POLITICAL LAW 1

1. Central Bay and Phil Reclamation Bay, as an assignor, is qualified by

Authority (PRA) entered into a Joint law to exercise ownership of the
Venture Agreement (JVA), which land and transfer it to another
the Court later declared as void ab party. Thus, in the same vein, the
initio for being contrary to Sec 3 Art Compromise Agreement allowing
XII of the Constitution, which Central Bay to assign the reclaimed
prohibits private corporations from land is void. (Central Bay
acquiring any kind of alienable land Reclamation and Development
of public domain, except through a Corp. v. COA, GR No. 252940, April
lease. The Court held, however, 5, 2022, J. M. Lopez)
that Central Bay was not precluded
from recovering from PRA any cost 2. PDP-Laban questioned the validity
it might have incurred pursuant to of the COMELEC En Banc Resolution
the JVA before it was declared void. extending the deadline for the
Accordingly, Central Bay entered submission of the Statements of
into a Compromise Agreement with Contributions and Expenditures,
the PRA where the latter agreed to arguing that the extension is a
transfer parts of reclaimed land to violation of Sec 14 of RA 7166,
Central Bay’s qualified assignee, which provide that every candidate
which was defined to be a Filipino and treasurer of the political party
citizen qualified to own reclaimed shall, within thirty (30) days
lands, to pay for the cost which after the day of the election, file
Central Bay incurred. The PRA shall their SOCEs, and that no person
transfer the ownership of the land elected to any public office shall
upon approval of the Compromise enter upon the duties of his office
Agreement by the Commission on until he has filed the same.
Audit (COA). The COA, however, Failure to file the SOCEs shall
disapproved the Compromise constitute administrative liability
Agreement, claiming that it is a which may lead to perpetual
circumvention of Sec 3 Art XII of disqualification to hold public office.
the Constitution.
Q: Is the deadline for the filing
Q: Is the Compromise of the SOCEs extendable?
Agreement violative Sec 3 Art Should the Resolution be found
XII of the Constitution? invalid, should the candidates
who filed their SOCEs within
ANSWER the extended deadline be
Yes. Sec 3, Art XII of the 1987 administratively liable?
Constitution provides that private
corporations "may not hold such ANSWER
alienable lands of the public domain No. The Court has held that the
except by lease, for a period not word "shall" implies that the statute
exceeding twenty-five years, imposes a duty that may be
renewable for not more than enforced, particularly if public policy
twenty-five years, and not to favors this meaning or where the
exceed one thousand hectares in public interest is involved. In said
area." Here, the Compromise case, the Court held that the word
Agreement obliged PRA to transfer "shall" in the first sentence of
the reclaimed land to Central Bay's Section 14 of RA No. 7166 which
qualified assignee. Yet, this scheme requires the filing of SOCEs is
grants Central Bay beneficial mandatory. Corollarily, the
ownership or equitable title. Central mandatory nature of the word

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 2

"shall" extends to the observance of restrained by the strict and fixed

the 30-day filing period. Otherwise, application of the formulas set by
the phrase "within thirty (30) days DAR issuances. The courts may
after the day of elections" becomes relax the application of the factors
useless and meaningless. under Section 17 of RA No. 6657
Nevertheless, equity and fair play and the DAR formulas if warranted
call for the application of the by the circumstances of the case,
doctrine of operative fact which provided that they explain such
recognizes the effects of the law or deviation. Ultimately, "the 'justness'
executive issuance prior to its of the enumeration of valuation
invalidation when relied upon by factors in Section 17, the 'justness'
the public in good faith. Applying of using the basic or alternative
the doctrine of operative fact, the DAR formula, and the 'justness' of
SOCEs submitted within the the components that flow into such
extended deadline set under formulas, as well as their weights,
COMELEC Resolution are deemed are all matters for the courts to
timely filed. Hence, the candidates decide." Hence, the CA incorrectly
shall not be held administratively valued the just compensation by
liable. (PDP-Laban v. COMELEC, GR simply relying in the DAR AO
No. 225152, October 5,2021, J. M. formula. (DBP v. LBP, GR No.
Lopez) 229274, June 16, 2021, J. M.
Lopez)
3. A 1,567-sq.m. portion of the land
which was acquired by DBP was 4. The NPC Board of Directors and
placed under the Comprehensive President approved a Performance
Agrarian Reform Act (CARP). In Incentive Bonus (PIB) amounting to
determining just compensation, the five and a half month’s salary for
DBP argues that the property various NPC employees. However,
should be valued at P2,100/sqm the PIB was later disallowed via a
using the Market Data Approach. Notice of Disallowance (ND) by the
The CA, however, ruled that the COA for not having prior approval
property should be valued at from the President pursuant to Sec
P18.85/sqm pursuant to DAR AO 3 of AO No. 103, and for being
No. 5-98. extravagant. The NPC maintains,
however, that the PIB did not
Q: Is the CA correct in valuing violate AO No. 103 as its grant was
just compensation at authorized by the President through
P18.85/sqm? MO No. 198 and/or through the
NPC Board who were his alter egos,
ANSWER considering that the NPC Board is
No. Sec 17 of RA 6657 (CARP Law) comprised of cabinet secretaries.
provides that “In determining just Was the approval of the PIB
compensation, the cost of justified?
acquisition of the land, the current
value of like properties, its nature, ANSWER
actual use and income, the sworn No. MO No. 198 cannot be invoked
valuation by the owner, the tax as the required presidential
declarations, and the assessment approval for the grant of the 2009
made by the government assessors PIB because the approved NPC
shall be considered. xx”. While Compensation Plan, wherein such
ushered by the standards set by the "pay for performance" was
law and rules, courts cannot be incorporated, was meant to be

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 3

implemented over a four-year position. For his defense, Estacio

period starting from its effectivity in countered that the Ombudsman
1994. Further, in the recent case of has no jurisdiction over him as he is
National Power Corporation Board not a public officer. He explained
of Directors v. Commission on that while the IRC was sequestered
Audit, the Court distinguished the by the government and is being
department secretaries' functions supervised by the PCGG, it remains
as cabinet members and those a private corporation. Also, his
performed in ex officio capacity, in designation as Vice-President of
relation to the alter ego doctrine or IRC does not require the President's
the doctrine of qualified political approval since he was not a PCGG-
agency: “The doctrine of qualified nominated director.
political agency could not be
extended to the acts of the Board of Q: Is Estacio considered as a
Directors of TIDCORP despite some public officer? Is he triable
of its members being themselves before the Ombudsman?
the appointees of the President to
the Cabinet. x x x Such Cabinet ANSWER
members sat on the Board of Yes. In Javier v. Sandiganbayan, it
Directors of TIDCORP ex officio, or was held that persons from the
by reason of their office or function, private sector who are invested
not because of their direct with some portion of the sovereign
appointment to the Board by the functions of the government, to be
President. Evidently, it was the exercised by them for the benefit of
law, not the President, that sat the public, are public officers. As in
them in the Board.” (NPC Board Javier, Estacio was appointed by
of Directors v. COA, GR No. 218052, the President of the Philippines as a
January 26, 2021, J. M. Lopez) public officer. Then President
Macapagal-Arroyo wrote a letter
5. Estacio was elected as member of addressed to former PCGG
the board of directors of Chairman Camilo Sabio expressing
Independent Realty Corporation her desire for Estacio to be elected
Group of Companies (IRC), as member of the IRC board of
composed of various corporations directors. Further, Sec 15(1) of RA
surrendered by former Marcos No. 6770, specifically states the
crony to the government, and Ombudsman's authority to
presently supervised by the PCGG. investigate and prosecute criminal
Even after the expiration of his cases, thus: SEC. 15. Powers,
term, Estacio sat in the IRC board Functions and Duties. — The Office
until December 2010, and served as of the Ombudsman shall have the
concurrent Vice-President in mid- following powers, functions and
2010. Prior to the expiration of his duties: (1) Investigate and
term, Estacio and the other IRC prosecute on its own or on
board of directors, passed complaint by any person, any act
Resolution No. 2010-05-181 dated or omission of any public
May 21, 2010, which granted officer or employee, office or
separation benefits to IRC officers. agency, when such act or omission
Quioge, IRC's General Manager, appears to be illegal, unjust,
filed a complaint before the improper or inefficient. It has
Ombudsman, questioning Estacio’s primary jurisdiction over cases
receipt of emoluments and his cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
holding of the vice-president and, in the exercise of this primary

