You are on page 1of 32

Political Law Review

University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)


POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASES - FINALS
October 3, 2016
Daguda vs Gonzales G.R. No. 188056
-

The fact that the DOJ is the primary prosecution arm of the government does not make
it a quasi-judicial office or agency. (DOJ is not a quasi-judicial office or agency)
A quasi-judicial body is an organ of government other than a court of law or legislative
office that affects the rights of private parties. Either adjudication or rule-making.
It performs adjudicatory functions. It determines the rights of the parties coming before
it. Its decisions have the same effects, as the judgment of the court.

Federico vs COMELEC
-

Under section 12, RA 9006, in order to obviate confusion, the name of the substitute
candidate as much as possible bear the same surname as that of the substituted
candidate.
In case of death or disqualification the substitute have until mid-day of the election day
to file a COC.
Where a pre-proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no proclamation at all
and the proclaimed candidate assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC to
declare such nullity and annul the proclamation. Are there was an invalid substitution,
there could not be a valid proclamation.

Dayao v COMELEC Jan. 29, 2013; About Party-list


-

Under section 12, RA 9006, in order to obviate confusion, the name of the substitute
candidate as much as possible bear the same surname as that of the substituted
candidate. In case of death or disqualification, the substitute have until mid-day of the
election day to file the COC. Where a pre-proclamation is null and void, the proclamation
is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate assumption of office cannot
deprive the COMELEC to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation. As there was
invalid substitution, there could not be a valid proclamation.

FUNA v ABRA Feb 19, 2013


-

To hold an office means to possess or to occupy the office or to be in possession and


administration of the office which implies nothing less than the actual discharge of the
functions and duties of the office.
General Rule: Multiple offices are not allowed
The only two exceptions against holding of multiple offices are:
1. Those provided for under the constitution such as Section 3, art. 7, authorizing the
Vice President to become a member of the cabinet.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 1

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
2. Post occupied by executive officials, specified in Art. 7 without additional
compensation in ex-officio capacities as provided by law and as required by primary
functions of the offices.
Leila de Lima v Gardula 691 SCRA; Feb. 19, 2013; GR no. 204528
-

A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to


establish a status, right or a particular fact.
It is neither a civil nor a criminal action. Hence, the application of Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure is misplaced.
The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus should be distinguished from the order called
the writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure. A
judgment which grants the privilege of the writ cannot be executed.

Department of health v phil pharmaceuticals inc Feb 20, 2013; GR no 182358


-

State Immunity from suit.


General Rule: State may not be sued
Exception: But if it consents, either expressly or impliedly, then it may be the subject of
a suit.
o There is express consent, where a law either special or general so provides.
The department of health being an unincorporated agency of the government can
validly invoke the defense of immunity from suit because it has not consented either
expressly or impliedly to be sued.
Significantly, the DOH is an unincorporated agency which performs functions of
governmental character.
Moreover, it is settled that if a Complaint seeks to impose a charge or financial liability
against the state, the defense of non-suability may be properly invoked.
The suability of a government official depends on whether the official concerned was
acting within his official or jurisdictional capacity, and whether the acts done in the
performance of official functions will result in a charge or financial liability against the
government.
o Otherwise stated, public officials can be held personally accountable for acts
claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties where they
have acted ultra vires or where there is showing of bad faith.

Jalosjos vs COMELEC
-

About qualification and domicile.

Chavez v Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)


-

There is only one representative from Congress in the JBC. Unlike before there were
two.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 2

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
Samson Alcantara vs COMELEC April 16, 2013;
-

Nilansar under partylist.

Alejandro vs Office of the Ombudsman April 3, 2013; G.R. No. 173121


-

The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases which are within
the jurisdiction of the regular courts or administrative agencies, except judiciary,
Constitutional Commision.
Since the complaint against petitioner was initially filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman, the Ombudsmans exercise of jurisdiction is to the exclusion of the
Sanggunian Bayan whose exercise of jurisdiction is concurrent.

League of Provinces
-

About power of the DENR and the province and mining. The DENR prevailed.
The local government code did not fully involve the enforcement of small-scale mining
law.

COA v CA and GSIS G.R. No174788


-

The Constitution grants the Commission on Audit the exclusive authority to define the
scope of its audit and examination, and establish the techniques and methods therefor.
Once again the court must remind the parties to judicial disputes for laying the
standards for litigation as set by procedural rules.
Although we recognize that justice delayed is justice denied, we must also bear in mind
that justice in haste is justice defiled.

PHILCOA v REPUBLIC January 24, 2012


-

This involves the ill-gotten wealth under PD 1606


The right to a speedy trial is available only to an accused and is peculiarly a criminal law
concept. While the broader right to a speedy disposition of cases may be tapped in any
proceedings conducted by state agencies.
Citing Republic vs COCOFED
o Coconut levy funds are not only affected with public interest, as they are prima
facie public funds.
Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power:
(1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test.
A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or
implemented by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient standard when it provides
adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegates
authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard
must specify the limits of the delegates authority, announce the legislative policy and
identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 3

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
-

The Commission on Audit has the power, authority, and duty to examine or settle all
accounts pertaining to coconut levy funds, and consequently to the UCPB shares
purchased using said funds. The property purchased by means of the coconut levy
funds, should likewise be treated as public funds or property.

REPUBLIC V RURAL BANK OF CABACAN


-

In expropriation proceedings, just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent
of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.
The context of expropriation proceeding, the soil has no value separate from the
expropriated land.
Just compensation ordinary refers to the value of the land to compensate for what the
owner actually loses.
Rights over lands are indivisible, the ownership of the land, extends to the surface as
well as to the subsoil under it.

Republic vs Pacheo G.R. No. 178021


-

While the temporary transfer to assignment of personnel is permissible even without the
employees consent, it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step toward his
removal or to lure him away from his permanent position, or where it is designed to
directly terminate his service, or force his resignation
In other words, in Bad faith
Constructive dismissal it is a sitiation where an employee quits his work because of the
agency heads unreasonable, humiliation, or demeaning actuations which render
continued work impossible.
o Detail it is the movement of an employee from one agency to another, the
issuance upon appointment, and shall be allowed for a limited period. In case of
employees of technical and scientific positions.
o Reassignment an employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to
another in the same agency. Provided, such reassignment shall not involve
reduction in rank, status and salaries.
Reassignments involving a reduction in rank, status, and salary, violate an employees
security of tenure. Which is assured by the Constitution, the Administrative Code and
the Civil Service Commission.

Del Castillo vs People G.R. No. 185128


-

Local government code contains a provision which describes the function of a Barangay
Tanod as an agent of a person in authority. (So, if you spank him, that is direct assault)

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 4

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
-

While it is not necessary that the property sought t be searched and seized should be
owned by the person against whom the search warrant is issued. There must be
sufficient showing that the property is under his control and supervision.

Republic vs Sato G.R. No. 187567


-

A direct recourse to the Supreme Court from the decisions, final resolutions, and orders
of RTC may be taken where only questions of law are involved.
Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no proceeding established by law for
the rules for the judicial declaration for citizenship.
There is no specific statutory or procedural rule which authorizes the direct filing of a
petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before the court.
The mere exercise of suffrage continues an uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and
other similar acts showing exercise of Philippine Citizenship cannot take place of election
of Philippine Citizenship.

