Poli Notes

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
ARTICLE IX and practice before it or before any of its

offices. Such rules however shall not diminish,
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION increase, or modify substantive rights.
A. COMMON PROVISIONS ARULEO VS. CA

227 SCRA 311 [1993]
SECTION 1. The Constitutional Commissions,
which shall be independent, are the Civil FACTS:Aruelo and Gatchalian were Vice-
Service Commission, the Commission on Mayoralty candidates in Batangas,
Elections, and the Commission on Audit. Bulaean. Gatchalian was declared the
winner. Thereupon, Aruelo filed with the
SECTION 2. No Member of a Constitutional RTC a civil case protest in the same
Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any elections. Aruelo claims that in elections
other office or employment. Neither shall he contests, the COMELEC Rules give the
engage in the practice of any profession or in
respondent only 5 days from summons to
the active management or control of any
business which in any way be affected by the
file his answer and that this 5- day period
functions of his office, nor shall he be has lapsed. According to him, the tiling of
financially interested, directly or indirectly, in Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Bill of
any contract with, or in any franchise or particulars is prohibited by Sec. 1 Rule 13
privilege granted by the Government, any of its of COMELEC. Rules of Procedures, hence,
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, the filling by Gatchalian of said pleadings
including government-owned or controlled did not suspend the running of the 5-day
corporations or their subsidiaries. period.
SECTION 3. The salary of the Chairman and the ISSUE: Is Aruelo’s contention correct?
Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall
not be decreased during their tenure.
HELD: NO. Part VI of the Come lee Rules
does not provide that MTDE and Bill of
SECTION 4. The Constitutional Commissions
shall appoint their officials and employees in
particulars are not allowed in election
accordance with law. contest pending before the regular courts
constitutionally speaking. Comelec cannot
SECTION 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of
autonomy. Their approved annual certain pleadings in the regular courts.
appropriations shall be automatically and The power to promulgate rules
regularly released. concerning pleadings, practice and
procedure in all courts is vested on the SC.
SECTION 6. Each Commission en banc may Gatchalian received a copy of the RTC
promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings order denying his motion for Bill of
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

“The darkest nights produce the brightest stars...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
Page | 1
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Particulars on August 6, 1992. Under Comelec en banc. On October 28, 1987,

Sec.1 (b) Rule 12of the Revised Rules of three members voted to sustain the First
Court, a party has at least five days to file Decision, with 2 dissenting and one
his answer I after receipt of the order abstaining (one died earlier). But
denying his motion for a bill of particulars. respondent insists that no valid decision
His answer was filed right on time. was reached by the COMELEC en banc
because only three votes were reached in
favor of Cua and theses did not constitute
a majority of the body.
SECTION 7. Each Commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its Members any case or ISSUE: Is the Cua’s contention correct?
matter brought before it within sixty days from
the date of its submission for decision or
HELD: Yes. The 2-1 decision rendered by
resolution. A case or matter is deemed
the First Division was valid decision
submitted for decision or resolution upon the
filing of the last pleading, brief, or under Art.IX-A Sec.7 of the Constitution.
memorandum required by the rules of the Furthermore, the three members who
Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless voted to affirm the First division
otherwise provided by this Constitution or by constituted a majority of the five
law, any decision, order, or ruling of each members who deliberated and voted
Commission may be brought to the Supreme thereon en bane. Their decision is also
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party valid under the aforesaid Constitutional
within thirty days from receipt of a copy provision.
thereof.
ROMEO M. ESTRELLA v. COMMISSION

ON ELECTIONS, et al.
CUA VS. COMELEC 429 SCRA 789 (2004), EN BANC (Carpio
156 SCRA 582 [1987] Morales, J.)
FACTS: The COMELEC First Division Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules does it
rendered a 2:7 decision on August 10, allow a Commissioner to voluntarily
1987 favoring Cua as winner in the lone inhibit with reservation.
Congressional scat of Quirino but his
proclamation was suspended due to lack FACTS: Rolando Salvador was proclaimed
of unanimous vote required by the winner in a mayoralty race in May 14,
procedural rules in Comelec Resolution 2001 elections. His opponent, Romeo
No.1669 regarding transaction of official Estrella, filed before Regional Trial Court
business of a Division. Pursuant to said (RTC) an election protest which
rule, private respondent Puzon filed a consequently annulled Salvador‘s
motion for reconsideration with the proclamation and declared Estrella as the
Page | 2
MENDIOLA, MANILA
duly elected mayor and eventually issued proceedings when he previously inhibited
writ of execution. While Salvador filed a himself in the Division is, absent any
petition for certiorari before the satisfactory justification, not only
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), judicially unethical but legally improper
raffled to the Second Division thereof, and absurd.
Estrella moved for inhibition of
Commissioner Ralph Lantion, but a Status Since Commissioner Lantion could not
Quo Ante Order was issued. However, participate and vote in the issuance of the
Commissioner Lantion voluntarily questioned order, thus leaving three (3)
inhibited himself and designated another members concurring therewith, the
Commissioner to substitute him. The necessary votes of four (4) or majority of
Second Division, with the new judge, the members of the COMELEC was not
affirmed with modifications the RTC attained. The order thus failed to comply
decision and declared Estrella as the duly with the number of votes necessary for
elected mayor. Salvador filed a Motion for the pronouncement of a decision or
Reconsideration which was elevated to order.
the COMELEC En Banc, in which this time,
Commissioner Lantion participated by
virtue of Status Quo Ante Order issued by
the COMELEC En Banc. He said that as ACENA VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
agreed upon, while he may not participate 193 SCRA 623 [1991]
in the Division deliberations, he will vote
when the case is elevated to COMELEC En FACTS: Petitioner Acena was appointed
Banc. Hence, Estrella filed a Petition for as an Administrative Officer of Rizal
Certiorari before the Supreme Court. Technological Colleges (RTC), a state
college. He was approved as permanent
ISSUE: Whether a COMELEC by the CSC. Dr. Profets later extended to
Commissioner who inhibited himself in Acena a promotional appointment as
Division deliberations may participate in Associate Professor and at the same time
its En Banc deliberation designated the latter as Acting
Administrative Officer, despite the
HELD: The Status Quo Ante Order dated promotional appointment. Dr. Estolas
November 5, 2003 issued by the replaced Dr. Profets as RTC OTC. In a
COMELEC En Banc is nullified. memorandum Dr. Estolas revoked the
Commissioner Lantion‘s voluntary designation of Acena as Acting
piecemeal inhibition cannot be Administrative Officer.
countenanced. Nowhere in the COMELEC
Rules does it allow a Commissioner to Subsequently, petitioner Acena filed suit
voluntarily inhibit with reservation. To with the Merit Systems Protection Board
allow him to participate in the En Banc (MSPB) against Ds. Estolas for illegal
Page | 3
MENDIOLA, MANILA
termination. MSPB initially dismissed the reglementary period. Here, it is admitted

complaint, but it subsequently reversed by CSC and not disputed by the private
itself after having been informed of the respondent Estolas that the petitioner for
opinion of the CSC Chairman Gotdalera to review was filed outside the reglementary
the effect that Acena is still period. This being so, the public
Administrative Officer of the RTC because respondents exceeded its jurisdiction
his appointment as Associate Professor when it entertained the petition that was
had been withdrawn. erroneously filed with the Office of the
President. Having exceeded its
Dr. Estolas and Salvador (the one to jurisdiction the CSC committed a
replace Acena) filed a petition for review reversible error when it set aside the
with the Office of the President, which order the MSPB which had long become
refered said petition to the CSC. The CSC (final and executory. Final decision or
ruled in favor of Sr. Estolas and Salvador. order can no
Hence, this petition. longer be subject to review.
ISSUE: Whether or not esc acted without Moreover, Estolas has not even bothered
in excess of jurisdiction or with grave to offer an explanation why she incurred
abuse of discretion when it set the order delay and why she filed a petition with
of MSPB. the Office of the President. Such being the
case, the public respondent CSC cannot
HELD: It is settled rule, that a respondent legally invoke and justify the assumption
tribunal exercising judicial function acts of jurisdiction on grounds of equality and
without jurisdiction if does not have the substantial justice.
authority by law to hear and decide the
case. There is excess of jurisdiction where
the respondent has the legal power to VITAL-GOZON VS. COURT OF APPEALS
decide the case but oversteps his G.R. NO. 101428, AUGUST 5, 1992
authority. And there is gave abuse of NARVASA, C.J.:
discretion where the respondent acts in
capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or FACTS: President Aquino reorganized the
despotic manner in the exercise of his various offices of the Ministry of Health.
judgment amounting to lack of Dr. de la Fuente was demoted but the CSC
jurisdiction. Under PD 1409 the CSC has declared the transfer from Chief of Clinics
the jurisdiction to review the to Medical Specialists II as illegal. Three
decision of the MAPB. However, said the months elapsed without any word from
authority to review can only be exercised Dr. Vital- Gozon or anyone in her behalf,
if the party adversely affected by the or any indication whatever that the CSC
decision of the M APB had filed an appeal Resolution would be obeyed. Dr. de la
with the Commission within the I5-day Fuente, apprehensive that the funds to
Page | 4
MENDIOLA, MANILA
cover the salaries and allowances de la Fuente's claim for damages" — the
otherwise due him would revert to the Solicitor General's Office had instituted
General Fund, asked the CSC to enforce its the special civil action of certiorari at bar.
judgment. He was however "told to file in It contends that the CA is not legally
court a petition for mandamus because of competent to take cognizance of and
the belief that the Commission had no decide the question of damages in a
coercive powers — unlike a court — to mandamus suit.
enforce its final decisions/resolutions.
ISSUES:
Respondent court denied it on the ground 1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals
that the "petitions (for mandamus) are has jurisdiction, in a special civil action of
not the vehicle nor is the Court the forum mandamus against a public officer, to take
for . . . (said) claim of damages." De la cognizance of the matter of damages
Fuente sought reconsideration, sought to be recovered from the
contending that the Appellate Court had defendant officer.
competence to award damages in a
mandamus action. He argued that while 2. Whether or not the Solicitor General
such a claim for damages might not have may represent the defendant public
been proper in a mandamus proceeding officer in the mandamus suit, in so far as
in the Appellate Court "before the the claim for damages is concerned.
enactment of B.P. Blg. 129 because the CA
had authority to issue such writs only 'in HELD:
aid of its appellate jurisdiction,'" the 1. No. The Solicitor General's Office
situation was changed by said BP 129 in correctly identifies Section 9, B.P. 129 as
virtue of which three levels of courts — the legal provision specifying the original
the Supreme Court, the Regional Trial and appellate jurisdiction of the Court of
Court, and the Court of Appeals — were Appeals. The section pertinently declares
conferred concurrent original jurisdiction that the "Intermediate Appellate Court
to issue said writs, and the CA was given (now the Court of Appeals) shall
power to conduct hearings and receive exercise . .," among others: Original
evidence to resolve factual issues. To jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
require him to separately litigate the prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and
matter of damages he continued, would quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or
lead to that multiplicity of suits which is processes, whether or not in aid of its
abhorred by the law. appellate jurisdiction .
On the other hand, in an attempt to nullify Section 19, governing the exclusive
the adverse dispositions of the Court of original jurisdiction of Regional Trial
Appeals — and obtain "the ultimate and Courts in civil cases, contains no
corollary relief of dismissing respondent reference whatever to claims "for moral
Page | 5
MENDIOLA, MANILA
and exemplary damages," and indeed FACTS: In a bid for the manufacture and
does not use the word "damages" at all; delivery of voting booths for COMELEC,
yet it is indisputable that said courts have respondent COMELEC Bidding Committee
power to try and decide claims for moral, Chairman and Members rejected Acme
exemplary and other classes of damages Company’s bid and instead awarded it to
accompanying any of the types or kinds of petitioner Filipinas. After an ocular
cases falling within their specified inspection of all the samples submitted
jurisdiction. was conducted and after the
Commissioners noted that Acme
2. No. As laid down in the Urbano and Co submitted the lowest bid, the COMELEC
cases: (T)he Office of the Solicitor General issued a Resolution awarding the contract
is not authorized to represent a public (for voting booths) to Acme. Filipinas filed
official at any stage of a criminal case. an Injunction suit with the then CFI of
This observation should apply as well to a Manila against herein public respondents
public official who is haled to court on a COMELEC Commissioners, chairman and
civil suit for damages arising from a members of the Comelec Bidding
felony allegedly committed by him Committee, and private respondent Acme.
(Article 100, Revised Penal Code). Any Filipinas also applied for a writ of
pecuniary liability he may be held to preliminary injunction. After hearing
account for on the occasion of such civil petitioner's said application, the
suit is for his own account. The State is respondent Judge denied the writ prayed
not liable for the same. A fortiori, the for.
Office of the Solicitor General likewise has
no authority to represent him in such a Thereafter the public respondents filed a
civil suit for damages. motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the
lower court has no jurisdiction over the
It being quite evident that Dr. Vital-Gozon nature of suit, and that the complaint
is not here charged with a crime, or civilly states no cause of action. Acting on the
prosecuted for damages arising from a motion (to dismiss), the respondent Judge
crime, there is no legal obstacle to her issued the questioned Order dismissing
being represented by the Office of the Civil Case No. 77972. Filipinas' motion for
Solicitor General. reconsideration was denied for lack of
merit. Hence, the instant appeal.
FILIPINAS ENGINEERING AND ISSUES:

MACHINE SHOP VS. JAIME N. FERRER 1. Whether or not the lower court has
G.R. NO. L-31455, FEBRUARY 28, 1985 jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit
CUEVAS, J.: involving an order of the COMELEC
dealing with an award of contract arising
from its invitation to bid;
Page | 6
MENDIOLA, MANILA
which is exclusively and directly

2. Whether or not Filipinas, the losing appealable to this court on certiorari.
bidder, has a cause of action under the What is contemplated by the term "final
premises against the COMELEC and Acme, orders, rulings and decisions" of the
the winning bidder, to enjoin them from COMELEC reviewable by certiorari by the
complying with Supreme Court as provided by law are
their contract. those rendered in actions or proceedings
before the COMELEC and taken
HELD: cognizance of by the said body in the
1. Yes. The Commission on Elections shall exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
have exclusive charge of the enforcement judicial powers.
and administration of all laws relative to
the conduct of elections and shall exercise It cannot be gainsaid that the powers
all other functions which may be vested by the Constitution and the law on
conferred upon it by law. It shall decide, the Commission on Elections may either
save those involving the right to vote, all be classified as those pertaining to its
administrative questions affecting adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions,
elections, including the determination of or those which are inherently
the number of location of Polling places, administrative and sometimes ministerial
and the appointment of election in character. We agree with petitioner's
inspectors and of other election officials. ... contention that the order of the
The decisions, orders and rulings of the Commission granting the award to a
Commission shall be subject to review by bidder is not an order rendered in a legal
the Supreme Court. (Section 2, Article X, controversy before it wherein the parties
1935 Philippine Constitution, which was filed their respective pleadings and
then in force) presented evidence after which the
questioned order was issued; and that
It has been consistently held that it is the this order of the commission was issued
Supreme Court, not the Court of First pursuant to its authority to enter into
Instance, which has exclusive jurisdiction contracts in relation to election purposes.
to review on certiorari final decisions,
orders or rulings of the COMELEC relative In short, the COMELEC resolution
to the conduct of elections and awarding the contract in favor of Acme
enforcement of election laws. We are was not issued pursuant to its quasi-
however, far from convince that an order judicial functions but merely as an
of the COMELEC awarding a contract to a incident of its inherent administrative
private party, as a result of its choice functions over the conduct of elections,
among various proposals submitted in and hence, the said resolution may not be
response to its invitation to bid comes deemed as a "final order" reviewable by
within the purview of a "final order" certiorari by the Supreme Court. Being
Page | 7
MENDIOLA, MANILA
non-judicial in character, no contempt committee, was not the winning bid. No

may be imposed by the COMELEC from resolution to that effect appeared to have
said order, and no direct and exclusive been issued by the COMELEC. Decidedly
appeal by certiorari to this Tribunal lie then, Filipinas has no cause of action.
from such order. Any question arising
from said order may be well taken in an In issuing the resolution awarding the
ordinary civil action before the trial contract for voting booths in Acme's favor,
courts. the Commissioners of the COMELEC had
taken into account that Acme's bid was
2. No. Filipinas, the losing bidder, has no the lowest; that Acme was a responsible
cause of action under the premises to manufacturer; and that upon an ocular
enjoin the COMELEC from pursuing its inspection of the samples submitted by
contract with Acme, the winning bidder. the bidders, Acme's sample was favorable
While it may be true that the lower court chosen subject to certain conditions cited
has the jurisdiction over controversies in the resolution. In fine, the public
dealing with the COMELEC's award of respondents properly exercised its sound
contracts, the same being purely discretion in making the award.
administrative and civil in nature,
nevertheless, herein petitioner has no
cause of action on the basis of the MATEO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
allegations of its (G.R. No. 113219. August 14, 1995)
complaint. PUNO, J.:
Indeed, while the law requires the FACTS: Upon complaint of some Morong
exercise of sound discretion on the part of Water District (MWD) employees,
procurement authorities, and that the petitioners MWD Board Members
reservation to reject any or all bids may conducted an investigation on private
not be used as a shield to a fraudulent respondent Edgar Sta. Maria, then Gen.
award, petitioner has miserably failed to Manager. He was placed under preventive
prove or substantiate the existence of suspension and Maximo San Diego was
malice or fraud on the part of the public designated in his place as Acting Gen.
respondents in the challenged award. Manager. He was later dismissed.
Challenging his dismissal, private
Pursuant to COMELEC's Invitation to Bid respondent filed for Quo Warranto and
No. 127, a bidder may have the right to Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction
demand damages, or unrealized or before the trial court. Petitioners moved
expected profits, only when his bid was to dismiss on the ground that the court
accepted by resolution of the COMELEC. had no jurisdiction over the disciplinary
Filipinas' bid, although recommended for actions of government employees which
award of contract by the bidding is vested exclusively in the CSC.
Page | 8
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Respondent Judge denied the motion to In any event, whether under the old rule
dismiss and the motion for or present rule, RTCs have no jurisdiction
reconsideration. to entertain cases involving dismissal of
officers and employees covered by the
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari Civil Service Law. Petition granted.
before this court, which referred the case Decision and resolution annulled and set
to respondent court. The CA dismissed aside.
the petition and denied the motion for
reconsideration. Hence, the petition.
REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court has NO. 1-95 May 16, 1995
jurisdiction over a case involving (REVISED CIRCULAR NO. 1-91)
dismissal of an employee of quasi-public
corporation? TO: COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, THE
HELD: No. There is no question that MWD GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL,
is a quasi-public corporation. Indeed, the ALL MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT
established rule is that the hiring and PROSECUTION SERVICE, AND ALL
firing of employees of government-owned MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF
and controlled corporations are governed THE PHILIPPINES.
by the provisions of the Civil Service Law SUBJECT: Rules Governing appeals to the
and Rules and Regulations. Court of Appeals from Judgment or Final
Orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and
So We held in Mancita v. Barcinas, no Quasi-Judicial Agencies.
appeal lies from the decision of the
Service Commission, and that parties 1. SCOPE. — These rules shall apply to
aggrieved thereby may proceed to this appeals from judgments or final orders of
Court alone on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards,
the Rules of Court, within 30 days from judgments, final orders or resolutions of
receipt of a copy thereof, pursuant to or authorized by any quasi-judicial
section 7, Article IX of the 1987 agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
Constitution. Mancita, however, no longer functions. Among these agencies are the
governs for under the present rules, Civil Service Commission, Central Board
Revised Circular No. 1-91 as amended by of Assessment Appeals, Securities
Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 and Exchange Commission, Land
which took effect on June 1, 1995, final Registration Authority, Social Security
resolutions of the Civil Service Commission, Office of the President, Civil
Commission shall be appealable to the Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents,
Court of Appeals. Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
National Electrification Administration,
Page | 9
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Energy Regulatory Board, National further extension shall be granted except

