7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

1/49

Solicitor General vs. Metropolitan Manila Authority

Facts:On July 13, 1990 the Court held in the case of Metropolitan TrafficCommand,West Traffic istrict !s" #on" $rsenio M" %onon&, that the confiscation ofthe licenseplates of motor !ehicles for traffic !iolations 'as not amon& the sanctionsthatcould (e imposed (y the Metro Manila Commission under ) 1*0+ and

'aspermitted only under the conditions laid do'n (y O- .3 in the case

of stalled!ehicles o(structin& the pu(lic streets" /!en the confiscation of dri!erslicenses fortraffic !iolations 'as not directly prescri(ed or allo'ed (y the decree" $fternomotion for reconsideration of the decision 'as filed the ud&ment (ecame finaande2ecutor"Withstandin& the %onon& decision still !iolations of the saiddecisiontranspired, 'herein there 'ere se!eral persons 'ho sent complaint letters totheCourt re&ardin& the confiscation of dri!ers licenses and remo!al of licenseplatenum(ers"On May ., 1990 the MM$ issued Ordinance 4o" 11, 5eries of1991,authori6in& itself 7to detach license plate8to' andimpoundattended8unattended8a(andoned motor !ehicles ille&ally pared or o(structin&theflo' of traffic in Metro Manila"On July , 1991, the Court issued a resolution

re&ardin& the matter 'hichstated that the Ordinance 4o" 11, 5ection appears to (e inconflict 'ith thedecision of the Court, and that the Court has recei!ed se!eracomplaints a&ainstthe enforcement of such ordinance"

-ssue:W84 Ordinance 4o" 11 5eries of 1991 and Ordinance 4o" ;, 5eries of 199 ?alueAadded ta2 collection as a percenta&e of %ross omestic )roduct B%)> of the

pre!ious year e2ceeds t'o and fourAfifth percent B .8+I>@

or Bii> 4ational &o!ernment deficit as a percenta&e of %) of the pre!ious year

e2ceeds one and oneAhalf percent B1I>

)etitioners alle&e that the &rant of standA(y authority to the )resident to increase the

?$T rate is an a(dication (y Con&ress of its e2clusi!e po'er to ta2 (ecause such

dele&ation is not co!ered (y 5ection < B>, $rticle ?- Consti" They ar&ue that ?$T is a

ta2 le!ied on the sale or e2chan&e of &oods and ser!ices 'hich cant (e included

'ithin the pur!ie' of tariffs under the e2emption dele&ation since this refers to customs

duties, tolls or tri(ute paya(le upon merchandise to the &o!ernment and usually

imposed on imported8e2ported &oods" They also said that the )resident has po'ers tocause, influence or create the conditions pro!ided (y la' to (rin& a(out the conditions

precedent" Moreo!er, they alle&e that no &uidin& standards are made (y la' as to ho'

the 5ecretary of Finance 'ill mae the recommendation"

"ssue! Whether or not the D$ 933;Ks standA(y authority to the /2ecuti!e to increase

the ?$T rate, especially on account of the recommendatory po'er &ranted to the

5ecretary of Finance, constitutes undue dele&ation of le&islati!e po'er= 4O

http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/abakada-guro-party-list-et-al-vs-exec.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/abakada-guro-party-list-et-al-vs-exec.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digestshttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Lawhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/abakada-guro-party-list-et-al-vs-exec.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/abakada-guro-party-list-et-al-vs-exec.html

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

4/49

#eld! The po'ers 'hich Con&ress is prohi(ited from dele&atin& are those 'hich are

strictly, or inherently and e2clusi!ely, le&islati!e" )urely le&islati!e po'er 'hich can

ne!er (e dele&ated is the authority to mae a complete la'A complete as to the time

'hen it shall tae effect and as to 'hom it shall (e applica(le, and to determine the

e2pediency of its enactment" -t is the nature of the po'er and not the lia(ility of its use

or the manner of its e2ercise 'hich determines the !alidity of its dele&ation"

The e2ceptions are:

Ba> dele&ation of tariff po'ers to )resident under Constitution

B(> dele&ation of emer&ency po'ers to )resident under Constitution

Bc> dele&ation to the people at lar&e

Bd> dele&ation to local &o!ernments

Be> dele&ation to administrati!e (odies

For the dele&ation to (e !alid, it must (e complete and it must fi2 a standard" $

sufficient standard is one 'hich defines le&islati!e policy, mars its limits, maps out its

(oundaries and specifies the pu(lic a&ency to apply it"

-n this case, it is not a dele&ation of le&islati!e po'er ET a dele&ation of

ascertainment of facts upon 'hich enforcement and administration of the increased

rate under the la' is contin&ent" The le&islature has made the operation of the 1I

rate effecti!e January 1, 00*, contin&ent upon a specified fact or condition" -t lea!es

the entire operation or nonAoperation of the 1I rate upon factual matters outside of

the control of the e2ecuti!e" 4o discretion 'ould (e e2ercised (y the )resident"#i&hli&htin& the a(sence of discretion is the fact that the 'ord 5#$ is used in the

common pro!iso" The use of the 'ord 5#$ connotes a mandatory order" -ts use in a

statute denotes an imperati!e o(li&ation and is inconsistent 'ith the idea of discretion"

Thus, it is the ministerial duty of the )resident to immediately impose the 1I rate

upon the e2istence of any of the conditions specified (y Con&ress" This is a duty

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

5/49

'hich cannot (e e!aded (y the )resident" -t is a clear directi!e to impose the 1I ?$T

rate 'hen the specified conditions are present"

Con&ress ust &ranted the 5ecretary of Finance the authority to ascertain the e2istence

of a factAAA 'hether (y ecem(er 31, 00+, the ?$T collection as a percenta&e of %)

of the pre!ious year e2ceeds .8+ I or the national &o!ernment deficit as a

percenta&e of %) of the pre!ious year e2ceeds one and 1I" -f either of these t'o

instances has occurred, the 5ecretary of Finance, (y le&islati!e mandate, must su(mit

such information to the )resident"

-n main& his recommendation to the )resident on the e2istence of either of the t'o

conditions, the 5ecretary of Finance is not actin& as the alter e&o of the )resident or

e!en her su(ordinate" #e is actin& as the a&ent of the le&islati!e department, to

determine and declare the e!ent upon 'hich its e2pressed 'ill is to tae effect" The

5ecretary of Finance (ecomes the means or tool (y 'hich le&islati!e policy is

determined and implemented, considerin& that he possesses all the facilities to &ather

data and information and has a much (roader perspecti!e to properly e!aluate them"

#is function is to &ather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and

!erify if any of the t'o conditions laid out (y Con&ress is present"

Con&ress does not a(dicate its functions or unduly dele&ate po'er 'hen it descri(es

'hat o( must (e done, 'ho must do it, and 'hat is the scope of his authority@ in our

comple2 economy that is freuently the only 'ay in 'hich the le&islati!e process can

&o for'ard"

There is no undue dele&ation of le&islati!e po'er (ut only of the discretion as to the

e2ecution of a la'" This is constitutionally permissi(le" Con&ress did not dele&ate the

po'er to ta2 (ut the mere implementation of the la'"

$ase! S%$"AL &'S("$E S%$"E() *S&S+ v. DAGE-%'S D-'GS %A-D and P#"L"PP"ED-'G E%-$EME(AGE$) *G-s. /01213, /02455 and /4/402+Date! ovember5, 6332Ponente! &. 7elasco &r.acts!efore the Court are 3 consolidated petitions assailin& the constitutionality of 5ection3*1 of D$ 91*+ or theComprehensi!e an&erous ru&s $ct of 00 insofar asit reuires mandatory dru& testin& of candidates for pu(lic office,students of secondaryand tertiary schools, officers and employees of pu(lic and pri!ate offices, and personschar&ed(efore the prosecutors office 'ith certain offenses" $ccordin& to $uilino)imentel Jr", a senator of the D) and a candidate for reAelection in May 00.elections, saidmandatory dru& testin& imposes an additional ualification for 5enators

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

6/49

(eyond that 'hich are pro!ided (y theConstitution" 4o pro!ision in the Constitutionauthori6es the Con&ress or the COM//C to e2pand the ualificationreuirements ofcandidates for senator"Mean'hile, 5J5 contends that 5ection 3*Bc>Bd>Bf> and B&> areconstitutionally infirm as it constitutes unduedele&ation of le&islati!e po'er 'hen they&i!e un(ridled discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of dru&testin&" -t also !iolates the eual protection clause as it can (e used to harass astudent or employee deemedundesira(le" The constitutional ri&ht a&ainst unreasona(le

searches is also (reached"-n addition to the a(o!ementioned contentions, $tty" ManueJ" aserna, Jr", as a citi6en and ta2payers maintainsthat said pro!ision should (estruc do'n as unconstitutional for infrin&in& on the constitutional ri&ht to pri!acy, theri&hta&ainst unreasona(le search and sei6ure, and the ri&ht a&ainst selfAincrimination,and for (ein& contrary to the dueprocess and eual protection &uarantees""ssue!WO4 5ection 3* Bc>, Bd>, Bf> and B&> are unconstitutional#eld!5ection 3* Bc> and Bd> are constitutional 'hile Bf> and B&> are not"

-atio!5ection 3* Bc> and Bd>Las to students and employees of pri!ate and pu(lic officesEsin& E5 authorities, the Court ruled in fa!or of the constitutionality of 5ection 3*Bc>applyin& the follo'in& reasona(ledeductions: B1> schools and their administrators standin loco parentis

'ith respect to their students@ B> minor studentsha!e conte2tually fe'er ri&hts than anadult, and are su(ect to the custody and super!ision of their parents, &uardians,and

schools@ B3> schools, actin& in loco parentis, ha!e a duty to safe&uard the health and'ell A (ein& of their students andmay adopt such measures as may reasona(ly (enecessary to dischar&e such duty@ and B.> schools ha!e the ri&ht toimpose conditionson applicants for admission that are fair, ust, and nonAdiscriminatory"Therefore, thepro!isions of D$ 91*+ reuirin& mandatory, random, and suspicionless dru& testin&of students areconstitutional" -ndeed, it is 'ithin the prero&ati!e of educationainstitutions to reuire, as a condition for admission,compliance 'ith reasona(le schoolrules and re&ulations and policies" To (e sure, the ri&ht to enroll is not a(solute@ itissu(ect to fair, reasona(le, and euita(le reuirements" Just as in the case of

secondary and tertiary le!el students, themandatory (ut random dru& test prescri(ed(y 5ec" 3* of D$ 91*+ for officers and employees of pu(lic and pri!ate officesis

ustifia(le, al(eit not e2actly for the same reason"For another, the random dru& testin&shall (e undertaen under conditions calculated to protect as much aspossi(le theemployeeKs pri!acy and di&nity" $s to the mechanics of the test, the la' specifies thatthe procedure shall employ t'o testin& methods, i"e", the screenin& test and theconfirmatory test, dou(tless to ensure as much as possi(lethe trust'orthiness of theresults" ut the more important consideration lies in the fact that the test shall (econducted (ytrained professionals in access A controlled la(oratories monitored (y the

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

7/49

epartment of #ealth BO#> to safe&uarda&ainst results tamperin& and to ensure anaccurate chain of custody" $ll told, therefore, the intrusion into the employeesKpri!acyunder D$ 91*+, is accompanied (y proper safe&uards, particularly a&ainstem(arrassin& leaa&es of test results,and is relati!ely minimal"(he essence o8 privacy is the ri9ht to be le8t alone.

