U.

P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

POLITICAL LAW
CANONICAL DOCTRINES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
CASE SUB-TOPIC SUMMARY DOCTRINE CASES CITED
Shuley Fundamen- The government entered Although Section 10, On police
Mine, Inc. v. tal powers into a Mineral Production Article III of the present power only; not
Department of the State; Sharing Agreement Constitution prohibits specific to
of Environ- Police (MPSA) for the Congress from enacting mineral
ment and Power exploration, development, laws that impair the production:
Natural and commercial utilization obligation of contracts, Social Weather
Resources National of nickel ores with such provision is limited Stations, Inc. v.
Economy Philnico. Pursuant to this by the exercise of the Commission on
G.R. No. and petitioner SMI was police power of the State Elections, G.R.
214923 | Patrimony; contracted to perform — in the interest of public No. 208062,
August 28, Regalian mining activities on the health, safety, morals [April 7, 2015]
2019 | J.C. Doctrine area covered by the and general welfare. and Southern
Reyes, Jr., J. MPSA. However, the Police power is the most Luzon Drug
amount owed by Philnico pervasive, the least Corp. v.
to the government limitable, and the most Department of
remained unpaid, it was demanding of the three Social Welfare
also alleged that petitioner fundamental powers of and
mined beyond the the State. Mineral Development,
allowable nickel ore production sharing G.R. No.
grade, and the MOA with agreements as well as 199669, [April
SMI had expired their offshoots partake 25, 2017]
prompting the Regional the nature of both a
Director to temporarily permit and a contract, it
suspend mining may be validly regulated
operations. Petitioner by virtue of the State's
applied for a TRO which policepower. Mineral
was granted by the RTC. resources are part of
Pursuant to this, petitioner national wealth and
requested that permits be patrimony. Any issue
issued for it to continue involving the exploration,
operations. The CA development, utilization
reversed the RTC on the and disposition of
ground that the MOA from mineral resources is
which it derived its right to imbued with public
conduct operations had interest.
already expired.
Regalian Doctrine - In
The Supreme Court the context of mining-
upheld the decision of related undertakings, the
the CA. It held that the same doctrine declares
contract had already that all minerals and
expired since the mineral lands are owned
Supplemental Agreement by the State, unless
which sought for the there are private persons

Page 1 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

extension of the contract or entities holding mining

had not been approved bt patents issued pursuant
rhe DENR secretary as to the Philippine Bill of
required by law. The Court 1902 and existing prior to
also discussed that mining November 15, 1935.
contracts are subject to However, the State may
State regulation by virtue enter into co-production,
of the State's police joint venture, or
power. Mineral production production-sharing
sharing agreements as agreements
well as their offshoots
partake the nature of both
a permit and a contract
and thus, may be validly
regulated by virtue of the
State's police power.
Mineral resources are part
of national wealth and
patrimony. Any issue
involving the exploration,
development, utilization
and disposition of mineral
resources is imbued with
public interest.
Maynilad Public Trust DENR filed a complaint Water is a vital part of [US
Water Doctrine before the Pollution human existence. The Jurisprudence]
Services, Adjudication Board (PAB) Public Trust Doctrine National
Inc. v. charging MWSS and its aims to put an additional Audubon
Secretary of concessionaires with strain upon the duty of Society v.
the violation of the Clean the water industry to Superior Court
Department Water Act (CWA) for comply with the laws and of Alpine
of Environ- having failed (1) to comply regulations of the land. County, 33 Cal.
ment and with the mandatory sewer The doctrine, speaks of 3d 419, 658 P.2d
Natural connection of houses and an imposed duty upon 709, 189
Resources establishments as the State and its Cal.Rptr. 346, as
prescribed under Sec. 8, representative of cited in
G.R. No. CWA, and (2) to construct continuing supervision Ausness,
202897 | sufficient wastewater over the taking and use Richard, Water
August 6, treatment facilities of appropriated water. Rights, the
2019 | (WWTFs) to meet the The doctrine further Public Trust
Hernando, J. standards and objectives holds that certain natural Doctrine, and
of the law. MWSS argued resources belong to all the Protection of
that it complied with the and cannot be privately Instream Uses,
law. There were owned or controlled 1986 U. Ill. L.
concession agreements because of their inherent Rev. 407.
containing service targets importance to each
for water supply, individual and society as
sewerage and sanitation a whole. A clear
within specific milestone declaration of public
periods. Also, Sec. 7, ownership, the doctrine
CWA first requires DPWH reaffirms the superiority
to prepare a national of public rights over
program on sewerage and private rights for critical
septage management to resources. It impresses
guide MWSS and its upon states the

Page 2 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

concessionaires. There affirmative duties of a

were other factors trustee to manage these
contributing to the natural resources for the
pollution of Manila Bay as benefit of present and
well. future generations and
embodies key principles
SENR, upon of environmental
recommendation of PAB, protection: stewardship,
found MWSS liable for communal responsibility,
violation of CWA. Its and sustainability.
failure to provide a
centralized sewerage
system and to connect all
sewage lines was a
continuing unmitigated
environmental pollution,
resulting in the release of
untreated water into
Manila Bay. Strict
compliance with CWA is
necessary.

In the present case,

MWSS argues that its
obligation under Sec. 8,
CWA has yet to accrue
given the lack of required
coordination by the
implementing agencies
under Sec. 7 (non-
compliance by DPWH,
DENR, and LGUs with the
requirement of
preparation of a national
program). Also, they are
exempted from complying
with the 5 year period in
Sec. 8 given MMDA v.
Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay, which
extended the period of
performance ("at the
earliest possible time").

SC found MWSS and the

Concessionaires guilty of
violating Sec. 8, CWA.
The CWA requires water
utility companies to
provide for sewerage and
septage management
services within 5 years of
the law's passage. Sec. 7
is not a condition
precedent to compliance

Page 3 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

with Sec. 8, the latter

being mandatory and
unconditional. In this case,
MWSS did not comply with
Sec. 8, since a decade
has passed since the
effectivity of CWA and the
compliance has not
reached 20% sewerage
coverage. Also, MMDA v.
Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay did not repeal
Sec. 8, since the former
involved the urgency of
rehabilitation of Manila
Bay, while the present
case involves delay in
complying with Sec. 8.
Madrilejos Mootness; Twelve pastors and The “capable of 1. International
v. Gatdula Capable of preachers from various repetition, yet evading Service for the
repetition; churches filed a joint review" exception was Acquisition of
G.R. No. yet evading complaint-affidavit against limited to the situation Agri-Biotech
184389 | review the officers and publishers where two elements Applications,
September of seven men's magazines must concur: (1) the Inc. v.
24, 2019 | and tabloids allegedly challenged action was in Greenpeace
Jardeleza, J. containing "clearly its duration too short to Southeast Asia
scandalous, obscene, and be fully litigated prior to (Philippines),
pornographic" material its cessation or G.R. Nos.
constituting violations of expiration, and (2) there 209271,
Articles 200 and 201 of was a reasonable 209276, 209301
RPC and Ordinance No. expectation that the & G.R. No.
7780 of the City of Manila same complaining party 209430
(prohibiting printing, would be subjected to (Resolution),
publishing, distribution, the same action again. [July 26, 2016]
circulation, sale and
exhibition of obscene and 2. Soriano v.
pornographic acts). Later, Laguardia, G.R.
the petitioners filed the Nos. 164785 &
present action to declare 165636, [April
the ordinance 29, 2009]; Pita v.
unconstitutional "on the Court of
ground that [it] is invalid on Appeals, G.R.
its face for being patently No. 80806,
offensive to their [October 5,
constitutional right to free 1989]; Gonzalez
speech and expression, v. Katigbak, G.R.
repugnant to due process No. L-69500,
and privacy rights, and [July 22, 1985]
violative of the
constitutionally 3. Associate
established principle of Justice Vicente
separation of church and V. Mendoza's
state." The Court Separate
disagreed and upheld the Opinion in
constitutionality of the Estrada v.

Page 4 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

ordinance. The Court also Sandiganbayan,

held that the petition has G.R. No.
been rendered moot and 148560,
academic in light of the [November 19,
dismissal of the criminal 2001]
case against the
petitioners. The "capable
of repeitition, yet evading
review" exception to the
mootness doctrine did not
apply in this case.
PNOC Eminent Respondent National Grid The power of eminent Heirs of
Alternative domain Corporation of the domain, which is also Suguitan v. City
Fuels Philippines (NGCP) filed a called the power of of Mandaluyong,
Corporation complaint for expropriation, is the G.R. No.
v. National Expropriation against inherent right of the State 135087, [March
Grid petitioner PNOC to condemn private 14, 2000]
Corporation Alternative Fuels property for public use
of the Corporation (PAFC), upon payment of just
Philippines alleging that, in order for it compensation. As an
to construct and maintain inherent sovereign
G.R. No. the Mariveles-Limay 230 prerogative, the power to
224936 | kV Transmission Line expropriate pertains
September Project, it sought to primarily to the
4, 2019 | expropriate, upon legislature. However,
Caguioa, J. payment of just the power to expropriate
compensation, a certain is not exclusive to
area of a parcel of land Congress. The latter
situated at Mariveles and may delegate the
Limay, Bataan. The exercise of the power to
subject property is part of government agencies,
the Petrochemical public officials and quasi-
Industrial Park. By virtue public entities. With the
of several laws, the PNOC right of eminent domain
was given authority to not being an inherent
manage, operate and power for private
develop the parcel of land corporations, whose
as a petrochemical right to expropriate is
industrial zone. According granted by mere
to NGCP, it sought to legislative fiat , the
exercise its right of delegate's exercise of
eminent domain under the right of eminent
Section 4 of R.A. No. 9511 domain is restrictively
over the subject property limited to the confines of
because negotiations the delegating law.
conducted between
petitioner PAFC and Under Section 4 of Rule
respondent NGCP on the 67 of ROC, the proper
establishment of remedy of a defendant in
transmission lines on the an expropriation case
subject property were who wishes to contest an
unsuccessful. Petitioner order of expropriation is
PAFC filed its Answer not to file a certiorari
alleging that several petition and allege that
statutes and issuances the RTC committed

Page 5 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

limit respondent NGCP's grave abuse of discretion

right to expropriate and in issuing the order of
that "the land sought to be expropriation. The
appropriated is already remedy is to file an
devoted to a public appeal of the order of
purpose. The Court ruled expropriation.
for NGCP and held that
upon a simple perusal of
Section 4 of R.A. No. 9511
(law granting franchise to
NGCP), it states in no
equivocal terms that "the
Grantee (NGCP) may
acquire such private
property as is actually
necessary for the
realization of the purposes
for which this franchise is
granted." Additionally, with
the subject property
expressly declared by law,
i.e. , P.D. No. 949, as
amended by R.A. No.
10516, to be an industrial
and commercial estate
that may be transferred or
conveyed to private
persons so that business
activities may be
conducted therein, there is
no doubt that the subject
property is patrimonial
property, which may be
properly expropriated by
NGCP.
Marquez v. Mootness Petitioner filed his As a general rule, this International
Commis- Certificate of Candidacy Court will not decide Service for the
sion on (CoC) for the position of moot questions, or Acquisition of
Elections senator in the 2019 abstract propositions, or Agri-Biotech
national and local declare principles or Applications,
G.R. No. elections. He is a resident rules of law which cannot Inc. v.
244274 | of Mountain Province, a affect the result as to the Greenpeace
September real estate broker, and an thing in issue in the case Southeast Asia
3, 2019 | independent candidate. before it. Such rule, (Philippines),
Jardeleza, J. The COMELEC Law however, admits of G.R. Nos.
Department, motu proprio, exceptions. A court will 209271,
filed a petition to declare decide a case which is 209276, 209301
Marquez a nuisance otherwise moot and & G.R. No.
candidate. The academic if it finds that: 209430
COMELEC First Division (1) there was a grave (Resolution),
cancelled Marquez' CoC, violation of the [July 26, 2016]
that "[i]n elections for Constitution; (2) the case
national positions x x x the involved a situation of
sheer logistical challenge exceptional character
posed by nuisance and was of paramount

Page 6 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

candidates gives public interest; (3) the

compelling reason for the issues raised required
Commission to exercise the formulation of
its authority to eliminate controlling principles to
nuisance candidates who guide the Bench, the Bar
obviously have no and the public; and (4)
financial capacity or the case was capable of
serious intention to mount repetition yet evading
a nationwide campaign." review.

The Court's power to

adjudicate is limited to
actual, ongoing
controversies. Paragraph
2, Section 1, Article VIII of
the 1987 Constitution
provides that "judicial
power includes the duty of
the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies
involving rights which are
legally demandable and
enforceable x x x." Thus,
and as a general rule, this
Court will not decide moot
questions, or abstract
propositions, or declare
principles or rules of law
which cannot affect the
result as to the thing in
issue in the case before it.
Such rule, however,
admits of exceptions. A
court will decide a case
which is otherwise moot
and academic if it finds
that: (a) there was a grave
violation of the
Constitution; (2) the case
involved a situation of
exceptional character and
was of paramount public
interest; (3) the issues
raised required the
formulation of controlling
principles to guide the
Bench, the Bar and the
public; and (4) the case
was capable of repetition
yet evading review. The
fourth exception obtains in
this case. Given that the
COMELEC appears to be
applying the same rule
with respect to other

Page 7 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

aspiring candidates, 54
there is reason to believe
that the same issue would
likely arise in future
elections. Thus, the Court
deems it proper to
exercise its power of
judicial review to rule with
finality on whether lack of
proof of financial capacity
is a valid ground to declare
an aspirant a nuisance
candidate.
Film Doctrine of Congress passed RA The operative fact
Develop- Operative 9167, creating petitioner doctrine recognizes the
ment Fact the Film Development existence and validity of
Council of Council of the Philippines a legal provision prior to
the (FDCP). Sections 13 and its being declared as
Philippines 14 thereof provide that the unconstitutional and
v. Colon amusement tax on certain hence, legitimizes
Heritage graded films which would otherwise invalid acts
Realty otherwise accrue to the done pursuant thereto
Corpora- cities and municipalities in because of
tion Metropolitan Manila and considerations of
highly urbanized and practicality and fairness.
G.R. No. independent component In this regard, certain
203754 | cities should be deducted acts done pursuant to a
October 15, and withheld by the legal provision which
2019 | proprietors, operators or was just recently
Perlas- lessees of theaters or declared as
Bernabe, J. cinemas and remitted to unconstitutional by the
the FDCP. Cebu City filed Court cannot be
a Petition for Declaratory anymore undone
Relief before the RTC, because not only would it
which declared Sections be highly impractical to
13 and 14 of RA 9167 as do so, but more so,
invalid and unfair to those who have
unconstitutional. In its relied on the said legal
2015 Decision, the Court provision prior to the time
affirmed the RTC it was struck down.
Decision, holding that
these provisions violated
the principle of local fiscal
autonomy because they
authorized FDCP to
effectively confiscate the
amusement taxes which
should have otherwise
inured to the benefit of the
LGUs. However, as a
matter of equity and fair
play, the Court applied the
doctrine of operative fact,
which is the subject of
these Motions for

Page 8 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

Reconsideration. In the
present case, the Court
ruled that Cebu City
cannot be allowed to
retain the amusement
taxes it received during
the period when Sections
13 and 14 of RA 9167
were operative. The Court
cannot condone Cebu
City's apparent disregard
for what was, at that time,
a valid legislative
mandate. Cinema
proprietors and operators
who had already remitted
the withheld amusement
taxes to LGUs for the
covered period, should no
longer have to pay the
same amount to FDCP,
provided that they are able
to prove the fact of due
payment.
Philippine State EA Ramirez, a Under Article XVI, Barker v. Wingo
Textile immunity; construction company Section 3 of the 1987 407 U.S. 514
Research Immunity engaged in electrical Constitution, the State (1972)
Institute v. from suit works, entered into a may not be sued without
Court of contract with the petitioner its consent. However,
Appeals for the rehabilitation of the the rule on State
latter’s electrical facilities immunity is not absolute
G.R. No. in its main building and because the State may
223319 | plants. Diaz, the project be sued with its consent.
October 9, consultant, allegedly Such consent may be
2019 | made it difficult for EA to given either expressly or
Caguioa, J. complete the project on impliedly. Express
time due by making consent may be made
various demands and through a general law or
changes in the project a special law. The
when EA refused to give general law waiving the
Diaz money. Due to immunity of the State
delays caused by said from suit is found in Act
changes, EA Ramirez No. 3083 where the
requested for an Philippine government
extension of the deadline 'consents and submits to
of completion. Instead of be sued upon any money
granting the request, claim involving liability
petitioner terminated the arising from contract,
contract. EA Ramirez filed express or implied,
a complaint for breach of which could serve as a
contract against the basis of civil action
petitioner and some of the between private parties.
latter’s employees. On the other hand, there
Petitioner moved for the is implied consent on the
dismissal of the case part of the State to be

