EPA-Compilation of Digests

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
ADMINIS STRATIVE LAW
GeneralPrin G nciples
BUSTONERA,C B C. HON.EX XECUTIVESECRETARY,HO ON.SECRETA ARYOFTHED DEPARTMENT TOFTRANSP PORTATIONA AND COMMUNICA ATIONS(DOT TC),COMMISS SIONEROFCU USTOMS,ASSI ISTANTSECR RETARY,LANDTRANSPOR RTATION OFFICE(LTO O),COLLECTO OROFCUSTO OMS,SUBICBAYFREEPOR RTZONE,AND DCHIEFOFLTO,SUBICBA AYFREE PORTZON NE,Petitioner rs,vs.SOUTH HWINGHEAVY YINDUSTRIE ES,INC.,repre esentedbyits sPresidentJO OSET. DIZON,UN NITEDAUCTI IONEERS,INC C.,represente edbyitsPresidentDOMIN NICSYTIN,andMICROVAN N,INC., re epresentedby yitsPresiden ntMARIANO C.SONON,Re espondents. G.R R.No.164171Februa ary20,2006 To T be valid, an administrat n tive issuance, s such as an ex xecutive order,, must comply with the foll y lowing requisi ites:(1) Its promulgation must be auth p horized by the legislature;( It must be promulgated in accordan with the p e (2) e d nce prescribed procedure;(3)Itmustbewithinthescopeoftheauthori ygivenbythe p t it elegislature;a and(4)Itmust tbereasonable e. Three separat actions were filed by respondent business org T te w ganizations a against petitioners questio oning the constitutionali c ityofArticle2 2,Section3.1o ofExecutiveO Order(EO)156whichimpo osesabanont theimportatio onofused motorvehicles m sanywherein nthecountry,includingthosemadeinsid detheFreepor rtZones.Thet trialcourtrule edintheir favor and dec f clared EO 156 repugnant to the Constitu 6 ution. The ap ppellate court sustained the findings of the lower e court.Henceth c hispetition. ISSUE: WhetherArtic W cle2,Section3 3.1ofEO156i isvalid? HELD: H PETITIONSAR P REPARTIALLY YGRANTED. Thesubjectm T matterofthela awsauthorizin ngthePresidenttoregulat teorforbidim mportationof usedmotorv vehicles,is the t domestic i industry. EO 156, however exceeded th scope of its application by extending the prohibiti on the r, he s ion importationof fusedcarstotheFreeport,whichRA722 27,considerst tosomeexten nt,aforeignterritory. The T proscripti in the imp ion portation of u used motor ve ehicles should be operativ only outsid the Freepor and the d ve de rt inclusion of sa zone with the ambit of the prohib aid hin bition is an in nvalid modific cation of RA 7 7227. Indeed, when the applicationof anadministra a ativeissuance emodifiesexis stinglawsor exceedsthein ntendedscope e,asintheins stantcase, theissuancebecomesvoid,notonlyforbeingultravire t es,butalsofor rbeingunreas sonable. Aslongasthe A eusedmotorv vehiclesdono otenterthecu ustomsterrito ory,theinjury yorharmsou ughttobepre eventedor remediedwill notarise.To applythepro r oscriptiontot theFreeportw wouldnotser rvethepurposeoftheEO. Insteadof improvingthe egeneralecon nomyoftheco ountry,theap pplicationofth heimportationbanintheF Freeportwoul ldsubvert the t avowed purpose of RA 7227 which is to create a market that would draw investors an ultimately boost the A a t w nd nationalecono n omy. oOo
Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas
1|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts LUPOL.LUPANGCO,RA AYMONDS.M MANGKAL,NO ORMANA.ME ESINA,ALEXA ANDERR.REG GUYAL,JOCEL LYNP. G,ENRICOV.R REGALADO,JE EROMEO.AR RCEGA,ERNES STOC.BLAS,J JR.,ELPEDIO M.ALMAZAN N,KARL CATAPANG CAESARR.RIMANDO,peti C itioner,vs.CO OURTOFAPP PEALSand ONALREGULA ATIONCOMM MISSION,respo ondent. PROFESSIO G. .R.No.77372 Apr ril29,1988
It I is an axiom in administra ative law that administrativ authorities should not a arbitrarily and capriciou in the t ve s act usly is ssuanceofrul lesandregula ations.Tobev valid,suchrule esandregulationsmustbe reasonablean ndfairlyadap ptedtothe endinview.Ifs e showntobear rnoreasonabl lerelationtot thepurposesfo forwhichtheyareauthorize edtobeissued, d,thenthey mustbeheldto m obeinvalid. Professional R P Regulation Co ommission (P PRC) issued R Resolution No 105 as par of its "Add o. rt ditional Instru uctions to Examiness," to all those ap E o pplying for ad dmission to ta the licens ake sure examinat tions in accou untancy. The r resolution prohibits exam p minees from attending re eview classes, lectures or conferences of similar na , ature, includi ing taking reviewers, notes or any re r eview materia of any kind three days prior to the examination day. Violators will be al sanctionedacc s cordingtoSec c.8,Art.IIIoft theRulesandRegulationso oftheCommission. Petitionerrevieweesfileda P acomplaintfo orinjunction, beforetheRe egionalTrialC Court(RTC)o ofManila,with haprayer withtheissuan w nceofawrito ofapreliminar ryinjunctiona againstrespon ndentPRCtorestrainthela atterfromenf forcingthe abovemention a nedresolution nandtodecla arethesameu unconstitution nal. PRCmovedto P odismissthec caseonthegr roundoflack ofjurisdictio on,butwasde enied.Howeve er,theCourto ofappeals (CA)reversedtheRTCandg ( grantedthesa ame.Hencethispetition. ISSUE(s): 1. Canth heRTCreview wtheresolutio onsofthePRCdespitethest tatusofbeingcoequalbodies? 2. IsRes solution105v validandreaso onable? HELD: H PetitionisGRA P ANTED. RTCHasJuris R sdiction Contrarytoth C hepositionof theCA,thePR RC,asdirected dunderPresi identialDecre eeNo.223isa attachedtotheOfficeof thePresidentf t forgeneraldir rectionandco oordination.W Wellsettledinourjurisprud denceistheviewthatevenactsofthe OfficeofthePr O residentmaybereviewedb bythetheReg gionalTrialCo ourt.Asexplai inedinMedall lavsSayo,beingsubject tojudicialrevi t iewdoesnotm maketheExec cutiveinferior rtothecourts s,butbecause ethelawisab bovetheChief Executive f himself,andth h hecourtsseek konlytointerp pret,applyorimplementit. . As A a general r rule, the CA exercises exclusive appella jurisdiction over all fina judgments, decisions, re e ate n al , esolutions, orders,orawa o ardsofquasijudicialagenc cies,suchast thePRC.Howe ever,thereha astobeafina alorderorrul lingwhich resultedfrom proceedingsw r whereinthea administrative ebodyinvolve edexercisedi itsquasijudic cialfunctions. Thisdoes not n cover rule and regulat es tions of gener applicabili issued by the administrative body to implement its purely ral ity administrative a epoliciesandfunctionslike eResolutionN No.105whichwasadoptedbytherespon ndentPRCasa ameasure topreservetheintegrityofl t licensureexam minations. Validityofthe V eResolution
2|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Itisanaxiom inadministra ativelawthat tadministrativ veauthorities sshouldnota actarbitrarily andcapriciou uslyinthe lesandregula ations.Tobev valid,suchrulesandregulat tionsmustbe ereasonableandfairlyadap ptedtothe issuanceofrul endinview.If e fshowntobea arnoreasona ablerelationto othepurpose esforwhichth heyareauthorizedtobeiss sued,then theymustbeh t heldtobeinva alid. Resolution No 105 is not only unreasonable and a R o. arbitrary, it a also infringes on the exam minees' right to liberty guaranteedby g ytheConstitution.Respond dentPRChasn noauthorityt todictateont thereviewees sastohowth heyshould preparethems p selvesforthelicensureexaminations.Th heycannotberestrainedfro omtakingallt thelawfulstepsneeded toassurethef t fulfillmentof theirambitiontobecome publicaccoun ntants.Theyh haveeveryrig ghttomakeus seoftheir faculties in att f taining success in their en ndeavors. The should be a ey allowed to en njoy their free edom to acqu uire useful knowledgetha k atwillpromot tetheirperson nalgrowth. oOo BIAKNABAT B TOMININGCO OMPANY,pet titioner,vs.HON.ARTURO OR.TANCO,JR.,inhiscap pacityastheS Secretary ofAgriculture o eandNaturalResourcesa andBALATOC CLUBUAGAN NMINES,INC., ,respondents s. G.R.Nos.L3426768 8 January25,19 J 991
Under the prin U nciples of adm ministrative law in force in this jurisdictio decisions o administrat w on, of tive officers sh not be hall disturbedbyth d hecourts,exce eptwhenthefo formerhaveac ctedwithouto orinexcessof theirjurisdicti ion,orwithgr raveabuse ofdiscretion.F o Findingsofad dministrativeo officialsandag gencieswhoh haveacquired expertisebeca ausetheirjuri isdictionis confined to sp c pecific matters are general accorded n only respe but at tim even final s lly not ect mes lity if such fin ndings are supported by substantial ev s vidence and a controlling on the revi are g iewing author rities because of their ackn nowledged expertiseinthe e efieldsofspec cializationtow whichtheyareassigned. PetitionerBiak P kNaBatoMin ningCo.filedw withtheBure eauofMines( (BM)theappli icationforlea aseandapetit tionforan orderoflease surveyofits miningclaims o s.However,it treceivedano oticeofthelet tteroftheDir rectorofMine esrefusing toissuetheor t rderofleasesurveybecause etheareasco overedbytheminingclaims swerealleged dlyinconflict withfour (4) ( other grou of mining claims purp ups g portedly own by private respondent BalatocLub ned e ts buagan Mines Inc. and s, MountainMines,Inc. M Inlieuofthis, petitionercon ntestsanddis sputestherigh htofBalatocL LubuaganMin nes,Inc.toele even(11)miningclaims and the right of Mountain Mines, Inc. to another nine (9) minin claims. It also questio a n ng oned the reco onstitution proceedingsin p nMACCases Nos.V79and dV80byclai imingthatthe etwo(2)deedsofsaleove erthe88lode eclaimsin favorofMountainMines,In f nc.andtheoth hertwo(2)de eedsofsaleov ver52lodecla aimsofBalato ocLubuaganM Mines,Inc. werefake,fictitiousormanu w ufactured.Fin nally,whileits sprotestwasb beingheard,it tfiledwiththeBMamotion nclaiming thatBalatocLubuaganMine t es,Inc.andM MountainMine es,Inc.'smen hadenteredt theareainco ontroversyby forceand have been mo h olesting, haras ssing and thr reatening peti itioner's supp posed worker in the area The Bureau of Mines rs a. u issueda restra ainingorderd directingbothpartiestodes sistfromperf forminganyfu urthermining gactivitiesint theareain controversy. c TheBMordere T edanocularin nspectionoft theplace.Ittu urnedoutthat tpetitionersc claimofharass smentisfalseandlifted therestraining t gorder. Bytheendof theyear,the DirectorofMinesruledaga B ainstthepetit tioneranddec claredthatpr rivaterespond dentshave better rights t the 170 mining claims. O appeal to the Secretary of Agricultur and Natura Resources, petitioner b to On y re al questioned the validity of the first ocula inspection. The secretar granted its motion and o q t ar ry ordered anoth ocular her inspection.Ho owever,these econdinspecti ionteamconf firmedtherep portofthefirs stinspectiont teamandalso oreported thatBiakNaB t BatoMiningCo ompanydespi iteopportunit tyaffordedwa asnotabletos showitsexact tlocationinth hearea.
3|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts TheSecretary gaveitsdecis T sionadverset topetitioners statingthat:B BiakNaBatoM MiningCompa anysminingc claimsare tablelocated ,therefore,nu ullandvoid,a andthatithad dnolegalpersonalitytofiletheprotestin ntheBureauo ofMines. Hencethispet H tition. ISSUE: Arethefinding A goffactsmadebytheSecre etaryandtheD DirectorofMi inessubjectto ojudicialrevie ew? HELD: H Petitionishere P ebyDISMISSE ED. Undertheprin U nciplesofadm ministrativelaw winforceint thisjurisdictio on,decisionso ofadministrat tiveofficerssh hallnotbe disturbedbyt d thecourts,exc ceptwhenthe eformerhave eactedwithoutorinexces ssoftheirjurisdiction,orw withgrave abuse of discr a retion. Findin of admini ngs istrative offici ials and agen ncies who hav acquired e ve expertise beca ause their ju urisdictionis confinedtos specificmattersaregenera allyaccorded notonlyresp pectbutattim mesevenfinalityifsuch findings are s f supported by substantial e evidence and are controllin on the rev ng viewing autho orities becaus of their se acknowledged a dexpertisein thefieldsofspecializationt towhichthey yareassigned.Eventhecou urtsofjustice, ,including thisCourt,are t eboundbysu uchfindingsin ntheabsence ofaclearsho owingofagra aveabuseofd discretion,wh hichisnot presentinthis p scaseatbar. oOo EUR ROMEDLABORATORIES, PHIL.,INC.,r representedb byLEONARDO OH.TORIBIO O,petitioner, vs.THEPROV v VINCEOFBAT TANGAS,repr resentedbyi itsGovernor,HON.HERMI ILANDOI.MA ANDANAS,res spondent. G.R.No.1481 106July17,2006 Thedoctrineof T ofprimaryjuri isdictionholds sthatifacase eissuchthati itsdeterminat tionrequirest theexpertise,s specialized trainingandk t knowledgeofa anadministrativebody,reli iefmustfirstb beobtainedin nanadministr rativeproceed dingbefore resort to the c r courts is had even if the ma e atter may wel be within th proper jurisdiction. It a ll heir applies where a claim is originally cogn o nizable in the courts and co omes into play whenever e ay enforcement of the claim re f equires the res solution of is ssueswhich,u underaregulatoryscheme,h havebeenplac cedwithinthespecialcompe etenceofanadministrativeagency.In suchacase,th s hecourtinwh hichtheclaim issoughttob beenforcedmaysuspendth hejudicialpro ocesspending referralof suchissuestot s theadministra ativebodyforitsviewor,if thepartieswo ouldnotbeunf nfairlydisadva antaged,dismis ssthecase withoutprejud w dice Petitioner Eur P roMed Labs filed a compla f aint for sum o money aga of ainst responde Province of Batangas. The latter ent purchasedvar p riousIntraven nousFluids(IV VF)productsf fromtheforme er,withanun npaidbalanceo ofP487,662.8 80. Duringthetria D alandafterthepetitionerspresentationofevidence,r respondentfile edamotionto odismissontheground oflackofjurisdictionofthecourt.Itappe o earedthatpeti itionersmone eyclaimmust tbelodgedbef foretheComm missionon Audit (COA). In addition, the series of procurement transactions with the pr A t t s rovince, was governed by the Local Government C G Code provisio ons and COA rules and regulations on supply and property management in local A t governments. The RTC fou the petitio meritoriou and grante the dismiss of the cas Petitioners MR was g und on us ed sal se. subsequentlyd s denied,hence ethepetition. ISSUE:
4 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts DoestheCOAh D havejurisdict tionoverthem moneyclaim? HELD: H Petitionishere P ebyDENIED. Althoughthea A amountofmo oneyclaimfal llswithinthe jurisdictiono oftheRTCitis sclearwithin nSec26ofthe eAuditing CodeofthePh C hilippinesthat t:Theauthori ityandpower rsoftheComm mission[onAu udit]shallexte endtoandcom mprehend allmattersrel a latingtoxxx xxtheexamin nation,audit, andsettlemen ntofalldebts sandclaimso ofanysortdu uefromor owingtotheG o Governmentor ranyofitssub bdivisions,age encies,andinstrumentalitie es. Thescopeofth T heCOAsauth horitytotake cognizanceof fclaimsiscirc cumscribed,ho owever,byan nunbrokenlin neofcases holdingstatutesofsimilari h importtomea anonlyliquid datedclaims,o orthosedeter rminedorrea adilydetermin nablefrom vouchers, invo v oices, and such other papers within re each of accou unting officers Petitioners claim was fo a fixed s. or amount andalthough respo a ondenttook is ssue withthe eaccuracyof p petitioners su ummation of itsaccountab bilities, the amountthereo a ofwasreadily ydeterminablefromthereceipts,invoice esandotherd documents.Thus,theclaim mwaswell withintheCOA w Asjurisdiction nundertheGovernmentAu uditingCodeo ofthePhilippines. Futhermore,p F petitionersmo oneyclaimwa asfoundedon naseriesofp purchasesfort themedicalsuppliesofres spondents publichospitals.Bothpartie p esagreedthat tthesetransac ctionswerego overnedbyth heLocalGover rnmentCodep provisions onsupplyandpropertyman o nagementand dtheirimplem mentingrulesa andregulation nspromulgate edbytheCOA Apursuant toSection383 t 3ofsaidCode.Petitioners claimtherefor reinvolvedco ompliancewit thapplicable auditinglawsandrules onprocurement. o Thecourtmay T yraisetheissu ueofprimary yjurisdictions suasponteand ditsinvocatio oncannotbew waivedbythe efailureof thepartiesto argueitasthedoctrineexi t istsfortheproperdistribut tionofpower rbetweenjudi icialandadmi inistrative bodiesandnot b tfortheconve enienceofthe eparties. oOo LOUIS"BA AROK"C.BIRA AOGO,Petitio oner,vs.THE EPHILIPPINE ETRUTHCOM MMISSIONOF 2010,Respon ndent. G.R R.No.192935Decem mber7,2010 Itshouldbestr I ressedthatthe epurposeofa allowingadho ocinvestigatin ngbodiestoex xististoallow waninquiryintomatters whichthePres w sidentisentitl ledtoknowso othathecan beproperlyadvisedandgu uidedinthepe erformanceof fhisduties relativetothe executionand r denforcement tofthelawso oftheland.Th herebeingno changesinthe egovernment tstructure, theCourtisno t otinclinedtod declaresuchex xecutivepowe erasnonexist tentjustbecau usethedirectio onofthepolit ticalwinds havechanged. h This is a pro T oduct of two consolidated cases quest d tioning the co onstitutionality of the defunct Philippine Truth Commission ( C (PTC). In his first official a as Preside Mr.Aquino signed Executive Order No. 1 which created a act ent, special body to investigat reported c s te cases of graf and corrup ft ption alleged committed during the previous dly d administration a n. ISSUE(S): denthavethe epowertocre eatethePhilip ppineTruthCo ommissionby yvirtueofSec c31ofthe 1. DoesthePresid nistrative Cod which gran him the p de, nts power to reo organize his office? Is the a valid ere Revised Admin elegationofpowerfromCo ongress,empoweringthePr residenttocre eateapublico office? de
5|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 2. Did the Execut tive Branch tr ransgressed t budgeting powers of th Legislative by the creat the he e tion of the TC? PT 3. DoesthePresid denthavethepowertocrea ateAdHocInv vestigatingCommittees? sthecreationofthePTCvio olativeofthee equalprotectio onclause? 4. Is HELD: H PetitionsareG P GRANTED. Creationofth C hePTC Section31con S ntemplates"re eorganization"aslimitedby ythefollowin ngfunctionala andstructurallines:(1)rest tructuring theinternalor t rganizationoftheOfficeoft f thePresidentProperbyabolishing,cons solidatingorm mergingunitsthereofor transferringfu t unctionsfromoneunittoanother;(2)transferringany yfunctionund dertheOfficeofthePresidenttoany otherDepartm o ment/Agencyo orviceversa;or(3)transfe erringanyage encyundertheOfficeofthe ePresidentto anyother Department/A D Agencyorvice eversa.Clearl ly,theprovisi ionreferstor reductionofp personnel,con nsolidationof offices,or abolition there by reason of economy or redundan of function These poin to situation where a body or an a eof n ncy ns. nt ns office is already existent but a modifica o b ation or alter ration thereof has to be effected. The c f creation of an office is n nowherement n tioned,muchl lessenvisione edinsaidprov vision. T TheOSGsreli iancetoP.D.1 1416,asamen ndedbyP.D.N No.1772ismi isplaced.The saidlawgave ethenPreside entMarcos thepowertor t reorganizethe eadministrativestructureo ofthenational lgovernmentincludingthe epowertocreateoffices and a transfer a appropriations pursuant to an impendin transition o governmen to a parliam s o ng of nt mentary form. Such law . wasrepealedb w bythe1987Constitution. NoTransgres N ssionofBudge etingPowersoftheLegisla ative OnthechargethatExecutiveOrderNo.1transgressesthepowerofCongresstoappropriatefundsfortheop O perationof apublicoffice, a ,sufficeittosaythattherew willbenoapp propriationbu utonlyanallot tmentoralloc cationsofexistingfunds already appro a opriated. Accordingly, there is no usurpa e ation on the p part of the Ex xecutive of the power of Co e ongress to appropriate fu a unds. Further there is no need to specify the amount to be e r, o earmarked for the operati r ion of the commissionbe c ecause,inthewordsoftheSolicitorGene eral,"whateve erfundstheCo ongresshaspr rovidedforth heOfficeof the t President will be the very source of the funds for the commis f ssion." Moreov since the amount that would be ver, allocatedtoth a hePTCshallbe esubjecttoex xistingauditingrulesandre egulations,the ereisnoimpro oprietyinthefunding. PoweroftheP P Presidenttoc createAdHoc cinvestigating gCommittee Indeed, the Ex xecutive is giv much leeway in ensur ven ring that our l laws are faith hfully execute As stated a ed. above, the powers of the President ar not limited to those spe p e re d ecific powers under the Co onstitution.53 One of the r recognized powers of the President granted pursu p e uant to this co onstitutionally ymandated d duty is the power to crea ad hoc ate committees.T c Thisflowsfrom mtheobvious sneedtoascertainfactsanddeterminei iflawshaveb beenfaithfully yexecuted. Thus, in Department of Hea v. Campos T alth sano, the auth hority of the President to issue Adminis strative Order No. 298, r creating an in c nvestigative committee to look into th administrative charges filed against the employe of the c he ees Departmentof D fHealthforth heanomalouspurchaseofm medicineswasupheld.Insai idcase,itwasruled: The Chief Executives pow to create the Ad hoc Investigatin Committee cannot be doubted. Hav T wer e c ng e ving been constitutionall c lygrantedfull lcontrolofth heExecutiveD Department,to owhichrespo ondentsbelong,thePreside enthasthe obligationtoe o ensurethatallexecutiveoffi icialsandemp ployeesfaithfu ullycomplyw withthelaw.W WithAO298as smandate, thelegalityoftheinvestigat t tionissustained.Suchvalid dityisnotaffec ctedbythefac ctthattheinv vestigatingtea amandthe
6 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts PCAGC had th same comp P he position, or th the former used the of hat r ffices and facilities of the la atter in condu ucting the inquiry stressed that the purpose o allowing ad hoc investig of gating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into s o It should be s matterswhich m hthePresiden ntisentitledto oknowsotha athecanbep properlyadvisedandguided dintheperformanceof hisdutiesrelat h tivetotheexe ecutionanden nforcementof fthelawsofth heland.There ebeingnochangesinthego overnment structure,the Courtisnoti s inclinedtodeclaresuchexe ecutivepower rasnonexist tentjustbecau usethedirect tionofthe politicalwinds p shavechanged. Violationofth V heEqualProt tectionClause e A Althoughthe purposeofth heTruthComm missionfallsw withintheinv vestigativepow werofthePresident,theC Courtfinds difficultyinup d pholdingthec constitutionali ityofExecutiv veOrderNo.1 1inviewofits sapparenttra ansgressionof ftheequal protectionclau p useenshrined dinSection1,ArticleIII(Bil llofRights)of fthe1987Con nstitution. The T clear man ndate of the envisioned tr ruth commiss sion is to inv vestigate and find out the truth "conce erning the reportedcases r sofgraftandcorruptiondu uringtheprev viousadminist trationonly. Theintentto singleoutthe eprevious administration a nisplain,pate entandmanif fest.Mention ofithasbeen nmadeinatle eastthreepor rtionsoftheq questioned executiveorde e er. Inthisregard,itmustbeborneinmindth hattheArroyo oadministrati ionisbutjustamemberofa aclass,thatis s,aclassof past administr p rations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past administr n f t rations similar situated c rly constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protect a e tion clause c cannot sancti ion. Such discriminating differentiatio clearly on reverberatest r tolabelthecom mmissionasa avehicleforvi indictivenessandselectiveretribution. oOo BRILLANTES,C. B MANILA INTERNATIO ONALAIRPOR RTAUTHORIT MIAA),pe TY( etitioner,vs.CO OURTOFAPP PEALS,respon ndent. G.R.No.155650 G July20,2006 MIAA is a gove M ernment instr rumentality ve ested with corp porate powers to perform e s efficiently its g governmental functions. MIAAislikean M nyothergovern nmentinstrum mentality,theo onlydifference eisthatMIAAisvestedwithcorporatepow wers. Petitioner Man International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the Ninoy A P nila s Aquino Intern national Airpo (NAIA) ort Complex in Pa C araaque City under Execu y utive Order No 903, otherw o. wise known a the Revised Charter of t Manila as d the International Airport Autho ority (MIAA Charter). E Executive Order No. 903 w issued on 21 July 1983 by then was n PresidentFerd P dinandE.Marcos.Subseque ently,Executiv veOrderNos.909and298a amendedtheM MIAACharter r. Asoperatorof A ftheinternat tionalairport, MIAAadministerstheland d,improveme entsandequip pmentwithin ntheNAIA Complex. The MIAA Chart transferred to MIAA ap C e ter d pproximately 600 hectares of land, inclu uding the run nways and buildings (Air b rport Lands and Buildings) then under the Bureau of Air Transp a r portation. The MIAA Chart further e ter providesthat noportionof thelandtran p f nsferredtoMI IAAshallbed disposedofthr roughsaleor anyothermo odeunless specificallyapprovedbythe s ePresidentofthePhilippine es. On21March1 O 1997,theOffic ceoftheGovernmentCorpo orateCounsel(OGCC)issuedOpinionNo. .061.TheOGCCopined thattheLocalGovernmentC t Codeof1991withdrewthe eexemptionfr romrealestat tetaxgranted dtoMIAAund derSection
7|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 21oftheMIAA 2 ACharter.Th hus,MIAAnego otiatedwithr respondentCit tyofParaaquetopaythe realestatetax ximposed bytheCity.MIAAthenpaid b dsomeofther realestatetaxalreadydue. On O 28 June 20 001, MIAA received Final N Notices of Re Estate Tax Delinquency from the Cit of Paraaqu for the eal x y ty ue taxableyears1 t 1992to2001. . TheCityofPar T raaque,throu ughitsCityTr reasurer,issue ednoticesofl levyandwarrantsoflevyon ntheAirportLandsand Buildings.TheMayorofth B heCityofPara aaquethreat tenedtosella atpublicauct tiontheAirpo ortLandsandBuildings shouldMIAAf s failtopaytherealestatetax xdelinquency.MIAAthusso oughtaclarificationofOGCCOpinionNo. .061. OGCCissuedO O OpinionNo.14 47clarifying OGCCOpinion nNo.061.Th heOGCCpoint tedoutthatS Section206of ftheLocal GovernmentC G Coderequires personsexem mptfromreal estatetaxto showproofo ofexemption. TheOGCCop pinedthat Section21oft S theMIAAChar rteristheproofthatMIAAi isexemptfrom mrealestatet tax. MIAAfiledwit M ththeCourto ofAppealsan originalpetit tionforprohib bitionandinjunction,with prayerforpr reliminary injunctionort temporaryres strainingorde er.Thepetitio onsoughttor restraintheC CityofParaaq quefromimp posingreal estatetaxon,l e levyingagains st,andauction ningforpublicsaletheAirp portLandsan ndBuildings.B Butthecourt dismissed thepetitionbe t ecauseMIAA fileditbeyondthe60day reglementary yperiod.Mean nwhile,theCityofParaaq queposted andpublishednoticesofauc a ctionsale. A A day before t public auc the ction, or on 6 February 20 6 003, at 5:10 p.m., MIAA file before SC a Urgent Ex ed an Parte and ReiteratoryMo R otionfortheI IssuanceofaT TemporaryRe estrainingOrd der.Courtorderedrespondentstoceaseanddesist fromsellingat f tpublicauctio ontheAirportLandsandB Buildings.Res spondentsrec ceivedtheTROonthesamedaythat theCourtissuedit.Howev t ver,responden ntsreceivedth heTROonlya at1:25p.m.orthreehours safterthecon nclusionof thepublicauct t tion. ISSUE: WhethertheA W AirportLandsandBuildings sofMIAAaree exemptfromr realestatetax xunderexistin nglaws. HELD: H Petition is GR P RANTED. MIA AAs Airport Lands and B Buildings are exempt from real estate tax imposed by local m d governments. g MIAAisnota governmentownedorcon M ntrolledcorpo orationbutan ninstrumenta alityoftheNa ationalGovern nmentand thus exempt f t from local tax xation. A gove ernmentowne or controll corporatio must be o ed led on organized as a stock or a nonstockcorp n poration.MIA AAisnotorga anizedasastockornonst tockcorporati ion.MIAAisn notastockco orporation because it ha no capital stock divided into shares MIAA has no stockhold b as d s. ders or voting shares. Sec 3 of the g c CorporationCodedefinesastockcorporationasonew C whosecapita alstockisdivi idedintoshar resandxxxa authorized todistributeto t otheholders ofsuchshare esdividendsx xxx.MIAAha ascapitalbut itisnotdivid dedintoshare esofstock. MIAA has no stockholders or voting sha M ares. Hence, M MIAA is not a stock corpor a ration. MIAA is also not a nonstock corporationbe c ecauseithas nomembers. Anonstockc corporationis sonewhere nopartofits incomeisdis stributable asdividendst a toitsmember rs,trusteesor rofficers.An nonstockcorporationmus sthavememb bers.Evenifw weassume that the Gover t rnment is con nsidered as th sole memb of MIAA, t he ber this will not m make MIAA a nonstock corporation. Nonstock cor N rporations can nnot distribut any part of their income to their me te embers. Sec 1 of the MIA Charter 11 AA mandatesMIA m AAtoremit20 0%ofitsannualgrossopera atingincomet totheNationa alTreasury.Th hispreventsM MIAAfrom qualifyingasa q anonstockcorporation. MIAA is a go M overnment in nstrumentality vested with corporate p y h powers to pe erform efficie ently its gove ernmental functions. MI f IAA is like an other government inst ny trumentality, the only diffe erence is tha MIAA is ve at ested with corporatepow c wers.
8 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts When the law vests in a government i W w g instrumentalit corporate powers, the instrumentali does not become a ty ity corporation. U c Unless the gov vernment inst trumentality i organized a a stock or nonstock co is as orporation, it remains a governmentin g nstrumentality yexercisingn notonlygover rnmentalbuta alsocorporate epowers.Th hus,MIAAexe ercisesthe governmentalpowersofem g minentdomain n,policeautho orityandthele evyingoffeesandcharges.Atthesameti ime,MIAA exercises allt powers of acorporatio under the CorporationL e the on Law, insofara asthese powe ersare not inc consistent with the provisions of th Executive Order. Like w his ewise, when the law ma akes a gover rnment instru umentality operationally autonomous, the instrume o entality remains part of th National G he Government m machinery alth hough not integrated wit the depart th tment framew work. The M MIAA Charter expressly sta ates that tran nsforming MIAA into a separateandautonomousb bodywillma akeitsoperatio onmorefinanciallyviable. . There is also n reason for local govern T no r nments to tax national gove ernment instr rumentalities for rendering essential g publicservices p stoinhabitan ntsoflocalgov vernments.Th heonlyexceptioniswhent thelegislature eclearlyinten ndedtotax government i g instrumentalit ties for the delivery of essential pub blic services for sound a and compelli ing policy considerations There mu be expre language in the law e c s. ust ess empowering local governments to tax national x governmentin g nstrumentaliti ies.Anydoub btwhethersuc chpowerexis stsisresolvedagainstlocalgovernments. . The T AirportLa andsandBuil ldings of MIA arepropert of publicd AA ty dominion unde the Civil Co er ode, like roads, canals, rivers,torrent r ts,portsandri idgesconstruc ctedbytheSta ate,areowne edbytheState e.Thetermp poetsincludesseaports andairports.A a Aspropertieso ofpublicdom minion,theAirp portLandsan ndBuildingsar reoutsidethecommerceof fman. MIAA is gover M rnment instru umentality ves sted with corp porate power the fact tha it collects t rs, at terminal fees and other chargesisofn c nomoment,it doesnotrem movethechara acteroftheai irportlandsa andbuildingst toproperties forpublic use.Therefore u e,theyarepub blicdominionoutsidetheco ommerceofm man.MIAAisnotsubjecttor realpropertyt taxes. oOo GOVER RNMENTSERV VICEINSURA ANCESYSTEM M(GSIS)vs.CITYTREASUR REROFTHEC CITYOFMANI ILA Decem G.R.No.186242 mber23,2009 9 GSISisaninstr G rumentalityof ftheNationalGovernmentn notaGOCC.AG GOCCshouldb beacorporatio on.Itshouldh havestocks dividedintoshares.GSIScap d pitalisnotdivi idedintounits shared.Also,it thasnomemb berstospeako of. PetitionerGSISownsoruse P edtoowntwo oparcelsofla and,oneisthe eKatibakprop perty,andthe eothertheCo oncepsion Arroceros pro A operty. Title to the ConcepsionArrocero property w transferre to the Sup os was ed preme Court in in 2005 pursuanttoPr p roclamationN No.835datedA April27,2005 5.BoththeGSISandtheMe eTCofManilao occupytheCo oncepsion Arrocerosproperty,whileth A heKatibakpro opertywasun nderlease. Thecontrover T rsystartedwh hentheCityTr reasurerofManilaaddressedaletterto GSISPresiden ntandGenera alManager WinstonGarci W iainformingh himoftheunp paidrealprope ertytaxesdue eontheaforem mentionedpr ropertiesfory years1992 to t 2002, brok down as follows: (a) P54, 826,599 ken 9.37 for the K Katibak prope erty; and (b) P48,498,91.0 for the 01 ConcepsionAr C rrocerosprop perty.Thelette erwarnedoft theinclusionsofthesubject tpropertiesin ntheschedule edOctober 30,2002publ 3 licauctionof alldelinquent tpropertiesin nManilashou uldtheunpaid dtaxesremai inunsettledb beforethat date. d TheCityTreas T surerofMani ilaissuedsepa arateNotices ofRealtyTax xDelinquency yforthesubje ectproperties s,withthe usualwarning u gofseizurean nd/orsale.OnOctober8,20 002,GSIS,thro oughitslegalcounsel,wrot tebackempha asizingthe GSISexemptio G onfromallkin ndsoftaxes,in ncludingrealty ytaxes,under rRA8291. TheGSISlater T ramendeditspetitiontoincludethefact tthat:(a)the Katibakprope ertyhas,since eNovember2 2001,been leasedtoando occupiedbyth heManilaHot telCorporatio on(MHC),whi ichhascontra actuallybound ditselftopayanyrealty
9|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts taxesthatmay t ybeimposed onthesubjec ctproperty;an nd(b)theCon ncepsionArro ocerospropert tyispartlyoc ccupiedby GSISandpartlyoccupiedby G ytheMeTCofManila. TheRTCdismi T issedthepetit tionofGSIS.T Thus,theinstantpetitionfor rreviewonpu urequestiono oflaw. ISSUE: WhetherGSISisexemptfrom W mrealproper rtytax? HELD: H PetitionisGRA P ANTED. GSISwasestab G blishedundertheCommonw wealthAct18 86,asanonst tockcorporati ionmanagedb byaboardoft trustees,a statusthathas s sremainedun nchangedevenwhenitope eratedunderP PD1146,whi ichprovidedf foranewtax treatment forGSIS,andR f RA8291,alaw wwhichreen nactedtheful lltaxexempti ionprivilegeo ofGSISinPD1 1146.GSISis notinthe context of Sec 139 of LGC which provid for a gene c c w des eral provision on withdraw of tax exem wal mption privile ege, and a specialprovisi s iononwithdra awalofexemp ptionfrompay ymentofrealpropertytaxe esinallGOCCinSec234. GSISisaninst G trumentalityo oftheNationa alGovernmen ntnotaGOCC C.AGOCCsho ouldbeacorp poration.Itsh houldhave stocksdivided s dintoshares. GSIScapital isnotdivided dintounitsha ared.Also,ith hasnomemberstospeako of.Andby members,the referenceist m tothosewhom makeupthen nonstockcorporation,and dnotthecomp pulsorymemb bersofthe system who a governmen employees Its managem s are nt s. ment is entrusted to a Boa of Trustee whose mem ard es mbers are appointedbyt a thePresident. Thesubjectpr T ropertiesunde ertheGSISnamearelikew wiseownedby ytheRepublic c.TheGSISis butmeretrus steeofthe subject proper s rties which have either be ceded to i by the Government or a h een it acquired for th enhancement of the he system. This p s particular pro operty arrangement is clea arly shown by the fact that the disposal or conveyan of said y t l nce subjectproper s rtiesareeithe erdonebyort thrutheautho orityofthePresident.Speci ifically,inthecaseoftheCo oncepsion Arrocerosproperty,itwast A transferred,co onveyed,andc cededtotheS SCthroughaP PresidentialPr roclamation. GSIS manages the funds fo the life insurance, retire G s or ement, surviv vorship, and d disability bene efits of all go overnment employeesand e dtheirbeneficiaries.Thisu undertaking,t tobesure,con nstitutesane essentialandv vitalfunction whichthe government,th g hruoneofitsagenciesorin nstrumentaliti ies,oughttop perform. UndertheDoc U ctrineofBene eficialUse,the eRepublicis allowedtogr rantbeneficialuseofitspr ropertytoan agencyor instrumentalit tyofthenatio onalgovernment.Suchgran ntdoesnotn necessarilyres sultinthelos ssofthetax e exemption. Thetaxexemp T ptiontheprop pertyoftheRe epublicoritsinstrumentalit tycarriesceas sesonlyif,be eneficialuseth hereofhas been granted, for considera b ation or other rwise, to a tax xable person. GSIS, as a g . government in nstrumentality is not a y, taxable juridic person ho t cal owever, it was lost in a sen that statu with respec to the Kati s nse us ct igbak propert when it ty contracted its beneficial use to MHC, a taxable person. The real estate taxt of that property is valid. But such c s a l corresponding liability for the payment thereof devo c g olves on the t taxable benefi icial user. The City of Man has to e nila satisfyitstaxc s claimbyservi ingtheaccrue edrealtytaxa assessmenton nMHC,asata axablebenefic cialuserofthe eKatigbak property. p oOo INTHE EMATTEROF FTHEBREWR RINGCONTRO OVERSIESIN THEELECTIO ON INTHE EINTEGRATE EDBAROFTH HEPHILIPPIN NES A.M.No.0952SC 2010 December14,2
10 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The T Court in a en banc Resolution dated June 2, 20 created a Special Inves an 009 stigation Com mmittee to look into the brewing cont troversies in the IBP elect tions, specifically in the elections of Vic President for the Great Manila ce ter RegionandEx R xecutiveVice Presidentoft theIBPitself andanyother relectioncon ntroversyinvo olvingotherch haptersof theIBP,ifany t ,thatincludesasweltheel lectionoftheGovernorsfor rWesternMin ndanaoandW WesternVisaya as. Consequently, theSpecial Committeecal C C lled the IBPo officers involv toa prelim ved minaryconfer rence on June 10,2009. With respect thereto, Atty. Vinluan then submitted a Preliminary Conference brief on the same day. D W y During the conferenceitw c wasdetermine edthattheinv vestigationwo ouldfocusonthefollowingissuesorcont troversies: Thecommittee T ethendisclos sedthattheco ontroversiesin nvolvedherei inandshould beresolveda arethefollowi ing:1)the disputeconcer d rningaddition naldelegates oftheQCCha aptertotheH HouseofDeleg gates;2)thee electionofGov vernorfor theGreaterMa t anilaRegion( (GMR);3)theelectionofGo overnorforW WesternVisaya asRegion;4)t theelectionof fGovernor for f Western M Mindanao Reg gion; 5) the re esolution of th election pr he rotests; 6) the election of the IBP Execu utive Vide Presidentfort P the20092011 1term;and,7 7)theadminist trativecompla aintagainstEV VPVinluan. ntroversies,th hecommitteea arrivedatthefollowingfind dingsandconclusions: Inaddressingtheabovecon 1. Thesi ilenceofsec3 31,ArtVofIB BPbylawson nwhomaybe eelectedasad dditionaldelegatesandalte ernatesby there emainingmem mbersoftheBo oardofOfficersoftheChap pterwhentheChapterisen ntitledtomore ethantwo delega atestotheHouseofDelegates,istherootcauseoftheconflictingre esolutionsofth heBautistaan ndVinluan faction onthe pro ns oper interpret tationofthe s saidprovision of the bylaw xxx It found the Vinlua Groups n ws. an interp pretation of sec31,ArtVof e fIBPbylaws inRes.No.XV VIII2009tobeinerrorand ddevoidofrationaland histor ricalbases. 2. Attys. Victoria Loan nzon and Mar Laqui we properly r rite ere recognized as delegates of the QC Chapt by the ter dingOfficer,G GMRGovMarc cialMagsino,d duringtheelec ctionon2009oftheGovoftheGMR,inaccordance Presid witht theguidelinesinRes.No.XV VIII2009. 3. Atty. M Manuel Maram was valid elected as GMR Gov for 20092011 term. Howev the electio of Atty. mba dly s ver, on Sorian nointhespeci ialelectionthatwaspreside edoverbyEV VPVinluanonMay2009wasanullity. 4. Atty. E Erwin Fortun nato of the Ro omblon Chapter was duly e elected as Gov of the West v tern Visayas R Region for 2009 2011. 5. Neithe Atty. Nass Marohoms er ser salic nor Atty Benjamin L y. Lanto is qualified to be el lected Vov of Western f Minda anaoRegion. 6. Theel lectionsforth heIBPExecutiveVicePresid dentseparatel lyheldonMay y9.2009byth heBautistaan ndVinluan Group pswerenullan ndoidforlack kofquorum. 7. Thead dministrativecomplaintagainstEVPVinluanandhisG GroupofGovsismeritorious. ISSUE: Whetherthefi W indingsandco onclusionsoft theCommitteearecorrect. HELD: H PetitionisPAR P RTIALLYGRA ANTED. Th T eCourtcom mpletelyagreeswiththerec commendation nsoftheSpeci ialCommittee ewithrespecttothefollowi ing 1. 1 DeclaringA Atty.Marimbaasthedulyel lectedGovernoroftheGMR Rfor2009201 11. 2. 2 DeclaringA Atty.Fortunate easthedulye electedGovof ftheWesternV VisayasRegio onfor200920 011term. Duringtheele D ection,itwasA Atty.Marimba awhogarnere edthehighestnumberofvo otesamongth hedelegatecom mparedto Atty.Soriano. However,inst A teadofaccept tingthesaidd defeat,Atty.Sorianothenfi iledanelectio onprotestclai imingthat
11|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts the t said electi was void because ther were nond ion re delegates who were allowe to vote. Th then resulted in the o ed his anomalousele a ectionofAtty.SorianoasGo ovofGMRlastMay4,2009. TheelectionofAtty.Soriano T ointhespecia alelectionwas sanullitybec cause:1)Atty.Sorianohadl lostalreadyon nApril25, 2009; 2) the election cond 2 ducted by the Vinluan Group was illega because it was not calle nor presid by the e al ed ded regionalGoc;3 r 3)Atty.Sorian noisdisqualifi fiedbecausehiselectionwo ouldviolateth herotationrulewhichtheSCrequires to t be strictly i implemented. Hence, Atty. Soriano cann be voted a well as IBP Executive Vi President for 2009 . not as P ice 2011. 2 Withrespectt W toAtty.Fortun nate,hiselect tionasGovfor rtheWestern nVisayasRegionwasupheldsinceheobtainedthe highestnumbe h erofvotesam mongthethree ecandidates,a andbecauseu undertherotai ionrule,itisn nowRomblon nChapters turntoreprese t ent. On O the nullific cation of the election of A Atty. Marohom mslic as Gov f Western M for Mindanao Reg gion, the Cour rules to rt upholdtheele u ection.Atty.M Marohomslicw wonoverhis rivalAtty.Lan ntoandwasd dulyproclaim med.Atty.Lant tofiledan electionprotes e standimmediately,thegro oupofVinluan nissuedaReso olutionproclaimingAtty.La antoasdulyel lectedGov withoutafford w dingAtty.Maro ohomslicdueprocess. Accordingly, a special elect A a tion shall be held by the present ninem IBP Board of Govs to elect the EV for the man o VP remainder of the term of 20092011, w r 2 which shall be presided oer and conduc e r cted by IBP O OfficerinChar Justice rge SantiagoKapu S unan. oOo
QuasiLegisl Q lativePower rs
CONGRESSMA C ANJAMESL.C CHIONGBIAN,petitioner,vs.HON.OSCAR RM.ORBOS,r respondent. Jun G.R.No.96754 ne22,1995
Thedivisionof T fthecountryin ntoregionsisintendedtofa acilitatenoton nlytheadminis strationofloc calgovernmentsbutalso thedirectionof t fexecutivedep partmentswhi thelawreq ich quiresshouldh haveregionaloffices. Pursuant to A X, Sec. 18 of the 198 Constitutio Congress passed R.A. No. 6734, th Organic Ac for the P Art. 87 on, he ct Autonomous R A Region in Mu uslim Mindana calling for a plebiscite to be held in the province of Basilan, Cotabato, ao, r n es Davao del Sur Lanao del Su Maguindan D r, ur, nao, Palawan, South Cotab bato, Sultan Ku udarat, Sulu, T TawiTawi, Za amboanga del d Norte, Zam mboanga del Sur and the c cities Cotabat Dapitan, D to, Dipolog, Gener Santos, Ilig ral gan, Marawi, Pagadian, PuertoPrinces P saandZambo oanga.Inthee ensuingplebis sciteheldonN November16,1989,fourp provincesvote edinfavor of o creating an autonomous region. These are the prov e vinces of Lanao del Sur, M Maguindanao, S Sulu and Taw wiTawi. In accordancewi a iththeconstitutionalprovis sion,thesepro ovincesbecam metheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMin ndanao. Ontheotherh O hand,withrespecttoprovin ncesandcities snotvotingin nfavoroftheA AutonomousR Region,Art.X XIX,Sec.13 ofR.A.No.673 o 34provides, Thatonlythe eprovincesan ndcitiesvoting gfavorablyin nsuchplebisci itesshallbein ncludedin the Autonomo Region in Muslim Min t ous n ndanao. The provinces and cities whic in the pleb ch biscite do not vote for t inclusioninth heAutonomou usRegionshallremaininth heexistingad dministrative regions:Prov vided,howeve er,thatthe Presidentmay P y,byadministr rativedetermination,mergetheexistingregions. Pres.Aquinois P ssuedEO429Providingfo ortheReorgan nizationoftheAdministrativ veRegionsinMindanao. The T petitioner contended that there is no law which authorizes t President to pick certa provinces and cities rs h the ain withintheexis w stingregions,someofwhich hdidnoteven ntakepartint theplebecite.Theysubmitt thatwhilethe eauthority ofthePresiden o ntnecessarily yincludesthe authoritytom merge,theauthoritytomergedoesnoti includetheau uthorityto
12|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts reorganize.Th r herefore,theP President'sau uthorityunder rRANo.6734 4to"mergeex xistingregion ns"cannotbe construed toincludetheauthoritytor t reorganizethe em.Todosow willviolatethe erulesofstatu utoryconstruc ction. Also,theycont A tendthatArtX XIX,Sec13ofRA6734isbe ecause(1)itu undulydelegat teslegislativepowertothePresident by b authorizing him to "me g erge [by admi inistrative det termination] the existing r regions" or at any rate pr rovides no standardforth s heexerciseofthepowerde elegatedand(2 2)thepowerg grantedisnot texpressedinthetitleofthelaw. Issues: 1. Wheth herthepower rto"merge"a administrative eregionsisleg gislativeinch haracter,orwhetheritisex xecutivein character,and,ina event,whe any etherArt.XIX X,Sec13isinv validbecause itcontainsno ostandardtoguidethe dent'sdiscreti ion; Presid 2. Wheth Congress has provided a sufficient standard in conferring on the Presiden the power to merge her d n nt admin nistrativeregions. HELD: H Petit P ionisDIS SMISSED. 1. Powerto"merge"a administrativ veregions The creation and subsequent reorganiz T zation of adm ministrative regions have been by the President pu ursuant to authority granted to him by law. In conferring o the President the pow a on wer "to mer rge (by admi inistrative determination d n)theexisting gregions"follo owingtheesta ablishmentof ftheARMM,C Congressmere elyfollowedth hepattern setinpreviouslegislationd s datingbackto otheinitialor rganizationof administrativ veregionsin 1972.Thecho oiceofthe Presidentasd P delegateislog gicalbecauset thedivisiono ofthecountry yintoregions isintendedto ofacilitateno otonlythe administration a noflocalgove ernmentsbut talsothedire ectionofexecu utivedepartm mentswhicht thelawrequir resshould have regional offices. It ha been held that, "while the power to merge adm h as o ministrative re egions is not expressly providedforin p ntheConstitu ution,itisapo owerwhichh hastraditional llybeenlodge edwiththePr residenttofac cilitatethe exerciseofthe e epowerofgen neralsupervis sionoverloca algovernment ts."Theregion nsthemselves sarenotterri itorialand politicaldivisionslikeprovi p inces,cities,m municipalitiesa andbarangay ysbutare"mer regroupingso ofcontiguousprovinces foradministra f ativepurposes s." 2. Suffic cientstandard d d,alegislative standardnee ednotbeexpr ressed,itmay ysimplybega atheredorim mplied.Nor Inthequestionofstandard needitbefoun n ndinthelawc challengedbe ecauseitmayb beembodiedi inotherstatutesonthesam mesubjectast thatofthe challengedleg c gislation. While Art. XIX Sec 13 prov W X, vides that "Th provinces and cities wh he hich do not vo for inclusi in the Autonomous ote ion Region shall r R remain in the existing adm e ministrative re egions," this p provision is s subject to the qualification that "the e n President may by administ P y trative determ mination merg the existin regions." T ge ng This means th while non hat assenting provincesand p citiesaretor remaininther regionsasdes signatedupon nthecreationoftheAutono omousRegion, ,theymay nevertheless b regrouped with contiguous provinces forming oth regions as the exigency of administration may n be s her y require. The r r regrouping is done only o paper. It i s on involves no m more than a redefinition o the lines s of separating administrative a eregionsfort thepurposeoffacilitatingt theadministra ativesupervis sionoflocalgo overnmentun nitsbythe Presidentandinsuringthee P efficientdelive eryofessentia alservices. Thereorganizationofthere T egionsinE.O. No.429isba asedonreleva antcriteria,to owit:(1)contiguityandgeo ographical features; (a) t f transportation and commu n unication facil lities; (3) cult tural and language groupings; (4) land area and d population;(5 p 5)existingreg gionalcentersadoptedbys severalagenci ies;(6)socio economicdev velopmentpr rogramsin theregionsand(7)numberofprovincesandcities. t
13|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts With respect t the change of regional c W to e center from Z Zamboanga Ci to Pagadia City, petitioner contend that the ity an ds determination d nofprovincialcapitalshasa alwaysbeenb byactofCongr ress.Administ trativeregionsaremeregro oupingsof contiguous provinces for ad c dministrative purposes. Th are notte hey erritorial and political subd divisions like p provinces, cities, municip c palities and barangays. The is, therefo no basis for contendin that only C ere ore, ng Congress can change or determinereg d gionalcenters.Thepowert toreorganize administrativ veregionscar rrieswithitthepowertod determine theregionalce t enter. oOo ENZOM.TANA ADA,petitione vs.HON.JU er, UANC.TUVER RA,respondent. LORE G. .R.No.L6391 15 Apr ril24,1985 Allstatutes,includingthose oflocalappli A icationandpr rivatelaws,sh hallbepublishedasaconditionfortheir effectivity, whichshallbeg w ginfifteenday ysafterpublica ationunlessad differenteffectivitydateisfi fixedbytheleg gislature. people'sright tobeinforme edonmatters sofpubliccon ncern,aright recognizedin nSection6,Ar rticleIVof Invokingthep the1973PhilippineConstit t tution,1aswe ellastheprinc ciplethatlawstobevalida andenforceab blemustbepu ublishedin theOfficialGazetteorother t rwiseeffective elypromulgat ted,petitioner rsseekawrit ofmandamus stocompelre espondent publicofficials p stopublish,an ndorcauseth hepublication nintheOfficia alGazetteofva ariouspreside entialdecrees s,lettersof instructions,g generalorders proclamation s, ns,executiveo orders,letterofimplementationandadm ministrativeor rders. The responde T ents, through the Solicitor General, wo r ould have th case dism his missed outrigh on the gro ht ound that petitioners ha no legal personality or standing to bring the ins p ave p r stant petition The view is submitted th in the n. s hat absence of an showing th petitioner are person a ny hat rs nally and dire ectly affected or prejudice by the alle ed eged non publicationof thepresidentialissuancesinquestion2 p f 2saidpetition nersarewitho outtherequis sitelegalpers sonalityto institutethism mandamuspro oceeding,they yarenotbeing g"aggrievedp parties"within nthemeaning gofSection3,Rule65of theRulesofCo t ourt. Upontheotherhand,petitio U onersmaintainthatsinceth hesubjectoft thepetitionco oncernsapubl licrightandit tsobjectis tocompeltheperformanceofapublicdu t uty,theyneed notshowany yspecificinter restfortheirp petitiontobegivendue course. c Issues: 1. W Whetherthepe etitionershavelegalstandin ng. 2. W Whetherpublic cationintheO OfficialGazette eisrequired. HELD: H 1. Petiti ionershaveLe egalStanding g Clearly, the ri C ight sought to be enforce by petition t ed ners herein is a public rig recognize by no less than the s ght ed s fundamentalla f awoftheland d.Ifpetitioner rswerenotall lowedtoinstit tutethisproce eeding,itwou uldindeedbed difficultto conceive of an other pers to initiate the same, c c ny son e considering th the Solicit General, t governme officer hat tor the ent generallyempoweredtorep g presentthepe eople,hasente eredhisappea aranceforrespondentsinth hiscase. 2. Public cationintheOfficialGazet tteisrequired d Article2ofthe A eCivilCode:
14 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts "ART.2.Laws " sshalltakeef ffectafterfifte eendaysfollow wingthecom mpletionofthe eirpublication nintheOfficia alGazette, unlessit tisotherwiseprovided.Thi isCodeshallt takeeffectone eyearaftersu uchpublication n." The T interpreta ation given by respondent is in accord with this Cou y urt's construc ction of said a article. In a lo line of ong decisions,thisCourthasrul d ledthatpublic cationintheO OfficialGazett teisnecessary yinthosecase eswherethel legislation it tselfdoesnot tprovidefori itseffectivity dateforthenthedateof publicationis smaterialfor determining itsdateof effectivity,whichisthefifte e eenthdayfollo owingitspubl licationbutn notwhenthelawitselfprov videsforthed datewhen it tgoesintoeff fect.Responde ents'argumen nt,however,islogicallycorr rectonlyinsof farasitequate estheeffectivityoflaws withthefacto w ofpublication. .Consideredi inthelightof otherstatutesapplicableto otheissueat hand,thecon nclusionis easilyreached e dthatsaidArt ticle2doesno otprecludeth herequiremen ntofpublicati ionintheOffi icialGazette,e evenifthe la awitselfprov videsfortheda ateofitseffec ctivity. Theclearobjectofthelawi T istogivetheg generalpublic cadequatenot ticeofthevar riouslawswhi icharetoregu ulatetheir actionsandco a onductascitizens.Withouts suchnoticean ndpublication n,therewould dbenobasisfo ortheapplicat tionofthe maxim"ignora m antialegisnon nexcusat."Itw wouldbetheh heightofinjust ticetopunishorotherwiseburdenacitiz zenforthe transgressionofalawofwh t hichhehadno onoticewhats soever,noteve enaconstruct tiveone. TheCourther T rebyordersre espondentsto opublishinth heOfficialGaz zetteallunpub blishedpresid dentialissuan nceswhich areofgeneralapplication,a a andunlesssop published,the eyshallhaven nobindingforc ceandeffect. G.R.No.L63915 Decem mber29,1986 6 Whenalawta W akeseffect ThesubjectofcontentionisArticle2ofth T f heCivilCodep providingasfo ollows: "ART.2.Laws " sshalltakeef ffectafterfifte eendaysfollow wingthecom mpletionofthe eirpublication nintheOfficia alGazette, unless sitisotherwis seprovided.T ThisCodeshal lltakeeffecto oneyearaftersuchpublicati ion." Theclause"un T nlessitisothe erwiseprovide ed"referstoth hedateofeffe ectivityandn nottotherequ uirementofp publication it tself,whichca annotinanye eventbeomitt ted.Thisclaus sedoesnotme eanthatthele egislaturemay ymakethelaw weffective immediatelyu uponapproval l,oronanyoth herdate,with houtitspreviouspublication n. Publicationis indispensable P eineverycas se,butthelegislaturemayi initsdiscretio onprovideth hattheusualf fifteenday periodshallbe p eshortenedo orextended.A Anexampleis theCivilCode ewhichdidno otbecomeeff fectiveafterfif fteendays fromitspublic f cationintheO OfficialGazette ebut"oneyea araftersuchpu ublication."Th hegeneralruledidnotappl lybecause it twas"otherw wiseprovided." Lawswhichm L mustbesubjec ctedtopublic cation The T Court holds that all statutes, inclu s uding those of local applic cation and pr rivate laws, shall be published as a conditionfort c theireffectivit ty,whichshall lbeginfifteen ndaysafterpu ublicationunle essadifferent teffectivityda ateisfixed bythelegislatu b ure. Covered by th rule are pr C his residential decrees and exe ecutive orders spromulgated dby the President in the e exercise of legislativepow werswheneve erthesamear revalidlydelegatedbythel legislatureor, ,atpresent,di irectlyconferr redbythe Constitution.A C Administrative erulesandre egulationsmustalsobepub blishediftheir rpurposeisto oenforceorimplement existinglawpu e ursuantalsotoavaliddeleg gation. merely intern in nature, that is, reg nal , gulating only the personn of the nel Interpretative regulations and those m administrative agency and not the publ need not be published. Neither is p a e lic, publication required of the socalled e
15|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts lettersofinstr ructionsissue edbyadminis strativesuperiorsconcernin ngtheruleso guidelines tobefollowedbytheir or subordinatesi s intheperform manceoftheirduties. Accordingly, e A even the charter of a city m must be publ lished notwith hstanding tha it applies to only a port at o tion of the nationalterrit n tory anddirec affects on the inhabit ctly nly tantsof that p place. All pres sidentialdecr rees must be p published, includingeven n,say,thosena amingapublicplaceaftera afavoredindiv vidualorexem mptinghimfro omcertainpr rohibitions or o requiremen The circu nts. ulars issued b the Moneta Board mu be publish if they ar meant not merely to by ary ust hed re interpretbutt to"fillinthede etails"oftheC CentralBankA Actwhichthat tbodyissupposedtoenforc ce. However, no p H publication is required of the instructio issued by say, the Min s ons y, nister of Soci Welfare on the case ial n studies to be made in peti s itions for ado option or the rules laid do own by the he of a gove ead ernment agen on the ncy assignmentso a orworkloadof fhispersonne elortheweari ingofofficeun niforms.Parenthetically,m municipalordin nancesare notcoveredby n ythisrulebut tbytheLocalG GovernmentC Code. Thepublicatio T onmustbein fulloritisno opublicationa atallsinceitspurposeisto oinformthep publicofthecontentsof thelaws.Asco t orrectlypoint tedoutbythe epetitioners,t themeremen ntionofthenu umberofthep presidentiald decree,the title of such d t decree, its whe ereabouts (e.g "with Secre g., etary Tuvera" the suppos date of eff "), sed fectivity, and in a mere supplementof s ftheOfficialG Gazettecannot tsatisfythepu ublicationrequ uirement. oOo PAGUIO,A. P SMA ARTCOMMUNICATIONS,I Inc.(SMART) ),petitioner,vs s.NATIONAL MUNICATIONS SCOMMISSIO (NTC),resp ON pondent. TELECOMM G. .R.No.151908 8&152063/4 408SCRA679 12Au ugust2003 Inquestioningthevalidityo I orconstitution nalityofarule eorregulation nissuedbyan nadministrati iveagency,ap partyneed notexhaustad n dministrativer remediesbefor regoingtocou urt.Thisprinci ipleapplieson nlywherethea actoftheadm ministrative agencyconcer a rnedwasperfo ormedpursuan nttoitsquasi ijudicialfunct tion,andnotw whentheassa ailedactperta ainedtoits rulemakingor r rquasilegislativepower. Pursuant to it rulemakin and regula P ts ng atory powers, the National Telecommun l nications Com mmission (NT issued TC) Memorandum Circular No. 1362000 ( M m (the Billing Ci ircular), prom mulgating rule and regula es ations on the billing of telecommunicationsservice t es.Thesaidci ircularprovid dedfor,amon ngothers,the verificationo oftheidentific cationand addressofeac a chpurchasero ofprepaidSIM Mcardsandth heforthelengthofvalidity yofprepaidcallcardsand SIMcards whichshallbe w eforatleasttw wo(2)yearsfr romthedateo offirstuse. Later,theNTC L CissuedanotherMemorand dumdatedOct tober6,2000w whichreads: Thisistorem mindyouthat thevalidityo ofallprepaidc cardssoldon 07October2 2000andbeyo ondshallbev validforat leasttwo(2)y yearsfromdat teoffirstusep pursuanttoM MC1362000. ll ators are rem minded that al SIM packs used by subscribers of pre ll epaid cards sold on 07 In addition, al CMTS opera October2000 andbeyonds O shallbevalid foratleasttw wo(2)yearsfr romdateoffi irstuse.Also, thebillingun nitshallbe onasix(6)sec o condspulseef ffective07Oct tober2000. Forstrictcomp F pliance. Petitionersfile P edbeforetheR RegionalTrial lCourt(RTC)anactionfordeclarationof fnullityofthe eMemorandum mCircular No.1362000 N 0CircularandtheNTCMem morandumdat tedOctober6,2000,allegin ngthattheNT TChasnojuris sdictionto
16 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts regulatethesa r aleofconsum mergoodssuch hastheprepa aidcallcards sincesuchjur risdictionbelo ongstotheDe epartment ofTradeandIn o ndustryunder rtheConsume erActoftheP Philippines. Respondent N R NTC and its co odefendants filed a motio to dismiss the case on t ground of petitioners' failure to on the exhaustadmin e nistrativerem medies.TheRT TCgrantedthe eplaintiffs'ap pplicationfor theissuanceo ofawritofpr reliminary injunction.Def fendantsfiledamotionforreconsideration,whichwas sdenied. Respondent N R NTCthusfiled a special civi action forcertiorari and prohibition w theCourt Appeals w il with tof which was granted and a g annulled and set aside th previous r he ruling of RTC Petitioners' motions for reconsideration were C. ' r subsequentlyd s denied.HTP. ISSUE: Whether the R W RTC has jurisdiction in cas of nullifica ses ation of a pur rely administr rative regulat tion promulga ated by an agencyinthee a exerciseofitsrulemakingp powers. HELD: H Thepetitionsa T areGRANTED D. Administrative agencies possess quasilegislative o rulemakin powers an quasijudi A e p or ng nd icial or admi inistrative adjudicatoryp a powers.Quasi legislativeor rrulemakingpoweristhep powertomak kerulesandre egulationswhi ichresults in delegated le egislation tha is within th confines of the granting statute and t doctrine o nondelega at he f g the of ability and separabilityof s fpowers. Nottobeconf N fusedwiththe equasilegislativeorrulem makingpower ofanadminis strativeagenc cyisitsquasijudicialor administrative a eadjudicatory ypower.This isthepower tohearandd determineque estionsoffact towhichthe legislative policy is to ap p pply and to decide in acc d cordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enfo h n orcing and administering thesamelaw a w.Theadminis strativebody exercisesitsq quasijudicial powerwhen itperformsin najudicial manneranact m twhichisesse entiallyofane executiveora administrative enature,wher rethepowert toactinsuchmanneris incidentaltoo orreasonably necessaryfor rtheperform manceoftheex xecutiveorad dministrative dutyentruste edtoit.In carrying out t c their quasijud dicial function the administrative offic ns, cers or bodies are required to investigat facts or s d te ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, an draw concl a f h nd lusions from them as basis for their s officialactiona o andexerciseo ofdiscretionin najudicialna ature. gthevalidityo orconstitution nalityofarule eorregulation nissuedbyan nadministrati iveagency,ap partyneed Inquestioning not n exhaust a administrative remedies b e before going to court. Th principle applies only where the a of the his act administrative a eagencyconce ernedwasper rformedpursu uanttoitsqua asijudicialfun nction,andno otwhentheas ssailedact pertainedtoit p tsrulemaking gorquasilegi islativepower r. r,thedoctrine eofprimaryjurisdictionap ppliesonlywh heretheadministrativeage encyexercises sitsquasi Inlikemanner udicialoradju udicatoryfunc ction.Thus,in ncasesinvolvi ingspecialized ddisputes,thepracticehas sbeentorefer rthesame ju toanadminist t trativeagency yofspecialco ompetencepu ursuanttothe edoctrineofp primaryjurisd diction.Theob bjectiveof the t doctrine o primary jur of risdiction isto guidea cour in determin o rt ning whether it should refr rain from exe ercising its ju urisdiction un after an administrative agency has determined s ntil a e some question or some as spect of some question e arisinginthep a proceedingbe eforethecour rt.Itappliesw wheretheclaim misoriginally ycognizableinthecourtsa andcomes intoplaywhen neverenforce ementofthec claimrequires stheresolutio onofissueswh hich,undera regulatorysc cheme,has beenplacedw b withinthespec cialcompeten nceofanadmi inistrativebody;insuchca ase,thejudicia alprocessiss suspended pendingreferr p ralofsuchissu uestotheadm ministrativebo odyforitsview w. However,whe H erewhatisass sailedistheva alidityorcons stitutionalityo ofaruleorreg gulationissue edbytheadmi inistrative agencyinthep a performanceo ofitsquasileg gislativefunct tion,theregul larcourtshav vejurisdiction ntopassuponthesame.
17|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thedetermina T ationofwheth heraspecificr ruleorsetofr rulesissuedby yanadminist trativeagency ycontravenesthelawor theconstitutio t oniswithinth hejurisdictionoftheregular rcourts. t uance by the NTC of Memorandum Circ cular No. 1362000 and its Memorand dum dated In the case at bar, the issu October 6, 2000 was pursu O uant to its qu uasilegislative or rulemak e king power. A such, petitioners were ju As ustified in invokingtheju udicialpoweroftheRegionalTrialCourttoassailthec constitutionali ityandvalidit tyofthesaidissuances. oOo EASTERNS SHIPPINGLIN NES,petitioner r,vs.COURTO OFAPPEALSa andDAVAOP PILOTSASSOC CIATION,resp pondent. 29June1998 G.R.No.116356 G Whatdetermin W neswhethera anactisalaw woranadministrativeissua anceisnotits formbutitsn nature.Herea aswehave alreadysaid,t a thepowertof fixtheratesof fchargesfors services,includ dingpilotage service,hasa alwaysbeenre egardedas le egislativeinch haracter. Private respon P ndent Davao Pilots Associa ation (DPA) e elevated a com mplaint again petitioner Eastern Ship nst pping Line (petitioner)fo ( orsumofmoneyandattorney'sfeesalleg gingthatthefo ormerhadren nderedpilotag geservicestopetitioner between Janu b uary 14, 1987 to July 22, 1989 with to 7 otal unpaid f fees of P703,290.18. Desp pite repeated demands, petitioner faile to pay. Pet p ed titioner assail the consti led itutionality of the Executive Order (EO) 1088 upon w f e which DPA basesitsclaim b ms. TheRegionalT T TrialCourt(R RTC)grantedt thepetitionof ftheprivatere espondentwh hichrulingwa asaffirmedby ytheCourt ofAppeals(CA o A).HTP. ISSUE: WhetherEO1088isuncons W stitutional. HELD: H Thepetitionis T sDENIED. Petitionerinsi P iststhatitsho ouldpaypilot tagefeesinac ccordancewit thandonthebasisofthem memorandum mcirculars issuedbythe PPA,theadm ministrativebo odyvestedun nderPD857w withthepowe ertoregulate eandprescrib bepilotage fees. In assaili the constitutionality of EO 1088, the petitioner re f ing f e epeatedly ask "Is the priv ks: vate responde vested ent wit w hpowertointerpretExe ecutiveOrderNo.1088?" nterisland Shi ipping Associa ation of the Ph hilippines vs. C Court of Appeals,the Supre eme Court, th hrough Mr. InPhilippine In eV.Mendoza, ,upheldthev validityandco onstitutionalit tyofExecutiv veOrder1088 8innouncert tainterms. JusticeVicente Weaptlyiterateourpronou W uncementinsa aidcase,viz.: y o. ld nsidered a sta atute because that would imply the e It is not an answer to say that E.O. No 1088 shoul not be con withdrawalof w fpowerfromt thePPA.Wha atdetermines whetherana actisalawor anadministrativeissuance eisnotits formbutitsna f ature.Hereas swehavealre eadysaid,thepowertofixt theratesofch hargesforserv vices,includin ngpilotage service,hasalw s waysbeenreg gardedaslegis slativeinchar racter. xxxxxxxxx x onotethatE.O O.NO.1088pr rovidesforad djustedpilotag geservicerate eswithoutwit thdrawingthe epowerof Itisworthyto thePPAtoimpose,prescrib t be,increaseordecreaserat tes,chargeso orfees.There easonisbecau useE.O.No.1088isnot
18 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts meant simply to fix new pilotage rates. Its legislativ purpose is the "rationa m p ve s alization of pi ilotage service charges, e throughtheim t mpositionofun niformandad djustedratesf forforeignand dcoastwiseve esselsinallPh hilippineports s. xxxxxxxxx x Weconcludet W thatE.O.No.1 1088isavalid dstatuteand thatthePPA Aisdutyboun ndtocomplyw withitsprovisions.The PPAmayincre P easetheratesbutitmaynot tdecreasethe embelowthos semandatedb byE.O.No.108 88..... Weseenorea W asontodepart tfromthisrul ling.TheCour rt'sholdingcle earlydebunks spetitioner's insistenceon payingits pilotagefeesb p basedonmem morandumcirc cularsissuedb bythePPA.B BecausethePP PAcircularsareinconsisten ntwithEO 1088,theyare 1 evoidandineffective."Adm ministrativeor rexecutiveact ts,ordersand dregulationss shallbevalido onlywhen theyarenotco t ontrarytothe elawsortheC Constitution." Asstatedby thisCourtinL LandBankof thePhilippine esvs.Court ofAppeals,[t] o ]heconclusive eeffectofadm ministrativeconstructionis snotabsolute e.Actionofan nadministrati iveagency maybedisturb m bedorsetasidebythejudi icialdepartme entifthereis anerrorofla aw,agraveab buseofpower rorlackof ju urisdiction,or rgraveabuse eofdiscretion nclearlyconflictingwitheit thertheletter rorspiritoft thelaw."Itis axiomatic that an admin t nistrative agen like the P ncy, PPA, has no d discretion whether to impl lement the law or not. Its duty is to w enforce it. Una e arguably, ther refore, if ther is any confl between t PPA circu re lict the ular and a law such as EO 1088, the w, la atterprevails. oOo ICEEXPORTE ERS,INC.,petit tioner,vs.HON N.RUBEND.T TORRES,resp pondent. PHILIPPINEASSOCIATIONOFSERVI G.R.No.101279/212SCRA2996 August1992 Administrative rules and re A e egulations mus also be pub st blished if their purpose is t enforce or implement ex to xisting law pursuanttoav p validdelegatio on.Interpretat tiveregulation nsandthosem merelyinternal linnature,tha atis,regulatin ngonlythe personnelofth p headministrat tiveagencyan ndnotthepub blic,neednot bepublished. Neitherispub blicationrequiredofthe socalled letter of instructio issued by administrativ superiors co s rs ons ve oncerning the rules of guidelines to be fo ollowed by their subordinates in the pe t erformance of their duties. For lack of p f proper publica ation, the adm ministrative ci irculars in questionmayn q notbeenforced dandimpleme ented. Philippine Association of Service Impo P orters (PASEI for short) is the larges national o I, st organization o private of employment a e and recruitm ment agencies duly license and autho ed orized by the Philippine Overseas Em e mployment Administration A n(POEA)toe engageinthe businessofobtainingover rseasemploym mentforFilipi inolandbased dworkers, includingdom mestichelpers. OnJune1,199 O 91,Departmen ntofLaboran ndEmployment(DOLE)Sec cretaryissued dDepartment tOrderNo.16 6,Seriesof 1991,tempora 1 arilysuspendi ingtherecruit tmentbypriv vateemployme entagencieso ofFilipinodo omestichelper rsgoingto HongKong.T H TheDOLEitsel lf,throughthe ePOEAtookov verthebusine essofdeployin ngsuchHongKongboundw workers. Pursuant to th above DOLE circular, t POEA issu Memoran P he the ued ndum Circular No. 30, Ser ries of 1991, providing GUIDELINES o the Govern G on nment proces ssing and dep ployment of F Filipino dome estic helpers to Hong Kon and the ng accreditationo a ofHongKongrecruitmenta agenciesinten ndingtohireF Filipinodomes stichelpers.Thiswasfollow wedbythe issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 3 Series of 1 C 37, 1991, on the processing of employment contracts of domestic f t f workersinHongKong.HTP w Pforprohibitio ontoannulth heaforementio onedDOLEan ndPOEAcircul lars. ISSUE: Whether the D W Department Order and Mem O morandum Ci irculars are v void for noncompliance wi the requir ith rements of publicationan p ndfilingwitht theOfficeofth heNationalAd dministrativeRegister HELD: H
19|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thepetitionis T sGRANTED. thy a ulars do not p prohibit the p petitioner from engaging i the recruit in tment and It is notewort that the assailed circu deployment o Filipino la d of andbased wo orkers for overseas depl loyment. A c careful readi ing of the c challenged administrative a eissuancesdisclosesthatthesamefallw withinthead dministrative andpolicingp powersexpre esslyorby necessaryimp n plicationconfe erreduponth herespondent ts. Asaptlyobser A rvedbytheSolicitorGenera al, xxxThealleg gedtakeover[ [ofthebusines ssofrecruitin ngandplacing gFilipinodom mestichelpersinHongkong] ]ismerely a a remedial me easure, and expires after i purpose sh have been attained. Th is evident from the ten of the e its hall his t nor Administrative A eOrderNo.16 6thatrecruitm mentofFilipin nodomestich helpersgoing toHongkong byprivateem mployment agenciesareherebytempor a rarilysuspend dedeffectiveJu uly1,1991. xxxThejustificationforthetakeovero oftheprocess singanddeplo oyingofdome estichelpers forHongkong gresulting from the restr f riction of the scope of peti itioners busin ness is confin solely to t unscrupul ned the lous practice of private employment a e agencies victim mizing applicants for empl loyment as do omestic helpe for Hongk ers kong and not the whole recruitmentbu r usinessinthePhilippines. However,desp H pitetheadmin nistrativecircularsbeinga validexercise eofthepolice epowerasdel legatedtotheexecutive branchofGov b vernment,they yareneverthelessinvalid, defectiveand dunenforceab bleforlackof properpublic cationand filingintheOf f fficeoftheNa ationalAdmin nistrativeRegister.Thisreq quirementisp providedforb byArticle2o oftheCivil Code,Article5 C 5oftheLaborCodeandSect tions3(1)and d4,Chapter2, ,BookVIIofth heAdministra ativeCodeof1 1987. Further,asenu F unciatedinTa anadavs.Tuve era,146SCRA A446, xxxAdminist trativerulesa andregulation nsmustalsob bepublishedif ftheirpurpos seistoenforce eorimplemen ntexisting la awpursuant toavaliddele egation.Interpretativeregu ulationsandt thosemerely internalinna ature,thatis, regulating only the perso o onnel of the administrative agency and not the publ need not be published. Neither is p a e lic, . publication requiredofthesocalledlet r ttersofinstru uctionsissuedbyadministr rativesuperiorsconcerning gtherulesofg guidelines tobefollowed t dbytheirsubo ordinatesinth heperformanc ceoftheirduti ies. Weagreethat W tpublicationm mustbeinful llofitisnopublicationat allsinceitspurposeistoinformthepublicofthe contentofthelaws. c Forlackofpro F operpublicatio on,theadministrativecircu ularsinquestionmaynotbe eenforcedand dimplemented. oOo CORO ONA,petitioner r,vs.UNITED HARBORPIL LOTSASSOCIA ATIONOFTH HEPHILIPPIN NES,responden nt. G.R.No.1119 953/283SCRA A31 12Decemb ber1997 As A a general r rule, notice an hearing, as the fundame nd s ental requirem ments of proce edural due pro ocess, are esse ential only when an adm w ministrative bo exercises itsquasijudic ody cialfunction. I the perform In mance of its executive or legislative functions,such f hasissuingrul lesandregula ations,anadm ministrativebod dyneednotco omplywiththe erequirement tsofnotice andhearing. a Pursuanttoits P spowerofcon ntrol,regulation,andsuper rvisionofpilot tsandthepilo otageprofessi thePhilipp ion, pinePorts Authority(PPA A A)promulgate edPPAAO03 whichem 385 mbodiedthe"R RulesandRegulationsGove erningPilotage eServices, theConductofPilotsandPilotageFeesin t nPhilippineP Ports."Theser rulesmandate e,interalia,th hataspiringp pilotsmust be b holders of pilot licensesand must tra as probat s ain tionary pilots in outports f three mon for nths and in th Port of he
20 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Manilaforfourmonths.Itis M sonlyafterthe eyhaveachiev vedsatisfacto oryperforman thattheyaregivenperm nce manentand regularappoin r ntmentsbythe ePPAitselftoexerciseharbo orpilotageuntiltheyreachtheageof70,unlesssooner rremoved byreasonofm b mentalorphys sicalunfitnessbythePPAGeneralManag ger. Subsequently, PPA issued PPAAO No. 0492provid S ding that "all existing regu ular appointm ments which h have been previouslyissu p uedeitherbytheBureauofC CustomsorthePPAshallre emainvalidup pto31December1992only y"andthat "allappointme " entstoharbor rpilotposition nsinallpilota agedistrictssh hall,hencefort th,beonlyfor ratermofon ne(1)year fromdateofef f ffectivitysubje ecttoyearlyr renewalorcan ncellationbyt theAuthority afterconduct tofarigideva aluationof performance." p Respondents q R questioned th implement he tation of PPA AAO No. 049 before the Department of Transport 92 tation and Communicatio C on(DOTC)for rPPAsnonco ompliancewiththerequire ementofpublichearingbu utthenDOTC Secretary Garciainsisted G dthatthemat tterwaswithin nthejurisdict tionoftheBoa ardofDirecto orsofthePPA. .Respondents sappealed thisrulingtot t theOfficeofth hePresident(O OP). TheOPissued T danorderdire ectingthePPA Atoholdinab beyancetheim mplementation nofPPAAON No.0492.Init tsanswer, the PPA coun t ntered that sa administr aid rative order w issued in the exercise of its administrative co was n ontrol and supervisionov s verharborpil lotsunderSection6a(viii i),ArticleIVo ofP.D.No.857,asamended,andit,alon ngwithits implementingguidelines,w wasintendedto orestoreorde erintheportsandtoimprovethequality yofportservic ces. TheOP,throug T ghthenAssist tantExecutive eSecretaryfo orLegalAffairsRenatoC.Co orona,dismissedtheappea al/petition and opined th PPAAO No. 0492doe not forbid,, but merely regulates, the exercise by harbor pilot of their a hat es e y ts professioninP p PPA'sjurisdictionalarea. As A regards the alleged "absence of amp prior cons ple sultation" befo the issuan of the ad ore nce dministrative order, the Secretary cited Section 26 of P.D. No. 8 S 857, which merely requires the PPA to consult with "relevant Go overnment agencies." He concluded that the law has been sufficiently com a mplied with b the PPA i issuing the assailed by in e administrative a eordersincet thePPABoard dofDirectors siscomposed oftheSecreta ariesoftheDO OTC,theDepa artmentof PublicWorks andHighways P s,theDepartm mentofFinanc ce,andtheDe epartmentofE Environment andNaturalR Resources, as a well as the DirectorGen e neral of the N National Econo omic Develop pment Agency the Adminis y, strator of the Maritime e IndustryAutho ority(MARINA A),andthepr rivatesectorre epresentative e. Respondents f R filed a petitio forcertiora prohibition and injunct on ari, tion with pray for the is yer ssuance of a t temporary restrainingord r deranddamagesbeforethe eRegionalTrialCourt(RTC C)whichgrant tedthesame.H HTP. ISSUE: WhetherPPAAONo.0492isvoidforvio W olatingdueprocessoflaw. HELD: H Thepetitionis T sDENIED. Respondents a R argue that du process wa not observed in the ado ue as option of PPA AAO No. 0492 allegedly because no hearing was c h conducted wh hereby "relev vant governme agencies" and the pilo themselve could ventilate their ent " ots es views.Theyar v reobviouslyr referringtoth heprocedural aspectofthe enactment.Fo ortunately,th heCourthasm maintained aclearpositioninthisregar a rd,astanceithasstressedintherecentcaseofLumiq quedv.Hon.Ex xevea,wherei itdeclared that"(a)slong t gasapartyw wasgiventheo opportunityt todefendhisi interestsindu uecourse,he cannotbesaidtohave beendeniedd b dueprocessof flaw,forthisopportunity tobeheardistheveryess senceofduep process.More eover,this constitutional mandateisde c eemedsatisfie edifapersonisgrantedan nopportunitytoseekrecon nsiderationoftheaction orrulingcomp o plainedof."
21|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whilerespond W dentsemphasi izethatthePh hilippineCoas stGuard,"whi ichissuesthelicensesofpilotsafteradm ministering thepilots'examinations,"w t wasnotconsul lted,thefactsshowthattheMARINA,whichtookove erthelicensingfunction ofthePhilippi o ineCoastGuard,wasdulyr representedin ntheBoardo ofDirectorsof fthePPA.Thu us,petitioners scorrectly argued that, t a there being no matters of naval defen involved i the issuan of the adm n f nse in nce ministrative o order, the PhilippineCoa P astGuardneed dnotbeconsu ulted. Neitherdoest N thefactthatth hepilotsthem mselvesweren notconsulted inanywayta aintthevalidit tyoftheadmi inistrative order.Asagen o neralrule,not ticeandhearin ng,asthefund damentalrequ uirementsofp proceduraldu ueprocess,are eessential only when an administrat o n tive body exercises itsqu uasijudicialfu unction. In th performance of its exe he ecutive or legislative fun nctions, such as issuing ru ules and reg gulations, an administrativ body need not comply with the ve d requirementsofnoticeandhearing. r However, the license of a harbor pilot i granted in the form of a appointme which allo H h is an ent ows them to engage in pilotageuntilt p theyretireatt theage70yea ars.Thisisav vestedright. Therefore, it i readily app T is parent that PP PAAO No. 04 492 unduly r restricts the r right of harbo pilots to enjoy their or profession bef p fore their com mpulsory retir rement. In the past, they e enjoyed a mea asure of security knowing that after passing five ex p xaminations and undergoin years of on a ng nthejob train ning, they wo ould have a lic cense which t they could useuntiltheirretirement,u u unlesssoonerr revokedbyth hePPAformen ntalorphysicalunfitness.U Underthenew wissuance, theyhavetoco t ontendwitha anannualcanc cellationoftheirlicensewh hichcanbetem mporaryorpe ermanentdep pendingon theoutcomeo t oftheirperfor rmanceevalua ation.Veteran npilotsandne eophytesalike earesuddenl lyconfronted withone year terms wh y hichipso facto oexpire at the end of that period. Renew of their li e wal icense is now dependent o a "rigid w on evaluationofp e performance"whichiscond ductedonlyaf fterthelicensehasalreadybeencancelle ed.Hence,theuseofthe term "renewal." It is this preevaluation cancellation which prima t p n n arily makes P PPAAO No. 04 492 unreasonable and constitutionall c lyinfirm.Inarealsense,iti isadeprivatio onofproperty ywithoutdueprocessoflaw w. oOo COMMISSIONEROFINTER C RNALREVENU UE,petitioner,vs.COURTOF FAPPEALS,re espondent. G.R.No.119761/261SC CRA237 29Augus st1996 When an adm W ministrative rule is merely in nterpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothin further tha its bare s ng an is ssuance for it gives no real consequence more than w t l what the law it tself has alrea prescribed When, upon the other ady d. n hand,theadmi h inistrativerule egoesbeyond dmerelyprovid dingforthemeansthatcanf facilitateorre enderleastcumbersome theimplement t tationofthela awbutsubstan ntiallyaddstoorincreasesth heburdenoft thosegoverned d,itbehoovest theagency to t accord at le east to those directly affecte a chance to be heard, an thereafter to be duly inf d ed nd formed, before that new e is ssuanceisgive entheforcean ndeffectoflaw w. FortuneTobac F ccoCorporatio on("FortuneT Tobacco")ise engagedinthe emanufactureofdifferentb brandsofcigar rettes The Philippin Patent Off T ne fice issued t the corporation separa certificate of tradem to ate es mark registra ation over "Champion," " " "Hope," and "More" cigar rettes. The in nitial position of the Com n mmission of I Internal Reve enue (CIR, hereafter)was h stoclassify'Champion,''Ho ope,'and'More'asforeignb brandssinceth heywereliste edintheWorldTobacco Directory as belonging to foreign com D o mpanies. How wever, Fortu une Tobacco changed the names of 'Hope' to e 'H HopeLuxury'and 'More' to 'PremiumMo o ore,' thereby removing the said brands from the fore e eign brand ca ategory.Ad valoremtaxeswereimposed v donthesebra andsatthefoll lowingrate: ADVA BRAND ALOREM TAX RATE E.O.22a and RA695 56 E.O.273 HopeL LuxuryM.100 0's 40% 45%
22|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Sec.14 42,(c),(2) HopeL LuxuryM.Kin ng 40% 45% Sec.14 42,(c),(2) MoreP PremiumM. 45% 100's 40% 42,(c),(2) Sec.14 MoreP Premium 40% 45% Intern national Sec.14 42,(c),(2) Champ pionInt'l.M. 40% 45% 100's 42,(c),(2) Sec.14 Champ pionM.100's 40% 45% Sec.14 42,(c),(2) 15% Champ pionM.King 20% Sec.14 42,(c),lastpa ar. 15% Champ pionLights 20% Sec.14 42,(c),lastpa ar. Later on, Rep L public Act ("R RA") No. 7654 4was enacted and became effective on 03 July 199 It amende Section d e n 93. ed 142(c)(1)ofth 1 heNationalIn nternalRevenu ueCode("NIR RC")toread;as sfollows: Sec.142.Cigars S sandCigarett tes. xxxxxxxxx x (c)Cigarettes packedbyma ( achine.The ereshallbele evied,assessed dandcollecte edoncigarette espackedbym machinea tax at the ra t ates prescribed below ba ased on the constructive manufacture er's wholesale price or t the actual manufacturer' m 'swholesalep price,whicheverishigher: (1) ( On locally manufacture cigarettes which arecu y ed urrently classi ified and taxe at fiftyfive percent (55 ed e 5%)or the exportationof e fwhichisnotauthorizedby ycontractoro otherwise,fift tyfive(55%) providedthat ttheminimum mtaxshall notbelesstha n anFivePesos( (P5.00)perpa ack. (2)Onotherlo ( ocallymanufacturedcigaret ttes,fortyfive percent(45% %)providedth hattheminimu umtaxshalln notbeless thanThreePes t sos(P3.00)pe erpack. xxxxxxxxx x Two daysbefo T orethe effecti ivity of RA 76 654, CIR issued Revenue M Memorandum Circular No. 3793 ("RMC 3793") m declaringthatxxxSinceth d hereisnoshow wingwhoamo ongtheabove elistedmanuf facturersofth hecigarettesbearingthe saidbrandsar s retherealown ner/sthereof, f,thenitfollow wsthatthesam meshallbeco onsideredfore eignbrandfor rpurposes of o determining thead valoremtax pursu uant to Sectio 142 of the National Int on e ternal Revenu Code. In effect, the ue aforesaid bran of cigare a nds ettes,viz: "HO OPE," "MORE" and "CHAMPION" being manufactured by Fortune Tobacco e Corporationw C weresubjected dtothe55%a advaloremtax xoncigarettes sbeingconsid deredlocallym manufacturedcigarettes bearingaforei b ignbrand. On30July199 O 93,theCIRassessedFortun neTobaccoforadvaloremt taxdeficiency yamountingto oP9,598,334.00forcing FortuneTobac F ccotofileap petitionforrev viewwiththe eCourtofTax xAppeals(CT TA)whichdec claredRMC37 793tobe defective, inva and unen d alid nforceable for the noncom mpliance with publication a prior hear and ring requirem ments. The CourtofAppea C als(CA)affirm medthedecisio onofCTAina allrespects.HT TP. ISSUE: Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 23|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whether the publication of RMC 3793 filing of co W o 3, opies thereof with the UP Law Center and prior he earing are necessaryfori n itsvalidity,eff fectivityande enforceability. . HELD: H Petition DENIED. RMC 3793 is invalid, defective and unenforceab due to no P d ble onpublication and for lack of public n k hearing. h Itshouldbeun nderstandable ethatwhenan nadministrati iveruleismer relyinterpreta ativeinnature e,itsapplicabi ilityneeds nothing furthe than its ba issuance f it gives no real consequ n er are for o uence more t than what the law itself ha already e as prescribed.Wh p hen,uponthe eotherhand,t theadministra ativerulegoe esbeyondmer relyproviding gforthemean nsthatcan facilitateorrenderleastcum f mbersomethe eimplementat tionofthelaw wbutsubstant tiallyaddstoo orincreasesth heburden of o those gover rned, it behooves the agen to accord at least to t ncy d those directly affected a ch hance to be h heard, and thereaftertob t bedulyinform med,beforetha atnewissuanc ceisgiventhe eforceandeff fectoflaw. AreadingofR A RMC3793,particularlycon nsideringthec circumstances sunderwhichithasbeenis ssued,convinc cesusthat thecircularca t annotbeview wedsimplyas acorrectivem measure(revo okinginthep processthepr reviousholdin ngsofpast Commissioner or merely as construin Section 14 C rs) y ng 42(c)(1) of th NIRC, as a he amended, but has, in fact and most importantly,b beenmadeino ordertoplace"HopeLuxury y,""PremiumMore"and"C Champion"wit thintheclassi ificationof locally manufa actured cigare ettes bearing foreign brand and to ther ds reby have the covered by RA 7654. Sp em y pecifically, thenewlaww t wouldhaveits samendatory provisionsap ppliedtolocallymanufactur redcigarettes swhichatthe timeofits effectivitywere not so class e sified as bear ring foreign brands. Prior t the issuanc of the questioned circul "Hope to ce lar, Luxury," "Pre L emium More and "Ch e," hampion" cig garettes were in the c category of locally man nufactured cigarettesnotbearingforeig c gnbrandsubj jectto45%ad dvaloremtax.Hence,witho outRMC379 93,theenactm mentofRA 7654, would h 7 have had no new tax rate c n consequence on private re espondent's products. Evidently, in orde to place er "HopeLuxury, " ,""PremiumM More,"and"Ch hampion"ciga aretteswithinthescopeoft theamendator rylawandsub bjectthem toanincreased t dtaxrate,the enowdisputed dRMC3793hadtobeissu ued.Insodoin ng,theBIRnot tsimplyinterp pretedthe la verily, it legislated under its quasi aw; legislativeau uthority. The d observan of the req due nce quirements of notice, of hearing,andofpublications h shouldnothav vebeentheni ignored. oOo ATIENZA,N. A LIN NA,petitioner vs.CARINO,respondent. r, G. .R.No.100127 7 Apr ril23,1993 FELICIA ANO,J.(ENBA ANC) TheDECSSecr T retaryhasthe legalpersona alitytosetmax ximumpermis ssibleratesor levelsoftuitio onandothers schoolfees andtoissuegu a uidelineforthe eimpositionan ndcollectiont thereof. Petitioner'sarg P gumentcog gentthoughit tmaybeasas socialandeco onomiccomme entismosta appropriatelya addressed, not n to a court which must take the law a it is actually written, but rather to the legislative authority which can, if it t as ly t e h wishes,change w ethelanguage eandcontento ofthelaw. Petitioner Sen P nator Jose D. Lina, Jr. filed a Petition for Prohibition a Mandamu filed against respondent Isidro D. L r and us t Cario, in the latter's capa C acity as the th Secretary of the Depa hen y artment of Ed ducation, Cultu & Sports ("DECS"). ure Petitioner disp P putes the lega authority o respondent Cario to iss DECS Ord No. 30, se al of t sue der eries of 1991, dated 11 , March1991,e M entitled"Guide elinesonTuiti ionand/oroth herSchoolFeesinPrivateS Schools,Colleg gesandUnive ersitiesfor
24 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts SchoolYear19 S 9911992."DE ECSOrderNo.30allowspri ivateschoolst toincreasetui itionandothe erschoolfees,subjectto theguidelinestheresetout. t .Thecomplete etextofDECS SOrderNo.30 0isreproduced dhereforreadyreference. Infine,petitionerasksthec courttodeclareDECSOrde erNo.30null andvoidont two(2)groun nds:(1)thatre espondent Secretarydoes S snothavethe elegalauthori itytoissueth hatOrder,and d(2)thatDECSOrderNo.30violatesSec ction10of R.A.No.6728w R whichestablis shedacompre ehensiverequ uirementofco onsultation. TheSolicitorG T General,representingrespo ondentSecreta ary,maintains sthatthepow wertoprescrib bemaximumtuitionand otherschoolf o feesgrantedu underB.P.Blg g:232wasnotwithdrawnb byR.A.No.67 728andrema ainsvestedin ntheDECS Secretary.The S eSolicitorGen neralrestshis spositionhere eonthedecis sionofthisCo ourtinthePhil.Consumers scase.The SolicitorGener S ralconcedest thatR.A.No.6728grantedu untotheSACt thepowertop promulgateru ulesandregula ations,but arguesthaton a nlyrulesandr regulationsre elevanttothe purposeofth hatlaw,i.e.go overnmentassistanceands subsidyto students and teachers in private schoo may be promulgated b the SAC. In essence, th rules whic may be s p ols, by he ch promulgatedb p bytheSACar rethoseinvolv vingadeterm minationofthemaximumr ratesoftuition nfeeinprivateschools payment of w p which would not disqualify students ther n reof from ava ailing themselves of govern nment assistan in the nce formoftuition f nfeesupplements,andfrom maccesstothe ehighschooltextbookassistancefundandtotuitionf feewaiver programs. p The Solicitor General furt T ther contends that DECS Order No. 30 conforms substantially with the consultation s requiremento r ofR.A.No.672 2B,exceptitem m1(a)ofDEC CSOrderNo.3 30whichunqu ualifiedlyallowsprivatecollegesand universitiesto u oraisethetuit tionfeeinthetertiaryleveltonotmoreth hanP80.00pe erunitwithou utpriorconsul ltation.He therefore urge that DECS Order No. 30 be upheld, save only pa t es aragraph 1(a) thereof whi he consid ) ich ders to be inconsistentw withtheconsultationrequirement. ISSUE: 1. Wheth herDECSOrd derNo.30isv valid,thatis, whether resp pondentDECS SSecretaryha asthelegalau uthorityto issueDECSOrderN No.30prescrib bingguideline esconcerningincreasesintu uitionandoth herschoolfees s:and 2. Wheth hertheconsultationrequirementinR.A.No6723appliesnotonlyt toincreasesin ntuitionfeesb butalsoto increa asesinothers schoolfees. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. In respect of t first issue it may be in the e, nstructive to recall the foll lowing brief h historical note set out in th Court's e he Decisiononth D heCebuInstitu utecase: "...Asearlya " asMarch10,1 1917,thepow wertoinspect privateschoo ols,toregulate etheiractiviti ies,togivethe emofficial permitstoope p erateunderce ertainconditio onsandtorev vokesuchperm mitsforcause ewasgrantedtothethenSe ecretaryof Public Instruction by Act No. 2706 as am P N mended by Ac No. 3075 a Commonw ct and wealth Act No 180. Republ Act No. o. lic 6139,enactedonAugust31 6 1,1970,providedforthere egulationoftu uitionandotherfeescharge edbyprivate schoolsin ordertodisco o ouragethecollectionofexo orbitantandu unreasonablef fees.Inaneff forttosimplify ythe'cumber rsomeand time consumin procedure prescribed u t ng' e under Rep. Ac No. 6139 a 'to alleviate the sad pli ct and ight of private schools,' e Pres.Dec.No. 451wasenac P ctedonMay11,1974.Whil lethislatersta atutewasbein ngimplement ted,thelegisla ativebody envisioned a comprehensiv legislation which would introduce c e ve n changes and chart directions in the ed ducational system,hence, s ,theenactmen ntofB.P.Blg.232..." TheDECSSecr T retaryhasthe elegalperson nalitytosetm maximumperm missiblerates orlevelsoftu uitionandoth herschool feesandtoissu f ueguidelinef fortheimposit tionandcollec ctionthereof,likeDECSord derno.30fort thefollowingreasons:
25|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 1. The C Court did not rule in the Cebu Institut case that t power gr t te the ranted to the DECS Secret tary to fix maxim mum permiss sible tutition and other sch hool fees by s section 1 of P no. 451 h been elim P.D. had minated by Sectio on42ofB.P.Blg.232. 2. There eisreallynoth hinginSection n42whichelim minatesthepoweroftheD DECSSecretary yinrespectof fthefixing ofmaximumtuition nandotherschoolfeesves stedinhimby yP.D.No.451 1.UnderSecti ion42,aprivateschool mayd determineforitselfinthefi irstinstanceth herateoftuit tionandother rschoolfeeso orchargestha atitdeems appro opriate. 3. R.A. N 6728 deals with govern No. s nment assistan to studen nce ntsandteache in private schools; it do not, in ers oes otherwords,purpo orttodealata allwiththequ uestionofauth horitytofixm maximumcolle ectibletuitionandother schoo olfees. In respect of the second principal issu petitioner Lina conten that Sect ue, r nds tion 1(d) of DECS Order No. 30 is inconsistentw withSection10 0ofR.A.No.6 6728.Wehave eearlierpoint tedoutthatp petitioner'ssta andisinconsistentwith theverylangu t uageusedinSection10ofR R.A.No.6728 whichstates inrelevantpa artthat:"inan nyproposedin ncreasein the t rate of tui ition fees, the shall be a ere appropriate co onsultations " Petitioner Lina's argum ment here is, however, essentiallyan invocationof"justiceande e f equity."...Th heCourtbeliev vesthatpetiti ioner'sargum mentcogent tthoughit maybeasaso m ocialandecon nomiccommen ntismosta appropriately addressed,no ottoacourtw whichmusttak kethelaw asitisactually a ywritten,butrathertothelegislativeau uthoritywhich hcan,ifitwish hes,changeth helanguagean ndcontent ofthelaw.As Section10of o fR.A.No.6728 8nowstands, ,wehaveno authoritytos strikedownparagraph1(d d)ofDECS OrderNo.30a O asinconsistentwiththerequirementsofSection10. oOo HOLYSPIR RITHOMEOW WNERSASSOC CIATION,petit tioner,vs.DEF FENSOR,respo ondent. G.R R.No.163980 0 Aug gust3,2006 TINGA A,J,(ENBANC C) Wherewhatis W sassailedisth hevalidityorc constitutionali ityofaruleor rregulationis ssuedbythea administrativeagencyin theperformanceofitsquasi t legislativefun nction,theregularcourtsha avejurisdiction ntopassuponthesame. Priortothepa P assageofR.A. No.9207,an numberofpresidentialissua ancesauthorizedthecreati ionanddevelo opmentof whatisnowkn w nownastheN NationalGover rnmentCenter r(NGC). PetitionerHolySpiritHome P eownersAssoc ciation,Inc.(A Association)is sahomeowne ersassociation nfromtheWe estSideof theNGC.Itfile t edtheinstantp petitionforpr rohibitionund derRule65of fthe1997Rul lesofCivilPro ocedure,withprayerfor the issuance of a tempora restrainin order and t ary ng d/or writ of preliminary injunction w which seeks to prevent o respondentsfr r romenforcing gtheimpleme entingrulesan ndregulations s(IRR)ofRepublicActNo.9 9207,otherwi iseknown asthe"NationalGovernmen a ntCenter(NGC C)Housingan ndLandUtiliza ationActof20 003." TheOSGclaim T msthattheins stantpetition forprohibitio onisanimpro operremedy becausethew writofprohib bitiondoes not n lie against the exercise of a quasilegislative function.Since in issuing the q t n questioned IR of R.A. No. 9207, the RR Committee wa not exercis C as sing judicial, quasijudicial or ministeri function, w l ial which is the scope of a pe etition for prohibitionun p nderSection2 2,Rule65ofth he1997Rules sofCivilProce edure,theinstantprohibitionshouldbedismissed outright, the O o OSG contends For their p s. part, responde Mayor of Quezon City and respond ent dent NHAcon ntend that petitionersvio p olatedthedoc ctrineofhiera archyofcourt tsinfilingthe einstantpetit tionwiththis Courtandno otwiththe CourtofAppea C als,whichhasconcurrentju urisdictionoverapetitionf forprohibition n. ISSUE:
26 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whetherorno W otthecourth hasjurisdiction ntoreviewth hevalidityor constitutiona alityofarule orregulation issuedby theadministra t ativeagencyin ntheperformanceofitsqua asilegislativefunction HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. Administrative agencies possess quasilegislative o rulemakin powers an quasijudi A e p or ng nd icial or admi inistrative adjudicatoryp a powers.Quasi legislativeor rrulemakingpoweristhep powertomak kerulesandre egulationswhi ichresults in delegated le egislation tha is within th confines of the granting statute and t doctrine o nondelega at he f g the of ability and separabilityof s fpowers. Inquestioning gthevalidityo orconstitution nalityofarule eorregulation nissuedbyan nadministrati iveagency,ap partyneed notexhaustad n dministrative remediesbefo oregoingtoc court.Thispri inciple,howev ver,applieson nlywherethe eactofthe administrative a eagencyconce ernedwasper rformedpursu uanttoitsqua asijudicialfun nction,andno otwhentheas ssailedact pertainedtoit p tsrulemaking gorquasilegi islativepower r. TheassailedIR T RRwasissued dpursuanttot thequasilegis slativepoweroftheCommi itteeexpressly yauthorizedb byR.A.No. 9207.Thepeti 9 itionrestsma ainlyontheth heorythatthe eassailedIRR issuedbythe eCommitteeisinvalidonth heground that it is notg t germanetoth objectand purposeof th statute it seeks to imple he he ement. Where ewhat isassailed isthe validityorcon v nstitutionalityofaruleorre egulationissuedbytheadm ministrativeag gencyinthepe erformanceof fitsquasi legislativefunc ction,theregu ularcourtshav vejurisdiction ntopassupon nthesame. Sincetheregu S ularcourtshav vejurisdiction ntopassupon nthevalidityo oftheassailed dIRRissuedb bytheCommit tteeinthe exerciseofits quasilegislat e tivepower,thejudicialcour rsetoassailit tsvaliditymustfollowthed doctrineofhie erarchyof courts.Althou c ughtheSuprem meCourt,Cou urtofAppeals sandtheReg gionalTrialCo ourtshavecon ncurrentjuris sdictionto issue writs ofcertiorari, pro ohibition,man ndamus,quo w warranto,habeas corpusan injunction, such concurr nd rence does notgivethepe n etitionerunrestrictedfreedomofchoiceo ofcourtforum m. True,thisCou T urthasthefull ldiscretionary ypowertotakecognizance eofthepetitionfileddirect tlywithitifc compelling reasons, or th nature and importance of the issues raised, so wa r he arrant.A dire invocation of the Court original ect n ts ju urisdictiontoissuethesew writsshouldbe eallowedonly ywhentherea arespecialandimportantr reasonstheref for,clearly andspecificall a lysetoutinth hepetition. InHeirs of Ber rtuldo Hinog v. Melicor,the Court said t v e that it will no entertain d ot direct resort t it unless th redress to he desiredcannotbeobtainedintheapprop d priatecourts, andexception nalandcompe ellingcircums stances,sucha ascasesof nationalintere n estandofser riousimplications,justifyth heavailment oftheextraor rdinaryremedyofwritof certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary j c e jurisdiction.A perusal, however, of the petition for prohibition shows no A e r compelling,sp c pecialorimportantreasons stowarrantth heCourtstak kingcognizanc ceofthepetiti ioninthefirst tinstance. Petitioner also failed to st P o tate any reaso that precludes the low courts fro passing up on wer om pon the valid dity of the questionedIRR q R.Moreover,a asprovidedin nSection5,Ar rticleVIIIofth he Constitution,t C theCourtspo owertoevalua atethevalidity yofanimplem mentingruleo orregulationi isgenerallyap ppellatein nature.Thus,f n followingthed doctrineofhie erarchyofcou urts,theinstan ntpetitionsho ouldhavebee eninitiallyfiledwiththe RegionalTrialCourt. R Apetitionfor prohibitionis A salsonottheproperreme edytoassaila anIRRissued intheexercis seofaquasilegislative function. Proh f hibition is an extraordinary writ directe against an tribunal, co y ed ny orporation, bo oard, officer o person, or whether exerc w cising judicial quasijudici or ministe l, ial erial functions ordering sa entity or person to de s, aid esist from further procee f edings when said proceedings are witho or in exce of said ent s out ess titys or perso ons jurisdiction, or are accompaniedw a withgraveab buseofdiscret tion,andthereisnoappealoranyother rplain,speedy yandadequat teremedy intheordinar rycourseofla aw.Prohibitio onliesagainst tjudicialorm ministerialfun nctions,butno otagainstlegislativeor
27|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts quasilegislativ q vefunctions.G Generally,the epurposeofa awritofprohi ibitionistoke eepalowerco ourtwithinth helimitsof it jurisdiction in order to maintain the administrat ts n o tion of justice in orderly channels.Pro e ohibition is th proper he remedy to affo relief against usurpatio of jurisdict r ord on tion or power by an inferior court, or w r when, in the e exercise of ju urisdictionin handlingmat ttersclearlyw withinitscogn nizancetheinf feriorcourttr ransgressesth heboundspre escribedto it tbythelaw,o orwherethere eisnoadequa ateremedyav vailableintheordinarycour rseoflawbyw whichsuchreliefcanbe obtained.Wheretheprinci o ipalreliefsou ughtistoinva alidateanIRR R,petitioners remedyisan nordinaryact tionforits nullification,a n anactionwhic chproperlyfallsunderthej jurisdictionof ftheRegional lTrialCourt.I Inanycase,petitioners allegation tha "responden are perfor a at nts rming or thre eatening to p perform funct tions without or in excess of their t ju urisdiction"m mayappropria atelybeenjoin nedbythetria alcourtthrou ughawritofin njunctionora atemporaryr restraining order. o oOo OP PLE,petitioner .TORRES,respondent. r,vs G.R.No.12768 G 85 July23,1998 PUNO O,J,(ENBANC C) A.O.No.308in A nvolvesasubje ectthatisnot appropriatet t tobecovered byanadminis strativeorder..Assaidadm ministrative orderredefines o stheparamet tersofsomebasicrightsof ourcitizenryv visavistheSt tateaswellas sthelinethat tseparates theadministra t ativepowerofthePresidenttomakerules f sandthelegisl lativepowero ofCongress,itoughttobeev videntthat itdealswithasubjectthatsh houldbecover redbylaw. Nousurpation oflegislativeauthoritybeca N auseA.O.No.3 308isnotala awanditconf fersnoright,im mposesnodut ty,affords noprotection,andcreatesno n ooffice. OnDecember 12,1996,Ram O mosissuedAO O308entitled"Adoptionof faNationalCo omputerizedI Identification Reference System.Petitio S onerOplepray ysfortheinva alidationofth hesaidAdmin nistrativeOrde erNo.308on thegroundth hatitisan usurpation of the power of Congress t legislate. P u f o to Petitioner filed the instant petition aga d t ainst responde ents, then Executive Secr E retaryRuben Torresandth heads of th governmen agencies, w asmembers ofthe InterAgency he he nt who CoordinatingC C Committee,ar rechargedwit ththeimplementationofA.O.No.308. Petitionercontends: P A. A THE ESTAB BLISHMENT OF A NATION O NAL COMPUT TERIZED IDEN NTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM REQUIRES A LEGISLATIVE ACT.THEISS L SUANCEOFA.O.NO.308BY YTHEPRESID DENTOFTHE EREPUBLICO OFTHEPHILIP PPINESIS, THEREFORE, AN UNCONST T TITUTIONAL USURPATION OF THE LEG N GISLATIVE PO OWERS OF TH CONGRESS OF THE HE REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES. R B.THEAPPRO B OPRIATIONOF FPUBLICFUN NDSBYTHEP PRESIDENTFO ORTHEIMPLE EMENTATION NOFA.O.NO. 308ISAN UNCONSTITUT U TIONALUSUR RPATIONOFT THEEXCLUSIV VERIGHTOFC CONGRESSTO OAPPROPRIA ATEPUBLICFU UNDSFOR EXPENDITURE E E. Respondentsc R counterargue e: A. A A.O. NO. 308 WAS ISS SUED WITHIN THE EXECU N UTIVE AND A ADMINISTRAT TIVE POWERS OF THE PR RESIDENT WITHOUTENC W CROACHINGO ONTHELEGIS SLATIVEPOW WERSOFCONG GRESS; B. B THE FUNDS NECESSARY FOR THE IM S Y MPLEMENTAT TION OF THE IDENTIFICAT E TION REFERE ENCE SYSTEM MAY BE M SOURCEDFRO S OMTHEBUDG GETSOFTHEC CONCERNEDA AGENCIES ISSUE:
28 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 1. Wheth herornotthe eA.O.No.308 involvesasub bjectthatisn notappropriat tetobecovere edbyanadmi inistrative order. 2. Wheth or not Ad her dministrative Order No. 308 entitled "Ad 8 doption of a N National Comp puterized Iden ntification Refere enceSystem"isanusurpati ionofthepow werofCongres sstolegislate. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. PetitionerclaimsthatA.O.N P No.308isnot tamereadmi inistrativeord derbutalaw andhence,be eyondthepow werofthe Presidenttois P ssue. Administrative A epoweriscon ncernedwith theworkofa applyingpoliciesandenforc cingordersas sdetermined byproper governmental organs.It en g nables the Pre esident to fix a uniform sta andard of adm ministrative efficiency and check the officialconduc o ctofhisagents 22Tothisen s. nd,hecanissu ueadministrat tiveorders,ru ulesandregula ations. Thecourtheld T dthatA.O.No o.308involves sasubjecttha atisnotappr ropriateto be coveredbya anadministrat tiveorder. Anadministra A ativeorderis: Sec. 3 Administrat 3. tive Orders. Acts of the President wh hich relate to particular as spects of gove ernmental opera ationinpursua anceofhisdut tiesasadmini istrativeheadshallbeprom mulgatedinad dministrativeo orders. Anadministra A ativeorderisa anordinancei issuedbythePresidentwhi ichrelatestospecificaspec ctsintheadmi inistrative operationofgovernment.It o tmustbeinha armonywiththelawandsh houldbefort thesolepurpo oseofimplementingthe la awandcarryi ingouttheleg gislativepolicy y. A.O.No.308d A doesnotimple ementthelegi islativepolicy yoftheAdmin nistrativeCod deof1987.Th heCodeisage enerallaw and a "incorpor rates in a unif fied document the major structural, fun nctional and p procedural pri inciples of governance" and"embodieschangesina a administrative estructurean ndprocedures sdesignedto servethepeo ople."TheCo odecovers boththeintern b naladministra ationofgover rnment,i.e,internalorganiza ation,personn nelandrecrui itment,superv visionand discipline, and the effects of the functio performed by adminis d d ons strative officia on private individuals or parties als e outsidegovern o nment. ItcannotbesimplisticallyarguedthatA.O O.No.308merelyimplemen ntstheAdmin nistrativeCodeof1987.Ite establishes for f the first t time a Nation Computer nal rized Identific cation Refere ence System. Such a Syste requires a delicate em adjustment of various cont a f tending state policies th primacy of national sec he f curity, the ext tent of privac interest cy againstdossiergatheringby a ygovernment t,thechoiceo ofpolicies,etc.Indeed,thed dissentofMr.JusticeMend dozastates that the A.O. No. 308 invo t olves the alli important fre eedom of thou ught. As said administrativ order redefines the ve parametersofsomebasicri p f ightsofourcitizenryvisav vistheStateas swellasthelinethatsepar ratestheadmi inistrative poweroftheP p Presidenttom makerulesand dthelegislativ vepowerofC Congress,itou ughttobeevid dentthatitde ealswitha subjectthatsh s houldbecover redbylaw. Norisitcorre N ecttoargueas sthedissente ersdothatA.D D.No.308is notalawbec causeitconfersnoright,im mposesno duty, affords no protection and create no office. U d n, es Under A.O. N 308, a cit No. tizen cannot t transact business with governmentag g genciesdelive eringbasicser rvicestothep peoplewithou utthecontem mplatedidentif ficationcard. Nocitizen willrefusetog w getthisidentificationcardf fornoonecan navoiddealingwithgovern nment.Itisthu usclearasday ylightthat without the ID a citizen will have difficulty exercisin his rights a enjoying his privileges Given this r w D, w ng and s. reality, the contentiontha c atA.O.No.308 8givesnorigh htandimposesnodutycann notstand. Again, with d A due respect, the dissentin opinions unduly expan the limits of administrative legisla ng nd s ation and consequently erodes the plenary power of Congress to make law This is co c p r s ws. ontrary to the established approach e definingthetr d raditionallimitsofadminis strativelegisla ation.Aswell statedbyFis sher:"...Man nyregulations showever, bear directlyo the public. It is here tha administrat b on . at tive legislationmust he restricted in its sscope and ap pplication.
29|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Regulationsar R renotsuppos sedtobeasubstituteforth hegeneralpolicymakingthatCongress enactsintheformofa public law. A p Although adm ministrative re egulations are entitled to respect, the authority t prescribe rules and o e to regulationsisn r notanindepe endentsourceofpowertom makelaws." oOo KILUSANGMA K AYOUNO,eta al.,petitioners,,vs.THEDIRE ECTORGENERAL,NEDA,r respondent. 19April G.R.No.16 67798and167930 l2006 Carpi io,J.(EnBanc c) Section 17, Ar S rticle VII of the 1987 Con nstitution pro ovides that th President shall have c he control of all executive departments,b d bureausandof offices.Thesa ameSectionalsomandates thePresident toensurethatthelawsbe efaithfully executed.The e ePresidentmaybyexecutiv veoradministrativeorder directthegov vernmententit tiesunderthe eExecutive departmenttoadoptauniformIDdatacollectionandfo d ormat. President Gloria Macapaga P alArroyo issu ued Executive Order No. 420 (E.O. 42 e 20), which re equires all go overnment agenciesandg a governmento ownedandcontrolledcorpo orationstoad doptauniform mdatacollectionandforma atfortheir existing identification (ID) systems. E.O 420 seeks t consolidate the existing identificatio systems of different e O. to g on f government agencies into one multipurp g o pose I.D. thereby reducing inconvenienc to the publ in their tra ce lic ansactions withthegover w rnment. The proposed uniform I.D requires th following s T d D. he specific data: (1)name; (2 2)home addre ess; (3)sex; ( (4)picture; (5)signature; (6)date of bi ( irth; (7)place of birth; (8)marital statu (9)name of parents; ( e us; (10)height; (1 11)weight; (12)twoindex ( xfingerprints andtwothum mbmarks;(13)anypromine entfeature,lik keamole;and d(14)TaxIden ntification Number(TIN). N Petitioners all P lege that EO 420 is unconstitutional be 4 ecause it cons stitutes usurp pation of legis slative functio by the ons executivebran e nchofthegove ernment ISSUE: Whetherorno W otE.O.420isa ausurpationo oflegislativep powersbythePresident HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. The President may by ex T t xecutive or ad dministrative order direct the govern t nment entities under the Executive s departmentto d oadoptaunifo ormIDdataco ollectionandf format.Sectio on17,ArticleV VIIofthe1987Constitution nprovides that the Pres t sident shall have control o all executiv departmen bureaus a h of ve nts, and offices.The same Se ection also mandatesthePresidentto m ensurethatth helawsbefait thfullyexecute ed. Certainly,underthisconstit C tutionalpowerofcontrolth hePresidentca andirectallgovernmenten ntities,inthee exerciseof theirfunctions t sunderexistin nglaws,toad doptauniform mIDdatacolle ectionandID formattoach hievesavings, efficiency, reliability, com r mpatibility, an convenien to the pu nd nce ublic.The Pre esidents cons stitutional po ower of contr is self rol executinganddoesnotneed e danyimpleme entinglegislat tion. Ofcourse,the Presidentsp O powerofcontr rolislimited totheExecut tivebranchof fgovernment anddoesnot extendto theJudiciaryo t ortotheindependentcons stitutionalcom mmissions.Thus,EO420d doesnotapply ytotheJudic ciary,orto
30 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts theCOMELEC whichunder existinglaws t sisalsoautho orizedtoissue evotersIDcards.[]Thiso onlyshowsthatEO420 doesnotestab d blishanationa alIDsystembe ecauselegislationisneeded dtoestablisha asingleIDsys stemthatisco ompulsory forallbranche f esofgovernment. TheConstituti T ionalsomand datesthePresidenttoensurethatthelaw wsarefaithfu ullyexecuted.Therearesev verallaws mandating government ent m tities to reduce costs, incr rease efficienc and in gen cy, neral, improv public serv ve vices.The adoptionofau a uniformIDda atacollectiona andformatun nderEO420is sdesignedtoreducecosts,increaseeffic ciency,and in general, improve public services.Thu in issuing EO 420, the P us, President is s simply perform ming the cons stitutional dutytoensure d ethatthelawsarefaithfully s yexecuted. Clearly, EO 42 is well wi C 20 ithin the constitutional po ower of the P President to p promulgate.The Presiden has not nt usurped legis u slative power in issuing EO 420.EO 420 is an exercise of E r Executive pow the P wer Presidents constitutional power of con c ntrol over the Executive de e epartment.EO 420 is also compliance b the President of the O by constitutionaldutytoensur c rethatthelaw wsarefaithfull lyexecuted. Legislativepow L weristheaut thoritytomak kelawsandto oalterorrepe ealthem.Ini issuingEO420,thePreside entdidnot make,alteror m rrepealanyla awbutmerely yimplementedandexecute edexistinglaw ws.EO420re educescosts, aswellas insures efficie ency, reliabilit compatibil ty, lity and userfriendliness in the implem mentation of current ID systems of governmenten g ntitiesundere existinglaws.Thus,EO420issimplyan nexecutiveissuanceandnot tanactoflegi islation. oOo ABAK KADAGUROP PARTYLISTV VS.PURISIMA A G.R R.No.166715 Augu ust14,2008 CORON NA,J,(ENBAN NC) Legislative vet is a statuto provision r L to ory requiring the President or an administra ative agency t present the proposed to e implementing rulesandregu ulationsofalawtoCongres sswhich,byit tselforthroug ghacommittee eformedbyit t,retainsa "right" or "pow " wer" to appro or disappr ove rove such regu ulations before they take eff e ffect. As such, a legislative v veto in the form of a con f ngressional ov versight comm mittee is in th form of an inwardturning delegation designed to attach a he n n o congressional leash(otherth c hanthroughs scrutinyandin nvestigation)t toanagencyt towhichCong gresshasbyla awinitially delegatedbroa d adpowers.Itr radicallychang gesthedesignorstructureo oftheConstitu utionsdiagram mofpowerasitentrusts toCongressad t directroleine enforcing,apply lyingorimplem mentingitsow wnlaws. In I exercising d discretion toa approve or dis sapprove the I IRR based on a determination of whether a ror not they c conformed withtheprovis w sionsofRA93 335,Congressa arrogatedjudi icialpowerun ntoitself,apow werexclusively lyvestedinthi isCourtby theConstitutio t on. RA9335wase R enactedtooptimizetherev venuegenerat tioncapability yandcollectio onoftheBure eauofInterna alRevenue (BIR)andtheBureauofCus ( stoms(BOC).Thelawinten ndstoencoura ageBIRandBOCofficialsan ndemployeestoexceed their revenue targets by providing a s t p system of rew wards and sanctions throu ugh the creat tion of a Rew wards and IncentivesFun nd(Fund)and daRevenuePe erformanceEv valuationBoa ard(Board).It tcoversalloff ficialsandemployeesof theBIRandth t heBOCwithat tleastsixmon nthsofservice e,regardlessofemployment tstatus. The T DOF, DBM NEDA, BIR, BOC and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) were tasked to pro M, , e e n omulgate and issue the d implementingrulesandreg gulationsofRA A9335,tobea approvedbya aJointCongre essionalOversightCommitte eecreated forsuchpurpo f ose. Petitioners, in P nvoking their right as taxpayers filed th petition ch his hallenging the constitutionality of RA 93 e 335, a tax reformlegislat r tion.Petitione ersassertthat tthelawundu ulydelegatest thepowertofi ixrevenuetar rgetstothePr residentas
31|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts it tlacksasuffic cientstandard donthatmatt ter.WhileSect tion7(b)and(c)ofRA9335providesthatBIRandBO OCofficials maybedismis m ssedfromthe eserviceifthe eirrevenueco ollectionsfall shortofthet targetbyatle east7.5%,the elawdoes not,however, fixtherevenu n uetargetstob beachieved.I Instead,thefi ixingofreven nuetargetshasbeendelega atedtothe Presidentwith P houtsufficient tstandards.It twilltherefore ebeeasyfort thePresidenttofixanunre ealisticandun nattainable target in orde to dismiss BIR or BOC p t er personnel. Pe etitioners also assail the cr o reation of a c congressional oversight committeeonthegroundth c hatitviolatest thedoctrineo ofseparationo ofpowers.Wh hilethelegisla ativefunctionisdeemed accomplishedandcomplete a edupontheen nactmentandapprovalofth helaw,thecreationofthec congressional loversight committeeper c rmitslegislativ veparticipatio onintheimpl lementationan ndenforceme entofthelaw. ISSUES: 1. Wheth herornotthe elawundulyd delegatesthep powertofixre evenuetarget tstothePresid dent 2. Wheth or not the creation of a congression oversight committee vi her nal iolates the do octrine of sep paration of power rs HELD: H Petit P ionPART TIALLYGRANTED. 1. Undu ueDelegation n Two testsdete T ermine the va alidity ofdele egationof legi islative power r:(1) the com mpleteness tes and (2) the sufficient st e standardtest. Alawiscompletewhenit s tsetsforththe ereinthepoli icytobeexecuted,carried outorimplem mentedby thedelegate.It t tlaysdowna sufficientstandardwheni itprovidesadequateguidel linesorlimita ationsinthela awtomap out o the bound daries of the delegates au uthority and p prevent the delegation from running rio m ot.To be suff ficient, the standardmust s tspecifytheli imitsofthede elegatesautho ority,announc cethelegislativepolicyand didentifythec conditions underwhichit u tistobeimple emented. RA R 9335 adequately states the policy and standard to guide t ds the President in fixing revenue targets and the t s implementingagenciesinca arryingouttheprovisionso ofthelaw. Revenuetarge R etsarebasedo ontheorigina alestimatedrevenuecollec ctionexpected drespectively oftheBIRan ndtheBOC foragivenfisc f calyearasapp provedbythe eDBCCandst tatedintheBE ESFsubmitted dbythePresidenttoCongr ress.Thus, the t determina ation of reven targets do not rest so nue oes olely on the P President as i also underg it goes the scrut tiny of the DBCC. D Clearly, RA 93 in no way violates the security of t C 335 y e tenure of offic cials and emp ployees of the BIR and the BOC. The e guaranteeofs g securityoften nureonlymea ansthatanem mployeecannotbedismissedfromthes serviceforcau usesother thanthosepro t ovidedbylawandonlyafter rdueprocessisaccordedth heemployee.InthecaseofRA9335,itla aysdowna reasonable yardstick for re r emoval (when the revenue collection fal short of th target by a least 7.5%) with due n lls he at ) consideration of all relevan factors affe c nt ecting the leve of collectio This stand el on. dard is analog gous to ineffic ciency and incompetenceintheperform manceofoffic cialduties,agr roundfordisc ciplinaryactio onundercivils servicelaws.T Theaction forremovalisalsosubjectt f tocivilservice elaws,rulesan ndregulationsandcomplia ancewithsubs stantiveandp procedural dueprocess. d At A any rate, th Court has recognized t following as sufficient standards: "p his the public interest "justice an equity," t," nd "public conve " enience and welfare" and "simplicity, economy an welfare.In this case, t d nd n the declared policy of optimizationo o oftherevenue egenerationcapabilityandcollectionoft theBIRandth heBOCisinfus sedwithpubli icinterest. 2. Separ rationOfPow wers
32|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts TheJointCong T gressionalOve ersightComm mitteeinRA93 335wascreat tedforthepur rposeofappro ovingtheimplementing rulesandregu r ulations(IRR) formulatedb bytheDOF,DB BM,NEDA,BIR R,BOCandCS SC.OnMay22 2,2006,itapp provedthe saidIRR.From s mthenon,itb becamefunctu usofficioandc ceasedtoexis st.Hence,the issueofitsallegedencroac chmenton theexecutivef t functionofim mplementingan ndenforcingt thelawmaybeconsideredmootandacademic. Thisnotwithst T tanding,thism mightbeasgo oodatimeasa anyfortheCo ourttoconfron nttheissueof ftheconstitut tionalityof the t JointCongr ressionalOversightCommitteecreatedu underRA9335 5(orothersim milarlawsforthatmatter). InMacalintal,giventheconceptandconf figurationofth hepowerofcongressionaloversightand dconsideringt thenature and a powers of a constitutio onal body like the Commis e ssion on Elect tions, the Cou struck dow the provis urt wn sion in RA 9189 (The Ov 9 verseas Absen ntee Voting Act of 2003) c creating a Join Congressio nt onal Committe The comm ee. mittee was tasked not only to monitor and evaluate the impleme t r e entation of th said law bu also to review, revise, am he ut mend and approvetheIR a RRpromulgat tedbytheCom mmissionon Elections.The eCourtheldt thatthesefun nctionsinfring gedonthe constitutionalindependence c eoftheComm missiononElections.36 With this bac W ckdrop, it is clear that co ongressional oversight is not unconstitutionalper s meaning, it neither se, necessarily co n onstitutes an encroachme n ent on the executive po ower to imp plement laws nor underm mines the constitutional separationof c fpowers.Rath her,itisinteg graltotheche ecksandbalan ncesinherent inademocraticsystem ofgovernment o t.Itmayinfac ctevenenhancetheseparat tionofpowersasitprevent tstheoverac ccumulationof fpowerin theexecutiveb t branch. However, to f H forestall the danger of con d ngressional en ncroachment "beyond the legislative sp phere," the Co onstitution imposestwob basicandrela atedconstrain ntsonCongress.Itmaynot tvestitself,an nyofitscomm mitteesorits members witheitherex w xecutiveorjud dicialpower.A And,whenite exercisesitsl legislativepow wer,itmustfo ollowthe"sin ngle,finely wrought and exhaustively considered, p w procedures" s specified und the Const der titution,includ ding the proc cedure for enactmentofl e lawsandpresentment. Thus, any pos T stenactment congressional measure su as this should be limit to scrutin and investi uch ted ny igation. In particular,con p ngressionalov versightmustb beconfinedto othefollowing g: (1) sc crutiny based primarily on Congress power of appr n ropriation and the budget hearings con d nducted in conne ection with it, its power to ask heads of department to appear b , o ts before and be heard by eit e ther of its House esonanymatt terpertaining gtotheirdepa artmentsandi itspowerofco onfirmation40and (2) in nvestigation and monitorin 41of the im a ng mplementation of laws pur n rsuant to the power of Co ongress to condu uctinquiriesin naidoflegisla ation. Anyactionor stepbeyond thatwillunde A erminethese eparationofpowersguaran nteedbytheC Constitution.L Legislative vetoesfallinth v hisclass. Legislativevet L toisastatutoryprovisionr requiringthe Presidentor anadministra ativeagencyt topresenttheproposed implementing rulesandreg gulationsofal lawtoCongre esswhich,byi itselforthrou ughacommitt teeformedby yit,retains a"right"or"po a ower"toappr roveordisapp provesuchreg gulationsbeforetheytakeeffect.Assuch, ,alegislativev vetointhe form of a con f ngressional ov versight comm mittee is in th form of an inwardturn he n ning delegatio designed to attach a on o congressional leash (other than through scrutiny an investigatio to an age c h nd on) ency to which Congress has by law h initiallydelega atedbroadpowers.Itradica allychangesth hedesignors structureofth heConstitution nsdiagramof fpoweras it tentruststoC Congressadir rectroleinenf forcing,applyi ingorimplem mentingitsownlaws. Congress has two options when enacti C ing legislation to define n n national polic within the broad horizons of its cy legislativecom mpetence.Itca anitselfformu ulatethedetai ilsoritcanas ssigntotheex xecutivebranc chtherespons sibilityfor making necessary manager decisions in conformi with those standards.I the latter case, the law must be m rial s ity e In w completeinallitsessentialtermsandconditionswhen c nitleavesthe ehandsofthelegislature.T Thus,whatisl leftforthe executivebran e nchorthecon ncernedadmin nistrativeagencywhenitfo ormulatesrulesandregula ationsimplementingthe
33|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts la awistofillup pdetails(supp plementaryru ulemaking)or rascertainfac ctsnecessaryt tobringthela awintoactualoperation (contingentru ( ulemaking). Administrative regulations enacted by a A e administrative agencies to implement an interpret t law which they are e nd the h entrustedtoen e nforcehaveth heforceoflaw wandareentitledtorespec ct.Suchrulesa andregulation nspartakeoft thenature ofastatutean o ndarejustas bindingasift theyhavebee enwrittenint thestatuteits self.Assuch,t theyhavethe forceand effect of law a enjoy the presumption of constituti e and n ionality and le egality until t they are set a aside with fina ality in an appropriateca a asebyacomp petentcourt.C Congress,inth heguiseofass sumingtheroleofanovers seer,maynot passupon their legality by subjecting them to its stamp of ap t g s pproval witho disturbing the calculat out g ted balance o powers of establishedby e ytheConstitut tion. Inexercisingd discretiontoa approveordis sapprovetheI IRRbasedona adeterminatio onofwhether rornottheyc conformed withtheprovi w isionsofRA93 335,Congress sarrogatedjud dicialpoweru untoitself,ap powerexclusiv velyvestedinthisCourt bytheConstitu b ution. oOo PLATON,V. P THEHO ONORABLESE ECRETARYVI INCENTS.PEREZ,inhiscapacityastheS Secretaryofth heDepartmen ntof En nergy,petitioner,vs.LPGRE EFILLERSASS IATIONOF SOC FTHEPHILIP PPINES,INC., respondent. G.R.No.159149 9 Jun ne26,2006 Foranadminis F strativeregula ation,suchas theCircularin nthiscase,to havetheforce eofpenallaw w,(1)theviolationofthe administrative a eregulationm mustbemadea acrimebythe edelegatings statuteitself;a and(2)thepe enaltyforsuch hviolation mustbeprovid m dedbythestat tuteitself. BatasPamban B nsaBlg.33,asamended,pen nalizesillegaltrading,hoard ding,overpric cing,adulterat tion,underdel livery,and underfillingof u fpetroleumpr roductsandofunderfilledL LPGcylinders.Thelawpres scribessetsth hemonetaryp penaltyfor violators to a minimum of Php20,000 an a maximum of Php50,0 v nd m 000. The DOE issued Circul No. 200006010 to lar implementBPBlg.33. Afterbeingde A eniedbytheDOEtosetasid dethesaidCir rcular,Respon ndentsLPGRe efillersAssocia ationofthePh hilippines, Inc. filed a petition for prohibition and annulment w with TRO and/ Preliminar injunction before the Tr Court. /or ry rial Petitionerargu P uesthatthepe enaltiesforth heactsandom missionsenum meratedintheCirculararesanctionedbyBPBlg.33 andRA8479w a whichauthori izetheDOEto oimposethep penaltiesprov videdintheCircular.Respondentcounter rsthatthe enablinglaws mentioneddo e onotexpressl lypenalizethe eactsandom missionsenumeratedintheCircular.Thetrialcourt ruledinfavorofrespondent r t.HTP. ISSUE: Whether the RTC erred in declaring th provisions of the Circular null and void, and pro W n he ohibiting the Circulars implementatio on. HELD: H PetitionisGRA P ANTED.
34 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Foranadmini F istrativeregul lation,suchas stheCircular inthiscase,t tohavethefo orceofpenall law,(1)thevi iolationof the t administra ative regulation must be m made a crime by the deleg e gating statute itself; and (2 the penalty for such 2) y violationmust v tbeprovidedbythestatute eitself. The Circular satisfies thef T firstrequirem ment. B.P. Blg 33, as ame g. ended, crimin nalizes illegal trading, adu l ulteration, underfilling, h u hoarding, and overpricing of petroleum products. Un nder this gene eral descripti of what c ion constitutes criminal acts i c involving petr roleum produ ucts, the Circu merely lis the variou modes by w ular sts us which the said criminal d actsmaybeperpetrated,na a amely:nopricedisplayboa ard,noweigh hingscale,no tareweighto orincorrectta areweight markings,noa m authorizedLPGseal,notrad dename,unbr randedLPGcy ylinders,nose erialnumber,nodistinguish hingcolor, noembossedi n identifyingma arkingsoncylinder,underfi illingLPGcylinders,tamper ringLPGcylin nders,anduna authorized decanting of L d LPG cylinders These speci acts and o s. ific omissions are obviously w e within the con ntemplation o the law, of whichseeksto w ocurbtheperniciouspracti icesofsomepetroleummer rchants. Asfortheseco A ondrequireme ent,wefindth hattheCircula arisinaccord dwiththelaw w.UnderB.P.B Blg.33,asame ended,the monetarypenaltyforanyp m personwhoco ommitsanyof ftheactsafor restatedislim mitedtoaminimumofP20,000anda maximum ofP m P50,000. Unde the Circula the maxim er ar, mum pecuniar penalty for ry rretail outlets sisP20,000,a amount an within the ran allowed by law. However, for there w nge b efillers,marke eters, anddea alers, the Circ cular is silent as to any maximummon m netarypenalt ty.Thismere silence,nonet theless,doesn notamountto oviolationof theaforesaid dstatutory maximumlimi m it.Further,the emerefacttha attheCircular rprovidespen naltiesonape ercylinderbas sisdoesnotin nitselfrun countertothelawsinceallt c thatB.P.Blg.3 33prescribesaretheminim mumandthem maximumlimi itsofpenalties s. Clearly,itisB.P.Blg.33,asa C amended,whi ichdefineswh hatconstitutepunishableac ctsinvolvingp petroleumpro oductsand which set the minimum an maximum l w nd limits for the correspondin penalties. T Circular m ng The merely implements the said law, albeit it is silent on the maxim s mum pecuniar penalty for refillers, ma ry r arketers, and dealers. Noth hing in the Circularcontra C avenesthelaw w. oOo
QuasiJudicia Q alPowers
THEPRESI IDENTIALAN NTIDOLLARS SALTINGTAS SKFORCE,pet titioner,vs.HO ONORABLECO OURTOFAPP PEALS, HONORABLE ETEOFILOL, GUADIZ,JR., PresidingJud dge,REGIONAL LTRIALCOUR RT,Branch14 47,NCR(MAKA ATI),and KARAMF FILIMPORTE PORTCO., EX INC.,respond dents.
G.R R.No.83578 Mar rch16,1989 Aquasijudicia A albodyhasbee endefinedas" "anorganofgovernmentoth herthanacou urtandothert thanalegislat ture,which affectstherigh a htsofprivatep partiesthrough heitheradjud dicationorrule emaking." Presidential A P AntiDollar Salting Task Fo orce (PADS Ta Force) is the presiden arm assig ask nts gned to invest tigate and prosecutesoc p calleddollar saltingactivi itiesintheco ountry.StateP ProsecutorJos seB.Rosaleso ofthePADST TaskForce issuedsearchwarrantsagai instrespondentKaramfilIm mportExportCo.,Inc.etal.uponapplicat tionfiledbyth heBureau of o Customs. Sh hortly thereafter, the priva responden filed a pet ate nt tition to enjoi the implem in mentation of t search the warrant befor the RTC. Th RTC ruled in favor of pr w re he rivate respondents and annulled the wa arrants issued by PADS d TaskForce.PA T ADSTaskForc ceappealedth hedecisiontot theCA. Aruledinfav vorofPADSTa askForcestat tingthatitisa aspecialquasijudicialbody y.Assuch,itr rankswith Initially,theCA theRTC,andt t thelatterhas nojurisdictio ontodeclare thesearchwarrantsinquestionnullan ndvoid.Howe ever,upon motion for rec m consideration of respondent Karamfil Im n mportExport Co., Inc. on the question of whether P t PADS Task Force is such other responsible officer countenanc by the 19 Constituti to issue w F h r ced 973 ion warrants of search and seizure,theCA s Areverseditsrulingonthegroundthatt thegrantofqu uasijudicialp powerstopeti itionerdidnotdiminish theregularcou t urtsjudicialp powerofinter rpretationofla awsandifnec cessarydeclar rethemuncon nstitutional.HT TP.
35|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ISSUE: WhetherPADS W STaskForceisaquasijudic cialbodyofeq qualrankwith htheRTCandthereforebey yonditsjurisdiction. HELD: H PetitionisDIS P SMISSED. A A quasijudicia body has been defined a "an organ o governmen otherthan acourt ando al b as of nt other thana le egislature, whichaffectst w therightsofprivatepartiesthrougheithe eradjudicationorrulemak king." Aperusalofth A hePresidentia alAntiDollarS SaltingTaskF Force'sorganic cact,Presiden ntialDecreeN No.1936,asam mendedby Presidential D P Decree No. 20 002, convinces the Court t that the Task Force was n meant to exercise qua k not asijudicial functions,that f tis,totryanddecideclaims sandexecuteitsjudgments s.AsthePresid dent'sarmcal lledupontocombatthe vice of "dollar salting" or the blackmark v r t keting and sa alting of foreig exchange, it is tasked a gn alone by the Decree to handlethepro h osecutionofsu uchactivities,butnothingm more. ng, d, not cause exists t warrant th filing of to he Its undertakin as we said is simply, to determine whether or n probable c charges with the proper court, meaning to say, to c c g conduct an in nquiry prelim minary to a ju udicial recours and to se, recommend a r action "of appropriate authorities". It is not unlik a fiscal's office that co ke onducts a pr reliminary investigationt todetermine whetherorn notprimafacie eevidenceex xiststojustify yhalingthere espondenttoc court,and yet,whileitm y makesthatdet termination,it tcannotbesa aidtobeactin ngasaquasic court.Foritis sthecourts,u ultimately, thatpassjudgm t mentontheaccused,notth hefiscal. ethePresiden ntialCommissiononGoodG Governmente either,theexe ecutivebodya appointedtoin nvestigate Itisnotunlike andprosecute a ecasesinvolving"illgottenwealth".Itha adbeenvested dwithenormo ouspowers,liketheissuanc ceofwrits of o sequestration, freeze ord ders, and sim milar processes but that did not, on acco s, d ount thereof alone, make i a quasi it ju udicial entity as defined by recognized authorities. It cannot pron y t nounce judgem ment oftheac ccused's culpa ability, the ju urisdictiontodowhichisexclusiveupon ntheSandigan nbayan. ntialAntiDollarSaltingTas skForceisnot t,hence,aqua asijudicialbod dy,itcannotb besaidtobecoequalor IfthePresiden coordinatewit c ththeRegiona alTrialCourt.Thereisnoth hinginitsenab blingstatutesthatwouldde emonstrateitsstanding atparwiththe a esaidcourt. oOo FERDIN NANDT.SAN NTOS,ROBERT TJOHNSOBR REPEA,andR RAFAELPERE EZDETAGLE E,JR.,petitione ers, vs.WILSO ONGO,respon ndent. G.R R.No.156081 ber19,2005 Octob Though some cases describe the public p T e prosecutors po ower to condu a prelimin uct nary investigation as quasij judicial in nature, this is true only to the extent t n s o that, like quas sijudicial bod dies, the prose ecutor is an officer of the executive departmentex d xercisingpowe ersakintothos seofacourt,a andthesimilarityendsatth hispoint.Aqua asijudicialbodyisasan organofgover o rnmentother thanacourta andotherthan nalegislature ewhichaffects stherightsof privatepartie f esthrough either adjudic e cation or rule emaking.A qu uasijudicial a agency perfor rms adjudicat tory functions such that it awards, s ts determinetherightsofparti d ies,andtheird decisionshavethesameeffec ctasjudgment tsofacourt.S Suchisnotthecasewhen a a public prosecutor conduct a preliminary investigatio to determine probable c ts on cause to file an information against a n personcharged p dwithacrimin naloffense,or rwhentheSecr retaryofJustic ceisreviewing gtheformersorderorresolutions.
36 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The T petitioner are corpor rs rate directors and officers of FilEstate Properties, Inc. (FEPI). In 1995, FEPI allegedly s e n I enteredintoaProjectAgree e ementwithMa anilaSouthcoa astDevelopmentCorporation(MSDC),w wherebyFEPIu undertook todevelopsev t veralparcelso oflandinNasu ugbu,Batanga asallegedlyow wnedbyMSDC C.Underthet termsoftheA Agreement, FEPIwastoco F onvertanapp proximateare eaof1,269he ectaresintoa firstclassres sidential,com mmercial,resor rt,leisure, andrecreation a nalcomplex.T ThesaidProje ectAgreement tclothedFEPI Iwithauthoritytomarketa andsellthesu ubdivision lotstothepub blic. RespondentGoofferedtob R buyaparcelof flandfromFE EPI.Goagreed dtopayadow wnpaymentan ndalastinsta allmenton thebalance.In t nturn,FEPIw wouldexecute eafinalDeed dofSaleinfav vorofGoand ddelivertoGo otheowners sduplicate copyofTransf c ferCertificate eofTitle(TCT T)uponcompletepayment ofthepurcha aseprice.Go fullycomplied dwiththe terms of the C t Contract. FEP however, f PI, failed to deve elop the prope erty due to some claimant who oppos FEPIs ts sed application for exclusion of the subject properties from the cover a rage of the Co omprehensive Agrarian Re e eform Law (CARL). Further, FEPIs han were tied by a cease a desist ord issued by the Departme of Agraria Reform ( nds d and der ent an (DAR). FEPI a ( assured its clients that it h no intenti to abando the project and would resume devel had ion on t loping the propertiesonc p cethedisputeshadbeenset ttledinitsfav vor. Notsatisfiedn N norassuredby yFEPIsstatem ments,respondentmadesev veraldemand dsuponFEPIt toreturnhisp paymentof thepurchasep t priceinfull.FE EPIfailedtoh heedhisdema ands.Gothenf filedacompla aintbeforethe eHousingand dLandUse Regulatory Bo R oard (HLURB). He likewis filed before the Office of the City P se Prosecutor of Pasig City a separate f a ComplaintAffi C fidavitforesta afaagainstpe etitionersaso officersofFEP PIwhenthey offeredthesu ubjectpropert tyforsale since they kn s new fully wel that the de ll evelopment o the propert and issuan of its cor of ty nce rresponding t title were impossibletoa accomplish,as stheownersh hipandtitleth heretohadnot tyetbeenacq quiredandreg gisteredunder rthename ofFEPIatthe timeofsale.T o Thus,FEPIhad dgrosslymisr representedit tselfasowner ratthetimeo ofthesaleofthesubject propertytohim p mandwhenit treceivedfrom mhimthefull lpayment,des spitebeingaw warethatitwa asnotyettheo owner. Afterthepreli A iminaryinvestigation,theC CityProsecuto orresolvedto odismissthe complaintfor restafa.Goap ppealedto theDepartmen t ntofJustice(D DOJ),which,inturnreversedtheCityPr rosecutorsfin ndings.TheDO OJfoundthat therewas aprimafacieb a basistoholdp petitionerslia ableforestafa a,pointingout tthattheelem mentsoftheo offensewerep presentas evidencedbyt e thetermsoft theContractt toSell.Petition nersthenfiledwiththeCo ourtofAppeals,apetitionf forreview, which was denied on the ground that a petition for r w g review pursua to Rule 43 cannot be a ant availed of as a mode of a appealfromth a herulingoftheSecretaryof fJusticebecau usetheRuleap ppliesonlytoagenciesorofficersexercis singquasi ju udicialfunctio ons.Thedecis siontofileani informationornotisanexe ecutiveandno otaquasijudi icialfunction.Petitioner movedforreco m onsiderationb butwasdenie ed.HTP. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otapetitionf forreviewund derRule43is sapropermo odeofappeal fromaresolu utionoftheSe ecretaryof Justice. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Proc R e cedure clearly shows that it governs ap y ppeals to the Court of App peals from decisionsand finalorderso d orresolutionsoftheCourto ofTaxAppealsorquasijud dicialagencies sintheexerciseoftheir quasijudicial functions. Th Departmen of Justice is not among the agencie enumerated in Section 1 of Rule q he nt g es d 43.Inclusiouniusestexclusio 4 oalterius. Wecannotagr W reewithpetiti ionerssubmissionthatapreliminaryinv vestigationis aquasijudici ialproceeding g,andthat the DOJ is a quasijudicial agency exer t l rcising a quasijudicial fun nction when it reviews th findings of a public he f prosecutorreg p gardingthepr resenceofpro obablecause.
37|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts InBautistav.C CourtofAppea als,weheldth hataprelimin naryinvestiga ationisnota quasijudicialproceeding,t thus:The prosecutor in a preliminar investigatio does not d p ry on determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. He does not e e e exerciseadjud e dicationnorru ulemakingfun nctions. Thoughsome casesdescribethepublicp T prosecutorspowertoconductaprelimin naryinvestiga ationasquasi judicialin nature, this is true only to the extent th like quas n s hat, sijudicial bod dies, the prose ecutor is an o officer of the executive departmentex d xercisingpow wersakintothoseofacourt t,andthesimi ilarityendsat tthispoint.A quasijudicial bodyisas an a organ of g government ot ther than a co ourt and othe than a legi er islature which affects the r h rights of priva parties ate through either adjudication or rulemak t r n king.A quasij judicial agenc performs a cy adjudicatory functions suc that its ch awards,determ a minetherightsofparties,a andtheirdeci isionshaveth hesameeffect tasjudgmentsofacourt.S Suchisnot the t case when a public pr n rosecutor con nducts a preli iminary inves stigation to d determine pro obable cause to file an information against a pers son charged w with a crimin offense, or when the S nal r Secretary of Ju ustice is reviewing the formersorder f rorresolution ns. SincetheDOJi S isnotaquasi judicialbodyanditisnoto oneofthoseagencieswhosedecisions,or rdersorresolutionsare appealableto theCourtofA a Appealsunder rRule43,theresolutionof ftheSecretary yofJusticefin ndingprobablecauseto indictpetition nersforestafa ais,therefore, ,notappealab bletotheCou urtofAppeals viaapetition nforreviewu underRule 43.Accordingl 4 ly,theCourto ofAppealscorr rectlydismiss sedpetitioners spetitionforreview. oOo CITYENGIN NEEROFBAGU UIOandHON. .MAURICIOD DOMOGAN,pe etitioners,vs.R ROLANDOBA ANIQUED,resp pondent. G.R.No.150270 mber26,2008 8 Novem Underexistinglaws,theoffic U ceofthemayo orisgivenpow wersnotonlyr relativetoitsf functionasthe eexecutiveoffi ficialofthe town.Ithasals t sobeenendow wedwithautho oritytohearis ssuesinvolving gpropertyrigh htsofindividua alsandtocom meoutwith an a effective or rder or resolut tion thereon. I this manne it exercises quasijudicial functions. Th power is o In er, his obviously a truisminthem t matterofissuin ngdemolitionnoticesand/o orordersagain nstsquattersa andillegalocc cupantsthroug ghsomeof itsagenciesorauthorizedco ommitteeswith hinitsrespecti ivemunicipali itiesorcities. GenerosoBonifacio,acting astheattorne G eyinfactofP Purificacionde eJoya,MilagrosVillar,MinervaBaluyut andIsrael de d Leon filed a complaint with the Offic of the Mayo of Baguio City seeking t demolition of a house built on a w ce or the parceloflandlocatedatUpperQuezonH p Hill,BaguioCit ty.In1999,Do omogan,theth hencitymayo orofBaguioCity,issued Notice of Dem N molition agains spouses Ro st olando and Fid dela Baniqued Aggrieved, respondent fi d. iled a compla aint before theRTCinBaguioCityalleg t gingthatthe intendeddem molitionofhis shousewasd donewithout dueprocesso oflawand "wasarriveda " atarbitrarilya andinamarti iallawlikefas shion."Petitio onersmovedt todismissthe ecomplaintof fBaniqued ontheground o doflackofcau useofactionb because,amon ngothers,def fendantsdono otexercisejud dicialandqua asijudicial functions. f The T RTC foun for the pet nd titioners and dismissed th complaint of Baniqued on the groun that petitio he nd oners "are unquestionabl u lymembersoftheexecutiv vebranchwho osefunctions areneitherju udicialnorquasijudicial.O Onappeal, the CA sustained Banique finding th the Mayo exercises quasijudicial functions. Petitioners m t ed hat or moved for reconsideratio r onbutwasden nied.HTP. ISSUE: Whetherorno W ottheactofth hecitymayori inissuingano oticeofdemolitionisaquas sijudicialfunc ction. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED.
38 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Underexisting U glaws,theoffi iceofthemay yorisgivenpo owersnotonly yrelativetoit tsfunctionastheexecutive eofficialof thetown.Itha t asalsobeenen ndowedwithauthoritytoh hearissuesinv volvingprope ertyrightsofi individualsan ndtocome outwithanef o ffectiveorder orresolution nthereon.Int thismanner,i itexercisesqu uasijudicialfu unctions.This spoweris obviouslyatru o uisminthem matterofissuingdemolition nnoticesand/ /orordersaga ainstsquatter rsandillegal occupants throughsomeofitsagenciesorauthorize t edcommittees swithinitsres spectivemuni icipalitiesorc cities. There is no ga T ainsaying that a city mayo is an execu t or utive official n is the mat nor tter of issuing demolition notices or g ordersnotam o ministerialone.Butthen,it tcannotbede eniedaswell thatindeterm miningwheth herornotast tructureis il llegaloritsho ouldbedemo olished,propertyrightsareinvolvedther rebyneeding noticesando opportunityto obeheard asprovidedfo a orintheconstitutionallygu uaranteedrightofdueprocess.Inpursu uitofthesefu unctions,thec citymayor has h to exercis quasijudic powers.M se cial Moreno, in hisPhilippine L Law Dictionar 3rdEdition ry, n,defines qua asijudicial function as ap f pplying to the action discr e retion, etc. of public admin nistrative offic cers or bodies, who are re equired to investigatefac ctsorascertain ntheexistenc ceoffacts,holdhearings,an nddrawconclusionsfromth hem,asabasi isfortheir officialaction,andtoexercisediscretion o nofajudicial nature.Signif ficantly,theN NoticeofDemo olitioninissu uewasthe resultoftheex r xerciseofquasijudicialpow werbytheOff ficeoftheMay yor. oOo HON.ISIDRO OCARIO,inhiscapacityasSecretaryof ftheDepartmentofEducati ion,Culture& &Sports,DR.E ERLINDA LOLARGA,inhercapacitya L asSuperintend dentofCitySc choolsofManila,petitioners s,vs.THECOM MMISSIONON NHUMAN RACIANOBUD DOY,JULIETA ABABARAN,E ELSAIBABAO O,HELENLUP PO,AMPAROG GONZALES,L LUZDEL RIGHTS,GR CASTILLO,EL C LSAREYESan APOLINARI nd IOESBER,res spondents. G.R. .No.96681 mber2,1991 Decem Some800pub S blicschoolteachers,membe ersoftheMan nilaPublicSch hoolTeachers Association(MPSTA)andA Allianceof ConcernedTea C achers(ACT), ,undertooka "massconcer rtedactions"t to"dramatize eandhighligh ht"theirplight tresulting fromthealleg f gedfailureoft thepublicaut thoritiestoac ctupongrieva ancesthathad dtimeandaga ainbeenbrou ughttothe la atter's attent tion. The "ma actions" c ass consisted in s staying away from their c classes, conve erging at the Liwasang Bonifacio,gath B heringinpeac ceableassemblies,etc. For F failure to heed the ret turntowork order, the CH complaina HR ants (private respondents) were administratively charged, preventively susp c pended for nin nety (90) day and tempo ys orarily replace An invest ed. tigation comm mittee was consequentlyf c formedtohea arthecharges. strativecaset theresponden ntsfiledsepar rateanswers,optedforaf formalinvestigation,andal lsomoved Intheadminis for f suspension of the admi n inistrative pro oceedings pen nding resoluti by the Sup ion preme Court of their appli ication for issuanceofaninjunctivewr rit/temporary yrestrainingo order.Saidmotionforsuspe ensionwasdenied.HTP. ISSUE: Whetherorno W ottheCommis ssiononHuma anRightsisaq quasijudicial body. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. The T Court dec clares the Com mmission on Human Rights to have no such power and that it was not mea by the o r; ant fundamental law to be ano f other court or quasijudicia agency in th country, o duplicate m r al his or much less take over the e functionsofth f helatter.
39|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The T most that may be conc t ceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is tha it mayinves f at stigate,i.e., receive eviden and make findings of f r nce e fact as regard claimed human rights vi ds iolations invo olving civil and political rights.Butfact r tfindingisno otadjudication n,andcannotbelikenedto thejudicialfu unctionofaco ourtofjustice, ,orevena quasijudicial agency or official. The fu q unction of re eceiving evide ence and asc certaining the erefrom the f facts of a controversyis c snotajudicial lfunction,pro operlyspeakin ng.Tobecons sideredsuch, thefacultyof receivingevid denceand makingfactualconclusionsinacontrover m rsymustbeac ccompaniedb bytheauthorit tyofapplyingthelawtotho osefactual conclusionstotheendthatt c thecontroversy ymaybedecid dedordeterm minedauthorita atively,finally yanddefinitive ely,subject tosuchappeals t sormodesofr reviewasmay ybeprovidedb bylaw.Thisfu unction,torepeat,theComm missiondoesn nothave. TheConstituti T ionclearlyand dcategorically ygrantstothe eCommission nthepowerto oinvestigateallformsofhum manrights violations invo v olving civil and political rights. It can exe d ercise that po ower on its ow initiative or on compla wn aint of any person.Itmay p yexercisethat tpowerpursu uanttosuchr rulesofprocedureasitmayadoptand,i incasesofvio olationsof saidrules,cite s eforcontemptinaccordanc cewiththeRu ulesofCourt. Inthecourse eofanyinvest tigationcondu uctedbyit orunderitsau o uthority,itma aygrantimmu unityfromprosecutiontoa anypersonwhosetestimon nyorwhosep possession ofdocuments orotherevidenceisnecess o saryorconvenienttodeter rminethetrut th.Itmayalso orequestthe assistance ofanydepartm o ment,bureau, office,oragencyintheper rformanceof itsfunctions, intheconduc ctofitsinvest tigationor inextendingsu uchremedyas smayberequ uiredbyitsfin ndings. Butitcannott B tryanddecide ecases(orhea aranddeterm minecauses)as scourtsofjustice,orevenq quasijudicialbodiesdo. Toinvestigate T eisnottoadju udicateoradj judge.Whethe erinthepopu ularorthetechnicalsense, ,theseterms havewell understoodan u ndquitedistin nctmeanings. oOo CABANTING,A C A. JESUSO OCAMPOVOFFICEOFTHE EOMBUDSMA AN 18Jan nuary2000G. .R.No.11468 83322SCRA 17 Thedismissalofthecrimina alcasewillnot tforecloseadm ministrativeac ctionfiledagai instpetitioner rorgivehimacleanbill ofhealt thinallrespec cts. K.N. P Paudel of the Agricultural D Development Bank of Nepa wrote a lett to NIACON al ter NSULT reques sting for a training propo t osal on small scale commu unity irrigation developmen Ocampo, th training di n nt. he irector of NIA ACONSULT affirmed the a a availability of NIACONSULT NIACONSUL conducted the training program. ADB paid to Oc T. LT BN campo the agreedtrainingfee. a ONSULTdema andedOcamp potoremitthe epaymentreceivedbyhim mpersonally. Ocampofailed dtoremit NIACO promptingNIA p ACONSULTtofileanadministrativecasebeforetheOm mbudsmanfor rseriousmisc conductand/o orfraudor willfulbreachoftrust. w ailure ofOcam tofile his counteraffid mpo s davit,theOmb budsman issu uedaResoluti recommen ion ndingthat For fa Ocampobedis O schargedfrom mtheservice.O Ocampofiledamotionforr reconsideratio onwhichwas sdenied.Ocam mpofileda petitionforcer p rtiorariinthe eSupremeCou urt. While the case is pending, Ocam filed a M e p mpo Manifestation s stating that th criminal co he omplaint for e estafa and falsificationfil f ledagainsthim mbasedonth hesamefactsw whichgaveris setotheadmi inistrativecas sewasdismiss sedbythe RTC.Ocampo contendsthat R ttheadminist trativecaseca annolongers standbecause eofthedismis ssalofthecrim minalcase intheRTC. ISSUE:
40 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Wheth herthedismis ssalofthecrim minalcasebas sedonthesam mefactswhich hgaverisetotheadministr rativecase willforecloset w theadministra ativeaction?N NO HELD: H onDENIED. Petitio Thedismissalofthecriminalcas sewillnotforecloseadmini istrativeactio onfiledagainstpetitionerorgivehim acleanbillofh a healthinallrespects.TheR RegionalTrial lCourt,indism missingthecr riminalcompl laint,wassimplysaying thattheprosec t cutionwasun nabletoprove etheguiltofpetitionerbeyo ondreasonabl ledoubt,acon nditionsinequ uanonfor conviction. Th lack or ab c he bsence of pro beyond re oof easonable dou does not mean an ab ubt bsence of any evidence y whatsoever fo there is an w or nother class o evidence w of which, though insufficient t establish gu beyond r to uilt reasonable doubt,isadeq d quateincivilc cases;thisisp preponderance eofevidence. .Thentoo,the ereisthe"sub bstantialevidence"rule in administrat tive proceedin which me ngs erely requires such relevan evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as nt s e t adequate to s a support a con nclusion. Thu considering the differen in the qu us, g nce uantum of ev vidence, as w as the well procedure fol p llowed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedi t ings, the find dings and conclusionsin c noneshouldnotnecessarily ybebindingon ntheother. oOo EDPEPSICOL LASUPERVISORYUNIONV VSBIENVENID DOLAGUESM MA UNITE 25March19998G. .R.No.12222 26288SCRA1 15 Thedoctrin neofresjudica atacertainlya appliestoadve ersaryadminis strativeprocee edings. Petitio onerisaunio onofsupervis soryemployee es.Itappears thatonMarch20,1995th heunionfiled apetition forcertificatio f onelectiononbehalfoftheroutemanage ersatPepsiCo olaProductsP Philippines,In nc.However,it tspetition was w denied by the medarb y biter and, on appeal, by the Secretary of Labor and E Employment, on the ground that the routemanager r rsaremanage erialemployee esand,theref fore,ineligible eforunionme embershipund derthefirstse entenceof Art.245ofthe A eLaborCode. Two questions are presented b the petitio (1) whether the route managers a PepsiCola Products e by on: e at Philippines, In are manag P nc. gerial employe and (2) w ees whether Art. 2 245, insofar as it prohibits managerial e employees fromforming,joiningorass f sistinglaborunions,violates sArt.III,8of ftheConstitut tion. pearsthatthis squestionwa asthesubject oftwoprevio ousdetermina ationsbythe SecretaryofL Laborand Itapp Employment,i E inaccordance ewithwhichth hiscasewasd decidedbythe emedarbiter. In Case No. OSMA A1031891, entitled Worker's Allianc Trade Union (WATU) v PepsiCola Products ce v. Philippines, In decided on November1 1991, the Secretary of Laborfound t P nc., n 13, that routema anagers and a accounting managerarem m managerialem mployees. Thisf findingwasre eiteratedinCa aseNo.OSA37192.entit tledInRe:Pe etitionforDire ectCertificatio onand/or CertificationE C ElectionRoute eManagers/Su upervisoryEm mployeesofP PepsiColaPro oductsPhils.I Inc.statingth hataroute managerisam m managerialem mployeewithin nthecontextofthedefinitionofthelaw, ,andhence,in neligibletojoi in,formor assistaunion. a ISSUE: herthedeterm minationsina administrative eproceedings shavetheeffectofresjudicata?YES Wheth HELD: H onDISMISSED D. Petitio
41|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts InNas sipitLumberC Co.v.National lLaborRelatio onsCommissio however,p on, petitionerarg guesthatthese eprevious administrative a edeterminatio onsdonothav vetheeffecto ofresjudicata inthiscase,b because"labor rrelationspro oceedings" are a "nonlitigi ious and sum mmary in natu without r ure regard to legal technicaliti ies."Nasipit L Lumber Co. involved a clearance to d c dismiss an em mployee issued by the Department of La d abor. The que estion was wh hether in a su ubsequent proceedingfor p rillegaldismi issal,theclear rancewasres sjudicata.Inh holdingitwas snot,thisCou urtmadeitclearthatit wasreferringt w tolaborrelati ionsproceedin ngsofanona adversarychar racter,thus: There equirementof faclearancet toterminatee employmentw wasacreation noftheDepar rtmentoflabo or to car out the La rry abor Code pro ovisions on se ecurity of tenu and term ure mination of em mployment. Th he proceeding subsequent to the fi iling of an ap pplication for clearance to terminate em mployment wa as nedinBookV,RuleXIVofth heRulesandR RegulationsIm mplementingt theLaborCod de.Thefacttha at outlin saidruleallowedaprocedurefortheapprova alofthecleara ancewithorw withouttheop ppositionofth he oyee concerne (Secs. 7 & 8), demons ed & strates the no onlitigious and summary nature of th he emplo proceeding.Thecle earancerequir rementwasth hereforeneces ssaryonlyasa anexpeditious sshieldagainst rarydismissalwithoutthek knowledgeand dsupervisionoftheDepart tmentofLabor r.Hence,adul ly arbitr appro ovedclearance eimpliedthatthedismissalwaslegalorf forcause(Sec.2). The d doctrine of res judicata cert s tainly applies to adversary administrative proceeding As early as 1956, in y gs. Brillantes v. C B Castro, we su ustained the d dismissal of an action by a trial court on the basis of a prior admi n n f inistrative determination d nofthesamec casebytheWa ageAdministr rationService,applyingthe eprincipleofr resjudicata.Recently,in Abadv.NLRC A weappliedth herelateddoc ctrineofstaredecisisinholdingthatthepriordetermi inationthatce ertainjobs attheAtlanticGulfandPaci a ificCo.,werep projectemplo oymentswasb bindinginano othercaseinvo olvinganothe ergroupof employeesoft e thesamecom mpany.Indeed, ,inNasipitLu umberCo.,this sCourtclarifiedtowardthe eendofitsop pinionthat "the doctrine of res judicata applies . . . to judicia or quasi judicial proce " al eedings and n to the ex not xercise of administrative powers." Now proceedin for certific a e ngs cation election such as tho involved i Case No. OSMA10 n, ose in 31891andCa 3 aseNo.OSA3 37192,arequasijudicialin nnatureand,therefore,dec cisionsrender redinsuchpr roceedings canattainfinality. c oOo ARLOSFORTI ICHVHON.R RENATOCORO ONA HON.CA 24Ap pril1998G.R. .No.131457 289SCRA62 24
TheactofthePresidentinre T eopeningthecaseandsubstantiallymodif ifyingitsearlie erdecisionwh hichhadalread dybecome xecutor,wasin ngrossdisrega ardoftherule esandbasicleg galprecepttha ataccordfinalitytoadminis strative finalandex det terminations. This c case involves a 144hecta land own s are ned by NQSRMDC in Sumilao, Bukidno The Department of on. Agrarian Reform (DAR) pla A aced the entir 144hectare property un re nder compuls sory acquisitio NQSRMDC resisted on. DARsaction.T D TheProvincia alDevelopmen ntCouncilof Bukidnonhea adedbyGov.F Fortichapplie edfortheconversionof thelandincon t ntroversyasp partoftheBu ukidnonAgro IndustrialZo ones.DARdid notapprove theconversio on.Fortich appealedtoth a heOfficeofthe ePresident(OP).TheOPrev versedthedec cisionofDAR. .Theconversi ionwasappro oved. Strike ersprotestedt thedecision. ThisledtheO OPtoissuetheWinWinRe esolution,sub bstantiallymodifyingits earlierdecisionafterithadalreadybecom e mefinalandexecutor.Forti ichfiledapeti ititontosetas sideandannu ultheWin WinResolution. W ISSUE: NO! N HELD: H
hertheissuan nceofWinWi inResolution isvalidafter theearlierde ecisionhadal lreadyattaine edfinality? Wheth
42|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Petitio onGRANTED. When ntheOfficeof fthePresiden ntissuedtheO OrderdatedJu une23,1997 declaringthe eDecisionof March29, 1996finaland 1 dexecutory,as snoonehass seasonablyfile edamotionfo orreconsidera ationthereto,thesaidOffic cehadlost it tsjurisdiction ntoreopenth hecase,moresomodifyitsDecision.Hav vinglostitsju urisdiction,the eOfficeofthePresident hasnomorea h authoritytoen ntertainthesecondmotion nforreconsiderationfiledb byresponden ntDARSecreta ary,which secondmotion s nbecamethe basisofthea assailed"Win Win"Resolut tion.Section7 7ofAdministr rativeOrderN No.18and Section4,Rule S e43oftheRev visedRulesof fCourtmanda atethatonlyo one(1)motion nforreconsiderationisallo owedtobe takenfromthe t eDecisionofM March29,199 96.Andeveni ifasecondmo otionforrecon nsiderationw waspermittedtobefiled in"exceptiona allymeritoriou uscases,"asp providedinth hesecondparagraphofSec ction7ofAO1 18,stillthesa aidmotion should not ha been ente s ave ertained consi idering that t first motion for recons the sideration wa not seasonably filed, as therebyallowi t ingtheDecisio onofMarch2 29,1996tolap pseintofinalit ty.Thus,theactoftheOfficeofthePresid dentinre opening the c o case and subs stantially mod difying its Ma arch 29, 1996 Decision w 6 which had alre eady become final and executory, wa in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept tha accord fina e as d l at ality to admi inistrative determination d ns. The o orderly admin nistration of justice require that the ju es udgments/resolutions of a court or qua asijudicial bodymustrea b achapointoff finalitysetbythelaw,rules sandregulatio ons.Thenoble epurposeistowritefinisto odisputes onceandforall.Thisisafun o ndamentalpri incipleinourjusticesystem m,withoutwh hichtherewou uldnoendtol litigations. Utmost respec and adher U ct rence to this principle mu always be maintained by those wh wield the power of ust e ho adjudication.A a Anyactwhichviolatessuchprinciplemustimmediatel lybestruckdo own. There efore, the assa ailed "WinWi Resolution which subst in" n tantially modi ified the Decis sion of March 29, 1996 h after it has att a tained finality is utterly vo Such void resolution, a aptly stress by Justice Thomas A. S y, oid. d as sed e Street in a 1918 case, is "a lawless thing, which can be treate as an outl 1 s t ed law and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and n wheneveritex w xhibitsitshead." oOo ELUISANGEL LOROSAVAL LBERTOROA A JOSE 14Ju uly2006G.R. .No.140423 495SCRA22 2 Beingthusunderthecontro olofthePresid dent,theSecret taryofJustice,,or,tobeprec cise,hisdecisio onissubjecttoreviewof theform mer.Immediate erecoursetoth hecourtwould dbeprematur reandprecipit tate.
Orosa a dentist by profession, filed with the Pasig City P a, y Prosecution O Office a comp plaintaffidavit charging t respondentAl r lbertoC.Roa, likewiseaden ntist,withthe ecrimeoflibe el.Thecompla aint,docketedinsaidoffice asI.S.No. 965442, stem 9 mmed from an article entitl "Truth vs. Rumors: Questions agains Dr. Orosa" written by re n led st espondent and published in the Marc a d chApril 1996 issue of the Dental Trading Post, a bimonthly pu 6 e ublication of t Dental the Exchange Co., Inc. In gist, the article del E t lved into the possibility of a father, wh happened t be an exam f ho to miner in a li icensure exam mination for dentistry whe his sons w d ere were examine manipulat ees, ting the exam minations or t results the thereoftoenab t blehischildre entotopthesame. After preliminary investigation, Pasig City Pr i rosecutor Noe Paz issued a Resolution, dismissing petitioner's el a complaint. Pet c titioner appealed to the D Department o Justice (DO Acting on the appeal, Chief State P of OJ). n Prosecutor JovencitoZuo oissuedaRes solution(ZuoResolution),settingaside ethefindingsoftheCityPr rosecutorand ddirecting thelattertofil t leanInformat tionforlibelagainstrespon ndent. Respo ondent appeal to the Sec led cretary of Jus stice. Then Jus stice Secretar Serafin Cue ry evas reversed the Zuo d Resolution an directed th City Prosec R nd he cutor of Pasig to withdraw the Inform g w mation earlier filed with th RTC. In he compliance th c herewith, a "Motion to W " Withdraw Info ormation" wa accordingly filed in co as y ourt by the P Pasig City ProsecutionOffice.Petitione P ersmotionforreconsidera ationwasdenied.
43|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Petitio onerwenttot theCAonape etitionforrevi iewunderRul le43.CAdism missedpetition ner'spetitionf forreview ontheground o dthatthePasi igCityProsec cutionOfficea andtheDepar rtmentofJust ticearenotam mongthequa asijudicial agencies inclu a uded in Sectio 1 of Rule 4 whose fina orders or r on 43 al resolutions ar subject to review by the Court of re e Appeals. A ISSUE: Whether a petition for rev W view under Ru 43 of the 1997 Rules o Procedure is a proper m ule of mode of appe from a eal resolutionoftheSecretaryo r ofJusticedirec ctingthepros secutortowith hdrawaninformationinac criminalcase? ?NO! HELD: H onDENIED. Petitio Rule 4 governs al appeals from the Court of Tax Appea and quasi 43 ll als judicial bodie to the CA. Section 1 es thereofprovid t des: Sectio on1.Scope.T ThisRuleshal llapplytoapp pealsfromjud dgmentsorfin nalordersofth heCourtofTa ax Appea and from awards, judg als, gments, final orders or res solutions of o authorized by any quas or si judicia agency in the exercise of its quasiju al udicial functions. Among t these agencie are the Civ es vil Servic Commissio Central Bo ce on, oard of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchang Commission, ge Office of the Presid e dent, Land Re egistration Au uthority, Socia Security Commission, Civ Aeronautic al vil cs Board Bureau of Patents, T d, Trademarks and Technology Transfe National Electrificatio er, on Admin nistration,Ene ergyRegulato oryBoard,Nat tionalTelecom mmunicationsCommission,Departmento of Agrarian Reform under Repub blic Act No. 6657, Gover rnment Servi ice and Insu urance System m, oyees' Compe ensation Com mmission, Agricultural Inv ventions Board, Insurance Commission, e Emplo Philip ppine Atomic Energy Commission, Boar of Investm rd ments, Constr ruction Indust Arbitratio try on Comm mission,andvo oluntaryarbit tratorsauthor rizedbylaw. TheD DOJisnotamo ongtheagenc ciesexpressly yenumerated underSection n1ofRule43 3,albeitanys suggestion that it does n perform quasijudicial functions ma have to be rejected. Ho t not q ay e owever, its ab bsence from t list of the agenciesment a tionedthereun nderdoesnot t,bythisfacta alone,alreadyimplyitsexclusionfromth hecoverageof fsaidRule. Thisisbecause T esaidSection n1usestheph hrase"amongtheseagencie es,"therebyim mplyingthatth heenumeratio onmadeis notexclusiveo n oftheagencies sthereinlisted. There eiscompelling greasontobe elieve,howeve er,thattheexc clusionoftheDOJfromthe elistisdeliber rate,being inconsonance ewiththecon nstitutionalpo owerofcontro ollodgedinth hePresidento overexecutive edepartments s,bureaus andoffices.Th a hispowerofco ontrol,whichevenCongresscannotlimit t,letalonewit thdraw,meansthepoweroftheChief Executivetoreview,alter,m E modify,nullify y,orsetasidewhatasubor rdinate,e.g.,m membersofth heCabinetand dheadsof li ineagencies,h haddoneinth heperforman nceoftheirdu utiesandtosu ubstitutetheju udgmentofth heformerfort thatofthe la atter. thusunderth hecontroloft thePresident,theSecretary yofJustice,or r,tobeprecise e,hisdecision nissubject Being to t review of t former. In fine, recours from the d the n se decision of the Secretary of Justice shou be to the President, e uld insteadofthe CA,underthe eestablished principleofex xhaustionofa administrative eremedies.Thethrustofth heruleon exhaustionof administrativ e veremediesis sthatifanapp pealorremed dyobtainsori isavailablewi ithintheadmi inistrative machinery,thi m isshouldbere esortedtobef foreresortcan nbemadetot thecourts.Im mmediaterecoursetotheco ourtwould be b premature and precipita subject t defined ex ate; to xception, a cas is susceptible of dismissal for lack o cause of se of actionshould apartyfailto a oexhaustadm ministrativerem medies.Notab bly,Section1,supra,ofRule43includes theOffice ofthePresiden o ntintheagen nciesnamedth herein,thereb byaccentuatin ngthefactthat tappealsfrom mrulingsofde epartment headsmustfir h rstbetakento oandresolved dbythatoffice ebeforeanyap ppellaterecou ursemaybere esortedto. oOo
44 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts METROCONSTRUCTION,INC.VCHATH M HAMPROPER RTIES,INC. tember2001G G.R.No.14189 97365SCRA6 697 24Sept Itisclearthat tCircularNo.1 191coverstheCIAC.Inthef firstplace,itis saquasijudic cialagency.Th helanguageofSection1 f ofCircularN No.191emphasizestheobv viousinclusionoftheCIACev venifitisnotn namedinthee enumerationof ofquasi judi icialagencies. Respo ondentChatha amProperties s,Inc.(CHATH HAM)andpetitionerMetro Construction,Inc.(MCI)en nteredinto a a contract for the construct tion of a mult tistorey build ding known a the Chatham House. MCI sought to co as m I ollect from CHATHAMasumofmoneyforunpaidpr C rogressbilling gsandotherchargesandin nstitutedareq questforadjud dicationof it tsclaimswith htheCIAC.CIA ACruledinfav vorofMCI. Chath hamimpugns thedecisiono oftheCIAC.It tinstituteda petitionforreviewwithth heCourtofAp ppeals.CA upheld the de u ecision of the CIAC. The CA confirme the jurispr ed rudential prin nciple that a absent any sh howing of arbitrariness, the CIAC's fin a ndings as an a administrative agency and quasi judicia body should not only be accorded al d e great respect but also give the stamp of finality. H g en However, the Court of App peals found e exception in t CIAC's the disquisitionof d fIssueNo.9on nthematterofliquidateddamages. CA ru uled that MCI is liable for liquidated dam mages, as per Article 13.5 of the Constr r ruction Contra for its act, failure to com f mplete the pr roject within the period s stipulated in the Construc ction Contract and even d t despite an extensionof5 e 53daysfromt theoriginalsc cheduleorof theoverallsc cheduleofcom mpletion.[MC CI]shouldther reforepay [CHATHAM] the amount of liquidated d [ f damages equiv valent to P24 4,125,000.00 f 193 days of delay in th overall for he scheduleofcompletion. s iledtheinstan ntpetitionforreviewtocha allengethedecisionoftheC CourtofAppea als.MCIallege esthatthe MCIfi CourtofAppea C alserredinre eviewingandr reversingtheCIAC'sfactual lfindings. ISSUE: her rt s w n Arbitration Wheth the Cour of Appeals can review findings of facts of the Construction Industry A Commission(C C CIAC)?YES HELD: H upontheCIAC Coriginalandexclusivejurisdictionover rdisputesaris singfrom,orc connected EO.No.1008vestu with,contracts w senteredinto obypartiesin nvolvedincon nstructionint thePhilippine es,whetherth hedisputearis sesbefore orafterthecom o mpletionofth hecontract,or raftertheaba andonmentorbreachthereo of.ByexpressprovisionofS Section19 thereof,thear t rbitralaward oftheCIACis sfinalanduna appealable,ex xceptonquest tionsoflaw,w whichareapp pealableto theSupremeC t Court. Itiscl learthatCircu ularNo.191c coverstheCIA AC.Inthefirst tplace,itisaq quasijudicialagency.Aqua asijudicial agencyorbod a dyhasbeendefinedasano organofgove ernmentother rthanacourt tandotherth hanalegislatu ure,which affects the ri a ights of priv vate parties t through eithe adjudication or rulem er making. The very definiti ion of an administrative a eagencyinclu udesitsbeing vestedwithq quasijudicialp powers.Thee everincreasing gvarietyofpo owersand functionsgiventoadminist f trativeagencie esrecognizes theneedfor theactiveint terventionofa administrative eagencies inmatterscall lingfortechni icalknowledg geandspeedi incountlessco ontroversiesw whichcannot possiblybeh handledby regular courts The CIAC's primary function is that of a quasijudicial agency, w r s. which is to ad djudicate claim and/or ms determinerigh d htsinaccorda ancewithproc ceduressetfor rthinE.O.No.1008. In the second place the languag of Section 1 of Circular No. 191 emp e e, ge 1 phasizes theo obvious inclus sion of the CIACevenifit C tisnotnamed dintheenum merationofqu uasijudicialag gencies.Thein ntroductoryw words"[a]am mongthese agenciesare" precedingthe a eenumeration nofspecificq quasijudiciala agenciesonly yhighlightthe efactthatthe listisnot exclusiveorco e onclusive.Further,theover rturestressesandacknowle edgestheexist tenceofother rquasijudicia alagencies not n included in the enumer ration but sho ould be deemed included. I addition, th CIAC is obv In he viously exclud in the ded Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 45|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts catalogueofca c asesnotcoveredbytheCir rcularandme entionedinSe ection2thereo offorthereas sonthatatthetimethe Circulartooke C effect,E.O.No. .1008allowsappealstothe eSupremeCou urtonquestio onsoflaw. Insum m,underCircu ularNo.191, appealsfrom mthearbitrala awardsofthe CIACmaybe broughttoth heCourtof Appeals,andn A nottotheSup premeCourta alone.Thegro oundsforthe appealarelik kewisebroade enedtoinclud deappeals onquestionso o offactsandap ppealsinvolvin ngmixedques stionsoffacta andlaw. oOo MABULAC,B. M ELISEOF.SORIANO,petitio oner,vs.MA.C CONSOLIZAP P.LAGUARDIA A,inhercapac cityasChairpersonoftheM Movieand ReviewandCl lassificationB Board,MOVIE ANDTELEVI ISIONREVIEW WANDCLASS SIFICATIONB BOARD, TelevisionR JESSIEL.GA ALAPON,ANA ABELM.DELA ACRUZ,MAN NUELM.HERN NANDEZ,JOSE EL.LOPEZ,CRISANTOSOR RIANO, BERNABES.Y B YARIA,JR.,MI ICHAELM.SA ANDOVAL,an ndROLDANA.GAVINO,Res spondents. G. .R.No.164785 5 Apr ril29,2009 ELISEOF.SOR E RIANO,petitio oner,vs.MOV VIEANDTELE EVISION REV VIEWANDCL LASSIFICATIO ONBOARD,Z ZOSIMOG. ALEGRE, JACK AQUINO A KIE OGAVINO, NO OEL R. DEL PRADO, EMM MANUEL BOR RLAZA, JOSE E. ROMERO IV, and E O FLORIMONDO C. ROUS, in their capacity as members of the Hea F O n aring and Adju udication Com mmittee of th MTRCB, he JESSIE L. GAL LAPON, ANAB BEL M. DELA CRUZ, MAN A NUEL M. HER RNANDEZ, JOS L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO S SE SORIANO, BERNABES.Y B YARIA,JR.,MI ICHAELM.SA ANDOVAL,andROLDANA. .GAVINO,int theircapacityascomplainantsbefore theMTRCB,re t espondents. G. .R.No.165636 6 Apr ril29,2009 Powersofana P administrative eagencyisasc certainedfrom e lawitself mth fwhichisliber rallyconstrued d.MTRCBhas thepower toissueapreve t entivesuspens sionorder. PetitionerElis P seoSoriano,ashostofthep programAng DatingDaan, airedonUNT TV37airedin nappropriatec comments againstMichae a elSandoval,a aministerofI IglesianiCrist to.Becauseof fthis,complaintswerefiledbeforetheM Movieand televisionrevi t iewandclassi ificationboard d(MTRCB).T TheMTRCBor rderedthepre eventivesuspe ensionofthe showAng DatingDaanfo D or20days.Pe etitionersoug ghtreconsider rationofthes suspensionor rder.However r,petitionerw withdraws hismotionforreconsiderati h ionandfiledt thepresentpe etitionbeforet thecourt. Issue: Whetherthep W preventivesus spensionimposedagainstp petitionerisi invalidasPD 1986,creatin ngtheMTRCB B,doesnot expresslyauth e horizetheMTR RCBtoissuep preventivesus spension. Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbedenied d. Administrative agencies ha powers an functions w A e ave nd which may be administrat e tive, investigatory, regulato quasi ory, legislative,or quasijudicial l,oramixoft thefive,asmaybeconferredbytheCon nstitutionofb bystatute.The eyhavein fineonlysuchpowersorauthorityasaregrantedorde f elegated,expr resslyorimpliedlybylaw. Aperusalofth A heMTRCBsb basicmandateunderPD1986revealsthe epossessionb bytheagency yoftheauthor rity,albeit impliedly, to i issue the chal llenged order of preventiv suspension And this au r ve n. uthority stems naturally fro and is s om necessaryfort n theexerciseofitspowerofregulationan ndsupervision n.
46 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The T issuance of a preventi suspension comes well within the s ive l scope of the M MTRCBs auth hority and fun nctions to superviseandregulateexhibitionand/or s rbroadcastofallmotionpic cturesandtele evisionprogra ams.Thepowertoissue preventive suspension form part of th MTRCBs express regula p ms he atory and sup pervisory stat tutory manda and its ate investigatory and disciplinary authority subsumed in or implied from such m y n mandate. Any other constru would ual renderitspow r wertoregulate e,supervise,o ordisciplineill lusory. Thepreventivesuspensionwasdoneinfu T urtheranceof fthelawimpo osedpursuanttotheMTRCB Bsdutyofreg gulatingor supervisingte s elevisionprograms,pending gadetermina ationofwheth hertherehas actuallybeen naviolation.T Thepower toimposeprev t ventivesuspensionisoneo oftheimpliedp powersofMT TRCB. oOo EMELITAA.D DORAN,petiti ioner,vs.EXEC CUTIVEJUDG GEJUMMYHE ENRYF.LUCZO ON,JR.,Regio onalTrialCour rt,Branch 1,Tuguega araoCity,Caga ayan,andJUDGESALVADO ORB.CAMPOS S,MunicipalC CircuitTrialCo ourt,Amulung gIguig, Cagaya an,respondents. No.151344 mber26,2006 6 G.R.N Septem Actions;Certio A orari;Judicialo orQuasiJudic cialFunctions; ;Courts;Judge es;AdministrativeInvestigations;Thefunctionsofa judgedesignat tedtoinvestiga ateandadmin nistrativecomplaintismere elyinvestigativ veandrecomm mendatoryinn natureand does not invol the exercis of judicial or quasijudi d lve se icial power his acts may not be chall y lenged in a petition for certiorariunde c erRule6. Emelita Doran petitioner, a court stenographer filed with the office of the Cou Administra E n, a urt ator (OCA) a complaint charging resp c pondent Judge Campos wi grave mis e ith sconduct, brib bery, habitua abseentism and other v al m violations. Respondent denied petition R ners allegatio Upon reco on. ommendation by then Court Administra ator, the admi inistrative matterwasreferredtoExec m cutiveJudgeL Luczon.Respo ondentfileda motionthath hemaybeallo owedtofilea demurrer toevidencesin t ncepetitioner rfailedtosub bstantiatethe allegationsin nhercomplain nt.JudgeLucz zonallowedre espondent tofilethedem t murerandpetitionertofileh heropposition n.Petitionerfi iledamotionforreconsider rationagainst ttheorder ofthejudgeal o llowingthede emurrertoevi idence.Howev ver,thesaidm motionwasde enied.Thepet titionerthenc challenged therulingbefo t orethiscourtv viainstantpet titionforcerti iorari. Issue: Whetherthep W petitionforcer rtiorariistheproperremed dybythepetit tioner. Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbedismis ssed. l rtiorari may b invoked, th petition mu be directe against any tribunal, be he ust ed y In order that a special civil action of cer boardoroffice b erexercising judicialorqu uasijudicialfu unctionswhic chactedwitho outorinexce essofitsjuris sdictionor withgraveabu w useofdiscreti ionamounting gtolackorexcessofjurisdi ictionandthereisnoappea alnoranyplai in,speedy, andadequate remedyinthe a eordinarycou urseoflaw.It tisthisimpor rtanttodeterm minewhatare econsideredj judicialor quasijudicial acts.Itisthen q natureofthe acttobeperf formed,rather rthanoftheo office,boardo orbodywhich hperforms it tthatdetermi ineswhethero ornotitisexe ercisingajudicialorquasijudicialfunctio on. What is assail here is th ruling made by Investigating Judge L W led he Luczon allowin responden to file a demurrer to ng nt evidence.Judg e geLuczonwas sdesignatedb bythiscourt tomerelyinv vestigateands submitarepo ortandtheap ppropriate recommendati r ionrelativeto othesaidcom mplaint.Hisfu unctionismer relyinvestiga ativeandrecommendatory innature.
47|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts He H has no pow to pronounce judgmen on the con wer nt ntroversy. His designation as investigato does not in or nvolve the exerciseofjud e dicialorquasi judicialpowe er.Hence,hisa actsmaynotb bechallengedinapetitionf forcertiorari. oOo DESTILERI IALIMTUACO O&CO.,INC.a andCONVOY MARKETING GCORPORATI ION,petitionersvs.ADVERT TISING BOA ARDOFTHEP PHILIPPINES,respondents. Novem G.R.No.164242 mber28,2008 8 Requisitestob R beentitledtoa awritofProhibition(a)itm mustbedirect tedagainstat tribunal,corpo ation,board or dorperson exercising functions, judicia quasijudicial or ministe e al, erial; (b) the tribunal, corp poration, boar or person has acted rd withoutorine w excessofits/hi isjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscr retion;and(c) )thereisnoap ppealoranyotherplain, speedy,andad s dequateremedy dyintheordina arycourseofla aw. Destileria Lim D mtuaco & Co., Inc. (Destiler ria) through its advertising agency SLG Advertising (SLG) applied with the g d Advertising Board of the Philippines (A A P AdBoard) for a clearance of the airing of a radio advertisemen entitled r g nt Ginagabi(Nak katikimkanabangkinsean nyos).AdBoa ardissuedthesaidclearanc ce.Afterthead dvertisementwasaired, AdBoardwas sweptwithco A omplaintsfromthepublic. Thisleadthe eAdBoardto askSLGfora areplacement tbutthere wasnorespon w nseandlatero ontowithdra awtheadverti isement.How wever,SLGoffe erednoresponse.Thisprom mptedthe AdBoardtorecallthecleara A ancepreviousl lyissued. Thepetitioner T rsprotestedth heAdboards decisionfiling ganinjunctio onbeforethe RegionalTrialCourt.Thep petitioners alsofiledthep a presentpetitio onforprohibit tionandprelim minaryinjunc ctionunderRu ule65oftheR RulesofCourt. . Issue: Whether the p W petition for pr rohibition and preliminary injunction u d y under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper 5 remedyofthepetitioners. r Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbedenied d. UnderRule65 U 5,forpetitione stobeentit er tledtosuchre ecourse,itmustestablishth hefollowingre equisites:(a) itmustbe directed again a tribunal, corporation, board or per d nst rson exercisin functions, judicial, quasi ng ijudicial or m ministerial; (b)thetribuna ( al,corporation n,boardorpe ersonhasacted dwithoutorinexcessofits s/hisjurisdict tionorwithgr raveabuse ofdiscretion;a o and(c)therei isnoappealor ranyotherplain,speedy,andadequater remedyintheordinarycourseoflaw. Theactssough T httobeprohib bitedinthisc casearenotth heactsofatri ibunal,board,officer,orper rsonexercisin ngjudicial, quasijudicial or ministerial functions.W q What isat contest here is th power and he dauthorityof a privateorg ganization, composed of several memb c bersorganiza ations, which power and a authority were vested to it by its own members. t Obviously,pro O ohibitionwill notlieinthis scase.Thedef finitionandp purposeofaw writofprohibi itionexcludes sheuseof the t writ again any person or group of persons actin in a purely private capa nst n f ng y acity and the writ will not be issued againstprivate a eindividualso orcorporation nssoacting. oOo LINTA ANGBEDOL,p petitioner,vs.C COMMISIONO ONELECTION NS,respondents. G.R. .No.179830 mber3,2009 Decem
48 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Theeffectivene T essofthequas sijudicialpow wervestedbyla nagover awo rnmentinstitu utionhingeson nitsauthority tocompel attendance of the parties an a nd/or their wi itnesses at the hearings or proceedings. To withhold f e from the Comm mission on Elections the p E power to puni individuals who refuse t appear dur ish s to ring a factfind ding investiga ation, despite a previous a noticeandord n dertoattend,w wouldrender nugatorythe COMELECsin nvestigativepo ower,whichis sanessentiali incidentto itsconstitution nalmandateto osecuretheco onductofhone estandcredibl leelections. LintangBedol, L ,petitionerw waschargedw withthedutyo ofbeingtheP ProvincialElec ctionsSupervisorfortheProvinceof ShariffKabuns S suan,aneighb boringprovinc ceofMaguindanao.Petition nerfailedtoat ttendthesche eduledcanvass singofthe Provincial Cer P rtificates of Canvass (PCO of Maguin C OC) ndanao. The petitioner ap ppeared befor the Comm re mission on Elections (COM E MELEC) to su ubmit the PCO for Magui OC indanao. Due to certain ob bservations o the PCOC b certain on by parties,canvas p ssingofthece ertificatewasheldinabeyan nceandpetitionerwasqueriedonallege edfraudwhich hattended theconductof t felectionsinh hiscase. COMELECcrea C atedtheTaskForceMaguin ndanaotocon nductafactfin ndinginvestigationonthec conductofelec ctionsand certificates of canvass from the city and municipalitie in Maguind c m d es danao. Petitioner appeared before the T d Task Force andexplainedthatwhileinhiscustody,t a theelectionpa araphernaliaw werestolenso ometimeafter rtheelection.Petitioner wasinformed tobepresent w tinthenextp proceedings,h howeverdesp pitenotices,th hepetitioner failedtoappe earbefore theTaskForce t e.Also,thepe etitionerfailed dandrefusedtosubmitwr rittenexplana ationofhisabsences.Becau useofthis, COMELEC issu a contempt charge aga C ued ainst petitione Petitioner was arrested and the cont er. d tempt proceedings was initiated again him Petitio nst oner filed a p petition before the Supreme Court quest e e tioning the au uthority of CO OMELEC to mptchargeand dinitiatecontemptproceed dingsagainsth him. issueacontem Issue: Whether COM W MELEC exceed its jurisdiction in issui contempt charge and i ded ing initiating the contempt pr roceedings whenitwasperformingtisadministrativ w veandnotits quasijudicial lfunctionsastheNationalB BoardofCanv vassersfor theelectionof t fsenators. Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbedismis ssed. The T powers and functions of the COMEL LEC, conferre upon it by the 1987 Con ed nstitution and the Omnibu Election d us Code,maybec C classifiedintoadministrativ ve,quasilegis slativeandqua asijudicial.In ncarryingoutquasijudicial lfunctions theadministra t ativeofficerorbodiesarer requiredtoinv vestigatefacts sorascertain theexistence eoffacts,hold dhearings, weigh evidenc and draw conclusions from them as basis for th w ce, s heir official ac ction and exer rcise of discr retion in a ju udicialnature e. TheCOMELEC T C,throughthe eTaskForceM Maguindanao, ,wasexercisingitsquasiju udicialpower rinpursuitof fthetruth behindthealle b egationsofmassivefraudd duringtheelectionsinMag guindanao.To achieveitsob bjective,theT TaskForce conductedhea c aringsandreq quiredtheatte endanceofpar rtiesconcerne edandtheircounselstogiv vethemtheop pportunity toargueandsu t upporttheirr respectivepos sitions. The T effectiven ness of the qu uasijudicial power vested by law on a g government institution hin nges on its au uthority to compel attend c dance of the parties and/or their witn nesses at the hearings or proceedings. To withhold from the COMELECthepowertopun C nishindividual lswhorefusetoappeardur ringafactfind dinginvestiga ation,despitea aprevious noticeandord n dertoattend,w wouldrendernugatorytheCOMELECsin nvestigativep power.Inthiscase,thepurp poseofthe investigationw wasderailedw whenpetition nerrefusedto appeardurin nghearingsan ndtoanswerq questionsrega ardingthe variousdocum v mentswhichh heclaimedwe erestolenfrom mhim.Undou ubtedly,theC COMELECcoul ldpunishpeti itionerfor suchrefusalto s oattendhearin ngs.
49|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Even assuming arguendo th the COME E hat ELEC was acting as a board of canvasser at that time it required to appear d rs beforeit,thefu b unctionsofth heboardarenotpurelymin nisterial.Theb boardexercise esquasijudici ialfunctionssuchasthe duty to determ d mine whether the papers transmitted to them are genuine elec ctions returns signed by th proper s he officers.When o nthereturnso ofMaguindan naowerebeing gcanvassed,t theCOMELEC Caskedpetitio onertoappearbeforeit inordertoshe edlightonthe eissueofwhet thertheelecti iondocument tscomingfrom mMaguindana aowerespurio ousornot. Whenpetition W nerunjustifiab blerefusedtoappeal,COME ELECactedwit ththebounds sofitsjurisdic ctionwhenitissuedthe contemptchar c rgeagainsthim m. oOo MANUELF.C CABAL,petitio oner,vs.HON. RUPERTOKA APUNAN,JR.,andTHECIT TYFISCALOF MANILA,resp pondents. No.L L19052 mber29,1962 2 Decem Forfeiture of p F property in su ubstance is a criminal proc ceeding for the purpose of p e protection of the rights of defendant againstselfinc a crimination. Col.JoseMaris C stelaofthePh hilippineArmy yfiledwithth heSecretaryof fNationalDef fenseacompla aintchargingpetitioner Manuel Cabal, then Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philip M , ppines, with g graft, corrupt practices, un t nexplained wealth and ot w ther reprehen nsible acts. Th President created a com he mmittee to in nvestigate the charge of un nexplained wealthcontain w nedinsaidcom mplaintandsu ubmititsrepo ortandrecom mmendationas ssoonaspossi ible.Atthebe eginningof theinvestigati t ion,thecomm mittee,uponrequestofMaris stela,ordered dpetitionertotakethewitn nessstandand dbesworn toaswitnessf t forMaristela.Petitionerobj jectedtotheo orderoftheco ommittee,inv vokinghisconstitutionalrig ghtagainst selfincriminat s tion.Thecom mmitteeinsiste edthatpetitionertakethew witnessstand andbesworn nto,subjectto ohisright torefusetoan t nswersuchquestionsasmaybeincrimina atory.Howeve er,petitionerr respectfullyre efusedtobesw worntoas awitnesstota a akethewitnes ssstand.Thec committeeref ferredthemat ttertotheCity yFiscal.Thefiscalfiledwith hthecourt ofFirstInstanc o ceachargeof fcontempt.Th hechargewaspresidedbyJudgeKapunan n. Petitionerfiled P dwithrespon ndentjudgea motiontoqua ashthecharg ge;howeverth hejudgedenie edthemotion ntoquash. Theresponden T ntsallegethat ttheinvestiga ationbeingconductedbyth hecommittee isadministrativeandnotc criminalin nature.Hence n e,thisrecourse eofthepetitio onertotheSu upremeCourt. Issue: Whetherthep W proceedingsbe eforethecomm mitteeiscivilorcriminalin ncharacter Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbegrante ed. At A the outset, it is not disp puted that the accused in a criminal case may refuse, not only to answer incr e o riminatory questions,butalso,totaket q thewitnesssta and. ction, it shoul be noted th although said committ was creat to investig ld hat tee ted gate the admi inistrative In this connec chargeofunex c xplainedwealth,thereseem mstobenoqu uestionthatM Maristeladoesnotseekther removalofpet titioneras Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of th Philippines It seems, lik C d he s. kewise, conce eded that the purpose of t charge the againstpetitio a oneristoappl lytheprovisio onsoftheAntiGraftLaw,w whichauthorizestheforfei ituretotheSt tateofthe propertyofa publicofficer oremployee whichisman p nifestlyoutof fproportiont tohissalarya assuchpublicofficeror employeeandhisotherlaw e wfulincomean ndtheincome efromlegitim matelyacquire edproperty.Suchforfeiture ehasbeen heldtopartakethenatureo h ofapenalty.
50 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts As A a conseque ence, proceed dings for forfe eiture of prop perty are dee emed criminal or penal. He l ence, the exemption of defendantsinacriminalcas d sefromtheob bligationtobewitnessesaga ainstthemselv vesisapplicab blethereto.Co onsidering this,thepetitio t onercannotbeforcedtobe eswornintoan ndtakethewitnessstand. oOo BINAY,J. B AR RSENIOPASCUAL,JR,v.BO OARDOFMED DICALEXAMI INERS,etal L25018 26May1969 FERNAN NDO,J G.R.No.L administrative a ehearingagai instamedical lpractitionerf forallegedma alpractice,res spondentBoar rdofMedicalE Examiners cannot, consist c tently with the selfincrimin nation clause, compel the p person proceed against to take the witn ded o ness stand withouthiscon w nsent. Petitioner Ars P senio Pascual, Jr. (Pascual), was charged with malpra d actice by Resp pondent Board of Medical E d Examiners (Board). At th initial heari ( he ining of an ad dministrative case for alleg immoralit counsel for the Board a ged ty, r announced thatPascualw t willbethefirst twitness.The ereupon,Pascu ualthroughhi iscounsel,ma adeofrecordh hisobjection,relyingon theconstitutio t onalrighttob beexemptfrom mbeingawit tnessagainsth himself.TheB Boardtookno oteofsuchap plea,atthe sametimestat s tingthatatthe enextscheduledhearing,P Pascualwouldbecalledupo ontotestifyas ssuchwitness s,unlessin themeantimehecouldsecu t urearestrainingorderfrom macompetent tauthority.Pa ascualfiledfor rreliefwithth heCourtof First Instance (CFI) which granted his petition. The Board argue that the right against selfincriminat F ed tion being available only when a que a y estion calling for an incrim minating answ is asked o a witness. However, a motion of wer of interventionw wasfiledbyth hecomplainan ntsforthead dministrativec caseofmalpr racticewhich wasgranteds sustaining thepoweroft t theBoardwhi ichforthemi islimitedtocompellingthe ewitnesstota akethestand, ,tobedisting guished,in theiropinion, fromthepow t wertocompel awitnesstoi incriminatehi imself.Theyli ikewiseallege edthattherig ghtagainst selfincrimina s ationcannotbeavailedofin nanadministr rativehearing.Hence,thisp petition. ISSUE: Whethertheri W ightagainstse elfincriminationappliesev ventoadminis strativehearin ngs HELD: H PetitionDENI P IED We W found for the petitioner in accordan with the w nce wellsettled principle that "the accused in a criminal case may refuse,notonl r lytoanswerin ncriminatoryquestions,but t,also,totakethewitnesss stand." npennedbyt thepresentCh hiefJusticeth hatwhilethem matterreferre edtoanadmi inistrative Itwasnotedintheopinion chargeofunex c xplainedweal lth,withtheA AntiGraftAct authorizingth heforfeitureo ofwhateverp propertyapub blicofficer oremployeem o mayacquire,m manifestlyout tofproportio ontohissalary yandhisothe erlawfulinco ome,thereisc clearlythe impositionof apenalty.The eproceeding forforfeiture whileadmini istrativeinch haracterthus possessesacriminalor penalaspect.T p Thecasebefor reusisnotdis ssimilar;petit tionerwouldb besimilarlydi isadvantaged. .Hecouldsuff fernotthe forfeitureofpr f ropertybutth herevocationofhislicenseasmedicalpra actitioner,for rsomeaneven ngreaterdepr rivation. We W reiterate t that such a pr rinciple is equ ually applicab to a procee ble eding that cou possibly r uld result in the l loss of the privilegetopr p racticethemed dicalprofessio on. The T appeal ap pparently proc ceeds on the mistaken assu umption by respondent Bo oard and inter rvenorsappel llants that theconstitutio t onalguarantee eagainstself incrimination nshouldbelim mitedtoallow wingawitnesstoobjectto questions theanswersto t owhichcould dleadtoapen nalliabilitybe eingsubseque entlyincurred d.Itistrueth hatoneaspect tofsucha right, to follow the languag of another American decision, is th protection against "any disclosures w r w ge r he y which the
51|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts witnessmayreasonablyapp w prehendcould dbeusedinacriminalpros secutionorwh hichcouldlead dtootherevid dencethat mightbesous m sed."Ifthatwe ereallthereis sthenitbecom mesdiluted. ofinterestton notethatwhi ileearlierdecisionsstresse edtheprincipl leofhumanit tyonwhichth hisrightis Itislikewiseo predicated,precludingasitdoesallresor p rttoforceorc compulsion,w whetherphysic calormental,currentjudici ialopinion places equal e p emphasis on its identificati with the r i ion right to priva acy. Thus acco ording to Just tice Douglas: "The Fifth Amendmentin A nitsSelfIncri iminationclau useenablesth hecitizentocr reateazoneofprivacywhic chgovernmen ntmaynot forcetosurren f ndertohisdet triment."15S Soalsowithth heobservation nofthelateJu udgeFrankwh hospokeof"a arighttoa privateenclav p vewherehemayleadapriv vatelife.Thatr rightisthehal llmarkofourdemocracy." theabove,itc couldthusclea arlyappearth hatnopossible eobjectioncouldbelegitim matelyraiseda againstthe Inthelightoft correctnessof c fthedecision nowonappe eal.Weholdth hatinanadm ministrativehe earingagainst tamedicalpr ractitioner for f alleged malpractice, respondent Boa of Medical Examiners cannot, cons ard sistently with the selfincr h rimination clause,compel c lthepersonproceededagainsttotaketh hewitnessstan ndwithouthis sconsent. oOo P.LUMIQUED Drepresented dbyHeirsv. Hon.APOLIN NIOG.EXEVEA A,etal ARSENIOP G.R.No.1175 565 1 18November r1997 RO OMERO,J. The T right to co ounsel, which cannot be wa aived unless th waiver is in writing and in the presen of counsel,, is a right he n nce affordedasusp a pectoranacc cusedduringc custodialinves stigation.Itis notanabsolu uterightandm may,thus,bei invokedor rejectedinacr r riminalprocee edingand,with hmorereason,,inanadminis strativeinquir ry. In I administrat tive proceedings, the essenc of due proc ce cess is simply the opportunity to explain ones side. On may be ne heard,notsole h elybyverbalp presentationbutalso,andperhapsevenm muchmorecre editablyasiti ismorepractic cablethan oralargument o ts,throughplea adings. Petitioner Ars P senio P. Lumi iqued (Lumiq qued) was the Regional Di e irector of the Department of Agrarian Reform e t CordilleraAut C tonomousReg gion(DARCAR R)untilPresid dentFidelV.R Ramosdismis ssedhimfrom mthatposition npursuant toanAdminist t trativeOrder.InviewofLumiquedsdeat thhisheirsinstitutedthisp petitionforcer rtiorariandm mandamus, questioningsu q uchorder.The edismissalwa astheafterma athofthreecomplaintsfile edbyDARCA ARRegionalCa ashierand private respon p ndent Jeannet ObarZamudio with the Board of Di tte e iscipline of th DAR. The f he first affidavitcomplaint dated Novemb 16, 1989,1 charged Lumiqued with malversation through falsi d ber n ification of of fficial docume ents. From MaytoSeptem M mber1989,Lumiquedallege edlycommitte edatleast93c countsoffalsificationbypaddinggasolinereceipts. Heevensubm H mittedavulcan nizingshopre eceiptworthP P550.00forga asolinebough htfromtheshop,andanoth herreceipt forP660.00fo f orasinglevulc canizingjob.Withtheuseoffalsifiedrec ceipts,Lumiqu uedclaimeda andwasreimb bursedthe sum of P44,17 s 72.46. Private respondent added that Lu e umiqued seld dom made fiel trips and p ld preferred to s stay in the office,making itimpossibleforhimtoco o onsumethene early120liter rsofgasolineh heclaimedev veryday.Lumi iquedfiled forthereversa f aloftheAdmi inistrativeOrd derbutwasde enieduntilhis sdeath.Hishe eirsfaulttheinvestigatingc committee foritsfailuret f toinformLum miquedofhis righttocoun nselduringthehearing.Theymaintainthathisrightt tocounsel couldnotbew c waivedunless thewaiverw wasinwriting andinthepresenceofcou unsel.Theyass sertthatthec committee shouldhavesu s uspendedthe hearingandg grantedLumiquedareason nabletimewithinwhichtosecureacoun nselofhis own.Ifsuspen o nsionwasnot tpossible,the ecommittees shouldhaveap ppointedaco ounseldeoficiotoassisthi im.Hence, thispetition t ISSUE: Whetherthed W dueprocesscla auseencompa asstherightto obeassistedb bycounseldur ringanadmin nistrativeinqu uiry? HELD: H PetitionDENI P IED
Alcaraz,Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca A abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas
52|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Therighttoco T ounsel,which cannotbewa aivedunlessth hewaiverisin nwritingand dinthepresen nceofcounsel l,isaright affordedasus a spectoranacc cusedduring custodialinve estigation.It isnotanabso oluterightand dmay,thus,b beinvoked orrejectedina o acriminalpro oceedingand,withmorerea ason,inanadministrativei inquiry.Inthe ecaseatbar,p petitioners invoketherigh htofanaccus sedincriminalproceedings stohavecomp petentandind dependentcou unselofhisow wnchoice. Lumiqued, however, was not accused of any crime i the proceedings below. The investiga L n in ation conduct by the ted committee created by Department Ord No. 145 was for the purpose of determining if he could be held c der e f g d administrative liable under the law for the complaints filed again him. The order issued by Acting Se a ely r nst d ecretary of JusticeMonten negrostatesth hus: In the interes of the publ service an pursuant to the provisio of existin laws, a Com st lic nd o ons ng mmittee to co onduct the formal investi f igation of the administrativ complaint for oppressio dishonesty disgraceful and immora conduct, ve on, y, l al being notoriou b usly undesira able and cond duct prejudici to the best interest of the service a ial against Mr. AR RSENIO P. LUMIQUED,Re L egionalDirect tor,Departme entofAgrarianReform,Cor rdilleraAuton nomousRegion,isherebyc createdxx x. x Assuch,thehe A earingconduc ctedbytheinvestigatingco ommitteewas snotpartofa criminalpros secution.This swaseven mademorepr m ronouncedwh hen,afterfindingLumiquedadministrativ velyliable,ith hintedatthefi ilingofcrimin nalcasefor malversationt m throughfalsifi icationofpubl licdocuments sinitsreporta andrecomme endation. Petitioners m P misconception on the natur of the inve re estigation con nducted again Lumiqued appears to h nst have been engenderedby e ythefactthat ttheDOJcond ductedit.Whil leitistruetha atundertheA Administrative eCodeof198 87,theDOJ shall adminis s ster the crimi inal justice sy ystem in acco ordance with the accepted processes th hereof consist ting in the investigation o the crimes, prosecution of offenders and administ of tration of the correctional system,26 c e conducting criminalinves c stigationsisno otitssolefun nction.Byitsp powertoper rformsuchotherfunctions asmaybepr rovidedby la aw, prosecu utors may be called upon to conduct administrativ investigati n ve ions. Accordingly, the inv vestigating committee cre c eated by Department Orde No. 145 w dutyboun to conduct the administrative invest er was nd t tigation in accordancewi a iththerulesth herefor. While investig W gations condu ucted by an ad dministrative body may at times be aki to a crimin proceeding the fact t in nal g, remains that under existin laws, a party in an adm r ng ministrative i inquiry may o may not b assisted by counsel, or be y irrespectiveof fthenatureo ofthechargesandofthere espondentsca apacitytorep presenthimse elfandnodut tyrestson suchabodyto s ofurnishthe personbeing investigated withcounsel. .Inanadministrativeproc ceedingsucha astheone that transpired below, a respondent (su as Lumiqu t uch ued) has the o option of enga aging the serv vices of couns or not. sel Thisisclearfr T romtheprovi isionsofSecti ion32,Article eVIIofRepub blicActNo.22 26029(otherw wiseknowna astheCivil Service Act) a Section 39 paragraph 2, Rule XIV ( discipline) of the Omn S and 9, (on nibus Rules Im mplementing Book V of Executive Ord No. 29230 (otherwise k E der 0 known asthe Administrativ Codeof 19 ve 987). Excerpts sfrom the tra anscript of stenographicn s notesofthehe earingsattend dedbyLumiqu ued31clearly yshowthathe ewasconfiden ntofhiscapac cityandso optedtorepre o esenthimself. Thus,therigh httocounsel isnotimpera ativeinadministrativeinves stigationsbec causesuch inquiriesarec conductedme erelytodeterm minewhether rtherearefac ctsthatmerit disciplinarym measuresagai insterring publicofficersandemployees,withthepu p urposeofmai intainingthed dignityofgove ernmentservi ice. Thereisnothin T ngintheCons stitutionthats saysthatapar rtyinanoncr riminalprocee edingisentitledtoberepre esentedby counselandth c hat,withoutsu uchrepresent tation,heshal llnotbeboun ndbysuchpro oceedings.Theassistanceo oflawyers, while desirabl is not indi w le, ispensable. Th legal profe he ession was no engrafted i the due pr ot in rocess clause such that withoutthepa w articipationof fitsmembers, ,thesafeguard disdeemedig gnoredorviol lated.Theord dinarycitizenisnotthat helplessthath h hecannotvalid dlyactatallex xceptonlywit thalawyerathisside. tiveproceedin ngs,theessenc ceofdueproc cessissimplytheopportun nitytoexplain nonesside.On nemaybe Inadministrat heard, not solely by verbal presentationbut also, and h dperhaps eve much more creditably as it is morep en e practicable thanoralargu t uments,throughpleadings.Anactualhearingisnota alwaysanindi ispensableaspectofdueprocess.As longasaparty ywasgiventh heopportunity ytodefendhisinterestsinduecourse,hecannotbesa aidtohavebe eendenied
53|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts dueprocessof d flaw,forthis opportunityt tobeheardis stheveryessenceofduep process.Moreo over,thiscons stitutional mandate is de m eemed satisfie if a person is granted a opportunit to seek rec ed n an ty consideration of the action or ruling n complained o Lumiqueds appeal and his subseq c of. d quent filing o motions fo reconsider of or ration cured whatever irregularityatt tendedtheproceedingscon nductedbythe ecommittee. Whenthedisp W puteconcernsonesconstitu utionalrightto osecurityoft tenure,howev ver,publicofficeisdeemedanalogous topropertyin t nalimitedsen nse;hence,th herighttodue eprocesscou uldrightfullyb beinvoked.Nonetheless,th herightto security of ten s nure is not ab bsolute. Of equal weight is the counterv vailing mandate of the Constitution that all public officers and employees mu serve with responsibilit integrity, l o ust h ty, loyalty and ef fficiency.48 In this case, it has been n t clearlyshownthatLumique c eddidnotliveuptothiscon nstitutionalpr recept. oOo
Exhaustiono E ofAdministr rativeRemed dies