-n conte2t, the ri&ht to pri!acy means the ri&ht to (e freefrom un'arranted e2ploitation

of oneKs person or from intrusion into oneKs pri!ate acti!ities in such a 'ay as tocausehumiliation to a personKs ordinary sensi(ilities"

$nd 'hile there has (een &eneral a&reement as to the (asic function of the &uaranteea&ainst un'arranted search, translation of the a(stract prohi(ition a&ainstNunreasona(le searches and sei6uresK into 'ora(le (road &uidelines for the decisionof particular cases is a difficult tas, to (orro' from

C" Camara!" Municipal Court

" $uthorities are a&reed thou&h that the ri&ht to pri!acy yields to certain paramountri&hts of the pu(licand defers to the stateKs e2ercise of police po'er"The first factor toconsider in the matter of reasona(leness is the nature of the pri!acy interest upon

'hich thedru& testin&, 'hich effects a search 'ithin the meanin& of 5ec" , $rt" --- ofthe Constitution, intrudes" Just as definin& asthe first factor is the character of theintrusion authori6ed (y the challen&ed la'" Deduced to a uestion form, is the scopeofthe search or intrusion clearly set forth, or, as formulated in Ople !" Torres, is theena(lin& la' authori6in& a searchnarro'ly dra'n or narro'ly focused=To reiterateD$ 91*+ 'as enacted as a measure to stamp out ille&al dru& in the country and thusprotect the 'ellA (ein& of the citi6ens, especially the youth, from the deleterious effects

of dan&erous dru&s" Tain& into account thefore&oin& factors, i"e", the reducede2pectation of pri!acy on the part of the employees, the compellin& state concernlielyto (e met (y the search, and the 'ell A defined limits set forth in the la' toproperly &uide authorities in the conduct of therandom testin&, 'e hold that thechallen&ed dru& test reuirement is, under the limited conte2t of the casereasona(leand, er&o, constitutional"ie their counterparts in the pri!ate sector, &o!ernment officials andemployees also la(or under reasona(lesuper!ision and restrictions imposed (y theCi!il 5er!ice la' and other la's on pu(lic officers, all enacted to promote ahi&h

standard of ethics in the pu(lic ser!ice" $nd if D$ 91*+ passes the norm ofreasona(leness for pri!ate employees,the more reason that it should pass the test forci!il ser!ants, 'ho, (y constitutional command, are reuired to (eaccounta(le at altimes to the people and to ser!e them 'ith utmost responsi(ility and efficiency"On thechar&e of (ein& an undue dele9ation, the pro!ision in uestion is not so e2tensi!elydra'n as to &i!eun(ridled options to schools and employers to determine the mannerof dru& testin&" -t e2pressly pro!ides ho' dru&testin& for students of secondary andtertiary schools and officers8employees of pu(lic8pri!ate offices should (econducted" -tenumerates the persons 'ho shall under&o dru& testin&" -n the case of students, the

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

8/49

testin& shall (e inaccordance 'ith the school rules as contained in the studenthand(oo and 'ith notice to parents" On the part of officers8employees, the testin&shall tae into account the companyKs 'or rules" -n either case, the randomprocedureshall (e o(ser!ed, meanin& that the persons to (e su(ected to dru& testshall (e piced (y chance or in an unplanned'ay" $nd in all cases, safe&uards a&ainstmisusin& and compromisin& the confidentiality of the test results areesta(lished"5ection 3* Bf>

Las to persons char&ed (efore the prosecutors office 'ith criminal offenses "The Courtfound the situation entirely different in the case of persons char&ed (efore the pu(licprosecutorKs office'ith criminal offenses punisha(le 'ith si2 B*> years and one B1> dayimprisonment" The operati!e concepts in themandatory dru& testin& are randomnessand suspicionless" -n the case of persons char&ed 'ith a crime (eforetheprosecutorKs office, a mandatory dru& testin& can ne!er (e random or suspicionless"(he ideas o8 randomness andbein9 suspicionless are antithetical to their bein9made de8endants in a criminal complaint. (hey are notrandomly picked: neither

are they beyond suspicion.When persons suspected of committin& a crime are char&ed,they are sin&led outand are impleaded a&ainst their 'ill" The persons thus char&ed, (y the (are fact of(ein& haled (eforethe prosecutorKs office and peacea(ly su(mittin& themsel!es to dru&testin&, if that (e the case, do not necessarilyconsent to the procedure, let alone 'ai!etheir ri&ht to pri!acy"

To impose mandatory dru& testin& on the accused is a(latant attempt to harness amedical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated o(ecti!es of D$91*+"

Dru9 testin9 in this case ;ould violate a persons< ri9ht to privacy 9uaranteedunder Sec. 6, Art. """ o8 the$onstitution. =orse still, the accused personsare veritably 8orced to incriminate themselves.

MA-"A% vs $%MELE$, 6>6 S$-A 6//

Facts:T'o petitions are filed assailin& certain pro!isions of D$ ; reuirin& a &enerareapportionment la' to (e passed (y Con&ress 'ithin 3 years follo'in& the return ofe!ery census" $lso, the addition of another le&islati!e district in Maati is not in accord

'ith 5ec" +B3>, $rt" ?- of the Constitution for as of the 1990 census, the population ofMaati stands at only .+0,000"

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

9/49

-ssue: Whether or not the addition of another le&islati!e district in Maati isunconstitutional

#eld:Deapportionment of le&islati!e districts may (e made throu&h a special la', such as inthe charter of a ne' city" The Constitution clearly pro!ides that Con&ress shall (ecomposed of not more than +0 mem(ers, unless other'ise fi2ed (y la'" $s thus

'orded, the Constitution did not preclude Con&ress from increasin& its mem(ership (ypassin& a la', other than a &eneral reapportionment la'" This is e2actly 'hat 'asdone (y Con&ress in enactin& D$ ;, $rt" ?- of the Constitution for as of the 1990 census, thepopulation of Maati stands at only .+0,000" 5aid section pro!ides that a city 'ith apopulation of at least +0,000 shall ha!e at least one representati!e" /!en &rantin&that the population of Maati as of the 1990 census stood at .+0,000, its le&islati!edistrict may still (e increased since it has met the minimum population reuirement of+0,000"

Monte?o vs. $%MELE$ *6>6 S$-A >/0+

acts!

)etitioner Cerilo Doy Monteo, representati!e of the first district of eyte, pleads for theannulment of 5ection 1 of Desolution no" ;3*, redistrictin& certain municipalities ineyte, on the &round that it !iolates the principle of euality of representation"

The pro!ince of eyte 'ith the cities of Taclo(an and Ormoc is composed of + districts"The 3rd district is composed of: $lmeria, iliran, Ca(uc&ayan, Cai(iran, Calu(ian,Cula(a, a'ayan, eyte, Maripipi, 4a!al, 5an -sidro, Ta(an&o and ?illa(a"

iliran, located in the 3rd district of eyte, 'as made its su(pro!ince (y !irtue ofDepu(lic $ct 4o" 1.1 5ection 1 enacted on 19+9" 5aid section spelled out themunicipalities comprisin& the su(pro!ince: $lmeria, iliran, Ca(uc&ayan, Cai(iran,Cula(a, a'ayan, Maripipi and 4a!al and all the territories comprised therein"

On 199, the ocal %o!ernment Code too effect and the su(pro!ince of iliran(ecame a re&ular pro!ince" BThe con!ersion of iliran into a re&ular pro!ince 'asappro!ed (y a maority of the !otes cast in a ple(iscite"> $s a conseuence of the

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

10/49

con!ersion, ei&ht municipalities of the 3rd district composed the ne' pro!ince ofiliran" $ further conseuence 'as to reduce the 3rd district to fi!e municipalitiesBunderlined a(o!e> 'ith a total population of 1.*,0*; as per the 1990 census"

To remedy the resultin& ineuality in the distri(ution of inha(itants, !oters andmunicipalities in the pro!ince of eyte, respondent COM//C held consultationmeetin&s 'ith the incum(ent representati!es of the pro!ince and other interested

parties and on ecem(er 9, 199., it promul&ated the assailed resolution 'here,amon& others, it transferred the municipality of Capoocan of the nd district and themunicipality of )alompon of the .th district to the 3rd district of eyte"

"ssue!

Whether the unprecedented e2ercise (y the COM//C of the le&islati!e po'er ofredistrictin& and reapportionment is !alid or not"

#eld!

5ection 1 of Desolution no" ;3* is annulled and set aside"

The deli(erations of the mem(ers of the Constitutional Commission sho's thatCOM//C 'as denied the maor po'er of le&islati!e apportionment as it itselfe2ercised the po'er" De&ardin& the first elections after the enactment of the 19

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

11/49

one le&islati!e district to another district" The po'er &ranted (y section 3 to therespondent is to adust the num(er of mem(ers Bnot municipalities">

otes!

