A

1 | a b r c . p o l l L l c a l .
0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

Survey of 2009-2010 SC Dec|s|ons |n
CLI1ICAL LAW
Dean Ld V|ncent S. A|bano

Art|c|e II
Dec|arat|on of r|nc|p|es

Use of property bears a soc|a| funct|on.

1he concepL of soclal funcLlon of prlvaLe properLy whlch Loday ls presenLed as one of Lhe posslble [usLlflcaLlons for
agrarlan and urban land reform has lLs rooLs ln Lhe cosmogenlc and phllosophlcal concepL whlch malnLalns LhaL man musL answer
Lo Lhe CreaLor for Lhe use of Lhe resources enLrusLed Lo hlm. lL ls an old concepL and ls ulLlmaLely relaLed Lo Lhe genesls of socleLy
lLself. Pence, Lhe use, en[oymenL, occupaLlon or dlsposlLlon of prlvaLe properLy ls noL absoluLe. lL ls predlcaLed on Lhe soclal
funcLlons of properLy. lL ls resLrlcLed ln a sense so as Lo brlng abouL maxlmum beneflLs Lo all and noL Lo a few chosen lndlvlduals.
(lerrer vs. Carganlllo, eL.al., C.8. no. 170936, May 12, 2010).

Art|c|e III
8ILL CI kIGn1S
Due rocess

Lssence of due process |n opportun|ty to be heard.
.
ln 8ep. Alvln Sandoval vs. P8L1, eL.al., C.8. no. 190067, March 9, 2010, Lhe peLlLloner conLended LhaL hls rlghL Lo due
process was vlolaLed when Lhe P8L1 denled hls moLlon for addlLlonal perlod Lo make a formal offer of evldence. Cn Lhe conLrary,
he was glven ample Llme Lo do so and Lhe P8L1 has been very lenlenL Lo hlm. ln brushlng aslde hls conLenLlon, Lhe SC:

Peld: 1he conLenLlon ls noL correcL slnce he was glven all Lhe opporLunlLles Lo make an offer of evldence and Lo be heard. ln
vlllarosa vs. P8L1, C.8. nos. 143331 and 144129, SepLember 14, 2000, 340 SC8A 396, lL was held LhaL:

1he essence of due process ls Lhe reasonable opporLunlLy Lo be heard and submlL evldence ln supporL of
one's defense. 1o be heard does noL mean verbal argumenLs ln courL, one may be heard also Lhrough pleadlngs.
Where opporLunlLy Lo be heard, elLher Lhrough oral argumenLs or pleadlngs, ls accorded, Lhere ls no denlal of due
process.

noLe LhaL Lhe 2004 8ules of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves LlecLoral 1rlbunal provlde for a deflnlLe perlod of Llme wlLhln
whlch a parLy should compleLe or LermlnaLe hls presenLaLlon of evldence whlch ls 20 worklng days, preferably successlve, lncludlng
Lhe form s offer of evldence. (Sec.39)

Pe was warned LhaL Lhe exLenslon granLed would be Lhe lasL buL he chose noL Lo heed such warnlng and falled Lo use Lhe
addlLlonal Llme wlsely. Cnly peLlLloner deserves Lo be blamed for Lhe woes LhaL befell hlm.

ln Pofer v. Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves LlecLoral 1rlbunal,

C.8. no. 138833, May 12, 2004, 428 SC8A 383, Lhe CourL
emphaslzed LhaL procedural rules ln elecLlon cases are deslgned Lo achleve noL only a correcL buL also an expedlLlous
deLermlnaLlon of Lhe popular wlll of Lhe elecLoraLe. 1hus, Lhe Llme llmlL seL by Lhe rules ls noL someLhlng Lo be Laken llghLly, for lL
was sLressed ln Lhe same case LhaL "Lhe observance of Lhe P8L1 8ules ln con[uncLlon wlLh our own 8ules of CourL, musL be Laken
serlously." CuoLlng 8alLazar v. Commlsslon of LlecLlons, Lhe CourL relLeraLed ln Pofer, LhaL:

8y Lhelr very naLure and glven Lhe publlc lnLeresL lnvolved ln Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe resulLs of an
elecLlon, Lhe conLroversles arlslng from Lhe canvass musL be resolved speedlly, oLherwlse Lhe wlll of Lhe elecLoraLe
would be frusLraLed. And Lhe delay broughL abouL by Lhe LacLlcs resorLed Lo by peLlLloner ls preclsely Lhe very evll
soughL Lo be prevenLed by elecLlon sLaLuLes and conLrolllng case law on Lhe maLLer."(C.8. no. 140138, !anuary 29,
2001, 330 SC8A 318)

Due process not app||cab|e to |nterna| affa|rs of
po||t|ca| part|es.

Mayor ALlenza and oLhers were expelled from Lhe Llberal arLy. 1hey argued LhaL Lhelr expulslon from Lhe parLy ls noL a
slmple lssue of parLy membershlp or dlsclpllne, lL lnvolved a vlolaLlon of Lhelr consLlLuLlonally-proLecLed rlghL Lo due process of
law. 1hey clalmed LhaL Lhey should have been summoned Lo a hearlng before summarlly expelllng Lhem from Lhe parLy. 1hey
conLended LhaL Lhe proceedlngs on parLy dlsclpllne are Lhe equlvalenL of admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs

and are, Lherefore, covered
by Lhe due process requlremenLs lald down ln Ang 1lbay v. CourL of lndusLrlal 8elaLlons. 69 hll. 633 (1940)

2 | a b r c . p o l l L l c a l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

ls Lhe conLenLlon correcL? Lxplaln.

Answer: no. 1he requlremenLs of admlnlsLraLlve due process do noL apply Lo Lhe lnLernal affalrs of pollLlcal parLles. 1he due
process sLandards seL ln Ang 1lbay cover only admlnlsLraLlve bodles creaLed by Lhe sLaLe and Lhrough whlch cerLaln governmenLal
acLs or funcLlons are performed. An admlnlsLraLlve agency or lnsLrumenLallLy "conLemplaLes an auLhorlLy Lo whlch Lhe sLaLe
delegaLes governmenLal power for Lhe performance of a sLaLe funcLlon." (Luzon uevelopmenL bank vs. AssoclaLlon of Luzon
uevelopmenL 8ank Lmployes, 319 hll. 262 (1993). 1he consLlLuLlonal llmlLaLlons LhaL generally apply Lo Lhe exerclse of Lhe
sLaLe's powers Lhus, apply Loo, Lo admlnlsLraLlve bodles.

AlLhough pollLlcal parLles play an lmporLanL role ln our democraLlc seL-up as an lnLermedlary beLween Lhe sLaLe and lLs
clLlzens, lL ls sLlll a prlvaLe organlzaLlon, noL a sLaLe lnsLrumenL. 1he dlsclpllne of members by a pollLlcal parLy does noL lnvolve Lhe
rlghL Lo llfe, llberLy or properLy wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe due process clause. An lndlvldual has no vesLed rlghL, as agalnsL Lhe
sLaLe, Lo be accepLed or Lo prevenL hls removal by a pollLlcal parLy. 1he only rlghLs, lf any, LhaL parLy members may have, ln
relaLlon Lo oLher parLy members, correspond Lo Lhose LhaL may have been freely agreed upon among Lhemselves Lhrough Lhelr
charLer, whlch ls a conLracL among Lhe parLy members. Members whose rlghLs under Lhelr charLer may have been vlolaLed have
recourse Lo courLs of law for Lhe enforcemenL of Lhose rlghLs, buL noL as a due process lssue agalnsL Lhe governmenL or any of lLs
agencles. (ALlenza, eL.al. vs. Comelec, eL.al., C.8. no. 188920, lebruary 16, 2010, Abad, !.)

8uL even when recourse Lo courLs of law may be made, courLs wlll ordlnarlly noL lnLerfere ln membershlp and dlsclpllnary
maLLers wlLhln a pollLlcal parLy. A pollLlcal parLy ls free Lo conducL lLs lnLernal affalrs, pursuanL Lo lLs consLlLuLlonally-proLecLed
rlghL Lo free assoclaLlon. ln Slnaca v. Mula, Lhe CourL sald LhaL [udlclal resLralnL ln lnLernal parLy maLLers serves Lhe publlc lnLeresL
by allowlng Lhe pollLlcal processes Lo operaLe wlLhouL undue lnLerference. lL ls also conslsLenL wlLh Lhe sLaLe pollcy of allowlng a
free and open parLy sysLem Lo evolve, accordlng Lo Lhe free cholce of Lhe people.

(Sec. 6, ArL. lx-C, ConsLlLuLlon, ALlenza, eL. Al. vs.
Comelec, eL.al.)

Cut of court |dent|f|cat|on of accused, process

ln eople vs. Macapanas, C.8. no. 187049, May 4, 2010, Lhe accused conLended LhaL hls ldenLlflcaLlon ln Lhe hosplLal
should noL have been glven conslderaLlon because Lhe ldenLlflcaLlon was noL made ln a pollce llne-up and LhaL Lhe procedure
adopLed consLlLuLed suggesLlve ldenLlflcaLlon for he alone was broughL lnfronL of Lhe vlcLlm.

ln brushlng aslde Lhe conLenLlon, Lhe SC held LhaL here ls no law or pollce regulaLlon requlrlng a pollce llne-up for proper
ldenLlflcaLlon ln every case. Lven lf Lhere was no pollce llne-up, Lhere could sLlll be proper and rellable ldenLlflcaLlon as long as such
ldenLlflcaLlon was noL suggesLed or lnsLlgaLed Lo Lhe wlLness by Lhe pollce. (eople vs. LscoLe, !r. 400 SC8A 603 (2003) WhaL ls
cruclal ls for Lhe wlLness Lo poslLlvely declare durlng Lrlal LhaL Lhe person charged was Lhe malefacLor. (eople vs. MarLln, 367 SC8A
42 (2008) 249 SC8A 34 (1993).

rocedure for out-of-court |dent|f|cat|on.

ln eople v. 1eehankee, !r., Lhe procedure for ouL-of-courL ldenLlflcaLlon and Lhe LesL Lo deLermlne Lhe admlsslblllLy of
such ldenLlflcaLlon was explalned, Lhus:

CuL-of-courL ldenLlflcaLlon ls conducLed by Lhe pollce ln varlous ways. lL ls done Lhru show-ups where Lhe
suspecL alone ls broughL face Lo face wlLh Lhe wlLness for ldenLlflcaLlon. lL ls done Lhru mug shoLs where
phoLographs are shown Lo Lhe wlLness Lo ldenLlfy Lhe suspecL. lL ls also done Lhru llne-ups where a wlLness
ldenLlfles Lhe suspecL from a group of persons llned up for Lhe purpose. Slnce corrupLlon of ouL-of-courL
ldenLlflcaLlon conLamlnaLes Lhe lnLegrlLy of ln-courL ldenLlflcaLlon durlng Lhe Lrlal of Lhe case, courLs have
fashloned ouL rules Lo assure lLs falrness and lLs compllance wlLh Lhe requlremenLs of consLlLuLlonal due process.
ln resolvlng Lhe admlsslblllLy of and relylng on ouL-of-courL ldenLlflcaLlon of suspecLs, courLs have adopLed Lhe
LoLallLy of clrcumsLances LesL where Lhey conslder Lhe followlng facLors, vlz: (1) Lhe wlLness' opporLunlLy Lo vlew
Lhe crlmlnal aL Lhe Llme of Lhe crlme, (2) Lhe wlLness' degree of aLLenLlon aL LhaL Llme, (3) Lhe accuracy of any prlor
descrlpLlon glven by Lhe wlLness, (4) Lhe level of cerLalnLy demonsLraLed by Lhe wlLness aL Lhe ldenLlflcaLlon, (3)
Lhe lengLh of Llme beLween Lhe crlme and Lhe ldenLlflcaLlon, and, (6) Lhe suggesLlveness of Lhe ldenLlflcaLlon
procedure."

8ILL CI kIGn1S
Due rocess and Lqua| rotect|on

Due process app||es to the power to tax.

1he renowned genlus AlberL LlnsLeln was once quoLed as saylng Lhe hardesL Lhlng ln Lhe world Lo undersLand ls Lhe
lncome Lax." When a parLy quesLlons Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of an lncome Lax measure, lL has Lo conLend noL only wlLh LlnsLeln's
observaLlon buL also wlLh Lhe vasL and well-esLabllshed [urlsprudence ln supporL of Lhe plenary powers of Congress Lo lmpose
Laxes.


eLlLloner assalled Lhe valldlLy of Lhe lmposlLlon of mlnlmum corporaLe lncome Lax (MCl1) on corporaLlons and credlLable
wlLhholdlng Lax (CW1) on sales of real properLles classlfled as ordlnary asseLs. Pe argued LhaL Lhe MCl1 vlolaLes Lhe due process
clause because lL levles lncome Lax even lf Lhere ls no reallzed galn.
Pe asserLed LhaL Lhe enumeraLed provlslons of Lhe sub[ecL revenue regulaLlons vlolaLe Lhe due process clause because,
llke Lhe MCl1, Lhe governmenL collecLs lncome Lax even when Lhe neL lncome has noL yeL been deLermlned.

ls Lhe conLenLlon correcL? Why?

Peld: no, because Lhe CW1 ls credlLable agalnsL Lhe Lax due from Lhe seller of Lhe properLy aL Lhe end of Lhe Laxable year. 1he
seller wlll be able Lo clalm a Lax refund lf lLs neL lncome ls less Lhan Lhe Laxes wlLhheld. noLhlng ls Laken LhaL ls noL due so Lhere ls
no conflscaLlon of properLy repugnanL Lo Lhe consLlLuLlonal guaranLee of due process. More lmporLanLly, Lhe due process
requlremenL applles Lo Lhe power Lo Lax. 1he CW1 does noL lmpose new Laxes nor does lL lncrease Laxes. lL relaLes enLlrely Lo Lhe
meLhod and Llme of paymenL. (Chamber of 8eal LsLaLe and 8ullders' AssoclaLlon, lnc. vs. 1he Ponorable LxecuLlve SecreLary, eL.
Al., C.8. no. 160736, March 9, 2010).

Not v|o|at|ve of equa| protect|on c|ause.

CuesLlon: eLlLloner clalmed LhaL Lhe revenue regulaLlons are vlolaLlve of Lhe equal proLecLlon clause because Lhe CW1 ls
belng levled only on real esLaLe enLerprlses. Speclflcally, peLlLloner polnLed ouL LhaL manufacLurlng enLerprlses are noL slmllarly
lmposed a CW1 on Lhelr sales, even lf Lhelr manner of dolng buslness ls noL much dlfferenL from LhaL of a real esLaLe
enLerprlse. Llke a manufacLurlng concern, a real esLaLe buslness ls lnvolved ln a conLlnuous process of producLlon and lL lncurs
cosLs and expendlLures on a regular basls. 1he only dlfference ls LhaL goods" produced by Lhe real esLaLe buslness are house and
loL unlLs.


Answer: no. 1he equal proLecLlon clause under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon means LhaL no person or class of persons shall be
deprlved of Lhe same proLecLlon of laws whlch ls en[oyed by oLher persons or oLher classes ln Lhe same place and ln llke
clrcumsLances." SLaLed dlfferenLly, all persons belonglng Lo Lhe same class shall be Laxed allke. lL follows LhaL Lhe guaranLy of Lhe
equal proLecLlon of Lhe laws ls noL vlolaLed by leglslaLlon based on a reasonable classlflcaLlon. ClasslflcaLlon, Lo be valld, musL (1)
resL on subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons, (2) be germane Lo Lhe purpose of Lhe law, (3) noL be llmlLed Lo exlsLlng condlLlons only and (4)
apply equally Lo all members of Lhe same class.

1he Laxlng power has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo make reasonable classlflcaLlons for purposes of LaxaLlon. lnequallLles whlch resulL
from a slngllng ouL of one parLlcular class for LaxaLlon, or exempLlon, lnfrlnge no consLlLuLlonal llmlLaLlon. 1he real esLaLe lndusLry
ls, by lLself, a class and can be valldly LreaLed dlfferenLly from oLher buslness enLerprlses. (Chamber of 8eal LsLaLe and 8ullders'
AssoclaLlon, lnc. vs. 1he Ponorable LxecuLlve SecreLary, eL. Al., C.8. no. 160736, March 9, 2010).

Art|c|e III
Iud|c|ary

A fac|a| |nva||dat|on of a statute |s a||owed on|y |n
free speech cases, where|n certa|n ru|es of
const|tut|ona| ||t|gat|on are r|ght|y excepted

ln 5ootbeto nemlspbete oqoqemeot Netwotk, loc., et ol. v. Aotl-1ettotlsm cooocll, et ol., C.8. no. 178332, CcLober 10,
2010, peLlLloners assalled for belng lnLrlnslcally vague and lmpermlsslbly broad Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhe crlme of Lerrorlsm

under 8A
9372 ln LhaL Lerms llke "wldespread and exLraordlnary fear and panlc among Lhe populace" and "coerce Lhe governmenL Lo glve ln
Lo an unlawful demand" are nebulous, leavlng law enforcemenL agencles wlLh no sLandard Lo measure Lhe prohlblLed acLs, hence,
vold for non-vagueness and overbreadLh.

8espondenLs, counLered LhaL Lhe docLrlnes of vold-for-vagueness and overbreadLh flnd no appllcaLlon ln Lhe presenL
case slnce Lhese docLrlnes apply only Lo free speech cases, and LhaL 8A 9372 regulaLes conducL, noL speech.

ls Lhe conLenLlon of Lhe peLlLloners correcL?

Peld: no, because Lhe overbreadLh and vagueness docLrlnes have speclal appllcaLlon only Lo free speech cases. 1hey cannoL be
resorLed Lo lnvalldaLe a penal sLaLuLe.

ln 8omualdez v. Commlsslon on LlecLlons, Lhe CourL sLaLed LhaL a faclal lnvalldaLlon of crlmlnal sLaLuLes ls noL
approprlaLe. (LsLrada vs. S8, 421 hll. 290, 2001)

1he doctr|ne of vagueness and the doctr|ne of
overbreadth do not operate on the same p|ane.

A sLaLuLe or acL suffers from Lhe defecL of vagueness when lL lacks comprehenslble sLandards LhaL men of common
lnLelllgence musL necessarlly guess aL lLs meanlng and dlffer as Lo lLs appllcaLlon. lL ls repugnanL Lo Lhe ConsLlLuLlon ln Lwo


respecLs: (1) lL vlolaLes due process for fallure Lo accord persons, especlally Lhe parLles LargeLed by lL, falr noLlce of Lhe conducL Lo
avold, and (2) lL leaves law enforcers unbrldled dlscreLlon ln carrylng ouL lLs provlslons and becomes an arblLrary flexlng of Lhe
CovernmenL muscle. (eople vs. nazarlo, 163 SC8A 186 (1988). 1he overbreadLh docLrlne, meanwhlle, decrees LhaL a
governmenLal purpose Lo conLrol or prevenL acLlvlLles consLlLuLlonally sub[ecL Lo sLaLe regulaLlons may noL be achleved by means
whlch sweep unnecessarlly broadly and Lhereby lnvade Lhe area of proLecLed freedoms. (8lo umpar Adlong vs. Comelec, C.8. no.
103936, March 31, 1992, 207 SC8A 712)

As dlsLlngulshed from Lhe vagueness docLrlne, Lhe overbreadLh docLrlne assumes LhaL lndlvlduals wlll undersLand whaL a
sLaLuLe prohlblLs and wlll accordlngly refraln from LhaL behavlor, even Lhough some of lL ls proLecLed.

Iac|a| cha||enge vs. "As-app||ed" cha||enge.

A "faclal" challenge ls llkewlse dlfferenL from an "as-applled" challenge.

ulsLlngulshed from an as-applled challenge whlch conslders only exLanL facLs affecLlng real llLlganLs, a faclal lnvalldaLlon ls
an examlnaLlon of Lhe enLlre law, plnpolnLlng lLs flaws and defecLs, noL only on Lhe basls of lLs acLual operaLlon Lo Lhe parLles, buL
also on Lhe assumpLlon or predlcLlon LhaL lLs very exlsLence may cause oLhers noL before Lhe courL Lo refraln from consLlLuLlonally
proLecLed speech or acLlvlLles. (uavld vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, C.8. no. 171396, May 3, 2006, 489 SC8A 160)

1he vagueness and overbreadLh docLrlnes, as grounds for a faclal challenge, are noL appllcable Lo penal laws. A llLlganL
cannoL Lhus successfully mounL a faclal challenge agalnsL a crlmlnal sLaLuLe on elLher vagueness or overbreadLh grounds.

Iust|f|cat|on for fac|a| cha||enge |n free speech, to avert ch||||ng effect on protected speech.

1he allowance of a faclal challenge ln free speech cases ls [usLlfled by Lhe alm Lo averL Lhe "chllllng effecL" on proLecLed
speech, Lhe exerclse of whlch should noL aL all Llmes be abrldged.

1hls raLlonale ls lnappllcable Lo plaln penal sLaLuLes LhaL
generally bear an "ln Lerrorem effecL" ln deLerrlng soclally harmful conducL. ln facL, Lhe leglslaLure may even forbld and penallze
acLs formerly consldered lnnocenL and lawful, so long as lL refralns from dlmlnlshlng or dlssuadlng Lhe exerclse of consLlLuLlonally
proLecLed rlghLs. (eople vs. SlLon, C.8. no. 109364, SepLember 18, 2009, 600 SC8A 476).

