October 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

Posted on November 30, 2010 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV Here are selected October 2010 r lin!s o" the # $reme %o rt o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&. Constitutional Law 'ill o" (i!hts) Pres m$tion o" Innocence. In this case, the so*called "rame* $ &as virt ally $ re alle!ation bere"t o" credible $roo". +he narration o" the $olice o""icer &ho im$lemented the search &arrant &as "o nd, a"ter trial and a$$ellate revie&, as the tr e story. It is on "irmer !ro nd than the sel"*servin! statement o" the acc sed*a$$ellant o" "rame* $. +he de"ense cannot solely rely $on the constit tional $res m$tion o" innocence "or, &hile it is constit tional, the $res m$tion is not concl sive. Notably, the acc sed*a$$ellant hersel" stated in her brie" that ,no $roo" &as $ro""ered by the acc sed*a$$ellant o" the $olice o""icers- alle!ed ill motive.. #tated other&ise, the narration o" the incident by la& en"orcers, b ttressed by the $res m$tion that they have re! larly $er"ormed their d ties in the absence o" convincin! $roo" to the contrary, m st be !iven &ei!ht. People of the Philippines vs. Olive Rubio Mamaril. G.R. No. 171980, October , !010. 'ill o" (i!hts) Probable %a se. +here is no !eneral "orm la or "i/ed r le "or the determination o" $robable ca se since the same m st be decided in li!ht o" the conditions obtainin! in !iven sit ations and its e/istence de$ends to a lar!e de!ree $on the "indin!s or o$inion o" the 0 d!e cond ctin! the e/amination. It is $res med that a 0 dicial " nction has been re! larly $er"ormed, absent a sho&in! to the contrary. +he de"ense-s reliance o" the 1 oted testimony o" the $olice o""icer alone, &itho t any other evidence to sho& that there &as indeed lac2 o" $ersonal 2no&led!e, is ins ""icient to overt rn the "indin! o" the trial co rt. +he acc sed*a$$ellant, havin! "ailed to $resent s bstantial reb ttal evidence to de"eat the $res m$tion o" re! larity o" d ty o" the iss in! 0 d!e, cannot not be s stained by the %o rt. People of the Philippines vs. Olive Rubio Mamaril. G.R. No. 171980, October , !010. %onstit tionality) 3ct al %ontroversy) #tandin! to # e. +he $o&er o" 0 dicial revie& can only be e/ercised in connection &ith abona "idecontroversy involvin! a stat te, its im$lementation or a !overnment action. 4itho t s ch controversy, co rts &ill decline to $ass $on constit tional iss es thro !h advisory o$inions, bere"t as they are o" a thority to resolve hy$othetical or moot 1 estions.+he limitation on the $o&er o" 0 dicial revie& to act al cases and controversiesde"ines the role assi!ned to the 0 diciary in a tri$artite allocation o" $o&er, to ass re that the co rts &ill not intr de into areas committed to the other branches o" !overnment. ' t even &ith the $resence o" an act al case or controversy, the %o rt may re" se 0 dicial revie& nless the constit tional 1 estion or the assailed ille!al !overnment act is bro !ht be"ore it by a $arty &ho $ossesses loc s standior the standin! to challen!e it.+o have standin!, one m st establish that he has a ,$ersonal and s bstantial interest in the case s ch that he has s stained, or &ill s stain, direct in0 ry as a res lt o" its en"orcement..Partic larly, he m st sho& that 516 he has s ""ered some act al or threatened in0 ry as a res lt o" the alle!edly ille!al cond ct o" the !overnment) 526 the in0 ry is "airly traceable to the challen!ed action) and 536 the in0 ry is li2ely to be redressed by a "avorable action.

Petitions "or certiorari and $rohibition are, as here, a$$ro$riate remedies to raise constit tional iss es and to revie& and7or $rohibit or n lli"y, &hen $ro$er, acts o" le!islative and e/ec tive o""icials.+he $resent $etitions alle!e that then President (amos had e/ercised vis*8*vis an assi!nment o" "ranchise, a " nction le!islative in character. 3s alle!ed, too, the +oll (e! latory 'oard 5+('6, in the ! ise o" enterin! into contracts or a!reements &ith the Phili$$ine National %onstr ction %or$oration 5PN%%6 and other 0 ridical entities, virt ally enlar!ed, modi"ied and7or e/tended the stat tory "ranchise o" PN%%, thereby s r$in! a le!islative $rero!ative. +he s r$ation came in the "orm o" e/ec tin! the assailed # $$lemental +oll O$eration 3!reements and the iss ance o" +oll O$eration %erti"icates. Grave ab se o" discretion is also laid on the doorste$ o" the +(' "or its act o" enterin! into these same contracts or a!reements &itho t the re1 ired $ blic biddin! mandated by la&. In "ine, the certiorari $etitions im$ te on then President (amos and the +(', the commission o" acts that translateinter aliainto s r$ation o" the con!ressional a thority to !rant "ranchises and violation o" e/tant stat tes.+he $etitions ma2e a $rima "aciecase "or certiorari and $rohibition) an act al case or controversy ri$e "or 0 dicial revie& e/ists.Verily, &hen an act o" a branch o" !overnment is serio sly alle!ed to have in"rin!ed the %onstit tion, it becomes not only the ri!ht b t in "act the d ty o" the 0 diciary to settle the dis$ te.In doin! so, the 0 diciary merely de"ends the sanctity o" its d ties and $o&ers nder the %onstit tion. In any case, the r le on standin! is a matter o" $roced ral technicality, &hich may be rela/ed &hen the s b0ect in iss e or the le!al 1 estion to be resolved is o" transcendental im$ortance to the $ blic.Hence, even absent any direct in0 ry to the s itor, the %o rt can rela/ the a$$lication o" le!al standin! or alto!ether set it aside "or non*traditional $lainti""s, li2e ordinary citi9ens, &hen the $ blic interest so re1 ires.+here is no do bt that individ al $etitioners, :arcos,et al., in G.(. No. 1;<<1=, as then members o" the Ho se o" (e$resentatives, $ossess the re1 isite le!al standin! since they assail acts o" the e/ec tive they $erceive to in0 re the instit tion o" %on!ress.On the other hand, $etitioners >rancisco, Hi9on, and the other $etitionin! associations, as ta/$ayers and7or sers o" the toll&ays or re$resentatives o" s ch sers, &o ld ordinarily not be clothed &ith the re1 isite standin!.4hile this is so, the %o rt is &ont to $resently rela/ the r le onloc s standio&in! $rimarily to the transcendental im$ortance and the $aramo nt $ blic interest involved in the im$lementation o" the la&s on the? 9on toll&ays, a road&ay com$le/ sed daily by h ndreds o" tho sands o" motorists. "rnesto #. $rancisco, %r., et al. vs. &oll Re'ulator( #oar), et al.*+on. ,mee R. Marcos, et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*Gisin' -abataan Movement, ,nc., et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*&he Republic of the Philippines vs. .oun' Professionals an) "ntrepreneurs of /an Pe)ro, 0a'una. G.R. No. 1 910, 1 9917, 171 10, 181299, October 19, !010. %onstit tionality) ?oc s #tandi. 3 $arty &ho assails the constit tionality o" a stat te m st have a direct and $ersonal interest. It m st sho& not only that the la& or any !overnmental act is invalid, b t also that it s stained or is in immediate dan!er o" s stainin! some direct in0 ry as a res lt o" its en"orcement, and not merely that it s ""ers thereby in some inde"inite &ay. Petitioners have not $resented any $ersonal sta2e in the o tcome o" the controversy. None o" them "aces any char!e nder (3 <3=2. Petitioners in G.(. No. 1=@@<0, alle!e that they have been s b0ected to ,close sec rity s rveillance by state sec rity "orces,. their members "ollo&ed by ,s s$icio s $ersons. and ,vehicles &ith dar2 &indshields,. and their o""ices monitored by ,men &ith military b ild.. +hey li2e&ise claim that they have been branded as ,enemies o" the #tate..Aven concedin! s ch alle!ations, $etitioners have yet to sho& any connection bet&een the $ r$orted ,s rveillance. and the im$lementation o" (3 <3=2.On the other hand, $etitioner*or!ani9ations in G.(. No. 1=@B@1 &o ld li2e the %o rt to ta2e 0 dicial notice o" res$ondents- alle!ed action o" ta!!in! them as militant or!ani9ations "rontin! "or the

%omm nist Party o" the Phili$$ines 5%PP6 and its armed &in!, the National Peo$le-s 3rmy 5NP36. +he ta!!in!, accordin! to $etitioners, is tantamo nt to the e""ects o" $roscri$tion &itho t "ollo&in! the $roced re nder the la&. Petitioners- a$$rehension is ins ""icient to s bstantiate their $lea.+hat no s$eci"ic char!e or $roscri$tion nder (3 <3=2 has been "iled a!ainst them, three years a"ter its e""ectiveness, belies any claim o" imminence o" their $erceived threat emanatin! "rom the so*called ta!!in!. +he same is tr e &ith $etitioners in G.(. No. 1=@BBC, &ho merely har$ as &ell on their s $$osed ,lin2. to the %PP and NP3. +hey "ail to $artic lari9e ho& the im$lementation o" s$eci"ic $rovisions o" (3 <3=2 &o ld res lt in direct in0 ry to their or!ani9ation and members. (3 <3=2 has been in e""ect "or three years no&. >rom D ly 200= $ to the $resent, $etitioner*or!ani9ations have cond cted their activities " lly and "reely &itho t any threat o", m ch less an act al, $rosec tion or $roscri$tion nder (3 <3=2.Petitioners I'P and %OD3? in G.(. No. 1=<1B=, on the other hand, base their claim o" loc s standi on their s&orn d ty to $hold the %onstit tion.+he I'P 9eroes in on #ection 21 o" (3 <3=2 directin! it to render assistance to those arrested or detained nder the la&. +he mere invocation o" the d ty to $reserve the r le o" la&, ho&ever, does not s ""ice to clothe the I'P or any o" its members &ith standin!.+he I'P "ailed to s ""iciently demonstrate ho& its mandate nder the assailed stat te revolts a!ainst its constit tional ri!hts and d ties. :oreover, both the I'P and %OD3? have not $ointed to even a sin!le arrest or detention e""ected nder (3 <3=2.>ormer #enator :a. 3na %ons elo :adri!al, &ho claims to have been the s b0ect o" ,$olitical s rveillance,. also lac2s loc s standi. Prescindin! "rom the veracity, let alone le!al basis, o" the claim o" ,$olitical s rveillance,. the %o rt "inds that she has not sho&n even the sli!htest threat o" bein! char!ed nder (3 <3=2. #imilarly lac2in! in loc s standi are "ormer #enator 4i!berto +aEada and #enator #er!io OsmeEa III, &ho cite their bein! res$ectively a h man ri!hts advocate and an o$$ositor to the $assa!e o" (3 <3=2. O tside these statements, no concrete in0 ry to them has been $in$ointed.Petitioners #o thern Hemis$here An!a!ement Net&or2 and 3tty. #oliman #antos Dr. in G.(. No. 1=@BB2 also conveniently state that the iss es they raise are o" transcendental im$ortance, ,&hich m st be settled early. and are o" ,"ar* reachin! im$lications,. &itho t mention o" any s$eci"ic $rovision o" (3 <3=2 nder &hich they have been char!ed, or may be char!ed. :ere invocation o" h man ri!hts advocacy has no&here been held s ""icient to clothe liti!ants &ith loc s standi. Petitioners m st sho& an act al, or immediate dan!er o" s stainin!, direct in0 ry as a res lt o" the la&-s en"orcement. +o r le other&ise &o ld be to corr $t the settled doctrine o" loc s standi, as every &orthy ca se is an interest shared by the !eneral $ blic. Neither can loc s standi be con"erred $on individ al $etitioners as ta/$ayers and citi9ens. 3 ta/$ayer s it is $ro$er only &hen there is an e/ercise o" the s$endin! or ta/in! $o&er o" %on!ress, &hereas citi9en standin! m st rest on direct and $ersonal interest in the $roceedin!. In s m, it bears to stress that !enerali9ed interests, albeit accom$anied by the assertion o" a $ blic ri!ht, do not establish loc s standi. Avidence o" a direct and $ersonal interest is 2ey. /outhern +emisphere "n'a'ement Net3or4, ,nc., et al. vs. 5nti6 &errorism 7ouncil, et al.*-ilusan' Ma(o 8no, et al. 9s. +on. ")uar)o "rmita., et al.*#a'on' 5l(ansan' Ma4aba(an :#a(an;, et al. vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al.*-arapatan, et al. vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al.*&he ,nte'rate) #ar of the Philippines, et al. vs. "<ecutive /ecretar( ")uar)o "rmita, et al.*#a'on' 5l(ansan' Ma4aba(an6/outhern &a'alo', et al. vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al. G.R. No. 17822!, 17822=, 178281, 178890, 179127, 179= 1, October 2, !010. %onstit tionality) D dicial (evie&) 3ct al %ase or %ontroversy. +he %o rt is not na&are that a reasonable certainty o" the occ rrence o" a $erceived threat to any constit tional interest s ""ices to $rovide a basis "or mo ntin! a constit tional challen!e.+his, ho&ever, is 1 ali"ied by the re1 irement that there m st be s ""icient "acts to enable the %o rt to intelli!ently ad0 dicate the iss es. Prevailin! 3merican 0 ris$r dence allo&s ad0 dication on the merits &hen an

antici$atory $etition clearly sho&s that the challen!ed $rohibition "orbids the cond ct or activity that a $etitioner see2s to do, as there &o ld then be a 0 sticiable controversy. Fnli2e the $lainti""s in Holder, ho&ever, herein $etitioners have "ailed to sho& that the challen!ed $rovisions o" (3 <3=2 "orbid constit tionally $rotected cond ct or activity that they see2 to do. No demonstrable threat has been established, m ch less a real and e/istin! one.Petitionersobsc re alle!ations o" s$oradic ,s rveillance. and s $$osedly bein! ta!!ed as ,comm nist "ronts. in no &ay a$$ro/imate a credible threat o" $rosec tion. >rom these alle!ations, the %o rt is bein! l red to render an advisory o$inion, &hich is not its " nction.4itho t any 0 sticiable controversy, the $etitions have become $leas "or declaratory relie", over &hich the %o rt has no ori!inal 0 risdiction. +hen a!ain, declaratory actions characteri9ed by ,do ble contin!ency,. &here both the activity the $etitioners intend to nderta2e and the antici$ated reaction to it o" a $ blic o""icial are merely theori9ed, lie beyond 0 dicial revie& "or lac2 o" ri$eness. 3lle!ations o" ab se m st be anchored on real events be"ore co rts may ste$ in to settle act al controversies involvin! ri!hts &hich are le!ally demandable and en"orceable. /outhern +emisphere "n'a'ement Net3or4, ,nc, et al. vs. 5nti6&errorism 7ouncil, et al.*-ilusan' Ma(o 8no etc., et al. 9s. +on. ")uar)o "rmita., et al.*#a'on' 5l(ansan' Ma4aba(an :#a(an;, et al. vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al.*-arapatan, et al. vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al.*&he ,nte'rate) #ar of the Philippines, et al. vs. "<ecutive /ecretar( ")uar)o "rmita, et al.*#a'on' 5l(ansan' Ma4aba(an6/outhern &a'alo', et al. vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al. G.R. Nos. 17822!, 17822=, 178281, 178890, 179127, 179= 1, October 2, !010. %onstit tionality) Void "or Va! eness and Overbreadth Doctrine. 3 "acial invalidation o" a stat te is allo&ed only in "ree s$eech cases, &herein certain r les o" constit tional liti!ation are ri!htly e/ce$ted. +o be s re, the doctrine o" va! eness and the doctrine o" overbreadth do not o$erate on the same $lane. 3 stat te or act s ""ers "rom the de"ect o" va! eness &hen it lac2s com$rehensible standards that men o" common intelli!ence m st necessarily ! ess at its meanin! and di""er as to its a$$lication. +he overbreadth doctrine, mean&hile, decrees that a !overnmental $ r$ose to control or $revent activities constit tionally s b0ect to state re! lations may not be achieved by means &hich s&ee$ nnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area o" $rotected "reedoms.3s distin! ished "rom the va! eness doctrine, the overbreadth doctrine ass mes that individ als &ill nderstand &hat a stat te $rohibits and &ill accordin!ly re"rain "rom that behavior, even tho !h some o" it is $rotected. 3 ,"acial. challen!e is li2e&ise di""erent "rom an ,as*a$$lied. challen!e. Distin! ished "rom an as*a$$lied challen!e &hich considers only e/tant "acts a""ectin! real liti!ants, a "acial invalidation is an e/amination o" the entire la&, $in$ointin! its "la&s and de"ects, not only on the basis o" its act al o$eration to the $arties, b t also on the ass m$tion or $rediction that its very e/istence may ca se others not be"ore the co rt to re"rain "rom constit tionally $rotected s$eech or activities. +he va! eness and overbreadth doctrines, as !ro nds "or a "acial challen!e, are not a$$licable to $enal la&s.On the other hand, the allo&ance o" a "acial challen!e in "ree s$eech cases is 0 sti"ied by the aim to avert the ,chillin! e""ect. on $rotected s$eech, the e/ercise o" &hich sho ld not at all times be abrid!ed.+his rationale is ina$$licable to $lain $enal stat tes that !enerally bear an ,in terrorem e""ect. in deterrin! socially harm" l cond ct. In "act, the le!islat re may even "orbid and $enali9e acts "ormerly considered innocent and la&" l, so lon! as it re"rains "rom diminishin! or diss adin! the e/ercise o" constit tionally $rotected ri!hts. Fnder no case, there"ore, may ordinary $enal stat tes be s b0ected to a "acial challen!e.+he rationale is obvio s. I" a "acial challen!e to a $enal stat te is $ermitted, the $rosec tion o" crimes may be ham$ered. No $rosec tion &o ld be $ossible. It is settled, " rthermore, that the a$$lication o" the overbreadth doctrine is limited to a "acial 2ind o" challen!e and, o&in! to the !iven rationale o" a "acial challen!e, a$$licable only to "ree s$eech cases. 'y its nat re, the overbreadth doctrine has to necessarily a$$ly a "acial ty$e o" invalidation in order to $lot areas o" $rotected s$eech,

inevitably almost al&ays nder sit ations not be"ore the co rt, that are im$ermissibly s&e$t by the s bstantially overbroad re! lation. Other&ise stated, a stat te cannot be $ro$erly analy9ed "or bein! s bstantially overbroad i" the co rt con"ines itsel" only to "acts as a$$lied to the liti!ants. In this case, since a $enal stat te may only be assailed "or bein! va! e as a$$lied to $etitioners, a limited va! eness analysis o" the de"inition o" ,terrorism. in (3 <3=2 is le!ally im$ermissible absent an act al or imminent char!e a!ainst them. In "ine, $etitioners have established neither an act al char!e nor a credible threat o" $rosec tion nder (3 <3=2. Aven a limited va! eness analysis o" the assailed de"inition o" ,terrorism. is th s le!ally im$ermissible. /outhern +emisphere "n'a'ement Net3or4, ,nc., et al. vs. 5nti6&errorism 7ouncil, et al.*-ilusan' Ma(o 8no, et al. 9s. +on. ")uar)o "rmita., et al.*#a'on' 5l(ansan' Ma4aba(an :#a(an;, et al. vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al.*-arapatan, et al. vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al.*&he ,nte'rate) #ar of the Philippines, et al. vs. "<ecutive /ecretar( ")uar)o "rmita, et al.*#a'on' 5l(ansan' Ma4aba(an6/outhern &a'alo', et al. vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al. G.R. Nos. 17822!, 17822=, 178281, 178890, 179127, 179= 1, October 2, !010. Aminent Domain) D st %om$ensation. #ection <, 3rticle III o" the 1<@= %onstit tion re1 ires that in the e/ercise o" the $o&er o" eminent domain, com$ensation sho ld be 0 st. +he $ blic, thro !h the #tate, m st balance the in0 ry that the ta2in! o" $ro$erty ca ses thro !h com$ensation "or &hat is ta2en, val e "or val e. +he o&ner-s loss is not only his $ro$erty b t also its income*!eneratin! $otential. 4hile the ?'P immediately $aid the remainin! balance on the 0 st com$ensation d e to the $etitioners a"ter the # $reme %o rt had "i/ed the val e o" the e/$ro$riated $ro$erties, it overloo2s one essential "act G "rom the time that the #tate too2 the $etitioners- $ro$erties ntil the time that the $etitioners &ere " lly $aid, almost 12 lon! years $assed. +his is the rationale "or im$osin! the 12H interest G in order to com$ensate the $etitioners "or the income they &o ld have made had they been $ro$erly com$ensated "or their $ro$erties at the time o" the ta2in!. > rthermore, &hile the #% has e1 itably red ced the amo nt o" interest a&arded in n mero s cases in the $ast, those cases involved interest that &as essentially consens al in nat re, i.e., interest sti$ lated in si!ned a!reements bet&een the contractin! $arties. In contrast, the interest involved in the $resent case ,r ns as a matter o" la& and "ollo&s as a matter o" co rse "rom the ri!ht o" the lando&ner to be $laced in as !ood a $osition as money can accom$lish, as o" the date o" ta2in!.. +h s, the interest d e in the $resent case cannot be red ced. 5po $ruits 7orporation, et al. vs. 0an) #an4 of the Philippines. G.R. No. 1 =192, October 1!, !010. >iscal 3 tonomy o" the D diciary) G#I#) A/em$tion "rom ?e!al >ees. In In (eI Petition "or (eco!nition o" the A/em$tion o" the Government #ervice Ins rance #ystem "rom Payment o" ?e!al >ees, the %o rt r led that the $rovision in the %harter o" the G#I#, i.e., #ection 3< o" (e$ blic 3ct No. @2<1, &hich e/em$ts it "rom ,all ta/es, assessments, "ees, char!es or d ties o" all 2inds,. cannot o$erate to e/em$t it "rom the $ayment o" le!al "ees. +his &as beca se, nli2e the 1<3B and 1<=3 %onstit tions, &hich em$o&ered %on!ress to re$eal, alter or s $$lement the r les o" the # $reme %o rt concernin! $leadin!, $ractice and $roced re, the 1<@= %onstit tion removed this $o&er "rom %on!ress. Hence, the # $reme %o rt no& has the sole a thority to $rom l!ate r les concernin! $leadin!, $ractice and $roced re in all co rts. 3ny e/em$tion "rom the $ayment o" le!al "ees !ranted by %on!ress to !overnment*o&ned or controlled cor$orations and local !overnment nits &ill necessarily red ce the DD> and the #3D>. Fndo btedly, s ch sit ation is constit tionally in"irm "or it im$airs the %o rt-s ! aranteed "iscal a tonomy and erodes its inde$endence. In the instant case, there"ore, the trial co rt did not ac1 ire 0 risdiction to try and decide the $ermissive co nterclaim considerin! that $etitioner is not e/em$ted "rom

the $ayment o" le!al "ees. Government /ervice ,nsurance /(stem :G/,/; vs. +eirs of $ernan)o P. 7aballero, et al. G.R. No. 128090, October =, !010. Omb dsman) Disci$linary 3 thority over P blic #chool +eachers. +he administrative disci$linary a thority o" the Omb dsman over a $ blic school teacher is not an e/cl sive $o&er b t is conc rrent &ith the $ro$er committee o" the De$artment o" Ad cation, % lt re and #$orts 5DA%#6. Ho&ever, &hile $etitioner has s ch conc rrent a thority, #ection 23 o" the Omb dsman 3ct o" 1<@< $rovides that the Omb dsman may re"er a com$laint to the $ro$er disci$linary a thority. Fnder the circ mstances obtainin! in the case, it &o ld have been more $r dent "or $etitioner to have re"erred the com$laint to the DA%# !iven that it &o ld have been in a better $osition to serve the interest o" 0 stice considerin! the nat re o" the controversy. (es$ondent is a $ blic school teacher and is covered by (3 C;=0, there"ore, the $roceedin!s be"ore the DA%# &o ld have been the more a$$ro$riate ven e to resolve the dis$ te. In any case, the "ore!oin! $rono ncement does not a tomatically mean that the # $reme %o rt is n lli"yin! the $roceedin!s be"ore the Omb dsman as esto$$el has already set in. (es$ondent actively $artici$ated in the $roceedin!s be"ore the Omb dsman. He s bmitted his co nter*a""idavit, an a""idavit o" his &itness, and attached anne/es. (es$ondent even "iled a :otion "or (econsideration as2in! "or a""irmative relie" "rom the Omb dsman. >inally, as to the $o&er to im$ose administrative liability, the O""ice o" the Omb dsman has the a thority to determine the administrative liability o" an errin! $ blic o""icial or em$loyee, and to direct and com$el the head o" the concerned o""icer or a!ency to im$lement the $enalty im$osed. +his $o&er to im$ose administrative liability is not merely recommendatory b t act ally mandatory. Office of the Ombu)sman vs. Pe)ro >eli?ero, %r. G.R. No. 17! 12, October !0, !010. O""ice o" the Omb dsman) Po&ers. +he Omb dsman-s decision im$osin! the $enalty o" s s$ension "or one year is immediately e/ec tory $endin! a$$eal. It cannot be stayed by the mere "ilin! o" an a$$eal to the %o rt o" 3$$eals 5%36. %learly, #ection =, ( le III o" the ( les o" Proced re o" the O""ice o" the Omb dsman s $ersedes the discretion !iven to the %3 in #ection 12, ( le C3 o" the ( les o" %o rt &hen a decision o" the Omb dsman in an administrative case is a$$ealed to the %3. +he $rovision in the ( les o" Proced re o" the O""ice o" the Omb dsman that a decision is immediately e/ec tory is a s$ecial r le that $revails over the $rovisions o" the ( les o" %o rt. :oreover, #ection 13 5@6, 3rticle JI o" the %onstit tion a thori9es the O""ice o" the Omb dsman to $rom l!ate its o&n r les o" $roced re. In this connection, #ections 1@ and 2= o" the Omb dsman 3ct o" 1<@< also $rovide that the O""ice o" the Omb dsman has the $o&er to ,$rom l!ate its r les o" $roced re "or the e""ective e/ercise or $er"ormance o" its $o&ers, " nctions and d ties. and to amend or modi"y its r les as the interest o" 0 stice may re1 ire. >or the %3 to iss e a $reliminary in0 nction that &ill stay the $enalty im$osed by the Omb dsman in an administrative case &o ld be to encroach on the r le*ma2in! $o&ers o" the O""ice o" the Omb dsman nder the %onstit tion and (3 ;==0 as the in0 nctive &rit &ill render n !atory the $rovisions o" #ection =, ( le III o" the ( les o" Proced re o" the O""ice o" the Omb dsman. Office of the Ombu)sman vs. %oel /. /amanie'o. G.R. No. 172271, October 2, !010. Preliminary Investi!ation) Decision) 3$$licability o" %onstit tional (e1 irements to DOD. 3 $reliminary investi!ation is not a 1 asi*0 dicial $roceedin! since ,the $rosec tor in a $reliminary investi!ation does not determine the ! ilt or innocence o" the acc sed.. Preliminary investi!ation is merely in1 isitorial.4hile the $rosec tor ma2es that determination, he cannot be said to be actin! as a 1 asi*co rt, "or it is the co rts, ltimately, that $ass 0 d!ment on the acc sed, not the $rosec tor. 3 $reliminary investi!ation th s $arta2es o" an investi!ative or in1 isitorial $o&er "or the sole $ r$ose o" obtainin! in"ormation on &hat

" t re action o" a 0 dicial nat re may be ta2en. 'alan!a an v. %o rt o" 3$$eals in "act iterates that even the action o" the #ecretary o" D stice in revie&in! a $rosec tor-s order or resol tion via a$$eal or $etition "or revie& cannot be considered a 1 asi*0 dicial $roceedin! since the ,DOD is not a 1 asi*0 dicial body.. #ection 1C, 3rticle VIII o" the %onstit tion does not th s e/tend to resol tions iss ed by the DOD #ecretary. 5tt(. 5lice O)chi@ue6#on)oc vs. &an &ion' #io a.4.a. +enr( &an. G.R. No. 18 2!, October , !010. Validity o" # $$lemental +oll O$eration 3!reements. 5a6 P blic Ftility >ranchise) # bstit tion o" Grantee. +he %o rt re0ected $etitioners- contention that contract al $rovisions on s bstit tion o" the "ranchise holder violated the %onstit tion. (elyin! on %la se 1=.C.1o" the # $$lemental +oll O$eration 3!reement 5#+O36 "or the North ? 9on A/$ress&ay that the lenders have the nrestricted ri!ht to a$$oint a s bstit te entity in case o" de"a lt o" :anila North +oll&ays %or$oration 5:N+%6 or the occ rrence o" an event o" de"a lt in res$ect o" :N+%-s loans, $etitioners ar! e that since :N+% is the assi!nee or trans"eree o" the "ranchise o" Phili$$ine National %onstr ction %or$oration 5PN%%6, then it ste$s into the shoes o" PN%%.+hey contend that the act o" re$lacin! :N+% as !rantee is tantamo nt to an amendment or alteration o" PN%%-s ori!inal "ranchise and hence nconstit tional, considerin! that the constit tional $o&er to a$$oint a ne& "ranchise holder is reserved to %on!ress. +he %o rt disa!reed. Petitioners- $res $$osition that only %on!ress has the $o&er to directly !rant "ranchises is mis$laced.+he %o rt has held that administrative a!encies may be em$o&ered by the ?e!islat re by means o" a la& to !rant "ranchises or similar a thori9ations. In this case, the %o rt r led that the +oll (e! latory 'oard 5+('6 is em$o&ered to !rant a "ranchise "or toll road $ro0ects. Petitioners also contend that s bstit tin! :N+% as the !rantee in case o" de"a lt &ith res$ect to its loans is tantamo nt to an amendment o" PN%%-s ori!inal "ranchise and is there"ore nconstit tional.+he %o rt also "o nd this assertion to be &itho t merit. 'esides holdin! that the ?e!islat re may $ro$erly em$o&er administrative a!encies to !rant "ranchises $ rs ant to a la&, the %o rt e/$lained in this case that Presidential Decree No. 1113 and the amendatory Presidential Decree No. 1@<C both vested the +(' &ith the $o&er to im$ose conditions on PN%%-s "ranchise in an a$$ro$riate contract and may there"ore amend or alter the same &hen $ blic interest so re1 ires,save "or the conditions stated in #ections 1 and 2 o" PD 1@<C, &hich relate to the covera!e area o" the toll&ays and the e/$iration o" PN%%-s ori!inal "ranchise.Presidential Decree No. 1112 $rovided " rther that the +(' has the $o&er to amend or modi"y a +oll O$eration %erti"icate that it iss ed &hen $ blic interest so re1 ires.3ccordin!ly, there is nothin! in"irm m ch less 1 estionable abo t the $rovision in the :N+% #+O3 allo&in! the s bstit tion o" :N+% in case it de"a lts in its loans. > rthermore, the , nrestricted ri!ht. o" the lender in %la se 1=.C.1 o" the :N+% #+O3 to a$$oint a s bstit ted entity is never intended to a""ord s ch lender the $lenary $o&er to do so. It is clear that the lenders do not act ally have an absol te or , nrestricted. ri!ht to a$$oint the s bstit ted entity in vie& o" +('-s ri!ht to acce$t or re0ect the s bstit tion &ithin one month "rom notice, and s ch ri!ht to a$$oint comes into "orce only i" and &hen the +(' decides to e""ect ate the s bstit tion o" :N+% as allo&ed in %la se 1=.2 o" the :N+% #+O3. 5b6 P blic Ftility >ranchise) A/tension. +he %o rt a!reed &ith $etitioners- contention that the o$tion in the :N+% #+O3 to e/tend the concession "or the stated $eriod is nconstit tional. %la se 1=.B o" the :N+% #+O3 !rants :N+%-s lenders the $o&er to e/tend

the concession in case the Grantor 5(e$ blic o" the Phili$$ines6 ta2es over the same, "or a $eriod not e/ceedin! B0 years, ntil " ll $ayment o" the loans. 3t the o tset, %la se 1=.B does not !rant the lenders the $o&er to nilaterally e/tend the concession "or a $eriod not e/ceedin! B0 years. +he a"ore*1 oted $rovision sho ld be read in con0 nction &ith %la se 20.12, &hich e/$ressly $rovides that the :N+% #+O3 is ,made nder and shall be !overned by and constr ed in accordance &ith. the la&s o" the Phili$$ines, and $artic larly, by the $rovisions o" PD 1112, PD 1113 and PD 1@<C.Fnder the a$$licable la&s, the +(' may amend, modi"y, alter or revo2e the a thority7"ranchise ,&henever the $ blic interest so re1 ires..In a &ord, the $o&er to determine &hether or not to contin e or e/tend the a thority !ranted to a concessionaire to o$erate and maintain a toll&ay is vested in the +(' by the a$$licable la&s.+he necessity o" &hether or not to e/tend the concession or the a thority to constr ct, o$erate and maintain a toll&ay rests, by o$eration o" la&, &ith the +('.3s s ch, the lenders cannot nilaterally e/tend the concession $eriod, or, &ith li2e e""ect, demand that the +(' a!ree to e/tend the concession. It m st be noted, ho&ever, that &hile the +(' is vested by la& &ith the $o&er to e/tend the administrative "ranchise or a thority that it !ranted, it cannot do so "or an acc m lated $eriod e/ceedin! B0 years. Other&ise, it &o ld violatethe $roscri$tion nder 3rticle JII, #ection 11 o" the 1<@= %onstit tion, &hich $rovides that no $ blic tility "ranchise shall be "or a lon!er $eriod than B0 years. In this case, the :N+% #+O3 has an ori!inal sti$ lated $eriod o" 30 years.%la se 1=.B allo&s the e/tension o" this $eriod i" necessary to " lly re$ay the loans o" :N+%. I" the ma/im m e/tension as $rovided in %la se 1=.B,i.e.,B0 years, is sed, the acc m lated concession $eriod !ranted in this case &o ld e""ectively be @0 years.+his is a clear violation o" the B0*year "ranchise threshold set by the %onstit tion.It is on this basis that the %o rt str c2 do&n the $rovision in %la se 1=.B allo&in! e/tension o" the concession "or $ to B0 years. Ho&ever, the n llity is only &ith res$ect to any e/tension beyond the B0*year constit tional limit. 5c6 Government G arantee. +he %o rt declared as nconstit tional and !rossly disadvanta!eo s to the Government %la se 11.= o" the :N+% #+O3 5and a similar $rovision in the #+O3 "or the #o th ? 9on A/$ress&ay rehabilitation and e/tension $ro0ect6, &hich ! arantees the "inancial viability o" toll&ay $ro0ect. Fnder %la se 11.= o" the :N+% #+O3, the +(' a!reed to $ay monthly the di""erence in the toll "ees act ally collected by :N+% and that &hich it co ld have reali9ed nder the #+O3. 3rticle VI, #ection 2<516 o" the %onstit tion mandates that ,KnLo money shall be $aid o t o" the +reas ry e/ce$t in $ rs ance o" an a$$ro$riation made by la&.. In this case, the +(', by &arrantin! to com$ensate :N+% "or loss o" reven e res ltin! "rom the non*im$lementation o" the $eriodic and interim toll "ee ad0 stments, violates the constit tionally ! aranteed and e/cl sive $o&er o" the ?e!islat re toa$$ro$riate money "or $ blic $ r$ose "rom the General > nds o" the Government. > rther, #ection 35e65B6 o" PD 1112 e/$licitly states that no ! arantee, %erti"icate o" Indebtedness, collateral sec rities, or bonds shall be iss ed by any !overnment a!ency or !overnment*o&ned or controlled cor$oration on any "inancin! $ro!ram o" the toll o$erator in connection &ith his nderta2in! nder the +oll O$eration %erti"icate. 4hat the la& here see2s to $revent is the event ality that the Government, thro !h any o" its a!encies, co ld be obli!ated to $ay or sec re, &hether directly or indirectly, the "inancin! by the $rivate investor o" the $ro0ect.In this case, nder %la se 11.= o" the :N+% #+O3, the (e$ blic o" the Phili$$ines 5thro !h the +('6 ! aranteed the sec rity o" the $ro0ect a!ainst reven e losses that co ld res lt

in case the +(', based on its determination o" a 0 st and reasonable toll "ee, decides not to e""ect a toll "ee ad0 stment nder the #+O3-s $eriodic7interim ad0 stment "orm la. 5d6 +oll (ate 3d0 stments. +he %o rt re0ected $etitioners- contention that the toll rate ad0 stment mechanisms in the #+O3s violated the %onstit tion. Petitioners ar! e that the #+O3s "or the North ? 9on A/$ress&ay, #o th ? 9on A/$ress&ay and #o th :etro :anila #2y&ay 5#::#6 $ro0ects tie the hands o" the +(', as it is bo nd by the sti$ lated $eriodic and interim toll rate ad0 stments $rovided therein.Petitioners contend that the $rovisions oninitialtoll rates and$eriodic7interimtoll rate ad0 stments, by sin! a b ilt*in a tomatic toll rate ad0 stment "orm la,! aranteed "i/ed ret rns "or the investors and ne!ated the $ blic hearin! re1 irement. +he %o rt held that the re1 isite $ blic hearin!s nder #ection 35d6 o" PD 1112 and #ection @5b6 o" PD 1@<C are not ne!ated by the "i/in! o" the initial toll rates and the $eriodic ad0 stments nder the #+O3s. 3 clear distinction m st be made bet&een the stat tory $rescri$tion on the "i/in! o"initialtoll rates, on the one hand, and o"$eriodic7interimors bse1 enttoll rates, on the other.>irst, the hearin! re1 ired nder the said $rovisos re"ers to notice and hearin! "or the a$$roval or denial o" $etitions "or toll rate ad0 stments G or the s bse1 ent toll rates, not to the "i/in! o" initial toll rates.'y e/$ress le!al $rovision, the +(' is a thori9ed to a$$rove the initial toll rates &itho t the necessity o" a hearin!.It is only &hen a challen!e on the initial toll rates "i/ed ens es that $ blic hearin!s are re1 ired. In determinin! the reasonableness o" s bse1 ent toll rate increases, the +(' m st see2 o t the %ommission on 3 dit "or assistance in e/aminin! and a ditin! the "inancial boo2s o" the $ blic tilities concerned. > rthermore, &hile the $eriodic, interim and other toll rate ad0 stment "orm las are indicated in the #+O3s,it does not mean that the +(' sho ld acce$t a rate ad0 stment $redicated on the economic data, re"erences or ass m$tions ado$ted by the toll o$erator.+he "inal "i! res sho ld be determined by the +(' based on its a$$reciation o" the relevant rate*in"l encin! data.+he +(' sho ld e/ercise its rate*"i/in! $o&ers &ithin the conte/t o" the a!reed "orm la, b t al&ays havin! in mind that the rates sho ld be 0 st and reasonable.%onversely, it is very &ell &ithin the $o&er o" the +(' nder the la& to a$$rove a chan!e in the c rrent toll "ees.#ection 35d6 o" PD 1112 !rants the +(' the $o&er to ,iss e, modi"y and $rom l!ate "rom time to time the rates o" toll that &ill be char!ed the direct sers o" toll "acilities..' t the reasonableness o" a $ossible increase in the "ees m st "irst be clearly and convincin!ly established by the $etitionin! entities,i.e.,the toll o$erators. "rnesto #. $rancisco, %r., et al. vs. &oll Re'ulator( #oar), et al.*+on. ,mee R. Marcos, et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*Gisin' -abataan Movement, ,nc., et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*&he Republic of the Philippines vs. .oun' Professionals an) "ntrepreneurs of /an Pe)ro, 0a'una. G.R. No. 1 910, 1 9917, 171 10, 181299, October 19, !010. Administrative Law 3dministrative 3!encies) Doctrine o" Primary 3dministrative D risdiction. Fnder the doctrine o" $rimary administrative 0 risdiction, co rts &ill not determine a controversy &here the iss es "or resol tion demand the e/ercise o" so nd administrative discretion re1 irin! the s$ecial 2no&led!e, e/$erience, and services o" the administrative trib nal to determine technical and intricate matters o" "act. +he ob0ective o" the doctrine o" $rimary 0 risdiction is to ! ide the co rt in determinin! &hether it sho ld re"rain "rom e/ercisin! its 0 risdiction ntil a"ter an administrative a!ency has determined some 1 estion or some as$ect o" some 1 estion arisin! in the $roceedin! be"ore the co rt. Fndeniably, s $ervenin! events have s bstantially chan!ed the

"act al bac2dro$ o" the case &hile it &as $endin! be"ore the %o rt. +he # $reme %o rt th s de"erred to the com$etence and e/$ertise o" the #ec rities and A/chan!e %ommission to determine &hether, !iven the s $ervenin! events, the #econd 3mendment to the (ehabilitation Plan is no lon!er ca$able o" im$lementation and &hether the rehabilitation case sho ld be terminated as a conse1 ence. Nestle Philippines, ,nc. et al. vs. 8ni3i)e /ales, ,nc., et al. G.R. No. 17= 7=, October !0, !010. Government %ontracts) P blic 'iddin!. +he %o rt held that $ blic biddin! is not re1 ired &ith res$ect to the $roc rement o" the #o th :etro :anila #2y&ay, North ? 9on A/$ress&ay and #o th ? 9on A/$ress&ay $ro0ects. Private $etitioners maintain that $ blic biddin! is re1 ired "or these $ro0ects on the basis that they are in the nat re o" a b ild*o$erate*trans"er in"rastr ct re nderta2in! nder the 'O+ ?a&. +he %o rt said that the 'O+ ?a& does not s1 arely a$$ly to Phili$$ine National %onstr ction %or$oration 5PN%%6, &hich e/ercised its $rero!atives and obli!ations nder its "ranchise to $ rs e the constr ction, rehabilitation and e/$ansion o" the above toll roads &ith chosen $artners. +hese toll&ay $ro0ects may very &ell 1 ali"y as a b ild*o$erate*trans"er nderta2in!.Ho&ever, !iven that the $ro0ects have been nderta2en by PN%% in the e/ercise o" its "ranchise nder Presidential Decree No. 1113 and Presidential Decree No. 1@<C, in 0oint vent re &ith its chosen $artners at the time &hen it &as held valid to do so by the O""ice o" the Government %or$orate %o nsel and the De$artment o" D stice, the $ blic biddin! $rovisions nder the 'O+ ?a& do not strictly a$$ly. +he above $ro0ects are not ordinary contracts "or the constr ction o" !overnment in"rastr ct re $ro0ects, &hich re1 ire, nder the Government Proc rement (e"orm 3ct or the no&*re$ealed Presidential Decree No. 1B<C,$ blic biddin! as the $re"erred mode o" contract a&ard.Neither are these contracts &here "inancin! or "inancial ! arantees "or the $ro0ect are obtained "rom the !overnment. (ather, the # $$lemental +oll O$eratin! 3!reements 5$ rs ant to &hich PN%% is nderta2in! the $ro0ects to!ether &ith its chosen $artners6 act ally constit te a stat torily* a thori9ed trans"er or assi!nment o" s "r ct o" PN%%-s e/istin! "ranchise to constr ct, maintain and o$erate e/$ress&ays. +he concl sion &o ld $erha$s be di""erent i" the toll&ay $ro0ects &ere to be $rosec ted by an o t"it com$letely di""erent "rom, and not related to, PN%%. In s ch a scenario, the entity a&arded the &innin! bid in a 'O+*scheme in"rastr ct re $ro0ect &ill have to constr ct, o$erate and maintain the toll&ays thro !h an a tomatic !rant o" a "ranchise or +O%, in &hich case, $ blic biddin! is re1 ired nder the la&. 4here, as here, a "ranchisee 5PN%%6 nderta2es the constr ction, rehabilitation and e/$ansion o" the toll&ays nder its "ranchise, there is no need "or a $ blic biddin!.In $ rs in! the $ro0ects &ith the vast reso rce re1 irements, the "ranchisee can $artner &ith other investors, &hich it may choose in the e/ercise o" its mana!ement $rero!atives.In this case, no $ blic biddin! is re1 ired $on the "ranchisee in choosin! its $artners, as s ch $rocess &as done in the e/ercise o" mana!ement $rero!atives and in $ rs it o" its ri!ht o"delect s $ersonae. "rnesto #. $rancisco, %r., et al. vs. &oll Re'ulator( #oar), et al.*+on. ,mee R. Marcos, et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*Gisin' -abataan Movement, ,nc., et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*&he Republic of the Philippines vs. .oun' Professionals an) "ntrepreneurs of /an Pe)ro, 0a'una. G.R. No. 1 910, 1 9917, 171 10, 181299, October 19, !010. Election Laws %andidate) (esidency (e1 irement. 4hile it is ndis$ ted that :itra-s domicile o" ori!in is P erto Princesa %ity, :itra ade1 ately $roved by s bstantial evidence that he trans"erred by

incremental $rocess to 3borlan be!innin! 200@, and concl ded his trans"er in early 200<. Given this $roo", the b rden o" evidence lies &ith the $rivate res$ondents to establish the contrary, &hich the latter "ailed to do. On the other hand, the %O:A?A% based its r lin! that :itra did not ta2e $ residence in 3borlan lar!ely on the $hoto!ra$hs o" :itra-s 3borlan $remises) it concl ded that the $hoto!ra$hed $remises co ld not have been a residence beca se o" its assessment o" the interior desi!n and " rnishin!s o" the room. +h s, the %O:A?A% #econd Division-s (esol tion 5&hich the %O:A?A% en banc " lly s $$orted6 did not merely concl de that :itra does not live in the $hoto!ra$hed $remises) more than this, it r led that these $remises cannot be considered a home or a residence, "or lac2 o" the 1 alities o" a home that the #econd Division &anted to see. +he %O:A?A% not only !rossly misread the evidence b t even sed $ersonal and s b0ective standards in its assessment o" :itra-s d&ellin! &hen, in "act, the la& is re$lete &ith standards, i.e., the d&ellin! m st be &here a $erson $ermanently intends to ret rn and to remain. 5braham -ahlil #. Mitra vs. 7ommission on "lections, 5ntonio 9. GonAales an) Orlan)o R. #albon, %r. G.R. No. 191918, October 19, !010. Special Laws 3!rarian (e"orm) D st %om$ensation. 3ltho !h the De$artment o" 3!rarian (e"orm 5D3(6 is vested &ith $rimary 0 risdiction nder the %om$rehensive 3!rarian (e"orm ?a& 5%3(?6 o" 1<@@ to determine in a $reliminary manner the reasonable com$ensation "or lands ta2en nder the %3(P, s ch determination is s b0ect to challen!e in the co rts. +he %3(? vests in the (+%s, sittin! as #$ecial 3!rarian %o rts, ori!inal and e/cl sive 0 risdiction over all $etitions "or the determination o" 0 st com$ensation. +he 0 risdiction o" the (+%s is not any less ,ori!inal and e/cl sive. beca se the 1 estion is "irst $assed $on by the D3(. +he $roceedin!s be"ore the (+% are not a contin ation o" the administrative determination. 3dditionally, the administrative orders $rovidin! "or the ! idelines in determinin! 0 st com$ensation are mandatory and not mere ! ides that the (+% may disre!ard. >inally, altho !h in some e/$ro$riation cases, the %o rt allo&ed the im$osition o" said interest, the same &as in the nat re o" dama!es "or delay in $ayment &hich in e""ect ma2es the obli!ation on the $art o" the !overnment one o" "orbearance. In this case, res$ondents are not entitled to interest on the "inal com$ensation considerin! that $etitioner $rom$tly de$osited the com$ensation "or their lands a"ter they re0ected $etitioner-s initial val ation.0an) #an4 of the Philippines vs. Glenn .. "scan)or, et al. G.R. No. 171 82, October 11, !010. Aner!y (e! latory %ommission) Im$lementation o" (3 =@32. #F(NA%O cannot insist on sin! the m lti$lier scheme even a"ter the im$osition o" the system loss ca$s nder #ection 10 o" (.3. No. =@32. Indeed, nder National Alectri"ication 3dministration :emorand m No. 1*3, the se o" the m lti$lier scheme allo&s the recovery o" system losses even beyond the ca$s mandated in (.3. No. =@32, &hich is intended to !rad ally $hase o t $il"era!e losses as a com$onent o" the recoverable system losses by the distrib tin! tilities s ch as #F(NA%O. Ho&ever, it is totally re$ !nant to and incom$atible &ith the system loss ca$s established in (.3. No. =@32, and is re$ealed by #ection 1; o" the la&. 3s bet&een NA3 :emorand m No. 1*3, a mere administrative iss ance, and (.3. No. =@32, a le!islative enactment, the latter m st $revail. 3dditionally, the PP3 "orm la $rovided in the I(( o" (.3. No. =@32 &as only a model to be sed as a ! ide by the electric coo$eratives in $ro$osin! their o&n PP3 "orm la "or a$$roval by the then Aner!y (e! latory 'oard 5A('6. #ections C and B, ( le IJ o" the I(( directed the electric coo$eratives to a$$ly "or a$$roval o" s ch "orm la &ith the A(' so that the system loss ca$s nder the la& &o ld be incor$orated in their com$ tation o" $o&er cost ad0 stments. +he I(( did not $rovide "or a s$eci"ic "orm la) there"ore, there &as nothin! in the I(( that &as amended or co ld have been amended relative to the PP3 "orm la. +he I(( le"t to

the A(', no& the Aner!y (e! latory %ommission, the a thority to a$$rove and oversee the im$lementation o" the electric coo$eratives- PP3 "orm la in the e/ercise o" its rate*ma2in! $o&er over them. # ri!ao del Norte Alectric %oo$erative, Inc. 5#F(NA%O6 vs. Aner!y (e! latory %ommission. G.(. No. 1@3;2;, October C, 2010. PN%%) 3 thority 3"ter A/$iration o" >ranchise. In this case, $etitioners ass me and har$ on the lac2 o" a thority o" the Phili$$ine National %onstr ction %or$oration 5PN%%6 to contin e, in 0oint vent re &ith $rivate investors, &ith its North ? 9on A/$ress&ay 5N?AJ6, #o th ? 9on A/$ress&ay 5#?AJ6 and :etro :anila A/$ress&ay 5::AJ6 o$erations a"ter the la$se o" its "ranchise 5!ranted nder Presidential Decree No. 11136 on :ay 1, 200=. Ho&ever, this e/$iration did not carry &ith it the cancellation o" PN%%-s a thority and that o" its 0oint vent re $artners !ranted nder Presidential Decree No. 1112 in relation to #ection 1 o" Presidential Decree No. 1@<C to constr ct, o$erate and maintain ,anyand all s ch e/tensions, lin2a!es or stretches, to!ether &ith the toll "acilities a$$ rtenant thereto, "rom any $art o" KN?AJL, K#?AJL and7or K::AJL and7or to divert the ori!inal ro te and chan!e the ori!inal end*$oints o" the KN?AJL and7or K#?AJL as may be a$$roved by the K+('L.. +o hi!hli!ht the $oint, #ection 2 o" PD 1@<C s$eci"ically $rovides that the "ranchise "or the e/tension and toll road $ro0ects constr cted a"ter the a$$roval o" PD 1@<C shall be 30 years, co nted "rom $ro0ect com$letion. Indeed, $rior to the e/$iration o" PN%%-s ori!inal "ranchise in :ay 200=, the +oll (e! latory 'oard 5+('6, in the e/ercise o" its s$ecial $o&ers nder PD 1112, si!ned # $$lemental +oll O$eration 3!reements 5#+O3s6 &ith PN%% and its $rivate 0oint vent re $artners. +hese #+O3s covered the e/$ansion and rehabilitation o" N?AJ and #?AJ, as the case may be, and7orthe constr ction, o$eration and maintenance o" toll road $ro0ects contem$lated in PD 1@<C. > rther, corres$ondin! +oll O$eration %erti"icates 5+O%s6 have been iss ed "or the toll road $ro0ects. +he #+O3s+(' entered into &ith PN%% and its 0oint vent re $artners had the e""ect o" !rantin! a thorities to constr ct, o$erate and maintain toll "acilities, b t &ith the in0ection o" additional $rivate sector investments consistent &ith the intent o" PD 1112, PD 1113 and PD 1@<C.+he e/ec tion o" these #+O3s came in 1<<B, 1<<@ and 200;, or be"ore the e/$iration o" PN%%-s ori!inal "ranchise on :ay 1, 200=. F$on the e/$iration o" PN%%-s le!islative "ranchise on :ay 1, 200=, the ne& a thorities to constr ct, maintain and o$erate the s b0ect toll&ays and toll "acilities !ranted by the +(' $ rs ant to the validly e/ec ted #+O3s and +O%s, shall be!in to o$erate and be treated as administrative "ranchises or a thorities. 3"ter :ay 1, 200=, the o$eration and maintenance o" the N?AJ and the other s b0ect toll&ays are no lon!er be "o nded on PN%%-s ori!inal "ranchise b t on entirely ne& a thori9ations,i.e.the +O%s, !ranted by the +(' $ rs ant to its stat tory "ranchisin! a thority nder #ections 35a6 and 5e6 o" PD 1112. "rnesto #. $rancisco, %r., et al. vs. &oll Re'ulator( #oar), et al.*+on. ,mee R. Marcos, et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*Gisin' -abataan Movement, ,nc., et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*&he Republic of the Philippines vs. .oun' Professionals an) "ntrepreneurs of /an Pe)ro, 0a'una. G.R. No. 1 910, 1 9917, 171 10, 181299, October 19, !010. President-s Po&er to 3$$rove +(' %ontracts. Petitioners here assert that the !rant to the President o" the $o&er to $erem$torily a thori9e the assi!nment by Phili$$ine National %onstr ction %or$oration 5PN%%6, as "ranchise holder, o" its "ranchise or the s "r ct in its "ranchise is nconstit tional "or bein! an encroachment o" le!islative $o&er. +he %o rt re0ected this claim. #ection 35a6 o" Presidential Decree No. 1112 re1 ires a$$roval by the President o" any contract the +oll (e! latory 'oard may have entered into or e""ected "or the constr ction and o$eration o" toll "acilities.%om$lementin! #ection 35a6 is 35e6536 o" PD 1112 en0oinin! the trans"er o" the s "r ct o" PN%%-s "ranchise &itho t the President-s $rior a$$roval. +he President-s a$$rovin! a thority is there"ore o" stat tory ori!in.+here is nothin!

