2016 SC Cases Political Law CLC

NOTES ON POLITICAL LAWInterpretation enunciate and implement the local autonomy of the Constitution provisions explicitly recognized under the 1987 Constitution. To conform with the guarantees of Based on the tenor and text of Section 30, Article VI the Constitution in favor of the autonomy of the of the 1987 Constitution, the prohibition against LGUs, therefore, it becomes the duty of the Court increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme to declare and pronounce Section 3(b) of P.D. No. Court without its advice and concurrence applies 198 as already partially unconstitutional. We note prospectively, not retrospectively. Considering that that this pronouncement is also advocated by the the Arbitration Law had been approved on June 19, National Government, as shown in the comment of 1953, and took effect under its terms on December the Solicitor General. (Rama v. Moises, G.R. No. 19, 1953, while the Constitution was ratified only 197146, December 6, 2016) on February 2, 1987, Section 29 of the Arbitration Law could not be declared unconstitutional. (Fyfe v. CONCEPT OF A STATE Philippine Air Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 160071, June 6, 2016) Sovereignty The Constitution cannot be viewed solely as a list Sovereignty is the possession of sovereign power of prohibitions and limitations on governmental (See BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1523 (9th ed. power, but rather as an instrument providing the 2009), while jurisdiction is the conferment by law of process of structuring government in order that it power and authority to apply the law. (See may effectively serve the people. It is not simply a BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 927 (9th ed. 2009) set of rules, but an entire legal framework for (Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, G. R. No. 212426, Philippine society. (Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, January 12, 2016) Resolution on the MR, G.R. No. 212426, July 26, 2016) While the principles of sovereign independence and equality have been recognized in Philippine … while the Constitution is a product of our jurisprudence, our recognition of this principle collective history as a people, its entirety should does not extend to the exemption of States and not be interpreted as providing guiding principles their affiliates from compliance with Philippine to just about anything remotely related to the regulatory laws. (Association of Medical Clinics for Martial Law period such as the proposed Marcos Overseas Workers, Inc. v. GCC Approved Medical burial at the LNMB. (Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. Centers Association, Inc., G.R. No. 207132, December 225973, November 8, 2016) 6, 2016) A law enacted prior to the 1987 Constitution, like a Territory presidential decree, is presumed to be valid and constitutional on the theory that it was carefully From the text of EDCA itself, Agreed Locations are studied by the Legislative and Executive territories of the Philippines that the U.S. forces are Departments prior to its enactment, and allowed to access and use. By withholding determined to be in accord with the Fundamental ownership of these areas and retaining unrestricted Law. However, the presumption of validity and access to them, the government asserts sovereignty constitutionality is overturned and the law should over its territory. That sovereignty exists so long as be struck down once it becomes inconsistent with the Filipino people exist. (Saguisag v. Executive the present Constitution and the later laws. (Rama Secretary, G. R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016) v. Moises, G.R. No. 197146, December 6, 2016) As the Court takes judicial notice that Nasugbu is a Article X of the 1987 Constitution guarantees and coastal town and the surrounding sea falls within promotes the administrative and fiscal autonomy what the United Nations Convention on the Law of of the LGUs. The foregoing statutory enactments the Sea (UNCLOS) would define as the country's Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 1 Court by Atty. CARLO L. CRUZ NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW territorial sea (to the extent of 12 nautical miles the subject submarine cable system lying within outward from the nearest baseline, under Part II, Philippine jurisdiction includes the authority to tax Sections 1 and 2) over which the country has the same, for taxation is one of the three basic and sovereignty, including the seabed and subsoil, it necessary attributes of sovereignty, and such follows that indeed a portion of the submarine authority has been delegated by the national cable system lies within Philippine territory and legislature to the local governments with respect to thus falls within the jurisdiction of the said local real property taxation. (Capitol Wireless, Inc. v. The taxing authorities. It easily belies Capwire's Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, G.R. No. 180110, contention that the cable system is entirely in May 30, 2016) international waters. And even if such portion does not lie in the 12-nautical-mile vicinity of the While this Motion for Reconsideration was pending territorial sea but further inward, in Prof. Magallona resolution, the United Nations Permanent Court of v. Hon. Ermita, et al. this Court held that "whether Arbitration tribunal constituted under the referred to as Philippine 'internal waters' under Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in Article I of the Constitution or as 'archipelagic Republic of the Philippines v. People's Republic of China waters' under UNCLOS Part III, Article 49 (1, 2, 4), released its monumental decision on the afternoon the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of 12 July 2016. The findings and declarations in of water lying landward of (its) baselines, including this decision contextualizes the security the air space over it and the submarine areas requirements of the Philippines, as they indicate an underneath." Further, under Part VI, Article 79 of alarming degree of international law violations the UNCLOS, the Philippines clearly has committed against the Philippines' sovereign rights jurisdiction with respect to cables laid in its over its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). territory that are utilized in support of other installations and structures under its jurisdiction. Firstly, the tribunal found China's claimed nine- dash line, which included sovereign claims over And as far as local government units are most of the West Philippine, invalid under the concerned, the areas described above are to be UNCLOS for exceeding the limits of China's considered subsumed under the term "municipal maritime zones granted under the convention. waters" which, under the Local Government Code, includes "not only streams, lakes, and tidal waters Secondly, the tribunal found that the maritime within the municipality, not being the subject of features within the West Philippine Sea/South private ownership and not comprised within the China Sea that China had been using as basis to national parks, public forest, timber lands, forest claim sovereign rights within the Philippines' EEZ reserves or fishery reserves, but also marine waters were not entitled to independent maritime zones. included between two lines drawn perpendicularly to the general coastline from points where the Thirdly, the tribunal found that the actions of boundary lines of the municipality or city touch the China within the EEZ of the Philippines, namely; sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the forcing a Philippine vessel to cease-and-desist from general coastline and fifteen (15) kilometers from survey operations, the promulgation of a fishing it." Although the term "municipal waters" appears moratorium in 2012, the failure to exercise due in the Code in the context of the grant of quarrying diligence in preventing Chinese fishing vessels and fisheries privileges for a fee by local from fishing in the Philippines' EEZ without governments, its inclusion in the Code's Book II complying with Philippine regulations, the failure which covers local taxation means that it may also to prevent Chinese fishing vessels from harvesting apply as guide in determining the territorial extent endangered species, the prevention of Filipino of the local authorities' power to levy real property fishermen from fishing in traditional fishing taxation. grounds in Scarborough Shoal, and the island- building operations in various reefs, all violate its Thus, the jurisdiction or authority over such part of Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 2 Court by Atty. CARLO L. CRUZ NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW obligations to respect the rights of the Philippines employer to assure them of an immediate and over its EEZ. sufficient payment of what was due. Similar to EDI-Staffbuilders, the local agency therein failed to Fourthly, the tribunal rejected Chinese claims of prove the Kuwaiti law specified in the labor sovereignty over features within the Philippine's contract, pursuant to Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 EEZ, and found that its construction of installations of the Revised Rules of Court. (Industrial Personnel and structures, and later on the creation of an and Management Services, Inc. v. de Vera, G.R. No. artificial island, violated its international 205703, March 7, 2016) obligations. The case is premature. The money claim against the Fifthly, the tribunal found that the behaviour of Republic should have been first brought before the Chinese law enforcement vessels breached safe Commission on Audit. xxx. The Writ of Execution navigation provisions of the UNCLOS in respect of and Sheriff De Jesus' Notice violate this Court's near-collision instances within Scarborough Shoal. Administrative Circular No. 10-2000 and Commission on Audit Circular No. 2001-002, which Finally, the tribunal found that since the arbitration govern the issuance of writs of execution to satisfy was initiated in 2013, China has aggravated the money judgments against government. xxx. This dispute by building a large artificial island on a Court has emphasized that: low-tide elevation located in the EEZ of the Philippines aggravated the Parties' dispute Judges should bear in mind that in concerning the protection and preservation of the Commissioner of Public Highways v. San marine environment at Mischief Reef by inflicting Diego (31 SCRA 617, 625 [1970]), this permanent, irreparable harm to the coral reef Court explicitly stated: habitat of that feature, extended the dispute Moreover, it is settled jurisprudence that concerning the protection and preservation of the upon determination of State liability, the marine environment by commencing large-scale prosecution, enforcement or satisfaction island-building and construction works at thereof must still be pursued in Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef accordance with the rules and procedures (Norths Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, and Subi Reef, laid down in P[residential] D[ecree] No. aggravated the dispute concerning the status of 1445, otherwise known as the maritime features in the Spratly Islands and their Government Auditing Code of the capacity to generate entitlements to maritime zones Philippines (Department of Agriculture by permanently destroying evidence of the natural v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693, 701-02 [1993] citing Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84 condition of Mischief Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery [1973]). All money claims against the Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Government must first be filed with the Hughes Reef, and Subi Reef. (Saguisag v. Executive Commission on Audit which must act upon Secretary, Resolution on the MR, G.R. No. 212426, it within sixty days. Rejection of the claim July 26, 2016) will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on State Immunity certiorari and in effect sue the State thereby (P[residential] D[ecree] [No.] In ATCI Overseas Corporation v. Echin (ATCI 1445, Sections 49-50). (Emphasis supplied) Overseas), the private recruitment agency invoked xxx. the defense that the foreign employer was immune from suit and that it did not sign any document As a rule, public funds may not be disbursed agreeing to be held jointly and solidarily liable. absent an appropriation of law or other specific Such defense, however, was rejected because R.A. statutory authority. Commonwealth Act No. 327, as No. 8042 precisely afforded the OFWs with a amended by Presidential Decree No. 1445, requires recourse against the local agency and the foreign that all money claims against government must Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 3 Court by Atty. CARLO L. CRUZ Cuenca. CARLO L. March 09. this Court has long established in Ministerio v Thus. private respondents' separation into and taking of possession of the respondents' benefits may be released to them without filing a property amounted to an implied waiver of its separate money claim before the Commission on governmental immunity from suit. xxx. 208205. 2016) A suit against the State is allowed when the State The DOTC encroached on the respondents' gives its consent. and more recently in Vigilar v. Under these circumstances. Sps. The exchange implied consent is given when the State enters into was part of the RTDP pursuant to the National a contract or commences litigation. must act upon them within 60 days. meal allowance. G. it would have respondents' separation benefits have already been initiated expropriation proceedings instead of appropriated and disbursed. It would be unjust and a violation of private respondents' right to equal protection if they were We rule that the Republic is not immune from suit not allowed to claim. from these previous cases. what is rightfully due to and Communication v.R. as the respondents repeatedly pointed out. xxx. We hold. that the Department's entry In this instance.R. them. (Republic v. either expressly or impliedly. G. This would account insisting on its immunity from suit.Amigable v. By necessary implication. by the trial court. National Labor Relations June 29. CFI. a separate action must be filed before the Commission on Audit for the satisfaction Consequently. in effect. is different Whenever private property is taken for public use. 174747. it is procedure upon discovering that it had encroached presumed that the funds to be used for private on the respondents' property. and subsequently entered into the FLA with Digitel for their maintenance. the filing of separation benefits to terminated employees of a complaint for expropriation is a waiver of State Bicolandia Sugar Development Corporation. ATO. immunity. sue the state. properties when it constructed the local telephone Express consent is given through a statute while exchange in Daet. No. 2016) However. medical/dental/optical Aquino that the doctrine of state immunity cannot allowance. our laws require that the State's of the judgment award. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW first be filed before the Commission on Audit. allowance. xxx. (Roxas v. the DOTC constructed the encroaching structures which. while entitlement to claims for rice Pidacan v. xxx. 2016) Commission. we agree with the claim can the claimant elevate the matter to this DOTC's contention that these are acts jure imperii Court on certiorari and. We have no doubt that when all contracts entered into by the government Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 4 Court by Atty. Although not Telephone Program. The situation in this case.R. (Department of Transportation their fellow workers. and longevity pay serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice under Republic Act No. June 1. Republic Real Estate Corporation. under the same conditions as in the present case. No. that fall within the cloak of state immunity. Private respondents' checks were released by petitioner to the Arbitration Branch of the Labor If the DOTC had correctly followed the regular Arbiter in 1992. Petitioner's Board of it becomes the ministerial duty of the concerned Trustees already issued the Resolution on office or agency to initiate expropriation September 23. CRUZ . G. therefore. however. 1992 for the release of funds to pay proceedings. 6758 may be adjudicated to a citizen. power of eminent domain shall be exercised through expropriation proceedings in court. The petitioners for why private respondents' co-complainants were would not have had to resort to filing its complaint able to claim their checks without need of filing a for reconveyance. separate claim before the Commission on Audit. Audit. the 2010 case Heirs of Morales. Therefore. 206484. it was carrying out a Only when the Commission on Audit rejects the sovereign function. in National Electrification Administration v. children's allowance. Abecina. No. in turn. Camarines Norte. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW operates as a waiver of its non-suability, the Court suit, we also restricted state immunity to acts jus held in the two cases below that the State imperii, or public acts. We said that once a State effectively gave its consent when it entered into enters into commercial transactions (jus gestionis), contracts and committed breach. then it descends to the level of a private individual, and is thus not immune from the resulting liability In Santiago v. The Government of the Republic of the and consequences of its actions. Philippines, Ildefonso Santiago and his wife donated a parcel of land to the Republic on the alleged By this recognition, we acknowledge that a foreign condition that the latter would install lighting government acting in its jus imperii function cannot facilities and a water system and would build an be held liable in a Philippine court. Philippine office building and parking lot on the property on courts, as part of the Philippine government, or before December 7, 1974. Santiago filed a cannot and should not take jurisdiction over cases complaint for the revocation of the donation due to involving the public acts of a foreign government. the government's breach of the condition. The trial Taking jurisdiction would amount to authority court dismissed the case based on the State's non- over a foreign government, and would thus violate suability. The Court set aside the dismissal on the principle of sovereign independence and certiorari, reasoning that the State's consent to be equality. sued is presumed when the State fails to comply with the alleged terms of a deed of donation. It This recognition is altogether different from essentially held that the Republic impliedly waived exempting governments whose agents are in the its immunity. Philippines from complying with our domestic laws. We have yet to declare in a case that the In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that principle of sovereign independence and equality when the Republic entered into a compromise exempts agents of foreign governments from agreement with a private person, it stripped itself compliance with the application of Philippine of its immunity from suit and placed itself on the domestic law. same level as its adversary. When the State enters into a contract which creates mutual or reciprocal In the present case, GAMCA has not adduced any rights and obligations, the State may be sued even evidence in the court below, nor has it presented without express consent. Its consent to be sued is any argument before us showing that the principle implied from its entry into the contract and the of sovereign equality and independence has Republic's breach grants the other party the right to developed into an international custom shielding enforce or repudiate the contract. state agents from compliance with another state's domestic laws. Under this situation, the Court is in In the present case, the Republic entered into deeds no position to determine whether the practice that of sale with the respondents to construct the NGC GAMCA alleges has indeed crystallized into an Project on the lots sold. xxx. Following Santiago and international custom. Republic, the State's failure to abide by these conditions constitutes the State's implied waiver of GAMCA has never proven in this case, too, that the its immunity. We reiterate that the doctrine of state GCC has extended its sovereign immunity to immunity from suit cannot serve to perpetrate an GAMCA. Sovereign immunity belongs to the State, injustice on a citizen. If we rule otherwise, we will and it must first be extended to its agents before the be tolerating unfair dealing in contract negotiation. latter may be considered to possess sovereign (Republic v. Roque, G.R. No. 203610, October 10, immunity. 2016) Our recognition of sovereign immunity, however, Significantly, the Court has even adopted a has never been unqualified. While we recognized restrictive approach in recognizing state immunity, the principles of independence and equality of by distinguishing between a State's jus imperii and States to justify a State's sovereign immunity from jus gestionis. It is only when a State acts in its jus Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 5 Court by Atty. CARLO L. CRUZ NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW imperii function that we recognize state immunity. Producers Federation, Inc. v. Republic, G.R. Nos. (Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, 177857-58, October 5, 2016) Inc. v. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc., G.R. No. 207132, December 6, 2016) Neither can respondent Roxas successfully invoke the doctrine of estoppel against petitioner Republic. Contrary to respondents' contention, estoppel While it is true that respondent Roxas was granted generally finds no application against the State Homestead Patent No. 111598 and OCT No. P-5885 when it acts to rectify mistakes, errors, only after undergoing appropriate administrative irregularities, or illegal acts of its officials and proceedings, the Government is not now estopped agents, irrespective of rank. This principle ensures from questioning the validity of said homestead the efficient conduct of the affairs of the State patent and certificate of title. It is, after all, without any hindrance to the implementation of hornbook law that the principle of estoppel does laws and regulations by the government. This not operate against the Government for the act of holds true even if its agents' prior mistakes or its agents. And while there may be circumstances illegal acts shackle government operations and when equitable estoppel was applied against public allow others—some by malice—to profit from authorities, i.e., when the Government did not official error or misbehavior, and even if the undertake any act to contest the title for an rectification prejudices parties who have unreasonable length of time and the lot was meanwhile received benefit. xxx. The equitable already alienated to innocent buyers for value, such doctrine of estoppel is for the prevention of injustice are not present in this case. More importantly, we and is for the protection of those who have been cannot use the equitable principle of estoppel to misled by that which on its face was fair and whose defeat the law. Under the Public Land Act and character, as represented, parties to the deception Presidential Proclamation No. 678 dated February will not, in the interest of justice, be heard to deny. 5, 1941, the subject property is part of the It cannot therefore be utilized to insulate from Matchwood Forest Reserve which is inalienable liability the very perpetrators of the injustice and not subject to disposition. (Republic v. Hachero, complained of. (Republic v. Mega Pacific ESolutions, G.R. No. 200973, May 30, 2016) Inc., G.R. No. 184666, June 27, 2016) Article II While the general rule is that the State cannot be DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors of its POLICIES officials or agents, it is established that "[t]he rule on non-estoppel of the government is not designed Tañada v. Angara already ruled that the provisions to perpetrate an injustice." Thus, several exceptions in Article II of the Constitution are not self- to the Republic's non-estoppel have been executing. (Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, recognized. xxx. The exception established in the November 8, 2016) foregoing cases is appropriate in the present case since the Compromise Agreement partook of the Separation of Powers nature of a bona fide proprietary business transaction of the government and was not In the second place, this is a policy question about undertaken as an incident to any of its the wisdom of allowing the presence of U.S. governmental functions. Clearly, issues regarding personnel within our territory and is therefore SMC's right over the 25.45 million treasury shares outside the scope of judicial review. (Saguisag v. or the entitlement to the alleged dividends on said Executive Secretary, G. R. No. 212426, January 12, shares or to the interests and increase in value of 2016) the PSOO million remain unresolved. These issues are better ventilated and threshed out in a proper In sum, the Congress created the [AC] and the TEC proceeding before the right forum where SMC will not to encroach upon the exclusive power of the be accorded due process. (Philippine Coconut COMELEC to enforce and administer laws relating Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 6 Court by Atty. CARLO L. CRUZ NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW to the conduct of the elections, but to (1) ensure that the COMELEC is guided and assisted by The petitioners have averred the experts in the field of technology in adopting the unconstitutionality or invalidity of Section 3 (b) of most effective and efficient [AES]; and (2) to ensure P.D. No 198 based on the provision's arbitrariness clean elections by having disinterested parties in denying substantive due process and equal closely monitor the COMELEC in procuring protection to the affected local government units systems that operate properly, securely, and (LGUs). Such issue, being justiciable, comes within accurately. As such, it is apparent that, through the the power of judicial review. As such, the RTC [AC] and the TEC, the Congress merely checks and skirted its duty of judicial review by improperly balances the power of the COMELEC to enforce relying on the political question doctrine. (Rama v. and administer R.A. No. 8436, as amended by R.A. Moises, G.R. No. 197146, December 6, 2016) No. 9369. It does not, however, substitute its own wisdom for that of the COMELEC. (Chiong v. Clearly, the foregoing ratiocination does not Senate, G.R. No. 217725, May 31, 2016) constitute judicial legislation. It is firmly grounded on existing laws, jurisprudence, and executive The Court agrees with the OSG that President contemporaneous construction. It was Congress Duterte's decision to have the remains of Marcos which enacted Republic Act Nos. 9417, 9347, and interred at the LNMB involves a political question 10071, granting certain officials of the Executive that is not a justiciable controversy. In the exercise Department the same salary as their respective of his powers under the Constitution and the counterparts in the Judiciary, and "salary" refers to Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292 (otherwise known basic monthly pay plus longevity pay per the plain as the Administrative Code of 1987) to allow the language of Section 42 of Batas Pambansa Big. 129. interment of Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land Justice Brion opines that the grant of longevity pay of the public domain devoted for national military to executive officials would effectively be a cemetery and military shrine purposes, President misplaced exercise of liberality at the expense of Duterte decided a question of policy based on his public funds and to the prejudice of sectors who wisdom that it shall promote national healing and are more in need of these funds. It bears to stress forgiveness. There being no taint of grave abuse in though that it is irrefragably within the legislative the exercise of such discretion, as discussed below, power of Congress to enact Republic Act Nos. 9417, President Duterte's decision on that political 9347, and 10071, and it is beyond the judicial power question is outside the ambit of judicial review. of the Court to question the wisdom behind said (Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, November 8, legislations. (Re: Letter of Court of Appeals Justice 2016) Vicente S. E. Veloso, Resolution on MR, A.M. No. 12- 8-07-CA, July 26, 2016) Lastly, the effect of the prohibition against the referral decking system is beyond the authority of Delegation of Powers this Court to consider. The wisdom of this prohibition has been decided by Congress, through Administrative Power the enactment of RA No. 10022. Our role in this case is merely to determine whether our In the case of the DENR Secretary, its power to government has the authority to enact the law's approve and enter into a MPSA is unmistakably prohibition against the referral decking system, and administrative in nature as it springs from the whether this prohibition is being implemented mandate of the DENR under the Revised legally. Beyond these lies the realm of policy that, Administrative Code of 1987, which provides that under our Constitution's separation of powers, this "[t]he [DENR] shall xxx be in charge of carrying out Court cannot cross. (Association of Medical Clinics for the State's constitutional mandate to control and Overseas Workers, Inc. v. GCC Approved Medical supervise the exploration, development, utilization, Centers Association, Inc., G.R. No. 207132, December and conservation of the country's natural 6, 2016) resources." xxx. In approving an MPSA, the DENR Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 7 Court by Atty. CARLO L. CRUZ 1098 finding that the signatures of petitioner among others.R. 216914. the SEC still retains sufficient body exercising quasi-judicial powers. reversing. any question on decision of the OP. 2016) 11. Certeza. review when there is an allegation of grave abuse its absence does not negate the validity of the of discretion. G.R. Reyes. (Agustin-Se v. Neither does the charging respondents therein with falsification of DENR Secretary resolve conflicting claims. even when an recommendatory body to the President. it cannot be said the resolutions of prosecutors may be the subject of that petitioners were deprived of their right to due a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of process. Mendoza and Binay under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court cannot be Law Offices v. In SEC v. G. No. and is financially and up with a Questioned Documents Report No. Moreover. The powers and is simply an investigatory body finds Court held in the said case that nothing prevented Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 8 Court by Atty. No. Ruling on the specific issue March 7. obligations of adversarial parties. CARLO L.R. G. 2016) assumption of jurisdiction over a complaint. G. In that case. and thus. (Basiana Mining Exploration therein which appear on the questioned deeds are Corporation v. (Subido. Court. No. (SBGCCI) and Universal process. Hence. (De Lima v. However.R. it administrative agency does not perform a judicial. xxx. xxx. brought to assail the Secretary of Justice's December 6. rather. two (2) deeds of real estate mortgage submitted to what is involved here is the determination whether the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company a certain applicant complied with the conditions (Metrobank). which was originally vested in the possible money laundering offenses. the adjudicate cases. G. Secretary of the Department of not the same as the standard sample signatures he Environment and Natural Resources. Certeza. No. 216914. The Court of Appeals. as the report of Constitution mandates the exercise of judicial the ODESLA is merely recommendatory in nature. Plainly. for instance. which are petitioner Shu had filed a complaint before the NBI necessary in adjudication. Despite the said order. No. 902-A. the NBI came required by the law. 2016) raised by respondent therein that they had been denied due process during the NBI investigation. it is not a merely investigatory and informational in nature quasi-judicial agency. (UIGDC). or ministerial function. 2016) Under the SRC (Securities Regulation Code)." xxx. authorizing a bank matters concerning its supervisory. Inc. does not have the power to settle controversies and quasi-judicial. or modifying administrative case void. specifically its SEC. however. Therefore. There is nothing in EO No. Thus. 191705. After its investigation. 207355. administrative inquiry court order. Office of the President. powers to justify its assumption of jurisdiction over Section 11 of the AMLA. Pagente. Dee. does not transform it into an investigative transfer. 13 whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave which states that the lack of recommendation of the abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of ODESLA renders the OP's decision in an jurisdiction in affirming. Mendoza and Binay International Group Development Corporation Law Offices v. the AMLC's investigation of money jurisdiction on matters stated under Section 5 of laundering offenses and its determination of P. cannot be said to violate and regulatory functions. Subic Bay Golf SPCMB's constitutional right to procedural due and Country Club.D. xxx. February 3. submitted to the NBI.R. The Court of Appeals. xxx a petition for review xxx. has already been transferred to the RTC acting inquiry into certain bank accounts allowed by court as a special commercial court. (Subido. 2016) resolution dismissing a complaint for lack of probable cause since this is an "essentially The ODESLA is merely a fact-finding and executive function. the Court affirmed the SEC's December 6. 209330. which alleged that SBGCCI and UIGDC committed That the AMLC does not exercise quasi-judicial misrepresentations in the sale of their shares. CRUZ . While the Department of Justice may perform we stressed that the functions of this agency are functions similar to that of a court of law. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Secretary does not determine the legal rights and support in our ruling in Shu v. January No. Pagente. 746- technically capable to undertake the contract. it is beyond question fines and penalties for violation thereof. confined only to the extent of ensuring compliance with the law and the rules. the SEC is permitted to exercise such other merely administrative and regulatory in character. et of the arbitral award. complaint. G. in running the business affairs of [Capitol] xxx that resulted in losses. 2016) No. June 1. if their invocation of authority is objectives and purposes of these laws. the SRC and supervision over all corporations. 196329. 2016) "conducting thorough investigation" on the actions of the petitioners over "the apparent anomalies and As a contractual and consensual body. Securities of corporations to ensure compliance with the law. associations who are the grantees of primary franchises and/or a license or permit issued by the Thus. exceptions . partnerships or the implementing rules and regulations." the growing tribunal does not have any inherent powers over the labor unrest at [Capitol]. Their prayer for the SEC parties and the subject matter through stipulation. It has no power to issue coercive writs or creditors some of whom have already gone into compulsory processes. June 1. and to that the SEC. No. Pablo B. has broad discretion to investigate even motu proprio whether corporations act on matters that relate to its express power of comply with the Corporation Code. Securities and Exchange Commission. The tribunal's powers (or in the case of ad hoc tribunals. private respondents sought the SEC's intervention Securities and Exchange Commission. CRUZ . to exercise its investigatory powers in the end Upon the rendition of the final award. the arbitral fraud over the agreement with ALI. in this case. June 1. there is simply no doubt that the Government. Roman. (Roman v. the continuing financial resort to the regular courts for interim measures of mismanagement and gross negligence and protection and for the recognition or enforcement incompetence shown by Mr. or which are the power to assume jurisdiction over complaints. G. is the authority of the SEC issues is now beyond the province of the SEC. the Court finds no error It also ruled that the SEC may investigate activities with what was held by the CA. 2016) Clearly. al. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW the SEC from assuming jurisdiction to determine if administrative violations were committed. 196329. the unpaid individual parties. (Roman v. intra-corporate allegations were raised. the SEC was never dispossessed of those which may be implied from. no SBGCCI and UIGDC committed administrative grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to it violations and were liable under the SRC despite when it assumed jurisdiction over the letter- the complaint having raised intra-corporate issues. to hear cases regardless of whether an action involves issues cognizable by the RTC. Jr. xxx. it must be stressed that under Section 5. Thus. of the even if these are riddled with intra-corporate express powers granted the SEC to achieve the allegations. Such grant of express power of SEC acted properly in assuming jurisdiction over supervision. wastages and dissipation of The arbitral tribunal acquires jurisdiction over the funds of the corporation.R. as well as to impose With such broad authority.. therefore. any dispute concerning intra-corporate Beyond doubt. their very existence) stem As the SEC is not ousted of its regulatory and from the obligatory force of the arbitration administrative jurisdiction to determine and act if agreement and its ancillary stipulations. there is a need to courts to enforce collection. powers as may be provided for by law as well as In other words. the tribunal would adequately justify the assumption of becomes functus officio and . Simply Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 9 Court by Atty. necessary or incidental to the carrying out. CARLO L. (Roman v.1 (n) of that the SEC could only act upon those which are the SRC. A create a management committee following the perusal of their letter-complaint demonstrates that doctrine of necessary implication.R.R.ceases to have any further jurisdiction indeed. Accordingly. No. in the interest of the minority stockholders by 196329. provided Yet. and Exchange Commission. necessarily includes the power to the letter-complaint filed by private respondents. G. as a regulator.save for a few jurisdiction over the letter-complaint regardless if. over the dispute. But where legislation E. 7160 (R. the Construction Industry Arbitration valid. 2005 containing the policy guidelines on the treatment of discounts However.O. President Arroyo issued E. By (1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the contrast. CARLO L. continuing authority to reorganize the offices under the Technology Electronics Assembly and Management executive department. regulations need not comply with the publication No. Section 1 enumerates quasi- judicial tribunals whose decisions are appealable to the CA instead of the RTC. 1991 (Local Government Code) and the President's (Fruehauf Electronic Philippines Corporation v. 567 provided that it procedural due process of publication or filing was issued pursuant to Republic Act No. 204197. 2003 and January 14. and the filing requirement in Sections 3 and 4. No. No. Thus. there is no legal authority Law Center was not necessary. requisites: Its jurisdiction is likewise conferred by statute. administrative bodies to the CA. provides for an appeal from decisions of certain (Mangune v. (Fruehauf Electronic regulations be published in order to be effective. Book VII. devolving the administration and supervision of TPDH from hence. in the Official Gazette or their filing with the Office of the National Administrative Register at the U. G. it means that such 2016) bodies are co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature. interpretative Assembly and Management Pacific Corporation. No. No.O. the other arbitration body listed in Rule 43 contrary to the laws or the Constitution. 2016) Administrative or executive acts. November 23. in the scope of Rule 43. xxx.A. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW put.R.R. dated June 17. G. Arbitration Law and the ADR Law. such as an Commission (CIAC) . the subject-matter jurisdiction of legislature.P. they confirm or to vacate (but not reverse) arbitral merely interpreted the computation of the cost of awards. No. Rule 43. an administrative issuance. and are not synonymous with each other. 2016) requirement set forth in Section 18. 204197. Philippines Corporation v. we would effectively place it on equal footing with the RTC and remove As such interpretative regulations. 2006. before electric cooperatives may be ordered to 7160). commercial arbitrators is stipulated by the parties.R. arbitral tribunals and the RTC are not co. Further. must comply with the following attached to the Department of Trade and Industry.A. their publication arbitral awards from the scope of RTC review. and "voluntary (3) It must be within the scope of the authority given arbitrators" under the Labor Code. logically placing them beyond the control of the The Court held in ASTEC that the ERC Orders latter. orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not Notably.O. Technology Electronics However. If we were to deem arbitrators as included purchased power. equal bodies because the RTC is authorized to amend or supplant R. All things considered. otherwise known as the Local Government Code of Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 10 Court by Atty. E. Ermita. November 23. in this case. Interpretative regulations add nothing to the law On September 8.is also a government agency executive order. No. CRUZ . by way of exception. 567 and do not affect substantial rights of any person. an arbitral tribunal is a creature of contract. Pacific Corporation. Chapter 5. G. No. extended by power suppliers did not modify. 182604. September 27. Book I. to be . (4) It must be reasonable. of the Administrative Code. These account for the legal differences between (2) It must be promulgated in accordance with the "ordinary" or "commercial" arbitrators under the prescribed procedure. they need to be subjected to the the DOH to the City of Taguig. Rule-Making Authority Chapter 2. 567 satisfies all of the above requisites. 7832 and its IRR. The two terms by the legislature. Procedural due supporting the position that commercial arbitrators process demands that administrative rules and are quasi-judicial bodies. February 3. petitioner’s claim We must remember that regulations may not that no consultations were held is belied by the enlarge. February of VAT should automatically be granted and 23. No.. it when harmonization is impossible. the ERC exercised neither On these bases. This Court. Within 15 registered with the CDA and it is the producer of days of filing. No. 2016) recognized. posit that AO 103 and PD 198 are under the rulings prior to their revocation. all Hence. 14 were monthly VAT declarations and quarterly VAT done in the exercise of the ERC's quasi-legislative returns is essential to a claim for tax refund must and administrative functions. its exemption from the advance payment Department of Education. a law. In the present cannot effectively deprive UCSFA-MPC of its rights case. G. we reject the CIR's insistence that judicial nor quasi-judicial function. laws. a mere executive Sugar Farmers Association Multi-Purpose Cooperative. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW abide by them. July 26. (De Guzman v. G. petitioner's argument that the submission of Instead. always been This does not invalidate the Department Order. v.R. United of subordinate legislation. Inc. advance payment of VAT. petitioner submit additional documents beyond what is decries the non-publication. the first step is revocation/nullification cannot be applied to attempt to harmonize the seemingly inconsistent retroactively to the prejudice of the taxpayers. it cannot engraft additional the actions it took before the adoption of the requirements not contemplated by the legislature. It was in the nature also fail. is evident from the previously quoted provisions of Book VII. once the cooperative has sufficiently shown that is required for the validity of rules that it has satisfied the requirements under Section promulgated by administrative agencies is the 109(1) of the NIRC for the exemption from VAT on filing of three (3) certified copies with the its sale of refined sugar (i. 217999. 2016) between PD 198 and AO 103 as there is no irreconcilable conflict between them. the discretion of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature. assailed Department Order: xxx. alter. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. the inconsistencies between two laws. 188720.R. promulgated in the Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 11 Court by Atty. petitioners. Cooperative. In the same vein. Cadiz Sugar Farmers Association Multi-Purpose Inc. United Cadiz must prevail over AO 103. issuance. G. v. of the assailed Department Order. 209776. 2016) 180642. conflicting and so maintain that PD 198. G. xxx. No. in any manner. December 7. 13-2008 requires the submission of a implementing the RSEC-WR and Resolution No.R. (Quezon City PTCA Federation. enjoy the exemption it has. the taxpayer-claimant should Education itself.e. No. 2016) administrative agency acts pursuant to its rule- making power. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. No. however. RSEC-WR and Resolution No. 2016) The basic rule is that if any BIR ruling or issuance It is a basic principle in statutory construction that promulgated by the CIR is subsequently revoked when faced with apparently irreconcilable or nullified by the CIR herself or by the court. by the Department of required by the law.R. In issuing and RR No. Apart from A taxpayer-claimant should not be required to claiming that no consultations were held. 209776. that it is duly University of the Philippine Law Center. administrative rules become the sugar cane from which refined sugar is effective. certificate of good standing as a condition to a 14. CRUZ . Notice and hearing are not essential when an Commission on Audit.R. December 7. need not choose G. Energy Regulatory Commission. derived). Chapter 2 of the Administrative Code. As entitled to. even if we consider that the CIR had efforts to harmonize seemingly conflicting laws revoked the rulings previously issued in favor of and only resort to choosing which law to apply UCSFA-MPC upon the filing of her answer. it was not called upon to adjudicate the rights of cooperative's exemption from the requirement of contending parties to exercise. by law. (Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative. CARLO L. In any case. As defined above. courts must first exhaust all Hence. or restrict the provisions of the law it Department of Education’s detailed recollection of administers. In other words. G. should. Unless [such] rule is ruling on the classification of articles of sales and annulled in a direct proceeding. 1125. other courts. 2016) judicial remedy. August 10. 9282. in The Philippine American was not made through the proper case directly Life and General Insurance Company v.R. we had the occasion to elucidate that the the same. be disallowed. the CTA "can now rule agencies. petitioner should the separation of the branches of the government. It has been explained that these are and interpret the law which they are entrusted to actually rulings or opinions of the CIR issued enforce have the force of law xxx and enjoy the pursuant to her power under Section 4 of the NIRC presumption of constitutionality and legality until of 1997. wherein we ruled that revenue memorandum circulars are considered The rule is settled that "[a]dministrative regulations administrative rulings issued from time to time by enacted by administrative agencies to implement the CIR. 191150. it would appear within the confines of the granting statute and the that in questioning the validity of the subject doctrine of non-delegation of powers flowing from revenue memorandum circular. Enriquez. G.A. they "cannot provisions of internal revenue laws. April 5.. Secretary of attacking the constitutionality and/or validity of Finance. (Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels. Bureau of Internal Revenue. the latter's (National Association of Electricity Consumers for ruling may be appealed to the CTA.R." R. such rulings of the CIR (including In this case. No.A. the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). CRUZ . 2016) validity of the revenue regulation or revenue Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 12 Court by Atty. as amended. jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in these is binding upon executive and administrative cases. including be attacked collaterally. 212530. Then. by constitutional mandate. Jr. but also on the 225973. Manila Electric Company. It has been held that an jurisdiction of the tax court. xxx. the Court held that "the power of the CTA includes that of determining whether or not there In the absence of any executive issuance or law to has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to the contrary.) with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative No. xxx. follows that administrative regulation adopted pursuant to law the CTA. G. 201852. 2016) Also.R. Inc." As such. and thereafter." Stated differently. No. the ERC applied its rule-making considering that it appears to have failed to comply power as expressly granted by Republic Act (R. including the President as the chief not only on the propriety of an assessment or tax executor of laws. No. thus. to make rulings or opinions in they are set aside with finality in an appropriate connection with the implementation of the case by a competent court.. at the outset. the instant petition constitutes a CIR's power to interpret the provisions of the Tax collateral attack on the above-stated regulation. a 2001" or EPIRA)… (Rosales v. It. v. until set aside. petitioners' opposition against the PBR revenue memorandum circulars) are appealable to rate-setting methodology adopted by the ERC. v. G. (Ocampo v. is vested with has the force and effect of law and. Inc. it was held that under presumption of its validity stands. treatment of a certain transaction.R. November 8. the Secretary of Finance. and Code and other tax laws is subject to the review by therefore. the legal similar purposes. Quasi-legislative memorandum circular on which the said power is exercised by administrative agencies assessment is based. and not to any through its issuance of the DWRG and the RDWR. the AFP Regulations G161-375 lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the remains to be the sole authority in determining [regional trial court] in issuing an interlocutory who are entitled and disqualified to be interred at order in cases falling within the exclusive appellate the LNMB. et al. CARLO L. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW exercise of its delegated power. having the Reforms v. No. October 10. No. technical knowledge over the subject controversies. xxx in Asia International Auctioneers. not have resorted directly before this Court Particularly." From the foregoing through the promulgation of rules and regulations jurisprudential pronouncements. Therefore. Hence. Energy Regulatory clear indication that the case was not yet ripe for Commission. which was thereafter amended by RA No. 9136 ("Electric Power Industry Reform Act of remedies and the rule on hierarchy of courts. 2016) Parayno. No. 2016) presented before them. (Power Sector Assets and Liabilities observance of fundamental and essential Management Corporation v. G. (Banco de Oro Unibank. this Court has broadly In quasi-judicial proceedings. except on questions of law. that are observed in truly judicial proceedings. February 3. or the EPIRA Law. there is no doubt Inc. xxx.R. CRUZ . G.R. later renamed as amended. count among their functions the assist the parties in obtaining just. (Magcamit v.A. G. No. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Quasi-Judicial Power complaints to annul mortgages of condominium or subdivision units. v. 2016) 9136.O. which traditionally were the claims and defenses. as HLURB under E. Nonetheless. No. Inc. Settlements Regulatory Commission. Under declares the arbitral award of the CIAC as final and Executive Order (E. such as failure to deliver entered into by parties involved in construction in titles to the buyers or titles free from liens and the Philippines. exclusive domain of the judicial branch. speedy and interpretation of contracts and the determination of inexpensive determination of their respective the rights of parties. technical rules of procedure and evidence are settling disputes in a modern and diverse society relaxed in administrative proceedings in order "to and economy. Internal Affairs Service–Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 2016) that the HLURB is empowered to annul the subject mortgage.) No. No. 198140. RA 198745. v. which the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission in are appealable to the Supreme Court. and or after the completion of the contract. whether the dispute arises before encumbrances. 