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 4

jurisdiction, it may take over, at any routine inspection by government

stage, from any investigatory agents or private security personnel
agency of Government, the as though the person boarded the
investigation of such cases. As an bus at the terminal. Third, a bus can
independent constitutional body, be flagged down at designated
the power of the Ombudsman to military or police checkpoints where
investigate is plenary and State agents can board the vehicle
unqualified such that it has full for a routine inspection of the
discretion to determine whether a passengers and their bags or
criminal case should be filed or not luggages. Further, the following
based on the attendant facts and conditions must likewise be present
circumstances of each case. to qualify as a valid reasonable
(Quiogue v. Estacio Jr., GR No. search: First, as to the manner of
218530, January 13, 2021, J. M. the search, it must be the least
Lopez) intrusive and must uphold the
dignity of the person or persons
6. Arturo was charged for violation of being searched, minimizing, if not
the gun ban after it was alleged that altogether eradicating, any cause
he was found to be illegally in for public embarrassment,
possession of a gun during the humiliation or ridicule. Second,
period of gun ban while he was on neither can the search result from
board a Ceres bus in Aklan. Arturo any discriminatory motive such as
however, claims that the conduct of insidious profiling, stereotyping and
the checkpoint was illegal, and that other similar motives. Third, as to
it was irregularly done because the the purpose of the search, it must
police officers failed to put up the be confined to ensuring public
necessary signage and warning to safety. Fourth, as to the evidence
the public. Was the checkpoint seized from the reasonable search,
violative of the Constitutional courts must be convinced that
guarantee against illegal arrest, precautionary measures were in
search, and seizure under Sec 2 Art place to ensure that no evidence
III of the Constitution? was planted against the accused. In
this case, the checkpoint conducted
ANSWER on the Ceres passenger bus was
No. In the conduct of bus searches, warranted by the exigencies of
the Court lays down the following public order and are conducted in a
guidelines. While in transit, a bus way least intrusive to motorists.
can still be searched by government (Sullano v. People, GR No. 232147,
agents or the security personnel of June 08, 2020, J. M. Lopez)
the bus owner in the following three
instances. First, upon receipt of 7. BOI entered into service
information that a passenger agreements with Atty. Gascon,
carries contraband or illegal Atty. Manzano, and Atty. Clarino.
articles, the bus where the Notice of Disallowances were issued
passenger is aboard can be stopped covering their wages on the
en route to allow for an inspection grounds that their engagement did
of the person and his or her effects. not have the OSG's conformity and
Second, whenever a bus picks acquiescence, as well as the COA's
passengers en route, the written concurrence, in
prospective passenger can be contravention of COA Circular No.
frisked and his or her bag or 86-255. The BOI appealed the
luggage be subjected to the same notices to the Director. They

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 5

maintained that COA Circular No. petitioners attempt to justify their

86-255 did not apply in this case failure to comply with the
since the lawyers were recruited as requirements under COA Circular
technical assistance rather than No. 86-255, as amended, by
legal advice. They also stated that asserting the BOI's "dire need" to
attorney. Clarino is not considered hire technical assistance from
a private law practitioner because outside the bureau to augment its
she never provided legal services deficient staff.
for compensation prior to her
employment with the BOI. This general allegation is, however,
a factual matter that could have
Q: Did COA correctly sustain been verified by the OSG had the
the disallowance of the BOI complied with the
payments to Atty. Gascon, et requirements under the established
al? rules before it hired private lawyers.
At this point, the OSG had already
ANSWER expressed its disapproval of the BOI
Yes, the disallowance was hirings in arguing for the propriety
correct. of the disallowance. Hence, absent
any semblance of grave abuse of
Under Sec. 2-2, Art. IX-D, discretion and also for lack of
Constitution, “public funds shall not evidence on record for the Court to
be utilized for payment of the make a judicious factual
services of a private legal counsel or determination, we are constrained
law firm to represent government to uphold the disallowance. (Pelagio
agencies in court or to render legal Ricalde vs COA, G.R. No. 253724.
services for them. In the event that February 15, 2022, J. M. Lopez)
such legal services cannot be
avoided or is justified under 8. TransCo, initially owned by PSALM,
extraordinary or exceptional inherited transmission functions
circumstances, the written from the National Power
conformity and acquiescence of the Corporation and was directed to
Solicitor General or the Government privatize under EPIRA. PSALM
Corporate Counsel, as the case may awarded a concession contract to
be, and the written concurrence of NGCP, leading to the dismissal of
the Commission on Audit shall first several TransCo employees who
be secured before the hiring or received separation pay according
employment of a private lawyer or to a Board Resolution. President
law firm.” Following this, COA and CEO Aguilar issued Circular No.
Circular No. 86-255, as amended by 2009-0010, outlining separation
COA Circular No. 95-011, the pay computation. However, some
following indispensable conditions disbursements were rejected in
must then be satisfied before a audit due to payments to
government agency or contractual employees not
instrumentality hires a private recognized as government service
lawyer: (1) the hiring must be or excessive payments due to
justified by an exceptional rounding off length of service.
circumstance; (2) the written
conformity and acquiescence of the Q: Did the COA Proper gravely
OSG must be secured; and (3) the abuse its discretion in affirming
written concurrence of the COA the disallowance of the excess
must also be obtained. In this case, payment of separation pay

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 6

which resulted from the

rounding-off of the fractional In this case, Arcena failed to
length of service equivalent to indicate the date of his receipt of
six months or more to one the ND. This failure alone should
whole year? have warranted the dismissal of the
appeal. Under the rules, it is
ANSWER required that the petition must
No, there was no grave abuse state the specific dates to show that
of discretion. it was filed within the prescribed
period. It must be remembered
No money shall be paid out of any that a party desiring to appeal an
public treasury or depository except ND must do so strictly in
in pursuance of an appropriation accordance with the COA's Rules of
law or other specific statutory Procedure. (Arcena vs. Commission
authority. on Audit, G.R. No. 227227, Feb 9,
2021, J. M. Lopez)
Here, the additional separation pay
which resulted from the rounding- 10. The petitioners received hazard
off of the length of service remains allowances that were later found to
to be illegal and unjustified because be in excess of what is prescribed
TransCo still failed to adduce proof by law. The disallowed amount was
of the required presidential subjected to a Notice of
approval. (Transco vs COA G.R. No. Disallowance (ND), which the
246173, June 22, 2021, J. M.
petitioners appealed.
Lopez)

9. The Philippine Marine Corps (PMAR) In a Letter of Appeal and Appeal

executed infrastructure projects Memorandum filed before the COA
relocating its headquarters. An National Government Section
audit found excess spending of (NGS), petitioners sought to be
P1,590,173.66. Arcena, the relieved from liability under the ND.
contractor, was held liable. Despite They argued that the hazard pay
appeals, the COA dismissed was given pursuant to Department
Arcena's petition for being filed late. of Health (DOH) Administrative
Arcena claims the projects were Order (AO) No. 2006-0011.
closed and disputed the audit
method. COA argues the audit
The COA NGS ruled that the
stands and dismisses Arcena's delay
invoked DOH issuance cannot be
challenge.
relied upon as legal basis in
Q: Should Arcena’s petition be granting hazard allowances. COA
dismissed? Proper affirmed the COA NGS
ruling. On September 29, 2014,
ANSWER petitioners filed an MR, but was
Yes, Arcena's Petition should dismissed in the assailed Resolution
be dismissed. for being filed late.

2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of Was the MR was timely filed?

the COA provides that an Appeal
must be filed within six (6) months ANSWER
after receipt of the decision
Yes, the MR was timely filed.
appealed from.

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 7

The COA Proper gravely abused its Q: Should the order of

discretion in dismissing outright dismissal be executed during
petitioners' MR of Decision No. pendency of appeal?
2014-158 for being filed out of time.
Contrary to the COA Proper's ANSWER
position that petitioners only had No. Considering the pendency of
the remaining of the 180-day respondent's appeal with the
reglementary period to file their Commission, prudence dictates that
MR, Section 10, Rule X of the 2009 petitioner should not have caused
RRPC, as amended by COA the execution of the order of
Resolution No. 2011-006, allows dismissal.
the filing of an MR within 30 days
from notice of the decision or Dismissal from the service imposed
resolution sought to be by the Civil Service Commission
reconsidered. Regional Office (CSCRO) cannot be
executed pending appeal with the
The present petition is, however, Civil Service Commission Proper
procedurally infirm for being filed (CSC). Premature execution of the
out of time. Petitioners aver that decision ordering the employee's
they filed the petition within 30 dismissal from the service entitles
days from their receipt of the copy the employee to the payment of
of the assailed COA Resolution backwages even though the
denying their MR in accordance employee is not fully exonerated on
with Section 1, Rule XII of the 2009 appeal. (REPUBLIC PHILIPPINES
RRPC. (ROSARIO J. ABRENICA VS. OF THE (DEPARTMENT OF
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. EDUCATION) VS. EULALIA T.
218185, 14 Sep 2021, J. M. Lopez) MANEJA, G.R. No. 209052, 23 Jun
2021, J. M. Lopez)
11. Cutamora filed a complaint against
Maneja, leading to a dismissal 12. The petition involves officers and
decision from the Civil Service board members of Pagsanjan Water
Commission Regional. Maneja District (PAGWAD) who received
appealed the decision, resulting in a various benefits based on board
modification to a lesser offense of resolutions that they issued. On
Simple Dishonesty and a reduced May 10, 2012, Notice of
Disallowance (ND) was issued,
penalty of three months
disallowing the above-enumerated
suspension. Maneja then claimed
disbursements with an aggregate
back salaries, which was initially amount of P283,965.00 for lack of
denied but later granted by the legal basis.
CSC. The Department of Education
(DepEd) appealed this decision, but Petitioners filed an Appeal
the Court of Appeals upheld the Memorandum before the COA
CSC's ruling. DepEd further Regional Office No. IV-A (ROIV-A).
contested this decision, arguing COA ROIV-A through denied the
against the downgrading of the appeal and affirmed the ND. They
offense and the awarding of filed a Petition for Review before
backwages to Maneja. the COA Proper but it was denied
for being filed out of time.