ille!al, let alone nconstit tional, &ith the dele!ation to the President o" the a thority to a$$rove the assi!nment by PN%% o" its ri!hts and interest in its "ranchise, the assi!nment and dele!ation bein! circ mscribed by restrictions in the dele!atin! la& itsel". Arnesto '. >rancisco, Dr., et al. vs. +oll (e! latory 'oard, et al.7Hon. Imee (. :arcos, et al. vs. +he (e$ blic o" the Phili$$ines, et al.7Gisin! Mabataan :ovement, Inc., et al. vs. +he (e$ blic o" the Phili$$ines, et al.7+he (e$ blic o" the Phili$$ines vs. No n! Pro"essionals and Antre$rene rs o" #an Pedro, ?a! na. G.(. No. 1;;<10, 1;<<1=, 1=3;30, 1@3B<<, October 1<, 2010. P blic ?and) 3lienability. Fnless a $ blic land is sho&n to have been reclassi"ied as alienable or act ally alienated by the #tate to a $rivate $erson, that $iece o" land remains $art o" the $ blic domain, and its occ $ation in the conce$t o" o&ner, no matter ho& lon!, cannot con"er o&nershi$ or $ossessory ri!hts. It is only a"ter the $ro$erty has been declared alienable and dis$osable that $rivate $ersons can le!ally claim $ossessory ri!hts over it. +his does not mean, ho&ever, that neither o" the $arties has the ri!ht to $ossess the $ro$erty. 4hile the :odestos claim to have been in $ossession o" ?ot 3B; "or almost 33 years, this occ $ation co ld not !ive rise to $ossessory ri!hts &hile the $ro$erty bein! occ $ied remain !overnment land that had not yet been declared alienable and dis$osable. It &as the :odestos, ho&ever, &ho &ere the act al $ossessors o" the $ro$erty &hen it &as declared alienable and dis$osable on October 1;, 1<@=, and contin ed to $ossess the $ro$erty ntil the $resent time. Pio Mo)esto an) 7irila Rivera6Mo)esto vs. 7arlos 8rbina, substitute) b( the heirs of Ol(mpia Mi'uel 9)a. )e 8rbina, et al. G.R. No. 189829, October 18, !010. P blic land) >oreshore. +o 1 ali"y as "oreshore land, it m st be sho&n that the land lies bet&een the hi!h and lo& &ater mar2s and is alternately &et and dry accordin! to the "lo& o" the tide. +he land-s $ro/imity to the &aters alone does not a tomatically ma2e it a "oreshore land. +h s, in (e$ blic o" the Phili$$ines v. ?ensico, the %o rt held that altho !h the t&o corners o" the s b0ect lot ad0oins the sea, the lot cannot be considered as "oreshore land since it has not been $roven that the lot &as covered by &ater d rin! hi!h tide. #imilarly in this case, it &as clearly $roven that the dis$ ted land remained dry even d rin! hi!h tide. Indeed, all the evidence s $$orts the concl sion that the dis$ ted $ortion o" ?ot No. ;2=@*: is not "oreshore land b t remains $rivate land o&ned by res$ondents.Manuel 5lma'ro, ?oine) b( his spouse, "liAabeth 5lma'ro vs. /alvacion 7. -3an, et al. * Mar'arita Pachoro, et al. vs. Billiam 7. -3an, et al. G.R. Nos. 17280 , 172810 an) G.R. No. 1728=9. October !0, !010. +oll (e! latory 'oard) >ranchisin! Po&ers. +he %o rt dismissed $etitioners- ar! ment that only %on!ress has, nder the 1<@= %onstit tion, the e/cl sive $rero!ative to !rant "ranchise to o$erate $ blic tilities. 4ith res$ect to the +oll (e! latory 'oard 5+('6, #ections 35a6 and 5e6 o" Presidential Decree No. 1112 in relation to #ection C o" Presidential Decree No. 1@<C have invested the +(' &ith s ""icient $o&er to !rant a 1 ali"ied $erson or entity &ith a thority to constr ct, maintain, ando$erate a toll "acility and to iss e the corres$ondin! toll o$eratin! $ermit or +oll O$eration %erti"icate. 'y e/$licit $rovision o" la&, there"ore, the +(' &as !iven the $o&er to !rant administrative "ranchise "or toll "acility $ro0ects. +he $o&er to a thori9e and control a $ blic tility is admittedly a $rero!ative that stems "rom the ?e!islat re.3ny s !!estion, ho&ever, that only %on!ress has the a thority to !rant a $ blic tility "ranchise is less than acc rate.3sstressed in3lbano v. (eyes O a case decided nder the 1<@= %onstit tion O there is nothin! in the %onstit tion remotely indicatin! the necessity o" acon!ressional "ranchise be"ore each and every $ blic tility may o$erate. 3 s$ecial "ranchise directly emanatin! "rom %on!ress is not necessary i" the la& already s$eci"ically a thori9es an administrative body to !rant a "ranchise or to a&ard a contract. Fnder the 1<@= %onstit tion,

%on!ress has an e/$licit a thority to !rant a $ blic tility "ranchise.Ho&ever, it may validly dele!ate its le!islative a thority, nder the $o&er o" s bordinate le!islation,to iss e "ranchises o" certain $ blic tilities to some administrative a!encies. "rnesto #. $rancisco, %r., et al. vs. &oll Re'ulator( #oar), et al.*+on. ,mee R. Marcos, et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*Gisin' -abataan Movement, ,nc., et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*&he Republic of the Philippines vs. .oun' Professionals an) "ntrepreneurs of /an Pe)ro, 0a'una. G.R. No. 1 910, 1 9917, 171 10, 181299, October 19, !010. +oll (e! latory 'oard) P asi*?e!islative and P asi*D dicial > nctions. Petitioners in the s$ecial civil actions cases &o ld have the %o rt declare as invalid 5i6 #ections 35a6 and 5d6 o" Presidential Decree No. 1112 5&hich accord the +oll (e! latory 'oard 5+('6 the $o&er to enter into contracts "or the constr ction and o$eration o" toll "acilities, and, at the same time, !rant it the $o&er to iss e and $rom l!ate toll rates6 and 5ii6 #ection @5b6 o" Presidential Decree No. 1@<C 5&hich !rant the +(' ad0 dicatory 0 risdiction over matters involvin! toll rate movements6. 3s s bmitted by $etitioners, !rantin! the +(' the $o&er to a&ard toll contracts is inconsistent &ith its 1 asi*0 dicial " nction o" ad0 dicatin! $etitions "or initial toll and $eriodic toll rate ad0 stments. +here cannot, so $etitioners &o ld $ost late, be im$artiality in s ch a sit ation. +he %o rt re0ected these ar! ments. It does not $erceive an irreconcilable clash in the en merated stat tory $o&ers o" the +(', s ch that the e/ercise o" one ne!ates the other. +he ascri$tion o" im$artiality on the $art o" the +(' cannot, nder the $remises, be accorded co!ency. Petitioners have not sho&n that the +(' lac2s the e/$ertise, com$etence and ca$acity to im$lement its mandate o" balancin! the interests o" the toll*$ayin! motorin! $ blic and the im$erative o" allo&in! the concessionaires to reco $ their investment &ith reasonable $ro"its. +he "act that an administrative a!ency is e/ercisin! its administrative or e/ec tive " nctions 5s ch as the !rantin! o" "ranchises or a&ardin! o" contracts6 and at the same time e/ercisin! its 1 asi*le!islative 5e.!., r le*ma2in!6 and7or 1 asi*0 dicial " nctions 5e.!., rate* "i/in!6, does not s $$ort a "indin! o" a violation o" d e $rocess or the %onstit tion. "rnesto #. $rancisco, %r., et al. vs. &oll Re'ulator( #oar), et al.*+on. ,mee R. Marcos, et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*Gisin' -abataan Movement, ,nc., et al. vs. &he Republic of the Philippines, et al.*&he Republic of the Philippines vs. .oun' Professionals an) "ntrepreneurs of /an Pe)ro, 0a'una. G.(. No. 1;;<10, 1;<<1=, 1=3;30, 1@3B<<, October 1<, 2010.

Public Private Partnership Center

Posted on November 2;, 2010 by Imelda 3. :an! iat One o" the cornerstones o" President 'eni!no 31 ino III-s economic $olicy nder his ne& administration is the develo$ment o" the co ntry-s m ch needed in"rastr ct re $ro0ects thro !h $ blic*$rivate sector $artnershi$. D rin! the con"erence d bbed as In"rastr ct re Phili$$ines 2010, Investin! and >inancin! in P blic*Private Partnershi$ Pro0ects, held "rom November 1= to 1<, 2010, the !overnment anno nced its in"rastr ct re a!enda and the di""erent $ro0ects o$en "or $ blic*$rivate $artnershi$s. +hese $ro0ects are mostly in the trans$ortation, to rism, ener!y, a!ric lt re and health sectors. In line &ith this em$hasis on $rivate sector $artici$ation in in"rastr ct re $ro0ects, President 31 ino $revio sly iss ed A/ec tive Order No. @ on #e$tember <, 2010 reor!ani9in! and re* namin! the ' ild, O$erate and +rans"er 5'O+6 %enter to the P blic*Private Partnershi$ 5PPP6 %enter. +he e/ec tive order also trans"erred the PPP %enter "rom bein! an attached a!ency o" the

De$artment o" +rade and Ind stry to the National Aconomic and Develo$ment 3 thority 5NAD36. 3ccordin! to NAD3 #ecretary %ayetano Paderan!a, Dr., the PPPs &ill be nderta2en mainly nder the "rame&or2 o" the 'O+ ?a& and its im$lementin! re! lations. +h s, the role o" the 'O+ %enter, no& PPP %enter, is im$ortant. 3mon! the $o&ers and " nctions o" the PPP %enter nder AO No. @ areI 1. 3ssist the im$lementin! a!encies 5I3s6 and local !overnment nits 5?GFs6 in addressin! im$ediments and bottlenec2s in the im$lementation o" PPP $ro0ects) 2. Provide advisory services, technical assistance and trainin! to I3s and ?GFs in PPP $ro0ect $re$aration and develo$ment) 3. :onitor and "acilitate the im$lementation o" $riority PPP $ro!rams and $ro0ects)

C. (ecommend $lans, $olicies and im$lementin! ! idelines related to PPP in cons ltation &ith a$$ro$riate oversi!ht committees, I3s and ?GFs) B. :ana!e and administer a revolvin! " nd "or the $re$aration o" b siness case, $re*"easibility and "easibility st dies and tender doc ments "or PPP $ro!rams and $ro0ects) and ;. Pre$are re$orts on the im$lementation o" PPP $ro!rams and $ro0ects "or s bmission to the President each year. 3ccordin! to AO No. @, the $ro0ect a$$roval $rocess "or 1 ali"ied solicited PPPs shall be com$leted &ithin si/ months s b0ect to e/istin! la&s, r les and re! lations. +he PPP %enter sho ld hel$ in ens rin! that this timetable is achieved.

Jul 2011 Philippine Supreme Decisions on Political Law

Posted on 3 ! st 1<, 2011 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV

Court

Here are selected D ly 2011 r lin!s o" the # $reme %o rt o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&. Constitutional Law %o rt $roceedin!s) denial o" d e $rocess. +he #% here r led that the Aner!y (e! latory %ommission did not de$rive $etitioners o" their ri!ht to be heard. 4here o$$ort nity to be heard either thro !h oral ar! ments or thro !h $leadin!s is !ranted, there is no denial o" d e $rocess. In this case, $rior to the iss ance o" the assailed A(% Decision a$$rovin! :eralco-s a$$lication "or rate increase, $etitioners &ere !iven several o$$ort nities to attend the hearin!s and to $resent all their $leadin!s and evidence. Petitioners vol ntarily "ailed to a$$ear in most o" those hearin!s. 3ltho !h the A(% erred in $remat rely iss in! its Decision 5as the same &as iss ed

$rior to the la$se o" the $eriod "or $etitioners to "ile their comment on the a$$lication6, its s bse1 ent act o" orderin! $etitioners to "ile their comments on another $arty-s motion "or reconsideration c red this de"ect. Aven tho !h $etitioners never "iled their o&n motion "or reconsideration, the "act that they &ere still !iven notice o" the other motion and the o$$ort nity to "ile their comments renders immaterial A(%-s "ail re to admit their comment on the rate a$$lication. National 5ssociation of "lectricit( 7onsumers of reforms, ,nc. CNasecoreD, et al. vs. "ner'( Re'ulator 7ommission :"R7;, et al., G.R. No. 190792. %ul( , !011. Val e added ta/ on toll "ees) non*im$airment cla se. Petitioners ar! e that since V3+ &as never "actored into the "orm la "or com$ tin! toll "ees nder the +oll O$eration 3!reements, its im$osition &o ld violate the non*im$airment o" contract cla se o" the constit tion. +he #% held that Petitioner +imbol has no $ersonality to invo2e the non*im$airment cla se on behal" o" $rivate investors in the toll&ay $ro0ects. #he &ill neither be $re0 diced nor a""ected by the alle!ed dimin tion in ret rn o" investments that may res lt "rom the V3+ im$osition. #he has no interest in the $ro"its to be earned nder the +O3s. +he interest in and ri!ht to recover investments belon!s solely to the $rivate toll&ay investors. Renato 9. >iaA an) 5urora Ma. $. &imbol vs. &he /ecretar( of $inance an) the 7ommissioner of ,nternal Revenue, G.R. No. 191007. %ul( 19, !011. Administrative Law P blic o""icial) e""ect o" resi!nation on "ilin! o" administrative com$laint. +he Omb dsman can no lon!er instit te an administrative case a!ainst 3nd tan beca se the latter &as not a $ blic servant at the time the case &as "iled. It is irrelevant, accordin! to the Omb dsman, that 3nd tan had already resi!ned $rior to the "ilin! o" the administrative case since the o$erative "act that determines its 0 risdiction is the commission o" an o""ense &hile in the $ blic service. +he #% observed that indeed it has held in the $ast that a $ blic o""icial-s resi!nation does not render moot an administrative case that &as "iled $rior to the o""icial-s resi!nation. Ho&ever, the "acts o" those cases are not entirely a$$licable to the $resent case. In the $ast cases, the %o rt "o nd that the $ blic o""icials G s b0ect o" the administrative cases G resi!ned, either to $revent the contin ation o" a case already "iled or to $re*em$t the imminent "ilin! o" one. Here, neither sit ation obtains. $irst, 3nd tan-s resi!nation &as neither his choice nor o" his o&n doin!) he &as "orced to resi!n. /econ), 3nd tan resi!ned "rom his DO> $ost on D ly 1, 1<<@, &hile the administrative case &as "iled on #e$tember 1, 1<<<, e/actly one year and t&o months a"ter his resi!nation. 4hat is clear "rom the records is that 3nd tan &as "orced to resi!n more than a year be"ore the Omb dsman "iled the administrative case a!ainst him. I" the #% a!reed &ith the inter$retation o" the Omb dsman, any o""icial G even i" he has been se$arated "rom the service "or a lon! time G may still be s b0ect to the disci$linary a thority o" his s $eriors, a) infinitum. ?i2e&ise, i" the act committed by the $ blic o""icial is indeed inimical to the interests o" the #tate, other le!al mechanisms are available to redress the same. Office of the Ombu)sman vs. 8l)arico P. 5n)utan, %r., G.R. No. 1 = 79. %ul( !7, !011. P blic o""icials) $rohibited $ositions. (es$ondent in this case &as char!ed &ith violation o" #ection =5d6 o" (e$ blic 3ct ;=13 "or solicitation or acce$tance o" !i"ts by reason o" $ blic o""ice. +he %3 "o nd that (3 ;=13 &as re$ealed by (3 ;<3@) th s, res$ondent &as not liable. +he #% "o nd the contrary. +here &as no re$eal. +he ban on %oo$erative Develo$ment 3 thority 5%D36 o""icials holdin! a $osition in a coo$erative $rovided in (3 ;<3@ sho ld be ta2en as a $rohibition in addition to those $rovided in (3 ;=13 and s$eci"ically a$$licable to %D3 o""icials and em$loyees. +r e, (3 ;<3@ allo&s %D3 o""icials and em$loyees to become members o" coo$eratives and en0oy the $rivile!es and bene"its attendant to membershi$.

Ho&ever, (3 ;<3@ sho ld not be ta2en as creatin! in "avor o" %D3 o""icials and em$loyees an e/em$tion "rom the covera!e o" #ection =5d6, (3 ;=13 considerin! that the bene"its and $rivile!es attendant to membershi$ in a coo$erative are not con"ined solely to availin! o" loans and not all coo$eratives are established "or the sole $ r$ose o" $rovidin! credit "acilities to their members. Petra 7. MartineA, ,n her capacit( as General Mana'er of 7laveria 5'ri6base) Multi6 Purpose 7ooperative, ,nc. vs. $ilomena 0. villanueva*Office of the Ombu)sman vs. $ilomena 0. 9illanueva, G.R. No. 1 919 *G.R. No. 1 9198, %ul( , !011. P blic o""icials) miscond ct. +he $rohibition in #ection =5d6 o" (3 ;=13 is malum prohibitum. It is the commission o" that act as de"ined by the la&, and not the character or e""ect thereo", that determines &hether or not the $rovision has been violated. +here"ore, it is immaterial &hether res$ondent has " lly $aid her loans since the la& $rohibits the mere act o" solicitin! a loan nder the circ mstances $rovided in #ection =5d6 o" (3 ;=13. Neither is nd e in"l ence on res$ondent-s $art re1 ired to be $roven as held by the %3. 4hether res$ondent sed her $osition or a thority as a %D3 o""icial is o" no conse1 ence in the determination o" her administrative liability. 3nd considerin! that res$ondent admitted havin! ta2en t&o loans "rom %3':P%I, &hich is a coo$erative &hose o$erations are directly re! lated by res$ondent-s o""ice, res$ondent &as correctly meted the $enalty o" s s$ension by the De$ ty Omb dsman "or ? 9on "or violation o" #ection =5d6. Petra 7. MartineA, ,n her capacit( as General Mana'er of 7laveria 5'ri6base) Multi6Purpose 7ooperative, ,nc. vs. $ilomena 0. villanueva*Office of the Ombu)sman vs. $ilomena 0. 9illanueva, G.R. No. 1 919 *G.R. No. 1 9198, %ul( , !011. A!rarian "e#orm 3!rarian re"orm) distrib tion o" shares to "armers. In this case, >arm&or2ers 3!rarian (e"orm :ovement, Inc. 5>3(:6 ar! es that #ec. 31 o" (3 ;;B= is nconstit tional as it $ermits stoc2 trans"er in lie o" o tri!ht a!ric lt ral land trans"er) in "ine, there is stoc2 certi"icate o&nershi$ o" the "armers or "arm&or2ers instead o" them o&nin! the land, as envisa!ed in the %onstit tion. >or >3(:, this modality o" distrib tion is an anomaly to be ann lled "or bein! inconsistent &ith the basic conce$t o" a!rarian re"orm in!rained in #ec. C, 3rt. JIII o" the %onstit tion. +he # $reme %o rt denied >3(:-s contention o" nconstit tionality. >irst, there &as a "ail re on the $art o" >3(: and its members to raise the 1 estion o" constit tionality at the "irst o$$ort nity. It too2 them 2= years be"ore they raised the same be"ore the #% and a"ter they have already received some bene"its "rom its im$lementation. #econd, the iss e o" constit tionality is not the lis mota o" this case, the lis mota bein! the alle!ed non*com$liance by Hacienda ? isita, Inc. &ith the conditions o" the #toc2 Distrib tion Plan 5#DP6 to s $$ort a $lea "or its revocation. 3nd be"ore the # $reme %o rt, the lis mota is &hether or not the Presidential 3!rarian (e"orm %o ncil acted in !rave ab se o" discretion &hen it ordered the recall o" the #DP "or s ch non* com$liance and the "act that the #DP, as co ched and im$lemented, o""ends certain constit tional and stat tory $rovisions. +he #% held that any o" these 2ey iss es may be resolved &itho t !oin! into the constit tionality o" #ec. 31 o" (3 ;;B=. >inally, there a$$ears to be no breach o" the " ndamental la&. +he &ordin! o" the #ection C o" 3rticle JIII o" the %onstit tion is ne1 ivocalGGthe "armers and re! lar "arm&or2ers have a ri!ht to o&n directly or collectively the lands they till. 3ccordin!ly, the basic la& allo&s t&o modes o" land distrib tionOdirect and indirect o&nershi$. Direct trans"er to individ al "armers is the most commonly sed method by D3( and &idely acce$ted. Indirect trans"er thro !h collective o&nershi$ o" the a!ric lt ral land is the alternative to direct o&nershi$ o" a!ric lt ral land by individ al "armers. +here"ore, #ection C e/$ressly a thori9es collective o&nershi$ by "armers. No lan! a!e can be "o nd in the 1<@= %onstit tion that dis1 ali"ies or $rohibits cor$orations or coo$eratives o" "armers "rom bein! the le!al entity thro !h &hich collective o&nershi$ can be

e/ercised. +acien)a 0uisita, ,nc., et al. vs. Presi)ential 5'rarian Reform 7ouncil, G.R. No. 171101, %ul( 2, !011.

Au!ust 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

Posted on #e$tember 13, 2011 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV Here are selected 3 ! st 2011 r lin!s o" the # $reme %o rt o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&. Constitutional Law %onstit tionality o" stat tes) &rit o" certiorari and $rohibition. 4rits o" certiorari and $rohibition are $ro$er remedies to test the constit tionality o" stat tes and the acts o" the other branches o" !overnment. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 1871 7, 5u'ust 1 , !011. International la&) FN%?O# III) (3 <B22. +he # $reme %o rt re0ected $etitioners- contention that (3 <B22 ,dismembers a lar!e $ortion o" the national territory. beca se it discards the $re* FN%?O# III demarcation o" Phili$$ine territory nder the +reaty o" Paris and related treaties, s ccessively encoded in the de"inition o" national territory nder the 1<3B, 1<=3 and 1<@= %onstit tions. Petitioners ar! e that "rom the +reaty o" Paris- technical descri$tion, Phili$$ine soverei!nty over territorial &aters e/tends h ndreds o" na tical miles aro nd the Phili$$ine archi$ela!o, embracin! the rectan! lar area delineated in the +reaty o" Paris. +he %o rt said that FN%?O# III has nothin! to do &ith the ac1 isition 5or loss6 o" territory. It is a m ltilateral treaty re! latin!, amon! others, sea* se ri!hts over maritime 9ones 5i.e., the territorial &aters K12 na tical miles "rom the baselinesL, conti! o s 9one K2C na tical miles "rom the baselinesL, and e/cl sive economic 9one K200 na tical miles "rom the baselinesL6, and continental shelves that FN%?O# III delimits. On the other hand, baselines la&s s ch as (3 <B22 are enacted by FN%?O# III #tates to mar2*o t s$eci"ic base$oints alon! their coasts "rom &hich baselines are dra&n, either strai!ht or conto red, to serve as !eo!ra$hic startin! $oints to meas re the breadth o" the maritime 9ones and continental shel". In other &ords, baselines la&s are nothin! b t stat tory mechanisms "or FN%?O# III #tates to delimit &ith $recision the e/tent o" their maritime 9ones and continental shelves. In t rn, this !ives notice to the rest o" the international comm nity o" the sco$e o" the maritime s$ace and s bmarine areas &ithin &hich #tates e/ercise treaty*based ri!hts, namely, the e/ercise o" soverei!nty over territorial &aters 53rticle 26, the 0 risdiction to en"orce c stoms, "iscal, immi!ration, and sanitation la&s in the conti! o s 9one 53rticle 336, and the ri!ht to e/$loit the livin! and non*livin! reso rces in the e/cl sive economic 9one 53rticle B;6 and continental shel" 53rticle ==6. In s m, FN%?O# III and its ancillary baselines la&s $lay no role in the ac1 isition, enlar!ement or, as $etitioners claim, dimin tion o" territory. Fnder traditional international la& ty$olo!y, #tates ac1 ire 5or conversely, lose6 territory thro !h occ $ation, accretion, cession and $rescri$tion, not by e/ec tin! m ltilateral treaties on the re! lations o" sea* se ri!hts or enactin! stat tes to com$ly &ith the treaty-s terms to delimit maritime 9ones and continental shelves. +erritorial claims to land "eat res are o tside FN%?O# III, and are instead !overned by the r les on !eneral

international la&. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 1871 7, 5u'ust 1 , !011. International la&) archi$ela!ic &aters. Petitioners contend that (3 <B22 nconstit tionally ,converts. internal &aters into archi$ela!ic &aters, hence s b0ectin! these &aters to the ri!ht o" innocent and sea lanes $assa!e nder FN%?O# III, incl din! over"li!ht. Petitioners e/tra$olate that these $assa!e ri!hts ind bitably e/$ose Phili$$ine internal &aters to n clear and maritime $oll tion ha9ards, in violation o" the %onstit tion. +o this the # $reme %o rt heldI 4hether re"erred to as Phili$$ine ,internal &aters. nder 3rticle I o" the %onstit tion or as ,archi$ela!ic &aters. nder FN%?O# III 53rticle C< K1L6, the Phili$$ines e/ercises soverei!nty over the body o" &ater lyin! land&ard o" the baselines, incl din! the air s$ace over it and the s bmarine areas nderneath. +he "act o" soverei!nty, ho&ever, does not $recl de the o$eration o" m nici$al and international la& norms s b0ectin! the territorial sea or archi$ela!ic &aters to necessary, i" not mar!inal, b rdens in the interest o" maintainin! nim$eded, e/$editio s international navi!ation, consistent &ith the international la& $rinci$le o" "reedom o" navi!ation. +h s, domestically, the $olitical branches o" the Phili$$ine !overnment, in the com$etent dischar!e o" their constit tional $o&ers, may $ass le!islation desi!natin! ro tes &ithin the archi$ela!ic &aters to re! late innocent and sea lanes $assa!e. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 1871 7, 5u'ust 1 , !011. International la&) ri!hts o" innocent $assa!e. In the absence o" m nici$al le!islation, international la& norms, no& codi"ied in FN%?O# III, o$erate to !rant innocent $assa!e ri!hts over the territorial sea or archi$ela!ic &aters, s b0ect to the treaty-s limitations and conditions "or their e/ercise. #i!ni"icantly, the ri!ht o" innocent $assa!e is a c stomary international la&, th s a tomatically incor$orated in the cor$ s o" Phili$$ine la&. No modern #tate can validly invo2e its soverei!nty to absol tely "orbid innocent $assa!e that is e/ercised in accordance &ith c stomary international la& &itho t ris2in! retaliatory meas res "rom the international comm nity. +he "act that, "or archi$ela!ic #tates, their archi$ela!ic &aters are s b0ect to both the ri!ht o" innocent $assa!e and sea lanes $assa!e does not $lace them in lesser "ootin! vis6E6vis continental coastal #tates &hich are s b0ect, in their territorial sea, to the ri!ht o" innocent $assa!e and the ri!ht o" transit $assa!e thro !h international straits. +he im$osition o" these $assa!e ri!hts thro !h archi$ela!ic &aters nder FN%?O# III &as a concession by archi$ela!ic #tates, in e/chan!e "or their ri!ht to claim all the &aters land&ard o" their baselines, re!ardless o" their de$th or distance "rom the coast, as archi$ela!ic &aters s b0ect to their territorial soverei!nty. :ore im$ortant, the reco!nition o" archi$ela!ic #tates- archi$ela!o and the &aters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity $revents the treatment o" their islands as se$arate islands nder FN%?O# III. #e$arate islands !enerate their o&n maritime 9ones, $lacin! the &aters bet&een islands se$arated by more than 2C na tical miles beyond the #tates- territorial soverei!nty, s b0ectin! these &aters to the ri!hts o" other #tates nder FN%?O# III. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 1871 7, 5u'ust 1 , !011. Administrative Law 3dministrative o""ense) e/oneration. +he mere red ction o" the $enalty on a$$eal does not entitle a !overnment em$loyee to bac2 salaries i" he &as not e/onerated o" the char!e a!ainst him. I" the e/oneration o" the em$loyee is relative 5as distin! ished "rom com$lete e/oneration6, an in1 iry into the "act al $remise o" the o""ense char!ed and o" the o""ense committed m st be made. I" the administrative o""ense "o nd to have been act ally committed is o" lesser !ravity than the o""ense char!ed, the em$loyee cannot be considered e/onerated i" the "act al $remise

"or the im$osition o" the lesser $enalty remains the same. &he 7ivil /ervice 7ommission vs. Richar) G. 7ruA, G.R. No. 187828, 5u'ust 9, !011. 3dministrative $roceedin!s) s bstantial evidence. #el"*servin! and ns bstantiated declarations are ins ""icient to establish a case be"ore 1 asi*0 dicial bodies &here the 1 ant m o" evidence re1 ired establishin! a "act is s bstantial evidence. O"ten described as more than a mere scintilla, s bstantial evidence is s ch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind mi!ht acce$t as ade1 ate to s $$ort a concl sion, even i" other e1 ally reasonable minds mi!ht conceivably o$ine other&ise. In this case, there is no dis$ te re!ardin! the "act that As! erra had alto!ether "ailed to com$ly &ith the mandatory re$ortin! re1 irement nder the POA3*#A%. 'eyond his bare assertion that %#:#I 5em$loyer6 ,never !ave him re"errals to contin e his medications as recommended by the "orei!n doctor. des$ite his call on @ D ly 2003 ,to in"orm them that he &ill re$ort the ne/t day in order to s bmit his medical eval ation abroad,. As! erra did not $resent any evidence to $rove 0 sti"ication "or his inability to s bmit himsel" to a $ost*em$loyment medical e/amination by a com$any*desi!nated $hysician. +h s, he &as not a&arded disability bene"its and sic2ness allo&ance. 7oastal /afe3a( Marine /ervices vs. "s'uerra, G.R. No. 18212!, 5u'ust 10, !011. P blic o""icers) No &or2*no $ay $rinci$le) A/ce$tion. +he !eneral r le is that $ blic o""icials are only entitled to com$ensation i" they render service. +his is other&ise 2no&n as the ,no &or2*no $ay. $rinci$le. Ho&ever, bac2 salaries may be a&arded even "or n&or2ed days to ille!ally dismissed or n0 stly s s$ended em$loyees based on the constit tional $rovision that ,no o""icer or em$loyee in the civil service shall be removed or s s$ended e/ce$t "or ca se $rovided by la&.. In order, ho&ever, to "all nder this e/ce$tion, t&o conditions m st be com$lied &ithI 5a6 the em$loyee m st be "o nd innocent o" the char!es) and 5b6 his s s$ension m st be n0 sti"ied. In this case, the t&o conditions &ere $resent. +he "irst condition &as met since the o""ense &hich the res$ondent &as "o nd ! ilty o" 5violation o" reasonable r les and re! lations6 stemmed "rom an act 5"ail re to lo! in and lo! o t6 di""erent "rom the act o" dishonesty 5claimin! overtime $ay des$ite his "ail re to render overtime &or26 that he &as char!ed &ith. +he second condition &as met as the res$ondent-s committed o""ense merits neither dismissal "rom the service nor s s$ension 5"or more than one month6, b t only re$rimand. In s m, the res$ondent is entitled to bac2 salaries "rom the time he &as dismissed ntil his reinstatement to his "ormer $osition G i.e., "or the $eriod o" his $reventive s s$ension $endin! a$$eal. >or the $eriod o" his $reventive s s$ension $endin! investi!ation, the res$ondent is not entitled to any bac2 salaries. &he 7ivil /ervice 7ommission vs. Richar) G. 7ruA, G.R. No. 187828, 5u'ust 9, !011. P blic o""icers) 2inds o" $reventive s s$ension. +here are t&o 2inds o" $reventive s s$ension o" civil service em$loyees &ho are char!ed &ith o""enses $ nishable by removal or s s$ensionI 5i6 $reventive s s$ension $endin! investi!ation and 5ii6 $reventive s s$ension $endin! a$$eal. %om$ensation is d e only "or the $eriod o" $reventive s s$ension $endin! a$$eal sho ld the em$loyee be ltimately e/onerated. &he 7ivil /ervice 7ommission vs. Richar) G. 7ruA, G.R. No. 187828, 5u'ust 9, !011. Election Law Alection contest) $reliminary con"erence. +he 1 estioned notice o" $reliminary con"erence iss ed in the instant election $rotest &as de"ective in that 516 the notice iss ed by the :%+% cler2 o" co rt &as a !eneric notice o" hearin! &itho t any mention that it &as "or $reliminary con"erence, and 526 it &as served on the $arty himsel" des$ite bein! re$resented by co nsel in

contravention o" ( le <, #ection 21 o" 3.:. No. 0=*C*1B*#%. >or this reason the # $reme %o rt disa!reed &ith the (+%-s "indin! that im$liedly ascribed all "a lt to $etitioner in "ailin! to timely "ile his $reliminary con"erence brie". 7eriaco #ulilis vs. 9ictorino NueA, +on. Pres. %u)'e, th M7&7, 8ba(, #ohol, et al., G.R. No. 192921, 5u'ust 9, !011. Alection contest) %O:A?A%-s 0 risdiction. +he # $reme %o rt "o nd no merit in $etitioner-s ar! ment that ( le 2@, #ection 1 o" the %O:A?A% ( les o" Proced re limits the %O:A?A%-s 0 risdiction over $etitions "or certiorari in election cases to iss es related to elections, ret rns and 1 ali"ications o" elective m nici$al and baran!ay o""icials. 3ccordin! to the # $reme %o rt, said $rovision, ta2en to!ether &ith the s cceedin! section, ndeniably sho&s that an a!!rieved $arty may "ile a $etition "or certiorari &ith the %O:A?A% &henever a 0 d!e hearin! an election case has acted &itho t or in e/cess o" his 0 risdiction or &ith !rave ab se o" discretion and there is no a$$eal, nor any $lain, s$eedy, and ade1 ate remedy in the ordinary co rse o" la&. 3 $etition "or certiorari 1 estionin! an interloc tory order o" a trial co rt in an electoral $rotest is &ithin the a$$ellate 0 risdiction o" the %O:A?A%. 7eriaco #ulilis vs. 9ictorino NueA, +on. Pres. %u)'e, th M7&7, 8ba(, #ohol, et al., G.R. No. 192921, 5u'ust 9, !011.

Au!ust 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

Posted on #e$tember 22, 2011 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV Here are selected 3 ! st 2011 r lin!s o" the # $reme %o rt o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&. Constitutional Law %iti9enshi$) collateral attac2 $rohibited. Vilando see2s to dis1 ali"y ?im2aichon! on the !ro nd that she is a %hinese citi9en. +o $rove his $oint, he re"ers to the alle!ed n llity o" the !rant o" nat rali9ation o" ?im2aichon!-s "ather &hich, ho&ever, is not allo&ed as it &o ld constit te a collateral attac2 on the citi9enshi$ o" the "ather. Fnder Phili$$ine la&, an attac2 on a $erson-s citi9enshi$ may only be done thro !h a direct action "or its n llity. Renal) $. 9ilan)o vs. +ouse of Representatives "lectoral &ribunal, %ocel(n /( 0im4aichon' an) +on. /pea4er Prospero No'rales, G.R. Nos. 19!1=7 F 19!1=9. 5u'ust !1, !011. %iti9enshi$) "or"eit re) a$$lication "or an alien certi"icate o" re!istration. Vilando-s assertion that ?im2aichon! cannot derive Phili$$ine citi9enshi$ "rom her mother beca se the latter became a %hinese citi9en &hen she married D lio #y, as $rovided "or nder #ection 1 5=6 o" %ommon&ealth 3ct No. ;3 in relation to 3rticle 2 516 %ha$ter II o" the %hinese (evised Nationality ?a& o" >ebr ary B, 1<B<, li2e&ise "ailed. Vilando &as not able to o""er in evidence a d ly certi"ied tr e co$y o" the alle!ed %hinese (evised ?a& o" Nationality to $rove that ?im2aichon!-s mother indeed lost her Phili$$ine citi9enshi$. He "ailed to establish his case thro !h com$etent and admissible evidence to &arrant a reversal o" the H(A+ r lin!. 3lso, an a$$lication "or an alien certi"icate o" re!istration :57R; is not an ind bitable $roo" o" "or"eit re o" Phili$$ine citi9enshi$. Obtainin! an 3%( by ?im2aichon!-s mother &as not tantamo nt to a re$ diation o" her ori!inal citi9enshi$. Neither did it res lt in an ac1 isition o" alien citi9enshi$. +he # $reme %o rt has consistently held that an a$$lication "or, and the holdin! o", an alien

certi"icate o" re!istration is not an act constit tin! ren nciation o" Phili$$ine citi9enshi$. >or ren nciation to e""ectively res lt in loss o" citi9enshi$, the same m st be e/$ress. # ch e/$ress ren nciation is lac2in! in this case. 3ccordin!ly, ?im2aichon!-s mother, bein! a >ili$ino citi9en, can transmit her citi9enshi$ to her da !hter. Renal) $. 9ilan)o vs. +ouse of Representatives "lectoral &ribunal, %ocel(n /( 0im4aichon' an) +on. /pea4er Prospero No'rales, G.R. Nos. 19!1=7 F 19!1=9. 5u'ust !1, !011. %iti9enshi$) nat ral*born citi9en. 4ith ?im2aichon!-s "ather havin! been con"erred the stat s as a nat rali9ed >ili$ino, it "ollo&s that she is a >ili$ino citi9en born to a >ili$ino "ather. Aven on the ass m$tion that the nat rali9ation $roceedin!s and the s bse1 ent iss ance o" a certi"icate o" nat rali9ation &ere invalid, ?im2aichon! can still be considered a nat ral*born >ili$ino citi9en havin! been born to a >ili$ino mother and havin! im$liedly elected >ili$ino citi9enshi$ &hen she reached ma0ority a!e. +he H(A+ &as, th s, "o nd to have r led correctly in declarin! that ?im2aichon! is a nat ral*born >ili$ino citi9en. Renal) $. 9ilan)o vs. +ouse of Representatives "lectoral &ribunal, %ocel(n /( 0im4aichon' an) +on. /pea4er Prospero No'rales, G.R. Nos. 19!1=7 F 19!1=9. 5u'ust !1, !011. %onstit tionality o" stat tes) &rit o" certiorari and $rohibition. 4rits o" certiorari and $rohibition are $ro$er remedies to test the constit tionality o" stat tes and the acts o" the other branches o" !overnment. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 1871 7, 5u'ust 1 , !011. Ho se o" (e$resentatives Alectoral +rib nal) 0 risdiction. +he H(A+ has 0 risdiction over 1 o &arranto $etitions, s$eci"ically over cases challen!in! ineli!ibility on the !ro nd o" lac2 o" citi9enshi$. +he 1<@= %onstit tion vests the H(A+ &ith the a thority to be the sole 0 d!e o" all contests relatin! to the election, ret rns and 1 ali"ications o" :embers o" the Ho se o" (e$resentatives. +his constit tional $o&er is li2e&ise echoed in the 200C ( les o" the H(A+. Ho&ever, s ch $o&er o" the H(A+, no matter ho& com$lete and e/cl sive, does not carry &ith it the a thority to delve into the le!ality o" the 0 d!ment o" nat rali9ation in the $ rs it o" dis1 ali"yin! ?im2aichon!. +o r le other&ise &o ld o$erate as a collateral attac2 on the citi9enshi$ o" the "ather &hich is not $ermissible. Renal) $. 9ilan)o vs. +ouse of Representatives "lectoral &ribunal, %ocel(n /( 0im4aichon' an) +on. /pea4er Prospero No'rales, G.R. Nos. 19!1=7 F 19!1=9. 5u'ust !1, !011. International la&) FN%?O# III) (3 <B22. +he # $reme %o rt re0ected $etitioners- contention that (3 <B22 ,dismembers a lar!e $ortion o" the national territory. beca se it discards the $re* FN%?O# III demarcation o" Phili$$ine territory nder the +reaty o" Paris and related treaties, s ccessively encoded in the de"inition o" national territory nder the 1<3B, 1<=3 and 1<@= %onstit tions. Petitioners ar! e that "rom the +reaty o" Paris- technical descri$tion, Phili$$ine soverei!nty over territorial &aters e/tends h ndreds o" na tical miles aro nd the Phili$$ine archi$ela!o, embracin! the rectan! lar area delineated in the +reaty o" Paris. +he %o rt said that FN%?O# III has nothin! to do &ith the ac1 isition 5or loss6 o" territory. It is a m ltilateral treaty re! latin!, amon! others, sea* se ri!hts over maritime 9ones 5i.e., the territorial &aters K12 na tical miles "rom the baselinesL, conti! o s 9one K2C na tical miles "rom the baselinesL, and e/cl sive economic 9one K200 na tical miles "rom the baselinesL6, and continental shelves that FN%?O# III delimits. On the other hand, baselines la&s s ch as (3 <B22 are enacted by FN%?O# III #tates to mar2*o t s$eci"ic base$oints alon! their coasts "rom &hich baselines are dra&n, either strai!ht or conto red, to serve as !eo!ra$hic startin! $oints to meas re the breadth o" the maritime 9ones and continental shel". In other &ords, baselines la&s are nothin! b t stat tory mechanisms "or FN%?O# III #tates to delimit &ith $recision the e/tent o" their

maritime 9ones and continental shelves. In t rn, this !ives notice to the rest o" the international comm nity o" the sco$e o" the maritime s$ace and s bmarine areas &ithin &hich #tates e/ercise treaty*based ri!hts, namely, the e/ercise o" soverei!nty over territorial &aters 53rticle 26, the 0 risdiction to en"orce c stoms, "iscal, immi!ration, and sanitation la&s in the conti! o s 9one 53rticle 336, and the ri!ht to e/$loit the livin! and non*livin! reso rces in the e/cl sive economic 9one 53rticle B;6 and continental shel" 53rticle ==6. In s m, FN%?O# III and its ancillary baselines la&s $lay no role in the ac1 isition, enlar!ement or, as $etitioners claim, dimin tion o" territory. Fnder traditional international la& ty$olo!y, #tates ac1 ire 5or conversely, lose6 territory thro !h occ $ation, accretion, cession and $rescri$tion, not by e/ec tin! m ltilateral treaties on the re! lations o" sea* se ri!hts or enactin! stat tes to com$ly &ith the treaty-s terms to delimit maritime 9ones and continental shelves. +erritorial claims to land "eat res are o tside FN%?O# III, and are instead !overned by the r les on !eneral international la&. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 1871 7, 5u'ust 1 , !011. International la&) archi$ela!ic &aters. Petitioners contend that (3 <B22 nconstit tionally ,converts. internal &aters into archi$ela!ic &aters, hence s b0ectin! these &aters to the ri!ht o" innocent and sea lanes $assa!e nder FN%?O# III, incl din! over"li!ht. Petitioners e/tra$olate that these $assa!e ri!hts ind bitably e/$ose Phili$$ine internal &aters to n clear and maritime $oll tion ha9ards, in violation o" the %onstit tion. +o this the # $reme %o rt heldI 4hether re"erred to as Phili$$ine ,internal &aters. nder 3rticle I o" the %onstit tion or as ,archi$ela!ic &aters. nder FN%?O# III 53rticle C< K1L6, the Phili$$ines e/ercises soverei!nty over the body o" &ater lyin! land&ard o" the baselines, incl din! the air s$ace over it and the s bmarine areas nderneath. +he "act o" soverei!nty, ho&ever, does not $recl de the o$eration o" m nici$al and international la& norms s b0ectin! the territorial sea or archi$ela!ic &aters to necessary, i" not mar!inal, b rdens in the interest o" maintainin! nim$eded, e/$editio s international navi!ation, consistent &ith the international la& $rinci$le o" "reedom o" navi!ation. +h s, domestically, the $olitical branches o" the Phili$$ine !overnment, in the com$etent dischar!e o" their constit tional $o&ers, may $ass le!islation desi!natin! ro tes &ithin the archi$ela!ic &aters to re! late innocent and sea lanes $assa!e. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 1871 7, 5u'ust 1 , !011. International la&) ri!hts o" innocent $assa!e. In the absence o" m nici$al le!islation, international la& norms, no& codi"ied in FN%?O# III, o$erate to !rant innocent $assa!e ri!hts over the territorial sea or archi$ela!ic &aters, s b0ect to the treaty-s limitations and conditions "or their e/ercise. #i!ni"icantly, the ri!ht o" innocent $assa!e is a c stomary international la&, th s a tomatically incor$orated in the cor$ s o" Phili$$ine la&. No modern #tate can validly invo2e its soverei!nty to absol tely "orbid innocent $assa!e that is e/ercised in accordance &ith c stomary international la& &itho t ris2in! retaliatory meas res "rom the international comm nity. +he "act that, "or archi$ela!ic #tates, their archi$ela!ic &aters are s b0ect to both the ri!ht o" innocent $assa!e and sea lanes $assa!e does not $lace them in lesser "ootin! vis6E6vis continental coastal #tates &hich are s b0ect, in their territorial sea, to the ri!ht o" innocent $assa!e and the ri!ht o" transit $assa!e thro !h international straits. +he im$osition o" these $assa!e ri!hts thro !h archi$ela!ic &aters nder FN%?O# III &as a concession by archi$ela!ic #tates, in e/chan!e "or their ri!ht to claim all the &aters land&ard o" their baselines, re!ardless o" their de$th or distance "rom the coast, as archi$ela!ic &aters s b0ect to their territorial soverei!nty. :ore im$ortant, the reco!nition o" archi$ela!ic #tates- archi$ela!o and the &aters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity $revents the treatment o" their islands as se$arate islands nder FN%?O# III. #e$arate islands !enerate their o&n maritime 9ones, $lacin! the &aters bet&een islands se$arated by more than 2C na tical miles beyond the #tates- territorial

soverei!nty, s b0ectin! these &aters to the ri!hts o" other #tates nder FN%?O# III. Prof. Merlin M. Ma'allona, et al. vs. ")uar)o "rmita, et al., G.R. No. 1871 7, 5u'ust 1 , !011. D d!ment) la& o" the case. +he doctrine o" the la3 of the case means that &hatever is irrevocably established as the controllin! le!al r le bet&een the same $arties in the same case, &hether correct on !eneral $rinci$les or not, contin es to be the la& o" the case "or as lon! as the "acts on &hich the le!al r le &as $redicated contin e to be the "acts o" the case be"ore the co rt. In G.(. No. 13=2@B 5&hich &as the $redecessor o" this case6, the # $reme %o rt $held the ann lment o" the 7ompromise 5'reement and reco!ni9ed that the a!reed $on mode o" $ayment o" the 0 st com$ensation "or ?ot 1C0;*' &ith ?ot C3C &as cancelled. +he #% ratiocinated that it is notable that it mentioned nothin! in the said case abo t the invalidation o" the amo nt o" 0 st com$ensation corres$ondin! to the mode o" $ayment, &hich &as the val e o" ?ot C3C at the time, &hich silence &as the %o rt-s ac2no&led!ment that the $arties nderstood and acce$ted, by enterin! into the 7ompromise 5'reement in 1<<3, that the 0 st com$ensation "or ?ot 1C0;*' &as ?ot C3C 5or the val e o" ?ot C3C, &hich at the time o" the s&a$ in 1<<3 &as de"initely m ch hi!her than ?ot C3C-s val e in 1<@16. "<port Processin' Gone 5uthorit( :no3 Philippine "conomic Gone 5uthorit(; vs. "state of /alu) %imeneA, G.R. No. 188992. 5u'ust !=, !011. :oot and academic $rinci$le) e/ce$tion. 3 moot and academic case is one that ceases to $resent a 0 sticiable controversy by virt e o" s $ervenin! events, so that a declaration thereon &o ld be o" no $ractical val e. 3s a r le, co rts decline 0 risdiction over s ch case, or dismiss it on !ro nd o" mootness. ?im2aichon!-s term o" o""ice as (e$resentative o" the >irst District o" Ne!ros Oriental "rom D ne 30, 200= to D ne 30, 2010 already e/$ired. :oreover, there &as the cond ct o" the 2010 elections, &hich has also rendered this case moot and academic. Ho&ever, citi9enshi$, bein! a contin in! re1 irement "or :embers o" the Ho se o" (e$resentatives, may be 1 estioned at anytime. >or this reason, the %o rt deemed it a$$ro$riate to resolve the $etition on the merits based on the r le that co rts &ill decide a 1 estion, other&ise moot and academic, i" it is ,ca$able o" re$etition, yet evadin! revie&.. +he 1 estion on ?im2aichon!-s citi9enshi$ is li2ely to rec r i" she &o ld r n a!ain, as she did, "or $ blic o""ice, hence, ca$able o" re$etition. Renal) $. 9ilan)o vs. +ouse of Representatives "lectoral &ribunal, %ocel(n /( 0im4aichon' an) +on. /pea4er Prospero No'rales, G.R. Nos. 19!1=7 F 19!1=9. 5u'ust !1, !011. NP% %harter) $rescri$tion. +he #% r led that the $rescri$tive $eriod $rovided nder #ection 35i6 o" (e$ blic 3ct No. ;3<B 5the NP% %harter6 is a$$licable only to an action "or dama!es, and does not e/tend to an action to recover 0 st com$ensation li2e this case. %onse1 ently, NP% cannot thereby bar the ri!ht o" the Heirs o" :acaban!2it to recover 0 st com$ensation "or their land. +he action to recover 0 st com$ensation "rom the #tate or its e/$ro$riatin! a!ency di""ers "rom the action "or dama!es. It &o ld very &ell be contrary to the clear lan! a!e o" the %onstit tion to bar the recovery o" 0 st com$ensation "or $rivate $ro$erty ta2en "or a $ blic se solely on the basis o" stat tory $rescri$tion. National Po3er 7orporation vs. +eirs of Macaban'4it /an'4a(, namel(H 7ebu, #ato3a6an, et al., all surname) Macaban'4it, G.R. No. 1 28!8. 5u'ust !=, !011. Po&er o" Aminent Domain) action to recover 0 st com$ensation "rom the state and action "or dama!es) distinction. 3n action to recover 0 st com$ensation "rom the #tate or its e/$ro$riatin! a!ency di""ers "rom an action "or dama!es. +he "ormer, also 2no&n as inverse con)emnation, is intended to recover the val e o" $ro$erty ta2en in "act by the !overnment de"endant, even tho !h no "ormal e/ercise o" the $o&er o" eminent domain has been attem$ted by the ta2in! a!ency. On the other hand, the latter action see2s to vindicate a le!al &ron! thro !h dama!es. 4hen a ri!ht is e/ercised in a manner not con"ormable &ith the norms enshrined in 3rticle 1< and li2e