194960. or to pay real estate taxes. there is no players in the energy sector. xxx We find the ERC to have acted within its Sunny Side Heights Homeowners Association. Sem-Calaca Power requirements of due process in justiciable cases Corporation." By relaxing technical rules. 957 granted to the National No. As a which were created to address the complexities of rule." Jurisprudence also requirement for strict adherence to technical rules states that administrative agencies like the ERC. Section 3 of P. which reorganized unappealable. the regulatory and quasi-judicial functions of the amendments introduced by R. 204719.D. January 13. Administrative tribunals exercising quasi- the contract between the parties in the present judicial powers are unfettered by the rigidity of dispute.R. an agency may take construed HLURB's jurisdiction to include notice of judicially cognizable facts and of generally Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 13 Court by Atty. No.O.. 1008 vests upon the to curb swindling and fraudulent manipulations by CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over unscrupulous subdivision and condominium disputes arising from. By virtue of 1981.R. the so-called APA and specifically its certain procedural requirements. Section 19 thereof different innocent purchasers for value. thus. administrative agencies must still exercised its quasi-judicial and administrative comply with the fundamental principle of due powers as outlined in jurisprudence by interpreting process. xxx. xxx. 7902 and the NHA were transferred to the Human promulgation of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. the CIAC was included in the. xxx. or connected with. which grants it original and exclusive jurisdiction "over all cases involving Administrative determinations of contested cases disputes between and among participants or are by their nature quasi-judicial. obligations. TG Universal Business Ventures. non-alienable and non-buildable. December 5. As the agency enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies whose tasked to oversee the specific compliance by decisions or awards may be appealed to the Court developers with their contractual and statutory of Appeals in a petition for review under Rule 43. As the administrative agencies are. subject to the Schedule W. 90. G. or after the fraudulent sales of the same subdivision lots to abandonment or breach thereof. contracts sellers and operators. Thus. and judicial powers. the ERC merely performed its coming up with a decision. January 25. statutory powers as defined in Section 43 (u). Inc. such as maintaining the open space as (Pro Builders. 648. 2016) Housing Authority (NHA) exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in order Executive Order (EO) No. given leeway in foregoing imply. No. CARLO L. in statutory function of resolving disputes among the deciding disciplinary cases pursuant to their quasi- parties who are players in the industry. 2016) instant Petition. in respect of its Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions. The parties shall be notified Babiano and the HLURB Board's April 2. Inc. of a public hearing held in accordance with Article 276 of the Implementing Rules and In fact. City of pleading and the attached affidavits and Cebu. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW cognizable technical or scientific facts within its and disregard of the May 24. No. premature resort to the court is fatal to one's cause judicial entities are not by law granted contempt of action. Part VI of the NTC Rules of Regulations of the Local Government Code. Mirant Pagbilao similar to the remedy of injunction granted by the Corporation. to be co- equal with regional trial courts. 98-01 was valid and Telephone Corporation v. 191537. 203336. No. cease and desist orders CTA warrants a dismissal. the case may be dismissed for Charter. where contempt is committed such remedy must be exhausted first before the against quasi-judicial entities. to restate. Trinidad v. GCC Approved Medical Centers Hence.. based on the resolve. then well. aforementioned doctrine is not absolute as it is Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 14 Court by Atty. 2016) courts. and had even been described as (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. on its own competence and jurisdiction of the RTC to initiative or upon a party's motion. In the present dispute.R. 2016) supporting documents. the HLURB waiver or estoppel. G.. 2012 Order of Arbiter specialized knowledge.R. Hence. CRUZ . Inc.R. the Court ruled that the premature filing of a group within the coverage of the law containing claim for refund or credit of input VAT before the the policy. Atienza. v. as it applies a legislative policy to an individual or Inc. The contempt powers of the HLURB instead. Inc. (Philippine Telegraph Municipal Ordinance No. if a remedy within the administrative Association. No. v. 189026.R. the filing of contempt court's power of judicial review can be sought. (Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers.R. This is Procedure and Practices provides that the NTC undoubtedly a pure question of law.. 207132. December 6. 25843 was whether coordinate jurisdiction. National Telecommunications requirements on administrative claims with the Commission. The charges in court is allowed only when these quasi. 1997 and afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so Decision. 180235. prior to its G. without prejudice to a final decision after completion of the hearing. disobedience. it must be clarified that the respondents' perceived misbehavior. Inc. Executive Order No. January 20. the parties are not disputing any cannot interfere with the NTC's exercise of its factual matter on which they still need to present quasi-judicial powers without breaching the rule of evidence. 648. No. In CIR v. Accordingly. November 9. CARLO L. which are to precede judicial actions with the CTA. jurisdiction. 2016) In view of the legislative history of the NTC. (Sps. inasmuch as no have been described and treated as quasi-judicial jurisdiction is acquired by the tax court. No. June 6. 181789. 180434. Aichi Forging Company of Asia.. No. it is clear that Congress intended NTC. acts in past cases. compliance with the (GMA Network. enforceable despite the absence. Court does not have jurisdiction to resolve the G. and declare any person.(Alecha v. xxx. September 14. The sole issue petitioners raised before non-interference with tribunals of concurrent or the RTC in Civil Case No. indubitably impinge on the tax court’s A cease and desist order is quasi-judicial in nature. G. January 20. within the may grant the provisional relief. (Section 12[4]. Book VII. petitioners should have invoked the noticed. for However. 2016) machinery can be resorted to by giving the administrative officer every opportunity to decide Such pronouncement applies to the HLURB as on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction.R. Smart Communications. entity or enterprise in direct or indirect contempt xxx Thus. G. Fama Realty. (Alta Vista Golf and Country Club v. the RTC In this case. Inc. grants the HLURB Board the power to cite lack of cause of action. Notably. February 3. 2016) CIR. Chapter 3. This Administrative Code of 1987).R. Section 3. G. No. G. absent any finding of powers. 2016) enactment. has technical expertise. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW subject to certain exceptions. No. the no doubt. However. Consequently. The Secretary of National Defense should be given Reading Section 39 together with Section 38.R. series of 1987. the question involved is purely legal and will No. Enriquez.O. 2016) in this respect. The Court does capacity. CJH Development Corporation. April 5. petitioners are correct in saying that the decisions of the MARINA are not subject to the xxx.R. November 8.. 2016) directive before the Secretary of National Defense. decision of an attached agency such as the considering that AFP Regulations G 161-375 was MARINA in the exercise of its quasi-judicial issued upon his order. which erroneously gave due course to it in disregard of the doctrines of To summarize. xxx. The DENR Secretary. the present case does not fall under Board. 225973. xxx. 2016) 214241. instead of examination of the probative value presented by directly seeking review by the court. November 28. For another. if warranted. 210316. out that the issue they raised before the CA. Pendens. considering that appealed its case to the Office of the President the resolution of the same would not involve an under A. Gonzales v. i. G. his decision is subject to review of the latter. decisions of the MARINA Board the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of are proper subjects of appeal to the OP. Marmaine Realty Corporation. Sps. No. administrative remedies should have Contrary to their claim of lack of plain. (Rosales v. G. Section 39 makes it clear that the supervision and they could elevate the matter before the Office of control exercised by the department over agencies the President which has control and supervision under it with respect to matters including the over the Department of National Defense (DND). 201852. and that they should have been given opportunity No. and not as his alter egos. propriety of the cancellation of the Notice of Lis thus. falls within the aforesaid exception as the Consequently. Failing to avail not agree with the CA in sustaining petitioners' of such appeal. be dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary. March 7. CARLO L. which jurisdiction. it cannot review the decisions of the MARINA Furthermore. is an attached agency to the DOTC. the DOTC Secretary does not have exhaustion of administrative remedies and primary supervision and control over the MARINA.R. Thus. No. speedy. No. appeal with the CA. having administrative remedies as there is no violation of been made by its members in their ex officio respondents' right to due process. CRUZ . the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies bars recourse to the courts In the case at bar. Nonetheless. 168 Shipping Lines. function) do not apply to attached agencies. which. the opportunity to correct himself. is under the control of the President. been exhausted by filing the case in the ERC. Secretary of the provides on the given set of circumstances. No. to petitioners should be faulted for failing to seek dwell on the issue. Gonzales correctly pointed at the very first instance. G. (Basiana the litigants and must rest solely on what the law Mining Exploration Corporation v. (Spouses Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (Penafrancia EPD necessitated the participation of petitioners Shipping Corporation v.R. xxx. adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. If petitioners would still function is not subject to review by the department. at the very least. 188952. September 21. G.R.R. G. G. petitioners' petition for review with contention that the investigation conducted by the the CA was properly dismissed. 2016) Noticeably. 2016) to explain their side prior to the issuance of the questioned CDO. the petitioners should have same is a purely legal question.e. one of which is when Commission v. 191705. Inc. 2016) ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice. January 13. Energy Regulatory reconsideration of the assailed memorandum and Commission. 18. respondents prematurely filed an review of the DOTC Secretary. (Securities and Exchange Primary Jurisdiction Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 15 Court by Atty. exercise of discretion (performance of quasi-judicial (Ocampo v. the limited jurisdiction of the NCIP is as amended by R. pre- determination requires the expertise. alienation. (Tañada v.R. 591–592 [1997]) Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme Court by Atty. No. G. law principle that requires agreeing parties to 189852. as amended by R. No. 189852. No. No. No. it is clear that the CA proceeding before resort to the courts is had. reiterate Lim. Nos. erred in ruling that the DAR Secretary had (Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation v. The doctrine of primary the DAR or Land Bank of the Philippines and jurisdiction instructs that if a case is such that its those cases involving the sale. (Landicho v. August 17. preventing cognizance of the complaint shall exercise fiscal evasion.]" initiating a Complaint before it and receiving an Pacta sunt servanda is a fundamental international adverse ruling. (Begnaen v. 2016) (Begnaen v. and interpretation of R.R. among others. xxx. 228. We find that treatment to foreign residents or nationals. G. 27 and other agrarian laws and their extending to all controversies brought before them Implementing Rules and Regulations.R. under the coverage of the CARL or other agrarian relief must first be obtained in an administrative laws. jurisdiction remains vested in the NCIP-RHO as the Observance of any treaty obligation binding upon first agency to take cognizance over the case. We find the CA to have agrarian reform matters including those involving erred in reversing the RTC's findings on the the implementation of agrarian reform except those jurisdiction of regular courts and declaring that the falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCIP "has original and exclusive jurisdiction over Department of Agriculture (DA) and the the instant case to the exclusion of the regular Department of Environment and Natural courts." xxx. No.D. 194554. R. G. 6657. No. 6657 vests with the DAR the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate In view of the foregoing.O. December 7. CRUZ 16 . To implementation of the CARP under R. specialized emption and redemption of agricultural lands training and knowledge of an administrative body. over the agreements and contract. March 7. 2016) comply with their treaty obligations in good faith. Caligtan. 2016) Further. Specifically. adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the enforcement. 8371. CARLO L. concurrent with that of the regular trial courts in and 129-A. claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs both original and appellate. 546. Limqueco. G. P. within the legal bounds of rights and remedies. Secretary jurisdiction over the case. August 17.A. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Given that it is the DENR Secretary that has the xxx the DARAB and the PARAD have exclusive primary jurisdiction to approve and cancel mining original jurisdiction. R. the PARAD and the upholding the NCIP's primary jurisdiction over all DARAB have primary and exclusive jurisdiction. xxx. Angara. and according fair and equitable tax Under the foregoing discussions. promoting mutual trade and jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.A. of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.A. We likewise declare the constitutional provision that the Philippines petitioner-appellant estopped from belatedly "adopts the generally accepted principles of impugning the jurisdiction of the NCIP-RHO after international law as part of the law of the land[. and lands under the administration and disposition of not with the courts. Sps. 3844. to determine and and all cases pertaining to the implementation." The appellate court was likewise in error in Resources. E. No. to the the government of the Philippines is anchored on exclusion of the MCTC. xxx. 191705. Caligtan. 338 Phil.R. 2016) Treaties and International Law Principles While the doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject A tax treaty is an agreement entered into between matter. 229. On this score alone. 261-2008-XIII. No. investment.A. No. We have consistently upheld the settled sovereign states "for purposes of eliminating rule that the body or agency that first takes double taxation on income and capital.A. the exercise of the latter's general jurisdiction 6389. 9700. Sps.A. it is with the DENR annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or Secretary that the petitioners should have sought deeds of sale or their amendments involving the cancellation of MPSA No. the Convention (No. No. xxx. xxx. Article 2 Rights. ." such principles are not binding. of the 1961 "United Nations Convention on the Social and Cultural Rights. form part of the laws of the land even our present naturalization laws. Commonwealth if they do not derive from treaty obligations. No. both Generally accepted principles of international law of which require the applicant to be at least include international custom as evidence of a eighteen (18) years old. by virtue of the incorporation clause of the and it cannot be accomplished by the application of Constitution. Under the 1987 Constitution. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. "General on the Reduction of Statelessness: xxx. while yet unratified by the principles of law recognized by civilized nations. an also ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of international law can become part of the sphere of the Child (UNCRC). (Air Canada 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of v. the application of the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of National Internal Revenue Code must be subject to Racial Discrimination. i. Act No. as amended. Angara. The transformation method requires and Political Rights (ICCPR).R. 338 Phil. The first is Article 14 of the 1930 binding as a result from the combination of two Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating elements: the established. and R." These are the same January 11. and to the Conflict of Nationality Laws under which a consistent practice on the part of States. xxx.R. 591–592 (1997) "A and equal protection clauses of the Bill of Rights. In 1986. the country also domestic law either by transformation or ratified the 1966 International Covenant on Civil incorporation. Philippines with foreign countries. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Hence. the International Covenant on Economic. 169507. principle that a foundling is presumed born of Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the citizens of the country where he is found. it is a principles of fairness and justice. based on principles Reduction of Statelessness does not mean that their which are "basic to legal systems generally. the general not a party to the 1930 Hague Convention. The common that an international law be transformed into a thread of the UDHR. The Philippines has international law. G. G. are generally accepted principles of International customary rules are accepted as international law. 2016) state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("UDHR") modifications as may be necessary to ensure the has been interpreted by this Court as part of the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken. the Convention Against the provisions of tax treaties entered into by the Discrimination in Education. treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but (Poe-Llamanzares v. UNCRC and ICCPR is to domestic law through a constitutional mechanism obligate the Philippines to grant nationality from such as local legislation. That the principles of law recognized by civilized nations" Philippines is not a party to the 1930 Hague are principles "established by a process of Convention nor to the 1961 Convention on the reasoning" or judicial logic. birth and ensure that no child is stateless." xxx. . Employment and Occupation. March 8. CARLO L. 2016) core principles which underlie the Philippine Constitution itself. as embodied in the due process (Note: Tañada v. CRUZ . 9139.") generally accepted principles of international law Foundlings are likewise citizens under and binding on the State. While the Philippines is as "general principles of equity. 221697 & 221698-700. Commission on Elections. xxx." and the "general signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human principle against discrimination" which is Rights. On the other hand. grant of nationality must be at the time of birth. and a foundling is presumed to have the "nationality of psychological element known as the opinion juris the country of birth. 546. widespread. Article 15(1) of which effectively affirms embodied in the "Universal Declaration of Human Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention. the International Reduction of Statelessness" merely "gives effect" to Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 17 Court by Atty. contained practice in question is rendered obligatory by the in Article 2 of the 1961 United Nations Convention existence of a rule of law requiring it. The principles found in two general practice accepted as law. and general conventions. creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. This generally accepted principles of international law. A Nos.e. The second is the sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). .A. Philippines.. 473. where only four resident foreign corporation. Absent the treaty. the state No. and within the fairness.part of customary to legal systems generally. Ochoa. the asylum state imposes foundlings are among the Filipino children who limitations on itself. No. a recognition of foreign judgments. CRUZ . G. 221697 & 221698-700. G. March not signed or ratified the "International Convention 8." Razon v. The right of a state to successfully request international law" under the incorporation clause.R." as the phrase is understood in another of an individual accused or convicted of an Article 38. being discrimination. which needed the ratification of a minimum of 204605. 2016) the duty to surrender a person who has sought asylum within its boundaries does not inhere in the Current legislation reveals the adherence of the state. treaty with the requested state. August 3." In all of them. this Court noted that the Philippines had on Elections. Tagitis (621 Philippine citizens. although the duty to extradite the right against enforced disappearances and the exists only for some international crimes. but also on "general principles of law recognized by Extradition is "the surrender by one nation to civilized nations. which are fundamental principles competent to try and to punish him. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Article 15(1) of the UDHR. In Razon v. This persons from the requested state's jurisdiction shows that even the executive department. In that regard.1 paragraph (c) of the ICJ Statute. and is of the Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 18 Court by Atty. Our approach in Razon and Mijares transactions with GTRC. (Poe-Llamanzares v. the extradition of a criminal offender arises from a (Poe-Llamanzares v. 8042 and this Court's Rules on Adoption. if it so wishes. we ruled that the proscription The Madrid Protocol does not amend or modify the against enforced disappearances in the said IP Code on the acquisition of trademark rights convention was nonetheless binding as a "generally considering that the applications under the Madrid accepted principle of international law.A. (Commissioner of Internal effectively takes into account the fact that Revenue v. Thus. Likewise. Indeed. 2016) for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.R. R. xxx. the RP-US Tax Treaty complementarily Commercial Matters" when the case was decided in governs the tax implications of respondent's 2005. Commission on Elections." support the notion that international law. that GTRC is a non- Mijares v. Inc. pursuant to the cardinal principle 1966 "Convention on the Recognition and that treaties have the force and effect of law in this Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and jurisdiction. Commission Phil. March 8. however.. treaty creates the reciprocal obligation to surrender Passports are by law. No. 536). which. Nos. The extradition that the DFA issues passports to foundlings. 8552. offense outside of its own territory.A. issued only to citizens. considers foundlings as within the requesting state's territory. July 19. has fled. R. Another case where the number of ratifying countries was not determinative is It must be noted. (Intellectual Property sixteen states and had not even come into force and Association of the Philippines v. 2016) twenty states. xxx. "generally accepted principles of international law" 216130. which. specifically a resident countries had "either ratified or acceded to” the of the US. G." It is not. in granting him asylum. G. CARLO L. But by expressly refer to "Filipino children. because it thereby agrees to do could be adopted. Goodyear Philippines. the IPOPHL will only generally accepted principle of international law grant protection to a mark that meets the local although the convention had been ratified by only registration requirements. equity and the policy against territorial jurisdiction of the other. commits no breach of international law." Yet. Ranada (495 Phil. Nos. 372). demands the underlying the Bill of Rights and which are "basic surrender. were correctly state must extradite only when obliged by treaty to considered as "generally accepted principles of do so. In particular. 2016) are based not only on international custom. 221697 & 221698-700. acting charged or convicted of certain crimes committed through the DFA.R. Protocol are still examined according to the relevant Tagitis is likewise notable for declaring the ban as a national law. can extend to him a Philippines to this generally accepted principle of refuge and protection even from the state that he international law. Thus. Justice.R. it has been pointed something it was free not to do. concluding the treaty. No. Administrative Region. the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross A careful reading shows that the foreign law Violations of International Human Rights Law and subject-matter of this controversy deals with Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law bribery in both public and private sectors. Munoz should be charged for the Government with other countries primarily govern offenses not as a regular agent or one representing the relationship between the parties. context otherwise requires. The ICCPR.e. Section 9(1 )(a). call for the enactment of legislative measures. because the For purposes of the extradition of Munoz. the extraditable August 16. Nevertheless. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW same level as a law passed by the Legislatures of that the interpretation shall apply unless the the respective parties. Yet. and lays servants. adopted by the U. CRUZ . and (6) the period provided under Article 15 of the RP-HK offenses are criminal in both the HKSAR and the Agreement. it is also quite evident that the particular December 16. i.N. (4) the individual before the the RP-HK Agreement. and the Updated Set of Principles provision of the POBO allegedly violated by for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Muñoz. the HKSAR shall to believe that the person to be extradited hereafter arrange for Muñoz's surrender within the committed the offenses charged. namely: (1) there must be private sector bribery. 1069 defines the general It cannot be argued that Section 9(1)(a) of the POBO procedure for the extradition of persons who have encompasses both private individuals and public committed crimes in a foreign country. the conditions for the an extradition treaty in force between the HKSAR application of the double criminality rule are and the Philippines. 2005 by the U. which is provided under regard the conduct covered by the request for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights extradition as criminal. Economic and Social Council. an instrumentality of the Philippine particular treaties entered into by the Philippine Government. Under the double criminality rule. (5) proceeded against only for the seven counts of the evidence submitted establishes probable cause conspiracy to defraud. despite the interpretation 8. xxx. As such. the offense of accepting an advantage as an agent charged HKSAR as the requesting state must establish the against him in the HKSAR is one that deals with following six elements.N. xxx.this. a private entity but as a public servant or employee of the Philippine Government.N. Muñoz should be court is the same person charged in the HKSAR. represented by the Philippine Department of Justice v. the crime of are pending in the HKSAR against the person to be accepting an advantage as an agent must be dropped extradited. 2016) offense must be criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested states". the Philippines. 207342. as well as the U. (ICCPR). Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 19 Court by Atty.. Accordingly. No. Munoz. xxx. (3) the crimes for which the person to be from the request for extradition. This simply Petitioners argue that the burial of Marcos at the means that the requested state comes under no LNMB will violate the rights of the HRVVs to "full" obligation to surrender the person if its laws do not and "effective" reparation. Conformably with extradited is charged are extraditable within the the principle of specialty embodied in Article 17 of terms of the treaty. General Assembly on However." The POBO clearly states principles on reparation and to combat impunity. (2) the criminal charges that obviously not met. deals with private Through Action to Combat Impunity dated February sector bribery . by or acting for another. Presidential Decree No. down the rules to guide the Executive Department and the courts of the Philippines on the proper Considering that the transactions were entered into implementation of the extradition treaties to which by and in behalf of the Central Bank of the the country is a signatory.R. under Section 2 of the POBO that an "agent includes a public servant and any person employed We do not think so. CARLO L. (Government of Hongkong Special Philippines (double criminality rule). xxx. 2005. G. O. 9208 promulgated on March 1. judicial remedies. G. aside from the writs of habeas Republic Act No. which provides rules on cases 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act involving extra-judicial killings of political of 2004). 9344 (Juvenile Justice and ideologists and members of the media. 9745 (Anti-Torture Act dated December 10.O. 197 dated September 25. 1999 (Declaring August 12. 2007 (Directing the Cooperation and ICCPR and the Optional Protocol. CRUZ . 1999 and Every 12th Day of 2010). On the Welfare Act of 2006). Republic Act No. No. the Committee was and AFP Coordination with PHRC Sub-committee on organized. Republic Act No. Liberty and Security of the Members of the Power Revolution that culminated on February 25. 35 dated processes. Pursuant to Investigation and Prosecution of Political and Media Killings). 2009 (Creating the Church-Police-Military- Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 20 Court by Atty. 181 On December 19. E. xxx. and Programs for obligations under the ICCPR. No. Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012). When the Filipinos regained their (Creating the Presidential Task Force on Violations of the democratic institutions after the successful People Right to Life. 10368 (Human Humanitarian Law). 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Coordinating Committee on Human Rights). 157 dated August 21. 249 dated December 10. the three branches of the government have laws affecting human rights: Republic Act No. E. 10364 (Expanded Anti-Trafficking Committee [GRPMC] on Human Rights and International In Persons Act of 2012).O. xxx. 2006 Rights Victims Reparation And Recognition Act of 2013). 8371 (The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997). xxx. 9710 (The Magna administrative and executive orders. protect and fulfill (An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested. 163 dated December 8. Republic Act No. Xxx the Court in the the Effective Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on case of Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Universal the Philippines v. The ICCPR Coordination Between the National Prosecution Service and recognized the "inherent dignity of the human Other Concerned Agencies of Government for the Successful person" and its concomitant rights. 2007 Administrative (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003). 2008 (Further claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its Strengthening Government Policies. (Creating an Independent Commission to Address Media and Republic Act No. and habeas data. Plans. No. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW establishment of national programmes. E. 2016 obligations. 404 dated January 24. No.O. 134 dated July (Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 31.O. Liberty and more than compliant with its international Security of Persons). 1999 (Providing for the Creation of a National Other Crimes Against Humanity). Republic Act No. 1997 (Creating the Inter-Agency of 2009). and Expanding Further the Functions of Said Committee). No. (Ocampo v. Detaining and Investigating Officers 1987 Constitution contains provisions that promote and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof). No. No. 9372 (Human part of the Executive Branch. that are necessary to give effect to November 22.O. 2007 (DND Article 41 of the ICCPR. 7438 done their fair share to respect. Enforced Disappearances. 2005 (Creating the 10353 (Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of Government of the Republic of the Philippines Monitoring 2012). and Liaison Committee to Formulate and Implement a provision for administrative and judicial recourse. amparo. A. 9201 (National Human Rights corpus. the RP became party to the dated July 3. Republic Act No. CARLO L. E. 118 Against International Humanitarian Law. Torture other international laws.O. Republic Act No.R.O. covenants and on Extra-Legal Killings. Duque III stated that a Declaration of Human Rights).O. Republic Act No. A. 1966. and dated July 5. The Philippines is and Other Grave Violations of the Right to Life. Republic Act No. No. No. No. 2016) Presidential Human Rights Committee. 10121 Committee on the Culture of Peace). Order No. 225973. 2007 (Creating a Task Force Against Political communications to the effect that a State Party Violence). it issued a number of Security Act of 2007). 1 dated October 11. 2012 (Creating the Inter-Agency Committee human rights embodied in treaties.O. the Supreme Court Consciousness Week Act of 2002). Comprehensive Program to Establish Strong Partnership in accordance with the country's constitutional Between the State and the Church on Matters Concerning Peace and Order and Human Rights). Republic Act No.O. No. Republic Act No. A. 25-2007. As to Act No. Republic and protect human rights and social justice. A.O. the country's human rights obligations xxx. No. The Detained or Under Custodia/Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting. the Congress passed the following 1986. 10168 (The Terrorism Financing August Thereafter as International Humanitarian Law Day).O. A. Signatories recognized the competence Killings and Disappearances). Finally. Health Sec. Republic Act No. A. Media). 10530 (The Red Cross and Other Emblems Activist Killings). Enriquez. 211 dated of the Committee to receive and consider November 26. No. 370 Carta of Women). Republic Act No. (Strengthening and Increasing the Membership of the November 8. A. A. 2006 Act of 2013). No. Genocide. A. 847 dated treaty is transformed into domestic law through a November 23. Thus. No." Article XIII. recommendations as these are matters which are Singson. xxx. 212426. 189220. xxx. or those reflecting on his "important characteristics of a judicial decision" moral character. CRUZ . and (b) does not reflect on the moral character of the employee or would involve The policy of the Constitution is to protect and moral turpitude. January 12. the Court would like to stress that it is punishing him for his offense. and marriage as the foundation of Phils. No. (Wilson all three Constitutions guarantee the basic right to v. the Constitution decrees reaffirmed the general rule that separation pay marriage as legally inviolable and protects it from Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 21 Court by Atty. Executive Secretary. status. Ermita. G. 2016) inequalities xxx" and Article XV.R. in observation of the beyond its purview to act on such principle of equity. To be sure. dignity. the grant of separation pay or prejudicial to their development. xxx. respondent for his negligent acts instead of Once again. As such. In Toyota Motor social institution. case law instructs that in certain cruelty. Workers Association v. justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus. the Court required that the grant of separation pay G. Of special consideration are Nuclear Weapons several provisions in the present charter: Article II. and political No. misconduct. 221697 & 221698-700. NLRC. gross and nowhere in the instrument does it say that the View habitual neglect of duty. February 10. Nos. is already expressed respect for human rights.R. All exhort the State to render social justice. December 7. Commission on Elections. All told. A contrary ruling would effectively reward against. dignity of every human person and guarantees full whether prepositioned or not. xxx. 214230. economic. xxx. the Court finds that and are not per se decisions which may be enforced the award of separation pay to respondent as a outright. (Security Bank Savings Corporation v. exploitation. It would be unnecessary which mandates Congress to "give highest priority or superfluous to include all prohibitions already in to the enactment of measures that protect and the Constitution or in the law through a document enhance the right of all the people to human like EDCA. what was dismissed for causes other than serious ratified were the ICCPR and the Optional Protocol. abuse." Certainly. fraud or willful breach of the Committee forms part of the treaty. In sum. Section 1 in the 1987 Constitution. and other conditions circumstances. Section 3 which requires the State to defend the "right of children to Social Justice assistance. Any of trust. these financial assistance to a legally dismissed employee provisions contradict an intent to discriminate has been allowed as a measure of social justice or against foundlings on account of their unfortunate on grounds of equity. 2016) as financial assistance given in light of social justice be allowed only when the dismissal: (a) was not for Family serious misconduct. However. (Saguisag v. the Court the family. R. Corp. G. On the contrary. G. and special protection from all forms of neglect. there must shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only be an act more than ratification to make a treaty in those instances where the employee is validly applicable in our jurisdiction. CARLO L. The Court finds that there is no We find no such intent or language permitting ministerial duty and clear legal right which would discrimination against foundlings. These Views. in the PLDT case. 2016) equal protection of the laws. reduce social. therefore. willful disobedience. Padao is not strengthen the family as the basic autonomous entitled to financial assistance. xxx. are mere measure of social justice is riot warranted in this recommendations to guide the State it is issued case. 2016) best taken up by the Legislative and the Executive branches of government as can be seen by the Human Rights formation of the Presidential Human Rights Committee. including proper care and nutrition. (Poe-Llamanzares v. March 8.R. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW constitutional mechanism. As an exception. commission of a crime against the View issued by the Committee only displays employer or his family. Section 11 which provides that the "State values the The general prohibition on nuclear weapons. the cure would be beyond the People. (Emphases supplied) (Castillo incapacity. (Republic v. the party would be incapable of carrying out the Nevertheless. the exacting norms of society. 9344. 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women protects the perception of both parties or of one women against discrimination in all matters that their union is so defective with relating to marriage and family relations. With particular regard to women. but the same would be easily Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 22 Court by Atty. 216671. to warrant the above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) declaration of nullity of marriage. this consent. and (c) be incurable. Castillo. appropriate process of determining the although the overt manifestations may emerge only responsibility and treatment of the CICL without after the marriage. this is "in consonance with the policy xxx As a matter of policy. October 3. i. G. global warming and pollution of the North marriage. only a child about to assume. the psychological years of age who acted with discernment shall not incapacity must: (a) be grave or serious such that be exempted from criminal responsibility. Weighed against these safeguards. 2016) would be as diverse and far-ranging as human ingenuity and fancy could Precautionary Principle conceive. including respect to the essential requisites of a contract of marriage as to render it void the right to choose freely a spouse and to enter ipso jure and with no legal effect . No. it must be rooted in the diversion. Not only Federal Republic of Germany used the would such an open and public Vorsogeprinzip ("foresight principle") to justify the declaration by the courts definitively implementation of vigorous policies to tackle acid confirm the nullity of the contract of rain. reduced to a mockery and would rest oppressive and discriminatory.R. or even if it resorting to formal court proceedings..A. therefore. G. Were this so. should refer to the 2016) most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. which refers to an alternative. And the grounds for nullifying marriage February 24. The principle of precaution originated as a social and nothing less. Brent Hospital and Colleges. were otherwise. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW dissolution at the whim of the parties. it inviolable social institution would be becomes apparent that Brent's condition is coercive. Romero. under R. on very shaky foundations indeed. 189607. Republic be accomplished merely on the basis of Act No. an official state pronouncement through the courts. Thus. In the 1980s. 2016) means of the party involved. 2016) Women In Domingo v.R. Inc. 187417. No. CRUZ . (Dorado v. According to Brent. we explained the policy behind that she subsequently contract marriage with her the institution of this requirement: then boyfriend for her to be reinstated. No. Court of Appeals (G. April 18.R. as a ground to nullify a marriage under v. No.R.and into marriage only with their free and full nothing more.R. xxx. Article 36 of the Family Code. the against encouraging illicit or common-law relations nullification of a marriage for the that would subvert the sacrament of marriage. 209180. It must be a malady that is so grave and permanent Youth as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is Consequently. it has verifiable through records accessible to consistently been held that psychological everyone. (Capin-Cadiz v. G. 104818. 17 In this case. February 24. Brent imposed on Cadiz the condition September 1993). will satisfy the planning principle in Germany. the said child does not immediately ordinary duties required in a marriage. CARLO L." purpose of contracting another cannot xxx.e. Instead. No.. No. he or she may undergo a juridical antecedence. G. Thus. child- history of the party antedating the marriage. (b) have proceed to trial. For such a socially significant institution. . categorized as a special civil applied by States according to their action and conceptualized as an extraordinary capabilities. 189185. of such magnitude as to prejudice the life. In the present case. Even the facts submitted indication of a threat of environmental harm. or that the causal link between an that a law. xxx. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Sea. namely: uncertainty. lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used magnitude that will prejudice the life. The oft-cited Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio lack of scientific data supporting a ban on aerial Declaration on Environment and Development spraying. the allegation by established. (LNL Archipelago Minerals. act or omission of a public official or employee. 209165. health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or It is notable. the precautionary approach shall be widely The Writ of Kalikasan. calculated. Inc. and (3) the actual or threatened violation with the goal of preserving and protecting the involves or will lead to an environmental damage environment. the courts may construe a set of a public official or employee. CRUZ . Inc.R. (2) the actual or threatened between human activity and environmental effect. CARLO L. or private individual facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction or entity. No. G. or if by Agham to establish environmental damage were the threatened harm is trivial or easily reversible. approach in sustaining the ban against aerial April 12. mere general allegations.R. or private individual or entity. that the precautionary provinces. Where there are threats of remedy. rule or regulation was violated or would action and environmental damage can be be violated. Pilipino follows: Banana Growers and Exporters Association. only preventive. or the probability of occurrence can be Agham that two laws – the Revised Forestry Code. No. No. as down for being unreasonable. v. 0309-07 should be struck (1992 Rio Agenda). (Mosqueda v. We should not apply the precautionary Minerals. covers environmental damage of such serious or irreversible damage. health or as a reason for postponing cost-effective property of inhabitants in two or more cities or measures to prevent environmental provinces. G. April 12. 09-6-8-SC) involves matters of this remedy: (1) there is an actual or threatened evidence in cases where there is lack of full violation of the constitutional right to a balanced scientific certainty in establishing a causal link and healthful ecology. even in the absence of evidence. not precautionary as amended. Neither will the violated by LAMI was not adequately precautionary principle apply if there is no substantiated by Agham. Ordinance No. However. 2016) concurrence of three elements. Agham principle shall only be relevant if there is Party List. August 16. the Court cannot issue a writ of kalikasan the health of the residents within and near the based on the petition. Inc.R. 209165. 2016) spraying if little or nothing is known of the exact or potential dangers that aerial spraying may bring to Likewise.M. The writ is available against an unlawful degradation. No. may be taken. It is dangerous to quickly presume and healthful ecology is violated or threatened with that the effects of aerial spraying would be adverse violation by an lawful act or omission. In this jurisdiction. The writ is a remedy to plantations and to the integrity and balance of the anyone whose constitutional right to a balanced environment. Accordingly. G. therefore. for the violation must involve environmental damage Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 23 Court by Atty. first embodied this principle. the principle of precaution appearing in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental The following requisites must be present to avail of Cases (A. and the Philippine Mining Act – were measures. v. In situations where the threat is for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan has to show relatively certain. 2016) Principle 15 Writ of Kalikasan In order to protect the environment. threat of environmental damage and serious or It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege irreversible harm. Agham Party List. (LNL Archipelago xxx. violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of In such an event. health. 861). 2016) COMELEC (596 Phil. the facts in these eventual application to reacquire Philippine four cases are very different from her situation.S. She was disqualified on the citizenship issue. 207264. respondents.S. returning to the 2016) Philippines after all trips abroad. 223076. and the actually re-established her residence here on 24 residence at the place chosen for the new domicile May 2005 (securing T. G. there must basically be of their address in the U. the and permanently relocate to the Philippines and change of residence must be voluntary. he would be running in the elections. The COMELEC. In other words.. September Philippine citizenship under R. coupled with her But as the petitioner pointed out." Residence It is obvious that because of the sparse evidence on When petitioner immigrated to the U. 2. COMELEC (G. In citizenship and her family's actual continuous stay Coquilla v. (Braga v. G. Nos. No. In Caballero v. granted him to allow him to re-establish his life and No. In Reyes v. house) choice must be for an indefinite period of time. constructing a residence here. said that "such fact alone is not sufficient to prove her one-year residency. (Poe-Llamanzares v. enrolling her children in must be actual. she residence in the four cases cited by the lost her original domicile. taking the children from U. which is the Philippines. one and definite acts which correspond with the notifying the U. 221697 & 221698-700. 25 June or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or 2013. 9225 or had 13. With the return of a balikbayan and help him reintegrate into Court decreeing that residence is distinct from society. donating excess items animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. Indeed. the candidate was found to be provinces in order to warrant the issuance of the an American citizen who had not even reacquired writ. March 8. In contrast. No. Nos. quoted with THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT approval by this Court. Commission on Philippine schools.I. requirements of repatriation. a bona fide intention of abandoning the (selling the house.S. To the evidence of petitioner is overwhelming and successfully effect a change of domicile. On residence. Japzon v.R. Post Office of the abandonment purpose. getting quotes from the freight company.S. her husband resigning from The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of U. the Court had no choice but to hold There are three requisites to acquire a new that residence could be counted only from domicile: 1. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW of such magnitude as to prejudice the life. to the Salvation Army. one must taken together leads to no other conclusion that she demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change decided to permanently abandon her U. And that is exactly Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 24 Court by Atty.A. it would be an unduly harsh conclusion to citizenship. March 8. CRUZ . employment right after selling the U.R. Abaya.S. an intention to remain there. COMELEC (434 Phil. COMELEC (G. residence of domicile. the issue there was whether the say in absolute terms that the balikbayan must leave candidate's acts after reacquisition sufficed to after one year. No. and 3. in 1991. (Poe-Llamanzares v. G. former place of residence and establishing a new schools. the only in the Philippines over the years. intention to abandon the old domicile. 22 September 2015).S. 209835. Elections. 221697 & 221698-700. 2016) renounced her U. CARLO L. the candidate reintegrate himself into the community before he admitted that his place of work was abroad and attends to the necessary formal and legal that he only visited during his frequent vacations. 699 SCRA 522). 354) did not involve a candidate who wanted to count residence prior to Given the law's express policy to facilitate the his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. it is clear that evidence presented was a community tax certificate when petitioner returned on 24 May 2005 it was for secured by the candidate and his declaration that good.R. buying property here. citizenship. an reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. the only proof she offered was a seven-month stint Article VI as provincial officer. Commission on Elections.S. That visa-free period is obviously establish residence.R.N. her husband getting employed here). Residence or bodily presence in a new acquisition of a permanent resident visa or from locality.S.R. which is done contrary to justice. March 8. 