China National Machinery vs Sta. Maria


-

Decisions and orders of the COA render in its quasi-judicial capacity a reviewable by the
court via petition for certiorari, not those promulgated under its quasi-legislative or rulemaking power.
The 1987 Constitution has made the COA the guardian of public funds.

Land Bank vs Araneta 665 SCRA G.R. No. 161796


-

The power to reclassify lands is essentially an executive privilege or prerogative.


Local government units through zoning ordinances.

Galicto vs Aquino III February 28, 2012


-

A party is allowed to raise the constitutional question, when:


1. He can show that he personally suffer some actual or threatened injury because of
the alleged illegal conduct of the government
2. The injury is very traceable to the challenged action
3. The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action

*On the matter of capacity to sue, a foreign arbitral award should be respected. Not because it
is favored over domestic laws and procedures, but because RA 9285 addressed a conflict of law
question.
*Foreign corporations capacity to sue in the Philippines is not material in so far as recognition
and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is concerned.
*A foreign arbitral award must be passed through the Regional Trial Court, otherwise it cannot
be enforced.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 5

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
Layug vs COMELEC G.R. No. 192984
-

There are two kinds of members in the House of Representatives


Members who shall be elected from legislative districts and those who are elected from
the party-list system.
Sec. 6 of party list system act states that COMELEC may motu propio or upon verified
complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after notice and hearing, the
registration of a national, regional, or sectoral party, organization, or coalition.

Kida vs Senate 667 SCRA February 28, 2012


-

Synchronized election of the ARMM


While the Constitution does not expressly instruct Congress to synchronize the national
and local elections, the intention can be inferred from the transitory provisions of the
Constitution.
The intention of the framers is to consider autonomous regions as not a separate form
of government but as a political unit which while having more powers and attributes
than the local government units, still remain under the category of local government.

Luz vs Ong
-

Involves the Land transportation and traffic code


The general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender
but the confiscation of the drivers license of the latter.
There is a procedure observed in flagging down vehicles (PNP Operations Manual), it
provides the following procedures during the conduct of checkpoints: (Sec. 7)
The mobile car crew shall undertake the following when applicable:
1. If it concerns traffic violations immediately issue traffic citation ticket (TCT)
2. Never indulge in prolong and unnecessary communication or argument with the
driver or any of the vehicles occupants.
These rules are a general concept and will not apply in hot pursuit operations.
The roadside questioning of a motorist does not fall under custodial interrogation, nor
can it be considered a formal arrest. (Asked in the exam)
o US Supreme Court ruled that the questioning does not fall under custodial
interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest by virtue of the nature of
the questioning, the expectations of the motorist and the officer, and the length
of time which the procedure is conducted.
o US Supreme Court ruled that Miranda warnings must also be given to persons
apprehended due to traffic violation.
o Judge: Ngano mag Miranda warning ka man na dili man diay na arrest.

Makalibog usahay noh?


-

If it were true that petitioner was already deemed arrested while he was flagged down
by the traffic violation, and while he was waiting for his ticket, then there was no need

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 6

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)

for him to be arrested for the second time after the police officers allegedly discovered
the drugs as he was already in custody.
Stop and Frisk is merely a limited protective search of outer clothing of weapons.
o Note: The US Supreme Court just recently ruled that the stop and frisk is
unconstitutional. Because of the Black people in the U.S.
Citing: Knowles vs Iowa, the US Supreme Court ruled that, when a police officer stops
a person for speeding and correspondingly issues a citation instead of arresting the
latter, this procedure does not authorize the officer to conduct a full search of the car.
(persuasive effect)

Fortun vs Macapagal Arroyo G.R. No. 190293


-

Martial law and writ of habeas corpus


If Congress procrastinates or altogether fails to fulfill its duty respecting the
proclamation or suspension within the short time expected of it, then the court can step
and hear the petitions challenging the presidents action and ascertain if it has complied
with the requirements and has factual basis.
In exercising commander-in-chief powers under the Constitution, every president must
review the existence of the elements of the crime of Rebellion.

League of the Philippines vs COMELEC


-

It is about Cityhood
Congress clearly intended that LGUs covered by cityhood laws be exempt from the
coverage of RA 9009.

Funa vs Villar April 24, 2012


-

Jurisprudence tells us that the word reappointment means, second appointment to one
and the same office.
Necessarily, a movement to a different position within the commission (from
commissioner to chairman), would constitute an appointment or second appointment,
but not reappointment.
Where the Constitution or statute has fixed the term of office of a public official, the
appointing authority is without authority to specify in the appointment, a shorter or
longer than what the law provides. If the vacancy calls for a full year appointment, the
President is without discretion to extend a promotional appointment for more or less
than 7 years.
The explicit command of the Constitution is that the chairman and the commissioners of
the COA shall be appointed by the President for a term of 7 years. An appointment to
any vacancy shall be for the unexpired portion of the predecessor.
A commissioner who resigns after serving the commission for less than 7 years is eligible
for an appointment to the position for the unexpired portion of the term of the
department chairman.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 7

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
Lozada vs President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo 184379
-

About Immunity from Suit


Amparo is not a suit, it is not a criminal action, it is not a civil action, it is a special
proceeding.

Napocor vs Saludares
-

In case of transmission lines, where the owner of the land is deprived of the use of his
property. The Court ruled that there is taking and that there must be payment of just
compensation.

Navia vs Ardico G.R. No. 184467


-

Articles 6 of the International covenant on civil and political rights recognizes every
human beings inherit right to life, while Art. 9 thereof ordains that everyone has the
right to liberty and security of his person.
The right to life must be protected by law, while the right to liberty and security cannot
be impaired, except on grounds provided for and in accordance with law.
Enforced disappearance the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of
deprivation of liberty, by agents of the State or by persons or group of persons acting
with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by a refusal to
acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or the concealment of the whereabouts of the
disappeared person.
Sec. 3 (g) RA 9851 Involuntary disappearance means the arrest, detention, or
abduction of a person by or with authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state or
political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of freedom
or to give information of the whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of
removing such person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period.
Elements:
1. Arrest, detention, abduction, etc.
2. Authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state or political organization
3. Refusal to acknowledge deprivation of freedom or to give information
4. Intention of removing such person from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time.
Petition in an Amparo case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
indispensable element of government participation.
In an Amparo petition, proof of disappearance is not enough, it is likewise essential to
establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct or indirect or
authorization, support, or acquiescence of the government.
Even if the person sought to be accountable or responsible in an Amparo person is a
private individual or entity, still Government involvement in the disappearance remains
an indispensable requisite.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 8

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
Loquien jr. v. COMELEC 674 SCRA June 26, 2012
-

Where Rule 64 refers to the remedy of certiorari as the general rule in Rule 65, they
cannot be equated as they provide for different reglementary periods.
In Atienza v. COMELEC it was expressly settled that COMELEC possess the authority to
resolve intra-party disputes, as a necessary and constitutionally mandated power to
enforce election laws and register political parties.
Remedy of a person who fails to file a petition to disqualify a certain candidate within 25
days from filing, is to file a quo warranto proceeding within 10 days from the
proclamation of the result of the election.
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition, RA 9225, allows the retention and reacquisition
of Philippine Citizenship for natural born citizens who have lost their citizenship by taking
an oath of allegiance to the Republic.
Renunciation of foreign citizenship to be valid, the renunciation must be contained in an
affidavit duly executed before an officer of the law, who is authorized to administer an
oath stating in clear and unequivocal terms that the affiant is renouncing foreign
citizenship.
To prove a foreign law, the party invoking must present a copy thereof, and comply with
Sec. 24 and 25, Rule 132 ROC. Note: Foreign law is not a question of law in this
jurisdiction, one must prove what the foreign law and present evidence, because it is a
question of fact.
RA 9225 categorically requires that natural born Filipinos who reacquire their citizenship
and seek elective offices to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all
foreign citizenships before an authorized public officer, prior to or simultaneous to the
filing of their COC to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections.