$rovisions on h man relations in the 7ivil 7o)e, and the e/ercise res lts in dama!e to another, a le!al &ron! is committed and the &ron!doer is held res$onsible. +he t&o actions are di""erent in nat re and $ r$ose. +he action to recover 0 st com$ensation is based on the %onstit tion &hile the action "or dama!es is $redicated on stat tory enactments. Indeed, the "ormer arises "rom the e/ercise by the #tate o" its $o&er o" eminent domain a!ainst $rivate $ro$erty "or $ blic se, b t the latter emanates "rom the trans!ression o" a ri!ht. +he "act that the o&ner rather than the e/$ro$riator brin!s the "ormer does not chan!e the essential nat re o" the s it as an inverse condemnation, "or the s it is not based on tort, b t on the constit tional $rohibition a!ainst the ta2in! o" $ro$erty &itho t 0 st com$ensation. National Po3er 7orporation vs. +eirs of Macaban'4it /an'4a(, namel(H 7ebu, #ato3a6an, et al., all surname) Macaban'4it, G.R. No. 1 28!8. 5u'ust !=, !011. Po&er o" Aminent Domain) 0 st com$ensation) rec2onin! val e. +he (+% based its "i/in! o" 0 st com$ensation ostensibly on the $revailin! mar2et val e at the time o" the "ilin! o" the com$laint, instead o" rec2onin! it "rom the time o" the ta2in! $ rs ant to #ection 35h6 o" (e$ blic 3ct No. ;3<B. +he #% a""irmed this and r led that the rec2onin! val e is the val e at the time o" the "ilin! o" the com$laint. %om$ensation that is rec2oned on the mar2et val e $revailin! at the time either &hen NP% entered or &hen it com$leted the t nnel, as NP% s bmits, &o ld not be 0 st, "or it &o ld com$o nd the !ross n"airness already ca sed to the o&ners by NP%-s enterin! &itho t the intention o" "ormally e/$ro$riatin! the land, and &itho t the $rior 2no&led!e and consent o" the Heirs o" :acaban!2it. NP%-s entry denied elementary d e $rocess o" la& to the o&ners since then ntil the o&ners commenced the inverse condemnation $roceedin!s. (ec2onin! 0 st com$ensation on the val e at the time the o&ners commenced these inverse condemnation $roceedin!s is &arranted. National Po3er 7orporation vs. +eirs of Macaban'4it /an'4a(, namel(H 7ebu, #ato3a6an, et al., all surname) Macaban'4it, G.R. No. 1 28!8. 5u'ust !=, !011. Po&er o" Aminent Domain) 0 st com$ensation) rentals. In this case, the %3 $held the (+%-s !rantin! to the Heirs o" :acaban!2it o" rentals o" Ph$30,000.007month ,"rom 1<=< $ to D ly 1<<< &ith 12H interest $er ann m. by "indin! NP% ! ilty o" bad "aith in ta2in! $ossession o" the land to constr ct the t nnel &itho t their 2no&led!e and consent. Ho&ever, the #% "o nd that the !rantin! rentals is le!ally and "act ally bere"t o" 0 sti"ication, in li!ht o" the ta2in! o" the land bein! already 0 stly com$ensated. 3ccordin!ly, the #% deleted the a&ard o" bac2 rentals and in its $lace $rescribed interest o" 12H interest per annum "rom November 21, 1<<=, the date o" the "ilin! o" the com$laint, ntil the " ll liability is $aid by NP%. National Po3er 7orporation vs. +eirs of Macaban'4it /an'4a(, namel(H 7ebu, #ato3a6an, et al., all surname) Macaban'4it, G.R. No. 1 28!8. 5u'ust !=, !011. Po&er o" Aminent Domain) limitations. +he $o&er o" eminent domain is not an nlimited $o&er. #ection <, 3rticle III o" the 1<@= %onstit tion sets do&n the essential limitationsI 5 a6 the ta2in! m st be "or a $ blic $ r$ose) and 5 b6 0 st com$ensation m st be $aid to the o&ner. In addition, the o&ner is entitled to le!al interest "rom the time o" ta2in! ntil the act al $ayment in order to $lace the o&ner in a $osition as !ood as, b t not better than, the $osition he &as in be"ore the ta2in! occ rred. In this case, it is ndeniable that 0 st com$ensation &as not $rom$tly made to the Astate o" #al d Dimene9 "or the ta2in! o" ?ot 1C0;*' by the $etitioner. In vie& o" this, the #% "o nd the %3-s "i/in! o" le!al interest at only ;H per annum as ins ""icient "or that rate &o ld not ens re that com$ensation &as 0 st in the "ace o" the lon! delay in $ayment. 3ccordin!ly, it im$osed a 12H $er ann m le!al interest, "rom 3 ! st 23, 1<<3, the date o" the a$$roval o" the "ailed 7ompromise 5'reement, ntil the " ll amo nt o" the 0 st com$ensation is

$aid, instead. "<port Processin' Gone 5uthorit( :no3 Philippine "conomic Gone 5uthorit(; vs. "state of /alu) %imeneA, G.R. No. 188992. 5u'ust !=, !011. Po&er o" Aminent Domain) meanin! o" ta2in!. +here &as a " ll ta2in! on the $art o" NP%, not&ithstandin! that the o&ners &ere not com$letely and act ally dis$ossessed. It is settled that the ta2in! o" $rivate $ro$erty "or $ blic se, to be com$ensable, need not be an act al $hysical ta2in! or a$$ro$riation. Indeed, the e/$ro$riator-s action may be short o" ac1 isition o" title, $hysical $ossession, or occ $ancy b t may still amo nt to a ta2in!. %om$ensable ta2in! incl des destr ction, restriction, dimin tion, or interr $tion o" the ri!hts o" o&nershi$ or o" the common and necessary se and en0oyment o" the $ro$erty in a la&" l manner, lessenin! or destroyin! its val e. It is neither necessary that the o&ner be &holly de$rived o" the se o" his $ro$erty, nor material &hether the $ro$erty is removed "rom the $ossession o" the o&ner, or in any res$ect chan!es hands. In this case, NP% constr cted a t nnel nderneath the land o" the Heirs o" :acaban!2it &itho t !oin! thro !h "ormal e/$ro$riation $roceedin!s and &itho t $roc rin! their consent or at least in"ormin! them be"orehand o" the constr ction. NP%-s constr ction adversely a""ected the o&ners- ri!hts and interests beca se the s bterranean intervention $revented them "rom introd cin! any develo$ments on the s r"ace, and "rom dis$osin! o" the land or any $ortion o" it, either by sale or mort!a!e. +his &as considered by the #% as com$ensable ta2in!. NP% sho ld $ay 0 st com$ensation "or the entire land. National Po3er 7orporation vs. +eirs of Macaban'4it /an'4a(, namel(H 7ebu, #ato3a6an, et al., all surname) Macaban'4it, G.R. No. 1 28!8. 5u'ust !=, !011. Administrative Law 3dministrative o""ense) e/oneration. +he mere red ction o" the $enalty on a$$eal does not entitle a !overnment em$loyee to bac2 salaries i" he &as not e/onerated o" the char!e a!ainst him. I" the e/oneration o" the em$loyee is relative 5as distin! ished "rom com$lete e/oneration6, an in1 iry into the "act al $remise o" the o""ense char!ed and o" the o""ense committed m st be made. I" the administrative o""ense "o nd to have been act ally committed is o" lesser !ravity than the o""ense char!ed, the em$loyee cannot be considered e/onerated i" the "act al $remise "or the im$osition o" the lesser $enalty remains the same. &he 7ivil /ervice 7ommission vs. Richar) G. 7ruA, G.R. No. 187828, 5u'ust 9, !011. 3dministrative $roceedin!s) s bstantial evidence. #el"*servin! and ns bstantiated declarations are ins ""icient to establish a case be"ore 1 asi*0 dicial bodies &here the 1 ant m o" evidence re1 ired establishin! a "act is s bstantial evidence. O"ten described as more than a mere scintilla, s bstantial evidence is s ch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind mi!ht acce$t as ade1 ate to s $$ort a concl sion, even i" other e1 ally reasonable minds mi!ht conceivably o$ine other&ise. In this case, there is no dis$ te re!ardin! the "act that As! erra had alto!ether "ailed to com$ly &ith the mandatory re$ortin! re1 irement nder the POA3*#A%. 'eyond his bare assertion that %#:#I 5em$loyer6 ,never !ave him re"errals to contin e his medications as recommended by the "orei!n doctor. des$ite his call on @ D ly 2003 ,to in"orm them that he &ill re$ort the ne/t day in order to s bmit his medical eval ation abroad,. As! erra did not $resent any evidence to $rove 0 sti"ication "or his inability to s bmit himsel" to a $ost*em$loyment medical e/amination by a com$any*desi!nated $hysician. +h s, he &as not a&arded disability bene"its and sic2ness allo&ance. 7oastal /afe3a( Marine /ervices vs. "s'uerra, G.R. No. 18212!, 5u'ust 10, !011. P blic o""icers) No &or2*no $ay $rinci$le) A/ce$tion. +he !eneral r le is that $ blic o""icials are only entitled to com$ensation i" they render service. +his is other&ise 2no&n as the ,no

&or2*no $ay. $rinci$le. Ho&ever, bac2 salaries may be a&arded even "or n&or2ed days to ille!ally dismissed or n0 stly s s$ended em$loyees based on the constit tional $rovision that ,no o""icer or em$loyee in the civil service shall be removed or s s$ended e/ce$t "or ca se $rovided by la&.. In order, ho&ever, to "all nder this e/ce$tion, t&o conditions m st be com$lied &ithI 5a6 the em$loyee m st be "o nd innocent o" the char!es) and 5b6 his s s$ension m st be n0 sti"ied. In this case, the t&o conditions &ere $resent. +he "irst condition &as met since the o""ense &hich the res$ondent &as "o nd ! ilty o" 5violation o" reasonable r les and re! lations6 stemmed "rom an act 5"ail re to lo! in and lo! o t6 di""erent "rom the act o" dishonesty 5claimin! overtime $ay des$ite his "ail re to render overtime &or26 that he &as char!ed &ith. +he second condition &as met as the res$ondent-s committed o""ense merits neither dismissal "rom the service nor s s$ension 5"or more than one month6, b t only re$rimand. In s m, the res$ondent is entitled to bac2 salaries "rom the time he &as dismissed ntil his reinstatement to his "ormer $osition G i.e., "or the $eriod o" his $reventive s s$ension $endin! a$$eal. >or the $eriod o" his $reventive s s$ension $endin! investi!ation, the res$ondent is not entitled to any bac2 salaries. &he 7ivil /ervice 7ommission vs. Richar) G. 7ruA, G.R. No. 187828, 5u'ust 9, !011. P blic o""icers) 2inds o" $reventive s s$ension. +here are t&o 2inds o" $reventive s s$ension o" civil service em$loyees &ho are char!ed &ith o""enses $ nishable by removal or s s$ensionI 5i6 $reventive s s$ension $endin! investi!ation and 5ii6 $reventive s s$ension $endin! a$$eal. %om$ensation is d e only "or the $eriod o" $reventive s s$ension $endin! a$$eal sho ld the em$loyee be ltimately e/onerated. &he 7ivil /ervice 7ommission vs. Richar) G. 7ruA, G.R. No. 187828, 5u'ust 9, !011.

Election Law Alection contest) $reliminary con"erence. +he 1 estioned notice o" $reliminary con"erence iss ed in the instant election $rotest &as de"ective in that 516 the notice iss ed by the :%+% cler2 o" co rt &as a !eneric notice o" hearin! &itho t any mention that it &as "or $reliminary con"erence, and 526 it &as served on the $arty himsel" des$ite bein! re$resented by co nsel in contravention o" ( le <, #ection 21 o" 3.:. No. 0=*C*1B*#%. >or this reason the # $reme %o rt disa!reed &ith the (+%-s "indin! that im$liedly ascribed all "a lt to $etitioner in "ailin! to timely "ile his $reliminary con"erence brie". 7eriaco #ulilis vs. 9ictorino NueA, +on. Pres. %u)'e, th M7&7, 8ba(, #ohol, et al., G.R. No. 192921, 5u'ust 9, !011. Alection contest) %O:A?A%-s 0 risdiction. +he # $reme %o rt "o nd no merit in $etitioner-s ar! ment that ( le 2@, #ection 1 o" the %O:A?A% ( les o" Proced re limits the %O:A?A%-s 0 risdiction over $etitions "or certiorari in election cases to iss es related to elections, ret rns and 1 ali"ications o" elective m nici$al and baran!ay o""icials. 3ccordin! to the # $reme %o rt, said $rovision, ta2en to!ether &ith the s cceedin! section, ndeniably sho&s that an a!!rieved $arty may "ile a $etition "or certiorari &ith the %O:A?A% &henever a 0 d!e hearin! an election case has acted &itho t or in e/cess o" his 0 risdiction or &ith !rave ab se o" discretion and there is no a$$eal, nor any $lain, s$eedy, and ade1 ate remedy in the ordinary co rse o" la&. 3 $etition "or certiorari 1 estionin! an interloc tory order o" a trial co rt in an electoral $rotest is &ithin the a$$ellate 0 risdiction o" the %O:A?A%. 7eriaco #ulilis vs. 9ictorino NueA, +on. Pres. %u)'e, th M7&7, 8ba(, #ohol, et al., G.R. No. 192921, 5u'ust 9, !011.

September 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

Posted on October 21, 2011 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV Here are selected #e$tember 2011 r lin!s o" the # $reme %o rt o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&. Constitutional Law %O3) Po&ers and " nction. Fnder the 1<@= %onstit tion, the %ommission on 3 dit is vested &ith a thority to determine &hether !overnment entities, incl din! ?GFs, com$ly &ith la&s and re! lations in disb rsin! !overnment " nds, and to disallo& ille!al or irre! lar disb rsements o" these " nds. P rs ant to its mandate as the ! ardian o" $ blic " nds, the %O3 is vested &ith broad $o&ers over all acco nts $ertainin! to !overnment reven e and e/$endit res and the ses o" $ blic " nds and $ro$erty. +his incl des the e/cl sive a thority to de"ine the sco$e o" its a dit and e/amination, establish the techni1 es and methods "or s ch revie&, and $rom l!ate acco ntin! and a ditin! r les and re! lations. +he %O3 is endo&ed &ith eno !h latit de to determine, $revent and disallo& irre! lar, nnecessary, e/cessive, e/trava!ant or nconscionable e/$endit res o" !overnment " nds. ?GFs, tho !h !ranted local "iscal a tonomy, are still &ithin the a dit 0 risdiction o" the %O3. 0uciano 9eloso, 5braham 7abochan, %ocel(n >a3is6 5suncion an) Marlon M. 0acson vs. 7ommission on 5u)it, G.R. No. 191 77. /eptember , !011. ?ocal !overnment nits) !rant o" a&ard to em$loyees. In the e/ercise o" its $o&er to ,determine the $ositions and salaries, &a!es, allo&ances and other emol ments and bene"its o" o""icials and em$loyees $aid &holly or mainly "rom city " nds and $rovide "or e/$endit res necessary "or the $ro$er cond ct o" $ro!rams, $ro0ects, services, and activities o" the city !overnment., the %ity %o ncil o" :anila enacted Ordinance No. @0C0, &hich a thori9ed the con"erment o" the AP#3 5A/em$lary P blic #ervice 3&ard6 to the "ormer three*term co ncilors and, as $art o" the a&ard, the 1 ali"ied city o""icials &ere to be !iven ,retirement and !rat ity $ay rem neration.. +he # $reme %o rt, ho&ever, noted that the above $o&er is not &itho t limitations, s ch as the r le a!ainst do ble com$ensation. +he recom$ tation o" the a&ard disclosed that it is e1 ivalent to the total com$ensation received by each a&ardee "or nine years that incl des basic salary, additional com$ensation, Personnel Aconomic (elie" 3llo&ance, re$resentation and trans$ortation allo&ance, rice allo&ance, "inancial assistance, clothin! allo&ance, 13 th month $ay and cash !i"t. Fndo btedly, the a&ardees- re&ard is e/cessive and tantamo nt to do ble and additional com$ensation. +he rem neration is e1 ivalent to everythin! that the a&ardees received d rin! the entire $eriod that he served as s ch o""icial. Indirectly, their salaries and bene"its are do bled, only that they receive hal" o" them at the end o" their last term. 0uciano 9eloso, 5braham 7abochan, %ocel(n >a3is65suncion an) Marlon M. 0acson vs. 7ommission on 5u)it, G.R. No. 191 77. /eptember , !011. %onstit tionality) +ari"" and % stoms %ode. In this case, the iss e &as the validity o" % stoms 3dministrative Order No. =*<2 and #ection 3B0; o" the +ari"" and % stoms %ode 5on the assi!nment o" c stoms em$loyees to overtime &or26. #ection 3B0; $rovidesI ,% stoms em$loyees may be assi!ned by a %ollector to do overtime &or2 at rates "i/ed by the %ommissioner o" % stoms &hen the service rendered is to be $aid by the im$orters, shi$$ers or other $ersons served. +he rates to be "i/ed shall not be less than that $rescribed by la& to be

$aid to em$loyees o" $rivate enter$rise.. +he # $reme %o rt disa!reed &ith the %3 in e/cl din! airline com$anies, aircra"t o&ners, and o$erators "rom the covera!e o" #ection 3B0; o" the +%%P. +he term ,other $ersons served. re"ers to all other $ersons served by the 'O% em$loyees. 3irline com$anies, aircra"t o&ners, and o$erators are amon! other $ersons served by the 'O% em$loyees. +he $rocessin! o" embar2in! and disembar2in! "rom aircra"ts o" $assen!ers, as &ell as their ba!!a!e and car!oes, "orms $art o" the 'O% " nctions. 'O% em$loyees &ho serve beyond the re! lar o""ice ho rs are entitled to overtime $ay "or the services they render. +he #% also noted that the 'O% created a committee to re*eval ate the $ro$osed increase in the rate o" overtime $ay and "or t&o years, several meetin!s &ere cond cted &ith the a!encies concerned to disc ss the $ro$osal. '3( and the 3irline O$erators %o ncil $artici$ated in these meetin!s and disc ssions. Hence, '3( cannot claim that it &as denied d e $rocess in the im$osition o" the increase o" the overtime rate. /er'io ,. 7arbonilla, et al. vs. #ora) of 5irlines, et al., G.R. No. 191!=7*G.R. No. 19=!7 . /eptember 1=, !011. Fnd e Dele!ation) +ari"" and % stoms %ode. +he #% did not a!ree &ith the %o rt o" 3$$eals that #ection 3B0; o" the +%%P "ailed the com$leteness and s ""icient standard tests. Fnder the "irst test, the la& m st be com$lete in all its terms and conditions &hen it leaves the le!islat re s ch that &hen it reaches the dele!ate, the only thin! he &ill have to do is to en"orce it. +he second test re1 ires ade1 ate ! idelines or limitations in the la& to determine the bo ndaries o" the dele!ate-s a thority and $revent the dele!ation "rom r nnin! riot. %ontrary to the r lin! o" the %o rt o" 3$$eals, #ection 3B0; o" the +%%P com$lied &ith these re1 irements. +he la& is com$lete in itsel" that it leaves nothin! more "or the 'O% to doI it !ives a thority to the %ollector to assi!n c stoms em$loyees to do overtime &or2) the %ommissioner o" % stoms "i/es the rates) and it $rovides that the $ayments shall be made by the im$orters, shi$$ers or other $ersons served. #ection 3B0; also "i/ed the standard to be "ollo&ed by the %ommissioner o" % stoms &hen it $rovides that the rates shall not be less than that $rescribed by la& to be $aid to em$loyees o" $rivate enter$rise. /er'io ,. 7arbonilla, et al. vs. #ora) of 5irlines, et al., G.R. No. 191!=7*G.R. No. 19=!7 . /eptember 1=, !011. #e1 estration and >ree9e Orders) nat re and $ r$ose. 4itho t ma2in! a de"initive concl sion as to the validity o" the #e1 estration and >ree9e Orders bein! the main iss e in %ivil %ase No. 01C2 &hich is yet to be decided by the #andi!anbayan, the #% concl ded that the $ieces o" evidence en merated by +o rist D ty >ree #ho$s, Inc. 5+D>#I6 do not sho& that it has a ri!ht to be $rotected and that the im$lementation o" the #e1 estration and >ree9e Orders violates its ri!hts. +he $o&er o" the P%GG to se1 ester $ro$erty claimed to be ,ill*!otten. means to $lace or ca se to be $laced nder its $ossession or control said $ro$erty, or any b ildin! or o""ice &herein any s ch $ro$erty and any records $ertainin! thereto may be "o nd, incl din! ,b siness enter$rises and entities. G "or the $ r$ose o" $reventin! the destr ction, concealment or dissi$ation o", and other&ise conservin! and $reservin!, the same G ntil it can be determined, thro !h a$$ro$riate 0 dicial $roceedin!s, &hether the $ro$erty &as in tr th ,ill*!otten.. On the other hand, a "ree9e order $rohibits the $erson havin! $ossession or control o" $ro$erty alle!ed to constit te ill*!otten &ealth "rom trans"errin!, conveyin!, enc mberin! or other&ise de$letin! or concealin! s ch $ro$erty, or "rom assistin! or ta2in! $art in its trans"er, enc mbrance, concealment, or dissi$ation. In other &ords, it commands the $ossessor to hold the $ro$erty and conserve it s b0ect to the orders and dis$osition o" the a thority decreein! s ch "ree9in!. Presi)ential 7ommission on Goo) Government vs. /an)i'anba(an :/econ) >ivision;, et al., G.R. No. 12!200. /eptember 1=, !011. Administrative Law

P blic o""icers) administrative vs. criminal liability. It is a basic r le in administrative la& that $ blic o""icials are nder a three*"old res$onsibility "or a violation o" their d ty or "or a &ron!" l act or omission, s ch that they may be held civilly, criminally and administratively liable "or the same act. 3dministrative liability is se$arate and distinct "rom $enal and civil liability. >irst, there is a di""erence in the 1 ant m o" evidence re1 ired and, correlatively, the $roced re observed and sanctions im$osed. #econd, there is the $rinci$le that a sin!le act may o""end a!ainst t&o or more distinct and related $rovisions o" la&, or that the same act may !ive rise to criminal as &ell as administrative liability. 3ccordin!ly, the dismissal o" the criminal case "or violation o" (.3. No. 301< by the Omb dsman does not "oreclose administrative action a!ainst %ata1 i9, as the !eneral mana!er o" ?a! na ?a2e Develo$ment 3 thority. Office of the Presi)ent an) Presi)ential 5nti6Graft 7ommission vs. 7ali<to R. 7ata@uiA, G.R. No. 181==2, /eptember 1=, !011. P blic o""icers) e""ect o" removal or resi!nation "rom o""ice on administrative liability. (emoval or resi!nation "rom o""ice is not a bar to a "indin! o" administrative liability. Des$ite his removal "rom his $osition, %ata1 i9 can still be held administratively liable "or acts committed d rin! his service as General :ana!er o" the ?a! na ?a2e Develo$ment 3 thority and he can be made to s ""er the corres$ondin! $enalties. Office of the Presi)ent an) Presi)ential 5nti6Graft 7ommission vs. 7ali<to R. 7ata@uiA, G.R. No. 181==2, /eptember 1=, !011.

October 2011 Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

Posted on November 1C, 2011 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV Here are selected October 2011 r lin!s o" the # $reme %o rt o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&I Constitutional Law %onstit tionality o" (3 101B3. (e$ blic 3ct 101B3 reset the 3(:: elections "rom 3 ! st @, 2011, to the second :onday o" :ay 2013 and every three years therea"ter, to coincide &ith the co ntry-s re! lar national and local elections. +he la& also !ranted the President the $o&er to a$$oint o""icers in char!e "or the O""ice o" the 3(:: (e!ional Governor, the (e!ional Vice* Governor, and the :embers o" the (e!ional ?e!islative 3ssembly, &ho &ill hold said o""ices ntil the o""icials d ly elected in the :ay 2013 elections shall have 1 ali"ied and ass med o""ice. In addressin! the constit tionality o" this la&, the %o rt disc ssed the "ollo&in! iss esI >oes the 7onstitution man)ate the s(nchroniAation of electionsI Nes. 4hile the %onstit tion does not e/$ressly state that %on!ress has to synchroni9e national and local elections, the clear intent to&ards this ob0ective can be !leaned "rom the +ransitory Provisions 53rticle JVIII6 o" the %onstit tion, &hich sho& the e/tent to &hich the %onstit tional %ommission, by deliberately ma2in! ad0 stments to the terms o" the inc mbent o""icials, so !ht to attain synchroni9ation o" elections. +he ob0ective behind settin! a common termination date "or all elective o""icials, done amon! others thro !h the shortenin! the terms o" the t&elve &innin! senators &ith the least n mber o" votes, is to synchroni9e the holdin! o" all " t re elections G &hether national or local G to once every three years. +his intention "inds " ll s $$ort in the disc ssions d rin! the

%onstit tional %ommission deliberations. +hese %onstit tional %ommission e/chan!es, read &ith the $rovisions o" the +ransitory Provisions o" the %onstit tion, all serve as $atent indicators o" the constit tional mandate to hold synchroni9ed national and local elections, startin! the second :onday o" :ay, 1<<2 and "or all the "ollo&in! elections. 3ltho !h called re!ional elections, the 3(:: elections sho ld be incl ded amon! the elections to be synchroni9ed as it is a ,local. election based on the &ordin! and str ct re o" the %onstit tion. >oes the passa'e of R5 10121 violate /ection ! :!;, 5rticle 9, of the 7onstitutionI No. +hat section $rovides that be"ore a bill $assed by either the Ho se or the #enate can become la&, it m st $ass thro !h three readin!s on se$arate days. +he e/ce$tion is &hen the President certi"ies to the necessity o" the bill-s immediate enactment. In this case, the records sho& that the President &rote to the #$ea2er o" the Ho se o" (e$resentatives to certi"y the necessity o" the immediate enactment o" a la& synchroni9in! the 3(:: elections &ith the national and local elections. >ollo&in! &olentino v. /ecretar( of $inance, the President-s certi"ication e/em$ted both the Ho se and the #enate "rom havin! to com$ly &ith the three se$arate readin!s re1 irement. >oes the re@uirement of a superma?orit( vote for amen)ments or revisions to R5 902= violate /ection 1 an) /ection 1 :!;, 5rticle 9, of the 7onstitution an) the corollar( )octrine on irrepealable la3sI Nes. Aven ass min! that (3 <333 and (3 101B3 did in "act amend (3 <0BC 5the %o rt r led in this case that those t&o la&s did not amend (3 <0BC6, the s $erma0ority 52736 votin! re1 irement re1 ired nder #ection 1, 3rticle JVII o" (3 <0BC has to be str c2 do&n "or !ivin! that la& the character o" an irre$ealable la& by re1 irin! more than &hat the %onstit tion demands. (3 <0BC is the #econd Or!anic 3ct o" the 3(::, &hich $rovided that the "irst 3(:: elections &o ld be held on the second :onday o" #e$tember 2001. (3 <333 is one o" several la&s $rior to (3 101B3 that reset the date o" the 3(:: re!ional elections. #ection 1;526, 3rticle VI o" the %onstit tion $rovides that a ,ma0ority o" each Ho se shall constit te a 1 or m to do b siness.. 3s lon! as ma0ority o" the members o" the Ho se o" (e$resentatives or the #enate are $resent, these bodies have the 1 or m needed to cond ct b siness and hold session. 4ithin a 1 or m, a vote o" ma0ority is !enerally s ""icient to enact la&s or a$$rove acts. In contrast, #ection 1, 3rticle JVII o" (3 <0BC re1 ires a vote o" no less than 273 o" the :embers o" the Ho se o" (e$resentatives and o" the #enate, votin! se$arately, in order to amend that la&. %learly, this 273 votin! re1 irement is hi!her than &hat the %onstit tion re1 ires "or the $assa!e o" bills, and served to restrain the $lenary $o&ers o" %on!ress to amend, revise or re$eal the la&s it had $assed. 4hile a s $erma0ority is not a total ban a!ainst a re$eal, it is a limitation in e/cess o" &hat the %onstit tion re1 ires on the $assa!e o" bills and is constit tionally obno/io s beca se it si!ni"icantly constricts the " t re le!islatorsroom "or action and "le/ibility. >oes the re@uirement of a plebiscite appl( onl( to the creation of autonomous re'ions un)er para'raph !, /ection 18, 5rticle J of the 7onstitutionI Nes. (3 <0BC enlar!ed the $lebiscite re1 irement in the %onstit tion &ith res$ect to the 3(::. +his enlar!ement violates #ection 1@, 3rticle J o" the %onstit tion. #ection 1@ states that a $lebiscite is re1 ired only "or the creation o" a tonomo s re!ions and "or determinin! &hich $rovinces, cities and !eo!ra$hic areas &ill be incl ded in the a tonomo s re!ions. +his means that only amendments to, or revisions o", the Or!anic 3ct constit tionally*essential to the creation o"a tonomo s re!ions G i.e., those as$ects s$eci"ically mentioned in the %onstit tion &hich %on!ress m st $rovide "or in the Or!anic 3ct G re1 ire rati"ication thro !h a $lebiscite. +hese amendments to the Or!anic 3ct are those that relate toI 5a6 the basic str ct re o" the re!ional !overnment) 5b6 the re!ion-s 0 dicial system, i.e., the s$ecial co rts &ith $ersonal, "amily, and $ro$erty la& 0 risdiction)

and, 5c6 the !rant and e/tent o" the le!islative $o&ers constit tionally conceded to the re!ional !overnment nder #ection 20, 3rticle J o" the %onstit tion. +he date o" the 3(:: elections does not "all nder any o" the matters that the %onstit tion s$eci"ically mandated %on!ress to $rovide "or in the Or!anic 3ct. +here"ore, any chan!e in the date o" elections cannot be constr ed as a s bstantial amendment o" the Or!anic 3ct that &o ld re1 ire com$liance &ith the $lebiscite re1 irement. >oes R5 10121 violate the autonom( 'rante) to the 5RMMI No. Petitioners ar! ed that &hile synchroni9ation may be constit tionally mandated, it cannot be sed to de"eat or to im$ede the a tonomy that the %onstit tion !ranted to the 3(::. Phrased in this manner, one &o ld $res me that there e/ists a con"lict bet&een t&o reco!ni9ed %onstit tional mandates G synchroni9ation and re!ional a tonomy G s ch that it is necessary to choose one over the other. +he %o rt "o nd this to be an erroneo s a$$roach that violates a basic $rinci$le in constit tional constr ction that the %onstit tion is to be inter$reted as a &hole, and one mandate sho ld not be !iven im$ortance over the other e/ce$t &here the $rimacy o" one over the other is clear. #ynchroni9ation is an interest that is as constit tionally entrenched as re!ional a tonomy. +hey are interests that the %o rt sho ld reconcile and !ive e""ect to, in the &ay that %on!ress did in (3 101B3, &hich $rovides the meas re to transit to synchroni9ed re!ional elections &ith the least dist rbance on the interests that m st be res$ected. Partic larly, re!ional a tonomy &ill be res$ected instead o" bein! sidelined, as the la& does not in any &ay alter, chan!e or modi"y its !overnin! "eat res, e/ce$t in a very tem$orary manner and only as necessitated by the attendant circ mstances. > rther, &hile a tonomo s re!ions are !ranted $olitical a tonomy, the "ramers o" the %onstit tion never e1 ated a tonomy &ith inde$endence. +he 3(:: as a re!ional entity th s contin es to o$erate &ithin the lar!er "rame&or2 o" the #tate and is still s b0ect to the national $olicies set by the national !overnment, save only "or those s$eci"ic areas reserved by the %onstit tion "or re!ional a tonomo s determination. +he a tonomy !ranted to the 3(:: cannot be invo2ed to de"eat national $olicies and concerns. #ince the synchroni9ation o" elections is not 0 st a re!ional concern b t a national one, the 3(:: is s b0ect to it) the re!ional a tonomy !ranted to the 3(:: cannot be sed to e/em$t the re!ion "rom havin! to act in accordance &ith a national $olicy mandated by no less than the %onstit tion. Given the constitutional ob?ective of s(nchroniAation, )i) 7on'ress 'ravel( abuse its )iscretion or violate the 7onstitution 3hen it a))resse) throu'h R5 10121 the concomitant problems that the a)?ustment of elections necessaril( brou'ht 3ith itI No. +he %o rt here identi"ied the "ollo&in! o$tions o$en to %on!ress in order to resolve the $roblemsI 516 allo& the elective o""icials in the 3(:: to remain in o""ice in a hold over ca$acity ntil those elected in the synchroni9ed elections ass me o""ice) 526 hold s$ecial elections in the 3(::, &ith the terms o" those elected to e/$ire &hen those elected in the synchroni9ed elections ass me o""ice) or 536 a thori9e the President to a$$oint o""icers in char!e, $ rs ant to #ection 3 o" (3 101B3, ntil those elected in the synchroni9ed elections ass me o""ice. +he %o rt held that in choosin! to !rant the President the $o&er to a$$oint OI%s, %on!ress chose the correct o$tion and $assed (3 101B3 as a valid la&. $oldover option is unconstitutional. +his o$tion violates #ection @, 3rticle J o" the %onstit tion, &hich states that the term o" o""ice o" elective local o""icials, e/ce$t baran!ay o""icials, &hich shall be determined by la&, shall be three years and no s ch o""icial shall serve "or more than three consec tive terms. #ince elective 3(:: o""icials are local o""icials, they are covered and bo nd by the three*year term limit $rescribed by the %onstit tion) %on!ress cannot e/tend their term thro !h a la& allo&in! o""icials to serve in a holdover ca$acity. I" it &ill be claimed that the holdover $eriod is e""ectively another term mandated by %on!ress, the

net res lt is "or %on!ress to create a ne& term and to a$$oint the occ $ant "or the ne& term. +his vie& G li2e the e/tension o" the elective term G is constit tionally in"irm beca se %on!ress cannot do indirectly &hat it cannot do directly, i.e., to act in a &ay that &o ld e""ectively e/tend the term o" the inc mbents. %on!ress cannot also create a ne& term and e""ectively a$$oint the occ $ant o" the $osition "or the ne& term. +his is e""ectively an act o" a$$ointment by %on!ress and an nconstit tional intr sion into the constit tional a$$ointment $o&er o" the President. CO%ELEC has no authorit to order special elections& 3nother o$tion $ro$osed by the $etitioner is "or this %o rt to com$el %O:A?A% to immediately cond ct s$ecial elections $ rs ant to #ection B and ; o" #atas Pambansa #ilan' @@1. +he $o&er to "i/ the date o" elections is essentially le!islative in nat re. %on!ress has acted on the 3(:: elections by $ost$onin! the sched led 3 ! st 2011 elections and settin! another date G :ay 13, 2011 G "or re!ional elections synchroni9ed &ith the $residential, con!ressional and other local elections. 'y so doin!, %on!ress itsel" has madea $olicy decision in the e/ercise o" its le!islative &isdom that it shall not call s$ecial elections as an ad0 stment meas re in synchroni9in! the 3(:: elections &ith the other elections. 3"ter %on!ress has so acted, neither the A/ec tive nor the D diciary can act to the contrary by orderin! s$ecial elections instead at the call o" the %O:A?A%. +he %o rt, $artic larly, cannot ma2e this call &itho t thereby s $$lantin! the le!islative decision and e""ectively le!islatin!. > rther, the constit tional $o&er o" %O:A?A%, in contrast &ith the $o&er o" %on!ress to call "or and to set the date o" elections, is limited to en"orcin! and administerin! all la&s and re! lations relative to the cond ct o" an election. %O:A?A% has no $o&er to call "or the holdin! o" s$ecial elections nless $ rs ant to a s$eci"ic stat tory !rant. 'he Court has no power to shorten the terms o# elective o##icials& Aven ass min! that it is le!ally $ermissible "or the %o rt to com$el the %O:A?A% to hold s$ecial elections, no le!al basis e/ists to r le that the ne&ly elected 3(:: o""icials shall hold o""ice only ntil the 3(:: o""icials elected in the synchroni9ed elections shall have ass med o""ice. +he %o rt is not em$o&ered to ad0 st the terms o" elective o""icials. 'ased on the %onstit tion, the $o&er to "i/ the term o" o""ice o" elective o""icials, &hich can be e/ercised only in the case o" baran'a( o""icials, is s$eci"ically !iven to %on!ress. Aven %on!ress itsel" may be denied s ch $o&er, as sho&n &hen the %onstit tion shortened the terms o" t&elve #enators obtainin! the least votes in the 1<<2 con!ressional elections, and e/tended the terms o" the President and the Vice*President in order to synchroni9e elections) %on!ress &as not !ranted this same $o&er. +he settled r le is that terms "i/ed by the %onstit tion cannot be chan!ed by mere stat te. :ore $artic larly, not even %on!ress and certainly not the %o rt, has the a thority to "i/ the terms o" elective local o""icials in the 3(:: "orless, or more, than the constit tionally mandated three years, as this tin2erin! &o ld directly contravene #ection @, 3rticle J o" the %onstit tion. In the same &ay that the term o" elective 3(:: o""icials cannot be e/tended thro !h a holdover, the term cannot be shortened by $ ttin! an e/$iration date earlier than the three years that the %onstit tion itsel" commands. +his is &hat &ill ha$$en G a term o" less than t&o years G i" a call "or s$ecial elections shall $revail. >oes the 'rant to the Presi)ent of the po3er to appoint O,7s violate the 7onstitutionI No. +he $o&er to a$$oint is essentially e/ec tive in nat re, and the limitations on or 1 ali"ications to the e/ercise o" this $o&er sho ld be strictly constr ed) these limitations or 1 ali"ications m st be clearly stated in order to be reco!ni9ed. +he a$$ointin! $o&er is embodied in #ection 1;, 3rticle VII o" the %onstit tion, &hich $ertinently states that the President shall a$$oint all other o""icers o" the !overnment &hose &hom the President may be a thori9ed by la& to a$$oint. #ince the President-s a thority to a$$oint OI%s emanates "rom (3 101B3, it "alls nder this !ro $ o"

o""icials that the President can a$$oint $ rs ant to #ection 1;, 3rticle VII o" the %onstit tion. +h s, the assailed la& rests on clear constit tional basis. I" at all, the !ravest challen!e $osed by the $etitions to the a thority to a$$oint OI%s nder #ection 3 o" (3 101B3 is the assertion that the %onstit tion re1 ires that the 3(:: e/ec tive and le!islative o""icials be ,elective and re$resentative o" the constit ent $olitical nits.. +his re1 irement indeed is an e/$ress limitation &hose non*observance in the assailed la& leaves the a$$ointment o" OI%s constit tionally de"ective. ' t the %o rt said this alle!ed constit tional $roblem is more a$$arent than real and becomes very real only i" (3 101B3 &ere to be mista2enly read as a la& that chan!es the elective and re$resentative character o" 3(:: $ositions. (3 101B3, ho&ever, does not in any &ay amend &hat the or!anic la& o" the 3(:: sets o ts in terms o" str ct re o" !overnance. 4hat (3 101B3 in "act only does is to Kappoint officers6in6char'e for the Office of the Re'ional Governor, Re'ional 9ice Governor an) Members of the Re'ional 0e'islative 5ssembl( 3ho shall perform the functions pertainin' to the sai) offices until the officials )ul( electe) in the Ma( !011 elections shall have @ualifie) an) assume) office.L +his $o&er is "ar di""erent "rom a$$ointin! elective 3(:: o""icials "or the abbreviated term endin! on the ass m$tion to o""ice o" the o""icials elected in the :ay 2013 elections. Given the $lain nconstit tionality o" $rovidin! "or a holdover and the navailability o" constit tional $ossibilities "or len!thenin! or shortenin! the term o" the elected 3(:: o""icials, is the choice o" the President-s $o&er to a$$oint G "or a "i/ed and s$eci"ic $eriod as an interim meas re, and as allo&ed nder #ection 1;, 3rticle VII o" the %onstit tion G an nconstit tional or nreasonable choice "or %on!ress to ma2eQ 3dmittedly, the !rant o" the $o&er to the President nder other sit ations or &here the $o&er o" a$$ointment &o ld e/tend beyond the ad0 stment $eriod "or synchroni9ation &o ld be to "oster a !overnment that is not ,democratic and re$ blican.. >or then, the $eo$le-s ri!ht to choose the leaders to !overn them may be said to be systemically &ithdra&n to the $oint o" "osterin! an ndemocratic re!ime. +his is the !rant that &o ld "rontally breach the ,elective and re$resentative. !overnance re1 irement o" #ection 1@, 3rticle J o" the %onstit tion. ' t this concl sion &o ld not be tr e nder the very limited circ mstances contem$lated in (3 101B3 &here the $eriod is "i/ed and, more im$ortant, the terms o" !overnance G both nder #ection 1@, 3rticle J o" the %onstit tion and (3 <0BC G &ill not systemically be to ched nor a""ected at all. (3 <0BC &ill !overn nchan!ed and contin o sly, &ith " ll e""ect in accordance &ith the %onstit tion, save only "or the interim and tem$orary meas res that synchroni9ation o" elections re1 ires. Vie&ed "rom another $ers$ective, synchroni9ation &ill tem$orarily disr $t the election $rocess in a local comm nity, the 3(::, as &ell as the comm nity-s choice o" leaders, b t this &ill ta2e $lace nder a sit ation o" necessity and as an interim meas re in the manner that interim meas res have been ado$ted and sed in the creation o" local !overnment nits and the ad0 stments o" s b*$rovinces to the stat s o" $rovinces. +hese meas res, too, are sed in li!ht o" the &ider national demand "or the synchroni9ation o" elections 5considered vis6E6vis the re!ional interests involved6. +he ado$tion o" these meas res, in other &ords, is no di""erent "rom the e/ercise by %on!ress o" the inherent $olice $o&er o" the #tate, &here one o" the essential tests is the reasonableness o" the interim meas re ta2en in li!ht o" the !iven circ mstances. > rthermore, the ,re$resentative. character o" the chosen leaders need not necessarily be a""ected by the a$$ointment o" OI%s as this re1 irement is really a " nction o" the a$$ointment $rocess) only the ,elective. as$ect shall be s $$lanted by the a$$ointment o" OI%s. In this re!ard, (3 101B3 si!ni"icantly see2s to address concerns arisin! "rom the a$$ointments by

$rovidin!, nder #ections 3, C and B o" the assailed la&, concrete terms in the 3$$ointment o" OI%, the :anner and Proced re o" 3$$ointin! OI%s, and their P ali"ications. >atu Michael 5bas -i)a, etc., et al. vs. /enate of the Philippines, etc., et al.*#asari >. Mapupuno vs. /i<to #rillantes, etc., et al.*Rep. ")cel 7. 0a'man vs. Pa@uito N. Ochoa, %r., etc., et al.*5lmarin 7enti &illah, et al. vs. &he 7ommission on "lections, etc., et al.*5tt(. Romulo #. Macalintal vs. 7ommission on "lections, et al.*0uis K#aro4L #irao'o vs. &he 7ommission on "lections, et al.*%acinto 9. Paras vs. "<ecutive /ecretar(, et al., G.R. No. 19 !71*G.R. No. 19 102*G.R. No. 197!!1*G.R. No. 197!80*G.R. No. 197!8!*G.R. No. 19719!*G.R. No. 197=2=. October 18, !011. Omb dsman) $o&er to !rant imm nity. In this case, $etitioner ar! es that by e/cl din! the res$ondents in the in"ormation, the Omb dsman is en!a!ed in ,selective $rosec tion. &hich is a clear case o" !rave ab se o" discretion. He claims that be"ore the Omb dsman may avail o" the res$ondents as state &itnesses, they m st be incl ded "irst in the in"ormation "iled &ith the co rt. +herea"ter, the Omb dsman can as2 the co rt "or their dischar!e so that they can be sed as state &itnesses nder the conditions laid do&n in #ection 1=, ( le 11< o" the ( les o" %o rt. +he # $reme %o rt held $etitioner-s claim to be erroneo s. +he Omb dsman has the $o&er to !rant imm nity by itsel" and even $rior to the "ilin! o" in"ormation in co rt. (3 No. ;==0 " lly reco!ni9es this $rosec tory $rero!ative by em$o&erin! the Omb dsman to !rant imm nity, s b0ect to ,s ch terms and conditions. as he may determine. +he only te/t al limitation im$osed by la& on this a thority is the need to ta2e ,into acco nt the $ertinent $rovisions o" the ( les o" %o rt,. G i.e., #ection 1=, ( le 11< o" the ( les o" %o rt. +he r le nder (3 No. ;==0 clari"ies that in cases already "iled &ith the co rts, the $rosec tion merely ma2es a $ro$osal and initiates the $rocess o" !rantin! imm nity to an acc sed*&itness in order to se him as a &itness a!ainst his co*acc sed. I" there is any distinction at all bet&een the $ blic $rosec tor and the Omb dsman in this endeavor, it is in the s$eci"icity o" and the hi!her $riority !iven by la& to the Omb dsman-s $ r$ose and ob0ective. +his acco nts "or the Omb dsman-s ni1 e $o&er to !rant imm nity by itsel" and even $rior to the "ilin! o" in"ormation in co rt, a $o&er that the $ blic $rosec tor himsel" !enerally does not en0oy. +h s, there &as no !rave ab se o" discretion in this case. "r)ito Muarto vs. &he +on. Ombu)sman /imeon Marcelo, et al., G.R. No. 1 90=!. October 2, !011. Police $o&er) 9onin!. %on!ress e/$ressly !ranted the city !overnment, thro !h the city co ncil, $olice $o&er by virt e o" #ection 125oo6 o" (e$ blic 3ct No. B3=, or the (evised %harter o" P e9on %ity. 4ith re!ard to the $o&er o" local !overnment nits to iss e 9onin! ordinances, 0 ris$r dence has reco!ni9ed that the !overnment may enact le!islation that may inter"ere &ith $ersonal liberty, $ro$erty, la&" l b sinesses and occ $ations to $romote the !eneral &el"are. Ho&ever, the inter"erence m st be reasonable and not arbitrary. 'ased on the "ore!oin!, the $o&er to establish 9ones "or ind strial, commercial and residential ses is derived "rom the $olice $o&er itsel" and is e/ercised "or the $rotection and bene"it o" the residents o" a locality. In this case, it is clear that the $rimary ob0ectives o" the city co ncil o" P e9on %ity &hen it iss ed the 1 estioned ordinance orderin! the constr ction o" arcades &ere the health and sa"ety o" the city and its inhabitants) the $romotion o" their $ros$erity) and the im$rovement o" their morals, $eace, !ood order, com"ort, and the convenience. +hese arcades $rovide sa"e and convenient $assa!e alon! the side&al2 "or comm ters and $edestrians, not 0 st the residents o" P e9on %ity. :ore es$ecially so beca se the contested $ortion o" the b ildin! is located on a b sy se!ment o" the city, in a b siness 9one alon! AD#3. %onse1 ently, the enactment o" the ordinance in this case is &ithin the $o&er o" the /an''unian' Panlun'so) o" P e9on %ity and any res ltin! b rden on those a""ected cannot be said to be n0 st. "milio Ganca(co vs. 7ito Government of MueAon 7it( an) Metro Manila >evelopment 5uthorit(*Metro Manila

>evelopment 5uthorit( vs. %ustice "milio 5. Ganca(co :Retire);, G.R. No. 177807*G.R. No. 177911. October 11, !011. (i!ht to $rivacy) nreasonable search and sei9 re. +his case involves a search o" o""ice com$ ter assi!ned to a !overnment em$loyee &ho &as char!ed administratively and event ally dismissed "rom the service. +he em$loyee-s $ersonal "iles stored in the com$ ter &ere sed by the !overnment em$loyer as evidence o" miscond ct. Petitioner 1 estions the le!ality o" the search cond cted on his o""ice com$ ter and the co$yin! o" his $ersonal "iles &itho t his 2no&led!e and consent. He said this search violated his constit tional ri!ht to $rivacy. +he ri!ht to $rivacy is a "acet o" the ri!ht $rotected by the ! arantee a!ainst nreasonable search and sei9 re nder #ection 2, 3rticle III o" the 1<@= %onstit tion. (elyin! on F# 0 ris$r dence, the %o rt noted that the e/istence o" $rivacy ri!ht involves a t&o* "old re1 irementI "irst, that a $erson has e/hibited an act al 5s b0ective6 e/$ectation o" $rivacy) and second, that the e/$ectation be one that society is $re$ared to reco!ni9e as reasonable 5ob0ective6. Once the ri!ht is established, the ne/t in1 iry is &hether the search alle!ed to have violated s ch ri!ht &as reasonable. +his $roceeds "rom the $rinci$le that the constit tional ! arantee nder #ection 2, 3rticle III, is not a $rohibition o" all searches and sei9 res b t only o" nreasonable searches and sei9 res. In the case o" searches cond cted by a $ blic em$loyer, the co rt needs to balance the invasion o" the em$loyees- le!itimate e/$ectations o" $rivacy a!ainst the !overnment-s need "or s $ervision, control, and the e""icient o$eration o" the &or2$lace. 3 $ blic em$loyer-s intr sions on the constit tionally $rotected $rivacy interests o" !overnment em$loyees "or non* investi!atory, &or2*related $ r$oses, as &ell as "or investi!ations o" &or2*related miscond ct, sho ld be 0 d!ed by the standard o" reasonableness nder all the circ mstances. Fnder this reasonableness standard, both the ince$tion and the sco$e o" the intr sion m st be reasonable. Ordinarily, a search o" an em$loyee-s o""ice by a s $ervisor &ill be ,0 sti"ied at its ince$tion. &hen there are reasonable !ro nds "or s s$ectin! that the search &ill t rn $ evidence that the em$loyee is ! ilty o" &or2*related miscond ct, or that the search is necessary "or a non* investi!atory &or2*related $ r$ose. +he search &ill be $ermissible in its sco$e &hen the meas res ado$ted are reasonably related to the ob0ectives o" the search and not e/cessively intr sive in li!ht o" the nat re o" the miscond ct. 3$$lyin! the above standards and $rinci$les, the %o rt then addressed the "ollo&in! iss esI 516 Did $etitioner have a reasonable e/$ectation o" $rivacy in his o""ice and com$ ter "ilesQ) and 526 4as the search a thori9ed by the res$ondent %ivil #ervice %ommission %hair, the co$yin! o" the contents o" the hard drive on $etitioner-s com$ ter, reasonable in its ince$tion and sco$eQ Here, the relevant s rro ndin! circ mstances to consider incl deI 516 the em$loyee-s relationshi$ to the item sei9ed) 526 &hether the item &as in the immediate control o" the em$loyee &hen it &as sei9ed) and 536 &hether the em$loyee too2 actions to maintain his $rivacy in the item. +he %o rt ans&ered the "irst iss e in the ne!ative. Petitioner "ailed to $rove that he had an act al 5s b0ective6 e/$ectation o" $rivacy either in his o""ice or !overnment*iss ed com$ ter &hich contained his $ersonal "iles. Petitioner did not alle!e that he had a se$arate enclosed o""ice &hich he did not share &ith anyone, or that his o""ice &as al&ays loc2ed and not o$en to other em$loyees or visitors. Neither did he alle!e that he sed $ass&ords or ado$ted any means to $revent other em$loyees "rom accessin! his com$ ter "iles. On the contrary, he s bmits that bein! in the $ blic assistance o""ice o" the %#%, he normally &o ld have visitors in his o""ice. Aven ass min! that $etitioner had at least a s b0ective e/$ectation o" $rivacy in his com$ ter as

he claims, the same is ne!ated by the $resence o" $olicy re! latin! the se o" o""ice com$ ters . +he %#% had im$lemented a $olicy that $ ts its em$loyees on notice that they have no e/$ectation o" $rivacy in anythin! they create, store, send or receive on the o""ice com$ ters. Fnder this $olicy, the %#% may monitor the se o" the com$ ter reso rces sin! both a tomated or h man means. +his im$lies that on*the*s$ot ins$ections may be done to ens re that com$ ter reso rces &ere sed only "or le!itimate b siness $ r$oses. On the second iss e, the %o rt ans&ered in the a""irmative. +he search o" $etitioner-s com$ ter "iles &as cond cted in connection &ith an investi!ation o" &or2*related miscond ct. Fnder the "acts obtainin!, the %o rt held that the search cond cted on $etitioner-s com$ ter &as 0 sti"ied at its ince$tion and in sco$e. #riccio KRic4(L 5. Pollo vs. 7hairperson -arina 7onstantino6>avi), et al., G.R. No. 181881. October 18, !011. Administrative Law 3dministrative a!encies) d e $rocess. Proced ral d e $rocess is the constit tional standard demandin! that notice and an o$$ort nity to be heard be !iven be"ore 0 d!ment is rendered. 3s lon! as a $arty is !iven the o$$ort nity to de"end his interests in d e co rse, he &o ld have no reason to com$lain) the essence o" d e $rocess is in the o$$ort nity to be heard. 3 "ormal or trial*ty$e hearin! is not al&ays necessary. In this case, &hile the $etitioner did not $artici$ate in the 3 ! st 1=, 200; $re*hearin! con"erence 5des$ite recei$t on 3 ! st 1C, 200; o" a "a/ co$y o" the 3 ! st 11, 200; order6 cond cted by the G#I#, G#I# President and General :ana!er 4inston Garcia-s decision o" >ebr ary 21, 200= d ly considered and disc ssed the de"enses raised in the $leadin!s "iled by $etitioner-s co nsel. > rthermore, &hat ne!ates any d e $rocess in"irmity is the $etitioner-s s bse1 ent motion "or reconsideration &hich c red &hatever de"ect the Hearin! O""icer mi!ht have committed in the co rse o" hearin! the $etitioner-s case. 3!ain, Garcia d ly considered the ar! ments $resented in the $etitioner-s motion "or reconsideration &hen he rendered the D ne ;, 200= resol tion. +h s, the $etitioner &as act ally heard thro !h his $leadin!s. Monico -. ,mperial, %r. vs. Government /ervice ,nsurance /(stem, G.R. No. 191!!=. October =, !011. 3dministrative a!encies) "indin!s o" "acts. In this case, $etitioner &as "o nd to have committed the acts com$lained o", i.e., he a$$roved the re1 ests "or salary loans o" ei!ht G#I# Na!a >ield O""ice em$loyees &ho lac2ed the necessary contrib tion re1 irements nder PPG No. 1B3* <<. Ho&ever, the # $reme %o rt disa!reed &ith the "indin!s o" the G#I#, the %#% and the %3 that the $etitioner-s acts constit ted !rave miscond ct. 4hile !reat res$ect is accorded to the "act al "indin!s o" administrative a!encies, the # $reme %o rt did not characteri9e the o""ense committed as !rave. No s bstantial evidence &as add ced to s $$ort the elements o" ,corr $tion,. ,clear intent to violate the la&. or ,"la!rant disre!ard o" established r le. that m st be $resent to characteri9e the miscond ct as !rave. Fnder the circ mstances o" this case, the # $reme %o rt did not see the ty$e o" o$en de"iance and disre!ard o" G#I# r les that the %#% observed. In "act, the %#%-s "indin!s on the $etitioner-s actions $rior to the a$$roval o" the loans ne!ate the $resence o" any intent on the $etitioner-s $art to deliberately de"y the $olicy o" the G#I#. >irst, G#I# branch mana!ers have been !ranted in the $ast the a thority to a$$rove loan a$$lications beyond the $rescribed re1 irements o" G#I#) second, there &as a c stomary lenient $ractice in the a$$roval o" loans e/ercised by some branch mana!ers not&ithstandin! the e/istin! G#I# $olicy) and third, the $etitioner "irst so !ht the a$$roval o" his immediate s $ervisor be"ore actin! on the loan a$$lications. +hese circ mstances r n co nter to the characteristic "la!rant disre!ard o" the r les that !rave miscond ct re1 ires. +h s, the his

liability nder the !iven "acts &as "o nd to constit te as sim$le miscond ct only. Monico -. ,mperial, %r. vs. Government /ervice ,nsurance /(stem, G.R. No. 191!!=. October =, !011. 3dministrative $roceedin!s) d e $rocess. D e $rocess in administrative $roceedin!s re1 ires com$liance &ith the "ollo&in! cardinal $rinci$lesI 516 the res$ondents- ri!ht to a hearin!, &hich incl des the ri!ht to $resent one-s case and s bmit s $$ortin! evidence, m st be observed) 526 the trib nal m st consider the evidence $resented) 536 the decision m st have some basis to s $$ort itsel") 5C6 there m st be s bstantial evidence) 5B6 the decision m st be rendered on the evidence $resented at the hearin!, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the $arties a""ected) 5;6 in arrivin! at a decision, the trib nal m st have acted on its o&n consideration o" the la& and the "acts o" the controversy and m st not have sim$ly acce$ted the vie&s o" a s bordinate) and 5=6 the decision m st be rendered in s ch manner that res$ondents &o ld 2no& the reasons "or it and the vario s iss es involved. In the $resent case, the "i"th re1 irement &as not com$lied &ith. (eyes &as not $ro$erly a$$rised o" the evidence o""ered a!ainst him, &hich &ere event ally made the bases o" $etitioner-s decision that "o nd him ! ilty o" !rave miscond ct. +he "act that (eyes &as able to assail the adverse decision o" the $etitioner via a :otion "or (econsideration % m :otion to #et the %ase "or Preliminary %on"erence did not c re the violation o" his ri!ht to d e $rocess in this case. (eyes "iled the said motion $recisely to raise the iss e o" the violation o" his ri!ht to d e $rocess. 3s it &ere, $etitioner rendered its Decision dated #e$tember 2C, 2001 on the basis o" evidence that &ere not disclosed to (eyes. +h s, it cannot be said that (eyes had a "air o$$ort nity to s1 arely and intelli!ently ans&er the acc sations therein or to o""er any reb ttal evidence thereto. Office of the Ombu)sman vs. 5ntonio &. Re(es, G.R. No. 17021!. October 2, !011. Government contract) lac2 o" a$$ro$riation. Petitioner DP4H ar! es that the contracts &ith res$ondents &ere void "or not com$lyin! &ith #ections @B and @; o" Presidential Decree 1CCB, or the Government 3 ditin! %ode o" the Phili$$ines, as amended by A/ec tive Order No. 2<2. +hese sections re1 ire an a$$ro$riation "or the contracts and a certi"ication by the chie" acco ntant o" the a!ency or by the head o" its acco ntin! nit as to the availability o" " nds. In this case, there &as an a$$ro$riation amo ntin! to Ph$C00 million, &hich &as increased to Ph$=00 million. +he " ndin! &as "or the rehabilitation o" the areas devastated and a""ected by the er $tion o" :t. Pinat bo, &hich incl ded the #acobia*'amban*Par a (iver "or &hich some o" the channelin!, desiltin! and di2in! &or2s &ere rendered by res$ondents- constr ction com$anies. It &as, ho&ever, ndis$ ted that there &as no certi"ication "rom the chie" acco ntant o" DP4H re!ardin! the availability o" " nds "or the dis$ ted e/$endit re. In s$ite o" the lac2 o" certi"ication, ho&ever, the # $reme %o rt held that 0 ris$r dence has consistently reco!ni9ed the r le that $ayment "or services done on acco nt o" the !overnment, b t based on a void contract, cannot be avoided. +he contract in this case &as not ille!al $er se. >epartment of Public Bor4s an) +i'h3a(s vs. Ronal) ". Mui3a, )oin' un)er the name KR.".M. 7onstruction,L et al., G.R. No. 181===. October 1!, !011. Government constr ction contracts) $rice escalation. +he iss e here is &hether Presidential Decree 1B<C re1 ires the contractor to $rove that the $rice increase o" constr ction materials &as d e to the direct acts o" the !overnment be"ore a $rice escalation is !ranted in a constr ction contract. Petitioner ar! es that #ection @ o" PD 1B<C re1 ires the "ollo&in! conditions be"ore an ad0 stment o" the contract $rice may be madeI 5i6 there &as an increase or a decrease in the cost o" labor, e1 i$ment, materials and s $$lies "or constr ction) and 5ii6 the increase or decrease is d e to the direct acts o" the !overnment. Petitioner stresses that res$ondent "ailed to sho& the e/istence o" these conditions. +he %o rt disa!reed. +he contractor does not need to $rove that the increase in constr ction cost &as d e to the direct acts o" the !overnment. PD CBC, &hich