211140. xxx. xxx. xxx. we likewise listed libel as one Members of the crimes involving moral turpitude. xxx. Flores (183 Phil. 2016) present case.In the present case. In the No. on the part of the public respondents. G. 449 the order of its Second Division and ordered the [2008]).R. an act of baseness. In sum. This is also similar to a with jurisdiction on the matter. xxx. modesty. (Poe. There is no alternative to the rule of law except the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic reign of chaos and confusion.she re-established life here by the private and social duties which a man owes his enrolling her children and buying property while fellowmen. Although not awaiting the return of her husband and then every criminal act involves moral turpitude. (Velasco v. xxx.R. or good morals.350 votes as against respondent Locsin who only candidacy on 9 October 2012 for the 2013 elections. Thus. January 12. 2001 elections. xxx. Pichay is disqualified under Section Representatives to administer the oath to the 12 of the Omnibus Election Code for his conviction rightful Representative of a legislative district and for a crime involving moral turpitude. The rule of law quo warranto petition contesting the election of a demands that its Decision be obeyed by all officials of the Member of the House of Representatives on the land. has become final and executory. which became final on 1 June 2009. Having been convicted of the Mandamus to compel the Speaker of the House of crime of libel. Pichay misrepresented his eligibility in his certificate of candidacy because he knew that HRET he had been convicted by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. Thus. In the case at bar. CRUZ . got 53. In Zari v. Commission on Elections. The facts are Pichay made a false material representation as to settled and beyond dispute: petitioner garnered his eligibility when he filed his certificate of 71. The Decision of the to a quo warranto proceeding under Section 253 of COMELEC en banc has not been challenged before the Omnibus Election Code since they both deal this Court by respondent Locsin and said Decision with the eligibility or qualification of a candidate. G. Belmonte. Comelec (595 Phil. xxx. 27 [1979]).447 votes in the May 14. of the Philippines filed before the HRET. the issue with the distinction mainly in the fact that a Section of who is the rightful Representative of the 4th 78 petition is filed before proclamation. Pichay admits his conviction for four It will not be the first time that the Court will grant counts of libel. In Fermin v. Under the Secretary-General to enter said Representative's Section 12. or to society in general. while a legislative district of Leyte has been finally settled petition for quo warranto is filed after proclamation by the COMELEC en banc. Pichay is administration of oath and the registration of the disqualified to become a Member of the House of petitioner in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives until then. Nos. the disqualification shall be removed name in the Roll of Members of the House of after the expiration of a period of five years from Representatives. on Motion for under Sections 74 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Reconsideration the COMELEC en banc set aside Code. Moral turpitude is defined as everything for the office. crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude while 221697 & 221698-700. CARLO L. Considering his Representatives representing the 4th legislative ineligibility due to his disqualification under district of Leyte is no longer a matter of discretion Section 12. the his service of sentence. 2016) crimes mala prohibita do not. vileness or depravity in Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 25 Court by Atty. the constitutional body of the winning candidate. the applying for repatriation shortly thereafter. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW what petitioner did . Court is guided by one of the general rules that Llamanzares v. we likened a proceeding under Section 78 proclamation of the petitioner. his A sentence by final judgment for a crime involving representation that he was eligible for elective moral turpitude is a ground for disqualification public office constitutes false material under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code: representation as to his qualification or eligibility xxx. The Pichay's disqualification under Section 12 is a COMELEC Second Division initially ordered the material fact involving the eligibility of a candidate proclamation of respondent Locsin. (Ty-Delgado v. fraud.R. Jr. 700 [2012]). 601 returns and qualifications of members of the House [2012]) and Aratea v. In both sole judge of all contests relating to the election. (Abayon v. legislative and administrative functions. terrorism or other the only qualified candidate who actually garnered electoral irregularities existed to warrant the the highest number of votes. nevertheless. cannot give rise to a valid originally in the legislature. the HRET. It must be remembered that the Alvin John's nuisance candidacy had long become COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial. v.R. 7166. Representatives. the Court will not affecting the validity of the contestee's title. We found that since the certificate of exercising its constitutional duty to ascertain who candidacy of the candidate with the highest among the candidates received the majority of the number of votes was void ab initio. March 1. If Wigberto timely filed a petition before the candidates received the majority of the valid this Court within the period allotted for special votes cast. Because in doing so. Thus. The power granted to the 78 is deemed to have not been a candidate at all. during or after the elections. the COMELEC performs its administrative involving the members of the House of function when it exercises such power. As exclusive authority conferred by no less than the things stand. House of Representatives terrorism in the contested precincts. hesitate to set aside the HRET's decision favoring Consequently.A. terrorism or other G. that the HRET would conclude that terrorism 2016) indeed existed in the said precincts. Thus. The exercise its quasi-judicial functions when it declares Constitution no less. In the event Electoral Tribunal. HRET. The phrase limits as the Court retains certiorari jurisdiction "election. (Tanada v. Jalosjos. To deprive the HRET the prerogative to The Court. for the position of annulment. the annulment of election results is Daza if it was tainted with grave abuse of but a power concomitant to the HRET's discretion on its part. No. G. The COMELEC. January 26. No. House of Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 26 Court by Atty. 2016) the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial function when it decides election contests not otherwise The Court agrees that the power of the HRET to reserved to other electoral tribunals by the annul elections differ from the power granted to Constitution. we proclaimed the second placer. 222236. quasi- final and executory. and all his votes were considered had jurisdiction to determine whether there was stray votes. as the candidacy and necessarily to valid votes. annul elections would undermine its constitutional HRET that the HRET's independence is not without fiat to decide election contests. HRET by the Constitution is intended to be as because his certificate of candidacy is considered complete and unimpaired as if it had remained void ab initio and thus. which necessarily includes those House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Daza. it is merely Mayor. Commission on Elections (696 of Representatives. however. grants the HRET with a failure of elections pursuant to R. No. 2016) irregularities committed before. its determination. To the Court's mind. xxx. then it is proper for this Court to annul elections in the exercise of its sole and assume jurisdiction and rule on the matter. returns and qualifications" should be over it if only to check whether it had gravely interpreted in its totality as referring to all matters abused its discretion. Commission on Elections (696 Phil. CARLO L. does not the COMELEC to declare failure of elections. G. then it could annul the election results in the said precincts to the The HRET did not commit any grave abuse of extent of deducting the votes received by Daza and discretion in declaring that it has no jurisdiction to Abayon in order to remain faithful to its determine whether Alvin John was a nuisance constitutional mandate to determine who among candidate. the COMELEC En Banc's ruling on Constitution. he was never a valid votes cast. CRUZ . May 3. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW A person whose certificate of candidacy had been constitutional mandate to determine the validity of denied due course and/or cancelled under Section the contestee's title. clarified in Tagolino v. 7166 actions and questioned Alvin John's nuisance cannot deprive the HRET of its incidental power to candidacy.R. No. which raise the issue of fraud. As such. 219603. exclusive jurisdiction to decide all election contests Rather. Moreover. the HRET candidate at all.A. 217012. (Abayon v. may annul election results if in Phil. the passage of R. No. R. CRUZ . G. In Purpose Cooperative. returns. 221538. Our review is limited to a determination of whether there has been an error in We have consistently ruled that claims for tax jurisdiction. National Power Corporation v. we distinguished between enforceable and unenforceable stipulations on the assumption of tax liability. still possible. in violation of the doctrine of separation review is. and to the election. the *petitioners have arrogated upon jurisdiction on the part of any branch or themselves a power reserved exclusively to instrumentality of the Government.R. the imposition of taxes. Executive Secretary. G. the State's inherent power to tax is vested Presidential Electoral Tribunal) may be initiated. electricity. Hence. liability requires the party assuming the liability to 222236. September 20. 212426. exemptions. does not constitute a tax exemption as petitioners It is only before them that post-election challenges have posited. January 12.R. not an error in judgment. G. disaster preparation. 2016) Tax refunds and exemptions are exceptions rather than the rule and for this reason are highly Tax Exemptions disfavored. against the election. Electoral Tribunals not in the exercise of its Lazatin. when based on statutes granting tax Senate Electoral Tribunal. therefore. December 7. returns. G. thus. partake of the nature of an exemption." Judicial Congress. Article VI. 2016) have actual interest in the property taxed. (Purisima v. 456 [2009]). Section 17's tax exemptions. As RR 2-2012. (Saguisag v. In these lights. This denial of the claim. but also his due observance from Congress. in the case of the Finally. No. EDCA simply states that the taxes on refund. Province of Quezon (610 2016) Phil. shall only be valid pursuant to a Section 1's express statement that "[j]udicial power legislative enactment. G. This rule applies to EDCA. 210588. the rule of strict interpretation applies. This allegation ignores of the reglementary periods within which he must jurisprudence on the government's assumption of file his administrative and judicial claims for tax liability. petitioners allege that EDCA creates a tax rule requires the claimant to prove not only his exemption. since the Philippine Government SET stands to benefit not only from the structures to be built thereon or improved. exclusively in the Legislature. an executive includes the duty of the courts of justice . xxx. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue provision creates a situation in which a contracting v. . United Cadiz Sugar Farmers Association Multi- party assumes the tax liability of the other. Thus.R. to issuance. which under the law must originate entitlement to a refund. we hereby rule and reviews judgments of the House and Senate declare that RR 2-2012 is null and void. as stipulation of electoral tribunals' being the "sole" well as the grant and withdrawal of tax judge must be read in harmony with Article VIII. in evaluating a claim for refund.S. Afterwards. and qualifications of No. and qualifications of the the preferential use of Philippine suppliers. No. vested in these electoral tribunals. forces. No. Hence. May 3. elective officials falling within the scope of their the provision on the assumption of tax liability powers is. exemption. we concluded that an enforceable assumption of tax Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 27 Court by Atty. We have since ruled The judgments of these tribunals are not beyond that the power to tax includes the power to grant the scope of any review. This Finally. and public utilities are procedural due process requirements results in the for the account of the Philippine Government. Non-compliance with these substantive and the use of water. attempts to withdraw the tax incentives determine whether or not there has been a grave clearly accorded by the legislative to FEZ abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of enterprises. (David v. 2016) appellate jurisdiction. This Court of powers. CARLO L. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Daza. November 29. but also from the joint Exclusive.R. refunds. No. 209776. 2016) Senators and Representatives (as well as of the President and the Vice-President. original jurisdiction over contests relating training with U. . Executive Secretary. and national Executive of the Government is a job that. the insular 20 dated June 25. G. exempt from the Salary Standardization Law is not (Aguinaldo v. 224302. even though not 212426. and Aquino. (Kilusang Mayo Uno v. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Article VII To carry out this important duty. the charters of those government entities appointments.S. G. The presidential immunity emergencies arising from natural and man-made from suit remains preserved in the system of disasters. 2016) demands undivided attention. R. from requiring all of the office-holder's time.R. 2016) required to report to the Office of the President. CRUZ . Congress has specified that the President Even so. including all the islands indication that the legislature did not divest the and waters embraced therein and all other President. ensure that the country is was still then the incumbent President who enjoyed adequately prepared for all national and local immunity from suit. approval of the President. 2016) promote the general welfare. public distraction. January 12. 2016. No. Executive Secretary. the President is EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT equipped with authority over the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). as the sole principles and modes provided in Republic Act No. G. 2016) merely a reiteration of the President's power of control over the GOCCs/CFIs notwithstanding the power granted to the Board of Directors of the Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 28 Court by Atty. and the waters increase in salary or compensation of GOCCs/GFIs around. which is the protector of the Presidential Immunity people and the state. No. In addition. The said M. These territories consist of its Thus. the subsoil. and property. territorial sea. the seabed. considering that being the Chief safety. including its petitioner has to comply with Section 3 of M. R. The President is granted the privilege of immunity from In the same vein.R. government of this country. G. he and. 2001 which provides that any shelves. public health. (Saguisag v. regardless of their breadth and Standardization Law shall be subject to the dimensions. in the same vein. 2016) expressly reserved in the 1987 Constitution. aside interest. (Saguisag v. repository of executive power. G. through the DBM the details of their salary and Executive Power compensation system and to endeavor to make the system to conform as closely as possible to the Hence. No. jurisdiction. (Saguisag v. and connecting the islands of the that is not in accordance with the Salary archipelago. November without any form of restriction. is the guardian of 6758. No. Aquino. the President of the Philippines. CARLO L. No. and aerial domains. ensure. January 12. order. and reinforce our defensive Aquino as respondent taking into account that capabilities against external and internal threats when this Petition was filed on May 17. between. In recognition of these powers. January 12. 210761. the President may exercise the suit "to assure the exercise of Presidential duties plenary power to expel or deport U. protect life. respondent COA was correct in claiming that terrestrial. and other submarine areas.O. also 212426. The AFP's role is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the At the outset. June 28. the Executive is sitting head of state enjoys immunity from suit constitutionally empowered to maintain peace and during his actual tenure. They are still 29. 212426. contractors and functions free from any hindrance or as may be necessitated by national security. fluvial. public morals. Executive Secretary. xxx. Such restriction is the most apparent the Philippine archipelago." It is sufficient that former Executive Secretary Ochoa is named as Power of Control respondent herein as he was then the head of the OP and was in-charge of releasing presidential Thus. R. we stress the settled principle that a national territory. liberty. the Court finds it proper to drop President must oversee. as Chief Executive of his power of territories over which it has sovereignty or control over the said government entities. 20 is No.O. including those to the Judiciary. No. 16 July 2013. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW latter to establish and fix a compensation and (Zamboanga City Water District v. Carpio. January 11. The PVAO. whether executive department.. policies which he considers. Sec. judgment and presumed wisdom. Commission on Audit. orders. and the overall administration and control of the and a Medal of Valor awardee. (De Lima v. 451 [1969]). (Philippine Audit. 246 [2008]) (Saguisag v. revoke or rescind political agreements These functions include the faithful execution of entered into by his predecessors. 564 Phil. will be most (Ilusorio v. 209330. G. October 11. 179287. 746 [2007]. Ilocos land is inherent in executive power and is Norte.R. 210903. The DND. No. G. and Commander-in-Chief. is under the supervision and control of the DND. (In re: R. Gonzalez v. there is no law or executive issuance 139 Phil. in turn.. satisfies the public use requirement. Purisima. Section 16). a legislator. 212426. amend.R. the implementation of transportation the power to reserve for public use and for specific projects. (Administrative Code of recognizing his contributions or simply his status 1987. It is no Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 29 Court by Atty. Commission on benefits scheme for its employees. 3 8 is located from the use it was originally intended Phil. this as such. Ilusorio.R. 2016) military shrines. Executive The President. No. it is the over the amounts of per diem it may allow. January 12. and maintain G. a self-executing provision of the Constitution and (Fortaleza v. Inc. a military personnel. the right to prosecute crimes. 213472. 121 domain and that the reserved land shall remain [2007]). As the incumbent President. does not require statutory implementation. Abakada Guro Party List v. G. G. CARLO L. the authority to deport specifically excluding the land in which the LNMB undesirable aliens. 211 [1918]). by the legislature. 189028. 2016) Economic Zone Authority v. 2016) The Secretary of Justice exercises control and supervision over prosecutors and it is within her The LNMB is considered as a national shrine for authority to affirm. Moreover. (La Perla Cigar & Cigarette Factory v. plot at the LNMB for Marcos as a former President Executive Secretary. much less withdrawn. No. No. effective in carrying out his mandate. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. 841 under the Administrative Code. CRUZ . Capapas.R. (Almario v. 584 Phil. inherently executive in nature. The allotment of a cemetery under the President's jurisdiction. reverse. a veteran. No. The presidential power of review the actions of the Provincial Fiscal during control over the Executive Branch of Government is the preliminary investigation or the reinvestigation. G.. More important. including attached agencies. G. nor 2016) may its exercise be limited. 225973. November 8. Enriquez. This is why President Duterte is Take Care Clause not bound by the alleged 1992 Agreement between former President Ramos and the Marcos family to Hence. 38) xxx. the duty to ensure compliance with subject to the specific public purpose indicated treaties. Gonzales. the President has [2007]). 562 Phil. may limit the authority of the LWUA In light of this constitutional duty. and to determine the law in autonomous regions (Constitution. Viron Transportation Co. mandate is self-executory by virtue of its being (Ocampo v. executive agreements and executive until otherwise provided by law or proclamation. No. McCulloch Dick. he is free to intimately related to the other executive functions. exercising his power of control over Secretary. At present. which is resolutions of her prosecutors. 2016) the executive department. (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority public purposes any of the lands of the public v. Book IV. a Secretary 701 SCRA 269) of National Defense. is under the Verily. Reyes. No. January 26. February 1. empowered to administer. R. the duty to faithfully execute the laws of the have the remains of Marcos interred in Batac. President's prerogative to do whatever is legal and necessary for Philippine defense interests. develop. based on informed Article X. the Secretary of Justice was empowered to Office of the President.R. (Concurring 2016) Opinion of J.R. the conferment of national awards by the past Presidents. or modify the military memorials. nullify. 557 Phil. People's Republic of China Secretary. the President is and the international human rights laws cited by bound to defend the EEZ of the Philippines and petitioners. It is best construed as an as a whole. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW coincidence that the constitutional provision on the must be given ample discretion to adopt necessary faithful execution clause was followed by that on measures including the flexibility to set an the President's commander-in-chief powers. Resolution on the threaten the life of the nation. as chief architect of our the Philippines' legal regime through the MDT and foreign relations. With the MDT and VFA as a blueprint and guide. January 12. Thus. There are clear indications that these President is not above the laws but is obliged to violations of the Philippines' sovereign rights over obey and execute them. VII of the constitutionally-bound to defend its sovereignty. No. the arbitral tribunal has painted a imposed obligation. 2016) geopolitical prognosis of situations affecting the country. as President's ability to respond to any potential Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. is the military crisis with sufficient haste and greater principal strategist of the nation and. No. the in the constitutional role of the President who. (Saguisag v. And this duty of defending the country is While this Motion for Reconsideration was pending unceasing. is the head policymaker tasked to VFA. or rebellion. The Philippine state is Duterte's mandate under Sec. At such Arbitration tribunal constituted under the times. highly classified military intelligence data that may (Saguisag v. the President Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 30 Court by Atty. and who has unrestricted access to arguments that warrant revisiting the Decision. strength. No. invasion. (Saguisag v. R.R. Executive Secretary. R. he is obligated to equip himself with all resources within his Military Powers power to command. Executive Secretary. It also fully conforms to the government's assess. as they indicate an to carry into execution the law. who. It fully conforms to territorial integrity. duty. Art. the President has full powers to ensure the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in faithful execution of the laws. Consistent with President its EEZ are continuing. xxx. In the does not contravene R. ensure. No. who holds the most comprehensive in the face of various military and humanitarian and most confidential information about foreign issues that may arise. as such. 2016) released its monumental decision on the afternoon of 12 July 2016. 212426. invasion.A. The mandate is self. if after a MR. and protect our national security continued policy to enhance our military capability and interests. This Motion for countries that may affect how we conduct our Reconsideration has not raised any additional legal external affairs. or rebellion. CRUZ . the cardinal principle that the Philippines. The findings and declarations in Under the Faithful Execution Clause. a belief is engendered that a much longer period of military training is needed. Taken other executive functions. the President this decision contextualizes the security has the power to take "necessary and proper steps" requirements of the Philippines. are specifically granted during extraordinary G. 2016) events of lawless violence. context of recent developments. ensure its vast maritime wealth for the exclusive November 8. CARLO L. xxx. alarming degree of international law violations executory by virtue of its being inherently committed against the Philippines' sovereign rights executive in nature and is intimately related to the over its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Executive Republic of the Philippines v. In this light. No. (Ocampo v. G. xxx. the burial of Marcos at the LNMB and must thus prepare militarily. 10368. Enriquez. G. 17. not a separate grant of power. 289. January 12. 2016) enjoyment of Filipinos. 212426. even in times when there is no state of resolution. 212426.A. R. the United Nations Permanent Court of lawlesss violence. which extended timetable.R. harrowing picture of a major world power The provision simply underscores the rule of law unlawfully imposing its might against the and. G. July 26. EDCA strengthens the Armed The reasoning behind this interpretation is rooted Forces of the Philippines and through them. 225973. corollarily. No. Constitution. Thus. we find no reason for EDCA to bound to defend our national sovereignty and be declared unconstitutional. It has long been recognized that the grace. CRUZ ." The the resulting penalty is reclusion perpetua. But considering before acting thereon. 211269." In undisputed. however. since the Chief Executive is required by the executive magistrate. which is "a Treaties and Executive Agreements contract between the sovereign power or the Chief Executive and the convicted criminal to the effect The President also carries the mandate of being the that the former will release the latter subject to the sole organ in the conduct of foreign relations. notwithstanding the execution of the laws. This is because the executive clemency. and guided by jurisprudence on instances issued due to non-compliance with the when the facts of the crime elicited the Court's requirements. the actions taken by such June 3. By the pardonee's consent to the the authority to represent its interests to those other Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 31 Court by Atty. Since condition that if he does not comply with the terms every state has the capacity to interact with and of the pardon." It is President himself should disapprove such acts. Dura lex sed lex. we must still apply the all the basic requirements for executive clemency law in full force.R. and could not. The operator of the illegal logging business compliance of which is essential to the pardonee's has not been apprehended. No. delivered to the the Constitution to act in person. xxx. 2016) Executive Secretary Aguinaldo. This individual pardon papers. In this case. with the plight of petitioners who were merely when the records of petitioner's case were referred following orders and were consequently caught in back to the BPP. Notably. no relief under a writ of habeas rendering the grant of executive clemency to him as corpus can be granted to him. G. Dizon. which is a matter that the Court shall compassion for the accused. xxx. June 15. It is the private. which deed. CARLO L. though official act of otherwise. we to see to it that the pardonee complies with the recommend executive clemency. This is not to say. the helpers. (Idanan v. 2016) and conditions of a conditional pardon are purely executive acts which are not subject to judicial It must be emphasized that pardon is an act of scrutiny. People. resolve here. as clarified by Deputy G. 2010 to a number of prisoners including heads in the performance of their official duties are petitioner was made "subject to the conditions deemed the acts of the President unless the indicated in the corresponding documents. that no individual pardon sum. we recommend not. While we sympathize freedom from recommitment to prison. terms and conditions of the pardon. the facts about petitioners' participation in the that petitioner's pardon papers may not have been crime. The necessity for the individual pardon papers is best explained by Diplomatic Power. however. there being no unlawful restraint on papers were issued in petitioner's favour. thus. and. March 16. the pardonee has Pardoning Power thereby placed himself under the supervision of the Chief Executive or his delegate who is duty-bound Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code. the nature of a conditional pardon. which exempts the the judicial determination of guilt of the accused. contain the penalty will be suffered by the driver and the terms and conditions of the contract of pardon. grant of pardon and the determination of the terms 193313. A pardon is a the doctrine of qualified political agency. Stated committed. it is serve the unexpired portion of the sentence or an but logical that every state must vest in an agent additional one. proceeding from the power entrusted with exercise of the pardoning power. (Ruben Tiu v. thereby petitioner's liberty.R. he will be recommitted to prison to engage in relations with other sovereign states. he may not individual for whose benefit it is intended and not delegate the authority to pardon prisoners under communicated officially to the court. individual. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW terms stipulated in this contract. "essentially postulates that the heads of the various executive departments are the alter egos of the The executive clemency extended by PGMA on President. from the demands the exclusive exercise by the President of punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has the constitutionally vested power. No. on whom it is bestowed. incomplete and ineffective. it required compliance first with possession of the lumber. to the validity of which delivery is essential. therefore. January 12. Executive Secretary. R. No. 2016) 2016) There remain two very important features that The power of the President to enter into binding distinguish treaties from executive agreements and executive agreements without Senate concurrence translate them into terms of art in the domestic is already well-established in this jurisdiction. They are no unlike executive agreements. If Executive Secretary. the integrity of its territory. Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 32 Court by Atty. CARLO L. there is an irreconcilable conflict. February 1. R. January 12. The existence of this presidential executive agreements under serious question for power is so well-entrenched that Section 5(2)(a). An executive agreement is treated differently. 641 Second. treaties are. The role of the President in not affected by a lack of Senate concurrence. R. (Saguisag v. Article VII on foreign loans. xxx. 212426. which are solely longer limited to the traditional subjects that are executive actions. The raison d'etre of the Constitution and on the presence of foreign executive agreements hinges on prior constitutional military troops. treaties. CRUZ . 212426. (Saguisag v. 159618. regarded as being on the same level as a statute. 212426. Sections 4(2) and 5(2)(a) adjust the details of a treaty. 333 [1961]). rules. as in Section 2 of Article executive agreements merely involve arrangements II on the conduct of war. that the Chief Executive must give paramount January 12. or acts. Eastern Sea Trading (113 Phil. G. G. not to defeat or interfere in the Customs v. The absence of agreements that do not require further Senate these precedents puts the validity and effectivity of concurrence. or agreements. more or less temporary nature.R. Because of legislative usually covered by executive agreements as participation through the Senate. or at least shared. No." In Bayan Muna v. In Commissioner of Legislature. the main function of the Executive is to enforce the Article VIII of the Constitution. Secretary. One of the distinguishing features of executive Executive agreements that are inconsistent with agreements is that their validity and effectivity are either a law or a treaty are considered ineffective. a later law or 2016) treaty takes precedence over one that is prior. G. setting. No. performance of these rules. limited. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW sovereign states. xxx. (2) pursuant to or of Article VIII on the judicial review of executive upon confirmation by an act of the Legislature. its interest. Executive Executive Secretary. (Saguisag v. considered SCRA 17). They are concluded (1) to international agreements. xxx. or legislative authorizations. foreign affairs is qualified by the Constitution in (Saguisag v. January 12. this Court further clarified that executive superior to executive agreements. a treaty is identified in Eastern Sea Trading. 212426. this constitutional mandate emanates from the inherent power of the President to enter into First. No. including the to an express or implied authorization under the prerogative to conclude binding executive Constitution. requirement of Senate concurrence because of the In specific provisions. bases. G. the President's power is also legal mandate with which they are concluded. and laws. xxx. No. 2011. and the right of Executive agreements may dispense with the the sovereign Filipino people to self-determination. even provides for a Constitution and the laws enacted by the check on its exercise. 2016) importance to the sovereignty of the nation. or treaties. executive executive agreements are defined as "international agreements cannot create new international agreements embodying adjustments of detail obligations that are not expressly allowed or carrying out well-established national policies and reasonably implied in the law they purport to traditions and those involving arrangements of a implement. executive agreements must remain traceable agreements with other states. by their very nature. statutes. R. In turn. Sections 20 and 21 of on the implementation of existing policies. Romulo (G. Treaties are agreements can cover a wide array of subjects that products of the acts of the Executive and the Senate have various scopes and purposes. or facilities. Sections 4 and 25 of Article XVIII on treaties (3) in the exercise of the President's independent and international agreements entered into prior to powers under the Constitution. Senate Resolution No. G. c. Executive Secretary.R. that the recognition of their presence under EDCA f. Romulo. which must January 12. United States contractors) who will be conducting e. See also: jurisdiction of our courts. G. July 31. L-30650. 212426. Executive Secretary. stresses in its preamble that This rule does not imply. and falls squarely within Article VIII. Executive Secretary. by the Senate. R.R. February 11. CARLO L. military and civilian personnel in international agreements. "(A)n executive agreement xxx may not be used to There is nothing that prevents them from being amend a treaty. G. 212426. 91 Constitution. and the parameters set by the Constitution. though. 2016) may be refused entry or expelled from the country if they engage in illegal or undesirable activities. labor Nicolas v. laws. For agreements that do not fall under is ipso facto an amendment of the treaty. the admission and limit the President's prerogative in concluding presence of U. G. locations in which U. No. No. R. Abbot Laboratories v. activities are subject to all laws and treaties (Saguisag v. 2011. R. nevertheless subject to the supremacy of the 1970. The authorization of the presence of foreign certain activities within the Agreed Locations. d. should the form of the government chosen be a treaty. No. unless the case VFA. 578 SCRA 438. such as those that Philippine territory are already allowed under the involve the following: VFA. The grant of any tax exemption. dated 27 No. January 12. personnel may perform b.S. 328 (1952). we military bases. tonnage and wharfage dues. Adolfo v. and immigrations laws apply to them and 2009. applicable within the Philippine territory.S. No. which embodies the concurrence of the Senate in the VFA. (Saguisag v.") power must still be exercised within the context (Saguisag v. Court of First therefore limit their activities here. the treaty supposedly being implemented by EDCA. 641 SCRA 17. personnel in the country. it regulates and limits duties or imposts. R. detained in the country or being subject to the 159618. contractors are not explicitly must be in the form of a treaty duly concurred in mentioned in the VFA. Until and unless Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 33 Court by Atty. though. No. 212426. Executive Secretary. the authority granted by Congress. 34 SCRA 166. Executive Secretary. This does not mean. The policy of freedom from nuclear weapons merely provide the mechanism to identify the within Philippine territory. There are constitutional provisions that restrict or Based on the above provisions. on behalf of Of the three aforementioned classes of individuals the Philippines. that the President "nothing in this Resolution or in the VFA shall be is given carte blanche to exercise this discretion. R. 2016) Secretary. or facilities in the country note that only U. which must be pursuant to the presence of U. 2016) No court can tell the President to desist from Nevertheless. of foreign loans that must be (United States forces. presence. R. G. this amendment of any provision of the VFA. Our penal laws. in fact. January 12. their entry. Phil. is a. 2016) be pursuant to a law concurred in by a majority of all the Members of Congress. (Saguisag v. As visiting aliens. import and export allowed activities pursuant to the VFA. 212426. we emphasize that U. United States personnel and previously concurred in by the Monetary Board. As the quotas. No. G." (Bayan Muna v.S. G. the concurrence of the Senate is there must be Senate concurrence before they are required.R. 212426. contractors choosing an executive agreement over a treaty to are explicitly excluded from the coverage of the embody an international agreement. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Both types of international agreement are Instance of Zambales. (Saguisag v. construed as authorizing the President of the Although the Chief Executive wields the exclusive Philippines alone to bind the Philippines to any authority to conduct our foreign relations. 212426. G. 175888. and that paragraph 5. as well January 12. No. 18. (Saguisag v. CRUZ . troops. Agrava. Executive allowed to enter the country. 2016) May 1999. What EDCA has effectively done. Section 25. 2016) as by existing domestic and international laws. January 12. The fixing of tariff rates. They January 12. and other implementing agreement.S. Romulo.S. February 1. The contracting or guaranteeing. G. No. The diplomatic agents. operational control over the Agreed Locations as an executive agreement. Association of the Philippines v. of a treaty or an executive agreement. these specific treaty provisions may amend strengthened in the 1987 Constitution. operational Philippines v. jurisdiction. effectiveness and binding effect of the enforcement (Saguisag v. 459. 212426. G. R. Executive Secretary. CARLO L. since EDCA mentions the existence of determination and treatment of the Madrid Protocol U. July 19. (Air of whether in matters traditionally considered to be Canada v. No treaty or international agreement shall principle binds the parties to perform in good faith be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least their parts in the agreements. The power of judicial review has since been Thus. Statutory provisions may also that power has been extended to the determination amend these types of treaty obligations. We Constitution. limited control instrument of international relations. within the sphere of appreciation of another branch 169507. regardless of the form. Limited control does not violate the under Executive Order No. R. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW there is another law or treaty that specifically deals … the registration of trademarks and copyrights with their entry and activities. become obliged to comply conformably with the time- Article VII. Following this Accordingly. January 12. No. G. Executive Secretary. 212426. xxx. January 11. Some executive agreements have been concluded No. The scope of statutory provisions. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT "Valid and effective" means that treaty provisions Judicial Review that define rights and duties as well as definite prestations have effects equivalent to a statute. Section 2 of the Constitution deals with international obligations that are incorporated. No. 2016) of government. 2016) This provision states the second of two ways through which international obligations become binding. No. DFA Secretary Del Rosario's construction. to the point that the foreign military rules on the propriety of entering into a treaty or an forces might dictate the terms of their acts within executive agreement on a given subject as an the Philippines. while Article VII. G.R. (Intellectual Property two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. 204605. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. (Intellectual Property Association of the absence of construction activities. then it is quite logical to contemplation of the express state policies on conclude that it is not exercised over other intellectual property as well as within his power activities.R. 204605. 2016) all the parties. CRUZ . The SECTION 21.R. 2016) in conformity with the policies declared in the acts of Congress with respect to the general subject The clear import of the provision is that in the matter. 2016) control over the Agreed Location is vested in the Philippine authorities. inasmuch as January 12. Section 21 deals with international obligations that become binding Article VIII through ratification. The primary does not mean an abdication or derogation of consideration in the choice of the form of Philippine sovereignty and legal jurisdiction over agreement is the parties' intent and desire to craft the Agreed Locations.S. Ochoa. It is more akin to the their international agreement in the form they so extension of diplomatic courtesies and rights to wish to further their respective interests. their presence in the have been the subject of executive agreements country is subject to unqualified Philippine entered into without the concurrence of the Senate. No. an exercise of discretion has been Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 34 Court by Atty. G. G. The fear of the commissioners was observe at this point that there are no hard and fast total control. being in apparent for construction activities. Ochoa. Article II. July 19. which is a waiver of control on a matter of form takes a back seat when it comes to limited scale and subject to the terms of the treaty. are upheld. Section 21 of the Constitution provides: honored principle of pacta sunt servanda. (Saguisag v. More important. No. Any be allowed by virtue of a treaty concurred in by the future threat to the right of herein respondents or Senate. (Arroyo v. and despite the absence of the factual Petitioners allege that it is no longer necessary to bases to expect a guilty verdict. House of Representatives when it capriciously denied the demurrers to Electoral Tribunal and Daza. the performance of an official act by the public in general to a healthful and balanced the Executive Department that led to the entry into ecology is therefore more imagined than real. G. 222236. xxx. the Sandiganbayan as the Legislative District of Northern Samar to be their trial court was guilty of grave abuse of discretion representative.R." (Saguisag v. Daza cannot claim that the issue had thwarted by rules of procedure to the contrary or been mooted by his assumption to office because for the sake of the convenience of one side. 220598. none of the foregoing tasks related to Department effectively performed the last act propagation were pursued or the requirements required under Article XII(l) of EDCA before the therefor complied with. Hence. (Republic v. is clear that the presence talong field trials that demand an adjudication from of foreign military forces in the country shall only which the public may perceivably benefit. 2016) of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from Respondent's withdrawal of its application for judicial inquiry or review. xxx. R. G. Inc. Executive Secretary. there is still a justiciable themselves of the remedy of certiorari when the controversy-who between Daza and Abayon was denial was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. xxx. (Abayon v. July 19. already sent an official confirmation to the U. June 13. 212426. longer the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise January 12. 188829. The expansion of this satisfy the actual case or controversy requirement. January 12. there are no agreement entered into force. This is the same is premised on the fact that the HRET had because the Court has the bounden constitutional correctly ruled Daza to be the duly elected duty to strike down grave abuse of discretion representative. No. Actual Case or Controversy …respondent herein is also a recognized citizen of the Philippines. the Executive phase.R." As the matter never went beyond the field testing By this exchange of diplomatic notes. No. to resolve respondents' petition for Writ of Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 35 Court by Atty. He has fought for his citizenship We find that the matter before us involves an actual and clearly demonstrated his intent to return to the case or controversy that is already ripe for country. No. CARLO L. so that a declaration effect of the denial of the demurrers to evidence. No.R. that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by notwithstanding the interlocutory character and virtue of supervening events. A moot and academic case is one whenever and wherever it is committed. thereon would be of no practical use or value. 2016) Embassy that "all internal requirements of the Philippines xxx have already been complied with. A ruling on the issue of respondent's right to registration would be nothing The exercise of this power to correct grave abuse of but an advisory opinion. Executive registration has rendered this case moot and Secretary.. Thus.S. force of an executive agreement was sufficient to Thus. (Republic v. 2016) voluntarily departed from the Philippines and is now beyond the legal processes of the country. 212426. CRUZ . The Executive Department has has not rendered this case moot and academic. G. truly chosen by the majority of voters of the First As we shall soon show. Article guaranteed after-effects to the already concluded Bt XVIII of the Constitution. power has made the political question doctrine "no (Saguisag v. People. we hold that his departure adjudication. xxx. In the petitioners as the accused could avail the present case. February 10. R. G. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW attended with grave abuse. Moldex discretion amounting to lack or excess of Realty. resolve the appeal of respondent because he has G. Harp. 171041. Section 25. 2016) jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government cannot be Moreover. Consequently. No.R. G. May 3. 2016) academic. Thus. evidence despite the absence of competent and 2016) sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment for plunder. 8. No. 2016) Secretary. that case sought to compel the transmission to the (Roy v. the petition is outrightly dismissible A taxpayer's suit concerns a case in which the for being moot and academic. December 6. v. 235 speculate on the situation or controversy that the SCRA 506) xxx. second and fourth issues raised herein for the time rule that there is in fact an appropriation or a bench. R. In Pimentel v. v. 212426. G. G. petitioners contemplate to present for judicial As correctly argued by respondent. However. (Javier v. this Court did not recognize the standing assumptions. G. 113174. There is no more substantial relief which taxation. Moises. No. 623 [2000]) xxx.R. we cannot at this first. CRUZ . Inc. the power to determination. CARLO L. in their office.R. 113888. 207246. No. Gamido is no longer the incumbent barangay chairman of Bone North as far In the case of suits initiated by the legislators back as 2003. Office of the Executive barred from rendering a decision based on Secretary.R. and because the issue is capable of (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri. Biotech Applications. November 23. the paramount public interest exception moot and academic. No. However. The terms of office of official act complained of directly involves the the contending parties had already ended in June illegal disbursement of public funds derived from of 2010. the petitions must fail because the Court is Legislature. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Kalikasan on its merits. bar and public's guidance.R. The case minimal . Greenpeace Southeast Asia G. (Saguisag v. G.R. (Desierto v. Cadiao. Office of the Executive 161425. 303 [2005]). Since that petition invoked the power of the Senate to Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 36 Court by Atty. No. 2012. developments that could have rendered the case Therefore. January 12. speculations. Resolution on the MR. the Court specific item in the current budget that allows shall take exception of the case and still address the expenditure under the agreement. Enriquez. 209271. 2016) of a taxpayers' suit. G. Philippine Constitution Association. this fact does not environmental rights that arose from a past test justify the dismissal of the petition on the ground case whose bearings do not find any . The expiration of his term as themselves. conjectures and of one of the petitioners therein who was a member hypothetical or fictional illustrations. not to the entire Thus. 2016) In the instant case. Zamora. Constitution to the Senate. 2016) Locus Standi Procedurally. 396 Phil. August 3. involved.if not of its being rendered moot and academic. The validity action that they claim infringes the prerogatives. …it is evident that the Court can only surmise or 113105. 113766. Petitioners are likewise concur in a treaty or an international agreement is conspicuously silent on the direct adverse impact an institutional prerogative granted by the to them of the implementation of SEC-MC No. No. Epistola. this Court has recognized their barangay chairman operates as a supervening standing to question the validity of any official event that mooted the present petition. more so in the of the House of Representatives.R. because public interest is to the mootness rule should not have been applied. despite the intervening today's regulatory framework. Herbosa. 19 August 1994. would be tantamount to an We note that respondent Yu's term as a member of unnecessary scholarly exercise for the Court to the MCWD Board of Directors expired on assess alleged violations of health and December 31. (Pimentel v. or unless petitioners can pinpoint a reason of the public interest involved. can be gained by the petitioners. 501 Phil. (Rama v. July 26. 185369. or which would be Until and unless the Legislature appropriates funds negated by the dismissal of the case. by for EDCA. The petition in present case which is not even ripe for decision. No. 2016) (Philippines). and privileges vested by the Constitution affect his tenure. or invalidity of his suspension could no longer powers. 197146.relevance to cases operating under should still be decided. November 22. repetition yet evading review. disbursement of funds that would justify the filing G. Executive Secretary. (Bayan v. Senate for concurrence of the signed text of the 2016) Statute of the International Criminal Court. or lawfully entitled. January 13. 212426. R. Thus. 2016) An exhaustive evaluation of the memoranda of the parties. the petitioner and its "transcendental importance" to the public. none of the initial petitioners interest. application of the bidding rules on the or were granted CLOAs over their respective qualifications of private respondents for the MCIA portions of the disputed property. or imminent danger of sustaining some standing. in the were not processed because of the DAR Secretary’s exercise of its discretion. CRUZ . January 12. 