CHAIR’S CASES AND

RELATED
JURISPRUDENCE
IN POLITICAL LAW

Associate Solicitor Jose Angelo A. David

Legal EDGE Bar Review Center
September 7, 2018
POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN
NAPOCOR v. ZABALA, G.R. No. 173520,
JANUARY 30, 2013 [J. Del Castillo]

• Section 3A of RA 6395 provides that payment of full market

value of the property is not required when the principal
purpose for which the property is actually devoted will not
be impaired by its transmission lines
• ISSUE: Is this provision binding on the courts?
NAPOCOR v. ZABALA, G.R. No. 173520,
JANUARY 30, 2013 [J. Del Castillo]

• HELD: No. Determination of just compensation is a JUDICIAL

FUNCTION
• Legislative and executive acts determining method of
computation of just compensation may be treated as
GUIDELINES
• Transmission lines will perpetually deprive the property
owners of the normal use of their land
SPS. MERCADO VS. LBP, G.R. NO. 196707,
JUNE 17, 2015 [J. Del Castillo]

• Sps. Mercado own a parcel of land covered by the CARP. RTC-

SAC awarded just compensation based on comparative
values of the adjacent properties, the topography of the
property, its accessibility by land transportation and the
income derived from existing agricultural improvement.
• Section 17 RA 6657 and DAR AO No. 5 contained different
factors to determine just compensation
• ISSUE: Can court deviate from RA 6657 and DAR AO No. 5?
SPS. MERCADO VS. LBP, G.R. NO. 196707,
JUNE 17, 2015 [J. Del Castillo]

• HELD: Yes.
• G.R.: RTC must consider the factors set forth in Section 17 of
RA 6657 and as translated into a formula embodied in DAR
A.O.No. 5
• XPNs: RTC may deviate from these factors/formula
• If the circumstances warrant, or
• if the situations before it do not warrant its application
• N.B. RTC must clearly explain the reason for deviating from the
factors/formula.
APO FRUITS CORP. VS. CA, G.R. NO. 164195,
DECEMBER 19, 2007 [J. Chico-Nazario]

• Three factors under DAR AO No. 5:

• capitalized net income
• comparable sales; and
• market value per tax declaration.
• DAR AO No. 5 applies only when ALL three factors
are PRESENT, RELEVANT and APPLICABLE
REPUBLIC VS. SPS. SALVADOR, G.R. No.
205428, JUNE 7, 2017 [J. Del Castillo]

• Court awarded consequential damages in favor of property

owner
• Basis of consequential damages  Property owners paid
capital gains tax (CGT)
• ISSUE: Can CGT paid or to be paid by property owner be
awarded as part of just compensation?
REPUBLIC VS. SPS. SALVADOR, G.R. No.
205428, JUNE 7, 2017 [J. Del Castillo]

• HELD: No.
• Consequential damages are only awarded if as a result of the
expropriation, the remaining property of the owner suffers
from an impairment or decrease in value
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
DOH VS. PHIL PHARMAWEALTH, INC., G.R. No.
182358, February 20, 2013 [J. Del Castillo]

• DOH suspended PPI’s accreditation as government supplier

of pharmaceutical products
• PPI filed a complaint to hold the DOH solidarily and jointly
liable with the other defendants (DOH officers) for damages
• RTC dismissed the case, but CA reversed RTC decision
DOH VS. PHIL PHARMAWEALTH, INC., G.R. No.
182358, February 20, 2013 [J. Del Castillo]

• Unincorporated government agencies performing

governmental functions are immune from suit
• Government officials and employees are likewise immune
from suit for acts done in the performance of their official
functions
• Immunity will not apply to officials and employees if:
• Ultra vires
• Bad faith
MINUCHER, VS. CA AND SCALZO, G.R. NO.
142396, FEBRUARY 11, 2003 [J. Vitug]

• Scalzo is a United States drug enforcement agent

• Minucher sued him for damages arising from Scalzo’s
conduct of drug surveillance operations
• Scalzo claims diplomatic immunity as an Assistant Attache of
the United States diplomatic mission
MINUCHER, VS. CA AND SCALZO, G.R. NO.
142396, FEBRUARY 11, 2003 [J. Vitug]

• Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,

diplomatic immunity extends ONLY to “diplomatic agents”,
i.e., heads of missions or members of the diplomatic staff
• Attaches not generally regarded as members of the diplomatic
mission, nor are they normally designated as having diplomatic
rank
MINUCHER, VS. CA AND SCALZO, G.R. NO.
142396, FEBRUARY 11, 2003 [J. Vitug]

• Even if diplomatic immunity is not applicable, State immunity

can still apply
• A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked
with immunity from suit as long as it can be established that
he is acting within the directives of the sending state
 SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE
RE: LETTER OF TONY Q. VALENCIANO, A.M.
No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7, 2017 [J. Mendoza]

• Valenciano averred that the holding of masses at the

basement of the QC Hall of Justice violates the separation of
Church and State, and the prohibition on use of public funds
for religious purposes
RE: LETTER OF TONY Q. VALENCIANO, A.M.
No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7, 2017 [J. Mendoza]

• Religious freedom may be regulated when there is a

compelling state interest
• Is there a burden on the exercise of religion?
• Is there a sufficiently compelling interest?
• Did State use least intrusive means?
• It must be demonstrated that the masses in the QC Hall of
Justice unduly disrupt the delivery of public services or affect
the judges and employees in the performance of their official
functions.
RE: LETTER OF TONY Q. VALENCIANO, A.M.
No. 10-4-19-SC, March 7, 2017 [J. Mendoza]

• Article VI, Section 29(2)

• What is prohibited is the use of public money or property for the sole
purpose of benefiting or supporting any church. The prohibition
contemplates a scenario where the appropriation is primarily
intended for the furtherance of a particular church.
• Provision "does not inhibit the use of public property for religious
purposes when the religious character of such use is merely incidental
to a temporary use which is available indiscriminately to the public in
general."
RIGHT AGAINST
UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES
PEOPLE VS. ROBELO, G.R. NO. 184181,
NOVEMBER 26, 2012 [J. Del Castillo]

• Accused was charged with illegal possession and illegal sale

of dangerous drugs
• RTC convicted him for the crimes charged
• Accused claims on appeal that apprehending officers failed
to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the
physical inventory and photocopy of the seized items,
thereby rendering his arrest unlawful and the drugs obtained
through subsequent search inadmissible
PEOPLE VS. ROBELO, G.R. NO. 184181,
NOVEMBER 26, 2012 [J. Del Castillo]

• Non-compliance with Section 21 does not render an

accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from
him inadmissible.
• Prosecution only has to ensure ‘preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.’
PETRON LPG DEALERS ASSN. VS. NENA ANG,
GR NO. 199371, FEBRUARY 03, 2016 [J. Del
Castillo]

• LPG dealers filed a letter-complaint with NBI for the conduct

of surveillance operations against Nena Ang, et al. for
possible illegal trading in petroleum and/or petroleum
products
• Acting on the letter-complaint, NBI conducted surveillance
and test-buy operations
• NBI then applied for search warrant which RTC issued
PETRON LPG DEALERS ASSN. VS. NENA ANG,
GR NO. 199371, FEBRUARY 03, 2016 [J. Del
Castillo]

• Search warrant must be issued based on personal knowledge

of the applicant or the witnesses he may produce
• Facts discovered during surveillance operations conducted
by the authorities on the basis of information and evidence
provided by the complainants constitute personal knowledge
which could form the basis for the issuance of a search
warrant.
PETRON GASUL LPG DEALERS ASSN. VS.
LAO, GR NO. 205010, JULY 18, 2016 [J. Del
Castillo]

• Search was to be done in Baguio City

• Application for search warrant was filed in RTC La
Trinidad, not in RTC Baguio City
PETRON GASUL LPG DEALERS ASSN. VS.
LAO, GR NO. 205010, JULY 18, 2016 [J. Del
Castillo]
• G.R. File with court which has territorial jurisdiction over the place
where the offense was alleged to be committed
• XPN.: For compelling reasons stated in the application, in any court
within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the
place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within
the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.
• XPN to XPN: if the criminal action has already been filed
VILLAMOR VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 200396,
MARCH 22, 2017 [J. Del Castillo]