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 8

compensation plan from 1999

Q: Whether the COA Proper onward.
committed grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing COA granted the appeal, but later
petitioners' Petition for Review reversed its decision based on the
for being filed out of time? discovery that the approval was
made within the prohibited period
before the 2010 elections. DBP
ANSWER sought reconsideration, which was
No. There is grave abuse of partially granted, exempting
discretion only when there is an approving officers and passive
evasion of a positive duty or a recipients from refunding the
virtual refusal to perform a duty disallowed amount.
enjoined by law or to act in
contemplation of law as when the DBP now contests this decision,
judgment rendered is not based on arguing that it had become final
law and evidence but on caprice, and executory. Likewise, the DBP
whim and despotism. This claims violation of its rights to due
complements the limited scope of process and speedy disposition of
the Court's review under the cases. COA further defends the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari, timeliness of its decision-making
wherein the Court is confined solely process and maintains that the
to questions of jurisdiction post-facto approval violated
whenever a tribunal, board or election laws.
officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial function acts without Q: Whether COA committed
jurisdiction or in excess of grave abuse of discretion when
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of it reviewed a judgment which
discretion amounting to lack or was final and executory?
excess of jurisdiction.
ANSWER
No such grave abuse of discretion Yes. Taken together, the COA
was shown in this case to warrant committed grave abuse of
the reversal or modification of the discretion in reviewing a final and
assailed COA decision. (ENGR. ALEX executory judgment and reopening
C. PAGUIO VS. COMMISSION ON a settled account beyond the legal
AUDIT (COA), G.R. No. 223547, 27 period. Nothing is more settled that
Apr 2021, J. M. Lopez)
a definitive final judgment is no
longer subject to change or
13. The Development Bank of the
revision, thus:
Philippines (DBP) granted salary
increases to its senior officers in
A decision that has acquired finality
2006, totaling P17,380,307.64. The
becomes immutable and
COA initially disallowed this amount
unalterable. This quality of
due to lack of presidential approval. immutability precludes the
DBP appealed, citing Memorandum modification of a final judgment,
dated April 22, 2010 where former even if the modification is meant to
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo correct erroneous conclusions of
approved the implementation of its fact and law. And this postulate

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 9

holds true whether the modification Budget Specialist, and Cashier,

is made by the court that rendered were charged to settle the
it or by the highest court in the disallowed amounts. The
land. The orderly administration of disallowance was affirmed by the
justice requires that, at the risk of COA Regional Office No. 3 and
occasional errors, the subsequently by the COA Proper.
judgments/resolutions of a court
Despite attempts for
must reach a point of finality set by
reconsideration, the COA upheld its
the law. The noble purpose is to
write finis to dispute once and for decision, modifying the liability of
all. This is a fundamental principle individuals responsible for the
in our justice system, without which disbursement.
there would be no end to litigations.
Utmost respect and adherence to Petitioners argued that the
this principle must always be disbursements were authorized by
maintained by those who exercise the DBM Secretary, which
the power of adjudication. Any act, permitted the grant of allowances
which violates such principle, must found to be an established practice
immediately be struck down. of LWDs (Local Water Districts) as
Indeed, the principle of
of December 31, 1999. They
conclusiveness of prior
contended that they acted in good
adjudications is not confined in its
operation to the judgments of what faith and should not be held liable
are ordinarily known as courts, but for the refund. Petitioners also cited
extends to all bodies upon which the authority given by DBM to
judicial powers had been conferred. SWD's former general manager to
(DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE continue specific allowances or
PHILIPPINES VS. COMMISSION ON fringe benefits in 2002 and 2003.
AUDIT, G.R. No. 247787, 02 Mar
2021, J. M. Lopez) The COA maintained that LWDs are
GOCCs subject to RA No. 6758, and
14. SWD, a GOCC, disbursed various only additional compensations
benefits totaling P3,354,123.50 in given to incumbents as of July 1,
2010 to its officers and employees, 1989, should be allowed. The COA
including rice allowance, medical held that violating this law renders
allowance, Christmas groceries, approving and certifying officers
year-end financial assistance, mid- solidarily liable for settling the
year bonus, and year-end bonus. disallowed amounts.
These disbursements were
disallowed by the COA in Notice of Q: Was SWD already covered
Disallowance (ND) No. 2011-002, by RA No. 6758 when the 2010
citing violation of Department of benefits' were granted?
Budget and Management (DBM)
Corporate Compensation Circular ANSWER
(CCC) No. 10, which limits No. We stress that the Court has
additional allowances to incumbent consistently construed the
employees as of June 30, 1989. qualifying date to be July 1, 1989 or
the effectivity date of RA No. 6758,
Individuals responsible for the in determining whether an
disallowed amounts, including employee was an incumbent and
SWD's General Manager, Corporate
AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024
 POLITICAL LAW 10

actually receiving the non- provide sufficient evidence to

integrated remunerations to be support the grant. The COA
continuously entitled to them. affirmed its decision and directed
Accordingly, the DBM Letters, which the case to the Office of the
authorized the grant of these Ombudsman for further
disallowed benefits as an investigation and possible charges
established practice since against approving officers for
December 31, 1999 were erroneous violating the law. Ngalob raised
and cannot be relied upon. concerns about alleged grave abuse
of discretion by the COA in
In Agra v. Commission on Audit, it upholding the disallowance and
was ordained that "if a benefit was affirming liability.
not yet existing when the law took
effect on July 1, 1989, there [is] Q: Whether the COA acted with
nothing to continue and no basis for grave abuse of discretion
applying the policy [of non- upholding the disallowance
diminution of pay]." Hence, the
COA did not commit grave abuse of
ANSWER
discretion in disallowing the rice
subsidy and medical allowance that No. In sum, we find no grave abuse
the non-incumbent petitioners of discretion that can be imputed
received. (IRENE G. ANCHETA, ET against the COA in affirming the
AL., VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT NDs. The RDC-CAR utterly failed to
(COA), G.R. No. 236725, 02 Feb discharge its burden to establish
2021, J. M. Lopez) the legal and factual basis of its
grant of incentives in 2009 and
15. The Commission on Audit (COA) 2010.
disallowed incentives granted to
officials and secretariat members of COA appropriately observed that
the Cordillera Administrative Region the disallowed incentives were
(CAR) - Regional Development illegally charged against the
Council (RDC) amounting to agency's MOOE as there was no
P1,095,000.00 for work done in the specific appropriation in the RDC-
first half of 2008, and CAR's PS account under the 2009
P1,080,000.00 for the third and and 2010 GAAs for the payment of
fourth quarters of 2009. These honoraria or incentives to officers
disallowances were due to improper and employees assigned to a
charging against the agency's special project.
budget, absence of appropriation,
and failure to comply with Hence, Section 57 of the 2009 GAA
requirements for granting and Section 58of the 2010 GAA
incentives. Despite appeals, the state that even the grant of
COA upheld its decision, stating personnel benefits authorized by
that the preparation for CAR law shall be deemed unauthorized if
autonomy was a regular function of not supported by specific
the RDC, not a special project. appropriations. (JUAN B. NGALOB
Ngalob, the former Vice Chairman VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R.
of the RDC, argued for the legality No. 238882, 05 Jan 2021, J. M.
of the incentives but failed to Lopez)