2000 Order. notwithstanding its standing when the issues involved as of representative capacity. locus standi being a mere even admits that the case folders of its members procedural technicality. Article XVIII thereof. No. and MCIA. 201852. Embassy that "all statute complained of. Tested by the foregoing internal requirements of the Philippines xxx have standards. xxx. Executive Secretary. facilities.S. (Osmeña v. G. but also that he has sustained or is in justification for the Court to set aside the rule on immediate. G. only international airport. CARLO L. and not issues presented here is rooted in the Constitution merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite itself. On the other hand. The transcendental importance of the direct injury as a result of its enforcement. shows A party challenging the constitutionality of a law. relaxed the rules on July 26. The DFA has to some burdens or penalties by reason of the already confirmed to the U. G. (Samahan ng the qualifications of the winning bidder for the Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 37 Court by Atty. imposition of the MCC/RFSC. or that he is about to be subjected bases may be allowed in the country. (Saguisag v.R. that petitioners have presented serious act. Section 25. also involving a controversy in the DAR’s July 26. Mariveles. No claims to be suing as a legislator." Although the factual milieu in this case is in the present controversy has the standing to not similar and no constitutional issue was raised maintain the suits as legislators. petitioner Osmeña III were conducting farming activities in the area. BPM alleges a direct personal injury for its members who as frequent travelers to Cebu and As earlier pointed out. the Court resolved to grant then incumbent Senator Pimentel was allowed to standing to the petitioners in view of "the serious assert that authority of the Senate of which he was legal questions involved and their impact on public a member. whether there was grave abuse of discretion on the Their cause of action to declare invalid the subject part of the Executive Department. 2000 Order. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW grant or withhold its concurrence in a treaty construction and operation of the country's premier entered into by the Executive Department. by petitioners. In any case. 211737. 14. 2016) Here. petitioners Ping-ay and Ramirez clearly already been complied with. together with the oral arguments. Bataan. The petitioner Project. were long-time residents of taking over the operation and management of Sitio Talaga. the Court has. R. April 5. cannot be way. No. or is about to any clearer: there is a much stricter mechanism be. (Rosales v." It must shown that he has been. 2016) Regulatory Commission. denied some right or privilege to which he is required before foreign military troops. Energy 212426. or statute must show "not only that the law is constitutional issues that provide ample invalid. composed of fees imposed by the private respondents upon farmers and fishermen. We therefore Rule and Resolution is related to their right to seek rule that this case is a proper subject for judicial a refund of the payments made and to stop future review. January 12. No." It behooves the Court have legal standing to file the petition. Barangay Ipag. No. the petitioner in this case Mactan will be burdened by the increased terminal merely alleged that its members. They are in this instance to take a liberal stance towards the real parties-in-interest to assail the constitutionality rule on standing and to determine forthwith and legality of RSEC-WR and Resolution No. Therefore. we hold that the same rationale in Executive Secretary.R. DOTC Secretary Abaya. (Saguisag v. In members are not real parties-in-interest to question Agan v. PIATCO. Agan justifies the relaxation of the rules on 2016) standing. taxpayer and evidence was presented to show that the citizen asserting a public right in the stringent petitioner’s members were approved as awardees. G. As human rights violations victims (Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines v. et al. G. petitions because they failed to show that they have G. 217872. Sps. In People v. without showing court or if there is an acquittal of the accused. the Court has adopted a liberal significance to society. have no legal standing to file such Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 38 Court by Atty. and disregard of their state recognition as heroes. Considering that the Court in Imbong already Petitioners' argument is founded on the wrong declared that the issues of contraception and premise that the LNMB is the National Pantheon reproductive health in relation to the right to life of intended by law to perpetuate the memory of all the unborn child were indeed of transcendental Presidents. Inc. April 18. of overreaching challenge. prohibition and mandamus. As against the implementation of the Madrid Protocol concerned citizens. but only to the end of state that the averments in their petition-in- preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the intervention failed to disclose such injury. members of the Bar and Marcos at the LNMB. G." (Burgos v. 2016) suffered or will suffer direct and personal injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at the LNMB. 204605. xxx. the Court appropriated public funds from being used finds that the petitioners have locus standi to file unlawfully. as members of the Bar. and considering also that the from being concerned citizens and taxpayers. come before the Court as legislators purchase of alleged abortifacients which would suing to defend the Constitution and to protect deprive the unborn of its the right to life. July 19. we substantiate that the issues raised are of recognize IPAP's locus standi to bring the present transcendental importance. and that case.R. their standing as members of 24.. Piccio (Piccio). xxx private complainant or the offended party may. encroach on their taxpayers. prudence. June their interest in this case is too general and shared 8. and Congressman caused the allocation of public funds for the Lagman. i. who filed their respective petitions for complained of. 2016) decry re-traumatization. G. xxx. legislators.. (Alliance for the Family Foundation any direct injury to their person or the institution to Philippines. or of paramount public attitude towards locus standi whenever the issue interest. Petitioners Saguisag. xxx. however.R. 2016) by other groups. Naval. In cases involving such issues. et al. this Court held that "if xxx. No. some of petitioners Ochoa. or whenever the issues constitutional rights outweigh the necessity for raised are of paramount importance to the public. 2016) the Congress cannot be upheld. human rights violations the AFP Chief of Staff regarding the interment of victims. as an accused is concerned. or its members may suffer as a civil action for certiorari even without the consequence of the act complained of. Accordingly. the laws or jurisprudence. it is that Marcos is disqualified to be interred at the only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the LNMB by either express or implied provision of the criminal aspect representing the People. 196028. the memorandum of the certiorari. Indeed. They do not specifically claim that the official actions Petitioners. such that their duty to uphold the rule of law. v. in their Secretary of National Defense and the directive of capacities as citizens. the presented for consideration has transcendental imminence and clarity of the threat to fundamental significance to the people. August which they belong. v. No. national heroes and patriots. without more. petitioners averred that the respondents unjustly petitioners Senator De Lima. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio Naswe. In the absence of a clear showing of these petitions.R. file an appeal without the intervention of are required to allege any direct or potential injury the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability of the which the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.e. No. historical revisionism. petitioners are also required to are of transcendental importance. The Constitution. CRUZ . during the Martial Law regime. No. Suffice it to intervention of the OSG. Inc. is inadequate to clothe There is little question that the issues raised herein them with the requisite legal standing. petitioners merely claim illegal there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial disbursement of public funds. CARLO L. Apart importance. As taxpayers.R. 219468. Garin. He may also file a special institution. Tan. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW prerogatives as legislators. (Ocampo v. Enriquez, Heirs of Alfredo Restrivera, G.R. No. 185312, G.R. No. 225973, November 8, 2016) December 1, 2016) To establish his standing, petitioner Roy merely Petitioners Aguinaldo, et al., as nominees for the claimed that he has standing to question SEC-MC 16th Saridiganbayan Associate Justice, did not have No. 8 "as a concerned citizen, an officer of the Court a clear right to said position, and therefore not and as a taxpayer" as well as "the senior law proper parties to a quo warranto proceeding. Being partner of his own law firm[, which] xxx is a included in the list of nominees had given them subscriber of PLDT." On the other hand, only the possibility, but not the certainty, of being intervenors Gamboa, et al. allege, as basis of their appointed to the position, given the discretionary locus standi, their "[b]eing lawyers and officers of power of the President in making judicial the Court" and "citizens xxx and taxpayers." xxx. appointments. xxx. While neither petitioners Per their allegations, the personal interest invoked Aguinaldo, et al. nor petitioner IBP have legal by petitioners as citizens and members of the bar in standing to file a petition for quo warranto, they the validity or invalidity of SEC-MC No. 8 is at best have legal standing to institute a petition for equivocal, and totally insufficient. Petitioners' certiorari. (Aguinaldo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 224302, status as taxpayers is also of no moment. xxx. SEC- November 29, 2016) MC No. 8 does not involve an additional expenditure of public funds and the taxing or Lazatin filed the petition for declaratory relief spending power of Congress. xxx. The allegation before the RTC in his capacity as a member of that petitioner Roy's law firm is a "subscriber of Congress. He alleged that RR 2-2012 was issued PLDT" is ambiguous. xxx. Thus, petitioner Roy's directly contravening RA 9400, a legislative allegation that his law firm is a "subscriber of enactment. Thus, the regulation encroached upon PLDT" is insufficient to clothe him with locus standi. the Congress' exclusive power to enact, amend, or Petitioners' cursory incantation of "transcendental repeal laws. According to Lazatin, a member of importance xxx of the rules on foreign ownership Congress has standing to challenge the validity of of corporations or entities vested with public an executive issuance if it tends to impair his interest" does not automatically justify the brushing prerogatives as a legislator. We agree with Lazatin. aside of the strict observance of the requisites for xxx. Thus, members of Congress possess the legal the Court's exercise of judicial review. Xxxx. In the standing to question acts that amount to a present case, the general and equivocal allegations usurpation of the legislative power of Congress. of petitioners on their legal standing do not justify Legislative power is exclusively vested in the the relaxation of the locus standi rule. While the Legislature. When the implementing rules and Court has taken an increasingly liberal approach to regulations issued by the Executive contradict or the rule of locus standi, evolving from the stringent add to what Congress has provided by legislation, requirements of personal injury to the broader the issuance of these rules amounts to an undue transcendental importance doctrine, such liberality exercise of legislative power and an encroachment is not to be abused. (Roy v. Herbosa, G.R. No. of Congress' prerogatives. (Purisima v. Lazatin, G.R. 207246, November 22, 2016) No. 210588, November 29, 2016) Fortich v. Corona ordains that farmer-beneficiaries EPEC intervened in the proceedings before the RTC who are not approved awardees of CARP have no based on the allegation that, as a Clark FEZ locator, legal standing to question the exclusion of an it will be directly affected by the implementation of agricultural land from CARP coverage. xxx. RR 2-2012. We agree with EPEC. xxx. As an Respondents cannot rely solely on their father's enterprise located in the Clark FEZ, its title to assert ownership over the subject land. A importations of petroleum and petroleum products title is merely evidence of ownership of the will be directly affected by RR 2-2012. Thus, its particular property described therein. Ownership is interest in the subject matter — a personal and not the same as a certificate of title. (Malabanan v. substantial one — gives it legal standing to Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 39 Court by Atty. CARLO L. CRUZ NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW question the issuance's validity. (Purisima v. Lazatin, G.R. No. 210588, November 29, 2016) In the same vein, while direct resort to the Court through petitions for the extraordinary writs of Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are allowed under exceptional cases, which are lacking in this While this Court has original jurisdiction over case, petitioners cannot simply brush aside the petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo doctrine of hierarchy of courts that requires such warranto, and habeas corpus, such jurisdiction is petitions to be filed first with the proper Regional shared with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court (RTC). xxx. In fine, the petitions at bar Trial Courts. xxx. The Court thus declared in Heirs should be dismissed on procedural grounds alone. of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor (495 Phil. 422, 433 Even if We decide the case based on the merits, the [2005]), that it will not entertain direct resort to it petitions should still be denied. (Ocampo v. unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, November 8, 2016) appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest Doctrine of Non-Interference and of serious implications, justify the availment of or Judicial Stability the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. The doctrine of non-interference or judicial stability (Holy Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Defensor, dictates that a trial court has no authority to 529 Phil. 573, 586 [2006]) xxx. Glaringly, petitioners interfere with the proceedings of a court of equal did not comply with the rule that "there is no appeal, jurisdiction, much less to annul the final or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the judgment of a co-equal court. The rationale for this ordinary course of law." Since petitioners assail the doctrine is founded on the concept of jurisdiction - validity of the ERC issuances and seeks to declare "verily, a court that acquires jurisdiction over the them as unconstitutional, a petition for declaratory case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction relief under Rule 63 of the Rules is the appropriate over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other remedy.. (Rosales v. Energy Regulatory Commission, coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its G.R. No. 201852, April 5, 2016) incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in Petitions for certiorari and prohibition fall under the connection with this judgment." (Adlawan v. concurrent jurisdiction of the regional trial courts Joaquino, G.R. No. 203152, June 20, 2016) and the higher courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court. As a general rule, under the To summarize, the various branches of the regional hierarchy of courts principle, the petition must be trial courts of a province or city, having as they do brought to the lowest court with jurisdiction; the the same or equal authority and exercising as they petition brought to the higher courts may be do concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction, should dismissed based on the hierarchy principle. Cases, not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with of course, may ultimately reach the Supreme Court their respective cases, much less with their orders through the medium of an appeal. xxx. The or judgments. A contrary rule would obviously "transcendental importance" standard, in lead to confusion and seriously hamper the particular, is vague, open-ended and value-laden, administration of justice. and should be limited in its use to exemptions from the application of the hierarchy of courts principle. In this case, the Court finds that the Parañaque It should not carry any ripple effect on the RTC violated the doctrine of judicial stability when constitutional requirement for the presence of an it took cognizance of Teresita's nullification case actual case or controversy. (Association of Medical despite the fact that the collection case from which Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. v. GCC Approved it emanated falls within the jurisdiction of the Medical Centers Association, Inc., G.R. No. 207132, Makati RTC. (Tan v. Cinco, G.R. No. 213054, June December 6, 2016) 15, 2016) Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 40 Court by Atty. CARLO L. CRUZ NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Asia International Auctioneers, British American At the outset, the Court emphasizes that under the Tobacco v. Camacho pointed out that although doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court, confers on the Court of Tax Appeals jurisdiction to the various trial courts of a province or city, having resolve tax disputes in general, this does not the same equal authority, should not, cannot, and include cases where the constitutionality of a law are not permitted to interfere with their respective or rule is challenged. xxx. cases, much less with their orders or judgments. xxx. In the case at bar, the Court notes that in We revert to the earlier rulings in Rodriguez, Leal, performing a levy on and subsequent auction sale and Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. The Court of the property covered by TCT No. 30480, Sheriff of Tax Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to Ortiz was merely enforcing the writ of execution determine the constitutionality or validity of tax issued by the RTC-Las Piñas Br. 275 pursuant to its laws, rules and regulations, and other ruling in Civil Case No. LP-03-0088. Since said writ administrative issuances of the Commissioner of of execution emanated from the RTC-Las Piñas Br. Internal Revenue. xxx. 275, its enforcement cannot be assailed in a co- equal court such as the RTC-Las Piñas Br. 198, as it The Court of Tax Appeals has undoubted would violate the doctrine of judicial stability or jurisdiction to pass upon the constitutionality or noninterference in the regular orders or judgments validity of a tax law or regulation when raised by of a co-equal court. (Del Rosario v. Ocampo-Ferrer, the taxpayer as a defense in disputing or contesting G.R. No. 215348, June 20, 2016) an assessment or claiming a refund. It is only in the lawful exercise of its power to pass upon all maters Courts/Jurisdiction brought before it, as sanctioned by Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended. The records show that the RTC, which indisputably had the power and the duty to determine and This Court, however, declares that the Court of Tax decide the issue of the constitutionality of Section Appeals may likewise take cognizance of cases 3(b) of P.D. No. 198, fully discharged its duty. directly challenging the constitutionality or validity (Rama v. Moises, G.R. No. 197146, December 6, 2016) of a tax law or regulation or administrative issuance (revenue orders, revenue memorandum Likewise, in Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. v. circulars, rulings). (Banco de Oro v. Republic, En Hon. Parayno, Jr., this Court upheld the jurisdiction Banc, G.R. No. 198756, August 16, 2016) of the Court of Tax Appeals over the Regional Trial Courts, on the issue of the validity of revenue At the outset, the Court notes that this petition has memorandum circulars. It explained that "the been correctly instituted with this Court. It has assailed revenue regulations and revenue been recognized that decades after the 1989 memorandum circulars [were] actually rulings or enactment of the law creating the Shari'a Appellate opinions of the [Commissioner of Internal Court and after the Court authorized its creation in Revenue] on the tax treatment of motor vehicles 1999, it has yet to be organized. Pending the sold at public auction within the [Subic Special organization of the Shari'a Appellate Court, Economic Zone] to implement Section 12 of appeals or petitions from final orders or decisions [Republic Act] No. 7227." This Court further held of the ShDC shall be filed with the Court of that the taxpayers' invocation of this Court's Appeals (CA) and referred to a Special Division to intervention was premature for its failure to first be organized in any of the CA stations preferably to ask the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for be composed of Muslim CA Justices. For cases reconsideration of the assailed revenue regulations where only errors or questions of law are raised or and revenue memorandum circulars. involved, the appeal shall be to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the However, a few months after the promulgation of Rules of Court pursuant to Article . VIII, Section 5 Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 41 Court by Atty. CARLO L. CRUZ 198172. which the CA applied to this case. No. No. Development. 2016) Following the doctrine. As the RTC orders the CTA provide for no instance of an annulment explained. As the present petition involves only the purpose of annulling everything done in the questions of law. Shari’a District case. or resolution issued without dismissed by the CTA En Banc on such ground.R. the laws creating the CTA and main cause of action. thus. Joaquino. Shari’a District expanding its jurisdiction (RA Nos. the Revised Rules of dismissed ejectment case. CRUZ . Revenue v. the defense No. like the Court of Appeals.R. for annulment of judgment done by a were clearly issued in the exercise of the RTC’s superior court. Verily. January 12. In Sibonghanoy. Inc. the ShCC. In the present case. v.D. the dismissal of the ejectment case of judgment at all.R.R. June 21. (Commissioner of Internal operates on the principle of estoppel by laches . against equity jurisdiction. On the other hand. which is the Regional Trial Court. G.R. 2016) and the court's own rules of procedure (the Revised Rules of the CTA) do not provide for such a The RTC’s equity jurisdiction is separate and scenario. no longer rule mentioned. the Rules of effectively and completely blotted out and Court. under G. and procedurally infirm and. xxx. June Court. 199422. January 25. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. it is void and cannot be given any effect. (Adlawan v. not on the basis of its appellate the final judgment. 171429 entitled Antonio Dela Cruz v. invoking the plea. annul or void a final since there was nothing more to execute on the decision of a division. (Mendez v. possesses the power to resolve being asked to annul a decision of one of its the issue of custody.R. CARLO L. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW of the Constitution and Section 2 of Rule 41 of the invoking the lack of jurisdiction at a late hour for Rules. was soundly any judgment. the CTA could not have treated the petition applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was as an appeal or a continuation of the case before the raised for the first time on appeal or even after CTA First Division because the latter's decision had final judgment. no doubt that the laches as the factual setting present in ShCC had jurisdiction to confirm the talaq between Sibonghanoy is not similar to that of the present Mendez and Maliga. Kepco Ilijan Corporation. provides. Hence. Regulus Kepco Ilijan Corporation.R. in cases …. order. G. Thus. 2016) 20. thus. involving disputes relating to divorce under justification to apply the exception of estoppel by P. G. whereby a party may be barred by laches from June 21. 201614. 199422. Inc. (Mendez v. 203152. the Revised Rules of the CTA distinct from its appellate jurisdiction on the and even the Rules of Court which apply ejectment case. Shari’a District Court. No. with certain cancelled the complaint. There is. G.R. the RTC orders conditions. (Mendez v. This Court takes judicial notice that court. 2016) … the petition designated as one for annulment of There is no rule in procedural law as basic as the judgment (following Rule 47) was legally and principle that jurisdiction is conferred by law. No. No. 201614. The singular exception to the basic become final and executory and. However. therefore. 1125 and 9282) Court. G. No. January 12. 2016) of lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed by a party-surety almost It is clear that the ShCC has exclusive original fifteen (15) years later and at a stage when the jurisdiction over civil actions between parties who proceedings had already been elevated to the CA. Dela 2016) Cruz. xxx. G. have been married in accordance with the Muslim xxx. This rule Also. it being a related issue to the divisions. 1083. in the case at bar. SP jurisdiction. decision or ruling of an inferior jurisdiction. it has been properly filed before case with the active participation of said party this Court. subject to an appeal. 201614. The RTC could not have issued its suppletorily thereto provide for no instance in orders in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction which the en banc may reverse. No. (Regulus Development. based on the validity of the RTC Orders has been upheld in a the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of separate petition before this Court. through Rule 47. 2016) Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 42 Court by Atty. the CTA sitting en banc is involving divorce. we find no sufficient law. No. G. January 12. Appeals (CA) through a petition for review under There must also be a showing that the factual basis Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. In that case. of the FDA before the Secretary of Health and then it should assign the case to the sole special branch. the equity jurisdiction. Inc. (Alliance for the Family in relation with government infrastructure projects. 3720. jurisdiction.. Fil-Estate final resolution of the current controversies.R. Inc. courts of equity. Lim: Equity likewise notes that under Section 9 of E. not against it.. Inc. from the decision of the Board of Investment to the 177382. The Court notes that Section 32 of R. No. the case to the nearest RTC with a designated In Cayao-Lasam v. constitutionally protected right to life of the only the Supreme Court may issue an order unborn. (Viva Shipping Rule 43 of the Rules of Court). the RTC to which the the agencies mentioned in Section 1 of Rule 43 was case was referred to should redocket the case as a exclusive. No. the Court disagreed Special Commercial Court branch within the with the opinion of the CA that the enumeration of judicial region. this Court finds that any controversy enjoining the EPIRA's implementation. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Foundation Philippines. G. The Court law. Ramolete. Keppel Philippines Mining. GJH Land. July 20. procedural for a plea for liberality is not one that is due to the rules. More importantly. The factual antecedents of a case should be directly appealable to the Court of plea for the exercise of liberality must be clear. xxx.A. whether issued by quasi-judicial agencies or negligence or design of the party requesting the embodied in statutes enacted by the Congress. CRUZ . Courts exercise liberality in line with their In First Lepanto Ceramics. considering that the Secretary of substantial justice may be attained in cases where Health is the principal respondent in these the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law petitions. the proper recourse is to refer petition for review to the CA is of no consequence. Equity is the principle by which Notwithstanding. 2016) CA. notwithstanding the express provision of Section 82 of the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987 In Gonzales v. February 17. No. it may only be exercised Court. Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 43 Court by Atty. No. 206649. v. xxx. as 217872. Garin. Inc. we said that if the RTC decision xxx. Court of Appeals. And if the said RTC has only one petitioners to first challenge any adverse decision branch designated as a Special Commercial Court. In Reyes v. any decision by the FDA in this particular are inadequate. we laid down the that any appeal from a decision of the Board of guidelines to be observed if a commercial case filed Investment should be directly taken to this Court before the proper RTC is wrongly raffled to its within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order or regular branch.A.O..R. v. argued. hence. but are also rulings or decision (or inaction) of the Director. jurisdiction aims to do complete justice in cases the decisions of the Secretary of Health would first where a court of law is unable to adapt its have to be appealed to the Office of the President. The fact that the FDA is not among has no internal branch designated as a Special the agencies enumerated in Rule 43 as subject of a Commercial Court. on the strength of Circular No. Verily. and must be exercised in the absence of the same to the Secretary of Health. 2016) amended by R. G. Likewise. 1-91 (now if it will result in fairness and justice. to require the commercial case. and its implementing rules provide that a party aggrieved by the orders. This involving it should be resolved in the most provision is similar to Section 3 of RA 8975. August 24. allowed an appeal Lines v. xxx. judgments to the special circumstances of a case in conformity with the doctrine of exhaustion of because of the inflexibility of its statutory or legal administrative remedies.R. Equity is justice outside legal General of the FDA has the remedy of appealing provisions. CARLO L. to the Office of the President. Upon referral. No. Properties. 247. 2016) Considering that in the case at bench. Inc. what is mainly involved is the protection of the Under the clear terms of Section 78 of the EPIRA. No. are suspension of the rules. G. 9711. will unduly delay the (Forest Hills Golf and Country Club v. Our courts are not only courts of law. enacted expeditious manner possible. the basis for subject to alteration or modification by the Court in claiming an equitable result—for all the parties— the exercise of its constitutional rule-making must be clearly and sufficiently pleaded and power. The RTC the CA had rendered an adverse decision that the thus did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of party-surety raised the question of jurisdiction for the petitions and erred in giving due course to the the first time in a motion to dismiss almost fifteen petition for certiorari and prohibition against the (15) years later. the lower court commits grave abuse of given retroactive effect to the prejudice of parties discretion. despite being designated as an SCC. (Cabrera v. No. by law and by Supreme Court Rules. (Energy Regulatory shall exercise jurisdiction over intra-corporate Commission v. In procedural terms.R. 8799. otherwise known as The disputed issuances during the petition's pendency Securities Regulation Code. CARLO L. even on appeal for the same is intra-corporate dispute can be likened to an RTC conferred by law. 2016) In the oft-cited case of Tijam v. and lack of it affects the very exercising its probate jurisdiction or sitting as a authority of the court to take cognizance of and to special agrarian court.2 of R. It applies even if the as such has not in any way limited their jurisdiction issue on jurisdiction was raised for the first time on to hear and decide cases of all nature. November 9. directs merely the — a matter that is reserved for the exclusive Supreme Court's designation of RTC branches that jurisdiction of this Court. G. it is clear that Branch 46.A. September 26. Bullion Investment and annulling everything done in the case with the Development Corporation. agency are remedies available to assail its quasi- November 28. No. Vega. 215640. The assignment of intra-corporate 2016) disputes to SCCs is only for the purpose of streamlining the workload of the RTCs so that It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and the certain branches thereof like the SCCs can focus jurisdiction of a tribunal are determined by the only on a particular subject matter. 177387. the Court adjudicated a DOH CDO letters. No. the RTC can only exercise jurisdiction over the main declaratory relief …Special Commercial Courts (SCCs) are still petition. RTC of The exception to the basic rule mentioned operates Manila. Sibonghanoy. has on the principle of estoppel by laches whereby a jurisdiction to hear and decide Majestic's suit for party may be barred by laches from invoking the specific performance. xxx. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW where we previously established that if the RTC While a judicial interpretation becomes a part of issues a writ of preliminary injunction that will the law as of the date that the law was originally impede the process of national government passed. G. 201017.R. 225141. based on the foregoing. Hence. Hence. appeal or even after final judgment. petitions party estopped from assailing the court's for certiorari and prohibition against a government jurisdiction. (Majestic Plus Holding lack of jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose of International Corporation v. The RTC exercising jurisdiction over an proceedings. the reversal of the interpretation cannot be projects. Since the subject matter of Meralco's who may have relied on the first interpretation. Secretary of issuances relating to the EPIRA and its Justice. It was only after been filed before the Court of Appeals. Clarin. criminal or special proceedings. No. and should thus have been filed before the CA. December 5. Section enjoining or impeding the implementation of the 5. the CA is the court with the exclusive Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 44 Court by Atty. No. xxx. the affirmative relief. but has into authority to issue writs considered courts of general jurisdiction. whether civil.R. petition for declaratory relief are DOE/ERC (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. the party-surety invoked the jurisdictions of both the Since the DOH is part of the Executive Department trial and appellate courts in order to obtain and has acted in its quasi-judicial capacity. Thus. Nothing in the material allegations of the complaint and the law at language of the law suggests the diminution of the time the action was commenced. CRUZ .R. disputes. The designation of the SCCs render judgment on the action. 2016) judicial acts. A court's jurisdiction of those RTCs to be designated as jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the SCCs. G. and even submitted the case for petition challenging its CDO letter should have final adjudication on the merits. xxx. active participation of said party invoking the plea. G. 2016) implementation. R. 222702. xxx. as explained in the extended opinions 6. the case remedy. No. 7 out of 13 voted that petitioner Overseas Workers. Commission on Elections. Commission on and pivotal issues raised. . Technically. it is clear that which could possibly solve. (Association of Medical Clinics for residency. As regards the unauthorized practice of law. Thus. And considering the importance of the or to similar analogous causes that would prevent debates in informing the electorate of the positions the court from effectively hearing and conducting of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates the amparo proceedings which. v. (Balao v. she clearly possesses the taken to question the assailed Resolution of the qualifications for presidency on the matter of COMELEC.R. No. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW original jurisdiction to entertain petitions for Out of the 12 Members who voted on the certiorari and prohibition against quasi-judicial substantive question on citizenship. 2016) there was still an active lead worth pursuing by the PNP. Elections. G. Nos. v. considering the very important Sereno. Inc. In short. Poe-Llamanzares v. the RTC's recommendation that these Section 1 of these rules: cases should be archived is clearly premature. or uncover new leads. Voting requirements. June 21. such technicality should not deter the Court from 2016) having to make the final and definitive pronouncement that everyone else depends for Writ of Amparo enlightenment and guidance. intrinsic qualifications in accordance with Rule 12. "[T]his Court has in the past seen fit to step in and resolve petitions Under Section 20 of the Amparo rule. To be sure. the court is despite their being the subject of an improper mandated to archive. and hence. must be rejected. GAMCA filed its remedy with majority of 7 voted in favor of petitioner. December These votes. (Concurring Opinion. 2016) decisions and actions in Court en banc cases shall be made up upon the concurrence of the majority of the Members of the Court who actually took Practice of Law part in the deliberation on the issues or issues involved and voted on them. Granting therefore that we need to Respondent claims that certiorari and prohibition address the question of substantive qualifications are not the proper remedies that petitioners have of petitioner. such as when the scheduled four national debates remain to be witnesses fail to appear due to threats on their lives staged. March 8. reached an impasse. in view of the public importance of the should it determine that it could not proceed for a issues raised therein. G. the Court already noted in its 20 June 2012 Resolution Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 45 Court by Atty. that the investigation conducted by the AFP Inc. v. point.R. CARLO L. 2016) submitted by the members of the majority.R. while it may appear under the exception laid down in GMA Network. (Rappler.. G. it must be pointed out that Bautista. April 5. Here.which would have warranted the case's archiving . The urgency to resolve this valid cause. however. the Amparo rule case is apparent considering that the televised sanctions the archiving of cases. GCC Approved Medical complied with the 10-year residency requirement. Inc. No. Centers Association. G. 221697 & 221698-700. 207132.(a) All 186050.because the testimony of Gonzales set If we were to apply the rules on voting in the forth an immediate action on the part of the PNP Internal Rules of the Supreme Court. Ermita. the Court decided on the matter of petitioner's in the ongoing investigation of James's abduction. CJ. a clear agencies. and not dismiss. do not on vital issues affecting the nation. Therefore. provided that it is debates have already started and only two of the impelled by a valid cause. respondent may have a residency and citizenship. the investigation had not reached a Voting deadend . Inc. However. must be respected. and the limited time. As to the wrong court. CRUZ . this case falls obtain in these cases. Section 1. agent of the litigants that would allow him to file They have no discretion on this matter except to see to it that the rules are suits. xxx.R. 2016) As a meaningful guidepost. However." but it also explicitly states that the JBC shall be "under the supervision The Court had recognized that "[s]upervision is not of the Court" and that "[i]t may exercise such other a meaningless thing. Judge Lubao. nor does he have the discretion to 3210-RTJ. The Court also provided the implies authority to inquire into facts and following definition of supervision in the Jardeleza conditions in order to render the power real and Decision: effective. Rule 138 of the on his part to order the act undone or Rules of Court. pleadings. They may not prescribe their special power of attorney that would make him an own manner of execution of the act. It is functions and duties as the Supreme Court may certainly not without limitation. he may order the work Judicial and Bar Council done or re-done to conform to the prescribed rules. Supervising officers merely sees to it represented by counsel. it does Omnibus Motions. Congress rules governing the conduct of a intended to make the salaries of the former at par government entity are observed and with the latter. Congress knew. CRUZ .M. Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 46 Court by Atty. the down the rules in the doing of an act. pay under Section 42 of Batas Pambansa Big. No.) of the plaintiffs acting on behalf of his "clients. 9417. If the rules are when it enacted Republic Act Nos. when contrasted appear to be acting on behalf of anyone. It is the power of oversight. G.) appointees to the Judiciary. He cannot prescribe Article VIII. aside from their rank. Supervising officials see presumed to have known. the JBC the principal function of "recommending (Citations omitted. February 3. Aquino. Among Others. 2016) modify or replace them. but it at least assign to it. it is discretionary representation under Section 34. since Karaan is already does not cover such authority. A." thus: this case." (Aguinaldo v. He does not Supervisory power. and motions with himself as one followed. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW that Karaan had a modus operandi of offering free done or redone. OCA IPI No. jurisprudence provides the definition Judges and scope of supervision. In Santos v. 224302. Officers in control lay on his own behalf. but he requiring his counsel to file the pre-trial brief." xxx. Manifestations. Karaan is the only plaintiff. 129 as nor do they have the discretion to part of the total salary of members of the Judiciary modify or replace them. Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution gives his own manner for the doing of the act. which granted certain officials of the OSG. but only to conform to paralegal advice and making the parties execute a such rules. Hence. and not observed. November 29. 9347. as a plaintiff and over such body. If Court recognized the party's right to self they are not followed. the concept of longevity to it that rules are followed. but they themselves do not lay down such rules. not include any restraining authority and Objections. Karaan was not re-done by his subordinate or he may engaged in the practice of law in filing the even decide to do it himself. It ensures that the laws and the their respective judicial counterparts. is the power of mere signed the Pre-Trial Brief and the Ex-Parte Urgent oversight over an inferior body. xxx. If the rules are not observed. (Citation omitted. or the authority to see that In conferring upon certain officials in the Executive subordinate officers perform their the same salaries. they may order the work 10071. Judge Lacurom." This circumstance does not appear to be present in "Supervision" is differentiated from "control. CARLO L. Supervision pleadings. It is an active power. Thus. The report states that in Civil Case No. or is complied with. himself does not lay down such rules. the trial court is correct in that the rules are followed. Oppositions. as those of duties. Karaan with control. 2022-99. (Ciocon-Reer v. 09. appoint members of the Judiciary when he Veloso. and the NPS. 2016) of retirement under Republic Act No. but reckoned only from August xxx. and (2) once the of CA Justice Gacutan and MODIFY the Resolution President has appointed from one cluster. Nos. President's power to appoint as the latter's Congress is presumed to have intended to adopt prerogative to choose someone whom he/she the definition of "salary" (as constituting basic considers worth appointing to the vacancy in the monthly salary plus longevity pay) when it enacted Judiciary is still paramount. 910. then he dated June 16. which requires fifteen (15) years service constitutional mandate of recommending qualified in the Judiciary or in any other branch of the nominees to the President. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW the NLRC.M. regardless of whether the JBC carried out combined or separate application process/es for Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 47 Court by Atty. as well law. 19th. 2016) separate shortlists for the vacancies for the 16th. Moreover. as part of her government service for the purpose November 29. disregarded the clustering of nominees into six July 26. armed with that knowledge. as restricts the chances for appointment of the qualified nominees. In view of the foregoing. and 13-02-07^SC. insofar as to GRANT CA in the same cluster for the other vacancies. the same It should be stressed that the power to recommend salary as their respective counterparts in the of the JBC cannot be used to restrict or limit the Judiciary. 224302. premises considered. CARLO L. As long as in the end. 9946. No. 12-9. especially when the As it is part of the salary of a member of the clustering of nominees into the six shortlists Judiciary. 12-8-07-CA. in sorting the qualified be allowed as it is in accordance with Section 1 of nominees into six clusters. as amended by Republic Act could influence the appointment process beyond its No. the JBC. respectively. (Aguinaldo v. A. her longevity pay. 20th and 21st Sandiganbayan The instant Petition fundamentally challenges President Associate Justices. Aquino's appointment of respondents Musngi and Econg as the 16th and 18th Sandiganbayan Associate The ruling of the Court in this case shall similarly Justices. when Republic Act No. the same may Furthermore. Petitioners contend that only one of them apply to the situation wherein there are closely should have been appointed as both of them were successive vacancies in a collegiate court. is proscribed from considering the other nominees 5-SC. Resolution on MR. 2015 in A. validly exercised his discretionary power to (Re: Letter of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente S. The said Justice Gacutan's request that her services as NLRC limitations are utterly without legal basis and in Commissioner be included in the computation of contravention of the President's appointing power. the appointment is valid. As regards her request that her the same positions of Sandiganbayan Associate entire services as NLRC Commissioner be credited Justice. President Aquino 26. because (1) the President's WHEREFORE. 17th. 910. No. 2006. G. the equalize the salary of certain executive officials Court finds herein that President Aquino was not with members of the Judiciary. 9946. On this score.M. occasion. Republic Act Nos. 9417. Clustering impinges Government as a condition for coverage of the said upon the President's power of appointment. to which included in one cluster of nominees for the 21st the President shall make appointments on the same Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. and 10071. it should perforce be part of the salary of encroached on President Aquino's power to the public officers granted by law with the same appoint members of the Judiciary from all those rank and salary as their counterparts in the whom the JBC had considered to be qualified for Judiciary. one for every vacancy. 9347. Aquino. xxx. xxx. which the President appoints someone nominated by the will be in keeping with the legislative intent to JBC. Associate Justice from each of the six shortlists submitted by the JBC. E. 9347 took effect. Republic Act No. as amended by Republic Act No.R. 12-8-07-CA. 18th. To do otherwise obliged to appoint one new Sandiganbayan will negate the express legislative intent. the Court option for every vacancy is limited to the five to resolves to GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration seven nominees in the cluster. CRUZ . RTJ-13-2361 [Formerly OCA IPI No. and "no fixed of guilt exists. 01-8-10-SC) xxx. Exconde and Madrona for lack of jurisdiction. or (c) government office. the IBP Aquino. as government lawyer. furnishing a copy of his designation to the The present administrative case should be OBC and MCLE office does not in any way resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman. and received final decision is reached.M. 13-4144. CARLO L. (b) upon verified the consequences of his dismissal as a judge. Despite being records of indubitable integrity. while the promulgated rules of procedure in the discipline of disciplinary authority finds in favor of the judges. Hence. extinguish his permanent disqualification from considering that complainants have filed a reemployment in a government office. 224302. In the exercise of this power. Judge Ruiz. an anomalous situation supervision over all courts and their personnel. which are allegedly unfair and the designation and desisted from performing the Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 48 Court by Atty. In view of his disqualification from xxx. including government-owned upon anonymous complaint supported by public or controlled corporations. Neither does complaint before it on 12 February 2009. by the Court itself. November 29. In the the fact that complainant in his previous case of Gonzalez. appropriate government agency. (Sps. particularly when a compensation therefor. the Court has decides against a government lawyer. Considering that both Exconde and reemployment in any government office. against him (as a judge) posed no objection to his (Office of the Court Administrator v. A. clemency. involving their official functions clustering of nominees by the JBC and may during their tenure. (Section 1. The President is not bound by the discriminatory. the present case should be consider as one the separate shortlists of nominees resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman as the concurrently submitted by the JBC. A. G. CRUZ . one of complaint. amended by A. No.C. respondent accepted the positions of likewise possesses the power to preventively Associate Dean and Professor of NIT-College of suspend an administratively charged judge until a Law. October 12.R. courtesy preventive measure to shield the public from any and approval from the Supreme Court. The prohibition on reemployment does RTJ]. 8168. petition for clemency. government lawyers fall under the disciplinary Section 6. disciplinary proceedings against sitting judges and justices may be instituted: (a) motu There is no dispute that respondent knows full well proprio." Respondent also claims that he and their personnel as a measure to allow furnished a copy of his designation to the OBC and unhampered formal investigation. February 2. or by disqualification from reemployment in any documents substantiating the allegations. supported by the affidavits of persons which is the accessory penalty of perpetual with personal knowledge of the facts alleged. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW the vacancies. 2016) not distinguish between permanent and temporary appointments. Buffe v. xxx. It is likewise a MCLE office as a "gesture of xxx respect. Respondent's contentions are No. Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution authority of either their superior or the grants the Supreme Court administrative Ombudsman. For such acts. This power is inherent in the Court's salary was attached to his designation except for power of administrative supervision over all courts honorarium. Madrona are public officers being charged for respondent should have declined from accepting actions. Based on No." He further further damage that the continued exercise by the avers that complainant in the administrative case judge of the functions of his office may cause. Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. 2016) has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative offenses Disciplinary Authority involving their official duties. that his designation was We dismiss the administrative case against only temporary does not absolve him from liability. will arise if the IBP asserts jurisdiction and xxx. No. untenable. The Court disqualified. Moreover. Indeed. Respondent alleges that his serious charge is involved and a strong likelihood designation was only temporary. (Aguinaldo v. 2016) this rule. Further. M. a government institution. Gonzales. his death on 7 September 2014 administrative case did not object to his petition for forecloses any administrative case against him. A. Aguado. we ruled that it is not sound misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath judicial policy to await the final resolution of a as a lawyer. a lawyer who holds a government office shall be considered as disciplinary proceedings may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for against such judge as a member of the Bar. A. Clearly. v. February 9. IPI No. In Court as a member of the Bar only when his Bengco v. or (3) allow profession during the whole period that the private interests to interfere with public duties. In this regard. A. judges may be disciplined for acts committed proof beyond reasonable doubt is required." (Cobalt took effect on October 1. 