NADONGA,J. N BAN NGUSFRYFIS SHERFOLK,e etal.v.HON.E ENRICOLANZ ZANAS,etal. G.R.Nos.13 31442,July1 102003 Ifare emedywithint theadministra ativemachine eryisstillavai ilable,withap procedurepre escribedpursuanttolaw foranadminis f strativeofficer rtodecidethe econtroversy, apartyshoul ldfirstexhaus stsuchremedy ybeforeresort tingtothe courts.Thepre c ematureinvoc cationofacou urt'sinterventi ionrendersthe ecomplaintw withoutcauseo ofactionandd dismissible onsuchground o d. RegionalExecutiveDirectorAnt tonioG.Princi ipe("REDPrincipe")ofReg gionIV,DepartmentofEnv vironment and Natural R a Resources ("D DENR"), issue an Environ ed nmental Clear rance Certific cate ("ECC") i favor of re in espondent NationalPowe N erCorporation n("NAPOCOR R").TheECCa authorizedNA APOCORtocon nstructatemporarymoori ingfacility inMinoloCove e,SitioMinolo o,BarangaySa anIsidro,Pue ertoGalera,Or rientalMindor ro.TheSangguniangBayan nofPuerto Galera has declared Minolo Cove, a man G o ngrove area a and breeding ground for b bangus fry, an ecotourist zone. The n mooring facili would ser as the tem m ity rve mporary dock king site of NA APOCOR's po ower barge, w which, due to turbulent watersatitsf w formermoorin ngsiteinCala apan,OrientalMindoro,req quiredrelocationtoasafersitelikeMin noloCove. The14.4mega T awattspowerbargewouldp providethem mainsourceofpowerforthe f eentireprovin nceofOrienta alMindoro pendingtheco p onstructionof falandbased dpowerplant tinCalapan,O OrientalMindo oro.TheECC forthemoori ingfacility wasvalidfort w twoyearscoun ntedfromitsd dateofissuan nceoruntil30June1999. oners, claimin to be fisher ng rfolks from M Minolo, San Isi idro, Puerto G Galera,sought reconsiderat t tion of the Petitio ECC E issuance. RED Principe however, de e, enied petition ners' plea. Pet titioners then filed a comp n plaint with the Regional e Trial Court of Manila (RTC) for the canc T f cellation of th ECC and fo the issuanc of a writ of injunction to stop the he or ce f o constructiono c ofthemooring gfacility.Impl leadedasdefe endantswerethefollowing: :(1)NAPOCOR,(2)REDPrincipe,(3) DENR Region IV Technical Director for Environment Oscar Domin D t nguez, (4) Or riental Mindor Electric Co ro ooperative ("ORMECO"),w ( whichisengagedinthedistributionofelectricityinOrientalMindo oro,and(5)ce ertainofficials sofPuerto Galera.Petitionerssubsequentlyamende G edtheircompl lainttoinclud deasaddition naldefendants stheelectiveo officialsof OrientalMindo O ororepresent tedbythenGo overnorRodo olfoG.Valencia.Petitioners furtherpraye edforthedem molitionof mooringstruc m cturesthatres spondentshad dalreadybuilt t.Priortothe filingofthea amendedcomp plaint,theRT TCissueda 20day temporary restraini order enjo 2 ing oining the con nstruction of the mooring facility. Howe ever, the RTC lifted the sameonNAPO s OCOR'smanife estationthatt theprovincial lgovernment ofOrientalM Mindorowastheoneundertakingthe constructiono c ofthemooring gfacility.Befo orefilingtheir ranswers,res spondentsOR RMECOandth heprovincialo officialsof Oriental Mind O doro moved to dismiss the complaint. T e These respon ndents claime that petitio ed oners failed t exhaust to administrative a eremedies,renderingtheco omplaintwith houtcauseofa action.
54 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Petitio oners opposed the motion on the groun that there was no need to exhaust ad nd dministrative remedies. Theyarguedth T hattheissuan nceoftheECCwasinpatent tviolationofP PresidentialD DecreeNo.160 05,8Sections26and27 ofRepublicAc o ctNo.7160,an ndtheprovisi ionsofDENR DepartmentA Administrativ veOrderNo.9 9637("DAO9 9637")on the t document tation of ECC applications. Petitioners al claimed th the implementation of the ECC was in patent lso hat violationofits v sterms.RTCgrantedthemo otionanddism missedpetition ners'complain nt.Hence,this spetition. ISSUE: Wheth the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners' complaint fo lack of cau action an lack of her g or use nd urisdiction ju HELD: H Petitio onDENIED. These ettledruleisbeforeaparty b ymayseekthe eintervention nofthecourts, ,heshouldfir rstavailofallt themeans affordedbyad a dministrative processes.He ence,ifareme edywithinthe eadministrativ vemachinery yisstillavailab ble,witha procedure pre p escribed pursuant to law f an administrative office to decide t controversy, a party sh for er the hould first exhaustsuchr e remedybefor reresortingto othecourts.T Theprematur reinvocationo ofacourt'sin nterventionre endersthe complaintwith c houtcauseofactionanddis smissibleonsuchground. Principeofthe eDENRRegion nIVOfficeissu uedtheECCb basedon(1)PresidentialDe ecreeNo.1586 6("PDNo. REDP 1586")andits 1 simplementin ngrulesestab blishingtheEn nvironmental ImpactStatem mentSystem, (2)DAO963 37and(3) the t Procedura ManualofD al DAO 9637. Se ection 4of PD No. 1586 req D quires aprop ponent ofan e environmentally critical project, or a p p project located within an environmental critical are as declared by the Presi d lly ea d ident, to secure an ECC priorto thepr p roject'sopera ation.NAPOCO thussecur OR redthe ECC becausethe mooring facility in MinoloCo y ove, while not n an enviro onmentally cr ritical project, is located within an e environmental critical ar lly rea under Pr residential ProclamationN P No.2146,issu uedon14Dece ember1981. ulesonadmin nistrativeapp pealsfromrulingsoftheDE ENRRegional lDirectorson ntheimpleme entationof Theru PDNo.1586arefoundinAr P rticleVIofDAO9637,whic chprovides: SECTI ION1.0.Appea altotheOffice eoftheSecreta ary.Anypa artyaggrievedbythefinald decisionofthe REDmay, within 15 day from receip of such de w ys pt ecision, file an appeal with the Office of the Secretar The decisi of the n h ry. ion Secretaryshallbeimmediat S telyexecutory y. ION2.0.Groun ndsforAppeal l.Thegrou undsforappea alshallbelimitedtograve abuseofdiscr retionand SECTI seriouserrors s sinthefinding gsoffactwhichwouldcausegraveorir rreparableinju urytotheagg grievedparty.Frivolous appealsshalln a notbecounten nanced. SECTI ION3.0.Who MayAppeal. Thepropon nentoranystakeholder,in ncludingbutn notlimitedto, ,theLGUs concernedand c daffectedcom mmunities,may yfileanappea al. TheD DENRProceduralManualfor rDAO9637e explainsthese eprovisionsth hus: t y d.These decisio include th ons hose relating to the issuanc or non ce Final decisions of the RED may be appealed ssuance of an ECC, and th imposition of fines and penalties. By inference, th decision o the Secreta on the n he y he of ary is issuanceorno onissuanceof ftheECCmay yalsobeappea aledbasedon nthisprovision.Resorttoco ourtspriortoa availingof thisremedywo t ouldmakethe eappellant'sa actiondismissi ibleonthegro oundofnonex xhaustionofa administrative eremedies. Therighttoap T ppealmustbe eexercisedwi ithin15days fromreceiptb bytheaggriev vedpartyofsuchdecision. Failureto filesuchappea f alwithinther requisiteperio odwillresultinthefinality yoftheRED'sorSecretary's sdecision(s),whichcan nolongerbed n disturbed.
55|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The right to appea does not pr al revent the agg grieved party from first re y esorting to the filing of a m e motion for reconsideratio with the RED, to give th RED an op r on R he pportunity to reevaluate h decision. In his nstead of following the foregoingproc f cedure,petitio onersbypasse edtheDENRS Secretaryand immediately filedtheircom mplaintwitht theManila RTC,depriving R gtheDENRSe ecretarytheop pportunitytoreviewthede ecisionofhiss subordinate,R REDPrincipe.Underthe Procedural Manual for DA 9637 and applicable j P AO d jurisprudence petitioners' omission re e, enders their complaint dismissiblefor d rlackofcause eofaction.21C Consequently,theManilaRT TCdidnoterr rindismissing gpetitioners'complaint forlackofcaus f seofaction. onersneverth helesscontend dthattheyare eexemptfrom mfilinganappealwiththeD DENRSecretar rybecause Petitio theissuanceoftheECCwas t sinpatentviol lationofexist tinglawsandr regulations.T Theseare(1)S Section1ofPr residential DecreeNo.1605,asamende D ed,(2)Section ns26and27o ofRepublicAc ctNo.7160(L LocalGovernm mentCodeof1 1991),and (3)theprovisionsofDAO9 ( 9637onthed documentary requirements sforthezoningpermitand dsocialaccep ptabilityof themooringfa t acility. oners'content tioniswithou utmerit.While ethepatentil llegalityofan actexemptsa apartyfromc complying Petitio withtherule onexhaustion w nofadministr rativeremedies,thisdoesn notapplyint thepresentca ase.President tialDecree No. N 1605 ("PD No. 1605") D ),as amended by Presiden d ntial Decrees Nos. 1605A and 1805, d declares as ec cologically threatened zone "the coves and waters embraced by Puerto Galera Bay as prot t s tected by Med Island." Th decree dio his providesinpa p art: on rovision of la to the co aw ontrary notwi ithstanding, t the constructi ion of marinas, hotels, Sectio 1. Any pr restaurants,ot r thercommercialstructures; ;commercialo orsemicomm mercialwharfs s[sic];commer rcialdocking withinthe enclosed coves of Puerto Ga e s alera; the dest truction of its mangrove sta ands; the deva astation of its corals and co oastline by la arge barges, motorboats, tugboat prop pellers, and an form of d ny destruction by other human activities a hereby y are prohibited. p on2.xxxNo permitfortheconstruction nofanywhar rf,marina,hot tel,restaurant tsandotherco ommercial Sectio structuresin P s Puerto Galera shall be is a ssued withou prior appr ut roval of the Office of th President upon the he recommendati r ionofthePhil lippineTouris smAuthority. NAPO OCORclaimsth hatsinceMino oloCovelieso outsideof"Pu uertoGaleraBayasprotecte edbyMedioIsland",PD No.1605does N snotapplyto othiscase.Ho owever,petitionersassertt thatMinolo C Coveisoneof fthe"enclosed dcovesof PuertoGalera" andthuspro P " otectedunder rPDNo.1605.Thisisaque estionoffactt thattheDENR RSecretarysh houldhave firstresolved. Inanyevent, f ,thereisnod disputethatN NAPOCORwill lusethemoo oringfacilityfo oritspowerb bargethat will w supply 14 megawatts of electricit to the entir province o Oriental Mindoro, includ 4.4 s ty re of ding Puerto Galera. The mooringfacilit m tyisobviouslyagovernme entownedpub blicinfrastruc ctureintended dtoserveab basicneedoft thepeople of o Oriental Mi indoro. The mooring facilit is not a "co m ty ommercial structure; comm mercial or sem micommercial wharf or l commercialdo c ocking"ascon ntemplatedinSection1ofP PDNo.1605.T Therefore,the eissuanceoft theECCdoesn notviolate PDNo.1605w P whichapplieso onlytocommercialstructur reslikewharv ves,marinas,h hotelsandres staurants. Under rDAO9637,a anECCapplica antforaproje ectlocatedwit thinanenviro onmentallycri iticalareaisre equiredto submitanIniti s ialEnvironme entExamination,whichmustcontainabriefdescriptio onoftheenvir ronmentalset ttinganda documentation of the con d n nsultative pro ocess undert taken, when appropriate.A part of t As the descriptio of the on environmentalsetting,theE e ECCapplicantmustsubmitacertificateoflocationalcle earanceorzon ningcertificat te. Petitio oners further contend that NAPOCOR, in applying for the ECC, did not submit to the DENR Region IV t n r d Office the doc O cuments prov ving the holding of consul ltations and t issuance of a location clearance or zoning the nal certificate.Pet c titionersasser rtthatthisom missionrender rstheissuance eoftheECCpa atentlyillegal. . The T contention is also with hout merit. W While such do ocuments are part of the submissions required from a project m proponent,the p eirmereabse encedoesnot rendertheis ssuanceofthe eECCpatently yillegal.Toju ustifynonexhaustionof administrative a eremediesdu uetothepaten ntillegalityof ftheECC,the publicofficer rmusthaveissuedtheECC "[without
56 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts any]semblanc a ceofcomplian nce,orevenan nattempttocomply,withth hepertinentlaws;whenma anifestly,theo officerhas actedwithout jurisdictiono a orhasexceede edhisjurisdic ction,orhasco ommittedagr raveabuseof discretion;or rwhenhis actisclearlyandobviouslydevoidofanycolorofautho a ority." REDP Principe,asch hiefofDENRR RegionIV,ist theofficerdulyauthorized underDAO96 31toissue 637 eECCsfor projectslocate p edwithinenvi ironmentallyc criticalareas.REDPrincipe eissuedtheEC CConthereco ommendation nofAmelia Supetran, the Director of the Environm S t mental Manag gement Burea Thus, RED Principe act au. D ted with full authority pursuant to D p DENR regulations. Moreove the legal p er, presumption is that he acte with the r ed requisite authority.This clothesREDPr c rincipe'sactswithpresump ptivevaliditya andnegatesan nyclaimthath hisactionsare epatentlyillegalorthat he h gravely abu used his discr retion. While petitioners m present p may proof to the contrary, they must do so b before the properadmini p istrativeforum mbeforeresor rtingtojudicia alremedies. Lastly y,petitionersc claimthatthe eyarejustified dinimmediatelyseekingju udicialrecours sebecauseNA APOCORis guiltyofviolat g tingtheconditionsoftheECC,whichreq quiresittosec cureaseparat teECCfortheoperationoft thepower barge. The EC also mandates NAPOCO to secure t usual local governmen permits, lik zoning and building b CC OR the nt ke d permits,fromthemunicipal p lgovernmentofPuertoGale era. The contention is similarly with s hout merit. Th fact that NAPOCOR's EC is subject t cancellation for non he CC to n compliancewi c ithitsconditio onsdoesnot justifypetitio oners'conduct tinignoringt theprocedure eprescribedin nDAO96 37onappealsfromthedec 3 cisionoftheD DENRExecutiv veDirector.P Petitionersvig gorouslyinsist tthatNAPOCO ORshould comply with the requirem c ments of con nsultation and locational clearance prescribed in D d DAO 9637. Ironically, petitionersthe p emselvesrefu usetoabidew withtheproced dureforfiling gcomplaintsa andappealing gdecisionslaiddownin DAO9637.DA D AO9637providesforase eparateadmin nistrativeproc ceedingtoadd dresscomplai intsfortheca ancellation ofanECC.Und o derArticleIX ofDAO9637 7,complaintst tonullifyanE ECCmustundergoanadmin nistrativeinve estigation, afterwhichthehearingoffic a cerwillsubmi ithisreportto otheEMBDir rectorortheR RegionalExecu utiveDirector r,whowill thenrenderhisdecision.Th t heaggrieved partymayfileanappealto otheDENRS Secretary,who ohasauthorit tytoissue ceaseanddesi c istorders.Art ticleIXalsocl lassifiesthety ypesofviolati ionscoveredu underDAO96 637,includin ngprojects operating wit o thout an ECC or violating the conditio of the EC This is th applicable procedure to address ons CC. he petitioners'co p omplaintonNA APOCOR'salle egedviolation nsandnotthefilingofthein nstantcaseincourt. oOo BINAY,J. B BANG GUSFRYFISHERFOLK,eta alv.LANZANA AS G.R.No.131442 July10,2003 3 CA ARPIO,J.: f ithin the administrative ma achinery is stil available, w a procedu prescribed pursuant to l ll with ure law for an if a remedy wi administrative a eofficertodec cidethecontro oversy,aparty yshouldfirste exhaustsuch r remedybefore eresortingtot thecourts. Thepremature T einvocationof facourtsinte erventionrend dersthecompla aintwithoutc causeofaction nanddismissib bleonsuch ground. g RegionalExecu R utiveDirector r(RED)ofReg gionIV,Depar rtmentofEnv vironmentand dNaturalReso ources(DENR R),issued an a Environme ental Clearanc Certificate (ECC) in favor of respon ce ndent Nationa Power Corp al poration (NA APOCOR). TheECCautho T orizedNAPOC CORtoconstru uctatempora arymooringf facilityinMinoloCove,Sitio oMinolo,BarangaySan Isidro, Puerto Galera, Orie o ental Mindoro The Sanggu o. uniang Bayan of Puerto G n Galera has de eclared Minol Cove, a lo mangrovearea m aandbreedinggroundforb bangusfry,an necotouristzo one.3 Themooringf T facilitywould serveasthe temporarydo ockingsiteof NAPOCORsp powerbarge,w which,dueto turbulent watersatitsf w formermoorin ngsiteinCala apan,OrientalMindoro,req quiredrelocationtoasafersitelikeMin noloCove. The14.4mega T awattspowerbargewouldp providethem mainsourceofpowerforthe f eentireprovin nceofOrienta alMindoro
57|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts pendingtheco p onstructionof falandbased dpowerplant tinCalapan,O OrientalMindo oro.TheECC forthemoori ingfacility wasvalidfort w twoyearscoun ntedfromitsd dateofissuan nceoruntil30June1999. PetitionersBa P angusFryFish herfolk(Fishe erfolk)fromM Minolo,SanIsi idro,PuertoG Galera,sought treconsiderat tionofthe ECCissuance. REDPrincipe E e,however,de eniedthemoti ion.Fisherfolk ksfiledacom mplaintwithth heRegionalTr rialCourt( RTC)fortheca R ancellationoftheECCandf fortheissuanc ceofawritofinjunctiontostopthecons f structionofthemooring facility.Implea f adedasdefendantswereth hefollowing: (1)NAPOCOR R,(2)REDPri incipe,(3)DEN NRRegionIV Technical DirectorforEn D nvironmentO OscarDomingu uez,(4)Orient talMindoroElectricCooper rative(ORME ECO),whichi isengaged in the distrib bution of ele ectricity in O Oriental Mindoro, and (5) certain officials of Puer Galera. F ) rto Fisherfolks subsequently amendedthei s ircomplaintt toincludeasa additionaldef fendantsthee electiveofficia alsofOrienta alMindoro representedbythenGovern r norRodolfoG G.Valenciaandfurtherpray yedforthede emolitionofm mooringstruc cturesthat respondents h already built. Respond r had b dents ORMEC and the provincial offic CO cials of Orien ntal Mindoro moved to dismissthecomplaintclaim d mingthattheF Fisherfolkfaile edtoexhaust administrativ veremedies,r renderingthe complaint withoutcauseofaction.Th w heyalsoasser rtedthattheM ManilaRTCha asnojurisdict tiontoenjoin theconstruct tionofthe mooring facility in Oriental Mindoro, wh m l hich lies outside the Manil RTCs territ la torial jurisdic ction. Fisherfo argued olk thattherewas t snoneedtoe exhaustadmin nistrativeremediesbecause etheissuanceoftheECCwa asinpatentviolationof PresidentialDecreeNo.160 P 05,8Sections2 26and27ofR RepublicActN No.7160,9and dtheprovision nsofDENRDe epartment Administrative OrderNo. 9637 (DAO 9 A e 9 9637) onthe documentat e tion ofECCap pplications. P Petitioners als soclaimed thattheimple t ementationof theECCwas inpatentviol lationofitste erms.TheRTC Cdismissedth heFisherfolk complaint duetofailuret d toexhaustadm ministrativeremedies.Hence,thispetitio on. ISSUE: Whetherthefa W ailuretoexhau ustadministra ativeremedie esisnotagrou undforoutrigh htdismissalo ofthecase. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED Thesettledrul T leisbeforeap partymaysee ektheinterven ntionoftheco ourts,heshoul ldfirstavailofallthemean nsafforded by b administra ative processe Hence, if a remedy w es. f within the ad dministrative machinery is still available, with a s procedure pre p escribed pursuant to law f an administrative office to decide t controversy, a party sh for er the hould first exhaustsuchr e remedybeforeresortingto othecourts.T Theprematur reinvocation ofacourtsin nterventionre endersthe complaintwith c houtcauseofactionanddis smissibleonsuchground. The T rules on a administrative appeals from rulings of t DENR Reg e m the gional Directo on the imp ors plementation of PD No. 1586arefoundinArticleVI 1 IofDAO9637 7,whichprovi ides: SECTION1.0. Appealtothe S eOfficeofthe Secretary.An nypartyaggr rievedbythef finaldecision oftheREDm may,within 15daysfrom receiptofsuc 1 chdecision,fi ileanappeal w withtheOffic ceoftheSecretary.Thede ecisionofthe Secretary shallbeimmed s diatelyexecut tory. SECTION2.0. Groundsfor Appeal.The groundsfora S appealshallbelimitedtog graveabuseof fdiscretionan ndserious errorsinthefi e findingsoffact twhichwould dcausegrave orirreparabl leinjurytotheaggrievedparty.Frivolou usappeals shallnotbeco s ountenanced. SECTION3.0. WhoMayApp S peal.Thepro oponentoranystakeholder r,includingbu utnotlimited to,theLGUsc concerned andaffectedco a ommunities,m mayfileanapp peal. TheDENRPro T oceduralManu ualforDAO96 637explainst theseprovisio onsthus:
58 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Finaldecisions F softheREDm maybeappeal led.Thesedec cisionsinclud dethoserelatin ngtotheissua anceornonis ssuanceof anECC,andth a heimposition offinesandp penalties.By inference,the edecisionoftheSecretaryo ontheissuanc ceornon issuanceoftheECCmayals sobeappeale edbasedonth hisprovision. Resorttoco ourtspriorto availingofth hisremedy wouldmaketh w heappellantsactiondismis ssibleontheg groundofnon exhaustionof fadministrativeremedies. Therighttoap T ppealmustbe eexercisedwi ithin15daysf fromreceiptb bytheaggriev vedpartyofsu uchdecision. Failureto filesuchappea f alwithinther requisiteperio odwillresultinthefinality yoftheREDsorSecretarys sdecision(s),whichcan nolongerbed n disturbed. Anappealshal A llnotstaytheeffectivityoftheREDsdec cision,unlesst theSecretarydirectsotherw wise. The right to appeal does not prevent the aggrieved party from first resor T t m rting to the filing of a m motion for reconsideratio r onwiththeRE ED,togivetheREDanopportunitytoree evaluatehisdecision.(Emp phasisadded) regoing proce edure, petition ners bypassed the DENR Secretary and immediately filed their d Instead of following the for complaint wit the Manila RTC, depriv c th a ving the DEN Secretary the opportu NR unity to revie the decisi ew ion of his subordinate, R s RED Principe. Under the Pr rocedural Ma anual for DAO 9637 and a O applicable juri isprudence, petitioners omissionrend o derstheircom mplaintdismissibleforlack ofcauseofac ction.Consequ uently,theMa anilaRTCdid noterrin dismissingpet d titionerscomplaintforlack kofcauseofac ction. oOo LACSINA,C. L AN NTONIOM.BE ERNARDOet.a alvs.BENJAM MINS.ABALO OS,SR.,et.al G.R.No.137266,Decembe G er5,2001 Failuretofilet F therequiredm motionforreco onsiderationa attheCOMELE EClevelisanu utterdisregardoftheCOME ELECRules whichareinten w nded"toachie eveanorderly,,just,expeditio ousandinexpe ensivedetermi inationanddis spositionofev veryaction andproceeding a gbroughtbefo oretheCommi ission. Havingfailedt H tofiletherequ uiredmotionf forreconsiderationofthech hallengedReso olution,petitio oners'instant petitionis certainlyprem c mature. Petitioners An P ntonio M. Ber rnardo, et. al, filed with th Commissio on Election (COMELEC a criminal complaint he on ns C) againstrespon a ndentsBenjam minS.Abalos, Sr.,et.al,for votebuyingin nviolationof Section261, paragraphs(a a),(b)and (j)oftheOmni ( ibusElectionC Code(OEC),in nrelationtoS Section28ofR RepublicAct6646andSection68oftheO OEC. The COMELEC T Cissued a re esolutiondism missing the co omplaint "for insufficiency of evidence to establish aprima r y faciecase. f Petitioners,then,withoutfir P rstsubmitting gamotionforreconsiderati ion,filedtheinstantpetitionforcertiorar riwiththe Court.Theyall C legedthattheCOMELEC,in nissuingthesa aidresolution nactedwithap pparentgraveabuseofdiscretion. ISSUE Wheth herthepetitio onershaveexh haustedallthe eremediesav vailabletothem mattheCOME ELEClevel HELD H PETITIONDENIED. P
59|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Petitionersdid P dnotexhaust alltheremed diesavailable tothematth heCOMELEClevel.Specifica ally,theydidn notseeka reconsideratio r onoftheassai iledCOMELEC CEnBancResolutionasreq quiredbySect tion1,Rule13 3ofthe1993 COMELEC RulesofProce R edure,thus: "Section1.Wh " hatPleadingsa arenotAllowe ed.Thefollow wingpleading gsarenotallow wed: xxx x d)motionfor d rreconsidera ationofanenbancruling,r resolution,ord derordecision nexceptinel lectionoffens secases; xxx."(Empha x asisours) It is not dispu uted that petit tioners' comp plaint before t COMELEC involves an e the election offen But in this petition, nse. theyconvenientlykeptsilen t ntwhytheyd directlyelevat tedtothisCou urtthequestio onedResoluti ionwithoutfir rstfilinga motionforrec m considerationwiththeCOM MELECEnBanc.Itwasonly aftertheresp pondentshad filedtheircom mmenton thepetitionan t ndcalledthis Court'satten ntiontopetitio oners'failure tocomplywi ithSection1 ofRule13thatthey,in their Consolid t dated Reply, advanced the excuse that t a they "deemed it best not s d seek any furth herdilatorym motion for reconsideratio r on',evenifa allowedbySec c.1(d)ofCOM MELECRule13 3." Petitioners'failuretofileth P herequiredm motionforreconsideration utterlydisreg gardedtheCO OMELECRules sintended "to achieve a " anorderly,ju ust,expeditiousandinexpensivedeterm mination and disposition of every ac d ction and proceedingbroughtbeforet p theCommission." Contrarytope C etitioners'stat tementthataresorttoamo otionforrecon nsiderationis"dilatory,"itbearsstressin ngthatthe purposeofthe p esaidmotion nistogivethe eCOMELECan nopportunity ytocorrectth heerrorimpu utedtoit.Ifth heerroris immediately c corrected by way of a mo otion for reco onsideration, t then it is the most exped e ditious and in nexpensive recourse.Buti r iftheCOMELE ECrefusesto correctapate entlyerroneou usact,thenit tcommitsagr raveabuseof discretion ju ustifyingarec coursebytheaggrievedpar rtytoapetitio onforcertiora ari. Apetitionfor certiorariunderRule65o A ofthe1997RulesofCivilP Procedure,as amended,can nonlybereso ortedtoif "thereisnoap " ppeal,orany plain,speedy y,andadequat teremedyint theordinaryc courseoflaw 12Havingfai w." iledtofile the required motion for reconsideratio of the cha t r on allenged Reso olution, petiti ioners' instan petition is certainly nt premature.Sig p gnificantly,the eyhavenotra aisedanyplausiblereasonf fortheirdirect trecoursetot thisCourt. oOo BINAY,J. B AN NTONIOM.BE ERNARDO,et alvs.BENJAM MINS.ABALO OS,SR.,etal G.R.No.137266. 5Decem mber2001 SANDOVALGUTIERREZ Z,J. Havingfailedt H tofiletherequ uiredmotionf forreconsiderationofthech hallengedReso olution,petitio oners'instant petitionis certainlyprem c mature.Signific cantly,theyhavenotraiseda anyplausibler reasonforthei irdirectrecou ursetothisCou urt. Petitioners An P ntonio M. Ber rnardo, Ernes A. Doming Jr. and Je sto go, esus C. Cruz filed with the COMELEC a criminal e a complaintaga c ainstresponde entsBenjamin nS.Abalos,Sr r.,BenjaminC.Abalos,Jr.,D Dr.EdenC.Dia az,RomeoZapantaand ArcadiodeVeraforvotebu A uyinginviolat tionofSection n261,paragra aphs(a),(b)a and(j)ofthe OmnibusElec ctionCode (OEC), in relat ( tion to Sectio 28 of Repu on ublic Act 6646 and Section 68 of the OE The com 6 EC. mplaint, alleged that the Respondentsa R areconspiring gwitheachotherthatinexc changeforanincreasedallo owanceforteachersthecan ndidacyof Abalos will be promoted. The Director o the Law De A e T of epartment mo oved to dismiss the compla aint for insuff ficiency of evidence.Petit e tionerswithou utfirstsubmit ttingamotion nforreconside eration,filedt theinstantpet titionwiththe eSupreme Court. C ISSUE:
60 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whetherthefa W ailuretoexhau ustadministra ativeremedie esisnotagrou undfortheou utrightdismiss salofthecase. . HELD: H PetitionDenied P Petitionersdid P dnotexhaustalltheremed diesavailablet tothematthe eCOMELECle evel.Specifica ally,theydid notseeka reconsideratio r onoftheassai iledCOMELEC CEnBancRes solutionasreq quiredbySect tion1,Rule13 3ofthe1993 COMELEC RulesofProce R edure,thus: Section1.Wh hatPleadingsarenotAllow wed.Thefollo owingpleadin ngsarenotallo owed: xxx x d) d motio onforreconsid derationofanenbancrulin ng,resolution,orderordecis sionexceptin nelectionoffen nsecases; xxx.(Empha x asisours) utedthatpetit tionerscomplaintbeforeth heCOMELEC involvesan e electionoffens se.Butinthispetition, Itisnotdispu theyconvenientlykeptsilen t ntwhytheyd directlyelevat tedtothisCou urtthequestio onedResoluti ionwithoutfir rstfilinga motionforrec m considerationwiththeCOM MELECEnBanc.Itwasonly yaftertheresp pondentshadfiledtheircommenton thepetitionan t ndcalledthis Courtsatten ntiontopetitio oners'failure tocomplywi ithSection1 ofRule13thatthey,in their Consolid t dated Reply, advanced the excuse that t a they "deemed it best not seek any furth dilatory m her motion for reconsideratio r on',evenifallowedbySec c.1(d)ofCOM MELECRule13 3." Petitioners'failuretofileth P herequiredm motionforreco onsiderationu utterlydisregardedtheCO OMELECRules sintended "to " achieve a orderly, ju an ust, expeditio ous and inexp pensive deter rmination an disposition of every action and nd n proceedingbroughtbeforet p theCommission." Contrarytope C etitioners'stat tementthataresorttoamo otionforrecon nsiderationis s"dilatory,"itbearsstressin ngthatthe purpose ofthe said motion is togive the COMELEC a opportunity p e n e an ytocorrectth error impu he uted to it.Ifth error is he immediately c corrected by way of a mo otion for reco onsideration, t then it is the most exped e ditious and in nexpensive recourse.But iftheCOMEL r LECrefusestocorrectapate entlyerroneousact,thenit tcommitsagr raveabuseofdiscretion ju ustifyingarec coursebytheaggrievedpar rtytoapetitio onforcertiora ari. Apetitionfor certiorariunderRule65o A ofthe1997RulesofCivilP Procedure,as amended,can nonlybereso ortedtoif "thereisnoap " ppeal,oranyp plain,speedy,andadequate eremedyinth heordinaryco ourseoflaw."Havingfailedtofilethe requiredmotio r onforreconsi iderationofth hechallengedResolution,p petitioners'ins stantpetitioniscertainlyp premature. Significantly,t S theyhavenotraisedanypla ausiblereason nfortheirdire ectrecourseto othisCourt. d t C d etitioners' com mplaint again private nst In its assailed Resolution, the COMELEC cited a valid reason for dismissing pe respondentsfo r orvotebuying.TheCOMELECfoundtha attheevidenc ceoftherespondentshave e"moreproba ativevalue andbelievable a ethantheevid denceofthecomplainants;" "andthattheevidencesub bmittedbypet titionersare"mereself servingstatem s mentsanduncorroborateda audioandvisu ualrecordinga andaphotogr raph." Moreover,Section28ofRep M publicAct664 46provides: SEC.28.Pros secutionofVotebuyingand dVoteselling.Thereprese entationofac complaintforviolationsofp paragraph (a)or(b)ofSe ( ection261ofB BatasPamban nsaBlg.881su upportedbya affidavitsofco omplainingwi itnessesattest tingtothe offer or prom o mise by or of the voters a acceptance of money or ot ther consideration from th relatives, l he leaders or sympathizers of candidate shall be su s e, ufficient basis for an inve s estigation to be immediat tely conducte by the ed Commission, d C directly or th hrough its dul authorized legal officers under Secti 68 or Sec ly s, ion ction 265 of s said Batas PambansaBlg.881. P xxx.(Empha x asisours)
61|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Petitioners'co P omplaintexpresslystatesth hatnosuppor rtingaffidavits sweresubmit ttedbytheco omplainingwi itnessesto sustaintheirc s chargeofvote ebuying.Suffi iceittostate thattheabsen nceofsuchsu upportingaffidavitsshows thefrailty ofpetitioners'complaint.In o ndeed,itisvu ulnerabletodi ismissal. oOo LACSINA,C. L ASSO OCIATIONOF PHILIPPINE COCONUTDE ESICCATORS vs.PHILIPPIN NECOCONUT TAUTHORITY Y G.R.No.110526,February G y10,1998
Onlyjudicialre O eviewofdecisi ionsofadmini istrativeagenc ciesmadeinth heexerciseof theirquasijudicialfunction f nissubject to t the exhaust tion doctrine. The resolutio in question was issued by the PCA i the exercise of its rulem on n in making or le egislativepow wer. Sevendesiccat S tedcoconutpr rocessingcom mpaniesbelongingtoPetitio onerAssociati ionofPhilippi ineCoconutD Desiccators (APCD) broug suit in the Regional Tri Court of M ( ght e ial Makati, to enjo the Philip oin ppine Coconut Authority (P t PCA) from issuing permit to certain applicants for the establish ts a r hment of new desiccated c w coconut proce essing plants. Petitioner allegedthatth a heissuanceoflicensestotheapplicantsw wouldviolatePCA'sAdministrativeOrder rNo.02,serie esof1991, astheapplican a ntswereseeki ingpermitsto ooperateinar reasconsidere ed"congested"underthead dministrativeorder. Subsequently andwhilethe S ecasewaspen ndingintheR RegionalTrial lCourt,theGo overningBoar rdofthePCA issuedon March 24, 199 Resolution No. 01893, providing for the withdra M 93 n r awal of the Ph hilippine Coco onut Authorit from all ty regulation of the coconut product processing indus r stry. While it continues t t the registratio of coconu product on ut processors,theregistrationwouldbelim p mitedtothe"m monitoring"oftheirvolumes sofproductionandadminis strationof qual q itystandards. The PCA then proceeded to issue "cer T n rtificates of r registration" t those wish to hing to opera desiccated coconut ate d processing pla p ants, prompting APCD to a appeal to the Office of the President of the Philippin not to ap e f nes pprove the resolution in question. Des r spite followu letters, AC up CPD received no reply fro the Office of the Presi om e ident. The "certificatesof " fregistration" "issuedinthemeantimeby ythePCAhase enabledanum mberofnewco oconutmillsto ooperate. Hence,ACPDf H filedapetition nforcertiorar riandmandam musagainstP PCAtoinvalidatethelatter' 'sBoardReso olutionNo. 01893andth 0 hecertificatesofregistration nissuedunde eritonthegro oundthattheresolutioninquestionisb beyondthe power of the PCA to adop and to co p pt, ompel said ad dministrative agency to co omply instead with the m mandatory provisionsofs atutesregulatingthedesic p st a ccatedcoconu utindustry,inparticular,an ndthecoconut tindustry,ing general. PCA, however alleges that this petition should be d P r, t n denied for fail lure of ACPD to exhaust a available admi inistrative remedies befo comingto this Court. PCA anchors it argument o the generalrule that onewho bringsan action r ore ts on underRule65 u 5mustshowthatonehasn noappealnor anyplain,spe eedy,andadeq quateremedy yintheordina arycourse oflaw. o ISSUE WhetherACPD W Dhasexhauste edalladminis strativeremed diesavailableb beforefilingtopresentpeti itionwiththeCourt HELD H PETITIONGR P RANTED.
62|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Theruleofrequiringexhau T ustionofadmi inistrativerem mediesbefore eapartymay yseekjudicial review,sost trenuously urgedbytheS u SolicitorGeneralonbehalf ofrespondent,hasobvious slynoapplicat tionhere.The eresolutionin nquestion was w issued by the PCA in the exercise of its rulem y making or legislative powe However, only judicial review of er. decisionsofad d dministrative agenciesmad deintheexer rciseoftheirq quasijudicialf functionissu ubjecttothee exhaustion doctrine.The exhaustiondo d octrinestands sasabartoanactionwhic chisnotyetco ompleteandi itisclear,int thecaseat bar, b thatafter its promulga r ationthe resolution ofthe PCA abandon ning regulation thedesic nof ccated coconu industry ut becameeffecti b ive.Tobesur re,thePCAis underthedir rectsupervisionofthePres sidentoftheP Philippinesbu utthereis nothinginP.D n D.No.232,P.D D.No.961,P.D D.No.1468an ndP.D.No.16 644definingt thepowersan ndfunctionso ofthePCA whichrequiresrulesandregulationsissu w uedbyittobeapprovedbythePresidentbeforetheyb becomeeffecti ive. Inanyevent,a althoughtheA APCDhasappe ealedthereso olutioninques stiontotheOf fficeofthePre esident,consid deringthe factthattwom f monthsaftert theyhadsent theirfirstlett teronApril26,1993theys stillhadtohe earfromtheP President's office,meanwh o hileresponde entPCAwasis ssuingcertificatesofregistr rationindiscri iminatelyton newcoconutm millers,we holdthatpetit h tionerwasjus stifiedinfiling gthiscaseon June25,1993 5Indeed,aft 3. terwritingthe eOfficeofthe President onApril26,19 petitione o 993 ersentinquiri iestothatoffi icenotonce,b buttwice,on May26,19937andonJune2,1993, 3 butpetitionerdidnotreceiv b veanyreply. oOo BINAY,J. B ASSO OCIATIONOF FPHILIPPINE ECOCONUTD DESICCATORS Sv.PHILIPPIN NECOCONUT TAUTHORITY Y GRNo.11052 G 26 10 0February19 998 MEN NDOZA,J.: quiringexhaus stionofadministrativereme ediesbeforeap partymayseek kjudicialrevie ew,sostrenuouslyurged Theruleofreq bytheSolicitor b rGeneralonb behalfofrespondent,hasobv viouslynoapp plicationhere.Theresolutioninquestionw wasissued by b the PCA in the exercise of its rule m n making or leg gislative powe However, only judicial review of de er. l ecisions of administrative a eagenciesmad deintheexerciseoftheirqua asijudicialfun nctionissubjecttotheexhau ustiondoctrine e. Atallevents,a A anychangeinp policymustbe emadebythelegislativedep partmentofth hegovernment t.Theregulato orysystem hasbeensetup h pbylaw.Itisb beyondthepowerofanadm ministrativeag gencytodismantleit. Petitioner Ass P sociation of Ph hilippine Coco onut Desiccat tors (APCD) fi iled a petition for mandam against re n mus espondent Philippine Coc P conut Authority (PCA) to invalidate the latters Board Resolution No. 01893 and the cert e n tificates of registrationw r whichdeclaresthatitwillno olongerrequi irethosewish hingtoengage eincoconutp processingtoa applytoit foralicenseo f orpermitasa aconditionfor rengagingin suchbusines ss.APCDargu uedthatitmu ustbedeclared dnulland void on the gr v round that th resolution in question is beyond the power of the PCA to ado and to compel said he e opt, administrative a eagencytoco omplyinsteadwiththeman ndatoryprovisionsofstatutes.Subseque entlyandwhil lethecase waspendingin w ntheRegionalTrialCourt,t theGoverning gBoardofthePCAissuedoResolutionNo o.01893,pro ovidingfor the t withdrawa of the Philippine Coconu Authority fr al ut rom all regula ation of the coconut produ uctprocessing industry. g While it cont W tinues the re egistration of coconut pro f oduct processors, the reg gistration would be limite to the ed monitoringo theirvolumesofproducti of m ionandadmin nistrationofq qualitystandar rds. The PCA then proceeded to issue cer T n rtificates of r registration t those wish to hing to opera desiccated coconut ate d processing pla p ants, promptin PCDA to appeal to the Office of the President of the Philippin not to ap ng e e f nes pprove the resolution in question. De r espite follow up letters PC CDA received no reply from the Office of the Presid dent. The certificatesof fregistration issuedinthemeantimeby ythePCAhase enabledanum mberofnewcoconutmillst tooperate. RespondentPC R CAallegestha atthispetition nshouldbede eniedontheg groundthatpe etitionerhasa apendingapp pealbefore theOfficeofth t hePresident. Respondent accusespetit tionerofforum mshoppingin nfilingthispetitionandof ffailingto exhaust availa e able administr rative remedi before com ies ming to this Court. Respo ondent anchors its argume on the ent generalruleth g hatonewhobringsanactionunderRule65mustshow wthatonehasnoappealnoranyplain,sp peedy,and adequatereme a edyintheord dinarycourseo oflaw.Hence ethispetition.
63|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ISSUE: herthedoctrineofexhausti ionofadminis strativeremed diesdoesnota applytotheru ulemakingpo owerofan 1. Wheth admin nistrativeagen ncy 2. Wheth hertheBoardResolutionan ndcertificates sbedeclaredn nullandvoidf forbeingultra avires HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Theruleofrequiringexhau T ustionofadmi inistrativerem mediesbefore eapartymay yseekjudicial review,sost trenuously urgedbytheS u SolicitorGener ralonbehalfo ofrespondent t,hasobviouslynoapplicat tionhere.The eresolutionin nquestion was w issued by the PCA in the exercise of its rule m y making or legi islative power However, only judicial review of r. decisionsofad d dministrative agenciesmad deintheexer rciseoftheirq quasijudicial functionissu ubjecttothee exhaustion doctrine.The d eexhaustiond doctrinestandsasabartoa anactionwhic chisnotyetco omplete4anditisclear,int thecaseat bar, b thatafter its promulga r ationthe resolution ofthe PCA abandon ning regulation thedesic nof ccated coconu industry ut becameeffecti b ive.Tobesur re,thePCAisunderthedir rectsupervisi ionofthePresidentofthe Philippinesbu utthereis nothinginP.D n D.No.232,P.D D.No.961,P.D D.No.1468an ndP.D.No.16 644definingt thepowersan ndfunctionso ofthePCA whichrequiresrulesandregulationsissu w uedbyittobeapprovedbythePresidentbeforetheyb becomeeffecti ive. althoughtheA APCDhasappe ealedthereso olutioninques stiontotheOf fficeofthePre esident,consid deringthe Inanyevent,a factthattwom f monthsaftert theyhadsent theirfirstlett teronApril26,1993theys stillhadtohe earfromtheP Presidents office,meanwh o hileresponde entPCAwasis ssuingcertificatesofregistr rationindiscri iminatelyton newcoconutm millers,we holdthatpetit h tionerwasjus stifiedinfiling gthiscaseonJ June25,1993 3.5Indeed,aft terwritingthe eOfficeofthe President onApril26,19 o 9936petitione ersentinquiriestothatoffi icenotonce,b buttwice,onM May26,19937andonJune e2,1993,8 butpetitionerdidnotreceiv b veanyreply. PCA acted in ultravires because a c P n change in po olicy must b made by the legislativ departme of the be ve ent government g n the pted Resolutio No. 05887 authorizing the establish on 7, hment and It was only on October 23, 1987 when t PCA adop operationofa o additionalDCN Nplants,invi iewoftheinc creaseddeman ndfordesicca atedcoconutp productsinth heworlds markets, parti m icularly in Ger rmany, the Ne etherlands an Australia. Even then, th opening of new plants w made nd he f was subject to suc implement s ch ting guideline to be set fo es orth by the Au uthority and subject to th final appro he oval of the President. P The T guidelines promulgate by the PCA as embodie in Adminis ed A, ed strative Order No. 002, series of 1991, inter alia r authorizedthe a eopeningofn newplantsin noncongeste edareasonlyasdeclaredby ythePCAandsubjecttoco ompliance by b applicants with all proc cedures and r requirements for registration under Adm ministrative O Order No. 003 series of 3, 1981 and this Order. In ad 1 s ddition, as the opening of new plants w premised on the increa e was ased global de emand for desiccatedcoc d conutproducts,thenewent trantswerere equiredtosub bmitswornsta atementsofth henamesandaddresses ofprospective o eforeignbuyer rs. At A all events, any change in policy must be made by the legislative department of the government. The r n t e t regulatory systemhasbeensetupbylaw.Itisbeyo s ondthepower rofanadmini istrativeagencytodismant tleit.Indeed, petitioner chargesthePC c CAofseeking gtorendermo ootacasefile edbysomeof fitsmembers squestioning thegrantofl licensesto certainparties c sbyadoptingtheresolution ninquestion.Itisallegedth hatmembersofpetitionerc complainedto othecourt thatthePCAh t hadauthorized dtheestablish hmentandop perationofnewplantsinar reaswhichwe erealreadycr rowded,in violationofits v sAdministrati iveOrderNo.002,serieso of1991.Inre esponse,theR RegionalTrialCourtissued dawritof preliminaryin p njunction,enjo oiningthePCA Afromissuing glicensestoth heprivateresp pondentsinth hatcase. Theseallegatio T onsofpetition nerhavenotb beendeniedhere.Itwouldthusseemtha atinsteadofd defendingitsd decisionto allow new en a ntrants into the field aga t ainst petitione ers claim th the PCA d hat decision viola ated the guid delines in
64 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Administrative A eOrderNo.00 02,seriesof1 1991,thePCA adoptedther resolutioninq questiontore enderthecase emoot.In sodoing,theP s PCAabdicated ditsfunction ofregulation nandleftthef fieldtountrammeledcomp petitionthati islikelyto resurrectthee r evilsofcutthroatcompetit tion,undersell lingandoverp productionwh hichin1982r requiredthet temporary closingofthef c fieldtonewpl layersinorde ertosavethei industry. ThePCAcanno T otrelyonthememorandum mofthenPresidentAquino oforauthority ytoadoptthe eresolutionin nquestion. Asalreadysta A ated,whatPre esidentAquino oapprovedin n1988wasth heestablishme entandopera ationofnewD DCNplants subject to the guidelines to be drawn b the PCA.20 In the first p s o by place, she cou not have intended to a uld amend the severallawsal s lreadymentio oned,whichse etuptheregulatorysystem m,byamerem memorandatothePCA.Int thesecond place, even if that had bee her intention, her act w p en would be with hout effect con nsidering that, when she i issued the memorandum m minquestiono onFebruary11 1,1988,shew wasnolongerv vestedwithle egislativeauth hority. oOo VARGAS,A. V Corona,petitionervs. .CourtofApp peals,respond dent GR.No.97356 Sptember30,1992 6 Theruleonexh T haustionofad dministrativer remediesmayb besetasidewh herethequest tionindisputeispurelylegal lone OnMay15,19 O 987,President tCorazonC.A Aquinoissued Administrativ veOrderNo.2 25creatinga PresidentialC Committee onPublicEthic o csandAccoun ntability Pursuant to th mandate of A.O. No. 25 former DO P he o 5, OTC Secretary Rainerio Rey issued Of y yes ffice Order N 88318 No. creatingtheAd c dministrativeActionBoard d(AAB)"toact t,decideandr recommendto otheSecretary yappropriatemeasures oncasesofadm o ministrativem malfeasance,ir rregularities,g graftsandactsofcorruptionintheDepar rtment." OnAugust26,1988,twoPP O PApoliceofficers;Rosmelito odelMundoa andGeronimo oGorospe,filed dintheAABw whichwas thenpresided byChairman OnofreVillalu t uz,acomplain ntfordishone estyandconductprejudicia altothebesti interestof theserviceaga t ainstLeopoldo oBungubung,DistrictMana agerofthePor rtofManila Subsequently, thePPAGene S eralManager,RogelioA.Da ayan,filedano other"formal charge"again nstBungubun ngandone Mario Tan for dishonesty, inefficiency a M r and incompet tence in the p performance o official dut of ties, willful vi iolation of reasonable off r fice rules and regulations and/or condu prejudicia to the best interest of th service. Do d uct al he ocketed as Adm.CaseNo.110188,the A ecasewasind edtotheA dors AABforappro opriateaction. . Questioning th jurisdiction of the AAB over the adm Q he n ministrative c cases against him, Bungubu filed a pe ung etition for certiorariwith c hpreliminaryinjunctionan nd/ortempora aryrestraining gorderwitht thisCourt.Din nopolalsofiledwiththe Regional Trial Court of Pa R l asig, a petitio for certior on rari, prohibiti ion and mand damus with p prayer for pr reliminary injunctionand d/ortemporar ryrestraining gorderchallen ngingthejuri isdictionofth heAABoverth headministra ativecases againsthim a G.R.Nos.8648 G 8869(theBun ngubungcase) )andG.R.No.86646(theDinopolcase)w werelatercon nsolidated ISSUE: her or not the Secretary of the DOT and/or th AAB have jurisdiction to initiate and hear t y TC he e n 1. Wheth admin nistrativecase esagainstPPA Apersonnelwh hoserankare ebelowthatof fanassistantg generalmanager. 2. Wheth herornottheruleonexhau ustionofadmi inistrativerem mediesapplica ableinthecas seatbar HELD: H
65|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts PetitionDENIE P ED Petitioners' co P ontention, tha the DOTC Secretary, ac at cting as alter ego of the P President, has jurisdiction over PPA s personnellike p etheprivaterespondentsherein,iscorre ectonlytoacertainextent.TheDOTCSe ecretary'sjurisdictionis circumscribed by the afore c d equoted prov visions of the PPA Charter and the Civi Service Law which give him only il w appellatejuris a sdictionoverd disciplinarym mattersinvolvi ingpersonnelbelowthatof fAssistantGeneralManage er.Hedoes nothavethep n powertoinitia ateproceedin ngsagainstas subordinateo officialoftheP PPA;otherwis se,weshallw witnessthe absurd specta a acle of the DO OTC Secretary acting as complainantini y itiator of an a administrative case which later falls e uponhimtore u eview. Whatisprescr W ribedbythela awandisthat tallcomplaint tsagainstaPP PAofficialore employeebelo owtherankof fAssistant GeneralManag G gershallbefiledbeforethe ePPAGeneral lManagerby theproperof fficials,sucha asthePPApol liceorany aggrievedpart a ty.Theaggriev vedpartysho ouldnot,howe ever,beoneandthesameo officialuponw whoselapthecomplaint hehasfiledm h mayeventually yfallonappea al.Nemopote estessesimul actorjudex.N Nomancanb beatoncealit tigantand ju udge.Unless, ofcourse,ina anexceptiona alcase,suchofficialinhibits shimselforex xpresseshisw willingnessat theoutset towaivehisrighttoreviewthecaseonap t ppeal. Neitheristhe doctrineofex N xhaustionofa administrative eremediesap pplicableinthiscase.Beside esthefacttha attheAAB was w patently without juris sdiction to act on the adm ministrative co omplaints file against res ed spondents Din nopol and Bungubung,th B heinstantpeti itionraiseson nlyquestionso oflaw,oneoft theexceptionstothegener ralruleonexh haustionof administrative a eremedies.Mostenlighteni ingisthefollowingportionofthedecisioninQuisumbingv.Gumban n: "xxx.Thedoc " ctrineofexhau ustionofadmi inistrativerem mediesisnota ahardandfastrule.Ithasb been repeate edly held thattheprinciplerequiringpreviousexha t austionofadm ministrativere emediesisnot applicable where the question in t e disputeispure d elylegalone:w wherethecon ntrovertedact tispatently i illegalorwasperformedw withoutjurisdic ctionorin excessofjurisd e diction;where etherespondentisa departmentsecre etary,whosea actsasanalte eregoofthe President, beartheimplie b edorassumed d approval of the latt ter; where there are circu umstances ind dicating the u urgency of ju udicialinterve ention;or wh heretherespo ondenthasac ctedindisrega ardofduepro ocess.Theruledoesnotapplywhere insistence on its observanc would resu in nullifica ce ult ation of the cl laim being as sserted; and w when the rule does not e provideaplain p n,speedyandadequaterem medy." oOo MOR RCAL,petition nervs.LAVINA A,respondent t GR.N No.166753 mber29,2005 5 Novem Theruleonex T xhaustionofad dministrative remediesisnotwithoutexc ception.Howe ever,whenthe ereisnoexcep ptiontobe availedof,itm a mustbeimposedinfull. Thecaseinvol T lvesaparcelo ofunregistere edlandwitha anareaof4,84 40squareme eters,situated datBarangay Cagsiay1, MaubanQuezo M on,identifiedo onlyasLotNo o.2056Cad245. PetitionerAng P gelitaMorcal, withhersiste erIldefonsaM Morcalandoth hermembers oftheirfamily yoccupied,clearedand plantedseason p nalcropsont thelandupto othetimeitw wasdeclared aspublicland donMay14, 1941.Therea after,their familydeclaredthelandfortaxationpurp f posesandbeg ganplantingco oconutandoth herfruitbeari ingtrees. Havingbeenin H npossessiono ofthesaidlan ndforalmostf forty(40)year rs,petitionerfiledFreePatentApplicatio onNo.(IV 3)14661in19 3 976.However, ,onSeptembe er11,1990,pr rivaterespond dentsAntonio oLavia(nowdeceased)an ndTeresita Lavia protest the free patent applica L ted p ation. The Reg gional Office o DENR ruled that, Morcals property is to cover of d only onehalf of the lo applied fo particularly the southe o ot or ern portion t thereof, as re ecommended by Land
66 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ManagementO M OfficerIIIDan nAugustS.No oche,afterwhi ichthesames shallbegivenfurtherduec coursenowin nthename ofAngelitaand o dIldefonsaMo orcal,unlesst thelatterexecutesadeedof ftransferinfa avorofAngelit taMorcal. Privaterespon P ndentTeresita aLaviacount tersthatpetit tionersfailure etopursuean ndexhaustthe eproperadmi inistrative remedieswas fataltoherca r ause.Shemai intainsthatth heRegionalEx xecutiveDirec ctoroftheDENRdidnotco ommitany palpableerror p rorgraveabuseofdiscretio on ISSUE: Whetherorno W ottheprincipleofexhaustio onofadminist trativeremedi iesappliestot theinstantcas se. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED The T doctrine of exhaustion of administ n trative remed dies requires that resort b first made to the admi be e inistrative authorities in cases falling under their j a jurisdiction to allow them to carry out their functio and discharge their o ons responsibilitie r eswithinthes specializedare easoftheirco ompetence.Th hisisbecausetheadministr rativeagencyc concerned isinthebestp positiontocor rrectanyprevi iouserrorcom mmittedinitsforum. Thereareexce T eptions,howev ver,totheapp plicabilityofthedoctrine.A Amongtheesta ablishedexcep ptionsare: 1)wh henthequestionraisedisp purelylegal; 2)wh hentheadmin nistrativebodyisinestoppe el; 3)wh hentheactco omplainedofis spatentlyilleg gal; 4)wh henthereisurgentneedfor rjudicialinter rvention; 5)wh hentheclaiminvolvedissm mall; 6)wh henirreparab bledamagewillbesuffered; ; 7)wh henthereisnootherplain,speedyandadequatereme edy; 8)wh henstrongpu ublicinterestisinvolved; 9)wh henthesubjec ctofthecontr roversyispriv vateland;and 10)in nquowarranto oproceedings s owever,noneoftheforegoingexceptions smaybeavail ledof.Contrar rytopetitione ersassertion,weseeno Inthiscase,ho urgent need f judicial in u for ntervention. Note that the case arose from the pr e rotest filed b respondent against by ts petitionersfre p eepatentappl licationforth hesubjectunre egisteredagriculturalland.Clearly,them mattercomesw withinthe exclusiveprim e maryjurisdicti ionoftheDEN NRintheexe ercise ofitsqu uasijudicialp powers.Theim mpugnedOrd dersofthe DENRRegiona D alOfficearesu ubjecttorevie ewbytheDEN NRHeadOffice e. oOo ROBLES,A. R VICENT TEVILLAFLOR R,substituted dbyhisheirs .COURTOF sv FAPPEALSan ndNASIPITLU UMBERCO.,I INC. G.R R.No.95694 9Oc ctober1997 Thefindingsof T ffactofanadm ministrativea agencymustbe erespectedaslongastheya aresupportedbysubstantialevidence, evenifsuchev e videncemight notbeoverwh helmingoreve enprepondera ant.Itisnotth hetaskofana appellatecour rttoweigh once more the evidence sub o e bmitted before the administ e trative body a to substit and tute its own ju udgment for t that of the administrative a eagencyinres spectofsufficie encyofevidenc ce.
67|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts VicenteVillaflo V or(Villaflor)l leasedtoNasi ipitLumberCo o.,Inc.(Nasipit)aparcelof fland.OnDece ember2,1948 8,Villaflor filed Sales App f plication with the Bureau of Lands, Man h nila."However in the Repo dated December 31, 19 by the r, ort 949 public land in p nspector, Distr Land Office, Bureau of Lands, in Bu rict f utuan, the rep port contains an Indorsement of the aforesaid Dist a trict Land Off ficer recomme ending rejecti of the Sales Applicatio of Villaflor for having l ion on r leased the propertytoan p notherevenbe eforehehada acquiredtransmissibleright tsthereto. OnJuly24,19 O 950,thesched duleddateofa auctionofthe epropertycov veredbytheS SalesApplicat tion,Nasipito offeredthe highest bid of P41.00 per hectare, but s h f h since an appli icant under CA 141, is allo owed to equal the bid of th highest l he bidder,Villaflo b ortenderedan nequalbid;de epositedthee equivalentof1 10%ofthebid dpriceandth henpaidtheas ssessment infull.Villaflor rexecutedad document,den nominatedasa a"DeedofRel linquishmentofRights"inf favorofNasipi it. Meanwhile,Na M asipitfiledaSalesApplicationoverthetw wo(2)parcels sofland,coveringanareao of140hectare es,moreor less.Onthefollowingday,t theDirectorof fLandsissued dan"Orderof fAward"infav vorofNasipit tCompany,Inc.Villaflor protested with the Bureau of Lands the Sales Applic p h e cation of Nasipit, claiming that the company has not paid him t P5,000.00asp P providedintheDeedofReli inquishmento ofRights. The T Director o Lands orde of ered the dism missal of Villaflor's protest and gave due course to th Sales Appl he lication of Nasipit.From thedecisiono N oftheDirector rofLands,Vil llaflorfiledaM MotionforRe econsideration nwhichwasc considered as a an Appeal, to the Ministry of Natura Resources. The Minister of Natural R al r Resources dismissed the appeal and affirmedthedecisionoftheDirectorofLa a ands. On O July 6, 19 978, petitione filed a com er mplaintin the trial court f "Declarati for ion of Nullity of Contract (Deed of y Relinquishmen R ntofRights), RecoveryofP Possession(oftwoparcels oflandsubje ectofthecont tract),andDa amages"at aboutthesam a metimethathe eappealedthe edecisionoft theMinistero ofNaturalRes sourcestotheOfficeofthe President. Aftertrialinduecourse,the A ethenCourtofFirstInstanc ceofAgusand delNorteandB ButuanCitydi ismissedthec complaint. ISSUE: Whetherorno W ottheDirector rofLandshastheprimaryj jurisdictionov verthecase HELD: H Underlyingthe U erulingsofth hetrialandap ppellatecourt tsisthedoctr rineofprimar ryjurisdiction n;i.e.,courtscannotand will w not resolv a controve ve ersy involving a question w g which is with the jurisdiction of an a hin administrative tribunal, e especially wh e here the ques stion demand the exerci of sound administrativ discretion requiring th special ds ise ve n he knowledge,ex k xperienceandservicesoftheadministrativetribunalto odeterminete echnicalandin ntricatematte ersoffact. Inrecentyears s,ithasbeent thejurisprude entialtrendto oapplythisdo octrinetocase esinvolvingm mattersthatde emandthe special compe s etence of adm ministrative ag gencies even i the question involved is also judicial in character. It applies if "whereaclaim " misoriginallycognizablein nthecourts,an ndcomesinto oplaywhenev verenforceme entoftheclaim mrequires the t resolution of issues wh n hich, under a regulatory sc cheme, have b been placed w within the spe ecial compete ence of an administrative body; in su a e uch case, the judicial pro e ocess is susp pended pending referral of such issues to the administrative a ebodyforitsv view." Therationale underlyingthe T edoctrineofp primaryjurisd dictionfindsa applicationin thiscase,sincethequestio onsonthe identityofthe elandindispu uteandthefac ctualqualifica ationofprivat terespondent tasanawarde eeofasalesapplication require a tech r hnical determ mination by t the Bureau o Lands as t of the administr rative agency with the expertise to determinesuc d chmatters.Be ecausethesei issuespreclud depriorjudici ialdetermination,itbehoo ovesthecourt tstostand asideevenwh a hentheyappa arentlyhaves statutorypow wertoproceed d,inrecognitionoftheprim maryjurisdict tionofthe administrative a eagency.
68 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts One t thrust of the multiplication of administr m n rative agencie is that the interpretatio of contract and the es on ts determ minationofprivaterightst thereunderisnolongerau uniquelyjudic cialfunction,e exercisableon nlybyour regula arcourts. Petitioner init P tiated his actio with a pro on otest before th Bureau of Lands and fo he ollowed it thro ough in the M Ministry of NaturalResou N urcesandther reafterinthe OfficeoftheP President.Con nsistentwith thedoctrine ofprimaryju urisdiction, thetrialandth t heappellateco ourtshadreas sontorelyonthefindingso ofthesespecia alizedadminis strativebodies. Theprimaryju T urisdictionof fthedirector oflandsandt theministero ofnaturalreso ourcesoverth heissuesrega ardingthe identityofthedisputedland dandthequalificationofan nawardeeofa asalespatent tisestablished dbySections3and4of Commonwealt C thActNo.141 1,alsoknowna asthePublicL LandAct. Reliance by th trial and th appellate c R he he courts on the factual findings of the Di e irector of Lan and the M nds Minister of NaturalResou N urcesisnotmi isplaced.Byre easonofthes specialknowle edgeandexpe ertiseofsaida administrative eagencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they ar in a better position to pass judgme thereon; t o r re r ent thus, their findingsoffactinthatregar f rdaregeneral llyaccordedg greatrespect, ifnotfinality, ,bythecourts s.Thefindings soffactof an a administra ative agency must be respe m ected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, eve if such g y en evidencemigh e htnotbeoverw whelmingore evenpreponderant.Itisnot tthetaskofan nappellateco ourttoweigho oncemore the evidence submitted before the ad t b dministrative body and to substitute its own judg o gment for th of the hat administrative a eagencyinres spectofsufficiencyofevide ence. However,the rulethatfactu H ualfindingso ofanadminist trativeagency yareaccorded drespectandevenfinality bycourts admitsofexce a eptions.Thisis struealsoina assessingfact tualfindingso oflowercourts.Itisincumb bentonthepetitionerto showthattheresolutionofthefactualiss s suesbythead dministrative agencyand/o orbythetrial courtfallsunderanyof theexceptions t s.Otherwise,t thisCourtwillnotdisturbsu uchfindings. In this instanc both the principle of pr ce, p rimary jurisdiction of admi inistrative age encies and the doctrine of finality of e factualfinding f gsofthetrial courts,particu ularlywhena affirmedbyth heCourtofAp ppealsasinth hiscase,milita ateagainst petitioner'sca p ause.Indeed,p petitionerhasnotgivenuss sufficientreasontodeviatefromthem. oOo EVELYNO ONGSUCOand dANTONIASA ALAYAv.HON N.MARIANOM M.MALONES, ,bothinhisp privateando official capacitya asMayorofth Municipali he ityofMaasin, ,Iloilo G.R R.No.182065 October2009 27O Acasewheret A theissueraise edisapurely ylegalquestion,wellwithin nthecompete ence;andthej jurisdictionof fthecourt andnotthead a dministrativea agency,would dclearlyconst tituteanexcep ption Petitionersare P estallholders sattheMaasi inPublicMark ket,whichhadjustbeennewlyrenovate ed.On17Aug gust1998, theSangguniangBayanofM t Maasinapprov vedMunicipalOrdinanceNo o.9801,entit tled"TheMun nicipalRevised dRevenue Code."TheCodecontained aprovisionf C forincreasedr rentalsforthestallsandth heimposition nofgoodwillf feesinthe amountofP20 a 0,000.00andP P15,000.00forstallslocate edonthefirst andsecondfl loorsofthem municipalpubl licmarket, respectively. T same Cod authorized respondent to enter into lease contra r The de d acts over the said market s stalls, and incorporateda astandardcon ntractoflease eforthestallh holdersatthemunicipalpub blicmarket. On9June199 O 99,respondent twrotealette ertopetitione ersinforming themthatthe eywereoccup pyingstallsin thenewly renovatedmunicipalpublic r cmarketwitho outanylease contract,asaconsequence eofwhich,the estallswerec considered vacant and op for qualif v pen fied and inter rested applica ants. This pro ompted petitio oners, togethe with other similarly er r situated stall holders at the municipal public mark s t l ket,to file be efore the RTC on 25 Jun 1999 a Pe ne etition for
69|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Prohibition/M P Mandamus, wi Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/o Writ of Pr ith or reliminary Injunction,aga ainstresponde ent. The T RTC subs sequently ren ndered a deci ision dismissi the case. The RTC fou ing und that petit tioners could not avail themselves of the remedy of mandamus or prohibitio and also on the ground of nonexhau t f o on n ustion of admi inistrative remedies.Peti r itionersfailur retoquestionthelegalityofMunicipalOrdinanceNo.9 9801beforetheSecretaryofJustice, asprovidedun a nderSection1 187oftheLoca alGovernmen ntCode,rende eredthePetitio onraisingthe everysameiss suebefore theRTCprema t ature.Onappe eal,theCourtofAppealsagainruledinre espondentsfa avor. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otexhaustionofadministrat tiveremediesisapplicableinthiscase HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Afteracloses A scrutinyofthe ecircumstanc cesthatgaver risetothiscase,theCourt determinesth hatthereisno oneedfor petitionerstoexhaustadministrativerem p mediesbeforeresortingtoth hecourts. Itistruethatt thegeneralru uleisthatbef foreapartyis allowedtose eektheinterv ventionofthe court,heors sheshould haveavailedh h himselforher rselfofallthe meansofadm ministrativeprocessesaffor rdedhimorh her.Hence,ifr resorttoa remedywithin r ntheadminis strativemachi inerycanstillbemadeby givingtheadministrativeo officerconcer rnedevery opportunityto o odecideona matterthatc comeswithin hisorherjur risdiction,the ensuchremed dyshouldbe exhausted firstbeforethe f ecourtsjudic cialpowercan nbesought.Thepremature einvocationof ftheinterventionofthecou urtisfatal toonescauseofaction.The t edoctrineofe exhaustionofa administrativeremediesisbasedonprac cticalandlega alreasons. The availmen of adminis T nt strative reme edy entails le esser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.Furthermore c e,thecourtsof fjustice,forre easonsofcom mityandconve enience,willshyawayfrom madispute until the syste of adminis u em strative redre has been c ess completed and complied w with, so as to give the admi inistrative agency concer a rned every opportunity to correct its error and d o o dispose of the case. Howe e ever, there ar several re exceptionstot e thisrule. Theruleonth T heexhaustion ofadministra ativeremedies sisintendedt toprecludea courtfromar rrogatingunto oitselfthe authority to r a resolve a cont troversy, the jurisdiction o over which is initially lodg with an administrativ body of s ged ve specialcompetence.Thus,a s acasewhereth heissueraised disapurelyle egalquestion, ,wellwithinth hecompetenc ce;andthe ju urisdictionofthecourtand f dnottheadmi inistrativeage ency,wouldcl learlyconstitu uteanexception.Resolvingquestions oflaw,which involvethein o nterpretation andapplicatio onoflaws,co onstitutesesse entiallyanexe erciseofjudic cialpower thatisexclusiv t velyallocatedtotheSuprem meCourtands suchlowercourtstheLegis slaturemayes stablish. In this case, th parties are not disputin any factual matter on which they still need to pres he e ng l sent evidence The sole e. issuepetitione ersraisedbefo oretheRTCin nCivilCaseNo o.25843waswhetherMun nicipalOrdinan nceNo.9801wasvalid andenforceab a bledespitethe eabsence,prio ortoitsenactment,ofapub blichearingheldinaccorda ancewithArti icle276of theImplementingRulesand t dRegulations softheLocal Government Code.Thisis undoubtedly apurequesti ionoflaw, withinthecom w mpetenceandjurisdictionoftheRTCtore esolve. oOo DEALBAN,D. D Ang gelesCityv.A AngelesElectr ricCompany G.R.No.166 6134(DelCas stillo,J.)
70 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Theprohibitiono T ontheissuanceo ofawritofinjunctiontoenjointh hecollectionoft taxesappliesonly ytonationalinte ernalrevenueta axes,andnot tolocaltaxes. t OnJune18,19 O 964,AECwas sgrantedaleg gislativefranc chiseunderR RepublicActN No.(RA)4079 9toconstruct t,maintain andoperatean a nelectriclight t,heat,andpo owersystemf forthepurpos seofgeneratin nganddistribu utingelectriclight,heat andpowerfor a rsaleinAngele esCity,Pampa a. ang On O January 1, 1992, RA 71 or the Local Governme Code (LGC of 1991 was passed int law, confer 160 ent C) to rring upon provincesandcitiesthepow p wer,amongot thers,toimposetaxonbusi inessesenjoyi ingfranchise.Inaccordanc cewiththe LGC, the Sang L gguniang Pan nlungsod of A Angeles City e enacted on D December 23, 1993 Tax Ordinance No. 33, S93, otherwisekno o ownastheRev visedRevenue eCodeofAnge elesCity(RRC CAC). OnJanuary22 O 2,2004,theCit tyTreasureri issuedaNotic ceofAssessme enttoAECfor rpaymentofb businesstax,l licensefee andotherchar a rgesfortheperiod1993to o2004inthet totalamount ofP94,861,19 94.10.Respon ndentproteste edthesaid assessment to which the City Treasurer denied the protest for la of merit and requeste AEC to set a o C r ack ed ttle its tax li iabilities. OnApril5,2004,theCityTreasurerlevie O edontherealpropertiesof fAEC.ANotic ceofAuction Salewaspubl lishedand postedannoun p ncingthatapu ublicauctiono oftheleviedp propertiesofA AECwouldbeheldonMay7 7,2004. Thisprompted T dAECtofilew withtheRTC, wherethepe etitionfordec claratoryrelie efwaspending g,anUrgentM Motionfor Issuance of Te emporary Res straining Ord and/or W of Prelimi der Writ inary Injuncti which the RTC issued after due ion e noticeandhea n aring. Petitionersmainargument P tisthattheco ollectionoftax xescannotbe eenjoinedby theRTC.Priv vaterespondentAECon the t other han asserts tha there was n grave abus of discretion on the pa of the RTC in issuing th writ of nd at no se art C he preliminaryin p njunctionbeca auseitwasiss suedafterdue enoticeandh hearing,andw wasnecessary ytopreventth hepetition frombecoming f gmoot. Issue: WhethertheR W RTCgravelyab buseditsdiscr retioninissuin ngthewritofpreliminaryin njunction. Held: H Petitionisdism P missed. A A principle de eeply embedd in our jur ded risprudence is that taxes b being the lifeblood of the government should be collected prom c mptly, without unnecessary hindrance o delay. The situation, how y or wever, is diffe erent in the case of the collectionoflo c ocaltaxesast thereisnoex xpressprovisi ionintheLGC Cprohibiting courtsfromi issuinganinju unctionto restrain local governments from collect r s ting taxes Ne evertheless, it must be em t mphasized tha although th at here is no expressprohib e bitionintheL LGC,injunction nsenjoiningt thecollection oflocaltaxes arefrowned upon.Courts stherefore shouldexercis s seextremecau utioninissuin ngsuchinjunct tions. Asarule,theissuanceofap A preliminaryin njunctionrests sentirelywith hinthediscret tionofthecou urttakingcognizanceof thecaseandw t willnotbeinterferedwith, exceptwhere ethereisgrav veabuseofdis scretioncomm mittedbythe court.For grave abuse o discretion to prosper as a ground for certiorari, it must be de g of t s emonstrated t that the lower court or r tribunalhasex t xerciseditspo owerinanarb bitraryandde espoticmanne er,byreasono ofpassionorp personalhosti ility,andit mustbepaten m ntandgrossas swouldamou unttoanevasionortoaun nilateralrefusa altoperform thedutyenjo oinedorto actincontemp a plationoflaw.Inotherword ds,mereabuseofdiscretion nisnotenoug gh.
71|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Guided by the foregoing,th Courtfound no grave ab G e he buse ofdiscre etion onthe p part of the RTC in issuingt writ of the injunction. Petitioner, who has the burd to prove grave abuse of discretion failed to show that the R den n, RTC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in granting t injunction Neither was petitioner able to prove t a d y the n. s that the injun nction was issued withou any factual or legal jus ut stification. In assailing th injunction, petitioner p n he , primarily relie on the ed prohibitionon p ntheissuanceofawritofin njunctiontore estrainthecoll lectionoftaxe es.Butasweh havealreadys said,there isnosuchproh hibitioninthe ecaseoflocaltaxes. oOo
JudicialRevi J iew
Areviewofits decisionsoro A ordersoftheE EnergyRegula atoryBoard(E ERB)islodged dintheSuprem meCourt;whe erethelaw providesforan p nappealfromthedecisionso ofadministrat tivebodiestot theSupremeC CourtortheCo ourtofAppeals s,itmeans that such bodi are coequ with the R t ies ual Regional Trial Courts in ter rms of rank and stature, an logically, b nd beyond the controlofthel c latter. OnJanuary21 O 1,1987,Presid dentCorazon C.AquinoandherCabinet tapprovedaC CabinetRefor rmPolicyfort thepower sectorandissu s uedaCabinetMemorandum m,ItemNo.2o ofwhichprovi ides: Continue dire connection for industri authorized under the BOINPC Memorandum of Understand C ect n ies ding of 12 January 1981, until suchtim asthe app me propriate regu ulatory board determines t d thatdirect connectionof in ndustryto NPCisnolong N gernecessaryi inthefranchis seareaofthespecificutility yorcooperati ive. Pursuanttosu P uchCabinetM Memorandum,respondentC CagayanElect tricPowerandLight,Co.(C CEPALCO),gr ranteeofa legislativefran nchisetodistr ributeelectricpowerfiledw withtheEnerg gyRegulatoryBoard(ERB). The T petition s sought the di iscontinuation of all existin direct supply of power by the National Power Co n ng orporation (NPC,nowNAPOCOR)withi ( inCEPALCOsfranchisearea. After notice a A and hearing, the ERB rend t dered a decis sion[5] granti the petition. After atte ing empts by NAPOCOR to overturnsaid decisionafter o ramotionfor rreconsiderat tionandapetitionforrevi iewwiththeC CourtofAppe eals,anda certiorariwith c htheSupreme eCourt,thesaiddecisionofERBbecamef finalandexec cutory. Toimplement T tthedecision inERBCase No.89430,C CEPALCOwrot tePhilippine SinterCorpor ration(PSC),p petitioner, and advised t a the latter of its desire t have the p to power supply of PSC, dir y rectly taken f from NPC (N NAPOCOR), disconnected, cutandtrans d sferredtoCEPALCO.PSCr refusedCEPAL LCOsrequest t,citingitscon ntractforpow wersupply withNAPOCOR w Reffectiveunt tilJuly26,199 96. Torestrainthe T eexecutionof ftheERBDecision,PSCand dPIAfiledacomplaintfori injunctionaga ainstCEPALCO Owiththe RegionalTrialCourtofCaga R ayandeOroC City,Branch17 7,OnApril11 1,1994,thetr rialcourtrend deredjudgmen ntinfavor ofPSCandPIA o A. CEPALCOfiled C damotionfor rreconsiderat tionbutwas deniedbythe etrialcourt.A Aggrieved,CEPALCOappea aledtothe CourtofAppea C alswhichgran ntedtheirpeti itiontodissolv vetheprelimi inaryinjunctio onrenderedb bytheRTC PSCandPIAfiledamotionf P forreconsider ration,whichwasdeniedin naResolution ndatedDecem mber2,1996. Hencethe instantpetition. Issue:
Philippi ineSinterCorporationv. CagayanElec ctricPowerandLightCo., Inc. 1(SandovalG Gutierrez,J.) G.R.No.127371
72|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whetherorno W otinjunctionli iesagainstthe efinalandexe ecutoryjudgm mentoftheERB B. Held: H Petitionisden P nied. TheCourtheld T dthataninjun nctiontostay yafinalandex xecutorydecis sionisunavai ilingexcepton nlyafterasho owingthat factsandcircu f umstancesexistwhichwouldrenderexecutionunjust orinequitable,orthatach hangeinthesi ituationof thepartiesocc t curred.Here, ,nosuchexce eptionexistsa asshownbythefactsearlie ernarrated.T Todisturbthe efinaland executorydeci e isionoftheER RBinaninjunctionsuitisto obrazenlydisr ardtherul reg leonfinalityo ofjudgments. Settled is the rule that wh S here the law p provides for an appeal fro the decisi om ions of admin nistrative bod dies to the SupremeCour S rtortheCourt tofAppeals,it tmeansthats suchbodiesar recoequalwi iththeRegion nalTrialCourt tsinterms ofrankandsta o ature,andlog gically,beyond dthecontrolo ofthelatter.H Hence,thetria alcourt,being gcoequalwith htheERB, cannotinterferewiththede c ecisionofthelatter.Itbearsstressingth hatthisdoctri ineofnoninte erferenceoftr rialcourts with w coequal administrativ bodies is in ve ntended to en nsure judicial stability in th headministration of justice whereby e thejudgmento t ofacourtofc competentjurisdictionmay ynotbeopene ed,modifiedo orvacatedbya anycourtofc concurrent ju urisdiction. Grantingthat theERBdecis G sionhasnota attainedfinality,orthatthe ERBisnotco oequalwitht theRTC,still injunction willnotlie.A w Asarule,tojustifytheinjun nctivereliefpr rayedfor,the movantmust tshow:(1)th heexistenceof farightin esseortheexistenceofarig e ghttobeprot tected;and(2) )theactagain nstwhichinju unctionistobedirectedisa aviolation ofsuchright.I o Inthecaseat bar,petitione ersfailedtoshowanyclear rlegalrightw whichwouldb beviolatedift thepower supplyofPSCf s fromtheNAPOCORisdisco onnectedandt transferredto oCEPALCO. oOo ALCARAZ,P. A Remolonav.CSC G.R.No. .137473 Petitioner Est P telito Remolon was the P na Postmaster in Infanta Que n ezon. His wife Nery Remo e, olona was a t teacher in Kiborosa Elem K mentary Schoo Francisco R. America, D ol. District Superv visor of DepE inquired f Ed, from CSC rega arding the status of civil service eligib s bility of Nery Remolona. M Americaal disclosed that hegot an information Mr. lso n nthat Mrs. Remolona wa campaignin for a fee of P8,000.00 per examin R as ng 0 nee for a pas ssing mark i the teache in er's board examinations.CSCChairman e nissuedanor rdertoinvestigatesuchcase e.Duringtheh hearing,onlyt thepetitioner rappeared and a signed the statement of facts regar o rding the ques stioned repor of rating of Nery Remolona. It turned out that rt f d EstelitoRemol E lonathrough Atty.HadjiSa alupadin,paid dsumsofmon neysothatNe eryRamonaw wouldacquire eligibility. Furthermore,Remolonaadm F mittedthathe ewasrespons sibleinacquir ringtheallege edfakeeligibil lity,thathisw wifehasno knowledgethe k ereof,andthat thediditbeca ausehewante edthemtobetogether. Aformalheari A ingwascondu ucted.Inares solutionissue edbytheCSC, ,itfoundboth hspousesguil ltyofdishone esty.There wasamotion forreconsideration,theCS w SCissuedanot therresolution n,absolvingN NeryRemolon na,findingher rinnocent, butdeniedto absolveEstelitoRemolona.Petitionfor reviewwasfiledtotheCA butthecourt b tdenieditand daffirmed thedecisionof t ftheCSC. Petitionerass P sertsthatCA eerredin: P Petitionersub bmitsthattheCourtofAppe ealserred:
73|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts In denying petition ner's motion for new tria in holding that petition is liable for dishonest and in al; g ner ty; sustai iningthedism missalofthepetitionerfora anoffensenot tworkconnec ctedinrelation ntohisofficia alposition inthegovernments service. Issue: Whether civil service employee can be d W dismissed from the govern m nment service for an offens which is no se ot workrelatedo w orwhichisno otconnectedw withtheperfor rmanceofhisofficialduty. Held:Yes H Ratio:Remolo R onainsiststha athisdismissa alisaviolation nofhisrightt todueprocess sunderSectio on2(3),ArticleXI(B)of the t Constitutio which pro on ovides that "n officer or e no employee in t Civil Serv the vice shall be r removed or s suspended exceptforcause."Although theoffenseo e ofdishonestyi ispunishable undertheCiv vilServicelaw w,Remolonaopinesthat suchactmust havebeenco s ommittedinth heperformanceofhisfunc ctionandduty yasPostmaste er.Considerin ngthatthe chargeofdish c honestyinvolv vesthefalsific cationofthec certificateofr ratingofhisw wifeNeryRem molona,thesam mehasno bearingonhisofficeandhen b nce,heisdeem mednottohavebeendismi issedforcause.Thispropos sitionisunten nable. Itcannotbedeniedthatdis shonestyisco onsideredagr raveoffensep punishableby dismissalfor rthefirstoffenseunder Section23,Ru S uleXIVoftheR RulesImplem mentingBookV VofExecutive eOrderNo.29 92.Andtheru uleisthatdish honesty,in ordertowarra o antdismissal, ,neednotbe committedin nthecourseo oftheperform manceofduty bytheperson ncharged. Therationale fortheruleis T sthatifagov vernmentoffic ceroremploy yeeisdishones storisguilty ofoppression norgrave misconduct, ev if said de m ven efects of char racter are not connected w t with his office, they affect h right to co , his ontinue in office.TheGov o vernmentcan nnottolerateinitsservicea adishonestof fficial,evenif heperformsh hisdutiescorrectlyand well, because by reason of his governm w f ment position, he is given more and am , mple opportu unity to comm acts of mit dishonestyaga d ainsthisfellow wmen,evena againstoffices sandentities ofthegovern nmentotherth hantheoffice ewherehe is employed; a by reason of his office, he enjoys an possesses a certain influ and n nd uence and po ower which re enders the victimsofhisg v gravemiscond duct,oppressi ionanddishon nestylessdisp posedandpre eparedtoresistandtocoun nteracthis evil acts and actuations. The private li of an emp e T ife ployee cannot be segregat t ted from his public life. D Dishonesty inevitablyreflectsonthefit tnessoftheofficerorempl loyeetoconti inueinoffice andthediscip plineandmor raleofthe service. s Theprinciplei T isthatwhena anofficerorem mployeeisdis sciplined,theobjectsoughtisnotthepun nishmentofsu uchofficer oremployeeb o buttheimprov vementofthepublicservice eandthepres servationofth hepublic'sfait thandconfide enceinthe government. g Thegeneralru T uleisthatwh herethefindin ngsoftheadm ministrativebo odyareamply ysupportedb bysubstantial levidence, suchfindingsa s areaccorded notonlyresp pectbutalsofi inality,andar rebindingon thisCourt.Iti isnotforthe reviewing court to weig the conflicting evidence determine the credibilit of witnesse or otherw c gh e, ty es, wise substitut its own te ju udgmentfort thatoftheadm ministrativea agencyonthe sufficiencyof fevidence.Thus,whenconf frontedwithc conflicting versions of fac v ctual matters, it is for the administrativ agency con , ve ncerned in the exercise of d e discretion to d determine whichpartydeservescrede w enceontheba asisoftheevidencereceive ed.Therule,th herefore,isth hatcourtsofju usticewill not n generally interfere with purely administrative matters wh w hich are addr ressed to the sound disc cretion of governmentag g genciesunless sthereisacle earshowingth hatthelatter actedarbitrar rilyorwithgr raveabuseofdiscretion or o when they have acted in a capricious and whimsic manner su that their action may a n s cal uch r amount to an excess of n ju urisdiction. oOo Mollan nedav.Umac cob
74 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts LeonidaUmac L cobaskedArno oldMollaneda a(DivisionSup perintendentDavaoCityschools)forana appointmentnextweek regarding the possible tran r nsfer of Umac cob. Arnold as sked Leonida for a piece of paper and a asked her to w writer her nameandgaveittoArnold.Arnoldmade n esomenotati ionsonthepa aper.Arnolds stoopupbring gingalongwit thhimthe paperandhan p ndedittoLeonida.Befores shecouldget outoftheoff fice,Arnoldall lofasudden hugged,embr raced,and kissedLeonida k ainatorridm manner.Aftert that,hetoldle eonidanottot tellanyoneaboutwhathapp pened. Sexual harassm S ment was file against Arn ed nold in the CSC. Commission designate Atty. Anacl ed leto Buena to hear and receivetheevi r idenceinthec case.Aformal lhearingwasconductedan ndevidencewerepresented d.CSCissuedR Resolution No. N 973277 fi inding petitioner guilty ofg grave misconduct and cond duct grossly p prejudicial to the best inter rest of the service.His p s penalty was dismissal fro the gover om rnment servic with all i accessory penalties. M ce its Motion for reconsideratio r onwasfiledbu utitwasdenie ed.Thecasew wasbroughtto otheCAbutit taffirmedthedecisionmade ebyCSC. Issue: WhethertheC W CAerredingiv vingweightan ndcredenceto othefindingsoftheCSC Held:No H Ratio:Inassa R ailingtheDec cisionoftheC CourtofAppeals,petitioner risactually u urgingusnot togivecredencetothe factualfinding f gsoftheComm missiononthe egroundthatt theCommissio onersdidnotpersonallyhe earthecase. Thefactthatt T theCommissio onassignedA Atty.Buenato ohearandrec ceiveevidence edoesnotren nderitsfactua alfindings unworthyofcr u redence.Inla ayingdownth heprecedentt thatthematterofassigning gvaluestothetestimonyofwitnesses is best perfor rmed by trial courts or a administrative bodies rath than by a e her appellate cou urts, this Cou urtmerely recognizes tha the trial co r at ourt or the administrative body as a tr rier of facts i in a better position to a is assess the demeanoroft d thewitnesses andthecredibilityoftheir rtestimonies astheywerewithinitsproximalviewd duringthe hearingorinv h vestigation.At tanyrate,itca annotbegain nsaidthatthet termadminis strativebodyoragencyincludesthe subordinateofficialsuponw s whosehandt thebodyorag gencydelegat tesaportiono ofitsauthorit ty.Includedth hereinare thehearingof t fficersthrough hwhoseeyes andearsthea administrativebodyorage encyobserves thedemeanor,conduct andattitudeof a fthewitnesse esandlistenst totheirtestim monies. Underourjuri U isprudence,an nadministrativeagencyma ayemployoth herpersons,suchasahearingofficer,ex xamineror investigator,to oreceiveevid dence,conduct thearingandmakereports sonthebasisofwhichtheagencyshallr renderits decision.Such d haprocedure isapracticalnecessity.Co orollarily,ina catenaofcas ses,thisCourt tlaiddownth hecardinal requirements of due process in adminis r strative proceedings, one o which is tha the tribunal or body or any of its of at r judgesmustac ctonitsorhisownindepend dentconsiderationofthelaw wandfactsoft thecontroversy sy,andnotsim mplyaccept theviewsofa subordinate. Thus,itislog t gicaltosayth hatthismanda atewasrende eredprecisely ytoensuretha atincases wherethehea w aringorrecep ptionofeviden nceisassigned dtoasubordinate,thebod dyoragencys shallnotmere elyrelyon his h recommen ndation but in nstead shall p personally we eigh and asse the eviden which the said subord ess nce e dinate has gathered.Inth g hecaseatbar r,itisevident thattheComm missionitself evaluatedin detailtheevid denceofbothpartiesas reportedbyA r Atty.Buena.In nfact,inlayin ngdownitsco onclusion,itm madeconstantreferenceto othetestimon niesofthe partiesandoftheirwitnesse p esandtothed documentaryevidencepres sented. ddressed that the Commi t, issions act o delegating the authority to hear an receive ev of y nd vidence to It must be ad Atty.Buena is not without legal basis.Section 47, B A s t Book V of Exe ecutive Order No. 292 (ot r therwise know as the wn Administrative Code of 198 provides that the Com A e 87) mmissionmaydeputize any department or agency or officialor groupofoffici g ialstoconductaninvestiga ationontheco omplaintfiled dbyaprivate citizenagains stagovernme entofficial oremployee.Theresultsoftheinvestigationshallbe o esubmittedto otheCommissionwithrecommendation nastothe penaltytobeimposedoroth p heractiontob betaken. oOo
75|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts LIU,K. L VICTOR RG.VALENCI IA,petitioner,v.COURTOF FAPPEALS,et tal.,responden nts. G.R.No.12236 April G 63 l29,2003 The T power of the Departme Secretary to promulgate internal rule of administ ent e es trative proced dure is lodged in himby d necessary imp n plicationas pa of his exp art press power t "promulga rules and regulations n to ate necessary to carry out departmentob d bjectives,policies,functions,p i plans,program msandproject ts." Victor G. Vale V encia, a gover rnment retiree owns 2 parcels of land situated at B e, Barangay Lino othangan, Can nlaon City, NegrosOrienta N al.Heentered dintoa10yea arcivillawlea aseagreement toverhistwolotswithGlicerioHenson.B Beforethe tenyear lease expired and without obje t e ection from H Henson, Valenc leased the property for 5 years to F Andres cia e r Fr. Flores under a civil law le F ease. The leas agreement between Val se lencia and Fr. Floreswas s subject to a p prohibition againstsubleas a singorencum mberingthelan ndwithoutVal lencia'swritten nconsent. During the pe D eriod of his le ease, Henson i instituted Cre escenciano Fr rias and Marciano Frias to work on the property. Likewise,Fr.A L AndresFlores,respondentstocultivateth heland.These efarmhandssh haredtheirpr roducewithFr r.Flores. When the leas agreement between Val W se t lencia and Fr. Flores expir red, Valencia demanded th private res hat spondents vacatethepre v emises.Insteadofcomplyin ngwiththede emand,theyr refusedandco ontinuedculti ivatingthelan nddespite thedemandfo t orthemtovac cate.Valenciafiledaletter ofprotestbeforetheMinis sterofAgraria anReformto takeback theactualposs t sessionofhisproperty. Meanwhile, without his kno M owledge, priv vate respondents applied fo Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) under the or s OperationLan O ndTransfer(O OLT)Program pursuanttoP PresidentialD DecreeNo.27 claimingthey ywerebonafid detenants oftheproperty o y. Butwhilethei B investigationwasbeingcon nductedbythe eDARpursua anttopetitione er'sfirstletter rofprotest,D DARissued thequestioned t dCLTstopriv vateresponden nts. f vate respond dents, petition Valencia f ner filed a second letter of pr d rotest and In view of the issuance of CLTs to priv requestedaninvestigationa r andsubsequen ntcancellation noftheCLTs. DARHearingO D OfficerAtty.V VilmoAmpong gconductedaninvestigatio onandfoundt thattheright ofprivateres spondents to t the land ceased upon the termination of the lease contracts, except as regards responden Catalino Ma n nt antac with whompetition w nerValenciaenteredintoat tenancyagree ement.Conseq quently,Atty.A Ampongrecom mmendedtha attheCLTs issuedtopriva ateresponden ntsbecancelle edandthefina alsurveycond ductedonthelandholdingo ofValenciaset taside. Despitetherecommendatio D on,theDARRe egionalOfficedismissedVa alencia'sprote estandheldth hatprivateres spondents hadtherightt h tocontinueon nthelanduntilotherwiseor rderedbythecourt. Valenciaappea V aledtotheOf fficeofthePre esident,which haffirmedthe eorderofthe DARsubjectt tothemodific cationthat theareaacquiredbypetitionerValenciaa t ashomesteadbeexcludedf fromthecover rageofP.D.N No.27. Valencia went to the Court of Appeals which dismis V t ssed the case on the grou e und that his a appeal was fil out of led time.Theappe t ellatecourtru uledthatpetit tionershould havefiledwithitapetition nforrevieww withinfifteen (15)days fromreceipto f oftheorderoftheDARSecr f retarypursuan nttoSec.54o ofR.A.No.665 57andSuprem meCourtAdm m.Circ.No. 195,insteado 1 ofelevatingth hecasetotheO OfficeofthePresidentpursuanttoDARM Memo.Circ.No o.3,seriesof1 1994. TheCourtofA T Appealsfurthe erheldthatin ncaseofdiscre epancybetwe eenthebasiclawandarule eorregulation nissuedto implementthe elaw,thebasiclawprevails sbecausether ruleorregula ationcannotgo obeyondthet termsandpro ovisionsof thebasiclaw.Thus,DARM t Memo.Circ.No o.3,seriesof 1994,accordi ingtotheCou urtofAppeals s,cannotbec considered
76 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts validandeffec v ctivesinceitr runscountert toSec.54ofR R.A.No.6657 7whichprovidesforanappealfromany ydecision, order,awardo o orrulingbyth heDARtotheC CourtofAppe eals. Likewise, the appellate cou held that t doctrine o exhaustion of administra L urt the of ative remedies does not ap pply in the present case w p where the res spondent is a Department Secretary wh a hose acts, as alter ego of t President bear the the t, impliedapprovalofthelatte er. ISSUE W Whether or n DAR Memo Circ. No. 3, series of 199 is valid an should be a not o. 94, nd accorded resp pect being the Agrarian e ReformSecret R tary'sconstruc ctionofthelaw w. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Wheretwo(2) W )rulesonthesamesubject, ,oronrelated dsubjects,are eapparentlyin nconflictwith heachother,t theyareto bereconciledb b byconstructio on,sofarasm maybe,onany yfairandreas sonablehypot thesis.Validity yandlegaleffe ectshould therefore be g t given to both, if this can be done witho destroying the evident intent and m , out g meaning of the later act. e Everystatutes E shouldreceive esuchaconst tructionaswil llharmonizeitwiththepre eexistingbody yoflaws. Thepurposeo T ofDARMemo.Circ.No.3,se eriesof1994,istoprovidea amodeofapp pealformattersnotfallingw withinthe ju urisdictional ambit of the Department o Agrarian R of Reform Adjudi ication Board (DARAB) und R. A. No. 6657 and der correct techni c ical errors of the adminis f strative agenc In such e cy. exceptional ca ases, the Dep partment Secr retary has establishedam e modeofappea alfromtheDe epartmentofA AgrarianRefor rmtotheOffic ceofthePresi identasaplai in,speedy, adequate and inexpensive remedy in th ordinary c a he course of law This would enable the O w. Office of the President, through the E t Executive Secr retary, to revi iew technical matters with the expert hin tise of the adm ministrative m machinery beforejudicial b lreviewcanb beresortedtobywayofanappealtotheCourtofAppealsunderRu ule43ofthe1997Rules onCivilProced o dure. On O the other hand, the pu urpose of SC A Adm. Circ. No 195, now embodied in Rule 43 of t 1997 Rule of Civil o. the es Procedure, is to invoke th constitutio P he onal power of judicial re eview over q quasijudicial agencies, suc as the ch Departmentof D fAgrarianRef formunderR.A.No.6657a andtheOfficeofthePreside entinotherca asesbyprovid dingforan appealtotheC a CourtofAppe eals.Section5 54ofR.A.No. .6657iscons sistentwithSC CAdm.Circ.N No.195andR Rule43in thatitestablishesamodeof t fappealfromtheDARABto otheCourtofA Appeals. Thus,thepow T weroftheDep partmentSecr retarytoprom mulgateintern nalrulesofad dministrative procedureis lodgedin himbynecessa h aryimplication naspartofhi isexpresspow werto"promu ulgaterulesan ndregulations snecessaryto ocarryout departmentob d bjectives,polic cies,functions s,plans,progr ramsandproje ects." Asavalidexer A rciseoftheSe ecretary'srule emakingpow wertoissuein nternalruleso ofprocedure, DARMemo.C Circ.No.3, series of 1994 expressly pr s 4, rovidesforan appealto th Office ofth n he hePresident. T Thus, petition nerValencia fi iled on 24 November 199 a timely appeal by way of a petition for review under Rule 4 to the Cou of Appeals from the N 93 a y n 43 urt s decision of the Office of the President, w d e e which was rec ceived on 11 November 19 993, well with the fifteen (15)day hin n reglementaryp r period. Anadministra A ativedecisionmustfirstbe appealedtoa administrative esuperiorsup ptothehighes stlevelbefore eitmaybe elevatedtoac e courtofjustic ceforreview. Thepowerof fjudicialrevie ewmaytheref forebeexerci isedonlyifan nappealis firstmadebyt f thehighestad dministrativeb bodyinthehie erarchyofthe eexecutivebra anchofgovern nment. oOo
77|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts OFFICE OFTHEOMB BUDSMAN,petitionerv.ROL LSONRODRIG GUEZ,respond dent G.R.No.17270 G 00 July23,2010 The Ombudsm T man has con ncurrent juri isdiction with thesanggun h niang bayan over adminis strative case against es electivebarang e gayofficialsoc ccupyingposit tionsbelowsal larygrade27,suchasprivat terespondentinthiscase. On26August O t2003,theOm mbudsmaninVisayasrecei ivedacompla aintforabuse ofauthority,d dishonesty,op ppression, misconductinoffice,andne m eglectofdutya againstRolson nRodriguez,p punongbarang gayinBrgy.Sto.Rosario,Binalbagan, Negros Occide N ental.On 1 Se eptember 20 003, thesangg guniang bayan Binalbaga Negros Oc nof an, ccidental, thro ough vice mayor Jose G. Yulo, receive a similar c m . ed complaintagainst Rodrigue for abuse o authority, d ez of dishonesty, op ppression, misconductinoffice,andne m eglectofduty. mber2003n notice,themu unicipalvicem mayorrequire edRodriguezt tosubmithis answerwithi in15days Inits 8Septem from receipt of the notic On 23 Se f ce. eptember 20 003, Rodrigue filed a m ez motion to dismissthe case filed in e thesanggunian bayanon the ground th the allegat t ng t hat tions in the c complaint wer without fac re ctual basis an did not nd constituteany c yviolationofla awandviolate edtheruleaga ainstforumsh hopping. Meanwhile,in its10Septem M mber2003order,theOmb budsmanrequ uiredRodrigu ueztofilehisa answer.Rodri iguezfiled on24October o r2003amotio ontodismissthecasefiled intheOmbud dsmanonthe groundsoflit tispendentiaa andforum shopping. He alleged that thesanggunia bayanhad already acq s ang d quired jurisdiction over his person as e early as 8 September2003. S Themunicipal T lvicemayors setthecasefo orhearing,dur ringwhichthe ecomplainant tsmanifested dthattheywouldliketo withdrawthe administrativ w vecomplaint f filedinthesa angguniangba ayanonthegr roundthattheywantedto prioritize the complain filed in the Ombudsm t nt man. The sangguniang bayan granted the reque d est. Rodriguez filed a commentpray c yingthatthec complaintbed dismissedont thegroundof fforumshopp ping,notonth hegroundcom mplainants stated. s ary2004orde er,theOmbud dsmandirecte edbothpartie estofiletheir rrespectiveverifiedpositio onpapers. Inits29Janua Rodriguezmovedforrecon R nsiderationof theordercitingthependen ncyofhismot tiontodismis ss.Inits11Ma arch2004 order, the Om o mbudsman sta ated that a mo otion to dism miss was a pro ohibited pleading under Section 5 (g) R Rule III of Administrative A eOrderNo.17 7.TheOmbud dsmanreiterat teditsorderfo orRodriguezt tofilehisposi itionpaper. npaper,Rodri iguezinsisted dthatthesang gguniangbaya anstillcontinuedtoexercisejurisdiction noverthe Inhisposition complaintfiled c dagainsthim.Heclaimedh hehadnotrec ceivedanyres solutionorde ecisiondismiss singthecomp plaintfiled in thesanggu uniang bayan n.In reply,co omplainants maintained there was no more c complaint pe ending in thesanggunian t ngbayansincethelatterha adgrantedthe eirmotiontow withdrawthecomplaint.Inarejoinder, Rodriguezave R erredthatthesangguniang bayanresolut tiondismissin ngthecasefile edagainsthim mwasnotvali idbecause onlythevicem o mayorsignedit. TheOmbudsm T manfoundRod driguezguilty ofdishonesty yandoppressionandimpos sedthepenalt tyofdismissa alfromthe servicewithfo s orfeitureofall lbenefits,disq qualificationto oholdpublico office,andfor rfeitureofcivil lserviceeligib bilities. Rodriguez went to the Cou of Appeals The appella court set aside for lack of jurisdicti the Decision of the R urt s. ate k ion Ombudsman a O and directed thesangguni iang bayanto proceed wit the hearin on the ad o th ng dministrative case. The appellatecour a rtreasonedth hatthesanggun niangbayanh hadacquiredp primaryjurisd dictionoverthepersonof Rodriguez totheexclusio t onoftheOmbu udsman. PetitionerOmbudsmannow P wcontendsth hatuponthefi ilingofacomplaintbefore abodyvested dwithjurisdiction,that body has take cognizance of the com b en mplaint. Petitioner cites Bl lacks Law Di ictionary in d defining what to take t cognizancem c meanstowit, toacknowled dgeorexercisejurisdiction.Petitionerp pointsoutith hadtakencogn nizanceof
78 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts the t complaint against Rodr t riguez before a similar co e omplaint was filed in thes sangguniang b bayanagainst the same respondent.Pe r etitionermain ntainssummo onsornoticesdonotoperat tetovestinth hedisciplining gbodyjurisdictionover the person of the respond t f dent in an ad dministrative case. Petitioner conclude that consis es stent with th rule on he concurrentjur c risdiction,theOmbudsman sexerciseofjurisdictionsh houldbetothe eexclusionofthesanggunia angbayan. s bayanortheO Ombudsmanth hatfirstacquir redjurisdictio on. ISSUE:Whetheritwasthesangguniangb HELD:Petition H nGRANTED. Theprimaryju T urisdictionoftheOmbudsm mantoinvesti igateanyacto oromissionof fapublicoffic ceroremploy yeeapplies onlyincasesc o cognizablebytheSandiganb bayan.Incase escognizablebyregularcou urts,theOmbudsmanhasc concurrent ju urisdiction w other inve with estigative agencies of government.[27]Re epublic Act No 8249, other o. rwise known as An Act Further Defini the Jurisd F ing diction of theS Sandiganbayan limits the c n, cases that are cognizable by theSandiga anbayanto public official occupying positions co p ls orresponding to salary gr rade 27 and higher.TheSandiganbaya anhas no ju urisdictionov verprivateres spondentwho o,aspunongb barangay,isoc ccupyingapo ositioncorresp pondingtosal larygrade 14underRepu 1 ublicActNo.6 6758,otherwis seknownasth heCompensat nandPosit tio tionClassificat Actof1989. tion Under Repub U blic Act No 7160, oth o. herwise kno own as the Local Gov vernment Co ode, the san ngguniang panlungsodorsangguniangbayanhasdis p sciplinaryauth horityoveran nyelectivebar rangayofficial l. Clearly, the Om C mbudsman ha concurrent jurisdiction with thesang as t gguniang baya anover admin nistrative cases against electivebarang e gayofficialso occupyingposi itionsbelows salarygrade27,suchaspriv vateresponde entinthiscase e. Theruleagain T nstforumshop ppingappliedonlytojudicialcasesorproceedings,nottoadministr rativecases.T Thus,even ifcomplainant tsfiledinthe Ombudsman andthesangg guniangbayan nidenticalcom mplaintsagainstprivatere espondent, theydidnotv t violatetheruleagainstforu umshoppingb becausetheir complaintwa asinthenatu ureofanadmi inistrative case. c In ative cases inv volving the co oncurrent jur risdiction of t two or more disciplining a authorities, th body in he I administra whichthecom w mplaintisfiled dfirst,andwh hichoptstotakecognizance eofthecase,a acquiresjurisdictiontothe eexclusion of o other tribu unals exercis sing concurre jurisdictio ent on.In this ca ase, since the complaint was filed fir in the e rst Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman opted to assume jurisdiction o O over the comp plaint, the Om mbudsmans e exercise of ju urisdictionistotheexclusio onofthesang gguniangbaya anexercisingc concurrentjur risdiction. once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continu e f s ues until the case is e Jurisdiction, o terminated.W t Whenhereinco omplainantsfi irstfiledtheco omplaintinth heOmbudsma an,jurisdiction nwasalreadyvestedon thelatter.Juri t isdictioncould dnolongerbetransferred tothesanggu uniangbayan byvirtueofa asubsequent complaint filedbythesam f mecomplaina ants. oOo
LAWONP PUBLICOFF FICERS

