruling:
Yes, the mandate of PDs are unconstitutional. The coconut levy funds are in the nature of taxes
and can only be used for public purpose. Consequently, they cannot be used to purchase shares of
6|P a ge
7|P a ge
8|P a ge
9|P a ge
REGHIS M. ROMERO II, EDMOND Q. SESE, LEOPOLDO T. SANCHEZ, REGHIS M. ROMERO III,
MICHAEL L. ROMERO, NATHANIEL L. ROMERO, and JEROME R. CANLAS v. SENATOR JINGGOY E.
ESTRADA and SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT
G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009, Velasco, Jr., J.
On-going judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings in aid of legislation.
Facts:
Pursuant to a resolution directing the Labor Committee to investigate, in aid of legislation,
the liability for plunder of the Former President Ramos and others for the illegal investment of
10 | P a g e
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
ROQUE VS. COMELEC
G.R. No. 188456 September 10, 2009, Velasco, J.
The COMELEC shall be responsible for the enforcement and administration of all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall.
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Dennis A. Funa v. The Chairman, Commission on Audit, Reynaldo A. Villar
G.R. No. 192791 April 24, 2012, Velasco, Jr., J.
Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D) of the 1987 Constitution does not prohibit promotional appointment as
long as the Commissioner has not served his full term of seven years, and the appointment shall only be
for the unexpired portion of the Commissioners term.
Facts:
On February 15, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) appointed Guillermo N.
Carague (Carague) as Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA) for a term of seven years starting
February 2, 2004 to February 2, 2008. Meanwhile, on February 7, 2004, she appointed Reynaldo A.
Villar (Villar) as a third member of COA for a term of seven years starting from February 2, 2004, to
February 2, 2011. Following the retirement of Carague on February 2, 2008 and during the fourth
year of Villar as commissioner, the latter was designated acting chairman of the COA from February
4, 2008 to April 14, 2008. Subsequently, on April 18, 2008 Villar was appointed and nominated as
Chairman of the COA. The Commission on Appointments confirmed his appointment. He was to serve
chairman for the unexpired portion of his term as commissioner or on February 2, 2011. Herein
petitioner opposes Villars appointment saying that such appointment is invalid under Sec. 1(2), Art.
IX(D) of the 1987 Constitution. He said that reappointment of any kind within the COA be it for the
same position (Commissioner to Commissioner) or for an upgraded position (Commissioner to
Chairman) is a prohibited appointment and therefore a nullity.
Issue:
Whether or not Villars appointment is invalid under Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D) of the 1987
Constitution.
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
15 | P a g e
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY(SJS) v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD(DDB) and PHILIPPINE DRUG
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY(PDEA)
G.R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008, VELASCO, JR., J.
To impose a mandatory drug test on the accused would violate his right to privacy and right to
self-incrimination.
Facts:
SJS, a registered political party, seeks to prohibit the DDB and PDEA from enforcing
paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the ground that they are constitutionally infirm.
For one, the provisions constitute undue delegation of legislative power when they give unbridled
discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. For another, the
provisions trench in the equal protection clause inasmuch as they can be used to harass a student or
an employee deemed undesirable. And for a 3rd, a person's constitutional right against unreasonable
searches is also breached by said provisions. Pimentel Jr. and Atty. Laserna Jr. also seek the
nullification of said law, including the COMELEC Res. No. 6486 which implements the former.
16 | P a g e
DUE PROCESS
GONZALO S. GO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS and OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
G.R. No. 172027 July 29, 2010 VELASCO, JR., J.
Vested rights can only be deprived through due process of law.
FACTS:
Gonzalo Go Jr. was promoted to the position of Chief Hearing Officer (Chief, Legal Division),
with a salary rate of PhP 151,800 per annum. The promotion was to the position of Attorney VI,
Salary Grade (SG)-26. However, Department of Budget and Management (DBM), informed the
then DOTC Secretary of the erroneous classification in the Position Allocation List of the DBM of two
positions in his department, one of which is in the LTFRB (formerly BOT). Go wrote the DBM to
17 | P a g e
EQUAL PROTECTION
LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al.