)etitioner also prayed for the transfer of the municipality of Tolosa from the 1st districtto the nd district" -t is lie'ise denied"

Jan" +, 010

ALDAA 7S. $%MELE$

Facts:This is an ori&inal action for )rohi(ition to declare unconstitutional Depu(lic $ct 4o9+91 BD$ 9+91>, creatin& a le&islati!e district for the city of Malolos, ulacan, for!iolatin& the minimum population reuirement for the creation of a le&islati!e district ina city"

On 1 May 009, D$ 9+91 lapsed into la', amendin& Malolos City Charter, (y creatin&a separate le&islati!e district for the city" The population of Malolos City 'as 3,0*9The population of Malolos City on 1 May 009 is a contested fact (ut there is nodispute that #ouse ill 4o" 3*93 relied on an undated certification issued (y aDe&ional irector of the 4ational 5tatistics Office B45O> that 7the proected populationof the Municipality of Malolos 'ill (e +.,030 (y the year 010 usin& the population&ro'th rate of 3";< (et'een 199+ to 000"

-ssue:D$ 9+91 is unconstitutional for failin& to meet the minimum population threshold of

+0,000 for a city to merit representation in Con&ress as pro!ided under 5ection +B3>,$rticle ?- of the 19

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

12/49

First, certifications on demo&raphic proections can (e issued only if such proectionsare declared official (y the 4ational 5tatistics Coordination oard B45C>" 5econd,certifications (ased on demo&raphic proections can (e issued only (y the 45O$dministrator or his desi&nated certifyin& officer" Third, intercensal populationproections must (e as of the middle of e!ery year"

Moreo!er, the Certification states that 7the total population of Malolos, ulacan as of

May 1, 000 is 1;+,91" The Certification also states that the population &ro'th rate ofMalolos is 3";102@ &une 64, 633/

acts!a&on& ayani and and $(ayan Citi6ens )arty filed (efore the COM//Ca )etitionunder Dule *+ of the Dules of Court, challen&in& Omni(us Desolution 4o3;

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

13/49

re&ional, and sectoral parties or or&ani6ations"Furthermore, under 5ections ; and of the Constitution,political parties may be re9istered under the partylist system" For its part5ection of D$ ;9.1 also pro!ides for a partyAlist systemof re&istered national, re&ional andsectoral parties or or&ani6ations or coalitionsthereof, 2 2 2" 5ection 3 e2pressly statesthat a CpartyC isCeither a political partyor a sectoral party or a coalition of parties"

("That political parties may participate in the partyAlist elections does not mean,ho'e!er,that any political party AA or any or&ani6ation or &roup for that matter AA maydo so"The reuisite character of these parties or or&ani6ations must (e consistent'ith thepurpose of the partyAlist system, as laid do'n in the Constitution and D$;9.1" 5ection+, $rticle ?- of the Constitution"(he provision on the partylistsystem is not sel8executory" -t is, in fact, interspersed 'ith phrases lie inaccordance 'ith la' or as may (epro!ided (y la'@ it 'as thus

up to Con&ress tosculpt in &ranite the lofty o(ecti!e of the Constitution"#ence, -A 1@>/ ;asenacted.

7eterans ederation Party v. $%MELE$Facts:COM//C proclaimed 1. partyAlist representati!es from 13parties

'hich o(tained at least I of the total num(er of !otes cast forthe partyA l is tsystem as mem(ers of the #ouse ofDepresentat i!es"Epon pet i t ion for r espondents, 'ho 'ere partyA l is t

or&ani6at ions, i tproc la imed 3< addi t ional partyA l is t representat i!esalthou&h theyo(tained less than I of the total num(er of !otes cast for thepartyA list system on the &round that under the Constitution, it ismandatorythat at least 0I of the mem(er s of the #ouse ofDepresentat i!escome from the partyAlist representati!es"

-ssue:-s t he t 'enty perc ent al lo catio n f or part yl is t r epre senta ti!e smentioned in 5ection + B>, $rticle ?- of the Constitution, mandatoryori s i t m e r e l y a c e i l i n & = - n o t h e r ' o r d s , s h o u l d t h e t ' e n t y p e r c en t allocation for partyAlist solons (e filled up completely and all the time=

#eld:-t is not mandatory" -t merely pro!ides a ceilin& for the partyAlistse a t s in th e #o useo f De p r es en ta t i ! e s " T h e C o ns t i t u t i o n ! es t ed Con&ress 'ith the (roadpo'er to define and prescri(e the mechanicsof the par tyA l is t sys temof representat i!es"

-n the e2erc iseof it sconstitutional prero&ati!e, Con&ress deemed it necessary to reuireparti

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

14/49

es participatin& in the system to o(tain at least I of the total!otes cast forthe party list system to (e entitled to a partyAlist seat"Con&ress 'anted toensure that only those parties ha!in&su f f i c i e n tn u m( e r o f co n s t i t u e n t s d e se r! in & o f re p re se n ta t i o n a re ac t u a l l y represented in Con&ress"

-ssue:$re the t'o percent threshold reuirement and the threeAseat limitpro!ided in 5ection 11 B(> of D$ ;9.1 constitutional=

#eld: Pes" -n imposin& a t'o percent threshold, Con&ress 'anted toensurethat only those parties, or&ani6ations and coalitions ha!in&asuff ic ient num(er of const i tuents deser!in& of repr esentat ion areactually represented in Con&ress" This intent can (e &leaned fromthed e l i ( e r a t i o n s o n t h e p r o p o s e d ( i l l " T h e t ' o p e r c e n t t h r e s h o l di s consistent not only 'ith the intent of the framers of the Constitutionand the

la', (ut 'ith the !ery essence of representation" Ender arepu(lican orrepresentati!e state, all &o!ernment authority emanatesfrom the people, (utis e2ercised (y representati!es chosen (y them"ut to ha!e meanin&furepresentation, the elected persons mustha!et h e m a n d a t e o f a s u f f i c i e n t n u m ( e r o f p e o p l e " O t h e r ' i se , i n a le&islature that features the partyAlist system, the result mi&ht (ethep r o l i f e r a t i o n o f s m a l l & r o u p s ' h i c h a r e i n c a p a ( l e o f c o n t r i ( u t in& s i&n i f icant le& is la t ion, and 'hich mi&ht e!en pose a threat to thesta(ility of Con&ress" Thus, e!en le&islati!e districts are apportionedaccordin& to

the num(er of their respecti!e inha(itants, and on the(asis of a uniform andpro&ressi!e ratio to ensure meanin&ful local representation"

-ssue:# o ' s h o u l d t h e a d d i t i o n a l s e a t s o f a u a l i f i e d p a r ty ( e determined=

#eld:5tep One"There is no dispute amon& the petit ioners, the pu(licand the pri!aterespondents, as 'ell as the mem(ers of this Court thatthe initial step is to ran all the

participatin& parties, or&ani6ations andcoalitions from the hi&hest to the lo'est (asedon the num(er of!otest h e y e a c h r e c e i ! e d " T h e n t h e r a t i o f o r e a c h p a r t y i s c o m p u t ed ( y di!idin& its !otes (y the total !otes cast for all the parties participatin&in thesystem" $ll parties 'ith at least t'o percent of the total !otesare &uaranteedone seat each" Only these parties shall (e consideredin the computation of$dditional seats" The party recei!in& the hi&hestnum(er of !otes shall thenceforth (ereferred to as the 7first party"5tep T'o"

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

15/49

The ne2t step is to determine the num(er of seats thef i rst par ty is ent i t led to , inorder to (e a(le to compute that fortheo t h e r p a r t i e s " 5 i n c e t h e d i s t r i ( u t i o n i s ( a s e d o n p r op o r t i o n a l representation, the num(er of seats to (e allotted to the otherpartiescannot possi(ly e2ceed that to 'hich the first party is entitled (y !irtueof itso(tainin& the most num(er of !otes"

5tep ThreeThe ne2t step is to sol!e for the num(er of additionals e a t s t h a t t h eother ua li f ied par ties a r e e n t i t l e d t o , ( a s e d o n proportionarepresentation"7eterans ederation Party v. $%MELE$, %ctober 4, 6333.

Facts: On May 11, 199

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

16/49

partyAlist elections on May 1., 00;"

$ num(er of or&ani6ed &roups filed the necessary manifestations and su(seuently'ere accredited (y the Comelec to participate in the 00; elections" antay Depu(lic$ct B$AD$ ;9.1> and the Er(an )oor for e&al Deforms BE)AD> filed 'ith theComelec an Er&ent )etition to isualify, seein& to disualify the nominees of certainpartyAlist or&ani6ations" oceted in the Comelec as 5)$ Case 4o 0;A0*, this ur&ent

petition has yet to (e resol!ed"Mean'hile petitioner Dosales, in %"D" 4o" 1;;31., addressed letters to the irectorof the Comelecs a' epartment reuestin& a list of that &roups nominees" /!identlyun(eno'nst then to Ms" Dosales, et al", 'as the issuance of Comelec en (ancDesolution 0;A0;. under date $pril 3, 00; !irtually declarin& the nominees namesconfidential and in net effect denyin& petitioner Dosales (asic disclosure reuest"Comelecs reason for eepin& the names of the party list nominees a'ay from thepu(lic is deduci(le from the e2cerpts of the ne's report appearin& in the $pril 13, 00;issue of the Manila ulletin, is that there is nothin& in D"$" ;9.1 that reuires the

Comelec to disclose the names of nominees, and that party list elections must not (epersonality oriented accordin& to Chairman $(alos"-n the first petition B%"D" 4o" 1;;;1>, $AD$ ;9.1 and E)AD assail the Comelecresolutions accreditin& pri!ate respondents iyahen& )inoy et al", to participate in theforthcomin& partyAlist elections 'ithout simultaneously determinin& 'hether or not theirrespecti!e nominees possess the reuisite ualifications defined in D"$" 4o" ;9.1, orthe )artyAist 5ystem $ct and (elon& to the mar&inali6ed and underrepresentedsector each sees to"

-n the second petition B%"D" 4o" 1;;31.>, petitioners oreta $nn )" Dosales,

ilos(ayan Foundation and antay atarun&an Foundation impu&n ComelecDesolution dated $pril 3, 00;"

While (oth petitions commonly see to compel the Comelec to disclose or pu(lish thenames of the nominees of the !arious partyAlist &roups named in the petitions, $AD$;9.1 and E)AD ha!e the additional prayers that the 33 pri!ate respondents namedtherein (e declareRdS as unualified to participate in the partyAlist elections and that theComelec (e enoined from allo'in& respondent &roups from participatin& in theelections"

"SS'E!