• Accused were charged with violation of Section 3(c) of RA 9287 for

collecting and soliciting bets for an illegal numbers game
• He was arrested by police officers were positioned some 15 to 20
meters away from the accused
• Police officers admitted during cross-examination that they were
uncertain whether the calculators, money and cellphone they saw
from said distance were used as gambling paraphernalia
VILLAMOR VS. PEOPLE, GR No. 200396,
MARCH 22, 2017 [J. Del Castillo]

• In flagrante delicto arrest requisites:

• Overt act
• Done in the presence or within view of arresting officer
• Distance of 15 to 20 meters is doubtful
• In flagrante delicto arrest must be based on probable cause; tip
from informants insufficient
RIGHTS UNDER
CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
HO WAI PANG VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
176229, OCTOBER 19, 2011 [J. Del
Castillo]
• Accused were arrested at the airport for transporting shabu
concealed in chocolate boxes
• Shabu were confiscated at the airport; the accused made no
admission or confession while they were in the custody of the
police authorities
HO WAI PANG VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
176229, OCTOBER 19, 2011 [J. Del
Castillo]
• Violation of rights during custodial investigation is relevant and
material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or
confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis of their
conviction
• Other evidence, if relevant and not otherwise excluded, is not
affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial
investigation
PEOPLE VS. GUILLEN, G.R. No. 191756,
November 25, 2013 [J. Del Castillo]

• Guillen was arrested allegedly for raping AAA

• AAA was made to identify Guillen as the perpetrator of the crime
• Guillen was silent despite AAA’s identification
• RTC considered Guillen’s silence as admission of guilt
PEOPLE VS. GUILLEN, G.R. No. 191756,
November 25, 2013 [J. Del Castillo]

• Right to remain silent is one of the rights under custodial

investigation
• Silence of accused should not be deemed as implied admission of
guilt
PEOPLE VS. CONSTANCIO AND BERRY, GR No.
206226, Apr 04, 2016 [J. Del Castillo]

• Accused were arrested for rape with homicide

• During custodial investigation, Berry executed an extrajudicial
confession assisted by Atty. Suarez who was then present at the
police station
• Atty. Suarez explained during trial that Berry approached him and
that he explained the latter’s constitutional rights prior to execution
of confession
• Berry also made statements in response to questions from the
media
PEOPLE VS. CONSTANCIO AND BERRY, GR No.
206226, Apr 04, 2016 [J. Del Castillo]

• In default of proof that counsel was remiss in his duties,

custodial investigation is presumed regularly conducted
• Voluntary statements made to the media are admissible in
evidence against the declarant accused
RIGHTS OF THE
ACCUSED
ALMUETE VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013 [J. Del Castillo]

• RTC convicted Almuete for violation of the Revised Forestry

Code
• He filed a petition for certiorari before the CA to seek
reversal of conviction
• CA reversed conviction, which acquittal was later overturned
by SC
• Almuete filed Motion for Repromulgation of Judgment which
the RTC denied
ALMUETE VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013 [J. Del Castillo]

• Appeal is the proper remedy of the accused from a judgment

of conviction, not certiorari
• SC A.C. No. 16-93 disallows trial courts from requiring the
presence of the accused before the trial courts for
promulgation of the affirmance or modification by the SC or
the CA of judgments of conviction
• RTC should issue mittimus or commitment order, or if out on
bail, order bondsman to surrender the convict
RIGHT TO BAIL
PEOPLE VS. DR. SOBREPEÑA, SR., G.R. No.
204063, December 05, 2016 [J. Del Castillo]

• In crimes punishable by death, life imprisonment or reclusion

perpetua (DLR), judge must conduct a hearing whether
summary or otherwise to determine the existence of strong
evidence or lack of it against the accused
• If evidence of guilt is strong, bail shall be denied; otherwise,
bail shall be granted
ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 213847,
August 18, 2015 [J. Bersamin]

