You are on page 1of 41

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT such requirement if the title expresses the general subject and

all provisions are germane to that general subject. It suffices if


1. Tobias vs Abalos the title should serve the purpose of the constitutional demand
that it inform the legislators, the persons interested in the
Facts:
subject of the bill and the public, of the nature, scope and
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 7675, “An consequence of the proposed law and its operation.
Act Converting the municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly
Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong”.
2. Yes.
Prior to the enactment of the assailed statute, the
Munnicipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to The Constitution clearly provides that the House of
only one legislative district. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, the Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250
incumbent congressional representative of this legislative members, unless otherwise provided by law. The present
district, sponsored the bill which eventually became RA 7675, composition of the Congress may be increased, if Congress
President Ramis signed it into law. itself so mandates through a legislative enactment.
Pursuant to Local Government Code of 1991, a
plebiscite was held. The people of Mandaluyong were asked
whether they approved the conversion. The turnout at the 3. No.
plebiscite was only 14.41% of the voting population.
Nevertheless, 18,621 voted “yes” whereas 7, 911 voted “no”. Gerrymandering is the practice of creating legislative districts
By virtue of these results, RA 7675 was deemed ratified in to favor a particular candidate or party. It should be noted that
effect. Rep. Zamora, the author of the assailed law, is the incumbent
representative of the former San Juan/Mandaluyong district,
Petitioners contention were that RA 7675, specifically having consistently won in both localities. By dividing San
Article VIII, Section 46 thereof, is unconstitutional. They Juan/Mandaluyong, Rep. Zamora’s constituency has in fact
alleged that it contravenes the “one subject – one bill” rule. been diminished, which development could hardly be
They also alleged that the subject law embraced two principal considered as favorable to him.
subjects, namely: 1. the conversion of Mandaluyong into a
highly urbanized city; and 2. the division of the congressional ___________________________________________
district of San Juan/Mandaluyong into two separate districts.
2. Marcos vs COMELEC
Petitioners argue that the division has resulted in an
FACTS:
increase in the composition of the House of Representative
beyond that provided in the Constitution. Furthermore,
petitioners contend that said division was not made pursuant to
any census showing that the subject municipalities have Imelda, a little over 8 years old, in or about 1938, established
attained the minimum population requirements. her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte where she studied and
graduated high school in the Holy Infant Academy from 1938 to
1949. She then pursued her college degree, education, in St.
Paul’s College now Divine Word University also in
Issue:
Tacloban. Subsequently, she taught in Leyte Chinese School
1. Whether or not RA 7675 is unconstitutional. still in Tacloban. She went to manila during 1952 to work with
her cousin, the late speaker Daniel Romualdez in his office in
2. Whether or not the number of the members of the House the House of Representatives. In 1954, she married late
of Representative may increase. President Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a Congressman
of Ilocos Norte and was registered there as a voter. When
3. Whether or not the subject law has resulted in Pres. Marcos was elected as Senator in 1959, they lived
gerrymandering. together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. In
1965, when Marcos won presidency, they lived in Malacanang
Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel Manila. She
Ruling: served as member of the Batasang Pambansa and Governor
of Metro Manila during 1978.
1. No.

The conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city


with a population of not less than 250, 000 indubitably ordains Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was running for the position of
compliance with the “one city – one representative” as Representative of the First District of Leyte for the 1995
provided in Article VI, Section 5, par.3 of the Constitution. Elections. Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent Representative
of the First District of Leyte and also a candidate for the same
The creation of separate congressional district for position, filed a “Petition for Cancellation and
Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the Disqualification" with the Commission on Elections alleging that
subject of its conversion into a highly urbanized city but is a petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for
natural ang logical consequence of its conversion into a highly residency. The petitioner, in an honest misrepresentation,
urbanized city. It should be given a practical rather than a wrote seven months under residency, which she sought to
technical construction. It should be sufficient compliance with rectify by adding the words "since childhood" in her
Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place
29, 1995 and that "she has always maintained Tacloban City and establishing a new place of residence;
as her domicile or residence. She arrived at the seven months
residency due to the fact that she became a resident of the 3. Acts which corresponds to the purpose
Municipality of Tolosa in said months.

In the absence of the enumerated criteria the residence of


ISSUE: Whether petitioner has satisfied the 1year residency origin should be deemed to continue.
requirement to be eligible in running as representative of the
First District of Leyte.
WHEREFORE, having determined that petitioner possesses
the necessary residence qualifications to run for a seat in the
HELD: House of Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the
COMELEC's questioned Resolutions dated April 24, May 7,
May 11, and May 25, 1995 are hereby SET ASIDE.
Respondent COMELEC is hereby directed to order the
Residence is used synonymously with domicile for election Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the
purposes. The court are in favor of a conclusion supporting duly elected Representative of the First District of Leyte.
petitoner’s claim of legal residence or domicile in the First
District of Leyte despite her own declaration of 7 months ___________________________________________
residency in the district for the following reasons:
3. BANAT vs COMELEC

In July and August 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the National


1. A minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban became Board of Canvassers, made a partial proclamation of the
Imelda’s domicile of origin by operation of law when her father winners in the party-list elections which was held in May 2007.
brought them to Leyte; In proclaiming the winners and apportioning their seats, the
COMELEC considered the following rules:
1. In the lower house, 80% shall comprise the seats for
2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal legislative districts, while the remaining 20% shall come from
or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the party-list representatives (Sec. 5, Article VI, 1987 Constitution);
former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which
2. Pursuant to Sec. 11b of R.A. 7941 or the Party-List System
correspond with the purpose. In the absence and concurrence
Act, a party-list which garners at least 2% of the total votes cast
of all these, domicile of origin should be deemed to continue.
in the party-list elections shall be entitled to one seat;
3. If a party-list garners at least 4%, then it is entitled to 2 seats;
if it garners at least 6%, then it is entitled to 3 seats – this is
3. A wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile pursuant to the 2-4-6 rule or the Panganiban Formula from the
because the term “residence” in Civil Law does not mean the case of Veterans Federation Party vs COMELEC.
same thing in Political Law. When Imelda married late
President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and 4. In no way shall a party be given more than three seats even
merely gained a new home and not domicilium necessarium. if if garners more than 6% of the votes cast for the party-list
election (3 seat cap rule, same case).
The Barangay Association for National Advancement and
Transparency (BANAT), a party-list candidate, questioned the
4. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her
proclamation as well as the formula being used. BANAT averred
marriage and acquired right to choose a new one only after the that the 2% threshold is invalid; Sec. 11 of RA 7941 is void
death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon returning to the because its provision that a party-list, to qualify for a
country clearly indicated that she chose Tacloban, her domicile congressional seat, must garner at least 2% of the votes cast in
of origin, as her domicile of choice. To add, petitioner even the party-list election, is not supported by the Constitution.
obtained her residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte Further, the 2% rule creates a mathematical impossibility to
while living in her brother’s house, an act, which supports the meet the 20% party-list seat prescribed by the Constitution.
domiciliary intention clearly manifested. She even kept close
BANAT also questions if the 20% rule is a mere ceiling or is it
ties by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her
mandatory. If it is mandatory, then with the 2% qualifying vote,
birthdays and other important milestones. there would be instances when it would be impossible to fill the
prescribed 20% share of party-lists in the lower house. BANAT
also proposes a new computation (which shall be discussed in
Domicile of origin is not easily lost, to effect abandonment of the “HELD” portion of this digest).
the domicile of origin one must demonstrate: On the other hand, BAYAN MUNA, another party-list candidate,
questions the validity of the 3 seat rule (Section 11a of RA 7941).
It also raised the issue of whether or not major political parties
are allowed to participate in the party-list elections or is the said
1. Actual removal or an actual change of domicile;
elections limited to sectoral parties.
ISSUES:
I. How is the 80-20 rule observed in apportioning the seats in the IV. Instead, the 2% rule should mean that if a party-list garners
lower house? 2% of the votes cast, then it is guaranteed a seat, and not
“qualified”. This allows those party-lists garnering less than 2%
II. Whether or not the 20% allocation for party-list to also get a seat.
representatives mandatory or a mere ceiling.
But how? The Supreme Court laid down the following rules:
III. Whether or not the 2% threshold to qualify for a seat valid.
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked
IV. How are party-list seats allocated? from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they
V. Whether or not major political parties are allowed to garnered during the elections.
participate in the party-list elections. 2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least
VI. Whether or not the 3 seat cap rule (3 Seat Limit Rule) is valid. two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system
shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
HELD:
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the
I. The 80-20 rule is observed in the following manner: for every ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in
5 seats allotted for legislative districts, there shall be one seat proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional
allotted for a party-list representative. Originally, the 1987 seats are allocated.
Constitution provides that there shall be not more than 250
members of the lower house. Using the 80-20 rule, 200 of that 4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not
will be from legislative districts, and 50 would be from party-list more than three (3) seats.
representatives. However, the Constitution also allowed In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no
Congress to fix the number of the membership of the lower longer be included because they have already been allocated,
house as in fact, it can create additional legislative districts as it at one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus, the remaining
may deem appropriate. As can be seen in the May 2007 available seats for allocation as “additional seats” are the
elections, there were 220 district representatives, hence maximum seats reserved under the Party List System less the
applying the 80-20 rule or the 5:1 ratio, there should be 55 seats guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the
allotted for party-list representatives. absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding
How did the Supreme Court arrive at 55? This is the formula: off of fractional seats.

(Current Number of Legislative DistrictRepresentatives ÷ 0.80) In short, there shall be two rounds in determining the allocation
x (0.20) = Number of Seats Available to Party-List of the seats. In the first round, all party-lists which garnered at
Representatives least 2% of the votes cast (called the two-percenters) are given
their one seat each. The total number of seats given to these
Hence, two-percenters are then deducted from the total available seats
(220 ÷ 0.80) x (0.20) = 55 for party-lists. In this case, 17 party-lists were able to garner 2%
each. There are a total 55 seats available for party-lists hence,
II. The 20% allocation for party-list representatives is merely a 55 minus 17 = 38 remaining seats. (Please refer to the full text
ceiling – meaning, the number of party-list representatives shall of the case for the tabulation).
not exceed 20% of the total number of the members of the lower
house. However, it is not mandatory that the 20% shall be filled. The number of remaining seats, in this case 38, shall be used in
the second round, particularly, in determining, first, the
III. No. Section 11b of RA 7941 is unconstitutional. There is no additional seats for the two-percenters, and second, in
constitutional basis to allow that only party-lists which garnered determining seats for the party-lists that did not garner at least
2% of the votes cast are qualified for a seat and those which 2% of the votes cast, and in the process filling up the 20%
garnered less than 2% are disqualified. Further, the 2% allocation for party-list representatives.
threshold creates a mathematical impossibility to attain the How is this done?
ideal 80-20 apportionment. The Supreme Court explained:
Get the total percentage of votes garnered by the party and
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose multiply it against the remaining number of seats. The product,
there are 50 million votes cast for the 100 participants in the which shall not be rounded off, will be the additional number of
party list elections. A party that has two percent of the votes seats allotted for the party list – but the 3 seat limit rule shall still
cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seat. Let us be observed.
further assume that the first 50 parties all get one million votes. Example:
Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability of 55 seats.
Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this In this case, the BUHAY party-list garnered the highest total vote
situation will repeat itself even if we increase the available of 1,169,234 which is 7.33% of the total votes cast for the party-
list elections (15,950,900).
party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes
cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum number of Applying the formula above: (Percentage of vote garnered) x
parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is always (remaining seats) = number of additional seat
impossible for the number of occupied party-list seats to
Hence, 7.33% x 38 = 2.79
exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is
present. Rounding off to the next higher number is not allowed so 2.79
remains 2. BUHAY is a two-percenter which means it has a
It is therefore clear that the two percent threshold presents an guaranteed one seat PLUS additional 2 seats or a total of 3
unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section seats. Now if it so happens that BUHAY got 20% of the votes
5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment cast, it will still get 3 seats because the 3 seat limit rule prohibits
of “the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or it from having more than 3 seats.
group interests in the House of Representatives.”
Now after all the tw0-percenters were given their guaranteed Rationale:
and additional seats, and there are still unoccupied seats, those
seats shall be distributed to the remaining party-lists and those a. Yes. Political parties, even the major ones, may participate
higher in rank in the voting shall be prioritized until all the seats in the party-list elections. Under the Constitution and RA 7941,
are occupied. private respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list
elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties.
V. No. By a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court continued to disallow
major political parties (the likes of UNIDO, LABAN, etc) from Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members
participating in the party-list elections. of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
Although the ponencia (Justice Carpio) did point out that there parties or organizations."
is no prohibition either from the Constitution or from RA 7941
against major political parties from participating in the party-list Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the
elections as the word “party” was not qualified and that even the Constitution, political parties may be registered under the
framers of the Constitution in their deliberations deliberately party-list system. For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also
allowed major political parties to participate in the party-list provides for "a party-list system of registered national, regional
elections provided that they establish a sectoral wing which and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x
represents the marginalized (indirect participation), Justice
x." Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is "either a political
Puno, in his separate opinion, concurred by 7 other justices,
party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties."
explained that the will of the people defeats the will of the
framers of the Constitution precisely because it is the people b. No. That political parties may participate in the party-list
who ultimately ratified the Constitution – and the will of the
elections does not mean, however, that any political party -- or
people is that only the marginalized sections of the country shall
participate in the party-list elections. Hence, major political any organization or group for that matter – may do so. The
parties cannot participate in the party-list elections, directly or requisite character of these parties or organizations must be
indirectly. consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid
down in the Constitution and RA 7941. Section 5, Article VI of
VI. Yes, the 3 seat limit rule is valid. This is one way to ensure the Constitution. The provision on the party-list system is not
that no one party shall dominate the party-list system. self-executory. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like "in
___________________________________________ accordance with law" or "as may be provided by law"; it was
thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of
4. Ang Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted.
Facts: ___________________________________________
Bagong Bayani and and Akbayan Citizens Party filed before 5. Atong Paglaum vs COMELEC
the COMELEC a Petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued by the Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties were disqualified by
COMELEC. This resolution approved the participation of 154 the Commission on Elections in the May 2013 party-list
organizations and parties, including those impleaded, in the elections for various reasons but primarily for not being
2001 party list elections. Petitioners seek the disqualification of qualified as representatives for marginalized or
private respondents, arguing mainly that the party list system underrepresented sectors.
was intended to benefit the marginalized and
underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties, the Atong Paglaum et al then filed a petition for certiorari against
none-marginalized or overrepresented. COMELEC alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of
COMELEC in disqualifying them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse


Issues: of discretion in disqualifying the said party-lists.

a. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party- HELD: No. The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines set
list elections in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT. However, the
Supreme Court remanded the cases back to the COMELEC as
b. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to the Supreme Court now provides for new guidelines which
‘marginalized and underrepresented’ sectors and abandoned some principles established in the two aforestated
organizations. cases. The new guidelines are as follows:

I. Parameters. In qualifying party-lists, the COMELEC must


use the following parameters:
Held:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list
The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be
system: (1) national parties or organizations, (2) regional
remanded to the COMELEC which will determine, after
parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and
organizations.
organizations enumerated in the assailed Omnibus Resolution
satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941. The 2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or
resolution of this Court directed the COMELEC “to refrain organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and
proclaiming any winner” during the last party-list election, shall do not need to represent any “marginalized and
remain in force until after the COMELEC have compiled and underrepresented” sector.
reported its compliance.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections III. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the party-list
provided they register under the party-list system and do not system is NOT RESERVED for the “marginalized and
field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party, underrepresented” or for parties who lack “well-defined political
whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative constituencies”. It is also for national or regional parties. It is
district elections can participate in party-list elections only also for small ideology-based and cause-oriented parties who
through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the lack “well-defined political constituencies”. The common
party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent denominator however is that all of them cannot, they do not
sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a have the machinery – unlike major political parties, to field or
coalition. sponsor candidates in the legislative districts but they can
acquire the needed votes in a national election system like the
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be party-list system of elections.
“marginalized and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-
defined political constituencies.” It is enough that their principal If the party-list system is only reserved for
advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their marginalized representation, then the system itself unduly
sector. The sectors that are “marginalized and excludes other cause-oriented groups from running for a seat
underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban in the lower house.
poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans,
and overseas workers. The sectors that lack “well-defined As explained by the Supreme Court, party-list
political constituencies” include professionals, the elderly, representation should not be understood to include only labor,
women, and the youth. peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas workers, and
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or other sectors that by their nature are economically at the
organizations that represent the “marginalized and margins of society. It should be noted that Section 5 of
underrepresented” must belong to the “marginalized and Republic Act 7941 includes, among others, in its provision for
underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a majority sectoral representation groups of professionals, which are not
of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack per se economically marginalized but are still qualified as
“well-defined political constituencies” must belong to the sector “marginalized, underrepresented, and do not have well-defined
they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or political constituencies” as they are ideologically
organizations that represent the “marginalized and marginalized
underrepresented,” or that represent those who lack “well-
defined political constituencies,” either must belong to their _________________________________________
respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for
6. Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido Tinig ng Masa vs COMELEC
their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional
parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such Petitioner was among the accredited candidates for party-list
parties or organizations. representative during the national and local elections held on
May 13, 2013. On May 24, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall
sitting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC), under
not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified,
NBOC Resolution No. 0006-13, proclaimed fourteen (14) party-
provided that they have at least one nominee who remains
list groups, which obtained at least 2% of the total votes cast
qualified.
for the party-list system and were thus entitled to one (1)
II. In the BANAT case, major political parties are disallowed, as guaranteed seat each, pursuant to Section 11 of Republic Act
has always been the practice, from participating in the party-list (R.A.) No. 7941. Petitioners filed for a TRO but the same was
elections. But, since there’s really no constitutional prohibition dismissed.
nor a statutory prohibition, major political parties can now
participate in the party-list system provided that they do so Petitioner’s contention:
through their bona fide sectoral wing (see parameter 3
1. Allocation of additional seats – prejudicial to the
above).
interest of the parties
Allowing major political parties to participate, albeit
2. It was hasty and premature because there were still
indirectly, in the party-list elections will encourage them to work
uncanvassed and untransmitted results from
assiduously in extending their constituencies to the
Mindanao and absentee votes.
“marginalized and underrepresented” and to those who “lack
well-defined political constituencies.” 3. It was invalid as it was based on an incomplete
canvass/consolidation of only 110 Certificates of
Ultimately, the Supreme Court gave weight to the deliberations
Canvass (COCs), some of which were not
of the Constitutional Commission when they were drafting the
electronically transmitted in gross violation of Section
party-list system provision of the Constitution. The
27, R.A. No. 8436 (as amended by Section 22, R.A.
Commissioners deliberated that it was their intention to include
No. 9369).
all parties into the party-list elections in order to develop a
political system which is pluralistic and multiparty. (In 4. Allocation of additional seats did not conform to
the BANAT case, Justice Puno emphasized that the will of the Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941 and this Court's ruling in
people should defeat the intent of the framers; and that the Barangay Association for National Advancement and
intent of the people, in ratifying the 1987 Constitution, is that Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC.
the party-list system should be reserved for the marginalized
sectors.) Comment of the Solicitor General:
1. COMELEC faithfully adhered to the procedure
prescribed in BANAT in the allocation of party-list There are two steps in the second round of seat allocation.
seats (14 guaranteed seats were first allocated to First, the percentage is multiplied by the remaining
those who obtained 2% of the total votes cast for available seats, 38, which is the difference between the 55
party-list and thereafter 44 additional seats were maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and
completely distributed). It was explained that party-list the 17 guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole
groups with products of less than one were still integer of the product of the percentage and of the
allocated seats depending on their rank and remaining available seats corresponds to a party's share
availability of seats. As to the uncanvassed votes at in the remaining available seats. Second, we assign one
the time, COMELEC had reserved five "buffer" seats party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all
to accommodate possible changes in the ranking. available seats are completely distributed. We distributed
all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round of seat
2. The Solicitor General further contends that allocation. Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine
COMELEC's proclamation of initial winners under the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is
NBOC Res. No. 0008-13 is valid as the votes yet to entitled.
be canvassed did not materially affect the results of
the election. It is clear from the foregoing that party-list groups garnering
less than 2% of the party-list votes may yet qualify for a seat in
ISSUE: WON COMELEC acted in grave abuse of its the allocation of additional seats depending on their ranking in
discretion in allocating the additional seats for the 38 party-list the second round. In sum, we hold that COMELEC did not
candidates proclaimed as winners in the May 13, 2013 commit grave abuse of discretion in allocating the party-list
elections. seats in the 2013 elections and proclaiming the winners after
distributing the guaranteed and additional seats in accordance
with our ruling in BANAT.
RULING: NO. The COMELEC did not. Both petitions are
___________________________________________
dismissed.
7. Ligot vs Mathay