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 11

16. On April, 2007 Agent Conrado Foremost, there is no

Najera, et. al., of the National evidence to establish the
Bureau of Investigation conducted extortion. It is incumbent
a ‘sex den’ raid on a Disco and upon the NBI to prove that
Amusement Center from which 27 Conrado attempted to solicit
employees including the cashier money from Francis. Yet,
Francis Quilala was apprehended. the NBI failed to present
Quilala alleges that during the raid competent evidence and
- Conrado attempted to extort merely relied on Francis'
P500,000 in exchange for their unsubstantiated narrations.
freedom. Charges of Grave
Misconduct were then filed against b) SIMPLE MISCONDUCT
Conrado’s team in view of said
allegations. During Trial, it has been The Uniformed Rules on
established that Najera’s team Administrative Cases in the
failed to coordinate their raid with Civil Service (URACCS)
the Anti-Human Trafficking Division classified simple misconduct
and Inter-Agency Council on as a less grave offense with
Violence against Women and their the corresponding penalty
Children. of suspension for one month
and one day to six months
a) Is Conrado is guilty of for the first offense. Simple
Grave Misconduct? misconduct which is defined
b) If Conrado is not guilty as a transgression of some
of Grave Misconduct, established rule of action or
then what offense is he an unacceptable behavior
guilty of? that transgresses the
established rules of conduct
ANSWERS: for public officers or any act
a) No, Conrado is not guilty of deviating from the
Grave Misconduct. procedure laid down by the
rules that warrants
The quantum of proof in disciplinary action.
administrative proceedings
necessary for a finding of It is undisputed that
guilt is substantial evidence Conrado did not bother to
or such relevant evidence as inform the Anti-Human
a reasonable mind may Trafficking Division about
accept as adequate to the raid. This infringed the
support a conclusion. The implementing rules and
burden to establish the regulations of Republic Act
charges rests upon the No. 9208 or the Anti-
complainant. The case Trafficking in Persons Act of
should be dismissed for lack 2003. (NBI vs Conrado
of merit if the complainant Najera, G.R. No. 237522,
fails to show in a June 30, 2020, J. M. Lopez)
satisfactory manner the
facts upon which his 17. On October, 2012 Mayor Jejomar
accusations are based. The Binay Jr. of Makati appointed
respondent is not even Gerardo San Gabriel as Makati City
obliged to prove his Government Department Head II at
exception or defense. the Makati City General Services

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 12

Department. He was then they being the real parties in

invalidated by the Civil Service interest.
Commission-National Capital Here, it is undisputed that
Region (CSC-NCR) on the ground Aldon assailed the
that (1) He is a resident of Quezon disapproval of San Gabriel's
City at the time of his Appointment appointment before the
as per his Personal Data Sheet CSC. Yet, Aldon can hardly
(PDS), despite maintaining a be considered a real party in
condominium in Poblacion, Makati interest because she is
City and (2) Not being a holder of neither the appointing
Degree on Public Administration authority nor the appointee.
and Management despite serving in
the Metro Manila Commission from b) NO, San Gabriel’s Makati
1978 until its conversion to the condominium did not satisfy
Metropolitan Manila Development the residency requirement.
Authority in 2007 as Supply Officer
V. Aldon, Makati’s Personnel Officer The PDS is a public
filed for a Motion for document where applicants
Reconsideration on said invalidation represent their relevant
by the CSC. information to guide the
appointing authority in the
a) May a Personnel Officer assessment of their
file a Motion for qualifications for
Reconsideration on the appointment to particular
invalidation of the position. When the
appointment issued by applicants fill up the
the CSC-NCR? information sheet, they do
b) Did San Gabriel’s so under an undertaking
maintenance of a that the matters
condominium in Makati represented therein are true
satisfy the residency and correct.
requirement?
Verily, San Gabriel admitted
ANSWERS: in his PDS that he is a
resident of Quezon City, and
a) No, Aldon may not file a not Makati City, at the time
Motion for Reconsideration of his appointment in 2012.
for San Gabriel. Taken together, the CSC
properly ruled that San
The appointing authority Gabriel does not possess the
and the appointee arc minimum qualifications
equally real parties in required by law absent
interest who have the proof of compliance with the
requisite legal standing to residency requirement at
bring an action challenging the time of his appointment.
a CSC disapproval of an (CSC vs Jejomar Binay, G.R.
appointment. Only the No. 232168, October 12,
appointing authority and the 2022, J. M. Lopez)
appointee may file an
appeal from an invalidation 18. RA No. 11223 authorized the
or disapproval of an COMELEC to adopt an automated
appointment by the CSC, election system (AES), using

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 13

appropriate technology for voting aspects of elections are

and electronic devices to count and implemented.
canvass results. With this the
COMELEC implemented a paper- The exercise of discretion on how to
based AES technology utilized implement the chosen AES must be
optical mark reader machines in the accorded with the presumption of
years 2013, 2016, and 2019 regularity and should be respected.
National Elections. In Sumulong v. COMELEC, the
Court highlighted COMELEC's role
The minimum functional capabilities as an independent constitutional
enumerated under Section 8 of RA body: The Commission on Elections
11223 are mandatory and voter is a constitutional body and intends
verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) to play a distinct and important part
requires individual voters to verify in our scheme of government. In
whether the machines have been the discharge of its functions, it
able to count their votes and that should not be hampered with
the verification at minimum should restrictions that would be fully
be paper based. warranted in the case of a less
responsible organization. (AES-
On April 30, 2019, 2019 National Watch, et.al. vs COMELEC, G.R. No.
Elections, Bantay-AES, et. al., filed 246332, December 09, 2020, J. M.
a petition for mandamus seeking Lopez)
the COMELEC to faithfully
implement the previously issued
19. The Municipality of Lantawanin
resolution and serve the guidelines
Basilan was distressed with
and regulations therefrom on
arrearages on unremitted GSIS
election day since the COMELEC, as premiums. Collection letters
claimed by the former, had not corresponding to arrears from were
adopted measures for the VVPAT's sent to the mayor's office, but the
"auditability" and proposed a obligation remained unsettled. The
"camerambola". failure of the municipality to remit
its GSIS contributions also resulted
Q: Can Bantay-AES, et. al. in the suspension of the members'
compel COMELEC by loan privileges. This prompted the
mandamus to adopt the rules lodging of a complaint for
and regulations of the election malversation of public funds against
petitioners before the
laws?
Ombudsmanon. The Ombudsman,
however, charged petitioners
ANSWER before the Sandiganbayan with
No, the COMELEC is vested with the violation of Section3 (e) of RA No.
constitutional power and function to 3019 and violations of Sections
enforce and administer all laws and 3.3.1 and 3.4, Rule III of the IRR of
regulations relative to the conduct RA No.8291. Petitioners attack the
of an election. Among its powers is validity of the Informations as they
the promulgation of rules & alleged conspiracy, but failed to
regulations of election laws and it implead the municipal accountant
exercises discretion on how certain and budget officer, who are
indispensable in consummating the
offenses charged. On the merits,

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 14

petitioners fault the Sandiganbayan disposition of cases or

in failing to consider the lack of speedy trial.
intent on their part to perpetrate
the act upon which the criminal Clearly, the proximal cause
charges were hinged. of the delay was petitioners'
failure to present and
a) Were the petitioners’ right submit competent copies of
to be informed of the nature their evidence. Considering
and cause of the accusation that the delay was mainly
against them violated; attributable to petitioners,
b) Were the petitioners’ right their overt acts positively
to the speedy disposition of demonstrated their
cases violated; renunciation of the rights to
c) Did the Sandiganbayan speedy disposition of case
correctly convict and speedy trial. More
petitioners: (a) violation of importantly, the delay did
Section3.3.1, in relation to not result in any significant
Section 17.2.3 of the IRR of prejudice to petitioners.
RA No. 8291; and (b)
violation of Section 3(e) of c) No, the Court finds no basis
RA No. 3019? to hold petitioners guilty of
corrupt practices under
Answer Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019.
Sheer failure to discharge a
a) No, the right to be informed statutory duty does not
of the nature and cause of automatically serve as basis
the accusation is not for conviction under Section
violated if the complaint or 3(e) of RA No. 3019.
information sufficiently
alleges the facts and As we have emphasized in
circumstances constituting Martel v. People, violations
the offense. of RA No. 3019, as its title
implies, must be grounded
It has long been settled on graft and corruption,
that, "[a] conspiracy which entails dishonest or
indictment need not x x x fraudulent actions for
aver all the components of acquisition of gains. Absent
conspiracy or allege all the a showing of bad faith,
details thereof, like the part gross negligence, or acts of
that each of the parties dishonesty and fraud,
therein have performed, the petitioners cannot be held
evidence proving the liable under Section 3(e) of
common design or the facts RA No. 3019. (ISMAEL VS.
connecting all the accused PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 234435-
with one another in the web 36, FEBRUARY 6, 2023, J.
of conspiracy." M.V. LOPEZ)

b) No, mere delay in the

proceeding is not 20. Mohamed, a Sudanese national
tantamount to a violation of where in 2005, was recognized as a
the right of the speedy convention refugee. Mohamed
currently works as a Public

