political law_case complilations 2010-2012

8/13/2019 Political Law_case Complilations 2010-2012

1/102

October 2010 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Political LawPosted onNovember 30, 2010by Vicente D. Gerochi IV

Here are selected October 2010 rlin!s o" the #$reme %ort o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&.

Constitutional Law

'ill o" (i!hts) Presm$tion o" Innocence . In this case, the so*called "rame*$ &as virtally $re

alle!ation bere"t o" credible $roo". +he narration o" the $olice o""icer &ho im$lemented the

search &arrant &as "ond, a"ter trial and a$$ellate revie&, as the tre story. It is on "irmer !rond

than the sel"*servin! statement o" the accsed*a$$ellant o" "rame*$. +he de"ense cannot solelyrely $on the constittional $resm$tion o" innocence "or, &hile it is constittional, the

$resm$tion is not conclsive. Notably, the accsed*a$$ellant hersel" stated in her brie" that no

$roo" &as $ro""ered by the accsed*a$$ellant o" the $olice o""icers- alle!ed ill motive. #tatedother&ise, the narration o" the incident by la& en"orcers, bttressed by the $resm$tion that they

have re!larly $er"ormed their dties in the absence o" convincin! $roo" to the contrary, mst be

!iven &ei!ht.People of the Philippines vs. Olive Rubio Mamaril. G.R. No. 171980, October ,!010.

'ill o" (i!hts) Probable %ase . +here is no !eneral "ormla or "i/ed rle "or the determination o"

$robable case since the same mst be decided in li!ht o" the conditions obtainin! in !iven

sitations and its e/istence de$ends to a lar!e de!ree $on the "indin!s or o$inion o" the d!econdctin! the e/amination. It is $resmed that a dicial "nction has been re!larly $er"ormed,

absent a sho&in! to the contrary. +he de"ense-s reliance o" the oted testimony o" the $olice

o""icer alone, &ithot any other evidence to sho& that there &as indeed lac o" $ersonalno&led!e, is ins""icient to overtrn the "indin! o" the trial cort. +he accsed*a$$ellant,

havin! "ailed to $resent sbstantial rebttal evidence to de"eat the $resm$tion o" re!larity o"

dty o" the issin! d!e, cannot not be sstained by the %ort.People of the Philippines vs.Olive Rubio Mamaril. G.R. No. 171980, October , !010.

%onstittionality) ctal %ontroversy) #tandin! to #e . +he $o&er o" dicial revie& can only

be e/ercised in connection &ith a bona "ide controversy involvin! a statte, its im$lementation ora !overnment action. 4ithot sch controversy, corts &ill decline to $ass $on constittionalisses thro!h advisory o$inions, bere"t as they are o" athority to resolve hy$othetical or mootestions. +he limitation on the $o&er o" dicial revie& to actal cases andcontroversies de"ines the role assi!ned to the diciary in a tri$artite allocation o" $o&er, to

assre that the corts &ill not intrde into areas committed to the other branches o" !overnment.'t even &ith the $resence o" an actal case or controversy, the %ort may re"se dicial revie&

nless the constittional estion or the assailed ille!al !overnment act is bro!ht be"ore it by a$arty &ho $ossesses locs standi or the standin! to challen!e it. +o have standin!, one mstestablish that he has a $ersonal and sbstantial interest in the case sch that he has sstained, or

&ill sstain, direct inry as a reslt o" its en"orcement. Particlarly, he mst sho& that 516 hehas s""ered some actal or threatened inry as a reslt o" the alle!edly ille!al condct o" the!overnment) 526 the inry is "airly traceable to the challen!ed action) and 536 the inry is liely

to be redressed by a "avorable action.
http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/october-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-political-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/vdglexoterica/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/171980.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/171980.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/171980.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/171980.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/vdglexoterica/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/171980.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/171980.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/171980.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/october-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-political-law/


2/102

Petitions "or certiorari and $rohibition are, as here, a$$ro$riate remedies to raise constittional

isses and to revie& and7or $rohibit or nlli"y, &hen $ro$er, acts o" le!islative and e/ective

o""icials. +he $resent $etitions alle!e that then President (amos had e/ercised vis*8*vis anassi!nment o" "ranchise, a "nction le!islative in character. s alle!ed, too, the

+oll (e!latory 'oard 5+('6, in the !ise o" enterin! into contracts or a!reements

&ith the Phili$$ine National %onstrction %or$oration 5PN%%6 and other ridical entities,

virtally enlar!ed, modi"ied and7or e/tended the stattory "ranchise o" PN%%, thereby sr$in! ale!islative $rero!ative. +he sr$ation came in the "orm o" e/ectin! the assailed

#$$lemental +oll O$eration !reements and the issance o" +oll O$eration %erti"icates. Grave

abse o" discretion is also laid on the doorste$ o" the +(' "or its act o" enterin! into these samecontracts or a!reements &ithot the reired $blic biddin! mandated by la&. In "ine, the

certiorari $etitions im$te on then President (amos and the +(', the commission o" acts that

translate inter alia into sr$ation o" the con!ressional athority to !rant "ranchises and violationo" e/tant stattes. +he $etitions mae a $rima "acie case "or certiorari and $rohibition) an actalcase or controversy ri$e "or dicial revie& e/ists. Verily, &hen an act o" a branch o"!overnment is seriosly alle!ed to have in"rin!ed the %onstittion, it becomes not only the ri!ht

bt in "act the dty o" the diciary to settle the dis$te. In doin! so, the diciary merely de"endsthe sanctity o" its dties and $o&ers nder the %onstittion.

In any case, the rle on standin! is a matter o" $rocedral technicality, &hich may be rela/ed

&hen the sbect in isse or the le!al estion to be resolved is o" transcendental im$ortance tothe $blic. Hence, even absent any direct inry to the sitor, the %ort can rela/ the a$$licationo" le!al standin! or alto!ether set it aside "or non*traditional $lainti""s, lie ordinary citi9ens,

&hen the $blic interest so reires. +here is no dobt that individal $etitioners, :arcos, et al.,in G.(. No. 1;


3/102

%ommnist Party o" the Phili$$ines 5%PP6 and its armed &in!, the National Peo$le-s rmy

5NP6. +he ta!!in!, accordin! to $etitioners, is tantamont to the e""ects o" $roscri$tion &ithot

"ollo&in! the $rocedre nder the la&. Petitioners- a$$rehension is ins""icient to sbstantiatetheir $lea. +hat no s$eci"ic char!e or $roscri$tion nder ( rom ly 200= $

to the $resent, $etitioner*or!ani9ations have condcted their activities "lly and "reely &ithotany threat o", mch less an actal, $rosection or $roscri$tion nder (


4/102

antici$atory $etition clearly sho&s that the challen!ed $rohibition "orbids the condct or

activity that a $etitioner sees to do, as there &old then be a sticiable controversy. Fnlie the

$lainti""s in Holder, ho&ever, herein $etitioners have "ailed to sho& that the challen!ed$rovisions o" ( rom these alle!ations, the %ortis bein! lred to render an advisory o$inion, &hich is not its "nction. 4ithot any sticiable

controversy, the $etitions have become $leas "or declaratory relie", over &hich the %ort has no

ori!inal risdiction. +hen a!ain, declaratory actions characteri9ed by doble contin!ency,&here both the activity the $etitioners intend to ndertae and the antici$ated reaction to it o" a

$blic o""icial are merely theori9ed, lie beyond dicial revie& "or lac o" ri$eness. lle!ations

o" abse mst be anchored on real events be"ore corts may ste$ in to settle actalcontroversies involvin! ri!hts &hich are le!ally demandable and en"orceable. /outhern

+emisphere "n'a'ement Net3or4, nc, et al. vs. 5nti6&errorism ouncil, et al.*-ilusan' Ma(o

no etc., et al. s. +on. ")uar)o "rmita., et al.*#a'on' 5l(ansan' Ma4aba(an :#a(an;, et al.

vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al.*-arapatan, et al. vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al.*&hente'rate) #ar of the Philippines, et al. vs. "


5/102

inevitably almost al&ays nder sitations not be"ore the cort, that are im$ermissibly s&e$t by

the sbstantially overbroad re!lation. Other&ise stated, a statte cannot be $ro$erly analy9ed

"or bein! sbstantially overbroad i" the cort con"ines itsel" only to "acts as a$$lied to theliti!ants. In this case, since a $enal statte may only be assailed "or bein! va!e as a$$lied to

$etitioners, a limited va!eness analysis o" the de"inition o" terrorism in ( rthermore, &hile the #% has eitably redced the amont

o" interest a&arded in nmeros cases in the $ast, those cases involved interest that &asessentially consensal in natre, i.e., interest sti$lated in si!ned a!reements bet&een the

contractin! $arties. In contrast, the interest involved in the $resent case rns as a matter o"

la& and "ollo&s as a matter o" corse "rom the ri!ht o" the lando&ner to be $laced in as !ood a

$osition as money can accom$lish, as o" the date o" tain!. +hs, the interest de in the $resentcase cannot be redced.5po $ruits orporation, et al. vs. an) #an4 of the Philippines. G.R.

No. 1=192, October 1!, !010.

>iscal tonomy o" the diciary) G#I#) A/em$tion "rom ?e!al >ees. In In (e Petition "or(eco!nition o" the A/em$tion o" the Government #ervice Insrance #ystem "rom Payment o"

?e!al >ees, the %ort rled that the $rovision in the %harter o" the G#I#, i.e., #ection 3< o"

(e$blic ct No. @2


6/102

the $ayment o" le!al "ees. Government /ervice nsurance /(stem :G//; vs. +eirs of $ernan)o

P. aballero, et al. G.R. No. 128090, October =, !010.

Ombdsman) Disci$linary thority over Pblic #chool +eachers. +he administrative

disci$linary athority o" the Ombdsman over a $blic school teacher is not an e/clsive $o&erbt is concrrent &ith the $ro$er committee o" the De$artment o" Adcation, %ltre and #$orts

5DA%#6. Ho&ever, &hile $etitioner has sch concrrent athority, #ection 23 o" the Ombdsman

ct o" 1eli?ero, %r. G.R. No. 17!2, October !0, !010.