An 'on-lLs-face' lnvalldaLlon of penal sLaLuLes may noL be allowed,

8easons:
1he rule esLabllshed ln our [urlsdlcLlon ls, only sLaLuLes on free speech, rellglous freedom, and oLher fundamenLal rlghLs
may be faclally challenged. under no case may ordlnary penal sLaLuLes be sub[ecLed Lo a faclal challenge. 1he raLlonale ls obvlous.
lf a faclal challenge Lo a penal sLaLuLe ls permlLLed, Lhe prosecuLlon of crlmes may be hampered. no prosecuLlon would be
posslble. A sLrong crlLlclsm agalnsL employlng a faclal challenge ln Lhe case of penal sLaLuLes, lf Lhe same ls allowed, would
effecLlvely go agalnsL Lhe graln of Lhe docLrlnal requlremenL of an exlsLlng and concreLe conLroversy before [udlclal power may be
approprlaLely exerclsed. A faclal challenge agalnsL a penal sLaLuLe ls, aL besL, amorphous and speculaLlve. lL would, essenLlally,
force Lhe courL Lo conslder Lhlrd parLles who are noL before lL. 1he allowance of a faclal challenge Lo aLLack penal sLaLuLes, such a
LesL wlll lmpalr Lhe SLaLe's ablllLy Lo deal wlLh crlme. lf warranLed, Lhere would be noLhlng LhaL can hlnder an accused from
defeaLlng Lhe SLaLe's power Lo prosecuLe on a mere showlng LhaL, as applled Lo Lhlrd parLles, Lhe penal sLaLuLe ls vague or
overbroad, noLwlLhsLandlng LhaL Lhe law ls clear as applled Lo hlm.

(8omualdez vs. Comelec, supra.)

lL ls seLLled, on Lhe oLher hand, LhaL Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe overbreadLh docLrlne ls llmlLed Lo a faclal klnd of challenge and,
owlng Lo Lhe glven raLlonale of a faclal challenge, appllcable only Lo free speech cases.

8y lLs naLure, Lhe overbreadLh docLrlne has Lo necessarlly apply a faclal Lype of lnvalldaLlon ln order Lo ploL areas of
proLecLed speech, lnevlLably almosL always under slLuaLlons noL before Lhe courL, LhaL are lmpermlsslbly swepL by Lhe
subsLanLlally overbroad regulaLlon. CLherwlse sLaLed, a sLaLuLe cannoL be properly analyzed for belng subsLanLlally overbroad lf
Lhe courL conflnes lLself only Lo facLs as applled Lo Lhe llLlganLs.

Slnce a penal sLaLuLe may only be assalled for belng vague as applled Lo peLlLloners, a llmlLed vagueness analysls of Lhe
deflnlLlon of "Lerrorlsm" ln 8A 9372 ls legally lmpermlsslble absenL an acLual or lmmlnenL charge agalnsL Lhem.

ln Lhls [urlsdlcLlon, Lhe vold-for-vagueness docLrlne asserLed under Lhe due process clause has been uLlllzed ln examlnlng
Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of crlmlnal sLaLuLes. ln aL leasL Lhree cases

eople v. nazarlo, no. L-44143, AugusL 31, 1988, 163 SC8A
186, eople v. uela ledra, C.8. no. 121777, !anuary 24, 2001, 330 SC8A 163, eople v. SlLon, C.8. no. 169364, SepLember 18,
2009, 600 SC8A 476. Lhe CourL broughL Lhe docLrlne lnLo play ln analyzlng an ordlnance penallzlng Lhe non-paymenL of munlclpal
Lax on flshponds, Lhe crlme of lllegal recrulLmenL punlshable under ArLlcle 132(b) of Lhe Labor Code, and Lhe vagrancy provlslon
under ArLlcle 202 (2) of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code. noLably, Lhe peLlLloners ln Lhese Lhree cases, slmllar Lo Lhose ln Lhe
Lwo 8omualdez and LsLrada cases, were acLually charged wlLh Lhe Lhereln assalled penal sLaLuLe, unllke ln Lhe presenL case.

1here |s no mer|t |n the c|a|m that kA 9372
regu|ates speech so as to perm|t a fac|a| ana|ys|s of
|ts va||d|ty.

S | a b r c . p o l l L l c a l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

CuesLlon: ln lnslsLlng on a faclal challenge on Lhe lnvocaLlon LhaL Lhe law penallzes speech, peLlLloners conLended LhaL Lhe elemenL
of "unlawful demand" ln Lhe deflnlLlon of Lerrorlsm musL necessarlly be LransmlLLed Lhrough some form of expresslon proLecLed by
Lhe free speech clause. ls Lhe conLenLlon correcL? Why?

Peld: 1he conLenLlon ls noL correcL. WhaL Lhe law seeks Lo penallze ls conducL, noL speech.
lrom Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhe crlme of Lerrorlsm ln SecLlon 3 of 8A 9372, Lhe followlng elemenLs may be culled: (1) Lhe
offender commlLs an acL punlshable under any of Lhe clLed provlslons of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code, or under any of Lhe enumeraLed
speclal penal laws, (2) Lhe commlsslon of Lhe predlcaLe crlme sows and creaLes a condlLlon of wldespread and exLraordlnary fear
and panlc among Lhe populace, and (3) Lhe offender ls acLuaLed by Lhe deslre Lo coerce Lhe governmenL Lo glve ln Lo an unlawful
demand.

8efore a charge for Lerrorlsm may be flled under 8A 9372, Lhere musL flrsL be a predlcaLe crlme acLually commlLLed Lo
Lrlgger Lhe operaLlon of Lhe key quallfylng phrases ln Lhe oLher elemenLs of Lhe crlme, lncludlng Lhe coerclon of Lhe governmenL Lo
accede Lo an "unlawful demand." Clven Lhe presence of Lhe flrsL elemenL, any aLLempL aL slngllng ouL or hlghllghLlng Lhe
communlcaLlve componenL of Lhe prohlblLlon cannoL recaLegorlze Lhe unproLecLed conducL lnLo a proLecLed speech.

uLLerances noL elemenLal buL lnevlLably lncldenLal Lo Lhe dolng of Lhe crlmlnal conducL alLer nelLher Lhe lnLenL of Lhe law
Lo punlsh soclally harmful conducL nor Lhe essence of Lhe whole acL as conducL and noL speech. 1hls holds Lrue a forLlorl ln Lhe
presenL case where Lhe expresslon flgures only as an lnevlLable lncldenL of maklng Lhe elemenL of coerclon percepLlble.

Ireedom of Lxpress|on

Lffect |f mayor mod|f|es the p|ace where
demonstrat|on sha|| take p|ace w|thout not|ce

ln l8 vs. ALlenza, C.8. no. 173241, lebruary 24, 2010, Morales, !., Lhere was an appllcaLlon for permlL Lo hold a
demonsLraLlon aL Lhe fooL of Mendlola 8rldge. When lL was lssued, lL was lndlcaLed Lhereln LhaL Lhe venue would be laza
Mlranda. Mayor ALlenza falled Lo lndlcaLe how he had arrlved aL modlfylng Lhe Lerms of Lhe permlL agalnsL Lhe sLandard of a clear
and presenL danger LesL whlch, lL bears repeaLlng, ls an lndlspensable condlLlon Lo such modlflcaLlon. noLhlng ln Lhe lssued
permlL adverLed Lo an lmmlnenL and grave danger of a subsLanLlve evll, whlch blank" denlal or modlflcaLlon would, when
granLed lmprlmaLur as Lhe appellaLe courL would have lL, render lllusory any [udlclal scruLlny Lhereof.
ls Lhe modlflcaLlon proper? Why?

Peld: no. ln modlfylng Lhe permlL ouLrlghL, Mayor ALlenza gravely abused hls dlscreLlon when he dld noL lmmedlaLely lnform Lhe
l8 who should have been heard flrsL on Lhe maLLer of hls percelved lmmlnenL and grave danger of a subsLanLlve evll LhaL may
warranL Lhe changlng of Lhe venue. 1he opporLunlLy Lo be heard precedes Lhe acLlon on Lhe permlL, slnce Lhe appllcanL may
dlrecLly go Lo courL afLer an unfavorable acLlon on Lhe permlL.

lL ls Lrue LhaL Lhe llcenslng offlclal, ls noL devold of dlscreLlon ln deLermlnlng wheLher or noL a permlL would be granLed. lL
ls noL, however, unfeLLered dlscreLlon. Whlle prudence requlres LhaL Lhere be a reallsLlc appralsal noL of whaL may posslbly occur
buL of whaL may probably occur, glven all Lhe relevanL clrcumsLances, sLlll Lhe assumpLlon - especlally so where Lhe assembly ls
scheduled for a speclflc publlc place - ls LhaL Lhe permlL musL be for Lhe assembly belng held Lhere. 1he exerclse of such a rlghL, ln
Lhe language of !usLlce 8oberLs, speaklng for Lhe Amerlcan Supreme CourL, ls noL Lo be "abrldged on Lhe plea LhaL lL may be
exerclsed ln some oLher place". (8eyes vs. 8agaLslng, C.8. no. L-63366, november 9, 1983, 123 SC8A 333)

ln 8ayan, karapaLan, kllusang Magbubukld ng lllplnas (kM) v. LrmlLa, Lhe CourL relLeraLed:

lreedom of assembly connoLes Lhe rlghL of Lhe people Lo meeL peaceably for consulLaLlon and dlscusslon of maLLers of
publlc concern. lL ls enLlLled Lo be accorded Lhe uLmosL deference and respecL. lL ls noL Lo be llmlLed, much less denled, excepL on a
showlng, as ls Lhe case wlLh freedom of expresslon, of a clear and presenL danger of a subsLanLlve evll LhaL Lhe sLaLe has a rlghL Lo
prevenL. Lven prlor Lo Lhe 1933 ConsLlLuLlon, !usLlce Malcolm had occaslon Lo sLress LhaL lL ls a necessary consequence of our
republlcan lnsLlLuLlons and complemenLs Lhe rlghL of free speech. 1o paraphrase Lhe oplnlon of !usLlce 8uLledge, speaklng for Lhe
ma[orlLy of Lhe Amerlcan Supreme CourL ln 1homas v. Colllns, lL was noL by accldenL or colncldence LhaL Lhe rlghLs Lo freedom of
speech and of Lhe press were coupled ln a slngle guaranLee wlLh Lhe rlghLs of Lhe people peaceably Lo assemble and Lo peLlLlon Lhe
governmenL for redress of grlevances. All Lhese rlghLs, whlle noL ldenLlcal, are lnseparable. ln every case, Lherefore, where Lhere ls
a llmlLaLlon placed on Lhe exerclse of Lhls rlghL, Lhe [udlclary ls called upon Lo examlne Lhe effecLs of Lhe challenged governmenLal
acLuaLlon. 1he sole [usLlflcaLlon for a llmlLaLlon on Lhe exerclse of Lhls rlghL, so fundamenLal Lo Lhe malnLenance of democraLlc
lnsLlLuLlons, ls Lhe danger, of a characLer boLh grave and lmmlnenL, of a serlous evll Lo publlc safeLy, publlc morals, publlc healLh, or
any oLher leglLlmaLe publlc lnLeresL. (C.8. no. 169838, Aprll 23, 2006, 488 SC8A 226)

1he publlc offlclal concerned shall appralse wheLher Lhere may be valld ob[ecLlons Lo Lhe granL of Lhe permlL or Lo lLs
granL buL aL anoLher publlc place. lL ls an lndlspensable condlLlon Lo such refusal or modlflcaLlon LhaL Lhe clear and presenL
danger LesL be Lhe sLandard for Lhe declslon reached. lf he ls of Lhe vlew LhaL Lhere ls such an lmmlnenL and grave danger of a
subsLanLlve evll, Lhe appllcanLs musL be heard on Lhe maLLer. 1hereafLer, hls declslon, wheLher favorable or adverse, musL be
LransmlLLed Lo Lhem aL Lhe earllesL opporLunlLy. 1hus lf so mlnded, Lhey can have recourse Lo Lhe proper [udlclal auLhorlLy. (C.8.
no. L-63366, november 9, 1983, 123 SC8A 333)


Ireedom of ke||g|on

Sanct|on on program |s not restra|nt on freedom of
re||g|on.

CuesLlon: ln hls MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon on Lhe declslon of Lhe SC daLed Aprll 29, 2006, lmposlng Lhe penalLy of Lhree-monLh
suspenslon on Lhe Lelevlslon show, Ang uaLlng uaan, Lhe peLlLloner alleged as grounds, Lhe followlng:

(1) Lhe suspenslon Lhus meLed ouL Lo Lhe program consLlLuLes prlor resLralnL, (2) Lhe CourL erred ln rullng LhaL hls
uLLerances dld noL consLlLuLe exerclse of rellglon, (3) Lhe CourL erred ln flndlng Lhe language used as offenslve and obscene, (4) Lhe
CourL should have applled lLs pollcy of non-lnLerference ln cases of confllcL beLween rellglous groups.

1he SC ruled:

(1) 1he sancLlon lmposed on Lhe 1v program ln quesLlon does noL consLlLuLe prlor resLralnL, buL parLakes of Lhe naLure of
subsequenL punlshmenL for pasL vlolaLlon commlLLed by peLlLloner ln Lhe course of Lhe broadcasL. 1o be sure, peLlLloner has noL
conLesLed Lhe facL of hls havlng made sLaLemenLs on Lhe alr LhaL were conLexLually vlolaLlve of Lhe program's "C" raLlng. 1o merlL a
"C" raLlng, Lhe program musL be "sulLable for all ages," whlch, ln Lurn, means LhaL Lhe "maLerlal for Lelevlslon [does noL], ln Lhe
[udgmenL of Lhe M18C8, conLaln anyLhlng unsulLable for chlldren and mlnors, and may be vlewed wlLhouL adulL guldance or
supervlslon." 1he vulgar language peLlLloner used on prlme-Llme Lelevlslon can ln no way be characLerlzed as sulLable for all ages,
and ls wholly lnapproprlaLe for chlldren. (Lllseo Sorlano vs. Ma. Consollza Laguardla, eL.al., C.8. no. 164783, and oLher cases,
March 13, 2010)

(2) eLlLloner nexL harps on Lhe prlmacy of hls freedoms, referrlng parLlcularly Lo Lhe exerclse of hls rellglous bellefs and
professlon, as presldlng mlnlsLer of hls flock, over Lhe rlghL and duLy of Lhe sLaLe as parens paLrlae. eLlLloner's poslLlon may be
accorded some cogency, buL for Lhe facL LhaL lL falls Lo conslder LhaL Lhe medlum he used Lo make hls sLaLemenLs was a Lelevlslon
broadcasL, whlch ls accesslble Lo chlldren of vlrLually all ages. 1he lnLeresL of Lhe governmenL ln proLecLlng chlldren who may be
sub[ecLed Lo peLlLloner's lnvecLlves musL Lake precedence over hls deslre Lo alr publlcly hls dlrLy laundry. 1he publlc soapbox LhaL ls
Lelevlslon musL be guarded by Lhe sLaLe, whlch purpose Lhe M18C8 serves, and has served, ln suspendlng Ang uaLlng uaan for
peLlLloner's sLaLemenLs. As emphaslzed ln Conzalez v. kalaw kaLlgbak, (137 SC8A 717 (1983), Lhe freedom of broadcasL medla ls,
ln Lerms of degree of proLecLlon lL deserves, lesser ln scope, especlally as regards Lelevlslon, whlch reaches every home where
Lhere ls a seL, and where chlldren wlll llkely be among Lhe avld vlewers of Lhe programs shown. 1he same case also lald Lhe basls
for Lhe classlflcaLlon sysLem of Lhe M18C8 when lL sLaLed, "lL cannoL be denled Lhough LhaL Lhe SLaLe as parens paLrlae ls called
upon Lo manlfesL an aLLlLude of carlng for Lhe welfare of Lhe young."

k|ght of Informat|on

1he r|ght of |nformat|on on matters of pub||c
concern |s not abso|ute.

CuesLlon: A person Look Lhe CA LxamlnaLlon buL falled. Convlnced LhaL she passed Lhe examlnaLlon, she wroLe Lhe Chalrman of
Lhe 8oard of AcounLancy and requesLed LhaL her answer sheeLs be re-correcLed. lL was denled, hence, she flled a peLlLlon for
mandamus for Lhe re-checklng of her examlnaLlon.


Answer: no. Any clalm for re-correcLlon or revlslon of her examlnaLlon cannoL be compelled by mandamus. 1hls much was made
evldenL ln AgusLln-8amos v. Sandoval,

C.8. no. 84470, lebruary 2, 1989, lL was sald LhaL:

lor a wrlL of mandamus Lo lssue, Lhe appllcanL musL have a well-deflned, clear, and cerLaln legal rlghL Lo Lhe Lhlng
demanded. 1he correspondlng duLy of Lhe respondenL Lo perform Lhe requlred acL musL be equally clear.

Llke Lhe clalmanLs ln AgusLln, Lhe remedy of peLlLloner from Lhe refusal of Lhe 8oard Lo release Lhe LxamlnaLlon apers
should have been Lhrough an appeal Lo Lhe 8C. (AnLolln v. uomondon, C.8. no. 163036, !uly 3, 2010, uel CasLlllo,!).

She conLended LhaL she may compel access Lo Lhe LxamlnaLlon uocumenLs Lhru mandamus, lnvoklng her rlghL Lo be
lnformed. ls Lhe conLenLlon correcL? Why?

Peld: no. 1he conLenLlon ls noL correcL. SecLlon 7, ArLlcle lll provldes:

Sec.7. 1he rlghL of Lhe people Lo lnformaLlon on maLLers of publlc concern shall be recognlzed. Access Lo offlclal records,
and Lo documenLs, and papers perLalnlng Lo offlclal acLs, LransacLlons, or declslons, as well Lo governmenL research daLa used as
basls for pollcy developmenL, shall be afforded Lhe clLlzen, sub[ecL Lo such llmlLaLlons as may be provlded by law.

1he rlghL Lo lnformaLlon on maLLers of publlc concern ls noL absoluLe. lL ls llmlLed Lo maLLers of publlc concern and
sub[ecL Lo such llmlLaLlons as may be provlded by law.


1here ls a need Lo preserve a measure of confldenLlallLy on maLLers such as naLonal securlLy, Lrade secreLs, banklng
LransacLlons, crlmlnal and confldenLlal maLLers.

lor Lhls purpose, Lhe CA 8oard LxamlnaLlon ls a maLLer of publlc concern.

As observed ln Legaspl v. Clvll Servlce Commlsslon, ln deLermlnlng wheLher a parLlcular lnformaLlon ls of publlc concern
Lhere ls no rlgld LesL whlch can be applled. "ubllc concern" llke "publlc lnLeresL" ls a Lerm LhaL eludes exacL deflnlLlon. 8oLh Lerms
embrace a broad specLrum of sub[ecLs whlch Lhe publlc may wanL Lo know, elLher because Lhese dlrecLly affecL Lhelr llves, or
slmply because such maLLers naLurally arouse Lhe lnLeresL of an ordlnary clLlzen. ln Lhe flnal analysls, lL ls for Lhe courLs Lo
deLermlne on a case by case basls wheLher Lhe maLLer aL lssue ls of lnLeresL or lmporLance, as lL relaLes Lo or affecLs Lhe publlc.

1here ls also a need Lo preserve a measure of confldenLlallLy on some maLLers, such as naLlonal securlLy, Lrade secreLs and
banklng LransacLlons, crlmlnal maLLers, and oLher confldenLlal maLLers.(Chavez vs. CCC, 360 hll. 133 (1998).

1he naLlonal 8oard LxamlnaLlons such as Lhe CA 8oard Lxams are maLLers of publlc concern. 1he populace ln general,
and Lhe examlnees ln parLlcular, would undersLandably be lnLeresLed ln Lhe falr and compeLenL admlnlsLraLlon of Lhese exams ln
order Lo ensure LhaL only Lhose quallfled are admlLLed lnLo Lhe accounLlng professlon. And as wlLh all maLLers pedagoglcal, Lhese
examlnaLlons could be noL merely quanLlLaLlve means of assessmenL, buL also means Lo furLher lmprove Lhe Leachlng and learnlng
of Lhe arL and sclence of accounLlng.(AnLolln vs. uomondon, eL al., C.8. no. 163036, !uly 3, 2010, uel CasLlllo, !.)

k|ght to Speedy 1r|a|

ln Monlco !acob, eL.al. vs. S8, eL.al., C.8. no. 162206, november 17, 2000, Crlmlnal cases were flled agalnsL Lhe acused on
Aprll 10, 2010. 1hey were arralgned on !une 1, 2000 and May 18, 2001, wlLh boLh accused pleadlng noL gullLy. Slnce Lhen, Lhere
had been no oLher slgnlflcanL developmenL ln Lhe cases slnce Lhe prosecuLlon repeaLedly requesLed for defermenL or
posLponemenL of Lhe scheduled hearlngs whlle awalLlng Lhe resulL of Lhe relnvesLlgaLlon of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman. !udge
narlo verbally ordered Lhe dlsmlssal of sald cases durlng Lhe hearlng on AugusL 20, 2001. 1hus, Lhe crlmlnal cases had been
pendlng for abouL a year and four monLhs by Lhe Llme Lhey were dlsmlssed by !usLlce narlo.

1he accused had conslsLenLly asked ln open courL LhaL Lhe crlmlnal cases be dlsmlssed every Llme Lhe prosecuLlon moved
for a defermenL or posLponemenL of Lhe hearlngs.