Gamboa vs Chan 677 SCRA; July 24,2012 G.R. No. 193636


-

Liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than freedom from unlawful
government restraint. The right to be left alone is the beginning of all freedom.
The right to privacy is considered the fundamental right that must be protected from
intrusion or constraint.
With respect to the right of privacy, which petitioners claim that respondent has
violated, suffice it to state that privacy is not an absolute right.
While it is true that the Constitution guarantees respect for the right of persons affected
by the legislative investigation, not every invocation of the right to privacy should be
allowed to thwart legitimate congressional inquiry.
In Sabio v. Gordon, we have held that people have the right to access information on
matters of public concern, generally prevails over the right to privacy of ordinary
financial transactions.
o In that case, we declared that the right to privacy is not absolute where there is
an overriding compelling state interest.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 9

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
-

The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect
the image, privacy, honor, information and freedom of information of an individual and
to provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy.
The Constitution explicitly mandates the dismantling the private armies and armed
groups not recognized by the duly constituted authorities.

Arroyo vs Department of Justice


-

The DOJ now conducts preliminary investigation of election offenses concurrently with
the COMELEC and no longer as mere deputies. Thus, the DOJ now conducts preliminary
investigation of election offenses concurrently with the COMELEC.
Its deputation was justified because of lack of funds and legal officers to ensure a
prompt investigation and prosecution of election offenses, the same justification should
be cited to justify the grant to the other prosecuting arms of government of such
concurrent jurisdiction.

Bank of Commerce vs Planters Development Bank


-

The Constitution expressly grants the BSP as the countrys central monetary authority,
the power of supervision over operation of banks, giving the Congress the authority to
define the regulatory powers over the operation of finance companies and other
institutions performing similar actions.
The BSP is not a corporate entity, but qualifies as an administrative agency created
pursuant to constitutional mandate to carry out a particular government functions.

Saiz vs Macapagal Arroyo


-

The peoples constitutional right to information is intertwined with the governments


constitutional duty to public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest.

Go vs Collegio de San Juan de Letran G.R. No. 169391


-

DECS order no. 20 series of 1991, reveals that the education departments clear intent
to apply the prohibition against fraternity membership to all elementary and highschool
students regardless of the school of enrollment.
Every private school shall have the right to promulgate reasonable norms rules and
regulations, which may be necessary and consistent with the provisions of the schools
manual for the maintenance of good school discipline and class attendance.
The Supreme Court finds that Letrans rule prohibiting its high school students from
joining fraterneties to be reasonable regulation, not only because of the reasons stated
in DECS order no. 20, but also because of the adult oriented activities often associated
with fraternities.

Sto. Tomas vs Salak November 13, 2012


Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes
Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 10

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
-

This involves Overseas Filipino Workers


As held in People vs Ventura, the State under its police power may prescribe such
regulations as in its judgment which tend to secure the general welfare of the people, to
protect them against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity, as well as of
deception and fraud.
There is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional for Congress in fixing an alternative venue
for violation of Sec. 6 RA 8042, that differs from venue by the rules on criminal
procedure.
The regular venue in the ROC, in civil cases is the residence of the plaintiff or the
defendant at the option of the plaintiff. In Criminal cases, revenue is jurisdictional, so it
should be in the place where the crime is committed.
Here, a criminal action arising from illegal recruitment shall be filed in the RTC of the
province or city where the offense was committed or where the offended party actually
resides. (So this favors the workers)

*Freeze order and provisional taking


-

In the matter of the ill-gotten wealth of Pres. Marcos.


Freeze is not confiscation.
Sequestration is not meant to deprive the owner or possessor of his title or to any right
to his property, which vests the same in sequestrating agency, government, or any
other person. As this can be done only for cause and by processes laid down by law.
This involves the right to property. If a property is sequestered, it does not mean that
you are not the owner.

In the matter of the petition for the issuance for the writ of Amparo - Noladaga v
Mapagu November 13, 2012; G.R. No. 189690
-

The writ of Amparo was promulgated by the court pursuant to its rule making powers in
response to the alarming cases involving enforced disappearances and extra-judicial
killings.
The summary nature of Amparo proceedings, to the use of substantial evidence as the
standard of proof, shows the intent of the framers of the rule to address situations of
enforced disappearance and extra-judicial killings or threats thereof, is akin to
administrative proceedings.
It is not a civil action (no cause of action nor damages), this would not result in
prosecution. So the procedure is akin to an administrative proceeding but it is
categorized as a Special Proceeding to establish the right, status or a particular fact.

RECESS
2009
BARO v COMELEC
Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes
Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 11

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
-

Decisions elevated to the SC must be En Banc as a general rule.


Except if the court in Division committed excess of the jurisdiction.

[No Citation]
The phrase GOCC refers to both those created by special charter as well as those
incorporated under the Corporation Code.
Benigno Simeon Aquino III v COMELEC
Apr. 7, 2010
189793
There is no specific provision in the constitution that fixes a 250,000 minimum
population that must compose a legislative district. Each city with a population with
atleast 250,000 or each province shall have atleast one representative.
The provision draws a plain and clear distinction between the entitlement of a city to a
district on one hand, and the entitlement of a province to a district on the other.
In other words, while Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution requires a city to have
a minimum population of 250,000 to be entitled to a representative, it does not have to
increase its population by another 250,000 to be entitled to an additional district.
TOLENTINO v COMELEC
-

About Election protest

BANAT v COMELEC
No longer applicable insofar as qualification of partylist is concerned.
NARENO v CITY OF DUMAGUETE
October 2, 2009
GR No. 181559
Appointments are band prior to the elections to ensure that partisan loyalties will not
be a factor in the appointment process and prevent incumbents from gaining any
undue advantage during the elections.
BANKO SENTRAL v ANTONIO VALENZUELA
October 2, 2009
Close now, Hear later.
Under the law, the sanction of closure could be imposed upon a bank by the BSP even
without notice and hearing. This Close now, Hear later scheme is grounded on practical
and legal considerations to prevent unwarranted dissipation of the banks assets and as
a valid exercise of police power to protect the depositors, creditors, stockholders, and
the general public.

DINO v OLIVAREZ
This is deputation of DOJ prosecutors by the COMELEC.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 12

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
-

So if a prosecutor is assigned to conduct PI by the COMELEC, the investigating


prosecutor must be under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. Dili siya
musupak kay dili na amo.
Trial Courts knowledge that the filing of the amended information was done by the
public prosecutor in excess of his delegated authority no longer gives it the discretion
as to whether or not to accept the amended information. The only option he had was
not to admit the amended information as a sign of respect to the COMELEC which had
already take cognizance of the accuseds appeal.