PublicOffice P e
BINAY,J. B
FLOR RESv.DRILON N G.R.No o.10473222June1993( (BELLOSILLO,J.)
79|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Itisanaffirmationthatapublicofficeisa afulltimejob.Hence,apublicofficeroremployee,liket theheadofanexecutive departments shouldbeallow wedtoattendtohisdutiesandresponsibil litieswithoutt thedistraction nofothergove ernmental duties oremploymen nt. Sincetheineli igibilityofane electiveofficia alforappointm mentremainsa allthroughout thistenureorduringhisinc cumbency, hemayhowev verresignfirst tfromhiselect tiveposttocas stofftheconst titutionallyatt tacheddisqual lificationbefor rehemay beconsidere edfitforappoi intment. Petitioners wh are taxpay P ho yers challenge the consti ed itutionality of Sec. 13, par. (d), of the " f "Bases Conve ersion and Development Act of 1992, under whic responden Mayor Rich D , ch nt hard J. Gordo of Olorgap City was appointed on po ChairmanandChiefExecutiveOfficeroft C theSubicBayM MetropolitanAuthority(SB BMA). Paragraph(d)reads"(d)Ch P hairmanAdministratorThePresidentsha allappointpro ofessionalma anageras;adm ministrator oftheSubicAu o uthoritywith acompensati iontobedete erminedbytheBoardsubje ecttotheappr roveoftheSe ecretaryof Budget,whos B shallbethee exofficiochair rmanofthe Boardandwh hoshallserve easthechief executiveoffi icerofthe SubicAuthorit S ty:Provided,h however,That tforthefirst yearofitsitsoperationsth heeffectivityo ofthisAct,the emayorof theCityofOlongaposhallbe t eappointedas sthechairman nandchiefex xecutiveofficeroftheSulAu uthority" Petitionersass P sailthatthep provisoinfring gesthefollow wingconstitutionalandstatu utoryprovisio ons:a.)Under rSec17of Art.IXBthatn A noelectiveoff ficialshallbee eligibleforap ppointmentor rdesignationi inanycapacitytoanypubli icofficeor positiondurin p nghistenure; b.)Sec16of Art.VIIthatP Presidentmus stbetheone whowillappointtheoffici ialand;c.) Sec.261ofthe S eOmnibusEle ectionCodeth hatitisparto oftheProhibit tedActsthatA Appointment mustnotbew withinthe prohibited 45day period for the reason that the app p fo n pointment of r respondent G Gordon to the subject posts made by s respondentEx r xecutiveSecre etaryon3Apr ril1992was withinthepr rohibited45d dayperiodpriortothe11 May1992 Elections. E ISSUES: 1. 2. 3. HELD: H PetitionPARTIALLYGRANT P TED. TheProvisois T sinViolationoftheprohib bitionofappo ointingelectiv veofficialstoanypublicof e ffic In full, Sec. 7 of Art, IXB of the Const titution provi ides:"No elect tive official shall be eligib for appoin ble ntment or designationin d nanycapacity ytoanypublic cofficeorpos sitionduringh histenure.'Un nlessotherwis seallowedby laworby the primary f t functions of his position, no appointiv official sha hold any other office or employme in the h ve all ent Government o any subdiv G or vision, agency or instrum mentality thereof, including government owned or controlled g t corporationso c ortheirsubsid diaries." Thesectionex T xpressesthep policyagainst theconcentra ationofsever ralpublicposi itionsinonep person,sotha atapublic officeroremp o ployeemayser rvefulltimew withdedication nandthusbe eefficientinth hedeliveryof publicservices.Itisan f affirmation that a public of a ffice is a fullt timejob. Hen a public o nce, officer or emp ployee, like th head of an executive he
Whetherthepr W rovisoinSec.1 13,par(d)ofv violatestheCo onstitutionalp prohibitionof fappointinganelective of fficialtoanyp publicofficedu uringhistenu ure Whethertheap W ppointmentof fMayorGordo onisinvalid Whethertheac W ctsofMayorG GordonasChai irmanshouldnotbeupheld d
80 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts department should be al d llowed to att tend to his d duties and responsibilities without th distraction of other he n governmentaldutiesoremp g ployment.Heshouldbepre ecludedfromd dissipatinghis sefforts,atten ntionandener rgyamong toomanypositionsofrespo t onsibility,whic chmayresultinhaphazardnessandineff ficiency Particularly as regards the first paragraph of Sec. 7, "(t)he basic idea really is to prevent a situation whe a local P s ere elective officia will work for his appointment in an executive position in government, and thus neglect his e al e constituents. c In the case before us, the subje proviso dir e ect rects resident to appoint a elective of t an fficial, i.e., the Mayor of OlangapoCity, O ,toothergovernmentpost ts(asChairma anoftheBoar rdandChiefE ExecutiveOffic cerofSBMA). Sincethis is precisely w what the cons stitutional pro oscription see to preven it needs n stretching of the imagination to eks nt, no concludethatt c theprovisoco ontravenesSe ec.7,firstpar., ,Art.IXB,oft theConstitutio on.Here,thef factthattheex xpertiseof anelectiveoffi a icialmaybem mostbeneficial ltothehigher rinterestofth hebodypolitic cisofnomom ment. Inany ycase,thevie ewthatanele ectiveofficial maybeappo ointedtoanotherpostifall lowedbylaw worbythe primaryfuncti p ionsofhisoffi fice,ignoresth heclearcutdi ifferenceinth hewordingofthetwo(2)pa aragraphsofS Sec.7,Art. IXB,oftheCo onstitution.W Whilethesecon ndparagraph authorizesho oldingofmultipleofficesb byanappointi iveofficial whenallowed bylaworby theprimaryf w functionsofhisposition,th hefirstparagr raphappearst tobemorestr ringentby providing any exception to the rule agai p y inst appointm ment or design nation of an e elective officia to other go al overnment posts,excepta p asareparticul larlyrecognize edintheCons stitutionitself f. AppointmentofMayorGor A rdonisInvalid d. Inthecaseatb bar,whileCon ngresswilledt thatthesubje ectpostsbefil lledwithapre esidentialapp pointeeforthe efirstyear ofitsoperationsfromtheeffectivityofR o RA7227,thep provisonevert thelesslimits theappointin ngauthorityto oonlyone eligible,i.e.,th e heincumbentMayorofOlon ngapoCity.Sin nceonlyonec canqualifyfor rthepostsin question,the President isprecludedfr romexercisin nghisdiscreti iontochoose whomtoapp point.Suchsu upposedpowe erofappointm ment,sans theessentiale t elementofcho oice,isnopow weratallandg goesagainstth heverynature eitselfofappo ointment. Whileitmayb W beviewedthat ttheprovisom merelysetsth hequalificationsoftheoffic cerduringthefirstyearofo operations ofSBMA,i.e.,h o hemustbethe eMayorofOlongapoCity,i itismanifestly yanabuseof congressiona alauthoritytoprescribe qualifications whereonlyone,Findnoot q ther,canqual lify.According gly,whilethe confermento oftheappointingpower onthePreside o entisaperfectlyvalidlegisl lativeact,the provisolimit tinghischoice etooneiscert tainlyanencr roachment onhispreroga o ative. Since the ineligibility of an elective of S a fficial for app pointment re emains all throughout his tenure or d during his incumbency, he may how wever resign first from his elective post to cast off the constitutionally attached t disqualificationbeforehem d maybeconside eredfitforapp pointment. Consequently, C aslongashe eisanincumb bent,anelectiveofficialrem mainsineligibl leforappoint tmenttoanotherpublic office. o Where, as in the case of respondent Go W ordon, an incumbent elect tive official w was, notwithstanding his in neligibility, appointedtoo a othergovernm mentposts,he edoesnotaut tomaticallyfor rfeithiselecti iveofficenor removehisin neligibility imposed by th Constitutio On the con he on. ntrary, since an incumbent elective official is not eli t igible to the a appointive position,hisap p ppointmentor rdesignationtheretocanno otbevalidinv viewofhisdis squalificationorlackofeligi ibility.
81|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thisprovision T nshouldnotb beconfusedwithSec.13,Ar rt.VI,oftheCo onstitutionwhere"(n)oSen natororMem mberofthe HouseofRepr H resentativesm mayholdanyo otherofficeor remployment tintheGover rnmentxxxd duringhisterm mwithout forfeiting his seat x x x x" The differen between t two prov f nce the visions is sign nificant in the sense that incumbent e nationallegislatorslosethe n eirelectivepostsonlyafter theyhavebe eenappointedtoanothergo overnmentof ffice,while otherincumbe o entelectiveof fficialsmustfi irstresignthe eirpostsbeforetheycanbe eappointed,t thusrunningt theriskof losingtheelec ctivepostasw wellasnotbe eingappointedtotheother rpost.Itisth hereforeclear rthatineligibi ilityisnot directlyrelatedwithforfeitu d ureofoffice," "xxxxTheef ffectisquited differentwhereitisexpress slyprovidedb bylawthat apersonholdi a ingoneoffice shallbeinelig gibletoanoth her.Suchapro ovisionisheld dtoincapacita atetheincumbentofan officefromacc o ceptingorhold dingasecondofficeandtorenderhisele ectionorappo ointmenttothelatterofficevoid. "Where the constitution or statutes d " declare that p persons holdi ing one office shall be ine e eligible for election or appointmentt a toanotheroff fice,eithergen nerallyorofa acertainkind, ,theprohibiti ionhasbeenh heldtoincapa acitatethe incumbentoft thefirstoffice etoholdthese econdsothatanyattempttoholdthesec condisvoid. MayorGordon M nsactsasaD DeFactoOffic cermustbeup pheld As A incumbent elective offic cial, responde Gordon is ineligible for appointment to the posit ent r t tion of Chairm of the man Board and Ch B hief Executive Officer of S e SBMA; hence, his appoint , tment thereto pursuant to a legislative act that o o e contravenesth c heConstitutio oncannotbes sustained.Heh howeverrema ainsMayorof fOlongapoCit ty,andhisacts sasSBMA officialarenot o tnecessarilyn nullandvoid;hemaybeconsideredade efactoofficer,"onewhosea acs,,thoughno otthoseof alawfulofficer,thelaw,uponprinciples ofpolicyandjustice,willh a holdvalidsof farastheyinv volvetheinter restofthe public and thi persons, where the dut p ird w ties of the off fice were exer rcised x x x x under color of a known e election or appointment, void because the officer w not eligib or becaus there was a want of po a e was ble, se ower in the e electing or appointingbod a dy,orbyreas sonofsomede efectorirregu ularityinitse exercise,such ineligibility,w wantofpower rordefect being unknow to the pub x x x x [o under colo of an elect b wn blic or] or tion, or appoi intment, by o pursuant to a public or o unconstitution u nallaw,before ethesameisa adjudgedtobe esuch. Conformablyw C withourrulin nginCivilLibe ertiesUnion,a anyandallpe erdiems,allow wancesandot theremolume entswhich mayhavebeen m nreceivedbyrespondentGordonpursua anttohisappo ointmentmay beretainedb byhim. oOo SECRETAR RYOFTHEDE EPARTMENT TOFTRANSPO ORTATIONAN NDCOMMUN NICATIONS(D DOTC)v.MAB BALOT G.R.No o.13820027 7February20 002(BUENA, J.) itisaproposto i oreiteratethe eelementaryruleinadminis strativelawan ndthelawonp publicofficersthatapublico officemay becreatedthroughanyo ofthefollowing gmodes,towi it,either(1)by ytheConstitut tion(fundame entallaw),(2)bylaw (statuteduly yenactedbyC Congress),or(3 3)byauthority yoflaw. employmentheldintheexer rciseoftheprim maryfunctionsofonesprincipalofficeisa anexceptiont to,ornot anofficeore withinthecontemplation,of w ftheprohibitio onembodiedin ntheprohibiti ionagainstan nelectiveoffici ialfromholdin nganother pu ublicoffice. oner Secretar of Departm ry ment of Trans sportation and Communica ations (DOTC) issued Mem morandum Petitio OrderNo.96735(Memo)a O andDepartme entOrderNo. 971025(D.O O.)addressed toLandTran nsportationFr ranchising RegulatoryBoard(LTFRB)C R Chairmanthat tpendingthecreationofar regularRegion nalFranchisin ngandRegulatoryoffice
82|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts thepersonnelandregionalfunctionsofL t LTFRBwillbeunderDOTCCAR.Respond dentRobertoM Mabalotfiledb beforethe Regional Trial Court (RTC) praying that the Memo be declared null and void be R l e ecause the tra ansfer of pow wers of the LTFRBisanundueexercise L eoflegislative epoweranda appointiveoffi icialscannoth holdmoretha anoneoffice. RTCruled thattherespo t ondentDOTC Secretarynullandvoidandwithoutany ylegaleffecta asbeingviola ativeofthepr rovisionof theConstitutio t onagainstenc croachmenton nthepowerso ofthelegislati ivedepartmen ntandalsooftheprovision nenjoining appointiveoffi a icialsfromholdinganyothe erofficeorem mploymentint theGovernme ent.Hence,thi ispetition. ISSUES: 1. 2. 3. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED PublicOfficem P maybecreate edbyauthori ityoflaw Accordingly,in A ntheabsence eofanypaten ntorlatentcon nstitutionalorstatutoryin nfirmityattend dingtheissua anceofthe challenged ord c ders, this Cou upholds M urt Memorandum O Order No. 96 735 and Dep partment Orde No. 97102 as legal er 25 andvalidadm a ministrativeiss suancesbythe eDOTCSecret tary.Contrary ytotheopinio onofthelowe ercourt,theP President throughhisdu t ulyconstitute edpoliticalagentandalter ego,theDOT TCSecretaryin nthepresent tcasemayle egallyand validly decree the reorgan v e nization of the Department, particularly the establis e y shment of DO OTCCAR as th LTFRB he Regional Offic at the Cord R ce dillera Administrative Regi ion, with the concomitant transfer and performance of public e functionsandresponsibilitiesappurtenan f nttoaregiona alofficeoftheLTFRB. Atthispoint,i A itisapropost toreiterateth heelementary ruleinadmin nistrativelaw andthelawo onpublicoffic cersthata publicofficem p maybecreated dthroughany yofthefollow wingmodes,to owit,either( (1)bytheCon nstitution(fun ndamental la aw),(2)bylaw w(statutedul lyenactedbyCongress),or(3)byauthor rityoflaw. Verily,Congresscandelegat V tethepowert tocreateposi itions.Thisha asbeensettled dbydecisions softheCourt upholding the t validity of reorganizatio statutes au f on uthorizing the President to create, aboli or merge offices in the executive e o ish department.T d Thus,atvariou ustimes,Cong gresshasvestedpowerinthePresidentt toreorganize executiveage enciesand redistributefu r unctions,and particulartra ansfersunder suchstatutes shavebeenh heldtobewith hintheauthorityofthe President. P In the instant case, the cre eation and est tablishment o LTFRBCAR Regional Off of R fice was made pursuant to the third e o mode by aut m thority of law which could be decreed for instance, through an E w, d Executive Ord (E.O.) issu by the der ued Presidentoranorderofanadministrativ P veagencysuch hastheCivilS ServiceCommi issionpursuan nttoSection1 17,BookV ofE.O.292,oth o herwiseknow wnasTheAdm ministrativeCo odeof1987. DOTCSecreta D aryasthePres sidentsalter regomayreo organizethrou ughadecree By B the Chief E Executives un nequivocal act of issuing A t Administrative Order No. 36 ordering hi alter ego the DOTC e is Secretaryinth S hepresentcas setoeffectua atethecreationofRegionalOfficesintheCAR,thePres sident,ineffec ct,deemed it fit and prop under the circumstance to act and exercise his authority, alb through th various De t per es beit he epartment Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 83| Wheth herapublicof fficebecreate edbyvirtueof fanAdministr rativeissuance Wheth hertheSecret taryasanAlte eregooftheP Presidentmayvalidlycreate eadecreeofreorganization nofCAR. Wheth herappointive eofficialsmay yholdmoreth hanoneofficeatthesameti ime
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Secretaries,so S oastoputinto oplacetheor rganizationals structureand setupinthe CARandsoa asnottocomp promisein anysignificant a twaytheper rformanceofp publicfunctio onsanddelive eryofbasicgo overnmentse ervicesinthe Cordillera Administrative A eRegion. Simply stated, it is as if th President h S , he himself carried out the cre eation and est tablishment o LTFRBCAR Regional of R Office,whenin O nfact,theDO OTCSecretary,asalterego ofthePresident,directlya andmerelyso oughttoimple ementthe Chief Executiv C ves Administ trative Order. To this end Section 17, Article VII o the Consti . d, , of itution manda ates: The President shall have control of all exec P cutive departm ments, bureau and offices He shall en us s. nsure that the laws be faithfullyexecu f uted. Bydefinition,c B controlisthe epowerofanofficertoalter rormodifyor rnullifyorset tasidewhatasubordinateo officerhad doneintheperformanceofhisdutiesand d dtosubstitute ethejudgmentoftheforme erforthatofth helatter.Itincludesthe authoritytoor a rderthedoing gofanactbya asubordinateortoundosu uchactortoas ssumeapowe erdirectlyvestedinhim bylaw. b Infine,thede esignationan ndsubsequent testablishmen ntofDOTCCA ARastheRegio onalOfficeofLTFRBintheCordillera Administrative A eRegionand theconcomit tantexercisea andperforma anceoffunctio onsbythefor rmerastheLT TFRBCAR Regional Offic fall within the scope o the continu R ce, n of uing authorit of the Pres ty sident to effe ectively reorg ganize the Departmentof D fTransportationandComm i munications. Beyond this, it must be em B mphasized that the reorgan nization in the instant case was decreed in the inter e e d rest of the service and s for purposes of economy and more ef s y ffective coord dination of th DOTC func he ctions in the Cordillera Administrative A eRegion.Int thisjurisdictio on,reorganiza ationisregard dedasvalidpr rovideditispursuedingoo odfaith.As ageneralrule, a ,areorganizationiscarried doutingoodf faithifitisfor rthepurpose eofeconomyo ortomakebu ureaucracy more efficient To our min the reorga m t. nd, anization pur rsued in the c case at bar b bears the earm mark of good faith. As d petitioner poi p ints out, tap pping the DO OTCCAR pend ding the eventual creation of the LTF FRB Regional Office is l economicalin termsofman e npowerandre esourcerequirements,thus s,reducingexp pensesfromt thelimitedres sourcesof thegovernmen t nt. Worthyofmen W ntiontooisth hatbyexpress sprovisionofDepartmentO OrderNo.971 1025,theLTFRBCARRegio onalOffice is subject to t direct sup the pervision and control of L d LTFRB Centra Office. Unde the law, th decisions, orders or al er he resolutionsoftheRegionalF r Franchisingan ndRegulatory yOfficesshallbeappealable etotheBoard dwithinthirty y(30)days fromreceipto f ofthedecision n;thedecision n,orderorres solutionofthe eBoardshallb beappealabletotheDOTC Secretary. With this appe W ellate setup and mode of appeal clearly established and in place, no conflict o absurd circ a y , or cumstance wouldarisein w nsuchmanner rthatadecisi ionoftheLTF FRBCARRegi ionalOfficeis ssubjecttore eviewbytheD DOTCCAR RegionalOffice R e. Appointiveoff A fficialsandem mployeesmay yholdmoreth hanoneoffice eatthesame etime As A to the issue regarding Sections 7 and 8, Article IX of the Con S d XB nstitution, we hold that the assailed Ord e ders of the DOTC Secreta D ary do not violate the af v forementioned constitution provision considerin that in the case of d nal ns ng Memorandum M mOrderNo.96735,theorga anicpersonne eloftheDOTCCARwere,ineffect,merely ydesignatedt toperform theadditionaldutiesandfunctionsofanLTFRBRegion t nalOfficesubj jecttothedire ectsupervisio onandcontrol lofLTFRB CentralOffice,pendingthec C creationofaregularLTFRB BRegionalOffi ice. AsheldinTris A stevs.LeyteSt tateCollegeBo oardofTruste ees:
84 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Todesignate apublicoffice ertoanother positionmay meantovest thimwithadd ditionalduties swhileheper rformsthe functions of h permanent office. Or in some cases, a public offic may be d f his t n cer designated to a position in an acting capacityaswh c henanunders secretaryisde esignatedtod dischargethe functionsofa aSecretarype endingtheapp pointment ofapermanen o ntSecretary. Assumingargu A uendothatthe eappointiveo officialsandem mployeesofD DOTCCARsha allbeholdingmorethanon neofficeor employment a the same time as a result of the establishment of such agen as the LT e at ncy TFRBCAR pu ursuant to Department O D Order No. 971025, this Co ourt is of the firm view that such fact s still does not constitute a breach or violation of S v Section 7, Ar rticle IXB of the Constitu f ution. On thi matter, it must be str is ressed that u under the aforementione constitutio a ed onal provision an office or employment held in the e n, r t exercise of th primary functions of he ones principa office is an exception to, or not within the contemp o al n plation, of the prohibition embodied in Section 7, e ArticleIXB. A oOo ADEGUZMAN Nv.ANTONIO ODELOSSAN NTOS ZENAIDA A.M.No.20028SC18 8December2 2002PERCUR RIAM opublicoffice, ,mustexistatthecommence ementandfor rthedurationo oftheoccupan ncyofsuchoffi fice;itis Eligibilityto continui inginnature.Qualificationf foraparticula arofficemustb bepossesseda atalltimesbyo oneseekingit.An appointmen ntofonedeem medineligibleo orunqualifiedgiveshimnor righttoholdonandmustthroughduepro ocessbe disch hargedatonce e. Publicofficeis P sapublictrust t.Apublicoffic ceroremploye eedoesnotmerelyhaveano obligationtoob beyandrespec ctthelaw; itishissworndutytodoso.Assumptionof i fpublicofficeisimpressedw withtheparam mountpublicin nterestthatrequiresthe higheststa andardsofeth hicalconduct.A Apersonaspir ringtopublico officemustobs servehonesty,candorandfa aithful compliancewiththelaw w.Nothingless sisexpected.T Thisidealstan ndardensuresthatonlythose eofknownpro obity, competenceand dintegrityarecalledtothec challengeofpu ublicservice. RespondentAntoniodelosS R Santos(Anton nio),Informati ionOfficerIII, ,Publicationa andCirculatio onDivision,Of fficeofthe Reporterofth R heSupremeCo ourt(SC)appliedforpromo otiontothepo ositionofInformationOfficerIVinthesa ameoffice. Attachedtohi A isletterwasa adulyaccomp plishedCivilS ServiceForm2 212,otherwis seknownast thePersonalD DataSheet (PDS),wherein ( nrespondent statedunder Item18that hegraduated dfromtheMan nuelL.QuezonUniversity( (MLQU)in 1992withthe 1 edegreeofBa achelorofScie enceinElectr ricalEngineering(BSEE)af fterhavingall legedlyattend dedschool sometime in 1 s 1973 to 1992 From the a 2. applicants including Petitio oner Zenaida de Guzman ( (Zenaida), Antonio was appointedtop a publicoffice. Zenaid accused th Antonio w guilty of misrepresen da hat was f ntation if not falsification and fabricati t ion of his credentialsreg c gardinghised ducationalatta ainmentand wrotetothe GrievanceCommitteeofth heSCalleging thatthere was w no record that respondent graduate from MLQU in 1992 with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Electrical d ed U e Engineering,w E whichfactwas sverifiedfrom mtheCommiss siononHigher rEducation(C CHED). Anton nioinhisAnsw werarguedth hathewasde efraudedbya staffnamed Marioandw whenhelearn nedofthis administrative a ecomplaint,re espondentwe enttotheMLQ QUandmade theproperve erificationbut twasdismaye edtolearn that he was not included in its roll of gr t n raduates; that Mario with whom he ha previously transacted w not an t h ad y was employee of th school but a mere acqu e he t uaintance of some of the st members who had long been prohib taff g bited from entering the p e premises. He denied any i intention to d defraud the C Court regardin his educat ng tional attainm ment as he Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 85|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts merelyrelied onthedocum m mentsgivento himbyMari ioandbeliev vedingoodfai iththathewa asaBSEEdegr reeholder from MLQU, a belief he maintains up to now. Ant f m tonio also pr rayed neverth heless that should he be adjudged administrative liable notw a ely withstanding his good fait that justic be temper with mercy considerin that he th, ce red ng himselfwasan h ninnocentvictimofcircumstances;heha asservedtheg governmentfo orthepasttw wentysix(26)years;has consistentlyre c eceivedavery ysatisfactoryperformance rating;andw wasthesolebr readwinnerof fhisfamilywi ithfive(5) childrenstilla c attendingscho ool. In a Memoran ndum Atty. Ed T. Candelaria, Chief A den Administrative Officer, Offic of Adminis e ce strative Servic ces, found Antonio liable for dishones misconduc and falsification of an of A e sty, ct fficial docume considerin that a Pers ent ng sonal Data Sheetwasam S mandatoryrequ uirementinapplicationsfo orappointmen ntandpromot tionwherean napplicanthad dthelegal obligation to d o disclose the tr ruth. Atty. Can ndelaria thus recommende that respon ed ndent be dism missed from th service he with prejudice to his reem w e mployment in any governm ment agency a governme and entowned or controlled co orporation withforfeiture w eofretiremen ntbenefitsasw wellasunused dleavecredits s. ISSUE: 1. Wheth making a false statement in a Personal Data She required under Civil Service Rules warrant a her eet dismis ssaluponfirst toffense. Wheth qualificati for eligibi her ion ility must exis at the comm st mencement and duration o the occupancy of the of public coffice.
2.
HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED Falsestateme F entinaPersonalDatashee etwarrantsa adismissal We W recently r ruled that making a false s statement in a Personal Da Sheet req a ata quired under Civil Service Rules and Regulationsfo R oremploymen ntinthegover rnmentamoun ntstodishone estyandfalsifi icationofano officialdocum mentwhich warrantdismi w issalfromtheserviceuponcommissiono ofthefirstoffe ense. Intheinstant case,respond dentfalselysta atedunderIte em18ofhisP PersonalData Sheetattache edtohisappli icationfor promotionasI p InformationO OfficerIVthathewasaBSEE EgraduateoftheMLQUwh henhewasnot t.Respondent tcouldnot claimgoodfaithinbelievingthathewasagraduatebecauseenoug c ghcircumstanc ceswerepres senttohavep puthimon guardthatthe g ecollegediplo omaofferedhi imwaspossib blyspurious.A Asidefromth hefactthathedidnotevenknowthe full f name and position in the MLQU of Mario with whom he wa transacting the setup o a hasslefree college d t as g, of diplomaoffere d edbythelatte erwassounusualandimpr robableastop provokesuspicionanddisb beliefinitsgenuineness and regularity Not only was responden assured tha he did not have to atte a y. w nt at t end classes ph hysically like the other students,hew s waslikewiseassuredthathe ewoulddefin nitelypassthe ecourseinOct tober1992!M Moreover,ina allthefour (4) ( years he was enrolled, respondent paid his m matriculation fees directly to Mario who gave hi all the y im assignments a projects for the whole semester to be submitted two (2) wee before the end thereof Two (2) a and f d eks f. weeksormore w eaftertheend dofeachsem mester,respondentwasgive enthepassing gclasscardsthatwereprom misedhim even at the s e start of the arrangement. The assuran alone of passing grades should ha dispelled whatever a nce ave remaining doubts respond r dent might have entertain ned with respect to the i impropriety if not illegali of the ity arrangements a sincenobodyw wenttoschoo olwithanassu uranceofapas ssinggrade.
86 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Goodfaithreq G quireshonesty yofintention, freefromkno owledgeofcir rcumstancesw whichoughttoputoneupo oninquiry. IfrespondentA Antoniodelos sSantoshadb beenactingingoodfaith,he eshouldhavedoubtedtheintegrityofM Mario,and refrained from dealing wit shady char r m th racters who p peddle insta ant diplomas under quest tionable circu umstances. Insteadoftrea atinghiseduc cationasabus sinesstransac ction,heough httohavegive enpriorityto finishinghis seventeen (17)unitstoq ( qualifyforaBa achelorsdegr reewhetherin nMLQUorany yoftheCHEDaccreditedco ollegesandun niversities. The T opportunity to complete his degree existed from1992 to the present, span nning a decade. Good faith means he shouldhaveve s erifiedhisnam meintheMLQ QUrosterofgr raduatesfromthetimeheallegedlygradu uatedin1992. It must be not that respo ted ondent had al lready falsely indicated in his Personal Data Sheet da y ated 22 Febru uary 1993 attachedtohis a sapplicationf forpromotion nthathewasa aBSEEgradua atefromMLQU U.Hewaseven ntuallypromo otedtothe positionthatli p ikewiserequir redhimtobeaholderofaB Bachelorsdeg gree. Wehaverepeatedlysaidth W hatpersonsin nvolvedinthe edispensation nofjustice,fr romthehighe estofficialtot thelowest clerk, must liv up to the strictest stand c ve s dards of integ grity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence in t public the service.ThisC s Courtwillnot toleratedisho onestyforthe ejudiciaryexp pectsthebest tfromallitse employeeswh homustbe paradigms in the administ p tration of just tice. An empl loyee who fal lsifies an official documen to gain unw nt warranted advantageove a erothermorequalifiedapplicantstothesameposition nandsecuret thesoughtafte erpromotioncannotbe saidtohavem s measuredupto othestandard dsrequiredof fapublicserv vant.Whilewecommiserat tewithrespon ndentwho hasbeeninth h hejudiciaryfortwentysix( (26)yearsand dwhomayha avebeensimp plymotivated byadesireto oimprove hisfamilyslot h t,wesimplyca annotcondonethemeansr resortedtowh hichwasnotju ustifiedbyitsend. Qualifications Q sforapublicofficemustex xistatthecom mmencement tandduratio onofservice Underthelaw U wsgoverningo ourcivilservic ce,dishonesty isclassifieda asagraveoffe ensethepenal ltyofwhichis sdismissal from the servi at the firs infraction. F having mi f ice st For isrepresented the fact that he was a college graduate when in d t realityhewas not,weareconstrainedtoholdrespond r dentliablefor rdishonestybymisrepresen ntationandfa alsification ofanofficiald o document.Asa anaccessoryp penalty,hisre etirementben nefitsareforfe eitedduetoth hefalsehooda anddeceit that have mar t rked his assu umption into office, traits that are und desirable and unbecoming of a public officer or d g employee. Wit respect to accrued leav credits, the must be a distinction between cred earned pr e th ve ere a dits rior to 10 December199 D 91andthose earnedfrom1 10December 1991tothep present.Delos sSantosisen ntitledtocreditsearned priorto10December1991, p ,ifany,ashew wasemployed dinpositionsf forwhichhew wasqualified.Creditsearne edfrom10 December199 D 91tothepresent,ifany,are eforfeitedfor rthereasonth hathisineligib bilitytoassum mepositionsrequiringa Bachelorsdeg B greeretroactstothedateof fhisappointm mentasInform mationOfficerIon10Decem mber1991. Publicofficeis P sapublictrus st.Apublicoff ficeroremplo oyeedoesnotmerelyhavea anobligationt toobeyandrespectthe la aw;itishiss sworndutyto odoso.Assum mptionofpub blicofficeisim mpressedwith htheparamountpublicint terestthat requiresthehigheststandar r rdsofethicalconduct.Ape ersonaspiringtopublicoffic cemustobser rvehonesty,ca andorand faithful compl f liance with th law. Nothin less is exp he ng pected. This ideal standard ensures tha only those of known d at probity,compe p etenceandint tegrityarecal lledtothecha allengeofpubl licservice. oOo THEVETER RANSFEDERA ATIONOFTHE EPHILIPPINE ESv.Hon.AN NGELOT.REY YES,etal G.R.No. .155027 February2 28,2006 CH HICONAZARIO O,J.:
87|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thesesubord dinateoffices,s suchastheexe ecutiveofficesunderthecontrolofthePre esident,exercis sediscretionat tthefirst instance.While i etheiractscanbealteredor revensetasid debythesuper rior,theseacts sareeffectivea andaredeeme edtheacts ofthesupe erioruntilthey yaremodified..Surely,weca annotsaythattheofficesofa alltheDepartm mentSecretari iesare worth hlesspositions s. PetitionerV VFPisapubliccorporation.A Assuch,itcanbeplacedund derthecontrol landsupervisi ionoftheSecre etaryof NationalDefense,whoconse equentlyhast thepowertoco onductanexte ensivemanage ementauditof fpetitionercor rporation. Petitioner Vet P terans Federation of the Ph hilippines (VF a corpora body orga FP), ate anized under Republic Act No. 2640, dated 18 June 1960, as am d e mended, and d duly registere with the Securities and Exchange Co ed ommission. Re espondent AngeloT.Reye A eswastheSec cretaryofNat tionalDefense e(DNDSecret tary)whoissu uedtheassaile edDepartmen ntCircular No. N 04, dated 10 June 2002. Petitioner mainly alleges that the rules and gu d r uidelines laid down in the assailed d e DepartmentCi D ircularNo.04 4expandedthe escopeof"co ontrolandsup pervision"bey yondwhathasbeenlaiddow wninRep. ActNo.2640.11Petitionerfurthersubmits A sthefollowing gissuestothis sCourt: ISSUES: 1. 2. HELD: H P PetitionDEN NIED VFPisapubli V iccorporation nunderDND Inthecaseat bar,thefunct tionsofpetitionercorporat tionenshrinedinSection4 4ofRep.ActN No.264031shouldmost certainly fall w c within the cat tegory of sove ereign functio ons. The prote ection of the i interests of w veterans is not only war meanttoprom m motesocialjus stice,butisals sointendedto orewardpatri iotism.Alloft thefunctionsi inSection4co oncernthe wellbeingofw w warveterans, ,ourcountrym menwhorisk kedtheirlives andlosttheirlimbsinfigh htingforand defending ournation.Itw o wouldbeinjus sticeofcatastr rophicpropor rtionstosaythatitisbeyon ndsovereignty yspowertor rewardthe peoplewhode p efendedher. Liketheholdin L ngoftheNatio onalCentenni ialCelebration ns,thefunctio onsoftheVFP Pareexecutive efunctions,de esignedto implementnotjusttheprovisionsofRep p.ActNo.264 40,butalso,a andmoreimportantly,the Constitutionalmandate for f the State t provide im to mmediate and adequate car benefits an other form of assistanc to war vet re, nd ms ce terans and veteransofmi v ilitarycampaig gns,theirsurv vivingspouses sandorphans 32 s. The fact that no budgetar appropriat T ry tions have be een released to the VFP d does not prove that it is a private corporation.T c TheDBMindee eddidnotsee eitfittoprop posebudgetary yappropriatio onstotheVFP P,havingitsel lfbelieved thattheVFPis t saprivatecorporation.33If ftheDBM,ho owever,ismis stakenastoit tsconclusionr regardingthe enatureof VFPs incorpo V oration, its pr revious asser rtions will no prevent fu ot uture budgeta appropria ary ations to the VFP. The 4 erroneousapp e plicationofthe elawbypubli icofficersdoesnotbarasub bsequentcorr rectapplicatio onofthelaw.34 Nevertheless, fundsintheh N handsoftheV VFPfromwha ateversource arepublicfunds,andcan beusedonly forpublic purposes. p Wheth herVFPisapr rivatecorpora ation Wheth heradepartm mentcircularis ssuedbytheD DNDSecretary yavalidexerc ciseofcontro olandsupervis sion
88 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts It is importan to note her that the m nt re membership d dues collected from the in d ndividual mem mbers of VFPs affiliate organizations donotbecom o mepublicfund dswhilethey arestillfund dsoftheaffilia ateorganizati ions.Acloser readingof Section 135of Rep. Act No. 2640 reveals that what has been cre S eated as a bo ody corporate is not the individual e membershipo m oftheaffiliateorganizations s,butmerelyt theaggregatio onofthehead dsoftheaffilia ateorganizations.Thus, onlythemone o eyremittedby ytheaffiliateo organizationst totheVFPpar rtakeinthepu ublicnatureoftheVFPfund ds. Petitioners st P tand that the VFP is a private corpor e ration becaus membersh thereto is voluntary is likewise se hip s s erroneous.Asstatedabove,themembers e shipoftheVFP Pisnottheindividualmem mbershipofthe eaffiliateorga anizations, but b merely the aggregation ofthe heads e n sofsuchaffili iate organizat tions. These h headsformingthe VFPthen electthe n 5 SupremeCoun S ncilandtheot therofficers,45ofthispublic ccorporation. D DEPARTMENTCIRCULARN NO.04isvalid d Petitioner assa Departme Circular N 04 on the ground that it expanded t scope of c P ails ent No. the control and su upervision beyond what has been laid down in Re Act No. 26 b d ep. 640. Petitione alleges that "(t)he equation of the m er meaning of `controland` `supervisiono oftheAdmini istrativeCode eof1987asthesame`controlandsupe ervisionunderRep.Act No. N 2640, take out the context of the o es original legislative intent fr rom the pecu uliar surround ding circumstances and conditions tha brought ab c at bout the creat tion of the VF 50Petition claims tha the VFP "w intended as a self FP." ner at was governing aut g tonomous bod with a Sup dy preme Counci as governin authority," and that the assailed circ il ng cular "pre empts VFPs original self e governance a and autonom (in) representing veter my rans organiza ations, and s substitutes governmentdiscretionand decisionstot g thatofthevet teransownd determination."51Petitioner rsaysthatthe ecirculars provisionspra p acticallyrende ertheSuprem meCouncilinut tile,despiteits sbeingthesta atutorygovern ningbodyoft theVFP.52 Aspreviouslymentioned,th A hisCourthasd definedthepo owerofcontr rolas"thepow werofanoffic certoalteror modifyor nullifyorseta n asidewhatasu ubordinateha asdoneintheperformanceofhisdutiesa andtosubstit tutethejudgm mentofthe former to that of the latter 53The pow of supervi f r." wer ision, on the other hand, m means "overseeing, or the power or 54 authority of a officer to see that subo a an s ordinate office perform t ers their duties."5 Under the A Administrativ Code of ve 1987:55 1 Supervisionan S ndcontrolsha allincludethe eauthorityto actdirectlyw wheneveraspecificfunction nisentrustedbylawor regulationtoa r asubordinate; ;directthepe erformanceofduty;restrain f nthecommiss sionofacts;re eview,approv ve,reverse or o modify act and decisio of subord ts ons dinate officials or units; de s etermine priorities in the e execution of plans and programs;and p dprescribesta andards,guide elines,plansa andprograms.xxx The T definition of the powe of control and supervis n er sion under Se ection 2 of th assailed De he epartment Cir rcular are synonymousw s withtheforegoingdefinitions.Consequen ntly,andcons sideringthatp petitionerisa publiccorpor ration,the provisionsoft p theassailedD DepartmentCircularNo.04 didnotsuppl lantnormodi ifytheprovisi ionsofRepublicActNo. 2640,thusnot 2 tviolatingthe esettledrulet that"allsuch (administrative)issuances smustnotove erride,butmu ustremain consistent and in harmony with the law they seek to apply or imp c d w plement. Adm ministrative ru ules and regulations are intendedtocarryout,neithe ertosupplant tnortomodify fy,thelaw."56 Section3.2oft S theassaileddepartmentcir rcular,whicha authorizesthe eSecretaryofNationalDefe enseto"xxxp personally orthroughad o designatedrep presentative,r requirethesub bmissionofre eports,docum mentsandothe erpapersrega ardingany oralloftheFe o ederationsbusinessfunctio ons,xxx." aswellasSect a tion3.3whichallowstheSe ecretaryofDN NDto xxx[F]romtimetotimeiss x sueguidelines s,directivesan ndotherordersgoverningv vitalgovernm mentactivitiesincluding, but b not limite to, the co ed onduct of ele ections, the a acquisition, m management a and dispositions of prope erties, the
89|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts accounting of funds, financ interests, stocks and bonds, corpora investmen etc. and s a cial ate nts, such other tra ansactions whichmayaffe w ecttheinteres stsoftheveterans. aremerelycon a nsequencesofboththepow werofcontro olandsupervi isiongranted byRep.ActN No.2640.The epowerto alterormodify a yornullifyor rsetasidewha atasubordina atehasdoneintheperform manceofhisdu uties,ortosee etoitthat subordinate o s officers perfor their dutie in accorda rm es ance with law necessarily requires the ability of the superior w, e officertomoni o itor,asclosely yasitdesires, ,theactsofthesubordinate e. The T same is true with resp pect to Sections 4 and 5 of the assailed Department Circular No. 04, which req f d quires the preservationo p oftherecords softheFedera ationandthe submissiontotheSecretar ryofNational lDefenseofannualand periodicrepor p rts. Interpretative regulations and those m merely intern in nature, that is, reg nal , gulating only the personn of the nel administrative agency and not the publ need not be published. Neither is p a e lic, publication required of the socalled e lettersofinstr ructionsissue edbyadministrativesuperi iorsconcernin ngtheruleso onguidelines tobefollowe edbytheir subordinatesi s intheperform manceoftheirduties. Evenassuming E gthattheassa ailedcircularwasnotpubli ished,itsvalid dityisnotaffe ectedbysuch nonpublicati ionforthe reasonthatits r sprovisionsfallundertwoo a oftheexceptio enumeratedinTaada. ons Department C D Circular No. 04 is an inte 0 ernal regulation. As we ha ruled, th are mean to regulate a public ave hey nt e corporation under the cont c trol of DND, a not the p and public in gene eral. As likew wise discussed above, what has been d t createdasabo c odycorporate ebyRep.ActN No.2640isno ottheindividu ualmembershipoftheaffiliateorganizati ionsofthe VFP,butmere V elytheaggreg gationoftheh headsoftheaffiliateorgani izations.Cons sequently,the individualmembersof theaffiliateorganizations,w t whoarenotpu ublicofficers,a arebeyondth heregulationo ofthecircular. Sections2,3a S and6ofthea assailedcircularareadditio onallymerely interpretativeinnature.T Theyaddnoth hingtothe la aw.Theydon notaffectthes substantialrig ghtsofanype erson,whethe erpartytothe ecaseatbaro ornot.InSecti ions2and 3,controlandsupervisiona 3 aredefined,m mentioningacti ionsthatcanb beperformedasconsequen ncesofsuchco ontroland supervision, b without sp s but pecifying the particular act tions that sha be rendere to control and supervise the VFP. all ed e Section6,inth S hesamevein, ,merelystate ewhatthedra aftersofthec circularperceivedtobecon nsequencesofbeingan attached agency to a regula departmen of the gover a ar nt rnment, enum merating sanct tions and rem medies provid by law ded thatmaybeav t vailedofwhen neverdesired. Sincewehave S ealsoprevious slydetermine edthatVFPfundsarepublic cfunds,there eislikewiseno oreasontode eclarethis provisioninva p alid.Section3. .4iscorrectin nrequiringtheVFPfundsto obeusedforpublicpurpos ses,butonlyinsofarthe term"publicp t purposes"isco onstruedtomean"publicpu urposesenum meratedinRep p.ActNo.2640 0." Havingintheirpossessionp H publicfunds, theofficersoftheVFP,esp peciallyitsfisc calofficers,m mustindeedsh hareinthe fiscalresponsi f ibilitytothegreatestextent t. Astopetitione A ersallegation nthatVFPwa asintendedas saselfgovern ningautonomousbodywith haSupremeC Councilas governingauthority,wefin g ndthatthepro ovisionsofRe ep.ActNo.26 640concernin ngthecontrolandsupervis sionofthe Secretary of N S National Defe ense clearly w withholds fro the VFP c om complete auto onomy. To sa however, that such ay, provisionsren p ndertheVFPinutileisanex xaggeration.A Anofficeisnot trenderedinu utilebythefac ctthatitispla acedunder the t control of a higher off f fice. These su ubordinate of ffices, such as the executive offices un s nder the cont trol of the President,exe P ercisediscretio onatthefirst tinstance.Wh hiletheiracts scanbealtere edorevenset tasidebythe esuperior, theseactsareeffectiveandaredeemedtheactsofthesuperiorunti t iltheyaremodified.Surely, ,wecannotsa aythatthe officesofallth o heDepartment tSecretariesa areworthlesspositions.
90 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Insum,theassailedDNDDepartmentCir rcularNo.04 doesnotsupp plantnormod difyandis,on nthecontrary y,perfectly in consonance with Rep. Act No. 2640. Petitioner VF is a public corporation. As such, it ca be placed under the e FP an controlandsu c upervisionoft theSecretaryo ofNationalDe efense,whoco onsequentlyhasthepowertoconductan nextensive managementa m auditofpetitio onercorporat tion. oOo AB BAKADAGUR ROPARTYLIS ST,etalv.HO ON.CESARV. PURISIMA G.R.No.1667 71514August2008 8 CO ORONA,J.
Publicoffic cersenjoythep presumptionof ofregularityin ntheperforma anceoftheirdu uties.Thispres sumptionnece essarily obtainsinf favorofBIRan ndBOCofficialsandemploy yees.RA9335o operatesonthebasisthereof fandreinforce esitby providingasy systemofrewa ardsandsanct tionsforthepu urposeofencouragingtheof fficialsandem mployeesofthe eBIRand theBO OCtoexceedth heirrevenueta argetsandopt timizetheirrevenuegenerat tioncapability yandcollection. RA9335wase R enactedtooptimizetherev venuegenerat tioncapability yandcollectio onoftheBure eauofInterna alRevenue (BIR)andtheBureauofCus ( stoms(BOC).Thelawinten ndstoencoura ageBIRandBOCofficialsan ndemployeestoexceed their revenue targets by providing a s t p system of rew wards and sanctions throu ugh the creat tion of a Rew wards and IncentivesFun nd(Fund)and daRevenuePe erformanceEv valuationBoa ard(Board).It tcoversalloff ficialsandemployeesof theBIRandth t heBOCwithat tleastsixmon nthsofservice e,regardlessofemployment tstatus. The T Fund is sourced from the collection of the BIR a the BOC in excess of th n and heir revenue targets for th year, as he determinedby d ytheDevelopmentBudget andCoordina atingCommitt tee(DBCC).An nyincentiveo orrewardista akenfrom the t fund and allocated to the BIR and t BOC in pr t the roportion to their contribu ution in the e excess collection of the targetedamou t untoftaxreve enue. Petitioners, in P nvoking their right as taxpayers filed th petition ch his hallenging the constitutionality of RA 93 e 335, a tax reformlegislat r tion.Petitione erscontendth hatbyestablishingasystem mofrewardsan ndincentiveswhentheyex xceedtheir revenuetarget r ts,thelaw(1) )transforms theofficialsandemployees softheBIRan ndBOCintom mercenariesan ndbounty hunters;(2)violatestheconstitutionalg h guaranteeofe equalprotectio onasitlimits sthescopeof thelawtoth f heBIRand BOC; (3) undu delegates to the Presid B uly dent the powe to fix reven targets w er nue without suffici ient standards; and (4) violatesthedo v octrineofsep parationofpow wersbycreat tingaCongres ssionalOversightCommitte eetoapprove ethelaws implementingrules. ISSUES: 1. 2. hertheAttritionActof2005isunconstitutional Wheth Wheth the creati of a Joint Congressional Oversight C her ion t Committee fo the purpose of reviewin the IRR or ng formu ulatedbyagen nciesoftheexe ecutivebranch h(DOF,DBM,NEDA,etc.)is sunconstitutio onal
HELD: H PetitionPartia P allyGRANTED AttritionActo A of2005isup pheldduetot thepresumpt tionofAccou untabilityofP PublicOfficer rs
91|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Publicofficeis P sapublictrus st.Itmustbe dischargedby yitsholderno otforhisown npersonalgai inbutforthe benefitof the t public for whom he ho r olds it in trust. By deman nding account tability and service with r responsibility, integrity, loyalty,efficien ncy,patriotism mandjustice,allgovernme entofficialsan ndemployeesh havetheduty ytoberespons sivetothe needsofthepe n eopletheyare ecalledupont toserve. Publicofficers P senjoythepresumptionof regularityin theperforma f anceoftheird duties.Thispresumptionn necessarily obtainsinfavo o orofBIRandBOCofficialsandemploye ees.RA9335 operatesont thebasisthere eofandreinfo orcesitby providingasy p ystemofrewa ardsandsanc ctionsforthe purposeofen ncouragingth heofficialsand demployeeso oftheBIR and a theBOCto oexceedtheir rrevenuetargetsandoptim mizetheirrevenuegeneratio oncapabilitya andcollection. The T presumpt tion is disputa able but proo to the cont of trary is requir to rebut it. It cannot b overturned by mere red be d conjecture or denied in ad c dvance (as pe etitioners would have the Court do) sp pecially in th case wher it is an his re underlyingpri u incipletoadva anceadeclare edpublicpolic cy. Alawenacted A dbyCongress enjoysthest trongpresump ptionofconst titutionality.T Tojustifyitsn nullification,th heremust beaclearand unequivocal breachofthe Constitution, notadoubtfu b ulandequivoc calone.Toinv validateRA93 335based onpetitionersbaselesssuppositionisan o naffronttothe ewisdomnotonlyoftheleg gislaturethatpasseditbuta alsoofthe executivewhic e chapprovedit t. Publicserviceisitsownrew P ward.Neverth heless,publico officersmayb bylawberewardedforexemplaryandex xceptional performance. A system of incentives for exceeding t set expect p the tations of a p public office i not anathem to the is ma conceptofpub c blicaccountab bility.Infact,it trecognizesandreinforcesdedicationto oduty,industr ry,efficiencya andloyalty topublicservi t iceofdeservin nggovernmen ntpersonnel. Inthesameve ein,employee esoftheBIRa andtheBOCm maybylawb beentitledtoa arewardwhe en,asaconse equenceof their zeal in t enforcement of tax an customs la t the nd aws, they exc ceed their rev venue targets. In addition, RA 9335 establishessaf e feguardstoen nsurethatthe erewardwilln notbeclaimed difitwillbee eitherthefrui itof"bountyh huntingor mercenary ac m ctivity" or the product of the irregular performanc of official duties. One o these prec e r ce of cautionary measuresisem m mbodiedinSe ection8ofthelaw: SEC.8.Liability S tyofOfficials,E Examinersand dEmployeesof oftheBIRandtheBOC.The eofficials,exa aminers,ande employees of o the [BIR] a the [BOC] who violate this Act or w are guilty of negligenc abuses or acts of malfe and who y ce, easance or misfeasanceorfailtoexerc m ciseextraordin narydiligence eintheperformanceofthe eirdutiesshallbeheldliab bleforany loss or injury suffered by any business establishmen or taxpayer as a result of such violat a nt r tion, negligen nce, abuse, malfeasance,m m misfeasanceor rfailuretoexe erciseextraor rdinarydiligen nce. JointCongres ssionalOvers sightCommitt teeisuncons stitutional TheJointCong T gressionalOve ersightComm mitteeinRA93 335wascreat tedforthepur rposeofappro ovingtheimplementing rulesandregu r ulations(IRR) formulatedb bytheDOF,DB BM,NEDA,BIR R,BOCandCS SC.OnMay22 2,2006,itapp provedthe saidIRR.From s mthenon,itb becamefunctu usofficioandc ceasedtoexis st.Hence,the issueofitsallegedencroac chmenton theexecutivef t functionofim mplementingan ndenforcingt thelawmaybeconsideredmootandacademic. Thisnotwithst T tanding,thism mightbeasgo oodatimeasa anyfortheCo ourttoconfron nttheissueof ftheconstitut tionalityof theJointCongr t ressionalOversightCommitteecreatedu underRA9335 5(orothersim milarlawsforthatmatter). ThescholarlydiscourseofM T Mr.Justice(no owChiefJustic ce)Punoonth heconceptofc congressional loversightinM Macalintal v.CommissiononElectionsis v silluminating:
92|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Conceptandba C asesofcongres ssionaloversig ght Broadly defin B ned,the powe of oversig er ght embrace all activit es ties underta aken by Congress to enh hance its understandin of and in u ng nfluence over theimplem r mentationof legislation it has enacte Clearly, oversight ed. concernspost c tenactmentm measures un ndertaken by Congress: (a) to monit bureaucr y tor ratic complia ance with programobje p ectives,(b)to odeterminew whetheragen nciesarepro operlyadmin nistered,(c)t toeliminatee executive wasteanddis w shonesty,(d) )toprevente executiveusu urpationofle egislativeaut thority,and( (d)toassesse executive conformityw c withthecongr ressionalper rceptionofpu ublicinterest t. Thepowerof oversighthas T sbeenheldto beintrinsicin nthegrantof flegislativepo oweritselfandintegraltot thechecks andbalancesinherentinad a democraticsys stemofgovernment.xxxx xxxxxx Over the years, Congress has invoked its oversigh power wit increased frequency to check the perceived O d ht th o h "exponential a " accumulation of power" by the executiv branch. By the beginnin of the 20thcentury, Con y ve y ng ngress has delegated an enormous am d mount of legis slative author rity to the ex xecutive branch and the administrative agencies. e Congress,thus C s,usesitsover rsightpowert tomakesurethattheadmi inistrativeage enciesperform mtheirfunctio onswithin theauthorityd t delegatedtoth hem.xxxxxx xxxx Categoriesofc C congressionalo oversightfunc ctions The T acts done by Congress purportedly in the exercis of its overs e se sight powers may be divided intothreec categories, namely:scrutiny,investigati n ionandsuperv vision. a.Scrutiny a Congressionalscrutinyimpliesalesserin C ntensityandcontinuityofa attentiontoad dministrative operations.It tsprimary purposeistod p determineeco onomyandeff ficiencyoftheoperationofg governmenta activities.Inth heexerciseoflegislative scrutiny, Cong s gress may re equest inform mation and report from t the other bra anches of go overnment. It can give recommendati r ionsorpassre esolutionsfor rconsideration noftheagenc cyinvolved. xxxxxxx x xxx b.Congressiona b alinvestigatio on While congre W essional scrut tiny is regarded as a p passive process of looki ing at the f facts that ar readily re available,cong a gressional inve estigation inv volves a more intense digg e ging of facts. The power o Congress to conduct of o investigationisrecognizedb bythe1987Constitutionun ndersection2 21,ArticleVI,x xxxxxxxxx c.Legislativesu c upervision Thethirdandmostencompa T assingformby ywhichCongr ressexercisesitsoversightpoweristhru ulegislativesu upervision. "Supervision" connotes a continuing and informe awareness on the pa of a con " ed s art ngressional c committee regardingexec r cutive operatio onsin a given administrat n tive area. Whi both cong ile gressional scru utiny and inv vestigation involve inqu uiry intopas executive branch ac st ctionsin ord der to infl luence futur re executive branch e performance,c p congressional supervision a allows Congres to scrutiniz the exercise of delegated lawmaking authority, ss ze e d andpermitsCo a ongresstoreta ainpartofthatdelegatedau uthority. Congress exerc C cises supervisi over the e ion executive agen ncies through its veto powe It typically utilizes veto provisions er. whengranting w gthePresidentoranexecut tiveagencyth hepowertopr romulgatereg gulationswith htheforceofl law.These Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 93|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts provisionsrequ p uirethePresid dentoranage encytopresenttheproposed dregulationst toCongress,w whichretainsa a"right"to approve or dis a sapprove any regulation be efore it takes effect.Such legislative vet provisions usually prov to vide that a proposed regu p ulation will become a law after the exp piration of a c certain period of time, onl if Congress does not d ly s affirmatively d a disapprove of the regulatio in the meantime. Less frequently, th statute pro f on he ovides that a proposed regulationwill r lbecomelawifCongressaf ffirmativelyap pprovesit. Supportersofl S legislativevet tostressthati itisnecessary ytomaintain thebalanceo ofpowerbetw weenthelegis slativeand theexecutiveb t branchesofgo overnmentas sitofferslawm makersaway todelegatevastpowertot theexecutive branchor toindependen t ntagencieswh hileretainingt theoptiontocancelparticu ularexerciseo ofsuchpower rwithouthavingtopass newlegislation n nortorepealexistinglaw.T Theycontend dthatthisarra angementprom motesdemocr raticaccounta abilityasit provideslegisl p lativecheckontheactivitie esofunelected dadministrativeagencies.O Oneproponent tthusexplains: Itistoolateto odebatethem meritsofthisd delegationpoli icy:thepolicy yistoodeeplyembeddedinourlawandp practice.It sufficestosay s ythatthecom mplexitiesofm moderngovern nmenthaveo oftenledCong gresswhether rbyactualor perceived necessity to l n legislate by declaring broad policy goals and general statutory sta s l andards, leavi the choice of policy ing e optionstothediscretionofanexecutiveofficer.Congr o ressarticulateslegislativeaims,butleave estheirimplem mentation tothejudgmentofpartiesw t whomayorm maynothave participated inoragreedw withthedeve elopmentofth hoseaims. Consequently, absent safeg C guards, in ma any instances the reverse of our const titutional sche eme could be effected: e Congressprop C poses,theExecutivedisposes.Onesafegu uard,ofcourse,isthelegisl lativepowert toenactnewl legislation ortochangee o existinglaw.B Butwithoutso omemeansofoverseeingp postenactmentactivitieso oftheexecutiv vebranch, Congress wou be unable to determine whether its p C uld policies have been implem mented in acco ordance with legislative intentandthuswhetherleg gislativeinterv ventionisappr ropriate. Its opponents however,cr s, riticize the leg gislative vetoa asundue enc croachment upon the ex xecutive prer rogatives. They urge tha T atany poste enactment m measures und dertaken by the legislat y tive branch should be li imited to scrutinyand s investigation n;anymeasu urebeyondth hatwouldun nderminethe eseparationo ofpowersgu uaranteed bytheConsti b itution.They contendthat legislativevetoconstitutes sanimpermis ssibleevasion nofthePresid dentsveto authority and intrusion int the powers vested in th executive or judicial br a to he ranches of go overnment. Pr roponents counter that l c legislative vet enhances s to separation of powers as it prevents the executive br e ranch and ind dependent agenciesfrom accumulating a gtoomuchpo ower.Theysub bmitthatrepo ortingrequire ementsandco ongressionalc committee investigations allow Congre to scrutinize only the e ess exercise of de elegated lawm making authority. They do not allow Congresstore C eviewexecutiv veproposalsb beforetheytak keeffectandt theydonotaf ffordtheoppo ortunityforon ngoingand bindingexpres b ssionsofcong gressionalinte ent.Incontras st,legislativev vetopermitsC Congresstopa articipateprospectively intheapprova alordisapprovalof"subord dinatelaw"orthoseenacted dbytheexecu utivebranchp pursuanttoad delegation ofauthorityby o yCongress.Th heyfurtherarg guethatlegisl lativeveto"isanecessaryresponsebyCo ongresstothe eaccretion ofpolicycontr o rolbyforceso outsideitscha ambers."Inan neraofdeleg gatedauthority y,theypointo outthatlegisl lativeveto "isthemostef " fficientmeans sCongressha asyetdevised dtoretaincon ntroloverthe evolutionand dimplementa ationofits policyasdecla p aredbystatute e." However, to f H forestall the danger of con d ngressional en ncroachment "beyond the legislative sp phere," the Co onstitution imposestwob basicandrela atedconstrain ntsonCongress.Itmaynot tvestitself,an nyofitscomm mitteesorits members witheitherex w xecutiveorjud dicialpower.A And,whenite exercisesitsl legislativepow wer,itmustfo ollowthe"sin ngle,finely wrought and exhaustively considered, p w procedures" s specified under the Consti itution, includ ding the proc cedure for enactmentofl e lawsandpresentment. Thus, any pos T stenactment congressional measure su as this should be limit to scrutin and investi uch ted ny igation. In particular,con p ngressionalov versightmustb beconfinedto othefollowing g: Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 94 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts (1)scrutinyba ( asedprimarilyonCongresspowerofap ppropriation andthebudg gethearingsco onductedinc connection withit,itspow w wertoaskheadsofdepart tmentstoapp pearbeforean ndbeheardbyeitherofits sHousesona anymatter pertainingtot p theirdepartmentsanditspo owerofconfir rmationand (2) ( investigati ion and mon nitoringof the implementa e ation of laws pursuant to the power o Congress to conduct of o inquiriesinaid doflegislation n. Anyactionor stepbeyond thatwillunde A erminethese eparationofpowersguaran nteedbytheC Constitution.L Legislative vetoesfallinth v hisclass. Legislativevet L toisastatutoryprovisionr requiringthe Presidentor anadministra ativeagencyt topresenttheproposed implementing rulesandreg gulationsofal lawtoCongre esswhich,byi itselforthrou ughacommitt teeformedby yit,retains a"right"or"po a ower"toappr roveordisapp provesuchreg gulationsbeforetheytakeeffect.Assuch, ,alegislativev vetointhe form of a con f ngressional ov versight comm mittee is in th form of an inwardturn he n ning delegatio designed to attach a on o congressional leash (other than through scrutiny an investigatio to an age c h nd on) ency to which Congress has by law h initiallydelega atedbroadpowers.Itradica allychangesth hedesignors structureofth heConstitution nsdiagramof fpoweras it tentruststoC Congressadir rectroleinenf forcing,applyi ingorimplem mentingitsownlaws. Congress has two options when enacti C ing legislation to define n n national polic within the broad horizons of its cy legislativecom mpetence.Itca anitselfformu ulatethedetailsoritcanas ssigntotheex xecutivebranc chtherespons sibilityfor making necessary manager decisions in conformi with those standards.I the latter case, the law must be m rial s ity e In w completeinallitsessentialtermsandconditionswhen c nitleavesthe ehandsofthelegislature.T Thus,whatisl leftforthe executivebran e nchorthecon ncernedadmin nistrativeagencywhenitfo ormulatesrulesandregula ationsimplementingthe la awistofillup pdetails(supp plementaryru ulemaking)or rascertainfac ctsnecessaryt tobringthela awintoactualoperation (contingentru ( ulemaking). Administrative regulations enacted by a A e administrative agencies to implement an interpret t law which they are e nd the h entrustedtoen e nforcehaveth heforceoflaw wandareentitledtorespec ct.Suchrulesa andregulation nspartakeoft thenature ofastatutean o ndarejustas bindingasift theyhavebee enwrittenint thestatuteits self.Assuch,t theyhavethe forceand effect of law a enjoy the presumption of constituti e and n ionality and le egality until t they are set a aside with fina ality in an appropriateca a asebyacomp petentcourt.C Congress,inth heguiseofass sumingtheroleofanovers seer,maynot passupon their legality by subjecting them to its stamp of ap t g s pproval witho disturbing the calculat out g ted balance o powers of establishedby e ytheConstitut tion.Inexercis singdiscretiontoapproveo ordisapprove etheIRRbasedonadeterm minationof whetherorno w ottheyconform medwiththep provisionsofRA9335,Congressarrogatedjudicialpow weruntoitsel lf,apower exclusivelyves e stedinthisCo ourtbytheCon nstitution. oOo BIRAOGO Ov.THEPHIL LIPPINETRU UTHCOMMISS SION G.R.No os.192935,1 1930367D December20 010ENBANC C(Mendoza,J) Clearly,thepowerofcont trolisentirelydifferentfrom mthepowertocreatepublicoffices. Exclusionofp pastadministra ationssimilarl lysituatedcon nstitutesarbitr rarinesswhich hviolatesthee equalprotectio onclause.
ThePresident,Benign noSimeonAq quinoIII(Pres sident),signed dExecutiveOr rderNo.1est tablishingthe Philippine Truth Commis T ssion of 2010 (PTC). The PT an ad hoc body, was c TC, c created to inv vestigate repo orted cases of graft and f corruption all c legedly comm mitted during the previous administrat tion. However, its validity was assaile by two y ed consolidated cases filed by Petitioner Louis Biraog (Biraogo), in his capac c go city as a citizen and taxp payer and
95|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts PetitionersLegislators, Edc C. Lagman Rodolfo B. Albano Jr., S P cel n, Simeon A. Da atumanong, an Orlando B Fua, Sr. nd B. (PetitionersLe ( egislators), in their capac n city as incum mbent members of the Ho ouse of Repre esentatives. P Petitioners contendthatP c PTCviolatesth heseparationofpowersasitcreatespub blicofficeandappropriating gfundsforitsoperation which is orig w ginally vested in the Con d ngress; and th equal pro he otection claus as it targ se gets only the previous administration The Office of the Secret a n. tary General (OSG) defend the PTC s ded saying that it does not arr rogate the powers of Co p ongress as it only investigates and it is not appro opriation but mere alloca t ation of fund already ds appropriatedb Congress; and itdoes n violate the a by not eequal protec ction clauseas it iscreated for laudible purposes. d Moreover,OSG M Gpointedoutthecontinuou usexistencean ndvalidityofotherexecutiv veordersand dpresidentialissuances creatingsimila c arbodiestoju ustifythecreat tionofthePTC C. ISSUES: 1. 2. Whetherorno W otExecutiveO OrderNo.1vio olatestheprin ncipleofsepar rationofpowe ersbyusurpin ng the t powers of Congress to create and to appropriat funds for public offices agencies an o o te s, nd commissions c
Whetherorno W otExecutiveO OrderNo.1vio olatestheequalprotectionc clause; HELD: H Petitionsare P GRANTED Creati ionofPTCisn notjustifiedb bythePreside entspowerof ofcontrol Thequestion, therefore,beforetheCour T rtisthis:Does sthecreation nofthePTCf fallwithinthe eambitofthe epowerto reorganizeas expressedin Section31of theRevisedA r f AdministrativeCode?Sectio on31contem mplates"reorganization" aslimitedbyt a thefollowing functionalandstructuralli ines:(1)restr ructuringthe internalorgan nizationoftheOfficeof thePresident Properbyabo t olishing,consolidatingorm mergingunits thereofortra ansferringfun nctionsfromo oneunitto another; (2) t a transferring any function u a under the Off fice of the Pre esident to any other Depa y artment/Agency or vice versa;or(3)tr v ransferringan nyagencyund dertheOfficeofthePreside enttoanyotherDepartmen nt/Agencyorv viceversa. Clearly, the pr C rovision refer to reductio of personn consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of rs on nel, n economy or re e edundancy of functions. Th f hese point to situations wh here a body o an office is already existent but a or s modification o alteration thereof has t be effected The creatio of an office is nowhere mentioned, m m or to d. on e much less envisionedins e saidprovision n.Accordingly y,theanswert tothequestion nisintheneg gative. Inthesameve ein,thecreatio onofthePTC isnotjustifie edbythePres sidentspower rofcontrol.Controlisessentiallythe powertoalter p rormodifyor rnullifyorset tasidewhata asubordinateofficerhadd doneintheperformanceof hisduties 47 andtosubstitu a utethejudgm mentoftheform merwiththat tofthelatter.4 Clearly,thepowerofcontrolisentirely ydifferent fromthepowe f ertocreatepu ublicoffices.T Theformerisinherentinthe eExecutive,w whilethelatter rfindsbasisfr romeither avaliddelegat a tionfromCong gress,orhisin nherentdutyt tofaithfullyex xecutethelaw ws. Thequestioni T isthis,isthereavaliddeleg gationofpow werfromCong gress,empowe eringthePres sidenttocreat teapublic office? o Accordingtot A theOSG,thep powertocreateatruthcom mmissionpurs suanttothea aboveprovisio onfindsstatu utorybasis under P.D. 14 u 416, as amend by P.D. N 1772.48Th said law gr ded No. he ranted the Pr resident the c continuing au uthority to reorganize the national government, including the p r e power to grou consolidat bureaus an agencies, t abolish up, te nd to offices,totran o nsferfunction ns,tocreatean ndclassifyfunctions,servicesandactivi ities,transferappropriations,andto standardizesa s alariesandma aterials.Thisd decree,inrela ationtoSectio on20,TitleI,B BookIIIofE.O O.292hasbee eninvoked inseveralcase essuchasLari inv.Executive eSecretary.49
96 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts TheCourt,how T wever,declinestorecogniz zeP.D.No.14 416asajustif ficationforth hePresidentto ocreateapub blicoffice. Saiddecreeisalreadystale, S ,anachronisticandinopera able.P.D.No.1 1416wasade elegationtoth henPresident Marcosof the t authority to reorganize the administ e trative structure of the na ational govern nment includin the power to create ng r officesandtransferappropr o riationspursu uanttooneoft thepurposesofthedecree. Indeed, the Ex xecutive is giv much leeway in ensur ven ring that our l laws are faith hfully execute As stated a ed. above, the powers of the President ar not limited to those specific powers under the C p e re d s Constitution.53One of the r recognized powers of the President granted pursu p e uant to this co onstitutionally ymandated d duty is the power to crea ad hoc ate committees.T c Thisflowsfrom mtheobvious sneedtoascertainfactsanddeterminei iflawshaveb beenfaithfully yexecuted. Thus,inDepar T rtmentofHea althv.Campos sano,54theaut thorityofthe Presidentto issueAdministrativeOrderNo.298, creating an in c nvestigative committee to look into th administrative charges filed against the employe of the c he ees Departmentof D fHealthforth heanomalouspurchaseofm medicineswasupheld.Insai idcase,itwasruled: The Chief Exe T ecutives pow to create the Ad hoc Investigatin Committee cannot be doubted. Ha wer e c ng aving been constitutionall c lygrantedfull lcontrolofth heExecutiveD Department,to owhichrespo ondentsbelong,thePreside enthasthe obligationtoe o ensurethatallexecutiveoffi icialsandemp ployeesfaithfu ullycomplyw withthelaw.W WithAO298as smandate, thelegalityoftheinvestigat t tionissustained.Suchvalid dityisnotaffec ctedbythefac ctthattheinv vestigatingtea amandthe PCAGC had th same comp P he position, or th the former used the of hat r ffices and facilities of the la atter in condu ucting the inquiry.[Emph hasissupplied d] It should be s stressed that the purpose o allowing ad hoc investig of gating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into s o matterswhich m hthePresiden ntisentitledto oknowsotha athecanbep properlyadvisedandguided dintheperformanceof hisdutiesrela h ativetotheex xecutionande enforcemento ofthelawsof theland.And difhistoryist toberevisited d,thiswas also the objec a ctive of the investigative bodies creat ted in the pa like the P ast PCAC, PCAPE, PARGO, the Feliciano Commission, t C the Melo Com mmission and the Zenarosa Commissio There being no chang in the go d on. ges overnment structure,the Courtisnoti s inclinedtodeclaresuchexe ecutivepower rasnonexist tentjustbecau usethedirect tionofthe politicalwinds p shavechanged. OnthechargethatExecutiveOrderNo.1transgressesthepowerofCongresstoappropriatefundsfortheop O perationof apublicoffice, a ,sufficeittosaythattherew willbenoapp propriationbu utonlyanallot tmentoralloc cationsofexistingfunds already appro a opriated. Accordingly, there is no usurpa e ation on the p part of the Ex xecutive of the power of Co e ongress to appropriate fu a unds. Further there is no need to specify the amount to be e r, o earmarked for the operati r ion of the commissionbe c ecause,inthewordsoftheSolicitorGene eral,"whateve erfundstheCo ongresshaspr rovidedforth heOfficeof thePresident willbetheve t erysourceof thefundsforthecommiss sion."55Moreover,sincethe eamountthat twouldbe allocatedtoth a hePTCshallbe esubjecttoex stingauditingrulesandre xi egulations,the ereisnoimpro oprietyinthefunding. Violationofth V heEqualProt tectionClause e Fora classification tomeettherequirementso ofconstitution nality,itmust tincludeorem mbraceallper rsonswho naturally belong to the clas The class n ss. sification will be regarded as invalid if a the membe of the class are not all ers similarly treat s ted, both as to rights confe o erred and obligations impo osed. It is not necessary th the classif t hat fication be madewithabs m solutesymme etry,inthesen nsethatthem membersofth heclassshould dpossessthe samecharact teristicsin equaldegree. Substantialsimilaritywill suffice;andaslongasthis isachieved,a e allthosecover redbytheclassification aretobetreat a tedequally.Th hemerefactt thatanindivid dualbelonging gtoaclassdif ffersfromtheothermembe ers,aslong asthatclassissubstantially a ydistinguishab blefromallothers,doesnot tjustifytheno onapplication nofthelawtohim. ustbebornei inmindthatth heArroyoadm ministrationis sbutjustame emberofacla ass,thatis, Inthisregard,itmu a a class of past administrat tions. It is not a class of it own. Not t include pas administrat t ts to st tions similarly situated y constitutes ar c rbitrariness which the equ protection clause cann sanction. Such discrim w ual n not minating diffe erentiation clearlyreverbe c eratestolabel lthecommiss sionasavehic cleforvindictivenessandse electiveretribu ution.
97|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts InExe ecutiveOrderNo.1,howeve er,thereisnoinadvertence e.Thatthepre eviousadmini istrationwasp pickedout was w deliberate and intentio e onal as can be gleaned from the fact th it was und e hat derscored at least three tim in the mes assailedexecu a utiveorder.Itmustbenote edthatExecut tiveOrderNo.1doesnotev venmentiona anyparticularact,event orreporttobefocusedon unliketheinv o vestigativeco ommissionscr reatedinthe past.Theequ ualprotection nclauseis violatedbypurposefulandi v intentionaldis scrimination. isprove petiti ioners conten ntion that th here is delibe erate discrim mination, the OSG clarifies that the s To di commission does not only confine itself to cases of la c arge scale gra and corrup aft ption committ during the previous ted e administration a n.TheOSGpo ointstoSection n17ofExecut tiveOrderNo.1,whichprovides: SECTI ION 17. Special Provision C Concerning Ma andate. If and when in the judgment of the Presiden d e f nt thereisaneedtoex xpandtheman ndateoftheC Commissionas sdefinedinSe ection1hereo oftoincludeth he tigation of cas and instan ses nces of graft a corruptio during the prior admini and on istrations, suc ch invest mandatemaybeso oextendedacc cordinglybyw wayofasupple ementalExecu utiveOrder. Courtisnotco onvinced.Alth houghSection n17allowsth hePresidentt thediscretion toexpandthescopeof TheC investigations ofthePTCso oastoinclude etheactsofg graftandcorru uptioncommi ittedinother pastadminist trations,it does not guar d rantee that they would be covered in th future. Suc expanded m he ch mandate of th commission will still he n dependonthe d ewhimandca apriceoftheP President.Ifh hewoulddeci idenottoincludethem,the esectionwouldthenbe meaningless.T m Thiswillonly fortifythefea arsofthepeti itionersthatt theExecutive OrderNo.1w wascraftedtotailorfit theprosecutio t onofofficialsa andpersonalit tiesoftheArr royoadministr ration. oOo BUKLODNGK B KAWANINGEI IIB,etalv. HON.EXECU UTIVESECRET TARYRONAL LDOB.ZAMOR RA,etal G.R.Nos.142801 180210Ju uly2001 SA ANDOVALGU UTIERREZ,J.: Apublicoffice A eiseithercreatedbytheCon nstitution,bystatute,orbya authorityoflaw 17Thus,exce w. eptwheretheo officewas created dbytheConsti itutionitself,it tmaybeabolis shedbythesamelegislature ethatbrought titintoexisten nce. Indeed,there eisnosuchthi ingasanabsoluterighttoholdoffice.Exce eptconstitutio onalofficeswh hichprovidefo orspecial immuni ityasregardssalaryandten nure,nooneca anbesaidtohaveanyvested drightinanof fficeoritssala ary. Former Presid F dent Corazon C. Aquino, is ssued Executiv Order No. 1273establis ve shing the Economic Intellig gence and Investigation B Bureau (EIIB) as part of th structural organization of the Ministry of Finance In a desire t achieve ) he e. to harmonyofef h ffortsandtop preventpossib bleconflictsam mongagencie esinthecours seoftheirantismugglingoperations, PresidentAquinoissuedMe P emorandumO OrderNo.225onMarch17,1989,providi ing,amongoth hers,thattheE EIIB"shall betheagencyo b ofprimaryres sponsibilityfor rantismuggli ingoperations sinalllandar reasandinland dwatersandw waterways outside the ar o reas of sole jur risdiction of t Bureau of Customs."Elev years afte or on Janu the ven er, uary 7, 2000, President Joseph Estrada issued Exec cutive Order N 191 entitled "Deactivat No. tion of the Eco onomic Intellig gence and Inv vestigation Bureau." Motiv B vated by the fact that "the designated functions of the EIIB are also being performed by the other e existing agenc e cies of the gov vernment" an that "there is a need to constantly m nd monitor the ov verlapping of f functions" amongthesea a agencies,form merPresident Estradaorderedthedeact tivationofEIIBandthetran nsferofitsfu unctionsto theBureauofCustomsandt t theNationalB BureauofInve estigation.Meanwhile,PresidentEstradaissuedExecutiveOrder No. N 1968creating the Pres sidential Anti iSmuggling T Task Force "A Aduana." Subsequenly, Pre esident Estra ada issued Executive Ord No. 223providing that all EIIB pers E der t sonnel occupy ying positions specified th s herein shall be deemed separated from the service effective Ap 30, 2000, pursuant to abona fidere s m e pril eorganization resulting to abolition, n redundancy,m r merger,divisio on,orconsolid dationofposit tions.Hence,t thispetition.
98 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ISSUE: Whetherthea W abolitionoft theEIIBbyvi irtueofanEx xecutiveOrde erisinvalid HELD: H PetitionDENI P IED Petitioners co P ontend that th issuance o the aforem he of mentioned exe ecutive orders is:(a)a vio olation of thei right to ir security of ten s nure;(b)tainted with bad faith as they were not a d y actually intend to make the bureaucr ded racy more efficientbutto e ogivewayto TaskForce"A Aduana,"thef functionsofw whichareesse entiallyandsu ubstantiallyth hesameas thatofEIIB;an t nd(c)ausurp pationofthepowerofCongr resstodecide ewhetherorn nottoabolisht theEIIB. At A first glance it seems th the resolu e, hat ution of this case hinges o the questi on ion Does the "deactivation of EIIB e n" constitute"abo c olition"ofan office?Howev ver,aftercomi ingtotermsw withthepreva ailinglawand djurisprudence,weare certain that th ultimate queries should be a)Does the Presiden have the a c he q d nt authority to re eorganize the executive e department?a d and,b)Howshouldthereorg ganizationbec carriedout? Surely, there exists a distinction betwe the words "deactivate" and "abolish To "deacti S een s " h." ivate"means to render inactive or ine effective or to break up by o ydischargingo reassigning or gpersonnel, w while to "abol lish"meansto do away o with, to annu abrogate or destroy com w ul, o mpletely.In e essence, aboli ition denotes an intention to do away with the n y officewhollyandpermanent 15Thus, w o tly. while inaboli ition,the offi fice ceases t exist, the same is not true to e indeactivationwhere the office continu to exist,a o ues albeitremainin dormant or inoperativ Be that a it may, ng ve. as deactivationandabolitiona d arebothreorg ganizationmea asures. The T general r rule has alway been that the power to abolish a p ys o public office is lodged with the legislatu 16This s h ure. proceeds from the legal pr p m recept that th power to c he create include the power to destroy. A public office is either es A e created by the Constitution by statute, or by authority of law.17T c e n, Thus, except w where the off fice was creat by the ted Constitutionit C tself,itmaybe eabolishedby ythesamelegi islaturethatb broughtitinto oexistence. Theexception T n,however,is thatasfaras bureaus,agen nciesoroffice esintheexecutivedepartm mentareconcerned,the President's po P ower of contro may justify him to inact ol y tivate the func ctions of a pa articular office 19or certain laws may e, grant him the broad auth g e hority to carr out reorga ry anization mea asures.20The case in poin isLarin v. Executive nt Secretary.21In thiscase,itw S wasarguedth hatthereisno olawwhiche empowersthe ePresidentto oreorganizet theBIR.In decreeingothe d erwise,thisCo ourtsustained dthefollowing glegalbasis,t thus: Inthewhereas sclauseofE.O O.No.191,for rmerPresiden ntEstradaanc choredhisau uthoritytodea activateEIIBo onSection 77ofRepublic 7 cAct8745(F FY1999Genera alAppropriati ionsAct),apr rovisionsimilartoSection 62ofR.A.764 45quoted inLarin,thus; "Sec. 77.Organized Changes.Unlessotherwi provided by law ord ise directed by the Presiden of the nt Philip ppines, no ch hanges in key positions or organizational units in a y r any departme or agency shall be ent y authorized in their respective o r organizational structures a l and funded fro appropria om ations provide by this ed Act." We W adhere to the preceden ntor ruling in nLarinthat this provision r recognizes the authority of the Presiden to effect e f nt organizational o lchangesinth hedepartmentoragencyun ndertheexecu utivestructur re.Sucharulin ngfurtherfind dssupport inSection78o ofRepublicAc ctNo.8760.22Underthisla aw,theheads ofdepartmen nts,bureaus,o officesandage enciesand other entities in the Executive Branch are directed o d(a)to condu a compre uct ehensive revie of their r ew respective mandates, mis m ssions, object tives, function programs, projects, act ns, , tivities and s systems and procedures;(b b)identify
99|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts activitieswhic a charenolong geressentialinthedelivery yofpublicser rvicesandwh hichmaybesc caleddown,p phasedout or o abolished; and(c)adop measures that will res pt sult in the s streamlined o organization and improve overall ed performance o their respe p of ective agencie 23Section 7 ends up w es. 78 with the mand date that thea actual streamlining and productivity im p mprovement in agency org i ganization and operation s d shall be effect pursuant toCirculars o Orders ted or is ssuedforthe epurposebyt theOfficeoft thePresident 24Thelawha t. asspokenclea arly.Wearele eftonlywiththedutyto sustain. s It having been duly establi n ished that the President ha the author to carry o reorganization in any branch or e as rity out agencyofthee a executivedep partment,wha atisthenleftf forustoresolveiswhether rornotthereorganizationi isvalid.In thisjurisdictio t on,reorganiza ationshavebeenregardeda asvalidprovid dedtheyarep pursuedingoo odfaith.Reorg ganization iscarriedout in'goodfaith h'ifitisforth hepurposeof economyort tomakeburea aucracymore eefficient.27Pe ertinently, 28pr Republic Act N 6656 rovides for th circumstan R No. he nces which ma be conside ay ered as evidence of bad fa aith in the removalofciv r vilserviceemp ployeesmade asaresultof freorganizatio on,towit:(a)wherethere isasignifican ntincrease inthenumber rofpositions inthenewstaffingpattern nofthedepartmentoragen ncyconcerned d;(b)wherea anofficeis abolishedand a anotherperf formingsubsta antiallythesa amefunctions siscreated;(c c)whereincum mbentsarere eplacedby those less qua t alified in term of status of appointment performanc and merit;(d)where the is a classification of ms f t, ce ere officesinthed o departmentor ragencyconce ernedandthe ereclassifiedo officesperform msubstantiall lythesamefu unctionsas theoriginaloff t fices,and(e)w wheretherem movalviolates stheorderofs separation.29 Anexaminatio A onofthepertinentExecutiv veOrders30showsthatthed deactivationo ofEIIBandthe ecreationofT TaskForce Aduana were done in good faith. It was not for the purpose of r A d s removing the EIIB employe ees, but to ac chieve the ultimatepurpo u oseofE.O.No.191,whichis seconomy.W WhileTaskForc ceAduanawa ascreatedtota aketheplaceofEIIB,its creationdoesn c notentailexpensetothego overnment. Firstly,there is no employment of ne personnel to man the Task Force E.O. No. 1 F ew e e. 196 provides that the s technical,adm t ministrative andspecials staffsofEIIB aretobecom mposedofpe eoplewhoare ealreadyint thepublic service, they being emplo s oyees of othe existing a er agencies. The tenure wi the Task Force would only be eir ith d temporary,i.e.,onlywhen t ntheagency ywherethey belongisca alledupontoassisttheTaskForce.Si incetheir employment e withtheTaskforceisonl lybywayofd detailorassig gnment,they yretaintheir employment twiththe existingagencies.Andsho e ouldtheneed dforthemcea ase,theywou uldbesentba acktotheage encyconcern ned. Secondly,thet S thrustofE.O.N No.196istoh haveasmallgr roupofmilitar rymenunderthedirectcon ntrolandsupe ervisionof the President as base of the governm t t ment's antism muggling cam mpaign. Such a smaller ba has the necessary ase powers1)toe p enlisttheassis stanceofany department,b bureau,oroff ficeandtouse etheirrespect tivepersonnel,facilities and resources and2)"to select and rec a s; s cruit personn from with the PSG an ISAFP forassignmentto the Task nel hin nd o Force."Obviou F usly,theidea aistoencour ragetheutili izationofper rsonnel,facil litiesandres sourcesofthealready existingdepa e artments,age encies,bureau us,etc.,inste eadofmainta aininganinde ependentoffi icewithawh holesetof personnelandfacilities.T p TheEIIBhadp provenitselfb burdensomefo orthegovernm mentbecause eitmaintained dseparate officesinevery o yregioninthe ePhilippines. Andthirdly,it isevidentfro A omtheyearly budgetappro opriationofth hegovernmen ntthatthecre eationoftheT TaskForce Aduana was e A especially inte ended to lesse EIIB's exp en penses. Tracin from the yearly General Appropriatio Act, it ng l ons appears that t allotted am a the mount for the EIIB's gener administra e ral ation, support and operati t, ions for the y year 1995, wasP128,031 w 1,000;31for 1996 6,P182,156,0 32for 000; 1998, P219,889,00 33and, 00; for 34Thes 35allocat 1999,P238,74 1 43,000. seamountsw werefarabove etheP50,000,000 tiontotheTas skForceAdua anaforthe year2000. y While basicall the functio of the EII have devol W ly, ons IB lved upon the Task Force Aduana, we find the latte to have e er additional new powers. The Task Force Aduana, bein composed of elements fr a w ng from the Presi idential Secur Group rity (PSG) and Inte ( elligence Serv vice Armed Fo orces of the P Philippines (IS SAFP),36has th essentialp he power to effect searches, t seizuresandar s rrests.TheEIIBdidnothavethispower.TheTaskForc ceAduanahas sthepowerto oenlisttheass sistanceof
100 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts any a departme bureau, office, or instr ent, rumentality of the governm f ment, includin governmen ng ntowned or c controlled corporations; and to use th personnel, facilities an resources. A c heir nd Again, the EII did not hav this power And, the IB ve r. TaskForceAd T duanahastheadditionalaut thoritytocon nductinvestiga ationofcasesinvolvingillg gottenwealth h.Thiswas notexpresslyg n grantedtothe eEIIB. Lastly,wehold L dthatpetition ners'righttos securityoften nureisnotviol lated.Nothing gisbettersett tledinourlaw wthanthat theabolitiono t ofanofficewithinthecom mpetenceofa legitimatebod dyifdonein goodfaithsuffersfromnoinfirmity. Validabolition V nofofficesisn neitherremov valnorsepara ationoftheincumbents.38In ntheinstruct tivewordslaid ddownby 39throughJusticeAbraham 3 thisCourtinD t Dariov.Mison, mF.Sarmiento: Reorg ganizationsinthisjurisdicti ionhavebeen nregardedasv validprovided dtheyarepur rsuedingoodfaith.Asa general rule, a reorganization is carried out in "good faith if it is for t purpose o economy or to make s h" the of burea aucracy more efficient.In t that event, n dismissal (in case of dismissal) o separation actually no or n occur rsbecauseth hepositionit tselfceasesto oexist.Andi inthatcase, securityoft tenurewould dnotbea Chine esewall.Beth hatasitmay,ifthe'aboliti ion,'whichis nothingelseb butaseparationorremova al,isdone forpo oliticalreasonsorpurposely ytodefeatsec curityoftenure,otherwise notingoodfa faith,novalid 'abolition' takesandwhatever r'abolition'isdone,isvoidabinitio.Ther reisaninvalid d'abolition'aswherethere eismerely a chan of nomen nge nclature of po ositions, or w where claims o economy a belied by the existence of ample of are e funds. Indeed,therei isnosuchthin ngasanabsoluterighttoho oldoffice.Exceptconstitutio onalofficesw whichprovidef forspecial immunityasre egardssalaryandtenure,noonecanbes saidtohavean nyvestedrigh htinanofficeo oritssalary. oOo BAND DAv.ERMITA A GRNo.16662 G 2020April2 2010LEONARDODEC CASTRO,J. thePresiden ntmay,byexe ecutiveoradm ministrativeord der,directthereorganizatio onofgovernme ententitiesunderthe ExecutiveDepa E artment.Thisi isalsosanction nedundertheConstitution,a aswellasothe erstatutes. Thepresid dentialpowertoreorganizeagenciesando officesinthee executivebranchofgovernm mentissubjecttothe conditionthat c tsuchreorganizationiscarr riedoutingood dfaith.Ifther reorganization nisdoneingoo odfaith,theab bolitionof posit tions,whichre esultsinlossof fsecurityofte enureofaffecte edgovernmentemployees,w wouldbevalid.. Petitionerscha P aracterizethe eiractionasaclasssuitfiled dontheirownbehalfando onbehalfofal lltheircoemployeesat theNationalPrintingOffice(NPO)assailin t ngtheconstit tutionalityofE ExecutiveOrderNo.378issuedbyPresid dentGloria MacapagalArr M royoremoving gtheexclusiv vejurisdictionofNPOover theprintings servicesrequir rementsofgo overnment agencies and instrumentalities and allo a owing governm ment agencie and instrum es mentalities to source their printing o servicesfromp s privatesectorsthroughcom r mpetitivebidd ding. Perceiving Executive Order No. 378 as a threat to t P r their security of tenure as employees o the NPO, P s of Petitioners contendthat: (1)itisbeyon c ndtheexecuti ivepowersof fPresidentAr rroyotoamen ndorrepealExecutiveOrde erNo.285 issuedbyform merPresidentAquinowhen nthelatterstil llexercisedle egislativepow wers;and(2)E ExecutiveOrde erNo.378 violatespetitio v onerssecurity yoftenure,be ecauseitpavesthewayforthegradualab bolitionofthe eNPO. ISSUES:
101|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 1. Wheth heranExecutiveOrderissu uedbyPGMAa amendorrepe ealanexecutiv veorderissue edbyPresiden ntAquino. 2. Wheth hertheissuan nceofExecutiv veOrderNo. 378wouldlea adtotheeven ntualabolition noftheNPOa andwould violatethesecurity yoftenureofN NPOemployee es.
HELD: H PetitionDENI P IED ThePresident T tmaybyanE ExecutiveorA Administrativ veorderdire ectreorganiza ationofgove ernmententit tiesunder theExecutive t eDepartment t. Itisundispute edthattheNP PO,asanagenc cythatispart toftheOfficeofthePressS Secretary(whi ichinvarioustimeshas beenanagenc b cydirectlyatta achedtotheO OfficeofthePr ressSecretary yorasanagen ncyunderthePhilippineIn nformation Agency),ispar A rtoftheOffice eofthePresid dent. Pertinenttoth P hecaseatbar, ,Section31oftheAdministrativeCodeo of1987quote edaboveautho orizesthePre esident(a) to t restructure the internal organization of the Office of the Presid e dent Proper, i including the immediate O Offices, the PresidentSpec P cialAssistants s/AdvisersSy ystemandtheCommonSta affSupportSys stem,byabolishing,consol lidatingor mergingunits thereofortra m ansferringfun nctionsfromo oneunittoano other,and(b) )totransferfu unctionsorof fficesfrom theOfficeofth PresidenttoanyotherDe t he o epartmentorAgencyinthe eExecutiveBranch,andvice eversa. Concomitant t such powe to abolish, merge or consolidate offices in the Of C to er ffice of the Pr resident Prop and to per transferfuncti t ions/officesnotonlyamong gtheofficesin ntheOfficeof fPresidentPr roperbutalsotherestofth heOfficeof thePresidenta t andtheExecu utiveBranch,t thePresidentimplicitlyhasthepowertoeffectlessrad dicalorlesssu ubstantive changestothe c efunctionalan ndinternalstr ructureofthe eOfficeofthe President,inc cludingthem modificationof ffunctions ofsuchexecut o tiveagenciesa astheexigenci iesoftheserv vicemayrequi ire. Inthecaseatb bar,therewasneitherana abolitionoftheNPOnorar removalofany yofitsfunctio onstobetran nsferredto another agenc Under th assailed Executive Order No. 378, t a cy. he the NPO rem mains the mai printing ar of the in rm government f all kinds of governme forms an publication but in the interest of greater econ g for ent nd ns e nomy and encouragingefficiencyandprofitability,i e itmustnowcompetewitht theprivatese ectorforcertaingovernmen ntprinting jobs, with the exception of election para f aphernalia wh hich remains the exclusive responsibilit of the NPO together e ty O, with the Bang Sentral ng Pilipinas, as the Commission on Elect w gko g s tions may det termine. At m most, there was a mere alterationofth a hemainfuncti ionoftheNPO Obylimitingtheexclusivity yofitsprinting gresponsibilit tytoelectionforms. Theissuanceo T ofExecutiveO OrderNo.378 8byPresident tArroyoisan nexerciseofa adelegatedleg gislativepowe ergranted bytheaforem b mentionedSect tion31,Chapt ter10,TitleII II,BookIIIof theAdminist trativeCodeo of1987,which hprovides forthecontinu f uingauthority yofthePresid denttoreorga anizetheOffic ceofthePresi ident,inorde ertoachieves simplicity, economyand efficiency.T e Thisisamatte eralreadywe ellentrenched dinjurisprude ence.Thereo organizationo ofsuchan officethroughexecutiveora o administrativ veorderisalso orecognizedintheAdminis strativeCodeof1987.Secti ions2and 3,Chapter2,T 3 TitleI,BookIII IofthesaidCo odeprovides Sec. 2 Executive Orders. Acts of the Preside providing for rules of a general or p 2. ent g a permanent ch haracter in implementatio onorexecutio onofconstitutionalorstatut torypowerss shallbepromu ulgatedinexec cutiveorders. .
102|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Sec. 3 Administrat 3. tive Orders. Acts of the President wh hich relate to particular as spects of gove ernmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administ o o trative head shall be prom mulgated in administrativ orders. ve (Emphasessup ( pplied.) To T be very cle this deleg ear, gated legislativ power to r ve reorganize pe ertains only to the Office of the Presiden and the o f nt departments, officesandag d genciesofthe eexecutivebranchanddoe esnotincludetheJudiciary y,theLegislatu ureorthe constitutionall c lycreatedor mandatedbod dies.Moreov ver,itmustbe estressedthat ttheexercise bythePresid dentofthe power to reor p rganize the executive dep e partment mus be in accor st rdance with t Constitut the tion, relevant laws and prevailingjurisprudence. p Statedalternatively,thepre S esidentialpow wertoreorgan nizeagencies andofficesin theexecutive ebranchofgo overnment issubjecttoth heconditiont thatsuchreor rganizationis carriedoutin ngoodfaith. Ifthereorgan nizationisdon neingood faith,theaboli f itionofpositio ons,whichres sultsinlossof fsecurityofte enureofaffect tedgovernmentemployees, ,wouldbe valid. v oOo
Eligibility,Qualifications E s&Disqualif ifications