Telecommunications Commission, for the most compelling reason and in no
Department of Agrarian Reform under case to exceed another period of fifteen
Republic Act 6657, Government Service (15) days.
Insurance System, Employees
Compensation Commission, Agricultural 5. HOW APPEAL TAKEN. — Appeal shall
Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, be taken by filing a verified petition for
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, review in seven (7) legible copies with the
Board of Investments, and Construction Court of Appeals, with proof of service of
Industry Arbitration Commission. a copy thereof on the adverse party and
on the court or agency a quo. The original
2. CASES NOT COVERED. — These rules copy of the petition intended for the Court
shall not apply to judgments or final of Appeals shall be indicated as such by
orders issued under the Labor Code of the the petitioner. Upon filing the petition for
Philippines. review, the petitioner shall pay to the
Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals the
3. WHERE TO APPEAL. — An appeal docketing and other lawful fees and
under these rules may be taken to the deposit the sum of P500.00 for costs.
Court of Appeals within the period and in Exemption from payment of docketing
the manner herein provided, whether the and other lawful fees and the deposit for
appeal involves questions of fact, of law, costs may be granted by the Court of
or mixed questions of fact and law. Appeals upon verified motion setting
forth the grounds relied upon. If the Court
4. PERIOD OF APPEAL. — The appeal of Appeals denies the motion, the
shall be taken within fifteen (15) days petitioner shall pay the docketing and
from notice of the award, judgment, final other lawful fees and deposit for costs
order or resolution or from the date of its within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
last publication, if publication is required denial.
by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of
petitioner's motion for new trial or 6. CONTENTS OF THE PETITION. — The
reconsideration filed in accordance with petition for review shall
the governing law of the court or agency a (a) state the full names of the parties to
quo. Only one (1) motion for the case, without impleading the courts or
reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon agencies either as petitioners or
proper motion and the payment of the full respondents;
a mount of the docket fee before the (b) contain a concise statement of the
expiration of the reglementary period, the facts and issues involved and the grounds
Court of Appeals may grant an additional relied upon for the review;
period of fifteen (15) days only within (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible
which to file the petition for review. No duplicate original or certified true copy of
Page | 10
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the award, judgment, final order or together with other supporting papers. It
resolution appealed from, together with shall point out insufficiencies or
certified true copies of such material inaccuracies in petitioner's statement of
portions of the record as are referred to facts and issues, and state the reasons
therein and other supporting papers; and why the petition should be denied or
(d) state all the specific material dates dismissed. A copy thereof shall be served
showing that it was filed within the on the petitioner, and proof of such
reglementary period provided herein; and service shall be filed with the Court of
(e) contain a sworn certification against Appeals.
forum shopping as required in Revised
Circular No. 28-91. 10. DUE COURSE. — If upon the filing of
the comment or such other pleadings or
7. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY documents as may be required or allowed
WITH REQUIREMENTS. — The failure of by the Court of Appeals or upon the
the petitioner to comply with the expiration of period for the filing thereof,
foregoing requirements regarding the and on the bases of the petition or the
payment of the docket and other lawful record the Court of Appeals finds prima
fees, the deposit for mcosts, proof of facie that the court or agencies concerned
service of the petition, and the contents of has committed errors of fact or law that
and the documents which should would warrant reversal or modification of
accompany the petition shall be sufficient the award, judgment, final order or
grounds for the dismissal thereof. resolution sought to be reviewed, it may
give due course to the petition; otherwise,
8. ACTION ON THE PETITION. — The it shall dismiss the same. The findings of
Court of Appeals may require the fact of the court or agency concerned,
respondent to file a comment on the when supported by substantial evidence,
petition, not a motion to dismiss, within shall be binding on the Court of Appeals.
ten (10) days from notice. The Court,
however, may dismiss the petition if it 11. TRANSMITTAL OF RECORD. —
finds the same to be patently without Within fifteen (15) days from notice that
merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or the petition has been given due course,
that the questions raised therein are too the Court of Appeals may require the
unsubstantial to require consideration. court or agency concerned to transmit the
original or a legible certified true copy of
9. CONTENTS OF COMMENT. — The the entire record of the proceeding under
comment shall be filed within ten (10) review. The record to be transmitted may
days from notice in seven (7) legible be abridged by agreement of all parties to
copies and accompanied by clearly legible the proceeding. The Court of Appeals may
certified true copies of such material require or permit subsequent correction
portions of the record referred to therein of or addition to the record.
Page | 11
MENDIOLA, MANILA
transferred or referred to it shall be

12. EFFECT OF APPEAL. — The appeal considered as the date of the filing thereof
shall not stay the award, judgment, final as petitions for review, and the Court of
order or resolution sought to be reviewed Appeals may require the filing of
unless the Court of Appeals shall direct amended or supplemental pleadings and
otherwise upon such terms as it may the submission of such further documents
deem just. or records as it may deem necessary in
view of and consequent to the change in
13. SUBMISSION FOR DECISION. — If the mode of appellate review.
the petition is given due course, the Court
of Appeals may set the case for oral 15. REPEALING CLAUSE. — Rules 43 and
argument or require the parties to submit 44 of the Rules of Court are Hereby
memoranda within a period of fifteen repealed and superseded by this Circular.
(15) days from notice. The case shall be
deemed submitted for decision upon the 16. EFFECTIVITY. — This Circular shall
filing of the last pleading or memorandum be published in two (2)newspapers of
required by these rules or by the Court general circulation and shall take effect on
itself. June 1, 1995.
14. TRANSITORY PROVISIONS. — All

petitions for certiorari against the Civil SECTION 8. Each Commission shall perform
Service Commission and The Central such other functions as may be provided by
Board of Assessment Appeals filed and law.
pending in the Supreme Court prior to the
effectivity of this Revised Administrative
Circular shall be treated as petitions for
review hereunder and shall be
transferred to the Court of Appeals for
B. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
appropriate disposition. Petitions for
certiorari against the aforesaid agencies SECTION 1. (1) The Civil Service shall be
which may be filed after the effectivity administered by the Civil Service Commission
hereof and up to June 30, 1995 shall composed of a Chairman and two
likewise be considered as petitions for Commissioners who shall be natural-born
review and shall be referred to the Court citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
of Appeals for the same purpose. their appointment, at least thirty-five years of
age, with proven capacity for public
In both instances, for purposes of the administration, and must not have been
period of appeal contemplated in Section candidates for any elective position in the
4 hereof, the date of receipt by the Court elections immediately preceding their
appointment.
of Appeals of the petitions thus
Page | 12
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall

be appointed by the President with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments for a term TUPAS V. NATIONAL HOUSING
of seven years without reappointment. Of those CORPORATION
first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office (G.R. NO. 49677, MAY 4, 1989)
for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, REGALADO, J.:
and another Commissioner for three years,
without reappointment. Appointment to any FACTS: Petitioner TUPAS filed a petition
vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of
for the conduct of a certification election
the predecessor. In no case shall any Member
be appointed or designated in a temporary or in order to determine the exclusive
acting capacity. bargaining representative of the workers
in NHC. The petition was dismissed. On
SECTION 2. appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations,
the order of dismissal was reversed and
(1) The civil service embraces all branches, the holding of the election was ordered.
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of Upon a motion for reconsideration, this
the Government, including government-owned order was set aside. Hence, the instant
or controlled corporations with original petition for certiorari.
charters.
ISSUE: WON petitioner organization can
(2) Appointments in the civil service shall be be allowed to hold a certification election.
made only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except
HELD: Yes. The civil service now covers
to positions which are policy-determining,
primarily confidential, or highly technical, by only government owned or controlled
competitive examination. corporations with original or legislative
charters, that is those created by an act of
(3) No officer or employee of the civil service Congress or by special law, and not those
shall be removed or suspended except for cause incorporated under and pursuant to a
provided by law. general legislation. The workers or
employees of NHC undoubtedly have the
(4) No officer or employee in the civil service right to form unions or employees’
shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any organizations. The right to unionize or to
electioneering or partisan political campaign. form organizations is now explicitly
recognized and granted to employees in
(5) The right to self-organization shall not be both the governmental and the private
denied to government employees. sectors. There is, therefore, no
impediment to the holding of a
(6) Temporary employees of the Government
certification election among the workers
shall be given such protection as may be
provided by law. of NHC for it is clear that they are covered
by the Labor Code, the NHC being a

Page | 13
MENDIOLA, MANILA
government-owned and/or controlled ISSUE: Whether or not the removal of the

corporation without an original charter. It petitioner was constitutional.
is meet, however, to also call attention to
the fact that, insofar as certification HELD: NO. There are three classes of
elections are concerned, subsequent positions-policy-determining, primarily
statutory developments have rendered confidential and highly technical - as
academic even the distinction between excluded from the merit system and
the two types of government-owned or dismissal at pleasure of officers and
controlled corporations and the laws employees appointed herein is allowed by
governing employment relations therein, the Constitution. These positions involve
as hereinbefore discussed. For, whether the highest degree of confidence, or are,
the employees of NHC are covered by the closely bound with the dependent 011
Labor Code or by the civil service laws, a other positions to which they are
certification election may be conducted. subordinates or are temporary in nature.
Resolution annulled and set aside. However, the office of the City Engineer is
Conduct of a certification election granted. neither primarily confidential, policy
determining nor highly technical. Thus,
the constitutional provision is very much
applicable in his case wherein he is
DE LOS SANTOS VS. MALLARE protected from removal without cause.
97 PHIL 289 [1950]
FACTS: Eduardo de los Santos, the

petitioner was appointed City Engineer of SALAZAR VS. MATHAY
Baguio on July 16, 1946 by the President, 73 SCRA 285 [1976]
appointment which was confirmed by the
CA on August 6. On June I, 1050, Gil FACTS: Petitioner Salazar was appointed
Mallure was extended an "ad interim" by the Auditor General Confidential agent
appointment by the President to the same in the Office of the Auditor General, GSIS.
position, after which, on June 3, the Her appointment was noted by the
undersecretary of the Department of the Commission of Civil Service. After six
Public works directed Santos to report to years, petitioner received a notice from
the Bureau of Public Works for another the Auditor General that her service as
assignment. Santos refused to vacate the confidential in the office of the Auditor
office. The petitioner rests his case on the OSIS has been terminated.
Constitution which reads, ''No officer or
employee in the Civil Service shall be Thereafter, the Auditor General issued an
removed or suspend except for cause as appointment to the petition as Junior
provided by law." Examiner receiving a lower compensation.
On the day of the appointment petitioner
Page | 14
MENDIOLA, MANILA
assumed the position. Petitioner wrote he filed an action for certiorari,

the Commission of Civil Service that she mandamus, quo warranto and damages
be reinstated to her former position as with preliminary injunction with the CFI
confidential agent in the office of the of the Manila. The CFI declared the Board
auditor, GSIS. However, no action was Resolution null and void and ordered the
taken. reinstatement of the petitioner. As
aforesaid, both the petitioner and
ISSUE: Whether or not the service of respondent appealed the judgment.
petitioner as confidential agent was
validly terminated on the alleged ground The appeal of the Central Band and
of loss of confidence, and if not, whether Monetary Board is planted on the
or not she could still be reinstated to said proposition that officers holding highly
position after accepting the position of technical positions may at anytime for
Junior Examiner in the same office. lack of confidence by the appointing
power be removed. It argued that for the
HELD: The tenure of officials holding three classes of positions
primarily confidential ends upon loss of (policydetermining. primarily confidential
confidence because their term of office and highly technical) lack of confidence of
lasts only as long as confidence in them the one making the appointment
endures. constitute sufficient and legitimate cause
of removal.
ISSUE: Whether or not highly technical

CORPUZ VS. CUADERNO employees may be removed by reason of
13 SCRA 591 [1965] lack of confidence by the one making the
appointment.
FACTS: Petitioner Corpuz, then holding
the position of Special Assistant to the HELD: The tenure of official holding
Governor in charge of the Export primarily confidential positions ends
Department in the Central Bank, a upon 19s5 of confidence, because their
position declared by the President as terms of office lasts only as long as
highly technical in nature, was confidence in them endures; and thus
administratively charged by several co - their cessation involves no removal. But
employees in the export department with the situation is different for those holding
dishonesty, incompetence, neglect of duty technical posts, requiring special skills
and abuse of authority, oppression, and qualifications. The Constitution
conduct unbecoming of a public official clearly distinguished the primarily
and of violation of the internal regulations confidential from highly technical, and to
of the Central Bank. The Monetary Board apply the loss of confidence to the latter
suspended the petitioner. After which incumbents is to ignore and erase the
Page | 15
MENDIOLA, MANILA
differentiation expressly made by our Commission (CSC) approved it as

fundamental charter. "temporary," subject to the final action
taken in the protest filed by the private
Moreover, it is illogical that while an respondent and another employee, and
ordinary technician, say clerk, provided "there (was) no pending
stenographer, enjoys administrative case against the appointee,
security of tenure and may not be no pending protest against the
removed at any pleasure, a highly appointment nor any decision by
technical officers such as an economist or competent authority that will adversely
a scientist of a avowed time, without right affect the approval of the appointment."
to a hearing or chance to defend himself. The CSC then found the private
No technical men worthy would be willing respondent better qualified than the
to accept work under such condition. petitioner for the contested position, and
Ultimately, the rule' advocated by the accordingly, appointed Tuozo as
bank would demand that highly technical administrative officer and revoked the
positions be filed by persons who must appointment of Luego. The private
labor always with an eye cocked at the respondent was so appointed on June 28,
humor of the superiors. It would signify 1984, by the new mayor, Mayor Ronald
that the so-called highly technical Duterte. The petitioner, in the present
positions will have to be filed with petition questions the order and the
incompetents and yes-men. Who must private respondent’s title.
rely not on their own qualifications and
skill but on their ability to carry favor ISSUE: Is the CSC authorized to
with the powerful. The entire objective of disapprove a permanent appointment on
the constitution in establishing and the ground that another person is better
dignifying the civil service on the basis on qualified than the appointee and, on the
merit should be thus negated. basis of this finding, order his
replacement by the latter?
HELD: NO. It is noted that the

LUEGO VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION appointment of the petitioner was not
(G.R. NO. L-69137. AUGUST 5, 1986) temporary but permanent and was
CRUZ, J.: therefore protected by Constitution. The
appointing authority indicated that it was
FACTS: Petitioner Felimon Luego was permanent, as he had the right to do so,
appointed Administrative Officer 11, and it was not for the respondent CSC to
Office of the City Mayor, Cebu City, by reverse him and call it temporary.
Mayor Florentino Solon on February 18,
1983. The appointment was described as The stamping of the words "APPROVED
permanent" but the Civil Service as TEMPORARY" did not change the
Page | 16
MENDIOLA, MANILA
character of the appointment, which was of another officer or body, like the
clearly described as "Permanent" in the Commission on Appointments under
space provided for in Civil Service Form 1935 Constitution. Appointments made
No. 33, dated February 18, 1983. What by the President of the Philippines had to
was temporary was the approval of the be confirmed by that body and could not
appointment, not the appointment itself be issued or were invalidated without
and what made the approval temporary such confirmation. In
was the fact that it was made to depend fact, confirmation by the Commission on
on the condition specified therein and on Appointments was then considered part
the verification of the qualifications of the of the appointing process, which was held
appointee to the position. complete only after such confirmation.
The Civil Service Commission is not Significantly, the CSC acknowledged that
empowered to determine the kind or both the petitioner and the private
nature of the appointment extended by respondent were qualified for the
the appointing officer, its authority being position in controversy. That recognition
limited to approving or reviewing the alone rendered it functus officio in the
appointment in the light of the case and prevented it from acting further
requirements of the Civil Service Law. thereon except to affirm the validity of the
When the appointee is qualified and petitioner's appointment. To be sure, it
authorizing the other legal requirements had no authority to revoke the said
are satisfied, the Commission has no appointment simply because it believed
choice but to attest to the appointment in that the private respondent was better
accordance with the Civil Service Laws. qualified for that would have constituted
Indeed, the approval is more an encroachment on the discretion vested
appropriately called an attestation, that is, solely in the city mayor.
of the fact that the appointee is qualified
for the position to which he has been WHEREFORE, the resolution of the
named. Appointment is an essentially respondent Commission on Civil Service
discretionary power and must be dated March 22, 1984, is set aside, and the
performed by the officer in which it is petitioner is hereby declared to be
vested according to his best lights, the entitled to the office in dispute by virtue
only condition being that the appointee of his permanent appointment thereto
should possess the qualifications required dated February 18, 1983. No costs.
by law. If he does, then the appointment
cannot be faulted on the ground that
there are others better qualified who
should have been preferred. It is different
where the Constitution or the law
subjects the appointment to the approval
Page | 17
MENDIOLA, MANILA
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR VS. CA Camarines Sur at the time he was