G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499, 178056 December 21, 2009, Velasco, Jr., J.
Classification, to be reasonable, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions; (2) be germane to the
purpose of the law; (3) not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) apply equally to all members of
the same class.
Facts:
There were twenty-four (24) cityhood bills that were not acted upon in the 11th Congress.
During the 12th Congress, RA 9009 was signed into law amending Sec. 450 of the Local Government
Code of 1991 (RA 7160) increasing the income requirement to qualify for conversion into a city from
P20M average annual income to P100M locally generated income. During the 13 th Congress, sixteen
(16) out of the 24 municipalities filed, through their respective sponsors, their individual cityhood
bills. Each of the cityhood bills contained a common provision exempting the municipality covered
from the P100M income requirement imposed by RA 9009. The cityhood bills were approved by
Congress and eventually lapsed into law. Each cityhood law directs the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite
to determine whether the voters approve of the conversion.
Petitioners sought to declare the cityhood laws unconstitutional for violation of Sec. 10, Art.
X of the Constitution, as well as for violation of the equal-protection clause. It is contended that the
grant of exemption from the P100M income requirement to only the 16 municipalities is
unconstitutional.
Issue:
Whether or not the sixteen (16) cityhood laws are valid and constitutional.
18 | P a g e
19 | P a g e
20 | P a g e
Plain and simple insults directed at another person cannot be elevated to the status of religious
Facts:
Eliseo Soriano made the following remarks in his program, Ang Dating Daan: Lehitimong
anak ng demonyo; sinungaling; Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. Yung
putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di
ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang
kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.
The one referred by Soriano is Michael Sandoval, a minister of Iglesia ni Cristo and a regular
host of the TV program, Ang Tamang Daan. The MTRCB preventively suspended the showing of Ang
Dating Daan program for 20 days. It is the contention of the petitioner that the statement was made
in the exercise of his religious freedom.
Issue:
Whether or not the words he uttered were only said in the exercise of his religious freedom.
21 | P a g e
22 | P a g e
23 | P a g e
24 | P a g e
CONTRACT CLAUSE
HACIENDA LUISITA, INC. v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL
G.R. No. 171101, 05 July 2011, En Banc, Velasco Jr., J.
The non-impairment protection is applicable only to laws that derogate prior acts of contracts
by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties.
Facts:
The original farm worker beneficiaries (FWB) chose to become stockholders of Hacienda
Luisita, Inc. (HLI) by reason of the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. 93%
of the FWBs agreed to the Stock Distribution Option Agreement which became the basis of the Stock
Distribution Plan (SDP) approved by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC). In their
agreement the parties agree among others that 33.296% of the outstanding capital stock of HLI that
has to be distributed to the FWBs under the SDP. Also that HLI shall within a reasonable time
subdivide and allocate among the qualified family-beneficiaries. The FWBs through their
representatives sought to have the agreement revoked alleging that HLI did not perform their
obligations as required under the agreement. The PARC adopted the resolution of the DAR and
revoked the agreement between the FWB and HLI.
Issue:
Whether or not PARC has jurisdiction to recall or revoke HLIs SDP and whether such
revocation violate the non-impairment of contract clause.
Ruling:
Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the authority to approve the plan for
stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to PARC. However, contrary to petitioner HLIs
posture, PARC also has the power to revoke the SDP which it previously approved. Such power or
authority is deemed possessed by PARC under the principle of necessary implication, a basic
postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed. To deny
PARC such revocatory power would reduce it into a toothless agency of CARP, because the very same
agency tasked to ensure compliance by the corporate landowner with the approved SDP would be
without authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance with it.
A law authorizing interference, when appropriate, in the contractual relations between and
among parties is deemed read into the contract and its implementation cannot successfully be
resisted by force of the non-impairment guarantee. There is no impingement of the impairment
clause, the non-impairment protection being applicable only to laws that derogate prior acts of
contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties. Impairment
25 | P a g e
26 | P a g e
CITIZENSHIP
JOEVANIE ARELLANO TABASA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.
G.R. No. 125793 August 29, 2006, Velasco, Jr., J.
The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are (1) Filipino women who lost their
Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and (2) Natural-born Filipinos including their minor
children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity.
