ZAYAT, KIMVIRLY P.

, Administrative Law, Public

2F Corporations and Election Law
Atty. Randolph A. Pascasio

PUBCORP

1. No. Under Sec. 4, par (g) of RA No. 11469, the president has the power to ensure that all
LGUs are acting within the letter and spirit of all the rules, regulations and directives issued by
the National Government pursuant to this Act; are implementing standards of Community
Quarantine consistent with what the National Government has laid down for the subject are,
while allowing LGUs to continue exercising their autonomy in matters undefined by the National
Government or are within the parameters it has set; and are fully cooperating towards a unified,
cohesive and orderly implementation of the national policy to address COVID-19. Furthermore,
paragraph (p) of the same section provides that the president has the power to ensure the
availability of essential goods like food and medicine and to adopt measures that are necessary to
facilitate and/or minimize disruption to the supply chain. Sec. 16 of the LGC provides that local
governments can exercise powers for the general powers and Sec. 458 of the same Code arms
them with ordinance powers to do so but this cannot be contrary to the express legislative will.

2. No. Under the Memorandum from the Exective Secretary on Stringent Social Distancing
Measures and Further Guidelines for the Management of the Coronavirus Disease 2019(COVID-
19) Situation, mass gathering shall be prohibited, however, religious activities may continue s
long as strict social distancing, defined as the strict social distancing, defined as the strict
maintenance of a distance of at least one (1) meter radius between and among those attending.
Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte cannot prohibit the Iglesia ni Cristo members from holding
pagsamba as long as the guidelines provided are strictly followed.

3. No. In the case of Batangas CATV vs. CA, it was established that Sec. 16 of the LGC
provides that local governments can exercise powers for the general powers and Sec. 458 of the
same Code arms them with ordinance powers to do so but this cannot be contrary to the express
legislative will. In US vs. Abenda, the Court said that an ordinance by virtue of the general
welfare clause is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the Philippine Islands or and
act of the legislature.

4. No. It was held that where the state legislature has made provision for the regulation of
conduct, it has manifested its intention that the subject matter shall be fully covered by the
statute, and that a municipality, under its general powers, cannot regulate the same conduct. The
act of the city mayor allowing the continuance of public transportation operations is inconsistent
with the order of suspension of mass transportation and strict observance of social distancing
during the ECQ by the national government, hence, the same should be invalid.

5. No. It was held in the case of Lina vs. Pano that as having a unitary form of government,
any form of autonomy granted to the LGUs will necessarily be limited and confined within the
extent allowed by the central authority. The DOH as a national government agency mandated to
develop, plan, and establish guidelines with respect to national healthcare and concerns, is
deemed part of the country’s central authority. Furthermore, as enunciated under the
implementing mechanisms of DOH Administrative Order 2020-014, Covid19 testing shall be
undertaken only in a DOH licensed Covid-19 testing laboratory.

6. No. Under Sec. 16 of RA No. 7160, every LGU shall exercise, among others, those
powers which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Moreover, under the DSWD
Memorandum Circular No. 04 Series of 2020, the LGUs are mandated to provide a list of the
beneficiaries/clients qualified based on the eligibility requirements provided, and consequently,
RA No. 11469 penalizes LGU officials who shall disobey national government policies.

ELECTION LAW

1. Yes. Pursuant to section 5 of the Omnibus Election Code, when for any serious cause
such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records, force
majeure, and other analogous causes of such a nature that the holding of a free, orderly and
honest election should become impossible in any political subdivision, the Commission shall
postpone the election therein to a date which should be reasonably close to the date of the
election not held. The COVID-19 pandemic is considered as an unforeseen and unexpected
event, a case analogous to force majeure. Therefore, it is only proper for the COMELEC to move
the plebiscite to a later date.

2. No. Provided in Sec. 40 of the LGC are the grounds for the disqualification of local
elective candidates. Senator Pimentel’s criminal liability which is punishable by perpetual or
temporary absolute disqualification, as the case may be, in addition to the penalties prescribed in
the ‘Bayanihan to Heal as One Act’ is not among the grounds for disqualification for local
elective positions as provided under the LGC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

1. Yes, the IATF-EID is vested with quasi-legislative power or “rule-making power”. In the
case of Holy Spirit Homeowners Association vs. Secretary Defensor, the Supreme Court held
that quasi-legislative power is the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated
legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability
and separation of powers. As expressly provided under Executive Order No. 168 series of 2014,
the IATF-EID is tasked to establish, develop, and adopt measures and mechanisms necessary to
assess, monitor, contain, control, and prevent the spread of any potential epidemic in the
Philippines. However, the IATF-EID des not posses quasi-judicial or adjudicatory power. As
decided in the case of Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp. vs. Redmont Consolidated
Mines Corp, quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power is the power of the
administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of the persons before it. However, Sec. 2 of EO
No. 168 s. of 2014 does not provide for such function.

2. No, the IATF-EID has no power to penalize violators of ECQ. Executive Order 168
series of 2014 only authorizes and tasks the said government body to assess, maintain, control,
and prevent the spread of any potential epidemic in the country. The law does not provide for its
authority to press sanctions in case of violations of the ECQ. Thus, absent such express
provision, the IATF-EID cannot be said to be vested with the power to impose penalties against
violators of the ECQ.

3. Yes. Senator Koko Pimentel may not only be criminally liable but also administratively
and civilly liable for violating the Enhanced Community Quarantine protocols. In the case of the
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Andutan, the “threefold liability rule” provides that the wrongful
acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil, criminal and administrative liability.
Senator Pimentel may be called for disciplinary action under RA No. 6713, otherwise known as
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials, for his administrative liability.
Furthermore, he shall be civilly liable under Art. 20 of the Civil Code which provides that every
person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently cause damage to another, shall indemnify
the latter for the same.

4. Yes. Section 2 (14) of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that when used with
reference to a person having authority to do a particular act or perform a particular person in the
exercise of governmental power, "officer" includes any government employee, agent or body
having authority to do the act or exercise that function. Furthermore, as decided in the case of
Laurel vs. Desierto, a public office is someone who has given a right, authority or duty, created
and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure
of the creating power, an individual is invested with some sovereign power of government to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The appointment of a prominent businessman to
be an IATF-EID member representing the private sector in the case at bar makes him a public
officer because he was given governmental powers to exercise the functions of IATF-EID for the
benefit of the public. 

5. Yes. IATF-EID was created in 2014 through Executive Order 168, Series of 2014 with
the Department of Health as its Chairman. It was convened in January 2020 to address the
growing viral outbreak in Wuhan, China and revealed a National Action Plan to effectively and
efficiently implement and decentralize the system of managing the COVID-19 situation.
Amongst the functions of the IATF-EID is to adopt measures to strengthen the Emerging and
Re-Emerging Infectious Diseases Program of the DOH or its equivalent in other local health
units and to perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
Order, or as the President may direct.

6. No. Upon the Supreme Court’s declaration that President Duterte is permanently
disabled, he is rendered as a de facto officer. However, his official acts, such as RA No. 11469,
otherwise known as the “Bayanihan Heal As One” Act, is not necessarily rendered as void and
without any legal effect. In the case of Flores vs. Drilon, a de facto officer is defined as “one
whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice,
will hold valid so far as they involve the interest of the public and third persons, where the duties
of the office were exercised . . . “. RA No. 11469 was enacted with the end goal of mitigating, if
not containing, the transmission of COVID-19 and immediately mobilize assistance in the
provision of  basic necessities to families and individuals affected by the imposition of
Community Quarantine, especially indigents and their families. Hence, such Act shall hold valid
as it exercised the duties of the office and involved the interest of the public.