1he prosecuLlon aLLrlbuLed Lhe delay ln Lhe crlmlnal proceedlngs Lo: 1) Lhe 23 moLlons for relnvesLlgaLlon or
reconslderaLlon flled by Lhe accused, whlch was granLed by Lhe Sandlganbayan ln lLs Aprll 17, 2000 Crder, and 2) Lhe fallure of Lhe
Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman Lo LermlnaLe lLs relnvesLlgaLlon and submlL lLs reporL wlLhln Lhe 60-day perlod flxed by Lhe sald grafL
courL.

ls Lhe order of dlsmlssal proper? Why?

Answer: no, because lL deprlved Lhe SLaLe of lLs rlghL Lo prosecuLe Lhe crlmlnal cases slmply because of Lhe lnepLlLude of Lhe
Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman.

ln Corpuz vs. S8, C.8. no. 162214, november 11, 2000 442 SC8A 294, Lhe SC warned agalnsL Lhe overzealous or
preclplLaLe dlsmlssal of a case LhaL may enable Lhe defendanL, who may be gullLy, Lo go free wlLhouL havlng been Lrled, Lhereby
lnfrlnglng Lhe socleLal lnLeresL ln Lrylng people accused of crlmes raLher Lhan granLlng Lhem lmmunlzaLlon because of legal
error. Llkewlse ln eople v. LevlsLe, lL was sLressed LhaL:

1he SLaLe, llke any oLher llLlganL, ls enLlLled Lo lLs day ln courL, and Lo a reasonable opporLunlLy Lo presenL lLs case. A
hasLy dlsmlssal such as Lhe one ln quesLlon, lnsLead of unclogglng dockeLs, has acLually lncreased Lhe workload of Lhe [usLlce
sysLem as a whole and caused uncalled-for delays ln Lhe flnal resoluLlon of Lhls and oLher cases. unwlLLlngly, Lhe preclplLaLe acLlon
of Lhe respondenL courL, lnsLead of easlng Lhe burden of Lhe accused, merely prolonged Lhe llLlgaLlon and lronlcally enough,
unnecessarlly delayed Lhe case - ln Lhe process, causlng Lhe very evll lL apparenLly soughL Lo avold. Such acLlon does noL lnsplre
publlc confldence ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce.

1he SC ln Corpuz furLher ruled on Lhe socleLal lnLeresL lnvolved ln Lhe cases and Lhe need Lo glve subsLance Lo Lhe
peLlLloners' consLlLuLlonal rlghLs and Lhelr quesL for [usLlce musL be balanced. 1he dlsmlssal of Lhe cases ls Loo drasLlc a remedy Lo
be accorded Lo Lhe peLlLloners. 1he cloud of susplclon may sLlll llnger over Lhe heads of Lhe peLlLloners by Lhe preclplLaLe dlsmlssal
of Lhe cases. We repeaL -- Lhe cases lnvolve Lhe so-called Lax credlL cerLlflcaLes scam and hundreds of mllllons of pesos allegedly
perpeLraLed by governmenL offlclals ln connlvance wlLh prlvaLe lndlvlduals. 1he eople has yeL Lo prove Lhe gullL of Lhe peLlLloners
of Lhe crlmes charged beyond reasonable doubL.

Doub|e Ieopardy

Cra| order of d|sm|ssa| of a cr|m|na| case, no doub|e
[eopardy, vo|d


ln Monlco !acob, eL.al. vs. S8, eL.al., C.8. no. 162206, november 17, 2010, Lhere was an order of dlsmlssal of an
lnformaLlon lssued by a !usLlce of Lhe Sandlganbayan due Lo delay. ls Lhe dlsmlssal valld? Why?

Answer: no, because lL was a vold order. ln Corpuz vs. S8, C.8. no. 162214, november 11, 2004, 442 SC8A 294, lL was
sald LhaL Lhe dlsmlssal made ln open courL by Lhe Chalrman, whlch was noL reduced ln wrlLlng, ls noL a valld dlsmlssal or
LermlnaLlon of Lhe cases. 1hls ls because Lhe Chalrman cannoL unllaLerally dlsmlss Lhe same wlLhouL Lhe approval or consenL of
Lhe oLher members of Lhe ulvlslon. 1he Sandlganbayan ls a colleglaLe courL and under lLs lnLernal rules SecLlon 1(b) of Lhe
1984 8evlsed 8ules of Lhe Sandlganbayan, whlch ls now SecLlon 1(b), 8ule vlll of Lhe 2002 8evlsed lnLernal 8ules of Lhe
Sandlganbayan, an order, resoluLlon or [udgmenL, ln order Lo be valld or consldered as an offlclal acLlon of Lhe CourL lLself - musL
bear Lhe unanlmous approval of Lhe members of Lhe dlvlslon, or ln case of lack Lhereof, by Lhe ma[orlLy voLe of Lhe members of a
speclal dlvlslon of flve.

SecLlon 1, 8ule 120 of Lhe 8evlsed 8ules of Crlmlnal rocedure, mandaLes LhaL a [udgmenL musL be wrlLLen ln Lhe offlclal
language, personally and dlrecLly prepared by Lhe [udge and slgned by hlm and shall conLaln clearly and dlsLlncLly a sLaLemenL of
Lhe facLs and Lhe law upon whlch lL ls based. 1he rule applles Lo a flnal order dlsmlsslng a crlmlnal case grounded on Lhe vlolaLlon
of Lhe rlghLs of Lhe accused Lo a speedy Lrlal. A verbal [udgmenL or order of dlsmlssal ls a vlolaLlon of Lhe provlslon, hence, such
order ls, ln conLemplaLlon of law, noL ln esse, Lherefore, lneffecLlve.

Vo|d order, not bas|s of doub|e [eopardy.

uest|on: Cons|der|ng that the verba| order of d|sm|ssa| |s vo|d, can the accused |nvoke doub|e [eopardy |f he wou|d be tr|ed
aga|n? Why?

Answer: no. Legal !eopardy has noL yeL aLLached slnce Lhere was no valld dlsmlssal or LermlnaLlon of Lhe crlmlnal case agalnsL Lhe
accused.

1o subsLanLlaLe a clalm for double [eopardy, Lhe followlng musL be demonsLraLed:

(1) flrsL [eopardy musL have aLLached prlor Lo Lhe second, (2) Lhe flrsL [eopardy musL have been valldly LermlnaLed, (3)
Lhe second [eopardy musL be for Lhe same offense, or Lhe second offense lncludes or ls necessarlly lncluded ln Lhe offense charged
ln Lhe flrsL lnformaLlon, or ls an aLLempL Lo commlL Lhe same or ls a frusLraLlon Lhereof.

And legal [eopardy aLLaches only: (a) upon a valld lndlcLmenL, (b) before a compeLenL courL, (c) afLer arralgnmenL, (d)
[when] a valld plea [has] been enLered, and (e) Lhe case was dlsmlssed or oLherwlse LermlnaLed wlLhouL Lhe express consenL of Lhe
accused.

CI1I2LNSnI

Ia||ure to reg|ster oath of c|t|zensh|p and e|ect|on
of the same does not mean that a person |s
undocumented c|t|zen

CuesLlon: Should chlldren born under Lhe 1933 ConsLlLuLlon of a llllplno moLher and an allen faLher, who execuLed an affldavlL of
elecLlon of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp and Look Lhelr oaLh of alleglance Lo Lhe governmenL upon reachlng Lhe age of ma[orlLy, buL who
falled Lo lmmedlaLely flle Lhe documenLs of elecLlon wlLh Lhe nearesL clvll reglsLry, be consldered forelgn naLlonals sub[ecL Lo
deporLaLlon as undocumenLed allens for fallure Lo obLaln allen cerLlflcaLes of reglsLraLlon?

1he quesLlon ls LranslaLed lnLo Lhe lnqulry wheLher or noL Lhe omlsslon negaLes Lhelr rlghLs Lo llllplno clLlzenshlp as
chlldren of a llllplno moLher, and erase Lhe years llved and spenL as llllplnos.

Peld: no. 1he 1933 ConsLlLuLlon declares as clLlzens of Lhe hlllpplnes Lhose whose moLhers are clLlzens of Lhe hlllpplnes and
elecL hlllpplne clLlzenshlp upon reachlng Lhe age of ma[orlLy.(ArL.lv, Sec.1(4), 1933 ConsLlLuLlon)

1he sLaLuLory formallLles of elecLlng hlllpplne clLlzenshlp are: (1) a sLaLemenL of elecLlon under oaLh, (2) an oaLh of
alleglance Lo Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and CovernmenL of Lhe hlllpplnes, and (3) reglsLraLlon of Lhe sLaLemenL of elecLlon and of Lhe oaLh
wlLh Lhe nearesL clvll reglsLry.(CA no. 623, Sec.1)

ln 8e: AppllcaLlon for Admlsslon Lo Lhe hlllpplne 8ar, vlcenLe u. Chlng (373 hll. 342, (1999), Lhe meanlng of Lhe perlod
of elecLlon descrlbed by phrase upon reachlng Lhe age of ma[orlLy", was deLermlned. 1he references were Lhe Clvll Code of
Lhe hlllpplnes, Lhe oplnlons of Lhe SecreLary of !usLlce, and Lhe case of Cueco v. SecreLary of !usLlce. (113 hll. 90, (1962)

1he 1933 ConsLlLuLlon and C.A. no. 623 dld noL prescrlbe a Llme perlod wlLhln whlch Lhe elecLlon of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp
should be made. 1he 1933 CharLer only provldes LhaL Lhe elecLlon should be made upon reachlng Lhe age of ma[orlLy." 1he age of
ma[orlLy Lhen commenced upon reachlng LwenLy-one (21) years. ln Lhe oplnlons of Lhe SecreLary of !usLlce on cases lnvolvlng Lhe
valldlLy of elecLlon of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp, Lhls dllemma was resolved by baslng Lhe Llme perlod on Lhe declslons of Lhls CourL
prlor Lo Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe 1933 ConsLlLuLlon. ln Lhese declslons, Lhe proper perlod for elecLlng hlllpplne clLlzenshlp was, ln
Lurn, based on Lhe pronouncemenLs of Lhe ueparLmenL of SLaLe of Lhe unlLed SLaLes CovernmenL Lo Lhe effecL LhaL Lhe elecLlon


should be made wlLhln a reasonable Llme afLer aLLalnlng Lhe age of ma[orlLy. 1he phrase reasonable Llme" has been lnLerpreLed
Lo mean LhaL Lhe elecLlons should be made wlLhln Lhree (3) years from reachlng Lhe age of ma[orlLy. Powever, ln Cuenco vs.
SecreLary of !usLlce, LhaL Lhe Lhree (3) year perlod ls noL an lnflexlble rule. Pe elecLed hlllpplne clLlzenshlp when he was 28 years
old, hence, Lhe elecLlon has noL been made upon reachlng Lhe age of ma[orlLy.

1he SC relLeraLed Lhe above rullng ln Co, Sr. v. 8amos,C.8. no. 167369, SepLemebr 4, 2009, 398 SC8A 266, a case ln whlch
Lhe CourL adopLed Lhe flndlngs of Lhe appellaLe courL LhaL Lhe faLher of Lhe peLlLloner, whose clLlzenshlp was ln quesLlon, falled Lo
elecL hlllpplne clLlzenshlp wlLhln Lhe reasonable perlod of Lhree (3) years upon reachlng Lhe age of ma[orlLy, and LhaL Lhe belaLed
submlsslon Lo Lhe local clvll reglsLry of Lhe affldavlL of elecLlon and oaLh of alleglance was defecLlve because Lhe affldavlL of
elecLlon was execuLed afLer Lhe oaLh of alleglance, and Lhe delay of several years before Lhelr flllng wlLh Lhe proper offlce was noL
saLlsfacLorlly explalned."

ln boLh cases, Lhe SC ruled agalnsL Lhe peLlLloners because Lhey belaLedly complled wlLh all Lhe requlremenLs. 1he acLs of
elecLlon and Lhelr reglsLraLlon wlLh Lhe nearesL clvll reglsLry were all done beyond Lhe reasonable perlod of Lhree years upon
reachlng Lhe age of ma[orlLy.

resenL case ls noL slmllar Lo Co.

1he lnsLanL case ls dlfferenL from Lhe Co, Sr. case because Lhey complled wlLh Lhe flrsL and second requlremenLs upon
reachlng Lhe age of ma[orlLy. lL was only Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhe documenLs of elecLlon wlLh Lhe clvll reglsLry LhaL was belaLedly
done.

1he rlghL Lo elecL hlllpplne clLlzenshlp has noL been losL and Lhey should be allowed Lo compleLe Lhe sLaLuLory
requlremenLs for such elecLlon.

Such concluslon ls ln llne wlLh Lhe declslons ln ln 8e:llorenclo Mallare Co v. LlecLoral 1rlbunal of Lhe Pouse of
8epresenLaLlves, 138 hll. 30 (1974) and 8e:AppllcaLlon for Admlsslon Lo Lhe hlllpplne 8ar, vlcenLe u. Chlng, 374 hll. 342 (1999)

ln Mallare, LsLeban's exerclse of Lhe rlghL of suffrage when he came of age was deemed Lo be a poslLlve acL of elecLlon of
hlllpplne clLlzenshlp.

ln Lhe co case, !ose Cng, !r. dld more Lhan exerclse hls rlghL of suffrage, as he esLabllshed hls llfe here ln
Lhe hlllpplnes. Agaln, such clrcumsLance, whlle slmllar Lo LhaL of hereln peLlLloners', was noL appreclaLed because lL was ruled
LhaL any elecLlon of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp on Lhe parL of Cng would have resulLed ln absurdlLy, because Lhe law lLself had already
elecLed hlllpplne clLlzenshlp for hlm as, apparenLly, whlle he was sLlll a mlnor, a cerLlflcaLe of naLurallzaLlon was lssued Lo hls
faLher.

ln cbloq, Lhe SC denled hls appllcaLlon for admlsslon Lo Lhe hlllpplne 8ar because, ln hls case, all Lhe requlremenLs, Lo
wlL: (1) a sLaLemenL of elecLlon under oaLh, (2) an oaLh of alleglance Lo Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and CovernmenL of Lhe hlllpplnes, and (3)
reglsLraLlon of Lhe sLaLemenL of elecLlon and of Lhe oaLh wlLh Lhe nearesL clvll reglsLry were complled wlLh only fourLeen (14) years
afLer he reached Lhe age of ma[orlLy. Chlng offered no reason for Lhe laLe elecLlon of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp.

Mere exerc|se of suffrage etc., cannot take the
p|ace of e|ect|on of c|t|zensh|p.

1he mere exerclse of suffrage, belng elecLed publlc offlclal, conLlnuous and unlnLerrupLed sLay ln Lhe hlllpplnes, and
oLher slmllar acLs showlng exerclse of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp cannoL Lake Lhe place of elecLlon of clLlzenshlp. Powever, where, as ln
peLlLloners' case, Lhe elecLlon of clLlzenshlp has ln facL been done and documenLed wlLhln Lhe consLlLuLlonal and sLaLuLory
Llmeframe, Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhe documenLs of elecLlon beyond Lhe frame should be allowed lf ln Lhe meanwhlle poslLlve acLs of
clLlzenshlp have publlcly, conslsLenLly, and conLlnuously been done. 1he acLual exerclse of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp, for over half a
cenLury by Lhe hereln peLlLloners, ls acLual noLlce Lo Lhe hlllpplne publlc whlch ls equlvalenL Lo formal reglsLraLlon of Lhe elecLlon
of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp.

keg|strat|on of e|ect|on of c|t|zensh|p does not
confer c|t|zensh|p, mere conf|rmat|on of a fact.

8eglsLraLlon ls Lhe conflrmaLlon of Lhe exlsLence of a facL. ln Lhe lnsLanL case, reglsLraLlon ls Lhe conflrmaLlon of elecLlon
as such elecLlon. lL ls noL Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhe acL of elecLlon, alLhough a valld requlremenL under CommonwealLh AcL no. 623,
LhaL wlll confer hlllpplne clLlzenshlp on Lhe peLlLloners. lL ls only a means of conflrmlng Lhe facL LhaL clLlzenshlp has been
clalmed.

Art|c|e VII
LkLCU1IVL DLAk1MLN1

Whether the |ncumbent res|dent may appo|nt the
Ch|ef Iust|ce dur|ng the 60-day ban


ArLuro M. ue CasLro vs. !8C, eL.al., C.8. no. 191002 and companlon cases, March 17, 2010, 8ersamln, !.
lacLs:
A peLlLlon for mandamus was flled Lo compel Lhe !8C Lo submlL Lo Lhe lncumbenL resldenL Lhe llsL of aL leasL Lhree (3)
nomlnees for Lhe poslLlon of Chlef !usLlce. CLhers lnLervened and all Lhe consolldaLed peLlLlons pose as Lhe prlnclpal legal quesLlon
wheLher Lhe lncumbenL resldenL can appolnL Lhe successor of Chlef !usLlce uno upon hls reLlremenL. 1haL quesLlon ls
undoubLedly lmpressed wlLh LranscendenLal lmporLance Lo Lhe naLlon, because Lhe appolnLmenL of Lhe Chlef !usLlce ls any
resldenL's mosL lmporLanL appolnLmenL.

lL was conLended LhaL Lhe confllcLlng oplnlons on Lhe lssue expressed by legal lumlnarles - one slde holds LhaL Lhe
lncumbenL resldenL ls prohlblLed from maklng appolnLmenLs wlLhln Lwo monLhs lmmedlaLely before Lhe comlng presldenLlal
elecLlons and unLll Lhe end of her Lerm of offlce as resldenL on !une 30, 2010, whlle Lhe oLher lnslsLs LhaL Lhe prohlblLlon applles
only Lo appolnLmenLs Lo execuLlve poslLlons LhaL may lnfluence Lhe elecLlon and, anyway, paramounL naLlonal lnLeresL [usLlfles Lhe
appolnLmenL of a Chlef !usLlce durlng Lhe elecLlon ban - has lmpelled Lhe !8C Lo defer Lhe declslon Lo whom Lo send lLs llsL of aL
leasL Lhree nomlnees, wheLher Lo Lhe lncumbenL resldenL or Lo her successor. 1hey oplned LhaL Lhe !8C ls Lhereby arrogaLlng unLo
lLself "Lhe [udlclal funcLlon LhaL ls noL conferred upon lL by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon," whlch has llmlLed lL Lo Lhe Lask of recommendlng
appolnLees Lo Lhe !udlclary, buL has noL empowered lL Lo "flnally resolve consLlLuLlonal quesLlons, whlch ls Lhe power vesLed only
ln Lhe Supreme CourL under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon." As such, lL was conLended LhaL Lhe !8C acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon ln
deferrlng Lhe submlsslon of Lhe llsL of nomlnees Lo Lhe resldenL, and LhaL a "flnal and deflnlLlve resoluLlon of Lhe consLlLuLlonal
quesLlons ralsed above would dlffuse Lhe Lenslon ln Lhe legal communlLy LhaL would go a long way Lo keep and malnLaln sLablllLy ln
Lhe [udlclary and Lhe pollLlcal sysLem.

1here were opposlLlons malnly anchored on Lhe 60-day ban on appolnLmenLs by Lhe lncumbenL resldenL clLlng Lhe
valenzuela and 8allarLa cases. 1he hllconsa, however, conLended LhaL Lhe valenzuela and 8allarLa cases should be revlslLed due
Lo Lhe unorLhodox and excepLlonal clrcumsLances spawned by Lhe dlscordanL lnLerpreLaLlon of Sec.13, ArL. vll ln relaLlon Lo Secs. 4
(1), 8(3) and 9 of ArLlcle vlll of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon whlch has caused dlmenslonal lmpacL on Lhe naLlon and Lhe people. 1he baslc
quesLlon ls wheLher Lhe lncumbenL resldenL may appolnL Lhe Chlef !usLlce.

Peld: ?es. rohlblLlon under SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll does noL apply Lo appolnLmenLs Lo flll a vacancy ln Lhe Supreme CourL or Lo
oLher appolnLmenLs Lo Lhe !udlclary. 1wo consLlLuLlonal provlslons are seemlngly ln confllcL.

1he flrsL, SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll (LxecuLlve ueparLmenL), provldes:

1wo monLhs lmmedlaLely before Lhe nexL presldenLlal elecLlons and up Lo Lhe end of hls Lerm, a resldenL or AcLlng
resldenL shall noL make appolnLmenLs, excepL Lemporary appolnLmenLs Lo execuLlve poslLlons when conLlnued vacancles Lhereln
wlll pre[udlce publlc servlce or endanger publlc safeLy. 1he oLher, SecLlon 4 (1), ArLlcle vlll (!udlclal ueparLmenL), sLaLes:

1he Supreme CourL shall be composed of a Chlef !usLlce and fourLeen AssoclaLe !usLlces. lL may slL en
banc or ln lLs dlscreLlon, ln dlvlslon of Lhree, flve, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be fllled wlLhln nlneLy days
from Lhe occurrence Lhereof.

1he prohlblLlon agalnsL presldenLlal appolnLmenLs under SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll does noL exLend Lo appolnLmenLs ln Lhe
!udlclary.

1he records of Lhe dellberaLlons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon reveal LhaL Lhe framers devoLed Llme Lo meLlculously
drafLlng, sLyllng, and arranglng Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. Such meLlculousness lndlcaLes LhaL Lhe organlzaLlon and arrangemenL of Lhe
provlslons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon were noL arblLrarlly or whlmslcally done by Lhe framers, buL purposely made Lo reflecL Lhelr
lnLenLlon and manlfesL Lhelr vlslon of whaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon should conLaln.