&as enacted $rior to PD 1B<C, $rovides 5in relation to ad0 stment o" contract $rice "or $ blic &or2s $ro0ects6 that ,increase o" $rices o" !asoline and other " el oils and o" cement shall be considered direct acts o" the Government.. %onse1 ently, &hen PD 1B<C re$rod ced the $hrase ,direct acts o" the !overnment. &itho t s $$lyin! a contrary or di""erent de"inition, the de"inition and covera!e $rovided by the earlier enacted PD CBC &ere deemed ado$ted by the later decree. +h s, $roo" o" increase in " el or cement $rice d rin! the contract $eriod is eno !h to 0 sti"y a claim "or $rice escalation based on s ch increase. Philippine "conomic Aone 5uthorit( vs. Green 5sia 7onstruction F >evelopment 7orporation, etc., G.R. No. 1888 . October 19, !011. ::D3) $o&er to demolish. ::D3 alle!es that by virt e o" ::D3 (esol tion No. 02*2@, #eries o" 2002, it is em$o&ered to demolish D stice Gancayco-s $ro$erty. It " rther alle!es that it demolished the $ro$erty $ rs ant to the ' ildin! %ode in relation to Ordinance No. 2<0C, as amended. Ho&ever, the # $reme %o rt held that the $o&er to en"orce the $rovisions o" the ' ildin! %ode &as lod!ed in the De$artment o" P blic 4or2s and Hi!h&ays, not in ::D3. #ince there &as no evidence that the ::D3 had been dele!ated by the DP4H to im$lement the ' ildin! %ode, it necessarily had no a thority to carry o t the demolition. 3dditionally, the $enalty $rescribed by Ordinance No. 2<0C itsel" does not incl de the demolition o" ille!ally constr cted b ildin!s in case o" violations. Instead, it merely $rescribes a $ nishment o" a "ine or by im$risonment, or both, at the discretion o" the co rt. +he ordinance itsel" clearly states that it is the re! lar co rts that &ill determine &hether there &as a violation o" the ordinance. "milio Ganca(co vs. 7ito Government of MueAon 7it( an) Metro Manila >evelopment 5uthorit(*Metro Manila >evelopment 5uthorit( vs. %ustice "milio 5. Ganca(co :Retire);, G.R. No. 177807*G.R. No. 177911. October 11, !011. Election Law Alection $rotest) "ail re to "ile $reliminary con"erence brie". In e/ercisin! its $o&ers and 0 risdiction, as de"ined by its mandate to $rotect the inte!rity o" elections, the %O:A?A% ,m st not be strait0ac2eted by $roced ral r les in resolvin! election dis$ tes.. Here, not&ithstandin! the "act that $etitioner-s motion "or reconsideration &as not veri"ied, the %O:A?A% sho ld have considered the merits o" the said motion in li!ht o" $etitioner-s meritorio s claim that he &as not !iven timely notice o" the date set "or the $reliminary con"erence. +he essence o" d e $rocess is to be a""orded a reasonable o$$ort nity to be heard and to s bmit any evidence in s $$ort o" one-s claim or de"ense. It is the denial o" this o$$ort nity that constit tes violation o" d e $rocess o" la&. Proced ral d e $rocess demands $rior notice and hearin!. +he "act that $etitioner someho& ac1 ired 2no&led!e or in"ormation o" the date set "or the $reliminary con"erence by means other than the o""icial notice sent by the %O:A?A% is not an e/c se to dismiss his $rotest, beca se it cannot be denied that he &as not a""orded reasonable notice and time to ade1 ately $re$are "or and s bmit his brie". +his is $recisely the reason &hy $etitioner &as only able to "ile his Preliminary %on"erence 'rie" on the day o" the con"erence itsel". Hence, by denyin! $etitioner-s motion "or reconsideration, &itho t ta2in! into consideration the violation o" his ri!ht to $roced ral d e $rocess, the %O:A?A% also ! ilty o" !rave ab se o" discretion. /alva)or >. 9iola'o, /r. vs. 7ommission on "lections an) %oan 9. 5larilla, G.R. No. 19=1=1. October =, !011. Public O##icers P blic o""icers) dishonesty. Good "aith is ordinarily sed to describe that state o" mind denotin! honesty o" intention and "reedom "rom 2no&led!e o" circ mstances &hich o !ht to $ t the

holder $on in1 iry. In other &ords, !ood "aith is act ally a 1 estion o" intention. 3ltho !h this is somethin! internal, one can ascertain a $erson-s intention not "rom his o&n $rotestation o" !ood "aith, &hich is sel"*servin!, b t "rom evidence o" his cond ct and o t&ard acts. In this case, the "acts and circ mstances s rro ndin! $etitioner-s ac1 isition o" the %erti"icate o" Ali!ibility cast serio s do bts on his !ood "aith. He made a deal &ith a retired %#% o""icial and acce$ted the %erti"icate o" Ali!ibility "rom the latter-s re$resentative. +hese circ mstances reveal $etitioner-s 2no&led!e that the %#% o""icial co ld have $ lled strin!s in order to obtain his %erti"icate o" Ali!ibility and have it delivered to his residence. 'esides, &hether some %#% $ersonnel sho ld be held administratively liable "or "alsi"yin! $etitioner-s %erti"icate o" Ali!ibility is beside the $oint. +he "act that someone else "alsi"ied the certi"icate &ill not e/c se him "or 2no&in!ly sin! the same "or his career advancement. +h s, the # $reme %o rt held that that the %3 did not err in a""irmin! the $enalty o" dismissal and all its accessory $enalties im$osed by the %#%. 7esar /. >um)uma vs. 7ivil /ervice 7ommission, G.R. No. 18! 0 . October =, !011.

(ovember 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

Posted on December 21, 2011 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV Here are selected November 2011 r lin!s o" the # $reme %o rt o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&. Constitutional Law 3!rarian re"orm) control over a!ric lt ral lands. F$on revie& o" the "acts and circ mstances, the %o rt concl ded that the "arm &or2er bene"iciaries 5>4's6 &ill never have control over the a!ric lt ral lands as lon! as they remain as stoc2holders o" H?I. #ince control over a!ric lt ral lands m st al&ays be in the hands o" the "armers, the %o rt reconsidered its earlier r lin! that the 1 ali"ied >4's sho ld be !iven an o$tion to remain as stoc2holders o" H?I, inasm ch as these 1 ali"ied >4's &ill never !ain control !iven the $resent $ro$ortion o" shareholdin!s in H?I. 3 revisit o" H?I-s Pro$osal "or #toc2 Distrib tion nder %3(P and the #toc2 Distrib tion O$tion 3!reement $on &hich the $ro$osal &as based reveals that the total assets o" H?I is PhPB<0,BBC,220, &hile the val e o" the C,<1B.=C;; hectares is PhP1<;,;30,000. %onse1 ently, the share o" the "armer*bene"iciaries in the H?I ca$ital stoc2 is 33.2<;H 51<;,;30,000 divided by B<0,BBC.2206) 11@,3<1,<=;.@B H?I shares re$resent 33.2<;H. +h s, even i" all the holders o" the 11@,3<1,<=;.@B H?I shares nanimo sly vote to remain as H?I stoc2holders, &hich is nli2ely, control &ill never be $laced in the hands o" the "armer*bene"iciaries. %ontrol, o" co rse, means the ma0ority o" B0H $l s at least one share o" the common shares and other votin! shares. 3$$lyin! the "orm la to the H?I stoc2holdin!s, the n mber o" shares that &ill constit te the ma0ority is 2<B,112,101 shares 5B<0,BBC,220 divided by 2 $l s one H?I share6. +he 11@,3<1,<=;.@B shares s b0ect to the #DP a$$roved by P3(% s bstantially "all short o" the 2<B,112,101 shares needed by the >4's to ac1 ire control o" H?I. Hence, control can never be attained by the >4's. +here is even no ass rance that 100H o" the 11@,3<1,<=;.@B shares iss ed to the >4's &ill all be voted in "avor o" stayin! in H?I, ta2in! into acco nt the $revio s re"erend m amon! the "armers &here said shares &ere not voted nanimo sly in "avor o"

retainin! the #DP. In li!ht o" the "ore!oin! consideration, the o$tion to remain in H?I !ranted to the individ al >4's &ill have to be recalled and revo2ed. :oreover, bearin! in mind that &ith the revocation o" the a$$roval o" the #DP, H?I &ill no lon!er be o$eratin! nder #DP and &ill only be treated as an ordinary $rivate cor$oration) the >4's &ho remain as stoc2holders o" H?I &ill be treated as ordinary stoc2holders and &ill no lon!er be nder the $rotective mantle o" (3 ;;B=. +acien)a 0uisita ,ncorporate) vs. Presi)ential 5'rarian Reform 7ouncil, et al. , G.R. No. 171101. November !!, !011. %ommand res$onsibility. One o" the iss es raised in this case &as &hether or not the President, as commander*in*chie" o" the military, can be held res$onsible or acco ntable "or e/tra0 dicial 2illin!s and en"orced disa$$earances. +he # $reme %o rt held that the President may be held res$onsible or acco ntable. +o hold someone liable nder the doctrine o" command res$onsibility, the "ollo&in! elements m st obtainI 5a6 the e/istence o" a s $erior*s bordinate relationshi$ bet&een the acc sed as s $erior and the $er$etrator o" the crime as his s bordinate) 5b6 the s $erior 2ne& or had reason to 2no& that the crime &as abo t to be or had been committed) and 5c6 the s $erior "ailed to ta2e the necessary and reasonable meas res to $revent the criminal acts or $ nish the $er$etrators thereo". +he President, bein! the commander*in* chie" o" all armed "orces, necessarily $ossesses control over the military that 1 ali"ies him as a s $erior &ithin the $ rvie& o" the command res$onsibility doctrine. On the iss e o" 2no&led!e, it m st be $ointed o t that altho !h international trib nals a$$ly a strict standard o" 2no&led!e, i.e., act al 2no&led!e, the same may nonetheless be established thro !h circ mstantial evidence. In the Phili$$ines, a more liberal vie& is ado$ted and s $eriors may be char!ed &ith constr ctive 2no&led!e. Mno&led!e o" the commission o" irre! larities, crimes or o""enses is $res med &henI 5a6 the acts are &ides$read &ithin the !overnment o""icial-s area o" 0 risdiction) 5b6 the acts have been re$eatedly or re! larly committed &ithin his area o" res$onsibility) or 5c6 members o" his immediate sta"" or o""ice $ersonnel are involved. 3s to the iss e o" "ail re to $revent or $ nish, it is im$ortant to note that as the commander*in*chie" o" the armed "orces, the President has the $o&er to e""ectively command, control and disci$line the military. +he # $reme %o rt held, ho&ever, that aside "rom (odri! e9-s !eneral averments, there is no $iece o" evidence that co ld establish "ormer President 3rroyo-s res$onsibility or acco ntability "or his abd ction. Neither &as there even a clear attem$t to sho& that she sho ld have 2no&n abo t the violation o" his ri!ht to li"e, liberty or sec rity, or that she had "ailed to investi!ate, $ nish or $revent it. ,n the Matter of the Petition for the Brit of 5mparo an) +abeas >ata in favor of Noriel +. Ro)ri'ueAN Noriel +. Ro)ri'ueA vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al., G.R. No. 191802 F G.R. No. 1911 0. November 12, !011. A/$ro$riation) denial o" d e $rocess. In this case, the $etitioner ar! es that it &as de$rived o" its ri!ht to d e $rocess &hen it &as not !iven an o$$ort nity to $resent its evidence. +he $etitioner claims that the committee tas2ed by the co rt to receive evidence on 0 st com$ensation did not cond ct any hearin! to enable the $arties to $resent their res$ective evidence. Instead, the committee based the (e$ort on doc ments s bmitted by the $arties, veri"ications "rom o""ices, oc lar ins$ections and local mar2et conditions, and ns bstantiated statements as to the hi!hest and best se o" the $ro$erties, and the deval ation o" the $eso. +he # $reme %o rt held that there &as no s ch de$rivation o" d e $rocess. +he $leadin!s it s bmitted and the testimonial evidence $resented d rin! the several hearin!s cond cted all $rove that the $etitioner &as !iven its day in co rt. +he %o rt noted that the (+% acceded to the $etitioner-s re1 est, over the res$ondents- ob0ection, "or the reconvenin! o" the %ommittee "or rece$tion o" evidence and " rther $roceedin!s. It also heard and allo&ed both sides to $resent evidence d rin! the clari"icatory hearin!s and rendered a decision based on the evidence $resented. Republic of the Philippines vs. /ps. &an /on' #o4, G.R. No. 191==8. November 1 , !011.

A/$ro$riation) val ation o" e/$ro$riated $ro$erty. One o" the iss es in this case &as &hether or not the (+% and the %3 had s ""icient basis in arrivin! at the 1 estioned amo nt o" 0 st com$ensation o" the s b0ect $ro$erties. +he # $reme %o rt held that even in e/$ro$riation cases, ,1 estions o" "acts are beyond the $ale o" ( le CB o" the ( les o" %o rt as a $etition "or revie& may only raise 1 estions o" la&. :oreover, "act al "indin!s o" the trial co rt, $artic larly &hen a""irmed by the %o rt o" 3$$eals, are !enerally bindin! on this %o rt.. +h s, the %o rt a""irmed the r lin! o" the (+% and the %3 that the (e$ort is "o nded on evidence. +he $etitioner-s ta/ declarations, the 'I( 9onal val ation and the deeds o" sale it $resented are not the only $roo" o" the "air val e o" $ro$erties. Ronal val ation is 0 st one o" the indices o" the "air mar2et val e o" real estate. 'y itsel", this inde/ cannot be the sole basis o" ,0 st com$ensation. in e/$ro$riation cases. Vario s "actors come into $lay in the val ation o" s$eci"ic $ro$erties sin!led o t "or e/$ro$riation. +a/ val es can serve as ! ides b t cannot be absol te s bstit tes "or 0 st com$ensation. Republic of the Philippines vs. /ps. &an /on' #o4, G.R. No. 191==8. November 1 , !011. O$erative "act doctrine. +he o$erative "act doctrine does not only a$$ly to la&s s bse1 ently declared nconstit tional or nla&" l, as it also a$$lies to e/ec tive acts s bse1 ently declared as invalid. +he %o rt re0ected the vie& that the a$$licability o" the o$erative "act doctrine sho ld be limited to stat tes and r les and re! lations iss ed by the e/ec tive de$artment that are accorded the same stat s as that o" a stat te or those &hich are 1 asi*le!islative in nat re. 4hile orders, r les and re! lations iss ed by the President or the e/ec tive branch have "i/ed de"initions and meanin! in the 3dministrative %ode and 0 ris$r dence, the $hrase ,e/ec tive act. does not have s ch s$eci"ic de"inition nder e/istin! la&s. +he term ,e/ec tive act. is broad eno !h to encom$ass decisions o" administrative bodies and a!encies nder the e/ec tive de$artment &hich are s bse1 ently revo2ed by the a!ency in 1 estion or n lli"ied by the %o rt. Aven ass min! that the o$erative "act doctrine a$$lies only to e/ec tive iss ances li2e orders and r les and re! lations, said $rinci$le can nonetheless be a$$lied, by analo!y, to decisions made by the President or the a!encies nder the e/ec tive de$artment. +his doctrine, in the interest o" 0 stice and e1 ity, can be a$$lied liberally and in a broad sense to encom$ass said decisions o" the e/ec tive branch. In 2ee$in! &ith the demands o" e1 ity, the %o rt can a$$ly the o$erative "act doctrine to acts and conse1 ences that res lted "rom the reliance not only on a la& or e/ec tive act &hich is 1 asi*le!islative in nat re b t also on decisions or orders o" the e/ec tive branch &hich &ere later n lli"ied. +his %o rt is not nmind" l that s ch acts and conse1 ences m st be reco!ni9ed in the hi!her interest o" 0 stice, e1 ity and "airness. #i!ni"icantly, a decision made by the President or the administrative a!encies has to be com$lied &ith beca se it has the "orce and e""ect o" la&, s$rin!in! "rom the $o&ers o" the President nder the %onstit tion and e/istin! la&s. Prior to the n lli"ication or recall o" said decision, it may have $rod ced acts and conse1 ences in con"ormity to and in reliance o" said decision, &hich m st be res$ected. +acien)a 0uisita ,ncorporate) vs. Presi)ential 5'rarian Reform 7ouncil, et al., G.R. No. 171101. November !!, !011. Presidential imm nity "rom s it) non*sittin! $resident. +he %o rt o" 3$$eals "o nd res$ondents in G.(. No. 1<1@0B G &ith the e/ce$tion o" %alo!, Palac$ac or Harry G to be acco ntable "or the violations o" (odri! e9-s ri!ht to li"e, liberty and sec rity committed by the 1= th In"antry 'attalion, Bth In"antry Division o" the Phili$$ine 3rmy. It, ho&ever, dismissed the $etition &ith res$ect to "ormer President 3rroyo on acco nt o" her $residential imm nity "rom s it. (e!ardin! this iss e, the # $reme %o rt held that a non*sittin! President does not en0oy imm nity "rom s it, even "or acts committed d rin! the latter-s ten re. +h s, the rationale "or the %3-s dro$$in! o" the case a!ainst "ormer President 3rroyo no lon!er e/ists in the $resent case. It &ill be anomalo s to hold that imm nity is an inoc lation "rom liability "or nla&" l

acts and omissions. +he r le is that nla&" l acts o" $ blic o""icials are not acts o" the #tate and the o""icer &ho acts ille!ally is not actin! as s ch b t stands in the same "ootin! as any other tres$asser. +he intent o" the "ramers o" the %onstit tion is clear that the imm nity o" the $resident "rom s it is conc rrent only &ith his ten re and not his term. 3$$lyin! the "ore!oin! rationale to this case, it is clear that "ormer President 3rroyo cannot se the $residential imm nity "rom s it to shield hersel" "rom 0 dicial scr tiny that &o ld assess &hether, &ithin the conte/t o" amparo $roceedin!s, she &as res$onsible or acco ntable "or the abd ction o" (odri! e9. ,n the Matter of the Petition for the Brit of 5mparo an) +abeas >ata in favor of Noriel +. Ro)ri'ueAN Noriel +. Ro)ri'ueA vs. Gloria Macapa'al65rro(o, et al., G.R. No. 191802 F G.R. No. 1911 0. November 12, !011. +a2in! and 0 st com$ensation in a!rarian re"orm. +he %o rt maintains its earlier r lin! in this case that the date o" ,ta2in!. is November 21, 1<@<, the date &hen P3(% a$$roved H?I-s #toc2 Distrib tion Plan 5#DP6 $er P3(% (esol tion No. @<*12*2, in vie& o" the "act that this is the time that the "arm &or2er bene"iciaries 5>4's6 &ere considered to have o&ned and $ossessed the a!ric lt ral lands in Hacienda ? isita. +hese lands became s b0ect o" the a!rarian re"orm covera!e thro !h the stoc2 distrib tion scheme only $on the a$$roval o" the #DP. # ch a$$roval is a2in to a notice o" covera!e ordinarily iss ed nder com$ lsory ac1 isition. +he minority contends that it is the date o" the notice o" covera!e, that is, Dan ary 2, 200;, &hich is determinative o" the 0 st com$ensation H?I is entitled to "or its e/$ro$riated lands. +o s $$ort its contention, it cited n mero s cases &here the time o" the ta2in! &as rec2oned on the date o" the iss ance o" the notice o" covera!e. Ho&ever, a $er sal o" the cases cited by the minority &o ld reveal that none o" them involved the stoc2 distrib tion scheme. +h s, said cases do not s1 arely a$$ly to this case. :oreover, it sho ld be noted that it is $recisely beca se the stoc2 distrib tion o$tion is a distinctive mechanism nder (3 ;;B= that it cannot be treated similarly &ith that o" com$ lsory land ac1 isition as these are t&o di""erent modalities nder the a!rarian re"orm $ro!ram. In this re!ard, it sho ld be noted that &hen H?I s bmitted the #DP to D3( "or a$$roval, it cannot be !ainsaid that the stoc2 distrib tion scheme is clearly H?I-s $re"erred modality in order to com$ly &ith %3(P. 3nd &hen the #DP &as a$$roved, stoc2s &ere !iven to the >4's in lie o" land distrib tion. 3s a$tly observed by the minority itsel", ,KiLnstead o" e/$ro$riatin! lands, &hat the !overnment too2 and distrib ted to the >4's &ere shares o" stoc2 o" $etitioner H?I in $ro$ortion to the val e o" the a!ric lt ral lands that sho ld have been e/$ro$riated and t rned over to the >4's.. It cannot, there"ore, be denied that $on the a$$roval o" the #DP s bmitted by H?I, the a!ric lt ral lands o" Hacienda ? isita became s b0ect o" %3(P covera!e. Avidently, the a$$roval o" the #DP too2 the $lace o" a notice o" covera!e iss ed nder com$ lsory ac1 isition. +acien)a 0uisita ,ncorporate) vs. Presi)ential 5'rarian Reform 7ouncil, et al., G.R. No. 171101. November !!, !011. Election Law 'aran!ay elections) three*consec tive term limit r le. :endo9a &as a candidate "or #aran'a( %a$tain o" #aran'a( 'alatasan, Oriental :indoro, in the 2< October 200= #aran'a( Alections. Prior thereto, :endo9a had been elected as #aran'a( %a$tain o" #aran'a( 'alatasan "or three consec tive terms, on < :ay 1<<C, 12 :ay 1<<= and 1B D ly 2002. On 2; October 200=, res$ondent #enen %. >amilara 5>amilara6 "iled a Petition to Dis1 ali"y :endo9a averrin! that :endo9a, nder #ection 2 o" (3 No. <1;C, is ineli!ible to r n a!ain "or #aran'a( %a$tain o" #aran'a( 'alatasan, havin! been elected and havin! served in the same $osition "or three consec tive terms immediately $rior to the 200= #aran'a( Alections. 4hen the case &as bro !ht to the # $reme %o rt, one o" the iss es :endo9a raised &as the constit tionality o" the retroactive a$$lication to the 1<<C #aran'a( Alections o" the three*consec tive term limit r le.

+he # $reme %o rt held that the iss e has already been settled in the case o" %O:A?A% v. %r 9. +he %o rt reiterated that no retroactive a$$lication &as made beca se the three*term limit has been there all alon! as early as the second baran'a( la& 5(3 No. ;;=<6 a"ter the 1<@= %onstit tion too2 e""ect) it &as contin ed nder the ?ocal Government %ode and can still be "o nd in the c rrent la&. 7onstancio $. Men)oAa vs. /enen 7. $amilara F 7ommission "lections, G.R. No. 191017. November 12, !011.

Januar 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

Posted on >ebr ary 20, 2012 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV Here are selected Dan ary 2012 r lin!s o" the # $reme %o rt o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&. Constitutional Law 'ill o" (i!hts) ri!ht to s$eedy trial vers s ri!ht to s$eedy dis$osition o" cases. +he ri!ht to a s$eedy trial is available only to an acc sed and is a $ec liarly criminal la& conce$t, &hile the broader ri!ht to a s$eedy dis$osition o" cases may be ta$$ed in any $roceedin!s cond cted by state a!encies. In this case, the a$$ro$riate ri!ht involved is the ri!ht to a s$eedy dis$osition o" cases, the recovery o" ill*!otten &ealth bein! a civil s it. 3n e/amination o" the $etitionersar! ments and the cited indicia o" delay &o ld reveal the absence o" any alle!ation that $etitioners moved be"ore the #andi!anbayan "or the dismissal o" the case on acco nt o" ve/atio s, ca$ricio s and o$$ressive delays that attended the $roceedin!s. Petitioners are deemed to have &aived their ri!ht to a s$eedy dis$osition o" the case. :oreover, delays, i" any, $re0 diced the (e$ blic as &ell. 4hat is more, the alle!ed breach o" the ri!ht in 1 estion &as not raised belo&. 3s a matter o" settled 0 ris$r dence, b t s b0ect to e1 ally settled e/ce$tion, an iss e not raised be"ore the trial co rt cannot be raised "or the "irst time on a$$eal. Philippine 7oconut Pro)ucers $e)eration, ,nc. :7O7O$">;, et al. vs. Republic of the PhilippinesN Bi'berto ". &ana)a, et al., intervenorsN >anilo /. 8rsua vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 177827628 F G.R. No. 178191, %anuar( !=, !01!. %onstit tionality o" PD =BB, <;1, 1C;@. +his case cannot be resolved &itho t !oin! into the constit tionality o" P.D. Nos. =BB, <;1 and 1C;@ in $artic lar. >or $etitioners $redicate their claim over the se1 estered shares and necessarily their ca se on la&s and martial la& iss ances assailed by the res$ondent on constit tional !ro nds. +his case is "or the recovery o" shares !ro nded on the invalidity o" certain enactments, &hich in t rn is rooted in the shares bein! $ blic in character, $ rchased as they &ere by " nds raised by the ta/in! and7or a mi/ o" ta/in! and $olice $o&ers o" the state. 3s may be recalled, P.D. No. =BB, nder the $olicy*declarin! $rovision, a thori9ed the distrib tion o" F%P' shares o" stoc2 "ree to cocon t "armers. On the other hand, #ection 2 o" P.D. No. =BB a thori9ed the P%3 to tili9e $ortions o" the %%#> to $ay the "inancial commitment o" the "armers to ac1 ire F%P' and to de$osit $ortions o" the %%#> levies &ith F%P' interest "ree. +he %%#>, %ID> and li2e levies that Phili$$ine %ocon t 3 thority is a thori9ed to collect shall be considered as non*s$ecial or "id ciary " nds to be trans"erred to the !eneral " nd o" the Government, meanin! they shall be deemed $rivate " nds.

In other &ords, the relevant $rovisions o" P.D. Nos. =BB, as &ell as those o" P.D. Nos. <;1 and 1C;@, co ld have been the only $la sible means by &hich close to a $ r$orted million and a hal" cocon t "armers co ld have ac1 ired the said shares o" stoc2. It has, there"ore, become necessary to determine the validity o" the a thori9in! la&, &hich made the stoc2 trans"er and ac1 isitions $ossible. It is o" cr cial im$ortance to determine the validity o" P.D. Nos. =BB, <;1 and 1C;@ in li!ht o" the constit tional $roscri$tion a!ainst the se o" s$ecial " nds save "or the $ r$ose it &as established. Other&ise, $etitioners- claim o" le!itimate $rivate o&nershi$ over F%P' shares and indirectly over #:% shares held by F%P'-s s bsidiaries &ill have no le! to stand on, P.D. No. =BB bein! the only la& a thori9in! the distrib tion o" the #:% and F%P' shares o" stoc2 to cocon t "armers, and &ith the a"orementioned $rovisions act ally statin! and holdin! that the coco levy " nd shall not be considered as a s$ecial G not even !eneral G " nd, b t shall be o&ned by the "armers in their $rivate ca$acities. 3. +he cocon t levy " nds are in the nat re o" ta/es and can only be sed "or $ blic $ r$ose. %onse1 ently, they cannot be sed to $ rchase shares o" stoc2s to be !iven "or "ree to $rivate individ als. +a/es are im$osed only "or a $ blic $ r$ose. +hey cannot be sed "or $ rely $rivate $ r$oses or "or the e/cl sive bene"it o" $rivate $ersons. 4hen a la& im$oses ta/es or levies "rom the $ blic, &ith the intent to !ive nd e bene"it or advanta!e to $rivate $ersons, or the $romotion o" $rivate enter$rises, that la& cannot be said to satis"y the re1 irement o" $ blic $ r$ose. In this case, the cocon t levy " nds &ere so rced "rom "orced e/actions decreed nder P.D. Nos. 232, 2=; and B@2, amon! others, &ith the end*!oal o" develo$in! the entire cocon t ind stry. +o hold there"ore, even by la&, that the reven es received "rom the im$osition o" the cocon t levies be sed $ rely "or $rivate $ r$oses to be o&ned by $rivate individ als in their $rivate ca$acity and "or their bene"it, &o ld contravene the rationale behind the im$osition o" ta/es or levies. +he %o rt re0ected the idea o" &hat a$$ears to be an indirect G i" not e/actly direct G conversion o" s$ecial " nds into $rivate " nds, i.e., by sin! s$ecial " nds to $ rchase shares o" stoc2s, &hich in t rn &o ld be distrib ted "or "ree to $rivate individ als. Aven i" these $rivate individ als belon! to, or are a $art o" the cocon t ind stry, the "ree distrib tion o" shares o" stoc2s $ rchased &ith s$ecial $ blic " nds to them, nevertheless cannot be 0 sti"ied. +he "act that the cocon t levy " nds &ere collected "rom $ersons or entities in the cocon t ind stry, amon! others, does not and cannot entitle them to be bene"icial o&ners o" the s b0ect " nds G or more bl ntly, o&ners thereo" in their $rivate ca$acity. +he said $rivate individ als cannot o&n the F%P' shares o" stoc2s so $ rchased sin! the said s$ecial " nds o" the !overnment. '. +he cocon t levy " nds can only be sed "or the s$ecial $ r$ose and the balance thereo" sho ld revert to the !eneral " nd. %onse1 ently, their s bse1 ent reclassi"ication as a $rivate " nd to be o&ned by $rivate individ als in their $rivate ca$acities nder P.D. Nos. =BB, <;1 and 1C;@ are nconstit tional. 3rticle VI, #ection 2< 536 o" the 1<@= %onstit tion, restatin! a !eneral $rinci$le on ta/ation, en0oins the disb rsement o" a s$ecial " nd in accordance &ith the s$ecial $ r$ose "or &hich it &as collected, the balance, i" there be any, a"ter the $ r$ose has been " l"illed or is no lon!er "orthcomin!, to be trans"erred to the !eneral " nds o" the !overnment,

3s co ched, P.D. No. 2=; created and e/acted the %%#> ,to advance the !overnment-s avo&ed $olicy o" $rotectin! the cocon t ind stry.. +he %%#> &as ori!inally set $ as a s$ecial " nd to s $$ort cons mer $ rchases o" cocon t $rod cts. +he $rotection o" the entire cocon t ind stry and the cons min! $ blic $rovides the rationale "or the creation o" the cocon t levy " nd. P.D. No. 2=; intended the " nd created and set $ therein not es$ecially "or the cocon t "armers b t "or the entire cocon t ind stry, albeit the im$rovement o" the ind stry &o ld do btless redo nd to the bene"it o" the "armers. F$on the "ore!oin! $ers$ective, the "ollo&in! $rovisions o" P.D. Nos. =BB, <;1 and 1C;@ inso"ar as they declared, as the case may be, thatI ,Kthe cocon t levyL " nd and the disb rsements thereo" Kshall beL a thori9ed "or the bene"it o" the cocon t "armers and shall be o&ned by them in their $rivate ca$acities). or the cocon t levy " nd shall not be constr ed by any la& to be a s$ecial and7or "id ciary " nd, and do not there"ore "orm $art o" the !eneral " nd o" the national !overnment later on) or the F%P' shares ac1 ired sin! the cocon t levy " nd shall be distrib ted to the cocon t "armers "or "ree, violated the s$ecial $ blic $ r$ose "or &hich the %%#> &as established. Not only &ere the challen!ed $residential iss ances nconstit tional "or decreein! the distrib tion o" the shares o" stoc2 "or "ree to the cocon t "armers and, there"ore, ne!atin! the $ blic $ r$ose declared by P.D. No. 2=;, i.e., to stabili9e the $rice o" edible oil and to $rotect the cocon t ind stry. +hey li2e&ise reclassi"ied, nay treated, the cocon t levy " nd as $rivate " nd to be disb rsed and7or invested "or the bene"it o" $rivate individ als in their $rivate ca$acities, contrary to the ori!inal $ r$ose "or &hich the " nd &as created. +o com$o nd the sit ation, the o""endin! $rovisions e""ectively removed the cocon t levy " nd a&ay "rom the cavil o" $ blic " nds &hich normally can be $aid o t only $ rs ant to an a$$ro$riation made by la&. +he conversion o" $ blic " nds into $rivate assets &as ille!ally allo&ed, in "act mandated, by these $rovisions. %learly there"ore, the $ertinent $rovisions o" P.D. Nos. =BB, <;1 and 1C;@ are nconstit tional "or violatin! 3rticle VI, #ection 2< 536 o" the %onstit tion. In this conte/t, the distrib tion by P%3 o" the F%P' shares $ rchased by means o" the cocon t levy " nd G a s$ecial " nd o" the !overnment G to the cocon t "armers, is there"ore void. %. #ection 1 o" P.D. No. =BB is an invalid dele!ation o" le!islative $o&er. +&o tests determine the validity o" dele!ation o" le!islative $o&erI 516 the com$leteness test and 526 the s ""icient standard test. 3 la& is com$lete &hen it sets "orth therein the $olicy to be e/ec ted, carried o t or im$lemented by the dele!ate. It lays do&n a s ""icient standard &hen it $rovides ade1 ate ! idelines or limitations in the la& to ma$ o t the bo ndaries o" the dele!ate-s a thority and $revent the dele!ation "rom r nnin! riot. +o be s ""icient, the standard m st s$eci"y the limits o" the dele!ate-s a thority, anno nce the le!islative $olicy and identi"y the conditions nder &hich it is to be im$lemented. In this case, the re1 isite standards or criteria are absent in P.D. No. =BB. +his decree a thori9es P%3 to distrib te to cocon t "armers, "or "ree, the shares o" stoc2s o" F%P' and to $ay "rom the %%#> levy the "inancial commitments o" the cocon t "armers nder the 3!reement "or the ac1 isition o" s ch ban2. Net, the decree does not even state &ho are to be considered as cocon t "armers. 4o ld, say, one &ho $lants a sin!le cocon t tree be already considered a cocon t "armer and, there"ore, entitled to o&n F%P' sharesQ I" so, ho& many shares shall be !iven to himQ +he de"inition o" a cocon t "armer and the basis as to the n mber o" shares a "armer is entitled to receive "or "ree are im$ortant variables to be determined by la& and cannot be le"t to the discretion o" the im$lementin! a!ency.

:oreover, P.D. No. =BB did not identi"y or delineate any clear condition as to ho& the dis$osition o" the F%P' shares or their conversion into $rivate o&nershi$ &ill redo nd to the advancement o" the national $olicy declared nder it. P.D. No. =BB see2s to ,accelerate the !ro&th and develo$ment o" the cocon t ind stry and achieve a vertical inte!ration thereo" so that cocon t "armers &ill become $artici$ants in, and bene"iciaries o", s ch !ro&th and develo$ment.. +he said la& !rat ito sly !ave a&ay $ blic " nds to $rivate individ als, and converted them e/cl sively into $rivate $ro$erty &itho t any restriction as to its se that &o ld re"lect the avo&ed national $olicy or $ blic $ r$ose. %onversely, the $rivate individ als to &hom the F%P' shares &ere trans"erred are "ree to dis$ose o" them by sale or any other mode "rom the moment o" their ac1 isition. P.D. No. =BB did not $rovide "or any ! ideline, standard, condition or restriction by &hich the said shares shall be distrib ted to the cocon t "armers that &o ld ens re that the same &ill be nderta2en to accelerate the !ro&th and develo$ment o" the cocon t ind stry $ rs ant to its national $olicy. +h s, P.D. No. =BB, inso"ar as it !rants P%3 a veritable carte blanche to distrib te to cocon t "armers F%P' shares at the level it may determine, as &ell as the " ll dis$osition o" s ch shares to $rivate individ als in their $rivate ca$acity &itho t any conditions or restrictions that &o ld advance the la&-s national $olicy or $ blic $ r$ose, $resent a case o" nd e dele!ation o" le!islative $o&er. D. 3rticle III, #ection B o" P.D. No. <;1 and 3rticle III, #ection B o" P.D. No. 1C;@ violate 3rticle IJ 5D6 526 o" the 1<@= %onstit tion. 3rticle III, #ection B o" P.D. No. <;1 ta2es a&ay the cocon t levy " nds "rom the co""er o" the $ blic " nds. It $rivati9ed reven es derived "rom the coco levy. +he same $rovision is carried over in 3rticle III, #ection B o" P.D. No. 1C;@. +hese $rovisions violate 3rticle IJ 5D6, #ection 2516 o" the %onstit tion, &hich states in $ertinent $art that the %ommission on 3 dit shall have the $o&er, a thority, and d ty to e/amine, a dit, and settle all acco nts $ertainin! to the reven e and recei$ts o", and e/$endit res or ses o" " nds and $ro$erty, o&ned or held in tr st by, or $ertainin! to, the Government, or any o" its s bdivisions, a!encies, or instr mentalities. +he %onstit tion, by e/$ress $rovision, vests the %O3 &ith the res$onsibility "or state a dit. 3s an inde$endent s $reme state a ditor, its a dit 0 risdiction cannot be ndermined by any la&. Indeed, nder 3rticle IJ 5D6, #ection 3 o" the 1<@= %onstit tion, ,KnLo la& shall be $assed e/em$tin! any entity o" the Government or its s bsidiary in any ! ise &hatever, or any investment o" $ blic " nds, "rom the 0 risdiction o" the %ommission on 3 dit.. >ollo&in! the mandate o" the %O3 and the $arameters set "orth by the "ore!oin! $rovisions, it is clear that it has 0 risdiction over the cocon t levy " nds, bein! s$ecial $ blic " nds. %onversely, the %O3 has the $o&er, a thority and d ty to e/amine, a dit and settle all acco nts $ertainin! to the cocon t levy " nds and, conse1 ently, to the F%P' shares $ rchased sin! the said " nds. Ho&ever, declarin! the said " nds as $arta2in! the nat re o" $rivate " nds, er!o s b0ect to $rivate a$$ro$riation, removes them "rom the co""er o" the $ blic " nds o" the !overnment, and conse1 ently renders them im$ervio s to the %O3 a dit 0 risdiction. %learly, the $ertinent $rovisions o" P.D. Nos. <;1 and 1C;@ divest the %O3 o" its constit tionally*mandated " nction and ndermine its constit tional inde$endence. +he assailed $ rchase o" F%P' shares o" stoc2s sin! the cocon t levy " nds is an e/am$le o" an investment o" $ blic " nds. +he conversion o" these s$ecial $ blic " nds into $rivate " nds by allo&in! $rivate individ als to o&n them in their $rivate ca$acities is somethin! else. It e""ectively de$rives the %O3 o" its constit tionally*invested $o&er to a dit and settle s ch acco nts. +he conversion o" the said shares $ rchased sin! s$ecial $ blic " nds into $ re and e/cl sive $rivate o&nershi$ has ta2en, or &ill com$letely ta2e a&ay the said " nds "rom the

bo ndaries &ith &hich the %O3 has 0 risdiction. Obvio sly, the %O3 is &itho t a dit 0 risdiction over the recei$t or disb rsement o" $rivate $ro$erty. 3ccordin!ly, 3rticle III, #ection B o" both P.D. Nos. <;1 and 1C;@ m st be str c2 do&n "or bein! nconstit tional. Philippine 7oconut Pro)ucers $e)eration, ,nc. :7O7O$">;, et al. vs. Republic of the PhilippinesN Bi'berto ". &ana)a, et al., intervenorsN >anilo /. 8rsua vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 177827628 F G.R. No. 178191, %anuar( !=, !01!. Decisions) statement o" "act and la&. %om$lainant alle!es that res$ondent members o" the %3-s #i/th Division violated #ection 1C, 3rticle VIII o" the 1<@= %onstit tion by not s$eci"ically statin! the "acts and the la& on &hich the denial o" the $etition "or revie& &as based. He insists that the decision $rom l!ated by the %3-s #i/th Division had no le!al "o ndation and did not even address the "ive iss es $resented in the $etition "or revie&. #ection 1C $rovides that ,KnLo decision shall be rendered by any co rt &itho t e/$ressin! therein clearly and distinctly the "acts and the la& on &hich it is based. No $etition "or revie& or motion "or reconsideration o" a decision o" the co rt shall be re" sed d e co rse or denied &itho t startin! the le!al basis there"or.. +he %o rt held that the com$laint &as n"o nded. +he essential $ r$ose o" the constit tional $rovision is to re1 ire that a 0 dicial decision be clear on &hy a $arty has $revailed nder the la& as a$$lied to the "acts as $roved) the $rovision no&here demands that a $oint*by* $oint consideration and resol tion o" the iss es raised by the $arties are necessary. ReH 9erifie) complaint of "n'r. Oscar 0. On'?oco, 7hairman of the #oar)*7"O etc. a'ainst +on. %uan M. "nri@ueA, %r., et al., 5.M. No. 11618=6756%, %anuar( 11, !01!. D e $rocess) ri!ht to be heard. Petitioner %O%O>AD-s ri!ht to be heard had not been violated by the mere iss ance o" $artial s mmary 0 d!ments be"ore they can add ce their evidence. 3s it &ere, $etitioners %O%O>AD et al. &ere able to $resent doc mentary evidence in con0 nction &ith its ,%lass 3ction Omnib s :otion. dated >ebr ary 23, 2001 &here they a$$ended aro nd C00 doc ments incl din! a""idavits o" alle!ed "armers. +hese $etitioners mani"ested that said doc ments com$rise their evidence to $rove the "armers- o&nershi$ o" the F%P' shares, &hich &ere distrib ted in accordance &ith valid and e/istin! la&s. %O%O>AD et al. even "iled their o&n :otion "or #e$arate # mmary D d!ment, an event re"lective o" their admission that there are no more "act al iss es le"t to be determined at the level o" the #andi!anbayan. +his act o" "ilin! a motion "or s mmary 0 d!ment is a 0 dicial admission a!ainst %O%O>AD nder #ection 2;, ( le 130 &hich declares that the ,act, declaration or omission o" a $arty as to a relevant "act may be !iven in evidence a!ainst him.. Vie&ed in this li!ht, the %o rt re0ected $etitionersalle!ations abo t bein! de$rived the ri!ht to add ce evidence. Philippine 7oconut Pro)ucers $e)eration, ,nc. :7O7O$">;, et al. vs. Republic of the PhilippinesN Bi'berto ". &ana)a, et al., intervenorsN >anilo /. 8rsua vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 177827628 F G.R. No. 178191, %anuar( !=, !01!. Aminent domain) 0 st com$ensation. In e/$ro$riation $roceedin!s, 0 st com$ensation is de"ined as the " ll and "air e1 ivalent o" the $ro$erty ta2en "rom its o&ner by the e/$ro$riator. +he meas re is not the ta2er-s !ain, b t the o&ner-s loss. +he &ord ,0 st. is sed to intensi"y the meanin! o" the &ord ,com$ensation. and to convey thereby the idea that the e1 ivalent to be rendered "or the $ro$erty to be ta2en shall be real, s bstantial, " ll and am$le. +he constit tional limitation o" ,0 st com$ensation. is considered to be a s m e1 ivalent to the mar2et val e o" the $ro$erty, broadly de"ined as the $rice "i/ed by the seller in o$en mar2et in the s al and ordinary co rse o" le!al action and com$etition) or the "air val e o" the $ro$erty) as bet&een one &ho receives and one &ho desires to sell it, "i/ed at the time o" the act al ta2in! by the !overnment. In this case, the %o rt a""irmed the a$$ellate co rt-s r lin! that the commissioners $ro$erly determined the 0 st com$ensation to be a&arded to the lando&ners &hose $ro$erties &ere

e/$ro$riated by $etitioner. +he records sho& that the trial co rt d ti" lly "ollo&ed the $roced re nder ( le ;= o" the 1<<= ( les o" %ivil Proced re &hen it "ormed a committee that &as tas2ed to determine the 0 st com$ensation "or the e/$ro$riated $ro$erties. +he "irst set o" committee members made an oc lar ins$ection o" the $ro$erties, s b0ect o" the e/$ro$riation. +hey also determined the e/act areas a""ected, as &ell as the 2inds and the n mber o" im$rovements on the $ro$erties. 4hen the members &ere nable to a!ree on the val ation o" the land and the im$rovements thereon, the trial co rt selected another batch o" disinterested members to carry o t the tas2 o" determinin! the val e o" the land and the im$rovements. +he members o" the ne& committee even made a second oc lar ins$ection o" the e/$ro$riated areas. +hey also obtained data "rom the 'I( to determine the 9onal val ation o" the e/$ro$riated $ro$erties, intervie&ed the ad0acent $ro$erty o&ners, and considered other "actors s ch as distance "rom the hi!h&ay and the nearby to&n center. > rther, the committee members also considered Provincial Ordinance No. 1=3, &hich &as $rom l!ated by the Province o" %otabato on 1B D ne 1<<<, and &hich $rovides the val e o" the $ro$erties and the im$rovements "or ta/ation $ r$oses. +he committee members based their recommendations on reliable data and considered vario s "actors that a""ected the val e o" the land and the im$rovements. +he %o rt also $held the %3 r lin!, &hich deleted the incl sion o" the val e o" the e/cavated soil in the $ayment "or 0 st com$ensation. +here is no le!al basis to se$arate the val e o" the e/cavated soil "rom that o" the e/$ro$riated $ro$erties. In the conte/t o" e/$ro$riation $roceedin!s, the soil has no val e se$arate "rom that o" the e/$ro$riated land. D st com$ensation ordinarily re"ers to the val e o" the land to com$ensate "or &hat the o&ner act ally loses. # ch val e co ld only be that &hich $revailed at the time o" the ta2in!. Republic of the Philippines, rep. b( the National ,rri'ation 5)ministration :N,5; vs.Rural #an4 of -abacan, ,nc., et al., G.R. No. 1821!=, %anuar( !2, !01!. Omb dsman) d e $rocess. Petitioners &ere not denied d e $rocess o" la& &hen the investi!atin! la&yer $roceeded to resolve the case based on the a""idavits and other evidence on record. #ection B5b6516, ( le 3 o" the ( les o" Proced re o" the O""ice o" the Omb dsman, as amended by 3.O. No. 1=, $rovides that the hearin! o""icer may iss e an order directin! the $arties to "ile, &ithin ten days "rom recei$t o" the order, their res$ective veri"ied $osition $a$ers on the basis o" &hich, alon! &ith the attachments thereto, the hearin! o""icer may consider the case s bmitted "or decision. It is only &hen the hearin! o""icer determines that, based on the evidence, there is a need to cond ct clari"icatory hearin!s or "ormal investi!ations nder #ection B5b6526 and #ection B5b6536 that s ch " rther $roceedin!s &ill be cond cted. ' t the determination o" the necessity "or " rther $roceedin!s rests on the so nd discretion o" the hearin! o""icer. 3s the $etitioners have "ailed to sho& any co!ent reason &hy the hearin! o""icer-s determination sho ld be overt rned, the determination &ill not be dist rbed by this %o rt. +he %o rt li2e&ise "ind no merit in $etitioners- contention that the ne& $roced res nder 3.O. No. 1=, &hich too2 e""ect &hile the case &as already nder!oin! trial be"ore the hearin! o""icer, sho ld not have been a$$lied. +he r le in this 0 risdiction is that one does not have a vested ri!ht in $roced ral r les. 4hile the r le admits o" certain e/ce$tions, s ch as &hen the stat te itsel" e/$ressly or by necessary im$lication $rovides that $endin! actions are not s b0ect to its o$eration, or &here to a$$ly it &o ld im$air vested ri!hts, $etitioners "ailed to sho& that a$$lication o" 3.O. No. 1= to their case &o ld ca se in0 stice to them. Here, the O""ice o" the Omb dsman a""orded $etitioners every o$$ort nity to de"end themselves by allo&in! them to s bmit co nter*a""idavits, $osition $a$ers, memoranda and other evidence in their de"ense. #ince $etitioners have been a""orded the ri!ht to be heard and to de"end themselves, they cannot ri!ht" lly com$lain that they &ere denied d e $rocess o" la&. D e $rocess, as a constit tional $rece$t, does not al&ays and in all sit ations re1 ire a trial*ty$e $roceedin!. It is satis"ied &hen a $erson is noti"ied o" the char!e a!ainst him

and !iven an o$$ort nity to e/$lain or de"end himsel". In administrative $roceedin!s, the "ilin! o" char!es and !ivin! reasonable o$$ort nity "or the $erson so char!ed to ans&er the acc sations a!ainst him constit te the minim m re1 irements o" d e $rocess. :ore o"ten, this o$$ort nity is con"erred thro !h &ritten $leadin!s that the $arties s bmit to $resent their char!es and de"enses. ' t as lon! as a $arty is !iven the o$$ort nity to de"end his or her interests in d e co rse, said $arty is not denied d e $rocess. Gemma P. 7abalit vs. 7O56Re'ion 9,,*$ila)elfo /. 5pit vs. 7O5, 0e'al an) a)?uciation, Re'ion 9,,*0eonar)o G. Olaivar, etc. vs. +on. Primo 7. Miro, etc., et al., G.R. Nos. 1801! *1801=1*1801=!, %anuar( 17, !01!. Omb dsman) $o&er to im$ose $enalties. In the e/ercise o" his d ties, the Omb dsman is !iven " ll administrative disci$linary a thority. His $o&er is not limited merely to receivin!, $rocessin! com$laints, or recommendin! $enalties. He is to cond ct investi!ations, hold hearin!s, s mmon &itnesses and re1 ire $rod ction o" evidence and $lace res$ondents nder $reventive s s$ension. +his incl des the $o&er to im$ose the $enalty o" removal, s s$ension, demotion, "ine, or cens re o" a $ blic o""icer or em$loyee. +he $rovisions o" (.3. No. ;==0 ta2en to!ether reveal the mani"est intent o" the la&ma2ers to besto& on the O""ice o" the Omb dsman " ll administrative disci$linary a thority. +hese $rovisions cover the entire !am t o" administrative ad0 dication &hich entails the a thority to, inter alia, receive com$laints, cond ct investi!ations, hold hearin!s in accordance &ith its r les o" $roced re, s mmon &itnesses and re1 ire the $rod ction o" doc ments, $lace nder $reventive s s$ension $ blic o""icers and em$loyees $endin! an investi!ation, determine the a$$ro$riate $enalty im$osable on errin! $ blic o""icers or em$loyees as &arranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, im$ose the said $enalty. +h s, it is settled that the O""ice o" the Omb dsman can directly im$ose administrative sanctions. Gemma P. 7abalit vs. 7O56Re'ion 9,,*$ila)elfo /. 5pit vs. 7O5, 0e'al an) a)?uciation, Re'ion 9,,*0eonar)o G. Olaivar, etc. vs. +on. Primo 7. Miro, etc., et al., G.R. Nos. 1801! *1801=1*1801=!, %anuar( 17, !01!. P blic " nds7assets. +he cocon t levy " nds are s$ecial $ blic " nds. %onse1 ently, any $ro$erty $ rchased by means o" the cocon t levy " nds sho ld li2e&ise be treated as $ blic " nds or $ blic $ro$erty, s b0ect to b rdens and restrictions attached by la& to s ch $ro$erty. In this case, the ; %II> Oil :ills &ere ac1 ired by F%P' sin! cocon t levy " nds. On the other hand, the 1C %II> holdin! com$anies are &holly o&ned s bsidiaries o" the %II> Oil :ills. +hese com$anies &ere ac1 ired sin! or &hose ca$itali9ation comes "rom the cocon t levy " nds. Ho&ever, as in the case o" F%P', F%P' itsel" distrib ted a $art o" its investments in the %II> Oil :ills to cocon t "armers, and retained a $art thereo" as administrator. +he $ortions distrib ted to the s $$osed cocon t "armers "ollo&ed the $roced re o tlined in P%3 (esol tion No. 033*=@. 3nd as the administrator o" the %II> holdin! com$anies, F%P' a thori9ed the ac1 isition o" the #:% shares. In "act, these com$anies &ere "ormed or or!ani9ed solely "or the $ r$ose o" holdin! the #:% shares. 3s "o nd by the #andi!anbayan, the 1C %II> holdin! com$anies sed borro&ed " nds "rom F%P' to ac1 ire the #:% shares in the a!!re!ate amo nt o" P1.;B; 'illion. #ince the %II> com$anies and the %II> bloc2 o" #:% shares &ere ac1 ired sin! cocon t levy " nds G " nds that have been established to be $ blic in character G it !oes &itho t sayin! that these ac1 ired cor$orations and assets o !ht to be re!arded and treated as !overnment assets. 'ein! !overnment $ro$erties, they are accordin!ly o&ned by the Government, "or the cocon t ind stry $ rs ant to c rrently e/istin! la&s. Philippine 7oconut Pro)ucers $e)eration, ,nc. :7O7O$">;, et al. vs. Republic of the PhilippinesN Bi'berto ". &ana)a, et al., intervenorsN >anilo /. 8rsua vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 177827628 F G.R. No. 178191, %anuar( !=, !01!. Election Law