PALATINO v COMELEC
Registration is all year round.
PACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY v LLDA
While the comparison of the powers and function of the Pollution Adjudication Board or
the LLDA reveals substantial similarity, the difference lies in that Sec. 19, EO 192,
vested the Pollution Adjudication Board the specific power to adjudicate pollution case
in general while the scope of authority of LLDA to adjudicate pollution cases is limited
to the Laguna Lake Region.
DAGAN v Ombudsman
There are Two instances where resolution of the Ombudsman arising from administrative
cases becomes final and unappealable:
Where the respondent is absolved of the charge
In case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure, reprimand, suspension
not more one month or fine equivalent to one month salary.
-

privacy in the office with CCTV, can still invoke privacy.

REPUBLIC v BAYAO
The SC said, while power to merge administrative region is not in expressly provided for in
the constitution, it is a power which has traditionally been lodged in the president to
facilitate the exercise of the power of general supervision over local governments.
JOSE MIGUEL ARROYO v COMELEC
WON COMELEC has exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases of election law.
Shared responsibility between the DOJ and the COMELEC. Under the present law, the
COMELEC and other prosecuting arms of the government such as the DOJ now exercises
concurrent jurisdiction.
-

Provincial Administrator- primarily confidential.

ABANGLINGKOD v (Partylist System)


Under Section 5, RA 7941. Groups intending to register under the partylist system are not
required to submit evidence of track record.
EJERCITO v COMELEC

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 13

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
-

The purpose of disqualification proceeding is to prevent that candidate from running, or if


elected from serving, for prosecuting for the violation of the election law.
It has been repeatedly underscored that an election offense has its criminal and electoral
aspect. While its criminal aspect to determine the guilt of the accused or innocence of the
accused cannot be the subject of summary hearing(full blown hearing). Its electoral aspect,
to ascertain whether the offender should be disqualified from office can be determined in
an administrative proceedings that is summary in character.
COMELEC may properly take and act on the advertising contracts without further proof
from the parties herein. RA 9006 explicitly directs that broadcast advertisements donated to
the candidate should not be broadcasted without the written acceptance of the candidate
which shall be attached to the advertising contract and shall be submitted to the COMELEC.
And that in every case, advertising contracts shall be signed by the donor, the candidate
concerned or by the duly authorized representative of political party.
This Court cannot give weight to Ejercitos representation that his signature on the
advertising contracts was a forgery.
Limit on expenses of political parties: the current allow for a limit on expenses of
candidates and political parties for election purposes.

GUTTIEREZ v COA(Distinction between criminal and administrative proceedings)


While the purpose of criminal proceedings is to determine if a person suspected of
committing an offense has indeed commited an offense, the purpose of administrative
proceeding is if the person in public office has violated the trust repose in him/her by the
public.
PADILLO v COMELEC (PCOS, no public bidding)
Government Procurement Act
All transactions (except those exempted), should undergo public bidding.
PCOS means a technology wherein an optical ballot scanner, into which optical scan paper
ballots marked by hand by the voter are inserted to be counted, is located in every
precinct.
COMELEC proceeded to procure services for the repair and refurbishment of PCOS
machines. COMELEC however through its resolutions decided to pursue a direct
contract(one of the exception).
Direct contracting arrangement with Smartmatic which has not resulted in the execution of
the extended warranty contract.
Petitioners assail the validity of the foregoing action mainly for violating the GPRA.
In this jurisdiction, public bidding is the established procedure in the grant of government
contracts.
Section 3, Article 1, GPRA. The standing procurement law approved on June 10, 2003
states that all procurement of the national government, its department etc. shall involve
cases be governed by this principles of transparency, competitiveness, streamline
procurement process, system of accountability, public monitoring etc.
Citing COA v Networth Internation, public bidding as a method of procurement is
governeed by this principles. This principles permit the provisions of the GPRA. Public
bidding aims to protect public interest by giving the public best possible advantages
through open competition etc.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 14

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
-

Case law states competition not only requires bidding upon standard. It is an established
policy as well as statutory mandate that all government procurement shall be done through
competitive bidding.

[BTW, in criminal law, machinations in public auctions no longer in the Philippines Competition
Act.]
-

Direct Contracting may be allowed by the procurement of goods with proprietary nature
which can be obtain only from the prospective source.
Goods are considered to be of proprietary nature when they are owned by a person who
has protectable interest in them or an interest protected by intellectual property laws.
In the case, the goods are PCOS. So not allowed.
Comelec has failed to justify its reasons for directly contracting with Smartmatic.

AQUINO v COMELEC (Powers and functions of COMELEC on Elections)


-

Constitution and the laws grant the COMELEC with the powers first and foremost, to
enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election and
second to promulgate rules and regulations. The COMELEC is likewise exercises the power
of legal interpretation.
Citing Regalado, transfer and detail of are modified by the term whatever. Such that
movement of person from one station to another whether in the same office or agency
during the election period is covered by the prohibition.
The 120 day before and 30 after election period was validly fixed by the COMELEC pursuant
to its rule-making power.

REPUBLIC v HUANG TE FU
(WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS DULY COMPLIED WITH THE RIGID REQUISITES PRESCRIBED
BY COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 473, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED NATURALIZATION
LAW, AS TO ENTITLE HIM TO BE ADMITTED AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law or CA 473 requires, among others, that an applicant
for naturalization must be of good moral character and must have some known lucrative trade,
profession, or lawful occupation.)
-

The qualification of some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation


means not only that the person having the employment gets enough for his ordinary
necessities in life. It must be shown that the employment gives one an income such that
there is an appreciable margin of his income over his expenses as to be able to provide for
an adequate support in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability to work and thus
avoid ones becoming the object of charity or a public charge.
In determining the existence of a lucrative income, the courts should consider only the
applicants income; his or her spouses income should not be included in the assessment.
This simply means that respondent continues to be a burden to, and a charge upon, his
parents; he lives on the charity of his parents. He cannot support his own family on his
own.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 15

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)

It is beyond cavil that the City of Cebu had the authority to issue its city ordinance and
impose an amusement tax on cinemas.
the present rule is that ALL amusement taxes levied by covered cities and municipalities
shall be given by proprietors, operators or lessees of theatres and cinemas to FDCP, which
shall then reward said amount to the producers of graded films.
Covered LGUs still have the power to levy amusement taxes.
Citing Pimentel, the Court elucidated that local fiscal autonomy includes the power of LGUs
to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities.

Social Justice Society v Alfredo Lim (About Pandacan Oil Terminals)


-

The issue of whether or not the Pandacan Terminal is not a likely target of terrorist attacks
has already been passed upon.

Republic v Heirs of Borbon


-

Public use, in common acceptation, means use by the public. However, the concept has
expanded to include utility, advantage or productivity for the benefit of the public.
It is essential that the element of public use of the property be maintained throughout the
proceedings for expropriation.
To continue with the expropriation proceedings despite the definite cessation of the public
purpose of the project would result in the rendition of an invalid judgment in favor of the
expropriator due to the absence of the essential element of public use.
Disturbance compensation, actual damages in leau of the discontinuance of the
proceedings and the individual return of the property there is no need to pay just
compensation to them because their property would not be taken by NAPOCOR. Instead of
full market value of the property, NAPOCOR should compensate the respondents for the
disturbance of their property rights from the time of entry in March 1993 until the time of
restoration of the possession by paying to them actual or compensatory damages.

AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA (AKMA-PTM) v COMELEC


-

COMELEC is authorized by law to proclaim winning candidates if the remaining


uncanvassed election returns will not affect the result of the election.
(similar case Legarda v De Castro)
It is clear from the foregoing that partylist groups gathered less than 2% of the partylist
votes may yet qualify for a seat in the allocation of the additional seats depending on the
ranking in the second round.

GOH v BAYRON
The 1987 Constitution expressly provides the COMELEC with the power to "[e]nforce and
administer alE laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, and recall." The 1987 Constitution not only guaranteed the
COMELEC's fiscal autonomy, but also granted its head, as authorized by law, to augment
items in its appropriations from its savings.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 16

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
-

When the COMELEC receives a budgetary appropriation for its "Current Operating
Expenditures," such appropriation includes expenditures to carry out its constitutional
functions, including the conduct of recall elections.
To be valid, an appropriation must indicate a specific amount and a specific purpose.

RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS


Whether not natural persons can file a case.
CATIPON v JAPZON
GARAFIL v OFFICE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
The President exercises only one kind of appointing power. There is no need to
differentiate the exercise of the Presidents appointing power outside, just before, or during
the appointment ban. The Constitution allows the President to exercise the power of
appointment during the period not covered by the appointment ban, and disallows (subject
to an exception) the President from exercising the power of appointment during the period
covered by the appointment ban.
The following elements should always concur in the making of a valid (which should be
understood as both complete and effective) appointment: (1) authority to appoint and
evidence of the exercise of the authority; (2) transmittal of the appointment paper and
evidence of the transmittal; (3) a vacant position at the time of appointment; and (4)
receipt of the appointment paper and acceptance of the appointment by the appointee who
possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. The concurrence of all
these elements should always apply, regardless of when the appointment is made, whether
outside, just before, or during the appointment ban.
There is no appointment if there is no vacancy. There must also be acceptance by the
appointee.
For purposes of verification of the appointment papers existence and authenticity, the
appointment paper must bear the security marks (i.e., handwritten signature of the
President, bar code, etc.) and must be accompanied by a transmittal letter from the MRO.
An appointment can be made only to a vacant office. An appointment cannot be made to
an occupied office. The incumbent must first be legally removed, or his appointment validly
terminated, before one could be validly installed to succeed him.
Illustrated in the case of Lacson v Romero. Lacson was occupying the position of the
prosecutor(Negros), later he was nominated and confirmed as provincial fiscal of Tarlac.
But Lacson neither accepted the appointment nor assumed as provincial fiscal of Tarlac. So
he remains prosecutor of Negros, he cannot be oust nor be compelled to assume because
acceptance is voluntary.
Acceptance is indispensable to complete an appointment. Assuming office and taking the
oath amount to acceptance of the appointment. An oath of office is a qualifying
requirement for the public office, a prerequisite for the full investiture in the office.
Excluding the act of acceptance to the appointment process leads us to the very evil which
we seek to avoid-- that is antedating appointments. Excluding the act of acceptance will
only provide more occasions to honor the constitutional provision in the breach.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 17

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
FERRER, JR. v CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA (Taxation)
G.R. No. 210551
June 30, 2015
Every LGU is now empowered and authorized to create its own sources of revenue and to
levy taxes, fees and charges, which shall accrue exclusively to the LGU as well as to apply
its resources and assets for productive developmental for welfare purposes.
Quezon City imposed a socialized housing tax. Affirmed by the SC.
The above-quoted are consistent with the UDHA, which the LGUs are charged to implement
in their respective localities in coordination with the Housing and Urban Development
Coordinating Council, the national housing agencies, the Presidential Commission for the
Urban Poor, the private sector, and other non-government organizations.
Clearly, the SHT charged by the Quezon City Government is a tax which is within its power
to impose. Aside from the specific authority vested by Section 43 of the UDHA, cities are
allowed to exercise such other powers.
A municipality has an affirmative duty to supervise and control the collection of garbage
within its corporate limits.
Is it legal for Quezon city to levy taxes for the collection of garbage? No.
Necessarily, LGUs are statutorily sanctioned to impose and collect such reasonable fees and
charges for services rendered.137 "Charges" refer to pecuniary liability, as rents or fees
against persons or property, while "Fee" means a charge fixed by law or ordinance for the
regulation or inspection of a business or activity.138
The fee imposed for garbage collections under Ordinance No. SP-2235 is a charge fixed for
the regulation of an activity.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The constitutionality and legality of
Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011, or the "Socialized Housing Tax of Quezon City," is
SUSTAINED for being consistent with Section43 of Republic Act No. 7279. On the other
hand, Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013, which collects an annual garbage fee on all
domestic households in Quezon City, is hereby declared as UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND ILLEGAL.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 18

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
October 4, 2016

Gonzales vs COMELEC (Exception to the 2nd placer rule)


-

In order to justify the cancellation of COC it is essential that the false representation
pertain to a material matter.
The only instance where the petitioner questioning the qualifications of the candidate for
elected office can be filed before election is when the petition is filed under Sec. 78 OEC.
The exception to the 2nd placer rule is predicated on the concurrence of the following:
1. The one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified
2. The electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidates disqualification

Buklod ng mambubukid vs Ramos


-

Zoning classification is an exercise by the local government of police power, not the
power of eminent domain.

Unknown Case law


-

A judge filed a certification for COC, of course he is disqualified.

Alliance for Barangays vs. COMELEC


-

Even if the complaint concerns an act of the public official or employee, which is not
service connected, the case is within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

Philippine National Railways vs Kanlaon Construction


-

Requirements before contracts involving the expenditure of public funds may be


1. First there must be an appropriation law authorizing the expenditure required in
the contract.
2. Second, there must be attached to the contract, a certification from the proper
accounting official and auditor that funds have been appropriated, and such
funds are available.

Heneral vs Urro
-

A staggered term of office is not a statutory prohibition against the issuance of acting or
temporary appointment.

Ong vs Office of the President


-

Temporary appointments are made if only to prevent a hiatus in the government


rendition of public service.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 19

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
-

Acceptance of a temporary appointment, divests an appointee of the right of security of


tenure against removal without cause.

Veloso vs COA
-

The COAs audit jurisdiction extends to the government or any of its subdivisions
including GOCCs.Pursuant to its mandate as the guardian of public funds, COA is vested
with broad powers over all accounts pertaining to government revenue and expenditures
and the use of public funds and property.
Question? Is there anything wrong if the LGU grants additional benefits to officials and
employees?
The Court said, there is nothing wrong with the local government granting additional
benefits to the officials and employees. The laws even encourage the granting of
incentive benefits, aimed at improving the services of the employees. Considering
however that the payment of these benefits, constitute disbursement of public funds, it
must not contravene the law on disbursements of public funds.
The COA adheres to the policy that government funds and property should be fully
protect and conserved, and that the regular and necessary, excessive, or extravagant
uses of such funds or property should be prevented.

Agra vs COA
-

We have to define an incumbent as a person who is in present position of an office.


One who is legally authorized to discharge the duties of an office.

Bureau of Customs Employees Association vs Teves


-

A bill of attainder is a legislative act, which inflicts punishment without judicial trial.
Essential to the bill of attainder is the dissipation of certain individuals or group of
individuals the imposition of a punishment, penal, and the lack of judicial trial.
RA 9335 does not possess the element of a bill of attainder, it does not inflict the
imposition of punishment without judicial trial (Rodriguez v. Ong)

Navarro vs Ermita
-

About Dinagat island.