RAMONL.L LABO,Jr.v.COMELECandROBERTOORTEGA G.R.No o.105111. 3July1992 BIDIN N,J.
Whether or no the candida whom the majority vote for can or cannot be ins W ot ate ed stalled, under no circumstan nces can a minorityordef m featedcandida atebedeemed delectedtothe eoffice. citizenshipand c d/orLabo'salienagethe veryessencew whichstrikesa attheverycor reofpetitione erLabo'squalif ificationto assumethecon a ntestedoffice, hebeingana alienandnota aFilipinocitiz zen.Thefactt thathewaselectedbythem majorityof theelectoratei t isofnomomen nt PetitionerRam P monLabo,Jr.( (Labo),believi ingtheheisaFilipinocitize enlaunchedhi iscandidacyf formayorofB BaguioCity byfilinghisCe b ertificateofCandidacy.Priv vateRespondentRobertoO Ortega(Ortega a)filedadisq qualificationp proceeding against Labo b a before Commission on Elec ctions (COME ELEC) on the g ground that L Labo made a false represen ntation by statingthatLa s aboisanatur ralborncitize enofthePhili ippines.Petit tionerOrtega submitsthat sincethisCou urtdidnot issueatemporaryrestraini ingorderasr regardstheMay9,1992re esolutionofre espondentCom meleccancelli ingLabo's certificateofc c candidacy,said dresolutionh hasalreadybecomefinalandexecutory.O Ortegafurther rpositstheviewthatas aresultofsuchfinality,thecandidaterec a ceivingthenexthighestnum mberofvotes sshouldbede eclaredMayor rofBaguio City. C ISSUE: WhetherLaboiseligiblefor W rcandidacyasMayorofBag guioCity HELD: H PetitionDENI P IED
103|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Theresolution T ncancellingLa abo'scertificateofcandidac cyonthegrou undthatheisn notaFilipinocitizenhaving gacquired finalityonMay f y14,1992con nstrainsUstoruleagainsth hisproclamati ionasMayoro ofBaguioCity. Tobeginwith, T ,oneofthequ ualificationso ofanelective officialisthat themustbea acitizenofthePhilippines. .Thus,the LocalGovernm tCodeprovides: L men o Sec.39.Qu ualifications. (a)Anelecti ivelocalofficialmustbeac citizenoftheP Philippines;ar registered voterinthebarangay,m municipality,c city,orprovin nceor,inthec caseofamem mberofthesan ngguniang panlalawig gan, sangguniang panlungs sod, sangguni iang bayan, the district w where he inten to be nds elected;ar residentthere einforatleastone(1)yeari immediatelyp precedingthedayoftheele ection;and abletoread dandwriteFi ilipinooranyotherlocallan nguageordial lect.(emphasi issupplied) Undoubtedly, petitionerLab U bo,notbeinga aFilipinocitiz zen,lacksthe fundamental qualificationf forthecontes stedoffice. Philippinecitiz P zenshipisanindispensable erequirement tforholdinga anelectiveoffi ice.Asmandatedbylaw:"A Anelective localofficialm mustbeacitize enofthePhilip ppines." Theissuehere T eiscitizenshipand/orLab bo'salienage theveryes ssencewhich strikesatthe verycoreof petitioner Labo'squalific L cationtoassu umethecontestedoffice,he ebeinganalie enandnota Filipinocitize en.Thefactth hathewas electedbythemajorityofth e heelectorateisofnomoment This brings us to the secon issue raise by petition Ortega,i.e whether the disqualification of petitio T s nd ed ner e., oner Labo entitlesthecandidate(Orte e ega)receiving thenexthigh hestnumbero ofvotestobep proclaimedas sthewinning candidate formayorofB f BaguioCity. Ortegawillno O otsucceedLabosofficebe eingasecondplacerintheelection Weholdinthe W enegative.Th hedisqualifica ationofpetitionerLabodoesnotnecess sarilyentitlep petitionerOrtegaasthe candidatewith c hthenexthigh hestnumbero ofvotestopro oclamationastheMayorofBaguioCity.. WhileOrtegam W mayhavegarn neredtheseco ondhighestnu umberofvote esfortheoffic ceofcitymayo or,thefactrem mainsthat hewasnotthe h echoiceofthe esovereignwill.Petitioner Labowasove erwhelmingly votedbytheelectoratefor rtheoffice ofmayorinthebeliefthath o hewasthenqu ualifiedtoserv vethepeopleofBaguioCity yandhissubs sequentdisqu ualification doesnotmake d erespondentO Ortegathema ayorelect.Thi isistheimpor rtoftherecen ntcaseofAbell lav.Comelec( (201SCRA 253[1991]),w 2 whereinwehe eldthat: While it is true that SPC No. 88546 w originally a petition to deny due cou C was y urse to the cer rtificate of candidacyo ofLarrazabalandwasfiledbeforeLarraz zabalcouldbe eproclaimed,t thefactremain nsthatthe localelectio onsofFeb.1,1 1988inthepr rovinceofLey yteproceededwithLarrazab balconsidered dasabona fide candid date. The voters of the prov vince voted for her in the si r incere belief t that she was a qualified a candidatef forthepositio onofgovernor r.Hervoteswa ascountedandsheobtained dthehighest numberof votes. The net effect is t that petitioner lost in the e election. He w repudiated by the elect was torate. . . . Whatmatt tersisthatint theeventaca andidateforan nelectedposit tionwhoisvotedforandwh hoobtains thehighest tnumberofvo otesisdisquali ifiedfornotpossessingthe eligibilityrequ uirementsatt thetimeof theelection nasprovided bylaw,theca andidatewho obtainsthese econdhighest numberofvotesforthe samepositi ioncannotass sumethevacat tedposition.(e emphasissupp plied) Thus,whilere T espondentOrt tega(GRNo.1 105111)origin nallyfiledadi isqualification ncasewiththeComelec(do ocketedas SPA92029) s S seeking to de due cours to petitione (Labo's) candidacy, th same did n deter the people of eny se er's he not BaguioCityfro B omvotingforpetitionerLa abo,who,byth hen,wasallow wedbythere espondentCom melectobevo otedupon, theresolutionforhisdisqua t alificationhav vingyettoatta ainthedegree eoffinality(Se ec.78.Omnibu usElectionCode).
104 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Itistherefore incorrecttoa arguethatsin nceacandidat tehasbeendi isqualified,th hevotesintend dedforthedi isqualified candidate sho c ould, in effect, be considere null and v , ed void. This would amount t disenfranch to hising the ele ectorate in whom sovereignty resides. At the risk of being rep w petitious, the people of Ba aguio City op pted to elect petitioner Labobonafide L e,withoutany yintentiontom misapplytheir rfranchise,an ndinthehone estbeliefthatL Labowasthen nqualified tobetheperso t ontowhomth heywouldent trusttheexer rciseofthepowersofthego overnment.Unfortunately, petitioner Laboturnedou L uttobedisqu ualifiedandcan nnotassumet theoffice. Whetherorno W otthecandida atewhomthe majorityvote edforcanor cannotbeinstalled,under nocircumstan ncescana minorityorde m efeatedcandid datebedeeme edelectedto theoffice.Sur rely,the12,60 02votescast forpetitioner rOrtegais notalargernumberthant n the27,471vot tescastforpetitionerLabo o(ascertified dbytheElectionRegistrar ofBaguio City;rollo,p.109;GRNo.10 C 05111). Therulewould T dhavebeend differentiftheelectorateful llyawareinfa actandinlawofacandidate e'sdisqualifica ationsoas to t bring such awareness within the realm of notoriet would non w ty, netheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible n e candidate. In such case, th electorate may be said to have wa c he d aived the vali idity and efficacy of their votes by r notoriouslymisapplyingthe n eirfranchiseo orthrowinga awaytheirvot tes,inwhichc case,theeligib blecandidate obtaining thenexthighernumberofv t votesmaybed deemedelecte ed. Asaforesaid,t A theineligibilit tyofacandida atereceivingm majorityvotesdoesnotent titlethecandi idatereceivin ngthenext highestnumbe h erofvotestobedeclaredelected.Ortega afailedtosatisfythenecess saryrequisiteofwinningth heelection eitherbyama e ajorityormere epluralityofv votessufficien nttoelevateh himinpublico officeasmayorofBaguioCity.Having lostintheelec ctionformayo or,petitionerO Ortegawasob bviouslynotth hechoiceofth hepeopleofBa aguioCity. Asaconseque A enceofpetitio oners'ineligib bility,aperma anentvacancy yinthecontes stedofficehas soccurred.Th hisshould nowbefilledb n bythevicema ayor,inaccord dancewithSec c.44oftheLo ocalGovernme entCode,tow wit: Chapter2.Vacanciesand dSuccession Sec.44.Pe ermanentVaca anciesintheO Officesofthe Governor,Vic ceGovernor, MayorandVi iceMayor. (a)Ifap permanentva acancyoccurs intheofficeo ofthegoverno orormayor,th hevicegover rnororthe vicemayor rconcernedshallbecomethe egovernoror mayor....(em mphasissuppl lied) oOo BIENVE ENIDOO.MAR RQUEZ,JR.,v v.COMELECan ndEDUARDO OT.RODRIGU UEZ GRN N11288918 8April1995 VITUG,J.:
Beforethe199 B 92elections,P PetitionerBien nvenidoMarquez(Marquez z),acandidate efortheelectivepositionof fGovernor in the Provin of Quezon filed a pet nce n tition for can ncellation of against priva respondent Eduardo R ate Rodriguez (Rodriguez)on ( ntheground ofRodriguezdisqualificat tionforbeing allegedlyafu ugitivefromju ustice.Marquezalleged thatsinceRod t driguezfiledh hiscertificate ofcandidacy, acriminalch hargeagainst himforten(1 10)countsof insurance fraudorgrand f dtheftofpersonalproperty ywasstillpen ndingbeforeth heMunicipalC CourtofLosA AngelesJudicia alDistrict, CountyofLosAngeles,State C eofCalifornia a,U.S.A.andth hatawarrant issuedbysaid dcourtforRo odriguezarres standitis claimed, has y to be serv on accoun of his alleg "flight" fr c yet ved nt ged rom that coun ntry. The peti ition was dism missed by COMELECand C dfiledaMotion nforQuoWar rrantobutwas sdismissed.H Hence,thispet titionforcerti iorari. ISSUES:
105|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 1. Wheth herResponde entRodriguezisdisqualified dfrombeinga acandidateby yholdinganel lectiveoffice 2. Wheth a crimina charge bef her al fore a foreign court at the time of filin a Certifica of Candidacy up to n e ng ate procla amationcome eswithintheterm
HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED,CaseREMANDED. Petitioner's po P osition is pers spicuous and to the point. The law, he asseverates, needs no furt ther interpret tation and construction. S c Section 40(e) of Republic A No. 7160, is rather cle he submit and it disq Act , ear, ts, qualifies "fugit tives from ju usticeincrim minalornonpoliticalcases hereorabroa ad"fromseek kinganyelecti ivelocaloffice e.TheSolicito orGeneral, takingtheside t eofpetitioner,expressesa alikeopinionandconclude esthattheph hrase"fugitive efromjustice e"includes notonlythose n ewhofleeafte erconvictiontoavoidpunishmentbutlik kewisethosew who,afterbein ngcharged,fle eetoavoid prosecution.T p Thisdefinitiontrulyfindssu upportfromju urisprudence. The T Oversight Committee evidently ent t tertained serio apprehen ous nsions on the possible con e nstitutional in nfirmity of Section40(e) ofRepublicA S ActNo.7160if fthedisqualif ficationtherei inmeantwere etobesotak kenastoembr racethose whomerelyw w werefacingcrim minalcharges s.Asimilarcon ncernwasexp pressedbySenatorR.A.V.Saguisagwhod duringthe bicameralconferencecomm b mitteeoftheSe enateandthe eHouseofRep presentatives,madethisres servation:"xx xxdeipa refinelangnat r tin'Yunglangu uageespeciall ly'Yung,thescopeoffugitiv ve.Medyobot theredakodoo on,a." The T Oversight Committee finally came o with Article 73 of the Rules and R t f out e Regulations Im mplementing the Local GovernmentC G Codeof1991.I Itprovided: "Art.73.Disqu " ualifications. Thefollowin ngpersonssha allbedisquali ifiedfromrun nningforany electivelocal position:" (a)xxxxxxxxx ( "(b) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad. Fug " r gitive from jus stice refers to a person o whohasbeenconvictedbyf w finaljudgmen nt."'Italicssup pplied) Privaterespon P ndentremindsusthatthe construction placedupona alawbytheo officialsincha argeofitsenf forcement deserves great and conside d erable weight (Atlas Conso olidated Minin and Develo ng opment Corp. vs. CA, 182 S SCRA 166, 181). The Cou certainly agrees; howev when there clearly is n obscurity a ambiguity in an enabling law, it 1 urt a ver, no and y must merely b made to apply as it is so written. An administr m be s rative rule or regulation can neither ex r xpand nor constrict the l c law but must remain cong t gruent to it. T Court bel The lieves and thu holds, albe with some personal us eit e reservations o the ponente (expressed during the Co r of e ourt's en ban deliberation that Artic 73 of the Rules and nc ns), cle RegulationsIm R mplementingt theLocalGov vernmentCodeof1991,to theextenttha atitconfines theterm"fug gitivefrom ju ustice"torefe eronlytoape erson(thefugi itive)"whoha asbeenconvic ctedbyfinalju udgment,"isaninordinatea andundue circumscriptio c onofthelaw. oOo FRIVAL LDOv.COMEL LEC G.R.No.120295 28June1996 PANGANI 6 IBAN,J.
106 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts unlikeinnatur u ralizationwhe ereanaliencovetsafirsttim meentryintoP Philippinepoli iticallife,inre epatriationthe eapplicant is saformernat turalbornFilip pinowhoisme erelyseekingt toreacquirehispreviousciti izenship. decisions decla d aring the acqu uisition or den of citizens nial ship cannot go overn a perso future status with finality. This is on's becauseapers b sonmaysubse equentlyreacq quire,orforthatmatterlose e,hiscitizenshipunderanyo ofthemodesr recognized bylawforthep b purpose citizenshipreq c quirementinth heLocalGover rnmentCodei istobepossess sedbyanelectiveofficialat thelatestaso t ofthetime heisproclaime h edandatthes startoftheter rmofofficetow whichhehasb beenelected. Privaterespon P ndentJuanG.Frivaldo(Friv valdo)filedhis sCertificateo ofCandidacyfo ortheofficeo ofGovernorof fSorsogon 1995elections 1 s.PetitionerR RaulR.Lee(Le ee),anotherca andidate,filed dapetitionwiththeComele ecprayingtha atFrivaldo "be " disqualifie from seeki or holding any public office or pos ed ing sition by reason of not yet being a citiz of the t zen Philippines," a P and that his Certificate of Candidacy b cancelled.T Motion fo Reconsider be The or ration filed by Frivaldo y remainedunac r cteduponunt tilaftertheMa ay8,1995ele ections.So,his scandidacyco ontinuedandh hewasvotedforduring theelectionsh t heldonsaiddate.OnMay1 11,1995,theC Comelecenba ancaffirmedt theaforement tionedResolut tionofthe SecondDivisio S on.TheProvin ncialBoardofCanvassersco ompletedthecanvassofthe eelectionretu urnsandaCer rtificateof Votesshowing V gthatmajority yofvotesare einfavorofFr rivaldo.Leef filedapetition nprayingforh hisproclamat tionasthe dulyelectedG d GovernorofSo orsogon.Friva aldoallegedth hatonJune30 0,1995hetook khisoathofa allegianceasa acitizenof the t Philippine and that his petition fo Naturalization has been granted so h is qualified to hold off es or he fice as the GovernorofSo G orsogon.TheS SupremeCour rtgrantedthePetitionbutw wasassailedb byLee.Hence,thispetition. ISSUES: 1. Wheth hertherepatr riationofFriv valdocuredth helackofcitiz zenshipasto qualifyhimtobeproclaim medandto holdt theOfficeofGo overnorasitr retroactsfrom mthedayoffil ling
2. IsFriv valdo'sdisqua alificationforl lackofFilipino ocitizenshipb beconsidered dresjudicata HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED Frivaldosrep F patriationret troactsfromt thedayoffilin ngoftheCert tificateofCan ndicacy Under Philippine law, citize U enship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization or by rep patriation. Frivaldo told this Court in G.R. No. 104654 and during the oral a F argument in th case that he tried to re his esume his citizenshipbydirectactofC c Congress,butthatthebilla allowinghimt todoso"failed dtomaterialize,notwithsta andingthe endorsement of several me e embers ofthe Houseof Rep presentatives"due, accordi to him, to ing othe "maneuv vers of his political rivals In the same case, his att p s." tempt at natu uralization wa asrejected by this Court be ecause of jurisdictional, substantialandprocedurald s defects. Despite his la of Philipp D ack pine citizensh hip, Frivaldo was overwh helmingly elec cted governor by the elec ctorate of Sorsogon, with a margin of 27,000 votes in the 1988 elections, 57 S h f s 8 7,000 in 1992, and 20,000 in 1995 over the same r opponent Rau Lee. Twice, he was judic o ul cially declared a nonFilipino and thus twice disqual d lified from ho olding and discharginghispopularman d ndate.Now,hecomestous sathirdtime,withafreshv votefromthepeopleofSorsogonand afavorabledecisionfromth a heCommission nonElections stoboot.More eover,henow wboastsofhav vingsuccessfu ullypassed throughtheth t hirdandlastm modeofreacq quiringcitizen nship:byrepa atriationunde erP.D.No.725 5,withnolessthanthe
107|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts SolicitorGeneralhimself,w S whowasthepr rimeopposing gcounselinth hepreviousc caseshelost,t thistime,ascounselfor corespondent c tComelec,arg guingthevalid dityofhiscaus se(inaddition ntohisablep privatecounse elSixtoS.Brill lantes,Jr.). Thathetookh T hisoathofalle egianceunder rtheprovision nsofsaidDec creeat2:00p.m.onJune30 0,1995isnot tdisputed. Hence,heinsis H ststhathen notLeeshou uldhavebeen proclaimeda asthedulyele ectedgovernorofSorsogon nwhenthe ProvincialBoa P ardofCanvassersmetat8:30p.m.onth hesaiddatesince,clearlya andunquestio onably,hegar rneredthe highestnumbe h erofvotesint theelectionsa andsinceatth hattime,healr readyreacqui iredhiscitizen nship.. Philippinecitizenshipisan indispensablerequiremen P ntforholding anelectivepublicoffice,33 311andthep purposeof the t citizenship qualification is none other than to en p n nsure that no alien, i.e., no person owing allegiance t another to nation,shallgovernourpeo n opleandour countryorau unitofterrito orythereof.No ow,anofficial lbeginstogovernorto dischargehisf d functionsonly yuponhispro oclamationan ndonthedayt thelawmand dateshisterm ofofficetobe egin.Since Frivaldoreass F sumedhisciti izenshiponJu une30,1995 theveryday ythetermofo officeofgover rnor(andothe erelective officials) bega o anhe was therefore alre eady qualified to be procla d aimed, to hol such office and to disc ld e charge the functions and responsibiliti thereof as of said date. In short, at that time, he was already qualified to g f ies s . govern his nativeSorsogo n on.Thisistheliberalinterp pretationthat shouldgivespirit,lifeand meaningtoou urlawonqua alifications consistentwiththepurpose c eforwhichsuchlawwasen nacted.Sotoo, ,evenfromaliteral(asdist tinguishedfro omliberal) construction,i c itshouldbeno otedthatSect tion39oftheL LocalGovernm mentCodespe eaksof"Qualifications"of"ELECTIVE OFFICIALS,"notofcandidat O tes.Whythenshouldsuchq qualificationb berequiredat tthetimeofelectionoratt thetimeof thefilingofth t hecertificates ofcandidacie es,asLeeinsis sts?Literally, suchqualifica ationsunle essotherwise expressly conditioned,a c asinthecase ofageandres sidenceshouldthusbe possessedwh henthe"electi ive[orelected d]official" begins to gove b ern, i.e., at th time he is proclaimed a at the sta of his term in this c he and art m case, on June 30, 1995. Paraphrasing this Court's ruling in Vasq P r quez vs. Giapa Li Seng Giap & Sons,33 if the pur and 333 rpose of the c citizenship requirement is to ensure th our peopl and countr do not end up being gov r hat le ry verned by alie ens, i.e., perso owing ons allegiance to a a another natio that aim o purpose would not be t on, or thwarted but instead achie eved by const truing the citizenshipqua c alificationasa applyingtothetimeofproc clamationofth heelectedoffi icialandatthe estartofhiste erm. TheeffectofF T Frivaldosrep patriationretroactedtothedateofhisf filingofappli ication Thereisyetan T notherreason nwhytheprim meissueofcitizenshipshou uldbereckone edfromtheda ateofproclam mation,not necessarilythe date of elec n ctionordate o filingof the of ecertificate o ofcandidacy.S Section 253 o ofthe Omnibu Election us Codegivesany C yvoter,presu umablyinclud dingthedefeat tedcandidate e,theopportunitytoquesti iontheELIGIB BILITY(or thedisloyalty) t )ofacandidat te.Thisistheo onlyprovision noftheCodet thatauthorize esaremedyonhowtocont testbefore theComeleca t anincumbent'sineligibility arisingfrom failuretomeetthequalific cationsenume eratedunder Sec.39of theLocalGove t ernmentCode e.Suchremed dyofQuoWar rrantocanbe availedof"w withintendays safterproclam mation"of thewinningca t andidate.Hen nce,itisonlya atsuchtimet thattheissue ofineligibility ymaybetake encognizance eofbythe Commission. A since, at the very mom C And ment of Lee's proclamation (8:30 p.m., June 30, 1995 Juan G. Friv n 5), valdo was alreadyandin a ndubitablyaci itizen,havingtakenhisoat thofallegianceearlierinth heafternoono ofthesameda ay,thenhe should have b s been the cand didate procla aimed as he u unquestionabl garnered t highest n ly the number of vot in the tes immediatelyp precedingelec ctionsandsuc choathhadal lreadycuredh hisprevious" "judiciallydec clared"alienage.Hence, atsuchtime,h a hewasnolong gerineligible. Buttoremove B ealldoubtson nthisimporta antissue,wea alsoholdthat ttherepatriat tionofFrivald doRETROACT TEDtothe dateofthefilin d ngofhisappli icationonAug gust17,1994. Itistruethat undertheCiv vilCodeofthe ePhilippines,"(l)awsshall lhavenoretr roactiveeffect t,unlessthec contraryis provided."But p tthereareset ttledexception nstothisgene eralrule,such haswhenthes statuteisCUR RATIVEorREM MEDIALin natureorwhenitCREATESNEWRIGHTS n S. Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 108 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whileitistrue W ethatthelawwasalreadyi ineffectatthe etimethatFrivaldobecame eanAmerican ncitizen,never rtheless,it isnotonlythe elawitself(P.D D.725)which histobegiven nretroactivee effect,buteven ntherepatriationgrantedu undersaid la awtoFrivaldo oonJune30,1995istobedeemedtoha averetroacted dtothedateo ofhisapplicati iontherefor,A August17, 1994. The rea 1 ason for this is simply that if, as in this case, it was t intent of t legislative authority tha the law the the e at shouldapplyt s topasteventsi.e.,situationsandtransactionsexistin ngevenbeforethelawcam meintobeing inorder to t benefit the greatest nu e umber of form Filipinos possible the mer s ereby enablin them to e ng enjoy and exe ercise the constitutionall guaranteed right of citiz c ly d zenship, and such legislati intention is to be given the fullest effect and ive n expression, th there is all the more r e hen a reason to hav the law ap ve pply in a retr roactive or re etrospective m manner to situations,eve s entsandtransactionssubsequenttothep passageofsuc chlaw.Thatis s,therepatriat tiongrantedtoFrivaldo onJune30, 19 o 995canands shouldbemad detotakeeff fectasofdate eofhisapplic cation.Asearl liermentioned,thereis nothinginthe lawthatwou n uldbarthisorwouldshowacontraryint tentiononthe epartofthele egislativeauth hority;and there is no sh t howing that damage or pre ejudice to any yone, or anyth hing unjust or injurious wo r ould result fr rom giving retroactivity t his repatriation. Neither has Lee sho r to r own that ther will result the impairm re ment of any co ontractual obligation,dist o turbanceofan nyvestedrigh htorbreachof fsomeconstit tutionalguaranty. Basedonthef B foregoing,any yquestionreg gardingFrival ldo'sstatusas saregistered voterwoulda alsobedeeme edsettled. Inasmuch as h is consider as having been repatriatedi.e., his Filipino citiz he red s zenship restor as of A red August 17, 1994,hisprev 1 viousregistrat tionasavoterislikewisede eemedvalidat tedasofsaidd date. ItisnotdisputedthatonJa anuary20,198 83FrivaldobecameanAm merican.Would dtheretroact tivityofhisre epatriation not n effectively give him dual citizenship which under Sec. 40 of t Local Gov y p, the vernment Code would disqu ualify him "fromrunning " gforanyelect tivelocalposi ition?"Weans swerthisque estioninthen negative,asth hereiscogent reasonto holdthatFriva h aldowasreallySTATELESSatthetimehetooksaidoa athofallegianceandevenb beforethat,wh henheran for f governor i 1988. In his Comment, Frivaldo wro that he "h long reno in h ote had ounced and had long abandoned his Americancitiz A zenshiplong gbeforeMay8 8,1995.Atbest,Frivaldow wasstatelessin ntheinterim whenhea abandoned andrenounced a dhisUScitizenshipbutbefo orehewasrep patriatedtohisFilipinocitizenship." Acquisitionor A rdenialofcit tizenshipcann notgovernap personsfutu urewithfinali ity Itshouldbenotedthatour firstrulingin nG.R.No.871 193disqualify yingFrivaldow wasrenderedinconnection nwiththe 1988elections 1 swhilethatin nG.R.No.104 4654wasinco onnectionwit ththe1992el lections.That hewasdisqu ualifiedfor suchelectionsisfinalandca s annolongerb bechanged.In nthewordsoftherespondentCommission(SecondDivision)in it tsassailedResolution:5555 5 Indeed,decisio onsdeclaringtheacquisitio onordenialof fcitizenshipca annotgovernaperson'sfut turestatuswithfinality. Thisisbecauseapersonma T aysubsequen ntlyreacquire, ,orforthatm matterlose,his scitizenshipu underanyoft themodes recognizedbylawforthepu r urpose.Hence e,inLeevs.Co ommissionero ofImmigration n,weheld: "Everytimethecitizenship ofapersonis " smaterialori indispensableinajudicialo oradministra ativecase,wha ateverthe corresponding c gcourtoradm ministrativeau uthoritydecid desthereinastosuchcitizenshipisgener rallynotconsideredres ju udicata,hence eithastobet threshedouta againandagain,astheoccas siondemands s." ROBLES,A R oOo
IM MELDAROMUA ALDEZMARC COSv.COMMISSIONONEL LECTIONSandCIRILOROY YMONTEJO
109|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts G.R.No.119976 18Sep ptember1995 5 Toeffectanab T bandonmentre equiresthevol luntaryactofrelinquishingM Marcos'sform merdomicilewithanintentt tosupplant theformerdom t micilewithone eofherownch hoosing. ImeldaRomua aldezMarcos (Marcos)filed dherCertifica ateofCandida acyforthepo ositionofRep presentativeoftheFirst DistrictofLey D yteonMarch8 8,1995.Marco osstatedinIt tem8ofherc certificatethat tshehadresidedinthecon nstituency whereshesou w ughttobeelectedforsevenmonths. CiriloRoyMon C ntejo(Montejo o),theincumb bentRepresen ntativeoftheF FirstDistricto ofLeyteanda acandidatefor rthesame position,filed aPetitionfor p rCancellation andDisqualif ficationwith theCommissi iononElectio ons(COMELEC C)alleging thatMarcosdi t idnotmeetth heconstitution nalrequiremen ntforresidency. Meanwhile,Ma M arcosfiledanAmended/Co orrectedCertif ficateofCandi idacy,changin ngtheentry"s seven"monthsto"since childhood"in itemno.8oft c theamended certificate. Marcosaverred dthattheentr ryoftheword d"seven"inhe eroriginal Certificate of C C Candidacy wa the result o an "honest misinterpret as of t tation"which she sought t rectify by a to adding the words "since childhood" in her Amende w n ed/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy an that "she has always m f nd maintained TaclobanCityasherdomicileorresidenc T ce. The Second D T Division COME ELEC found t that the disqu ualification is meritorious. The COMEL s LECen bancd denied the motion for re m econsideration declaring her not qual lified to run for the pos sition of Mem mber of the House of RepresentativesfortheFirs R stLegislativeD DistrictofLey yte. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otMarcoswas saresident,f forelectionpu urposes,ofthe eFirstDistric ctofLeytefor aperiodofoneyearat thetimeofthe t eMay9,1995elections. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Residence, in its ordinary conception, im R mplies the fac ctual relation nship of an individual to a certain place It is the e. physicalprese p enceofaperso oninagivena area,commun nityorcountry y.Theessentialdistinctionbetweenresidenceand domicileinlaw d wisthatresid denceinvolves stheintenttoleavewhenth hepurposeforwhichthere esidenthastak kenuphis abodeends.On a nemayseeka aplaceforpur rposessuchaspleasure,bu usiness,orhea alth.Ifaperso on'sintentbet toremain, it tbecomeshis sdomicile;ifh hisintentist toleaveassoo onashispurp poseisestabl lisheditisres sidence.Itist thus,quite perfectlynorm p malforanindividualtohav vedifferentre esidencesinv variousplaces s.However,a personcanon nlyhavea single domicil unless, for various reasons, he succe s le, essfully aband dons his domicile in favor of another domicile of choice.InUyte c engsuvs.Republic,theCourt tlaidthisdisti inctionquitec clearly: There is a differen between d e nce domicile and residence. "R Residence" is used to indic cate a place o of abode e,whetherper rmanentorte emporary;"do omicile"denot tesafixedper rmanentresid dencetowhich, when absent, one has the intention of return h ning. A man m have a re may esidence in one place and a domic cileinanother r.Residenceisnotdomicile e,butdomicil leisresidence ecoupledwit ththeintentio on torem mainforanun nlimitedtime. Amancanha avebutonedomicileforth hesamepurpo oseatanytim me, but he may have numerous pla n aces of reside ence. His plac of residence is generally his place o ce of domic cile,butitisn notbyanyme eansnecessari ilysosinceno olengthofres sidencewitho outintentiono of remai iningwillcons stitutedomicile.
110 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Forpoliticalpurposestheconceptsofres F sidenceandd domicilearedi ictatedbythe epeculiarcrite eriaofpolitica allaws.As theseconcepts t shaveevolved dinourelectionlaw,whath hasclearlyan ndunequivoca allyemergedis sthefactthatresidence forelectionpu f urposesisused dsynonymous slywithdomicile. It is the fact o residence, not a stateme in a certif of ent ficate of cand didacy which ought to be d decisive in de etermining whetherorno w otandindividu ualhassatisfie edtheconstit tution'sreside encyqualificat tionrequirem ment.Thesaidstatement becomesmate b erialonlywhenthereisora appearstobeadeliberatea attempttomis slead,misinfor rm,orhideaf factwhich would otherw w wise render a candidate ineligible. It wo ould be plainly ridiculous for a candida to deliber ate rately and knowinglymakeastatemen k ntinacertifica ateofcandidacywhichwou uldleadtohisorherdisqualification. Whatisinesca W apableisthatM Marcosheldv variousresiden ncesfordiffer rentpurposesduringthelas stfourdecade es.Noneof thesepurpose t esunequivoca allypointtoanintentionto oabandonher rdomicileof origininTacl loban,Leyte. Moreover, while Marcos was born in Manila, as a minor she na w aturally follow the domi wed icile of her pa arents. She gr rew up in Tacloban, reac T ched her adu ulthood there and eventual established residence in different pa lly arts of the co ountry for variousreason v ns.Evendurin ngherhusband'spresidency y,attheheigh htoftheMarco osRegime'spowers,Marco oskepther close ties to h domicile of origin by establishing residences in Tacloban, c c her n celebrating he birthdays and other er important per rsonal milesto ones in her h home provinc instituting wellpublici ce, g ized projects for the bene of her efit provinceandh p hometown,an ndestablishingapoliticalpowerbasewh herehersiblin ngsandclose relativesheld dpositions of o power eith through th ballot or b appointme her he by ent, always w with either he influence o consent. Th er or hese well publicizedties p stoherdomic cileoforigina arepartofthe ehistoryandloreofthequa artercenturyofMarcospow werinour country. Eithe they were entirely ignor in the COM c er e red MELEC'S Reso olutions, or th majority of the COMELE did not he f EC knowwhatthe k erestoftheco ountryalways sknew:thefac ctofMarcos'sdomicileinT Tacloban,Leyte e. Privaterespon P ndentinhisComment,cont tendsthatTac clobanwasno otMarcos'sdo omicileoforig ginbecausesh hedidnot li ivethereunti ilshewaseightyearsold.H Heaversthat tafterleavingtheplacein 1952,she"ab bandonedher residency (sic) therein f many year and . . . (co ( for rs ould not) ree establish her domicile in s said place by merely expre essing her intentiontoliv vethereagain n."TheCourtd doesnotagree e. First, minor fo F ollows the dom micile of his p parents. As do omicile, once acquired is r retained until a new one is gained, it follows that in spite of the fact of Marc f n e cos's being born in Manila Tacloban, L a, Leyte was her domicile of origin by r operationofla o aw.Thisdomi icilewasnote establishedon nlywhenherf fatherbroughthisfamilyba acktoLeytecontraryto privaterespon p ndent'saverm ments. Second,domic S cileoforiginisnoteasilylo ost.Tosuccessfullyeffecta achangeofdo omicile,onem mustdemonstr rate:1.An actualremova a aloranactual lchangeofdo omicile;2.Ab bonafideinten ntionofaband doningthefor rmerplaceof residence andestablishin a nganewone;and3.Actsw whichcorrespo ondwiththep purpose. In the absenc of clear an positive pr ce nd roof based on these criter the reside n ria, ence of origin should be d n deemed to continue. Only with eviden showing concurrence o all three req c y nce of quirements ca the presum an mption of con ntinuity or residenceber r rebutted,fora achangeofres sidencerequir resanactuala anddeliberate eabandonmen nt,andoneca annothave two legal resid t dences at the same time.38In the case at bench, the evidence add e duced by priv vate responde plainly ent la acksthedegreeofpersuasi ivenessrequir redtoconvinc cethiscourtt thatanabandonmentofdomicileoforigi ininfavor of o a domicile of choice indeed occurre To effect an abandonm ed. ment requires the voluntar act of reli s ry inquishing Marcos'sform domicile with anintentto supplant t formerdo M mer w the omicile with o of her own choosing (d one domicilium voluntarium). v oOo AGAPITO OA.AQUINOv v.COMMISSIO ONONELECTIONS, MOVEMA AKATI,MATE EOBEDONan ndJUANITOIC CARO G.R.No.120265 18Sep ptember1995 5
111|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Domicileoforig D iginisnoteasilylost.Tosucc cessfullyeffect tachangeofd domicile,Aquin nomustproveanactualrem movaloran actualchange ofdomicile;abonafideinte a entionofaban ndoningtheformerplaceof residenceand f destablishing anewone and a definiteac swhichcorrespondwithth ct e hepurpose. On O March 20, 1995, Aquino Agapito A Aquino (Aq A. quino) filed his Certificate of Candida for the position of acy Representative forthe new SecondLegis R w slative Distric of MakatiC ct City. Amongot thers, Aquino stated in Item of his m8 certificatethat c thehadreside edinthecons stituencywher rehesoughtt tobeelectedfo orten(10)mo onths. OnApril24,1995,MoveMa O akati,adulyregisteredpoli iticalparty,an ndMateoBedon(Bedon),C Chairmanofth heLAKAS NUCDUMDPo N ofBarangayCembo,MakatiCity,filedapetitiontodisq qualifyAquinoonthegroun o ndthatthelat tterlacked the residence qualification as a candid t e n date for cong gressman wh hich, under S Section 6, Art. VI of the 1987 the Constitution,s C shouldbefora aperiodnotle essthanone(1)yearimmed diatelypreced dingtheMay8 8,1995electio ons. A A day after sa petition fo disqualifica aid or ation was filed; Aquino file another ce ed ertificate of ca andidacy ame ending the previouscertif p ficate.Thistim me,Aquinosta atedinItem8 8thathehadr residedinthe econstituency ywherehesoughttobe electedforone e e(l)yearandthirteen(13)days. Afterhearingo A ofthepetition nfordisqualifi ication,theSecondDivision noftheComm missiononElec ctions(COMEL LEC)ruled infavorofAqu uino.Meanwh hile,onMay8,1995,election nswereheld.InMakatiCity ywherethree e(3)candidate esviedfor thecongressio t onalseatinthe eSecondDistr rict,Aquinoga arneredthirty yeightthousandfivehundr redfortyseven n(38,547) votes as again another candidate, Agu v nst usto Syjuco, w obtained thirty five th who housand nine hundred ten (35,910) e n votes. v On O May 10, 1 1995, private respondents Move Makat and Bedon filed an Urgent MotionAd Cautelumto Suspend ti d o Proclamation of Aquino. CO P OMELECen ba ancissued an Order suspen nding Aquino's proclamatio It also rev on. versed the resolutionoftheSecondDiv r vision. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otAquinowas saresidentfor raperiodofo oneyearinthe eareanowencompassedby ytheSecondL Legislative DistrictofMak D katiatthetime eofhiselectio on HELD: H Petit P ionDISMISSED. The Court ag T grees with COMELEC's co C ontention tha in order that Aquino could qualif as a cand at fy didate for RepresentativeoftheSecon R ndDistrictof MakatiCityth helatter"mus stprovethath hehasestablishednotjust residence butdomicile o choice.The Constitution requires tha a person se b of at eeking electio to the Hou of Representatives on use should be are s esidentof thedistrictin whi he seeks election for a period of no less than on (l) year pr ich a ot ne rior to the ele e ctions.Residence,forele ectionlawpur rposes,hasas settledmeanin nginourjurisdiction. ralTribunalo the House of Representat of of tives this Cour rtheld thatth heterm "resid dence" hasalw ways been InCo v.Elector understood as synonymous with "domi u s icile" not only under the previous Con y nstitutions but also under the 1987 Constitution. C Clearly,thepla C ace"wherea partyactually yorconstruct tivelyhashis permanentho ome,"where he,nomatter rwherehe may m be found at any given time, event d n tually intends to return an remain,i.e., his domicile, is that to w s nd which the Constitution r C refers when it speaks of r i residence for the purpose of election law. The ma es anifest purpo of this ose deviation from the usualco d m onceptions of residency in law as explai ined inGallego vs.Verais"t excludestr o to rangersor newcomers unfamiliar wit the condit n th tions and nee eds of the community" fr rom taking a advantage of favorable
112|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts circumstances existing in that commun c s t nity for electo oral gain. Wh there is n hile nothing wron with the p ng practice of establishingre e esidenceina givenareafor rmeetingelec ctionlawrequ uirements,thi isnonetheless sdefeatsthee essenceof representation which is to place throug the assent of voters thos most cogni r n, gh se izant and sensitive to the n needs of a particular dist p trict, if a candidate falls sh hort of the p period of resid dency manda ated by law fo him to qua or alify. That purpose could be obviously best met by individuals who have eit p d y y ther had actu residence in the area fo a given ual or periodorwho p ohavebeendo omiciledinth hesameareae eitherbyorig ginorbychoic ce.Itwould,th herefore,beim mperative forthisCourtt f toinquireinto othethresholdquestionastowhetheror rnotAquinoa actuallywasaresidentfora aperiodof one o year in th area now encompassed by the Secon Legislative District of M he e nd e Makati at the time of his e election or whetherornothewasdomiciledinthesa w ame. Asfoundbyth A heCOMELECe enbancAquinoinhisCertif ficateofCandi idacyfortheM May11,1992elections,ind dicatednot onlythathew o wasaresidento ofSanJose,Co oncepcion,Ta arlacin1992b butthathewa asaresidento ofthesamefor52years immediately p preceding that election.At the time, his certificate ind t dicated that h was also a registered vo he oter of the same district.His birth cer s rtificate places Concepcion, Tarlac as th birthplace of both of his parents Ben s , he nigno and Aurora.Thus, from data fur A rnished by Aq quino himself to the COME f ELEC at vario times during his politic career, ous cal whatstandsconsistentlyclearandunassailableistha w atthisdomicil leoforiginof recordupto thetimeoffilingofhis mostrecentce m ertificateofca andidacyforth he1995electionswasConc cepcion,Tarlac c. Aquino'sallegedconnection A nwiththeSeco ondDistrictofMakatiCityi isanallegedle easeagreementofcondomi iniumunit inthearea.AstheCOMELEC C,initsdisput tedResolution nnoted: The intention not to establish a permanen home in M h nt Makati City i evident in his leasing a is ominium unit instead of bu uying one. Wh a lease co hile ontract maybe indicative o respondent of t's condo intent tion to reside in Makati Cit it does not engender th kind of per ty t he rmanency req quired to prov ve aband donmentofon ne'soriginaldomicileespecia allysince,by itsterms,itis sonlyforape eriodoftwo(2 2) years, and respond , dent Aquino h himself testifi that his in ied ntention was really for only one (l) yea ar becau usehehasothe er"residences" "inManilaorQuezonCity. Whilepropert W tyownershipi isnotandsho ouldneverbe anindiciaoft therighttovo oteortobevotedupon,thefactthat Aquinohimsel A lfclaimsthath hehasotherr residencesinM MetroManilacoupledwith htheshortlen ngthoftimehe eclaimsto bearesidento b ofthecondom miniumunitin nMakati(and thefact,ofhi isstateddomi icileinTarlac) )"indicatetha atthesole purposeof(Aq p quino)intran nsferringhisp physicalresidence"isnotto oacquire'sne ewresidenceo ordomicile"b butonlyto qualifyasacan q ndidateforRe epresentativeoftheSecond dDistrictofMa akatiCity."Th heabsenceofc clearandposi itiveproof showing a su s uccessful aban ndonment ofdomicileunde the condit er tions stated a above, the lack of identifi ication sentimental,actualorother s rwisewith thearea,andthesuspiciou uscircumstanc cesunderwhi ichtheleasea agreement waseffecteda w allbelieAquino'sclaimofre esidencyforth heperiodrequiredbytheC Constitution,i intheSecond Districtof Makati.AstheCOMELECenbancemphaticallypointedout: M [T]he lease agreem ment was executed mainly to support t one year residence req the quirement as a fication for a candidate o Representa a of ative, by esta ablishing a c commencemen date of h nt his qualif reside ence. If a perf fectly valid le ease agreemen cannot, by itself establish; adomicile choice, th nt eof his partic cularleaseagr reementcanno otdobetter. Moreover,his assertiontha M athehastrans sferredhisdomicilefromTa arlactoMaka atiisabareas ssertionwhich hishardly supported by the facts in the case at b s bench.Domici ileof origin is not easily lost. To succe s essfully effect a change ofdomicile,Aq o quinomustpr roveanactual removaloranactualchangeofdomicile e;abonafideintentionofab bandoning theformerpla t aceofresidenc ceandestabli ishinganewo oneanddefini iteactswhich hcorrespondw withthepurpose.These requirements are hardly met by the evi r m idence adduced in support of Aquino's claims of a c t change ofdom micilefrom TarlactotheS T SecondDistric ctofMakati.In ntheabsence ofclearandp positiveproof f,thedomicile eoforiginbed deemedto continuerequirementsare hardlymetby c ytheevidence eadducedins supportofAquino'sclaims ofachangeo ofdomicile fromTarlacto f otheSecondD DistrictofMak kati.Intheabs senceofcleara andpositivep proof,thedom micileoforiginshouldbe deemedtocon d ntinue.
113|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts FRA ANCISCOM.L LECAROZand dLENLIEv.SA ANDIGANBAY YANandPEOP PLEOFTHEP PHILIPPINES G.R R.No.130872 March1999 25M Where holdove provision is found, the o W er s office does not become vaca upon the expiration of the term if t t ant f there is no successorelect s tedandqualif fiedtoassumeit,butthepre esentincumbe entwillcarry overuntilhis successoriselectedand qualified,eventhoughitbeb q beyondtheterm mfixedbylaw w. PetitionerFran P nciscoM.Leca aroz(Francisc co)wastheMu unicipalMayo orofSantaCru uz,Marinduqu ue,whilehisson,hisco petitionerLen Lecaroz (L p nlie Lenlie), wast outgoing c the chairman ofth Kabataang he gBarangay (K of Baranga Bagong KB) ay Silang, Munici S ipality of San Cruz, and concurrently a member of its Sanggu nta y uniang Bayan (SB) represe enting the FederationofK F KabataangBa arangays. lectionforthe eKabataangB BarangayJowilRed(Red)w wonasKBCh hairmanofBarangayMatala aba,Santa Inthe1985el Cruz. Sometim in Novem C me mber 1985 Re was appoin ed nted by then President Fe erdinand Mar rcos as memb of the ber Sangguniang B S Bayan of Sant Cruz repres ta senting the K of the municipality.Ho KBs owever, his ap ppointment has not yet beencleared. b Meanwhile,Ma M ayorLecarozpreparedand dapprovedon ndifferentdatesthepaymen nttoLenlieof ftwentysix(2 26)setsof payrollsforthetwentysix( p (26)quincenas scoveringthe eperiod16Jan nuary1986to o30January1987. On25October O r1989,orthr ree(3)yearsa andnine(9)m monthsfromt thedatehere eceivedhisappointmentpa apersfrom PresidentMar P rcos,Redwasf finallyabletosecurefromt theAquinoAd dministrationaconfirmatio onofhisappoi intmentas KBSectoralRe K epresentativetotheSanggu ianBayanof un fSantaCruz. Subsequently, Red filed with the Office of the Omb S w budsman sev veral criminal complaints against Fran l ncisco and Lenlie.Afterpreliminaryinv L vestigation,th heOmbudsma anfiledwitht theSandiganb bayanthirteen n(13)Inform mationsfor estafa through falsification of public doc e h cuments again petitioners and one (1) Information for violation of Sec. 3, nst s, n n par.(e),ofRA p ANo.3019,the eAntiGraftandCorruptPr racticesAct,a againstFranci iscoalone.TheSandiganbayanfound thetwo(2)ac t ccusedguiltyo onallcountso ofestafathrou ughfalsificationofpublicd documents.Ho owever,with respectto thechargeofv t violatingSec.3 3,par.(e),ofR RANo.3.019,F Franciscowas sacquitted. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otRedfailedt toqualifyasK KBsectoralrep presentativetotheSBsince ehedidnotpr resentanauth henticated copyofhisapp c pointmentpap persandneith herdidhetake eavalidoathofoffice HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Theconceptofholdoverwh T henappliedto oapublicoffic cerimpliestha attheofficeh hasafixedterm mandtheinc cumbentis holdingontothesucceeding h gterm.Itisus suallyprovidedbylawthatofficerselecte edorappointe edforafixedtermshall remaininoffic r cenotonlyfor rthattermbu utuntiltheirsu uccessorshav vebeenelectedandqualifie ed.Wherethisprovision is found, the office does no become va ot acant upon th expiration of the term i there is no successor elected and he if qualified to as q ssume it, but the present i incumbent wi carry over until his succ ill cessor is elected and quali ified, even thoughitbebe t eyondtheterm mfixedbylaw w. hBPBlg.51d doesnotsayth hataSanggun nianmemberc cancontinuet tooccupyhis postafter Intheinstant case,although theexpiration t nofhistermin ncasehissuccessorfailsto oqualify,itdo oesnotalsosa aythatheisp proscribedfromholding over.Absenta o anexpressorimpliedconst titutionalorst tatutoryprovi isiontothecontrary,anoffi icerisentitled dtostayin
114 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts officeuntilhissuccessorisa o appointedorc chosenandha asqualified.Thelegislativeintentofnota allowingholdovermust beclearlyexpr b ressedoratle eastimpliedin nthelegislativ veenactment;otherwiseiti isreasonabletoassumetha atthelaw makingbodyf m favorsthesam me. wabhorsava acuuminpubl licoffices,[an ndcourtsgene erallyindulgeinthestrong gpresumption nagainsta Indeed,thelaw enttocreate,b bystatute,ac conditionwhic chmayresultinanexecutiv veoradministrativeofficeb becoming, legislativeinte for f any period of time, wh d holly vacant o unoccupied by one lawf or d fully authoriz to exercis its function This is zed se ns. founded onob f bvious considerations of pu ublic policy, f the princip of holdove for ple eris specificallyintended t prevent to public conven p nience from su uffering because of a vaca ancyand to av void a hiatus in the performance of go overnment functions. f The T Sandiganb bayan mainta ained that by taking his oat of office be th efore Assemblywoman Rey in 1985 R validly yes Red assumedthep a presidencyof theKBupon theexpiration noftheterm ofLenlie.Its shouldbenot tedhowevert thatunder the t provisions of the Admi s inistrative Code then in fo orce, specifica Sec. 21, A VI thereof members of the then ally Art. f, f BatasangPambansawerenotauthorizedtoadminister B roaths.Itwas sonlyafterth heapprovalofRANo.6733on25July f 1989anditss 1 subsequentpu ublicationina anewspapero ofgeneralcirc culationthatm membersofbothHousesof fCongress were vested fo the first tim with the g w or me general autho ority to admin nister oaths.C Clearly, under this circums r stance, the oath of office taken by Jow Red before a member of the Batasan Pambansa w had no a o wil e ng who authority to a administer oaths,wasinvalidandamou o untedtonooa athatall. Tobesure,an T noathofoffice eisaqualifyingrequireme entforapubli icoffice;apre erequisitetot thefullinvest titurewith theoffice.Only t ywhenthepu ublicofficerh hassatisfiedtheprerequisiteofoaththa athisrightto enterintoth heposition becomesplena b aryandcomp plete.Untilthen,hehasno oneatall.And dforaslonga ashehasnot qualified,the eholdover officer is the rightful occu o upant.It is th clear in t present case that since Red never qualified for the post, hus the petitioner Len remained KB represen p nlie ntative to the Sanggunian, albeit in a carry over capa acity, and was in every s aspecta de ju a ureofficer, or at least ad factoofficer[17]entitled t receive th salaries an all the em r de r to he nd moluments appertainingt a totheposition n.Assuch,he ecouldnotbe econsidereda anintruderan ndliablefore encroachment tofpublic office. o oOo LEONG.M MAQUERAv.J JUANBORRA A,CESARMIRA AFLOR,andG GREGORIOSA ANTAYANA,in ntheirrespe ective capac citiesasChair rmanandMe embersofthe eCommission nonElection ns, an ndtheCOMM SIONONE MIS ELECTIONS G.R.No.L24 4761,L24828 8 7Septemb ber1965 Property qual P lifications are inconsistent with the na e ature and ess sence of the Republican sy ystem ordained in our Constitutionan C ndtheprincipl leofsocialjusticeunderlying gthesame. RepublicActN R No.4421was enactedwhichrequires"al llcandidatesf fornational,p provincial,city yandmunicip paloffices" to t post a sure bond equivalent to the oneyear sala or emolum ety ary ments of the position to w which he is a c candidate, which bond shall be forfeited in favor of the nation provincial, city or mun w nal, nicipal govern nment concerned if the candidate,exc c ceptwhendec claredwinner r,failstoobta ainatleast10%ofthevote escastforthe eofficetowhi ichhehas filedhiscertifi f icateofcandid dacy,therebei ingnomoreth hanfour(4)candidatesforthesameoffic ce. IncompliancewithsaidRep publicActNo.4421,theCom mmissiononElectionshad,onJuly20,1965,decidedtorequire allcandidatesforPresident, a ,VicePresident,Senatoran ndMemberoftheHouseofR Representativ vestofileasuretybond, byabondingc b companyofgo oodreputatio on,acceptable totheComm mission,inthe sumsofP60,0 000.00andP4 40,000.00, for President and VicePresident, respectively, an P32,000.00 for Senato and Mem f t nd or mber of the House of Representatives; R
115|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Inconsequenc ceofsaidRep publicActNo. 4421andthe eaforementio onedactionof ftheCommiss siononElectio ons,every candidate has to pay the pr c remium charg by bondin companies and, to offer thereto, eith his own p ged ng s, r her properties, worth,atleast w t,theamount ofthesurety bond,orprop pertiesofthe sameworth,b belongingtoo otherpersonswillingto accommodatehim,bywayo a ofcounterbon ndinfavorofsaidbondingcompanies; ISSUE: Whetherorno W otRepublicAc ctNo.4421im mposespropertyqualificatio ons HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. The T effect of said Republic Act No. 442 is, therefor to prevent or disqualif from runni for Presid c 21 re, t fy ing dent, Vice President,Sen P natororMemb beroftheHou useofReprese entativesthos sepersonswh ho,althoughh havingthequa alifications prescribed by the Constitution therefore cannot file the surety bond aforemen p y e, ntioned, owin to failure t pay the ng to premiumchar p rgedbythebondingcompan nyand/orlack koftheprope ertynecessary yforsaidcoun nterbond RepublicActN R No.4421has,l likewise,thee effectofdisqualifyingforpr rovincial,cityormunicipale electiveoffice es,persons who,although w hpossessingth hequalificatio onsprescribed dbylawthere efor,cannotpaysaidpremi iumand/ordo onothave the t property e essential for the aforement t tioned counte erbond; That said Republic Act No. 442 has, accord 21 dingly, the effectofimpos e singpropertyqualifications sinorderthat tapersoncou uldrunforapublicofficean ndthatthepeo oplecould validlyvoteforhim; v Thesaidpropertyqualificationsareinco T onsistentwith hthenaturea andessenceoftheRepublic cansystemor rdainedin ourConstitutio o onandtheprincipleofsoci ialjusticeund derlyingthesa ame,forsaidp politicalsystem mispremised duponthe tenet that sov t vereignty resides in the pe eople and all government a authority ema anates from t them, and this, in turn, impliesnecess sarilythattherighttovoteandtobevot tedforshallnotbedepende entuponthew wealthofthe individual concerned,wh c hereassocialjusticepresup pposesequalo opportunityfo orall,richand dpooralike,andthat,accor rdingly,no personshall,b p byreasonofpo overty,beden niedthechanc cetobeelectedtopublicoff fice. oOo CIVILLIBERTIESUNION Nv.THEEXEC CUTIVESECRE ETARY G.R.No.83896,83815 5 22February1991 2 The T prohibition imposed on thePresident tand his official family isth herefore allem mbracing and covers both p d public and privateofficeo p oremployment t. On O July 25, 19 987,President Corazon C. Aquino (Aquino) issued E Executive Order No. 284. T Two (2) petitions were consolidated s c seeking a dec claration of unconstitutionality. Petition ners maintain that the Exe ecutive Order which, in effect, allows members of the Cabinet, their underse e ecretaries and assistant se d ecretaries to h hold other go overnment offices or pos o sitions in add dition to their primary pos r sitions, albeit subject to th limitation therein impo t he osed, runs counter to Sec c ction 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. It is a e alleged that th constitutional provision prohibits he n publicrespond p dents,asmem mbersoftheC Cabinet,along withtheothe erpublicoffic cialsfromhold dinganyothe erofficeor employmentd e duringtheirte enure. Petitionersfur P rtherargueth hattheexcept tiontothepro ohibitioninSection7,par. (2),ArticleI XBontheCiv vilService Commissionap C ppliestoofficersandemplo oyeesoftheCivilServicein ngeneralandt thatsaidexcep ptionsdonotapplyand cannotbeexte c endedtoSection13,Article eVIIwhichap ppliesspecific callytothePr resident,VicePresident,Membersof theCabinetan t ndtheirdeputi iesorassistan nts.
116 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ISSUE: Whetherorno W ottheprohibi itioninSectio on13,Article VIIofthe198 87Constitutio oninsofarasC Cabinetmemb bers,their deputies or as d ssistants are concerned ad c dmit of the br road exception made for a ns appointive off ficials in gene eral under Section7,par.(2),ArticleIX S XB HELD: H PetitionsGRANTED. P What is indee significant is the fact th although Section 7, Article IXB alre W ed hat eady contains a blanket prohibition s against the ho a olding of mult tiple offices o employmen in the gove or nt ernment subs suming both e elective and a appointive public officials the Constitu p s, utional Comm mission should see it fit to formulate an d nother provisi ion, Sec. 13, A Article VII, specifically pr s rohibiting the President, V VicePresident, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assist , f , tants from holdinganyot h therofficeore employmentd duringtheirte enure,unlesso otherwisepro ovidedintheC Constitutionit tself. Evidently, from this move as well as in the different phraseologies of the const E m a s titutional prov visions in que estion, the intentofthefr ramersoftheConstitutionw wastoimpose eastricterpro ohibitiononth hePresidenta andhisofficia alfamilyin sofarasholdin s ngotheroffice esoremploym mentinthegovernmentore elsewhereisc concerned. Itisquitenota ablethatinpr rovisionsond disqualificationstoholdoth herofficeore employment,t theprohibitionpertains toanofficeoremploymentinthegovernm t mentandgove ernmentowne edorcontrolledcorporationsortheirsub bsidiaries. In striking con ntrast is the wording of Se w ection 13, Article VII which states that " h "(T)he Preside VicePres ent, sident, the Membersofth M heCabinet,and dtheirdeputiesorassistan ntsshallnot,un nlessotherwiseprovidedin nthisConstitu ution,hold anyotheroffic a ceoremploym mentduringth heirtenure."Inthelatterpr rovision,thed disqualificatio onisabsolute,notbeing qualified by th phrase "in the Governm q he n ment." The pr rohibition imposed on the President an his official family is e nd l thereforealle t embracingand dcoversbothp publicandpri ivateofficeoremployment. . GoingfurtherintoSection1 G 13,ArticleVII,thesecondse entenceprovid des:"Theysha allnot,during gsaidtenure,d directlyor indirectly,practiceanyothe erprofession, participatein nanybusiness s,orbefinanc ciallyintereste edinanycont tractwith, or o in any fran nchise, or special privilege granted by t Governme or any sub the ent bdivision, age ency or instru umentality thereof, including governm t mentowned or controlled corporation or their subsidiaries." These swee d ns eping, all embracingpro e ohibitionsimp posedontheP Presidentandhisofficialfam mily,whichpr rohibitionsarenotsimilarly yimposed onotherpubli o icofficialsor employeessu uchastheMem mbersofCongress,membe ersofthecivil lserviceinge eneraland membersofth m hearmedforc ces,areproof oftheintent ofthe1987C Constitutiont totreatthePr residentandh hisofficial familyasaclas f ssbyitselfand dtoimposeup ponsaidclass sstricterproh hibitions. Thus, while al other appoi T ll intive officials in the civil s s service are al llowed to hold other office or employm d e ment in the governmentduringtheirten g nurewhensu uchisallowedbylaworby theprimaryf functionsofth heirpositions, ,members oftheCabinet o t,theirdeputiesandassista antsmaydos soonlywhen expresslyaut thorizedbyth heConstitutionitself.In other words, S o Section 7, Art ticle IXB is m meant to lay d down the gene eral rule appl licable to all e elective and a appointive public officials and employ p s yees, while Se ection 13, Ar rticle VII is m meant to be th exception applicable on to the he nly President,theVicePresident,Memberso P oftheCabinet t,theirdeputie esandassistan nts. Thisbeingthe T ecase,thequa alifyingphras se"unlessoth herwiseprovid dedinthisCo onstitution"in nSection13,A ArticleVII cannot possibly refer to th broad exceptions provid under Sec c he ded ction 7, Articl IXB of the 1987 Consti le e itution. To construe said qualifying ph c hrase as resp pondents wou have us d would ren uld do, nder nugatory and meanin y ngless the manifestinten m ntandpurpose eoftheframe ersoftheCons stitutiontoim mposeastricte erprohibition nonthePresid dent,Vice President,Mem P mbersoftheC Cabinet,their deputiesandassistantswi ithrespectto holdingother rofficesorem mployment in the govern nment during their tenure. Respondent interpretat . ts' tion that Sect tion 13 of Ar rticle VII adm of the mits exceptionsfou e undinSection7,par.(2)ofArticleIXBw wouldobliteratethedistinct tionsocareful llysetbythef framersof the Constitution as to whe the highr t en ranking officials of the Ex xecutive Bran from the President to Assistant nch
117|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Secretary,ont S theonehand, ,andthegene eralityofcivil servantsfrom mtherankim mmediatelybel lowAssistant Secretary t downwards,ontheother,mayholdanyo herofficeorpositioninth d m ot hegovernmentduringtheirtenure. Moreover, res M spondents' re eading of the provisions in question w e would render certain par of the Co r rts onstitution inoperative.Th hisobservatio onappliespar rticularlytoth heVicePresid dentwho,unde erSection13ofArticleVIIisallowed to t hold other office or emp ployment whe so authorized by the Co en onstitution, but who as an elective pub official n blic under Sec. 7, p (1) of Ar u par. rticle IXB is a absolutely ine eligible "for ap ppointment or designation in any capac to any n city public office or position during his ten p d nure." Surely, to say that the phrase "unless other rwise provide in this ed Constitution" found in Sec C ction 13, Article VII has reference to S Section 7, par (1) of Article IXB wou render r. uld meaningless the specific pr m rovisions of th Constitutio authorizing the VicePresident to become a memb of the he on ber Cabinet,15and C dtoactasPresidentwithou utrelinquishin ngtheVicePr residencywhe erethePresid dentshallnotn navebeen 6 chosenorfails c stoqualify.16Suchabsurd consequence ecanbeavoid dedonlybyin nterpretingthe etwoprovisionsunder consideration as one,i.e., Se c ection 7, par. (1) of Article IXB providing the genera rule and th other,i.e., S e al he Section 13, Article VII as constituting the exception thereto. In the same ma A n anner must Se ection 7, par. (2) of Articl IXB be . le construedvisa c avisSection1 13,ArticleVII. . Sincetheevide S entpurposeo oftheframersofthe1987C Constitutionis stoimposeastricterprohibitiononthe President, VicePresident members of the Cabinet their deput V t, o t, ties and assist tants with re espect to hold ding multiple offices or employment i the govern e in nment during their tenure the exception to this pr g e, rohibition mu be read w ust with equal severity.Onits s sface,thelan nguageofSecti ion13,Article eVIIisprohib bitorysothati itmustbeund derstoodasin ntendedto beapositivea b andunequivoc calnegationoftheprivilege eofholdingm multiplegovern nmentofficesoremployme ent.Verily, whereverthe languageused w dintheconst titutionisproh hibitory,itis tobeunderst toodasintend dedtobeapo ositiveand unequivocal n u negation. The phrase "un nless otherwise provided in this Con nstitution" mu be given a literal ust n interpretation to refer only to those par n y rticular instan nces cited in the Constitut tion itself, to wit: the Vice President being appoint as a member of the Ca b ted abinet under S Section 3, par (2), Article VII; or acting as Presiden in those r. g nt instancesprov videdunderSection7,pars.(2)and(3),A ArticleVII;an nd,theSecreta aryofJusticeb beingexoffici iomember oftheJudicialandBarCoun o ncilbyvirtueo ofSection8(1),ArticleVIII. The prohibitio against holding dual o multiple o T on or offices or em mployment un nder Section 13, Article V of the VII Constitutionm C mustnot,howe ever,beconst truedasapply yingtopostsoccupiedbytheExecutiveof fficialsspecifiedtherein withoutadditi w ionalcompens sationinanex xofficiocapac cityasprovide edbylawandasrequiredby ytheprimary yfunctions ofsaidofficials o s'office.Ther reasonisthatt thesepostsdo onocomprise e"anyotherof ffice"withinth hecontemplat tionofthe constitutional prohibition but are properly an impo c b osition of add ditional duties and functions on said officials.To s characterize t c these posts ot therwise wou lead to ab uld bsurd conseq quences, amon which are The Preside of the ng e: ent Philippines ca P annot chair th National Se he ecurity Counc reorganized under Exec cil d cutive Order N 115 (Dece No. ember 24, 1986).Neither 1 rcantheVicePresident,th heExecutiveSecretary,andtheSecretarie esofNational lDefense,Just tice,Labor and a Employment and Local Government sit in this Co l t ouncil, which would then h have no reaso to exist for lack of a on r chairpersonan c ndmembers.T Therespectiveundersecret tariesandassi istantsecretar ries,wouldals sobeprohibit ted. Indeed,thefra amersofourC Constitutioncouldnothave eintendedsuc chabsurdconsequences.A Constitution, viewedas a a continuously operative charter of go c overnment, is not to be in nterpreted as demanding the impossib or the s ble impracticable; ;andunreason nableorabsur rdconsequences,ifpossible e,shouldbeav voided. Inthelightoft theconstructi iongiventoSection13,Art ticleVIIinrela ationtoSectio on7,par.(2),A ArticleIXBof fthe1987 Constitution, E C Executive Ord No. 284 dated July 23, 1987 is unco der onstitutional. O Ostensibly res stricting the n number of positions that Cabinet mem p t mbers, unders secretaries or assistant se r ecretaries may hold in add y dition to their primary positiontonot p tmorethantw wo(2)positionsinthegove ernmentandg governmentco orporations,E ExecutiveOrde erNo.284 actuallyallows a sthemtohold dmultipleoffi icesoremploy ymentindirec ctcontraventi ionoftheexpr ressmandateofSection 13, 1 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting them from d I 7 n doing so, unle otherwise provided in the 1987 ess e Constitutionit C tself. oOo
118 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts FERDINANDTRINIDAD Dv.COMMISS SIONONELEC CTIONSandM MANUELC.SU UNGA G.R.No.135716 23Sep ptember1999 9 Indeed,remova I alcannotexte endbeyondthe etermduring whichthealle egedmiscondu uctwascomm mitted.Ifapub blicofficial is snotremoved dbeforehister rmofofficeexp pires,hecanno olongerberem movedifheisthereafterree electedforano otherterm. Manuel C. Sun (Sunga), one of the can M nga o ndidates for t position o Mayor in th Municipalit of Iguig, Pr the of he ty rovince of Cagayan,inth C heMay8,1995elections,filedwiththeC Commissiono onElections(C COMELEC)tw wo(2)letterscomplaint for f disqualific cation against Ferdinand B Trinidad (T t B. Trinidad), the incumbent m mayor who w a candida for re was ate electioninthe e esamemunic cipality.TheC COMELECSeco ondDivisionr referredthec complainttoi itsLawDepar rtmentfor investigation. Meanwhile, th election re M he esults showed that Trinida garnered the highest nu d ad umber of vote while Sun trailed es, nga second. Sunga moved for the suspensio of the proc s a t on clamation of Trinidad.How wever, notwithstanding th motion, he Trinidad was proclaimed th elected ma T he ayor, prompti Sunga to file another m ing motion to sus spend the effe ects of the proclamation.Bothmotions p swerenotacteduponbyth heCOMELEC2 2ndDivision. On28June19 O 995theCOME ELECLawDep partmentsubm mitteditsRep porttotheCO OMELECEnBa ancrecommen ndingthat Trinidad be c T charged in co ourt for violating several penal provi l isions of the Omnibus Election Code. The Law Department li D ikewise recom mmended the recall and re evocation of t proclamat the tion of Trinid as the du elected dad uly MayorofIguig M g,Cagayan;proclaimSungaasthedulyel lectedMayor,and,directSu ungatotakeh hisoathandassumethe dutiesandfun d nctionsoftheo office. The T COMELEC En Banc app C proved the fin ndings of the Law Departm ment and dire ected the filin of the corre ng esponding information in the Regiona Trial Court against Trini n al idad.The disq qualification c case (SPA No. 95213), on the other . hand, was ref h ferred to the COMELEC Second Division for hearing. In its 17 Ma 1996 Reso n . ay olution, the pe etition for disqualificationwasdismiss d sed.Hefileda amotionforre econsiderationwhichwasd deniedwhich promptedSu ungatofile aninstantpetitioncontendingthattheC a COMELECcom mmittedgrave eabuseofdisc cretionindism missingthepetitionfor disqualification.TheCourtg d grantedthepetitionandor rderedCOMEL LECtoreinsta atethedisqua alificationcase eandhear thesame. t Finally,onJun F ne22,1998,th heCOMELEC 1stDivision(former2ndD Division)prom mulgatedtheR Resolutiondis squalifying Trinidad as a candidate in the May 8, 1995 election On Octobe 13, 1998, the COMELECEn Bancann T n ns. er nulled his proclamationa p asdulyelectedMayorofIgu uig,Cagayanin ntheMay11,1998election ns. Issue: Whetherorno W otTrinidadsp proclamation asMayorund dertheMay1 11,1998elect tionsbecance elledonaccou untof thedisqualificationcasefile t edagainsthim mduringtheM May8,1995ele ections Held: H PetitionPART P TLYGRATED. Thecourtnote T esthatTrinida adstermasM Mayorundert theMay8,199 95electionse expiredonJun ne30,1998.Th hus,when the first ques t stioned Reso olution was i issued by CO OMELEC on June 22, 199 Trinidad was still se 98, erving his term.Howeve t er,bythetime etheMotionfo orReconsider rationofTrinidadwasfiledonJuly3,199 98,thecaseha adalready become moot and academic as his term had already expired.So, t b too, the secon questioned Resolution w nd d which was issuedonOcto ober13,1998,cameatatim mewhenthei issueoftheca asehadalread dybeenrenderedmootand dacademic bytheexpirati b ionofTrinidadschallenged dtermofoffice.
119|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts onElections,thisCourtclea arlypronounc cedthatexpira ationofthech hallengedterm mofoffice InMalaluanv. Commissiono renderstheco r orrespondingp petitionmootandacademic c.Thus: Itiss significantto notethatthe termofoffice eofthelocalo officialselectedintheMay, 1992election ns expire edonJune30 0,1995.Thisp petition,thus, hasbecomem mootandacademicinsofar rasitconcern ns Trinid dadsrighttot themayoralty yseatinhismu unicipality(Am matongv.COM MELEC,G.R.N No.71003,Apr ril 28, 19 988, En Banc, Minute Reso , olution; Artan v. Arcillas, G.R. No. 7682 April 26, 1 no 23, 1988, En Ban nc, Minut teResolution) )becauseexpi irationofthe termofoffice econtestedin ntheelectionp protesthasth he effectofrenderingthesamemoo otandacadem mic(Atienzav. .CommissiononElections,239SCRA298 8; Abejav.Tanada,23 36SCRA60;Yo oracv.Magalo ona,3SCRA76 6). n f on tion case has already become moot, the case being a e an When the appeal from a decisio in an elect electio protest in on nvolving the o office of the m mayor the te erm of which had expired, the appeal is , dismis ssible on that ground, unle the rendering of a deci t ess ision on the m merits would be of practical value (Yorac v. Ma agalona,supra) ).This rule w established in the case of Yorac v. M we d Magalona whic ch dismissed beca ause it had be mooted b the expirat een by tionof theter rmofoffice of the Municipal f wasd Mayor rofSaravia,N NegrosOcciden ntal.xxx.(u underscoring,o ours) Withthecomp W plaintfordisq qualificationofSungarende eredmootand dacademicby ytheexpiratio onofTrinidad dstermof officetherein contested,CO o OMELECactedwithgraveab buseofdiscre etioninproceedingtodisqu ualifyTrinidad dfromhis reelectedterm r mofofficeinit tssecondques stionedResolu utiononthegr roundthatitcomesasam t matterofcours seafterhis disqualification in SPA No. 95213 prom d mulgated after the 1998 election. While it is true th the first q r e hat questioned Resolution wa issued eigh (8) days before the term of Trinidad as Mayor e R as ht m d expired, said R Resolution ha not yet ad attainedfinalityandcould noteffectively a ybeheldtoh haveremoved dTrinidadfromhisoffice.I Indeed,remov valcannot extend beyond the term du e d uring which t alleged m the misconduct wa committed as d.If a public official is not removed t beforehisterm b mofofficeexp pires,hecannolongerbere emovedifheis sthereafterre eelectedforan notherterm. Yetanothergr Y roundtoreversetheCOME ELECsannulm mentofTrinid dadsproclama ationunderth he1998electi ionsisthe undeniablefac u ctthatTrinida adwasnotacc cordeddueprocessinsofarasthisissueis sconcerned.Tobesure,th hiswasnot partofthefirs p stquestionedResolutionw whichonlytou uchedonthe matterraised dinthecompl lainttheMa ay8,1995 elections.Sun e ngamerelypra ayedforthea annulmentof Trinidadsproclamationas swinnerinth he1998electi ionsinhis OppositiontotheMotionfo O orReconsidera ation.Itwasw withgraveabu useofdiscreti ion,then,that ttheCOMELECwenton toannulTrinid t dadsproclam mationaswinn nerofthe1998 8electionswit thoutanyprio ornoticeorhe earingonthem matter. The T fact that d despite the di isqualification case filed ag n gainst Trinida relating to the 1995 elections, he stil won the ad ll mandate of th people for the 1998 el m he r lections, leads us to belie that the e eve electorate tru chose Trin uly nidad and repudiated Su r unga.To allow Sunga, a de w efeated and r repudiated ca andidate, to t take over the mayoralty d despite his rejection by th electorate is to disenfra r he anchise the electorate with hout any fault on their part and to unde t ermine the importancean ndmeaningofdemocracyan f ndthepeoplesrighttoelec ctofficialsoftheirchoice. oOo HENRYP.LAN H NOT,substitu utedbyMARI IOS.RAYMUN NDOand CHARMIEQ Q.BENAVIDES Sv.COMMISS SIONONELEC CTIONSandV VICENTEP.EU USEBIO G.R.No.164858 16No ovember2006 6 Under Section 11 of RA 843 Eusebio bec U 36, came a "cand didate," for pur rposesof Sect tion 80 of the Omnibus Elec ction Code, onlyon23Mar o rch2004,thel lastdayforfili ingcertificates sofcandidacy.. On19March2 O 2004,HenryP P.Lanot(Lanot),VenerObis spo(Obispo),RobertoPeral lta(Peralta),R Reynaldodela aPaz(dela Paz),Edilberto P oYamat(Yam mat),andRam mAlanCruz(C Cruz),filedap petitionfordi isqualification nunderSections68and 80 8 of the Om mnibus Electi ion Code aga ainst Vicente P. Eusebio (Eusebio) be efore the Com mmission on Elections
120 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts (COMELEC) . L ( Lanot, Obispo and Eusebio were candid o, o dates for Pasig City Mayor, while Peralta, dela Paz, Y , Yamat, and Cruzwerecan C ndidatesforPa asigCityCouncilorinthe10 0May2004ele ections. PetitionersallegedthatEusebioengagedinanelection P ncampaigninvariousform msonvariouso occasionsouts sideofthe designatedcam d mpaignperiod d,suchas(1) )addressinga alargegroup ofpeopledur ringamedicalmissionsponsoredby thePasigCity government; (2)uttering defamatoryst t tatementsaga ainstLanot;(3 3)causingthe epublication ofapress release predic r cting his victo ory; (4) instal lling billboard streamers, posters, and stickers prin ds, d nted with his surname s acrossPasigC a City;and(5)d distributingsh hoestoschool lchildreninPa asigpublicsch hoolstoinduc cetheirparen ntstovote forhim. f Acting National Capital Region Regional D g n Director Esme eralda Amora aLadra (Ladra) recomme ended the disqualification of Eusebio. The COMELEC, in a resolution d d dated 5 May 2004, adop pted the find dings and recommendati r ionofDirectorLadra. Meanwhile, CO M OMELEC Chai irman Benjam S. Abalos (Abalos) iss min s sued the first of the three questioned COMELEC t e issuances enjo oining Directo Ladra from implementin the COMEL First Divis or m ng LEC sions 5 May 2004 resoluti ion. On 21 May M 2004, the COMELEC En Banc issue the second questioned issuance liftin and setting aside of the order of e E ed d ng g e suspending th proclamati s he ion of Eusebio. Eusebio w proclaimed as Pasig Ci Mayor. On 20 August 2004, the was ity n COMELECEnB C Bancpromulg gatedthethird dquestionedi issuance.TheCOMELECEnBancinvoked dSection1ofCOMELEC Resolution No 2050 ("Res R o. solution 2050 and this C 0") Courts rulings inAlbaa v COMELEC,L v. Lonzanida v. C COMELEC, andSungav.C a COMELECinju ustifyingthean nnulmentofth heordertodi isqualifyEusebioandthere eferralofthec casetothe LawDepartme L entforprelimi inaryinvestig gation. Issue: Whetherorno W otthechangei inthedeadlin neforfilingthe ecertificateofcandidacym madeEusebio,whofiledhiscertificate ofcandidacyb o before2Janua ary2004,imm mediatelyliabl leforviolation nofSection80oftheOmni ibusElection Codeifhe engaged in ele e ection campai or partisa political activities prior to the start o the campaig period on 24 March ign an of gn 2004 2 Held: H PetitionDISMISSED. P Thereviewof thefactualfindingsofthe COMELEC,as T f swellasthel lawapplicable etothiscase, ,showsthatt thereisno basistodisqua b alifyEusebio.DirectorLadr rarecommend dedthedisqua alificationofE Eusebio"forvi iolationofSec ction80of the Omnibus Election Code." The CO t OMELEC First Division ap t pproved Director Ladras recommenda ation and disqualifiedEu d usebio.Section n80oftheOm mnibusElectio onCodeprovid des: SECTI ION80.Electi ioncampaign orpartisanp politicalactivit tyoutsidecam mpaignperiod d.Itshallb be unlaw wful for any person, wheth or not a v p her voter or candidate, or for any party, or association o r of persons,toengage inanelection ncampaignor rpartisanpol liticalactivity exceptduring gthecampaig gn period d:Provided,Th hatpoliticalp partiesmayho oldpoliticalco onventionsor rmeetingsto nominatethe eir officia candidates within thirty days before t commencement of the campaign period and forty al the y fiveda aysforPresidentialandVic cePresidentia alelection. Thus,theesse T entialelement tsforviolation nofSection80 0oftheOmni ibusElection Codeare:(1) apersonengagesinan electioncampa e aignorpartisa anpoliticalac ctivity;(2)the eactisdesigne edtopromote etheelectiono ordefeatofaparticular candidateorcandidates;(3) c )theactisdon neoutsidethe ecampaignpe eriod. Thesecondele T ementrequire estheexisten nceofa"candi idate."Under Section79(a) ),acandidate isonewho"h hasfileda certificate of c c candidacy" to an elective public office. Unless one h filed his certificate of candidacy, he is not a o has "candidate." T third elem " The ment requires that the cam s mpaign period has not star d rted when the election cam e mpaign or partisanpoliticalactivityiscommitted. p
121|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thereisnodis T sputethatEus sebiosactsof felectioncampaigningorpartisanpolitic calactivitiesw werecommitte edoutside ofthecampaig o gnperiod.The eonlyquestio oniswhether Eusebio,who ofiledhiscert tificateofcand didacyon29 December 2003,wasa"c 2 candidate"wh henhecommit ttedthoseacts sbeforethest tartofthecam mpaignperiodon24March2004. Section11ofR S RepublicActN No.8436("RA A8436")mov vedthedeadlin neforthefilin ngofcertificatesofcandida acyto120 daysbeforeel d lectionday.Th hus,theorigin naldeadlinew wasmovedfrom23March2004to2Jan nuary2004,o or81days earlier. The cr e rucial question is: did this change in the deadline for filing the cer n e r rtificate of can ndidacy make one who e filedhiscertifi f icateofcandid dacybefore2January2004 4immediately yliableforvio olationofSect tion80ifhee engagedin electioncampa e aignorpartisa anpoliticalac ctivitiespriort tothestartofthecampaign nperiodon24 4March2004? ? UnderSection11ofRA843 U 36,theonlypu urposeforthe eearlyfilingof fcertificateso ofcandidacyis stogiveampl letimefor theprintingof t fofficialballots.Thisisclearfromthedel t liberationsoftheBicameral lConferenceC Committee. Thus, because of the early deadline of 2 January 200 for purposes of printing of official ba T e 2 04 g allots, Eusebio filed his o certificate of candidacy on 29 December 2003. Con c n ngress, howev ver, never int tended the fi iling of a cer rtificate of candidacybefo c ore2January y2004tomak ketheperson filingtobeco omeimmediat telya"candida ate"forpurpo osesother thantheprint t tingofballots.Thislegislat tiveintentpre eventstheimm mediateappli icationofSect tion80ofthe eOmnibus ElectionCode tothosefiling E gtomeetthe earlydeadline.Theclearin ntentionofCo ongresswasto opreservethe e"election periodsasxxxfixedbyexistinglaw"priortoRA8436 p 6andthatone ewhofilestom meettheearly ydeadline"w willstillnot beconsideredasacandidat b te." UnderSection U n3(b)oftheO OmnibusElect tionCode,the applicablelaw wpriortoRA A8436,thecam mpaignperiodforlocal officials comm o mences 45 day before elec ys ction day. For the 2004 lo r ocal elections, this puts the start of the campaign e periodon24M p March2004.T Thisalsoputst thelastdayfo orthefilingof fcertificateofcandidacy,un nderthelawp priortoRA 8436,on23M 8 March2004.Eusebioisdeem medtohavef filedhiscertif ficateofcandidacyonthisd dateforpurpo osesother than the print t ting of ballot because this is the interpretation of Section 80 o the Omnibus Election C ts f of Code most favorabletoon f nechargedof fitsviolation. SinceSection n80definesa criminaloffen nse,itsprovisionsmustbe construed li iberally in fav of one ch vor harged of its v violation. Thu Eusebio became a "can us, ndidate" only on 23 March 2004 for h purposesothe p erthantheprintingofballot ts. Acts committe by Eusebi prior to h being a "candidate" on 23 March 2004, even i constituting election A ed io his n if g campaigningo c orpartisanpo oliticalactiviti ies,arenotpu unishableund derSection80 0oftheOmnib busElectionC Code.Such acts are prote a ected as part of freedom of expression of a citizen b before he beco omes a candid date for elect tive public office. Acts co o ommitted by Eusebio on or after 24 Ma E r arch 2004, or during the ca ampaign period, are not co overed by Section80whichpunisheso S onlyactsoutsi idethecampa aignperiod. Basedonthef B findingsofDir rectorLadra, thequestione edactsattribu utedtoEusebi ioalloccurred dbeforethestartofthe campaignperi c iodon24Mar rch2004.Inde eed,Director Ladraapplied dSection80o oftheOmnibu usElectionCod deagainst Eusebioprecis E selybecauseE Eusebiocomm mittedthesea acts"outside" ofthecampa aignperiod.However,Direc ctorLadra erroneouslyas e ssumedthatE Eusebiobecam mea"candidat te,"forpurpos sesofSection80,whenEus sebiofiledhiscertificate ofcandidacyo o on29Decembe er2003. UnderSection U 11ofRA8436,Eusebiobecamea"candi idate,"forpur rposesofSect tion80oftheO OmnibusElec ctionCode, onlyon23Ma o arch2004,the elastdayforfi filingcertificat tesofcandida acy.Applyingt thefactsasf foundbyDirec ctorLadra andaffirmedb a bytheCOMEL LECFirstDivis siontoSecti ion11ofRA8 8436,Eusebio oclearlydidn notviolateSec ction80of the Omnibus Election Cod which requ t de uires the exis stence of a " "candidate," o one who has filed his cer rtificate of candidacy,dur c ringthecomm missionoftheq questionedac cts. oOo
122|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts MARIAJEA ANETTEC.TE ECSONandFE ELIXB.DESID DERIO,JR.,vs s.TheCOMMI ISSIONONEL LECTIONS,RO ONALD ALLANK KELLYPOE(a a.k.a.FERNAN NDOPOE,JR.) )andVICTOR RINOX.FORN NIER G.R.N No.161434,16 61824 3March200 04 Beingpublicd B documents,the edeathcertifi icateofLorenzoPou,them marriagecertifi icateofAllanF.PoeandBe essieKelly, andthebirthc a certificateofF FPJ,constituteprimafaciep proofoftheirc contents. On31Decemb O ber2003,resp pondentRona aldAllanKelly yPoe,alsokno ownasFernan ndoPoe,Jr.(F FPJ),filedhis certificate of o candidacy f the positio of Preside of the Rep for on ent public of theP Philippinesun nder the Koalisyon ng Nag gkakaisang Pilipino(KNP) P )Party,intheforthcomingn nationalelections.Inhisce ertificateofca andidacy,FPJ,representinghimselfto be b a naturalb born citizen of thePhilippin stated his f nes, sname to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, h d hisdate of birthtobe20A b August1939a andhisplaceofbirthtobeManila. VictorinoX.Fo V ornier(Fornie er)filedapet titiontodisqu ualifyFPJandtodenydue courseorto cancelhiscer rtificateof candidacyupo c onthethesisth hatFPJmadeamaterialmi isrepresentati ioninhiscertificateofcand didacybyclaim mingtobe a a naturalborn Filipino citiz when in t n zen truth, accordi to Fornier his parents were foreign ing r, ners; his moth Bessie her, KelleyPoe,wa K asanAmerican n,andhisfath her,AllanPoe,wasaSpanish hnational,bei ingthesonofLorenzoPou,aSpanish f subject.Grant s ting, petitione asseverated that Allan F Poe was a F er d, F. Filipino citizen he could no have transm n, ot mitted his Filipinocitizen F nshiptoFPJ,t thelatterbein nganillegitim matechildofa analienmothe er.Petitioner basedtheall legationof the t illegitimat birth of res te spondent on t two assertion first, Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain ns n r o PaulitaGomez P zbeforehism marriagetoBe essieKelleyan nd,second,ev venifnosuch priormarriagehadexisted,AllanF. Poe,marriedB P BessieKellyon nlyayearafte erthebirthofrespondent. On23 January 2004, the CO O y OMELEC dism missed the cas for lack of merit.Three days later, o on 26 Janu se f e or uary 2004, Fornierfiledh F hismotionforreconsideration.Themotio onwasdenied don06Februa ary2004byth heCOMELECe enbanc. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otRonaldAllan nKellyPoe,al lsoknownasF FernandoPoe e,Jr.isanaturalbornFilipin no HELD: H Section2,ArticleVII,ofthe1987Constitu S utionexpresse es: "Nopersonma " aybeelectedP Presidentunle essheisanat turalborncit tizenofthePh hilippines,ar registered voter,abletor v readandwrite e,atleastforty yyearsofageonthedayoftheelection,a f andaresident tofthe Philippinesfor P ratleastteny yearsimmedia atelyprecedin ngsuchelectio on." Theterm"nat T turalbornciti izens,"isdefin nedtoinclude e"thosewho arecitizenso ofthePhilippi inesfrombirt thwithout havingtoperfo anyacttoacquireorperfecttheirPh h orm o hilippinecitize enship." The date, mo T onth and yea of birth of FPJ appear ar red to be 20 August 193 during the regime of the 1935 0 39 e Constitution.T C Through its history, four m h modes of acq quiring citizen nship natura alization,jus s soli, res judica ataandjus sanguinishad s dbeeninvogu ue.Onlytwo,i.e.,jussolian ndjussanguini is,couldqualifyapersonto obeinganatu uralborn citizenoftheP c Philippines.Ju ussoli,perRoavs.Collector rofCustoms(1912),didno otlastlong.W Withtheadopt tionofthe 1935 Constitu 1 ution and th reversal o he ofRoainTan Chong vs. Se ecretary of L Labor(1947),j jus sanguinis sor blood relationshipw r wouldnowbec cometheprim marybasisofci itizenshipbyb birth. Documentary evidenceadducedbypetiti D ionerwouldt tendtoindicat tethattheear rliestestablish heddirectasc cendantof FPJwashispa F aternalgrandf fatherLorenzo oPou,married dtoMartaRe eyes,thefatherofAllanF.P Poe.Whilethe erecordof birthofLorenz b zoPouhadno otbeenpresen ntedineviden nce,hisdeathc certificate,how wever,identif fiedhimtobeaFilipino, aresidentofS a SanCarlos,Pan ngasinan,and d84yearsoldatthetimeofhisdeathon n11Septembe er1954.The certificate ofbirthofthefatherofFPJ,AllanF.Poe,s o showedthath hewasborno on17May191 15toanEspa olfather,Lor renzoPou,
123|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts and a mestiza Espaol mo a a other, Marta Reyes.Introduced by petit tioner was an uncertified copy of a supposed d certificateofth c heallegedma arriageofAllan nF.PoeandP PaulitaGomez zon05July19 936.Themarr riagecertificateofAllan F.PoeandBes F ssieKelleyrefl lectedthedate eoftheirmarriagetobeon n16Septembe er1940.Inthe esamecertific cate,Allan F.Poewassta F atedtobetwe entyfiveyear rsold,unmarr ried,andaFil lipinocitizen,andBessieK Kelleytobetw wentytwo years old, unm y married, and an American citizen.The b a birth certificate of FPJ, wou disclose that he was born on 20 uld August1939toAllanF.Poe,aFilipino,tw A wentyfouryea arsold,marrie edtoBessieK Kelly,anAmeri icancitizen,tw wentyone yearsoldandm y married. Wouldtheabo W ovefactsbesu ufficientorins sufficienttoe establishthefa actthatFPJis sanaturalbor rnFilipinocit tizen?The marriagecerti m ificateofAllan nF.PoeandB BessieKelley, thebirthcert tificateofFPJ, ,andthedeat thcertificateo ofLorenzo Pou are documents of pub record in the custody of a public officer.The d P blic n y documents ha been sub ave bmitted in evidencebybo e othcontendin ngpartiesduri ingtheprocee edingsbeforet theCOMELEC C. Section3,Rule S e130,Rulesof fCourtstatesthat Originaldocu umentmustbe eproduced;ex xceptions.W Whenthesubjectofinquiryisthecontents sofa document,noevidenceshal d llbeadmissibl leotherthant theoriginaldo ocumentitself f,exceptinthe efollowing cases: c xxxxxxxxx (d)Whenth heoriginalisa apublicrecord dinthecustod dyofapublico officeorisrec cordedinapu ublicoffice. Beingpublicd B documents,the edeathcertifi icateofLorenzoPou,them marriagecertifi icateofAllanF.PoeandBe essieKelly, and a the birth certificate of FPJ,constitu uteprima facie eproof of their contents.S Section 44, Ru 130, of the Rules of ule Courtprovides C s: Entriesinoffic cialrecords.E Entriesinoffic cialrecordsmadeintheper rformanceofh hisdutybyap publicofficero of thePhilippines t s,orbyapers sonintheperf formanceofadutyspecially yenjoinedbylaw,areprima a facieevidenceofthefactsth f hereinstated. Thetrustworth T hinessofpubl licdocuments sandthevalue egiventotheentriesmade ethereincould dbegrounded don1)the senseofofficia s aldutyinthe preparationo ofthestateme entmade,2)t thepenaltyw whichisusuall lyaffixedtoabreachof thatduty,3)th t heroutineand ddisinterestedoriginofmo ostsuchstatem ments,and4) )thepublicity yofrecordwh hichmakes morelikelythe m epriorexposu ureofsucherr rorsasmighthaveoccurred [31] d. Thedeathcert T tificateofLore enzoPouwou uldindicateth hathediedon n11Septembe er1954,atthe eageof84yea ars,inSan Carlos, Pangas C sinan.It could thus be assumed that L Lorenzo Pou was born som metime in the year 1870 when the Philippineswa P asstillacolon nyofSpain.Pe etitionerwoul ldarguethatLorenzoPouw wasnotinthe ePhilippinesd duringthe crucial period of from 1898 to 1902 con c d nsidering that there was n existing record about su fact in the Records no uch Management a Archives Office.Petitio M and oner, howeve likewise fa er, ailed to show that Lorenzo Pou was at any other o place during t same period.In his de p the eath certificat the residen of Lorenz Pou was st te, nce zo tated to be San Carlos, Pangasinan.In P ntheabsenceofanyeviden ncetothecont trary,itshould dbesoundtoconclude,ora atleasttopres sume,that theplaceofre t esidenceofap personatthe timeofhisde eathwasalso hisresidence beforedeath. .Itwouldbe extremely doubtful if the Records Ma d e anagement an Archives O nd Office would h have had com mplete records of all reside s ents of the Philippinesfro P om1898to19 902. oOo KAGAWADS SJOSEG.MEN NDOZA,ROSA ARIOB.ESPIN NO,TERESITA AS.MENDOZA A,JORGEBAN NAL,Chairma anofthe SpecialInve estigationCo ommitteeonA Administrati iveCasesAga ainstElectedB BarangayOff ficialsoftheQ Quezon CityC CouncilandIS SMAELA.MA ATHAY,JR.,Ci ityMayorofQ QuezonCityv v. BARA ANGAYCAPTA MANUEL AIN D.LAXINA,S SR G.R.No.14687 G 75 14 4July2003
124 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The T pendency of an election protest is no sufficient ba to enjoin him from ass n ot asis suming office or from discharging his functions.Unle f esshiselection nisannulledby yafinalande executorydecis ision,oravalid dexecutionof anorderunse f eatinghim pending appea is issued, he has the lawf right to as p al e ful ssume and perf rform the duti of the offic to which he has been ies ce e elected. e OnMay27,19 O 997,ManuelD D.Laxina(Lax xina)tookhis oathandther reafterassum medofficeasth hedulyprocla aimedand electedbarang e gaycaptainof fBarangayBa atasanHills,Q QuezonCity,in nthe1997Ba arangayElections.Meanwh hile,Roque Fermo (Fermo his rival ca F o), andidate, filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Co d ourt of Quezon City. On n January18,19 999,Fermow wasdeclareda asthewinner intheBarang gayElections.Laxinafiled anoticeofap ppealwith theCommissio t ononElection ns(COMELEC) )whileFermo ofiledamotion nforexecutio onpendingapp pealwhichwa asgranted bythetrialcou b urt. On O October 27, 1999, the COMELEC iss sued a writ o execution d of directing Ferm to vacate the office of Barangay mo Chairman of B C Barangay Bata asan Hills.On October 28, 1999, Fermo was served a copy of the writ of exec n o e cution but refused to ack r knowledge re eceipt thereof f.He also refu fused to vacat the premis of the barangay hall o Batasan te ses of Hills.Thisdid not,however H r,preventLax xinaandhisst tafffromdischargingtheir functionsand dfromholdin ngofficeat theSKHallof BatasanHills t f s.Onthesame edate,Laxina aappointedG GodofredoL.R RamosasBara angaySecreta aryandon November8,1 N 1999,heappointedRodelG.LiquidoasBa arangayTreas surer. Finally,onNov F vember16,1999,Laxinato ookhisoatho ofofficeasBa arangayCapta ainofBatasan Hills,Quezon nCity.The BarangayCoun B ncilofBatasan nHillsissuedResolutionNo o.001S1999ratifyingtheappointmentmadebyLaxina SometimeinJa S anuary2000,petitionerbar rangaycounci ilorsfiledwith htheQuezonC CityCouncila acomplaintfor rviolation of o the antigra and corru practices act and falsif aft upt fication of leg gislative docu uments agains Laxina and all other st d barangayoffic b cialswhosigne edthequestio onedresolutio onandpayroll. OnOctober2, 2000,theSpe O ecialInvestiga ationCommitt teeonAdmini istrativeCases softheCityru uledthatLaxi inahadno powertomak p keappointmen ntspriortohisoathtaking gonNovembe er16,1999.T TheQuezonCi ityCouncilad doptedthe findingsandre f ecommendationsoftheCom mmitteeanda appointedCha arlieMangune easactingbarangaychairman.Laxina filedapetition f nforcertiorar riwiththeRe egionalTrialo ofQuezonCity yseekingtoannulthedecisionoftheQu uezonCity Council.Asum C mmaryjudgme entwasrenderedbythetria alcourtinfavo orofLaxina. ISSUE: Whetherorno W ottakingofan noathofoffice eanewbyadu ulyproclaimed dbutsubsequentlyunseatedlocalelectiv veofficial aconditionsin a nequanontot thevalidityofhisreassump f ptioninoffice ewheretheCO OMELECorder rstherelinqui ishment oftheconteste o edposition? HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. Tobesure,an T noathofoffice eisaqualifyingrequireme entforapubli icoffice;apre erequisitetot thefullinvest titurewith the t office.It i only when the public of is fficer has sati isfied the pre erequisite of o oath that his right to ente into the er position becom plenary and complete However, o p mes e. once proclaim and duly sworn in of med y ffice, a public officer is entitledtoass e sumeofficean ndtoexercise ethefunctionsthereof.The ependencyof fanelectionp protestisnot tsufficient basistoenjoin b nhimfromas ssumingoffice eorfromdisc charginghisfu unctions.Unle esshiselectio onisannulled byafinal and a executory decision,or a valid execu y ution of an ord unseating him pending appeal is iss der g g sued, he has t lawful the righttoassum r meandperform mthedutiesof ftheofficetow whichhehasbeenelected.
125|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Inthecaseatb bar,Laxinawasproclaimed dasthewinne erinthe1997 7BarangayEle ectionsinBat tasanHills,Qu uezonCity; hetookhisoat h thonMay27,1997andthe ereafterassum medoffice.Heisthereforev vestedwithalltherightstodischarge the t functions of his office.Although in t interim, h was unseat by virtue of a decision in an electio protest the he ted n on decided again him, the execution of said decision was annulle by the CO d nst e n ed OMELEC in it September 16, 1999 ts Resolutionwh R hich,incidenta ally,wassusta ainedbythisC CourtonMarc ch13,2000,in nFermov.Com mmissiononE Elections.It was w held therein that [w]h the COME hen ELEC nullified the writ of e d execution pen nding appeal in favor of FE ERMO, the decisionofthe d eMTCproclaim mingFERMOasthewinner roftheelectio onwasstayedandthestatu usquoorthelastactual peacefuluncon p ntestedsituat tionpreceding gthecontrove ersywasresto oredThest tatusquorefe erredtothest tagewhen Laxinawasoc L ccupyingtheo officeofBaran ngayCaptaina anddischargi ingitsfunctions.Forpurpo osesofdeterm miningthe continuityand c deffectivityof ftherightsar risingfromLa axinasproclam mationandoa athtakenonM May27,1997 7,itisasif thesaidwrito t ofexecutionpendingappealwasnotissu uedandhewa asnotoustedf fromoffice.T Theretakingo ofhisoath ofofficeonNo o ovember16,1 1999wasamereformality consideringt thathisoatht takenonMay 27,1997ope eratedasa fullinvestiture f eonhimofth herightsofth heoffice.Henc ce,thetaking anewofhiso oathofoffice asBarangayC Captainof Batasan Hills, Quezon City was not a con B nditionsine qua nonto the validity of hi reassumpt is tion in office a to the and exerciseofthe e efunctionsthe ereof. Having thus ruled out the necessity of L H Laxinas takin anew of the oath of office, the next q ng question to be resolved e is:when is La axinaconsider to have va red alidly reassu umed office from October 28, 1999, the date of serv r vice of the writofexecuti w iontoRoqueFermoandth hedateLaxinaactuallycommencedtodis schargethefu unctionsofthe eoffice,or fromNovembe f er17,1999,th hedateRoque eFermoturne edovertoLax xinatheassets sandproperti iesofBaranga ayBatasan Hills,QuezonC H City? Therecordssh T howthatthe COMELECser rvedonOctob ber28,1999a awritofexec cutionorderin ngFermotodesistfrom performingthefunctionoft p theOfficeofB BarangayCapt tain,butthela atterrefusedt tocomplytherewith.Hiss supporters preventedLax p xinafromoccu upyingtheba arangayhall,p promptingthe elattertomovefortheissu uanceofana aliaswitof execution,whi e ichwasgrante edonNovemb ber12,1999. ItwasonlyonNovember1 17,1999thattheturnover rtoLaxina of o the assets and propertie of the bara es angay was ef ffected.Undou ubtedly, it wa Fermos de as efiance of the writ that prevented Lax p xina from as ssuming office at the bar rangay hall.T reckon, th To herefore, the effectivity of Laxinas assumptionin a nofficeonNov vember17,19 999,aspetitionersinsist,wouldbetosan nctiondilatory ymaneuversa andtoput a a premium on disobedience of lawful or n rders which t this Court wil not counten ll nance.It is es ssential to the effective e administration a nofjusticethattheprocess sesofthecou urtsandquasi ijudicialbodiesbeobeyed. .Moreover,it isworthy tonotethatalthoughtheph t hysicalposses ssionoftheOf fficeoftheBa arangayCaptainwasnotim mmediatelyrel linquished byFermotoLaxina,thelatt b terexercisedt thepowersan ndfunctionsthereofatthe SKHallofBat tasanHills,Qu uezonCity starting Octob 28, 1999. s ber .His reassum mption in off fice effectively enforced th decision o the COMEL y he of LEC which reinstatedhim r minoffice.Itf followsthatal lllawfulactso ofthelatterarisingfromhi isreassumptioninofficeo onOctober 28,1999arev 2 valid.Hence,n nogravemisc conductwasc committedby himinappoin ntingGodofre edoL.Ramos andRodel G. G Liquido as Barangay Se ecretary and Barangay Tre easurer, respectively, and in granting them emolum ments and renumerations r sfortheperio odserved. oOo HOMO OBONOADAZA Av.FERNAND DOPACANA,J JR. G.R R.No.L68159 18M March1985 ENBA ANC(Escolin,J J.) Section13[2]o S ofBatasPamb bansaBlg.697 7,whichgover rnstheelection nofmembers oftheBatasanPambansao onMay14, 1984, provides that "govern 1 s nors, mayors,m members ofth varioussan he ngguniang or b barangay offic cialsshall, upon filing a certificate of c c candidacy, be considered o forced leav of absence from office." Vicegoverno and vicem e on ve e " or mayors are membersofthe m eSanggunians s.Thus,theyar recoveredbytheprovisiono onmembersof fsanggunian.
126 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Homobono A. Adaza (Adaz and Ferna H za) ando Pacana, Jr., (Pacana) were elected governor an vicegovern of the d nd nor provinceofMi p isamisOrienta alinthe1980 0elections,res spectively.Un nderthelaw,t theirrespectiv vetermsofoff ficewould expireonMarc e ch3,1986. Meanwhile, bo filed a cer M oth rtificate of ca andidacy for t May 14, 1 the 1984 Batasan Pambansa el lections. Adaz won by za placingfirstam p mongthecandidates,while ePacanalost. AdazatookhisoathofofficeasMambab batasPamban nsaonJuly 19,1984ands 1 sincethenheh hasdischargedthefunction nsofsaidoffice. On O July 23, 1984, Pacana took his oath of office as governor of Misamis Orie h ental before P President Fer rdinand E. Marcos,and st M tarted to perf form the duties of governo on July 25, 1984. Claimi to be the lawful occupant of the or , ing governor'soffi g ice,Adazahas sbroughtthispetitiontoex xcludePacanatherefrom. ISSUES: 1. Wheth or not a provincial gov her p vernor who w elected an had qualifi as a Mam was nd fied mbabatas Pambansa can exerci iseanddischa argethefuncti ionsofbothof fficessimultan neously 2. Wheth or not a vicegovernor who ran for the position of Mambabat Pambansa but lost, can continue her v r tas a, n servin ngasvicegovernorandsub bsequentlysuc cceedtotheofficeofgovern norifthesaidofficeisvacat ted. HELD: H PetitionDISMISSED. P Adazacannot A texerciseand ddischargeth functionso bothoffices he of ssimultaneou usly. The constitutional prohibi T ition against a member o the Batasa Pambansa from holdin any other office or of an ng employment i the govern e in nment during his tenure is clear and un s nambiguous. Section 10, A Article VIII of the 1973 Constitutionprovidesasfollows: C on ber ational Assem mbly [now Bat tasan Pamban shall not h nsa hold any othe er Sectio 10 A memb of the Na office or employm ment in the go overnment or any subdivi r ision, agency or instrumen ntality thereo of, ding governm ment owned or controlled c corporations, during his te enure, except that of prim t me includ minist terormemberofthecabine et.... Thelanguageu T usedintheab bovecitedsectionisplain,c certainandfre eefromambig guity.Theonly yexceptionsm mentioned therein are the officesofpr t rime minister randcabinet member. The wisdom or e e expediency of fthe saidprov vision isa matterwhichi m isnotwithint theprovinceo oftheCourttodetermine. Pacana can c P continue serv ving as viceg governor and subsequentl succeed to the office of governor, if the said d ly o f f officeisvacat o ted. The T second pr roposition ad dvanced by Ad daza is that P Pacana, as a m mere private citizen, had n right to as no ssume the governorshipl g leftvacantbyAdaza'selectiontotheBat tasanPambansa.HemaintainsthatPacan nashouldbec considered ashavingaban a ndonedorres signedfromth hevicegovernorshipwhen nhefiledhisc certificateofc candidacyfor rtheBatas Pambansa elections. The point pressed runs afoul of Batas Pamb P p f bansa Blg. 697 the law gov 7, verning the e election of members of th Batasan Pa m he ambansa on M 14, 1984 Section 13[2 of which sp May 4, 2] pecifically pro ovides that "g governors, mayors, memb m bers of the va arious sanggu uniang or bar rangay official shall, upon filing a certi ls n ificate of cand didacy, be considered on forced leave of absence f c n e from office." Indubitably, P Pacana falls w within the cove erage of this provision, considering th at the tim he filed his certificate of candidacy fo the 1984 B c hat me f or Batasan Pamb bansa election he was a n memberofthe m eSangguniang gPanlalawigan nasprovidedinSections204and205of fBatasPamba ansaBlg.337,otherwise knownasthe LocalGovernmentCode.Th k hereasonthe epositionofv vicegovernor wasnotinclu udedinSection13[2]of
127|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts BP B Blg. 697 i explained by the follow is b wing interchan between Assemblyme San Juan a nge en and Davide d during the deliberationso d onsaidlegisla ation: DAVIDE.IfIw wasabletoget tcorrectlythe eproposedam mendmentitw wouldcovero onlygovernor rs MR.D andm membersofthe edifferentsan nggunians?Ma ayor,governors? MR.SA ANJUAN.Gov vernors,mayo ors,members ofthevarious ssanggunian orbarangayo officials.Avice e governorisamemb beroftheSang ggunianPanla alawigan. DAVIDE.All.W Whydon'twein nsteadusethe eword,"Local lofficials? MR.D MR.SA ANJUAN.Wel ll,Mr.Speaker r,yourhumble erepresentati ion... MR.D DAVIDE.And,s secondly,why ydon'tweincludetheviceg governor,thevicemayors? MR.SA ANJUAN.Bec causetheyare emembersof theSanggunia ans,Mr.Speak ker.Theyare coveredbyth he provis siononmemb bersofsanggu unian.[Record dofProceeding gs,February2 20,1984,p.92 2,Rollo] Thus,whenPa T acanareassum medthepositionofvicegov vernorafterth heBatasPamb bansaelection ns,hewasactingwithin the t law. His su uccession to the governors t ship was equa legal and valid, the sam being in accordance with Section ally me 204[2][a]ofth 2 hesameLocal lGovernmentCode,whichr t readsasfollow ws: ION204.Powe ers,DutiesandPrivileges: SECTI 1]xxx 2]Heshall: sumetheoffic ceofthegover rnorfortheu unexpiredterm mofthelatter rinthecasesp providedfori in a]Ass Sectio on48,paragra aph1ofthisCo ode; oOo MABULAC,B. M EDUARD DOT.RODRIG GUEZ,petition ner,vs.COMM MISSIONONELECTIONS,BIENVENIDOO O.MARQUEZ, ,JR., re ndents. espo G.R.No.12009 G 99 July24,1996 Definitionoff D fugitivefromj justiceindica atesthatthein ntenttoevade eisthecompe ellingfactorth hatanimateso onesflight fromaparticularjurisdiction f n Petitioner Edu P uardo Rodriguez and Bien nvenido Marq quez are cand didates for th gubernator position i Quezon he rial in Provinceinthe P e1992electio ons.Rodriguez zwonandwasproclaimedgovernor.MarquezchallengedRodriguezsvictory beforetheCOM b MELECclaimin ngthatwhenRodriguezlef fttheUnitedStates,therew wasachargefil ledandpendingagainst Rodriguezforfraudulentins R suranceclaim ms,grandtheft tandattempte edgrandtheft tforpersonalproperty.Thu us,making Rodriguezafu R ugitivefromju usticewhichi isagroundfo ordisqualificat tionundertheLocalGover rnmentCode. COMELEC denied the mo d otion and also the Motion for Reconsid deration of Marquez. Marq quez went to the Supreme Court for appeal. The Su a upreme Court however on defined wh a fugitive from justice is and rema t nly hat e e anded the cas back to se COMELECford C decision.Thereconsiderati ionforthedec cisionwasden nied. attleditoutag gainforthepostofgovernor.Marquezc challenged IntheMay1995elections, RodriguezandMarquezba the t candidacy of Rodriguez based princi y z ipally on the same allegation on the pre evious petition. This time, COMELEC ruledinfavor ofMarqueza r andorderedth hedisqualifica ationofRodri iguez.Howeve er,theelectionspushedthr roughand Rodriguez em R merged as the winner. COM e MELEC ordere the suspension of proc ed clamation of Rodriguez. H Hence, this presentpetitio p on Issue:
128 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts WhetherRodr W riguezisafugi itivefromjust ticeandmustbedisqualified. Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbegrante ed. The T term fugi itive from jus stice was def fined as x x x includes no only those who flee aft conviction to avoid ot e ter n punishment but likewise who, after bein charged, fe to avoid pr p w ng ell rosecution. T definition thus indicate that the The es intenttoevade eisthecompe ellingfactorth hatanimateso onesflightfro omaparticula arjurisdiction n.Andthereca anonlybe deifthereisk knowledgeby thefleeingsu ubjectofanalreadyfiledch hargeorapromulgatedjud dgmentof intenttoevad convictionaga c ainsthim. Suchisnotpresentinthec S case.Rodrigue ezsarrivalin thePhilippinesprecededt thefilingofth hefelonycomp plaintand issuanceofarr restwarranta againsthimby yalmostfive months.Itwa asclearlyimpossibleforRo odrigueztoha aveknown aboutsuchfel a lonycomplain ntandarrest warrantatth hetimehe left ttheUS,asth herewasnoc complaintfiledyet.The veryessenceo v ofthedefinitio onofthetermfugitivefromjusticeisabse entfromthisc case. oOo ANTONIOBE ENGSONIII,p petitioner,vs.H HOUSEOFRE EPRESENTAT TIVESELECTO ORALTRIBUN NALandTEOD DOROC. CRUZ spondents Z,re s. G.R.No.14284 G 40 Ma ay7,2001 Respondent T R Teodoro Cruz was a naturalborn citizen of the Philip n ppines. He wa born in Tar as rlac of Filipino parents. Respondent h R however, enlis sted in the Un nited States M Marine Corps and without the consent of the Repub of the t blic Philippines,to P ookanoathof fallegiancetotheUnitedSt tates.AsaCon nsequence,he elosthisFilip pinocitizenshi ip.Hewas naturalizedasaU.S.citizen,inconnection n nwithhisserv viceintheU.S.MarineCorps. RespondentCr R ruzthen,reac cquiredhisPh hilippinecitize enshipthroug ghrepatriation nandranfor andwaselec ctedasthe RepresentativeoftheSecon R ndDistrictofP Pangasinan.H Hisopponentt thattimewas spetitionerAn ntonioBengso onIII,who wasrunningfo w orreelection. Petitionerfiled P dacaseforQ QuoWarranto oAdCautelam mwithrespondentHouseo ofRepresentat tivesElectora alTribunal (HRET)claimi ( ingthatrespo ondentCruzw wasnotqualifi iedtobecome eamemberoftheHouseo ofRepresentat tivessince heisnotanatu h uralborncitiz zenasrequire edbytheCons stitution. HRETrendere H editsdecision ndismissingth hepetitionan nddeclaringre espondentCru uzthedulyele ectedReprese entativeof the t Second Di istrict of Pang gasinan. The HRET likewis denied pet se titioner's mot tion for recon nsideration. H Hence, this presentpetitio p on. Issue: Whetherrespo W ondentCruz,a anaturalborn nFilipinowho obecameanA Americancitiz zen,canstillb beconsidered anatural bornFilipinou b uponhisreacq quisitionofPh hilippinecitize enship. Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbedenied d. There are two ways of acq T o quiring citizen nship: by birt and by na th, aturalization. T These ways o acquiring c of citizenship correspondtothetwokindsofcitizens:t c thenaturalbo orncitizen,an ndthenaturali izedcitizen.A Asdefined,nat turalborn
129|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts citizensare th c hose citizenso ofthe Philippines from birth without ha aving to perfo orm anyactto oacquire orp perfect his Philippinecitizenship.Ontheotherhand P d,naturalized dcitizensare thosewhoha avebecomeFilipinocitizen nsthrough naturalization. n Filipino citizen who have lost their citi F ns izenship may however rea acquire the sa ame in the ma anner provide by law. ed Commonwealt C thAct.No.(C.A A.No.63)enu umeratesthet threemodesb bywhichPhili ippinecitizenshipmayber reacquired byaformercit b tizen:(1)byn naturalization, ,(2)byrepatr riation,and(3)bydirectact tofCongress. Repatriationsimplyconsistsofthetaking R gofanoathof fallegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippineandregist teringsaid oathintheLoc o calCivilRegist tryoftheplac cewherethep personconcer rnedresidesorlastresided. .Moreover,re epatriation resultsinthe recoveryofth r heoriginalnationality.This smeansthata anaturalized Filipinowho losthiscitize enshipwill berestoredto b ohispriorstat tusasanatur ralizedFilipino ocitizen.Ont theotherhand,ifhewasoriginallyanat turalborn citizenbeforehelosthisPhi c ilippinecitizenship,hewillberestoredto ohisformerstatusasanatu uralbornFilip pino. tCruz'scase,h helosthisFilipinocitizensh hipwhenhere enderedservi iceintheArm medForcesoft theUnited Inrespondent States.However,hesubsequ S uentlyreacquiredPhilippin necitizenshipt throughrepat triation. Havingthusta H akentherequi iredoathofal llegiancetoth heRepublican ndhavingregisteredthesa ameintheCivilRegistry of o Magantarem Pangasinan in accordan with the r m, n nce requirements of the law, r respondent Cruz is deeme to have ed recoveredhis originalstatu r usasanatural lborncitizen.Theactofre epatriationall lowshimtore ecover,orretu urnto,his originalstatus o sbeforehelos sthisPhilippin necitizenship. . Acitizenwhoisnotanatura A alizedFilipino o,forinstance,didnothave etoundergoth heprocessofn naturalization ntoobtain Philippinecitiz P zenship,necessarilyisnatu uralbornFilip pino.AsrespondentCruzw wasnotrequire edbylawtog gothrough naturalization proceeding in order to re n i eacquire his c citizenship, he is perforce a naturalbor Filipino. As such, he e rn s possessedallt p thenecessaryqualifications stobeelected dasmembero oftheHouseof fRepresentati ives. oOo URBANO M.MORENO,petitioner,vs. .COMMISSIONONELECTI IONSandNOR RMAL.MEJES S,CHICONAZ ZARIO, espondents. re Augu G.R R.No.168550 ust10,2006 Thosewhohav T venotserved theirsentence ebyreasonof fthegrantof probationsho f ouldnotlikew wisebedisqual lifiedfrom running for a local elective office becau the two ( r use (2)year perio of ineligibility under Se 40 (a) of the Local od ec. GovernmentCo G odedoesnotev venbegintoru un. PetitionerUrb P banoMorenoisrunningforthepositiono ofPunongBar rangayinthep provinceofSa amar.NormaM Mejesfiled apetitiontodisqualifyMore a enoonthegro oundthatMor renowasconv victedbyafin naljudgmento ofthecrimeof farbitrary detention.Mor d renofiledana answeraverri ingthatthepe etitionstatesn nocauseofac ctionbecausehewasalread dygranted probation,theimpositionof p fthesentence eofimprisonm ment,aswella astheaccessor rypenalties,w wastherebysu uspended. COMELECrule C edinfavorof Mejesanddis squalifiedMoreno.Themo otionforrecon nsiderationfil ledbyMoreno owasalso denied.Hence, d ,thispetition. . Issue: WhetherMore W enowhowasg grantedproba ationmustbedisqualifiedfr romrunningf forthepositionofPunongB Barangay. Held: H ThePetitionm T mustbegrante ed.
130 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thecourtdecl T laredthatano orderplacingdefendantonprobationisn notasentence ebutisrather r,ineffect,asu uspension of o the imposit tion of the pri incipal penalt of imprison ty nment, as well as other acc cessory penalt ties. Clearly, t period the withinwhicha w apersonisun nderprobation ncannotbeeq quatedwithse erviceofthese entenceadjud dged.Theprob bationlaw specifically pr s rovides that the grant of probation su t uspends the e execution of the sentence. During the period of . probation, the probationer does not ser the penalty imposed u p e rve upon him by the court but is merely re t equired to complywithalltheconditio c onsprescribed dintheprobat tionorder. Thecourtheld T dthatthosewhohavenotse ervetheirsen ntencebyreasonofthegran ntofprobation nshouldnotb beequated withserviceofsentence,shouldnotlikew w wisebedisqua alifiedfromru unningforalo ocalelectiveofficebecausethe2year periodofinelig p gibilityundertheLocalGov vernmentCod dedoesnoteve enbegintoru un. oOo
DefactoOffi D icers
Theexpressen T numerationin sections158 and159ofth heRevisedElectionCodeexc cludesothero officersExpres souniuses exclusionalter e rius.Anofficertowhomdiscr retionisentru tedcannotde us elegateittoan nother. Bernardo Tor B rres and Mam merto Ribo w were opposing candidates for provincia governor o Leyte in th general g al of he elections held on Novembe 1947. As R e er Ribo, who was provincial g s governor, and the two mem mbers of the provincial boardwereca b andidates,they yweredisqua alifiedtoform mpartsofthep provincialboa ardofcanvass sersofwhich theywere tobemember t rsundertheR RevisedElectio onCode.Cons sequently,the eCommission onElections, ,appointedth hedivision superintenden s ntofschools,t thedistricten ngineerandth hedistricthea althofficerto replacethed disqualifiedmembers.It sohappenedt s thatthedivisi ionsuperinten ndentofschoolsandthedistrictenginee erwereinsomeotherplac ceanddid not n return until the 24th. In the meanti I ime, on November 22, the board of can nvassers inclu uding the assi istant civil engineerandt e thechiefclerk kintheofficeofthedivisio onsuperintendentofschoo olswhosatas membersrep presenting the district en t ngineer and the division superintendent of schools canvassed the votes an proclaimed Ribo as nd d Governorelect G t. OnNovember 24,1947,the O ecanvassersa againmet,thi istimethedis strictengineerandthedivi isionsuperint tendentof schoolsattend s dedthemeetin ng.Theboardmadeanewc canvassofthe evotesandproclaimedRibo oelectedtoth heofficeof provincialgov p vernor. Torresfiledan T nelectionprotest;however rthelowerco ourtdeniedthepetitioncon ntendingthat theperiodfor rfilingthe protesthadal p lreadyelapsed dasthecourt tbelowused November22 2asthestartingpointofco omputation.H Hence,this petition. p Issue: WhethertheN W November22 canvassingan ndproclamati ionoftheboa ardofcanvass sersarevalid andinaccord dancewith theRevisedElectionCode t Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbegrante ed.
BERNARDO OTORRES,pr rotestantappe ellant,vs.MAM MERTOS.RIB BOandALEJA ANDROBALDERIAN,respondents appellees. G.R.No.L2051 G 1 Ma ay21,1948
131|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Section 158 o the Revised Election Co S of ode designate the officer who are to comprise th provincial board of es rs o he canvassers, an section 15 enumerates the officers to be appointed substitu members by the Comm c nd 59 s ute mission on Electionsinca E aseoftheabse enceorincapacityofanym membersnam medinsection 158.Thisen numerationinc cludesthe divisionsuper d rintendentofs schoolsandth hedistrictengineer. This express e T enumeration in section 159 excludes other officers. N even the COMELEC ma lawfully ap i 9 Not ay ppoint any person outsid of those mentioned. Mu less may anyone other than these officers act a member of board of p de m uch r as f canvassers by delegation by a substitute member, by the indicatio of other m c y b e y on members of th board or by his own he volition.Thea v appointmento ofasubstituteispersonalan ndrestrictedandhispowersmustbepe erformeddirec ctlyandin personbythe appointee.To p oholdotherw wisewouldbe etoauthorizetheappointm mentbythose eenumerated insection 159ofanother 1 rpersontoactinhissteada andtakeaway yfromCOMEL LECtheauthor ritytoappoin ntundersectio on159. Anofficertow A whomdiscreti ionisentruste edcannotdelegateittoano other.Theboardexercises quasijudicialfunction, such as the fu s unction and duty to determ d mine whether the papers t r transmitted t hem are ge to enuine electio returns on signedbythep s properofficer r. ThecourtbelievedthatthecanvassonNovember22w T wasprematureandillegala astheassistan ntcivilengineerandthe chief clerk in the office of the division superintendent of school have no au c f n ls uthority to be part of the board of e e canvassers.Th c hus,theprocla amationandcanvassingonNovember22 2wasvoidand dcontrarytolaw. oOo ROBERT TOR.MONRO OY,petitioner,vs.HON.COU OFAPPEALSandFELI URT IPEDELROSA ARIO,respond dent. G.R.No.L232 G 258 July1,1967 Withdraw walofcertificat teofcandidacy ydoesnotrest torecandidate etoformerpos sition. Petitioner Rob P berto Monroy was the in y ncumbent Ma ayor of Navo otas, Rizal wh hen his certificate of can ndidacy as representative of the firstd r e district ofRiza inthe forth al hcoming elect tions was filed dwith the Commission on Elections. Three days la T ater, petitioner filed a letter withdraw wing the cer rtificate of ca andidacy. COM MELEC appro oved such withdrawal.However,Felip w pedelRosario, ,thenthevice emayorofNa avotas,tookhi isoathofoffic ceeasmunicipalmayor onthetheoryt o thatpetitionerhadforfeited dthesaidoffic ceuponhisfil lingofthecert tificateofcand didacy. Petitionerfiled P daninjunctio onbeforethe CourtofFirst tInstance.Ho owever,thepe etitionwasde enied.Onapp pealtothe CourtofAppea C als,thedecisio onwasaffirme edintoto.Hen nce,thispetiti ion. Issue: Whetherthefi W ilingthecertif ficateofcandidacyofpetitio oneractsasfo orfeitureofoff ficeheheld Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbedenied d. Anelectivepro A ovincial,muni icipalorcityo officialrunning gforanoffice,otherthanth heonewhichh heisactuallyholding,is considered resigned from his office from the momen of the filing of his certif c h m nt g ficate of candidacy. The forfeiture is automaticand a dirrevocablye effectiveupon nthefilingoft thecertificate eofcandidacy yforanothero office.Onlythemoment andactoffilin a ngareconside ered.Oncethe ecertificateis sfiled,thepos sitionisforev verforfeiteda andnothing,saveanew election or ap e ppointment, ca restore the ousted offic an cial. Now the withdrawal o the petition of his cer of ner rtificate of candidacy did not restore petitioner to his former position or ren c d nder the certi ificate void ab initio. Once filed, the b e permanentleg p galeffectsprod ducetherebyremaineveni ifthecertificateitselfbesub bsequentlywi ithdrawn.
132|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts oOo LEYTEACTI INGVICEGOV VERNORAURE ELIOD.MENZ ZON,petitione er,vs.LEYTEA ACTINGGOVERNOR,LEOPO OLDOE. PETILLAinhiscapacityasChiefExecutiv P veoftheProv vinceofLeyteandHeadofS SANGGUNIANG GPANLALAW WIGANand LeyteProvin ncialTreasure erFLORENCIO OLUNA,respo ondents. G.R.No.90762 G Ma ay20,1991 Intheabsenceofanycontraryprovisionin I ntheLocalGovernmentCod de,theprovisio onsofCommon nwealthActN No.588and the t Revised Ad dministration Code of 1987, empowering the President to make tem 7, g mporary appointments in ca of any ase vacancy in app v pointive posit tions, may, in the best inter rest of public service, also be applied in case of vacancy in the position of Vic p ceGovernor. The modeof su T uccession prov vided for perm manent vacanc cies, under Sec 49 in conne c. ection with Sec.52 if the L S Local Governm ment Code, in t Office of V the ViceGovernor,, may likewise be observed in case of a t e temporary vacancyoccurr v ringinthesam meoffice. By B the virtue of the fact th no Gover hat rnor had been proclaimed in the provin of Leyte, the Secretary of Local n nce y Government d G designated the ViceGovern e nor, Leopoldo Petilla as Ac o cting Governo and petitio or oner Aurelio M Menzon, a seniormembe s eroftheSangg guniangPanlalawiganasthe eViceGovern nor.Thepetitio onerthentook khisoathofo office. TheProvincial T lAdministrato orinquiredfro omUndersecr retaryofLocalGovernment tastothelega alityoftheapp pointment of o the petition to act as the ViceGov ner s vernor of Ley The Undersecretary r yte. replied that th appointme of the he ent petitionerast p thetemporary yViceGovern norisnotnecessarysincet theViceGove ernorwhoist temporarilyperforming the t functions of the Govern could con nor, ncurrently ass sume the func ction of both offices. As a r result, the San ngguniang Panlalawigan issuedaresolutionwhere itheldinvalid P dtheappoint tmentofthep petitionerasa actingViceGo overnorof Leyte.Howeve L er,theundersecretarymodifiedtheresol lution.Inview wofthisalett terwassentto oPetillareque estingthat the t resolution be modified accordingly. However, Pet n tilla and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan refused to correct the n resolutionand r dpaythepetit tioneremolum mentsattached dtotheofficeofViceGover rnor.Thus,thispresentpeti ition Issue: Whetherthea W appointmento ofpetitioneras sViceGovern norisvalid Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbegrante ed. The T law on Pu ublic officers is clear on th matter. The is vacancy when there is no person lawfully auth he ere y n horized to assumeandex a xerciseatpres sentthedutiesoftheoffice.Applyingthis sdefinition,it tcanbereadil lyseenthatth heofficeof theViceGover t rnorwasleft vacantwhen thedulyelect tedViceGovernorwasapp pointedActing gGovernor.It cannotbe shown that Pe s etilla continue to simultan ed neously exerc cise the duties of the Vice Governor. Th nature of d he duties of a Provincial Gov P vernor calls for a fulltime occupant to discharge th f e hem. It was Pe etillas autom matic assumpti to the ion actingGoverno a orshipthatresultedinthev vacancyinthe eofficeofVice eGovernor. However,the LocalGovernm H mentCodeis silentonthe modeofsucc cessioninthe eventofatem mporaryvaca ancyinthe officeoftheVi o iceGovernor.Thissilenceo ofthelaw,ne evertheless,m mustnotbeun nderstoodtoc conveythatar remedyin la is wanting The Court ruled that, in order to fill up the vacan the Presid aw g. n ncy, dent, acting th hrough the Se ecretary of LocalGovernm L ment,mayrem medythesituation.Thecou urtdeclaredv validthetemp poraryappoin ntmentextend dedtothe petitionertoa p actastheVice eGovernor.It twasaddedt thatthemode eofsuccessionprovidedfo orpermanent vacancies maylikewiseb m beappliedin caseofatem mporaryvacan ncyinthesam meoffice.Inthiscase,therewasaneedtofillthe vacancy.Thep v petitionerish himselftheme emberoftheS SangguniangP Panlalawigan whoobtained dthehighestn numberof votes.TheDep v partmentSecr retaryactedco orrectlyinext tendingthetem mporaryappo ointment.
133|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts oOo MELANIOD.SAMPAYAN, ,DIEGOL.TU URLA,JR.,and dLEONARDO G.TIOZON,p petitioners,vs.RAULA.DAZ ZA,HON. BIO,asSecret taryoftheHou useofReprese entatives,MR. .JOSEMARIA ATUANO,asO OfficerinChar rge,Gen. CAMILOSAB ServicesDivis S sionoftheHou useofReprese entatives,MRS.ROSALINDAG.MEDINA A,asChiefAcco ountantofthe eHouseof Rep presentatives,andtheHON. .COMMISSIONONAUDIT, ,respondents. G.R.N Septem No.103903 mber11.1992 2 UnderSection 17ofArticleV U Viofthe1987 Constitution, itistheHouse eElectoralTri ibunalwhichs shallbethesolejudgeof allcontestsrelatingtotheelection,returns a l sandqualifica ationofitsmem mbers. Petitioners, re P esident of the second Cong e gressional Dis strict of Nort thern Samar f filed the insta petition s ant seeking to disqualifyRau d ulDaza,thenin ncumbentcon ngressmanofthesamecong gressionaldis strict,fromcon ntinuingtoex xercisethe functionofhis f sofficeonthegroundthatt thelatterisag greencardhol lderandalaw wfulpermanen ntresidentoft theUnited States. S CongressmanDazadeniedt C thefactthatheisapermanentresidento oftheUniteds states,thatalt thoughhewas saccorded apermanentr a residencystatu us,hehadlongwaivedhiss statuswhenhereturnedtothePhilippine es. Issue: WhetherDaza W ashouldbedi isqualifiedas amemberof theHouseof Representativ vesforviolati ionofSection n68ofthe OmnibusElect O tionCode. Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbedenied d. fthiscaserigh htfullypertain nstotheHous seElectoralTr ribunal.UnderSection17o ofArticleViof fthe1987 Jurisdictionof Constitution, i is the House Electoral Tr C it ribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests r h f relating to the election, e returns and q r qualification of its member Since peti o rs. itioners challe enge the qualification of C Congressman Daza, the appropriatere a emedyshouldhavebeentofileapetition ntocancelDaz zascertificate eofcandidacybeforetheele ectionora quowarranto casewiththe q eHouseElectoralTribunal within10da aysafterDaza asproclamatio on.Lastly,as adefacto publicofficer,Dazacannotb p bemadetorei imbursefinds sdisburseddu uringhistermofofficebeca ausehisactsareasvalid asthoseofadejureofficer. a oOo ULOGIORODR RIGUEZ,SR.,p plaintiffanda appellantt,vs.CARLOSTAN N,defendantandappellee. EU Aug No o.L3913 gust7,1952 Asenatorwhohadbeenproc A claimedandhadassumedof ffice,butwasl lateronousted dasaresultof fanelectionp protest,isa de d facto office during the time he held the office of senator, and is entailed to the compens er o sation, emolum ments and allowanceswh a hichourConsti itutionprovide esfortheposit tion. PlaintiffEulog P gioRodriguez seekstorecoverfromthe defendantCarlosTanamountofaggregatesumassa alariesand allowances.Pl a laintiffclaimedthatthedef fendantusurp pedtheoffice ofSenatorof thePhilippin nesandhecon ntinuously collectedthes c salaries, emolumentsand p privileges atte endanttothat toffice;that p protest having gbeen filed b plaintiff by againstdefend a dant,theSenateElectoralT Tribunalrende eredjudgment tdeclaringRo odrigueztoha avebeenduly electedto
134 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts theofficeand becauseofth t heusurpation sufferedamountofdamag ges.Tanfiled amotiontod dismissallegin ngthatthe ju udgmentrend deredbytheS SenateElector ralTribunalin ntheprotestca aseisabartothisactionun ndertheprinc cipleofres ju udicata and t that the Tribu unal denied w without any r reservation th claim of th plaintiff for expenses in he he ncurred in prosecutingth p heprotest. Issue: WhetherTan, whohasbeen W nproclaimed, tooktheoath hofoffice,and ddischargedt thedutiesofS Senator,canb beordered toreimburset t thesalariesan ndemolument tshehasrecei ivedduringhi isincumbency y Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbedenied d. Thereisnoqu T uestionthatth hedefendanta actedasadefa actoofficerdu uringthetime eheheldtheo officeofSenato or.Hewas proclaimedasoneofthose whohadbeen p nelectedbyt theCommissio ononElection ns,andtherea afterhetookt theoathof officeandimm o mediatelyente eredintothep performance ofthedutieso oftheposition n.Havingbee enthusdulyproclaimed as a Senator an having assu nd umed office a required by law, it cann be disput that defen as y not ted ndant is entitled to the compensation,emolumentsandallowanc c ceswhichourConstitutionprovidesfort theposition.T Theemolumen ntmustgo totheperson whorendered t dserviceunle essthecontrar ryisprovided d.Therightof fthepersonelectedtocom mpensation duringtheirin d ncumbencyha asbeenrecogn nizedeversinc ce. oOo LUISMA ALALUAN,petitioner,vs.CO OMMISSIONO ELECTION ON NSandJOSEPHEVANGELIS STA,responde ents. G. .R.No.120193 3 Mar rch6,1996 Petitioner Lui Malaluan and private respondent J P is Joseph Evang gelista were both mayora alty candidat tes in the Municipality o Kidapawan North Cotab M of n, bato, in electi ions. Private respondent Evangelista w proclaimed by the e was MunicipalBoa M ardofCanvass sersasthedu ulyelectedMa ayor.Petitione erthenfileda anelectionprotestwiththe eRegional TrialCourt.Th T hetrialcourtd declaredpetit tionerasthed dulyelectedm municipalmay yor.Thecourt tfoundalsoEvangelista li iable not only for Malalua an's protest e expenses but also for mor and exem ral mplary damages and attorn ney's fees. Evangelistaap E ppealedtotheCOMELEC. Petitionerfiled P damotionfor rexecutionpe endingappeal.Themotionw wasgrantedb bythetrialcourt.Petitioner rassumed officeoftheM o MunicipalMayo orofKidapaw wanandexerci isedthepowe ersandfunctio onsoftheoffi ice.However, COMELEC orderedpetitio o onertovacate etheofficeasitstillfoundE EvangelistatobethedulyelectedMayorofKidapawan n.Also,the COMELEC found petitioner liable for att C r torney's fees, actual expen nses and unea arned salary a other em and moluments. Hence,thisins H stantpetition. Issue: Whether or no the COMEL gravely abused its disc W ot LEC cretion in awa arding the afo orecited dama ages in favor of private respondent. r Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbegrante ed.
135|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts This petition h become moot and academic insofar as it concer petitioner's right to the mayoralty s T has m r rns e seat in his municipalityb m becauseexpira ationofthete ermofofficec contestedint theelectionpr rotesthasthe eeffectofrend deringthe samemootand s dacademic.H However,theq questionastodamagesrem mainsripefora adjudication. TheOmnibus ElectionCode T eprovidestha atactualorcompensatoryd damagesmay begrantedin nallelectioncontestsor inquowarran ntoproceeding gsinaccordan ncewithlaw. Also,COMEL LECRulesofP Procedurepro ovidethatina allelection conteststheCo c ourtmayadju udicatedamag gesandattorn ney'sfeesasitmaydeemjustandasestablishedbythe eevidence if the aggrieve party has included such claims in his pleadings. T requirem ed i h s The ment for a vali and proper award of id r damages,isth d hatitmustbe remembered, ,isthatthesa ameisinaccordancewithla aw,specificall ly,theprovisi ionsofthe CivilCodepert C tinenttodama ages. Consideringth C hatactualorcompensatorydamagesareappropriateo onlyinbreachesofobligatio onsincasesof fcontracts and a quasicon ntracts and on the occasion of crimes an quasidelicts where the defendant ma be held lia n n nd ay able for all damages the p d proximate cau of which is the act or omission com use mplained of, t monetary claim of a party in an the y election case m e must necessar be hinged on either a contract or a quasicontract or a tortiou act or omission or a rily d us crime, in orde to effective recover ac c er ely ctual or comp pensatory dam mages. In the absence of a or all of these, the e any claimantmust c tbeabletopo ointoutaspec cificprovision noflawauthor rizingamone eyclaimforele ectionprotest texpenses againstthelos a singparty. Claimedaspar C rtofthedama agestowhich hprivaterespo ondentisalleg gedlyentitled dtoaresalary yandotherem moluments thatwouldhav t veaccruedtohimhadthere enotbeenanexecutionoft thetrialcourt'sdecisionpendingappealtherefrom intheCOMELE EC. Theruleinthisjurisdictionisthatnotwit T thstandinghis ssubsequento ousterasares sultofanelectionprotest,a anelective official who has been proclaimed by the COMELEC a winner in a electoral c o e as an contest and w assumed office and who enteredintoth e heperformanceofthedutie esofthatoffic ce,isentitled tothecompen nsation,emolumentsanda allowances legally provid for the po ded osition. Howe ever, while th ousted off he ficial is not obliged to reim mburse the s salary and emolumentso e ofofficeherec ceived,hewouldbeliablef fordamagesi ifhewouldbe efoundresponsibleforany yunlawful actsinrelation a ntohisprocla amation. Thecourtcanattributetop T petitionernob breachofcont tractorquasi contractorun nlawfulthatm maymakehim mliablefor actual damage Neither ha private resp a es. as pondent been able to poin out to a spe n nt ecific provisio of law auth on horizing a moneyclaimf m forelectionpr rotestexpense esagainstthe elosingparty. .Hence,theaw wardoftheaforeciteddam magesand attorneysfees a sareimproper. asettledrulet thatasmuchr recognitionsh houldbegiven ntothevalueofthedecisio onofajudicial lbodyasa Itisalsonowa basisfortheri b ighttoassume eofficeasthat tgivenbylaw wtotheproclamationmadebytheBoardofCanvassers s. Althoughpetit A tionerwasadj judgedthewi innerintheel lectionsonlyb bythetrialcourtandassum medthefuncti ionsofthe officeonthest o trengthmerel lyofanordergrantingexec cutionpending gappeal,thep petitionerwas snotausurpe erbecause, whileausurpe w erisonewhoundertakesto oactofficiallywithoutanyc colorofright,thepetitioner rexercisedthe edutiesof anelectiveoff a ficeundercolo orofelection thereto.Itma attersnottha atitwasthetr rialcourtand dnottheCOM MELECthat declared petit d tioner as the winner, becau both, at d w use different stage of the elec es ctoral process, have the po ower to so proclaimwinn p nersinelector ralcontests. The T decision o a judicial body is no less a basis than the proclam of b n mation made b the COMEL by LECconvened Board of d Canvassers fo a winning candidate's r C or right to assum office, for both are un me r ndisputedly l legally sanctio oned. The petitioner,the p erefore,isade efactoofficer rwho,ingood dfaith,hasha adpossession oftheofficea andhaddisch hargedthe dutiespertaini d ingtheretoan ndisthuslegallyentitledtotheemolume entsoftheoffice. oOo
136 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts MONAA.TOM M MALI,petitione er,vs.CIVILS SERVICECOMMISSION,OFFICEONMUS SLIMAFFAIRS S(OMA)and ROCAINA MAN,responde ents. M.LUCM G.R. .No.110598 mber1,1994 Decem Anappointmen A nttoapositioninthecivils serviceisrequi iredtobesubm mittedtotheC CivilServiceCo ommissionfor rapproval. Compliancewi C iththelegalre equirementsfo oranappointm menttoacivilservicepositio onisessentialinordertoma akeitfully effectiveandu e untilanappoin ntmenthasbe ecomeacompl letedact,itwo ouldbeprecip pitatetoinvok ketheruleons securityof tenure. t PetitionerMon P naTomaliwa asappointedD Development Management OfficerII(DM MOII)intheo officeonMusl limAffairs bytheOMAEx b xecutiveDirec ctor.Petitione erassumedth heofficefour monthslater, atwhichtime,theappoint tmenthad notyetbeentr n ransmittedtotheCivilServ viceCommissio onforapprov val. Thenewdirec T ctorofOMA,revokingthep previousincom mpleteappoin ntmentofpetit tioner,appoin ntedRocainaL Lucmanto the position in question (DMO II). Petitioner filed a letter to OMA prote t d o esting her re eplacement. O OMA then communicated c dtopetitioner rthedisappro oval/expiratio onofherappo ointment.Lucm manthentookheroathof officeand assumed offic of DMO II. Petitioner re a ce eiterated her protest. The Merit System Protection Board dism e ms n missed the complaintasw c wellastherec consideration.Petitionerap ppealedtothe eCSC;howeve er,CSCdenied dtheappeal.H Hence,the recoursetothe r eCourt. Issue: Whetherthein W ncompleteapp pointmentoft thePetitioner rcanberevokedbytheOMA ADirector. Held: H Thepetitionm T mustbedismis ssed. An A appointme to a position in the civ service is r ent vil required to b submitted to the CSC fo approval in order to be or n determine wh d hether the pro oposed appoin ntee is qualifie to hold the ed eposition and dwhether the rules pertin e nent tothe process of app p pointment are followed. Co e ompliance wit the legal re th equirements f an appointment to a civ service for vil positionisess p sentialinorde ertomakeitf fullyeffective.Withoutthe approvaloft theCommissio on,notitletotheoffice canyetbedee c emedtobepe ermanentlyve estedinfavor roftheappointee,andthe appointment tcanstillber recalledor withdrawnbytheappointin w ngauthority. Astheappoint A tmentofthep petitionerhasnotbeenappr rovedbytheC CSC,itwaswe ellwithinthea authorityanddiscretion ofthe new OM directorto appoint Luc o MA o cmanandsuch prerogative could not be questioned e h e e even on asho owing that petitionermig p ghthavebeenbetterqualifie edfortheposition. oOo CABANTING,A C A. J/SR.SUP PT.JOSUEG.E ENGAOV.CO OURTOFAPP PEALS 27June2006G.R. No.156959 493SCRA323 Whileanapp pointmentisa anessentiallyd discretionarye executivepowe er,itissubject ttothelimitat tionthattheap ppointee shouldpos ssessnoneofth hedisqualifica ationsbutallt thequalificatio onsrequiredby bylaw. The C Chief Director rate for Perso onnel of BJMP submitted t the DILG S P to Selection Boa of Senior Executive ard Positions a lis from which were culled the names of eligible cand P st h f didates for th position of BJMP Directo Among he or.
137|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts thoseinterview t wed,onlyone efullymetthe eCSCQualific cationStandar rds,privatere espondentArt turoAlit.DILG GSec.Lina recommended r dtheappointm mentofAlit.H However,the Presidentapp pointedpetitionerJosueEn nganowhoap ppearedto haveassumedthepostofBJ h JMPChief. nstitutedaquo owarrantopr roceedingsag gainstEngano claimingthat tthelattersappointmentis sirregular Alitin andillegaldue a etohislackof ftheminimum mqualification nsrequiredfor rtheposition. . HTP. H ISSUE: 1. a. b. HELD: H onDENIED. Petitio herEnganosa appointmenti isvalid?NO! Wheth Wheth Engano is entitled to s her s salary differen ntial, representation and t transportation allowances and other n benefi fits?NO! Wheth herEnganoisentitledtoda amages?NO! RTCd decidedinfav vorofAlitdec claringEngano osappointme entnullandv void.CAaffirm mdthedecisio onofRTC.
Apub blicofficeisno otaproperty withinthecontextofthed dueprocessgu uaranteeoftheConstitution n.Thereis nosuchthing asavestedin n nterestinapu ublicoffice,let taloneanabs soluterightto oholdit.Excep ptconstitutionaloffices which provide for special immunity as r w e regards salary and tenure, no one can b said to hav any vested right in a y be ve publicofficeoritssalary.It p tisonlywhen nsalaryhasalreadybeenea arnedoraccru uedthatsaid salarybecom mesprivate propertyande p entitledtothe eprotectionof fdueprocess. Whet therEnganoi isentitledto osalarydifferential,representationandtransport tationallowa ancesand otherbenefits? o right to salar and other emoluments arising from public em ry r s m mployment is based on ones valid The r appointment o election to the office its and accru from the d a or self ues date of actual commencem ment of the dis scharge of officialduties.Asmayber o recalled,petit tionerEngao o,albeitlackin nginqualifica ations,wasno onethelessapp pointedas Director of th BJMP and appeared to have entere upon the p D he ed performance of the duties of the posi s ition from September27,2001toOcto S ober2,2001w whentheappointingautho orityrecalledh hisappointme entowingtos somelegal issues respect ting his quali ification. Subsequently, ho owever, the a appointment was perempt torily nullified. In all, therefore, peti t itioner Engan served as h no head of the BJ JMP for six (6 days only, b as a de fa 6) but acto officer at best. And whileadefact w toofficerisen ntitledtosom meformofcom mpensation,re espondentsSe ecretaryLina andAlitcannotbeheld personallyliab p bleforpetition nersclaimfor rsalary,RATA Aandotherbe enefits.TheBJMPcannotal lsobecompel lledtopay sinceitwasno s otapartyinth hepetitionbel lowforquow warranto,norin ntheappellat teproceedings sbeforetheCA A. Whet therEnganoi isentitledto damages?
Neithe erispetitione erEngaoenti itledtoanyda amages.Asitw were,thereco ordsareberef ftofanysho owingthat either respond e dent Alit or Secretary Lina acted in a willful, arbi S a a itrary, baseles or wrongf manner, as Engao ss, ful s alleges.Itis obviousthat a tboth,ingoo odfaith,believ vedthatEnga aowasunqua alifiedforthe econtestedpo osition,as wassubseque w entlyfoundto obethecasebythetrialco ourtandthenbytheCA.SecretaryLina's sassumptiono ofthepost inatemporary ycapacitydu uringthepend dencyoftheq quowarrantosuitwasvalidasitwas,infact,pursuanttothe trials court order. Priva responden Alit, needless to stress, was also w within his rights in ch t ate nt , well s hallenging petitioner'seli p igibilitytothe epost. Thetw wocourtsbelowwerecorr rectinassertin ngtheirrespe ectivejurisdic ctionsovervoidappointments.While an a appointme is an esse ent entially discre etionary execu utive power, it is subject t the limitat to tion that the appointee should posses none of the disqualifications but all th qualificatio required by law. Wher the law p s ss e he ons re prescribes
138 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts certain qualifi c ications for a given office or positio courts m determine whether th appointee has the on, may e he e requisitequal r lifications,abs sentwhich,his srightortitletheretomayb bedeclaredvo oid. oOo PEOPL LEOFTHEPH HILIPPINESV V.JESUSGARC CIA 30Aug gust1999G.R R.No.126252 2313SCRA279 Adecisionp promulgatedaf aftertheretirem mentofthejud dgewhosigne editisnulland dvoid.UndertheRulesonC Criminal Procedur re,adecisionis svalidandbin ndingonlyifpe ennedandpro omulgatedbyt thejudgedurin nghisincumbe ency. Accus sedappellant JesusGarciaw wasfoundgui iltyofillegalp possessionof prohibiteddr rugsandwas sentenced to t suffer the m maximum penalty of death The decisio was prom h. on mulgated by R RTC Judge Pas stor De Guzm man, Jr. on February20,1 F 1996. Judge De Guzman filed an appli ication for dis sability retire ement. The Su upreme Court En Banc app t proved his applicationanditseffectivit a tywasmader retroactivetoF February16,1 1996. llant impugns hisconvictio onthegrou on undthat the d decision conv victing him of the crimecha arged was Appel notvalidlypro n omulgatedasi itwasmadefo our(4)daysaftertheretire ementoftheju udgewhopennedthedecisi ion. ISSUE: herthedecisio onrenderedb byJudgeDeGu uzmanisvalid d?YES! Wheth HELD: H gatedafterthe eretiremento ofthejudgew whosignedit isnullandvo oid.Underthe eRuleson Adecisionpromulg Criminal Proc C cedure, a dec cision is valid and binding only if pen d g nned and pro omulgated by the judge d y during his incumbency.T Tobeprecise,ajudgmenth haslegaleffect tonlywhenitisrendered:(a)byacourt tlegallyconstitutedand appointed,dul lyqualifiedan ndactuallyact tingeither intheactualexerciseofjudicialpowers, and(b)byajudgelegallya dejureordef d facto.Ajudge edejureison newhoexerc cisestheoffic ceofajudge asamattero ofright,fully yinvested withallthep w powersandfu functionscon ncededtohim munderthel law.Ajudge edefactoiso onewhoexer rcisesthe officeofjudg o geundersomecolorofrig ght.Hehasth hereputation noftheofficer rheassumes tobe,yethe hassome defectinhisrighttoexercisejudicialfunc d ctionsatthep particulartime e. ecaseatbar,t thedecisionu underrevieww wasvalidlyp promulgated.Althoughthe eeffectivityofJudgede Inthe Guzman,Jr.sd G disabilityretir rementwasm maderetroac ctivetoFebru uary16,1996 6,itcannotbe edeniedthata atthetime his h subject de ecision was promulgated on Februar 20, 1996, he was still the incumbe judge of the RTC, p d ry ent Branch LX of Baguio City and has in fact continu B f y, n ued to hold said office a and act as ju udge thereof until his f application f a for retiremen was appr nt roved in June 1996. Thu as of Feb us, bruary 20, 19 996 when the decision e convictingapp c pellantwaspr romulgated,Ju udgedeGuzman,Jr.wasact tuallydischarg ginghisdutiesasadefacto ojudge.In fact,asofthat f ttime,hehas yettofilehis sapplication fordisability retirement.T Tobesure,as searlyas191 18,welaid downtheprin d nciplethatwhe erethetermo ofthejudgeha asterminated dandhehasceasedtoacta asjudge,hissu ubsequent actsinattemptingtodispos a seofbusinessheleftunfinis shedbeforeth heexpirationofhistermar revoid.However,inthe presentcase,a p asJudgedeGuzman,Jr.wa asadefactoju udgeintheac ctualexercise ofhisofficea atthetimethedecision under review was promulg u gated on Febr ruary 20, 199 said decisi is legal an has a valid and binding effect on 96, ion nd d g appellant. a
oOo
Commencem C mentofOffici ialRelations s(Appointm ments/Elections)
139|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts TOMA ASACHACOSOv.CATALIN NOMACARAIG G 13Ma arch1991G.R R.No.93023 195SCRA23 35 Apermanentappointmentc canbeissuedo only"toapers sonwhomeets salltherequir rementsforthe epositiontow whichheis beingappointe b ed,includingt theappropriat teeligibilitypr rescribed." Tomas Achacoso was appointed Administrat of POEA. In complianc with a req w d tor ce quest addressed by the President of th Philippines he filed a c P he s, courtesy resig gnation. The Secretary of La abor requeste him to turn over his ed n officebuthep o protestedhisr replacementa anddeclared hewasnotsu urrenderingh hisofficebecau usehisresign nationwas notvoluntary butfiledonly n yinobedience etothePresid dentsdirectiv ve.JoseSarmie entowasappo ointedAdministratorof POEA.Hismot P tionforrecon nsiderationwa asdenied.Hefiledapetitio onforprohibi itionandman ndamusinthe eSupreme Courttoannul C ltheappointm mentofSarmie ento. Achac coso, contends that heis a memberof th s heCareerSer rvice ofthe Ci Servicean so enjoys s ivil nd security of tenure,whichisoneofthec t characteristics softheCareer rServiceasdi istinguishedfr romtheNonC CareerService e. olicitorGener ralconcedesth hattheofficeo ofPOEAAdmi inistratorisacareerexecut tiveservicepo ositionbut TheSo submitsthatt s thepetitioner himselfisnotacareerexe ecutiveservice eofficialentit tledtosecurit tyoftenure.H Heoffersa certification f c from the Civ Service Co vil ommission to show that the petition o ner did not p possess the necessary qualificationsw q whenhewasappointedAd dministratorofthePOEAin1987.Nothav vingtakentha atexamination n,hecould notclaimthathisappointmentwasperm n manentandgua aranteedhimsecurityoften nureinhisposition. ISSUE: HELD: H onDISMISSED D. Petitio herAchacosoisentitledtos securityoften nure?NO! Wheth
Itisse ettledthatapermanentapp pointmentcan nbeissuedon nly"toaperson nwhomeetsa alltherequire ementsfor the t position to which he is being appoin o s nted, includin the approp ng priate eligibilit prescribed." Achacoso d not. At ty did best,therefore b e,hisappointm mentcouldbe eregardedon nlyastempora ary.Andbeing gso,itcouldb bewithdrawn natwillby theappointing t gauthorityand"atamomen nt'snotice,"co onformablyto oestablishedjurisprudence. Them merefactthat apositionbe elongstotheC CareerService edoesnotaut tomaticallyco onfersecurity yoftenure onitsoccupan o ntevenifhedo oesnotpossesstherequire edqualifications.Suchright twillhavetod dependonthe enatureof his h appointme which in turn depends on his eligib ent, s bility or lack of it. A perso who does not have the requisite on e qualifications forthepositio q oncannotbe appointedto itinthefirst placeor,only yasanexcept tiontotherul le,maybe appointedtoit a tmerelyinan nactingcapac cityintheabse enceofappropriateeligible es.Theappoin ntmentextend dedtohim cannotberega c ardedasperm manentevenifitmaybesod f designated. Inthe esecircumstan nces,theactin ngappointeeis sseparatedby yamethodof fterminatingo officialrelatio onsknown publicofficers sasexpiration noftheterm.Histermisu understoodat ttheoutsetas swithoutany fixityand inthelawofp enduringatth e hepleasureof theappointin f ngauthority.W Whenrequire edtorelinquis shhisoffice,h hecannotcom mplainthat heinbeingremovedinviol h lationofhiss securityoften nurebecause removalimpo ortsthesepar rationoftheincumbent beforetheexp b pirationofhis sterm.5This isallowedby ytheConstitu utiononlywhe enitisforcau useasprovide edbylaw. Theactingapp T pointeeissepa aratedprecise elybecausehi istermhasex xpired.Expirat tionoftheter rmisnotcoveredbythe constitutionalprovisiononsecurityoften c nure. oOo DEOGR RACIASREGIS S,JR.V.SERG GIOOSMENA, JR. 23M May1991G.R.No.267851 197SCRA308 8
140 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thepatrolma andetectiveci ivilserviceelig gibilityofpetit tionerisnotintendedforora appropriateto othepositiono ofdriver; hence,itdidnotconver rthisprovision na]appointme entofdriverto oapermanent tone. Deogr racias Regis, Jr. was appointed as Driv J ver of the Ceb Police Dep bu partment on several occas sions from 19581963.Ho 1 owever,in1964,hewasrem movedfromh hispositionw withoutpriorin nvestigationo orhearing.Reg gispassed the patrolman and/or dete t n ective civil se ervice examin nation on Jul 1963. After his remova Regis protested and ly r al, appealedtoth a hePresidento ofthePhilippi ineshisunlaw wfulremovala anddemanded dhisreinstate ement.OnMa arch1964, hereceivedhi h iscivilservice eeligibilityfor rpatrolmand detectivewith hthehighestr ratingamong thedriversof fCPD.The recordsofthe RegionalOffi r iceoftheCivil lServiceCommissioninCe ebuCitydono otshowthatp petitionerposs sessesany civil service el c ligibility at th time he wa appointed a driver. The court dismis he as as e ssed the petit tion on the gr round that petitioner's qu p uestioned app pointment wa temporary in nature an therefore, terminable at the pleasu of the as y nd, ure appointingpow a wer. ISSUE: 1. 2. HELD: H 1. a,etal.vs.Nam mocatcat,etal.,L39703,30 0October1972 2.11Wefurth herelaborated donthedistinc ction: InAta "...Aprovisionalappointmentis sonewhichm maybeissued,upontheprio orauthorizatio onoftheCom mmissioner vil with the prov visions of the Civil Service Law and th rules and standards e e he of Civ Service in accordance w promu ulgated there eunder, to a person 'who has not qualified in an appropriate examination but who o otherw wisemeetsth herequiremen ntsforappoint tmenttoareg gularpositioninthecompet titiveservice,whenever avaca ancyoccursan ndthefillingt thereofisnecessaryinthe interestofthe eserviceand thereisnoap ppropriate regist of eligible at the tim of appoint ter es me tment' (Sec. 2 24(c), supra). On the oth hand, a t her temporary appointmentgiven toanoncivil lserviceeligib bleiswithout tadefiniteten nureofoffice andisdepend dentupon ower."(Citing gCuadravs.Cordova,103P Phil.391;Pinu ullarvs.Presid dentofthe thepleasureoftheappointingpo e,104Phil.13 31,135). Senate gree,however r,withthecou urtbelowthat tthepatrolma andetectiveci ivilserviceeli igibilityofpet titioner"is Weag notin ntendedforor rappropriate tothepositio onofdriver;h hence,itdidno otconverthis stemporary[s shouldbe, correc ctly,provision nal]appointme entofdrivert toapermanen ntone(Sec.8,RuleIV,CivilServiceRules) )." oOo PAMANTAS SANNGLUNG GSODNGMAY YNILAV.INTE ERMEDIATEA APPELLATEC COURT 13No ovember1985 5No.L65439140SCRA2 22 Anadinterimappoint tmentisanapp pointmentper rmanentinnat ture,andthec circumstancet thatitissubjec ctto confirmation nbytheComm missiononAppointmentsdoe esnotalteritspermanentch haracter. Respon ndent Dr. Her rnani Esteban had been a permanent em n mployee in th governmen service for 25 years. he nt Until May 20, 1973, he was the VicePre U s esident for Ac cademic Affair in the Phili rs ippine College of Commerc a state e ce, ownededucat o tionalinstituti ion.TheBoard dofTrustees oftheCollege eresolvedtoa abolishthepositionofVice President for f Academic Affairs. He was given an option to co w ontinue teachi at the sam college un his transfer to the ing me ntil PamantasanngLungsodngMaynila. P sinitiallyexte endedaninter rimtemporar ryappointmen ntasVicePres sidentforAdm ministrationa atPLM.He Hewas received a not r tification of renewal of tem r mporary appo ointment from the Secretary of PLM eff m fective until A August 31,
hertheappoin ntmentofReg gisistemporar ryinnature?N NO!Provision nal. Wheth Wheth her the patr rolmandetecti ive civil serv vice eligibility converted his provisional appointm y ment to a perma anentone?NO O!
2.
141|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 1974. Another notification of renewal o temporary appointment effective un June 30, 1 1 r of t ntil 1975 was ma by Dr. ade ConsueloBlan C nco.Histempo oraryappointm menthasbeen nrenewedaga aineffectiveun ntilJune30,1976. Dr. Est teban discove ered that he was not incl luded in the list of emplo oyees recomm mended for p permanent appointments. a .OnAugust7, ,1975,amem morandumcirc cularwasissuedterminatin ngDr.Esteban nsappointmen ntasVice PresidentforA P Administration.Hisappoint tmenteffectiv veuntilJune30 0,1976hadbeenwithdraw wn. Dr. Est teban appeale to the Civ Service Co ed vil ommission for the protecti r ion of his ten nure which u upheld the temporary nat t ture of his ap ppointment. O a motion f reconsider On for ration, the Co ommission ru uled that Dr. E Esteban is qualifiedforth q hepositionan ndcertifiedhi imforappoint tmentunderp permanentsta atus.ButtheC Commissions statedthat it certificatio should not be interpret as directi the reinst ts on t ted ing tatement of D Esteban. T Commiss Dr. The sion again modifieditsea m arlierresolutionthatonlyt theBoardofR Regentsisemp poweredtoex xtendanadin nterimappoin ntment.Dr. Blancohadnoauthoritytod B doso. olutionNo.59 97,theComm missionordere edPLMtosub bmitanydocu umentshowin ngthatDr.Est tebanwas InReso appointed in a permanent capacity. PLM failed to submit any. The Commissio ruled that the appoint a M on t tment was approvedasp a permanent.Th hemotionfor reconsiderationbyPLMwa asdeniedbyt theCommission.PLMfiled apetition for f certiorari against Dr. Esteban and C i E Civil Service Commission a the Court o First Instance. The Court of First at of Instance decla ared Dr. Esteb bans appointm ment as invalid. The Interm mediate Appellate Court re eversed the tr courts rial decision. d ISSUE: YES! Y HELD: H PetitionDENIED. her ndent holds th position in a permanent capacity as to guarantee his security o tenure? he n of Wheth the respon
n of VII An ad interim appointment is one made in pursuance o paragraph (4), section 10, Article V of the Constitution,w C whichprovide esthatthePre esidentshallh havethepow wertomakeap ppointmentsd duringtherec cessofthe Congress, but such appoint C tments shall b effective o be only until disa approval by th Commissio on Appoin he on ntments or untilthenext adjournmentoftheCongre u ess.'ltisanap ppointmentpe ermanentinn nature,andthe ecircumstanc cethatitis subject to con s nfirmation by the Commissi on Appoin ion ntmentsdoes notalter its permanentch haracter. An a interim ad appointment is disapproved certainly for a reason other than that its pro a n n ovisional per riod has expired. Said appointmentisofcoursedistinguishable froman'actin a ng'appointme entwhichism merelytempor rary,goodunt tilanother permanentapp p pointmentisi issued. The permanent na ature of appe ellant's appoi intment was not altered or diminish hed by the m misleading notifications' which were sent to him by the secretary of the univ s versity presid dent, referring to his appointment as g 'n 't temporary',n norbyhisunin nformedaccep ptancethereofwithoutkno owledgeofthe etruecontent tsofResolutio onNo.485 whichtheuniv w versitypreside entappearsto ohavestudiou uslysuppresse ed. oOo RENATOM M.LAPINIDv vs.CIVILSERV VICECOMMIS SSION May14,19 G.R.No.9 991 96298
TheCivilServi T iceCommission nhadnoautho oritytorevoke ethesaidappo ointmentsimp plybecauseitb believedthatth heprivate respondent twasbetterqu ualified. Petitioner Renato M. Lapinid wa appointed by the Philippine Ports Au M as uthority to th position of Terminal he f Supervisor at the Manila In S nternational C Container Term minal on Octo ober 1, 1988. This appointm ment was pro otested on Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 142|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts December 15, 1988, by pr D , rivate respond dent Juanito Junsay, He co ontended that he should b designated terminal t be d supervisor.On s nJune26,198 89,complainin ngthatthePP PAhadnotact tedonhispro otest,Junsayw wenttotheCiv vilService Commission a C and challenge Lapinid's a ed appointment. The Commis ssion finds th appeal meritorious. Bas he sed on an evaluation,Lap e pinidgarneredaratingof7 75whileJunsa ayhadarating gof79. It is directed that Appellants Juanito Junsay and Benjamin Villegas be appointed as Terminal Supervisor. A RenatoLapinid R dandAntonio oDulforespec ctivelymaybeconsideredfo orappointmen nttoanyposit tioncommens surateand suitabletothe s eirqualifications,andthatth heCommissio onbenotifiedw within10day ysoftheimple ementation. Lapinid dfiledamotionforrecons siderationbut twasdenied. ThePPAfiled ditsownmot tionforreconsideration butwasalsod b denied.TheSolicitorGenera alwaspermitt tedtofileitsComment. ISSUE: hertheCivilServiceCommi issionisauthorizedtodisa approveaper rmanentappo ointmentonth heground Wheth thatanotherp t personisbette erqualifiedth hantheappointeeand,ont thebasisofth hisfinding,or rderhisreplac cementby thelatter?NO! t ! HELD: H PetitionGRANTED.
gov.CivilSer rviceCommiss sion,thisCourtdeclared:A Appointmenti isanessential llydiscretiona arypower InLueg andmustbep a performedby theofficerin whichitisve estedaccordin ngtohisbest tlights,theon nlyconditionb beingthat theappointeeshouldposses t ssthequalific cationsrequire edbylaw.Ifh hedoes,thent theappointme entcannotbefaultedon thegroundtha t atthereareot thersbetterqu ualifiedwhos shouldhavebe eenpreferred.Thisisapoli iticalquestion ninvolving considerations c sofwisdomw whichonlytheappointingau uthoritycand decide. Signific cantly, the Commission o Civil Servi acknowle C on ice edged that bo the petit oth tioner and th private he respondent were qualified for the positi in controv r ion versy. That re ecognition alo rendered it functus offi one icio in the caseandpreve c enteditfrom actingfurther rthereonexcepttoaffirmt thevalidityof fthepetitione er'sappointm ment.Tobe sure, it had no authority to revoke the said ap s y ppointment simply beca ause it belie eved that the private e respondentw r wasbetterqu ualifiedfortha atwouldhave econstituteda anencroachm mentonthedis scretionvestedsolelyin thecitymayor t r. Theon nlyfunctionof ftheCivilServ viceCommiss sionincaseso ofthisnature, ,accordingto Luego,istor reviewthe appointmenti a inthelightof therequirem mentsoftheCivilServiceLaw,andwhen itfindstheap ppointeetobe equalified andallotherle a egalrequirem mentshavebee enotherwises satisfied,ithas snochoicebu uttoattesttot theappointme ent. Thede eterminationo ofwhoamong gseveralcand didatesforava acantposition nhasthebest tqualifications sisvested heDepartmen ntHeadorapp pointingautho orityandnotin ntheCivilSer rviceCommiss sion. inthesounddiscretionofth ommission ha no power o appointmen except over its own per as of nt rsonnel. Neith does it her The Civil Service Co have the auth h hority to review the appoi intments mad by other o de offices except only to asce t ertain if the appointee possesses the required qu p e ualifications. T The determin nation of who among aspi o irants with th minimum statutory he qualificationsshouldbepre q eferredbelong gstotheappointingauthori ityandnottheCivilService eCommission n.Itcannot disallow an appointment because it believes anothe person is b d b er better qualified and much less can it direct the h appointmento a ofitsownchoi ice. oOo VICECOMMISSIONV.SATU URNINODELA ACRUZ CIVILSERV 31Aug gust2004G.R R.No.158737 7437SCRA403
143|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts "Everyparti icularjobinan nofficecallsfo orbothformal landinformalqualifications s.Formalqualificationssuch hasage, numberofa academicunits sinacertaincourse,seminar rsattended,et tc.,maybevaluablebutsoaresuchintang giblesas resourcefulnes r ss,teamspirit,courtesy,initi iative,loyalty,ambition,pro ospectsforthef futureandbes stinterestofth heservice. Giventhedemandsofacerta G ainjob,whoca andoitbestsh houldbeleftto otheheadofth heofficeconce ernedprovided dthelegal re equirementsfo ortheofficear resatisfied." Priort tohisappoint tmentastheC ChiefAviationSafetyRegula ationOfficero oftheAviationSafetyDivis sioninthe Air A Transport tation Office (ATO), DOTC, respondent Saturnino de la Cruz was a Check Pilo II in ATO. Annabella ( ot CalambaoftheAviationsaf C fetyDivisionf filedwiththe DOTCherpr rotestagainst thepromotio onalappointm mentofthe respondentcla r aimingthatth herespondentdidnotmeetthefouryearsupervisoryr requirementf fortheposition. DOTC foundnomer ritonCalambasprotest.Ca alambaappea aledthedecisiontotheCiv vilServiceCom mmission NCR.TheCSC N NCRupheldt theprotestof fCalambaand drecallingthe eapprovalofr respondents appointment. .Amotion forreconsider f rationbyrespo ondentwasde enied. ISSUE: HELD: H PetitionDENIED. hertheappointmentofther respondentwa asvalid?YES. Wheth Respon ndentappeale edintheCourt tofAppeals.T TheCourtofA Appealssetasi idetheresolut tionofCSC.
ementaryinth helawofpubl licofficerstha atthepowerto oappointisin nessencedisc cretionaryont thepartof Itisele theproperaut t thority.InSal llesvs.Francisco,etal.,we ehadoccasion ntorulethat, intheappoin ntmentorpro omotionof employees, th appointing authority con e he nsiders not o only their civi service elig il gibilities but a also their per rformance, education,workexperience e e,trainingsan ndseminarsa attended,agen ncyexaminationsandsenio ority.Consequ uently,the appointingaut a thorityhastherightofchoi icewhichhem mayexercisef freelyaccordi ingtohisbest tjudgment,de ecidingfor himselfwhois h sbestqualifie edamongthos sewhohavet thenecessary yqualificationsandeligibili ities.Thefinal lchoiceof the t appointing authority sh g hould be respected and left undisturbed Judges shou not substit t d. uld tute their jud dgment for thatoftheapp t pointingautho ority. Inthea appointmentofdivisionchi iefs,asinthiscase,thepow wertoappoint trestsontheh headofthede epartment. Sufficientifno S otplenarydiscretionshouldbegranted tothoseentru ustedwiththeresponsibili ityofadminis steringthe officesconcern o ned.Theyareinaposition todeterminewhocanbest tfulfillthefun nctionsofthe officevacated d.Notonly istheappointi ingauthority theofficerpr rimarilyrespo onsibleforthe eadministratio onoftheoffic ce,heisalsointhebest positiontodet p terminewhoa amongthepro ospectiveappo ointeescanef fficientlydisch hargethefunc ctionsofthepo osition. There is no reason to disapprove the appoint e tment of respo ondent as Chi of the Avia ief ation Safety R Regulation Office conside O ering that he is fully qual lified and evidently the c choice of the appointing a authority. Bet tween the Commissionandtheappoin C ntingauthority y,wesustaint thelatter."Ev veryparticular rjobinanoffi icecallsforbo othformal andinformalq a qualifications.Formalqualificationssuch hasage,numb berofacadem micunitsinacertaincourse, ,seminars attended,etc., maybevalua a ablebutsoare esuchintangi iblesasresour rcefulness,tea amspirit,courtesy,initiativ ve,loyalty, ambition,pros a spectsforthe futureandbe estinterestof ftheservice. Giventhedem mandsofacer rtainjob,who ocandoit bestshouldbe b elefttotheheadoftheoffic ceconcernedp providedthelegalrequirem mentsfortheo officearesatisfied." The re eckoning poin in determ nt mining the qu ualifications o an appoint of tee is the da of issuan of the ate nce appointmenta a andnottheda ateofitsappro ovalbytheCS SCorthedateofresolutionoftheprotest tagainstit.We eneednot rule on petitio r oners assertion that respo ondents subs sequent comp pliance with the experience standards d e during the pendencyofth p hecaseshould dnotbecount tedinhisfavo orsincerespondentwasany ywayqualifiedfortheposit tionatthe timeofhisapp t pointment.
144 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts oOo PHILIPPIN NEAMUSEME ENTANDGAM MINGCORPOR RATIONVSCA ARLOSRILLO ORAZA 25June2001G.R. No.141141 359SCRA525 Confidenti ialemployeesa arestillprotec ctedbythema antleofsecurity tyoftenure.Se ection16ofP.D D.1869,insofa arasit decla aresallpositio onswithinPAG GCORasprima arilyconfidenti ial,isnotabso olutelybinding gonthecourts s. Admin nistrative char rges for dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct pre e , ejudicial to th best intere of the he est service, and lo of confidence were br s oss rought agains Carlos Rillo st oraza, a casin operations manager of petitioner no PAGCORforfa P ailuretopreve entanirregula arityandviola ationsofcasin noregulations scommittedb bycoofficers duringhis shift. s ORBoardhand deddownare esolutiondism missingrespon ndentandseve eralothersfro omPAGCOR.T TheBoard PAGCO denied respon d ndents motio for recon on nsideration. R Respondent a appealed to t the Civil Ser rvice Commis ssion. The Commission fi C inds responde guilty onl of Simple N ent ly Neglect of Dut The Comm ty. mission denied PAGCORs m d motion for reconsideratio r on.Onappeal, ,theCourtof Appealsaffirm medtheresol lutionoftheC Commissiona andorderedP PAGCORto reinstateRillorazawithfullpaymentofb r backwagesand dotherbenefi its.TheCourtofAppealsde eniedPAGCOR Rsmotion forreconsider f ration. ISSUE: heritisbindinguponthecourtthatthere espondentwasaconfidentialemployee?N NO! 1. Wheth 2. Wheth hertherewasa asufficientcausetowarran ntdismissalno otmerelysusp pension?NO! HELD: H PetitionDENIED. 1. Wheth heritisbindi inguponthe courtthattherespondentwasaconfid dentialemployee? on16ofPresid dentialDecree eNo.18698pr rovides: Sectio Exemp ption.All pos sitions in the Corporation, whether tech hnical, admini istrative, prof fessional or m managerial areexe emptfromthe eprovisionso oftheCivilSer rviceLaw,rul lesandregula ations,andsha allbegoverne edonlyby the personnel mana agement polic cies set by the Board of Directors. All em e mployees of t casinos an related the nd esshallbeclas ssifiedas"Con nfidential"app pointee. service Justice eRegalados in ncisivediscou urse yieldsthr (3) impor ree rtant points:f first,theclassificationof a particular position as pr p rimarily confid dential, policy ydetermining or highly tec g chnical amoun to no mor than an executive or nts re legislative dec claration that is notconclusive upon the courts, the t e true test being the nature o g ofthe position. Second, whether prim w marily confide ential, policydetermining or highly tec chnical, the e exemption pr rovided in th Charter he pertains to ex p xemption from competitive examination to determine merit and fit m e tness to enter the civil ser r rvice. Such employeesare e estillprotecte edbytheman ntleofsecurity yoftenure.La ast,andmore tothepoint,S Section16of P.D.1869, insofarasitde eclaresallpositionswithinP PAGCORaspr rimarilyconfid dential,isnotabsolutelybin ndingonthec courts. Consid derations vary so as to make a positio primarily c y on confidential. P Private secret taries are ind disputably primarilyconf p fidentialempl loyees.Those taskedtopro ovidepersonal lsecuritytoc certainpublic officialshavealsobeen deemedtohol d ldprimarilyc confidentialpo ositionsforob bviousreason ns:theformer rliterallyare responsiblef forthelife and a wellbeing of the latter Similar trea g r. atment was a accorded to th hose occupyin the posts o city legal o ng of officer and provincialatto p orney,inasmuchasthehigh hlyprivilegedn natureofthel lawyerclientrelationshipm mandatesthat tcomplete trust and con t nfidence must exist betwix them. National interest has also bee adjudged a factor, such that the t xt en a h countrysperm c manentrepres sentativetoth heUnitedNat tionswasdee emedtohold herpostatth hepleasureof ftheChief Executive. E Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 145|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Undou ubtedly, respo ondents duti ies and resp ponsibilities c call for a gr reat measure of both ab e bility and dependability. They can hardly be ch d . haracterized as routinary for he is required to exercise supervisory, y, recommendato r oryand disciplinarypower itha wide p rsw elatitudeofau rity.His d utho dutiesdifferm markedlyfrom mthosewe previouslyruledasnotprim p marilyconfidential. hertherewas sasufficient causetowar rrantdismissalnotmerely ysuspension n? 2. Wheth Onthis spoint,havinganalyzedbo othpartiesar rguments,we findthatthe CivilServiceC Commissiond didnoterr hatRillorazaw wasliableonly yforsimplene eglectofduty. .Inthefirstpl lace,thereisn noevidenceto osustaina indeclaringth chargeofdisho c onesty. oOo NORBERTO OORCULLO,JR R.V.CIVILSERVICECOMM MISSION 22May2001G.R. No.1387803 358SCRA115 Thus,whilesu uchemploymen ntiscotermin nouswiththeP PAPSproject,p petitionerneve erthelessserve esatthepleasureofthe appoi intingauthorit ty Norber Orcullo Jr was hired a Project Manager IV by C rto r. as CCPAPBOT C Center effectiv March 11, 1996. His ve employmentis e scontractualandcotermin nouswiththesaidprojectw whichwasto endonJanuar ry30,2000.S Sixmonths aft a er assumpt tion of office he received a memoran e, d ndum termin nating petition ners contrac ctual employm ment. The ExecutiveDire E ectorofCCPAPconfirmedt theterminatio on.Heappeale edtotheCivil lServiceCom mmission.CSC dismissed thepetitioner t sappeal.Peti itionerfileda apetitionforr reviewwiththeCourtofA Appeals.TheC CourtofAppea alsdenied thepetition. t ISSUE: her s lic gardless of th heir status of employment are protected by the f t Wheth employees in the publ service reg tenurialsecuri t ityembodiedintheConstitution?NO! HELD: H . PetitionDISMISSED.
ndisputedthat petitioner's employment withCCPAPi iscontractual andcotermi inousinnatur re.Sucha Itisun coterminouse c employmentf fallsunderthe enoncareers serviceclassifi icationofposi itionsintheCivilService. Aperu usalofpetition nersemploym mentcontract willrevealth hathisemploy ymentwithCC CPAPisqualif fiedbythe phraseunless p sterminated sooner.Thus s,whilesuch employment iscotermino ouswiththeP PAPSproject, petitioner neverthelesss n servesatthep pleasureofthe eappointinga authorityasth hisisclearlyst tipulatedinhisemploymentcontract. We W agree wit the appella courts in th ate ntepretation o the phrase unless term of e minated soon ner to mean that his contractualjob c basProjectM ManagerIVfro omMarch11,1996toJanua ary30,2000c couldendanyt timebeforeJa anuary30, 2000iftermin 2 natedbytheot thercontractingpartyemp ployerCCPAP. oOo ARDODELOS SSANTOSV.G GILMALLARE E EDUA 31A August1950 No.L38818 87SCRA289 Nooffice eroremployee eintheCivilSe erviceshallberemovedorsu uspendedexce eptforcauseas sprovidedbyl law. Eduard de los Santos was appo do ointed City En ngineer of Bag guio which wa confirmed by the Comm as mission on Appointments A s.However,Gi ilMallarewasextendedan adinterimap ppointmentto othesameoffi icebythePre esident.De
146 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts los Santos wa asked to vacate his off as v fice for a new assignment but he refus w t sed. He comm menced a quo warrato o proceeding. p hiscaseonArt ticleXIIofthe eConstitution,section4ofw whichreads:" "Noofficeroremployee DelosSantosrestsh rviceshallber removedorsu uspendedexce eptforcausea asprovidedby ylaw." intheCivilSer Howev ver, Section 2545 of the Revised Adm 2 ministrative Co ode authorize the Gover es rnor General (now the President)tor P removeatplea asureanyofth heofficersenu umeratedther rein,oneofw whomisthecit tyengineer. ISSUE: HELD: H WritGRANTED. hertheremova alofdelosSan ntosfromhisofficewaslegal? Wheth
ms ond doubt th the provis hat sion of sectio 2545 of th Revised Administrative Code, he on he e It seem plain beyo (GovernorGen ( neralnowPre esident)mayr removeatple easureanyof thesaidappo ointiveofficers s,"isincompa atiblewith theconstitutio t onalinhibition nthat"Nooffic ceroremploy yeeintheCivil lServiceshallberemovedo orsuspendedexceptfor causeasprovi c idedbylaw." Thetwoprov visionsaremu utuallyrepugn nantandabso olutelyirrecon ncilable.Onei inexpress termspermits t swhattheoth herinsimilar termsprohib bits.Pursuant toSection2o ofArticleXVI oftheConstitution,we declarethatth d hisparticularp provisionhasbeenrepeale edandhascea asedtobeope erativefromth hetimetheCo onstitution wentintoeffec w ct. TheCo onstitutionauthorizesremo ovalsandonly yrequiresthattheybeforc cause.Andthe eoccasionsfo orremoval wouldbegrea w atlydiminished diftheinjunc ctionofsection n1ofArticleX XIIoftheCon nstitutionth hatappointme entsinthe civilservicesh c hallbemadeo onlyaccordin ngtomeritand dfitness,tob bedetermined dasfaraspra acticablebyco ompetitive examination e wouldbead dheredofmeti iculouslyinth hefirstplace. Three specifiedclas ssesofpositio onspolicyd determining, primarilycon nfidentialand highlytechni icalare excludedfrom e mthemeritsystemanddism missalatpleasureofofficer rsandemploy yeesappointe edthereinisa allowedby the Constitution. These po t ositions involv the highe degree of confidence, or are closely bound out with and ved est f dependenton otherposition d nstowhichth heyaresubordinate,orare etemporaryin nnature.Itma aytrulybesai idthatthe good of the se g ervice itself demands that appointment coming und this categ d ts der gory determin nable at the w of the will officerthatma o akesthem. The of ffice of city en ngineer is nei ither primaril confidentia policydeter ly al, rmining, nor highly technical. A city engineerdoesnotformulate e eamethodofactionforthe egovernmentoranyitssubdivisions.Hisjobistoexecu utepolicy, nottomakeit. n .Withspecific creferencetotheCityEngin neerofBaguio o,hispowersa anddutiesare ecarefullylaid ddownfor him be section 2557 of the Revised Ad h dministrative Code and are essentially m e ministerial in character. Finally, the n positionofcity p yengineerist technicalbut nothighlyso.Acityengine eerisnotrequ uirednorishe esupposedtopossessa technical skill or training in the suprem or superior degree, whic is the sens in which "h t n me r ch se highly technic is, we cal" believe, emplo b oyed in the Constitution. T C There are hu undreds of tec chnical men i the classifi civil servi whose in ied ice technical comp t petence is not lower than thatofa city engineer. As a matter of fa the duties of a city eng fact, s gineer are eminentlyadm e ministrativein ncharacteran ndcouldvery wellbedisch hargedbynon ntechnicalme enpossessing executive ability. a ed City Engineer of Baguio w r with all the emoluments, r rights and Petitioner is entitle to remain in office as C privilegesappurtenantther p reto,untilheresignsorisre emovedforcau use. oOo
NextinRank N krule
147|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts PLATON,V. P JAIM MET.PANIS,p petitioners,vs. CIVILSERVIC CECOMMISSI IONandBELL LAV.VELOSO O,respondents.. G.R R.No.102948 February2,1994 The"nextinra T ank"rulespeci ificallyapplies sonlyincasesofpromotion. Petitionerwas P semployedas sAdministrati iveOfficerof theCCMC,for rmerlyknown nastheCebu CityHospital,operated andmaintaine a edbythelocalgovernmentofCebuCity.P Privaterespon ndentwasAdm ministrativeO OfficeroftheC CityHealth Departmentde D etailedatthesaidhospital. Mayor of Ceb City appointed private respondent t the positio of Assistan Chief of Ho bu to on nt ospital for In 1987, the M Ad A ministration nofCCMC.Pe etitioner,acandidateforth hesaidpositio on,protested theappointm ment.TheCity yAttorney, withtheappro w ovaloftheCity yMayordismi issedpetitionersprotest.O Onappeal,theCSCaffirmedthedismissal.HTP. ISSUE: Whetherorno W ottheappoint tmentofpriva ateresponden ntwasmade inviolationoflaw,existing gcivilservice rulesand establishedjur e risprudenceo ontheground,amongothers,thatthesen niorityandnex xtinrankrule esweredisreg garded. HELD: H PetitionisDIS P SMISSED. The"nextinr T rank"rule specificallyappli e iesonlyincas sesofpromot tion.Theinsta antcontroversy,however, involvesa new office and a position created in th course of a valid reorga n he a anization. Und the law, a vacancy not filled by der a t promotion ma be filled by transfer of present e p ay employees in the governm ment service, by reinstate ement, by reemployment r tofthoseseparatedfromt theservice,an ndappointmentofoutsider rswhohavea appropriateciv vilservice eligibility,butnotnecessarilyinthisorde e er. What the Civi Service Law and the Ad W il w dministrative Code of 1987 provide is t 7 that if a vaca ancy is filled up by the promotion,the p epersonhold dingthepositionnextinran nkthereto"sh hallbeconsideredforprom motion.Inoth herwords, onewhois"ne o extinrank"to oavacancyis sgivenprefere entialconside erationforpro omotiontothe evacantposit tion,butit doesnotneces d ssarilyfollowthathealoneandnooneelsecanbeapp pointed.There eisnovestedr rightgrantedt thenextin ranknoramin r nisterialdutyimposedonthe eappointinga authoritytopr romotethehold dertothevaca antposition. Anappointment,whetherto A oavacancyor rtoanewlycreatedpositio on,isessentiallywithinthe discretionary ypowerof whomsoeveri w itisvested.On nceacandida atepossesses theminimum mqualitiesreq quiredbylaw, ,sufficientdis scretion,if not n plenary, i granted to the appoint is o ting authority After all, th appointing authority is the officer primarily y. he g s responsible fo the administration of th office, and is likewise in the best position to dete r or he n ermine who a among the qualified cand q didates can ef fficiently disch harge the fun nctions of the position. Ind deed, whom to appoint am o mong those qualifiedisan q nadministrativ vequestionin nvolvingconsiderationsof wisdomforthebestintere estoftheserv vicewhich onlytheappoi o intingauthorit tycandecide. oOo
Transfer T
DELFINN N.DIVINAGR RACIA,JR.,ANDALEXISD.S SANLUIS,pet titioners,vs.HO ON.PATRICIA AA.STO.TOM MAS, RAM MONP.EREN NETA,JR.,and dPRESCILLA B.NACARIO, respondents.
148 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts G.R.No.110954 G Ma ay31,1995 The T primordia purpose of our civil servic laws is to e blish and maintain a m al o ce esta merit system in the selection of public n n officers and em o mployees with hout regard t sex, color, social status or political a to affiliation. But there are ti t imes when appointments topublicoffic a cearedominatedbypartisa anfavoritism a andpatronage e,wheretenur rialrightsare subjectto thewhimsofof t fficialdom. menaR.Manci itawasappointedMunicipalDevelopme entCoordinato or(MDC)ofP Pili,CamarinesSur,ina In1980,Filom permanentcap p pacity.In1983whentheLo ocalGovernme entCodetook effect,theoff ficewasrenam medMunicipa alPlanning andDevelopm a mentCoordina ator(MPDC).M Mancitaheldo overtheposit tionuntil1985whenMayorPrilanotifie edMancita that her servi t ices were bei terminate on the gro ing ed ound that the Office of MD was abolis DC shed as a res sult of the reorganization of the local government of Pili. Priva responden Nacario, w r n l t ate nt who was then the Municip Budget n pal Officer,wasap O ppointedMPD DC. ioner San Luis, Cashier II o the DENR, was temporar appointed of rily dMunicipal B Budget Officer of Pili by r In 1991, petiti SecretaryCara S agueoftheDB BM.Whencon ntroloverthe eLocalGovernmentOfficer rsServiceswa asreturnedto othelocal governmentunitsbyvirtueoftheLocalG g GovernmentCo odeof1991,Sa anLuiswasre eappointedto othesamepos sition,this timeinaperm t manentcapacit ty,bypetitionerDivinagracia,MayorofP Pili. Meanwhile,Ma M ancitaappeale edhertermin nationtotheM MeritSystemsandProtectio onBoard(MSP PB),whichdeclaredher separationfromtheservice s eillegalandor rderedMayorDivinagraciatoreinstateM Mancitatothe epositionofM MPDCorto an a equivalent position. Ma t ayor Divinagr racia appealed to the CSC but was dis C smissed.Henc Mayor Div ce, vinagracia informedpriva ateresponden ntNacariotha atshewasbein ngrelievedof fherpositionasMPDCinor rdertocompl lywiththe MSPBdecision M ntoreinstateM MancitaasMP PDC. Private respon P ndent Nacario sought relie with the Re o ef egional Trial Court. Pendin decision, N ng Nacario sent a query to a publicrespond p dentCommiss sionaskingab boutherstatu usasaperman nentemployeeoftheMuni icipalityofPiliaftershe had h accepted the position of MPDC. Pub responden opined tha the reinstat o blic nt at tement of Man ncita to the p position of MPDCwasnot M tavalidcause eforNacario's stermination,andsinceshe ewastheform merMunicipal lBudgetOffice ershehad therighttoret t turntothatpo osition. Mayor Divinag M gracia explain to the CSC the factual circumstance behind the ouster of Ma ned C es ancita and the resulting e appointmento a ofNacariotot thepositiono ofMPDC,argu uingthatSanL Luiswasvalid dlyappointed bytheSecret taryofthe Budgetandconfirmedbyth B heCSC,hence,entitledtosecurityoftenu ure.Upholding gNacario'srig ghttosecurity yoftenure, theCSCheldth t hatthereinst tatementofMancitatothep positionofMP PDCcouldnot tbeavalidca auseforthete ermination ofNacario.HT o TP. ISSUE: herornotpet titionerSanLu uiscanholdon ntothepositionofMunicip palBudgetOffi icer;and 1. Wheth 2. Wheth herornotres spondentNac cariowhoisp protectedbyla awinhersec curityoftenur reshouldbe r reinstated theret to. HELD: H PetitionisDIS P SMISSED. 1. Accor rdingtoNacar rioshenevera appliedorsou ughtappointm mentbytransf fertotheposi itionofMPDC Csinceshe evenh hadnopriork knowledgeofherappointm ment.Sheassum medthenewp positiononlyi inordertocomplywith the m move of Mayo Prila to su or upposedly "reorganize" the municipal g e government o Pili. Nacari did not of io questi ionhertransf ferbecausesh hereveredthemayoranddi idnotinanyw wayintendtodispleasehim m.
149|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ubmissive att titude displayed by private respondent t e towards her t transfer isunderstandable. Although . The su Nacar riowasnotinf formedofthereasonsthere eforshedidno otcomplainto othemayoro orappealherc casetothe CSC if in fact the same was not made in the interest of p f s t e public service For it is not common am e. t mong local officia even those permanent appointees w are more secured and protected in their tenuria right, to als, who e al oppos seorquestion ntheincumbentlocalexecu utiveonhispo oliciesanddec cisionsnomat tterhowimpr roperthey mayseem. ofSanLuisas BudgetOffice ercarriedwithitaconditio on.Atthebac ckofhisappoi intmentis Theappointmento bed tionSa kondis syon nasa ayo ang pagkak os katiwalag sa tungkulin ng dating nanun nungkulan, inscrib the notat which hwhentransla atedmeans"P Providedthatt theseparation noftheformer rincumbentis sinorder."Co onsidering thatth heseparationofNacariowh howasthefor rmerincumbe entwasnotinorder,SanLu uisshouldrelin nquishhis positioninfavorof fprivaterespondentNacar rio.Thisis,of course,witho outprejudice toSanLuis'r righttobe tated to his fo ormer position as Cashier II of the DEN he being a NR, also a permanent appointe equally ee reinst guaranteedsecurity yoftenure. ez 2. InSta.Mariav.Lope ns vementfromo onepositiont toanotherwh hichisofequiv valentrank,le evelandsalary,without Atran ferisa"mov break nservice."P ki Promotionisth he"advancem mentfromonepositiontoan notherwithan nincreaseind dutiesand responsibilitiesasa authorizedby ylaw,andisu usuallyaccomp paniedbyani increaseinsa alary"...Atra ansferthat ts on on, ment or reduct tion or a tran nsfer that aim to "lure the employee ms e result in promotio or demotio advancem awayf fromhisperm manentpositio on,"cannotbedonewithout ttheemployee es'consent.Fo orthatwould constitute remov from office Indeed, no permanent t val e. transfer can t take place unless the officer or employ is first yee remov vedfromthep positionheld,andthenappo ointedtoanot therposition.(emphasisprovided) ededlytherea aretransfersw whichdonota amounttorem moval.Somesu uchtransferscanbeeffecte edwithout Conce thene eedforcharge esbeingproffe ered,withouttrialorhearin ng,andevenw withouttheco onsentofthee employee. ...Th hecluetosuch htransfersma aybefoundin nthe"natureo oftheappoint tment."Where etheappointm mentdoes notin ndicateaspecificstation,an nemployeem maybetransfe erredorassig gnedprovided dthetransfer affectsno substa antialchange intitle,rank andsalary.. ..Sucharuledoesnotpro oscribeatrans sfercarriedou utundera specif ficstatutetha atempowerst theheadofan nagencytoperiodicallyrea assigntheem mployeesand officersin ordertoimproveth heserviceofth heagency.... .Neitherdoes sillegalityatta achtothetran nsferorreassignmentof ficer pending the determi g ination of an administrativ charge against him; or to the trans ve r sfer of an an off emplo oyee,fromhis sassignedstat tiontothema ainoffice,effec ctedingoodf faithandintheinterestoft theservice pursu uanttoSec.32oftheCivilSe erviceAct. ly nconsented la ateral transfer of Nacario f r from the Budg Office to t Office of M get the MPDC was Clearl then, the un arbitr rary for it amounted to rem moval withou cause hence invalid as i is anathema to security of tenure. ut e, it a When nNacariowas extendedapermanentapp pointmenton 1August198 80andsheass sumedtheposition,she acquir redalegal,no otmerelyaneq quitable,right ttothepositio on.Suchrighttosecurityof ftenureisprotectednot onlyb bystatute,but talsobytheConstitutionan ndcannotbet takenawayfro omhereitherbyremoval,t transferor byrev vocationofappointment,ex xceptforcause e,andafterpr riornotice. guarantee of security of ten s nure is an im mportant objec of the civil service syste because it affords a ct em t The g faithfu employee permanence of employme ul ent, at least f the period prescribed by law, and frees the for d emplo oyeefromthefearofpolitic calandperson nalprejudicialreprisal. oOo SMARIOM.G GENERAL,pet titioner,vs.RA AMONS.ROCO O,respondent. LUIS
150 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts G.R R.No.143366 Janua ary29,2001 Any A provision of law to the contrary notw withstanding, members of t Career Executive Servic may be reas the ce ssigned or transferred fro one positio to another and from on department, bureau or o t om on r ne office to anoth her; provided that such reassignmento r ortransferis madeinthein nterestofpub cserviceand bli dinvolvesnor reductioninr rankorsalary; ;provided, further,thatno f omembersha allbereassigne edortransferr oftenertha red aneverytwoy years;andprovided,further rmore,that if ftheofficerco oncernedbeliev vesthathisreassignmentor rtransferisno otjustified,hemayappealhi iscasetotheP President. pondent Ramon Roco was appointed b then Pres s by sident Ramos as Regional Director of the Land s l In 1996, resp Transportation Office (LTO in Region V a position equivalent to CES rank le T n O) V, o evel V. Subseq quently, then President Estradareapp E pointedhimto othesamepositionin1999 9.Atthetimeo ofrespondent tsappointmen ntin1996and d1999,he was w not a CES eligible.Ho S owever, during his incumbency in 1999 he was con 9, nferred CES eligibility by t Career the ExecutiveServ E viceBoard. Petitioner Luis General, wh is not a CE eligible, wa appointed by President Estrada to th same posit P ho ES as he tion being occupied by respondent. Ag o ggrieved, resp pondent filed before the Court of Appea a petition for quo warr als ranto with prayerforthe issuanceofa p awritofprelim minaryinjunctionand/orte emporaryrestrainingorder r.TheCourto ofAppeals issuedaTRO enablingresp pondentRoco toreassume ethedisputed doffice.After thelapseof6 60days,there ebeingno writofpreliminaryinjuncti w ionissued,pet titionerGener ralagainassu umedthesaid office.In200 00,theCourto ofAppeals rendered a de r ecision affirm ming the appoi intment of re espondent Roco to the Offi of Regional Director of the LTO, ice f Region V, null R lified the app pointment of petitioner Ge eneral and ord dered him to vacate the s subject post in favor of n respondentRo r oco.HTP. ISSUE: Whetheracar W reerexecutive eservice(CES S)eligibilityal lonewillnots sufficetoacqu uiresecurityo oftenureinth heservice and a that unles and until an employee in the career e ss n executive serv vice is appoin nted to the ap ppropriate CES rank, he acquiresnose a ecurityoftenu ure. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. executiveserv vice,theacqui isitionofsecu urityoftenure ewhichpresu upposesapermanentappoi intmentis Inthecareere governedbyth g herulesandregulationspro omulgatedbytheCESBoard. Tworequisites T smustconcur rinorderthat tanemployee einthecareerexecutiveser rvicemayatta ainsecurityoftenure,to f wit: w (a)CES el ligibility; and (b)Appointm ment to the ap ppropriate CE rank. In ad ES ddition, it mu be stressed that the ust securityoften s nureofemplo oyeesintheca areerexecutiv veservice(ex xceptfirstand dsecondlevel lemployeesinthecivil service),perta s ainsonlytoran nkandnottotheofficeort totheposition ntowhichthey ymaybeappo ointed. that responde RamonS. Roco,though a CES eligible, does notpo ent ossessthe In thecase at bar,there is no questiont appropriateCE a ESrank,whichisCESranklevelV,fort thepositiono ofRegionalDir rectoroftheL LTO(RegionV V).Falling short of one o the qualific s of cations that w would complet his membe te ership in the C CES, responde cannot su ent uccessfully interposeviola ationofsecur rityoftenure. Accordingly, ,hecouldbev validlyreassig gnedtoother rpositionsint thecareer executiveserv e vice. oOo
Reinstateme R ent
SALVACION NA.MONSANTO,petitioner r,vs.FULGENC CIOS.FACTORAN,JR.,resp pondent.
151|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts G.R R.No.78239 February9,1989 The T pardon gr ranted to petit tioner has res sulted in remo ing her disqu ov ualification fr rom holding pu ublic employm ment but it cannotgobeyo c ondthat.Tor regainherformerpostasassistant city t treasurer,she mustreapply yandundergo otheusual procedurerequ p uiredforanew wappointment. Petitioner Mo P onsanto, then assistant tre easurer of Calbayog City, a and three oth accused, were convict her ted of the complex crime of estafa th falsificatio of public d c e hru on documents. Pe etitioner appe ealed her conv viction to the Supreme e Courtwhichsubsequentlya C affirmedthes same.Shethen nfiledamotionforrecons siderationbut twhilesaidm motionwas pending,shew p wasextendedb bythenPresid dentMarcosa absolutepardo onwhichshea acceptedin19 984. Byreasonofsa B aidpardon,pe etitionerrequ uestedthatshe eberestoredtoherformer rpostasassist tantcitytreas surersince the t same was still vacant. The FinanceM T Ministry ruled that petition may be re d ner einstatedto he position w er without the necessityofa newappointm n mentnotearlierthanthed dateshewase extendedthe absolutepard don.Petitione erstressed thatthefullpa t ardonbestow wedonherhas swipedoutth hecrimewhic chimpliestha atherservice inthegovern nmenthas neverbeenint n terruptedand dthereforethedateofher reinstatementshouldcorre espondtothe edateofherp preventive suspension.On s nreview,resp pondentFacto oran,thenDeputyExecutiv veSecretary,h heldthatpetit tionerisnote entitledto anautomaticr a reinstatement tonthebasisoftheabsolu utepardongra antedherbut tmustsecure anappointm menttoher formerpositio f on.HTP. ISSUE: Whether or n a public officer, who has been gran W not o nted an absolu pardon by the Chief E ute Executive, is e entitled to reinstatement r ttoherformer rpositionwith houtneedofa anewappoint tment. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. While a pardo has genera been rega W on ally arded as blott ting out the ex xistence of gu so that in the eye of th law the uilt he offender is as innocent as though he ne o ever committe the offense, it does not operate for all purposes. The very ed t essence of a p e pardon is for rgiveness or remission of guilt. Pardon implies guil It does not erase the f n lt. fact of the commissionof c fthecrimean ndtheconvict tionthereof.It tdoesnotwashoutthemo oralstain.Itin nvolvesforgiv venessand notforgetfulne n ess. Weareinfullagreementwi W iththecommo onlyheldopin nionthatpard dondoesnoti ipsofactorestoreaconvicte edfelonto public office n p necessarily re elinquished or forfeited by reason of th convictionalthough suc pardon undoubtedly r y he ch restoreshiseli r igibilityforap ppointmentto othatoffice. Therationalei T isplainlyevid dentPublicoff ficesareinten ndedprimarily yforthecollec ctiveprotectio on,safetyandbenefitof the t common g good. They ca annot be com mpromised to favor private interests. To insist on au e o utomatic rein nstatement because of a m b mistaken noti that the p ion pardon virtua acquitted one from the offense of e ally e estafa would b grossly be untenable. A p u pardon, albeit full and plen t nary, cannot preclude the appointing p power from re efusing appointment to anyonedeeme a edtobeofbad dcharacter,ap poormoralris sk,orwhoisu unsuitablebyreasonofthepardonedcon nviction. Thepardongr T rantedtopetit tionerhasresu ultedinremovingherdisqu ualificationfro omholdingpu ublicemploym mentbutit cannotgobeyo c ondthat.Tor regainherform merpostasas ssistantcitytr reasurer,shem mustreapply yandundergo otheusual procedurereq p quiredforane ewappointment. oOo
152|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ISABELO OT.SABELLO, ,petitioner,vs..DEPARTMEN NTOFEDUCA ATION,CULTU UREANDSPO ORTS,respond dents. G.R.No.87687 mber26,1989 9 Decem Asageneralrule,thequesti A ionofwhether rornotpetiti ionershouldb bereappointed dtohisformer rpositionisa amatterof discretion of t appointing authority, b under the circumstance of this case if the petiti d the g but es e, ioner had bee unfairly en deprivedof'wh d hatisrightfully lyhis,thediscr retionisqualif fiedbythereq quirementsofg givingjusticetothepetition ner.Itisno lo ongeramatte erofdiscretion nonthepartof ftheappointin ngpower,butdiscretiontem mperedwithfa airnessandjus stice. Petitionerwas P stheElementa arySchoolPrincipalofTalis sayandalsoth heAssistantP Principalofthe eTalisayBara angayHigh SchooloftheD S DivisionofGin ngoogCity.Th hesaidschoolwasindeficitandsinceatt thattimealso, ,thePresidentwhowas earnestlycamp e paining,gaveaidintheamo ountofP2,000.00.Thebarr riocouncilallotedtheamou untofP840.0 00tocover upforthesala u ariesofthehig ghschoolteachers.Itauthor rizedpetitionertowithdraw wtheabovea amountandto odepositit intheCityTreasurer'sOffice. Thatwasagra T aveerroront thepartofthehereinpetit tionerasitinv volvesthever ryintricacies inthedisbur rsementof government fu g unds and of its technicaliti Thus, pet ies. titioner, togeth with the barrio captain, were charg of the her ged violationofRe v epublicAct30 019,andboth wereconvict tedtosuffera asentenceofo oneyearand disqualificatio ontohold publicoffice. p Petitioner was granted an absolute par P s rdon by the P President, res storing him to full civil and political righ o d hts.' Thus, petitionerapp p pliedforreinst tatementtoth hegovernmen ntservice,onlytobereinst tatedtothewrongpositionofamere classroomteac c cherandnott tohisformerp positionasEle ementaryScho oolPrincipal.HTP. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otpetitionerm meritsreappoi intmenttothe epositionheh heldpriortoh hisconviction. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Asageneralru A ule,thequesti ionofwhether rornotpetitionershouldb bereappointed dtohisforme erpositionisa amatterof discretion of t appointing authority, b under the circumstance of this case if the petitioner had bee unfairly d the g but es e, en deprivedof'w d whatisrightful llyhis,thedisc cretionisqualifiedbytherequirementso ofgivingjustic cetothepetit tioner.Itis no n longer a m matter of discretion on the part of the appointing po e ower, but dis scretion tempered with fairness and ju ustice. s.Factoran,Jr r.,thisCourth heldthatthea absolutedisqu ualificationfr romofficeori ineligibilityfr rompublic InMonsantovs officeformspa o artofthepunishmentpresc cribedunderthepenalcodeandthatpar rdonfreesthe eindividualfr romallthe penaltiesandl p legaldisabiliti iesandrestor reshimtoallh hiscivilrights s.Althoughsu uchpardonres storeshiseligibilitytoa publicofficeit p tdoesnotenti itlehimtoaut tomaticreinsta atement.Heshouldapplyfo orreappointm menttosaidof ffice. As A there are n circumstan no nces that wou warrant th diminution in his rank, j uld he n justice and eq quity dictate t that he be returnedtohis r sformerposit tionofElemen ntarySchoolP Principalandn nottothatofa amereclassro oomteacher. oOo
Detail D
REPUBLICOF R FTHEPHILIP PPINES,(Depa artmentofEd ducation,Cul lture&Sports,Child&You uthResearch hCenter), andLUZ G.PALATTAO OCORPUZ,petitioners,vs.C COURTOFAP PPEALSandJOSEP.LOPEZ Z,JR.,respond dents.
153|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts G.R.No.86147 uary26,1990 Febru Indeed,a"deta I ail"isthemov vementfromo oneDepartmen ntorAgency t toanotherwhi ichistempora aryinnature, whereasa "reassignment" is the move " ement of an em mployee from one organiza ational unit to another in th same Depa o he artment or Agency. A Petit P ionerCorpuzandRespondentLopez z,Jr.,weretheformerDirect torandAssist tantDirector,r respectively,o enow ofth defunct Child and Youth Research Cen d R nter (CYRC) o the Depart of tment of Edu ucation, Cultu and Sport (DECS). ure ts Petitioner Cor P rpuz is a Doc ctor of Medici while Res ine spondent Lopez is a Bache elor of Laws g graduate but not yet a memberofthe m eBar. Respondent Lopez proteste petitioner Corpuz appo R ed ointment as CY YRC Director on the groun that he had a better nd righttothepo r osition.Await tingtheoutco omeofrespon ndentsprotes st,thenMECS MinisterJaim meC.Layate emporarily detailedrespondentLopez d ztotheMECS LegalOffice.I Inviewofthe echargesagainsthimbefor retheLegalDivision,he wastransferre w edtothePlann ningServiceO OfficeofMECS S.Staffpersonn nelandcontra actualemploy yeescomplainedagainst theactsofhar t rassmentdone ebyresponde entLopez.Afte erabout6m monthsofrea assignment,respondentLo opezwrote toMinisterLa t ayaexpressing ghisintention ntoresumeh hisofficialpos sitionasCYRC CAssistantDirector.Having greceived noresponse,h n hereturnedtoofficewithou utauthorizatio on. PetitionerCorpuzissuedseveralmemora P andarequestin ngresponden ntLopeztosub bmitanofficia alordertermi inatinghis detail otherw wise he would not be cons d sidered anact tive member o its Staff, bu of utthe latter refused to com mply, thus, paymentofhissalariesand p dallowancesw waswithheld. Respondent Lopezbrough htthecasebef foretheRTC. Thecourt foundforrespondentLopez f z,whichdecisi ionwasaffirm medintotobytheCourtofA Appeals.HTP. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otPetitionerC Corpuzwasjus stifiedinrefus singtotakeof fficialcognizan nceofRespon ndentLopeza attendance asAssistantDi a irectorattheCYRCandinw withholdinghi issalariescorrespondingto otheperiod. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. pondentLope ezreturnedto otheCYRCat hisowninsta ancewithout anyauthoriza ationfrom Itwill berecalledthatResp higher author h rities. Petition Corpuz a CYRC Direc ner as ctor, officially advised him to secure that clearanc but he y m ce, adamantly ref a fused to obey a directive fr rom his imme ediate superio Under the circumstance Petitioner Corpuz as or. es, headoftheoff h fice,wasleftwithnoaltern w nativebuttow withholdrecog gnitionofhis attendanceat ttheCYRC.To omaintain disciplineinth d heoffice,andi intheinterest tsoftheservic ce,shecouldd donoless. Respondent A R Appellate Cour however, a rt, affirmed the f finding of the Trial Court t that the DECS Minister's di S irective to RespondentLo R opezwas"defective"intha attheterm"d detail"wasus sedinsteadof f"reassignme ent,"whichw wouldhave beentheproperterminolog b gy.Indeed,a"detail"isthem movementfro omoneDepar rtmentorAgencytoanothe erwhichis temporary in nature, whereas a "reassi t ignment" is th movement of an emplo he t oyee from one organization unit to e nal another in the same Department or Age a e ency. Be that a it may, the official inten of the direc as e nt ctive was clea to move ar RespondentLo R opezawayfro omtheCYRCa andlocatehim mintheheado office,"inthee exigenciesoftheservice." Both lower Co B ourts opined, however, tha the "reass at signment" was stagemanag by Petitio s ged oner Corpuz under the pretext of "exi p igencies of th service." No he otably, the dir rective to Res spondent Lopez was not issued by her b by the but EducationMin E nisterhimself.Itisinconceiv vablethatthe elatterofficial lwouldhavea allowedhimse elftohavebee enusedas suchanunwit s ttingtool.On thecontrary, hemusthave ebeenaware ofthe"sicks situation"inth heCYRC,hence,there assignmentofRespondentL a Lopeztoanoth herunitinthe eEducationMinistry.
154 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Asmatterssto A ood,Responde entLopezbroughtuponhim mselfthewith hholdingofhissalaries.Wh henhereporte edbackto theCYRCon18February19 t 985hedidsoa athisownins stancewithout tpriorauthor rization. oOo
Reassignmen R nt
Section24(g) ofPresidentia S alDecreeNo.8 807authorizes sreassignmen ntbyproviding gthatanempl loyeemayber reassigned fromoneorgan f nizationaluni ittoanotherin nthesameagency butsuch reassignment tshallnotinvo olveareductio oninrank, statusorsalary s y.Adiminutioninrank,stat tus,orsalary,i enoughtoin is nvalidatesuchareassignmen nt. Respondent O R Ofelia Fernand was the PAGASA Fina dez ance and Management Div vision Chief of the DOST. In 1996, . petitioner Wil p lliam Padolina DOST Secre a, etary, issued SO 129 prov viding for the reassignmen of Branch/ Division/ nt SectionChiefs andotherpersonnelinPA S AGASA.Pursua anttothisord der,responden ntwasreassig gnedtotheFin nanceand ManagementS M ServiceDirect tor'sOffice.Re espondentreq questedtoliftSO129statin ngthatsuchor rderwastanta amountto herconstructiv h vedismissal,t thus,aviolatio onofhersecu urityoftenure,whichwasdeniedbythep itioner. pet Respondentap R ppealedtothe eCSCbutwasdismissedfor rlackofmerit t.Notsatisfied d,respondentelevatedthec casetothe CourtofAppea C als.TheCAde eclaredSO129voidabiniti ioonthegrou undthatrespo ondentsreass signmenthase effectively demotedherin d nrank,statusandsalary.HTP. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otSO129isva alid. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. Section 24 (g of Presiden S g) ntial Decree N 807 auth No. horizes reassig gnment by providing that an employe may be t ee reassigned fro one organ r om nizational unit to another i the same a t in agency but su reassignm uch ment shall not involve a reductioninra r ank,statusorsalary.Adimi inutioninrank,status,orsa alary,isenoug ghtoinvalidat tesuchareass signment. WeheldthatS W SO129violate edthesecurit tyoftenureof frespondenta andhence,inv valid.Anexam minationofSO O129also showsthatthe s equestionedo ordercontains snodefinited dateorduratio onofthereass signment. Petitionersma P aintainthatth hereassignme entofrespond dentdidnotreduceherto ameresubordinate.Petitio onersaver that responde t ent's "moveme ent" from the original orga anization unit (Finance and Managemen Division, PA t d nt AGASA) to another (Fina a ancial Manage ement Service in the sa es) ame departm ment (DOST) m meets the re equirements o a valid of reassignment and that the circumstanc that she may have "temporarily l r e ces lost" supervis sion of forty yone (41) employeesisa e anincidental,a albeittemporary,conseque enceoftherea assignmentan ndcannotbeconsideredad demotion. We W are not im mpressed. Suc reassignme in fact rem ch ent moves from respondent's p power of supe ervision over fortyone (41)employee ( eswhoarepar rtofherstaffandsubordinates,therebyresultinginadiminutionof fherstatus.Petitioners, however,insis h stthattherea assignmentis justtempora ary.Thereassignmentresultinginadim minutionofthe estatusof
HON.WILLI IAMG.PADOL LINA,inhisca apacityasSecr retaryoftheD Departmentof fScience&Te echnology(DO OST)and DR.LEONC CIOA.AMADO ORE,inhisCap pacityasDirec ctor,Philippin neAtmospheric,Geographic calandAstron nomical ServicesAdm ministration( (PAGASA),pet titioners,vs.OF FELIAD.FERNANDEZ,resp pondent. G.R R.No.133511 ber10,2000 Octob
155|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts respondentmayhavebeentemporarybutitisadimi r inutionnonet theless.Beside es,therewas nodefinited durationof thereassignmentwhichfact t taddedtorespondent'srelu uctancetoacc ceptsuchreas ssignment. oOo OSPASTOR,p petitioner,vs.C CITYOFPASI IG,MAYORVI ICENTEEUSE EBIO,THECOURTOFAPPE EALS REMEDIO (15 5thDivision),andtheCIVI ILSERVICECO OMMISSION, respondents. G.R.No.14687 G 73 Ma ay9,2002 Thereisnoqu T uestionthatwe erecognizeth hevalidityand dindispensabl lenecessityof thewellestab f blishedruleth hatforthe goodofpublic serviceandw g wheneverpubli interestdem ic mands,[a]pub blicofficialma aybetemporarilyassignedo ordetailed tootherduties t sevenoverhisobjectionwith houtnecessari iolatinghi ilyv isfundamenta alandlegalrig ghtstosecurity yoftenure inthecivilserv vice.Butaswe ehavealreadystated,"suchcannotbeund dertakenwhen nthetransfero oftheemploye eeiswitha view to his rem v moval" and "i the transfer is resorted t as a schem to lure the employee aw from his p if r to me way permanent position" because "such atti p itude is impro oper as it wou in effect r uld result in a cir rcumvention of the prohibit of tion which safeguardsthe s etenureofoffic ceofthosewhoareintheciv vilservice." ionerRemediosPastorwas sappointedB BudgetOfficer roftheMunic cipality(now City)ofPasig g.In1992, In1986,petiti she s was reliev of her pos ved sition by May Eusebio an was temp yor nd porarily detail led with the Office of the Municipal Administrator A rpendinginve estigationofr reportsagains stherconcern ningtheissua anceofAdvice eofAllotment tswithout sufficientcash s hcollections.S Sincethen,noinvestigationhadbeenconductedregard dingsaidcharge. ontending tha her protracted detail w in violatio of Civil at was on In 1995, petitioner filed a complaint with the CSC co Servicelaws,r S rulesandregu ulationsandth hatitconstitu utedoppressio onandabuseo ofauthorityo onthepartoft theMayor and prayed fo reinstatement. The CSC found for th petitioner a a or he and ordered that she be r returned to h former her positionorass p signedtoanofficewheresh hecanperform masheadofadepartment. Pursuant to s P said order, re espondent Cit designated petitioner h ty head of the P Pasig City Hal Annex. Not satisfied, ll t petitionersoughtclarificatio p onofitsdecision.TheCSCf foundpetition nersreassignm menttobeno otincompliancewithits decisionholdingthattheso d ocalledPasig CityHallAnn nexwasnota departmentb butamereext tensionofthe eCityHall. RespondentM R Mayormovedf forareconside erationbutwa asdenied.Onappeal,theCo ourtofAppealssetasideth hedecision of o the CSC an held that petitioners reassignment was only temporary in n nd p nature and in compliance with the e decisionofthe d eCSC.HTP. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otpetitionersh houldbereins statedtoherf formerpositio on. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Reassignment An employee may b reassigned from one organization unit to another in t t. be d nal the same agency:Provid a ded,Thatsuchreassignment tshallnotinv volveareducti ioninrank,sta atus,orsalary y. ldthatareassignmentthatisindefinitea s andresultsinareductionin nrank,status, ,andsalaryisineffecta Ithasbeenhel constructive r c removal from the service m e.In this case petitioner's reassignmen to differen offices in the local e, s nt nt governmentof g fPasigCityisindefinite.Pet titionerhasbeenonvirtual lfloatingassig gnmentswhic chcannotbuta amountto adiminutiono a ofherrank,h henceimpermissibleunder thelaw.Petit tioner'sreassi ignmenttova ariousoffices shouldbe considered mo than mer c ore rely a temporary one. For all intents an purposes, h reassignm nd her ment, lasting n nearly ten yearsnow,isa y aremovalwith houtcauseasBudgetOffice eroftheCityo ofPasig.
156 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Weagreewith W htheCSCthatpetitionersho ouldnowbereturnedtoheroriginalpositionforherin ndefinitedeta ailtoother positions wou amount to her remov without ca p uld val ause from th position to which she has been per he o rmanently appointed. As we said inC a Cruz v. Navarr There is n question t ro: no that we recog gnize the validity and indi ispensable necessityofth n hewellestabl lishedruletha atforthegoo odofpublicse erviceandwh heneverpublicinterestdem mands,[a] public official may be temp p porarily assign or detaile to other du ned ed uties even ov his objecti without n ver ion necessarily violatinghisfu v undamentalan ndlegalrights stosecurityoftenureinthe ecivilservice. .Butaswehav vealreadysta ated,"such cannotbeund c dertakenwhen nthetransferoftheemploy yeeiswithav viewtohisrem moval"and"ifthetransferisresorted to t as a schem to lure the employee aw from his permanent p me way position" because "such att titude is impr roper as it wouldineffec w ctresultinac circumvention noftheprohib bitionwhichs safeguardsthe etenureofoff ficeofthosew whoarein thecivilservic t ce." oOo
Prohibitions P s
ANTONIOP.SANTOS,pet titioner,vs.TH HEHONORABL LECOURTOF FAPPEALS,M METROPOLITA ANAUTHORI ITY,now nownasMETR ROPOLITANM MANILADEV LOPMENTA VE AUTHORITY,andTHECIVI ILSERVICE kn COMMISSION,respond dents. G.R.No.139792 mber22,2000 0 Novem In 1983, petiti ioner Antonio Santos was appointed Jud of the Me of Quezon City. In 1992, he optionally retired o dge eTC n from the Judic f ciary under R.A. No. 910, as amended, and received his retireme gratuity a R d ent and has been regularly n receiving a monthly pensio thereafter. In 1993, peti r on itioner reent tered the government serv vice and was appointed DirectorIIIoftheTrafficOp D perationCente eroftheMMA, ,approvedby ytheCivilServ viceCommissi ion. No7924reorg ganizedtheMM MAandrenam meditasMMD DA.Pursuantt thereto,theM MMDAissuedR Resolution In1995,R.A.N No.16which authorizedth N hepaymentof fseparationb benefitstothe eofficialsandemployeesoftheformerM MMAwho wouldbesepa w aratedasares sultoftheimp plementation ofR.A.No.79 924.Inviewofpetitioners voluntaryop ptiontobe separated from the service, the MMDA issued a Mem s m morandum informing him that his servi ices would ce ease on 15 September199 S 96andthathe ewouldbeen ntitledtosepar rationpayund derSection11 1oftheMMDA ALaw. Petitioner con P ntends that all the years of his governm f ment service, including tho years in th Judiciary, should be ose he creditedinthe c ecomputation nofhissepara ationbenefitsunderR.A.No o.7924.TheCSCdeniedpet titionersmoti ion,which wasaffirmedb w bytheCourto ofAppeals.HTP. ISSUE: Whetherorno W ot,forthepurposeofcompu utingordeter rminingpetitionerssepara ationpayunde erSection11o ofR.A.No. 7924,hisyear 7 rsofservicein ntheJudiciary yshouldbeex xcludedandth hathisseparationpayshou uldbesolelyconfinedto hisservicesintheMMA. h HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. To T credit his years of ser rvice in the J Judiciary in t the computat tion of his se eparation pay under R.A. No. 7924 y notwithstanding the fact th he had rec n hat ceived or has been receivin the retirem ng ment benefits under R.A. N 910, as No. amended, wou be to cou a uld untenance dou uble compens sation for exa actly the same services,i.e. his services as MeTC e ., s Judge.Suchw ldruncountertothepo wou n olicyofthisCo ourtagainstdo oublecompen nsationforexa actlythesame eservices.
Alcaraz,Atienza, nay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca A Bi abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas
157|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Moreimportan M nt,itwouldb beinviolation nofthefirstparagraphofS Section8ofAr rticleIXBof theConstituti ion,which proscribesadd p ditional,doubl le,orindirectcompensation n. oOo JOSEC.L LAURELV,inh hisofficialcap pacityasProvincialGoverno orofBatangas s,petitioners,v vs.CIVILSERV VICE COMMISSIONandLORENZOSANGA ALANG,respon ndents. G.R R.No.71562 ber28,1991 Octob Theruleadmit T tsofnodistinc ctionbetween nappointment tanddesignat tion.Designationisalsodefinedas"anappointment orassignment toaparticula o aroffice";and "todesignate"means"toin ndicate,select,appointorse etapartforap purposeor duty. d Petitionerapp P pointedhisbro other,Benjam minLaurel,as SeniorExecut tiveAssistant intheOffice oftheGovern nor,anon careerservicepositionwhichbelongstothepersonal andconfiden c ntialstaffofan nelectiveofficial.In1980, petitioner designated his brother as Acting Provi d s incial Administrator, which position be ecame vacant allegedly fo lack of t, or qualified appl q licants and so as not to p o prejudice the operation of the Provinci Governme f ial ent. In 1981, he issued Benjamin Laurel a promoti B ional appointm ment as Civil Service Secur Officer, a position which the CSC classifies as rity primarilycon nfidential. Respondent S R Sangalang bro ought to the CSCs atten e ntion the app pointment of petitioners brother as Provincial Administrator A rallegingthat: :(1)theposit tioninquestio onisacareerp position,(2)t theappointme entviolatescivilservice rules,and(3)sincetheGovernorauthori r izedsaidappo ointeetorecei iverepresenta ationallowanc ce,heviolated dtheAnti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The CS in its resol G s SC, lution, revoke the design ed nation of Benjamin on the ground of nepotism.Alth n houghwhatw wasextendedt toBenjaminw wasmerelyad designationan ndnotanappo ointment,the CSCruled thattheprohibitivemantle t eonnepotism mwouldinclud dedesignation n,becausewh hatcannotbed donedirectly cannotbe doneindirectly d y.HTP. ISSUE: 1. Wheth herornotthepositionofpr rovincialadministratorisaprimarilycon nfidentialposi ition;and 2. Wheth herornottheruleonnepot tismapplytodesignation. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. 1. The su ubject positio is in the ca on areer service w which, under Section 5 of P.D. No. 807, is characteriz by (a) zed entran basedon meritandfitn nce nesstobedet terminedasf faraspractica ablebycompe etitiveexamin nations,or based highlytechnicalqualifi don c ications,(b)opportunityfo oradvancemen nttohighercareerposition ns,and(c) securi of tenure. More specif ity . fically, it is a anopen caree position, fo appointmen to it requ er or nt uires prior qualif ficationinana appropriateex xamination. embracedin thecareerservice,thepos sitionofProvincialAdminis stratormust,a asmandatedb bySection Being ypermanento ortemporary appointment t.Thefirstsha allbeissuedto oaperson 25of P.D.No.807, befilledupby meetsallther requirementsforthepositio ontowhichhe eisappointed d,includingtheappropriate eeligibility whom prescr ribed. In the absence of ap ppropriate eligibles and it becomes nece essary in the public intere to fill a est vacan ncy, a tempor rary appointm ment shall be issued to a person who meets all the requiremen for the e nts positionexceptthe eappropriate civilservicee eligibility,prov vided,howeve er,thatsucht temporaryapp pointment notexceedtw welvemonths, buttheappointeemaybe replacedsoon nerifaqualif fiedcivilserviceeligible shalln becom mesavailable.
158 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts onercouldno otlegallyand validlyappointhisbrotherBenjaminLa aureltosaid positionbeca auseofthe 2. Petitio prohib bition on nep potism under Section 49 o P.D. No. 807. They are related with the third degree of of hin consanguinityand thecasedoesnotfallwithi inanyofthee exemptionspr rovidedtherein.Petitioner, ,however, nds e tended to his brother isno an appointm ot ment, but a D DESIGNATION, he is not , conten that since what he ext coveredbytheproh hibition. t tinction betw ween appointm ment and We cannot accept petitioner's view. His specious and tenuous dist nation is nothing more th han either a ploy ingeniously conceive to circumv ed vent the rigid rule on design nepot tism or a last ditch maneuv to cushion the impact of its violatio The rule a ver n on. admits of no d distinction betwe appointm een ment and desig gnation.Desig gnationis also defined as " appointme or assignment to a o "an ent partic cularoffice";and"todesigna ate"means"to oindicate,sele ect,appointor rsetapartfor rapurposeorduty. oOo ATIENZA,N. A CSC C,petitioner,vs s.DACOYCOY Y,respondent. G. .R.No.135805 5 Apr ril29,1999 PARDO,J P Toconstituten T nepotism,itsu ufficesthatan nappointment extended o tis orissuedinfav vorofarelati ivewithinthe thirdcivil degree of cons d sanguinity or affinity of the chief of the b eau or office, or the pers exercising immediate supervision e bur rson g overtheappointee."[T]theb o basicpurposeo orobjectiveof eprohibitio fth onagainstnep potismalsostr ronglyindicate esthatthe prohibition wa intended to be a compre p as o ehensive one." "The Court w unwilling to restrict and limit the sc was cope of the prohibitionwh p hichistextually lyverybroada andcomprehe ensive."Ifnotw withintheexce eptions,itisa formofcorru uptionthat mustbenipped m dinthebudor rabatedwhene everorwherev veritraisesits suglyhead. After a compl A laint has bee filed again Pedro O. Dacoycoy, th Civil Servic Commissio conducted a formal en nst he ce on investigation and found respondent Pe edro O. Daco oycoy guilty of nepotism on two coun as a resu of the nts ult appointmento a ofhistwoson ns,RitoandPe edDacoycoy, asdriverand utilityworke er,respectively y,andtheiras ssignment underhisimm u mediatesuperv visionandcon ntrolastheVo ocationalScho oolAdministra atorasBalicuatroCollegeo ofArtsand Trades,andim T mposedonhim mthepenaltyo ofdismissalfr romtheservic ce. Dacoycoyfiled D dwiththeCou urtofAppealsaspecialciv vilactionforc certiorariwith hpreliminary yinjunctionto osetaside theCivilServic t ceCommissio on'sresolution ns.TheCourt ofAppealspromulgatedits sdecisionreve ersingandset ttingaside thedecisionoftheCivilServiceCommiss t sion,rulingthatrespondent tdidnotappo ointorrecomm mendhistwo osonsRito and a Ped, and, hence, was not guilty of n n nepotism. The Court further held that it is "the perso who recom on mmends or appointswhoshouldbesan a nctioned,asitishewhoperformsthepro ohibitedact." ISSUE: Whether or n the appell W not late court err in implied limiting th coverage o the ban on nepotism to only the red dly he of n o appointingorrecommendin a ngauthorityfo orappointingarelative. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. RespondentPe R edroO.Dacoy ycoywasguilty yofnepotism.
159|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thelawdefine T esnepotisma asfollows: Sec.59.Nepotism.(1)Allappoin ntmentstothe enational,pro ovincial,citya andmunicipal lgovernments sorinany brancho orinstrument talitythereof, includinggov vernmentown nedorcontro olledcorporati ions,madein favorofa relative oftheappoin ntingorrecom mmendingaut thority,oroft thechiefofth hebureauoro office,orofth hepersons exercisingimmediate esupervisiono overhim,areherebyprohib bited. AsusedinthisSectio on,theword" "relative"and membersoft thefamilyref ferredtoaret thoserelatedw withinthe thirdde egreeeitherof fconsanguinit tyorofaffinity y. (2) The following ar exempted f e re from the ope erations of the rules on ne e epotism: (a) p persons empl loyed in a confiden ntial capacity (b) teachers, (c) phy y, ysicians, and (d) membe ers of the A Armed Force of the es Philippines:Provided, ,however,Tha atineachpart ticularinstanc cefullreporto ofsuchappoin ntmentshallb bemadeto theCom mmission. Underthedefi U initionofnepo otism,oneisg guiltyofnepot tismifanapp pointmentisis ssuedinfavor rofarelativew withinthe thirdcivildegr t reeofconsang guinityoraffin nityofanyoft thefollowing: a)appo ointingauthor rity; b)recom mmendingau uthority; c)chief fofthebureau uoroffice,and d d)personexercisingimmediatesu upervisionove ertheappoint tee. Clearly,therea C arefoursituationscovered d.Inthelasttw womentioned dsituations,it tisimmaterial lwhotheapp pointingor recommending r gauthorityis.Toconstitute eaviolationo ofthelaw,its sufficesthatanappointmen ntisextended dorissued infavorofare elativewithinthethirdcivil ldegreeofcon nsanguinityoraffinityofth hechiefofthebureauoroff fice,orthe personexercis p singimmediat tesupervision novertheappointee. TheCourtofA T Appeals'relian nceonDebulga adovs.CivilSe erviceCommis ssion,tosuppo ortitsrulingi ismisplaced.T Theissues in Debulgado are whether a promotional appointm r ment is cover red by the prohibition ag gainst nepotis or the sm prohibitionap p ppliesonlytoo originalappointmentstoth hecivilservice e,andwhether rtheCommiss sionhadgrave elyabused it tsdiscretioni inrecallingan nddisapprovin ngthepromot tionalappoint tmentgivento opetitioneraft tertheCommissionhad earlierapprov e vedthatappoi intment.Debu ulgadonever evenimpliedl lylimitedthecoverageoft thebanonne epotismto only the appo o ointing or re ecommending authority fo appointing a relative. Precisely, in Debulgado, the Court g or g emphasized th Section 59 "means ex e hat 5 xactly what it says in plain and ordina language: . . . The pub policy t n ary blic embodiedinS e Section59isc clearlyfundam mentalinimp portance,and theCourthas sneitherauth horitynorincl linationto dilutethatimp d portantpublic cpolicybyintr roducingaqualificationher reoradistinct tionthere. Nepotism is o perniciou evil impedi the civil s N one us ing service and t efficiency of its person the nnel. In Debu ulgado, we stressedthat" s "[T]the basic purpose or objective of the prohibition against nepo otism also stro ongly indicate that the es prohibitionwa p asintendedto obeacompre ehensiveone.""TheCourtw " wasunwilling gtorestrictan ndlimitthesc copeofthe prohibitionwh p hichistextual llyverybroad dandcomprehensive."Ifno otwithinthe exceptions,it isa formof c corruption thatmustben t nippedinthe budorabated dwheneverorwhereverit traisesitsugl lyhead.Aswe esaidinanea arliercase "whatweneed " dnowisnoto onlytopunish hthewrongdo oersorrewardthe"outstan nding"civilse ervants,butal lsotoplug thehiddengap t psandpothol lesofcorrupti ionaswellastoinsistons strictcomplian ncewithexist tinglegalproc ceduresin ordertoabateanyoccasionforgraftorci o ircumventionofthelaw." oOo FUNA,petit tioner,vs.EXE ECUTIVESECR RETARY,respondent. G.R.No.184740 Febru uary11,2010 VILLARAM MA,JR.,J,(EN BANC)
160 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whileallother W rappointiveof fficialsinthe civilservicear reallowedto holdotheroff ficeoremploym mentinthego overnment duringtheirte d enurewhensu uchisallowed bylaworby theprimary fu functionsofthe eirpositions,m membersofth heCabinet, theirdeputies andassistants t smaydosoon nlywhenexpre authorize essly edbytheCons stitutionitself. f.Inotherword ds,Section 7, 7 Article IXB is meant to lay down the general rule applicable t all elective and appoint B to e tive public off fficials and employees,whileSection13, e ,ArticleVIIis meanttobet theexceptiona applicableonly lytothePresid dent,theVice President, Membersofthe M eCabinet,thei irdeputiesand dassistants. PresidentGlor P riaMacapagalArroyoappointedrespond dentMariaEle enaH.Bautista(Bautista)asUndersecret taryofthe Department of Transportat D tion and Comm munications ( (DOTC). In 20 008, Bautista was designat as Officer ted inCharge (OICoftheMa ( aritimeIndust tryAuthority( (MARINA)inc concurrentca apacityasDOT TCUndersecre etary.DennisA.B.Funa inhiscapacity yastaxpayerc challengedthe econstitutiona alityofBautist tasappointm ment/designati ion,whichisp proscribed bytheprohibi b itiononthePresident,Vice ePresident,th heMemberso oftheCabinet, ,andtheirdep putiesandass sistantsto holdanyother h rofficeoremp ployment. Petitioner arg P gues that Baut tistas concur rrent positions as DOTC Un ndersecretary and MARINA OIC is in vi y A iolation of Section 13, Ar S rticle VII of the1987 Cons t stitution and that even if Bautistas appointment or designation as OIC of r MARINA was intended to be merely tem M b mporary, still such design l, nation must n violate a standing cons not stitutional prohibition. p On O the other hand, the respondents a argue that th here was no violation of Section 13, A Article VII of the1987 f Constitutionbecauserespon C ndentBautist tawasmerely ydesignateda actingheadof MARINAonS September1, 2008.She wasdesignate w edMARINAOI IC,notappoin ntedMARINA Administrator.Withthere esignationofV VicenteT.Sua azo,Jr.,the position of M p MARINA Administrator was left vacant, and pending the appoint s g tment of per rmanent Adm ministrator, respondent Ba r autista was designated OI in a tempo d IC orary capacity for the pur y rpose of prev venting a hiat in the tus dischargeofofficialfunction d ns.Hercaseth husfallsunde ertherecognizedexception nstotherulea againstmultip pleoffices, i.e., without ad dditional com mpensation (sh did not rec he ceive any emolument as M MARINA OIC) and as requir by the red primaryfuncti p ionsoftheoff ffice.Besides, Bautistaheld theposition forfour(4)m monthsonly,a asinfactwhenshewas appointed MA a ARINA Admin nistrator on F February 2, 2 2009, she reli inquished her post as DOTC Undersecretary for r MaritimeTran M nsport,inackn nowledgmentoftheproscri iptionontheh holdingofmul ltipleoffices. ISSUE: Whether or not the design W nation of resp pondent Bauti ista as OIC of MARINA, con f ncurrent with the position of DOTC h n Undersecretar for Maritim Transport to which she had been ap U ry me e ppointed, viol lated the cons stitutional proscription againstdualor a rmultipleofficesforCabine etMembersan ndtheirdeput tiesandassist tants. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Undersecretar U ryBautistasd designationasMARINAOICfallsunderth hestricterpro ohibitionunde erSection13,A ArticleVII ofthe1987Co o onstitution.Re esolutionofth hepresentcon ntroversyhing gesonthecorrectapplicatio onofSection13,Article VIIofthe1987 V 7Constitution,whichprovid n des: Sec.13.TheP S President,Vice ePresident,th heMemberso oftheCabinet t,andtheirde eputiesorassistantsshalln not,unless otherwise pro o ovided in this Constitution, hold any oth office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, , her duringsaidtenure,directly d yorindirectly ypracticeany otherprofess sion,participa ateinanybus siness,orbef financially interestedina anycontractw with,orinanyfranchise,orspecialprivile egegrantedby ytheGovernm mentoranysu ubdivision, agency, or ins a strumentality thereof, inclu uding governmentowned or controlled corporations or their sub d bsidiaries. Theyshallstrictlyavoidcon T nflictofinteres stinthecondu uctoftheiroff ffice. Ontheotherh O hand,Section7 7,paragraph( (2),ArticleIXBreads:
161|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Sec.7.xxx S Unlessotherw U wiseallowedb bylaworthe primaryfunct tionsofhispo osition,noap ppointiveoffic cialshallhold anyother officeoremplo o oymentinthe eGovernmentoranysubdiv vision,agencyorinstrumen ntalitythereof, ,includinggov vernment ownedorcont o trolledcorpor rationsortheirsubsidiaries s. InCivilLiberti iesUnion,aco onstitutionalc challengewas sbroughtbefo orethisCourt ttonullifyEO No.284issue edbythen PresidentCora P azonC.Aquino oonJuly25,1 1987,whichin ncludedMemb bersoftheCabinet,underse ecretariesand dassistant secretariesini s itsprovisionslimitingtotw wo(2)thepositionsthatapp pointiveoffici ialsoftheExecutiveDepart tmentmay hold in govern h nment and go overnment cor rporations. In nterpreting the above provisions in the l light of the hi istory and times and the conditions and circumsta t e a ances under w which the Con nstitution was framed, this Court struck down as s s k unconstitution u nalsaidexecutiveissuance,sayingthatit tactuallyallow wsthemtoho oldmultipleof fficesoremploymentin directcontrav d ventionofthe expressmand dateofSection n13,ArticleV VIIofthe1987 7Constitution nprohibitingt themfrom doingso,unles d ssotherwisep providedinth he1987Consti itutionitself. Notingthattheprohibition imposedont N thePresident andhisofficia alfamilyisall lembracing,t thedisqualific cationwas heldtobeabs h solute,asthe holdingof"an nyotheroffice e"isnotqualifiedbythep phrase"inthe Government" "unlikein Section 13, Ar S rticle VI prohibiting Senato and Memb ors bers of the House of Repre esentatives fr rom holding " "any other officeoremploymentinthe o eGovernment t";andwhenc comparedwit thotheroffici ialsandemplo oyeessuchasmembers ofthearmedfo o orcesandcivi ilserviceempl loyees,wecon ncludedthus: Thesesweepin T ng,allembrac cingprohibitio onsimposed onthePresid dentandhisofficialfamily, whichprohib bitionsare notsimilarlyi n imposedonot therpublicof fficialsoremp ployeessucha astheMembe ersofCongres ss,memberso ofthecivil service in gen s neral and mem mbers of the armed forces are proof of the intent o the 1987 Co s, f of onstitution to treat the o Presidentandhisofficialfam P milyasaclass sbyitselfandtoimposeupo onsaidclasss stricterprohib bitions. Suchintentof S fthe1986ConstitutionalC Commissionto obestricterw withthePresi identandhis officialfamily ywasalso succinctlyarti s iculatedbyCo ommissionerV VicenteFozaf fterCommissionerRegalad doMaambong gnotedduring gthefloor deliberationsa d anddebateth hattherewas nosymmetry ybetweenthe eCivilService prohibitions, ,originallyfou undinthe General Provisions and the anticipated report on the Executive D G e e Department. C Commissioner Foz Commented, "We r actuallyhave tobestricter withthePresidentandth a hemembersoftheCabinet becausethey yexercisemor repowers and,therefore a e,morechecks sandrestrain ntsonthemar recalledforb becausethereismoreposs sibilityofabus seintheir case." c Thus, while al other appoi T ll intive officials in the civil s s service are al llowed to hold other office or employm d e ment in the governmentduringtheirten g nurewhensu uchisallowedbylaworby theprimaryf functionsofth heirpositions, ,members oftheCabinet o t,theirdeputiesandassista antsmaydos soonlywhen expresslyaut thorizedbyth heConstitutionitself.In other words, S o Section 7, Art ticle IXB is m meant to lay d down the gene eral rule appl licable to all e elective and a appointive public officials and employ p s yees, while Se ection 13, Ar rticle VII is m meant to be th exception applicable on to the he nly President,theVicePresiden P nt,Memberso oftheCabinet,theirdeputiesandassistan nts. xxxx x Sincetheevide S entpurposeo oftheframersofthe1987C Constitutionis stoimposeastricterprohibitiononthe President, VicePresident members of the Cabinet their deput V t, o t, ties and assist tants with re espect to hold ding multiple offices or employment i the govern e in nment during their tenure the exception to this pr g e, rohibition mu be read w ust with equal severity.Onits s sface,thelan nguageofSecti ion13,Article eVIIisprohib bitorysothati itmustbeund derstoodasin ntendedto beapositivea b andunequivoc calnegationoftheprivilege eofholdingm multiplegovern nmentofficesoremployme ent.Verily, whereverthe languageused w dintheconst titutionisproh hibitory,itis tobeunderst toodasintend dedtobeapo ositiveand unequivocal n u negation. The phrase "un e nless otherwi ise provided in this Con nstitution" mu be given a literal ust n interpretation to refer only to those par n y rticular instan nces cited in the Constitut tion itself, to wit: the Vice President being appoint as a member of the Ca b ted abinet under S Section 3, par (2), Article VII; or acting as Presiden in those r. g nt
162|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts instancesprov videdunderSe ection7,pars.(2)and(3),A ArticleVII;and,theSecreta aryofJusticeb beingexofficiomember oftheJudicialandBarCoun o ncilbyvirtueo ofSection8(1),ArticleVIII. Respondent B R Bautista being then the ap g ppointed Und dersecretary o DOTC, she was thus covered by th stricter of e he prohibition un p nder Section 13, Article VII and consequ 1 uently she cannot invoke t exception provided in Section 7, the n paragraph 2, A p Article IXB where holding another office is allowed by law or th primary fun w g he nctions of the position. e Neither was s designated OIC of MA N she e ARINA in an e exofficio capa acity, which i the exception recognize in Civil is ed LibertiesUnion. L The T prohibitio against ho on olding dual or multiple offi r ices or emplo oyment under Section 13, Article VII of the1987 r f Constitutionw held inapp C was plicable to po osts occupied by the Execu utive officials s specified ther rein, without additional compensation c inanexoffic ciocapacityas sprovidedbylawandasrequiredbythe eprimaryfunc ctionsofsaido office.The reason is that these posts do not com r s mprise "any o other office" within the c contemplation of the cons n stitutional prohibitionbu p utareproperl lyanimpositionofaddition naldutiesand dfunctionson nsaidofficials s.Apartfrom theirbare assertion that respondent Bautista did n receive an compensation when sh was OIC of MARINA, res a t not ny he f spondents failedtodemo f onstrateclearl lythatherdes signationassu uchOICwasin nanexofficio ocapacityasr requiredbyth heprimary functionsofhe f erofficeasDO OTCUndersecr retaryforMar ritimeTransport. The T disqualific cation laid do own in Section 13, Article VII is aimed a preventing the concentr n at g ration of pow wers in the ExecutiveDep E partmentofficials,specifical llythePresident,VicePres sident,Membe ersoftheCab binetandtheir rdeputies andassistants a s.CivilLibertie esUniontracedthehistory yofthetimes sandthecond ditionsunder whichtheCo onstitution wasframed,an w ndconstruedtheConstituti ionconsistent twiththeobje ectsoughttob beaccomplish hedbyadoptionofsuch provision, and the evils sou p d ught to be av voided or rem medied. We re ecalled the pra actice, during the Marcos r g regime, of designatingm d membersofthe eCabinet,the eirdeputiesan ndassistants asmemberso ofthegoverni ingbodiesor boardsof various government agenci and instru v ies umentalities, including gov vernmentown or contro ned olled corporat tions. This practiceofhol p ldingmultiple eofficesorpos sitionsinthegovernmentledtoabusesb byunscrupulo ouspublicoffi icials,who tookadvantag t geofthisschem meforpurpos sesofselfenrichment.Theblatantbetray yalofpublictr rustevolvedintooneof theseriouscau t usesofdiscon ntentwiththeMarcosregim me.Itwasther reforequitein nevitableand inconsonanc cewiththe overwhelming sentiment of the people that the 198 Constitutio o g o 86 onal Commiss sion would draft into the proposed Constitutionth C heprovisionsunderconsid deration,whic chwereenvisi ionedtoreme edy,ifnotcor rrect,theevils sthatflow from the hold f ding of multip governmen offices an employme Our decla ple ntal nd ent. aration in tha case cannot be more at t explicit: e Butwhatisin B ndeedsignifica antisthefact tthatalthough hSection7,A ArticleIXBalr readycontain nsablanketprohibition against the ho a olding of mult tiple offices o employmen in the gove or nt ernment subs suming both e elective and a appointive public officials the Constitu p s, utional Comm mission should see it fit to formulate an d nother provisi ion, Sec. 13, A Article VII, specifically pr s rohibiting the President, V VicePresident, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assist , f , tants from holdinganyot h therofficeore employmentd duringtheirte enure,unlesso otherwisepro ovidedintheC Constitutionit tself. oOo ASEAN NPACIFICPLA ANNERS,petit tioner,vs.CITY YOFURDANE ETA,responde ent. G.R.N No.162525 mber23,2008 8 Septem QUISUMBING,J(SECONDD Q DIVISION) A A local govern nment unit can nnot be repre esented by priv vate counsel a only public officers may act for and in behalf of as n publicentitiesandpublicfun p ndsshouldnot tbespenttohi ireprivatelaw wyers.Probono orepresentati incollabor ion rationwith themunicipala t attorneyandp prosecutorhas snotevenbeen nallowed.
163|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Respondent W R Waldo C. Del Castillo filed a complaint for annulmen of contract against the City of Urda nt ts e aneta and Ceferino J. Cap C palad doing business unde the name JJEFWA Builde and Asea Pacific Plan b er ers, an nners (APP) a Asean and Pacific Planners Constructio and Development Corporation (APPC P on CDC). Del Cas stillo alleged t that then Urdaneta City MayorRodolfo M oE.Paraynoe enteredintof fivecontracts fortheprelim minarydesign n,construction nandmanage ementofa fourstoreytw f wincinemacommercialcen nterandhotelinvolvingam massiveexpen nditureofpub blicfundsamo ountingto P250 million, funded by a loan from th Philippine National Ban (PNB). For minimal wo P he nk r ork, the contr ractor was allegedlypaidP95million. a After pretrial the Lazaro Law Firm en A l, ntered its app pearance as c counsel for U Urdaneta City and filed an Omnibus n Motionwith p M prayer to (1) withdraw Urd w daneta City's A Answer; (2) d drop Urdaneta City as defendant and be joined as a e plaintiff; (3) a p admit Urdaneta City's complaint; and (4 conduct a new pretrial Urdaneta Ci allegedly w 4) l. ity wanted to rectifyitsposi r itionandclaim medthatinade equatelegalre epresentation ncauseditsina abilitytofilet thenecessarypleadings inrepresentat tionofitsinter rests. Petitionerscon P ntendthatonl lytheCityPro osecutorcanr representUrda anetaCityand dthatlawand djurisprudenc ceprohibit theappearanc t ceoftheLazar roLawFirmas sthecity'scou unsel. TheLazaroLa T awFirm,asth hecity'scouns sel,counterst thatthecityw wasinutilede efendingitsca ausebeforeth heRTCfor la ackofneeded dlegaladvice.Thecityhasn nolegalofficer randbothCity yProsecutora andProvincia alLegalOfficer rarebusy. Practicalconsi P iderationsalsodictatethat tthecityandM MayorPerezm musthavethe esamecounse elsincehefac cesrelated criminal cases CitingMancenido v. Court of Appeals, t law firm s c s. t the states that hir ring private co ounsel is prop where per rigidadherenc r cetothelawo onrepresentat tionwoulddepriveapartyofhisrighttoredressavali idgrievance. InitsOrder,th heRegionalTr rialCourt(RTC C)ofUrdaneta aCity,Pangas sinan,Branch45,admittedt theentryofap ppearance of o the Laza aro Law Firm and g F granted the withdrawal of appea l arance of t the City Prosecutor. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otRTCerran ndcommitgra aveabuseofd discretionina allowingthee entryofappearanceofaprivatelaw firmtoreprese f enttheCityof fUrdanetades spitetheclear rstatutoryand djurisprudent tialprohibitio onsthereto. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Lazaro Law Firms appeara L ance as Urdan neta City's co ounsel is against the law a it provides expressly who should as s representit.TheCityProsec r cutorshouldc continuetorepresenttheci ity. Section481(a) S )oftheLocal Government Code(LGC)o of1991manda atestheappointmentofac citylegaloffic cer.Under Section481(b) S )(3)(i)oftheL LGC,thecityle egalofficerissupposedtor representthecityinallcivilactions,asin nthiscase, andspecialpr a roceedingswh hereinthecity yoranyofits sofficialsisaparty.InRam mosv.Courtof ofAppeals,we citedthat underSection 19ofRepubl u licActNo.5185,citygover rnmentsmay alreadycreat tetheposition nofcitylegal lofficerto whom the fun w nction of the city fiscal (now prosecutor) as legal adv c w viser and offic for civil ca cer ases of the cit shall be ty transferred.In t nthecaseofU UrdanetaCity,however,the epositionofc citylegaloffice erisstillvaca ant,althoughi itscharter wasenactedw w waybackin19 998. Becauseofsuc B chvacancy,th heCityProsecutor'sappear ranceascouns selofUrdanet taCityisprop per.TheCityP Prosecutor remainsas the city's legala r e adviserand o officerfor civil cases,afunc ction that cou not yet be transferredt the city uld e to legalofficer. U Underthecirc cumstances,th heRTCshould dnothaveall lowedtheent tryofappeara anceoftheLa azaroLaw FirmvicetheC F CityProsecuto or.Notably,thecity'sAnswe erwassworntobeforetheCityProsecut torbyMayorP Perez.The CityProsecuto C orpreparedth hecity'spretr rialbriefandr representedth hecityinthep pretrialconfe erence.Noque estionwas
164 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts raisedagainsttheCityProse r ecutor'saction nsuntiltheLa azaroLawFirm mentereditsappearanceandclaimedth hatthecity la ackedadequa atelegalrepresentation. Moreover,theappearanceo M oftheLazaroL LawFirmascounselforUrd danetaCityisagainstthela aw.Section48 81(b)(3)(i) of o the LGC pr rovides when a special le n egal officer m be emplo may oyed, that is, in actions or proceedings where a r s componentcit c tyormunicipa alityisaparty yadversetoth heprovincialg government.B Butthiscaseis snotbetween nUrdaneta City and the Province of Pangasinan. And we have consistently held that a local gover C e y a rnment unit c cannot be represented b private cou r by unsel as only p public officers may act for and in behal of public en s lf ntities and pu ublic funds shouldnotbespenttohireprivatelawye s ers.Probonor representation nincollaborationwiththemunicipalatt torneyand prosecutorhas p snotevenbee enallowed. Neitheristhelawfirm'sapp N pearancejusti ifiedunderth heinstanceslis stedinMance enidowhenloc calgovernmen ntofficials canbereprese c entedbypriv vatecounsel,s suchaswhen aclaimfordamagescould dresultinper rsonalliability y.Nosuch claim against said officials was made in this case. Note that before it joined the complainant the city wa the one c e e ts, as sued,notitso s officials.That thefirmrepre esentsMayor rPerezincrim minalcases,su uitsinhisper rsonalcapacit ty,isofno moment. m oOo RAMOS,petitio R oner,vs.CA,re espondent. G.R R.No.L53766 6 Octob ber30,1981 AQUINO,J,(SECONDDIV VISION) Thefactthatt T themunicipal attorneyand thefiscalares supposedtoco ollaboratewit thaprivatelawfirmdoesnotlegalize the t latter's rep presentation of the municip o pality. Section 1683 of the Revised Admi n inistrative Cod as complem de, mented by section3ofthe s eLocalAutonomyLawiscl learinprovidingthatonlyt theprovincialf fiscalandthe municipalatt torneycan representamu r unicipalityinitslawsuits.Th hatprovisionis smandatory. The T municipal of Hagono Bulacan, t lity oy, through the la firm of Cr Durian & Academia (no Cruz Duria Agabin aw ruz ow an Atienza&Alda A ay),suedinth heCourtofFirstInstanceo ofBulacanMarcianoDomin ngo,LeonilaGuzman,Maria aC.Ramos andConsorcio a oCruzforther recoveryofits s74hectarefi ishpond(Civil lCaseNo.509 95M). Theprovincial T lfiscalofBula acanandthe municipalatt torneyofHag gonoyentered dtheirappear ranceascouns selforthe municipality w m with the manifestation tha its private c at counsel would be under th control an supervision of those he nd n officials. Notw o withstanding that appearan t nce, Domingo and Maria C Ramos (les C. ssee and subl lessee of the fishpond) movedtodisqualifytheCruzlawfirmfromservingasc m counselofthe emunicipality. Thetrialcourt T tdeniedthem motion.Itfoun ndthatAngel Cruz,thehead dofthelawfirm,volunteer redtoactascounselfor themunicipali t itybecausehe edesiredtose ervehisnative etown. Ramos and Do R omingo assail that order by means of certiorari in the Court of Appeals which in a decis led r n sion dated February15,1 F 1979sustaine edthetrialcourt(Ramosvs.JudgeJesus sR.deVega,e etal.,CAG.R. No.SP7728R R).Ramos broughttheca b asetothisCou urt ISSUE: Whetherorno W otthetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppea alserredinallowingtheCr ruzlawfirmtoactascouns selforthe municipalityin m ncollaborationwiththefisc calandthemu unicipalattorn ney. HELD: H
165|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts PetitionGRAN P NTED. Therulingoft T thetrialcourtandtheCour rtofAppealsa allowingtheC Cruzlawfirmt toactascoun nselforthemu unicipality constitutes a grave abuse of discretion because it i manifestly a transgressi c n is ion of section 1683 of the Revised n Administrative A eCodewhichprovidestha at"theprovinc cialfiscalshallrepresentth heprovincea andanymunic cipalityor municipaldist m trictthereofin nanycourt,ex xceptincaseswhereoforig ginaljurisdicti ionisvestedin ntheSupremeCourtor incaseswhere ethemunicipa alityormunic cipaldistrictin nquestionisa apartyadvers setotheprov vincialgovernm mentorto some other m s municipality or rmunicipal di istrict in the s same province. When the i interests of a provincial go overnment and a of any political division thereof are opposed, the provincial fis n scal shall act on behalf oft province. When the the provincialfiscalisdisqualifi p iedtoservean nymunicipalityorotherpo oliticalsubdivi isionofaprov vince,aspecia alattorney maybeemploy m yedbyitscou uncil. Thelegislative T eintenttopro ohibitamunicipalityfromemployingpriv vatecounselinitslawsuitsisfurtherimp plemented by b section 3 o the Local Autonomy Act, Republic Act No. 2264, w of A , t which provides that the municipal attorn s ney, as the headoftheleg h galdivisionorofficeofam municipality," "shallactasle egalcounselo ofthemunicip palityandperformsuch duties and exe d ercise such powers as may be assigned to him by th council" Th municipal attorney is paid out of y d he he municipalfund m ds(Sec.4,Rep publicActNo.5185,Decent tralizationAct tof1967).He ecanrepresen ntthemunicip palityeven withoutthefis w scal'scollabor ration(Callejavs.CourtofA Appeals,L225 501,July31,19 967,20SCRA8 895). The T questione edruling of th two courts also contravenes settled jurisprudence Applying section 1683, it was held he s e. t that the municipality's aut t thority to em mploy a priva lawyer is expressly lim ate mited only to situations w o where the provincialfisc p calisdisqualif fiedtoreprese entit(DeGuiavs.Auditor General;L29 9824,March2 29,1972,44S SCRA169. SeeReyesvs.C S Cornista,92P Phil.838,MunicipalityofBo ocauevs.Manotok,93Phil. 173;Enriquezvs.Gimenez z,107Phil. 932). 9 Evidently,the lawmakerin requiringtha E atthemunicip palityshouldb berepresente edinitscourt casesbyago overnment la awyer like its municipal at s ttorney and t provincial fiscal intended that the m the municipality sh hould not be burdened withtheexpen w nsesofhiringaprivatelaw wyer.Thelawm makeralsoass sumedthattheinterestsof themunicipalitywould bebestprotectedifagovern b nmentlawyer rhandlesitslit tigations. It is to be exp pected thatthe municipal a e attorney and t fiscal wou the uldbe faithful and dedicate to the mun l ed nicipality's interestsandt that,ascivilse erviceemploy yees,theycoul ldbeheldacco ountablefora anymisconduc ctorderelictio onofduty. The T Court of Appeals perc ceived nothing illegal in al llowing the C Cruz Law Offi to represe the munic ice ent cipality of Hagonoy beca H ause lawyer Cruz offered his legal s d servicesgratis Petitioner Ramos in her second m s. motion for reconsideratio r oncalledtheC Court'sattenti iontoparagra aph19ofthe complaintwh hereintheCru uzlawfirmal llegedthat themunicipali t ityhadcontractedtopayits slawyera20% %contingentf fee. The T fact that the municipa attorney an the fiscal a supposed to collaborat with a priv al nd are te vate law firm does not m legalizethelat tter'srepresen ntationofthemunicipalityo ofHagonoyin nCivilCaseNo o.5095M.Wh hileaprivatep prosecutor is allowed in criminal case an analogo arrangeme is not allo es, ous ent owed in civil cases wherei a municipa in ality is the plaintiff. p Section1683o S oftheRevised dAdministrativeCode,asco omplementedbysection3o oftheLocalAu utonomyLaw wisclearin providingthat p tonlytheprov vincialfiscala andthemunic cipalattorney ycanrepresen ntamunicipal lityinitslaws suits.That provisionismandatory. p The T law being clear and un g nmistakable, t there is no ro oom for inter rpretation or f engrafting upon it exce for g eptions or qualificationsnotcontempla q atedtherein. oOo
166 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts EDGA ARDOMANCE ENIDO,petitio oner,vs.COUR RTOFAPPEAL LS,respondent t. G. .R.No.118605 5 Apr ril12,2000 QUISUMBING, (SECONDD Q ,J, DIVISION) Inresolvingwh I hetheralocalgovernmento officialmayse etheservicesofprivate counselinan actionfiledag ecur gainsthim inhisofficialca apacity,thena atureoftheac ctionandther fsoughtar relie retobeconsid dered. Inviewofthe damagessoug I ghtwhich,ifg granted,could dresultinpers sonalliability,,respondents couldnotbed deemedto havebeenimpr h roperlyrepres sentedbypriva atecounsel. Private respon P ndent [herein petitioner] E n Eduardo Manc cenido filed a action for m an mandamus an damages against the nd provincial boa of Camar p ard rines Norte, th school board, provincia governor, provincial tre he al easurer, and provincial auditortopay a ytheteacher's sclaimforun npaidsalaryin ncreases.Resp pondentswer rerepresented dbyAtty.JoseLapak,a privatelawyer p r. Petitioners contend that At Jose Lapak could not r P tty. represent the respondents Provincial Tr reasurer and Provincial School Board, because both are instrum S h mentalities of t National G the Government a may be re and epresented on by the nly OfficeoftheSolicitorGener O ralpursuanttoSection35, Chapter12,T Title3,Book4 4oftheAdmin nistrativeCod deof1987. OnlytheProvi O incialProsecu utorofCamarinesNortemay yrepresentth heProvincialG GovernorandtheProvincia alBoardin accordancewi a ithSection481[1],par.Bof ftheLocalGov vernmentCod deof1991. ISSUE: Whetherapriv W vatecounselm mayrepresent tmunicipalof fficialssuedin ntheirofficialcapacities HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. Section481,A S Article11,TitleVoftheLoc calGovernmen ntCode(R.A. No.7160)pro ovidesforthe eappointment tofalegal officer,whosefunctionis: o "(I)Repres sentthelocalg governmentu unitinallcivilactionsands specialprocee edingswherein nthelocal governmen ntunitoranyofficialthereo of,inhisofficialcapacity,isaparty:Prov vided,That,inactionsor proceeding gswhereacom mponentcityormunicipali ityisapartya adversetothe eprovincialgo overnment ortoanoth hercomponen ntcityormun nicipality,asp peciallegalof fficermaybe employedto represent theadverse eparty;" TheCourthaspreviouslyru T uledontherep presentationo ofalocalgove ernmentunitbyaprivatea attorney.InMu unicipality of o Bocaue v.M Manotok,93 Ph 173 (1953), and succe hil, eeding cases, we held that only when the provincia fiscal is t al disqualifiedm d maythemunici ipalcouncilbe eauthorizedtohiretheserv vicesofaspec cialattorney.W Wereiterated dthisinDe Guia v.Auditor General,44 SCRA 169 (1 G r 1972). InEnriq quez, Sr. v. Gi imenez,107 P 932 (1960 we enume Phil 0), erated the instanceswhe entheprovinc cialpublicprosecutorisdisqualifiedfrom mrepresenting gaparticular municipality, ,i.e.,when the t jurisdictio of a case in on nvolving the m municipality l lies with the Supreme Cou when the municipality is a party urt, adverse to the provincial government o to some o a g or other municip pality in the s same province, and when in a case involvingthem municipality,t theprovincial lprosecutor,h hisspouse,or rhischildisin nvolvedasacr reditor,heir,l legatee,or otherwise. o But B do these rulings equally apply to lo ocal government officials? InAlinsug v. RTC, Br. 58, S Carlos City, Negros San Occidental,225 SCRA 559 (1993), we lai down the r O 5 ( id rule that, in re esolving whet ther a local government of fficial may
167|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts securetheserv s vicesofprivat tecounselina anactionfiled dagainsthimi inhisofficialc capacity,then natureofthea actionand thereliefsoug t ghtaretobec considered.In nAlbuerav.To orres,102Phil.211(1957), ,weapproved dtherepresen ntationby privatecounse p elofaprovinc cialgovernor suedinhisof fficialcapacity y,wheretheco omplaintcont tainedothera allegations andaprayerfo a ormoraldamages,which,if fduefromthe edefendants,m mustbesatisf fiedbythemin ntheirprivate ecapacity. InProvince of Cebu v.Inter f rmediate Appe ellate Court, s supra,we dec clared that wh here rigid ad dherence to th law on he representation r nwoulddepri iveapartyof hisrighttore edressforava alidgrievance e,thehiringof fprivatecoun nselwould beproper. b The present c T case had its origins in Ci ivil Case No. 5864 filed b before the RT of Camari TC ines Norte, B Branch 38, formandamus f sanddamages s.Notwithstan ndingthefact thatthetrial courtgranted dmandamus, petitionersap ppealedto the t Court of A Appealssince the trial cour did notawa damages. In view of th damages so rt ard he ought which, i granted, if couldresultin c npersonalliability,respond b dentscouldn notbedeemed dtohavebeen nimproperly representedb byprivate counsel. No er c rror may thus be attribute to the appe s ed ellate court w when it recogn nized the righ of responde ht ents to be representedby r yprivatecoun nsel. oOo
MidnightApp M pointments
SAL LES,petitioner,,vs.CARREON N,respondent. G.R.No.160791 Febru uary13,2007 SA ANDOVALGU UTIERREZ,J( (ENBANC)
Eachappointm E mentmustbeju udgedontheb basisofthena ature,characte er,andmeritsoftheindividu ualappointme entandthe circumstances surrounding the same.It is only wh the appo c t hen ointments wer madeen m re masseby the outgoing administration a nandshownto ohavebeenmadethroughh hurriedmaneu uversandunde ercircumstanc cesdepartingf fromgood faith, morality and propri f y, iety that this Court has s struck down "midnight" ap ppointments. It is State p policy that "opportunitiesforgovernme " entemploymen ntshallbeope entoallqualifi fiedcitizens"an nd"employees sshallbeselec ctedonthe basisoffitness b stoperformth hedutiesanda assumethere esponsibilitieso oftheposition ns."Itwaspreciselyinorder rtoensure transparencya t andequalopp portunityintherecruitment tandhiringof fgovernmentp personnel,tha atRepublicActNo.7041 wasenacted. w During the May 2001 elections, then M D Mayor Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz of Dapita City, running for reelec an ction, was defeated by re d espondent Ro odolfo H. Carr reon, Jr.In his last month in office, then Dapitan City Mayor Ruiz issued 83 n y appointments, including those of herein petitioners. W a , When the new elected M wly Mayor, Rodolfo H. Carreon, Jr., herein o respondent,as r ssumedoffice,heissuedMe emorandumO OrdersNos.1and2revokin ngthe83appo ointmentssign nedbyhis predecessoronthegroundt p thatthelatter rviolatedCivil lServiceCommission(CSC) )ResolutionN No.01988inr relationto CSCMemorandumCircular No.7,Series of2001,imposingabanonissuingapp C pointmentsin thecivilserviceduring theelectionpe t eriod.Thereu upon,respond dentprohibitedtherelease ofthesalarie esandbenefit tsofthe83ap ppointees. Patricio Sales, one of herein petitioners in his capacity as presid P , s, dent of the D Dapitan City G Government E Employees Association,w A wrotetheCSC RegionalOffic ceNo.IXrequ uestingitsrulingonthemat tter.Theappe ellatecourtrenderedits Decision dism D missing the pe etition, sustai ining the CSC finding th the positi Cs hat ions to which the petition h ners were appointedwer a realreadyrep portedandpu ublishedeven beforetheyhadbeendecla aredvacant,in nviolationof Sections2 and3ofRepub a blicAct(R.A.)No.7041. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otthe83appo ointmentsissu uedbythenMa ayorJ.Cedrick kO.Ruizisvio olativeofRepu ublicActNo.7 7041 HELD: H
168 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts PetitionDENIE P ED. This case is a typical exam T mple of the pr ractice of outg going local ch executives to issue "m hief midnight" appo ointments, especiallyafte e ertheirsucces ssorshavebee enproclaimed d.Itdoesnot onlycausean nimositiesbet tweentheout tgoingand theincomingo t officials,buta alsoaffectsef fficiencyinloc calgovernanc ce.Thoseappo ointedtendto odevotetheir rtimeand energy in def e fending their appointmen instead of attending t their funct r nts f to tions. Howev ver, not all "midnight" appointments areinvalid.E a Eachappointm mentmustbe judgedonthe ebasisofthenature,chara acter,andme eritsofthe individualapp pointmentand dthecircumst tancessurroun ndingthesam me.Itisonlyw whentheappointmentswer remadeen masseby the outgoing adm m ministration and shown t have been made throu to n ugh hurried maneuvers a and under circumstances departing fr c s rom good fai ith, morality, and proprie that this Court has st ety truck down "midnight" appointments. a . It is State po olicy that "op pportunities f governme employme shall be open to all qualified citiz for ent ent zens" and "employees sh be selecte on the bas of fitness to perform t duties and assume the responsibilit " hall ed sis the d e ties of the positions."It w precisely in order to e p was ensure transpa arency and eq qual opportun in the rec nity cruitment and hiring of d governmentpersonnel,that g tRepublicActNo.7041was senacted.Sect tion2provide es: SEC.2.Dutyof S fPersonnelOff ficers.Itshal llbethedutyofallChiefPe ersonnelorAd dministrativeOfficersofallbranches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and ag s gencies of th Governmen including government he nt, towned or c controlled corporationsw c withoriginalc charters,andl localgovernm mentunits,top postinthree( (3)conspicuou usplacesofth heiroffices for f a period t ten (10) days a complete list of all ex s xisting vacant positions in their respec t n ctive offices w which are authorizedto befilled,and totransmita a acopyofsuch hlistandthe correspondingqualification nstandardsto otheCivil Service Comm S mission not la ater than the tenth day of every month f h.Vacant pos sitions shall n be filled u not until after publication:Pr p rovided,howev ver,thatvacan ntandunfilled dpositionstha atare: a)prim marilyconfide ential; b)pol licydetermini ing; c)high hlytechnical; d)coterminouswiththatoftheappointingau uthority;or e)lim mitedtothedurationofapar rticularprojec ct,shallbeexc cludedfromth helistrequire edbylaw. SEC. 3.Publica S ation of Vacan ncies. The C Chairman and members of the Civil Ser d f rvice Commiss sion shall pub blish once everyquarter acompletelis e stofalltheex xistingvacant positionsint theGovernme entthroughou utthecountry, ,including the qualificati t ion standards required fo each positi s or ion and, ther reafter, certify under oath to the completion of y h publication.Co p opiesofsuch publicationsh hallbesoldat tcosttothepublicand dist tributedfreeo ofchargetoth hevarious personnel offi of the gov p ice vernment whe they shall be available for inspectio by the pub ere l on blic:Provided, That said publicationsh p hallbeposted bytheChief Personnelor Administrativ veOfficerofa alllocalgover rnmentunits inatleast three(3)publ t licandconspi icuousplaces intheirrespe ectivemunicip palitiesandp provinces:Provided,further r,Thatany vacantpositionpublishedth v hereinshallb beopentoany yqualifiedper rsonwhodoe esnotnecessa arilybelongto othesame officewiththe o evacancyorw whooccupiesa apositionnex xtinranktot thevacancy:P Provided,finally ly,ThattheCiv vilService Commissionshallnotactonanyappoint C tmenttofillu upavacantpo ositionunless sthesameha asbeenreport tedtoand publishedbyt p theCommissio on. The T foregoing provisions are clear and need no inte g a erpretation. The CSC is req quired to pub blish the lists of vacant positionsandsuchpublicationshallbepostedbythec p chiefpersonne eloradminist trativeofficer ofalllocalgo overnment units in the de u esignated places. The vaca positions m only be f ant may filled by the a appointing au uthority after they have been reported to the CSC as vacant and only after p b d a d publication. Here, the publi ication of vac cancies was m made even beforethepos b sitionsinvolve edactuallybecamevacant. Clearly,respo ondentsactio onviolatedSec ction2ofR.A.No.7041 citedearlier. c oOo
169|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts QUIRO OG,petitioner,vs.AUMENTA ADO,responde ent. G.R.No.163443 mber11,2008 8 Novem LEONARDODECASTRO,J( (ENBANC) The T constitutional prohibiti ion on socalledmidnight appointments, specifically, those made within two (2 months s, 2) immediatelypriortothenex xtpresidential lelections,app onlytoth plies hePresidento ActingPresident.Thepro or ohibitionis precisely desig p gned to discou urage, nay, eve preclude, lo en osing candidates from issui appointme ing ents merely fo partisan or purposesthere p ebydepriving theincoming administrationoftheoppor rtunitytomak kethecorrespondingappoin ntmentsin linewithitsne ewpolicies. Bohol Provinc Governor Rene L. Rela B cial ampagos perm manently app pointedLiza M Quirog as Provincial Go M. overnment DepartmentH D HeadoftheOff ficeoftheBoholProvincialAgriculture (PGDHOPA). Theappointm mentwascon nfirmedby theSangguniangPanlalawig t ganinResolut tion. Acopyofthe MonthlyRepo A ortonPersonnelActions(R ROPA)wassu ubmittedtoth heCivilServiceCommission nRegional Office No. VII (CSCROVII), Cebu City whe O C ereby the Dir rector of CSCR ROVII invalida ated Quirog's appointment as PGDH OPAuponfind O dingthatthesamewaspartofthebulkap ppointmentsissuedbythen nGovernorRe elampagosafte ertheMay 14,2001elect 1 tionsallegedly yinviolationo ofItemNo.3( (d)ofCSCResolutionNo.01 10988datedJ June4,2001.T TheOrder pointed out th the prohib p hat bition against the issuance ofmidnight appointments t e swas already laid down a early as y as February29,2 F 2000inCSCRe esolutionNo.000550. BothRelampagosandQuiro B ogmovedforr reconsideratio onoftheCSCR ROVIIOrder,a allegingthatw whenthelatte ertookher oathofofficeo o onJune1,200 01,CSCResolu utionNo.010 0988wasnoty yeteffectivea asittookeffec ctonlyonJun ne4,2001. They argued t T that the subje appointme cannot be considered a midnight app ect ent a pointmentbec cause it was m made days beforetheexp b pirationofRela ampagos'term m,andthatQu uirogwasalre eadytheacting gProvincialAgriculturistayearprior to t said appoin ntment or sin June 19, 2 nce 2000.Besides, so they asse erted, since Qu uirog had already taken her oath of office,assumedherdutiesa o andcollected hersalaryfor rthemonthofJune,2001,s shehadalreadyacquireda alegal,not merelyequitab m ble,righttoth hepositionin nquestion,wh hichcannotbe etakenaway fromhereith herbyrevocat tionofthe appointmento a orbyremovalexceptforcau useandwithp previousnotic ceandhearing g. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otthesubjecta appointmentw wasamidnigh htappointmen nt. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. It cannot be said that Qui irog's appointment was a midnight app pointment. Th constitutio he onal prohibitio on so on calledmidnigh appointmen c ht nts, specifical lly, those ma ade within tw (2) mont wo ths immediat tely prior to the next presidentialel p lections,appliesonlytothePresidentorA ActingPreside ent. AstheCourtru A uledinDeRam mav.CA: There ecordsrevealthatwhenthe epetitionerbroughtthema atterofrecallingtheappoin ntmentsofthe efourteen (14) p private respo ondents befor the CSC, th only reaso he cited t justify his action was t re he on to that these werem midnightappo ointmentsthat tareforbidde enunderArticleVII,Section n15oftheCon nstitution.How wever,the CSCru uled,andcorr rectlyso,thatt thesaidprohi ibitionapplies sonlytopresidentialappoin ntments.Intr ruthandin fact,th hereisnolaw wthatprohibit tslocalelectiv veofficialsfrom mmakingapp pointmentsdu uringthelastd daysofhis orher rtenure.
170 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts We, W however, hasten to add that the aforemention ned ruling do not mean that therais oes n son d' etre behind the prohibitionag p gainstmidnigh htappointmen ntsmaynotbe eappliedtoth hosemadebychiefexecutiv vesoflocalgo overnment units,ashere. Indeed,thep u prohibitionis preciselydesi ignedtodisco ourage,nay,ev venpreclude, losingcandid datesfrom issuingappoin ntmentsmerel lyforpartisan npurposesthe erebydeprivin theincomingadministra ng ationoftheop pportunity tomaketheco t orrespondinga appointments sinlinewithitsnewpolicie es.AsweheldinAytonav.C Castillo: The fi illing up of vacancies in im v mportant pos sitions, if few and so spac as to affo some ass w, ced ord surance of delibe erateactionan ndcarefulcon nsiderationoftheneedfort theappointme entandtheap ppointee'squa alifications mayu undoubtedlyb bepermitted.B Buttheissuan nceof350app pointmentsinonenightand dtheplannedinduction ofalm mostall oftheminafewho m oursbeforethe einauguration nofthenewP President may y,withsomer reason, be regard by the la ded atter as an ab buse of Presid dential prerog gatives, the st teps taken be eing apparent a mere tly partis sanefforttofi illallvacantp positionsirres spectiveoffitn nessandothe erconditions, andtherebyt todeprive thene ewadministra ationofanopp portunitytom makethecorre espondingapp pointments. TheappointmentofQuirogcannotbecat T tegorizedasamidnightapp pointment.For ritisbeyondd disputethatQ Quiroghad beendischargingandperformingthedut b tiesconcomitantwiththes subjectpositio onforayear priortoherp permanent appointmentt a thereto.Surely y,thefacttha atshewasonlypermanent tlyappointed tothepositio onofPGDHOPAaftera year of being the Acting Provincial Agr y P riculturist mo than adeq ore quately shows that the fill s ling up of the position e resulted from deliberate ac r ction and a c careful consid deration of the need for th appointment and the ap he ppointee's qualifications.ThefactthatQuiroghadbe q eentheActing gProvincialAg griculturistsin nceJune2000 0allthemorehighlights thepublicneedforsaidpositiontobeper t rmanentlyfille edup. Besides,ascor B rrectlyheldby ytheCSC: Acare efulevaluationofthecircu umstancesobt taininginthe issuanceofth heappointme entofQuirogs showsthe absen of the elem nce ment of hurri iedness on th part of form Governor Relampagos which chara he mer r s acterizes a midni ight appointm ment. There is also wantin in the rec ng cords of the case the subversion by th former he governorofthepol liciesoftheincumbentGove ernorEricoAu umentadoasa alogicalconse equenceoftheissuance ofQui irog'sappoint tmentbythelatter.Bothele ementsaretheprimordialc considerationsbytheSupre emeCourt when itlaiddowni itsrulinginprohibitingmidnightappoin ntmentsinthe elandmarkca aseofAytonav vsCastillo, et.al. Inanyevent,r respondentGo overnorAume entado,inaM Memorandum datedMarch4 4,2003,hasr reinstatedQui irogtothe permanent po p osition of PGD DHOPA. Such act of respo h ondent bespeaks of his acceptance of t validity of Quirog's the appointmenta a andrecognitio onthatindeed d,thelatterisq qualifiedforth hesubjectpos sition. oOo NAZARENO Oetal.,petitioners,vs.DUMA AGUETE,resp pondent. G.R R.No.181559 Octo ober2,2009 DELCAST TILLO,J,(ENB BANC) Not N all appoin ntments issued after the ele d ections by def ted officials are invalid. However, it m fea s must be shown that the appointmentshaveundergon a netheregular rscreeningpro ss,thatthe oce eappointeeisq qualified,that tthereisanee edtofillup thevacancyim t mmediately,andthattheapp pointmentsare otinbulk. en Pursuanttoth P heCommissionsAccreditat tionProgram, ,theCSCissue edResolution nNo.992411, whichgrante edtheCity Governmento G ofDumaguetetheauthority totakefinala actiononallit tsappointmen nts,subjectto osomeconditi ions.Then Dumaguete Ci Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo s D ity sought reelec ction in the M 14, 2001 elections, b lost to May 1 but respondent M r Mayor Agustin R. Perdices. T Thereafter, ou utgoing Mayo Remollo pr or romoted 15 ci hall emplo ity oyees, and regularizedan r nother74cityhallemployee es,includingt theherein52petitioners.M MayorPerdices spubliclyann nouncedat the t flag raising ceremony at the Dumagu a uete City Hall grounds that he would no honor the appointments made by l ot s
171|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts former Mayor Remollo. On the same da he instruct the City A f r n ay, ted Administrator to direct res r spondent City Assistant y Treasurertor T refrainfromm makinganyca ashdisbursem mentsforpaym mentsofpetit tioners'salary ydifferentials sbasedon theirnewposi t itions. Petitioners file a Petition for Mandamu with Injun P ed us nction and Da amages with P Prayer for a T Temporary R Restraining Orderagainst theCityofDu O umaguete,the eysoughttoenjoinrespond dentsfromtak kinganyactio onorissuinga anyorders nullifyingtheir n rappointments.TheRegion nalTrialCourt tdismissedth hepetition. The CSC Field Office in Dumaguete C T d D City, through Director II F Fabio R. Abu ucejo, revoked and invalidated the appointmentsofthepetition a ners. Petitionersma P aintainthatCS SCResolution nNo.010988i isinvalidbeca ausetheCommissioniswit thoutauthorit tytoissue regulations pr hibiting mass appointments at the local governm r ro a ment level. Pe etitioners cite De Rama v. Court of e . Appealswhich held that Se A h ection 15, Ar rticle VII of th Constitutio is only ap he on pplicable to th President or Acting he President.The P eyclaimthato outgoingorde efeatedlocala appointingau uthoritiesare authorizedto omakeappoin ntmentsof qualifiedindiv q vidualsuntilt theirlastday inoffice,and thatnotallm massappointm mentsareinva alid.Finally,p petitioners claim that because Dumag c guete City had been grant ted authority to take "fina action" on all appointm al n ments, the Commissiondidnothavean C nyauthorityto odisapprovet theappointme entsmadebyoutgoingmay yorRemollo. Respondents argue that petitioners ap R p ppointments violated civil service rule and regula l es ations other than CSC Resolution No 010988. Re R o. espondents al assert tha the Commission is authorized to inv lso at validate the petitioners appointments, a ,becausethe CSCaccredita ationprogram mcarriedwithitthecaveat that"saidexe erciseofauthorityshall besubjecttoC b CivilServicela aw,rulesandregulations."Finally,respondentsclaim thatpetitione erswereguilty yofforum shoppingbeca s ausetheissues sinthiscasea andinG.R.No.177795aret thesame. ISSUE: Whetherorno W ottheCommis ssioniswitho outauthorityt toissueregulationsprohib bitingmassap ppointmentsa atthelocal governmentle g evel. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. The T Civil Serv vice Commission has the a authority to issue CSC Res solution No. 0 010988 and t that the inval lidation of petitionersap p ppointmentsw waswarranted d. TheCSChasth T heauthorityto oestablishrul lestopromote eefficiencyinthecivilservi ice The T Commissi ion, as the cen ntral personn agency of the governme nel ent,has statut tory authority to establish rules and y regulations to promote effi r iciency and pr rofessionalism in the civil service. Presi m idential Decre No. 807, or the Civil ee r ServiceDecree S eofthePhilip ppinesandEx xecutiveOrderNo.292,or theAdminist trativeCodeo of1987,provideforthe powersoftheCommission,includingthepowertoissu p uerulesandre egulationsand dtoreviewap ppointments. NotallMassAppointmentsareProhibited N d Indeed, not all appointmen issued afte the election by defeated officials are invalid. CSC Resolution No. 010988 nts er ns d does not purp d port to nullif all "mass appointments However, it must be s fy s." shown that t the appointments have undergone the regular scre u e eening process, that the ap ppointee is qu ualified, that th here is a need to fill up th vacancy d he immediately,a andthattheap ppointmentsa arenotinbulk k.InNazareno ov.Dumaguet te,weexplaine ed:
172|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts CSC Resolutio No. 010988 does not t C on totally proscri the local chief executi from mak ibe ive king any appointments immediately b before and aft elections. The same Re fter esolution provides that the validity of an appointme issued ent immediately b before and aft elections b an outgoin local chief executive is t bedetermin on the ba of the ter by ng to ned asis nature,charac n cter,andmeritoftheindivid t dualappointm mentandthep particularcircu umstancessur ndingthe rrou esame. TheAccreditat T tionofDumag gueteCitydidnotremoveth heCSCsautho oritytoreview wappointmen nts Wefindthatth W heauthorityg grantedbyCSCResolutionN No.992411to otheCityGov vernmentofDumagueteto "takefinal action" on all its appointments did not deprive the C a Commission o its authority and duty to review appo of y o ointments. Indeed,Resolu utionNo.992411statesthatsuchexerc ciseofauthori ityshallbe"s subjecttocivilservicelaw, rulesand regulations"an r ndthatappoin ntmentsinvio olationofpert tinentrules"shallimmediat telybeinvalid dated." Moreover,Sec M ction20,Rule VIoftheOmnibusRulesIm mplementing BookVofEx xecutiveOrder rNo.292pro ovidesthat notwithstanding the initial approval of a appointme the same may be recal n an ent, lled for "[v]io olation of othe existing er CivilServicela C aws,rulesand dregulations."TheCSCise empoweredto otakeappropriateactiono onallappointm mentsand other personn actions and that such p o nel power "include the author to recall a appointment initially ap es rity an pproved in disregardofap d pplicableprov visionsofCivil lServicelawa andregulation ns." oOo
LiabilityofP L PublicOfficer rs
Thegeneralru T uleisthatpub blicofficialsca anbeheldper onally accou rs untableforact tsclaimedto havebeenper rformedin connection with official dut c ties where they have acted ultra viresor where there is a showin of bad fait A mere d e ng th. invocationoft theimmunityc clausedoesno otipsofactore tinthechargesbeingau esul utomaticallyd dropped.Immu unityfrom suitcannotins s stitutionalizeirresponsibility yandnonacco ountabilitynorgrantaprivi ilegedstatusn notclaimedby yanyother officialoftheR o Republic. The Republic of the Philip T ppines, throu ugh the Presi idential Comm mission on G Good Governm ment (PCGG) with the assistance of Solicitor Gen a neral Francisc Chavez filed with the respondent S co Sandiganbaya a complain against an nt EduardoCojua E angco,Jr.and JuanPonceE Enrile,among others,forreconveyance,r reversionand daccounting,r restitution and damages. After the denial of his motion to di a . ismiss, respondent Enrile filed his ans swer with co ompulsory counterclaim a crossclai with dama c and im ages. Inthe co ounterclaim Enrile moved to implead C d Chavez and ot ther PCGG officialsonthe o ebasisthatthecasefiledag gainsthimwas saharassme entsuit.Them motiontoimp pleadChaveza andothers wasgrantedby w ytheSandigan nbayan. Chavez submits that no cou C unterclaim can be filed ag gainst him in his capacity as Solicitor G General since he is only actingascounselfortheRep a publicinvokin ngimmunityfr romsuitsasp providedinSection4ofExe ecutiveOrderN No.1. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otSolicitorGe eneralChavez maybeimple eadedasanadditionalpart tydefendanti inthecounter rclaimand beheldliablei b indamagesfil ledbyrespond dentEnrile. HELD: H
CHAVEZ,petitioner,vs.SANDIGANB BAYAN,respon ndent. G.R R.No.91391 ary24,1991 Janua GUTIERRE EZ,JR.,J(ENB BANC)
173|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts PetitionGRAN P NTED. Thegeneralru T uleisthatpub blicofficialsca anbeheldper rsonallyaccou untableforact tsclaimedtoh havebeenper rformedin connectionwit c thofficialduti ieswherethey yhaveactedu ultraviresorw wherethereis sashowingofbadfaith. f Moreover, the petitioner's argument that the immun M e nityprovisoun nder Section 4(a) of Execu utive Order N 1 also No. extendstohim e misnotwellt taken.Amere einvocationo oftheimmuni ityclausedoe esnotipsofac ctoresultinth hecharges beingautomat b ticallydropped. m t ize ibility and non naccountabil nor grant a privileged status not lity Immunity from suit cannot institutionali irresponsi claimedbyany c yotherofficialoftheRepub blic. Where the pe W etitioner excee his autho eds ority as Solicit General a tor acts in bad faith, or, as con ntended by th private he respondent,"m r maliciouslyco onspireswith thePCGGcom mmissionersi inpersecuting grespondent Enrilebyfilin ngagainst himanevidentlybaselesssu h uitinderogati ionofthelatter'sconstituti ionalrightsan ndliberties"th herecanbeno oquestion that a compla t aint for damag may be fi ges iled against h him. High position in gover rnment does not confer a license to persecuteorrecklesslyinjureanother.Th p heactionsgov vernedbyArti icles19,20,21,and32ofth heCivilCodeo onHuman Relationsmay R ybetakenagainstpublicoff ficersorpriva atecitizensali ike.Theissueisnottherig ghtofrespond dentEnrile tofileanactio t onfordamage es.Hehasthe right.Theiss sueiswhether rornotthata actionmustb befiledasaco ompulsory counterclaimi c inthecasefile edagainsthim m. Underthecirc U cumstancesofthiscase,werulethatthec chargespresse edbyrespond dentEnrilefor rdamagesund derArticle 32 3 of the Civil Code arising from the fili of an alleg harassme suit with malice and ev l g ing ged ent vident bad faith do not constituteaco c ompulsorycounterclaim.T Tovindicatehisrights,Sena atorEnrileha astofileasep parateanddis stinctcivil actionfordam a magesagainstt theSolicitorG General. Toallowacou T unterclaimagainstalawyerwhofilesa complaintfor rhisclients,w whoismerely theirreprese entativein courtandnota c aplaintifforc complainantin nthecasewou uldleadtomis schievouscon nsequences. TheproblemisparticularlyperplexingfortheSolicitor T rGeneral.Asc counseloftheRepublic,theSolicitorGene eralhasto appear in con a ntroversial an politically charged case It is not u nd es. unusual for h high officials of the Gover rnment to unwittingly us shortcuts in the zealous desire to ex u se i xpedite execu utive program or reforms The Solicito General ms s. or cannotlookat c tthesecasesw withindifferen ntneutrality.H Hisperception nofnationalin nterestandob bediencetoinstructions fromabovema f aycompelhim mtotakeasta ancewhichtoarespondentmayappeart toopersonala andbiased.Iti islikewise unreasonable torequireGovernmentPro u osecutorstod defendthemse elvesagainstc counterclaims sintheverysamecases theyareprose t ecuting. Asearlierstat A ted,wedonotsuggestthat talawyerenj joysaspecial immunityfro omdamagesu uits.However r,whenhe actsinthenam a meofaclient,heshouldnot tbesuedona acounterclaim mintheverysamecaseheh hasfiledonlya ascounsel andnotasapa a arty.Anyclaim mforallegeddamagesorothercausesofactionshouldbefiledina anentirelysep parateand distinctcivilac d ction. oOo SHAUF,petitio S oner,vs.CA,re espondent. G.R.NO.90314 mber27,1990 0 Novem Thedoctrineof T ofimmunityfr romsuitwilln notapplyand may notbein nvokedwhere thepublicoffi ficialisbeings suedinhis private and pe p ersonal capac as an ordi city inary citizen. The cloak of protection aff fforded the off ficers and age ents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in t g y their individua capacity. Th situation u al his usually arises where the publicofficial actswithouta p authorityorin nexcessofthe epowersveste edinhim.Itis sawellsettled dprincipleofl lawthata
174 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts publicofficial maybeliable inhispersonalprivatecap p pacityforwha ateverdamage ehemayhave ecausedbyhi isactdone withmalicean w ndinbadfaith, ,orbeyondthe escopeofhisa authorityorju urisdiction. Petitioner Loid Q. Shauf applied for the vacant position of Guidance Counselo GS 17109, in the Base Education P da a e or, , OfficeatClark O kAirBase,for rwhichsheiseminentlyqu ualified.Contr rarytoherex xpectations,pe etitionerLoidaQ.Shauf was w never app pointed to the position oc ccupied by Mr Abalateo w rs. whose appoin ntment was ex xtended indef finitely by privaterespon p ndentDetwile er.Feelingagg grievedby wh hatsheconsid deredashabby ytreatmenta accordedher, petitioner LoidaQ.Shauf L fwrotetheU. .S.CivilServic ceCommissionquestioning gthequalificationsofEdwa ardIsakson.T Thereafter, said commission sent a co s ommunication addressed t private re n to espondent Det twiler, findin Edward Isa ng akson not qualifiedtoth q hepositionof GuidanceCou unselor,GS17 7109,andreq questingthat actionbetakentoremovehimfrom thepositionan t ndthatefforts sbemadetop placehimina apositionforw whichhequalifies.Petition nerLoidaQ.Sh haufavers that said recommendation was ignored by private re t espondent Det twiler and tha Isakson continued to oc at ccupy said positionofgui p idancecounse elor. PetitionerLoid P daQ.Shauffil ledacomplain ntfordamage esagainstpriv vateresponde entsDonDetw wilerandAnth honyPersi before the Re b egional Trial Court, Branch LVI at Ange C h eles City for t alleged di the iscriminatory acts of herein private y respondentsin r nmaliciouslydenyinghera applicationfor rtheGS1710 9position. Private respon P ndents filed a motion to d a dismiss on th ground tha as officers of the United States Armed Forces he at d performingof p fficialfunction nsinaccordan ncewiththe p powersvested dinthemund derthePhilippineAmerica anMilitary BasesAgreement,theyarei B immunefromsuit. Petitionersaverthatprivat P terespondent tsarebeingsu uedintheirp privatecapacit tyfordiscrim minatoryactsp performed beyond their authority, hen the instan action is n a suit aga b nce nt not ainst the United States Gov vernment which would requireitscon r nsent. ISSUE: HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. The T rule that a state may not be sued without its c consent, now expressed in Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 n Constitution,isoneofthege C enerallyaccep ptedprinciplesofinternatio onallawthatw wehaveadoptedaspartofthelawof ourlandunderArticle11,S o Section2.This slatterprovisionmerelyreiteratesapoli icyearlierem mbodiedinthe1935and 1973Constitutionsandalso 1 ointendedtom manifestourr resolvetoabid debytherules softheintern nationalcomm munity. While the doc W ctrine appear to prohibit only sects a rs t against the st tate without its consent, i is also app it plicable to complaintsfile c edagainstoffi icialsofthest tateforactsal llegedlyperformedbythem minthedischa argeoftheird duties.The ruleisthatift r thejudgmenta againstsucho officialswillre equirethestat teitselftoper rformanaffirm mativeacttos satisfythe same, suchas theappropriation ofthe a s amountneede edtopaythe damagesawa ardedagainst them,thesui itmustbe regardedasag r gainstthestat teitselfalthou ughithasnot tbeenformall lyimpleaded. Itmustben noted,howeve er,thatthe ruleisnotsoa r allencompass singastobeap pplicableunde erallcircumst tances. tmatterwher rethepublico officialismad detoaccounti inhiscapacity yassuchfora actscontraryt tolawand Itisadifferent the rights of plaintiff. As was clearly set forth by Justice Zald y divar in Director of the B Bureau of injurious to t Telecommunic T cations, et al. vs. Aligaen e etc., et al. In nasmuch as th State autho he orizes only le egal acts by it officers, ts unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts o the State, a an action against the o u of and officials or officersbyone o ewhoseright tshavebeeninvadedorvio olatedbysuch hacts,forthe protectionof fhisrights,is notasuit againsttheSta a atewithintheruleofimmun nityoftheSta atefromsuit.I Inthesamete enor,ithasbee ensaidthatan nactionat la aworsuitine equityagainst taStateoffice erorthedirec ctorofaStatedepartmento ontheground dthat,whileclaimingto actfortheStat a te,heviolates scrimeinvade esthepersona alandpropert tyrightsofth heplaintiff,underanuncons stitutional
175|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts act a or under an assumpti ion of author rity which he does not h e have, is not a suit against the State w a t within the constitutional provisiontha c attheStatem maynotbesue edwithoutits sconsent.Therationalefo orthisrulingi isthatthe doctrineofsta d ateimmunityc cannotbeusedasaninstrumentforperp petratinganin njustice. Theystatetha T atthedoctrine eofimmunity yfromsuitwil llnotapplyan ndmaynotbe einvokedwherethepublic cofficialis beingsuedinh b hisprivateandpersonalcap pacityasanor rdinarycitizen n.Thecloako ofprotectiona affordedtheof fficersand agents of the government is removed th moment th are sued i their indivi a i he hey in idual capacity This situatio usually y. on arises where t public off a the ficial acts with hout authority or in excess of the powe vested in h y s ers him. It is a w wellsettled principleoflaw p wthatapubli icofficialmay ybeliableinh hispersonalp privatecapacit tyforwhateve erdamagehe mayhave causedbyhisa c actdonewithmaliceandin nbadfaith,orbeyondthesc copeofhisaut thorityorjuris sdiction. Theagentsandofficialsoft T theUnitedSta atesarmedfor rcesstationed dinClarkAir Basearenoexceptiontoth hisrule.In thecaseofUni t itedStatesofA America,etal.vs.Guinto,et tc.,etal.,ante wedeclared: sing at this po oint that the above observ vations do not confer on th United Sta he ates of Americ blanket ca It bears stress allactsdoneb byitoritsage entsinthePh hilippines.Neithermaythe otherpetition nersclaimtha attheyare immunityfora alsoinsulatedfromsuitint a thiscountrym merelybecause etheyhaveac ctedasagents softheUnited dStatesinthedischarge oftheirofficial o lfunctions. oOo XXX X
TenureandT T TermofOffi ice
BRILLANTES,C. B VICT TORINODENN NISM.SOCRA ATES,petitione er,vs.THECO OMMISSIONO ONELECTION NS,respondent t. G.R.No.154512 G ov12,2002 No Afterthreecon A nsecutiveterm ms,anelective localofficialc cannotseekim mmediatereele ectionforafo ourthterm.An election, ny likearecallele ection,isnolon ngercoveredb bytheprohibit . tion OnJuly2,200 O 02,312outof f528member rsofthethen incumbentbarangayoffici ialsofthePue ertoPrincesa convened themselves int a Preparat t to tory Recall Assembly. The P was conv PRA vened to initia the recall of Victorino Dennis M. ate Socrateswhoa S assumedoffic ceasPuertoPr rincesasmay yoronJune30 0,2001.Them membersofth hePRAdesignatedMark DavidM.Hage D edorn,preside entoftheAsso ociationofBar rangayCaptain ns,asinterimchairoftheP PRA.ARecallR Resolution was w passed w which declared its loss of confidence in Socrates an called for his recall. T PRA requ n nd The uested the COMELECtoschedulethere C ecallelectionf formayorwit thin30daysfr romreceiptof ftheRecallRe esolution. Socrates filed with the COM S MELEC a peti ition to nullif and deny d course to the Recall R fy due o Resolution but this was t dismissed.The d eCOMELECga aveduecoursetotheRecall lResolutionandscheduledtherecallelec ction. OnAugust23,2002,Edward O dM.Hagedorn nfiledhiscert icateofcand tif didacyformay yorinthereca allelection. Petitionswere P efiledseeking gtodisqualify yHagedorn.Th hepetitionsw wereallancho oredonthegr roundthatHa agedornis disqualifiedfromrunningfo d forafourthco onsecutiveter rm,havingbee enelectedand dhavingserv vedasmayor ofthecity forthreeconse f ecutivefullter rmsimmediat telypriortoth heinstantreca allelectionfor rthesamepost.Subsequen ntly,these petitionswere p econsolidated d. n LECs First Division dismissed for lack o merit the p of petitions. and declared d In a resolution promulgated, the COMEL Hagedornqualifiedtorunin H ntherecallele ection.
176 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts TheCOMELEC T Cenbancprom mulgatedaresolutiondeny yingthemotio onforreconsid deration.The COMELECaff firmedthe resolutiondec r claringHagedo ornqualifiedt torunintherecallelection. Hence,theinst H tantconsolida atedpetitions. . ISSUE: WhetherHage W edornisqualif fiedtorunformayorintherecallelection nofPuertoPrincesa. HELD: H PetitionisDIS P SMISSED. The T Constituti provides for the three ion eterm limit r rule for electiv local offici ve ials. It has tw parts. The first part wo providesthata p anelectiveloc calofficialcan nnotserveformorethanthr reeconsecutiv veterms.Theclearintentis sthatonly consecutivete c ermscountin determiningt thethreeterm mlimitrule.T Thesecondpa artstatesthat voluntaryren nunciation of o office for a length of time does no interrupt t continuity of service. T clear intent is that in any ot the y The nvoluntary severancefrom s mofficeforan nylengthoftimeinterrupts scontinuityof fserviceandp preventsthes servicebefore eandafter theinterruptio t onfrombeing gjoinedtogeth hertoformac continuousser rviceorconse ecutiveterms. After three co A onsecutive ter rms, an elective local offic cannot se immediat reelection for a fourth term. The cial eek te prohibitedele p ectionreferst tothenextreg gularelection nforthesame eofficefollow wingtheendo ofthethirdco onsecutive term.Anysub t bsequentelect tion,likearec callelection,i isnolongerco overedbythe eprohibitionf fortworeason ns.First,a subsequentele s ectionlikear recallelection nisnolonger animmediate ereelectionaf fterthreeconsecutiveterm ms.Second, theinterveningperiodconstitutesaninvo t oluntaryinter rruptioninthe econtinuityof fservice. is election onSeptember 24, 2 2002 is not an immediate reelection In the caseof Hagedorn, hi candidacy in the recall e afterhisthirdconsecutivetermwhichen a ndedonJune3 30,2001.Theimmediatere eelectionthattheConstituti ionbarred Hagedorn from seeking ref H m ferred to the regular elect tions in 2001. Hagedorn d not seek reelection in the 2001 did elections. e Hagedornwas H selectedforthreeconsecut tivetermsin the1992,199 95and1998e electionsand servedinfull lhisthree consecutivete c ermsasmayorofPuertoPr rincesa.Unde ertheConstit tutionandthe eLGC,Hagedo orncouldnolongerrun for f mayor in t 2001 elec the ctions because he had reac e ched the maxi imum threete erm limit, from running fo a fourth or consecutive te c erm as mayor Thus, Hagedorn did not run for mayo in the 2001 elections. So r. or 1 ocrates ran an won as nd mayorofPuer m rtoPrincesain nthe2001elections.After rHagedornce easedtobem mayoronJune30,2001,he becamea privatecitizen p nuntilthereca allelectionof September24 f 4,2002when nhewonby3, ,018votesove erhisclosest opponent, Socrates. S oOo MEN NDOZA&IBA ARRApetitioner,vs.COMEL LEC&ROMAN N,respondent. G.R.No.149736 mber17,2002 2 Decem Arecallterms A shouldnotbec countedoruse edasabasisf forthedisqual lificationwhet therservedpr riororsubsequ uenttothe nineyear,fullthreetermlim n mit. Forresolution F nisapetition forcertiorari ifiledbypetit tionersMelan nioL.MendozaandMarioE E.Ibarra,seek kingtoset asidetheresolutionofthe Commissiono a onElections,d d August 15,2001,and date dtodeclarer respondentLe eonardoB. Roman'selecti R ionasgovern norofBataano onMay14,20 001as nullan ndvoidforalle egedlybeingc contrarytoAr rt.X,Sec8 oftheConstitu o ution,whichprovidesthat:
177|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thetermofof T fficeofelectiv velocalofficial ls,exceptbara angayofficials s,whichshall bedetermine edbylaw,shallbethree yearsandnos y suchofficialshallserveformorethanth hreeconsecutiveterms.Vol luntaryrenun nciationofthe eofficefor anylengthoft a timeshallnotbeconsidered dasaninterru uptioninthec continuityofh hisservicefor rthefulltermforwhich hewaselected h d. ISSUE: Whetherarecalltermshoul W ldbecountedasonefullter rm. HELD: H TheCourtvote T ed8to7toDI ISMISSthepet tition. The T Justices w voted to dismiss the c who case based th heir decision on the reason that the Constitution en ns nvisions a continuousan c ndanuninterr ruptedservice eforthreeful lltermsbefor retheproscrip ptionapplies. .Therefore,notbeinga fullterm,arec f calltermshou uldnotbecou untedorused dasabasisfo orthedisquali ificationwhet therservedprior(asin thiscase)orsu t ubsequent(as sintheSocratescase)tothe enineyear,fu ullthreetermlimit. Atermduring A gwhichsucces ssiontoaloca alelectiveofficetakesplace eorarecallel lectionisheld dshouldnotb becounted indetermining gwhetheranelectivelocalofficialhasse ervedmorethanthreecons secutiveterms s.TheConstitu utiondoes not n prohibit e elective local officials from serving for m o more than thr consecutiv terms beca ree ve ause, in fact, it excludes t fromthe three f etermlimitin nterruptionsi inthecontinu uityofservice e,solongassuchinterrupt tionsarenotd duetothe voluntaryrenu v unciationofth heofficebyanincumbent. Hence,thepe eriodfromJun ne28,1994to oJune30,199 95,during whichrespond w dentLeonardo oB.Romanse ervedasgover rnorofBataan nbyvirtueofarecallelectionheldin199 93,should not n be counte Since on May 14, 2001 respondent had previou ed. t usly served a governor o Bataan for only two as of consecutivete c erms(199519 998and19982001),hiselectiononthat tdaywasactu uallyonlyhis thirdtermfor rthesame position. p Arecallterms A shouldnotbeconsideredas sonefullterm m,becauseaco ontraryinterp pretationwoul ldineffectcut tshortthe electedofficial e l'sservicetol lessthannine eyearsandsh hortchangehi isconstituents s.Thedesiret topreventmo onopolyof politicalpowershouldbeba p alancedagains sttheneedtoupholdthevo oters'obvious spreferencew who,inthepre esentcase, is Roman who received 97 percent of th votes cast. In election c o 7 he . cases, when two conflicting legal positio are of g ons almostequalw a weight,thesca alesofjusticeshouldbetilte edinfavoroft thepeople'so overwhelming gchoice. oOo A.LATASA,pe etitioner,vs.CO OMELEC,respondent. ARSENIOA G.R.No.154829 mber10,2003 3 Decem Theframersof T ftheConstituti ionspecifically yincludedane exceptiontoth hepeoplesfre eedomtochoos sethosewhow willgovern theminorder toavoidthee t evilofasingle personaccum mulatingexces ssivepowerov veraparticula arterritorialju urisdiction asaresultofa a aprolongedst tayinthesam meoffice.Toa allowpetitione erLatasatov viefortheposi itionofcitym mayorafter havingservedf h forthreeconse ecutivetermsasamunicipalmayorwould dobviouslydef feattheveryin ntentofthefra amers PetitionerArsenioA.Latasa P a,waselected dmayorofthe eMunicipality yofDigos,Da avaodelSurin ntheelection nsof1992, 1995,and199 1 98.Duringpet titionersthird dterm,theMu unicipalityofD Digoswasdec claredacomp ponentcity,tobeknown astheCityofD a Digos.Aplebisciteconducte edonSeptember8,2000ra atifiedRANo.8798entitled d,AnActConv vertingthe Municipalityof M fDigos,Davao odelSurProvinceintoaComponentCity tobeknowna astheCityofD Digosorthe Charterof the t City of Di igos. This eve also mark the end of petitioners tenure as m ent ked mayor of the Municipality of Digos. y However,underSec53,Arti H icleIXoftheC Charter,petitionerwasman ndatedtoserv veinaholdov vercapacityas smayorof thenewCityofDigos.Hence t e,hetookhiso oathasthecit tymayor.
178 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts OnFebruary2 O 28,2001,petitionerfiledhiscertificateo ofcandidacyf forcitymayorfortheMay y14,2001ele ections.He stated therein that he is el s n ligible therefo and likewise disclosed t or, that he had a already served for three co d onsecutive termsasmayo t oroftheMunicipalityofDig gosandisnow wrunningfort thefirsttimef forthepositio onofcitymayo or. On O March 1, 2 2001, private respondent R Romeo M. Sun nga, also a candidate for ci mayor in t said elect ity the tions, filed before the CO b OMELEC a Pet tition to Deny Due Course Cancel Cert y e, tificate of Can ndidacy and/ For Disqu /or ualification against petitio a oner Latasa. Respondent Su R unga alleged therein that p petitioner fals sely represented in his cer rtificate of candidacythat c theiseligible etorunasm mayorofDigos sCitysincepe etitionerhad alreadybeen electedands servedfor threeconsecut t tivetermsasm mayorfrom1992to2001. Respondent C R COMELECs Fir Division issued a Reso rst olution, cancel lling Latasas certificate of candidacy fo being a f or violationofthe v ethreetermr ruleproscribe edbythe1987 7Constitution nandtheLGC. Petitionerfiled P dhisMotionf forReconsiderationdatedM May4,2001,w whichremain nedunactedup ponuntilthe dayofthe elections, May 14, 2001. On May 16, 20 e y O 001, private re espondent Sungafiled an E Parte Motion for Issuan of TRO Ex nce Enjoining the City Board of Canvassers From Canvassing or Tabul E f lating Respon ndents Votes, and From Pr roclaiming HimastheDu H ulyElectedMa ayorifHeWin nstheElection ns.Despitethi is,however,p petitionerLata asawasstillproclaimed winneronMay w y17,2001,ha avinggarnered dthemostnum mberofvotes. OnJuly1,200 O 01,petitioner wasswornin ntoandassum medhisoffice asthenewly electedmayo orofDigosCity.Itwas only on Augu 27, 2002 that the COMELEC en banc issued a Resolutio denying p o ust 2 on petitioners M Motion for Reconsideratio R on. Hence,thispet H tition. ISSUE: Whether Latas is barred run for Mayor of Digos Cit after being elected and has served th W sa r r ty hree terms as Mayor of Municipalityo M ofDigos. HELD: H PetitionisDIS P SMISSED. Petitionerstat P testhatacity andamunici ipalityhavese eparateandd distinctperson nalities.Thus theycannotb betreated asasingleenti a ityandmustb beaccordeddifferenttreatm mentconsistentwithspecif ficprovisionsoftheLGC.Hedoesnot denythefact t d thathehasal lreadyserved dforthreecon nsecutiveterm msasmunicip palmayor.However,heas ssertsthat whenDigoswa w asconvertedf fromamunici ipalitytoacity y,itattaineda adifferentjuri idicalpersona ality. True,thenew cityacquired T danewcorporateexistence eseparateand ddistinctfrom mthatofthem municipality. Thisdoes notmean,how n wever,thatfor rthepurpose eofapplyingt thesubjectCo onstitutionalp provision,the eofficeofthe municipal mayorwouldn m nowbeconstruedasadiffe erentlocalgovernmentpos stasthatofth heofficeofthecitymayor. Asstated earlier, the territorial juris e sdiction of the City of Digo is the same as that of t municipal e os the lity. Consequ uently, the inhabitantsof themunicipa alityarethesa ameasthosei inthecity.Th heseinhabitan ntsarethesam megroupofv voterswho elected petitio e oner Latasa to be their m t municipal ma ayor for three consecutive terms. The are also the same e e ese inhabitantsov verwhomheh heldpoweran ndauthorityas stheirchiefex xecutiveforni ineyears. PetitionerLata P asawas,witho outadoubt,d dulyelectedas smayorinthe eMay1998el lections.Canh hethenbecon nstruedas havinginvolun h ntarilyrelinqu uishedhisoffi icebyreason oftheconversionofDigos frommunicip palitytocity? TheCourt believes that h did involu b he untarily relinq quish his offic as municip mayor sin the said o ce pal nce office has been deemed abolisheddue totheconver a rsion.Howeve er,theveryins stanthevacat tedhisofficea asmunicipalm mayor,healso oassumed
179|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts officeascitym o mayor.Thelaw wcontemplate esarestperio odduringwhic chthelocalel lectiveofficialstepsdownf fromoffice and ceases to exercise pow or author a wer rity over the inhabitants o the territor jurisdictio of a partic of rial on cular local governmentun g nit. Theframerso T oftheConstitu utionspecifica allyincludeda anexception tothepeople esfreedomto ochoosethose ewhowill governthemi g inordertoav voidtheevilo ofasingleper rsonaccumula atingexcessiv vepowerover raparticular territorial ju urisdictionas saresultofa prolongedsta ayinthesame eoffice.Toall lowpetitioner rLatasatovie efortheposit tionofcity mayorafterha m avingservedf forthreeconsecutiveterms sasamunicipa almayorwou uldobviouslyd defeatthevery yintentof theframersw t whentheywro otethisexcept tion.Shouldh hebeallowedanotherthre eeconsecutive etermsasma ayorofthe CityofDigos,p C petitionerwouldthenbepossiblyholdin ngofficeasch hiefexecutive overthesame eterritorialju urisdiction and inhabitan for a total of eighteen consecutive y a nts l years. This is the very sce s enario sought to be avoided by the t Constitution,ifnotabhorred C dbyit. oOo FRANCISG.ONG,petitioner,vs.JOSEPHSTANLEYALEGR RE,respondent. G.R R.No.163295 ary23,2006 Janua Francis assum F mption of office as Mayor of San Vicente Camarines No e f orte from July 1, 1998 to Ju 30, 2001 c une constitutes service for the full term serv in contem s e ved mplation of the threeterm li e imit prescribe by the cons ed stitutional and statutory d provisions. p Privaterespon P ndentAlegrea andpetitioner rFranciswere andidatesw ec whofiledcerti ificatesofcand didacyforma ayorofSan Vicente,Camar V rinesNortein ntheMay10,2 2004elections s.Franciswas sthentheincu umbentmayor r. Alegre filed w the COME A with ELEC Provincial Office a Petition to Disq qualify, Deny D Course an Due ndCancel Cer rtificate of Candidacy of F C Francis predic cated on the threeconsecu utive term rul Francis having, accordin to Alegre, ran in the le, ng May1995,May M y1998,andM May2001may yoraltyelectionsandhavea assumedoffice easmayoran nddischargedtheduties thereofforthr t reeconsecutiv vefulltermsco orrespondingtothoseelect tions. Todigressab T bit,theMay19 998elections sawbothAle egreandFrancisopposing eachotherfortheofficeof fmayorof San S Vicente, C Camarines Norte, with the latter being s subsequently proclaimed b COMELEC winner in tha contest. by at Alegresubsequentlyfiledan A nelectionpro otestbeforeth heRTCatDae et,CamarinesN Norte.Init,theRTCdeclar redAlegre as a the duly ele ected mayor in that 1998 mayoralty contest, albeit t decision c the came out only on July 4, 20 y 001, when Francishadfu F ullyservedthe e19982001m mayoraltyterm mandwasinf factalreadys startingtoserv vethe20012 2004term asmayorelect a tofthemunic cipalityofSan nVicente. ActingonAleg A grespetitiont todisqualifya andtocancelF FrancisCOCf fortheMay10 0,2004electio ons,theFirstD Divisionof theCOMELECrenderedare t esolutiondism missingthesaidpetitionofA Alegre: "xxxoneofthe " erequisitesfo ortheapplicat tionofthethreetermrulei isnotpresent. .FrancisOngmighthavein ndeedfully servedthemayoraltermsof1995to1998;1998to2001and2001t s to2004.Them mayoraltermhowever,from1998to 2001cannotb 2 beconsidered hisbecauseh hewasnotdu ulyelectedthe ereto.TheRT TCofDaet,has svoidedhisel lectionfor the1998term t mwhenitheld d,initsdecisio onthatStanle eyAlegrewas sthe'legallye electedmayor rinthe1998m mayoralty electioninSan e nVicente,Cam marinesNorte.'" Undaunted, Al U legre filed a timely motion for reconsid t n deration. The COMELEC en banc issued a resolution declaring n d Francisasdisq F qualified.
180 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The T politicalp partyof Franc Nationalist PeoplesCoa cis, alition immed diately nominated hisolder brother,Rom r mmel Ong (Rommel), as substitute ca ( andidate. Rommel filed his own certif ficate of cand didacy for the position of mayor, as e substitutecandidateforhisbrotherFranc s cis. A A day before the elections Alegre filed a Petition t Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certi s, d to r ificate of Rom mmel Ong. Commissioner Garcillano is C r ssued a Memo orandum declaring "that s substitution is not proper if the certific s cate of the substitutedcandidacyisden s niedduecour rse.IntheRes solutionofthe eCommission nEnbanc,theCertificateofcandidacy ofFrancisOng o gwasdeniedd duecourse." OnMay11,20 O 004,theMuni icipalBoardo ofCanvassers proclaimedA Alegreasthew winningcandidateforthe mayoralty postinSanVic p cente,Camarin nesNorte. Hence,thiscon H nsolidatedpet titionsofFran ncisOngandR RommelOng. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otFrancissas ssumptionofofficeasMayo orofSanVicen nte,Camarine esNortefromJuly1,1998t toJune30, 2001,maybec 2 consideredas sonefullterm mserviceinthe econtextofth heconsecutive ethreetermli imitrule. HELD: H PetitionsareD P DISMISSED. Such assumption of office constitutes, fo Francis, se S c or ervice for the full term, an should be counted as a full term e nd a served in con s ntemplation of the threete f erm limit pres scribed by th constitution and statu he nal utory provisio ons, supra, barring local e b elective officials from bein elected and serving for more than th ng d hree consecut tive term for the same position. p theRTCDaetruledthatitw wasAlegrewh howoninth he1998mayor raltyraceand dwasthelegallyelected Itistruethatt mayor of San Vicente. Ho m n owever, that disposition w without p was practical and legal use an value, hav d nd ving been promulgated a p after the term of the conte m ested office h expired. P has Petitioner Fra ancis content tion that he w only a was presumptivew p winnerinthe1 1998mayoral ltyderbyashisproclamatio onwasunderprotestdidnotmakehiml lessthana dulyelectedm d mayor.Hispro oclamationby theMunicipa alBoardofCanvassersofSa anVicenteas thedulyelect tedmayor in the 1998 m mayoralty elec ction coupled by his assum d mption of off fice and his c continuous ex xercise of the functions thereoffroms t starttofinisho oftheterm,sh houldlegallyb betakenasse erviceforaful lltermincont templationofthethree termrule. t There was act T tually no inte erruption or b break in the c continuity of Francis serv vice respectin the 19982001 term. ng Franciswasne F everunseated dduringthet terminquesti ion;henever ceaseddischa arginghisdut tiesandrespo onsibilities asmayorofSa a anVicentefortheentireper riodcoveringthe1998200 01term. itoriousasFra ancispetitionisRommelsp petitionwhich hhechallenge estheCOMELE EC'sactofnot tincluding Justasunmeri his h name as a substitute ca a andidate in th official list of candidate In Miranda vs. Abaya, t he t es. a that a candida whose ate certificateofc c candidacyhasbeencancelle edornotgivenduecourse cannotbesub bstitutedbyan notherbelong gingtothe samepoliticalpartyasthatoftheformer. s . oOo FEDERICOT. F MONTEBON,petitioner,vs.COMELEC,re espondent. G.R.No.18044 G 44 Ap pril8,2008
181|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Successioninlo S ocalgovernme entofficesisby byoperationof flaw.Theassu umptionofoffi ficeasvicemay ybythehighe estranking municipal cou m uncillor in acc cordance with law is not c h considered a voluntary ren nunciation of his office as municipal councillor. c Petitioners Montebon and Ondy and re P espondent Po cioso, Jr. were candida oten ates for mun nicipal councilor of the Municipalityo M ofTuburan,Ce ebufortheMa ay14,2007Sy ynchronizedN NationalandL LocalElections.Petitioners andother candidatesfor c rmunicipalco ouncilorfileda apetitionfor disqualificatio onagainstres spondentwith htheCOMELE ECalleging that responde had been elected and served three c t ent e consecutive te erms as municipal councilo in 199820 or 001, 2001 2004,and200 2 042007.Thus s,heisproscr ribedfromrun nningforthe sameposition ninthe2007 electionsasit twouldbe hisfourthcons h secutiveterm. r, at cutive terms a municipal councilor. as In his answer respondent admitted tha he had been elected for three consec However,hec H claimedthatth heserviceofh hissecondter rmin200120 004wasinterr ruptedonJan nuary12,2004 4whenhe succeededasv s vicemayorof fTuburandue etotheretire ementofVice MayorPetron niloL.Mendoz za.Conseque ently,heis notdisqualifie n edfromvyingforthepositio onofmunicipa alcouncilorin nthe2007elections. TheCOMELEC T CFirstDivisiondeniedthe petitionford disqualification nrulingthatr respondents assumptiono ofofficeas vicemayor sh v hould be cons sidered an in nterruption in the continuity of his ser n rvice. His sec cond term hav ving been involuntarilyi interrupted,r respondentsh houldthusnot tbedisqualifi iedtoseekre eelectionasm municipalcoun ncilor.The COMELECEnB C Bancupheldth heruling. Hence,thispet H tition. ISSUE: Whether resp W pondent's assu umption of o office as vice mayor in Jan nuary 2004 i interrupted h 20012004 term as his 4 municipalcouncilor. m HELD: H PetitionisDIS P SMISSED. Succession in local governm S ment offices i by operatio of law. Sec is on ction 44 of the LGC, provid that if a p des permanent vacancyoccursintheofficeofthevicema v ayor,thehighestrankingsa anggunianmembershallbecomevicema ayor. A A permanent vacancy occu urred in the office of the vice mayor due to the r retirement of Vice Mayor Mendoza. f Respondent, b R being the hig ghest ranking municipal co ouncilor, succ ceeded him in accordance with law. I is clear n e It therefore that his assumpti of office a vicemayor can in no w be conside t t ion as r way ered a volunt tary renunciat tion of his officeasmunic o cipalcouncilor. Asheldbythe A eCOMELEC,su uccessionbyl lawtoavacat tedgovernmen ntofficeischaracteristicall lynotvolunta arysinceit involvesthepe erformanceof fapublicduty ybyagovernm mentofficial,t thenonperfor rmanceofwh hichexposessa aidofficial to t possible ad dministrative and criminal charges of d l dereliction of duty and ne f eglect in the performance of public functions.Itisthereforemo f orecompulsor ryandobligato oryrathertha anvoluntary. oOo ROBERTOL LACEDA,SR.,petitioner,vs.RANDYL.LIMENAandCO OMELEC,resp pondents. G.R.No.182867 mber25,2008 8 Novem
182|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whereapersonhasbeenele W ectedforthree econsecutivete ermsasamun nicipalmayorandpriortoth heendorterm minationof such threeyea term the municipality ha been conver s ar as rted by law in a city, with nto hout the city c charter interr rupting his termuntilthe endofthethr t reeyearterm,,theprohibiti ionappliesto preventhimf forrunningfor rthefourthti imeascity mayorthereof, m f,therebeingnobreakinthe econtinuityoftheterms. Petitioner Rob P berto Laceda, Sr., and priv vate responde Randy L. L ent Limena were candidates fo Punong Ba or arangay of BarangayPanl B layaan,West District,Sorso ogonCity,dur ringtheOctob ber29,2007B BarangayandSangguniang gKabataan Elections. On October 23, 2007, Limen filed a petition for dis E n , na squalification and/or decla aration as an ineligible candidateagai c inst Laceda before theCOM MELEC,contendingthatLa aceda hadalre eadyserveda Punong Bar as rangayfor Brgy. Panlayaa for three consecutive te B an c erms since 19 994, and was thus prohibit from runn ted ning for the fo ourth time underSec2of u fRANo.9164. Limenalikewiseattachedth L hefollowingce ertificationfro omtheDepart tmentoftheInteriorandLo ocalGovernm mentwhich statesthat: s xxxHeresign nedfromoffice eonMarch20 0,1995torun nasMunicipal lCouncilor.He ence,heiscov veredbythethreeterm ruleofparagra r aph2,Section n2ofRA9164 4whichprovid desthat:Nob barangayelec ctiveofficialsh hallserveform morethan threeconsecut t tivetermsin thesamepos sition:Provided,however, thattheterm mofofficeshal llbereckoned dfromthe 1994 baranga elections. Voluntary ren 1 ay nunciation of office [for] a length of time shall no be conside f any ot ered as an interruptionin nthecontinuit tyofservicefo orthefullterm mforwhichth heelectiveoff ficialwaselect ted. mitted having served as P g Punong Baran ngay of Panlayaan for thr consecuti terms. ree ive In his Answer, Laceda adm However, he a H asserted that when he was elected for h first two t s his terms, Sorsogon was still a municipality and that a y, whenheserve w edhisthirdterm,theMunic cipalityofSor rsogonhadalr readybeenme ergedwiththeMunicipality yofBacon toformanew t wpoliticalunit t,theCityofS Sorsogon,pur rsuanttoRAN No.8806.Thu us,heargued thathisthird termwas actuallyjusthisfirstinthe newpolitical unitandthat hewasaccor a rdinglyentitle edtorunfortw moreterm Laceda wo ms. li ikewiseargue edthatassuminghehadalr readyservedt threeconsecu utiveterms,RA ANo.9164wh hichimposes thethree termlimit,can t nnotbemade toapplytohi imasitwould dviolatehisv vestedrightto ooffice.Heall legedthatwh henhewas electedin1994theprohibit e tiondidnotex xist. COMELECdecl C laredLacedad disqualifiedan ndcancelledh hiscertificateofcandidacy. ISSUE: WhetherPetiti W ionercanstillbeelectedfor rPunongBara angayofBaran ngayPanlayaa an. HELD: H Motionforrec M considerationisDENIEDwi ithFINALITY. Sec2ofRANo S o.9164,likeSe ection43ofth heLGCfromw whichitwastaken,isprima arilyintended dtobroadenth hechoices of o the elector rate of the ca andidates wh will run fo office, and to infuse new blood in the political arena by ho or d disqualifying o d officials from running for t same offic after a term of nine yea This Cour has held th for the the ce m ars. rt hat prohibitiontoapply,tworequisitesmust p tconcur:(1)th hattheofficial lconcernedhasbeenelecte edforthreeco onsecutive termsinthesa t amelocalgove ernmentpostand(2)thath heorshehasf fullyservedth hreeconsecuti iveterms. Theterritorial T ljurisdictiono ofBrgyPanlay yaan,Sorsogo onCity,isthe sameasbefor retheconvers sion.Consequ uently,the inhabitantsof thebarangay yarethesame e.Theyareth hesamegroup pofvoterswh hoelectedLac cedatobethe eirPunong Barangay for t B three consecu utive terms an over whom Laceda held power and a nd m d authority as t their Punong Barangay. Moreover,RANo.8806didnotinterruptLacedasterm M m. oOo
183|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ROBERTO L.DIZON,pet titioner,vs.CO OMELEC,respo ondent. G.R R.No.182088 ary30,2009 Janua Involuntary se I everance from office for any length of tim provided b law amounts to an inter y me by rruption of con ntinuity of service. s Roberto L. Dizon, petitione is a reside and taxpa R er, ent ayer of the M Municipality o Mabalacat, Pampanga. Marino P. of Morales,respo M ondent,istheincumbentMa ayoroftheMu icipalityofM un Mabalacat,Pampanga. Petitionerallegesrespondentwasprocla P aimedasthem municipalmay yorofMabalacatduringthe e1995,1998, 2001and 2004elections 2 sandhasfully yservedthesa ame.Respond dentfiledhisC COConMarch28,2007agai inforthesam meposition andsamemun a nicipality. Petitioner arg P gues that resp pondent is no longer eligi o ible and qualified to run f the same position for the 2007 for electionsunde e erSec43ofth heLGC.Under rthesaidprov vision,noloca alelectiveoffic cialisallowed dtoserveform morethan three consecu t utive terms for the same position. Respo ondent, on th other hand asserts that he is still eligible and he d, t qualifiedtoru q unasMayorof ftheMunicipa alityofMabala acat,Pampang gabecausehewasnotelect tedforthesai idposition in the 1998 el lections. He avers that the Commission en banc in t case entit Atty. Ven e n the tled nancio Q. Rive III and era NormandickP De Guzman vs. Mayor Ma N P. arino P. Mora ales, affirmed the decision of the RTC of Angeles City declaring f y AnthonyD.De A eeasthedulyelectedMayor rofMabalacat t,inthe1998elections.Res spondentalleg gesthathistermshould be b reckoned f from 2001 or when he wa proclaimed as Mayor of Mabalacat. Respondent f r as d f further assert that his ts electionin200 e 04isonlyforh hissecondter rm. TheCOMELEC T CSecondDivis sionresolvedt todenythePe etitiontoCanc celtheCOCan nd/orPetitionfortheDisqu ualification ofMoralesforlackofmerit. o TheCOMELEC T Cenbancaffirm medtheresolution. Hence,thispet H tition. ISSUE: 010termreallyMoralesfift thterm? Isthe200720 HELD: H PetitionisDIS P SMISSED. Forpurposeso F ofdeterminin ngtheresultingdisqualificat tionbroughta aboutbythet threetermlim mit,itisnoten noughthat anindividualh a hasservedthr reeconsecutiv vetermsinan nelectivelocal loffice,hemu ustalsohaveb beenelectedto othesame position for th same number of times. There should be a concurr p he b d rence of two conditions for the applicat r tion of the disqualification: (1) that the official co d t oncerned has been elected for three consecutive te s d erms in the s same local governmentpostand(2)thathehasfully g yservedthree econsecutivet terms. TheCourtcon T ncedethatMor ralesoccupied dthepositionofmayorofM Mabalacatforthefollowing gperiods:1July1995to 30June1998, 1July1998t 3 to30June2001,1July200 01to30June 2004,and1J July2004to1 16May2007. However, because of his disqualificat b s tion in the Riv vera case beca ause of the th hreeterm lim Morales w not the du elected mit, was uly mayorforthe20042007te m erm.Neitherd didMoralesho oldthepositio onofmayorof fMabalacatfo orthefullterm m.Morales cannotbedee c emedtohave servedthefu ulltermof200 042007beca ausehewaso orderedtovac catehispostb beforethe expirationoft e theterm.Moralesoccupan ncyofthepos sitionofmayo orofMabalac catfrom1July y2004to16 May2007
184 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts cannotbecountedasaterm c mforpurposesofcomputin ngthethreete ermlimit.Indeed,theperio odfrom17Ma ay2007to 30June2007 servedasaga 3 apforpurpose esofthethree etermlimitru ule.Thus,the present1July y2007to30J June2010 termiseffectiv t velyMoralesfirsttermforpurposesofth hethreeterm mlimitrule. oOo BOLOS,JR.,pet titioner,vs.CO OMELEC,respo ondent. NICASIOB G.R R.No.184082 2 Mar rch17,2009 APunongBara A angay,inrunn ningforandw winningasSan ngguiniangBay ayanmembera andassuming saidofficeis deemedto havevoluntari h ilyrelinquished dhisofficeasP PunongBaran ngay. For F three cons secutive term petitioner was elected t the position of Punong B ms, to n Barangay of B Barangay Biki ing, Dauis, BoholintheBa B arangayElect tionsheldin1994,1997and d2002. g mbent Punon Barangay o Barangay B ng of Biking, petitio oner ran for Municipal In May 2004, while sitting as the incum CouncilorofD C Dauisandwon n.Heassume edofficeasM MunicipalCoun nciloronJuly y1,2004,leav vinghisposta asPunong Barangay. He served the fu term of the Sanggunian Bayan position, which w until June 30, 2007. T B ull e ng was Thereafter, petitionerfiled p dhisCertificateofCandidacyforPunong gBarangayof BarangayBik king,Dauis,Bo oholintheOctober29, 2007Barangay 2 yandSanggun ngKabataa nia anElections. RespondentReyAngelesCin R nconiegue,the eincumbentP PunongBaran ngayandcand didateforthes sameoffice,filedbefore theCOMELEC apetitionfor t rthedisqualif ficationofpet titionerascan ndidateonthe egroundthat thehadalrea adyserved thethreeterm t mlimit.Hence e,petitionerisnolongerallo owedtorunfo orthesamepo osition. Cinconiegue c C contended th petitione hat ers relinquish hment of the position of P Punong Baran ngay in July 2004 was voluntary on his part, as it could be presumed that it was his p v i t personal decision to run a municipal councilor. as Petitioneransweredthathi P iselectionandassumption nofofficeas Sangguniang Bayanmemb berwasbyop perationof la aw;hence,itm mustbeconsid deredasanin nvoluntaryint terruptionint thecontinuityofhislasttermofservice. TheFirstDivis T sionoftheCOMELECruledthatpetitionersrelinquish hmentoftheofficeofPuno ongBarangayofBiking, Dauis,Bohol,a D asaconseque enceofhisass sumptionofo officeasSangg guniangBayan nmemberof Dauis,Bohol, onJuly1, 2004,wasavo 2 oluntaryrenun nciationofthe eOfficeofPun nongBarangay y. Hence,thispet H tition. ISSUE: Whetherorno W ottherewasv voluntaryrenunciationoft theOfficeofP PunongBarangaybypetitio onerwhenhe eassumed officeasMuni o icipalCouncilo orsothatheis sdeemedtoh havefullyserv vedhisthirdte ermasPunong gBarangay. HELD: H PetitionisDIS P SMISSED. The T Court agr rees with the COMELEC th there was voluntary ren hat nunciation b petitioner of his po by osition as PunongBaran P ngay.Indeed, petitionerwa asservinghis thirdtermas sPunongBara angaywhenheranforSan ngguniang Bayan membe and, upon winning, assumed the position of Sangguniang Bayan mem B er o e f g mber, thus, v voluntarily relinquishinghisofficeasPunongBarang r P gaywhichthe eCourtdeemsasavoluntaryrenunciati ionofsaidoffi ice.
185|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Petitionerdid notleavehis postbyopera P ationoflaw.T Thetermope erationoflaw isdefinedas satermdesc cribingthe factthatrights f smaybeacquiredorlostby ytheeffectofalegalrulewi ithoutanyact toftheperson naffected. Petitionerdid notfillinor succeedtoa vacancybyoperationofla P aw.Heinstea adrelinquishedhisofficea asPunong Barangay duri his third term when he won and as B ing ssumed office as Sangguniang Bayan member of Dau Bohol, e uis, whichisdeem w medavoluntaryrenunciation noftheOffice eofPunongBa arangay. oOo SIMONB.ALD DOVINO,JR.,p petitioner,vs.COMELEC,re espondent. Decem G.R.No.184836 mber23,2009 9 Temporary ina T ability or disq qualification to exercise the functions of a elective po even if inv o an ost, voluntary, should not be consideredan effectiveinter c rruptionofat termbecausei itdoesnotinv volvethelosso oftitletooffice eoratleasta aneffective breakfromhol b ldingofficet theholder,whileretainingt title,issimpleb barredfromex xercisingthef functionsofhi isofficefor areasonprovid a dedbylaw. Theresponden T ntWilfredoF.Asilowasele ectedcouncilorofLucenaCi ityforthreeco onsecutiveter rms:forthe19 9982001, 20012004, an 20042007 terms, resp 2 nd 7 pectively.In S September 20 005 or during his 200420 g 007 term of office, the Sandiganbayan preventively suspended him for 90 d S n days in relatio with a crim on minal case he then faced.T Court, e The however,subs h sequentlylifte edtheSandiga anbayanssus spensionorde er;hence,her resumedperfo ormingthefu unctionsof hisofficeandf h finishedhiste erm. Inthe2007election,Asilof filedhiscertif ficateofcandi idacyforthes sameposition n.Thepetition nersSimonB.Aldovino, Faller, and Ferdinand N. Ta alabong (the p petitioners) s sought to deny due course to Asilos cer y rtificate of Jr., Danilo B. F candidacyor t c tocanceliton nthegroundt thathehadbe eenelectedan ndhadserved dforthreeter rms;hiscandi idacyfora fourth term th f herefore viola ated the three eterm limit r rule under Section 8, Article X of the Co onstitution an Section nd 43(b)ofLGC. 4 TheCOMELEC T CsSecondDiv visionruledag gainstthepet titionersandi inAsilosfavo ourinitsReso olutionofNovember28, 2007.Itreaso 2 onedoutthat thethreeterm mlimitruled didnotapply, asAsilofailedtorendercompleteservi iceforthe 20042007ter 2 rmbecauseof fthesuspensio ontheSandiga anbayanhado ordered. ISSUE: WhetherAsilo W ospreventivesuspensionco onstitutedaninterruptiont thatallowedh himtorunfora4thterm. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Preventivesus P spensionisan ninterimrem medialmeasuretoaddresst thesituationo ofanofficialw whohavebee encharged administrative a elyorcrimina ally,wherethe eevidencepr reliminarilyin ndicatesthelik kelihoodofor rpotentialfor reventual guilt or liability.It is impos when the evidence of guilt is strong and given t gravity of the offense, there is a g sed e the f possibilitytha p atthecontinua anceinofficeo oftherespond dentcouldinf fluencethewi itnessesorposeathreattothesafety andintegrityo a oftherecords sandotherev vidence.Itope eratesunderc closelycontro olledcondition nsandgivesa apremium totheprotecti t ionoftheserv vicerathertha antotheinter restsoftheind dividualoffice eholder.Even nthen,protect tionofthe servicegoesonlyasfarasa s atemporaryprohibitionon theexerciseofthefunction nsoftheofficia alsoffice;the eofficialis reinstated to theexercise of his position r o nas soon as t preventiv suspension is lifted.Th the ve n hus, while a t temporary incapacity in the exercise of power results, no p e position is v vacated when a public o n official is pre eventively suspended.Th s hiswaswhate exactlyhappenedtoAsilo.
186 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Strict adheren to the in S nce ntent of the t threeterm lim rule dem mit mands that pr reventive susp pension shou not be uld consideredaninterruptionthatallowsan c nelectiveoffic cialsstayinof fficebeyondthreeterms.A Apreventivesu uspension cannotsimply c ybeatermint terruptionbec causethesusp pendedofficia alcontinuesto ostayinoffic cealthoughhe eisbarred from exercisin the functio and prero f ng ons ogatives of the office within the suspens e n sion period.T best indica The ator of the suspended offi s ficials continu uity in office i theabsence of aperman is e nent replacem mentand thela of the au ack uthority to appointonesin a ncenovacancy yexists. Preventive sus P spension is by its very n nature the e exact opposite of voluntary renunciation it is involu e y n; untary and temporary,an t ndinvolvesonlytheactuald deliveryofser rvice,notthet titletotheoff fice.Theeasy yconclusionth hereforeis thattheyare,b t bynature,diff ferentandnon ncomparable. Voluntaryrenunciation,wh V hileinvolving lossofoffice andthetotal incapacitytorenderservic ce,isdisallow wedbythe Constitutiona C asaneffective interruption ofaterm.It isthereforen notallowedas samodeofci ircumventing thethree termlimitrule t e. Preventive sus P spensiondoes not involve an effective interruption o s ofatermand should therefore not bea reason to avoidthethre a eetermlimita ation.Itcanp poseasathrea at,however,i ifweshalldis sregarditsna atureandcons sideritan effective interruption of a term. Let it be noted that a preventive suspension is easier to undertake than voluntary e t a s renunciation, asitdoesnot r trequirerelin nquishmentor rlossofoffice eevenforthe ebriefesttime e.Itmerelyre equiresan easilyfabricatedadministra e ativechargeth hatcanbedism missedsoona afteraprevent tivesuspensio onhasbeenim mposed.In thissense,recognizingprev t ventivesuspen nsionasaneff fectiveinterru uptionofaterm mcanserveasacircumven ntionmore potentthanth p hevoluntaryre enunciationth hattheConstit tutionexpress slydisallowsa asaninterrup ption. oOo
Resignation R
JOS SEPHE.ESTR RADA,petition ner,vs.ANIANO ODESIERTO,Respondent. G.R.Nos.14671015 5 March2,200 02
Resignationis notahighlev R vellegalabstraction,itisaf factualquestio onanditselem mentsarebey yondquibble:t theremust beanintenttoresignandtheintentmustb b becoupledbyactsofrelinqu uishment. 1, ner erc a d while responde Gloria ent In the May 11 1998 elections, petition Joseph Eje ito Estrada was elected President w MacapagalArr M royowaselec ctedVicePresident.Fromth hebeginning ofhisterm,h however,petit tionerwaspla aguedbya plethoraofpro p oblemsthatslowlybutsurelyerodedhis spopularity. Hissharpdes scentfrompowerstartedo onOctober 4,2000.Iloco Sur Governos,LuisChav 4 os o vitSingson,a along timefrie endofthepet titioner,went tonairandac ccusedthe petitioner,his p familyandfr riendsofreceivingmillions sofpesosfrom mjuetenglords.SenatorGuingonaJr.ac ccusedthe petitioner of receiving som P220 million in jueten money from Governor Singson. He also charged that the p me ng d petitionertook p kfromGovern norSingsonP7 70milliononexcisetaxoncigarettesinte endedforIloc cosSur. On O November 13, House Sp peaker Villar transmitted t Articles of Impeachmen signed by 1 representatives, or the f nt 115 morethan1/3 m 3ofallthemembersofthe eHouseofRe epresentatives stotheSenate.OnDecemb ber7,theimp peachment trialstarted. t Thencamethe T efatefuldayo ofJanuary16, whenbyavo oteof1110th hesenatorjud dgesruledaga ainsttheopen ningofthe secondenvelo s opwhichalleg gedlycontaine edevidencesh howingthatpe etitionerheld P3.3billionin nasecretban nkaccount under the nam Jose Velar u me rde. The pub and priva prosecutor walked out in protest of the ruling. T ruling blic ate rs t The madeat 10:00 m 0p.m.wasme etbyasponta aneousoutbur rstofangerth hathitthestr reetsofthem metropolis.By midnight,
187|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts thousandshad t dassembleda attheEDSASh hrineandspe eechesfullofs sulphurwere deliveredaga ainstthepetit tionerand theelevensen t nators On O January 19 the fall fro power of the petitione appeared in 9, om er nevitable. At 1:20 p.m., th petitioner informed t he ExecutiveSecr E retaryEdgard doAngarathat tGeneralAng geloReyes,ChiefofStaffof theArmedFo orcesofthePh hilippines, haddefected. At2:30p.m., petitioneragreedtotheho h oldingofasna apelectionforPresidentw wherehewouldnotbea candidate.Itd c didnotdiffuse ethegrowingcrisis. January 20 turned to be th day of surr he render. At abo 12:00 noo Chief Justi Davide ad out on, ice dministered th oath to he respondentAr r rroyoasPresi identoftheP Philippines.At t2:30p.m.,pe etitionerand hisfamilyhurriedlyleftM Malacaang Palace.Heissu P uedthefollow wingpressstat tement: 20January20 001 STATEMENTF S FROMPRESID DENTJOSEPHEJERCITOEST TRADA elveoclockno oontoday,Vic cePresidentG GloriaMacapagalArroyotookheroathas sPresidentof fthe Attwe Repub blicofthePhil lippines.Whi ilealongwithmanyotherle egalmindsofourcountry,I Ihavestrongand seriou usdoubtsabo outthelegality yandconstitu utionalityofh herproclamati ionasPreside ent,Idonotw wish tobea afactorthatw willpreventth herestorationofunityando orderinourci ivilsociety. orthisreason nthatInowle eaveMalacaa angPalace,th heseatofthe presidencyof fthiscountry, ,for Itisfo the sa of peace and in order to begin the h ake a healing proce of our nat ess tion. I leave t Palace of our the peoplewithgratitu udefortheopp portunitiesgiventomefor rservicetoou urpeople.Iw willnotshirkfr rom uturechalleng gesthatmayco omeaheadinthesameserv viceofourcou untry. anyfu onallmysupp portersandfo ollowerstojoi inmeinthepromotionofa aconstructivenationalspiri itof Icallo reconciliationands solidarity. heAlmightyb blessourcoun ntryandbelovedpeople. Mayth UHAY! MABU R DA (Sgd.)JOSEPHEJERCITOESTRAD sthatonthesameday,Janu uary20,2001,hesignedthe efollowinglet tter: Italsoappears Sir: rtueofthepro ovisionsofSe ection11,Arti icleVIIofthe Constitution,Iamhereby transmitting this Byvir declar rationthatIam munabletoex xercisethepo owersanddut tiesofmyoffic ce.Byoperati ionoflawand dthe Constitution,theVi icePresidents shallbetheAc ctingPresiden nt. RCITOESTRAD DA (Sgd.)JOSEPHEJER OnJanuary22,theMondayaftertakingh O heroath,respo ondentArroyo oimmediately ydischargedth hepowersand ddutiesof thePresidency t y. Afterhisfallfr A romthepedes stalofpower,t thepetitioner rslegalproble emsappeared dinclusters.S Severalcasesp previously filedagainsthi f imintheOffic ceoftheOmbu udsmanweresetinmotion n.
188 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts OnFebruary5 O 5,petitionerf filedwiththe SCGRNo.14 4671015,apetitionforprohibitionwith haprayerfor rawritof preliminaryin p njunction.Its soughttoenjo ointherespon ndentOmbuds smanfromco onductingany yfurtherproceedingsin CaseNos.OMB C B0001629, 1754,1755,1 1756,1757an nd1758orin anyothercri iminalcompla aintthatmay befiledin hisoffice,unti h ilaftertheter rmofpetitionerasPresiden ntisoverand donlyiflegall lywarranted. Thruanothe ercounsel, petitioner,filedGRNo.1467 p 738forQuoW Warranto.Hep prayedforjud dgmentconfirmingpetition nertobethel lawfuland incumbentPre esidentofthe eRepublicoft thePhilippine estemporarily yunabletodischargethed dutiesofhiso office,and declaringresp d pondenttohav vetakenhero oathasandtobeholdingtheOfficeofthe ePresident,on nlyinanactin ngcapacity pursuanttoth p heprovisionso oftheConstitu ution. TheCourtreso T olved: (1) to inform the parties that the Court did not issu a resolution on January 20, 2001 dec m t t ue n claring the off fice of the Presidentvaca P antandthatne eitherdidtheChiefJusticei issueapresss statementjust tifyingthealle egedresolutio on; (2) ( to order t parties an especially their counsel who are off the nd l ficers of the C Court under pain of being cited for g contempttore c efrainfromma akinganycom mmentordiscu ussinginpubl licthemeritsofthecasesat tbarwhilethe eyarestill pendingdecisi p ionbytheCou urt,and (3)toissuea3 ( 30daystatus quoordereff fectiveimmed diatelyenjoini ingtherespon ndentOmbudsmanfromre esolvingor decidingthecriminalcases pendinginve d estigationinh hisofficeagain nstpetitioner JosephE.Est tradaandsubjectofthe cases at bar, i appearing from news reports that the respondent Ombudsman may immedi c it f e iately resolve the cases againstpetitio a onerJosephE. .Estradaseve endaysaftert thehearinghe eldonFebrua ary15,2001, whichaction willmake thecasesatba t armootandac cademic. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otthepetitionerresignedas sPresident. HELD: H PetitionsDISM P MISSED. ,theremustb beanintenttoresignandth heintentmust tbecoupledby yactsofrelinquishment.Th hevalidity Inresignation, ofaresignatio o onisnotgove ernedbyany formalrequir rementastof form.Itcanb beoral.Itcanbewritten. Itcanbe express.Itcan e nbeimplied.A Aslongasthe eresignationis sclear,itmustbegivenlega aleffect. Thefactsshow T wthatpetition nerdidnotwr riteanyformalletterofresignationbefor reheevacuate edMalacanang gPalacein theafternoonofJanuary20, t ,2001afterth heoathtaking gofresponden ntArroyo.Con nsequently,wh hetherornotpetitioner resignedhasto r obedetermin nedfromhisa actsandomiss sionsbefore,d duringandafterJanuary20,2001orbythetotality ofprior,conte o emporaneousandposterior rfactsandcirc cumstantialev videncebeari ingamaterialrelevanceon ntheissue. Usingthistota U alitytest,weh holdthatpetiti ionerresigned dasPresident t. Theresignatio T onofthepetiti ionercannotb bedoubted.It twasconfirm medbyhisleav vingMalacaang.Inthepre essrelease containing his final stateme (1) he acknowledged t oathtakin of the resp c s ent, the ng pondent as President of the Republic e albeitwiththe a ereservationa aboutitslegality;(2)heem mphasizedhe wasleavingthePalace,the eseatofthepresidency, forthesakeof f fpeaceandinordertobegi inthehealingprocessofou urnation.Hed didnotsayhe ewasleavingthePalace duetoanykindofinabilitya d andthathew wasgoingtoreassumethep presidencyassoonasthedi isabilitydisap ppears;(3) heexpressedh h hisgratitude tothepeople efortheoppo ortunitytoser rvethem.Wi ithoutdoubt, hewasreferr ringtothe past opportun given him to serve the people as Pr p nity m e resident; (4) h assured th he will not shirk from a future he hat t any challengethatmaycomeah c headinthesam meserviceofourcountry.Petitionersre eferenceistoafuturechall lengeafter occupying the office of the president wh o hich he has gi iven up; and ( he called on his suppor (5) rters to join h in the him promotion of a constructi p f ive national spirit of rec conciliation an solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit of nd l
189|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts reconciliation and solidarit could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. The press re r ty elease was petitionersva p aledictory,hisfinalactoffar rewell.Hispr residencyisno owinthepast ttense. oOo BUSTONERA,C B C. TOMASN.JOSONIII,pet titioner,vs.N NARCISOS.NA ARIO,LUIST. SANTOS,inh hiscapacitya asSecretaryo ofLocal ents,andSEN NDONO.DELI IZO,inhiscap pacityasJudg geoftheReg gionalTrialCo ourt,Branch 26,at Governme Cabanatuan y,respon nCit ndents. G.R.No.91548July13,1990 An office was regarded as a burden wh s hich the appoi intee was bou und, in the int terest of the c community an of good nd government,to g obear.Andfro omthisitfollo owedofcourse ethat,afteran nofficewasco onferredanda assumed,itco ouldnotbe la aiddownwith houttheconsen ntoftheappointingpower. Mechem Gov.Eduardo L.Josontook anindefinite G esickleave,th huscreatinga atemporaryv vacancyinhis Office.There espondent ViceGovernor Nariofilled in as Acting G V r Governor. Afte a fewdays, respondent fell ill and executedawai er iver of his rightstotheO r OfficeoftheG Governor.Consequently,pet titionerToma asN.JosonIII,beingtheno.1Sanggunian nMember, tookoathasA t ActingGoverno or. Fourdayslate F er,feelingthat thisillnessha asgottenwors se,responden ntfiledhisresi ignationletter rtotheSec.LuisSantos (Secretary of the Interior and Local Gov ( a vernments), t this remained unacted upo due to Chr d on ristmas Break in public k officesatthattimeitwasgi o ivenonDecem mber26,1989 9.Petitionerto ookhisoatha asViceGovern norafterlearn ningabout Nariosresigna N ation. Afterdiscover A ringthathisill lnessiscurable,responden ntwrotetheSe ecretaryrequ uestingthathiswaiverofr rightsand resignation let r tters be withd drawn and be declared without legal effect. Sec. Santos granted his requests and Nario e was w sworn ag gain as Acting Governor. A letter was se to petition to cease and desist fro assuming as Acting g ent ner om Governor. G htinjunctiver relieffromthetrialcourt.A Atemporaryr restrainingor rder(TRO)w wasinitiallygr rantedbut JosonIIIsough waslaterlifted w dandthecase ewasdismisse edforfailureo ofpetitionertoexhaustadm ministrativere emedies.Thisprompted himtofiledire h ectlybeforeth heSupremeCo ourtapetition nforreviewon ncertiorari. ISSUE: I Doespetitione D ersargument (thatNarios resignationshouldhavebe eendeemede effectivethem momentthelat tterwrote theresignation t nletterwithou utneedofacc ceptancefromtheSecretary y)havemerit? ? HELD: H PetitionisDEN P NIED. Thedecidedw T weightofautho orityisthat"a apartfromleg galprovision,...mereprese entationofres signationdoes snotwork 20 avacancy,and a daresignation nisnotcomple eteuntilaccep ptedbyprope erauthority;"2 "...andunt tilacceptancebyproper authoritythet a tenderoroffer rtoresignisr revocable,"un nlessotherwis seprovidedbystatute." Theresponden T ntJudgewast thuscorrectin nrefusingtoi issuethewrit tofprohibition nsuedforby petitionerJos son.Itwas not n within the power of re e espondent Nario to dictate the time of t effectiven e the ness of his res signation, or otherwise
190 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts imposecondit tionsthereon.Thatwasthe eprerogative oftheSecreta aryofLocalG Governments,a astheproper rauthority to t act thereon It was well within the S n. l Secretary's po ower and disc cretion to acc cept or reject the resignation. Nario t thereforecont t tinuedasVice eGovernorde espitehistend derofresigna ationanddesp pitehisabsencefromoffice eforafew days on accou of sickness. Never havin lost the of d unt ng ffice of ViceG Governor, it w also lawful and logical f him to was for assumethepo a ositionofActin ngGovernor,t temporarilyva acantduetot theinfirmityo oftheincumbe ent,asheeven ntuallydid oninstructionsoftheSecret o taryofLocalG Governments. oOo SANGGUNIA ANGBAYANO OFSANANDR RES,CATANDU UANES,Repre esentedbyVICEMAYORN NENITOAQUI INOand MAYORL LYDIAT.ROM MANO,petitioner,vs.COUR RTOFAPPEALSandAUGU USTOT.ANTO ONIO,respond dents G.R.No.1188 883.January16,1998 Although a res A signation is not complete w without an acceptance ther reof by the pro oper authority an office m still be y, may deemedrelinqu d uishedthrough hvoluntaryab bandonmentw whichneedsno oacceptance. Itmustbestre I essedthatwhe enanofficeris sdesignated toanotherpost,heisusua allycalledupo ontodischargedutiesin additiontohis a sregularrespo onsibilities.In ndeed,hisaddi itionalrespons sibilitiesarep prescribedbyl lawtoinhere, asitwere, tohisoriginalposition...Ina t allcases,however,thelawdo oesnotrequir rethepublicse ervanttoresig gnfromhisorig iginalpost. Rather,thelaw R wallowshimto oconcurrently ydischargethe efunctionsofb bothoffices. Privaterespon P ndentAntonio owaselecteda asBarangayC Chairman.Hew waslaterelectedaspreside entoftheAsso ociationof BaranggayCou B uncilsintheirmunicipality. .Inthatcapac cityandpursu uanttotheLoc calGovernmen ntCodeof198 83,hewas appointedbyt a thePresidentasmemberof ftheMunicipa alCouncilofth heMunicipalit tyofSanAndr res. Meanwhile, th Departmen of Interior and Local G M he nt r Government ( (DILG) Secre etary declared the electio for the d on president of th Federation of the Assoc p he n ciation of Barangay Counci (FABC) of the same pro ils ovince, in whic private ch respondent w a voting member, void for want of a quorum. H r was m Hence, a reor rganization of the provinci council f ial became necessary. Conform b mably, the DILG Secretary designated private respon ndent as a tem mporary member of the ProvincialBoa P ardoftheProv vinceofCatan nduanes. designation,h hesubmittedh hisresignationlettertohis smayor,gove ernor,DILGan ndmunicipal treasurer. Inlieuofhisd PetitionerAqu P uinowasdesig gnatedinhisp positionasme emberoftheM MunicipalCoun ncilinhisstea ad. Afterayear,th A heSupremeC Courtannulled dtheDILGsr rulingwhichd declaredtheF FABCelection void.Inthes samecase, theappointme t entofPrivateRespondentA Antonioassec ctoralreprese entativetothe eProvincialBo oardwasdecl laredvoid, becausehedid b dnotpossesst thebasicqual lificationthatheshouldbep presidentofth hefederationofbarangayc councils. Private respon P ndent wrote the Municipal Council expressing his desire to resum his forme position as exofficio t me er councilmemberbutwasdenied.Thispro c omptedhimto oseekjudicialrelief. TheRegionalt T trialcourtruledinfavorof fAntoniobeca auseclaiming thathisresig gnationinthe councilwasn notvalidly acceptedbyth a heproperauth horities. The Court of Appeals affir T rmed the low court reit wer terating that the Presiden is the prop authority to whom nt per Antoniosresig A gnationmustbeaddressed. . Hencethispet H tition. ISSUES:
191|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 1. Ispriv vateresponde entsresignatio onvalid? 2. Didpr rivaterespond dentabandonhisoffice? HELD: H PetitionisGRA P ANTED. ValidityofRes V signation Toconstitutea T acompletean ndoperativer resignationfro ompublicoffice,theremus stbe:(a)anin ntentiontore elinquisha partoftheterm p m;(b)anacto ofrelinquishm ment;and(c)a anacceptancebytheproper rauthority. Under establis U shed jurispru udence, resign nations, in the absence of statutory pro e ovisions as to whom they should be submitted, sh s hould be tend dered to the appointing p person or bo ody. Private r respondent, t therefore, sho ould have submittedhis letterofresig s gnationtothe ePresidentor rtohisalter ego,theDILG Gsecretary.A Althoughhesu upposedly furnished the latter a copy of his letter, there is no showing that i was duly re f it eceived, much less, that it was acted h upon.Thethir u rdrequisitebe eingabsent,th herewasthereforenovalid dandcomplete eresignation. AbandonmentofOffice A Abandonment of an office has been def A t fined as the v voluntary reli inquishment o an office b the holder, with the of by intentionofterminatinghispossessionan ndcontrolthe ereof. Therearetwo T oessentialelementsofaban ndonment:fir rst,anintentio ontoabandon nand,second d,anovertor external actbywhichth a heintentionis scarriedintoeffect. Indeed,thefol llowingclearl lymanifestth heintentionof fprivaterespondenttoaba andonhispos sition:(1)his sfailureto performhisfu p unctionasmem mberoftheSa angguniangBayan,(2)his failuretocoll lectthecorres spondingrem muneration forthepositio f on,(3)hisfailu uretoobject totheappoin ntmentofAqu uinoashisrep placementint theSanggunia angBayan, (4)hisprolongedfailureto ( oinitiateanya acttoreassum mehispostin ntheSanggun niangBayanaftertheSupre emeCourt hadnullifiedh h hisdesignation ntotheSangg guniangPanlal lawigan. The following overt acts demonstrate that he had effected his i T g d intention: (1) his letter of resignation from the ) Sangguniang B S Bayan; (2) his assumption of office as member of the Sanggun n s f niang Panlala awigan, (3) h faithful his dischargeofh d hisdutiesand functionsasm memberofsaidSanggunian n,and(4)his receiptofthe eremunerationforsuch post. p oOo
DisciplinaryActionandPreventiveS D Suspension
RODOLFOE E.AGUINALDO,petitioner r,vs.SANDIGA ANBAYANand dPEOPLEOF THEPHILIPP PINES,respon ndents. G.R.No.124471November r28,1996 Apresuspensi A ionhearingis conductedto determineba asicallythevalidityofthein nformation,fro omwhichthe court can have a basis t either susp h to pend the accu used, and proc ceed with the trial on the merits of the case, or wit e e thhold the suspensionoft s thelatterandd dismissthecas se,orcorrecta anypartofthe eproceedingw whichimpairsitsvalidity.
192|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Petitioner Agu P uinaldo was th governor o Cagayan. The Commissio on Audit ( he of on (COA) conduct an investi ted igation on certain irregu c ularities regar rding the use of Developm e ment Funds (PhP750,000) for intellige ) ence operatio in his ons province. It w also disc p was covered that, some of the claims were covered by disbursemen vouchers with only e e y nt reimbursemen r ntreceiptsto supportthem m,mostofwhi ichweresignedbyonlyon neperson,wh hileotherclaim mshadno supporting pa s apers at all. The investigat T ting team recommended th submission of additiona documents from the he n al s petitioner,whichthelatterf p failedtocomp ply. The T COA Director filed a co omplaint befo the Ombudsman (OMB) for petitione illegal use of government funds. ore ) ers e Later,theOMB L Bfoundoutth hattheamoun ntwasusedfo ormilitary,po oliceandcivilianinformers tofightinsurgencyand recommended r dthefilingof acomplaintf fortwocounts sofmalversat tionandavio olationofSect tion3,paragraph(3)of R.A.3019toth R heSandiganba ayan(SB). The T SB ordere the OMB to reinvestiga the case; petitioner wa allowed to submit affid ed t ate as davits from hi military is officerstosupporthisclaim o m. While conduct W ting his inves stigation, the OMB prosecu utor found tha the auditin reports and affidavits o the COA at ng of Chairman and the Provincia Auditor appear to be in C d al ndecisive and uncertain. N None of them can present c conclusive evidencethattheamountw e wasdisbursed tofightinsur rgency.Thisre esultedintoth hefilingofcriminalinforma ationsand recommended r dthesuspensionpendenteli iteofthegove ernor. Petitioner opp P posed and mo oved to quash the informat tionson the b basisthat the reports and a affidavits from the COA m Chairman,theProvincialAu C uditorandhis switnessessh houldbegiven ncredence.SB Bdeniedthem motionandor rderedhis suspension.He s encethispetit tion. ISSUES: 1. Wasthesuspension nvalid? heSBcommitt tedgraveabus seofdiscretionindenyingt theCOAsrepo ort? 2. Didth HELD: H Pet P itionisDIS SMISSED. Validityofthe V eSuspension A correctly p As pointed out by the SB : [U U]pon a prope determinat er tion of the val lidity of the information, it becomes t mandatoryfor m rthecourttoimmediatelyi issuethesusp pensionorder. .Theruleont thematteriss specificandca ategorical. Itleavesnoro oomforinterp pretation.Itis snotwithinth hecourt'sdis scretiontohol ldinabeyancethesuspens sionofthe accused office on the pret a er text that the o order denying the motion to quash is p g pending revie before the appellate ew courts.Itsdisc c cretionlieson nlyduringthepresuspensi ionhearingw whereitisrequ uiredtoascer rtainwhether ornot(1) theaccusedha t adbeenafford deddueprelim minaryinvesti igationpriort tothefilingof ftheinformat tionagainsthi im,(2)the actsforwhichhewascharg a gedconstitute eaviolationof ftheprovision nsofRepublic cActNo.3019 9orofthepro ovisionsof Title 7, Book II of the Revi T ised Penal Co ode, or (3) the information against him can be quashed, under a of the ns m any groundsprovidedinSection g n2,Rule117o oftheRulesof fCourt. NoGraveAbu N useofDiscreti ioninDenying gCOAReport t COA's approv of petitioner's disburs C val sements only relates to t y the administr rative aspect of the matt of his ter accountability a ybutitdoesn notforecloset theOmbudsm man'sauthority ytoinvestigateanddeterm minewhether thereisa crime to be p c prosecuted for which petit tioner is answ werable. Whi the COA m assist in gathering ev ile may vidence to
193|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts substantiate a chargeofma s a alversation,an determina ny ation made by it will not be conclusive a y e asto whether radequate causeexiststo c oprosecutea case.Thisis sobecauseth heOmbudsma anisgiventhe epowertoinv vestigateoni itsownan il llegalactorom missionofap publicofficial. oOo HON.EDUA ARDONONAT TOJOSON,inh hiscapacitya astheGovern norofthePro ovinceofNue evaEcija,peti itioner, vs.EXECUTIV VESECRETAR RYRUBEND.T TORRES,the DEPARTMEN NTOFTHEIN NTERIOR&LO OCALGOVERN NMENTS, represented bySECRETA ARYROBERTZ Z.BARBERSa andUNDERSE ECRETARYM MANUELR.SA ANCHEZ,MR.O OSCARC. TINIO,in hiscapacitya asProvincial lViceGovern norofNueva Ecija,andMR R.LORETOP.PANGILINAN N,MR. CRISPULOS. ESGUERRA,M MS.SOLITAC C.SANTOS,MR R.VICENTEC C.PALILIO,an ndMR.NAPOL LEONG.INTE ERIOR,in theirca apacityasProvincialBoar rdMembers ofNuevaEcij ja,responden nts. G.R.No o.131255May20,1998 Insum,preventivesuspensio I onmaybeimpo osedbytheDis scipliningAuth horityatanyt time(a)aftertheissuesarej joined;(b) when the evid w dence of guilt is strong; an (c) given the gravity o the offense,, there is gre probability that the t nd of eat y respondent,wh r hocontinuest toholdoffice,c couldinfluenc cethewitnesse esorposeath hreattothesaf afetyandinteg grityofthe recordsandot r therevidence. Administrative disciplinary proceedings a A e against electiv government officials are not exactly s ve e similar to those against appointiveoffi a icials.Infact,t theprovisions sthatapplyto oelectivelocal lofficialsares separateandd distinctfroma appointive governmentoff g fficersandemp ployees.Thiscanbegleaned dfromtheLoca alGovernment tCodeitself. PetitionerJoso P onwastheGo overnorofNu uevaEcijawhi ileprivateres spondentsare emembersof theProvincia alBoardof thesameprov t vince. Private respon P ndents sent a lettercomplaint to the P a President cha arging the pet titioner with grave miscon nduct and abusive behav a viour. That in the morning of Sept 12, 1996, on a s n g scheduled session day, on the session h of the hall provincialcap p pitol,thegover rnorbargedo onthehall;kic ckedthedoor rsandthecha airs;utteredthreateningat tthem;his armedbodygu a uardssurroun ndedthesessio onhallthereb byintimidatingeveryonein nside.Thisincidentisanoff fshootofa previoussessi p ionwherebyt theprovincial lboarddeniedthepetition nersrequesti inobtaininga a150million loanfrom thePhilippineNationalBank t k.Theprivate erespondentr respectfullypr rayedthatthe egovernorbesanctioned. President Ram acted on the request a referred t letter to h Departmen of Interior and Local Go P mos and the his nt overnment (DILG) then Secretary Robe Barbers, w ( ert with further instructions to "take appro o opriate preem mptive and inv vestigative actions,"and" a "breaknotthe epeace."TheS Secretarymet twiththepart tiesandbothdecidedtosettleamicably.However, bothpartiesfa b ailedtohonortheagreemen ntwhichprom mptedthepriv vateresponden nttopursueth hecase. Petitionerfiled P dhismotionf forextensiont tofileanansw werthreetime esbeforetheD DILG,whichgr ranted.Appar rently,due tohisinsistent t tdelay,hewasdeclaredind defaultandpr rivaterespond dentswereorderedtofileth heirevidencesexparte. Afterhiringhi A islawyers,Gov.Josonmove edtoreconsid dertheorder ofdefault.Itw wasgrantedin ntheinterest ofjustice. Butstillpetitio B onerfailedtofilehisanswer,promptingt theDILGtore einstatetheor rderofdefault t. Consequently, the petitione was placed under preve C er d entive suspens sion pending the investigation against h him. Joson challengedsaidorderbeforetheCourtofAppeals(CA). c f Whiletheproceedingcontinues,theDILGrequiredth W hesubmissionofpositionp papersfrombothparties.It twasthen thatpetitioner t rsubmittedhi isAnswerAd Cautelam,wh herehedenied dtheallegationsagainsthim m.Thiswasad dmittedas hispositionpa h aper.
194 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Lateron,petit L tionerfileda" "MotiontoCo onductFormalInvestigation n"beforethe DILG.Thiswasdeniedclai imingthat thepositionpa t aperssubstan ntiallycomplywiththerequ uirementsofproceduraldue eprocess. Meanwhile,CA M Aalsodeniedt thegovernors spetitionquestioninghissu uspensionord der.Hencethis spetition. ISSUE: WastheCAcorrectinuphol W ldingthesusp pensionofGov vernorJoson? HELD: H PetitionisGRA P ANTED. Therejectiono T ofpetitioner'srighttoaformalinvestigat s tiondeniedhi improcedural ldueprocess.Section5ofA A.O.No.23 providesthata p attheprelimin naryconferen nce,theInvest tigatingAutho orityshallsum mmonthepart tiestoconside erwhether theydesireaf t formalinvestig gation.Thispr rovisiondoesnotgivetheInvestigatingA Authoritythediscretiontod determine whether a for w rmal investiga ation would b conducted The records show that p be d. s petitioner file a motion f formal ed for investigation. Petitioner'srig P ghttoaforma alinvestigationwasnotsati isfiedwhenth hecomplainta againsthimw wasdecidedon nthebasis ofpositionpap o pers.ThereisnothingintheLocalGover rnmentCodea anditsImplem mentingRules sandRegulationsnorin A.O.No.23tha A atprovidethatadministrati ivecasesagain nstelectivelo ocalofficialsca anbedecidedonthebasiso ofposition papers. A.O. N 23 states that the Inv p No. s vestigating Authority may require the parties to submit their r y respective memoranda but this is only after formal investigation and hearing A.O. No. 23 does not auth m y l n g. horize the Inv vestigating Authoritytodispensewitha A ahearingespe eciallyincase esinvolvingallegationsoffa actwhicharenotonlyinco ontrastbut contradictorytoeachother.Thesecontra c adictionsareb bestsettledby yallowingthe eexamination nandcrossexamination ofwitnesses.P o Positionpaper rsareoftentimesprepared dwiththeassi istanceoflaw wyersandtheir rartfulpreparationcan makethedisco m overyoftruthdifficult. The T provision for adminis ns strative discip plinary action against ele ns ective local officials are m markedly different from appointive off a ficials. The ru ules on the r removal and s suspension of elective loc officials ar more strin cal re ngent. The procedureofr p requiringpositionpapersin nlieuofahear ringinadmini istrativecases sisexpresslyallowedwithrespectto appointiveoffi a ficialsbutnot tothoseelect ted.Anelectiv veofficial,elec ctedbypopularvote,isdirectlyresponsibletothe communitythatelectedhim c m.Theofficialhasadefinitetermofoffice efixedbylawwhichisrelat tivelyofshort tduration. Suspension an removal fr S nd rom office def finitely affects and shorten this term o office. Whe an elective official is s ns of en suspendedor removed,the s epeopleare d deprivedofth heservicesof themanthey yhadelected.Implicitinth herightof suffrageistha s atthepeoplea areentitledto otheservices softheelectiv veofficialoftheirchoice. Su uspensionandremoval arethusimposedonlyafter a rtheelective officialisacco ordedhisrigh htsandtheev videnceagains sthimstrongl lydictates theirimpositio t on. oOo MAYORALV VINB.GARCIA A,petitioner, ,vs.HON.ART TUROC.MOJI ICA,inhiscap pacityasDep putyOmbudsm manfor theVisayas, ,VIRGINIAPA ALANCASAN NTIAGO,inhis scapacityas Director,Off ficeoftheOm mbudsman(V Visayas), ALANFRA ANCISCOS.GA ARCIANO,inh hiscapacitya asGraftInves stigationOffi icerI,Officeo oftheOmbud dsman (Visayas),a andJESUSRO ODRIGOT.TA AGAAN,respondents. G.R.No.13904 G 43September r10,1999
195|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Therecouldbe T epreventivesu uspensioneven nbeforethech hargesagainst ttheofficialar reheard,orbe eforetheoffici ialisgiven an a opportunity to prove his innocence. Preventive s ty h suspension is merely a pre eliminary step in an administrative p investigationa andisnotinan nywaythefina aldeterminati ionoftheguilt toftheofficial lconcerned. Fourdaysbefo F orethe1998E Elections,peti itioner,inhis capacityasCebuCitymayo or,signedaco ontractwithF F.E.Zuellig for f thesupply ofasphalt to y othe city. The econtract cov versthe period19982001, which period wastocom , mmence on Sept S ember199 98whenthef firstdeliverys shouldhavebe eenmadebyF F.E.Zuellig. The T following year, news came out rega c arding an ano omalous purc chase of asphalt by the cit through the contract ty e signedbypetit s tioner.Thispr romptedtoan ninvestigation nbyprivatere espondents. f vestigationwa asupgradedto othefilingof fcriminaland dadministrativ vecases.Consequently, Inamatterof days,theinv thepetitionerwaspreventiv t velysuspende edforaperiod dofsixmonth hspendinginv vestigationofthecases. Petitioner dire P ectly assails the order befo the Supre t ore eme Court. W While the case is pending, th High Cour issued a he rt statusquoorder. s ISSUES: 1. Did th responden committed grave abuse of discretion in conductin an inquiry on complain against he nts d n ng y nts petitio oner,andorde eringtheirinv vestigationpu ursuanttoresp pondents'man ndateundert theConstitutio onandthe Ombu udsmanLaw? 2. Did respondents committed gr c rave abuse of discretion c f concerning th period of preventive su he uspension sedonpetition ner,whichist themaximumofsixmonths s? impos 3. Canpetitionerstillbeadministra ativelyheldlia ableforhispastactsdespite ehisreelectio onforanother rterm? HELD: H Thepetitionis T sherebyDEN NIEDinsofara asitseekstod declareatres spondentscom mmittedgrave eabuseofdis scretionin conducting an inquiry on complaints ag c n c gainst petition But the petition is hereby GRANTED insofar as i seeks to ner. D it declare that r d respondents committed gr c rave abuse of discretion c concerning th period of preventive su he uspension imposedonpe etitioner,whic chisthemaxim mumofsixmo onths. NoGraveAbu N useofDiscreti ioninInquiry y P Petitionerisa anelectivelocalofficialaccu usedofgravemisconductanddishonesty y.TheOfficeo oftheOmbudsmanmay conduct an ad c dministrative investigation into the acts complained o appears cle from the foregoing pro i of, ear ovisions of R.A.6770.Likewiseworthy R yofnote,isth hepowerofth heOfficeofth heOmbudsmantopreventiv velysuspend anofficial subjecttoitsa s administrative einvestigation nisprovidedb byspecificpro ovisionoflaw. . PeriodofPrev P ventiveSuspe ension As dence of guilt is strong as to warrant p preventive A a general rule, the determination of whether or not the evid suspension re s ests with the Ombudsman. The discreti as regard the period of such suspension also n ion ds necessarily belongstotheOmbudsman, b ,exceptthath hecannotexte endtheperiod dofsuspension nbeyondthat tprovidedbyl law. However, peri may be sh H iod horten, if dur ring the time of the suspen nsion the evid dences and th affidavits o material he of witnessessoug w ghttobeprot tectedarenow winthecusto odyoftheOmb budsman.The eCourtseesn nootherreasonwhythe wholesixmon w nthperiodsho ouldbemaxim mized.
196 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Inthiscase,th heevidencesn neededwereg gatheredbare elyamonthaf fterthepetitio onerwassusp pended.TheH HighCourt foundthewho f olesixmonthp periodtobee excessive. Administrativ A veLiabilityforPastActions Asruledinth hetheSalalim macase:Ther ruleadopted inPascual,qu ualifiedinAgu uinaldoinsofa arascriminal lcasesare A concerned,iss c stillagoodlaw w.Sucharule eisnotonlyf foundedonth hetheorythat anofficial'sr reelectionexpressesthe sovereign will of the electo s l orate to forgiv or condone any act or o ve e omission cons stituting a gro ound for admi inistrative disciplinewhichwascomm d mittedduringh hispreviouste erm.Wemay addthatsoun ndpolicydicta atesit.Torule otherwise would open th floodgates to exacerbati endless pa w he ing artisan contes between th reelected o sts he official and hi political is enemies,whom e maynotstoph houndtheform merduringhisnewtermwit thadministrat tivecasesfora actsallegedtohavebeen committeddur c ringhisprevio ousterm.Hissecondtermm maythusbede evotedtodefe endinghimself finthesaidca asestothe detrimentofp d publicservice.... oOo RAMIRR R.PABLICO,p petitioner,vs.ALEJANDROA.VILLAPAN NDO,respond dent. 870July31,2002 G.R.No.1478 TheOfficeofth T hePresidentis swithoutany powertorem moveelectedof fficials,sinces suchpoweris exclusivelyves stedinthe propercourts. p Where the dis W sciplining auth hority is given only the pow to suspen and not the power to re n wer nd emove, it shou not be uld permittedtom p manipulatethelawbyusurpi ingthepowertoremove. Anadministra A ativecomplain ntwasfiledag gainstrespond dentMayorV Villapandobefo oretheProvin ncialBoardof fPalawan. Respondentis R schargedwith habuseofaut thorityandcu ulpableviolationoftheCon nstitution.Itap ppearedthat Villlapado hiredtheser rvicesofalos singcandidate easaconsultant,which,a ascomplainan ntargues,isco ontrarytothe eoneyear electionbanon e ntheappointm mentoflosing gcandidatesto othegovernm ment. Respondentin R nvokedOpinio onNo.106,s.1 1992,oftheD DepartmentofJustice,statin f ngthattheapp pointmentofa adefeated candidatewith c hinoneyearfr romtheelecti ionasaconsultantdoesnot tconstitutean nappointment ttoagovernm mentoffice orpositionasprohibitedby o ytheConstitut tion. TheBoardfoundhimguiltyanddismissedhimfromse T ervice.TheOff ficeofthePres sidentupheld dthedecision. Pendingrespo P ondentsMotio onforRecons siderationbef foretheOffice eofthePresid dent,petitionerPablico,th henaVice Mayor,tookhi M isoathofoffic ceasMayorinlieuofVillapa ando. Respondent so R ought injunct tive relief from theregiona trial court (RTC) The lo m al ower ordered a 72hour t d temporary restrainingorder(TRO)fo r orpetitionert toceaseandd desistfromdi ischargingthe efunctionoft theOfficeoft theMayor. Thelatterresu T umedhispostafterthelaps seoftheTRO. Respondentap R ppealedbefor retheCourtof fAppeals(CA) ),seekingtoa annulthedecisionsoftheProvincialBoar rdandthe OfficeofthePr O residentalong gwiththeorderoftheRTC. . Thefollowingyear,CAgrantedresponden T ntsappeal.He encethispetit tion. ISSUE:
197|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Wasresponde W entsdismissal lvalid? HELD: H PetitionisDEN P NIED. mthelastpar ragraphSec.6 60oftheLoca alGovernment tCodeof199 91thatthepe enaltyofdism missalfrom Itisclearfrom serviceupona s anerringelect tivelocalofficialmaybedec creedonlybyacourtoflaw w.Thus,inSala alima,etal.v.Guingona, etal.,theSChe e eldthat"theO OfficeofthePr residentiswit thoutanypow wertoremove eelectedoffici ials,sincesuch hpoweris exclusivelyves e stedinthepro opercourts. Thelawonsus T spensionorre emovalofelec ctivepublicof fficialsmustb bestrictlycons struedandapplied,andthe eauthority inwhomsuch powerofsus spensionorre emovalisvest tedmustexerc ciseitwithut tmostgoodfai ith,forwhatisinvolved ordinarypubli icofficialbutonechosenby ythepeoplet throughtheex xerciseofthei irconstitution nalrightof isnotjustano suffrage.Their s rwillmustno otbeputtona aughtbythec capriceorpar rtisanshipoft thedisciplinin ngauthority.W Wherethe discipliningau d uthorityisgiv venonlythepo owertosuspe endandnotth hepowertoremove,itshouldnotbeper rmittedto manipulatethe m elawbyusurp pingthepowe ertoremove. oOo EDG GARY.TEVES andTERESIT TAZ.TEVES,p petitioners,v vs.THESAND DIGANBAYAN, ,respondent t. G.R R.No.154182Decemb ber17,2004 Thereare,ther T refore,twomo odesbywhich hapublicoffic cerwhohasa directorindir rectfinancial orpecuniary interestin anybusiness,c a contract,ortr ransactionmay yviolateSecti ion3(h)ofthe eAntiGraftLaw.Thefirstm modeisifinc connection with his pecun w niary interest in any busine contract o transaction the public o ess, or n, officer interven or takes p nes part in his officialcapacity o ty.Thesecondmodeiswhenheisprohibit tedfromhaving gsuchinterestbytheConsti itutionoranylaw. PetitionerSpo P ousesEdgar and TeresitaT Teves areown ners ofthe Va alencia Cockpi itand Recreat tion Centersi ince 1983. PetitionerEdg P garwasaform merMayorofV Valencia.Hetr ransferredma anagementofthebusinesstohiswifesometimein 1991. 1 Criminal infor C rmation for vi iolation of Sec ction 3(h)ofR Republic Act No. 3019, oth herwise know as the Anti wn Graftand CorruptPracti C icesActweref filedbeforeth heSandiganba ayan(SB)againstSpousesT Teves. Apparently, th SB found them guilty an petitioners appealed be A he t nd s efore the Supreme Court. A first, the H At High Court deniedthepet d tition.Thiscas seisnowreins stateduponth hespousesM MotionforReco onsideration. ISSUES: 1. Wasthereavalidco onvictionont thepartofpet titionerEdgarTeves? onvictionont thepartofpet titionerTeresi itaTeves? 2. Wasthereavalidco HELD: H Decisionofthe D eSandiganbay yan,FirstDivis sionishereby yMODIFIEDin nthat(1)EDG GARY.TEVESi isconvictedofviolation ofSection3(h o h)ofRepublic ActNo.3019 9,ortheAntiGraftandCor rruptPractices sAct,forposs sessionofpec cuniaryor financialintere f estinacockpi it,;and(2)TE ERESITAZ.TEV VESishereby yACQUITTEDofsuchoffens se. ConvictionofE C EdgarTeves
198 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The T Sandiganb bayan found that the charg against Ma t ge ayor Teves fo causing the issuance of the business permit or or e li icensetooper ratetheValen nciaCockpita andRecreation nCenteris"n notwellfound ded."Thisitbased,andrigh htlyso,on theadditional findingthato t onlytheSangg guniangBayan ncouldhave issuedaperm mittooperate theValencia Cockpitin the t year 1992 Indeed, und Section 4 2. der 447(3) of the LGC of 1991 which took effect on 1 January 1992 it is the e 1, k 2, Sangguniang B S Bayan that ha the authority to issue a license for the establishm as a ment, operatio and maint on, tenance of cockpits.Unlik c keintheoldL LGC,BatasPa ambansaBlg.3 337,wherein themunicipa almayorwas thepresiding gofficerof the t Sanggunia Bayan, un ang nder the LGC of 1991, the mayor is no so anymore and is not even a memb of the e ot e ber Sangguniang B S Bayan. Hence Mayor Teve could not have intervened or taken part in his official capac e, es n city in the issuanceofac cockpitlicense eduringthem materialtime, asallegedin theinformati ion,becauseh hewasnotam memberof theSangguniangBayan. t tiononpetitio onerEdgarTevesofthepen naltyprovided dintheLGCo of1991,theSC Ctookjudicia alnoticeof Intheimposit thefactthatu t undertheold LGC,merepo ossessionofp pecuniaryinte erestinacock kpitwasnota amongthepr rohibitions enumeratedin e nSection41 th hereof.Suchp possessionbec cameunlawfu ulorprohibite edonlyupont theadventoft theLGCof 1991,whichto 1 ookeffecton1January199 92.Petitioner EdgarTevess standscharge edwithanoffe enseinconnectionwith his h prohibited interest com d mmitted on or about 4 F February 199 shortly af 92, fter the maid den appearan of the nce prohibition.Pr p resumably,he ewasnotyet verymuchaw wareofthep prohibition.Al lthoughignora ancethereofw wouldnot excusehimfro e omcriminalli iability,suchw wouldjustify theimpositionofthelighte erpenaltyofa afineofP10,0 000under Section514of S ftheLGCof19 991. ConvictionofTeresitaTeve C es oevidenceto provethatTe eresitaisacoconspiratori intheissuanc ceabusinessp permitfor Itisnotvalid. Therewasno theircockpita t arena.Certain nly,thereisno oconspiracy injustbeing marriedtoan nerringspous se.Foraspou useorany persontobea p apartytoaco onspiracyast tobeliablefo ortheactsoft theothers,it isessentialth hattherebein ntentional participation in the transa p action with a view to the furtherance of the comm mon design. E Except when he is the mastermindin m naconspiracy y,itisnecessarythatacon nspiratorshou uldhaveperf formedsome overtactasa adirector indirect contribution in the execution of the crime p e planned to be committed. T overt act must consist of active The t t participationintheactualco p ommissionofthecrimeitse f elforofmoral lassistancetohiscoconspi irators. Theactsofpet T titionerTeres sitaTevescan nhardlypassa asactsinfurth heranceofac conspiracyto committheviolationof theAntiGraft Lawthatwou t uldrenderher requallyliabl leasherhusb band.Ifevershedidthosea acts,itwasbe ecauseshe herself was an owner of th cockpit. Not being a pub official, sh was not pr h n he blic he rohibited from holding an i m interest in cockpit.Prude c ence,however r,dictatesthat tshetooshouldhavedivest tedherselfofh herownership poverthecoc ckpitupon theeffectivityoftheLGCof1991;otherw t wise,asstatedearlier,consid deringherpro opertyrelation nwithherhus sband,her ownershipwo o ouldresultinv vestingdirectprohibitedint terestuponhe erhusband. oOo PACIFICO OC.VELASCO, ,petitioner,v vs.THESANDIGANBAYAN (FourthDivis sion),andTH HEPEOPLEOF FTHE dents. PHILIPPINES,respond G.R R.No.160991Februa ary28,2005 There are two (2) ways by which a publi official viola T ic ates Section 3 3(e) of Rep. Ac No. 3019 in the performa ct n ance of his functions,nam f mely:(a)bycau usingunduein njurytoanypa arty,including gtheGovernment;or(b)byg givinganypri ivateparty anyunwarrant a tedbenefits,ad dvantageorpreference. Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 199|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The T Civil Serv vice Commiss sion (CSC) is ssued a Resol lution dismiss sing Engr. Ag gonoy as Mun nicipal Engine of the eer Municipalityo M ofBacarra,Iloc cosNorte.HedidnotfileaM MotionforRec consideratioN N(MR). Despiteknowl D ledgeoftheCSCResolution n,PetitionerM MayorVelasco oallowedAgon noytoresume ehispost.Vel lascoeven sentmemosto s otheMunicip palTreasurer orderingher toresumepa aymentofAgo onoyssalaries sandbenefits spending finaljudgment f tofthedismi issalcase. The T following year, the Supreme Court (SC) denied Agonoys app peal. The latte choose to resign even b er before the decisionbecam d mefinalandex xecutor. However,petit H tionersculpa abilitydidnotgounnoticedbecausetheV Vicemayorof fBacarrafiledaComplaintb beforethe Ombudsman( O (OMB)forviol lationofSectio on3(e)ofRep p.ActNo.3019.TheOMBfo oundthecomp plaintsufficientinform andfiledanIn a nformationbef foretheSandi iganbayan(SB B). Petitioner mo P oved to quash the informa h ation on the grounds that: (a) while he was aware of the CSC r e resolution dismissingAgo d onoyfromthe eservice,hew wasnotbound dbyitbecausehewasnot apartytoCSC CCaseNo.992137;(b) hedidnotrece h eiveanydirec ctivefromtheCSCorderinghimtoimplem mentitsresolu ution;(c)even niftheCSCdid dissuethe saiddirective, hecouldnotpreventAgon s noyfromrepo ortingforwork k;(d)heperm mittedAgonoy toreportforwork,and receivesalarie r esandotherb benefitsfromt themunicipalitybecauseth heresolutiono oftheCSCdat tedSeptember r21,1999 wasnotimmediatelyexecut w tory.Itcannot t,therefore,be eclaimedthat thegaveunw warrantedbenefitstoAgono oythrough manifestpartiality,evidentbadfaith,org m grossinexcusa ablenegligenc ce. SBdeniedhisM S MotiontoQua ashandMotionforReconsid deration,henc cethispetition n. ISSUE: DidpetitionerviolateSectio D on3(e)ofRep. .ActNo.3019 9? HELD: H PetitionisDIS P SMISSED. Therearetwo o(2)waysbywhichapubli icofficialviola atesSection3 3(e)ofRep.Ac ctNo.3019in ntheperforma anceofhis T functions,nam f mely:(a)byca ausingundue injurytoany yparty,includ dingtheGover rnment;or(b b)bygivingan nyprivate partyanyunw p warrantedben nefits,advanta ageorprefere ence.Theaccu usedmaybe chargedunde ereithermode eorunder both. b hepetitionerw waschargedo ofviolatingSe ection3(e)ofR Rep.ActNo.3 3019undertw woalternative emodesof Inthiscase,th committingthecrime. c Thepetitioner T rdefiedtheCSCResolution ndatedSeptem mber21,1999inCSCCase eNo.992137 7;heallowedA Agonoyto reportforwor r rkandordered dtheMunicipalTreasurert topaytoAgon noyhissalary, ,RATAandot therbenefits,f first,inhis Memorandum M mofOctober2,1999,issuedshortlyaftert theCSCResolution;andsec cond,intheM Memorandumo ofOctober 17,2000,issue 1 edshortlyafte ertheCAdeni iedthepetitio onforreviewo ofAgonoyonA August18,20 000.Thepetiti ionereven warnedtheMu w unicipalTreas surerthatshehadnorightt towithholdth hesaidsalaryandotherben nefitsfromAg gonoy. Thepetitioner T rshouldhave atleastattem mptedtoverif fywhetherAg gonoywasabl letosecurea stayorderfro omtheCA beforeissuing b gsuchmemora anda.Indeed, thepetitioner rsfailuretod dosoconstitutesgrossnegl ligenceonhispart.Asa consequenceo c oftheMemora andaissuedby ythepetitioner,themunici ipaltreasurer rremittedAgo onoyssalary,RATAand otherbenefitsinthetotala o amountofP37 75,168.00,thu usgivingunw warrantedbenefitstothela atterandcausingundue injurytothego overnment.
200 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts oOo JOSEC.MIRA ANDA,Petitio oners,vs.HON N.SANDIGANB BAYAN,OFFICEOFTHEOMBUDSMAN, ,SEC.JOSED. LINA,in hiscapacit tyasSecretar ryoftheDILG *andFAUST G, TINODY,JR.inhiscapacit tyasGoverno oroftheProv vinceof Isabela a,Responden nts. G.R.NO.15 54098July27,2005 Itisobvioustotheeyesthatthephrase"fr I raudupongov vernment"mea ans"anyinstan nceoractoftr rickeryordece eitagainst thegovernmen t nt."Itcannotb bereadrestric ctivelysoasto obeequivalen nttomalversa ationoffunds asthisiscove eredbythe precedingphra p ase"anyoffen nseinvolving. ..publicfund dsorproperty y."Itoughttof followthat"fr fraudupongov vernment" was w committed when the petitioner alleg d gedly assumed the duties a performed acts pertain d and d ning to the Off ffice of the Mayorunderp M pretenseofoffi icialposition. TheOmbudsm T man(OMB)pla acedpetitione erMayorMira anda,thenthe emayorofSan ntiagoCity,Isa abela,underp preventive suspension for six months from 25 July 1997 to 25 January 1998 for alleged v s y 8 violations of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwisekno o ownastheCod deofConductandEthicalSt tandardsforP PublicOfficials sandEmploye ees. Oneyearbefor O retheexpirati ionofpetition nerssuspension,thenViceMayorNavarr rofiledaCom mplaintwithth heOfficeof theOmbudsmanallegingth t hatdespitehis ssuspension,h heisstillexer rcisingthedut tiesandfunct tionsoftheOf fficeofthe MayorofSanti M iagoCity. TheOMBfiled T dandInformat tionforusurp pationofautho orityorofficia alfunctionsun nderArticle177oftheRevisedPenal Code ( RPC) before the Sa C andiganbayan (SB) agains petitioner. On 2001, Ma st ayor Miranda was once aga placed ain underprevent u tivesuspensio on.Hencethis spetition. ISSUES: 1. Ispeti itionersargum mentthatSection13ofR.A A.No.3019app pliesonlytofr raudulentacts sinvolvingpu ublicfunds orpro opertytenable e? 2. Ispeti itionersconte entionforviol latingtheorde erofsuspensi iontenable? HELD: H PetitionisDIS P SMISSED. TheSandiganbayanproper rlyconstruedS Section13ofR.A.No.3019 9ascoveringt twotypesofo offenses:(1)an nyoffense T involving frau on the go ud overnment; an (2) any o nd offense involv ving public f funds or prop perty. Contra to the ary submission of the petitione nothing in R.A. No. 3019 evinces any legislative in s f er, 9 y ntent to limit Section 13 on to acts nly involvingfraud donpublicfundsorproper rty.Thephrase"anyoffense einvolvingfra audupongove ernmentorpu ublicfunds orproperty"is o sclearandcat tegorical.Toli imittheuseof"governmen nt"asanadjectivethatquali ifies"funds"is sbaseless. Theword"pub T blic"precedes s"funds"and distinguishes sthesamefro omprivatefun nds.Toqualify yfurther"pub blicfunds" as"governmen a nt"funds,asp petitionerclaim msisthelaws sintent,isplainlysuperfluo ous. Violationofth V heSuspension nOrder W Wearenota bitpersuaded dbythepostu ureofthepetitionerthathereassumed officeundera anhonestbeli iefthathe wasnolongerunderpreven w ntivesuspensi ion.Petitioner rspretenseca annotstandsc crutiny.
201|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Bypetitioners B sownadmission,herefuse edtoleavehis spositiondespitethememorandumofU Undersecretar rySanchez andleftonlya a afewdaysafte erreceiptther reofduetothe ecoercionoft thePhilippine eNationalPolice.Thiscontr radictshis assertionthat heimmediate a elycompliedw withthemem morandumofU Undersecretar rySanchez.Petitionercann notescape fromhisowna f admission There is no e T excuse for de efendantappe ellant. In the beginning h might have pleaded go he e ood faith, inv voking the designationby d ytheMayor;b butafterheh hadbeenshow wntheletter oftheExecut tiveSecretary yandtheopin nionofthe provincialfisca p al,hehadnor rightthereafte erstubbornlytosticktothe eposition.Hewasrightfully yconvicted. Petitioners ex P xcuse for viol lating the ord of preven der ntive suspensi is too flim to merit even a sideg ion msy glance. He allegedthathe a emerelyfollow wedtheadvic ceofhislawye er.Ifpetitioner randhiscoun nselhadaniot taofrespectfo ortherule oflaw,theysh o houldhaveassailedtheval lidityoftheor rderofsuspensionincourtinsteadofta akingthelaw intotheir ownhands. o It should be stressed that petitioner was suspended b the Sandig p s by ganbayan. Und Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019, this der 3 suspensionism s mandatoryift theinformatio onissufficient. oOo HON.TOMAS SN.JOSONIII I,inhiscapac cityasGovernorofthePr rovinceofNuevaEcija,and dTheSANGG GUNIANG PANLALAWIG P GANOFNUEV VAECIJA,Peti itioners,vs.CO OURTOFAPP PEALSandEL LIZABETHR. VARGAS,Res spondent. G.R R.No.160652Februa ary13,2006 Theplaintruth T histhattheS SupremeCourt thasbeenilla ateasewithsu uspensionsxx xxbecauseiti isoutoftheo ordinaryto haveavacancy h yinlocalgove ernment.Thes soleobjectiveo ofasuspension n,aswehaveh held,issimply y"topreventth heaccused fromhamperin f ngthenormalcause(sic)oftheinvestigat tionwithhisin nfluenceandauthorityoverp possiblewitne esses"orto keephimoff"t k therecordsand dothereviden nce."Itisamea ans,andnomo ore,toassistp prosecutorsinf firmingupac case,ifany, againstanerri a inglocaloffici ial.UndertheL LocalGovernm mentCode,itc cannotexceedsixtydays,wh hichistosayth hatitneed notbeexactlys n sixtydayslong gifashorterp periodisother rwisesufficient t,andwhichis salsotosayth hatitoughttobeliftedif prosecutorsha p aveachievedth heirpurposein nashorterspa an. Eightmember E rsofMunicipa alCouncilofAl liaga,NuevaE Ecijafiledwith htheSanggun niangPanlalaw wigananadmi inistrative complaintagainsttheprivaterespondent c tMayorVarg gas,fordishon nesty,miscond ductinoffice, andabuseof authority. They alleged that petitioner submitte to the Provincial Bud T ed dget Officer two falsified documents namely, d s, Appropriation A nOrdinanceNo o.1,seriesof2002("Appro opriationOrdinanceNo.1")andResolutio onNo.2,serie esof2002, approvingtheenactmentof a fAppropriatio onOrdinanceN No.1. Consequently, Vargas filed before the R C Regional Trial Court (RTC) complaint fo annulment of falsified m or t minutes of sessionandap s ppropriationo ordinancewit thdamagesag gainstthecou uncilmember rs.Thiswasfo ollowedbyfili ingbefore theprovincial boardamotiontosuspend t dproceedings sand/ormotiontodismissduetothepe endencyofap prejudicial questioninth q hecivilcase,specificallyqu uestioningthe genuineness ofthedocum mentssheallegedlyfalsified d.Without resolvingthem r motion,thebo oardrecomme endedVargaspreventivesu uspensiontot thepetitionerGov.JosonIII I.Lateron, theboarddeni t iedthemotion ntosuspendp proceedingsand/ormotion ntodismiss. Aggrieved,Ma A ayorVargasap ppealedtothe eOfficeofthePresident.Me eanwhile,petitionerissuedtheorderofp preventive suspensionagainstprivater s respondent. Office of the President gra P anted Mayor V Vargas appea and lifted t order of preventive su al the uspension. Initially, the O However,thiswasoverturn H neduponthetimelyinterven ntionofpetitioner.
Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado ,Paguio,Pla onga aton,Robles,Var rgas
202|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Vargassought V tinjunctivere elieffromthe CourtofAppe eals(CA)wh hichgrantedh hermotionfor rtemporaryrestraining order(TRO)a o againsttheord deroftheGov vernorandthe eresolutionof fthePresident t. Hencethispet H tition. ISSUE: Wasthepreve W entivesuspens sionofpetition nerproperlyg given? HELD: H PetitionisDIS P SMISSED. Under Section 63 of the Lo U n ocal Governm ment Code, preventive susp pension may be imposed ( after the i (a) issues are joined;(b)wh hentheeviden nceofguiltiss strong;and(c c)giventhegr ravityoftheoffense,therei isgreatproba abilitythat thecontinuanc t ceinofficeoftheresponden ntcouldinflue encethewitne essesorposeathreattothesafetyandin ntegrityof therecordsan t ndotherevide ence.Issuesar reconsideredjoinedwhent thecomplaint thasbeenansweredandthereareno longeranysub bstantialprelim minaryissues sthatremaint tobethreshed dout. In its Order d dated 22 April 2003, the O Office of the President sta ated that the facts of the case do not w warrant a conclusiontha c atissuesared deemedjoined d.Furthermor re,theOfficeo ofthePreside entfoundnob basisfortheis ssuanceof thepreventive t esuspension. at nswer to the complaint th the issues could not h hus s have been It appears tha petitioner did not file, so far, an an consideredjoi c ined.Whatshedidwastof fileaMotionT ToSuspendProceedingsAn nd/OrMotion nToDismissw whichwas treatedbythesangguniana t asheranswer. .However,nothinginthere ecordscanbeinferredthatthepetitioner rintended thesaid motio t ontobeheran nswer.Infact t,whenthemo otionwasden niedonMarch h17,2003thr roughSPReso olutionNo. 105s2003,sh 1 heimmediatel lyappealedth hesaidResolu utiontothisOf ffice. It also appea ared that the grounds cited by the Sa angguniang P Panlalawigan for recommending the p preventive suspension of Mayor Varga were just general state s f as ements unsup pported by an evidence. T ny This is contra to the ary requisitesfor apreventives r suspensionw whichrequiret thatevidence ofguiltmust tbestrongandthatgivent thegravity oftheoffense,thereisgreat o tprobabilityt thatthecontin nuanceinoffic ceoftherespo ondentcouldinfluencethewitnesses orposeathrea o attothesafety yandintegrity yoftherecord dsandothere evidence. oOo XXX X
Recall R
XXX X
ELEC CTIONLAW WS
GeneralPrin G nciples
LACSINA,C. L
ATTY Y.ROMULOB B.MACALINT TALvs.COM MMISSIONONELECTION NS G.R.No.157 7013,July10,2003