O""ice o" the Ombdsman) Po&ers. +he Ombdsman-s decision im$osin! the $enalty o"

ss$ension "or one year is immediately e/ectory $endin! a$$eal. It cannot be stayed by themere "ilin! o" an a$$eal to the %ort o" $$eals 5%6. %learly, #ection =, (le III o" the (les o"

Procedre o" the O""ice o" the Ombdsman s$ersedes the discretion !iven to the % in #ection

12, (le C3 o" the (les o" %ort &hen a decision o" the Ombdsman in an administrative case

is a$$ealed to the %. +he $rovision in the (les o" Procedre o" the O""ice o" the Ombdsmanthat a decision is immediately e/ectory is a s$ecial rle that $revails over the $rovisions o" the

(les o" %ort. :oreover, #ection 13 5@6, rticle JI o" the %onstittion athori9es the O""ice o"the Ombdsman to $roml!ate its o&n rles o" $rocedre. In this connection, #ections 1@ and 2=o" the Ombdsman ct o" 1orthe % to isse a $reliminary innction that &ill stay the $enalty im$osed by the Ombdsman in

an administrative case &old be to encroach on the rle*main! $o&ers o" the O""ice o" the

Ombdsman nder the %onstittion and ( ;==0 as the innctive &rit &ill render n!atory the$rovisions o" #ection =, (le III o" the (les o" Procedre o" the O""ice o" the

Ombdsman. Office of the Ombu)sman vs. %oel /. /amanie'o.G.R. No. 17227, October 2,

!010.

Preliminary Investi!ation) Decision) $$licability o" %onstittional (eirements to DO. $reliminary investi!ation is not a asi*dicial $roceedin! since the $rosector in a $reliminary

investi!ation does not determine the !ilt or innocence o" the accsed. Preliminaryinvesti!ation is merely inisitorial. 4hile the $rosector maes that determination, he cannot be

said to be actin! as a asi*cort, "or it is the corts, ltimately, that $ass d!ment on theaccsed, not the $rosector. $reliminary investi!ation ths $artaes o"

an investi!ative or inisitorial $o&er "or the sole $r$ose o" obtainin! in"ormation on &hat
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/158090.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/158090.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/158090.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/172635.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/172635.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/172635.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/175573.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/175573.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/175573.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/158090.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/172635.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/175573.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/175573.htm


7/102

"tre action o" a dicial natre may be taen. 'alan!aan v. %ort o" $$eals in "act iterates

that even the action o" the #ecretary o" stice in revie&in! a $rosector-s order or resoltion via

a$$eal or $etition "or revie& cannot be considered a asi*dicial $roceedin! since the DO isnot a asi*dicial body. #ection 1C, rticle VIII o" the %onstittion does not ths e/tend to

resoltions issed by the DO #ecretary.5tt(. 5lice O)chi@ue6#on)oc vs. &an &ion' #io a.4.a.

+enr( &an. G.R. No. 182!, October , !010.

Validity o" #$$lemental +oll O$eration !reements.

5a6 Pblic Ftility >ranchise) #bstittion o" Grantee . +he %ort reected $etitioners- contentionthat contractal $rovisions on sbstittion o" the "ranchise holder violated the

%onstittion. (elyin! on %lase 1=.C.1 o" the

#$$lemental +oll O$eration !reement 5#+O6 "or the North ?9on A/$ress&ay that thelenders have the nrestricted ri!ht to a$$oint a sbstitte entity in case o" de"alt o"

:anila North +oll&ays %or$oration 5:N+%6 or the occrrence o" an event o" de"alt in res$ect

o" :N+%-s loans, $etitioners ar!e that since :N+% is the assi!nee or trans"ereeo" the "ranchise o" Phili$$ine National %onstrction %or$oration 5PN%%6, then it ste$s into the

shoes o" PN%%. +hey contend that the act o" re$lacin! :N+% as !rantee is tantamont to anamendment or alteration o" PN%%-s ori!inal "ranchise and hence nconstittional, considerin!

that the constittional $o&er to a$$oint a ne& "ranchise holder is reserved to %on!ress. +he

%ort disa!reed. Petitioners- $res$$osition that only %on!ress has the $o&er to directly !rant"ranchises is mis$laced. +he %ort has held that administrative a!encies may be em$o&ered bythe ?e!islatre by means o" a la& to !rant "ranchises or similar athori9ations. In this case, the%ort rled that the +oll (e!latory 'oard 5+('6 is em$o&ered to !rant a "ranchise "or toll road

$roects.

Petitioners also contend that sbstittin! :N+% as the !rantee in case o" de"alt &ith res$ect to

its loans is tantamont to an amendment o" PN%%-s ori!inal "ranchise andis there"ore nconstittional. +he %ort also "ond this assertion to be &ithot merit. 'esidesholdin! that the ?e!islatre may $ro$erly em$o&er administrative a!encies to !rant "ranchises

$rsant to a la&, the %ort e/$lained in this case that Presidential Decree No. 1113 and the

amendatory Presidential Decree No. 1@ranchise) A/tension . +he %ort a!reed &ith $etitioners- contention that the

o$tion in the :N+% #+O to e/tend the concession "or the stated $eriod is

nconstittional. %lase 1=.B o" the :N+% #+O !rants :N+%-s lenders the $o&er to e/tend
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/186652.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/186652.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/186652.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/186652.htm


8/102

the concession in case the Grantor 5(e$blic o" the Phili$$ines6 taes over the same, "or a $eriod

not e/ceedin! B0 years, ntil "ll $ayment o" the loans. t the otset, %lase 1=.B does not !rant

the lenders the $o&er to nilaterally e/tend the concession "or a $eriod note/ceedin! B0 years. +he a"ore*oted $rovision shold be read in connction &ith %lase

20.12, &hich e/$ressly $rovides that the :N+% #+O is made nder and shall be !overned by

and constred in accordance &ith the la&s o" the Phili$$ines, and $articlarly, by the $rovisions

o" PD 1112, PD 1113 and PD 1@


9/102

in case the +(', based on its determination o" a st and reasonable toll "ee, decides not to e""ect

a toll "ee adstment nder the #+O-s $eriodic7interim adstment "ormla.

5d6 +oll (ate dstments. +he %ort reected $etitioners- contention that the toll rate

adstment mechanisms in the #+Os violated the %onstittion. Petitioners ar!e that the#+Os "or the North ?9on A/$ress&ay, #oth ?9on A/$ress&ay and #oth :etro :anila

#y&ay 5#::#6 $roects tie the hands o" the +(', as it is bond by the sti$lated $eriodic and

interim toll rate adstments $rovided therein. Petitioners contend that the $rovisionson initial toll rates and $eriodic7interim toll rate adstments, by sin! a bilt*in atomatic tollrate adstment "ormla, !aranteed "i/ed retrns "or the investors and ne!ated the $blic hearin!reirement. +he %ort held that the reisite $blic hearin!s nder #ection 35d6 o" PD 1112

and #ection @5b6 o" PD 1@


10/102

"actal bacdro$ o" the case &hile it &as $endin! be"ore the %ort. +he #$reme %ort ths

de"erred to the com$etence and e/$ertise o" the #ecrities and A/chan!e %ommission to

determine &hether, !iven the s$ervenin! events, the #econd mendment to the (ehabilitationPlan is no lon!er ca$able o" im$lementation and &hether the rehabilitation case shold be

terminated as a conseence.Nestle Philippines, nc. et al. vs. ni3i)e /ales, nc., et al. G.R.

No. 17=7=, October !0, !010.

Government %ontracts) Pblic 'iddin!. +he %ort held that $blic biddin! is not reired &ithres$ect to the $rocrement o" the #oth :etro :anila #y&ay, North ?9on A/$ress&ay and

#oth ?9on A/$ress&ay $roects. Private $etitioners maintain that $blic biddin! is reired"or these $roects on the basis that they are in the natre o" a bild*o$erate*trans"er in"rastrctre

ndertain! nder the 'O+ ?a&. +he %ort said that the 'O+ ?a& does not sarely a$$ly toPhili$$ine National %onstrction %or$oration 5PN%%6, &hich e/ercised its $rero!atives and

obli!ations nder its "ranchise to $rse the constrction, rehabilitation and e/$ansion o"

the above toll roads &ith chosen $artners. +hese toll&ay $roects may very &ell ali"y as abild*o$erate*trans"er ndertain!. Ho&ever, !iven that the $roects have been ndertaen byPN%% in the e/ercise o" its "ranchise nder Presidential Decree No. 1113 and Presidential

Decree No. 1@


11/102

incremental $rocess to borlan be!innin! 200@, and conclded his trans"er in early 200inally, altho!h in some

e/$ro$riation cases, the %ort allo&ed the im$osition o" said interest, the same &as in the natre

o" dama!es "or delay in $ayment &hich in e""ect maes the obli!ation on the $art o" the

!overnment one o" "orbearance. In this case, res$ondents are not entitled to interest on the "inalcom$ensation considerin! that $etitioner $rom$tly de$osited the com$ensation "or their lands

a"ter they reected $etitioner-s initial valation.an) #an4 of the Philippines vs. Glenn. "scan)or, et al. G.R. No. 17182, October 11, !010.Aner!y (e!latory %ommission) Im$lementation o" ( =@32. #F(NA%O cannot insist on sin!

the mlti$lier scheme even a"ter the im$osition o" the system loss ca$s nder #ection 10 o" (..

No. =@32. Indeed, nder National Alectri"ication dministration :emorandm No. 1*, the se

o" the mlti$lier scheme allo&s the recovery o" system losses even beyond the ca$s mandated in(.. No. =@32, &hich is intended to !radally $hase ot $il"era!e losses as a com$onent o" the

recoverable system losses by the distribtin! tilities sch as #F(NA%O. Ho&ever, it is totally

re$!nant to and incom$atible &ith the system loss ca$s established in (.. No. =@32, and isre$ealed by #ection 1; o" the la&. s bet&een NA :emorandm No. 1*, a mere

administrative issance, and (.. No. =@32, a le!islative enactment, the latter mst$revail. dditionally, the PP "ormla $rovided in the I(( o" (.. No. =@32 &as only a modelto be sed as a !ide by the electric coo$eratives in $ro$osin! their o&n PP "ormla "or

a$$roval by the then Aner!y (e!latory 'oard 5A('6. #ections C and B, (le IJ o" the I((

directed the electric coo$eratives to a$$ly "or a$$roval o" sch "ormla &ith the A(' so that the

system loss ca$s nder the la& &old be incor$orated in their com$tation o" $o&er costadstments. +he I(( did not $rovide "or a s$eci"ic "ormla) there"ore, there &as nothin! in the

I(( that &as amended or cold have been amended relative to the PP "ormla. +he I(( le"t to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/191938.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/191938.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/171685.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/171685.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/191938.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/171685.htm


12/102

the A(', no& the Aner!y (e!latory %ommission, the athority to a$$rove and oversee the

im$lementation o" the electric coo$eratives- PP "ormla in the e/ercise o" its rate*main!