Facts:
When he was seven years old, Joevanie Arellano Tabasa acquired American citizenship when
his father became a naturalized American citizen. When he arrived in the Philippines in 1995, he was
admitted as a balikbayan. Thereafter, he was arrested and detained by the agent of the BID. The
Consul General of the US Embassy requested the deportation of Tabasa on the ground that a standing
warrant for several charges has been issued against him and that his passport has been revoked.
Tabasa filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus before the CA. As ordered, the BID presented Tabasa
before the CA. However, Tabasa filed a Supplemental Petition alleging that he had acquired Filipino
citizenship by repatriation in accordance with Republic Act No. 8171, and that because he is now a
Filipino citizen, he cannot be deported or detained by the respondent Bureau. The CA denied
Tabasas petition.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner has validly reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 8171 and
thus cannot be summarily deported for his being an undocumented alien.
Ruling:
No. The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following: a.) Filipino
women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b.) Natural-born Filipinos
including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or
economic necessity.
27 | P a g e
28 | P a g e
ELECTION LAW
ROQUE VS. COMELEC
G.R. No. 188456 September 10, 2009, Velasco, J.
The legislative intent in RA 8436 is for the May 2010 electoral exercise to be fully automated,
regardless of whether or not pilot testing was run in the 2007 polls.
Facts:
The enactment of Republic Act No. 8436 in 1997 authorized the adoption of an Automated
Election System (AES) in the May 11, 1998 national and local elections and onwards. However, the
following elections were not able to adopt the AES. In 2007, RA 9369 was passed authorizing anew
the Comelec to use an AES. Pursuant to the law, Comelec Special Bids and Awards Committee (SBAC)
caused the publication in different newspapers of the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid for
the procurement of goods and services to be used in the automation project.
Among the submitted bids, only the joint venture of TIM and Smartmatic was declared as the
single complying calculated bid. Petitioners question the validity and seek to nullify the ComelecSmartmatic-TIM Corporation automation contract contending Comelec did not conduct any pilot
testing of the PCOS machines in violation of RA 8436 as amended by RA 8369.
Issue:
Whether or not pilot testing of the PCOS machines is necessary for the 2010 electoral
exercise to be fully automated.
Ruling:
NO. Sec. 6 of the amended RA 8436, as couched, therefore, unmistakably conveys the idea of
unconditional full automation in the 2010 elections. A construal making pilot testing of the AES a
prerequisite or condition sine qua non to putting the system in operation in the 2010 elections is
tantamount to reading into said section something beyond the clear intention of Congress, as
expressed in the provision itself.
The provisions of the clearly conveys that the [AES] to be used in the 2010 elections need
not have been used in the 2007 elections, and that the demonstration of its capability need not be in a
previous Philippine election. Demonstration of the success and capability of the PCOS may be in an
29 | P a g e
30 | P a g e
In the case at bar, Respondent Co cannot simply rely on the alleged absence of evidence of
reports of untoward incidents, and from there immediately conclude that the ballots have been
preserved. What he should have presented are concrete pieces of evidence, independent of the
revision proceedings that will tend to show that the ballots counted during the revision proceedings
were the very same ones counted by the BETs during the elections, and the very same ones cast by
the public. Without presenting to the court any evidence outside of the proceedings, respondent Co
as protestant may simply claim that the ballot boxes themselves are the proof that they were
properly preserved.
JOSE TAPALES VILLAROSA v. ROMULO DE MESA FESTIN and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 212953, August 5, 2014, Velasco, J.
The COMELEC First Division exercises jurisdiction over the cases that were assigned to it before
the substitution was made. This jurisdiction was not lost by the subsequent formation of the Special First
Division since this only entailed a change in the Divisions composition of magistrates.
Facts:
Petitioner Villarosa and respondent Festin were rival candidates for the mayoralty post in
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro during the May 2013 elections where Festin initially won. Since the
accuracy of the vote count was disputed, a physical recount of the ballots was conducted. RTC
rendered a Decision declaring the proclamation of respondent Festin void. Petitioner filed a Motion
for Execution Pending Appeal, which was granted by the RTC.