Benjamin Ligot served as a member of the House of


1. COMELEC is authorized by law to proclaim
Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines for three
winning candidates if the remaining uncanvassed
consecutive four-year terms covering a twelve-year span from
election returns will not affect the result of the December 30, 1957 to December 30, 1969. During his second
elections term in office (1961-1965), Republic Act No. 4134 “fixing the
salaries of constitutional officials and certain other officials of the
national government” was enacted into law and took effect on
A canvass of votes will only be illegal if the election returns July 1, 1964. The salaries of members of Congress (senators
and congressmen) were increased under said Act
missing or not counted will affect the results of the election. In
from P7,200.00 to P32,000.00 per annum, but the Act expressly
this case, COMELEC based its ruling on its national canvass provided that said increases “shall take effect in accordance with
reports for party-list. As of May 28, 2013, AKMA-PTM garnered the provisions of the Constitution.”
164,980 votes and ABANTE KA had 111,429 votes. In Party-
List Canvass Report No. 11 as of July 18, 2013, AKMA-PTM's Ligot’s term expired on December 30, 1969, so he filed a claim
total votes slightly increased to 165,784 votes while ABANTE for retirement under Commonwealth Act No. 186, section 12 (c)
KA had a total of 111,625 votes. There was no significant as amended by Republic Act No. 4968 which provided for
retirement gratuity of any official or employee, appointive or
change in the rankings as per the latest canvass and therefore
elective, with a total of at least twenty years of service, the last
COMELEC had sufficient basis for proclaiming the initial
three years of which are continuous on the basis therein
winners on May 28, 2013 and reserving only five buffer seats. provided “in case of employees based on the highest rate
received and in case of elected officials on the rates of pay as
2. COMELEC's allocation of additional seats for party-list provided by law.” The House of Representatives granted his
in accordance with our ruling in BANAT petition however, Jose Velasco, the then Congress Auditor
refused to so issue certification. The Auditor General then,
In BANAT v. COMELEC, we laid down the following procedure Ismael Mathay, also disallowed the same.
in determining the allocation of seats for party-list
The thrust of Ligot’s appeal is that his claim for retirement
representatives under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941: (a) The gratuity computed on the basis of the increased salary of
parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the P32,000.00 per annum for members of Congress (which was
highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they not applied to him during his incumbency which ended
garnered during the elections; (b) The parties, organizations, December 30, 1969, while the Court held in Philconsa vs.
and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total Mathay that such increases would become operative only for
votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one members of Congress elected to serve therein commencing
guaranteed seat each; (c) Those garnering sufficient number of December 30, 1969) should not have been disallowed, because
votes, according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled at the time of his retirement, the increased salary for members
to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes of Congress “as provided by law” (under Republic Act 4134) was
until all the additional seats are allocated; (d) Each party, already P32,000.00 per annum.
organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than ISSUE: Whether or not Ligot is entitled to such retirement
three (3) seats. benefit.
HELD: No. To allow Ligot a retirement gratuity computed on the ___________________________________________
basis of P32,000.00 per annum would be a subtle way of
increasing his compensation during his term of office and of 9. Philippine Judges Association vs Prado
achieving indirectly what he could not obtain directly. Ligot’s
claim cannot be sustained as far as he and other members of
Congress similarly situated whose term of office ended on
Section 35 of Republic Act No. 7354 authorized the Philippine
December 30, 1969 are concerned for the simple reason that a
Postal Corporation (PPC) to withdraw franking privileges from
retirement gratuity or benefit is a form of compensation within
certain government agencies. Franking privilege is a privilege
the purview of the Constitutional provision limiting their
granted to certain agencies to make use of the Philippine postal
compensation and “other emoluments” to their salary as
service free of charge.
provided by law. To grant retirement gratuity to members of
Congress whose terms expired on December 30, 1969 In 1992, a study came about where it was determined that the
computed on the basis of an increased salary of P32,000.00 per bulk of the expenditure of the postal service comes from the
annum (which they were prohibited by the Constitution from judiciary’s use of the postal service (issuance of court
receiving during their term of office) would be to pay them processes). Hence, the postal service recommended that the
prohibited emoluments which in effect increase the salary franking privilege be withdrawn from the judiciary. AS a result,
beyond that which they were permitted by the Constitution to the PPC issued a circular withdrawing the said franking
receive during their incumbency. As stressed by the Auditor- privilege.
General in his decision in the similar case of Ligot’s colleague,
ex-Congressman Melanio Singson, “Such a scheme would The Philippine Judges Association (PJA) assailed the circular
contravene the Constitution for it would lead to the same and questioned the validity of Section 35 of RA 7354. PJA
prohibited result by enabling administrative authorities to do claimed that the said provision is violative of the equal protection
indirectly what cannot be done directly.” clause.

___________________________________________ ISSUE: Whether or not the withdrawal of the franking privilege


from the judiciary is valid.
8. Sarmiento vs Mison
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that there is a violation of
This is the 1st major case under the 1987 Constitution. In 1987, the equal protection clause. The judiciary needs the franking
Salvador Mison was appointed as the Commissioner of the privilege so badly as it is vital to its operation. Evident to that
Bureau of Customs by then president Corazon Aquino. Ulpiano need is the high expense allotted to the judiciary’s franking
Sarmiento III and Juanito Arcilla, being members of the bar, needs. The Postmaster cannot be sustained in contending that
taxpayers, and professors of constitutional law questioned the the removal of the franking privilege from the judiciary is in order
appointment of Mison because it appears that Mison’s to cut expenditure. This is untenable for if the Postmaster would
appointment was not submitted to the Commission on intend to cut expenditure by removing the franking privilege of
Appointments (COA) for approval. Sarmiento insists that uner the judiciary, then they should have removed the franking
the new Constitution, heads of bureaus require the confirmation privilege all at once from all the other departments. If the
of the COA. problem is the loss of revenues from the franking privilege, the
remedy is to withdraw it altogether from all agencies of the
Meanwhile, Sarmiento also sought to enjoin Guillermo Carague, government, including those who do not need it. The problem is
the then Secretary of the Department of Budget, from disbursing not solved by retaining it for some and withdrawing it from
the salary payments of Mison due to the unconstitutionality of others, especially where there is no substantial distinction
Mison’s appointment. between those favored, which may or may not need it at all, and
the Judiciary, which definitely needs it. The problem is not
ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of “heads of bureaus”
solved by violating the Constitution.
needed confirmation by the Commission on Appointment.
The equal protection clause does not require the universal
HELD: No. In the 1987 Constitution, the framers removed
application of the laws on all persons or things without distinction
“heads of bureaus” as one of those officers needing confirmation (it is true that the postmaster withdraw the franking privileges
by the Commission on Appointment. Under the 1987
from other agencies of the government but still, the judiciary is
Constitution, there are four (4) groups of officers whom the different because its operation largely relies on the mailing of
President shall appoint. These four (4) groups are: court processes). This might in fact sometimes result in unequal
First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, protection, as where, for example, a law prohibiting mature
other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces books to all persons, regardless of age, would benefit the morals
from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers of the youth but violate the liberty of adults. What the clause
whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution; requires is equality among equals as determined according to a
valid classification. By classification is meant the grouping of
Second, all other officers of the Government whose persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law; different from all others in these same particulars.
Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to In lumping the Judiciary with the other offices from which the
appoint; franking privilege has been withdrawn, Sec 35 has placed the
Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress courts of justice in a category to which it does not belong. If it
may by law vest in the President alone. recognizes the need of the President of the Philippines and the
members of Congress for the franking privilege, there is no
The first group above are the only public officers appointed by reason why it should not recognize a similar and in fact greater
the president which require confirmation by the COA. The need on the part of the Judiciary for such privilege.
second, third, and fourth group do not require confirmation by
the COA. The position of Mison as the head of the Bureau of ___________________________________________
Customs does not belong to the first group hence he does not
need to be confirmed by the COA.
10. COMELEC vs Judge Quijano Padilla -Mandamus does not lie to enforce the performance of
contractual obligations.
Facts
-Mandamus never lies to enforce the performance of private
-RA 8189 (“Voter’s Registration Act of 1996”) was passed contracts. The remedy, if any, is by an original action in the CFI
providing for the modernization and computerization of the to compel the city to pay the agreed price or to pay damages
voters’ registration list and the appropriation of funds for breach of contract. (Quiogue v. Romualdez)
thereof.
-In the present case, what PHOTOKINA sought to enforce are
Pursuant thereto, COMELEC promulgated a Resolution its rights under the accepted bid proposal. It is worth stressing
approving in principle the Voters’ Registration and Identification that mandamus applies as a remedy only where petitioner’s
System Project (VRIS Project). The VRIS Project envisioned a right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful. Here,
computerized database system for the May 2004 elections. the alleged contract is being disputed, not only on the
ground that it was not perfected but also because it is illegal
-The COMELEC issued invitations to prequalify and bid for the
and against public policy.
supply and installation of information technology equipment for
the VRIS Project. Private respondent PHOTOKINA pre- -While there may be cases where the writ of mandamus has
qualified. PHOTOKINA, with its bid in the amount of 6.588 been used to compel public officers to perform certain acts, it
Billion Pesos, was declared the winning bidder. will be observed that in these cases, the contracts have been
completely performed and nothing remained to be done except
-The parties proceeded to formalize the contract, with
for the government to make compensation (Isada v. Bocar). In
Commissioner Sadain and Atty. Sta. Ana, acting as negotiators
the present case, the alleged contract has not yet been fully
for the COMELEC and PHOTOKINA, respectively.
performed by PHOTOKINA; and though it avers readiness to
-However, under RA 8760, the budget appropriated by perform, COMELEC raised serious questions as to its validity.
Congress for COMELEC’s modernization project was only 1
-COMELEC cannot be compelled by a writ of mandamus to
Billion Pesos and the actual available funds issued by the
discharge a duty that involves the exercise of judgment and
Chief Accountant of COMELEC was only 1.2 Billion Pesos.
discretion, especially where disbursement of public funds is
-Subsequently, the term of COMELEC Chairman Demetriou concerned.
and Commissioners Desamito and Dy-Liacco expired.
Issue #2
Appointed their successors were Chairman Benipayo
and Commissioners Borra and Tuason, Jr. -The contact is patently void and unenforceable.
-Chairman Benipayo announced that the VRIS Project has -Sec. 29 (1), Art. VI of the Constitution states that “no money
been set aside. He further announced his plan to “re- shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
engineer” the entire modernization project of the appropriation made by law.” Thus, in the execution of
COMELEC. government contracts, various agencies must limit their
expenditure within the appropriations made by law for each
-Commissioner Sadain submitted a draft of the contract
fiscal year.
providing a price that would not exceed the certified available
appropriation but covering only Phase 1 of the VRIS Project – -Complementary to this constitutional provision are
issuance of registration cards for 1,000,000 voters in certain pertinent provisions of law and administrative issuances
areas only. Under the draft, the “subsequent completion of the that are designed to effectuate the said Constitutional
whole project shall be agreed upon in accordance with the bid mandate.
Documents and annual funds available for it.
(See Secs. 46 and 47, Chap. 8, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of
 PHOTOKINA wrote several letters to the COMELEC the Admin Code)
requiring formal execution of their contract, but to no avail. It
filed a petition for Mandamus, Prohibition and Damages
against COMELEC and all its Commissioners. The RTC ruled
in favour of PHOTOKINA. The existence of appropriation and the availability of funds are
indispensible prerequisites to or conditions sine qua non for the
Issue execution of government contracts.

1) Is a petition for mandamus the proper remedy to enforce -The SC cannot accede to PHOTOKINA’s contention that there
contractual obligations? is already a perfected contract. While the SC, in MMDA v.
Jancom, held that the effect of an unqualified acceptance of
NO. the offer of the bidder is to perfect the bidder, however such
statement would be inconsequential in a government where
2) May a successful bidder compel a government agency to
the acceptance referred to is yet to meet certain conditions. To
formalize a contract with it notwithstanding that its bid exceeds
hold otherwise is to allow a public officer to execute a binding
the amount appropriated by Congress for the project? NO.
contract that would obligate the government in an amount in
Held/Ratio excess of the appropriations for the purpose for which the
contract was attempted to be made. This is a dangerous
Issue #1 precedent.
-In the present case, there seems to be an oversight of the Ribbon Committee. After committee hearing, Lopa refused to
legal requirements as early as the bidding stage. testify before the committee for it may unduly prejudice a
pending civil case against him. Bengzon likewise refused
-The first step of a Bids and Awards Committee is to determine invoking his right to due process. Lopa however sent a letter to
whether the bids comply with the requirements. The amount of Enrile categorically denying his allegations and that his
PHOTOKINA’s bid is 6.588 Billion Pesos. However under allegations are baseless and malicious.
the Appropriations Act for that year, the only fund
appropriated was 1 Billion Pesos and under the Certification of Enrile subsequently took advantage of the Senate’s privilege
Available Funds only 1.2 Billion pesos was available. There is hour upon which he insisted to have an inquiry regarding the
no way that the COMELEC could enter into a contract with matter. The SBRC rejected Lopa’s and Bengzon’s plea.
PHOTOKINA whose accepted bid was beyond the
amount appropriated by law. The Committee should have Claiming that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is poised to
rejected the bid right away. subpoena them and require their attendance and testimony in
proceedings before the Committee, in excess of its jurisdiction
-The draft contract submitted by Commissioner Sadain that and legislative purpose, in clear and blatant disregard of their
provides for a contract price of constitutional rights, and to their grave and irreparable
damage, prejudice and injury, and that there is no appeal nor
1.2 Billion Pesos covers only the Phase 1 of the VRIS Project any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
(issuance of identification cards for only 1,000,000 voters in course of law, Bengzon et al filed a petition for prohibition with
specified areas). In effect, the implementation of the contract a prayer for temporary restraining order and/or injunctive relief
will be segmented into several phases. This arrangement is against the SBRC.
disallowed by the budgetary laws and practices. It is also
disadvantageous to the COMELEC because of the uncertainty ISSUE: Whether or not the inquiry sought by the SBRC be
that will loom over its modernization project for an indefinite granted.
period of time. The completion of Phase 1 of the VRIS Project
would do no good. Entering into a multi-year contract without a HELD: No, the inquiry cannot be given due course. The
multi- year obligational authority is prohibited by law. speech of Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated
legislation; he merely called upon the Senate to look into a
-The contract is inexistent and void ab initio. It cannot be possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA No. 3019, otherwise known
validated either by lapse of time or ratification. as “The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.” In other words,
the purpose of the inquiry to be conducted by the Blue Ribbon
-PHOTOKINA’s remedy is found in Sec. 48 of EO 292, which Committee was to find out whether or not the relatives of Cory,
explicitly provides that any contract entered into contrary to the particularly Lopa, had violated the law in connection with the
legal requirements shall be void, and “the officers entering alleged sale of the 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Kokoy to
into the contract shall be liable to the Government the Lopa Group. There appears to be, therefore, no intended
or other contracting party for any consequent damage to the legislation involved. Hence, the contemplated inquiry by the
same as if the transaction had been wholly between private SBRC is not really “in aid of legislation” because it is not
parties.” related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress, since
the aim of the investigation is to find out whether or not the
-When the contracting officer acts beyond the scope of his
relatives of the President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa had violated
legitimate powers, the Government is not bound under the
Section 5 of RA No. 3019, the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt
contract. It would be as if the contract were a private one,
Practices Act”, a matter that appears more within the province
where the officer binds only himself, and thus, assumes
of the courts rather than of the legislature. Besides, the Court
personal liability thereunder. The proposed contract is
may take judicial notice that Mr. Ricardo Lopa died during the
unenforceable as to the Government.
pendency of this case.
__________________________________________
___________________________________________

12. Evardone vs COMELEC


11. Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Felipe Evardone the mayor of Sulat, Eastern Samar, having
It was alleged that Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez and his wife been elected to the position during the 1988 local elections. He
together with the Marcoses unlawfully and unjustly enriched assumed office immediately after proclamation. In 1990,
themselves at the expense of the Filipino people. That they Alexander R. Apelado, Victozino E. Aclan and Noel A. Nival
obtained with the help of the Bengzon Law Office and Ricardo filed a petition for the recall of Evardone with the Office of the
Lopa – Cory’s brother in law, among others, control over some Local Election Registrar, Municipality of Sulat. The Comelec
of the biggest business enterprises in the country including issued a Resolution approving the recommendation of Election
MERALCO, PCI Bank, Shell Philippines and Benguet Registrar Vedasto Sumbilla to hold the signing of petition for
Consolidated Mining Corporation. recall against Evardone.