1he ConsLlLuLlon conslsLs of 18 ArLlcles, Lhree of whlch embody Lhe allocaLlon of Lhe awesome powers of governmenL
among Lhe Lhree greaL deparLmenLs, Lhe LeglslaLlve (ArLlcle vl), Lhe LxecuLlve (ArLlcle vll), and Lhe !udlclal ueparLmenLs (ArLlcle
vlll). 1he arrangemenL was a Lrue recognlLlon of Lhe prlnclple of separaLlon of powers LhaL underlles Lhe pollLlcal sLrucLure

1he pollLlcal parL of Lhls ConsLlLuLlon opLed for Lhe separaLlon of powers ln governmenL because Lhe only way Lo proLecL
freedom and llberLy ls Lo separaLe and dlvlde Lhe awesome powers of governmenL.

As can be seen, ArLlcle vll ls devoLed Lo Lhe LxecuLlve ueparLmenL, and, among oLhers, lL llsLs Lhe powers vesLed by Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon ln Lhe resldenL. 1he presldenLlal power of appolnLmenL ls dealL wlLh ln SecLlons 14, 13 and 16 of Lhe ArLlcle.

ArLlcle vlll ls dedlcaLed Lo Lhe !udlclal ueparLmenL and deflnes Lhe duLles and quallflcaLlons of Members of Lhe Supreme
CourL, among oLhers. SecLlon 4(1) and SecLlon 9 of Lhls ArLlcle are Lhe provlslons speclflcally provldlng for Lhe appolnLmenL of
Supreme CourL !usLlces. ln parLlcular, SecLlon 9 sLaLes LhaL Lhe appolnLmenL of Supreme CourL !usLlces can only be made by Lhe
resldenL upon Lhe submlsslon of a llsL of aL leasL Lhree nomlnees by Lhe !8C, SecLlon 4(1) of Lhe ArLlcle mandaLes Lhe resldenL Lo
flll Lhe vacancy wlLhln 90 days from Lhe occurrence of Lhe vacancy. ch

Pad Lhe framers lnLended Lo exLend Lhe prohlblLlon conLalned ln SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll Lo Lhe appolnLmenL of Members of
Lhe Supreme CourL, Lhey could have expllclLly done so. 1hey could noL have lgnored Lhe meLlculous orderlng of Lhe provlslons.
1hey would have easlly and surely wrlLLen Lhe prohlblLlon made expllclL ln SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll as belng equally appllcable Lo Lhe


appolnLmenL of Members of Lhe Supreme CourL ln ArLlcle vlll lLself, mosL llkely ln SecLlon 4 (1), ArLlcle vlll. 1haL such speclflcaLlon
was noL done only reveals LhaL Lhe prohlblLlon agalnsL Lhe resldenL or AcLlng resldenL maklng appolnLmenLs wlLhln Lwo monLhs
before Lhe nexL presldenLlal elecLlons and up Lo Lhe end of Lhe resldenL's or AcLlng resldenL's Lerm does noL refer Lo Lhe
Members of Lhe Supreme CourL.

Va|enzue|a d|ctum d|d not f|rm|y rest on the
de||berat|ons of the ConCom, 90-day per|od to f|||
up vacancy |s mandatory.

8ecords of Lhe ConCom dlsclose Lhe express lnLenL of Lhe framers Lo enshrlne ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon a command Lo Lhe
resldenL Lo flll up any vacancy wlLhln 90 days from lLs occurrence whlch ls even conceded ln valenzuela as shown by Lhe
dellberaLlons aL Lhe ConCom.

Moreover, Lhe usage ln SecLlon 4(1), ArLlcle vlll of Lhe word shall - an lmperaLlve, operaLlng Lo lmpose a duLy LhaL may be
enforced

should noL be dlsregarded. 1hereby, SecLlons 4(1) lmposes on Lhe resldenL Lhe lmperaLlve duLy Lo make an appolnLmenL
of a Member of Lhe Supreme CourL wlLhln 90 days from Lhe occurrence of Lhe vacancy. 1he fallure by Lhe resldenL Lo do so wlll be
a clear dlsobedlence Lo Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.

1he 90-day llmlLaLlon flxed ln SecLlon 4(1), ArLlcle vlll for Lhe resldenL Lo flll Lhe vacancy ln Lhe Supreme CourL was
undoubLedly a speclal provlslon Lo esLabllsh a deflnlLe mandaLe for Lhe resldenL as Lhe appolnLlng power, and cannoL be defeaLed
by mere [udlclal lnLerpreLaLlon ln valenzuela Lo Lhe effecL LhaL SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll prevalled because lL was "couched ln sLronger
negaLlve language."

Court sha|| seek to avo|d conf||ct |n the prov|s|ons
of statutes.

Pow valenzuela [usLlfled lLs pronouncemenL and resulL ls hardly warranLed. Accordlng Lo an auLhorlLy on sLaLuLory
consLrucLlon Lhe courL should seek Lo avold any confllcL ln Lhe provlslons of Lhe sLaLuLe by endeavorlng Lo harmonlze and reconclle
every parL so LhaL each shall be effecLlve. lL ls noL easy Lo drafL a sLaLuLe, or any oLher wrlLlng for LhaL maLLer, whlch may noL ln
some manner conLaln confllcLlng provlslons. 8uL whaL appears Lo Lhe reader Lo be a confllcL may noL have seemed so Lo Lhe
drafLer. undoubLedly, each provlslon was lnserLed for a deflnlLe reason. CfLen by conslderlng Lhe enacLmenL ln lLs enLlreLy, whaL
appears Lo be on lLs face a confllcL may be cleared up and Lhe provlslons reconclled.

valenzuela arblLrarlly lgnored Lhe express lnLenL of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon Lo have SecLlon 4 (1), ArLlcle vlll sLand
lndependenLly of any oLher provlslon, leasL of all one found ln ArLlcle vll. lL furLher lgnored LhaL Lhe Lwo provlslons had no
lrreconcllable confllcL, regardless of SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll belng couched ln Lhe negaLlve. As [udges, we are noL Lo unduly lnLerpreL,
and should noL accepL an lnLerpreLaLlon LhaL defeaLs Lhe lnLenL of Lhe framers.

ConsequenLly, prohlblLlng Lhe lncumbenL resldenL from appolnLlng a Chlef !usLlce on Lhe premlse LhaL SecLlon 13, ArLlcle
vll exLends Lo appolnLmenLs ln Lhe !udlclary cannoL be susLalned. A mlslnLerpreLaLlon llke valenzuela should noL be allowed Lo lasL
afLer lLs false premlses have been exposed. lL wlll noL do Lo merely dlsLlngulsh valenzuela from Lhese cases, for Lhe resulL Lo be
reached hereln ls enLlrely lncompaLlble wlLh whaL valenzuela decreed. ConsequenLly, valenzuela now deserves Lo be qulckly senL
Lo Lhe dusLbln of Lhe unworLhy and forgeLLable.

Sect|on 1S, Art|c|e VII does not app|y as we|| to a||
other appo|ntments |n the Iud|c|ary.

1here ls no quesLlon LhaL one of Lhe reasons underlylng Lhe adopLlon of SecLlon 13 as parL of ArLlcle vll was Lo ellmlnaLe
mldnlghL appolnLmenLs from belng made by an ouLgolng Chlef LxecuLlve ln Lhe mold of Lhe appolnLmenLs dealL wlLh ln Lhe leadlng
case of AyLona v. CasLlllo. ln facL, ln valenzuela, Lhe CourL so observed, sLaLlng LhaL:

lL appears LhaL SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll ls dlrecLed agalnsL Lwo Lypes of appolnLmenLs: (1) Lhose made for
buylng voLes and (2) Lhose made for parLlsan conslderaLlons. 1he flrsL refers Lo Lhose appolnLmenLs made wlLhln
Lhe Lwo monLhs precedlng a resldenLlal elecLlon and are slmllar Lo Lhose whlch are declared elecLlon offenses ln
Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code:

1he second Lype of appolnLmenLs prohlblLed by SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll conslsLs of Lhe so-called "mldnlghL" appolnLmenLs.
ln AyLona v. CasLlllo, lL was held LhaL afLer Lhe proclamaLlon of ulosdado Macapagal as duly elecLed resldenL, resldenL Carlos .
Carcla, who was defeaLed ln hls bld for reelecLlon, became no more Lhan a "careLaker" admlnlsLraLor whose duLy was Lo "prepare
for Lhe orderly Lransfer of auLhorlLy Lo Lhe lncomlng resldenL." Sald Lhe CourL:

"1he fllllng up of vacancles ln lmporLanL poslLlons, lf few, and so spaced as Lo afford some assurance of
dellberaLe acLlon and careful conslderaLlon of Lhe need for Lhe appolnLmenL and appolnLee's quallflcaLlons may
undoubLedly be permlLLed. 8uL Lhe lssuance of 330 appolnLmenLs ln one nlghL and Lhe planned lnducLlon of almosL
all of Lhem ln a few hours before Lhe lnauguraLlon of Lhe new resldenL may, wlLh some reason, be regarded by
Lhe laLLer as an abuse of resldenLlal prerogaLlves, Lhe sLeps Laken belng apparenLly a mere parLlsan efforL Lo flll all


vacanL poslLlons lrrespecLlve of flLness and oLher condlLlons, and Lhereby Lo deprlve Lhe new admlnlsLraLlon of an
opporLunlLy Lo make Lhe correspondlng appolnLmenLs.

Not a|| m|dn|ght appo|ntments are vo|d.

1here may well be appolnLmenLs Lo lmporLanL poslLlons whlch have Lo be made even afLer Lhe proclamaLlon of Lhe new
resldenL. Such appolnLmenLs, so long as Lhey are "few and so spaced as Lo afford some assurance of dellberaLe acLlon and careful
conslderaLlon of Lhe need for Lhe appolnLmenL and Lhe appolnLee's quallflcaLlons," can be made by Lhe ouLgolng resldenL.
Accordlngly, several appolnLmenLs made by resldenL Carcla, whlch were shown Lo have been well consldered, were upheld.

SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll has a broader scope Lhan Lhe AyLona rullng. lL may noL unreasonably be deemed Lo conLemplaLe
noL only "mldnlghL" appolnLmenLs - Lhose made obvlously for parLlsan reasons as shown by Lhelr number and Lhe Llme of Lhelr
maklng - buL also appolnLmenLs presumed made for Lhe purpose of lnfluenclng Lhe ouLcome of Lhe resldenLlal elecLlon.

Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhe excepLlon ln Lhe same SecLlon 13 of ArLlcle vll - allowlng appolnLmenLs Lo be made durlng Lhe
perlod of Lhe ban Lhereln provlded - ls much narrower Lhan LhaL recognlzed ln AyLona. 1he excepLlon allows only Lhe maklng
of Lemporary appolnLmenLs Lo execuLlve poslLlons when conLlnued vacancles wlll pre[udlce publlc servlce or endanger publlc
safeLy. Cbvlously, Lhe arLlcle greaLly resLrlcLs Lhe appolnLlng power of Lhe resldenL durlng Lhe perlod of Lhe ban.

Conslderlng Lhe respecLlve reasons for Lhe Llme frames for fllllng vacancles ln Lhe courLs and Lhe resLrlcLlon on Lhe
resldenL's power of appolnLmenL, as a general proposlLlon, ln case of confllcL, Lhe former should yleld Lo Lhe laLLer. Surely, Lhe
prevenLlon of voLe-buylng and slmllar evlls ouLwelghs Lhe need for avoldlng delays ln fllllng up of courL vacancles or Lhe dlsposlLlon
of some cases. 1emporary vacancles can ablde Lhe perlod of Lhe ban whlch, lncldenLally and as earller polnLed ouL, comes Lo exlsL
only once ln every slx years. Moreover, Lhose occurrlng ln Lhe lower courLs can be fllled Lemporarlly by deslgnaLlon. 8uL prohlblLed
appolnLmenLs are long-lasLlng and permanenL ln Lhelr effecLs. 1hey may, as earller polnLed ouL, ln facL lnfluence Lhe resulLs of
elecLlons and, for LhaL reason, Lhelr maklng ls consldered an elecLlon offense.

rohlblLlon ls conflned Lo Lhose ln Lhe LxecuLlve ueparLmenL. CreaLlon of !8C ensures proper processlng of appolnLmenLs
Lo [udlclary.

Clven Lhe background and raLlonale for Lhe prohlblLlon ln SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll, we have no doubL LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal
Commlsslon conflned Lhe prohlblLlon Lo appolnLmenLs made ln Lhe LxecuLlve ueparLmenL. 1he framers dld noL need Lo exLend Lhe
prohlblLlon Lo appolnLmenLs ln Lhe !udlclary, because Lhelr esLabllshmenL of Lhe !8C and Lhelr sub[ecLlng Lhe nomlnaLlon and
screenlng of candldaLes for [udlclal poslLlons Lo Lhe unhurrled and dellberaLe prlor process of Lhe !8C ensured LhaL Lhere would no
longer be mldnlghL appolnLmenLs Lo Lhe !udlclary. lf mldnlghL appolnLmenLs ln Lhe mold of AyLona were made ln hasLe and wlLh
lrregularlLles, or made by an ouLgolng Chlef LxecuLlve ln Lhe lasL days of hls admlnlsLraLlon ouL of a deslre Lo subverL Lhe pollcles of
Lhe lncomlng resldenL or for parLlsanshlp,

Lhe appolnLmenLs Lo Lhe !udlclary made afLer Lhe esLabllshmenL of Lhe !8C would noL
be sufferlng from such defecLs because of Lhe !8C's prlor processlng of candldaLes. lndeed, lL ls axlomaLlc ln sLaLuLory consLrucLlon
LhaL Lhe ascerLalnmenL of Lhe purpose of Lhe enacLmenL ls a sLep ln Lhe process of ascerLalnlng Lhe lnLenL or meanlng of Lhe
enacLmenL, because Lhe reason for Lhe enacLmenL musL necessarlly shed conslderable llghL on "Lhe law of Lhe sLaLuLe," l.e., Lhe
lnLenL, hence, Lhe enacLmenL should be consLrued wlLh reference Lo lLs lnLended scope and purpose, and Lhe courL should seek Lo
carry ouL Lhls purpose raLher Lhan Lo defeaL lL.

Also, Lhe lnLervenLlon of Lhe !8C ellmlnaLes Lhe danger LhaL appolnLmenLs Lo Lhe !udlclary can be made for Lhe purpose of
buylng voLes ln a comlng presldenLlal elecLlon, or of saLlsfylng parLlsan conslderaLlons. 1he experlence from Lhe Llme of Lhe
esLabllshmenL of Lhe !8C shows LhaL even candldaLes for [udlclal poslLlons aL any level backed by people lnfluenLlal wlLh Lhe
resldenL could noL always be assured of belng recommended for Lhe conslderaLlon of Lhe resldenL, because Lhey flrsL had Lo
undergo Lhe veLLlng of Lhe !8C and pass musLer Lhere. lndeed, Lhe creaLlon of Lhe !8C was preclsely lnLended Lo de-pollLlclze Lhe
!udlclary by dolng away wlLh Lhe lnLervenLlon of Lhe Commlsslon on AppolnLmenLs. 1hls lnsulaLlng process was absenL from Lhe
AyLona mldnlghL appolnLmenL.

L|ect|on ban has no app||cat|on to appo|ntments to
CA.

1he faulL of valenzuela was LhaL lL accorded no welghL and due conslderaLlon Lo Lhe conflrmaLlon of !usLlce 8egalado LhaL
Lhe elecLlon ban had no appllcaLlon Lo appolnLmenLs Lo Lhe CA. valenzuela was weak, because lL relled on lnLerpreLaLlon Lo
deLermlne Lhe lnLenL of Lhe framers raLher Lhan on Lhe dellberaLlons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon. Much of Lhe unfounded
doubL abouL Lhe resldenL's power Lo appolnL durlng Lhe perlod of prohlblLlon ln SecLlon 13, ArLlcle vll could have been dlspelled
slnce lLs promulgaLlon on november 9, 1998, had valenzuela properly acknowledged and relled on Lhe conflrmaLlon of a
dlsLlngulshed member of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon llke !usLlce 8egalado.

No revocat|on of appo|ntment to Iud|c|ary.

Cf Lhe 23 secLlons ln ArLlcle vll, Lhree (l.e., SecLlon 14, SecLlon13, and SecLlon 16) concern Lhe appolnLlng powers of Lhe
resldenL.


SecLlon 14 speaks of Lhe power of Lhe succeedlng resldenL Lo revoke appolnLmenLs made by an AcLlng resldenL, and
evldenLly refers only Lo appolnLmenLs ln Lhe LxecuLlve ueparLmenL. lL has no appllcaLlon Lo appolnLmenLs ln Lhe !udlclary, because
Lemporary or acLlng appolnLmenLs can only undermlne Lhe lndependence of Lhe !udlclary due Lo Lhelr belng revocable aL wlll. 1he
leLLer and splrlL of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon safeguard LhaL lndependence. Also, Lhere ls no law ln Lhe books LhaL auLhorlzes Lhe revocaLlon
of appolnLmenLs ln Lhe !udlclary. rlor Lo Lhelr mandaLory reLlremenL or reslgnaLlon, [udges of Lhe flrsL and second level courLs and
Lhe !usLlces of Lhe Lhlrd level courLs may only be removed for cause, buL Lhe Members of Lhe Supreme CourL may be removed only
by lmpeachmenL.

SecLlon 16 covers only Lhe presldenLlal appolnLmenLs LhaL requlre conflrmaLlon by Lhe Commlsslon on AppolnLmenLs.
1hereby, Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon resLored Lhe requlremenL of conflrmaLlon by Lhe Commlsslon on AppolnLmenLs afLer Lhe
requlremenL was removed from Lhe 1973 ConsLlLuLlon. ?eL, because of SecLlon 9 of ArLlcle vlll, Lhe resLored requlremenL dld noL
lnclude appolnLmenLs Lo Lhe !udlclary.
SecLlon 14, SecLlon 13, and SecLlon 16 are obvlously of Lhe same characLer, ln LhaL Lhey affecL Lhe power of Lhe resldenL
Lo appolnL. 1he facL LhaL SecLlon 14 and SecLlon 16 refer only Lo appolnLmenLs wlLhln Lhe LxecuLlve ueparLmenL renders concluslve
LhaL SecLlon 13 also applles only Lo Lhe LxecuLlve ueparLmenL. 1hls concluslon ls conslsLenL wlLh Lhe rule LhaL every parL of Lhe
sLaLuLe musL be lnLerpreLed wlLh reference Lo Lhe conLexL, l.e.LhaL every parL musL be consldered LogeLher wlLh Lhe oLher parLs,
and kepL subservlenL Lo Lhe general lnLenL of Lhe whole enacLmenL.

lL ls absurd Lo assume LhaL Lhe framers dellberaLely slLuaLed
SecLlon 13 beLween SecLlon 14 and SecLlon 16, lf Lhey lnLended SecLlon 13 Lo cover all klnds of presldenLlal appolnLmenLs. lf LhaL
was Lhelr lnLenLlon ln respecL of appolnLmenLs Lo Lhe !udlclary, Lhe framers, lf only Lo be clear, would have easlly and surely
lnserLed a slmllar prohlblLlon ln ArLlcle vlll, mosL llkely wlLhln SecLlon 4 (1) Lhereof.

1o hold llke Lhe CourL dld ln valenzuela LhaL SecLlon 13 exLends Lo appolnLmenLs Lo Lhe !udlclary furLher undermlnes Lhe
lnLenL of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon of ensurlng Lhe lndependence of Lhe !udlclal ueparLmenL from Lhe LxecuLlve and LeglslaLlve
ueparLmenLs. Such a holdlng wlll Lle Lhe !udlclary and Lhe Supreme CourL Lo Lhe forLunes or mlsforLunes of pollLlcal leaders vylng
for Lhe resldency ln a presldenLlal elecLlon. ConsequenLly, Lhe wlsdom of havlng Lhe new resldenL, lnsLead of Lhe currenL
lncumbenL resldenL, appolnL Lhe nexL Chlef !usLlce ls lLself suspecL, and cannoL ensure [udlclal lndependence, because Lhe
appolnLee can also become beholden Lo Lhe appolnLlng auLhorlLy. ln conLrasL, Lhe appolnLmenL by Lhe lncumbenL resldenL does
noL run Lhe same rlsk of compromlslng [udlclal lndependence, preclsely because her Lerm wlll end by !une 30, 2010.

Art|c|e VI
LLGISLA1IVL DLAk1MLN1

ar||amentary Immun|ty, rat|ona|e for pr|v||ege.

ln AnLero obre vs. Sen. Mlrlam uefensor SanLlago, A.C. no. 7399, AugusL 23, 2009, a complalnL for dlsbarmenL was flled
agalnsL SenaLor SanLlago based on her speech dellvered ln Lhe SenaLe afLer she was noL consldered ln her appllcaLlon for Lhe Chlef
!usLlce of Lhe Supreme CourL. She uLLered Lhe followlng:

l am noL angry. l am lraLe. l am foamlng ln Lhe mouLh. l am homlcldal. l am sulcldal. l am humlllaLed, debased, degraded.
And l am noL only LhaL, l feel llke Lhrowlng up Lo be llvlng my mlddle years ln a counLry of Lhls naLure. l am nauseaLed. l splL on Lhe
face of Chlef !usLlce ArLemlo anganlban and hls cohorLs ln Lhe Supreme CourL, l am no longer lnLeresLed ln Lhe poslLlon [of Chlef
!usLlce] lf l was Lo be surrounded by ldloLs. l would raLher be ln anoLher envlronmenL buL noL ln Lhe Supreme CourL of
ldloLs."