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 15

Relations Officer at the Qatar August 21, 2007 or only a month

Embassy. He applied for Philippine after he submitted his
citizenship and filed a Declaration of Supplemental Declaration of
Intention with the OSG and Intention on July 20, 2007.
submitted a Supplemental Obviously, the period of one month
Declaration of Intention stating that is insufficient for the OSG to verify
he is not only known as "Sefyan the person of the applicant
Abdelhakim Mohamed" but also as "Abdelkahim Mohamed" a.k.a.
"Sefyan Abdelhakim Mohamed "Abdelhakim Mohamed Hussin" and
Hussin." The OSG argued that the to conduct inquiries as to his
Declaration of Intention must be qualifications. (MOHAMED VS.
submitted one year before the filing REPUBLIC, G.R. NO. 220674,
of a petition for admission to DECEMBER 2, 2021, J. M.V. LOPEZ)
Philippine citizenship. Yet,
Mohamed filed his petition for
naturalization less than one year 21. In an international arbitration,
after he submitted his PNOC-EC received a notice of
Supplemental Declaration of request for arbitration and was
Intention and contends that required to comment as arbitrator
Mohamed's oath is void because the within the same 30-day period.
RTC administered it before the Faced with the urgent to be
Government's period to appeal represented by an international
expired. legal counsel, PNOC-EC
immediately drafted the Terms of
Q: Was Mohamed’s filing of the Reference for the selection of its
petition for naturalization on counsel. The Office of the
time? Government Corporate Counsel
(OGCC) gave its “authority in
Answer principle” for the PNOC-EC to
No, the court ruled that the one- engage private representation,
year period must be computed from subject to its review of the terms
Mohamed's filing of his and conditions on the agreement,
supplemental declaration of and its exercise of control and
intention because he introduced supervision over the case. The
substantial change in the original COA-auditor found that PNOC-EC
declaration. failed to secure the COA’s written
concurrence in the engagement of
Section 5 of C.A. No. 473 strictly private counsel’s legal services and
enjoins the applicant to file with the Notice of Suspension was
OSG a declaration under oath that immediately issued suspending the
it is his or her bona fide intention to legal fees paid to its private
become a citizen of the Philippines counsel. PNOC-EC begs for liberality
one year prior to the filing of the in the application of the rules on the
petition for admission to Philippine engagement of private counsel
citizenship. The purpose of the one- citing the urgency to secure proper
year period is to give the OSG representation in the international
sufficient time to investigate the arbitration as justification.
qualifications of the applicant and
adduce evidence to protect the Is the justification of PNOC-EC
interest of the State. meritorious?

In the case at bar, Mohamed filed Answer

his petition for naturalization on

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 16

Yes, the prohibition was primarily Directors in the same year. On

aimed to curtail unnecessary November 14, 2013, Notice of
expenditures of public funds on Disallowance No. 2013-001- HWD
legal services of private (2012) (First ND) was issued,
practitioners, which may readily be disallowing HWD disbursements
provided by statutorily-mandated amounting to P582,000.00,
agencies like the OGCC. consisting of the P174,000.00
excess in the payment of
According to COA Circular No. 95- anniversary bonus; and
011, the following indispensable P408,000.00 worth of rice
conditions must then be fulfilled allowance paid to employees hired
before a GOCC can, hire a private after July 1, 1989. The ND stated
lawyer: (1) hiring is only in that the payment of P5,000.00 to
exceptional cases; (2) the written each HWD official and employee
conformity and acquiescence of the was in violation of the Office of the
OGCC must first be secured; and President's Administrative Order
(3) the prior written concurrence of No. 263, which limits the payment
the COA must also be secured. of such bonus to an amount not
In this case, we note that aside exceeding P3,000.00.
from the fact that private counsel’s a) Is the disallowance of the
engagement was with the written rice subsidy proper?
approval of the OGCC, nothing
more of the relevant factual b) Are the passive recipients of
conditions above-enumerated is the rice subsidy required to
established at this juncture. With refund the amount of the
the advent of this procedural disallowed benefits that
development, thus, it is only proper they received in good faith.
to REMAND the case to the COA for
the determination of the propriety Answer
of exempting PNOC-EC from the a) No, upon the effectivity
written concurrence requirement, of RA No. 6758 on July 1,
especially so because such 1989, all allowances of
determination entails the evaluation government officials and
of purely factual and evidentiary employees, including
matters, not available on record those in the GOCCs, are
and beyond the purview of this deemed included in the
judicial review. (PNOC- standardized salary
EXPLORATION CORP. VS. rates.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R.
244461, SEPTEMBER 28, 2021, J. This rule is grounded upon
M.V. LOPEZ) the distinct policy of
22. Hagonoy Water District (HWD) is a eliminating multiple
GOCC organized under Presidential allowances and other
Decree No. 198, as amended. In incentive packages, which
2012, HWD released anniversary resulted in inequitable
bonus and rice allowance to its differences of compensation
officials and employees pursuant to among government
Board Resolution No. 009 and personnel.
Board Resolution No. 016,
respectively. Various allowances Thus, the second sentence
were also given to its Board of of Section 12 allows
government workers to

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 17

continue receiving Commission on Audit (COA)

additional remunerations disallowed the disbursements
and benefits provided that: because they found out that it was
(1) they were incumbents illegally charged against the
when RA No. 6758 took Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
effect on July 1, 1989; (2) Program (CARP) Fund. DAR argued
they were actually receiving that Section 4(3) of PD No. 1445 is
such benefits as of that not applicable because CARP fund is
date; and (3) such a special fund and not a trust fund.
additional compensation is
distinct and separate from a) Can a CARP fund finance the
the specific allowances agency’s CNA?
enumerated in the first b) Is COA correct in disallowing
sentence of Section 12. the disbursement of DAR’s
CAN
b) Yes, in Madera v. Answer
Commission on Audit, a) No, the CARP fund cannot
the Court held that the finance the agency’s CNA.
liability of the recipients
in a disallowed In Dubongco, the Court
transaction is based on ruled:
the civil law principles of [T]he CARP Fund could not
solutio indebiti and be legally used to finance
unjust enrichment. the grant of the CNA
Incentive. x x x.
Mere receipt of public funds [T]he CNA Incentive may be
without valid basis or awarded to rank-and-file
justification, regardless of employees only if there are
good faith or bad faith, is savings in the agency's
already undue benefit that operating expenses. The
gives rise to the obligation grant of CNA Incentives
to return what was unduly financed by the CARP Fund
received in accordance with is not only illegal but also
the principles of solutio inconsiderate of the plight
indebiti and unjust of Filipino farmers for whose
enrichment. (HAGONOY benefit the CARP Fund is
WATER DISTRICT VS. allocated. Moreover, it is
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, disconcerting how petitioner
G.R. NO. 247228, MARCH 2, could muster the courage to
2021, J. M.V. LOPEZ) say that there were savings
from the CARP Fund when
23. Under Section 4 (3) of PD No. 1445, in reality, agrarian reform
trust funds shall be available and funds are more often than
may be spent only for the specific not, insufficient to meet the
purpose for which the trust was needs of its beneficiaries. x
created or the funds received. xx
Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) released to its officials and Another point that militates
employees’ incentives after against petitioner's position
accomplishing their targets through is the character of the CARP
the execution of Collective Fund as a special fund, as
Negotiation Agreement (CAN). The stated in Sections 20 and 21

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 18

of Executive Order (E.O.) releasing prisoners to support her

No. 229, Series of 1987 and request for bail post-conviction.
Section 63 of R.A. No. 6657,
x x x. a) Do the Constitution and the
Rules of Court permit an
b) Yes, COA is correct in accused to post bail pending
disallowing the the appeal of a conviction
disbursement of DAR’s CNA. for a capital offense?
b) Can Napoles be
The COA affirmed that the provisionally released on
CARP Fund is a special fund, humanitarian grounds due
similar to a trust fund, which to the risk of contracting
is segregated for a specific COVID-19?
purpose. As such, it should c) Do international legal
be used solely for the instruments and global
purpose for which it was trends in releasing prisoners
created. Any unused due to COVID-19 provide a
balance from the fund sufficient basis to grant bail
cannot be used for another post-conviction?
purpose by the agency Answer
because it is required to be
transmitted to the general a) No, the presumption of
funds of the government. innocence and the
The COA concluded that the Constitutional right to
CNA Incentives cannot be bail end after the
directly sourced from the accused's conviction of a
CARP Fund. (DEPARMENT capital offense.
OF AGRARIAN REFORM
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION The Constitution guarantees
VS. COMMISSION ON every accused's right to bail,
AUDIT, G.R. NO. 217285, except for those charged
NOVEMBER 10, 2020, J. with a capital offense when
M.V. LOPEZ) the evidence of guilt is
strong. The Rules of Court
24. Janet Lim Napoles, along with echo this principle in this
Richard A. Cambe, was convicted of wise: No person charged
Plunder in connection with the with a capital offense, or an
misappropriation of Senator Ramon offense punishable by
"Bong" Revilla, Jr.'s Priority reclusion perpetua or life
Development Assistance Fund imprisonment, shall be
(PDAF). Following their conviction admitted to bail when
by the Sandiganbayan Special First evidence of guilt is strong,
Division, Napoles filed a motion regardless of the stage of
seeking temporary release from the criminal prosecution.
detention due to the COVID-19
pandemic. She argued that her b) No, Napoles' allegation
diabetes, considered an underlying is a question of fact
health condition, put her at risk of which is not within the
contracting COVID-19 while in province of this Court to
prison. Napoles invoked legal determine. Neither can
precedents, international the Court take judicial
standards, and the global trend of notice of her medical