# $reme %o rt) revie& o" decision o" a %O:A?A% division. 3ltho !h #ection =, 3rticle IJ o" the 1<@= %onstit tion con"ers on the %o rt the $o&er to revie& any decision, order or r lin! o" the %O:A?A%, it limits s ch $o&er to a "inal decision or resol tion o" the %O:A?A% en banc, and does not e/tend to an interloc tory order iss ed by a Division o" the %O:A?A%. Other&ise stated, the %o rt has no $o&er to revie& on certiorari an interloc tory order or even a "inal resol tion iss ed by a Division o" the %O:A?A%. +h s, the %o rt has no 0 risdiction to ta2e co!ni9ance o" the $etition "or certiorari assailin! the denial by the %O:A?A% >irst Division o" the s$ecial a""irmative de"enses o" the $etitioner. +he $ro$er remedy is "or the $etitioner to &ait "or the %O:A?A% >irst Division to "irst decide the $rotest on its merits, and i" the res lt sho ld a!!rieve him, to a$$eal the denial o" his s$ecial a""irmative de"enses to the %O:A?A% en banc alon! &ith the other errors committed by the Division $on the merits. One e/ce$tion to the above r le is that the %o rt may ta2e co!ni9ance o" a $etition "or certiorari nder ( le ;C to revie& an interloc tory order iss ed by a Division o" the %O:A?A% on the !ro nd o" the iss ance bein! made &itho t 0 risdiction or in e/cess o" 0 risdiction or &ith !rave ab se o" discretion amo ntin! to lac2 or e/cess o" 0 risdiction &hen it does not a$$ear to be s$eci"ically $rovided nder the %O:A?A% ( les o" Proced re that the matter is one that the %O:A?A% en banc may sit and consider, or a Division is not a thori9ed to act, or the members o" the Division nanimo sly vote to re"er to the %O:A?A% en banc. O" necessity, the a!!rieved $arty can directly resort to the %o rt beca se the %O:A?A% en banc is not the $ro$er "or m in &hich the matter concernin! the assailed interloc tory order can be revie&ed. >ou'las R. 7a'as vs. the 7ommission on "lections F 7lau)e P. #autista, G.R. No. 19=119. %anuar( !=, !01!. Public O##icers P blic em$loyee) !rave miscond ct. Grave miscond ct consists in a !overnment o""icial-s deliberate violation o" a r le o" la& or standard o" behavior. It is re!arded as !rave &hen the elements o" corr $tion, clear intent to violate the la&, or "la!rant disre!ard o" established r les are $resent. In $artic lar, corr $tion as an element o" !rave miscond ct consists in the o""icial-s nla&" l and &ron!" l se o" his station or re$ tation to $roc re some bene"it "or himsel" or "or another $erson, contrary to d ty and the ri!hts o" others. (i!!in! by a $ blic o""icial o" biddin! in the or!ani9ation &here he belon!s is a "orm o" corr $tion. 3s a $ blic o""icer, $rivate res$ondent had the d ty to $rotect the $rocess o" $ blic biddin! in his or!ani9ation. 3 r lin! that &o ld absolve $rivate res$ondent o" any liability "or ri!!in! the bids in the !overnment o""ice &here he &or2s on the $rete/t that he &as not a member o" the bids and a&ards committee &o ld enco ra!e $ blic o""icers &ho are not members o" bids committees to ma2e an ind stry o" ri!!in! bids, sin! their o""ices and o""icial re$ tations. National Po3er 7orporation vs. 7ivil /ervice 7ommission F Ro)ri'o 5. &anfeli<, G.R. No. 12!091. %anuar( !=, !01!. P blic o""icers) reassi!nment) detail vers s reassi!nment. +he iss e here is &hether or not res$ondent-s reassi!nment constit tes constr ctive dismissal entitlin! her to reinstatement and bac2 &a!es. +he %o rt r led in the a""irmative. 4hile a tem$orary trans"er or assi!nment o" $ersonnel is $ermissible even &itho t the em$loyee-s $rior consent, it cannot be done &hen the trans"er is a $reliminary ste$ to&ard his removal, or a scheme to l re him a&ay "rom his $ermanent $osition, or &hen it is desi!ned to indirectly terminate his service, or "orce his resi!nation. # ch a trans"er &o ld in e""ect circ mvent the $rovision &hich sa"e! ards the ten re o" o""ice o" those &ho are in the %ivil #ervice. #ection ;, ( le III o" %#% :emorand m %irc lar No. C0, series o" 1<<@, de"ines constr ctive dismissal as a sit ation &hen an em$loyee 1 its his &or2 beca se o" the a!ency head-s nreasonable, h miliatin!, or demeanin! act ations &hich render contin ed &or2 im$ossible. Hence, the em$loyee is deemed to have been ille!ally

dismissed. +his may occ r altho !h there is no dimin tion or red ction o" salary o" the em$loyee. It may be a trans"er "rom one $osition o" di!nity to a more servile or menial 0ob. (eassi!nments involvin! a red ction in ran2, stat s or salary violate an em$loyee-s sec rity o" ten re, &hich is ass red by the %onstit tion, the 3dministrative %ode o" 1<@=, and the Omnib s %ivil #ervice ( les and (e! lations. #ec rity o" ten re covers not only em$loyees removed &itho t ca se, b t also cases o" nconsented trans"ers and reassi!nments, &hich are tantamo nt to ille!al7constr ctive removal. +he %o rt distin! ished bet&een a detail and reassi!nment. 3 detail, as de"ined and !overned by A/ec tive Order 2<2, 'oo2 V, +itle 1, # btitle 3, %ha$ter B, #ection 2; 5;6, is the movement o" an em$loyee "rom one a!ency to another &itho t the iss ance o" an a$$ointment and shall be allo&ed only "or a limited $eriod in the case o" em$loyees occ $yin! $ro"essional, technical and scienti"ic $ositions. I" the em$loyee believes that there is no 0 sti"ication "or the detail, he may a$$eal his case to the %ivil #ervice %ommission. Pendin! a$$eal, the decision to detail the em$loyee shall be e/ec tory nless other&ise ordered by the %ommission. On the other hand, a reassi!nment, as de"ined and !overned by A.O. 2<2, 'oo2 V, +itle 1, # btitle 3, %ha$ter B, #ection 2; 5=6, means that an em$loyee is reassi!ned "rom one or!ani9ational nit to another in the same a!ency, $rovided that s ch reassi!nment shall not involve a red ction in ran2, stat s or salaries. +he $rinci$al distinctions bet&een a detail and reassi!nment lie in the $lace &here the em$loyee is to be moved and in its e""ectiveness $endin! a$$eal &ith the %#%. 3 detail re1 ires a movement "rom one a!ency to another &hile a reassi!nment re1 ires a movement &ithin the same a!ency. :oreover, $endin! a$$eal &ith the %#%, an order to detail is immediately e/ec tory, &hereas a reassi!nment order does not become immediately e""ective. Havin! r led that res$ondent &as constr ctively dismissed, the ne/t 1 estion is &hether she is entitled to reinstatement and bac2 &a!es. +he %o rt held that she is entitled to reinstatement b t not to " ll bac2 &a!es and bene"its. 3n ille!ally dismissed civil service em$loyee is entitled to bac2 salaries b t limited only to a ma/im m $eriod o" "ive years, and not " ll bac2 salaries "rom his ille!al dismissal $ to his reinstatement. Republic of the Philippines, represente) b( the 7ivil /ervice 7ommission vs. Minerva M.P. Pacheco, G.R. No. 1780!1, %anuar( 11, !01!. P blic o""icers) reor!ani9ation) termination o" em$loyment. +he iss e here is &hether the NA3 'oard had the $o&er to terminate all o" NA3-s em$loyees in connection &ith a reor!ani9ation o" the a!ency. Fnder ( le 33, #ection 35b65ii6 o" the Im$lementin! ( les and (e! lations o" the API(3 ?a&, all NA3 em$loyees shall be considered le!ally terminated &ith the im$lementation o" a reor!ani9ation $ro!ram $ rs ant to a la& enacted by %on!ress or $ rs ant to #ec. B5a65B6 o" PD 2;< thro !h &hich the reor!ani9ation &as carried o t. Petitioners ar! e that the $o&er !ranted nto the NA3 'oard to or!ani9e or reor!ani9e does not incl de the $o&er to terminate em$loyees b t only to red ce NA3-s man$o&er com$lement. +he %o rt disa!reed and a""irmed the termination o" the em$loyees. (eor!ani9ation involves the red ction o" $ersonnel, consolidation o" o""ices, or abolition thereo" by reason o" economy or red ndancy o" " nctions. It co ld res lt in the loss o" one-s $osition thro !h removal or abolition o" an o""ice. Ho&ever, "or a reor!ani9ation "or the $ r$ose o" economy or to ma2e the b rea cracy more e""icient to be valid, it m st $ass the test o" !ood "aith) other&ise, it is void ab initio. Avidently, the termination o" all the em$loyees o" NA3 &as &ithin the NA3 'oard-s $o&ers and may not s ccess" lly be im$ !ned absent $roo" o" bad "aith. 8nite) 7laimant 5ssociation of N"5 :8nican; etc., et al. vs. National "lectrification 5)ministration :N"5;, et al., G.R. No. 187107, %anuar( 11, !01!. P blic o""icers) tem$orary and cotermino s em$loyees. No o""icer or em$loyee in the %ivil #ervice can be removed or s s$ended e/ce$t "or ca se $rovided by la&. Ho&ever, this admits o"

e/ce$tions, as it is li2e&ise settled that the ri!ht to sec rity o" ten re is not available to those em$loyees &hose a$$ointments are tem$orary and cotermino s in nat re. Here, $etitioner-s a$$ointment &as tem$orary as he did not have the re1 ired career e/ec tive service eli!ibility. 3n a$$ointee &itho t s ch eli!ibility cannot hold the $osition in a $ermanent ca$acity. 3 tem$orary a$$ointee can be removed even &itho t ca se and at a moment-s notice. 3s to those &ith eli!ibilities, their ri!ht to sec rity o" ten re $ertain to their ran2 b t not to the $osition to &hich they &ere a$$ointed. Petitioner never alle!ed that, at any time d rin! &hich he held the $osition in 1 estion, he had ac1 ired the re1 isite eli!ibility. Petitioner-s tem$orary a$$ointment &as also cotermino s, or one that is co*e/istent &ith the ten re o" the a$$ointin! a thority or at the latter-s $leas re. 3s s ch, his re$lacement &as not a removal b t rather an e/$iration o" term and no $rior notice, d e hearin! or ca se &ere necessary to e""ect the same. +he acce$tance o" a tem$orary a$$ointment divests an a$$ointee o" the ri!ht to sec rity o" ten re a!ainst removal &itho t ca se. One &ho holds a tem$orary a$$ointment has no "i/ed ten re o" o""ice) his em$loyment can be terminated at the $leas re o" the a$$ointin! a thority, there bein! no need to sho& that the termination is "or ca se. /amuel #. On' vs. Office of the Presi)ent, et al., G.R. No. 18=!19. %anuar( 10, !01!.

)ebruar 2012 Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

Posted on :arch 1C, 2012 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV Here are selected >ebr ary 2012 r lin!s o" the # $reme %o rt o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&. Constitutional Law 3 tonomo s (e!ion) $lebiscite re1 irement& #ection 1@, 3rticle J o" the %onstit tion $rovides that ,the creation o" the a tonomo s re!ion shall be e""ective &hen a$$roved by ma0ority o" the votes cast by the constit ent nits in a $lebiscite called "or the $ r$ose.. +he # $reme %o rt inter$reted this to mean that only amendments to, or revisions o", the Or!anic 3ct constit tionally*essential to the creation o" a tonomo s re!ions G i.e., those as$ects s$eci"ically mentioned in the %onstit tion &hich %on!ress m st $rovide "or in the Or!anic 3ctG re1 ire rati"ication thro !h a $lebiscite. 4hile it a!rees &ith the $etitioners- nderlyin! $remise that soverei!nty ltimately resides &ith the $eo$le, it disa!rees that this le!al reality necessitates com$liance &ith the $lebiscite re1 irement "or all amendments to (3 No. <0BC. >or i" &e &ere to !o by the $etitioners- inter$retation o" #ection 1@, 3rticle J o" the %onstit tion that all amendments to the Or!anic 3ct have to nder!o the $lebiscite re1 irement be"ore becomin! e""ective, this &o ld lead to im$ractical and illo!ical res lts G ham$erin! the 3(::-s $ro!ress by im$edin! %on!ress "rom enactin! la&s that timely address $roblems as they arise in the re!ion, as &ell as &ei!hin! do&n the 3(:: !overnment &ith the costs that navoidably "ollo& the holdin! o" a $lebiscite. 3lso, #ec. 3 o" (.3. No. 101B3 cannot be seen as chan!in! the basic str ct re o" the 3(:: re!ional !overnment. On the contrary, this $rovision clearly $reserves the basic str ct re o" the 3(:: re!ional !overnment &hen it reco!ni9es the o""ices o" the 3(:: re!ional !overnment and directs the OI%s &ho shall tem$orarily ass me these o""ices to ,$er"orm the " nctions $ertainin! to the said o""ices.. >atu Michael 5bas -i)a, etc., et al. vs. /enate of the Phil., etc., et al.*#asari >. Mapupuno vs. /i<to #rillantes, etc., et al.*Rep. ")cel 7.

0a'man vs. Pa@uito N. Ochoa, %r., etc., et al.*5lmarin 7enti &illah, et al. vs. &he 7ommission on "lections, etc., et al.*5tt(. Romulo #. Macalintal vs. 7ommission on "lections, et al.*0uis K#aro4L #irao'o, G.R. No. 19 !71, $ebruar( !8, !01!. %iti9enshi$) $roceedin! "or declaration o" Phili$$ine citi9enshi$. +here is no s$eci"ic stat tory or $roced ral r le &hich a thori9es the direct "ilin! o" a $etition "or declaration o" election o" Phili$$ine citi9enshi$ be"ore the co rts. +he s$ecial $roceedin! $rovided nder #ection 2, ( le 10@ o" the ( les o" %o rt on %ancellation or %orrection o" Antries in the %ivil (e!istry, merely allo&s any interested $arty to "ile an action "or cancellation or correction o" entry in the civil re!istry, i.e., election, loss and recovery o" citi9enshi$, &hich is not the relie" $rayed "or by the res$ondent. &he Republic of the Philippines v. Nora $e /a'un , G.R. No. 1872 7, $ebruar( 12, !01!. %O:A?A%) a thority to hold s$ecial elections. +he %onstit tion merely em$o&ers the %O:A?A% to en"orce and administer all la&s and re! lations relative to the cond ct o" an election. 3ltho !h the le!islat re, nder the Omnib s Alection %ode 5 #atas Pambansa #ilan' K#PL @@16, has !ranted the %O:A?A% the $o&er to $ost$one elections to another date, this $o&er is con"ined to the s$eci"ic terms and circ mstances $rovided "or in the la&. #$eci"ically, this $o&er "alls &ithin the narro& con"ines o" #ections B and ;, &hich address instances &hen elections have already been sched led to ta2e $lace b t do not occ r or had to be s s$ended beca se o" ne/$ected and n"oreseen circ mstances, s ch as violence, "ra d, terrorism, and other analo!o s circ mstances. In contrast, the 3(:: elections &ere $ost$oned by la&, in " rtherance o" the constit tional mandate o" synchroni9ation o" national and local elections. Obvio sly, this does not "all nder any o" the circ mstances contem$lated by #ection B or #ection ; o" 'P @@1. :ore im$ortant, (3 No. 101B3 has already "i/ed the date "or the ne/t 3(:: elections and %O:A?A% has no a thority to set a di""erent election date. >atu Michael 5bas -i)a, etc., et al. vs. /enate of the Phil., etc., et al.*#asari >. Mapupuno vs. /i<to #rillantes, etc., et al.*Rep. ")cel 7. 0a'man vs. Pa@uito N. Ochoa, %r., etc., et al.*5lmarin 7enti &illah, et al. vs. &he 7ommission on "lections, etc., et al.*5tt(. Romulo #. Macalintal vs. 7ommission on "lections, et al.*0uis K#aro4L #irao'o, G.R. No. 19 !71, $ebruar( !8, !01!. %ommission on 3 dit) a thority to determine i" $rice is e/cessive) $o&er to cond ct $ost*a dit. +he %O3, nder the %onstit tion, is em$o&ered to e/amine and a dit the se o" " nds by an a!ency o" the national !overnment on a $ost*a dit basis. >or this $ r$ose, the %onstit tion has $rovided that the %O3 ,shall have e/cl sive a thority, s b0ect to the limitations in this 3rticle, to de"ine the sco$e o" its a dit and e/amination, establish the techni1 es and methods re1 ired there"or, and $rom l!ate acco ntin! and a ditin! r les and re! lations, incl din! those "or the $revention and disallo&ance o" irre! lar, nnecessary, e/cessive, e/trava!ant, or nconscionable e/$endit res, or ses o" !overnment " nds and $ro$erties.. 7an)elario 9erAosa %r. v. Guillermo 7ara'ue an) 7O5, et. al, G.R. No. 127818, $ebruar( 7, !01!. %ommission on 3 dit) :emorand m No. 0=*012) relevance o" brand o" an e1 i$ment as basis "or &hat is reasonable. +he %O3, nder the %onstit tion, is em$o&ered to e/amine and a dit the se o" " nds by an a!ency o" the national !overnment on a $ost*a dit basis. >or this $ r$ose, the %onstit tion has $rovided that the %O3 ,shall have e/cl sive a thority, s b0ect to the limitations in this 3rticle, to de"ine the sco$e o" its a dit and e/amination, establish the techni1 es and methods re1 ired there"or, and $rom l!ate acco ntin! and a ditin! r les and re! lations, incl din! those "or the $revention and disallo&ance o" irre! lar, nnecessary, e/cessive, e/trava!ant, or nconscionable e/$endit res, or ses o" !overnment " nds and $ro$erties.. 3s s ch, %D3-s decisions re!ardin! $roc rement o" e1 i$ment "or its o&n se,

incl din! com$ ters and its accessories, is s b0ect to the %O3-s a ditin! r les and re! lations "or the $revention and disallo&ance o" irre! lar, nnecessary, e/cessive and e/trava!ant e/$endit res. Necessarily, %D3-s $re"erences re!ardin! brand o" its e1 i$ment have to con"orm to the criteria set by the %O3 r les on &hat is reasonable $rice "or the items $ rchased. 7an)elario 9erAosa %r. v. Guillermo 7ara'ue an) 7O5, et. al , G.R. No. 127818, $ebruar( 7, !01!. %ommission on 3 dit) :emorand m No. <=*012 5! idelines on evidence to s $$ort a dit "indin!s o" over*$ricin!6. 3.1 4hen the $rice7$rices o" a transaction nder a dit is "o nd beyond the allo&able ten $ercent 510H6 above the $rices indicated in re"erence $rice lists re"erred to in $aKrL.2.1 as mar2et $rice indicators, the a ditor shall sec re additional evidence to "irm* $ the initial a dit "indin! to a reliable de!ree o" certainty. 3.2 +o "irm* $ the "indin!s to a reliable de!ree o" certainty, initial "indin!s o" over*$ricin! based on mar2et $rice indicators mentioned in $aKrL. 2.1 above have to be s $$orted &ith canvass sheets and7or $rice 1 otations indicatin!I a6 the identities7names o" the s $$liers or sellers) b6 the availability o" stoc2 s ""icient in 1 antity to meet the re1 irements o" the $roc rin! a!ency) c6 the s$eci"ications o" the items &hich sho ld match those involved in the "indin! o" over*$ricin!) and d6 the $ rchase7contract terms and conditions &hich sho ld be the same as those o" the 1 estioned transaction. 7an)elario 9erAosa %r. v. Guillermo 7ara'ue an) 7O5, et. al, G.R. No. 127818, $ebruar( 7, !01!. %ommission on 3 dit) :emorand m No. <=*012) no retroactive e""ect. In 5rriola v. 7O5, this %o rt r led that the disallo&ance made by the %O3 &as not s ""iciently s $$orted by evidence, as it &as based on ndoc mented claims. +he doc ments that &ere sed as basis o" the %O3 Decision &ere not sho&n to $etitioners therein des$ite their re$eated demands to see them) they &ere denied access to the act al canvass sheets or $rice 1 otations "rom accredited s $$liers. 3bsent d e $rocess and evidence to s $$ort %O3-s disallo&ance, %O3-s r lin! on $etitioners- liability has no basis. 4e cate!orically r led in Nava v. Palattao that neither 5rriola nor the %O3 :emorand m No. <=*012 can be !iven any retroactive e""ect. +h s, altho !h 5rriola&as already $rom l!ated at the time, it is not correct to say that the %O3 in this case violated the a"ore*1 oted ! idelines &hich have not yet been iss ed at the time the au)it 3as con)ucte) in 1<<3. 7an)elario 9erAosa %r. v. Guillermo 7ara'ue an) 7O5, et. al, G.R. No. 127818, $ebruar( 7, !01!. %ommission on 3 dit) $re*a dit. On 2; October 1<@2, the %O3 iss ed %irc lar No. @2*1<B, li"tin! the system o" $re*a dit o" !overnment "inancial transactions, albeit &ith certain e/ce$tions. 4ith the normali9ation o" the $olitical system and the stabili9ation o" !overnment o$erations, the %O3 sa& it "it to iss e %irc lar No. @<*2<<, &hich a!ain li"ted the $re*a dit o" !overnment transactions o" national !overnment a!encies 5NG3s6 and !overnment*o&ned or *controlled cor$orations 5GO%%s6. Petitioner claims that the constit tional d ty o" %O3 incl des the d ty to cond ct $re*a dit. +he # $reme %o rt "o nd that there is nothin! in section 2 o" 3rticle IJ*D o" the 1<@= %onstit tion that re1 ires the %O3 to cond ct a $re*a dit o" all !overnment transactions and "or all !overnment a!encies. +he only clear re"erence to a $re*a dit re1 irement is "o nd in #ection 2, $ara!ra$h 1, &hich $rovides that a $ost*a dit is mandated "or certain !overnment or $rivate entities &ith state s bsidy or e1 ity and only &hen the internal control system o" an a dited entity is inade1 ate. In s ch a sit ation, the %O3 may ado$t meas res, incl din! a tem$orary or s$ecial $re*a dit, to correct the de"iciencies. Hence, the cond ct o" a $re*a dit is not a mandatory d ty that the # $reme %o rt may com$el the %O3 to $er"orm. +his discretion on its $art is in line &ith the constit tional $rono ncement that the %O3 has the e/cl sive a thority to de"ine the sco$e o" its a dit and e/amination. 4hen the lan! a!e o" the la& is clear and e/$licit, there is no room "or inter$retation, only a$$lication. Neither can

the sco$e o" the $rovision be nd ly enlar!ed by the %o rt. Gualberto %. >ela 0lana v. &he 7hairperson, 7ommission on 5u)it, the "<ecutive /ecretar( an) the National &reasurer , G.R. No. 180989, $ebruar( 7, !01!. %onstit tionality) loc s standi. Pres. 31 ino, on #e$tember @, 2010, iss ed AO = orderin! 516 a moratori m on the increases in the salaries and other "orms o" com$ensation, e/ce$t salary ad0 stments nder AO @011 and AO <00, o" all GO%% and G>I em$loyees "or an inde"inite $eriod to be set by the President, and 526 a s s$ension o" all allo&ances, bon ses and incentives o" members o" the 'oard o" Directors7+r stees ntil December 31, 2010. +he $etitioner claims that as a PhilHealth em$loyee, he is a""ected by the im$lementation o" AO =, &hich &as iss ed &ith !rave ab se o" discretion amo ntin! to lac2 or e/cess o" 0 risdiction. 0ocus stan)i or le!al standin! has been de"ined as a $ersonal and s bstantial interest in a case s ch that the $arty has s stained or &ill s stain direct in0 ry as a res lt o" the !overnmental act that is bein! challen!ed. +he !ist o" the 1 estion on standin! is &hether a $arty alle!es s ch $ersonal sta2e in the o tcome o" the controversy as to ass re that concrete adverseness &hich shar$ens the $resentation o" iss es $on &hich the co rt de$ends "or ill mination o" di""ic lt constit tional 1 estions.. +his re1 irement o" standin! relates to the constit tional mandate that this %o rt settle only act al cases or controversies. +he # $reme %o rt &as not convinced that the $etitioner has demonstrated that he has a $ersonal sta2e or material interest in the o tcome o" the case beca se his interest, i" any, is s$ec lative and based on a mere e/$ectancy. In this case, the c rtailment o" " t re increases in his salaries and other bene"its cannot b t be characteri9ed as contin!ent events or e/$ectancies. +o be s re, he has no vested ri!hts to salary increases and, there"ore, the absence o" s ch ri!ht de$rives the $etitioner o" le!al standin! to assail AO =. Neither can the lac2 o" locus stan)i be c red by the $etitioner-s claim that he is instit tin! the $resent $etition as a member o" the bar in !ood standin! &ho has an interest in ens rin! that la&s and orders o" the Phili$$ine !overnment are le!ally and validly iss ed. +his s $$osed interest has been branded by the %o rt in Inte!rated 'ar o" the Phils. 5I'P6 v. Hon. Ramora, ,as too !eneral an interest &hich is shared by other !ro $s and KbyL the &hole citi9enry.. +h s, the %o rt r led in ,#P that the mere invocation by the I'P o" its d ty to $reserve the r le o" la& and nothin! more, &hile ndo btedly tr e, is not s ""icient to clothe it &ith standin! in that case. %elbert #. Galicto vs. +.". Presi)ent #eni'no /imeon 7. 5@uino ,,,, et al. G.R. No. 191978, $ebruar( !8, !01!. D3( 3dministrative Order No. 01) 2003 ( les Governin! Iss ance o" Notice o" %overa!e and 3c1 isition o" 3!ric lt ral ?ands nder (3 No. ;;B=) $roced re) commencement. %ommencement by the : nici$al 3!rarian (e"orm O""icer 5:3(O6 G 3"ter determinin! that a landholdin! is coverable nder the %3(P, and $on accom$lishment o" the Pre6Ocular ,nspection Report, the :3(O shall $re$are the NO 5%3(P >orm No. B*16. %orolarilly, 3dministrative Order No. 01, #eries o" 1<<@, &hich o tlines the ste$s in the ac1 isition o" lands, details that in the 3rd ste$, the De$artment o" 3!rarian (e"orm : nici$al O""ice 5D3(:O6 sho ld cond ct a ,$reliminary oc lar ins$ection to determine initially &hether or not the $ro$erty maybe covered nder the %3(P,. &hich "indin!s &ill be contained in %3(P >orm No. 3.a, or the Preliminary Oc lar Ins$ection (e$ort. GonAalo Pu(at F /ons, ,nc. vs. Ruben 5lcai)e :)ecease);, substitute) b( Gloria 5lcai)e representative of the $armer6#eneficiaries, G.R. No. 1 792!, $ebruar( 1, !01!. Declaratory relie". Fnder the ( les o" %o rt, $etitions "or 7ertiorari and Prohibition are availed o" to 1 estion 0 dicial, 1 asi*0 dicial and mandatory acts. #ince the iss ance o" an AO is not 0 dicial, 1 asi*0 dicial or a mandatory act, a $etition "or certiorari and $rohibition is an incorrect remedy) instead a $etition "or declaratory relie" nder ( le ;3 o" the ( les o" %o rt, "iled &ith

the (e!ional +rial %o rt 5R&76, is the $ro$er reco rse to assail the validity o" AO =. %elbert #. Galicto vs. +.". Presi)ent #eni'no /imeon 7. 5@uino ,,,, et al. G.R. No. 191978, $ebruar( !8, !01!. Do ble 0eo$ardy. +he r le a!ainst do ble 0eo$ardy cannot be $ro$erly invo2ed in a ( le ;B $etition, $redicated on t&o 526 e/ce$tional !ro nds, namelyI in a 0 d!ment o" ac1 ittal rendered &ith !rave ab se o" discretion by the co rt) and &here the $rosec tion had been de$rived o" d e $rocess. +he r le a!ainst do ble 0eo$ardy does not a$$ly in these instances beca se a ( le ;B $etition does not involve a revie& o" "acts and la& on the merits in the manner done in an a$$eal. In certiorari $roceedin!s, 0 dicial revie& does not e/amine and assess the evidence o" the $arties nor &ei!h the $robative val e o" the evidence. It does not incl de an in1 iry on the correctness o" the eval ation o" the evidence. 3 revie& nder ( le ;B only as2s the 1 estion o" &hether there has been a validly rendered decision, not the 1 estion o" &hether the decision is le!ally correct. In other &ords, the "oc s o" the revie& is to determine &hether the 0 d!ment is per se void on 0 risdictional !ro nds. 5rnol) %ames M. .si)oro vs. +on. &eresita %. 0eonar)o6)e 7astro, et al, G.R. No. 171211, $ebruar( , !01!. Do ble 0eo$ardy) e/ce$tions. +he r le on do ble 0eo$ardy is one o" the $illars o" o r criminal 0 stice system. It dictates that &hen a $erson is char!ed &ith an o""ense, and the case is terminated G either by ac1 ittal or conviction or in any other manner &itho t the consent o" the acc sed G the acc sed cannot a!ain be char!ed &ith the same or an identical o""ense. +his $rinci$le is "o nded $on the la& o" reason, 0 stice and conscience. It is embodied in the civil la& ma/im non bis in i)em "o nd in the common la& o" An!land and ndo btedly in every system o" 0 ris$r dence. It "o nd e/$ression in the #$anish ?a&, in the %onstit tion o" the Fnited #tates, and in o r o&n %onstit tion as one o" the " ndamental ri!hts o" the citi9en, viAI +he r le on do ble 0eo$ardy th s $rohibits the state "rom a$$ealin! the 0 d!ment in order to reverse the ac1 ittal or to increase the $enalty im$osed either thro !h a re! lar a$$eal nder ( le C1 o" the ( les o" %o rt or thro !h an a$$eal by certiorari on $ re 1 estions o" la& nder ( le CB o" the same ( les. +he re1 isites "or invo2in! do ble 0eo$ardy are the "ollo&in!I 5a6 there is a valid com$laint or in"ormation) 5b6 it is "iled be"ore a com$etent co rt) 5c6 the de"endant $leaded to the char!e) and 5d6 the de"endant &as ac1 itted or convicted, or the case a!ainst him or her &as dismissed or other&ise terminated &itho t the de"endant-s e/$ress consent. 3 verdict o" ac1 ittal is immediately "inal and a ree/amination o" the merits o" s ch ac1 ittal, even in the a$$ellate co rts, &ill $ t the acc sed in 0eo$ardy "or the same o""ense. +he "inality*o"*ac1 ittal doctrine has several avo&ed $ r$oses. Primarily, it $revents the #tate "rom sin! its criminal $rocesses as an instr ment o" harassment to &ear o t the acc sed by a m ltit de o" cases &ith acc m lated trials. It also serves the additional $ r$ose o" $recl din! the #tate, "ollo&in! an ac1 ittal, "rom s ccessively retryin! the de"endant in the ho$e o" sec rin! a conviction. 3nd "inally, it $revents the #tate, "ollo&in! conviction, "rom retryin! the de"endant a!ain in the ho$e o" sec rin! a !reater $enalty. 3n ac1 itted de"endant is entitled to the ri!ht o" re$ose as a direct conse1 ence o" the "inality o" his ac1 ittal. +his $rohibition, ho&ever, is not absol te. +he state may challen!e the lo&er co rt-s ac1 ittal o" the acc sed or the im$osition o" a lo&er $enalty on the latter in the "ollo&in! reco!ni9ed e/ce$tionsI 516 &here the $rosec tion is de$rived o" a "air o$$ort nity to $rosec te and $rove its case, tantamo nt to a de$rivation o" d e $rocess) 526 &here there is a "indin! o" mistrial) or 536 &here there has been a !rave ab se o" discretion. 5rtemio 9illareal vs. People of the Philippines*People of the Philippines vs . &he +onorable 7ourt of 5ppeals, et al.*$i)elito >iAon vs. People of the Philippines*Gerar)a +. 9illa vs. Manuel 0orenAo "scalona ,,, et al. G.R. No. 121!28*G.R. No. 12=92=*G.R. No. 122101*G.R. Nos. 178027 F G.R. No. 178080, $ebruar( 1, !01!.

D e $rocess) de$rivation o" the #tate-s ri!ht to d e $rocess. +he #tate, li2e any other liti!ant, is entitled to its day in co rt) in criminal $roceedin!s, the $ blic $rosec tor acts "or and re$resents the #tate, and carries the b rden o" dili!ently $ rs in! the criminal $rosec tion in a manner consistent &ith $ blic interest. +he #tate-s ri!ht to be heard in co rt rests to a lar!e e/tent on &hether the $ blic $rosec tor $ro$erly ndertoo2 his d ties in $ rs in! the criminal action "or the $ nishment o" the ! ilty. +he $rosec tor-s role in the administration o" 0 stice is to lay be"ore the co rt, "airly and " lly, every "act and circ mstance 2no&n to him or her to e/ist, &itho t re!ard to &hether s ch "act tends to establish the ! ilt or innocence o" the acc sed and &itho t re!ard to any $ersonal conviction or $res m$tion on &hat the 0 d!e may or is dis$osed to do. +he $rosec tor o&es the #tate, the co rt and the acc sed the d ty to lay be"ore the co rt the $ertinent "acts at his dis$osal &ith methodical and metic lo s attention, clari"yin! contradictions and "illin! $ !a$s and loo$holes in his evidence to the end that the co rt-s mind may not be tort red by do bts) that the innocent may not s ""er) and that the ! ilty may not esca$e n$ nished. In the cond ct o" the criminal $roceedin!s, the $rosec tor has am$le discretionary $o&er to control the cond ct o" the $resentation o" the $rosec tion evidence, $art o" &hich is the o$tion to choose &hat evidence to $resent or &ho to call as &itness. In this case, the #tate &as not denied d e $rocess in the $roceedin!s be"ore the #andi!anbayan. +here &as no indication that the s$ecial $rosec tor deliberately and &ill" lly "ailed to $resent available evidence or that other evidence co ld be sec red. People of the Philippines, v. +on. /an)i'anba(an :$ourth >ivision;, et al., G.R. No. 12110=602, $ebruar( 7, !01!. Alections) synchroni9ation o" 3(:: elections &ith local elections. +he %o rt &as nanimo s in holdin! that the %onstit tion mandates the synchroni9ation o" national and local elections. 4hile the %onstit tion does not e/$ressly instr ct %on!ress to synchroni9e the national and local elections, the intention can be in"erred "rom #ections 1, 2 and B o" the +ransitory Provisions 53rticle JVIII6 o" the %onstit tion. +he "ramers o" the %onstit tion co ld not have e/$ressed their ob0ective more clearly G there &as to be a sin!le election in 1<<2 "or all elective o""icials G "rom the President do&n to the m nici$al o""icials. #i!ni"icantly, the "ramers &ere even &illin! to tem$orarily len!then or shorten the terms o" elective o""icials in order to meet this ob0ective, hi!hli!htin! the im$ortance o" this constit tional mandate. +hat the 3(:: elections &ere not e/$ressly mentioned in the +ransitory Provisions o" the %onstit tion on synchroni9ation cannot be inter$reted to mean that the 3(:: elections are not covered by the constit tional mandate o" synchroni9ation. It is to be considered that the 3(::, as &e no& 2no& it, had not yet been o""icially or!ani9ed at the time the %onstit tion &as enacted and rati"ied by the $eo$le. Mee$in! in mind that a constit tion is not intended to $rovide merely "or the e/i!encies o" a "e& years b t is to end re thro !h !enerations "or as lon! as it remains naltered by the $eo$le as ltimate soverei!n, a constit tion sho ld be constr ed in the li!ht o" &hat act ally is a contin in! instr ment to !overn not only the $resent b t also the n"oldin! events o" the inde"inite " t re. 3ltho !h the $rinci$les embodied in a constit tion remain "i/ed and nchan!ed "rom the time o" its ado$tion, a constit tion m st be constr ed as a dynamic $rocess intended to stand "or a !reat len!th o" time, to be $ro!ressive and not static. 3rticle J o" the %onstit tion, entitled ,?ocal Government,. clearly sho&s the intention o" the %onstit tion to classi"y a tonomo s re!ions, s ch as the 3(::, as local !overnments. +he incl sion o" a tonomo s re!ions in the en meration o" $olitical s bdivisions o" the #tate nder the headin! ,?ocal Government. indicates 1 ite clearly the constit tional intent to consider a tonomo s re!ions as one o" the "orms o" local !overnments. +hat the %onstit tion mentions only the ,national !overnment. and the ,local !overnments,. and does not ma2e a distinction bet&een the ,local !overnment. and the ,re!ional !overnment,. is $artic larly revealin!, betrayin! as it does the intention o" the "ramers o" the %onstit tion to consider the a tonomo s re!ions not as se$arate "orms o" !overnment, b t as $olitical nits &hich, &hile havin! more $o&ers and attrib tes than other

local !overnment nits, still remain nder the cate!ory o" local !overnments. #ince a tonomo s re!ions are classi"ied as local !overnments, it "ollo&s that elections held in a tonomo s re!ions are also considered as local elections. >atu Michael 5bas -i)a, et. al v. /enate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 19 !71, $ebruar( !8, !01!. Aminent domain) 0 st com$ensation. 4hen the #tate e/ercises its inherent $o&er o" eminent domain, the %onstit tion im$oses the corres$ondin! obli!ation to com$ensate the lando&ner "or the e/$ro$riated $ro$erty. 4hen the #tate e/ercises the $o&er o" eminent domain in the im$lementation o" its a!rarian re"orm $ro!ram, the constit tional $rovision &hich !overns is #ection C, 3rticle JIII o" the %onstit tion. Notably, this $rovision also im$oses $on the #tate the obli!ation o" $ayin! the lando&ner com$ensation "or the land ta2en, even i" it is "or the !overnment-s a!rarian re"orm $ r$oses. +hat the com$ensation mentioned here $ertains to the "air and " ll $rice o" the ta2en $ro$erty is evident "rom the e/chan!e bet&een the members o" the %onstit tional %ommission d rin! the disc ssion on the !overnment-s a!rarian re"orm $ro!ram. 0an) #an4 of the Philippines v. +one(comb $arms 7orporation , G.R. No. 1 9901, $ebruar( !9, !01!. A1 al $rotection cla se. +he e1 al $rotection cla se means that no $erson or class o" $ersons shall be de$rived o" the same $rotection o" la&s en0oyed by other $ersons or other classes in the same $lace in li2e circ mstances. +h s, the ! arantee o" the e1 al $rotection o" la&s is not violated i" there is a reasonable classi"ication. >or a classi"ication to be reasonable, it m st be sho&n that 516 it rests on s bstantial distinctions) 526 it is !ermane to the $ r$ose o" the la&) 536 it is not limited to e/istin! conditions only) and 5C6 it a$$lies e1 ally to all members o" the same class. Fn"ort nately, %:O 2=*2003 does not meet these re1 irements. It &as not seen ho& the 1 ality o" &heat is a""ected by &ho im$orts it, &here it is dischar!ed, or &hich co ntry it came "rom. 7ommissioner of 7ustoms an) the >istrict 7ollector of the Port of /ubic v. +(permi< $ee)s 7orporation, G.R. No. 179279, $ebruar( 1, !01!. A/ec tive a!reement) re1 isites. 3n e/ec tive a!reement is similar to a treaty, e/ce$t that the "ormer 5a6 does not re1 ire le!islative conc rrence) 5b6 is s ally less "ormal) and 5c6 deals &ith a narro&er ran!e o" s b0ect matters. Des$ite these di""erences, to be considered an e/ec tive a!reement, the "ollo&in! three re1 isites $rovided nder the Vienna %onvention m st nevertheless conc rI 5a6 the a!reement m st be bet&een states) 5b6 it m st be &ritten) and 5c6 it m st !overned by international la&. 7hina National machiner( F "@uipment 7orp. v. +on. 7esar /antamaria, et. al, G.R. No. 18227!, $ebruar( 7, !01!. A/ec tive Po&er) $o&er to classi"y or reclassi"y lands. +he $o&er to classi"y or reclassi"y lands is essentially an e/ec tive $rero!ative, albeit local !overnment nits, thr 9onin! ordinances, may, s b0ect to certain conditions, very &ell e""ect reclassi"ication o" land se &ithin their res$ective territorial 0 risdiction. (eclassi"ication decrees iss ed by the e/ec tive de$artment, thro !h its a$$ro$riate a!encies, carry the same "orce and e""ect as any stat te. 3s it &ere, PD 2= and Proclamation 1;3= are both $residential iss ances, each "ormin!, by virt e o" #ec. 3526, 3rticle JVII o" the 1<=3 %onstit tion, a $art o" the la& o" the land. 0an) #an4 of the Philippines vs. "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta * >epartment of 5'rarian Reform vs . "state of %. 5rma)o 5raneta * "rnesto #. >uran, 0ope P. 5balos :)ecease); represente) b( 0ope 5balos, %r., et al. vs. "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta, G.R. Nos. 1 179 N1 1810 F 190=2 , $ebruar( 8, !01!. Irre$ealable la&. +he s $erma0ority vote re1 irement set "orth in #ection 1, 3rticle JVII o" (3 No. <0BC is nconstit tional "or violatin! the $rinci$le that %on!ress cannot $ass irre$ealable la&s. +he $o&er o" the le!islat re to ma2e la&s incl des the $o&er to amend and re$eal these

la&s. 4here the le!islat re, by its o&n act, attem$ts to limit its $o&er to amend or re$eal la&s, the %o rt has the d ty to stri2e do&n s ch act "or inter"erin! &ith the $lenary $o&ers o" %on!ress. Fnder o r %onstit tion, each Ho se o" %on!ress has the $o&er to a$$rove bills by a mere ma0ority vote, $rovided there is 1 or m. In re1 irin! all la&s &hich amend (3 No. <0BC to com$ly &ith a hi!her votin! re1 irement than the %onstit tion $rovides 5273 vote6, %on!ress, &hich enacted (3 No. <0BC, clearly violated the very $rinci$le &hich the # $reme %o rt so !ht to establish in >uarte. +o reiterate, the act o" one le!islat re is not bindin! $on, and cannot tie the hands o", " t re le!islat res. >atu Michael 5bas -i)a, etc., et al. vs. /enate of the Phil., etc., et al.*#asari >. Mapupuno vs. /i<to #rillantes, etc., et al.*Rep. ")cel 7. 0a'man vs. Pa@uito N. Ochoa, %r., etc., et al.*5lmarin 7enti &illah, et al. vs. &he 7ommission on "lections, etc., et al.*5tt(. Romulo #. Macalintal vs. 7ommission on "lections, et al.*0uis K#aro4L #irao'o , G.R. No. 19 !71, $ebruar( !8, !01!. President) 0 dicial co rtesy. >irstly, the $rinci$le o" 0 dicial co rtesy is based on the hierarchy o" co rts and a$$lies only to lo&er co rts in instances &here, even i" there is no &rit o" $reliminary in0 nction or +(O iss ed by a hi!her co rt, it &o ld be $ro$er "or a lo&er co rt to s s$end its $roceedin!s "or $ractical and ethical considerations. In other &ords, the $rinci$le o" ,0 dicial co rtesy. a$$lies &here there is a stron! $robability that the iss es be"ore the hi!her co rt &o ld be rendered moot and morib nd as a res lt o" the contin ation o" the $roceedin!s in the lo&er co rt or co rt o" ori!in. %onse1 ently, this $rinci$le cannot be a$$lied to the President, &ho re$resents a co*e1 al branch o" !overnment. +o s !!est other&ise &o ld be to disre!ard the $rinci$le o" se$aration o" $o&ers, on &hich o r &hole system o" !overnment is "o nded $on. #econdly, the "act that o r $revio s decision &as based on a slim vote o" @*= does not, and cannot, have the e""ect o" ma2in! o r r lin! any less e""ective or bindin!. (e!ardless o" ho& close the votin! is, so lon! as there is conc rrence o" the ma0ority o" the members o" the en banc &ho act ally too2 $art in the deliberations o" the case, a decision !arnerin! only @ votes o t o" 1B members is still a decision o" the # $reme %o rt en banc and m st be res$ected as s ch. +he $etitioners are, there"ore, not in any $osition to s$ec late that, based on the votin!, ,the $robability e/ists that their motion "or reconsideration may be !ranted.. >atu Michael 5bas -i)a, etc., et al. vs. /enate of the Phil., etc., et al.*#asari >. Mapupuno vs. /i<to #rillantes, etc., et al.*Rep. ")cel 7. 0a'man vs. Pa@uito N. Ochoa, %r., etc., et al.*5lmarin 7enti &illah, et al. vs. &he 7ommission on "lections, etc., et al.*5tt(. Romulo #. Macalintal vs. 7ommission on "lections, et al.*0uis K#aro4L #irao'o, G.R. No. 19 !71, $ebruar( !8, !01!. President) $o&er to a$$oint o""icer in char!e. +he $o&er to a$$oint has traditionally been reco!ni9ed as e/ec tive in nat re. #ection 1;, 3rticle VII o" the %onstit tion describes in broad stro2es the e/tent o" this $o&er. +he main distinction bet&een the $rovision in the 1<@= %onstit tion and its co nter$art in the 1<3B %onstit tion is the sentence constr ction) &hile in the 1<3B %onstit tion, the vario s a$$ointments the President can ma2e are en merated in a sin!le sentence, the 1<@= %onstit tion en merates the vario s a$$ointments the President is em$o&ered to ma2e and divides the en meration in t&o sentences. +he chan!e in style is si!ni"icant) in $rovidin! "or this chan!e, the "ramers o" the 1<@= %onstit tion clearly so !ht to ma2e a distinction bet&een the "irst !ro $ o" $residential a$$ointments and the second !ro $ o" $residential a$$ointments. he "irst !ro $ o" $residential a$$ointments, s$eci"ied as the heads o" the e/ec tive de$artments, ambassadors, other $ blic ministers and cons ls, or o""icers o" the 3rmed >orces, and other o""icers &hose a$$ointments are vested in the President by the %onstit tion, $ertains to the a$$ointive o""icials &ho have to be con"irmed by the %ommission on 3$$ointments. +he second !ro $ o" o""icials the President can a$$oint are ,all other o""icers o" the Government &hose a$$ointments are not other&ise $rovided "or by la&, and those &hom he may be a thori9ed by la& to a$$oint.. +he second sentence acts as the ,catch*all $rovision.