Page 9 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

alleging that it is an subjected to suit when

agency of the DOST and the State enters into a
invoking the privilege of contract. In this situation,
state immunity from suit. the government is
The RTC denied the deemed to have
motion to dismiss. descended to the level of
However, the CA reversed the other contracting
and concurs with the party and to have
assertion of the petitioner divested itself of its
that it is immune from suit. sovereign immunity.
The Supreme Court did However, not all
not agree with the CA’s contracts entered into by
ruling. As a government the government operate
agency exercising as a waiver of its non-
governmental functions, suability; distinction must
petitioner ordinarily enjoys still be made between
immunity from suit. one which is executed in
However, petitioner the exercise of its
descended to the level of sovereign functions and
a contracting party by another which is done in
entering into the subject its proprietary capacity.
contract. Further, the
subject contract was
clearly not executed in the
exercise of petitioner’s
governmental function of
aiding the textile industry
as it dealt solely with
rehabilitation works of its
buildings. The Court also
ruled that the CA did not
commit any reversible
error in dismissing Civil
Case No. 73790-TG
because the RTC lacked
jurisdiction to hear the
same. The CIAC has
original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear, try,
and decide legal disputes
arising from the subject
Contract.
Maunlad Mootness Union Bank moved for the The power of judicial
Homes, Inc. dismissal of the injunction review is limited to actual
v. Union case before the RTC on cases or controversies.
Bank of the the ground of mootness There are two concepts
Philippines after the Supreme Court’s that affect the existence
Decision in the ejectment of an actual case or
G.R. No. case, which ordered controversy for the
228898 | Maunlad Homes to vacate courts to exercise the
December 4, the Maunlad Shopping power of judicial review:
2019 | Inting, Mall and to pay rentals, the first is the concept of
J. attained finality. It claimed ripeness which relates to
that the legal and factual the premature Fling of a
issues involved in the case, while the second is

Page 10 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

complaint for injunction the concept of mootness

had already been resolved which pertains to a
in the ejectment case. The belated or unnecessary
Court ruled that the judgment on the issues.
dismissal of the injunction
case is proper because Thus, "an issue that was
the Court's ruling in the once ripe for resolution
ejectment case had but whose resolution,
effectively rendered any since then, has been
further adjudication in the rendered unnecessary,
injunction case needs no resolution from
unnecessary and the Court, as it presents
superfluous. The issue of no actual case or
whether Union Bank controversy and likewise
should be permanently merely presents a
enjoined from collecting hypothetical problem." In
rental payments from the other words, a case,
tenants of the Maunlad though once ripe for
Shopping Mall no longer adjudication, becomes
need to be resolved by the moot and academic
RTC, given that the "when an event
Contract to Sell, which supervenes to render a
allowed Maunlad Homes judgment over the issues
to possess the property unnecessary and
and collect rentals from its superfluous.”
tenants, had already been
determined to be without
any force and effect by the
Court in the ejectment
case.
National Doctrine of The COA upheld ND No. The doctrine of political Manubay v.
Power Qualified NPC-11-004-10, which agency provides that Garilao, G.R.
Corp. v. Political disallowed the payment of department secretaries No. 140717,
Commis- Agency Employee Health and are alter egos of the [April 16, 2009]
sion on Wellness Program and President and that their
Audit Related Financial acts are presumed to be
Assistance (EHWPRFA) those of the latter unless
G.R. No. to qualified officials and disapproved or
242342 | employees of the NPC. It reprobated by him. In
March 10, ruled that the EHWPRFA short, acts of department
2020 | J.C. needed to comply with the secretaries are deemed
Reyes, Jr., J. requirements under acts of the President.
Section 6 of P.D. No.
1597, which requires the
approval of the President
through the DBM.
Moreover, the doctrine of
qualified political agency
was inapplicable because
while some members of
the board of NPC are
department secretaries,
they were not acting as
such, but as mere
members of the board

Page 11 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

when they approved the

grant of EHWPRFA. The
Court held that the COA
did not act with grave
abuse of discretion in
upholding ND No. NPC-
11-004-10 and in finding
that the NPC officers who
had approved or
authorized the
disbursement in question
are liable to refund the
same. The Budget
Secretary's authority to sit
in the National Power
Board emanated from the
law, and not from the
appointment of the
President. Thus, the
doctrine of qualified
political agency does not
attach to the acts
performed by cabinet
secretaries in connection
with their position as ex
officio members of the
National Power Board.
Franco y This is a petition for the The Court elucidated Tiu v. Dizon,
Mangaoang issuance of a writ of that the reduction of a G.R. No.
v. Director habeas corpus filed by prisoner's sentence is a 211269, [June
of Prisons Boy Franco y Mangaoang, form of partial pardon, 15, 2016]
(Resolution) who is detained at the which entails the
National Bilibid Prison, exercise of the
G.R. No. seeking his immediate President's
235483 | release on the basis of the constitutionally-vested
June 8, 2020 automatic reduction of his authority. Contrary to
| J.C. Reyes, sentence in view of the petitioner's assertion, the
Jr., J. colonist status grant by Constitution requires the
the Director of Prisons and President to act on such
the retroactive application matter personally; thus,
of R.A. No. 10592. he may not delegate the
Petitioner alleged that he same in the guise of
was granted the status as doctrine of qualified
a colonist. Among the political agency.
privileges granted upon a
colonist are the automatic
reduction of the life
sentence imposed on the
colonist to a sentence of
30 years and the credit of
an additional Good
Conduct Time Allowance
of 10 days for each
calendar month while
retaining said

Page 12 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

classification. The Director

of Prisons counters that
the application of the
privileges of a colonist
necessitates an executive
approval under Section 5
of Act No. 2489 and
Section 19, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution.
Verily, these laws provide
that only the President can
commute the service of
sentences of convicted
persons. The petitioner
insists that the executive
approval for the reduction
of sentence of a colonist
may be delegated by the
President to his alter egos
since Act No. 2489
requires only an
"Executive" approval, and
not the approval of the
"Chief Executive." The
Supreme Court first
described a colonist as a
prisoner who is: (1) at
least a first class inmate;
(2) has served one year
immediately preceding the
completion of the period
specified in the following
qualifications; and (3) has
served imprisonment with
good conduct for a period
equivalent to one-fifth of
the maximum term of his
prison sentence, or seven
years in the case of a life
sentence. The Court also
cited Section 7 (b) of the
law which provides for the
privilege of an automatic
reduction of sentence of a
colonist. However, the
word "automatic" does not
imply that the reduction of
sentence occurs as a
natural consequence by
the mere conferral of a
"colonist" status. Act No.
2489 specifically requires
an executive approval
before such kind of benefit
may be allowed. In the

Page 13 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

case of Tiu v. Dizon, the

Court expounded on such
requirement where it held
that "the wording of the
law is such that the act of
classification as a penal
colonist or trustie is
separate from and
necessarily precedes the
act of approval by the
Executive". The Court
further ruled that the
indispensability of an
executive approval is
highlighted by the 1987
Constitution, expressly
vesting upon the
President the exclusive
prerogative to grant acts
of clemency and added
that in Tiu, the Court
elucidated that the
reduction of a prisoner's
sentence is a form of
partial pardon, which
entails the exercise of the
President's
constitutionally-vested
authority. Contrary to
petitioner's assertion, the
Constitution requires the
President to act on such
matter personally; thus, he
may not delegate the
same in the guise of
doctrine of qualified
political agency. In this
case, nowhere in the
records does it show that
the President signified his
approval to the release of
petitioner in view of his
status as a colonist.
Joint Ship Equal Petitioners assail the The fundamental right of Equal
Manning protection of constitutionality of Sec 9-B equal protection of the protection:
Group v. laws of RA 11199 which laws is not absolute, but Gutierrez v.
SSS mandated compulsory is subject to reasonable Department of
SSS coverage for OFWs classification. To be valid Budget and
G.R. No. in violation of due process and reasonable, the Management,
247471 | and equal protection of classification must G.R. Nos.
July 7, 2020 rights as it discriminates satisfy the following 153266,
| Gesmundo, against manning requirements: (1) it must 159007,
J. agencies. Under rest on substantial 159029,
RA11199, manning distinctions; (2) it must 170084,
agents are considered be germane to the 172713,

Page 14 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

employers of sea-based purpose of the law; (3) it 173119,

OFWs and are solidarily must not be limited to 176477, 177990
liable with their principals existing conditions only; & 06-4-02-SB,
for liabilities incurred in and (4) it must apply [March 18, 2010]
violation of RA 11199. equally to all members of
the same class. Freedom to
(1) Petitioners argue that contract:
with respect to land-based The freedom to contract Conference of
OFWs, recruitment is not absolute; all Maritime
agencies are not contracts and all rights Manning
considered their are subject to the police Agencies, Inc. v.
employers, instead, land- power of the State and Philippine
based OFWs are not only may regulations Overseas
considered self-employed which affect them be Employment
members of the SSS. established by the State, Administration,
They contend that there is but all such regulations G.R. No.
no justification for the must be subject to 114714, [April
difference in treatment change from time to 21, 1995]
between land-based and time, as the general well-
sea-based OFWs. (2) being of the community
Further, they argue that may require, or as the
the increased contribution circumstances may
of employers under RA change, or as
11199 is too high as would experience may
prejudice the shipping demonstrate the
industry in the country. (3) necessity. And under the
Petitioners likewise argue Civil Code, contracts of
that it violates the labor are explicitly
managers, officers, subject to the police
owners, or directors of power of the State
manning agencies' right to because they are not
substantive due process ordinary contracts but
when it imposes criminal are impressed with
liability on them for the public interest.
crimes that others, such
as the principal foreign
employer, might commit
against such OFWs under
the law. (4) Finally,
petitioners argue that the
imposition of the new
rates under R.A. No.
11199 violates their
constitutional right against
infringement of their
existing contracts with
sea-based OFWs.

The Court denied the

petition and held that the
law is constitutional. In
doing so, it held that (1)
there is no violation of the
equal protection clause.
There is a substantial

Page 15 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

distinction between land-

based and sea-based
OFWs. It added that the
difference in treatment is
germane to the purpose of
the law, which is to extend
social security protection
to Filipino workers.
Further, the provision
applies to all manning
agencies and all kinds of
seafarers. The Court also
ruled that the law is not
superfluous and cited
several agreements to
which the Philippines is a
signatory to mandating
social security coverage
for seafarers. Contrary to
the position of petitioners,
the officers of the local
manning agencies do not
immediately incur criminal
liability whenever the
foreign principal commits
a wrongdoing. Instead,
their respective manning
agencies must first
commit a criminal act
before the said officers
can be criminally charged.
This is in consonance with
the principle that if a crime
is committed by a
corporation or other
juridical entity, the
directors, officers,
employees or other
officers thereof
responsible for the offense
shall be charged and
penalized for the crime,
precisely because of the
nature of the crime and the
penalty therefor. Finally,
the constitutional right to
inviolability of contracts is
not absolute. It is subject
to the proper exercise of
the police power by the
State. Further, the
contracts referred to by
petitioners are labor
contracts. Under the Civil
Code, labor contracts are

Page 16 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

impressed with public

interest and must yield to
the common good.
ABS-CBN v. Mootness On May 4, 2020, ABS- A case or issue is
NTC CBN's franchise expired. considered moot and
Hence, on May 5, 2020, academic when it ceases
G.R. No. the NTC issued the CDO to present a justiciable
252119 | directing ABS-CBN to controversy by virtue of
August 25, "immediately CEASE and supervening events, so
2020 | DESIST from operating that an adjudication of
Perlas- radio and television the case or a declaration
Bernabe, J. stations." The CDO was on the issue would be of
based solely on the no practical value or use.
"expiration of RA 7966." In such instance, there is
Consequently, on even no actual substantial
date, ABS-CBN complied relief which a petitioner
with the CDO and went would be entitled to, and
off-air. On May 7, 2020, which would be negated
ABS-CBN filed the instant by the dismissal of the
Petition for Certiorari and petition. Courts generally
Prohibition (With Urgent decline jurisdiction over
Applications for the such case or dismiss it
Issuance of a TRO and/or on the ground of
a WPI) before the Court, mootness. This is
claiming that the NTC because the judgment
committed grave abuse of will not serve any useful
discretion in issuing the purpose or have any
CDO. The core of ABS- practical legal effect
CBN's petition rests on its because, in the nature of
argument that the NTC things, it cannot be
should not have pre- enforced.
empted the will of
Congress by directing it to
halt its broadcasting
operations pending the
determination of Congress
on the renewal of its
legislative franchise based
on the bills specifically
filed therefor. In light of the
supervening denial of the
pending House bills for the
renewal of ABS-CBN's
legislative franchise, the
Court finds it appropriate
to dismiss this case on the
ground of mootness.
Because of the said
supervening event, there
is no actual substantial
relief which ABS-CBN
would be entitled to
regardless of the Court's
disposition on the merits
of the present petition.

Page 17 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

More Eminent R.A. No. 11212 grants to The power of eminent 1. Heirs of
Electric and domain; MORE a franchise to domain is inherent in a Suguitan v. City
Power Expropria- establish, operate and sovereign State whose of Mandaluyong,
Corp. v. tion; Due maintain an electric power mandate is to promote G.R. No.
Panay process; distribution system in Iloilo public welfare, and to 135087, [March
Electric Co. Equal City. Under Section 10 which end private 14, 2000]
protection and 17, MORE may property might be
G.R. No. acquire the distribution condemned to serve. 2. City of Manila
248016/ system through the Though inherent, the v. Prieto, G.R.
249406 | exercise of the power of power is not absolute, No. 221366,
September eminent domain when but subject to limitations [July 8, 2019]
14, 2020 | necessary for the efficient set out in the
Reyes, Jr., J. establishment of its Constitution, notably in
service, even as PECO Section 3, Article III, that
operates the existing no person shall be
distribution system in the deprived of property
interim. PECO filed with without due process of
the RTC a Petition for law, and Section 9, that
Declaratory Relief private property shall not
assailing the be taken for public use
constitutionality of without just
Sections 10 and 17 of R.A. compensation.
No. 11212. The RTC
declared Sections 10 and When the power of
17 void and eminent domain is
unconstitutional for exercised by an agent of
infringing on PECO's right the State and by means
to due process and equal of expropriation of real
protection of the law. The property, further
Supreme Court reversed limitations are imposed
the RTC Decision and by law, the rules of court
held that Sections 10 and and jurisprudence. In
17 of R.A. No. 11212 are essence, these
constitutional. The Court requirements are:
reversed the RTC 1. A valid delegation to
Decision and ruled that a public utility to
the legislative franchises exercise the power
of PECO declare its of eminent domain
distribution system in Iloilo or pursue
City as susceptible to expropriation
expropriation for the same proceedings over a
public purpose of power particular private
and electricity distribution property;
and that the expropriation 2. An identified public
by MORE of the use, purpose or
distribution system of welfare for which
PECO pursuant to eminent domain or
Sections 10 and 17 of R.A. expropriation is
No. 11212 is in exercised;
accordance with the 3. Previous tender of a
constitutional valid and definite
requirements of due offer to the owner of
process and equal the property sought
protection. to be expropriated,

Page 18 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

but which offer is not

accepted; and
4. Payment of just
compensation
FCBPFAI v. Regalian Petitioners, federations of Pursuant to the Regalian Cariño v. Insular
Secretary of Doctrine farmers in Coron and Doctrine, all lands of the Government,
DENR and Busuanga, Palawan, have public domain belong to G.R. No. L-
DAR lands which were placed the State. Public lands 2746,
under the coverage of the remain part of the [December 6,
G.R. No. Comprehensive Agrarian inalienable land of the 1906]
247866 | Reform Program. The public domain unless the
September Department of Agrarian State is shown to have
15, 2020 | Reform suddenly reclassified or alienated
Gesmundo, discontinued the land them to private persons.
J. distribution after the The only exception is
DENR had claimed that native title to land, or
the land was an ownership of land by
unclassified forest under Filipinos by virtue of a
Sec. 3(a) of PD No. 705. claim of ownership since
The Court held that Sec. time immemorial and
3(a) of PD No. 705 states independent of any grant
that lands of the public from the Spanish Crown.
domain which have not
been the subject of the
present system of
classification are
considered as forest land.
It merely reiterates that
unclassified lands are in
the same footing as forest
lands because these
belong to the State; these
are not alienable and
disposable land of public
domain; and these are not
subject to private
ownership. Even without
this provision, the exact
same result shall apply --
unclassified lands are still
not subject to private
ownership because they
belong to the State and
are not alienable and
disposable lands of public
domain.
COMELEC Legislative The case is about the The system of counting Barangay
v. AKMA- branch; constitutionality of RA pertains to two (2) Association for
PTM House of 7941 insofar as it provides different rounds and for National
Representa- that those arnering more two (2) different Advancement
G.R. No. tives; than two percent (2%) of purposes: the first round and
246816 | Partylist the votes cast for the party is for purposes of Transparency v.
September list system shall be applying the 2% Commission on
15, 2020 | entitled to additional seats threshold and ensuring Elections, G.R.
in proportion to their total that only party-lists with Nos. 179271 &