$o&er over them. #ri!ao del Norte Alectric %oo$erative, Inc. 5#F(NA%O6 vs. Aner!y(e!latory %ommission. G.(. No. 1@3;2;, October C, 2010.

PN%%) thority "ter A/$iration o" >ranchise . In this case, $etitioners assme and har$ on the

lac o" athority o" the Phili$$ine National %onstrction %or$oration 5PN%%6 to contine, in

oint ventre &ith $rivate investors, &ith its North ?9on A/$ress&ay 5N?AJ6, #oth ?9onA/$ress&ay 5#?AJ6 and :etro :anila A/$ress&ay 5::AJ6 o$erations a"ter the la$se o" its

"ranchise 5!ranted nder Presidential Decree No. 11136 on :ay 1, 200=. Ho&ever, thise/$iration did not carry &ith it the cancellation o" PN%%-s athority and that o" its oint ventre

$artners !ranted nder Presidential Decree No. 1112 in relation to #ection 1 o" PresidentialDecree No. 1@


13/102

ille!al, let alone nconstittional, &ith the dele!ation to the President o" the athority to a$$rove

the assi!nment by PN%% o" its ri!hts and interest in its "ranchise, the assi!nment and dele!ation

bein! circmscribed by restrictions in the dele!atin! la& itsel". Arnesto '. >rancisco, r., et al.vs. +oll (e!latory 'oard, et al.7Hon. Imee (. :arcos, et al. vs. +he (e$blic o" the Phili$$ines,

et al.7Gisin! Mabataan :ovement, Inc., et al. vs. +he (e$blic o" the Phili$$ines, et al.7+he

(e$blic o" the Phili$$ines vs. on! Pro"essionals and Antre$reners o" #an Pedro,

?a!na. G.(. No. 1;;


14/102

%on!ress has an e/$licit athority to !rant a $blic tility "ranchise. Ho&ever, it may validlydele!ate its le!islative athority, nder the $o&er o" sbordinate le!islation, to isse "ranchises

o" certain $blic tilities to some administrative a!encies. "rnesto #. $rancisco, %r., et al. vs.

&oll Re'ulator( #oar), et al.*+on. mee R. Marcos, et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, etal.*Gisin' -abataan Movement, nc., et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*&he

Republic of the Philippines vs. oun' Professionals an) "ntrepreneurs of /an Pe)ro,

a'una. G.R. No. 1910, 19917, 170, 18299, October 19, !010.

+oll (e!latory 'oard) asi*?e!islative and asi*dicial >nctions . Petitioners in the

s$ecial civil actions cases &old have the %ort declare as invalid 5i6 #ections 35a6 and 5d6 o"Presidential Decree No. 1112 5&hich accord the +oll (e!latory 'oard 5+('6 the $o&er to enter

into contracts "or the constrction and o$eration o" toll "acilities, and, at the same time, !rant itthe $o&er to isse and $roml!ate toll rates6 and 5ii6 #ection @5b6 o" Presidential Decree

No. 1@


15/102

De$artment o" +rade and Indstry to the National Aconomic and Develo$ment thority

5NAD6.

ccordin! to NAD #ecretary %ayetano Paderan!a, r., the PPPs &ill be ndertaen mainly

nder the "rame&or o" the 'O+ ?a& and its im$lementin! re!lations. +hs, the role o" the'O+ %enter, no& PPP %enter, is im$ortant.

mon! the $o&ers and "nctions o" the PPP %enter nder AO No. @ are

1. ssist the im$lementin! a!encies 5Is6 and local !overnment nits 5?GFs6 in addressin!im$ediments and bottlenecs in the im$lementation o" PPP $roects)

2. Provide advisory services, technical assistance and trainin! to Is and ?GFs in PPP $roect$re$aration and develo$ment)

3. :onitor and "acilitate the im$lementation o" $riority PPP $ro!rams and $roects)

C. (ecommend $lans, $olicies and im$lementin! !idelines related to PPP in consltation &ith

a$$ro$riate oversi!ht committees, Is and ?GFs)

B. :ana!e and administer a revolvin! "nd "or the $re$aration o" bsiness case, $re*"easibilityand "easibility stdies and tender docments "or PPP $ro!rams and $roects) and

;. Pre$are re$orts on the im$lementation o" PPP $ro!rams and $roects "or sbmission to the

President each year.

ccordin! to AO No. @, the $roect a$$roval $rocess "or ali"ied solicited PPPs shall becom$leted &ithin si/ months sbect to e/istin! la&s, rles and re!lations. +he PPP %enter

shold hel$ in ensrin! that this timetable is achieved.

Jul 2011 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Political Law

Posted on !st 1


16/102

$rior to the la$se o" the $eriod "or $etitioners to "ile their comment on the a$$lication6, its

sbseent act o" orderin! $etitioners to "ile their comments on another $arty-s motion "or

reconsideration cred this de"ect. Aven tho!h $etitioners never "iled their o&n motion "orreconsideration, the "act that they &ere still !iven notice o" the other motion and the o$$ortnity

to "ile their comments renders immaterial A(%-s "ailre to admit their comment on the rate

a$$lication. National 5ssociation of "lectricit( onsumers of reforms, nc. CNasecoreD, et al. vs.

"ner'( Re'ulator ommission :"R;, et al., G.R. No. 190792. %ul( , !011.

Vale added ta/ on toll "ees) non*im$airment clase. Petitioners ar!e that since V+ &as

never "actored into the "ormla "or com$tin! toll "ees nder the +oll O$eration !reements, itsim$osition &old violate the non*im$airment o" contract clase o" the constittion. +he #% held

that Petitioner +imbol has no $ersonality to invoe the non*im$airment clase on behal" o"$rivate investors in the toll&ay $roects. #he &ill neither be $rediced nor a""ected by the

alle!ed dimintion in retrn o" investments that may reslt "rom the V+ im$osition. #he has

no interest in the $ro"its to be earned nder the +Os. +he interest in and ri!ht to recoverinvestments belon!s solely to the $rivate toll&ay investors. Renato . >iaA an) 5urora Ma. $.

&imbol vs. &he /ecretar( of $inance an) the ommissioner of nternal Revenue, G.R. No.

19007. %ul( 19, !011.

Administrative Law

Pblic o""icial) e""ect o" resi!nation on "ilin! o" administrative com$laint. +he Ombdsman can

no lon!er institte an administrative case a!ainst ndtan becase the latter &as not a $blic

servant at the time the case &as "iled. It is irrelevant, accordin! to the Ombdsman, that

ndtan had already resi!ned $rior to the "ilin! o" the administrative case since the o$erative"act that determines its risdiction is the commission o" an o""ense &hile in the $blic service.

+he #% observed that indeed it has held in the $ast that a $blic o""icial-s resi!nation does not

render moot an administrative case that &as "iled $rior to the o""icial-s resi!nation. Ho&ever,the "acts o" those cases are not entirely a$$licable to the $resent case. In the $ast cases, the %ort

"ond that the $blic o""icials sbect o" the administrative cases resi!ned, either to $revent

the contination o" a case already "iled or to $re*em$t the imminent "ilin! o" one. Here, neither

sitation obtains. $irst, ndtan-s resi!nation &as neither his choice nor o" his o&n doin!) he&as "orced to resi!n. /econ), ndtan resi!ned "rom his DO> $ost on ly 1, 1


17/102

Ho&ever, ( ;


18/102

e/ercised. +acien)a uisita, nc., et al. vs. Presi)ential 5'rarian Reform ouncil, G.R. No.

171101, %ul( 2, !011.

Au!ust 2011 Philippine Supreme Court


Posted on #e$tember 13, 2011by Vicente D. Gerochi IV

Here are selected !st 2011 rlin!s o" the #$reme %ort o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&.

Constitutional Law

%onstittionality o" stattes) &rit o" certiorari and $rohibition. 4rits o" certiorari and $rohibitionare $ro$er remedies to test the constittionality o" stattes and the acts o" the other branches o"

!overnment. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 18717,

5u'ust 1, !011.

International la&) FN%?O# III) (


19/102

international la&. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No.

18717, 5u'ust 1, !011.

International la&) archi$ela!ic &aters. Petitioners contend that (


20/102

"or the im$osition o" the lesser $enalty remains the same. &he ivil /ervice ommission vs.

Richar) G. ruA, G.R. No. 187828, 5u'ust 9, !011.

dministrative $roceedin!s) sbstantial evidence. #el"*servin! and nsbstantiated declarations

are ins""icient to establish a case be"ore asi*dicial bodies &here the antm o" evidencereired establishin! a "act is sbstantial evidence. O"ten described as more than a mere

scintilla, sbstantial evidence is sch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind mi!ht acce$t as

adeate to s$$ort a conclsion, even i" other eally reasonable minds mi!ht conceivablyo$ine other&ise. In this case, there is no dis$te re!ardin! the "act that As!erra had alto!ether

"ailed to com$ly &ith the mandatory re$ortin! reirement nder the POA*#A%. 'eyond hisbare assertion that %#:#I 5em$loyer6 never !ave him re"errals to contine his medications as

recommended by the "orei!n doctor des$ite his call on @ ly 2003 to in"orm them that he &illre$ort the ne/t day in order to sbmit his medical evalation abroad, As!erra did not $resent

any evidence to $rove sti"ication "or his inability to sbmit himsel" to a $ost*em$loyment

medical e/amination by a com$any*desi!nated $hysician. +hs, he &as not a&arded disabilitybene"its and sicness allo&ance. oastal /afe3a( Marine /ervices vs. "s'uerra, G.R. No.

1822!, 5u'ust 10, !011.