It must be borne in mind that the central policy consideration and the creation of LGUs
are economic viability, efficient administration, capability to deliver basic services for
their constituents and the criteria prescribed by the LGC of 1991, that is:
1. Income
2. Population
3. Land Area
There is no either rime or reason, why the exemption of the land area requirement,
when the local government unit to be created consists of one or more islands, should

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 20

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)

apply to cities and municipalities but not to provinces. It is therefore logical that the
genuine policy or decision was expressed in Sec. 442 and 450 of the LGC.
However with respect to Municipalities, Component Cities, the three indicators of
viability and projected capacity to provide services are provided, and it must be pointed
out that when the LGU to be created consists of one or more islands, it is exempt from
the land area requirement as expressly provided under Sec. 442 and 450 of the LGC if
the LGU to be created is a municipality, component city, respectively.

Boys Scouts of the Phils


-

Boys scouts of the Philippines is a public corporation and is subject to the COAs audit
jurisdiction.

Atty. Romulo Macalintal vs PET


-

Under the doctrine of necessary implication, the additional jurisdiction bestowed by the
last paragraph of Sec. 4 Art VII of the Constitution to decide presidential and vicepresidential election contest, includes the means necessary to carry it into effect.

Ampatuan vs Puno
-

The president did not proclaim a national emergency, only a state of emergency in the
three places mentioned
The calling out of the armed forces, to prevent or suppress lawless violence in such
places is a power that the Constitution directly vests in the President. She does not need
a congressional authority to exercise the same.
If you are asked? What is State of Lawlessness ni tabang lang ang PNP to maintain

peace and order.


-

It is clear to the president that the Constitution entrusts the determination of the need
for calling out of the Armed Forces to prevent and suppress lawless violence.
Unless it is shown that such determination was attended with grave abuse and
discretion, the court will accord respect to the Presidents judgment.

Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases against
Maguindanao Gov. Sandy Ampatuan
-

The exercise of the power of eminent domain, necessarily includes the imposition of
right of way easements upon the condemned property without loss of title or
possessions, remains doctrinal and should be applied.

Valuation of Just Compensation and Agricultural land


-

The Court determines just compensation.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 21

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
Magalona vs Ermita
New San Valley Home Owners vs Sangguniang Barangay
-

The local governments power to close and open roads within its jurisdiction is clear
under the local government code.

Napocor vs Heirs of Macabangi


-

In inverse expropriation, the property is taken for public use and no expropriation
proceedings takes place, they are using the property. Nisulod wala jud bayari, wala mo

file ug expropriation proceedings.


-

The court of appeals restrictive construant with Sec. 3 (i) of RA 6395 as exclusive of
tunnels, was obviously unwarranted. Ang tunnel naa sa ilawm, wala siya bayare kay tua

man kuno sa ilawom.


-

The provision provides not only to the development works easily discoverable or in the
surface of the earth. But also to subterranean works like tunnels.
Inverse condemnation, or the action to recover just compensation from the State, is
different from action for damages. The former (inverse expropriation) has the objective
to recover the value of property taken in fact, by the governmental defendant, even if
there was no exercise of the power of eminent domain ahs been attempted by the
claiming agency. While in the latter (action for damages), seeks to vindicate a legal
wrong through damages, which may be actual, moral, temperate, liquidated or
exemplary.
IOW you can file both cases, inverse expropriation for just compensation and a separate
case for damages. Note this is not allowed in ordinary expropriation.
The fact that the owner rather than the expropriator brings the action, does not change
the essential nature of the suit as an inverse condemnation. For the suit is not based on
tort, but on the Constitutional prohibition against the taking of property without just
compensation.
It would be contrary to the clear language of the Constitution to bar the recover y of
just compensation for private property taken for public use, solely on the basis of
statutory prescription.
It is settled that the taking of private property for public use, need not be an actual
physical taking or appropriation. The expropriators action may be short of acquisition of
tittle, physical possession, or occupancy, but still amount to taking.

Bitoy vs Board of Directors


-

The designation of the members of the cabinet to form the national power board of
directors does not violate the prohibition contained on the constitution, as the
privatization and restructuring of the electric power industry involves gross coordination
and policy determination of various government agencies.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 22

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
-

Entitlement to qualified employees to receive separation pay and retirement benefits is


not proscribed by the 1987 Constitution.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered additional, double, or indirect
compensation.

Residents of Manila Bay vs MMDA


-

Writ of continuing mandamus

In re: letter of the UP faculty


In the matter of charges of plagiarism
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood disqualified as party list
Office of the Ombudsman
Bayan Muna vs Romulo
-

Connected with the EDCA and VFA


They have legal standing, because this is a question of transcendental
importance.
The subject matter, is waiver of jurisdiction or non-surrender agreement.
There is mere exchange of notes, no ratification of the Senate.
The terms exchange of notes are executive agreements have been used
interchangeably. Exchange of notes being considered a form of executive agreement,
that becomes binding through executive action.
RP US non-surrender agreement, is an executive agreement that does not require the
concurrence of the Senate for its ratification, may not be used to amend a treaty, that
under the Constitution is the product of the ratified acts of the Senate.
In international law, one state can agree to waive jurisdiction to subject of another state
due to the recognition of the principle of ex-territorial immunity.
While the agreement contextually prohibits the surrender of either party of individuals to
international tribunals without the consent of the party, which may decide to prosecute
the crimes under its existing laws. In agreeing to conclude the agreement, Pres. Arroyo,
acted within the scope and authority and discretion vested in her by the Constitution.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 23

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
Guitierez vs House of Representatives Committee on Justice
1st Case
-

An impeachment proceeding was to be deemed initiated upon the committees findings


which was clearly referred to as the instances presumably for the internal purposes of
the house as to the timing of its internal action, on certain relevant matters.
The one year bar rule exception is a constitutional limitation on the house power or
function to refer a complaint.
The house needs only to ascertain the existence or the expiry of the Constitutional ban
of 1 year, without regard to the claims set forth in the complaint.
An impeachment is not a judicial proceeding, but rather a political exercise. Petitioner
thus, cannot be demand that the court apply the stringent standards it ask of justices
and judges, when it comes to inhibition from hearing cases.

Guitierez
vs
House
of
Representatives
nd
2 Case Motion for Reconsideration
-

Committee

on

Justice

The court finds it well within its power to determine whether public respondent
committed violation of the Constitution on grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its
functions and prerogatives, that would translate as lack or excess of jurisdiction.
An aspect of case or controversy requirement is the requisite of ripeness.
The respondents initial participation in the impeachment proceeding is the opportunity
to file an answer, starts after the committee files the complaint sufficient in form and
substance.
While the promulgation would seem synonymous to publication, there is a statutory
difference in their usage.
Promulgation is to make known.
Publication in the Official Gazette or newspaper of general circulation, is
but one having or Congress to make known excludes.
Even assuming that publication is required, lack of it does not nullify the proceedings
taken prior to its effectivity.
The rules on impeachment merely aid or supplement the procedural aspects of
impeachment.
The initiation starts with the filing of the complaint, which must be accompanied with an
action to set the complaint moving. That is, taking initial action of said complaint which
is its referral to the committee on justice. The term initiates to file the complaint and
take initial action on it.
Petitioners reliance on the word complaint to denote the limit prescribed by the
Constitution, goes against the rule of statutory construction, that a word covers a large
and enlarged plural sense.
Preparing the complaint to the proper committee ignites the impeachment proceeding
with a simultaneous referral of the multiplies complaints of more than lighted
matchsticks light the candle at the same time. What is important is that, is that there

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 24

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
should only be one candle, that is candled in a year. Such that once the candle starts
burning, subsequent matchsticks can no longer recandle the candle. Unsaon nimo

pagsiga sa nagsiga na.


