Political Law defined

That branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the government
organs of the state and defines the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory. - Macariola
v Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77 (1982)

Political law has been defined as that branch of public law w/c deals w/ the organization and operation
of the governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the state w/ the inhabitants of its
territory.

Scope of Political Law.-- The entire field of political law may be subdivided into (a) the law of public
administration, (b) constitutional law, (c) administrative law, and (d) the law of public corporations.
These four subdivisions may be briefly described for the time being, as follows: The first deals with the
organization and management of the different branches of the government; the second, with the
guaranties of the constitution to individual rights and the limitations on governmental action; the third,
with the exercise of executive power in the making of rules and the decision of questions affecting
private rights; and the last, with governmental agencies for local government or for other special
purposes.

POLITICAL LAW PART I

DEFINITIONS & CONCEPTS

1. Define: a. Political Law—is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and
operations of the governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the
inhabitants of its territory. (PEOPLE VS. PERFECTO, 43 Phil. 887)

b. Constitutional Law

c. Constitution

d. Administrative Law

e. Law of Public Officers

f. Law on Public Corporations

g. Election Law

h. Distinction between Political Law and Constitutional Law

2. Read: MACARIOLA VS. JUDGE ASUNCION, 114 SCRA 77

The provision in the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges, justices, etc., (public officers) from
engaging in business within the territorial jurisdiction of their courts is political in nature and therefore,
said provision was deemed abrogated when there was a change of sovereignty from Spain to the United
States at the turn of the century. Political laws are deemed abrogated if there is a change of sovereignty
and unless re-enacted under the new sovereign, the same is without force and effect.

Divisions of Political Law

Political law embraces constitutional law, law of public corporations, administrative law including the
law on public officers and elections. (Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77 [1982])

What are the branches of political law in the Philippines?

This system revolves around three separate and sovereign yet interdependent branches: the legislative
branch (the law-making body), the executive branch (the law-enforcing body), and the judicial branch
(the law-interpreting body). Executive power is exercised by the government under the leadership of the
president.

MACARIOLA V ASUNCION

FACTS

Reyes siblings filed a complaint for partition against Macariola, concerning the properties left by their
common father, Francisco Reyes. Asuncion was the judge who rendered the decision, which became
final for lack of an appeal. A project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion after the finality of the
decision. This project of partition was only signed by the counsel of the parties, who assured the judge
that they were given authorization to do so.
One of the properties in the project of partition was Lot 1184, which was subdivided into 5 lots. One of
these lots (Lot 1184-D) was sold to Anota, a stenographer of the court, while another (Lot 1184-E) was
sold to Dr. Galapon, who later on sold a portion of the same lot to Judge Asuncion and his wife. A year
after, spouses Asuncion and Dr. Galapon sold their respective shares over the lot to Traders
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries. At the time of the sale, Judge Asuncion and his wife were both
stockholders, with Judge Asuncion as President and his wife as secretary of said company.

A year after the company’s registration with the SEC, Macariola filed a complaint against Judge Asuncion
alleging: • that he violated Art. 1491 (5) of the Civil Code in acquiring a portion of the lot, which was one
of those properties involved in the partition case; and • that he violated Art 14 (1 and 5) of the Code of
Commerce, Sec 3 (H) of RA 3019, Sec 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules, and Canon 25 of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics by associating himself with a private company while he was a judge of the CFI
of Leyte. This case was referred to Justice Palma of the CA for investigation, report and
recommendation. After hearing, the said Investigating Justice recommended that Judge Asuncion should
be reprimanded or warned in connection with the complaints filed against him.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated Art 1491 (5) of the Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a
portion of Lot 1184-E, which was among those properties involved in the partition case.

2. Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated Art 14 (1 and 5) of the Code of Commerce, Sec 3 (H) of RA
3019, Sec 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics when he
associated himself with Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., as stockholder and a ranking
officer

HELD

1. NO. Although Art 1491 (5) of the Civil Code prohibits justices, judges among others from acquiring by
purchase the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court, the SC has
ruled, however, that for the prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take
place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. In this case, when Judge Asuncion
purchased a portion of Lot 1184-E, the decision in the partition case was already final because none of
the parties filed an appeal within the reglementary period. Thus, the lot in question was no longer
subject of the litigation. Moreover, Judge Asuncion did NOT buy the lot directly from the plaintiffs in the
partition case but from Dr. Galapon, who earlier purchased the lot from the plaintiffs. The subsequent
sale from Dr. Galapon to Judge Asuncion is NOT a scheme to conceal the illegal and unethical transfer of
said lot as a consideration for the approval of the project of partition. As pointed out by the Investigating
Justice, there is no evidence in the record showing that Dr. Galapon acted as a mere dummy of Judge
Asuncion. In fact, Dr. Galapon appeared to be a respectable citizen, credible and sincere, having bought
the subject lot in good faith and for valuable consideration, without any intervention of Judge Asuncion.

Although Judge Asuncion did NOT violate Art 1491 (5) of the Civil Code, it was IMPROPER for him to
have acquired the lot in question. Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics requires that judges’ official
conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety. It was unwise and indiscreet on the part of
Judge Asuncion to have purchased the property that was or had been in litigation in his court and
caused it to be transferred to a corporation of which he and his wife were ranking officers at the time of
such transfer. His actuations must not cause doubt and mistrust in the uprightness of his administration
of justice.

2. NO. Art 14 (1 and 5) of the Code of Commerce prohibits justices of the SC, judges and officials of the
department of public prosecution in active service from engaging in commerce, either in person or proxy
or from holding any office or have an direct, administrative or financial intervention in commercial or
industrial companies within the limits of the territory in which they discharge their duties. However, this
Code is the Spanish Code of Commerce of 1885, which was extended to the Philippines by a Royal
Decree. Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US to the Philippines, Art 14 of the Code of
Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the
political laws of the former sovereign are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted
by affirmative act of the new sovereign. There appears to be no affirmative act that continued the
effectivity of said provision.

Sec 3 (H) of RA 3019 provides for instances when public officers are considered to have committed
corrupt practices, which include having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity or in which he is
prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest. Judge Asuncion cannot be held
liable under said provision because there is no showing that he participated or intervened in his official
capacity in the business or transactions of Traders Manufacturing. In this case, the business of the
corporation in which he participated has obviously no relation to his judicial office.

Sec 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules does NOT apply to members of the Judiciary, who are covered
under RA 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948) and Art X (7) of the 1973 Constitution. Under Sec 67 of RA 296, the
power to remove or dismiss judges is vested in the President of the Philippines, not in the CSC, and only
on 2 grounds—serious misconduct and inefficiency. Under the 1973 Constitution, only the SC can
discipline judges of the inferior courts as well as other personnel of the Judiciary. Judges cannot be
considered as subordinate civil service officers or employees because the Commissioner of the CSC is
not the head of the Judiciary department. Moreover, only permanent officers in the classified service are
subject to the jurisdiction of the CSC. Judges, however, are not within this classification, as they are
considered to be non-competitive or unclassified service of the government as a Presidential appointee.

Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics reminds judges to abstain from making personal investments
in enterprises, which are apt to be involved in litigation in his court. Judge Asuncion and his wife,
however, had withdrawn from the corporation and sold their shares to third parties only 22 days after
its incorporation, which indicates that Judge Asuncion realized that their interest in the corporation
contravenes said Canon. The Court even commended the spouses for such act.