CASE NO.

177 (CSC VS TINAYA)

Facts: The Civil Service Commission (CSC) assailed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals
(CA) denying the former’s order to recall respondent’s appointment for having been issued in violation of
the law on nepotism.

Issue: Whether or not the recall of respondent’s appointment by the CSC is valid considering the petitioner
contention that the CA erred in holding that respondents original appointment as municipal assessor on is
permanent, as granting him security of tenure, and considering considering further the respondent’s
contention that the petition lacks merit.

Ruling: Yes, the recall of the respondent’s appointment is valid.

Under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, the CSC has
the power to recall an appointment in violation of civil service law, rules and regulations.

In this case, petitioner merely complied with the Constitutional and statutory mandate to
determine whether respondent was qualified making the recall valid.

CASE NO. 178 (MONTOYO VS VARILLA)

Facts: Police Officer 2 (PO2) Ruel Montoya filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to nullify and
set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed certain resolutions of the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) dismissing petitioner from the police service.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner deserved to be dismissed from service considering his contention that
he was deprived of due process and was not even notified of any hearing by the Summary Hearing Officer
depriving his the opportunity to present evidence in his defense.

Ruling: No, petitioner should not be dismissed from service.

In the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of
previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard.

In the instant case, the Summary Dismissal Proceedings against Montoya were flawed from the
very beginning when these were conducted without due notice to him.
CASE NO. 179 (ABAD VS DELA CRUZ)

Facts: Petitioner, Angel Abad, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals (CA)
decision dismissing Abad’s request for the disapproval of respondent Dela Cruz’ appointment for allegedly
violating certain provisions in the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum.

Issue: Whether or not Dela Cruz’ appointment is valid considering the petitioner’s contention that such
appointment violated the three-salary-grade rule of the CSC, and considering further the respondent’s
contention that his appointment has been made by administrative agency which acquired expertise in the
field of civil service law.

Ruling, Yes, Dela Cruz’ appointment is valid.

The Constitution adopts the merit system to ensure that those appointed in the civil service are
competent.

In this case, Dela Cruz’ appointment is valid since he possessed the qualifications required by law.

CASE NO. 180 (CAYETANO VS. MONSOD)

Facts: Petitioner, Renato Cayetano, challenged the validity of the confirmation of respondent Christian
Monsod’s nomination as well as the latter’s consequent appointment as Chairman of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) alleging that said appointment is void.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent’s appointment as Chairman of the COMELEC is valid considering
the petitioner’s contention that the latter does not possess required qualification of having been engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years.

Ruling: Yes, respondent’s appointment as Chairman of the COMELEC is valid.

In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of law is not limited
to the conduct of cases or litigation in court.

In this case, respondent possessed the required qualification of having been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years as he had previously worked as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager,
and the like.
CASE NO. 181 (TELEBAP VS COMELEC)

Facts: Pursuant to Section 92 of Batas Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 881, Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
procured radio and television time to be known as the “Comelec Time” amending franchise of all radio
broadcasting and television stations so as to provide radio or television time, free of charge, during the
period of campaign.

Issue: Whether or not the law creating Comelec Time is valid and constitutional considering the petitioners’
contention that it is in excess of the power given to the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the operation
of media of communication during the period of election, and considering further the respondent’s
contention that they merely operates in allocating airtime of candidates not the operation of radio and
television stations.

Ruling: Yes, Sec. 92 of B.P. Blg. 881 is valid and constitutional.

Under the 1987 Constitution, COMELEC may supervise or regulate the enjoyment of all franchises
or permits for the operation of media of communication during the election period. (Sec. 4, Article IX-C)

In this case, Sec. 92 of B.P. Blg. 881 is valid and constitutional because the enactment of such is
in accordance with the aforementioned constitutional provision for the purpose of ensuring equal
opportunity among other things.

CASE NO. 182 (SANCHEZ VS COMMISSION ON AUDIT)

Facts: Cesar N. Sarino, one of the petitioners, issued a memorandum for the transfer of funds to the Office
of the President to implement local autonomy by which an additional cash advance of P300, 000.00 was
requested but was disallowed by Department auditor Iluminada M.V. Fabroa upon post-audit.