Page 19 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

Lazaro- number of votes. sufficient constituencies 179295

Javier, J. Petitioners assert that the shall be represented in (Resolution),
allocation of additional Congress, while the [July 8, 2009]
seats in proportion to a second round is for the
partylist's "total number of purpose of ensuring
votes" results in the compliance with the
double-counting of votes constitutional fiat that
in favor of the two- 20% of the members of
percenters. For the same the House of
votes which guarantee the Representatives shall be
two-percenters a seat in elected via a party-list
the first round of seat system, thus, seats are
allocation are again computed in proportion
considered in the second to a party-list's, total
round. The proviso number of votes.
purportedly violates the
equal protection clause, Elections are won by
hence, unconstitutional. hurdling thresholds, not
by sheer plurality of
The Court held that it is votes. Congress
constitutional. It first held deemed it wise to set two
that petitioners failed to (2) thresholds for the two
meet the third requisite for (2) rounds of seat
judicial review which is allocation. Each party-
that the question of list earns a seat each
constitutionality must be time they hurdle the
raised at the earlies threshold· in each round.
possible opportunity. They But to clarify, each vote
are also estopped from is counted. only once for
questioning the same as both rounds.
they have previously
availed and invoked the In the first round, party-
application of the law they lists receiving at least 2%
now question. They of the total votes cast for
obtained their seats the party-list system are
through the BANAT entitled to one seat. In
formula. Had petitioners determining whether a
believed in good faith that party-list has met the
the BANAT formula was proportional threshold,
and still is inapplicable its percentage number of
and invalid, they should votes is computed, as
have early on refused their follows:
seats as a result of this
formula and contested its Number of votes
constitutionality, obtained by a Party-list /
Total number of votes
The Court also held that cast under the party-list
Congress is given system
discretion to formulate the
manner of allocating The "total number of
congressional seats thus votes cast under the
to prescribe a different party-list system", the
method would be judicial very divisor of the
legislation. formula, the very index of
proportionality, requires

Page 20 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

Finally, it held that the that all votes cast under

advantage given to the the party-list system be
two-percenters does not counted and considered
violate the equal in allocating seats in the
protection clause. There first round, be it in favor
are substantial distinctions of a two-percenter or a
between the non-two- non-two-percenter. This
percenters and two- only goes to show that all
percenters which justify votes were counted and
the difference in considered in the first
treatment. The voting round.
threshold ensures that
only those parties having
a sufficient number of
constituents deserving of
representation are
actually represented in the
House of
Representatives. The two
percenters are those who
have reached the
minimum percentage of
votes thus deserving of
representation in the
House while the non-two
percenters have not. In
BANAT, the Court
declared the 2% threshold
as unconstitutional but
only insofar as it makes
the 2% threshold as the
exclusive basis for
computing the grant of
additional seats. Thus, it
did not remove the
distinction between the
two-percenters and non-
two percenters. The
rationale for the second
round or additional
allocation of seats was to
fulfill the constitutional
mandate that the party-list
system constitute 20%
percent of the total
membership in the House
within the context of the
rule of proportionality to
the total number of votes
obtained by the party,
organization, or coalition.
Ultimately, each vote is
counted only once. Just
because a party-list was
allocated a guaranteed

Page 21 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

seat and an additional

seat does not mean that
its votes were counted
twice. It just means that
the party-list concerned
surpassed the
proportional thresholds
prescribed under the law
in both rounds of seat
allocation.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
CASE SUB-TOPIC SUMMARY DOCTRINE CASES CITED
Bautista, Right to The survey and mapping A person's right to the Coscolluela v.
Mamigo, speedy of the Pola Watershed speedy disposition of his Sandiganbayan,
and Manila- disposition project was awarded to case is guaranteed G.R. Nos.
Terceco v. of cases Lacanienta. Petitioners under Section 16, Article 191411 &
Sandigan- were designated as III of the Constitution. 191871, [July
bayan members of the Technical However, it should be 15, 2013]
Inspection Committee understood to be a
G.R. No. tasked with monitoring the relative or flexible
238579-80 | project and ensuring concept such that a mere
July 24, Lacanienta’s compliance mathematical reckoning
2019 | with his contractual of the time involved
Perlas- obligations. However, a would not be sufficient. It
Bernabe, J. DENR Fact-Finding Team is deemed violated only
found that no perimeter when the proceedings
survey or mapping was are attended by
actually conducted. As vexatious, capricious,
such, a complaint was and oppressive delays;
filed alleging that or when unjustified
petitioners conspired to postponements of the
defraud the government trial are asked for and
and petitioners were secured; or even without
indicted for violation of cause or justifiable
Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019. motive, a long period of
Petitioners argue that time is allowed to elapse
their right to speedy without the party having
disposition of cases was his case tried. 4 factors
violated because the fact- should be considered:
finding investigations 1. Length of delay
spanned over 12 years 2. Reason for delay
and the preliminary 3. Assertion or failure
investigation proper took to assert such right
another 4 years. The by accused
Supreme Court ruled that 4. Prejudice caused by
the period for fact-finding the delay
investigations prior to the
filing of a formal complaint
should be excluded in the
period to be considered.
Such investigation was
non-adversarial and was
only determinative of
whether or not formal

Page 22 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

charges should be filed.

Petitioners did not suffer
any vexation during these
proceedings.
People v. Right to The criminal case filed The speedy disposition 1. Spouses Uy v.
Hon. Sandi- speedy against the private of cases before all Adriano, G.R.
ganbayan disposition respondents relates to the judicial, quasi-judicial, or No. 159098,
(First of cases “728 Million Fertilizer administrative bodies is [October 27,
Division) Scam” in the DA. As early a right constitutionally- 2006]
as 2006, the Ombudsman guaranteed to all
G.R. No. investigated the persons. A violation of 2. Tatad v.
229656 | procurement relating to this right results to the Sandiganbayan,
August 19, the said issue. In 2011, a grant of the "radical G.R. Nos.
2019 | complaint was filed before relief" of immediate 722335-339,
Reyes, Jr., J. the Ombudsman against dismissal of the case. To [March 21, 1988]
the private respondents. determine whether there
In 2013, the Ombudsman has been a violation of 3. Cagang v.
found probable cause to the said right, the Court Sandiganbayan,
indict the private adopted the balancing Fifth Division,
respondents for violation test using the 4-fold G.R. Nos.
of the Anti-Graft and factors: (1) the length of 206438, 206458
Corrupt Practices Act (RA the delay; (2) reason for & 210141-42,
3019). An Information the delay; (3) [July 31, 2018]
against them was filed defendant’s assertion or
before the non-assertion of the
Sandiganbayan in 2015. right; and (4) prejudice to
Private respondents defendant resulting from
moved to dismiss the the delay.
criminal case on the
ground of the alleged Neither the Constitution
inordinate delay of 8 years nor the Ombudsman Act
in the fact-finding of 1989 provide for a
investigation, preliminary specific period within
investigation, and filing of which the Ombudsman
the case in violation of is mandated to conduct
their right to due process its fact-finding
and to speedy disposition investigations or to act
of cases. The on complaints, other
Sandiganbayan ruled in than to do so “promptly”.
favor of private What is considered
respondents and “prompt” or “inordinate
dismissed the criminal delay” is to be
case, finding that there determined on a case-to-
was a violation of their case basis. The large
right to a speedy number of respondents
disposition of their cases. involved from different
The Supreme Court LGUs and congressional
reversed the districts, as well as the
Sandiganbayan. It held delay on the part of some
that there was no of the respondents in
inordinate delay attending filing their motions
the Ombudsman’s justified the delay.
proceedings that would
warrant the dismissal of A definitive ruling on the
the criminal case. concept of inordinate

Page 23 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

delay was laid down by

the Court in Cagang v.
Sandiganbayan as
follows:
1. The right to speedy
disposition of cases
is different from the
right to speedy trial.

The former may only

be invoked in
criminal
prosecutions against
courts of law while
the latter may be
invoked before any
tribunal as long as
the respondent may
already be
prejudiced by the
proceeding.

2. For purposes of
determining
inordinate delay, a
case is deemed to
have commenced
from the filing of the
formal complaint and
the subsequent
conduct of the
preliminary
investigation.

The Ombudsman
should set
reasonable periods
for preliminary
investigation and
delays beyond this
period will be taken
against the
prosecution.

3. Courts must
determine which
party carries the
burden of proof.

If it has been alleged

that there was delay
within the time
periods, the burden
is on the defense to
show that there has

Page 24 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

been violation of
their rights to speedy
disposition of case
or to speedy trial.

The defense must

prove:
(a) that the case took
much longer than
was reasonably
necessary to resolve
(b) that efforts were
exerted to protect
their constitutional
rights

If the delay occurs

beyond the given
time period and the
right is invoked, the
prosecution has the
burden of justifying
the delay.

The prosecution
must prove:
(a) that it followed
the prescribed
procedure in the
conduct of
preliminary
investigation and
case prosecution
(b) the delay was
inevitable due to the
complexity of the
issues and volume
of evidence
(c) accused was not
prejudiced by the
delay

4. Determination of the
length of delay is
never mechanical.

Courts must
consider the entire
context of the case,
the amount of
evidence and the
complexity of issues
involved. An
examination of the
delay is no longer

Page 25 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

necessary to justify
the dismissal of the
case if the
prosecution
of the case was
solely motivated by
malice.

5. The right to speedy

disposition of cases
(or the right to
speedy trial) must be
timely raised.

The respondent or
the accused must
file the appropriate
motion upon the
lapse of the statutory
or procedural
periods, otherwise,
they are deemed to
have waived their
right.
Madrilejos Freedom of Twelve pastors and Obscenity is not 1. International
v. Gatdula expression preachers from various protected speech. No Service for the
churches filed a joint court has recognized a Acquisition of
G.R. No. complaint-affidavit against fundamental right to Agri-Biotech
184389 | the officers and publishers create, sell, or distribute Applications,
September of seven men's obscene material. Thus, Inc. v.
24, 2019 | magazines and tabloids a facial overbreadth Greenpeace
Jardeleza, J. allegedly containing challenge is improper as Southeast Asia
"clearly scandalous, against an anti-obscenity (Philippines),
obscene, and statute. G.R. Nos.
pornographic" material 209271,
constituting violations of Criminal statutes have 209276, 209301
Articles 200 and 201 of general in terrorem effect & G.R. No.
RPC and Ordinance No. resulting from their very 209430
7780 of the City of Manila existence, and, if facial (Resolution),
(prohibiting printing, challenge is allowed for [July 26, 2016]
publishing, distribution, this reason alone, the
circulation, sale and State may well be 2. Soriano v.
exhibition of obscene and prevented from enacting Laguardia, G.R.
pornographic acts). Later, laws against socially Nos. 164785 &
the petitioners filed the harmful conduct. In the 165636, [April
present action to declare area of criminal law, the 29, 2009]; Pita v.
the ordinance law cannot take chances Court of
unconstitutional "on the as in the area of free Appeals, G.R.
ground that [it] is invalid speech. The No. 80806,
on its face for being overbreadth and [October 5,
patently offensive to their vagueness doctrines 1989]; Gonzalez
constitutional right to free then have special v. Katigbak,
speech and expression, application only to free G.R. No. L-
repugnant to due process speech cases. They are 69500, [July 22,
and privacy rights, and 1985]

Page 26 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

violative of the inapt for testing the

constitutionally validity of penal statutes. 3. Associate
established principle of Justice Vicente
separation of church and V. Mendoza's
state." The Court Separate
disagreed and upheld the Opinion in
constitutionality of the Estrada v.
ordinance. The Court also Sandiganbayan,
held that the petition has G.R. No.
been rendered moot and 148560,
academic in light of the [November 19,
dismissal of the criminal 2001]
case against the
petitioners. The "capable
of repeitition, yet evading
review" exception to the
mootness doctrine did not
apply in this case.
Re: News Freedom of The Manila Times The freedom of speech 1. Cabansag v.
Report of speech; published an article and of the press is not Fernandez, G.R.
Mr. Jomar Types of written by Mr. Jomar absolute. The Court cited No. L-8974,
Canlas in regulation Canlas. The article was two formulas that are [October 18,
the Manila published online and on used to balance the 1957]
Times Issue print. The article, titled, constitutional guarantee
of 8 March “Justices Offered P50- of free speech and of the 2. In re: Jurado,
2016 million bribe to disqualify press, and judicial A.M. No. 93-2-
Poe—sources” alleged, independence. 037 SC, [April 6,
A.M. No. 16- among others, that 1. Clear and present 1995], 313 PHIL
03-10-SC | persons close to former danger rule. The 119-221)
October 15, President Benigno Aquino evil consequence of
2019 | III and Mar Roxas, the comment or 3. Mandanas v.
Carpio, J. attempted to bribe utterance “must be Ochoa, Jr., G.R.
Supreme Court judges to extremely serious Nos. 199802 &
vote to disqualify Grace and the degree of 208488, [July 3,
Poe from the 2016 imminence 2018]
presidential elections. extremely high”
The SC directed Canlas to before the utterance See case:
explain why no sanction can be punished. Municipality of
should be imposed on him (What is the Malabang v.
for indirect contempt of substantive evil Benito, G.R. No.
court. In his explanation, sought to be L-28113, [March
Canlas alleged that Poe’s prevented?). Good 28, 1969]
disqualification case is a faith or absence of
matter of public interest intent to harm is a
and is a legitimate subject valid defense.
for a journalist. He also 2. Dangerous
claimed that he did not tendency rule. “If
make any accusations the words uttered
against the Court or any of created a dangerous
the Justices; he merely tendency which the
reported about the failed state has a right to
attempts to bribe them. He prevent, then such
also apologized, claiming words are
that the article was written punishable.”
in good faith, and that the

Page 27 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

article even paints an However, the SC

image of the Court that is disagreed with Canlas’
incorruptible, and which claim that his article was
cannot be swayed. The written in good faith. The
SC found Mr. Canlas article created a doubt in
guilty of indirect contempt the minds of the readers,
of court, in accordance against some of the
with Section 3(d), Rule 71 Justices, and in the
of the Rules of Court. He process, the Court as a
was severely whole. While it is the duty
reprimanded with a stern of the press to expose
warning. (No penalties or all government agencies
fines.) and officials and to hold
them responsible for
their actions, the press
cannot just throw
accusations without
verifying the truthfulness
of their reports. The
article, directly or
indirectly, tends to
impede, obstruct, or
degrade the
administration of justice.