203|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
The T Court uph holds the cons stitutionality of Section 5(d and Sectio 18.5 of R.A No. 9189 w d), on A. with respect only to the authoritygiven a ntotheCOME ELECtoprocla aimthewinnin ngcandidates sfortheSenat torsandparty ylistrepresent tativesbut notastothep n powertocanva assthevotesa andproclaimt thewinningca andidatesfor Presidentand dVicePresiden ntwhichis lo odged with Congress und der Section 4 Article VII of the Cons 4, I stitution. On the other h hand, it agre to the ees unconstitutionalityofSectio u ons17.1,19an nd25ofR.A.N No.9189insof farastheyrelatetothecreationofandt thepowers giventotheJoi g intCongressionalOversightCommittee. Petitioner Att Romulo B. Macalintal ( P ty. (Macalintal) a assails that ce ertain provisions of Repub Act No. 9 blic 9189 (The OverseasAbsen O nteeVotingAc ctof2003)suf fferfromconst titutionalinfir rmity. Macalintal alle M eges that (1) Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 91 allowing the registration of voters w are imm 189 who migrants or permanentres p sidentsinothe ercountriesb bytheirmereactofexecutin nganaffidavitexpressingt theirintention ntoreturn tothePhilippi t ines,violateth heresidency requirement inSection1o ofArticleVof ftheConstitut tion;(2)Sec.1 18.5ofthe same law em s mpowering th COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for national offices and party list he g representative including the President and the Vice r es President vio olate the cons stitutional ma andate under Section 4, ArticleVIIoftheConstitutio A onthatthewinningcandida atesforPresid dentandtheV VicePresident tshallbeproc claimedas winnersbyCo w ongress;and( (3)Sections19and25crea atingaJointC Congressional OversightCom mmitteeempo oweredto review,revise,amendanda r approvetheimplementing rulesandreg gulationsthat tCOMELECsh hallpromulgat teviolates theindepende t enceofCOMEL LECunderSec c.1,ArticleIXAoftheConst titution.ofR.A A.No.9189vi iolateArticleI IXAofthe Constitution C ISSUE WhetherR.A.N W No.9189isun nconstitutiona al HELD H PETITIONPARTLYGRANT P TED. Sec.5(d)ofR.A S ANo.9189isinaccordanc cewiththeCo onstitution Section1,Arti S icleVoftheC Constitutionspecificallypro ovidesthatsu uffragemay b beexercisedb by(1)allcitizensofthe Philippines, (2 not otherw P 2) wise disqualifi by law, (3 at least eig ied 3) ghteen years o age, (4) wh are reside of ho ents in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wh P e here they propose to vote for at least six months im mmediately precedingthe election.Und p derSection5(d d)ofR.A.No. 9189,oneof thosedisqual lifiedfromvotingisanimm migrantor permanentres p sidentwhois recognizedassuchinthe hostcountry unlesshe/she eexecutesan affidavitdecl laringthat he/sheshallre h esumeactual physicalperm manentreside enceinthePh hilippinesnot laterthanthr reeyearsfrom mapproval ofhis/herregi o istrationunde ersaidAct. Asimple,cursoryreadingofSection5(d) A )ofR.A.No.91 189mayindeedgivetheim mpressionthatitcontraven nesSection 1,ArticleVoft 1 theConstitution.Filipinoim mmigrantsand dpermanentr residentsover rseasareperc ceivedashavin ngleftand abandoned th Philippines to live per a he s rmanently in their host countries and therefore, a provision in the law a n enfranchisingthosewhodo e onotpossesst theresidencyrequirementoftheConstitu utionbythem mereactofexe ecutingan affidavit expr a ressing their intent to re eturn to the Philippines within a giv ven period, r risks a decla aration of unconstitution u nality.Howeve er,theriskism moreapparen ntthanreal. Ordinarily,an absenteeisn O notaresident andvicevers sa;apersonca annotbeatth hesametime,bothareside entandan absentee.30Ho a owever,under rourelection lawsandthe countlesspro onouncements softheCourt pertainingto oelections, anabsenteere a emainsattache edtohisresid denceinthePh hilippinesasr residenceisco onsideredsyno onymouswith hdomicile.
204 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Contrarytope C etitionersclai imthatSectio on5(d)circum mventstheCon nstitution,Con ngressenacte edthelawpre escribinga systemofover s rseasabsente eevotinginco ompliancewit ththeconstitu utionalmanda ate.Suchmandateexpressly yrequires that Congress provide a sy t ystem ofabse entee votingth necessaril presuppose that the "q hat ly es qualified citiz of the zen Philippinesabroad"isnotp P physicallypres sentinthecou untry.Thepro ovisionsofSec ctions5(d)and11arecomp ponentsof thesystemof overseasabse t enteevotinge establishedby yR.A.No.9189.ThequalifiedFilipinoab broadwhoexe ecutedthe affidavitisdee a emedtohaver retainedhisd domicileinthe ePhilippines.H Heispresume ednottohave elosthisdomi icilebyhis physicalabsen p ncefromthis country.Hish havingbecomeanimmigran ntorpermane entresidento ofhishostcou untrydoes notnecessarily n yimplyanab bandonmento ofhisintention ntoreturnto ohisdomicile oforigin,the Philippines.T Therefore, under the law he must be given the opp u w, portunity to e express that h has not act he tually abandoned his domicile in the Philippinesby P yexecutingthe eaffidavitrequiredbySecti ions5(d)and8(c)ofthelaw w. Theexecutionoftheaffidav T vititselfisnottheenablingo orenfranchisi ingact.Theaf ffidavitrequire edinSection5 5(d)isnot only proof of the intention of the imm o f migrant or pe ermanent res sident to go back and res sume residen in the ncy Philippines,bu P utmoresignif ficantly,itserv vesasanexpli icitexpression nthathehadnotinfactaba andonedhisd domicileof origin.Thus,it o tisnotcorrec cttosaythatt theexecutionoftheaffidavi itunderSectio on5(d)violat testheConstit tutionthat proscribes"pr p rovisionalregi istrationorap promisebyavotertoperfo ormaconditio ontobequalif fiedtovoteinapolitical exercise." e Such affidavit is required of immigrant and perma S t ts anent residen abroad be nts ecause by the status in t eir their host countries,they c yarepresume edtohaverelinquishedthei irintenttoret turntothisco ountry;thus,w withouttheaff fidavit,the presumptiono p ofabandonme entofPhilippin nedomicilesh hallremain. Itmustalsobe eemphasizedthatSection5 5(d)doesnoto onlyrequirea anaffidavitorapromiseto" "resumeactua alphysical permanentres p sidenceinthe ePhilippinesn notlaterthanthreeyearsfr romapprovalofhis/herreg gistration,"the eFilipinos abroadmusta a alsodeclareth hattheyhave notappliedfo orcitizenship inanotherco ountry.Thus,t theymustret turntothe Philippines; ot P therwise, their failure to r return "shall be cause for the removal" of their nam "from the National " mes e RegistryofAbsenteeVoters R sandhis/herp permanentdis squalificationtovoteinabs sentia." Astotheevent A tualitythatth heFilipinoabr roadwouldren negeonhisun ndertakingtoreturntothePhilippines,th hepenalty ofperpetualdisenfranchisementprovide o edforbySection5(d)would dsufficetose erveasdeterre encetononco ompliance withhis/heru w undertakingun ndertheaffida avit. Infine,consideringtheund derlyingintent toftheConsti itution,theCo ourtdoesnot findSection5 5(d)ofR.A.No o.9189as constitutionall c lydefective. Section18.5o S ofR.A.No.9189isupheld butonlywith hrespecttot theauthority ygiventothe COMELECto proclaim thewinningc t candidatesfor rtheSenators sandpartyli istrepresenta ativesbutnotPresidentan ndVicePresi ident Indeed, the ph hrase,proclam mation of winn ning candidat in Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 is f too sweeping that it tes, far necessarilyinc n cludesthepro oclamationoft thewinningcandidatesforthepresidenc cyandthevice epresidency. Section18.5ofR.A.No.918 S 89appearsto berepugnant ttoSection4, ArticleVIIof theConstitut f tiononlyinsof farassaid Sectiontotally S ydisregardedtheauthoritygiventoCong gressbytheCo onstitutiontoproclaimthewinningcand didatesfor thepositionso t ofpresidentan ndvicepresid dent. Inaddition,theCourtnotesthatSection1 18.4ofthelaw w,towit: 18.4. . . . Imm 1 mediately upon the complet n tion of the ca anvass, the ch hairman of th Special Boa of Canvas he ard ssers shall transmitviafa t acsimile,elect tronicmail,or ranyotherme eansoftransm missionequall lysafeandrel liabletheCert tificatesof Canvassandth C heStatements sofVotestoth heCommissio on,... clasheswithp c paragraph4,S Section4,Arti icleVIIofthe Constitution whichprovid desthatthere eturnsofever ryelection forPresidenta f andVicePresi identshallbecertifiedbyth heboardofca anvasserstoCongress.
205|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Congresscould C dnothaveallowedtheCOM MELECtousu urpapowerth hatconstitutio onallybelongs stoitor,asap ptlystated by b petitioner, to encroach "onthe power of Congress tocanvassth votesfor p " s he presidentand vicepresiden ntandthe powertoproc p claimthewinn nersforthesaidpositions. ."TheprovisionsoftheConstitutionast thefundamen ntallawof thelandshouldbereadasp t partofTheOverseasAbsente eeVotingActof2003andhence,thecanv vassingofthevotesand theproclamationofthewin t nningcandidatesforpresid dentandvicep presidentfor theentirenat tionmustrem maininthe handsofCongress. h Sections 1.17, 19 and 25 of R.A. No. 91 S , o 189 are in vi iolation of th Constitutio mandating the indepen he on g ndence of COMELEC C ComposedofS C Senatorsand Membersoft theHouseof Representativ ves,theJoint Congressiona alOversightCommittee, (JCOC)isapurelylegislativ ( vebody.There eisnoquestionthattheau uthorityofCo ongressto"mo onitorandev valuatethe implementatio on"ofR.A.No.9189isgear redtowardsp possibleamendmentsorrev visionofthel lawitselfand thus,may beperformedinaidofitslegislation. b However,asid H defromitsmo onitoringande evaluationfun nctions,R.A.N No.9189gives stotheJCOCt thefollowing functions: (a) ( to "review revise, ame w, end and appr rove the Imp plementing Ru ules and Regu ulations" (IRR promulgated by the R) COMELEC[Sec C ctions25and d19];and(b) subjecttothe eapprovalof theJCOC[Sec ction17.1],th hevotingbym mailinnot morethanthre m eecountriesfo fortheMay20 004electionsa andinanycou untrydetermin nedbyCOMEL LEC. Theambitofle T egislativepow werunderArti icleVIoftheC Constitutionis scircumscribe edbyotherco onstitutionalp provisions. One O such prov vision is Secti 1 of Artic IXA of the 1987 Consti ion cle e itution ordain ning that cons stitutional com mmissions suchastheCO s OMELECshallb be"independe ent." By B virtue of Section 19 of R.A. No. 9189 Congress ha empowered the COMELE to "issue t necessary rules and R 9, as d EC the regulationsto effectivelyim r mplementthe provisionsof fthisActwith hinsixtydays fromtheeffectivityofthis Act."This provision of la follows the usual proce p aw edure in draft ting rules and regulations t implement a law the l d to legislature grantsanadm g ministrativeag gencytheauth horitytocraft therulesand dregulationsi implementing gthelawitha asenacted, 47 inrecognitionoftheadmini istrativeexpertiseofthatag gencyinitspa articularfieldofoperation.4 Oncealawisenacted andapproved, a ,thelegislativ vefunctionisd deemedaccom mplishedandc complete.The elegislativefu unctionmaysp pringback to t Congress re elative to the same law on if that bod deems it p e nly dy proper to rev view, amend a revise the law, but and e certainlynottoapprove,rev c view,revisean ndamendthe eIRRoftheCO OMELEC. Byvestingitse B elfwiththepo owerstoappr rove,review,a amend,andre evisetheIRR forTheOvers seasAbsentee VotingAct of o 2003, Congr ress went bey yondthe scop of itsconst pe titutionalauth hority. Congre trampledu ess upon thecons stitutional mandateofindependenceo m oftheCOMELEC.Undersuc chasituation n,theCourtis leftwithnoo optionbutto withdraw fromitsusualreticenceind f declaringapro ovisionoflawunconstitutio onal. Thesecondsentenceofthefirstparagrap T phofSection1 19statingtha at"[t]heImple ementingRule esandRegulat tionsshall besubmittedt b totheJointCo ongressionalO OversightCom mmitteecreate edbyvirtueof fthisActforp priorapproval,"andthe secondsenten s nceoftheseco ondparagraph hofSection25statingthat t"[i]tshallrev view,revise,a amendandap pprovethe Implementing Rules and Regulations p R promulgated b the Comm by mission," whe ereby Congres in both p ss, provisions, arrogatesunto a oitselfafunct tionnotspecif ficallyvestedb bytheConstit tution,shouldbestrickenoutofthesubje ectstatute forconstitutionalinfirmity.Bothprovisio f onsbrazenlyv violatetheman ndateontheindependenceoftheCOMEL LEC. Similarly, the phrase, "subj S ject to the ap pproval of the Congression Oversight Committee" i the first se e nal in entence of Section17.1w S whichempowerstheComm missiontoaut thorizevoting gbymailinno otmorethan threecountri iesforthe May,2004elec M ctions;andthephrase,"onl lyuponreview wandapprova aloftheJointCongressiona alOversightCo ommittee" foundinthese f econdparagra aphofthesam mesectionare eunconstitutio onalastheyre equirereview wandapprova alofvoting by b mail in any country afte the 2004 e y er elections. Con ngress may no confer upo itself the a ot on authority to approve or
206 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts disapprove the countries wherein voting by mail shall be allowed, as determine by the COM d w g , ed MELEC pursu uant to the conditions pro c ovided for in Section 17.1 of R.A. No. 9 9189.48Otherw wise, Congres would over ss rstep the bou unds of its constitutionalmandateandintrudeintot c theindepende enceoftheCO OMELEC. Insum,theCo ourtupholdst theconstitutio onalityofSect tion5(d),Sect tion18.5ofR.A.No.9189w withrespecto onlytothe authoritygive a entotheCOM MELECtoproc claimthewinn ningcandidat tesfortheSen natorsandpa artylistrepresentatives butnotastot b thepowerto canvassthev votesandproclaimthewin nningcandida atesforPresid dentandVice President whichislodge w edwithCongre essunderSect tion4,ArticleVIIoftheCon nstitution. TheCourtagreestotheunc T constitutional lityofSection ns17.1,19and d25ofR.A.N No.9189insof farastheyrel latetothe creationofand c dthepowersg giventotheJo ointCongressi ionalOversigh htCommittee. Finally,pursua F anttoSection n30ofR.A.No o.9189,there estoftheprov visionsofsaid dlawcontinuetobeinfullforceand effect. e oOo AKBAYAN Youth,et.al l.vs.COMMIS SSIONONELE ECTION G.R.No.147 717926Marc ch2001 COMELECinde C enyingthereq questtoconductaspecialreg egistration,act tedwithintheboundsandco onfinesoftheapplicable la on the m aw matter Secti ion 8 of R.A. 8189. In iss suing the assa ailed Resoluti ion, COMELEC simply perf C formed its constitutionaltasktoenforce c eandadminis steralllawsan ndregulationsrelativetothe econductofan nelection Petitioners r P representing the youth sec t ctor seek to direct the Co ommission on Elections (C n COMELEC) to conduct a specialregistr s rationbeforet theMay14,2001GeneralE Elections,ofn newvotersage es18to21.A Accordingtopetitioners, around four m a million youth failed to regi ister on or be efore the Dec cember 27, 20 deadline set by the re 000 espondent COMELECund C derRepublicA ActNo.8189(V Voter'sRegist trationActof1 1996). TheCOMELEC T C,however,iss suedaresolut tiondenyingt therequestto oconductatw wodayadditio onalregistrati ionofnew voters. v Aggrievedby thedenial,pe A etitionersfiled dbeforethis C Courttheinst tantPetitionf forCertiorari andMandam mus,which seeks to set aside and nullify respon s n ndent COMEL LEC's Resolution and/or t declare Se to ection 8 of R R.A. 8189 unconstitution u nalinsofarass saidprovision neffectivelyca ausesthedisenfranchiseme entofpetitione ersandothers ssimilarly situated.Likew s wise,petitione ersprayforth heissuanceofawritofman ndamusdirect tingresponden ntCOMELECt toconduct a a special regis stration of ne voters and to admit fo registration petitioners and other similarly situat young ew or n ted Filipinostoqu F ualifythemtov voteintheMa ay14,2001Ge eneralElections ISSUE Whether COM W MELEC in den nying the req quest to con nduct a twod day additiona registration of new vo al n oters have underminedth u heconstitutionalrighttovo oteandcaused dthedisenfranchisementofFilipinosofv votingagewh hofailedto registerbefore r ethedeadline esetbytheCO OMELEC HELD H PETITIONDENIED. P
207|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Therightofsu T uffrageardent tlyinvokedby yhereinpetit tioners,isnot atallabsolut te.Needlesto say,theexerc ciseofthe rightofsuffrag r ge,asintheen njoymentofallotherrights s,issubjecttoexistingsubst tantiveandpr roceduralrequirements embodiedinourConstitutio e on,statuteboo oksandotherrepositorieso oflaw As A to the procedural limita ation, the rig of a citize to vote is necessarily co ght en onditioned up pon certain p procedural requirements he must und r dergo: among others, the process of re g egistration. Specifically, a citizen in or rder to be qualifiedtoex q xercisehisrigh httovote,ina additiontothe eminimumre equirementssetbyfundamentalcharter,isobliged by b law to reg gister, at pres sent, under th provisions of Republic Act No. 8189 otherwise known as the "Voter's he s 9, RegistrationA R Actof1996." Stateddifferen S ntly,theacto ofregistrationisanindispe ensableprecon nditiontothe erightofsuffr rage.Forregistrationis partandparce p eloftherightt tovoteandan nindispensableelementintheelectionp process.Thus,contrarytopetitioners' argument, reg a gistration cann and shoul not be den not ld nigrated to the lowly stature of a mere statutory req quirement. Proceedingfro P omthesignific canceofregistrationasanecessaryrequ uisitetotherig ghttovote,th heStateundou ubtedly,in theexerciseof t fitsinherentp policepower,maythenena actlawstosaf feguardandregulatetheac ctofvoter'sre egistration fortheultimat f tepurposeofconductingho onest,orderly yandpeaceful lelection,toth heincidentaly yetgenerallyimportant end,thateven e npreelection activitiescouldbeperform medbythedul lyconstituted authoritiesin narealistican ndorderly manner one which is not indifferent a m t and so far removed from the pressing order of the day and the prevalent circumstances c softhetimes. Onthelegalsc O core,Section8 8orR.A.8189, ,whichprovid desasystemo ofcontinuingr registration,is sexplicit,tow wit: "SEC.8.System " mofContinuing gRegistration nofVoters.Th hePersonalfilingofapplica ationofregistr rationofvotersshallbe conducted dai in the offic of the Elec c ily ce ction Officer d during regular office hours No registra s. ation shall, ho owever, be conducteddur c ringtheperio odstartingone ehundredtw wenty(120)da aysbeforear regularelectio onandninety (90)days beforeaspecia b alelection,"(E EmphasisOurs) Likewise,Sect L tion35ofR.A A.8189,which hamongothe ers,speaksof aprohibitiveperiodwithin nwhichtofileasworn petitionforthe p eexclusionofvotersfromt f thepermanent tvoter'slist,p provides: "SEC.35.Petit " tionforExclus sionofVotersf fromtheList Anyregister redvoter,rep presentativeo ofapoliticalp partyxxx mayfilexxxe m exceptonehun ndred(100)d dayspriortoa aregularelecti ionxxx." In light of the foregoing, th Court holds that Section 8 of R.A. 818 applies in the present c he s n 89 case, for the p purpose of upholding the assailed COM u e MELEC Resolu ution and den nying the inst tant petitions, considering that the afor resaid law explicitlyprov e videsthatnor registrationsh hallbeconduc ctedduringth heperiodstar rtingonehund dredtwenty( (120)days beforearegula b arelection. Corollarily,iti C isspeciousforhereinpetitionerstoargu uethatrespon ndentCOMELECmayvalidl lyandlegally conducta twodayspecia t alregistration n,throughthe eexpedientof ftheletterofS Section28of RA8436.Tot thisend,thep provisions of o Section 28, RA 8436 wo ould come into play in case where the preelection acts are susceptible of per es rformance withintheava w ailableperiodpriortoelecti ionday.Inmo orecategorica allanguage,Se ection28ofR R.A8436is,toourmind, anchoredonthesoundprem a misethatthes secertain"preelectionact ts"arestillcap pableofbeing greasonablyp performed visavis the r v remaining per riod before th date of ele he ection and the conduct of other related preelection activities d n requiredunde r erthelaw. Further,petitioners'bareal F llegationthattheyweredis sfranchisedwh henresponde entCOMELECpeggedthere egistration deadline on D d December 27, 2000 instead of the day b d before the pro ohibitive perio before the May 14, 200 regular od e 01 elections comm e mences is, to our mind, n sufficient. On this matt there is no allegation in the two con t not ter, nsolidated petitions and the records are bereft of a showing t p a any thatanyone of herein petit tioners hasfiled anapplica ation to be
208 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts registered as a voter which was denied by the COM r d MELEC nor file a complain before the respondent COMELEC ed nt e alleging that h or she proceeded to the Office of the Election Offi a he e e ficer to registe between th period star er he rting from December28, 2000toJanuary13,2001,andthatheo D orshewasdis sallowedorbarredbyresp pondentCOME ELECfrom filinghisappli f icationforreg gistration.Wh hileitmaybet truethatresp pondentCOME ELECsetther registrationde eadlineon December27, 2000,thisCo D ourtisofthef firmviewthat tpetitionersw werenottotal llydeniedthe eopportunity toavailof thecontinuing t gregistration underR.A.81 189.Statedin nadifferentm manner,thepe etitionersint theinstantcasearenot withoutfaulto w orblame.They yadmitinthe eirpetitiontha attheyfailedtoregister,forwhateverre eason,withint theperiod ofregistration o nandcametothisCourtan ndinvokedits sprotectivem mantlenotrealizing,sotosp peak,thespec ckintheir eyes.Impurisminibusnem e moaccedatcur riam.Letnoo onecometoco ourtwithuncl leanhands. TheCourtrule T esthattheCOM MELECinden nyingtherequ uestofpetition nerstoholdaspecialregist tration,actedw withinthe boundsandco b onfinesofthe eapplicablela awonthemat tterSection 8ofR.A.8189.Inissuingt theassailedR Resolution, respondent CO r OMELEC simp performed its constitut ply d tional task to enforce and administer all laws and re egulations relativetotheconductofan r nelection,inte eralia,questionsrelatingt totheregistra ationofvoters s;evidently,re espondent COMELEC mer C rely exercised a prerogativ that chiefly pertains to i and one wh d ve y it hich squarely falls within t proper the sphereofitsco s onstitutionally ymandatedpowers. oOo ABSCB BNBROADCAS STINGCORPO ORATIONvs.COMMISSION NONELECTIO ONS G.R.No.1334 486,January 28,2000 TheComelec,in T ntheexerciseofitspowers,cannottotally ybanexitpolls swithouttrans sgressingther rightoftheme ediaand theelectorate. t Commission o Elections (Comelec) iss C on ( sued Resolutio No.98141 which reso on 19 olved to appr rove the issu uance of a restrainingord r dertostopAB BSCBNorany yothergroup ps,itsagentso orrepresentat tivesfromcon nductingane exitsurvey during the ele d ections for na ational officia particularly for Preside and Vice P als y ent President, res sults of which shall be h broadcastedim b mmediately. Comelecbeliev C vedthatsuchprojectmight tconflictwith htheofficialComeleccount t,aswellasth heunofficialqu uickcount oftheNationalMovementfo o orFreeElectio ons(Namfrel) ).Italsonoted dthatithadno otauthorizedordeputizedPetitioner ABSCBNBroa A adcastingCorp poration(ABSCBN)tounde ertaketheexit tsurvey. Hence,ABSCB H BNfiledapetitionforCertio orariwiththeCourtassailin ngthevalidity yofthesaidRe esolution.Itarguesthat theholdingofexitpollsand t dthenationwidereportingt theirresultsa arevalidexerc cisesofthefre eedomsofspeechandof thepress. t ISSUE Wheth herABSCBNcanvalidlyconductexitpol lls HELD H Petiti ionGRANTED D. Anexitpollisaspeciesofel A lectoralsurve eyconductedb byqualifiedin ndividualsorg groupsofindi ividualsforth hepurpose ofdetermining o gtheprobableresultofan electionbyconfidentially askingrandom mlyselectedv voterswhom theyhave voted for, imm v mediately afte they have o er officially cast their ballots. The results of the survey are announc to the . y ced public,usually p ythroughthe massmedia,t togiveanadv vanceoverview wofhow,int theopinionof fthepollingin ndividuals
209|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ororganizations,theelector o ratevoted.Inourelectoralhistory,exitp pollshadnotb beenresorted dtountiltherecentMay 11,1998elections. 1 In the case at bar, the Com melec justifies its assailed R Resolution as having been i issued pursua to its cons ant stitutional mandatetoen m nsureafree,orderly,honest t,credibleand dpeacefulelection.Whilea admittingthat t"theconduct tofanexit pollandtheb p broadcastofth heresultsthe ereof[are]... anexerciseo ofpressfreed dom,"itarguesthat"[p]ressfreedom may m be curtailed if the exercise thereof createsaclea and presen ar ntdanger toth community or it hasad he y dangerous tendency." It t t then contend that "an ex poll has th tendency t sow confus ds xit he to sion considering the rando omness of selectinginter s rviewees,whichfurtherma ake[s]theexit tpollhighlyu unreliable.The eprobability thattheresul ltsofsuch exitpollmayn e notbeinharm monywiththe eofficialcoun ntmadebytheComelec.. .iseverprese ent.Inotherw words,the exitpollhasaclearandpres e sentdangerofdestroyingth hecredibilityandintegrityoftheelectoralprocess." Suchargumen S ntsarepurelyspeculativean ndclearlyuntenable.First,b bytheveryna atureofasurv vey,theinterv vieweesor participantsar p reselectedat random,soth hattheresultswillasmuch haspossibleb berepresenta ativeorreflectiveofthe generalsentim g mentorviewo ofthecommun nityorgroupp polled.Second d,thesurveyr resultisnotm meanttoreplac ceorbeat parwiththeo p officialComele eccount.Itco onsistsmerely yoftheopinio onofthepollinggroupast towhotheele ectoratein generalhaspr g robablyvotedfor,basedon nthelimitedd datagathered frompolledi individuals.Fi inally,notats stakehere arethecredibilityandthei a integrityofth heelections,w whichareexer rcisesthatare eseparateand dindependentfromthe exitpolls.The holdingandt e thereporting oftheresults sofexitpollsc cannotunderm minethoseof ftheelections,sincethe formerisonlypartofthelat f tter.Ifatall,th heoutcomeof fonecanonly ybeindicativeoftheother. TheComelec's T sconcernwith hthepossiblenoncommunicativeeffecto ofexitpolls disorderand dconfusioninthevoting centersdoe c esnotjustify atotalbanon nthemThere isnoshowing g,thatexitpo ollsorthemeanstointervi iewvoters cause chaos in voting cent c ters. Neither has any evid dence been p presented pro oving that the presence of exit poll e f reportersnear r ranelectionp precincttendstocreatediso orderorconfu usethevoters. . Withtheforeg W goingpremises,theCourtco oncludesthattheinterestofthestateinr reducingdisru uptionisoutw weighedby thedrasticabr t ridgmentofth heconstitutio onallyguarant teedrightsof themediaan f ndtheelector rate.Quitethe econtrary, insteadofdisr ruptingelectio ons,exitpolls properlyc conductedand dpublicized canbevital toolsforthe holdingof honest, orderl peaceful an credible el h ly, nd lections; and f the elimin for nation of elect tionfixing, fra and other electoral aud r il lls. Inregardwith hthecontentio onofpublicre espondenttha atexitpollsin ndirectlytrans sgressthesan nctityandthe secrecyof theballotisof t fftangenttot therealissue.Petitionerdo oesnotseeka accesstothe ballotscastbythevoters. Theballot systemofvotin s ngisnotatiss suehere. In exit polls, t contents of the official ballot are n actually ex the l not xposed. Furth hermore, the r revelation of whom an electorhasvotedforisnot compulsory, butvoluntary e y.Votersmay yalsochoosen nottoreveal theiridentitie es.Indeed, narrowly tailo n ored counterm measures may be prescribed by the Co y omelec, so as to minimize or suppress incidental problemsinth p heconductofe exitpolls,with houttransgres ssingthefund damentalright tsofourpeop ple. oOo AN NTONIOM.BE ERNARDOet.a alvs.BENJAM MINS.ABALO OS,SR.,et.al G.R.No.137266,Decembe G er5,2001 Acriminalcom A mplaintforvot tebuyingand votesellingm mustbesuppor rtedbyaffidav vitsofcomplai iningwitnesses sattesting to t the offer or promise by or of the voter acceptance of money or other conside r o r's e r eration from the relatives, leaders or sympathizerso sy ofcandidate.
210 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Petitioners An P ntonio M. Ber rnardo, et. al, filed with th Commissio on Election (COMELEC a criminal complaint he on ns C) againstrespon a ndentsBenjam minS.Abalos, Sr.,et.al,for votebuyingin nviolationof Section261, paragraphs(a a),(b)and (j)oftheOmni ( ibusElectionC Code(OEC),in nrelationtoS Section28ofR RepublicAct6646andSection68oftheO OEC. Theyallegeda T amongothersthattheprom miseofMayor rBenjaminAbalos,Sr.,tog giveMandaluy yongCitypub blicschool teachersande t employeesa hazardpayo ofP1,000,wh hichthelatter enthusiastica allyaccepteda afewweeksb beforethe election induc e ced or unduly influenced the said teac y chers and the public in ge e eneral to vote for the can ndidacy of BenjaminBen B nhurAbalos, Jr.,aviolatio onofSection2 261pars.(a), (b)and(j)oftheOmnibusElectionCod deagainst votebuyingan v ndvoteselling g. The COMELEC issued a resolutiondism T C r missing the c complaint "fo insufficienc of evidenc to establish aprima or cy ce faciecase. f Petitioners,then,withoutfir P rstsubmitting gamotionforreconsiderati ion,filedtheinstantpetitionforcertiorar riwiththe Court. They al C lleged that th COMELEC E Banc, in is he En ssuing the sai resolution acted with ap id pparent grave abuse of e discretion. d ISSUE Wheth the COME her ELEC in dismi issing the com mplaint of the petitioners acted with ap e pparent grave abuse of e discretion d HELD H PETITIONDENIED. P In its assailed Resolution, the COMELEC cited a valid reason for dismissing pe d t C d etitioners' com mplaint again private nst respondentsfo r orvotebuyin ng.TheCOMEL LECfoundtha attheevidenc ceoftherespondentshave e"moreproba ativevalue andbelievable a ethantheevid denceofthecomplainants;" "andthattheevidencesub bmittedbypet titionersare"mereself servingstatem s mentsanduncorroborateda audioandvisu ualrecordinga andaphotogr raph." Moreover,Section28ofRep M publicAct664 46provides: "SEC. 28.Pros " secution of Votebuying and Votese elling. The representatio of a comp on plaint for vio olations of paragraph(a) or(b)ofSect p tion261ofBa atasPambansaBlg.881sup pportedbya affidavitsofcomplainingw witnesses attesting to t offer or promise by o of the vote a the p or er's acceptan of money or other co nce y onsideration from the relatives, leaders or symp r pathizers of candidate, shall be sufficient basis for an investigation to be im r mmediately conductedbyt c theCommission,directlyor rthroughitsd dulyauthorize edlegalofficer rs,underSecti ion68orSect tion265of saidBatasPam s mbansaBlg.88 81.1wphi1.n t xxx."(Empha x asisours) Petitioners'co P omplaintexpresslystatesth hatnosuppor rtingaffidavitsweresubmi ittedbytheco omplainingw witness14to sustaintheirchargeofvotebuying.Suffic s ceittostateth hattheabsenc ceofsuchsupportingaffida avitsshowsthefrailtyof petitioners'co p omplaint.Inde eed,itisvulner rabletodismi issal. oOo ArturoM M.Tolentinoa andArturoC C.Mojicavs.CommissionO OnElections, et.al G.R.No.1483 G 334.January 21,2004
Aspecialelect A tionheldatthetimethuspr rescribedisno otinvalidated bythefactth d hatthebodyc chargedbylaw wwiththe dutyofcallingtheelectionfa d ailedtodoso.Thisisbecausetherightand ddutytoholdtheelectionem manatefromt thestatute
211|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts andnotfroma a anycallforthe eelectionbysomeauthority yandthelawt thuschargesv voterswithknowledgeofthe etimeand placeoftheele p ection. WhenSenator W rTeofistoT.Gu uingona,Jr.(G Guingona)was snominateda andconfirmed dasVicePresi identofTheP Philippines uponthesuccessiontothe Presidencyof u fGloriaMacap pagalArroyo, Senatepasse edResolution No.84certify yingtothe existenceofavacancyintheSenateand itcalledonCO e OMELECtofil llthevacancy throughaspe ecialelection tobeheld simultaneously s ywiththereg gularelections son14May2001inwhichtwelvesenato orswitha6ye eartermeach hweredue tobeelected. Further,ther t resolutionpro ovidedthatSenatorialcand didategarner ringthe13thh highestnumbe erofvotes shallserveonl s lyfortheunex xpiredtermof fGuingona. After COMELE had canvassed the ele A EC ection results from all th provinces, it issued th assailed re s he he esolutions proclaimingth p he13candida atesastheele ectedSenators s,providedthatthefirsttw welve(12)Se enatorsshalls servefora termofsix(6) t )yearsandth hethirteenth( th)Senator (13 rshallservet theunexpired termofthree e(3)yearsof Guingona. R RespondentsRalphRecto(Recto)andGr regorioHonas san(Honasan) anked12tha )r and13th,respe ectively Thus, Petition T ners Arturo M. Tolentino and Arturo C Mojica filed the presen petition. Pe M C. d nt etitioners con ntend that COMELECissu C uedthesaidre esolutionswit thoutjurisdict tionbecause: (1)itfailedto onotifytheel lectorateofth heposition tobefilledint t thespecialele ectionasrequ uiredunderSe ection2ofRe epublicActNo o.6645(R.A. No.6645);(2 2)itfailed to t require sen natorial candidates to indic cate in their c certificates of candidacy w f whether they s seek election under the specialorregu s ularelections asallegedlyr requiredunde erSection73 ofBatasPam mbansaBlg.88 [5]and,cons 81; sequently, (3)itfailedto ( ospecifyinth heVotersInfo ormationSheetthecandidatesseekinge electionunderthespecial orregular senatorialelec s ctionsaspurp portedlyrequiredunderSec ction4,paragr raph4ofRepu ublicActNo.6 6646(R.A.No.6646). Statedotherw S wise,petitioner rsclaimthati ifheldsimulta aneously,asp pecialandare egularelection nmustbedist tinguished inthedocumentationaswellasinthecan nvassingoftheirresults. ISSUE WhetherCOMELECsfailure W etogivecallan ndnoticeofth hetimeofthespecialelectio onandtheoff ficetobefilled dnegate thevalidityofthespecialele t ectiontofillavacantthree yeartermSen nateseat HELD H PETITIONDIS P SMISSED. Therequiredn T noticetothev votersinthe14May2001sp pecialsenator rialelectionco overstwomat tters.First,th hat COMELECwill C lholdaspecia alelectiontofi illavacantsin nglethreeyea artermSenate eseatsimultan neouslywitht the regularelectio r onsscheduledonthesamed date.Second,thatCOMELE ECwillproclaim maswinnert thesenatorialcandidate receivingthe1 thhighestnu r 13 umberofvote esinthespecia alelection. A A survey of CO OMELECs res solutions relating to the co onduct of the 14 May 2001 elections reveals that the contain 1 ey nothingwhich n hwouldamou unttoacompl liance,either strictorsubstantial,witht therequireme entsinSection n2ofR.A. No.6645,asamended.Thus N s,nowherein itsresolution nsorevenini itspressrelea asesdidCOME ELECstatetha atitwould holdaspecial electionfora h asinglethree yeartermSe enateseatsim multaneouslyw withtheregul larelectionso on14May 2001. Nor did COMELECgive formal not 2 d tice that it wo ould proclaim mas winnerth senatorial c he candidate rec ceiving the 13 1 thhighestnu umberofvotesinthespecia alelection. However,such H hfailureofthe eCOMELECdidnotnegatet thevalidityofthespecialelections. f Generally,the callingofane G election,that is,thegivingn noticeofthet timeandplace eofitsoccurr rence,whethermadeby thelegislature t edirectlyorb bythebodyw withthedutyt togivesuchc call,isindispe ensabletothe eelectionsvalidity.Ina
212|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts generalelectio g on,wherethelawfixesthedateoftheele ection,theelectionisvalidw withoutanyc callbythebod dycharged toadministert t theelection. ectiontofillavacancy,the ruleisthata statutethatexpresslyprov videsthatane electiontofill avacancy Inaspecialele shallbehelda s atthenextgen neralelections sfixesthedat teatwhichthespecialelect tionistobeh heldandopera atesasthe callforthatele c ection.Conse equently,anel lectionheldat tthetimethu usprescribedi isnotinvalida atedbythefactthatthe bodychargedbylawwithth b hedutyofcall lingtheelectionfailedtodo oso.Thisisbecausetherig ghtanddutyt toholdthe electionemanatefromthes e statuteandno otfromanyc callfortheele ectionbysome eauthorityan ndthelawthu uscharges voterswithkn v nowledgeofth hetimeandplaceoftheelec ction. Conversely,wh C herethelawd doesnotfixth hetimeandpl laceforholdin ngaspecialele ectionbutem mpowerssome eauthority tofixthetimeandplaceafte t erthehappen ningofacondi itionpreceden nt,thestatutor ryprovisiono onthegivingo ofnoticeis consideredma c andatory,andfailuretodos sowillrender rtheelectiona anullity. Intheinstant case,Section 2ofR.A.No.6 6645itselfpro ovidesthatincaseofvacan ncyintheSenate,thespecia alelection tofill such vac t cancy shall be held simulta e aneously with hthe nextsuc cceeding regul election.A lar Accordingly, t special the electiontofill thevacancyi e intheSenate arisingfrom SenatorGuing gonasappoin ntmentasVice ePresidentin nFebruary 2001couldno 2 otbeheldata anyothertime ebutmustbe heldsimultan neouslywitht thenextsucce eedingregular relections on14May2001.Thelawc o chargesthevo oterswithknowledgeofth hisstatutoryn noticeandCOMELECsfailu uretogive theadditionalnoticedidnot t tnegatetheca allingofsuchspecialelectio on,muchlessinvalidateit. Further,thete F estindetermi iningthevalid dityofaspecialelectionin relationtoth hefailuretogi ivenoticeoft thespecial electioniswhetherthewan e ntofnoticeha asresultedin nmisleadinga asufficientnu umberofvotersaswouldc changethe resultofthesp r pecialelection n.Ifthelacko ofofficialnotic cemisledasu ubstantialnum mberofvoters swhowrongly ybelieved thattherewas t snospecialele ectiontofillavacancy,acho oicebyasmal llpercentageo ofvoterswou uldbevoid. Petitioners ha neither cla P ave aimed nor pro oved that COM MELECs failu to give this required no ure otice misled a sufficient a numberofvot n tersaswouldchangetheresultofthespe ecialsenatoria alelectionorl ledthemtobe elievethatthe erewasno suchspecialel s lection. Neither is the basis in petitioners cla N ere p aim that the manner by w which COMELEC conducted the special senatorial d electionon14 e 4May2001isanullitybeca auseCOMELE ECfailedtodo ocumentseparatelythecan ndidatesandt tocanvass separatelythe s evotescastfor rthespeciale election.Nosu uchrequireme entsexistinou urelectionlaw ws.Whatism mandatory underSection 2of R.A.No.6645isthatC u 6 COMELECfixthedateofth election,if necessary,an he ndstate, amo others, ong theofficeorof t fficestobevot tedfor. Significantly, the method adopted by COMELEC in conducting the special election on 14 May 200 merely S n 01 implementedt theprocedure especifiedbytheSenateinResolutionNo o.84 Evidently,COM E MELEC,intheexerciseofitsdiscretionto ousemeansa andmethodst toconductthe especialelecti ionwithin theconfinesof t fR.A.No.6645 5,merelychos setoadopttheSenatespro oposal,asemb bodiedinReso olutionNo.84 oOo LUISA A.ASISTIO,vs. .HON.THELM MACANLAST TRINIDADPE EAGUIRRE,et t.al G.R.No.191 1124,April27,2010 There is no s T showing that Asistio has e established do omicile elsewh here, or that he had cons sciously and v voluntarily abandonedhis a sresidenceinC CaloocanCity,thusitcannot tbedeniedtha atAsistiohasq qualifiedandc continuestoq qualifyasa voterofCalooc v canCity. Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 213|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Allegationsina A aCertificateof fCandidacy(C COC)ofnonex xistentorfalse eaddress,orth hathecouldno otbephysicall lyfoundin theaddresshe t eindicatedwhenheregister redasavoter shouldnotop peratetoexclu udeAsistioasa avoterofCalo oocanCity, however,itmay h ayserveasaba asisforanelec ctionoffenseorcancellationoftheCOC. RespondentEn R nricoR.Echiv verri(Echiverri)filedagain nstpetitioner LuisA.Asistio o(Asistio)aP Petition forEx xclusionof Voterfromthe V ePermanentL ListofVoterso ofCaloocanCi itybeforetheMetropolitanTrialCourt(M MeTC) In his petition Echiverri alleged that As n, sistio is not a resident of Caloocan City specifically not of 123 I a y, y Interior P. ZamoraSt.,Ba Z arangay15,Ca aloocanCity,theaddresssta atedinhisCer rtificateofCandidacy(COC)forMayorin nthe2010 Automated Na A ational and Lo ocal Elections. Echiverri als claimed th Asistio was no longer residing in this address, so hat sincewhatapp s pearedinthelattersCOCf forMayorint the2007electionswasNo. .110Unit1,P P.ZamoraSt., Barangay 15,CaloocanC 1 City,butthatt theaddressusedinAsistio oscurrentCOCissituatedi inBarangay1 17.Hesaidthat,perhis verification, th voters dul registered in the 2009 CVL using th address No. 123 P. Zam v he ly he mora St., Bar rangay 17, CaloocanCitydidnotinclud C deAsistio. Asistio, howev A ver, alleged th he is a re hat esident of No 116, P. Zam o. mora St., Caloo ocan City, and a registered voter of d d Precinct No. 1 P 1811A because he mistaken relied on the address s nly stated in the contract of le ease with Ang gelina dela TorreTengco(Tengco),whi T ichwas123In nteriorP.Zam moraSt.,Baran ngay15,CaloocanCity. TheMeTCrenderedadecisi T iondirectingt thetheElectio onRegistrationBoard,CaloocanCitytore emovethenam meofLuis AquinoAsistio A ofromthelistofpermanent tvotersofCaloocanCity. Asistio then fi A iled his Notice of Appeal a Appeal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Ech and hiverri, howev filed a ver, Motiontodism M missappealar rguingthatthe eRTCdidnot tacquirejurisd dictionoverth heAppealonthegroundof ffailureto filetherequire f edappealfees s.Saidmotionwasgrantedb bytheRTC. Hence,thispet H tition. ISSUE WhetherAsist W tioisaregiste eredvoterofP PrecinctNo.1 1811A,Barang gay15,Calooc canCityandth hereforecompliedwith theresidencyr t requiredbyla aw HELD H PETITIONGR P RANTED. "Residence,"a " asusedinthe lawprescribingthequalificationsforsu uffrageandfor relectiveoffic ce,isdoctrina allysettled tomean"domicile,"importi t ingnotonlyanintentionto oresideinafix xedplacebut alsopersonal lpresenceint thatplace, coupledwithc c conductindica ativeofsuchi intentioninfer rablefromap personsacts, activities,and dutterances." "Domicile" denotesafixed d dpermanent residencewhere,whenabs sentforbusinessorpleasur re,orforlike reasons,one intendsto return.In the consideration of circumsta r n ances obtainin in each pa ng articular case, three rules m must be borne in mind, e namely:(1)th n hatapersonm musthaveare esidenceordo omicilesomew where;(2)onc ceestablished d,itremainsu untilanew oneisacquired o d;and(3)that tapersoncan nhavebutone eresidenceordomicileatatime. Domicileisno D oteasilylost.T Tosuccessfullyeffectatra ansferthereof, f,onemustde emonstrate:(1 1)anactualremovalor changeofdom c micile;(2)abo onafideintent tionofabando oningtheform merplaceofre esidenceandestablishinga anewone; and (3) acts which corres a spond with that purpose. There must be animus m manendi coup pled with an nimus non revertendi.Th r hepurposeto remaininor atthedomicil leofchoicem mustbeforan indefiniteper riodoftime;t thechange ofresidencem o mustbevolunt tary;andther residenceatth heplacechose enforthenew wdomicilemus stbeactual. Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 214 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Asistiohasalw A waysbeenare esidentofCalo oocanCitysincehisbirthor rformoretha an72years.Hisfamilyiskn nowntobe amongthepro a ominentpoliti icalfamiliesin nCaloocanCit ty.Infact,Asis stioservedinpublicofficea asCaloocanCi itySecond District repres D sentative in th House of R he Representativ having be elected as such in the 1992, 1995, 1998, and ves, een s 2004 elections In 2007, he also sought election as Ci Mayor. In all of these o 2 s. e ity occasions, Asis cast his v stio vote in the same city. Tak s king these cir rcumstances in considera nto ation, gauged in the light o the doctrines above enunciated, it of cannotbeden c niedthatAsist tiohasqualifie ed,andcontin nuestoqualify y,asavotero ofCaloocanCit ty.Thereisno oshowing that he has es t stablished dom micile elsewhere, or that h had conscio he ously and voluntarily aban ndoned his res sidence in CaloocanCity.Heshould,th C herefore,rema aininthelisto ofpermanentregisteredvotersofPrecin nctNo.1811A, ,Barangay 15,CaloocanC 1 City. ThatAsistioal T llegedlyindica atedinhisCer rtificateofCan ndidacyforMayor,bothfor rthe2007and d2010electio ons,anon existentorfals e seaddress,or rthathecould dnotbephysi icallyfoundin ntheaddress heindicatedw whenheregis steredasa voter,shouldn v notoperateto oexcludehimasavoterof CaloocanCity y.Thesepurpo ortedmisrepr resentationsin nAsistios COC,iftrue,m C mightserveasbasisforane electionoffens seundertheO OmnibusElect tionCode(OE EC),oranactio ontodeny duecoursetot d theCOC.Butt toourmind,th heydonotser rveasproofth hatAsistiohas sabandonedh hisdomicilein nCaloocan City,orthathe C ehasestablish hedresidenceoutsideofCal loocanCity. oOo Representat tiveDANILOR RAMONS.FERNANDEZvs.HOUSEOFR REPRESENTAT TIVESELECTO ORALTRIBUN NALand JESU USL.VICENTE E. G.R. No.187478 Decem mber21,2009 9 Theresidencyr T requirementfo forelectoralca andidatesisam meanstopreve entastranger rornewcomer rfromholdingofficeon theassumption t nthatsuchstr rangerornewc comerwouldb beinsufficiently lyacquaintedw withtheneeds sofhisprospective constituent. c TheConstitutio T ondoesnotre equireacongr ressionalcandi idatetobeap propertyowne erinthedistric ctwherehese eekstorun butonlythath b heresidesinthatdistrictforatleastayear rpriortoelect tionday. Petitioner Dan P nilo Ramon S. Fernandez (Fernandez) filed for cand S didacy as Rep presentative o the First L of Legislative DistrictoftheProvinceofLagunaintheM D May14,2007elections.Inh hisCertificateofCandidacy y(COC),heind dicatedhis complete/exac c ctaddressas "No.13Maha arlikaSt.,Villa ToledoSubdi ivision,Baran ngayBalibago,Sta.RosaCity y,Laguna" (allegedSta.Rosaresidence ( e) Private respon P ndent Jesus L. Vicente (Vic L cente) filed a "Petition to Deny Due Course to and/o Cancel Cer or rtificate of Candidacyand C dPetitionfor Disqualificati ion"beforeth heOfficeofth heProvincialE ElectionSupervisorofLagu unawhich was w forwarded to the Commission on El lections. Vicen sought the cancellation of petitioner COC and the latters nte n rs disqualificationasacandida d ateonthegro oundofanalle egedmaterial lmisrepresen ntationinhisC COCregarding ghisplace of o residence, b because durin past electio ng ons, he had d declared Pagsa anjan, Laguna as his addre and Pagsa a ess, anjan was located in the Fourth Leg e gislative Distr rict of the Pr rovince of La aguna. Private respondent likewise claimed that e petitioner mai p intained anot ther house in Cabuyao, Lag guna, which w also outside the First District. The COMELEC was dismissedsaid d dpetitionforlackofmerit. When Fernand was proclaimed as the duly elected Representati of the First District of Laguna, Vicen filed a W dez e d ive nte petitionforqu p uowarrantob beforetheHou useofRepres sentativesElec ctoralTribuna al(HRET)pra ayingthatpet titionerbe declared inelig d gible to hold office as a M Member of the House of R Representative representin the First L es ng Legislative Districtofthe ProvinceofL D Laguna,andth hatpetitionerselectionand dproclamatio onbeannulled danddeclarednulland void. v
215|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Vicentes main ground for the quo warr V n ranto petition was that Fe n ernandez lack the requir oneyear residency ked red requirement p r provided und Article VI Section 6 o the 1987 Constitution. In support o his petition, private der I, of of respondentar r rguedthatpeti itionerfalsely ydeclaredund deroath:(1)h hisallegedSta. .Rosaresiden nce;(2)theperiodofhis residenceinth r helegislative districtbefore eMay14,200 07,whichhei indicatedasoneyearandtwomonths;a and(3)his eligibilityfort e theofficewher rehewasseek kingtobeelec cted. Fernandeztes F stifiedthathe hadbeenar residentofSta a.Rosaevenb beforeFebrua ary2006;that theownedpr ropertyin anotherSta.Ro a osasubdivisio on(BelAir);th hatheandhis swifehadput tupabusiness stherein,the"RAFTERS"re estaurant/ bar;andthath b hehadpriorre esidenceinan notherplaceal lsoatSta.Ros saasearlyas2 2001. TheHRETrule T edinfavorofV Vicente,hence e,thispetition n. ISSUES 1. Wheth hertheHREThadjurisdictionovertheca ase; 2. Wheth petitioner sufficiently complied wit the oneyea residency r her r th ar requirement to be a Memb of the ber House eofRepresent tatives,aspro ovidedinthe1 1987Constitut tion HELD H PETITIONGR P RANTED. HREThasjuri H isdictionove erthecase Thefirstissueisprocedural T landinvolves sthejurisdictionoftheHRE ETvisvisthatoftheCOMELECincases sinvolving the t qualification of Membe of the Hou of Representatives. Pet ers use titioner sugge ests that the m matters raised in HRET d Case No. 07034 were alrea passed up by the CO C ady pon OMELEC in SP No. 07046 (PES), thus the HRET sh PA hould have dismissedthecaseforforum d mshopping. TheCourtdisa T agrees.The19 987Constituti ionexplicitlyp providesunde erArticleVI,S Section17the ereofthattheHRETand the Senate Electoral Tribu t unal (SET) s shall be thes sole judgesof all contests relating to the election returns, f s n, andqualificatio a onsoftheirre espectivemem mbers.Theau uthorityconferreduponthe eElectoralTr ribunalisfull,clearand complete.Theuseofthewo c ordsoleempha asizestheexcl lusivityofthe ejurisdictiono oftheseTribun nals,whichisconferred upontheHRET u TandtheSET Tafterelection nsandtheproclamationof fthewinning candidates.A Acandidatewh hohasnot been proclaim b med and who has not tak o ken his oath of office can nnot be said to be a mem mber of the House of Representatives. R Thus,privater T respondentco orrectlypoint tedoutthata petitionforquowarrantoi iswithinthee exclusivejuris sdictionof theHRET,and t dcannotbeconsideredforu umshoppinge evenif,asinth hiscase,theC COMELEChadalreadypasse eduponin administrative or quasiju a e udicial procee edings the is ssue of the qualification of the Mem mber of the House of Representativeswhilethela R atterwasstillacandidate. Petitionercom P mpliedwitht theresidency yrequiremen ntforMembe ersoftheHou useofRepres sentatives The T evidence presented by private resp y pondent befor the HRET hardly suffice to prove th petitioner failed to re es hat r complywithth c heoneyearre esidencyrequ uirementunde ertheConstitu ution.Private respondents sdocumentary yevidence
216 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts to t disqualify p petitioner mai inly consisted of (a) petitio d oners certific cates of candid dacy (COCs) f various po for ositions in 1998, 2001 an 2004, whi all indicated his reside 1 nd ich ence as Pagsa anjan, Laguna within the Fourth Distri of said a ict province;(b)h p hisapplicationforadriver rslicenseinA August2005t thatindicated dPagsanjan,Lagunaashisr residence; and a (c) the sta atement in hi COCs includ is ding his 2007 COC for Congressman for the First District of Lagun that his na placeofbirthw p wasPagsanjan n,Laguna. The T only thing these piece of documen es ntary evidenc prove is th petitioner domicile of origin was P ce hat s f Pagsanjan, Lagunaandit remainedhisdomicileupt L to2005,atthe elatest.Ontheotherhand,whatpetition nerassertedin nhis2007 COC is that he had been a resident of S Rosa, Lag C e a Sta. guna in the F First District o Laguna as of February 2006 and of respondentse r evidencefailed dcontradictth hatclaim. Inthecaseatb bar,thereare erealandsubstantialreaso onsforpetition nertoestablis shSta.Rosaa ashisdomicile eofchoice andabandonh a hisdomicileo oforiginand/ /oranyother previousdom micile.Tobegi inwith,petiti ionerandhis wifehave owned and op o perated businesses in Sta. Rosa since 20 003. Their chi ildren have at ttended schoo in Sta. Ros at least ols sa since2005.Althoughowner s rshipofprope ertyshouldne everbeconsid deredarequirementforan nycandidacy, petitioner hadsufficientlyconfirmedh h hisintentionto opermanently yresideinSta a.Rosabypur rchasingreside entialpropert tiesinthat cityevenprior c rtotheMay2 2007election, ,asevidenced dbycertificatesoftitleissu uedinthenam meofpetitionerandhis wife.Oneofth w hesepropertie esisaresidenc ceinBelAir,S Sta.Rosawhic chpetitionera acquiredeven nbefore2006butwhich petitionerhad p dbeenleasingout.Heclaim msthatherent tedoutthispropertybecau usepriorto20 006hehadno otdecided topermanentl t lyresideinSta a.Rosa.Thisc couldexplainw whyinearly2 2006petitione erhadtorentatownhouseinVillade ToledohisB T BelAirresiden ncewasoccup piedbyatena ant.Therelati ivelyshortper riodofthelea asewasalsoa adequately explainedbyp e petitionerth heyrentedato ownhousewh hiletheywere eintheproces ssofbuilding theirownhou useinSta. Rosa.Trueeno R ough,petitionerandhisspo ousesubseque entlypurchase edalotalsoin nVilladeTole edoinApril20 007,about a a month before election day, where th have cons d hey structed a ho ome for their familys use as a residen nce. In all, petitioner had adequately shown that his transfer of residence to Sta. Rosa wa bona fide a was not m p d s f as and merely for complyingwit c ththeresidenc cyrequiremen ntunderelect tionlaws. The T HRET put undue emp ts phasis on the fact that petitioner is only leasing a tow y wnhouse in St Rosa while he owns ta. e housesinPags h sanjanandCa abuyao.Hisow wnershipofpr ropertiesinot therplacesha asbeentakentomeanthatpetitioner didnotintend d tomakeSta.R Rosahisperm manentresiden nceorthathehadnotabandonedhisdom micileoforigin n. Although it is true that the latest acquir abode is not necessari the domici of choice o a candidate there is A e red ily ile of e, nothinginthe n Constitutionorourelectio onlawswhich hrequireacon ngressionalca andidatetosellapreviously yacquired homeinoned h districtandbu uyanewonei intheplacew whereheseeks storuninord dertoqualifyf foracongress sionalseat inthatotherd district.Neithe erdoweseet thefactthatpe etitionerwas onlyleasinga aresidencein Sta.Rosaatt thetimeof hiscandidacy asabarrierf h forhimtorun ninthatdistri ict.Certainly, theConstitutiondoesnotr requireacong gressional candidatetob c beaproperty ownerinthe districtwher reheseeksto runbutonly thatheresidesinthatdist trictforat least a year p prior to electi day. To u ownership of property in the district as the determinative in ion use p ndicium of permanence o domicile or residence implies that o p of only the land can estab ded blish complian with the residency nce requirement.T r ThisCourtwo ouldbe,ineffe ect,imposing apropertyrequirementto therighttoh holdpublicoff fice,which propertyrequirementwouldbeunconstitutional. p Wedonotdou W ubtthatthere esidencyrequi irementisam meanstopreve entastranger rornewcomer rfromholding gofficeon theassumptionthatsuchst t trangerornew wcomerwouldbeinsufficie entlyacquaint tedwiththen needsofhispr rospective constituents. H c However, it is appropriate to point out at this juncture that asid from petit s e t de tioners actual physical l, presenceinSt p ta.Rosaform morethanaye earpriortoelectionday,he ehasdemonstratedthathe ehassubstant tialtiesto Sta.Rosaandt S theFirstDistr rictofLaguna aforanevenl longerperiod thanthat.Pet titionerhasbusinessintere estsinSta. Rosacomprise R edofrestaura antsandaresidentialprope ertyforlease. .Petitionerha astwochildre enstudyingin nSta.Rosa schoolsevenb s before2006.T Thesecircums stancesprovid dedpetitioner rwithmateria alreasonstof frequentlyvisi itthearea andeventually a ytakeupresid denceinthes saiddistrict.Significantly,p petitionerprev viouslyserved dasBoardMe emberand ViceGovernor V rfortheProvi inceofLaguna a,ofwhichth heFirstDistric ctandSta.Ros saareapart. Itstandstore easonthat
217|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts inhispreviouselectedposi itionspetition nerhasacquir redknowledg geoftheneed dsandaspirat tionsofthere esidentsof theFirstDistri t ictwhowerea amonghiscon nstituents. Simplyput,pe S etitionercould dnotbeconsi idereda"stra anger"tothec communitywhichhesough httorepresen ntandthat evilthatthere e esidencyrequi irementwasd designedtopr reventisnotp presentinthiscase. oOo JAMELASALIC CMARUHOM Mvs.COMMISS SIONONELEC CTIONS,andM MOHAMMAD DALI"Merican no"A.ABINAL G.R.No.179430,July27 7,2009 Itmustbeund I derscoredthatinadditiontotheexpressju urisdictionofC COMELECover rpetitionsforcancellationo ofCOCs,on thegroundoff t falsematerial lrepresentatio ons,underSec ction78ofthe OEC,theCons stitutionalso extendstoCOMELECall thenecessarya t andincidental lpowersforittoachievethe eholdingoffre ee,orderly,hon nest,peaceful,andcrediblee elections. Petitioner Jam P mela Salic Mar ruhom (Maruhom) and pri ivate respond dent Mohamm madali "Merica ano" A. Abina (Abinal) al were mayoralty candidates in the Munic w s cipality of Marantao, Lanao del Sur, for the 14 May 2 o 2007 national and local l elections.Abin e nalwasthenth heincumbent tMayorofMar rantaowhow wasseekingre election. Abinalfiledbe A eforetheCOM MELECaPetitio onforDisqualificationand toDenyDue CoursetoorC CanceltheCer rtificateof Candidacy und Section 78 of Batas Pa C der ambansa Bilan 881, otherw ng wise known a the Omnibu Election Co of the as us ode Philippines(OEC),againstM P Maruhom. Abinal alleged that Maruho was a double registran being a re A d om nt, egistered vote in Precinct No. 0208A, Barangay er t PanggaoSaduc,MarawiCityandPrecinc P ctNo.0040A, BarangayKia aldanProper, Marantao.Ma aruhomregisteredasa voterinMaraw v wion26July 2003.Onlyth hreedaysther reafter,on29 July2003,Ma aruhomregist teredagainas avoterin Marantao, wit M thout canceling her Marawi registratio There be on. eing double r registration, M Maruhoms su ubsequent registration in Marantao was null and v r n w voidab initio. And, not bein a registere voter in Marantao, Maru ng ed uhom was disqualifiedfro d omrunningfo ormunicipalm mayorofsaidm municipality. Further, Abina also averred that Maruh F al hom made fals material re se epresentations in her registrations in Ma s arawi and Marantaoand alsoinherCOC,whichAb M binalcitedasv validgrounds sfordenyingd duecourseto o,orcancellati ionof,the MaruhomsCO M OCunderSecti ion78oftheO OEC. Maruhomont M theotherhand dcontendstha atshewasqua alifiedtoruna asmunicipalm mayorofMara antao,assheh hadallthe qualifications andnoneoft q thedisqualific cationsprovid dedbylaw.A candidatecou uldonlybedi isqualifiedfor raground providedbyla p aw,andthere wasnolawd declaringdoubleregistratio onasagroun ndfordisquali ification.Maru uhomalso insistedthatsh hedidnotmakefalsemater rialrepresent tationsinherC COC. The T COMELEC issued a resolution gran C nting Abinals petition. COM MELEC found that Maruho had two subsisting d om registrations,o r oneinMaraw wi,andanotherinMarantao o.Maruhoms Marantaoreg gistrationwas svoidabinitio opursuant to t COMELEC M Minute Resolu ution No. 001 1513, issued o 25 July 20 on 000.Since Mar ruhom was no a registered voter in ot Marantao,she M ewasdisqualifiedfrombein ngamayoralt tycandidateth herein.Thus, theCOMELEC CFirstDivisio onordered thedeletionof t fMaruhomsn namefromthe elistofofficial lcandidatesfo ormunicipalm mayorofMara antao. Maruhomfiled M daMotionforReconsiderat tionwhichwa assubsequent tlydenied. Aggrieved,Ma A aruhomfiledth heinstantpet tition. ISSUE
218 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whether COM W MELEC has ex xceeded its ju urisdiction in declaring Ma aruhom as a double regist trant and con nsequently declaringasnu d ullandvoidhe erregistration nasregistered dvoterinMar rantao,LanaoDelSur; HELD H PETITIONDIS P SMISSED. AbinalsPetitioninSPANo. A .07093prim marilypraysth hattheCOMEL LECdenydue ecoursetoor cancelMaruh homsCOC underSection78oftheOEC u C,allegingthat tMaruhomma adefalsemate erialrepresen ntationsinher rCOC. Under Section 78 of the OEC, a false r U n O representation of material fact in the COC is a gro l ound for the denial or cancellationof c ftheCOC.The efalsereprese entationmust tpertaintoam materialfactt thataffectsth herightofthe candidate to t run for th election fo which he filed his COC. Such mate he or erial fact ref fers to acand didates elig gibility or qualificationfor elective office like c q citizenship, re esidence ors status as a registered voter.Aside from the requirement o materiality, the false rep r of , presentation m must consist of a deliberat attempt to mislead, misi te inform, or hideafacttha h atwouldother rwiserender acandidatein neligible.Inot therwords,it tmustbemad dewiththein ntentionto deceivetheele d ectorateastothewouldbecandidatesq qualificationsf forpublicoffic ce. Maruhoms vo M oter registration constitutes a material f fact because i affects her e it eligibility to b elected as municipal be mayor of Mar m rantao. Section 39(a) of Re epublic Act N 7160, othe No. erwise known as the Loca Governmen Code of n al nt 1991,27requir 1 res that an elective loc cal official m must be, am mong other things, areg gistered vot terin the barangay,mun b nicipality,city yorprovincew whereheinte endstobeelec cted. Itissettledtha attheCOMELE EChasjurisdi ictionoverap petitionfiledu underSection78oftheOEC C.Intheexerci iseofsuch ju urisdiction, it is within the competence of the COME t e ELEC to determ mine whether false repres r sentation as to material o factswasmadeintheCOC. f Maruhoms in M nsistence that only the MTC has jurisdic ction to rule on her voter registration is specious. It must be underscoredt u thatinadditio ontotheexpr ressjurisdictionofCOMELECoverpetiti ionsforcance ellationofCOCs,onthe groundoffalsematerialrep g presentations,underSectio on78oftheO OEC,theConst titutionalsoe extendstoCOMELECall the t necessary and incident powers fo it to achiev the holding of free, ord y tal or ve derly, honest, peaceful, and credible d elections.Thedetermination e n,therefore,m madebytheCOMELECthatMaruhomsM Marawiregistr rationisvalid, ,whileher Marantaoregistrationisvoi M id,isonlyinac ccordwithitsexplicitjurisd diction,oratt theveryleast,itsresidualpowers. oOo ANTONIOB B.GUNSI,SR.,vs.COMMISS SIONONELEC CTIONS G.R.No.168792,February G y23,2009 Theapplicationforregistrat T tionofvotersm mustcomplyw withtheminim mumrequirementsofRANo..8189.Aperso onwhohas notestablished n dthathehasd dulyaccomplis shedanapplic cationforregis strationisnotaregisteredv t voter.Consequ uently,asa nonregistered n dresident,heis sdisqualifiedt torunasaelec ctoralcandida ate. Privaterespon P ndentDatuIsr raelSinsuat(S Sinsuat)filed apetitionfor rthedenialof fduecourset toorcancellat tionofthe certificate of candidacy (C c COC) of Petit tioner Antoni B. Gunsi ( io (Gunsi) in c connection w with the May 10, 2004 SynchronizedNationalandLocalElection S ns.Essentially y,Sinsuatsoug ghtthedisqua alificationofGunsiforMayo orofSouth Upi,Maguinda U anao,alleging, ,that:(a)Gun nsiwasnotar registeredvot terintheMun nicipalityofSouthUpi,Mag guindanao sincehefailed s dtosignhisap pplicationfor registration; (b)Gunsisna amewasinser rtedillegallyi intheListofA Applicants and Voters by Alice Lim, Acting Election Officer of S a y A n South Upi, Ma aguindanao; a and (c) the un nsigned appli ication for registrationha r asnolegaleffe ect. Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas 219|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Inrefutation, Gunsicontend dsthathisfai iluretosignh hisapplication nforregistrat tiondidnota affectthevalid dityofhis registrationsinceheposses r ssesthequalificationsofa votersetfort thinSection1 116oftheOm mnibusElectio onCodeas amendedbySe a ection9ofRepublicAct818 89. COMELECissu C uedaresolutio onandasubs sequentclarif ficatoryresolu utiondeclaringthatGunsii isdisqualified dtorunas MayorofSouth M hUpi,Maguin ndanaoforbeinganonregis steredresiden ntofthesame. Gunsifiledam G motionforreco onsiderationw withtheCOME ELEC,whichd deniedthesam me. Hence,thispet H titionimputin nggraveabuse eofdiscretion ntotheCOMEL LEC. ISSUE Whether Gunsi possesses the qualifica W ations of a v voter and as such qualifie to run as Mayor of S ed s South Upi, Maguindanao M HELD H PETITIONDIS P SMISSED. Section10ofR S RepublicActN No.8189,The eVotersRegis strationActof f1996",explic citlyprovidesinpertinentp part: SECTION10.R S RegistrationofVoters.Aq qualifiedvoter rshallberegisteredinthep permanentlis stofvotersinaprecinct of o the city or municipality wherein he resides to be able to vote in any elect e e tion. To regist as a voter he shall ter r, personallyacc p complishanap pplicationform mforregistra ationasprescr ribedbytheCommissionin nthree(3)cop piesbefore theElectionOf t fficeronanyd dateduringof fficehoursafte erhavingacqu uiredthequal lificationsofavoter. xxxx x x x x x The application for re egistration shall contain th hree (3) specim signature of the appl men es licant, clear a legible and rolledprintso r ofhisleftandrightthumbp prints,withfo ouridentificat tionsizecopie esofhislates stphotograph h,attached 14 thereto,tobet t takenattheex xpenseoftheCommission.1 Instarkcontra astaretheprevailingcircum e mstancesofGu unsisapplicat tionforregist tration: 1. 1 Only a phot tocopy15of Gu unsis applicat tion for regist tration was submitted in e evidence before Investigati Officer ing Bedolastheo B originalthereo ofwaspurpor rtedlylost.Thephotocopyo ofthedocume entclearlysho owsthatGuns sifailedto signparts2an s nd3thereof.T Theadministe eringofficer,J JoelEllano,lik kewisedidnot tsignpart3o ofsaiddocume ent.These partsrefertot p theoathwhic chGunsishoul ldhavetaken tovalidatean ndsweartoth heveracityof thecontents appearing intheapplicat tionforregistr ration. 2.JoelEllanow 2 wasnotprese entedbyGuns sitocorroboratehisclaim thathisfailur retosignthe applicationw wasmerely duetoinadver d rtence.Surpri isingly,Gunsi chosetopres sent,aswitness,AliceLim, ActingElectio onOfficerofS SouthUpi, Maguindanao,whoadmitted M dthatsherece eivedanunsig gnedletterfur rnishinghera acopyofGunsisunsigneda application for f registration and that sh did not bot he ther requiring Gunsi to acc g complish in fu the applica ull ation for regis stration in ordertocomp o pletetheListo ofVoters.16Lim mlikewiseadm mitstoinserti ingGunsisna ameintheList tofVotersbas sedonthe photocopy of an unsigned application for registration which she had previou p e usly seen. He ence, the listi ing of the Applicants for Registration and the List of Voters w A r n ts which are alphabetically ar rranged with Gunsis name inserted e thereat. t
220 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 3.Thetestimo 3 oniesofNoraidaEnero,Row wenaUnsona andAbdullahM Mato,Municip palTreasurer ofUpi,memb bersofthe Election Regis E stration Board of South Up Maguindan d pi, nao, who all categorically stated that t they did not encounter Gunsisapplica G ationforregis stration.18 Plainly,fromtheforegoing,theirregularitiessurround P dingGunsisap pplicationforregistrationeloquentlypro oclaimthat hedidnotcom h mplywiththe minimumreq quirementsof fRANo.8189. .Thisleadsto oonlyonecon nclusion:that Gunsi,not havingdemon h nstratedthath hedulyaccom mplishedanap pplicationforr registration,isnotaregiste eredvoter.In short,the cancellationof c fGunsisCOCbytheCOMEL LECandhisco onsequentdis squalificationfromrunning gasMayorofS SouthUpi, Maguindanao,wascorrect. M
oOo
R.A. R No. 8189 decrees that voters be allo owed to register daily duri regular off ing ffices hours,ex xcept during t period the starting 120 d s days before a regular electi and 90 da before a s ion ays special election. Such mand date of continu uing voter registrationmustbecomplie r edwithbyCOM MELECinacco ordancewithla aw. It I isonly when the same cannot bereaso n onably held wi ithin the perio provided by od ylaw that CO OMELEC can e exercise its powerfixother p rperiodsandd datesforpree electionactivit tiespursuantt tothepurpose eofenablingth hepeopletoex xercisethe rightofsuffrag r ge. Respondent C R Commission on Elections (COMELEC) i o issued Resolu ution No. 851 1which, am 14 mong other t things, set December2,2 D 2008toDecem mber15,2009astheperiod dofcontinuing gvoterregistr rationusingth hebiometricsprocessin all a areas natio onwide, excep in the Auto pt onomous Reg gion of Muslim Mindanao. Subsequently the COMEL m y, LEC issued ResolutionNo.85852onFeb R bruary12,20 009adjustingt thedeadlineo ofvoterregist trationforthe eMay10,2010national andlocalelect a tionstoOctobe er31,2009,in nsteadofDece ember15,200 09asprevious slyfixedbyRe esolutionNo.8 8514. Consequently, C petitionersfiledthepresen ntpetitionfor rcertiorariand dmandamuss seekingtodec clarethesaidr resolution null n and void and pray that the COMELE be accordi EC ingly required to extend th voter registration until J d he January 9, 2010whichisthedaybefor 2 rethe120day yprohibitivep periodstarting gonJanuary1 10,2010. Petitionerscon P ntendthatCO OMELECResol lutionNo.858 85isanuncon nstitutionalen ncroachmento onthelegislat tivepower ofCongressas itamends th system of continuing vo o s he oter registration under Section 8 of Republic ActNo. 8189 (RA 8189), otherw 8 wise known as The Voter Registratio Act of 1996, which pr a rs on rovides that the personal filing of applicationof registrationo a ofvotersshall lbeconducteddailyinthe officeofthe ElectionOfficerduringregularoffice hours.Noregi h istrationshall, ,however,beconducteddu uringtheperio odstartingon nehundredtw wenty(120)da aysbefore aregularelect a tionandninety y(90)daysbe eforeaspecial lelection. COMELEC,on theotherhan C nd,maintains that,amongo otherthings,t things,theCo onstitutionand dtheOmnibu usElection Code confer u C upon it the power to prom mulgate rules and regulations in order to ensure fre orderly an honest ee, nd elections. e ISSUE Wheth herCOMELEC CResolutionN No.8585isunc constitutionalasitcontrave enesSection8ofR.A.No.81 189 HELD H PETITIONGR P RANTED.
KABATAAN NPARTYLIS STREPRESENTATIVERAYM MONDV.PAL LATINOet.alvs.COMMISSIONONELEC CTIONS G.R.No.18986 G 68,December r15,2009
221|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Section8ofRA S A8189provid des: Section8.Syst S temofContinu uingRegistrat tionofVoters. Thepersonal filingofappl licationofregistrationofvo otersshall beconducted dailyintheofficeoftheEl b lectionOfficer rduringregul larofficehour rs.Noregistra ationshall,ho owever,be conducteddur c ringtheperio odstartingonehundredtw wenty(120)da aysbeforear regularelectio onandninety (90)days beforeaspecia b alelection. The T clear text of the law th decrees t t hus that voters be allowed to r e register daily during regular offices hou urs,except duringtheper d riodstarting120daysbefor rearegularelectionand90daysbeforea aspecialelecti ion. Respecting the authority of the COMELE under RA 6 R e f EC 6646 and RA 8436 to fix o other dates fo preelection acts, the or n sameisnotin conflictwith themandate ofcontinuing s gvoterregistra ationunderR RA8189.This Courtsprima arydutyis to t harmonize laws rather than consider one as repea t aled by the ot ther. The pres sumption is against inconsistency or repugnance an according against im r nd, gly, mplied repeal. For Congres is presume to know th existing law on the ss ed he ws subjectandno s ottoenactinco onsistentorconflictingstat tutes. BothR.A.No. 6646,Section B n29andR.A.N No.8436,Section28grant theCOMELEC Cthepowert tofixotherpe eriodsand dates for preelection activ d vities onlyif th samecanno be reasona he ot ably held with the period provided by law. This hin d y grant of powe however, is for the purp g er, pose of enabl ling the peopl to exercise the right of s le suffrage the common e underlyingpol u licyofRA818 89,RA6646an ndRA8436. In the present case, the Court findsno g t ground to hold that the ma andate of con ntinuing voter registration cannot be r reasonablyheldwithinthe periodprovid r dedbyRA8189,Sec.8d dailyduringof fficehours,ex xceptduringt theperiod starting120daysbeforethe s eMay10,2010regularelec ctions.Thereisthusnoocca asionfortheC COMELECtoe exerciseits powertofixot p therdatesord deadlinesther refor. TheCourt,the T erefore,findsn nolegalimped dimenttotheextensionpra ayedfor.TheC COMELECisd directedtopro oceedwith dispatchinreo d openingthere egistrationofv votersandho oldingthesam meuntilJanuar ry9,2010. R.A.No.8189 decreesthat votersbeallo R owedtoregist terdailyduringregularoff ficeshours,ex xceptduringt theperiod starting120d s daysbeforea regularelecti ionand90da aysbeforeaspecialelection n.Suchmand dateofcontinu uingvoter registrationm r mustbecompli iedwithbyCO OMELECinaccordancewith hlaw. The T power of COMELEC to fix other per riods and date for preele es ection activitie can only be exercised if the same es e f cannot be rea c asonably held within the p period provide by law pu ed ursuant to the purpose of enabling the people to e exercisetherightofsuffrage e e. oOo
PartyList P
VARGAS,A. V
TheCOMELEC,,whichistask T kedmerelytoe enforceandad dministerelect tionrelatedla aws,cannotsim mplydisregard danactof Congress exerc C cised within the bounds of its authority As a mere implementing body, it can t f y. g nnot judge the wisdom, propriety or ra p ationality of such act. Its r s recourse is to draft an amendment to the law and lob for its app e bby proval and enactmentbyt e thelegislature e.
VET TERANSFEDE ERATIONPAR Y,petitione RT erv.COMELEC C,respondent GR R.No.136781 ober6,2000 Octo
222|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts OnMay11,19 O 998,thefirste electionforthepartylistsc chemewasheldsimultaneo ouslywiththenationalelec ctions.One hundredandt h twentythreep parties,organizationsandc coalitionspart ticipated.OnJune26,1998 8,theCOMELE ECenbanc proclaimedthi p irteenpartyli istrepresenta ativesfromtw welvepartiesa andorganizati ions,whichha adobtainedat tleasttwo percentofthetotalnumberofvotescastforthepartyl p listsystem. Thirtyeight d T defeated part ties and orga anizations promptly filed suit in the COMELEC, pleading for t their own proclamations p s.Hence,COMELECordered dtheproclama ationofthe38 8parties.Such hmovefilledupthe52sea atsallotted forthepartyl f listreps.Agg grieved,thepr roclaimedpar rtiesaskedtheSCtoannultheCOMELECactionand insteadto proclaimaddit p tionalseats,so othateachofthemwouldh havethreepar rtylistreps. ISSUES: 1. Is the twenty perce allocation for partylist representatives mentione in Section 5 (2), Article VI of the e ent n ed e Constitution, mand datory or is it merely a ceiling? In other words, shou the twenty percent allo r uld y ocation for listsolonsbefilledupcom mpletelyandal llthetime? party 2. Are th two percen threshold r he nt requirement a the three t limit pro and sea ovided in Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 f consti itutional? 3. If the answer to Issue 2 is in the affirmati e I ive, how should the addit tional seats o a qualified party be of determ mined? HELD: H PetitionPART P TIALLYGRANTED TheCOMELEC T Ccommitteda agraveabuse ofdiscretion inrulingthat tthe38herei inrespondent tsareeachen ntitledtoa partylist seat because it glaringly viola p t g ated two requ uirements of R RA7941 whic is the two percent threshold and ch proportionalr p representation n. Section 5(2), A S Article VI of the Constitutio is not man t on ndatory. It m merely provide a ceiling for party list se es eats in the HouseofRepr H resentatives.T TheCongressisvestedwit thpowertode efineandpres scribethemec chanicsofthe epartylist system of rep s presentation. In the exercise of their C Constitutional prerogative, Congress dee emed it neces ssary that partiesparticipatinginthes p systemtoobta ainatleast2% %ofthetotalv votescasttob beentitledtoa apartylistse eat.Thisis toensurethatonlypartiesw t withsufficient tnumberofco onstituentsareactuallyrepresentedinCo ongress. Themethodofallocatingad T dditionalseat ts,thefirstste epistoranka alltheparticip patingparties saccordingto othevotes theyeachobta t ained.Theper rcentageofthe eirrespectivevotesasagain nstthetotaln numberofvote escastforthe epartylist system is then determined. All those tha garnered a least two percent of the total votes cast have an a s n at at assured or guaranteedseatintheHous g seofRepresen ntatives.Thereafter,thoseg garneringmor rethantwope ercentofthev votesshall beentitledtoa b additionalsea atsinproportiontotheirtot talnumberofvotes. oOo ANGBAG GONGBAYANI IOFWLABOR PARTY,petitionerv.COM R MELEC,respon ndent Jun GR RNo.147589 ne25,2003 Those who ha less in life should have more in law. The privilege given to the marginalize sectors should not be ave e es ed viewedasineq v quality,butasanecessaryst tepinachievin ngjustice.The partylistsyst temisbutone eofthetoolsth hatisused byourlawmak b kerstogivemo orelawtothos sewhohavele essinlife. TwoPetitionsunderRule65oftheRules T sofCourt,cha allengingOmn nibusResolutio onNo.3785is ssuedbytheC COMELEC. ThisResolutio T onapprovedth heparticipatio onof154organizationsand dparties,includingthoseh hereinimplead ded,inthe
223|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 2001partylis 2 stelections.Pe etitionersseekthedisquali ificationofpr rivaterespond dents,arguing gmainlythat theparty li istsystemwa asintendedtobenefitthem marginalizeda andunderrepr resented;not themainstrea ampoliticalparties,the nonmarginali n izedoroverre epresented. Akbayan Citiz A zens Action Party filed bef P fore the COM MELEC a Petit tion praying that "the nam of some of herein mes respondents b deleted from the 'Certified List o Political P r be f of Parties/Sector Parties/Organizations/ ral /Coalitions Participating i the Party List System f the May 1 2001 Elec P in for 14, ctions' and th said certif hat fied list be ac ccordingly amended."Ita a alsoasked,as analternativ ve,thatthevo otescastforth hesaidrespon ndentsnotbe ecountedorc canvassed, and that the latter's nomin a nees not be proclaimed. B Bayan Muna and Bayan M MunaYouth also filed a Pe etition for CancellationofRegistration C nandNominat tionagainstso omeofhereinrespondents. Ang A Bagong B BayaniOFW Labor Party fi L iled a petition before The Court. The p n petition assail COMELEC Omnibus led C Resolution No 3785. On April 17,2001, Petitioner B R o. A , Bayan Muna a also filed befo the Court a petition ch ore t hallenging OmnibusReso O olutionNo.378 85.SotheCou urtorderedtheconsolidatio onofthetwop petitions ISSUES: herornotpoliticalpartiesm mayparticipat teintheparty ylistelections s. 1. Wheth 2. Wheth or not the partylist system is ex her xclusive to m marginalized and underrep presented sectors and organ nizations HELD: H PetitionREMA P ANDEDtoCOM MELEC UndertheCon U nstitutionand RA7941,priv vateresponde entscannotbedisqualifiedfromthepartylistelection ns,merely on o the ground that they are political par d rties. Section 5, Article VI o the Constit of tution provide that memb es bers of the House of Repr H resentatives may "be electe through a partylist sys m ed stem of regist tered national regional, an sectoral l, nd partiesororga p anizations."Fu urthermore,u underSections s7and8,Arti icleIX(C)oftheConstitutio on,politicalpa artiesmay be b registered under the partylist sys p stem. Moreov ver, Commissioner Monsod, during the deliberations in the ConstitutionalCommission,statedthat"T C Thepurposeo ofthisistoope enthesystem... Thatpoliticalp T partiesmayp participateint thepartylist electionsdoesnotmean,h however,that anypoliticalp partyor anyorganizati a ionorgroupf forthatmattermaydoso.Therequisit techaracterof ftheseparties sororganizat tionsmust be b consistent with the pur rpose of the p partylist system, as laid down in the Constitution an RA 7941. Section 5, nd ArticleVIofth A heConstitution n,providesasfollows: (2)Theparty ( listrepresent tativesshallco onstitutetwen ntypercentum mofthetotal numberofrepresentatives sincluding thoseunderth t hepartylist.F Forthreecons secutivetermsaftertherat tificationofth hisConstitutio on,onehalfof ftheseats allocated to p a partylist repr resentatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by s , selection or election from the labor, peasant,urban p npoor,indige enouscultural lcommunities s,women,you uth,andsuch othersectors asmaybepr rovidedby la aw,exceptthe ereligioussec ctor." Theforegoingprovisiononthepartylistsystemisnot T tselfexecutor ry.Hence,RA7941wasena actedwhichm mandatesa state policy of promoting proportional representatio by means o the Filipinostyle party s f p on of list system, w which will "enable" the election to the House of Representatives of Filip " t pino citizens, who belong to margina g alized and underrepresen u ntedsectors,o organizations andparties;w wholackwell ldefinedcons stituencies;bu utwhocouldc contribute totheformula t ationandenac ctmentofappr ropriatelegislationthatwill lbenefitthen nationasawhole Theintentoft T theConstitutio onisclear:to givegenuine powertothepeople,noto onlybygiving morelawtot thosewho have less in li but more so by enablin them to be h ife, ng ecome veritab lawmakers themselves. Section 5 of RA 7941, ble . f whichstatesth w hat,anyorgan nizedgroupof fpersonsmay yregisterasaparty,organi izationorcoal litionProvided,thatthe sector shall in s nclude labor, peasant, fishe erfolk, urban poor, indigen nous cultural communities elderly, han s, ndicapped,
224 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts women, youth veterans, overseas wo w h, orkers, and p professionals." While the enumeration of margina " n alized and underrepresen u nted sectors is not exclusi i ive, it demons strates the clear intent of the law that not all secto can be t ors representedundertheparty r ylistsystem.Allowingthenonmarginal lizedandover rrepresentedt tovieforther remaining seats under th partylist system would not only d s he dilute, but also prejudice t chance of the margina the f alized and underrepresen u nted,contrary ytotheintent tionofthelaw wtoenhancei it.Thepartyl listsystemis atoolforthe benefitof the under pri t ivileged; the law could no have given the same t ot n tool to others to the prej s, judice of the intended beneficiaries b oOo ANGLADLADL LGBTPARTY Y,petitionervs s.COMELEC,r respondent GRNo.190582 G 2 Ap pril8,2010 One O unavoidab consequen of everyon having the freedom to ch ble nce ne hoose is that others may m make different choices t choiceswewouldnotmakef c forourselves, choiceswema aydisapprove eof,evenchoic cesthatmays shockoroffend doranger us. u However, c choices are no to be legally prohibited m ot ly merely becaus they are dif se fferent, and th right to dis he sagree and debateaboutimportantques d stionsofpubli icpolicyisaco orevalueprote ectedbyourB BillofRights.I Indeed,ourdem mocracyis builtongenuin b nerecognitionof,andrespec ctfor,diversity yanddifferenc ceinopinion. A A petition was filed before the Supreme Court by An Ladlad LGB Party list (Ang Ladlad) contesting COMELECs s e ng BT refusaltoaccr r reditAngLadl ladasaparty listorganizat tionunderRepublicAct(RA A)No.7941,o otherwisekno ownasthe PartyList Sys P stem Act. Pe etitioner argu ued before th COMELEC that the LG he GBT (lesbians gays, bisex s, xuals and transgender)c t communityisamarginalizedandunder rrepresented sectorthatis sparticularly disadvantage edbecause oftheirsexual o lorientationa andgenderide entity;thatLG GBTsarevictimsofexclusio on,discrimina ation,andviol lence;that becauseofneg b gativesocietal lattitudes,LGBTsareconst trainedtohide etheirsexualorientation. TheCOMELEC T C(SecondDivi ision)dismiss sedthePetitio ononmoralgr roundsthatp petitionertoleratesimmora alitywhich offendsreligio o ousbeliefs,and dadvocatesse exualimmora ality.Petitione ershouldlikew wisebedenied daccreditationnotonly foradvocating f gimmoraldoc ctrinesbutlike ewisefornotbeingtruthfulwhenitsaidthatitorany yofitsnomine ees/party li representa ist atives have not violated or failed to com r mply with law rules, or r ws, regulations re elating to the elections. Furthermore,statesCOMEL F LEC,AngLadla adwillbeexpo osingouryou uthtoanenvir ronmentthatd doesnotconfo ormtothe teachingsofou t urfaith. ISSUES: her e ccreditation by COMELEC, v y violated the c constitutional guarantees a against the 1. Wheth or not the denial of ac establ lishmentofre eligion,insofar rasitjustified dtheexclusion nbyusingreligiousdogma 2. Wheth herornotthe eAssailedRes solutionscont travenedthec constitutional rightstopriv vacy,freedom ofspeech andas ssembly,andequalprotecti ionoflaws,of fAngLadlad,aswellascon nstitutedviola ationsoftheP Philippines intern nationalobliga ationsagainstdiscriminatio onbasedonse exualorientati ion HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED ArticleIII,Section5oftheC A Constitutions statesthat,N Nolawshallbe emaderespec ctinganestab blishmentofreligion,or prohibitingthe p efreeexercise ethereof.Atb bottom,whatournonestab blishmentclau usecallsforis sgovernmentneutrality in religious m matters. Clear governme rly, ental reliance on religious justification is inconsiste with this policy of s ent neutrality.The n eSupremeCo ourtruledthat titwasgrave eviolationoft thenonestab blishmentclau usefortheCO OMELECto utilize the Bib and the Koran to justif the exclusion of Ang La u ble K fy adlad. Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of t Assailed Resolutions s the should depend instead, on whether the COMELEC is able to adva d, n e s ance some
225|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ju ustification fo its rulings beyond mer conformity to religious doctrine. Th governmen must act fo secular or re y he nt or purposesandinwaysthath p haveprimarily yseculareffec cts Moreover, the should ha been a fin M ere ave nding by the COMELEC th the groups members h hat have committ or are ted committingim c mmoralacts.COMELEChave efailedtoexpl lainwhatsoci ietalillsareso oughttobepr revented,orw whyspecial protectionisr p requiredforth heyouth.Und deroursystem moflaws,eve erygrouphastherighttop promoteitsag gendaand attempttoper a rsuadesociety yofthevalidi ityofitsposit tionthroughn normaldemoc craticmeans. Freedomofe expression constituteson c neoftheessen ntialfoundationsofademo ocraticsociety y,andthisfre eedomapplies snotonlytot thosethat arefavorablyr a receivedbuta alsotothoset thatoffend,sh hock,ordistur rb.Absentofa anycompellingstateinteres st,itisnot for f the COMELEC or the Su upreme Court, to impose its views on the populace. Otherwise s stated, the CO OMELEC is certainlynotf c freetointerfer rewithspeech hfornobette erreasonthan npromotinganapprovedm messageordis scouraging adisfavoredone.Lawsofge a eneralapplica ationshoulda applywithequ ualforcetoLG GBTs,andthey ydeservetop participate inthepartylis stsystemont thesamebasis sasothermar rginalizedand dunderrepresentedsector rs.Thisisinac ccordwith thecountrysi t internationalo obligationsto oprotectandp promotehuma anrights.The eprincipleofn nondiscrimin nationasit relatestother r righttoelectoralparticipati ion,enunciate edintheUDHR RandtheICCP PRshouldber recognized. oOo BAYANMUNA,petiti ionerv.COME ELEC,respond dent G.R.No.17 79295 June28 8,2001 The T Party list system requires a certain limit, in orde to attain its purpose in r er s representing g groups of peo ople in the le egislature.Oth herwise,itwou causeconf uld fusionandhav vocinthelawm makingbody. The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the par T s rtylist repres sentatives. T The COMELEC counted C 15,950,900vo 1 otescastfor9 93partiesund dertheParty ListSystem.O On9July200 07,theCOMEL LEC,sittingas stheNBC, promulgatedN p NBCResolutio onNo.0760.NBCResolutionNo.0760proclaimedth hirteen(13)partiesaswinn nersinthe partylist elec p ctions, namely Buhay Hayaan Yumabon (BUHAY), Bayan Muna, Citizens Bat y: ng ttle Against C Corruption (CIBAC), Gabr ( rielas Women Party (Gabriela), Association of Phili n ippine Electri Cooperativ (APEC), A Teacher, ic ves A Akbayan!Citiz A zensActionPa arty(AKBAYA AN),Alagad,LuzonFarmers sParty(BUTIL L),Cooperativ veNatcoNetw workParty (COOPNATCC ( CO),AnakPaw wis,Allianceof fRuralConcer rns(ARC),andAbono.On2 27June2002, ,BANATfiled aPetition toProclaimth t heFullNumbe erofPartyLis stRepresentat tivesProvided dbytheCons stitution.COM MELEC,howev ver,isduty boundtoands b shallimpleme enttheVeteran nsruling.TheformulainVe eteransvsCOM MELECisasfo ollows:(Eachpartyisof courseentitled c dtooneseat) Numberofvot N tesoffirstpar rtyProp portionofvote esoffirst =par rtyrelativetot totalvotesfor r Totalvotesfor T rpartylistsys stempart tylistsystem Whereinthep W proportionof votesreceivedbythefirst party(withou utroundingo off)shallentitl leittoadditio onalseats: (Thisisonlyto ( odeterminere epresentation nforthetopra ankingparty) Equaltooratl E least6% Two( (2)additionalseats Equaltoorgre E eaterthan4% %butlessthan n6% One(1 1)additionals seat Lessthan4% L dditionalseat Noad
226 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Forapartylist F ttoqualifyfor raseat,itmus stobtainatlea ast2%ofthet totalnumberofvotesforth hepartylistsy ystem(the twopercenter t rs)pursuant ttoRA7941. Anadditionalseatmustbe ebasedontheaboveformulas.Inshort, ,forevery 2% 2 the highes ranking pa st arty will get a extra seat in Congress. However, the additional s an e seat for the o other two percenters(se p econdinrankandtherest)wouldbedet terminedinpr roportiontothenumberof fvotesofthef firstparty. Thedilemmac T comesinimpl lementingthe emandateoft theconstitutio on.Constitutio onprovidesth hatthereshou uldbe250 Congressmen, unless other C rwise fixed by law. 20% or 50 (fifty Co y ongressmen) of which shal come from party list ll representation r n.However,inthe14thCo ongress,there arealready2 220districtre epsandthatif f20%ofwhich his55.So thereshouldb t be55repsfromthepartyli istsystem.Bu utthefullimplementationo ofsuchcannot tbeobtained underthe Veteransform V mulaandRA79 914. ISSUES: ent n t ives in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Co n e onstitution 1. Is the twenty perce allocation for partylist representati mandatoryormere elyaceiling? 2. Isthethreeseatlim mitinSection1 11(b)ofRA79 941constituti ional? 3. Isthetwopercentt thresholdpres scribedinSection11(b)ofR RA7941toqu ualifyforones seatconstituti ional? 4. Hows shalltheparty ylistrepresen ntativeseatsb beallocated? 5. Doest theConstitutionprohibitth hemajorpolit ticalpartiesfromparticipat tinginthepar rtylistelection ns?Ifnot, canth hemajorpoliti icalpartiesbe ebarredfromparticipatinginthepartyli istelect tions? HELD: H PetitionPART P TIALLYGRANTED The T petitions have partial merit. We maintain that a Philippinest m a tyle partylist election has at least four inviolable t parametersasclearlystated p dinVeterans.Foreasyrefe erence,thesea are: First, the twen percent allocation the combined number of al partylist co F nty ll ongressmen s shall not excee twenty ed percentofthetotalmember p rshipoftheHo ouseofRepresentatives,inc cludingthoseelectedunder rthepartylist t; Second,thetw S wopercentthr resholdonlythoseparti iesgarnering aminimumoftwopercent tofthetotalv validvotes castforthepartylistsystem c marequalifie edtohaveaseatintheHou useofReprese entatives; Third,thethre T eeseatlimit eachqualifi iedparty,rega ardlessofthenumberofvo otesitactually yobtained,ise entitledto amaximumof a fthreeseats;t thatis,onequ ualifyingandtwoadditiona alseats; Fourth,propor F rtionalrepres sentationth headditionals seatswhichaqualifiedpart tyisentitledtoshallbecom mputedin proportiontotheirtotalnum p mberofvotes. The T Court ruled that, in co omputing the allocation of additional se f eats, the cont tinued operation of the tw percent wo thresholdfort t thedistributio onoftheaddit tionalseatsas sfoundinthesecondclause eofSection1 11(b)ofR.A.N No.7941is unconstitution u nal.ThisCour rtfindsthatth hetwopercen ntthresholdm makesitmath hematicallyim mpossibletoac chievethe maximum num m mber of avail lable party li seats when the numbe of available party list s ist er e seats exceeds 50. The continuedope c erationofthe twopercentt thresholdinth hedistributionoftheaddit tionalseatsfru ustratesthea attainment of o the permis ssive ceiling that 20% of the members of the Hou of Repres t s use sentatives sha consist of partylist all representative There are 55 available partylist seats. Suppos there are 50 million v r es. e e se votes cast for the 100 r participantsin p nthepartylis stelections. Apartythat hastwoperc centofthevo otescast,oronemillionvotes,getsa guaranteedse g eat.Letusfur rtherassume thatthefirst 50partiesall lgetonemilli ionvotes.On nly50parties getaseat despitetheav d vailabilityof5 55seats.Beca auseoftheop perationofthe etwopercent tthreshold,th hissituationw willrepeat it tselfevenifw weincreasethe eavailablepartylistseatst to60seatsandevenifwein ncreasethevo otescastto10 00million. Thus,evenift T themaximum numberofpa artiesgettwo percentofth hevotesforev veryparty,itisalwaysimpo ossiblefor thenumberof t foccupiedpar rtylistseatsto oexceed50se eatsaslongas sthetwopercentthresholdispresent.
227|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Hence,eachtw H wopercenter isguaranteed daseat.Inthe ecaseatbar,t therewere17 7twopercent ters.(therear re55seats sothereisstil s ll38seatsto befilledout)theiradditionalseatwilln notincludeth heguaranteed dseateachpa artystotal voteshallbed v dividedoverth hetotalnumberofvotesfor rthepartylist tsystem. Todeterminetheiraddition T nalallocation,thepercentag geoftheirvot te(partysvotetotalno.ofvotesforthe epartylist system)must bemultiplied s dbytherema ainingseats(5 5517=38)Roundofffigure estothenear resthigherfig gurehence 1.01=2thisw 1 waytheallocat ted55seatsfo orpartylistre epresentationwillbeproper rlyfilledout asmandated d. alseats,thegu uaranteedsea atsshallnolongerbeincludedbecauset theyhavealre eadybeen Incomputing theadditiona allocated,atoneseateach, toeverytwopercenter.T a Thus,therema ainingavailab bleseatsfora allocationasadditional seatsarethemaximumseatsreserved s dunderthePa artyListSyste emlessthegu uaranteedseats.Fractional lseatsare disregardedin d ntheabsenceo ofaprovision ninR.A.No.79 941allowingf forarounding goffoffraction nalseats. The20%ceilin T ngismandato ory,asSection n5,ArticleVIo oftheConstitu utionprovides sthat,TheHo ouseofRepresentatives shall be comp s posed of not more than tw hundred an fifty memb m wo nd bers, unless o otherwise fixed by law, wh shall be ho elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinc e g ces, cities, an the Metropolitan Manil area in nd la accordancewi a iththenumbe eroftheirrespectiveinhabitants,andon nthebasisof auniformand dprogressive ratio,and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party t s y ylist system o registered national, regional, and of sectoralpartie s esororganizat tions. oOo BAYON,petitio onerv.HRET,respondent AB GR.No.189466 6 Feb b.11,2010 TheCongress,a T asanindependentbodyhas stherighttoc controlitsown nmembership.Itisuptothe emtodetermin newhoare qualifiedtobeamongtheest q teemedlawma akers,inpursu uancetotheCo onstitution. DarylGraceJ. Abayonisthe D efirstnomine eeoftheAang gatTayoparty ylistorganiza ationthatwon naseatinthe eHouseof Representatives during the 2007 electio R e ons. Perfecto C. Lucaban, Jr., Ronyl S. Dela Cruz, and Agustin C. D d Doroga, all registered vot r ters, filed a petition for qu warranto w p uo with respond dent HRET against Aangat Tayo and its nominee, petitionerAba p ayon.Theycla aimedthatAangatTayowa asnoteligible forapartylis stseat,since itdidnotrepresentthe marginalized a m and underrep presented sec ctors. Lucaban and the oth n hers with him further poin m nted out that petitioner Abayon also was not qua A alified as a partylist nominee, since she did not belong to the margina alized and underrepresen u ntedsectors,b beingthewife eofanincumb bentcongressionaldistrictr representative e. Abayonpointe A edoutthatHR REThadnoju urisdictionove erthepetition nforquowarrantosincere espondentLuc cabanand theotherswithhimcollater t rallyattackedtheregistrati ionofAangatTayoasapartylistorganiz zation,amatte erthatfell within the jur w risdiction of th COMELEC. HRET issued an order, di he d ismissing the petition as ag gainst Aangat Tayo but t upholding its jurisdiction over the quali u o ifications of p petitioner Aba ayon. Lesaca and the othe with him filed with ers respondent HRET a petitio for quo wa r on arranto again Bantay an its nomine petitioner Palparan, alle nst nd ee, eging that Palparanwas ineligibletos P sitintheHous seofRepresen ntativesaspa artylistnomin neebecauseh hedidnotbelo ongtothe marginalized and underrep m presented sec ctors that Ba antay represe ented, namely the victims of communi rebels, y, s ist CivilianArmed C dForcesGeographicalUnits s(CAFGUs),for rmerrebels,a andsecuritygu uards. PetitionerPalp P parancounter redthattheH HREThadnoju urisdiction.Su uchquestionm mustbebroug ght,hesaid,b beforethat partylistgrou p up,notbeforetheHRET.HR RETissuedanorderdismiss singthepetitionagainstBantayforthere easonthat theissueofthe t eineligibilityorqualificatio onoftheparty ylistgroupfel llwithintheju urisdictionoftheCOMELEC Cpursuant to t the PartyL System Act. HRET, how List A wever, defend its jurisd ded diction over th question o petitioner P he of Palparans qualifications. q
228 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thecaseswereconsolidated T dbytheCourt t ISSUES: Whether or n responden HRET has jurisdiction o W not nt over the ques stion of qualifications of p petitioners Ab bayon and Palparan as n P nominees of Aangat Tayo a Bantay pa A and artylist organ nizations, resp pectively, who took the se eats at the HouseofRepr H resentativesth hatsuchorgan nizationswoninthe2007elections. HELD: H PetitionDISMISSED P Sincepetitione S ersAbayonan ndPalparanw werenotelecte edintooffice butwerechos senbytheirre espectiveorga anizations undertheirint u ternalrules,th heHREThasn nojurisdiction ntoinquirein ntoandadjudic catetheirqua alificationsasn nominees. Themembers oftheHouse ofRepresenta T ativesareoft twokinds:"m membersxxx whoshallbe electedfrom legislative districts"and" d "thosewhoxx xxshallbeele ectedthrough hapartylistsy ystemofregis sterednationa al,regional,an ndsectoral parties or org p ganizations." This means th from the C T hat, Constitutions point of view it is the pa s w, artylist representatives whoare"elect w ted"intooffic ce,nottheirpa artiesororga anizations.The eserepresent tativesareele ected,however,through thatpeculiarp t partylistsyste emthattheCo onstitutionau uthorizedandthatCongress sbylawestablishedwherethevoters casttheirvote c esfortheorgan nizationsorp partiestowhic chsuchpartylistrepresent tativesbelong. Sec.9.Qualific S cationofParty yListNomine ees.Noperso onshallbeno ominatedaspa artylistrepre esentativeunlessheisa naturalbornc n citizenoftheP Philippines,ar registeredvot ter,aresident tofthePhilipp pinesforaper riodofnotless sthanone year immedia y ately precedin the day of the election able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or ng f n, d e organization w o which he seek to represen for at least ninety days preceding the day of the e ks nt t election, and is at least twentyfiveye t earsofageont thedayofthe eelection. RETtointerpr retthemeanin ngofthispart ticularqualific cationofanom mineethene eedforhimor rhertobe ItisfortheHR a a bona fide m member or a representative of his party e list organizat tionin the c context of the facts that ch haracterize petitioners Ab p bayon and Pa alparans rela ation to Aang Tayo and Bantay, resp gat pectively, and the margina d alized and underrepresen u ntedintereststhattheypresumablyembody. Section 17, Ar S rticle VI of the Constitution provides that the HRET shall be the s n sole judge of all contests relating to, amongothert a things,thequalificationsof fthemembersoftheHouseofRepresen ntatives.Since e,aspointedo outabove, partylistnom p mineesare"ele ectedmember rs"oftheHou useofRepresentativesnol lessthanthe districtrepresentatives are, the HRET has jurisdic a T ction to hear and pass up pon their qualifications. By analogy wit the cases of district y th representative r es,oncethepartyororgan nizationofthe epartylistno omineehasbe eenproclaime edandthenom mineehas taken his oath and assume office as m t h ed member of th House of R he Representative the COMELECs jurisdic es, ction over electioncontes e stsrelatingto ohisqualificat tionsendsand dtheHRETso ownjurisdictio onbegins. oOo BANTAY RA7941,pet titionerv.COM MELEC,respon ent nd GR.N No.177271;GR R.No.177314 May4,2007 4 The T right to in nformation is a vital part o our democracy. However,, not all inform of mation are be eneficial to be disclosed. e Thus,asalloth T herrights,itissubjecttolimitation. Anumberoforganizedgrou A upsfiledthenecessaryman nifestationsan ndsubsequent tlywereaccreditedbytheC Comelecto participatein the2007elec p ctions.Bantay yRepublicAct t(BARA7941 1)andtheUr rbanPoorfor LegalReform ms(UPLR) filed with the COMELEC an Urgent Peti f n ition to Disqu ualify, seeking to disqualify the nomine of certain partylist g y ees organizations.Meanwhile,p o petitionerRos sales,addressed2lettersto otheDirector roftheCOME ELECsLawDe epartment
229|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts requestingali r istofthatgro oupsnominee es,notknowin ngtheissuan nceofCOMEL LECenbancR Resolutiondec claringthe nominees nam confidential and in net effect deny n mes ying petitione Rosales basic disclosur request. COMELECs er re reasonforkee r epingthenam mesofthepart tylistnomineesawayfrom mthepublicis becauseofth heissuewitht theManila Bulletin, thatt B there is nothi in R.A. 7941 that requires the COME ing ELECtodisclo the names nominees ose sof s,andthat partylistelect p tionsmustnot tbepersonalit tyorientedac ccordingtoCh hairmanAbalo os. tition,BARA 7941andUP LRassailthe Comelecreso olutionsaccre editingprivate erespondents sBiyaheng Inthefirstpet Pinoyetal.,to P oparticipatein ntheforthcom mingpartylistelectionswi ithoutsimulta aneouslydeter rminingwhetherornot theirrespectiv t venomineesp possessthere equisitequalifi icationsdefinedinR.A.No. 7941,orthe "PartyListSy ystemAct" andbelongtothemarginalizedandunder a rrepresentedsectoreachse eeksto. tionersLoreta aAnnP.Rosal les,Kilosbaya anFoundation nandBantayK KatarunganFoundation Inthesecond petition,petit lecResolution ndatedApril3 3,2007. impugnComel TheCourtconsolidatedthecases T ISSUES: her ent by o e 1. Wheth responde Comelec, b refusing to reveal the names of the nominees of the various partylist group asviolatedtherighttoinformationa ps,h d andfreeaccesstodocumentsasguarante eedbytheCon itution; nst and her s by tution to discl lose to the pu ublic the nam of said mes 2. Wheth respondent Comelec is mandated b the Constit nomin nees. HELD: H PetitionPART P TIALLYGRANTED The T first petit tion is partly denied insofa as it seeks to nullify the accreditation of the respo ar n ondents name therein. ed However,inso H ofarasitseek kstocompelt theCOMELEC todiscloseorpublishthe namesofthe enomineesof fpartylist groups,sector g rsororganizat tionsaccreditedtoparticipateintheMay y14,2007ele ections,the2p petitionsareG GRANTED. Accordingly,th A heCOMELECisherebyORD DEREDtoimm mediatelydisc closeandrelea asethenames softhenomin neesofthe partylistgrou p ups, Thedesiredpl T leaofpetition nersBARA7941andUPLR Rforcancellat tionofaccredi itationonthegroundsthusadvanced in their petitio would req on quire the Cour to make a factual determination, a m rt matter which is outside the office of e udicialreview wbywayofsp pecialcivilac ctionforcertio orari.Incertiorariproceed dings,theCou urtisnotcalle eduponto ju decidefactual issuesandth d hecasemustb bedecidedon ntheundispu utedfactsonr record.Theso olefunctionofawritof certiorariisto c oaddressissuesofwantofj jurisdictionor rgraveabuse eofdiscretionanddoesnot tincludearev viewofthe tribunalseval t luationofthee evidence. Therighttoin T nformationisa apublicrightwheretherea alpartiesinin nterestarethe epublic,orth hecitizenstob beprecise. And A for every right of the people recog y gnized as fund damental lies a correspond ding duty on the part of t those who governtoresp g pectandprote ectthatright. Thisisthees ssenceoftheB BillofRightsi inaconstituti ionalregime. Withouta governmentsacceptanceof g fthelimitation nsuponitbytheConstituti ioninorderto oupholdindiv viduallibertie es,without an a acknowled dgment on its part of those duties exacted by the rights pertainin to the citizens, the Bill of Rights e ng becomesasop b phistry. The T COMELEC has a constitutional duty to disclose and release the names of th nominees o the partylist groups C he of named in the herein petitio n ons. The right to informati is a publi right where the real par t ion ic e rties in intere are the est public, or the citizensto be precise, but like all const p e titutionalguar rantees, howe ever, the right tto information and its companion rig of access to official rec c ght cords are not absolute. The peoples rig to know is limited to m e ght s matters of publicconcern p nandisfurth hersubjectto osuchlimitationasmaybe eprovidedby law.Butnon nationalsecur rityorlike
230 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts concerns is in c nvolved in th disclosure of the names of the nom he s minees of the partylist gro oups in quest tion. The COMELECcom C mmittedgrave eabuseofdisc cretioninrefu using thelegit timatedeman ndsofthepet titionersfora listofthe nomineesofth n hepartylistgr roupssubjectoftheirrespe ectivepetition ns. oOo MORES,petitio ervs.HRET,respondent on AM GR.No.189600 0 Jun ne29,2010 Theagelimita T appliestoally youthsectors. Theagerequirementmust bepresentat dayofelectio onandnotmerelyatthe timeofregistra t ation. Milagros E. Am M mores challen nges the Decis sion of the Ho ouse of Repre esentatives El lectoral Tribu unal, which respectively dismissedpeti d itionersPetiti ionforQuoW Warrantoquest tioningtheleg galityoftheas ssumptionofofficeofEmm manuelJoel J.Villanuevaa asrepresentat tiveofthepar rtylistorganiz zationCitizen nsBattleAgainstCorruption(CIBAC)in theHouse ofRepresentat o tives,andden niedpetitioner rsMotionforReconsiderati ion. nforQuoWar rrantoseeking gtheousterof fprivaterespondent,petitionerallegedt thatprivatere espondent InherPetition assumed office without a fo a e ormal proclam mation issued by the COME d ELEC; he was disqualified to be a nomin of the s nee youthsectoro y ofCIBACsince, ,atthetimeofthefilingofh hiscertificates sofnominatio onandaccepta ance,hewasa already31 yearsoldorbe y eyondtheage elimitof30pu ursuanttoSec ction9ofthePartyListSys stemAct;andhischangeofaffiliation f from CIBACs youth sector to its overse Filipino w f eas workers and t their families sector was n effected at least six not monthspriort m totheMay14 4,2007electio onssoastob bequalifiedtorepresentthenewsector underSection n15ofRA No.7941. N ISSUE: WhetherSections9and15o W ofRANo.7941applytoprivateresponde ent. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED The Court fin no textua support for public respondents inte T nds al r erpretation th Section 9 applied only to those hat y nominatedduringthefirst threecongres n ssionalterms aftertheratif ficationofthe eConstitution noruntil1998 8,unlessa sectoralpartyisthereafterr s registeredexc clusivelyasrepresentingtheyouthsector r. Asthelawsta A atesinunequi ivocaltermst thatanomine eeoftheyouth hsectormust tatleastbetw wentyfive(25 5)butnot morethanthir m rty(30)years sofageonthedayofthee election,soit mustbethat acandidatew whoismoreth han30on electiondayis e snotqualified dtobeayouth hsectornomi inee.Sincethismandateis containedinR RANo.7941, theParty ListSystemAc L ct,itcoversAL LLyouthsecto ornomineesvy yingforparty ylistrepresen ntativeseats. RespectingSection15ofRA R ANo.7941,th heCourtfails tofindeven aniotaoftex xtualsupport forpublicres spondents ratiocinationt r thattheprovisiondidnota applytopriva aterespondentsshiftofaffi filiationfromC CIBACsyouth hsectorto it overseas F ts Filipino worke and their families sect as there was no resul ers r tor ltant change in partylist affiliation. RespectingSection15ofRA R ANo.7941,th heCourtfails tofindeven aniotaoftex xtualsupport forpublicres spondents ratiocinationt r thattheprovisiondidnota applytopriva aterespondentsshiftofaffi filiationfromC CIBACsyouth hsectorto it tsoverseasFi ilipinoworker rsandtheirfamiliessectora astherewasn noresultantch hangeinparty ylistaffiliation. oOo
231|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts BAN NAT,petitioner rvs.COMELEC,respondent t Gr r.No.179271 ril21,2009 Apr (cons solidatedwith hBayanMunavs.COMELEC C) The T Party list system requires a certain limit, in orde to attain its purpose in r er s representing g groups of peo ople in the le egislature.Oth herwise,itwou causeconf uld fusionandhav vocinthelawm makingbody. The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the par T s rtylist repres sentatives. T The COMELEC counted C 15,950,900vo 1 otescastfor9 93partiesund dertheParty ListSystem.O On9July200 07,theCOMEL LEC,sittingas stheNBC, promulgatedN p NBCResolutio onNo.0760.NBCResolutionNo.0760proclaimedth hirteen(13)partiesaswinn nersinthe partylist elec p ctions, namely Buhay Hayaan Yumabon (BUHAY), Bayan Muna, Citizens Bat y: ng ttle Against C Corruption (CIBAC), Gabr ( rielas Women Party (Gabriela), Association of Phili n ippine Electri Cooperativ (APEC), A Teacher, ic ves A Akbayan!Citiz A zensActionPa arty(AKBAYA AN),Alagad,LuzonFarmers sParty(BUTIL L),Cooperativ veNatcoNetw workParty (COOPNATCC ( CO),AnakPaw wis,Allianceof fRuralConcer rns(ARC),andAbono.On2 27June2002, ,BANATfiled aPetition toProclaimth t heFullNumbe erofPartyLis stRepresentat tivesProvided dbytheCons stitution.COM MELEC,howev ver,isduty boundtoands b shallimpleme enttheVeteran nsruling.TheformulainVe eteransvsCOM MELECisasfo ollows:(Eachpartyisof courseentitled c dtooneseat) Numberofvot N tesoffirstpar rtyProp portionofvote esoffirst =par rtyrelativetot totalvotesfor r Totalvotesfor T rpartylistsys stempart tylistsystem Whereinthep W proportionof votesreceivedbythefirst party(withou utroundingo off)shallentitl leittoadditio onalseats: (Thisisonlyto ( odeterminere epresentation nforthetopra ankingparty) Equaltooratl E least6% Two( (2)additionalseats Equaltoorgre E eaterthan4% %butlessthan n6% One(1 1)additionals seat Lessthan4% L dditionalseat Noad Forapartylist F ttoqualifyfor raseat,itmus stobtainatlea ast2%ofthet totalnumberofvotesforth hepartylistsy ystem(the twopercenter t rs)pursuant ttoRA7941. Anadditionalseatmustbe ebasedontheaboveformulas.Inshort, ,forevery 2% 2 the highes ranking pa st arty will get a extra seat in Congress. However, the additional s an e seat for the o other two percenters(se p econdinrankandtherest)wouldbedet terminedinpr roportiontothenumberof fvotesofthef firstparty. Thedilemmac T comesinimpl lementingthe emandateoft theconstitutio on.Constitutio onprovidesth hatthereshou uldbe250 Congressmen, unless other C rwise fixed by law. 20% or 50 (fifty Co y ongressmen) of which shal come from party list ll representation r n.However,inthe14thCo ongress,there arealready2 220districtre epsandthatif f20%ofwhich his55.So thereshouldb t be55repsfromthepartyli istsystem.Bu utthefullimplementationo ofsuchcannot tbeobtained underthe Veteransform V mulaandRA79 914. ISSUES: 1. Is the twenty perce allocation for partylist representati ent n t ives in Section 5(2), Article VI of the Co n e onstitution mandatoryormere elyaceiling? 2. Isthethreeseatlim mitinSection1 11(b)ofRA79 941constituti ional? 3. Isthetwopercentt thresholdpres scribedinSection11(b)ofR RA7941toqu ualifyforones seatconstituti ional? 4. Hows shalltheparty ylistrepresen ntativeseatsb beallocated?
232|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 5. Doest theConstitutionprohibitth hemajorpolit ticalpartiesfromparticipat tinginthepar rtylistelection ns?Ifnot, canth hemajorpoliti icalpartiesbe ebarredfromparticipatinginthepartyli istelections? HELD: H PetitionPART P TIALLYGRANTED The T petitions have partial merit. We maintain that a Philippinest m a tyle partylist election has at least four inviolable t parametersasclearlystated p dinVeterans.Foreasyrefe erence,thesea are: First, the twen percent allocation the combined number of al partylist co F nty ll ongressmen s shall not excee twenty ed percentofthetotalmember p rshipoftheHo ouseofRepresentatives,inc cludingthoseelectedunder rthepartylist t; Second,thetw S wopercentthr resholdonlythoseparti iesgarnering aminimumoftwopercent tofthetotalv validvotes castforthepartylistsystem c marequalifie edtohaveaseatintheHou useofReprese entatives; Third,thethre T eeseatlimit eachqualifi iedparty,rega ardlessofthenumberofvo otesitactually yobtained,ise entitledto amaximumof a fthreeseats;t thatis,onequ ualifyingandtwoadditiona alseats; Fourth,propor F rtionalrepres sentationth headditionals seatswhichaqualifiedpart tyisentitledtoshallbecom mputedin proportiontotheirtotalnum p mberofvotes. The T Court ruled that, in co omputing the allocation of additional se f eats, the cont tinued operation of the tw percent wo thresholdfort t thedistributio onoftheaddit tionalseatsas sfoundinthesecondclause eofSection1 11(b)ofR.A.N No.7941is unconstitution u nal.ThisCour rtfindsthatth hetwopercen ntthresholdm makesitmath hematicallyim mpossibletoac chievethe maximum num m mber of avail lable party li seats when the numbe of available party list s ist er e seats exceeds 50. The continuedope c erationofthe twopercentt thresholdinth hedistributionoftheaddit tionalseatsfru ustratesthea attainment of o the permis ssive ceiling that 20% of the members of the Hou of Repres t s use sentatives sha consist of partylist all representative There are 55 available partylist seats. Suppos there are 50 million v r es. e e se votes cast for the 100 r participantsin p nthepartylis stelections. Apartythat hastwoperc centofthevo otescast,oronemillionvotes,getsa guaranteedse g eat.Letusfur rtherassume thatthefirst 50partiesall lgetonemilli ionvotes.On nly50parties getaseat despitetheav d vailabilityof5 55seats.Beca auseoftheop perationofthe etwopercent tthreshold,th hissituationw willrepeat it tselfevenifw weincreasethe eavailablepartylistseatst to60seatsandevenifwein ncreasethevo otescastto10 00million. Thus,evenift T themaximum numberofpa artiesgettwo percentofth hevotesforev veryparty,itisalwaysimpo ossiblefor thenumberof t foccupiedpar rtylistseatsto oexceed50se eatsaslongas sthetwopercentthresholdispresent. Hence,eachtw H wopercenter isguaranteed daseat.Inthe ecaseatbar,t therewere17 7twopercent ters.(therear re55seats sothereisstil s ll38seatsto befilledout)theiradditionalseatwilln notincludeth heguaranteed dseateachpa artystotal voteshallbed v dividedoverth hetotalnumberofvotesfor rthepartylist tsystem. Todeterminetheiraddition T nalallocation,thepercentag geoftheirvot te(partysvotetotalno.ofvotesforthe epartylist system)must bemultiplied s dbytherema ainingseats(5 5517=38)Roundofffigure estothenear resthigherfig gurehence 1.01=2thisw 1 waytheallocat ted55seatsfo orpartylistre epresentationwillbeproper rlyfilledout asmandated d. alseats,thegu uaranteedsea atsshallnolongerbeincludedbecauset theyhavealre eadybeen Incomputing theadditiona allocated,atoneseateach, toeverytwopercenter.T a Thus,therema ainingavailab bleseatsfora allocationasadditional seatsarethemaximumseatsreserved s dunderthePa artyListSyste emlessthegu uaranteedseats.Fractional lseatsare disregardedin d ntheabsenceo ofaprovision ninR.A.No.79 941allowingf forarounding goffoffraction nalseats. The20%ceilin T ngismandato ory,asSection n5,ArticleVIo oftheConstitu utionprovides sthat,TheHo ouseofRepresentatives shall be comp s posed of not more than tw hundred an fifty memb m wo nd bers, unless o otherwise fixed by law, wh shall be ho elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinc e g ces, cities, an the Metropolitan Manil area in nd la
233|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts accordancewi a iththenumbe eroftheirrespectiveinhabitants,andon nthebasisof auniformand dprogressive ratio,and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party t s y ylist system o registered national, regional, and of sectoralpartie s esororganizat tions. oOo
AbsenteeVot A ting
nervs.COMEL LEC,respondent CORDORA,petition Gr.N No.176947 uary19,2009 Febru The T law wishe to avoid du allegiance,, not dual citi es ual izenship. Dual citizenship is a mere cons l s sequence of th laws of he different count d tries, which th person acq he quiring it has no control ov Dual alleg ver. giance, on the other hand, requires a e voluntaryproc v cessofacquisit tion. intaffidavitfiledbeforethe eCOMELECL LawDepartme ent,Cordoraa assertedthatT Tambuntingm madefalse Inhiscomplai assertions in h Certificate of Candidac for the 200 elections s a his e cy 01 stating that he is a Natural Born/Filipin Citizen. e no Cordorastated C dthatTambun ntingwasnoteligibletorun nforlocalpub blicofficebeca auseTambunt tinglackedthe erequired citizenship an residency requirements. Cordora pre c nd r . esented a cert tification from the Bureau of Immigration which m u stated that, in two instance Tambunting claimed th he is an A s n es, hat American: u upon arrival in the Philippines on 16 n December200 D 00andupond departurefrom mthePhilippin neson17June e2001. Tambunting, o the other hand, maintai T on h ined that he i a naturalbo Filipino, T is orn Tambunting p presented a copy of his birth certificat which show that he w born of a Filipino moth and an Am b te wed was her merican fathe Tambuntin further er. ng deniedthathe d ewasnaturalizedasanAmericancitizen n.Thecertifica ateofcitizens shipconferred dbytheUSgo overnment confirmed Tam c mbuntings cit tizenship whi he acquire at birth. T ich ed Tambunting al took an oa of allegian on 18 lso ath nce November200 N 03pursuantto oRepublicAct tNo.9225(R.A.No.9225),ortheCitizen nshipRetentionandReacquisitionAct of2003. o To T refute Cord doras claim that the numb of years o residency stated in Tamb t ber of buntings cert tificates of can ndidacy is false because Tambunting lost his resi f idency becaus of his nat se turalization as an America citizen, Ta an ambunting contendedtha c attheresidenc cyrequiremen ntisnotthesa ameascitizenship. TheCOMELEC T CEnBancaffir rmedthefindingsandther resolutionoft theCOMELECLawDepartm ment.TheCOM MELECEn Banc was conv B vinced that Cordora failed to support h accusation against Tamb his bunting by su ufficient and c convincing evidence. e ISSUES: Whetherorno W otTambunting gknowinglym makinguntrut thfulstatemen ntsinhiscerti ificatesofcan ndidacyclaimingthathe meetscitizenshipandreside m encyrequirem ments HELD: H PetitionDISMISSED P Tambunting p T possesses dua citizenship. Because of t circumsta al the ances of his b birth, it was n longer necessary for no Tambuntingto T oundergothenaturalizationprocesstoa acquireAmericancitizenshi ip.Theproces ssinvolvedin nINSForm I130onlyserv vedtoconfirm mtheAmerica ancitizenshipwhichTambu untingacquire edatbirth.Th hecertification nfromthe Bureau of Immigration wh B hich Cordora presented co ontained two trips where Tambunting claimed that he is an t American. Ho A owever, the sa ame certificat tion showed n nine other trip where Tam ps mbunting claim that he i Filipino. med is
234 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Clearly, Tambunting possessed dual citi C izenship prior to the filing of his certif r g ficate of cand didacy before the 2001 elections.The e efactthatTam mbuntinghadd dualcitizensh hipdidnotdisq qualifyhimfro omrunningfo orpublicoffice e Tobeginwith h,dualcitizens shipisdifferen ntfromduala allegiance.The eformerarise eswhen,asar resultofthec concurrent T applicationof thedifferent lawsoftwoo a ormorestates,apersonis simultaneous slyconsidered danationalb bythesaid states.Forins s stance,sucha situationmay yarisewhena apersonwhoseparentsare ecitizensofa astatewhicha adheresto the t principle o jus sanguin is born in a state which follows the d of nis h doctrine of ju soli. Such a person, ipso facto and us a withoutanyvo w oluntaryactonhispart,isc concurrentlyc consideredac citizenofbothstates. and3ofR.A.N No.9225,the framerswere enotconcerne edwithdualc citizenshipper rse,butwith thestatus InSections2a ofnaturalizedcitizenswhomaintaintheir o rallegianceto otheircountri iesoforiginev venaftertheir rnaturalizatio on.Section 5(3)ofR.A.No 5 o.9225states sthatnaturali izedcitizensw whoreacquire eFilipinocitiz zenshipandde esiretorunfo orelective public office i the Philipp p in pines shall m meet the qua alifications for holding suc public offi as require by the r ch ice ed Constitution a C and existing laws and, at t time of fi the iling the certi ificate of cand didacy, make a personal a and sworn renunciationo r ofanyandall foreigncitizenshipbefore anypublicoff ficerauthorize edtoadminis steranoatha asidefrom the t oath of allegiance prescribed in Sec ction 3 of R.A No. 9225. T twin requ A. The uirements of s swearing to a Oath of an Allegianceand A dexecutingaR Renunciationo ofForeignCitizenship With regard t the issue that Tambun W to nting failed to meet the r o residency req quirement bec cause of Tam mbuntings naturalization as an Americ n can. The reasoning fails b because Tamb bunting is not a naturalized American. Moreover, d residency,for thepurposeo r ofelectionlaw ws,includesth hetwineleme entsofthefac ctofresiding inafixedplac ceandthe intentiontore eturntherepermanently,an ndisnotdepen ndentuponci itizenship. oOo JAPS SON,petitione vsCOMELEC,respondent er t GR.No.180088 G 8 Jan n.19,2009 Thequestionof T fmeetingtherequiredtimeofresidencyin nthecountryi isamatteroff fact,whichist tobedetermin nedby lo owercourts,w whohadtheop pportunitytov viewallsuchfa factualevidenc ce. Bothpetitione B erManuelB.Japzon(Japzon n)andprivate erespondent JaimeS.Ty(T Ty)werecand didatesfortheOfficeof MayoroftheM M MunicipalityofGeneralMac carthur,Easter rnSamar,inth helocalelectio onsheldon14 4May2007. tedacasebefo oretheCOMELECaPetition ntodisqualify yand/orcance elTysCertific cateofCandidacyonthe Japzoninstitut ground of ma g aterial misrepresentation. J Japzon averre in his Petition that Ty was a former naturalborn Filipino, ed r n havingbeenbornon9Octo h ober1943inw whatwasthen nPambujanSu ur,HernaniEa asternSamart tospousesAn ngChimTy (aChinese)an ( ndCrisantaAr ranasSumigui in(aFilipino) ).Tyeventuall lymigratedto otheUnitedS StatesofAmer rica(USA) andbecamea citizenthereof.Tyhadbeenresidingin a ntheUSAfor thelast25ye ears.WhenTy yfiledhisCer rtificateof Candidacy,hefalselyrepres C sentedtherein nthathewasa aresidentofB Barangay6,Po oblacion,Gene eralMacarthu ur,Eastern Samar, for one year before 14 May 2007, and was not a permane resident o immigrant of any foreign country. S e e ent or n WhileTymayhaveappliedforthereacqu W uisitionofhisPhilippinecit tizenship,hen neveractually yresidedinBa arangay6, Poblacion,Gen P neralMacarth hur,EasternSa amar,forape eriodofoney yearimmediat telypreceding gthedateofe electionas requiredunde r erSection39o ofRepublicAc ctNo.7160.Hehadalsofail ledtorenouncehisforeigncitizenshipas srequired byRepublicAc b ctNo.9225.H Hence,Japzon prayedforin nhisPetitiont thattheCOME ELECorderth hedisqualifica ationofTy fromrunningf f forpublicoffic ceandthecan ncellationofth helattersCer ficateofCan rti ndidacy. The COMELEC en banc iss T C sued its Reso olution12 den nying Japzons Motion for Reconsideration and affir rming the assailedResolu a utionoftheCO OMELECFirst tDivision ISSUES:
235|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whetherorno W otTycomplied dwiththecitiz zenshipandre esidencyrequ uirementtoru unforpublico office HELD: H PetitionDISMISSED P There is no d T dispute that Ty was a natu T uralborn Filipino. He was born and ra s aised in the M Municipality o General of Macarthur, Ea M astern Samar, Philippines. However, he left to work in the USA a and eventually became an American y citizen.Tyrea c acquiredhisPh hilippinecitiz zenshipbytak kinghisOatho ofAllegiancet totheRepubl licofthePhilippines.At thispoint,Tys t stillhelddualcitizenship,i.e.,Americana andPhilippine e.Itwasonlyo on19March2 2007thatTyr renounced hisAmericanc h citizenshipbeforeanotarypublicand,re esultantly,becameapurePh hilippinecitize enagain. RepublicActN R No.9225impo osesnoreside encyrequirem mentforthere eacquisitiono orretentionof fPhilippineci itizenship; nordoesitme n entionanyeff fectofsuchreacquisitionor rretentionof Philippinecit tizenshipont thecurrentresidenceof theconcerned t dnaturalborn nFilipino.Clea arly,RepublicA ActNo.9225t treatscitizens shipindepend dentlyofresid dence.This is only logical and consiste with the g ent general intent of the law to allow for du citizenship. Since a nat t o ual turalborn Filipinomayh F hold,atthesam metime,both hPhilippinean ndforeignciti izenships,hem mayestablish hresidenceeit therinthe Philippinesorintheforeign P ncountryofw whichheisalso oacitizen. Residencyint R thePhilippine esonlybecom mesrelevantw whenthenatu uralbornFilip pinowithdua alcitizenshipd decidesto runforpublicoffice. r ThechallengeagainstTysq T qualificationto orunasacand didatefortheOfficeofMay yoroftheMun nicipalityofGe eneral Macarthur,EasternSamar,c M centersonhis spurportedfailuretomeett theoneyearr residencyrequ uirementinth hesaid municipality. m Theterm"resi T idence"istob beunderstood dnotinitscom mmonacceptat tionasreferri ingto"dwellin ng"or"habitation,"but ratherto"dom r micile"orlegal lresidence,th hatis,"theplac cewhereapar rtyactuallyor rconstructive elyhashisperm manent home,whereh h he,nomatterw wherehemay ybefoundata anygiventime e,eventuallyin ntendstoretu urnandremain(animus manendi)." m Asespousedb A byTy,theissu ueofwhether hecompliedw withtheoney yearresidencyrequiremen ntforrunning forpublic office is a question of fact Its determi o t. ination requir the Court to review, e res t examine and evaluate or w weigh the probative value of the ev p vidence prese ented by the parties bef e fore the COM MELEC. The COMELEC, ta aking into consideration the very sam pieces of e c me evidence pres sently before this Court, fo found that Ty was a reside of the y ent Municipalityo M ofGeneralMacarthur,Easte ernSamar,on neyearpriort tothe14May y2007locale elections.Itis axiomatic thatfactualfin t ndingsofadministrativeage encies,suchastheCOMELE EC,whichhave eacquiredexp pertiseinthei irfieldare bindingandco b onclusiveonth heCourt. oOo RACION,petitionervsCOME ELEC,respond dent UGDOR GR R.No.179851 1 Apr ril18,2008 Domicile is no easily lost However, th declaration of permane residency to another country cons D ot t. he n ent y stitutes an abandonmentofonesdomic a cile. Ugdoracion an private re U nd espondent, E Ephraim Tung gol, were rival mayoralty candidates in the Munic cipality of Albuquerque, Province of Bohol in the M 14, 2007 elections. Bo filed their respective Ce A B May oth ertificates of C Candidacy (COC). (
236 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Tungol filed a petition to cancel Ugdoracions Certif T a ficate of Cand didacy conten nding that the latters declaration of e eligibilityforM e Mayorconstit tutedmaterial lmisrepresentation;thathe eisactuallya agreencard holderorap permanent resident of the US. It appears that Ugdo r oracion becam a permane US reside on Septem me ent ent mber 26, 2001 and was 1 issuedanAlien nNumberby theUSINS.Ug gdoracion,on theotherhan nd,presented thefollowing gdocumentsa asproofof his h substantial compliance with the resid dency require ement: (1) a r residence cert tificate; (2)an application for a new n votersregistr v ration;and(3) )aphotocopy yofAbandonm mentofLawfu ulPermanent ResidentStat tus.COMELECcancelled UgdoracionsC U COCandremo ovedhisnamefromthecert tifiedlistofca andidatesforM Mayor. ISSUES: Whether or n there is material misre W not m epresentation which is a v valid ground f the cance for ellation of Ugd doracions CertificateofC C Candidacybec causehehasal lreadylosthis sdomicileofo origin HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED Section74,in relationtoSe S ection78ofth heOmnibusE ElectionCode,requiresthat tthefactsstatedintheCOCmustbe true, and any false represe t entation there of a mate ein erial fact shall be a ground for cancella d ation thereof. The false representation contemplate by Section 78 of the Co pertains to material fa and is no simply an i r n ed n ode act, ot innocuous mistake.Amaterialfactrefe m erstoacandid datesqualific cationforelec ctiveofficesuc chasonescit tizenshipand residence. Aside from th requiremen of materiality, a false representation under Sectio 78 must c A he nt n on consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinf a form, or hide a fact which would othe e erwise render a candidate ineligible.S e Section 74 specifically requires a state s ement in the COC that the candidate is not a perma anent residen or an immig nt grant to a foreigncountr f ry.Ugdoracio onexplicitly s statedinhisC COCthatheha adresidedin Albuquerque Boholbefor e, retheMay 2007elections 2 sfor41years.EvenifUgdo oracionmight havebeenofthemistaken beliefthathe eremainedar residentof the t Philippine he hid the fact of his immigration t the USA an his status as a green card holder. Although es, e to nd Ugdoracion h U have won the election as Mayor of A e Albuquerque before, it do oes not subs stitute for th specific he requirements of law on a persons elig r gibility for pu ublic office w which he lacked, and does not cure his material s misrepresenta m ationwhichisavalidgroundforthecanc cellationofhis sCOC. Residence,inc R contemplation nofelectionl laws,issynon nymoustodom micile.Domici ileistheplace ewhereonea actuallyor constructively has his perm c y manent home, where he, no matter wher he may be found at any given time, e o re y eventually intendstoretu urn(animusr revertendi)an ndremain(ani imusmanendi i).Domicileis classifiedinto o(1)domicile eoforigin, which is acqu w uired by ever person at b ry birth; (2)dom micile of choic which is a ce, acquired upon abandonme of the ent domicile of or d rigin; and (3)d domicile by o operation of la which the law attribut to a perso independen of his aw, e tes on ntly residenceorin r ntention.We areguidedby ythreebasicr rules:(1)amanmusthave earesidenceo ordomicileso omewhere ;(2)domicile,o onceestablish hed,remainsu untilanewon neisvalidlyac cquired;and( (3)amancanhavebutoneresidence ordomicileatanygiventim o me.Thegenera alruleisthatt thedomicileo oforiginisnot teasilylost;it tislostonlyw whenthere isanactualremovalorchan ngeofdomicil le,abonafide eintentionofa abandoningth heformerresidenceandes stablishing anewone,and a dactswhichc correspondw withsuchpurp pose.Inthein nstantcase,ho owever,Ugdor racionsacqui isitionofa la awfulperman nentresidents statusintheU USamountedtoanabandon nmentandrenunciationof hisstatusas aresident f of o the Philipp pines; it const tituted a chan from his domicile of o nge origin, which was Albuque erque, Bohol, to a new domicileofcho d oice,whichistheUSA oOo
Certificateof C fCandidacy
ALCARAZ,P. A
237|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts CIPRIANO,petitioner,vs.COMELE EC,responden nt. G.R R.NO.158830 0 Augu ust10,2004 May M the Comm mission on El lections (COM MELEC), on its own, in the exercise of its power to e s enforce and a administer electionlaws, lookintothe qualifications e sofacandidateandcancel hiscertificate eofcandidacy yonthegroun ndthathe la acks the qua alifications prescribed by law? This is the issue that needs to be reso p y s olved in this petition s forcertiorarif f filed by Ellan Marie P. Cip priano, the duly elected S Chairman of Barangay 38, Pasay Ci SK ity, whose certificateofcandidacywascancelledbytheCOMELEC c Cmotuproprio oonthegroun ndthatshewa asnotaregiste eredvoter inthebaranga aywhereshei intendedtoru un. Petitioner Cep P priano ran for the position of SK Chairm for the SK Elections held on July 15 2002. On th date of r man K 5, he elections,COM e MELECissued ResolutionNo o.5363adopt tingtherecom mmendationo oftheCommis ssionsLawDe epartment to t cancel the certificates of candidacy of several cand f f didates for the SK elections including th petitioners.. This was s, he becausethesaidcandidateswerenotregis b steredvotersin nthebarangay aywheretheyi intendedtorun. Ceprianowas allowedtovo C oteontheElec ctionDayand dhernamewa asnotremove edfromtheof fficiallistofca andidates. Cepriano won the elections Cepriano fil a motion for reconside C n s. led eration. She argued that th COMELEC c he cannot, by it tself, motu p proprio cancel a certificate of candidacy, that such ce l , ertificate of ca andidacy may only be canc celled by a petitionfiledb p byaregistered dcandidatefo orthesamepo osition,andth hatthecancellationmadeby ytheCOMELE ECwithout noticeandhea n aringdeniedh herdueproces ss. Comelec denie such motio and asserts that they ar authorized to motu prop C ed on s re prio cancel a certificate of candidacy basedonitsbr b roadadminist trativepowertoenforceand dadministera alllawsandre egulationsreg gardingelectio ons. erResolutionno.5263isva alid Issue:Whethe Held:Invalid,Theresolutio H oniswithgrav veabuseofdis scretionandt thereforevoid d. Ratio:TheCo R ommissionma aynot,byitself,withoutthe eproperproc ceedings,deny yduecourset toorcancela certificate ofcandidacyfi o iledinduefor rm.Whenaca andidatefileshiscertificate eofcandidacy, ,theCOMELEChasaminist terialduty toreceiveandacknowledge t eitsreceipt.T Thisisprovide edinSec.76of ftheOmnibus sElectionCod de,thus: Sec. 76.Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledg S f d ging receipt. The Commis ssion, provinc election supervisor, cial electionregist e trarorofficer rdesignatedb bytheCommissionortheb boardofelect tioninspector rsunderthesucceeding sectionshallh s havetheministerialdutytoreceiveandac cknowledgereceiptofthec certificateofcandidacy. TheCourthas ruledthatthe T eCommission nhasnodiscretiontogiveo ornottogive duecourseto opetitioners certificate ofcandidacy.T o Thedutyofth heCOMELECt togivedueco oursetocertif ficatesofcand didacyfiledin dueformism ministerial in character. W While the Com mmission may look into pa y atent defects in the certific cates, it may n go into m not matters not appearingont a theirface.Th hequestionof feligibilityor ineligibilityofacandidate isthusbeyon ndtheusualandproper cognizanceofsaidbody. c Nonetheless,S N Section78oft theOmnibusE ElectionCodeallowsanype ersontofilebe eforetheCOM MELECapetitio ontodeny duecourseto orcancelacertificateofcandidacyont d thegroundth hatanymateri ialrepresenta ationthereini isfalse.It states: s Sec. S 78.Petitio to deny du course to or cancel a cer on ue rtificate of can ndidacy. A v verified petitio seeking to deny due on courseortoca c ancelacertifi icateofcandid dacymaybef filedbyanypersonexclusiv velyonthegr roundthatany ymaterial representation r ncontainedth hereinasrequ uiredunderSection74her reofisfalse.T Thepetitionm maybefiledat tanytime not n laterthan twentyfive daysfrom the d etime ofthe f filing ofthe certificateofc candidacyand dshall be deci ided, after noticeandhea n aring,notlater rthanfifteend daysbeforeth heelection.
238 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts e he ates that the c candidate mu be notified of the petiti against hi and he ust d ion im It is therefore clear that th law manda should be give the opport s en tunity to present evidence in his behalf. This isthe e essence ofdue eprocess. Du ueprocess demands prior notice and hearing. Then after the he d n earing, it is al necessary that the tribunal shows substantial lso y evidencetosu e upportitsrulin ng.Inotherw words,duepro ocessrequiresthatapartyb begivenanop pportunitytoa adducehis evidencetosu e upporthisside eofthecasean ndthattheev videnceshould dbeconsidere edintheadjud dicationofthe ecase. Contrarytoth C hesubmission oftheCOMEL LEC,thedenia alofduecour rseorcancella ationofones certificateof candidacy is not within the administrative powers of the Com mmission, but rather calls f the exerci of its qua for ise asijudicial functions. f The determin T nation whethe a materia representat er al tion in the c certificate of candidacy is false or no or the s ot, determination whether a ca d n andidate is el ligible for the position he i seeking inv e is volves a deter rmination of f fact where bothpartiesm b mustbeallowe edtoadducee evidenceinsu upportofthei ircontentions s.Becausethe eresolutionof fsuchfact mayresulttoa m adeprivationofonesrighttorunforpub blicoffice,or,asinthiscase e,onesrighttoholdpublicoffice,itis onlyproperan o ndfairthatth hecandidateco oncernedben notifiedofthe eproceedings againsthima andthathebe egiventhe opportunityto o orefutetheall legationsagainsthim.Itsh houldbestress sedthatitisn notsufficient,a astheCOMELECclaims, that the candidate be notified of the Commissions inquiry into the veracity of the conten of his cer t nts rtificate of candidacy,but c themustalso obeallowedt topresenthisownevidenc cetoprovetha athepossesse esthequalific cationsfor theofficehese t eeks. oOo LORET TOGO,petition ,vs.COMEL ner LEC,respondent. G.R.NO.147741 AY10,2001 MA OnFeb27,Petitionerfiled acertificateo O ofcandidacyf forMayorofB Baybay,Leyte. .OnFeb28,p petitionerfiled dwiththe provincialelec p ctionsupervis sorinLeyte,an nothercertific cateofcandid dacyforgover rnorofLeyte.Shefiledwith hthesame election super e rvisor an affid davit of withd drawal of her candidacy fo mayor of B or Baybay, Leyte. The officer r . refused to accept such w a withdrawal of candidacy pu f ursuant to a COMELEC resolution. The officer told the petitioner that she e r should file suc withdrawa in Baybay, L s ch al Leyte, where she filed her certificate of candidacy fo mayor.The petitioner f or wasabletosub w bmitthewithdrawalthroug ghherfathera at12:08amof fMarch01,20 001. Respondentsf R filedapetition ntocancelthepetitioners COCbecausethepetitione erfiledfortwo opositions,m makingher ineligibleforb both. Thepetitionw T wasdecidedby ytheComelec cinfavorofth herespondent tsandissueda aresolutionca ancellingtheC COCofthe petitionerwith p houthearingt thepetitioner sside. ISSUES: 1. Wheth the petiti her ioner is disqu ualified to be candidate for governor of Leyte and m mayor of Bay ybay Leyte becau useshefiledfo orbothpositio ons 2. Wheth hertherewasavalidwithd drawalofCOCformunicipalmayorofBay ybay,Leyte 3. Wheth herthepetitio onerwasdenieddueproces ssoflaw HELD: H 1. Thepetitionerisno otdisqualified dtobeacandid dateforgover rnorofLeyte. ewasavalidw withdrawalofCOCformunicipalmayoro ofBaybay,Leyt te. 2. There 3. Thepetitionerwasdeniedofdue eprocess.
239|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts RATIO: R Theresolution T nofComelecw wasinvalid. "SEC. 73.Certif " ificate of cand didacy. No pe erson shall be eligible for any elective p e public office u unless he files a sworn certificateofcandidacywith c hintheperiod dfixedherein. "Apersonwho " ohasfiledace ertificateofca andidacymay, ,priortothe election,wit thdrawthesam mebysubmitt tingtothe officeconcernedawrittend o declarationun nderoath. "Nopersonsh " hallbeeligible eformoretha anoneofficet tobefilledin thesameelection,andifh hefileshiscer rtificateof candidacyfor morethanon c neoffice,hesh hallnotbeeli igibleforany ofthem.How wever,before etheexpirati ionofthe period for th filing of certificates o candidacy the person who has fi p he c of y, n iled more th han one cert tificate of candidacyma c aydeclareun nderoaththeofficeforw whichhedesirestobeeli igibleandca ancelthecert tificateof candidacyfor c rtheotherof fficeoroffices." There is nothi in thisSec T ing ction whichm mandatesthat theaffidavit of withdrawa must befile withthe sa t al ed ame office wherethecert w tificateofcan ndidacytobew withdrawnwa asfiled.Thus, ,itcanbefileddirectlywit ththemainof fficeofthe COMELEC,the C eofficeofthe regionalelect tiondirectorc concerned,the eofficeofthe provincialele ectionsupervi isorofthe province to w p which the mu unicipality inv volved belong or the off gs, fice of the mu unicipal elect tion officer of the said municipality. m Whileitmayb W betruethatSe ection12ofCO OMELECResol lutionNo.325 53A,adoptedon20Novem mber2000,req quiresthat the t withdrawa be filed bef al fore the election officer of the place wh here the certif ficate of candi idacy was file [16]such ed, requirement i merely dir r is rectory, and is intended for convenie ence. It is no mandatory or jurisdict ot y tional. An administrative resolution can not cont a e c tradict, much less amend or repeal a law, or supp a deficien in the ply ncy la [17]Hence, thefilingofp aw. petitioner'saf ffidavitofwit thdrawalofca andidacyform mayorofBayb baywiththe provincial election super e rvisor of Leyt sufficed to effectively wi te ithdraw such candidacy. T COMELEC thus acted w The C with grave abuse of discretion when it declared p a petitioner ine eligible for bo positions for which s oth she filed certificates of candidacy. c Moreover,COM M MELECcondu uctedanexpa artestudyofthecases.Itdi idnotgivepe etitioneranop pportunityto beheard. Petitionerwas P snotrequired dtosubmita commentoro oppositionto thepetitions forcancellationofhercert tificatesof candidacyand c d/orfordisqu ualification.It didnotsetth hecasesforh hearing.Itwas snotevenaw wareofthepr roceedings before Directo Ibanez in Tacloban. Aft anexpart b or ter testudy of the cases, on 0 April 2001 the Law De 05 1, epartment submitteditsr s reportandrec commendation n,approvedb byDirectorBal lbuena,totheCOMELECenbanc. oOo SALCE EDOII,petition ner,vs.COMEL LEC,responden nt. 312SC CRA447(1999) Neptali Salced married Ag N do gnes Celiz. Wi ithout having his marriage dissolved, Ne eptali married respondent Ermelita d t Cacao.Twoda C ayslater,CacaomarriedJesusAguirre.Pe etitionerVicto orinoSalcedo andresponde entErmelitaC Cacaoboth ranasmayoro r ofSara,Iloilo.Petitionerfile edapetitiont tocanceltheC COCofErmelitaCacaoonth hegroundtha atErmelita hasmadeafal h lserepresenta ationbystatin ngthathersu urnameisSalc cedo.Petition nercontendst thattherespo ondenthas no n right to use Salcedo as her surname because she was not legally married to Neptali Salc o cedo. On May 13, 1998, petitionerErm p melitawasproclaimedasthe edulyelected dmayorofSar ra,Iloilo.
240 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The2nddivisio T onofComelec, ,uponactingonthepetition,decidedinf favorofVictor rinoSalcedo.However,suchdecision was w reversed by Comelec en banc, sa aying that the COC of res e spondent Erm melita Cacao contained no material o misrepresenta m ation. Issue: Whethertheu W useofsuchsurnameconstit tutesamateri ialmisreprese entationunde ersection78o oftheOmnibu usElection Code(theCode)soastojustifythecancel C llationofherc certificateofc candidacy. Held: H nstituteamate erialmisrepre esentation. Itdoesnotcon Ratio: Therefo it may be concluded th the mater misrepres R ore, e hat rial sentation cont templated by section 78 of the Code f refertoqualif r ficationsforelectiveoffice. Thisconclusi ionisstrength henedbythe factthatthe consequences simposed uponacandid u dateguiltyofh havingmadea afalserepresentationinhiscertificateo ofcandidacya aregravetopr reventthe candidatefrom c mrunningor, ifelected,fro omserving,or rtoprosecute himforviolationoftheele ectionlaws.It tcouldnot havebeenthe intentionoft h thelawtodep priveaperson nofsuchabas sicandsubsta antivepolitica alrighttobev votedfora publicofficeup p ponjustanyin nnocuousmis stake. Petitionerhasmadenoalleg P gationsconcerningprivaterespondentsqualifications storunforth heofficeofma ayor.Aside fromhisconte f entionthatsh hemadeamis srepresentatio onintheuse ofthesurnam meSalcedo,pe etitionerdoesnotclaim thatprivatere t espondentlack kstherequisit teresidency,a age,citizenshi iporanyothe erlegalqualifi icationnecess sarytorun foralocalelec f ctiveofficeas sprovidedfor rintheLocal Government Code.Thus,p petitionerhasfailedtodisc chargethe burden of pro b oving that the misrepresentation alleged made by p dly private respon ndent in her c certificate of candidacy pertainstoam p materialmatte er. Aside from th requiremen of materia A he nt ality, a false r representation under secti n ion 78 must consist of a deliberate attempttomis a slead,misinfo orm,orhidea factwhichw wouldotherwis serenderaca andidateinelig gible.Inother rwords,it must be made with an inte m e ention to dec ceive the elect torate as to o ones qualifica ations for pub office. The use of a blic e surname, whe not intended to mislead or deceive the public as to ones iden s en d s ntity, is not w within the sco of the ope provision. p Thereisabsolu T utelynoshow wingthatthein nhabitantsofSara,Iloilowe eredeceivedb bytheuseofsuchsurnamebyprivate respondent.Pe r etitionerdoes snotallegethattheelectora atedidnotkn nowwhotheywerevotingf forwhenthey ycasttheir ballots in favo of Ermelita Cacao Salced or that the were fooled into voting for someone else by the use of such b or do ey d name.Itmays n safelybeassu umedthatthe electoratekn newwhopriva ateresponden ntwas,noton nlybyname,b butalsoby faceandmayh f haveevenbee enpersonally acquaintedw withhersince shehasbeen nresidinginth hemunicipalityofSara, Iloilo since at least 1986. Bolstering this assumption is the fact th she has b B n hat been living wi Neptali Sa ith alcedo, the mayorofSaraforthreecons m secutiveterms,since1970andthelatterhasheldherouttothepub blicashiswife e. oOo NA,petitioner,vs.COMELEC C,respondent. LUN G. .R.NO.165983 ril24,2007 Apr JoyLunafiled herCOCasv vicemayorof Lagayan,Abra aasasubstitu uteforHansR Roger,whow withdrewhisC COConthe same date. Ha Rogers name was rem s ans n moved from t list of can the ndidates and was replaced by Lunas n d name. The respondentsfi r iledapetition nforthecance ellationofLun nasCOCorthe edisqualificat tionofLuna,a allegingthatL Lunamade afalsemateria a alrepresentat tionforshew wasnotaregis steredvotero ofLagayanbut tofBangued, Abra,thatthe eCOCwas
241|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts invalid becaus the substit se tution is invalid, saying th Hans Roge was only 2 yrs. Old on the election day and hat er 20 n n thereforecann t notrunasvice emayorandh hencecannotb besubstituted dbyLuna. TheCOMELEC stdivisionruledthatLunawasnotare T C1 egisteredvote erofBanguedandHansRog ger,beingund derage,did notfileavalid n dcertificateof fcandidacyan nd,thus,Hans sRogerwasn notavalidcan ndidateforvic cemayorwho ocouldbe substitutedby s yLuna. Uponmotionf U forreconsiderationbyLun na,addingtha atshewasden nieddueproc cess,theCOMELECEnBanc caffirmed thedecisionofthefirstdivi t isionwithmo odifications.Th heyruledthatRoger,being gunderage,ca annotbesubs stitutedby Luna, that Lun is a registered voter of Lagayan, and Lunas righ to due proc L na f d ht cess was not violated since she was e notifiedandw n wasgivenoppo ortunitytobeheard. Hence,thispet H tition. Issue: Whetherthere W ewasadenialofdueproces ssandwhethe ertherewasavalidsubstitu ution Held: H TherewasNODENIALofdu T ueprocessand dtherewasaV VALIDSUBST TITUTION Ratio:TheCourtfindsthat Lunasright todueproces R sswasnotvio olated.TheCO OMELECnotifi iedLunaofth hepetition filedagainsth f herandLunaw wasgiventhe eopportunity topresentev videnceonher rbehalf.This constitutesco ompliance withtherequirementsofdu process. w ue Since Hans Ro S ogerwithdrew whis certifica of candida and the C ate acy COMELEC fou und that Luna complied with all the a proceduralreq p quirementsfo oravalidsubst titution,Lunacanvalidlysu ubstituteforH HansRoger. TheCOMELEC T Cactedwithgraveabuseof fdiscretionam mountingtola ackorexcess ofjurisdiction nindeclaring thatHans Roger,beingu R underage,cou uldnotbecon nsideredtoha avefiledaval lidcertificate ofcandidacy and,thus,cou uldnotbe validlysubstit v tutedbyLuna.TheCOMELE ECmaynot,b byitself,witho outtheproper rproceedings s,denydueco oursetoor cancel a certif c ficate of cand didacy filed in due form. In n nSanchez v. D Rosario, t Court rule that the qu Del the ed uestion of eligibilityorin e neligibilityofa acandidatefornonageisb beyondtheusu ualandpropercognizanceo oftheCOMELE EC. r of ge didacy, his If Hans Roger made a material misrepresentation as to his date o birth or ag in his certificate of cand eligibility may only be imp e y pugned throu a verified petition to d ugh d deny due cou urse to or can ncel such cer rtificate of candidacyund c derSection78oftheElectio onCode. here was no petition to de due cours to or cance the certifica of candida of Hans R p eny se el ate acy Roger. The In this case, th COMELEC onl declared th Hans Rog did not file a valid cer C ly hat ger rtificate of ca andidacy and, thus, was not a valid , candidate in t petition to deny due course to or c c the o cancel Lunas certificate of candidacy. In effect, the C f n COMELEC, withoutthepr w roperproceed dings,cancelledHansRoger rscertificateo ofcandidacya anddeclaredthesubstitutio onbyLuna invalid. e ent was n e or ns rtificate of It would have been differe if there w a petition to deny due course to o cancel Han Rogers cer candidacy.For c riftheCOMEL LECcancelledHansRogerscertificateofcandidacyaft tertheproper rproceedings,thenheis nocandidatea n atallandtherecanbenosu ubstitutionofapersonwho osecertificateofcandidacyhasbeencancelledand deniedduecourse.15Howev d ver,HansRogerscertificate eofcandidacy ywasneverca ancelledorde eniedduecou ursebythe COMELEC. C
242|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Moreover,Han M nsRogeralrea adywithdrew whiscertificat teofcandidacybeforetheC COMELECdec claredthathe wasnota valid candidat Therefore, unless Hans Rogers cer v te. , s rtificate of candidacy was denied due course or can ncelled in accordancewi a ithSection78oftheElectio onCode,HansRogerscertif ficateofcandidacywasvalidandhemaybevalidly substitutedby s yLuna. oOo AMELASALIC CMARUHOM,,petitioner,vs s.COMELEC,re espondent. JA G.R.NO.17943 G 30 July27,2009 Petitioner Jam P mela Salic Mar ruhom (Maruhom) and pri ivate respond dent Mohamm madali Merica ano A. Abina (Abinal) al werebothcan w ndidatesform mayorinMara antao,Lanaod delSur.Bothfi iledtheirresp pectiveCOCsw withtheElectionofficer ofMarantao. o RespondentAb R binalfiledforapetitiontod denyduecour rseortocancelthepetition nersCOCduetofalserepre esentation. Accdg.Tother A respondent,M Maruhomwasadoubleregistrant,thatMaruhomregisteredinMara awionJuly26, ,2003and in Marantao o July 29, 2003. Due to the fact that there was doub registration, the second registration is void ab on ble d ngaregistered dvoterinMar rantao,Maruh homwasdisqu ualifiedfromr runningasma ayorofthemu unicipality. initio.Notbein Maruhom,inh M heranswer,allegedthatshe ecannotbedisqualifiedbec causeshehadallthequalifi icationsandn noneofthe disqualifications provided by law. She further asser d rted that a ca andidate may only be dis y squalified for a ground providedbyla p awandthattherewasnolaw wdeclaringd doubleregistra ationasagrou undfordisqua alification. Meanwhile, th M he14 May 2007national a and local elections were held, and Abin won over Maruhom.A nal Abinal was proclaimedthedulyelected p dmunicipalm mayorofMaran ntaoand,ther reupon,assum medoffice.Ma aruhomfileda anelection protestagainstAbinalbefor p retheRegiona alTrialCourt( (RTC)ofLanaodelSur, The T Comelec decided in fa avour of Abinal, saying tha there was a material mi at a isrepresentati done by Maruhom. ion Moreover, the Comelec refe M e erred the case to the Law Department to investigate on the poss e sible commiss sion of an electionoffens e sebyMaruhom m. Maruhomfiled M dforCertiorar riunderRule6 64,imputingg graveabuseof fdiscretionon nthepartofth heCOMELEC Issue: 1. Wheth hertheComel lechasjurisdictiontodeclaretheregistra ationofMaruh hominMaran ntaonullandv void 2. Wheth hertheComel leccommitted dgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingto olackofjurisd dictionwheni itdeclared thepe etitioneradou ubleregistrant Held: H Thepetitionha T asnomerit. Ratio: Under Section 78 of the OEC, a fa R f alse represent tation of mate erial fact in th COC is a gr he round for the denial or e cancellationof c ftheCOC.The efalserepresentationmust tpertaintoamaterialfactt thataffectsth herightofthecandidate to t run for th election fo which he filed his CO he or OC.Such mate erial fact refe to acand fers didates elig gibility or qualificationforelectiveof q fficelikecitize enship,residen nceorstatus asaregisteredvoter. Itissettledth hattheCOME ELEChasjurisdictionover rapetitionfi iledunderSe ection78oft theOEC. Inth heexercise of o such jurisdiction, it is within the com w mpetence of th COMELEC to determine whether fals representa he e se ation as to material facts was made in the COC. If t candidate states a mat m n the e terial represe entation in the COC that is false, the
243|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts COMELEC is e C empoweredto deny due co o ourse to or cancel the COC. .Given Maruh homsdouble registration i Marawi in andMarantao, a ,thenCOMELE ECshoulddet terminewhich hregistrationw wasvalidand dwhichonewasnull.COME ELECcould not n consider b both registrat tions valid be ecause it wou then give rise to the an uld nomalous situ uation where Maruhom could vote in two precincts at the same time. must b underscor that in ad c e be red ddition to the express juris sdiction of COMELECoverpetitionsfor C rcancellationofCOCs,onth hegroundoff falsematerialrepresentatio ons,underSec ction78of the t OEC, the C Constitution also extends to COMELEC all the neces a ssary and inci idental power for it to ac rs chieve the holdingoffree h e,orderly,hon nest,peaceful, ,andcredible elections. The edeterminatio on,therefore,madebythe COMELEC thatMaruhom t msMarawireg gistrationisva alid,whileher rMarantaoregistrationisv void,isonlyin naccordwithi itsexplicit ju urisdiction,or rattheveryle east,itsresidu ualpowers. oOo Qui into,petitione er,vs.Comelec c,respondent. G.R.No.189698 uary22,2010 Febru Congresspass C sedthelawau uthorizingthe COMELECto usetheautom matedelection nsystem(AES S).Comelecth henissued Resolutionno. R .8678,theGu uidelinesonth hefilingofCO OCandNomin nationofOfficialCandidates sofRegisteredPolitical Parties in Con P nnection with the May 10, 2 2010 Nationa aland Local Elections. Secti ions 4 and 5 ofResolution nNo. 8678 provide: p SEC.4 4.EffectsofFil lingCertificate esofCandidacy cy.a)Anype ersonholdingapublicappo ointiveofficeo orposition includ ding active members of th Armed For m he rces of the P Philippines, an other offic nd cers and emp ployees in governmentowned or controlled corporation shall be co d ns, onsideredipso factoresigne from his office upon o ed tificateofcand didacy. thefilingofhiscert ding an elective office or p position shall not be consid dered resigned upon the fil ling of his b) Any person hold icateofcandid dacyforthesa ameoranyoth herelectiveof fficeorpositio on. certifi PetitionersQu P uintoandTole entino,holdin ngappointive positionsint thegovernment,werealarm medcthatthe eyshallbe deemedipsof d factoresigned dfromtheirof fficesthemom menttheyfile theirCOCs.T Theyfiledfor apetitionfor apetition forprohibition f nandcertiora ari,prayingtha atSec.4ofthe eresolutionbedeclaredvoid.Theyargue ethatthelawconsiders themcandidat t tefromthetim meofthestar rtofthecamp paignperiod,t thatthisbeing gso,theysho ouldnotbede eemedipso factoresigned f fromtheirgo overnmentoff ficeswhenthe eyfiletheirCoCs,because atsuchtimet theyarenoty yettreated by b law as can ndidates. More eover, the pet titioners cont tend that such resolution w discrimin h was natory and violates the equal protecti e ion clause. La astly, that Sec 13, of R.A. 9369, the ba c. asis of Comel lecs resolutio has two c on, confliction provisions,tha p attheseprovi isionsshallbe eharmonized dtoarrivetoa adeclaration thattheyare enotdeemed ipsofacto resignedupon r nfilingoftheir rCOCs. TheOSG,repr T resentingthe COMELECans swered,sayin ngthatpetitio onershavenolegalstandin ngbecausethe eyhavent filedtheirCOC f Csyet,hencetheyarenotye etaffectedbytheassailedp provision.Mor reover,OSGst tatedthatCOM MELECdid notgravelyab n buseitspower rbecauseitm merelycopiedw whatwasprov videdinR.A.9 9369.TheOSG G,however,ag greeswith petitionerstha p atthereisaconflictinSect tion13ofR.A.No.9369tha atshouldber resolved.Acco ordingtotheO OSG,there seems to be n basis to consider appo s no c ointive officia asipso fac als ctoresigned and to require them to va e acate their positionsonth p hesamedayth hattheyfileth heirCoCs,becausetheyarenotyetconsid deredascand didatesatthattime. Issue: 1. Wheth herthepetitio onershaveleg galstanding 2. Wheth hertheassaile edresolutionisvoid Held: H
244 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Petitionershav P velegalstandingandtheas ssailedresolut tionisvoid. Ratio:TheCourtsaidthatt R thepetitioner rshavelegals standing.Altho oughtheyhav venotyetfiledtheirCOCs, theyhave thestandingto t oraisethecon utionalch nstit hallengesimpl lybecausethe eyareregister redvoters. Petitioners ha alleged in a precise m P ave n manner that they would engage in the very acts t that would tr rigger the enforcement o the provisi e of ionthey wo ould file their CoCs and ru in the 201 elections. G un 10 Given that the assailed provision prov p vides foripso factoresigna o ation upon th filing of th CoC, it can he he nnot be said t that it presen only a nts speculativeorhypotheticalobstacletope s etitionerscan ndidacy. Here,thepetit H tionersintere estinrunningforpublicoffi ice,aninteres stprotectedby ySections4a and8ofArticle eIIIofthe Constitution,isbreachedby C ytheproviso inSection13 ofR.A.No.93 369.Itisnow wtheopportun netimeforth heCourtto strikedownth s hesaidproviso oforbeingvio olativeofthee equalprotecti ionclauseand dforbeingove erbroad.,Inco onsidering persons holdin appointive positions as p ng e sipso factores signed from t their posts up the filing of their CoC but not pon g Cs, consideringas c sresignedallo othercivilser rvants,specificallytheelect tiveones,thelawundulydi iscriminatesa againstthe firstclass.App f plyingthefou urrequisitest totheinstant case,theCou urtfindsthatt thedifferentia altreatmento ofpersons holdingappoin h ntiveofficesasopposedtot thoseholdingelectiveonesisnotgerman netothepurp posesofthelaw w. There is thus no valid justi T ification to tre appointive officials diff eat e ferently from the elective o ones.The classification simplyfailsto s omeetthetestthatitshoul ldbegermanetothepurpo osesofthelaw w.Themeasu ureencapsula atedinthe secondprovisoofthethirdparagraphof s fSection13o ofR.A.No.936 69andinSect tion66oftheOECviolatestheequal protectionclau p use. oOo
PreElectionRemedies P
ONG GV.ALEGRE BeforetheCou B urtaretheset twoseparate petitionsund derRule65of ftheRulesof Courttonullifyandsetasidecertain issuancesofth heCommission nonElections s(COMELEC)enbanc. ent ng of e, Joseph Alegre and Francis Ong(incumbe mayor) are both runnin as Mayor o San Vicente Camarines Sur in the May10,2004 elections.Ale M egrefiledapet titiontodeny yduecoursea andtocancelt theCOCofOn ng.According toAlegre, Onghaveassu O umedofficeas smayorforth hreeconsecuti ivefullterms (1995,1998, and2001).Todigressabit,in1998, bothcandidate b esalsoranasmayor.Ongw wasproclaimedasthewinner.Alegrefiled danelectionprotestinthe eRTC.RTC declaredAlegr d reasthedulyelectedwinne erin1998ele ectionsbutsuc chdecisionon nlycameouto onJuly4,2001 1.Onghas alreadyserved a dthefullterm mof1998andh hasalreadyst tartedtoserve ethe2001term. ActingonOngspetition,Co A omelecFirstDivisiondismis ssedthepetiti ionsayingtha attherequisite esfortheapp plicationof thethreeterm t mrulearenot present.How wever,suchde ecisionwasre eversedbythe eComelecen bancanddec claredOng disqualifiedfro d omrunningas smayorandh hisnamebere emovedfromt thelistofcand didates. Ong,afterrece O eivingthedec cision,nomina atedhisbroth her,RommelO Ongtobeasu ubstitutecand didate.Romme elfiledhis COCashissub C bstitutecandid dateforhisbr rotherpastth hedeadline.Su uchsubstitutionwasdenied dbyCOMELE ECbecause thecertificateofthesubstitu t utedcandidac cywasdeniedduecourse. Hence,thepet H tition. Issue:
245|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 1. Wheth hertheCOME ELECactedwi ithgraveabus seofdiscretio onwhenitdeclaredFrancis sOngasdisqu ualifiedto runas smayor 2. Wheth the COME her ELEC acted w with grave abu of discret use tion when it denied Romm Ongs cer mel rtificate of candid dacyasasubs stituteforhisb brotherFranc cis Held: H PetitionDENIE P ED. Ratio: For the threeterm limit for elect R e tive local gov vernment offic cials to apply two conditio or requis y, ons sites must concur, to wit (1) that the official conc c t: e cerned has be elected fo three (3) c een or consecutive te erms in the s same local governmentpost,and(2)t g thathehasful llyservedthre ee(3)consecu utiveterms.W Withtheview wetakeofthe ecase,the disqualifyingr d requisitesare presentherein,thuseffect tivelybarring petitionerFr rancisfromru unningformay yorofSan Vicente,Camar V rinesNortein ntheMay10,2 2004elections s. The T herein co ontroversy rev volves around the 19982001 mayoral term, albeit there can also be no quib d bbling that Francisranfor F rmayorofthe esamemunici ipalityintheM May1998elec ctionsandact tuallyservedt the19982001mayoral termbyvirtue t eofaproclam mationinitially ydeclaringhim mmayorelect tofthemunic cipalityofSanVicente.The equestion thatbegstob t beaddressed, ,therefore,is swhetheror rnotFrancis sassumption nofofficeas MayorofSan nVicente, CamarinesNo C ortefromJuly y1,1998toJ June30,2001 1,maybecon nsideredaso onefullterm serviceinth hecontext oftheconsecu o utivethreete ermlimitrul le. FrancisOngsp F proclamationbytheMunici ipalBoardofC Canvassersof fSanVicentea asthedulyele ectedmayorin nthe1998 mayoraltyelec m ctioncoupledbyhisassumptionofoffice eandhisconti inuousexerciseofthefunct tionsthereoffromstart tofinishofthe t eterm,should legallybetak kenasservice eforafullterm mincontemplationoftheth hreetermrule e. Withregardto W otheSubstitio ontheCourtsa aidthat: Nottobeover N rlookedisthe eCourtsholdi inginMiranda avs.Abayath hatacandidat tewhosecertificateofcand didacyhas beencancelled r notgivenduecoursecannotbesubs b do n stitutedbyan notherbelongi ingtothesam mepoliticalpar rtyasthat oftheformer,thus: o Whilethereisnodisputeas W stowhether ornotanomi ineeofaregis steredoraccr reditedpolitic calpartymay substitute foracandidate f eofthesamepartywhohadbeendisqua alifiedforanycause,thisdo oesnotinclude ethosecaseswherethe certificateofc c candidacyofth hepersontob besubstituted dhadbeenden niedduecour rseandcancel lledunderSec ction78of theCode. t Weruledthatapersonwith W hacancelledc certificateisn nocandidatea atall.Applying gthisprincipl letothecaseatbarand considering th Section 77 of the Code is clear and unequivocal that only an official candi c hat 7 e idate of a reg gistered or accredited par may be substituted, th a rty here demonstrably cannot be any possi ible substituti of a pers whose ion son certificateofcandidacyhasbeencancelle c edanddeniedduecourse. oOo RANDAV.AB BAYA JOELMIR Jose Pempe Miranda, the incumbent m e mayor of Sant tiago City, Isa abela filed his COC for the same positio for the s e on synchronized May 11,1998 Elections. A s 8 Antonio Abaya filed a petition to deny due course or to cancel Mirandas a certificate.The c epetitionwas sgrantedandruledtodisqu ualifyMiranda a. Waypastdead W dline,JoelMirandafiledhi isCOCforthe emayoraltyse eat,supposedlyasasubstit tuteforhisFa ather,Jose Miranda. During the electio M ons, Joel Mira anda got 1,666 votes more than Abaya. On May 13, 1 6 e 1998, Abaya filed for a
246 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts petitiontonul p llifytheCOCo ofJoelMiranda aforbeingvoidabinitiobe ecausethecer rtificateofcan ndidacyofJose ePempe Miranda, who petitioner was suppose to substitu had alrea M om ed ute, ady been can ncelled and d denied due co ourse. The ComelecEnBa C ancgrantedsu uchpetitionan ndnullifiedth hesubstitution nofJoel. Issue: 1. Wheth hertheannulm mentofpetitionerssubstit tutionandpro oclamationwa asissuedwith houtjurisdictionand/or withg graveabuseof fdiscretionam mountingtola ackofjurisdict tion 2. Wheth hertheorderoftheComele ecdirectingth heproclamatio onofthepriva ateresponden ntwasissuedw withgrave abuse eofdiscretionamountingto olackofjurisd diction.*** Held:No H Ratio: While t R there is no di ispute as to w whether or no a nominee of a registere or accredited political p ot ed party may substituteforacandidateof s fthesamepar rtywhohadb beendisqualifi iedforanycau use,thisdoesnotincludeth hosecases wherethecer w rtificateofcan ndidacyofthe epersontobe esubstituted hadbeenden niedduecour rseandcancel lledunder Section78oft S theCode. Expressio uniu est exclusio alterius.Wh the law e E us o hile enumerated t occasions where a can the ndidate may be validly substituted, th s here is no me ention of the c case where a candidate is excluded not only by disqualification but also by denialandcan d ncellationofh hiscertificateo ofcandidacy. Underthefor regoingrule,t therecanben novalidsubstitutionfor thelattercase t e,muchinthe esamewayth hatanuisance ecandidatewh hosecertificat teofcandidac cyisdeniedd duecourse and/orcancell a ledmaynotbesubstituted. .Iftheintentofthelawmak kerswereotherwise,theyc couldhavesoeasilyand convenientlyi c includedthose epersonswh hosecertificate esofcandidac cyhavebeen deniedduecourseand/or rcancelled undertheprov u visionsofSect tion78oftheCode. Moreimportantly,underth M heexpresspro ovisionsofSe ection77ofth heCode,notjustanyperso on,butonlya anofficial candidateofa c aregisteredo oraccreditedp politicalparty ymaybesub bstituted.InB Bautistavs.Com melec(G.R.No o.133840, November 13 1998) this Court explic N 3, citly ruled th hata cancell led certificat does not give rise to a valid te o candidacy. c A A person with hout a valid certificate of c c candidacy can nnot be consid dered a candidate in much the same w as any h way personwhoha p asnotfiledan nycertificateo ofcandidacyatallcannot,b byanystretch hoftheimagin nation,beacandidateat all. a oOo Tajana anv.COMELE EC TheCOMELEC T Cissuedareso olutionentitle edINTHEMA ATTEROFTH HEMEMORAN NDUMOFTH HELAWDEPA ARTMENT RELATIVETO R OTHECERTIF FICATESOFC CANDIDACYF FORTHEPOS SITIONSOFP PRESIDENT,V VICEPRESID DENTAND SENATORINC S CONNECTION NWITHTHEM MAY10,2004 4ELECTIONS S.Suchwasis ssuedtoadopttheLawDep partments recommendati r ionasregards stolimitthe numberofca andidatesfort thenationalp positions(President,VP,Se enators)to avoidmockery a y.Thisresolut tionwasissue edbytheComelecwasinlin newiththeSu upremeCourtsdecisionint thecaseof Tajananv.Com T melec. mentionedcase,theSuprem meCourtheld: Intheabovem xxxThisdoesnotmeanth hatthisCourt isdeclaringn nationalpolitic csasthesole preserveofth hesocalledt traditional politicians.Ho p owever,giventhecomplexit tyoftheprese entpoliticalex xercise,which hinvolvestheelectionofgo overnment officials from the Presiden down to city and munic o nt cipal officials. We recogniz the need t keep the n . ze to number of
Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca nting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado aba onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas
247|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts candidatesto amanageable c elevel,andth hismeanskee epingthosewhoarenotseriousinrunningforoffice outofthe race. r Considering the dignity th must be accorded the Offices of t C hat e the President VicePresid t, dent and Senators, the magnitude of the responsib m bility of those officers, the following cr e e riteria was ob bserved in the determination of the candidateswh c hohavebonaf fideintentiontorunfortheofficeforwhi ichtheyseekt tobeelected: 1. Can ndidates who, on the face o their certif , of ficate of candi idacy, do not possess the c constitutional and legal l qualif ficationsofthe eofficetowhichtheyaspire etobeelected d; 2.Can ndidateswho,onthefaceof fsaidcertifica ate,filedtheircertificateofc candidacytop puttheelectio onprocess inmockeryordisre epute; ndidates whos certificate of candidacy would cause confusion am se e mong the vote by the sim ers milarity of 3. Can names sandsurnameswithothercandidates;an nd 4.Can ndidateswhohavenointen ntiontorunfo ortheofficefo orwhichthec certificateofcandidacyhas beenfiled assho ownbycircum mstancesorac ctsthatclearly ydemonstrate ethelackofsu uchbonafidei intention,such has: a)candidatewhocannot t twageanatio onwidecampa aign; b)candidat teswhodono othaveaplatf formofgovern nment; c) candida ates who are not nominate by a polit ed tical party or are not supp ported by a r registered politicalpa artywithnatio onalconstitue ency;and d) candida ates for presid dent or vicep president who do not pres o sent running mates for pre esident or vicepresid dent,respectiv vely,norsenat torialcandida ates. oOo Gar rvidav.Sales LynetteGarvid L daappliedfor rregistration asamember andvoterin Katipunanng gKabataanof BarangaySan nLorenzo, Bangui,IlocosNorte.Herpe B etitionwasde eniedbecauseshewasalrea ady21yearsa and10monthsold,exceedingtheage li imit in the K Katipunan ng Kabataan. Pet titioner filed a "Petition for Inclusion as Registered K a r s Kabataang Me ember and Voter" withth MunicipalC V he Circuit Trial C Court, Bangui PagudpudAd damsDamalneg, Ilocos Nor rte.In adecis sion dated April 18, 1996 the said court found pet A 6, titioner qualif fied and orde ered her regis stration as me ember and vo oter in the Katipunanng Kabataan.The K eBoardofEle ectionTellersappealedtot theRegionalT TrialCourt,B Bangui,Ilocos NorteShe filedherCOCf f forSKChairm man.Florencio oSalesJr,ariv valcandidate, filedwiththe eComelecEn Bancapetitio ontodeny duecourseor canceltheCO d OCofthepetit tionerforfalse elyrepresenti ingheragequ ualificationinherCOC.COMELECen banc issued an order direc b n cting the Boar of Election Tellers and Board of Canvassers of Ba rd n arangay San L Lorenzo to suspendthepr s roclamationo ofpetitionerin ntheeventshe ewoninthee election. Issue: Whetherthecancellationof W fGarvidasCOCduetohera agewasvalid. Held:Valid H Ratio: The Ka R abataang Bara angay sought to provide its members a medium to ex s xpress their v views and opi inions and participate in issues of tra p anscendental importance.Its affairs were administer red by a bar rangay youth chairman togetherwith sixbarangay youthleaderswhowerea t actualresidentsofthebara angayandwer reatleast15 yearsbut lessthan18y yearsofage.In n1983,Batas sPambansaBlg.337,then theLocalGov vernmentCod de,raisedthe maximum ageoftheKabataangBarang a gaymembersfrom"lesstha an18yearsof fage"to"notm morethan21yearsofage." Except for the question of age, petition has all th qualificatio of a mem E e f ner he ons mber and vote in the Kati er ipunan ng Kabataanandacandidatefo K ortheSangguniangKabataa an.Petitioner r'sageisadmi ittedlybeyond dthelimitsetinSection 3 3 [b] of COME ELEC Resolut tion No. 2824 4.Petitioner, h however, argu that Sect ues tion 3 [b] of R Resolution No 2824 is o. unlawful, ultra vires and beyond the sc u a b cope of Sectio 424 and 4 of the Lo ons 428 ocal Governm ment Code of 1991.She
248 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts contends that the Code itse does not p c elf provide that th voter must beexactly 2 years of ag on election day.She he 21 ge n urgesthatsolongasshedid u dnotturntwe entytwo(22)yearsold,shewasstilltwe entyoneyear rsofageonele ectionday andthereforequalifiedasamemberandvoterintheK a KatipunanngK Kabataanandascandidatef fortheSKelec ctions. Acloserlooka A attheLocalG GovernmentC Codewillrevealadistinctio onbetweenth hemaximuma ageofamem mberinthe Katipunan ng Kabataan and the maximu age of an elective SK o K d um official.Sectio 424 of the Code sets a member's on maximumage m eat21yearso only.Thereis snofurtherprovisionasto owhenthemembershallh haveturned21yearsof age.Ontheot a therhand,Sec ction428prov videsthatthe emaximumag geofanelecti iveSKofficial is21yearso old"onthe dayofhiselection."Theadditionofthep d phrase"onthe edayofhisele ection"isana additionalqua alification.Themember may m be more than 21 yea of age on election day or on the day he registe as membe of the Kati ars ers er ipunan ng Kabataan.The K eelectiveoffic cial,however,mustnotbem morethan21yearsoldont thedayofelec ction.Thedis stinctionis understandabl considering that the Code itself prov u le g vides more qu ualifications f an elective SK official t for e than for a memberofthe m eKatipunanng gKabataan.D Dissimilumdiss similisestrati io.Thecourtsmaydistingui ishwhentherearefacts andcircumstancesshowing a gthatthelegislatureintende edadistinctio onorqualification. The T phrase "n more than 21 years of age" means n over 21 y not n not years, not bey yond 21 years s.It means 21 365day 1 cycles.Itdoes c snotmean21 1yearsandon neorsomeda aysorafracti ionofayearb becausethatw wouldbemor rethan21 365day cycles."Not more than 21 year old" is not equivalent to "less than 22 years old," c 3 rs 2 contrary to petitioner's claims.Thelaw c wdoesnotsta atethattheca andidatebeles ssthan22yea arsonelection nday. erwasbornonJune11,1974.OnMarch h16,1996,thedayshereg gisteredasvot terforthe Inthecaseat bar,petitione May6,1996SKelections,p M petitionerwastwentyone( (21)yearsand dnine(9)mon nthsold.Ont thedayofthe eelections, shewas21years,11month s hsand5daysold.Whensh heassumedof fficeonJune1 1,1996,shew was21years,1 11months and a 20 days o and was merely ten (10 days away from turning 22 years old old m 0) g d.Petitioner m have qua may alified as a memberofthe m eKatipunann ngKabataanb butdefinitely, petitionerwa asovertheag gelimitforele ectiveSKofficialssetby Section 428 o the Local Government C S of G Code and Sec ctions 3 [b] a and 6 of Com melec Resoluti ion No. 2824.She was ineligibletoru unascandidat tefortheMay y6,1996Sang gguniangKaba ataanelections. oOo
ElectionProp E paganda
DEALBAN,D. D
Chave ezvs.COMELE EC G.R.No.1 162777(AzcunaJ.)
TheCOMELECisexpresslyau T uthorizedtosu uperviseorreg gulatetheenjo oymentorutili izationofallm mediacommun nicationor informationtoensureequalopportunity,t time,andspace. Petitioner Cha P avez, on vario dates, ent ous tered into for rmal agreeme ents with cert tain establishm ments to endorse their products.Purs p suanttothese eagreements, threebillboardswereset upalongtheB BalintawakIn nterchangeof theNorth Expressway a E and one more billboard w set up al e was longRoxas Bo oulevard show wing petition ners promoti ion of the establishment e tsrespectivep products. OnDecember30,2003,how O wever,petition nerfiledhisce ertificateofca andidacyforth hepositionof fSenatorunde erAlyansa ngPagasa.CO n OMELECissued dResolutionN No.6520,whic chcontainedS Section32,wh hichassailedp provisionisas sfollows: Sectio 32.All pro on opaganda mat terials such as posters, streamers, stick kers or paintin on walls and other ngs materials showing the picture, ima s e age, or name of a person, and all adve ertisements on print, in ra n adio or on
249|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts television nshowingthe eimageorme entioningthen nameofaper rson,whosub bsequenttoth heplacement ordisplay thereofb becomesacan ndidateforpub blicofficesha allbeimmedia atelyremoved dbysaidcand didateandrad diostation, printmed diaortelevisio onstationwit thin3daysaft tertheeffectiv vityoftheseim mplementingr rules;otherwi ise,heand saidradio ostation,prin ntmediaortel levisionstatio onshallbepre esumedtohav veconductedp prematurecam mpaigning inviolatio onofSection8 80oftheOmn nibusElectionCode. OnJanuary21 O 1,2004,petitio onerwasdire ectedtocomp plywiththesa aidprovision bytheCOMELECsLawDe epartment, thusthecasea t athand. Issues: whethertheas w ssailedprovis sionisuncons stitutionalbec cause:(1)agr rossviolationofthenonim mpairmentclau use;(2)an invalidexercis seofpolicepo ower;(3)inth henatureofa anexpostfac ctolaw;(4)co ontrarytotheFairElection nsAct;and (5)invaliddue ( etooverbread dth. Held: H Petitionisdism P missed. Onthefirstiss O sue,theCourtheldthatthenonimpairm mentclauseoftheConstituti ionmustyield dtotheloftier rpurposes targeted by th Governmen Equal opp t he nt. portunity to p proffer oneself for public o f office, without regard to th level of t he financial resou f urces one may have at his disposal, is in ndeed of vital interest to t public.Th State has th duty to l the he he enact and imp e plement rules to safeguard this interest s d t.Time and a again, this Cou has said t urt that contracts affecting s public interest contain an implied reser p rvation of the police powe as a postul e er late of the existing legal order.This power can be activated at anytime to c p e change the pr rovisions of th contract, o even abrog he or gate it entirel for the ly, promotionorp p protectionoft thegeneralw welfare. On O the second issue, petiti d ioner argues that the billb boards, while they exhibit his name an image, do not at all nd announcehis candidacyfor a ranypublicofficenorsolic citsupportfor rsuchcandida acyfromthe electorate.Th heyare,he claims,merep c productendor rsementsandn notelectionp propaganda.P Prohibiting,therefore,theirexhibitiontothepublic isnotwithint thescopeofth hepowersof theCOMELEC C,heconclude es.TheCourt heldthatitis swithintheCOMELECs powertoissue p etheassailedprovision.Ac closeexaminationoftheass sailedprovisio onrevealstha atitsprimaryobjectives are a to prohibi premature campaigning and to level t playing fie for candid it c the eld dates of public office, to eq c qualize the situationbetw s weenpopular orrichcandid dates,onone hand,andles sserknownor rpoorercand didates,onthe eother,by preventing the former from enjoying un p e m ndue advantag in exposure and publicit on account their reso ge e ty tof ources and popularity.Ift p thesubjectbillboardsweretobeallowed d,candidatesf forpublicoffic cewhosenameandimagea areusedto advertise com a mmercial products would h have more opp portunity to m make themsel lves known to the electora to the o ate, disadvantage of other cand d didates who d not have t same chan of lending their faces and names to endorse do the nce popularcomm p mercialproduc ctsasimagem models. Onthethirdis O ssue,theCour rtheldthattheassailedpro ovisionisnot anexpostfac ctolawsinceit tsapplication nthereisa prospective ap p pplication and no where in the law was it stated tha it shall be a d n s at applied retroa actively. The o offense, as expressly pres e scribed in the assailed pro e ovision,is the nonremoval of the descri ibed propagan materials three (3) nda s daysaftertheeffectivityofC d COMELECRes solutionNo.65 520. On O the fourth issue, the petitioner argue that the CO es OMELEC is vio olating the Fa Elections A since billb air Act boards are alreadypermittedaslawful a lelectionprop paganda.The Courtheld,asrightlypoin ntedoutbythe eSolicitorGen neral,that the t assailed p provision does not prohibi billboards as lawful election propaga it anda.It only regulates the use to eir preventprema p aturecampaig gningandtoe equalize,asmuchaspractic cable,thesitu uationofallca andidatesbyp preventing popularandrichcandidate p esfromgainin ngundueadva antageinexpo osureandpublicityonacc countoftheir resources andpopularity a y.Moreover,b byregulatingt theuseofsuc chelectionpro opagandamat terials,theCO OMELECismerelydoing it tsdutyunderthelaw.
250 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Onthelastissue,thecourt heldthatther O rewasnooverbreadthpres sentinthecas seathand.Th heprovisionin nquestion islimitedinits soperationbo othastotime eandscope.It tonlydisallow wsthecontinu ueddisplayof fapersonspr ropaganda materials and advertiseme m d ents after he has filed a c certificate of c candidacy and before the start of the campaign period.Saidm p materialsanda advertisementsmustalsos showhisname eandimage.T Thereisnobla anketprohibit tionofthe use u of propag ganda materia and advert als tisements.Du uring the cam mpaign period, these may b used subje only to , be ect reasonablelim r mitationsnece essaryandinc cidentaltoach hievingthepu urposeofpreventingprem maturecampai igningand promotingequ p ualityofoppor rtunitiesamon ngallcandida ates. oOo NationalPre essClubv.CO OMELEC G.R.N No.102653,10 02925,102983(Feliciano,J.) TheComelechasthusbeene T expresslyauthorizedbythe Constitutiont tosuperviseor rregulatethee enjoymentor utilization ofthefranchise o esorpermitsf fortheoperati ionofmediaof fcommunicati ionandinform mation. Petitionersin thesecasesco P onsistofrepr resentativesof fthemassme ediawhichare epreventedfr romsellingor rdonating spaceandtime s eforpoliticaladvertisemen nts;two(2)ind dividualswho oarecandidat tesforoffice(o onefornation nalandthe otherforprov o vincialoffice) inthecoming gMay1992el lections;andt taxpayersand dvoterswhoc claimthatthe eirrightto beinformedof b felectionissu uesandofcred dentialsofthecandidatesis sbeingcurtaile ed. lly y Republic Act No. 6646 inv vades and vio olates the It is principal argued by petitioners that Section 11 (b) of R constitutional guarantees comprising fre c c eedom of exp pression. Petit tioners mainta that the p ain prohibition im mposed by Section11(b)amountstoc S censorship,be ecauseitselec ctsandsingles soutforsuppr ressionandre epressionwithcriminal sanctions,only s ypublications sofaparticularcontent,na amely,media basedelectionorpolitical propagandad duringthe electionperiod e dof1992.Fur rther,petitionerscontendth hatSection11 1(b)abridgesthefreedomo ofspeechofca andidates, andthatthesuppressionof a fmediabased dcampaignor rpoliticalpro opagandaexce eptthoseappe earinginthe COMELEC spaceofthen s newspapersan ndonCOMEL LECtimeofra adioandtelev visionbroadca asts,wouldbr ringaboutas substantial reductioninth r hequantityor rvolumeofinf formationcon ncerningcandidatesandiss suesintheelectiontherebycurtailing andlimitingth a herightofvote erstoinforma ationandopin nion. Thestatutory textthatpetitionersaskus T stostrikedow wnasuncons stitutionalisthatofSection n11(b)ofRepublicAct No.6646,know N wnastheElec ctoralReforms sLawof1987 7: Sec.11Pro ohibitedForms sofElectionP Propaganda. Inaddition totheforms ofelectionpr ropaganda prohib bitedunderSe ection85ofBatasPambans saBlg.881,its shallbeunlaw wful; xx xxxxxxxx b)for anynewspapers,radiobroa adcastingort televisionstation,othermass smedia,oran nypersonmak kinguseof massmediatos sellortogivef freeofcharge eprintspaceo orairtimefor rcampaignor otherpolitica alpurposes them except ttotheComm missionasprov videdunderSe ections90and d92ofBatas PambansaBlg g.881.Anym massmedia colum mnist,commen ntator,announ ncerorperson nalitywhoisa acandidatefo oranyelective epublicoffice shalltake aleav veofabsencef fromhiswork kassuchdurin ngthecampaig gnperiod. Issue: whether the a w assailed provi ision is violat tive of the vo oters right to be informed of election issues and fr o d reedom of expression. e Held: H Petitionisdism P missedforlac ckofmerit.
251|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The T Court reit terated COME ELECs power as expressly authorized by the Consti r, y itution, to sup pervise or reg gulate the enjoymentor utilizationof thefranchise e esorpermits fortheopera ationofmedia aofcommunic cationandinf formation. Thefundamen T ntalpurposeo ofsuch"supervisionorregu ulation"hasbe eenspelledou utintheConstitutionasthe eensuring of"equaloppo o ortunity,time, ,andspace,an ndtherightto oreply,"asw wellasuniform mandreasona ableratesofch hargesfor theuseofsuch t hmediafacilit ties,inconnectionwith"pub blicinformationcampaigns sandforumsa amongcandidates." TheCourtexplainedthatfre T eedomofexpr ressionasens shrinedintheBillofRightsisaccordeda apreferredsta atusinour constitutionalhierarchy.Ho c owever,therig ghtsoffreesp peechandfree epressarenot tunlimitedrig ghtsfortheya arenotthe onlyimportan o ntandrelevant tvalueseveninthemostde emocraticofp polities.Inour rownsociety,equalityofop pportunity to t proffer one eself for public office, with hout regard to the level of financial res f sources that one may have at one's disposal,iscle d earlyanimpor rtantvalue.On neofthebasic cstatepolicies sgivenconstitutionalrankbyArticleII,S Section26 of o the Constitu ution is the egalitarian dem mand that "th State shall guaranteeequ access to opportunities for public he ual serviceandpro s ohibitpolitica aldynastiesasmaybedefinedbylaw." TheCourtheld T dthatthoughsaidconstitut tionalrightsar rebeingconst tricted,itsaid dthatintheco onstitutionala assayingof legislative pro ovisions like Section 11 (b), the charact and exten of the limit S ter nt tations resulti from the particular ing measurebeing m gassayedupo onfreedomofspeechandfr reedomofthe epressareess sentialconside erations.Itis important tonotethatth t herestrictiveimpactuponfr reedomofspe eechandfreed domofthepre essofSection11(b)iscircu umscribed bycertainimp b portantlimitat tions: Firstly, Section 11 (b) is lim F n mited in the d duration of its applicability and enforcea s y ability. By vir rtue of the op peration of Article IX (C) (4) of the Constitution, Section 11 (b) i limited in i applicabilit in time to election perio A is its ty ods. By its Resolution No 2328 dated 2 January 19 R o. 992, the COM MELEC, acting under anothe specific gra of author by the er ant rity Constitution ( C (Article IX [C] [9]), has def fined the peri from 12 J iod January 1992 until 10 June 1992 as the relevant e electionperiod e d. Secondly,and moreimporta S antly,Section 11(b)islimi itedinitsscop peofapplicati ion.Analysiso ofSection11 (b)shows thatitpurport t tstoapplyon nlytothepurc chaseandsale,includingp purchaseands saledisguised dasadonatio on,ofprint spaceandair timefor"cam s mpaignorothe erpoliticalpu urposes."Section11(b)doesnotpurpor rtinanyway torestrict the t reporting by newspape or radio or television st ers tations of new or newsw ws worthy events relating to ca andidates, theirqualificat t tions,political lpartiesandp programsofgo overnment. Thethirdlimit T tationuponth hescopeofap pplicationofSe ection11(b)isthatSection n11(b)exemptsfromitsprohibition the t purchase by or donatio to the COM on MELEC of print space or a time, whic space and time COMELE is then air ch EC affirmativelyr a requiredtoall locateonafairandequalba asis,freeofch harge,amongtheindividual lcandidatesfo orelective publicofficesi p intheprovinc ceorcityserve edbythenew wspaperorrad dioortelevisio onstation. hat,whensov viewed,thelim mitingimpactofSection11(b)upontherighttofreespeechofthec candidates Itisbelievedth themselvesma t aybeseento benotunduly yrepressiveo orunreasonab ble.For,once again,therei isnothinginS Section11 (b) ( to preven media reporting of and commentar on pronou nt d ry uncements, ac ctivities, writ tten statemen of the nts candidates th c hemselves. All other fora remain acces l ssible to can ndidates, even for politica advertisem n al ments. The requisitesoffa r airnessandeq qualopportun nityare,aftera all,designedto obenefitthec candidatesthe emselves oOo Phili ippinePress Institute,Inc c.v.COMELEC C G.R.No.11 19694(Felicia ano,J.) Tocompelprin T ntmediacomp paniestodonate"Comelec space"ofthe dimensionssp pecifiedinSec ction2ofReso olutionNo. 2772,amounts 2 sto"taking"of fprivateperso onalpropertyf forpublicuseo orpurposes.
252|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ThePhilippine T ePressInstitu ute,Inc.("PPI I")isbeforeth hisCourtassa ailingthecon nstitutionalvalidityofReso olutionNo. 2772issuedb 2 byrespondent tCommission onElections ("COMELEC") )anditscorre espondingCO OMELECdirectivedated 22March1995 2 5,throughaP PetitionforCer rtiorariandPr rohibition.PetitionerPPIis sanonstock,nonprofitorg ganization ofnewspaperandmagazine o epublishers. Theassailedp T provisionofth hesaidresolutioniswithre egardtother requirementim mposedbyit requiringpub blishersto giveafreespa g aceintheirpap perscalledCO OMELECSpac ce. Attheoralhea A aringofthe,re espondentCO OMELECthrou ughitsChairm man,Hon.Bern nardoPardo,i inresponseto oinquiries fromtheChief f fJusticeando otherMembersoftheCourt t,statedthatR ResolutionNo. .2772,particu ularlySection2thereof, werenotinten w ndedtocompe elthosememb berstosupply yCOMELECw withfreeprint tspace.Chairm manPardorepresented totheCourtth t hatResolution nandtherela atedletterdire ectiveswerem merelydesign nedtosolicitf fromthepubl lishersthe samefreeprin s ntspacewhich hmanypublishershadvolu untarilygiventoCOMELECduringtheele ectionperiodr relatingto the11May1992elections. t Subsequently theCOMELEC S Cmadeanothe erresolution clarifyingthe assailedprov visionthatSec ction2ofRes.No.2772 shallnotbeco s onstruedtomeanasrequiri ingpublishers softhediffere entmassmediaprintpublic cationstopro ovideprint space under p s pain of prosec cution, wheth administra her ative, civil or criminal, the being no s ere sanction or p penalty for violationofsa v aidsection.SuchactofCOM MELECmadeth hecasemoot thoughtheCo ourtnonethel lesswantsto passupon theconstitutio t onalissueraisedinthecase e. Issue: Whether said requirement of COMELE Space vio W t EC olates the pro ohibition imp posed by the Constitution upon the government,a g andanyofitsa agencies,again nstthetaking gofprivatepro opertyforpub blicusewithou utjustcompensation. Hel H d:Petition nforCertiorar riandProhibit tionisGRANT TEDinpartan ndSection2o ofResolution No.2772initspresent formandther f relatedletterd directivesdat ted22March1 1995arehere ebySETASIDE Easnullandv void. Tocompelprin T ntmediacompaniestodonate"COMELEC Cspace"ofth hedimensions sspecifiedin Section2ofR Resolution No.2772(not N tlessthanone ehalfpage),a amountsto"ta aking"ofpriv vatepersonal propertyforp publicuseor purposes. Section 2 failed to specify the intende S y edfrequencyo such comp of pulsory "dona ation:" The ex xtent of the taking or deprivation is not insubstantial; this is n a case of ade minimist d not temporary lim mitation or restraint upon the use of private proper The monetary value o the compulsory "donatio p rty. of on," measured by the adve d ertising rates ordinarily chargedbynew c wspaperpubl lisherswhethe erincitiesorinnonurbanareas,maybe everysubstan ntialindeed. Theunwillingn T nessorreluct tanceofCOME ELECtobuyp printspaceliesattheheart toftheproble em.Similarly, ithasnot beensuggested,letalonede b emonstrated, thatCOMELE EChasbeengr rantedthepow werofeminen ntdomaineith herbythe Constitutiono C orbythelegis slativeauthori ity.Areasona ablerelationsh hipbetweent thatpoweran ndtheenforce ementand administration a nofelectionla awsbyCOMEL LECmustbes shown;itisno otcasuallytob beassumed. However, ther is nothing at all to prev H re vent newspaper and magaz zine publisher from volun rs ntarily giving free print spacetoCOME s ELECforthep purposescont templatedinR ResolutionNo o.2772.Sectio on2ofResolu utionNo.2772 2doesnot, however,prov h videaconstitu utionalbasisfo orcompelling gpublishers,againsttheirw will,inthekind doffactualcon ntexthere present,topro p ovidefreeprin ntspaceforCO OMELECpurp poses.Section2doesnotconstituteavali idexerciseoft thepower ofeminentdom o main. Section 2 of R S Resolution No. 2772, in its present form and as inter m rpreted by CO OMELEC in its 22 March 1995 letter s directives,pur d rportstorequ uireprintmed diaenterprise esto"donate" "freeprintsp pacetoCOMELEC.Assuch,Section2 suffersfromafatalconstitut s tionalviceand dmustbesetasideandnullified. oOo
253|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Osme av.COMELE EC G.R.No.13 32231(Mendo oza,J.) 11(b)ofR.A. No.6646isa validexercise eofthepower oftheStatet toregulateme ediaofcommu unicationorin nformation forthepurpose f eofensuringe equalopportunity,timeand dspaceforpoli iticalcampaig gns;thatthere egulationisun nrelatedto thesuppression t nofspeech;th hatanyrestric ctiononfreedo omofexpressi ionisonlyinci identalandno omorethanis snecessary toachievethep t purposeofpromotingequal o lity. This is a petit T tion for prohi ibition, seekin a reexamin ng nation of the validity of 1 11(b) of R.A. N 6646, the Electoral No. e Reforms Law of 1987, whic prohibits m R ch mass media fr rom selling or giving free o charge prin space or ai time for r of nt ir campaign or o c other political purposes, ex l xcept to the C Commission o Elections. P on Petitioners are candidates for public officeinthefo o orthcomingele ections.Petiti ionerEmilioM M.R.Osmeai iscandidatefo orPresidento ofthePhilippi ines,while petitionerPab p bloP.Garciais sgovernorof CebuProvinc ce,seekingree election.They ycontendthat teventsafter theruling inNational Pr ress Club v. Co ommission on Electionshave called into q e question the v validity of the very premis of that e ses decision. d Petitionerscon P ntendthat11(b)isnota reasonablem meansforachie evingthepur rposeforwhic chitwasenac cted.They claim that inst c tead of levelli the playin field as far as the use of mass media for political c ing ng f campaign is c concerned, 11(b) has ab bolished it.Th further cla that 11( does not p hey aim (b) prevent rich c candidates fro using their superior om r resourcestoth r hedisadvantageofpoorcan ndidates. Issue: Whetherthed W decisionofthe eCourtinthe caseNationalPressClubv.Commissiono onElectionsupholdingthe validityof of11(b)ofR.A.No.6646beoverturnedforundesirab o bleeffects. Held: H Petitiondismi P issed. TheCourtheld T dthatthereis snocaseorcontroversyto odecideonlya anacademicd discussionto hold.Noempiricaldata havebeenpresentedbypet h titionerstobackuptheircla aim,however.Argumentati ionismadeat tthetheoretic calandnot the t practical l level. What petitioners see is not the adjudication of a case but simply the h ek t holding of an academic exercise.As such, the Cour is unpersua e rt aded that its decision inNP PCis founded on error; it will suffice fo present d or purposessimp p plytoreaffirm mtherulinginthatcase. TheCourteluc T cidatesthatth hetermpolitic caladban,w whenusedtod describe11(b)ofR.A.No.6646,ismisle eading,for even as 11(b prohibits th sale or do e b) he onation of print space and air time to p political candi idates, it man ndates the COMELEC to p C procure and itself allocate to the candid dates space an time in the media.There is no supp nd e pression of politicaladsbu p utonlyaregulationofthetimeandmann nerofadvertis sing. Thelawsconc T cernisnotwiththemessag georcontent oftheadbut withensuring gmediaequal litybetweenc candidates withdeeppoc w ckets,asJusticeFelicianoc calledthemin nhisopiniono oftheCourtin NPC,andthos sewithlessre esources. The T validity o regulations of time, place and manner under well of e r, defined stand dards, is wellnigh beyond question. d Whatisinvolv W vedhereissim mplyregulatio onofthisnature.Insteadof fleavingcandidatestoadve ertisefreelyin nthemass media,thelaw m wprovidesfor rallocation,by ytheCOMELE EC,ofprintsp paceandairti imetogiveallcandidatese equaltime andspacefort a thepurposeofensuringfre ee,orderly,ho onest,peacefu ul,andcredible eelections. Citingdifferen C ntcasesofthe eCourtregard dingassailedr resolutionsof theCOMELEC f Cregardingel lectionpropag ganda,the cited decision come to this: the State can p c ns prohibit campaigningouts sidea certain period as well as n campaigningw c withinacertai inplace.For unlimitedexp penditurefor politicaladve ertisinginthemassmedia skewsthe
254 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts politicalproce p essandsubver rtsdemocratic cselfgovernm ment.Whatis sbadisifthel lawprohibitscampaigningbycertain candidates be c ecause of the views expres ssed in the a ad.Content re egulation can nnot be done in the absen of any nce compellingrea c ason. The T main pur rpose of 11(b is regulato b) ory.Any restr riction on spe eech is only incidental, and it is no more than is d necessary to achieve its purpose of pr n p romoting equ uality of oppo ortunity in th use of ma media for political he ass advertising.T a Therestriction nonspeech,as spointedouti inNPC,islimit tedbothastotimeandast toscope. oOo TELEB BAPv.COMEL LEC G.R.No.13 32922(Mendo oza,J.) Afranchiseist A thusaprivilegesubject,amo ongotherthing gs,toamendedbyCongressinaccordance ewiththeconstitutional provision that "any such fr p t ranchise or rig granted . . . shall be subject to ame ght endment, alter ration or repe by the eal Congresswhen C nthecommong goodsorequir res." PetitionerTele P ecommunicati ionsandBroa adcastAttorne eysofthePhil lippines,Inc.i isanorganizationoflawyer rsofradio and television broadcastin companies. They are su a n ng . uing as citize ens, taxpayers and registe s, ered voters. T The other petitioner,GM p MANetwork,In nc.,operatesr radioandtelev visionbroadcastingstation nsthroughoutthePhilippine esundera franchise gran f nted by Cong gress.Petitione challenge the validity o 92 on the ground (1) that it takes property ers of e s without due p w process of la and witho just comp aw out pensation; (2 that it den 2) nies radio an television broadcast nd companies the equal prote c e ection of the laws; and (3) that it is in excess of th power give to the COMELEC to n he en superviseorre s egulatetheop perationofme ediaofcommu unicationorin nformationdu uringtheperio odofelection. Theassailedprovisionisasfollows: T OMELECtime. Thecomm missionshallp procureradio oandtelevisio ontimetobe knownas Sec.92.CO "COMELEC Time" which shall be allocated eq w e quallyand imp partiallyamon ngthe candid dates within th hearea of age dio sion stations. For this pur rpose, the fran nchise of all r radio broadca asting and covera of all rad and televis televis sion stations are hereby am mended so as sto provide radio or televi ision time,fre of charge, d ee duringthe period dofthecampa aign.(Sec.46,1978EC) Issue: Whether (1) t W there was tak king of proper without d process o law and without just com rty due of mpensation; (2) that it deniesradioa d andtelevision broadcastcom mpaniesthee equalprotectionofthelaws s;and(3)thattheassailed provision isinexcessof thepowergiv ventotheCOMELECtosup perviseorreg gulatetheoper rationofmed diaofcommun nicationor uringtheperiodofelection. informationdu Held: H Petitionisdism P missed. On O the first is ssue, the Court reminded t petitioner that in tru radio and television br the rs uth, d roadcasting companies, whicharegive w enfranchises;donotownt theairwavesa andfrequenci iesthroughw whichtheytran nsmitbroadca astsignals andimages.Theyaremere a elygiventhet temporarypri ivilegeofusin ngthem.Since eafranchise isamerepriv vilege,the exercise of the privilege ma reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public e e ay y d y m service. s
255|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Inthegranting goftheprivilegetooperate ebroadcastst tationsandth hereaftersupe ervisingradio andtelevision nstations, thestatespendsconsiderab t blepublicfund dsinlicensing gandsupervisingsuchstat tions.Itwould dbestrangeif fitcannot evenrequireth e helicenseesto orenderpublicservicebyg givingfreeairtime. Under92ofB U B.P.Blg.881,t theCOMELECdoesnottake eovertheope erationofradioandtelevisionstationsbu utonlythe allocationofa a airtimetothecandidatesfo orthepurpose eofensuring, ,amongother rthings,equal lopportunity, ,time,and therighttorep t plyasmandat tedbytheCon nstitution. o ch It is noteworthy that 40 of R.A. No. 6388, from whic 92 of B.P. Blg. 881 was taken, expressly provided that the COMELEC Tim should "be considered a part of the public service time said stations are r C me e as e required to fu urnish the Governmentfo G orthedisseminationofpub blicinformatio onandeducat tionunderthe eirrespectivefranchisesor rpermits." Thereisnorea T asontosuppo osethat92of fB.P.Blg.881considersthe eCOMELECTi imethereinpr rovidedtobeotherwise thanasapublicservicewhi t ichpetitionerisrequiredto orenderunder4ofitscha arter(R.A.No.7252).Insum m,B.P.Blg. 881,92isnotaninvalidam 8 mendmentof petitioner'sf f franchisebutt theenforcementofadutyv voluntarilyas ssumedby petitionerinacceptingapub p blicgrantofp privilege. On O the second issue, the Court held tha there are i d C at important diff ferences in th characteris he stics of the tw media, wo however,whic h chjustifytheir rdifferentialt treatmentforfreespeechp purposes.Beca auseoftheph hysicallimitati ionsofthe broadcastspectrum,thegov b vernmentmu ust,ofnecessit ty,allocatebroadcastfrequ uenciestothos sewishingto usethem. Thereisnosim T milarjustificat tionforgovern nmentallocat tionandregula ationofthepr rintmedia. elevantcondit tionsmayvali idlybeimposedonthegra anteesorlicen nsees.The Intheallocationoflimited resources,re reasonforthis r sisthatthego overnmentspendspublicfu undsfortheallocationandregulationofthebroadcast tindustry, whichitdoes notdointhe caseofthepr w rintmedia.To orequirether radioandtele evisionbroadc castindustryt toprovide freeairtimefo f ortheCOMELE ECTimeisafa airexchangef forwhatthein ndustrygets. From another point of vie the Court has also hel that because of the uni F r ew, ld ique and perv vasive influen of the nce broadcastmed b dia,"[n]ecessa arily...thefreedomoftele evisionandrad diobroadcast tingissomewh hatlesserins scopethan thefreedomac t ccordedtonew wspaperandprintmedia." Onthelastissue,theCourt heldthatwha O attheCOMEL LECisauthoriz zedtosuperv viseorregulat tebyArt.IXC,4ofthe Constitution, a C among other things, is the use by med of information of their franchises o permits, w e dia r or while what Congress (not the COMELE prohibits is the sale or donation of print space o air time for political ads In other C t EC) r or r s. words,theobj w jectofsuperv visionorregulationisdifferentfromthe eobjectofthe eprohibition. Itisanother fallacyfor petitionersto contendthat thepowerto p oregulatedoe esnotinclude thepowerto oprohibit.Thi ismayhavefo orceifthe objectofthepowerwerethesame. o oOo SWS Sv.COMELEC C G.R.No.14 47571(Mendo oza,J.) 5.4laysaprio orrestrainton nfreedomofsp peech,expressi ion,andthepr ressbyprohibi itingthepublicationofelect tionsurvey resultsaffectin r ngcandidates withinthepre escribedperiodsoffifteen(1 15)daysimme ediatelyprece edinganationalelection and seven (7) days before a local elect a ) tion. Because of the prefer rred status of the constitut f tional rights of speech, expression,and e dthepress,suc chameasureisvitiatedbya aweightypres sumptionofin nvalidity. Petitioner,Soc P cialWeatherS Stations,Inc.(S SWS),isapriv vatenonstock k,nonprofits socialresearch hinstitutionc conducting surveys in va s arious fields, including ec conomics, politics, demog graphy, and s social development, and thereafter processing,an p nalyzing,andp publiclyrepor rtingtheresul ltsthereof.On ntheotherha and,petitioner rKamahalanP Publishing
256 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts CorporationpublishestheM C ManilaStanda ard,anewspaperofgenera alcirculation,w whichfeature esnewsworth hyitemsof informationin ncludingelecti ionsurveys. Petitionersbro P oughtthisact tionforprohib bitiontoenjointheCommi issiononElec ctionsfromen nforcing5.4o ofR.A.No. 9006(FairEle 9 ectionAct),wh hichprovides: Surveysaffectingnationalc S candidatessha allnotbepubl lishedfifteen (15)daysbef foreanelectio onandsurveysaffecting localcandidate esshallnotbe epublishedse even(7)daysb beforeanelec ction. PetitionerSWSstatesthati P itwishestoco onductanelectionsurveyt throughoutth heperiodofth heelectionsb bothatthe nationalandlo n ocallevelsand dreleasetoth hemediatheresultsofsuchsurveyaswellaspublishthemdirectly.Petitioner KamahalanPu K ublishingCorp poration,onth heotherhand d,statesthat itintendstop publishelectio onsurveyres sultsupto thelastdayoftheelectionsonMay14,20 t 001. Petitionersarg P guethattherestrictionon thepublicatio onofelection surveyresult tsconstitutes apriorrestra aintonthe exerciseoffreedomofspeec e chwithoutanyclearandpr resentdangertojustifysuch hrestraint. RespondentCo R ommissionon nElections,on ntheotherhan nd,justifiesth herestrictionsin5.4ofR.A A.No.9006asnecessary to t prevent the manipulatio and corrup e on ption of the e electoral process by unscru upulous and erroneous surveys just beforetheelec b ction. Issue: Whether5.4 ofR.A.No.90 W 006constitute esanunconstitutionalabrid dgmentoffre eedomofspee ech,expression,andthe press. p Held: H Petitionisgranted. P The T Court held that 5.4 la a prior re ays estraint on fre eedom of spee ech, expressio and the press by prohi on, ibiting the publication of election sur p f rvey results affecting can ndidates with the presc hin cribed periods of fifteen (15) days immediatelyp precedingana ationalelectio onandseven( (7)daysbefor realocalelec ction.Becauseoftheprefer rredstatus oftheconstitu o utionalrights ofspeech,exp pression,and thepress,suc chameasureisvitiatedby aweightypre esumption ofinvalidity. o TheSupreme Courtusedth T hetestusedby ytheUnitedS StatesSuprem meCourt,throu ughChiefJust ticeWarren,inthecase ofUnitedState o esv.OBrien: [A] government regulation is sufficiently justified [1] i it is within the constitutional pow of the if wer ment;[2]ifitfu urthersanimp portantorsub bstantialgove ernmentalinte erest;[3]ifthe egovernment talinterest Governm is unrela ated to the suppression o free expre s of ession; and [4 if the incidental restri 4] iction on alle eged First Amendm mentfreedoms s[ofspeech,ex xpressionand dpress]isno greaterthani isessentialtothefurtheran nceofthat interest. Thisissofart T themostinflue entialtestfordistinguishin ngcontentbas sedfromconte entneutralre egulationsand dissaidto havebecomecanonicalint h thereviewofs suchlaws.U Underthistest t,evenifalaw wfurthersanim mportantors substantial governmental interest,itsh g houldbeinval lidatedifsuch hgovernment talinterestis notunrelatedtothesupp pressionof free expressio f on. Moreover even if the purpose is unrelated to the suppress r, e sion of free s speech, the la should aw nevertheless b invalidated if the restriction on freed n be d dom of expre ession is great than is ne ter ecessary to ac chieve the governmentalpurposeinqu g uestion.
257|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Theassailedp T provisionfailedtomeettwo oofthecriteriongiveninth heOBriencase.First,fails tomeetcriter rion[3]of theOBrientes because th causal connection of ex t st he xpression to the asserted governmenta interest ma al akes such interestnotu unrelatedtoth hesuppression noffreeexpre ession.Byprohibitingthepublicationof felectionsurv veyresults becauseofthe b epossibilityth hatsuchpublic cationmightu underminethe eintegrityoft theelection, 5.4actuallysuppresses a a whole class of expressio while allo s on, owing the ex xpression of o opinion conce erning the sa ame subject m matter by newspapercol n lumnists,radi ioandTVcom mmentators,ar rmchairtheorists,andother ropinionmak kers. Secondly,itfai S ilstomeetcriterion[4].Asalreadystated d,5.4aimsat tthepreventionoflastmin nutepressureonvoters, thecreationof t fbandwagoneffect,junkin ngofweakor rlosingcand didates,andre esorttothefo ormofelection ncheating calleddagdag c gbawas.Praiseworthyastheseaimsoftheregulation nmightbe,th heycannotbeattainedatth hesacrifice of o the fundam mental right of expression, when such ai can be mo narrowly pursued by p f im ore punishing unla awfulacts, ratherthanspe r eechbecauseofapprehensi ionthatsuchs speechcreatesthedangero ofsuchevils. Also,intheAd A dministrativeC Codeof1987,theCOMELEC Cisgiventhep power: To sto any illegal activity, or confiscate, te down, and stop anyun op l ear d nlawful, libelo ous,misleadin or false ng electionp propaganda,a afterduenotic ceandhearing g. Thisissurely alessrestrict T tivemeansth hantheprohib bitioncontain nedin5.4.Pu ursuanttothi ispower,the COMELEC cantherefore confiscatebogussurveyre c esultscalculat tedtomislead dvoters.How wever,candida atescanhave theirown surveyscondu s ucted. To T summarize then, the Co e ourt held that 5.4 is inval because (1 it imposes a prior restr t lid 1) raint on the fr reedom of expression,(2)itisadirectandtotalsupp e pressionofac categoryofex xpressioneven nthoughsuch hsuppressionisonlyfor alimitedperio a od,and(3)th hegovernment talinterestso oughttobepr romotedcanb beachievedby ymeansothe erthanthe suppressionof s ffreedomofe expression. oOo Pener rav.COMELE EC G.R.No.1 181613(Carpi io,J.) Anyunlawfulactoromissio onapplicablet toacandidateshalltakeeffe ectonlyupont thestartofthe ecampaignpe eriod.The plainmeaningofthisprovisi p ionisthattheeffectivedatewhenpartisan npoliticalacts sbecomeunlawfulastoaca andidateis whenthecamp w paignperiodst tarts.Beforet thestartofthe ecampaignpe eriod,thesame epartisanpoliticalactsarel lawful. This is a case for Penera's motion for reconsideratio of the Cour decision o 11 Septmeber 2009. Th assailed T on rt's of he DecisiondismissedPeneras D spetitionand daffirmedtheResolutionda ated30July2008oftheCO OMELECEnBa ancaswell astheResoluti a iondated24J July2007ofth heCOMELECS SecondDivisio on.TheDecisiondisqualifie edPenerafrom mrunning fortheofficeo f ofMayorinSt ta.Monica,Su urigaodelNor rteforcharges sofprematur recampaignin nganddeclare edthatthe ViceMayorsh V houldsucceedPenera.Pen nerasubmitte edthefollowin ngargument tosupporthe ercause,that shenever admitted the a a allegations of the petition for disqualific f cation and ha consistently disputed the charge of p as y e premature campaigninga c andthatthead dmissionthatPenerapartic cipatedinamotorcadeisno otthesameas sadmittingsh heengaged inprematuree electioncampaigning. Issue: Whet W herPene eraisguiltyofprematureele ectioncampai igning. Held: H PetitionersMo P otionforReco onsiderationg granted.
258 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Section79(a) oftheOmnib S busElectionCodedefinesa acandidatea asanypersonaspiringfor rorseekinga anelective publicoffice,w p whohasfiled acertificateo ofcandidacyx xxx.Thesec condsentence e,thirdparagr raph,Section n15ofRA 8436,asamen 8 ndedbySectio on13ofRA93 369,provides sthat[a]nyp personwhofileshiscertificateofcandida acywithin [theperiodfor [ rfiling]shallo onlybeconsid deredasacan ndidateatthestartoftheca ampaignperio odforwhichh hefiledhis certificateofc c candidacy.Th heimmediate elysucceeding gprovisointh hesamethird paragraphsta atesthatunlawfulacts oromissions a o applicabletoa acandidatesh halltakeeffect tonlyuponth hestartofthe eaforesaidcam mpaignperiod d.These twoprovisions t sdetermineth heresolutionofthiscase. Under the ass U sailed decision a candidate may already be liable f premature campaigning after the filing of the n, e y for e g certificate of candidacy bu even befor the start o the campai c ut re of ign period. F From the filin of the cer ng rtificate of candidacy, eve long before the start of the campaign period, the Decision cons c en e n siders the par rtisan politica acts of a al personsofilin p ngacertificate eofcandidacyasthepromotionofhis/h herelectionas sacandidate. Thus,suchp personcan be b disqualified for prematu campaign d ure ning for acts d done before the start of t campaign period. In short, the the Decision consi D iders a person who files a certificate of candidacy already a can a f ndidate even before the st tart of the campaignperi c iod. However,acco H ordingtotheC Courtwhichn nowoverturnsits11Septe ember2009re esolution,aca andidateislia ableforan electionoffens e seonlyforact tsdoneduring gthecampaig gnperiod,notbefore.Thel lawisclearth hatanyelectio onoffense thatmaybeco t ommittedbya acandidateunderanyelec ctionlawcann notbecommit ttedbeforeth hestartofthe campaign period. In rul p ling that Pene is liable fo premature campaigning for partisan political acts before the st era or g tart of the campaigning,t c theassailedde ecisionignore theclearan es ndexpresspro ovisionofthel law. The T assailed d decision ratio onalizes that a candidate who commits premature campaigning can be disqu s ualified or prosecuted on after the start of the campaign period. This is n what the l p nly s not law says. Wh the law sa is any hat ays unlawfulacto u oromissionap pplicabletoa candidatesha alltakeeffect onlyuponthe estartofthe campaignper riod.The plain meaning of this prov p g vision is that the effective date when partisan poli t e itical acts bec come unlawfu as to a ul candidateisw c whenthecamp paignperiodst tarts.Beforet thestartofthecampaignpe eriod,thesam mepartisanpo oliticalacts arelawful. a The T law does not state, as the assailed d decision asser that parti rts, isan political acts done by a candidate b before the campaignperi c iodareunlaw wful,butmayb beprosecuted donlyuponth hestartofthe ecampaignpe eriod.Neitherdoesthe la state that partisan political acts don by a candi aw t ne idate before t campaign period are t the temporarily la awful, but becomesunlaw b wfuluponthestartoftheca ampaignperio od.Thisisclearlynotthela anguageofthe elaw. oOo
Appreciation A nofBallots
LIU,K. L SERGIOBAUT S TISTA,petitio onerv.HON.JOSEP.CASTR RO,InHisCap pacityasPres sidingJudge ofBranchIX (Quezon City),COUR RTOFFIRST INSTANCEOFRIZAL,andROBERTOM MIGUEL,respondents. G.R.No.L61260 February17,1992 F Theabsenceof T fthesignature eoftheChairm manoftheBoa ardofElection nTellersinthe eballotgivent toavoterisfa atalforthe validityofthes v saidballot. PetitionerSerg P gioBautistaa andprivateres spondentRob bertoMiguelw werecandidat tesfortheBar rangayCaptainposition duringtheMay d y17,1982ele ection.
259|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Miguelfileda protestbefor M retheCityCou urtofQuezon nCitycontestingtheresults softheelectio oninallthefo ourvoting centersinBgy c y.TeachersVil llageEast,QuezonCity.Aft terarevision andrecountin ngoftheballo ots,theCityCourtruled thattheelectio t onresultedinatie. Thelowercou T urtcountedfor rBautistaball lotswhichwer renotdulyau uthenticatedo orlacksthesig gnatureoftheChairman oftheBoardo o ofElectionTellersatthebac ckthereof.An nexaminationofthebackp portionofthes seballotsreve ealsthatit iscompletelyb blankofanysignatureorin nitial. Miguel appealed the City Courts decision before t M the Court of First Instance of Rizal, arguing that the legal consequencef c fortheabsenc ceofsuchauthenticationm meansthatthe eballotsaresp poiled,hence shouldnotbe eincluded inthecounting g. TheCFIrevers T sedthedecisio onoftheCityCourtanddec claredMiguelthedulyelect tedBarangayCaptainwitha aplurality of24votes,settingasideasnullandvoidtheproclama o ationofBautista. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otaballotwhichdoesnotco ontainthesign natureofthep pollchairman nisvoid. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. Section36(f)o S ofComelecResolutionNo.1 1539statestha at: ( (f)Whenballo otmaybecons sideredspoiled d.Anyballo otreturnedtothechairmanwithitscouponalreadyde etached,or which does no bear the signature of the chairman, o any ballot w w ot or with a serial number that does not tally with the y serialnumber s roftheballot deliveredtot thevoterasr recordedinth hevotingrecord,shallbeco onsideredassp poiledand shallbemarke s edandsignedbythemember b rsoftheboard dandshallnot tbecounted. Thelaw (Sec. 14 of B.P. 22 and the ru T 22) ules implementing it (Sec. 36 of Comele ecRes.No. 15 539) leave no room for interpretation n.Theabsence eofthesignat tureoftheCh hairmanofthe eBoardofEle ectionTellers intheballot giventoa voterasrequir v redbylawand dtherulesasproofofthea authenticityof fsaidballotisfatal.Thisreq quirementism mandatory forthevalidity f yofthesaidba allot. oOo NILOL.DOJILLO,petitioner COMELCa N r,v andRODRIGO ON.VIDAL G. .R.No.166542 2 JUL LY25,2006 NOTE:SCmad N deitsrulingon naperballotb basisbyapply yingeachofth heprovisionso oftheOmnibu usElectionCode. Petitioner Nilo Dojillo and respondent Rodrigo Vida were candidates for the position for barangay chairman of P o al NibaliwVidal, SanFabian,P N Pangasinanin theJuly2002 2elections.T TheBoardofE ElectionTeller rs(BET)decla aredVidal astheelectedPunongBaran a ngaybyaplur ralityofthreevotes. Dojillofiledan D nelectionprot testbeforethe etrialcourt,questioningthe eelectionresu ultsonground dsofmisappre eciationof ballotsandinc b correcttallyin ngofvotes.Pe etitionerisob bjectingtothe e26ballotsas smarkedball lotsforrespon ndentand claimedtwoba c allotsasvotes s.
260 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thetrialcourt T tfoundthatoneballotprev viouslyregard dedasastray voteshouldb becountedin favorofpetit tionerand that 11 ballot previously counted in f t ts favor of respo ondent should be declared as marked ballots.The t d d trial court declaredDojill d lowinnerbyn ninevotes. TheCOMELEC T Cseconddivis sionreversed thedecisiono ofthetrialcou urtanddeclar redVidalwin nnerbyfivevo otes.Upon appeal,COMEL a LECEnBancm modifiedthe decisionofth heseconddivi isionandrule edthatVidalw wonbyamarg ginoftwo votes. v ISSUE: Whether or no COMELEC committed gr W ot rave abuse of discretion am mounting to la of or exce of its juris ack ess sdiction in appreciationo a oftheballots. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. indicatesthev voterswill.Th hereisnoreq quirementtha attheentriesi intheballotb bewrittennice elyorthat Aballoti thenameofth t hecandidateb bespelledacc curately.Inth hereadingand dappreciation nofballots,ev veryballotis presumed validunlessth v hereisaclear reasontojus stifyitsrejecti ion.Theobjec ctintheappreciationofba allotsistoasce ertainand carryintoeffecttheintentio c onofthevoter r,ifitcanbed determinedwi ithreasonable ecertainty. 211 PambansaBlg. 881, as ame ended (Omnib Election Code), and S bus Section 49 of COMELEC Section 2 of BatasP ResolutionN R No.4846(Res solution4846 6),enumerate estheruleson nappreciation nofballots. entobjectedt toExhibit1J Jasamarkedballotforpetitioner.The etrialcourtruledthatthis sisavalid Responde vote for petitioner.The CO v OMELEC Secon Division re nd eversed the tr court and stated that E rial Exhibit 1J is indeed a s markedballot m t:Thedistinc ctiveuseof,a andseveralim mpositionswit thblueinkon nthenameof fDojillowitht therestof the votes w t written in black ink, indicates n no other in ntention tha an to identify the ba allot.The COMELECEnB C Bancaffirmed dthe COMELE Second Div EC visions findin ng.In affirmin the ruling against the v ng validity of Exhibit 1J, w apply paragraph 22 of Section 211 of the Omnib Election C E we bus Code, the pert tinent portion of which n reads:Unless r sitshouldcle earlyappearth hattheyhave ebeendeliber ratelyputbyt thevoterasid dentificationm marks,xxx theuseoftwoormorekindsofwritingsh t hallnotinvalid datetheballot. erobjectedtoExhibitA5asamarkedb ballotforresp pondent.Thet trialcourtruledthatthisis samarked Petitione ballot:A big X is written on the space[s] 2 to 7 forkagawada b n afterPedeglor rioVictor L. x xxxThe vote is quite er intelligentass shownbythe handwriting g,butthebigX Xcannotbec consideredas desistance,bu uttomarkan ndidentify his h vote.The COMELEC Se e econd Division reversed th trial court and ruled tha the X mar merely ind he at rk dicates the voters desista v ance from vot ting further.T COMELEC The CEn Bancaffirmed the COM MELEC Secon Divisions f nd finding.In affirmingther a rulingforthevalidityofEx xhibitA5,w weapplypara agraph21ofS Section211o oftheOmnibu usElection Code,thepert C tinentportion nofwhichreads:[C]rosses sxxxputon thespaceson nwhichthevo oterhasnotv votedshall beconsideredassignstoind b dicatehisdesistancefromv votingandsha allnotinvalida atetheballot. erobjectedto ExhibitB1 asaninvalid voteforrespo ondent.Thet trialcourtstat ted:Whatwaswritten Petitione name of [resp pondent].It c cannot even b considered under the ru onidemso be d ule onans, the isneither the name orsurn writing seems to be inlat w s tin[sic] orgre eek[sic] VION VIOBI, IMBERRP, DUCA SERONO.The COMELE Second NI, A, EC Division rever D rsed the trial court and ru uled that the v vote is valid under the int tent andidem msonansrule. The voter intendedtow writeVidalbu ut,duetopoo orhandwritin ng,onlyVida waslegible. TheCOMELE ECEnBancaff firmedthe COMELECSecondDivisions C sfinding.Ina affirmingther rulingforthe validityofEx xhibitA5,w weapplyparag graph7of Section211of S ftheOmnibus sElectionCod de,whichread ds:Anameo orsurnamein ncorrectlywri ittenwhich,w whenread, has h a sound s similar to the name or surn name of a can ndidate when correctly wr n ritten shall be counted in h favor. e his
261|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Theidemsona T ansrule does not require e exactitudenor rperfection in the spelling of names.The question w n g whether a namesoundst esameasan n th notherisnoto oneofspelling gbutofpronu unciation. er t B2 as a ma arked ballot for respond dent.The tri court agr ial reed with Petitione objected to Exhibit B petitioner.Ho p owever, the CO OMELEC Seco Division c ond considered the sequence of votes writte on Exhibit B2 and en ruledthatExh r hibitB2isa avalidvotefo orrespondent tunderthein ntentrule.The eballotconta ainedtwonam mesonthe spaceforPuno s ongBarangay:VedalJing andVicPede eglorio.TheC COMELECEn Bancaffirmed dtheCOMELE ECSecond Divisionsfind D ding.Inaffirm mingtheruling gforthevalidi ityofExhibit B2,weappl lyparagraph1 19ofSection211ofthe OmnibusElect O tionsCode,w whichstatesth hat[a]nyvote einfavorofx xxxacandida ateforanoffic ceforwhichh hedidnot presenthimse p elfshallbecon nsideredasas strayvotebut titshallnotin nvalidatethew wholeballot.VicPedegloriowasnot acandidatefor a rPunongBara angay,butforKagawad. erobjectedto ExhibitCas sastrayballo otthatshould dnotbecountedforrespon ndent.Thetr rialcourts Petitione description of the ballot sta d f ates that the entry in the s space forPuno ongBarangay JINVPede yis eglorio.The t trial court decreed that E d Exhibit C is indeed a stra ballot.How ay wever, the COMELEC Secon Division he that Exhib C is a nd eld bit validvotefor respondent.I v Itsawthatth henameJingP Pedegloriowas swrittenont thespaceforPunongBaran ngay,with the t surname V Vidal superim mposed in cap pital letters o over the surn namePedeglor rio.The ballo indicated th voters ot he intentiontoco orrecthisvote eforresponde ent.TheCOM MELECEnBanc caffirmedthe COMELECSecondDivision nsfinding. herulingfort thevalidityof fExhibitC,w weapplypara agraph22of Section211o oftheOmnibu usElection Inaffirmingth Code,thepert C tinentportion nofwhichrea ads:Unlessit tshouldclear rlyappearthattheyhavebeendeliberatelyputby thevoterasid t dentificationm marks,xxxtheuseoftwoo ormorekindsofwritingshallnotinvalid datetheballot t.Wealso apply paragra a aph 9 of the same section, which reads , s:When in a space in the ballot there appears a n a e name of a candidatethat c tiserasedand danotherclearlywritten,th hevoteisvalid dforthelatter r. r spondent.Th trial court agreed with petitioner he Petitioner objected to Exhibit C1 as a marked ballot for res becauserespo b ondentsname eiswritteninbigprinteda andboldcapit tallettersunl liketherestoftheentries. Again,the COMELEC Sec C cond Division disagreed wi the trial co ith ourt and rule that the na ed ame JINGVID DAL, which w boldly was written, does not nullify the ballot asma w arked.The vo oter merely em mphasized his intentto vo otefor respon ndent.The COMELECEnB C Bancaffirmed dtheCOMELECSecondDivi isionsfinding g.Inaffirming gtherulingfo orthevalidityofExhibit C1, we app paragraph 22 of Sect ply h tion 211 of t the Omnibus Election Cod the pertin de, nent portion of which reads:Unless it should cle r s early appear that they hav been delib ve berately put b the voter a identification marks, by as xxxhyphens betweenthef x firstnameand dsurnameof acandidatex xxx,theuseo oftwoormor rekindsofwr ritingshall notinvalidatetheballot. n 3 s lots for respo ondent.The t trial court agreed with Petitioner objected to Exhibits C3 to C5 as marked ball petitionerspo p osition.There ewasastardr rawnonExhib bitC3,ahum manheadwas sdrawnaftert theentryofJuvyVidal forKagawado line 4 of Exhibit C f on C4, and a drawing wa made aft as ter the entry of Rodrig Vidal y go forPunongBarangayonExh f hibitC5.Bo oththeCOME ELECSecondD Divisionandth heCOMELECEnBancdisag greedwith thetrialcourt andstatedth t hefiguresors symbolswhich happearedon nExhibitsC3toC5we erewrittenby yaperson otherthanthe o evoterafterthevotingpro ocess.TheCO OMELECSecon ndDivisionan ndtheCOMEL LECEnBancc considered the t difference in the writin materials u ng used in Exhibi C3 and its C5 and the colorofthe pen used in E Exhibit C 4.In affirmin the ruling for the validi of Exhibits C3 to C5, weapplyj 4 ng ity s jurisprudence ewhich ruled on marks made after the ballot was cast.A ballo should be c m c ot counted if it is marked afte erwards by so ome person o persons or otherthanthe o evoterhimsel lf.Subsequen ntchangesint theballotmad debyaperson notherthant thevotershou uldnotbe permittedtoa p affecttheresul ltoftheelectionordestroythewillofthe evoters. lingonthefol llowingballot tsforbeingstrayballots:Ex xhibits2F, A,A1, Petitioner appealstheCOMELECsrul A3,B3,3 38andC10 0.Asinthep previouspara agraphs,wesh hallrefertoth hepertinentr rulingsofthe trialcourt andoftheCOM a MELECSecond dDivisionand dCOMELECEn nBancaccordi ingly. ent claimed that in Exhibit 2F the nam F me JingCalo ong is wr ritten in th he space Responde forPunongBarangay.Jing f isresponden ntsnickname e,whileCalon ngispetition nersnicknam me.Thetrialco ourtruled
262|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts thatthisisast t trayballot.Th heCOMELECS SecondDivisio onagreedwith hthetrialcou urt.TheCOME ELECEnBanc wassilent onExhibit2F o F.Inaffirmin ngtherulinga againsttheva alidityofExhib bit2F,wea applyparagra aph14ofSecti ion211of theOmnibusE t ElectionCode, ,thepertinen ntportionofw whichreads: Anyvotexxx xwhichdoes notsufficientlyidentify thecandidateforwhomitis t sintendedsha allbeconsider redasastrayv votebutshallnotinvalidate ethewholeba allot. er o , C10 as stray ballots and should not h y have been Petitione objected to Exhibits A, A1, A3 B3andC countedinfav c vorofrespond dent.Theseba allotshadJ.V Vidalwrittenonthespacef forPunongBa arangay.Thetrialcourt consideredthe c eseasvalidvo otesforrespon ndent.TheCO OMELECSecon ndDivisionan ndCOMELECE EnBancuphel ldthetrial courtandstate c edthatJin J.Vidalstand dsfortheinitialofJing,V Vidalsregister rednickname. .Inaffirmingtheruling for f the validit of Exhibits A, A1, A ty A3, B3 andC10, we apply the rul ling inGonzag gav. Seno an ndMoyav. DelFierro:th D heinitialofthe enicknameofthecandidat temaybeuse edtogetherw withthesurnam meofthecan ndidatefor thepurposeof t fidentifyingth hecandidatef forwhomthevotervotes. oOo
Canvassing C
NICOLASC. CASTROMAY YOR,petitione erv.COMELE ECandtheMU ICIPALBOA UN ARDOF CANVA ASSERSOFCA ALINOG,ILOIL LO,responden nts. G.R.No.1 120426,Nove ember23,19 995,MENDOZ ZA,J.: AlthoughRule27,7oftheC A COMELECRule esofProcedur reappliestopr reproclamatio oncontroversi iesandtocase esinwhich thevalidityof theproclama t f ationisprecise elyinquestion n.Noticeand hearingisreq quiredbeforec correctionofa anyerrors maybemade. m Petitioner,aca P andidateforc councilorinth hemunicipalit tyofCalinog,I IloilointheMay8,1995ele ections,wasproclaimed one o of the wi inners for the eightmemb position o the basis o the results of the canva which sho e ber on of s ass owed that petitionerhasreceived5,41 p 19votesandto ookeighthpla ace. WhenAliceM.Garin,Chairm W manoftheMu unicipalBoard dofCanvasse ers(MBC)rech heckedthetotalsintheSta atementof Votestheday afterthecanv V vassing,shed discoveredtha atthenumber rofvotescast forNildaC.D Demorito,asm memberof theSanggunia t angBayan,wa as62moreth hanthatcredit tedtoher.As sitturnedout,thereturnsfromonepre ecincthad beenoverlook b kedinthecom mputationofth hetotals.Ther refore,thetota alnumberofv votescastforDemoritowas s5,470,or 51morethant 5 the5,419vote escastforpet titioner. Garinsentafa G axmessageto oCOMELECto orequestitsa authoritytor reconvenefor thepurpose ofcorrecting theerror. COMELECgran C ntedtherequest.TheMBC sentnoticest totheparties concernedthatitwasgoingtoreconven netomake acorrectionof a ferrors. Petitionerfiles P sthispetition ntoannulCOM MELECResolu utionNo.952 2414.Heargu uedthattheCO OMELECenba ancissued theresolutioninquestionw t withoutnotice eandhearing g,solelyonthe ebasisofthe faxletteroft theMBC.Hec claimsthat even if the ma e atter were tre eatedasa pre eproclamation controversy n y,there would nonetheless be a need fo hearing, d s or withnoticetohimandanop w pportunitytorefuteanycon ntraryargume entwhichmig ghtbepresent ted. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otnoticeand hearingisne eededbeforeC COMELECcan npartiallyort totallyannul aproclamatio onalready made. m HELD: H
263|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts PetitionGRAN P NTED. Tobesure,the T eCOMELECd didnotitselfannultheproc clamationofp petitioner,but t,by"direct[in ng]theMunici ipalBoard ofCanvassers ofsaidmunic o cipalitytorec convenetoann nultheprocla amationofNic colasC.Castro omayor,"the COMELEC ineffectdidso o.Afterall,th heauthorityof ftheCOMELE ECwassought tbecause,wit thoutsuchaut thority,theM MBCwould nothavethepowertoannultheproclama n ationofpetitio oner. Bethatasitm B mayandinordertoobviatet thenecessityofremanding gthiscasetotheCOMELECforfurtherpr roceedings inaccordance withdueprocess,wewilla acceptthisrep presentation ofthepublicr respondentst thatwhatthe COMELEC resolutioncon r ntemplatesisa ahearingbefo oretheMBCat twhichpetitio onerwillbeh heardonhisob bjectionandt thatonlyif warrantedwil w lltheMBCbe authorizedto osetasidethe eproclamationofpetitione erpreviouslym madeonMay y10,1995. Wefindthisto W obetheexped dientcourseo ofactiontotak ke,considerin ngthat,aftera all,initsnotic cetothecandi idates,the MBCdidnotst M tatethatitwa asgoingtorec convenetoann nulpetitioner r'sproclamatio onandmakeanewonebut tonlythat it twasgoingto odoso"forthe ecorrectiono oftheerrorsno otedintheSta atementofVo otesPerPrecin nct/Municipal lity." Theproceedin T ngsbeforetheMBCshouldb besummary. Shouldanypa artybedissatisfiedwiththe erulingofthe eMBC,the partyconcernedshallhavearighttoapp p pealtotheCOM MELECenban ncinaccordan ncewithRule 27,7ofthe COMELEC RulesofProce R edure,whichp providesforth hefollows: 7. Correction of Errors in Tabulation o Tallying of Results by th Board of Ca n or he anvassers. (a) Where it is clearly t shownbefore proclamationthat manifest errors were committed in the tabulation or tallying of election r s t n g returns, or certificates of canvass, duri the canvassing as wher (1) a copy of the electio returns of one precinct or two or c ing re on more copies o a certificate of canvass were tabulated more than once, (2) tw copies of t election r m of n wo the returns or certificateofcanvassweret c tabulatedsepa arately,(3)the erewasamist takeintheadd dingorcopyin ngofthefigure esintothe certificate of c c canvass or int the stateme of votes b precinct, or (4) socalled election returns from nonexistent to ent by r d precincts wer included in the canvass the board m p re n s, maymotu pro opio, or upon verified peti ition by any c candidate, politicalparty, p ,organization norcoalitiono ofpoliticalpar rties,afterdue enoticeandhe earing,correct ttheerrorsco ommitted. xxxx x Althoughthisp A provisionapp pliestoprepro oclamationco ontroversiesandherethepr roclamationo ofpetitionerhasalready beenmade,thereisnothing b gtosuggestth hatitcannotbe eappliedtoca asesliketheo oneatbar,inw whichthevalidityofthe proclamation is precisely in question. This proced p dure "best re ecommends it tself specially considering that the y g StatementofV S Votesisavitalcomponentin ntheelectoralprocess." theStatement tofVotesform msthebasisof ftheCertificat teofCanvassandofthepro oclamation,an nyerrorin Indeed,sincet thestatementultimatelyaff t fectsthevalidi ityoftheproc clamation.Itb begsthequestion,therefore e,tosaythatth hisisnota preproclamati p ion controver rsy and the procedure fo preproclam or mation contro oversies cann be applie to the not ed correctionint c thecomputatio onofthetotal lsintheStatem mentofVotes. pointed out, in this conne ection, that w what is involv here is a simple problem of arithm ved metic. The It should be p Statement of V S Votes is mere a tabulatio per precin of the vote obtained b the candida ely on nct es by ates as reflected in the electionreturn e ns.Inmakingthecorrection nincomputat tion,theMBCwillbeacting ginanadministrativecapac city,under thecontrolan t ndsupervision noftheCOME ELEC.Hencea anyquestionp pertainingto theproceedin ngsoftheMB BCmaybe raised directly to the COMELECen banc the exercise of its con r y cin nstitutional function to dec cide questions affecting s elections. e Whathasjustbeensaidalso W odisposesofp petitioner'sot thercontentio onthatbecaus sehisproclam mationhasalreadybeen made,anyrem m medyofthelos singpartyisan nelectionpro otest.Asheldi intheDuremd descase: DES' further submission th this proclamation could not be dec s hat clared null an void becau a pre nd use It is DUREMD proclamation controversy is not proper after a procla p i amation has b been made, th proper reco he ourse being a anelection
264 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts protest.Thisisontheassumption,howe p ever,thatther rehasbeena validproclam mation.Where eaproclamat tionisnull and void, the proclamation is no procla a n amation at all and the pro l oclaimed cand didate's assum mption of offi cannot ice deprivetheCO d OMELECofthe epowertodec claresuchnul llityandannul ltheproclama ation. oOo MICHAELO.M M MASTURA,pe etitioner,vs.COMELEC,TH HENEWMUN NICIPALBOAR RDOFCANVA ASSERSOFMA ATANOG, MAGUIN NDANAO,THE ENEWPROVI INCIALBOAR RDOFCANVAS SSERSOFMA AGUINDANAO OandDIDAGE ENP. DILANGA ALEN,respond dents. G.R R.No.124521 Janua ary29,1998 ThattheCertif T ficateofCanva assoftheMun nicipalityofM Matanogwast tamperedwith hisafactualf findingofthe COMELEC. Absentanysho A owingofabuse eofdiscretionamountingto olackofjurisd diction,thisCo ourtshouldref frainfromreviewingthe same,andmus s staccorditinsteadtherespe ectitdeserves. Petitioner Mic P chael O. Mastu and private responden Didagen P. Dilangalen we congressional candidat for the ura nt ere tes first district of Maguindana during the May 1995 el f ao lections. In th canvassing of votes, Dila he angalen objected to the inclusion of th Certificate of Canvass o the Municip he of pality of Mata anog on the g ground that t same was allegedly the s tampered. t The T COMELEC Second Division found th Certificate of Canvass of the Municipa C he f ality of Matan had been tampered nog withandannu w ulledtheCertif ficateofCanva assofMatanogandconstitu utedanewset tofMunicipal lBoardofCan nvassersto conductanew c wrecanvassing g. Mastura filed an Urgent Motion to Def Implemen M M fer ntation of the COMELEC O e Order, which he argued w issued was precipitately a p and prematur rely consideri that some other documents, partic ing cularly the Ce ertificate of C Canvass of Matanog whic he consider necessary M ch red yforthe resol lution of the i issue, was yet to be producedand exam t mined. The COMELECSeco C ondDivisiond deniedthemo otion. Meanwhile, th new Muni M he icipal Board of Canvasser convened and recanvas rs ssed the vote Private re es. espondent Dilangalenwasproclaimedthedulyelect D tedmemberof ftheHouseof fRepresentati es,FirstDist iv trictofMaguin ndanao. Mastura now comes to us imputing to public respo M s o ondent COME ELEC Second Division grav abuse of discretion ve amountingtol a lackofjurisdictioninissuin ngitsOrders. ISSUE: Whether or n COMELEC committed GAOD when it annulled a W not C and set aside the canvass made by th original e he Municipal Boa of Canvassers of Matan M ard nog, Maguinda anao, created a new set of municipal an provincial boards of f nd canvassers,an c nddirectedthe emtorecanva assthevotesu usingtheCOMELECcopyoftheelectionreturns. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. risprudenceth hatCOMELEC Ccansuspend thecanvasso ofvotespendi ingitsinquiry ywhetherthereexistsa Itissettledjur discrepancy between the various copies of election r d v s returns from the disputed voting center Corollarily once the rs. y, electionreturn e nswerefound dtobefalsified dortampered dwith,theCOMELECcanan nnultheillega alcanvassand dorderthe BoardofCanv B vasserstoreco onveneandpr roclaimthewi innersonthebasisoftheg genuinereturn nsor,ifitshou uldrefuse, replacetheme r embersoftheboardorproc claimthewinn nersitself.
265|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ThattheCertif T ficateofCanva assoftheMun nicipalityofM Matanogwastamperedwith hisafactualfi indingoftheC COMELEC. Absentanyshowingofabus A seofdiscretio onamounting tolackofjuri isdiction,this Courtshould refrainfrom reviewing thesame,andmustaccord itinsteadthe t erespectitde eserves.Ther rulethatfactu ualfindingsofadministrati ivebodies willnotbedis w sturbedbyco ourtsofjustice eexceptwhen nthereisabs solutelynoev videnceorno substantialev videncein supportofsuc s chfindingssh houldbeappli iedwithgreat terforcewhenitconcerns theCOMELEC C,asthefram mersofthe Constitutionin C ntendedtopla acetheCOMELECcreate edandexplicit tlymadeinde ependentbyth heConstitutio onitself onalevelhigh o herthanstatu utoryadminist trativeorgans s.TheCOMELEChasbroadpowerstoas scertainthetr rueresults oftheelectionbymeansava o ailabletoit.Fo ortheattainm mentofthaten nd,itisnotstri ictlyboundby ytherulesofe evidence. Pursuanttoits P sadministrati ivefunctions, theCOMELEC Cexercisesdir rectsupervisi ionandcontro oloverthepr roceedings beforetheBoa b ardofCanvass sers.InAratuc cv.CommissiononElections sweheld thematteristhattheauthor rityoftheCom mmissioninre eviewingsuch hactuationsdo oesnotspring gfromany ...thefactoft appellant juris a sdiction confe erred by any specific provi ision of law, f there is no such prov for one vision anywh here in the ElectionCode, E ,butfromthe eplenaryprer rogativeofdir rectcontrolan ndsupervision nendowedtoitbytheabovequoted provisionsofS p Section168.A Andinadmini istrativelaw,i itisatoowellsettledpostu ulatetoneed anysupportin ngcitation here, that a su h uperior body or office havi supervisio and contro over anothe may do dir ing on ol er rectly what th latter is he supposedtodo roughttohavedone.... s oo h AlsoinLucman A nv.Dimaporoweruled Thefunctiono T ofacanvassin ngboardinth hecanvassof thereturnsis spurelyminis sterialinnatu ure.Equallym ministerial, therefore, is th function of the Commission on Elections, in the ex t he xercise of its supervisory p power over sa Board, aid pursuanttoou p urConstitution nandlaws.So olongasthee electionreturn nshavebeena accomplishedindueform,t theBoard, and a onappealtherefrom,th heCommission nonElections smustinclude esaidreturnsinthecanvass s. ectionsweem mphasized InAbesv.CommissiononEle ard sers is a mini isterial body. It is enjoined by law to canvass all votes on electio returns d on . . . (T)he boa of canvass submittedtoitindueform.Ithasbeens s said,andprop perly,thatitsp powersarelim mitedgeneral llytothemec chanicalor mathematical function of ascertaining an declaring t apparent result of the election by a m nd the adding or com mpiling the votes cast for each candida as shown on the face of the returns before them, and then dec v ate f claring or cert tifying the resultsoascer r rtained.Comel lecisthecons stitutionalbod dychargedwiththedutytoenforcealllawsrelativeto oelections, dutyboundtoseetoitthattheboardofc d t canvassersper rformitsprop perfunction. The T assailed O Orders having been issued pursuant to COMELEC's a g d administrative powers and in the absen of any e d nce findingofgrav f veabuseofdis scretion,judic cialinterferen nceistherefor reunnecessary yanduncalled dfor.Consequ uently,the questionedOr q rdersmustper rforcebeuphe eld. oOo MAYORJUNR M RASCALCAW WASA,COUNCI ILORSMAASI IRALDAMPA, ,H.ACKILMA AMANTUC,MOMOLAWAN NMACALI, ANDARTAL LI,ALLANSAN NAYON,andA AMINSANGAR RAN,petition ners,vs.THE COMMISSION NONELECTIO ONSand ABDUL LMALIKM.M AMPARAN MAN N,respondents. G.R.NO.15046 G 69 Ma ay30,2002 The T special ele ections were vitiated by fra due to th illegal tran v aud he nsfer of the po olling places a the appoi and intment of militaryperson m nnelasmembe oftheBEI.A ers Assuch,thepr racticaleffectisthatnoelec ctionwasheld.. Petitioner Jun Rascal Cawa and private responden Adbulmalik M. Manampa P n asa nt k aranwere am mong thecand didates for mayorintheMunicipalityofNunungan,LanaodelNo m orte.Outofthe e40precincts sinNunungan n,only36func ctioned,as therewasafai t ilureofelectio onintherema ainingfour4p precincts.
266 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Aftercanvassingtheelectio A onreturnsfrom mthe36prec cincts,theMun nicipalBoard ofCanvassers sofNunungan ndeferred theproclamati t ionofallwinn ningcandidate esduetothef failureofthes said4precinct tstofunction. .Becauseofth henumber ofregisteredv o votersfromthefourprecinc ctswillaffectt theresultofth heelection,as specialelectio onasset. After the spec election, Cawasa was p A cial proclaimed m mayor. Manam mparan filed a appeal and petition to annul the an d proclamation of petitionerCawasa and f the annulm p for ment of the el lection results of the speci election. Comelec en ial banc granted the petition and annulled the proclama b a ation of all w winning candid dates insofar as the results in the 4 contestedprec c cinctsaffectth hestandingof fcandidates. The T Comelec h held that the special elect e tions in the 4 contested pr 4 recincts were not genuinely held and r e resulted in failuretoelect f tonaccounto offraud.Com melecfoundth hatthespecial lelectionswe erenotheldin nthedesignat tedpolling places inNunu p ungan but we transferred tothe adjac ere cent municipa alities withoutany authorityfromthe C Comelec. It li ikewise found that membe of the Phi d ers ilippine Army 26thInfantry Battalion se y y erved as elect tion inspector without rs authorityfrom a mtheComelec. Cawasaappea C aledthedecisi iononthegro oundsthatbot thpoliticalpa artiesagreedt tothetransfe erofelectionv venueand theappointme t entofmilitary ypersonnel. ISSUE Whether or n the candid W not dates can agr to the tra ree ansfer of elec ction venue a and to the ap ppointment o military of personnelasm p membersofBo oardofElectio onInspectorswithoutsecur ringtheconse entofCOMELE EC. HELD: H PetitionDISMISSED. P Thetransfero T ofthevenuew wasmadenot onlyinblatan ntdisregardo ofComelecResolutionNo.4 4360issuedo onMay21, 2001specifyin 2 ngthepolling placesbutals soSections15 53and154of theElectionC f Code.Asclear rlyprovidedb bythelaw, the t location of polling place shall be th same as tha of the prec es he at ceding regular election. How r wever, change may be es initiatedbywr rittenpetition nofthemajor rityofthevote ersoftheprec cinctoragree ementofallth hepoliticalpar rtiesorby resolution of t Comelec after notice a hearing.B ultimately it is the Co r the and But y, omelec which determines w whether a changeisnece c essaryafterno oticeandhear ring. The T Comelec has unequivo ocally stated t that nothing in the record showed th notice was given to the political ds hat candidatesand c dregisteredv votersaffected dbythetrans sfer.Private respondentM Manamparanh hascategorica allydenied petitioners cla that all th political pa p aim he arties and mu unicipal candi idates agreed to the transf of venue.T Court fer The discernsnosu d ubstantiation ofpetitioners sclaimregard dingtheagree ementtotransfer.Thereis sthennocoge entreason forustodistu f urbthefinding gsoftheCome eleconthism matter.Indeed d,thefactualf findingsofthe eComelecsup pportedby substantial ev s vidence shall be final and n b nonreviewab ble.Thus, it ha been held that findings of fact of the Comelec as e basedonitsow b wnassessmen ntsanddulysu upportedbye evidence,arec conclusiveupo onthisCourt,moreso,inth heabsence of o a substantia ated attack on the validity of the same. Moreover, there is no question that the transfer of v n e venue was madewithinth m heprohibitedperiodofthir rtydaysbeforethespeciale election. Moreover, the was absol M ere lutely no lega basisfor th appointment of military personnel a members o the BEI. al he y as of Verily, the appointmentsw V were devoid o any justific of cation other t than the bare assertion, ag e gain,that the political partiesandmu p unicipalcandi idatesagreedonthesaidar rrangement. UndertheOmnibusElection U nCode,theBE EIshallbecom mposedofach hairmanandt twomembers s,allofwhomarepublic school teacher If there ar not enough public schoo teachers, te s rs. re h ol eachers in pri ivate schools, employees in the civil n
267|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts serviceorothercitizensof knownprobi s ityandcompe etencemaybe eappointed.I Itwashighly irregulartore eplacethe dulyconstitute d edmemberso oftheBEI,who owerepublicschoolteache ers. The importan of the constitution of the BEI to t T nce the conduct o free, honest and order elections c of rly cannot be overemphasized.TheCourt o thasheldthat t,themembe ersoftheboar rdofelection inspectorsarethefrontlin neelection officers.They performsuch o hdutiesandd dischargesuch hresponsibilitiesthatmak kethem,inar realsense,foo otsoldiers whoseetoitth w hatelectionsa arefree,honestandorderly y.Theyarees ssentialtotheholdingofele ections. Thepreconditionsfordecla T aringafailure eofelectionar re:(1)thatno ovotinghasb beenheldinan nyprecinctor rprecincts becauseofforc b cemajeure,vi iolence,terrorism,fraudor rotheranalog gouscausesan nd(2)thatthevotesnotca asttherein aresufficientt a toaffectther resultsofthee elections.The econcurrence ofthesetwo circumstance esjustifiesthe ecallingof specialelections.Here,theC s Comelecfound dthatthespec cialelectionsw werevitiatedbyfraudduetotheillegalt transferof thepollingpla t acesandtheap ppointmentofmilitarypers sonnelasmem mbersoftheB BEI.Inevitably y,theComelec ccouldnot ascertainwhovotedduring a gthespeciale elections.The circumstance esweresucht thattheentireelectoralpr rocesswas notworthyoffaithandcred n dit,hence,inp practicaleffect tnoelectionw washeld. oOo GER RRYB.GARAY Y,petitioner,vs s.COMMISSIO ONELECT ON TIONSandJAI IMEGATA,JR R.,respondents s G.R R.No.121331 ust28,1996 Augu ACertificateof A fVotesandTa allyBoarddon notconstitutesufficientevid denceofthetrueandgenuin neresultsofth heelection; onlyelectionre o eturnsare,pur rsuanttoSecti ions231,233236,and238o ofB.P.Blg.881 1. GerryB.Garay G y,acandidate eforvicemay yorintheMun nicipalityofM Matnog,Sorsog gon,wonbya amarginof20overhis rivalprivatere r espondentJaim meGata,Jr. Theresultswe T erecanvassed dfrom73prec cincts,butexc cludedthevot tesfromprecinct30AofBa arangayCulas si,Matnog, wherearmedm w menforciblyt tooktheballot tboxtogether rwiththeelec ctionreturnsa andotherelec ctionparapher rnalia. Becausethevo B otesinprecin nct30Awould dobviouslyaf ffectthestand dingofthesaidcandidates, theMunicipa alBoardof Canvassers (M C MBC) did not proclaim the winner.Fai t e iling to convi ince said Boa to proclaim him by v ard virtue of a CertificateofV C Votesissuedb bytheBoardo ofElectionIns spectors(BEI) )showinghe garnered116 6votesagains st68votes forGarayinth f hecontestedsa aidprecinct,r respondentGa atabroughtth hemattertoCO OMELEC. dacopyofthe eTallyBoard, ,dulyauthent ticatedbythe eBEI,showing gthesamecountasthe Inhisappeal, Gataincluded CertificateofV C Votes.Ifthese ewereaddedt tothealready ycanvassedvo otes,Gatawou uldwinbya28 8votemargin n. Whiletheapp W pealwaspend ding,COMELECconducteda aspecialelect tioninprecin nct30A.Petit tioneragainw woninthe saidelectiona s andwastherea afterproclaim medViceMayo orofMatnog. The T Comelec First Division denied due course to the appeal beca n ause of appel llant's (Gata) failure "to fu urnish the Commission a pertinent documents ne C all d ecessary for t latter to rule on the m the matter." Subs sequently how wever, the COMELECEn Bancissued a Resolution a C a annulling the special elect e tion and directing the MBC to reconvene and to include"inthe ecanvass,thevotesreflecte edontheTally yBoardsubmittedbytheBoardofElectionInspectors sxxx."As aresult,respondentGatawa a asdeclaredw winner. TheCommissionEnBancsa T aidthatitwas"convincedw withouttaintofanydoubtth hatthevotess showninthet tallyboard andcertificate a eofvotesrefle ectthetruean ndgenuinewil lloftheelectoratexxx." ISSUE
268 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whether or n COMELEC En Banc com W not mmitted grave abuse of di e iscretion in se etting aside t results of a special the f electionitcalledduetoafa e ailureofelectionsandindeclaringthewi innerontheb basisofatally yboardanda certificate ofvotesinthepreviousregu o ularelections. . HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Theresponden T ntCommissio on'spleathat itis"convincedwithoutta aintofanydou ubtthatthev votesshownin nthetally boardandcert b tificateofvote esreflectthet trueandgenuinewillofthe eelectorate"is sweakandun npersuasivebe ecausethe CertificateofV C VotesandtheTallyBoardw werealready intheposses ssionoftheCO OMELECbeforeitdecided tocallthe special electio s on.Note that private res t spondent Gata presented the Certifica before th Municipal Board of ate he Canvassers (M C MBC) duringthe canvassing g.When the latter rejected it, Gata appe d ealed to the C COMELEC from the said m ruling, attaching to his app r peal a copy of the Tally Boa f ard.Neverthe eless, the resp pondent Comm mission still d decided to holdthespecia h alelection. Thus, when th said Certificate was reje T he ected by the M MBC, itmust h have been bec cause Gata no onlyfailed to comply ot with the procedure for its identification and offer as mandated in Section 17 o R.A. No. 66 but also because a w n s n of 646 certificateofv c votescanneve erbeavalidba asisforcanvas ss. AccordingtoS A Section17,ac certificateofv votescanonlybe"evidencetoprovetamp pering,alterat tion,falsificationorany other anomaly committed in the election returns con o y i n ncerned, when duly authen n nticated x x x. ."A certificat of votes te does not cons d stitute sufficie evidence of the true a ent and genuine r results of the election; onl election returns are, ly pursuanttoSe p ections231,23 33236,and238ofB.P.Blg. .881. er, rd the ts ction.Moreov in the ver, In like manne neither is the tally boar sufficient evidence of t real result of the elec hefactthatth hetallyboardm madeitsappe earanceonlyw whenGataatta achedittohis sappealmake esithighly instantcase,th suspicious and therefore unreliable.Suc appearanc has not been convincing explained even by Lyn M. Garil, s d u ch ce gly n chairmanofth c heBEI.Heraff fidavitthattheTallyBoard"droppedtot thefloor"asth hearmedmen nleftthepollin ngplaceis hearsay.Section 217 of B.P. Blg. 881 ( h (The Omnibus Election Code) requires that the tally board or sh s y heet shall, togetherwith otherelection t ndocuments, beplacedins sidetheballot tbox.Sinceth heballotbox, andnecessar rily,allthe election docum e ments contain therein, h been forci ned had ibly taken and had never b d been recovere then the ta board ed, ally musthavebee m enlikewiselos st. The T fact that t Comelec decided to ho the specia election sho the d old al ows that it wa not convin as nced of the au uthenticity and/orsufficie a encyofGata's"certificateof fvotes"and"t tallyboard." Whileitistrue W ethattheresp pondentComm missionhasth hepowertoan nnulspecialel lectionsordeclareafailure eofspecial electionswher e reitisshownthatnovoting ghadtakenplaceortheele ectiontherein nresultedinafailuretoelec ct;andthe votes not cast would affect the results o the.election nonetheless in the insta case, the J v t t of n, s, ant June 17, 1995 electoral 5 exercisewasn e notafailedele ection,asvotin nghadtakenp placeandthee electiondidnotresultinaf failuretoelect t.Inother words,thepeo w oplespokefre eelyandhones stlyinacontes stvoluntarilyparticipatedi inbybothpar rtiesherein. oOo
PreProclam P mationContr roversy