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 19

condition. However, of right under the

even assuming that she international or domestic
is indeed suffering from laws, to warrant her
diabetes, that, in itself, temporary release. (PEOPLE
is not sufficient to grant VS. NAPOLES, G.R. NO.
her provisional liberty, 247611, JANUARY 13, 2021,
post-conviction. J. M.V. LOPEZ)

Unless there is clear 25. In 1965, President Diosdado

showing that petitioners are Macapagal issued a proclamation
actually suffering from a excluding a portion of the
medical condition that reservation and declaring it the
requires immediate and Armed Forces of the Philippines
specialized attention outside (AFP) Officer's Village to be
of their current confinement disposed of under RA Nos. 274 and
— as, for instance, an actual 730 in relation to the Public Land
and proven exposure to or Act. In 1976, the Philippine Navy
infection with the novel developed a part of the village into
coronavirus — they must a golf course, which is managed
remain in custody and and controlled by the Philippine
isolation incidental to the Navy Golf Club Inc. Later, the DENR
crimes with which they were awarded lots to former military
charged, or for which they officers Merardo Abaya, Ruben
are being tried or serving Follosco, Angelito Maglonzo, and
sentence. Only then can Elias Sta. Clara. However, they
there be an actual were unable to introduce any
controversy and a proper improvements because the
invocation of humanitarian Philippine Navy and the Golf Club
and equity considerations were already occupying the lands.
that is ripe for this Court to They filed an accion reinvidicatoria,
determine. but the Philippine Navy and Golf
Club invoked the exclusionary
c) No, the Nelson Mandela clause, claiming that the land
Rules and the developed as a golf course is not
international included in the alienable and
community's call for the disposable lots in the AFP Officers'
temporary release of Village and is needed for public
PDLs due to COVID-19 service because it serves as a
do not provide sufficient security buffer and training ground
basis to grant bail, post- for the navy. The RTC granted the
conviction. complaint, and the CA confirmed it.
Notably, neither the Nelson
Mandela Rules, the Bureau Q: Should the Navy Golf Club
of Corrections Act of 2013, turn over the lots to Abaya et.
nor the worldwide trend to al.?
decongest jail facilities due
to COVID-19, support the Answer
release of PDLs pending the
appeal of their conviction of Yes, the Philippine Navy Golf
a capital offense. Thus, Club should turn over the lots
Napoles failed to allege, to Abaya et al.
much less prove, any source

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 20

The area where the Philippine Navy hinged, i.e., the non-remittance of
Golf Course remains a part of the the municipality's GSIS
alienable and disposable land of the contributions.
AFP Officers' Village. The golf a) Were petitioners' right
course was only developed years to be informed of the
after the issuance of the
nature and cause of the
proclamation. Therefore, the empty
land on which the golf course accusations against
stands still belongs to the alienable them violated?
and disposable public land of the b) Were petitioners' right
AFP Officers' Village. The to the speedy
exclusionary clause cannot apply to disposition of cases
the golf course, as it did not exist at
violated?
the time the proclamation was
c) Did the Sandiganbayan
issued. There is no basis to
determine whether the empty land correctly convict
is being used for public or quasi- petitioners for violation
public purposes. (PHILIPPINE NAVY of: (a) violation of
GOLF CLUB, INC. VS. ABAYA, G.R. Section3.3.1, in relation
NO. 235619, JULY 13, 2020, J. M.V. to Section 17.2.3 of the
LOPEZ)
IRR of RA No. 8291; and
26. The Municipality of Lantawanin (b) violation of Section
Basilan failed to remit GSIS 3(e) of RA No. 3019?
contributions for years, leading to
penalties and suspended loan Answer
privileges for employees. This a) No, the right to be
prompted a complaint for informed of the nature
malversation of public funds against and cause of the
petitioners before the Ombudsman. accusation is not
The Ombudsman, however, violated if the complaint
charged petitioners before the or information
Sandiganbayan with violation of
sufficiently alleges the
Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 and
facts and circumstances
violations of Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4,
constituting the offense.
Rule III of the IRR of RA No.8291.
Petitioners attack the validity of the
Information as they alleged It has long been settled
conspiracy but failed to implead the that, "[a] conspiracy
municipal accountant and budget indictment need not x x x
officer, who are indispensable in aver all the components of
consummating the offenses conspiracy or allege all the
charged. Additionally, petitioners details thereof, like the part
argue that their right to speedy that each of the parties
disposition of cases was also therein have performed, the
violated. On the merits, petitioners evidence proving the
fault the Sandiganbayan in failing to common design or the facts
consider the lack of intent on their connecting all the accused
part to perpetrate the act upon
with one another in the web
which the criminal charges were
of conspiracy."[30] So long
AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024
 POLITICAL LAW 21

as the criminal information violations of RA No. 3019,

clearly alleges the acts must be grounded on graft
constituting the offense and corruption, which
specifically imputed against entails dishonest or
the accused for them to fraudulent actions for
properly prepare their acquisition of gains. Absent
a showing of bad faith,
defense, the constitutional
gross negligence, or acts of
right to be informed of the
dishonesty and fraud,
nature and cause of
petitioners cannot be held
accusations is not
liable under Section 3(e) of
transgressed. RA No. 3019. Here, no
evidence supports the
b) No, mere delay in the conclusion that evident bad
proceeding is not faith or even gross
tantamount to a violation of inexcusable negligence
the right of the speedy attended such failure.
disposition of cases or (ISMAEL VS. PEOPLE, G.R.
speedy trial. NO. 234435-36, FEBRUARY
06, 2023, J. M.V. LOPEZ)
Clearly, the proximal cause
of the delay was petitioners' 27. Pioneer failed to pay Clearwater the
failure to present and outstanding balance plus interest.
Consequently, Clearwater initiated
submit competent copies of
the arbitration proceedings in New
their evidence. Considering
York given that their contract has
that the delay was mainly
an arbitration clause. On April 25,
attributable to petitioners, 2013, the arbitration panel issued
their overt acts positively the Final Award, ordering Pioneer to
demonstrated their pay Clearwater a total amount of
renunciation of the rights to $344,991.68. Pioneer failed to pay
speedy disposition of case Clearwater having received a copy
and speedy trial. More of the final award. Pioneer alleges
importantly, the delay did that the arbitral award is against
not result in any significant public policy.
prejudice to petitioners.
Q: Is there violation of public
c) No, there is no basis to hold policy in upholding foreign
petitioners guilty of corrupt arbitral award?
practices under Section 3(e)
of RA No. 3019. Answer
No, confirming and enforcing
Sheer failure to discharge a the foreign arbitral award is
statutory duty does not not contrary to public policy.
automatically serve as basis
for conviction under Section Rule 13.4 (b) (ii) of the Special ADR
3(e) of RA No. 3019. As held Rules provides that the Philippine
in Martel v. People, court may refuse the recognition

