Azarcon vs.

Sandiganbayan
Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan

Facts: Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business, hauling dirt and
ore. His services were contracted by PICOP. Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub-
contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at the former’s premises.

On May 25, 1983, a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by BIR commanding one of
its Regional Directors to distraint the goods, chattels or effects and other personal property of Jaime
Ancla, a sub-contractor of accused Azarcon and a delinquent taxpayer. A Warrant of Garnishment
was issued to and subsequently signed by accused Azarcon ordering him to transfer, surrender,
transmit and/or remit to BIR the property in his possession owned by Ancla. Azarcon then
volunteered himself to act as custodian of the truck owned by Ancla.

After some time, Azarcon wrote a letter to the Reg. Dir of BIR stating that while he had made
representations to retain possession of the property of Ancla, he thereby relinquishes whatever
responsibility he had over the said property since Ancla surreptitiously withdrew his equipment from
him. In his reply, the BIR Reg. Dir. said that Azarcon’s failure to comply with the provisions of the
warrant did not relieve him from his responsibility.

Along with his co-accused, Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crime of
malversation of public funds or property. On March 8, 1994, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision
sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 10 yrs and 1 day of prision
mayor in its maximum period to 17 yrs, 4 mos and 1 day of reclusion temporal. Petitioner filed a
motion for new trial which was subsequently denied by Sandiganbayan. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual designated by BIR as
a custodian of distrained property.

Held: SC held that the Sandiganbayan’s decision was null and void for lack of jurisdiction.

Sec. 4 of PD 1606 provides for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It was specified therein that the
only instances when the Sandiganbayan will have jurisdiction over a private individual is when the
complaint charges the private individual either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public
officer or employee who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction.

The Information does no charge petitioner Azarcon of becoming a co-principal, accomplice or

accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Thus,
unless the petitioner be proven a public officer, Sandiganbayan will have no jurisdiction over the
crime charged.

Art. 203 of the RPC determines who public officers are. Granting that the petitioner, in signing the
receipt for the truck constructively distrained by the BIR, commenced to take part in an activity
constituting public functions, he obviously may not be deemed authorized by popular election. Neither
was he appointed by direct provision of law nor by competent authority. While BIR had authority to
require Azarcon to sign a receipt for the distrained truck, the National Internal Revenue Code did not
grant it power to appoint Azarcon a public officer. The BIR’s power authorizing a private individual to
act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to appoint him as a public officer. Thus,
Azarcon is not a public officer.
 G.R. No. 178413 March 13, 2008
AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III, petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC SITTING AS THE NATIONAL BOARD OF
CANVASSERS, THE SPECIAL PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS FOR MAGUINDANAO
CHAIRED BY ATTY. EMILIO S. SANTOS, and JUAN MIGUEL F. ZUBIRI, respondents.

Facts : The Petition stemmed from the 14 May 2007 national elections for 12 senatorial posts. At the
time of filing of the Petition, around two months after the said elections, the 11 candidates with the
highest number of votes had already been officially proclaimed and had taken their oaths of office as
Senators. With other candidates conceding, the only remaining contenders for the twelfth and final
senatorial post were Pimentel and private respondent Juan Miguel F. Zubiri (Zubiri). Public
respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc, acting as the National Board of
Canvassers (NBC), continued to conduct canvass proceedings so as to determine the twelfth and last
Senator-elect in the 14 May 2007 elections.

Pimentel assailed the proceedings before the NBC and its constituted Special Provincial Board of
Canvassers for Maguindanao (SPBOC-Maguindanao) in which the Provincial and Municipal
Certificates of Canvass (PCOC and MCOCs) from the province of Maguindanao were respectively
canvassed. The SPBOC-Maguindanao was created because the canvass proceedings held before
the original Provincial Board of Canvassers for Maguindanao (PBOC-Maguindanao)

Task Force Maguindanao, headed by COMELEC Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. and
Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer, retrieved and collected 21 MCOCs from the municipalities of
Maguindanao, mostly copy 2, or the copy intended to be posted on the wall. Due to the consistent
denial by the SPBOC-Maguindanao of the repeated and persistent motions made by Pimentel’s
counsel to propound questions to PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao
regarding the due execution and authenticity of the Maguindanao MCOCs, Pimentel’s counsel
manifested her continuing objection to the canvassing of the said MCOCs.