15-35-SB-J. Administrative Matter No. A finding of guilt in Justice Hernandez regularly performed his duties the criminal case does not necessarily mean a cannot but prevail. being administrative in nature. A. respondent disparate. Jr. 11069. the dismissal of a criminal case on the February 23." Preponderance against justices and judges before the IBP. 2016) court based on grounds which are also grounds for the disciplinary action against members of the Bar Generally. April administrative case against a judge of a regular 12. They are undertaken and prosecuted (Malabed v. the quantum of proof required is for the immediate forwarding to the Supreme clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of Court for disposition and adjudication of charges proof rests upon the complainant. convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that xxx. solely for the public welfare and to save courts of 2016) justice from persons unfit to practice law. Judge Ruiz. It also misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a states that judgment in both respects may be government official. June 8.. Disciplinary proceedings involve no knowingly defied the prohibition on reemployment private interest and afford no redress for private in a public office imposed upon him by the Court. is supplement the hearsay evidence. xxx. In the present February 2. it is immaterial that the administrative case. Under separate and distinct from a criminal action filed these circumstances on record and in the absence of against a lawyer and they may proceed evidence to the contrary. criminal case is pending final disposition. xxx. No. grievance. (Office of the administrative proceedings against judges and Court Administrator v. 2015 of Alfonso Umali. same way. however. 2016) case. "In prior to their appointment to the judiciary. (Re: Verified Complaint dated July finding of liability in the administrative case. not a novel thought in this Court xxx. In criminal cases. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his The relaxation of the hearsay rule in disciplinary conduct as an officer of the court. otherwise. 2016) ground of insufficiency of evidence against an accused. the hearsay allegations constituted the totality of Umali's evidence. No. does not necessarily exculpate respondent was not yet a member of the Judiciary him administratively because the quantum of when he allegedly committed the acts imputed to evidence required is different. RTJ-13- justices where bribery proceedings are involved is 2361 [Formerly OCA IPI No.02 above-quoted criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer is particularly directed to lawyers in the may be acted upon. The records did It must be emphasized that a disbarment not contain any other piece of evidence to proceeding. 2002) provides that an Resources.C. Inc. No. the presumption that independently of each other. when the (Facturan v.C. him. 2016) objectives of the two proceedings are vastly Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 49 Court by Atty. 02-9-02-SC (which which is offered in opposition thereto. and continuing membership in the legal interests. enjoining them from using rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission one's public position to: (1) promote private to. 13-4144-RTJ]. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW functions of such positions.C.M. CARLO L. In the 13. Bernardo. Barcelona. (2) advance private interests. 10781. 7594. as it provides against lawyers. Rule 6. CRUZ . this Court will be government service. including of evidence means "evidence which is more those filed prior to their appointment to the judiciary. Atty. He may be disciplined by this incorporated in one decision or resolution. No. who is also a respondent in an In this determination. Our administrative cases for disbarment or suspension Rules itself recognizes this situation. de la Pena. and the discretion of the particular judge in this respect. November 21. 2016) abide by what the Constitution directs. A. [2009]) Accordingly. Article VIII of the Constitution is indisputably a no reason to reverse the decision of the MeTC. and not to this the language to be employed to satisfy the Court in the guise of the disbarment complaint. 179754. the requirement is an assurance to the to the discharge of his official functions. proceeding thereon should focus only on the while not unlimited. the judge investigation should be carried out by the agency did so through the processes of legal reasoning. Nor is there any rigid formula as to supervision over him under the law. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 50 Court by Atty. The RTC. He was fully aware of the alleged errors of Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section the MeTC. relate to the qualifications of the respondent to be (Dela Peña v. its factual and legal bases. The MeTC presented both the version of the prosecution and Decisions that of the defense. In Mondragon. is necessarily broad. CARLO L.M. this Court receives the Formal which they are based. G. No. and the recommendation constitutional mandate that decisions must express of the appropriate disciplinary action. decisions must still through the procedure laid down in its EROD. G. No. the role of the CTA (through the designated hearing committee) is confined to the In this case. More complaint pertained to an act or conduct unrelated than that. concisely xxx. there was no breach of the investigation of the case. January 11. 160 Phil. A. 862. 212623. reverse. any questions pertaining to the The standard "expected of the judiciary" is that the qualifications of the respondent to be appointed as decision rendered makes clear why either party a state prosecutor should be directed to the prevailed under the applicable law to the facts as Secretary of Justice who had administrative established. 102. It or office having administrative supervision over is. (Bernabe v. 2016) play. People. found 14. The complaint for disbarment is sui generis. There is qualification and fitness of the respondent lawyer no sacramental form of words which he must use to continue membership in the Bar. No. Consistent clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on with existing rules. at least in minimum allowed to investigate and recommend appropriate essence. The requirement of clarity and distinctness. as well as the credibility and the (Escano v. No. (Flores-Salado v. as an appellate court.C. 16-02-01-CTA. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW The Court finds the need to clarify that although it leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was may entertain a disbarment or suspension reached and is precisely prejudicial to the losing complaint brought against a lawyer employed in party. factual findings. upon pain of being considered as having failed to Villanueva. who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors the government service whether or not the of the court for review by a higher tribunal. Geraldez. preventing him from deciding ipse dixit. De Leon was not left in the dark.R. disciplinary measures against erring employees. 104 [1975]) The power of justices and judges of lower courts to investigate and recommend to the Supreme Court Judges might learn to synthesize and to simplify the necessary disciplinary action is well recognized. their pronouncements. 2012. The CA correctly stated that Investigation Report. in arriving at a judgment. The same principle applies why the CTA. the parties that.R. is distinctly and clearly express. 11099. CRUZ . Manaois. administrative complaints involving grave 686 SCRA 112) offenses. the MeTC clearly emphasized in its decision. written such as they may be. the or modify based on our independent judgment. 598 Phil. thus. (Chung v. a safeguard against the impetuosity of the him or her when the allegations of the complaint judge. probative weight of the evidence for the defense November 15. which we can affirm. 975 appointed to the public office. Nevertheless. (De paramount component of due process and fair Leon v. Court of Appeals. September 27. 2016) vis-à-vis the evidence of the prosecution. appellate courts Justice Roberto A. . such a conclusion does not ipso facto courts should not be based on any other imply that the PNRC is a "private corporation" considerations. is unable Labor. the public that the judiciary arrives at its 2009. Decisions of all as a Senator. The PNRC is now sufficiently established. 14 is a vital case. A. No. The judge merely has to request and November 8. under the conclusions on the basis of reasonable inference Decision. MTJ-16-1869. The trial court failed GOCCs to cite any legal basis for declaration of petitioner's liability. (Philippine National Bank v. January 18. Necessarily. As stressed motions and incidents within the reglementary by this Court in San Jose v. Reyes. which requires We have also been consistent in holding that the courts to express clearly and distinctly the facts and delay of a judge of a lower court in resolving law on which decisions are based xxx. In this particular case. written. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW … another well-grounded reason exists to set aside extension of time to decide cases and the pending the May 20. Although it constitutional requirement that the basis of the is neither a subdivision. (Torres v. to comply with the prescribed three-month period. xxx. that must be organized under the the litigants of their chances on appeal. 199440. July 27. No. 2004 Order of the Secretary of for such extension if he. they also Corporation Code. (Office of the Court Administrator v. xxx. on the case and the motions filed know how decisions are arrived at as well as the by both Bancil and Krieger. It is likewise crucial to assure succinctly explained in the Decision of July 15. faithful period as prescribed by the Constitution is not compliance by the courts and quasi-judicial bodies. 2016) Article IX-B The Regional Trial Court Decision dated August 31. in this within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious particular matter. April 20. . . Sec. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 2006 is four (4) pages long. xxx.R. 2016) Act 6713 xxx. and as such. thus. No. CRUZ . it is within the ambit of Rule I.R. 2016) … in view of the voluminous case load of some trial court judges. Tomas. or instrumentality decision of our courts should be clearly articulated of the government. Constitution. within the element of due process as it enables the parties to prescribed period. In this such as the DOLE. De Leon.R. 2016) 217575. The said Orders contravene Article VIII. the sui generis character cannot be assumed to have so much omniscience of PNRC requires us to approach controversies that they can read what the trial judge has not involving the PNRC on a case-to-case basis. The Decision merely contained a recitation Based on the above. with Art. generally allows for a reasonable Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 51 Court by Atty. No. 215072. Communications Corporation v. Article III of the GOCC.M. CARLO L. was correctly allowed to hold his position from credible and admissible evidence and the text as Chairman thereof concurrently while he served of law and our jurisprudence. RTJ-14-2385. VIII. for good reasons. the sui generis status of the of facts and a dispositive portion. Abad. Heirs of the Late Ireneo and Caridad Entapa. as assure fairness . No. the CA did not err in ruling September 7. G. As correctly mentioned by make appeals possible. excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. (South Cotabato administrative sanction is in order. Judge Reyes failed to act. After all. nor a government-owned or - and made legible to the parties does not merely controlled corporation or a subsidiary thereof. Section 1 of the Implementing Rules of Republic Casalan. Its first three (3) pages state the facts of the case. Section 14 of the Constitution.M. the PNRC can be treated as a violation of Section 16. Not only will fully coherent and within the contemplation of the provision of the cogent reasons have greater chances to convince Constitution. Sto. NLRC. G. 2016) that the CSC has jurisdiction over the PNRC because the issue at hand is the enforcement of Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision labor laws and penal statutes. 2004 Order of the Regional Director incidents thereof. June 15. agency. so much so that respondent. A. G. an legal reasoning behind them. (Bancil v. the government divests issue of the monetary obligations. LRTA. citing Philippine fringe benefits of certain employees of Metro. it is CSC against LRTA. xxx. we rule that the CA did LRTA. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW We find error with the NLRC taking cognizance of illegal dismissal complaint is concerned. As such. bound by civil service laws. LRTA is a government- owned and controlled corporation . which would have jurisdiction to hear his Alvarez. (Light Rail Transit Authority v.any allegation It is undisputed that TransCo is a GOCC as it was of illegal dismissal against it by its employees created by virtue of the EPIRA. November 28. LRTA which solidarity obligated itself to pay the in this case. it was should have been brought to the CSC. is whether xxx. As such. G. Pabalan: It is clear from the foregoing. that it has assumed the monetary xxx By engaging in a particular business obligations of Metro to its employees. The only issue. we find that NLRC cannot exercise and its employees arose out of its business relations jurisdiction over LRTA. NLRC itself pro hac vice of its sovereign can exercise jurisdiction over LRTA not because of character. METRO. No. G. as in Mendoza. The NLRC acquired jurisdiction over LRTA LRTA can be made liable by the labor tribunals for not because of the employer-employee relationship private respondents' money claim despite the of the respondents and LRTA (because there is absence of an employer-employee relationship. monetary obligations of Metro. Pili. and it is also not denied by LRTA. 202047.the Labor Arbiter and NLRC could not have the central personnel agency of the government. In the said case. No. 2016) complaint against LRTA. Under the the fact remains that Pili was an employee of Metro Constitution. as far as the claim of illegal dismissal is "[LRTA's] contractual commitments with [METRO] concerned. The NLRC and Labor with [METRO] which is private in nature. so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law the existence of any employer-employee governing private corporations. wages and the labor tribunals over LRTA. 188047. controlled corporation. monetary claims are concerned. However. This is despite the 2016) fact that LRTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter." employees of Metro filed an illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice complaint against Metro and In view of the foregoing. In this case. we have already the subsequent acquisition by [LRTA] of full addressed the issue of jurisdiction in relation to ownership of [METRO] and take-over of its illegal dismissal complaints. the business operations at LRT.R. In Hugo v. including the Labor Code. therefore. but rather because LRTA clearly assumed This Court further ruled that LRTA must submit voluntarily the monetary obligations of Metro to its itself to the provisions governing private employees. and none) but rather because LRTA expressly assumed though LRTA is a government-owned and the monetary obligations of Metro to its employees. the NLRC accordingly declared. LRTA was obligated to reimburse Metro for the latter's Operating In Mendoza. However. xxx. We held that the Labor Arbiter and NLRC not err when it upheld the jurisdiction of the labor did not have jurisdiction over LRTA xxx. To repeat. as he claims. relationship between LRTA and the respondents. the thru the instrumentality of a NLRC may exercise jurisdiction over LRTA on the corporation. for having part of NLRC when it exercised jurisdiction over conducted business through a private corporation. acquired jurisdiction over LRTA insofar as the including GOCCs. Such Arbiter erred when it took cognizance of such private relation was not changed notwithstanding matter. In the Agreement. We rule in the affirmative.R. CRUZ 52 . if LRTA tribunals over private respondents' money claims was his true employer. National Bank v. the Civil Service Commission (CSC) is alone . this Court upheld the jurisdiction of Expenses which included the salaries. CARLO L. June 8. We therefore find no error on the corporations. (Light Rail the cases against Metro and LRTA as far as the Transit Authority v. It primarily deals with matters Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme Court by Atty. R. xxx… in cases District. June 8. Commission on of the Solicitor General (OSG) as their legal counsel. 2016) involving the BSP. this Court already recognized not allowed to engage the legal services of private the letter of authority of the OGCC giving its counsels. No. G. No. a review of the law creating TransCo and 1994 enjoined GOCCs to exclusively refer all legal pertinent CSC issuances is in order to determine matters pertaining to them to the OGCC. as may deviation from the above-mentioned general rule. Guiguinto Water officers upon his own responsibility. the BSP Governor may also reasonable competence expected from the OGCC. either personally or exceptional circumstances that would warrant a through counsel. nature that would be beyond the range of Under the same law. Accordingly. G. it failed Bank Act. (Bangko Letters of Authority issued by the OGCC.R. in any legal or that the case was of a complicated or peculiar proceedings. the BSP Governor is authorized to to establish the presence of extraordinary or represent the Bangko Sentral. was already definitively held that the LBP Legal March 2. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. action or specialized legal studies. Book IV of conformity to and acquiescence for the LBP Legal Executive Order No. Case law holds that the lack of authority on forth in the labor code may aid in ascertaining the the part of a private lawyer to file a suit in behalf of relationship between the government and its any GOCC shall be a sufficient ground to dismiss purported employees. rights and the "Administrative Code of 1987. as long as the OGCC consents As a general rule. Thus. private counsel can be hired with the prior written conformity To summarize.R. 223625. GOCCs. G. Teresita counsel. or the New Central existing rules and regulations. and the authority to represent the BSP Panlilio-Luciano. CARLO L. 223625. 2016) Dennis C. of private counsel before it hired the services of November 22. Commission on Audit. and government acquired asset of the OGCC. Chapter 3. s. 7653.R. civil service laws. where it Sentral ng Pilipinas v. factors over the conditions and requirements for public employment as provided for by civil service In the present case. AMS corporations (collectively referred to as GOCCs) are Farming Corporation. (EO) 292. and the prior laws. November 22. And second." is clear that the welfare of government employees. 205966. 2016) Nonetheless. which authority was cited in the may be delegated to any of its officers. Audit. (National Transmission with the requirements concerning the engagement Corporation v. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW affecting the career development. a protest against petitioner's WPA. on its behalf. Section 1 of AO No. G. Title III. OGCC shall act as the principal law office of TransCo is bound by the provisions of its charter. written concurrence of the Commission on Audit While the four-fold test and other standards set (COA). the Monetary Board may authorize the BSP Governor to represent it This Court had earlier occasion to tackle this personally or through a counsel. they cannot be overriding the action filed by the said lawyer. rules and regulations. No. rules and regulations. 130. CRUZ . even a private question in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pangan & Associates. and the said Legal corporations. in accordance with Under Republic Act No. Section 10. including private counsel. which filed. it Legal Counsel failed to secure the prior conformity and for GOCCs acquiescence of the OGCC and the written concurrence of the COA. respondent failed to comply laws. in exceptional cases. 2016) Department was not precluded from participating as counsel for LBP. otherwise known as Department to appear as its collaborating counsel Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 53 Court by Atty. their subsidiaries. Legaspi. delegate his power to represent the BSP to other (First Mega Holdings Corporation v. In addition. 208383. other corporate off Department acts under the control and supervision springs. employer-employee relationship in and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the the public sector is primarily determined by special Government Corporate Counsel. No. government-owned or controlled to such participation. their respective charters expressly name the Office (National Transmission Corporation v. First. be authorized by the Monetary Board. unless the propriety of the benefits Miranda received. " thirty (30) days salary. 95-011 the proceedings useless. the assailed death of the respondent does not preclude a orders of April 18. xxx. reversed. June 27. xxx. (E. July 5. The CA. had authority to modify the penalty and order the and its approval of the actions already undertaken dismissal of petitioner from the service. it is not without be. cannot be defeated by Camarines Norte State College was created by the acts of the respondent. While. G. 213660. Amagan. 2016) counsel of LBP. 199440. Ombudsman v. To be sure. (Torres v. 292. and had clearly demonstrated that the suit of thirty (30) days. there is no serious dispute that the OGCC Counsel (OGCC).whether or not the legal services to Group to handle the instant case. as a general rule. G. 2013 .R. as they are hereby. The Court finds that the stresses that public funds shall not be utilized for first exception applies. a Otherwise stated. 2013 and October 1. and the had. No. investigation or matter requiring the reasons. 209794. The Court stated in Office of the Philippines v. 2016) the OGCC .R. the payment of services of a private legal counsel or Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 54 Court by Atty. CARLO L. the complaint should still have been initiated by No.R. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW in all LBP cases. Commission on Audit. No. the CSC over the actions of the LBP Legal Services Group. Dechavez that from a strictly legal 2016) point of view and as held in a long line of cases.) No. having jurisdiction over the PNRC. in the final analysis.actual legal controversy subsequent pleadings and motions in the RTC and or court litigation.is clearly puerile. and c) the penalty imposed would render services of lawyers. Amagan. 2013 should finding of administrative liability. therefore. once it attaches. (Oñate v.O. be performed involve an . Under Executive Order intervenes and the action does not survive. represented by its own Legal Department and was the same circular provides that in the event that not incurring additional cost for the said legal such legal services cannot be avoided or is justified services. Administrative Code of 1987. Sps. b) on equitable and humanitarian proceeding. COA Circular No. (Land Bank of the Philippines v. and unduly puts stress on a technicality that. did not then the ratiocination by the court a quo in its err when it agreed with the CSC that the latter had second assailed Order dated October 1. De Leon. directly participated as counsel for LBP written concurrence of the COA shall first be when it filed its Manifestation and Confirmation of secured before the hiring or employment of a Authority before the RTC. only the OSG is authorized to represent administrative liability when: a) due process may CNSC and its officials and agents in any litigation. a chartered institution. CRUZ . be subverted. January 18. 7352. These Proceedings filings of the OGCC clearly and unequivocally demonstrate the OGCC's control and supervision Thus. with the LBP Legal Services Group acting as collaborating counsel thereof. jurisdiction. in this Court were filed by the OGCC as the lead G. Under the by the latter. in fact. attaching thereto the private lawyer or law firm. Sps. save only where death Republic Act No. Accordingly. 209794. June 27. or the Administrative Code of 1987. the death of the respondent in an state college is classified as. or fine in an amount exceeding LBP was being litigated by its "principal law office. the Court has held that the does not even exist. under extraordinary or exceptional circumstances.R. as the case may be. administrative case precludes the finding of As such. The prohibition covers Letters of Authority it had earlier issued which the hiring of private lawyers to render any form of authorized the lawyers in the LBP Legal Sendees legal service . Despite this. and that there was no need for the law firm to represent government agencies in court concurrence of the COA since the LBP was being or to render legal services for them. 2016) the written conformity and acquiescence of the OSG or the Office of the Government Corporate Here. the CSC has appellate jurisdiction on Considering that the OGCC already entered its administrative disciplinary cases involving the appearance as lead counsel for LBP in the instant imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than case.that appellate jurisdiction. G. as well as decisions of this Court. No. (Land Bank of the exception. 2016) On the requirement that the complaint/Formal Preventive Suspension Charge be under oath. Subtitle A. G. 126) He is entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence made of record. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW precluded from asking copies of the NBI Report Here. August 8. ipso facto. April 21. Juen. The when the respondent passed away. and The fact that the charge against the respondent was a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and subsequently declared to lack factual and legal the evidence presented against her during the bases did not. 143514. No.131012. xxx. created to inquire into charges filed against him. the CA found that the leakage. is not fatal to the pending investigation is not entitled to administrative case. Indeed. 188646. Gayla.R. the Court has proceeding involving government employees. an employee of documentary evidence. Even the Board's alleged failure to furnish Cordero The respondent's preventive suspension was done affidavits of witnesses and certified true copy/ies pending investigation. (Cordero v. In Pefianco v. charge against the respondent was for grave but as pointed out by the Board. narrated pertinent portions of the respondent was deprived of her right to due testimonies taken in the Senate hearing.R. 306 SCRA 287 308). The formal Cordero is not entitled to copies of the documents. 387 SCRA 118. copies of the NBI Report who is placed under preventive suspension and the Board's findings. a compensation because such suspension is not a respondent in an administrative case is not entitled penalty but only a means of enabling the to be informed of the findings and disciplining authority to conduct an unhampered recommendations of any investigating committee investigation. CARLO L. the Court finds it proper to dismiss the against him.R. there is no need for the appeal if the penalty imposed by the disciplining formal charge to be under oath in this case since the authority is suspension or dismissal and. Book V. leakage. The CA was Formal Charge was apparently sufficient. to under oath. the case was pending appeal with the CA and the Board's findings.R. No. 2002. Title I. 2016) September 21. (Gonzales v. render the preventive hearings of the investigation committee. Board of Nursing.) Board of Nursing and under her oath of office. for it is only when the complaint be wit: (1) preventive suspension pending filed by another person that it be required to be investigation Section 51. G. 200577. we agree with the Board and Back Salaries that the signature of Chairperson Abaquin is sufficient. August 17. G. pointed to the possible source of the However. In an administrative 1999. defend herself. Moral. in its decision. (Civil Service Commission v. In this regard. xxx. after Board itself initiated the charge and its Chairperson review. the respondent is exonerated. under oath to protect respondents from malicious Executive Order No. (Section signed the same in her capacity as head of the 47(4). No. xxx. Court Appeals (G. and (2) preventive suspension pending them. since duty bound to render a ruling on the issue of Cordero was able to file his detailed Answer to the whether or not the respondent was indeed charges—he denied any participation in the administratively liable of the alleged infraction. Since the case against the respondent concluded that the Formal Charge failed to state was dismissed by the CA on the lack of due the basis for a possible administrative sanction process. Cordero is not misconduct. but he did not. suspension without legal basis. and process. In the same manner. which is the complainant. 292 [Administrative Code of complaints filed only for the purpose of harassing 1987]). CRUZ . an administrative offense that justifies Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 55 Court by Atty. considering that it is the Board itself In Gloria v. id.No. we distinguished the two types of preventive ruled that an administrative charge filed by the suspension of civil service employees charged with head of chief of the office concerned need not be offenses punishable by removal or suspension. The allegations in his Answer present administrative case against the deceased constitute proof that he had sufficient notice and under the circumstances since she can no longer understanding of the accusations against him. G. (Ombudsman v. on the other hand. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW the imposition of the preventive suspension of the payment of salaries only if they render service. which dismissed respondent from service. G. punishable by suspension or dismissal (total exoneration). reinstatement of the respondent is without any from 2008 until the promulgation of this Decision. March 14. Consequently. Such preventive suspension is payment of back salaries.R. July 11. 142332-43. it is clear that warranted under the circumstances because there respondent cannot be considered as reinstated to was no cause for suspension or dismissal. 2013. is not entitled to backwages No. Molina. PCSO's were preventively suspended pending appeal. (Civil Service Commission v.e. Navales. or the government employee is It is settled that public officers are entitled to Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 56 Court by Atty. 2016) This court in Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals ruled that payment of back salaries during the period of In Hon. the period within which suspension during the pendency of the appeal" if petitioners Chavez. oppression or grave misconduct. Gloria has clarified that the preventive he [or she] works. A finding of liability for a lesser Sports." The two conditions must be suspension pending appeal while the administrative complied with to entitle the reinstated employee case is on appeal. and cannot be considered unjustified even if such salaries. November 10. No. his position in PCSO and entitled to back salaries where the employee did not commit the offense during the relevant periods. 450 offense is not equivalent to exoneration. however.. We Unjustified suspension. and they may now be reinstated to their former positions having Moreover. caused the suspension and [2] when the suspension An employee is considered to be on preventive is unjustified. No. 2008.R. No. Since suspension of civil service employees charged with [respondent] did not work during the period for dishonesty. The amount he received from Moreover. 194763-64. Nos. 2016) the charges and the suspension is declared to be unjustified. the respondent shall be becomes part of the final penalty of suspension or considered as having been under preventive dismissal. e. G.R. we reversed the Court of Appeals Decision suspension. 548. G. 2016) Ombudsman's Decision and Order. the Court ruled that the suspension of a civil service member who is period when an employee was preventively subsequently ordered reinstated is allowed if "[1] suspended pending appeal shall be credited to he [or she] is found innocent of the charges which form part of the penalty of suspension imposed. backwages corresponding to the period PCSO minus the days he reported for work in of suspension of a civil service employee who is November 2013 should be returned. served more than eight years of preventive 2014. Almonte and Laid his or her appeal is meritorious. CARLO L. xxx. G . (Garcia v. and Resolution and reinstated the Office of the July 20. January 11. "[I]n case the penalty is punitive in nature and the period of suspension suspension or removal.R. shall be credited in their favor. 2008 to the payment of salaries to the employee concerned. Alfornon. Likewise. 203657. 167763. he was not not entitle a government employee to back salaries entitled to backwages. meant categorically found respondent guilty of the that the employee's separation from service is not administrative charges. Gloria v. in our Resolution dated October 13. SCRA 224.g. CRUZ . reinstated is proper only if he is found innocent of de los Reyes. February 22.R. 2016) (Alfornon v. as he was not exonerated of the charge against him. de los Santos. because she is not completely exonerated from the citing Bruguda v. 165223. 208976. Rabang.. Culture and charge against her. Castro. there can be no neglect of duty is authorized by the Civil Service legal or equitable basis to order the payment of Law. 2005.R. Secretary of' Education. or which [he is] now claiming salaries. G. charged. Thus." Respondent did not perform any the charges are ultimately dismissed so as to justify work during the period of November 8. Nos. i. (Yamson v. "As respondent. January 31. 548 SCRA 541. he [or she] shall earn. basis. 231) Considering that the respondent's the mere reduction of the penalty on appeal does preventive suspension had legal basis. CA. and Aguilar. This was echoed in Gonzales v. It is more in keeping suspension pending appeal) finds sufficient basis in with the constitutional value placed on security of this case. Jr. For one. The doctrine in Tan. July 20. therefore. November 28. merited a suspension of more than employees of the civil service to security of tenure. In the eyes condition that she has not obtained any other of the law. these emanated from the same acts Insurance System (GSIS). Nos. we held that aforementioned cases. Jr. Thus. G. No. G. their suspension (preventive Canonizado is the proper rule. choose between pursuing his or her case and to 2016) fight for his or her rights or to simply accept his or her dismissal and find employment elsewhere. etc. Petitioners Chavez. propriety of his or her dismissal should not be construed as an abandonment of his or her These conditions were clearly not met in this case. the 1991 case Regis. suspension. Gonzales. It will render pointless the right of found guilty of. xxx. our ruling in Tañala should apply. however. For another. which they were eventually employee. We to Campol whose right to the office has been have reviewed our relevant pronouncements on recognized by the proper authorities. We note that the ruling of the CA was also the tenor of our decision in the 1988 case Ginson v. Almonte It is a doctrine that values technicalities more than and Laid. this matter and we found that as early as 1960. As earlier found. We held in this case that his Authority. Navales. Indeed. Campol should be reinstated while Ginson was illegally dismissed from her to his position as SB Secretary. (Campol v. fully explains the rationale for the position is only temporary and must give way making reinstatement subject to a condition. the position never became vacant since employment. Salvador and In the same vein.R. The ruling in Ginson was repeated in Campol was illegally dropped from the rolls. are not entitled to backwages. we have pursued the doctrine that an employee of the civil Campol is entitled to the payment of backwages service illegally dismissed from office has the right from the time of his illegal dismissal until he is to reinstatement. Finance. Gimenez. During the pendency of his appeal. In the event that position in the Municipality of Murcia and thus. one month. In this case. CRUZ . Simple Gonzales had the right to live during his appeal Neglect of Duty and Simple Misconduct carry with which necessarily means that he can accept any them the penalty of more than one month form of employment. It forces an illegally dismissed employee to (Yamson v.. etc. 194763-64. Hernandez. Gonzales was initially exonerated of the charges against them. v. the petitioners were not completely a 1961 case. they were not tenure. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW found guilty of another offense for an act different obtains while waiting for the court to rule on the from that for which he was charged. dismissed from service in the Department of they were found culpable of lesser offenses . justice. An employee of the Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 57 Court by Atty. Tañala. position. this is subject to the post. the incumbency of the person who assumed cases. in Balao. We categorically stated that corruption or bad faith. Dishonesty and Gross Negligence -only employment in the GSIS is no hindrance to his that the Court does not find any element of reinstatement.Grave Misconduct. None of these Hence. CARLO L. he Simple Neglect of Duty and Simple Misconduct. This Reinstatement is not the kind of doctrine that rightfully embodies and Backwages our aspiration to uphold the Constitution and to render justice. Any other employment he or she reinstated to his position. Castro. Grave Abuse of suspension. another person has already been appointed to his entitled to reinstatement.R. His dismissal was that were the basis of the original charges against eventually reversed and the penalty lowered to them . accepted employment in the Government Service nevertheless. in accordance with the doctrine in the Municipality of Murcia. 197634. To follow the ruling in Ginson and Regis is completely exonerated of the charges against them to rule in favor of penalizing an illegally dismissed and the lesser offense. 2016) Tan v. In this case. Osmeña. xxx. must be reversed. The Thus. COA. In cases like this. Gentallan. and PHIC fault. in refusing to award backwages its personnel does not explicitly provide that the from Campol's dismissal until his actual same shall be subject to the approval of the OBM or reinstatement. employee. that will ensure that its compensation system reinstatement and payment of full backwages are conforms with applicable law will result in an dictated by the constitutional mandate to protect invalid delegation of legislative power. No. and in the 2010 case Civil Service Commission v. applied in Campol's case. An necessarily mean that the PHIC has unbridled employee of the civil service who is ordered discretion to issue any and all kinds of allowances. it effectively punishes an 1597. Accordingly. To sustain employee for being dismissed without his or her petitioners' claim that it is the PHIC. This is the prevailing doctrine and should be (Philippine Health Insurance Corporation v.R. that Section 16(n) of R. in the eyes of the law. This reinstated is entitled to backwages and is consistent with our ruling that an employee other monetary benefits from the time of illegally dismissed has the right to live and to find her illegal dismissal up to her employment elsewhere during the pendency of the reinstatement. G. an employer who illegally because an employee who is reinstated after having been illegally dismissed is dismisses an employee has the obligation to pay considered as not having left her office him or her what he or she should have received and should be given the corresponding had the illegal act not be done. Magnaye. No. Certainly. Jr. As or her backwages during the entire period of time clearly expressed in PCSO v. CARLO L. the PHIC unlimited authority to unilaterally fix its Anything less than this falls short of the justice due compensation structure. its 1978 amendment. P. the Decision. bonuses and other incentives was still found a new employment is not a full recompense subject to the standards laid down by applicable for the damage done by the illegal dismissal of an laws: P. No. Any income An illegally dismissed government he may have obtained during the litigation of the employee who is later ordered case shall not be deducted from this amount. G.A. the SSL. granting civil service employees' right to security of tenure. (Campol v. November 28. Balao. the twin award of alone. At the same time. Worse. Commission on Audit. November 29. No. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW civil service who is invalidly dismissed is entitled This entitlement to full backwages also means that to the payment of backwages. 2016) Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 58 Court by Atty. There is no legal the OP as in Section 19(d) thereof does not nor jurisprudential basis for this ruling. 7875 granting PHIC's power to fix the compensation of Thus. This is only fair and just case. office. and at present. R. there is no need to deduct Campol's earnings from his employment with PAO from the award. 985. in Civil Service Commission v. Fixing the backwages to five fix the salaries and determine the reasonable years or to the period of time until the employee allowances. such effect to government employees unfairly removed from could not have been the intent of the legislature. 10149. we right to receive full backwages means exactly this - categorically declared – that it corresponds to Campol's salary at the time of his dismissal until his reinstatement.O. 2016) We repeated this ruling in the 2005 case Batangas State University v. even if it is that he or she was wrongfully prevented from assumed that there is an explicit provision performing the duties of his or her position and exempting a GOCC from the rules of the then from enjoying its benefits. xxx. the employee never (OCPC) under the OBM. the power of its Board to truly left the office. CRUZ . Metro Cebu Water District. 213453. Bonifacio. employee. This is necessarily so Office of Compensation and Position Classification because.A.O. in the 2007 case Compensation Romagos v.R. It is an employer's compensation at the time of her price or penalty for illegally dismissing an reinstatement. 197634. reinstated is also entitled to the full payment of his limited only by the provisions of its charter. Senate. xxx.R. the COMELEC performs its Section 9 of R. injunction and/or a temporary restraining order. management and implementation of allowed to be live streamed on other websites. including the power to "resolve issues that COMELEC to enforce and administer laws relating may arise among the parties involved in the to the conduct of the elections. the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial administer and enforce all laws relating to the elections function when it decides election contests not as provided for in Section 2( 1). On the other hand. xxx. 10 and 11 of wisdom for that of the COMELEC. however. the former is TEC's exclusive function is to certify. No. systems that operate properly. As such. No. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS including its hardware and software components. including petitioner's. Bautista. is operating properly. Republic Act (R. the AES and this Act. 2016) of R.A. through an Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 59 Court by Atty. Senate.R. it is apparent that. Inc. the Constitution. which allows the debates to be shown most effective and efficient [AES]. as declares a failure of elections pursuant to R. and (2) to ensure or live streamed unaltered on petitioner's and other clean elections by having disinterested parties websites subject to the copyright condition that the closely monitor the COMELEC in procuring source is clearly indicated. however. No. 2016) participate as nonvoting members with respect to the COMELEC's fulfillment of its mandate and Consequently. on the ground that it encroaches on the Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) mandate to Thus. 217725. Rather.A. as amended by Section 9 G. the difference between the authority to use the AES. the debates should be development. No. paragraph 19 experts in the field of technology in adopting the of the MOA. CRUZ . is subject to the approval and final the declaration of failure of elections by the decision of the COMELEC.R. May 31. G. through the [AC] and the TEC. the Congress merely checks and This petition for certiorari and/or prohibition with balances the power of the COMELEC to enforce prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary and administer R. 8436 which provides that the administrative function when it exercises such functions of the AC are merely to recommend. G. providing for the creation of an Advisory Council (AC) and a Technical Evaluation Failure of Election Committee (TEC). (Abayon v. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW established international certification entity to be chosen by the COMELEC from the Article IX-C recommendations of the AC that the AES. as expressly mandated in 217725. as representative of the COMELEC In sum. No. 8436. and accurately. to power. the COMELEC cannot be gainsaid. No. 9.A.A. 9369. securely. (Chong v. 2016) Part VI (C). It does not." should be directed by that the COMELEC is guided and assisted by this Court to implement Part VI (C). and which in all annulment of elections by electoral tribunals and instances. No. 9369.A. First. CARLO L. as amended by R. v. Article IX-C of the otherwise reserved to other electoral tribunals by 1987 Constitution. does not exercise its quasi-judicial functions when it The functions of the AC are recommendatory. House of Representatives Electoral provide advice and/or assistance. The respondent. securely. The COMELEC.R. Nothing in the role of the Council or any outside The presidential and vice-presidential debates are intervention or influence shall be construed as an held primarily for the benefit of the electorate to abdication or diminution of the Commission's assist the electorate in making informed choices on authority and responsibility for the effective election day. and to Tribunal and Daza. assails No. can be gleaned from the assailed provision itself in 7166. substitute its own the constitutionality of Sections 8. 222702. but to (1) ensure organization of the debates. paragraph 19 of the MOA. 222236.A. and G. 8436. (Chong v. the Congress created the [AC] and the TEC which provides over-all supervision under the not to encroach upon the exclusive power of the MOA. No. April 5. in Enforcement of Election Laws accordance with the provisions of law. 2016) accurately. May 31. (Rappler. Therefore.) No. May 3. credible. In both must know that his or her sovereign will. 222731. 8436. he or she is they do so in the performance of their quasi-judicial to leave it in a separate box. in VNP Movement. on It is true that the Commission on Elections is given the other hand. When constitutional competence to amend or modify the COMELEC declares a failure of elections. the voter reads and verifies the receipt.R. as amended for a crime involving moral turpitude. Jr. Inc. v. automated election system. peaceful." The Commission is not given the was one. receipts will make random manual audits more 2016) accurate. 78 is deemed to have not been a candidate at all. v. it does so in its his or her ballot. The law is clear. xxx. March 8. Voters’ Receipts 2016) Article XI(C). 9369. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW an incident of the judicial function of electoral respect to the national and local leadership.R. Commission on Elections. Inc. but the objective of holding or continuing the elections. G. honest. A "voter verified paper audit electoral tribunals only annul the election results trail" requires the following: (a) individual voters connected with the election contest before it can verify whether the machines have been able to whereas the declaration of failure of elections by count their votes. which requires the representation that he was eligible for elective automated election system to have the capability of public office constitutes false material providing a voter-verified paper audit trail. as amended. orderly. 8436. CRUZ . As such. Thus. (Abayon v. 222236. there is no overlap of jurisdiction because is to have Congress amend it. No. its constitutional duty is to "enforce the which were not held or were suspended. Commission on Elections. A A person whose certificate of candidacy had been mechanism that allows the voter to verify his or her denied due course and/or cancelled under Section choice of candidates will ensure a free. House of Representatives precinct. when electoral the Commission on Elections to require that after tribunals annul elections under the same grounds. May 3. G. Pichay misrepresented his relative to the conduct of an election. special law it is sworn to uphold. v. xxx. In contrast. declares a failure of elections with ample discretion to administer the elections. Commission on Elections (696 Phil. (t)." One of the eligibility in his certificate of candidacy because he laws that the Commission on Elections must knew that he had been convicted by final judgment implement is Republic Act No. xxx. the availability of all the voters' Electoral Tribunal and Daza. 2016) determine who among the candidates garnered a majority of the legal votes cast. the law intends to achieve the purposes set out in this declaration.R. COMELEC's administrative function. terrorism opportunity to read the voter's receipt after casting or other irregularities. 601 Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 60 Court by Atty. We see no when the COMELEC declares a failure of elections reason why voters should be denied the on the ground of violence. The COMELEC. of Republic Act No. By representation as to his qualification or eligibility setting the minimum system capabilities of our for the office. Section 6(e). because his certificate of candidacy is considered The voter is not left to wonder if the machine void ab initio and thus. cannot give rise to a valid correctly appreciated his or her ballot. (Bagumbayan-VNP Movement. the remedy Hence. 222731. annulling elections. G. and informed election. The voter candidacy and necessarily to valid votes. intimidation. There is no legal prohibition for administrative capacity. with Jalosjos. (Bagumbayan- concerned precinct or political unit. is law. Definitely. and (n) elections will have to be conducted. the HRET does so only to No. Second. No. his by Republic Act No. CARLO L. March 8. and (b) that the verification at the COMELEC relates to the entire election in the minimum should be paper based. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution Certificates of Candidacy empowered the Commission of Elections to "[e]nforce and administer all laws and regulations In the present case. or if there law. not take it out of the functions. Should there be policy objections to it. was tribunals while the latter is in the exercise of the properly recorded by the vote-counting machines. certainly. resulted in a failure to elect. IX. It is noteworthy that the stray votes. 219603. This is amply candidate. as in this case. residence question of the qualifications of the President. his grounds for citizenship or. his disqualification may be domicile. cannot candidate at all. A.g. No. and all his votes were considered do it. C. whether an individual should be disqualified as a candidate for acts Apparently realizing the lack of an constituting election offenses (e. no necessity for determining his 449) is our guide. Commission on Elections (318 First is the fact that unless a candidate Phil. CRUZ . [Art. 329) which was affirmatively cited in the En wins and is proclaimed elected.Any candidate will not be voted for. the only qualified candidate who actually garnered cannot be supplied by a mere rule. Such the highest number of votes. he was never a Art. ineligibility of candidates. COMELEC) where the determination of Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 61 Court by Atty. we proclaimed the second placer. Three reasons may be cited to explain the absence of an authorized proceeding Can the COMELEC be such judge? for determining before election the qualifications of a candidate. the and citizenship of voters. The citation in Fermin reads: eligibility for the office. House of Representatives Constitution withholds from the Electoral Tribunal. either he will not be proclaimed or for by the Constitution his proclamation will be set aside. the votes in his favor possess all the will not be counted. for the position of an act is equivalent to the creation of a cause of action which is a substantive Mayor. G. commission of ineligibility of candidates. a disqualification. may take a long time to make. disqualified from extending beyond the beginning of the continuing as a term of the office. In contrast. §2(3)] xxx. and if for some qualifications of a reason he has been voted for and he has candidate as provided won. e. There is no such provision for candidates for these positions.R. Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives was (sic) made clear by Justice Mendoza lectured in Romualdez-Marcos that: the Constitution. over spending. No. the prohibited acts) is a prejudicial question COMELEC amended its rules on which should be determined lest he February 15. IX. in the candidacy of the candidate with the highest exercise of its rule-making power under number of votes was void ab initio. Agapito A. COMELEC even the power to decide 2016) cases involving the right to vote. §6 of the Constitution. 700 [2012]). there is Banc decision in Fermin v. COMELEC (595 Phil. if he has candidate who does not been voted for.R. That is why it is provided that if the grounds Grounds for for disqualification are established.g. The opinion of Justice Vicente V. CARLO L. which essentially involves an inquiry into The tribunals which have jurisdiction over the qualifications based on age. Vice-President. Commission on Elections (696 The lack of provision for declaring the Phil. Mendoza in Romualdez-Marcos v. demonstrated in the companion case (G. 1993 so as to provide in wins because of the very acts for which Rule 25 §1.. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW [2012]) and Aratea v.. Aquino v. the following: his disqualification is being sought. vote authorized proceeding for declaring the buying. January 26. (Ty-Delgado v. We found that since the certificate of matter which the COMELEC. however. . 120265. or by existing law or who commits any act Second is the fact that the determination declared by law to be of a candidates' eligibility. elected. 221697 & 221698-700.R. guilty of. The facts of 15 February1993 version of Rule 25. 8. CARLO L. is of May 8. COMELEC and its officers. Both do not allow. for the COMELEC to determine the 9523. Nos. in action the COMELEC even after the elections or protest in which he is a party. This is contrary to the declared by final decision of a summary character proceedings relating competent court. or a combination election and only in the event they are thereof. March under the Constitution of the election. disqualification "provided by law or the Constitution." neither can the certificate of was in the 2012 rendition. as the case may be. qualifications of a candidate as provided xxx. Vice there must be a declaration by a final judgment of a President. Such that. (R. the qualification of a candidate. led to the authorizations. are not vestment (sic) of amendment through COMELEC Resolution No. . 2016) law or who commits any act declared by law to be grounds for disqualification If a candidate cannot be disqualified without a may be disqualified from continuing as prior finding that he or she is suffering from a a candidate. §15) The purpose is to preserve the Commission to be suffering from any prerogatives of the House of disqualification provided by law or the Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Constitution. That is why the Commission to be suffering from the law makes the receipt of certificates any disqualification provided by law or of candidacy a ministerial duty of the the Constitution. disqualified "is guilty of or found by the 7166. Senators and members of the competent court that the candidate sought to be House of Representatives. 2016) returns and qualifications of members of Congress of the President and Vice President. on 25 September 2012 of its Rule 25. jurisdiction. by executive order candidate who does not possess all the or by a judgment of a competent court or tribunal.A. the amendment done in 2012 is an certificates of candidacy is the acceptance of the reality of absence of an COMELEC given jurisdiction.Any candidate who. Nos. (Poe-Llamanzares v. Insofar as the qualification of a candidate is concerned. 221697 & 221698-700. without a prior authoritative Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 62 Court by Atty. G. Rule 25 and Rule 23 are flipsides of one To be sure. are not pronouncements as reiterated in Fermin. (Poe-Llamanzares v. shall be summarily dismissed." xxx. the authoritativeness of the Romualdez to the other. Commission on Elections. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Aquino’s residence was still pending in Grounds. for by the Constitution or by existing G.R. . 1995. to disqualify a candidate cases in elections for President. Commission the other Tribunals as "sole judges" on Elections. leaving the determination of their or Petition to Declare a Candidate as a qualifications to be made after the Nuisance Candidate. The law is satisfied if candidates state in their A Petition to Disqualify a Candidate certificates of candidacy that they are invoking grounds for a Petition to Deny eligible for the position which they seek to or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy to fill. or found by to certificates of candidacy. CRUZ . No. Third is the policy underlying the prohibition against pre-proclamation as presently (sic) required. drastically candidacy be cancelled or denied due course on changed to: grounds of false representations regarding his or her qualifications. March 8. which states qualification must beforehand be established in a that: prior proceeding before an authority properly vested with jurisdiction. The prior determination of Grounds for disqualification.Any qualification may be by statute. Only in cases involving charges of false representations made in Clearly. Thus. authorized proceeding for determining before election the qualifications of candidate. if not it all. Commission on Elections. 2016) Filipino features is abandoned in Catholic Church in a municipality where the population of the The need for a predicate finding or final Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos such that pronouncement in a proceeding under Rule 23 that there would be more than a 99% chance that a child deals with. and papers relating to the Filipinos. it was repeatedly pointed out during the proceeded to say that "she now has the burden to oral arguments that petitioner committed a present evidence to prove her natural filiation with falsehood when she put in the spaces for "born to" a Filipino parent. CARLO L. evident facts of unquestioned or unquestionable veracity and judicial confessions. as the norm. G." respondents to show that petitioner is not a Filipino Under R. xxx.A. and this The fact is that petitioner's blood relationship with misled the BI to presume that she was a natural- a Filipino citizen is DEMONSTRABLE. biological parents and the adoptee. after saying that it Llamanzares v. born Filipino. books. such prior authority being the necessary measure by which The factual issue is not who the parents of the falsity of the representation can be found.R. 1935 Constitution." in her application for repatriation under R. Such are. This borders on bigotry. it must be noted that presumptions required were the names of her biological parents regarding paternity is neither unknown nor which are precisely unknown. 8552. One of the effects of sufficient evidence that petitioner has Filipino adoption is "to sever all legal ties between the parents and is therefore a natural-born Filipino. if not certainty. xxx. as their identities are unknown. CRUZ . Commission on Elections. anyway. March 8. The Family Code of the Philippines has a whole chapter on Paternity This position disregards one important fact - and Filiation. That said. that a person with typical Nos. That probability and the evidence on mentioned in the enumeration of citizens under the which it is based are admissible under Rule 128. are Filipinos. Nos. As Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. The private respondents should have an amended birth certificate "attesting to the fact shown that both of petitioner's parents were aliens. but only exception that can be conceded are self. 221697 & 221698-700. All of the (Poe-Llamanzares v. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW finding that he or she is not qualified. would representations regarding the candidate's indicate more than ample probability if not citizenship and residence." That law also requires that exclude the possibility that her parents were "[a]ll records. cannot rule that herein petitioner possesses blood 221697 & 221698-700. that petitioner's parents are rule essentially that since foundlings are not Filipinos. they then cannot be citizens. The petitioner are. forced the COMELEC to statistical certainty. petitioner was also entitled to citizen. foregoing evidence. 9225 the names of her adoptive parents. there is more than petitioner was legally adopted. or any other agency or institution participating in Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 63 Court by Atty. the high probability. Oddly. as in this case. the burden of proof was on private the biological parent is the spouse of the adoptee. alleged false born in the province would be a Filipino. March 8. It has been contended that the data At the outset. when petitioner admitted that she is a foundling. especially as in this case where there is a adoption cases in the files of the court. There is a disputable presumption that things have bases equivalent to prior decisions against which happened according to the ordinary course of the falsity of representation can be determined. the COMELEC stated in oral arguments. that her parents Department [of Social Welfare and Development]. nature and the ordinary habits of life. No. (Poe- tolerance.A. whether such parents are Filipinos. that the adoptee is the child of the adopter(s)" and Her admission that she is a foundling did not shift which certificate "shall not bear any notation that it the burden to her because such status did not is an amended issue. the COMELEC. No.R. unaccepted in Philippine Law. G." Lastly. except when Parenthetically. 2016) relationship with a Filipino citizen when "it is certain that such relationship is indemonstrable. in an effort at the virtually impossible. she said To assume otherwise is to accept the absurd. the COMELEC cannot lack of political creed. we held: powers. as a parents as that was what would be stated in her member of Lakas-CMD. 896. it resorted to had been notified of James L. Engle confidential. is mandated by the Constitution to hear and decide such cases first by Division and. 9518 and in view regarding her qualifications or concealed any thereof petitioner’s COC as her husband’s disqualification for the office to which she sought substitute was denied due course. months well stated. the Officer in Babatngon. It is a statement of merely rely on the recommendations of its Law a person seeking to run for a public office Department but must conduct due proceedings certifying that he announces his through one of its divisions. after the May 13. Engle’s designation opinionatedness which is. (Poe. it was publicly known that James L. CARLO L. 2012 in favor of Romualdez signed calls for the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. to be elected in her COC to warrant its cancellation under Section 78. the name at bar. The records also show that when petitioner’s Second. And given the policy of candidate upon his death. and his post-office independent candidate and the invalidity of address for all election purposes being as petitioner’s substitution on July 5. There was no evidence strict confidentiality of adoption records. 2013 Elections. 2013 sent by the COMELEC Law wrapped in grave abuse of discretion. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW the adoption proceedings shall be kept strictly Verily. Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 64 Court by Atty. In of a formal manifestation to the whole resolving cases to deny due course to or cancel world of the candidate's political creed or certificates of candidacy. Engle as an if he belongs to any. 2016) to the failure of Lakas-CMD to submit the authority of Romualdez to sign James L. As far as the party state that her adoptive parents were her birth and his wife were concerned. Engle. upon A certificate of candidacy is in the nature motion for reconsideration. by the En Banc. Commission on Elections. Leyte he clearly indicated COMELEC Law Department’s letter is not binding therein that he was a nominee of Lakas-CMD and and at most. erroneous. as an independent candidate is the Letter dated The whole process undertaken by COMELEC is March 21. First. Engle’s CONA to Undeniably. 908 [1999]). by Lakas-CMD President Revilla and Lakas-CMD We have also previously held that the COMELEC. the COMELEC Second Division only of the political party to which he belongs. Engle’s COC as a nominee of Lakas-CMD October 4. Mula (373 in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial Phil. James L. Nos. James L. It is settled in attached thereto not only the CONA signed by jurisprudence that the denial of due course or Romualdez but also the Authority to Sign cancellation of one’s COC is not within the Certificates of Nomination and Acceptance dated administrative powers of the COMELEC. The only qualifications of petitioner. 2012 with the Office of the Election and to petitioner’s COC as his substitute. with respect to the denial of due course to husband filed his certificate of candidacy on James L. to avoid a direct ruling on the as a substitute for her deceased husband. CRUZ . may be substituted as a birth certificate anyway. formally ruled on the status of James L." The law therefore allows petitioner to was a member of Lakas-CMD. petitioner on record that the party or petitioner had notice or was not obligated to disclose that she was an knowledge of the COMELEC’s classification of adoptee. but rather September 12. 2013 when petitioner filed her COC Clearly. which it cannot make in document in the record indicating that Lakas-CMD the same case for cancellation of COC. 2013. recommendatory. Engle was declared an independent candidate due 221697 & 221698-700. Department to Romualdez stating that James L. G. Llamanzares v.R. March 8. moreover. In Sinaca v. the COMELEC Law Department’s “ruling” was issued only after the filing of petitioner’s COC. Secretary-General Aquino. Returning to the case candidacy for the office mentioned and that he is eligible for the office. Engle as an independent candidate prior to February 22. private respondent failed to the Law Department as required under Section 6(3) demonstrate that petitioner made a false statement of COMELEC Resolution No. (Chua v. However. due to supervening events as we previously No. The from his being a fugitive from justice.R. should have been proclaimed as the disqualified from becoming a candidate or duly elected Punong Barangay of Barangay continuing as a candidate for a public office and Kaludan. 216607. or hide a fact which would otherwise Clearly. candidacy was void ab initio. April 5. 2016) discussed. which disqualifies permanent certificates of candidacy. Commission on Elections. As such." (Chua v. a green card holder who. 2016) consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead.R. the Commission ground of material misrepresentation in the may deny due course or cancel a certificate of certificate of candidacy. private respondent Fragata did not argue which involves the eligibility or qualification for that petitioner made a false material representation the office sought by the person who filed the in her Certificate of Candidacy. Mendoza said in his Dissenting Opinion on 14 November 2011. G. It does not candidate must also possess none of the grounds matter that the disqualification case against him for disqualification under the law. the false representation "must 19. Nunungan. In her representation" referred to in Section 78 is that Petition. 215995. Commission on Elections. April 5. she asserted that Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 65 Court by Atty. October 11. Commission on Elections. vice-versa. Patad's certificate of in Romualdez-Marcos v. Diambrang.R." of candidacy is void ab initio. Commission on Elections. the prevailing ruling is that if the certificate render a candidate ineligible. prior to the Dual citizens are disqualified from running for any filing of her Certificate of Candidacy for Councilor. provisions on qualifications or eligibility for public Commission on Elections. 2016) resident or immigrant to a foreign country. private respondent exclusively on the ground that "any material Fragata had a choice of filing either a petition to representation contained therein as required under deny due course or cancel petitioner’s certificate of Section 74 hereof is false. G. elective local position. Consequently. They cannot successfully run has resided in the State of Georgia for 33 years. existing prior to the filing of their Government Code. whoever garners the next highest number of votes among It is true that under Section 74 of the Omnibus the eligible candidates is the person legally entitled Election Code. "that an individual possesses the qualifications for being the first-placer among the qualified a public office does not imply that he is not candidates. xxx. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Under these premises. Their certificates of residents of a foreign country from running for any candidacy are void ab initio. (Diambrang v. January office. and votes cast for them elective local position. 216607. No. persons who file their certificates of to the position. a petition to deny due course or cancel a The Commission on Elections has the ministerial certificate of candidacy may likewise be filed duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of against a permanent resident of a foreign country certificates of candidacy. therefore. will be disregarded. 2016) that petitioner is a permanent resident in the United States. CRUZ . No. under Section seeking an elective post in the Philippines on the 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Before the candidacy through a verified petition filed Commission on Elections.R. As Justice was finally decided by the COMELEC En Banc only Vicente V. candidacy declare that they are not a permanent G. Lanao del Norte. Therefore. the COMELEC correctly did certificate. She and assume office because their ineligibility is anchors her Petition on Section 40 of the Local inherent in them. However." Moreover. (Engle v. Patad's disqualification arose position for which he or she intends to run. be read "in not cancel petitioner’s COC on the ground of false relation to the constitutional and statutory material representation as there was none. Section 78 must. the candidate is not considered a candidate from the very beginning A person intending to run for public office must even if his certificate of candidacy was cancelled not only possess the required qualifications for the after the elections." The "material candidacy or a petition for disqualification. CARLO L. Private respondent Fragata alleges in her Petition 201809. G. No. misinform. Diambrang can no longer hold office. 9225. Commission of whether or not she had intended to deceive or on Elections. evidence showing specific acts performed by Commission on Elections. required of those seeking elective public office. This omission also constitutes grave abuse of discretion. therefore. the Petition. the latter being an additional abuse of discretion lay in its failure to fully requirement for qualification to run for public appreciate petitioner's evidence and fully explained office. aspiration. Ten years later. 2011 when petitioner took an Oath of 2. she lost her Filipino citizenship pursuant to position. 3. G. COMELEC's grave separate requirements.R. thus even obtained a CTC. Considering Petition on the date of petitioner’s proclamation on that the only material issue before COMELEC was May 15. Under Rule 25. CARLO L. it gravely abuse its discretion in taking cognizance of should not have disregarded the following private respondent Fragata’s Petition. xxx. petitioner failed to execute a sworn and personal 4." xxx. but not later that the date of to be at home 24 hours a day 7 days a week to proclamation. is an essential requirement for the Government Code. She made public her intention to run for the 1935 Constitution. April 5. She applied for voter's registration in Sevilla. 63. which clearly demonstrated her animus manendi et revertendi: Petitioner was born to Filipino parents in 1967. September 21. CRUZ . during the first quarter of reacquiring her Filipino citizenship. and Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Under Section 40 of the Local Government fulfil the residence requirement under Section 39 of Code. on December 7. 2016) mislead the electorate. No. 216607. The Commission on Elections did not the completeness of the period of residence. a the place for a full one-year period prior to the date petition for disqualification "shall be filed any day of the election. twelve months preceding the elections can never 2012. In Sabili v. She went back to the US to dispose of her renunciation of her foreign citizenship particularly properties located there. xxx. G. She started to reside in her ancestral home. petitioner became a naturalized American. (Chua v. The oath of allegiance and the sworn and a long-time resident of Sevilla for not being and personal renunciation of foreign citizenship are "substantiated by proof. mayoralty position. Comelec. From 2012. No. 216607. With petitioner’s failure to execute a absence from Sevilla. In addition. xxx. along with animus manendi et run for Councilor under Section 40 of the Local revertendi. April 5. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW petitioner was a permanent resident disqualified to Physical presence. Petitioner cannot claim that she has renounced her COMELEC was also wrong in dismissively American citizenship by taking the Oath of disregarding the affidavits of the punong barangay Allegiance. In Japzon v. and in order to qualify for the Hence. Comelec. this Court ruled that Fragata timely filed her Petition before the to be considered a resident of a municipality. she went through the reacquisition Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. or by 13 2016) May 2012. 2011 up to the present. the Commission on Elections. it made a legal personal and sworn renunciation of her American conclusion that a candidate who has been citizenship. (Chua v. which makes her a natural-born Filipino under the 1. Section 3 candidate is not required to stay and never leave of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 66 Court by Atty. Private respondent Fragata’s acquisition of a domicile of choice.R. It follows that private respondent unbroken. (Dano v. It was on process under Republic Act No. In preparation for this 1977. September 21. COMELEC cancelled the Fourth District of Manila during the 2013 petitioner's COC without any prior determination National and Local Elections. however." Private respondent Fragata filed her fulfill the residency requirement. However. petitioner was a dual citizen at the time physically absent from a locality for four out of the she filed her Certificate of Candidacy on October 3. Instead. petitioner one year before the elections. was a petition for law does not require that physical presence be disqualification. 2013. she was disqualified to run for Councilor in the LGC. this Court after the last day for filing of certificates of reiterated that the law does not require a candidate candidacy. the intention behind setting a deadline for the In a choice between provisions on material filing by political parties of an authority to sign Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 67 Court by Atty. Allowing the belated submission of empowered by law to prescribe such rules so as to Romualdez’s authority to sign CONAs will not make efficacious and successful the conduct of result in the situation proscribed by Section 77 of elections. neither the However. CARLO L. or cancel petitioner’s COC. Engle to the invalidity of petitioner’s substitution for her husband as COMELEC was a mere technicality that cannot be candidate for Vice-Mayor of Babatngon. Engle was not in fact a bona fide member of conduct of elections are mandatory before the Lakas-CMD. 2012 to the v. Leyte. In the case at people of the Philippines as expressed in our laws. The only if that is possible. 689 SCRA 134. In Federico.R. (Federico v. innocent voters will be deprived prescribed deadline. The record is bereft of any allegation election. the OEC – that an independent candidate will be No. the latter should be considered an independent candidate who cannot be substituted under The Court has likewise ruled in the past that non- Section 77 of the OEC and Section 15 of COMELEC compliance with formal requirements laid down in Resolution No. forged or in any way defective. Rodriguez. xxx. This brings us to the second issue. submitted and thus. G. wherein we strictly applied requirements before elections are considered election rules on substitution. Engle’s CONA was belatedly honest election. 9518. 208.R. January 22. qualifications of elected officials. we believe and so hold that we cannot Substitution choose the electorate will. Commission on Elections. Despite finding that there Applying these jurisprudential precedents. G. particularly the merely directory after the people shall have deadline to file certificates of candidacy for spoken. that COC defects beyond matters of form and that involve material misrepresentations cannot avail of We distinguish this case from Federico v. xxx. 199612. (Luna was submitted as early as October 4. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Commission on Elections. thereby a violation of the clear policy that no substitution violating both our election and criminal laws. Where a material COC liberal interpretation of the rule would have led to misrepresentation under oath is made. 214 [1918]) Over time. September 13. 39 Phil. thereby putting election officials on notice that such authority exists We distinguish our ruling in this case from others even before the conduct of the May 13. to. if they are held issue was that it was not submitted within the to be mandatory. election laws when not used as a means for fraudulent practice will be considered a harmless This Court recognizes that the COMELEC is irregularity. especially where. 210200. on the one hand. the benefit of our ruling that COC mandatory Commission on Elections. Nonetheless. The COMELEC anchored its action on the fact that Romualdez’s used to defeat the will of the electorate in a fair and authority to sign James L. said authority of their votes without any fault on their part. we find was no false material representation in petitioner’s COC. a people in any given locality. 2013. but when they are sought to be enforced that the authority in favor of Romualdez was after the election they are held to be directory only. 2016) and the will of the electorate in any given locality. CRUZ . on the other. it is a long standing principle in COMELEC nor private respondent contended that jurisprudence that rules and regulations for the James L. the that the late submission of Romualdez’s authority COMELEC nonetheless cancelled the same on the ground of to sign the CONA of James L. A mandatory and material election law substitutes of candidates who voluntarily requirement involves more than the will of the withdraw from the electoral race. In the case at bar. inexistent. bar. No. we for a voluntarily withdrawing candidate can be are faced as well with an assault on the will of the made beyond the mandated deadline. 2013 that we have made in the past by the clarification Elections. local election officer and subsequently to the we have qualified this doctrine to refer only to COMELEC itself in the course of the proceedings matters of form and cannot be applied to the on private respondent’s petition to deny due course substantial qualifications of candidates. 148) invalidly substituted. on the ground that Labao. Jr. Ludovico essentially averred that there was an Lakas-CMD's non-compliance with Section 6 of outstanding warrant for Labao. CRUZ . 2013. without proper Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 68 Court by Atty. This is so the COMELEC may prevent a made by the COMELEC regarding her husband's violation of Section 77 of the OEC which reserves status as an independent candidate and the validity the right to field a substitute candidate to duly of her filing a COC as his substitute until July 5. one Roger D. withdrawal or disqualification. thus infringing the may validly substitute her husband in the May 13. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW CONAs was to give the COMELEC reasonable death. While we laud the participation in the killing of Vice Mayor Martinez. it in the present case would not result in the evil behooved the COMELEC to similarly resolve sought to be prevented. was a fugitive January 20. and COMELEC's attempt to apply the rule equally implicating Labao. are deemed mandatory before the elections and On the same day. 2015 asserted that it cannot ignore from justice. Capiz in the May The COMELEC En Banc in its Resolution dated 13. 2012. no official pronouncement was candidates. The Information for murder stemmed from the provision strictly against the Liberal Party in the assassination of Vice-Mayor Abel P. No.'s arrest in connection with COMELEC Resolution No. was at 12-1133 dated December 11. The case of its local candidates for Camiguin who were assailants of Vice-Mayor Martinez were not immediately similarly declared independent candidates for known. in light of his unexpected In a Petition for Disqualification dated May 8. 2012. such that the Liberal Party was view of the above-described state of affairs. members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) COMELEC En Banc rendered a formal ruling on attempted but failed to apprehend Labao. as the mastermind thereof. Loredo failure to submit the authority to sign CONAs (Loredo) executed an extrajudicial confession admitting his before October 1. the Department of Justice (DOJ) found probable cause blame for the present situation. 2013. Jr. Martelino. Thus. (Ludovico) sought the disqualification of Labao. we have held that a political party has petitioner. 2012. right of the nominating political party to replace 2013 Elections. In political parties and who are independent petitioner's case. and that he had eluded arrest. who was nominated by the same political party. Mambusao. Jr. Ludovico L. the opportunity to determine who are members of mandatory application of the rules was justified. proclaimed private respondent. In before the election. Martinez (Vice-Mayor Martinez) in front of his residence on May 4. On here that election rules regarding formal matters April 10. Jr. it is the petitioner's case prior to the elections had it wanted strict application of the rules that would lead to the to treat all political parties equally. Jr. alleging that the latter's ''flight from justice [was] apparent when can no longer be substituted in the event of their he surreptitiously eluded arrest. an Information for murder was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Paul's their status as independent candidates. 2013 elections. evidence it can be concluded that James L. other persons. On April 4. (Engle v. CARLO L. it has only itself to 2013. On April 14. as well as the rest of the issues raised in the right to identify who its members are. Indeed. Commission on Elections. Jr. and four only directory after the elections. Engle G. It bears stressing to indict Labao. before the COMELEC. in place of To be sure. acting on Liberal Party candidates in Camiguin. Jr. A relaxation of the rules 2013. 215995. registered political parties. months Hospital in Iloilo City where he was supposedly confined. On the contrary. Jr. 9518 since the the filing of an Information for Murder against him and four COMELEC En Banc issued Minute Resolution No. iniquitous situation that a candidate who was in fact a member of a political party would be In light of the foregoing discussion that petitioner considered an independent. But on December 20. 2012 applying said large. Jr. thus.R. and four other persons for murder. From the the pleadings. that is. In the case of the other personalities were issued. among the political parties. withdrawal or the third issue on whether the COMELEC properly disqualification pursuant to election laws. the a tip. long after the elections were held. at St. 2016) was not an independent candidate but indeed a nominee of Lakas-CMD and he may be validly Disqualification substituted by his wife. 2013 filed demise prior to the elections. it is no longer necessary to resolve him in the event of death. Capiz. Branch 21. Ludovico filed the officially notified that its candidates in Camiguin said petition for disqualification against Labao. the second-placer in the vice-mayoral race of Babatngon. warrants for the arrest of Labao. as candidate for Mayor of the Municipality of Mambusao. January 19. The effect of this repeal is to remove Section 261(d) from Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 69 Court by Atty. CRUZ . Jr. rendering these provisions inoperative. They the present cases is whether or not during the are criminal and not administrative in nature. Proceedings are summary in character The COMELEC’s reasoning that coercion remains and require only clear preponderance of to be a ground for disqualification under Section 68 evidence. 13-254 was an administrative proceeding prosecution. Sr. 2013. G. 442 Phil. An erring candidate may be of the Election Code despite the passage of R. Capiz. Paul's Hospital. Jr. 881. 332. No. from justice' includes not only those who flee after 2002. R. G. 177- 178.) period starting from the time the Information for Pursuant to sections 265 and 268 of the Omnibus murder filed on April 10. Commission on for disqualification and not a criminal prosecution Elections this Court held that: of an election offense. The electoral 261 d(1) and (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. him. Commission on Elections (537 (Emphasis supplied. 2013 until the day of the Election Code.R. 215847.R. relies much on the fact that. Jr. 622. the to those enumerated in Section 68 of the Omnibus RTC had already dismissed the murder charge Election Code. hence. v. Section 265 of the Election Code only intent to evade is the compelling factor applies to criminal prosecutions. Disqualification that animates one's flight from a cases are summary in nature and governed by Rule particular jurisdiction.'" He argued that Labao. v. 150605. there can only be an intent to evade Commission on Elections. on May 21. the justice as he went into hiding after he was charged in court to basis for disqualifying Javier no longer existed. thus. Jr. G. To the point of our being determination of probable cause in a repetitive. disqualified even without prior No.A. (Labao v. No. As we held in Lanot v. before the regular courts of justice. [t]he jurisdiction of Labao. October 9. De Venecia. on May 13. No. aspect may proceed independently of the criminal aspect. (See Blanco v. can be confined to the conduct of preliminary considered a fugitive from justice. 393 SCRA 639) conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who. we held in Jalosjos. citing Based on settled jurisprudence. 2016) is knowledge by the fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment. 393 SCRA 639. December 10. COMELEC. et al. at the time among those listed as ground for disqualification the PNP personnel tried to serve the warrant of arrest on under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. one year after the conduct of the elections. 2012. 30. Jr. No. 29- Government Code xxx. 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Commission on Elections is considered a fugitive from justice and. de Venecia. (Javier v. disqualified from running as mayor pursuant to Section 40 of the Local (G. (Id. January prosecution or punishment when there 12. the COMELEC to disqualify candidates is limited 2014. The due process requirements and the procedures for these are not The definition thus indicates that the the same. As avoid criminal prosecution. investigation on the alleged election offenses for disqualified to run for the position of Mayor of the purpose of prosecuting the alleged offenders Mambusao. 2016) candidate or from holding office. or of a promulgated judgment of conviction. 139.R. and. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW discharge clearance from St. 359-360 [2006]): Such intent in these cases has not been established The electoral aspect of a disqualification case determines whether the offender by the evidence on record. the term "fugitive Codilla v. 683 SCRA 1. qualified as a fugitive from xxx. 7890 expressly repealed Section preliminary investigation." In Rodriguez v.A. 633 (2008). No. 212615.R. the power of the COMELEC is election. 577 Phil. Labao. flee to avoid SPA No. But what matters in the resolution of beyond the ambit of COMELEC jurisdiction. citing Codilla. after being charged. 193237. and vice versa. With the express repeal of Section 261(d). All other election offenses are against him. And obviously. Commission on should be disqualified from being a Elections. 7890 is erroneous.. It is for such reason that Labao.) Phil. July 19. CARLO L. 670 [2002]). dies. voluntarily resigns. . is not a pre-proclamation controversy. 2016) demand a full-blown hearing and require proof beyond reasonable doubt Pre-Proclamation Controversies to convict. which may even include before the COMELEC. A criminal conviction shall result in the disqualification of the The petition filed by Ludovico against Labao. transmission. public office. 216607. the COMELEC. Commission on Elections. 233. having garnered the sixth Department. Specifically with respect to dual messenger or otherwise. (Emphasis supplied. 241. the functions of his office. Proceedings before the proper court No. 215847. The authority of the Commission. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW The criminal aspect of a disqualification entitled to the vacant position would be the case determines whether there is candidate who garnered the next highest number probable cause to charge a candidate for of votes among those eligible. caused by one whose certificate of candidacy was the board of canvassers shall. receipt. When the election returns are The rule on succession under Section 45. after the filing of the certificate of candidacy. "but subsequently had to be cancelled because of a custody and appreciation of the election returns. Jr. fails to qualify. The Commission on Elections correctly its Law Department.In case its would not apply if the permanent vacancy was copy of the election returns is missing. the board of canvassers. refuses to assume office.234. January 12. . (Javier v. Commission on Elections. April 5. No. Definition. G. In this case. through candidates. CRUZ . delayed. by void ab initio." Legally. may use votes casted for them should be considered stray any of the authentic copies of said election returns or a certified copy of and should not be counted." Sections 233 to 236 of the OEC read: Sec. through its Law the position of Councilor. or by any registered political party or is removed from office." Pertinently. Section 241 thereof provides as follows: Second Placers/Succession Sec. G. (Chua v. the or any matter raised under Sections vacancies were caused by those whose certificates 233. and forthwith direct its In cases of vacancies caused by those with void ab representative to investigate the case initio certificates of candidacy. . petitioner. [existing] prior to said returns have been lost or destroyed. which determines whether probable cause exists. the filing of their certificate of candidacy. obtain such citizens. The Omnibus Election Code (OEC) clearly defines 2016) the term "pre-proclamation controversy. disqualification from holding a future 13-294 (DC). or a legal impediment that took effect.235 and 236 in relation to the of candidacy were valid at the time of the filing preparation. offender." In these situations. . lost or destroyed.R. CARLO L. however. the person legally Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 70 Court by Atty. or is coalition of political parties before the otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge board or directly with the Commission. The prosecutor is the private respondent Bacani who is legally entitled to COMELEC. upon prior they should not even be considered candidates.) violation of law that took place. their certificates of candidacy are void ab missing election returns from the board initio because they possess "a substantive of election inspectors concerned. If there is highest number of votes among the eligible probable cause. it is an election offense. said election returns issued by the Commission.R. docketed as SPA Case No. files the criminal proclaimed private respondent Bacani in lieu of information before the proper court.A pre-proclamation The permanent vacancies referred to in Section 45 controversy refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the (of the Local Government Code) are those arising proceedings of the board of canvassers "when an elective local official fills a higher vacant which may be raised by any candidate office. or if [disqualifying circumstance] . the board of affect the results of the election. therein has been duly preserved. That in case of the omission in board of canvassers or any candidate the election returns of the name of any affected shall bring the matter to the candidate and/or his corresponding attention of the Commission. the accordance with Section 220 hereof. order the That if the votes omitted in the returns opening of the ballot box and. altered or falsified after they have The board of canvassers. inspectors concerned by the most falsified. or prepared by persons basis of the available election returns if other than the member of the board of the missing election returns will not election inspectors. 235. shall to be tampered with or falsified. Sec. CRUZ . after giving require the board of election inspectors notice to all candidates concerned and concerned to complete the necessary after satisfying itself that nothing in the data in the election returns and affix ballot box indicate that its identity and therein their initials: Provided. altered. canvassers shall use the other copies of said election returns and. When election returns appear to all candidates concerned. or prepared to effect the correction: by persons other than the members of the board of election inspectors. . not authentic. The votes. .If the proceed summarily to determine Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 71 Court by Atty. shall order of the candidates affected and prepare a the board of election inspectors to open new return which shall then be used by the ballot box. the Commission. 234. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW and immediately report the matter to election returns submitted to the board the Commission. Discrepancies in election the votes for the candidate whose votes returns.If it should clearly appear that upon previous authority given by the some requisites in form or data had Commission may be retrieved in been omitted in the election returns. intimidation. likewise cannot be ascertained by other means after satisfying itself that the integrity of except by recounting the ballots. Material defects in the election the copy inside the ballot box which returns. further. force. may terminate the canvass and election inspectors under duress. order the board of election inspectors to count Sec. force. if necessary. proclaim the candidates elected on the intimidation. and in either the fact that an election protest is case the difference affects the results of subsequently filed by any of the the election. of canvassers appear to be tampered with. copies of the election returns from a polling place or discrepancies in the The right of a candidate to avail of this votes of any candidate in words and provision shall not be lost or affected by figures in the same returns. integrity have been violated. for the same board duress. election returns have been received by or were prepared by the board of it. and. CARLO L. If board of canvassers shall call for all the the other copies of the returns are members of the board of election likewise tampered with. the the ballots therein has been duly Commission. left the hands of the board of election notwithstanding the fact that not all the inspectors. . the board of canvassers shall Commission shall then. or otherwise not authentic. after satisfying itself that preserved shall order the board of the identity and integrity of the ballot election inspectors to recount the votes box have not been violated. 236. prepared under expeditious means. upon candidates. the Provided. also after satisfying the board of canvassers as basis of the itself that the integrity of the ballots canvass. motion of the board of canvassers or any candidate affected and after due notice Sec.In case it appears to the board have been omitted with notice thereof to of canvassers that there exists all candidates for the position involved discrepancies in the other authentic and thereafter complete the returns. G. the results of which election period. The Commission is not precluded materially affected the standing of the from fixing the length and the starting date of the aggrieved candidate or candidates. contain material defects. through the Election Code.) peaceful." ballot box to recount the votes cast in the polling place solely for the purpose Thus. transmission. or commence ninety days before the day of intimidation. and once satisfied that the above "enumeration is restrictive and thereof shall order the opening of the exclusive. From the foregoing provisions of the OEC. When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were Evidently. explicitly appear to be tampered with or falsified. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW whether the integrity of the ballot box In Suhuri v. The canvassed election returns are incomplete. 235 and 236 disqualifying "[fugitives from justice in criminal or in relation to the preparation. 2016) Section 243 of the OEC further enumerates the issues which are proper subject matters of a pre. non-political cases here or abroad" from running custody and appreciation of the election returns. Commission to fix the dates of the election period. (Labao v. CARLO L. proclamation controversy under the aforequoted OEC provision. No. Election and campaign periods. having absolutely nothing to do with the case at bar. – Unless otherwise fixed in special cases thereof as mentioned in Sections 233. Issues that may be raised in pre. the petition for disqualification any matter or ground pertaining to or affecting the against Labao. the 120-day period is merely the default canvassed. 243. of determining the true result of the count of votes of the candidates Jr. election period to ensure free. Section 9 provides: following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation Section 9. hereinafter shall be referred to as the c. Unless otherwise fixed by the controversy: Commission in special cases. does not come within the scope of a pre- concerned. or (DC) in no way qualifies as a pre-proclamation under Section 40 of the Local Government Code. by the Commission on Elections. the election period shall under duress. Illegal composition or proceeding of days before the day of election and shall the board of canvassers. and thereafter. b. This is not merely Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 72 Court by Atty. July 19. it is quite clear that the petition for disqualification filed The grounds to file a petition for disqualification by Ludovico docketed as SPA Case No. Election Period proclamation controversy as follows: No less than the Constitution authorizes the Sec. Commission on Elections this Court held had been preserved. the election period shall commence ninety a. or they are obviously the election and shall end thirty days manufactured or not authentic. Congress. orderly. The election returns were prepared Commission. Commission on Elections. coercion. 212615. 234. Jr. (Emphasis supplied.R. In controversy. (emphases supplied) d. end thirty days thereafter. the petition filed against Labao. The Article IX-C. 234. was based on Section 40(e) of the proceedings of the board of canvassers or any Local Government Code. for any elective local position. and credible elections. which 235 and 236 of this Code. quoted above. CRUZ . recognizes this authority: or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies Sec. threats. honest. matter raised under Sections 233. 13-294 are provided for in Section 12 or 68 of the OEC. receipt. in this case. . 3. proclamation controversy. following election period. January 12. their provision is a new rule in Philippine position establishment and operation were vested in the classification and compensation system. 46 to improve the service facilities Salaries. An element of these offenses (i. 218363. G. however. neither should in such a manner that the power of the BOD of this Court. Commission on Article IX-D Audit. Order (EO) No.R. CARLO L. the Fair Elections Act. for the same election. and other had already been integrated into the salaries pertinent election laws. (Metropolitan Naga Water District that the extended election period only applies to v.A. Congress Accordingly. there is nothing in this case that it be committed during the election period) is which could be the subject of back payment variable. Thus. is subject to the limitation that the salary set must be within the rates prescribed by the SSL. 2016) THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT The Duty Free was established under Executive Disallowances of Benefits. G. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW a statutory but a constitutionally granted power of Court explained that. standardization set forth in Section 12 of the SSL. the from MNWD employees in the first place. The two seemingly activities in terms of the applicable election period.. Here. Commission on Audit. received by its employees. No. (Quintero v. The Commission did not prescribe or non-integrated allowances would be identified. xxx. no diminution would take place as the MNWD employees only received There is also no merit in the petitioner’s argument the COLA in 2002. LWDs to fix the salary of its GM is still recognized. 215847. were generally Contrary to the petitioner’s contention. the PTA. May 31. Commission did not change what the offense is or 1989 would suffer a diminution in pay if the back how it is committed. COA (MIA). 218072. In PPA definition of the offense is already complete. Per Diems and Bonuses for tourists and to generate revenues for the government. By Employees. Neither the law nor the Constitution Contrary to Quintero's claims. no irreconcilable authorizes the use of two distinct election periods inconsistency exists between the SSL and R.R. the the COLA because the employees hired after July 1. as election periods are not affixed to a considering that the COLA was never withheld specific and permanent date. MNWD was without basis in already defined them through the Omnibus claiming COLA back payments because the same Election Code. the deemed integrated in the standardized salary Commission’s act of fixing the election period does received by government employees. including the COLA. No. In DOT through its implementing arm. pre-election activities other than the determination 2016) of administrative or criminal liability for violating election laws. The law does not distinguish 9286 to warrant the conclusion that the latter between election offenses and other pre-election impliedly repealed the former.R. March 8. G. the ruling in Napocor. Nevertheless. No. (Javier v. before the said date. the the net profits from the merchandising operations Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 73 Court by Atty.e. and an action not amount to an encroachment on legislative from the DBM was only necessary if additional prerogative. define the elements of election offenses. some election offenses and The COA noted that the MNWD employees never prohibited acts can only be committed during the received the COLA prior to 2002. CRUZ . in line with the clear policy of the Commission. all allowances. As defined by Congress. Commission on Elections. All Maritime Industry Authority v. No. There is thus no intrusion into payment would be limited to employees hired the legislative sphere. 2016) This power. the Court allowed the back payment of fixing the date of the election period. contradicting laws may be harmoniously construed Where the law does not distinguish. In order for the government to The consolidation of allowances in the exercise direct and effective control and regulation standardized salary as stated in the above-cited over the tax and duty free shops. the salary increase reliance on. No. without however performing appropriate Executive Order No. subdivisions. the petitioner rendered herself liable agencies. 