Pblic o""icers) No &or*no $ay $rinci$le) A/ce$tion. +he !eneral rle is that $blic o""icials

are only entitled to com$ensation i" they render service. +his is other&ise no&n as the no

&or*no $ay $rinci$le. Ho&ever, bac salaries may be a&arded even "or n&ored days toille!ally dismissed or nstly ss$ended em$loyees based on the constittional $rovision that

no o""icer or em$loyee in the civil service shall be removed or ss$ended e/ce$t "or case$rovided by la&. In order, ho&ever, to "all nder this e/ce$tion, t&o conditions mst be

com$lied &ith 5a6 the em$loyee mst be "ond innocent o" the char!es) and 5b6 his ss$ension

mst be nsti"ied. In this case, the t&o conditions &ere $resent. +he "irst condition &as metsince the o""ense &hich the res$ondent &as "ond !ilty o" 5violation o" reasonable rles and

re!lations6 stemmed "rom an act 5"ailre to lo! in and lo! ot6 di""erent "rom the act o"

dishonesty 5claimin! overtime $ay des$ite his "ailre to render overtime &or6 that he &as

char!ed &ith. +he second condition &as met as the res$ondent-s committed o""ense meritsneither dismissal "rom the service nor ss$ension 5"or more than one month6, bt only

re$rimand. In sm, the res$ondent is entitled to bac salaries "rom the time he &as dismissedntil his reinstatement to his "ormer $osition i.e., "or the $eriod o" his $reventive ss$ension$endin! a$$eal. >or the $eriod o" his $reventive ss$ension $endin! investi!ation, the

res$ondent is not entitled to any bac salaries. &he ivil /ervice ommission vs. Richar) G.

ruA, G.R. No. 187828, 5u'ust 9, !011.

Pblic o""icers) inds o" $reventive ss$ension. +here are t&o inds o" $reventive ss$ension o"civil service em$loyees &ho are char!ed &ith o""enses $nishable by removal or ss$ension 5i6

$reventive ss$ension $endin! investi!ation and 5ii6 $reventive ss$ension $endin! a$$eal.

%om$ensation is de only "or the $eriod o" $reventive ss$ension$endin! a$$eal shold theem$loyee be ltimately e/onerated. &he ivil /ervice ommission vs. Richar) G. ruA, G.R.

No. 187828, 5u'ust 9, !011.

Election Law

Alection contest) $reliminary con"erence. +he estioned notice o" $reliminary con"erenceissed in the instant election $rotest &as de"ective in that 516 the notice issed by the :%+%

cler o" cort &as a !eneric notice o" hearin! &ithot any mention that it &as "or $reliminary

con"erence, and 526 it &as served on the $arty himsel" des$ite bein! re$resented by consel in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187858.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/185352.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/185352.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187858.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187858.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187858.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187858.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/185352.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/185352.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187858.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187858.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/187858.htm


21/102

contravention o" (le


22/102

certi"icate o" re!istration is not an act constittin! rennciation o" Phili$$ine citi9enshi$. >or

rennciation to e""ectively reslt in loss o" citi9enshi$, the same mst be e/$ress. #ch e/$ress

rennciation is lacin! in this case. ccordin!ly, ?imaichon!-s mother, bein! a >ili$inociti9en, can transmit her citi9enshi$ to her da!hter. Renal) $. ilan)o vs. +ouse ofRepresentatives "lectoral &ribunal, %ocel(n /( im4aichon' an) +on. /pea4er Prospero

No'rales, G.R. Nos. 19!1=7 F 19!1=9. 5u'ust !, !011.

%iti9enshi$) natral*born citi9en. 4ith ?imaichon!-s "ather havin! been con"erred the statsas a natrali9ed >ili$ino, it "ollo&s that she is a >ili$ino citi9en born to a >ili$ino "ather. Aven

on the assm$tion that the natrali9ation $roceedin!s and the sbseent issance o" a certi"icateo" natrali9ation &ere invalid, ?imaichon! can still be considered a natral*born >ili$ino

citi9en havin! been born to a >ili$ino mother and havin! im$liedly elected >ili$ino citi9enshi$&hen she reached maority a!e. +he H(A+ &as, ths, "ond to have rled correctly in declarin!

that ?imaichon! is a natral*born >ili$ino citi9en. Renal) $. ilan)o vs. +ouse of

Representatives "lectoral &ribunal, %ocel(n /( im4aichon' an) +on. /pea4er ProsperoNo'rales, G.R. Nos. 19!1=7 F 19!1=9. 5u'ust !, !011.

%onstittionality o" stattes) &rit o" certiorari and $rohibition. 4rits o" certiorari and $rohibition

are $ro$er remedies to test the constittionality o" stattes and the acts o" the other branches o"

!overnment. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 18717,

5u'ust 1, !011.

Hose o" (e$resentatives Alectoral +ribnal) risdiction. +he H(A+ has risdiction over o

&arranto $etitions, s$eci"ically over cases challen!in! ineli!ibility on the !rond o" lac o"

citi9enshi$. +he 1


23/102

maritime 9ones and continental shelves. In trn, this !ives notice to the rest o" the international

commnity o" the sco$e o" the maritime s$ace and sbmarine areas &ithin &hich #tates e/ercise

treaty*based ri!hts, namely, the e/ercise o" soverei!nty over territorial &aters 5rticle 26, therisdiction to en"orce cstoms, "iscal, immi!ration, and sanitation la&s in the conti!os 9one

5rticle 336, and the ri!ht to e/$loit the livin! and non*livin! resorces in the e/clsive

economic 9one 5rticle B;6 and continental shel" 5rticle ==6. In sm, FN%?O# III and its

ancillary baselines la&s $lay no role in the acisition, enlar!ement or, as $etitioners claim,dimintion o" territory. Fnder traditional international la& ty$olo!y, #tates acire 5or

conversely, lose6 territory thro!h occ$ation, accretion, cession and $rescri$tion, not by

e/ectin! mltilateral treaties on the re!lations o" sea*se ri!hts or enactin! stattes to com$ly&ith the treaty-s terms to delimit maritime 9ones and continental shelves. +erritorial claims to

land "eatres are otside FN%?O# III, and are instead !overned by the rles on !eneral

international la&. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 18717, 5u'ust 1, !011.

International la&) archi$ela!ic &aters. Petitioners contend that (


24/102

soverei!nty, sbectin! these &aters to the ri!hts o" other #tates nder FN%?O# III. Prof.

Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 18717, 5u'ust 1, !011.

d!ment) la& o" the case. +he doctrine o" the la3 of the case means that &hatever is

irrevocably established as the controllin! le!al rle bet&een the same $arties in the same case,&hether correct on !eneral $rinci$les or not, contines to be the la& o" the case "or as lon! as the

"acts on &hich the le!al rle &as $redicated contine to be the "acts o" the case be"ore the cort.

In G.(. No. 13=2@B 5&hich &as the $redecessor o" this case6, the #$reme %ort $held theannlment o" the ompromise 5'reementand reco!ni9ed that the a!reed $on mode o" $ayment

o" the st com$ensation "or ?ot 1C0;*' &ith ?ot C3C &as cancelled. +he #% ratiocinated that itis notable that it mentioned nothin! in the said case abot the invalidation o" the amont o" st

com$ensation corres$ondin! to the mode o" $ayment, &hich &as the vale o" ?ot C3C at thetime, &hich silence &as the %ort-s acno&led!ment that the $arties nderstood and acce$ted,

by enterin! into the ompromise 5'reementin 1irst District o" Ne!ros

Oriental "rom ne 30, 200= to ne 30, 2010 already e/$ired. :oreover, there &as the condcto" the 2010 elections, &hich has also rendered this case moot and academic. Ho&ever,

citi9enshi$, bein! a continin! reirement "or :embers o" the Hose o" (e$resentatives, may

be estioned at anytime. >or this reason, the %ort deemed it a$$ro$riate to resolve the $etitionon the merits based on the rle that corts &ill decide a estion, other&ise moot and academic,

i" it is ca$able o" re$etition, yet evadin! revie&. +he estion on ?imaichon!-s citi9enshi$ is

liely to recr i" she &old rn a!ain, as she did, "or $blic o""ice, hence, ca$able o" re$etition.

Renal) $. ilan)o vs. +ouse of Representatives "lectoral &ribunal, %ocel(n /( im4aichon' an)+on. /pea4er Prospero No'rales, G.R. Nos. 19!1=7 F 19!1=9. 5u'ust !, !011.

NP% %harter) $rescri$tion. +he #% rled that the $rescri$tive $eriod $rovided nder #ection 35i6

o" (e$blic ct No. ;3


25/102

$rovisions on hman relations in the ivil o)e,and the e/ercise reslts in dama!e to another, a

le!al &ron! is committed and the &ron!doer is held res$onsible. +he t&o actions are di""erent in

natre and $r$ose. +he action to recover st com$ensation is based on the %onstittion &hilethe action "or dama!es is $redicated on stattory enactments. Indeed, the "ormer arises "rom the

e/ercise by the #tate o" its $o&er o" eminent domain a!ainst $rivate $ro$erty "or $blic se, bt

the latter emanates "rom the trans!ression o" a ri!ht. +he "act that the o&ner rather than the

e/$ro$riator brin!s the "ormer does not chan!e the essential natre o" the sit as an inversecondemnation, "or the sit is not based on tort, bt on the constittional $rohibition a!ainst the

tain! o" $ro$erty &ithot st com$ensation. National Po3er orporation vs. +eirs of

Macaban'4it /an'4a(, namel(H ebu, #ato3a6an, et al., all surname) Macaban'4it, G.R. No. 128!8. 5u'ust !=, !011.