On 29 June 2007, the SPBOC-Maguindanao submitted to the NBC the second PCOC for
Maguindanao. In the proceedings before the NBC, Pimentel’s counsel reiterated her request to
propound questions to PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao and the
SPBOC-Maguindanao. The NBC, however, refused to grant her request. Pimentel’s counsel
thereafter moved for the exclusion of the second Maguindanao PCOC from the canvass

Pimentel averred that said canvass proceedings were conducted by the NBC and SPBOC-
Maguindanao in violation of his constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process and
equal protection of the laws, and in obvious partiality to Zubiri

In the meantime, without any TRO and/or Status Quo Ante Order from the Court, the canvass
proceedings before the NBC continued, and by 14 July 2007, Zubiri (with 11,004,099 votes) and
Pimentel (with 10,984,807 votes) were respectively ranked as the twelfth and thirteenth Senatorial
candidates with the highest number of votes in the 14 May 2007 elections.

After a close scrutiny of the allegations, arguments, and evidence presented by all the parties before
this Court, this Court rules to dismiss the present Petition

ISSUE
HELD : A pre-proclamation controversy has been defined by Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise
known as the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, as follows:

SEC. 241. Definition. – A pre-proclamation controversy is any question pertaining to or affecting the
proceeding of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered
political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or any
matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody and appearance of the election returns.

Under Republic Act No. 7166, providing for synchronized national and local elections, pre-
proclamation controversies refer to matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody
and appearance of election returns and certificates of canvass

Similarly, the COMELEC en banc acting as the NBC for the election for Senators, did not violate
Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, when it denied
Pimentel’s request to question PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao and
SPBOC-Maguindanao, and his subsequent motion to exclude the second Maguindanao PCOC.
The SPBOC-Maguindanao, in the conduct of its canvass proceedings, properly refused to allow
Pimentel to contest the Maguindanao MCOCs at that stage by questioning PES Bedol and the
Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao and presenting evidence to prove the alleged
manufactured nature of the said MCOCs, for such would be tantamount to a pre-proclamation case
still prohibited by Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166, even after its amendment by Republic Act No.
9369.

According to Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, Congress
and the COMELEC en banc, acting as the NBC, shall determine the authenticity and due execution of
the certificates of canvass for President, Vice-President and Senators, respectively, as accomplished
and transmitted to them by the local boards of canvassers. For the province of Maguindanao, it is the
PBOC which transmits the PCOC to the NBC.

Given the foregoing, there is indeed no merit in Pimentel’s request before the NBC to still question
PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao and SPBOC-Maguindanao regarding
the Maguindanao MCOCs. There is also no reason to exclude the second Maguindanao PCOC from
the national canvass of votes for Senators after its authenticity and due execution had been
determined by the NBC in accordance with the criteria provided by the law.

This Court finds Pimentel’s argument of deprivation of due process problematic since he has not
established what he is being deprived of: life, liberty, or property. He was a candidate in the senatorial
elections. At the time he filed the instant Petition, he might have been leading in the canvassing of
votes, yet the canvass proceedings were still ongoing, and no winner for the twelfth and last
senatorial post had been proclaimed. May he already claim a right to the elective post prior to the
termination of the canvass proceedings and his proclamation as winner, and may such a right be
considered a property right which he cannot be deprived of without due process? These were clearly
substantial and weighty issues which Pimentel did not address. Unfortunately, this Court cannot
argue and settle them for him.