1" Can the Court cancel the accreditation accorded (y the Comelec to the respondentpartyAlist &roups named in their petition on the &round that these &roups and theirrespecti!e nominees do not appear to (e ualified"" Whether respondent Comelec, (y refusin& to re!eal the names of the nominees ofthe !arious partyAlist &roups, has !iolated the ri&ht to information and free access todocuments as &uaranteed (y the Constitution@ and

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

17/49

3" Whether respondent Comelec is mandated (y the Constitution to disclose to thepu(lic the names of said nominees"

#ELD! The 1st petition is partly /4-/ insofar as it sees to nullify the accreditationof the respondents named therein" #o'e!er, insofar as it sees to compel the Comelecto disclose or pu(lish the names of the nominees of partyAlist &roups, sectors oror&ani6ations accredited to participate in the May 1., 00; elections, the petitions

are %D$4T/" $ccordin&ly, the Comelec is here(y OD/D/ to immediatelydisclose and release the names of the nominees of the partyAlist &roups,

1" The Court is una(le to &rant the desired plea of petitioners $AD$ ;9.1 and E)ADfor cancellation of accreditation on the &rounds thus ad!anced in their petition" Thee2ercise 'ould reuire the Court to mae a factual determination, a matter 'hich isoutside the office of udicial re!ie' (y 'ay of special ci!il action for certiorari" -ncertiorari proceedin&s, the Court is not called upon to decide factual issues and thecase must (e decided on the undisputed facts on record" The sole function of a 'rit of

certiorari is to address issues of 'ant of urisdiction or &ra!e a(use of discretion anddoes not include a re!ie' of the tri(unals e!aluation of the e!idence" Bnote thatno'here in D"$" 4o" ;9.1 is there a reuirement that the ualification of a partyAlistnominee (e determined simultaneously 'ith the accreditation of an or&ani6ation" >

" 5ection ;, $rticle --- of the Constitution, !i6:5ec";" The ri&ht of the people to information on matters of pu(lic concern shall (ereco&ni6ed" $ccess to official records, and to documents, and papers pertainin& toofficial acts, transactions, or decisions, as 'ell to &o!ernment research data used as(asis for policy de!elopment, shall (e afforded the citi6en, su(ect to such limitations

as may (e pro!ided (y la'"

5ection

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

18/49

Depresentati!es" The Court fro'ns upon any interpretation of the la' or rules that'ould hinder in any 'ay the free and intelli&ent castin& of the !otes in an election3" COM//C has a constitutional duty to disclose and release the names of thenominees of the partyAlist &roups named in the herein petitions" The ri&ht to informationis a pu(lic ri&ht 'here the real parties in interest are the pu(lic, or the citi6ens to (eprecise, (ut lie all constitutional &uarantees, ho'e!er, the ri&ht to information and itscompanion ri&ht of access to official records are not a(solute" The peoples ri&ht to

no' is limited to matters of pu(lic concern and is further su(ect to such limitation asmay (e pro!ided (y la'" ut no national security or lie concerns is in!ol!ed in thedisclosure of the names of the nominees of the partyAlist &roups in uestion" ou(tless,the Comelec committed &ra!e a(use of discretion in refusin& the le&itimate demands ofthe petitioners for a list of the nominees of the partyAlist &roups su(ect of theirrespecti!e petitions" Mandamus, therefore, lies"

AA( vs. $%MELE$ , G- /1@61 April 6/, 633@

)ost under case di&ests, )olitical a' at Thursday, Fe(ruary 3, 01 )osted (y5chi6ophrenic MindFacts: aran&ay $ssociation for 4ational $d!ancement and Transparency B$4$T>filed (efore the Commission on /lections BCOM//C> a petition to proclaim the fulnum(er of party list representati!es pro!ided (y the Constitution" #o'e!er, therecommendation of the head of the le&al &roup of COM//Cs national (oard ofcan!assers to declare the petition moot and academic 'as appro!ed (y theCOM//C en (anc, and declared further in a resolution that the 'innin& party list 'ill(e resol!ed usin& the ?eterans rulin&" $4$T then filed a petition (efore the 5Cassailin& said resolution of the COM//C"

-ssues:B1> -s the 0I allocation for partyAlist representati!es pro!ided in 5ec + B>, $rt ?- ofthe Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceilin&=

B> -s the I threshold and 7ualifier !otes prescri(ed (y the same 5ec 11 B(> of D$;9.1 constitutional=

B3> oes the Constitution prohi(it maor political parties from participatin& in the

partyAlist elections= -f not, can maor political parties participate in the partyAlistelections=

#eld:B1> 4either the Constitution nor D$ ;9.1 mandates the fillin& up of the entire 0Iallocation of partyAlist representati!es found in the Constitution" The Constitution, inpara&raph 1, 5ec + of $rt ?-, left the determination of the num(er of the mem(ers ofthe #ouse of Depresentati!es to Con&ress" The 0I allocation of partyAlist

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

19/49

representati!es is merely a ceilin&@ partyAlist representati!es cannot (e more then 0Iof the mem(ers of the #ouse of Depresentati!es"

B> 4o" We rule that, in computin& the allocation of additional seats, the continuedoperation of the t'o percent threshold for the distri(ution of the additional seats asfound in the second clause of 5ec 11B(> of D$ ;9.1 is unconstitutional" This Courtfinds that the t'o percent threshold maes it mathematically impossi(le to achie!e the

ma2imum num(er of a!aila(le partyAlist seats 'hen the a!aila(le partyAlist seate2ceeds +0" The continued operation of the t'o percent threshold in the distri(ution ofthe additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissi!e ceilin& that 0I of themem(ers of the #ouse of Depresentati!es shall consist of partyAlist representati!es"Wetherefore strie do'n the t'o percent threshold only in relation to the distri(ution of theadditional seats as found in the second clause of 5ec 11 B(> of D$ ;9.1" The t'opercent threshold presents an un'arranted o(stacle to the full implementation of 5ec +B>, $rt ?- of the Constitution and pre!ents the attainment of 7theA(roadest possi(lerepresentation of party, sectoral or &roup interests in the #ouse of Depresentati!es"

B3> 4o" 4either the Constitution nor D$ ;9.1 prohi(its maor political parties fromparticipatin& in the partyAlist system" On the contrary, the framers of the Constitutionclearly intended the maor political parties to participate in partyAlist elections throu&htheir sectoral 'in&s" #o'e!er, (y !ote of

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

20/49

-n its Comment, the COM//C reiterated that petitioner does not ha!e a concrete and&enuine national political a&enda to (enefit the nation and that the petition 'as !alidlydismissed on moral &rounds" -t also ar&ued for the first time that the %T sector is notamon& the sectors enumerated (y the Constitution and D$ ;9.1, and that petitionermade untruthful statements in its petition 'hen it alle&ed its national e2istence contraryto actual !erification reports (y COM//Cs field personnel"

-ssue:WO4 Despondent !iolated the 4onAesta(lishment clause of the Constitution@WO4 Despondent erred in denyin& )etitioners application on moral and le&al &rounds"

#eld:

Despondent mistaenly opines that our rulin& in $n& a&on& ayani stands for theproposition that only those sectors specifically enumerated in the la' or related to said

sectors Bla(or, peasant, fisherfol, ur(an poor, indi&enous cultural communitieselderly, handicapped, 'omen, youth, !eterans, o!erseas 'orers, and professionals>may (e re&istered under the partyAlist system" $s 'e e2plicitly ruled in $n& a&on&ayaniAOFW a(or )arty !" Commission on /lections, 7the enumeration ofmar&inali6ed and underArepresented sectors is not e2clusi!e" The crucial element isnot 'hether a sector is specifically enumerated, (ut 'hether a particular or&ani6ationcomplies 'ith the reuirements of the Constitution and D$ ;9.1"

Our Constitution pro!ides in $rticle ---, 5ection + that 7RnSo la' shall (e maderespectin& an esta(lishment of reli&ion, or prohi(itin& the free e2ercise thereof" $t

(ottom, 'hat our nonAesta(lishment clause calls for is 7&o!ernment neutrality inreli&ious matters" Clearly, 7&o!ernmental reliance on reli&ious ustification isinconsistent 'ith this policy of neutrality" We thus find that it 'as &ra!e !iolation of thenonAesta(lishment clause for the COM//C to utili6e the i(le and the oran to ustifythe e2clusion of $n& adlad" e it noted that &o!ernment action must ha!e a secularpurpose"

Despondent has failed to e2plain 'hat societal ills are sou&ht to (e pre!ented, or 'hyspecial protection is reuired for the youth" 4either has the COM//C condescended

to ustify its position that petitioners admission into the partyAlist system 'ould (e soharmful as to irrepara(ly dama&e the moral fa(ric of society"

We also find the COM//Cs reference to purported !iolations of our penal and ci!ila's flimsy, at (est@ disin&enuous, at 'orst" $rticle *9. of the Ci!il Code defines anuisance as 7any act, omission, esta(lishment, condition of property, or anythin& else

'hich shocs, defies, or disre&ards decency or morality, the remedies for 'hich are aprosecution under the De!ised )enal Code or any local ordinance, a ci!il action, ora(atement 'ithout udicial proceedin&s" $ !iolation of $rticle 01 of the De!ised )enal

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

21/49

Code, on the other hand, reuires proof (eyond reasona(le dou(t to support a criminalcon!iction" -t hardly needs to (e emphasi6ed that mere alle&ation of !iolation of la's isnot proof, and a mere (lanet in!ocation of pu(lic morals cannot replace the institutionof ci!il or criminal proceedin&s and a udicial determination of lia(ility or culpa(ility"

$s such, 'e hold that moral disappro!al, 'ithout more, is not a sufficient &o!ernmentainterest to ustify e2clusion of homose2uals from participation in the partyAlist system

The denial of $n& adlads re&istration on purely moral &rounds amounts more to astatement of dislie and disappro!al of homose2uals, rather than a tool to further anysu(stantial pu(lic interest"

Sema vs $%MELE$

on &une 65, 63//

Municipal Corporation L Creation of %Es (y $utonomous De&ions B$DMM> L

)opulation Deuirement

The )ro!ince of Ma&uindanao is part of $DMM" Cota(ato City is part of the pro!ince ofMa&uindanao (ut it is not part or $DMM (ecause Cota(ato City !oted a&ainst its

inclusion in a ple(iscite held in 19" ut it later amended this

statin& that status uo should (e retained ho'e!er ust for the purposes of the

elections, the first district should (e called 5hariff a(unsuan 'ith Cota(ato City L this

is also 'hile a'aitin& a decisi!e declaration from Con&ress as to Cota(atos status as

a le&islati!e district Bor part of any>"

5ema 'as a con&ressional candidate for the le&islati!e district of 5" a(unsuan 'ith

Cota(ato B1stdistrict>" ater, 5ema 'as contendin& that Cota(ato City should (e a

separate le&islati!e district and that !otes therefrom should (e e2cluded in the !otin&