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 22

and enforcement of a foreign Q: Did the Court of Appeals err

arbitral award when it finds that its in proceeding to resolve the
recognition and enforcement would main issue of jurisdiction over
be contrary to public policy. Based the jai alai regulation conflict?
on the foregoing, the party raising
the ground of violation of public Answer
policy in opposing the recognition Yes, the CA's ruling on GAB's
and enforcement of a foreign authority, not the clarification
arbitral award must: (a) identify the of the CDO's coverage,
State's fundamental tenets of constitutes an improper review
justice and morality; (b) prove the of the CDO.
illegality or immorality of the award;
and (c) show the possible injury to An original action for certiorari and
the public or the interests of the prohibition under Rule 65,
society. specifically designed to correct
errors of jurisdiction only to prevent
In this case, Pioneer failed to encroachment, excess, usurpation,
establish the alleged violation of or assumption of jurisdiction on the
public policy with certainty, and part of an inferior court or quasi-
prove that it will not only affect judicial tribunal. Being an original
Pioneer but the public as well. action limited to deal with
(PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY jurisdictional issues, there is no
CORPORATION VS. TIG judgment on the merits to review,
INSURANCE COMPANY, G.R. NO. reverse, or modify, unlike in an
256177, JUNE 27, 2022, J. M.V. appeal, wherein the merits of a
LOPEZ) judgment, award, or final order are
the issues being adjudicated. The
28. The Office of the Government clarification of the Cease-and-Desist
Corporate Counsel and Meridien Order’s coverage was not an
Vista Gaming clash over jai alai alteration of the CDO, but merely a
regulation. CEZA granted Meridien clarification of its scope and
a license, but the OGCC stated that application.
CEZA cannot authorise, license,
operate, and regulate jai alai In this case, the Court of Appeals
without an express legislative had no jurisdiction to rule on GAB's
franchise. Meridien's license was authority, as it was a question of
revoked, leading to its filing for law that should be resolved by the
injunction to enjoin the issued Supreme Court. (GAMES AND
cease and desist order. Meridien AMUSEMENTS BOARD VS.
argued a CEZA license trumped MERIDIEN VISTA GAMING
over the Games and Amusements CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 206118,
Board’s regulatory authority. The AUGUST 15, 2022, J. M.V. LOPEZ)
RTC ruled in favour of Meridien, but
the Court of Appeals ultimately 29. PDIC Condoned 1,656,830,000.00
found the lower court lacked pesos in loans. Despite the
jurisdiction. questioned transactions having
been implemented and subjected to
post-audit, the COA still proceeded

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 23

to rule towards denying the President, with their

condonation. PDIC argues that the recommendations, to the Congress.
unreasonable delay on the part of
the COA in resolving the issues on In this case, given that the amount
the grants of financial assistance is exceeds 100,000 pesos, the COA
an evasion of a positive duty, recommendation was mandatory,
amounting to grave abuse of and PDIC cannot motu proprio
discretion. Substantively, PDIC compromise a claim or liability.
maintains that it is empowered (PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE
under its Charter to condone or CORPORATION VS. COMMISSION
release any claim or liability ON AUDIT, G.R. NO. 218068,
regardless of the amount, and that MARCH 15, 2022, J. M.V. LOPEZ)
its actions were approved by the
Monetary Board of the Bangko 30. NPC received an Assessment Letter
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). dated June 24, 2009 from the
Q: Is there a need for COA Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga
authorization for the act of demanding payment of local
condonation? franchise tax without stating the
amount. NPC protested the
Answer assessment, arguing that, with the
Yes, there is a need for COA to issue effectivity of the Electric Power
a recommendation on condonation Industry Reform Act (EPIRA Law) in
or release of claims and settled 2001, its power generation is no
liabilities as expressly mandated by longer considered a public utility
governing laws and jurisprudence. operation requiring a franchise. The
CTA en banc upheld that NPC is
According to Section 20, Chapter liable for franchise tax in so far as
IV, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of its missionary electrification
Executive Order (EO) No. 292 or the function is concerned.
Administrative Code of 1987,
states, Power to Compromise Q: Is NPC liable for franchise
Claims. — When the interest of the tax?
Government so requires, the
Commission may compromise or Answer
release in whole or in part, any No, the NPC is not liable for
settled claim or liability to any franchise tax as the Province of
government agency not exceeding Pampanga failed to observed due
P10,000.00 arising out of any process in issuing the required
matter or case before it or within its deficiency local tax assessment.
jurisdiction, and with the written
approval of the President, it may Sec. 195 of R.A. 7160, requires that
likewise compromise or release any the local treasurer shall issue a
similar claim or liability not notice of assessment stating the
exceeding P100,000.00. In case the nature of the tax, fee or charge, the
claim or liability exceeds amount of deficiency, surcharges,
P100,000.00, the application for interests and penalties. In this case,
relief therefrom shall be submitted, the failure of the taxing authority to
through the Commission and the sufficiently inform the taxpayer of

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 24

the facts and law used as bases for

the assessment will render the Section 14 of RA No. 7166 is
assessment void. Here, the unambiguous and mandates that
Assessment Letter only demanded the required SOCEs must be filed
that taxes be paid and hardly within 30 days after the elections.
complied with the requirements of Rules of Statutory Construction
Section 195 of the LGC and states that a statute that is clear is
implementing rules that will enable not susceptible to interpretation
NPC to file an effective protest. and should be applied regardless of
(NAPOCOR VS. PAMPANGA, G.R. who may be affected, even if the
NO. 230648, OCTOBER 06, 2021, J. law is harsh and onerous.
M.V. LOPEZ)
In this case, the COMELEC
31. On October 2, 2015, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
issued Resolution No. 9991, discretion by arbitrarily extending
prescribing the guidelines for the the deadline for the submission of
submission of the SOCEs for the the SOCEs which effectively
May 9, 2016 national and local condoned erring candidates and
elections. The COMELEC reminded political parties from administrative
the candidates and the political liabilities even if the law does not
parties to submit their SOCEs not provide any exempting
later than June 8, 2016 as it is "final circumstances. (PARTIDO
and non-extendible" and any DEMOKRATIKO PILIPINO-LAKAS
submission filed beyond such date NG BAYAN VS. COMMISSION ON
will not be accepted. On June 23, ELECTIONS EN BANC, G.R. NO.
2016, the COMELEC En Banc, 225152, OCTOBER 5, 2021, J. M.V.
through Resolution No. 10147, LOPEZ)
extended the filing of SOCEs until 32. COA, filed a Complaint against P for
June 30, 2016. On July 7, 2016, the violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
PDP filed a Petition for Certiorari Practices Act and Falsification under
questioning COMELEC En Banc Article 171 of the RPC before the
Resolution No. 10147. The PDP Ombudsman. Allegedly, P certified
argues that the COMELEC exceeded that the documentation for 32
the limits of its delegated rule- infrastructure projects were in
making authority and violated accordance with the approved plans
Section 14 of RA No. 7166 that the and specifications, despite the fact
SOCEs must be filed within 30 days that the reported accomplishments
after the elections. were overstated, and that the
projects were overpaid. P averred
Q: Did the COMELEC committed that his work focused on quality
grave abuse of discretion when control, not quantity control hence
it extended the deadline for he was not involved in the
filing of the SOCEs? recommendation for payment or
the signing of disbursement
ANSWER vouchers. The Ombudsman found
Yes, the COMELEC committed grave probable cause for violation of R.A.
abuse of discretion when it 3019, as amended, and paragraph
extended the deadline for filing. 4, Article 171 of the RPC.

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 25

Q: Was there grave abuse of intervene in the preparation of a

discretion in finding probable document; or (2) he has the official
cause against P? custody of the document which he
falsifies.
Answer
Yes, there is grave abuse of In this case, none of the elements
discretion on the part of the were present and P did not certify
Ombudsman by finding probable on the work accomplished for the
cause against P. infrastructure projects nor was he
the responsible officer to make such
Jurisprudence provides that the certification. Hence, there is no
Court, generally, does not interfere prima facie case to support a
with the Ombudsman's findings as finding of probable cause for
to whether probable cause exists, violation of the Anti-Graft and
except: (b) when necessary for the Corrupt Practices Act and
orderly administration of justice or Falsification. (MACASIL VS. FRAUD
to avoid oppression or multiplicity AUDIT AND INVESTIGATION
of actions. Probable cause for filing OFFICE (FAIO) - COMMISSION ON
a criminal information constitutes AUDIT, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND
facts sufficient to engender a well- CORRUPTION PREVENTION
founded belief that a crime has OFFICE OMBUDSMAN - VISAYAS
been committed and that the REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIII, AND
respondent is probably guilty OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
thereof. Furthermore, there is no (VISAYAS), G.R. No. 226898, MAY
probable cause to charge P with 11, 2021, J. M.V. LOPEZ)
falsification under paragraph 4,
Article 171, of the RPC. The crime 33. MWSS received Real Property Tax
has the following elements, Computations from the Pasay City
namely: (1) that the offender Treasurer for taxable year 2008,
makes in a document statements in demanding payment of real
a narration of facts; (2) that he has property taxes. MWSS argued that
a legal obligation to disclose the it is a public utility and a
truth of the facts narrated by him: government instrumentality, and its
(3) that the facts narrated by the properties and facilities are exempt
offender are absolutely false; and from real property tax. LBAA ruled
(4) that the perversion of truth in that the MWSS is a government-
the narration of facts was made owned or controlled corporation
with the wrongful intent of injuring (GOCC), not a government
a third person. In addition, it must instrumentality. Aggrieved, the
be proven that the public officer or MWSS filed an appeal to the Central
employee had taken advantage of Board of Assessment Appeals
his official position in making the (CBAA). CBAA affirmed the
falsification. In falsification of public assessment's finality, CBAA did not
document, the offender is discuss the merits of the case for
considered to have taken being moot and academic. CA
advantage of his official position dismissed MWSS's appeal for failure
when: (1) he has the duty to make to exhaust administrative remedies
or prepare or otherwise to