Finally, while Section 15, in relation to Section 30, of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic
Act No. 9369, did introduce an additional exception to the prohibition against pre-proclamation
controversies in elections for President, Vice-President, and Senators, this Court has already
established in the preceding discussion that Pimentel cannot invoke the same in his Petition. The
provisions in question did not materially change the nature of canvass proceedings before the boards
of canvassers, which still remain summary and administrative in nature for the purpose of canvassing
the votes and determining the elected official with as little delay as possible and in time for the
commencement of the new term of office
Garments and Textile Export Board vs. CA

Glorious Sun was a recipient of a substantial number of EQ allocations from the GTEB. Glorious Sun
was charged before the GTEB and was found guilty of, misdeclaration of values of its imported raw
materials resulting in dollar salting, and other related frauds, in connection with its importations in
1983. Its export quotas were thereafter given to two newly-formed corporations — the De Soleil
Apparel Manufacturing Corporation (De Soleil) and the herein petitioner American Inter-Fashion
Corporation (AIFC). The cancelled EQs of Glorious Sun which were given to AIFC are the subject of
dispute between GTEB and petitioner. Glorious Sun continues to claim its right over the
aforementioned EQ. AIFC was able to maintain its EQ from 1984 up to the time of the filing of this
petition.

With the establishment of a new government in 1986, Glorious Sun filed an appeal with the Office of
the President, which, in turn, set aside the GTEB decision adverse to Glorious Sun and remanded the
case for genuine hearings where due process would be accorded both parties. This decision was
upheld by the Supreme Court.

After further proceedings were conducted concerning Glorious Sun's alleged violations and frauds,
the GTEB adopted a resolution providing that the disqualification of Glorious Sun and its principal
stockholders and officers from engaging in the garments export business is lifted.

AIFC, on the other hand, prior to the Supreme Court denial of its petition for review of the cancellation
of its registration, requested the GTEB to release its EQ allocation for 1993. This request was,
however, refused by the GTEB. The RTC denied AIFC’s petition for injunction. AIFC's subsequent
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES: Whether or not GTEB have the power and authority to grant or cancel export quotas or
authorizations