Senator Juan Ponce Enrile subsequently delivered a privilege


speech alleging that Lopa took over various government Evardone filed a petition for prohibition with urgent prayer of
owned corporations which is in violation of the Anti-Graft and restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Later, in
Corrupt Practices Act. Contained in the speech is a motion to an en banc resolution, the Comelec nullified the signing
investigate on the matter. The motion was referred to the process for being violative of the TRO of the court. Hence, this
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers or the Blue present petition.
Sumbilla, about 2,050 of the 6,090 registered voters of Sulat,
Eastern Samar or about 34% signed the petition for recall. As
Issue 1: WON Resolution No. 2272 promulgated by the held in Parades vs. Executive Secretary there is no turning
COMELEC by virtue of its powers under the Constitution and back the
BP 337 (Local Government Code) was valid. clock.
Held: Yes The right to recall is complementary to the right to elect or
appoint. It is included in the right of suffrage. It is based on the
Ratio: Evardone maintains that Article X, Section 3 of the
theory that the electorate must maintain a direct and elastic
1987 Constitution repealed Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 in favor
control over public functionaries. It is also predicated upon the
of one to be enacted by Congress. Since there was, during the
idea that a public office is "burdened" with public interests and
period material to this case, no local government code enacted
that the representatives of the people holding public offices are
by Congress after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution nor
simply agents or servants of the people with definite powers
any law for that matter on the subject of recall of elected
and specific duties to perform and to follow if they wish to
government officials, Evardone contends that there is no basis
remain in their respective offices. Whether or not the electorate
for COMELEC Resolution No. 2272 and that the recall
of Sulat has lost confidence in the incumbent mayor is a
proceedings in the case at bar is premature.
political question. It belongs to the realm of politics where only
The COMELEC avers that the constitutional provision does not the people are the judge. "Loss of confidence is the formal
refer only to a local government code which is in futurum but withdrawal by an electorate of their trust in a person's ability to
also in esse. It merely sets forth the guidelines which Congress discharge his office previously bestowed on him by the same
will consider in amending the provisions of the present LGC. electorate. The constituents have made a judgment and their
Pending the enactment of the amendatory law, the existing will to recall Evardone has already been ascertained and must
Local Government Code remains operative. be afforded the highest respect. Thus, the signing process held
last 14 July 1990 for the recall of Mayor Felipe P. Evardone of
Article XVIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution express said municipality is valid and has legal effect.
provides that all existing laws not inconsistent with the 1987
Constitution shall remain operative, until amended, repealed or However, recall at this time is no longer possible because of
revoked. Republic Act No. 7160 providing for the Local the limitation provided in Sec. 55 (2) of B.P. Blg, 337. The
Government Code of 1991, approved by the President on 10 Constitution has mandated a synchronized national and local
October 1991, specifically repeals B.P. Blg. 337 as provided in election prior to 30 June 1992, or more specifically, as
Sec. 534, Title Four of said Act. But the Local Government provided for in Article XVIII, Sec. 5 on the second Monday of
Code of 1991 will take effect only on 1 January 1992 and May, 1992. Thus, to hold an election on recall approximately
therefore the old Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) is still seven (7) months before the regular local election will be
the law applicable to the present case. Prior to the enactment violative of the above provisions of the applicable Local
of the new Local Government Code, the effectiveness of B.P. Government Code
Blg. 337 was expressly recognized in the proceedings of the
__________________________________________
1986 Constitutional Commission. We therefore rule that
Resolution No. 2272 promulgated by the COMELEC is valid 13. Senate vs Ermita
and constitutional. Consequently, the COMELEC had the
authority to approve the petition for recall and set the date for In 2005, scandals involving anomalous transactions about the
the signing of said petition. North Rail Project as well as the Garci tapes surfaced. This
prompted the Senate to conduct a public hearing to investigate
the said anomalies particularly the alleged overpricing in the
NRP. The investigating Senate committee issued invitations to
Issue 2: WON the TRO issued by this Court rendered
certain department heads and military officials to speak before
nugatory the signing process of the petition for recall held
the committee as resource persons. Ermita submitted that he
pursuant to Resolution No. 2272.
and some of the department heads cannot attend the said
Held: No hearing due to pressing matters that need immediate attention.
AFP Chief of Staff Senga likewise sent a similar letter. Drilon,
Ratio: In the present case, the records show that Evardone the senate president, excepted the said requests for they were
knew of the Notice of Recall filed by Apelado, on or about 21 sent belatedly and arrangements were already made and
February 1990 as evidenced by the Registry Return Receipt; scheduled. Subsequently, GMA issued EO 464 which took
yet, he was not vigilant in following up and determining the effect immediately.
outcome of such notice. Evardone alleges that it was only on
or about 3 July 1990 that he came to know about the EO 464 basically prohibited Department heads, Senior officials
Resolution of the COMELEC setting the signing of the petition of executive departments who in the judgment of the
for recall on 14 July 1990. But despite his urgent prayer for the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
issuance of a TRO, Evardone filed the petition for prohibition Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the
only on 10 July 1990. Indeed, this Court issued a TRO on 12 Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the
July 1990 but the signing of the petition for recall took place Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege; Philippine
just the same on the scheduled date through no fault of the National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief superintendent
COMELEC and Apelado. The signing process was undertaken or higher and such other officers who in the judgment of the
by the constituents of the Municipality of Sulat and its Election Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive privilege; Senior
Registrar in good faith and without knowledge of the TRO national security officials who in the judgment of the National
earlier issued by this Court. As attested by Election Registrar Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and
Such other officers as may be determined by the President, While the executive branch is a co-equal branch of the
from appearing in such hearings conducted by Congress legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of Congress to
without first securing the president’s approval. legislate by refusing to comply with its demands for
information. When Congress exercises its power of inquiry,
The department heads and the military officers who were the only way for department heads to exempt themselves
invited by the Senate committee then invoked EO 464 to therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt
except themselves. Despite EO 464, the scheduled hearing by the mere fact that they are department heads. Only one
proceeded with only 2 military personnel attending. For defying executive official may be exempted from this power — the
President Arroyo’s order barring military personnel from President on whom executive power is vested, hence, beyond
testifying before legislative inquiries without her approval, Brig. the reach of Congress except through the power of
Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan were relieved from their military impeachment. It is based on her being the highest official of
posts and were made to face court martial proceedings. EO the executive branch, and the due respect accorded to a co-
464’s constitutionality was assailed for it is alleged that it equal branch of government which is sanctioned by a long-
infringes on the rights and duties of Congress to conduct standing custom. The requirement then to secure presidential
investigation in aid of legislation and conduct oversight consent under Section 1, limited as it is only to appearances in
functions in the implementation of laws. the question hour, is valid on its face. For under Section 22,
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 464 is constitutional. Article VI of the Constitution, the appearance of department
heads in the question hour is discretionary on their part.
HELD: The SC ruled that EO 464 is constitutional in part. To Section 1 cannot, however, be applied to appearances of
determine the validity of the provisions of EO 464, the SC department heads in inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is
sought to distinguish Section 21 from Section 22 of Art 6 of the not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of the
1987 Constitution. The Congress’ power of inquiry is expressly department head to appear in such inquiry, unless a valid claim
recognized in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. of privilege is subsequently made, either by the President
Although there is no provision in the Constitution expressly herself or by the Executive Secretary.
investing either House of Congress with power to make
When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how
investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may
department heads are implementing the statutes which it has
exercise its legislative functions advisedly and effectively, such
issued, its right to such information is not as imperative as that
power is so far incidental to the legislative function as to be
of the President to whom, as Chief Executive, such department
implied. In other words, the power of inquiry – with process to
heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of
enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the
duty. In such instances, Section 22, in keeping with the
legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely
separation of powers, states that Congress may
or effectively in the absence of information respecting the
only request their appearance. Nonetheless, when the inquiry
conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change;
in which Congress requires their appearance is ‘in aid of
and where the legislative body does not itself possess the
legislation’ under Section 21, the appearance is mandatory for
requisite information – which is not infrequently true – recourse
the same reasons stated in Arnault.
must be had to others who do possess it.
NOTES: The SC ruled that Section 1 and Section 2a are
Section 22 on the other hand provides for the Question Hour.
valid. The rest invalid.
The Question Hour is closely related with the legislative power,
and it is precisely as a complement to or a supplement of the On March 6, 2008, President Arroyo issued Memorandum
Legislative Inquiry. The appearance of the members of Circular No. 151, revoking Executive Order No. 464 and
Cabinet would be very, very essential not only in the Memorandum Circular No. 108. She advised executive officials
application of check and balance but also, in effect, in aid of and employees to follow and abide by the Constitution, existing
legislation. Section 22 refers only to Question Hour, whereas, laws and jurisprudence, including, among others, the case
Section 21 would refer specifically to inquiries in aid of of Senate v. Ermita when they are invited to legislative
legislation, under which anybody for that matter, may be inquiries in aid of legislation.
summoned and if he refuses, he can be held in contempt of the
House. A distinction was thus made between inquiries in aid of ___________________________________________
legislation and the question hour. While attendance was
meant to be discretionary in the question hour, it was
compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation. Sections 21 and EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
22, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each
other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same 1. Saez vs Macapagal-Arroyo
power of Congress. One specifically relates to the power to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to G.R. No. 183533, September 25, 2012
elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF
other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the
AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF
objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of
FRANCIS SAEZ, Petitioner, vs. GMA, et. al.
Congress’ oversight function. Ultimately, the power of
Congress to compel the appearance of executive officials FACTS: On March 6, 2008, the petitioner filed with the Court a
under Section 21 and the lack of it under Section 22 find their petition to be granted the privilege of the writs of amparo and
basis in the principle of separation of powers. habeas data with prayers for temporary protection order,
inspection of place and production of documents. In the
petition, he expressed his fear of being abducted and killed. He
likewise prayed for the military to cease from further the Institutionalization of the Doctrine of ‘Command
conducting surveillance and monitoring of his activities and for Responsibility’ in all Government Offices, particularly at all
his name to be excluded from the order of battle and other Levels of Command in the
government records connecting him to the Communist Party of
the Philippines (CPP). Philippine National Police and other Law Enforcement
Agencies (E.O. 226). Under E.O. 226, a government official
During the hearings, the petitioner narrated that starting April may be held liable for neglect of duty under the doctrine of
16, 2007, he noticed that he was always being followed by a command responsibility if he has knowledge that a crime or
certain "Joel," a former colleague at Bayan Muna. "Joel" offense shall be committed, is being committed, or has been
pretended peddling pandesal in the vicinity of the petitioner’s committed by his subordinates, or by others within his area of
store. Three days before the petitioner was apprehended, responsibility and, despite such knowledge, he did not take
"Joel" approached and informed him of his marital status and preventive or corrective action either before, during, or
current job as a baker in Calapan, Mindoro Oriental. "Joel" immediately after its commission. Knowledge of the
inquired if the petitioner was still involved with ANAKPAWIS. commission of irregularities, crimes or offenses is presumed
When asked by the CA justices during the hearing if the when (a) the acts are widespread within the government
petitioner had gone home to Calapan after having filed the official’s area of jurisdiction; (b) the acts have been repeatedly
petition, he answered in the negative explaining that he was or regularly committed within his area of responsibility; or (c)
afraid of Pvt. Osio who was always at the pier. The CA ruled members of his immediate staff or office personnel are
that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to involved.
substantiate his petition for habeas data and writ of amparo.
The CA likewise dropped as respondent, for Pres. GMA on the Pursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility, the
ground of her immunity from suit. Hence, this petition. President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP, can be held
liable for affront against the petitioner’s rights to life, liberty and
ISSUE: WON the President should be immediately dropped as security as long as substantial evidence exist to show that he
respondent on the ground of her immunity from suit. or she had exhibited involvement in or can be imputed with
knowledge of the violations, or had failed to exercise
HELD. NO. The President cannot be automatically dropped as necessary and reasonable diligence in conducting the
a respondent pursuant to the doctrine of command necessary investigations required under the rules.
responsibility.
The Court also stresses that rule that the presidential
In Noriel Rodriguez v. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al., the immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the
Court stated: president’s incumbency. Conversely, this presidential
privilege of immunity cannot be invoked by a non-sitting
a. Command responsibility of the President
president even for acts committed during his or her
Having established the applicability of the doctrine of command tenure. Courts look with disfavor upon the presidential privilege
responsibility in amparo proceedings, it must now be resolved of immunity, especially when it impedes the search for truth or
whether the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, impairs the vindication of a right.
can be held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial killings
The petitioner, however, is not exempted from the burden of
and enforced disappearances. We rule in the affirmative.
proving by substantial evidence his allegations against the
To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command President to make the latter liable for either acts or omissions
responsibility, the following elements must obtain: violative of rights against life, liberty and security. In the instant
case, the petitioner merely included the President’s name as a
a. the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between party respondent without any attempt at all to show the latter’s
the accused as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his actual involvement in, or knowledge of the alleged violations.
subordinate; Further, prior to the filing of the petition, there was no request
or demand for any investigation that was brought to the
b. the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was
President’s attention. Thus, while the President cannot be
about to be or had been committed; and
completely dropped as a respondent in a petition for the
c. the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data merely on the
measures to prevent the criminal acts or punish the basis of the presidential immunity from suit, the petitioner in
perpetrators thereof. this case failed to establish accountability of the President, as
commander-in-chief, under the doctrine of command
The president, being the commander-in-chief of all armed responsibility.
forces, necessarily possesses control over the military that
qualifies him as a superior within the purview of the command _________________________________________
responsibility doctrine. 2. Brillantes vs COMELEC
On the issue of knowledge, it must be pointed out that although
On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted Republic Act No.
international tribunals apply a strict standard of knowledge, i.e.,
8436 authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated election
actual knowledge, such may nonetheless be established
system (AES) for the process of voting, counting of votes and
through circumstantial evidence. In the Philippines, a more
canvassing/consolidating the results of the national and local
liberal view is adopted and superiors may be charged with
elections. On April 28, 2004, COMELEC promulgated
constructive knowledge. This view is buttressed by the
Resolution No. 6712 which was captioned as GENERAL
enactment of Executive Order No. 226, otherwise known as
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
AND CONSOLIDATION OF ADVANCED RESULTS IN THE political questions are concerned with “issues dependent upon
MAY 10, 2004 ELECTIONS. the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure.”
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
However, the petitioner assails that there is no provision under actual controversies involving rights which are legally
Rep. Act No. 8436 which authorizes the COMELEC to engage demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
in the biometrics/computerized system of validation of voters there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
(Phase I) and a system of electronic transmission of election excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
results (Phase III). Even assuming for the nonce that all the instrumentality of the Government.
three (3) phases are duly authorized, they must complement
each other as they are not distinct and separate programs but The issue raised in the present petition does not merely
mere stages of one whole scheme. Consequently, considering concern the wisdom of the assailed resolution but focuses on
the failed implementation of Phases I and II, there is no basis its alleged disregard for applicable statutory and constitutional
at all for the respondent COMELEC to still push through and provisions. In other words, the petitioner and the petitioners-in-
pursue with Phase III. intervention are questioning the legality of the respondent
COMELEC’s administrative issuance will not preclude this
The petitioner essentially posits that the counting and Court from exercising its power of judicial review to determine
consolidation of votes contemplated under Section 6 of Rep. whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting
Act No. 8436 refers to the official COMELEC count under the to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent
fully automated system and not any kind of “unofficial” count COMELEC in issuing Resolution No. 6712.
via electronic transmission of advanced results as now
provided under the assailed resolution. 3. The Court rules in the affirmative.

ISSUES: The assailed resolution usurps, under the guise of an


“unofficial” tabulation of election results based on a copy of the
1. Whether the petitioner and the petitioners-intervenors have election returns, the sole and exclusive authority of Congress
standing to sue; to canvass the votes for the election of President and Vice-
2. Assuming that they have standing, whether the issues they President. Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution
raise are political in nature over which the Court has no
jurisdiction; The assailed COMELEC resolution contravenes the
3. Assuming the issues are not political, whether Resolution constitutional provision that “no money shall be paid out of the
No. 6712 is void: treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.”
(Par. 1, Section 29, Article VI of the Constitution.)
i. for preempting the sole and exclusive authority of Congress
under Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution to canvass the The assailed resolution disregards existing laws which
votes for the election of President and Vice-President; authorize solely the duly-accredited citizens’ arm to conduct
ii. for violating Art. VI, Sec. 29 (par. 1) of the 1987 the “unofficial” counting of votes. Under Section 27 of Rep. Act
Constitution that “no money shall be paid out of the treasury No. 7166, as amended by Rep. Act No. 8173, and reiterated in
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law;” Section 18 of Rep. Act No. 8436, the accredited citizen’s arm -
iii. for disregarding Rep. Acts Nos. 8173, 8436 and 7166 in this case, NAMFREL - is exclusively authorized to use a
which authorize only the citizens’ arm to use an election return copy of the election returns in the conduct of an “unofficial”
for an “unofficial” count; counting of the votes, whether for the national or the local
iv. for violation of Sec. 52(i) of the Omnibus Election Code, elections. No other entity, including the respondent COMELEC
requiring not less than thirty (30) days notice of the use of new itself, is authorized to use a copy of the election returns for
technological and electronic devices; and, purposes of conducting an “unofficial” count.
v. for lack of constitutional or statutory basis. Section 52(i) of the Omnibus Election Code, which is cited by
the COMELEC as the statutory basis for the assailed
HELD: resolution, does not cover the use of the latest technological
and election devices for “unofficial” tabulations of
1. The implementation of the assailed resolution obviously votes. Moreover, the COMELEC failed to notify the authorized
involves the expenditure of funds, the petitioner and the representatives of accredited political parties and all
petitioners-in-intervention, as taxpayers, possess the requisite candidates in areas affected by the use or adoption of
standing to question its validity as they have sufficient interest technological and electronic devices not less than thirty days
in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by prior to the effectivity of the use of such devices.
taxation. In essence, taxpayers are allowed to sue where there
is a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds, or that public The assailed resolution has no constitutional and statutory
money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or where basis. That respondent COMELEC is the sole body tasked to
the petitioners seek to restrain the respondent from wasting “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and
unconstitutional law. recall” (Section 2(1), Article IX.) and to ensure “free, orderly,
honest, peaceful and credible elections” (Section 2(4), Article
2. The Court does not agree with the posture of the respondent IX.) is beyond cavil. That it possesses the power to
COMELEC that the issue involved in the present petition is a promulgate rules and regulations in the performance of its
political question beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to constitutional duties is, likewise, undisputed. However, the
review. As the leading case of Tañada vs. Cuenco put it, duties of the COMELEC under the Constitution, Rep. Act No.
7166, and other election laws are carried out, at all times, in its offices or employment in direct contravention of the express
official capacity. There is no constitutional and statutory basis mandate of Sec 13, Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting
for the respondent COMELEC to undertake a separate and an them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987
“unofficial” tabulation of results, whether manually or Constitution itself.
electronically.
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
4. Estrada vs GMA
3. Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary
FACTS:
In July 1987, then President Corazon Aquino issued Executive
Order No. 284 which allowed members of the Cabinet, their It began in October 2000 when allegations of wrong doings
undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other involving bribe-taking, illegal gambling, and other forms of
government offices or positions in addition to their primary corruption were made against Estrada before the Senate Blue
positions subject to limitations set therein. The Civil Liberties Ribbon Committee. On November 13, 2000, Estrada was
Union (CLU) assailed this EO averring that such law is impeached by the Hor and, on December 7, impeachment
unconstitutional. The constitutionality of EO 284 is being proceedings were begun in the Senate during which more
challenged by CLU on the principal submission that it adds serious allegations of graft and corruption against
exceptions to Sec 13, Article 7 of the Constitution which Estrada were made and were only stopped on January 16,
provides: 2001 when 11 senators, sympathetic to the President,
succeeded in suppressing damaging evidence against
“Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Estrada. As a result, the impeachment trial was thrown into an
Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless uproar as the entire prosecution panel walked out and Senate
otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other President Pimentel resigned after casting his vote against
office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during Estrada.
said tenure, directly or indirectly practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially interested in any
contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted
On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their support
by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or
for Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine. Estrada
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
called for a snap presidential election to be held concurrently
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly
with congressional and local elections on May 14, 2001. He
avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.”
added that he will not run in this election. On January 20, SC
CLU avers that by virtue of the phrase “unless otherwise declared that the seat of presidency was vacant, saying that
provided in this Constitution“, the only exceptions against Estrada “constructively resigned his post”. At noon, Arroyo took
holding any other office or employment in Government are her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA as the
those provided in the Constitution, namely: (i) The Vice- 14th President. Estrada and his family later left Malacañang
President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Palace. Erap, after his fall, filed petition for prohibition with
Sec 3, par. (2), Article 7; and (ii) the Secretary of Justice is an prayer for WPI. It sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman
ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of from “conducting any further proceedings in cases filed against
Sec 8 (1), Article 8. him not until his term as president ends. He also prayed for
judgment “confirming Estrada to be the lawful and incumbent
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 284 is constitutional. President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable
to discharge the duties of his office.
HELD: No, it is unconstitutional. It is clear that the 1987
Constitution seeks to prohibit the President, Vice-President,
members of the Cabinet, their deputies or assistants from
holding during their tenure multiple offices or employment in ISSUE(S):
the government, except in those cases specified in the 1. WoN the petition presents a justiciable controversy.
Constitution itself and as above clarified with respect to posts
2. WoN Estrada resigned as President.
held without additional compensation in an ex-officio capacity
as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of 3. WoN Arroyo is only an acting President.
their office, the citation of Cabinet members (then called
Ministers) as examples during the debate and deliberation on 4. WoN the President enjoys immunity from suit.
the general rule laid down for all appointive officials should be
5. WoN the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined due to
considered as mere personal opinions which cannot override
prejudicial publicity.
the constitution’s manifest intent and the people’s
understanding thereof.

In the light of the construction given to Sec 13, Art 7 in relation RULING:
to Sec 7, par. (2), Art IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, EO 284 is
unconstitutional. Ostensibly restricting the number of positions
that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or assistant
secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not 1. Political questions- "to those questions which, under the
more than 2 positions in the government and government Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
corporations, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple 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 4. He assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge
wisdom, not legality of a particular measure." that may come in the same service of the country;

Legal distinction between EDSA People Power I EDSA People 5. He called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a
Power II: constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.

EDSA I EDSA II Intent to resign—must be accompanied by act of


relinquishment—act or omission before, during and after
exercise of people power January 20, 2001.
of freedom of speech
and freedom of
exercise of the assembly to petition the
3. The Congress passed House Resolution No. 176 expressly
people power of government for redress of
stating its support to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of
revolution which grievances which only
the Republic of the Philippines and subsequently passed H.R.
overthrew the whole affected the office of the
178 confirms the nomination of Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. As
government. President.
Vice President. Senate passed HR No. 83 declaring the
extra Impeachment Courts as Functius Officio and has been
constitutional and terminated. It is clear is that both houses of Congress
the legitimacy of the recognized Arroyo as the President. Implicitly clear in that
new government intra constitutional and recognition is the premise that the inability of Estrada is no
that resulted from it the resignation of the longer temporary as the Congress has clearly rejected his
cannot be the sitting President that it claim of inability.
subject of judicial caused and the
succession of the Vice The Court therefore cannot exercise its judicial power for this is
review
President as President are political in nature and addressed solely to Congress by
subject to judicial review. constitutional fiat. In fine, even if Estrada can prove that he did
not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a
presented President on leave on the ground that he is merely unable to
a political govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by
question; involves legal questions. Congress and the decision that Arroyo is the de jure, president
made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed
The cases at bar pose legal and not political questions. The by this Court.
principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation
of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution: Sec 1 of Art II,
and Sec 8 of Art VII, and the allocation of governmental
4. The cases filed against Estrada are criminal in character.
powers under Sec 11 of Art VII. The issues likewise call for a
They involve plunder, bribery and graft and corruption. By no
ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. They
stretch of the imagination can these crimes, especially plunder
also involve the correct calibration of the right of petitioner
which carries the death penalty, be covered by the alleged
against prejudicial publicity.
mantle of immunity of a non-sitting president. He cannot cite
any decision of this Court licensing the President to commit
criminal acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from
2. Elements of valid resignation: (a)an intent to resign and (b) liability. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not
acts of relinquishment. Both were present when President acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting
Estrada left the Palace. as such but stands in the same footing as any trespasser.

Totality of prior contemporaneous posterior facts and


circumstantial evidence— bearing material relevant issues—
President Estrada is deemed to have resigned— constructive 5. No. Case law will tell us that a right to a fair trial and the free
resignation. press are incompatible. Also, since our justice system does not
use the jury system, the judge, who is a learned and legally
SC declared that the resignation of President Estrada could not enlightened individual, cannot be easily manipulated by mere
be doubted as confirmed by his leaving Malacañan Palace. In publicity. The Court also said that Estrada did not present
the press release containing his final statement: enough evidence to show that the publicity given the trial has
influenced the judge so as to render the judge unable to
1. He acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as perform. Finally, the Court said that the cases against Estrada
President;
were still undergoing preliminary investigation, so the publicity
2. He emphasized he was leaving the Palace for the sake of of the case would really have no permanent effect on the judge
peace and in order to begin the healing process (he did not say and that the prosecutor should be more concerned with justice
that he was leaving due to any kind of disability and that he and less with prosecution.
was going to reassume the Presidency as soon as the _________________________________________
disability disappears);
5. Marcos vs Manglapus
3. He expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity
to serve them as President (without doubt referring to the past FACTS:
opportunity);
Former President Marcos, after his and his family spent three Ruling: NO.
year exile in Hawaii, USA, sought to return to the Philippines.
The call is about to request of Marcos family to order the (1) While the Constitution mandates that the COMELEC “shall
respondents to issue travel order to them and to enjoin the be independent”, this provision should be harmonized with the
petition of the President's decision to bar their return to the President’s power to extend ad interim appointments. To hold
Philippines. that the independence of the COMELEC requires the
Commission on Appointments to first confirm ad
ISSUE: interim appointees before the appointees can assume office
Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the will negate the President’s power to make ad
Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from interim appointments. This is contrary to the rule on statutory
returning to the Philippines. construction to give meaning and effect to every provision of
the law. It will also run counter to the clear intent of the framers
RULING: of the Constitution. The original draft of Section 16, Article VII
Yes of the Constitution – on the nomination of officers subject to
According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution: confirmation by the Commission on Appointments – did not
"The executive power shall be vested in the President of the provide for ad interim appointments. The original intention of
Philippines." The phrase, however, does not define what is the framers of the Constitution was to do away with ad
meant by executive power although the same article tackles on interim appointments because the plan was for Congress to
exercises of certain powers by the President such remain in session throughout the year except for a brief 30-day
as appointing power during recess of the compulsory recess. However, because of the need to avoid
Congress (S.16), control of all the executive departments, disruptions in essential government services, the framers of
bureaus, and offices (Section 17), power to grant reprieves, the Constitution thought it wise to reinstate the provisions of
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, the 1935 Constitution on ad interim appointments. Clearly, the
after conviction by final judgment (Section 19), treaty making reinstatement in the present Constitution of the ad
power (Section 21), borrowing power (Section 20), budgetary interim appointing power of the President was for the purpose
power (Section 22), informing power (Section 23). of avoiding interruptions in vital government services that
The Constitution may have grant powers to the President, it otherwise would result from prolonged vacancies in
cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers government offices, including the three constitutional
enumerated in the Constitution. Whatever power inherent in commissions.
the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be
Evidently, the exercise by the President in the instant case of
executive.
her constitutional power to make ad interim appointments
__________________________________________ prevented the occurrence of the very evil sought to be avoided
by the second paragraph of Section 16, Article VII of the
6. Matibag vs Benipayo Constitution. This power to make ad interim appointments is
lodged in the President to be exercised by her in her sound
Herein petitioner Matibag was appointed by the COMELEC en judgment. Under the second paragraph of Section 16, Article
banc as “Acting Director IV” of the EID and was reappointed VII of the Constitution, the President can choose either of two
twice for the same position in a temporary capacity. modes in appointing officials who are subject to confirmation
Meanwhile, then PGMA also made appointments, ad interim, by the Commission on Appointments. First, while Congress is
of herein respondents Benipayo, Borra and Tuason, as in session, the President may nominate the prospective
COMELEC Chairman and Commissioners, respectively. Their appointee, and pending consent of the Commission on
appointments were renewed thrice by PGMA, the last one Appointments, the nominee cannot qualify and assume office.
during the pendency of the case, all due to the failure of the Second, during the recess of Congress, the President may
Commission of Appointments to act upon the confirmation of extend an ad interim appointment which allows the appointee
their appointments. to immediately qualify and assume office. Whether the
President chooses to nominate the prospective appointee or
Respondent Benipayo, acting on his capacity as COMELEC
extend an ad interim appointment is a matter within the
Chairman, issued a memorandum removing petitioner as
prerogative of the President because the Constitution grants
Acting Director IV and reassigning her to the Law Department.
her that power. This Court cannot inquire into the propriety of
Petitioner requested for reconsideration but was denied. Thus,
the choice made by the President in the exercise of her
petitioner filed the instant petition questioning the appointment
constitutional power, absent grave abuse of discretion
and the right to remain in office of herein respondents, claiming
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on her part, which
that their ad interim appointments violate the constitutional
has not been shown in the instant case.
provisions on the independence of the COMELEC, as well as
on the prohibitions on temporary appointments and In fine, we rule that the ad interim appointments extended by
reappointments of its Chairman and members. the President to Benipayo, Borra and Tuason, as COMELEC
Chairman and Commissioners, respectively, do not constitute
Issue:
temporary or acting appointments prohibited by Section 1 (2),
(1) Whether the ad interim appointments made by PGMA were Article IX-C of the Constitution.
prohibited under the Constitution
(2) An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment
(2) Whether the ad interim appointments made by PGMA were because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be
temporary in character withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified
into office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent ISSUE: Whether or not the appointments made by ex PGMA is
character. The Constitution itself makes an ad valid.
interim appointment permanent in character by making it
effective until disapproved by the Commission on HELD: Yes. The argument raised by Ermita is correct. Further,
Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. The EO 292 itself provided the safeguard so that such power will
second paragraph of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution not be abused hence the provision that the temporary
provides as follows: designation shall not exceed one year. In this case, in less
than a year after the initial appointments made by GMA, and
“The President shall have the power to make appointments when the Congress was in recess, GMA issued the ad interim
during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or appointments – this also proves that the president was in good
compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only faith.
until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until
the next adjournment of the Congress.” It must also be noted that cabinet secretaries are the alter egos
of the president. The choice is the president’s to make and the
Thus, the ad interim appointment remains effective until such president normally appoints those whom he/she can trust. She
disapproval or next adjournment, signifying that it can no cannot be constrained to choose the undersecretary. She has
longer be withdrawn or revoked by the President. the option to choose. An alter ego, whether temporary or
permanent, holds a position of great trust and confidence.
While an ad interim appointment is permanent and irrevocable Congress, in the guise of prescribing qualifications to an office,
except as provided by law, an appointment or designation in a cannot impose on the President who her alter ego should be.
temporary or acting capacity can be withdrawn or revoked at
the pleasure of the appointing power. A temporary or acting The office of a department secretary may become vacant while
appointee does not enjoy any security of tenure, no matter how Congress is in session. Since a department secretary is the
briefly. This is the kind of appointment that the Constitution alter ego of the President, the acting appointee to the office
prohibits the President from making to the three independent must necessarily have the President’s confidence. That person
constitutional commissions, including the COMELEC. may or may not be the permanent appointee, but practical
reasons may make it expedient that the acting appointee will
In the instant case, the President did in fact appoint permanent also be the permanent appointee.
Commissioners to fill the vacancies in the COMELEC, subject
only to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Anent the issue that GMA appointed “outsiders”, such is
Benipayo, Borra and Tuason were extended permanent allowed. EO 292 also provides that the president “may
appointments during the recess of Congress. They were not temporarily designate an officer already in the government
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. The service or any other competent person to perform the functions
ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are of an office in the executive branch.” Thus, the President may
expressly allowed by the Constitution which authorizes the even appoint in an acting capacity a person not yet in the
President, during the recess of Congress, to make government service, as long as the President deems that
appointments that take effect immediately. person competent.