FIDE ELAMARILLO O,etal,petitio oners,v.THE HONORABLE ESANDIGANB BAYAN(THIR RDDIVISION) andTHEPEOPLEOFT THEPHILIPP PINES,respond dents. G.R. .Nos.14500708Janu uary28,2003
269|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts TheSandiganb T bayanfoundp petitionersgu uiltyofestafa throughfalsificationofpu ublicdocumen ntsbymaking gitappear thatprivateco t ontractorCaro olinaQuerijer rorepairedth hePugoandD Dyosbridges, whennosuch hrepairwasm made.The bridgeswerea b allegedlydamagedbyflashf floodsonNovember3,1995 5. Petitioners no file this in P ow nstant petition on the grou n unds of violati of due pr ion rocess and tha that Sandi at iganbayan committed gr c rave abuse of discretion in denying t the second m motion for le eave of court to file a m t motion for reinvestigation r nbecauseoftheirallegedn newlydiscover redevidence. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. Dueprocessoflawmeansg D givingopportu unitytobeheardbeforejud dgmentisren ndered.Itisa lawwhichhearsbefore it tcondemns,w whichproceed dsuponinquir ryandrender rsjudgmentonlyaftertrial.Thereisnov violationofdu ueprocess evenifnohear e ringwascond ducted,wherethepartywas sgivenachancetoexplainh hissideofthecontroversy. bar,petitionerscannotclaimthattheyw weredenieddu ueprocessof law.TheEval luationandPr reliminary Inthecaseatb Bureau,upon afindingofsufficientbasis stoconducta apreliminary investigation, ,directedpeti itionersto InvestigationB submittheirre s espectivecounteraffidavits s,buttheydid dnot.Instead, ,theymanifes stedthatthey wereadoptin ng,astheir counteraffida c avits,theaffida avitfiledbyAm marillointheadministrativ vechargefiled dagainsthima andpetitioner rs.Clearly, petitionerswe p eregiventheo opportunityto oexplaintheirside.Thus,p petitionerscan nnotshifttheblametoresp pondentif initsdetermin nationofprob bablecause,itfoundwellfo oundedtherec commendationofGraftInve estigationOffi icerGruta, whichwasbas w sedontheaffidavitsofDana ayandEresma as. Further, petiti F ioners filed a motion for re econsideration where they assailed the accuracy of th statements given by n he s DanayandEre D esmas.Where ethepartiesw weregiventh heopportunity ytoseekareconsideration noftheaction norruling complainedof c f,theycannotclaimdenialo ofdueprocess soflaw. Anenttheseco A ondgroundallegedbypetit tioner,wecan nnotconsiderT Taduyo'saffid davitasanew wlydiscovered devidence. 1 UndertheRul U lesofCourt,11therequisite esfornewlyd discoveredev videnceare:(a a)theevidenc cewasdiscov veredafter trial(inthisca t ase,afterinves stigation);(b)suchevidenc cecouldnotha avebeendisco overedandpr roducedatthe etrialwith reasonabledil r ligence;and(c)thatitism material,notm merelycumula ative,corrobo orativeorimp peaching,and isofsuch weightthat,ifadmitted,will w lprobablycha angethejudgm ment. Taduyo's affid T davit falls short of the seco and third requirement It could ha easily bee produced d ond d ts. ave en during the investigationo the case. There was no showing of Taduyo's nona of availability at the time of t investigation or the t the absenceofthe a ecorresponde encebetween MayorSalam meraandWilbu urDeefromI IDCrecords.A Also,assuming gthatsaid affidavitcould a dnothavebeenreasonablyproduceddur ringtheinvest tigation,stillitcannotqual lifyasnewlyd discovered evidence,beca e auseitwasnotmaterialtot theissue.Asallegedbypublicresponden nt,theaffidavit tmerelystate edthatIDC receivedthele r etterrequesto ofMayorSalam meraandthat tWilburDeeg grantedthere equest,butthe erewasnoalle egationby Taduyo that h actually saw or had personal knowledge of the repair of the Pu and Dyos bridges by p T he w ugo s petitioners throughCaroli t ineConstructi ion. oOo HADJIHAMID DPATORAY, petitioner,vs.COMELEC,( (NEW)MUNIC CIPALBOARD DOFCANVAS SSERSOFTAM MPARAN, SURANDTOP PAAND.DISO OMIMBA,resp pondents. LANAODEL G.R.No. .120823 October24,19 O 995
270 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts COMELEC cannot exclude the counting o an election return based on the mer affidavits of the Board o Election C t of n d re f of Inspectorchair I rpersonsandt theCertificateofVotes. Petitionerand P dprivaterespondentwere amongtheca andidatesform mayorofTam mparan,Lanao odelSureint theMay8, 1995 election. During the canvassing o votes by th Municipal Board of Can 1 of he nvassers (MBC), private re espondent objectedtothe o einclusionoftheelectionre eturnsfromP PrecinctNos.1 16,17,19and20Aontheg groundsthatth hereturns hadbeen"prep h paredunderd duress,threats s,coercion,an ndintimidation"andthatth heywere"substituted,fraud dulentand obviouslyman o nufacturedret turns." TheMBCdeniedprivateres T spondent'sobjectionsandincludedthefo our4question nedelectionreturns,noting gthatthey appearedtobe a e"clean,genuineandregula aron[their]fa aces." Respondent appealed before the COMELEC. The COM R MELEC Secon Division af nd ffirmed the r ruling of the MBC with respecttothe electionretur r rnsfromPrec cinctNos.17a and19butrev verseditwith hrespecttoth heelectionret turnsfrom PrecinctNos.1 P 16and20A. TheSecondDi T ivisionordere edtheseretur rnsexcludedf fromthecoun ntonthegroundthat(1)th hattherewere eevidence thatthetwoe t electionreturn nswere"manufactured,sub bstitutedorfa alsified;"(2)t therewasadi iscrepancybetweenthe "taras"andthe " ewrittenfigu ures,whileEle ectionReturn No.661295fr romPrecinct No.20Alackeddataasto provincial andcongressio a onalcandidat tes;and(3)th hattheCertific catesofVotes castinthetw woprecincts,w whichshowed ddifferent numberofvot n tes,constituteevidenceofta ampering,alte eration,andfa alsificationasprovidedin17ofR.A.No.7166. Therulingerasedpetitioner T rsmarginof2 25votesandg gaveprivatere espondentins steadaleadof f193votes. Petitionernow P wcontendsth hattheCOMEL LECexcluded fromcanvass sthequestion nedreturnsw withoutexamin ningother authenticcopi a iesofthequestionedreturnsororderingtheopening goftheballot tboxesbutso olelyontheba asisofthe affidavits of t a the BEI chair rpersons who recollectio of the vot obtained by the parti herein wa at best ose on tes ies as unreliable. u For F its part th COMELEC cites R.A. No. 6646, 17 w he which provides that Certific s cates of Votes may be used to prove s d "tampering,alteration,falsif " ficationorany yotheranoma alycommitted dintheelectio onreturnscon ncerned"andmaintains that on the basis of the af t ffidavits of th BEI chairp he persons the el lection return in question were unque ns n estionably manufacturedandsubstitut m tedforthegen nuinereturns. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otCOMELECc committedGA AODwhenito orderedtheex xclusionofth heelectionret turnsontheb basisofan affidavit. a HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Thus236of theOmnibus ElectionCode T eprovidestha atincaseofd discrepancies inelectionre eturns,theCom mmission, uponmotiono u oftheboardo ofcanvassers oranycandidateaffected andafterdue enoticetoall lcandidatesc concerned, shallproceeds s summarilyto determinew whethertheint tegrityofthe ballotboxhadbeenpreser rved,andoncesatisfied thereofshallo t ordertheopen ningofthebal llotboxtorec countthevote escastinthep pollingplacesolelyforthep purposeof determiningth d hetrueresultofthecounto ofvotesofthecandidatesco oncerned. Ontheotherh O hand,17ofR. .A.No.6646(E ElectoralRefo ormsLawof1987)provides s:
271|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Sec. 17. Certif S ficate of Votes as Evidence. The prov s visions of Sec ctions 235 an 236 of Bat Pambansa Blg. 881 nd tas a notwithstanding,thecertific n cateofvotess shallbeadmis ssibleinevide encetoprovetampering,alteration,falsif ficationor anyanomalyc a committedin theelectionr returnsconce erned,whend dulyauthentic catedbytestim monialordoc cumentary evidenceprese e entedtotheb boardofcanva assersbyatlea asttwomemb bersoftheboa ardofelection ninspectorsw whoissued thecertificate: t :Provided,Thatfailuretop presentanyce ertificateofvo otesshallnot beabartoth hepresentatio onofother evidencetoim ugntheauthenticityofth e mp h heelectionretu urns. The T Certificate of Votes is evidence no only of tam s ot mpering, alter ration, falsific cation or any other anoma in the y aly preparationof p felectionretu urnsbutalso ofthevoteso obtainedbyca andidates.Th heCertificateo ofVotesinPr recinctNo. 16showsthat 1 tpetitionerHa adjiHamidPa atorayreceived207votes(not237asindicatedinthe eelectionretu urn),while private respon p ndent obtaine 137 (not 107 as indicate in the elec ed ed ction return). The differenc could thus affect the ce resultofthev r votingformay yor.TheCOMELEC'sSecon ndDivisioncouldalsohave eorderedare ecountofthe votescast afterdetermin a ningthattheb ballotboxhas snotbeentam mperedwithinaccordance with236of ftheOEC.The efailureof COMELECtod C doeither,after rexcludingth heelectionret turnwillresul ltinthedisfra anchisemento ofthevotersinPrecinct No.16. N Ontheotherh O handweholdt thattheCOME ELEC'sSecond dDivisionerre edinordering gtheexclusion nofElectionR ReturnNo. 661295onthe 6 ebasisoftheC CertificateofV VotescastinP PrecinctNo.2 20Aandthea affidavitofthe echairpersonoftheBEI ofPrecinctNo o o.20A.Asalr readystated,t theCOMELEC'sSecondDiv visionordered dtheexclusion noftheelecti ionreturn fromthisprec f cinctforbeing gincompleteinthesenseth hatitlackedd dataastoprov vincialandcongressionalca andidates. This is, theref T fore, not a cas of discrepa se ancy in an election return, justifying resort to the Cer rtificate of Vo otes under 236oftheOE EC,inrelation ntoR.A.No.66 646,17,but oneinvolving gmaterialdefe ectsinanelec ctionreturnun nder234 of o the OEC. Co onsequently, the case does not come wi t s ithin the purv view of R.A. N 6646, 17. Rather, the applicable No. provisionis2 p 234oftheOEC Cwhichstates s: Sec.234.Mate S erialdefectsintheelectionr returns.Ifit tshouldclearl lyappearthat tsomerequisitesinformordatahad beenomitted intheelectionreturns,the b eboardofcan nvassersshall lcallforallth hememberso oftheboardo ofelection inspectors con ncerned by th most exped he ditious means for the same board to eff s, e fect the corre ection:Provide That in ed, caseoftheom c missioninthee electionreturn nsofthenameofanycandi idateand/orh hiscorrespondingvotes,theboardof canvassers shall require th board of election inspectors concerne to complet the necessa data in th election c he ed te ary he returnsandaf r ffixthereinthe eirinitials:Pro ovided,further,Thatifthev votesomittedinthereturnscannotbeas scertained byothermean b nsexceptbyrecountingthe eballots,theC Commission,a aftersatisfying gitselfthatth heidentityand dintegrity oftheballotboxhavenotb o beenviolated, shallorderth heboardofel lectioninspectorstoopent theballotbox x,and,also after satisfying itself that the integrity o the ballots therein has b a t of been duly pre eserved, order the board o election of inspectorstoc countthevotesforthecan ndidatewhose evoteshaveb beenomitted withnoticeth hereoftoallc candidates forthepositioninvolvedandthereaftercompletether f returns. Moreover,the Certificateof M fVotescastinPrecinctNo. 20Acannotb beusedeveni ifR.A.No.664 46,17werea applicable, because it wa signed onl by the cha b as ly airperson of the BEI. R.A. No. 6646, 16 requires that it be si igned and thumbmarked t dbyeachmem mberoftheBEIwhichissued dthecertificat te. Consistentlyw C withthesumm marynatureof ftheproceedings,whattheCOMELEC'sS SecondDivisio oncouldhavedonewas simplytoorde s erarecountof fthevotescas stinthetwoprecinctsandd directtheproc clamationofthewinneracc cordingly. oOo MUSL LIMINSEMA,p petitioner,vs. .COMMISSIO ONONELECTI IONSandROD DELMAARA A,respondent ts. G.R.No.1 14124950 December13,2 2000
272|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts An A incomplete canvass is il e llegal and can nnot be the b basis of a valid proclamati ion.A proclam mation made where the contested retu c urns set aside will affect th result of th election an the board o canvassers proceeded to proclaim he he nd of o withouttheau w uthorityfromt theCOMELECi isnullandvoid d. MusliminSemaandRodelM M Maarawerec candidatesfor rcitymayorof fCotabatoCity yduringtheM May11,1998e elections. Duringthecan D nvassingoftheelectionretu urnsfromthe e362precinct tsofCotabato CitybytheCi ityBoardofC Canvassers (CBC), Sema f ( filed numerou petitions fo exclusion o 30 election returns on t ground th the same contained us or of n the hat materialdefec m cts,werealleg gedlytamperedwithorfalsi ified,preparedunderdures ss,threat,coercion,andint timidation, orsubstitutedwithfraudule o entones. The CBC initi T ially dismisse Semas pe ed etitions to w which Sema d not appea within the reglementar period, did al e ry Consequently, the same alr C ready became final.However, the CBC issued anoth order, this time grantin Semas e her s ng petitionsforex p xclusionof30 0electionretu urns,amongw whichwerethe e28electionr returnsalread dyorderedincludedfor canvass. c ection returns were to be excluded, S s e Sema and M Maara would obtain 13,3 d 338 and 12,4 484 votes, If the 30 ele respectively.I r Including the 30 election returns, the votes of Se e e ema and Ma ara would b 13,713 an 15,442, be nd respectively. r Sema was pro S oclaimed the winning candidate. Notably said proclam w y, mation was b based on the c canvass of 332 election returns,30ret r turnshavingb beenexcluded d. Maarafiledh M hisappealwith htheCOMELE EC,questionin ngtheexclusio onofthe30electionreturns sinthecanva assandthe proceedingoftheCBCandlaterfiledape itionforannulmentoftheproclamation p et nofSema. COMELEC Firs Division su C st uspended the proclamation of the win e nning candida for the City Mayor pos ate sition and orderedSematoceaseandd o desistfromta akinghisoathofofficeasCityMayorand/ /orfromdisch hargingthefu unctionsof saidoffice. s Subsequently,COMELECdeniedresponde S entspetitionforhavingbeenfiledoutof ftime,andaffi irmedthepro oclamation ofSemaasmayorofCotabat o toCity. Respondent now files a pet R tition forcert tiorari, questio oning the non nobservance of the COMEL of its own LEC nRules of Procedure. Th petition fu P he urther challen nges the illeg proclamat gal tion of Sema which proce a eeded from t the illegal proceedings o the CBC in excluding thir (30) electi returns in the canvassi of votes f mayor in t City of p of e rty ion n ing for the Cotabatowhen C nithadearlierruledforthe einclusionoft twentyeight( (28)ofsaidre eturns. ISSUE: Whetherorno W ottheorderof ftheCBCofCotabatoCitya andCOMELECcommittedGA AOD. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. tly ationalize tha atthe May 22 and 23, 1998 ordersdism 8 missing the petitions for It was blatant absurdfor the CBC to ra exclusionsref e feronlytocan ndidatesGuianisandLeyre etanaspetitio onsandnotS Semas.Thew wordingsofth heMay23, 1998 order is plain and unequivocal.It says:all p 1 s u petitions/cases against the hereunder c s contested precincts are herebybeingD h DISMISSEDforlackofmeri itxxx.Ifallp petitions/casesweredismis ssed,then,the esenecessarily yincluded Semas petitio S on.Furthermo there was nothing in t aforement ore, s the tioned orders which would indicate tha the CBC s d at reserveditsrighttoruleon r nSemaspetiti ionatalatert time.Neither rdotheminut tesoftheboar rdevenintimatesucha reservation. r
273|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Evenassuming E garguendoth hattheorders oftheCBCof fMay22and 23,1998had dnotbecome finalandexec cutory,we arenotpersua a adedbytheC COMELECspr ronouncement tthatMaarabelatedlyfile edhisappeal fromtheMay y29,1998 ruling of the C r CBC on June 5, 1998.Acco ording to the COMELEC's F First Division in its Resolu ution dated Oc ctober 18, 1999: 1 Recordsshowthattherulin R ngwhichaggri ievedappellan ntwasissuedonorabout4 4:00p.m.ofM May30,1998. Following theinstruction t nsoftheprov visionsabove cited,Maara ahad,until4:00p.m.ofJun ne1,1998to filehisnotice eofappeal with the Boar w rd.As it was, he filed said notice only on June 2, 1998.In this r d regard alone, appellant ha already ad committedap c procedurallap pse.Heaggravatedhiserro orswhenhef filedhisappealbeforethe Commission onJune5, 1998, a full d beyond the 5day reg 1 day glementary pe eriod.The law we have t stress, spe w, to ecifically ruled out any d extensionofth e hefivedaype eriod.Itismostunfortunate ethatincomm mittingnoton nlyonebuttw wofatallapses, ,appellant disregarded a procedure which accordi to COMEL d a w ing LEC Resolutio No. 2962 is mandator and shall b strictly on ry be observed by t Board of Canvassers.It cost him h appeal bec o the his cause the sam had, for al intents and purposes me ll prescribed.Th May 30, 19 ruling of the City Boar of Canvass p he 998 rd sers of Cotaba City, not h ato having been seasonably questionedcan q nnolongerbe edisturbed. arthattheMa ay29,1998ru ulingoftheCB BCwasreceive edbyMaaraonlyonMay3 31,1998whic chwasthe Itwouldappea samedatetheCBCdeclared s dthatithadco ompletedthec canvassingof362returns. Itwasalsoin f ntheeveningo ofMay31, 1998 while th CBC was in session that Maara man 1 he n t nifested his in ntent to appeal from said r ruling.The ap ppeal was thereforefiled t dwiththeCOM MELEConJun ne5,1998withintheperio odprescribedinSection20 0(e)and(f)o ofR.A.No. 7166. 7 Furtherassum F mingthatther reckoningdat teforappealw wasMay30,1 1998andnot May31,1998 8,itbearsstre essingthat thepetitionbr t roughtbyMa aratotheCO OMELEConJun ne5,1998,do ocketedasSPC CNo.98240,ineffectchall lengedthe composition o the CBC an the legalit of its proc c of nd ty ceedings.If su be the situation, the proceedings would be uch governedbyS g Section19ofR R.A.No.7166 andSection8,Rule27ofth heCOMELECR RulesofProce edure,whichs statesthat thepartyadve t erselyaffected dbyarulingo oftheboardm musttakean appealwithin nthree(3)da aysfromthed dateofthe ruling. r hefactswould dsuggestthat theCBCadjourneditsproc ceedingsonM May30and31 1,1998withoutmaking Inthiscase,th anyrulingonMaarasobje a ectionstothe CBCsproceed dings.When Maarafiledh hisappealinS SPCNo.9824 40onJune 5,1998,itcannotbecorrect 5 tlyarguedtha atthe3daype eriodsetbyla awforitssubm missionhadexpiredbecaus setheCBC never ruled o his objectio to the bo n on ons oards procee edings.The fa ailure or refu usal of the CB to rule on Maaras BC objectionssho o ouldnotpreve enthisrightto oelevatethem mattertotheC COMELECforp properreview w. ttheCBCacte edwithoutaut thoritywhen itissueditsM May29,1998 ruling.Conse equently,the COMELEC Itisclearthat acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction and wit grave abus of discretio when it re a t th se on endered the q questioned resolutionofO r October18,19 999denyingd duecourseto SPCNo.982 240foralleged dlyhavingbee enfiledoutof ftimeand affirmingthep a proclamationofSemaasMa ayorofCotaba atoCity;andt theresolutionofJanuary2,2000denying gMaaras motionforrec m considerationoftheOctober r18,1999res solution. Accordingly, t proclamat A the tion of Sema is null and vo as it was based on an incomplete c oid canvass.An in ncomplete canvassisilleg c galandcanno otbethebasis sofavalidpr roclamation.A Aproclamation nmadewheretheconteste edreturns setasidewilla s affecttheresu ultoftheelectionandthebo oardofcanvas ssersproceed dedtoproclaim mwithoutthe eauthority fromtheCOME f ELECisnullan ndvoid. oOo FRANCISPA ANCRATIUSN N.PANGILINA AN,petitioner, ,v.COMELE ECBOARDOF FCANVASSER RSOFQUEZONCITY, 4THLE EGISLATIVED DISTRICT,and dFELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.,respondents.
274 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts G.R.No.105278 Novem mber18,1993 3 Preproclamat P tion controver rsies are not a allowed in the election of members of the House of Rep e presentatives. COMELEC has h no jurisdi iction over co ontests relatin to the elec ng ction, returns, and qualific s, cations of Me embers of the House of Representative R es.ItistheElec ctoralTribuna aloftheHouse eofRepresenta atives. PetitionerFrancisPancratiu P usN.Pangilin nanandprivat terespondent tFelicianoBe elmonte,Jr.we erebothcand didatesfor congressmani c inthefourthlegislativedist trictofQuezon nCityinthe11May1992elections. ElmerCandan E noandJoseUm mali,Jr.asreg gisteredvoter rsofthefourt thlegislatived districtofQue ezonCity,filed dwiththe COMELECape C etitionfordisqualificationa againstBelmo onteforviolat tionofSection n68oftheOm mnibusElectio onCodeof the t Philippine allegingint aliathat: (a) during a rally held on 1 April 1992 at Agno Str es, ter 2 reet, Barangay Tatalon, y Quezon City, private respo Q ondent boasted and ackno owledged tha he gave on (1) sack of rice, P5,00 at ne 00.00 and medicinestot m thecommunit tyandhadma adeavailablet tothemtheservicesofala awyer,(b)sim milarly,inBarangaySan Vicente, durin the coronat V ng tion night of 4 April 1992 of the winner of the Miss San Vicente p 4 r pageant, Belm monte gave ticketsfortwo t otoHongkong gtothewinner r,MissAnaMa arieDebil. Pangilinan, together with the complaini registered voters, filed before COMELEC an Urge Motion to Suspend P t ing d d ent o Canvass and/or Proclamat C tion in order that the peti ition for disq qualification a against privat respondent may not te t becomemootandacademic b c.COMELEC,h however,failed dtoactonthe esaidmotion. Duringthecan D nvassofthere eturns,Pangili inanobjectedtoover120e electionreturn nsbeingcanvassedbytheC CityBoard ofCanvassers onthegroun o ndthattheyw weretampered d,alteredors spurious.The eCityBoardo ofCanvassers, ,however, overruledpeti o itioner'sobjec ctionsonthe groundthat u underSection n15ofR.A.No.7166andS Section23of COMELEC Resolution No 2413, entitled "Genera Instruction for the P R o. al ns Provincial/City y/District and Municipal Board of d Canvassers" p C preproclamat tion controve ersies are not allowed i the election of memb in bers of the House of Representatives. R Petitionerfiles P sthisinstant petitionbefor retheCourt,c claimingthat theConstituti ionvestsinth heCOMELECt thepower to t hear and decide prep proclamation controversie without distinction as to whether the prepro es oclamation controversyin c nvolvestheele ectionofMem mbersoftheH HouseofRepresentativesor rprovincialorlocalelectiv veofficials. Hence, the pe H etitioner conc cludes, the ph hrase "prepro oclamation co ontroversies" in Sec. 3, Ar rticle IXC of the 1987 Constitution e C embraces all preproclamation controve p ersies, includi preprocla ing amation contr roversies invo olving the electionofMem e mbersoftheH HouseofRepr resentatives. ISSUE: Whetherorno W otSection15o ofR.A.No.7166andSectio on23ofCOME ELECResoluti ionNo.2413a areunconstitu utionalfor disallowingpr d reproclamatio oncontrovers siesintheelec ctionofmemb bersoftheHou useofReprese entatives. HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. Sec.3,Article IXCofthe19 S 987Constituti ionshouldbereadinrelati iontoSec.2,A ArticleIXCofthesameCo onstitution whichprovide w es,amongothe ers,whichves stsintheCOM MELEC"exclusiveoriginalju urisdictionove erallcontestr relatingto theelections,r t returns,andq qualificationso ofallelective regional,prov vincialandcity yofficials."Ith hasnojurisdictionover contestsrelatingtotheelect c tion,returns,andqualificat tionsofMemb bersoftheHou useofReprese entatives. On O the other hand, under Sec. 17, Art r ticle VI of the 1987 Constitution, the Electoral Trib bunal of the House of Representativesisthe"sole R ejudgeofallc contestsrelat tingtotheele ection,returns s,andqualific cations"ofits members. Consequently, the phrase "i C including preproclamation ncontroversie used in Se 3, Article I es" ec. IXC ofthe Co onstitution
275|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts should be con s nstrued as re eferring only to "preprocl lamation cont troversies" in election cas that fall w n ses within the exclusiveorigi e inaljurisdictio onoftheCOM MELEC,i.e.,electioncasespe ertainingtoth heelectionofr regional,prov vincialand cityofficials. c oOo MLAUTLUCM MAN,petitione er,vs.COMEL LECandMOSA AMAM.PAND DI,respondent ts. MS.BAIRANSALAM G.R.No.16622 G 29June e29,2005 Preproclamat P tion controver rsies are limit to challeng directed a ted ges against the B Board of Canv vassers and pr roceedings beforesaidBoa b ardrelatingto oparticularele ectionreturns s.Section243o oftheOmnibus sElectionCod de,whichenum meratesthe is ssuesthatmay yberaisedina apreproclam mationcontrove ersy,isrestrict tiveandexclus sive. PetitionerBair P ransalamLautLucmanand dprivaterespondentMosam maM.Pandiw weremayoralt tycandidates inPoona Bayabao,Lana B aodelSurduri ingtheMay10 0,2004electio ons. Duringthecan D nvassingofvo otes,Pandiob bjectedtothe inclusionoft tenelectionre eturns,althoughonlysixof ftheseare subjectsofthe s epresentcontroversy,onth hegroundthat tthesameweremanufacturedorfalsified d. TheMunicipal T lBoardofCan nvassers(Boa ard)overruled dprivateresp pondentsobje ectionsonthe edisputedret turns,and proclaimedpe p etitionerasthe ewinningcan ndidate.Petitio onerwonover rprivaterespo ondentbyam marginof16vo otes. Private respon P ndent filed with Commission on Electio (COMELEC an appeal. He admits th the exclusion of the ons C) hat contestedretu c urnsisagroun ndforelection nprotest,buthealsoargues sthattheCOM MELECmaygo obeyondthef faceofthe returnstodete r erminewheth hertheelection nsintheprecinctsinvolved dareasham. TheCOMELEC T CsFirstDivisiongrantedth hepetitionand dannulledthe eproclamatio onofLucmana andorderedt toconduct anexaminationoftheListo a ofVoterswith hVotingRecor rdandtheVRR Rsoftheprec cinctsinvolved dtodeterminewhether ornotactualv o votingbythed dulyregistered dvotersofsai idprecinctsw wereconducted dduringthee elections. ISSUE: Whether or n the exclus W not sion of the contested retu urns, a groun for election protest, ma nd akes a case f a pre for proclamationc p controversy. HELD: H PetitionGRAN P NTED. Section241of S ftheOmnibus sElectionCod dedefinesap preproclamat tioncontrover rsyas"anyqu uestionpertainingtoor affecting the p a proceedings of the board o canvassers which may b raised by any candidat or by any r o of s be te registered politicalparty p yorcoalitiono ofpoliticalpar rtiesbeforeth heboardordirectlywithth heCommissio on,oranymat tterraised underSections u s233,234,23 35and236in nrelationtoth hepreparation,transmissio on,receipt,cu ustodyandapp preciation oftheelectionreturns." o UnderSection243ofthesam U meCode,thei issuesthatma ayberaisedin napreproclam mationcontro oversy,areasfollows: SEC.243.Issue S esthatmaybe eraisedinpreproclamation ncontroversy. Thefollowin ngshallbepro operissuesth hatmaybe raisedinapre r eproclamation ncontroversy y: (a)Illegalcom ( mpositionorpr roceedingsoftheboardofc canvassers;
276 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts (b)Thecanvassedelection returnsarein ( ncomplete,co ontainmateria aldefects,app peartobetam mperedwithorfalsified, orcontaindisc o crepanciesin thesameretu urnsorinoth herauthentic copiesthereo ofasmentione edinSections233,234, 235,and236o 2 ofthisCode; (c) ( The electi ion returns were prepared under dure w d ess, threats, c coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufacturedornotauthen m ntic;and (d) ( When sub bstitute or fra audulent retu urns in controverted polling places we canvassed the results of which ere d, materiallyaffe m ectedthestand dingoftheagg grievedcandid dateorcandid dates. Theforegoingenumerationisrestrictiveandexclusive. T In the present case, the objections initia raised by private respo t ally ondent before the Municipal Board of C e Canvassers wereproperin w napreprocla amationcontroversy,i.e.,th heelectionretu urnsisobviou uslymanufact turedand/orf falsified,it isnotauthentic,itcontainsalterations.H However,inhisappealtoth heCOMELEC, hefurtherallegedthatthe eelections held in the p h precincts clustered in the Pooni Lomabao Central Elementary w were tainted with massive election e irregularities. Accordingto privaterespo ondent,there were"massiv vesubstitution nofvoters,sn natchingofba allotsfrom thevotersby peopleidentifiedwiththe Lucmanwho filledthemu t upagainstthe willofthevo oters,forceor rcoercion, threats, intimi t idation, castin of votes by double regis ng y strants in the same precinc (double en cts ntry), and flying voters "Private res spondent also alleged that the counting of votes on M 11, 2004 were not pr May 4, repared simul ltaneously with the appreciation of th ballots/cou w he unting of votes, in violation of Section 4 of COMELE Resolution No. 6667 n 44 EC (March 16, 20 ( 004). Also, pr rivate respond dents watche were threatened by pe ers etitioners wat tchers, forcing them to leavethecoun ntingroom,an ndthattheBo oardofElectio onInspectors merelycopiedtheentries onthetallyboardsand recordsofvote r esmadebype etitionerswatchers.Finally y,privateresp pondentallege edthatthede enialtohisobj jectionsto thecontested electionretur t rnswerenotm madebytheM MunicipalBoa ardofCanvass sersintheprescribedform m,andthat despite his m d manifestation that he will appeal the B Boards ruling on the retu g urns, it proce eeded with petitioners proclamation. p Obviously, the foregoing allegations p O e pertain not o only to the p preparation, transmission, receipt, cus , stody and appreciationo a oftheelectionreturns,butt totheconduct toftheelectio onsaswell. Preproclamat P tioncontrover rsies are limit tochallen ted nges directed against the BoardofCanva assers and pr roceedings beforesaidBo b oardrelatingto oparticularel lectionreturn nstowhichpri ivaterespond dentshouldha avemadespec cificverbal objections sub o bsequently re educed to wri iting. A prep proclamation controversy is limited to an examinati ion of the election return on their fa As a rule, the COMELEC is limited to an examina e ns ace. ation of the el lection return on their ns face.ItisbeyondtheCOMEL f LECsjurisdict tiontogobeyo ondthefaceo ofthereturnsorinvestigate eelectionirreg gularities. The T proceedin in a prep ngs proclamation c controversy a summary in nature. Re are eception of ev videncealiund such as de, theListofVot t terswithVotingRecordandtheVRRs,is sproscribed.I Issuessuchas sfraudorterr rorismattend danttothe election proce the resolu e ess, ution of which would com h mpel or necess sitate the COM MELEC to pie erce the veil o election of returnswhich r happeartobe eprimafacier regular,onthe eirface,areanathematoa preproclama ationcontroversy.Such issues should be posed and resolved in a regular ele d n ection protest which is w t, within the orig ginal jurisdiction of the RegionalTrialCourt(RTC).Inaregulare R electionprotest,theparties smaylitigate allthelegalandfactualissu uesraised bytheminasm b muchdetailastheymaydeemnecessaryo orappropriate e. oOo
PostElection P nRemedies
DEALBAN,D. D
Malalau uanv.COMEL LEC G.R.No.12019 G 93(Hermosisi ima,JR.,J.)
277|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thevictorious partyinanel T lectioncaseca annotbeindem mnifiedforexp penseswhichh hehasincurredinanelector ralcontest intheabsence ofawrongful lactoromissi ionorbreacho ofobligationc clearlyattribu utabletothelo osingparty.E Evidently,if anydamageha a adbeensuffer redbyprivater respondentdu uetotheexecu utionofjudgmentpendingap ppeal,thatdamagemay besaidtobeeq b quivalenttoda amnumabsqueinjuria. Petitioner Lu Malaluan and private respondent Joseph Eva P uis e t angelista we ere both ma ayoralty cand didates in theMunicipali t ityofKidapaw wan,North Cotabato, in the Synchronize National a e ed and Local Elec ctions held onMay 11, 1992.Private respondent Joseph Evang 1 gelista was pr roclaimed by the Municipal Board of C Canvassers as the duly s elected Mayor for having garnered 10,4 votes as a e r g 498 against petitio oners 9,792 v votes.Evange elista was, thu said to us, haveawinningmarginof706votes.But h t,onMay22,1 1992,petition nerfiledanele ectionprotest withtheRegi ionalTrial Courtcontesti C ing64outoft thetotal181 precinctsoft thesaidmunicipality.The trialcourtdeclaredpetitionerasthe dulyelectedm d municipalmay yorofKidapaw wan,NorthCo otabatowitha apluralityof1 154votes.Act tingwithoutp precedent, thecourtfoun t ndprivateresp pondentliable enotonlyfor rMalaluansprotestexpens sesbutalsofo ormoralande exemplary damages and attorneys fe d ees. OnFebruary 3, 1994, private respondent appea aled the trial court decisi l ion to the COMELEC. C reafterthatis,onFebruary 4,1994,petit tionerfileda motionforex xecutionpendingappeal.Themotion Justadayther was w granted b the trial co by ourt, in an or rder, datedMa arch 8, 1994, after petition posted a bond in the a ner amount of P500,000.00.B P Byvirtueofsa aidorder,peti itionerassumedtheofficeo ofMunicipaJM MayorofKidapawan,North hCotabato, andexercised thepowersa a andfunctions ofsaidoffice.Suchexercis sewasnotfor rlong,though h.Intheherei inassailed decision adver to Malalu d rse uans continue governance of the Municipality of Ki ed e idapawan, No orth Cotabato, the First Divisionofthe D eCommissiononElections(COMELEC)o orderedMalalu uantovacatetheoffice,saiddivisionhav vingfound and a so declare private res ed spondent to b the duly el be lected Municip Mayor of said municip pal pality.The CO OMELECen bancaffirmedsaiddecision. b . Thepetitionbecamemoota T andacademicbecausetheh hereinpartiesarecontesting ganelectivep posttowhicht theirright to t the office n longer exis no sts.However, the question as to damag remains r , n ges ripe for adjud dication.The COMELEC found petition liable for attorneys fees, actual expenses for xerox copie and unear f ner r es, rned salary a and other emoluments fr e rom March, 1994 to April, 1995, denom 1 minated as act tual damages, default in pa ayment by pet titioner of whichshallresultinthecol w llectionofsaid damountfrom mthebondpo ostedbypetit tionerontheo occasionofth hegrantof hismotionfor h rexecutionpe endingappeal linthetrialco ourt.Petition nernaturallyc conteststhep proprietyand legalityof thisawardupo t onprivaterespondentonth hegroundthatsaiddamage eshavenotbe eenallegedand dprovedduri ingtrial. Issue: whether or no the COMEL gravely ab w ot LEC bused its disc cretion in awa arding the afo orecited dama ages in favor of private respondent r Held: H Petitionforcertiorariisgra P anted. The T Court find responden COMELECs reasoning in awarding th damages in question to be fatally fla ds nt s n he n awed.The criterion for a justifiable aw c a ward of electi protest ex ion xpenses and s salaries and e emoluments, t thus, remains to be the existence of a pertinent br e a reach of oblig gations arising from contra g acts or quasicontracts, tor rtious acts, cr rimes or a specificlegalp s provisionauth horizingthem moneyclaimi inthecontext tofelectioncases.Absent anyofthese, onecould notevenbegin n ntocontempl lateliabilityfo ordamagesin nelectioncase es,exceptinso ofarasattorne eysfeesarec concerned, sincetheCivilCodeenumer s ratesthespeci ificinstancesw whenthesam memaybeawa ardedbytheco ourt. TheCourtfind T dstheaward ofsalariesandotheremolu umentstobe improperand dlackinglega alsanction.Re espondent COMELECrule C edthatinappl licableinthe instantcaseistherulingin nRodriguezv vs.Tanbecause ewhileintha atcasethe officialoustedwastheonep o proclaimedby ytheCOMELE EC,intheinsta antcase,petiti ionerwasproclaimedwinn neronlyby
278 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts the trial cour and assume office by virtue of an order grantin execution pending app t rt ed ng peal.Again, re espondent COMELECswe C eepinglyconcl luded,injustif fyingtheawar rdofdamages s,thatsincepe etitionerwasadjudgedthewinnerin the t elections only by the trial court and assumed th functions o the office on the streng merely of an order t he of gth f grantingexecu g utionpendingappeal,thepe etitioneroccu upiedtheposit tioninanilleg galmannerasausurper. The T Court held that petitio oner was not a usurper because, while a usurper is o who undertakes to act officially a one t withoutanycolorof right,the petitioner w rexercised th hedutiesofan elective officeunder colo of election thereto.It n or mattersnotth m hatitwasthe trialcourtan ndnottheCOM MELECthatd declaredpetiti ionerasthew winner,becaus seboth,at differentstage d esoftheelect toralprocess, havethepow wertosoprocl laimwinners inelectoralcontests.TheC Courtheld petitioner,the p erefore,tobea adefactooff ficerwho,ing goodfaith,has sapossession noftheoffice andhaddisch hargedthe dutiespertaini d ingtheretoandisthusleg gallyentitledt totheemolum mentsoftheof ffice. Torecapitulat T te,Section259 9oftheOmni ibusElection Codeonlypr rovidesforthe egrantingin electioncases sofactual andcompensa a atorydamages sinaccordancewithlaw.T Thevictoriou uspartyinan electioncasecannotbeindemnified forexpensesw f whichhehas incurredinan nelectoralcon ntestintheab bsenceofaw wrongfulactor romissionorbreachof obligationclea o arlyattributab bletothelosingparty.Evidently,ifany damagehadb beensuffered dbyprivatere espondent due d to the execution of jud dgment pend ding appeal, th damage m be said t be equivale to damnu absque hat may to ent um injuria,which is, damage without injury, or damage o injury inflic w , or cted without injustice, or loss or damag without ge violationofalegalright,ora v awrongdonetoamanforw whichthelaw wprovidesnor remedy. oOo iamDefensor rSantiagov. FidelRamos Miri P.E.T T.CaseNo.001 1 Inassumingth I heofficeofSen natorthen,the eProtestantha aseffectivelya abandonedorwithdrawnth hisprotest,ora atthevery le east,inthelan nguageofMor raleja,abandonedherdeter rminationtop protectandpur rsuethepublic cinterestinvo olvedinthe matterofwhoistherealcho m oiceoftheelectorate. tedinherCom mmentof29A August1995,P ProtestantMir riamDefensor rSantiago Inhermotionof16August1995,reiterat prayed that th revision of ballots in the remaining p p he f e precincts of th pilot areas be dispensed with and th revision he d he processinthepilotareasbe p edeemedcom mpleted. The Protestan answers th issue in the negative.She asserts that an election contest involves not only an T nt his s t adjudicationandsettlement a toftheprivateinterestsoftherivalcand didates,butmo oreimportant tly,theparam mountneed to t dispel, once and for all, the uncertain that beclou the true c e nty uds choice of the electorate.He ence, it is imb bued with, public interest and should be pursued to its final con p t o nclusion to determine theb bona fidewinn ner.She furth asserts her thatanelectio t oncasemayb berenderedm mootonlyifth hetermofthe econtestedoff ficehasexpired,thushere electionas Senatorandas S ssumptionof officeassuch hcannot,beco onstruedasan nabandonme entoftheinsta antprotest.Finally,she allegesthatthi a isCourthasdepartedfromtheorthodoxviewthataca aseshouldbedismissedifit thasbeenmo ooted. For F his part, t Protestee submits that there is stro legal basi for this Tri the t ong is ibunal to rule that the Pro e otestant is deemed to hav abandoned the instant p d ve d protest, in lig of Section ght n67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibu Election X us Code).Hesubm C mits,however r,thatpublici interestrequiresthatthisp protestbereso olvedonthem meritsconside eringthat: (a)itinvolvesamatterofpa ( aramountand dgravepublicinterest;and(b)itwasfiledmerelytoke eepProtestan ntSantiago inthelimeligh htinpreparationforherSe enatorialcamp paign.Helikewiseclaimsth hataresolutio ononthemer ritswould confirmhisvic c ctoryinthe11 1May1992pr residentialele ectionandpro ovethattheinstantprotesti isunfounded. Issue: WhetherSanti W iagosfilingof fhercertificateofcandidacy yaforfeitureo ofherclaimto otheofficeofPresident.
279|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Held: H DISMISS the instant elect D tion protest, since it has been rendere moot and academic b its abando ed d by onment or withdrawalby w ytheProtestantasaconseq quenceofher electionand assumptiono ofofficeasSen natorandher discharge ofthedutiesandfunctionst o thereof. Santiago filed a certificate of candidacy for Senator in the8 May 1995electio campaigne for such o S y y on, ed office, and submittedherselftobevote s edupon.Shek knewthatthe etermofoffice eoftheSenato orswhowould dthenbeelec ctedwould besixyears,to b ocommencea atnoononthethirtiethday yofJunenext tfollowingthe eirelectionan ndtoendatn noonof30 June 2001.Kn nowing her high sense of integrity and candor, it is most unlik h f kely that dur ring her camp paign, she promisedtose p ervetheelecto orateasSenat tor,subjecttotheoutcomeofthisprotes st.Inshort,sh hefiledhercer rtificateof candidacyfort c theSenatewit thoutanyqua alification,con ndition,orrese ervation. he nto h ate cted, she wou assume the office of uld In so doing, sh entered in a political contract with the electora that if elec Senator,dischargeitsfuncti S ionsandserve eherconstitu uencyassuch forthetermf forwhichshe waselected. Theseare givenswhicha g areinfullacco ordwiththep principleensh hrinedintheC Constitutionth hatpublicoffi iceisapublic trust,and public officers and employees must at all times b accountable to the people and ser p s be rve them wit utmost th responsibility, r ,integrity,loy yaltyandefficiency. TheCourtheld T dthatthetrib bunalsmajorit tyviewonir rrelevancyan ndonthefilin ngofthecerti ificateofcand didacyare not the grou n unds themsel lves, but par only of the argumen to stren rts nts ngthen the conclusion re eached,i.e., abandonment.Otherwisesta a ated,inorder rtomakethe pointcrystal clear,themaj jorityneverheldthattheir rrelevancy ofthefinding ofirregulariti o iesisagroundwhythispr rotesthasbecomemootandacademic.It tonlydeclare edthatthe Protestants:( P (a)waiverofr revisionofthe eunrevisedba allotsfromtheremaining4 4,017conteste edprecinctsin nthepilot areas;and(b)failuretocom a mplywiththe eresolutionof21October 1995requirin nghertoinformtheTribun nalwithin tendaysfrom noticeifshe wouldstillpr t resentevidenceaftercomp pletionofthe revisionofth heballotsfrom mherpilot areas rende a ered such fin ndings of irr regularities en ntirely irrelev vant consider ring the Tribunals disquis sitions on whatrevisioni w isinits18March1993reso olution. Furthermore, tothemajority,suchfiling F gwasonlythe einitialstepi inaseriesof actsperforme edbythePro otestantto convincingly e c evince her aba andonment of this protest,viz.,campaign f ning fortheo office of Senat assumptio tor, onof such officeafterher o relection,and dherdischargeoftheduties sandfunction nsofthesaido office TheCourtcite T estheMoralejacasewhichinfactintimatesabandonm mentofanelectionprotest if,inthemeantime,the Protestant acc P cepts a perma anent appoint tment to a regular office.I that be so, then would i be, and for weightier If it reasons,again r nstaprotestan ntwhovolunta arilysoughtelectiontoano officewhoset termwouldex xtendbeyondtheexpiry date of the ter of the con d rm ntested office, and after winning the said election, took her oath a assumed office and and thereaftercon t ntinuouslyserv vesit. oOo LEC DeCastrov.COMEL G.R.No.12524 G 49(Hermosisi ima,Jr.,J.) Whiletherighttoapublicof W officeisperson nalandexclusi ivetothepubl licofficer,ane electionprotes stisnotpurely lypersonal andexclusivet a totheprotesta antortothep protesteesuch hthatthedeat thofeitherwo ouldoustthe courtofallau uthorityto continuethepr c rotestproceed dings. Petitionerwas P sproclaimedM MayorofGlor ria,OrientalM Mindoroduring gtheMay8,1 1995elections s.Inthesame eelections, private respondent was proclaimed ViceMayor of the same municipality. O May 19, 1 p On 1995, petition ners rival
280 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts candidate,thelateNicolasM c M.Jamilla,filed danelectionp protestbefore etheRegional lTrialCourto ofPinamalayan n,Oriental Mindoro. M Duringthepen D ndencyofsaid dcontest,Jam milladied.Four rdaysaftersu uchdeathoro onDecember1 19,1995,the trialcourt dismissedthe electionprote d estrulingasi itdidthat[a] ]sthiscaseis personal,the deathofthep protestantext tinguishes thecaseitself.Theissueorissuesbrough t htoutinthisp protesthavebecomemoota andacademic. . On O January 9, 1995, privat respondent learned abo the dismis , te t out ssal of the pr rotest. On Jan nuary 15, 199 private 96, respondent f r filed his Om mnibus Petit tion/Motion (For Interve ention and/o Substituti or ion with Motion for Reconsideratio R on).Thetrial courtdenied privaterespo ondentsOmn nibusPetition/ /Motionands stubbornlyhe eldthatan electionprotes e stbeingperso onaltothepro otestant,isipsofactotermin natedbythela attersdeath. Unabletoagre U eewiththetrialcourtsdism missalofthee electionprotes st,privaterespondentfiledapetitionfor rcertiorari and a mandamu before the Commission o Elections ( us on (COMELEC); p private respon ndent mainly assailed the t trial court orders as hav o ving been issu ued with gra abuse of discretion. COMELEC gran ave nted the petition for certi iorari and mandamus.Th m husthecaseat thand. Issue: Whethertheelectionprotes W stofJamillaisextinguishedbyhisdeath. Held: H riisherebyDISMISSED. Instantpetitionforcertiorar ce l c ssible to his h heirs upon It is true that a public offic is personal to the public officer and is not a property transmis death.Thus,ap d pplyingthedo octrineofacti iopersonalism moriturcump persona,upon nthedeathof ftheincumben nt,noheir ofhismaybe allowedtoco o ontinueholdin nghisofficein nhisplace.Bu utwhiletherighttoapubli icofficeisper rsonaland exclusive to th public officer, an electio protest is not purely pe e he on ersonal and e exclusive to th protestant or to the he t protesteesuch p hthatthedeathofeitherw wouldoustthe ecourtofalla authoritytoco ontinuethepr rotestproceed dings.The asseveration o petitioner that private r a of t respondent is not a real p s party in intere entitled to be substitut in the est o ted electionprotes e stinplaceoft thelateJamill la,isutterlyw withoutlegalb basis.TheCou urtciteditsru ulingintheca aseofVda. deMesaandL d Lomugdangtha at: x x x the Vice Mayor elect has the stat of a real p e t tus party in intere in the con est ntinuation of the proceedin and is ngs entitledtointe e ervenetherein n.Forifthepr rotestsucceed dsandthepro otesteeisunse eated,theVice eMayorsucce eedstothe officeofMayor o rthatbecome esvacantifthe eonedulyelec ctedcannotas ssumethepos st. oOo FPJv.GMA F P.E.T T.CaseNo.002 2 Whiletherighttoapublicof W officeisperson nalandexclusi ivetothepubl licofficer,ane electionprotes stisnotpurely lypersonal andexclusivet a totheprotesta antortothep protesteesuch hthatthedeat thofeitherwo ouldoustthe courtofallau uthorityto continuethepr c rotestproceed dings;Courtha asallowedsub bstitutionandi interventionbutonlybyare ealpartyinint terest. Pastmidnight P t,intheearly hoursofJune e24,2004,th heCongressas stherepresen ntativesofthe esovereignp peopleand acting as the National Board of Canvass a sers, in a nea arunanimous rollcall vote proclaimed Mrs. Gloria M e, Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) the duly elected Presiden of the Philippines. She o A ) nt obtained 12,9 905,808 votes, as against 11,782,232 ,
281|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts votesforthesecondplacer,themovieact v torFernandoPoe,Jr.(FPJ). ShetookherOathofOfficebeforetheCh hiefJustice oftheSupremeCourtonJun o ne30,2004. Refusingtoconcededefeat,thesecondplacerintheel R lections,Mr.F FPJ,filedseaso onablyanelec ctionprotestb beforethis ElectoralTribu E unalonJuly2 23,2004.Mrs s.GMA,throug ghcounsel,fil ledherAnswe erwithCount terProtestonAugust5, 2004.Ascoun 2 nselsforthep partiesexchan ngedlivelymo otionstorush hthepresenta ationoftheir respectivepo ositionson the t controvers an actofG intervene On Decem sy, God ed. mber 14, 2004 the Protesta died in the courseof hi medical 4, ant is treatment at St. Lukes Ho t ospital. The m medical certif ficate, filed by counsel as part of the N y Notice of Dea of the ath Protestant,sho P owedthathed diedofcardiopulmonarya arrest,seconda arytocerebra alinfarction. Togetherwith T htheformalN NoticeoftheD DeathofProte estant,hiscou unselhassubm mittedtotheT Tribunal,date edJanuary 10,2005,aM 1 MANIFESTATIONwithURG GENTPETITIO ON/MOTIONtoINTERVENE EASASUBST TITUTEFORD DECEASED PROTESTANTFPJ,bythew P widow,Mrs.Je esusaSonoraP Poe,whosigne edtheverifica ationandcerti ificationthere ein. Asmovant/int A tervenor,Mrs.FPJclaimsth hatbecauseof ftheuntimely ydemiseofhe erhusbandan ndinrepresen ntationnot onlyofherdec o ceasedhusban ndbutmores sobecauseoft theparamoun ntinterestoft theFilipinope eople,thereisanurgent needforhertocontinuean n ndsubstitutef forherlatehu usbandinthe eelectionprot testinitiated byhimtoasc certainthe trueandgenui t inewilloftheelectorateinthe2004elec ctions ent, the Prote estee, Mrs. GM relying o MA, onVda. de De Mesa v. Menc ciasand subsequent cases including In her Comme analogous cas decided by the House of Representa a ses y atives Elector Tribunal ( ral (HRET), asserts that the w widow of a deceasedcand d didateisnotth heproperpar rtytoreplacet thedeceasedp protestantsin nceapublicof fficeisperson nalandnot apropertytha a atpassesonto otheheirs.She epointsoutth hatthewidow whasnolegalrighttosubsti ituteforherh husbandin anelectionprotest,sincenosuchrights a survivestheh husband,cons sideringthatt therighttofil leanelection protestis personalandn p nontransmiss sible. Issue: Maythewidow M wsubstitute/i intervenefort theprotestant twhodiedduringthependencyofthelat ttersprotestcase. Held: H The T motion of JESUSA SON f NORA POE a.k. SUSAN ROCES to interv .a. vene and subs stitute for the deceased pro otestant is DENIEDforlackofmerit. D Thefundamen T ntalruleapplic cableinapres sidentialelect tionprotestisRule14ofthe ePETRules.It tprovides, Rule 14.Electi Protest.O R ion Only the registered candida for Presid ate dent or for VicePresident of the Philipp pines who receivedthesecondorthird r dhighestnum mberofvotes maycontestt theelectionof fthePresiden ntortheVicePresident, asthecasema a aybe,byfiling gaverifiedpe etitionwithth heClerkofthe ePresidential ElectoralTrib bunalwithint thirty(30) daysaftertheproclamationofthewinner d r. d Pursuanttoth P hisrule,onlytw wopersons,t the2ndand3rdplacers,maycontesttheel lection.Bythi isexpressenu umeration, the t rule make have in ef ers ffect determin the real p ned parties in interest concern ning an ongo oing election c contest. It envisionedas e scenariowher re,ifthedecla aredwinnerh hadnotbeen trulyvoted u uponbytheel lectorate,the candidate whoreceived that2ndorthe3rdhighestn w numberofvoteswouldbe thelegitimatebeneficiary inasuccessfu ulelection contest. c Furthermore,t F theCourtexplainedthatac contestbefore eelectiontribu unalshastwoaspects.First t,itisinpursu uitofones right to a pub office, an second, it is imbued wi public int r blic nd ith terest. Indeed the persona aspect of th case is d al he inextricablylin nkedwiththe epublicintere est.Foranelec ctionprotesti involvesnotm merelyconflic ctingprivatea aspirations butisimbuedwithpublicin b nterestwhichraisesitintoa aplaneoverandaboveordi inarycivilacti ions.
282|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Rule19,Sectio R on1oftheRu ulesofCourtis stheapplicab bleruleonint terventionint theabsenceofsucharulei inthePET Rules.Insuch R hintervention, ,theinterestw whichallowsa apersontointerveneinasuitmustbein nthematterof flitigation andofsuchdir a rectandimme ediatecharact terthattheint tervenorwilleithergainor rlosebytheef ffectofthejud dgment.In this protest, M FPJ will not immediate and direct benefit fro the outcom should it b determined that the t Mrs. n ely tly om me be declaredpresi d identdidnott trulygetthehighestnumbe erofvotes. Based on the foregoing arguments, Cou said that if persons no real parties in the actio could be a B urt ot s on allowed to intervene,pro oceedingswill beunnecessa arilycomplica ated,expensiv veandinterm minableand thisisnotthe epolicyof thelaw.Itisf t farmoreprud denttoabide bytheexistin ngstrictlimita ationsoninte erventionandsubstitution underthe la awandtheru ules. oOo
FailureofEle F ection
NADONGA,J. N RI ICARDOBoyCANICOSAv v.COMMISSIO ONONELECT TIONS,etal. 0318,5Decem mber1997,E ENBANC(Belo osillo,J.) G.R.No.120 There areonlythre ee(3)instance eswhereafai ilureofelectio onmaybedec clared,namely y:(a)theelect tioninany polling place h not been held on the date fixed on account of f p has n force majeure,, violence, ter rrorism, fraud or other d, analogouscauses;(b)theele a ectioninanyp pollingplaceh hadbeensuspe endedbeforet thehourfixed bylawforthe eclosingof thevotingona t accountofforc cemajeure,vi iolence,terror rism,fraud,or otheranalogo ouscauses;or (c)afterthev votingand duringtheprep d parationandtransmissiono oftheelectionreturnsorinthecustodyor rcanvassthere eof,suchelect tionresults inafailuretoe electonaccoun ntofforcemaj jeure,violenc ce,terrorism,f fraud,orother ranalogousca auses. oner Ricardo Boy Canico and priva responden Severino La osa ate nt ajara were ca andidates for mayor in Petitio Calamba, Lagu C una, during the May 1995 elections. A t 5 After obtainin a majority of some 24, ng ,000 votes, L Lajara was proclaimed w p winner by the Municipal Board of Can e nvassers. Can nicosa filed w with the Com mmission on Elections (COMELEC) a Petition to Declare Failur of Election and to Decla Null and Void the Can ( D re are nvass and Pro oclamation becauseofalle b egedwidespre eadfraudsand danomaliesin ncastingandcountingofv votes,preparat tionofelectio onreturns, violence, thre v eats, intimidation, vote bu uying, unregis stered voters voting, and delay in th delivery o election s d he of documents an paraphernalia from the precincts to the Office o the Municip Treasurer Canicosa pa d nd e o of pal r. articularly averredthat:( a (a)thenamesoftheregisteredvotersdid dnotappearin nthelistofvo otersintheirp precincts;(b)m morethan onehalf of the legitimate registered vot o r ters were not able to vote with strange voting in their stead; ( he was t e ers (c) creditedwith lessvotestha c anheactually yreceived;(d) )controldata aoftheelectio onreturnswa asnotfilledu upinsome precincts;(e)ballotboxesb p broughttothe eOfficeoftheMunicipalTre easurerwereunsecured,i.e e.,withoutpad dlocksnor selflockingmetalseals;and s d,(f)therewa asdelayinthe edeliveryofe electionreturns.TheCOME ELECenbanc dismissed the t petitionon theground thatthealleg n gationstherein did not just adeclarat tify tion of failure of election.H e Hence, the petition. p ISSUE: Whetherthea W allegationsmadebyCanicos saconstitutefa ailureofelections HELD: H PetitionDENIE P ED. Section6ofBP S PBlg.881,oth herwiseknown nastheOmnibusElectionC Code,reads:
283|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Sec.6 6.Failureofe election.If,o onaccountof fforcemajeure,violence, terrorism,fra aud,orother analogous causestheelectioninanyp c pollingplaceh hasnotbeen heldonthed datefixed,orh hadbeensusp pendedbefore ethehour fixedbylawfo f ortheclosing gofthevoting g,orafterthe votinganddu uringtheprep parationand thetransmiss sionofthe electionreturn e nsorinthecu ustodyorcanv vassthereof,suchelectionr resultsinafailuretoelect,a andinanyofs suchcases the t failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a e e verifiedpetitio v onbyanyinte erestedparty andafterdue enoticeandh hearing,callfo ortheholding gorcontinuat tionofthe election not h e held, suspende or which r ed resulted in a failure to ele on a date reasonably c ect close to the d date of the electionnothe e eld,suspendedorwhichresultedinafai iluretoelectb butnotlatert thanthirtyday ysafterthece essationof thecauseofsu t uchpostponem mentorsuspe ensionoftheelectionorfailu uretoelect. Clearl there are only three (3 instances w ly, 3) where a failur of election may be decl re n lared, namely (a) the y: electioninany e ypollingplacehasnotbee enheldonthe edatefixed onaccountof fforcemajeur re,violence, terrorism, fraud,orother f ranalogousc causes;(b)the eelectionina anypollingplacehadbeen suspendedbeforethehou urfixedby la awfortheclo osingofthevo otingonacco ountofforce majeure,viol lence,terroris sm,fraud,oro otheranalogouscauses; or(c)afterthe o evotingandduringtheprep parationandt transmissiono oftheelection nreturnsorin nthecustodyo orcanvass thereof, such election resul in a failure to elect on account of fo t lts orce majeure, violence, ter rrorism, fraud or other d, analogouscauses.Noneofth a hegroundsin nvokedbyCan nicosafallsund deranyofthoseenumerate ed. oOo GOV V.TUPAYT.L LOONG,etal.v.COMMISSI IONONELECT TIONS,etal. G.R R.Nos.10781415,16May y1996,ENBA ANC(Hermosi isima,Jr.,J.) Cisrestricted,,inpreprocla amationcases,,toanexamin nationofthee electionreturn nsontheir While theCOMELEC face and is without jurisdict f tion to go bey yond or behind them and in nvestigate elec ction irregularities, COMELEC is duty bound to inves b stigate allegat tions of fraud, terrorism, vi d, iolence and ot ther analogou causes in actions for ann us nulment of electionresults e sorfordeclara ationoffailure eofelections. sconsolidated dcaseinvolvin ngthegovern norshipandvi icegovernorshippositions intheprovinceofSulu, Inthis petitionersTu p upayT.Loong (Loong)and KimarTulaw wie(Tulawie)a assailstheOrdersoftheCo ommissionon nElections (COMELEC)re ( elatingtothelocalgovernm mentelectionsofMay1995i inthesaidpro ovince. g Abdusakur Ta (Tan) ran for the posit an tion of Govern while Tu nor ulawie and Loong and private respondent A privaterespon p ndentMunibE Estino(Estino)ranforthep postofvicego overnorofSul lu.Thecontroversyarosew when,after the t canvass o election ret of turns of 16 o the 18 mun of nicipalities of Sulu, the Provincial Boar of Canvass f rd sers (PBC) recommended r dtotheCOMELECarecanv vassoftheele ectionreturnsofParangand dTalipao.Inr relationtothis s,Tanand Estinosoughttosetasidean E ndannultheP Parangelectio onresultsonthegroundtha attherewasfa ailureofelecti ioninsaid municipality d to massiv fraud. COM m due ve MELEC then d directed the v verification an examinatio of the list of voters nd on togetherwith thebooksof votersofallp t precinctsfort themunicipal lityofParang.LoongandT Tulawiepraye edthatthe COMELECinfo C ormthemast towhetheror rnotitwouldconductatechnicalexami inationofthe certificateso ofelection, whichexamina w ation,petition nersarguedin ntheirmotion, ,hasbeenPro oscribedinpre eproclamatio oncontroversi ies,bythis Courtinthela C andmarkcaseofDianalanv vs.COMELEC,a andthat,inth healternative, ,thesameexa aminationbec conducted asregardsthe a ecertificateso ofthemunicipalitiesofSiasi i,PanglimaEs stino,Tapul,PataandKaling ggalangCalua ang,where private respon p ndents alleged committed rampant fra during th elections. C dly aud he COMELEC issu its assailed Orders ued granting respo g ondents pray to nullify t Parang el yer the lections and d dismissed the petitioners a regards to the other as declarationsin d ntheotherabovementioned dmunicipaliti iesduetotheuntimelinessofitsfiling,ev venafterasho owingthat the same bad t dges of fraud for the null d lification of e election results in Parang are present as well in the other g t municipalitiesconcerned. m ISSUES:
284 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 1. W Whether COME ELEC has juri isdiction over the petitions for annulment of electio results filed by both r on pe etitionerandp privaterespon ndents 2. W WhetherCOME ELECcancond ducttechnicalexamination nofelectiond documentsandcomparean ndanalyze vo oters'signatur resandfinger rprints Whether COME ELEC commit tted grave abu of discret use tion when, co onfronted wit essentially the same th 3. W si ituation in pe etitioners' own petition to annul the ele n ections of or t declare failure of electio in the to ons municipalities of Tapul, Pan m nglima Estino Pata, Siasi and Kalingga o, alang Caluang it dismissed the said g, d pe etition HELD: H Petitio onGRANTED. COMELEChas C spowertoann nulelections r election laws, the COMELE has been granted precisely the power to annul EC r Under the present state of our e elections. Sec e ction 4 of Re epublic Act No 7166, othe o. erwise known as, "The Syn n nchronized Elections Law of 1991," provides that the COMELE sitting En Banc by a m p EC majority vote of its memb bers may deci ide, among o others, the declarationof failureofelectionandthe callingofspe d f ecialelections sasprovided inSection6o oftheOmnibu usElection Code.TheCOM C MELECmayexercisesuchp powermotup proprioorupo onaverifiedp petition.Theh hearingofthecaseshall be b summary i nature, and the COMELE may deleg in d EC gate to its law wyers the pow to hear t case and to receive wer the evidence. e COMELEC is d C duty bound to investigate allegations o fraud, terr o of rorism, violen and othe analogous causes in nce er actionsforan a nnulmentofelectionresult tsorfordecla arationoffail lureofelectio ons rationunderly yingthedelim mitationboth ofsubstantive egroundand procedureis thepolicy Thepolicyconsider todeterminea t asquicklyasp possiblether resultoftheelectiononthe ebasisofcanv vass.Wecate egoricallyrule ethat,ina preproclamat p tioncontrover rsy,theCOME ELECisnotto lookbeyond orbehindelectionreturns whichareontheirface regular and authentic retu r urns. A party seeking to r y raise issues r resolution of which would compel or n necessitate COMELECtop C piercetheveilofelectionre eturnswhicha areprimafacieregularont theirface,hashisproperre emedyina regular electio protest. By their nature and given t obvious p r on e, the public interest in the speed determinat t dy tion of the resultsofelections,prepro r oclamationcontroversiesar retoberesol lvedinsumma aryproceedin ngswithoutth heneedto present eviden p ncealiundean ndcertainlyw withouthaving gtogothroug ghvoluminou usdocuments andsubjectin ngthemto meticuloustec m chnicalexamin nationswhich htakeupconsiderabletime. . trineinthisju urisdiction,the erefore,isthataslongasth hereturnsapp peartobeauth henticand Theprevailingdoct dulyaccomplishedontheir face,theBoa d ardofCanvass serscannotlookbeyondor rbehindthem mtoverifyalle egationsof irregularities i the casting or the count in g ting of the vot Corollari technical e tes. ily, examination o voting para of aphernalia lysisandcomparisonofvo oters'signatur resandthumb bprintsthereo onisprohibit tedinprepro oclamation involvinganal caseswhichar c remandatedb bylawtobeex xpeditiouslyr resolvedwitho outinvolvingevidencealiundeandexam minationof voluminous documents wh v hich take up much time and cause delay in defeat of the public policy underlying the c summarynatu s ureofpreproc clamationcon ntroversies. e EC ed, ses, amination of t election r the returns on While the COMELE is restricte in preproclamation cas to an exa their face and is without jurisdiction t go beyond or behind t t d to d them and inv vestigate elec ction irregula arities, the COMELECisd C dutyboundto investigateal llegationsoff fraud,terrorism,violencean ndotheranalogouscauses inactions forannulment f tofelectionre esultsorford declarationof failureofelec ctions,asthe OmnibusElec ctionCodeden nominates the t same. Thus, the COME ELEC, in the c case of actions for annulme of election results or d s ent n declaration of failure of f elections,may e yconducttech hnicalexamina ationofelectiondocumentsandcompar reandanalyze evoters'signa aturesand
285|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts fingerprintsin f nordertodeterminewheth herornotthe eelectionshad dindeedbeen nfree,honest andclean.Needlessto say,apreproclamationcon s ntroversyisn notthesamea asanactionf forannulment tofelectionresultsordecl larationof failureofelect f tions. COMELEC com C mmitted grav abuse of d ve discretion wh it dismis hen ssed petition involving the aforementi e ioned five municipalities m s etheCOMELECactedwithin nitsjurisdictionintaking cognizanceof ftheprivater respondents'p petitionto While annultheelec a ctionresultso ofortodeclar refailureofel lectionsinPar rang,Sulu,itc committedgr raveabuseof discretion whenconfront w tedwithessen ntiallythesam mesituationin npetitioners'o ownpetitiont toannultheelectionsofortodeclare failure of elec f ctions in the municipalitie of Tapul, Panglima Est es tino, Pata, Sia and Kalin asi nggalang Caluang. The COMELEC arb C bitrarily and without valid ground dism d missed the said petition respecting th aforementi he ioned five municipalities. The untim m meliness of t the petition is an untena able argumen for such dismissal, be nt ecause, as Commissioner C rRegaladoMa aambongpoin ntedoutinhis sdissentingop pinion,nolaw wprovidesfor rareglementa aryperiod withinwhicht w tofileannulmentofelection nswhenthere eisasyetnop proclamation. oOo EEMMANUEL LL.CARLOSv v.HON.ADOR RACIONG.AN NGELES,etal. JOSE G.R.No.142 2907,29Nov vember2000, ,ENBANC(Pa ardo,J.) rialcourthasn nojurisdiction ntodeclareaf failureofelec ction.ItistheC Commission(C Comelec)sittin ngenbanc Thetr thatisvestedw t withexclusivej jurisdictionto odeclareafailureofelection n. Petitio oner Jose Emm manuel L. Car rlos (Carlos) a responde Antonio M Serapio (Serapio) were c and ent M. candidates forthepositio f onofmayorof fthemunicipa alityofValenz zuela,MetroM Manila(laterc convertedinto oaCity)durin ngtheMay 1998 elections The Munici 1 s. ipal Board of Canvassers p proclaimed pe etitioner as th duly electe mayor of V he ed Valenzuela having obtaine 102,688 votes, the high h ed v hest number o votes in th election ret of he turns. Serapio who obtained 77,270 o votes, the sec v cond highest number of v votes, filed w with the Regio onal Trial Co ourt Valenzue an electio protest ela, on challenging th results. Due to the inhib c he bition of all ju udges of the Regional Tria Court in Va al alenzuela, the case was ultimatelyassi u ignedtotheR RegionalTrial Court(RTC) CaloocanCity y,presidedove erbyrespond dentJudgeAdoracionG. Angeles. A Petitio oner filed wit the trial co th ourt an answe with affirm er mative defense and motion to dismiss. The court es n deniedthemo d otiontodismis ss.PetitionerelevatedtheordertotheC CommissiononElections(C Comelec)onpetitionfor certiorariand prohibition,w c which,howev ver,hasremain nedunresolve eduptothism moment.Inth hecourseofth heprotest, the t municipal treasurer of Valenzuela, w by law h custody of the ballot b who has boxes, collecte the ballot b ed boxes and deliveredthem d mtotheRegio onalTrialCou urt,CaloocanC City.Thecourt tconductedapretrialwhe ereintheparti iesagreed tothecreation t nofseven(7)revisioncom mmitteesconsi istingofacha airmandesign natedbythec courtandtwomembers representingt r theprotestant tandtheprote estee. The re evision of the ballotsshow that the p e wed protestant Ser rapio got66,6 602votes, whi protestee C ile Carlos got 83,609votes,g 8 givingCarlosawinningma arginof17,007 7votes.Howe ever,theRTCs setasidethef finaltallyofvo otesbased onsignificant o tfindingsofb badgesoffrau udattributabletoCarlosa anddeclaredS Serapioasthe edulyelected dmayorof ValenzuelaCit V ty.Hence,thep petition. ISSUE: herthetrialcourtactedwithoutjurisdic ctionorwithg graveabuseofdiscretionw whenthecourt tsetaside Wheth theproclamationofpetition t neranddeclar redrespondentSerapioas thedulyelect tedmayorof ValenzuelaCi itydespite it tsfindingthat tpetitionerga arnered83,609validvotesw whilerespond dentobtained66,602validv votes
286 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts HELD: H Petitio onGRANTED. Assum ming for the nonce that the trial court w correct in holding that the final tall of valid votes as per n e was n t ly revision repor may be set aside becaus of the sign r rt t se nificant badge of fraud, t same wou be tantam es the uld mount to a ruling that the were no valid votes ca at all for the candidate and, thus, no winner co r ere v ast es, ould be declar in the red electionprotes e stcase.Insho ort,therewasf failureofelect tion. chcase,thepr roperremedy yisanactionb beforetheCom mmissionon Electionsenb banctodeclar reafailure Insuc of o election or to annul the election.However, the ca below wa an election protest case involving a elective r e ase as n e an municipalpositionwhich,u m underSection251oftheEle ectionCode,fa allswithinthe eexclusiveori iginaljurisdict tionofthe appropriatere a egionaltrialco ourt. theless, the an nnulment of a election on the ground of fraud, irre an n egularities and violations o election of Nonet la awsmaybera aisedasaninc cidenttoanelectioncontes st.Suchgroun ndsforannulm mentofanelec ctionmaybei invokedin an a election pr rotest case. Ho owever, an el lection must n be nullifie and the vo not ed oters disenfra anchised when never it is possibletodet p termineawin nnerontheba asisofvalidv votescast,and ddiscardthei illegallycastb ballots.Inthis scase,the petitioner adm p mittedly recei ived 17,007 v valid votes m more than the protestee, an ndtherefore the nullificati of the ion electionwould e dnotlie.The powertonul llifyanelectio onmustbeex xercisedwith thegreatestc carewithavi iewnotto disenfranchise d ethevoters,an ndonlyunder rcircumstance esthatclearly ycallforsuchdrasticremed dialmeasure. retoforestated,inthisjuris sdiction,electi ionsarewononthebasiso ofamajorityo orpluralityofvotescast Asher and a received b the candid by dates. The rig to hold an elective offi is rooted on electoral m ght n ice mandate, not perceived entitlementtotheoffice. e thetrialcourt thasnojurisdictiontodecla areafailureof felection. Moreimportantly,t on6oftheOm mnibusElection nCodeprovid desthat: Sectio offorce majeure, violence, t terrorism, fra aud or other analogous Sec. 6.Failure of Election.If, on account o causestheelectioninanyp c pollingplaceh hasnotbeen heldonthed datefixed,orh hadbeensusp pendedbefore ethehour fixedbylawfo f ortheclosing gofthevoting g,orafterthe votinganddu uringtheprep parationand thetransmiss sionofthe electionreturn e nsorinthecu ustodyofcanv vassthereof,suchelectionr resultsinafailuretoelect,a andinanyofs suchcases the t failure or suspension of election wo o ould affect the result of the election, the e e eCommissionshall, on the basis of a verifiedpetitionbyanyinterestedparty v yandafterdu uenoticeandh hearing,callf fortheholding gorcontinuat tionofthe election noth e held, suspende or which r ed resulted in a failure to ele on a date reasonably c ect close to the d date of the election not h e held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not la a ater than thir (30) days after the rty s cessationofth c hecauseofsuc chpostponem mentorsuspen nsionoftheele ectionorfailu uretoelect. wise,RA7166providesthat: Likew 4.Postponem ment,FailureofElectionand dSpecialElect tions.Thepo ostponement,declarationof ffailureof Sec.4 electionandth e hecallingofs specialelectio onsasprovide edinSections5,6and7of ftheOmnibus sElectionCod deshallbe decided by th d heCommission sittingen ba n ancby a majo ority vote of i members. The causes f the declar its for ration of a failureofelect f tionmayoccur rbeforeoraft terthecasting gofvotesoron nthedayofth heelection. heCommissio on(Comelec)s sittingenbanc cthatisvestedwithexclusi ivejurisdictio ontodeclarea afailureof Itisth election. e petitiontoann nulanelectionunderSectio on6,BatasPa ambansaBlg. 881,twocond ditionsmustb beaverred Inap in order to su upport a suff ficient cause of action.Th hese are: (1) theillegality must affect m more than 50 of the 0%
287|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts votescast and (2) thegood v d dvotescan be edistinguishedfromthe ba adones.It is only when th hese twocond ditions are establishedthattheannulm e mentoftheele ectioncanbe justifiedbeca ausetherema ainingvotesd donotconstitu uteavalid constituency. c aveheldthat: Todeclarea afailureofele ection,two(2) )conditionsm mustoccur:fir rst,novoting hastaken Weha place in the p p precincts conc cerned on the date fixed b law or, eve if there we voting, the election nev e by en ere vertheless resulted ina f r failuretoelect;and,second d,thevotesno otcastwould daffecttheres sultoftheele ection. Neithe erofthese conditionswas c spresentinth hecaseatbar. . rtinitsdecisio onactuallypronouncedafa ailureofelecti ionbydisrega ardingandset ttingaside Thus, thetrialcour theresultsof theelection.N t Nonetheless,a ashereinabo ovestated,the etrialcourter rredtotheex xtentofoustin ngitselfof ju urisdictionbe ecausethegro oundsforfailu ureofelection nwerenotsignificantande evennonexist tent.Moreim mportantly, thecommissio t onoffraudcan nnotbeattrib butedtothepr rotestee.Ther rewasnoevid denceonreco ordthatprotesteehada handinanyof h ftheirregulari itiesthatprot testantaverred d. oOo ZAIPALD.BEN NITOv.COME ELEC,etal. 913,19Janua ary2001,ENBANC(DeLeo on,Jr.,J.) G.R.No.1349 There isfailureofel lectionsonlyw whenthewillo oftheelectorat tehasbeenmu utedandcann notbeascertai ined.Ifthe willofthepeop w pleisdetermin nable,thesame emustasfara aspossibleber respected. oner Zaipal D. Benito (Ben D nito) and priv vate responde Ibrahim Pa ent agayawan (Pa agayawan) we 2 of 8 ere Petitio candidatesvyi c ingforthepo ositionofmun nicipalmayor inCalanogas,LanaodelSu urduringthe May1998ele ections.On the t day of the election, voting started p e peacefully at the Sultan Di isimban Elem mentary Schoo ol.Shortly bef fore noon, however, the proceedings were interrup h w pted when some 30 armed men appear at the sch d red hool premises and fired shots into the air. Both par s e rties contest alleged event transpiring after the int ts g terruption of the voting.By Benitos account, the b a ballot boxes and other ele ection materi ials were tak ken to the mu unicipal hall by the milita forces ary providingsecu p urity.Fromth henon,thevo otingallegedly yneverresum med,evenwhe envoterswho ohadnotyet casttheir ballotsreturne b edtotheirres spectivepollin ngplacesafter rthelawlesse elementshadleft.Indirectopposition,P Pagayawan avers that vot a ting in fact resumedwhen nthe armed m left at ab men bout 1:00pm m.Therewere no further untoward e incidentsuntil lvotingclosed dat3:00oclo ock.Asproof,privaterespo ondentsubmittedaFinalI IncidentRepo ort,aspot report issued by the com r mmanding offi icer of the A Alfa Company of the Philippine Army, Captain Ben y , nedicto S. Manquiquis,su M upportinghisstatementtha atvotingresum medafterthearmedmenle eft. emunicipality yselectionprecincts,5wer reclusteredin nSultanDisim mbanElement tarySchool.Th hesewere Ofthe precincts 15A (Barangay Tagoranao), 6 p A T 6A/6A1 (Bara angay Luguna 17A (Bara a), angay Tamba ak), 2A/2A1 ( (Barangay Calalanoan),a C and13A(Bara angayPindulonan).Theele ectioninthefi irst3,namely yprecincts15A A,6A/6A1an nd17Aare the t subject of Benitos peti f ition to declar failure of e re elections filed before the respondent Co d ommission on Elections n (COMELEC).A ( Aftertallyingt thevotes,Ibra ahimwonoverpetitionerb by48votes.On ntheotherha and,thetotal votescast forthe3exclu f udedprecincts snumbered41only.Consid deringthatIbr rahimwoulds stillleadpetit tionerby7vot tesevenif all a 41 votes fr rom the 3 ex xcluded precin ncts were cou unted in the latters favor, Ibrahim was proclaimed mayor of , s Calanogas. C ofiledapetiti iontodeclarefailureofelec ctionandtoca allaspecialel lectioninprec cincts15A,6A A/6A1and Benito 17A.He also filed a separ 1 rate petitionf the annulment of the proclamation of private respondent. COMELEC for n dismissed the petition for lack of meri and affirme the procla d e it ed amation decla aring Ibrahim as mayor. H m Hence, the petition. p ISSUE:
288 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Wheth herCOMELEC Cactedwithgr raveabuseofdiscretioninn notholdingas specialelectio oninthethree edisputed precinctsonth p hegroundoff failureofelect tion HELD: H Petitio onDENIED. heCOMELECenbancwhich hhastheexcl lusivepower topostpone, todeclareaf failureofelection,orto Itisth callaspecialelection.Inrelationthereto,Section6oftheOmnibusE c a ElectionCodep provides: 6.Failure of Election.If, o account offorce majeur violence, t E on re, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous SEC. 6 causestheelectioninanyp c pollingplaceh hasnotbeen heldonthed datefixed,orh hadbeensusp pendedbefore ethehour fixedbylawfo f ortheclosing gofthevoting g,orafterthe votinganddu uringtheprep parationand thetransmiss sionofthe electionreturn e nsorinthecu ustodyorcan nvassthereof, suchelectionresultsinafa failuretoelect t,andinanys suchcases the t failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a e e verifiedpetitio v onbyanyinte erestedparty andafterdue enoticeandh hearing,callfo ortheholding gorcontinuat tionofthe election not h e held, suspende or which r ed resulted in a failure to ele on a date reasonably c ect close to the d date of the electionnothe e eld,suspendedorwhichresultedinafai iluretoelectb butnotlatert thanthirtyday ysafterthece essationof thecauseofsu t uchpostponem mentorsuspe ensionoftheelectionorfailu uretoelect. Elucid dating on the aforesaid pro ovision, we held inHassan v. Commissio on Election on nsthat 2 prec conditions mustexistbef m foreafailureo ofelectionma aybedeclared d,thus:(1)no ovotinghasbeenheldinan nyprecinctor rprecincts duetoforce m d majeure,violen nceorterroris sm;and(2)thevotesnotca astthereinare esufficienttoaffecttheresultsofthe election.Thec e causeofsuchfailuremayar risebeforeorafterthecasti ingofvotesor ronthedayoftheelection. ngtothemeri itsofthepetit tion,wearen notsufficiently ypersuadedt thatthepublic crespondent COMELEC Comin gravelyabused itsdiscretio in denying BENITOs pe g on etitionto decla afailureo are ofelection in precincts 15A 6A/6A1 A, and17AofCal a lanogas.Itiso obviousatthe eoutsetthatp petitionerraise esissuesforei igntotherem medyheseeks.Heavers thatafailureo t ofelectionsmu ustbedeclare edinthepreci inctsinquesti ionsincethev votingthereinwasinterrup ptedbythe suddenandth s hreateningarrivalofarmedgoonsofariv valcandidate. siderationoft thepartiessu ubmissions,w wefindthatthe eCOMELECdidnotgravely yabuseits After acarefulcons discretionind d denyingBENIT TOspetition todeclareafa failuretoelect tionandtoca allaspecialelection.Itisin ndeedodd thatpetitioner t rsinglesouto onlyprecincts15A,6A/6A1and17Aasth hesubjectsofhispetitionw whentherewe ere2other precinctsinth p hesameschool. Inasense,petition nerequatesfa ailureofelecti ionstothelow wpercentage ofvotescast tvisvisthen numberof registeredvote r ersinthesubj jectelectionp precincts.How wever, recanbefailureofelection inapolitical unitonlyifth hewillofthem majorityhasb beendefileda andcannot [t]her beascertained b d.But,ifitcan nbedetermine ed,itmustbeaccordedresp pect.Afterall l,thereisnop provisioninou urelection la awswhichrequiresthata majorityofre egisteredvote ersmustcast theirvotes.A Allthelawreq quiresisthat awinning candidatemus c stbeelectedb byaplurality ofvalidvotes s,regardlesso oftheactualn numberofballotscast.Thu us,evenif lessthan25%oftheelector rateintheque estionedprecinctscasttheir rvotes,thesamemuststillberespected. Xxxx ealsoexplaine edinSardeav.Commissiono onElections, Aswe power to thro out or ann an electio should be exercised wi the utmos care and only under ow nul on ith st The p circumstances c swhichdemonstratebeyon nddoubteithe erthatthedis sregardofthe elawhadbeensofundame entalorso persistentand p dcontinuousthatitisimpos ssibletodistin nguishwhatv votesarelawfu ulandwhatar reunlawful,ortoarrive atanycertain resultwhatso a oever,orthat thegreatbod dyofvotersh havebeenprev ventedbyvio olence,intimid dationand threatsfromexercisingthei t irfranchise x xxxxxx xxx xxx
289|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts eisfailureofe electionsonlywhenthewill loftheelectoratehasbeenmutedandca annotbeascer rtained.If There thewillofthe t epeopleisdet terminable,th hesamemust tasfaraspos ssibleberespected.Afinal observation: petitioner should not ask us to decla a failure o elections in the questioned precincts simply beca s are of n s ause public re espondent COMELECdecl C laredafailure einotherprec cinctsinLanao odelSur. ssthanthepe etitionerhimselfconcedest thattherewas stotalfailure ofelectionsin n12municipa alitiesand Noles partial failure in eleven 11.Yet he now insists a tota failure of e p w al elections shou have been declared in the entire uld n province of La p anao del Sur.Suffice it to state that the propriety of declaring wh e f hether or not there has be a total t een failure of elec f ctions in the entire province of Lanao d Sur is a fa e del factual issue w which this Co ourt will not d delve into consideringth c hattheCOMEL LEC,through itsdeputized officialsinth hefield,isint thebestpositiontoassess theactual conditions pre c evailing in th area.Abse any show hat ent wing of grave abuse of dis e scretion, the findings of fa of the fact COMELEC or a administr C any rative agency exercising pa y articular expe ertise in its fi ield of endeav vor, are bindi on the ing Court.Therei C isnocogentre easontodepar rtfromthege eneralruleint thiscase. oOo BAGOP.P PASANDALAN Nv.COMMISS SIONONELEC CTIONS,etal l. G.R. No.150312, 18July2002 2,ENBANC(Ca arpio,J.) The nullification of elections or d f declaration of failure of ele f ections is an e extraordinary remedy. The p party who seeksthenullif s ficationofane electionhasth heburdenofprovingentitlem menttothisre emedy.Itisno otenoughthat taverified petitionisfiled p d.Theallegati ionsinthepetitionmustmakeoutaprima afaciecaseforthedeclarationoffailureo ofelection, andconvincing a gevidencemus stsubstantiate etheallegatio ons. Petitio oner Bago P. Pasandalan ( (Pasandalan) and private respondent B Salamona L. Asum (Asum) were Bai candidatesfor c rmayorinthe eMunicipality yofLumbayan nague,Lanaod delSurduring gtheMay2001elections.Pasandalan filedapetition f nbeforepublic crespondentCommissiono onElections(C COMELEC)see ekingtonullif fytheelection nresultsin Barangays Cab B basaran (Prec cinct Nos. 9A, 10A, 11A an 12A), Deromoyod (Preci nd inct Nos. 24A 25A and 26 A, 6A), Lamin (Precinct Nos. 29A and 30A Wago (Pre ( . A), ecinct Nos. 46 47A and 4 6A, 48A), Meniros (Precinct No 32A, 33A and 34A), s os. Bualan(Precin B nctNos.6A,7A Aand8A)and dPantaon(Pre ecinctNos.38A Aand39A),al llofLumbayanague,LanaodelSur. Pasan ndalanalleged dthatwhilevo otingwasgoingon,someC CivilianArmedForcesGeog graphicalUnit t(CAFGU) membersstati m ionednearSu ultanGuntingE ElementarySc choolindiscriminatelyfired dtheirfirearm mscausingthe evotersto panicandleav p vethepollingcenterwithou utcastingthei irvotes.Takin ngadvantageo oftheconfusion,supporter rsofAsum allegedlytook theofficialba a k allots,filledth hemupwitht thenameofA Asumandplacedtheminsid detheballotb boxes.The incidentallege edlymarredth heelectionres sultsinPrecin nctNos.9A12 2A,24A26Aand29A30A.I InPrecinctNo os.46A,47 and a 48A, the m members of the Board of E t Election Inspe ectors (BEI) a allegedly failed to sign their initials at th back of d he several official ballots and to remove the detachable coupons.The BEI member allegedly af s rs ffixed their in nitials only during the co d ounting of vo otes. In Preci inct Nos. 6A 8A, 32A34A and 38A39 Pasandala claims tha Asums A 9A, an at supporters,takingadvantag s geofthefistfi ightbetween Asumsnephewandthesu upportersofc candidateNor raniaSalo, grabbed the o g official ballot and filled them up wit the name of Asum. Pas ts th sandalan con ntends that a technical examination o several offic ballots from the conte e of cial ested precinct would show that only a few persons wrote the ts w entries.AsumfiledanAnsw e werdenyingPa asandalansal llegation.Asum mwassworn intoofficean ndassumedth heposition ofmunicipalm o mayoroftheL Lumbayanague e,LanaodelS Sur.TheCome elecissuedaR Resolutiondismissingthepetitionfor la ackofmerit.H Hence,thepet tition. ISSUE: herCOMELEC Cactedwithgr raveabuseofdiscretionam mountingtolac ckofjurisdict tioninnotann nullingthe Wheth electionordec e claringafailur reofelectioni inthe16ques stionedprecin ncts
290 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts HELD: H Petitio onDENIED. Under rRepublicAct tNo.7166,oth herwiseknow wnasTheSyn nchronizedEle ectionsLawof1991,theC Comelecen bancis empow b wered to dec clare a failur of election under Secti re n ion 6 of the Omnibus El lection Code (B.P. Blg. 881).Section6oftheCodeprescribesthe 8 econditionsf fortheexerciseofthispowe er,thus: SEC. 6. Failure of Election. If, on account o force majeu violence, terrorism, fra or other analogous of ure, aud causestheelectioninanyp c pollingplaceh hasnotbeen heldonthed datefixed,orh hadbeensusp pendedbefore ethehour fixed by law f closingof the voting, o after the vo f for f or oting and dur ring the prep paration and t transmission of the the electionreturn e nsorinthecu ustodyorcanv vassthereof,suchelectionr resultsinafailuretoelect,a andinanyofs suchcases the t failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a e e verifiedpetitio v onbyanyinterestedparty yandafterdue enoticeandh hearing,callfo ortheholding gorcontinuat tionofthe electionnothe e eld,suspendedorwhichresultedinafai iluretoelectb butnotlatert thanthirtyday ysafterthece essationof thecauseofsu t uchpostponem mentorsuspe ensionoftheelectionorfailu uretoelect. Based dontheforego oingprovision n,threeinstan ncesjustifyad declarationoff failureofelect tion.Thesear re: heelectioninanypollingpl lacehasnotbeenheldonth hedatefixedo onaccountoff forcemajeure e,violence, (a)th terrorism,frau t udorotheran nalogouscaus ses;(b)theele ectioninany pollingplace hasbeensusp pendedbefore ethehour fixedbylawfo f ortheclosing gofthevoting gonaccounto offorcemajeu ure,violence, terrorism,fra audorother analogous causes;or(c)a c afterthevotin ngandduringthepreparati ionandtransm missionofthe eelectionreturnsorinthec custodyor canvass thereo such electi results in a failure to e c of, ion elect on accou of force m unt majeure, violen terrorism fraud or nce, m, otheranalogou o uscauses. What iscommonin nthesethree instancesist theresultingf failuretoelec ct.Inthefirst instance,noe electionis held while in the second, th election is suspended.In the third in h he s nstance, circum mstances atte ending the preparation, transmission,custodyorcan t nvasoftheele ectionreturns scauseafailur retoelect.Th hetermfailure etoelectmean nsnobody emergedasa winner.Pasan e ndalanassert tsthatthecon nditionsforth hedeclaration noffailureof electionarep presentin this case. The volley of sho from high t e ots hpowered fir rearms alleged forced the voters to sc dly e camper away from the y polling place, paving the way for Asum supporters to write the name of Asu on the ba p w ms s e um allots.The gu unfire also frightenedPas f sandalanspol llwatchers.T Theheavyfirin ngallegedlysuspendedorp preventedthe eholdingofel lectionsin thecontestedp t precincts,resu ultinginfailur retoelect.Th hevictoryofA Asumisthusputinseriousd doubt. do nder any of t instances that would j the justify the We do not agree.Pasandalans allegations d not fall un declarationof failureofelection.Theele d f ectionwashe eldinthe16p protestedprec cinctsassche eduled.Atno pointwas the t election in any of the precincts susp n p pended. Nor w there a fa was failure to elect because off force majeure, violence, terrorism,frau t udorotheran nalogouscaus sesduringthe epreparation, transmission n,custodyandcanvassofth heelection returns.Thea r allegedterrori ismwasnoto ofsuchscaleandprevalence etopreventth heholdingoftheelectiono ortocause it suspension ts n.In fact, the casting and c counting of vo otes, the prep paration, tran nsmission and canvassing o election d of returnsandth r heproclamatio onofthewinn ningcandidate etookplacein nduecourse. epowertodeclareafailure eofelectionw withdeliberatecautionsoa asnottodisen nfranchise Courtsexercisethe the electorate t e.The fact alo one that actu voting took place alre ual eady militates against Pas sandalans ca ause.Also, Pasandalans a P allegations of terrorism an fraud are not sufficient to warrant a nullification of the election in the f nd t a n absenceofany a yofthethree instancesjus stifyingadecla arationoffailureofelection.Terrorism mmaynotbeinvokedto declareafailureofelectionandtodisenfr d franchisetheg greaternumbe eroftheelect toratethrough hthemisdeedsofonlya few, f absentan nyofthethreeinstancesspe ecifiedbylaw.Towarranta adeclarationo offailureofel lectiononthegroundof fraud, the frau must prev f ud vent or suspen the holdin of an electi nd ng ion, or mar fa atally the pre eparation, tran nsmission, custody and canvass of the election returns.The conditions for the decl c laration of fa failure of ele ection are stringent.Oth s herwise,electio onswillnever rendforloser rswillalwayscryfraudand dterrorism.
291|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts The a allegations of massive substitution of vo oters, multiple voting, and other electora anomalies should be e al resolvedinap r properelectio onprotestint theabsenceof fanyoftheth hreeinstances sjustifyingad declarationof ffailureof election.Inan e nelectionprot test,theelecti ionisnotset aside,andthe ereisonlyar revisionorrec countoftheballotscast todeterminet t therealwinne er. Then nullificationof felectionsord declarationof ffailureofele ectionsisanextraordinary remedy. Thep partywho seeks the null s lification of an election has the burden of proving en n s ntitlement to this remedy.It is not enou that a ugh verified petitio v onisfiled.Th heallegations inthepetition nmustmakeo outaprimafa aciecaseforth hedeclaration noffailure ofelection,and o dconvincinge evidencemust tsubstantiatetheallegation ns. einstantcase, itisapparent tthatthealleg gationsdonotconstitutesu ufficientgroun ndsforthenu ullification Inthe of o the election n.Pasandalan even failed t substantiat his allegati n to te ions of terror rism and irreg gularities.His evidence s consistedonly c yofaffidavits.Mereaffidav vitsareinsufficient,moreso ointhiscases sincetheaffid davitswereallexecuted byPasandalan b nsownpollwatchers. oOo BDUSAKURM M.TAN,etal.v v.COMMISSIO ONONELECT TIONS,etal. AB G.R R.Nos.166143 347,20Nove ember2006, ,ENBANC(Ve elasco,Jr.,J.) Three (3)instancesjustifythedec clarationoffailureofelectio on:(a)theelec ctioninanypo ollingplaceha asnotbeen heldonthedat h tefixedonacc countofforce majeure,viole ence,terrorism m,fraud,oroth heranalogous scauses;(b)th heelection in any polling place had bee suspendedbefore the hour fixed by law for the clos en sing of the vot ting on account offorce majeure, violen terrorism fraud, or oth analogous causes; or (c after the vo m nce, m, her s c) oting and duri the prepar ing ration and transmission o the election returns or in the custody or canvass th t of n n hereof, such el lectionresults in a failure t electon s to accountofforc a cemajeure,vio olence,terroris sm,fraud,oro otheranalogou uscauses. Petitio oners Absusa akur M. Tan (Tan) and Ba asaron Burah han (Burahan) were the g ) gubernatorial and vice gubernatorial candidates, respectively, o Sulu Provin in the May 2004 elections.Petitione together w g r of nce y ers, with other localcandidate esfiledwitht theCOMELEC 4Petitionsfo orDeclaration nofFailureof Electionsint thetownsofM Maimbung, Luuk, Tongkil, and Panama all ofSuluProvince.For the municip L , ao, r pality of Luuk another Petition for Decl k, laration of FailureofElec F ctionswasfile edbyanother rgubernatoria alcandidate,Y YusopJikiri. TanandBura ahanallegeds systematic fraud,terrorism,illegalsche f emes,andmachinationsallegedlyperpet tratedbypriv vateresponden nts(Benjamin nLoong,et al.)andtheirs a supportersre esultinginma assivedisenfra anchisemento ofvoters.Peti itionerssubm mittedvarious affidavits, all a executed b their poll watchers an a single d by nd disenfranchise voter, and photographs to substant ed d s tiate their allegations.Lik a kewise,arepo ortwassubmi ittedbyPhilip ppineArmy1L Lt.ArthurV.G Gelotin,Comm mandingOffice erofAlpha Company,whichallegedlyshowedmassiv C vefailureofvo oterstocasttheirballots. while, the CO OMELEC Secon Division, a nd acting on the Petitions for Declaration of Failure of Elections, r Meanw issuedanOrde ersuspending gtheproclama ationofthewi inninggubern natorialcandid dateofSulu,b butliftedthesu uspension 3dayslater,d 3 directingtheSuluPBOCtoc completethec canvassofvot tesandtobr ringallcanvas ssdocuments toManila, and a to proclai the winnin candidates for Governor inManila. E im ng r Even before th filing of th 4 aforesaid petitions, he he Tanhadfiled 4otherpetitions,onebeforetheMunici T ipalBoardof Canvassersof fParangforth heexclusiono ofelection returnsfrom s r several precin ncts, and the other three before the Pr rovincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu toexclude certificatesof canvassfromLuuk,Panam c mao,andParan ng.Allthesep petitionswere edismissedby ytheBoardsc concerned, prompting pet p titioner Tan to file an app t peal with the COMELEC Fi irst Division w which issued an Orderdirecting the concernedboa c ardsofcanvas sserstosuspendtheirproce eedingsandto orefrainfrom mproclaiminganywinningcandidate. However,onth H hesamedayt thattheCOME ELECFirstDiv visionissuedth hesaidOrder, ,privaterespo ondentBenjam minLoong (Loong)wasp ( proclaimedthe ewinninggov vernorofSulu uandheassum medoffice.Th hisprompted dpetitionerTa antofilea PetitionforAn P nnulmentoftheProclamationwiththeC COMELECFirs stDivision.Th heCOMELECF FirstDivision issuedan Orderwhichg O grantedthepetitionandann nulledtheproclamationofr respondentLo oongasgovern norofSuluPr rovince.
292|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts COMELECen banc dismissed all petitions filed to decl b s lare a failure of elections.This prompte Jikiri to ed The C immediatelyc converthispetitionadcaute elamintoare egularelection nprotestagain nstLoong,wh hichwasgrantedbythe COMELEC Firs Division. Loong filed his Answer wit Motion to Dismiss and/ with Coun C st s th /or nter Protest. Petitioner Loonganchore L edhismotion ntodismisson ntheground thattheCOMELEChadno jurisdictionto otakecogniza anceofan electionprotes e stfiledoutoftime.Saidpet titionwasdism missed. ISSUES: 1. W Whetherthere espondentCO OMELECcomm mittedgravea abuseofdiscretionamount tingtolackor rexcessof ju urisdiction,in dismissingth heconsolidate edpetitionsd despitetheevi identmassive edisenfranchi isementof th hevoters 2. W Whether theproclamationo r oftherespond dents,albeitp patentlynullandvoid,bars thefilingoft theinstant pe etitionsforde eclarationoffa ailureofelecti ions 3. W Whether COME ELEC has jur risdiction to e entertain sim multaneously p preproclamat tion controve ersies and el lectoralprotes sts HELD: H Petitio onsDENIED. NoDisenfranc N chisementofVoters Petitio onerswantus stoexaminet theevidencea andthefindin ngsoffactsby theCOMELEC Cenbancasse ertingthat there was evi t ident massive disenfranch e hisement of voters.While t this Court is not a trier o facts, and u of under the Constitution, t C this Court res solves cases i which only an error or q in y question of la is involved Neverthele aftera aw d. ess, thorough exam t mination of th documenta evidence p he ary presented by petitioners in the proceed n dings below, w find no we cogentreasontoalterthefindingsandco c n onclusionsofr respondentCO OMELECenba anc. Factua findings of the COMELE which has the expertis in the enf al f EC s se forcement and administrat d tion of all election laws and regulatio are bindin on the Cou e ons ng urtand must b respected. Besides, based on the CO be OMELECen bancsscrutiny b yofthefacts, theallegation nsdonotconstitutesufficie entgroundstonullifythee election.Wea agreewith thefindingoft t theCOMELEC Cenbancthattheevidencerelieduponby ypetitionerst tosupportthe eirchargesoffraudand irregularities in the condu of elections in the qu uct uestioned mun nicipalities co onsisted of affidavits prep pared and executed by t e their own rep presentatives; and that the other pieces of evidence submitted by petitioners were not e s credible and i c inadequate to substantiate petitioners c charges of fra and irregularities in th conduct of elections. aud he f Mere affidavit are insuffici M ts ient, more so, when they w , were executed by petitione poll watch d ers hers.The con nclusion of respondent CO r OMELEC is co orrect that alt though petitio oners specific cally alleged v violence, terro orism, fraud, and other irregularitiesi intheconduct tofelections,theyfailedtosubstantiateorprovesaidallegations.H Hadtherebee enmassive disenfranchise d ement,petitionersshouldh havepresented dtheaffidavit tsofthesedise enfranchisedv voters,instead dofonlya singleaffidavit s tofoneallege edlydisenfran nchisedvoter.Wegoalong withtheCOM MELECenbancingivingmo oreweight to t the affidavi and certifi its ications execu uted by the m members of th Board of E he Election Inspectors and the PNP and e militaryautho m oritiesthatthe eelectionshel ldwerepeace efulandorderly,underthep presumptionthattheirofficialduties hadbeenregu h ularlyperformed. Nofailureofe N election COMELEC cor rrectly dismissed the Petit tions for Decl laration of Fa ailure of Elect tionsince the electoral e The C anomaliesalle a egedinthepetitionsshould dhavebeenra aisedinanele ectionprotest t,notinapetitiontodeclar reafailure of o election. Under Republi Act No. 71 ic 166, otherwis known as The Synchronized Electi se ions Law of 1991,the COMELECenb C bancisempow weredtodecla areafailureof felectionunde erSection6of ftheOmnibus sElectionCod de.Section 6oftheCodep 6 prescribesthe econditionsfo ortheexercise eofthispower r,thus:
293|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ION6.Failure eofElection. If,onaccountofforcemaje eure,violence e,terrorism,fr raudorotheranalogous SECTI causes[,]thee c electioninany ypollingplace ehasnotbeen nheldonthed datefixed,or hadbeensusp pendedbefore ethehour fixed by law f closingof the voting, o after the vo f for f or oting and dur ring the prep paration and t transmission of the the electionreturn e nsorinthecu ustodyorcanv vassthereof,suchelectionr resultsinafailuretoelect,a andinanyofs suchcases the t failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a e e verifiedpetitio v onbyanyinterestedparty yandafterdue enoticeandh hearing,callfo ortheholding gorcontinuat tionofthe election not h e held, suspende or which r ed resulted in a failure to ele on a date reasonably c ect close to the d date of the election nothe e eld,suspendedorwhichresultedinafai iluretoelectb butnotlatert thanthirtyday ysafterthece essationof thecauseofsu t uchpostponem mentorsuspe ensionoftheelectionorfailu uretoelect. edproviso,th hree(3)instan ncesjustifythe edeclarationo offailureofelection,towit: Fromtheabovecite anypollingpla acehasnotbe eenheldonthedatefixedo onaccountoff forcemajeure e,violence, (a)theelectionina terrorism,frau t ud,orotheran nalogouscauses; (b) th heelection in any polling pl a lace had been suspendedbe efore the hour fixed by law for the clos w sing of the votingonacco v ountofforcem majeure,violen nce,terrorism, ,fraud,orotheranalogouscauses;or (c)aft terthevoting gandduringth hepreparatio onandtransm missionofthe electionretur rnsorinthec custodyor canvass thereof, such elect c tionresults in a failure to e electon accou offorce ma unt ajeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or , otheranalogou o uscauses. esethree(3)i instances,ther remustbea resultingfailu uretoelect.A AsstatedinBa anaga,Jr.v.Co ommission Inthe onElections,t o thisisobviou usinthefirst twoscenarios s,wherethee electionwasn notheldandw wheretheele ectionwas suspended.A s Astothethirdscenario,wh heretheprepa arationandth hetransmissio onoftheelect tionreturnsg giveriseto the t consequen of failure to elect must, as mention earlier, be interpreted to mean that nobody eme nce ned e t erged as a winner. w naga,weheldthat: InBan etheCOMELE ECcanactona averifiedpeti itionseekingt todeclareafa ailureofelectiontwocondit tionsmust Before concur, namel (1) no votin took place in the precin or precinc on the dat fixed by law or even if there was c ly ng e nct cts te w, voting, the ele v ection resulte in a failure to elect; and (2) the vote not cast w ed e d es would have aff fected the res sult of the election. Note that the caus of such fail e se lure of electio could only be any of the following:f on y force majeure violence, e, terrorism,frau t udorotheran nalogouscause es. utinyofthepe etitionsfiledb beforetheCOM MELECshows sthatpetition nersneveralle egedthatnov votingwas Ascru held nor was voting susp h s pended in the subject mu unicipalities.N Neither did p petitioners allege that no one was elected.Petiti e ionersonlya allegethatthe erewasasha amelectiona andsimilarsh hamcanvassi ing.Asnotedearlier,to warrantadecl w larationoffailureofelectio on,thealleged dirregularities smustbepro oventohavep preventedors suspended the t holding of an election, or marred fat f tally the preparation and t transmission, custody, and canvassof th election he returns.These r eessentialfac ctsshouldhav vebeenclearl lyallegedbyp petitionersbe eforetheCOM MELECenbanc c,butthey werenot. w t i on or oclamation of the responde ents, albeitpatently null Anent the second issue raised o whether o not the pro andvoid,barsthefilingofth a heinstantpeti itionsfordecl larationoffail lureofelection n,wefindtha atthismatterisalready moot as a non m nissue, as due course was given to the instant petitio even if th annulment of the procla e ons he amation of respondentLo r oongthrough theJune21,2 2004COMELE ECFirstDivisi ionOrderwas ssetasideand dsupersededbyMarch 18,2005Orde 1 erdismissingt theappealofp petitionerTan ninSPANos.0 04163,04164,and04165 5. Simultaneous S sprosecutionofpreprocla amationcontr roversiesand delectionpro otests
294 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts On th last issue of the propri he o iety of prosec cuting simulta aneously pre proclamation controversie and an n es electoralprote e est,petitioner rLoongholds thenegative view,submitt ting,ingist,th hatanelection ncontestshou uldbeput on o hold until preproclama ation controve ersies are con ncluded.He th faults and goes on to ascribe grave abuse of hus d e discretionont d theCOMELECFirstDivision forholdingo n otherwise. Petitio oner Loongs arguments, for all their easilyperceptible merit are not an s r t, nchored on any legal provision.The p eyarecommo onsensicaltob besure.None etheless,layinggraveabuse eofdiscretion tepsofthe onthedoorst respondentCO r OMELECFirst tDivisionforg givingduecou ursetorespon ndentJikiris electoralprot testwithoutw waitingfor thefinalresult t toftheprepr roclamationap ppealsisadiff ferentmatteraltogether. Foron ne,thereisno olaworrulep prohibitingthe esimultaneou usprosecution noradjudicati ionofprepro oclamation controversies and elections protests.All c s lowing the sim multaneous prosecution sc cenario may b explained b the fact be by that preprocl t lamation cont troversies and election pro d otests differ in terms of th issues invo he olved and the evidence e admissible in each caseand the objectiv each seeks to achieve.M a d ve Moreover, the Court, under certain circu r umstances, even encourag the reinfo e ges orcement of a preproclam a mation suit wi an election protest.As we held inM ith n Matalam v. Commissionon C nElections: TheCourtagonized doveritsinab bilitytofullylookintothee electionirregu ularitiesallege edbypetition ner,dueto theverylimite t edscopeofpr reproclamati ioncontrovers sy.Thus,the Courtremind dslawyershan ndlingelectioncasesto makeacareful m lchoiceofrem medies.Whereitbecomesa apparentthatapreproclam mationsuitisi inadequate,th heyshould immediately c choose anothe timely rem er medy, like a petition to ann the election results or to declare a failure of nul elections orev e venanelectio onprotest,so thatelection irregularitiesmaybefully ventilatedan ndproperlyad djudicated bythecompet b tenttribunal. another, simu ultaneous adju udications off more pra fer actical feature than piece es emeal adjudic cations in For a expeditingthe e eresolutionofcases.Wem muststresstheimportance ofspeedydis spositionofelectioncases becausea la atedecision,s suchasoneth hatcomesoutwhenthete ermofofficeindisputeisa abouttoexpir re,isaveritab bleuseless scrapofpaper s r. oOo ATUANDALS S.AMPATUAN N,etal.v.COM MMISSIONON NELECTIONS S,etal. DA G.R.No.149803,31 1January2002,ENBANC(Pardo,J.) actthatacand didateproclaim medhasassum medofficedoes snotdeprivet theCOMELECofitsauthorit tytoannul Thefa anycanvassan a ndillegalproclamation. l Petitio oners and re espondents w were candidat for the p tes provincial ele ective positions in the pr rovince of Maguindanao intheMay20 M 001election.P PetitionerDat tuAndalS.Am mpatuan(Amp patuan)andre espondentDa atuZacaria A.Candao(Can A ndao)contend dedforthepositionofgovernor.Theslat teofAmpatuan nemergedaswinnersaspe erelection returns. Respo r ondents filed a petition with theComm mission on Ele ections (COME ELEC)for the annulment o election of results and/or declaration of failure of electionsin several mun r n nicipalitiesin theprovinceof Maguindan nao. They claimedthatth c heelections werecomplet telyshamand dfarcical,and dthattheball lotswerefille edupenmassebyafew persons the n p night before election day, a e and in some precincts, the ballot boxes, official ball e lots and othe election er paraphernalia were not de p elivered at all. COMELECissued an ord suspendin the proclamation of the winning der ng e candidates for congressma of the seco c r an ond district, g governor, vice egovernor an board mem nd mbers ofMag guindanao, whichwas,ho w owever,count teredbythep petitioners.Su ubsequently,C COMELECissuedanorderli iftingthesusp pensionof proclamation of the winnin candidates for governo vicegovern and boar members o the first an second p ng s or, nor rd of nd districts. Cons d sequently, the Provincial Board of Canva e assers proclai imed petitioners winners. Respondents filed with theSupremeC t Courtapetitio ontosetasidetheCOMELEC Corder,andp preliminaryinjunctiontosu uspendtheeff fectsofthe proclamation ofthepetition p ners.Meantim me,petitioners sassumedthe eirrespective officesandth hetheCourtre esolvedto denyresponde d entspetition.
295|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Petitio onersassump ptionintoofficenotwithsta anding,theCO OMELECorder redtheconsol lidationofres spondents petitionforde p eclarationoffa ailureofelectionswith.The eCOMELECfu urtherordered darandomte echnicalexaminationon fourtoseven precinctsper f rmunicipality yonthethumb bmarksand signaturesof thevoterswhovotedand affixedin their voters r t registration records, and f forthwith dire ected the pro oduction of re elevant electio documents in these on s municipalities. TheCOMELE m ECissued ano other orderdi irecting the co ontinuation o the hearing and disposit of g tion of the consolidatedS c SPAsonthefa ailureofelectionsandother rincidentsrel latedthereto. Itlikewiseor rderedthecon ntinuation of o the technic examinati cal ion of electio documents as authorized. TheCOME on s ELECissued a order out an tlining the proceduretob p befollowedin nthetechnicalexamination.Hence,thepe etition. ISSUE: Wheth the COM her MELEC was d divested of its jurisdiction to hear and decide res n spondents pe etition for declarationoffailureofelec d ctionsafterpe etitionershadbeenproclaim med HELD: H Petitio onDENIED. Petitio oners submit that by virtue of their proclamation as winners, the only re t n emedy left fo private or respondentsis r stofileanele ectionprotest t,inwhichcas se,originalju urisdictionlies swiththereg gularcourts.P Petitioners citedseveralr c rulingsthatan nelectionprot testisthepro operremedyfo oralosingcan ndidateafter theproclamat tionofthe winning cand w didate. Howev ver, the auth horities petitioners relied upon involv ved preprocla amation cont troversies. InLoongv. Com mmission onE Elections, we r ruled that a preproclama ation controve ersy is not the sameas an actionfor e annulmentofe a electionresults,orfailureo ofelections.T Thesetworem medieswerem morespecifica allydistinguish hedinthis wise: w While, however, theCOMELECis restricted, in preprocla t amation cases to an exam s, mination of th election he returnsonthe r eirfaceandis swithoutjuris sdictiontogobeyondorbe ehindtheman ndinvestigate eelectionirre egularities, theCOMELECi duty bound to investiga allegations of fraud, ter t is d ate s rrorism, viole ence, and other analogous causes in actions for an a nnulment of election result or for decl e ts laration of failure of electi ions, as the O Omnibus Elec ction Code denominatest d thesame.Thu us,theCOMEL LEC,inthecas seofactionsf forannulment tofelectionr resultsordecl larationof failure of elec f ctions, may conduct techn nical examinat tion of electio documents and compa and analy voters on are yze signatures and thumbprint s d tsin order to determine w whether or not the election had indeed been free, honest and t ns d clean. c
The fa that a can act ndidate procla aimed has ass sumed office d does not depr rive theCOME ELECof its au uthority to annulanycan a nvassandilleg galproclamati ion.Inthecas seatbar,wec cannotassum methatpetitionersproclam mationand assumptionintoofficeonJu a une30,2001,w waslegalprec ciselybecause etheconductb bywhichthee electionswere eheldwas put p in issue b responden in their p by nts petition for an nnulment of election resu and/or de ults eclaration of failure of elections. e ecaseatbar,t theCOMELECisdutyboundtoconducta aninvestigationastothev veracityofres spondents Inthe allegationsof massivefraud a dandterrorismthatattend dedthecondu uctoftheMay 14,2001elec ction.Itiswel lltostress thattheCOME t ELEChas start conductin thetechnical examinatio onNovemb 16, 2001. However, by an urgent ted ng on ber motionforat m temporaryres strainingorde erfiledbypet titioners,invirtueofwhich hweissued a atemporaryr restraining order onNove o ember 20, 20 001, the techn nical examina ation was held in abeyance until the pr d e resent. In ord not to der frustratethee f endsofjustice e,weliftthet temporaryres strainingorde erandallowt thetechnicale examinationt toproceed withdeliberat w tedispatch. oOo
296 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts TOMAST.BA T ANAGA,JR.v.C COMMISSION NONELECTIO ONS,etal. G.R.No.134 4696,31July y2000,ENBA ANC(Quisumb bing,J.) Anele ectionprotesti isanordinaryactionwhilea apetitiontode eclareafailure eofelectionsi isaspecialact tion. Petitio onerTomasT T.Banaga,Jr.(B Banaga)andp privaterespon ndentFlorenci ioM.Bernabe e,Jr.(Bernabe) )werethe candidatesfor c rvicemayoro oftheCityofP Paraaqueint theMay1998 8election.The ecityboardof fcanvassersproclaimed Bernabe,thew B winnerforhav vinggarneredatotalof71,9 977votesoft thetotalvotes scastforthev vicemayoralty yposition. Ontheotherh O hand,Banagar receivedthes secondhighes stnumberofv votesforthes saidposition,w with68,970o ofthetotal votescast.Thus,thedifferencebetweent v e thevotesrece eivedbytheBernabeandBa anagais3,007 7votes. Dissat tisfied, Banag filed with the COMELE an action denominated as Petition to Declare Failure of ga EC, d n Electionsand/ E /orForAnnulmentofElections,alleging gthatthelocalelectionsfo ortheofficeof fViceMayori intheCity ofParaaque,MetroManila o a,amountstoa adenigrationoftheexpress sionofthetru uewillofthep people,asitw wastainted withwidespre w eadelectiona anomalieswhi ichconstituteselectionfrau ud.Suchano omaliesinclud deelectionoff fenseslike votebuyingan v ndflyingvoter rsbeingallow wedtovote;di iscrepancies, alterations,fa alsifications,andblatantom missionsin electionreturn e ns;andthefa actthatinace ertainprecinc ctwherepeti itionershocki inglyissuppo osedtohaver received0 votes,which,accordingtoBanaga,wass v statisticallyim mpossibleash hewasthethe eincumbentV ViceMayoroft theCityof Paraaqueatt P thattime.The eCOMELECdis smissedBanagassuitonth hegroundthat twhatisrelieduponbypet titionerdo not n fall under any of the instances enu r umerated in S Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Cod regarding Failure of de Elections.The E eelectiontribu unalconclude edthatbasedo ontheallegat tionsofthepe etition,itiscle earthatanelectiontook placeandthatitdidnotresu p ultinafailure etoelect.Henc ce,thepetition n. ISSUE: Wheth herpublicrespondentacted dwithgravea abuseofdiscre etionindismissingBanagaspetition HELD: H Petitio onDISMISSED D. While epetitionerm mayhaveinten ndedtoinstitu uteanelectionprotestbyp prayingthats saidactionmayalsobe consideredan c nelectionprot test,inourview,petitioner rsactionisapetitiontodeclareafailur reofelections sorannul electionresult e ts.Itisnotanelectionprote est. First, his petition before the CO b OMELEC was instituted pu ursuant to Sec ction 4 of Rep public Act No 7166 in o. relationtoSec r ction6ofthe OmnibusElectionCode.Se ection4ofRA A7166referstopostponement,failureo ofelection and special el a lectionswhile Section 6 o the Omnibus Election C e of Code relates to failure of election.It is simply f captionedasP c PetitiontoDec clareFailureo ofElectionsand/orForAnnu ulmentofElections. nd,anelection nprotestisan nordinaryact tionwhileapetitiontodeclareafailure ofelectionsis saspecial Secon action under t 1993 COM a the MELEC Rules of Procedure as amended e d.An election protest is go n overned by R Rule 20 on ordinaryactions,whileapetitiontodecla o arefailureofe electionsiscov veredbyRule e26underspe ecialactions. Inthis scase,petition nerfiledhisp petitionasasp pecialactiona andpaidthec corresponding gfeetherefor. Thus,the petitionwasd p docketedasSP PA98383.Th hisconformst topetitioners scategorizatio onofhispetit tionasoneto odeclarea failureofelect f tionsorannulelectionresu ults.Incontras st,anelection nprotestisass signedadocke etnumbersta ingwith art EPC,meanin ngelectionpro otestcase. Third, petitioner did not comply with the requirements fo filing an el , y or lection protes st.He failed t pay the to requiredfiling r gfeeandcashdepositsfora anelectionpro otest.Failuretopayfilingf feeswillnotve esttheelectio ontribunal ju urisdiction ov the case.Such procedural lapse on the part of a petitioner would clearly warrant the outright ver n y e dismissalofhi d isaction.
297|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts h,anenbancdecisionofCO OMELECinan nordinaryact tionbecomes finalandexe ecutoryaftert thirty(30) Fourth days from its promulgation while anen bancdecision in a special action becom d n, n mesfinal and e executoryafte five (5) er daysfrompromulgation,un d nlessrestraine edbytheSupr remeCourt.Fo orthatreason n,apetitionca annotbetreate edasboth anelectionpro a otestandapetitiontodecla arefailureofe elections. Fifth,theallegation nsinthepetiti iondecisively determineits snature.Petit tioneralleged dthatthelocalelections fortheofficeo f ofvicemayor rinParaaque eCityheldon nMay11,199 98,denigratesthetruewill ofthepeople easitwas marredwithw m widespreadan nomaliesonaccountofvote ebuying,flyin ngvotersand glaringdiscre epanciesinth heelection returns.Heav r verredthattho oseincidentsw warrantthed declarationofafailureofele ections. Given these circum mstances, publ responden cannot be s lic nt said to have g gravely erred in treating petitioners actionasapet a titiontodeclar refailureofel lectionsortoa annulelection nresults. avepainstakin nglyexamined dthepetition filedbypetit tionerBanagabeforetheCO OMELEC.But twefound Weha thatpetitioner t rdidnotallegeatallthatelectionswereeithernothel ldorsuspende ed.Neitherdi idheaverthatalthough therewasvoti t ing,nobodyw waselected.Onthecontrary,heconcede edthatanelec ctiontookplac cefortheofficeofvice mayorofPara m aaqueCity,andthatprivat terespondent twas,infact, proclaimede electedtothat tpost.While petitioner contendsthat theelectionw c wastaintedw withwidesprea adanomalies, ,itmustbeno otedthattow warrantadecl larationof failureofelect f tionthecomm missionoffrau udmustbesuchthatitprev ventedorsusp pendedtheho oldingofanelection,or marred fatally the preparat m y tion and trans smission, cust tody and canv vass of the election returns.These esse ential facts oughttohavebeenallegedc o clearlybythepetitionerbel low,buthedid dnot. Petitio onerarguesth hattheCOMEL LECshouldno othavetreatedhisprayerfo orannulment tofelectionsa asaprayer fordeclaration f noffailureof felections.Th hisargumenti isplainlygrat tuitousaswel llasimmateri ial.Aprayer todeclare failure of elec f ctions and a prayer to annul the electio results for vice mayor in this case ar actually of the same p on re f nature.Wheth an action is for declaration of failure of election or for annu n her ns ulment of election results, based on allegations of fraud, terro a f orism, violence or analog gous cause, t the Omnibus Election Code denomina ates them similarly.Nop s positivegainw willaccruetop petitionersca ausebymakingadistinction nwithoutadif fference. Finally petitioner claims that public respo y, ondent gravel abused its discretion w ly s when it dism missed his petitionmotup p propio.Howe ever,thefactthataverifiedpetitionhasb beenfileddoesnotmeanth hatahearingo onthecase shouldfirstbe s eheldbeforeC COMELECcanactonit.The epetitiontode eclareafailureofelectiona and/ortoannu ulelection resultsmustshowonitsfac r cethattheconditionsnece essarytodecla areafailureto oelectarepresent.Intheirabsence, thepetitionm t mustbedenied doutright.Pub blicrespondenthadnorec coursebuttod dismisspetition.Normay petitioner nowcomplain n nofdenialofd dueprocess,onthisscore,f forhisfailuretoproperlyfil leanelectionprotest.TheCOMELEC can c only rule on what was filed before it.It committ no grave abuse of disc ted cretion in dism missing his pe etition to declarefailure d eofelectionsa and/orforann nulmentofele ectionsforbe einggroundles ss,hencewith houtmerit. oOo
ExecutionPe E endingAppe eal