• MTC, before/after conviction – matter of right

• RTC, not DLRP, before conviction – matter of right
• RTC, not DLRP, after conviction:
• G.R. discretionary
• XPN: bail-denying circumstances
• RTC, DLRP, before conviction –
• Hearing
• Strong = deny; not strong = grant
ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 213847,
August 18, 2015 [J. Bersamin]

• Enrile was charged with plunder before Sandiganbayan

punishable by reclusion perpetua imprisonment
• No hearing yet, whether summary or otherwise
• Bail was granted to accused due to compelling reasons:
social and political standing, surrender, fragile state of health
CITIZENSHIP
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ONG, G.R.
NO. 175430, JUNE 18, 2012 [J. Del Castillo]

• Judicial naturalization requires some known lucrative trade,

profession, or lawful occupation
• Applicant must prove an appreciable margin of his income over
his expenses to provide for an adequate support in the event of
unemployment, sickness, or disability to work
• Spouse’s income should not be considered
• Determined at the time of the filing of the application
MAQUILING VS. COMELEC, ET AL., G.R. No.
195649, April 16, 2013 [CJ. Sereno]

• Arnado was naturalized in America and subsequently

repatriated under RA 9225
• He executed Philippine oath of allegiance
• He also renounced American citizenship, an additional
requirement for public office under Section 5(2)
• After renunciation of American citizenship, he still used his
American passport four times
MAQUILING VS. COMELEC, ET AL., G.R. No.
195649, April 16, 2013 [CJ. Sereno]

• Use of American passport does not result in loss of Filipino

citizenship BUT negates his renunciation of American
citizenship
• Thus, he suffered from dual allegiance, a disqualification for
public office
MAQUILING VS. COMELEC, ET AL., G.R. No.
195649, April 16, 2013 [CJ. Sereno]

• Disqualification from public office results in a void certificate

of candidacy (COC)
• If COC is void, “second placer” rule applies, not succession
ARNADO VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164,
AUGUST 18, 2015 [J. Del Castillo]

• Renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any

public officer authorized to administer oaths must be done
prior to or at the time of the filing of certificate of candidacy
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
BALAG VS. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
NO. 234608, JULY 3, 2018 [J. Gesmundo]

• Legislative inquiry terminates on two instances:

• First, upon the approval or disapproval of the Committee
Report.
• Second, upon the expiration of one (1) Congress.
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 203766, April 2, 2013 [J. Carpio]

• Three (3) parties or organizations can join PL system

elections: (1) National, (2) Regional, and (3) Sectoral
• NPs/RPs can join PL system only through separately
registered but coalescent sectoral wing
• SPOs: (1) marginalized and underrepresented, or (2) lacking
in well-defined political constituencies
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 203766, April 2, 2013 [J. Carpio]

• Majority of members of SPOs must belong to sector they

represent
• Nominees of SPOs must either: (1) belong to the sector, (2)
have track record of advocacy
• Nominees of NPOs and RPOs must be bona-fide members
• At least one nominee must be qualified for NPO/RPO/SPO to
qualify participation in PL system
ARAULLO VS. AQUINO, G.R. No., 209287, July 1,
2014 [J. Bersamin]

• Requisites for valid transfer of appropriated funds, under

Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution:
• Law authorizing transfer of funds;
• Funds to be transferred are savings generated from the
appropriations of their respective offices; and
• Purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in the general
appropriations law for their respective offices
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
LAGMAN VS. MEDIALDEA, G.R. No. 231658, July
4, 2017 [J. Del Castillo]

• SC’s review of sufficiency of factual basis is a sui generis

proceeding, not a petition for certiorari
• President has discretion which CIC power to exercise for as
long as requirements are met; judicial review does not
include calibration
• DND Secretary recommendation not required
LAGMAN VS. MEDIALDEA, G.R. No. 231658, July
4, 2017 [J. Del Castillo]