__________________________________________ NOTE: Ad Interim Appointments vs Appointments in an


Acting Capacity
7. Pimentel vs Ermita

While Congress was in session, due to vacancies in the


cabinet, then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) Appointments
Ad Interim
appointed Arthur Yap et al as secretaries of their respective in an Acting
Appointments
departments. They were appointed in an acting capacity only. Capacity
Senator Aquilino Pimentel together with 7 other senators filed a
complaint against the appointment of Yap et al. Pimentel
averred that GMA cannot make such appointment without the
consent of the Commission on Appointment; that, in It is a Acting
accordance with Section 10, Chapter 2, Book IV of Executive permanent appointments
Order No. 292, only the undersecretary of the respective appointment are a way of
departments should be designated in an acting capacity and because it temporarily
not anyone else. takes effect filling important
immediately offices but, if
On the contrary, then Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and can no abused, they
averred that the president is empowered by Section 16, Article Description longer be can also be a
VII of the 1987 Constitution to issue appointments in an acting withdrawn by way of
capacity to department secretaries without the consent of the the President circumventing
Commission on Appointments even while Congress is in once the the need for
session. Further, EO 292 itself allows the president to issue appointee confirmation by
temporary designation to an officer in the civil service provided has qualified the
that the temporary designation shall not exceed one year. into office. Commission on
The fact that Appointments.
During the pendency of said case, Congress adjourned and it is subject to
GMA issued ad interimappointments re-appointing those
previously appointed in acting capacity.
there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
confirmation excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
by the COA instrumentality of the Government.
does not alter
When questions of constitutional significance are raised, the
its permanent
Court can exercise its power of judicial review only if the
character
following requisites are complied with, namely: (1) the
(Matibag vs
existence of an actual and appropriate case; (2) a personal
Benipayo)
and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional
question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the
earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the
lis mota of the case.
Upon Upon
When
Acceptance Acceptance by
Effective
by Appointee Appointee
2. The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach
of the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of the Marines in
this case constitutes permissible use of military assets for
When Any time when civilian law enforcement. The participation of the Marines in
When
Congress is there is the conduct of joint visibility patrols is appropriately
Made
in recess vacancy circumscribed. It is their responsibility to direct and manage the
deployment of the Marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide
the necessary equipment to the Marines and render logistical
support to these soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be
Submitted properly argued that military authority is supreme over civilian
Yes No
to the COA authority. Moreover, the deployment of the Marines to assist
the PNP does not unmake the civilian character of the police
force. Neither does it amount to an “insidious incursion” of the
military in the task of law enforcement in violation of Section
5(4), Article XVI of the Constitution.

__________________________________________________
8. IBP vs Zamora
9. People vs Patriarca
FACTS:
Patriarca was charged with the crime of murder for the death of
Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Sec 18, Alfredo Arevalo before RTC Sorsogon docketed as Criminal
Art. VII of the Constitution, President Estrada, in verbal Case No. 2773. He was also charged with murder for the killing
directive, directed the AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to of one Rudy de Borja and a certain Elmer Cadag under
coordinate with each other for the proper deployment and Informations docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 2665 and 2672,
campaign for a temporary period only. The IBP questioned the respectively. The RTC found him guilty in Criminal Case No.
validity of the deployment and utilization of the Marines to 2773 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
assist the PNP in law enforcement. perpetua. Patriarca appealed the decision to the SC.

Patriarca applied for amnesty under Proclamation No. 724


ISSUE: entitled "Granting Amnesty to Rebels, Insurgents, and All Other
Persons Who Have or May Have Committed Crimes Against
1. WoN the President's factual determination of the necessity Public Order, Other Crimes Committed in Furtherance of
of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial review. Political Ends, and Violations of the Article of War, and
Creating a National Amnesty Commission." In 1999, his
2. WoN the calling of AFP to assist the PNP in joint visibility
application was favorably granted by the National Amnesty
patrols violate the constitutional provisions on civilian
supremacy over the military. Board concluding that his activities were done in pursuit of his
political beliefs.

Issue:
RULING:

1. The power of judicial review is set forth in Section 1, Article What is the effect of the grant of amnesty to the conviction of
VIII of the Constitution, to wit: the accused-appellant?
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Held:
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle


actual controversies involving rights which are legally Amnesty commonly denotes a general pardon to rebels for
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not their treason or other high political offenses, or the forgiveness
which one sovereign grants to the subjects of another, who concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been
have offended, by some breach, the law of nations. Amnesty recognized in Philippine jurisprudence.
looks backward, and abolishes and puts into oblivion, the
offense itself; it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with 2nd, the communications are “received” by a close advisor of
which he is charged, that the person released by amnesty the President. Under the “operational proximity”
stands before the law precisely as though he had committed test, petitioner can be considered a close advisor, being a
no offense. member of President Arroyo’s cabinet. And

3rd, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that


Paragraph 3 of Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides
would justify the limitation of the privilege and of
that criminal liability is totally extinguished by amnesty, which
the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an
completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects.
appropriate investigating authority.
This Court takes judicial notice of the grant of amnesty upon ________________________________________________
accused-appellant Jose N. Patriarca, Jr. Once granted, it is
binding and effective. It serves to put an end to the appeal. 11. Clinton vs Jones

________________________________________________ Facts of the case

10. Neri vs Senate Committee Paula Corbin Jones sued President Bill Clinton. She alleged
that while she was an Arkansas state employee, she suffered
In April April 2007, DOTC entered into a contract with Zhong several "abhorrent" sexual advances from then Arkansas
Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of Governor Clinton. Jones claimed that her continued rejection of
equipment and services for the National Broadband Network Clinton's advances ultimately resulted in punishment by her
(NBN) Project in the amount of $329,481,290.00 state supervisors. Following a District Court's grant of Clinton's
(approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The Project was to be request that all matters relating to the suit be suspended,
financed by the People’s Republic of China. The Senate pending a ruling on his prior request to have the suit dismissed
passed various resolutions relative to the NBN deal. On the on grounds of presidential immunity, Clinton sought to invoke
other hand, Joe De Venecia issued a statement that several his immunity to completely dismiss the Jones suit against him.
high executive officials and power brokers were using their While the District Judge denied Clinton's immunity request, the
influence to push the approval of the NBN Project by the judge ordered the stay of any trial in the matter until after
NEDA. Clinton's Presidency. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal denial but reversed the trial deferment ruling since it
Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before the
would be a "functional equivalent" to an unlawful grant of
Senate Blue Ribbon. He appeared in one hearing wherein he
temporary presidential immunity.
was interrogated for 11 hrs and during which he admitted that
Abalos of COMELEC tried to bribe him with P200M in Question
exchange for his approval of the NBN project. He further
narrated that he informed President Arroyo about the bribery Is a serving President, for separation of powers reasons,
attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe. entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of
However, when probed further on what they discussed about events which transpired prior to his taking office?
the NBN Project, Neri refused to answer, invoking “executive
privilege“. In particular, he refused to answer the questions on
(a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN Conclusion
Project, (b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and
(c) whether or not she directed him to approve. He later No. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the
refused to attend the other hearings and Ermita sent a letter to Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from
the SBRC averring that the communications between GMA civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. After
and Neri is privileged and that the jurisprudence laid down noting the great respect and dignity owed to the Executive
in Senate vs Ermita be applied. The SBRC cited Neri for office, the Court held that neither separation of powers nor the
contempt. need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an
unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process. While
ISSUE: Whether or not the three questions sought by the the independence of our government's branches must be
SBRC to be answered falls under executive privilege. protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the
HELD: The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising
any control over one another. This, the Court added, is true
by compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in
despite the procedural burdens which Article III jurisdiction may
pursuit of legislation.
impose on the time, attention, and resources of the Chief
The communications elicited by the three (3) questions are Executive.
covered by the presidential communications privilege.
_________________________________________________
1st, the communications relate to a “quintessential and non-
12. Veliracia-Garafil vs Office of the President
delegable power” of the President, i.e. the power to enter into
an executive agreement with other countries. This authority of The present consolidated cases involve four petitions: G.R. No.
the President to enter into executive agreements without the 203372 with Atty. Cheloy E. Velicaria-Garafil (Atty. Velicaria-
Garafil), who was appointed State Solicitor II at the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), as petitioner; G.R. No. 206290 (1) The following elements should always concur in the making
with Atty. Dindo G. Venturanza (Atty. Venturanza), who was of a valid (which should be understood as both complete and
appointed Prosecutor IV (City Prosecutor) of Quezon City, as effective) appointment:
petitioner; G.R. No. 209138 with Irma A. Villanueva
(Villanueva), who was appointed Administrator for Visayas of
the Board of Administrators of the Cooperative Development
a). authority to appoint and evidence of the exercise of the
Authority (CDA), and Francisca B. Rosquita (Rosquita), who
authority;
was appointed Commissioner of the National Commission of
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), as petitioners; and G.R. No.
212030 with Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong (Atty. Tamondong),
who was appointed member of the Board of Directors of the The President's exercise of his power to appoint officials is
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), as petitioner. All provided for in the Constitution and laws. Discretion is an
petitions question the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 2 integral part in the exercise of the power of appointment.
(EO 2) for being inconsistent with Section 15, Article VII of the Considering that appointment calls for a selection, the
1987 Constitution. appointing power necessarily exercises a discretion.

Prior to the conduct of the May 2010 elections, then President


Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (President Macapagal-Arroyo) issued
The power to appoint is, in essence, discretionary. The
more than 800 appointments to various positions in several
appointing power has the right of choice which he may
government offices.
exercise freely according to his judgment, deciding for himself
who is best qualified among those who have the necessary
qualifications and eligibilities.
The ban on midnight appointments in Section 15, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution reads:

Two months immediately before the next presidential elections b.) transmittal of the appointment paper and evidence of the
and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President transmittal;
shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments
to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will
prejudice public service or endanger public safety. It is not enough that the President signs the appointment
paper. There should be evidence that the President intended
the appointment paper to be issued. It could happen that an
Thus, for purposes of the 2010 elections, 10 March 2010 was appointment paper may be dated and signed by the President
the cutoff date for valid appointments and the next day, 11 months before the appointment ban, but never left his locked
March 2010, was the start of the ban on midnight drawer for the entirety of his term. Release of the appointment
appointments. Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution paper through the MRO is an unequivocal act that signifies the
recognizes as an exception to the ban on midnight President's intent of its issuance.
appointments only "temporary appointments to executive
positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice
public service or endanger public safety." For purposes of verification of the appointment paper's
existence and authenticity, the appointment paper must bear
None of the petitioners claim that their appointments fall under
the security marks (i.e., handwritten signature of the President,
this exception.
bar code, etc.) and must be accompanied by a transmittal letter
from the MRO.

On 30 June 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III (President


Aquino) took his oath of office as President of the Republic of
c.) a vacant position at the time of appointment; and
the Philippines. On 30 July 2010, President Aquino issued EO
2 recalling, withdrawing, and revoking appointments issued by
President Macapagal-Arroyo which violated the constitutional
ban on midnight appointments. Petitioners have failed to raise any valid ground for the Court to
declare EO 2, or any part of it, unconstitutional. Consequently,
EO 2 remains valid and constitutional.
Issue:

(1) whether petitioners' appointments violate Section 15, Article (4) receipt of the appointment paper and acceptance of the
VII of the 1987 Constitution, and appointment by the appointee who possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications.
(2) whether EO 2 is constitutional.

Held: 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 a public office, a prerequisite to the full investiture of the the custody of the military. To the Return were attached
office. affidavits from the respondents, except Enriquez, who all
attested that they do not know Sherlyn, Karen and Merino; that
they had inquired from their subordinates about the reported
abduction and disappearance of the three but their inquiry
Petitioners have failed to show compliance with all four
yielded nothing.
elements of a valid appointment. They cannot prove with
certainty that their appointment papers were transmitted before The Court of Appeals dismissed the habeas corpus petition
the appointment ban took effect. On the other hand, petitioners there being no strong evidence that the missing persons are in
admit that they took their oaths of office during the appointment the custody of the respondents.
ban.
Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the appellate court’s
decision. They also moved to present newly discovered
evidence consisting of the testimonies of Adoracion Paulino,
(2) Petitioners have failed to raise any valid ground for the
Sherlyn’s mother-in-law who was allegedly threatened by
Court to declare EO 2, or any part of it, unconstitutional.
soldiers; and Raymond Manalo who allegedly met Sherlyn,
Consequently, EO 2 remains valid and constitutional.
Karen and Merino in the course of his detention at a military
_______________________________________________ camp.

13. Boac vs Cadapan During the pendency of the motion for reconsideration, Erlinda
Cadapan and Empeño filed before this Court a Petition for Writ
An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it of Amparo (amparo case), with Prayers for Inspection of Place
ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities and Production of Documents. The petition impleaded the
involved. Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative same respondents in the habeas corpus petition, with the
suit. Rather, it is a remedial measure designed to direct addition of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, then
specified courses of action to government agencies to Armed Forces of the Phil. (AFP) Chief of Staff Hermogenes
safeguard the constitutional right to life, liberty and security of Esperon Jr., (Gen. Esperon) then Phil. National Police (PNP)
aggrieved individuals. Chief Gen. Avelino Razon (Gen. Razon), Lt. Col. Felipe
Anotado (Lt. Col. Anotado) and Donald Caigas.

Command responsibility may be loosely applied


in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable Then President Arroyo was eventually dropped as respondent
individuals that have the power to effectively implement in light of her immunity from suit while in office.
whatever processes an amparo court would issue. In such
application, the amparo court does not impute criminal
responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to
By Resolution, the Court issued a writ of amparo returnable to
be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved
appellate court, and ordered the consolidation of
party.
the amparo petition with the pending habeas corpus petition.

In the habeas corpus case, the appellate court granted the


There is no need to file a motion for execution for Motion for Reconsideration and ordered the immediate release
an amparo or habeas corpus decision. Since the right to life, of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino in the amparo case.
liberty and security of a person is at stake, the proceedings
In reconsidering its earlier decision in the habeas corpus case,
should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon
the appellate court relied heavily on the testimony of Manalo. It
must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of
held that there is now a clear and credible evidence that the
delay, even for a day, may jeopardize the very rights that these
three missing persons, (Sherlyn, Karen and Merino), are being
writs seek to immediately protect.
detained in military camps and bases under the 7th Infantry
Division. Being not held for a lawful cause, they should be
immediately released from detention.
Following the abduction of Sherlyn Cadapan (Sherlyn), Karen
Empeño (Karen) and Manuel Merino (Merino) by armed men
from a house in San Miguel, Hagonoy, Bulacan, spouses
In the amparo case, the appellate court deemed it a superfluity
Asher and Erlinda Cadapan (Spouses Cadapan) and
to issue any inspection order or production order in light of the
Concepcion Empeño (Empeño) filed a petition for habeas
release order. As it earlier ruled in the habeas corpus case, it
corpus before the Court (habeas corpus case), impleading
found that the three detainees’ right to life, liberty and security
then Generals Romeo Tolentino and Jovito Palparan (Gen.
was being violated, hence, the need to immediately release
Palparan), Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac (Lt. Col. Boac), Arnel
them, or cause their release. The appellate court went on to
Enriquez and Lt. Francis Mirabelle Samson (Lt. Mirabelle) as
direct the PNP to proceed further with its investigation since
respondents. By Resolution of the Court, a writ of habeas
there were enough leads as indicated in the records to
corpus was issued, returnable to the Presiding Justice of the
ascertain the truth and file the appropriate charges against
Court of Appeals.
those responsible for the abduction and detention of the
By Return of the Writ, the respondents in the habeas three.
corpus petition denied that Sherlyn, Karen and Merino are in
Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac, et al. challenged before this Court, via
petition for review, the Decision of the appellate court.
The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its
Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño, on the other hand, context in the development of laws of war and armed combats.
filed their own petition for review also challenging the same According to Fr. Bernas, "command responsibility," in its
Decision of the appellate court only insofar as simplest terms, means the "responsibility of commanders for
the amparo aspect is concerned. crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed
forces or other persons subject to their control in international
Meanwhile, Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño filed wars or domestic conflict." In this sense, command
before the appellate court a Motion to Cite Respondents in responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The
Contempt of Court for failure of the respondents in Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command
the amparo and habeas corpus cases to comply with the responsibility, foreshadowing the present-day precept of
directive of the appellate court to immediately release the three holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by
missing persons. By Resolution, the appellate court denied the his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over
motion, ratiocinating that while the Court, ordered the them. As then formulated, command responsibility is "an
respondents “to immediately RELEASE, or cause the release, omission mode of individual criminal liability," whereby the
from detention the persons of Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen superior is made responsible forcrimes committed by his
Empeño and Manuel Merino,” the decision is not ipso facto subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators
executory. The use of the term “immediately” does not mean (as opposed to crimes he ordered). (citations omitted;
that that it is automatically executory. Neither did the decision emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
become final and executory considering that both parties
questioned the Decision/Resolution before the Supreme Court. It bears stressing that command responsibility is properly a
form of criminal complicity, and thus a substantive rule that
Via a petition for certiorari filed before this Court, Erlinda points to criminal or administrative liability.
Cadapan and Empeño challenged the appellate court’s
Resolution denying their motion to cite respondents in An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it
contempt. ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities
involved. Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative
ISSUES: suit. Rather, it is a remedial measure designed to direct
specified courses of action to government agencies to
1. Whether or not the Armed Forces Chief of
safeguard the constitutional right to life, liberty and security of
Staff then Hermogenes Esperon and the
aggrieved individuals.
Present Chief of Staff has command
responsibility in the enforced disappearance
and continued detention of the three
aggrieved parties, Sherlyn, Karen and Thus Razon Jr. v. Tagitis enlightens:
Merino
[An amparo proceeding] does nor determine guilt nor pinpoint
criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or
extrajudicial killings]; it determines responsibility, or at least
2. Whether or not there is a need to file a accountability, for the enforced disappearance…for purposes
motion for execution in a Habeas Corpus of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the
decision or in an Amparo case to cause the disappearance… (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
release of the aggrieved parties.