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 26

as provided under Sections 206 and However, tax exemption of

252 of the LGC. its properties ceases when
the beneficial or actual use
a) Was the failure to is alleged and proven to
exhaust administrative have been extended to a
remedies by MWSS a taxable person.
ground for dismissal?
b) Can Pasay City assess
Hence, in this case, the
and levy real property
assessment of Pasay City
taxes over MWSS?
over MWSS are void as case
law provides.
Answer
(METROPOLITAN
a) No, administrative remedies
WATERWORKS AND
are inapplicable as the issue
SEWERAGE SYSTEM vs.
is a question of law.
CENTRAL BOARD OF
According to Ty v. Hon.
ASSESSMENT APPEALS,
THE PASAY CITY LOCAL
Trampe, the rule on
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
exhaustion of administrative
APPEALS, PASAY CITY, THE
remedies does not apply to
situations where only
PASAY CITY TREASURER
AND CITY ASSESSOR, G.R.
questions of law are
NO. 215955, JANUARY 13,
discussed.
2021, J. M.V. LOPEZ)
34. HT sought to have the certificate of
In this situation, what was
land ownership award (CLOA)
challenged was not the
granted to HA cancelled before the
assessment but rather the
Provincial Agrarian Reform
authority and power of the
Adjudicator (PARAD). HA argued
assessor to make such
that PARAD does not have
assessment, and of the
jurisdiction because the dispute of
treasurer to collect taxes.
HT and HA does not involve
Hence, the proper remedy is
agrarian dispute. Furthermore, HA
a judicial action.
appealed to Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board
b) No, MWSS is not liable for
(DARAB) wherein it dismissed the
real property taxes.
appeal and sustained the PARAD's
In Metropolitan Waterworks
findings.
Sewerage System v. The
Local Government of
Q: Does the DARAB have
Quezon City, it was settled
jurisdiction over the
by the court that MWSS is a
cancellation of the CLOA?
government instrumentality
ANSWER
vested with corporate
No, the DAR Secretary not the
powers, and as such,
DARAB has jurisdiction over cases
exempt from payment of
involving the cancellation of CLOAs
real property taxes.

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 27

and other titles issued under Yes, the rules of maternity leave
agrarian reform programs. may be suppletorily applied to the
special leave benefits espoused by
RA No. 9700 made clear that all the Magna Carta of Women.
cases involving the cancellation of
CLOAs and other titles issued under Section 18 of RA No. 9710 entitles
a woman, who has rendered a
any agrarian reform program are
continuous aggregate employment
now within the exclusive and
service of at least six months for the
original jurisdiction of the DAR
last 12 months, a special leave of
Secretary.
two months with full pay based on
her gross monthly compensation
In this case, no juridical tie of land following surgery caused by
ownership and tenancy was alleged gynecological disorders. In relation
between HT and HA, which would to this provision, Sec. 14, Rule XVI
so categorize the controversy as an of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
agrarian dispute. The lis mota of Book V of Executive Order No. 292,
the case is the cancellation of the provides that the commuted money
CLOA and not tenancy dispute. value of the unexpired portion of
(HEIRS OF BASTIDA VS. HEIRS OF the special leave need not be
FERNANDEZ, G.R. NO. 204420, refunded, and that when the
OCTOBER 7, 2020, J. M.V. LOPEZ) employee returns to work before
the expiration of her special leave,
she may receive both the benefits
35. Atty. P requested to avail of the 15
granted under the maternity leave
days of special leave benefit under
law and the salary for actual
the Magna Carta of Women to
services rendered effective the day
undergo hysterectomy. After a
she reports for work.
month of availing the special leave,
Atty. P informed the HRET
In this case, Atty. P complied with
Chairperson that she was ready to
the CSC guidelines and submitted
work and presented a fit to work
the requirements needed to return
certificate. The HRET directed her
to work. Furthermore, nothing in RA
to consume her 2-month special
No. 9710 and the CSC Guidelines
leave due to the need for prolonged
bar the suppletory application of
rest and a pending investigation.
the rules of maternity to the special
Atty. P filed an appeal with CSC,
leave benefits espoused by the
which granted her appeal and ruled
Magna Carta of Women providing
that she only needed to present a
more humane interpretation of the
fit to work medical certificate. The
provision on special leave benefit.
HRET challenged the decision, but
(HRET vs. PANGA-VEGA, G.R. NO.
the CA affirmed CSC’s findings.
228236, JANUARY 27, 2021, J. M.V.
LOPEZ)
Q: Can the rules on maternity leave
be suppletorily applied to the
36. X is charged for including false
special leave benefits under the
information on her PDS. A routine
Magna Carta of Women?
check revealed a discrepancy when
it was found that X is not in the
Answer

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 28

Register of Eligibles. X claimed to particularly, unlawful behavior or

have passed the CSSPE exam on a gross negligence by a public officer
specific date in 1994 with a high coupled with the elements of
score, but records showed no such corruption, willful intent to violate
exam took place. Instead, she the law or to disregard established
received a different eligibility rules. (RAMOS VS. ROSELL, G.R.
certificate which is the Barangay NO. 241363, SEPTEMBER 16, 2020,
Official Certificate of Eligibility. J. LOPEZ)
These inconsistencies led to
charges of dishonesty, misconduct, 37. Facing accusations of cheating on
and falsifying documents. X filed a the Civil Service Exam, X was
Motion for Reconsideration before suspected of having someone else
CSC but was denied. The Civil take the exam and then inflating
Service Commission ultimately qualifications on official documents.
found her guilty and fired her from An anonymous complaint triggered
her government position. an investigation by the CSC which
uncovered substantial evidence,
Q: Should X be held liable for including inconsistent signatures
the administrative offenses of and facial features, ultimately
Serious Dishonesty, Grave finding X guilty of serious
Misconduct, Conduct misconduct.
Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of the Service, and Falsification Q: Should X be held liable for
of Official Documents? dishonesty and falsification of
documents?
ANSWER
No, X is only liable for simple Answer
negligence. Yes, X is liable for committing acts
of dishonesty and falsification of
Jurisprudence provides that, simple documents under CSC Resolution
Negligence is an act done in good 06-0538.
faith, which constitutes only an
error of judgment and for no Sections 3(e) and (g) of CSC
ulterior motives and/or purposes, is Resolution No. 06-0538, otherwise
merely simple negligence. Simple known as the Rules on the
negligence means the failure of an Administrative Offense of
employee or official to give proper Dishonesty, provides that, the
attention to a task expected of him presence of any one or the
or her. following attendant circumstances
in the commission or the dishonest
In this case, there is no substantial act would constitute the offense of
evidence that X was impelled by serious dishonesty: (e) The
any corrupt or ill motive or intent to respondent employed fraud and/or
gain or profit that would constitute falsification or official documents in
the offense of grave misconduct. the commission of the dishonest act
Grave misconduct is defined as the related to his/her employment. (g)
transgression of some established The dishonest act involves a Civil
and definite rule of action, more Service examination irregularity or

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 POLITICAL LAW 29

fake Civil Service eligibility such as, of the value of the property
but not limited to, impersonation, immediately upon its taking. The
cheating and use of crib sheets. property owner suffers, not only the
deprivation of their land, but also its
In this case, X falsified his PDS, an use, fruits, or income.
official document, by
misrepresenting that he passed the In this case, T succumbed to death
December 1, 1996 CSPE when he on December 3, 2018 and was still
did not. He connived and colluded unpaid of his rightful compensation
with someone to impersonate him for more than 22 years. Hence, the
and take the December 1, 1996 imposition of the 12% interest.
CSPE for and on his behalf. (CSC (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
VS. DAMPILAG, G.R. No. 238774, REPRESENTED BY THE
JUNE 10, 2020, J. LOPEZ) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND HIGHWAYS VS. CASIMIRO *
38. T's property was taken by the TAMPARONG, JR., SERVICE
government through an CORPORATION, G.R. No. 232169,
Expropriation Order and promised JUNE 10, 2020, J. LOPEZ)
fair compensation. However, T
hasn't received the full amount yet.
DPWH then calculated the
remaining amount by including
interest at 12% per year, starting
from when the property was taken.
The government disagrees with this
high interest rate, arguing it's only
to be imposed as a penalty in cases
of delays in payment. Petitioner
further claims that there is no
delayed payment because they
already made significant provisional
payments.

Q:Was the imposition of 12%

legal interest was justified?

ANSWER
Yes, as it is the Republic's
intransigence that caused the
delay, warranting the imposition of
legal interest.

Section 9, Article III of the 1987

Constitution provides that “no
property shall be taken for public
use without just compensation."
Jurisprudence provides that, just
compensation means full payment

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024