HELD: YES. The Court held that that the power and jurisdiction to adjudicate on the question of
AIFC's entitlement to the export allocations subject of the above-entitled petitions (be they export
quotas or export authorizations), which includes the discretion to grant and disapprove said export
allocations, belongs solely to the GTEB, and not to the regular courts. On the basis of EO 537 and
EO 952, which amended the former, the power to adjudicate on the question of an entity's entitlement
to export allocations was expressly granted to the GTEB, or at the very least, was necessarily implied
from the power to cancel or suspend quota allocations, is beyond cavil.
 103 Phil. 1051 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Political Question Defined –
Members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal
After the 1955 national elections, the membership in the Senate was overwhelmingly
occupied by the Nacionalista Party. The lone opposition senator was Lorenzo Tañada
who belonged to the Citizen’s Party. Diosdado Macapagal on the other hand was a
senatorial candidate who lost the bid but was contesting it before the Senate Electoral
Tribunal (SET). But prior to a decision the SET would have to choose its members. It is
provided that the SET should be composed of 9 members comprised of the following: 3
justices of the Supreme Court, 3 senators from the majority party and 3 senators from
the minority party. But since there is only one minority senator the other two SET
members supposed to come from the minority were filled in by the NP.
Tañada assailed this process before the Supreme Court. So did Macapagal because
he deemed that if the SET would be dominated by NP senators then he, as a member
of the Liberalista Party will not have any chance in his election contest. Senator
Mariano Cuenco et al (members of the NP) averred that the Supreme Court cannot
take cognizance of the issue because it is a political question. Cuenco argued that the
power to choose the members of the SET is vested in the Senate alone and the
remedy for Tañada and Macapagal was not to raise the issue before judicial courts but
rather to leave it before the bar of public opinion.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issue is a political question.
HELD: No. The SC took cognizance of the case and ruled that the issue is a justiciable
question. The term Political Question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance,
namely, a question of policy. It refers to those questions which, under the Constitution,
are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a
particular measure.
In this case, the issue at bar is not a political question. The Supreme Court is not being
asked by Tañada to decide upon the official acts of Senate. The issue being raised
by Tañada was whether or not the elections of the 5 NP members to the SET are valid
– which is a judicial question. Note that the SET is a separate and independent body
from the Senate which does not perform legislative acts.
But how should the gridlock be resolved?
The nomination of the last two members (who would fill in the supposed seat of the
minority members) must not come from the majority party. In this case, the Chairman
of the SET, apparently already appointed members that would fill in the minority seats
(even though those will come from the majority party). This is still valid provided the
majority members of the SET (referring to those legally sitting) concurred with the
Chairman. Besides, the SET may set its own rules in situations like this provided such
rules comply with the Constitution.
Ruben Villaluz vs Calixto Zaldivar
Ruben Villaluz was appointed as the Administrator of the Motor Vehicles
Office in 1958. In 1960, Congressman Joaquin Roces alleged that Villaluz
was an ineffective leader and had caused losses to the government. He
indorsed the removal of Villaluz. Consequently, Executive Secretary Calixto
Zaldivar suspended Villaluz and ordered a committee to investigate the
matter. After investigation, it was recommended that Villaluz be removed.
The president then issued an Administrative Order removing Villaluz from
his post. Villaluz averred that the president has no jurisdiction to remove
him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Villaluz is under the jurisdiction of the President to
be removed considering that he is an appointee of the president.
HELD: Yes. The president has jurisdiction and not the Civil Service. The
President of the Philippines has jurisdiction to investigate and remove him
since he is a presidential appointee who belongs to the non-competitive or
unclassified service under Sec 5 of Republic Act No. 2260; being a
presidential appointee, Villaluz belongs to the non-competitive or
unclassified service of the government and as such he can only be
investigated and removed from office after due hearing by the President of
the Philippines under the principle that “the power to remove is inherent in
the power to appoint” .
There is some point in the argument that the power of control of the
President may extend to the power to investigate, suspend or remove
officers and employees who belong to the executive department if they are
presidential appointees or do not belong to the classified service for such
can be justified under the principle that the power to remove is inherent in
the power to appoint but not with regard to those officers or employees who
belong to the classified service for as to them that inherent power cannot be
exercised. This is in line with the provision of our Constitution which says
that “the Congress may by law vest the appointment of the inferior officers,
in the President alone, in the courts, or in heads of department”.
TAULE vs. SANTOS
August 12, 1991
G. R. No. 90336
x----------------------x

This is a petition for certiorari seeking the reversal of the resolutions of respondent Secretary dated
August 4, 1989 and September 5, 1989 for being null and void.

Facts:

An election for the officers of the Federation of Associations of Barangay Council (FABC) was held on
June 18, 1989 despite the absence of other members of the said council. Including Petitioner was
elected as the president.

Respondent Verceles sent a letter of protest to respondent Santos, seeking its nullification in view of
several flagrant irregularities in the manner it was conducted.

Petitioner denied the allegations of respondent Verceles and denouncing respondent for intervening
in the said election which is a purely non-partisan affair. And requesting for his appointment as a
member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province being the duly elected President of the
FABC in Catanduanes.

Respondent Santos issued a resolution on August 4, 1989 nullifying the election and ordering a new
one to be conducted as early as possible to be presided by the Regional Director of Region V of the
Department of Local Government. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by
respondent Santos in his resolution on September 5, 1989.

Thus this petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

1)WON the respondent Santos has jurisdiction to entertain an election protest involving the election of
the officers of the FABC.

2)WON the respondent Verceles has the legal personality to file an election protest.