Bpro(a(ly (ecause her ri!al ilan&alen 'as from there and 'as 'innin& L in fact he

'on>" 5he contended that under the Constitution, upon creation of a pro!ince B5"

a(unsuan>, that pro!ince automatically &ains le&islati!e representation and since 5"

a(unsuan e2cludes Cota(ato City L so in effect Cota(ato is (ein& depri!ed of a

representati!e in the #OD"

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

22/49

COM//C maintained that the le&islati!e district is still there and that re&ardless of 5"

a(unsuan (ein& created, the le&islati!e district is not affected and so is its

representation"

"SS'E! Whether or not D$ 90+. is unconstitutional" Whether or not $DMM can create

!alidly %Es"

#ELD! D$ 90+. is unconstitutional" The creation of local &o!ernment units is &o!erned(y 5ection 10, $rticle Q of the Constitution, 'hich pro!ides:

5ec" 10" 4o pro!ince, city, municipality, or (aran&ay may (e created, di!ided, mer&ed

a(olished or its (oundary su(stantially altered e2cept in accordance 'ith the criteria

esta(lished in the local &o!ernment code and su(ect to appro!al (y a maority of the

!otes cast in a ple(iscite in the political units directly affected"

Thus, the creation of any of the four local &o!ernment units pro!ince, city, municipality

or (aran&ay must comply 'ith three conditions" First, the creation of a loca&o!ernment unit must follo' the criteria fi2ed in the ocal %o!ernment Code" 5econd

such creation must not conflict 'ith any pro!ision of the Constitution" Third, there must

(e a ple(iscite in the political units affected"

There is neither an e2press prohi(ition nor an e2press &rant of authority in the

Constitution for Con&ress to dele&ate to re&ional or local le&islati!e (odies the po'er

to create local &o!ernment units" #o'e!er, under its plenary le&islati!e po'ers,

Con&ress can dele&ate to local le&islati!e (odies the po'er to create local &o!ernment

units, su(ect to reasona(le standards and pro!ided no conflict arises 'ith any

pro!ision of the Constitution" -n fact, Con&ress has dele&ated to pro!incial (oards, and

city and municipal councils, the po'er to create (aran&ays 'ithin their urisdiction

su(ect to compliance 'ith the criteria esta(lished in the ocal %o!ernment Code, and

the ple(iscite reuirement in 5ection 10, $rticle Q of the Constitution" #ence, $DMM

cannot !alidly create 5hariff a(unsuan pro!ince"

4ote that in order to create a city there must (e at least a population of at least +0,

and that a pro!ince, once created, should ha!e at least one representati!e in the #OD"4ote further that in order to ha!e a le&islati!e district, there must at least (e +0

Bpopulation> in said district" Cota(ato City did not meet the population reuirement so

5emas contention is untena(le" On the other hand, $DMM cannot !alidly create the

pro!ince of 5" a(unsuan 'ithout first creatin& a le&islati!e district" ut this can ne!er

(e le&ally possi(le (ecause the creation of le&islati!e districts is !ested solely in

Con&ress" $t most, 'hat $DMM can create are (aran&ays not cities and pro!inces"

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

23/49

-omualdeFMarcos vs. $%MELE$%"D" 4o" 1199;*5eptem(er 1 domicile of ori&in is lost only 'henthere is actual remo!al or chan&e of domicile, a (ona fide intention of a(andonin& theformer residence and esta(lishin& a ne' one, and acts 'hich correspond 'ith thepurpose@ in the a(sence of clear and positi!e proof of the concurrence of all these, thedomicile of ori&in should (e deemed to continue@ Bc> the 'ife does not automatically

&ain the hus(andUVs domicile (ecause the term UresidenceU in Ci!il a'does not mean the same thin& in )olitical a'@ 'hen petitioner married )residentMarcos in 19+., she ept her domicile of ori&in and merely &ained a ne' home, not adomicilium necessarium@ Bd> e!en assumin& that she &ained a ne' domicile after hermarria&e and acuired the ri&ht to choose a ne' one only after her hus(and died, heracts follo'in& her return to the country clearly indicate that she chose Taclo(an, her

domicile of ori&in, as her domicile of choice"

Facts: )etitioner -melda Domualde6AMarcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy forDepresentati!e of the First istrict of eyte" For residency, she indicated se!enmonths" $fter the incum(ent Depresentati!e Cirilo Doy Monteo filed a petition for herdisualification, Domualde6AMarcos filed an amended COC, chan&in& residency from

se!en months to Usince childhoodU" 5he 'as e!entually disualified"

-ssue: WO4 petitioner 'as a resident, for election purposes, of the First istrict ofeyte for a period of one year at the time of the May 9, 199+ elections"

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr119976.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/constitution/http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr119976.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/constitution/

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

24/49

Dulin&: $ffirmati!e" The domicile of natural persons is their place of ha(itual residenceB$rt" +0, 4CC>" omicile is an indi!idualUVs permanent home, a place to 'hich,

'hene!er a(sent for (usiness or for pleasure, one intends to return" omicile includesthe t'in elements of the fact of residin& or physical presence in a fi2ed place andanimus manendi, or the intention of returnin& there permanently"

$n indi!idual does not lose his domicile e!en if he has li!ed and maintained residences

in different places" Desidence implies a factual relationship to a &i!en place for !ariouspurposes" omicile of ori&in is not easily lost" To successfully effect a chan&e ofdomicile, one must demonstrate:

1" $n actual remo!al or an actual chan&e of domicile@" $ (ona fide intention of a(andonin& the former place of residence and esta(lishin& ane' one@ and3" $cts 'hich correspond 'ith the purpose"

-n the a(sence of clear and positi!e proof (ased on these criteria, the residence of

ori&in should (e deemed to continue"4ote: 4CC: residence U7 relation (et'een person and place is of fact@ domicile U7relation (et'een person and place is le&al or uridical, independent of the necessity ofphysical presence" $lthou&h the hus(and may fi2 the residence of the family, the 'ifedoes not automatically lose her domicile of ori&in in fa!or of the hus(andUVs choiceof residence upon marria&e"

Justice Domero: $ 'ido' does not automatically re!ert to her domicile of ori&in Bif shelost it at all>, (ut, e2ercisin& free 'ill, she may opt to reesta(lish her domicile"

A'"% vs. $%MELE$B.< 5CD$ .00>acts!On 0 March 199+, $&apito $" $uino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the positionof Depresentati!efor the ne' 5econd e&islati!e istrict of Maati City" -n his certificate ofcandidacy, $uino stated that he 'as aresident of the aforementioned district for10 months" Faced 'ith a petition for disualification, he amended theentry on hisresidency in his cert if icate of candidacy to 1 year and 13 days" TheCommission on /lectionsdismissed the petition on * May and allo'ed $uino to runin the election of < May" $uino 'on" $ctin& on amotion for reconsideration ofthe a(o!e dismissal, the Commission on /lection later issued an order suspendin&theproclamation of $uino until the Commission resol!ed the issue" On June, theCommission on /lectionsfound $uino ineli&i(le and disualified for the electi!e officefor lac of constitutional ualification of residence""ssue!Whether 7res idency in the cert i f icate of candidacy actual ly connotes 7domici le to 'arrant thedisualification of $uino from the position in the electoradistrict"

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

25/49

#eld!The place 7'here a party actually or constructi!ely has his permanent home,

'here he, no matter'here he may (e found at any &i!en time, e!entually intends toreturn and remain, i"e", his domicile, is that to'hich the Constitution refers 'hen itspeas of residence for the purposes of election la'" The purpose istoe2clude stran&ers or ne'comers unfamil iar 'ith the conditions andneeds of the community from tain&ad!anta&e of fa!ora(le

circumstances e2istin& in that communityfor electoral &ain" $uinos certif icate of candidacy in a pre!ious B199>election indicates that he 'as a resident and a re&istered !oter of 5anJose,Concepcion, Tarlac for more than + years prior to that election" $uinosconnection to the 5econd istrict of Maati City is an alle&ed lease a&reement of acondominium unit in the area" The intention not to esta(lish apermanent home inMaati City is e!ident in his leasin& a condominium unit instead of (uyin& one" Theshortlen&th of time he claims to (e a resident of Maati Band the fact of his stateddomicile in Tarlac and his claims of other residences in Metro Manila> indicate that his

sole purpose in transferrin& his physical residence is not toacuire a ne', residenceor domicile (ut only to ualify as a candidate for Depresentati!e of the 5econdistrictof Maati City" $uino 'as thus ri&htfully disualified (y the Commission on /lections"

Domino vs. $%MELE$ G.-. o. /5>3/0, &uly /@, /@@@

acts! )etitioner omino filed his certificate of candidacy for theposition o

Depresentati!e of the lone le&islati!e district of the )ro!ince of 5aran&ani indicatin&

that he has resided in the constituency 'here he sees to (e elected for 1 year and

months" )ri!ate respondents filed a petition seein& to cancel the certificate of

candidacy of omino, alle&in& that omino, contrary to his declaration in the certificate

of candidacy, is not a resident, much less are&istered !oter, of the pro!ince of

5aran&ani 'here he sees election" Thereafter, the COM//C promul&ated a

resolution declarin& omino disualified as candidate for the position of representati!e

of the lone district of 5aran&ani in the May 11, 199< polls for lac of the oneAyear

residency reuirement and lie'ise ordered the cancellation of his certificate of

candidacy (ased on his o'n ?oters De&istration Decord and his address indicated as

. onifacio 5t", $yala #ts", Old alara, Xue6on City"

"ssue! Whether or not petitioner has resided in 5aran&ani )ro!ince for at least 1 year

immediately precedin& the May 11, 199< elections

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/domino-vs-comelec-gr-no-134015-july-19.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/domino-vs-comelec-gr-no-134015-july-19.html

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

26/49

#eld!The term 7residence, as used in the la' prescri(in& theualifications for suffra&e

and for electi!e office, means the same thin& as 7domicile, 'hich imports not only an

intention to reside in a fi2ed place (ut also personal presence in that place, coupled

'ith conduct indicati!e of such intention" 7omicile denotes a fi2edpermanent

residence to 'hich, 'hene!er a(sent for (usiness,pleasure, or some other reasons

one intends to return

Decords sho' that petitioners domicile of ori&in 'as Candon, -locos 5ur and that

sometime in 1991, he acuired a ne' domicile of choice in Xue6on City, as sho'n (y

his certificate of candidacy for theposition of representati!e of the Third istrict of