Aggrieved, Festin elevated the case to COMELEC via a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for
injunctive relief. The COMELEC, acting through its First Division, issued an Order requiring petitioner
to file his answer to the petition. To petitioners surprise, on April 10, 2014, COMELEC granted
private respondents request for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the RTC Decisions execution
pending appeal. What petitioner considered questionable was that the injunction was issued by a
newly-constituted Special First Division, which was allegedly formed due to the absence of several
COMELEC commissioners who, at that time, were personally attending to the concerns of the
overseas absentee voters abroad. Petitioner points out that the special division was constituted only
on April 8, 2014 through Resolution No. 9868 and was composed of only two members, Chairman
Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. and Commissioner Al A. Parreo, with the former presiding.
Issue:
Whether or not the Special First Division has jurisdiction to issue an injunction.
31 | P a g e
32 | P a g e
33 | P a g e
H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 188456, September 10, 2009,
VELASCO, JR., J.
The choice of PCOS by Comelec was not a spur-of-moment affair, but the product of honest-togoodness studies, consultations with CAC, and lessons learned from the ARMM 2008 automated
elections.
Facts:
Congress passed RA 9369 which authorized the COMELEC to use an automated election
system. On 10 July 2009, the COMELEC, and TIM and Smartmatic , signed the Contract for the
automated tallying and recording of votes cast nationwide. Petitioners, as taxpayers and citizens,
filed a petition to enjoin the signing of the Contract or its implementation and to compel disclosure of
the terms of the Contract and other agreements between the Provider and its subcontractors.
Petitioners sought the Contract's invalidation for non-compliance with the requirement in Section 5
of RA 8436, as amended, mandating the partial use of an automated election system before deploying
it nationwide. To further support their claim on the Contract's invalidity, petitioners alleged that (1)
the optical scanners leased by the COMELEC do not satisfy the minimum systems capabilities" under
RA 8436, as amended and (2) the Provider not only failed to submit relevant documents during the
bidding but also failed to show "community of interest" as required.
Issue:
34 | P a g e
35 | P a g e
PUBLIC CORPORATION
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP)
G.R. No. 169913, June 08, 2011, J. Velasco, Jr.
It is undeniable that the local government has the power to reclassify agricultural into nonagricultural lands pursuant to Sec. 3 of RA 2264, amending the Local Government Code.
36 | P a g e
37 | P a g e
CONVERSION
AURELIO M. UMALI v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JULIUS CESAR V. VERGARA, and THE CITY
GOVERNMENT OF CABANATUAN
G.R. No. 203974, April 22, 2014, Velasco, Jr., J.
J.V. BAUTISTA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 204371, April 22, 2014, Velasco Jr., J.
In view of these changes in the economic and political rights of the province of Nueva Ecija and
its residents, the entire province certainly stands to be directly affected by the conversion of Cabanatuan
City into an Highly Urbanized City. Hence, all the qualified registered voters of Nueva Ecija should then
be allowed to participate in the plebiscite called for that purpose.
Facts:
Presidential Proclamation No. 418, Series of 2012, was issued by the President proclaiming
the City of Cabanatuan as an HUC subject to "ratification in a plebiscite by the qualified voters
therein, as provided for in Section 453 of the Local Government Code of 1991." Pursuant to such
proclamation, COMELEC issued a minute resolution which provided that only those registered
residents of Cabanatuan City should participate in the said plebiscite. Petitioner, Aurelio Umali, then
Governor of Nueva Ecija, filed a verified motion for reconsideration, maintaining that the proposed
conversion in question will necessarily and directly affect the mother province of Nueva Ecija. Hence,
all the registered voters in the province are qualified to cast their votes in resolving the proposed
conversion of Cabanatuan City. However, his motion for reconsideration was denied by COMELEC.
Issue:
Whether or not only the qualified registered voters of Cabanatuan City can participate in the
plebiscite called for the conversion of Cabanatuan City from a component city into an HUC.
Ruling:
No. The qualified registered voters of the entire province of Nueva Ecija can participate in
the plebiscite called for the conversion of Cabanatuan City from a component city into an HUC.
38 | P a g e
39 | P a g e
40 | P a g e