Issue: Whether or not disallowance of transfer of funds by the respondent is constitutional considering the
petitioners’ contention that such fund is a regular item of appropriation, not a trust fundand considering
further the respondent’s contention that said fund partakes the nature of a trust fund because it was
allocated for a specific purpose.

Ruling: Yes, the disallowance of the transfer of funds to the Office of the President is constitutional.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the Commission on Audit (COA) has the power to ascertain whether
public funds were utilized for the purpose for which they had been intended.

In this case, the use of the transferred funds was not in accordance with the purposes laid down
by the Special Provisions of General Appropriations Act of 1992, hence subject to authority of the
Commission on Audit.
CASE NO.183 (OROCIO VS. COA)

Facts: Petitioner, Orocio, Chief of National Power Corporation’s (NPC) Legal Services Division, found
negligence on their part in the occurrence of the accident at the Malaya Thermal Plant and therefore
recommended reimbursement of the hospitalization expenses of the injured maintenance personnel
imported by OP Landrito’s General Services (OPLGS), but was disallowed by the respondent.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is personally liable for the disallowance considering his contention that
he was merely performing his function, and considering further the respondent’s contention that the said
disbursement by the NPC as a refund to the OPLGS was irregular.

Ruling: No, petitioner is not liable for the disallowance.

Under Sec. 103 of the Gov’t Auditing Code, expenditures of gov’t funds or uses of government
property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found directly
responsible therefore.

In the instant case, though it was petitioner who rendered the opinion relied upon for the
disbursement, it cannot be said that he was directly responsible therefore. His was only a legal opinion
which the governing board of the NPC or any of its authorized officials could adopt or reject.

CASE NO. 184 (SJS VS. DDB)

Facts: Peitioner, Social Justice System (SJS) assails the constitutionality of Section 36 of the Republic Act
No. (RA) 9165, which provides for an authorized mandatory drug test including among others, all candidates
for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government .

Issue: Whether or not the enforcement of a mandatory drug test for all candidates for public office is
constitutional considering the petitioner’s contention that it is constitutionally infirm, and considering further
the respondent’s contention that such enforcement will make the people know the quality of candidates
they are electing.

Ruling: No, Sec.36 (g) of RA 9165 is unconstitutional.

The 1987 Constitution clearly prescribed the qualifications of candidates running for public office.

In this case, Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165 is unconstitutional since it effectively enlarges the qualification
requirements prescribed by the Constitution through the said mandatory drug test.
CASE NO. 185 (SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC)

Facts: Private respondent, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) a petition to amend the Constitution by lifting the term limits of elective officials through
people’s initiative citing COMELEC Resolution No. 2300.

Issue: Whether or not the resolution regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the constitution
is valid, considering the petitioners’ contention that no law that has yet been passed enabling the
amendment of the Constitution, and considering further the respondents’ contention that they are granted
by the Constitution the power to directly propose amendments.

Ruling: No, COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is not valid.

While it is true that the Constitution provides for its amendments to be be directly proposed by the
people through initiative, such provision however is not self-executory.

In this case, the petitioners cannot invoke their power to directly propose Constitutional
amendments without an implementing legislation.

CASE NO. 186 (LAMBINO VS COMELEC)

Facts: Petitioners, Lambino Group, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to
change the 1987 Constitution that will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-
Parliamentary form of government, but was denied by the COMELEC.

Issue: Whether or not, the initiative to change the 1987 Constitution has complied with the Constitutional
provisions on amendments to the Constitution considering the petitioners’ contention that they had the
support of 6 Million individuals fulfilling what was provided by the Constitution, and considering further the
respondent’s contention that there is no enabling law governing initiative petitions

Ruling: No, the initiative petition did not comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.

The Constitution strictly requires that amendments to the Constitution shall be "directly proposed
by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
voters.

In this case, the petition filed by petitioners Lambino and Aumentado is not a people's initiative
because it constitute the act of representation.