Xue6on City in the May 199+ election" )etitioner is no' claimin& that he had effecti!ely

a(andoned his residence in Xue6on City and has esta(lished a ne' domicile of choice

in the )ro!ince of 5aran&ani

$ persons domicile, once esta(lished, is considered to continue and 'ill not (e

deemed lost until a ne' one is esta(lished" To successfully effect a chan&e of

domicile, one must demonstrate an actual remo!al or an actual chan&e of domicile@ a

(ona fide intention of a(andonin& the former place of residence and esta(lishin& a ne'

one and definite acts 'hich correspond 'ith the purpose"

The contract of lease of a house and lot entered into sometime in January 199; does

not adeuately support a chan&e of domicile" Thelease contract may (e indicati!e of

ominos intention to reside in 5aran&ani, (ut it does not en&ender the ind of

permanency reuired to pro!e a(andonment of ones ori&inal domicile" The mere

a(sence of indi!idual from his permanent residence, no matter ho' lon&, 'ithout the

intention to a(andon it does not result in loss or chan&e of domicile" Thus, the date of

the contract of lease of a house and lot in 5aran&ani cannot (e used, in the a(sence of

other circumstances, as the reconin& period of the oneAyear residence reuirement"

Further, ominos lac of intention to a(andon his residence in Xue6on City is

stren&thened (y his act of re&isterin& as !oter in Xue6on City" While !otin& is notconclusi!e of residence, it does &i!e rise to a stron& presumption of residence

especially in this case 'here ominore&istered in his former (aran&ay"

$% vs. #-E(acts!The #D/T declared that respondent Jose On&, Jr" is a natural (orn Filipinociti6en and a resident of aoan&, 4orthern 5amar for !otin& purposes" Thecon&ressional election for the second district of 4orthern5amar 'as held"

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

27/49

$mon& the candidates 'ho !ied for the position of representati!e in thesecond le&islati!edistrict are the petitioners, 5i2to alinuit and $ntonio Co andthe pri!ate respondent, Jose On&, Jr" DespondentOn& 'as proclaimed the duly electedrepresentati!e of the second district of 4orthern 5amar" The peti tioners fi led electionprotests on the &rounds that Jose On&, Jr" is not a natural (orn citi6en ofthe)hilippines and not a resident of the second district of 4orthern 5amar""ssue!

Whether or not Jose On&, Jr" is a citi6en of the )hilippines"#eld!Pes" -n the year 1

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

28/49

#a!in& lost in the autonomous re&ion elections, petitioner, in a letter addressed torespondent 5peaer, e2pressed his intention to resume performin& my duties andfunctions as elected Mem(er of Con&ress" #e maintains that he did not there(y losehis seat as con&ressman (ecause 5ection *;, $rticle -Q of ")" l&"

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

29/49

5ec" 1" )u(lic office is a pu(lic trust" )u(lic officers and employees must at all times (eaccounta(le to the people, ser!e them 'ith utmost responsi(ility, inte&rity, loyalty, andefficiency, act 'ith patriotism and ustice, and lead modest li!es

Ender this commentary on accounta(ility of pu(lic officers, the electi!e pu(lic officersmust ser!e their principal, the people, not their o'n personal am(ition" )etitioner failedto discern that rather than cut short the term of office of electi!e pu(lic officials, this

statutory pro!ision B5ection *;, $rticle -Q of ")" l&"

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

30/49

COM//C communicated to the #ouse of Depresentati!es that petitioner had filed hiscertificate of candidacy for re&ional &o!ernor of Muslim Mindanao, respondents had nochoice (ut to a(ide (y the clear and unmistaa(le le&al effect of 5ection *;, $rticle -Qof ")" l&" may (e affected (y circumstances 'ithin or (eyond the po'er of said officer"Tenure may (e shorter than the term or it may not e2ist at all" These situations 'ill notchan&e the duration of the term of office Bsee Topacio 4ueno !s" $n&eles, ;* )hil 1>"

A . &rounds found in $rticle ?- of the Constitution (y 'hich the tenure of aCon&ressman may (e shortened

a> 5ection 13, $rticle ?-: Forfeiture of his seat (y holdin& any other office oremployment in the &o!ernment or any su(di!ision, a&ency or instrumentality thereofincludin& &o!ernmentAo'ned or controlled corporations or su(sidiaries(> 5ection 1* B3>: /2pulsion as a disciplinary action for disorderly (eha!iorc> 5ection 1;: isualification as determined (y resolution of the /lectoral Tri(unal inan election contest@ and

d> 5ection ;, par" : ?oluntary renunciation of office"

A-"AS v (#E EHE$'("7E SE$-E(A-)

A$(S!

$ petition 'as filed seein& the Court to declare unconstitutional 5ection 1. of D$

900* or 7The $ct to /nhance the #oldin& of Free, Orderly, #onest, )eaceful and

Credi(le /lections Throu&h Fair /lection )ractices as it repealed 5ection *; of the

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

31/49

Omni(us /lection Code mandatin& the ipso ure resi&nation from pu(lic office of one

'ho filed his certificate of candidacy, e2cept for )resident and ?iceA)resident

-t is the petitioners contention that the repeal of 5ection *; is a rider on the said la'

the same em(racin& more than one su(ect, inconsistent to 'hat the constitution

mandates" Further, it !iolated the eual protection clause since the said la' didnt

repeal pro!ision relatin& to appointi!e officials" $ppointi!e officials 'ould still (e

considered ipso ure resi&ned upon filin& of their respecti!e certificates of candidacy"

#ELD!

5ection 1. is not a rider" The purported dissimilarity of 5ection *; of the

Omni(us /lection Code, 'hich imposes a limitation on electi!e officials 'ho run for an

office other than the one they are holdin&, to the other pro!isions of the contested la'

'hich deal 'ith the liftin& of the (an on the use of media forelection propa&anda

doesnt !iolate the 7one su(ectA one title rule" The Court has held that an act ha!in& a

sin&le &eneral su(ect, indicated in its title, may contain any num(er of pro!isions, nomatter ho' di!erse they may (e, so lon& as they are not inconsistent 'ith or forei&n to

the &eneral su(ect, and they may (e considered in furtherance of such su(ect (y

pro!idin& for the method and means of carryin& out the &eneral su(ect"

The repeal of 5ection *; is not !iolati!e of the eual protection clause" /ua

protection is not a(solute especially if the classification is reasona(le" There is

reasona(le classification (et'een an electi!e official and an appointi!e one" The

former occupy their office (y !irtue of the mandate of the electorate" They are elected

to an office for a definite term and may (e remo!ed therefrom only upon strin&entconditions" On the other hand, appointi!e officials hold their office (y !irtue of their

desi&nation thereto (y an appointin& authority" 5ome appointi!e officials hold their

office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure 'hile others ser!e

at the pleasure of the appointin& authority" $nother su(stantial distinction is that (y

la', appointed officials are prohi(ited from en&a&in& in partisan political acti!ity or tae

part in any election e2cept to !ote"

Philconsa v. Mathay */@44+

! Con&ress enacted D$ .13. and .*. increasin& salaries of Mem(ers of the

#ouse of Deps for the year of 19*+A19**" )hilconsa sees to enoin the $ctin& $uditor

%eneral to pass this in audit on the &round that < of the senators 'ho enacted the (il

ha!e terms that 'ill e2pire on 19*9 thus, it !iolates $rt ?-, 5ec 1. of the 193+

Constitution" )etition &ranted"

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

32/49

D%$(-"E! The lan&ua&e of the pro!ision on salaries of Mem(ers of Con&ress is

clear" -t refers to the e2piration of the full term of all the Mem(ers of (oth 5enate and

#ouse of Depresentati!es appro!in& such increase" -A("%ALE! To remo!e persona

interest from the increase

&imeneF 7 $aban9ban9

F$CT5: 4icanor Jimene6, Carlos $l(ert and Jose u(an they are the persons

mentioned in the open letter of Ca(an&(an& to the )resident" artolome Ca(an&(an&

U7 mem(er of the #OD and 'rote the letter to the )resident" $ ci!il action 'as

ori&inally instituted (y the petitioners in the CF- of Di6al for reco!ery of se!eral sums of

money, (y 'ay of dama&es for the pu(lication of an alle&edly li(elous letter of

defendant Ca(an&(an&" The letter contains information that: 1" There is an insidious

plan or a massi!e political (uild up@ " There is a planned coup detat@ 3" Modified Y1,(y tryin& to assua&e the )resident and the pu(lic 'ith a loyalty parade, in a effort to

rally the officers and men of the $F) (ehind %eneral $rellano"

-55E/5:

1" Whether or not the pu(lication in uestion is a pri!ile&ed communication"

" Whether or not it is li(elous"

#/:

1" -t 'as held that the letter is not considered a pri!ile&e communication (ecause

the pu(lication: a" 'as an open letter, (" the Con&ress 'as not in session@ c" it

'as not a dischar&e of an official function or duty"

" " -t 'as held not li(elous (ecause the letter clearly implies that the plaintiffs

'ere not the planners (ut merely tools, much less, un'ittin&ly on their part" The

order appealed is confirmed"

PE%PLE v. -%ME% &AL%S&%S *633/+

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

33/49

actsDape is a crime a&ainst human di&nity, punisha(le (y reclusion perpetuaordeath, particulary odious 'hen committed a&ainst a minor" There 'eresi2 othercases 'here the Jalosos 'as acuitted of the char&es of acts oflasci!iousness forfailure of the prosecution to pro!e his &uilt (eyond reasona(ledou(t" /le!en yearold Dosilyn elantar accused Domeo %" Jalosos of se2ual

impropriety a&ainst her onthe dates of June 1< Z 0, 199*, at the Dit6To'ers, Maati City" The rest of theinformation pro!ided for lasci!iousconduct only" $lle&edly, he paid )hp10, )hp+Z )hp+ on different dates"5he 'as pimped (y her homose2ual adopted father5implicio elantarsince the a&e of 9 Bshe 'as (orn in 19 and first met Jalosos inFe(ruary 199*"#e let her stay ni&hts in his condominium unit and repeatedly epttryin& to ha!ese2 'ith her, sayin&, 7$fter all, - am your daddy until, on the datesmentioned, hesucceeded" This 'ent on for some months until Dosilyn ran a'ay in$u&ust 199*,

'hen she 'as taen to 5W and the 4- conducted an in!esti&ationinto her

rape claims" Jalosos claimed that it 'as his (rother ominador 'hoDosilyn met and he'as in the pro!ince alle&edly at the time the se2ualad!ances too place" This issue'as a l le &e dl y cr af te d (y hi spolitical enemies to put him at a disad!anta&e"chadosorio#e 'asfound &uilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and )hp+0 for eachcount of rape B>, and reclusion temporal and )hp0 dama&es for each countofacts of lasci!iousness B*>""ssues1 " R M a i n C a s e S - s t h e r e l i a n c e o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t o n t h e

' i t n e s s s c r e d i ( i l i t y sufficient to hand him such sentence= chadosorio"

ROffshoot CaseS Can a le&islator perform his duties thru le&islati!esessionsand committee meetin&s despite ha!in& (een incarcerated dueto a nonA(aila(le offense=Decision"s the rel iance o8 the tr ia l court on the

;itnessIs credibi l i tysu88icient to hand him such sentenceJPetitioner! F a l s u s i n u n o f a l s u s i n o m n i ( u s B f a l s e i n p a r t , f a l s e i n e!erythin&>" The fact that the trial court accepted his ali(i means that

Dosilynsstory 'as concocted in part, and therefore her 'hole testimony falls")lus, its not e!e n ust if ied tha t D osi lyn 'as a m ino r (ec aus e 'eshouldn t re ly on her (ir thcertificate, 'hich 'as e2pun&ed from the 45O"chadosorio

S$!