180. Hence. it is clear that based on the EPIRA and its IRR official or employee found to be directly that all employees of TransCo are entitled to responsible therefor. No. It does not. clear and precise language. The Court Auditing Code. 2016) personnel's compensation structure must comply with and not contradict the SSL. (National Transmission Corporation v. 213472. November 22. the Duty Free on Audit. 210991. 217948. CRUZ . to the extent that the rates approved must be in accordance with the position classification system The same is true in the present case where Verceles' under the SSL. CARLO L. including upon the loss incurred by AFP-RSBS because she is government-owned or controlled corporations with thereby said to have lent her approval to the original charters.26 because it pertained to services rendered (2) entering into a contract on behalf of the under the service contract which was not attested province without requisite authority were in to by the CSC. No. but Free is without a doubt a government entity. 2016) uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the Thus. G. 705 SCRA 306) (Mendoza). in her monetized leave credits. Commission working in a government entity. was properly does not exculpate him from his personal liability. declares that expenditures of government funds or No. on the other hand. the COA correctly disallowed violation of law. instrumentalities. 195395. Commission on Audit. additional internal audit procedures to allow her to defines government employees as all employees of conduct further verification of the true amounts all branches. Verceles' acts of: (1) Miranda's separation benefit in the amount of making augmentations without prior authority and P55. the Duty against the approved investment budgets. Commission on Audit. Thus. No. and involved. G. Commission on Audit. COA (G.R.R. of the Government. Liability. (Zamboanga City Water Province's appropriation ordinance in CY 2002.758. we held that while the public official may have relied on the opinion of the City Legal As held in Mendoza v. (Paraiso-Aban v. disallowed for being in excess of the amounts Section 336 of the LGC and Section 26 of the allowed under the SSL. separation benefits. among others. violation of the LGC. with an additional requirement imposed on casual or contractual employees . In this case. (Duty Free Section 103 of the Government Auditing Code Philippines Corporation v. required the authority January 26.R. 2013. exculpate him unless specifically exempted by its charter. however. G. 2016) In one case. January 12. good faith. including the corresponding increase Department of Interior and Local Government. Plainly. 223625. July 12. 2016) from the SP before the governor can make augmentations or realignments of funds. such reliance only serves to buttress his September 10. as government employees anomalous purchase. the opinion of the of GM Bucoy. GOCCs from his personal liability under the Government are covered by the provisions of the SSL. Good Faith and Refunds In summary. G. in District v.R. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW of the shops accrued to the DOT. as the ordinance in question was in Mendoza recognized the power of the BOD to fix clear and precise and left no room for the compensation of the GM but limited the same interpretation. we find that the COA's By signing the verification in the check vouchers to assailed decision was made in faithful compliance "attest" to the "correctness" of AFP-RSBS's land with its mandate and in judicious exercise of its banking purchase after merely comparing the same general audit power as conferred on it by the Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 74 Court by Atty.their The public official's personal liability arises only if appointments must have been approved or attested the expenditure of government funds was made in by the CSC. Here in this case. and except for the incorrectly disallowed third MOA.R. Officer. nevertheless. 213472. the petitioner the coverage of the SSL. No.R. 101 on the basis of good faith. 2016) approved. 210991. no grave abuse of discretion may be imputed pursuant to the resolution issued by the BOD of to the COA. honestly believing that the PHIC Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 75 Court by Atty. (Verceles v. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Constitution. 218363. the amount of the salary he received as it was fixed Thus. Further.R. September 13. from a (Zamboanga City Water District v. March 8. Thus. No. release thereof. 2010-01- conserved. xxx. (Duty Free Philippines officers. good faith should be instant case.R. approval of a respective type of allowance as well good faith may also be appreciated in favor of the as its corresponding amount. the COA is merely acted in accordance with the resolution hereby ordered to identify. Also. at the time his salary increase was No. corresponding to the COLA they received. They were in good faith as they were Corporation v. Unlike the officers of ZCWD who authorized Although the 14th Month Bonus may have been the payment of the disallowed disbursements. 2016) in good faith. who merely received the subject LMRG circumstances as badges of good faith.R. there was no categorical pronouncement Although the disbursements made by ZCWD may yet from the Court that the LWDs were subject to have been made without legal basis. No. refund the LMRG. Commission on Audit. series of 2004 and the PHIC life insurance program other than the GSIS need officials who authorized its release are bound to not refund the amounts paid out for these benefits. G. paid without legal basis. The COA was merely fulfilling its mandate in observing the policy that government The Court. G. May 31. without any distinction as to the appreciated in their favor for receiving benefits to particular set of officers responsible for the which they thought they were entitled. and that irregular. deemed automatically integrated into the salary notwithstanding the absence of a DBM issuance. Hence. unnecessary. for the proper MNWD officers who approved the same. xxx. (Metropolitan but had no participation in the approval and Naga Water District v. COA. Commission on Audit. unaware that the benefits they received were either July 12. the Court holds that the received the CNA incentives and the 14th month PHIC Board members who approved PHIC Board pay and the employees who were covered by the Resolution No. In With respect to the PHIC officials and employees. (Quintero v. the Court considered the same however. Hence. 211553. Moreover. finds that Quintero need funds and property should be fully protected and not refund the amount subject of ND No. which of the Audit. the employees who In view of the foregoing.R. the Court deems them to have acted 218072. They implementation of this judgment. 717. Commission on Audit. in a clear and certain passed by the Board authorizing the back payment manner. G. 2016) if it is shown that they were made in good faith. the specific PHIC Board members and of COLA to the employees. however. CRUZ . 2016) PHIC Board members and officials named in the COA's Notice of Disallowance were the ones MNWD employees need not refund the amounts responsible for the issuance of the LMRG. 2016) without basis or had failed to comply with the requirements of the law. G. It is unclear. Similar to the excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of above-quoted case. CCWD. CARLO L. G. January 26. No. Mendoza v. at the time officials who approved the grant the disbursements were made. no ruling similar to of the LMRG and authorized its release as well as MIA was yet made declaring that the COLA was to compute the exact amount they received. They considering that what was listed therein were the had no participation in the approval thereof and "Persons Liable" for the grant and release of all four were mere passive recipients without knowledge of (4) allowances lumped together as subject of the any irregularity. Commission on may be absolved from refunding the disbursements Audit. Quintero had no hand in fixing such funds and property should be prevented. Commission on review of the records of the case. we find that the Duty Free these employees were merely passive recipients officials who approved and the employees who who honestly believed they were entitled to the received the disallowed amount can take refuge said benefits as their payment was ratified by their under the good faith doctrine. or approved Board Referendum No. G. order. Book V and As Article IX-A. petitioner must not be entirely be brought to this Court on certiorari by the accountable for the refund of the disallowed aggrieved party. if necessary. Commission on Audit. of the Rules of Court. or rulings of the COA may Nonetheless. Indeed. orders. 2009. November 29. when it is counsel or law firm. Section 2 of the Revised written concurrence of the COA. 2016) Article IX-A.R. Arejola. (Philippine Health Insurance Corporation v. G. 1445 209714. 2016) passive recipients of the disallowed disbursements. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Board Resolution was issued in the Board's valid Dr. June 21. such as the such legal services. while the private COA herein. which states that a that he was properly armed with the necessary judgment or final order or resolution of the COA CNSC Board approval before he secured the legal may be brought by the aggrieved party to this services of Atty. Book VI of the expressly provides. even if the ND is to be upheld. 213660. in this case Atty. November 22. Evidence on record indubitably shows 64. (Fontanilla v. s. while themselves to be personally liable for compensating findings of administrative agencies. Health Insurance Corporation v. Oñate to enter into a Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party retainer's contract with Atty. as amended. COA. (National Transmission LOCAL GOVERNMENT Corporation v. it must do so with the necessary authorization the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65. who acted in good faith. No.R. Section 103 of Presidential Decree-No. 2016) within the bounds of its jurisdiction. 2016) Local Autonomy Appeals Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 76 Court by Atty. the (Oñate v. required by law. are absolved from Article X refunding the same xxx. 2016) (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines) as well as Section 52. Thus. G. 86-255." require the prior conformity of the OSG and In like manner. G. Chapter V. No. Miranda should not be solidarily liable to refund Commission on Audit. Title I-B. CRUZ . Rule 64. July purpose of which is to keep the public respondent 5. relieving the petitioner from the public respondent's arbitrary On another note. any decision. the Court had ruled that 29. are generally respected.R. the board of trustees who this Constitution or by law. (Philippine Rules of Court. should also be Rules of Civil Procedure also provides that "a held liable for the unauthorized disbursement of judgment or final order or resolution of the public funds. relation to Rule 65. Arejola. when a government entity Commission on Elections and the Commission on engages the legal services of private counsel or law Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to firm.R. Fontanilla did not use the correct remedy when exercise of its power. such liability is without prejudice to the aggrieved party can assail the COA decision in filing an action. No. November the same. they are absolved from he filed an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the refunding the LMRG they received. This is echoed by Section 2. Commission on Audit. against the parties special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64 in involved in the unlawful release of public funds. the amount. Commission on Audit. Arejola but did not within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. its officials bind except as hereinafter provided. 2. an extraordinary remedy. Section 7 of the Constitution provides that decisions. In Silang v. No. "unless otherwise provided by Administrative Code." Thus. Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution Section 43. 223625. G. CARLO L. Circular No. Commission on Audit. 213453. is shown to have been tainted with unfairness likewise responsible for receiving the subject amounting to grave abuse of discretion. in relation to Commission Proper. 213453. acts. No. Consistent with COA Court on certiorari under Rule 65. Rule amount. Chapter 9. which ruling of each Commission may be brought to the granted authority to Dr. Moreover.R. otherwise. all matters relating to its administration. 198 the President's retained power of general should be partially struck down for being supervision over provinces. The person component cities within a province. but the voters of (b) Appointing authority. In accordance with Section 12 of context. At the time of the the members of the MCWD Board of Directors in enactment of P.: within the boundary of any city or municipality. (bold underscoring Hence. to wit: component city of Cebu Province.D. province. Article X of the 1987 Constitution. a law enacted for the purpose of Government Code) and related laws on local strengthening the autonomy of the LGUs in governments. shall not be deprived board of Directors of a local water district. subject to The Court opines that Section 3(b) of P. xxx. depending upon the geographic coverage and of their right to vote for elective provincial officials. the following words and terms shall became an HUC. Blg. HUCs. Cebu City. supplied for emphasis) powers and functions were exercised through its local executives led by the City Mayor. and repugnant to the local autonomy granted by the independent component cities pursuant to and in 1987 Constitution to LGUs.A. Provincial Relations with shall be the mayor of that city or Component Cities and Municipalities. which immediately meant that its have the meanings herein set forth. The enactment of P. 1973 was Article X of the 1987 Constitution guarantees and prior to the enactment on December 22.The municipality. cities that are highly urbanized. as the case may be. voters from voting for provincial elective officials. viz. 1979 of promotes the administrative and fiscal autonomy Batas Pambansa Blg. the Cebu City Mayor appointed all Code on January 1.D. Definitions. No. No. already an HUC. and the prescribed powers and functions. shall be independent of the province. Later on. as determined by law. D. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW From 1974 to 2002.As used in this based on well-defined criteria. 7160 (1991 Local Government Code. To conform with the guarantees of Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 77 Court by Atty. Section 3 of B. If portions of jurisdiction acts within the scope of its more than one province are included within the boundary of the district. and for being accordance with Section 25 of the 1991 Local inconsistent with R. . This is the Provincial Water Utilities component cities whose charters prohibit their Act of 1973. initial appointments made by the governor in (Emphasis supplied) whose province the greatest number of service connections exists. No. Cebu City thus Decree. whose charters empowered to appoint the members of the contain no such prohibition. 51 reclassified the cities of the Philippines Section 3. 198. through the governor. 1992. accordance with the 1987 Constitution. Cebu City was still a accordance with Section 3 (b) of P. . No. and (a) Act. appointing authority is to be the governors Highly urbanized cities and then the power to appoint shall rotate independent component cities shall be between the governors involved with the independent of the province. CARLO L. unless a inhabitants were ineligible to vote for the officials different meaning clearly appears from the of Cebu Province. 51 (An Act Providing for the of the LGUs. 198. No. was further In the event that more than seventy-five effectively rendered independent from Cebu percent of the total active water service Province pursuant to Section 29 of the 1991 Local connections of a local water district are Government Code. the appointing authority Section 29. population make-up of the particular district. CRUZ . the appointing authority shall ensure that every component city and be the governor of the province within municipality within its territorial which the district is located. shall otherwise.D. 198 on May 25.P. The foregoing statutory enactments Elective or Appointive Positions in Various Local enunciate and implement the local autonomy Governments and for Other Purposes) and antedated provisions explicitly recognized under the 1987 as well the effectivity of the 1991 Local Government Constitution. The definition of a word or term applies to any of its variants. good order. that the LGUs. These The corporate powers of the local government unit considerations must be given importance as they confer the basic authority to enact legislation that ensure the success of local autonomy. No. The police power appointed the members of the MCWD Board of proper. towards the creation and maintenance of OWS and and the power must be exercised to effectuate and the MCWD. General Welfare Clause In Navarro v. and capability to deliver basic services to their constituents. Where a particular Congress through either the Local Government Code law or statute affecting the LGUs infringes on their or a special law. that this pronouncement is also advocated by the Ermita. 182604. 2016) local government unit and its constituents. G. Moises. more than the National Government lawful businesses and occupations in order to itself. 2016) National Government. G. Ordinance No. firm ground. and convenience of the December 6. Section Water and its efficient supply are among the 16 comprehends two branches of delegated primary concerns of every LGU. viz. as shown in the comment of the Solicitor General. Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 78 Court by Atty. and legislative body.R. morals. September 27. property. xxx. our pronouncement herein rests on proper for the health and safety. and to promote and maintain local autonomy. (Rama v. CRUZ . General legislative power refers directors to manage the water districts are imbued to the power delegated by Congress to the local with public interest.: involves the transfer of powers. 197146. peace. and considering that it had always discharge the powers and duties legally conferred been the City Mayor of the City of Cebu who to the local legislative body. to local governments. efficient administration. and for the protection of their property. No. know the needs of their constituents. This power is limited in that the funds and material from the Province of Cebu enacted ordinances must not be repugnant to law. or the Sangguniang Panlungsod in recalling that the MCWD had been established the case of Dayao City. to enact legislation . It has been said that devolution is 198 as already partially unconstitutional. Ermita. authorizes the local Directors regardless of the percentage of the water government unit to enact ordinances necessary and subscribers. therefore. Such legislative cater to such needs based on the particular powers spring from the delegation thereof by circumstances of their localities.R. Bearing this in mind. and on their rights and powers to Section 16 of the Local Government Code embodies efficiently and effectively address the needs of their the legislative grant that enables the local constituents. not power. prosperity. it becomes the duty of the Court functions from the central government to the to declare and pronounce Section 3(b) of P. Decentralization Section 458 of the Local Government Code explicitly Decentralization is the devolution of national vests the local government unit with the authority administration. 0309-07. The General Welfare Clause in autonomy. we should lean in favor of their government unit to effectively accomplish and autonomy. LGUs.D. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW the Constitution in favor of the autonomy of the and resources for the performance of certain LGUs. carry out the declared objects of its creation. the Court has pointed out that We next ascertain whether the City of Davao acted the central policy considerations in the creation of within the limits of its corporate powers in enacting local government units are economic viability. (Mangune v. No. CARLO L. and promote the general welfare. namely: the general legislative power and the reduce or diminish the authority of the boards of police power proper. on the other hand. which welfare. to enable the local from the erstwhile Osmeña Waterworks Systems legislative body to enact ordinances and make (OWS) without any investment or contribution of regulations. It is accepted may interfere with personal liberty. responsibilities. Issues that tend to powers.aimed at promoting the general One form of decentralization is devolution. their rights and their powers. We note indispensable to decentralization. comfort. Such and healthful ecology are well within the corporate authority should not be construed. which the reasonableness and consistency of the exercise by respondents are lawfully bound to comply with. we declared that the right to this Code and in the proper exercise of a balanced and healthful ecology under Section 16 the corporate powers of the city as is an issue of transcendental importance with provided for under Section 22 of this intergenerational implications. In by existing state policies. The City of Code and the Constitution. shall enact ordinances. approve locations and even generations. Inc. Inc. CRUZ . 189185. The presumption of residents vis-a-vis the workers even if a ban will be validity and the policy of liberality are not imposed against aerial spraying and the restraints on the power of judicial review in the consequent adoption of other modes of pesticide face of questions about whether an ordinance treatment. 189185. as the legislative body of health and the environment transcend geographical the city. oppressive. It is under this Code. (Mosqueda v. conforms with the Constitution. Functions and that do not only advance the interests of a group of Compensation. xxx milieu that the questioned ordinance should be appreciated. Article II of the Constitution.R. G. exposure to pesticide drift justifies the motivation Following the provisions of the Local Government behind the enactment of the ordinance. Salaveria and Abendan emphasized the implemented by the FPA. The benefits of protecting human panlungsod. Banana Growers and Exporters Association. Article II of the 1987 Constitution. partial. No. A is vested with the requisite authority to enact an thin but well-defined line separates authority to ordinance that seeks to protect the health and well. 2016) No. the constitutional right to health and discriminating or in derogation of a common right. More importantly. August 16. among others. maintaining environmental integrity are privileges The ordinance must pass the test of Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 79 Court by Atty. the The power to legislate under the General Welfare health and safety of plantation workers are secured Clause is not meant to be an invincible authority. the local Advancing the interests of the residents who are government unit takes its cue from Section 15 and vulnerable to the alleged health risks due to their Section 16. rules and regulations fact. Judicial scrutiny comes into plantation workers. CARLO L. Jr. Duties.. the local government units with the laws or policies The respondents even manifested their strict of the State. enact legislations from the method of being of its constituents. As such. We should exercise is to be construed in strictissimi juris. Pilipino accomplishing the same. valid license for the City of Davao to enact any Accordingly.. the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of In Oposa v. Powers. its Application of Pesticides (Rome 2001). liberty or property. 2016) With or without the ban against aerial spraying. as a powers vested in the local government unit. Any note that the Rome 2001 guidelines require the doubt or ambiguity arising out of the terms used in pesticide applicators to observe the standards granting the power should be construed against the provided therein to ensure the health and safety of local legislative units. G. the Sangguniang Bayan of Davao City ordinance it deems fit to discharge its mandate. because the police compliance with these rules. (Mosqueda v. lives of its constituents and to promote a balanced specifically the health of its constituents. the laws or public policy. including those in the power of the local government units flows from the UN-FAO Guidelines on Good Practice for Aerial express delegation of the power by Congress. however. — (a) The sangguniang individuals. This is the essence resolutions and appropriate funds for of Sections 15 and 16. August 16. the acts of the local Davao has the authority to enact pieces of government unit designed to ensure the health and legislation that will promote the general welfare.R. Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association. Factoran. Furthermore. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Section 458. there cannot be any play whenever the exercise of police power affects imbalance between the right to health of the life. or if it is unreasonable. In terms of the right of the citizens to health and to a balanced and healthful ecology. 189185. the City of Davao could act only Although the Local Government Code vests the as an agent of Congress. regulation and Memorandum Circular No. G. they definitely have no right to enact Exporters Association. all of which are incompatible with the protect the public from the risks inherent in the use prohibition against aerial spraying under of pesticides. functioning subdivision of the State within the 02. 0309-07 without the specific regulatory policy on aerial spraying in Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 80 Court by Atty. safety and equipment of plantation technically oriented government entity that will personnel. for empowered under Section 16 of the Local otherwise it would be arrogating unto itself the Government Code to promote the general welfare of authority to prohibit the aerial application of the people through regulatory. 02 seeks upon in the guise of serving the common good. Ordinance No. not prohibitive. The Local Practices for Aerial Spraying of Fungicide in Banana Government Code is not intended to vest in the local Plantations. Hence. Davao performed an ultra vires act. Pilipino Banana Growers and activities. 0309-07 prohibits government unit the blanket authority to legislate aerial spraying in banana plantations within the upon any subject that it finds proper to legislate City of Davao. xxx. August 16. CARLO L. but also the prescription delegated authority to enact Ordinance No.. Inc. to regulate the conduct of aerial spraying in banana (Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana responsible for ensuring the compatibility between Growers and Exporters Association. 02 covers safety development is within the jurisdiction of the FPA procedures. As a local government unit.. the enumerated devolved functions to the Sangguniang Bayan of Davao City. 1144. Ordinance No. No. 189185. which has issued its own making the local government unit a fully regulations under its Memorandum Circular No. the local government units do not include the regulation and control of pesticides and other We must emphasize that our ruling herein does not agricultural chemicals. CRUZ . No. 2016) policy.R. handling and post-application. G. The non-inclusion should seek to deprive the LGUs their right to regulate preclude the Sangguniang Bayan of Davao City activities within their jurisdiction. August 16. Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters plantations pursuant to Section 6. 1144. and its every act should municipal corporations with sufficient power to always conform to and reflect the will of its govern themselves and manage their affairs and principal. 1144. 0309- of the safe modes of application in keeping with the 07. Series of 2009. Ordinance No. Inc. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW constitutionality and the test of consistency with inherent and explicit authority to do so. entitled Good Agricultural constitutional and statutory restraints. 0309-07 proposes to limitations to guide each local government unit in prohibit an activity already covered by the exercising its delegated powers with the view of jurisdiction of the FPA. August ordinances dissonant with the State's laws and 16. 0309-07. storing established in recognition of the need for a of fungicides. They are from enacting Ordinance No. The Local Government Code has been fashioned to delineate the specific parameters and Moreover. The function of pesticides control. 0309-07 must be struck standard of good agricultural practices. This Devoid of the specific delegation to its local responsibility includes not only the identification of legislative body. 2016) agricultural activities and the demands for human health and environmental safety. of the National Government. 0309- 07 failed to pass this test as it contravenes the In enacting Ordinance No. 0309-07. (Mosqueda v. Inc. While Ordinance No. Presidential Association..R. 2016) Decree No. On the down also for being an ultra vires act on the part of other hand. the City of the prevailing laws. The FPA was including the qualifications of applicators. the City of Davao exceeded its safe and unsafe pesticides. (Mosqueda v. Memorandum Circular No.R. G. and in conformity with the standard of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). the FPA was Ordinance No. pesticides in derogation of the authority expressly ordinances that conform with the policy directions vested in the FPA by Presidential Decree No. the usage and the application of pesticides in 189185. under Presidential Decree No. No. Evidently. or other applicable laws: apply as guide in determining the territorial extent Provided. Commission on Audit.R. or incidental for its efficient and respondent Cebu City must exercise its authority to effective governance. Province of Laguna (366 Phil. but also marine waters the Local Government Code also expressly grants included between two lines drawn perpendicularly local government units the following residual to the general coastline from points where the power to tax: boundary lines of the municipality or city touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the Sec. v. not being the subject of the tax power [of local government units] must be private ownership and not comprised within the deemed to exist although Congress may provide national parks. in the Code in the context of the grant of quarrying fees." Although the term "municipal waters" appears may exercise the power to levy taxes. 180235. 186. also known as the general not otherwise specifically enumerated in the Local welfare clause. or charges on any base or subject and fisheries privileges for a fee by local not otherwise specifically enumerated herein or taxed under the provisions of governments. 434 waters" which. was enacted pursuant to the residual National Government. 2016) Local Taxation And as far as local government units are concerned. Thus. taxation. fees or charges shall not be Philippine jurisdiction includes the authority to tax enacted without any prior public the same. and tidal waters there is neither a grant nor a prohibition by statute. and such authority has been delegated by the national Respondents.. or charges of the local authorities' power to levy real property shall not be unjust. CRUZ . as real property taxation. August 16. (2) necessarily implied from the power (c). fees. in relation to Section 131 granted. September 13. that the taxes. 428. government unit may exercise its residual power to Inc. No. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW banana plantations on a nationwide scale of the courses. fees. oppressive. general coastline and fifteen (15) kilometers from or Charges. however. empowers the local government units Government Code. That the ordinance levying such the subject submarine cable system lying within taxes. 211553. under the Local Government Code. A local v. the areas described above are to be Not lost on the Court is its declaration in Manila considered subsumed under the term "municipal Electric Co. – Local government units it. Power to Levy Other Taxes. through the FPA. The amended. forest statutory limitations and guidelines. as amended. of the Local Government Code already that is expressly granted. (Verceles v. In the The LGUs exercise powers that are: (1) expressly present case.R. excessive. No. Code. the jurisdiction or authority over such part of further. for taxation is one of the three basic and hearing conducted for the purpose. or other applicable laws. Fees. [1999]) that under the 1987 Constitution. City of Cebu. (3) necessary. within the municipality. or when such taxes. 189185. 2016) G. G. public forest. (Mosqueda power to tax of respondent Cebu City. CARLO L. (Capitol Wireless.R. lakes. timber lands. v. explicitly and clearly cover amusement tax and appropriate. No. G. cannot claim that Section legislature to the local governments with respect to 42 of the Revised Omnibus Tax Ordinance. as which covers local taxation means that it may also amended. National Internal Revenue (LGUs) to act for the benefit of their constituents. Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association.) necessary attributes of sovereignty. confiscatory or contrary to declared national policy: Provided. 2016) tax when there is neither a grant nor a prohibition by statute. (Alta Vista Golf and Country Club v. Section 140. imposing amusement tax on golf Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 81 Court by Atty. or charges are Section 16 of the LGC. (Emphasis supplied." Section 186 of reserves or fishery reserves. and (4) essential to the impose amusement tax within the limitations and promotion of the general welfare of the inhabitants. guidelines as set forth in said statutory provisions. Inc. January 20. its inclusion in the Code's Book II the National Internal Revenue Code. "where includes "not only streams. Provided. them is patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code. Property for public use. the Sanggunian did not enact an prejudice to the provisions of special ordinance but merely passed a resolution. G. Filipinas and when necessary.R. No. as is the case with Section 21 of the LGC. substitute for the. machinery as real property is governed by the such ordinance must be approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of all Local Government Code and not the Civil Code. under the folio wing conditions: In exercising this authority. cities. Patrimonial Property There is no dispute that respondents built their (b) No such way or place or any part house/sari sari store on government property. devoted to public use. To convert a barrio road into patrimonial property. in which other real property the provinces. Article 424 of the Civil Code permanently withdrawn from distinguishes between the two classifications: public use may be used or conveyed for any purpose for Article 424. and municipalities. the barrio road adjacent to resolution is only a declaration of sentiment or Alolino's house is property of public dominion opinion of the legislative body. Inc. (Provincial Assessor of Agusan del Sur v. (emphasis supplied) difference between an ordinance and a resolution is settled in jurisprudence: an ordinance is a law but a From the foregoing. public facility 2016) that is subject to closure is provided. 2016) pursuant to an ordinance. the members of the Sanggunian. CRUZ . prescribed by Congress. an adequate Palm Oil Plantation. permanently or temporarily close The exemption from real property taxes given to or open any local road. municipalities. the LGU must comply with the conditions and observe the limitations Section 21. May 30. or square falling within its the land owned is leased. city government unit concerned may streets. No. and public works for public service paid for by said provinces. The Sanggunian's failure to comply with Section 21 renders ineffective its Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 82 Court by Atty. October 5. however. (a) A local government unit may. The laws. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Provincial Treasurer of Batangas. or the law requires the LGU to enact an ordinance. alley. permanently closing the All other property possessed by any of road. . thereof shall be permanently closed without making provisions Properties of Local Government Units (LGUs) are for the maintenance of public classified as either property for public use or safety therein. be lawfully used or conveyed. without In this case. Closure and Opening of Roads. 183416. belonging to the local consist of the provincial roads. The characterization of That in case of permanent closure. Hence. promenades. the cooperative's lessee. LGUs residential lot. cities. the squares. A property thus patrimonial property. xxx fountains. CARLO L. G.. This exemption benefits jurisdiction.R. cooperatives applies regardless of whether or not park. approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Sanggunian members. public waters. municipal streets. cannot control or regulate the use of these The Local Government Code (LGC) authorizes an properties unless specifically authorized by LGU to withdraw a local road from public use Congress. We find no merit in the respondents' contention that the Local Government Properties of the local government that are devoted of Taguig had already withdrawn the subject barrio to public service are deemed public and are under road from public use and reclassified it as a the absolute control of Congress. 180110. all exercised in Calabocal. thus. As stated in Resolution No. In determining the Thus. conflict is a "boundary row" between itself and the 187349. shall provision of the Local Government Code of 1991[. it is "only upon the for the general welfare of the entire province. It follows then that the law cannot case." (See Sections 118 and 119 of members enjoy full rights of participation. G. CARLO L. G. the procedure to resolve the It can. (Javier v. Antipolo City. it is clear that the RTC is G. (Alolino v. the Province of Oriental Mindoro claims Quorums to "adhere to the basic principle of amicably settling said boundary dispute. The Vice Governor. they are bound by their own assertions and number which constitutes as the majority vote.R. as the Presiding Officer. G. and should be counted in the respective legislative councils of the contending determination of the existence of a quorum. Further. 2016) included in the determination of the required number of votes necessary to resolve a matter every time the SP votes on an issue. there exists a jurisdiction over the area in dispute. Said dispute shall be referred for settlement to the sangguniang panglungsod or Boundary Disputes sangguniang bayan concerned. Cadiao. the Vice Governor should be the RTC follow. Respondent Province of time and manner prescribed by the Rules of Court. No. (Province of Antique v. as specifically provided in Section 119 embodiment of impartiality. It bears Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 83 Court by Atty. does not represent any particular group. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW reclassification of the barrio road. 209146. the regular and ex-officio SP boundary disputes. 185369. 2016) Province of Antique. within the boundary dispute. August 17. The specific procedure in settling boundary however. Oriental Mindoro itself acknowledges that the (Barangay Mayamot v.) (Province of Antique v.R.]" xxx. Calabocal. the decision of the an island. No. G. Under the said law. (Province of Antique v. No. right to vote is merely contingent and arises only Calabocal. 2016) pursuit of championing the interests of their respective constituencies. xxx. failure of these intermediary steps will resort to the Logically then. June 8. No. April 4.]" be considered a part of the SP for purposes of ascertaining if a quorum exists. 2016) Having established that the case involves a boundary dispute. 2016) when there is a tie to break. As the ensure that the SP effectively conducts its business Court has previously ruled. as laid down in the The Vice Governor. August 3. So long as the island is being claimed by sanggunian may be appealed to the RTC having different local government units. CRUZ . include debating and voting. Based on the foregoing. local government units have jurisdiction over their Consequently. No. G. reasonably require that the Vice Governor be 209146. or to cast a vote to every question put upon was warranted under the circumstances of this the body. which the Local Government Code. No. xxx. Flores.R. June 8. the same within sixty (60) days from the date of the Nothing in this provision excludes a dispute over certification referred to. June 8. "the Presiding Officer. be concluded that the Vice Governor same is that established under the Local forms part of the composition of the SP as its Government Code.R. the cannot now claim that the conflict does not involve Vice Governor is excluded. The Vice Governor's a boundary dispute.R. of the SP. 198774. As the Presiding Officer of the [Local Government Code. If there is failure of amicable settlement. the dispute shall be formally … a boundary dispute may involve "a portion or the tried by the sanggunian concerned and shall decide whole" of a local government unit's territorial area. disputes is outlined in (Article 17 of) Rule III of the As a Presiding Officer. he or she is without liberty to readily take Respondents' resort to filing a case before the RTC sides. 209146. 2016) without jurisdiction to settle a boundary dispute involving barangays in the same city or municipality. his or her mandate is to IRR of the Local Government Code xxx.R. 1454-2012. as the SP's Presiding behalf of the LGU. the SP's responsiveness. September voted for. (Verceles v. all the ten (10) provide. 189185. 211553. Commission on Audit. CRUZ . 2016) Resolution..R. but not in implement specific or specified projects with the determination of the required number of votes corresponding appropriations without securing a necessary to uphold a matter before the SP. No. (Verceles reason to strike down Ordinance No. pertains to him or Contractual Authority her. down in Section 53 and Section 54 of The Local G. These include the power to enter into regular and three (3) ex-officio members. xxx. 211553. August 3. or contract to be City Mayor Duterte not being disputed. when the Combong functions that the LGC and other pertinent laws Resolution was deliberated upon. plus the contracts on behalf of the province. Commission on Audit. 0309-07 for v. G. September 13. 211553.R. G. it No. While a blanket authority is not per se ineffective. It would admit appropriations in the annual budget of the LGU. cost. 185369.R. In summary and to harmonize the two provisions: effectivity and accountability towards the affairs of Section 22 (c) of the LGC requires the local chief the body politic would be diminished. (Javier separate authority from the sanggunian. Seven members Commission on Audit.R. No. August 16. 2016) As the chief executive of the province. should be counted for purposes of other hand. Section 465 (b) (1) (vi). G. These provisions require the ordinance to be passed by the majority of the The prior authorization for the local chief executive members of the sanggunian concerned. August 3. we see no entered into by the local government unit. (Verceles v. CARLO L. Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association. Cadiao. In the process. and with its approval of by specifically covers the project. G. as the holder of the body politic's general mandate. were present. No. it. …the LGC requires the local chief executive to secure prior authorization from the sanggunian To hold that the Presiding Officer should be before he can enter into contracts on behalf of the counted in determining the required number of LGU A separate prior authorization is no longer votes necessary to uphold a matter before the SP required if the specific projects are covered by shall be counter-productive. In the latter v. Section 49 of the LGC is explicit that "the of Local Chief Executives presiding officer shall vote only to break a tie. and to be to enter into contracts on behalf of the local presented to the mayor for approval. G. 185369. 2016) the Local Government Code. the governor exercises powers and performs duties and In the instant petition. the power to render conclusion to an issue when there is a deadlock. on the Officer. the Vice Governor. 2016) does not suffice for purposes of implementing Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 84 Court by Atty. With no government unit may be in the form of an issues regarding quorum during its deliberation appropriation ordinance passed for the year which having been raised. (Mosqueda v. September non-compliance with the formal requisites under 13. There was no tie to break as the majority vote had already been obtained. executive to obtain prior authorization from the sanggunian before he can enter into contracts in Verily.R. No. which in effect incapacitates the sanggunian is the local chief executive's authority to said body from addressing every issue laid before enter into a contract implementing the project." (Javier v. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW stressing though that while the Vice Governor does not enjoy full rights of participation in the floors of the SP. 2016) Government Code. Cadiao. Presiding Officer.R. No. Inc. 2016) provision. Thus. while six voted against the Combong 13. the appropriation ordinance is the authority from the sanggunian required in the The formalities in enacting an ordinance are laid former provision. allows the local chief executive to ascertaining the existence of a quorum. deadlocks as ordinary incidents in the conduct of The appropriation ordinance passed by the business of the SP. A. The exception is when the local chief executive is To "authorize" means "to empower. . Such is not the case here as will be explained next. the local chief Officials and Employees"). No. XI of the Section 336. or purpose with an appropriation happen.R. principle embodied therein. We only want to underscore the MOAs are concerned is the first requisite. 211553." It means "to endow with approved annual budget from savings in other authority or effective legal power. the necessity of an existing authority before the local existence of a law (in this case.A. Commission on Audit. G. Sec. No ordinance shall be passed pursuant thereto. the general rule is that funds Commission on Audit. strictly speaking. As a matter of fact. xxx. CRUZ . be authorized to augment any item in the approved annual of the LGU) requires the local chief executive to budget for their respective offices from obtain definite and specific authorizations before savings in other items within the same he can enter into contracts funded by lump-sum expense class of their respective appropriations. Under Section 336. However. i. 2016) allowed. As to the second MOA. the governor must be duly Article 454 of the Rules and Regulations authorized before he can make augmentations. R. No. The relevant provision is Section 336 of the LGC: In the same vein. to give a right authorized by ordinance to augment any item in the or authority to act.R. Commission on Audit. We Implementing the LGC states that augmentation highlight the words "to augment" suggesting that implies the existence in the budget of an item. not be taken to mean that the LGC prohibits the ratification of previously unauthorized The crucial requisite as far as the fourth and fifth augmentations. the fully complied with all the requisites (except for the existence of an actual item to be augmented. augmentation." Thus. September shall be available exclusively for the specific 13. the where past augmentations can be shown to have crucial requisite is the third requisite.R. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW projects funded by lump-sum appropriations. (Verceles v. warrant or right. 6713 authorizing any transfer of ("Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public appropriations from one item to another. G. G. [emphasis and appropriation ordinance already identifies the underscoring ours] specific projects and the costs of the projects to be funded by lump-sum appropriations. 211553. The executive or the presiding officer of the nature of lump-sum appropriations vis-a-vis the sanggunian concerned may. 6770 ("The Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 85 Court by Atty. (Verceles v. 2016) Article XI ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS Augmentation of Items of Appropriation Public Office is a Public Trust. 2016) purpose for which they have been appropriated. ratification is September 13. which upon implementation or subsequent evaluation of needed resources is determined to be Nevertheless.e. items within the same expense class. by power of the purse of the SP (as the legislative organ ordinance. our ruling in the present case should deficient.Funds shall be available considering that a law should be passed by the exclusively for the specific purpose for Congress to clearly define and effectuate the which they have been appropriated. No.. Congress enacted R. September 13. No. ordinance) chief executive can make augmentations. 1 of Art. to permit a thing to be done in the future. authority by ordinance requisite) for a valid (Verceles v. No. CARLO L. activity. 211553. The Court authorizing the governor to augment items in recognizes that there may be narrow instances approved budget. what is being authorized is an act that has yet to project.. Use of Appropriated Funds Constitution is not a self-executing provision and Savings. The exception is when the appropriations.e. in which cases. i. concealment or Accountability and Good Faith dissipation of. properties. workflow charts/public transactions. that such sequestration together with absence of all information.. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Ombudsman Act of 1989"). and SSC are limited to those enumerated under Section Republic Act No. good concealment of the "ill-gotten" wealth the former faith may be appreciated in the case at bench as President Marcos and his allies may resort to. (Ocampo v. It could v. CRUZ . (Duque v. It is Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 86 Court by Atty. As impeachable officers who are G.A. appropriate authorities. it is unfair to penalize public officials blowing and reporting and client feedback based on overly stretched and strained program. 9485 ("Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007"). the Court held that the lack of a properties in custodia legis. or lack of innovative ideas Gonzales and Cuenco v. COA. whistle In conclusion. (Philippine complaint was filed. 7080 (An Act benefits which may be received by members of the Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder). it could only have first being impeached. guided by its pronouncements in Jarque contrary rule would be counterproductive. memoranda. which is actually clarified years later. were all lawyers. that will absolve instructions relative to the norms of behavior/code the responsible officers of PEZA from liability from of conduct/ethical standards of officials and refund. In addition. sequestration is provisional. there is no jurisprudence yet ruling that the pending the final disposition of the properties. Hon. notice. respondents-commissioners Economic Zone Authority v. then it should only be applied prospectively. 2016) enterprises and entities. If there is any Impeachable Officers ambiguity. R. Commission on Audit. interpretations of rules which were not that readily November 8.C. the Executive Branch has issued various orders. for the purpose of preventing the destruction. the Court clearly pronounced that of another. result in paralysis. it could dissuade others the rule that an impeachable officer who is a from joining the government. respondents-commissioners must first be removed Sandiganbayan from office via the constitutional route of impeachment before they may be held to answer Sequestration is the means to place or cause to be administratively for their supposed erroneous placed under the PCGG's possession or control resolutions and actions. and otherwise conserving and preserving the same until it can be determined Good faith has always been a valid defense of through appropriate judicial proceedings. and It is the same good faith. Ombudsman. No. therefore. has laid down getting tried. even though technicalities of law. and freedom from However. 9912. 