GR NO. 104639. JULY 14, 1995 suspended.
FACTS: Private respondent Tito Dato was HELD:

appointed Assistant Provincial Warden by NO. Private respondent does not dispute
then Gov. Felix Alfelor, Sr. Since he had no the fact that at the time he was appointed
civil service eligibility for the position he Assistant Provincial Wasrden in 1974, he
was appointed to, what was extended to had not qualified in an appropriate
him was a temporary appointment which examination for the aforementioned
was renewed annually. Gov. Alfelor position. Such lack of a civil service
approved the change in Dato’s eligibility made his appointment
employment status from temporary to temporary and without a fixed and
permanent upon the latter’s definite term and is dependent entirely
representation that he passed the upon the pleasure of the appointing
necessary civil service exam. However, power. The fact that private respondent
the CSC did not favorably act upon this obtained civil service eligibility later on is
change of status. of no moment as his having passed the
supervising security guard examination,
After criminal charges were filed against did not ipso facto convert his temporary
him and a prison guard, Dato was appointment into a permanent one. In
indefinitely suspended. Lope Rama, head cases such as the one at bench, what is
of the Camarines Sur Unit of the CSC, required is a new appointment since a
wrote the Governor of Camarines Sur, permanent appointment is not a
informing him that the status of Dato has continuation of the temporary
been changed from temporary to appointment – these are two distinct acts
permanent, the latter having passed the of the appointing authority.
required examination. The change of
status was to be made retroactive to June It is worthy to note that private
11, 1974, the date of release of said respondent rests his case entirely on the
examination. Dato was acquitted of the letter dated March 19, 1976
charges. Thus, he asked for reinstatement communicated by Mr. Rama to the
and backwages. When his request was not Governor of Camarines Sur. The foregoing
heeded, Dato sued for mandamus before is a clear arrogation of power properly
the RTC which ruled in his favor. On belonging to the appointing authority. It
appeal, the CA affirmed the assailed was already held before (Luego v. CSC)
decision. Hence this present petition. that the CSC has the power to approve or
disapprove an appointment set before it.
ISSUE: Whether or not private It does not have the power to make the
respondent Tito Dato was a permanent appointment itself or to direct the
employee of petitioner Province of appointing authority to change the
Page | 18
MENDIOLA, MANILA
employment status of an employee. The DE LOS SANTOS V. YATCO

CSC can only inquire into the eligibility of GR NO. L-13932. DECEMBER 24, 1959
the person chosen to fill a position and if
it finds the person qualified it must attest. FACTS: A compromise agreement was
If not, the appointment must be submitted referring to the sale by
disapproved. The duty of the CSC is to installment of a parcel of land made by
attest appointments and after that plaintiffs therein Pacita de los Santos and
function is discharged, its participation in Jose de los Santos to Franicsco Mendonez.
the appointment process ceases. In the The agreement was subsequently
case at bench, CSC should have ended its approved. Plaintiffs moved for execution
participation in the appointment of because defendant had allegedly
private respondent on January 1, 1974 neglected to pay monthly installments
when it confirmed the temporary status since January 1958. Defendant sought
of the latter who lacked the proper civil postponement of the hearing for the
service eligibility. motion which was
granted by respondent Judge. Respondent
Moreover, the Court is not prepared to then issued a motion for execution but the
accord said letter any probative value the defendant moved to quash the writ of
same being merely a purported execution. The parties were heard and in
photocopy of the alleged letter, initialed view of a possible amicable settlement,
and not even signed by the proper officer the motion to quash was held in abeyance
of the CSC. Based on the foregoing, private for two weeks during which period they
respondent Tito Dato, being merely a can settle the case. After the pre-trial
temporary employee, is not entitled to the conferences, respondent quashed the writ
relief he seeks, including his claim for of execution. Hence this petition for
backwages for the entire period of his certiorari.
suspension.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was grave
Wherefore, premises considered, the abuse of discretion on the part of the
appealed decision is hereby REVERSED respondent Judge.
and the petition for mandamus instituted
by herein private respondent Tito Dato is HELD: NO. In the first place, there being
hereby DISMISSED. opposition on the part of the defendant,
who alleged and proved a subsequent
verbal agreement amending the
compromise, execution could not validly
be decreed without a hearing. In the
second place, the allegations proved by
Mendonez about their verbal agreement,
his having secured a loan from the GSIS
Page | 19
MENDIOLA, MANILA
and his consequent ability to discharge preliminary injunction, as jurisdiction lay

his obligation seemingly justified the with the DOLE of the NLRC, since the case
court’s refusal to eject defendant from the involves a labor dispute
premises (on execution) with the
consequent forfeiture in favor of the ISSUE: Whether or not the SSS Employees
plaintiffs of more than 12,000 already have the right to strike
paid by defendant as previous
installments of the purchase price not to HELD: There is no question that the
mention the loss of defendant’s use of the constitution recognizes the right of
house and theater erected on that parcel government employees to organize as
of land. Upon the other hand, the shown in the following articles: XIII Sec. 3,
respondent judge’s action caused no Art.XI (B) Sec. 2 (1) and (5) Art. III Sec. 8.
irreparable or undue harm to plaintiffs,
because the latter still have the judgment However, those articles are silent as to
that may be enforced upon any further whether such recognition also includes
default of defendant Mendonez. the right to strike. Resort of the intent of
the framers of the organic law becomes
Wherefore, as the court had jurisdiction helpful in understanding the meaning of
and has committed no grave abuse of these provisions. A reading of the
discretion, the writ of certiorari may not proceedings of the Constitution
be issued. Petition denied, with costs Commission that drafted the 1987
against petitioners. Constitution would show that in
recognizing the right government
employees to organize, the associations
only, without including the right to strike.
SSS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. CA
175 SCRA 686 [1989] The Labor Code is silent as to whether or
not government employees may strike,
FACTS: When the SSS failed to act on the for such are excluded from its coverage,
SSEA's demands, the latter went to strike. but then the Civil Service Decree is
The SSS filed with the RTC complaint for equally silent on the matter. On July 1,
damages and asked for a writ of 1987, to implement the constitution
preliminary injunctions to stop the strike. guarantee of the rights of government
The trial Court issued a TRO while the employees to organize, the President
Union filed a Motion of Dismiss alleging issued EO No. t 80 which provides
the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over guidelines for the exercise of the right to
the subject matter. The position of the organize government employees. In Sec. 4
union is that the RTC had no jurisdiction thereof, it is provided that "the Civil
to hear the case initiated by the SSS and to Service law and Rules governing
issue the restraining order and the writ of concerted activities and strikes in the
Page | 20
MENDIOLA, MANILA
government services shall be observed, SECTION 4. All public officers and employees
subject to many legislation that may be shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and
enacted by congress by Congress." The defend this Constitution.
President was apparently referring to
Memorandum Circular No. 6 of the Civil SECTION 5. The Congress shall provide for the
standardization of compensation of
Service Commission which "prior to the
government officials and employees, including
enactment by Congress of applicable laws those in government-owned or controlled
concerning strike by government corporations with original charters, taking
employees enjoying under pain of into account the nature of the responsibilities
administrative sanctions all government pertaining to, and the qualifications required
demonstration, mass leaves, walkouts and for their positions.
other forms of mass action which will
result in temporary stoppage or SECTION 6. No candidate who has lost in any
disruption of public service" the air was election shall, within one year after such
thus cleared 'of the confusion. At present, election, be appointed to any office in the
in the absence of any legislation allowing Government or any government-owned or
government employees to strike controlled corporations or in any of their
recognize their right to do so, or subsidiaries.
regulating the exercise of the right, they
SECTION 7. No elective official shall be eligible
are prohibited from striking. This being for appointment or designation in any capacity
the case, the strike staged by employees to any public office or position during his
of the SSS was illegal. tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the

primary functions of his position, no appointive
official shall hold any other office or
SECTION 3. The Civil Service Commission, as employment in the Government or any
the central personnel agency of the subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
Government, shall establish a career service including government-owned or controlled
and adopt measures to promote morale, corporations or their subsidiaries.
efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,
progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil
service. It shall strengthen the merit and
rewards system, integrate all human resources CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. EXECUTIVE
development programs for all levels and ranks, SECRETARY
and institutionalize a management climate
194 SCRA 317 [1991]
conducive to public accountability. It shall
submit to the President and the Congress an
annual report on its personnel programs. FACTS: Petitioner contends that Section
13 run counter to See 13 Art. VII of the
1987 Constitution -The President, Vice-m

Page | 21
MENDIOLA, MANILA
President and the members of the Cabinet Cabinet or Secretary of Justice to become
and their deputies or assistants shall not, an ex-officio member of the Judiciary and
unless otherwise provided in this Bar Council, while respondents insists it
constitution, hold any office of make reference to Sec 7 of Art IX-B in so
employment during their tenure. far as the appointive official mentioned
therein is concerned.
By virtue of the opinion rendered by then
Secretary of Justice Sedfrey Ordonez, ISSUE: Does the prohibition in Sec.13
construing Section 13 Art. VII in relation Art.VII insofar as cabinet members, their
to Section 7, par.2 Art.IX-B that cabinet deputies and assistants are concerned
members, their deputies and assistants admit of the broad exceptions made for
may hold other office including appointive officials in general under Sec 7
membership in the board of GOCC's when: par 2 Art IXB unless otherwise allowed by
law or the primary functions of his
a) directly provided by the constitution as position, no appointive officials shall hold
in case of Sec of Justice which is made an any other office or employment in the
ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar government.
Council;
b) if allowed by law; HELD: We rule in the negative. In
c) if allowed by the primary functions of construing the Constitution, it should be
their respective positions, the President borne in mind the objects it sought to
of the Philippines issued EO 284 two days accomplish by its adoption, and the evils
before Congress convened. if any, it sought to prevent or remedy. The
practice of holding multiple offices or
Petitioners argue that the exception to the positions in the government led to abuses
prohibition in See 7 Par 2 Art IX applies to by unscrupulous public officials who took
the officers and employees of the Civil advantage of this scheme for the purposes
Service Commission in general and do not of self-enrichment. The blatant mbetrayal
or cannot be extended to Sec.13 Art.VII of public trust evolved into one of the
which applies specifically to President, serious causes of discontent with the
Vice- Presiednt and members of the Marcos regime.
Cabinet, their deputies and assistants. The
difference in the contention of the parties A comparison of Sec 13 Art VII with other
therefore lies in the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution on the
phrase 'unless otherwise provided in the disqualification of the public official such
Constitution' used in Sec.13 of Art.VII as Sec. 13 Art VI on members of Congress,
which has petitioner claims to refer only Sec 5 par 4 Art XVI on members of the
to those expressly provided by the Armed Forces and even Sec '7 provisions
Constitution such as the Vice President on disqualification pertains to an office or
being allowed to become member of the position in the government and GOCC's.
Page | 22
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Unlike Sec 13 Art. VI the prohibition is all- duties or functions may not transgress the
embracing and covers both public and prohibition must be required by the
private office and position in the primary functions of the official covered,
government. who is to perform the same in an ex
officio capacity as provided by law,
Thus, while all the other appointive without receiving any additional
officials in the civil service are allowed to compensation therefore.
hold other office or employment in the
government during their tenure when
such is allowed by law and the primary
function of their office, members of the FLORES VS. DRILON
cabinet, their deputies and assistants may (G.R. NO. 104732, JUNE 22, 1993)
do so only when expressly authorized by BELLOSILLO, J.:
the Constitution itself. In other words,
Sec., Art IX- B is meant to officials while FACTS: The constitutionality of Sec. 13,
sec 13 Art VII is meant to the exception par. (d), of R.A. 7227, 1 otherwise known
applicable only to the President, Vice- as the "Bases Conversion and
President, members of the cabinet and Development Act of 1992," under which
their deputies and assistants. This being respondent Mayor Richard J. Gordon of
the case, the qualifying phrase 'unless Olongapo City was appointed Chairman
otherwise provided in this Constitution' and Chief Executive Officer of the Subic
in see 13 Art VII cannot possibly refers to Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), is
the broad exceptions provided under challenged in this original petition with
Sec.7 Art.IX-B of the 1987 Constitution. prayer for prohibition, preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining
The position under See 13 Art VII is not to order "to prevent useless and
be interpreted as covering positions held unnecessary expenditures of public funds
without compensation in ex-officio by way of salaries and other operational
capacities as provided by law or as expenses attached to the office . . . ."
requires by the primary functions of their
office. Mandating additional duties and Petitioners, who claim to be taxpayers,
functions of the President, Vice-President, employees of the U.S. Facility at the Subic,
Cabinet members and their deputies and Zambales, and officers and members of
assistants which are not inconsistent with the Filipino Civilian Employees
those already prescribed by their offices Association in U.S. Facilities in the
or employment by virtue of their special Philippines, maintain that the proviso in
knowledge, expertise and skill in their par. (d) of Sec. 13 of the said law infringes
respective offices is a practice long- the constitutional provision set forth in
recognized in many jurisdictions. It bears Sec. 7, first par., Art. IX-B, of the
repeating through that such additional Constitution, which states that "[n]o
Page | 23
MENDIOLA, MANILA
elective official shall be eligible for the LGC is not determinative of the
appointment or designation in any constitutionality of Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A.
capacity to any public officer or position 7227, for no legislative act can prevail
during his tenure," because the City over the fundamental law of the land.
Mayor of Olongapo City is an elective Moreover, since the constitutionality of
official and the subject posts are public Sec. 94 of LGC is not the issue here nor is
offices. that section sought to be declared
unconstitutional, we need not rule on its
ISSUE: Does the proviso in Sec.13, par. (d) validity. Neither can we invoke a practice
of R.A. 7227 which states, "Provided, otherwise unconstitutional as authority
however, That for the first year of its for its validity.
operations from the effectivity of this Act,
the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be In any case, the view that an elective
appointed as the chairman and chief official may be appointed to another post
executive officer of the Subic Authority," if allowed by law or by the primary
violate the constitutional proscription functions of his office, ignores the clear-
against appointment or designation of cut difference in the wording of the two
elective officials to other government (2) paragraphs of Sec. 7, Art. IX-B, of the
posts? Constitution. While the second paragraph
authorizes holding of multiple offices by
HELD: YES. The subject proviso directs an appointive official when allowed by
the President to appoint an elective law or by the primary functions of his
official, i.e., the Mayor of Olongapo City, to position, the first paragraph appears to be
other government posts (as Chairman of more stringent by not providing any
the Board and Chief Executive Officer of exception to the rule against appointment
SBMA). Since this is precisely what the or designation of an elective official to the
constitutional proscription seeks to government post, except as are
prevent, it needs no stretching of the particularly recognized in the
imagination to conclude that the proviso Constitution itself, e.g., the President as
contravenes Sec. 7, first par., Art. IX-B, of head of the economic and planning
the Constitution. Here, the fact that the agency; the Vice-President, who may be
expertise of an elective official may be appointed Member of the Cabinet; and, a
most beneficial to the higher interest of member of Congress who may be
the body politic is of no moment. It is designated ex officio member of the
argued that Sec. 94 of the Local Judicial and Bar Council. The distinction
Government Code (LGC) permits the being clear, the exemption allowed to
appointment of a local elective official to appointive officials in the second
another post if so allowed by law or by paragraph cannot be extended to elective
the primary functions of his office. 8 But, officials who are governed by the first
the contention is fallacious. Section 94 of paragraph.
Page | 24
MENDIOLA, MANILA
without waiting for the approval of the

WHEREFORE, the proviso in par. (d), Sec. President.
13, of R.A. 7227, which states: ". . .
Provided, however, That for the first year ISSUE: Whether the appointment as agent
of its operations from the effectivity of is constitutional and if it is, whether he is
this Act, the Mayor of the City of Olongapo entitled to additional compensation.
shall be appointed as the chairman and
chief executive officer HELD: YES. The employment of appellant
of the Subic Authority," is declared as agent collector is not in itself unlawful
unconstitutional; consequently, the because there is no incompatibility
appointment pursuant thereto of the between said appointment and his
Mayor of Olongapo City, respondent employment as Deputy Provincial
Richard J. Gordon, is INVALID, hence Treasurer and Municipal Treasurer. There
NULL and VOID. is no legal objection to government
official occupying two government offices
and performing functions to both as long
SECTION 8. No elective or appointive public as there is no incompatibility. The
officer or employee shall receive additional, Constitutional prohibition refers to
double, or indirect compensation, unless double appointments and performance of
specifically authorized by law, nor accept functions of more than one office.
without the consent of the Congress, any
present, emolument, office, or title of any kind
from any foreign government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered

as additional, double, or indirect C. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
compensation.
SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on
Elections composed of a Chairman and six
Commissioners who shall be natural-born
QUIMSON VS. OZAETA
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
98 PHIL 705 [1956] their appointment, at least thirty-five years of
age, holders of a college degree, and must not
FACTS: Appellants Braulio Quimson was have been candidates for any elective position
a deputy Provincial Treasurer and in the immediately preceding elections.
Municipal Treasurer of Caloocan, Rizal. In However, a majority thereof, including the
addition from being treasurer, he was Chairman, shall be Members of the Philippine
appointed as Agent Collector of Rural Bar who have been engaged in the practice of
Progress Administration, a public law for at least ten years.
corporation. He assumed the office

