Laude vs. Ginez GR. No.

217456 24 November 2015

Facts:
On October 11, 2014, Jeffrey "Jennifer" Laude (Jennifer) was killed at the Celzone
Lodge on Ramon Magsaysay Drive in Olongapo City allegedly by 19-year-old US Marine
L/CPL Joseph Scott Pemberton (Pemberton). On October 15, 2014, a Complaint for
murder was filed by Jennifer's sibling, Marilou S. Laude, against Pemberton before the
Olongapo City Office of the City Prosecutor. On October 22, 2014, Pemberton was
detained in Camp Aguinaldo, the general headquarters of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines.
On December 15, 2014, the Public Prosecutor filed an Information for murder against
Pemberton before the Regional Trial Court in Olongapo City. A warrant of arrest against
Pemberton was issued on December 16, 2014. On December 19, 2023, Marilou S.
Laude filed an Urgent Motion to Compel the Armed Forces of the Philippines to
Surrender Custody of Accused to the Olongapo City Jail and a Motion to Allow Media
Coverage thru a registered mail.
Petitioners argue that the custody of Pemberton must be ordered transferred to the
Olongapo City Jail, considering that the crime involved is murder, which is non-bailable.
However, Pemberton assailed the petition on the ground that the Philippine Court has
no jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine Court has jurisdiction over case.
DECISION:
No, the Constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles
of international law as part of the law of the land. (Art. II, Sec. 2).
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such agreements recognizing immunity from
jurisdiction or some aspects of jurisdiction (such as custody), in relation to long-
recognized subjects of such immunity like Heads of State, diplomats and members of
the armed forces contingents of a foreign State allowed to enter another State's
territory.
In the case at bar, the Visting Forces Agreement is an international treaty generally
accepted in the Philippines. In this agreement, provides that under Article V states that,
The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise
jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so
request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial
proceedings. The respondent argue then that he will be hold on trial in US.
Petitioners contend that these undertakings violate another provision of the
Constitution, namely, that providing for the exclusive power of this Court to adopt rules
of procedure for all courts in the Philippines (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5]). They argue that to
allow the transfer of custody of an accused to a foreign power is to provide for a
different rule of procedure for that accused, which also violates the equal protection
clause of the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1).

G.R. No. 178160 February 26, 2009

BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

Facts:
On 13 March 1992, Congress approved Republic Act (RA) No. 7227 3 creating the Bases
Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA). Section 9 of RA No. 7227 states that
the BCDA Board of Directors (Board) shall exercise the powers and functions of the
BCDA. Under Section 10, the functions of the Board include the determination of the
organizational structure and the adoption of a compensation and benefit scheme at
least equivalent to that of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). Accordingly, the Board
determined the organizational structure of the BCDA and adopted a compensation and
benefit scheme for its officials and employees.
On 20 December 1996, the Board adopted a new compensation and benefit scheme
which included a ₱10,000 year-end benefit granted to each contractual employee,
regular permanent employee, and Board member.
Aside from the contractual employees, regular permanent employees, and Board
members, the full-time consultants of the BCDA also received the year-end benefit.
On 20 February 2003, State Auditor IV Corazon V. Españo of the COA issued Audit
Observation Memorandum (AOM) No. 2003-0047 stating that the grant of year-end
benefit to Board members was contrary to Department of Budget and Management
(DBM) Circular Letter No. 2002-2 dated 2 January 2002. In Notice of Disallowance (ND)
No. 03-001-BCDA-(02)8 dated 8 January 2004, Director IV Rogelio D. Tablang (Director
Tablang), COA, Legal and Adjudication Office-Corporate, disallowed the grant of year-
end benefit to the Board members and full-time consultants. In Decision No. 2004-
0139 dated 13 January 2004, Director Tablang "concurred" with AOM No. 2003-004 and
ND No. 03-001-BCDA-(02).
DBM Circular Letter No. 2002-02 dated January 2, 2002 stating, viz:

"2.0 To clarify and address issues/requests concerning the same, the following
compensation policies are hereby reiterated:

2.1 PERA, ADCOM, YEB and retirement benefits, are personnel benefits granted
in addition to salaries. As fringe benefits, these shall be paid only when the basic
salary is also paid.

2.2 Members of the Board of Directors of agencies are not salaried officials of the
government. As non-salaried officials they are not entitled to PERA, ADCOM, YEB
and retirement benefits unless expressly provided by law.

2.3 Department Secretaries, Undersecretaries and Assistant Secretaries who

serve as Ex-officio Members of the Board of Directors are not entitled to any
remuneration in line with the Supreme Court ruling that their services in the
Board are already paid for and covered by the remuneration attached to their
office." (underscoring ours)

Clearly, as stated above, the members and ex-officio members of the Board of
Directors are not entitled to YEB, they being not salaried officials of the
government. The same goes with full time consultants wherein no employer-
employee relationships exist between them and the BCDA. Thus, the whole amount
paid to them totaling ₱342,000 is properly disallowed in audit.

ISSUE: Whether or not the YEB Bonus is allowed.

DECISION:
No, First, the BCDA claims that the Board can grant the year-end benefit to its members
and full-time consultants because, under Section 10 of RA No. 7227, the functions of
the Board include the adoption of a compensation and benefit scheme.
Second, there was no employee-employer relationship exist between BCDA and
Consultant. Their only legal relationship is contract for 1 year effectivity or unless
stipulated by contract. There are not entitled to additional salaries unless stated in their
contracts.
Meanwhile, BCDA claims that the grant of year end benefit is consistent with Sec. 5 and
18 of Art. II of the Constitution. The court finds it no merit. The application of Sec 2
and Sec 18 of Article II is not self executory as to the provision of granting of YEB.
Thus, the statute specifically provides that the granting of YEB will be covered by DBM
Circular Letter 2002-02.