225973. whether public officials that has been considered by this the property was in truth "ill-gotten. (BASECO) v.In Re First Indorsement from Raul M. 2016) capable of being understood at the time such functionaries acted in good faith. lest the dissipation and similar ruling is a basis of good faith." xxx. No. 210903. employees. A. CARLO L. Fernan. No. which purpose is to preserve In Mendoza v. or shall last "until the transactions leading to such benefit or belief of facts which render transaction acquisition xxx can be disposed of by the unconscientious. xxx. xxx. Inc. an honest intention to Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co. 3 (a) of the SS Law. G. In the notable case of the holder upon inquiry. When government member of the Bar cannot be disbarred without service becomes unattractive. October 11. Thus. A This Court. Brillantes. rules and policies on gifts and benefits." Court in several cases. Sequestration is a conservatory writ.R. the power of the PCGG to sequester is knowledge of circumstances which ought to put merely provisional. building or office. 2016) at the same time the members of the Bar. Good faith is a state of mind denoting "honesty of intention. including business No. At the time the present adverse consequences for society. September 21.R. abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage PCGG. To complement these statutes. Enriquez. (Inocentes v. July 27. v. those that are classified as Salary the COA. G. as conferred to it by law. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW to prevent the disappearance or dissipation Grade 26 and below may still fall within the pending adjudgment of whether the acquisition jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. G. Sandiganbayan and Geduspan While this Court has time and again affirmed that v. No. CARLO L. (Philippine Overseas Furthermore. even low-level management positions fall under G. 3019 committed by presidents. Accordingly. the said case is an grave abuse of discretion as the exception to the ordinary civil case entailing the propriety of the general rule of non-interference in the actions of a creditor in proceeding against the Ombudsman's exercise of [his] powers is security for its loan.R. Court has always adhered to the general rule Sheriff Urieta. a government. April 20. which determines the jurisdiction of the character. as amended. 211098. which. not the salary means. 26558. upon evaluation. it has the controlled corporations. CRUZ ." The the Regional Trial Courts. Telecommunications Corporation v. regardless of their salary grades. Nos.A. finds that the case has no merit. 2016) the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. (Morales v." The Court "will not grade of 27 since he was the branch manager of the ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's GSIS' field office in Tarlac City. we highlight the therefore falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of exceptional nature of that determination.R. provided they thereof by the apparent owner was attended by hold the positions enumerated by the law. Sandiganbayan. if the Office of the Ombudsman. "[t]he determination of favor of the State. 208086. Inc. as ·stated above. No. "dismissed outright. from the proceedings on the disallowance before Simply put. We settled this point in Lazarte v. and state universities shall be authority to determine if a preliminary within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the investigation is necessary in the case. which position falls indicate otherwise. has been adjudged forfeited in The Court reiterates. 2016) jurisdiction.D. As correctly pointed out by the Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 87 Court by Atty.R. G. Thus by no means is it permanent in grade. it is the position held. the sequestration is rendered functus officio. No. of certiorari. The same has nothing to do with the ownership of the IMA Independence Account and/or any of its financial assets." (Morales v. 205963-64. COA (Reyna). the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the civil July 7. directors or it has the power to recommend that the same be trustees. The applicable law provides that violations of R. However. sequestered properties. the case before the trial court does not involve the Ombudsman civil aspect of Criminal Case No. 174462. No. In contrast.” xxx.R. July 27. Office of the Ombudsman is distinct and separate 1606. 2016) upholding the "noninterference by the courts in the exercise by the office of the prosecutor or the On the issue on jurisdiction. 2016) aspect of criminal cases. Upon the final disposition of the Sandiganbayan. In this some vitiating anomaly or attended by some illegal category. or managers of government-owned or .R. February 10. Sandiganbayan. 2016) law defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by explaining that the Sandiganbayan maintains its In Reyna v. People. 208086. (The Wellex Group. which necessitates the precisely the province of the extraordinary writ application of the provisions of the Civil Code. No. We have clarified the provision of Carpio-Morales. No. as the Sandiganbayan correctly held. People." Likewise. at the time of the powers without good and compelling reasons to commission of the offense. within the coverage of the Sandiganbayan's G. this Court particularly jurisdiction over those officials specifically declared that "[t]he criminal case filed before the enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4(1) of P. exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory owned or -controlled corporation. it is of no moment that Ombudsman of its plenary investigative and Inocentes does not occupy a position with a salary prosecutorial powers. Carpio-Morales. In all other cases. Conversely. All the had already become final. the the charge.R. 2016) decision shall be final and unappealable. Ombudsman. otherwise. they are the factual and practical such administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly considerations of everyday life on which misappreciate evidence of such nature as to compel reasonable and prudent men. no grave abuse of discretion the Ombudsman exonerating the private was committed by the Ombudsman and the respondents from the charge of grave misconduct Sandiganbayan in the proceedings a quo. CARLO L. Cambe's petition in G.R. CRUZ . et al. Specifically. 212014-15. Section 6 is consistent with the ruling in [Reyna] that a The assailed ruling of the Ombudsman absolving proceeding involving an audit disallowance is the private respondents of the administrative distinct and separate from a preliminary charge possesses the character of finality and. thus. or a fine cause against all petitioners. the decisions of administrative investigation. Nos. 212014-15 is dismissed. That being said. 212014-15. the Ombudsman (and the decision shall become final after the Sandiganbayan as to Relampagos. unless a Their findings are fully supported by the evidence motion for reconsideration or petition on record and no semblance of misapprehension for certiorari shall have been filed by taints the same. Joson. April 6. -- proceedings.] as the very name fail the test of arbitrariness. failed to do this. Rule III of the the Ombudsman did not gravely abuse its Ombudsman Rules provides: discretion in promulgating its March 14. disallowance. (Joson v. [Emphasis Supplied] xxx. (Cambe v. this Court cannot tag him as prescribed in Section 27 of RA key documentary evidence as forgeries and bar 6770. In any event. we deal with probabilities. discretion or any reversible error on the part of the G. (Cambe v. As such.R.R. Where the respondent is absolved of Nos. Jurisprudence teaches us that "[i]n agencies are still subject to judicial review if they dealing with probable cause[.) did not err expiration of ten (10) days from receipt in finding probable cause against all the petitioners. the In this case. 2014 Joint Order which denied Cambe's motion to suspend SECTION 7. Office of the Appeals Ombudsman. not legal technicians. an administrative Joson failed to file a petition for certiorari before the or criminal case may prosper even without an audit Court of Appeals (CA). the decision of in this case. December 6. the correct act. December 6. or upon proof of grave implies. thereof by the respondent. it would defy established Though final and unappealable in the principles and norms followed during preliminary administrative level. 2016) Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 88 Court by Atty. testimonies as hearsay at this stage of the proceedings. Nos. "an audit disallowance may not With respect to the dismissal of the administrative necessarily result in the imposition of disciplinary charge for gross misconduct. investigation or a disciplinary complaint. Rule XIII. equivalent to one month salary. Verily. Ombudsman. fraud or error of law. Moreover. cause was adequately hurdled by the prosecution however. and in case of conviction Court now proceeds to resolve the main where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand. based on the the CA to question the Ombudsman's decision of foregoing disquisitions. Hence. a contrary conclusion. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Ombudsman." Overall. the Court finds that sanctions or criminal prosecution of the responsible the same has already attained finality because persons. 2016) Ombudsman to compel this Court to overturn its assailed administrative ruling. G. Perforce. the subject petitioners should therefore stand trial for the petition failed to show any grave abuse of crimes they were charged. or when technical. Section 7. Nos. the G. suspension of not substantive issue anent the presence of probable more than one month. Finality of decision. the standard of probable dismissal of the administrative charge." In fine. not subject to appeal. The standard of proof is accordingly correlative procedure is to file a petition for certiorari before to what must be proved. 210220-21. therefore. These are not abuse of discretion. xxx. Following the states: RIRCA. or the provision is construed as permissive censure shall be a ground for and operating to confer discretion disciplinary action against said officer. 507. Jaramilla v. 2005. Comelec. the June 1. 451 Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 89 Court by Atty. No. No. The use of the word "may" in to remove. . No. No.R. demote. executory and (Ombudsman-Mindanao v. Gironella [G. Ibrahim. 2005.Where the respondent is timely filed the present petition before this Court. 151138. Gironella. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and In the case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Rule decision of the OMB-Mindanao is still subject to III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the review by this Court upon filing of a petition for Ombudsman (OMB Rules of Procedure) which review on certiorari under Rule 45. 211290.A. 451 SCRA 476. (670 Phil. 2016) decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for Period to Investigate review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the The Court of Appeals declared that the Rules of Court. 460 Phil. In this case.R. CRUZ . the Court of Appeals cited Section 7. G. 151138. However. suspension of not more than one month. conviction where the penalty imposed is the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error public censure or reprimand. 169 [2011]). the respondent wins such appeal. year after the supposed act was committed. the decision shall be final. In all other cases. Where the words of a statute are precluded from acting on the motion for execution clear. Finality and execution of been timely filed.A. Court held that the period stated in The Office of the Ombudsman shall Section 20(5) of R. judgment. No. G. 2005. and in case of making the entry of judgment premature. CARLO L. he Jr. Gironella. entry of judgment should only be made when no appeal or motion for reconsideration has Section 7. We agree that the Court of Appeals is not (2003)]. 6770 does not ensure that the decision shall be strictly refer to the prescription of the offense enforced and properly implemented. from being executory. [Melchor v. 6770 when it for Reconsideration. Andutan. the OMB-Mindanao decision. Hence. February 16. judgment pending the final disposition of the case. the they must be given their literal meaning Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in and applied without attempted directing the Clerk of Court to make an entry of interpretation [Melchor v. plain and free from ambiguity. more than one year after Epistola gave the questioned An appeal shall not stop the decision instruction on 12 March 1999. The decision of the Court of G. in ordering the Clerk of Court to make an entry of or a fine equivalent to one month salary.R. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW In granting Ibrahim's motion for execution pending Appeals is not yet final and its reversal of the appeal. the Court stressed that shall be considered as having been the provisions of Section 20(5) are merely under preventive suspension and shall directory and that the Ombudsman is not be paid the salary and such other prohibited from conducting an investigation a emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.R. suspend. 451 SCRA 476]. the shall be executed as a matter of course. unappealable. No. Ombudsman in administrative cases February 16. but to the discretion given to the The refusal or failure by any officer Ombudsman on whether it would without just cause to comply with an investigate a particular administrative order of the Office of the Ombudsman offense. was only filed on 12 July 2000. xxx. 514 xxx. 481. within fifteen (15) days administrative complaint was filed beyond the from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion period prescribed under R. fine. February 16. A decision of the Office of the In Melchor v. absolved of the charge. 151138. pending appeal filed by Ibrahim. CARLO L. G. and a legislative act of the period. G. 161425. In the eyes of the law. xxx. To prove that a land is alienable. and charged with the conservation of such no matter how long. Furthermore. outside the commerce of man. 383 Phil. No. investigate government employees including In the present case. National Federation of Only private property can be acquired by Labor v. public school teachers. can never ripen into patrimony. it was settled in the case of Office of However. CRUZ . (Republic v.R. It cannot be the xxx object of prescription because prescription does not run against the State in its sovereign capacity.R. The property is now brought within the the prudent thing to do does not operate to divest commerce of man and becomes susceptible to the the Ombudsman of its constitutional power to concepts of legal possession and prescription. (Republic v. disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman over a it becomes part of the patrimonial property of the public school teacher is not an exclusive power State. all lands of the public produce any legal effect. alienable public land held by a possessor. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW SCRA 476. 918 (2000)]. openly. It remains Regalian Doctrine outside the commerce of man and the respondent’s physical possession and occupation thereof do not Under the Regalian doctrine.R. National Labor Relations prescription. Even though it has been declared alienable and No. the property has not been withdrawn from public use or public service. Medrano that the administrative longer intended for public use or for public service. 481. otherwise Mindanao University v. or a statute declaring the land as alienable and June 28. 2016) disposable. continuously and exclusively proclamation or an executive order. Bautista. Indeed. 195026. Property of public dominion is Commission. 910. 2016) private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 90 Court by Atty. the existence of a either personally or through his predecessors-in- positive act of the government. the third condition is absent.A. albeit still owned by referral to the proper committee would have been the State. Article XII prescription cannot begin to run because the NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY property has not yet been converted into patrimonial property of the State. the domain belong to the State. No. an during the prescribed statutory period is converted administrative action. when property of public dominion is no the Ombudsman v. No. the doctrine states that all lands ownership. 199537. 2016) disposable must be established. 166890. 8371 (R. and that the State is the respondent has never acquired legal possession of source of any asserted right to ownership of land the property and her physical possession thereof. known as the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of February 22. Also. G. the property is but is concurrent with the proper committee of withdrawn from public dominion and becomes the Department of Education. the person applying for We should stress that only the title of those who registration has the burden of proof to overcome had possessed and occupied alienable and the presumption of ownership of lands of the disposable lands of the public domain within the public domain. G. Without this. a public land remains part of the inalienable public domain Ancestral Land unless it is shown to have been reclassified and alienated by the State to a private person. investigation reports of to private property by the mere lapse or completion Bureau of Lands investigators. 8371). When this happens. (Central Republic Act No. Epistola. November 23. specifically governs the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands and domains. Republic. (Desierto v. requisite period could be judicially confirmed.R. not otherwise appearing to be clearly within February 10. such as presidential interest. Consequently. Hence. 2016) 1997. Tan. The fact that a property of private ownership. " (Emphases the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial. ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators. bodies of water. Rights to Ancestral Lands. 8371 deceit.R. It shall include ancestral lands. — Property rights within the comprising lands. to customary laws and traditions of the families and clans who are members of community concerned. CARLO L. by themselves or through their ancestors. coastal ancestral domains already existing areas. a) Right to transfer land/property. under claims of individual or traditional group Transfer of Land to Foreigners ownership. It is significant to note that in their Answer. under claims of individual deceit. ancestral lands shall be recognized and particularly the home ranges of protected. rice terraces or paddies." This purchase was otherwise. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states majeure or displacement by force. the claim of petitioner that government and private when land is purchased. but SECTION 3. forests. predecessors-in-interest. continuously. Indeed. the following not limited to. families and immemorial. — For purposes of this Act. residential lots. "ancestral lands are lands occupied. social and cultural welfare. and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by SECTION 8. hunting grounds. inland waters. worship areas. to government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by the present xxx. mineral and other natural Law or its Rules and Regulations. burial well within the rights protected under the IPRA grounds.A. continuously to the clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time present except when interrupted by war. by themselves or through their force majeure or displacement by force. Existing Property Rights Section 56 hereof. are necessary to ensure their economic. refers to lands occupied. terms shall mean: swidden farms and tree lots. stealth. — Such right shall include the right to transfer b) Ancestral Lands — Subject to Section land or property rights to/among 56 hereof. CRUZ . shall be recognized and respected. continuously. force Section 7. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Section 3(a) and (b) and Section 56 of R. Sps. and which ambit of ancestral land/domain." Thus. refers to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs Regimes. and/or vested upon effectivity of this held under a claim of ownership. and question as part of the land they purchased in 1959 other lands individually owned "pursuant to age-old customs and traditions from whether alienable and disposable or their relative Leona Vicente. to the present except when interrupted by war. Definition of Terms. ICCs/IPs but from which they — The right of ownership and traditionally had access to for their possession of the ICCs/IPs to their subsistence and traditional activities. and natural resources therein. 189852. Act. 2016) predecessors-in-interest. themselves or through their No. G. communally or individually since time possessed and utilized by individuals. residential. by supplied) (Begnaen v. a) Ancestral Domains — Subject to SECTION 56. Caligtan. or as a consequence of provide for a more comprehensive definition of government projects and other ancestral domains and ancestral lands: voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations. stealth or as a consequence of or traditional group ownership. that: Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 91 Court by Atty. respondents claimed that they owned the area in pasture. private forests. subject possessed and utilized by individuals. occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs. it is no longer within the individuals/corporations. agricultural. members of the same ICCs/IPs. immemorial. including. is devoid of merit. August 17. to wit: resources. To hold otherwise would allow Muller. it RTC's ruling. it bears stressing that if the deed of sale at all proclaimed that she (Taina) was However. Matthews v. both the CA and the RTC exposed and laid The Court of Appeals erred in holding bare Taina's posturing and pretense for what these that an implied trust was created and really are: that in the transaction in question. and not that he be declared the national patrimony. hence. are Constitution. (3) there is nothing in the Constitution was really Mike who paid with his own funds the which prohibits Helmut from acquiring ownership subject lot. (2) Elena's ownership over this property was considered as ownership-in-trust for In the case at bench. City. the RTC held that although it domain. buyer. alien or foreigner husband of the prohibition. In sustaining the RTC. Hence. Mike was its real purchaser or of the house. Besides. nevertheless the latter could not recover his Given the plain and explicit language of this investment because the property was purchased in constitutional mandate. can only in favor of the party who is guilty of the strengthen and reinforce our present stance. This Antipolo property was registered reiterated anew in the comparatively recent case of under the name of Elena under TCT No. the purchaser or buyer of the subject property and this Court reversed the CA and reinstated the this subject property was placed under her name. disqualified from acquiring lands of the public Helmut appealed to the CA which upheld his domain." the owner thereof. she resulted by operation of law in view of was a mere dummy. a spurious stand-in. was acquired with the use of Helmut's capital funds. G. and never attempted to become a of hereditary succession. the RTC of Quezon the alien or foreigner husband in the Matthews case Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme Court by Atty. Emphasis Filipina Elena Buenaventura Muller (Elena). Taina herself admitted that it Helmut. CRUZ 92 . who was not a Save for the exception provided in cases Filipino then. 2016) ownership in trust is allowed. No. our holding in Muller v. City rendered judgment terminating the regime of no private lands shall be transferred or absolute community of property between Helmut conveyed except to individuals. Indeed. on a Petition for Review on Certiorari. it has been held that violation of Section 7. erroneously invoked by Taina. no trust can result almost on all fours with the case at bench. for her petitioner's marriage to respondent. the Philippines is absolute. Muller. The CA ruled that: (1) Helmut merely acquiring private lands. Cattleya Land. CARLO L. or associations qualified to properties between the spouses. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Save in cases of hereditary succession. After due proceedings. Inc. Taylor. The RTC also decreed the separation of corporations. they are also disqualified from appeal. whether individuals or corporations. More than that. Helmut instituted a petition for Taina claims that this case supports her position in separation of properties with the RTC of Quezon the case at bench allegedly because. erstwhile common-law husband. Not even an September 5. Article XII of the "[a]liens. like her case. and Elena. where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of Again. Dissatisfied with the RTC's judgment. Subsequently. With respect to the acquire or hold lands of the public Antipolo property. respondent's naturalized Filipino citizen thereafter. 219438. this Court was simply because she and Mike wanted to skirt once again stressed the absolute character of the or circumvent the constitutional prohibition constitutional prohibition against ownership of barring or outlawing foreigners or aliens from lands in this country by foreigners or aliens: acquiring or purchasing lands in the Philippines.R. (Citation omitted. 195975. The primary purpose of prayed for reimbursement of the purchase price of the constitutional provision is the conservation of the Antipolo property.. it appears that German national Helmut circumvention of the constitutional Muller (Helmut). In fraud. which is its express provision. bought supplied) with his capital funds a parcel of land in Antipolo City and also paid for the construction of a house The same absolute constitutional proscription was thereon. (Manigque. disqualification from owning lands in Stone v. no private agricultural land shall be transferred or we find and so hold that Benjamin has assigned except to individuals. Section 5 thereof states that. 2016) property by his Filipino wife (Joselyn C. adopted in the present 1987 Constitution. countenance indirect controversion of the constitutional prohibition. (Manigque-Stone v. the alienation is limited to to rest by what this Court said there — Filipino citizens.. except with respect to public agricultural of the ruling enunciated in the Matthews case is put lands and in such cases. land. it strictly prohibited Fullido from vote as to its transfer or disposition. being an alien. the Court finds that the exercising the prerogative of a husband lease contract and the MOA in the present case are in respect [to] conjugal property. he was merely jurisprudential limitations. Inc. a British subject) likewise (Manigque-Stone v. 195975. In light of the foregoing jurisprudence. By entering into such agricultural resources remain in the hands of contract knowing that it was illegal. void. even if titled in the name of his Filipino spouse. xxx. provided the funds for the purchase of real 195975.R. This is a right that the Constitution does not selling. as he would then have a decisive Moreover. The purpose of prohibiting the transfer of even if we sustain Benjamin's claim that lands to foreigners is to uphold the conservation of he provided the funds for such our national patrimony and ensure that acquisition. It also covers leases of lands of the conjugal/community property of amounting to the transfer of all or substantially all the spouses. whether public or private. corporations. or no right to nullify the Agreement of associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of Lease between Joselyn and petitioner. donating. No. In any event. the lease in property were to be declared conjugal. is not limited to the sale made that the subject property was part of lands to foreigners. Taylor. under Considering that Joselyn appeared to Sections 2. The Benjamin. Filipino citizens. be the designated 'vendee' in the Deed Agricultural lands. no amount of consent from the parties could legalize an unconstitutional Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 93 Court by Atty. no reimbursement for his expenses can be allowed. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW (Benjamin A. no implied trust was created in his favor. or encumbering her land to permit him to have. Concomitantly. 3 and 7 of Article XII thereof. the public domain in the Philippines. Cattleya Land. xxx. commercial and industrial sole ownership there[of]. this would accord the alien husband a automatically extended for another fifty (50) years substantial interest and right over the upon the expiration of the original period. Inc. is absolutely prohibited from acquiring private and prohibition on the transfer of lands to aliens was public lands in the Philippines. and no declaration can be The prohibition.. No. of Sale of said property. natural resources shall not be a clear misapprehension of the thrust and purport alienated. legal and Boracay property by his wife on the theory that in so doing. CARLO L. has no capacity or personality to question the subsequent lease of the Based on the above-cited constitutional. anyone without the written consent of Grilli. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. save in cases of hereditary succession. G. she acquired include residential. To null and void for virtually transferring the reigns of sustain such a theory would the land to a foreigner. This is true lands. If the As can be gleaned from the contract. Cattleya Land. favor of Grilli was for a period of fifty (50) years. but a closer scrutiny of the same revealed that they were intended to transfer the dominion of The sale of Philippine land to an alien or foreigner.R. 2016) a lease. The said contracts attempted to guise themselves as September 5. Taylor) and this Court allegedly sustained said wife's Under Section 1 of Article XIII of the 1935 ownership over the property. Even if Fullido violates the Constitution and is thus. September 5. CRUZ . That Taina's claim is Constitution. he had and the rights of dominion. a land to a foreigner in violation of Section 7. voluntary executed the same. however. G. [Emphasis supplied] Much as We sympathize with the plight of a mother who adopted an infant son. We cannot grant her a review of the overall circumstances leads us to prayer.R. case. forests. We find that she acquired the subject parcels of land in violation of the constitutional prohibition The agreement was executed to enable Keppel to against aliens owning real property in the use the land for its shipbuilding and ship repair Philippines. G. but during her twilight years. jus fruendi. Undoubtedly. aliens may not acquire residential lands: "One of Upholding this nationalization policy. to mean that. the properties in business. Axiomatically. 182252. therefore. 2016) The purchase of the subject parcels of land was Consequently. CRUZ . We no longer find it necessary to primarily devoted to residential use. jus utendi. the Constitution. We have interpreted the foregoing qualified to own private lands. The prohibition against whereby the owner divests himself in aliens owning lands in the Philippines is subject stages not only of the right to enjoy the only to limited constitutional exceptions. PNOC submits that a similar her ungrateful ward eject her from her property scheme is apparent from the agreement's terms. amounted to - corporations at least sixty percent of the capital of which is owned by Filipinos the right to acquire a virtual transfer of ownership lands of the public domain. The proper party by the records. 2016) are deemed to have committed the constitutional violation. No. minerals. only to have In the present case. They should. xxx. As early as Krivenko v. 3. the Court the fundamental principles underlying the has voided not only outright conveyances of land provision of Article XIII of the Constitution xxx is to foreigners.R. February 29. 215014. Our Filipino owner-lessor from selling or otherwise Constitution clearly reserves for Filipino citizens or disposing the land. under the Constitution then in force. The industrial/commercial purpose question cannot be legally reconveyed to one who behind the agreement differentiates the present had no right to own them in the first place. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW agreement. and jus abutendi) but also of the even an implied trust can be permitted on equity right to dispose of it (jus disponendi) — considerations. and not land (Jus possidendi. which gave the foreigner-lessee preserved for those under the sovereign authority the option to buy the land and prohibited the of that nation and for their posterity. only Filipino citizens. owned by Filipinos citizens. CARLO L. be lease agreement. but also arrangements where the 'that lands. The Estate of Sy So. documentary evidence presented by the (Ang v. Keppel's Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 94 Court by Atty. and other natural rights of ownership were gradually transferred to resources constitute the exclusive heritage of the foreigners. are constitutionally Register of Deeds. (Fullido v. This case from Lui She where the leased property was being the case. Being in pari delicto the courts will not Sy So's Chinese citizenship is undisputedly shown afford protection to either party. Gino Grilli. both the vendor and the vendee No. G. may initiate an struck down as null and void for being repugnant action for reversion or escheat of the land to the to the fundamental law.'" xxx. however. rights the sum total of which make up ownership. and even supported by who could assail the sale is the Solicitor General. These void documents State. or made sometime in 1944. during the effectivity of corporations or associations whose capital is 60% the 1935 Constitution. pass upon the question of respondent Sy So's the establishment and operation of a shipyard substitution in these proceedings. In sales of real estate to aliens incapable of cannot be the source of rights and must be treated holding title thereto by virtue of the provisions of as mere scraps of paper. business involve significant investments. August representative of respondent Sy So herself. Applying the above rules to the present reject PNOC's claim. we considered a 99-year Filipino nation. The lease contract and the MOA do not deserve an iota of validity and must be rightfully The Solicitor General. In Lui Shui. the Court cannot completely that the agreement's terms amounted to a virtual disregard the effect of the Gamboa ruling. Article XII of the 1987 guarantees effective Filipino control of Constitution refers only to shares of stock entitled public utilities. unlike in Lui She. privileges and restrictions. Thus. 202050. Keppel Philippines Holdings.. we find it reasonable that the beneficially owned by Filipinos . CARLO L. the definition of the term "capital" in the body of regardless of differences in voting the decision. Filipino equity proportion is a continuing (Philippine National Oil Company v. P177 million. the Gamboa ruling had not yet of Lusteveco. the Court declared that the investigation and cases.e. been promulgated. whether with or without voting rights. i. and.. National Oil Company v." Clarifying the ruling. No.. thus enabling the public utilities to meet the 60-40 Equity Structure Requirement nationality requirement before the Securities and Exchange Commission commences administrative In Gamboa v. since the same proportion of place in the hands of Filipino citizens the control Filipino ownership is required and the same and management of public utilities. Even Holdings. make the land suitable as a shipyard. and thus in the Constitution. the noted that the foregoing interpretation is consistent same should be applied to the ownership of public with the intent of the framers of the Constitution to and private lands. July 25. G. provided it secured could not prevent it from validly exercising its Keppel's prior written consent. able to convey the land in favour of PNOC during the pendency of the lease should negate a finding Nonetheless. 202050. thus: Inc. as of November 2000. It could dispose of the lands nature and composition of its shareholdings in 2000 or assign its rights thereto. That Lusteveco was option to buy the land.R. Teves. as mandated by the to vote in the election of directors. Keppel's failure to prove the the course of the lease. July 25. the outstanding capital stock must rest in the hands Keppel must be allowed to prove whether it meets of Filipino nationals. and imposes sanctions for "legal and beneficial ownership of 60 percent of noncompliance on erring corporations. the 60% transfer of ownership of the land to Keppel. The Court cannot deny Keppel its option to buy the land by retroactively applying We observe that." xxx. the Court ownership and operation of public utilities. the the required Filipino equity ownership and Court decreed that the 60% Filipino ownership proportion in accordance with the Gamboa ruling requirement applies separately to each class of before it can acquire full title to the land. 'capital' in Section 11. and there is nothing in the records showing the nature subsequently introduced improvements worth and composition of Keppel's shareholdings. Taking these investments into whether its shareholdings are divided into different account and the nature of the business that Keppel classes. 2016) in Gamboa. (Philippine shares. the Court prospectively applied its ruling. Inc. million costs solely for preliminary activities to Keppel's capital is 60% Filipino-owned. and 60% of each share class is legally and conducts on the land.R. Lusteveco was the Gamboa ruling without violating Keppel's not completely denied its ownership rights during vested right. to wit: "xxx we xxx rule that the term rights. Further. as nationalist policy pervades. CRUZ .understandably agreement's terms provided for an extended because when Keppel exercised its option to buy duration of the lease and a restriction on the rights the land in 2000. and not to the total outstanding capital stock (common and non- Although the ruling was made in the context of voting preferred shares). revealed in the deliberations of the Constitutional Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 95 Court by Atty. G. present case only to common shares. However. Keppel Philippines requirement to hold land in the Philippines. In this case. 2016) Franchises Applying uniformly the 60-40 ownership requirement in favour of The decretal portion of the Gamboa Decision follows Filipino citizens to each class of shares. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW uncontested testimony showed that it incurred P60 The uncontested fact is that. No. It is illogical to speculate that they will create shares which have features that The Constitution expressly declares as will give greater economic interests or benefits than State policy the development of an they are holding and not benefit from such economy "effectively controlled" by Filipinos. mere legal title is not enough easily be side-stepped by a dummy relationship. or that they will allow foreigners to profit policy. No. even applying the 60-40 Filipino Full beneficial ownership of stocks. G.. 207246. reiterated that both the Voting of directors." as defined in the FIA and all Filipinos own at least 60% of the outstanding its predecessor statutes. coupled with full beneficial Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 96 Court by Atty. or corporations or associations that does not discount the possibility of a dummy at least 60 percent of whose capital with situation from arising. 2016) interpretation that the term "capital" in Section 11. after reviewing SEC and DOJ Opinions as beneficial ownership. 108. as well as with full Court. it would be apropos to state that since "Philippine national. the Anti-Dummy Law. even if the shares of a Investments Act of 1991 as Filipino particular public utility were owned 100% Filipino. vote. reserves the ownership and operation of unless they are dummies. petitioners. "capital" refers to the voting stock or Control Test and the Beneficial Ownership Test controlling interest of a corporation. As owners of the corporation. and the corporation that they own.as the need for capital for corporate is evident that the term "capital" refers to pursuits (such as expansion). CARLO L. Herbosa. A domestic they dictate corporate actions and decisions. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Commission. which is domestic corporation "at least sixty percent (60%) what the Constitution precisely requires. citizens. Article XII of the 1987 For the most part of the Gamboa Resolution. may be good for the controlling interest of a corporation. i. and corporation is a "Philippine national" only if at least they have all the rights of ownership including. (Roy v. must be applied to determine whether a corporation is a "Philippine national" and that a In this regard. the Constitution refers to shares with voting rights." The Court also reiterated that. ownership and control if such move will not be beneficial to them. Hence. or a shares of stock entitled to vote directors. This is precisely well as the provisions of the FIA and its because the right to vote in the election predecessor statutes. foreign ownership rule to each class of shares will coupled with appropriate voting rights not assure the lofty purpose enunciated by is essential. Notably. then the of the capital stock outstanding and entitled to Filipino stockholders control the corporation. The "Final Word" of the Gamboa Resolution put to rest the Court's interpretation of the term "capital". will allow foreigners to have greater economic Final Word benefits than them. it investors . But. but 60% of its voting stock is owned by Filipino not limited to. Consistent with such State offering. reiterates and confirms the November 22. There is thus no logical reason why Filipino shareholders XII. the Constitution explicitly more than them from their own corporation . No. these "true framers of the Constitution intended public utilities owners" will not allow any dilution of their to be majority Filipino-owned and controlled." In effect.R. offering certain preferred shares that citizens. the FIA clarifies. other words. is NOT in issue in who are defined in the Foreign these petitions. Commonwealth Act public utilities to Philippine nationals. In to meet the required Filipino equity. from the may have greater economic interest to foreign deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. Surely." is owned by Filipino citizens. the economic and this is quoted verbatim. The ownership in favor of Filipinos rule is applied FIA's implementing rules explain that separately to each class of shares of a public utility "[f]or stocks to be deemed owned and held by Philippine citizens or Philippine corporation. even if the 60-40 voting rights belongs to Filipinos.e. as the petitioners insist. CRUZ . to wit: benefits will necessarily accrue to them. the rule can nationals. is "a Filipino citizen. 2016) the same vein. under stock's" voting power (he can vote the stock or the law. all those "specific stocks" that are expounded in the FIA-IRR in construing the term determined to be Filipino (per definition of "capital" in Section 11. petitioner was DEEMED the said corporation. As of that date.R. whether or not entitled entire paragraph defining the term "Philippine to vote in the election of directors. the definition in the SRC-IRR can now be applied to resolve only The law is clear and leaves no room for doubt. November 22. if the Filipino has the "specific enjoyment of the property. November 22. (Roy v. Article XII of the 1987 "beneficial owner" or "beneficial ownership") will Constitution. finally settled the 60% Filipino ownership of the corporation. G..e. the "beneficial owner or beneficial sufficient that a share is registered in the name of a ownership" definition in the SRC-IRR is Filipino citizen or national. dispose it for him). which means that it is not To reiterate. he should also have understood only in determining the respective full beneficial ownership of the share.R. Mere legal title is not enough to meet the required Filipino equity. can dispose of the stock or direct another to dispose it for him). to his the investment power over the "specific stock" (he successors. Thus. CARLO L. in both the Gamboa "specific stock" is considered (or counted) as part of Decision and Gamboa Resolution. determination of the required Filipino equity. be added together and their sum must be November 22. and enjoy the landholding for himself. As such. then such Filipino is the "beneficial owner" of that "specific stock" and that Everything told. he gained the rights to possess. Herbosa. G. he could not. No. "specific stock" will not be deemed as "beneficially Those rights over that particular property were owned" by a Filipino. 1972. then that cultivate. 207246. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW ownership of stocks. the Court. then that share is also to be excluded or not counted. 2016) Article XIII Given that beneficial ownership of the outstanding SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS capital stock of the public utility corporation has to be determined for purposes of compliance with the Agrarian Reform 60% Filipino ownership requirement. translates to of the "specific stock" or direct another to vote or effective control of a corporation. make any valid form of transfer except to direct another to vote for him). In Herbosa.R. (Roy v. No. In with the PIA's definition of "Philippine national" as the end. but the stock's voting power or soil. No. or the Filipino has the government or by hereditary succession. 207246. (Roy v. the question of who is the beneficial owner or who Upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. if a "specific stock" is OWNER of the land in question. national". To insure his continued possession and Stated inversely. 2016) equivalent to at least 60% of the total outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of The term "full beneficial ownership" found in the directors and at least 60% of the total number of FIA-IRR is to be understood in the context of the outstanding shares of stock. Herbosa. G. 207246. he owned by a Filipino in the books of the was declared emancipated from the bondage of the corporation. has beneficial ownership of each "specific stock" of 27 on October 21. granted by the government to him and to no other. CRUZ . if the dividends and other fruits and accessions of the share do not accrue to a Filipino citizen or national. or he has both (he can vote and dispose Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 97 Court by Atty. that share is not to be counted in the ownership required by the Constitution. disposing power belongs to a foreigner. If the voting nationalities of the outstanding capital stock of a right of a share held in the name of a Filipino public utility corporation in order to determine its citizen or national is assigned or transferred to an compliance with the percentage of Filipino alien. i. findings of DENR Inspecting Officer Africano that Section 11 which provides that the "State values the the subject land is not irrigated. 110-54. violative of PD 27 and therefore. many cannot just be overturned by a simple statement farmer-beneficiaries like petitioner herein were from then OIC-Secretary Pangandaman. No. 187 SCRA 96) is clear that the prohibition applies even if the farmer-beneficiary Petitioners' reliance on Sec. approved by the HLURB inequalities xxx" and Article XV. Bearing this in mind. G. there are reports that many and the law obtaining herein. 2016) In Luz Farms v. Hence. CRUZ . San Juan. All exhort the State to agricultural at all since it is not arable and suitable render social justice. rights. CARLO L. (Heirs of Pacifico Gonzales v. and political No. at the LNMB.R. 3(2) of Art. Of special consideration are for agriculture cannot be disregarded. this re-classification assistance. economic. XIV xxx of has not yet acquired absolute title to the land.)xxx. EDUCATION. Hon. 3(2) of Art. 159 [1990]). of Article XV Agrarian Reform (270 Phil. Section 3 which on 25 June 1980 under Board Resolution No.R. No. 86044. and/or lands. (Ocampo v. 70% thereof is not dignity of every human person and guarantees full cultivated. No. Ventura. G. and Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 98 Court by Atty. including proper care and nutrition. Heirs of Francisca C. there is no even while he is still paying the amortizations on it. 182629. Sec." xxx." Agrarian Reform issued the following thereby resulting in the inconclusive or baseless Memorandum Circular: declaration that "the subject property remains agricultural in nature and therefore within the "Despite the above prohibition. and the Constitution is also misplaced. direct or indirect prohibition to Marcos’ interment (Abella v. 151. We find no such intent or language permitting discrimination against foundlings. respect for human rights. xxx." (Citations omitted. Further. 38-2. SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW Yet. this THE FAMILY Court had ruled that agricultural lands are only those which are arable and suitable. 2016) November 8.R. the protection begins upon the promulgation of the XIV refers to the constitutional duty of educational law. xxx to the rights and interests of the farmer in the land Clearly. coverage of the CARP. null 210428." Article XIII. de Leon. Series of 1979. emphasis supplied. as we ruled in Estate of the Late institutions in teaching the values of patriotism and Encarnacion Vda. G. All of any tenancy relationship in their favor over the these transactions/surrenders are same. 225973. and the defendants have not given proof same to their former landowners. Section 1 remain unrefuted. 2016) and void. reduce social. sans any tempted to make use of their land to acquire much viable evidence. Undoubtedly. 1990. have not been devoted into any agricultural possession of their farms/homelots to other persons or have surrendered the activity. Petitioners convincingly which mandates Congress to "give highest priority argued as well that the subject landholding is not to the enactment of measures that protect and agricultural for said property was earlier zoned as enhance the right of all the people to human a municipal park based on Municipal Ordinance dignity.R. On the contrary. Secretary of the Dep't. the above farmer-beneficiaries of PD 27 have landholdings of petitioners are not agricultural transferred the ownership. After all. and is not planted to rice and corn. Enriquez. Indeed. with respect to these provisions. the then Ministry of not provide for any retroactive application. G. the prohibition extends nationalism and respect for human rights. requires the State to defend the "right of children to Series of 1980. xxx. Article XIV Our ruling in Torres (Torres v. it is a fact that despite the prohibition. the several provisions in the present charter: Article II. De Panlilio. No. etc. February 24. July 2. the assertion of petitioners all three Constitutions guarantee the basic right to that the subject land may not be considered equal protection of the laws. that the subject Ordinance “did needed money. December 7. under the facts however. Romero. No.R. these Marcos' ill-gotten wealth. Thus. exploitation. although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage. with respect to provisions contradict an intent to discriminate these provisions. it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage. Verily. 2016) 2016) The policy of the Constitution is to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution. As such. status. Art. Thus. Enriquez. March 8. all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies. No.R. November 8.R. as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. CARLO L. G. or even if it were otherwise. G. XVIII of the Constitution is also misplaced.e. or isolated traits associated with certain personality disorders and there is hardly any doubt that the intention of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases. (b) have juridical antecedence. (Republic v. 2016) Article XVIII TRANSITORY PROVISIONS Petitioners' reliance on xxx Sec. 26 of Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme 99 Court by Atty. the Constitution decrees marriage as legally inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. and other conditions or freeze orders in relation to the recovery of prejudicial to their development. XVIII is a transitory provision on sequestration cruelty. the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. xxx Sec. and (c) be incurable. the psychological incapacity must: (a) be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage. i. 221697 & 221698-700. it has consistently been held that psychological incapacity. 209180. Clearly. to warrant the declaration of nullity of marriage. should refer to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. abuse. Nos. (Poe-Llamanzares v. CRUZ . 225973. G. there is no direct or indirect against foundlings on account of their unfortunate prohibition to Marcos’ interment at the LNMB. It must be a malady that is so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW special protection from all forms of neglect." Certainly. Commission on Elections.. February 24. and marriage as the foundation of the family. (Ocampo v. 26 of Art.