"or the President-s a$$ointment $o&er, in reco!nition o" the "act that the $o&er to a$$oint is essentially e/ec tive in nat re. +he &ide latit de !iven to the President to a$$oint is " rther demonstrated by the reco!nition o" the President-s $o&er to a$$oint o""icials &hose a$$ointments are not even $rovided "or by la&. In other &ords, &here there are o""ices &hich have to be "illed, b t the la& does not $rovide the $rocess "or "illin! them, the %onstit tion reco!ni9es the $o&er o" the President to "ill the o""ice by a$$ointment. +here is no incom$atibility bet&een the President-s $o&er o" s $ervision over local !overnments and a tonomo s re!ions, and the $o&er !ranted to the President, &ithin the s$eci"ic con"ines o" (3 No. 101B3, to a$$oint OI%s. >atu Michael 5bas -i)a, etc., et al. vs. /enate of the Phil., etc., et al.*#asari >. Mapupuno vs. /i<to #rillantes, etc., et al.*Rep. ")cel 7. 0a'man vs. Pa@uito N. Ochoa, %r., etc., et al.*5lmarin 7enti &illah, et al. vs. &he 7ommission on "lections, etc., et al.*5tt(. Romulo #. Macalintal vs. 7ommission on "lections, et al.*0uis K#aro4L #irao'o , G.R. No. 19 !71, $ebruar( !8, !01!. #tate imm nity) doctrine o" state imm nity. 3ccordin! to the classical or absol te theory, a soverei!n cannot, &itho t its consent, be made a res$ondent in the co rts o" another soverei!n. 3ccordin! to the ne&er or restrictive theory, the imm nity o" the soverei!n is reco!ni9ed only &ith re!ard to $ blic acts or acts ?ure imperii o" a state, b t not &ith re!ard to $rivate acts or acts ?ure 'estionis. #ince the Phili$$ines adheres to the restrictive theory, it is cr cial to ascertain the le!al nat re o" the act involved G &hether the entity claimin! imm nity $er"orms !overnmental, as o$$osed to $ro$rietary, " nctions. 3 thoro !h e/amination o" the basic "acts o" the case &o ld sho& that %N:AG is en!a!ed in a $ro$rietary activity. Piecin! to!ether the content and tenor o" the %ontract 3!reement, the :emorand m o" Fnderstandin! dated 1C #e$tember 2002, 3mb. 4an!-s letter dated 1 October 2003, and the ?oan 3!reement &o ld reveal the desire o" %N:AG to constr ct the ? 9on (ail&ays in $ rs it o" a $ rely commercial activity $er"ormed in the ordinary co rse o" its b siness. Aven ass min! ar'uen)o that %N:AG $er"orms !overnmental " nctions, s ch claim does not a tomatically vest it &ith imm nity. It is readily a$$arent that %N:AG cannot claim imm nity "rom s it, even i" it contends that it $er"orms !overnmental " nctions. Its desi!nation as the Primary %ontractor does not a tomatically !rant it imm nity, 0 st as the term ,im$lementin! a!ency. has no $recise de"inition "or $ r$oses o" ascertainin! &hether G+R &as imm ne "rom s it. 3ltho !h %N:AG claims to be a !overnment*o&ned cor$oration, it "ailed to add ce evidence that it has not consented to be s ed nder %hinese la&. +h s, "ollo&in! this %o rt-s r lin! in De tsche Gesellscha"t, in the absence o" evidence to the contrary, %N:AG is to be $res med to be a !overnment*o&ned and *controlled cor$oration &itho t an ori!inal charter. 3s a res lt, it has the ca$acity to s e and be s ed nder #ection 3; o" the %or$oration %ode. 7hina National machiner( F "@uipment 7orp. v. +on. 7esar /antamaria, et. al , G.R. No. 18227!, $ebruar( 7, !01!. #tate imm nity) &aiver by s bmission to arbitration. In the Fnited #tates, the >orei!n #overei!n Imm nities 3ct o" 1<=; $rovides "or a &aiver by im$lication o" state imm nity. In the said la&, the a!reement to s bmit dis$ tes to arbitration in a "orei!n co ntry is constr ed as an im$licit &aiver o" imm nity "rom s it. 3ltho !h there is no similar la& in the Phili$$ines, there is reason to a$$ly the le!al reasonin! behind the &aiver in this case. Fnder the $rovisions o" +he %onditions o" %ontract &hich is an inte!ral $art o" the %ontract 3!reement,, i" any dis$ te arises bet&een Northrail and %N:AG, both $arties are bo nd to s bmit the matter to the HMI3% "or arbitration. In case the HMI3% ma2es an arbitral a&ard in "avor o" Northrail, its en"orcement in the Phili$$ines &o ld be s b0ect to the #$ecial ( les on 3lternative Dis$ te (esol tion 5#$ecial ( les6. ( le 13 thereo" $rovides "or the (eco!nition and An"orcement o" a >orei!n 3rbitral 3&ard. Fnder ( les 13.2 and 13.3 o" the #$ecial ( les, the $arty to arbitration &ishin! to have

an arbitral a&ard reco!ni9ed and en"orced in the Phili$$ines m st $etition the $ro$er re!ional trial co rt 5a6 &here the assets to be attached or levied $on is located) 5b6 &here the acts to be en0oined are bein! $er"ormed) 5c6 in the $rinci$al $lace o" b siness in the Phili$$ines o" any o" the $arties) 5d6 i" any o" the $arties is an individ al, &here any o" those individ als resides) or 5e6 in the National %a$ital D dicial (e!ion. >rom all the "ore!oin!, it is clear that %N:AG has a!reed that it &ill not be a""orded imm nity "rom s it. +h s, the co rts have the com$etence and 0 risdiction to ascertain the validity o" the %ontract 3!reement. 7hina National machiner( F "@uipment 7orp. v. +on. 7esar /antamaria, et. al, G.R. No. 18227!, $ebruar( 7, !01!. # $reme %o rt) res$ect to "act al "indin!s o" administrative a!encies. It is the !eneral $olicy o" the %o rt to s stain the decisions o" administrative a thorities, es$ecially one &hich is constit tionally*created, not only on the basis o" the doctrine o" se$aration o" $o&ers b t also "or their $res med e/$ertise in the la&s they are entr sted to en"orce. >indin!s o" 1 asi*0 dicial a!encies, s ch as the %O3, &hich have ac1 ired e/$ertise beca se their 0 risdiction is con"ined to s$eci"ic matters are !enerally accorded not only res$ect b t at times even "inality i" s ch "indin!s are s $$orted by s bstantial evidence, and the decision and order are not tainted &ith n"airness or arbitrariness that &o ld amo nt to !rave ab se o" discretion. 7an)elario 9erAosa %r. v. Guillermo 7ara'ue an) 7O5, et. al, G.R. No. 127818, $ebruar( 7, !01!. +a/$ayer-s s it) standin!. 3 ta/$ayer is deemed to have the standin! to raise a constit tional iss e &hen it is established that $ blic " nds "rom ta/ation have been disb rsed in alle!ed contravention o" the la& or the %onstit tion. Gualberto %. >ela 0lana v. &he 7hairperson, 7ommission on 5u)it, the "<ecutive /ecretar( an) the National &reasurer , G.R. No. 180989, $ebruar( 7, !01!. Administrative Law 3dministrative ( le) d e $rocess) $ blication, &hen re1 ired. +he %ommissioner o" % stoms iss ed %:O 2=*2003. Fnder the :emorand m, "or tari"" $ r$oses, &heat &as classi"ied accordin! to the "ollo&in!I 516 im$orter or consi!nee) 526 co ntry o" ori!in) and 536 $ort o" dischar!e. +he re! lation $rovided an e/cl sive list o" cor$orations, $orts o" dischar!e, commodity descri$tions and co ntries o" ori!in. De$endin! on these "actors, &heat &o ld be classi"ied either as "ood !rade or "eed !rade. +he corres$ondin! tari"" "or "ood !rade &heat &as 3H, "or "eed !rade, =H.%:O 2=*2003 " rther $rovided "or the $ro$er $roced re "or $rotest or Val ation and %lassi"ication (evie& %ommittee 5V%(%6 cases. %onsiderin! that the re! lation &o ld a""ect the s bstantive ri!hts o" res$ondent, it there"ore "ollo&s that $etitioners sho ld have a$$lied #ections 3 and < o" 'oo2 VII, %ha$ter 2 o" the (evised 3dministrative %ode. 4hen an administrative r le is merely inter$retative in nat re, its a$$licability needs nothin! " rther than its bare iss ance, "or it !ives no real conse1 ence more than &hat the la& itsel" has already $rescribed. 4hen, on the other hand, the administrative r le !oes beyond merely $rovidin! "or the means that can "acilitate or render least c mbersome the im$lementation o" the la& b t s bstantially increases the b rden o" those !overned, it behooves the a!ency to accord at least to those directly a""ected a chance to be heard, and therea"ter to be d ly in"ormed, be"ore that ne& iss ance is !iven the "orce and e""ect o" la&. 'eca se $etitioners "ailed to "ollo& the re1 irements en merated by the (evised 3dministrative %ode, the assailed re! lation m st be str c2 do&n. 7ommissioner of 7ustoms an) the >istrict 7ollector of the Port of /ubic v. +(permi< $ee)s 7orporation, G.R. No. 179279, $ebruar( 1, !01!. Void !overnment contract) $ayment "or services. Parties &ho do not come to co rt &ith clean hands cannot be allo&ed to $ro"it "rom their o&n &ron!doin!. +he action 5or inaction6 o" the

$arty see2in! e1 ity m st be ,"ree "rom "a lt, and he m st have done nothin! to l ll his adversary into re$ose, thereby obstr ctin! and $reventin! vi!ilance on the $art o" the latter.. Here, even &ith the res$ondents- s $$osed "ail re to ascertain the validity o" the contract and the a thority o" the $ blic o""icial involved in the constr ction a!reements, there is no s ch con" sion as to the matter o" the contract-s validity and the e1 ivalent com$ensation. 3s "o nd by the co rt a @uo, $etitioner had ass red the contractors that they &o ld be $aid "or the &or2 that they &o ld do, as even DP4H Fndersecretary +eodoro +. Ancarnacion had told them to ,"ast*trac2. the $ro0ect. Hence, res$ondents cannot by any stretch o" lo!ic, be de$rived o" com$ensation "or their services &hen G des$ite their ostensible omissions G they only heeded the ass rance o" DP4H and $roceeded to &or2 on the r!ent $ro0ect. >PB+ v. Ronal)o Mui3a, et. al, G.R. No. 181===, $ebruar( 8, !01!. A!rarian "e#orm 3!rarian (e"orm ?a&) a!ric lt ral lands. +he $rimary !overnin! a!rarian la& &ith re!ard to a!ric lt ral lands, be they o" $rivate or $ blic o&nershi$ and re!ardless o" ten rial arran!ement and cro$s $rod ced, is no& (3 ;;B=. #ection 35c6 o" (3 ;;B= de"ines ,a!ric lt ral lands. as ,lands devoted to a!ric lt ral activity as de"ined in the 3ct and not classi"ied as mineral, "orest, residential, commercial or ind strial land. 0an) #an4 of the Philippines vs. "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta * >epartment of 5'rarian Reform vs. "state of %. 5rma)o 5raneta * "rnesto #. >uran, 0ope P. 5balos :)ecease); represente) b( 0ope 5balos, %r., et al. vs . "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta, G.R. Nos. 1 179 N1 1810 F 190=2 , $ebruar( 8, !01!. 3!rarian (e"orm ?a&) a$$licability o" PD 2=, (3 ;;B=, and Proclamation 1;3=. >rom the stand$oint o" a!rarian re"orm, PD 2=, bein! in conte/t the earliest iss ance, !overned at the start the dis$osition o" the rice*and*corn land $ortions o" the Doronilla $ro$erty. 3nd tr e eno !h, the D3( be!an $rocessin! land trans"ers thro !h the O?+ $ro!ram nder PD 2= and therea"ter iss ed the corres$ondin! %?+s. Ho&ever, &hen Proclamation 1;3= &ent into e""ect, D3( discontin ed &ith the O?+ $rocessin!. +he tenants o" Doronilla d rin! that time desisted "rom 1 estionin! the halt in the iss ance o" the %?+s. It is "airly evident that D3( noted the e""ect o" the iss ance o" Proclamation 1;3= on the s b0ect land and decided not to $ rs e its ori!inal o$eration, reco!ni9in! the chan!e o" classi"ication o" the $ro$erty "rom a!ric lt ral to residential. 4hen it too2 e""ect on D ne 1B, 1<@@, (3 ;;B= became the $revailin! a!rarian re"orm la&. +his is not to say, ho&ever, that its comin! into e""ect necessarily im$eded the o$eration o" PD 2=, &hich, to re$eat, covers only rice and corn land. >ar "rom it, "or (3 ;;B=, &hich identi"ies ,rice and corn land. nder PD 2= as amon! the $ro$erties the D3( shall ac1 ire and distrib te to the landless, no less $rovides that PD 2= shall be o" s $$letory a$$lication.. 0an) #an4 of the Philippines vs. "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta * >epartment of 5'rarian Reform vs. "state of %. 5rma)o 5raneta * "rnesto #. >uran, 0ope P. 5balos :)ecease); represente) b( 0ope 5balos, %r., et al. vs. "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta, G.R. Nos. 1 179 N 1 1810 F 190=2 , $ebruar( 8, !01!. 3!rarian (e"orm ?a&) certi"icates o" title) merely an evidence o" reco!nition by the !overnment) inchoate ri!ht. 4hile the PD 2= tenant*"armers are considered the o&ners by virt e o" that decree, they cannot yet e/ercise all the attrib tes inherent in o&nershi$, s ch as sellin! the lot, beca se, &ith res$ect to the !overnment re$resented by D3( and ?'P, they have in the meantime only inchoate ri!hts in the lotGGthe bein! ,amorti9in! o&ners.. +his is beca se they m st still $ay all the amorti9ations over the lot to ?and 'an2 be"ore an AP is iss ed to them. +hen and only then do they ac1 ire, in the $hraseolo!y o" 9inAons6Ma'ana, ,the vested ri!ht o" absol te o&nershi$ in the landholdin!.. 0an) #an4 of the Philippines vs. "state of %. 5ma)o

5raneta * >epartment of 5'rarian Reform vs. "state of %. 5rma)o 5raneta * "rnesto #. >uran, 0ope P. 5balos :)ecease); represente) b( 0ope 5balos, %r., et al. vs . "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta, G.R. Nos. 1 179 N 1 1810 F 190=2 , $ebruar( 8, !01!. 3!rarian (e"orm ?a&) $rivate ri!hts) 0 st com$ensation. 3s $ayment the "armer*bene"iciaries &ho &ere !iven the =B %?+s $rior to the iss ance o" Proclamation 12@3, as amended by Proclamation 1;3=, are deemed " ll o&ners o" the lots covered by =B %?+s vis*8*vis the real re!istered o&ner. +he "armer*bene"iciaries have $rivate ri!hts over said lots as they &ere deemed o&ners $rior to the establishment o" the ?# +o&nsite reservation or at least are s bro!ated to the ri!hts o" the re!istered lot o&ner. +hose "armer*bene"iciaries &ho &ere iss ed %?+s or APs a"ter D ne 21, 1<=C &hen Proclamation 12@3, as amended, became e""ective do not ac1 ire ri!hts over the lots they &ere claimin! nder PD 2= or (3 ;;B=, beca se the lots have already been reclassi"ied as residential and are beyond the com$ lsory covera!e "or a!rarian re"orm nder (3 ;;B=. Per"orce, the said %?+s or APs iss ed a"ter D ne 21, 1<=C have to be ann lled and invalidated "or &ant o" le!al basis, since the lots in 1 estion are no lon!er s b0ect to a!rarian re"orm d e to the reclassi"ication o" the erst&hile Doronilla estate to non*a!ric lt ral $ r$oses. 0an) #an4 of the Philippines vs. "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta * >epartment of 5'rarian Reform vs. "state of %. 5rma)o 5raneta * "rnesto #. >uran, 0ope P. 5balos :)ecease); represente) b( 0ope 5balos, %r., et al. vs . "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta, G.R. Nos. 1 179 N1 1810 F 190=2 , $ebruar( 8, !01!. 3!ric lt ral tenancy relationshi$) de 0 re tenant) !ro nds "or e0ection $rovided by la&. (es$ondent, as lando&ner7a!ric lt ral lessor, has the b rden to $rove the e/istence o" a la&" l ca se "or the e0ectment o" $etitioner, the tenant7a!ric lt ral lessee. +his r le $roceeds "rom the $rinci$le that a tenancy relationshi$, once established, entitles the tenant to a sec rity o" ten re. +he tenant can only be e0ected "rom the a!ric lt ral landholdin! on !ro nds $rovided by la&, in this case #ection 3; o" (.3. No. 3@CC. #A%. 3;. Possession of 0an)hol)in'N "<ceptions.G Not&ithstandin! any a!reement as to the $eriod or " t re s rrender o" the land, an a!ric lt ral lessee shall contin e in the en0oyment and $ossession o" his landholdin! e/ce$t &hen his dis$ossession has been a thori9ed by the %o rt in a 0 d!ment that is "inal and e/ec tory i" a"ter d e hearin! it is sho&n thatI 516 +he a!ric lt ral lessor*o&ner or a member o" his immediate "amily &ill $ersonally c ltivate the landholdin! or &ill convert the landholdin!, i" s itably located, into residential, "actory, hos$ital or school site or other se" l non*a!ric lt ral $ r$osesI Provi)e)) +hat the a!ric lt ral lessee shall be entitled to dist rbance com$ensation e1 ivalent to "ive years rental on his landholdin! in addition to his ri!hts nder #ections 2B and e/ce$t &hen the land o&ned and leased by the a!ric lt ral lessor is not more than "ive hectares, in &hich case instead o" dist rbance com$ensation the lessee may be entitled to an advance notice o" at least one a!ric lt ral year be"ore e0ectment $roceedin!s are "iled a!ainst himI Provi)e), further, +hat sho ld the landholder not c ltivate the land himsel" "or three years or "ail to s bstantially carry o t s ch conversion &ithin one year a"ter the dis$ossession o" the tenant, it shall be $res med that he acted in bad "aith and the tenant shall have the ri!ht to demand $ossession o" the land and recover dama!es "or any loss inc rred by him beca se o" said dis$ossession) 526 +he a!ric lt ral lessee "ailed to s bstantially com$ly &ith any o" the terms and conditions o" the contract or any o" the $rovisions o" this %ode nless his "ail re is ca sed by "ort ito s event orforce ma?eure) 536 +he a!ric lt ral lessee $lanted cro$s or sed the landholdin! "or a $ r$ose other than &hat had been $revio sly a!reed $on) 5C6 +he a!ric lt ral lessee "ailed to ado$t $roven "arm $ractices as determined nder $ara!ra$h 3 o" #ection 2<) 5B6 +he land or other s bstantial $ermanent im$rovement thereon is s bstantially dama!ed or destroyed or has nreasonably deteriorated thro !h the "a lt or ne!li!ence o" the a!ric lt ral lessee) 5;6 +he a!ric lt ral lessee does not $ay the lease rental &hen it "alls d eI Provi)e), +hat

i" the non*$ayment o" the rental shall be d e to cro$ "ail re to the e/tent o" seventy*"ive per centum as a res lt o" a "ort ito s event, the non*$ayment shall not be a !ro nd "or dis$ossession, altho !h the obli!ation to $ay the rental d e that $artic lar cro$ is not thereby e/tin! ished) or 5=6 +he lessee em$loyed a s b*lessee on his landholdin! in violation o" the terms o" $ara!ra$h 2 o" #ection 2=. %uan Galope v. 7resencia #u'arin, G.R. No. 182 9, $ebruar( 1, !01!. 3!ric lt ral tenancy relationshi$) re1 isites) may be established thro !h &ritten or oral contract. +he essential elements o" an a!ric lt ral tenancy relationshi$ areI 516 the $arties are the lando&ner and the tenant or a!ric lt ral lessee) 526 the s b0ect matter o" the relationshi$ is a!ric lt ral land) 536 there is consent bet&een the $arties to the relationshi$) 5C6 the $ r$ose o" the relationshi$ is to brin! abo t a!ric lt ral $rod ction) 5B6 there is $ersonal c ltivation on the $art o" the tenant or a!ric lt ral lessee) and 5;6 the harvest is shared bet&een the lando&ner and the tenant or a!ric lt ral lessee. #ection B o" (e$ blic 3ct 5(.3.6 No. 3@CC, other&ise 2no&n as the 3!ric lt ral ?and (e"orm %ode, reco!ni9es that an a!ric lt ral leasehold relation may e/ist $on an oral a!reement. %uan Galope v. 7resencia #u'arin, G.R. No. 182 9, $ebruar( 1, !01!. D risdiction o" D3() D3(3'. +he D3(3' has been created and desi!ned to e/ercise the D3(-s ad0 dicatin! " nctions. 3nd 0 st li2e any 1 asi*0 dicial body, D3(3' derives its 0 risdiction "rom la&, s$eci"ically (3 ;;B=, &hich invested it &ith ad0 dicatory $o&ers over a!rarian re"orm dis$ tes and matters related to the im$lementation o" %3(?. +he # $reme %o rt need not belabor that D3(3'-s 0 risdiction over the s b0ect matter, the Doronilla $ro$erty, cannot be con"erred by the main $arties, let alone the intervenin! "armer*bene"iciaries claimin! to have ,vested ri!hts. nder PD 2=. 3s earlier disc ssed, the $rocess o" land re"orm coverin! the 1,2;; hectares o" the 3raneta estate &as not com$leted $rior to the iss ance o" Proclamation 1;3=. #o the intervenors, &ith the e/ce$tion o" the =< tenant*bene"iciaries &ho &ere !ranted %?+s, "ailed to ac1 ire $rivate ri!hts o" o&nershi$ nder PD 2= be"ore the e""ective conversion o" the Doronilla $ro$erty to non*a!ric lt ral ses. Hence, the Doronilla $ro$erty, bein! o tside o" %3(P covera!e, is also beyond D3(3'-s 0 risdiction. 0an) #an4 of the Philippines vs. "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta * >epartment of 5'rarian Reform vs . "state of %. 5rma)o 5raneta * "rnesto #. >uran, 0ope P. 5balos :)ecease); represente) b( 0ope 5balos, %r., et al. vs. "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta, G.R. Nos. 1 179 N1 1810 F 190=2 , $ebruar( 8, !01!. #ocial 0 stice) laches. +here can be little 1 ibble abo t D ran, et al. bein! ! ilty o" laches. +hey "ailed and ne!lected to 2ee$ trac2 o" their case &ith their la&yer "or 1C lon! years. 3s disc ssed above, 3tty. ?ara died even $rior to the $rom l!ation o" the D3(3' Decision. Aven then, they "ailed to noti"y the D3(3' and the other $arties o" the case re!ardin! the demise o" 3tty. ?ara and even a chan!e o" co nsel. It certainly strains cred lity to thin2 that literally no one, amon! those constit tin! the $etitionin!*intervenors, had the characteristic !ood sense o" "ollo&in! $ the case &ith their le!al co nsel. Only no&, 1C years a"ter, did some thin2 o" "i!htin! "or the ri!ht they sle$t on. +h s, as to them, the %3 Decision is deemed "inal and e/ec tory based on the $rinci$le o" laches. 3!rarian re"orm "inds conte/t in social 0 stice in tandem &ith the $olice $o&er o" the #tate. ' t social 0 stice itsel" is not merely !ranted to the mar!inali9ed and the nder$rivile!ed. ' t &hile the conce$t o" social 0 stice is intended to "avor those &ho have less in li"e, it sho ld never be ta2en as a toll to 0 sti"y let alone commit an in0 stice. 0an) #an4 of the Philippines vs. "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta * >epartment of 5'rarian Reform vs . "state of %. 5rma)o 5raneta * "rnesto #. >uran, 0ope P. 5balos :)ecease); represente) b( 0ope 5balos, %r., et al. vs. "state of %. 5ma)o 5raneta, G.R. Nos. 1 179 N1 1810 F 190=2 , $ebruar( 8, !01!.

Public Land P blic ?and 3ct) alienable and dis$osable land. P blic ?and 3ct re1 ires that the a$$licant "or re!istration m st $rove 5a6 that the land is alienable $ blic land) and 5b6 that the o$en, contin o s, e/cl sive and notorio s $ossession and occ $ation o" the land m st have been either since time immemorial or "or the $eriod $rescribed in the P blic ?and 3ct. %erti"ications o" the DAN( are not s ""icient to $rove the "ore!oin!. DAN( 3dministrative Order 5D3O6 No. 20, 1@ dated 30 :ay 1<@@, delineated the " nctions and a thorities o" the o""ices &ithin the DAN(. Fnder D3O No. 20, series o" 1<@@, the %AN(O iss es certi"icates o" land classi"ication stat s "or areas belo& B0 hectares. > rther, it is not eno !h "or the PAN(O or %AN(O to certi"y that a land is alienable and dis$osable. +he a$$licant "or land re!istration m st $rove that the DAN( #ecretary had a$$roved the land classi"ication and released the land o" the $ blic domain as alienable and dis$osable, and that the land s b0ect o" the a$$lication "or re!istration "alls &ithin the a$$roved area $er veri"ication thro !h s rvey by the PAN(O or %AN(O. In addition, the a$$licant "or land re!istration m st $resent a co$y o" the ori!inal classi"ication a$$roved by the DAN( #ecretary and certi"ied as a tr e co$y by the le!al c stodian o" the o""icial records. +hese "acts m st be established to $rove that the land is alienable and dis$osable. (es$ondent "ailed to do so beca se the certi"ications $resented by res$ondent do not, by themselves, $rove that the land is alienable and dis$osable. +he %AN(O is not the o""icial re$ository or le!al c stodian o" the iss ances o" the DAN( #ecretary declarin! $ blic lands as alienable and dis$osable. +he %AN(O sho ld have attached an o""icial $ blication o" the DAN( #ecretary-s iss ance declarin! the land alienable and dis$osable. Republic of the Philippines v. 0ucia GomeA , G.R. No. 1890!1, $ebruar( !!, !01!. P blic ?and 3ct) con"irmation o" o" im$er"ect titles. It is e/$licit nder #ection 1C 516 that the $ossession and occ $ation re1 ired to ac1 ire an im$er"ect title over an alienable and dis$osable $ blic land m st be ,o$en, contin o s, e/cl sive and notorio s. in character. In Republic of the Philippines v. 5lconaba, the # $reme %o rt e/$lained that the intent behind the se o" ,$ossession. in con0 nction &ith ,occ $ation. is to em$hasi9e the need "or act al and not 0 st constr ctive or "ictional $ossession. +he la& s$ea2s o" possession an) occupation. #ince these &ords are se$arated by the con0 nction an), the clear intention o" the la& is not to ma2e one synonymo s &ith the other. Possession is broader than occ $ation beca se it incl des constr ctive $ossession. 4hen, there"ore, the la& adds the &ord occupation, it see2s to delimit the all*encom$assin! e""ect o" constr ctive $ossession. +a2en to!ether &ith the &ords o$en, contin o s, e/cl sive and notorio s, the &ord occupation serves to hi!hli!ht the "act that "or an a$$licant to 1 ali"y, his $ossession m st not be a mere "iction. 3ct al $ossession o" a land consists in the mani"estation o" acts o" dominion over it o" s ch a nat re as a $arty &o ld nat rally e/ercise over his o&n $ro$erty. On the other hand, #ection 1C 526 is silent as to the re1 ired nat re o" $ossession and occ $ation, th s, re1 irin! a re"erence to the relevant $rovisions o" the %ivil %ode on $rescri$tion. 3nd nder 3rticle 111@ thereo", $ossession "or $ r$oses o" $rescri$tion m st be ,in the conce$t o" an o&ner, $ blic, $eace" l and ninterr $ted.. It is concerned &ith la$se o" time in the manner and nder conditions laid do&n by la&, namely, that the $ossession sho ld be in the conce$t o" an o&ner, $ blic, $eace" l, ninterr $ted and adverse. Possession is o$en &hen it is $atent, visible, a$$arent, notorio s and not clandestine. It is contin o s &hen ninterr $ted, nbro2en and not intermittent or occasional) e/cl sive &hen the adverse $ossessor can sho& e/cl sive dominion over the land and an a$$ro$riation o" it to his o&n se and bene"it) and notorio s &hen it is so cons$ic o s that it is !enerally 2no&n and tal2ed o" by the $ blic or the $eo$le in the nei!hborhood. +he $arty &ho asserts o&nershi$ by adverse $ossession m st $rove the $resence o" the essential

elements o" ac1 isitive $rescri$tion. Republic of the Philippines v. "ast /ilverlane Realt( >evelopment 7orporation, G.R. No. 18 9 1, $ebruar( !0, !01!. Public O##icers P blic o""icer) $reventive s s$ension. +he #andi!anbayan $reventively s s$ended Nsidoro "or <0 days in accordance &ith #ection 13 o" (.3. No. 301<. %learly, by &ell*established 0 ris$r dence, the $rovision o" #ection 13, (e$ blic 3ct 301< ma2es it mandatory "or the #andi!anbayan to s s$end, "or a $eriod not e/ceedin! ninety 5<06 days, any $ blic o""icer &ho has been validly char!ed &ith a violation o" (e$ blic 3ct 301<, as amended or +itle =, 'oo2 II o" the (evised Penal %ode or any o""ense involvin! "ra d $on !overnment o" $ blic " nds or $ro$erty. 5rnol) %ames M. .si)oro vs. +on. &eresita %. 0eonar)o6)e 7astro, et al. G.R. No. 171211, $ebruar( , !01!. P blic o""icers) liability "or over$ricin!) $ersonal and solidary liability) reimb rsement. +he %o rt $holds the %O3-s r lin! that $etitioner is $ersonally and solidarily liable "or the over$ricin! in the com$ ters $ rchased by %D3. +he directive "or the $ayment o" the amo nt o" disallo&ance "inally determined by the %O3 did not chan!e the nat re o" the obli!ation as solidary beca se the demand th s made $on $etitioner did not "oreclose his ri!ht as solidary debtor to $roceed a!ainst his co*debtors7obli!ors, in this case the members o" the P'3% char!ed nder Notice o" Disallo&ance No. <3*001;*101, "or their share in the total amo nt o" disallo&ance. Petitioner is there"ore liable to restit te the P@@1,@1<.00 to the Government &itho t $re0 dice, ho&ever, to his ri!ht to recover it "rom $ersons &ho &ere solidarily liable &ith him. 7an)elario 9erAosa %r. v. Guillermo 7ara'ue an) 7O5, et. al , G.R. No. 127818, $ebruar( 7, !01!. P blic o""icials) holdover. +he clear &ordin! o" #ection @, 3rticle J o" the %onstit tion e/$resses the intent o" the "ramers o" the %onstit tion to cate!orically set a limitation on the $eriod &ithin &hich all elective local o""icials can occ $y their o""ices. +he # $reme %o rt has already established that elective 3(:: o""icials are also local o""icials) they are, th s, bo nd by the three*year term limit $rescribed by the %onstit tion. It, there"ore, becomes irrelevant that the %onstit tion does not e/$ressly $rohibit elective o""icials "rom actin! in a holdover ca$acity. #hort o" amendin! the %onstit tion, %on!ress has no a thority to e/tend the three*year term limit by insertin! a holdover $rovision in (3 No. <0BC. +h s, the term o" three years "or local o""icials sho ld stay at three 536 years, as "i/ed by the %onstit tion, and cannot be e/tended by holdover by %on!ress. 3dmittedly, the # $reme %o rt has, in the $ast, reco!ni9ed the validity o" holdover $rovisions in vario s la&s. One si!ni"icant di""erence bet&een the $resent case and these $ast cases is that &hile these $ast cases all re"er to elective baran'a( or san''unian' 4abataan o""icials &hose terms o" o""ice are not e/$licitly $rovided "or in the %onstit tion, the $resent case re"ers to local elective o""icials G the 3(:: Governor, the 3(:: Vice Governor, and the members o" the (e!ional ?e!islative 3ssembly G &hose terms "all &ithin the three*year term limit set by #ection @, 3rticle J o" the %onstit tion. Aven ass min! that a holdover is constit tionally $ermissible, and there had been stat tory basis "or it 5namely #ection =, 3rticle VII o" (3 No. <0BC6, the r le o" holdover can only a$$ly as an available o$tion &here no e/$ress or im$lied le!islative intent to the contrary e/ists) it cannot a$$ly &here s ch contrary intent is evident. >atu Michael 5bas -i)a, etc., et al. vs. /enate of the Phil., etc., et al.*#asari >. Mapupuno vs. /i<to #rillantes, etc., et al.*Rep. ")cel 7. 0a'man vs. Pa@uito N. Ochoa, %r., etc., et al.*5lmarin 7enti &illah, et al. vs. &he 7ommission on "lections, etc., et al.*5tt(. Romulo #. Macalintal vs. 7ommission on "lections, et al.*0uis K#aro4L #irao'o , G.R. No. 19 !71, $ebruar( !8, !01!.

#i!nin! bon s) le!ality. +here is no dis$ te that the !rant o" a si!nin! bon s had been $revio sly disallo&ed by the e/$ress mandate o" then President Gloria :aca$a!al*3rroyo 5President 3rroyo6. On D ly 22, 2002, this %o rt declared in /// v. 7O5 that #ocial #ervices %ommission-s a thority to "i/ the com$ensation o" its em$loyees nder its charter, (e$ blic 3ct 5(.3.6 No. 11;1 as amended, is s b0ect to the $rovisions o" (.3. No. ;=B@, &hich $rovides "or the consolidation o" allo&ances and com$ensation in the $rescribed standardi9ed salary rates. 4hile there are e/ce$tions $rovided nder #ections 12 and 1= o" (.3. No. ;=B@ in observance o" the $olicy on non*dimin tion o" $ay, the si!nin! bon s is not one o" the bene"its contem$lated. +his %o rt also r led that the si!nin! bon s is ,not a tr ly reasonable com$ensation. since cond ct o" $eace" l collective ne!otiations ,sho ld not come &ith a $rice ta!.. hat :I33-s 'oard o" Directors did not ma2e a mista2e and their real intention &as to re&ard the s ccess" l concl sion o" collective ne!otiations by some $ec niary means is belied by sim ltaneo s a$$roval o" the !rant and the %N3 bet&een #:PP and :I33 betrays their real intention. :oreover, $rior to the iss ance o" 3O: No. DP3 03*3B declarin! the s b0ect bene"it ille!al, there &as no e""ort on the $art o" its 'oard o" Directors to recti"y the alle!ed mista2e in nomenclat re. It &as only a"ter then %or$orate 3 ditor :analo and Director Nacion called :I33-s attention as to the ille!ality o" a si!nin! bon s that :I33 alle!ed that the s b0ect bene"it is a %N3 Incentive. Aasily, s ch is a mere a"tertho !ht.Manila ,nternational 5irport 5uthorit( v. 7ommission on 5u)it, G.R. No. 19=710, $ebruar( 1=, !01!. #i!nin! bon s) ret rn o" ille!al bon s. Good "aith is anchored on an honest belie" that one is le!ally entitled to the bene"it. In this case, the :I33 em$loyees &ho had no $artici$ation in the a$$roval and release o" the disallo&ed bene"it acce$ted the same on the ass m$tion that (esol tion No. 2003*0;= &as iss ed in the valid e/ercise o" the $o&er vested in the 'oard o" Directors nder the :I33 charter. 3s they &ere not $rivy as to reason and motivation o" the 'oard o" Directors, they can $ro$erly rely on the $res m$tion that the "ormer acted re! larly in the $er"ormance o" their o""icial d ties in acce$tin! the s b0ect bene"it. > rthermore, their acce$tance o" the disallo&ed !rant, in the absence o" any com$etent $roo" o" bad "aith on their $art, &ill not s ""ice to render liable "or a re" nd. +he same is not tr e as "ar as the 'oard o" Directors. +heir a thority nder #ection @ o" the :I33 charter is not absol te as their e/ercise thereo" is ,s b0ect to e/istin! la&s, r les and re! lations. and they cannot deny 2no&led!e o" /// v. 7O5 and the vario s iss ances o" the A/ec tive De$artment $rohibitin! the !rant o" the si!nin! bon s. In "act, they are d ty*bo nd to nderstand and 2no& the la& that they are tas2ed to im$lement and their ne/$lained "ail re to do so barred them "rom claimin! that they &ere actin! in !ood "aith in the $er"ormance o" their d ty. +he $res m$tions o" ,!ood "aith. or ,re! lar $er"ormance o" o""icial d ty. are dis$ table and may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Manila ,nternational 5irport 5uthorit( v. 7ommission on 5u)it , G.(. No. 1<C=10, >ebr ary 1C, 2012.

Jul 2012 Philippine Supreme Decisions on Political Law

Posted on 3 ! st 10, 2012 by Philbert A. Varona

Court

Here are select D ly 2012 r lin!s o" the # $reme %o rt o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&I

Constitutional Law 'ill o" ri!hts) ri!ht o" con"rontation. +he e/amination o" &itnesses m st be done orally be"ore a 0 d!e in o$en co rt. +his is tr e es$ecially in criminal cases &here the %onstit tion sec res to the acc sed his ri!ht to a $ blic trial and to meet the &itnesses a!ainst him "ace to "ace. +he re1 irement is the ,sa"est and most satis"actory method o" investi!atin! "acts. as it enables the 0 d!e to test the &itness- credibility thro !h his manner and de$ortment &hile testi"yin!. It is not &itho t e/ce$tions, ho&ever, as the ( les o" %o rt reco!ni9es the conditional e/amination o" &itnesses and the se o" their de$ositions as testimonial evidence in lie o" direct co rt testimony. Go, et al. v. &he People of the Philippines an) +i'h)one 7ompan(, 0t)., et al., G.(. No. 1@BB2=, D ly 1@, 2012. 'ill o" ri!hts) ri!ht o" con"rontation) conditional e/amination o" &itnesses. ' t "or $ r$oses o" ta2in! the de$osition in criminal cases, more $artic larly o" a $rosec tion &itness &ho &o ld "oreseeably be navailable "or trial, the testimonial e/amination sho ld be made be"ore the co rt, or at least be"ore the 0 d!e, &here the case is $endin! as re1 ired by the clear mandate o" #ection 1B, ( le 11< o" the (evised ( les o" %riminal Proced reS %ertainly, to ta2e the de$osition o" the $rosec tion &itness else&here and not be"ore the very same co rt &here the case is $endin! &o ld not only de$rive a detained acc sed o" his ri!ht to attend the $roceedin!s b t also de$rive the trial 0 d!e o" the o$$ort nity to observe the $rosec tion &itness- de$ortment and $ro$erly assess his credibility, &hich is es$ecially intolerable &hen the &itness- testimony is cr cial to the $rosec tion-s case a!ainst the acc sedS +he ri!ht o" con"rontation, on the other hand, is held to a$$ly s$eci"ically to criminal $roceedin!s and to have a t&o"old $ r$oseI 516 to a""ord the acc sed an o$$ort nity to test the testimony o" &itnesses by cross*e/amination, and 526 to allo& the 0 d!e to observe the de$ortment o" &itnesses. +he %o rt e/$lained in People v. /eneris KG.(. No. ?* C@@@3, 3 ! st ;, 1<@0L that the constit tional re1 irement ,ins res that the &itness &ill !ive his testimony nder oath, th s deterrin! lyin! by the threat o" $er0 ry char!e) it "orces the &itness to s bmit to cross*e/amination, a val able instr ment in e/$osin! "alsehood and brin!in! o t the tr th) and it enables the co rt to observe the demeanor o" the &itness and assess his credibility.. Go, et al. v. &he People of the Philippines an) +i'h)one 7ompan(, 0t)., et al., G.(. No. 1@BB2=, D ly 1@, 2012. 'ill o" ri!hts) ri!ht to $rivacy. %learly Kcitin! Morfe v. Mutuc 5130 Phil. C1B K1<;@L6 and Ople v. &orres 53BC Phil. <C@ K1<<@L6, the ri!ht to $rivacy is considered a " ndamental ri!ht that m st be $rotected "rom intr sion or constraint. Ho&ever, in /tan)ar) 7hartere) #an4 v. /enate 7ommittee on #an4s KG.(. No. 1;=1=3, December 2=, 200=L, this %o rt nderscored that the ri!ht to $rivacy is not absol teS +here"ore, &hen the ri!ht to $rivacy "inds tension &ith a com$etin! state ob0ective, the co rts are re1 ired to &ei!h both notions. In these cases, altho !h considered a " ndamental ri!ht, the ri!ht to $rivacy may nevertheless s cc mb to an o$$osin! or overridin! state interest deemed le!itimate and com$ellin!. Gamboa v. P*/supt. Marlou 7. 7han, et al., G.(. No. 1<3;3;, D ly 2C, 2012. 'ill o" ri!hts) &rit o" habeas data. +he &rit o" habeas )ata is an inde$endent and s mmary remedy desi!ned to $rotect the ima!e, $rivacy, honor, in"ormation, and "reedom o" in"ormation o" an individ al, and to $rovide a "or m to en"orce one-s ri!ht to the tr th and to in"ormational

$rivacy. It see2s to $rotect a $erson-s ri!ht to control in"ormation re!ardin! onesel", $artic larly in instances in &hich s ch in"ormation is bein! collected thro !h nla&" l means in order to achieve nla&" l ends. It m st be em$hasi9ed that in order "or the $rivile!e o" the &rit to be !ranted, there m st e/ist a ne/ s bet&een the ri!ht to $rivacy on the one hand, and the ri!ht to li"e, liberty or sec rity on the other. Gamboa v. P*/supt. Marlou 7. 7han, et al., G.(. No. 1<3;3;, D ly 2C, 2012. 'ill o" ri!hts) &rit o" habeas data. +he notion o" in"ormational $rivacy is still develo$in! in Phili$$ine la& and 0 ris$r dence. %onsiderin! that even the ?atin 3merican habeas )ata, on &hich o r o&n ( le on the 4rit o" +abeas >ata is rooted, "inds its ori!ins "rom the A ro$ean tradition o" data $rotection, this %o rt can be ! ided by cases on the $rotection o" $ersonal data decided by the A ro$ean %o rt o" H man (i!hts 5A%H(6. O" $artic lar note is 0ean)er v. /3e)en K2; :arch 1<@=, < AH(( C33L, in &hich the A%H( balanced the ri!ht o" citi9ens to be "ree "rom inter"erence in their $rivate a""airs &ith the ri!ht o" the state to $rotect its national sec rityS 0ean)er ill strates ho& the ri!ht to in"ormational $rivacy, as a s$eci"ic com$onent o" the ri!ht to $rivacy, may yield to an overridin! le!itimate state interest. In similar "ashion, the determination o" &hether the $rivile!e o" the &rit o" habeas )ata, bein! an e/traordinary remedy, may be !ranted in this case entails a delicate balancin! o" the alle!ed intr sion $on the $rivate li"e o" Gamboa and the relevant state interest involved. Gamboa v. P*/supt. Marlou 7. 7han, et al., G.(. No. 1<3;3;, D ly 2C, 2012. %onstit tional constr ction) verba le'is non est rece)en)um. One o" the $rimary and basic r les in stat tory constr ction is that &here the &ords o" a stat te are clear, $lain, and "ree "rom ambi! ity, it m st be !iven its literal meanin! and a$$lied &itho t attem$ted inter$retation. It is a &ell*settled $rinci$le o" constit tional constr ction that the lan! a!e em$loyed in the %onstit tion m st be !iven their ordinary meanin! e/ce$t &here technical terms are em$loyed. 3s m ch as $ossible, the &ords o" the %onstit tion sho ld be nderstood in the sense they have in common se. 4hat it says accordin! to the te/t o" the $rovision to be constr ed com$els acce$tance and ne!ates the $o&er o" the co rts to alter it, based on the $ost late that the "ramers and the $eo$le mean &hat they say. 9erba le'is non est rece)en)um O "rom the &ords o" a stat te there sho ld be no de$art re. +he raison )P Qtre "or the r le is essentially t&o*"oldI $irst, beca se it is ass med that the &ords in &hich constit tional $rovisions are co ched e/$ress the ob0ective so !ht to be attained) and secon), beca se the %onstit tion is not $rimarily a la&yer-s doc ment b t essentially that o" the $eo$le, in &hose conscio sness it sho ld ever be $resent as an im$ortant condition "or the r le o" la& to $revail. 7haveA v. %u)icial an) #ar 7ouncil, et al., G.(. No. 2022C2, D ly 1=, 2012. Aminent domain) determination o" 0 st com$ensation. 4e also declared in National Po3er 7orporation v. Purefoo)s 7orporation KG.(. No. 1;0=2B, #e$tember 12, 200@L that #ection 33 o" (e$ blic 3ct No. ;3<B, as amended 5&hich $rovides a "i/ed "orm la in the com$ tation o" 0 st com$ensation in cases o" ac1 isition o" easements o" ri!ht o" &ay6 is not bindin! $on this %o rt. +his is in 2ee$in! &ith the established r le that the determination o" ,0 st com$ensation. in eminent domain cases is a 0 dicial " nction. National Po3er 7orporation vs. /ps. $lorimon 9. 0leto, et al., G.(. Nos. 1;<<B= T 1=1BB@, D ly 11, 2012. A/ec tive $o&er) emer!ency or callin!*o t $o&ers o" President. KILt has already been established that there is one re$ository o" e/ec tive $o&ers, and that is the President o" the

(e$ blic. +his means that &hen #ection 1, 3rticle VII o" the %onstit tion s$ea2s o" e/ec tive $o&er, it is !ranted to the President and no one else. 3s em$hasi9ed by D stice Dose P. ?a rel, in his ponencia in K9illena v. /ecretar( of the ,nterior, ;= Phil. BC1 51<3<6LI ,4ith re"erence to the A/ec tive De$artment o" the !overnment, there is one $ r$ose &hich is crystal*clear and is readily visible &itho t the $ro0ection o" 0 dicial searchli!ht, and that is the establishment o" a sin!le, not $l ral, A/ec tive. +he "irst section o" 3rticle VII o" the %onstit tion, dealin! &ith the A/ec tive De$artment, be!ins &ith the en nciation o" the $rinci$le that U+he e/ec tive $o&er shall be vested in a President o" the Phili$$ines.- +his means that the President o" the Phili$$ines is the A/ec tive o" the Government o" the Phili$$ines, and no other.. %orollarily, it is only the President, as A/ec tive, &ho is a thori9ed to e/ercise emer!ency $o&ers as $rovided nder #ection 23, 3rticle VI, o" the %onstit tion, as &ell as &hat became 2no&n as the callin!* o t $o&ers nder #ection =, 3rticle VII thereo". %amar M. -ula(an, et al. vs. Gov. 5b)usa4ur M. &an etc., et al., G.(. No. 1@=2<@, D ly 3, 2012. A/ec tive $o&er) civilian $olice "orce) a thority o" local e/ec tives over $olice. (e!ardin! the co ntry-s $olice "orce, #ection ;, 3rticle JVI o" the %onstit tion states thatI ,+he #tate shall establish and maintain one $olice "orce, &hich shall be national in sco$e and civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national $olice commission. +he a thority o" local e/ec tives over the $olice nits in their 0 risdiction shall be $rovided by la&.. 3 local chie" e/ec tive, s ch as the $rovincial !overnor, e/ercises o$erational s $ervision over the $olice, and may e/ercise control only in day*to*day o$erations S ,n the )iscussions of the 7onstitutional 7ommission re'ar)in' the above provision it is clear that the framers never inten)e) for local chief e<ecutives to e<ercise unbri)le) control over the police in emer'enc( situations. +his is &itho t $re0 dice to their a thority over $olice nits in their 0 risdiction as $rovided by la&, and their $rero!ative to see2 assistance "rom the $olice in day to day sit ations, as contem$lated by the %onstit tional %ommission. ' t as a civilian a!ency o" the !overnment, the $olice, thro !h the N3PO?%O:, $ro$erly comes &ithin, and is s b0ect to, the e/ercise by the President o" the $o&er o" e/ec tive control. %amar M. -ula(an, et al. vs. Gov. 5b)usa4ur M. &an etc., et al., G.(. No. 1@=2<@, D ly 3, 2012. A/ec tive $o&er) emer!ency or callin!*o t $o&ers o" local e/ec tives. (es$ondents cannot rely on $ara!ra$h 1, s b$ara!ra$h 5vii6 o" 3rticle C;B Ko" the ?ocal Government %odeL, as the said $rovision e/$ressly re"ers to calamities and disasters, &hether man*made or nat ral. +he !overnor, as local chie" e/ec tive o" the $rovince, is certainly em$o&ered to enact and im$lement emer!ency meas res d rin! these occ rrences. ' t the 2idna$$in! incident in the case at bar cannot be considered as a calamity or a disaster. (es$ondents cannot "ind any le!al moorin! nder this $rovision to 0 sti"y their actions. Para!ra$h 2, s b$ara!ra$h 5vi6 o" the same $rovision is e1 ally ina$$licable "or t&o reasons. $irst, the 3rmed >orces o" the Phili$$ines does not "all nder the cate!ory o" a ,national la& en"orcement a!ency,. to &hich the National Police %ommission 5N3PO?%O:6 and its de$artments belon!. Its mandate is to $hold the soverei!nty o" the Phili$$ines, s $$ort the %onstit tion, and de"end the (e$ blic a!ainst all enemies, "orei!n and domestic. Its aim is also to sec re the inte!rity o" the national territory. /econ), there &as no evidence or even an alle!ation on record that the local $olice "orces &ere inade1 ate to co$e &ith the sit ation or a$$rehend the violators. I" they &ere inade1 ate, the reco rse o" the $rovincial !overnor &as to as2 the assistance o" the #ecretary o" Interior and ?ocal Government, or s ch other a thori9ed o""icials, "or the assistance o" national la& en"orcement a!encies. %amar M. -ula(an, et al. vs. Gov. 5b)usa4ur M. &an etc., et al., G.(. No. 1@=2<@, D ly 3, 2012.

A/ec tive $o&er) $o&er o" reor!ani9ation. #ection 31 o" A/ec tive Order No. 2<2 5A.O. 2<26, other&ise 2no&n as the 3dministrative %ode o" 1<@=, vests in the President the contin in! a thority to reor!ani9e the o""ices nder him in order to achieve sim$licity, economy and e""iciencyS In the case o" #u4lo) n' -a3anin' ",,# v. Gamora KG.(. Nos. 1C2@01*@02, D ly 10, 2001L, the %o rt a""irmed that the President-s a thority to carry o t a reor!ani9ation in any branch or a!ency o" the e/ec tive de$artment is an e/$ress !rant by the le!islat re by virt e o" A.O. 2<2, th sI ,' t o" co rse, the list o" le!al basis a thori9in! the President to reor!ani9e any de$artment or a!ency in the e/ec tive branch does not have to end here. 4e m st not lose si!ht o" the very so rce o" the $o&er G that &hich constit tes an e/$ress !rant o" $o&er. Fnder #ection 31, 'oo2 III o" A/ec tive Order No. 2<2 5other&ise 2no&n as the 3dministrative %ode o" 1<@=6, Uthe President, s b0ect to the $olicy o" the A/ec tive O""ice and in order to achieve sim$licity, economy and e""iciency, shall have the contin in! a thority to reor!ani9e the administrative str ct re o" the O""ice o" the President.- >or this $ r$ose, he may trans"er the " nctions o" other De$artments or 3!encies to the O""ice o" the President.. Picha(, %r. v. Office of the >eput( "<ecutive /ecretar( for 0e'al 5ffairs6,nvesti'ative an) 5)?u)icator( >ivision, et al., G.(. No. 1<;C2B, D ly 2C, 2012. A/ec tive $o&er) $o&er o" reor!ani9ation) rationale. 3nd in >omin'o v. Gamora KG.(. No. 1C22@3, >ebr ary ;, 2003L, the %o rt !ave the rationale behind the President-s contin in! a thority in this &iseI ,+he la& !rants the President this $o&er in reco!nition o" the rec rrin! need o" every President to reor!ani9e his o""ice Uto achieve sim$licity, economy and e""iciency.+he O""ice o" the President is the nerve center o" the A/ec tive 'ranch. +o remain e""ective and e""icient, the O""ice o" the President m st be ca$able o" bein! sha$ed and resha$ed by the President in the manner he deems "it to carry o t his directives and $olicies. 3"ter all, the O""ice o" the President is the command $ost o" the President.. Picha(, %r. v. Office of the >eput( "<ecutive /ecretar( for 0e'al 5ffairs6,nvesti'ative an) 5)?u)icator( >ivision, et al., G.(. No. 1<;C2B. D ly 2C, 2012. A/ec tive $o&er) $o&er o" reor!ani9ation) nat re. Generally, this a thority to im$lement or!ani9ational chan!es is limited to trans"errin! either an o""ice or a " nction "rom the O""ice o" the President to another De$artment or 3!ency, and the other &ay aro nd. Only #ection 31516 Ko" the 3dministrative %odeL !ives the President a virt al "reehand in dealin! &ith the internal str ct re o" the O""ice o" the President Proper by allo&in! him to ta2e actions as e/treme as abolition, consolidation or mer!er o" nits, a$art "rom the less drastic move o" trans"errin! " nctions and o""ices "rom one nit to another. 3!ain, in >omin'o v. Gamora, the %o rt notedI ,Ho&ever, the President-s $o&er to reor!ani9e the O""ice o" the President nder #ection 31 526 and 536 o" AO 2<2 sho ld be distin! ished "rom his $o&er to reor!ani9e the O""ice o" the President Proper. Fnder #ection 31 516 o" AO 2<2, the President can reor!ani9e the O""ice o" the President Pro$er by abolishin', consoli)atin' or mer'in' nits, or by transferrin' " nctions "rom one nit to another. In contrast, nder #ection 31 526 and 536 o" AO 2<2, the President-s $o&er to reor!ani9e o""ices o tside the O""ice o" the President Proper b t still &ithin the O""ice o" the President is limited to merely transferrin' " nctions or a!encies "rom the O""ice o" the President to De$artments or 3!encies, and vice versa.. +he distinction bet&een the allo&able or!ani9ational actions nder #ection 31516 on the one hand and #ection 31 526 and 536 on the other is cr cial not only as it a""ects em$loyees- ten rial sec rity b t also inso"ar as it to ches $on the validity o" the reor!ani9ation, that is, &hether the e/ec tive actions nderta2en "all &ithin the limitations $rescribed nder A.O. 2<2. 4hen the

P3G% &as created nder A.O. 12, it &as com$osed o" a %hairman and t&o 526 %ommissioners &ho held the ran2s o" Presidential 3ssistant II and I, res$ectively, and &as $laced directly , nder the O""ice o" the President.. On the other hand, the ODA#?3, to &hich the " nctions o" the P3G% have no& been trans"erred, is an o""ice &ithin the O""ice o" the President Proper. #ince both o" these o""ices belon! to the O""ice o" the President Proper, the reor!ani9ation by &ay o" abolishin' the P3G% and transferrin' its " nctions to the ODA#?3 is allo&able nder #ection 31 516 o" A.O. 2<2. Picha(, %r. v. Office of the >eput( "<ecutive /ecretar( for 0e'al 5ffairs6 ,nvesti'ative an) 5)?u)icator( >ivision, et al., G.(. No. 1<;C2B, D ly 2C, 2012. Aminent domain) &hat constit tes ,ta2in!.. +he NP%, relyin! on K#ection 33 o" (e$ blic 3ct No. ;3<BL, ar! es that the %3 erred &hen it ordered the $ayment o" 0 st com$ensation "or the $ro$erties in 1 estion, !iven that most o" the $ro$erties &ere s b0ect only to an aerial easement o" ri!ht o" &ay, &ith the NP% re1 irin! the se o" the area above the s b0ect lands "or its transmission lines. 4e have already established in a n mber o" cases the "la& behind the NP%-s ar! ment. 3t the heart o" this ar! ment is the mista2en ass m$tion that &hat are involved are mere liens on the $ro$erty in the "orm o" aerial easements. 4hile it may be tr e that the transmission lines merely $ass over the a""ected $ro$erties, the easement im$oses the additional limitation that the lando&ners are $rohibited "rom constr ctin! any im$rovements or $lantin! any trees that e/ceed three 536 meters &ithin the aerial ri!ht o" &ay area. +his $rohibition clearly inter"eres &ith the lando&ners- ri!ht to $ossess and en0oy their $ro$ertiesS 3$art "rom inter"erin! &ith the attrib tes o" o&nershi$, &e have artic lated in o r observation in National Po3er 7orp. v. /ps. GutierreA K2=1 Phil. 1 51<<16Lthat these transmission lines, beca se o" the hi!h*tension c rrent that $asses thro !h them, $ose a dan!er to the lives and limbs o" those in the s rro ndin! areas, and, th s, serve to limit the activities that can be done on these lands. National Po3er 7orporation vs. /ps. $lorimon 9. 0leto, et al., G.(. Nos. 1;<<B= T 1=1BB@, D ly 11, 2012. Im$eachment) nat re o". Im$eachment, described as ,the most "ormidable &ea$on in the arsenal o" democracy,. &as "oreseen as creatin! divisions, $artialities and enmities, or hi!hli!htin! $re* e/istin! "actions &ith the !reatest dan!er that ,the decision &ill be re! lated more by the com$arative stren!th o" $arties, than by the real demonstrations o" innocence or ! ilt.. Given their concededly $olitical character, the $recise role o" the 0 diciary in im$eachment cases is a matter o" tmost im$ortance to ens re the e""ective " nctionin! o" the se$arate branches &hile $reservin! the str ct re o" chec2s and balance in o r !overnment. :oreover, in this 0 risdiction, the acts o" any branch or instr mentality o" the !overnment, incl din! those traditionally entr sted to the $olitical de$artments, are $ro$er s b0ects o" 0 dicial revie& i" tainted &ith !rave ab se or arbitrariness. Im$eachment re"ers to the $o&er o" %on!ress to remove a $ blic o""icial "or serio s crimes or miscond ct as $rovided in the %onstit tion. 3 mechanism desi!ned to chec2 ab se o" $o&er, im$eachment has its roots in 3thens and &as ado$ted in the Fnited #tates 5F#6 thro !h the in"l ence o" An!lish common la& on the >ramers o" the F# %onstit tion. O r o&n %onstit tion-s $rovisions on im$eachment &ere ado$ted "rom the F# %onstit tionS 7orona v. /enate of the Philippines sittin' as an ,mpeachment 7ourt , et al., G.(. No. 2002C2, D ly 1=, 2012. Im$eachment) $o&er o" 0 dicial revie&. In the "irst im$eachment case decided by this %o rt, $rancisco, %r. v. Na'mamalasa4it na m'a Mananan''ol n' m'a Man''a'a3an' Pilipino, ,nc.

