Additional Digest Gomez

7/21/2019 Additional Digest Gomez

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/additional-digest-gomez 1/6

Moya v Del Fierro:

Facts:Moya filed a petition for review by certiorari of the judgment of CA declaring respondent

Agripino Ga. Del Fierro as the candidate elect for the office of mayor of aracale! Cam

"orte with a majority vote of three votes over Moya. Moya contended that the CA erredin admitting and counting ballots mar#ed $%. del Fierro&! $%ufino del Fierro&! $. delFierro& and ballots inadvertently or contrary to the controlling decisions of in favor of therespondent.

'ssue:(hether or not the technical rules should be permitted to defeat the intention of thevoter discoverable from the ballot itself.

)eld:"o! technical rules should not be permitted to defeat the intention of the voter if that

intention is discoverable from the ballot itself. *he +C dismissed the petition because inresult even if the ballots contested are counted in favor of Moya! del Fierro still wins byone vote. *he +C avers that in republicanism! the enfranchised citi,en! as a particle of popular sovereignty and as the ultimate source of the established authority! he has avoice in his representative type of government. 't is the solemn duty of the judiciary towhen called upon to act in justifiable cases to give it efficacy and not to stifle or frustrateit. *he ballots should be read and appreciated! it not outmost! with reasonable liberality

Mercado vs. Man,ano



Facts:etitioner Mercado and private respondent Man,ano were candidates for vice mayor of the City of Ma#ati in the May --! -/ elections. *he proclamation of privaterespondent was suspended in view of a pending petition for dis0ualification filed by a

certain 1rnesto Mamaril who alleged that private respondent was not a citi,en of thehilippines but of the 2nited +tates. *he +econd Division of the C3M141C granted thepetition of Mamaril and ordered the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of privaterespondent on the ground that he is a dual citi,en and under +ec. 56 of the 4ocalGovernment Code! persons with dual citi,enship are dis0ualified from running for anyelective position. rivate respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. *he motionremained pending until after the election. *he board of canvassers tabulated the votesbut suspended the proclamation of the winner. etitioner sought to intervene in thecase for dis0ualification. C3M141C en banc reversed the decision and declaredprivate respondent 0ualified to run for the position. ursuant to the ruling of theC3M141C en banc! the board of canvassers proclaimed private respondent as vice

mayor. *his petition sought the reversal of the resolution of the C3M141C en banc andto declare the private respondent dis0ualified to hold the office of the vice mayor of Ma#ati.

'ssue:(hether or not dual citi,enship is a ground for dis0ualification to hold or run office in thelocal position.

)eld:"o! *he court ruled that the phrase 7dual citi,enship7 in %.A. 8-96 +ec. 56 d; and %.A.8/<5 +ec. =6 must be understood as referring to dual allegiance. Dual citi,enship is

different from dual allegiance. *he former arises when! as a result of the application of the different laws of two or more states! a person is simultaneously considered anational by the said states. Dual allegiance on the other hand! refers to a situation inwhich a person simultaneously owes! by some positive act! loyalty to two or morestates. (hile dual citi,enship is involuntary! dual allegiance is a result of an individual>svolition. Article '? +ec. < of the Constitution provides 7Dual allegiance of citi,ens isinimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.7*he court ruled that the filing of certificate of candidacy of respondent sufficed torenounce his American citi,enship! effectively removing any dis0ualification he mighthave as a dual citi,en. @y declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipinociti,en that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country that he willdefend and support the Constitution of the hilippines and bear true faith and allegiancethereto and that he does so without mental reservation! private respondent has! as far as the laws of this country are concerned! effectively repudiated his Americanciti,enship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citi,en.



Buinto vs. C3M141C

Facts:*his is a motion for reconsideration filed by the Commission on 1lections. *he latter moved to 0uestion an earlier decision of the +upreme Court declaring the secondproviso in the third paragraph of +ection - of %.A. "o. 9! the basis of theC3M141C resolution! and +ection 5a; of C3M141C %esolution "o. /98/unconstitutional. *he resolution provides that! $Any person holding a public appointiveoffice or position including active members of the Armed Forces of the hilippines! andother officers and employees in governmentowned or controlled corporations! shall beconsidered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.& %A 9 provides that