CHARITONA AVAROSAv.C COMMISSION ONELECTIONS,etal. G.R.No.157 7957,18September2003, ,ENBANC(Ca arpio,J.)
Togra antexecutionp pendingappea alinelectionp protestcases,t thefollowingr requisitesmus stconcur:(1)t theremust beamotionby b ytheprevailin ngpartywith noticetothe adverseparty y;(2)theremu ustbegoodre easonsforthe eexecution pending appea and (3) th order gran p al; he nting execution pending ap ppeal must sta the good reasons. The following ate constitutegood c dreasons,and dacombinatio onoftwoormo oreofthemwi illsufficetogr rantexecution npendingappe eal:(1)the public interest involved or the will of th electorate; (2) the short p t he tness of the re emaining por rtion of the te erm of the contestedoffice;and(3)thelengthoftime c ethattheelect tioncontestha asbeenpendin ng.
298 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Petitio onerCharitoN Navarosa(Na avarosa)andr respondentRo ogerM.Esto (Esto)werec candidatesfor rmayorof Libacao, Aklan in the May 2001 electio L n y ons. The COM MELEC Municipal Board of Canvassers of Libacao proclaimed f petitionerNav p varosaasthed dulyelectedm mayor,witha winningmarg ginof3votesoverrespond dentEsto.Clai imingthat irregularities m marred the ca anvassing of b ballots in several precincts respondent Esto filed an election prot s, test in the Regional Trial Court Kalibo (RTC). Navarosa, who als claimed tha canvassing irregularities prejudiced h filed a R l o so at s her, counterprotes c stinthesame ecase. Afterrevisionofthe econtestedba allots,thetrialcourtrender redjudgmentinfavorofres spondentEsto o.Thetrial court found th responden Esto obtain 4,595 votes over petiti c hat nt ned ioner Navaros 4,553 vote Thus, the t sas es. trial court declaredrespo d ondentEstoth heelectedmayorofLibacao obyamarginof42votesandannulledth heearlierpro oclamation ofpetitionerN o Navarosa.The etrialcourtal lsoorderedpe etitionerNava arosatopayr respondentEs stoactualdam magesand attorneys fees Navarosa appealed the t a s. trial courts ru uling to the Commission on Elections (C n COMELEC). Es on the sto, other hand, fil with the trial court a m o led t motion for exe ecution of the judgment pe e ending petitio oner Navarosa appeal. as Navarosa opposed Estos motion. In the alternative, p N m petitioner Nav varosa offered to file a sup d persedeas bon to stay nd execution pen e nding appeal, should the tr court gra responden Estos moti rial ant nt ion. The RTC granted Esto motion os subjecttothe filingofaP30 s 00,000bond.H However,inth hesameorder r,thetrialcou urtalsogrante edNavarosas sprayerto stay the exec s cution pendin appeal, up ng pon filing aP6 600,000 supe ersedeas bond. Both Nava arosa and Es sought sto reconsideratio of the Ord but the tr court den r on der rial nied their motions. Esto fil a petition forcertiorar led n riwith the COMELEC aga C ainst the Orde COMELEC S er. Second Division affirmedt trial court Order gran the ts nting executionpending appealandnu a ullifiedthesta ayoftheexecu ution,rulingt thatExceptw whenthetrial courtreverse editselfinam motionfor reconsideratio r onofitsorder rgrantingimm mediateexecu ution,itcanno otlateronstay yorrestraint theexecution thereofin theguiseofallowingthelosingpartyto fileasuperse t edeasbond.N Navarosasoug ghtreconsider rationofthis rulingbut theCOMELECEnBancdenie t edhermotion n.Hence,thisp petition. ISSUES: 1. W Whethertheex xecutionofthe etrialcourtsdecisionpend dingappealsh houldbeallow wed 2. W Whether COMELEC En Ban acted with grave abuse of discretio amounting to lack or excess of nc h on g ju urisdictionwh henitaffirmed dits2ndDivisi ionsresolutio onrulingthat tthetrialcour rthadnopow wertostay th heexecutiono ofitsdecisioninanelectioncontestpendingappeal HELD: H ELECResolutio onsAFFIRME ED. COME GoodReasons G sExisttoGran ntExecutionP PendingAppe ealinthisCas se Togra antexecutionpendingappealinelection nprotestcase es,thefollowingrequisites mustconcur: :(1)there must be a motion by the prevailing part with notice to the adver party; (2) there must b good reaso for the m ty e rse be ons execution pen e nding appeal; and (3) the order grant e ting execution pending ap n ppeal must st tate the good reasons. d PetitionerNav P varosaconced desresponden ntEstoscomp pliancewithth hefirstandth hirdrequisite es.Whatshec contestsis thetrialcourts t sfindingthatt therearegood dreasonstoo orderdiscretio onaryexecutio onofitsdecisi ion. mas ission on Elec ctions,the Cou after reviewing pertin urt, nent jurisprud dence, summa arized the InRam v. Commi circumstances c squalifyingasgoodreasons sjustifyingexe ecutionpendingappeal,thu us: ollowingconst titutegoodreasons,andac combinationo oftwoormoreofthemwill lsufficeto Inanutshell,thefo grantexecutio g onpendingap ppeal:(1)thep publicinteres stinvolvedor thewilloftheelectorate;( (2)theshortn nessofthe remaining por r rtion of the te erm of the con ntested office and (3) the length of tim that the ele e; me ection contest has been t pending. p
299|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thetr rialcourtinth hepresentcase,relyingonc casesreviewed dinRamas,in nvokedtwogo oodreasonsto ojustifyits order allowing execution pending appea First, the order will give substance an meaningto o g al. e nd othe peoples smandate. Second, more than 10 mon S nths or nearly 1/3 of the 3year term o the office i question had already la y of in apsed. The COMELECfoun C ndthesegood dreasonssuff ficient.Being consistentwi ithRamas,wefindnograve eabuseofdis scretionin therulingofth t hetrialcourto oroftheCOME ELEC. oner Navaros sas invocatio ofCamlian v. Commiss on n sion on Electionsis unav vailing. InCam mlian, the Petitio COMELECrule C edthatcircum mstancessuch haspublicint terestinthet trueoutcome oftheelections[;]thatthe protestee il llegallymanufacturedvotes s[;]andthatth heappealwas sinterposedfo ordelaydono otsufficetoju ustifyexecutio onpending appeal.Onapp a peal,wesusta ainedtheCOM MELEC,notingthatnotevery yinvocationo ofpublicinter restwithxxx xreference tothewilloft t theelectorate ecanbeappre eciatedasagoodreasones speciallysoif fthesameapp pearstobese elfserving andhasnotbe a eenclearlyest tablished.The eCourtfurtherpointedoutthattheprote estantfailedtosubstantiate ehisclaim thattheappea t alisdilatorya asitinfactas ssailsthetrialcourtsrulin ng.Thesecircu umstancesareabsentinth hepresent case,precludin c ngCamliansap pplication. Section3ofRu S ule39NotAp pplicableToE ElectionProte estCases e n pressly provid for execu ded ution pending appeal of tr courts g rial Unlike the Election Code of 1971,which exp rulings in elec r ction protests the present election laws are silent o such remed Neverthel s, t on dy. less, Section 2 Rule 39 2, (Section2)oft ( theRulesofC Court(now1997RulesofCi ivilProcedure e)appliesinsu uppletorycharactertoelect tioncases, thusallowinge t executionpen ndingappealin nthediscretio onofthecourt.Asexplained dinRamas: OmnibusElect tionCodeofth hePhilippines s(B.P.Blg.88 81)andtheot therelectionl lawsdonotspecifically TheO provideforex p xecutionpendingappealof judgmentin electioncases s,unliketheE ElectionCode of1971whoseSection 218madeexpressreference 2 etotheRulesofCourtonex xecutionpend dingappeal;xx xx Thefa ailureofthee extantelection nlawstorepr roduceSection n218oftheE ElectionCode of1971does notmean that execution of judgment pending app t n t peal is no lon nger available in election c e cases. In election contests involving elective municipal officials which are cognizable by courts of g e s, y general jurisdiction; and th hose involvin elective ng barangayoffic b cials,whicharecognizableb bycourtsoflim mitedjurisdic ction,executio onofjudgmen ntpendingapp pealunder Section2ofR S Rule39ofthe RulesofCour rtarepermissiblepursuan nttoRule143 3oftheRules ofCourt,whi ichisnow Section4,Rule S e1ofthe1997 7RulesofCivi ilProcedure.T ThisSection4 4provides: SEC4.Inwhatcasesnotapplicab ble.TheseRul lesshallnota applytoelectio oncases,land dregistration, cadastral, naturalization and insolven proceedin n ncy ngs, and othe cases not herein provided for, exce by analog or in a er ept gy suppletorycha s aracterandwheneverpract ticableandconvenient. egional, provincial, and city officials, wh y hich fall within the exclusiv original n ve As to election cases involving re ju urisdiction of the COMELE Section 3 o Article IXC of the Const f EC, of C titution vests the COMELEC with the au uthority to promulgate it rules of procedure in order to exped p ts dite disposition of election cases, inclu n uding prepro oclamation controversies. Additionally Section 52( Article VII of the Omn c y, (c), nibus Election Code empowers the COM n MELEC to promulgate ru p ules and regu ulations imple ementing the provisions of the Code or other laws w f r which it is re equired to enforceandad e dminister.Acc cordingly,the eCOMELECpr romulgatedth heCOMELECR RulesofProce edure.Section n1ofRule 41 4 thereof ex xpressly prov vides that [i]n the absence of any app n plicable provi ision in [said Rules, the pertinent d] provisions of the Rules of Court in the P p C Philippines sh be applica hall able by analo or in a suppletory char ogy racter and effect. e Furthermore,asup persedeasbon ndunderSecti ion3cannotfu fullyprotectth heinterestsof ftheprevailin ngpartyin electionprotes e stcases.Sectio on3provides: Stay o discretionar execution.D of ry Discretionary execution iss sued under th preceding section may be stayed he upon approva by the prop court of a sufficient bon filed by th party again whom it i directed, co u al per nd, he nst is onditioned
300 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts upontheperfo u ormanceofthejudgmentor rorderallowe edtobeexecu utedincaseitshallbefinall lysustainedin nwholeor inpart.Thebo ondthusgiven nmaybeproce eededagainst tonmotionwithnoticetoth hesurety. A sup persedeas bon secures th performan of the ju nd he nce udgment or o order appeale from in case of its ed affirmation.Se a ection3findsapplicationin nordinarycivi ilactionswhe eretheinteres stofthepreva ailingpartyiscapableof pecuniaryestimation,andconsequently,ofprotection,throughthef p filingofasupe ersedeasbond d.Thus,thepe enultimate sentence of Se s ection 3 states: [T]he bond thus given m be procee d may eded against o motion wi notice to t surety. on ith the Consequently, C pplicationine electionprote estcaseswher rejudgments invariablyincludeorders whichare itfindsnoap notcapableof n fpecuniaryestimationsuch hastherightt toholdofficea andperformi itsfunctions.A Aswellobserv vedbythe COMELECSeco C ondDivisioni initsResolutio onintheinsta antcase: upersedeasbo ond,asusedu underSection3,Rule39oft the1997Rule esofCivilProc cedure,referstoabond, Thesu eitherincash orasuretyb e bond,filedby thelosingpa artyinanordi inarycivilact tiontosecure etheperforma anceorto satisfy the jud s dgment appea aled from in c case it is affirm on appea in favor of the prevailin party. A supersedeas med al ng bond is filed p b purposely for the performa r ance of the ju udgment appe ealed from in case it is aff n firmed by the appellate court. On the assumption that the filing of the super c t g rsedeas bond applies in an election pro n otest case, the practical e considerations c softhematte erdictatethat titcannotsec curetheperfo ormanceofor satisfytheju udgmentrende eredinan election prote which basically involve the right to hold a publ office and the performa e est es o lic ance of its functions in accordance with the mandate of the law except inso a w, ofar as the m monetary awar provided in the special order. By rd n allowing the f a filing of a sup persedeas bon to stay the execution of a judgment in an election protest dec nd e f n claring the protestant, as in the case of petitioner herein, as the winning candidate who is entitled to the right to hold and p o o perform the fu p unctions of th contested p he public office, w would render the judgmen in an election protest illu r nt usory. xxx Whilethesupe W ersedeasbond densuresthat ttheappealed ddecisionifaf ffirmedissatis sfied,inanele ectionprotestcase,such bond,intheev b venttheappea aledcaseisaf ffirmedandth heexecutionp pendingappea alisprovento obemeritorious,cannot adequatelyan a nswerforthe deprivationofadulyelecte edcandidate ofhispost,an ndhisconstit tuentsoftheir rleaderof choice,suchde c eprivationbei ingunquantifi iable. pplied to the present case, the supersed p deas bond pe etitioner Nava arosa filed can only answe for that n er As ap portionofthetrialcourtsru p ulingordering ghertopayto orespondentE Estoactualda amages,attorn neysfeesandt thecostof thesuit.Itcan t nnotsecureex xecutionoftha atportionpro oclaimingresp pondentEstod dulyelectedm mayorofLibac cao,Aklan bypopularwilloftheelecto b orateandauth horizinghim toassumethe eoffice.Thisa anomaloussit tuationdefeat tsthevery purposeforth p hefilingofthesupersedeasb bondinthefir rstplace. m, h e it e n In sum the Court holds that the COMELEC did not commi grave abuse of discretion in ordering execution pendingappea p alofthetrialc courtsdecisio on. oOo EDGARY.S SANTOSv.CO OMMISSIONO ONELECTIONS S,etal. G. .R.No.15561 18,26March 2003,ENBAN NC(YnaresSa antiago,J.) Whileitwasindeed dheldthatshortnessofther remainingterm mofofficeand dpostingabon ndarenotgoo odreasons, theCourtclear t rlystatedthatavalidexercis t seofthediscre etiontoallowexecutionpen ndingappealr requiresthatit tshouldbe based"upongo b oodreasonsto obestatedin aspecialorde er."Thefollow wingconstitute e"goodreason ns"andacomb binationof twoormoreof t fthemwillsuff fficetogrante executionpend dingappeal:( (1.)publicinte erestinvolved orwillofthee electorate; (2.)theshortne ( essoftheremainingportion nofthetermo ofthecontestedoffice;and(3 (3.)thelengthoftimethatth heelection contesthasbee c enpending. Petitio onerEdgarY.Santos(Sant tos)andrespo ondentPedro Q.Panulaya( (Panulaya)we erebothcand didatesfor MayoroftheM M Municipalityo ofBalingoan,M MisamisOrien ntalintheMay y2001elections.Afterthev voteswerecountedand canvassed,the c eMunicipalBo oardofCanvas ssersproclaim medresponden ntPanulayaasthedulyelec ctedMayor.Sa antosfiled anelectionpro a otestbeforeth heRegionalTr rialCourtofM MisamisOrient tal(RTC).Afte ertrialandrev visionoftheb ballots,the
301|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts trial court fou that Santo garnered 2 t und os 2,181 votes w while responde received o ent only 2,105. Hence, the RTC declared C Santos as the duly elected Municipal Ma S ayor of Baling goan with the plurality of 76 votes ove and above Panulaya, e er settingasidea s asnullandvoidtheproclam mationofprote esteemadeby ytheMunicipa alBoardofCan nvassers. Santos thereafter filed a motion for execution pending a f appeal. Meanw while, before the RTC cou act on uld petitionersmotion,respond p dentfiledwiththeCommis ssiononElections(COMELE EC)apetitionforcertiorari i,assailing thedecisionof t fthetrialcour rt.Likewise,respondentappealedthetrialcourtsdeci isiontotheCO OMELEC.TheCOMELEC issuedaWrit ofPreliminar ryInjunction, whicheffectiv velyenjoined thetrialcour rtfromacting gonpetitioner rsmotion forexecutionp f pendingappeal.Subsequen ntly,theCOME ELECdismisse edafterfindin ngthatthetria alcourtdidnotcommit graveabuseof g fdiscretionin nrenderingth heassailedjud dgment.Moreo over,theCOM MELECheldth hattheremedy yfromthe decision of the courta quo d owas to file a notice of app a peal, which respondent pr recisely did. T writ of pr The reliminary injunction wa thereafter set aside and lited, and the RTC was directed to h as d hear the case RTC issued an order e. upholdingand u dapprovingth heMotionfor ExecutionPe endingAppeal landinstalled dSantosasthe edulyelected dMayorof Balingoan. B After Santos posted the require bond, the R ed RTC issued th Writ of Execution,there installing Santos as he eby Municipal May of Balingoan. Accordin M yor ngly, Santos t took his oath of office and thereafter assumed the d d duties and functions of h office. Pan f his nulaya filed w with the COM MELEC a mot tion for reco onsideration o the dismis of ssal of his petition.After fivedays,he filedasupple p ementalpetitio oninwherein nheprayedth hattheWritof fExecutionbe esetaside andaStatusQ a QuoAnteOrde erbeissuedt toreinstatehi imasmayoro ofBalingoan. Barelytwodayslater,and dwhilehis motion for re m econsideration and supple n emental petiti ion were pen nding, Panula aya filed another petition with the COMELEC.The C epetitioncontainedthesam meprayerast thatinthesup pplementalpe etitionhefiled d.COMELECth henissued theassailedor t rdergrantingPanulayaspe etition,whichs setasidetheW WritofExecut tion,upheldth hestatusquoa anteorder andenjoinedS a Santosfromas ssumingthem mayoraltyposi ition. ISSUE: Wheth herCOMELEC Cactedwithgr raveabuseof discretionwh f henitnullified dandsetasid detheWritof Execution PendingAppea P alissuedbyth heRTC,onthe egroundthat tthatshortnes ssoftermalon neisnotagoo odreasonforexecution ofajudgmentpendingappe o eal HELD: H onGRANTED. Petitio Itisat tonceapparen ntfromthere ecords,asshow wnabove,tha atrespondentwasguiltyoff forumshoppi ingxxx. ecaseatbar,r respondentob btainedanad dversedecisionwhenhis[initial]petition nwasdismiss sedbythe Inthe COMELEC.Hethereafterfile C edamotionfo orreconsidera ationandasup pplementalpe etition,prayin ngforthenulli ificationof thetrialcourt t sorderforth heexecutionofitsdecisionp pendingappeal.Twodaysa afterfilingthe esupplementa alpetition, and a while the same was ve muchpending beforeth COMELEC, he filed a wh ery he holly separate epetitionfor certiorari, wherein he p w pleaded the same reliefs p prayed for in the supplem mental petition. This is pla ainly evident from the respectivepra r ayersinthesu upplementalpetitionandth hepetitionforcertiorariasr reproducedhe ereinabove.In ndoingso, respondent,be r eforeallowing gtheCOMELE ECtofullyreso olvetheincide entsin[thefir rstfiledpetitio on],bothofw whichwere athisownins a stance,sought ttoincreaseh hischancesof fsecuringafa avorabledecis sioninanothe erpetition.Hefiledthe secondpetitiononthesupp s positionthatth heCOMELECm mightlookwit thfavoruponhisreliefs. petition for certiorari assail the trial c led courts orders for the execu s ution of its de ecision pendin appeal. ng The p Thegrantofe T executionpend dingappealw waswellwithinthediscretionarypowers softhetrialc court.Inorder rtoobtain theannulment t tofsaidorder rsinapetitionforcertiorari,itmustfirs stbeprovedt thatthetrialc courtgravely abusedits discretion.He shouldshownotmerelyareversibleerr d rorcommitted dbythetrialc court,butagr raveabuseof discretion amountingtol a lackorexcess sofjurisdiction.
302|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ndthatnogra aveabuseof discretionwa ascommitted bythetrialc court.Initsor rdergranting execution Wefin pendingappea p al,itheld: Itisofjudicialnotic cethatforthe epublicofficia alelectedlast May14,2001 1electionson nlyashortper riodisleft. Relativetothi R isCourtsjurisdictionover theinstantca ase,thesettle edrulethatth hemerefilingofthenotice eofappeal does not dive the trial court of its ju d est c urisdiction ov the case a ver and to resolv pending incidents,i.e., m ve motion for executionpendingappeal(A e Asmalavs.COM MELEC,289SC CRA745)neednotbeovere emphasized. ever,theCOME ELECsetaside etheaforesaid dorder,saying gthatshortne essoftermalo oneisnotago oodreason Howe forexecutiono f ofajudgmentpendingappe eal.Wedisagree. e ed shortness of t remaining term of offic and postin a bond are not good the g ce ng e While it was indee held that s reasons,wecle r earlystatedin nFermov.COM MELECthat: Avali idexerciseof thediscretion ntoallowexe ecutionpendi ingappealreq quiresthatit shouldbebased"upon good reasons to be stated in a special order." The fol g i llowing const titute "good re easons" anda combination of two or a moreofthemw m willsufficeto grantexecuti ionpendingap ppeal:(1.)publicinterestin nvolvedorwi illoftheelect torate;(2.) theshortnessoftheremain t ningportionof fthetermoft thecontested office;and(3.)thelengtho oftimethatth heelection contesthasbe c eenpending. decision of the trial court i Election Pr e in rotest No. 1M M(2001) was rendered on April 2, 2002 or after 2, The d almostoneyea a aroftrialandrevisionofth hequestionedballots.Itfoundpetitionerasthecandidatewiththep pluralityof votes.Respond v dentappealed dthesaiddec cisiontotheC COMELEC.Int themeantime e,thethreeye eartermoftheOfficeof theMayorcon t ntinuedtorun n.Thewilloft theelectorate,asdetermine edbythetrialcourtinthe electionprote est,hadto be b respected a given me and eaning. The M Municipality of Balingoan, M f Misamis Orien ntal, needed t services o a mayor the of evenwhilethe e eelectionprot testwaspend ding,andithad dtobethecan ndidatejudici iallydetermin nedtohavebe eenchosen bythepeople. b eenthedeterm minationbyth hetrialcourto ofwhoofthec candidateswo ontheelection nsandthefind dingofthe Betwe Board of Canv B vassers as to whom to proclaim, it is t courts de the ecision that s should prevai This was sufficiently il. explainedinth e hecaseofRam masv.COMELE 24inthiswis EC se: All that was requir for a valid exercise of t discretion to allow exe red d the n ecution pending appeal wa that the as immediate exe ecution should be based "u upon good rea asons to be stated in a spe ecial order." T rationale why such The executionisal e llowedinelectioncasesis,a asstatedinGa aholv.Riodiqu 25"togivea ue, asmuchrecog gnitiontothew worthofa trialjudgesde t ecisionasthat twhichisiniti iallyascribedbythelawtotheproclamat tionbytheboardofcanvassers." Thus: shouldthepro oclamationby ytheboardof canvasserssu ufficeasbasisoftherighttoassumeoffic ce,subject Whys tofutureconti t ingenciesatte endanttoapro otest,andnot tthedecision ofacourtofjustice?Indeed d,whenitisc considered that the boar of canvass t rd sers is compo osed of perso who are less technica ons ally prepared to make an accurate d n appreciationo a oftheballots, apartfromth heirbeingmor reapttoyield dtoextraneou usconsiderations,andthat theboard mustactsumm m marily,practic callyracingag gainsttime,wh hile,ontheot therhand,the ejudgehasbenefitofallthe eevidence the t parties can offer and of admittedly b better technic preparatio and backgr cal on round, apart f from his bein allowed ng ampletimefor a rconscientiou usstudyandm maturedelibe erationbefore erenderingjudgment,onec cannotbutpe erceivethe wisdomofallo w owingtheimm mediateexecu utionofdecisio onsinelection ncasesadvers setotheprote estees,notwit thstanding the t perfection and pendenc of appeals therefrom, as long as ther are, in the sound discre n cy re etion of the co ourt, good reasonstheref r for.
303|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Todeprivetrialcou urtsoftheirdiscretiontogr rantexecution npendingapp pealwould,in nthewordsof fTobonUy v.COMELEC,b v bringbacktheghostofthe "grabthepro oclamationpro olongtheprotest"techniqu uessooftenresortedto by b devious po oliticians in th past in th he heir efforts to perpetuate t their hold to an elective o office. This would, as a consequence,l c laytowasteth hewilloftheelectorate.Th hus,theCOMELECcommitte edgraveabuseofdiscretion ningiving duecourse,insteadofdismissingoutrigh d ht,thepetition ninSPRNo.372002despit tetheclearsh howingthatre espondent wasguiltyoffo w orumshoppin ng;andinsett tingasidethet trialcourtsor rdergrantingexecutionpen ndingappeal. oOo
ElectionOffe E enses
EC, ts rized law offi icer, conducts the preliminary investigat tion of an When the COMELE through it duly author electionoffenseanduponaprimafaciefin e ndingofapro obablecause,f filestheinform mationinthe propercourt, saidcourt therebyacquir t resjurisdiction noverthecase e.Consequently y,allthesubse equentdisposit tionofsaidcas semustbesub bjecttothe approvalofthe a ecourt. TheC COMELECrece eivedareport tcomplaintfr romAtty.LauronE.Quilata an,ElectionR RegistrarofTo oledoCity, againstprivate a erespondents sforallegedv violationofth heOmnibusEl lectionCode. TheCOMELEC CdirectedAtt ty.Manuel Oyson, Jr., Pr O rovincial Elect tion Supervis of Cebu, to conduct t sor the prelimina investigat ary tion of the c case. After conducting su preliminar investigatio Oyson sub c uch ry on, bmitted a report finding a prima facieca and recom ase mmending thefilingofan t ninformation againsteach oftheprivate erespondents sforviolation ofSection26 61(y)(2)and (5)ofthe Omnibus Elect O tion Code. Th COMELECe banc,in a m he en minute resolu ution, resolved to file the i d information against the privaterespon p ndentsasreco ommended.15 5informationswerefiledagainsteachof fprivaterespo ondentsinthe eRegional TrialCourtof ToledoCity( T (RTC).Inthre eeseparatem manifestations,theRegional lElectionDire ectorofRegio onVIIwas designatedbytheCOMELEC d Ctohandlethe eprosecutionwiththeauth horitytoassignanotherCOM MELECprosec cutor. te ts, ounsels, then filed motion for reconsideration and the suspensi ns ion of the Privat respondent through co warrantofarr w restwiththeR RTConthegr roundthatno preliminaryi investigation wasconducte ed.Anorderw wasissued bytheRTCdir b rectingtheCO OMELECtocon nductareinve estigationofs saidcasesand dtosubmitits sreportwithinten(10) daysafterterm d minationther reof.TheToledoCityINPw wasdirectedt toholdinabe eyancetheser rviceofthew warrantsof arrest until t a the submissio of the rei on investigation report. The COMELEC P Prosecutor then filed a m motion for reconsideratio and opposi r on ition to the m motion for rein nvestigation a alleging there that it is o ein only the Supre eme Court thatmayrevie t ewthedecisio ons,orders,ru ulingsandreso olutionsofthe eCOMELEC.T Thiswasdenie edinanorder rwhereby theresponden t nttrialcourtu uphelditsjuris sdictionovert thesubjectma atter.COMELE ECnowfilesth hisinstantpet tition. ISSUE: Wheth RTC acted with grave abuse of disc her d cretion in ord dering the Com mmission on Elections to conduct a reinvestigation and to furn r n nish said cour the records of prelimina investigat rt s ary tion of the ab bove criminal cases for purposesofde p eterminingap probablecause e HELD: H Petitio onDISMISSED D. Sectio on52,Article VIIoftheOm mnibusElection nCode(Batas sPambansaB Blg.881)providesamongth hepowers andfunctionsoftheCOMEL a LECasfollows
PEOP PLEOFTHEP PHILIPPINEv v.HON.GUALBERTOP.DE ELGADO,etal l. G.R R.Nos.93419 932,18Sept tember1990, ,ENBANC(Ga ancayco,J.)
304 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Sec.52.Powerandf functionsofth heCommission nonElections. Inadditionto othepowersa andfunctionsconferred upon it by the Constitution the Commis u e n, ssionshall hav exclusive ch ve harge of the enforcement an administra nd ation of all la awsrelativeto otheconducto ofelectionsfor rthepurposeofsecuringfre ee,orderlyan ndhonestelect tions.... on7,ArticleIX XAoftheCons stitutionreadsthus Sectio SEC,7 7.EachCommissionshallde ecidebyamaj jorityvoteofallitsMembersanycaseor rmatterbroug ghtbefore it twithinsixty daysfromth hedateofitss submissionfordecisionor resolution.A caseormatte erisdeemed submitted for f decision or resolution upon the filin of the last pleading, brief, or memor u ng randum requir by the ru red ules of the CommissionorbytheComm C missionitself.Unlessotherw wiseprovidedb bythisConstit tutionorbylawanydecision n,order,of rulingoreachCommissionm r maybebrough httotheSupre emeCourtonc certioraribyth heaggrievedp partywithint thirtydays fromreceiptofacopythere f eof. nsofSection2 2,ArticleIXC CoftheConsti itutionthepo owersandfun nctionsofthe COMELEC From theprovision maybeclassifi m iedinthisman nner (1)En nforcementofelectionlaws; f (2)De ecisionofelectioncontests; (3)De ecisionofadm ministrativequ uestions; (4)De eputizingofla awenforcemen ntagencies; (5)Re egistrationofp politicalpartie es;and (6)Im mprovementofelections. Aspro ovidedinSect tion7,Article IXoftheCons stitution,unle essotherwise providedbyl law,anydecis sion,order or o ruling of th COMELEC may be broug to the Sup he m ght preme Court o certiorari by the aggrieved party wit on thin thirty daysfromrece d eiptofacopythereof. InFili ipinasEnginee eringandMac chineShopvs. Ferrer,thisCourtheldthat"whatiscon ntemplatedby ytheterm finalorders,ru f ulingsanddec cisions'oftheCOMELECrev viewableonce ertioraribyth heSupremeCo ourtasprovid dedbylaw are a those rendered in actions or proceedings before the COMELE and taken cognizance of by said bo in the e EC n ody exercise of its adjudicatory or quasijud e s y dicial powers." Thus, the decisions of th COMELEC on election co he ontests or administrative a equestionsbr roughtbeforeitaresubjecttojudicialrev viewonlybyth hisCourt. Howe ever,underSe ection2(6),of fArticleIXCo oftheConstit tution,theCOMELECmay" "investigateand,where appropriate, p a prosecute case of violation of election laws, including acts or om es ns missions const tituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices. Under Sect o ." tion 265 of t the Omnibus Election Cod the COME de, ELEC, through its duly h authorized leg officers, "have the exclusive power to conduct p a gal preliminary in nvestigation of all election offenses n punishableunderthisCode, ndtoprosecutethesame p ,a e." on he e hat: "The reg gional trial courts shall h have exclusive original Sectio 268 of th same Code provides th ju urisdictiontotryanddecid deanycrimina alactionorpr roceedingsfor rviolationoft thisCode,exce eptthoserelat tingtothe offenseoffailu o uretoregister rorfailureto ovotewhichs shallbeunder rthejurisdicti ionofthemetropolitanor municipal trialcourts.Fr t romthedecisionofthecour rts,appealwilllieasinothe ercriminalcas ses." From theforegoing gprovisionso oftheConstitu utionandthe OmnibusElec ctionCode,it isclearthata asidefrom theadjudicato t oryorquasiju udicialpower oftheCOMEL LECtodecideelectioncont testsandadm ministrativequ uestions,it isalsovested thepowerof apublicpros secutorwithth heexclusivea authoritytoco onductthepr reliminaryinv vestigation and the prose a ecution of election offenses punishable under the Co before th competent court. Thus, when the ode he COMELEC,thr C roughitsduly yauthorizedla awofficer,con nductsthepr reliminaryinv vestigationof anelectionof ffenseand uponaprimaf u faciefindingo ofaprobable cause,filesth heinformation nintheprope ercourt,said courtthereby yacquires ju urisdictionov verthecase.C Consequently,allthesubseq quentdisposit tionofsaidcasemustbesu ubjecttotheap pprovalof thecourt.The COMELECca t annotconduct tareinvestiga ationoftheca asewithoutth heauthorityofthecourtor runlessso orderedbythe o ecourt.
305|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts ecordsofthe preliminaryinvestigationr requiredtobe eproducedby ythecourtmu ustbesubmittedbythe There COMELEC.The C etrialcourtm mayrelyonthe eresolutionoftheCOMELE ECtofilethein nformation,by ythesametok kenthatit mayrelyonth m hecertification nmadebythe eprosecutorw whoconducte edthepreliminaryinvestiga ation,intheis ssuanceof the warrant o arrest. Nev t of vertheless the court may require that the record o the prelim e of minary investi igation be submittedtoit s ttosatisfyitselfthatthereisprobableca ausewhichwi illwarrantthe eissuanceofa awarrantofa arrest.The refusal of the COMELEC or its agents t comply wi the order of the trial court requiri r e to ith r ing them to conduct a reinvestigation r ninthiscase andtosubmi ittothecourt tthe recordof ftheprelimin naryinvestigat tiononthegr roundthat onlythisCourt o tmayreviewitsactionsisc certainlyunten nable. oOo ENIOJINGJIN NGFAELNAR Rv.PEOPLEO OFTHEPHILI IPPINES,etal. EUGE G.R.Nos.14085051 1,4May2000 0,ENBANC(M Mendoza,J.) Under the present rule, a motion for reconsid r deration of a ruling, resolu ution or decisi of the COM ion MELEC en bancisallowed b dincasesinvo olvingelectionoffenses. A com mplaint for el lectioneering was filed by a certain An ntonio Luy ag gainst Petition Eugenio JingJing ner Faelnar(Faeln F nar),whowas srunningfor thepositiono ofBarangayC ChairmanofBarangayGuad dalupe,CebuC Cityinthe May1997bar M rangayelections,andCecilioGillamac.Th hecomplaint arosewhena abasketballto ournament,dubbedthe "2nd JINGJING FAELNAR'S CUP," opene at the Gua " S ed adalupe Sport Complex an lasted up to April 30, 1 ts nd 1997. The complaint alle c eged that the basketball to ournament wa actually a campaign gim as mmick staged outside the campaign d periodwhicho p officiallystart tedonMay1, 1997,inviola ationoftheOm mnibusElectionCode.Luy allegedthat: (1)during thetournamen t nt,astreamer rbearingpetit tioner'snamewasplacedonthefacadeo oftheGuadalu upeSportsCom mplex;(2) petitioner'sna p amewasrepeatedlymentio onedoverthe microphone duringthega ames;(3)thet tournamentw waswidely publishedinth p helocalnewsp paper;and(4)arafflespon nsoredbyCeci ilioGillamacw washeldwith hhomeapplian ncesgiven awayasprizes a s. Petitio oner denied participation in the tour n rnament and claimed tha its major sponsor was Gillamac at s Marketing,Inc M c.Hecontendedthatthesa amewaspure elyasporting eventforthe ebenefitofth heyouth.The complaint wasinvestigat w tedbyAtty.Ed dwinCadungo og,electionof fficerofCebu City,wholate errecommend dedthedismissalofthe chargesagains c stpetitionera andGillamac. Ontheother hand,theLaw wDepartment toftheCOME ELECrecommendedthe filingofacase f eagainstpetit tionerandGill lamacforviol lationof80, inrelationto 262,oftheO OmnibusElectionCode, and50ofCOMELECResolutionNo.288 a 88,inrelation to12ofRep publicActNo. 6679.COMEL LECenbancre esolvedto dismisstheca d ase.However, onmotionof AntonioLuy,theCOMELEC f Creconsidere editsactionandorderedth hefilingof the necessary Informations against pet t y titioner and G Gillamac. Accordingly, peti itioner and G Gillamac were formally e chargedinthe c eRegionalTria alCourt,Cebu uCityundertw woInformatio ons.Petitioner rmovedtoqu uashtheinform mationor, in the alterna ative, for reinv vestigation of the case, co f ontending tha the Resolut at tion issued by the COMELEC, which y dismissed the complaint ag d gainst him, wa immediatel executory a could no longer be rec as ly and considered. Petitioner's motion,aswel m llashissubsequentmotionforreconside erationwasde eniedbythetr rialcourt.Hen nce,thispetitio on. ISSUE: Wheth herCOMELEC CcanNOlonge erreconsideri itsresolutionwhichisimm mediatelyfinalandexecutor ry HELD: H Petitio onDENIED. Theco ontentionisu untenable.Ins supportofhisclaims,petitio onercitesRul le13,1(d)of ftheRulesofP Procedure oftheCOMELE o ECwhichprov vides:
306 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Sec.1.Whatpleadin ngsarenotallowed.Thefollowingplea adingsarenot tallowed: otionforreconsiderationofanenbancru uling,resoluti ion,orderord decision;.... (d)mo The a above quoted provision, ho owever, is taken from the 1988 COME e ELEC Rules of Procedure w f which has alreadybeena a amended.The1993RulesofProcedure,n nowprovides: : Rule1 13.Prohibit tedPleadings. . Sec.1.Whatpleadin ngsarenotallowed.Thefollowingplea adingsarenot tallowed: motion for reconsideration of anen banc cruling, resolution, order o decisionex or xcept in electi offense ion (d) m cases;. c Under the present rule, therefo r ore, a motion for reconside eration of a r ruling, resolution or decisi of the ion COMELECenb C bancisallowedincasesinvo olvingelection noffenses. oOo
307|

