Political Law - Wayne

8/10/2019 Political Law - Wayne

1/7

POLITICAL LAW 1

I.

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1959 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUDGE VICENTE A.

HIDALGO, Presiding Judge of the RegionalTrial Court of Manila, Branch 37

FACTS: Tarcila Laperal Mendoza filed an action for the annulment or declaration of

nullity of the title and deed of sale, reconveyance and/or recovery of ownership and

possession a property against the Republic of the Philippines in the RTC of Manila .It is

also known as the Arlegui Residence which housed two Philippine presidents and

which now holds the Office of the Press Secretary and the News Information Bureau.

The case was initially dismissed by the presiding Judge of the Manila RTC (Branch 35)

on the ground of state immunity. The case was re-raffled to the Manila RTC (Branch 37),

with respondent Vicente A. Hidalgo as presiding Judge. In an Order, Judge Hidalgo

declared the Republic in default for failure of Solicitor Gabriel Francisco Ramirez, the

handling solicitor, to file the required Answer within the period prayed for in his

motion for extension. It is contended that the respondent Judge violated the

Constitution and the fundamental rule that government funds are exempt from

execution or garnishment when he caused the issuance of the writ of execution against

the Republic.

ISSUE: WON the Republic can invoke immunityfrom suit.

HELD: It is settled that when the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not there by

necessarily consent to an unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when the State

waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, Is to give the other party an opportunity to

prove, if it can, that the state has a liability. The functions and public services rendered

by the State cannot be allowed to paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public

funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law

II.

SALONGA VS FARRALES 105 SCRA 359, 369 (1981)

FACTS: The defendant Julia B. Farrales is the titled owner of a residential lot in Sta. Rita

Olongapo City. Within the owned parcel of land by the defendant, the plaintiff, spouses

Salonga are the lessees of the 156 sq. meters of land where the latter erected a house and


2/7

is paying rentals to the defendant .Sometimes before 1968, the plaintiff failed to pay

rental and that as a result, the defendant filed an ejectment case for non-payment of

rentals against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant forced the plaintiff. The plaintiff then

offered that they will just buy their occupied parcel of land instead of vacating the land

and the house of strong materials, however, despite of the insistence of the plaintiff, the

titled owner defendant refused to accept the offer, thus there is no contract of sale or sell

in the aforesaid land was realized. The plaintiff then, after a strict refusal from the

defendant-owner to sell her land, filed for petition for relief. The case was heard and

elevated until the CA, praying for ordering to the defendant to sell her parcel of land

where the house of the plaintiff was erected and that the plaintiff invoke their right to

be subjected under Section 6, (9) Article II of the new constitution, referring to the

application of social justice which they contended that it delimits and regulated

property rights and private gains.

ISSUE:

Was the contention of the plaintiff correct such that by invoking for the promotion of

social justice, provided in article 6 (9) Article II of the constitution, they could gain their

contention for relief and force the defendant to sell her land?

RULING:

No, the contention of social justice cannot be invoked by the plaintiff just gain relief andforcethe defendant to sell her land where the plaintiff's house was erected.Social Justice

is said to be for promotion of economic development and proper equilibriumbetween

the relationship of all units of the society. However Social Justice cannot be invoked

totrample on the rights of property owners who under the constitution and laws are

also entitled forprotection. Social justice is not intended to take away rights from a

person and give them to anotherwho is not entitled thereto.In the case at bar, the

plaintiff cannot force the defendant to sell her title by invoking equity and justice rather,

the plaintiff 's may remove the improvements should the lessor refuse to reimburse,bythe lessee do not have the right to buy the land. The right of property of the

defendant over her ownedland cannot be simply override by invoking social justice,

since the right of property is also protectedby the state. Thus, judgment affirmed in

favor of the defendant


3/7

III.

Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC Case Digest

Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC

248 SCRA 300

Facts:

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of

Representative of Leyte First District. On March 23, 1995, private respondent Cirilio

Montejo, also a candidate for the same position, filed a petition for disqualification of

the petitioner with COMELEC on the ground that petitioner did not meet the

constitutional requirement for residency. On March 29, 1995, petitioner filed an

amended certificate of candidacy, changing the entry of seven months to sincechildhood in item no. 8 in said certificate.However, the amended certificate was not

received since it was already past deadline. She claimed that she always maintained

Tacloban City as her domicile and residence. The Second Division of the COMELEC

with a vote of 2 to 1 came up with a resolution finding private respondents petition for

disqualification meritorious.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a

result of her marriage to the late President Marcos.

Held:

For election purposes, residence is used synonymously with domicile. The Court

upheld the qualification of petitioner, despite her own declaration in her certificate of

candidacy that she had resided in the district for only 7 months, because of the

following: (a) a minor follows the domicile of her parents; Taclobanbecame petitioners

domicile of origin by operation of law when her father brought the family to Leyte; (b)

domicile of origin is lost only when there is actual removal or change of domicile, a

bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and

acts which correspond with the purpose; in the absence of clear and positive proof ofthe concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin should be deemed to continue; (c) the

wife does not automatically gain the husbands domicile because the term residence

in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law; when petitioner married

President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new

home, not a domicilium necessarium; (d) even assuming that she gained a new domicile

after her marriage and acquired the right to choose a new one only after her husband


4/7

died, her acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she chose

Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice.