Po&er o" Aminent Domain) st com$ensation) reconin! vale. +he (+% based its "i/in! o"

st com$ensation ostensibly on the $revailin! maret vale at the time o" the "ilin! o" the

com$laint, instead o" reconin! it "rom the time o" the tain! $rsant to #ection 35h6 o"(e$blic ct No. ;3


26/102

$aid, instead. "


27/102

&or*no $ay $rinci$le. Ho&ever, bac salaries may be a&arded even "or n&ored days to

ille!ally dismissed or nstly ss$ended em$loyees based on the constittional $rovision that

no o""icer or em$loyee in the civil service shall be removed or ss$ended e/ce$t "or case$rovided by la&. In order, ho&ever, to "all nder this e/ce$tion, t&o conditions mst be

com$lied &ith 5a6 the em$loyee mst be "ond innocent o" the char!es) and 5b6 his ss$ension

mst be nsti"ied. In this case, the t&o conditions &ere $resent. +he "irst condition &as met

since the o""ense &hich the res$ondent &as "ond !ilty o" 5violation o" reasonable rles andre!lations6 stemmed "rom an act 5"ailre to lo! in and lo! ot6 di""erent "rom the act o"

dishonesty 5claimin! overtime $ay des$ite his "ailre to render overtime &or6 that he &as

char!ed &ith. +he second condition &as met as the res$ondent-s committed o""ense meritsneither dismissal "rom the service nor ss$ension 5"or more than one month6, bt only

re$rimand. In sm, the res$ondent is entitled to bac salaries "rom the time he &as dismissed

ntil his reinstatement to his "ormer $osition i.e., "or the $eriod o" his $reventive ss$ension$endin! a$$eal. >or the $eriod o" his $reventive ss$ension $endin! investi!ation, the

res$ondent is not entitled to any bac salaries. &he ivil /ervice ommission vs. Richar) G.

ruA, G.R. No. 187828, 5u'ust 9, !011.

Pblic o""icers) inds o" $reventive ss$ension. +here are t&o inds o" $reventive ss$ension o"civil service em$loyees &ho are char!ed &ith o""enses $nishable by removal or ss$ension 5i6

$reventive ss$ension $endin! investi!ation and 5ii6 $reventive ss$ension $endin! a$$eal.

%om$ensation is de only "or the $eriod o" $reventive ss$ension$endin! a$$eal shold theem$loyee be ltimately e/onerated. &he ivil /ervice ommission vs. Richar) G. ruA, G.R. No. 187828, 5u'ust 9, !011.

Election Law

Alection contest) $reliminary con"erence. +he estioned notice o" $reliminary con"erenceissed in the instant election $rotest &as de"ective in that 516 the notice issed by the :%+%

cler o" cort &as a !eneric notice o" hearin! &ithot any mention that it &as "or $reliminary

con"erence, and 526 it &as served on the $arty himsel" des$ite bein! re$resented by consel incontravention o" (le


28/102

September 2011 Philippine Supreme Court


Posted on October 21, 2011by Vicente D. Gerochi IV

Here are selected #e$tember 2011 rlin!s o" the #$reme %ort o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical

la&.

Constitutional Law

%O) Po&ers and "nction. Fnder the 1a3is65suncion an) Marlon M. acson vs. ommission on 5u)it, G.R. No. 1977. /eptember , !011.

?ocal !overnment nits) !rant o" a&ard to em$loyees. In the e/ercise o" its $o&er to determine

the $ositions and salaries, &a!es, allo&ances and other emolments and bene"its o" o""icials and

em$loyees $aid &holly or mainly "rom city "nds and $rovide "or e/$enditres necessary "or the$ro$er condct o" $ro!rams, $roects, services, and activities o" the city !overnment, the %ity

%oncil o" :anila enacted Ordinance No. @0C0, &hich athori9ed the con"erment o" the AP#

5A/em$lary Pblic #ervice &ard6 to the "ormer three*term concilors and, as $art o" the a&ard,

the ali"ied city o""icials &ere to be !iven retirement and !ratity $ay remneration. +he#$reme %ort, ho&ever, noted that the above $o&er is not &ithot limitations, sch as the rle

a!ainst doble com$ensation. +he recom$tation o" the a&ard disclosed that it is eivalent tothe total com$ensation received by each a&ardee "or nine years that incldes basic salary,

additional com$ensation, Personnel Aconomic (elie" llo&ance, re$resentation and

trans$ortation allo&ance, rice allo&ance, "inancial assistance, clothin! allo&ance, 13thmonth $ay

and cash !i"t. Fndobtedly, the a&ardees- re&ard is e/cessive and tantamont to doble andadditional com$ensation. +he remneration is eivalent to everythin! that the a&ardees

received drin! the entire $eriod that he served as sch o""icial. Indirectly, their salaries and

bene"its are dobled, only that they receive hal" o" them at the end o" their last term. ucianoeloso, 5braham abochan, %ocel(n >a3is65suncion an) Marlon M. acson vs. ommission

on 5u)it, G.R. No. 1977. /eptember , !011.

%onstittionality) +ari"" and %stoms %ode. In this case, the isse &as the validity o" %stoms

dministrative Order No. =*


29/102

$aid to em$loyees o" $rivate enter$rise. +he #$reme %ort disa!reed &ith the % in e/cldin!

airline com$anies, aircra"t o&ners, and o$erators "rom the covera!e o" #ection 3B0; o" the

+%%P. +he term other $ersons served re"ers to all other $ersons served by the 'O%em$loyees. irline com$anies, aircra"t o&ners, and o$erators are amon! other $ersons served by

the 'O% em$loyees. +he $rocessin! o" embarin! and disembarin! "rom aircra"ts o"

$assen!ers, as &ell as their ba!!a!e and car!oes, "orms $art o" the 'O% "nctions. 'O%

em$loyees &ho serve beyond the re!lar o""ice hors are entitled to overtime $ay "or theservices they render. +he #% also noted that the 'O% created a committee to re*evalate the

$ro$osed increase in the rate o" overtime $ay and "or t&o years, several meetin!s &ere condcted

&ith the a!encies concerned to discss the $ro$osal. '( and the irline O$erators %oncil$artici$ated in these meetin!s and discssions. Hence, '( cannot claim that it &as denied de

$rocess in the im$osition o" the increase o" the overtime rate. /er'io . arbonilla, et al. vs.

#ora) of 5irlines, et al., G.R. No. 19!=7*G.R. No. 19=!7. /eptember 1=, !011.

Fnde Dele!ation) +ari"" and %stoms %ode. +he #% did not a!ree &ith the %ort o" $$ealsthat #ection 3B0; o" the +%%P "ailed the com$leteness and s""icient standard tests. Fnder the

"irst test, the la& mst be com$lete in all its terms and conditions &hen it leaves the le!islatre

sch that &hen it reaches the dele!ate, the only thin! he &ill have to do is to en"orce it. +hesecond test reires adeate !idelines or limitations in the la& to determine the bondaries o"

the dele!ate-s athority and $revent the dele!ation "rom rnnin! riot. %ontrary to the rlin! o"

the %ort o" $$eals, #ection 3B0; o" the +%%P com$lied &ith these reirements. +he la& iscom$lete in itsel" that it leaves nothin! more "or the 'O% to do it !ives athority to the

%ollector to assi!n cstoms em$loyees to do overtime &or) the %ommissioner o" %stoms "i/es

the rates) and it $rovides that the $ayments shall be made by the im$orters, shi$$ers or other

$ersons served. #ection 3B0; also "i/ed the standard to be "ollo&ed by the %ommissioner o"%stoms &hen it $rovides that the rates shall not be less than that $rescribed by la& to be $aid to

em$loyees o" $rivate enter$rise. /er'io . arbonilla, et al. vs. #ora) of 5irlines, et al., G.R.

No. 19!=7*G.R. No. 19=!7. /eptember 1=, !011.

#eestration and >ree9e Orders) natre and $r$ose. 4ithot main! a de"initive conclsion asto the validity o" the #eestration and >ree9e Orders bein! the main isse in %ivil %ase No.

01C2 &hich is yet to be decided by the #andi!anbayan, the #% conclded that the $ieces o"evidence enmerated by +orist Dty >ree #ho$s, Inc. 5+D>#I6 do not sho& that it has a ri!ht tobe $rotected and that the im$lementation o" the #eestration and >ree9e Orders violates its

ri!hts. +he $o&er o" the P%GG to seester $ro$erty claimed to be ill*!otten means to $lace

or case to be $laced nder its $ossession or control said $ro$erty, or any bildin! or o""ice&herein any sch $ro$erty and any records $ertainin! thereto may be "ond, incldin! bsiness

enter$rises and entities "or the $r$ose o" $reventin! the destrction, concealment or

dissi$ation o", and other&ise conservin! and $reservin!, the same ntil it can be determined,thro!h a$$ro$riate dicial $roceedin!s, &hether the $ro$erty &as in trth ill*!otten. On the

other hand, a "ree9e order $rohibits the $erson havin! $ossession or control o" $ro$erty alle!ed to

constitte ill*!otten &ealth "rom trans"errin!, conveyin!, encmberin! or other&ise de$letin! or

concealin! sch $ro$erty, or "rom assistin! or tain! $art in its trans"er, encmbrance,concealment, or dissi$ation. In other &ords, it commands the $ossessor to hold the $ro$erty and

conserve it sbect to the orders and dis$osition o" the athority decreein! sch "ree9in!.

Presi)ential ommission on Goo) Government vs. /an)i'anba(an :/econ) >ivision;, et al.,G.R. No. 12!200. /eptember 1=, !011.

Administrative Law
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/193247.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/193247.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/193247.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/193247.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/152500.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/193247.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/193247.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/193247.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/152500.htm


30/102

Pblic o""icers) administrative vs. criminal liability. It is a basic rle in administrative la& that

$blic o""icials are nder a three*"old res$onsibility "or a violation o" their dty or "or a &ron!"l

act or omission, sch that they may be held civilly, criminally and administratively liable "or thesame act. dministrative liability is se$arate and distinct "rom $enal and civil liability. >irst,

there is a di""erence in the antm o" evidence reired and, correlatively, the $rocedre

observed and sanctions im$osed. #econd, there is the $rinci$le that a sin!le act may o""end

a!ainst t&o or more distinct and related $rovisions o" la&, or that the same act may !ive rise tocriminal as &ell as administrative liability. ccordin!ly, the dismissal o" the criminal case "or

violation o" (.. No. 301< by the Ombdsman does not "oreclose administrative action a!ainst

%atai9, as the !eneral mana!er o" ?a!na ?ae Develo$ment thority. Office of thePresi)ent an) Presi)ential 5nti6Graft ommission vs. ali


31/102

%onstittional %ommission deliberations. +hese %onstittional %ommission e/chan!es, read

&ith the $rovisions o" the +ransitory Provisions o" the %onstittion, all serve as $atent indicators

o" the constittional mandate to hold synchroni9ed national and local elections, startin! thesecond :onday o" :ay, 1


32/102

and, 5c6 the !rant and e/tent o" the le!islative $o&ers constittionally conceded to the re!ional

!overnment nder #ection 20, rticle J o" the %onstittion. +he date o" the (:: elections

does not "all nder any o" the matters that the %onstittion s$eci"ically mandated %on!ress to$rovide "or in the Or!anic ct. +here"ore, any chan!e in the date o" elections cannot be

constred as a sbstantial amendment o" the Or!anic ct that &old reire com$liance &ith the

$lebiscite reirement.

>oes R5 1012 violate the autonom( 'rante) to the 5RMMI No. Petitioners ar!ed that &hilesynchroni9ation may be constittionally mandated, it cannot be sed to de"eat or to im$ede the

atonomy that the %onstittion !ranted to the (::. Phrased in this manner, one &old$resme that there e/ists a con"lict bet&een t&o reco!ni9ed %onstittional mandates

synchroni9ation and re!ional atonomy sch that it is necessary to choose one over the other.+he %ort "ond this to be an erroneos a$$roach that violates a basic $rinci$le in constittional

constrction that the %onstittion is to be inter$reted as a &hole, and one mandate shold not be

!iven im$ortance over the other e/ce$t &here the $rimacy o" one over the other is clear.#ynchroni9ation is an interest that is as constittionally entrenched as re!ional atonomy. +hey

are interests that the %ort shold reconcile and !ive e""ect to, in the &ay that %on!ress did in

( 101B3, &hich $rovides the measre to transit to synchroni9ed re!ional elections &ith theleast distrbance on the interests that mst be res$ected. Particlarly, re!ional atonomy &ill be

res$ected instead o" bein! sidelined, as the la& does not in any &ay alter, chan!e or modi"y its

!overnin! "eatres, e/ce$t in a very tem$orary manner and only as necessitated by the attendantcircmstances. >rther, &hile atonomos re!ions are !ranted $olitical atonomy, the "ramers

o" the %onstittion never eated atonomy &ith inde$endence. +he (:: as a re!ional entity

ths contines to o$erate &ithin the lar!er "rame&or o" the #tate and is still sbect to the

national $olicies set by the national !overnment, save only "or those s$eci"ic areas reserved bythe %onstittion "or re!ional atonomos determination. +he atonomy !ranted to the (::

cannot be invoed to de"eat national $olicies and concerns. #ince the synchroni9ation o"

elections is not st a re!ional concern bt a national one, the (:: is sbect to it) the re!ionalatonomy !ranted to the (:: cannot be sed to e/em$t the re!ion "rom havin! to act in

accordance &ith a national $olicy mandated by no less than the %onstittion.

Given the constitutional ob?ective of s(nchroniAation, )i) on'ress 'ravel( abuse its )iscretionor violate the onstitution 3hen it a))resse) throu'h R5 1012 the concomitant problems thatthe a)?ustment of elections necessaril( brou'ht 3ith itI No. +he %ort here identi"ied the

"ollo&in! o$tions o$en to %on!ress in order to resolve the $roblems 516 allo& the elective

o""icials in the (:: to remain in o""ice in a hold over ca$acity ntil those elected in thesynchroni9ed elections assme o""ice) 526 hold s$ecial elections in the (::, &ith the terms o"

those elected to e/$ire &hen those elected in the synchroni9ed elections assme o""ice) or 536

athori9e the President to a$$oint o""icers in char!e, $rsant to #ection 3 o" ( 101B3, ntilthose elected in the synchroni9ed elections assme o""ice. +he %ort held that in choosin! to

!rant the President the $o&er to a$$oint OI%s, %on!ress chose the correct o$tion and $assed (

101B3 as a valid la&.

$oldover option is unconstitutional. +his o$tion violates #ection @, rticle J o" the%onstittion, &hich states that the term o" o""ice o" elective local o""icials, e/ce$t baran!ay

o""icials, &hich shall be determined by la&, shall be three years and no sch o""icial shall serve

"or more than three consective terms. #ince elective (:: o""icials are local o""icials, they

are covered and bond by the three*year term limit $rescribed by the %onstittion) %on!resscannot e/tend their term thro!h a la& allo&in! o""icials to serve in a holdover ca$acity. I" it

&ill be claimed that the holdover $eriod is e""ectively another term mandated by %on!ress, the


33/102

net reslt is "or %on!ress to create a ne& term and to a$$oint the occ$ant "or the ne& term. +his

vie& lie the e/tension o" the elective term is constittionally in"irm becase %on!ress

cannot do indirectly &hat it cannot do directly, i.e., to act in a &ay that &old e""ectively e/tendthe term o" the incmbents. %on!ress cannot also create a ne& term and e""ectively a$$oint the

occ$ant o" the $osition "or the ne& term. +his is e""ectively an act o" a$$ointment by %on!ress

and an nconstittional intrsion into the constittional a$$ointment $o&er o" the President.

CO%ELEC has no authorit to order special elections& nother o$tion $ro$osed by the$etitioner is "or this %ort to com$el %O:A?A% to immediately condct s$ecial elections

$rsant to #ection B and ; o" #atas Pambansa #ilan' @@1. +he $o&er to "i/ the date o"elections is essentially le!islative in natre. %on!ress has acted on the (:: elections by

$ost$onin! the schedled !st 2011 elections and settin! another date :ay 13, 2011 "orre!ional elections synchroni9ed &ith the $residential, con!ressional and other local elections. 'y

so doin!, %on!ress itsel" has madea $olicy decision in the e/ercise o" its le!islative &isdom that

it shall not call s$ecial elections as an adstment measre in synchroni9in! the (:: elections&ith the other elections. "ter %on!ress has so acted, neither the A/ective nor the diciary can

act to the contrary by orderin! s$ecial elections instead at the call o" the %O:A?A%. +he %ort,

$articlarly, cannot mae this call &ithot thereby s$$lantin! the le!islative decision ande""ectively le!islatin!. >rther, the constittional $o&er o" %O:A?A%, in contrast &ith the

$o&er o" %on!ress to call "or and to set the date o" elections, is limited to en"orcin! and

administerin! all la&s and re!lations relative to the condct o" an election. %O:A?A% has no$o&er to call "or the holdin! o" s$ecial elections nless $rsant to a s$eci"ic stattory !rant.

'he Court has no power to shorten the terms o# elective o##icials& Aven assmin! that it is

le!ally $ermissible "or the %ort to com$el the %O:A?A% to hold s$ecial elections, no le!al

basis e/ists to rle that the ne&ly elected (:: o""icials shall hold o""ice only ntil the(:: o""icials elected in the synchroni9ed elections shall have assmed o""ice. +he %ort is

not em$o&ered to adst the terms o" elective o""icials. 'ased on the %onstittion, the $o&er to

"i/ the term o" o""ice o" elective o""icials, &hich can be e/ercised only in the case o" baran'a(

o""icials, is s$eci"ically !iven to %on!ress. Aven %on!ress itsel" may be denied sch $o&er, assho&n &hen the %onstittion shortened the terms o" t&elve #enators obtainin! the least votes in

the 1


34/102

o""icials that the President can a$$oint $rsant to #ection 1;, rticle VII o" the %onstittion.

+hs, the assailed la& rests on clear constittional basis.

I" at all, the !ravest challen!e $osed by the $etitions to the athority to a$$oint OI%s nder

#ection 3 o" ( 101B3 is the assertion that the %onstittion reires that the (:: e/ectiveand le!islative o""icials be elective and re$resentative o" the constitent $olitical nits. +his

reirement indeed is an e/$ress limitation &hose non*observance in the assailed la& leaves the

a$$ointment o" OI%s constittionally de"ective. 't the %ort said this alle!ed constittional$roblem is more a$$arent than real and becomes very real only i" ( 101B3 &ere to be

mistaenly read as a la& that chan!es the elective and re$resentative character o" (::$ositions. ( 101B3, ho&ever, does not in any &ay amend &hat the or!anic la& o" the (::

sets ots in terms o" strctre o" !overnance. 4hat ( 101B3 in "act only does is to Kappointofficers6in6char'e for the Office of the Re'ional Governor, Re'ional ice Governor an)

Members of the Re'ional e'islative 5ssembl( 3ho shall perform the functions pertainin' to the

sai) offices until the officials )ul( electe) in the Ma( !01 elections shall have @ualifie) an)assume) office.L +his $o&er is "ar di""erent "rom a$$ointin! elective (:: o""icials "or the

abbreviated term endin! on the assm$tion to o""ice o" the o""icials elected in the :ay 2013

elections.

Given the $lain nconstittionality o" $rovidin! "or a holdover and the navailability o"

constittional $ossibilities "or len!thenin! or shortenin! the term o" the elected (:: o""icials,is the choice o" the President-s $o&er to a$$oint "or a "i/ed and s$eci"ic $eriod as an interim

measre, and as allo&ed nder #ection 1;, rticle VII o" the %onstittion an nconstittionalor nreasonable choice "or %on!ress to maeQ dmittedly, the !rant o" the $o&er to the

President nder other sitations or &here the $o&er o" a$$ointment &old e/tend beyond the

adstment $eriod "or synchroni9ation &old be to "oster a !overnment that is not democraticand re$blican. >or then, the $eo$le-s ri!ht to choose the leaders to !overn them may be said to

be systemically &ithdra&n to the $oint o" "osterin! an ndemocratic re!ime. +his is the !rant

that &old "rontally breach the elective and re$resentative !overnance reirement o" #ection

1@, rticle J o" the %onstittion. 't this conclsion &old not be tre nder the very limitedcircmstances contem$lated in ( 101B3 &here the $eriod is "i/ed and, more im$ortant, the

terms o" !overnance both nder #ection 1@, rticle J o" the %onstittion and (


35/102

$rovidin!, nder #ections 3, C and B o" the assailed la&, concrete terms in the $$ointment o"

OI%, the :anner and Procedre o" $$ointin! OI%s, and their ali"ications. >atu Michael

5bas -i)a, etc., et al. vs. /enate of the Philippines, etc., et al.*#asari >. Mapupuno vs. /i


36/102

>evelopment 5uthorit( vs. %ustice "milio 5. Ganca(co :Retire);, G.R. No. 177807*G.R. No.

1779. October 11, !011.

(i!ht to $rivacy) nreasonable search and sei9re. +his case involves a search o" o""ice

com$ter assi!ned to a !overnment em$loyee &ho &as char!ed administratively and eventallydismissed "rom the service. +he em$loyee-s $ersonal "iles stored in the com$ter &ere sed by

the !overnment em$loyer as evidence o" miscondct. Petitioner estions the le!ality o" the

search condcted on his o""ice com$ter and the co$yin! o" his $ersonal "iles &ithot hisno&led!e and consent. He said this search violated his constittional ri!ht to $rivacy. +he

ri!ht to $rivacy is a "acet o" the ri!ht $rotected by the !arantee a!ainst nreasonable search andsei9re nder #ection 2, rticle III o" the 1


37/102

he claims, the same is ne!ated by the $resence o" $olicy re!latin! the se o" o""ice com$ters .

+he %#% had im$lemented a $olicy that $ts its em$loyees on notice that they have no

e/$ectation o" $rivacy in anythin! they create, store, send or receive on the o""ice com$ters.Fnder this $olicy, the %#% may monitor the se o" the com$ter resorces sin! both atomated

or hman means. +his im$lies that on*the*s$ot ins$ections may be done to ensre that com$ter

resorces &ere sed only "or le!itimate bsiness $r$oses.

On the second isse, the %ort ans&ered in the a""irmative. +he search o" $etitioner-s com$ter"iles &as condcted in connection &ith an investi!ation o" &or*related miscondct. Fnder the

"acts obtainin!, the %ort held that the search condcted on $etitioner-s com$ter &as sti"ied atits ince$tion and in sco$e. #riccio KRic4(L 5. Pollo vs. hairperson -arina onstantino6>avi),

et al., G.R. No. 181881. October 18, !011.

Administrative Law

dministrative a!encies) de $rocess. Procedral de $rocess is the constittional standard

demandin! that notice and an o$$ortnity to be heard be !iven be"ore d!ment is rendered. s

lon! as a $arty is !iven the o$$ortnity to de"end his interests in de corse, he &old have noreason to com$lain) the essence o" de $rocess is in the o$$ortnity to be heard. "ormal or

trial*ty$e hearin! is not al&ays necessary. In this case, &hile the $etitioner did not $artici$ate in

the !st 1=, 200; $re*hearin! con"erence 5des$ite recei$t on !st 1C, 200; o" a "a/ co$y o"the !st 11, 200; order6 condcted by the G#I#, G#I# President and General :ana!er

4inston Garcia-s decision o" >ebrary 21, 200= dly considered and discssed the de"enses

raised in the $leadin!s "iled by $etitioner-s consel. >rthermore, &hat ne!ates any de $rocess

in"irmity is the $etitioner-s sbseent motion "or reconsideration &hich cred &hatever de"ectthe Hearin! O""icer mi!ht have committed in the corse o" hearin! the $etitioner-s case. !ain,

Garcia dly considered the ar!ments $resented in the $etitioner-s motion "or reconsideration

&hen he rendered the ne ;, 200= resoltion. +hs, the $etitioner &as actally heard thro!hhis $leadin!s. Monico -. mperial, %r. vs. Government /ervice nsurance /(stem, G.R. No.

191!!=. October =, !011.

dministrative a!encies) "indin!s o" "acts. In this case, $etitioner &as "ond to have committedthe acts com$lained o", i.e., he a$$roved the reests "or salary loans o" ei!ht G#I# Na!a >ieldO""ice em$loyees &ho laced the necessary contribtion reirements nder PPG No. 1B3*

irst, G#I# branch mana!ers have been !ranted in the $ast the athority to a$$rove

loan a$$lications beyond the $rescribed reirements o" G#I#) second, there &as a cstomary

lenient $ractice in the a$$roval o" loans e/ercised by some branch mana!ers not&ithstandin! thee/istin! G#I# $olicy) and third, the $etitioner "irst so!ht the a$$roval o" his immediate

s$ervisor be"ore actin! on the loan a$$lications. +hese circmstances rn conter to the

characteristic "la!rant disre!ard o" the rles that !rave miscondct reires. +hs, the his
https://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/181881.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/181881.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/191224.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/191224.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/191224.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/181881.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/191224.htmhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/191224.htm


38/102

liability nder the !iven "acts &as "ond to constitte as sim$le miscondct only. Monico -.

mperial, %r. vs. Government /ervice nsurance /(stem, G.R. No. 191!!=. October =, !011.

dministrative $roceedin!s) de $rocess. De $rocess in administrative $roceedin!s reires

com$liance &ith the "ollo&in! cardinal $rinci$les 516 the res$ondents- ri!ht to a hearin!, &hichincldes the ri!ht to $resent one-s case and sbmit s$$ortin! evidence, mst be observed) 526

the tribnal mst consider the evidence $resented) 536 the decision mst have some basis to

s$$ort itsel") 5C6 there mst be sbstantial evidence) 5B6 the decision mst be rendered on theevidence $resented at the hearin!, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the $arties

a""ected) 5;6 in arrivin! at a decision, the tribnal mst have acted on its o&n consideration o" thela& and the "acts o" the controversy and mst not have sim$ly acce$ted the vie&s o" a

sbordinate) and 5=6 the decision mst be rendered in sch manner that res$ondents &old no&the reasons "or it and the varios isses involved. In the $resent case, the "i"th reirement &as

not com$lied &ith. (eyes &as not $ro$erly a$$rised o" the evidence o""ered a!ainst him, &hich

&ere eventally made the bases o" $etitioner-s decision that "ond him !ilty o" !ravemiscondct. +he "act that (eyes &as able to assail the adverse decision o" the $etitioner viaa

:otion "or (econsideration %m :otion to #et the %ase "or Preliminary %on"erence did not cre

the violation o" his ri!ht to de $rocess in this case. (eyes "iled the said motion $recisely toraise the isse o" the violation o" his ri!ht to de $rocess. s it &ere, $etitioner rendered its

Decision dated #e$tember 2C, 2001 on the basis o" evidence that &ere not disclosed to

(eyes. +hs, it cannot be said that (eyes had a "air o$$ortnity to sarely and intelli!entlyans&er the accsations therein or to o""er any rebttal evidence thereto. Office of theOmbu)sman vs. 5ntonio &. Re(es, G.R. No. 17021!. October 2, !011.

Government contract) lac o" a$$ro$riation. Petitioner DP4H ar!es that the contracts &ith

res$ondents &ere void "or not com$lyin! &ith #ections @B and @; o" Presidential Decree 1CCB,or the Government ditin! %ode o" the Phili$$ines, as amended by A/ective Order No.

2


39/102

&as enacted $rior to PD 1Bevelopment orporation, etc., G.R. No. 1888.

October 19, !011.

::D) $o&er to demolish. ::D alle!es that by virte o" ::D (esoltion No. 02*2@,

#eries o" 2002, it is em$o&ered to demolish stice Gancayco-s $ro$erty. It "rther alle!es thatit demolished the $ro$erty $rsant to the 'ildin! %ode in relation to Ordinance No. 2


40/102

holder $on iniry. In other &ords, !ood "aith is actally a estion o" intention. ltho!h this

is somethin! internal, one can ascertain a $erson-s intention not "rom his o&n $rotestation o"

!ood "aith, &hich is sel"*servin!, bt "rom evidence o" his condct and ot&ard acts. In thiscase, the "acts and circmstances srrondin! $etitioner-s acisition o" the %erti"icate o"

Ali!ibility cast serios dobts on his !ood "aith. He made a deal &ith a retired %#% o""icial and

acce$ted the %erti"icate o" Ali!ibility "rom the latter-s re$resentative. +hese circmstances reveal

$etitioner-s no&led!e that the %#% o""icial cold have $lled strin!s in order to obtain his%erti"icate o" Ali!ibility and have it delivered to his residence. 'esides, &hether some %#%

$ersonnel shold be held administratively liable "or "alsi"yin! $etitioner-s %erti"icate o"

Ali!ibility is beside the $oint. +he "act that someone else "alsi"ied the certi"icate &ill not e/csehim "or no&in!ly sin! the same "or his career advancement. +hs, the #$reme %ort held

that that the % did not err in a""irmin! the $enalty o" dismissal and all its accessory $enalties

im$osed by the %#%. esar /. >um)uma vs. ivil /ervice ommission, G.R. No. 18!0. October =, !011.

(ovember 2011 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Political LawPosted on December 21, 2011by Vicente D. Gerochi IV

Here are selected November 2011 rlin!s o" the #$reme %ort o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical

la&.

Constitutional Law

!rarian re"orm) control over a!ricltral lands. F$on revie& o" the "acts and circmstances,the %ort conclded that the "arm &orer bene"iciaries 5>4's6 &ill never have control over the

a!ricltral lands as lon! as they remain as stocholders o" H?I. #ince control over a!ricltrallands mst al&ays be in the hands o" the "armers, the %ort reconsidered its earlier rlin! that theali"ied >4's shold be !iven an o$tion to remain as stocholders o" H?I, inasmch as these

ali"ied >4's &ill never !ain control !iven the $resent $ro$ortion o" shareholdin!s in H?I.

revisit o" H?I-s Pro$osal "or #toc Distribtion nder %(P and the #toc Distribtion O$tion!reement $on &hich the $ro$osal &as based reveals that the total assets o" H?I is

PhPB


41/102

retainin! the #DP. In li!ht o" the "ore!oin! consideration, the o$tion to remain in H?I !ranted to

the individal >4's &ill have to be recalled and revoed. :oreover, bearin! in mind that &ith

the revocation o" the a$$roval o" the #DP, H?I &ill no lon!er be o$eratin! nder #DP and &illonly be treated as an ordinary $rivate cor$oration) the >4's &ho remain as stocholders o" H?I

&ill be treated as ordinary stocholders and &ill no lon!er be nder the $rotective mantle o" (

;;B=. +acien)a uisita ncorporate) vs. Presi)ential 5'rarian Reform ouncil, et al.,G.R. No.

171101. November !!, !011.

%ommand res$onsibility. One o" the isses raised in this case &as &hether or not the President,

as commander*in*chie" o" the military, can be held res$onsible or accontable "or e/tradicialillin!s and en"orced disa$$earances. +he #$reme %ort held that the President may be held

res$onsible or accontable. +o hold someone liable nder the doctrine o" commandres$onsibility, the "ollo&in! elements mst obtain 5a6 the e/istence o" a s$erior*sbordinate

relationshi$ bet&een the accsed as s$erior and the $er$etrator o" the crime as his sbordinate)

5b6 the s$erior ne& or had reason to no& that the crime &as abot to be or had beencommitted) and 5c6 the s$erior "ailed to tae the necessary and reasonable measres to $revent

the criminal acts or $nish the $er$etrators thereo". +he President, bein! the commander*in*

chie" o" all armed "orces, necessarily $ossesses control over the military that ali"ies him as as$erior &ithin the $rvie& o" the command res$onsibility doctrine. On the isse o" no&led!e,

it mst be $ointed ot that altho!h international tribnals a$$ly a strict standard o" no&led!e,

i.e., actal no&led!e, the same may nonetheless be established thro!h circmstantialevidence. In the Phili$$ines, a more liberal vie& is ado$ted and s$eriors may be char!ed &ith

constrctive no&led!e. Mno&led!e o" the commission o" irre!larities, crimes or o""enses is

$resmed &hen 5a6 the acts are &ides$read &ithin the !overnment o""icial-s area o" risdiction)

5b6 the acts have been re$eatedly or re!larly committed &ithin his area o" res$onsibility) or 5c6members o" his immediate sta"" or o""ice $ersonnel are involved. s to the isse o" "ailre to

$revent or $nish, it is im$ortant to note that as the commander*in*chie" o" the armed "orces, the

President has the $o&er to e""ectively command, control and disci$line the military. +he#$reme %ort held, ho&ever, that aside "rom (odri!e9-s !eneral averments, there is no $iece

o" evidence that cold establish "ormer President rroyo-s res$onsibility or accontability "or his

abdction. Neither &as there even a clear attem$t to sho& that she shold have no&n abot the

violation o" his ri!ht to li"e, liberty or secrity, or that she had "ailed to investi!ate, $nish or$revent it. n the Matter of the Petition for the Brit of 5mparo an) +abeas >ata in favor of

Noriel +. Ro)ri'ueA Noriel +. Ro)ri'ueA vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al., G.R. No. 191802

F G.R. No. 1910. November 12, !011.

A/$ro$riation) denial o" de $rocess. In this case, the $etitioner ar!es that it &as de$rived o" its

ri!ht to de $rocess &hen it &as not !iven an o$$ortnity to $resent its evidence. +he $etitioner

claims that the committee tased by the cort to receive evidence on st com$ensation did notcondct any hearin! to enable the $arties to $resent their res$ective evidence. Instead, the

committee based the (e$ort on docments sbmitted by the $arties, veri"ications "rom o""ices,

oclar ins$ections and local maret conditions, and nsbstantiated statements as to the hi!hest

and best se o" the $ro$erties, and the devalation o" the $eso. +he #$reme %ort held thatthere &as no sch de$rivation o" de $rocess. +he $leadin!s it sbmitted and the testimonial

evidence $resented drin! the several hearin!s condcted all $rove that the $etitioner &as !iven

its day in cort. +he %ort noted that the (+% acceded to the $etitioner-s reest, over theres$ondents- obection, "or the reconvenin! o" the %ommittee "or rece$tion o" evidence and

"rther $roceedin!s. It also heard and allo&ed both sides to $resent evidence drin! the

clari"icatory hearin!s and rendered a decision based on the evidence $resented. Republic of thePhilippines vs. /ps. &an /on' #o4, G.R. No. 191==8. November 1, !011.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/171101.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/171101.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/171101.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/171101.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/191805.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/191805.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/191448.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/171101.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/171101.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/191805.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/191805.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/191448.htm


42/102

A/$ro$riation) valation o" e/$ro$riated $ro$erty. One o" the isses in this case &as &hether or

not the (+% and the % had s""icient basis in arrivin! at the estioned amont o" st

com$ensation o" the sbect $ro$erties. +he #$reme %ort held that even in e/$ro$riationcases, estions o" "acts are beyond the $ale o" (le CB o" the (les o" %ort as a $etition "or

revie& may only raise estions o" la&. :oreover, "actal "indin!s o" the trial cort, $articlarly

&hen a""irmed by the %ort o" $$eals, are !enerally bindin! on this %ort. +hs, the %ort

a""irmed the rlin! o" the (+% and the % that the (e$ort is "onded on evidence. +he$etitioner-s ta/ declarations, the 'I( 9onal valation and the deeds o" sale it $resented are not

the only $roo" o" the "air vale o" $ro$erties. Ronal valation is st one o" the indices o" the "air

maret vale o" real estate. 'y itsel", this inde/ cannot be the sole basis o" st com$ensationin e/$ro$riation cases. Varios "actors come into $lay in the valation o" s$eci"ic $ro$erties

sin!led ot "or e/$ro$riation. +a/ vales can serve as !ides bt cannot be absolte sbstittes

"or st com$ensation. Republic of the Philippines vs. /ps. &an /on' #o4, G.R. No. 191==8. November 1, !011.

O$erative "act doctrine. +he o$erative "act doctrine does not only a$$ly to la&s sbseently

declared nconstittional or nla&"l, as it also a$$lies to e/ective acts sbseently declared

as invalid. +he %ort reected the vie& that the a$$licability o" the o$erative "act doctrine sholdbe limited to stattes and rles and re!lations issed by the e/ective de$artment that are

accorded the same stats as that o" a statte or those &hich are asi*le!islative in natre. 4hile

orders, rles and re!lations issed by the President or the e/ective branch have "i/edde"initions and meanin! in the dministrative %ode and ris$rdence, the $hrase e/ective

act does not have sch s$eci"ic de"inition nder e/istin! la&s. +he term e/ective act is

broad eno!h to encom$ass decisions o" administrative bodies and a!encies nder the e/ective

de$artment &hich are sbseently revoed by the a!ency in estion or nlli"ied by the %ort.Aven assmin! that the o$erative "act doctrine a$$lies only to e/ective issances lie orders and

rles and re!lations, said $rinci$le can nonetheless be a$$lied, by analo!y, to decisions made

by the President or the a!encies nder the e/ective de$artment. +his doctrine, in the interest o"stice and eity, can be a$$lied liberally and in a broad sense to encom$ass said decisions o"

the e/ective branch. In ee$in! &ith the demands o" eity, the %ort can a$$ly the o$erative

"act doctrine to acts and conseences that reslted "rom the reliance not only on a la& or

e/ective act &hich is asi*le!islative in natre bt also on decisions or orders o" the e/ectivebranch &hich &ere later nlli"ied. +his %ort is not nmind"l that sch acts and conseences

mst be reco!ni9ed in the hi!her interest o" stice, eity and "airness. #i!ni"icantly, a decision

made by the President or the administrative a!encies has to be com$lied &ith becase it has the"orce and e""ect o" la&, s$rin!in! "rom the $o&ers o" the President nder the %onstittion and

e/istin! la&s. Prior to the nlli"ication or recall o" said decision, it may have $rodced acts and

conseences in con"ormity to and in reliance o" said decision, &hich mst be res$ected.+acien)a uisita ncorporate) vs. Presi)ential 5'rarian Reform ouncil, et al., G.R. No.

171101. November !!, !011.

Presidential immnity "rom sit) non*sittin! $resident. +he %ort o" $$eals "ond res$ondents

in G.(. No. 1


43/102

acts and omissions. +he rle is that nla&"l acts o" $blic o""icials are not acts o" the #tate and

the o""icer &ho acts ille!ally is not actin! as sch bt stands in the same "ootin! as any other

tres$asser. +he intent o" the "ramers o" the %onstittion is clear that the immnity o" the$resident "rom sit is concrrent only &ith his tenre and not his term. $$lyin! the "ore!oin!

rationale to this case, it is clear that "ormer President rroyo cannot se the $residential

immnity "rom sit to shield hersel" "rom dicial scrtiny that &old assess &hether, &ithin the

conte/t o" amparo $roceedin!s, she &as res$onsible or accontable "or the abdction o"(odri!e9. n the Matter of the Petition for the Brit of 5mparo an) +abeas >ata in favor of

Noriel +. Ro)ri'ueA Noriel +. Ro)ri'ueA vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al., G.R. No. 191802

F G.R. No. 1910. November 12, !011.

+ain! and st com$ensation in a!rarian re"orm. +he %ort maintains its earlier rlin! in thiscase that the date o" tain! is November 21, 14's. It cannot, there"ore, be denied that $on the

a$$roval o" the #DP sbmitted by H?I, the a!ricltral lands o" Hacienda ?isita became sbect

o" %(P covera!e. Avidently, the a$$roval o" the #DP too the $lace o" a notice o" covera!eissed nder com$lsory acisition. +acien)a uisita ncorporate) vs. Presi)ential 5'rarian

Reform ouncil, et al., G.R. No. 171101. November !!, !011.

Election Law

'aran!ay elections) three*consective term limit rle. :endo9a &as a candidate "or #aran'a(%a$tain o"#aran'a( 'alatasan, Oriental :indoro, in the 2< October 200= #aran'a(Alections.

Prior thereto, :endo9a had been elected as #aran'a(%a$tain o"#aran'a('alatasan "or threeconsective terms, on < :ay 1


44/102

+he #$reme %ort held that the isse has already been settled in the case o" %O:A?A% v.

%r9. +he %ort reiterated that no retroactive a$$lication &as made becase the three*term limit

has been there all alon! as early as the second baran'a( la& 5( No. ;;=anilo /. rsua vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R.

Nos. 177827628 F G.R. No. 17819, %anuar( !=, !01!.

%onstittionality o" PD =BB, , %ID> and lie levies that Phili$$ine %ocont

thority is athori9ed to collect shall be considered as non*s$ecial or "idciary "nds to betrans"erred to the !eneral "nd o" the Government, meanin! they shall be deemed $rivate "nds.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/191017.htmhttp://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/january-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-political-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/vdglexoterica/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/author/vdglexoterica/http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177857-58.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/177857-58.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/novembe

political law_case complilations 2010-2012

Documents