False reports about a

public official or other
person are not shielded
from sanction by the
cardinal right to free
speech enshrined in the
Constitution. Even the
most liberal view of free
speech has never
countenanced the
publication of
falsehoods, specially the
persistent and
unmitigated
dissemination of patent
lies.
Soliva v. Due Petitioner was a member In administrative 1. Office of the
Tanggol process; of the Board of proceedings, due Ombudsman v.
Administra- Canvassers (BOC) and a process is satisfied when Conti, G.R. No.
G.R. No. tive due faculty member in MSU- a person is notified of the 221296,
223429 | process IIT. During the canvassing charge against him and [February 22,
January 29, of the result of the Vice given an opportunity to 2017]
2020 | Chancellor for Academic explain or defend
Carandang, Affairs straw poll, oneself. In such 2. Nestle
J. petitioner was tasked to proceedings, the filing of Philippines, Inc.
read the ballots. On the charges and giving v. Puedan, Jr.,
October 6 canvassing reasonable opportunity G.R. No.
showed that 227 faculty for the person so 220617,
members voted for Dr. charged to answer the [January 30,
Orejudos and only 63 and accusations against him 2017]

Page 28 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

31 voted for Dr. Alagao constitute the minimum

and Dr. Englis, requirements of due
respectively. Dr. Englis process.
questioned the integrity of
the straw polls and Administrative due
demanded a recount. As process cannot be fully
such, a recount was done equated with due
twice on October 13 at 10 process in its strict
AM and at 12 PM. Both judicial sense, for in the
canvasses yielded the former a formal or trial-
same result i.e., Dr. type hearing is not
Orejudos only got 111 always necessary, and
votes while Dr. Alagao technical rules of
and Dr. Englis got 129 and procedure are not strictly
81 votes, respectively. applied. The essence of
Consequently, a formal due process, therefore,
investigation was as applied to
conducted by the Institute administrative
of Formal Investigation proceedings, is an
Committee (IFIC) of the opportunity to explain
MSU-IIT. After the one's side, or an
investigation, the IFIC opportunity to seek a
found that when the reconsideration of the
reading of the staff ballots action or ruling
was about to be complained of. Thus, a
completed, petitioner violation of that right
instructed the watchers to occurs when a court or
bundle and staple the tribunal rules against a
counted ballots in groups party without giving the
of 10. Since the watchers person the opportunity to
were preoccupied with the be heard.
task, they failed to
counter-check petitioner's
reading of the remaining
staff ballots and the whole
of the faculty ballots.
However, the MSU-BOR
found petitioner not guilty.
The Chancellor of MSU-
IIT appealed the decision
of the BOR to the CSC.
The CSC reversed the
decision of the BOR and
found petitioner guilty of
serious dishonesty and
was dismissed from the
service. Petitioner
elevated the case to the
CA. The CA denied her
appeal and affirmed the
decision of the CSC.
Petitioner filed a petition
for review on certiorari
before the SC, alleging,
among others, that she

Page 29 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

was not afforded due

process because (1) she
was not notified that a re-
canvassing was to be
conducted; (2) she was
not furnished a copy of the
IFIC Resolution which
was submitted to the
MSU-President; (3) she
did not receive any paper,
document, or any
communication from the
CSC when respondent
appealed this case; and
(4) the CSC Decision was
intentionally kept secret
and was never released to
petitioner by the Office of
the Chancellor of MSU-
IIT, until June 3, 2014.
The SC ruled that
petitioner was afforded
due process because she
was given the opportunity
to present her own
evidence, submit her
motions, memoranda, and
other papers, and actively
participate in the cross-
examination of the
witnesses before the IFIC.
While she was not
directed to file a comment
by the CSC of the
Chancellor’s appeal, she
was able to file a motion
for reconsideration of the
CSC Decision. Petitioner
need not be notified of the
recanvassing because
she was only one of the
BOC during the initial
canvassing, and there
were no charges against
her yet to merit her
presence or
representation. The
recanvassing was done to
clear the doubt of one
candidate and was not
done to cast suspicion or
accuse anyone at that
time.

Page 30 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

Tumabini v. Searches Romeo Tumabini was A search warrant may People v. Court
People and charged with Sections 11 be served at dawn. of Appeals, G.R.
seizures and 12 of RA 9165 (Illegal • Sec. 9, Rule 126 of No. 117412,
G.R. No. Possession of Dangerous the Rules of Court [December 8,
224495 | Drugs and Illegal states that the 2000]
February 19, Possession of Drug warrant must direct
2020 | Paraphernalia). The said that it be served in
Gesmundo, drugs and paraphernalia the day time, unless
J. were allegedly found the affidavit asserts
pursuant to a search that the property is
warrant. Tumabini on the person or in
averred that he was the place ordered to
ordered by armed be searched, in
persons in civilian clothing which case a
to sit down and sign a direction may be
piece of paper at inserted that it be
gunpoint. The police then served at any time of
proceeded to search their the day or night.
house while he and his • People v. CA (400
family remained on the Phil 1247): The
first level. One of the general rule is that
police officers came back search warrants
with shabu and accused must be served
petitioner as its owner. during the daytime.
The RTC found Tumabini However, the rule
of both charges. allows an exception,
At the SC, petitioner namely, a search at
raised violations of his any reasonable hour
constitutional right to of the day or night,
privacy and against when the application
unreasonable search and asserts that the
seizure because of the property is on the
police officers’ forcible person or place
opening of his house ordered to be
during the unreasonable searched.
hour of 5 am. Petitioner
also alleged that there Section 7, Rule 126
was no substantial states the rule on the
compliance to the chain of right to break door or
custody rule, mandated window to effect
under Sec. 12 of RA 9165. search.
• The Officer, if
The SC acquitted the refused admittance
petitioner as the to the place of
prosecution was unable to directed search after
prove that the integrity giving notice of his
and evidentiary value of purpose and
the corpus delicti (the authority, may break
drugs) were preserved. open any outer or
The Court first discussed inner door or window
that a search warrant may of a house or any
be served at dawn and part of a house or
that the search was not anything therein to
unreasonable because execute the warrant
the officer, if refused or liberate himself or

Page 31 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

admittance to the place any person lawfully

directed to be searched, aiding him when
may break open any part unlawfully detained
of the house to gain entry. therein.
However, the Court finds
that the police officers The chain of custody rule
committed several must be applied
violations of the chain of regardless of whether
custody rule under Sec. the drugs were seized in
21 of R.A. No. 9165. First, a buy-bust operation or
the required witnesses pursuant to a search
uwere not present. Only warrant.
petitioner, the barangay
councilor and tanod were
present during the
inventory. Under the law,
the presence of the
accused, a representative
from the media and the
DOJ, and any elected
public official is
mandatory because the
law requires them to sign
the copies of the inventory
and to be given a copy
thereof. Second, the
seized items were not
photographed by the
police officers. Third, the
prosecution failed to give
any justifiable ground for
the noncompliance with
Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
The Court also found that
the integrity and
evidentiary value of the
seized items were not
preserved.
Roy III v. Administra- Domingo Nunez, former Generally, decisions in Paredes v. Court
Ombuds- tive due dean of Pamantasan ng administrative cases are of Appeals, G.R.
man process; Lungsod ng Maynila, not binding on criminal No. 169534,
Quantum of requested the purchase of proceedings. [July 30, 2007]
G.R. No. evidence a vehicle intended for use Administrative cases are
225718 | required of the PLM-Open independent from
March 4, University Distance criminal actions for the
2020 | A.B. Learning Program. COA same act or omission.
Reyes, Jr., J. issued a Notice of Thus, an absolution from
Suspension for the a criminal charge is not a
purchase of the vehicle. bar to an administrative
Ombudsman found prosecution, or vice
probable cause to indict versa. One thing is
petitioner because the administrative liability;
vehicle did not undergo a quite another thing is the
public bidding and there criminal liability for the
was also no authorization same act.

Page 32 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

from the Board of Regents

for the purchase. The The burden of proof for
Supreme Court ruled the administrative cases is
burden of proof of only substantial
substantial evidence in evidence. It is more
the administrative case difficult to prove the guilt
was not met. The of the petitioner in a
elements of the offense in criminal case against
Sec. 3(a) RA 3019 were him involving the same
absent. There is no set of facts. Notably, the
evidence that petitioner evidence presented in
acted with manifest the administrative case
partiality, evident bad may not necessarily be
faith, or gross inexcusable the same evidence to be
negligence in signing the presented in the criminal
Purchase Order. There cases.
was also no showing that
any party incurred actual
injury in the purchase of
the vehicle.
People v. Rights of the The husband of Adelriza In resolving the People v.
Moreno y accused; Mijares died from stab admissibility of and Teehankee, Jr.,
Tazon Positive wounds inflicted by an relying on out-of-court G.R. Nos.
identification unknown assailant who identification of 111206-08,
G.R. No. of the entered their house while suspects, courts have [October 6,
191759 | accused the spouses were adopted the totality of 1995]
March 2, sleeping in bed. Adelriza circumstances test
2020 | did not know the name of where they consider the
Hernando, J. the assailant but vividly following factors: (1) the
remembered his face witness' opportunity to
because she was view the criminal at the
awakened and witnessed time of the crime; (2) the
the stabbing. A police witness' degree of
cartographer prepared a attention at that time; (3)
sketch of the suspect the accuracy of any prior
based on Adelriza’s description given by the
description. Moreno was witness; (4) the level of
eventually invited to the certainty demonstrated
police station after the by the witness at the
police were informed that identification; (5) the
he fitted the description of length of time between
the suspect. At the police the crime and the
station, Adelriza positively identification; and (6) the
identified Moreno as the suggestiveness of the
person who stabbed her identification procedure.
husband. Moreno was
arrested and informed of There was no violation of
his constitutional rights to appellant's right to
remain silent and to have counsel during custodial
a competent counsel of investigation. The
his choice. Moreno denied records show that
the accusations against appellant was informed
him. The RTC found of his constitutional
Moreno guilty of murder, rights when he was
rejecting Moreno’s arrested. Since he chose

Page 33 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

defenses of alibi and to remain silent, he was

denial, and finding that the not interrogated and no
testimony of Adelriza was statement or evidence
sufficient to establish was extracted from him;
Moreno’s guilt beyond neither was any
reasonable doubt. The CA evidence presented in
upheld the findings of the court that was
RTC. The Supreme Court supposedly obtained
affirmed the CA Decision. from him during custodial
It held that positive investigation.
testimony, despite minor
inconsistencies, prevails
over the defenses of
denial and alibi. Further,
the Court held that a
police line-up is not
indispensable for the
proper and fair
identification of offenders.
The important
consideration is for the
victim to positively declare
that the persons charged
were the malefactors.
De Leon v. Right to Petitioner filed a petition Mandamus is defined as 1. Ha Datu
Duterte information for mandamus before the a writ commanding a Tawahig v.
SC, seeking to (1) compel tribunal, corporation, Lapinid, G.R.
G.R. No. the Executive Secretary to board or person to do the No. 221139,
252118 | disclose all the medical act required to be done March 20, 2019
May 8, 2020 and psychological/ when it or he/she: (1) and City of
psychiatric examination unlawfully neglects the Davao v.
results, health bulletins, performance of an act Olanolan, G.R.
and other health records which the law specifically No. 181149,
of the President ever enjoins as a duty [April 17, 2017]
since he assumed the resulting from an office,
Presidency; and (2) trust or station; or (2) 2. Philippine
compel the President to unlawfully excludes Coconut
undergo additional another from the use and Authority v.
confirmatory medical and enjoyment of a right or Primex Coco
psychological/psychiatric office to which such Products, Inc.,
examinations which shall other is entitled, there G.R. No.
be publicly disclosed in being no other plain, 163088, [July
order to ensure the speedy, and adequate 20, 2006]
accuracy of the health remedy in the course of
records to be released. law. It is an extraordinary
The SC dismissed remedy that is issued
outright the petition since only in extreme
on its face, the petition necessity, and the
failed to set forth ordinary course of
petitioner’s material procedure is powerless
allegations to establish a to afford an adequate
prima facie case for and speedy relief to one
mandamus that the reliefs who has a clear legal
sought constitute right to the performance
ministerial duties on the of the act compelled.

Page 34 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

part of respondents, and It bears stressing that for

that there is a clear legal a petition for mandamus
right on petitioner's part to to sufficiently allege a
demand the performance cause of action,
of these ministerial duties. petitioner must satisfy
the following elements:
(1) the legal right of the
plaintiff; (2) the
correlative obligation of
the defendant to respect
that legal right; and (3)
an act or omission of the
defendant that violates
such right. The cause of
action does not accrue
until the party obligated
refuses, expressly or
impliedly, to comply with
the duty.

It must be noted also that

the deliberations of the
Constitutional
Commission on Section
12, Article VII wherein
the proponent thereof,
Commissioner Blas F.
Ople, stated that: "We
are called upon to be
more trusting with
respect to the Office of
the President that they
will know what
appropriate means to
take in order to release
this information to the
public in satisfaction of
the public's right to know
of the presidency."
Pancho v. Right to a In 2013, the Field Sec. 16, Art. III of the Magante v.
Sandigan- speedy Investigation Office of the 1987 Const. Guarantees Sandiganbayan
bayan (6th disposition OMB filed a complaint all persons the right to a (Third Division),
Division) of cases against the petitioner for speedy disposition of G.R. Nos.
violations of the Anti-Graft their cases before all 230950-51, [July
G.R. Nos. and Corrupt Practices Act judicial, quasi-judicial, or 23, 2018]
234886-911 (RA 3019) among others. administrative bodies.
& 235410 | In 2014, the petitioner was The OMB is also tasked
June 17, directed to submit their to promptly resolve any
2020 | Inting, respective counter- complaints lodged
J. affidavits. In 2015, a before it under Sec. 12,
resolution was submitted Art. XI, of the 1987 Const
finding probable cause and under RA 6770
against the petitioner for (OMB Act). Although the
violation of RA 3019 law and the Const do not
among other charges. provide for a definite

Page 35 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

The resolution was period with which to

approved in 2016. In measure “promptness”,
2017, the OSP filed the the Court in Magante v.
information against the Sandiganbayan, listed
petitioner with the SB. The factors to consider in
petitioner then filed a treating petitions
MTQ/MTD contending invoking the right to
that the OMB has lost speedy disposition of
jurisdiction to file the cases These factors are:
cases due to inordinate (1) length of the delay,
delay considering that the (2) reasons for the delay,
PI and the filing of the (3) assertion of right by
information took more the accused, and (4)
than 3 years. The prejudice to the
respondents argued that respondent.
there was no inordinate Here, the Court takes
delay considering the into account the
sheer volume of complexity and number
documents to be reviewed of charges filed against
by the OMB as well as the the petitioner, the
complexity of the nature of number of persons
the cases. The SB denied involved and the nature
the petitioner’s motions of their participation, the
including the subsequent amount of money
MR. Hence, the petition involved, the number of
before the Court. The years covered in the PI,
Court ruled that there was the voluminous records
no inordinate delay on the subject of examination
part of the OMB and that and verification. The
the petitioner’s right to the period of delay attributed
speedy disposition of to the OMB and OSP
cases was not violated. were properly justified.
Also, the period of delay
attributed to the accused
in seeking an extension
of time to submit his
counter-affidavit should
be excluded from the
time spent by the OMB to
terminate its PI and for
the OSP to file the
information with the
Court.

Subtracting the periods

attributable to petitioner
and those beyond the
control of the OMB, the
total period spent by the
OMB to finish its PI, and
for the OSP to file the
corresponding
information is only 3yrs
and 28 days. Such a
period is justified,

Page 36 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

acceptable, and not

capricious, oppressive,
and vexatious.

Moreover, despite the

pendency of the case
since 2013, the petitioner
only invoked his right to
the speedy disposition of
cases in 2017. It must be
emphasized that the
accused must invoke his
or her constitutional right
to speedy disposition of
cases in a timely manner
and failure to do so
constitutes a waiver of
such right even when he
or she has already
suffered or will suffer the
consequences of delay.
Cagasca- Writ of Petitioner Atty. Writ of habeas corpus is 1. Garcia v. De
Evangelista habeas Evangelista filed a petition a remedy for those Lima, G.R. No.
v. Bantag corpus for writ of habeas corpus restrained of their liberty. 207034 (Notice),
(Resolution) for Raymundo Reyes and The essential object and [November 9,
Vincent Evangelista, both purpose of writ of habeas 2015]
G.R. No. convicted of the crime of corpus is:
251954 | illegal sale of more than 1. To inquire into all 2. In re: Abellana
June 10, 200 grams of shabu. manner of v. Paredes, G.R.
2020 | Petitioner assailed that involuntary restraint No. 232006,
Zalameda, J. since RA 7659 abolished 2. To relieve a person if [July 10, 2019]
the death penalty, the such restraint is
original penalty for sale of illegal. 3. Barredo y
illegal drugs in RA 6425 Golani v.
should be reinstated, that Writ of habeas corpus as Vinarao, G.R.
is from 6 years and 1 day a post-conviction No. 168728,
to 12 years as opposed to remedy is allowed only [August 2, 2007]
the current reclusion under the following
perpetua to death. exceptional
Furthermore, she argues circumstances:
that the PDLs have served 1. There has been a
more than 18 years if deprivation of a
GCTA will be considered. constitutional right
The petitioner contended resulting in the
that the PDLs Raymundo restraint of a person.
Reyes and Vincent 2. The Court had no
Evangelista have served jurisdiction to
19 years and 2 months, impose the
therefore, they have sentence.
already served more than 3. The imposed penalty
the required sentence by has been excessive,
law. thus voiding the
sentence to such
The Court dismissed the excess.
petition because the Court

Page 37 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

finds that the writ of However, writ of habeas

habeas corpus without corpus is not allowed
merit. The PDLs were when (1) the person is in
restrained of his liberty by custody of an officer
virtue of a valid judgement under process issued by
which was affirmed by the a court or judge or (2) by
Court. The Court also held virtue of a judgement or
that there are no order of a court of record.
exceptional
circumstances attendant
to the case as the
petitioner invoking that the
imposed penalty has been
excessive has no merit.
The Court ruled that
despite the passage of RA
7659 abolishing death
penalty, the law indicates
that the same shall be
replaced with the penalty
of reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment,
whichever is applicable.
Furthermore, since the
crime committed is a
heinous crime, the PDLs
are excluded from availing
GCTA.
Javier v. Right to In 2011, the Ombudsman Court citing Cagang: Cagang v.
Sandigan- speedy filed a complaint against First, the right to speedy Sandiganbayan,
bayan disposition public officers involved in disposition of cases is Fifth Division,
of cases the procurement of liquid different from the right to G.R. Nos.
G.R. No. organic fertilizer in Isabela speedy trial. The right to 206438, 206458
237997 | in 2004 on the ground that speedy trial may only be & 210141-42,
June 10, the procurement was invoked in criminal [July 31, 2018]
2020 | done without open prosecutions against
Caguioa, J. competitive bidding and courts of law. The right to
that the procured items speedy disposition of
were overpriced. In 2016, cases, however, may be
the Ombudsman found invoked before any
probable cause to indict tribunal, whether judicial
the petitioners for violation or quasi-judicial.
of RA 3019. The
corresponding information Second, a case is
was filed in 2017. The deemed initiated upon
petitioners filed a Motion the filing of a formal
to Quash on the ground of complaint prior to a
inordinate delay, arguing conduct of a preliminary
that the period of 5 years investigation. The
and 4 months from the Ombudsman should set
filing of the complaint to reasonable periods for
the finding of probable preliminary investigation.
cause constituted delay Delays beyond this
which violated their right period will be taken
to speedy disposition of against the prosecution.