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

34/49

- t is perfect ly reasona(le to (el ie!e the test imony of a 'itness 'ithrespect to some facts and dis(elie!e it 'ith respect to other facts" -n )eople!s"eller, it 'as seen thatTestimony may (e partly credited and partly reected"AAA Trier of facts arenot( o u n d t o ( e l i e ! e a l l t h a t a n y ' i t n e s s h a s s a i d @ t h e y m a y a c c ep t s o m e portions of his testimony and reect other portions, accordin& to 'hat

seemsto them, upon other facts and circumstances to (e the truthG /!en'hen' i t n e s s e s a r e f o u n d t o h a ! e d e l i ( e r a t e l y f a l s i f i e d i n s om e m a t e r i a l p a r t i c u l a r s , t h e u r y a r e n o t r e u i r e d t o r e ec t t h e ' h o l e o f t h e i r uncorro(orated testimony, (ut may credit suchportions as they deem 'orthyof (elief"4o 'oman

'ould accuse someone of def lorat ion i f she d idno t 'an t th eculprit apprehended andpunished, (ecause of the accompanyin& shame of thein!esti&ation to pro!esuch accusation" #er hesitat ion and uncertainty to ans'ersome of the

uestions 'ere ho' rape !ictims ans'ered in real life, and not mereactin&"The fact that Dosi lyn did not speci fy rape in her af fida!its a&ainstJalososdoes not mean that it ne!er occurred, (ecause rape is too much of a technicatermfor such a youn& child"-n)eople !" Campuhan, 7rape is consummated (y the sli&htest penetration of the female or&an, i"e",tou chi n& of eit her la( ia of the pud end um (y the pen is " There need not (efull and complete penetration of the !ictims !a&ina for rape to(e consummated" There

'as no case ori&inally a&ainst Jalosos, (ecause the ori&inal case filed'as a&ainstthe pimp 5implicio elantar, it 'as ust that Jalosos 'as identified inthe

pictures" 5ince rape is a crime a&ainst persons, any prosecutor can mo!eon'ith le&al action, not necessarily the !ictim herself"-t is settled that in cases ofstatutory rape, the a&e of the !ictim may (epro!ed (y the presentation ofher (irth certificate" #o'e!er, e!en assumin&thea(sence of a !al id (irth cert i f icate, there is suff ic ient and ample proof o f thecomplainants a&e in the records, lie (aptismal certificate, hospital recordsBJoseFa(ella Memorial #ospital: master list if (irths, date and time of pre&nantmothersconfinement>, et cetera" chadosorio6.$an a le9islator per8orm his duties thru le9islative sessionsand

committee meetin9s despite havin9 been incarcerated dueto a nonbailableo88enseJPetitioner!#is functions as a representati!e of the First istrict of [am(oan&adel 4orte, 'hoseelectorate chose him (y mandate of so!erei&n 'ill, should not (eimpeded (y theconstraints of a pendin& criminal case" chadosorio#e cited$&uinaldo !" 5antos:

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

35/49

The Court should ne!er remo!e a pu(lic officer for acts done prior to his presentterm ofoffice" To do other'ise 'ould (e to depri!e the people of their ri&ht to electtheirofficers" When a people ha!e elected a man to office, it must (e assumed thatthey didthis 'ith the no'led&e of his life and character, and that they disre&ardedor for&a!ehis fault or misconduct, if he had (een &uilty of any" -t is not for theCourt, (yreason of such fault or misconduct, to practically o!errule the 'ill of thepeople"7- 'illnot escape, &i!en the chance to perform my le&islati!e duties" esides,-!e

(een allo'ed to lea!e (efore to attend to my le&islati!e functions" Thismustnot hinder my a(ility to ser!e my constituents" The duty to the le&islati!eranshi&hest in &o!ernment"S$!T he h i& he r t he r an , t he &r ea te r s ho ul d t he o( ed ie nc e ( e, n ottheentitlement to e2emption"Confinement pendin& appeal does not remo!ethe r i&hts of h im (ein& apu(l icof f icer" - t s mere ly to protect soc iety " )u(l ic se l f Adefense is ane2a mpl e and a'arnin& to others" -t is the inury to the pu(lic 'hich 5tate

action in criminala's e e s t o r e d r e s s , a n d s i n c e r a p e i s a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e , t h e p er s o n m u s t ( e ans'era(le to procedures &o!ernin& criminal la'" chadosorio The first timethe case 'as filed he only came for'ard after a lon& period of time hidin& due to thepleas of his fello' #oD mem(ers" There is no &uarantee thathe 'i l l not &o in tohidin& a&ain" #is securin& of permission to lea!e the prison(efore 'as(ased on a caseAtoAcase (asis due to emer&encies, and should not(econsidered the rule" %i!in& him a +Aday 'ee Bre&ular Con&ress sessions>

'ould!ir tual ly mae him a free man" #is incarceration does not pre!ent himfrom fi lin&(ills and resolutions: his t'o fullyAmanned offices in atasan #ills and 4e'

ili(id)rison attest to that" The people 'ho !oted for Jalosos, no'in& that hehas (eencon!icted, no' of the fact of his incarceration, and it is their (eliefthat he canfulfill his duties re&ardless of his sentence" -t does not mean that ust(ecause thepeople !oted for him he 'as automatically (elie!ed to (e innocent (ythem" The eual protect ion of la 's apply to th is case, meani n& that people insimilar circumstances must (e treated (y the la' similarly" Jalososshould not (e&i!en pri!ile&e due to his position, and must (e treated the 'ayother con!ictedpeople are treated" There are +0 #oD mem(ers and .senators" Con&ress 'ill function 'ell despite the a(sence of a small num(er of its

mem(ers" Therefore, (ein& a con&ressman does not remo!e one from criminalia(ility"-mprisonment is not merely the loss of freedom, (ut also a place ofreha(ilitationand chan&e as 'ell" -t includes the curtailin& of certain ri&htsand pri!ile&esandelect ion to pu(l ic of f ice does not e2cuse one from the conseuences of onesactions, once pro!en contrary to la'" chadosorioMotion denied.GonFa9a-eyes, concur!

(-"LLAES 7S P"ME(EL

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

36/49

/lection to Con&ress is not a reasona(le classification in criminal la'enforcement as the functions and duties of the office are not su(stantiadistinctions 'hich lift one from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedomand restricted in li(erty of mo!ement"

Justification for confinement 'ith its underlyin& rationale of pu(lic selfAdefenseapplies eually to detention prisoners lie petitioner or con!icted prisonersAappellants lie Jalosos"

A$(S!

)etitioner Trillanes -? is on trial for coup detat in relation to the 7Oa'ood -ncident" -nthe 00; elections, he 'on a seat in the 5enate 'ith a si2Ayear term commencin& atnoon on June 30, 00;" )etitioner no' ass the Court that he (e allo'ed to attendall official functions of the 5enate, alle&in& mainly that his case is distinct from that of

Jalosos as his case is still pendin& resolution 'hereas that in the Jalosos case, there'as already con!iction

"SS'E! =hether or not valid classi8ication bet;een petitioner and &alos?os exists

-'L"G!

The petition is (ereft of merit

-n attemptin& to strie a distinction (et'een his case and that of Jalosos, petitionerchiefly points out that former Dep" Domeo Jalosos BJalosos> 'as already con!icted,al(eit his con!iction 'as pendin& appeal, 'hen he filed a motion similar to petitionerKsOmni(us Motion, 'hereas he Bpetitioner> is a mere detention prisoner" #e asserts thathe continues to enoy ci!il and political ri&hts since the presumption of innocence is stillin his fa!or

Further, petitioner illustrates that Jalosos 'as char&ed 'ith crimes in!ol!in& mora

turpitude, i"e", t'o counts of statutory rape and si2 counts of acts of lasci!iousness,'hereas he is indicted for coup dKetat 'hich is re&arded as a political offense"

Furthermore, petitioner ustifies in his fa!or the presence of no(le causes in e2pressin&le&itimate &rie!ances a&ainst the rampant and institutionali6ed practice of &raft andcorruption in the $F)

222

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

37/49

$ plain readin& of Jalosos su&&ests other'ise, ho'e!er

The distinctions cited (y petitioner 'ere not elemental in the pronouncement inJalosos that election to Con&ress is not a reasona(le classification in criminal la'enforcement as the functions and duties of the office are not su(stantial distinctions

'hich lift one from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted inli(erty of mo!ement

-t cannot (e &ainsaid that a person char&ed 'ith a crime is taen into custody forpurposes of the administration of ustice" 4o less than the Constitution pro!ides

$ll persons, e2cept those char&ed 'ith offenses punisha(le (y reclusion perpetua'hen e!idence of &uilt is stron&, shall, (efore con!iction, (e (aila(le (ysufficient sureties, or (e released on reco&ni6ance as may (e pro!ided (y la'" Theri&ht to (ail shall not (e impaired e!en 'hen the pri!ile&e of the 'rit of ha(eas corpusis suspended" /2cessi!e (ail shall not (e reuired" BEnderscorin& supplied>