$For this purpose! the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacyEpetition of registrationEmanifestation to participate in the election. Any personwho files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as acandidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy: rovided! *hat! unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall

ta#e effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period: rovided! finally! *hatany person holding a public appointive office or position! including active members of the armed forces! and officers and employees in governmentowned or controlledcorporations! shall be considered ipso facto resigned from hisEher office and mustvacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of hisEher certificate of candidacy.'ssue: whether the second proviso in the third paragraph of +ection - of %.A. "o. 9and +ection 5a; of C3M141C %esolution "o. /98/ are violative of the e0ual protectionclause and therefore unconstitutional)eld: "o*o start with! the e0ual protection clause does not re0uire the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. (hat it simply re0uires is e0uality

among e0uals as determined according to a valid classification. *he test developed by jurisprudence here and yonder is that of reasonableness! which has four re0uisites:-; *he classification rests on substantial distinctions=; 't is germane to the purposes of the law; 't is not limited to eisting conditions only and5; 't applies e0ually to all members of the same class.3ur assailed Decision readily ac#nowledged that these deemedresigned provisionssatisfy the first! third and fourth re0uisites of reasonableness. 't! however! proffers thedubious conclusion that the differential treatment of appointive officials visvis electedofficials is not germane to the purpose of the law! because 7whether one holds anappointive office or an elective one! the evils sought to be prevented by the measure

remain.7'n the instant case! is there a rational justification for ecluding elected officials from theoperation of the deemed resigned provisionsH *here is.

An election is the embodiment of the popular will! perhaps the purest epression of thesovereign power of the people. 't involves the choice or selection of candidates to publicoffice by popular vote. Considering that elected officials are put in office by their constituents for a definite term! it may justifiably be said that they were ecluded fromthe ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost respect for the mandate of thesovereign will. 'n other words! complete deference is accorded to the will of theelectorate that they be served by such officials until the end of the term for which theywere elected. 'n contrast! there is no such epectation insofar as appointed officials areconcerned.*he dichotomi,ed treatment of appointive and elective officials is therefore germane tothe purposes of the law. For the law was made not merely to preserve the integrity!efficiency! and discipline of the public service the 4egislature! whose wisdom is outsidethe rubric of judicial scrutiny! also thought it wise to balance this with the competing! yete0ually compelling! interest of deferring to the sovereign will.'" ?'1( ()1%13F! the Court %1+34?1+ to G%A"* the respondentIs and theintervenorsI Motions for %econsideration %1?1%+1 and +1* A+'D1 this CourtIs



December -! =66 Decision D'+M'++ the etition and '++21 this %esolution declaringas not 2"C3"+*'*2*'3"A4 -; +ection 5a; of C3M141C %esolution "o. /98/! =;the second proviso in the third paragraph of +ection - of %epublic Act "o. 9! and; +ection 99 of the 3mnibus 1lection Code.JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

"ote: "ot applicable sa barangay office: Any elective or appointive municipal! city!provincial or national official or employee! or those in the civil or military service!including those in governmentowned orcontrolled corporations! shall be consideredautomatically resigned upon the filing of certificate of candidacy for a barangay office.+ince barangay elections are governed by a separate deemed resignation rule! under the present state of law! there would be no occasion to apply the restriction oncandidacy found in +ection 99 of the 3mnibus 1lection Code! and later reiterated in theproviso of +ection - of %A 9! to any election other than a partisan one. For thisreason! the overbreadth challenge raised against +ection 99 of the 3mnibus 1lectionCode and the pertinent proviso in +ection - of %A 9 must also fail.

*apispisan v Court of Appeals

Facts:etitioner *apispisan! a public school teacher and has been occupying the position of *eacher ''' filed a petition for review on certiorari to reverse the decision of CA affirming

the resolutions of Civil +ervice Commission C+C; dismissing the petitionerIs protestagainst the designation of respondent Aida M. %umbaoa as 3fficerinCharge 3'C;)ead *eacher of . ?illanueva 1lementary +chool and respondent Myrna M. *eves as3'Crincipal of Don Carlos 1lementary +chool. etitioner contended that thedesignation was made in violation of appointments and promotion during electionperiod. C+C argued that only appointmentsEpromotions and not designation can be thesubject of a protest. Designation! being temporary in nature! does not amount to theissuance of an appointment! but is a mere imposition of additional duties.

'ssue:(hether or not the designation of %umbaoa and *eves violates %esolution "o. =8-dated December <! -5 of the Commission on 1lections! which declared as aprohibited act the transfer of officers and employees in the civil service during theelection period from Kanuary /! -< up to Kune 8! -<.

)eld:"o! *ransfer is defined as 7a movement from one position to another which is of e0uivalent ran#! level or salary without brea# in service involving the issuance of an



appointment.7 *he designation of respondents %umbaoa and *eves did not involve amovement from one position to another. "either did it involve the issuance of anyappointment to the said positions in their favor. 'n fact! respondents %umbaoa and*eves retained their incumbent positions at the ?illamor Air @ase 1lementary +chool. Assuch! their designation could not be considered as a 7transfer7 within the meaning of a

prohibited act during the election period.

Documents

Additional Digest Gomez