Page 38 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

cases. The The period taken for fact-

Sandiganbayan denied finding investigations
the motion, finding that prior to the filing of the
while there was indeed formal complaint shall
delay, the Ombudsman not be included in the
had valid justifications determination of whether
therefor, such as the there has been
voluminous records inordinate delay.
involved in the case,
notwithstanding the Third, courts must first
Ombudsman’s failure to determine which party
substantiate its claims. carries the burden of
The Supreme Court proof. If the right is
reversed the invoked within the given
Sandiganbayan’s time periods, the
Decision. It held that there defense has the burden
was a violation of the right of proving that the right
to speedy disposition of was justifiably invoked. If
cases of the petitioners. the delay occurs beyond
The Ombudsman failed to the given time period and
explain the delay in the the right is invoked, the
preliminary investigation. prosecution has the
Furthermore, the Court burden of justifying the
held that the petitioners delay.
timely asserted their rights
because they filed the If the defense has the
Motion to Quash at the burden of proof, it must
earliers opportunity. prove first, whether the
case is motivated by
malice or clearly only
politically motivated and
is attended by utter lack
of evidence, and second,
that the defense did not
contribute to the delay.

Once the burden of proof

shifts to the prosecution,
the prosecution must
prove that it followed the
prescribed procedure,
that the complexity of the
issues and the volume of
evidence made the delay
inevitable, and that no
prejudice was suffered
by the accused as a
result of the delay.
Fourth, determination of
the length of delay is
never mechanical.
Courts must consider the
entire context of the
case, from the amount of
evidence to be weighed

Page 39 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

to the simplicity or
complexity of the issues
raised. An exception to
this rule is if there is an
allegation that the
prosecution of the case
was solely motivated by
malice. Another
exception would be the
waiver of the accused to
the right to speedy
disposition of cases or
the right to speedy trial. If
it can be proven that the
accused acquiesced to
the delay, the
constitutional right can
no longer be invoked.

Fifth, the right to speedy

disposition of cases or
the right to speedy trial
must be timely raised.
The respondent or the
accused must file the
appropriate motion upon
the lapse of the statutory
or procedural periods.
Otherwise, they are
deemed to have waived
their right to speedy
disposition of cases.
Castañeda Right to Castaneda and several It must be emphasized On state:
v. People speedy others were charged with that the State, like any People v.
disposition violation of the Anti- other litigant, is entitled Leviste, G.R.
G.R. No. of cases Hazing Law arising from to its day in court, and to No. 104386,
241729 | the death of Servando a reasonable opportunity [March 28, 1996]
July 8, 2020 during the initiation rites of to present its case.
| Inting, J. Tau Gamma Phi On speedy
Fraternity. The Section 16, Article III of disposition:
prosecution was given the Constitution Revuelta v.
three trial dates to present guarantees every People, G.R.
its evidence, person's right to a No. 237039,
consequently, it speedy disposition of his [June 10, 2019]
requested that subpoenas case before all judicial,
be issued to several quasi-judicial or
witnesses. However, on administrative bodies.
the first and second This constitutional right
hearing dates, no is not limited to the
witnesses for the accused in criminal
prosecution appeared so proceedings but extends
it moved for the issuance to all parties in all cases,
of warrants of arrest for be it civil or
the witnesses but this was administrative in nature,
denied by the RTC. The as well as in all

Page 40 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

witnesses were again proceedings, either

absent on the third judicial or quasi-judicial.
hearing date which In this accord, any party
prompted the petitioners to a case may demand
to move for the dismissal expeditious action of all
of the case invoking their officials who are tasked
right to speedy trial. The with the administration of
RTC dismissed the case, justice...Case law
but the same was teaches that the right is
reinstated by the Court of deemed violated only
Appeals. Hence, this when the proceedings
petition raising the issue are attended by
of petitioners' right to vexatious, capricious,
speedy disposition of and oppressive delays;
cases. The Supreme or when unjustified
Court held that the right to postponements of the
a speedy trial shall not be trial are asked for or
utilized to deprive the secured, or even without
State of a reasonable cause or justifiable
opportunity of fairly motive, a long period of
indicting criminals. In this time is allowed to elapse
case, a careful review of without a party having
the series of events and his case tried.
the circumstances
surrounding the
proceedings before the
trial court would show that
there was no delay
contemplated under the
Constitution to support
petitioners' assertion that
their right to speedy
disposition of the case
against them were
violated. It must be noted
that the case was only
postponed thrice and for a
period of less than a
month. Additionally, the
facts no way indicate that
the prosecution of the
petitioners had been
unjustly delayed by the
prosecution, specifically
the failure of its witnesses
to attend the scheduled
hearing.
People v. Due Accused-appellant The three (3)-fold duty of 1. People v.
Pagal process; pleaded guilty to murder the trial court in Nuelan y
Presumption and the RTC found the instances where the Ludovice, G.R.
G.R. No. of plea to be voluntary and accused pleads guilty to No. 123075,
241257 | innocence; with full understanding of a capital offense is as [October 8,
September Right to its consequences. Thus, it follows: (1) conduct a 2001]; People v.
29, 2020 | speedy found accused-appellant searching inquiry, (2) Besonia, G.R.
guilty beyond reasonable require the prosecution Nos. 151284-85,

Page 41 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

Gesmundo, disposition doubt based solely on his to prove the accused's [February 5,
J. of cases plea of guilty. The CA guilt and precise degree 2004]
reversed the RTC finding of culpability, and (3)
that it failed to comply with allow the accused to
the conduct of searching present evidence on his
inquiry into accused- behalf. The searching
appellant's voluntariness inquiry requirement
and full comprehension of ensures that the plea of
the consequences of his guilty was voluntarily
plea as required under made and that the
Sec. 3, Rule 116. Also, the accused comprehends
CA observed that the the consequences of his
prosecution's evidence plea.
was insufficient to sustain
a judgment of conviction The reason behind
independent of the plea of second requirement is
guilty and noted that the that the plea of guilt
prosecution did not alone can never be
present any evidence. sufficient to produce guilt
Thus, it remanded the beyond reasonable
case to the RTC. doubt. A plea of guilty is
only a supporting
The Supreme Court set evidence or secondary
aside the CA's order of basis for a finding of
remand and held that the culpability, the main
acquittal of accused- proof being the evidence
appellant is in order. The presented by the
trial court failed miserably prosecution to prove guilt
to comply with the duties beyond reasonable
imposed by the 2000 doubt. The conviction of
Revised Rules. The Court the accused no longer
ruled that it cannot sustain depends solely on his
the conviction since there plea of guilty but rather
is nothing in the records on the strength of the
that would show the guilt prosecution's evidence.
of accused-appellant. The
plea of guilty of an The last requirement
accused cannot stand in allows the accused to
place of the evidence that present exculpatory or
must be presented. Here, mitigating evidence to
despite being given the properly calibrate the
opportunity to present correct imposable
evidence, the prosecution penalty. This duty,
failed to do so. The Court however, does not mean
also ruled that if the case that the trial court can
were to be remanded, it compel the accused to
would result in delay in the present evidence. The
disposition of the instant accused is free to waive
case and would be his right to present
prejudicial to accused- evidence if he so
appellant. He has been in desires. The Court has
jail since 2009 and he will issued guidelines
continue to be regarding the waiver of
incarcerated during the the accused of his right
period of the re-trial. At

Page 42 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

this point in time, to present evidence

accused-appellant has under this rule.
been incarcerated for
more or less eleven (11) CONSTI RELATED:
years. To require that he Sec. 16, Article III of the
undergo re-trial, when the 1987 Constitution
failure of the prosecution guarantees the
to prove his guilt beyond constitutional right to
reasonable doubt was speedy disposition of
through no fault of his, is cases. It provides that
unreasonably oppressive. "[a]ll persons shall have
the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative
bodies."

OBITER: In all criminal

prosecutions, the State
bears the burden of
establishing the guilt of
the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. When
the State fails to
overcome the
presumption of
innocence in favor of the
accused, such as in this
case, the accused must
be acquitted and set
free. No less than the
precepts of justice and
fairness demand this.

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

CASE SUB-TOPIC SUMMARY DOCTRINE CASES CITED
Fact- Public office The Philippine Marine Misconduct is a 1. Office of the
Finding as a public Corps (PMC) earmarked transgression of some Ombudsman-
Investiga- trust and released funds for established and definite Visayas v.
tion Bureau allowances of its enlisted rule of action, more Castro, G.R.
(FFIB) v. personnel. The particularly, unlawful No. 172637 and
Miranda disbursements were behavior or gross Vertudes v.
released through checks negligence by a public Buenaflor, G.R.
G.R. No. in various amounts signed officer. As an No. 153166,
216574 | by certain officers of administrative offense, [December 16,
July 10, PMC. Acting on records misconduct should relate 2005]
2019 | forwarded by the COA, to or be connected with
Lazaro- the FFIB initiated an the performance of the 2. Office of the
Javier, J. investigation of the official functions and Court
subject disbursements. duties of a public officer. Administrator v.
On the basis thereof, It is considered grave Lopez, A.M. No.
FFIB charged the said where the elements of P-10-2788,
PMC officers with corruption and clear [January 18,
malversation of public intent to violate the law or 2011] and
funds through falsification flagrant disregard of Fajardo v.

Page 43 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

of public documents, established rule are Corral, G.R. No.

violation of COA Rules present. 212641, [July 5,
and Regulations, and 2017].
violation of RA 3019. The In administrative cases,
respondent officers argue the quantum of proof 3. Field
that they signed the required is substantial Investigation
checks as part of their evidence. It is such Office of the
ministerial duty relevant evidence which Office of the
considering that the a reasonable mind might Ombudsman v.
requirements for approval accept as adequate to Castillo, G.R.
of the disbursements support a conclusion, No. 221848,
were all complied with. even if other minds [August 30,
The Ombudsman found equally reasonable might 2016]
five of the respondent conceivably opine
officers guilty of grave differently.
misconduct and
dishonesty and ordered Public office is a public
their dismissal from trust and public officers
service. On appeal, the and employees must at
CA reversed finding that all times be accountable
respondent merely signed to the people, serve them
upon certification that with utmost
everything was in order responsibility, integrity,
and the mere fact of loyalty, and efficiency,
signing the documents did act with patriotism and
not make him liable for justice, and lead modest
grave misconduct and lives. This Constitutional
dishonesty. The Supreme standard of conduct is
Court reversed the CA not intended to be a mere
Decision. It held that it rhetoric, and should not
was not respondent’s act be taken lightly. For
of signing the those in the public
disbursement vouchers service are enjoined to
that gave rise to his fully comply with this
liability. Rather, it was his standard or run the risk of
act of entrusting a large facing administrative
amount of public funds to sanctions ranging from
an officer who did not reprimand to the extreme
have the authority to penalty of dismissal from
receive, let alone, the service.
disburse the funds. As it
turned out, said funds
entrusted were not
disbursed to their
supposed beneficiaries. It
was this act of the
respondent which caused
first the release, then the
misappropriation, and
finally the total loss of the
funds which to date, have
remained unaccounted
for.
Office of Ombudsman The municipality of In asserting that it was a Office of the
the Labason, Zamboanga del "competent disciplining Ombudsman v.

Page 44 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

Ombuds- Norte purchased a Nissan body," the Office of the Samaniego,

man v. Patrol vehicle from Ombudsman correctly G.R. No.
Chipoco Ayunting for P960,000. summed up its legal 175573,
and The Deed of Sale was interest in the matter in [September 11,
Buganutan signed by Ayunting and controversy. In support of 2008]
then Vice Mayor Go. its claim, it invoked its
G.R. No. Believing it to be role as a constitutionally
231345 | anomalous, Galon filed an mandated "protector of
August 19, affidavit-complaint the people," a disciplinary
2019 | claiming that the authority vested with
Peralta, J. purchase was designed to quasi-judicial function to
give undue benefit to the resolve administrative
incumbent mayor Balais disciplinary cases
at the expense of the against public officials.
municipality. Ombudsman To hold otherwise would
held Balais have been tantamount to
administratively liable, but abdicating its salutary
absolved the rest of functions as the guardian
Labason officials. Galon of public trust and
filed a second complaint- accountability. Moreover,
affidavit concerning the the Office of the
same transaction and Ombudsman had a clear
implicated the same legal interest in the
persons, claiming that inquiry into whether
there was newly- respondent committed
discovered evidence acts constituting grave
since Ayunting applied to misconduct, an offense
become a state witness. punishable under the
Galon asked for Uniform Rules in
consolidation of the Administrative Cases in
cases. The Court first the Civil Service. It was in
ruled on the legal keeping with its duty to
standing of the act as a champion of the
Ombusman and held that people and preserve the
it had the requisite integrity of public service
standing to intervene and that petitioner had to be
become a party in cases given the opportunity to
wherein its administrative act fully within the
ruling is under review. It parameters of its
also ruled that there can authority.
be consolidation of the
cases, but this is subject Consolidation, in the
to the discretion of the context of legal
Ombudsman and the proceedings, is a
latter did not err in opting procedural tool that
NOT to consolidate. The permits individual cases
records show that the that involve common
alleged newly-discovered questions of fact or law to
evidence is not entirely be jointly heard and
novel. Much of it has resolved by a court or
already been submitted in tribunal. The
the earlier case. Also, consolidation of several
none of these documents similar cases is not
are particularly critical in mandatory or automatic,
altering the administrative but merely discretionary

Page 45 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

liabilities of respondents (in this case, on the part

as determined by the of the Ombudsman).
Ombudsman. The Court
also affirmed the ruling of
the Ombudsman in
holding the respondents
liable for Grave
Misconduct since there
has been patent lapses in
the manner in which such
bidding was undertaken.
Civil Respondent Beray was It is inscribed in the 1. Encinas v.
Service the Chief of the Constitution that a public Agustin, G.R.
Commis- Subsidiary and Revenue office is a public trust. No. 187317,
sion v. Section of the Department Public officers and [April 11, 2013]
Beray of Public Works and employees have the
Highways (DPWH) while mandate to serve the 2. Santosky v.
G.R. No. Espina and Tadeo were people with utmost Kramer, 455
191946 | both Accountant III responsibility, integrity, U.S. 745 [1982],
December assigned at the loyalty, and efficiency at and National
10, 2019 | Bookkeeping Section. In all times. They must act Mutual
Hernando, J. 2002, the DPWH issued with patriotism and Insurance Co. v.
Department Order No. 15 justice, and lead modest Tidewater
creating a committee to lives. Transfer Co.,
investigate newspaper Inc., 337 U.S.
reports on alleged illegal Gross neglect of duty or 582
disbursements of funds gross negligence
and non-observance of pertains to "negligence 3. See: Republic
procedures on characterized by the v. Rosemoor
emergency want of even slight care, Mining &
purchases/repairs of the or by acting or omitting to Development
DPWH-owned motor act in a situation where Corp., G.R. No.
vehicles in 2001. As a there is a duty to act, not 149927, [March
result, a Complaint- inadvertently but willfully 30, 2004] and
Affidavit was filed against and intentionally, with a Southern Luzon
several employees of the conscious indifference to Drug Corp. v.
DPWH Central Office the consequences, Department of
including Beray, Espina, insofar as other persons Social Welfare
and Tadeo charging them may be affected. It is the and
with dishonesty, grave omission of that care Development,
misconduct, gross neglect which even inattentive G.R. No.
of duty and conduct and thoughtless men 199669, [April
prejudicial to the interest never fail to give to their 25, 2017], 809
of the service. The own property." In cases PHIL 315-398)
complaint arose from involving public officials,
anomalous transactions there is gross negligence
involving the alleged when a breach of duty is
emergency repair of a flagrant and palpable. On
Nissan Pick-up wherein the other hand, simple
Beray approved the neglect of duty is "the
reimbursement of the failure of an employee or
emergency repair and official to give proper
purchases of spare parts attention to a task
of said vehicle while expected of him or her,
Tadeo charged the signifying a 'disregard of

Page 46 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

amount for the repair of a duty resulting from

service vehicle against carelessness or
Capital Outlay for Roads, indifference.'"
Bridges and Highways for
ADB-PMO Projects in
violation of Section 20 of
the General
Appropriations Act.
Similarly, Espina
improperly charged the
expenses for the
emergency repair thereof
against Capital Outlay for
Roads, Bridges and
Highways for Rural Road
Projects in violation of
Section 20 of the General
Provisions of the GAA.
The DPWH Hearing
Committee issued a
Resolution findind Beray
guilty of gross neglect of
duty and was meted the
penalty of dismissal from
service, while Espina and
Tadeo were suspended.
On appeal, the CSC
affirmed the ruling of the
DPWH Hearing
Committee and added
that Beray was also guilty
of grave misconduct. The
CA affirmed the ruling as
to Espina and Tadeo but
as regards Beray, the CA
ruled that he was only
liable for simple neglect of
duty.