Page | 25
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall

be appointed by the President with the consent ISSUE: Whether or not Christian Monsod
of the Commission on Appointments for a term has been engaged in the practice of law
of seven years without reappointment. Of those for at least ten years as required by the
first appointed, three Members shall hold office
Constitution?
for seven years, two Members for five years,
and the last Members for three years, without
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy HELD: YES. “Practice of law means any
shall be only for the unexpired term of the activity, in or out of court, which requires
predecessor. In no case shall any Member be the application of law, legal procedure,
appointed or designated in a temporary or knowledge, training and experience. To
acting capacity. engage in the practice of law is to perform
those acts which are characteristics of the
profession. Generally, to practice law is to
CAYETANO VS. MONSOD give notice or render any kind of service
(G.R. NO. 100113 SEPTEMBER 3, 1991) which device or service requires the use
PARAS, J.: in any degree of legal knowledge or skill
(III ALR 23).”
FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod
was nominated by President Aquino to Interpreted in the light of the various
the position of Chairman of the COMELEC. definitions of the term “practice of law,"
Petitioner opposed the nomination particularly the modern concept of law
because allegedly Monsod does not practice, and taking into consideration the
possess the required qualification of liberal construction intended by the
having been engaged in the practice of framers of the Constitution, Atty.
law for at least ten years pursuant to Monsod's past work experiences as a
Article IX-C, Section 1 (1) of the 1987 lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a
Constitution. The Commission on lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
Appointments confirmed the nomination. lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
Subsequently, respondent took his oath lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the
and assumed office as Chairman of the poor — verily more than satisfy the
COMELEC. Challenging the validity of the constitutional requirement — that he has
confirmation by the Commission on been engaged in the practice of law for at
Appointments of Monsod's nomination, least ten years.
petitioner, as a citizen and taxpayer, filed
the instant petition for certiorari and The Commission on the basis of evidence
Prohibition praying that said submitted doling the public hearings on
confirmation and the consequent Monsod's confirmation, implicitly
appointment of Monsod as Chairman of determined that he possessed the
the Commission on Elections be declared necessary qualifications as required by
null and void. law. The judgment rendered by the
Page | 26
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Commission in the exercise of such an COMELEC be appointed or designated in a

acknowledged power is beyond judicial temporary or acting capacity.
interference except only upon a clear
showing of a grave abuse of discretion Petitioner invokes Nacionalista Party v.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Bautista, where President Quirino
(Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only designated the Solicitor General as acting
where such grave abuse of discretion is member of the COMELEC and the Court
clearly shown shall the Court interfere revoked the designation as contrary to
with the Commission's judgment. In the the Constitution. It is also alleged that the
instant case, there is no occasion for the respondent is not even the senior
exercise of the Court's corrective power, member of the COMELEC, being
since no abuse, much less a grave abuse of outranked by Associate Commissioner
discretion, that would amount to lack or Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr.
excess of jurisdiction and would warrant
the issuance of the writs prayed, for has The Solicitor General counters that the
been clearly shown. designation should be sustained for
reasons of 'administratively expediency,'
to prevent disruption of the functions of
the COMELEC in the absence of legal
BRILLANTES VS. YORAC provisions for temporary succession
192 SCRA 358[1990] similar to the Supreme Court's (Sec 12
Judiciary Act of 1948) as well as the CA
FACTS: President Aquino designated (Sec 5 BP 129).
Associate Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac
as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC, in ISSUE: Does the President of the
place of Chairman Hilario B. Davide, who Philippines have the power to make
had been named chairman of the fact- designation of a COMELEC Chairman in an
finding commission to investigate the acting Capacity?
December 1989 coup d'etat attempt.
Petitioner challenged the designation HELD: No. President has no such
contending that the President has no authority and expediency is a dubious
power to make such designation in view justification. Art IX-A. Sec.1 of the
of the following reasons: Constitution expressly describes all the
Constitutional Commissions as
1. The status of the Commission on 'independent.' Although essentially
Elections as an independent executive in nature, they are not under
constitutional body, and; the control of the President in the
2. The specific provision of Art IX-C discharge of their respective functions.
Section 1(2) of the Constitution that (1) Each of these Commissions conducts in
no case shall any member of the own proceedings under the applicable
Page | 27
MENDIOLA, MANILA
laws and its own rules and the exercise of

its discretion. The choice of a temporary LINDO VS COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
chairman in the absence of the regular G.R. NO. 127311 JUNE 19, 1997 PUNO, J.
chairman comes under that discretion.
That discretion cannot be exercised for it, FACTS: Petitioner Conrado Lindo and
even with its consent, by the President of private respondent Rosario Velasco
the Philippines. A designation as Acting (incumbent mayor of Ternate, Cavite)
Chairman is by its very terms essentially were mayoralty candidates. When
temporary and therefore revocable at will. petitioner was declared as the winner,
No cause need be established to justify its Velasco filed an election protest with the
revocation. Assuming its validity, the trial court. Respondent Judge Napoleon
designation of the respondent as Acting Dilag took over the protest case. Velasco
Chairman of the Commission on Elections moved for execution pending appeal,
may be withdrawn by the President at which motion was granted. Dilag thus
any time and for whatever reason she issued the writ of execution. Petitioner
sees fit and the respondent, having filed a petition for certiorari and
accepted such designation, will be prohibition with the COMELEC, with
stopped from challenging its withdrawal. prayer for the issuance of a preliminary
(Note: This illustrates how the injunction to prevent the implementation
independence pf the Constitutional of the Order and writ of execution.
Commissions may be undermined.)
COMELEC denied the petition for
The lack of a statutory rule covering the certiorari and lifted the preliminary
situation at bar is no justification for the injunction. It ruled that the trial court did
President of the Philippines to fill the void not commit grave abuse of discretion in
by extending the temporary designation granting the motion for execution
in favor of the respondent. The members pending appeal since on the basis alone of
of the COMELEC could have handled the the physical count of ballots, private
situation themselves without the respondent would still be ahead of
participation of the President, however petitioner by 90 votes. It also held that
well-meaning. In the choice of the Acting the examination of original ballots shall
Chairman, the members of the be made at the appeal proper to dispose
Commission on Elections would most of all the issues relative to the merits of
likely have been guided by the seniority the case. Hence, the petition for certiorari
rule as they themselves would have and prohibition.
appreciated it. In any event, that choice
and the basis thereof were for them and ISSUE: Is the petition proper?
not the President to make.
HELD: NO. COMELEC's statement that
fake and spurious ballots may have been
Page | 28
MENDIOLA, MANILA
introduced to increase the votes of also bears emphasis that Rule 143 of the
protestant was taken out of context. Thus, Rules of Court allows execution pending
it cannot be made as basis for denying the appeal in election cases upon good
execution pending appeal. To be precise, reasons stated in the special order.In its
the COMELEC merely said that there is a Order of execution, respondent RTC Judge
possibility that fake spurious ballots were Dilag cited two reasons to justify
placed in the ballot box to increase execution of his decision pending appeal,
private respondent's votes, but the viz:
COMELEC correctly ruled that an
examination of the ballots to resolve that (1) the grant of execution would give
petition for certiorari is not proper at said substance and meaning to the people's
time for the only issue it resolved was mandate, especially since the RTC has
whether there was a grave abuse of established private respondent's right to
discretion in granting the execution office, and;
pending appeal. (2) barely 18 months is left on the tenure
of the Ternate mayor and the people have
In his petition for certiorari before the the right to be governed by their chosen
COMELEC, petitioner mainly anchored his official. In the recent case of Gutierrez v.
opposition to the order of execution COMELEC, the same grounds for
pending appeal on his allegation that the execution pending appeal of the decision
trial judge did not examine the original in the protest case were relied upon by
ballots, but relied only on the xerox copy the trial court and we found them to be
of the ballots in deciding the protest case. valid reasons for execution.
However, this contention raises a factual
issue and its determination in best left in
the appeal pending before the COMELEC. SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall
Its resolution will involve the merit of the exercise the following powers and functions:
case. We are only concerned with the
issue of whether grave abuse of discretion (1) Enforce and administer all laws and
was committed in ordering execution regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and
pending appeal. And there was a good
recall.
reason for ordering execution pending
appeal.
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over
all contests relating to the elections, returns,
Thus, petitioner's recourse would be to and qualifications of all elective regional,
pursue his appeal with the COMELEC, provincial, and city officials, and appellate
where the opening of the ballot boxes and jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
the examination of original ballots may be municipal officials decided by trial courts of
made so that the true will of the general jurisdiction, or involving elective
electorate can be finally ascertained. It
Page | 29
MENDIOLA, MANILA
barangay officials decided by trial courts of addition to other penalties that may be
limited jurisdiction. prescribed by law.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the (6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its
Commission on election contests involving own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion
elective municipal and barangay offices shall or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where
be final, executory, and not appealable. appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of
election laws, including acts or omissions
(3) Decide, except those involving the right to constituting election frauds, offenses, and
vote, all questions affecting elections, including malpractices.
determination of the number and location of
polling places, appointment of election officials (7) Recommend to the Congress effective
and inspectors, and registration of voters. measures to minimize election spending,
including limitation of places where
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the propaganda materials shall be posted, and to
President, law enforcement agencies and prevent and penalize all forms of election
instrumentalities of the Government, including frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the candidacies.
exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly,
honest, peaceful, and credible elections. (8) Recommend to the President the removal of
any officer or employee it has deputized, or the
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, imposition of any other disciplinary action, for
political parties, organizations, or coalitions violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its
which, in addition to other requirements, must directive, order, or decision.
present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the (9) Submit to the President and the Congress a
Commission on Elections. Religious comprehensive report on the conduct of each
denominations and sects shall not be election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or
registered. Those which seek to achieve their recall.
goals through violence or unlawful means, or
refuse to uphold and adhere to this
Constitution, or which are supported by any GALLARDO V. JUDGE TABAMO
foreign government shall likewise be refused (G.R. NO. 104848, JANUARY 29, 1993)
registration. DAVIDE, JR., J.
Financial contributions from foreign
FACTS: Petitioners seek to prohibit the
governments and their agencies to political
parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates enforcement of the TRO issued by
related to elections constitute interference in respondent Judge on 10 April 1992, on
national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be the ground that the latter acted
an additional ground for the cancellation of whimsically, capriciously and without
their registration with the Commission, in jurisdiction when he took cognizance of
the case and issued the said order. It is the

Page | 30
MENDIOLA, MANILA
petitioners' thesis that the said case—the election, releases, disburses or expends
hiring of hundreds of laborers in the any public funds for:
different projects continues unabated in
flagrant violation of paragraphs (a), (b), (1) Any and all kinds of public works,
(v) and (w), Section 261 of the Omnibus except the following: xxx xxx xxx
Election Code, among others—principally
involves an alleged violation of the (w) Prohibition against construction of
provisions of the Omnibus Election Code public works, delivery of materials for
the jurisdiction over which is exclusively public works and issuance of treasury
vested in the COMELEC. warrants and similar devices. — During
the period of forty-five days preceding a
ISSUE: Does respondent judge have regular election and thirty days before a
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the special election, any person who (a)
complaint or petition based on election undertakes the construction of any public
offenses prior to the conduct of works, except for projects or works
preliminary investigation by the exempted in the preceding paragraph; or
Commission on Elections. (b) issues, uses or avails of treasury
warrants or any device undertaking
HELD: No. The material operative facts future delivery of money, goods or other
alleged in the petition therein inexorably things of value chargeable against public
link the private respondent's principal funds.
grievance to alleged violations of
paragraphs (a), (b), (v) and (w), Section Essentially, therefore, Civil Case No. 465
261 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas before the trial court is for the
Pambansa Blg. 881). There is particular enforcement of laws involving the
emphasis on the last two (2) paragraphs conduct of elections the present
which read: Constitution upgraded to a constitutional
status the aforesaid statutory authority to
Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts. — The grant the Commission broader and more
following shall be guilty of an election flexible powers to effectively perform its
offense: duties and to insulate it further from
legislative intrusions. Doubtless, if its
(v) Prohibition against release, rule-making power is made to depend on
disbursement or expenditure of public statutes, Congress may withdraw the
funds. Any public official or employee same at any time.
including barangay officials and those of
government-owned or controlled Indeed, the present Constitution
corporations and their subsidiaries, who, envisions a truly independent
during forty-five days before a regular Commission on Elections committed to
election and thirty days before a special ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
Page | 31
MENDIOLA, MANILA
credible elections, and to serve as the contended by the petitioners, the

guardian of the people's sacred right of jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
suffrage — the citizenry's vital weapon in under the election laws is limited to
effecting a peaceful change of government criminal actions for violations of the
and in achieving and promoting political Omnibus Election Code. The Constitution
stability. itself grants to it exclusive original
jurisdiction over contests involving
The present Constitution, however, elective municipal officials. 27 Neither it
implicitly grants the Commission the is tenable that the petitioners' assertion
power to promulgate such rules and that the Special Civil Action filed in the
regulations. The pertinent portion of court below involves the prosecution of
Section 2 of Article IX-C thereof reads as election offenses; the said action seeks
follows: Sec. 2. The Commission on some reliefs incident to or in connection
Elections shall exercise the following with alleged election offenses; specifically,
powers and functions: what is sought is the prevention of the
further commission of these offenses
(1) Enforce and administer all laws and which, by their alleged nature, are
regulations relative to the conduct of an continuing.
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, The petition is granted.
and recall. (Emphasis supplied).
The word regulations is not found in

either the 1935 or 1973 Constitutions. It RELAMPAGOS V. CUMBA
is thus clear that its incorporation into the (G.R. NO. 118861, APRIL 27, 1995)
present Constitution took into account the DAVIDE, JR., J.
Commission's power under the Omnibus
Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent
which was already in force when the said Rosita Cumba were candidates for the
Constitution was drafted and ratified, to: position of Mayor in the municipality of
Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. When
xxx xxx xxx Promulgate rules and Cumba was proclaimed the winner,
regulations implementing the provisions petitioner filed an election protest with
of this Code or other laws which the the trial court, which found the latter to
Commission is required to enforce and have won with a margin of six votes over
administer, . . . . 16 the private respondent. Cumba appealed
Needless to say, the acts sought to be to the COMELEC. The trial court gave due
restrained in Special Civil Action No. 465 course to the appeal. Petitioner moved for
before the court a quo are matters falling execution pending appeal, which was
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the granted. The corresponding writ of
Commission. It is not true that, as execution was thus issued. Since her
Page | 32
MENDIOLA, MANILA
motion for reconsideration was denied, Commission is hereby vested with

Cumba filed with the COMELEC a petition exclusive authority to hear and decide
for certiorari to annul the assailed order petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
of the trial court. mandamus involving election cases,
remains in full force and effect but only in
COMELEC promulgated its resolution, such cases where, under paragraph (2),
declaring null and void the order and the Section 1, Article IX-C of the Constitution,
writ of execution issued by the lower it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
court. Accordingly, petitioner was Simply put, the COMELEC has the
ordered restored to her position as authority to issue the extraordinary writs
Municipality Mayor. Respondents contend of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
that Sec. 50 of BP Blg. 697 was repealed only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
by the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. That the trial court acted with palpable
881), citing jurisprudent where it was and whimsical abuse of discretion in
declared that, indeed, the COMELEC has granting the petitioner's motion for
no jurisdiction to issue special writs of execution pending appeal and in issuing
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in the writ of execution is all too obvious.
aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Since both the petitioner and the private
respondent received copies of the
ISSUE: Whether the Commission has the decision on 1 July 1994, an appeal
authority to hear and decide petitions for therefrom may be filed within five days
certiorari in election cases. from 1 July 1994, or on or before 6 July
1994. Any motion for execution pending
HELD: Yes. Since the COMELEC, in appeal must be filed before the period for
discharging its appellate jurisdiction the perfection of the appeal.
pursuant to Sec. 2 (2), Art. IX-C, acts as a
court of justice performing judicial power Pursuant to Section 23 of the Interim
and said power includes the Rules Implementing B.P. Blg. 129, which
determination of whether or not there has is deemed to have supplementary effect
been grave abuse of discretion amounting to the COMELEC Rules of Procedures
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, it pursuant to Rule 43 of the latter, an
necessarily follows that the Comelec, by appeal would be deemed perfected on the
constitutional mandate, is vested with last day for any of the parties to appeal, or
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in on 6 July 1994.
aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
On 4 July 1994, the private respondent
In abandoning the ruling in the Garcia and filed her notice of appeal and paid the
Uy and Veloria cases, the Court held that appeal fee. On 8 July 1994, the trial court
the last paragraph of Section 50 of B.P. Blg. gave due course to the appeal and
697 providing as follows: The ordered the elevation of the records of the
Page | 33
MENDIOLA, MANILA
case to the COMELEC. Upon the perfection motion, claiming that the RTC has no
of the appeal, the trial court was divested jurisdiction to order execution pending
of its jurisdiction over the case. Since the appeal, and invoked Section 17 of Rule 37
motion for execution pending appeal was of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
filed only on 12 July 1994, or after the which allows execution only if the
perfection of the appeal, the trial court judgment has become final.
could no longer validly act thereon. It
could have been otherwise if the motion The RTC approved Bernardo's Notice of
was filed before the perfection of the Appeal but later granted Edding's Motion,
appeal. and ordered the records of the case to be
forwarded to the COMELEC. Thereafter,
Accordingly, since the respondent Edding replaced Bernardo and assumed
COMELEC has the jurisdiction to issue the office. Bernardo filed with the COMELEC a
extraordinary writs of certiorari, Petition for
prohibition, and mandamus, then it Certiorari with Application for
correctly set aside the challenged order Preliminary Injunction and for Issuance of
granting the motion for execution a Temporary Restraining Order, seeking
pending appeal and writ of execution to enjoin the Order of the RTC granting
issued by the trial court. execution pending appeal. The COMELEC
gave due course to the petition, and
issued a temporary restraining order.
EDDING V. COMELEC Finally, the COMELEC issued the assailed