1o obre, Lhe foregolng sLaLemenLs reflecLed a LoLal dlsrespecL on Lhe parL of Lhe speaker Lowards Lhen Chlef !usLlce
ArLemlo anganlban and Lhe oLher members of Lhe CourL and consLlLuLed dlrecL conLempL of courL. Accordlngly, he asked LhaL
dlsbarmenL proceedlngs or oLher dlsclpllnary acLlons be Laken agalnsL Lhe lady senaLor.

ln her commenL, SenaLor SanLlago, Lhrough counsel, dld noL deny maklng Lhe aforequoLed sLaLemenLs. She, however,
explalned LhaL Lhose sLaLemenLs were covered by Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon on parllamenLary lmmunlLy, belng parL of a speech
she dellvered ln Lhe dlscharge of her duLy as member of Congress or lLs commlLLee. 1he purpose of her speech, accordlng Lo her,
was Lo brlng ouL ln Lhe open conLroverslal anomalles ln governance wlLh a vlew Lo fuLure remedlal leglslaLlon.

Peld: 1he lmmunlLy SenaLor SanLlago clalmed ls rooLed prlmarlly on Lhe provlslon of ArLlcle vl, SecLlon 11 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon,
whlch provldes: A SenaLor or Member of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves shall, ln all offenses punlshable by noL more Lhan slx years
lmprlsonmenL, be prlvlleged from arresL whlle Lhe Congress ls ln sesslon. no member shall be quesLloned nor be held llable ln any
oLher place for any speech or debaLe ln Lhe Congress or ln any commlLLee Lhereof." Lxplalnlng Lhe lmporL of Lhe underscored
porLlon of Lhe provlslon, Lhe CourL, ln Csmena, !r. v. endaLun, sald:

Cur ConsLlLuLlon enshrlnes parllamenLary lmmunlLy whlch ls a fundamenLal prlvllege cherlshed ln every
leglslaLlve assembly of Lhe democraLlc world. As old as Lhe Lngllsh arllamenL, lLs purpose ls Lo enable and
encourage a represenLaLlve of Lhe publlc Lo dlscharge hls publlc LrusL wlLh flrmness and success" for lL ls
lndlspensably necessary LhaL he should en[oy Lhe fullesL llberLy of speech and LhaL he should be proLecLed from
resenLmenL of every one, however, powerful, Lo whom Lhe exerclse of LhaL llberLy may occaslon offense."

keason beh|nd |eg|s|at|ve pr|ve|ege, pub||c good


1hls leglslaLlve prlvllege ls founded upon long experlence and arlses as a means of perpeLuaLlng lnvlolaLe Lhe funcLlonlng
process of Lhe leglslaLlve deparLmenL. WlLhouL parllamenLary lmmunlLy, parllamenL, or lLs equlvalenL, would degeneraLe lnLo a
pollLe and lneffecLlve debaLlng forum. LeglslaLors are lmmune from deLerrenLs Lo Lhe unlnhlblLed dlscharge of Lhelr leglslaLlve
duLles, noL for Lhelr prlvaLe lndulgence, buL for Lhe publlc good. 1he prlvllege would be of llLLle value lf Lhey could be sub[ecLed Lo
Lhe cosL and lnconvenlence and dlsLracLlons of a Lrlal upon a concluslon of Lhe pleader, or Lo Lhe hazard of a [udgmenL agalnsL
Lhem based upon a [udge's speculaLlon as Lo Lhe moLlves.

ko|e of the court |n upho|d|ng |mmun|ty

1hls CourL ls aware of Lhe need and has ln facL been ln Lhe forefronL ln upholdlng Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of parllamenLary
lmmunlLy and promoLlon of free speech. nelLher has Lhe CourL losL slghL of Lhe lmporLance of Lhe leglslaLlve and overslghL
funcLlons of Lhe Congress LhaL enable Lhls represenLaLlve body Lo look dlllgenLly lnLo every affalr of governmenL, lnvesLlgaLe and
denounce anomalles, and Lalk abouL how Lhe counLry and lLs clLlzens are belng served. CourLs do noL lnLerfere wlLh Lhe leglslaLure
or lLs members ln Lhe manner Lhey perform Lhelr funcLlons ln Lhe leglslaLlve floor or ln commlLLee rooms. Any clalm of an
unworLhy purpose or of Lhe falslLy and mala fldes of Lhe sLaLemenL uLLered by Lhe member of Lhe Congress does noL desLroy Lhe
prlvllege. 1he dlsclpllnary auLhorlLy of Lhe assembly
[4]
and Lhe voLers, noL Lhe courLs, can properly dlscourage or correcL such
abuses commlLLed ln Lhe name of parllamenLary lmmunlLy.

lor Lhe above reasons, Lhe plea of SenaLor SanLlago for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe complalnL for dlsbarmenL or dlsclpllnary
acLlon ls well Laken. lndeed, her prlvllege speech ls noL acLlonable crlmlnally or ln a dlsclpllnary proceedlng under Lhe 8ules of
CourL.

Ak1 LIS1

Grounds for de||st|ng of arty-L|st

C8l, a parLy-llsL organlzaLlon falled Lo parLlclpaLe ln one (1) elecLlon and falled Lo garner, Lhe 2 Lhreshold voLe ln
anoLher.

lL was dellsLed based on Lhe rullng ln hll. Mlnes SafeLy LnvlronmenL Assn. (MlnL8C vs. Comelec, C.8. no. 177348, May
10, 2007, where lL was ruled LhaL lf a parLy-llsL organlzaLlon falls Lo parLlclpaLe ln one elecLlon and falls Lo garner 2 Lhreshold voLe
ln anoLher, Lhe Comelec ls noL duLy bound Lo cerLlfy lL or lL can be dellsLed. Can lL be dellsLed? Why?

Peld: no. under Lhe law, Lhere are Lwo grounds for Lhe dellsLlng of a parLy-llsL organlzaLlon, Lhus: (1) fallure Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lwo
elecLlons, or (2) fallure Lo garner aL leasL 2 lf Lhe voLes casL under Lhe parLy-llsL sysLem ln Lhe lasL 2 precedlng elecLlons for Lhe
consLlLuency ln whlch lL has reglsLered.

1he MlnL8C docLrlne whlch ls relled upon ls an erroneous appllcaLlon of Sec. 6(8) of 8.A. 7941.

llrsL, Lhe law ls clear - Lhe CCMLLLC may moLu proprlo or upon verlfled complalnL of any lnLeresLed parLy, remove or
cancel, afLer due noLlce and hearlng, Lhe reglsLraLlon of any naLlonal, reglonal or secLoral parLy, organlzaLlon or coallLlon lf lL:
(a) falls Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe lasL Lwo (2) precedlng elecLlons, (b) falls Lo obLaln aL leasL Lwo per cenLum (2) of Lhe voLes casL
under Lhe parLy-llsL sysLem ln Lhe Lwo (2) precedlng elecLlons for Lhe consLlLuency ln whlch lL has reglsLered. 1he word or" ls a
dls[uncLlve Lerm slgnlfylng dlsassoclaLlon and lndependence of one Lhlng from Lhe oLher Lhlngs enumeraLed, lL should, as a rule, be
consLrued ln Lhe sense ln whlch lL ordlnarlly lmplles, as a dls[uncLlve word. (1he Pelrs of Ceorge oe vs. Malayan lnsurance
Company, lnc. C.8. no, 136302, Aprll 7, 2009.) 1hus, Lhe plaln, clear and unmlsLakable language of Lhe law provldes for Lwo (2)
separaLe reasons for dellsLlng.

Second, Mlnero ls dlameLrlcally opposed Lo Lhe leglslaLlve lnLenL of SecLlon 6(8) of 8A 7941, as C8l's clLed congresslonal
dellberaLlons clearly show.

lLs baslc defecL lles ln lLs characLerlzaLlon of Lhe non-parLlclpaLlon of a parLy-llsL organlzaLlon ln an elecLlon as slmllar Lo a
fallure Lo garner Lhe 2 Lhreshold parLy-llsL voLe. WhaL Mlnero effecLlvely holds ls LhaL a parLy llsL organlzaLlon LhaL does noL
parLlclpaLe ln an elecLlon necessarlly geLs, by defaulL, less Lhan 2 of Lhe parLy-llsL voLes. 1o be sure, Lhls ls a confused
lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe law, glven Lhe law's clear and caLegorlcal language and Lhe leglslaLlve lnLenL Lo LreaL Lhe Lwo scenarlos
dlfferenLly. A dellsLlng based on a mlxLure or fuslon of Lhese Lwo dlfferenL and separaLe grounds for dellsLlng ls Lherefore a
sLralned appllcaLlon of Lhe law - ln [urlsdlcLlonal Lerms, lL ls an lnLerpreLaLlon noL wlLhln Lhe conLemplaLlon of Lhe framers of Lhe
law and hence ls a gravely abuslve lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe law.

1hls rullng ls ln consonance wlLh 8arangay AssoclaLlon for AdvancemenL and naLlonal 1ransparency v. CCMLLLC (8anaL)
where Lhe CourL lnvalldaLed Lhe 2 parLy-llsL voLe requlremenL provlded ln 8A 7941 as follows:

We rule LhaL, ln compuLlng Lhe allocaLlon of addlLlonal seaLs, Lhe conLlnued operaLlon of Lhe Lwo
percenL Lhreshold for Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe addlLlonal seaLs as found ln Lhe second clause of SecLlon 11(b) of
8.A. no. 7941 ls unconsLlLuLlonal. 1hls CourL flnds LhaL Lhe Lwo percenL Lhreshold makes lL maLhemaLlcally
lmposslble Lo achleve Lhe maxlmum number of avallable parLy llsL seaLs when Lhe number of avallable parLy llsL
seaLs exceeds 30. 1he conLlnued operaLlon of Lhe Lwo percenL Lhreshold ln Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe addlLlonal

1S | a b r c . p o l l L l c a l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

seaLs frusLraLes Lhe aLLalnmenL of Lhe permlsslve celllng LhaL 20 of Lhe members of Lhe Pouse of
8epresenLaLlves shall conslsL of parLy-llsL represenLaLlves. (C.8. no. 179271, Aprll 21, 2009)

1he dlsquallflcaLlon for fallure Lo geL 2 parLy-llsL voLes ln Lwo (2) precedlng elecLlons should Lherefore be undersLood ln
llghL of Lhe 8anaL rullng LhaL parLy-llsL groups or organlzaLlons garnerlng less Lhan 2 of Lhe parLy-llsL voLes may yeL quallfy for a
seaL ln Lhe allocaLlon of addlLlonal seaLs.

ln accordance wlLh Lhe 8anaL rullng, a parLy-llsL group or organlzaLlon whlch quallfled ln Lhe second round of seaL
allocaLlon cannoL now valldly be dellsLed for Lhe reason alone LhaL lL garnered less Lhan 2 ln Lhe lasL Lwo elecLlons. ln oLher
words, Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhls dlsquallflcaLlon should henceforLh be conLlngenL on Lhe percenLage of parLy-llsL voLes garnered by
Lhe lasL parLy-llsL organlzaLlon LhaL quallfled for a seaL ln Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves, a percenLage LhaL ls less Lhan Lhe 2
Lhreshold lnvalldaLed ln 8anaL. 1he dlsquallflcaLlon should now necessarlly be read Lo apply Lo parLy-llsL groups or organlzaLlons
LhaL dld noL quallfy for a seaL ln Lhe Lwo precedlng elecLlons for Lhe consLlLuency ln whlch lL reglsLered. (hll. Cuardlans
8roLherhood, lnc. (C8l), eL.al. vs. Commlslon on LlecLlons C.8. no. 190329, Aprll 29, 2010).
keg|strat|on of Ang Lad|ad as arty-L|st
Crgan|zat|on

Ang Ladlad LC81 arLy vs. Commlsslon on LlecLlons
C.8. no. 190382, Aprll 8, 2010 uel CasLlllo, !.

lacLs:
Ang Ladlad LC81 arLy LlsL soughL accredlLaLlon as a parLy-llsL organlzaLlon under 8A 7941, oLherwlse known as arLy-LlsL
SysLem AcL.

Ang Ladlad ls an organlzaLlon composed of men and women who ldenLlfy Lhemselves as lesblans, gays, blsexuals, or Lrans-gendered
lndlvlduals (LC81s). lncorporaLed ln 2003, whlch flled a eLlLlon for reglsLraLlon wlLh Lhe CCMLLLC.

lL argued LhaL Lhe LC81 communlLy ls a marglnallzed and under-represenLed secLor LhaL ls parLlcularly dlsadvanLaged because of Lhelr
sexual orlenLaLlon and gender ldenLlLy, LhaL LC81s are vlcLlms of excluslon, dlscrlmlnaLlon, and vlolence, LhaL because of negaLlve socleLal
aLLlLudes, LC81s are consLralned Lo hlde Lhelr sexual orlenLaLlon, and LhaL lL complled wlLh Lhe 8-polnL guldellnes enunclaLed by Lhls CourL ln Ang
8agong 8ayanl-ClW Labor arLy v. Commlsslon on LlecLlons.(412 hll.308 (2001). Ang Ladlad lald ouL lLs naLlonal membershlp base conslsLlng
of lndlvldual members and organlzaLlonal supporLers, and ouLllned lLs plaLform of governance.

1he Comelec dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon on moral grounds as lL advocaLes sexual lmmorallLy, lL promoLes lnLlmaLe and sexual relaLlons wlLh
lndlvlduals of a dlfferenL gender, of Lhe same gender or more Lhan one gender, and LC81 secLor LoleraLes lmmorallLy whlnch offends rellglous
bellefs. A moLlon for reconslderaLlon was flled buL lL was denled, hence, lL flled a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl wlLh Lhe Supreme CourL. 1he Commlsslon
on Puman 8lghLs lnLervened and alleged LhaL Lhe denlal on moral grounds vlolaLed Lhe sLandards and prlnclples of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, Lhe
unlversal ueclaraLlon of Puman 8lghLs and Lhe lnLernaLlonal CovenanL on Clvll and ollLlcal 8lghLs.

lL argued LhaL Lhe denlal of accredlLaLlon, lnsofar as lL [usLlfled Lhe excluslon by uslng rellglous dogma, vlolaLed Lhe consLlLuLlonal
guaranLees agalnsL Lhe esLabllshmenL of rellglon, lLs consLlLuLlonal rlghLs Lo prlvacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal proLecLlon of
laws, as well as vlolaLlons of Lhe hlllpplnes' lnLernaLlonal obllgaLlons agalnsL dlscrlmlnaLlon based on sexual orlenLaLlon.

1he CSC concurred wlLh Aoq loJloJs peLlLlon and argued LhaL Lhe CCMLLLC erred ln denylng peLlLloner's appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon
slnce Lhere was no basls for CCMLLLC's allegaLlons of lmmorallLy. lL also oplned LhaL LC81s have Lhelr own speclal lnLeresLs and concerns whlch
should have been recognlzed by Lhe CCMLLLC as a separaLe classlflcaLlon. Powever, lnsofar as Lhe purporLed vlolaLlons of peLlLloner's freedom
of speech, expresslon, and assembly were concerned, Lhe CSC malnLalned LhaL Lhere had been no resLrlcLlons on Lhese rlghLs.

1he CCMLLLC relLeraLed LhaL peLlLloner does noL have a concreLe and genulne naLlonal pollLlcal agenda Lo beneflL Lhe naLlon and LhaL
Lhe peLlLlon was valldly dlsmlssed on moral grounds. lL also argued for Lhe flrsL Llme LhaL Lhe LC81 secLor ls noL among Lhe secLors enumeraLed
by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and 8A 7941.

8ule on Lhe conLenLlons.

Peld: 1he Comelec ls noL correcL.

Comp||ance w|th the kequ|rements of the Const|tut|on
and kepub||c Act No. 7941

1he CCMLLLC denled Ang Ladlad's appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe LC81 secLor ls nelLher enumeraLed ln Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon and 8A 7941, nor ls lL assoclaLed wlLh or relaLed Lo any of Lhe secLors ln Lhe enumeraLlon such as labor, peasanL, flsherfolk, urban
poor, lndlgenous culLural communlLles, elderly, handlcapped, women, youLh, veLerans, overseas workers, and professlonals) may be reglsLered
under Lhe parLy-llsL sysLem. As ruled ln Ang 8agong 8ayanl-ClW Labor arLy v. Commlsslon on LlecLlons, Lhe enumeraLlon of marglnallzed and
under-represenLed secLors ls noL excluslve". 1he cruclal elemenL ls noL wheLher a secLor ls speclflcally enumeraLed, buL wheLher a parLlcular
organlzaLlon complles wlLh Lhe requlremenLs of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and 8A 7941.


ke||g|on as the 8as|s for kefusa| to Accept Ang Lad|ad's
et|t|on for keg|strat|on, not va||d.

Cur ConsLlLuLlon provldes ln ArLlcle lll, SecLlon 3 LhaL no law shall be made respecLlng an esLabllshmenL of rellglon, or prohlblLlng Lhe
free exerclse Lhereof." AL boLLom, whaL our non-esLabllshmenL clause calls for ls governmenL neuLrallLy ln rellglous maLLers." Clearly,
governmenLal rellance on rellglous [usLlflcaLlon ls lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhls pollcy of neuLrallLy."(LsLrada vs. LscrlLor 433 hll. 422 (2003). lL was
grave vlolaLlon of Lhe non-esLabllshmenL clause for Lhe CCMLLLC Lo uLlllze Lhe 8lble and Lhe koran Lo [usLlfy Lhe excluslon of Ang Ladlad.

ub||c Mora|s as a Ground to Deny Ang Lad|ad's
et|t|on for keg|strat|on

1he CCMLLLC argued LhaL lLs accredlLaLlon was denled noL necessarlly because Lhelr group conslsLs of LC81s buL because of Lhe
danger lL poses Lo Lhe people especlally Lhe youLh. Cnce lL ls recognlzed by Lhe governmenL, a secLor whlch belleves LhaL Lhere ls noLhlng wrong
ln havlng sexual relaLlons wlLh lndlvlduals of Lhe same gender ls a bad example. lL wlll brlng down Lhe sLandard of morals we cherlsh ln our
clvlllzed socleLy. Any socleLy wlLhouL a seL of moral precepLs ls ln danger of loslng lLs own exlsLence. ls Lhe conLenLlon correcL? Why?
Answer: no. 1hrough Lhe years, homosexual conducL, and perhaps homosexuals Lhemselves, have borne Lhe brunL of socleLal dlsapproval. lL ls
noL dlfflculL Lo lmaglne Lhe reasons behlnd Lhls censure - rellglous bellefs, convlcLlons abouL Lhe preservaLlon of marrlage, famlly, and
procreaLlon, even dlsllke or dlsLrusL of homosexuals Lhemselves and Lhelr percelved llfesLyle. 8uL Lhe hlllpplnes has noL seen flL Lo crlmlnallze
homosexual conducL. LvldenLly, Lherefore, Lhese generally accepLed publlc morals" have noL been convlnclngly LransplanLed lnLo Lhe realm of
law. (ln Anonymous vs. 8adam, A.M. no, -07-2333, uecember 19, 2007)

1he 8esoluLlons have noL ldenLlfled any speclflc overL lmmoral acL performed by Ang Ladlad.

8espondenL has falled Lo explaln whaL socleLal llls are soughL Lo be prevenLed, or why speclal proLecLlon ls requlred for Lhe
youLh. nelLher has Lhe CCMLLLC condescended Lo [usLlfy lLs poslLlon LhaL peLlLloner's admlsslon lnLo Lhe parLy-llsL sysLem would be so harmful
as Lo lrreparably damage Lhe moral fabrlc of socleLy.

Moral dlsapproval, wlLhouL more, ls noL a sufflclenL governmenLal lnLeresL Lo [usLlfy excluslon of homosexuals from parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe
parLy-llsL sysLem. 1he denlal of Ang Ladlad's reglsLraLlon on purely moral grounds amounLs more Lo a sLaLemenL of dlsllke and dlsapproval of
homosexuals, raLher Lhan a Lool Lo furLher any subsLanLlal publlc lnLeresL. 8espondenL's blankeL [usLlflcaLlons glve rlse Lo Lhe lnevlLable
concluslon LhaL Lhe CCMLLLC LargeLs homosexuals Lhemselves as a class, noL because of any parLlcular morally reprehenslble acL. lL ls Lhls
selecLlve LargeLlng LhaL lmpllcaLes our equal proLecLlon clause.