The Dules also state that no person char&ed 'ith a capital offense, or an offensepunisha(le (y reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall (e admitted to (ail 'hene!idence of &uilt is stron&, re&ardless of the sta&e of the criminal action

That the cited pro!isions apply eually to rape and coup dKetat cases, (oth (ein&punisha(le (y reclusion perpetua, is (eyond ca!il" Within the class of offenses co!ered(y the stated ran&e of imposa(le penalties, there is clearly no distinction as to thepolitical comple2ion of or moral turpitude in!ol!ed in the crime char&ed"

-n the present case, it is uncontro!erted that petitionerKs application for (ail and forrelease on reco&ni6ance 'as denied" The determination that the e!idence of &uilt isstron&, 'hether ascertained in a hearin& of an application for (ail or imported from atrial courtKs ud&ment of con!iction, ustifies the detention of an accused as a !alidcurtailment of his ri&ht to pro!isional li(erty" This accentuates the pro!iso thatthe denial of the ri&ht to (ail in such cases is re&ardless of the sta&e of the criminalaction" 5uch ustification for confinement 'ith its underlyin& rationale of pu(lic selfAdefense applies eually to detention prisoners lie petitioner or con!icted prisonersAappellants lie Jalosos

222

)etitioner &oes on to alle&e that unlie Jalosos 'ho attempted to e!ade trial, he is nota fli&ht ris since he !oluntarily surrendered to the proper authorities and such can (epro!en (y the numerous times he 'as allo'ed to tra!el outside his place of detention"

5u(seuent e!ents re!eal the contrary, ho'e!er" The assailed Orders au&ured 'el'hen on 4o!em(er 9, 00; petitioner 'ent past security detail for some reason and

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

38/49

proceeded from the courtroom to a posh hotel to issue certain statements" Theaccount, du((ed this time as the Manila )en -ncident, pro!es that petitionerKsar&ument (ites the dust" The ris that he 'ould escape ceased to (e neither remotenor nil as, in fact, the cause for fore(odin& (ecame real

Moreo!er, circumstances indicatin& pro(a(ility of fli&ht find rele!ance as a factor inascertainin& the reasona(le amount of (ail and in cancellin& a discretionary &rant of

(ail" -n cases in!ol!in& nonA(aila(le offenses, 'hat is controllin& is the determination of'hether the e!idence of &uilt is stron&" Once it is esta(lished that it is so, (ail shall (edenied as it is neither a matter of ri&ht nor of discretion"

PE%PLE 7 &AL%S&%SFe(" 3, 000

Facts: The accusedAappellant, Domeo Jalosos, is a fullAfled&ed mem(er of Con&ress'ho is confined at the national penitentiary 'hile his con!iction for statutory rape andacts of lasci!iousness is pendin& appeal" The accusedAappellant filed a motion asin&that he (e allo'ed to fully dischar&e the duties of a Con&ressman, includin&attendance at le&islati!e sessions and committee meetin&s despite his ha!in& (eencon!icted in the first instance of a nonA(aila(le offense on the (asis of popularso!erei&nty and the need for his constituents to (e represented

-ssue: Whether or not accusedAappellant should (e allo'ed to dischar&e mandate asmem(er of #ouse of Depresentati!es

#eld: /lection is the e2pression of the so!erei&n po'er of the people" #o'e!er, inspiteof its importance, the pri!ile&es and ri&hts arisin& from ha!in& (een elected may (eenlar&ed or restricted (y la'"

The immunity from arrest or detention of 5enators and mem(ers of the #ouse ofDepresentati!es arises from a pro!ision of the Constitution" The pri!ile&e has al'ays(een &ranted in a restricti!e sense" The pro!ision &rantin& an e2emption as a specialpri!ile&e cannot (e e2tended (eyond the ordinary meanin& of its terms" -t may not (ee2tended (y intendment, implication or euita(le considerations"

The accusedAappellant has not &i!en any reason 'hy he should (e e2empted from theoperation of 5ec" 11, $rt" ?- of the Constitution" The mem(ers of Con&ress cannot

compel a(sent mem(ers to attend sessions if the reason for the a(sence is ale&itimate one" The confinement of a Con&ressman char&ed 'ith a crime punisha(le(y imprisonment of more than si2 years is not merely authori6ed (y la', it hasconstitutional foundations" To allo' accusedAappellant to attend con&ressionalsessions and committee meetin&s for + days or more in a 'ee 'ill !irtually mae hima free man 'ith all the pri!ile&es appurtenant to his position" 5uch an a(errant situationnot only ele!ates accusedAappellants status to that of a special class, it also 'ould (ea mocery of the purposes of the correction system"

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

39/49

Puyat vs. De GuFman, Jr" %"D" 4o" A+11, March +, 19 of the

Constitution

#eld!Ordinarily, (y !irtue of the motion for inter!ention, $ssem(lyman Fernande6

cannot (e said to (e appearin& as counsel" Ostensi(ly, he is not appearin& on (ehalf

of another, althou&h he is oinin& the cause of the pri!ate respondents" #is appearance

could theoretically (e for the protection of his o'nership of 10 shares of -)- in respect

of the matter in liti&ation

#o'e!er, certain salient circumstances militate a&ainst the inter!ention o

$ssem(lyman Fernande6 in the 5/C case" #e had acuired a mere )00"00 'orth of

stoc in -)-, representin& 10 shares out of *,

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

40/49

them 7after the fact that is, after the contested election of directors, after the uo

'arranto suit had (een filed (efore the 5/C and 1 day (efore the scheduled hearin& of

the case (efore the 5/C" $nd 'hat is more, (efore he mo!ed to inter!ene, he had

si&nified his intention to appear as counsel for respondent $cero, (ut 'hich 'as

o(ected to (y petitioners" Deali6in&, perhaps, the !alidity of the o(ection, he decided,

instead, to inter!ene on the &round of le&al interest in the matter under liti&ation

Ender those facts and circumstances, the Court is constrained to find that there has

(een an indirect appearance as counsel (efore an administrati!e (ody" -n the opinion

of the Court, that is a circum!ention of the Constitutional prohi(ition contained in 5ec

11, $rt" ?--- Bno' 5ec" 1., $rt" ?->" The inter!ention 'as an afterthou&ht to ena(le him

to appear acti!ely in the proceedin&s in some other capacity"

&%SE A7EL"%, petitioner, vs. MA-"A% &. $'E$%, respondent"A$(S!Senator LorenFo M. (aKada reBuested that his ri9ht to speak on the 8looron thenext session day o8 the senate to 8ormulate char9es a9ainst the thenSenate President&ose Avelino(e reser!ed" #is reuest 'as appro!ed" urin& the session, e!ery time5enator Ta\ada

'ould as to ha!e the floor to deli!er his speech, he 'ould (e denied (ecause of thedilatory tactics of the other 5enators to pre!ent him from deli!erin& hisspeech"5enatorTa\ada repeatedly stood up to claim his ri&ht to deli!er his oneAhour pri!ile&espeech(ut the petitioner, then presidin&, continuously i&nored him@ and 'hen after thereadin&

of the minutes,Senator (aKada insisted on bein9 reco9niFed by the $hair,the petitionerannounced that he ;ould order the arrest o8 any senator ;ho ;ouldspeak

;ithout bein9 previously reco9niFed by him.4ot permittin& 5enator Ta\ada to deli!er his speech a&ainst then 5enate)resident$!elino, the session 'as adourned (y the petitioner and duly seconded (yhis follo'ers"When the petitioner to&ether 'ith his follo'ers left, the session

'as continued (y those5enators 'ho remain and appro!ed the pri!ile&e speech of5enator Ta\ada"5enator 5anidad

introduced -esolution o. 41, entitled C-esolution declarin9 vacantthe positiono8 the President o8 the Senate and desi9natin9 the #onorable Mariano&esus$uenco Actin9 President o8 the Senate. )ut to a !ote, the said resolution 'asunanimously approved.Senator $uenco took the oath and ;as reco9niFed as theactin9 president o8 Philippine Senate by the President.)etitioner then ased the Court to declare him the ri&htful )resident of the)hilippine5enate and oust respondent"

7/27/2019 Art1 16 Digest

41/49

"SS'E!a. Does the $ourt have ?urisdiction over the sub?ectmatterJb. "8 it has,;ere resolutions o. 41 validly approvedJ

-'L"G!a. Does the $ourt have ?urisdiction over the sub?ectmatterJTo the first uestion, the ans'er is in the ne9ative,in !ie' of theseparation o8po;ers,the political nature of the contro!ersy and the constitutional 9rant to the Senate o8

thepo;er to elect its o;n president,;hich po;er should not be inter8ered ;ith,nortaken over, by the ?udiciary.$ny'ay, if, as the petition must imply to (eaccepta(le, the ma?ority o8 the Senators;ant petitioner to preside,hisremedy liesin the Senate5ession #all ] not in theSupreme $ourt./!en the Chief /2ecuti!ereco&ni6ed the ne'ly elected 5enate)resident"b. "8 it has, ;ere resolutions o. 41 validly approvedJ5upposin& that the Court has urisdiction, there is unanimity in the !ie' that thesessionunder 5enator $rran6 'as a continuation o8 the mornin9 session and that aminorityo8 ten senators may not, by leavin9 the #all, prevent the other t;elve

senators 8rompassin9 a resolution that met ;ith their unanimous endorsement.The ans'er mi&ht (e different had the resolution (een appro!ed only (y ten or less"-fthe rump session 'as not a continuation of the mornin& session, 'as it!alidlyconstituted= -n other 'ords, 'as there the maority reuired (y the Constitutionfor thetransaction of the (usiness of the 5enate= Justices )aras, Feria, )a(lo anden&6on saythere 'as, firstly (ecause the minutes say so, secondly, (ecause at thebe9innin9 o8 suchsession there ;ere at least 8ourteen senatorsand t;elvesenators constitute ama?ority o8 the Senate o8 t;enty three senators in theabsence o8 one ;hom le8t thecountry 8or o88icial duty.The rule of the 5enate a(out tenure of the )resident of its (ody can (e amended at

anytime (y the maority" $nd at any session hereafter held 'ith thirteen or moresenators, inorder to a!oid all contro!ersy arisin& from the di!er&ence of opinion herea(out uorumand for the (enefit of all concerned, the said t'el!e senators 'hoappro!ed theresolutions herein in!ol!ed could ratify all their acts and there(y placethem (eyond theshado' of a dou(t"$s already stated, the si2 ustices hereina(o!ementioned !oted todismiss the petition.Without costs

De8ens