Decision:

Petition GRANTED. Assailed August 4, 1989 and September 5, 1989 resolution is SET ASIDE for
having been issued in excess of jurisdiction. However, the election on June 18, 1989 is annulled. A
new election of officers of the FABC be conducted immediately in accordance with the governing
rules and regulations. Supplemental petition is likewise partially granted.
Ratio Decidendi:

1. No. The Secretary of Local Government has no jurisdiction to entertain any protest involving the
election of officers of the FABC. He is only vested with the power to promulgate rules and regulations
and to exercise general supervision over the local government as provided in the Local Government
Code and in the Administrative Code.

It is the exclusive original jurisdiction of the inferior to hear election protest and the COMELEC have
the appellate jurisdiction over it.

2) Yes. The Governor has the personality to file the protest. Under Section 205 of the Local
Government Code, the membership of the sangguniang panlalawigan consists of the governor, the
vice-governor, elective members of the said sanggunian, etc. He acted as the presiding officer of the
sangguniang panlalawigan. As presiding officer, he has an interest in the election of the officers of the
FABC since its elected president becomes a member of the assembly. If said member assumes his
place under questionable circumstances, the sanggunian may be vulnerable to attacks as to their
validity or legality. Therefore, respondent governor is a proper party to question the regularity of the
elections of the officers of the FABC.
The election of officers of the FABC held on June 18, 1989 is null and void for not complying with the
provisions of DLG Circular No. 89-09.

DLG Circular No. 89-09 provides that "the incumbent FABC President or the Vice-President shall
preside over the reorganizational meeting, there being a quorum." It is admitted that neither the
incumbent FABC President nor the Vice-President presided over the meeting and elections but
Alberto P. Molina, Jr., the Chairman of the Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants. Therefore,
there was a clear violation of the said mandatory provision.

• Pending resolution, petitioner also filed a supplemental petition alleging that public respondent Local
Government Secretary, in his memorandum dated June 7, 1990, designated Augusto Antonio,
despite him being absent on said election. The Secretary of Local Government has no authority to
appoint anyone who does not meet the minimum qualification to be the president of the federation of
barangay councils.
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS LANTION
G.R. No. L-139465 January 18, 2000
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RALPH C. LANTION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, and MARK
B. JIMENEZ, respondents.

Facts:
This is a petition for review of a decision of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Department of
Justice received a request from the Department of Foreign Affairs for the extradition of respondent
Mark Jimenez to the U.S. The Grand Jury Indictment. The warrant for his arrest, and other supporting
documents for said extradition were attached along with the request. Charges include:

1. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US

2. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
3. Fraud by wire, radio, or television
4. False statement or entries
5. Election contribution in name of another

The Department of Justice (DOJ), through a designated panel proceeded with the technical
evaluation and assessment of the extradition treaty which they found having matters needed to be
addressed. Respondent, then requested for copies of all the documents included in the extradition
request and for him to be given ample time to assess it. The Secretary of Justice denied request on
the following grounds:

1. He found it premature to secure him copies prior to the completion of the evaluation. At that point
in time, the DOJ is in the process of evaluating whether the procedures and requirements under
the relevant law (PD 1069 Philippine Extradition Law) and treaty (RP-US Extradition Treaty) have
been complied with by the Requesting Government. Evaluation by the DOJ of the documents is
not a preliminary investigation like in criminal cases making the constitutionally guaranteed rights
of the accused in criminal prosecution inapplicable.
2. The U.S. requested for the prevention of unauthorized disclosure of the information in the
documents.
3. The department is not in position to hold in abeyance proceedings in connection with an
extradition request, as Philippines is bound to Vienna Convention on law of treaties such that
every treaty in force is binding upon the parties.

Mark Jimenez then filed a petition against the Secretary of Justice. RTC presiding Judge Lantion
favored Jimenez. Secretary of Justice was made to issue a copy of the requested papers, as well as
conducting further proceedings. Thus, this petition is now at bar.
Issue/s:
Whether or not respondent’s entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the RP-US
Extradition Treaty.

Discussions:
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in
which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the
constitution or statute of a local state. Efforts should be done to harmonize them. In a situation,
however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of
international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the
municipal courts. The doctrine of incorporation decrees that rules of international law are given equal
standing, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.