(G.R. NO. 112060 JULY 17, 1995) Order, ordering respondent Judge to
FRANCISCO, J. cease and desist from enforcing the
assailed Resolution. Petitioner argues that
FACTS: During the May 1992 elections, the COMELEC lacks jurisdiction to issue
petitioner Norbi H. Edding and writs of certiorari; and that the power of
respondent Pablo S. Bernardo were the RTC to grant execution pending
among the candidates for the office of the appeal in election cases has already been
municipal mayor of Sibuco Zamboanga confirmed in the case of Tobon-Uy vs.
del Norte. When respondent was declared COMELEC where it was held that "the
the winner, petitioner filed an election COMELEC is bereft of authority to deprive
protest with the trial court, which Regional Trial Courts of the competence
proclaimed the latter as the winner and to order execution pending appeal."
declared
null and void the election of respondent. Respondents counter that the COMELEC
Respondent appealed while petitioner has the power to issue writs of certiorari,
moved for the immediate execution of the prohibition and mandamus, invoking
decision. Bernardo opposed Edding's Sections 2(2) and 3 of Article IX of the
Page | 34
MENDIOLA, MANILA
1987 Constitution, which provides in involving election cases. But

part: notwithstanding the decision in
Relampagos vs. Cumba, the COMELEC
Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall committed grave abuse of discretion in
exercise the following powers and the instant case when it enjoined the
functions: (2) …Appellate jurisdiction over order of the RTC, dated July 13, 1993,
all contests involving elective municipal granting petitioner's motion for
officials decided by trial courts of general immediate execution. Private
jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay respondent's petition for certiorari with
officials decided by trial courts of limited application for a writ of preliminary
jurisdiction. injunction before the COMELEC is
anchored on the former's claim that the
Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit trial court acted without or in excess of
en banc or in two divisions, and shall jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
promulgate its rule of procedure in order discretion in granting execution despite
to expedite disposition of election case, the filling of a notice of appeal by private
including pre-proclamation controversies… respondent within the reglementary
period. It appears however that on July 8,
ISSUE: Whether the Commission on 1993, the same day when private
Elections (COMELEC) has jurisdiction to respondent filed his notice of appeal with
issue Writs of Certiorari against the the RTC, petitioner in turn filed his
interlocutory order of the Regional Trial motion for immediate execution. Both
Court (RTC) in election cases. actions were therefore seasonably filed
within the five-day reglementary period
HELD: None. The court decided to for filling an appeal since the decision of
abandon the rule laid down in the the RTC was promulgated in open court
aforecited cases. In Relampagos vs. on July 8, 1993.
Cumba and the COMELEC, the Court
upheld the jurisdiction of the COMELEC to The settled rule is that the mere filing of a
issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and notice of appeal does not divest the trial
mandamus over election cases where it court of its jurisdiction over a case and
has appellate jurisdiction by virtue of resolve pending incidents. Where the
Section 50 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 697, motion for execution pending appeal was
which filed within the reglementary period for
provides as follows: perfecting an appeal, as in the case at
bench, the filing of a notice of appeal by
Sec. 50. Definition. — The commission is the opposing party is of no moment and
hereby vested with the exclusive does not divest the trial court of its
authority to hear and decide petitions for jurisdiction to resolve the motion for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus immediate execution of the judgment
Page | 35
MENDIOLA, MANILA
pending appeal because the court must fifteen (15) ballots in the same precinct
hear and resolve it for it would become containing the initial "C" after the name
part of the records to be elevated on "Galido" (petitioner herein) were marked
appeal. Since the court has jurisdiction to ballots and, therefore invalid.
act on the motion at the time it was filed,
that jurisdiction continued until the Petitioner filed before the Supreme court
matter was resolved and was not lost by a petition for certiorari and injunction.
the subsequent action of the opposing Private respondent moves for the
party. dismissal of the petition contending the
following:
Considering however that the term of
office for the disputed mayoralty seat will 1. Final decisions, orders or ruling of the
already expire on June 30, 1995, in COMELEC in election contests involving
addition to the fact that the election for elective municipal offices are final and
the next term of office for the contested executory and not appealable citing
post has recently been concluded, the Artkle IX (C), Section 2 (2), paragraph 2 of
instant petition has therefore become the 1987 Constitution, which is
moot. implemented in the Rules of Procedure
promulgated by the COMELEC ,
particularly Part VII, Rule 39, Section 2
thereof, which reads:
GAUDO VS COMELEC
193 SCRA 78 [1991] "Section 2 Non-reviewable decisions-
Decisions in appeals from courts of general
FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent or limited jurisdiction in election cases
were candidates for the position of mayor relating to the ejections, returns, and
in the Garcia Herna.ndez, Bohol. qualifications of municipal and barangay
Petitioner was proclaimed duly-elected officials are not appealable."
Mayor. In an election protest by private
respondent before the RTC, the court 2. The petition involves pure questions of
upheld the proclamation of petitioner as fat as they relate to appreciation of
the duly-elected Mayor of Garcia- evidence (ballots) which is beyond the
Hernandez, by a majority of eleven (11) power of review of this Court. The
votes. Private respondent appealed the COMELEC found that the writing of the
RTC decision to the COMELEC. Through letter "C" after the word "Galido" in the
its First Division, affirmed by COMELEC fifteen (15) ballots of Precinct 14 is a
en bane, reversed the trial court's clear and convincing proof of a pattern or
decision and declared private respondent design to identify the ballots and/or
the duly-ejected mayor by a plurality of voters. This finding should by conclusive
five (5) votes. The COMELEC held that the on the Court.
Page | 36
MENDIOLA, MANILA
We do not, however, believe that the

Petitioner, on the other hand, cites Article respondent COMELEC committed grave
IX (A), Section 7 of the Constitution, to abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
support his petition. It states: "Unless excess of jurisdiction in rendering the
otherwise provided by this Constitution questioned decision. It is settled that the
or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of function f a writ of certiorari is toe keep
each (Constitutional) Commission may be an inferior court or tribunal within the
brought to the Supreme Court on bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it
certiorari by the aggrieved party within from committing a grave abuse of
thirty days from receipt of a copy discretion amounting to lack or excess of
thereof." jurisdiction. COMELEC has the inherent
power to decide an election contest on
ISSUE: May the decision by the COMELEC physical evidence, equity, law and justice,
in election contest involving municipal and apply established jurisprudence in
officials be brought to the Supreme Court support of its findings and conclusion;
by a petition for certiorari by the and that the extent to which such
petitioner? precedents apply rests on its discretion,
the exercise of which should not be
HELD: YES. The fact that decision, final controlled unless such discretion has
orders or ruling of the Commission on been abused to the prejudice of either
Elections in contests involving elective party. Petition is therefore dismissed.
municipal and barangay offices are final,
executory and not appealable, does not [Note: A short lesson in Remedial Law.
preclude a recourse to this Court by way You must distinguish the nature of the
of a special civil action of certiorari. The special civil action of certiorari under
proceedings in the Constitutional Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which is not
Commission on this a mode of appeal, but rather an original
matter are enlightening. Thus- action.]
"MR. REGALADO: It is understood, however,

that while these decisions with respect to PEOPLE VS JUDGE INTING
barangay and municipal officials are final 187 SCRA 788 [1990]
and immediately executory and therefore
not appealable, that does not rule out the FACTS: Mrs. Editha Barba filed letter-
possibility of an original special civil action complaint against OIC Mayor Dominador
for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus, Regalado of Tanjay, Negros Oriental with
as the case may be, under Rule 65 of the the COMELEC, for allegedly transferring
Rules of Court" her, a permanent Nursing Attendant,
Grade I, in the office of the Municipal
Mayor to a very remote barangay and
Page | 37
MENDIOLA, MANILA
without obtaining prior pennission or Prosecutor files information charging an

clearance from COMELEC as required by election offense or prosecutes a violation
law. Acting on the complaint, COMELEC or election law, it is because he has been
directed Atty. Gerardo Lituanas, deputized by the COMELEC. He does not
Provincial Election Supervision of do so under the sole authority of his office
Dumaguete City to conduct the (People vs. Basilla, et al G.R. Nos. 83938-
preliminary investigation of the case to 40, November 6, ] 989). In the instant case,
file the necessary information in court there is no averment or allegation that the
and prosecute, if warranted. respondent Judge is bringing in the
Provincial Fiscal as a deputy of COMELEC.
After a preliminary investigation, Atty. He wants the Fiscal to "approve" the
Lituanas filed a criminal case with the COMELEC's preliminary investigation,
respondent trial court which in turn which is not proper.
issued a warrant of arrest against the Ole-
Mayor. Subsequently, however, the trial Article IX C Section 2 of the Constitution
court set aside its order of arrest on the provides:
ground that Atty. Lituanas is not
authorized to determine probable cause "Sec. 2 The Commission on Election shall
pursuant to Sec 2, Art. III of the 1987 exercise the following powers and
Constitution and further required Atty. functions:
Lituanas to secure the written approval of 1. Enforce and administer all laws and
the provincial Fiscal after which the regulations relative to the conduct of an
prosecution of the case shall be under the election, plebiscite, initiative. referendum,
supervision and control of the latter. Atty. and recall. xxx xxx xxx
Lituanas failed to comply so the case was
dismissed. 2. File upon a verified complaint, or on its
own initiative, petitions in court for
ISSUE: Does a preliminary investigation inclusion or exclusion of votes, investigate
conducted by a Provincial Election and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of
Supervisor involving election offenses violation of election laws, including acts or
have to be coursed through the Provincial omission constituting election frauds.
Fiscal, before the Regional Trial Court offenses, and malpractices" (Emphasis
may take cognizance of the investigation supplied)
and determine whether or not probable
cause exists? In effect, the 1987 Constitution mandates
the COMELEC not only to investigate but
HELD: also to prosecute cases of violation of
NO. The Provincial Fiscal, as such, election laws. This means that the
assumes no role in the prosecution of COMELEC is empowered to conduct
election offenses. If ever the Fiscal or preliminary investigations in cases
Page | 38
MENDIOLA, MANILA
involving election offenses for the Constitution, and that the Comelec did
purpose of helping the Judge determine deputize such prosecution officers to
probable cause and for filing information conduct preliminary investigation of
in court. This power is exclusive with complaints for alleged violation of
COMELEC. election laws and to institute criminal
information therefore. The respondent
judge therefore committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. jurisdiction in dismissing the case.
BASILLA
(G.R. NOS. 83938-40, NOVEMBER 6, ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent
1989) FELICIANO, J.: judge erred in deciding that COMELEC in
the case at bar failed to perform its
FACTS: As an aftermath of the May 1987 function as provided in the 1987
congressional elections in Masbate, Constitution.
complaints for violations of Section 261,
par.a-1 (vote buying) and par. p (carrying HELD: Yes. There is no dispute that the
of deadly weapon) of the Omnibus Comelec is vested with power and
Election Code (BP Blg. 881) were filed authority to conduct preliminary
with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of investigation of all election offenses
Masbate against the private respondents. punishable under the Omnibus Election
After preliminary investigation of the Code and to prosecute such offenses in
foregoing complaints, the Provincial court. Sec. 2(6) of Art. IX (C) of 1987
Fiscal of Masbate filed in the Regional Constitution provides…”investigate and,
Trial Court of Masbate the said criminal when appropriate prosecute cases of
complaints. In three (3) separate orders, violation of election laws, including acts
accused respondent Judge Henry Basilla or omissions, constituting election frauds
motu proprio dismissed the three (3) offenses, malpractices."
informations giving the following
justification: “….. The record shows that It must be noted that while Section 265 of
the complainant filed the complaint with the Omnibus Election Code vests
the fiscal and not with the COMELEC. The "exclusive power" to conduct preliminary
COMELEC did not investigate the case.” investigation of election offenses and to
prosecute the same upon the Comelec, it
The Petition argues principally that the at the same time authorizes the Comelec
Commission on Elections ("Comelec") has to avail itself of the assistance of other
authority to deputize the chief state prosecuting arms of the Government.
prosecutors, provincial and city fiscals Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1987
and their assistants, under Sections 2 (4) Constitution clearly envisage that the
and (8), Article IX-C of the 1987 Comelec would not be compelled to carry
Page | 39
MENDIOLA, MANILA
out all its functions directly and by itself functions of policemen, lack substance.
alone: Section 2. The Commission on There is nothing in Section 2 (4) of Article
Elections shall exercise the following IX-C of the Constitution which requires
powers and functions: such a pinched niggardly interpretation of
the authority of the Comelec to appoint as
(1) Enforce and administer all laws and its deputies, officials or employees of
regulations relative to the conduct of an other agencies and instrumentalities of
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, the government. The prompt
and recall. xxx xxx xxx investigation and prosecution and
disposition of election offenses constitute
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the an indispensable part of the task of
President, law enforcement agencies and securing free, orderly, honest, peaceful
instrumantalities of the Government, and credible elections. The investigation
including the Armed Forces of the and prosecution of election offenses are,
Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of in an important sense, more important
ensuring free orderly, honest, peaceful, and than the maintenance of physical order in
credible elections. xxx xxx xxx election precinct. '
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its All this the respondent Judge disregarded
own initiative, petitions in court for when he motu proprio dismissed the
inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate criminal informations filed in this case.
and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of The cases he cited in his identical orders
violation of election laws, including acts or can offer him no comfort at all; for these
omissions constituting election frauds, cases do not relate to the authority of the
offenses, and malpractices. xxx xxx xxx Comelec to deputize the regular
prosecution arms of the Government for
(8) Recommend to the President the the investigation and prosecution of
removal of any officer or employee it has election offenses and those cases are not
deputized, or the imposition of any other in conflict with our ruling here.
disciplinary action, for violation or
disregard of, or disobedience to its
directive, order, or decision. xxx xxx xxx
PEOPLE VS. DELGADO
The contention of private respondents (GR. NO. 93419-32, SEPTEMBER 18,
that the deputation by the Comelec of the 1990) GANCAYCO, J.:
prosecuting arms of the Government
would be warranted only before the FACTS: Comelec filed an information
elections and only to ensure tree, honest, against each of the private respondents
orderly, peaceful and credible elections, for violation of Section 261 (y) (2) and (5)
that is, to perform the peacekeeping of the Omnibus Election Code. In three
Page | 40
MENDIOLA, MANILA
separate manifestations, the Regional to the court the record of the preliminary
Election Director of Region VII was investigation on the ground that only this
designated by the COMELEC to handle the Court may review its actions is certainly
prosecution with the authority to assign untenable.
another COMELEC prosecutor. Private
respondents, through counsels, then filed It is clear that aside from the adjudicatory
motions for reconsiderations and the or quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC
suspension of the warrant of arrest with to decide election contests and
the respondent court on the ground that administrative questions, it is also vested
no preliminary investigation was the power of a public prosecutor with the
conducted. An order was then issued by exclusive authority to conduct the
respondent court directing the COMELEC preliminary investigation and the
through the Regional Election Director of prosecution of election offenses
Region VII to conduct a reinvestigation of punishable under the Code before the
said cases and to submit his report within competent court. Thus, when the
ten (10) days after termination thereof. COMELEC, through its duly authorized
law officer, conducts the preliminary
In its petition, the COMELEC contends investigation of an election offense and
that as an independent constitutional upon a prima facie finding of a probable
body, its actions on election matters may cause, files the information in the proper
be reviewed only on certiorari by the court, said court thereby acquires
Supreme Court. On the other hand, the jurisdiction over the case.
respondents contend that since the cases
were filed in court by the COMELEC as a Consequently, all the subsequent
public prosecutor, and not in the exercise disposition of said case must be subject to
of its power to decide election contests, the approval of the court. The COMELEC
the trial court has authority to order a cannot conduct a reinvestigation of the
reinvestigation. case without the authority of the court or
unless so ordered by the court. The
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent records of the preliminary investigation
Court has the power or authority to order required to be produced by the court
the Commission on Elections through its must be submitted by the COMELEC. The
Regional Election Director of Region VII trial court may rely on the resolution of
or its Law Department to conduct a the COMELEC to file the information, by
reinvestigation the same token that it may rely on the
certification made by the prosecutor who
HELD: YES. The refusal of the COMELEC conducted the preliminary investigation,
or its agents to comply with the order of in the issuance of the warrant of arrest.
the trial court requiring them to conduct a Nevertheless the court may require that
reinvestigation in this case and to submit the record of the preliminary
Page | 41
MENDIOLA, MANILA
investigation be submitted to it to satisfy The COMELEC sought to appeal the

itself that there is probable cause which dismissal of the cases to the Court of
will warrant the issuance of a warrant of Appeals, but the respondent judges
arrest. The petition is brought in the denied due course to its appeal. The sole
name of the People of the Philippines. basis for the denial was the fact that the
Only the Solicitor General can represent prosecutor, whom the COMELEC had
the People of the Philippines in this deputized to prosecute the cases, had
proceeding. In the least, the consent of the earlier taken a contrary stand against the
Office of the Solicitor General should have COMELEC. Said prosecutor stated that he
been secured by the COMELEC before the cannot give his conformity to the Notice
filing of this petition. On this account of Appeal filed by the Comelec as it would
alone, the petition should be dismissed. not be consistent with his position that he
would abide by whatever finding the
court may come up with on the existence
of probable cause as against the accused
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS VS. SILVA, Erasto Tanciongco and Norma Castillo.
JR
(GR. NO. 129417 FEBRUARY 10, 1998) ISSUES:
MENDOZA, J.: (1) Is the order denying due course to the
Notice of Appeal of the COMELEC correct?
FACTS: The COMELEC charged private (2) Who has authority to decide whether
respondents Erasto Tanciongco and or not to appeal from the orders of
Norma Castillo with violations of §27 of dismissal — the COMELEC or its
R.A. No. 6646, together with Zenon Uy, in designated prosecutor?
twelve separate informations filed with
the Regional Trial Court of Bataan. HELD: NO. Ther order of the respondent
Tanciongco and Castillo then filed a joint judges denying due course to the Notice
"Omnibus Motion for Examination of of Appeal of the COMELEC is not correct. .
Evidence to Determine the Existence of The authority to decide whether or not to
Probable Cause; Suspension of Issuance of appeal the dismissal belongs to the
Warrant of Arrest; and Dismissal of the COMELEC. Art. IX-C, § 2(6) of the
Cases." Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Constitution expressly vests in it the
Zuño, who had been designated by the power and function to "investigate and,
Commission on Elections to prosecute the where appropriate, prosecute cases of
cases, filed a comment joining in private violations of election laws, including acts
respondents' request. In view thereof, or omissions constituting election frauds,
respondent judges Silva and Vianzon offenses, and malpractices." As this Court
summarily dismissed the cases against has held:
private respondents.