Further, Tagitis defines what constitutes “responsibility” and


HELD: “accountability,” viz:
Petition DISMISSED. x x x. Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have
been established by substantial evidence to have participated
1. There is no showing that Generals Esperon, Razon and
in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced
Tolentino were even remotely accountable and
disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall
responsible for the abduction and continued detention of
craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal
Sherlyn, Karen and Merino.
and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper
courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the
measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who
On the issue of whether a military commander may be held exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without
liable for the acts of his subordinates in an amparo proceeding, bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility
a brief discussion of the concept of command defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to
responsibility and its application insofar as amparo cases the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of
already decided by the Court is in order. disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge,
the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the
enforced disappearance. In all these cases, the issuance of the
Rubrico v. Macapagal Arroyo expounded on the concept of Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing
command responsibility as follows: the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is preserved
and his liberty and security are restored. (emphasis in the The petitions against Generals Esperon, Razon and Tolentino
original; underscoring supplied) should be dismissed for lack of merit as there is no showing
that they were even remotely accountable and responsible for
the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn, Karen and
Merino.
Rubrico categorically denies the application of command
responsibility in amparo cases to determine criminal
liability. The Court maintains its adherence to this
pronouncement as far as amparo cases are concerned. 2. There is no need to file a motion for execution for an
amparo or habeas corpus decision.
Rubrico, however, recognizes a preliminary yet limited
application of command responsibility in amparo cases to Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, there is no need to
instances of determining file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus
the responsible or accountable individuals or entities that are decision. Since the right to life, liberty and security of a person
duty-bound to abate any transgression on the life, liberty or is at stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and
security of the aggrieved party. execution of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon
as possible since any form of delay, even for a day, may
If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately
these proceedings, it should, at most, be only to determine protect.
the author who, at the first instance, is accountable for,
and has the duty to address, the disappearance and The Solicitor General’s argument that the Rules of Court
harassments complained of, so as to enable the Court to supplement the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is misplaced. The
devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under Rules of Court only find suppletory application in
the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of an amparo proceeding if the Rules strengthen, rather than
amparo. As intimated earlier, however, the determination weaken, the procedural efficacy of the writ. As it is, the Rule
should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents dispenses with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in
preparatory to criminal prosecution, or as a prelude to securing the life, liberty or security of the aggrieved
administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing party. Suffice it to state that a motion for execution is
administrative issuances, if there be any. (emphasis and inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy
underscoring supplied) being offered by an amparo proceeding.

In other words, command responsibility may be loosely In fine, the appellate court erred in ruling that its directive
applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable to immediately release Sherlyn, Karen and Merino was not
individuals that have the power to effectively implement automatically executory. For that would defeat the very
whatever processes an amparo court would issue. In such purpose of having summary
application, the amparo court does not impute criminal proceedings in amparo petitions. Summary proceedings, it
responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to bears emphasis, are immediately executory without prejudice
be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved to further appeals that may be taken therefrom.
party.
__________________________________________________
Such identification of the responsible and accountable
superiors may well be a preliminary determination of criminal
liability which, of course, is still subject to further investigation JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
by the appropriate government agency.
1. Casar vs Soluren
Relatedly, the legislature came up with Republic Act No.
9851 (RA 9851) to include command responsibility as a form of DOCTRINE: This Court has consistently enjoined judges to
criminal complicity in crimes against international humanitarian avoid not just impropriety in their conduct but even the mere
law, genocide and other crimes. RA 9851 is thus the appearance of impropriety6 because the appearance of bias or
substantive law that definitively imputes criminal liability to prejudice can be damaging as actual bias or prejudice to the
those superiors who, despite their position, still fail to take all public’s confidence on the Judiciary’s role in the administration
necessary and reasonable measures within their power to of justice. To say the least, using detention prisoners who had
prevent or repress the commission of illegal acts or to submit cases before Judge Soluren cannot be countenanced.
these matters to the competent authorities for investigation and
prosecution. FACTS: Complainants, who were the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutors charged Judge Soluren with Gross Misconduct.
The Court finds that the appellate court erred when it did not They averred that on June 20 and 22, 2011 and July 19, 2011,
specifically name the respondents that it found to be Judge Soluren went to the Aurora Provincial Jail and conferred
responsible for the abduction and continued detention of with the inmates including those who had pending cases
Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. For, from the records, it appears before her sala. This was in contravention of Office of the
that the responsible and accountable individuals are Lt. Col. Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 03-2010, dated
Anotado, Lt. Mirabelle, Gen. Palparan, Lt. Col. Boac, Arnel January 12, 2010, which suspended the conduct of jail
Enriquez and Donald Caigas. They should thus be made to visitation and inspection by Executive Judges and Presiding
comply with the September 17, 2008 Decision of the appellate Judges pending results of the re-examination of the provisions
court to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Sherlyn, Karen and of A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC. According to complainants, the
Merino. purpose of Judge Soluren’s visit was to persuade the prisoners
into signing a letter addressed to then Chief Justice Renato C. in one year and secured by a mortgage over the disputed
Corona, calling for the dismissal of the administrative complaint properties. They defaulted on their loan, and on October 20,
filed against her by Atty. Juliet M. Isidro-Reyes, District Public 1997, China Bank foreclosed the mortgage and was declared
Attorney, Baler, Aurora, and for the removal of Judge Evelyn the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale. China Bank ex parte
Atienza-Turla as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 6, Baler, petition for writ of possession was granted. Undeterred, the
Aurora. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued its petitioner filed a ―Motion to Quash/Abate the Writ of
Report, dated August 17, 2012, finding Judge Soluren guilty of Possession, which was denied by the RTC in its Order stating
Simple Misconduct and imposing upon her a fine of ten that it was a ministerial duty to issue the writ. The RTC also
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to be deducted from her noted that the petitioner’s motion had been mooted by the
retirement benefits in view of her compulsory retirement from satisfaction of the writ on April 15, 2005, per the Sheriff’s
the service on January 29, 2012. return. CA ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in denying Madriaga, Sr.’s motion to quash or abate
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Soluren can be held liable for the ex parte writ of possession for the reason that the motion
Simple Misconduct had already been rendered moot and academic after the writ
was satisfied on April 15, 2005 with the physical removal of
HELD: YES. Judge Soluren opened herself to charges of
Madriaga, Sr. from the premises.
impropriety when she went to the Aurora Provincial Jail to
solicit the sympathies and signatures of the prisoners, ISSUE: Whether or not the court is bound to rule on the
especially those who had pending cases in her sala. This Court petition despite the case being moot and academic
has consistently enjoined judges to avoid not just impropriety in
their conduct but even the mere appearance of impropriety6 HELD: NO. The trial court in its Order dated February 6, 2006
because the appearance of bias or prejudice can be damaging took note of the Sheriff’s return stating that the writ of
as actual bias or prejudice to the public’s confidence on the possession it issued to China Bank had been satisfied on April
Judiciary’s role in the administration of justice. To say the least, 15, 2005 after the petitioner had been successfully removed
using detention prisoners who had cases before Judge Soluren from the subject premises, prompting the court to declare that
cannot be countenanced. the petitioner’s Motion to Quash/Abate the Writ of Possession
has been rendered moot and academic. Indeed, with the writ of
__________________________________________________ possession having been served and satisfied, the said motions
2. Madriaga vs CBC had ceased to present a justiciable controversy, and a
declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.
DOCTRINE: Judicial power presupposes actual controversies, Judicial power presupposes actual controversies, the very
the very antithesis of mootness. Where there is no more live antithesis of mootness. Where there is no more live subject of
subject of controversy, the Court ceases to have a reason to controversy, the Court ceases to have a reason to render any
render any ruling or make any pronouncement. Courts ruling or make any pronouncement. Courts generally decline
generally decline jurisdiction on the ground of mootness – save jurisdiction on the ground of mootness – save when, among
when, among others, a compelling constitutional issue raised others, a compelling constitutional issue raised requires the
requires the formulation of controlling principles to guide the formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar
bench, the bar and the public; or when the case is capable of and the public; or when the case is capable of repetition yet
repetition yet evading judicial review, which are not extant in evading judicial review, which are not extant in this case.
this case.
__________________________________________________
FACTS: The spouses Rolando and Norma Trajano (Spouses
3. People vs Gutierrez
Trajano) were the original registered owners of the properties
in dispute – two residential properties located in Ibayo, Marilao, DOCTRINE: We must thus reject the idea that our courts,
Bulacan, covered by TCT Nos. 114853(M) and 114854(M). faced by an impasse of the kind now before Us, are to confess
Sometime in 1991, they agreed to sell the properties to the themselves impotent to further the cause of justice. The
petitioner’s father, Cesar Madriaga, Sr. (Madriaga, Sr.) for Constitution has vested the Judicial Power in the Supreme
P1,300,000.00 payable on installment basis. Upon completion Court and such inferior courts as may be established by law
of payment,4 Spouses Trajano executed in Madriaga, Sr.’s (Article VIII, Section 13), and such judicial power connotes
favor a Deed of Absolute Sale. Spouses Trajano, however, certain incidental and inherent attributes reasonably necessary
failed to deliver the lot titles, so Madriaga, Sr. sued for specific for an effective administration of justice. The courts "can by
performance with the RTC Branch 19 of Malolos City. The appropriate means do all things necessary to preserve and
parties later entered into a compromise agreement, which the maintain every quality needful to make the judiciary an
court approved. On motion of Madriaga, Sr., the RTC issued a effective institution of government" (Borromeo vs. Mariano, 41
writ of execution on September 6, 1994, and several properties Phil. 322).
of Spouses Trajano were levied upon, including the disputed
properties. At the auction held on February 22, 1995, FACTS: In the morning of 22 May 1970, a group of armed
Madriaga, Sr. was declared the winning bidder, and a persons descended and burned inhabited houses in barrio Ora
certificate of sale was issued to him on. After the lapse of the Centro, municipality of Bantay, Province of Ilocos Sur, and in
one-year redemption period, he was issued a final deed of barrio Ora Este of the same municipality and province resulting
sale. On January 27, 1997, he secured an ex parte writ of in the destruction of various houses and in the death of an old
possession. woman. The respondents (17 identified together with 82
unidentified persons) herein were charged with arson with
Meanwhile, on January 2, 1995, Spouses Trajano obtained a homicide and arson. Subsequently, on 18 June 1970, the
loan from China Bank in the amount of P700,000.00, payable Secretary of Justice issued Administrative Order No. 226,
authorizing Judge Mario Gutierrez to transfer Criminal Cases 1) NO. We agree with respondents that the present laws do not
Nos. 47-V and 48-V to the Circuit Criminal Court, "in the confer upon the Secretary of Justice power to determine what
interest of justice and pursuant to Republic Act No. 5179. The court should hear specific cases. Any such power, even in the
prosecution moved the respondent judge for a transfer of guise of administrative regulation of executive affairs, trenches
cases 47-V and 48-V to the Circuit Criminal Court, invoking the upon the time-honored separation of the Executive and the
Administrative Orders just mentioned and calling attention to Judiciary; and while not directly depriving the courts of their
the circumstance that they were issued at the instance of the independence, it would endanger the rights and immunities of
witnesses seeking transfer of the hearing from Vigan to either the accused or civil party. It could be much too easily
San Fernando, La Union, or Baguio City, for reasons of transformed into a means of predetermining the outcome of
security and personal safety, and they can be free from tension individual cases, so as to produce a result in harmony with the
and terrorism as shown in their affidavits. Administration's preferences. The creation by Republic Act No.
5179 of the Circuit Criminal Courts for the purpose of
The accused vigorously opposed such transfer. In view of the alleviating the burden of the regular Courts of First Instance,
denial of the motion to transfer the cases to Circuit Criminal and to accelerate the disposition of criminal cases pending or
Court, the prosecution resorted to Us for writs of certiorari and to be filed therein, nowhere indicates an intent to permit the
mandamus, charging abuse of discretion and praying this transfer of preselected individual cases to the circuit courts
Court to set aside the order of denial of the transfer and to
compel the respondent Court of First Instance to remand the
cases to the Circuit Criminal Court of the Second Judicial
District, as well as to authorize the latter to try the cases (47-V 2) YES. In the particular case before Us, to compel the
and 48-V) at either San Fernando, La Union, or Baguio City. prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses
Respondents in their answer denied any abuse of discretion in will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make a
view of the fact that the Administrative Order No. 226 merely mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the very purpose
authorized the court below, but did not require or command it, for which courts have been established. Since the rigorous
to transfer the cases in question to the Circuit Criminal Court, application of the general principle of Rule 110, Section 14 (a),
and likewise denied that the circumstances justified any such would result here in preventing a fair and impartial inquiry into
transfer. [REASONS WHY THE COMPLAINANTS WOULD the actual facts of the case, it must be admitted that the
LIKE THE CASE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO A DIFFERENT exigencies of justice demand that the general rule relied upon
COURT (based on their affidavit):] of the one hundred armed by accused respondents should yield to occasional exceptions
participants in the burning of the houses at barrios Ora Este wherever there are weighty reasons therefor. Otherwise, the
and Ora Centro, Municipality of Bantay, some eighty-two (82) rigor of the law would become the highest injustice —
are still unidentified and at large; that one of the accused, "summum jus, summa in juria.‖ One of these incidental and
private respondent Vincent Crisologo, belongs to an influential inherent powers of courts is that of transferring the trial of
family in the province, being concededly the son of the cases from one court to another of equal rank in a neighboring
Congressman for the first district of Ilocos Sur and of the lady site, whenever the imperative of securing a fair and impartial
Governor that the reluctant witnesses are themselves the trial, or of preventing a miscarriage of justice, so demands.
complainants in the criminal cases, and, therefore, have This authority was early recognized in England as inhering in
reasons to fear that attempts will be made to silence them; that the courts of justice even prior to the eighteenth century.
it is not shown that the Executive branch is able or willing to
The opinion in Crocker vs. Justices of the Superior Court, 208
give these witnesses full security during the trial and for a
Mass. 162, 21 Ann. Cases 1067, has shown how the eminent
reasonable time thereafter, that even if armed security escorts
Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, in Rex vs. Cowle (Eng.) 2 Burr
were to be provided, the same would be no guarantee against
834, decided in 1759, said that, in this respect, "the law is clear
the possibility of murderous assault against the affiant
and uniform as far back as it can be traced.‖ That this
witnesses, as recent events have proved; that Constabulary
Supreme Court, in the exercise of the Judicial Power vested by
reports show that between 1 January and 31 May 1970 no less
the Constitution upon it and other statutory Courts, possesses
than 78 murders have been reported committed in said
inherent power and jurisdiction to decree that the trial and
province, of which number only 21 were solved; and, finally,
disposition of a case pending in a Court of First Instance be
that the promotion and confirmation of respondent Judge Mario
transferred to another Court of First Instance within the same
Gutierrez from Clerk of Court to Judge of the Court of First
district whenever the interest of justice and truth so demand,
Instance of the Second Judicial District, Branch III, was actively
and there are serious and weighty reasons to believe that a
supported by Congressman and Governor Crisologo, parents
trial by the court that originally had jurisdiction over the case
of accused Vincent Crisologo.
would not result in a fair and impartial trial and lead to a
miscarriage of justice.

ISSUE: __________________________________________________

1) Whether or not the Secretary of Justice has power to 4. In Re: Atty. Marcial Edillon
determine what court should hear specific cases.
FACTS:
2) whether or not case can be heard in a different court in the
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing
interest of justice and truth
attorney in the Philippines. On November 1975, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) unanimously recommended to the
Court the removal of the name of Edillon from its Roll of
HELD:
Attorneys for “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues” to 4. Relative to the issue of the power and/or jurisdiction of
the IBP notwithstanding multiple due notices sent to him. the Supreme Court to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll
of Attorneys, it is sufficient to state that the matters of
ISSUES: admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of
lawyers and their regulation and supervision have been and
1. WHETHER THE COURT IS WITHOUT POWER TO
are indisputably recognized as inherent judicial functions and
COMPEL HIM TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE
responsibilities, and the authorities holding such are legion.
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Respondent Marcial A. Edillon is disbarred, and his name was
2. WHETHER THE PROVISION OF THE COURT RULE
ordered to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.
REQUIRING PAYMENT OF A MEMBERSHIP FEE IS
VOID. __________________________________________________
3. WHETHER THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE 5. Maturan vs Gutierrez-Torres
PENALTY PROVISIONS WOULD AMOUNT TO A
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE DOCTRINE: A judge must exert every effort to timely rule upon
PROCESS AND HENCE INFRINGES ON ONE OF a case submitted for decision. If she thinks that she would
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. need a period to decide a case or to resolve an issue longer
than what the Constitution prescribes, she may request an
4. WHETHER THE POWER OF SC TO STRIKE THE extension from the Court to avoid administrative sanctions.
NAME OF A LAWYER FROM ITS ROLL OF
ATTORNEYS IS VALID. FACTS: Atty. Arturo Juanito T. Maturan, the counsel for the
private complainant in Criminal Case No. 67659 entitled
HELD: People v. Anicia C. Ventanilla, filed a sworn complaint against
Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres, the former Presiding Judge
1. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar
of Branch 60 of the Metropolitan Trial Court in Mandaluyong
is not violative of Edillon’s constitutional freedom to associate.
City, charging her with unjustifiably delaying the rendition of the
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
decision in his client's criminal case. Atty. Maturan averred that
anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his
the criminal case had remained pending and unresolved
Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections
despite its having been submitted for decision since June
as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected
2002. Atty. Maturan stated that Judge Gutierrez-Torres' failure
is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to
to render the judgment within the 90-day period from
further the State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
submission of the case for decision violated Canon 3, Rule
professional legal services, may require that the cost of
3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Constitution, and
improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the
constituted gross inefficiency.
subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the
lawyers. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Judge
Gutierrez-Torres through its first indorsement of the complaint
But, assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense
to submit her comment, and also to show cause why no
compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar, such
disciplinary action should be taken against her for her violation
compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the
of her professional responsibility. Judge Gutierrez-Torres
State.
implored the OCA to grant her a 20- day extension of the
2. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the Court, to period within which to submit her comment. Despite her
promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of request being granted, she failed to submit a comment. The
law and the integration of the Philippine Bar (Article X, Section records show that Judge Gutierrez-Torres sought four more
5 of the 1973 Constitution) — from requiring members of a extensions of the period within which to submit a comment;
privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee and that the Court granted her further requests.
toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the profession Notwithstanding the liberality of the Court in granting several
to which they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is indeed extensions, she still did not submit a comment. Thus, OCA
imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for recommended that Judge Gutierrez-Torres be administratively
carrying out the objectives and purposes of integration. sanctioned.

3. Whether the practice of law is a property right, the ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Gutierrez-Torres must be
respondent’s right to practice law before the courts of this sanctioned?
country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and
RULING: YES. Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the 1987
inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory
Constitution requires that all cases or matters filed after the
measure is recognize, then a penalty designed to enforce its
effectivity of the Constitution must be decided or resolved
payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by
within twenty-four months from date of submission for the
payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.
Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court,
But it must be emphasized that the practice of law is not a twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months
property right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to for all other lower courts.
the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance
Thereby, the Constitution mandates all justices and judges to
with the lawyer’s public responsibilities.
be efficient and speedy in the disposition of the cases or
matters pending in their courts. Reiterating the mandate, the
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
requires judges to "devote their professional activity to judicial bench, are under its exclusive supervision and control.
duties, which include . . . the performance of judicial functions
and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions . . .," The Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion stating that it
and to "perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of is within its jurisdiction to investigate on the criminal charges.
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness."
Issue:
Likewise, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
imposes on all judges the duty to dispose of their courts' Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman
business promptly and to decide cases within the required should defer action on the case pending resolution of the
periods. These judicial canons directly demand efficiency from administrative case
the judges in obvious recognition of the right of the public to
the speedy disposition of their cases. In such context, the
saying justice delayed is justice denied becomes a true Held:
encapsulation of the felt need for efficiency and promptness
among judges. Yes. Under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the
Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive administrative
All judges should be mindful of the duty to decide promptly, supervision over all courts and its personnel. Prescinding from
knowing that the public's faith and confidence in the Judiciary this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and
are no less at stake if they should ignore such duty. They must by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court
always be aware that upon each time a delay occurs in the employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman
disposition of cases, their stature as judicial officers and the is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court
respect for their position diminish. The reputation of the entire personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for
Judiciary, of which they are among the pillars, is also thereby determination as to whether and administrative aspect is
undeservedly tarnished. A judge like Judge Gutierrez-Torres involved therein. This rule should hold true regardless of
should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the
in the discharge of the obligation to promptly administer justice. complaint before the Ombudsman is already pending with the
She must cultivate a capacity for promptly rendering her Court. For, aside from the fact that the Ombudsman would not
decisions. Should she anticipate that she would need a period know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give
longer than what the Constitution and the issuances of the due respect for and recognition of the administrative authority
Court prescribe within which to render her decision or of the Court.
resolution, she should request a proper extension of the period
from the Court, through the OCA, and lay out in the request the The Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the Court, to its
justification for her inability. Yet, she did not at all do so in the findings that a case before it does or does not have
Criminal Case. She was clearly guilty of gross inefficiency, administrative implications. To do so is to deprive the Court of
especially because her inability to decide the case within the the exercise of its administrative prerogatives and to arrogate
required period became absolutely devoid of excuse after she unto itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned. This is a
did not bother to proffer any explanation for her inability. dangerous policy which impinges, as it does, on judicial
independence.
__________________________________________________

6. Judge Caoibes vs Ombudsman By virtue of its constitutional power of administrative


supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the
Facts: Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest
municipal trial court clerk, it is only the Supreme Court that can
Alumbres and Caoibes were both RTC Judges stationed in Las oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all
Pinas City. The two were entangled in a fight within court laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if
premises over a piece of office furniture. Judge Alumbres filed they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of
before the Office of the Ombudsman, a criminal complaint for government may intrude into this power, without running afoul
physical injuries, malicious mischief for the destruction of of the doctrine of separation of powers.
complainant’s eyeglasses, and assault upon a person in
authority. He prayed that criminal charges be filed before the __________________________________________________
Sandiganbayan against Judge Caoibes. Judge Alumbres also
7. Re: Derogatory news Item charging Court of Appeals
lodged an administrative case with the SC praying for the
Justice Demetrio Demetria with interference on behalf of a
dismissal of Judge Caoibes from the judiciary on the ground of
suspected drug queen
grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming a judicial officer.