The Supreme Court ruled

that Beray is guilty of
gross neglect of duty as
he miserably failed to
efficiently and effectively
discharge his functions
and obligations. His acts
of heavily depending on
his subordinates without
carefully examining the
documents presented to
him for disbursement of
funds clearly exhibit his
flagrant and culpable
unwillingness to perform
his official duties with the

Page 47 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

exactitude required of
him. As for Espina and
Tadeo, the Court holds
them liable for inefficiency
and incompetence. Their
acts of summarizing
various disbursement
vouchers into a single
ROA coupled with the
absence of supporting
documents, and the
failure to secure the
approval of the higher
authority in charging the
reimbursement of the
emergency repairs show
that they were inefficient
and incompetent in the
performance of their
functions as Accountant
III. They failed to exercise
the required extraordinary
care in handling the
accounting of public
funds.
Herrera v. Condona- DBM granted an increase Abandonment of Abandonment
Mago tion doctrine in the RATA of local chief condonation doctrine of condonation
executives, sanggunian in Carpio-Morales v. doctrine:
G.R. No. members, department CA: In political law, Carpio-Morales
231120 | heads, et. al in special election pertains to the v. Court of
January 15, cities. Sangguniang process by which a Appeals, G.R.
2020 | Bayan of Vinzons, particular constituency Nos. 217126-
Lazaro- Camarines Norte passed chooses an individual to 27, [November
Javier, J. Supplemental Budget No. hold a public office. In this 10, 2015]
21-2013 to appropriate an jurisdiction, there is,
amount for the RATA again, no legal basis to Prospective
increase. Mayor Diezno- conclude that election Application:
Ang of Vinzons, automatically implies Office of the
Camarines Norte vetoed condonation. Neither is Ombudsman v.
the appropriation of RATA there any legal basis to Vergara, G.R.
differential insofar as it say that every No. 216871,
exceeded the 45% democratic and [December 6,
statutory limitation on republican state has an 2017]
personal services inherent regime of
expenditure. This was condonation. If Grave
overridden by the condonation of an Misconduct:
Sangguniang Bayan. elective official's Fajardo v.
Former councilor Palacio, administrative liability Corral, G.R. No.
Jr. wrote petitioner for the would perhaps, be 212641, [July 5,
release of his RATA allowed in this 2017]
differential. Several jurisdiction, then the
signatories refused to same should have been
sign it and in the end it provided by law under
was only petitioner who our governing legal
signed the disbursement mechanisms. xxx Many

Page 48 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

voucher. The amount of of the cases holding that

P76,800.00 was released re-election of a public
and the four (4) former official prevents his
councilors received their removal for acts done in
RATA differential. The a preceding term of office
Sanggunaing are reasoned out on the
Panlalawigan declared theory of condonation.
inoperative the We cannot subscribe to
Supplemental Budget that theory because
based on the same condonation, implying as
ground cited by the Mayor it does forgiveness,
in vetoing the connotes knowledge and
appropriation. in the absence of
Respondents herein filed knowledge there can be
a complaint affidavit. The no condonation. One
Ombudsman found cannot forgive something
petitioner guilty of grave of which one has no
misconduct and conduct knowledge.
prejudicial to the best
interest of service, thus, Prospective application
meting on him the penalty of abandonment: It
of dismissal from the should, however, be
service with all the clarified that this Court's
accessory penalties. abandonment of the
Petitioner raised the condonation doctrine
condonation doctrine as should be prospective in
defense saying that he application for the reason
was already exonerated that judicial decisions
of the charges when he applying or interpreting
was re-elected. the laws or the
Constitution, until
The Court held that reversed, shall form part
petitioner cannot anymore of the legal system of the
availd of the condonation Philippines.
doctrine. The Court
discussed that the said Grave misconduct is
doctrine is no longer good defined as the
law when the Court transgression of some
promlgated Carpio- established and definite
Morales v CA in 2015. rule of action, more
However, as discussed in particularly, unlawful
Crebello v. Ombudsman, behavior or gross
the abandonment of the negligence by a public
doctrine should be officer coupled with the
prospectively applied and elements of corruption,
reckoned from April 12, willful intent to violate the
2016 because that was law or to disregard
the date on which this established rule
Court had acted upon and
denied with finality the
motion for
clarification/motion for
partial reconsideration in
the case of Carpio-
Morales v. CA. Thus,

Page 49 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

petitioner can no longer

avail of the condonation
doctrine because
although the complaint
below was instituted on
January 9, 2015, he got
reelected only on May 9,
2016, well within the
prospective application of
Carpio-Morales. The
Court also held that the
Office of the
Ombudsman's factual
findings are supported by
substantial evidence.
Petitioner undoubtedly
committed grave
misconduct when he
facilitated the release of
the RATA differential
despite the absence of
the mandatory requisites
prescribed by Section 344
of the LGC that "no
money shall be disbursed
unless the local budget
officer certifies to the
existence of appropriation
that has been legally
made for the purpose, the
local accountant has
obligated said
appropriation, and the
local treasurer certifies to
the availability of funds for
the purpose."
CSC v. Accountabi- Respondent took the In Bacsasar v. Civil
Rodriguez lity of public Nursing Licensure Exam Service Commission the
officers in 1988 but did not pass. Court discussed the
G.R. No. Despite this, she applied concept of good faith in
248255 | and was accepted as administrative cases,
August 27, nurse at several hospitals viz.:
2020 | in the Philippines and "Good faith is ordinarily
Lazaro- abroad. She consistently used to describe that
Javier, J. declared in her Personal state of mind denoting
Data Sheets that she took honesty of intention and
and passed the 1988 NLE freedom from knowledge
with a rating of 79.6% and of circumstances which
she possessed a valid ought to put the holder
PRC Identification Card. upon inquiry; an honest
She took the NLE in 2009 intention to abstain from
again and passed the taking any
examination. In 2014, she unconscientious
received a Show Cause advantage of another,
Order from the CSC even through

Page 50 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

Regional Office to which technicalities of law,

she failed to comply thus together with absence of
she was formally charged all information, notice, or
with serious dishonesty, benefit or belief of facts
grave misconduct, which render transaction
conduct prejudicial to the unconscientious. In
best interest of the short, good faith is
service, and falsification actually a question of
of official documents. She intention. Although this is
was found guilty by the something internal, we
CSC Regional Office. can ascertain a person's
CSC Proper affirmed with intention not from his own
modification. The CA protestation of good faith,
absolved respondent from which is self-serving, but
any administrative from evidence of his
liability. It accorded her conduct and outward
the benefit of good faith acts."
when she resigned from A person is considered in
the provincial hospital and good faith not only when
admitted that the PRC he or she has shown an
Identification Card borne honest intention. A
in her Personal Data person who acted in
Sheets for the years 1989 good faith must also be
to 2000 was fake. free from knowledge of
circumstances which
The Court reversed the ought to put him or her on
CA and held that there inquiry
was substantial evidence
to find respondent guilty Dishonesty is defined as
of serious dishonesty, "intentionally making a
grave misconduct, and false statement on any
conduct prejudicial to the material fact, or
best interest of the practicing or attempting
service. It dound that to practice any deception
respondent's claim of or fraud in securing his
good faith must fail. It examination,
found that her excuses appointment, or
and defenses were mere registration. " It is a
fiction also, it held that the serious offense which
presumption of good faith reflects a person's
did not apply when the character and exposes
employee's Certificate of the moral
Eligibility conflicts with the decay which virtually
CSC's Masterlist of destroys his honor,
Eligibles which applies in virtue, and integrity.
this case. After receiving
the PRC Identification Grave misconduct is
Card allegedly sent her by defined as the intentional
one Evelyn Sapon, wrongdoing or deliberate
respondent did not even violation of a rule of law
take steps to verify its or standard of behavior
authenticity. Per PRC attended with corruption
Masterlist, the PRC or a clear intent to violate
Identification Card which the law, or flagrant
respondent claimed as

Page 51 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

hers actually belonged to disregard of established

one Ella S. Estopo. It also rule.
found that respondent's
act of using her fake While there is no
79.6% rating in the NLE concrete definition under
constitutes serious civil service laws of
dishonesty, her act of conduct prejudicial to
practicing nursing without the best interest of the
a valid certificate of service, the following
registration constitutes acts or omissions have
grave misconduct, and been treated as such:
her acts of misappropriation of
misrepresentation, public funds;
possession of a fake PRC abandonment of office;
identification, falsification failure to report back to
of her personal data sheet work without prior notice;
to acquire employment failure to safekeep public
constitute conduct records and property;
prejudicial to the best malting false entries in
interest of the service. public documents (i.e.
PDS); falsification of
court orders; a judge's
act of brandishing a gun,
and threatening the
complainants during a
traffic altercation, among
others.
Madera v. Public office; The Municipality passed The Constitution vests 1. Lumayna v.
COA Public an ordinance granting the broadest latitude in Commission on
service; various allowances to its the COA in discharging Audit, G.R. No.
G.R. No. Mandate of officials and employees. its role as the guardian of 185001,
244128 | COA The Audit Team Leader public funds and [September 25,
September and Supervising Auditor properties. The Court has 2009]
8, 2020 | issued 11 Notices of generally sustained the
Caguioa, J. Disallowance (ND) on the COA' s decisions or 2. Maritime
ground that the grants resolutions in deference Industry
violate the Salary to its expertise in the Authority v.
Standardization Law implementation of the Commission on
(SSL), the COA Circular laws it has been Audit, G.R. No.
excluding these entrusted to enforce. 185812,
allowances from the list of Thus, the Constitution [January 13,
authorized allowances, and the Rules of Court 2015]
and the Civil Service provide the remedy of a
Commission Resolution petition for certiorari in
providing that job order order to restrict the scope
employees do not enjoy of inquiry to errors of
the same benefits as the jurisdiction or to grave
government employees. abuse of discretion
The Supreme Court amounting to lack or
upheld the NDs, holding excess of jurisdiction
that the municipality’s committed by the COA.
compensation-setting
power cannot prevail over 1. If a Notice of
the SSL. No law or Disallowance is set
administrative issuance, aside by the Court,

Page 52 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

much less the SSL, no return shall be

authorize the grant of the required from any of
subject benefits. the persons held
Petitioners disbursed the liable therein.
subject allowances in the 2. If a Notice of
honest belief that the Disallowance is
amounts given were due upheld, the rules on
to the recipients and the return are as follows:
latter accepted the same a. Approving and
with gratitude, confident certifying officers
that they richly deserve who acted in
such reward. There was good faith, in
no showing of some regular
dishonest purpose or performance of
some moral obliquity and official functions,
conscious doing of a and with the
wrong, a breach of a diligence of a
sworn duty through some good father of
motive or intent, or ill will the family are not
in the grant of these civilly liable to
benefits. There was no return.
fraud nor was there a b. Approving and
state of mind affirmatively certifying officers
operating with furtive who are clearly
design or some motive of shown to have
self-interest or ill will for acted in bad
ulterior purposes. Thus, faith, malice, or
petitioners-approving and gross negligence
certifying officers are are, pursuant to
shielded from civil liability Section 43 of the
for the disallowance Administrative
under Section 3 of the Code of 1987,
Administrative Code of solidarily liable to
1987. return only the
net disallowed
amount which,
as discussed
herein, excludes
amounts
excused under
the following
sections 2c and
2d.
c. Recipients -
whether
approving or
certifying officers
or mere passive
recipients - are
liable to return
the disallowed
amounts
respectively
received by
them, unless

Page 53 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

they are able to

show that the
amounts they
received were
genuinely given
in consideration
of services
rendered.
d. The Court may
likewise excuse
the return of
recipients based
on undue
prejudice, social
justice
considerations,
and other bona
fide exceptions
as it may
determine on a
case to case
basis.
Re: Investi- Effect of This is a motion for In criminal cases, the rule Court reversed
gation death of reconsideration on the is that the death of an its Sept 3, 2019
report on respondent Court's decision accused after conviction ruling and cited:
the alleged public regarding an but during the pendency dissenting
extortion official administrative case filed of his/her appeal shall opinion of J.
activities of against Judge Abul. Said result in the dismissal of Hernando Re:
Presiding judge ectorted large the criminal case. This Godofredo B.
Judge Abul, amounts of money from dismissal is triggered by Abul, Jr., A.M.
Jr. the detainees of the the presumption of No. RTJ-17-
Provincial Jail of Agusan innocence accorded 2486,
A.M. No. in exchange for their every accused as well as [September 3,
RTJ-17- release or dismissal of by his/her right to due 2019])
2486 | their criminal cases. The process under the
September OCA confirmed that Constitution. As the said
8, 2020 | Judge Abul indeed principles are
Hernando, J. engaged in extortion instrumental to criminal
activities. While the case as well as to civil cases,
was pending review, said these should likewise be
Judge died. The Court applied to administrative
found sufficient grounds proceedings such as the
to hold him one at bench. "Since
administratively liable for death of an accused
Misconduct and extinguishes personal
notwithstanding his death criminal liability as well as
before the resolution of pecuniary penalties
his administrative case, arising from the felony
the complaint against him when the death occurs
should not be dismissed before final judgment in
considering that he was criminal cases, the
fully afforded due process standard for an
during the investigation administrative case
stage and that the Court's should be similar or less
jurisdiction over the case punitive."

Page 54 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

survives his death.