Lqua| rotect|on C|ause v|o|ated by the den|a| of
reg|strat|on

uesplLe Lhe absoluLlsm of ArLlcle lll, SecLlon 1 of our ConsLlLuLlon, whlch provldes nor shall any person be denled equal proLecLlon of
Lhe laws," courLs have never lnLerpreLed Lhe provlslon as an absoluLe prohlblLlon on classlflcaLlon. LquallLy," sald ArlsLoLle, conslsLs ln Lhe same
LreaLmenL of slmllar persons." 1he equal proLecLlon clause guaranLees LhaL no person or class of persons shall be deprlved of Lhe same
proLecLlon of laws whlch ls en[oyed by oLher persons or oLher classes ln Lhe same place and ln llke clrcumsLances.(Abakada Curo arLy vs.
LxecuLlve SecreLary, C.8. no. 168036, SepLember 1, 2003, 469 SC8A 1)

lf a law nelLher burdens a fundamenLal rlghL nor LargeLs a suspecL class, Lhe classlflcaLlon ls upheld as long as lL bears a raLlonal
relaLlonshlp Lo some leglLlmaLe governmenL end. ln CenLral 8ank Lmployees AssoclaLlon, lnc. v. 8anko SenLral ng lllplnas, lL was declared LhaL
ln our [urlsdlcLlon, Lhe sLandard of analysls of equal proLecLlon challenges have followed Lhe 'raLlonal basls' LesL, coupled wlLh a deferenLlal
aLLlLude Lo leglslaLlve classlflcaLlons and a relucLance Lo lnvalldaLe a law unless Lhere ls a showlng of a clear and unequlvocal breach of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon."(487 hll. 331(2004)

1haL Lhe ma[orlLy of Lhe hlllpplne populaLlon conslders homosexual conducL as lmmoral and unaccepLable ls noL qulLe correcL. 1he
hlllpplne elecLoraLe has expressed no such bellef. no law exlsLs Lo crlmlnallze homosexual behavlor or expresslons or parLles abouL homosexual
behavlor. Lven lf we assume LhaL publlc oplnlon ls as Lhe CCMLLLC descrlbes lL, Lhe asserLed sLaLe lnLeresL here - LhaL ls, moral dlsapproval of an
unpopular mlnorlLy - ls noL a leglLlmaLe sLaLe lnLeresL LhaL ls sufflclenL Lo saLlsfy raLlonal basls revlew under Lhe equal proLecLlon clause. 1he
CCMLLLC's dlfferenLlaLlon, and lLs unsubsLanLlaLed clalm LhaL Ang Ladlad cannoL conLrlbuLe Lo Lhe formulaLlon of leglslaLlon LhaL would beneflL
Lhe naLlon, furLhers no leglLlmaLe sLaLe lnLeresL oLher Lhan dlsapproval of or dlsllke for a dlsfavored group.

lrom Lhe sLandpolnL of Lhe pollLlcal process, Lhe lesblan, gay, blsexual, and Lransgender have Lhe same lnLeresL ln parLlclpaLlng ln Lhe
parLy-llsL sysLem on Lhe same basls as oLher pollLlcal parLles slmllarly slLuaLed. SLaLe lnLruslon ln Lhls case ls equally burdensome. Pence, laws of
general appllcaLlon should apply wlLh equal force Lo LC81s, and Lhey deserve Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe parLy-llsL sysLem on Lhe same basls as oLher
marglnallzed and under-represenLed secLors.

Ireedom of Lxpress|on and Assoc|at|on

under our sysLem of laws, every group has Lhe rlghL Lo promoLe lLs agenda and aLLempL Lo persuade socleLy of Lhe valldlLy of lLs
poslLlon Lhrough normal democraLlc means. lL ls ln Lhe publlc square LhaL deeply held convlcLlons and dlfferlng oplnlons should be dlsLllled and
dellberaLed upon. As held ln sttoJo v. sctltot.


ln a democracy, Lhls common agreemenL on pollLlcal and moral ldeas ls dlsLllled ln Lhe publlc square. Where clLlzens
are free, every oplnlon, every pre[udlce, every asplraLlon, and every moral dlscernmenL has access Lo Lhe publlc square where
people dellberaLe Lhe order of Lhelr llfe LogeLher. ClLlzens are Lhe bearers of oplnlon, lncludlng oplnlon shaped by, or
espouslng rellglous bellef, and Lhese clLlzens have equal access Lo Lhe publlc square. ln Lhls represenLaLlve democracy, Lhe
sLaLe ls prohlblLed from deLermlnlng whlch convlcLlons and moral [udgmenLs may be proposed for publlc dellberaLlon.
1hrough a consLlLuLlonally deslgned process, Lhe people dellberaLe and declde. Ma[orlLy rule ls a necessary prlnclple ln Lhls
democraLlc governance. 1hus, when publlc dellberaLlon on moral [udgmenLs ls flnally crysLalllzed lnLo law, Lhe laws wlll
largely reflecL Lhe bellefs and preferences of Lhe ma[orlLy, l.e., Lhe malnsLream or medlan groups.

neverLheless, ln Lhe very acL
of adopLlng and accepLlng a consLlLuLlon and Lhe llmlLs lL speclfles - lncludlng proLecLlon of rellglous freedom "noL only for a
mlnorlLy, however small - noL only for a ma[orlLy, however large - buL for each of us" - Lhe ma[orlLy lmposes upon lLself a
self-denylng ordlnance. lL promlses noL Lo do whaL lL oLherwlse could do: Lo rlde roughshod over Lhe dlssenLlng mlnorlLles.

lreedom of expresslon consLlLuLes one of Lhe essenLlal foundaLlons of a democraLlc socleLy, and Lhls freedom applles noL only Lo Lhose
LhaL are favorably recelved buL also Lo Lhose LhaL offend, shock, or dlsLurb. Any resLrlcLlon lmposed ln Lhls sphere musL be proporLlonaLe Lo Lhe
leglLlmaLe alm pursued. AbsenL any compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL, lL ls noL for Lhe CCMLLLC or Lhe CourL Lo lmpose lLs vlews on Lhe populace.
CLherwlse sLaLed, Lhe CCMLLLC ls cerLalnly noL free Lo lnLerfere wlLh speech for no beLLer reason Lhan promoLlng an approved message or
dlscouraglng a dlsfavored one.
1hls poslLlon galns even more force lf one conslders LhaL homosexual conducL ls noL lllegal ln Lhls counLry. lL follows LhaL boLh
expresslons concernlng one's homosexuallLy and Lhe acLlvlLy of formlng a pollLlcal assoclaLlon LhaL supporLs LC81 lndlvlduals are proLecLed as
well.

Non-D|scr|m|nat|on and Internat|ona| Law

ln an age LhaL has seen lnLernaLlonal law evolve geomeLrlcally ln scope and promlse, lnLernaLlonal human rlghLs law, ln parLlcular, has
grown dynamlcally ln lLs aLLempL Lo brlng abouL a more [usL and humane world order. lor lndlvlduals and groups sLruggllng wlLh lnadequaLe
sLrucLural and governmenLal supporL, lnLernaLlonal human rlghLs norms are parLlcularly slgnlflcanL, and should be effecLlvely enforced ln
domesLlc legal sysLems so LhaL such norms may become acLual, raLher Lhan ldeal, sLandards of conducL.

1hls declslon Loday ls fully ln accord wlLh our lnLernaLlonal obllgaLlons Lo proLecL and promoLe human rlghLs, parLlcularly Lhe prlnclple
of non-dlscrlmlnaLlon as lL relaLes Lo Lhe rlghL Lo elecLoral parLlclpaLlon, enunclaLed ln Lhe uuP8 and Lhe lCC8.

1he prlnclple of non-dlscrlmlnaLlon ls lald ouL ln ArLlcle 26 of Lhe lCC8, as follows:

ArLlcle 26
All persons are equal before Lhe law and are enLlLled wlLhouL any dlscrlmlnaLlon Lo Lhe equal proLecLlon of Lhe law.
ln Lhls respecL, Lhe law shall prohlblL any dlscrlmlnaLlon and guaranLee Lo all persons equal and effecLlve proLecLlon agalnsL
dlscrlmlnaLlon on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, rellglon, pollLlcal or oLher oplnlon, naLlonal or soclal orlgln,
properLy, blrLh or oLher sLaLus.

1he prlnclple of non-dlscrlmlnaLlon requlres LhaL laws of general appllcaLlon relaLlng Lo elecLlons be applled equally Lo all persons,
regardless of sexual orlenLaLlon. AlLhough sexual orlenLaLlon ls noL speclflcally enumeraLed as a sLaLus or raLlo for dlscrlmlnaLlon ln ArLlcle 26 of
Lhe lCC8, Lhe lCC8 Puman 8lghLs CommlLLee has oplned LhaL Lhe reference Lo sex" ln ArLlcle 26 should be consLrued Lo lnclude sexual
orlenLaLlon." AddlLlonally, a varleLy of unlLed naLlons bodles have declared dlscrlmlnaLlon on Lhe basls of sexual orlenLaLlon Lo be prohlblLed
under varlous lnLernaLlonal agreemenLs.

1he uuP8 provldes:

ArLlcle 21.
(1) Lveryone has Lhe rlghL Lo Lake parL ln Lhe governmenL of hls counLry, dlrecLly or Lhrough freely chosen
represenLaLlves.

Llkewlse, Lhe lCC8 sLaLes:
ArLlcle 23
Lvery clLlzen shall have Lhe rlghL and Lhe opporLunlLy, wlLhouL any of Lhe dlsLlncLlons menLloned ln arLlcle 2 and
wlLhouL unreasonable resLrlcLlons:

(a) 1o Lake parL ln Lhe conducL of publlc affalrs, dlrecLly or Lhrough freely chosen represenLaLlves,

(b) 1o voLe and Lo be elecLed aL genulne perlodlc elecLlons whlch shall be by unlversal and equal suffrage and shall
be held by secreL balloL, guaranLeelng Lhe free expresslon of Lhe wlll of Lhe elecLors,

(c) 1o have access, on general Lerms of equallLy, Lo publlc servlce ln hls counLry.

ogyakarta r|nc|p|es.

1he peLlLloner's lnvocaLlon of Lhe oqyokotto ltloclples (Lhe AppllcaLlon of lnLernaLlonal Puman 8lghLs Law ln 8elaLlon Lo Sexual
CrlenLaLlon and Cender ldenLlLy), whlch peLlLloner declares Lo reflecL blndlng prlnclples of lnLernaLlonal law.


noLe: 1he oqyokotto ltloclples on Lhe AppllcaLlon of lnLernaLlonal Puman 8lghLs Law ln relaLlon Lo Sexual CrlenLaLlon and Cender ldenLlLy ls a
seL of lnLernaLlonal prlnclples relaLlng Lo sexual orlenLaLlon and gender ldenLlLy, lnLended Lo address documenLed evldence of abuse of rlghLs
of lesblan, gay, blsexual, and Lransgender (LC81) lndlvlduals. lL conLalns 29 rlnclples adopLed by human rlghLs pracLlLloners and experLs,
LogeLher wlLh recommendaLlons Lo governmenLs, reglonal lnLergovernmenLal lnsLlLuLlons, clvll socleLy, and Lhe unlLed naLlons.

AL Lhls Llme, we are noL prepared Lo declare LhaL Lhese oqyokotto ltloclples conLaln norms LhaL are obllgaLory on Lhehlllpplnes.
1here are declaraLlons and obllgaLlons ouLllned ln sald rlnclples whlch are noL reflecLlve of Lhe currenL sLaLe of lnLernaLlonal law, and do noL flnd
basls ln any of Lhe sources of lnLernaLlonal law enumeraLed under ArLlcle 38(1) of Lhe SLaLuLe of Lhe lnLernaLlonal CourL of !usLlce. eLlLloner has
noL underLaken any ob[ecLlve and rlgorous analysls of Lhese alleged prlnclples of lnLernaLlonal law Lo ascerLaln Lhelr Lrue sLaLus.

uslng even Lhe mosL llberal of lenses, Lhese oqyokotto ltloclples, conslsLlng of a declaraLlon formulaLed by varlous lnLernaLlonal law
professors, are - aL besL - Je leqe feteoJo - and do noL consLlLuLe blndlng obllgaLlons on Lhe hlllpplnes. lndeed, so much of conLemporary
lnLernaLlonal law ls characLerlzed by Lhe sofL law" nomenclaLure, l.e., lnLernaLlonal law ls full of prlnclples LhaL promoLe lnLernaLlonal
cooperaLlon, harmony, and respecL for human rlghLs, mosL of whlch amounL Lo no more Lhan well-meanlng deslres, wlLhouL Lhe supporL of
elLher SLaLe pracLlce or oplolo jotls.

2S0,000 popu|at|on requ|rement |s necessary on|y
|n a c|ty, not |n a d|str|ct.

lacLs:
8A 9716 was enacLed resulLlng ln Lhe reconflguraLlon of Lhe second and flrsL dlsLrlcLs of Camarlnes Sur ln order Lo creaLe
an addlLlonal leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL for Lhe provlnce. SenaLor Aqulno (now resldenL) and Mayor 8obredo flled a peLlLlon Lo declare Lhe
law unconsLlLuLlonal alleglng LhaL Lhe reapporLlonmenL runs afoul of Lhe expllclt coostltotloool stooJotJ LhaL requlres a mlnlmum
populaLlon of Lwo hundred flfLy Lhousand (230,000) for Lhe creaLlon of a leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL. 1he peLlLloners clalmed LhaL Lhe
reconflguraLlon by 8epubllc AcL no. 9716 of Lhe flrsL and second dlsLrlcLs of Camarlnes Sur ls unconsLlLuLlonal, because Lhe
proposed flrsL dlsLrlcL wlll end up wlLh a populaLlon of less Lhan 230,000 or only 176,383.

1hey relled on SecLlon 3(3), ArLlcle vl of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon as basls for Lhe clLed 230,000 mlnlmum populaLlon
sLandard whlch sLaLes LhaL each clLy wlLh a populaLlon of aL leasL 230,000 or each provlnce, shall have aL leasL on represenLaLlve.

1he peLlLloners poslL LhaL Lhe 230,000 flgure appearlng ln Lhe above-clLed provlslon ls Lhe mlnlmum populaLlon
requlremenL for Lhe creaLlon of a leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL.

1he respondenLs conLended LhaL such provlslon has no appllcaLlon wlLh respecL Lo Lhe creaLlon of leglslaLlve dlsLrlcLs ln
provlnces. 8aLher, Lhe 230,000 mlnlmum populaLlon ls only a requlremenL for Lhe creaLlon of a leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL ln a clLy.

ls Lhe conLenLlon of Aqulno correcL? Why?

Peld: no. 1he 230,000 mlnlmum populaLlon ls requlred of a clLy, buL noL for a dlsLrlcL. 1hls quesLlon has already been resolved ln
Motlooo, It. v. cOMlc, J12 lbll. 259 (1995) where lssue presenLed was Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of 8epubllc AcL no. 7834, whlch
was Lhe law LhaL converLed Lhe MunlclpallLy of MakaLl lnLo a Plghly urbanlzed ClLy. 8epubllc AcL no. 7834 creaLed an addlLlonal
leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL for MakaLl, whlch aL LhaL Llme was a lone dlsLrlcL. 1he peLlLloners ln LhaL case argued LhaL Lhe creaLlon of an
addlLlonal dlsLrlcL would vlolaLe SecLlon 3(3), ArLlcle vl of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, because Lhe resulLlng dlsLrlcLs would be supporLed by a
populaLlon of less Lhan 230,000, conslderlng LhaL MakaLl had a LoLal populaLlon of only 430,000. 1he Supreme CourL susLalned Lhe
consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe law and Lhe valldlLy of Lhe newly creaLed dlsLrlcL, explalnlng Lhe operaLlon of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal phrase
each clLy wlLh a populaLlon of aL leasL Lwo hundred flfLy Lhousand," Lo wlL:

eLlLloners cannoL lnslsL LhaL Lhe addlLlon of anoLher leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL ln MakaLl ls noL ln accord wlLh
secLlon 3(3), ArLlcle vl of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon for as of Lhe laLesL survey (1990 census), Lhe populaLlon of MakaLl
sLands aL only four hundred flfLy Lhousand (430,000). Sald secLlon provldes, lotet ollo, LhaL a clLy wlLh a
populaLlon of ot leost two booJteJ flfty tboosooJ (230,000) shall have ot leost ooe tepteseototlve. Lven granLlng
LhaL Lhe populaLlon of MakaLl as of Lhe 1990 census sLood aL four hundred flfLy Lhousand (430,000), lLs leglslaLlve
dlsLrlcL may sLlll be lncreased slnce lL has meL Lhe mlnlmum populaLlon requlremenL of Lwo hundred flfLy
Lhousand (230,000). ln facL, SecLlon 3 of Lhe Crdlnance appended Lo Lhe ConsLlLuLlon provldes LhaL a clLy whose
populaLlon has locteoseJ to mote tboo two booJteJ flfty tboosooJ (250,000) shall be enLlLled Lo ot leost ooe
cooqtessloool tepteseototlve.

1he Motlooo cose llmlLed Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe 230,000 mlnlmum populaLlon requlremenL for clLles only Lo lLs loltlol
leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL. ln oLher words, whlle SecLlon 3(3), ArLlcle vl of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon requlres a clLy Lo have a mlnlmum populaLlon
of 230,000 Lo be enLlLled Lo a represenLaLlve, lL does noL have Lo lncrease lLs populaLlon by anoLher 230,000 Lo be enLlLled Lo
anoJJltloool dlsLrlcL.

1here ls no reason why Lhe Moriono cose, whlch lnvolves Lhe creaLlon of an oJJltloool dlsLrlcL wlLhln a clty, should noL be
applled Lo oJJltloool dlsLrlcLs ln provlnces. lndeed, lf an oJJltloool leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL creaLed wlLhln a clLy ls noL requlred Lo
represenL a populaLlon of aL leasL 230,000 ln order Lo be valld, nelLher should such be needed for an addlLlonal dlsLrlcL ln a


provlnce, conslderlng moreover LhaL a provlnce ls enLlLled Lo an loltlol seaL by Lhe mere facL of lLs creaLlon and regardless of lLs
populaLlon. (Aqulno vs. CCMLLLC, C.8. no. 189793, Aprll 2, 2010, erez, !).

opu|at|on not an |nd|spensab|e requ|rement,
mere|y a|ternat|ve.

8equlslLes for CreaLlon. - (a) A provlnce may be creaLed lf lL has an average annual lncome, as cerLlfled
by Lhe ueparLmenL of llnance, of noL less Lhan 1wenLy mllllon pesos (20,000,000.00) based on 1991 consLanL
prlces and elLher of Lhe followlng requlslLes:

(l) a conLlguous LerrlLory of aL leasL Lwo Lhousand (2,000) square kllomeLers, as cerLlfled by Lhe Lands
ManagemenL 8ureau, or

(ll) a populaLlon of noL less Lhan Lwo hundred flfLy Lhousand (230,000) lnhablLanLs as cerLlfled by Lhe
naLlonal SLaLlsLlcs Cfflce.

noLably, Lhe requlremenL of populaLlon ls noL an lndlspensable requlremenL, buL ls merely an alLernaLlve addlLlon Lo Lhe
lndlspensable lncome requlremenL.

1he ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon llkewlse made deLermlnaLlon of Lhe dlsLrlcLs wlLhln Lhe provlnce based on oLher
clrcumsLances deLermlnanLs, oLher Lhan populaLlon.

A good example ls alawan where Lhe dlsLrlcLlng dlsregarded Lhe 230,000 populaLlon flgure. lL was declded by Lhe
lmporLance of Lhe Lowns and Lhe clLy LhaL evenLually composed lL. uerLo rlncesa was puL ln Lhe Second ulsLrlcL as lL was nearer
Lhe souLhern Lowns comprlslng Lhe Second ulsLrlcL Lo saLlsfy Lhe conLlgulLy requlremenL. 1he Lown of Cuyo ln Lhe norLh ls a very
lmporLanL Lown as lL used Lo be Lhe caplLal of alawan unLll lL was Lransferred Lo uerLo rlncesa. 1here are also more people ln
Lhe norLh as poLenLlal candldaLes Lhan ln Lhe SouLh who are noL lnLeresLed ln pollLlcs, so LhaL lf Cuyo, Coron and uerLo rlncesa
would be lumped LogeLher ln Lhe norLh, Lhere would less candldaLes ln Lhe SouLh.

8engueL and 8agulo are anoLher examples where populaLlon was noL a deLermlnanL.

1uba and 8agulo ClLy were dlvorced Lo glve 8agulo lLs own consLlLuency and 1uba would be puL ln Lhe Second ulsLrlcL. 1he
reason for Lhe move was because 8agulo ls Lhe summer caplLal, hence, lL was glven a speclal conslderaLlon wlLh a populaLlon of
only 141,149. Whlle lL was admlLLed LhaL Lhe regular populaLlon may be lower aL cerLaln Llmes of Lhe year, Lhe LranslenL populaLlon
would lncrease Lhe populaLlon subsLanLlally due Lo buslness and professlonal LransacLlons, hence, lL would more Lhan quallfy as a
leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL.

ln Lhe case of 8agulo, populaLlon was removed as a facLor.
AddlLlonally, CavlLe ls a good example where populaLlon was noL Lhe sole deLermlnanL ln Lhe dlsLrlcLlng. lL was dlvlded
based on Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of lLs Lhree (3) clLles wlLh each dlsLrlcL havlng a clLy: one dlsLrlcL supposed Lo be a flshlng area, anoLher a
vegeLable and frulL area, and Lhe Lhlrd, a rlce growlng area," because such conslderaLlon fosLers common lnLeresLs ln llne wlLh Lhe
sLandard of compacLness." ln Lhe dlsLrlcLlng of Magulndanao, among Lhe maLLers dlscussed were pollLlcal sLablllLy and common
lnLeresL among Lhe people ln Lhe area" and Lhe posslblllLy of chaos and dlsunlLy" conslderlng Lhe accepLed reglonal, pollLlcal,
LradlLlonal and secLoral leaders." lor Laguna, lL was menLloned LhaL munlclpallLles ln Lhe hlghland should noL be grouped wlLh Lhe
Lowns ln Lhe lowland. lor Cebu, Commlssloner Maambong proposed LhaL Lhey should balance Lhe area and populaLlon."