Page | 42
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In effect the 1987 Constitution mandates 8) G.R. No. 105919 — SPC No. 92-293
the COMELEC not only to investigate but 9) G.R. No. 105977 — SPC No. 92-087
also to prosecute cases of violation of
election laws. This means that the Notes:
COMELEC is empowered to conduct
preliminary 1) G.R. No. 105628 — SPC No. 92-266
granting the appeal from the ruling of the
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Virac,
Catanduanes which ordered the exclusion
from the canvass of one (1) election
SECTION 3. The Commission on Elections may return;
sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall
promulgate its rules of procedure in order to
expedite disposition of election cases, including 2) G.R. No. 105725 — SPC No. 92-323
pre-proclamation controversies. All such reversing the ruling of the City Board of
election cases shall be heard and decided in Canvassers of Iriga City which ordered
division, provided that motions for the exclusion from the canvass of six (6)
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by election returns and in UND No. 92-243
the Commission en banc.
ordering the said Board of Canvassers to
include in the canvass the election returns
involved therein;
SARMIENTO VS. COMELEC
212 SCRA 307 August 6, 1992
3) G.R. No. 105727 — SPC No. 92-288
dismissing the appeal of petitioner from
FACTS:
the ruling of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Catanduanes which
This special civil action for certiorari seek
ordered the inclusion in the canvass the
to set aside the Resolutions of
certificate of canvass for the municipality
Respondent Commission on Elections
of Virac, excluding the returns from 48
(COMELEC) in the following Special
precincts;
Cases:
1) G.R. No. 105628 — SPC No. 92-266 4) G.R. No. 105730 — SPC No. 92-315
2) G.R. No. 105725 — SPC No. 92-323 affirming the ruling of the Municipal
3) G.R. No. 105727 — SPC No. 92-288 Board of Canvassers of Jose Panganiban,
4) G.R. No. 105730 — SPC No. 92-315 Camarines Norte which dismissed
5) G.R. No. 105771 — SPC No. 92-271 petitioner's opposition to the composition
6) G.R. No. 105778 — SPC No. 92-039 of the said Municipal Board of Canvassers;
7) G.R. No. 105797 — SPC No. 92-153

Page | 43
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Divisions.
5) G.R. No. 105771 — SPC No. 92-271
affirming the ruling of the Municipal HELD: The COMELEC en banc acted
Board of Canvassers of Cabusao, without jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
Camarines Sur which, among others, of discretion, when it resolved the appeals
rejected petitioner's objection to certain of petitioners in the above mentioned
election returns; Special Cases without first referring them
to any of its Divisions. Section 3,
subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987
6) G.R. No. 105778 — SPC No. 92-039 Constitution expressly provides:
dismissing said case for non-compliance Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit
with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166; en banc or in two divisions, and shall
promulgate its rules of procedure in order
to expedite disposition of election cases,
7) G.R. No. 105797 — SPC No. 92-153
including pre-proclamation controversies.
affirming the rulings of the Provincial
Board of Canvassers of Davao Oriental All such election cases shall be heard and
decided in division, provided that motions
which rejected petitioner's objections to
for reconsideration of decisions shall be
the canvass of some certificates of
canvass; decided by the Commission en banc.
Said Resolutions are therefore, null and
8) G.R. No. 105919 — SPC No. 92-293
void and must be set aside. Consequently,
dismissing petitioner's appeal from the
the appeals are deemed pending before the
ruling of the Municipal Board of
Commission for proper referral to a
Canvassers of Upi Nuro, Maguindanao;
Division.
9) G.R. No. 105977 — SPC No. 92-087 A resolution directing the COMELEC to
denying the amended pre-proclamation assign said Special Cases to the Divisions
petition, which is an appeal from the pursuant to Section 8, Rule 3 of its Rules
rulings of the Municipal Board of on assignment of cases would, logically,
Canvassers of Ternate, Cavite, and be in order. However, Section 16 of R.A.
denying a subsequent motion to resolve No. 7166 6 provides that all pre-
the issues raised in said amended petition. proclamation cases pending before it shall
be deemed terminated at the beginning of
ISSUE: Whether the challenged the term of the office involved. The terms
Resolutions above specified (the SPC) as of the offices involved in the Special Cases
having been issued with grave abuse of subject of these petitions commenced at
discretion in that, inter alia, the noon of June 30 1992. These cases have
Commission, sitting en banc, took thus been rendered moot and such a
cognizance of and decided the appeals resolution would only be an exercise in
without first referring them to any of it futility.
Page | 44
MENDIOLA, MANILA
votes. On May 25, 1992 petitioner took

Therefore, the instant petitions are his oath of office. Private respondent later
DISMISSED but without prejudice to the filed an election protest before the trial
filing by petitioners of regular elections court. He alleged that "a vital mistake
protests. If the winning candidates for the [had been] committed by the Board of
positions involved in the Special Cases Canvassers in the mathematical
subject of these petitions have already computation of the total number of votes
been proclaimed, the running of the garnered by petitioner [now private
period to file the protests shall be deemed respondent]. Petitioner filed a motion to
suspended by the pendency of such cases dismiss private respondent's petition on
before the COMELEC and of these the ground that it was filed beyond the
petitions before this Court. reglementary period of ten days from
proclamation, which petition was denied
by the trial court.
On June 23, 1992, the trial court rendered

REYES VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF its decision annuling the proclamation of
ORIENTAL MINDORO petitioner and declaring private
(G.R. NO. 108886, MAY 5, 1995) respondent as the eighth winning
MENDOZA, J.: candidate for the position of councilor of
the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan,
FACTS: Petitioner Aquiles Reyes and Oriental Mindoro. A copy of the decision
private respondent Adolfo Comia were was served on petitioner on June 26, 1992.
candidates for the position of member of
the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the
Oriental Mindoro in the May 11, 1992 COMELEC. In addition, he filed a petition
synchronized elections. On May 13, 1992, for mandamus and prohibition in the
during the proceedings of the Municipal Court of Appeals, to compel the
Board of Canvassers, private respondent Sangguniang Bayan to recognize him as
moved for the exclusion of certain the duly proclaimed member of that body
election returns, on the ground of serious and prohibit it from further recognizing
irregularity in counting in favor of private respondent. The Court of Appeals
petitioner Aquiles Reyes votes cast for dismissed the petition because of
"Reyes" only, considering that there was petitioner's pending appeal in the
another candidate (Epitacio Reyes) COMELEC. The appellate court cited
bearing the same surname. However, Supreme Court Circular 28-91 which
without resolving his petition, the prohibits the filing of multiple petitions
Municipal Board of Canvassers involving the same issues. Petitioner filed
proclaimed on the same day petitioner as a motion for reconsideration but his
the eighth winning candidate with 7,205 motion was denied. The appellate court's
Page | 45
MENDIOLA, MANILA
decision became final and executory on providing that the decisions, orders and
December 10, 1992. rulings of COMELEC "may be brought to
the Supreme Court on certiorari" the
Meanwhile, the Sangguniang Bayan met in Constitution in its Art. IX, A, §7 means the
inaugural session on July 3, 1992, during special civil action of certiorari under
which private respondent was recognized Rule 65, §1. Since a basic condition for
as the eighth member of the body and bringing such action is that the petitioner
thereafter allowed to assume office and first file a motion for reconsideration, it
discharge its functions. follows that petitioner's failure to file a
motion for reconsideration of the decision
On the other hand, the COMELEC's First of the First Division of the COMELEC is
Division dismissed on January 22, 1993 fatal to his present action.
petitioner's appeal on the ground that he
had failed to pay the appeal fee within the Petitioner argues that this requirement
prescribed period. Petitioner then may be dispensed with because the only
brought the present action. Petitioner question raised in his petition is a
contends that both the trial court and the question of law. This is not correct. The
COMELEC's First Division committed a questions raised by petitioner involve the
grave abuse of discretion, the first, by interpretation of constitutional and
assuming jurisdiction over the election statutory provisions in light of the facts of
contest filed by private respondent this case. The questions tendered are,
despite the fact that the case was filed therefore, not pure questions of law.
more than ten days after petitioner's
proclamation, and the second i.e., the Moreover, that a motion for
COMELEC's First Division, by dismissing reconsideration before the COMELEC en
petitioner's appeal from the decision of banc is required for the filing of a petition
the trial court for late payment of the for certiorari is clear from Article 9C pars.
appeal fee. 2 & 3 of the Constitution: Conformably to
these provisions of the Constitution all
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner election cases, including pre-
violated Article IX A of the Constitution. proclamation controversies, must be
decided by the COMELEC in division.
HELD: Yes, petitioner violated Article IX A Should a party be dissatisfied with the
of the Constitution which provides that decision, he may file a motion for
only decisions of the COMELEC en banc reconsideration before the COMELEC en
may be brought to the Supreme Court on banc. It is, therefore, the decision, order
certiorari. In the present case, he filed the or ruling of the COMELEC en banc that, in
present petition without first filing a accordance with Art. IX, A, §7, "may be
motion for reconsideration before the brought to the Supreme Court on
COMELEC en banc. It is now settled that in certiorari."
Page | 46
MENDIOLA, MANILA
candidates is being curtailed. It is

principally argued by petitioners that
SECTION 4. The Commission may, during the Section 11 (b) of Republic Act No. 6646
election period, supervise or regulate the invades and violates the constitutional
enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or guarantees comprising freedom of
permits for the operation of transportation expression.
and other public utilities, media of
communication or information, all grants,
Petitioners maintain that the prohibition
special privileges, or concessions granted by
the Government or any subdivision, agency, or imposed by Section 11 (b) amounts to
instrumentality thereof, including any censorship, because it selects and singles
government-owned or controlled corporation out for suppression and repression with
or its subsidiary. Such supervision or criminal sanctions, only publications of a
regulation shall aim to ensure equal particular content, namely, media-based
opportunity, time, and space, and the right to election or political propaganda during
reply, including reasonable, equal rates the election period of 1992. It is asserted
therefor, for public information campaigns and that the prohibition is in derogation of
forums among candidates in connection with media's role, function and duty to provide
the objective of holding free, orderly, honest,
adequate channels of public information
peaceful, and credible elections.
and public opinion relevant to election
issues. Further, petitioners contend that
Section 11 (b) abridges the freedom of
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB VS. speech of candidates, and that the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS suppression of media-based campaign or
(G.R. NO. 102925 MARCH 5, 1992) political propaganda except those
FELICIANO, J.: appearing in the Comelec space of the
newspapers and on Comelec time of radio
FACTS: This is a consolidation of three and television broadcasts, would bring
cases filed before the Supreme Court about a substantial reduction in the
which involves the same issue. Petitioners quantity or volume of information
in these cases consist of representatives concerning candidates and issues in the
of the mass media which are prevented election thereby curtailing and limiting
from selling or donating space and time the right of voters to information and
for political advertisements; two (2) opinion.
individuals who are candidates for office
(one for national and the other for ISSUE: Whether or not Section 11(b) of
provincial office) in the May 1992 Republic Act No. 6646 runs contradictory
elections; and taxpayers and voters who to Articles III [4] and IX (C) (4) of the
claim that their right to be informed of Constitution.
election issues and of credentials of the

Page | 47
MENDIOLA, MANILA
HELD: The objective which animates

Section 11 (b) is the equalizing, as far as [1] Section 11 (b) is limited in the
practicable, the situations of rich and duration of its applicability and
poor candidates by preventing the former enforceability. By virtue of the operation
from enjoying the undue advantage of Article IX (C) (4) of the Constitution,
offered by huge campaign "war chests." Section 11 (b) is limited in its applicability
Section 11 (b) prohibits the sale or in time to election periods. By its
donation of print space and air time "for Resolution No. 2328 dated 2 January
campaign or other political purposes" 1992, the Comelec, acting under another
except to the Commission on Elections specific grant of authority by the
("Comelec"). Upon the other hand, Constitution (Article IX [C] [9]), has
Sections 90 and 92 of the Omnibus defined the period from 12 January 1992
Election Code require the Comelec to until 10 June 1992 as the relevant election
procure "Comelec space" in newspapers period;
of general circulation in every province or
city and "Comelec time" on radio and [2] Section 11 (b) is limited in its scope of
television stations. application. Analysis of Section 11 (b)
shows that it purports to apply only to the
Further, the Comelec is statutorily purchase and sale, including purchase and
commanded to allocate "Comelec space" sale disguised as a donation, 4 of print
and "Comelec time" on a free of charge, space and air time for "campaign or other
equal and impartial basis among all political purposes." Section 11 (b) does
candidates within the area served by the not purport in any way to restrict the
newspaper or radio and television station reporting by newspapers or radio or
involved. It seems a modest proposition television stations of news or news-
that the provision of the Bill of Rights worthy events relating to candidates,
which enshrines freedom of speech, their qualifications, political parties and
freedom of expression and freedom of the programs of government;
press (Article III [4], Constitution) has to
be taken in conjunction with Article IX (C) [3] Section 11 (b) exempts from its
(4) which may be seen to be a special prohibition the purchase by or donation
provision applicable during a specific to the Comelec of print space or air time,
limited period — i.e., "during the election which space and time Comelec is then
period." affirmatively required to allocate on a fair
and equal basis, free of charge, among the
It is important to note that the restrictive individual candidates for elective public
impact upon freedom of speech and offices in the province or city served by
freedom of the press of Section 11 (b) is the newspaper or radio or television
circumscribed by certain important station.
limitations:
Page | 48
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Some of the petitioners are apparently regulatory authority on the part of the
apprehensive that Comelec might not Comelec for the purpose of securing equal
allocate "Comelec time" or "Comelec opportunity among candidates for
space" on a fair and equal basis among the political office, although such supervision
several candidates. Should such or regulation may result in some
apprehensions materialize, candidates limitation of the rights of free speech and
who are in fact prejudiced by unequal or free press. For supervision or regulation
unfair allocations effected by Comelec will of the operations of media enterprises is
have appropriate judicial remedies scarcely conceivable without such
available, so long at least as this Court sits. accompanying limitation. Thus, the
Until such time, however, the Comelec is applicable rule is the general, time-
entitled to the benefit of the presumption honored one — that a statute is presumed
that official duty will be or is being to be constitutional and that the party
regularly carried out. It seems asserting its unconstitutionality must
appropriate here to recall what Justice discharge the burden of clearly and
Laurel taught in Angara v. Electoral convincingly proving that assertion.
Commission 7 that the possibility of abuse Petition denied for lack of merit.
is no argument against the concession of
the power or authority involved, for there
is no power or authority in human society
that is not susceptible of being abused. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
Should it be objected that the Comelec BROADCAST ATTORNEYS
might refrain from procuring "Comelec OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.. VS.
time" and "Comelec space," much the COMELEC (G.R. NO. 132922. APRIL 21,
same considerations should be borne in 1998) MENDOZA, J.:
mind. As earlier noted, the Comelec is
commanded by statute to buy or FACTS: Petitioner Telecommunications
"procure" "Comelec time" and "Comelec and Broadcast Attorneys of the
space" in mass media, and it must be Philippines, Inc. (TELEBAP) is an
presumed that Comelec will carry out that organization of lawyers of radio and
statutory duty in this connection, and if it television broadcasting companies. They
does fail to do so, once again, the are suing as citizens, taxpayers, and
candidate or candidates who feel registered voters. The other petitioner,
aggrieved have judicial remedies at their GMA Network, Inc., operates radio and
disposal. television broadcasting stations
throughout the Philippines under a
The technical effect of Article IX (C) (4) of franchise granted by Congress. The
the Constitution may be seen to be that no Supreme Court explained that TELEBAP
presumption of invalidity arises in has no legal standing to file the case. A
respect of exercises of supervisory or citizen will be allowed to raise a
Page | 49
MENDIOLA, MANILA
constitutional question only when he can newspaper of general circulation in every