KG.(. No. 1;02;1, November 10, 2003L, &e r led that the $o&er o" 0 dicial revie& in this 0 risdiction incl des the $o&er o" revie& over 0 sticiable iss es in im$eachment $roceedin!s. # bse1 ently, in GutierreA v. +ouse of Representatives 7ommittee on %ustice KG.(. No. 1<3CB<, >ebr ary 1B, 2011L, the %o rt resolved the 1 estion o" the validity o" the sim ltaneo s re"erral o" t&o im$eachment com$laints a!ainst $etitioner Omb dsman &hich &as alle!edly a violation o" the d e $rocess cla se and o" the one year bar $rovision S In the meantime, the im$eachment trial had been concl ded &ith the conviction o" $etitioner by more than the re1 ired ma0ority vote o" the #enator*D d!es. Petitioner immediately acce$ted the verdict and &itho t any $rotest vacated his o""ice. In "act, the D dicial and 'ar %o ncil is already in the $rocess o" screenin! a$$licants and nominees, and the President o" the Phili$$ines is e/$ected to a$$oint a ne& %hie" D stice &ithin the $rescribed <0*day $eriod "rom amon! those candidates shortlisted by the D'%. Fnar! ably, the constit tional iss e raised by $etitioner had been mooted by s $ervenin! events and his o&n acts. 7orona v. /enate of the Philippines sittin' as an ,mpeachment 7ourt, et al., G.(. No. 2002C2, D ly 1=, 2012. D dicial and 'ar %o ncil) com$osition. 3s $etitioner correctly $osits, the se o" the sin! lar letter ,a. $recedin! ,representative of 7on'ress. is ne1 ivocal and leaves no room "or any other constr ction. It is indicative o" &hat the members o" the %onstit tional %ommission had in mind, that is, %on!ress may desi!nate only one 516 re$resentative to the D'%. Had it been the intention that more than one 516 re$resentative "rom the le!islat re &o ld sit in the D'%, the >ramers co ld have, in no ncertain terms, so $rovided. 7haveA v. %u)icial an) #ar 7ouncil, et al., G.(. No. 2022C2, D ly 1=, 2012. D dicial and 'ar %o ncil) com$osition. 3$$lyin! the "ore!oin! $rinci$le to this case, it becomes a$$arent that the &ord K7on'ressL sed in 3rticle VIII, #ection @516 o" the %onstit tion is sed in its !eneric sense. No $artic lar all sion &hatsoever is made on &hether the #enate or the Ho se o" (e$resentatives is bein! re"erred to, b t that, in either case, only a sin! lar re$resentative may be allo&ed to sit in the D'%. +he "ore!oin! declaration is b t sensible, since, as $ointed o t by an esteemed "ormer member o" the %o rt and cons ltant o" the D'% in his memorand m, ,"rom the en meration o" the membershi$ o" the D'%, it is $atent that each cate!ory o" members $ertained to a sin!le individ al only.. 7haveA v. %u)icial an) #ar 7ouncil, et al., G.(. No. 2022C2, D ly 1=, 2012. D dicial and 'ar %o ncil) com$osition. :ore than the reasonin! $rovided in the above disc ssed r les o" constit tional constr ction, the %o rt "inds the above thesis as the $aramo nt 0 sti"ication o" the %o rt-s concl sion that ,%on!ress,. in the conte/t o" D'% re$resentation, sho ld be considered as one body. It is evident that the de"inition o" ,%on!ress. as a bicameral body re"ers to its $rimary " nction in !overnment G to le!islate. In the $assa!e o" la&s, the %onstit tion is e/$licit in the distinction o" the role o" each ho se in the $rocess. +he same holds tr e in %on!ress- non*le!islative $o&ers s ch as, inter alia, the $o&er o" a$$ro$riation, the declaration o" an e/istence o" a state o" &ar, canvassin! o" electoral ret rns "or the President and Vice*President, and im$eachment. In the e/ercise o" these $o&ers, the %onstit tion em$loys $recise lan! a!e in layin! do&n the roles &hich a $artic lar ho se $lays, re!ardless o" &hether the t&o ho ses cons mmate an o""icial act by votin! 0ointly or se$arately. 3n inter*$lay bet&een the t&o ho ses is necessary in the reali9ation o" these $o&ers ca sin! a vivid dichotomy that the %o rt cannot sim$ly disco nt. Verily, each ho se is constit tionally !ranted &ith $o&ers and " nctions $ec liar to its nat re and &ith 2een consideration to 16 its relationshi$ &ith the other chamber) and 26 in consonance &ith the $rinci$le o" chec2s and balances, to the other branches o" !overnment.

+his, ho&ever, cannot be said in the case o" D'% re$resentation beca se no liaison bet&een the t&o ho ses e/ists in the &or2in!s o" the D'%. No mechanism is re1 ired bet&een the #enate and the Ho se o" (e$resentatives in the screenin! and nomination o" 0 dicial o""icers. Hence, the term ,%on!ress. m st be ta2en to mean the entire le!islative de$artment. 5 fortiori, a $rete/t o" oversi!ht cannot $revail over the more $ra!matic scheme &hich the %onstit tion laid &ith "irmness, that is, that the D'% has a seat "or a sin!le re$resentative o" %on!ress, as one o" the co* e1 al branches o" !overnment. 7haveA v. %u)icial an) #ar 7ouncil, et al., G.(. No. 2022C2, D ly 1=, 2012. Public o##icers P blic o""icers) a thority o" city vice*mayor to enter into contracts. Fnder K#ection CB; o" the ?ocal Government %odeL, there is no inherent a thority on the $art o" the city vice*mayor to enter into contracts on behal" o" the local !overnment nit, nli2e that $rovided "or the city mayor. +h s, the a thority o" the vice*mayor to enter into contracts on behal" o" the city &as strictly circ mscribed by the ordinance !rantin! it. Ordinance No. 1B*2003 s$eci"ically a thori9ed Vice*:ayor Nambao to enter into contracts "or cons ltancy services. 3s this is not a $o&er or d ty !iven nder the la& to the O""ice o" the Vice*:ayor, Ordinance No. 1B*2003 cannot be constr ed as a ,contin in! a thority. "or any $erson &ho enters the O""ice o" the Vice* :ayor to enter into s bse1 ent, albeit similar, contracts. 5rnol) >. 9icencio v. +on. Re(nal)o 5. 9illar, et al., G.(. No. 1@20;<, D ly 3, 2012. P blic o""icers) com$ensation and allo&ances. +he iss ance o" (esol tion No. C;C by the NH3 &as &itho t le!al basis. 3t the time o" its iss ance in 1<@2, #ection 3 o" P.D. 1B<= had already e/$ressly re$ealed all decrees, e/ec tive orders, and iss ances that a thori9ed the !rant o" allo&ances to !ro $s o" o""icials or em$loyees des$ite the inconsistency o" those allo&ances &ith the $osition classi"ication or rates indicated in the National %om$ensation and Position %lassi"ication Plan. Petitioners- contention that P.D. 1B<= only re$ealed #ection C o" P.D. <@B, b t not #ection 2 thereo", is &itho t basis. 4hile #ection 2 o" P.D. 1B<= only mentions #ection C o" P.D. <@B, #ection 3 o" P.D. 1B<= s$eci"ically re"ers to all inconsistent la&s or iss ances. +herea"ter, or in 1<@<, (.3. ;=B@ " rther rein"orced this $olicy by e/$ressly decreein! that all allo&ances not s$eci"ically mentioned therein, or as may be determined by the D':, shall be deemed incl ded in the standardi9ed salary rates $rescribed. Fnder #ection 12 o" (.3. ;=B@, all 2inds o" allo&ances are inte!rated in the standardi9ed salary rates. 'elo& are the e/ce$tionsI 1. (e$resentation and trans$ortation allo&ance 5(3+36) 2. %lothin! and la ndry allo&ance) 3. # bsistence allo&ance o" marine o""icers and cre& on board !overnment vessels) C. # bsistence allo&ance o" hos$ital $ersonnel) B. Ha9ard $ay) ;. 3llo&ances o" "orei!n service $ersonnel stationed abroad) and =. # ch other additional com$ensation not other&ise s$eci"ied herein as may be determined by the D':. Only those additional com$ensation bene"its bein! received by inc mbents as o" 1 D ly 1<@<, &hich &ere not inte!rated into the standardi9ed salary rates, shall contin e to be a thori9ed. In this case, the incentive allo&ances !ranted nder (esol tion No.C;C are clearly not amon! those en merated nder (.3. ;=B@. Neither has there been any alle!ation that the allo&ances &ere s$eci"ically determined by the D': to be an e/ce$tion to the standardi9ed salary rates.

Hence, s ch allo&ances can no lon!er be !ranted a"ter the e""ectivity o" (.3. ;=B@. 5bellanosa, et al. v. 7ommission on 5u)it an) National +ousin' 5uthorit(, G.(. No. 1@B@0;, D ly 2C, 2012. P blic o""icers) validity o" $er diems $aid to e/*o""icio members o" PAR3. PAR3-s insistence that there is le!al basis in its !rant o" $er diems to the e< officio members o" its 'oard does not hold &ater. +he constit tional $rohibition e/$lained in K7ivil 0iberties 8nion v. "<ecutive #ecretary, G.(. Nos. @3@<; T @3@1B, >ebr ary 22, 1<<1L still stands and this %o rt "inds no reason to revisit the doctrine laid do&n therein as said inter$retation, to this %o rt-s mind, is in consonance &ith &hat o r %onstit tion $rovides S In 7ivil 0iberties 8nion, this %o rt clari"ied the $rohibition nder #ection 13, 3rticle VII o" the %onstit tion and em$hasi9ed that a $ blic o""icial holdin! an e< officio $osition as $rovided by la& has no ri!ht to receive additional com$ensation "or the e< officio $osition. +his %o rt r ledI ,It bears re$eatin! tho !h that in order that s ch additional d ties or " nctions may not trans!ress the $rohibition embodied in #ection 13, 3rticle VII o" the 1<@= %onstit tion, s ch additional d ties or " nctions m st be re@uire) b( the primar( functions of the official concerne), 3ho is to perform the same in an e<6 officio capacit( as provi)e) b( la3, 3ithout receivin' an( a))itional compensation therefor . +he e<6officio $osition bein! act ally and in le!al contem$lation $art o" the $rinci$al o""ice, it "ollo&s that the o""icial concerned has no ri!ht to receive additional com$ensation "or his services in the said $osition. +he reason is that these services are already $aid "or and covered by the com$ensation attached to his $rinci$al o""ice. It sho ld be obvio s that i", say, the #ecretary o" >inance attends a meetin! o" the :onetary 'oard as an e<6officio member thereo", he is act ally and in le!al contem$lation $er"ormin! the $rimary " nction o" his $rinci$al o""ice in de"inin! $olicy in monetary and ban2in! matters, &hich come nder the 0 risdiction o" his de$artment. >or s ch attendance, there"ore, he is not entitled to collect any e/tra com$ensation, &hether it be in the "orm o" a $er diem or an honorari m or an allo&ance, or some other s ch e $hemism. 'y &hatever name it is desi!nated, s ch additional com$ensation is $rohibited by the %onstit tion.. Philippine "conomic Gone 5uthorit( v. 7ommission on 5u)it an) Re(nal)o 5. 9illar, 7hairman, 7ommission on 5u)it, G.(. No. 1@<=;=, D ly 3, 2012. P blic o""icers) liability o" $ blic o""icer e/ec tin! contract &itho t a thority. #ection 103 o" P.D. 1CCB declares that e/$endit res o" !overnment " nds or ses o" !overnment $ro$erty in violation o" la& or re! lations shall be a $ersonal liability o" the o""icial or em$loyee "o nd to be directly res$onsible there"or. +he $ blic o""icial-s $ersonal liability arises only i" the e/$endit re o" !overnment " nds &as made in violation o" la&. In this case, $etitioner-s act o" enterin! into a contract on behal" o" the local !overnment nit &itho t the re1 isite a thority there"or &as in violation o" the ?ocal Government %ode. 4hile $etitioner may have relied on the o$inion o" the %ity ?e!al O""icer, s ch reliance only serves to b ttress his !ood "aith. It does not, ho&ever, e/c l$ate him "rom his $ersonal liability nder P.D. 1CCB. 5rnol) >. 9icencio v. +on. Re(nal)o 5. 9illar, et al., G.(. No. 1@20;<, D ly 3, 2012. P blic o""icers) s s$ension order. 4hile the s s$ension o" a $ blic o""icer nder K#ection 13 or (e$ blic 3ct No. 301<L is mandatory, the s s$ension re1 ires a $rior hearin! to determine ,the validity o" the in"ormation. "iled a!ainst him, ,ta2in! into acco nt the serio s and "ar reachin! conse1 ences o" a s s$ension o" an elective $ blic o""icial even be"ore his conviction.. +he acc sed $ blic o""icial-s ri!ht to challen!e the validity o" the in"ormation be"ore a s s$ension order may be iss ed incl des the ri!ht to challen!e the 5i6 validity o" the criminal $roceedin! leadin! to the "ilin! o" an in"ormation a!ainst him, and 5ii6 $ro$riety o" his $rosec tion on the !ro nd that the acts char!ed do not constit te a violation o" (.3. No. 301< or o" the $rovisions on bribery o" the (evised Penal %ode. Mi'uel v. /an)i'anba(an, G.(. No. 1=203B, D ly C, 2012.

P blic o""icers) s s$ension order. +he $ r$ose o" the la& in re1 irin! a $re*s s$ension hearin! is to determine the validity o" the in"ormation so that the trial co rt can have a basis to either s s$end the acc sed and $roceed &ith the trial on the merits o" the case, &ithhold the s s$ension and dismiss the case, or correct any $art o" the $roceedin!s that im$airs its validity. +hat hearin! is similar to a challen!e to the validity o" the in"ormation by &ay o" a motion to 1 ash. 4hile a $re*s s$ension hearin! is aimed at sec rin! "or the acc sed "air and ade1 ate o$$ort nity to challen!e the validity o" the in"ormation or the re! larity o" the $roceedin!s a!ainst him, K0uciano v. Mariano 51C@*' Phil. 1=@ K1<=1L6Lli2e&ise em$hasi9es that no hard and "ast r le e/ists in re! latin! its cond ct. 4ith the $ r$ose o" a $re*s s$ension hearin! in mind, the absence o" an actual hearin! alone cannot be determinative o" the validity o" a s s$ension order. Mi'uel v. /an)i'anba(an, G.(. No. 1=203B, D ly C, 2012. No esto$$el a!ainst Government. In #a(ba( Bater >istrict v. 7ommission on 5u)it KC2B Phil. 32; K2002L6, this %o rt stated that $ blic o""icers- erroneo s a$$lication and en"orcement o" the la& do not esto$ the !overnment "rom ma2in! a s bse1 ent correction o" those errors. 4here there is an e/$ress $rovision o" la& $rohibitin! the !rant o" certain bene"its, the la& m st be en"orced even i" it $re0 dices certain $arties on acco nt o" an error committed by $ blic o""icials in !rantin! the bene"it. Practice, &itho t more G no matter ho& lon! contin ed G cannot !ive rise to any vested ri!ht i" it is contrary to la&. 5bellanosa, et al. v. 7ommission on 5u)it an) National +ousin' 5uthorit(, G.(. No. 1@B@0;, D ly 2C, 2012. Local !overnment ?ocal a tonomy) devol tion) reservation in "avor o" national !overnment. 4hile K#ection 1= o" the ?ocal Government %odeL char!es the ?GFs to ta2e on the " nctions and res$onsibilities that have already been devolved $on them "rom the national a!encies on the as$ect o" $rovidin! "or basic services and "acilities in their res$ective 0 risdictions, $ara!ra$h 5c6 o" the same $rovision $rovides a cate!orical e/ce$tion o" cases involvin! nationally*" nded $ro0ects, "acilities, $ro!rams and services, th sI ,5c6 Not&ithstandin! the $rovisions o" s bsection 5b6 hereo", $ blic &or2s and in"rastr ct re $ro0ects and other "acilities, $ro!rams and services " nded by the National Government nder the ann al General 3$$ro$riations 3ct, other s$ecial la&s, $ertinent e/ec tive orders, and those &holly or $artially " nded "rom "orei!n so rces, are not covered nder this #ection, e/ce$t in those cases &here the local !overnment nit concerned is d ly desi!nated as the im$lementin! a!ency "or s ch $ro0ects, "acilities, $ro!rams and services.. +he essence o" this e/$ress reservation o" $o&er by the national !overnment is that, nless an ?GF is $artic larly desi!nated as the im$lementin! a!ency, it has no $o&er over a $ro!ram "or &hich " ndin! has been $rovided by the national !overnment nder the ann al !eneral a$$ro$riations act, even i" the $ro!ram involves the delivery o" basic services &ithin the 0 risdiction o" the ?GFS Indeed, a com$lete relin1 ishment o" central !overnment $o&ers on the matter o" $rovidin! basic "acilities and services cannot be im$lied as the ?ocal Government %ode itsel" &ei!hs a!ainst it. +he national !overnment is, th s, not $recl ded "rom ta2in! a direct hand in the "orm lation and im$lementation o" national develo$ment $ro!rams es$ecially &here it is im$lemented locally in coordination &ith the ?GFs concerned. Pimentel, et al. v. "<ecutive /ecretar(, et al., G.(. No. 1<B==0, D ly 1=, 2012. Other laws

3!rarian re"orm) $roced re "or ac1 isition. +he $roced re "or ac1 isition o" $rivate lands nder #ection 1; 5e6 o" the %3(? is that $on recei$t by the lando&ner o" the corres$ondin! $ayment or, in case o" re0ection or no res$onse "rom the lando&ner, $on de$osit &ith an accessible ban2 desi!nated by the D3( o" the com$ensation in cash or in ?'P bonds, the D3( shall ta2e immediate $ossession o" the land and re1 est the $ro$er (e!ister o" Deeds to iss e a +%+ in the name o" the (e$ blic o" the Phili$$ines. +herea"ter, the D3( shall $roceed &ith the redistrib tion o" the land to the 1 ali"ied bene"iciariesS >iamon) $arms, ,nc. v. >iamon) $arm Bor4ers Multi6Purpose 7ooperative, et al., G.(. No. 1<2<<<, D ly 1@, 2012. 3!rarian re"orm) control and $ossession o" a!ric lt ral land. 4e, ho&ever, a!ree that $etitioner m st no& t rn over $ossession o" the 10<*hectare land. +he matter has already been settled in +acien)a 0uisita, ,ncorporate), etc. v. Presi)ential 5'rarian Reform 7ouncil, et al. KG.(. No. 1=1101, 3$ril 2C, 2012L, &hen &e r led that the %onstit tion and the %3(? intended the "armers, individ ally or collectively, to have control over a!ric lt ral lands, other&ise all rhetoric abo t a!rarian re"orm &ill be "or na !ht. 4e stressed that nder #ection C, 3rticle JIII o" the 1<@= %onstit tion and #ection 2 o" the %3(?, the a!rarian re"orm $ro!ram is "o nded on the ri!ht o" "armers and re! lar "arm &or2ers &ho are landless to o&n directly or collectively the lands they till. +he $olicy on a!rarian re"orm is that control over the a!ric lt ral land m st al&ays be in the hands o" the "armers. >iamon) $arms, ,nc. v. >iamon) $arm Bor4ers Multi6 Purpose 7ooperative, et al., G.(. No. 1<2<<<, D ly 1@, 2012. Government*o&ned and *controlled cor$orations) de"inition. >rom K#ections 25106 and 25136 o" the Introd ctory Provisions o" the 3dministrative %ode o" 1<@= 5A/ec tive Order No. 2<26L, it is clear that a GO%% m st be ,or!ani9ed as a stoc2 or non*stoc2 cor$oration. &hile an instr mentality is vested by la& &ith cor$orate $o&ers. ?i2e&ise, &hen the la& ma2es a !overnment instr mentality o$erationally a tonomo s, the instr mentality remains $art o" the National Government machinery altho !h not inte!rated &ith the de$artment "rame&or2. 4hen the la& vests in a !overnment instr mentality cor$orate $o&ers, the instr mentality does not necessarily become a cor$oration. Fnless the !overnment instr mentality is or!ani9ed as a stoc2 or non*stoc2 cor$oration, it remains a !overnment instr mentality e/ercisin! not only !overnmental b t also cor$orate $o&ers. :any !overnment instr mentalities are vested &ith cor$orate $o&ers b t they do not become stoc2 or non*stoc2 cor$orations, &hich is a necessary condition be"ore an a!ency or instr mentality is deemed a GO%%. A/am$les are the :actan International 3ir$ort 3 thority, the Phili$$ine Ports 3 thority, the Fniversity o" the Phili$$ines, and #an'4o /entral n' Pilipinas. 3ll these !overnment instr mentalities e/ercise cor$orate $o&ers b t they are not or!ani9ed as stoc2 or non*stoc2 cor$orations as re1 ired by #ection 25136 o" the Introd ctory Provisions o" the 3dministrative %ode. +hese !overnment instr mentalities are sometimes loosely called !overnment cor$orate entities. +hey are not, ho&ever, GO%%s in the strict sense as nderstood nder the 3dministrative %ode, &hich is the !overnin! la& de"inin! the le!al relationshi$ and stat s o" !overnment entities. Republic of the Philippines, represente) b( the Philippine Reclamation 5uthorit( :PR5; vs. 7it( of ParaRa@ue, G.(. No. 1<110<, D ly 1@, 2012. Government*o&ned and *controlled cor$orations) de"inition. In the case at bench, P(3 is not a GO%% beca se it is neither a stoc2 nor a non*stoc2 cor$oration. It cannot be considered as a stoc2 cor$oration beca se altho !h it has a ca$ital stoc2 divided into no $ar val e shares as $rovided in #ection =C o" P.D. No. 10@C, it is not a thori9ed to distrib te dividends, s r$l s allotments or $ro"its to stoc2holders. +here is no $rovision &hatsoever in P.D. No. 10@C or in

any o" the s bse1 ent e/ec tive iss ances $ertainin! to P(3, $artic larly, A.O. No. B2B, A.O. No. ;BC; and AO No. =<@= that a thori9es P(3 to distrib te dividends, s r$l s allotments or $ro"its to its stoc2holders. P(3 cannot be considered a non*stoc2 cor$oration either beca se it does not have members. 3 non*stoc2 cor$oration m st have members. :oreover, it &as not or!ani9ed "or any o" the $ r$oses mentioned in #ection @@ o" the %or$oration %ode. #$eci"ically, it &as created to mana!e all !overnment reclamation $ro0ects. Republic of the Philippines, represente) b( the Philippine Reclamation 5uthorit( :PR5; vs. 7it( of ParaRa@ue, G.(. No. 1<110<, D ly 1@, 2012. Government*o&ned and *controlled cor$orations) %onstit tional re1 irements. > rthermore, there is another reason &hy the P(3 cannot be classi"ied as a GO%%. #ection 1;, 3rticle JII o" the 1<@= %onstit tion $rovides as "ollo&sI ,#ection 1;. +he %on!ress shall not, e/ce$t by !eneral la&, $rovide "or the "ormation, or!ani9ation, or re! lation o" $rivate cor$orations. Government*o&ned or controlled cor$orations may be created or established by s$ecial charters in the interest o" the common !ood and s b0ect to the test o" economic viability.. +he " ndamental $rovision above a thori9es %on!ress to create GO%%s thro !h s$ecial charters on t&o conditionsI 16 the GO%% m st be established "or the common !ood) and 26 the GO%% m st meet the test o" economic viability. In this case, P(3 may have $assed the "irst condition o" common !ood b t "ailed the second one G economic viability. Fndo btedly, the $ r$ose behind the creation o" P(3 &as not "or economic or commercial activities. Neither &as it created to com$ete in the mar2et $lace considerin! that there &ere no other com$etin! reclamation com$anies bein! o$erated by the $rivate sector. 3s mentioned earlier, P(3 &as created essentially to $er"orm a $ blic service considerin! that it &as $rimarily res$onsible "or a coordinated, economical and e""icient reclamation, administration and o$eration o" lands belon!in! to the !overnment &ith the ob0ect o" ma/imi9in! their tili9ation and hastenin! their develo$ment consistent &ith the $ blic interest. Republic of the Philippines, represente) b( the Philippine Reclamation 5uthorit( :PR5; vs. 7it( of ParaRa@ue, G.(. No. 1<110<, D ly 1@, 2012. Government*o&ned and *controlled cor$orations) de"inition. +his %o rt is convinced that P(3 is not a GO%% either nder #ection 2536 o" the Introd ctory Provisions o" the 3dministrative %ode or nder #ection 1;, 3rticle JII o" the 1<@= %onstit tion. +he "acts, the evidence on record and 0 ris$r dence on the iss e s $$ort the $osition that P(3 &as not or!ani9ed either as a stoc2 or a non*stoc2 cor$oration. Neither &as it created by %on!ress to o$erate commercially and com$ete in the $rivate mar2et. Instead, P(3 is a !overnment instr mentality vested &ith cor$orate $o&ers and $er"ormin! an essential $ blic service $ rs ant to #ection 25106 o" the Introd ctory Provisions o" the 3dministrative %ode. 'ein! an incor$orated !overnment instr mentality, it is e/em$t "rom $ayment o" real $ro$erty ta/. Republic of the Philippines, represente) b( the Philippine Reclamation 5uthorit( :PR5; vs. 7it( of ParaRa@ue , G.(. No. 1<110<, D ly 1@, 2012. Government contracts) $ blic biddin! re1 irement. P blic biddin!, as a method o" !overnment $roc rement, is !overned by the $rinci$les o" trans$arency, com$etitiveness, sim$licity, and acco ntability. 'y its very nat re and characteristic, a com$etitive $ blic biddin! aims to $rotect the $ blic interest by !ivin! the $ blic the best $ossible advanta!es thr o$en com$etition and in order to avoid or $recl de s s$icion o" "avoritism and anomalies in the e/ec tion o" $ blic contracts. A/ce$t only in cases in &hich alternative methods o" $roc rement are allo&ed, all !overnment $roc rement shall be done by com$etitive biddin!. In the case o" 5'an, %r. v.

Philippine ,nternational 5ir &erminals 7o, ,nc. KG.(. Nos. 1BB001, 1BBBC= T 1BB;;1, :ay B, 2003L, the %o rt heldI ,%om$etition m st be le!itimate, "air and honest. In the "ield o" !overnment contract la&, com$etition re1 ires, not only biddin! $on a common standard, a common basis, $on the same thin!, the same s b0ect matter, the same nderta2in!, b t also that it be le!itimate, "air and honest) and not desi!ned to in0 re o" de"ra d the !overnment.. It has been held that the three $rinci$les in biddin! are the o""er to the $ blic, o$$ort nity "or com$etition, and a basis "or the e/act com$arison o" bids. 3 re! lation o" the matter &hich e/cl des any o" these "actors destroys the distinctive character o" the system and th&arts the $ r$ose o" its ado$tion. Philippine /ports 7ommission, et al. v. >ear %ohn /ervices, ,nc., G.(. No. 1@32;0, D ly C, 2012. Government contracts) $ blic biddin! re1 irement) a$$roved b d!et o" contract m st be disclosed. Fnder the la&, the P#%*'3% is mandated to disclose not only the descri$tion o" the items to be $roc red, and the eli!ibility re1 irements, amon! others, b t also the a$$roved b d!et o" the $ro0ect. %om$etitive biddin! is an essential element o" a $ blic biddin!. +h s, it sho ld be cond cted "airly and o$enly &ith " ll and "ree o$$ort nity "or com$etition amon! bidders. It has been held in a lon! line o" cases that a contract !ranted &itho t the com$etitive biddin! re1 ired by la& is void and the $arty to &hom it is a&arded cannot bene"it "rom it S %onse1 ently, the $rovision in the K,nstruction to #i))ersL statin! that no a&ard o" the contract shall be made to a bidder &hose bid $rice is lo&er than the allo&able !overnment estimate :5G"; or 33A is not valid. +he r le on the matter is clear. +he P#%*'3% is obli!ed to observe and en"orce the same in the $roc rement o" !oods and services "or the $ro0ect. +he la& on $ blic biddin! is not an em$ty "ormality. 3 strict adherence to the $rinci$les, r les and re! lations on $ blic biddin! m st be s stained i" only to $reserve the inte!rity and the "aith o" the !eneral $ blic on the $roced re. Philippine /ports 7ommission, et al. v. >ear %ohn /ervices, ,nc., G.(. No. 1@32;0, D ly C, 2012.

Au!ust 2012 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Political Law

Posted on #e$tember B, 2012 by Philbert A. Varona Here are select 3 ! st 2012 r lin!s o" the # $reme %o rt o" the Phili$$ines on $olitical la&I Constitutional law 'ill o" ri!hts) d e $rocess. D e $rocess, as a constit tional $rece$t, does not al&ays and in all sit ations re1 ire a trial*ty$e $roceedin!. It is satis"ied &hen a $erson is noti"ied o" the char!e a!ainst him and !iven an o$$ort nity to e/$lain or de"end himsel". In administrative $roceedin!s, the "ilin! o" char!es and !ivin! reasonable o$$ort nity "or the $erson so char!ed to ans&er the acc sations a!ainst him constit te the minim m re1 irements o" d e $rocess. :ore o"ten, this o$$ort nity is con"erred thro !h &ritten $leadin!s that the $arties s bmit to $resent their char!es and de"enses. ' t as lon! as a $arty is !iven the o$$ort nity to de"end his or her interests in d e co rse, said $arty is not denied d e $rocess. S #ince $etitioner &as !iven the o$$ort nity to de"end himsel" "rom the char!es a!ainst him, as in "act he s bmitted a %o nter* 3""idavit &ith the P3G%, tho !h he "ailed to com$ly &ith the order "or the s bmission o"

$osition $a$er, he cannot com$lain o" denial o" d e $rocess. >r. $ernan)o 5. Melen)res M.>., "<ecutive >irector of the 0un' 7enter of the Philippines C07PD vs. Presi)ent 5nti6Graft 7ommission, et al., G.(. No. 1;3@B<, 3 ! st 1B, 2012. 'ill o" ri!hts) nreasonable searches) e/cl sionary r le. #ection 2, 3rticle III o" the %onstit tion mandates that a search and sei9 re m st be carried o t thro !h or on the stren!th o" a 0 dicial &arrant $redicated $on the e/istence o" $robable ca se, absent &hich s ch search and sei9 re becomes , nreasonable. &ithin the meanin! o" said constit tional $rovision. Avidence obtained and con"iscated on the occasion o" s ch an nreasonable search and sei9 re is tainted and sho ld be e/cl ded "or bein! the $roverbial "r it o" a $oisono s tree. In the lan! a!e o" the " ndamental la&, it shall be inadmissible in evidence "or any $ r$ose in any $roceedin!. Mar'arita 5mbre . 7a(uni v. People of the Philippines, G.(. No. 1<1B32, 3 ! st 1B, 2012. 'ill o" ri!hts) &arrantless arrests) "la!rante delicto . #ection BK o" ( le 113 o" the ( les o" %riminal Proced reL $rovides three 536 instances &hen &arrantless arrest may be la&" lly e""ectedI 5a6 arrest o" a s s$ect in fla'rante )elictoN 5b6 arrest o" a s s$ect &here, based on $ersonal 2no&led!e o" the arrestin! o""icer, there is $robable ca se that said s s$ect &as the $er$etrator o" a crime &hich had 0 st been committed) 5c6 arrest o" a $risoner &ho has esca$ed "rom c stody servin! "inal 0 d!ment or tem$orarily con"ined d rin! the $endency o" his case or has esca$ed &hile bein! trans"erred "rom one con"inement to another. In arrest in fla'rante )elicto, the acc sed is a$$rehended at the very moment he is committin! or attem$tin! to commit or has 0 st committed an o""ense in the $resence o" the arrestin! o""icer. %learly, to constit te a valid in fla'rante )elicto arrest, t&o re1 isites m st conc rI 516 the $erson to be arrested m st e/ec te an overt act indicatin! that he has 0 st committed, is act ally committin!, or is attem$tin! to commit a crime) and 526 s ch overt act is done in the $resence or &ithin the vie& o" the arrestin! o""icer. In the case at bench, there is no !ainsayin! that 3mbre &as ca !ht by the $olice o""icers in the act o" sin! shab and, th s, can be la&" lly arrested &itho t a &arrant. PO1 :ateo $ositively identi"ied 3mbre sni""in! s s$ected shab "rom an al min m "oil bein! held by %astro. 3mbre, ho&ever, made m ch o" the "act that there &as no $rior valid intr sion in the residence o" # ltan. +he ar! ment is s$ecio s. # ""ice it to state that $rior 0 sti"ication "or intr sion or $rior la&" l intr sion is not an element o" an arrest in fla'rante )elicto. +h s, even !rantin! ar! endo that the a$$rehendin! o""icers had no le!al ri!ht to be $resent in the d&ellin! o" # ltan, it &o ld not render nla&" l the arrest o" 3mbre, &ho &as seen sni""in! shab &ith %astro and :endo9a in a $ot session by the $olice o""icers. 3ccordin!ly, PO2 :asi and PO1 :ateo &ere not only a thori9ed b t &ere also d ty* bo nd to arrest 3mbre to!ether &ith %astro and :endo9a "or ille!al se o" metham$hetamine hydrochloride in violation o" #ection 1B, 3rticle II o" (.3. No. <1;B. S %onsiderin! that the &arrantless arrest o" 3mbre &as valid, the s bse1 ent search and sei9 re done on her $erson &as li2e&ise la&" l. 3"ter all, a le!itimate &arrantless arrest necessarily cloa2s the arrestin! $olice o""icer &ith a thority to validly search and sei9e "rom the o""ender 516 dan!ero s &ea$ons, and 526 those that may be sed as $roo" o" the commission o" an o""ense. Mar'arita 5mbre . 7a(uni v. People of the Philippines, G.(. No. 1<1B32, 3 ! st 1B, 2012. Public o##icers

P blic o""icers) three*"old res$onsibility. 4e have r led that dismissal o" a criminal action does not "oreclose instit tion o" an administrative $roceedin! a!ainst the same res$ondent, nor carry &ith it the relie" "rom administrative liability. It is a basic r le in administrative la& that $ blic o""icials are nder a three*"old res$onsibility "or a violation o" their d ty or "or a &ron!" l act or omission, s ch that they may be held civilly, criminally and administratively liable "or the same act. 3dministrative liability is th s se$arate and distinct "rom $enal and civil liability. :oreover, the "act that the administrative case and the case "iled be"ore the Omb dsman are based on the same s b0ect matter is o" no moment. It is a " ndamental $rinci$le o" administrative la& that the administrative case may !enerally $roceed a!ainst a res$ondent inde$endently o" a criminal action "or the same act or omission and re1 ires only a $re$onderance o" evidence to establish administrative ! ilt as a!ainst $roo" beyond reasonable do bt o" the criminal char!e. 3ccordin!ly, the dismissal o" t&o criminal cases by the /an)i'anba(an and o" several criminal com$laints by the Omb dsman did not res lt in the absol tion o" $etitioner "rom the administrative char!es. >r. $ernan)o 5. Melen)res M.>., "<ecutive >irector of the 0un' 7enter of the Philippines C07PD vs. Presi)ent 5nti6Graft 7ommission, et al., G.(. No. 1;3@B<, 3 ! st 1B, 2012. P blic o""icers) three*"old res$onsibility. Fnder the .three"old liability r le,. any act or omission o" any $ blic o""icial or em$loyee can res lt in criminal, civil, or administrative liability, each o" &hich is inde$endent o" the other. "rnesto 5. $a?ar)o vs. Office of the Ombu)sman, et al., G.(. No. 1=32;@, 3 ! st 23, 2012. Omb dsman) $o&er to dismiss errin! $ blic o""icials . 3s a last ditch e""ort to save himsel", $etitioner no& $ ts in iss e the $o&er o" the Omb dsman to order his dismissal "rom service. Petitioner contends that the Omb dsman in dismissin! him "rom service disre!arded #ection 13, s b$ara!ra$h 3, 3rticle JI o" the %onstit tion as &ell as #ection 1B536 o" (3 No. ;==0, &hich only vests in the Omb dsman the $o&er to recommend the removal o" a $ blic o""icial or em$loyee. S It is already &ell*settled that ,the $o&er o" the Omb dsman to determine and im$ose administrative liability is not merely recommendatory b t act ally mandatory.. 3s &e have e/$lained in 5tt(. 0e)esma v. 7ourt of 5ppeals KB03 Phil. 3<; 520036L, ,the "act UKtLhat the re" sal, &itho t 0 st ca se, o" any o""icer to com$ly &ith KtheL order o" the Omb dsman to $enali9e an errin! o""icer or em$loyee is a !ro nd "or disci$linary action K nder #ection 1B536 o" (3 No. ;==0L) is a stron! indication that the Omb dsman-s Urecommendation- is not merely advisory in nat re b t is act ally mandatory &ithin the bo nds o" la&.. "rnesto 5. $a?ar)o vs. Office of the Ombu)sman, et al., G.(. No. 1=32;@, 3 ! st 23, 2012.

(ew "ules and the Elections

"e!ulations *overnin!

Posted on Dan ary 1C, 2013 by Imelda 3. :an! iat V Posted in %onstit tional ?a&, Phili$$ines * ?a&, Phili$$ines * (e! lation V ?eave a comment

+he %omelec $rom l!ated (esol tion No. <;1B on 1B Dan ary 2013. +his (esol tion im$lements the $rovisions o" (e$ blic 3ct No. <00;, more $o$ larly 2no&n as the >air Alection 3ct, "or $ r$oses o" the 2013 national and local mid*term elections. +he >air Alection 3ct !overns the se o" +V, radio and other broadcast media, and other "orms and methods o" cam$ai!nin!, the se and cond ct o" election s rveys and e/it $olls, and the method o" im$lementin! the ri!ht to re$ly enshrined nder #ection C, 3rticle IJ*% o" the 1<@= %onstit tion. +he la& see2s to level the $layin! "ield amon! national and local electoral candidates and $arties, $artic larly by $lacin! limits on the amo nt o" time a candidate or $olitical $arty may access a $artic lar medi m "or cam$ai!n $ r$oses as &ell as by limitin! the ty$e and "orms o" allo&able election cam$ai!n materials, and re! latin! $ blic rallies, meetin!s and other $olitical activities. 4hile !enerally he&in! closely to the $rovisions o" the la&, the ne& re! lation has met strin!ent o$$osition "rom media !ro $s as a res lt o" a n mber o" novel $rovisions. >oremost amon! these is the introd ction o" re! lations !overnin! the se o" the internet, $artic larly, blo!s, social net&or2s, and other online channels and &ebsites. Previo sly nre! lated, online $ro$a!anda is no& s b0ect to limitations as to time, $i/el &idth, hei!ht and as$ect ratio and "re1 ency. :ore $artic larly, nder (esol tion <;1B, online advertisements "or each candidate are allo&ed a ma/im m o" three times a &ee2 $er &ebsite d rin! the entire cam$ai!n $eriod. 3ny e/hibition or dis$lay &ithin a 2C*ho r $eriod is considered one $ blication, re!ardless o" "re1 ency. +he ne& re! lation also rede"ines the ma/im m thresholds "or air time and radio broadcast. Previo sly, limits to air and radio transmissions &ere co nted on a $er station basis. Fnder the c rrent r les, candidates "or national $ositions and the $arty*list system are no& allo&ed only a ma/im m a''re'ate o" 120* and 1@0*min tes "or +V and radio broadcasts. %andidates "or local $ositions, on the other hand, are only entitled to an a''re'ate o" ;0* and <0*min tes "or +V and radio, res$ectively. 3$$earance and ! estin!s o" candidates in a ne&scast, doc mentary or re$ort may be e/cl ded "rom the com$ tation o" these limits $on $rior a$$roval o" %omelec and $roo" that other candidates &ere a""orded e1 al o$$ort nity. +hese $artic lar $rovisions have received the &idest criticism "rom media $ractitioners as in"rin!ements on $ress "reedom. +he ne& re! lations also !ive candidates the ri!ht to "ile a claim a!ainst media $ractitioners &hich may have violated their ri!ht to re$ly. +he ri!ht to re$ly is a constit tional ri!ht im$lemented by the >air Alection 3ct. It mandates that candidates a!ainst &hom char!es have been $ blished m st be !iven an e1 al o$$ort nity to res$ond. Given the rede"inition o" limits to $eriods o" broadcast, it is ncertain &hether a""ordin! a sli!hted candidate the ri!ht to re$ly &ill be co nted as $art o" his or her a!!re!ate ma/im m broadcast times. ?astly, and least contentio s o" all, the re! lation enco ra!es environment*"riendly cam$ai!ns and re1 ires candidates to strictly "ollo& local ordinances $roscribin! the se o" $lastic and other environmentally harm" l materials. +he cam$ai!n $eriod is set bet&een 12 >ebr ary 2013 to 11 :ay 2013 "or $arty*list !ro $s and candidates r nnin! "or senator and bet&een 2< :arch 2013 and 11 :ay 2013 "or those cam$ai!nin! "or local $ositions and seats as members o" the Ho se o" (e$resentatives. 3s in the 2010 elections, the cam$ai!n $eriod e/cl des :a ndy +h rsday, Good >riday, the eve o" Alection Day and the day o" elections itsel".

'he "$ Law+ 'he Debate Continues

Posted on >ebr ary ;, 2013 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV V Posted in %onstit tional ?a&, Phili$$ines * ?a& V ?eave a comment It too2 thirteen years, "o r months, and "ive days o" heated debates and $assionate $rotests be"ore the co ntry-s "irst re$rod ctive health la& &as $assed. >o r days shy o" %hristmas last year, President 31 ino "inally si!ned the 2C*$a!e bill into la&. It is no& (e$ blic 3ct No. 103BC or +he (es$onsible Parenthood and (e$rod ctive Health 3ct o" 2012 5(H ?a&6. +he $assin! o" the (H ?a&, ho&ever, does by no means close this cha$ter o" Phili$$ine history. In "act, the le!al rami"ications $la! in! the la& are more $revalent than ever since the $rovisions thereo" no& have "orce and e""ect. +he "ollo&in! disc sses the si!ni"icant $rovisions o" the la& and the iss es s rro ndin! them. "eproductive $ealth Services #ection = o" the (H ?a& $rovides that health care "acilities, either $ blic or $rivate, are re1 ired to o""er modern "amily $lannin! methods to $atientsI #A%. =. 3ccess to >amily Plannin!. G 3ll accredited $ blic health "acilities shall $rovide a " ll ran!e o" modern "amily $lannin! methodsSProvided, +hat "amily $lannin! services shall li2e&ise be e/tended by $rivate health "acilities to $ayin! $atients &ith the o$tion to !rant "ree care and services to indi!ents, e/ce$t in the case o" non*maternity s$ecialty hos$itals and hos$itals o&ned and o$erated by a reli!io s !ro $SProvided, "inally, +hat the $erson is not in an emer!ency condition or serio s case as de"ined in (e$ blic 3ct No. @3CC. 5em$hasis s $$lied6 +he la& sed the term ,shall. to e/$ress the mandatory nat re o" the $rovision. +he # $reme %o rt in the case o" &an v. 0in4 :G.R. No. 17!8=9, >ecember 10, !008; r led that ,the term Ushall- is a &ord o" command, one &hich has al&ays been or &hich m st be !iven a com$ lsory meanin!, and it is !enerally im$erative or mandatory.. +he mandatory nat re o" the $rovision is " rther b ttressed by #ection 23 o" the (H ?a&, &hich $rovides that it is a $rohibited act "or any health care service $rovider to &ithhold in"ormation on re$rod ctive health. 3ltho !h the la& e/em$ts non*maternity s$ecialty hos$itals and hos$itals o&ned and o$erated by a reli!io s !ro $ "rom this re1 irement, this e/em$tion is nevertheless s b0ect to the 1 ali"ication that the $atient m st not be an emer!ency condition or a serio s case. In e""ect, doctors cannot e/em$t themselves "rom the (H la& i" the $atient involved is an emer!ency condition. 3 le!al iss e arisin! "rom this is &hether or not it violates a doctor-s %onstit tional ri!ht to "ree e/ercise o" reli!ion. +he $ro*(H ar! es that there is no violation beca se a doctor sho ld se$arate his or her reli!io s belie"s "rom the e/ercise o" his or her $ro"ession. :oreover, e/em$tin! certain doctors "rom the la& based solely on their reli!io s belie"s &o ld res lt in a violation o" the non*establishment cla se beca se it is e""ectively an endorsement by the #tate o" a reli!ion.

3s "or the anti*(H, they contend that one-s reli!io s belie" cannot be se$arated "rom one-s daily e/istence. N mber 3B3 o" >r. Dose :aria Ascriva-s boo2 &he Ba( best e/em$li"ies their $ointO that it is abs rd to thin2 that one can leave one-s %atholicism aside $on enterin! a $ro"essional association li2e a man leavin! his hat at the door. Se, Education +he (H ?a& also made re$rod ctive health ed cation "or adolescents a!ed 10 to 1< mandatory in all schools. +he $ertinent $rovision $rovidesI #A%. 1C. 3!e* and Develo$ment*3$$ro$riate (e$rod ctive Health Ad cation. G +he #tate shall $rovide a!e* and develo$ment*a$$ro$riate re$rod ctive health ed cation to adolescents &hich shall be ta !ht by ade1 ately trained teachers in"ormal and non"ormal ed cational system and inte!rated in relevant s b0ectsS +he le!al iss es arisin! "rom this $rovision areI 516 4hether or not it is contrary to the constit tional ri!ht and d ty o" $arents over the ,rearin! o" the yo th "or civic e""iciency and develo$ment o" moral character,. 53rt. II, #ec. 12 o" the 1<@= %onstit tion6 and) 526 4hether or not it violates the ri!ht o" s$o ses ,to "o nd a "amily in accordance &ith their reli!io s convictions and the demands o" res$onsible $arenthood.. 53rt. JV, #ec. 3 o" the 1<@= %onstit tion6 +he $ro*(H $ro""ers the ar! ment that no %onstit tional ri!hts are violated beca se the %onstit tion does not a&ard $arents absol te a thority over their children and that the #tate also has the constit tional obli!ation to $romote and $rotect the $hysical, moral, s$irit al, intellect al, and social &ell*bein! o" the yo th. 3r! ments a!ainst the (H la&, on the other hand, say that the #tate has no ri!ht to intr de $on the ri!ht o" $arents to rear their children accordin! to their reli!io s convictions. P otin! the $etition "iled by the s$o ses Imbon! 1 estionin! the (H ?a& be"ore the # $reme %o rt, ,res$onsible $arenthood is embraced in KtheL reli!io s belie" on li"e and "amily and its e/ercise is tied to reli!io s convictions, hence, reli!io s belie" on $arentin! is to be res$ected, not $rovo2ed into its violation.S +his installs a Uhands o""- $aradi!m $on the #tate. It may not intr de into &hat is a nat ral s$o sal and "amily ri!ht.. Certi#icate o# Compliance +he (H ?a& also introd ced a ne& re1 irement "or co $les intendin! to !et marriedI #A%. 1B. %erti"icate o" %om$liance. G No marria!e license shall be iss ed by the ?ocal %ivil (e!istrar nless the a$$licants $resent a %erti"icate o" %om$lianceS P estions arise as to the e""ect o" the %erti"icate o" %om$liance on the already e/istin! re1 isites o" marria!e. Is it an additional "ormal re1 isiteQ 4hat is the e""ect on the validity o" a marria!e license in case no %erti"icate &as $resentedQ Is the marria!e void i" the license &as iss ed &itho t this re1 irementQ

One vie& is that 516 it is not an additional "ormal re1 isite, 526 it does not render the marria!e license invalid in case o" its absence, and 536 it does not render the marria!e void i" the re1 irement is not $resent. +hese concl sions are based on the ?atin $hrase /emper praesumitur pro matrimonio, &hich translates to ,al&ays $res me marria!e.. In the case o" 5lcantara v. 5lcantara :G.R. No. 1 77= , 5u'ust !8, !007;, the # $reme %o rt held that ,every intendment o" the la& or "act leans to&ard the validity o" the marria!e bonds. +he %o rts loo2 $on this $res m$tion &ith !reat "avor. It is not to be li!htly re$elled) on the contrary, the $res m$tion is o" !reat &ei!ht.. It is clear, there"ore, that the validity o" marria!e is re!arded hi!hly by the %o rt. #ince the la& is silent as to the re$erc ssions o" the %erti"icate o" %om$liance, any do bt sho ld be $res med in "avor o" the validity o" marria!e. +he constit tional 1 estions mentioned above have already been bro !ht to the # $reme %o rt. In "act, as o" this &ritin!, si/ $etitions are c rrently restin! in the %o rt-s doc2ets. Indeed, the t ssle is not over. It 0 st moved to a di""erent sta!e. Ho$e" lly, &hen the Hi!h %o rt renders its decision, the debate on the (H ?a&-s le!ality &o ld once and "or all be settled.

"evised -mplementin! "ules and "e!ulations #or the Adopt.A.School Pro!ram

Posted on >ebr ary 1@, 2013 by Imelda 3. :an! iat V Posted in Phili$$ines * ?a&, Phili$$ines * (e! lation V ?eave a comment +he De$artment o" Ad cation 5De$AD6 $rom l!ated the revised im$lementin! r les and re! lations 5I((6 "or (e$ blic 3ct @B2B, or the 3do$t*a*#chool 3ct o" 1<<@, on 1@ Dan ary 2013. De$AD Order 2 series o" 2013 is the latest revision to De$artment Order No. @0 s. 1<<@ G the "irst I(( iss ed "or (3 @B2B. +he said la& aims to im$rove access to 1 ality ed cation by $romotin! $rivate sector $artici$ation in school b ildin!, rehabilitation and develo$ment. Fnder (3 @B2B, an ado$tin! $rivate entity 53PA6 m st enter into a :emorand m o" 3!reement 5:O36 &ith a $ blic school. +he :O3 m st be "or at least t&o years and shall contain the terms o" the Uado$tion-. Fnder s ch a :O3, the 3PA may $rovide trainin! to a school-s "ac lty or constr ct or $!rade school "acilities. It may also donate ed cational materials to $ blic schools, &hether elementary, secondary or tertiary, &ithin the t&enty $oorest $rovinces in the co ntry. In ret rn, the la& allo&s the 3PA to have its name dis$layed belo& the name o" the ado$tee school a$art "rom an additional ded ction to !ross income e1 ivalent to hal" o" the e/$enses inc rred and re$resentation in the local school board. +he revised I(( clari"ies the meanin! o" the allo&able assistance an 3PA may $rovide to a school. In contrast to the old r les, it no& s$eci"ically incl des donation o" cash, $hysical "acilities, real estate, readin! materials and devices "or children &ith s$ecial needs a$art "rom in"rastr ct re, trainin!, learnin! s $$ort, "ood assistance, and com$ ter and science labs. P blic schools are also de"ined more broadly to incl de !overnment learnin! instit tions.