ConslsLenL wlLh Motlooo and wlLh Lhe framer dellberaLlons on dlsLrlcL apporLlonmenL, lL was sald ln 8oqoboyo v.
cOMlc LhaL:

x x x undenlably, Lhese flgures show a dlsparlLy ln Lhe populaLlon slzes of Lhe dlsLrlcLs. 1he Const|tut|on,
however, does not requ|re mathemat|ca| exact|tude or r|g|d equa||ty as a standard |n gaug|ng equa||ty of
representat|on. x x x. 1o ensure quallLy represenLaLlon Lhrough commonallLy of lnLeresLs and ease of access by
Lhe represenLaLlve Lo Lhe consLlLuenLs, all LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon requlres ls LhaL every leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL should
comprlse, as far as pracLlcable, conLlguous, compacL and ad[acenL LerrlLory. (C.8. no. 176970, uecember 8, 2008,
373 SC8A 290).

8ased on Lhe foregolng, populaLlon ls noL Lhe only facLor buL ls [usL one of several facLors ln Lhe composlLlon of Lhe
addlLlonal dlsLrlcL of Camarlnes Sur. CLher facLors llke:

(a) Lhe dlalecLs spoken ln Lhe grouped munlclpallLles,
(b) Lhe slze of Lhe orlglnal grouplngs compared Lo LhaL of Lhe regrouped munlclpallLles,
(c) Lhe naLural dlvlslon separaLlng Lhe munlclpallLy sub[ecL of Lhe dlscusslon from Lhe reconflgured ulsLrlcL Cne,
and
(d) Lhe balanclng of Lhe areas of Lhe Lhree dlsLrlcLs resulLlng from Lhe redlsLrlcLlng of ulsLrlcLs Cne and 1wo,
were consldered.

LMINLN1 DCMAIN


k|ght of |andowner to w|thdraw depos|ted
compensat|on even |f he protested |t, reason.

C - ls lL proper Lo allow Lhe landowner whose properLy has been covered by Lhe CA8 Lo wlLhdraw Lhe compensaLlon for hls land
alLhough lL ls proLesLed? Lxplaln.

Answer: ?es. lL ls buL [usL and proper Lo allow, wlLh becomlng dlspaLch, wlLhdrawal of Lhe revlsed compensaLlon amounL, albelL
proLesLed. 1he concepL of [usL compensaLlon conLemplaLes of [usL and Llmely paymenL, lL embraces noL only Lhe correcL
deLermlnaLlon of Lhe amounL Lo be pald Lo Lhe landowner, buL also Lhe paymenL of Lhe land wlLhln a reasonable Llme from lLs
Laklng. (Apo lrulLs Corp. v. CA, C.8. no. 164193, lebruary 6, 2007, 314 SC8A 337). WlLhouL prompL paymenL, compensaLlon
cannoL, as looJ 8ook of tbe lblllpploes v. coott of Appeols, C.8. no. 118712, !uly 3, 1996, 238 SC8A 404, lnsLrucLs, be consldered
[usL," for Lhe owner ls made Lo suffer Lhe consequence of belng lmmedlaLely deprlved of hls land whlle belng made Lo walL for
years before acLually recelvlng Lhe amounL necessary Lo cope wlLh hls loss. (Land 8ank of Lhe hlls. v. uA8 Ad[udlcaLlon 8oard, eL
al., C.8. no. 183279, !anuary 23, 2010, velasco, !).

C - May lL be argued LhaL by allowlng wlLhdrawal of Lhe lncremenLal amounL, Lhe governmenL may be placed aL a loslng end, clLlng
Lhe posslblllLy LhaL Lhe recompuLed amounL may be more Lhan Lhe [usL compensable value? Why?

Answer: no. lor one, as an exerclse of pollce power Lo complemenL emlnenL domaln, Lhe forced Laklng of prlvaLe properLy under
Lhe CA8 puLs Lhe landowners, and noL Lhe governmenL, ln a slLuaLlon where Lhe odds are already sLacked agalnsL Lhem. Cne
Lhlng golng for Lhe landowners, Lhough, ls LhaL Lhey cannoL, as a maLLer of law, be compelled Lo accepL Lhe L8's valuaLlon of Lhelr
exproprlaLed land and/or accepL uA8's offer by way of compensaLlon.

And for anoLher, Lhe sLaLed rlsk whlch Lhe uA8 or Lhe governmenL wlll allegedly be exposed Lo lf lmmedlaLe wlLhdrawal of
Lhe re[ecLed compensaLlon ls allowed ls aL Lhe momenL pure speculaLlon. 1he uA8A8, wlLh lLs presumpLlve experLlse ln agrarlan
land valuaLlon, even dlsmlssed as very remote" Lhe posslblllLy of Lhe L8-amended valuaLlon exceedlng Lhe value of Lhe sub[ecL
landholdlng uslng Lhe valuaLlon crlLerla and formulae prescrlbed under Lhe law. (Land 8ank of Lhe hlls. v. uA8 Ad[udlcaLlon 8oard,
eL al., C.8. no. 183279, !anuary 23, 2010).
C - SLaLe Lhe raLlonale for allowlng lmmedlaLe wlLhdrawal of Lhe compensaLlon. Lxplaln.

Answer: ln looJ 8ook of tbe lblllpploes v. coott of Appeols, Lhe CourL sLressed Lhe need Lo allow Lhe landowners Lo wlLhdraw
lmmedlaLely Lhe amounL deposlLed ln Lhelr behalf, pendlng flnal deLermlnaLlon of whaL ls [usL compensaLlon for Lhelr land, Lhus:

1o w|thho|d the r|ght of the |andowners to appropr|ate the amounts a|ready depos|ted ln Lhelr
behalf as compensat|on for Lhelr properLles s|mp|y because they re[ected the DAk's va|uat|on, and
notw|thstand|ng that they have a|ready been depr|ved of the possess|on of such propert|es |s an oppress|ve
exerc|se of em|nent doma|n. 1he lrreslsLlble exproprlaLlon of prlvaLe respondenLs' properLles was palnful
enough. 8uL uA8 rubbed lL ln all Lhe more by wlLhholdlng LhaL whlch rlghLfully belongs Lo prlvaLe respondenLs ln
exchange for Lhe Laklng x x x. 1hls ls mlsery Lwlce besLowed on prlvaLe respondenLs, whlch Lhe CourL musL
recLlfy.

Pence, Lhere ls noL dlsLlncLlon beLween provlslonal compensaLlon under SecLlon 16(e) and flnal compensaLlon under
SecLlon 18 for purposes of exerclslng Lhe landowners' rlghL Lo approprlaLe Lhe same. 1he lmmedlaLe effecL ln boLh slLuaLlons ls Lhe
same, Lhe landowner ls deprlved of Lhe use and possesslon of hls properLy for whlch he should be falrly and lmmedlaLely
compensaLed. (C.8. no. 118712, CcLober 6, 1993, 249 SC8A 149, Land 8ank v. uA8 Ad[udlcaLlon 8oard, eL al., C.8. no. 183279,
!anuary 23, 2010).

1AkA1ICN

Lxempt|on from taxat|on of cooperat|ves and the|r
members, reason.

C - CooperaLlves, under 8A 6938 as amended by 8A 9320 en[oy preferenLlal Lax LreaLmenL. uoes Lhe Lax preferenLlal LreaLmenL
lnclude Lhe members? Lxplaln.

Answer: ?es. under ArLlcle 2 of 8A 6938, as amended by 8A 9320, lL ls a declared pollcy of Lhe SLaLe Lo fosLer Lhe creaLlon and growLh of
cooperaLlves as a pracLlcal vehlcle for promoLlng self-rellance and harnesslng people power Lowards Lhe aLLalnmenL of economlc developmenL
and soclal [usLlce. 1hus, Lo encourage Lhe formaLlon of cooperaLlves and Lo creaLe an aLmosphere conduclve Lo Lhelr growLh and developmenL,
Lhe SLaLe exLends all forms of asslsLance Lo Lhem, one of whlch ls provldlng cooperaLlves a preferenLlal Lax LreaLmenL.

CooperaLlves, lncludlng Lhelr members, deserve a preferenLlal Lax LreaLmenL because of Lhe vlLal role Lhey play ln Lhe aLLalnmenL of
economlc developmenL and soclal [usLlce. 1hus, alLhough Laxes are Lhe llfeblood of Lhe governmenL, Lhe SLaLe's power Lo Lax musL glve way Lo
fosLer Lhe creaLlon and growLh of cooperaLlves. 1o borrow Lhe words of !usLlce lsaganl A. Cruz: 1he power of LaxaLlon, whlle lndlspensable, ls
noL absoluLe and may be subordlnaLed Lo Lhe demands of soclal [usLlce." (uumagueLe CredlL CooperaLlve v. Com. Cf lnLernal 8evenue, C.8. no.
182722, !anuary 22, 2010, uel CasLlllo, !, 8ep. v. !udge eralLa, 234 hll. 40 (1987).


1axat|on of taxat|on's power to tax.

1axes are Lhe llfeblood of Lhe governmenL. WlLhouL Laxes, Lhe governmenL can nelLher exlsL nor endure. 1he exerclse of
Laxlng power derlves lLs source from Lhe very exlsLence of Lhe SLaLe whose soclal conLracL wlLh lLs clLlzens obllges lL Lo promoLe
publlc lnLeresL and Lhe common good.

1axaLlon ls an lnherenL aLLrlbuLe of soverelgnLy. lL ls a power LhaL ls purely leglslaLlve. LssenLlally, Lhls means LhaL ln Lhe
leglslaLure prlmarlly lles Lhe dlscreLlon Lo deLermlne Lhe naLure (klnd), ob[ecL (purpose), exLenL (raLe), coverage (sub[ecLs) and slLus
(place) of LaxaLlon. lL has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo prescrlbe a cerLaln Lax aL a speclflc raLe for a parLlcular publlc purpose on persons or
Lhlngs wlLhln lLs [urlsdlcLlon. ln oLher words, Lhe leglslaLure wlelds Lhe power Lo deflne whaL Lax shall be lmposed, why lL should be
lmposed, how much Lax shall be lmposed, agalnsL whom (or whaL) lL shall be lmposed and where lL shall be lmposed.

As a general rule, Lhe power Lo Lax ls plenary and unllmlLed ln lLs range, acknowledglng ln lLs very naLure no llmlLs, so LhaL Lhe
prlnclpal check agalnsL lLs abuse ls Lo be found only ln Lhe responslblllLy of Lhe leglslaLure (whlch lmposes Lhe Lax) Lo lLs
consLlLuency who are Lo pay lL. neverLheless, lL ls clrcumscrlbed by consLlLuLlonal llmlLaLlons. AL Lhe same Llme, llke any oLher
sLaLuLe, Lax leglslaLlon carrles a presumpLlon of consLlLuLlonallLy.

1he consLlLuLlonal safeguard of due process ls embodled ln Lhe flaL [no] person shall be deprlved of llfe, llberLy or
properLy wlLhouL due process of law." ln 5lsoo, It. v. Aocbeto, et ol., lL was held LhaL Lhe due process clause may properly be
lnvoked Lo lnvalldaLe, ln approprlaLe cases, a revenue measure when lL amounLs Lo a conflscaLlon of properLy. 8uL ln Lhe same
case, we also explalned LhaL we wlll noL sLrlke down a revenue measure as unconsLlLuLlonal (for belng vlolaLlve of Lhe due process
clause) on Lhe mere allegaLlon of arblLrarlness by Lhe Laxpayer. 1here musL be a facLual foundaLlon Lo such an unconsLlLuLlonal
LalnL. 1hls merely adheres Lo Lhe auLhorlLaLlve docLrlne LhaL, where Lhe due process clause ls lnvoked, conslderlng LhaL lL ls noL a
flxed rule buL raLher a broad sLandard, Lhere ls a need for proof of such persuaslve characLer. (Chamber of 8eal LsLaLe & 8ullders
Asso., lnc. v. 1he Pon. LxecuLlve SecreLary, eL al., C.8. no. 160736, March 9, 2010).

CLICL CWLk

ower of LGU to rec|ass|fy propert|es, po||ce power.

ln Lhe case of Lhe leotoloq cbllJ, loc., et ol. v. Ayolo Alobooq vllloqe Asso., et ol., C.8. no. 134269, and oLher companlon
cases, !uly 7, 2010, Lhere was a deed of resLrlcLlon on Lhe properLy of a homeowner LhaL lL can be used for educaLlonal purposes
up Lo nursery only. SubsequenLly, Lhe ClLy of MunLlnlupa passed an ordlnance re-classlfylng Lhe area as lnsLlLuLlonal, hence, Lhe
owner expanded Lhe school. 1he nelghborhood ob[ecLed, hence, Lhe sulL. Whlch shall prevall, Lhe resLrlcLlon ln Lhe LlLle and Lhe
ordlnance? Lxplaln.

Answer: 1he ordlnance as lL ls an exerclse of pollce power. As early as Ottlqos & co. ltJ. lottoetsblp v. leotl 8ook & 1tost co., 183
hll. 176 (1979), Lhe SC upheld Lhe valldlLy of an ordlnance declarlng Lhe resldenLlal area ln Mandaluyong as lndusLrlal and
commerclal zone as lL was passed ln Lhe exerclse of pollce power.

Slnce Lhe moLlves behlnd Lhe passage of Lhe quesLloned resoluLlon ls reasonable, and lL belng a leglLlme response Lo a felL
publlc need, noL whlmslcal or oppresslve, Lhe non-lmpalrmenL of conLracLs clause of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon wlll noL bar Lhe munlclpallLy's
exerclse of pollce power.

kegu|at|on of charges of pub||c ut|||t|es.

ln 5otlqoo Jel Notte lecttlc coopetotlve, loc. (5ooeco) v. kc, C.8. no. 183623, CcLober 4, 2010, nachura, !, Lhe SC had
Lhe occaslon Lo say LhaL when L8C dlrecLed Su8nLCC Lo refund lLs over-recoverles based on A pollcles, whlch only ensured LhaL
Lhe A mechanlsm remalns a purely cosL-recovery mechanlsm and noL a revenue-generaLlng scheme for Lhe elecLrlc
cooperaLlves, Lhe L8C merely exerclsed lLs auLhorlLy Lo regulaLe and approve Lhe raLes lmposed by Lhe elecLrlc cooperaLlves on
Lhelr consumers. 1he L8C slmply performed lLs mandaLe Lo proLecL Lhe publlc lnLeresL lmbued ln Lhose raLes.

lL ls beyond cavll LhaL Lhe SLaLe, ln Lhe exerclse of pollce power, can regulaLe Lhe raLes lmposed by a publlc uLlllLy such as
Su8nLCC. As held ln kepobllc of tbe lblllpploes v. Moollo lecttlc compooy
[20]
-

1he regulaLlon of raLes Lo be charged by publlc uLlllLles ls founded upon Lhe pollce powers of Lhe SLaLe
and sLaLuLes prescrlblng rules for Lhe conLrol and regulaLlon of publlc uLlllLles are a valld exerclse Lhereof. When
prlvaLe properLy ls used for a publlc purpose and ls affecLed wlLh publlc lnLeresL, lL ceases Lo be jotls ptlvotl only
and becomes sub[ecL Lo regulaLlon. 1he regulaLlon ls Lo promoLe Lhe common good. Submlsslon Lo regulaLlon
may be wlLhdrawn by Lhe owner by dlsconLlnulng use, buL as long as use of Lhe properLy ls conLlnued, Lhe same
ls sub[ecL Lo publlc regulaLlon. (440 hll. 389).

No v|o|at|on of non-|mpa|rment of contract c|ause.

lL also conLended LhaL lL vlolaLed Lhe non-lmpalrmenL of conLracL clause as lL Lraversed Lhe loan agreemenL beLween nLA
& Au8.


Lven assumlng, merely for argumenL's sake, LhaL Lhe L8C lssuances vlolaLed Lhe nLA and Au8 covenanL, Lhe conLracL had
Lo yleld Lo Lhe greaLer auLhorlLy of Lhe SLaLe's exerclse of pollce power. lL has long been seLLled LhaL pollce power leglslaLlon,
adopLed by Lhe SLaLe Lo promoLe Lhe healLh, morals, peace, educaLlon, good order, safeLy, and general welfare of Lhe people
prevall noL only over fuLure conLracLs buL even over Lhose already ln exlsLence, for all prlvaLe conLracLs musL yleld Lo Lhe superlor
and leglLlmaLe measures Laken by Lhe SLaLe Lo promoLe publlc welfare. (Serrano v. CallanL MarlLlme Servlces, lnc., C.8. no.
167614, March 24, 2006, 382 SC8A 234, CrLlgas & Co., LLd. v. CA, 400 hll. 613 (2000).

Art|c|e Ik
Const|tut|ona| Comm|ss|on

ower to reg|ster po||t|ca| part|es or coa||t|ons,
cond|t|on must reg|ster.

ln llbetol lotty vs. cOMlc, et ol., C.8. no. 191771, May 6, 2010, Lhe CCMLLLC ln granLlng Lhe peLlLlon for reglsLraLlon
of Lhe n-nC coallLlon ruled LhaL slnce Lhey have declded Lo coalesce, Lhe same was an operaLlve facL" LhaL Lhe CCMLLLC en
banc could noLe and recognlze lmplylng LhaL Lhere ls no need for Lhe coallLlon Lo reglsLer separaLely lf Lhe componenL parLles are
already reglsLered.

ln brushlng aslde such rullng, Lhe SC

Peld: WheLher one parLy would coalesce or work LogeLher ln parLnershlp, or ln close collaboraLlon wlLh anoLher parLy for purposes
of an elecLoral exerclse, ls a maLLer LhaL Lhe law os o tole does noL and cannoL regulaLe. 1hls ls a parL of Lhe freedom of cholce
derlved from Lhe freedom of lndlvlduals consLlLuLlng Lhe pollLlcal parLles Lo choose Lhelr elecLed leaders, as well as from Lhe
concepLs of democracy and soverelgnLy enshrlned ln our ConsLlLuLlon. 1hls ls a freedom, Loo, LhaL cannoL buL be relaLed Lo
lndlvlduals' assoclaLlonal rlghLs under Lhe 8lll of 8lghLs. We menLlon Lhls freedom, as lL was apparenLly Lhe basls for Lhe operaLlve
facL" LhaL Lhe assalled CCMLLLC 8esoluLlon spoke of. ln effecL, Lhe assalled 8esoluLlon lmplled LhaL reglsLered pollLlcal parLles are
well wlLhln Lhelr rlghL Lo coalesce, and LhaL Lhls coallLlon, once proven, should already blnd Lhe CCMLLLC, renderlng reglsLraLlon a
mere recognlLlon of an operaLlve facL, l.e., a mere mlnlsLerlal formallLy.

1he freedom Lo coalesce or Lo work LogeLher ln an elecLlon Lo secure Lhe voLe for chosen candldaLes ls dlfferenL from Lhe
formal recognlLlon Lhe ConsLlLuLlon requlres for a pollLlcal parLy, organlzaLlon or coallLlon Lo be enLlLled Lo full and meanlngful
parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe elecLlons and Lo Lhe beneflLs LhaL proceed from formal recognlLlon. 8eglsLraLlon and Lhe formal recognlLlon
LhaL accompanles lL are requlred, as Lhe words of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Lhemselves show, because of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon's concern abouL
Lhe characLer of Lhe organlzaLlons offlclally parLlclpaLlng ln Lhe elecLlons. 1hus, Lhe ConsLlLuLlon speclfles rellglous and ldeologlcal
llmlLaLlons, and ln clear Lerms bars allen parLlclpaLlon and lnfluence ln our elecLlons. 1hls consLlLuLlonal concern, among oLhers,
serves as a reason why reglsLraLlon ls noL slmply a checkllsL exerclse, buL one LhaL requlres Lhe exerclse of profound dlscreLlon and
quasl-[udlclal ad[udlcaLlon by Lhe CCMLLLC. 8eglsLraLlon musL be underLaken, Loo, under Lhe sLrlcL formallLles of Lhe law,
lncludlng Lhe Llme llmlLs and deadllnes seL by Lhe proper auLhorlLles.

1o sum up, pollLlcal coallLlons need Lo reglsLer ln accordance wlLh Lhe esLabllshed norms and procedures, lf Lhey are Lo be
recognlzed as such and be glven Lhe beneflLs accorded by law Lo reglsLered coallLlons. 8eglsLered pollLlcal parLles carry a dlfferenL
legal personallLy from LhaL of Lhe coallLlon Lhey may wlsh Lo esLabllsh wlLh oLher slmllarly reglsLered parLles. lf Lhey wanL Lo
coalesce wlLh one anoLher wlLhouL Lhe formal reglsLraLlon of Lhelr coallLlon, Lhey can do so on Lhelr own ln Lhe exerclse of Lhelr
and Lhelr members' democraLlc freedom of cholce, buL Lhey cannoL recelve offlclal recognlLlon for Lhelr coallLlon. Cr Lhey can
choose Lo secure Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhelr coallLlon ln order Lo be accorded Lhe prlvlleges accrulng Lo reglsLered coallLlons, lncludlng
Lhe rlghL Lo be accredlLed as a domlnanL ma[orlLy or mlnorlLy parLy. 1here are no lfs and buLs abouL Lhese consLlLuLlonal Lerms.

DCMICILL]LLLC1ICN LAW

Lffect of m|srepresentat|on that a cand|date |s a
res|dent |n a non-ex|stent address.

AslsLlo has been a member of Congress for four Lerms. Pe soughL for Lhe Mayorshlp ln 2007 and has always voLed ln
Caloocan ClLy. ln facL, hls famlly ls a known pollLlcal famlly ln Caloocan ClLy. Pe has always been a resldenL ln Caloocan ClLy slnce
blrLh or for more Lhan 72 years.