Thus, the Court so now
The Court granted the holds that the death of
Motion for a respondent in an
Reconsideration administrative case
reversing its earlier before its final
decision. It granted the resolution is a cause
Motion first on the ground for its dismissal.
of presumption of Otherwise stated, the
innocence. Considering non-dismissal of a
that only substantial pending administrative
evidence is required in case in view of the
administrative cases, a death of the
respondent therein should respondent public
likewise be presumed servant is a
innocent if his/her death transgression of his or
preceded the finality of a her Constitutional
judgment, as in the case rights to due process
of Judge Abul who can no and presumption of
longer submit additional innocence.
evidence to support his
position due to his
passing. The presumption
of innocence in his favor
should stand precisely
because his death
preceded the
promulgation of final
judgment. Second it cited
jurisprudence wherein
upon the death or
retirement of the
respondents while their
administrative cases were
pending, only the penalty
of fine or deduction from
their benefits was
eventually imposed upon
them. The third ground
relied upon is due process
in that Judge Abul can no
longer file any motion to
question the ruling due to
his death thus he can no
longer exercise his right to
due process, nor can he
exhaust other possible
remedies available to him.
The spirit of due process
encompasses all stages
of the case, that is, from
the investigation phase
until the finality of the
decision. In other words, a
respondent public officer

Page 55 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

should be given the

opportunity to be heard
throughout the whole
proceedings. Finally, the
Court reversed its
decision on the ground of
equitable and
humanitarian reasons.
Based on this ground,
death and survivorship
benefits should be
released to Judge Abul's
heirs, as his passing
preceded the rendition of
a judgment on his
administrative case.
Bote v. San Disciplinary Bote and SPCPI had a The constitutional People v. Marti,
Pedro action legal dispute over a real limitations on the G.R. No. 81561,
Ciniplex against property, and in the exercise of the state's [January 18,
Properties public quieting of title case, the powers are found in 1991]
officers trial court rendered a Article III of the
G.R. No. decision in favor of Bote, Constitution or the Bill of
203471 | as a representative of the Rights. The Bill of Rights,
September heirs of Enano. SPCPI which guarantees
14, 2020 | alleged that before it against the taking of life,
Caguioa, J. learned of the RTC property, or liberty
decision, Bote went to the without due process
property with a group of under Section 1 is
armed men to harrass generally a limitation on
them to secure the the state's powers in
premises. Thus, SPCPI’s relation to the rights of its
security guards filed citizens. The right to due
criminal charges for process is meant to
attempted murder against protect ordinary citizens
Bote and the armed men, against arbitrary
which were later government action, but
dismissed. Bote claimed not from acts committed
that the firearm used in by private individuals or
the incident was not even entities. In the latter case,
registered under his name the specific statutes that
and he was not even provide reliefs from such
present in any of the private acts apply. The
incidents. Rolando right to due process
Salonga filed an guards against
administrative complaint unwarranted
on behalf of respondent encroachment by the
San Pedro Cineplex state into the
Properties, Inc. (SPCPI) fundamental rights of its
against Bote, then citizens and cannot be
incumbent mayor of invoked in private
General Tinio, Nueva controversies involving
Ecija, for violation of private parties.
Section 444(b)(2)(iv) of
the Local Government
Code for abuse of

Page 56 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

authority and culpable

violation of the
Constitution. The Court
ruled that Bote may no
longer be held
administrative liable for
violation of 444(b)(2)(iv)
of R.A. 7160 and abuse of
authority by reason of his
re-election. Bote, at the
time of the incident, was a
municipal mayor— a
government official but at
the time of the incident, he
was NOT acting as such,
or on behalf of or upon
authority of the State. He
was acting as private
individual or in his
personal capacity, and
the incident arose from a
private dispute between
Bote and SPCPI involving
a private property While
his wrongful acts may
give rise to criminal, civil,
and administrative
liabilities at the same
time, each must be
determined in accordance
with applicable law. Due
to this, the Bill of Rights is
inapplicable. SPCPI
cannot invoke Section 1,
Article III of the 1987
Constitution to sustain an
administrative case
against Bote. SCPCI may
find redress through a civil
or criminal suit, but not
through an administrative
one.
FFIB- The Philippine Marine In administrative cases, 1. People v.
MOLEO v. Corps (PMC) released the quantum of proof Nuñez y
Jandayan funds for the allowance of required is substantial Revilleza, G.R.
its enlisted personnel in evidence. It is such No. 177148,
G.R. No. active duty for 1999. relevant evidence which [June 30, 2009]
218155 | Checks were issued by a reasonable mind might
September way of cash advances to accept as adequate to 2. Uy v. Bureau
22, 2020 | cover these allowances support a conclusion, of Internal
Caguioa, J. and various documents even if other minds Revenue, G.R.
were subsequently equally reasonable might No. 129651,
submitted to support the conceivably opine [October 20,
liquidation of the cash differently. 2000]
advances. However,

Page 57 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

when investigations were As defined, "misconduct 3. People v.

conducted of PMC is a transgression of Canatoy, G.R.
enlisted personnel, whose some established and No. 227195,
names were listed in the definite rule of action, [July 29, 2019]
liquidation payrolls, it was more particularly,
revealed that they never unlawful behavior or 4. People v. Año
received their CCIE gross negligence by a y Remedios,
allowance. As a result of public officer. As an G.R. No.
the investigation, an administrative offense, 230070, [March
administrative and misconduct should relate 14, 2018] and
criminal affidavit- to or be connected with People v. Acabo
complaint was filed the performance of the y Ayento, G.R.
charging Jandaya and official functions and No. 241081,
several others for duties of a public officer. [February 11,
Malversation through It is considered grave 2019]
falsification of public where the elements of
documents, Dishonesty, corruption and clear
Violation of Commission intent to violate the law or
on Audit (COA) rules and flagrant disregard of
regulations, and Violation established rule are
of Section 3 (e) of R.A. present." Dishonesty has
No. 3019, by respondent been defined as "x x x
FFIB-MOLEO before the disposition to lie, cheat,
Ombudsman. The deceive, or defraud.
Ombudsman found the
petitioner and the other This Court has
accused guilty of grave repeatedly emphasized
misconduct and the time-honored rule
dishonesty, however, this that a 'public office is a
was reversed by the Court public trust and public
of Appeals. The Supreme officers and employees
Court reinstated the Order must at all times be
of the Ombudsman based accountable to the
on the fact that Jandayan people, serve them with
signed a roster of troops utmost responsibility,
and disbursement integrity, loyalty, and
voucher to support the efficiency, act with
liquidation of the cash patriotism and justice,
advance. Further, he and lead modest lives.'"
actually received the
funds even though he had
no authority to do so.
Making matters worse, he
failed to show where the
money went. His acts,
taken together with that of
his co-respondents before
the Ombudsman, show
an utter disregard of the
trust reposed in him as a
public officer and for
which he should be held
liable.

Page 58 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

CSC v. CSC; Accused-appellant The CSC's authority to 1. Civil Service

Cutao Appointment pleaded guilty to murder take appropriate action Commission v.
powers and the RTC found the on all appointments and Tinaya, G.R.
G.R. No. plea to be voluntary and other personnel actions No. 154898,
225151 | with full understanding of includes the power to [February 16,
September its consequences. Thus, it recall an appointment 2005]
30, 2020 | found accused-appellant initially approved, if later
Inting, J. guilty beyond reasonable on found to be in 2. Debulgado v.
doubt based solely on his disregard of applicable Civil Service
plea of guilty. The CA provisions of the Civil Commission,
reversed the RTC finding Service law and G.R. No.
that it failed to comply with regulations. 111471,
the conduct of searching [September 26,
inquiry into accused- The recall or invalidation 1994]
appellant's voluntariness of an appointment does
and full comprehension of not require a full-blown,
the consequences of his trial-type proceeding. In
plea as required under approving or
Sec. 3, Rule 116. Also, disapproving an
the CA observed that the appointment, the CSC
prosecution's evidence only examines the
was insufficient to sustain conformity of the
a judgment of conviction appointment with
independent of the plea of applicable provisions of
guilty and noted that the law and whether the
prosecution did not appointee possesses all
present any evidence. the minimum
Thus, it remanded the qualifications and none of
case to the RTC. the disqualifications."
Thus, in contrast to
The Supreme Court set administrative
aside the CA's order of disciplinary actions, a
remand and held that the recall does not require
acquittal of accused- notice and hearing.
appellant is in order. The
trial court failed miserably The essence of due
to comply with the duties process is the right to be
imposed by the 2000 heard. Thus, a party can
Revised Rules. The Court be accorded due process
ruled that it cannot sustain through means other
the conviction since there than a notice or hearing.
is nothing in the records
that would show the guilt
of accused-appellant. The
plea of guilty of an
accused cannot stand in
place of the evidence that
must be presented. Here,
despite being given the
opportunity to present
evidence, the prosecution
failed to do so. The Court
also ruled that if the case
were to be remanded, it
would result in delay in the

Page 59 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

disposition of the instant

case and would be
prejudicial to accused-
appellant. He has been in
jail since 2009 and he will
continue to be
incarcerated during the
period of the re-trial. At
this point in time,
accused-appellant has
been incarcerated for
more or less eleven (11)
years. To require that he
undergo re-trial, when the
failure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt was
through no fault of his, is
unreasonably oppressive.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
CASE SUB-TOPIC SUMMARY DOCTRINE CASES CITED
Sto. Tomas, VRHAI denied the request As a general rule, the
et al and of respondents extent to which an
Vermont (homeowners’ association administrative agency
Royale members) for a clearance may exercise its powers
Home- required for the issuance depends largely, if not
owners of a building permit for the wholly, on the provisions
Association, construction of a duplex in of the statute creating or
Inc. (VRHAI) view of the Construction empowering such
v. Del Valle Rules and Regulations of agency.
VRHAI. Respondents
G.R. No. secured a building permit Statutes conferring
223637 | despite absence of a powers on administrative
August 28, clearance, but VRHAI still agencies must be
2019 | Inting, refused to issue a liberally construed to
J. clearance. Respondents enable them to
filed a complaint. The discharge their assigned
House and Land Use duties in accordance
Arbiter ordered the with the legislative
issuance of the necessary purpose. In addition, it is
permits and clearances settled in jurisprudence
and the payment of moral that when an
and exemplary damages administrative agency or
and attorney’s fees in body is conferred quasi-
favor of respondents. judicial functions, all
VRHAI appealed, arguing controversies relating to
that HLURB had no the subject matter
jurisdiction to order the pertaining to its
award of damages in specialization are
intra-association deemed to be included
controversies. On the within the jurisdiction of
other hand, respondents said administrative
argued that RA 9904 agency or body. Split
confirms HLURB’s

Page 60 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

jurisdiction to award jurisdiction is not

damages and attorney’s favored.
fees as an incident of its
principal power to hear
and resolve intra-
association controversies.
CA affirmed HLURB,
ruling that VRHAI violated
respondents' property
rights when it passed a
resolution to enforce the
restriction against the
construction of duplexes
after respondents were
issued a building permit.

The Court held that

HLURB had jurisdiction.
The present case is an
intra-association dispute,
since the complaint was
filed by respondents as
homeowners' association
members against VRHAI,
its officers and board
members. Thus, the
proper construction of RA
9904 (Magna Carta for
Homeowners and
Homeowners'
Associations) must be
resolved. RA 9904
provides that HLURB has
the power to hear and
decide intra-association
controversies without
prejudice to filing civil and
criminal cases before
regular courts. These
cases refer to actions
cognizable by regular
courts which arise from
the same act complained
of, but not incidental to,
the main case brought
before HLURB. In this
case, the claim for moral
and exemplary damages
and attorney’s fees is
purely an incident to the
principal relief sought.
Thus, respondents need
not file a separate civil
action for damages.

Page 61 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

Martinez Mayor Martinez entered The Constitution Palao v.

and into a MOA with Sikap guarantees under Florentino III
Minguez v. Yaman, an NGO created Section 16, Article III the International,
People to implement the projects right to the speedy Inc., G.R. No.
of the Dept of Agriculture. disposition of cases. To 186967,
G.R. No. This was done allegedly accord with such right, [January 18,
232574 | without a resolution from Section 12, Article XI of 2017]
October 1, the Sangguniang Bayan the Constitution
2019 | authorizing the Mayor to mandates the Office of
Bersamin, J. do so. The Ombudsman the Ombudsman to act
filed criminal and promptly on complaints
administrative complaints filed before it in any form
against him. Petitioners or manner.
filed their counter-
affidavits, submitting the The Court has adopted
MOA, and the required the "balancing test" to
Sangguniang Bayan the effect that, in
Resolution giving him determining the
authority and accrediting existence of inordinate
Sikap Yaman. Almost 5 delay, the courts
years later, Ombudsman consider the presence of
filed an information with the following factors,
Sandiganbayan for namely; (1) the length of
violation of Sec. 3(e), RA delay; (2) the reason for
3019. Petitioners moved delay; (3) the
to quash information, defendant's assertion or
given the inordinate delay non- assertion of his or
in the disposition of the her right; and (4) the
complaints. SB denied the prejudice to the
motion, holding that the defendant as a result of
circumstances justified the delay.
the length of time
conducting the
preliminary investigation.

Here, petitioners assert

that they have been
prejudiced by the delay
and were made to answer
to a new accusation
without prior notice, after
they answered the
charges against them. On
the other hand, the
Ombudsman argues that
it had to investigate the
present case in
conjunction with other
Fertilizer Fund scam
cases, justifying the
almost 5 years spent
conducting preliminary
investigation.

The Court held that the

Page 62 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

complaint against
petitioners should be
dismissed. From the time
petitioners were ordered
to submit their counter-
affidavit, it took the
Ombudsman almost 5
years to file the
corresponding
informations. There was
inordinate delay and the
Ombudsman did not
justify the prolonged
conduct of preliminary
investigation, to the
prejudice of petitioners.
On the Fertilizer Fund
scam cases, these did not
justify the long period
because there was no
allegation that petitioners
conspired with those
involved in those other
cases.

Also, Ombudsman added

another accusation
without prior notice. The
complaint alleged only the
absence of the MOA and
Sanngguniang Bayan
resolution and that Sikap
Yaman was not a qualified
NGO. Then, petitioners
timely submitted the
MOA, resolution, and
accreditation and
asserted their right to a
speedy disposition. They
had reasonable basis to
believe they were cleared
of the accusaiton, but
instead, the Ombudsman
added their supposed
failure to monitor the use
of funds by Sikap Yaman,
when petitioners were no
longer in a position to
adequately prepare their
defense.
National Powers of Cable Link filed four 1. On the one hand, a 1. Bankers
Telecommu- administra- applications for the purely administrative Association of
nications tive issuance of certificates of proceeding is one the Philippines.
Commis- agencies; authority to install, which does not v. Commission
sion v. Adjudicatory operate and maintain involve the settling of on Elections,

Page 63 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

Brancomm power; CATV systems in several disputes involving G.R. No. 206794
Cable and Administra- areas. During hearing, conflicting rights and (Resolution),
Television tive due Brancomm opposed obligations. It is [November 26,
Network Co. process Cable Link's presentation merely concerned 2013]
of evidence, arguing it with either: (a) the
G.R. No. was not furnished with direct 2. Association of
204487 | copies of Cable Link's implementation of Medical Clinics
December 5, applications and required laws to certain given for Overseas
2019 | annexes. NTC hearing facts as a Workers, Inc. v.
Reyes, Jr., J. officer proceeded with the consequence of GCC Approved
hearing instead of regulation; or (b) an Medical Centers
resetting it, but Cable Link undertaking to Association,
then furnished Brancomm gather facts needed Inc., G.R. Nos.
a copy of its application. to pursue a further 207132 &
Brancomm filed its legal action or 207205,
Opposition, seeking for remedy in the case [December 6,
the dismissal of the of investigation. In 2016]
applications on the other words, it does
ground that the one who not make binding
signed the verification and pronouncements as
certification of non forum to a party's rights
shopping was not shown and/or obligations as
to have been expressly a result of a conflict
authorized to do so, and or controversy
that its right to due whether legal or
process was violated for factual.
failure of Cable Link to
furnish Brancomm with On the other hand, a
copies of the affidavits of quasi-judicial
its witnesses three days proceeding is the
before the scheduled power to hear and
hearing. NTC denied the determine questions
Opposition, holding that of fact to which the
Cable Link cured the legislative policy is to
defects and Brancomm apply, and to decide
was not denied due in accordance with
process. CA annulled the standards laid
NTC's order, holding that down by the law
NTC cannot excuse Cable itself in enforcing
Link's failure to submit and administering
verifications and the same law. It
certifications and NTC involves: (a) taking
abused its discretion and evaluating
when it went ahead to evidence; (b)
hear Cable Link's determining facts
applications even if based upon the
Brancomm was not evidence presented;
furnished a copy of the and (c) rendering an
application in advance. order or decision
SC reversed CA and ruled supported by the
that Brancomm's right to facts proved. In
due process was not other words, it
violated since it failed to involves a
demonstrate any determination, with
legitimate claim of respect to the matter

Page 64 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

entitlement, especially its in controversy, of

interest to maintain its what the law is; what
monopoly in providing the legal rights and
CATV services in the obligations of the
areas covered. contending parties
are; and based
thereon and the
facts obtaining, the
adjudication of the
respective rights and
obligations of the
parties.

2. The Due Process

Clause is set in
motion only when
there is actual or a
risk of an impending
deprivation of life,
liberty or property. In
the case of
"property", it has
been commonly
understood to
include interests
therein which pertain
to some form of
benefit enjoyed by
owners. Thus, to
have a "property
interest" in a benefit,
a person or entity
must clearly have a
legitimate claim of
entitlement to it
which is more than
an abstract need,
desire or unilateral
expectation.

3. A license does not

vest absolute rights
to the holder and
there is no such
thing as a vested
right to expectation
of future profits
which can be gained
from possession of a
franchise.
Montene- Atty. Montenegro’s Extension of service
gro v. appointment as hearing beyond the compulsory
Commis- officer of the Central retirement age is
sion on Board of Assessment allowed, albeit subject to
Audit Appeals was indefinitely the approval of the CSC.