The Office of the Ombudsman required Judge Caoibes to file a


counter-affidavit but instead of filing a counter-affidavit, he filed This administrative charge was triggered by newspaper
on an "Ex-Parte Motion for Referral to the Honorable Supreme accounts which appeared on the July 2000 issues of The
Court," praying that the Office of the Ombudsman hold its Manila Standard, The Manila Times, Malaya, The Philippine
investigation of the case, and refer the same to the SC which is Daily Inquirer and Today. The national dailies collectively
already investigating the case. Judge Caoibes contended that reported that Court of Appeals Assoc. Justice Demetrio G.
the SC, not the Office of the Ombudsman, has the authority to Demetria tried to intercede on behalf of suspected Chinese
make a preliminary determination of the respective culpability drug queen Yu Yuk Lai, alias Sze Yuk Lai.
of petitioner and respondent, both being members of the
THE FACTS AS EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE Facts. Before the inauguration of President Jefferson, outgoing
PROSECUTION ARE QUITE CLEAR. YU YUK LAI, President Adams attempted to secure Federalist control of the
TOGETHER WITH HER SUPPOSED NEPHEW, A CERTAIN judiciary by creating new judgeships and filling them with
KENNETH SY ALIAS WILLIAM SY, WAS ALLEGED OF Federalist appointees. Included in these efforts was the
“CONSPIRING, CONFEDERATING AND MUTUALLY nomination by President Adams, under the Organic Act of the
HELPING ONE ANOTHER, WITH DELIBERATE INTENT AND District of Columbia (the District), of 42 new justices of the
WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW . . . (TO) SELL AND peace for the District, which were confirmed by the Senate the
DELIVER TO A POSEUR-BUYER THREE (3) KILOGRAMS, day before President Jefferson’s inauguration. A few of the
MORE OR LESS, OF (SHABU), WHICH IS A REGULATED commissions, including Marbury’s, were undelivered when
DRUG.” President Jefferson took office. The new president instructed
Secretary of State James Madison to withhold delivery of the
ON 2000, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT “THE EVIDENCE IS commissions. Marbury sought mandamus in the Supreme
STRONG AND SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CONVICTION Court, requiring James Madison to deliver his commission.
OF THE TWO ACCUSED FOR THE CRIME CHARGED”.
Issue. Is Marbury entitled to mandamus from the Supreme
JUSTICE DEMETRIA ALLEGEDLY INTERCEDE IN BEHALF
Court?
OF SUSPECTED DRUG QUEEN YU YUK LAI WHEN HE
CALLED AND INSTRUCTED THE PROSECUTOR TO Held. No. Case dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
WITHDRAW THE MOTION TO INHIBIT OF JUDGE MURO, As the President signed Marbury’s commission after his
THE JUDGE WHO HANDLE THE CASE AND WAS ALLEGED confirmation, the appointment has been made, and Marbury
TO BE PARTIAL TO YU YUK LAI. has a right to the commission
ISSUE: Given that the law imposed a duty on the office of the president
to deliver Marbury’s commission, that the Supreme Court has
Whether Judge Demetria violated Code of Judicial Conduct. the power to review executive actions when the executive acts
as an officer of the law and the nature of the writ of mandamus
RULING: to direct an officer of the government “to do a particular thing
therein specified,”� mandamus is the appropriate remedy, if
Yes. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an
available to the Supreme Court.
office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed
To issue mandamus to the Secretary of State really is to
with the heavy responsibility. His at all times must be
sustain an original action, which is (in this case) outside the
characterized with propriety and must be above suspicion. His
constitutional limits of jurisdiction imposed on the Supreme
must be free of even a whiff of impropriety, not only with
Court.
respect to the performance of his judicial duties, but also his
behavior outside the courtroom and as a private individual. __________________________________________________
Unfortunately, respondent Justice Demetrio Demetria failed to 9. Hebron vs Garcia II
live up to this expectation. Through his indiscretions, Justice
Demetria did not only make a mockery of his high office, but DOCTRINE: Article VIII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution
also caused incalculable damage to the entire Judiciary. The mandates that "all cases or matters filed after the effectivity of
mere mention of his name in the national newspapers, the Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four
allegedly lawyering for a suspected drug queen and interfering months from date of submission for the SC, and, unless
with her prosecution seriously undermined the integrity of the reduced by the SC, twelve months for all collegiate courts, and
entire Judiciary. three months for all other courts."

Although every office in the government service is a public FACTS:


trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral
righteousness and uprightness than a seat in the Judiciary. Hebron was the complainant in Criminal Case for falsification
High ethical principles and a sense of propriety should be of public document which he filed against one Aladin Simundac
maintained, without which the faith of the people in the (Simundac) relative to the latter’s application for free patent
Judiciary so indispensable in orderly society cannot be over a property situated in Carmona, Cavite. When Simundac’s
preserved. There is simply no place in the Judiciary for those motion to suspend proceedings was denied by the Municipal
who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct Trial Court (MTC) of Carmona, Cavite where the criminal case
and integrity. was pending, Simundac filed with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Bacoor, Cavite a petition for certiorari with prayer for
Justice Demetria is GUILTY of violating Rule 2.04 of the Code issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of
of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered DISMISSED from the preliminary injunction, and raffled to RTC presided by
service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to his respondent Judge Garcia. Hebron filed a motion for Judge
appointment or reappointment to any government office, Garcia’s inhibition, citing his perceived bias and partiality of
agency or instrumentality, including any government owned or Judge Garcia, who had earlier dismissed Civil Case No. BCV-
controlled corporation or institution. 2005-94 also filed by Hebron against Simundac. A hearing on
Simundac’s application for injunctive writ was conducted by
__________________________________________________ Judge Garcia on April 16, 2009, when he issued a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
8. Marbury vs Madison
Now, Atty. Frolin Remonquillo filed a Motion to Inhibit. Atty.
Bingle B. Talatala, counsel for the petitioner, moved that she
be given ten (10) days to file her comment. Atty. Remonquillo Given this doctrine, the Court has resolved to allow the
prayed that he be given the same number of days within which administrative case to proceed, especially after taking due
to file his reply, if necessary. After which, the incident is consideration of the nature of the offense which, per the
submitted for resolution. Both parties agreed to maintain the evaluation of the OCA, had been committed by Judge Garcia.
status quo until this Court could have resolved the incident. On The Court fully agrees with the OCA’s report that Judge Garcia
June 2, 2009, Judge Garcia set for June 8, 2009 another cannot be held administratively liable for the alleged wrongful
hearing on the application for TRO. Come June 8, 2009, he rulings that he made in the Civil Case. Time and again, we
issued an Order that states, "by agreement of the parties, let have ruled that the errors attributed to judges pertaining to the
them be given time to file their respective position papers." exercise of their adjudicative functions should be assailed in
judicial proceedings instead of in an administrative case.
On September 18, 2009, he finally issued his Order granting
Simundac’s application for preliminary injunction, which led to Even assuming arguendo that respondent Judge made an
the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. CC- erroneous interpretation of the law, the matter is judicial in
07-43. He denied in the same Order Hebron’s motion for nature. Well-entrenched is the rule that a party’s remedy, if
inhibition. prejudiced by the orders of a judge given in the course of a
trial, is the proper reviewing court, and not with the OCA by
Against the foregoing antecedents, Hebron filed the means of an administrative complaint. As a matter of policy, in
administrative complaint with the OCA, claiming that: (1) Judge the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a
Garcia "distorted the facts" to justify his issuance of the writ of judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary
preliminary injunction; (2) neither Hebron nor hiscounsel could action even though such acts are erroneous.
have agreed on June 8, 2009 to file a position paper on
Simundac’s application for injunctive writ, since they were both The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly
absent during the hearing on said date; (3) Judge Garcia was indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be
guilty of "ignorance of the rule and jurisprudence" for ordering branded the stigma of being biased and partial. To hold
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction without first otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no
conducting a hearing thereon; (4) Judge Garcia had ignored one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the
existing jurisprudence, making his rulings "beyond the process of administering justice can be infallible in his
permissible margin oferror" and (5) Judge Garcia should have judgment. However, Judge Garcia’s undue delay in resolving
recused himself from Civil Case No. BSC No. 2009-02, given Hebron’s motion for reconsideration is a wrong of a different
his bias and partiality in favor of Simundac. nature which warrants a different treatment.

Motion for Reconsideration (MFR) of the order of Judge Garcia Article VIII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that
were filed and submitted for resolution and hearing was set. "all cases or matters filed after the effectivity of the Constitution
But no hearing happened. A second MFR was filed and the must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from
same was set for hearing. Up to the present, after the lapse of date of submission for the SC, and, unless reduced by the SC,
one (1) year, nine (9) months and fourteen (14) days, no notice twelve months for all collegiate courts, and three months for all
of resolution on our Motion for Reconsideration was sent to his other courts."
counsel or tocomplainant. Any motion, regardless of whether
the motions were frivolous or dilatory, and not germane to the In relation thereto, SC Administrative Circular No. 13-87
pending case respondent judge should have resolved the provides that "judges shall observe scrupulously the periods
same citing the facts and the law on which the order was prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution for the
based within the time prescribed by the rules (Aries vs. Beldia, adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in
476 SCRA 298). OCA recommended that Judge Garcia be their courts. Thus, all cases or matters must be decided or
administratively liable for the delay. However, before acting resolved within twelve months from date of submission by all
upon OCA’s report, complainant withdrew his complaint. lower collegiate courts while all other lower courts are given a
period of three months to do so."
ISSUE: WON Respondent Judge is liable for the delay in
resolving the MFR Judge Garcia failed to meet this three-month deadline. He
explained his delay by saying that "the Motion for
HELD: YES. Hebron’s withdrawal of his complaint against Reconsideration was inadvertently not acted upon by the Court
Judge Garcia does not necessarily warrant its dismissal. In for an unreasonable length of time," because it noticed its
Bayaca v. Ramos we explained: We have repeatedly ruled in a pendency only when it conducted an inventory of its cases in
number of cases that mere desistance or recantation by the July 2011. Unfortunately for Judge Garcia, such poor excuse
complainant does not necessarily result in the dismissal of an merits no weight for his exoneration from the charge. It, in fact,
administrative complaint against any member of the bench. demonstrates serious errors in Judge Garcia’s performance of
his duties and the management of his court.
The withdrawal of complaints cannot divest the Court of its
jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to determine the veracity of For such error, even Judge Garcia has admitted that the delay
the charges made and to discipline, such as the results of its in resolving the motion to reconsider has dragged on for an
investigation may warrant, an erring respondent. Administrative "unreasonable length of time." Furthermore, we observe that
actions cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the he should have been prompted to take immediate action by the
complainant who may, for reasons of his own, condone what two motions to resolve that were filed by Hebron, yet even
may be detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by the these two motions remained unacted upon. To the Court, the
unilateral act of the complainant in a matter relating to its volume of Judge Garcia’s pending cases did not justify the
disciplinary power. The Court’s interest in the affairs of the delay. The failure to decide cases and other matters within the
judiciary is of paramount concern. x x x. reglementary period of ninety (90) days constitutes gross
inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative the recommendation of the OCA, referred the matter to the
sanction against the erring judge. This is not only a blatant Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.
transgression of the Constitution but also of the Code of Thereafter, the CA, recommended the dismissal of the charges
Judicial Conduct, which enshrines the significant duty of against Judge Balut for failure of the OCA to clearly
magistrates to decide cases promptly. substantiate and prove the participation of Judge Balut in the
financial transactions of the courts. On his admission that he
________________________________________________ borrowed money from the judiciary fund, the CA opined that
Judge Balut could no longer be penalized as he was previously
10. Office of the Court Administrator vs Balut
fined by the Court in its previous resolution.
Facts

On May 3, 2003, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)


Law Violated
conducted a judicial audit and physical inventory of cases at
the MTCs of Bayombong and Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. Judge 1. CANON 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct -
Alexander S. Balut was the acting presiding judge in both INTEGRITY
courts. Aside from the judicial audit, a financial audit was also
conducted in the MTCs of Bayombong and Solano as well as
the MCTC of Aritao-Sta. Fe.
2. Rule 5.04 of Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
In the MTC Bayombong, where Judith En. Salimpade was the states:
Clerk of Court II, the audit team found unremitted amounts
from the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) collection, the "A judge or any immediate member of the family shall not
Clerk of Court General Fund (CCGF) collections, and the accept a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except as
Fiduciary Fund. In sum, the shortages in the various funds may be allowed by law."
incurred by Salimpade as of August 2003 totaled
P2,057,378.59. When asked about the shortages, Salimpade
explained that Judge Balut, since 1995, had been getting Ruling of the SC
money from the JDF collections. She had given in to the
requests of Judge Balut out of fear of him. She also admitted The Court finds itself unable to agree with the recommendation
that she lent her co-employees money which she took from her of the CA.
collections.
In administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary is
In the MTC Solano, the spot cash count on the court's substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a
collection disclosed that Eduardo Esconde, Clerk of Court, had reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a
an unremitted/undeposited cash on hand amounting to conclusion. The standard of substantial evidence is justified
P59,545.00. There was total a cash shortage of P106,527.80. when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is
Esconde explained to the audit team that Judge Balut responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such
borrowed various amounts from the collections. He stated that evidence is not overwhelming or even preponderant.
Judge Balut started borrowing funds when the former was still
A review of the records shows that Judge Balut actually
the Clerk of Court of MCTC Aritao-Sta. Fe. He transferred to
messed with the court collections. The three clerks of court of
MTC Solano, to get out of the shadow of Judge Balut. But,
MTC Bayombong, MTC Solano and MCTC Aritao-Sta Fe
much to his dismay, Judge Balut was designated Acting
categorically stated that Judge Balut borrowed money from the
Presiding Judge of MTC Solano and continued the practice of
court funds and executed certifications to that effect. They
borrowing money from the collections of the court.
separately reported that Judge Balut had been borrowing
In the MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe, the audit team found that Lydia money from the various funds of the court collections. In fact,
Ramos, Clerk of Court, succeeded Eduardo S. Esconde Lydia Ramos presented several withdrawal slips where the
without proper turnover of accountabilities. An amount of back portions were signed either by Judge Balut or his court
P846,710.00 was unaccounted for by Mr. Esconde and Mrs. interpreter, Salvador Briones, as the recipient of the cash
Ramos. Both denied that the shortages incurred were of their withdrawn from the funds of the court. These withdrawal slips
own doing and they instead pointed to Judge Balut as the likewise bore the notations of Ramos such as "Judge," "for
offender. Before the final report on the court's shortages was Judge," "taken by Judge," and "given to Judge" to serve as her
completed, various amounts totaling P802,299.82 were reminder that the money withdrawn were given to Judge Balut.
deposited by Judge Balut, Esconde and Ramos in the court's
Significantly, Judge Balut himself issued the Certification
LBP Account No. 3251-0544-51, as restitution/payment of part
stating that his cash accountability as of April 2002 with the
of the shortage of P846, 710.00.
Fiduciary Fund was P207,774.42 and there were certifications
The Court ordered Respondent Judge Alexander Balut to pay issued by the clerks of court attesting that he had settled his
a fine for his failure to decide 33 cases and 101 motions accountabilities with the court funds.
without properly requesting for an extension. The Court,
The Court stresses that judges must adhere to the highest
however, did not rule on the administrative liability of Judge
tenets of judicial conduct. Because of the sensitivity of his
Balut with respect to the result of the financial audit for the
position, a judge is required to exhibit, at all times, the highest
reason that he was not given a chance to present his side on
degree of honesty and integrity and to observe exacting
the matter. The Court, in its October 9, 2007 resolution,
standards of morality, decency and competence. He should
directed Judge Balut to comment on the audit report and, upon
adhere to the highest standards of public accountability lest his observe the periods prescribed in the Constitution for deciding
action erode the public faith in the Judiciary. cases and the failure to comply therewith is considered a
serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to
Judge Balut fell short of this standard for borrowing money speedy disposition of their cases.
from the collections of the court. He knowingly and deliberately
made the clerks of court violate the circulars on the proper The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to
administration of court funds. He miserably failed to become a decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-
role model of his staff and other court personnel in the honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Every
observance of the standards of morality and decency, both in judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful,
his official and personal conduct. punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for
delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and
The act of misappropriating court -funds constitutes dishonesty confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards
and grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal from the and brings it into disrepute. Failure to decide a case within the
service even on the first offense. For said reason, the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross
respondent deserves a penalty no lighter than dismissal. This inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative
Court has never tolerated and will never condone any conduct sanctions on the defaulting judge.
which violates the norms of public accountability, and diminish,
or even tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the justice The following facts are uncontested herein: Judge Baluma
system. failed to decide 23 cases already submitted for
decision/resolution within the mandatory reglementary period
__________________________________________________ for doing so; he left said cases still undecided upon his
11. Re: Cases submitted for decision before Judge Baluma retirement on July 22, 2011; he did not give any
reason/explanation for his failure to comply with the
FACTS: reglementary period for deciding cases; and there were no
previous requests by him for extension of time to decide said
On July 22, 2011, Judge Teofilo D. Baluma availed himself of cases. Judge Baluma's gross inefficiency, evident in his undue
optional retirement. However, according to the Certification, delay in deciding 23 cases within the reglementary period,
there were 23 cases submitted for decision/resolution which merits the imposition of administrative sanctions.
were left undecided by Judge Baluma. All 23 cases were
already beyond the reglementary period for deciding them by _________________________________________________
the time Judge Baluma retired. The aforementioned 23 cases
12. People vs Wahiman
were the subject matter of a Memorandum issued by an audit
team of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The Facts:
Deputy Court Administrator required Judge Baluma to explain
his failure to act on the 23 cases. However, Judge Baluma Appellant Jorie Wahiman y Rayos (appellant) was charged
failed to comply with said directive. Therefore, the processing with the crime of murder for the death of Jose Buensuceso.
of Judge Baluma's Application for Clearance has been put on During trial, the prosecution submitted in evidence the
hold pending clearance from the OCA. extrajudicial confession of appellant taken during the
preliminary investigation of the case, admitting to the killing of
Buensuceso. However, when it was appellant’s turn to testify,
he narrated that at the time of the killing, he was at Landing
ISSUE:
Casisang, Malaybalay City attending the birthday celebration of
WON Judge Baluma is guilty of violating Canon 3, Rule 3.05 his brother-in-law. Ruling of the Regional Trial Court.
of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The RTC rendered its Decision2 finding appellant guilty as
charged. In his appeal, appellant argued that when his
supposed extrajudicial confession was being taken, Atty.
HELD: Michael Florentino Dumlao (Atty. Dumlao), the lawyer who
supposedly assisted him, was not around. He arrived only
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides
when appellant was about to sign the extrajudicial confession.
that lower courts have three months within which to decide
cases or resolve matters submitted to them for resolution. The CA found no reason to depart from the trial court’s
Moreover, Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct findings. It held that appellant’s contention that he lacked legal
enjoins judges to dispose of their business promptly and intervention and assistance during the taking of his
decide cases within the required period. In addition, this Court extrajudicial confession was totally belied by the testimony of
laid down guidelines in SC Administrative Circular No. 13 Atty. Dumlao that he rendered assistance to the appellant
which provides, inter alia, that " [j]udges shall observe throughout the entire proceedings and carefully explained to
scrupulously the periods prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15, the latter the consequences of his admission. Besides, the
of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all voluntariness of the execution of the extrajudicial confession
cases or matters submitted in their courts. Thus, all cases or was apparent considering that it is replete with details that only
matters must be decided or resolved within twelve months from appellant would know.
date of submission by all lower collegiate courts while all other
lower courts are given a period of three months to do so." The Issue: Whether the extrajudicial confession is admissible
Court has reiterated this admonition in SC Administrative
Held: Yes. The SC agrees with the findings of the RTC and the
Circular No. 3-99 which requires all judges to scrupulously
CA that appellant’s extrajudicial confession6 was voluntarily
and duly executed and replete with details that only appellant The wicked can use the cyberspace, too, for illicit trafficking in
could supply. sex or for exposing to pornography guileless children who have
access to the internet.
Atty. Dumlao testified that he ably provided legal assistance to
appellant all throughout the proceedings and carefully For these reasons, the government has a legitimate right to
explained to him the ramifications of his admission. He regulate the use of cyberspace and contain and punish
informed appellant of his rights and that anything he says may wrongdoings. The government certainly has the duty and the
be used in evidence against him. Notwithstanding, appellant right to prevent these tomfooleries from happening and punish
insisted on giving his extrajudicial confession. their perpetrators, hence the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

In any event, it must be stressed that appellant’s conviction But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime
was not based solely on his extrajudicial confession. The law for regulating undesirable cyberspace activities violate
prosecution likewise presented the eyewitness account of certain of their constitutional rights.
Azucena who testified that immediately after hearing gunshots,
he saw appellant about 5 meters away from the Isuzu pick-up Pending hearing and adjudication of the issues presented in
of the victim. Appellant was riding in tandem aboard a black these cases, on February 5, 2013, the Court extended the
motorcycle and was holding a gun. The ballistic report also original 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) that it
confirmed that the slugs found at the crime scene were fired earlier issued on October 9, 2012, enjoining respondent
from the firearm earlier confiscated from the appellant. government agencies from implementing the cybercrime law
Moreover, appellant was not able to establish that it was until further orders.
physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene
at the time of its commission.
Issues:
_________________________________________________
1. The petitioners contend that Section 4(a)(1) fails to
13. Disini Jr. vs Secretary of Justice
meet the strict scrutiny standard required of laws that
POLITICAL LAW; CONGRESS EXCLUSIVELY HAS THE interfere with the fundamental rights of the people. Is
POWER TO FIX THE PENALTIES. The Court had ample Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access unconstitutional?
opportunity to consider the proposition that Section 6 violates
2. Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(3) suffers from
the equal protection clause via the parties’ pleadings, oral
overbreadth in that, while is seeks to discourage data
arguments, and memoranda. But, as the Decision stressed,
interference, it intrudes into the area of protected
the power to fix the penalties for violations of penal laws, like
speech and expression, creating a chilling and
the cybercrime law, exclusively belongs to Congress.
deterrent effect on these guaranteed freedoms.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; LIBEL IS NOT A PROTECTED
3. Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(6) or cyber-
SPEECH. The majority of the movants believe that the Court’s
squatting violates the equal protection clause in that,
decision upholding the constitutionality of Section 4(c)(4),
not being narrowly tailored, it will cause a user using
which penalizes online libel, effectively tramples upon the right
his real name to suffer the same fate as those who
to free expression.1âwphi1 But libel is not a protected speech.
use aliases or take the name of another in satire,
There is no freedom to unjustly destroy the reputation of a
parody, or any other literary device.
decent woman by publicly claiming that she is a paid prostitute.
4. Petitioners claim that Section 4(b)(3) violates the
Facts:
constitutional rights to due process and to privacy and
These consolidated petitions seek to declare several correspondence, and transgresses the freedom of the
provisions of Republic Act (RA) 10175, the Cybercrime press.
Prevention Act of 2012, unconstitutional and void.
5. Petitioners claim that cybersex violates the freedom of
The cybercrime law aims to regulate access to and use of the expression clause of the Constitution.
cyberspace. The cyberspace is a boon to the need of a current
6. Petitioners are wary that a person who merely
generation for greater information and facility of
doodles on paper and imagines a sexual abuse of a
communication. But all is not well with the system since it could
16-year old is not criminally liable for producing child
not filter out a number of persons of ill will who would want to
pornography but one who formulates the idea on his
use cyberspace technology for mischiefs and crimes. One of
laptop would be.
them can, for instance, avail himself of the system to unjustly
ruin the reputation of another or bully the latter by posting 7. Is Section 4(c)(3) unconstitutional for penalizing the
defamatory statements against him that people can read. transmission of unsolicited commercial
communications?
And because linking with the internet opens up a user to
communication from others, the ill-motivated can use the 8. Petitioners dispute the constitutionality of both the
cyberspace for committing theft by hacking into or penal code provisions on libel as well as
surreptitiously accessing his bank account or credit card or Section4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act on
defrauding him through false representations. cyberlibel.

9. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 5 that


renders criminally liable any person who wilfully abets
or aids in the commission or attempts to commit any electronic document, or electronic data message.
of the offenses enumerated as cybercrimes. It suffers Such act has no connection to guaranteed freedoms.
from overbreadth, creating a chilling and deterrent Ergo, there is no freedom to destroy other people’s
effect on protected expression. computer systems and private documents. All penal
laws, like the cybercrime law, have of course an
10. Is Section 6 on the penalty of one degree higher inherent chilling effect, an in terrorem effect, or the
constitutional? fear of possible prosecution that hangs on the heads
of citizens who are minded to step beyond the
11. Is Section 7 on the prosecution under both the
boundaries of what is proper. But to prevent the State
Revised Penal Code (RPC) and RA 10175
from legislating criminal laws because they instil such
constitutional?
kind of fear is to render the state powerless in
12. Is Section 8 valid and constitutional? addressing and penalizing socially harmful conduct.

13. Is Section 12 on Real-Time collection of traffic data 3. No, the challenge to the constitutionality of Section
valid and constitutional? 4(a)(6) is baseless. The law is reasonable in
penalizing the act of acquiring the domain name in
14. Is Section 13 on preservation of computer data valid bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, or
and constitutional? deprive others who are not ill-motivated of the rightful
opportunity of registering the same. It is the evil
15. Is Section 14 on disclosure of computer data valid
purpose for which one uses the name that the law
and constitutional?
condemns.
16. Is Section 15 on search, seizure and examination of
4. No. In assessing the challenge that the State has
computer data valid and constitutional?
impermissibly intruded into these zones of privacy, a
17. Is Section 17 on destruction of computer data valid court must determine whether a person has exhibited
and constitutional? a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so,
whether that expectation has been violated by
18. Is Section 19 on restricting or blocking access to unreasonable government intrusion. The law
computer data valid and constitutional? punishes those who acquire or use identifying
information without right, implicitly to cause damage.
19. Is Section 20 on obstruction of justice valid and Petitioners fail to show how government effort to curb
constitutional? computer-related identity theft violates the right to
privacy and correspondence as well as the right to
20. Is Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation and
due process. There is no fundamental right to acquire
Coordinating Center (CICC) valid and constitutional?
another’s personal right. The Court has defined intent
21. Is Section 26(a) on CICC’s power and functions valid to gain as an internal act which can be established
and constitutional? through overt acts of the offender, and it may be
presumed from the furtive taking of useful property
pertaining to another, unless special circumstances
reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.
Ruling:
As such, the press, whether in the quest of news
1. No. The strict scrutiny standard, an American reporting or social investigation, has nothing to fear
constitutional construct, is useful in determining the since a special circumstance is present to negate
constitutionality of laws that tend to target a class of intent to gain which is required by this Section.
things or persons. According to this standard, a
5. The Court will not declare Section 4(c)(1)
legislative classification that impermissibly interferes
unconstitutional where it stands a construction that
with the exercise of fundamental right or operates to
makes it apply only to persons engaged in the
the peculiar class disadvantage of a suspect class is business of maintaining, controlling, or operating,
presumed unconstitutional. The Court finds nothing in directly or indirectly, the lascivious exhibition of sexual
Section 4(a)(1) that calls for the application of the organs or sexual activity with the aid of a computer
strict scrutiny standard since no fundamental system as Congress has intended.
freedom, like speech, is involved in punishing what is
essentially a condemnable act – accessing the 6. The constitutionality of Section 4(c)(3) is not
computer system of another without right. It is a successfully challenged. The law makes the penalty
universally condemnable act. higher by one degree when the crime is committed in
cyberspace. But no one can complain since the
2. Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper intensity or duration of penalty is a legislative
governmental purpose, constitutionally subject to prerogative and there is a rational basis for such
state regulation, may not be achieved by means that higher penalty.
unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly, thereby
invading the area of protected speech. Section 4(a)(3) 7. Yes, because to prohibit the transmission of
does not encroach on these freedoms at all. It simply unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read
punishes what essentially is a form of vandalism, the his emails, even unsolicited commercial ads
act of wilfully destroying without right the things that addressed to him. Commercial speech is a separate
belong to others, in this case their computer data,
category of speech which us not accorded the same 11. The Court resolves to leave the determination of the
level of protection as that given to other correct application of Section 7 that authorizes
constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is prosecution of the offender under both the Revised
nonetheless entitled to protection. The State cannot Penal Code and Republic Act 10175 to actual cases,
rob him of this right without violating the with the exception of the crimes of:
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.
Thus, unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms 1.
of expression.
1. Online libel as to which, charging
8. Since the penal code and implicitly, the cybercrime the offender under both Section
law, mainly target libel against private persons, the 4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 and
Court recognizes that these laws imply a stricter Article 353 of the Revised Penal
standard of malice to convict the author of a Code constitutes a violation of the
defamatory statement where the offended party is a proscription against double
public figure. The elements of libel are: (a) the jeopardy; as well as
allegation of a discreditable act or condition
2. Child pornography committed
concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c)
online as to which, charging the
identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence
offender under both Section 4(c)(2)
of malice.There is actual malice or malice in fact when
of Republic Act 10175 and Republic
the offender makes the defamatory statement with the
Act 9775 or the Anti-Child
knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of
Pornography Act of 2009 also
whether it was false or not. The reckless disregard
constitutes a violation of the same
standard used here required a high degree of
proscription, and, in respect to
awareness of probable falsity. There must be
these, is void and unconstitutional.
sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the
accused in fact entertained serious doubts as to the 12. Valid and constitutional, because the matter of fixing
truth of the statement he published. Gross or even penalties for the commission of crimes is as a rule a
extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual legislative prerogative.
malice. The defense of absence of actual malice,
even when the statement turns out to be false, is 13. Void and unconstitutional, because Section 12 does
available where the offended party is a public official not permit law enforcement authorities to look into the
or a public figure. But, where the offended party is a contents of the messages and uncover the identities
private individual, the prosecution need not prove the of the sender and the recipient. Thus, the authority
presence of actual malice. For his defense, the that Section 12 gives law enforcement agencies is too
accused must show that he has a justifiable reason sweeping and lacks restraint.
for the defamatory statement even if it was in fact
14. Valid and constitutional, because the user ought to
true.
have kept a copy of that data when it crossed his
9. A governmental purpose, which seeks to regulate the computer if he was so minded. There was no undue
use of cyberspace communication technology to deprivation of property since the data that service
protect a person’s reputation and peace of mind, providers preserve on orders of law enforcement
cannot adopt means that will unnecessarily and authorities are not made accessible to users by
broadly sweep, invading the area of protected reasons of the issuance of such orders.
freedoms. If such means are adopted, self-inhibition
15. Valid and constitutional, because what Section 14
borne of fear of what sinister predicaments await
envisions is merely the enforcement of a duly issued
internet users will suppress otherwise robust
court warrant. Disclosure can be made only after
discussion of public issues. Democracy will be
judicial intervention.
threatened and with it, all liberties. Penal laws should
provide reasonably clear guidelines for law 16. Valid and constitutional, because Section 15 merely
enforcement officials and triers of facts to prevent enumerates the duties of law enforcement authorities
arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The terms that would ensure proper collection, preservation, and
“aiding or abetting” constitute broad sweep that use of computer system or data that have been
generates chilling effect on those who express seized by virtue of a court warrant.
themselves through cyberspace posts, comments,
and other messages. Hence, Section 5 of the 17. Valid and constitutional, because it is unclear that the
cybercrime law that punishes “aiding or abetting” libel user has a demandable right to require the service
on the cyberspace is a nullity. provider to have that copy of data saved indefinitely
for him in its storage system.
10. Yes, because there exists a substantial distinction
between crimes committed through the use of 18. Void and unconstitutional, because Section 19 not
information and communication technology and only precludes any judicial intervention but it also
similar crimes committed using other means. In using disregards jurisprudential guidelines established to
the technology in question, the offender often evades determine the validity of restrictions on speech.
identification and is able to reach far more victims or
cause greater harm.
19. Valid and constitutional insofar as it applies to the all of those files,” and that the clearance issued by UP HRDO
provisions of Chapter IV which are not struck down by and CSC should be taken in her favor. There was no record
the Court. that the letter was deliberated upon. Despite this, on a report to
the JBC, Sereno was said to have “complete requirements.”
20. and 21. Valid and constitutional, because cybercrime On August 2012, Sereno was appointed Chief Justice.
law is complete in itself when it directed the CICC to
formulate and implement a national cybersecurity On August 2017, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty.
plan. The law gave sufficient standards for the CICC Larry Gadon against Sereno, alleging that Sereno failed to
to follow when it provided a definition of cybersecurity. make truthful declarations in her SALNs. The House of
Representatives proceeded to hear the case for determination
__________________________________________________ of probable cause, and it was said that Justice Peralta, the
chairman of the JBC then, was not made aware of the
14. Republic vs Sereno
incomplete SALNs of Sereno. Other findings were made: such
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: as pieces of jewelry amounting to P15,000, that were not
declared on her 1990 SALN, but was declared in prior years’
Quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible public official and subsequent years’ SALNs, failure of her husband to sign
may be availed of when the subject act or omission was one SALN, execution of the 1998 SALN only in 2003
committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election
relating to an official’s qualifications to hold office as to render On February 2018, Atty. Eligio Mallari wrote to the OSG,
such appointment or election invalid. Acts or omissions, even if requesting that the latter, in representation of the Republic,
it relates to the qualification of integrity being a continuing initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Sereno. The OSG,
requirement but nonetheless committed during the incumbency invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction under Section 5(1),
of a validly appointed and/or validly elected official cannot be Article VIII of the Constitution in relation to the special civil
the subject of a quo warranto proceeding, but of impeachment action under Rule 66, the Republic, through the OSG filed the
if the public official concerned is impeachable and the act or petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo
omission constitutes an impeachable offense, or to disciplinary, warranto to declare as void Sereno’s appointment as CJ of the
administrative or criminal action, if otherwise. SC and to oust and altogether exclude Sereno
therefrom. [yourlawyersays]
FACTS:
Capistrano, Sen. De Lima, Sen. Trillianes, et. al., intervened.
From 1986 to 2006, Sereno served as a member of the faculty Sereno then filed a Motion for Inhibition against AJ Bersamin,
of the University of the Philippines-College of Law. While being Peralta, Jardeleza, Tijam, and Leonardo-De Castro, imputing
employed at the UP Law, or from October 2003 to 2006, actual bias for having testified against her on the impeachment
Sereno was concurrently employed as legal counsel of the hearing before the House of Representatives.
Republic in two international arbitrations known as the PIATCO
cases, and a Deputy Commissioner of the Commissioner on Contentions:
Human Rights.
Office of the Solicitor General (petitioner):
The Human Resources Development Office of UP (UP HRDO)
OSG argues that the quo warranto is an available remedy
certified that there was no record on Sereno’s file of any
because what is being sought is to question the validity of her
permission to engage in limited practice of profession.
appointment, while the impeachment complaint accuses her of
Moreover, out of her 20 years of employment, only nine (9)
committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal
Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) were
of public trust while in office, citing Funa v. Chairman Villar,
on the records of UP HRDO. In a manifestation, she attached a
Estrada v. Desierto and Nacionalista Party v. De Vera. OSG
copy of a tenth SALN, which she supposedly sourced from the
maintains that the phrase “may be removed from office” in
“filing cabinets” or “drawers of UP”. The Ombudsman likewise
Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution means that Members of
had no record of any SALN filed by Sereno. The JBC has
the SC may be removed through modes other than
certified to the existence of one SALN. In sum, for 20 years of
impeachment.
service, 11 SALNs were recovered.
OSG contends that it is seasonably filed within the one-year
On August 2010, Sereno was appointed as Associate Justice.
reglementary period under Section 11, Rule 66 since Sereno’s
On 2012, the position of Chief Justice was declared vacant,
transgressions only came to light during the impeachment
and the JBC directed the applicants to submit documents,
proceedings. Moreover, OSG claims that it has an
among which are “all previous SALNs up to December 31,
imprescriptible right to bring a quo warranto petition under the
2011” for those in the government and “SALN as of December
maxim nullum tempus occurit regi (“no time runs against the
31, 2011” for those from the private sector. The JBC
king”) or prescription does not operate against the government.
announcement further provided that “applicants with
The State has a continuous interest in ensuring that those who
incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will not
partake of its sovereign powers are qualified. Even assuming
be interviewed or considered for nomination.” Sereno
that the one-year period is applicable to the OSG, considering
expressed in a letter to JBC that since she resigned from UP
that SALNs are not published, the OSG will have no other
Law on 2006 and became a private practitioner, she was
means by which to know the disqualification.
treated as coming from the private sector and only submitted
three (3) SALNs or her SALNs from the time she became an Moreover, OSG maintains that the SC has jurisdiction, citing
Associate Justice. Sereno likewise added that “considering that A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC which created a permanent Committee
most of her government records in the academe are more than on Ethics and Ethical Standards, tasked to investigate
15 years old, it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve
complaints involving graft and corruption and ethical violations Congress’ “check” on the SC through impeachment would be
against members of the SC and contending that this is not a rendered inutile.
political question because such issue may be resolved through
the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, laws, Furthermore, Sereno argues that it is already time-barred.
JBC rules, and Canons of Judicial Ethics. Section 11, Rule 66 provides that a petition for quo
warranto must be filed within one (1) year from the “cause of
OSG seeks to oust Sereno from her position as CJ on the ouster” and not from the “discovery” of the disqualification.
ground that Sereno failed to show that she is a person of
proven integrity which is an indispensable qualification for Moreover, Sereno contends that the Court cannot presume
membership in the Judiciary under Section 7(3), Article VIII of that she failed to file her SALNs because as a public officer,
the Constitution. According to the OSG, because OSG failed to she enjoys the presumption that her appointment to office was
fulfill the JBC requirement of filing the complete SALNs, her regular. OSG failed to overcome the presumption created by
integrity remains unproven. The failure to submit her SALN, the certifications from UP HRDO that she had been cleared of
which is a legal obligation, should have disqualified Sereno all administrative responsibilities and charges. Her integrity is a
from being a candidate; therefore, she has no right to hold the political question which can only be decided by the JBC and
office. Good faith cannot be considered as a defense since the the President.
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA No. 3019) and Code
Regarding her missing SALNs, Sereno contends that the fact
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
that SALNs are missing cannot give rise to the inference that
Employees (RA No. 6713) are special laws and are thus
they are not filed. The fact that 11 SALNs were filed should
governed by the concept of malum prohibitum, wherein malice
give an inference to a pattern of filing, not of non-filing.
or criminal intent is completely immaterial.
Intervenors’ arguments:
Sereno (respondent):
The intervenors argue that it is not incumbent upon Sereno to
Sereno contends that an impeachable officer may only be
prove to the JBC that she possessed the integrity required by
ousted through impeachment, citing Section 2 of Article XI of
the Constitution; rather, the onus of determining whether or not
the Constitution, and Mayor Lecaroz v.
she qualified for the post fell upon the JBC. Moreover,
Sandiganbayan, Cuenca v. Hon. Fernan, In Re: First
submission of SALNs is not a constitutional requirement; what
lndorsement from Hon. Gonzales, and Re: Complaint-Affidavit
is only required is the imprimatur of the JBC. The intervenors
for Disbarment Against SAJ Antonio T. Carpio. Sereno
likewise contend that “qualifications” such as citizenship, age,
contends that the clear intention of the framers of the
and experience are enforceable while “characteristics” such as
Constitution was to create an exclusive category of public
competence, integrity, probity, and independence are mere
officers who can be removed only by impeachment and not
subjective considerations.
otherwise. Impeachment was chosen as the method of
removing certain high-ranking government officers to shield ISSUES:
them from harassment suits that will prevent them from
performing their functions which are vital to the continued Preliminary issues:
operations of government. Sereno further argues that the word
1. Whether the Court should entertain the motion for
“may” on Section 2 of Article XI only qualifies the penalty
intervention
imposable after the impeachment trial, i.e., removal from office.
Sereno contends that the since the mode is wrong, the SC has 2. Whether the Court should grant the motion for the
no jurisdiction. inhibition of Sereno against five Justices
Sereno likewise argues that the cases cited by OSG is not in Main Issues:
all fours with the present case because the President and the
Vice President may, in fact, be removed by means other than 3. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give
impeachment on the basis of Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 due course to the instant petition for quo warranto.
Constitution vesting in the Court the power to be the “sole
judge” of all contests relating to the qualifications of the 4. Whether Sereno may be the respondent in a quo
President and the Vice-President. There is no such provision warranto proceeding notwithstanding the fact that an
for other impeachable officers. Moreover, on the rest of the impeachment complaint has already been filed with
cases cited by the OSG, there is no mention that quo the House of Representatives.
warranto may be allowed.
5. Whether Sereno, who is an impeachable officer, can
Sereno also argues that since a petition for quo warranto may be the respondent in a quo warranto proceeding, i.e.,
be filed before the RTC, such would result to a conundrum whether the only way to remove an impeachable
because a judge of lower court would have effectively officer is impeachment.
exercised disciplinary power and administrative supervision
6. Whether to take cognizance of the quo warranto
over an official of the Judiciary much higher in rank and is
proceeding is violative of the principle of separation of
contrary to Sections 6 and 11, Article VIII of the Constitution
powers
which vests upon the SC disciplinary and administrative power
over all courts and the personnel thereof. 7. Whether the petition is outrightly dismissible on the
ground of prescription
Sereno likewise posits that if a Member of the SC can be
ousted through quo warranto initiated by the OSG, the 8. Whether the determination of a candidate’s eligibility
for nomination is the sole and exclusive function of
the JBC and whether such determination. partakes of free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handling the
the character of a political question outside the case must be balanced with the latter’s sacred duty to decide
Court’s supervisory and review powers; cases without fear of repression. Bias must be proven with
clear and convincing evidence. Those justices who were
9. Whether the filing of SALN is a constitutional and present at the impeachment proceedings were armed with the
statutory requirement for the position of Chief Justice. requisite imprimatur of the Court En Banc, given that the
Members are to testify only on matters within their personal
10. If answer to ninth issue is in the affirmative, whether
knowledge. The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not
Sereno failed to file her SALNs as mandated by the
enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is
Constitution and required by the law and its
without basis. There must be acts or conduct clearly indicative
implementing rules and regulations
of arbitrariness or prejudice before it can brand them with the
11. If answer to ninth issue is in the affirmative, whether stigma of bias or partiality. Sereno’s call for inhibition has been
Sereno filed SALNs are not filed properly and based on speculations, or on distortions of the language,
promptly. context and meaning of the answers the Justices may have
given as sworn witnesses in the proceedings before the
12. Whether Sereno failed to comply with the submission House.
of SALNs as required by the JBC
Moreover, insinuations that the Justices of the SC are towing
13. If answer to the twelfth issue is in the affirmative, the line of President Duterte in entertaining the quo
whether the failure to submit SALNs to the JBC voids warranto petition must be struck for being unfounded and for
the nomination and appointment of Sereno as Chief sowing seeds of mistrust and discordance between the Court
Justice; and the public. The Members of the Court are beholden to no
one, except to the sovereign Filipino people who ordained and
14. In case of a finding that Sereno is ineligible to hold the
promulgated the Constitution. It is thus inappropriate to
position of Chief Justice, whether the subsequent
misrepresent that the SolGen who has supposedly met
nomination by the JBC and the appointment by the
consistent litigation success before the SG shall likewise
President cured such ineligibility.
automatically and positively be received in the present quo
15. Whether Sereno is a de jure or a de facto officer. warranto action. As a collegial body, the Supreme Court
adjudicates without fear or favor. The best person to determine
[READ: Justice Leonen’s dissenting opinion: Q&A Format] the propriety of sitting in a case rests with the magistrate
sought to be disqualified. [yourlawyersays]
HELD:
Anent the third issue: A quo warranto petition is allowed
Anent the first issue: The intervention is improper. against impeachable officials and SC has jurisdiction.
Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally The SC have concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and RTC to
impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein for a issue the extraordinary writs, including quo warranto. A direct
certain purpose: to enable the third party to protect or preserve invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue such writs is
a right or interest that may be affected by those proceedings. allowed when there are special and important reasons therefor,
The remedy of intervention is not a matter of right but rests on and in this case, direct resort to SC is justified considering that
the sound discretion of the court upon compliance with the first the action is directed against the Chief Justice. Granting that
requirement on legal interest and the second requirement the petition is likewise of transcendental importance and has
that no delay and prejudice should result. The justification of far-reaching implications, the Court is empowered to exercise
one’s “sense of patriotism and their common desire to protect its power of judicial review. To exercise restraint in reviewing
and uphold the Philippine Constitution”, and that of the Senator an impeachable officer’s appointment is a clear renunciation of
De Lima’s and Trillanes’ intervention that their would-be a judicial duty. an outright dismissal of the petition based on
participation in the impeachment trial as Senators-judges if the speculation that Sereno will eventually be tried on
articles of impeachment will be filed before the Senate as the impeachment is a clear abdication of the Court’s duty to settle
impeachment court will be taken away is not sufficient. The actual controversy squarely presented before it. Quo
interest contemplated by law must be actual, substantial, warranto proceedings are essentially judicial in character – it
material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent or calls for the exercise of the Supreme Court’s constitutional duty
expectant. Moreover, the petition of quo warranto is brought in and power to decide cases and settle actual controversies.
the name of the Republic. It is vested in the people, and not in This constitutional duty cannot be abdicated or transferred in
any private individual or group, because disputes over title to favor of, or in deference to, any other branch of the
public office are viewed as a public question of governmental government including the Congress, even as it acts as an
legitimacy and not merely a private quarrel among rival impeachment court through the Senate.
claimants.
To differentiate from impeachment, quo warranto involves a
Anent the second issue: There is no basis for the Associate judicial determination of the eligibility or validity of the election
Justices of the Supreme Court to inhibit in the case. or appointment of a public official based on predetermined
rules while impeachment is a political process to vindicate the
It is true that a judge has both the duty of rendering a just
violation of the public’s trust. In quo warrantoproceedings
decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free
referring to offices filled by appointment, what is determined is
from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity.
the legality of the appointment. The title to a public office may
However, the right of a party to seek the inhibition or
not be contested collaterally but only directly, by quo
disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be wholly
warranto proceedings. usurpation of a public office is treated Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the
as a public wrong and carries with it public interest, and as Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be
such, it shall be commenced by a verified petition brought in removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
the name of the Republic of the Philippines through the culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
Solicitor General or a public prosecutor. The SolGen is given and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”
permissible latitude within his legal authority in actions for quo The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote
warranto, circumscribed only by the national interest and the discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory
government policy on the matter at hand. effect, indicative of a mere possibility, an opportunity, or an
option. In American jurisprudence, it has been held that “the
Anent the fourth issue: Simultaneous quo express provision for removal by impeachment ought not to be
warranto proceeding and impeachment proceeding is not taken as a tacit prohibition of removal by other methods when
forum shopping and is allowed. there are other adequate reasons to account for this express
provision.”
Quo warranto and impeachment may proceed independently of
each other as these remedies are distinct as to (1) jurisdiction The principle in case law is that during their incumbency,
(2) grounds, (3) applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing impeachable officers cannot be criminally prosecuted for an
and dismissal, and (4) limitations. Forum shopping is the act of offense that carries with it the penalty of removal, and if they
a litigant who repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in are required to be members of the Philippine Bar to qualify for
different courts, simultaneously or successively, all their positions, they cannot be charged with disbarment. The
substantially founded on the same transactions and the same proscription does not extend to actions assailing the public
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially officer’s title or right to the office he or she occupies. Even the
the same issues, either pending in or already resolved PET Rules expressly provide for the remedy of either an
adversely by some other court, to increase his chances of election protest or a petition for quo warranto to question the
obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in eligibility of the President and the Vice-President, both of
another. The test for determining forum shopping is whether in whom are impeachable officers.
the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties,
rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. The crux of the Further, that the enumeration of “impeachable offenses” is
controversy in this quo warranto proceedings is the made absolute, that is, only those enumerated offenses are
determination of whether or not Sereno legally holds the Chief treated as grounds for impeachment, is not equivalent to
Justice position to be considered as an impeachable officer in saying that the enumeration likewise purport to be a complete
the first place. On the other hand, impeachment is for statement of the causes of removal from office. If other causes
respondent’s prosecution for certain impeachable offenses. of removal are available, then other modes of ouster can
Simply put, while Sereno’s title to hold a public office is the likewise be availed. To subscribe to the view that appointments
issue in quo warranto proceedings, impeachment necessarily or election of impeachable officers are outside judicial review is
presupposes that Sereno legally holds the public office and to cleanse their appointments or election of any possible defect
thus, is an impeachable officer, the only issue being whether or pertaining to the Constitutionally-prescribed qualifications
not she committed impeachable offenses to warrant her which cannot otherwise be raised in an impeachment
removal from office. proceeding. To hold otherwise is to allow an absurd situation
where the appointment of an impeachable officer cannot be
Moreover, the reliefs sought are different. respondent in a quo questioned even when, for instance, he or she has been
warranto proceeding shall be adjudged to cease from holding a determined to be of foreign nationality or, in offices where Bar
public office, which he/she is ineligible to hold. Moreover, membership is a qualification, when he or she fraudulently
impeachment, a conviction for the charges of impeachable represented to be a member of the Bar.
offenses shall result to the removal of the respondent from the
public office that he/she is legally holding. It is not legally Anent the sixth issue: The Supreme Court’s exercise of its
possible to impeach or remove a person from an office that jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition is not violative of the
he/she, in the first place, does not and cannot legally hold or doctrine of separation of powers.
occupy.
The Court’s assumption of jurisdiction over an action for quo
Lastly, there can be no forum shopping because the warranto involving a person who would otherwise be an
impeachment proceedings before the House is not the impeachable official had it not been for a disqualification, is not
impeachment case proper, since it is only a determination of violative of the core constitutional provision that impeachment
probable cause. The impeachment case is yet to be initiated by cases shall be exclusively tried and decided by the Senate.
the filing of the Articles of Impeachment before the Senate. Again, the difference between quo warranto and impeachment
Thus, at the moment, there is no pending impeachment case must be emphasized. An action for quo warranto does not try a
against Sereno. The process before the House is merely person’s culpability of an impeachment offense, neither does a
inquisitorial and is merely a means of discovering if a person writ of quo warranto conclusively pronounce such culpability.
may be reasonably charged with a crime. The Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over quo
warranto proceedings does not preclude Congress from
Anent the fifth issue: Impeachment is not an exclusive enforcing its own prerogative of determining probable cause for
remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly elected impeachment, to craft and transmit the Articles of
impeachable official may be removed from office. Impeachment, nor will it preclude Senate from exercising its
constitutionally committed power of impeachment.
The language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does
not foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable
officers: “Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the
However, logic, common sense, reason, practicality and even questioning Sereno’s qualification· for office only upon
principles of plain arithmetic bear out the conclusion that an discovery of the cause of ouster because even up to the
unqualified public official should be removed from the position present, Sereno has not been candid on whether she filed the
immediately if indeed Constitutional and legal requirements required SALNs or not. The defect on Sereno’s appointment
were not met or breached. To abdicate from resolving a legal was therefore not discernible, but was, on the contrary,
controversy simply because of perceived availability of another deliberately rendered obscure.
remedy, in this case impeachment, would be to sanction the
initiation of a process specifically intended to be long and Anent the eighth issue: The Court has supervisory authority
arduous and compel the entire membership of the Legislative over the JBC includes ensuring that the JBC complies with its
branch to momentarily abandon their legislative duties to focus own rules.
on impeachment proceedings for the possible removal of a
Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution provides that “A
public official, who at the outset, may clearly be unqualified
Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the
under existing laws and case law.
supervision of the Supreme Court.” The power of supervision
For guidance, the Court demarcates that an act or omission means “overseeing or the authority of an officer to see to it that
committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election the subordinate officers perform their duties.” JBC’s absolute
relating to an official’s qualifications to hold office as to render autonomy from the Court as to place its non-action or
such appointment or election invalid is properly the subject of improper· actions beyond the latter’s reach is therefore not
a quo warranto petition, provided that the requisites for the what the Constitution contemplates. What is more, the JBC’s
commencement thereof are present. Contrariwise, acts or duty to recommend or nominate, although calling for the
omissions, even if it relates to the qualification of integrity, exercise of discretion, is neither absolute nor unlimited, and is
being a continuing requirement but nonetheless committed not automatically equivalent to an exercise of policy decision
during the incumbency of a validly appointed and/or validly as to place, in wholesale, the JBC process beyond the scope
elected official, cannot be the subject of a quo of the Court’s supervisory and corrective powers. While a
warranto proceeding, but of something else, which may either certain leeway must be given to the JBC in screening aspiring
be impeachment if the public official concerned is impeachable magistrates, the same does not give it an unbridled discretion
and the act or omission constitutes an impeachable offense, or to ignore Constitutional and legal requirements. Thus, the
disciplinary, administrative or criminal action, if otherwise. nomination by the JBC is not accurately an exercise of policy
or wisdom as to place the JBC’s actions in the same category
Anent the seventh issue: Prescription does not lie against the as political questions that the Court is barred from
State. resolving. [yourlawyersays]