• Sufficiency of factual basis, not correctness or accuracy of facts

• Parameters for determining sufficiency of factual basis
• Actual rebellion or invasion
• Public safety requires proclamation or suspension
• Probable cause for President to believe existence of actual
rebellion or invasion
PADILLA VS. CONGRESS, G.R. NO. 231671,
JULY 25, 2017 [J. Leonardo-De Castro]

• Congress is only required to vote jointly for revocation or

extension of the proclamation or suspension, NOT to express
prior or subsequent concurrence
• Concurrence to initial proclamation or suspension is NOT even
required
LAGMAN VS. PIMENTEL, G.R. NO. 235935,
FEBRUARY 6, 2018 [J. Tijam]

• Upon initiative of the President, extension of

proclamation or suspension is purely discretionary on
Congress
• How many times
• For how long
VINUYA VS. ROMULO, G.R. NO. 162230, APRIL
28, 2010 [J. Del Castillo]

• ”Comfort women” filed a petition for mandamus

asking the court to compel the President to espouse
their claims for reparation against the Government of
Japan
VINUYA VS. ROMULO, G.R. NO. 162230, APRIL
28, 2010 [J. Del Castillo]

• The executive department has the exclusive

prerogative to determine whether to espouse
petitioners’ claims against another state
SAGUISAG VS. OCHOA, G.R. No. 212426,
January 12, 2016 [CJ. Sereno]

• Treaties require Senate concurrence

• Executive agreements do not need Senate
concurrence
• To adjust details of a treaty
• Pursuant to or upon confirmation by legislative act
• Exercise of President’s independent constitutional powers
FUNA VS. AGRA, G.R. No. 191644, February 19,
2013 [J. Bersamin]

• G.R. Appointive public officials cannot hold other office

(Article IX-B, Section 7[2])
• XPNs. Allowed (1) by law, or (2) by primary functions of
the position
FUNA VS. AGRA, G.R. No. 191644, February 19,
2013 [J. Bersamin]

• XPN. to XPN. President, the Vice-President, Members

of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants, only as
allowed by the Constitution (Article VII, Section 13)
• VP as Cabinet Member
• SOJ as ex officio JBC member
• Acting or temporary capacity is immaterial
JUDICIAL BRANCH
MAMBA VS. LARA, G.R. NO. 165109,
DECEMBER 14, 2009 [J. Del Castillo]

• Taxpayer’s suit requirements

• Allegation that public funds derived from taxation are
disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality
resulting in violation of law
• The petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act
• May be relaxed if case is of transcendental importance
AGUINALDO VS. AQUINO, G.R. No. 224302,
November 29, 2016 [J. Leonardo-De Castro]

• JBC’s clustering impinges upon the President's power

of appointment
• Such limitations have no basis in law
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SERENO,
G.R. NO. 237428, MAY 11, 2018 [J. Tijam]

• Supervision does not include the resolution of who to

nominate as between two candidates of equal
qualification
• BUT supervision of SC over JBC includes power to
check whether nominees possess minimum
qualifications
VILLANUEVA VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL,
G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015 [J. Reyes]

• The JBC has the authority to set the standards/criteria

in choosing its nominees for every vacancy in the
judiciary, subject only to the minimum qualifications
required by the Constitution and law for every
position
CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSIONS
CABUNGCAL VS. LORENZO, G.R. NO. 160367,
DECEMBER 18, 2009 [J. Del Castillo]

• The CSC, as the central personnel agency of the

Government, has jurisdiction over disputes involving
the removal and separation of all employees of
government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities
and agencies, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters.
• It is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the
civil service.
ENGR. MARMETO VS. COMELEC, G.R. No.
213953, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 [J. Del Castillo]

• COMELEC can review and determine whether the

propositions in an initiative petition are within the
powers of a concerned Sanggunian to enact
ACCOUNTABILITY OF
PUBLIC OFFICERS
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SERENO,
G.R. NO. 237428, MAY 11, 2018 [J. Tijam]

• Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an

invalidly appointed or invalidly elected impeachable
official may be removed from office
GONZALES VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
G.R. No. 196231, January 28, 2014 [J. Brion]

• President has no disciplinary jurisdiction over a

Deputy Ombudsman, but may discipline a special
prosecutor