It also adds the criteria "or ado$tin! $rivate entities G a $rovision not "o nd in the old r les. Fnder ( le 2 o" the revised I((, in $artic lar, an 3PA m st have e/isted "or at least a year "rom re!istration &ith the #ec rities and A/chan!e %ommission, or the %oo$erative Develo$ment 3 thority &ith a credible trac2 record. It sho ld not have been $rosec ted and "o nd ! ilty o" ille!al activities, $artic larly money la nderin!. +he r le states that the 3PA m st $ossess these 1 ali"ications ,at any time. d rin! the term o" the :O3. +he &ordin! o" this $artic lar $rovision is n"ort nate as it co ld lead to abs rd inter$retations, s ch as an entity &ishin! to avail o" the ta/ incentives co ld ado$t a school nder the $ro!ram and then com$ly &ith the 1 ali"ications later, or it may 2ee$ a clean record at the be!innin! o" the $ro!ram and then se the cor$orate vehicle "or money la nderin! activities later on. +his is obvio sly not the intent o" the revised I((. (e!ardin! incentives, on the other hand, the $rovision on ta/ ded ction is $rimarily im$lemented by the ' rea o" Internal (even e thro !h (even e (e! lation 10*2003. Ho&ever, the revised I(( amends the timin! o" the a$$lication and availment "or these incentives. Fnder the old ( le, the a$$lication "or ta/ ded ction sho ld be "iled at the end o" the "iscal year. No&, s ch claims shall be claimed or availed o" &ithin the ta/able year it &as inc rred. It also deleted the $rovision that re1 ired the %oordinatin! %o ncil, com$osed o" the De$AD, %ommission on Hi!her Ad cation 5%HAD6, National 3nti*Poverty %ommission 5N3P%6, the National >ederation o" the %hambers o" %ommerce and Ind stry and the +echnical Ad cation and #2ills Develo$ment 3 thority 5+A#D36 to resolve the a$$lication "or ded ction &ithin 30 days "rom recei$t by the National #ecretariat. +he revised I(( also made the De$AD the $rimary im$lementin! a!ency tas2ed &ith overall mana!ement o" the $ro!ram, &ith the +A#D3 and %HAD $rovidin! only "ocal $ersons. It also e/$licitly re1 ires De$AD to instit tionali9e the #ecretariat &ithin its de$artment by $rovidin! $lantilla $ositions. >inally, in contrast to the e/$licit &ordin! o" (3 @B2B mandatin! the Presidential %o ncil "or %o ntryside Develo$ment, no& the N3P%, to identi"y the t&enty $oorest $rovinces in the co ntry in line &ith the $rioriti9ation scheme o" the la&, the I(( no& entr sts this tas2 to the National #tatistical %oordination 'oard.

Chan!in! "ules on the Part List S stem

Posted on :ay 1, 2013 by Vicente D. Gerochi IV V Posted in %onstit tional ?a&, Phili$$ines * %ases, Phili$$ines * ?a& V : ch li2e a s&in!in! $end l m, the decision o" the # $reme %o rt on &hich $arties com$ose the $arty list system s&in!s "rom one side to the other. Previo sly, the # $reme %o rt limited the $arty list system to re$resentatives o" mar!inali9ed and nder$rivile!ed sectors. In 5ton' Pa'laum v. 7OM"0"7 5G.(. Nos. 203=;;, et al., 3$ril 2, 20136, the latest in the series o" $arty list cases, the $end l m no& $oints to the o$$osite side. 'he (ew "ulin! 5ton' Pa'laum involved BC Petitions "or %ertiorari and Petitions "or %ertiorari and Prohibition "iled by B2 $arty*list !ro $s a!ainst %O:A?A% "or dis1 ali"yin! them "rom $artici$atin! in the

:ay 13, 2013 $arty*list elections. One o" the main reasons "or the dis1 ali"ication &as their "ail re to re$resent the mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. +&o iss es &ere $resentedI 516 4hether %O:A?A% committed !rave ab se o" discretion in dis1 ali"yin! the $etitioners "rom $artici$atin! in the :ay 2013 elections) and 526 4hether the criteria "or $artici$atin! in the $arty*list system laid do&n in 5n' #a'on' #a(ani v. 7OM"0"7 53''6 and #5N5& v. 7OM"0"7 5'3N3+6 sho ld be a$$lied by the %O:A?A% in the comin! :ay 2013 elections. +he # $reme %o rt r led that %O:A?A% did not commit !rave ab se o" discretion beca se it merely "ollo&ed the r lin!s laid do&n in 3'' and '3N3+. Ho&ever, the %o rt decided to abandon these r lin!s and ado$ted ne& $arameters "or the $comin! elections) th s, it remanded the case to %O:A?A% so the latter can determine the stat s o" the $etitioners based on the "ollo&in! ne& ! idelinesI 1. +hree di""erent !ro $s may $artici$ate in the $arty*list systemI 516 national $arties or or!ani9ations, 526 re!ional $arties or or!ani9ations, and 536 sectoral $arties or or!ani9ations. 2. National $arties or or!ani9ations and re!ional $arties or or!ani9ations do not need to or!ani9e alon! sectoral lines and do not need to re$resent any ,mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. sector. 3. Political $arties can $artici$ate in $arty*list elections $rovided they re!ister nder the $arty*list system and do not "ield candidates in le!islative district elections. 3 $olitical $arty, &hether ma0or or not, that "ields candidates in le!islative district elections can $artici$ate in $artylist elections only thro !h its sectoral &in! that can se$arately re!ister nder the $arty*list system. +he sectoral &in! is by itsel" an inde$endent sectoral $arty, and is lin2ed to a $olitical $arty thro !h a coalition. C. #ectoral $arties or or!ani9ations may either be ,mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. or lac2in! in ,&ell*de"ined $olitical constit encies.. It is eno !h that their $rinci$al advocacy $ertains to the s$ecial interest and concerns o" their sector. +he sectors that are ,mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. incl de labor, $easant, "isher"ol2, rban $oor, indi!eno s c lt ral comm nities, handica$$ed, veterans, and overseas &or2ers. +he sectors that lac2 ,&ell*de"ined $olitical constit encies. incl de $ro"essionals, the elderly, &omen, and the yo th. B. 3 ma0ority o" the members o" sectoral $arties or or!ani9ations that re$resent the ,mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. m st belon! to the ,mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. sector they re$resent. #imilarly, a ma0ority o" the members o" sectoral $arties or or!ani9ations that lac2 ,&ell*de"ined $olitical constit encies. m st belon! to the sector they re$resent. +he nominees o" sectoral $arties or or!ani9ations that re$resent the ,mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented,. or that re$resent those &ho lac2 ,&ell*de"ined $olitical constit encies,. either m st belon! to their res$ective sectors, or m st have a trac2 record o" advocacy "or their res$ective sectors. +he nominees o" national and re!ional $arties or or!ani9ations m st be bona6fi)e members o" s ch $arties or or!ani9ations.

;. National, re!ional, and sectoral $arties or or!ani9ations shall not be dis1 ali"ied i" some o" their nominees are dis1 ali"ied, $rovided that they have at least one nominee &ho remains 1 ali"ied. It is clear "rom the "ore!oin! that a ne& r le has been setI not all $arties in the $arty*list system have to re$resent a sector that is mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. 3ccordin! to the # $reme %o rt, the "ramers o" the %onstit tion never intended the $arty*list system to be reserved "or sectoral $arties. +he latter &ere only $art o" the $arty*list system not the entirety o" it. +here &ere t&o more !ro $s com$osin! the system O national and re!ional $arties. +his is evident "rom the $hrasin! o" #ection B, 3rticle VI o" the %onstit tion, &hich states thatI +he Ho se o" (e$resentatives shall be com$osed o" not more than t&o h ndred and "i"ty members, nless other&ise "i/ed by la&, &ho shall be elected "rom le!islative districtsSand those &ho, as $rovided by la&, shall be elected thro !h a $arty*list system o" re!istered national, re!ional, and sectoral $arties or or!ani9ations. :emphasis supplie); National and re!ional $arties are di""erent "rom sectoral $arties s ch that the "ormer need not or!ani9e alon! sectoral lines and re$resent a $artic lar sector. Hence, it is not necessary "or these $arties to be re$resentative o" the mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. In "act, (e$ blic 3ct No. =<C1, the enablin! la& o" the $arty*list elections nder the %onstit tion, does not re1 ire these $arties to "all nder this criterion. +he # $reme %o rt em$hasi9ed that the $hrase Umar!inali9ed and nderre$resented- a$$eared only once in (.3. No. =<C1, $artic larly in the >eclaration of Polic(. +he section $rovidesI +he #tate shall $romote $ro$ortional re$resentation in the election o" re$resentatives to the Ho se o" (e$resentatives thro !h a $arty*list system o" re!istered national, re!ional and sectoral $arties or or!ani9ations or coalitions thereo", &hich &ill enable >ili$ino citi9ens belon!in! to mar!inali/ed and underrepresented sectors0 or!ani/ations and parties0 and who lac1 well. de#ined political constituencies b t &ho co ld contrib te to the "orm lation and enactment o" a$$ro$riate le!islation that &ill bene"it the nation as a &hole, to become members o" the Ho se o" (e$resentatives. +o&ards this end, the #tate shall develo$ and ! arantee a " ll, "ree and o$en $arty system in order to attain the broadest $ossible re$resentation o" $arty, sectoral or !ro $ interests in the Ho se o" (e$resentatives by enhancin! their chances to com$ete "or and &in seats in the le!islat re, and shall $rovided the sim$lest scheme $ossible. +he o"t*1 oted $hrase neither a$$eared in the s$eci"ic im$lementin! $rovisions o" (.3. No. =<C1 nor did it re1 ire sectors, or!ani9ations, or $arties to "all nder the criterion as &ell. In this re!ard, ho& then sho ld the broad $olicy declaration in #ection 2 o" (.3. No. =<C1 be harmoni9ed &ith its s$eci"ic im$lementin! $rovisions, bearin! in mind the a$$licable $rovisions o" the 1<@= %onstit tion on the matterQ +he # $reme %o rt ans&ered in this &iseI +he $hrase ,mar!inali/ed and underrepresented2 sho ld re#er onl to the sectors in Section 3 that are0 by their nature0 economicall 4mar!inali/ed and underrepresented .. +hese sectors areI labor, $easant, "isher"ol2, rban $oor, indi!eno s c lt ral comm nities, handica$$ed, veterans, overseas &or2ers, and other similar sectors. )or these sectors0 a ma5orit o# the members o# the sectoral part must belon! to the 4mar!inali/ed and underrepresented ..

'he nominees o# the sectoral part either must belon! to the sector0 or must have a trac1 record o# advocac #or the sector representedS +he reco!nition that national and re!ional $arties, as &ell as sectoral $arties o" $ro"essionals, the elderly, &omen and the yo th, need not be ,mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. &ill allo& small ideolo!y*based and ca se*oriented $arties &ho lac2 ,&ell*de"ined $olitical constit encies. a chance to &in seats in the Ho se o" (e$resentatives. On the other hand, limitin! to the ,mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. the sectoral $arties "or labor, $easant, "isher"ol2, rban $oor, indi!eno s c lt ral comm nities, handica$$ed, veterans, overseas &or2ers, and other sectors that by their nat re are economically at the mar!ins o" society, &ill !ive the ,mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. an o$$ort nity to li2e&ise &in seats in the Ho se o" (e$resentatives. +his inter$retation &ill harmoni9e the 1<@= %onstit tion and (.3. No. =<C1 and &ill !ive rise to a m lti*$arty system &here those ,mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented,. both in economic and ideological status, &ill have the o$$ort nity to send their o&n members to the Ho se o" (e$resentatives. +his inter$retation &ill also ma2e the $arty*list system honest and trans$arent, eliminatin! the need "or relatively &ell*o"" $arty*list re$resentatives to mas1 erade as ,&allo&in! in $overty, destit tion and in"irmity,. even as they attend sessions in %on!ress ridin! in #FVs. 'ased on the %o rt-s ratiocination, only sectoral $arties "or labor, $easant, "isher"ol2, rban $oor, indi!eno s c lt ral comm nities, handica$$ed, veterans, overseas &or2ers, and other sectors that by their nat re are economically at the mar!ins o" society m st com$ly &ith the criterion o" re$resentin! the mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented. >or national, re!ional, and sectoral $arties o" $ro"essionals, the elderly, &omen and the yo th, it is s ""icient that they consist o" ,citi9ens &ho advocate the same ideolo!y or $lat"orm, or the same !overnance $rinci$les and $olicies, re!ardless o" their economic stat s as citi9ens.. %onse1 ently, since $olitical $arties are essentially national and re!ional $arties, the # $reme %o rt cate!orically stated that they may $artici$ate in the $arty*list elections. +he r les "or their $artici$ation are "o nd nder ! ideline n mber three. Evolution o# Part .List Cases 3'' and '3N3+ &ere the $revailin! 0 ris$r dence $rior to 5ton' Pa'laum. In 3'', the # $reme %o rt reco!ni9ed that even ma0or $olitical $arties may 0oin the $arty list elections. Ho&ever, the # $reme %o rt &ent on sayin! that altho !h they may $artici$ate, it does not mean that any $olitical $arty O or !ro $ "or that matter O may do so. It is essential "or these $arties to be consistent &ith the $ r$ose o" the $arty*list system, as laid do&n in the %onstit tion and (.3. No. =<C1. 3ccordin! to the # $reme %o rt, the $ r$ose o" the $arty*list system is clearI ,to !ive !en ine $o&er to the $eo$le, not only by !ivin! more la& to those &ho have less in li"e, b t more so by enablin! them to become veritable la&ma2ers themselves.. Assentially, the !oal is to !ive voice to the voiceless O to enable >ili$ino citi9ens belon!in! to the mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented to become members o" %on!ress.

Hence, only $arties re$resentin! the mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented may 0oin the $arty*list elections. +he # $reme %o rt stressed that the $arty*list system cannot be e/cl sive to mar!inali9ed and nderre$resented beca se i" the rich and overre$resented can $artici$ate, it &o ld desecrate the s$irit o" the $arty*list system. In '3N3+ &here the # $reme %o rt a!ain had the o$$ort nity to deal &ith the matter, it cate!orically declared, by a vote o" @*=, that ma0or $olitical $arties are barred "rom $artici$atin! either directly or indirectly "rom the $arty*list elections. %learly, the doctrine in 5ton' Pa'laum is in star2 contrast &ith the "ormer inter$retation o" the $arty*list system. +he # $reme %o rt-s reasonin! in both decisions also sits at o$$osite sides o" the scale. In 3'' and '3N3+, the # $reme %o rt concentrated on the s$irit and $ r$ose o" the $arty*list system &hile in 5ton' Pa'laum, it "oc sed on the letter o" the la& and the intent o" the %onstit tion-s "ramers and %on!ress. No &onder this decision has s$ar2ed intense debate and $assionate reaction "rom the sta2eholders. +hese $arty*list cases constit te three decisions &ith t&o e/ce$tionally di""erent doctrines. 4hich then is correctQ #ho ld the s$irit o" the la& $revail over the letterQ #ho ld the $arty*list system be really o$en to allQ #ho ld the co rt en!a!e in socio*$olitical en!ineerin! as it did in the "irst t&o cases or sho ld it remain as ne tral ma!istrates o" the la&, blind"olded li2e lady 0 stice, inter$retin! the letter o" the la& strictly accordin! to its &ordsQ +he decision in 3ton! Pa!la m is not yet "inal and e/ec tory. +he case is still, i" not already, s b0ect to a motion "or reconsideration. It is still $ossible "or the $end l m to s&in! bac2 to its "ormer side or it may remain s s$ended &here it is no&.

'he "eal *olden 6ears+ %a1in! 'hem Count

Posted on :ay 13, 2013 by (icardo :a. P.G. On!2i2o V Posted in Phili$$ines * ?a& V :ore than ten million children nder the a!e o" "ive die each year. 5/ee +he 4orld Health (e$ort 200B, at htt$I77&&&.&ho.int7&hr7200B7&hr200BWen.$d".6 2<,000 children nder the a!e o" "ive die each day G i.e., abo t 21 each min te G "rom $reventable ca ses. 5/ee GoalI (ed ce %hild :ortality, at htt$I77&&&. nice".or!7md!7childmortality.html.6 +he n mbers are sta!!erin!. In li!ht o" this reality, the si!ni"icance o" the ne&ly*enacted (e$ blic 3ct No. 10C10, or ,Aarly Nears 3ct o" 2013., cannot be nderestimated. 3s its lon! name states, the Aarly Nears 3ct is a la& reco!ni9in! the a!e "rom 9ero to ei!ht years as the "irst cr cial sta!e o" ed cational develo$ment, and stren!thenin! the co ntry-s early childhood care and develo$ment system. It &as si!ned into la& on :arch 2;, 2013 and became e""ective on 3$ril 1@, 2013. +he Aarly Nears 3ct see2s to $romote the ri!hts o" children to s rvival, develo$ment and s$ecial $rotection, &ith " ll reco!nition o" the nat re o" childhood. >or this $ r$ose, the Aarly %hildhood %are and Develo$ment 5A%%D6 %o ncil &as established to im$lement a National #ystem "or Aarly %hildhood %are and Develo$ment 5,A%%D #ystem.6 that is com$rehensive and m lti*sectoral in a$$roach. +he A%%D %o ncil is mandated to ens re the b ildin! o" a stron! "o ndation "or develo$ment and learnin! o" children "rom Aero to four (ears, as &ell as s $$ort a " ll ran!e o" health, n trition and social develo$ment $ro!rams "or the child-s holistic develo$ment. +he res$onsibility o" ens rin! the " ll develo$ment o" children in

their "ormative years, i.e. "rom five to ei'ht years o" a!e, is vested in the De$artment o" Ad cation 5#ec. 26. +he A%%D #ystem shall en0oy a nation&ide covera!e 5#ec. ;6. It shall $rovide "or t&o 2inds o" $ro!ramsI 516 center*based $ro!rams, s ch as day*care services and comm nity or ch rch*based early ed cation $ro!rams, and 526 home*based $ro!rams, s ch as nei!hborhood $lay!ro $s, "amily child care $ro!rams, and $arent ed cation and home visitin! $ro!rams 5#ec. C6. In its im$lementation, the A%%D #ystem endeavors to tili9e intera!ency collaboration at the national and local levels, as &ell as harness the $otential o" all sta2eholders in the comm nity, incl din! non!overnmental or!ani9ations, $ro"essional associations and academic instit tions 5#ec. 26. 3t the national level, the De$artment o" Ad cation, De$artment o" #ocial 4el"are and Develo$ment, De$artment o" Health, National N trition %o ncil, and Fnion o" ?ocal 3 thorities o" the Phili$$ines are mandated to meet at an ann al &or2sho$ to $re$are &or2 and "inancial $lans that &ill coordinate their technical assistance and s $$ort "or the National A%%D Pro!ram 5#ec. =5a66. +hey are directed to &or2 to!ether to $rovide contin in! $ro"essional develo$ment $ro!ram s $$ort, s $$lementary learnin! materials, re"erence materials, s $$lemental n trition and health care services &ithin the "rame&or2 o" the A%%D #ystem 5#ec =5a65266. 3t the local level, ?ocal Government Fnits are mandated to allocate a $ortion o" their #$ecial Ad cation > nd and Gender and Develo$ment > nd to 516 s $$ort the im$lementation o" their A%%D Pro!ram, 526 or!ani9e and s $$ort $arent coo$eratives to establish comm nity*based A%%D $ro!rams, 536 $rovide co nter$art " nds "or the contin in! $ro"essional develo$ment o" their A%%D $ blic service $roviders) and 5C6 $rovide the "acilities "or the cond ct o" their A%%D Pro!ram 5#ec. =5b66. +he reso rces o" $arents and the comm nity are li2e&ise ta$$ed to ens re a rob st s $$ortive environment "or the A%%D $ro!rams. +he role o" $arents as $rimary care!ivers and their children-s "irst teachers is reco!ni9ed. 3 Parent Ad cation and Involvement, 3dvocacy and :obili9ation o" %omm nities com$onent is incl ded in the A%%D #ystem >rame&or2 to develo$ $arents- stren!ths as A%%D $artners in the home 5#ec. B5b66. %omm nities are enco ra!ed to s $$ort local A%%D $ro!rams by $artici$atin! in comm nity*based $ro0ects relatin! to health, n trition, social develo$ment and early childhood ed cation 5#ec. =5c66. #i!ni"icantly, this a$$roach o" harnessin! "amily and comm nity stren!ths is consistent &ith &orld&ide trends. 3bo t @0H o" health care in develo$in! co ntries occ rs at home, and as many as C0H o" child deaths are $revented &ith "amily and comm nity care, s $$lemented by access to solid 2no&led!e and basic s $$ort. 5 /ee GoalI (ed ce %hild :ortality, at htt$I77&&&. nice".or!7md!7childmortality.html.6 3 hi!hli!ht o" the Aarly Nears 3ct is a s$ecial sensitivity to children &ith s$ecial needs. It states that the A%%D #ystem shall $rovide "or reasonable accommodation and accessible environments "or children &ith disabilities and advocate res$ect "or c lt ral and lin! istic diversity, incl din! the se o" >ili$ino si!n lan! a!e as the vis al lan! a!e o" the dea" comm nity 5#ec. 26. ?a dably, the Aarly Nears 3ct reco!ni9es the im$ortance o" $rovidin! children &ith disabilities o$$ort nities d rin! this critical $eriod to ens re that they can reach their develo$ment $otential and $artici$ate meanin!" lly in their home, schools and comm nities. +o be s re, st dies have sho&n that i" early childhood care and develo$ment is ne!lected at this time, their v lnerabilities can become more severe, leadin! to li"etime conse1 ences, increased $overty and $ro"o nd e/cl sion. 5/ee 4HO and FNI%A> enco ra!e disc ssion and action on early childhood develo$ment and disability, at htt$I77&&&.&ho.int7disabilities7media7ne&s72012713W0<7en7.6

:oreover, nder the stat te, a s$ecial $riority &ith res$ect to $ blic A%%D $ro!rams is !iven to children "rom a!e 9ero to "o r years &ho are in !reatest need and &ho can least a""ord $rivate A%%D $ro!rams 5#ec. 126. >rom a !lobal and re!ional $ers$ective, the Phili$$ines seems to be doin! 1 ite &ell in re!ard to early child care and develo$ment. +he Phili$$ines- ann al child death red ction rate o" 3.@ $ercent "rom 1<<0 to 2011 &as "aster than the !lobal avera!e rate o" 2.B $ercent. :oreover, amon! #o theast 3sian co ntries, the Phili$$ines has the si/th lo&est nder*"ive death rate. 5 /ee PH child death rate dro$s, says Fnice", at htt$I77$h.ne&s.yahoo.com7$h*mid*ran!e*in*!lobal* child*s rvival*ran2in!.html.6 ?oo2in! in, ho&ever, there is m ch room "or im$rovement. +he $rimary school dro$o t rate is hi!hest in the early !rades, $artly beca se children are $oorly $re$ared "or school. 5/ee Golden NearsI Aarly ?earnin! and Develo$ment, at htt$I77&&&. nice".or!7$hili$$ines7reallivesW12<<=.html.6 +he im$ortance o" these early years cannot be overem$hasi9ed. Ho& &e &ere cared "or, n rt red, ta !ht, and "ed then, determine &ho &e become in o r later years. +he o$$ort nities made available to s then lar!ely determine o r chances later in li"e. :any $eo$le !ro& into their " ll $otential, harnessin! their s2ills and abilities to carve o t a s ccess" l and meanin!" l li"e "or themselves. :any, ho&ever, "all in the o$$osite direction, &ith their v lnerabilities ma!ni"ied "rom ne!lect in their critical early years. +his Aarly Nears 3ct strives to b ild o r chances "rom early on, ma2in! a national investment on the " ll $otential and develo$ment o" the >ili$ino $eo$le.

7rid!in! the *ap+ Enhanced 7asic Education throu!h 8.12

Posted on 3 ! st 12, 2013 by (icardo :a. P.G. On!2i2o V Posted in Phili$$ines * ?a& V One o" the more stirrin! re"orms in the $ast t&o decades in the "ield o" ed cation is (e$ blic 3ct 10B33, or the Anhanced 'asic Ad cation 3ct o" 2013 5,Enhanced 7asic Education Act.6. Passed by %on!ress on Dan ary 30, 2013 and a$$roved by the President on :ay 1B, 2013, the la& in its " ll name stands as ,3n 3ct Anhancin! the Phili$$ine 'asic Ad cation #ystem by #tren!thenin! its % rric l m and Increasin! the N mber o" Nears "or 'asic Ad cation, 3$$ro$riatin! > nds +here"or and "or Other P r$oses.. +he la& became e""ective on D ne C, 2013. : ch debate accom$anied the $assa!e o" the la&. Primarily, the stat te mandates the incor$oration o" t&o more years o" hi!h school to o r basic ten*year ed cation cycle. %ritics say the added t&o years translate only to a "inancial b rden to $arents &ho can barely a""ord to send their children to school, to say nothin! o" ho& it "ails to acc rately address the lac2 o" 1 ality ed cation in the co ntry. Pro$onents, on the other hand, s !!est that the added time &ill allo& st dents to learn their lessons &ith mastery, thereby ens rin! their !lobal com$etitiveness in the lon! r n. 4herever the debates may lead, the $assa!e o" the la& r!es s to loo2 "or&ard and observe ho& the ne& la& mi!ht create "or s ne& !ains in em$loyment and socio*economic !ro&th. +he "irst batch o" st dents to be!in the M*12 cycle &ill "inish the " ll $ro!ram in 202C. 5#ee htt$I77&&&.!ov.$h72*127X>eat res6

+he Anhanced 'asic Ad cation 3ct establishes the Anhanced 'asic Ad cation Pro!ram, &hich es$o ses the "ollo&in! ob0ectivesI 516 !ive every st dent an o$$ort nity to receive 1 ality ed cation that is 'loball( competitive based on $eda!o!ically so nd c rric l m that is at $ar &ith international standards, 526 broaden the !oals o" hi!h school ed cation "or colle'e preparation, vocational an) technical career opportunities as &ell as creative arts, s$orts and entre$rene rial em$loyment in a ra$idly chan!in! and increasin!ly !lobali9ed environment, and 536 ma2e ed cation learner6oriente) an) responsive to the needs, co!nitive and c lt ral ca$acity, the circ mstances and diversity o" learners, schools and comm nities thro !h the a$$ro$riate lan! a!es o" teachin! and learnin!, incl din! the mother ton! e as a learnin! reso rce 5#ec. 26. +he Anhanced 'asic Ad cation Pro!ram encom$asses at least one 516 year o" 2inder!arten ed cation, si/ 5;6 years o" elementary ed cation, and si/ 5;6 years o" secondary ed cation. #econdary ed cation incl des "o r 5C6 years o" 0 nior hi!h school and t&o 526 years o" senior hi!h school ed cation 5#ec. C6. +he $ro!ram shall be s $$orted by and im$lemented thro !h an enhanced basic ed cation c rric l m &hich the De$Ad shall "orm late alon!side the %ommission on Hi!her Ad cation 5%HAD6 and the +echnical Ad cation and #2ills Develo$ment 3 thority 5+A#D36, in cons ltation &ith other national a!encies and sta2eholders incl din! the De$artment o" ?abor and Am$loyment, the Pro"essional (e! lation %ommission, $rivate and $ blic schools associations, national st dent or!ani9ations, national teacher or!ani9ations, $arents*teachers associations and chambers o" commerce 5#ec. B6. +he Anhanced 'asic Ad cation 3ct o""ers the "ollo&in! salient "eat resI Mother6&on'ue #ase) Multi60in'ual ")ucation. ?an! a!e is reco!ni9ed to $lay a strate!ic role in sha$in! the "ormative years o" learners) hence, basic ed cation is to be ta !ht in lan! a!es nderstood by the st dents. >or 2inder!arten and the "irst three 536 years o" elementary ed cation, instr ction, teachin! materials and assessments is to be !iven and made in the re!ional or native lan! a!e o" the learners. +he De$Ad &ill "orm late a mother lan! a!e transition $ro!ram "rom Grade C to Grade ; so that >ili$ino and An!lish &ill !rad ally be introd ced as lan! a!es o" instr ction ntil s ch time &hen the t&o 526 lan! a!es can become the $rimary lan! a!es o" instr ction at the secondary level 5#ec. C6. +&elve mother ton! e lan! a!es have been introd ced "or #N 2012*2013, namelyI 'ahasa # !, 'i2ol, %eb ano, %habacano, Hili!aynon, Ilo2o, Ma$am$an!an, :a! indanaoan, :eranao, Pan!asinense, +a!alo!, and 4aray. 5#ee htt$I77&&&.!ov.$h72*127X>eat res6 /pecialiAe) 8pper /econ)ar( ")ucation. +he la& mandates that the enhanced basic ed cation c rric l m shall be desi!ned to ens re the !lobal com$etitiveness and colle!e readiness o" >ili$ino !rad ates 5#ec. B6. In this re!ard, st dents in their senior year o" hi!h school are allo&ed to choose a s$eciali9ation based on their interests, a$tit de, and school ca$acity. +heir choice o" career trac2s &ill determine the content o" their s b0ects ta2en in Grades 11 and 12. 3 st dent can choose amon! three trac2sI 516 3cademic, 526 +echnical*Vocation*?ivelihood, and 536 #$orts and 3rts. +he 3cademic trac2 incl des three strandsI 5a6 ' siness, 3cco ntancy, :ana!ement) 5b6 H manities, Ad cation, #ocial #ciences) and 5c6 #cience, +echnolo!y, An!ineerin!, :athematics. 5#ee htt$I77&&&.!ov.$h72*127X>eat res6 3"ter "inishin! a +echnical* Vocational*?ivelihood trac2 in Grade 12, a st dent may obtain a National %erti"icate ?evel II 5N% II6 "rom +A#D3, $rovided he $asses the com$etency*based assessment o" the a!ency. # ch a certi"icate im$roves his em$loyability in "ields li2e 3!ric lt re, Alectronics, and +rade. 5#ee htt$I77&&&.!ov.$h72*127X>eat res6

+o $ro$erly ! ide the st dents in choosin! their chosen career trac2s, the De$Ad, in coordination &ith +A#D3 and %HAD, shall re! larly cond ct career advocacy activities "or secondary level st dents 5#ec. <6. &eacher &rainin' an) +irin' % rrent De$Ad teachers &ill be retrained to meet the content and $er"ormance standards o" the ne& M*12 c rric l m. # $erintendents, $rinci$als, s b0ect area coordinators and other instr ctional school leaders &ill li2e&ise be made to nder!o trainin! on school leadershi$ 5#ec. =6. #i!ni"icantly, the la& also allo&s the hirin! o" non*licensed teachers as $art*time teachers in hi!h school. #ho ld they choose to teach " ll time, !rad ates o" science, mathematics, statistics en!ineerin!, m sic and other de!ree co rses &ith shorta!es in 1 ali"ied ?icens re A/amination "or +eachers 5?A+6 a$$licants, may teach in their s$eciali9ed s b0ects in the elementary and secondary ed cation, $rovided that they $ass the ?A+ &ithin "ive years "rom their date o" hirin! 5#ec. @5a66. +he De$Ad and $rivate instit tions may also hire !rad ates o" technical*vocational co rses to teach in their s$eciali9ed s b0ects in secondary ed cation, $rovided, these !rad ates $ossess the necessary certi"ication iss ed by +A#D3 5#ec. @5b66. 3ll in all, the ne& la& see2s to brid!e o r basic ed cation &ith, ltimately, em$loyment in the !lobali9ed &orld. It does this by harnessin! lan! a!e to im$rove the &ay &e learn, and by ma/imi9in! time s$ent in secondary ed cation to e1 i$ s &ith s2ills "or the careers &e choose. +he im$lementation o" the ne& la& may be e/$ensive, &hat &ith the need to b ild more classrooms and train more teachers to accommodate t&o more years o" basic ed cation, b t it is abo t time that &e invest heavily in ed cation, i" &e sho ld invest in the " t re o" o r co ntry at all.

"$ Law 7attle )ar )rom Over+ A Discussion on the Salient Provisions o# the Law9s -""
Posted on 3 ! st 1C, 2013 by Imelda 3. :an! iat V Posted in Phili$$ines * ?a&, Phili$$ines * (e! lation V Never has there been a more controversial la& in the $ast decade than the (e$rod ctive Health ?a& 5,(H ?a&.6. 3"ter a lon! and contentio s battle in %on!ress, the la& &as "inally $assed. ' t the "ervent o$$osition by the so*called Pro*li"e !ro $s 5chie" amon! them the %atholic %h rch6 end res. >o r days a"ter the a$$roval o" the la&-s Im$lementin! ( les and (e! lations 5,I((.6, the # $reme %o rt on :arch 1<, 2013, halted its im$lementation, iss in! a 120*day stat s 1 o ante order. +he stat s 1 o ante order &as later e/tended inde"initely by the %o rt a"ter the 120*day $eriod e/$ired. 4ith the a$$roval o" the la&-s I((, sta nch critics have once a!ain har$ed on its im$er"ections. On the other hand, $ro$onents have as2ed the $ blic not to "oc s on these im$er"ections b t

rather loo2 at the !ood $oints o" the la& and the I((. Here-s a 1 ic2 loo2 at the salient $rovisions o" the I((, a$$roved on :arch 1B, 2013. Salient provisions o# the -"" 1& 6outh Access to "eproductive $ealth Services One o" the more controversial $rovisions o" the la& is the $rovision on $arental consent needed "or minors to have access to re$rod ctive health services. #ection = o" the la& $rovidesI No $erson shall be denied in"ormation and access to "amily $lannin! services, &hether nat ral or arti"icialI $rovided, that minors &ill not be allo&ed access to modern methods o" "amily $lannin! &itho t the &ritten consent "rom their $arents or ! ardian7s e/ce$t &hen the minor is already a $arent or has had a miscarria!e. ( le C, #ection C.0= o" the I((, inserted details to the abovementioned $rovision by en meratin! the re1 irements "or a minor-s access to "amily $lannin! services &hich incl des the "ollo&in!I 5a6 &ritten consent "rom $arent or ! ardian) and 5b6 &ritten doc mentation $rovin! that the minor has had a $revio s $re!nancy or is already a $arent. %ritics have characteri9ed these re1 irements as abs rd beca se i" a minor as2s "or $arental consent to have access to "amily $lannin! services, then it &o ld be tantamo nt to admittin! that he or she is se/ ally active. On the other hand, the $ro$onents o" the la& have e/$lained that this restriction is necessary in order not to enco ra!e dis$ensin! contrace$tives to minors &hich &o ld enco ra!e them to have se/. 2& -mproved Access to )amil Plannin! Services +he I(( hi!hli!hts im$roved access to "amily $lannin! services &hich incl des the "ollo&in!I a& Service Deliver Standards* ( le C o" the I(( $rovides a detailed en meration o" the in"ormation and services related to res$onsible $arenthood and re$rod ctive health. #ome o" the im$ortant $rovisions deal &ith ens rin! access to "amily $lannin! methods thro !h accredited $ blic health "acilities &hich incl des the "ollo&in! servicesI 5a6 "ertility a&areness and "amily $lannin! in"ormation and ed cation) 5b6 inter$ersonal comm nication and co nselin! services) 5c6 $rovision o" modern "amily $lannin! methods &hich shall incl de dis$ensin! o" medically sa"e, le!al, and non*aborti"acient health $rod cts and $roced res, amon! others) 5d6 in"ertility services) and 5e6 re"erral services. ( le C, #ections C.0@ and C.0< are s$eci"ic $rovisions on victim*s rvivors o" !ender*based violence and $ersons &ith disabilities. b& Service Deliver (etwor1* ( le B o" the I(( $rovides "or the inte!ration and coordination o" the net&or2 o" health "acilities and $roviders &ithin the $rovinces and cities. One innovation added by the I(( is the :obile Health %are #ervice 5:H%#6 &here the $rovincial, city, m nici$al or district hos$ital may be $rovided by the local !overnment &ith a van or other means o" trans$ortation to be sed "or the delivery o" health care !oods and inte!rated services to its constit ents. +he :H%# &o ld also be sed to disseminate in"ormation on re$rod ctive health 5#ection B.126.

F$!radin! o" Health %are >acilities to $rovide "or emer!ency obstetric and ne&born care is also $rovided "or nder ( le B, #ections B.1; and B.1=. Private Hos$itals are mandated to $rovide a " ll ran!e o" "amily $lannin! methods 5 nless o&ned and o$erated by a reli!io s !ro $ or classi"ied as non*maternity s$ecialty hos$ital6 as $art o" their ann al licensin! and accreditation re1 irements. Fnder ( le B, #ection B.22, a $rivate hos$ital or health care "acility may be e/em$ted "rom this re1 irement $on s bmission o" $ertinent doc ments en merated nder this section, one o" &hich is an a""idavit statin! the modern "amily $lannin! methods that the "acility re" ses to $rovide and the reasons "or its ob0ection 5( le B, #ection B.226. 3side "rom $rivate hos$itals, $rivate health $ro"essionals may also le!ally re" se to deliver re$rod ctive health care services or in"ormation as a ,conscientio s ob0ector. by s bmittin! to the DOH an a""idavit statin! the modern "amily $lannin! methods that he or she re" ses to $rovide and his or her reasons "or ob0ection in addition to other re1 irements as determined by the DOH. 5( le B, #ection B.236 On the other hand, a $ blic s2illed health $ro"essional may also be e/em$ted $on more strin!ent re1 irements nder #ection B.2C o" ( le B. 4ith re!ard to the abovementioned e/em$tions, the DOH is !iven ;0 days "rom e""ectivity o" the I(( to develo$ ! idelines "or its im$lementation. +hese e/em$tions are im$ortant beca se there are corres$ondin! $enalties "or 2no&in!ly &ithholdin! in"ormation or restrictin! dissemination re!ardin! re$rod ctive health $ro!rams 5( le 1;, #ection 1;.01,a,1.6 or "or re" sin! to e/tend 1 ality health care services and in"ormation on acco nt o" the $erson-s reli!io s convictions, $ersonal circ mstances, !ender, etc. 5( le 1;, #ection 1;.01,a,36. 3 $rovision &hich deals &ith !ender*sensitivity is also incl ded nder ( le B, #ection B.2=, &hich states that health care $roviders shall be $rovided &ith trainin! on !ender*sensitive handlin! o" clients. :& ;ide -n#ormation Campai!n on "$ "i!hts and Services +he I(( also em$hasi9es the im$ortance o" $ blic a&areness and ed cation by dedicatin! one &hole cha$ter on it. Indeed, the most e""ective &ay o" ens rin! that the !oals o" the (H ?a& are met is to ma2e s re the $eo$le are made a&are o" the ri!hts emanatin! "rom it and the im$lications o" s ch ri!hts. +he DOH and the ?GF-s are called on to initiate and s stain a ,hei!htened nation&ide m lti* media cam$ai!n. to raise $ blic a&areness on res$onsible $arenthood and re$rod ctive health and ri!hts 5( le 10, #ec. 10.1.6 and to develo$, &ithin si/ months "rom the e""ectivity o" the I((, a com$rehensive ,health $romotion and comm nication $lan. to raise $ blic a&areness on the re$rod ctive ri!hts and res$onsible $arenthood 5( le 10, #ection 10.026. +here is also an em$hasis on the 2ind o" messa!e that sho ld be sed in $ blic a&areness cam$ai!ns. It shall be evidence*based, val es*based, c lt rally*sensitive and clear, and sho ld be able to resonate &ith the a dience 5( le 10, #ection 10.036. +he m ltimedia health $romotion and comm nication strate!ies nder the I(( incl de television, radio, cinema, $rint, mobile technolo!y, &eb*based and social media $lat"orms 5( le 10, #ection 10.0@6. 3n im$ortant as$ect o" the $ blic a&areness cam$ai!n is the inte!ration o" res$onsible $arenthood and re$rod ctive health ed cation into the school c rric l m and in comm nity*

based ed cation $ro!rams, and indi!eno s learnin! systems as $rovided "or nder ( le 11 o" the I((. +he De$artment o" Ad cation is tas2ed &ith the im$lementation o" the $rovisions nder this r le &here it is !iven <0 days "rom the e""ectivity o" the I(( to inte!rate across all s b0ects, res$onsible $arenthood and re$rod ctive health in"ormation into its c rric l m 5( le 11, #ec. 11.026. +his inte!ration &o ld $rovide ed cation on se/ ality to individ als at a discernin! a!e so that they can be ! ided in their actions and th s, ma2e in"ormed decisions re!ardin! their re$rod ctive health. <& %aternal Death "eview and )etal and -n#ant Death "eview One o" the o"t*re$eated advanta!es o" the (H ?a& accordin! to its advocates is the $revention o" maternal deaths, &hich they attrib ted to the lac2 o" !overnment intervention in addressin! the re$rod ctive health $roblems that beset the mar!inali9ed and de$ressed comm nities in the co ntry. +he r!ent en"orcement o" re$rod ctive health ri!hts, it is ar! ed, &o ld 1 ell this $roblem. In line &ith the !oal o" the la&, ( le 1C o" the I(( mandates all ?GFs, national and local !overnment hos$itals, and other $ blic health nits to cond ct an ann al revie& o" maternal deaths and "etal and in"ant deaths in order to hel$ in the develo$ment o" &omen-s health and sa"e motherhood. +hro !h the ann al revie&s, &hich &o ld be s bmitted to the De$artment o" Health, the systemic !a$s, clinical "actors, and instit tional iss es that contrib ted to the re$orted deaths &o ld be identi"ied, and this &o ld $ave the &ay to concrete action and intervention $lans to address these !a$s. Conclusion +he (H ?a&-s I(( is vital in translatin! the la& into an o$erational "rame&or2 to accom$lish its stated !oals o" red cin! maternal mortality and em$o&erin! &omen. Ho&ever, &hether or not the la& and the I(( &ill s cceed in achievin! these !oals &ill de$end "irst and "oremost on the # $reme %o rt-s r lin! on the constit tionality o" the la&. Oral ar! ments "or and a!ainst the la& have 0 st been concl ded in the # $reme %o rt. ?et-s &ait and see ho& the %o rt &ill r le on the iss e.

-nvestin! in the )uture+ -mplementin! "ules o# the Enhanced 7asic Education Act o# 201:
Posted on #e$tember ;, 2013 by Imelda 3. :an! iat V Posted in Phili$$ines * ?a&, Phili$$ines * (e! lation V Not lon! a"ter the $assa!e o" the Anhanced 'asic Ad cation 3ct o" 2013, the Im$lementin! ( les and (e! lations 5,,RR.6 o" this la& &as iss ed on #e$tember C, 2013 thro !h the 0oint e""orts o" the De$artment o" Ad cation 5,>ep").6, the %ommission on Hi!her Ad cation 5,7+">.6 and the +echnical Ad cation and #2ills Develo$ment 3 thority 5, &"/>5.6. +he I(( a$$lies to the "ollo&in! ed cational instit tionsI 516 Hi!her Ad cation Instit tions 5, +",s.6) 526 +echnical*Vocational Instit tions 5,&9,s.6) 536 +eacher Ad cation Instit tions 5,&",s.6) 5C6 "o ndations) and 5B6 all $ blic and $rivate basic ed cational instit tions and learnin! centers.

"nhance) 7urriculum for #asic ")ucation Premised on the need "or an ed cational re"orm to $rod ce !lobally com$etitive >ili$ino !rad ates, every $arent, ! ardian or $erson havin! c stody o" a child is mandated to enroll s ch child in basic ed cation &hich covers 2inder!arten, elementary and secondary ed cation. 3lternative learnin! systems "or o t*o"*school st dents and those &ith s$ecial needs are also considered in the I(( as $art o" the basic ed cation $ro!ram. +his is someho& similar to the $rior ed cational system $rovidin! "or a #$eciali9ed Ad cational #ervice "or di""erently*abled st dents and "or o t*o"*school yo th and ad lts. Fnli2e the $revio s Ad cation 3ct 5'P 'l!. 2326, ho&ever, the I(( o" the Anhanced 'asic Ad cation 3ct en merated the "ollo&in! $ro!rams to address the $hysical, intellect al, $sychosocial and c lt ral needs o" st dentsI 516 Pro!rams "or the !i"ted and talented st dents in all levels o" basic ed cation) 526 Pro!rams "or st dents &ith disabilities) 536 :adrasah Pro!ram, or a $ro!ram "or : slim st dents in $ blic and $rivate schools) 5C6 Indi!eno s Peo$les Ad cation Pro!ram) 5B6 Pro!rams "or st dents nder di""ic lt circ mstances s ch as, !eo!ra$hic isolation, chronic illness, dis$lacement) child ab se and child labor $ractices. In this re!ard, alternative learnin! system coordinators, instr ctional mana!ers, mobile teachers and learnin! "acilitators m st nder!o trainin! $ro!rams to " lly e1 i$ them &ith s ""icient ca$ability to im$lement these $ro!rams. Prospects be(on) Gra)uation 3s stated in the $olicy o" the Anhanced 'asic Ad cation 3ct, the !oals o" hi!h school ed cation m st incl de colle!e $re$aration, vocational and technical career o$$ort nities and other "orms o" em$loyment. 3s s ch, a thori9ed $rivate ed cational instit tions that are $ermitted to o""er senior hi!h school are also !iven the a thority to $rovide relevant s$eciali9ations to its senior hi!h school st dents. +he I(( also reco!ni9es the necessity "or career advocacy activities to assist secondary level st dents in ma2in! decisions on the a$$ro$riate career $ath. +hese activities may be cond cted by career advocates and $eer "acilitators. %areer advocates re"er to nre!istered or nlicensed ! idance co nselors, &hereas $eer "acilitators re"er to secondary level st dents &ho are trained to assist the career advocates in career advocacy activities. Miti'atin' the 7ost One o" the $rimary ar! ments a!ainst the Anhanced 'asic Ad cation 3ct is the added e/$ense &hich the $arents are "orced to bear in enrollin! their children to an additional t&o years o" hi!h school ed cation. +a2in! into consideration the "inancial constraints o" most >ili$ino "amilies, the I(( $rovides that the De$Ad m st develo$ a $ro!ram o" assistance $ rs ant to the A/$anded Government 3ssistance "or #t dents and +eachers in Private Ad cation 5, "6G5/&P".6 3ct. +his $ro!ram m st be im$lemented no later than the start o" the school year 201;*201= &hich !ives the De$Ad more than t&o years to "orm late a $ro!ram o" assistance.

3side "rom the "orms o" assistance in the A*G3#+PA 3ct, the De$Ad may also tili9e a vo cher system, Ad cation #ervice %ontractin!, mana!ement contracts and other "orms o" "inancial arran!ements consistent &ith the $rinci$les o" $ blic*$rivate $artnershi$. +he $ro!ram o" assistance $rimarily mandated by the I(( is available to 1 ali"ied senior hi!h school st dents &ho com$leted 0 nior hi!h school in either $ blic or $rivate schools. Ho&ever, the De$Ad is not $recl ded "rom develo$in! similar $ro!rams o" assistance "or 2inder!arten and elementary st dents, as &ell as alternative learnin! system st dents. &ransitionin' to the "nhance) #asic ")ucation /(stem #i!ni"icantly, the I(( does not $rovide "or the e/act manner by &hich the e/istin! ed cation $ro!ram &ill be transitioned to the enhanced basic ed cation $ro!ram. It merely $rovides that the De$Ad, %HAD and +A#D3 m st "orm late the a$$ro$riate strate!ies and mechanisms to ens re its smooth transition. # $$orters o", and dissenters, to the Anhanced 'asic Ad cation 3ct have m ch to say abo t the bene"its and disadvanta!es o" the $ro$osed $ro!ram. In any case, it m st al&ays be remembered that no less than the %onstit tion itsel" $rovides that the #tate has the d ty to $rotect and $romote the ri!ht o" all citi9ens to 1 ality ed cation. It is abo t time that the !overnment ta2es " ll meas res to " l"ill this d ty. ?et-s ho$e that this ne& la& and the I(( &ill $rove to be the 2ey to the im$rovement o" the 1 ality o" ed cation in o r co ntry.

Protectin! the Lives and Propert o# )ilipinos b Protectin! *overnment "is1 "eduction and Preparedness E=uipment+ A Loo1 -nto the "is1 "eduction and Preparedness E=uipment Protection Act and its -""
Posted on October <, 2013 by Imelda 3. :an! iat V Posted in Phili$$ines * ?a&, Phili$$ines * (e! lation V ?eave a comment On December C, 2012, President 'eni!no #. 31 ino III si!ned into la& (e$ blic 3ct No. 103CC 5,(3 103CC.6 or the (is2 (ed ction and Pre$aredness A1 i$ment Protection 3ct. +his la& &as $assed $ rs ant to the $olicy o" the #tate nder #ection 1= o" 3rticle II o" the 1<@= Phili$$ine %onstit tion to $rotect the ri!ht o" the $eo$le to a balanced and health" l ecolo!y in accord &ith the rhythm and harmony o" nat re. Fnder (3 103CC, !overnment ris2 red ction and $re$aredness e1 i$ment 5the ,e1 i$ment.6 re"er to $ieces o" e1 i$ment, or $arts thereo" o" the De$artment o" #cience and +echnolo!y 5DO#+6, Phili$$ine 3tmos$heric, Geo$hysical and 3stronomical #ervices 3dministration 5P3G3#36, the Phili$$ine Instit te o" Volcanolo!y and #eismolo!y 5PHIVO?%#6 and the National Disaster (is2 (ed ction and :ana!ement %o ncil 5ND((:%6 that !ather, store, archive or monitor meteorolo!ical and seismolo!ical data and in"ormation &hich are analy9ed

and sed to &arn the $ blic abo t &eather conditions, earth1 a2e, volcanic or ts nami activities and similar nat ral calamities. On D ne 2B, 2013, the DO#+ in coordination &ith the ND((:% $rom l!ated the Im$lementin! ( les and (e! lations o" (3 103CC 5the ,I((.6. Fnder the I((, the "ollo&in! are incl ded in the list o" e1 i$ment by the DO#+ &hich &ill be re! larly $datedI 5a6 4eather (adar # rveillance #ystem 5b6 4eather :onitorin! #ystem 5c6 >lood :onitorin! #ystems 5d6 Oceano!ra$hic :onitorin! #ystem 5e6 Aarth1 a2e :onitorin! #ystem 5"6 Volcano :onitorin! #ystem 5!6 +s nami :onitorin! and 4arnin! #ystems 5h6 ?andslide :onitorin! #ystem 5i6 (adion clide :onitorin! A1 i$ment 506 Ha9ards and (is2 3ssessment A1 i$ment 526 In"ormation, Ad cation and %omm nication A1 i$ment (3 103CC declares the "ollo&in! acts as $rohibited and nla&" lI 5a6 #teal, or ta2e, or $ossess any o" the e1 i$ment, or any $art thereo") 5b6 #ell or b y stolen e1 i$ment or any $art thereo") 5c6 +am$er, dismantle, or disassemble e1 i$ment or any $art thereo") 5d6 3ttem$t to commit any o" the abovementioned $rohibited acts) and 5e6 'ene"it "rom the $roceeds or "r its o" any o" the abovementioned $rohibited acts 2no&in! that the $roceeds or "r its are derived "rom the commission o" said $rohibited acts. 'eca se o" the $ro$erties and lives involved, the I(( is strictly constr ed to attain the e""icient and e""ective im$lementation o" (3 103CC. Fnder the la&, the $ossession o" the e1 i$ment, by any $erson &itho t $ro$er a thority is $rima "acie evidence that the e1 i$ment is the "r it o" the o""ense. +he I(( " rther states that the b rden o" $roo" is on the $erson to $resent evidence to establish his de"ense that the e1 i$ment is not a $ro$erty o" the !overnment. +he $enalty to be im$osed is im$risonment ran!in! "rom t&o 526 to "i"teen 51B6 years or a "ine ran!in! "rom t&o h ndred tho sand $esos 5Ph$ 200,000.006 to three million $esos 5Ph$

3,000,000.006, or both "ine and im$risonment. In addition, the $erson "o nd ! ilty is s ""ered to $ay the " ll cost o" the re$air or re$lacement o" the e1 i$ment. I" the $rohibited acts are committed by a 0 ridical entity, the $enalty is im$osed on the $resident, mana!er and each o" the o""icers &ho 2no&in!ly $ermitted, "ailed to $revent or is res$onsible "or the commission o" the o""ense. I" the $rohibited acts are committed by !overnment o""icials or em$loyees, the same $enalties a$$ly. In addition, ho&ever, the !overnment o""icials or em$loyees "o nd ! ilty may be administratively dismissed "rom service and $er$et ally dis1 ali"ied "rom holdin! any $ blic o""ice. (3 103CC and its I(( are very im$ortant in li!ht o" the many nat ral calamities that hit the Phili$$ines every year. Over the $ast ten years, Phili$$ines is one o" the to$ "ive 5B6 co ntries that is most "re1 ently a""ected by nat ral disasters. 3n avera!e o" t&enty 5206 ty$hoons enters the Phili$$ines every year. :oreover, Phili$$ines lies alon! the Paci"ic (in! o" >ire ca sin! it to "eel earth1 a2es every no& and them. D st recently, a =.2 earth1 a2e hit 'ohol and other cities in the Visayas 2illin! at least 1<@ $eo$le. (3 103CC and its I(( see2 to ens re that the !overnment ris2 red ction and $re$aredness e1 i$ment is $rotected and can readily be accessed to $redict nat ral calamities. 4ith the $assa!e o" (3 103CC and its I((, it is ho$ed that the $re$aredness o" the Phili$$ines in terms o" nat ral disaster mana!ement &ill increase and the n mber o" "atalities lessened, i" not eliminated.