The rules on quo warranto provides that “nothing contained in [READ: Justice Leonen’s dissenting opinion: Q&A Format]
this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a
public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the With this, it must be emphasized that qualifications under the
same be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of Constitution cannot be waived or bargained by the JBC, and
such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or one of which is that “a Member of the Judiciary must be a
position, arose”. Previously, the one-year prescriptive period person of provencompetence, integrity, probity, and
has been applied in cases where private individuals asserting independence. “Integrity” is closely related to, or if not,
their right of office, unlike the instant case where no private approximately equated to an applicant’s good reputation for
individual claims title to the Office of the Chief Justice. Instead, honesty, incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and fidelity to
it is the government itself which commenced the present sound moral and ethical standards.” Integrity is likewise
petition for quo warranto and puts in issue the qualification of imposed by the New Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of
the person holding the highest position in the Judiciary. Professional Responsibility. The Court has always viewed
integrity with a goal of preserving the confidence of the litigants
Section 2 of Rule 66 provides that “the Solicitor General or a in the Judiciary. Hence, the JBC was created in order to
public prosecutor, when directed by the President of the ensure that a member of the Supreme Court must be a person
Philippines, or when upon complaint or otherwise he has good of provencompetence, integrity, probity, and independence.
reason to believe that any case specified in the preceding
section can be established by proof must commence such Anent the ninth issue: The filing of SALN is a constitutional
action.” It may be stated that ordinary statutes of limitation, civil and statutory requirement.
or penal, have no application to quo warranto proceeding
Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution states that “A public
brought to enforce a public right. There is no limitation or
officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as
prescription of action in an action for quo warranto, neither
often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a
could there be, for the reason that it was an action by the
declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.”
Government and prescription could not be plead as a defense
This has likewise been required by RA 3019 and RA 6713.
to an action by the Government.
“Failure to comply” with the law is a violation of law, a “prima
That prescription does not lie in this case can also be deduced facie evidence of unexplained wealth, which may result in the
from the very purpose of an action for quo warranto. dismissal from service of the public officer.” It is a clear breach
Because quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, of the ethical standards set for public officials and employees.
no statute of limitations applies to the action. Needless to say, The filing of the SALN is so important for purposes of
no prudent and just court would allow an unqualified person to transparency and accountability that failure to comply with
hold public office, much more the highest position in the such requirement may result not only in dismissal from the
Judiciary. Moreover, the Republic cannot be faulted for public service but also in criminal liability. Section 11 of R.A.
No. 6713 even provides that non-compliance with this
requirement is not only punishable by imprisonment and/or a honorary capacity” to be exempted from the SALN laws on RA
fine, it may also result in disqualification to hold public office. 6713.

Because the Chief Justice is a public officer, she is Neither can the clearance and certification of UP HRDO be
constitutionally and statutorily mandated to perform a positive taken in favor of Sereno. During the period when Sereno was a
duty to disclose all of his assets and liabilities. According to professor in UP, concerned authorized official/s of the Office of
Sereno herself in her dissenting opinion in one case, those the President or the Ombudsman had not yet established
who accept a public office do so cum onere, or with a burden, compliance procedures for the review of SALNs filed by
and are considered as accepting its burdens and obligations, officials and employees of State Colleges and Universities, like
together with its benefits. They thereby subject themselves to U.P. The ministerial duty of the head of office to issue
all constitutional and legislative provisions relating thereto, and compliance order came about only on 2006 from the CSC. As
undertake to perform all the duties of their office. The public such, the U.P. HRDO could not have been expected to perform
has the right to demand the performance of those duties. More its ministerial duty of issuing compliance orders to Sereno
importantly, while every office in the government service is a when such rule was not yet in existence at that time. Moreover,
public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral the clearance are not substitutes for SALNs. The import of said
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in clearance is limited only to clearing Sereno of her academic
the Judiciary. and administrative responsibilities, money and property
accountabilities and from administrative charges as of the date
Noncompliance with the SALN requirement indubitably·reflects of her resignation.
on a person’s integrity. It is not merely a trivial or a formal
requirement. The contention that the mere non-filing does not Neither can Sereno’s inclusion in the matrix of candidates with
affect Sereno’s integrity does not persuade considering that complete requirements and in the shortlist nominated by the
RA 6713 and RA 3019 are malum prohibitum and not malum in JBC confirm or ratify her compliance with the SALN
se. Thus, it is the omission or commission of that act as requirement. Her inclusion in the shortlist of candidates for the
defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that position of Chief Justice does not negate, nor supply her with
determines whether or not the provision has been violated. the requisite proof of integrity. She should have been
Malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial. disqualified at the outset. Moreover, the JBC En Banc cannot
be deemed to have considered Sereno eligible because it does
Anent the tenth issue: Sereno chronically failed to file her not appear that Sereno’s failure to submit her SALNs was
SALNs and thus violated the Constitution, the law, and the squarely addressed by the body. Her inclusion in the shortlist
Code of Judicial Conduct. of nominees and subsequent appointment to the position do
not estop the Republic or this Court from looking into her
In Sereno’s 20 years of government service in UP Law, only 11
qualifications. Verily, no estoppel arises where the
SALNs have been filed. Sereno could have easily dispelled
representation or conduct of the party sought to be estopped is
doubts as to the filing or nonfiling of the unaccounted SALNs
due to ignorance founded upon an innocent mistake
by presenting them before the Court. Yet, Sereno opted to
withhold such information or such evidence, if at all, for no Anent the eleventh issue: Sereno failed to properly and
clear reason. The Doblada case, invoked by Sereno, cannot be promptly file her SALNs, again in violation of the Constitutional
applied, because in the Doblada case, there was a letter of the and statutory requirements .
head of the personnel of the branch of the court that the
missing SALN exists and was duly transmitted and received by Failure to file a truthful, complete and accurate SALN would
the OCA as the repository agency. In Sereno’s case, the likewise amount to dishonesty if the same is attended by
missing SALNs are neither proven to be in the records of nor malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make false
was proven to have been sent to and duly received by the statements. The suspicious circumstances include: 1996 SALN
Ombudsman as the repository agency. The existence of these being accomplished only in 1998; 1998 SALN only filed in
SALNs and the fact of filing thereof were neither established by 2003; 1997 SALN only notarized in 1993; 2004-2006 SALNs
direct proof constituting substantial evidence nor by mere were not filed which were the years when she received the
inference. Moreover, the statement of the Ombudsman is bulk of her fees from PIATCO cases, 2006 SALN was later on
categorical: “based on records on file, there is no SALN intended to be for 2010, gross amount from PIATCO cases
filed by [Sereno] for calendar years 1999 to 2009 except SALN were not reflected, suspicious increase of P2,700,000 in
ending December 1998.” This leads the Court to conclude that personal properties were seen in her first five months as
Sereno did not indeed file her SALN. Associate Justice. It is therefore clear as day that Sereno failed
not only in complying with the physical act of filing, but also
For this reason, the Republic was able to discharge its burden committed dishonesty betraying her lack of integrity, honesty
of proof with the certification from UP HRDO and Ombudsman, and probity. The Court does not hesitate to impose the
and thus it becomes incumbent upon Sereno to discharge her supreme penalty of dismissal against public officials whose
burden of evidence. Further, the burden of proof in a quo SALNs were found to have contained discrepancies,
warranto proceeding is different when it is filed by the State in inconsistencies and non-disclosures.
that the burden rests upon the respondent.
Anent the twelfth issue: Sereno failed to submit the required
In addition, contrary to what Sereno contends, being on leave SALNs as to qualify for nomination pursuant to the JBC rules.
does not exempt her from filing her SALN because it is not
tantamount to separation from government service. The fact The JBC required the submission of at least ten SALNs from
that Sereno did not receive any pay for the periods she was on those applicants who are incumbent Associate Justices,
leave does not make her a government worker “serving in an absent which, the applicant ought not to have been
interviewed, much less been considered for nomination. From
the minutes of the meeting of the JBC, it appeared that Sereno The requirement to submit SALNs is made more emphatic
was singled out from the rest of the applicants for having failed when the applicant is eyeing the position of Chief Justice. On
to submit a single piece of SALN for her years of service in UP the June 4, 2012, JBC En Banc meeting, Senator Escudero
Law. It is clear that JBC did not do away with the SALN proposed the addition of the requirement of SALN in order for
requirement, but still required substantial compliance. the next Chief Justice to avoid what CJ Corona had gone
Subsequently, it appeared that it was only Sereno who was not through. Further, the failure to submit the required SALNs
able to substantially comply with the SALN requirement, and means that the JBC and the public are divested of the
instead of complying, Sereno wrote a letter containing opportunity to consider the applicant’s fitness or propensity to
justifications why she should no longer be required to file the commit corruption or dishonesty. In Sereno’s case, for
SALNs: that she resigned from U.P. in 2006 and then resumed example, the waiver of the confidentiality of bank deposits
government service only in 2009, thus her government service would be practically useless for the years that she failed to
is not continuous; that her government records are more than submit her SALN since the JBC cannot verify whether the
15 years old and thus infeasible to retrieve; and that U.P. same matches the entries indicated in the SALN.
cleared her of all academic and administrative responsibilities
and charges. Anent the fourteenth issue: Sereno’s ineligibility for lack of
proven integrity cannot be cured by her nomination and
These justifications, however, did not obliterate the simple fact subsequent appointment as Chief Justice.
that Sereno submitted only 3 SALNs to the JBC in her 20-year
service in U.P., and that there was nary an attempt on Well-settled is the rule that qualifications for public office must
Sereno’s part to comply. Moreover, Sereno curiously failed to be possessed at the time of appointment and assumption of
mention that she did not file several SALNs during the course office and also during the officer’s entire tenure as a continuing
of her employment in U.P. Such failure to disclose a material requirement. The voidance of the JBC nomination as a
fact and the concealment thereof from the JBC betrays any necessary consequence of the Court’s finding that Sereno is
claim of integrity especially from a Member of the Supreme ineligible, in the first place, to be a candidate for the position of
Court. [yourlawyersays] Chief Justice and to be nominated for said position follows as a
matter of course. The Court has ample jurisdiction to do so
Indubitably, Sereno not only failed to substantially comply with without the necessity of impleading the JBC as the Court can
the submission of the SALNs but there was no compliance at take judicial notice of the explanations from the JBC members
all. Dishonesty is classified as a grave offense the penalty of and the OEO. he Court, in a quo warranto proceeding,
which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction. A maintains the power to issue such further judgment
person aspiring to public office must observe honesty, candor determining the respective rights in and to the public office,
and faithful compliance with the law. Nothing less is expected. position or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice
Dishonesty is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon requires.
one’s ability to perform his duties with the integrity and
uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee. For Neither will the President’s act of appointment cause to qualify
these reasons, the JBC should no longer have considered Sereno. Although the JBC is an office constitutionally created,
Sereno for interview. the participation of the President in the selection and
nomination process is evident from the composition of the JBC
Moreover, the fact that Sereno had no permit to engage in itself.
private practice while in UP, her false representations that she
was in private practice after resigning from UP when in fact she An appointment is essentially within the discretionary power of
was counsel for the government, her false claims that the whomsoever it is vested, subject to the only condition that the
clearance from UP HRDO is proof of her compliance with appointee should possess the qualifications required by law.
SALNs requirement, her commission of tax fraud for failure to While the Court surrenders discretionary appointing power to
truthfully declare her income in her ITRs for the years 2007- the President, the exercise of such discretion is subject to the
2009, procured a brand new Toyota Land Cruiser worth at non-negotiable requirements that the appointee is qualified and
least P5,000,000, caused the hiring of Ms. Macasaet without all other legal requirements are satisfied, in the absence of
requisite public bidding, misused P3,000,000 of government which, the appointment is susceptible to attack.
funds for hotel accommodation at Shangri-La Boracay as the
Anent the fifteenth issue: Sereno is a de facto officer
venue of the 3rd ASEAN Chief Justices meeting, issued a TRO
removable through quo warranto
in Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines
v. COMELECcontrary to the Supreme Court’s internal rules, The effect of a finding that a person appointed to an office is
manipulated the disposition of the DOJ request to transfer the ineligible therefor is that his presumably valid appointment will
venue of the Maute cases outside of Mindanao, ignored rulings give him color of title that confers on him the status of a de
of the Supreme Court with respect to the grant of survivorship facto officer. For lack of a Constitutional qualification, Sereno is
benefits which caused undue delay to the release of ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice and is merely
survivorship benefits to spouses of deceased judges and holding a colorable right or title thereto. As such, Sereno has
Justices, manipulated the processes of the JBC to exclude never attained the status of an impeachable official and her
then SolGen, now AJ Francis Jardeleza, by using highly removal from the office, other than by impeachment, is
confidential document involving national security against the justified. The remedy, therefore, of a quo warranto at the
latter among others, all belie the fact that Sereno has integrity. instance of the State is proper to oust Sereno from the
appointive position of Chief Justice.
Anent the thirteenth issue: Sereno’s failure to submit to the
JBC her SALNs for several years means that her integrity was
not established at the time of her application

You might also like