EPA-Compilation of Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EPA-Compilation of Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts

ADMINIS STRATIVE LAW

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

CONGRESSMA C ANJAMESL.C CHIONGBIAN,petitioner,vs.HON.OSCAR RM.ORBOS,r respondent. Jun G.R.No.96754 ne22,1995

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

hertheissuan nceofWinWi inResolution isvalidafter theearlierde ecisionhadal lreadyattaine edfinality? Wheth

Exhaustiono E ofAdministr rativeRemed dies

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Philippi ineSinterCorporationv. CagayanElec ctricPowerandLightCo., Inc. 1(SandovalG Gutierrez,J.) G.R.No.127371

LAWONP PUBLICOFF FICERS

FLOR RESv.DRILON N G.R.No o.10473222June1993( (BELLOSILLO,J.)

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Eligibility,Qualifications E s&Disqualif ifications

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

IM MELDAROMUA ALDEZMARC COSv.COMMISSIONONEL LECTIONSandCIRILOROY YMONTEJO

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Commencem C mentofOffici ialRelations s(Appointm ments/Elections)

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

TenureandT T TermofOffi ice

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

ATTY Y.ROMULOB B.MACALINT TALvs.COM MMISSIONONELECTION NS G.R.No.157 7013,July10,2003

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

KABATAAN NPARTYLIS STREPRESENTATIVERAYM MONDV.PAL LATINOet.alvs.COMMISSIONONELEC CTIONS G.R.No.18986 G 68,December r15,2009

VET TERANSFEDE ERATIONPAR Y,petitione RT erv.COMELEC C,respondent GR R.No.136781 ober6,2000 Octo

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Chave ezvs.COMELE EC G.R.No.1 162777(AzcunaJ.)

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

PreProclam P mationContr roversy

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

Malalau uanv.COMEL LEC G.R.No.12019 G 93(Hermosisi ima,JR.,J.)

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

ExecutionPe E endingAppe eal

Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

You might also like