IV.

LOONG vs. COMELEC Case Digest

LOONG vs. COMELEC

216 SCRA 760, 1992

Facts: On 15 January 1990, petitioner filed with respondent Commission his certificate

of candidacy for the position of Vice-Governor of the Mindanao Autonomous Region in

the election held on 17 February 1990. On 5 March 1990 (or 16 days after the election),

respondent Ututalum filed before the respondent Commission a petition seeking todisqualify petitioner for the office of Regional Vice-Governor, on the ground that the

latter made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy as to his age.

Petitioner Loong sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the respondent

COMELEC has no jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss was denied by the COMELEC in

a resolution which is the subject of this petition.

Petitioner Loong contends that SPA No. 90-006 (a petition to cancel the certificate of

candidacy of petitioner Loong) was filed out of time because it was filed beyond the 25-

day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Issue:Whether or not SPA No. 90-006 was filed within the period prescribed by law.

Held:No. The petition filed by private respondent Ututalum with the respondent

COMELEC to disqualify petitioner Loong on the ground that the latter made a false

representation in his certificate of candidacy as to his age, clearly does not fall under the

grounds of disqualification as provided for in Rule 25 but is expressly covered by Rule

23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure governing petitions to cancel certificate of

candidacy. Moreover, Section 3, Rule 25 which allows the filing of the petition at anytime after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the

date of proclamation, is merely a procedural rule issued by respondent Commission

which, although a constitutional body, has no legislative powers. Thus, it can not

supersede Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code which is a legislative enactment.


5/7

V.

September 14, 1993 (G.R. No. 75025)

PARTIES:

Petitioner: VICENTE GARCIA

Respondents: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, THE

HONORABLE MINISTER, LAND TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS,

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, TELECOM REGIONAL OFFICE NO. IV

FACTS:

Petitioner was a supervising lineman in the Region IV Station of the Bureau of

Telecommunications in Lucena City. A criminal case of qualified theft was filed against

him. The president grated him an executive clemency. The petitioner filed a claim for

back payment of salaries. The petitioner was later recalled to the service on 12 March1984 but the records do not show whether petitioners reinstatement was to the same

position of Supervising Lineman.

ISSUE: Whether Garcia is entitled to the payment of back wages after having been

reinstated pursuant to the grant of executive clemency.

HELD:

The pardoned offender regains his eligibility for appointment to public office which

was forfeited by reason of the conviction of the offense. But since pardon does not

generally result in automatic reinstatement because the offender has to apply for

reappointment, he is not entitled to back wages.

If the pardon is based on the innocence of the individual, it affirms this innocence and

makes him a new man and as innocent; as if he had not been found guilty of the offense

charged. 7 When a person is given pardon because he did not truly commit the offense,

the pardon relieves the party from all punitive consequences of his criminal act, thereby

restoring to him his clean name, good reputation and unstained character prior to the

finding of guilt.

In the case at bar, the acquittal of petitioner by the trial court was founded not on lack of

proof beyond reasonable doubt but on the fact that petitioner did not commit the

offense imputed to him. Aside from finding him innocent of the charge, the trial court

commended petitioner for his concern and dedication as a public servant. Verily,

petitioners innocence is the primary reason behind the grant of executive clemency to

him, bolstered by the favorable recommendations for his reinstatement. This signifies


6/7

that petitioner need no longer apply to be reinstated to his former employment; he is

restored to his office ipso facto upon the issuance of the clemency.

Petitioners automatic reinstatement to the government service entitles him to back

wages. This is meant to afford relief to petitioner who is innocent from the start and to

make reparation for what he has suffered as a result of his unjust dismissal from the

service. The right to back wages is afforded to those with have been illegally dismissed

and were thus ordered reinstated or to those otherwise acquitted of the charges against

them.

Therefore, the court ordered the full back wages from April 1 1975 (date when he was

illegally dismissed) to March 12 1984 (reinstated) to the petitioner.

BETAN BROTHERS

Aaron Annonuevo 09178614882

Ameer 09170988516

Angelo 09152940656

Ann 09175742331

Arbie Buenaflor 09178111909

Arjunn Succor 09053357863

Ash Sacar 09165177565

Benny Manlapas 09178192363

Bryan Mainit 09052991448

Chillon Collado 09164093121

Clarence Molina 09277766143Dandoy 09179871549

Donna Samson 09298303353

Farah Saliling 09154367467

George 09277976072

Hiyasmin Romero 09279219644

Ian Gonzales 09156401283

Jane Ferreria 09275350626

Jay De Mesa 09157199684

Jerome Esperida 09277400481Jesse 09164392372

Joan Barayuga 09179552457

Kat Alba 09065749368

Kent Estorninos 09278621467

Lawrence Gahol 09273260478

Malik 09274374821

Malou 09178563761

Melanie Bernardo 09267933755

Mike Chua 09154219455

Mikki 09153785984

Monti 09169706693

Nadia De Mesa 09432508406Neil 09279259536

Patrick Reyes 09053102408

Trapper Salom 09175013115

Wayne Viernes 09275915340

Christian Azuma 09152593317

Special Numbers:

Benny Ching 09178192363

Enradu Saklulu 09175140002

Kim Indar 09175492975Judge Laqui 09194791406


7/7

Documents

Political Law - Wayne