Page 65 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

extended in a holdover In the absence of a CSC

G.R. No. capacity. The COA, resolution for extension
218544 | however, issued a notice of service, an employee
June 2, 2020 of disallowance for Atty. who is allowed to
| Inting, J. Montenegro’s salaries perform the duties of the
and other benefits. The position shall make the
issue here is whether or official responsible for
not he is entitled to the the continued service of
salary, emoluments, and the employee liable for
benefits as a hearing the salaries. The SC
officer of the CBAA by partially granted the
reason of the extension of petition.
his appointment in a A fortiori, in the interest
holdover capacity, beyond of substantial justice and
his compulsory equity, the principle of
retirement. quantum meruit should
benefit Atty. Montenegro
for the actual services
which he rendered. To
deny Atty. Montenegro
the compensation for the
services which he
rendered during the
period of his
engagement would be
tantamount to injustice
which the Court cannot
countenance.
Veritably, the appointing
authority, Gutierrez and
the other officials found
liable by the COA who
authorized the
disbursement of the
salaries, emoluments,
and benefits to Atty.
Montenegro for the
services actually
rendered by the latter
despite noncompliance
with Civil Service Rules
should be held
accountable for the
amount covered in ND
No. 2005-025. Atty.
Montenegro was not
held liable.

Page 66 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

ELECTION LAW
CASE SUB-TOPIC SUMMARY DOCTRINE CASES CITED
Tallado v. Succession Petitioner was the duly A dismissal based on the Latasa v.
Commis- of Elective elected governor of the OMB’s decision and Commission on
sion on Officials province of Camarines enforced by the DILG Elections, G.R.
Elections Norte in 2010, 2013, and produces the same effect No. 154829,
2016 elections. In 2015, with a dismissal based [December 10,
G.R. No. several persons initiated on and pursuant to a 2003]
246679 | a case before the decision that was already
September Ombudsman (OMB) final — the ouster of the
10, 2019 | against petitioner. In official from his title to the
Bersamin, 2016, the OMB found office. Hence, an
C.J. petitioner guilty of grave interruption to the three-
misconduct and term limit rule.
oppression/abuse of
authority and ordered his Section 56(a) of the 2017
dismissal from the Rules on Administrative
service. The petitioner Cases in the Civil Service
appealed the decision of (2017 RACCS) imposes
the OMB before the CA. this effect of dismissal as
Regardless of the the "permanent
appeal, the DILG separation" of the guilty
implemented the OMB civil servant from his or
decision and issued a her title to the office. The
memorandum for the OMB decisions did not
assumption of the Vice state any conditions
Governor as the whatsoever. As such, he
Governor of the was dismissed for all
province. On appeal, the intents and purposes of
CA issued a TRO the law in the periods that
enjoining the DILG from he was dismissed from
implementing or office even if he had
continuously appealed. In that status,
implementing the he ceased to hold the title
decision of the OMB. to the office in the fullest
Another case was sense.
lodged before the OMB
against the petitioner for The developments in the
violating another OMB appeals did not change
decision by re-assuming the fact that the petitioner
office without having fully lost title to the office. As
served his suspension. aptly put in Latasa v.
The OMB rendered COMELEC, the
another decision finding interruption, to be
petitioner guilty of grave considered as
misconduct and ordering interruption of the term,
his dismissal from the "contemplates a rest
service. The petitioner period during which the
again appealed the local elective official
same to the CA. The CA, steps down from office
in return, modified the and ceases to exercise
penalty from dismissal to power or authority over
6-month suspension. In the inhabitants of the
2018, petitioner filed his territorial jurisdiction of a
Certificate of Candidacy particular local

Page 67 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

(COC) for Governor of government unit."

Camarines Norte. This Conformably with said
prompted several ruling, the period during
individuals to file a which the petitioner was
petition for the not serving as Governor
cancellation of the should be considered as
petitioner’s COC by a rest period or break in
invoking the three-term his service because he
limit rule. The had then ceased to
COMELEC First Division exercise power or
granted the petitions on authority over the people
the ground that the of the province. As such,
petitioner had fully petitioner did not fully
served three serve his entire third term
consecutive terms even if his re-assumption
considering that his to office subsequently
suspension and occurred.
dismissals from the
service were not
interruptions of his term
because he had not
thereby lost title to the
office; that the OMB's
decisions ordering his
dismissals were not yet
final; and that there had
been no permanent
vacancy and no
succession in
accordance with Section
44 of the LGC. The
COMELEC En Banc
upheld the decision. The
Supreme Court reversed
the COMELEC En
Banc’s decision and
ruled that the DILG's
execution of the OMB
decisions for the
petitioner's dismissal
clearly constituted loss of
the petitioner's title to the
office; that the dismissals
were involuntary
interruptions in the
petitioner's 2016-2019
term; and that he cannot
be considered to have
fully served a third
successive term of
office.
Marcos, Jr. Election Bongbong Marcos is The objectives of the Department of
v. Robredo contest before the Presidential process of revision of Agriculture v.
Electoral Tribunal ballots are: (1) to verify National Labor
challenging the election the physical count of the Relations

Page 68 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

P.E.T. Case and proclmation of VP ballots; (2) to recount the Commission,

No. 005 | Leni in the May 9, 2016 votes of the parties; (3) to G.R. No.
October 15, National and Local record the parties' 104269,
2019 | Per elections. The protest objections and claims [November 11,
curiam was grounded on 2 thereon; and ( 4) to 1993]
causes of action: (1) that accordingly mark such
the Certificates of ballots which were
Canvass are not objected to. In other
authentic, and (2) there words, the main purpose
was massive electoral of the revision
fraud, anomalies, and proceeding is to conduct
irregularities in the a physical recount of the
conduct of the elections ballots and provide the
and results. Protestant parties with an
averred that if not for the opportunity to register
attendance of electoral their objections and
fraud, anomalies, or claims thereon, the
irregularities in the validity of which will later
protested clustered be ruled upon by the
precincts, he would have Tribunal during the
received the highest appreciation stage.
number of votes and
emerged as the winning Revision of ballots
candidate. involved the following
process: first, prior to
The Tribunal categorized the actual recount of the
protestant's causes of votes of the parties, the
action into three: The HRs were required to
proclamation of authenticate the ballots
protestee Robredo as to ensure their
the duly elected Vice genuineness, ensuring
President is null and void that the ballots contained
because the COCs all the security features
generated by the CCS of the official ballots and
are not authentic; using ultraviolet lamps
Revision and recount of which could detect the
the paper ballots and/or hidden security marks;
the ballot images as well second, such HRs
as an examination, segregated the ballots
verification, and analysis which were read by the
of the voter's receipts, VCMs into four ( 4)
election returns, audit categories: (1) Ballots for
logs, transmission logs, Protestant; (2) Ballots for
the lists of voters, etc; Protestee; (3) Ballots for
Annulment of election Other Candidates; and
results for the position of (4) Ballots with Stray
Vice President in the Votes (ballots with no
provinces of votes or those with more
Maguindanao, Lanao del than one (1) vote for the
Sur and Basi/an, on the Vice President position);
ground of terrorism; third, the revisors for
intimidation and protestant and protestee
harassment of voters as registered their
well as pre-shading of respective objections to
ballots. It dismissed the the Ballots for Protestee

Page 69 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

first cause of action for and Ballots for

judicial economy and Protestant, respectively;
prompt disposition of the fourth, both Party
case. As to the second Revisors registered their
and third causes of claims on the Ballots for
action, the tribunal Other Candidates and
partially granted the Ballots with Stray Votes;
retrieval of ballot boxes fifth, both Party Revisors
and election documents, registered their claims on
decryption of ballot ballots that were rejected
images, and revision of by the VCMs and were
ballots for several pilot not thus included in the
provinces. Protestee ballot segregation, if any;
also challenged the and lastly, each RC
standard used in the recorded all relevant
revision process but this data, including the
was dismissed by the results of their revision, in
tribunal. Protestant also a Revision Report signed
filed a motion to inhibit by all three (3) members
against Justice Caguioa and to which the claims
but this was unanimously and objections of the
denied by the Tribunal. Party Revisors were
annexed for subsequent
In the course of the ruling by the Tribunal
revision, the Tribunal during the appreciation
observed that the paper stage.
ballots in several
clustered precincts were In applying the doctrine
wet and unreadable, or of operative fact, courts
their integrity was ought to examine with
compromised such that it particularity the effects of
rendered revision using the already
paper ballots impossible. accomplished acts
The Tribunal directed the arising from the
use of decrypted ballot unconstitutional statute,
images but for 3 and determine, on the
precincts, they were basis of equity and fair
unable to provide the play, if such effects
ballot images thus they should be allowed to
were exlcuded from the stand. It should not
pilot provinces. Based on operate to give any
the final tally after unwarranted advantage
revision and to parties, but merely
appreciation of the votes seeks to protect those
in the pilot provinces, who, in good faith, relied
protestee Robredo on the invalid law.
increased her lead with
14,436,337 votes over
protestant Marcos who
obtained 14,157,771
votes. After the revision
and appreciation, the
lead of protestee
Robredo increased from
263,473 to 278,566.

Page 70 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

Before the Tribunal

proceeds to make a
ruling on the effects of
the results of the revision
and appreciation of the
votes for the pilot
provinces on the
Protestant's Second
Cause of Action, the
Parties will be required to
submit their position
stating their factual and
legal basis. Likewise, the
Tribunal deems it
essential to meet due
process requirements to
require protestant and
protestee to now provide
their position in relation
to the Third Cause of
Action.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
CASE SUB-TOPIC SUMMARY DOCTRINE CASES CITED
City of Powers of The City of Manila The power of eminent Beluso v.
Manila v. Local attempted to acquire the domain delegated to the Municipality of
Prieto Government subject lots of the private local government unit is, Panay (Capiz),
Units; respondents. The private in reality, not eminent but G.R. No.
G.R. No. Eminent respondents refused to inferior since it must 153974, [August
221366 | Domain accept on the ground conform to the limits 7, 2006]
July 8, 2019 that their respective imposed by the principal.
| Reyes, Jr., properties are worth
J. more than the amount The following requisites
offered. The City of must concur for a valid
Manila filed a complaint exercise of eminent
before the RTC, domain by a local
asserting its authority to government unit: (1) an
expropriate the subject ordinance is enacted by
lots for its project: Land- the local legislative
For-The-Landless- council authorizing the
Program. The RTC local chief executive, in
concluded that all the behalf of the local
requisites for the local government unit, to
government's exercise of exercise the power of
the power of eminent eminent domain or
domain have been met: pursue expropriation
there was an ordinance proceedings over a
passed by the City particular private
Council; the subject lots property; (2) the power of
were for public use, eminent domain is
since these were exercised for public use,
intended to be used for purpose or welfare, or for
the City’s project; the the benefit of the poor
City made definite and and the landless; (3)
formal offers to acquire there is payment of just

Page 71 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

the subject lots before compensation, as

filing a complaint; and required under Section
despite “privately-owned 9, Article III of the
lands” being last in the Constitution, and other
list under Sec. 9 of RA pertinent laws; and (4) a
7279, the instant case valid and definite offer
falls under the exception has been previously
that it is an on-site made to the owner of the
development program property sought to be
which is the most expropriated, but said
practicable and offer was not accepted.
advantageous for the Specific to socialized
beneficiaries. On appeal, housing, compliance
the CA reversed the with the following are
decision of the RTC. The mandatory: (1) the order
CA found the records of priority in acquiring
wanting of any evidence land for socialized
to support the claim of housing; and (2) the
on-site development resort to expropriation
program and the City proceedings as a means
failed to exhaust other of acquiring it (Sec. 9
modes of acquisition and 10 of RA 7279).
under Sec. 10 of RA
7279. The CA also found
that the intended
beneficiaries of the City’s
program are not
“underprivileged and
homeless” since they
have money to buy the
properties they are
currently occupying. The
SC upheld the decision
of the CA. The SC ruled
that the City of Manila
failed to comply with
Sec. 9 of RA 7279 for
failing to follow the order
of priority in acquiring
land for socialized
housing and with Sec. 10
for not renegotiating after
the first denial of the offer
price by the private
respondents. The SC
also echoed the ruling of
the CA that no evidence
was presented to prove
that the prospective
beneficiaries are
“underprivileged and
homeless”.
Municipality Legislative Municipality of Tupi Section 59 of Local Commissioner
of Tupi v. power; enacted an ordinance Government Code of Internal
Faustino Requisites for prescribing speed limits states that there should Revenue v. San

Page 72 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

valid for vehicles traversing be a posting of an Roque Power

G.R. No. ordinance; the national highway ordinance or resolution Corp., G.R. Nos.
231896 | Publication from Crossing in the bulletin board at 187485, 196113
August 20, requirement Polonuling to Crossing the entrance of the & 197156
2019 | Acmonan and Crossing municipal hall in at least (Resolution),
Lazaro- Acmonan to Crossing two conspicuous places [October 8,
Javier, J. Cebuano. The said in the local government 2013]
ordinance prescribes unit not later than 5 days
penalties for violations. thereof.
Atty Faustino was
flagged down for over Gist of all ordinances
speeding in the said with penal sanctions
national highway. shall be published in a
Faustino then contended newspaper of general
that the said ordinance is circulation in the
unconstitutional because province where the local
it was not published in a legislative body belongs.
newspaper of general
circulation in violation of Citing CIR v. San Roque
the due process clause, Power, the Operative
LGC, Tax Code and RA fact doctrine means
4136 or the Land that a "judicial
Transportation and declaration of invalidity
Traffic Code. The may not necessarily
Municipality petitioned obliterate all the effects
that as to the publication and consequences of a
issue, the trial court ruled void act prior to such
that it is presumed to be declaration." This is an
valid. exception to the general
rule that a void law
The Court held that cannot be a source of
because the Ordinance legal rights and duties.
did not comply with the
publication requirement, It can only apply if:
it did not become (1) There is a reliance
effective, much less, by the public in good
enforceable. faith on the void law.
[CIR v. San Roque
The Court also held that Power]
the fine returned to all (2) Nullification of the
penalized on the basis of effects of what used
operative doctrine shall to be valid law would
not apply because (1) result in inequity and
the parties did not raise injustice. [Araullo v.
such issue and (2) there Aquino]
was no reliance by the
public in good faith with Furthermore, the
the Municipal Ordinance. operative fact doctrine
should be raised by any
The Court affirmed the party at the lower courts.
decision of the RTC with
modification, deleting the
refund all fines collected
from motorists except for
the respondent.

Page 73 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

CASE SUB-TOPIC SUMMARY DOCTRINE CASES CITED
Manila Treaties; MIAA and the Aeroports A loan agreement Abaya v.
Internatio- Executive de Paris-Japan Airport executed in conjunction Ebdane, Jr.,
nal Airport Agreement Consultants, Inc. with an exchange of G.R. No.
Authority v. Consortium entered into notes between the 167919,
Commis- an Agreement for Republic of the [February 14,
sion on Consulting Services for Philippines and a foreign 2007]
Audit the NAIA Terminal 2 government shall be
Development Project. governed by
G.R. No. However, the duration of international law, with the
218388 | the services was rule on pacta sunt
October 15, extended and the servanda as the guiding
2019 | number of man-months principle. Any
Bersamin, J. increased which led to subsequent agreement
three more adjunct to the loan
Supplemental agreement shall be
Agreements between similarly governed.
the parties and increase
in cost of services. The
Commission on Audit
found the cost excessive
because the NEDA
Guidelines prescribe
only a 5% ceiling for
payments charged to
contingency. Petitioner
argues that the COA
gravely abused its
discretion, the
Agreement for
Consulting Services was
financed by Loan
Agreement No. PH-136
executed by and
between the
Government of the
Philippines and the
Overseas Economic
Cooperation Fund
(OECF), the
implementing agency for
loan aid of the Japanese
Government thus it was
equivalent to an
executive agreement. As
an executive agreement,
the loan agreement
should control the
determination of
payments charged to
contingency.

The Court reversed the

COA decision and held

Page 74 of 75
U.P LAW BOC POLITICAL LAW

that the guidelines don't

govern since the loan
agreement, being an
accessory to the
exchange of notes
between Japan and
Philippines, is an
executive agreement.
This is in consonance
with the ruling in Abaya
v. Ebdane. Thus,
international law should
apply in the
implementation and
construction of the terms
and conditions of the
loan agreement. The
other contracts must also
be governed by
international law as
these were only
accessories to the loan
agreement. The Court
also found that in
revising the estimated
man-months and total
cost of services, the
parties intended to
charge all additional
man-months to the total
cost of services, not
against the contingency.
Hence, only the extra
man-months in excess of
what had been finally
agreed upon, and the
unforeseen expenditures
incurred by the parties in
connection with the
project should be
charged against the
contingency.

Page 75 of 75