1he facL LhaL a candldaLe lndlcaLed ln hls CoC a non-exlsLenL or false address, or LhaL he could noL be physlcally found ln
Lhe address he lndlcaLed when he reglsLered as a voLer, should noL exclude hlm as a voLer. lf aL all, lL ls a basls for hlm Lo be
charged under Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code or an acLlon Lo deny due course Lo hls CoC.

lrom Lhese provlslons of 8 no. 881 and 8A 8189 or Lhe voLers 8eglsLraLlon AcL of 1996, Lhe resldency requlremenL of a
voLer ls aL leasL one (1) year resldence ln Lhe hlllpplnes and aL leasL slx (6) monLhs ln Lhe place where Lhe person proposes or
lnLends Lo voLe. 8esldence," as used ln Lhe law prescrlblng Lhe quallflcaLlons for suffrage and for elecLlve offlce, ls docLrlnally
seLLled Lo mean domlclle," lmporLlng noL only an lnLenLlon Lo reslde ln a flxed place buL also personal presence ln LhaL place,
coupled wlLh conducL lndlcaLlve of such lnLenLlon lnferable from a person's acLs, acLlvlLles, and uLLerances. uomlclle" denoLes a
flxed permanenL resldence where, when absenL for buslness or pleasure, or for llke reasons, one lnLends Lo reLurn. ln Lhe


conslderaLlon of clrcumsLances obLalnlng ln each parLlcular case, Lhree rules musL be borne ln mlnd, namely: (1) LhaL a person
musL have a resldence or domlclle somewhere, (2) once esLabllshed, lL remalns unLll a new one ls acqulred, and (3) LhaL a person
can have buL one resldence or domlclle aL a Llme.

uomlclle ls noL easlly losL. 1o successfully effecL a Lransfer Lhereof, one musL demonsLraLe: (1) an acLual removal or
change of domlclle, (2) a booo flJe lnLenLlon of abandonlng Lhe former place of resldence and esLabllshlng a new one, and (3) acLs
whlch correspond wlLh LhaL purpose. 1here musL be oolmos mooeoJl coupled wlLh oolmos ooo tevetteoJl. 1he purpose Lo remaln
ln or aL Lhe domlclle of cholce musL be for an lndeflnlLe perlod of Llme, Lhe change of resldence musL be volunLary, and Lhe
resldence aL Lhe place chosen for Lhe new domlclle musL be acLual. (AslsLlo v. Pon. Agulrre, eL al., C.8. no. 191124, Aprll 24, 2010).

LGU CkLA1ICN

Creat|on of |eg|s|at|ve d|str|ct |n Ma|o|os C|ty.

ln AlJobo, et ol. v. cOMlc, C.8. no. 188078, !anuary 23, 2010, Carplo, !, 8A 9391 creaLed a leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL for Lhe clLy
of Malolos, 8ulacan. lL was quesLloned as unconsLlLuLlonal as lL dld noL meeL Lhe populaLlon requlremenL of 230,000. Pouse 8lll
no. 3693 whlch lnlLlaLed Lhe creaLlon merely clLed Lhe undaLed CerLlflcaLlon of 8eglonal ulrecLor AlberLoMlranda of 8eglon lll of
Lhe nSC as auLhorlLy LhaL Lhe populaLlon of Malolos ClLy wlll be 234,030 by Lhe year 2010.

ln declarlng Lhe law unconsLlLuLlonal, Lhe SC

Peld: 1he 1987 ConsLlLuLlon requlres LhaL for a clLy Lo have a leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL, Lhe clLy musL have a populaLlon of aL leasL Lwo
hundred flfLy Lhousand". (Sec. 3(3), ArL. vl, ConsLlLuLlon).

1he 1987 ConsLlLuLlon requlres LhaL for a clLy Lo have a leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL, Lhe clLy musL have a popu|at|on of at |east two
hundred f|fty thousand." (Sec. 3(3), ArL. vl, ConsLlLuLlon).

1he CerLlflcaLlon of Lhe ulrecLor ls wlLhouL basls because of Lhe followlng reasons:

llrsL, cerLlflcaLlons on demographlc pro[ecLlons can be lssued only lf such pro[ecLlons are declared offlclal by Lhe naLlonal
SLaLlsLlcs CoordlnaLlon 8oard (nSC8). Second, cerLlflcaLlons based on demographlc pro[ecLlons can be lssued only by Lhe nSC
AdmlnlsLraLor or hls deslgnaLed cerLlfylng offlcer. 1hlrd, lnLercensal populaLlon pro[ecLlons musL be as of Lhe mlddle of every year.
(See: Sec. 6, L.C. no. 133).

Any populaLlon pro[ecLlon formlng Lhe basls for Lhe creaLlon of a leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL musL be based on an offlclal and
credlble source, oLherwlse Lhe populaLlon pro[ecLlon would be unrellable or speculaLlve.

1here |s no show|ng |n the present case that the C|ty of Ma|o|os has atta|ned or w||| atta|n a popu|at|on of
2S0,000, whether octuo/ or projected, before the 10 May 2010 e|ect|ons.

Clearly, there |s no off|c|a| record that the popu|at|on of the C|ty of Ma|o|os w||| be at |east 2S0,000, actua| or pro[ected,
pr|or to the 10 May 2010 e|ect|ons, Lhe lmmedlaLely followlng elecLlon afLer Lhe supposed aLLalnmenL of such populaLlon. 1hus,
Lhe ClLy of Malolos ls noL quallfled Lo have a leglslaLlve dlsLrlcL of lLs own under SecLlon 3(3), ArLlcle vl of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon and
SecLlon 3 of Lhe Crdlnance appended Lo Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon.

DCC1kINL CI CCNDCNA1ICN

Lffect of re-e|ect|on on an adm|n|strat|ve case of
pub||c off|cer.

eLlLloners soughL Lo expand Lhe docLrlne of condonaLlon Lo coLermlnous appolnLlve offlclals who were admlnlsLraLlvely
charged along wlLh re-elecLed offlclal/appolnLlng auLhorlLy wlLh lnfracLlons allegedly commlLLed durlng Lhelr precedlng Lerm. ls Lhe
conLenLlon correcL? Why?

Peld: no. ln loscool v. noo. ltovloclol 8ootJ of Noevo cljo, 106 hll. 406 (1939), Lhe SC lssued Lhe landmark rullng LhaL prohlblLs
Lhe dlsclpllnlng of an elecLlve offlclal for a wrongful acL commlLLed durlng hls lmmedlaLely precedlng Lerm of offlce. 1he underlylng
Lheory ls LhaL each Lerm ls separaLe from oLher Lerms, and LhaL Lhe re-elecLlon Lo offlce operaLes as a condonaLlon of Lhe offlcer's
prevlous mlsconducL Lo Lhe exLenL of cuLLlng off Lhe rlghL Lo remove hlm Lherefor."

1he CourL should never remove a publlc offlcer for acLs done prlor Lo hls presenL Lerm of offlce. 1o do
oLherwlse would be Lo deprlve Lhe people of Lhelr rlghL Lo elecL Lhelr offlcers. When Lhe people elecLed a man Lo
offlce, lL musL be assumed LhaL Lhey dld Lhls wlLh knowledge of hls llfe and characLer, and LhaL Lhey dlsregarded or
forgave hls faulLs or mlsconducL, lf he had been gullLy of any. lL ls noL for Lhe courL, by reason of such faulLs or
mlsconducL, Lo pracLlcally overrule Lhe wlll of Lhe people. (See: Llzares v. Pechanova, eL al., 123 hll. 916 (1966).

loqco v. 5oocbez, et ol., 1929 hll. 339 (1967) clarlfled LhaL Lhe condonaLlon docLrlne does noL apply Lo
a ctlmlool case. loclooo v. 1be ltovloclol Covetoot, et ol., 138 hll. 346 (1969), Ollvotez v. IoJqe vllloloz, 136 hll. 137


(1974) and AqoloolJo v. 5ootos, C.8. no. 94113, AugusL 21, 1992, 212 SC8A 763) echoed Lhe quallfled rule LhaL re-elecLlon of a
publlc offlclal does noL bar prosecuLlon for crlmes commlLLed by hlm prlor LhereLo.

5olollmo v. Coloqooo, It., 326 hll. 847 (1996) and Moyot Cotclo v. noo. Mojlco, 372 hll. 892 (1999) relnforced Lhe docLrlne. 1he
condonaLlon rule was applled even lf Lhe admlnlsLraLlve complalnL was noL flled before Lhe reelecLlon of Lhe publlc offlclal, and
even lf Lhe alleged mlsconducL occurred four days before Lhe elecLlons, respecLlvely. 5olollmo dld noL dlsLlngulsh as Lo Lhe daLe of
flllng of Lhe admlnlsLraLlve complalnL, as long as Lhe alleged mlsconducL was commlLLed durlng Lhe prlor Lerm, Lhe preclse Llmlng
or perlod of whlch Cotclo dld noL furLher dlsLlngulsh, as long as Lhe wrongdolng LhaL gave rlse Lo Lhe publlc offlclal's culpablllLy was
commlLLed prlor Lo Lhe daLe of reelecLlon. (ALLy. vlcenLe Salumbldes, eL al. vs. Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman, eL al., C.8. no. 180917,
Aprll 23, 2010, Morales, !).

Doctr|ne of condonat|on does not app|y to
appo|nt|ve.

A parallel quesLlon was lnvolved ln clvll 5etvlce commlssloo v. 5ojot, C.8. no. 168766, May 22, 2008, 334 SC8A 160, where
Lhe CourL found no basls Lo broaden Lhe scope of Lhe docLrlne of condonaLlon:

LlecLlon expresses Lhe soverelgn wlll of Lhe people. under Lhe prlnclple of vox popoll est soptemo
lex, the re-e|ect|on of a pub||c off|c|a| may, |ndeed, supersede a pend|ng adm|n|strat|ve case. 1he same cannot
be sa|d of a re-appo|ntment to a non-career pos|t|on. 1here ls no soverelgn wlll of Lhe people Lo speak of when
Lhe 8C8 re-appolnLed respondenL So[or Lo Lhe posL of unlverslLy presldenL.

1he non-appllcaLlon of Lhe condonaLlon docLrlne Lo oppolotlve offlclals does noL vlolaLe Lhe rlghL Lo equal proLecLlon of
Lhe law.

1he elecLoraLe's condonaLlon of Lhe prevlous admlnlsLraLlve lnfracLlons of Lhe re-elecLed offlclal cannoL be exLended Lo
LhaL of Lhe reappolnLed coLermlnous employees, Lhe underlylng basls of Lhe rule belng Lo uphold Lhe wlll of Lhe people expressed
Lhrough Lhe balloL. ln oLher words, Lhere ls nelLher subverslon of Lhe soverelgn wlll nor dlsenfranchlsemenL of Lhe elecLoraLe Lo
speak of, ln Lhe case of reappolnLed coLermlnous employees.

lL ls Lhe wlll of Lhe populace, noL Lhe whlm of one person who happens Lo be Lhe appolnLlng auLhorlLy, LhaL could
exLlngulsh an admlnlsLraLlve llablllLy. Slnce peLlLloners hold appolnLlve poslLlons, Lhey cannoL clalm Lhe mandaLe of Lhe
elecLoraLe. 1he people cannoL be charged wlLh Lhe presumpLlon of full knowledge of Lhe llfe and characLer of each and every
probable appolnLee of Lhe elecLlve offlclal ahead of Lhe laLLer's acLual reelecLlon.

Moreover, Lhe unwarranLed expanslon of Lhe loscool docLrlne would seL a dangerous precedenL as lL would, provlde clvll
servanLs, parLlcularly local governmenL employees, wlLh blankeL lmmunlLy from admlnlsLraLlve llablllLy LhaL would spawn and
breed abuse ln Lhe bureaucracy. (Salumbldes v. Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman, supra.).

Ak1ICLL k-8
C|v|| Serv|ce Comm|ss|on

ln NA v. c5c, et ol., C.8. no. 149497, !anuary 23, 2010, Lhe SC ruled as vold Lhe deslgnaLlon of nLA personnel Lo elecLrlc
cooperaLlves wlLh compensaLlon allowances and oLher beneflLs on Lop of Lhelr regular salarles from peLlLloner becomes vlolaLlve
of Lhelr own charLer whlch does no provlde for such paymenL and, Lhus, lnlmlcal Lo Lhe besL lnLeresL of publlc servlce. lL also
vlolaLes Lhe flrsL paragraph of SecLlon 8, ArLlcle lx-8 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, whlch proscrlbes addlLlonal, double, or lndlrecL
compensaLlon, Lo wlL:

no elecLlve or appolnLlve publlc offlcer or employee shall recelve addlLlonal, double or lndlrecL
compensaLlon, unless speclflcally auLhorlzed by law. xxx

keorgan|zat|on must be done |n good fa|th.

ln 8ootlsto v. c5c, et ol., C.8. no. 183213, !uly 22, 2010, uel CasLlllo, !, Lhe SC once agaln sald LhaL a reorganlzaLlon ls valld
provlded LhaL lL ls done ln good falLh. As a general rule, Lhe LesL of good falLh lles ln wheLher Lhe purpose of Lhe reorganlzaLlon ls for economy or
Lo make Lhe bureaucracy more efflclenL. 8emoval from offlce as a resulL of reorganlzaLlon musL, Lhus, pass Lhe LesL of good falLh. A demoLlon ln
offlce, l.e., Lhe movemenL from one poslLlon Lo anoLher lnvolvlng Lhe lssuance of an appolnLmenL wlLh dlmlnuLlon ln duLles, responslblllLles,
sLaLus or rank whlch may or may noL lnvolve a reducLlon ln salary, ls LanLamounL Lo removal, lf no cause ls shown for lL. (CayaLano v. CSC, C.8.
no. 93064, !une 27, 1992, 210 SC8A 183). ConsequenLly, before a demoLlon may be effecLed pursuanL Lo a reorganlzaLlon, Lhe observance of Lhe
rules on booo flJe abollLlon of publlc offlce ls essenLlal.

ln Lhls case, Lhere was no demoLlon because peLlLloner was appolnLed Lo a poslLlon comparable Lo Lhe one she prevlously
occupled. 1here was even an lncrease ln her rank and salary.

1here ls demoLlon when an employee ls appolnLed Lo a poslLlon resulLlng Lo a dlmlnuLlon ln duLles, responslblllLles, sLaLus or rank
whlch may or may noL lnvolve a reducLlon ln salary. Where an employee ls appolnLed Lo a poslLlon wlLh Lhe same duLles and responslblllLles buL
a rank and salary hlgher Lhan Lhose en[oyed ln hls prevlous poslLlon, Lhere ls no demoLlon and Lhe appolnLmenL ls valld.

2S | a b r c . p o l l L l c a l . 0 9 - 1 0 / c r y s

ADMINIS1kA1IVL LAW

Act|on for damages aga|nst a schoo| for refusa| to
re|ease transcr|pt of records |s w|th|n the
[ur|sd|ct|on of the regu|ar courts. Lxhaust|on of
adm|n|strat|ve remedy to CnLD, not necessary.

ln u51, et ol. v. uooes 5oocbez, C.8. no. 163369, !uly 29, 2010, uel CasLlllo, !, a school refused Lo release Lhe LranscrlpL of
records of a sLudenL. 1he school conLended LhaL Lhe sLudenL falled Lo enroll durlng Lhe second semesLer of Lhe school year 2000-
2001, hence, Lhe school conLended LhaL Lhe complalnL falled Lo sLaLe a cause of no acLlon, hence, a moLlon Lo dlsmlss was flled. lL
was furLher conLended LhaL Lhere was fallure Lo exhausL admlnlsLraLlve remedy Lo CPLu. 8ule on Lhe conLenLlon.

Peld: 1he conLenLlon ls noL correcL as Lhe acLlon essenLlally ls one for mandamus and damages.

1he docLrlne of exhausLlon of admlnlsLraLlve remedles requlres LhaL where a remedy before an admlnlsLraLlve agency ls
provlded, Lhe admlnlsLraLlve agency concerned musL be glven Lhe opporLunlLy Lo declde a maLLer wlLhln lLs [urlsdlcLlon before an acLlon ls
broughL before Lhe courLs. lallure Lo exhausL admlnlsLraLlve remedles ls a ground for dlsmlssal of Lhe acLlon.

1he docLrlne of exhausLlon of admlnlsLraLlve remedles admlLs of numerous excepLlons, one of whlch ls where Lhe lssues are purely
legal and well wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe Lrlal courL. eLlLloners' llablllLy - lf any - for damages wlll have Lo be declded by Lhe courLs, slnce any
[udgmenL lnevlLably calls for Lhe appllcaLlon and Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe Clvll Code. As such, exhausLlon of admlnlsLraLlve remedles may be
dlspensed wlLh. As held ln keqloo v. looqoslooo colleqes of 5cleoce ooJ 1ecbooloqy:
x x x exhausLlon of admlnlsLraLlve remedles ls appllcable when Lhere ls compeLence on Lhe parL of Lhe admlnlsLraLlve
body Lo acL upon Lhe maLLer complalned of. AdmlnlsLraLlve agencles are noL courLs, x x x nelLher are Lhey parL of Lhe [udlclal
sysLem, or deemed [udlclal Lrlbunals. Speclflcally, the CnLD does not have the power to award damages. Pence, peLlLloner
could noL have commenced her case before Lhe Commlsslon. (483 hll. 446 (2004).

ln addlLlon, Lhe rule on prlmary [urlsdlcLlon applles only where Lhe admlnlsLraLlve agency exerclses quasl-[udlclal or ad[udlcaLory
funcLlons. 1hus, an essenLlal requlslLe for Lhls docLrlne Lo apply ls Lhe acLual exlsLence of quasl-[udlclal power. Powever, peLlLloners have noL
shown LhaL Lhe CPLu possesses any such power Lo lnvesLlgaLe facLs or ascerLaln Lhe exlsLence of facLs, hold hearlngs, welgh evldence, and draw
concluslons."

WkI1 CI AMAkC

ln Ceo. AlexooJet ooo, et ol. v. cleofos 5oocbez, et ol., C.8. no. 186640, lebruary 11, 2010, Morales, !, a peLlLlon for Lhe
lssuance of a WrlL of Amparo wlLh MoLlon for roducLlon & lnspecLlon was flled alleglng LhaL Lhe husbands of Lhe peLlLloners were
Laken lnLo cusLody of Lhe mlllLary ln 1arlac. 1hey conLenLed LhaL Lhe vlcLlms' llfe, llberLy and securlLy had been and conLlnued Lo be
vlolaLed on accounL of Lhelr enforced dlsappearances, hence, Lhey prayed for a WrlL of Amparo and Lhe lnspecLlon of cerLaln
camps of Lhe mlllLary, lssuance of Lemporary proLecLlon order and Lhe rendlLlon of [udgmenL under 8ule 18 of Lhe 8ule on Lhe WrlL
of Amparo.

1he reLurn of Lhe mlllLary ln general showed LhaL Lhe vlcLlms are noL ln Lhelr cusLody. ln facL, lL was conLended LhaL Lhe
remedy should be a peLlLlon for Pabeas Corpus as Lhey were allegedly abducLed and lllegally deLalned and LhaL Lhe peLlLlon was
deflclenL and lncompleLe as lL falled Lo lndlcaLe Lhe maLLers requlred by paragraphs c, d & e of SecLlon 3 of Lhe 8ule. lL also falled Lo
allege any acLlon or lnacLlon aLLrlbuLable Lo Lhe mlllLary wlLh respecL Lo Lhelr duLles and LhaL Lhey falled Lo allege any acLlon LhaL
Lhey underLook Lo look for Lhe vlcLlms and verlfy wheLher a wlLness saw Lhem aL Lhe camp or noL.

ln opposlng Lhe requesL for lssuance of lnspecLlon and producLlon orders, Lhe mlllLary offlcers poslLed LhaL aparL from
compromlslng naLlonal securlLy should enLry lnLo Lhese mlllLary camps/bases be allowed, Lhese orders parLook of Lhe naLure of a
search warranL, such LhaL Lhe requlslLes for Lhe lssuance Lhereof musL be complled wlLh prlor Lo Lhelr lssuance.

1he mlllLary offlcers were absolved by Lhe CA rullng LhaL peLlLloners have noL adequaLely and convlnclngly esLabllshed any
dlrecL or lndlrecL llnk on Lhe dlsappearances of Lhe vlcLlms. 8uL whlle absolvlng Lhem, Lhe CA granLed Lhe prayer for lnspecLlon
Crder and ordered Lhe mlllLary Lo conducL Lhorough and lmparLlal lnvesLlgaLlon perLalnlng Lo Lhe dlsappearances of Lhe vlcLlms.
M8 was flled, buL lL was denled hence, Lhe mlllLary offlcers appealed Lo Lhe SC conLendlng LhaL lL was an error for Lhe CA Lo
absolve Lhem, yeL Lhe lnspecLlon Crder was lssued and LhaL Lhey were sLlll ordered Lo lnvesLlgaLe. ls Lhe rullng of Lhe CA correcL?
Why?

Peld: no. 1he provlslonal rellefs provlded for by Lhe rule on amparo are lnLended Lo asslsL Lhe courL before lL arrlves aL a [udlclous
deLermlnaLlon of Lhe amparo peLlLlon. lor Lhe appellaLe courL Lo sLlll order Lhe lnspecLlon of Lhe mlllLary camps and order Lhe army
unlLs Lo conducL an lnvesLlgaLlon lnLo Lhe dlsappearance of Lhe alleged vlcLlms afLer lL absolved peLlLloners ls Lhus noL ln order. 1he
rellefs granLed by Lhe appellaLe courL Lo respondenLs are noL ln sync wlLh a flndlng LhaL peLlLloners could noL be held accounLable
for Lhe dlsappearance of Lhe vlcLlms.


A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 | a b r c . p o l l L l c a l .

You might also like