-

The question as to who should administer or pronounce an impeachment proceeding


has been initiated rest also on the body that administers the proceeding, prior to the
impeachment trial.
It is the house of representatives in public plenary session which has the power to set its
own chamber into special operation, by referring the complaint or to otherwise guard
against initiation of 2nd impeachment proceeding by rejecting a patently unconstitutional
complaint.
It becomes clear that the consideration behind the intended limitation, refers to the
element of time, and not the number of complaints.
The impeachable officer should defend himself in one impeachment proceeding. What
the constitution assures is that, the impeachable officer is not freedom for arduous
effort to defend himself.
The constitution allows the indictment of multiple impeachment offenses, with each
charge representing an article of impeachment assembled in one sect, known as
articles of impeachment.
It therefore follows that one impeachment complaint, need not allege one impeachable
offense.

Colayan vs Tan
-

Tan is a governor, who declared the state of emergency and used the armed forces.
The calling out power is in the president, the governor cannot exercise it.
The president has the emergency power to call out the armed forces to suppress
invasion, rebellion, or when public safety requires.
The court said, there is only one repository of executive powers, that is the president of
the Philippines. This means that when Sec. 1 Article 7 of the Constitution grants
executive power, it is granted to the President and no one else.
By constitutional fiat, the calling out powers, which is of lesser gravity than the power to
declare martial law, is bestowed upon the president alone. While he is still a Civilian, the
Constitution mandates that, civilian authority is at all times, be superior over the
military. But the Constitution does not require that the President must be possessed of
military training and talents. But as Commander in Chief, he has the power to direct
military operations and to determine military strategy.
Operational Supervision and Control Local chief executive such as the governor,
exercises operational supervision over the police and exercise of control only to day to
day operations.
Respondent provincial governor is not endowed with the power to call out
the armed forces at its own bidding, the calling out powers contemplated
under the Constitution is exclusive to the president.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 25

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
Nagmention siya ug naagian na cases:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Cambe vs COMELEC
Patalinhug vs COMELEC
Land Bank vs Domingo
Medina vs COA
Dumabong vs COMELEC
Social Justice Society vs Atienza
About the RA 9165 Dangerous Drugs Act, that politicians must take a
drug-test. So it was strike down as unconstitutional
In the case of Students, it is valid if there is random and suspicion test.

Dili kay mamili sila, ikaw dako kag mata

In the case of employees, it is valid if there is random and suspicion test.

If nadakpan kay suspek ug caso, unya ang naa sa balaod diretso dayon
ug drug test, pwde? - Unconstitutional, because you are considered a

suspect, it constitutes self-incrimination.


7. Jason vs COMELEC

Civil Service vs Javier (GR 1733364)


Q: Who decides the classifications of position in civil service to career or non-career?
A: Judiciary. The court is not bound by the classification of positions in the civil
service made by the legislative or executive branches or even the constitutional body
(i.e CSC). The court is expected to make its own determination as to the nature of the
particular court. The findings of the other branches of government are merely
recommendatory or initial, not conclusive. It is not within power of Congress to declare
what positions are primarily confidential or policy determining. It is the nature alone of
the position that determines whether it is primarily confidential or policy determining.
Executive pronouncements can be no more than initial determination that are not
conclusive in case of conflict. It is still the rule that executive and legislative
identification or classification of primarily confidential, policy determining or highly
technical positions in the government is no more merely declaration and does not
foreclose judicial review especially in the event of conflict.
Balat, Salas and Piero
-

It is the nature of position which finally determines whether a position is primarily


confidential or not without determination of executive or legislative pronouncements.
Executive secretary is primarily confidential.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 26

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
Sanggunian Barangay (SB) of Don Mariano Marcos vs Martinez
Q: Can a Sanggunian bayan remove an elective official?
A: NO.
Q: Can the President remove?
A: NO. Only general supervision
Pertinent legal provisions and cases of the SC firmly that the SB is not
empowered to remove an elected local official from office.
The Office of the President is without any power to remove elective officials since the
power is exclusively vested in the proper courts.
The SB or SP cannot order the removal of the erring barangay official from office as the
courts are exclusively vested with this power under Sec. 60 of LGC.
The most extreme that the SP or SB may impose on the erring barangay official is
suspension only.
-

Pimentel III vs Comelec

Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability


-

Sec 21 of Art VI of the Constitution relates to THE POWER OF INQUIRY IN AID OF


LEGISLATION. Meaning is to elicit information in aid of legislation
Sec 22 of Art VI of the Constitution is THE POWER TO CONDUCT A QUESTION
HOUR. The objective of which information in pursuit of congress oversight functions.
Unlike in Sec 21, Congress cannot compel the appearance of the executive officials. Sec.
22 states that Congress may only request their attendance. Nonetheless, if the inquiry
requires their appearance is in aid of legislation, the appearance is mandatory. In
fine, the oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to
the extent in pursuit of legislation.
Power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is broad; to be valid is
imperative in accordance with Senate and House rules; and that the rights of persons be
protected. The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the
subject of the inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the Constitution to the
President (i.e areas in the military and foreign relations). Privilege communication
cannot be inquired like Presidential conversation and correspondence, state secrets, etc.
- Elements of Presidential Communication Privilege:
1. Protected communication must relate to quintessential and non-delegable
Presidential power.
2. The communication must be authored or solicited and received by the close
adviser of the President or the President himself

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 27

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
3. The Presidential communication privilege remains a qualified privilege that
may be overcome by showing of adequate mean.
Q: Is right of the people to public information and inquiry in aid of legislation the same?
A: No. The right of Congress or any of its committees to obtain information in aid of
legislation cannot be equated with the peoples right to public information. The right to
information must be balanced with and should give way to appropriate cases to
constitutional limits. For the claim to be properly invoked, there must be a formal claim
of privilege that lodge in the head of the government which has control of the matter.
Congress must require the executive to state of the reasons with such particularity as to
compel the disclosure of the information which the privilege is meant to protect.
Q: Is right to cross-examination indispensable aspect of due process?
A: No. The right to cross-examination is not an indispensable aspect of due process.
When a in court is a matter of right in judicial proceedings, it is otherwise in
administrative since they rest upon different principles. The due process clause
guarantees the particular form of procedure and requirement. Same in proceedings in
labor cases (i.e submission only of position papers)
Citation omitted
-

It is important to underscore the fact the power to transfer savings under Sec 25 (5),
Art.VI pertains exclusively to the President, Vice-President, Senate Pres, House Speaker,
SC Justices and ConComm
Augmentation denotes that an appropriation was determined to be deficient after the
implementation of project or activity for which an appropriation was made or after an
evaluation of the needed resources.