show that he has personally suffered province or city: Provided, however, That
some actual or threatened injury as a in the absence of said newspaper,
result of the allegedly illegal conduct of publication shall be done in any other
the government; the injury is fairly magazine or periodical in said province or
traceable to the challenged action; and the city, which shall be known as “Comelec
injury is likely to be redressed by a Space” wherein candidates can announce
favorable action. Members of petitioner their candidacy. Said space shall be
have not shown that they have suffered allocated, free of charge, equally and
harm as a result of the operation of §92 of impartially by the Commission among all
B.P. Blg. 881. The High Court, however, candidates within the area in which the
recognized the legal standing of Petitioner newspaper is circulated. (Sec. 45, 1978 EC).
GMA to bring the constitutional challenge.
GMA claims that it suffered losses, SEC. 92. Comelec time. - The Commission
running to several million pesos in shall procure radio and television time to
providing COMELEC Time in connection be known as “Comelec Time” which shall be
with the 1992 presidential election and allocated equally and impartially among
the 1995 senatorial election and that it the candidates within the area of coverage
stands to suffer even more should it be of all radio and television stations. For this
required to do so. Petitioner’s allegation purpose, the franchise of all radio
that it will suffer losses again because it is broadcasting and television stations are
required to provide free air time is hereby amended so as to provide radio or
sufficient to give it standing to question television time, free of charge, during the
the validity of §92 of BP 881 (Omnibus period of the campaign. (Sec. 46, 1978 EC)
Election Code).
Thus, the law prohibits mass media from
As pointed out in Osmeña v. COMELEC, selling or donating print space and air
§11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 and §90 and §92 time to the candidates and requires the
of B.P. Blg. 881 are part and parcel of a COMELEC instead to procure print space
regulatory scheme designed to equalize and air time for allocation to the
the opportunity of candidates in an candidates. It will be noted that while §90
election in regard to the use of mass of B.P. Blg. 881 requires the COMELEC to
media for political campaigns. These procure print space which, as we have
statutory provisions state in relevant held, should be paid for, §92 states that
parts: air time shall be procured by the
COMELEC free of charge.
B.P. Blg. 881, (Omnibus Election Code)
Petitioners contend that §92 of BP Blg.
SEC. 90. Comelec space. - The Commission 881 violates the due process clause and
shall procure space in at least one the eminent domain provision of the
Page | 50
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Constitution by taking air time from radio common good so requires.” Indeed,
and television broadcasting stations provisions for COMELEC Time have been
without payment of just compensation. made by amendment of the franchises of
Petitioners claim that the primary source radio and television broadcast stations
of revenue of the radio and television and, until the present case was brought,
stations is the sale of air time to such provisions had not been thought of
advertisers and that to require these as taking property without just
stations to provide free air time is to compensation. Art. XII, §11 of the
authorize a taking which is not “a de Constitution authorizes the amendment
minimis temporary limitation or restraint of franchises for “the common good.”
upon the use of private property.”
According to petitioners, in 1992, the In truth, radio and television broadcasting
GMA Network, Inc. lost P22,498,560.00 in companies, which are given franchises, do
providing free air time of one (1) hour not own the airwaves and frequencies
every morning from Mondays to Fridays through which they transmit broadcast
and one (1) hour on Tuesdays and signals and images. They are merely given
Thursdays from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. (prime the temporary privilege of using them.
time) and, further, it stands to lose in the Since a franchise is a mere privilege, the
1998 Elections, P58,980,850.00 in view of exercise of the privilege may reasonably
COMELEC’s requirement that radio and be burdened with the performance by the
television stations provide at least 30 grantee of some form of public service.
minutes of prime time daily for the Thus, in De Villata v. Stanley, a regulation
COMELEC Time. requiring interisland vessels licensed to
engage in the interisland trade to carry
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 92 of the mail and, for this purpose, to give advance
Omnibus Election Code is valid. notice to postal authorities of date and
hour of sailings of vessels and of changes
HELD: Yes, Section 92 of BP 881 is valid. of sailing hours to enable them to tender
All broadcasting, whether by radio or by mail for transportation at the last
television stations, is licensed by the practicable hour prior to the vessel’s
government. Airwave frequencies have to departure, was held to be a reasonable
be allocated as there are more individuals condition for the state grant of license.
who want to broadcast than there are Although the question of compensation
frequencies to assign. A franchise is thus a for the carriage of mail was not in issue,
privilege subject, among other things, to the Court strongly implied that such
amendment by Congress in accordance service could be without compensation,
with the constitutional provision that as in fact under Spanish sovereignty the
“any such franchise or right granted . . . mail was carried
shall be subject to amendment, alteration free.
or repeal by the Congress when the
Page | 51
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In the granting of the privilege to operate For the fact is that the duty imposed on
broadcast stations and thereafter the GMA Network, Inc. by its franchise to
supervising radio and television stations, render “adequate public service time”
the state spends considerable public implements §92 of B.P. Blg. 881.
funds in licensing and supervising such Undoubtedly, its purpose is to enable the
stations. It would be strange if it cannot government to communicate with the
even require the licensees to render people on matters of public interest.
public service by giving free air time. Petitioners complain that B.P. Blg. 881,
Petitioners claim that §92 is an invalid §92 singles out radio and television
amendment of R.A. No. 7252 which stations to provide free air time. They
granted GMA Network, Inc. a franchise for contend that newspapers and magazines
the operation of radio and television are not similarly required as, in fact, in
broadcasting stations. They argue that Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC we
although §5 of R.A. No. 7252 gives the upheld their right to the payment of just
government the power to temporarily use compensation for the print space they
and operate the stations of petitioner may provide under §90. In the allocation
GMA Network or to authorize such use of limited resources, relevant conditions
and operation, the exercise of this right may validly be imposed on the grantees
must be compensated. The basic flaw in or licensees. The reason for this is that, as
petitioner’s argument is that it assumes already noted, the government spends
that the provision for COMELEC Time public funds for the allocation and
constitutes the use and operation of the regulation of the broadcast industry,
stations of the GMA Network, Inc. This is which it does not do in the case of the
not so. Under §92 of B.P. Blg. 881, the print media. To require the radio and
COMELEC does not take over the television broadcast industry to provide
operation of radio and television stations free air time for the COMELEC Time is a
but only the allocation of air time to the fair exchange for what the industry gets.
candidates for the purpose of ensuring, From another point of view, this Court
among other things, equal opportunity, has also held that because of the unique
time, and the right to reply as mandated and pervasive influence of the broadcast
by the Constitution. Indeed, it is wrong to media,
claim an amendment of petitioner’s
franchise for the reason that B.P. Blg. 881, “[n]ecessarily . . . the freedom of television
which is said to have amended R.A. No. and radio broadcasting is somewhat
7252, actually antedated it. The provision lesser in scope than the freedom accorded
of §92 of B.P. Blg. 881 must be deemed to newspaper and print media.”
instead to be incorporated in R.A. No.
7252. And, indeed, §4 of the latter statute To affirm the validity of §92 of B.P. Blg.
does. 881 is to hold public broadcasters to their
obligation to see to it that the variety and
Page | 52
MENDIOLA, MANILA
vigor of public debate on issues in an (f) To draw, paint, inscribe, post, display
election is maintained. For while or publicly exhibit any election
broadcast media are not mere common propaganda in any place, whether public
carriers but entities with free speech or private, mobile or stationary, except in
rights, they are also public trustees the COMELEC common posted areas
charged with the duty of ensuring that the and/or billboards, at the campaign
people have access to the diversity of headquarters of the candidate or political
views on political issues. This right of the party, organization or coalition, or at the
people is paramount to the autonomy of candidate's own residential house or one
broadcast media. To affirm the validity of of his residential houses, if he has more
§92, therefore, is likewise to uphold the than one: Provided, that such posters or
people’s right to information on matters election propaganda shall not exceed two
of public concern. The use of property (2) feet by three (3) feet in size.
bears a social function and is subject to (Emphasis supplied)
the state’s duty to intervene for the
common good. Broadcast media can find The statutory provisions sought to be
their just and highest reward in the fact enforced by COMELEC are Section 82 of
that whatever altruistic service they may the Omnibus Election Code on lawful
render in connection with the holding of election propaganda and Section 11(a) of
elections is for that common good. Republic Act No. 6646 on prohibited
forms of election propaganda. Petitioner
Adiong, a senatorial candidate in the 1992
elections assails the COMELEC's
BLO UMPAR ADIONG VS. COMMISSION Resolution insofar as it prohibits the
ON ELECTIONS posting of decals and stickers in "mobile"
(G.R. NO. 103956 MARCH 31, 1992) places like cars and other moving vehicles.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: According to him such prohibition is
violative of Section 82 of the Omnibus
FACTS: On January 13, 1992, the Election Code and Section 11(a) of
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. Republic Act No. 6646. In addition, the
2347 pursuant to its powers granted by petitioner believes that with the ban on
the Constitution, the Omnibus Election radio, television and print political
Code, Republic Acts Nos. 6646 and 7166 advertisements, he, being a neophyte in
and other election laws. Section 15 of the the field of politics stands to suffer grave
said Resolution provides for lawful and irreparable injury with this
election propaganda while Section 21(f) prohibition. The posting of decals and
thereof provides for what is unlawful. It stickers on cars and other moving
states: vehicles would be his last medium to
inform the electorate that he is a
senatorial candidate in the May 11, 1992
Page | 53
MENDIOLA, MANILA
elections. Finally, the petitioner states in this kind of election propaganda not
that as of February 22, 1992 (the date of the financial resources of the candidate.
the petition) he has not received any Whether the candidate is rich and,
notice from any of the Election Registrars therefore, can afford to doleout more
in the entire country as to the location of decals and stickers or poor and without
the supposed "Comelec Poster Areas." the means to spread out the same number
of decals and stickers is not as important
ISSUE: Whether or not the Commission as the right of the owner to freely express
on Elections (COMELEC) may prohibit the his choice and exercise his right of free
posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" speech. The owner can even prepare his
places, public or private, and limit their own decals or stickers for posting on his
location or publication to the authorized personal property. To strike down this
posting areas that it fixes. right and enjoin it is impermissible
encroachment of his liberties.
HELD: No. The COMELEC's prohibition on
posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" In sum, the prohibition on posting of
places whether public or private except in decals and stickers on "mobile" places
designated areas provided for by the whether public or private except in the
COMELEC itself is null and void on authorized areas designated by the
constitutional grounds. COMELEC becomes censorship which
cannot be justified by the Constitution:
The constitutional objective to give a rich . . . The concept of the Constitution as the
candidate and a poor candidate equal fundamental law, setting forth the
opportunity to inform the electorate as criterion for the validity of any public act
regards their candidacies, mandated by whether proceeding from the highest
Article II, Section 26 and Article XIII, official or the lowest functionary, is a
section 1 in relation to Article IX (c) postulate of our system of government.
Section 4 of the Constitution, is not That is to manifest fealty to the rule of law,
impaired by posting decals and stickers with priority accorded to that which
on cars and other private vehicles. occupies the topmost rung in the legal
Compared to the paramount interest of hierarchy. The three departments of
the State in guaranteeing freedom of government in the discharge of the
expression, any financial considerations functions with which it is entrusted have
behind the regulation are of marginal no choice but to yield obedience to its
significance. It is to be reiterated that the commands. Whatever limits it imposes
posting of decals and stickers on cars, must be observed. Congress in the
calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other enactment of statutes must ever be on
moving vehicles needs the consent of the guard lest the restrictions on its authority,
owner of the vehicle. Hence, the either substantive or formal, be
preference of the citizen becomes crucial transcended.
Page | 54
MENDIOLA, MANILA
govern the conduct of the plebiscite on

The Presidency in the execution of the the said Organic Act for the Cordillera
laws cannot ignore or disregard what it Autonomous Region. Petitioner Pablito V.
ordains. In its task of applying the law to Sanidad, a newspaper columnist of the
the facts as found in deciding cases, the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND
judiciary is called upon to maintain COURIER, assailed the constitutionality of
inviolate what is decreed by the Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No.
fundamental law. Even its power of 2167, which provides:
judicial review to pass upon the validity of
the acts of the coordinate branches in the Section 19. Prohibition on columnists,
course of adjudication is a logical. commentators or announcers. — During
corollary of this basic principle that the the plebiscite campaign period, on the day
Constitution is paramount. It overrides before and on the plebiscite day, no mass
any governmental measure that fails to media columnist, commentator,
live up to its mandates. Thereby there is a announcer or personality shall use his
recognition of its being the supreme law. column or radio or television time to
(Mutuc v. Commission on Elections, campaign for or against the plebiscite
supra) Petition is granted. The portion of issues.
Section 15 (a) of Resolution No. 2347 of
the Commission on Elections providing Petitioner maintains that if media
that "decals and stickers may be posted practitioners were to express their views,
only in any of the authorized posting beliefs and opinions on the issue
areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section submitted to a plebiscite, it would in fact
21 hereof" is DECLARED NULL and VOID. help in the government drive and desire
to disseminate information, and hear, as
well as ventilate, all sides of the issue.
COMELEC counters that the Resoultion is
SANIDAD VS. COMMISSION ON not violative of the constitution and it is a
ELECTIONS valid implementation of its power to
(G.R. NO. 90878 JANUARY 29, 1990) supervise and regulate media during
MEDIALDEA, J.: election or plebiscite periods as
enunciated in the Constitution. It stated
FACTS: RA 6766, entitled "AN ACT that it does not absolutely bar petitioner
PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR from expressing his views and/or from
THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS campaigning for or against the Organic
REGION" was enacted into law, pursuant Act. He may still express his views or
to which provinces included therein shall campaign for or against the act through
take part in a plebiscite for the ratification the Comelec space and airtime.
of said Organic Act. The COMELEC
promulgated Resolution No. 2167, to
Page | 55
MENDIOLA, MANILA
ISSUE: The constitutionality of Section 19 absolutely bar petitioner's freedom of

of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 on the expression, it is still a restriction on his
ground that it violates the constitutional choice of the forum where he may express
guarantees of the freedom of expression his view. Plebiscite issues are matters of
and of the press during the conduct of a public concern and importance. The
plebiscite. people's right to be informed and to be
able to freely and intelligently make a
HELD: Section 19 of Comelec Resolution decision would be better served by access
No. 2167 is declared null and void and to an unabridged discussion of the issues,
unconstitutional. It is clear in the including the forum. The people affected
Constitution that what was granted to the by the issues presented in a plebiscite
Comelec was the power to supervise and should not be unduly burdened by
regulate the use and enjoyment of restrictions on the forum where the right
franchises, permits or other grants issued to expression may be exercised. Comelec
for the operation of transportation or spaces and Comelec radio time may
other public utilities, media of provide a forum for expression but they
communication or information to the end do not guarantee full dissemination of
that equal opportunity, time and space, information to the public concerned
and the right to reply, including because they are limited to either specific
reasonable, equal rates therefore, for portions in newspapers or to specific
public information campaigns and forums radio or television times.
among candidates are ensured.
However, neither Article IX-C of the

Constitution nor Section 11 (b), 2nd par. SECTION 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or
of R.A. 6646 can be construed to mean suspension of sentence for violation of election
that the Comelec has also been granted laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by
the right to supervise and regulate the the President without the favorable
exercise by media practitioners recommendation of the Commission.
themselves of their right to expression
SECTION 6. A free and open party system shall
during plebiscite periods. Media be allowed to evolve according to the free
practitioners exercising their freedom of choice of the people, subject to the provisions of
expression during plebiscite periods are this Article.
neither the franchise holders nor the
candidates. In fact, there are no SECTION 7. No votes cast in favor of a political
candidates involved in a plebiscite. party, organization, or coalition shall be valid,
except for those registered under the party-list
Therefore, Section 19 of Comelec system as provided in this Constitution.
Resolution No. 2167 has no statutory
basis. While the limitation does not
Page | 56
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SECTION 8. Political parties, or organizations immediately preceding their appointment. At

or coalitions registered under the party-list no time shall all Members of the Commission
system, shall not be represented in the voters’ belong to the same profession.
registration boards, boards of election
inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other (2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall
similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled be appointed by the President with the consent
to appoint poll watchers in accordance with of the Commission on Appointments for a term
law. of seven years without reappointment. Of those
first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office
SECTION 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the for seven years, one Commissioner for five
Commission in special cases, the election period years, and the other Commissioner for three
shall commence ninety days before the day of years, without reappointment. Appointment to
the election and shall end thirty days after. any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
portion of the term of the predecessor. In no
SECTION 10. Bona fide candidates for any case shall any Member be appointed or
public office shall be free from any form of designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
harassment and discrimination.
SECTION 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall
SECTION 11. Funds certified by the Commission have the power, authority, and duty to
as necessary to defray the expenses for holding examine, audit, and settle all accounts
regular and special elections, plebiscites, pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be expenditures or uses of funds and property,
provided in the regular or special owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the
appropriations and, once approved, shall be Government, or any of its subdivisions,
released automatically upon certification by agencies, or instrumentalities, including
the Chairman of the Commission. government-owned or controlled corporations
with original charters, and on a post-audit
basis:
(a) constitutional bodies, commissions and

D. COMMISSION ON AUDIT offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy
under this Constitution;
SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on
Audit composed of a Chairman and two
(b) autonomous state colleges and universities;
Commissioners, who shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
(c) other government-owned or controlled
their appointment, at least thirty-five years of
corporations and their subsidiaries; and
age, certified public accountants with not less
than ten years of auditing experience, or
members of the Philippine Bar who have been (d) such non-governmental entities receiving
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or
years, and must not have been candidates for through the Government, which are required
any elective position in the elections by law or the granting institution to submit to
such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity.

Page | 57
MENDIOLA, MANILA
However, where the internal control system of collaborate with the Legal Counsel of the
the audited agencies is inadequate, the Central Bank. The Board also authorized
Commission may adopt such measures, the Governor to arrange with Judge
including temporary or special pre-audit, as Guevera the amount of fee which the
are necessary and appropriate to correct the
latter will charge the Central Bank for
deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts
handling the said cases. Prior thereto the
of the Government and, for such period as may
be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and latter had sent to the Central Bank his bill
other supporting papers pertaining thereto. for the retainer's fee of P10, 000. The
Bank Auditor sought advice thereon from
(2) The Commission shall have exclusive the Auditor General, who stated that he
authority, subject to the limitations in this would not object to the retainer's fees,
Article, to define the scope of its audit and provided that its payment was made in
examination, establish the techniques and installments. With the understanding that,
methods required therefor, and promulgate "in case there is no appeal from the CFI
accounting and auditing rules and regulations, decision, the balance will be paid in full",
including those for the prevention and once, presumably, the decision has
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, become final. As regards the P300 per
excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable
diem, the Auditor General express
expenditures, or uses of government funds and
properties. however, the belief that it is "excessive
and may be allowed in audit". Hence, the
present action for mandamus to compel
respondent to approve payment of
GUEVARA VS. GIMENEZ petitioner's retainer fee and his per diem
(G.R. NO. L-17115, NOVEMBER 30, aggregating P3,300, for the 11 hearings
1962) CONCEPCION, J.: attended by him.
FACTS: Miguel Cuaderno, the then ISSUE: Whether or not the Auditor
Governor of the Central Bank of the General has the authority to disapprove
Philippines, acting for and in behalf the expenditures he deemed unwise or
thereof, asked petitioner to cooperate that the amount stipulated thereon is
with the legal counsel of the Central Bank unreasonable?
in defending the same and its Monetary
Board in a civil case. Accordingly HELD: The Auditor General has no
petitioner entered his appearance as mandate to disapprove expenditures
counsel for the respondents in said case which in his opinion excessive and
and argued therein, verbally and in extravagant. Under our Constitution, the
writing. The Governor presented to the authority of the Auditor General, in
Board and the latter approved by connection with expenditures of the
unanimous vote, the designation of Judge Government is limited to the auditing of
Guillermo Guevara as counsel to expenditures of funds or property
Page | 58
MENDIOLA, MANILA
pertaining to, or held in trust by the Auditing office, and, hence, render the
Government or the provinces or imposition of said duty unnecessary.
municipalities thereof (Article XI, section
2, of the Constitution). Such function is
limited to a determination of whether
there is a law appropriating funds for a OROCIO VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
given purpose; whether a contract, made (G.R. NO. 75959 AUGUST 31, 1992)
by the proper officer, has been entered
into in conformity with said FACTS: An accident occurred at the
appropriation law; whether the goods or Malaya Thermal Plant of the National
services covered by said contract have Power Corporation (NPC), when the plug
been delivered or rendered in pursuance from the leaking tube gave way, thereby
of the provisions thereof, as attested to by releasing steam and hot water which hit
the proper officer; and whether payment two of the employees working on the tube
therefore has been authorized by the leak. The NPC initially advanced this
officials of the corresponding department amount by setting it up as an account
or bureau. If these requirements have receivable from OPLGS (employees’
been fulfilled, it is the ministerial duty of agency) and deducted on a staggered
the Auditor General to approve and pass basis from the latter's billings against NPC
in audit the voucher and treasury warrant until the same was fully satisfied. OPLGS
for said payment. He has no discretion or requested for a refund of the total amount
authority to disapprove said payment deducted from their billings representing
upon the ground that the aforementioned payment of the advances made by the
contract was unwise or that the amount NPC. Petitioner, as officer-in-charge,
stipulated thereon is unreasonable. If he recommended favorable action on OPLGS'
entertains such belief, he may do so more request.
than discharge the duty imposed upon
him by the Constitution (Article XI, Thus, the amount for the hospitalization
section 2), "to bring to the attention of the expenses was refunded to the contractor
proper administrative officer OPLGS. In Certificate of Settlement and
expenditures of funds or Property which, Balances (CSB) No. 01-04-83 prepared by
in his opinion, are irregular, unnecessary, respondent Jose M. Agustin, Unit Auditor
excessive or extravagant". This duty of the COA assigned to the NPC-MRRC, the
implies a negation of the power to refuse refund of the hospitalization expenses
and disapprove payment of such was disallowed for "[u]nder the NPC-O.P.
expenditures, for its disapproval, if he had Landrito contract, there is no employer-
authority therefore, would bring to the employee relationship between the
attention of the aforementioned Corporation and the latter's employees."
administrative officer the reasons for the Hence, the NPC is not answerable for such
adverse action thus taken by the General expenses.
Page | 59
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(2) Has the General Counsel of the COA

