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