Sanchez vs Comelec
-

Academic freedom may not be invoked if an alleged violation of the civil service rules
and laws are made.

Citation omitted
Q: Can a private corporation apply for land registration?
A: No. They cannot apply for registration but they can lease only. The 1987 Constitution
allows private corporations to hold alienable land of the public domain through lease.
JPEPA case
Q: May the President be compelled to release the contents of the agreement during the
negotiation stage?

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 28

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
A: No. information on intergovernmental exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties
and executive agreements may be subject to reasonable safeguards. The President is
the sole organ in its negotiation with foreign states. Diplomatic negotiations are
therefore are privilege in this jurisdiction.
Sema vs Comelec
Q: What is power of oversight?
A: The power of oversight embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its
understanding of or an influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted.
Sec. of National Defense vs Manalo
-

Manalo brothers were kidnapped. They were then brought in a camp. But they were
able to escape. Before their escape, a writ for habeas corpus was filed in court. But it
was converted into an amparo case. The military moved to dismiss the case since they
are already free. The SC denied the motion since there was a continuing threat to the
life of Manalo brothers. It emphasized the freedom of fear.

League of Cities Cases

RECESS
2010
-

A cabinet which is not no longer considered an area within the arrestees immeidiate
control because there is no way for him to take any weapon or destroy any evidence that
could be used against him.
Search incident to a lawful arrest, only within the reach of the arrestee.

Espina v Zamora, Jr.


September 21, 2010
About national economy
-

While section 19, Article II of the 1987 Constitution requires the development of a self
reliant and independent economy effectively controlled by Filipino entrepreneurs, it does
not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of the economic environment.
While the constitution mandates a bias in favor on the Filipino goods, services and labor
and enterprises if also recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world
on the basis of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of filipino enterprises only
against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair.
Section 10, Article 12, gives congress the discretion to reserve to filipinos certain areas of
investment upon the recommendation of NEDA and when the national interest requires.
(ang foreigners makasulod na under this decision)

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 29

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)

Trade liberalization
The control and liberation of trade in the interest of public welfare is of course execised a
police power of the state to the extent of RA 876 the retail trade liberalization act lessens
the restraint of foreign right to property or to engage in an ordinarily lawful business.
Cannot be said to amount to deny filipinos to property and to due process of law. It is not
within the province of the court to inquire into the wisdom of RA 8762 saved when it
blatantly violates the constitution.

FUNA v ERMITA
612
Feb 11, 2010
18474
-

While the designation was in the nature of an acting and temporary capacity, the words
hold the office were employed. Such holding of office pertains to both appointment and
designation because the appointee or designate performs the duty and functions of the
office. The 1987 constitution in prohibiting dual or multiple offices as well as incompatible
offices refers to the holding of the office not to their nature or not to the nature of the
appointment or designation. Worlds not even found in section 13, art 7 to hold an office
means to possess to occupy the same, to be in possession and administration.
The intent of the framers of the constitution was to impose a stricter prohibition of the
president and his official family(?) insofar as holding offices or other employment in the
government is concerned.

DE CASTRO v JBC
Only one representative from congress, either member of the house or senate.
ALDABA v COMELEC
A city whose population has increased to 250,000 is entitled to have a leg district only on
the immediately following election after the attainment of the 250k population.
DEBARATON CASE
3 instances for the failure of election may be declared by the comelec
COCOFED v REPUBLIC
612
Feb 11, 2010
GR no 177857
-

The current administration or any administration for that matter cannot be detached from
the government. In the final analysis, the seat of the executive powers is located in the
sitting president.

ABAYONG V HRET
The right to examine the fitness of aspiring nominees and eventually to choose five from
among them after all belongs to the party or organization that nominates them.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 30

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
ATIENZA v DEFENSOR
Feb 16, 2010
GR 188920
Election
The requirement of administrative due process.
Can the comelec interfere in the internal affairs of the political parties?
Political Party could very well remove an officer for cause as it sees fit. The validity or
invalidity of the expulsion of a political officers is purely a membership issue that has to be
settled within the party. It is an internal matter over which the comelec has no jurisdiction.
-

GR: no jurisdiction
EXC: when necessary to the discharge of the constitutional function of comelec.

The requirement of administrative due process do not apply to the internal affairs of
political parties. The right to due process is meant to protect ordinary citizens against
arbitrary government action but not from acts committed by private individuals or entities.

The discipline of members by the political parties does not involve the right to life, liberty or
property within the meaning of the due process clause. Even recourse to courts of law may
be made, courts will not ordinarily interfere with membership and disciplinary matters in a
political party.

When the question of party leadership has implication on the comelecs performance of its
function under the constitution, the same cannot be said to be of an expulsion, for the
moment is an issue of party membership and discipline.

ABS BROADCASTING V MULTIMEDIA


Jan. 19, 2009
In truth radio and broadcasting companies which are given franchises do not own the
airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images. They
are merely given the temporary privilege of using them. Since the franchise is a mere
privilege, the exercise of the privilege may be reasonably burdened with the performance
of the grantee of some form of public service.
REVIEW CENTER v ERMITA
Apr. 2, 2009
-

Issue: Can the government control review centers?


The president has no inherent or delegated legislative power to amend the functions of
CHED. It is a legislative power which has the authority to make laws and the order to
repeal them is vested in the congress.

The PRC has no mandate to supervise review centers that give courses or lectures intended
to prepare examinees by censure examination given by the PRC. As it is like the court
regulating bar review centers just because the court conducts bar examination. Similarly,
the PRC has no mandate to regulate similar entities of reviewees will not any licensure
examination by the PRC.

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 31

Political Law Review


University of Cebu College of Law (S.Y. 2016-2017)
ROMERO II v ESTRADA
Aprli 2, 2009
-

Legislative investigation in aid of legislation.

Issue: Naay legislative investigation, naa sad kay pending case sa court.
A legislative investigation in aid of legislation and court proceeding has different purposes.
On going judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearing in aid of legislation.
Courts conduct hearings or like administrative procedures to settle actual controversies.
Inquiries in aid of legislation are undertaken as tools to enable legislative body to gather
information and thus legislate wisely and effectively. COurt has no authority to prohibit a
senate committee from requiring persons to appear and testify before it in connection with
an inquiry in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of proceeding.

SENERES v
-

The Doctrine of state immunity is available to foreign states insofar as they are sought to
be sued in the courts of local state necessary as it is to avoid vexing the peace of nations.

BANAT v COMELEC
(gimodify na)
DE GUZMAN v COMELEC
Easement of right of way fall within the furview of the power of eminent domain.
PANLILIO v COMELEC
Principle on En banc and in Division. SC will only accept En banc.
MARUJO
About Sec. 78.
It is within the competence of the COMELEC in the exercise of its jurisdiction over petition
filed under section 78, OEC, to determine whether false representation as to material facts
was made in the COC.
ROQUE v COMELEC
PENERA
NAZARENO v CITY OF DUMAGUETE
Appointments are banned prior to the elections except chief justice and justices.
COMELEC v Cruz
Congress has authority under the constitution to determine by legislation not only the
duration of the term of barangay officials but also the application to them of the
consecutive term limit.
RTC Judge accused of child abuse filed in the RTC. Adoracion Angeles.
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

Based on the Discussion of Ret. Judge Meinrado Paredes


Compiled and Transcribed by: FAS, JM, & MV

Page 32