A Debit Memorandum was issued in the authority to decide a motion to
petitioner's name debiting his account reconsider the disallowance in question?
with the NPC for the amount of the
hospitalization expenses. Petitioner (3) Is the petitioner personally liable for
claims that he prepared the questioned the disallowance on the theory that the
legal opinion in the performance of his disbursement was made on the basis
official functions as mandated by law. At thereof?
the time he rendered it, he was the
officer-in-charge of the NPC's Office of the HELD:
General Counsel. Section 15-A of its 1. Both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions
charter provides that all legal matters conferred upon the COA a more active
shall be handled by the General Counsel role and invested it with broader and
of the Corporation. As such, he provides more extensive powers. These were not
legal advice and/or renders legal opinions meant to make it a toothless tiger, but a
on legal matters involving the NPC. Since dynamic, effective, efficient and
this function is quasi-judicial in nature, independent watchdog of the Government.
the discretion exercised in the discharge
thereof is not subject to reexamination or In determining whether an expenditure of
controversion by the respondents; when a Government agency or instrumentality
the latter did what was proscribed, they such as the NPC is irregular, unnecessary,
in effect usurped the statutory function of excessive, extravagant or unconscionable,
the General Counsel of the NPC. There is the COA should not be bound by the
no law which expressly authorizes the opinion of the legal counsel of said agency
respondents to re-examine or controvert or instrumentality which may have been
the General Counsel's opinion. Petitioner the basis for the questioned
additionally stresses that he is not disbursement; otherwise, it would indeed
personally liable for the amount become a toothless tiger and its auditing
disallowed as he was merely performing function would be a meaningless and
his official functions. Besides, his futile exercise. Its beacon lights then
questioned opinion is not alleged to have should be nothing more than the
been rendered with malice and bad faith. pertinent laws and its rules and
regulations.
ISSUES:
(1) Does the legal opinion of petitioner, 2. No. The General Counsel of the COA
which was relied upon for the does not have the authority to decide a
disbursement in question, preclude or bar motion to reconsider the disallowance in
the COA from disallowing in post-audit question The COA, both under the 1973
such disbursement? and 1987 Constitution, is a collegial body.
It must resolve cases presented to it as
Page | 60
MENDIOLA, MANILA
such. Its General Counsel cannot act for Cebu City Medical Center. The parties
the Commission for he is not even a entered into a compromise agreement,
Commissioner thereof. He can only offer which included a provision for the
legal advice or render an opinion in order payment of the sum of P30, 000.00 to the
to aid the COA in the resolution of a case plaintiffs by defendant City of Cebu. The
or a legal question. agreement was submitted to the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City,
3. Even if we assume that the which ratified the same. The sanggunian
disallowance was proper, there would authorized "the City Budget Officer, Cebu
still be no basis for directly holding City, to include in Supplemental Budget
petitioner liable. If he rendered the No. IV of the City . . . for the year 1989 the
opinion in the just performance of his amount of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,
official duties and within the scope of his 000.00) PESOS for financial assistance to
assigned tasks, he would not be the parents of the late Reynaldo de la
personally liable Cerna, all of Cebu City.
for any injury that may result therefrom.
Compromise Agreement between the City Respondent COA disallowed the "financial
of Cebu and Spouses de la Cerna which assistance" thus granted to the Spouses,
involves monetary consideration was averring that it is not within the powers
upheld constitutional. of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu to
provide, either under the general welfare
clause or even on humanitarian grounds,
monetary assistance that would promote
OSMEÑA VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT the economic condition and private
(G.R. NO. 110045 NOVEMBER 29, 1994) interests of certain individuals only.
FACTS: Reynaldo de la Cerna, the son of ISSUE: Whether or not the Compromise
the de la Cerna Spouses was stabbed by Agreement between the City of Cebu and
an unknown assailant. He was rushed to Spouses de la Cerna which involves
the Cebu City Medical Center but later monetary consideration constitutional?
died due to severe loss of blood. His
parents claimed that Reynaldo would not HELD: Yes. The Compromise Agreement
have died were it not for the "ineptitude, entered between the City of Cebu and Sps.
gross negligence, irresponsibility, De la Cerna was constitutional. The
stupidity and incompetence of the participation by the City in negotiations
medical staff" of the hospital. for an amicable settlement of a pending
litigation and its eventual execution of a
The Spouses thus filed suit for damages compromise relative thereto, are
against the city of Cebu, the Sangguniang indubitably within its authority and
Panlungsod, and five physicians of the capacity as a public corporation; and a
Page | 61
MENDIOLA, MANILA
compromise of a civil suit in which it is Evaluation Division of COA, there has

involved as a party, is a perfectly been an overpricing. The President/GM of
legitimate transaction, not only ECS Enterprises made no comment on the
recognized but even encouraged by law. overpricing but instead proposed a 10%
deduction on the unpaid balance. The
That the City of Cebu complied with the Provincial Auditor forwarded the matter
relevant formalities contemplated by law to the COA Regional Director who
can hardly be doubted. The compromise formally endorsed the stand of the
agreement was submitted to its legislative Provincial Auditor. ECS Enterprises
council, the Sangguniang Panlungsod, appealed to COA, which denied the appeal.
which approved it conformably with its Hence the present petition.
established rules and procedure,
particularly the stipulation for the ISSUE: Did the COA commit grave abuse
payment of P30, 000.00 to the de la Cerna of discretion in affirming the decision of
family. Neither may it be disputed that the Provincial Auditor and the Regional
since, as a municipal corporation, Cebu Director?
City has the power to sue and be sued, it
has the authority to settle or compromise HELD: No. In the exercise of its regulatory
suits, as well as the obligation to pay just power vested upon it by the Constitution,
and valid claims against it. COA adheres to the policy that
government funds and property should
be full protected and conserved and that
irregular, unnecessary, excessive or
SAMBELI V. PROVINCE OF ISABELA extravagant expenditures or uses of funds
G.R. NO. 92279 JUNE 18, 1992 owned by, or pertaining to, the
Government or any of its subdivisions,
FACTS: An agreement was entered into agencies and instrumentalities (Article IX
by and between the Province of Isabela (D-1) Section 2(1), 1987 Constitution) .
and ECS Enterprises for the purchase of That authority extends to the accounts of
300 units of wheelbarrows, 837 pieces of all persons respecting funds or properties
shovels and 1 set of radio communication received or held by them in any
equipment. Out of the items delivered, a accountable capacity. (Section 26, P.D. No.
partial delivery was made. The Provincial 1445). In the exercise of its jurisdiction, it
Auditor allowed the payment of only 50% determines whether or not the fiscal
“pending receipt of reply to the query to responsibility that rests directly with the
Price Evaluation Division of COA.” head and whether or not there has been
loss or wastage of government resources.
A second delivery was made and payment Wherefore, for lack of merit, the petition
of 50% was allowed by the Provincial is dismissed.
Auditor. Based on the findings of the Price
Page | 62
MENDIOLA, MANILA
appeal is within the power of the

Commission on Audit as it is provided in
BUSTAMANTE VS. COMMISSIONER ON the Constitution:
AUDIT Sec. 2. The Commission on Audit shall
(G.R. NO. 103309, NOVEMBER 27, have the following powers and functions:
1992) CAMPOS, JR. J.:
(1) Examine, audit, and settle, in
FACTS: Petitioner is the Regional Legal accordance with law and regulations, and
Counsel of the National Power receipts of, and expenditures or uses of
Corporation (NPC) for the Northern funds and property, owned or held in
Luzon Regional Center covering the trust by, or pertaining to, the Government,
provinces of Rizal up to Batanes. As such or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
he was issued a government vehicle. instrumentalities, including government-
Pursuant to NPC policy as reflected in the owned or controlled corporations; keep
Board Resolution No. 81-95 authorizing the general accounts of the Government
the monthly disbursement of and, for such period vouchers pertaining
transportation allowance, the petitioner, thereto; and promulgate accounting and
in addition to the use of government auditing rules and regulations including
vehicle, claimed his transportation those for the prevention of irregular,
allowance for the month of January 1989. unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant
Petitioner received an Auditor's Notice to expenditures or uses of funds and
Person Liable from respondent Regional property. . . . (Article XII-D, 1973
Auditor Martha Roxana Caburian Constitution)
disallowing P1,250.00 representing
aforesaid transportation allowance. We likewise cannot sustain petitioner's
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, contention that the Commission, in the
which the Regional Auditor denied. exercise of its power granted by the
Petitioner appealed to COA, which denied Constitution, usurped the statutory
the appeal. Hence, this petition. functions of the NPC Board of Directors
for its leads to the absurd conclusion that
ISSUE: Did the COA grave abuse of a mere Board of Directors of a
discretion in its denial to give due course government-owned and controlled
to the petitioner’s appeal? Did the COA, in corporation, by issuing a resolution, can
the exercise of its constitutional powers, put to naught a constitutional provision
usurp the statutory functions of the NPC which has been ratified by the majority of
Board of Directors? the Filipino people. If We will not sustain
the Commission's power and duty to
HELD: examine, audit and settle accounts
No. It is beyond dispute that the pertaining to this particular expenditures
discretion exercised in the denial of the or use of funds and property, owned or
Page | 63
MENDIOLA, MANILA
held in trust by this government-owned the decision of the COA is contrary to the
and controlled corporation, the NPC, We evidence.
will be rendering inutile this
Constitutional Body which has been ISSUE: Can the Supreme Court review
tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in COA decisions on administrative matters?
safeguarding the proper use of the
government's, and ultimately, the HELD:
people's property. No. The petition has to be dismissed for
the following reasons:
WHEREOF, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit. 1. Our power to review COA decisions
refers to money matters and not to
administrative cases involving the
discipline of its personnel.
SALIGUMBA VS. COMMISSION ON 2. Even assuming that We have
AUDIT jurisdiction to review decisions on
(G.R. NO. L-61676, OCTOBER 18, 1982) administrative matters as mentioned
ABAD SANTOS, J.: above, We can not do so on factual issues;
Our power to review is limited to legal
FACTS: On the basis of the sworn issues.
complaint of Editha Saligumba, the COA
instituted the administrative case against
Leonardo Estella, Auditing Examiner III, SECTION 3. No law shall be passed exempting
in the Auditor's Office of Misamis any entity of the Government or its subsidiary
Occidental. The charge was that the in any guise whatever, or any investment of
respondent raped Editha Saligumba on public funds, from the jurisdiction of the
several occasions. Commission on Audit.
SECTION 4. The Commission shall submit to the

On April 12, 1982, the COA rendered a President and the Congress, within the time
decision with the following judgment: fixed by law, an annual report covering the
financial condition and operation of the
Wherefore, for insufficiency of evidence, Government, its subdivisions, agencies, and
the instant charge is hereby dropped. instrumentalities, including government-
Respondent is, however, warned to owned or controlled corporations, and non-
comport himself henceforth in such a governmental entities subject to its audit, and
manner as would forestall the filing of recommend measures necessary to improve
similar complaints in the future. Editha their effectiveness and efficiency. It shall
Saligumba now wants The Court to submit such other reports as may be required
by law.
review the COA decision. She insists that

Page | 64
MENDIOLA, MANILA
desist from bidding the company’s fuel

PHILIPPINE AIRLINESVS. COMMISSION supply contracts?
ON AUDIT
(G.R. NO. 91890 JUNE 9, 1995) HELD: No. The COA is clothed under
ROMERO, J.: Section 2(2), Article IX-D of the 1987
Constitution with the "exclusive authority,
FACTS: At the time of the filing of the subject to the limitations in this Article, to
petition, majority of PAL’s shares of stock define the scope of its audit and
was owned by the GSIS. To assure itself of examination, establish the techniques and
continuous, reliable and cost-efficient methods required therefor, and
supply of fuel, PAL adopted a system of promulgate accounting and auditing rules,
bidding out its fuel requirements under a and regulations including those for the
multiple supplier set-up whereby PAL prevention and disallowance of irregular,
awarded to the lowest bidder 60% of its unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or
fuel requirements and to the second unconscionable expenditures, or uses of
lowest bidder the remaining 40%, government funds and properties." The
provided it matched the price of the authority granted under this
lowest bidder. COA wrote PAL a letter constitutional provision, being broad and
stating: comprehensive enough, enables COA to
adopt as its own, simply by reiteration or
It has come to our attention that PAL by reference, without the necessity of
international fuel supply contracts are repromulgation, already existing rules
expiring this August 31, 1989. In this and regulations. It may also expand the
connection, you are advised to desist from coverage thereof to agencies or
bidding the company's fuel supply instrumentalities under its audit
contracts, considering that existing jurisdiction. It is in this light that we view
regulations require government-owned COA Memorandum No. 88-565 issued on
or controlled corporations and other August 1, 1988.
agencies of government to procure their
petroleum product requirements from WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
PETRON Corporation. PAL sought DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
reconsideration but was denied by COA. A
final appeal for reconsideration was also
denied in the now assailed COA Decision
No. 1127.
ISSUE: Did respondent commit grave

abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in ordering PAL to

Page | 65
MENDIOLA, MANILA
BAGATSING VS. COMMITTEE ON US$421 million. ARAMCO was declared

PRIVATIZATION the winning bidder.
(G.R. NO. 112399 JULY 14, 1995)
QUIASON, J.: Petitioner argues that there was a failed
bidding as provided for in COA circular
FACTS: Petron is a government acquired No. 89-296. It provides that there is a
company aimed to provide for a buffer failure of public auction when: 1) there is
against the vagaries of oil prices in the only one offeror; or (2) when all the offers
international market by serving as a are non-complying or unacceptable.
counterfoil against price manipulation
that may go uncheck if all oil companies ISSUE: Whether or not the public bidding
were foreign-owned. It owns the largest, was tainted with haste and arbitrariness
most modern complex refinery in the because there was a failed bidding for
Philippines and is also the country's having only one offeror?
biggest combined retail and wholesale
market of refined petroleum products. HELD: No. While two offerors were
disqualified, PETRONAS for submitting a
Following President Corazon Aquino’s bid below the floor price and WESTMONT
desire to raise revenue for the for technical reasons, not all the offerors
government and the ideal of leaving were disqualified. To constitute a failed
business to private sector, the bidding under the COA Circular, all the
privatization of Petron was initiated. This offerors must be disqualified. Petitioners
privatization was subsequently approved urge that in effect there was only one
by President Fidel V. Ramos as bidder and that it can not be said that
recommended by PNOC and the there was a competition on "an equal
Committee on Privatization. 40 % was to footing. But the COA Circular does not
be sold to a strategic partner, 40% was to speak of accepted bids but of offerors,
be retained by the government and the without distinction as to whether they
remaining 20% was to be offered to the were disqualified.
public. The floor bid price was finally set
at us$440 million. The bidding for the The COA itself, the agency that adopted
40% block share was participated by the rules on bidding procedure to be
PETRONAS, ARAMCO and WESTMONT. followed by government offices and
WESTMONT’s proposal was rejected for corporations, had upheld the validity and
not having met the pre-qualification legality of the questioned bidding. The
criteria of financial capability and lack of interpretation of an agency of its own
technical and management expertise. The rules should be given more weight than
bid of ARAMCO was for US$502 million the interpretation by that agency of the
while the bid of PETRONAS was for law it is merely tasked to administer.

Page | 66

Poli Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Poli Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

ARTICLE IX and practice before it or before any of its

A. COMMON PROVISIONS ARULEO VS. CA

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Particulars on August 6, 1992. Under Comelec en banc. On October 28, 1987,

ROMEO M. ESTRELLA v. COMMISSION

termination. MSPB initially dismissed the reglementary period. Here, it is admitted

FILIPINAS ENGINEERING AND ISSUES:

which is exclusively and directly

non-judicial in character, no contempt committee, was not the winning bid. No

Energy Regulatory Board, National further extension shall be granted except

transferred or referred to it shall be

14. TRANSITORY PROVISIONS. — All

(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

government-owned and/or controlled ISSUE: Whether or not the removal of the

FACTS: Eduardo de los Santos, the

assumed the position. Petitioner wrote he filed an action for certiorari,

ISSUE: Whether or not highly technical

differentiation expressly made by our Commission (CSC) approved it as

HELD: NO. It is noted that the

PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR VS. CA Camarines Sur at the time he was

FACTS: Private respondent Tito Dato was HELD:

employment status of an employee. The DE LOS SANTOS V. YATCO

and his consequent ability to discharge preliminary injunction, as jurisdiction lay

Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

without waiting for the approval of the

Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall

Commission in the exercise of such an COMELEC be appointed or designated in a

laws and its own rules and the exercise of

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

credible elections, and to serve as the contended by the petitioners, the

The word regulations is not found in

motion for reconsideration was denied, Commission is hereby vested with

EDDING V. COMELEC Finally, the COMELEC issued the assailed

1987 Constitution, which provides in involving election cases. But

We do not, however, believe that the

"MR. REGALADO: It is understood, however,

without obtaining prior pennission or Prosecutor files information charging an

investigation be submitted to it to satisfy The COMELEC sought to appeal the

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

votes. On May 25, 1992 petitioner took

On June 23, 1992, the trial court rendered

candidates is being curtailed. It is

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

HELD: The objective which animates

constitutional question only when he can newspaper of general circulation in every

govern the conduct of the plebiscite on

ISSUE: The constitutionality of Section 19 absolutely bar petitioner's freedom of

However, neither Article IX-C of the

SECTION 8. Political parties, or organizations immediately preceding their appointment. At

(a) constitutional bodies, commissions and

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

(2) Has the General Counsel of the COA

compromise of a civil suit in which it is Evaluation Division of COA, there has

appeal is within the power of the

SECTION 4. The Commission shall submit to the

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM