2013-Political Law-Reminders-090313.doc

8/14/2019 2013-Political Law-Reminders-090313.doc

1/42

Article I The Archipelago Doctrine - teaches thatthe outermost points of our terrestrialdomain are to be connected with straightbaselines and all waters enclosed therebyshall be considered as our internal waters.As internal waters, they are subject to theexclusie jurisdiction of the !hilippines.

Archipelagic sealanes are to be laid onthese waters oer which foreign ships willhae the right of passage as if they wereopen seas.

Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutorymechanisms for "#$%&' III 'tates partiesto delimit with precision the extent of theirmaritime (ones and continental sheles. Inturn, this gies notice to the rest of theinternational community of the scope of themaritime space and submarine areas withinwhich 'tates parties exercise treaty-basedrights, namely, the exercise of soereignty

oer territorial waters )Article *+, thejurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal,immigration, and sanitation laws in thecontiguous (one )Article +, and the right toexploit the liing and non-liing resources inthe exclusie economic (one )Article +and continental shelf )Article //+.0Magallona v. Ermita - 1.2 #o. 34/3/,August 3, *5336

"# $onention on the %aw of the 'ea - Territorial'ea - proides for a uniform breadth of 3*miles from the low-water mar7 of the coast.$ontiguous 8one - 3* miles from the outer

limits of the territorial sea exercise of9protectie jurisdiction: in a (one of thehigh seas contiguous to its territorial sea,the coastal state may exercise the controlnecessary to !reent and !unishinfringement of its customs, fiscal,immigration or sanitary regulations within itsterritory or territorial sea. ;conomic 8one or!atrimonial 'ea - extending *55 miles fromthe low water mar7 of the coastal state allliing and non-liing resources found thereinbelong exclusiely to the coastal state. The$ontinental 'helf refers to 0a6 the seabedand the subsoil of the submarine areas

adjacent to the coast but outside of theterritorial sea, to a depth of *55 meters, orbeyond that limit, to where the depth of thesubjacent waters admits of the exploitationof the natural resources of the said areas,and 0b6 to the seabed and subsoil of similarareas adjacent to the coasts of the islands.The costal state has the ;


2/42

The &pen 'eas res communes but a state mayexercise jurisdiction on the open seas oerits essels, oer pirates, in the exercise ofthe right to isit and search and under thedoctrine of hot pursuit.

&uter space, li7e the open seas, is res communes

and #&T susceptible to discoery andoccupation not subject to nationalappropriation by claim of soereignty. Astate is responsible for whateer injury ordamage any object it sends to outer spacemay cause.

The angsamoro Furidical ;ntity 0F;6 xxx is notmerely an expanded ersion of the A2EE,the status of its relationship with the nationalgoernment being fundamentally differentfrom that of the A2EE. Indeed, F; is astate in all but name as it meets the criteriaof a state laid down in the Eonteideo

$onention, namely, a permanentpopulation, a defined territory, agoernment, and a capacity to enter intorelations with other states. ;en assumingarguendo that the E&A-AD would notnecessarily seer any portion of !hilippineterritory, the spirit animating it which hasbetrayed itself by its use of the concept ofassociation runs counter to the nationalsoereignty and territorial integrity of the2epublic. 0!#$ rovin%$ o& Nort# Cota'atov. !#$ (ov$rnm$nt o& t#$ R$)*'li% o& t#$#ili))in$+ $a%$ an$l on An%$+tralDomain 12 #o. 34@3, &ctober 3?,

*5546

A2TI$%; II - generally not a source of enforceablerights ;


3/42

>hateer good is done by the goernment isattributed to the 'tate but eery harminflicted on the people is imputed not to the'tate but to the goernment alone. 'uchinjury may justify the replacement of thegoernment by reolution, theoretically atthe behest of the 'tate, in a deelopment

7nown as direct 'tate action.

ar$n+ atria$ guardian of the rights of thepeople Soriano v. Lag*aria 01.2. #o.3?/4, April *@, *55@6 -&ffensie languagein teleision may be regulated or eenbanned for the sa7e of the children.Fustification )ar$n+ )atria$.

A belligerent occupation would hae no effect onthe continued effectiity of the law ontreason. Accordingly, political laws, li7e the$onstitution, were merely suspended,subject to reial under the jus postliminium

upon the end of the occupation. 'uspensionof political laws affects only the ciilians,and not the soldiers or 9enemies in arms.:0R*&& v. C#i$& o& Sta&&6 Also does not applyto treason 0La*r$l v. Mi+a6. #on-politicallaws, li7e the $iil $ode, remain effectie,unless changed by the belligerent occupant.Fudicial decisions, such as a coniction fordefamation, are alid during a belligerentoccupation except those of a politicalcomplexion.

2ight to 'elf-Determination right to freelydetermine their political status and freely

pursue their economic, social, and culturaldeelopment. #&T; Article II 0/6 The'tate shall pursue an independent foreignpolicy. In its relations with other states theparamount consideration shall be nationalsoereignty, territorial integrity, nationalinterest and the right to self-determination. -Internal self-determination a peoplespursuit of its political, economic, social andcultural deelopment within the framewor7of an existing state. - ;xternal self-determination - the establishment of asoereign and independent 'tate, the freeassociation or integration with an

independent 'tate or the emergence intoany other political status freely determinedby a people. The peoples right to self-determination should not, howeer, beunderstood as extending to a unilateral rightof secession.

Distinguish the Incorporation $lause or Doctrine ofIncorporation from the Doctrine ofTransformation accepted rules ofinternational law must first be enacted intolegislation.

A stipulation in a treaty or executie agreementproiding for a state with the option to waieits criminal jurisdiction to prosecuteforeigners who commit crimes within itsterritory is not to be considered as anabdication of its soereignty. &n therationale that the !hilippines has adopted

the generally accepted principles ofinternational law as part of the law of theland, a portion of soereignty may bewaied without iolating the $onstitution.'uch waier does not amount to anunconstitutional diminution or depriation ofjurisdiction of !hilippine courts. 04aanM*na v. Rom*lo - 1.2. #o. 3@34,Jebruary 3, *5336

"nder international law, there is no differencebetween treaties and executie agreementsin terms of their binding effects on thecontracting states concerned, as long as the

negotiating functionaries hae remainedwithin their powers. #either, on the domesticsphere, can one be held alid if it iolatesthe $onstitution. Authorities are, howeer,agreed that one is distinct from another foraccepted reasons apart from theconcurrence-reuirement aspect. As hasbeen obsered by "' constitutionalscholars, a treaty has greater 9dignity: thanan executie agreement, because itsconstitutional efficacy is beyond doubt, atreaty haing behind it the authority of the!resident, the 'enate, and the peopleK aratified treaty, unli7e an executie

agreement, ta7es precedence oer any priorstatutory enactment. 04aan M*na v.Rom*lo - 1.2. #o. 3@34, Jebruary 3,*5336

The terms 9exchange of notes: and 9executieagreements: hae been usedinterchangeably, exchange of notes beingconsidered a form of executie agreementthat becomes binding through executieaction. 04aan M*na v. Rom*lo- 1.2. #o.3@34, Jebruary 3, *5336

2enunciation of war as an instrument of national

policy should be read with Article =I 0*6036 a declaration of the existence of a state ofwar may be made upon two-thirds ote ofboth Louses, in joint session assembled,oting separately.

The "#IT;D #ATI' - 'ecurity $ouncil GaltaJormula procedural matters are decidedby any @ or more members. #on-proceduralmatters those that may reuire the $ouncilto ino7e measures of enforcement - atleast @ members including all the permanentmembers. #o member is allowed to ote onuestions concerning the pacific settlement

of a dispute to which it is a party. "nli7e inthe 1eneral Assembly, the characteri(ationof a uestion is considered a non-procedural matter in the 'ecurity $ouncil.#oteC =eto and Double =eto prerogatie of apermanent member.

CARLOL. CRUZS2013 REMINDERSFOROLI!ICALLA"


4/42

International $ourt of Fustice judicial organ of the"# which functions in accordance with the'tatute, of which all the members areconsidered ipso facto parties. ;en non-members may be parties to the 'tatute onconditions to be determined in each case bythe 1eneral Assembly upon the

recommendation of the 'ecurity $ouncil.Eay decide contentious cases and renderadisory opinions, upon reuest of the1eneral Assembly or the 'ecurity $ouncil,as well as other organs of the "#, whenauthori(ed by the 1eneral Assembly, onlegal uestions arising within the scope oftheir actiities. &nly members may beparties in contentious cases. Furisdiction ofthe $ourt is based on the consent of theparties as manifested under the 9optionaljurisdiction clause: or the 9compromissaryclause.:

Article II, 'ection . $iilian authority is, at alltimes, supreme oer the military. - 'eeArticle =II, 'ection 34 (*ani v. S$nga -1.2. #o. 3/53, August 3, *55 gagorder against a general prohibiting him fromtestifying in a legislatie inuiry - =alid.Fustification military powers.

Contin$ntal St$$l Man*&a%t*ring Cor)oration v.Montano - 1.2. #o. 34*4, &ctober 3,*55@ - an unborn child can be considered adependent. The term child can beunderstood to include the unborn fetus inthe mothers womb.

Article II, 'ection 3@. The 'tate shall deelop aself-reliant and independent nationaleconomy effectiely controlled by Jilipinos. -2etail Trade %iberali(ation Act of *555 - tothe extent that 2.A. 4/*, the 2etail Trade%iberali(ation Act, lessens the restraint onthe foreigners right to property or to engagein an ordinarily lawful business, it cannot besaid that the law amounts to a denial of theJilipinos right to property and to dueprocess of law. Jilipinos continue to haethe right to engage in the 7inds of retailbusiness to which the law in uestion has

permitted the entry of foreign inestors. -Jirst, aliens can only engage in retail tradebusiness subject to the categories aboe-enumeratedK 'econd, only nationals from, orjuridical entities formed or incorporated incountries which allow the entry of Jilipinoretailers shall be allowed to engage in retailtrade businessK and Third, ualified foreignretailers shall not be allowed to engage incertain retailing actiities outside theiraccredited stores through the use of mobileor rolling stores or carts, the use of salesrepresentaties, door-to-door selling,restaurants and sari-sari stores and such

other similar retailing actiities. 0E+)ina v.Zamora- 1.2. #o. 3?4, 'eptember *3,*535, Abad6

Indigenous peoples situated within states do nothae a general right to independence orsecession from those states underinternational law, but they do hae rightsamounting to what was discussed aboe asthe right to internal self-determination. TheDeclaration clearly recogni(ed the right of

indigenous peoples to self-determination,encompassing the right to autonomy or self-goernment, in matters relating to theirinternal and local affairs, and to maintainand strengthen their distinct political, legal,economic, social and cultural institutions,while retaining their right to participate fully,if they so choose, in the political, economic,social and cultural life of the 'tate. 'elf-goernment, as used in international legaldiscourse pertaining to indigenous peoples,has been understood as euialent to9internal self-determination.: 0!#$ rovin%$o& Nort# Cota'ato v. !#$ (ov$rnm$nt o& t#$

R$)*'li% o& t#$ #ili))in$+ $a%$ an$l onAn%$+tral Domain 12 #o. 34@3,&ctober 3?, *5546

Article II, 'ection *4. 'ubject to reasonableconditions prescribed by law, the 'tateadopts and implements a policy of full publicdisclosure of all its transactions inolingpublic interest. - Article


5/42

A2TI$%; =I %egislatie power - appropriation,taxation, expropriation - not exclusie to$ongress initiatie and referendum maybe exercised directly by the people 2A/.

The power to grant immunity from prosecution is

essentially a legislatie prerogatie springs from its authority to define andprescribe punishment for crimes. 05*artov. t#$ 6onora'l$ Om'*+man Sim$onMar%$lo / (.R. No. 17028 O%to'$r 982011, 'econd Diision, rion6

The supermajority ote reuirement set forth in'ection 3, Article


6/42

The acts done by $ongress purportedly in theexercise of its oersight powers may bediided into three categories, namelyCscrutiny - to determine economy andefficiency of the operation of goernmentactiitiesK inestigation under 'ection *3Kand superision which connotes a

continuing and informed awareness on thepart of a congressional committee regardingexecutie operations in a gienadministratie area. >hile bothcongressional scrutiny and inestigationinole inuiry into past executie branchactions in order to influence future executiebranch performance, congressionalsuperision allows $ongress to scrutini(ethe exercise of delegated law-ma7ingauthority, and permits $ongress to retainpart of that delegated authority. xxx. Thereuirement that the implementing rules of alaw be subjected to approal by $ongress

as a condition for their effectiity iolates thecardinal constitutional principles ofbicameralism and the rule on presentment.;ery bill passed by $ongress must be

presented to the !resident for approal oreto. In the absence of presentment to the!resident, no bill passed by $ongress canbecome a law. - The so-called 9rule onpresentment: pertains to the submission ofa bill to the !resident for his appropriateaction. 0A'a;aa (*ro art Li+t *ino v. COMELEC - 1.2. #o. 34@/@, April /,*535 - 'ection )+ of the $onstitution

reuires a *5,555 minimum population onlyfor a city to be entitled to a representatie,but not so for a proince. The 9*5,555inhabitants: reuirement does not apply tocreation of additional legislatie districts fora proince.

4aga'*o v. COMELEC - 1.2. #o. 3/@/5,December 4, *554 a law is passedincreasing $D&s legislatie district fromone to two. #o need for a plebiscite underArticle


7/42

3. Twenty percent of the totalnumber of the membershipof the Louse of2epresentaties is themaximum number of seatsaailable to party-listorgani(ations, such that

there is automatically oneparty-list seat for eery fourexisting legislatie districts.

*. 1arnering two percent ofthe total otes cast in theparty-list electionsguarantees a party-listorgani(ation one seat. Theguaranteed seats shall bedistributed in a first round ofseat allocation to partiesreceiing at least twopercent of the total party-list

otes.

. The additional seats, that is,the remaining seats afterallocation of the guaranteedseats, shall be distributed tothe party-listorgani(ations includingthose that receied lessthan two percent of the totalotes. The continuedoperation of the two percentthreshold as it applies to theallocation of the additional

seats is nowunconstitutional becausethis thresholdmathematically andphysically preents thefilling up of the aailableparty-list seats. Theadditional seats shall bedistributed to the parties in asecond round of seatallocation according to thetwo-step procedure laiddown in the Decision of *3April *55@ as clarified in this

2esolution.

0Two-'tep !rocedure - Thepercentage of otes garnered byeach party-list candidate isarried at by diiding the numberof otes garnered by each partyby 3,@5,@55, the total numberof otes cast for party-list

candidates. There are two stepsin the second round of seatallocation. Jirst, the percentageis multiplied by the remainingaailable seats, 4, which is thedifference between the maximum seats resered underthe !arty-%ist 'ystem and the 3/guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer ofthe product of the percentageand of the remaining aailableseats corresponds to a partysshare in the remaining aailable

seats. 'econd, we assign oneparty-list seat to each of theparties next in ran7 until allaailable seats are completelydistributed. >e distributed all ofthe remaining 4 seats in thesecond round of seat allocation.6

?. The three-seat cap isconstitutional. The three-seat cap is intended by the%egislature to preent anyparty from dominating theparty-list system. There is

no iolation of the$onstitution because the3@4/ $onstitution does notreuire absoluteproportionality for the party-list system. The well-settledrule is that courts will notuestion the wisdom of the%egislature as long as it isnot iolatie of the$onstitution.

Thus, the party-list system is composed of threedifferent groupsC )3+ national parties or

organi(ationsK )*+ regional parties ororgani(ationsK and )+ sectoral parties ororgani(ations. #ational and regional partiesor organi(ations are different from sectoralparties or organi(ations. #ational andregional parties or organi(ations need notbe organi(ed along sectoral lines and neednot represent any particular sector. 0Atongagla*m8 In%. v. Commi++ion on El$%tion+ -1.2. #o. *5/, April *, *53, ;n anc,$arpio6

CARLOL. CRUZS2013 REMINDERSFOROLI!ICALLA"/


8/42

"nder the party-list system, an ideology-based orcause-oriented political party is clearlydifferent from a sectoral party. A politicalparty need not be organi(ed as a sectoralparty and need not represent any particularsector. There is no reuirement in 2.A. #o./@?3 that a national or regional political

party must represent a 9marginali(ed andunderrepresented: sector. It is sufficient thatthe political party consists of citi(ens whoadocate the same ideology or platform, orthe same goernance principles andpolicies, regardless of their economic statusas citi(ens. 'ection of 2.A. #o. /@?3states that 9the sectors shall include labor,peasant, fisherfol7, urban poor, indigenouscultural communities, elderly, handicapped,women, youth, eterans, oerseas wor7ers,and professionals.: 0Atong agla*m8 In%. v.Commi++ion on El$%tion+ - 1.2. #o.*5/, April *, *53, ;n anc, $arpio6

In determining who may participate in the coming3 Eay *53 and subseuent party-listelections, the $&E;%;$ shall adhere to thefollowing parametersC

3. Three different groups mayparticipate in the party-listsystemC )3+ national parties ororgani(ations, )*+ regionalparties or organi(ations, and )+sectoral parties or organi(ations.

*. #ational parties or

organi(ations and regionalparties or organi(ations do notneed to organi(e along sectorallines and do not need torepresent any 9marginali(ed andunderrepresented: sector.

. !olitical parties can participatein party-list elections proidedthey register under the party-listsystem and do not fieldcandidates in legislatie districtelections. A political party,whether major or not, that fields

candidates in legislatie districtelections can participate in party-list elections only through itssectoral wing that can separatelyregister under the party-listsystem. The sectoral wing is byitself an independent sectoralparty, and is lin7ed to a politicalparty through a coalition.

?. 'ectoral parties ororgani(ations may either be9marginali(ed andunderrepresented: or lac7ing in9well-defined politicalconstituencies.: It is enough thattheir principal adocacy pertains

to the special interest andconcerns of their sector. Thesectors that are 9marginali(edand underrepresented: includelabor, peasant, fisherfol7, urbanpoor, indigenous culturalcommunities, handicapped,eterans, and oerseas wor7ers.The sectors that lac7 9well-defined political constituencies:include professionals, theelderly, women, and the youth.

. A majority of the members of

sectoral parties or organi(ationsthat represent the 9marginali(edand underrepresented: mustbelong to the 9marginali(ed andunderrepresented: sector theyrepresent. 'imilarly, a majority ofthe members of sectoral partiesor organi(ations that lac7 9well-defined political constituencies:must belong to the sector theyrepresent. The nominees ofsectoral parties or organi(ationsthat represent the 9marginali(edand underrepresented,: or that

represent those who lac7 9well-defined political constituencies,:either must belong to theirrespectie sectors, or must haea trac7 record of adocacy fortheir respectie sectors. Thenominees of national andregional parties or organi(ationsmust be bona-fide members ofsuch parties or organi(ations.

. #ational, regional, andsectoral parties or organi(ationsshall not be disualified if some

of their nominees aredisualified, proided that theyhae at least one nominee whoremains ualified. 0Atongagla*m8 In%. v. Commi++ion onEl$%tion+ - 1.2. #o. *5/,April *, *53, ;n anc, $arpio6

CARLOL. CRUZS2013 REMINDERSFOROLI!ICALLA"4


9/42

There is no arguing that the $&E;%;$ 2esolutiondated Fanuary , *535 granting %!1EAsregistration has since become final. 'uchfinality, howeer, pertains only to the2esolution itself and not to the accreditationof %!1EA as a party-list organi(ation. xxxLoweer, the 2esolution did not create in

%!1EAs faor a perpetual and indefeasibleright to its accreditation as a party-listorgani(ation. #either did it grant finality andindefeasibility to the factual findings of the$&E;%;$ on the ualifications of thegroup. oth the accreditation and the factssubstantiating the same can be reiewedand reo7ed at any time by the $&E;%;$,motu propio, or upon the instance of anyinterested party thru a complaint forcancellation, as set forth in 'ection of 2.A.#o. /@?3. 0Daao v. Commi++ion onEl$%tion+ - 1.2. #o. 3@?, Fanuary *@,*53, ;n anc, 2eyes6

A'aon v. 6RE! 1.2. #o. 34@?, Jebruary 33,*535, Abad there are two 7inds ofcongressmen elected from legislatiedistricts and those elected through theparty-list system. &nce elected, the party-listrepresentatie has the same rights,priileges and duties as the districtrepresentatie. They are also subject to thesame term limitation of three years for amaximum of three consecutie terms. Theconsistent judicial holding is that the L2;Thas jurisdiction to pass upon theualifications of party-list nominees after

their proclamation and assumption of office.

Lim;ai%#ong v. COMELEC- 1.2. #os. 3/443-*,April 3, *55@ - once a winning candidate hasbeen proclaimed, ta7en his oath, andassumed office as a Eember of the Louseof 2epresentaties, the jurisdiction of theLouse of 2epresentaties ;lectoral Tribunalbegins oer election contests relating to hiselection, returns, and ualifications, andmere allegation as to the inalidity of herproclamation does not diest the ;lectoralTribunal of its jurisdiction. Ten-dayprescriptie period under the 3@@4 L2;T

2ules does not apply to disualificationcases based on citi(enship. eing acontinuing reuirement, one who assails amemberHs citi(enship or lac7 of it may stilluestion the same at any time, the ten-dayprescriptie period notwithstanding. "T itis the 'tate, through its representatiesdesignated by statute that may uestion theillegally or inalidly procured certificate ofnaturali(ation in the appropriatedenaturali(ation proceedings. It is plainlynot a matter that may be raised by priatepersons in an election case inoling thenaturali(ed citi(ens descendant.

The set up embodied in the $onstitution andstatutes characteri(es the resolution ofelectoral contests as essentially an exerciseof judicial power. xxx At the higher leels city, proincial, and regional, as well ascongressional and senatorial exclusieand original jurisdiction is lodged in the

$&E;%;$ and in the Louse of2epresentaties and 'enate ;lectoralTribunals, which are not, strictly and literallyspea7ing, courts of law. Although not courtsof law, they are, nonetheless, empowered toresole election contests which inole, inessence, an exercise of judicial power,because of the explicit constitutionalempowerment found in 'ection *)*+, ArticleI


10/42

2;E;E;2 the implied public purpose andamount must be determinate ordeterminable -and constitutional limitations Article =I, sections *?, */ )*+ and *@ )3+and )*+ of $ongress power of appropriation,particularly the prohibition against $ongressfrom increasing the budget proposed by the

!resident and on the transfer ofappropriations - #a(areth . =illar - the'upreme $ourt clarified that the powerconferred upon the !resident to transferappropriations could well be extended to his$abinet 'ecretaries as alter egos under theNdoctrine of ualified political agency 9Thus,in the instant case, the authority granted tothe D&'T by the ;xecutie 'ecretary, beingone of the alter egos of the !resident, waslegal and alid but in so far as the use ofagencys saings for the year *555 only.Although *555 budget was reenacted in*553, the authority granted on the use of

saings did not necessarily extend to thesucceeding year.:

The $ommission on Appointments shall rule by amajority of all its Eembers.

im$nt$l v. Ermita The !resident may not becompelled to submit his 9acting:appointments to the $A for confirmation.

A int$rimappointments shall remain effectie onlyuntil disapproal by the $ommission onAppointments or until the adjournment of thenext special or regular session of $ongress.0(*$varra v. Ino%$nt$+6

In a +)$%ialsession, the $ongress may consider9general legislation or only such subjects as the!resident may designate.: In a r$g*lar session,9the power of the $ongress is not circumscribedexcept by limitations imposed by organic law.: 0in

Aran$ta v. Dingla+an6

;lectoral Tribunals shall be the sole judges of allcontests relating to the election, returns andualifications of their respectie 9Eembers: -the jurisdiction of an ;lectoral Tribunalbegins once a winning candidate has beenproclaimed, ta7en his oath, and assumed

office, for it is only after the occurrence ofthese eents that a candidate can beconsidered as either a Eember of theLouse of 2epresentaties or a 'enator.According to the 'upreme $ourt, to beconsidered a 9Eember: of the Louse of2epresentaties, 9there must be aconcurrence of the following reuisitesC )a+ aalid proclamation, )b+ a proper oath, and)c+ assumption of office.: It stressed that a9proper oath: would be one ta7en before the'pea7er of the Louse of 2epresentaties 9inopen session,: consistent with theproisions of 'ection of 2ule II

)Eembership+ of the 2ules of the Louse of2epresentaties. 0R$$+ v. COMELEC -1.2. #o. *5/*?, Fune *, *536

N$ri v. S$nat$ Committ$$ on A%%o*nta'ilit o&*'li% O&&i%$r+ - 1.2. #o. 345?, Earch*, *554 - 'ection *3 relates to the power toconduct inuiries in aid of legislation. Its aimis to elicit information that may be used forlegislation. &n the other hand, 'ection **pertains to the power to conduct a uestion

hour, the objectie of which is to obtaininformation in pursuit of $ongress oersightfunction. 'imply stated, while both powersallow $ongress or any of its committees toconduct inuiry, their objecties aredifferent.

;xecutie !riilege - (ar%illano v. 6o*+$ o&R$)r$+$ntativ$+ - 1.2. #o. 3/54,December *, *554 - The 'enate cannot beallowed to continue with the conduct of theuestioned legislatie inuiry without dulypublished rules of procedure, in clearderogation of the constitutional reuirement.

#ew session, new publication of rules.

A:4A?AN v. A>*ino- 1.2. #o. 3/53, Fuly 3,*554 - executie priilege with respect tothe priilege for diplomatic negotiations maybe ino7ed not only against citi(ensdemands for information, but also in thecontext of legislatie inestigations. - D$ laa, v. S$nat$- 1.2. #o. 34?4?@, Jebruary3, *55@ - subject of a legislatie inuiry isa political uestion. N$ri v. S$nat$Committ$$ on A%%o*nta'ilit o& *'li%O&&i%$r+ - 1.2. #o. 345?, 'eptember ?,*554, E2 the !residents claim of

executie priilege is not merely founded onher generali(ed interest in confidentiality.The %etter dated #oember 3, *55/ of;xecutie 'ecretary ;rmita specifiedpresidential communications priilege inrelation to diplomatic and economicrelations with another soereign nation asthe bases for the claim. $ongress must notreuire the ;xecutie to state the reasonsfor the claim with such particularity as tocompel disclosure of the information whichthe priilege is meant to protect. - N$ri v.S$nat$ Committ$$ on A%%o*nta'ilit o&*'li% O&&i%$r+ - 1.2. #o. 345?,

'eptember ?, *554, 2esolution on Eotionfor 2econsideration 036 executie priilege- doctrine of 9operational proximity: - themain consideration is to limit the aailabilityof executie priilege only to officials whostand proximate to the !resident, not onlyby reason of their function, but also byreason of their positions in the ;xecutiesorgani(ational structure. 0*6 It must bestressed that the !residents claim ofexecutie priilege is not merely founded onher generali(ed interest in confidentiality.The %etter dated #oember 3, *55/ of;xecutie 'ecretary ;rmita specified

presidential communications priilege inrelation to diplomatic and economicrelations with another soereign nation asthe bases for the claim.



11/42

Davi v. Arroo 1.2. #o. 3/3@, Eay , *55 The !resident may not ino7e 'ection 3/ ofArticle hile the !resident does notpossess constituent powers as those powersmay be exercised only by $ongress, a$onstitutional $onention, or the people throughinitiatie and referendum she may submitproposals for constitutional change to $ongress ina manner that does not inole the arrogation ofconstituent powers. It will be obsered that the!resident has authority, as stated in her oath ofoffice, only to presere and defend the



12/42

$onstitution. 'uch presidential power does not,howeer, extend to allowing her to change the$onstitution, but simply to recommend proposedamendments or reision.

Divinagra%ia v. Con+oliat$ 4roa%a+tingS+t$m8 In%. - 1.2. #o. 3**/*, April /, *55@ -

The proisions of 'ection of 2.A. #o. /?// and'ection of 2.A. #o. /4*, in relation to 'ection33 of 2.A. #o. @5*, authori(e the !resident of the!hilippines to exercise considerable infringementson the right of the franchisees to operate theirenterprises and the right to free expression. 'uchauthority finds corollary constitutional justificationas well under 'ection 3/, Article e do notdoubt that the !resident or the 'tate can exercisesuch authority through the #T$, which remains anagency within the executie branch of goernment,but such can be exercised only under limited andrather drastic circumstances. They still do not estin the #T$ the broad authority to cancel licenses

and permits. xxx the #T$, in the exercise of itsprerogatie to grant proisional authorities tooperate or certificates of public conenience, mayneertheless not cancel legislatie franchises,which only $ongress can do.

The !residents 9executie priilege: coers allpresidential communications. 0A:4A?AN v.

A>*ino- 1.2. #o. 3/53, Fuly 3, *554 -howeer, the priilege accorded topresidential communications is not absolute,one significant ualification being that 9the

;xecutie cannot, any more than the otherbranches of goernment, ino7e a generalconfidentiality priilege to shield its officialsand employees from inestigations by theproper goernmental institutions intopossible criminal wrongdoing.: Thisualification applies whether the priilege isbeing ino7ed in the context of a judicial trialor a congressional inestigation conductedin aid of legislation.

CARLOL. CRUZS2013 REMINDERSFOROLI!ICALLA"3*


13/42

S$nat$ v. Ermita 036 ;xecutie priilege, whichincludes conersations and correspondencebetween the !resident and the public officialcoered by this executie order )Almont$v+. *$, - 1.2. #o. @/, * Eay3@@K C#av$, v. *'li% E+tat$+ A*t#orit,1.2. #o. 3*5, @ Fuly *55*+K military,

diplomatic and other national securitymatters which in the interest of nationalsecurity should not be diulged )Almont$ v+.*$,, 1.2. #o. @/, * Eay 3@@KC#av$, v. r$+i$ntial Commi++ion on(oo (ov$rnm$nt, 1.2. #o. 35/3, @December 3@@4+K information between inter-goernment agencies prior to the conclusionof treaties and executie agreements)C#av$, v. r$+i$ntial Commi++ion on(oo (ov$rnm$nt, 1.2. #o. 35/3, @December 3@@4+K discussion in close-door$abinet meetings )C#av$, v. r$+i$ntialCommi++ion on (oo (ov$rnm$nt, 1.2.

#o. 35/3, @ December 3@@4+K andmatters affecting national security andpublic order )C#av$, v. *'li% E+tat$+

A*t#orit, 1.2. #o. 3*5, @ Fuly *55*+,EAG ; I#=&B;D against this legislatiepower. 0*6 "T note that executie officialsare not exempt by the mere fact that theyare department heads. &nly one executieofficial may be exempted from this power Othe !resident on whom executie power isested, hence, beyond the reach of$ongress except through the power ofimpeachment. A claim of priilege, being aclaim of exemption from an obligation to

disclose information, must, therefore, beclearly asserted, and not merely implied. Inlight of this highly exceptional nature of thepriilege, the $ourt finds it essential to limitto the !resident the power to ino7e thepriilege. 'he may of course authori(e the;xecutie 'ecretary to ino7e the priilegeon her behalf, in which case the ;xecutie'ecretary must state that the authority is 9yorder of the !resident,: which means that hepersonally consulted with her. The priilegebeing an extraordinary power, it must bewielded only by the highest official in theexecutie hierarchy. In other words, the

!resident may not authori(e hersubordinates to exercise such power. 06That a type of information is recogni(ed aspriileged does not, howeer, necessarilymean that it would be considered priilegedin all instances. Jor in determining thealidity of a claim of priilege, the uestionthat must be as7ed is not only whether thereuested information falls within one of thetraditional priileges, but also whether thatpriilege should be honored in a gienprocedural setting.

A:4A?AN v. A>*ino - 1.2. #o. 3/53, Fuly 3,*554 036 9secrecy of negotiations withforeign countries is not iolatie of theconstitutional proisions of freedom ofspeech or of the press nor of the freedom ofaccess to information.: 0$o)l$+ Mov$m$nt&or r$++ Fr$$om @MF v. Mangla)*+ 6

9Information on inter-goernment exchangesprior to the conclusion of treaties andexecutie agreements may be subject toreasonable safeguards for the sa7e ofnational interest.: 0C#av$, v. C((6Diplomatic negotiations, therefore, arerecogni(ed as priileged in this jurisdiction,the F!;!A negotiations constituting noexception. It bears emphasisK howeer, thatsuch priilege is only presumptie. Jor as'enate . ;rmita holds, recogni(ing a typeof information as priileged does not meanthat it will be considered priileged in allinstances. &nly after a consideration of the

context in which the claim is made may it bedetermined if there is a public interest thatcalls for the disclosure of the desiredinformation, strong enough to oercome itstraditionally priileged status. 0*6 Informers!riilege - the priilege of the 1oernmentnot to disclose the identity of a person orpersons who furnish information ofiolations of law to officers charged with theenforcement of that law. 06 !riilegeaccorded to presidential communications,which are presumed priileged withoutdistinguishing between those which inolematters of national security and those which

do not, the rationale for the priilege beingthat a fran7 exchange of exploratory ideasand assessments, free from the glare ofpublicity and pressure by interested parties,is essential to protect the independence ofdecision-ma7ing of those tas7ed to exercise!residential, %egislatie and Fudicial power.It bears emphasis, howeer, that thepriilege accorded to presidentialcommunications is not absolute, onesignificant ualification being that 9the;xecutie cannot, any more than the otherbranches of goernment, ino7e a generalconfidentiality priilege to shield its officials

and employees from inestigations by theproper goernmental institutions intopossible criminal wrongdoing.: Thisualification applies whether the priilege isbeing ino7ed in the context of a judicial trialor a congressional inestigation conductedin aid of legislation. 0?6 Deliberatie !rocess!riilege - coers documents reflectingadisory opinions, recommendations anddeliberations comprising part of a processby which goernmental decisions andpolicies are formulated. #otably, thepriileged status of such documents rests,not on the need to protect national security

but, on the 9obious reali(ation that officialswill not communicate candidly amongthemseles if each remar7 is a potentialitem of discoery and front page news,: theobjectie of the priilege being to enhancethe uality of agency decisions.



14/42

The so-called 9deliberatie process priilege: refersto the decision-ma7ing of executie officials.

N$ri v. S$nat$ Committ$$ on A%%o*nta'ilit o&*'li% O&&i%$r+ - 1.2. #o. 345?, Earch*, *554 -036 !residential $ommunications!riilege applies to decision-ma7ing of the

!residentK rooted in the constitutionalprinciple of separation of power and the!residents uniue constitutional role. Theelements of presidential communicationspriilege are - 3+ The protectedcommunication must relate to a9uintessential and non-delegablepresidential power.: *+ The communicationmust be authored or 9solicited and receied:by a close adisor of the !resident or the!resident himself. The judicial test is thatan adisor must be in 9operational proximity:with the !resident. The presidentialcommunications priilege remains a

ualified priilege that may be oercome bya showing of adeuate need, such that theinformation sought 9li7ely contains importanteidence: and by the unaailability of theinformation elsewhere by an appropriateinestigating authority.

0*6 Deliberatie !rocess !riilege applies todecision-ma7ing of executie officialsKbased on common law priilege.

06 "nli7e the deliberatie process priilege, thepresidential communications priilegeapplies to documents in their entirety, and

coers final and post-decisional materials aswell as pre-deliberatie ones As aconseuence, congressional or judicialnegation of the presidential communicationspriilege is always subject to greaterscrutiny than denial of the deliberatieprocess priilege.

The commencement of the term of the !residentmay be changed only by constitutionalamendment. #ote the commencement ofthe terms of legislators may be changed bylaw, so long as such change would not alterthe length of their terms.

!ursuant to the doctrine of commandresponsibility, the !resident, as the$ommander-in-$hief of the AJ!, can beheld liable for affront against the petitionersrights to life, liberty and security as long assubstantial eidence exist to show that he orshe had exhibited inolement in or can beimputed with 7nowledge of the iolations, orhad failed to exercise necessary andreasonable diligence in conducting thenecessary inestigations reuired under therules. The $ourt also stresses that rule thatthe presidential immunity from suit exists

only in concurrence with the presidentsincumbency. 0Rorig*$, v. Ma%a)agal

Arroo, 1.2. #o. 3@345, #oember 3,*533, citing E+traa v. D$+i$rto, 1.2. #os.3?/35-3, 3?/4, Earch *, *553, '$2A ?*6

In Civil Li'$rti$+ Union v. E-$%*tiv$ S$%r$tar,01.2. #o. 44@, Jebruary **, 3@@3, 3@?'$2A 3/6 this $ourt explained that theprohibition contained in 'ection 3, Article=II of the 3@4/ $onstitution does not applyto posts occupied by the ;xecutie officialsspecified therein without additional

compensation in an ex-officio capacity asproided by law and as reuired by theprimary function of said officialHs office.

F*na v. Ermita 1.2. #o. 34?/?5, Jebruary 33,*535 - The 3@4/ $onstitution in prohibitingdual or multiple offices, as well asincompatible offices, refers to the holding ofthe office, and not to the nature of theappointment or designation, words which werenot een found in 'ection 3, Article =II nor in'ection /, paragraph *, Article I


15/42

1ien that the !resident deries his power toappoint &I$s in the A2EE regionalgoernment from law, it falls under theclassification of presidential appointmentscoered by the second sentence of 'ection3, Article =II of the $onstitutionK the!residents appointment power thus rests

on clear constitutional basis. 0Dat* Mi%#a$lA'a+ :ia v. S$nat$ o& t#$ #ili))in$+ -1.2. #o. 3@*/3, Jebruary *4, *53*, ;nanc, rion6

The petitioners also jointly assert that 2A #o.353, in granting the !resident the powerto appoint &I$s in electie positions,iolates 'ection 3, Article < of the$onstitution, 0'ection 3. The !residentshall exercise general superision oerautonomous regions to ensure that laws arefaithfully executed.6 which merely grants the!resident the power of superision oer

autonomous regions. This is an oerlyrestrictie interpretation of the !residentsappointment power. There is noincompatibility between the !residentspower of superision oer localgoernments and autonomous regions, andthe power granted to the !resident, withinthe specific confines of 2A #o. 353, toappoint &I$s. xxx. &nce the !resident hasappointed the &I$s for the offices of the1oernor, =ice 1oernor and members ofthe 2egional %egislatie Assembly, thesesame officials will remain in office until theyare replaced by the duly elected officials in

the Eay *53 elections. #othing in thisproision een hints that the !resident hasthe power to recall the appointments healready made. $learly, the petitioners fearsin this regard are more apparent than real.BDat* Mi%#a$l A'a+ :ia v. S$nat$ o& t#$#ili))in$+- 1.2. #o. 3@*/3, Jebruary *4,*53*, ;n anc, rion6

The power granted to the !resident, ia 2A #o.353, to appoint members of the 2egional%egislatie Assembly is comparable to thepower granted by ! 443 )the &mnibus;lection $ode+ to the !resident to fill any

acancy for any cause in the 2egional%egislatie Assembly )then called the'angguniang !ampoo7+. 0'ection . Jillingof acancy. - !ending an election to fill aacancy arising from any cause in the'angguniang !ampoo7, the acancy shallbe filled by the !resident, uponrecommendation of the 'angguniang!ampoo7C !roided, That the appointeeshall come from the same proince or sectorof the member being replaced.6 0Dat*Mi%#a$l A'a+ :ia v. S$nat$ o& t#$#ili))in$+- 1.2. #o. 3@*/3, Jebruary *4,*53*, ;n anc, rion6

1enerally, the power to appoint ested in the!resident includes the power to ma7etemporary appointments, unless he isotherwise specifically prohibited by the$onstitution or by the law, or where anacting appointment is repugnant to thenature of the office inoled. 0Ca'iling v.

a'*alan, 1.2. #os. %-*3/? and %-*3/,Eay 3, 3@, 3? '$2A */?6 The!residents power to issue an actingappointment is particularly authori(ed by theAdministratie $ode of 3@4/ );xecutie&rder #o. *@*+.

1enerally, the purpose for staggering the term ofoffice is to minimi(e the appointingauthoritys opportunity to appoint a majorityof the members of a collegial body. It alsointended to ensure the continuity of the bodyand its policies. A staggered term of office,howeer, is not a statutory prohibition, direct

or indirect, against the issuance of acting ortemporary appointment. It does not negatethe authority to issue acting or temporaryappointments that the Administratie $odegrants. 0($n$ral v. Urro- 1.2. #o. 3@35,Earch *@, *5336

Sangg*niang 4aranga o& Don Mariano Mar%o+ v.Martin$,- 1.2. #o. 3/5*, Earch , *554- the !resident is without any power toremoe elected officials, since the power isexclusiely ested in the proper courts asexpressly proided for in the last paragraphof 'ection 5 of the %ocal 1oernment

$ode. 0Salalima v. (*ingona8 =r.6

Lo)$, v. CSC- the authority of the $'$ is only todetermine whether or not the appointeespossess the legal ualifications and theappropriate eligibility, nothing else.

L*$go v. CSC the $'$ may not approe as9temporary: an appointment designated as9permanent: by the appointing authority.



16/42

The $'$ classified the position of 1raftInestigation &fficer III as belonging to the$areer ;xecutie 'ericeK appointee to theposition reuired to acuire $;' eligibility0$;' officers, under the Administratie$ode, are appointed by the !resident6.&mbudsman challenges the classification,

saying that it impairs his appointmentprerogatie as guaranteed under the$onstitution. '$C classification would resultin absurdity 0a6 it would est in the!resident the power to appoint an employeeof the &mbudsman, in iolation of the$onstitution, or 0b6 it would include in the$;' a position not occupied by apresidential appointee, contrary to theAdministratie $ode. The $'$ may notclassify a position 01raft Inestigation&fficer III of the &ffice of the &mbudsman6as belonging to the $areer ;xecutie'erice and reuire an appointee thereto to

acuire $;' eligibility, because $;'officers are appointed by the !resident.This derogates the appointing power of the&mbudsman. A $;' appointment noteffected by the !resident is contrary to theproisions of the Administratie $ode.0O&&i%$ o& t#$ Om'*+man v. Civil S$rvi%$Commi++ion, ?3 '$2A /56

Mati'ag v. 4$ni)ao - 1.2. #o. 3?@5, April *,*55* - An a int$rim appointment is apermanent appointment because it ta7eseffect immediately and can no longer bewithdrawn by the !resident once the

appointee has ualified into office.

An a int$rim appointment that has lapsed byinaction of the $ommission onAppointments does not constitute a term ofoffice. The period from the time the adinterim appointment is made to the time itlapses is neither a fixed term nor anunexpired term. 0F$talino v. Commi++ion onEl$%tion+- 1.2. #o. 3@34@5, December 5?,*53*, ;n anc, rion6

The designation of Agra as Acting 'ecretary ofFustice concurrently with his position ofActing 'olicitor 1eneral wasunconstitutional and oid for being iniolation of the constitutional prohibitionunder 'ection 3, Article =II of the 3@4/$onstitution. eing designated as the

Acting 'ecretary of Fustice concurrently withhis position of Acting 'olicitor 1eneral,therefore, Agra was undoubtedly coered by'ection 3, Article =II, whose text and spiritwere too clear to be differently read. Lence,Agra could not alidly hold any other officeor employment during his tenure as theActing 'olicitor 1eneral, because the$onstitution has not otherwise so proided.xxx It is eually remar7able, therefore, thatAgras designation as the Acting 'ecretaryof Fustice was not in an ex officio capacity,by which he would hae been alidlyauthori(ed to concurrently hold the two

positions due to the holding of one officebeing the conseuence of holding the other.0F*na v. Agra- 1.2. #o. 3@3??, Jebruary3@, *53, ;n anc, ersamin6

"nder the doctrine of implication, the power toappoint carries with it the power to remoe.0Ag*irr$8 =r. v. D$ Ca+tro, /4 !hil. /3?)3@@@+6 As a general rule, therefore, allofficers appointed by the !resident are alsoremoable by him. 0$ru(, $arlo %., The %awof !ublic &fficers, 3?-3 )3@@*+6 Theexception to this is when the law expresslyproides otherwise - that is, when the power

to remoe is expressly ested in an office orauthority other than the appointing power.xxx In giing the !resident the power toremoe a Deputy &mbudsman and 'pecial!rosecutor, $ongress simply laid down inexpress terms an authority that is alreadyimplied from the !residentHs constitutionalauthority to appoint the aforesaid officials inthe &ffice of the &mbudsman. 0(on,al$+ v.O&&i%$ o& t#$ r$+i$nt - 1.2. #o. 3@*3,'eptember ?, *53*, ;n anc, !erlas-ernabe6

!ower of control - Aran$ta8 $t al. v. 6on. M.

(atmaitan8 $t al., 0353 !hil. *4 )3@/+6 - if acertain power or authority is ested by lawupon the Department 'ecretary, then suchpower or authority may be exercised directlyby the !resident, who exercises superisionand control oer the departments.



17/42

Ang$l$+ v. (ait$- 1.2. #o. 3*/, #oember *,*55@ - Eemorandum $ircular #o. 4,promulgated by the &ffice of the !residenton Fune 5, 3@@ - no appeal from orpetition for reiew ofdecisionsMordersMresolutions of the'ecretary of Fustice on preliminary

inestigations of criminal cases shall beentertained by the &ffice of the !resident,except those inoling offenses punishableby reclusion perpetua to death. - The!residentHs act of delegating authority to the'ecretary of Fustice by irtue of saidEemorandum $ircular is well within thepuriew of the doctrine of ualified politicalagency.

ut the doctrine of ualified political agencycould not be extended to the acts of the oard ofDirectors of TID$&2! despite some of itsmembers being themseles the appointees of the!resident to the $abinet. xxx 'uch $abinetmembers sat on the oard of Directors ofTID$&2! $- o&&i%io, or by reason of their officeor function, not because of their directappointment to the oard by the !resident.;idently, it was the law, not the !resident, thatsat them in the oard. 0!ra$ an Inv$+tm$ntD$v$lo)m$nt Cor)oration o& t#$ #ili))in$+ v.Manalang/D$migillo6

The !hilippine Truth $ommission 0!T$6 - Thecreation of the !T$ finds justification under'ection 3/, Article =II of the $onstitution,

imposing upon the !resident the duty to ensurethat the laws are faithfully executed. 0'ection 3/,Article =II6 04iraogo v. !#$ #ili))in$ !r*t#Commi++ion o& 2010 - 1.2. #o. 3@*@,December /, *5356

Santo+ v. (o - 1.2. #o. 3543, &ctober 3@,*55 - 'ince the D&F is not a uasi-judicial bodyand it is not one of those agencies whosedecisions, orders or resolutions are appealable tothe $ourt of Appeals under 2ule ?, theresolution of the 'ecretary of Fustice findingprobable cause to indict petitioners for estafa is,therefore, not appealable to the $ourt of Appeals

ia a petition for reiew under 2ule ?.

It is eident that under the 3@4/ $onstitution the!resident and the $ongress act in tandem inexercising the power to proclaim martial law orsuspend the priilege of the writ of habeascorpus. They exercise the power, not onlyseuentially, but in a sense jointly since, after the!resident has initiated the proclamation or thesuspension, only the $ongress can maintain thesame based on its own ealuation of the situationon the ground, a power that the !resident doesnot hae. $onseuently, although the$onstitution reseres to the 'upreme $ourt the

power to reiew the sufficiency of the factualbasis of the proclamation or suspension in aproper suit, it is implicit that the $ourt must allow$ongress to exercise its own reiew powers,which is automatic rather than initiated. &nlywhen $ongress defaults in its express duty todefend the $onstitution through such reiew

should the 'upreme $ourt step in as its finalrampart. The constitutional alidity of the!residents proclamation of martial law orsuspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first apolitical uestion in the hands of $ongressbefore it becomes a justiciable one in the handsof the $ourt. 0Fort*n v. Arroo - 1.2. #o.

3@5*@, Earch *5, *53*6

C*lanag v. Dir$%tor o& ri+on+ criminal andadministratie remedies for iolation ofconditional pardon are not mutually exclusieand may be successiely aailed of by the!resident for the punishment of the conditionalpardon. recommitmentMcriminal prosecution foriolation of conditional pardonMcriminalprosecution for new offense if iolation of thecondition constitutes a separate criminal offense.

E+)*$la+ v. rovin%ial "ar$n o& 4o#ol

conditional pardonee committed usurpation ofpublic functions. #ew case dismissed for lac7 ofwitnesses. !resident ordered his commitment.'$ sustained saying mere commission, notconiction reuired for recommitment. 0Affirmedin S*m*long v. (on,al$+6

Amnesty commonly denotes a general pardon torebels for their treason or other high politicaloffenses, or the forgieness which one soereigngrants to the subjects of another, who haeoffended, by some breach, the law of nations.Amnesty loo7s bac7ward, and abolishes andputs into obliion, the offense itselfK it so

oerloo7s and obliterates the offense with whichhe is charged, that the person released byamnesty stands before the law precisely asthough he had committed no offense. x x x!ardon is granted by the $hief ;xecutie and assuch it is a priate act which must be pleadedand proed by the person pardoned, because thecourts ta7e no notice thereofK while amnesty by!roclamation of the $hief ;xecutie with theconcurrence of $ongress, is a public act of whichthe courts should ta7e judicial notice. x x x:0Magalo ara +a ag'a'ago - 1.2. #o.3@5/@, Fune 3@, *53*, ;n anc, 'ereno6

im$nt$l v. E-$%*tiv$ S$%r$tar - the power toratify is ested in the !resident, subject to theconcurrence of the 'enate.

CARLOL. CRUZS2013 REMINDERSFOROLI!ICALLA"3/


18/42

The $ontract Agreement xxx between #orthrail and$#E;1 does not parta7e of the nature of anexecutie agreement. It is merely an ordinarycommercial contract that can be uestionedbefore the local courts. 0C#ina NationalMa%#in$r E>*i)m$nt Cor)oration v. Sta.

Maria- 1.2. #o. 34/*, Jebruary /, *53*,;n anc, 'ereno6

R*'ri%o v. Arroo- 1.2. #o. 344/3, Jebruary 34,*535 - the !resident, during his tenure ofoffice or actual incumbency, may not besued in any ciil or criminal case, and thereis no need to proide for it in the$onstitution or law.

In Mar%o+ v. C#i$& o& Sta&&8 Arm$ For%$+ o& t#$#ili))in$+ 04@ !hil, *? )3@3+6, this $ourtruled that a court-martial case is a criminalcase and the 1eneral $ourt Eartial is a

PcourtP a7in to any other courts. In the caseof Ramon R*&& v+. C#i$& o& Sta&& o& t#$#ili))in$ Arm, ? &ff. 1a(., 4, we didnot hold that the word PcourtP in generalused in our $onstitution does not include a$ourt-EartialK what we held is that thewords Pinferior courtsP used in connectionwith the appellate jurisdiction of the'upreme $ourt to Preiew on appealcertiorari or writ of error, as the law or rulesof court may proide, final judgments ofinferior courts in all criminal cases in whichthe penalty imposed is death or lifeimprisonment,P as proided for in section *,

Article =III, of the $onstitution, do not referto $ourts-Eartial or Eilitary $ourts.

The fact that a judgment of coniction, not ofacuittal, rendered by a court-martial mustbe approed by the reiewing authoritybefore it can be executed )Article of >ar?+, does not change or affect the characterof a court-martial as a court. A judgment ofthe $ourt of Jirst Instance imposing deathpenalty must also be approed by the'upreme $ourt before it can be executed.0(ar%ia v. E-$%*tiv$ S$%r$tar - 1.2. #o.3@4?, Fuly 5, *53*, Third Diision,

!eralta6

The power to confirm a sentence of the !resident,as $ommander-in-$hief, includes the powerto approe or disapproe the entire or anypart of the sentence gien by the courtmartial. 0(ar%ia v. E-$%*tiv$ S$%r$tar -1.2. #o. 3@4?, Fuly 5, *53*, ThirdDiision, !eralta6

Li'$ral art v. COMELEC - 1.2. #o. 3@3//3,Eay , *535 - A facial objection ismeritorious if, expressly and on the face ofthe petition, what is eident as cited grounds

are erroneous applications of the law ratherthan grae abuse of discretion amounting tolac7 or excess of jurisdiction.

The issuance of subseuent resolutions by the$ourt is simply an exercise of judicial powerunder Art. =III of the $onstitution, becausethe execution of the Decision is but anintegral part of the adjudicatie function ofthe $ourt. xxx >ith the final and executoryjudgment in EEDA, the writ of continuing

mandamus issued in EEDA means thatuntil petitioner-agencies hae shown fullcompliance with the $ourts orders, the$ourt exercises continuing jurisdiction oerthem until full execution of the judgment.0MMDA v. Con%$rn$ R$+i$nt+ o& Manila4a - 1.2. #os. 3/3@?/-?4, Jebruary 3,*5336

$o)l$ v. S$+'r$no - The 'upreme $ourt asguardian of the legal profession has ultimatepowers oer attorneys. Its authority todiscipline lawyers stems from itsconstitutional prerogatie to regulate the

practice of law and the admission of thepersons to engage therein )'ection )+,Article


19/42

The expiration of the term generally renders anelection protest moot and academic 0Sal$+v. COMELEC- 1.2. #o. 3/?46 "T saidcase may still be resoled for purposes offormulating controlling principles to guide thebench, bar and the public 0Ati$n,a v.


20/42

Am)ong v CSC - 1.2. #o. 3/@3, August *,*554 - administratie jurisdiction oer acourt employee belongs to the 'upreme$ourt, regardless of whether the offensewas committed before or after employmentin the judiciary.

>ith respect to the power of the $ourt, 'ection )+, Article =III of the 3@4/ $onstitutionproides that the 9'upreme $ourt shall haeadministratie superision oer all courtsand the personnel thereof.: This proisionempowers the $ourt to oersee all mattersrelating to the effectie superision andmanagement of all courts and personnelunder it. 2ecogni(ing this mandate,Eemorandum $ircular #o. * of the &fficeof the !resident, dated Fuly 3, 3@4,considers the 'upreme $ourt exempt andwith authority to promulgate its own rulesand regulations on foreign traels. Thus,

the $ourt came out with &$A $ircular #o.?@-*55 )+. 0L$av$ Divi+ion v. 6$*+$n+-A.E. #o. !-33-*@*/, December 3, *5336

The regular members of the Fudicial and ar$ouncil hae staggered terms.

$ongress may designate only one )3+representatie to the F$. 0C#av$, v.=*i%ial an 4ar Co*n%il- 1.2. #o. *5**?*,Fuly 3/, *53*6

Caoi'$+8 =r. v. Om'*+man- The &mbudsman isduty bound to hae all cases against judges

and court personnel filed before it, referredto the 'upreme $ourt for determination asto whether an administratie aspect isinoled therein.

Soli 6om$+8 In%. v. La+$rna - 1.2. #o. 353,April 4, *554 'ection 3? does not apply todecisions in administratie proceedings, li7ethose rendered by the &ffice of the!resident. "T note the cardinal rights ofparties in administratie proceedings in thelandmar7 case ofAng !i'a v. CIR.

A2TI$%; I


21/42

?. A commissioner who resignsafter sering in the $ommissionfor less than seen years iseligible for an appointment to theposition of $hairman for theunexpired portion of the term ofthe departing chairman. 'uch

appointment is not coered bythe ban on reappointment,proided that the aggregateperiod of the length of serice ascommissioner and the unexpiredperiod of the term of thepredecessor will not exceedseen )/+ years and proidedfurther that the acancy in theposition of $hairman resultedfrom death, resignation, disabilityor remoal by impeachment.The $ourt clarifies that9reappointment: found in 'ec.

3)*+, Art. I


22/42

>hich uasi-judicial agency has jurisdiction to hearand decide complaints for illegal dismissalagainst an adjunct goernment agencyengaged in proprietary functionR TheArmed Jorces of the !hilippines$ommissary and ;xchange 'erices)AJ!$;'+ is a unitMfacility of the Armed

Jorces of the !hilippines )AJ!+ organi(edpursuant to %etter of Instruction )%&I+ #o.3, which was issued on #oember *5,3@/* by then !resident Jerdinand Earcos.'ince it cannot be denied that petitionersare goernment employees, the proper bodythat has jurisdiction to hear the case is the$'$. 06ialgo v. R$)*'li% o& t#$ #ili))in$+- 1.2. #o. 3/@/@, Fuly , *5356

In (ar%ia v. Molina01.2. #os. 3/4 S 3/?3/,August 35, *535, */ '$2A ?56, wedeclared the formal charges issued bypetitioner 1oernment 'erice Insurance

'ystem !resident without prior conduct of apreliminary inestigation as null and oid.0Salva v.


23/42

Cor)*+ v. C*a$rno the three classes exemptedfrom competitie examsK enjoy security oftenure.

#epotism appointment or designation of relatieswithin the rd degree of consanguinity ofaffinity prohibited except 036 persons

appointed in a confidential capacity 0*6teachers 06 members of the AJ! 0?6physicians applies een to designations.

In the local goernment career serice, theprohibition against nepotism extends to therelaties of the appointing or recommendingauthority, within the fourth ciil degree ofconsanguinity or affinity. The nepotism rulecoers all 7inds of appointments whetheroriginal, promotional, transfer andreemployment regardless of status includingcasuals and contractuals exceptconsultants. );mphasis supplied.+ 01aleos

. !eople - 1.2. #os. 3/?/5-/, Jebruary@, *5336

The principal distinctions between a detail0moement from one agency to another -0;xecutie &rder *@*, oo7 =, Title 3,'ubtitle A, $hapter , 'ection * )+6 andreassignment 0reassignment from oneorgani(ational unit to another in the sameagency -;.&. *@*, oo7 =, Title 3, 'ubtitleA, $hapter , 'ection * )/+6 lie in the placewhere the employee is to be moed and inits effectiity pending appeal with the $'$.ased on the definition, a detail reuires a

moement from one agency to anotherwhile a reassignment reuires a moementwithin the same agency. Eoreoer, pendingappeal with the $'$, an order to detail isimmediately executory, whereas areassignment order does not becomeimmediately effectie. 0R$)*'li% o& t#$#ili))in$+ v. a%#$%o 1.2. #o. 3/45*3,Fanuary *, *53*6

Univ$r+it o& t#$ #ili))in$+ v. R$gino As acomponent of the $iil 'erice, "! istherefore goerned by !D 45/ andadministratie cases inoling the discipline

of its employees come under the appellatejurisdiction of the $iil 'erice$ommission. All members of the ciilserice are under the jurisdiction of the$'$, unless otherwise proided by law.

2A ?/5 under Eagna $arta for !ublic 'choolTeachers schools hae exclusiejurisdiction oer public school teachers. ut'$ has declared $'$ and &mbudsmanhae concurrent jurisdiction.

!eriod of preentie suspension pendinginestigation cannot be deducted from thepenalty, because preentie suspension isnot a penalty. 05*im'o v. ($rva%io6!reentie suspension pending appeal isactually punitieK so, if exonerated,respondent is entitled to be reinstated with

full pay for the period of suspension0pending appeal6. Loweer, if penalty orconiction is affirmed, the period ofpreentie suspension pending appealbecomes part of the penalty of suspensionor dismissal. 0(loria v. CA6

The present legal basis for an award of bac7salaries is 'ection ?/, oo7 = of theAdministratie $ode of 3@4/ 9)?+ Anappeal shall not stop the decision frombeing executory, and in case the penalty issuspension or remoal, the respondent shallbe considered as haing been under

preentie suspension during the pendencyof the appeal in the eent he wins anappeal.: This proision, howeer, on itsface, does not support a claim for bac7salaries since it does not expressly proidefor bac7 salaries during this periodK ourestablished rulings hold that bac7 salariesmay not be awarded for the period ofpreentie suspension 06on. (loria v. CA, !hil. /?? )3@@@+6 as the law itselfauthori(es its imposition so that its legality isbeyond uestion. To resole the seemingconflict, the $ourt crafted two conditionsbefore an employee may be entitled to bac7

salariesC a+ the employee must be foundinnocent of the charges and b+ hissuspension must be unjustified. 04angali+anv. CA, ?* !hil. 4 )3@@/+6 Thereasoning behind these conditions runs thiswayC although an employee is consideredunder preentie suspension during thependency of a successful appeal, the lawitself only authori(es preentie suspensionfor a fixed periodK hence, his suspensionbeyond this fixed period is unjustified andmust be compensated. 0Civil S$rvi%$Commi++ion v. Cr*, - 1.2. #o. 34/44,August @, *533, ;n anc, rion6

!eriods $'$ @5 days - !ublic officers withpending criminal cases @5 days - %ocalelectie officials %ocal 1oernment $ode 5 days - Anti-1raft %aw suspension)$n$nt$ lit$ @5 days - &mbudsman six months

CARLOL. CRUZS2013 REMINDERSFOROLI!ICALLA"*


24/42

An illegally terminated ciil serice employee isentitled to bac7 salaries limited only to amaximum period of fie years, and not fullbac7 salaries from his illegal termination upto his reinstatement. 0?$n;o v. (*ngon,1.2. #os. 3?5 S 3?*, August 3,*55@, @ '$2A *, 456 The illegally

dismissed goernment employee shall bepaid bac7 salaries at the rate he wasreceiing when he was terminatedunualified by salary increases and withoutdeduction from earnings receied elsewhereduring the period of his illegal dismissal.04al>*ira v. CFI o& Ca)i,, ranch II. #o. %-?5?@5, &ctober *4, 3@//, 45 '$2A 3*6eing an incumbent at the time, 1alangwould hae continued to receie 2ATA,Eeal Allowance and 2ice 'ubsidy, separatefrom his salary, had he not been illegallydismissed from serice. 0(alang v. Lan4an; o& t#$ #ili))in$+- 1.2. #o. 3/*/,

Eay 3, *5336

CSC v. Da%o%o - the goernment party that canappeal the decision in administratie casesmust be the party prosecuting the case andnot the disciplining authority or tribunalwhich heard the administratie case.

0&ffice of the &mbudsman . %iggayu -1.2. #o. 3/?*@/, Fune *5, *53*6

5*into v. COMELEC 1.2. #o. 34@@4,December 3, *55@, #achuraM0E26 Jebruary**, *535, !uno - "nder 'ection 3 of 2A@@, which reiterates 'ection of the

&mnibus ;lection $ode, any person holdinga public appointie office or position,including actie members of the ArmedJorces of the !hilippines, and officers andemployees in goernment-owned or-controlled corporations, shall be consideredipso facto resigned from his office upon thefiling of his certificate of candidacy. "ponthe other hand, an elected official is notdeemed to hae resigned from his officeupon the filing of his certificate of candidacyfor the same or any other elected office orposition. In fine, an elected official may runfor another position without forfeiting his

seat.

;lectie officials can be appointed to ciilian postsduring their term, but they shall beconsidered as haing forfeited their electieseats upon acceptance of said ciilianposts.

"nless otherwise allowed by law or by the primaryfunctions of his position, no appointieofficial shall hold any other office oremployment in the 1oernment or anysubdiision, agency or instrumentalitythereof, including 1oernment-owned or

controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.#ot applicable to !resident, =ice-!resident,Eembers of the $abinet, and their deputiesor assistants, who can hold other officesonly if allowed under the $onstitution.0Article =II, 'ection 36 Civil Li'$rti$+Union v. E-$%*tiv$ S$%r$tar

A2TI$%; I


25/42

Mar%ol$ta v. 4orra - A.$. #o. //*, Earch 5,*55@ - complaint for disbarment against$&E;%;$ $ommissioners - animpeachable officer who is a member of thear cannot be disbarred without first beingimpeached 0=ar>*$ v. Om'*+man8 In R$GRa*l M. (on,al$+ an C*$n%o v. F$rnan 6 It

bears emphasis that the proision thatmajority of $omelec members should belawyers pertains to the desired compositionof the $omelec. >hile the appointingauthority may follow such constitutionalmandate, the appointment of a fullcomplement of lawyers in the $omelecmembership is not precluded.

!ower to enforce and administer election lawsIncludes the power to annul an illegalregistry of otersK cancel a proclamationmade by a board of canassersK oust acandidate already proclaimedK reject

nuisance candidates 0"T $omelec maynot refuse to gie due course to a certificateof candidacy duly accomplished and filed its duty is ministerial6K postpone or continueelections 0O%am)o v. COMELEC6K declare afailure of elections 0&mnibus ;lection$odeMSan%#$, v. COMELEC6

#ili))in$ r$++ In+tit*t$ v. COMELEC 0*??'$2A*/*6 a $&E;%;$ resolutionreuired newspapers to proide it with freespace of not less than page for thecommon use of political parties andcandidates. '$C "nconstitutional

constituted 9Ta7ing: of priate propertywithout payment of just compensation.

!$l$%omm*ni%ation+ an 4roa%a+t Attorn$+ o&t#$ #ili))in$+ v. COMELEC 0*4@ '$2A/6 ! 443, 'ection @* reuires radioand T= stations to gie free air time to the$&E;%;$ to be used as the $&E;%;$hour for broadcasting information regardingcandidates. $hallenged on the ground ofbeing unconstitutional for constituting ta7ingwithout just compensation, the '$ said thelaw was a alid regulation by the 'tate ofthe use of the 'tates air waes. =alid

exercise of the police power.

r$+'it$rio v. COMELEC- 1.2. #o. 3/444?, Fune5, *554 - a failure of election may bedeclared only in the three instances statedin 'ection of the &;$C the election hasnot been heldK the election has beensuspended before the hour fixed by lawK andthe preparation and the transmission of the

election returns hae gien rise to theconseuent failure to elect, meaning nobodyemerged as the winner. Jurthermore, thereason for such failure of election should beforce majeure, iolence, terrorism, fraud orother analogous causes. Jinally, before the$&E;%;$ can grant a erified petitionsee7ing to declare a failure of election, theconcurrence of * conditions must beestablished, namelyC )3+ no oting has ta7enplace in the precincts concerned on the datefixed by law or, een if there was oting, theelection neertheless resulted in a failure toelectK and )*+ the otes cast would affect the

result of the election.

Sang%o)an v. COMELEC 1. 2. #o. 3/5*3 ,Earch 3*, *554 the annulment of electioncan only be done when the $&E;%;$finds that an election was itiated bywidespread and perasie terrorism andelection frauds, which resulted in thesubmission at gunpoint of falsified andtampered election returns, and it isimpossible to purge the illegal from the alidreturns, so that there are no returns worthyof faith and credit and from which would begauged a fair and true expression of the

popular will. 0San%#$, v. COMELEC6

Fla*ta v. COMELEC - 1.2. #o. 34?4, Fuly **,*55@ - In D*r$m$+ v. Commi++ion onEl$%tion+, this $ourt sustained the power ofthe $&E;%;$ en banc to order a correctionof the 'tatement of =otes to ma7e itconform to the election returns.

4$ol v. COMELEC- 1.2. #o. 3/@45, December, *55@ - The $&E;%;$ has uasi-judicial,uasi-legislatie and administratie powers.$T;E!T power sustained because itwas exercised in connection with its uasi-

judicial power8 i.$., an inestigation intoalleged massie electoral fraud.

A'ain,a v. Ar$llano12 #o. 343??, December 4,*554 - "nder 'ection , 2ule */ of the$&E;%;$ 2ules of !rocedure, correctionof manifest errors in the tabulation or tallyingof results during the canassing may befiled directly with the $ommission, eenafter a proclamation of the winningcandidates. Despite the proclamation of thewinning candidates, the $&E;%;$ still hasjurisdiction to correct manifest errors in theelection returns for the 'angguniang ayan

candidates. A 9manifest error: is one that isisible to the eye or obious to theunderstandingK that which is open, palpable,incontroertible, needing no eidence toma7e it more clear.



26/42

D*r$m$+ v. Commi++ion on El$%tion+ - a pre-proclamation controersy is not proper aftera proclamation has been made, only if therehad been a alid proclamation.

Flor$+ v. COMELEC '$ declared asunconstitutional a law proiding that

decisions of the municipal or metropolitantrial courts in barangay elections may beappealed to regional trial courts.

a%i&i%aor v. COMELEC 1.2. #o. 3/4*@,Earch 3, *55@ The $&E;%;$ sitting enbanc, howeer, does not hae the authorityto hear and decide election cases, includingpre-proclamation controersies in the firstinstance, as the $&E;%;$ in diision hassuch authority. The $&E;%;$ en banccan exercise jurisdiction only on motions forreconsideration of the resolution or decisionof the $&E;%;$ in diision. !ursuant to

2ule 34 of the &mnibus ;lection $ode,decisions and resolutions of any diision ofthe $&E;%;$ in special cases becomefinal and executory after the lapse of fiedays, unless a timely motion forreconsideration is lodged with the$&E;%;$ en banc.

&nly final orders of the $&E;%;$ in Diision maybe raised before the $&E;%;$ en banc.$learly, the assailed status uo ante &rder,being interlocutory, should first be resoledby the $&E;%;$ Jirst Diision ia a motionfor reconsideration. 0Ca$tano v.

COMELEC - 1.2. #o. 3@4?, April 3*,*5336

F$rnan$, v. COMELEC 1.2. #o. 3/*@, Fune5, *554 - trial courts of limited jurisdictionhae exclusie original jurisdiction oerelection protests inoling barangayofficials, which include the 'B chairman.

Ugora%ion v. COMELEC- 1.2. #o. 3/@43, April34, *554 the certificate of candidacy of agreen card holder who states therein that heis a resident may be denied due course orcancelled on the ground of material

misrepresentation.

=*+tim'a+t$ v. COMELEC - 1.2. #o. 3/@?3,#oember *4, *554 036 the use of a nameother than that stated in the certificate ofbirth is not a material misrepresentation, as9material misrepresentation: under theearlier-uoted 'ection /4 of the &mnibus;lection $ode refers to 9ualifications forelectie office.: 0*6 a petition fordisualification based on materialmisrepresentation in the certificate ofcandidacy is different from an electionprotest. The purpose of an election protest

is to ascertain whether the candidateproclaimed elected by the board ofcanassers is really the lawful choice of theelectorate.

&mnibus ;lection $ode - 'ection 4 petition fordisualification based on commission ofprohibited acts 0e.g., ote-buying, terrorism,oerspending, unlawful electioneering6 andthe possession of a permanent residentstatus in a foreign country may be filedanytime after the deadline for filing of $o$s

but before proclamation persondisualified is prohibited from continuing asa candidate.

'ection /4 petition to deny due course to orcancel a $ertificate of $andidacy 0$o$6 based on false material misrepresentations0on material matters - statements regardingage, residence, citi(enship or non-possession of natural-born Jilipino status ,eligibility, as when one, although precludedfrom running for a fourth term because ofthe three-term limit rule, claims to benonetheless ualified, or when one claims to

be eligible despite his disualification on thebasis of an accessory penalty imposed uponhim in connection with his coniction in acriminal case- the false representation mustconsist of a deliberate attempt to mislead,misinform, or hide a fact which wouldotherwise render a candidate ineligible. Inother words, it must be made with anintention to deceie the electorate as toones ualification for public office. 6 in the$o$ - must be filed within fie days from thedeadline for filing of $o$s, or not later than* days from the filing of the uestioned$o$ person disualified is not treated as a

candidate at all has been li7ened to apetition for uo warranto, but is filed before,and not after, proclamation.

A candidate may be substituted if he dies,is disualified or withdraws. 'ubstitutions in casesof death or disualification may usually be madeuntil midday of election day. An earlier deadline isusually prescribed for substitutions by reason ofwithdrawal. "nder 'ection 3* of 2.A. #o. @55, inorder to obiate confusion, the name of thesubstitute candidate should, as much as possible,bear the same surname as that of the substitutedcandidate. 0F$$ri%o v. Commi++ion on El$%tion+ ,1.2. #o. 3@@3*, Fanuary **, *536 Thus, inF$$ri%o v. Commi++ion on El$%tion+, the $ourtinalidated the substitution of a candidate formayor who it#r$her candidacy for purposes ofsubstituting her husband as candidate for goernorbecause of the latters death. It said that, while hersubstitution of her husband because of his deathmay hae been alid because said substitutionmay be done until midday of election day, hersubstitution as a candidate for mayor was inalidbecause the deadline for the same had longprescribed. The $ourt stressed that hersubstitution as a mayoralty candidate was not byreason of her death or disualification. A candidatewhose certificate of candidacy is cancelled ordenied due course may li7ewise not be substituted.0!alaga v. Commi++ion on El$%tion+, 1.2. #o.3@45?, &ctober @, *53*K !agolino v. 6RE! anL*% !orr$+, 1.2. #o. *5**5*, Earch 3@, *53Ksee Mirana v. A'aa, 1.2. #o. 33, Fuly *4,3@@@, 33 '$2A 3/6 9A cancelled certificate of



27/42

candidacy oid a' initio cannot gie rise to a alidcandidacy, and much less to alid otes.: 0Arat$av. Commi++ion on El$%tion+, 1.2. #o. 3@**@,&ctober @, *53*6

In Arat$a v. COMELEC, the 'upreme

$ourt ac7nowledged that there may be instanceswhen the grounds for both sections 4 and /4 mayoerlap, as when a candidate who represents thathe is a resident of the place where he see7selection but is actually a permanent resident orimmigrant to a foreign country, in which case, hewould clearly also not be a resident of the placewhere he see7s election for at least one yearimmediately preceding the day of the election. Insuch cases, the $ourt clarified that one who wouldli7e to assail the candidacy of that person mayaail himself of either remedy.

N*i+an%$ %aniat$+ H +tra vot$+- 9>e hold thatthe rule in 2esolution #o. ?33 considering theotes cast for a nuisance candidate declared assuch in a final judgment, particularly where suchnuisance candidate has the same surname as thatof the legitimate candidate, not stray but counted infaor of the latter, remains a good law.: 0D$ laCr*, v. Commi++ion on El$%tion+, 1.2. #o.3@***3, #oember 3, *53*6

4lan%o v. COMELEC, 1.2. #o. 3***4 - ote-buying has its criminal and electoral aspects. Itscriminal aspect to determine the guilt or innocenceof the accused cannot be the subject of summary

hearing. Loweer, its electoral aspect to ascertainwhether the offender should be disualified fromoffice can be determined in an administratieproceeding that is summary in character. lanco .$&E;%;$, 1.2. #o. 3453?, Fune 3/, *554 petitioner was earlier found administratiely, andnot criminally, liable for ote-buying, anddisualified under 'ection 4 of the &mnibus;lection $ode. In 1.2. #o. 3***4, petitioner wasdisualified from continuing as a candidate only inthe Eay 4, 3@@ elections.

A'aon v. COMELEC an Ra*l Da,a- 12 #o.343*@, April *, *55@ - abduction of a oter, the

7illing of a political leader, the threats whichpreented the holding of the campaign sorties, andthe intimidation of oters, or of terrorism 0alsomassie ote-buying and bribery6 are propergrounds for an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controersy - illegal composition orproceedings of the board of canassers,canassed election returns are incomplete, containmaterial defects, appear to be tampered with orfalsified, or contain discrepancies in the samereturns or in other authentic copies thereofKelection returns were prepared under duress,threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they areobiously manufactured or not authenticK substitute

or fraudulent returns in controerted polling placeswere canassed, the results of which materiallyaffected the standing of the aggrieed candidate orcandidates. In fact, had Abayon timely filed anelection protest, bearing the same allegations andraising identical issues, it would hae been giendue course. The ten-day period for filing an

election contest or a petition for uo warrantocannot be considered suspended with the filingthereof.

O%am)o v. 6o*+$ o& R$)r$+$ntativ$+ El$%toral!ri'*nal / a subseuent disualification of awinning candidate will not entitle his opponent, the

candidate who receied the second highestnumber of otes to be declared the winner.

#&T; - in subseuent decisions of the 'upreme$ourt, it made clear that its earlier rulings holdingthat the second-placer cannot be proclaimedwinner if the first-placer is disualified or declaredineligible should be limited to situations where thecertificate of candidacy of the first-placer was alidat the time of filing but subseuently had to becancelled because of a iolation of law that too7place, or a legal impediment that too7 effect, afterthe filing of the certificate of candidacy. If thecertificate of candidacy is oid a' initio, then legally

the person who filed such oid certificate ofcandidacy was neer a candidate in the electionsat any time. All otes for such non-candidateshould therefore be considered as stray otes andshould not be counted. Thus, such non-candidatecan neer be a first-placer in the elections. If acertificate of candidacy oid a' initio is cancelledon the day, or before the day, of the election,preailing jurisprudence holds that all otes for thatcandidate are stray otes. 0$ayat . $&E;%;$,1.2. #o. 3//, April *?, *55/, ** '$2A *6 Ifa certificate of candidacy oid a' initiois cancelledone day or more after the elections, all otes forsuch candidate should also be stray otes because

the certificate of candidacy is oid from the erybeginning. This, according to the 'upreme $ourt,is the more euitable and logical approach on theeffect of the cancellation of a certificate ofcandidacy that is oid a' initio. &therwise, acertificate of candidacy oid a' initiocan operate todefeat one or more alid certificates of candidacyfor the same position. 0Falosjos . $ommission on;lections, 1.2. #o. 3@*/, &ctober @, *53*6

Ati$n,a v. COMELEC 1.2. #o. 344@*5,Jebruary 3, *535, Abad - the $&E;%;$ mayresole an intra-party leadership dispute, in aproper case brought before it, as an incident of its

power to register political parties.

Li'$ral art v. COMELEC - 1.2. #o. 3@3//3,Eay , *535 - political coalitions need to registerin accordance with the established norms andprocedures, if they are to be recogni(ed as suchand be gien the benefits accorded by law toregistered coalitions.

CARLOL. CRUZS2013 REMINDERSFOROLI!ICALLA"*/


28/42

4ANA! v. COMELEC, 1.2. #&. 3//54, August /,*55@ - It is clear that the grant of the9exclusie power: to inestigate andprosecute election offenses to the$&E;%;$ was not by irtue of the$onstitution but by ! 443, a legislatie

enactment.

Dino v. Olivar$, 1.2. #o. 3/5??/, December ?,*55@ - It is clear that the $hief 'tate!rosecutor, all !roincial and $ity Jiscals,andMor their respectie assistants hae beengien continuing authority, as deputies ofthe $ommission, to conduct a preliminaryinestigation of complaints inoling electionoffenses under the election laws and toprosecute the same. 'uch authority may bereo7ed or withdrawn anytime by the$&E;%;$, either expressly or impliedly,when in its judgment such reocation or

withdrawal is necessary to protect theintegrity of the process to promote thecommon good, or where it beliees thatsuccessful prosecution of the case can bedone by the $&E;%;$.

Erig*$l v. COMELEC- 1.2. #o. 3@5*, Jebruary*, *535 - The 'pecial 'econd Diision ofthe $&E;%;$ clearly acted with graeabuse of discretion when it immediatelytransferred to the $ommission en banc acase that ought to be heard and decided bya diision. 'uch action cannot be donewithout running afoul of 'ection , Article I


29/42

The election period may be changed by resolutionof the $ommission on ;lections. Theelection period may, under the $onstitution,commence earlier than ninety days beforethe day of election. - 'pecial case Article=II, 'ection 35 special election, to becalled within / days after acancy, and must

be held not earlier than ? days nor laterthan 5 days from such call.

$n$ra v. COMELEC - 1. 2. #o. 3433,#oember *, *55@ - 9any person who fileshis certificate of candidacy within 0the filing6period shall only be considered a candidateat the start of the campaign period for whichhe filed his certificate of candidacy.:

A2TI$%; I


30/42

N6MFC v. A'aari 1.2. #o. 354, &ctober *,*55@ - e that as it may, assuming for thesa7e of argument that execution bygarnishment could proceed in this caseagainst the funds of petitioner, it must bearstress that the latter is a goernment-ownedor controlled corporation with a charter of its

own. Its juridical personality is separate anddistinct from the goernment and it can sueand be sued in its name. As such, whileindeed it cannot eade the effects of theexecution of an aderse judgment and maynot ordinarily place its funds beyond anorder of garnishment issued in ordinarycases, it is imperatie in order for executionto ensue that a claim for the payment of thejudgment award be first filed with the$ommission on Audit )$&A+.

An absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar toan administratie prosecution or ice ersa.

The criminal case filed before the &ffice ofthe &mbudsman is distinct and separatefrom the proceedings on the disallowancebefore the $&A. 'o also, the dismissal byEargarito !. 1eracio, Fr., Deputy&mbudsman for Eindanao, of the criminalcharges against petitioners does notnecessarily foreclose the matter of theirpossible liability as warranted by thefindings of the $&A. 0Soria v. Commi++ionon A*it - 1.2. #o. 3/*3@, Jebruary 4,*5336 >ith respect to the liability ofpetitioner, we li7ewise affirm the $&Asruling that he is personally and solidarily

liable for the disallowed amount. Thedoctrine of separate personality of acorporation finds no application because$DA is not a priate entity but a goernmentagency created by irtue of 2epublic Act#o. @@ in compliance with the proisionsof 'ection 3, Article


31/42

1oernors do not hae emergency military powers.- 2espondents cannot rely on paragraph 3,subparagraph )ii+ of Article ? 0of the%ocal 1oernment $ode6, as the saidproision expressly refers to calamities anddisasters, whether man-made or natural.The goernor, as local chief executie of the

proince, is certainly empowered to enactand implement emergency measures duringthese occurrences. ut the 7idnappingincident in the case at bar cannot beconsidered as a calamity or a disaster.2espondents cannot find any legal mooringunder this proision to justify their actions.!aragraph *, subparagraph )i+ of the sameproision is eually inapplicable for tworeasons. Jirst, the Armed Jorces of the!hilippines does not fall under the categoryof a 9national law enforcement agency,: towhich the #ational !olice $ommission)#A!&%$&E+ and its departments belong.

Its mandate is to uphold th

Documents

2013-Political Law-Reminders-090313.doc