UNIVERSITY OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL-RECOLETOS SCHOOL OF LAW

unorlawschl@gmail.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF 2006-2008 SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON POLITICAL AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW1 BY Dean J. P. VILLASOR2
Constitutional Law In General

1. Even if petitioner Francisco Chavez did not meet the requisite locus standi, the Court
took cognizance of the case consistent with the principle that it will not wield procedural barriers as impediments to its addressing and resolving serious legal questions that have a great impact on public interest. (Chavez v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 168338, 15 February 2008)

2. Bayan Muna was held to have locus standi to question the government’s policy on
Calibrated Preempted Response (CPR) because it is a party-list group with three seats in the House of Representatives entitled to participate in the legislative process. The 3 Bayan Muna representatives, on the basis of their allegation that their rights and duties as Members of Congress had been infringed. (Senate v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 169777, 20 April 2006)

3. Non-governmental organizations, representatives of Congress, citizens and taxpayers
have locus standi to file a petition for mandamus to compel the respondents to produce a copy of the Japan-Philippines Economic Package Agreement (JPEPA), as the petition is anchored upon the right of the people to information on matters of public concern which is a public right. (Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, 16 July 2008)

4. The Anak Mindanao Party List Group (AMIN), as a member of Congress, had locus

standi to institute the suit questioning the validity of Executive Order No. 364 placing the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) under the supervision and control of the Department of Agrarian Reform. (Anak Mindanao Party List Group [AMIN] v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 166052, 29 August 2007)

5. Petitioner Estarija was ordered dismissed from the service by the Ombudsman for
dishonesty and grave misconduct. He raised the issue of constitutionality of the provision in Rep. Act No. 6770 for the first time before the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that petitioner raised the issue at the earliest opportunity. He could not raise it in his motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman, because the Office of the Ombudsman is without jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of that provision in Rep. Act No. 6770. (Estarija v. Rañada, G.R. No. 159314, 26 June 2006)

6. Fertiphil Corporation sought the refund of the capital recovery component it had paid to

the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority levied under Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 1465 by challenging the validity of the same. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 was adequately pleaded in the complaint. It is the very lis mota of the case because the trial court cannot determine the claim without resolving the issue of constitutionality. (Planters Products v. Fertiphil Corporation, G.R. No. 166006, 14 March 2008)

1

Compiled by Dean J. P. Villasor from Justice Nachura’s Outline/Reviewer in Political Law (2009), decisions promulgated by the Supreme Court, the 1987 Constitution and his own notes on Political and Public International Law. Updated on 07 August 2010. 2 BSBA (University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City); LLB (University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City); MSc (London School of Economics, London, England)

but no aspect of the property is used by or for the benefit of the public. development and regulation of networks of transportation. The Court agreed with the findings of the Ombudsman that “those who participated in the blasting of the subject fishpond were only impelled by their desire to serve the best interests of the general public”. By designating the MMDA as the implementing agency. Use of the property by the owners is limited. Viron Transportation. Exec. the Court noted that all the cities and municipalities within MMDA’s jurisdiction except Valenzuela City have each enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances or traffic management codes with provisions for pedestrian regulation.R. The Supreme Court held that by entering into a Compromise Agreement with Roberto S. there is compensable taking. be total. No. whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom. it is the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC). is the primary implementing and administrative entity in the promotion. is ultra vires. in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority. in the regulation of the use of the property.R. Likewise in the exercise of police power. by law. Lapid. 125. No. This serves as sufficient basis for the respondent’s implementation of schemes to enforce the anti-jaywalking ordinances and similar regulations. which is authorized to establish and implement such a project. 16 November 2006) 9. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal by the Office of the Ombudsman of criminal charges against respondent local government officials who had ordered and carried out the demolition of a fishpond which purportedly blocked the flow of the Pasak River in Sasmuan. Pampanga. 6 December 2006) 11. hence no compensation is paid. Fernando. When the State enters into a contract through its officers or agents. It was held that the Francisco failed to show the lack of basis or the unreasonableness of the Wet Flag Scheme. somebody else acquires the use or interest thereof. however. there is need to pay just compensation. The deprivation of use can. Order No. Although both police power and eminent domain have the general welfare for their object. 6 March 2006) 8. While concededly. health and prosperity of the State. A petition for prohibition and mandamus was filed against the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and its Chairman. property rights of individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort. (Francisco v. the President overstepped the limits of the authority conferred by law. Benedicto. The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn private property to public use upon payment of just compensation. The MMDA is an administrative agency tasked with the implementation of rules and regulations enacted by proper authorities. to enjoin the further implementation of the “Wet Flag Scheme” and to compel respondents to “respect and uphold” the pedestrians’ right to due process and equal protection of the law. there are still traditional distinctions between the two. Police power is the power of the State to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.2 7. G. but none of the property interests in the bundle of rights which constitute ownership is appropriated for use by or for the benefit of the public. Order No.R. In a suit for the payment of dues of the sequestered shares. Property condemned under police power is usually noxious or intended for a noxious purpose. Under the provisions of Exec. G. Sandiganbayan. No. as amended. the Republic stripped itself of its immunity and placed itself in the same level as its adversary. No. precisely because by entering into a contract.R. (Cabrera v. G. and the recent trends show a mingling of the two with the latter being used as an implement of the former. when a property interest is appropriated and applied to some public purpose. the State may be sued even without its express consent. Bayani Fernando. not the MMDA. the PCGG raised the defense of immunity from suit. 129098. (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. such restriction constitutes . The absence of an anti-jaywalking ordinance in Valenzuela City does not detract from this conclusion absent any proof that respondents implemented the Flag Scheme in that city. However. The President must exercise the authority through the instrumentality of the DOTC which. the sovereign descends to the level of the citizen. 129406. (Republic v. On the alleged lack of legal basis. in fact. If. which designates the MMDA as the implementing agency for the project. and it will not constitute compensable taking if nobody else acquires use of the property or any interest therein. 166501. Where a property interest is merely restricted because the continued use thereof would be injurious to public interest. the State restricts the use of private property. in order to decongest traffic by eliminating bus terminals along major Metro Manila thoroughfares. 170656. 15 August 2007) 10. G. Shares in the Negros Occidental Golf and Country Club were sequestered and taken over by the PCGG fiscal agents. In the exercise of police power. 179. the President has the authority to provide for the establishment of the Greater Manila Mass Transport System.

who become foreign citizens. 6657 provides that the appointment of a commissioner or commissioners is discretionary on the part of the special agrarian court (SAC). because Section 58 of Republic Act No. G. allegedly for violating Section 5. Thus. 170422. the latter is not bound by the commissioners’ findings. No.R. (b) they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence. The constitutionality of Rep. Act No. Trial by commissioners is not mandatory in agrarian reform cases. the Supreme Court has declared that eminent domain cases are to be strictly construed against the expropriator. (San Roque Realty v.R. 156093. and that it contains sufficient standards. 20 July 2006) 19. Gozum. the annotation of the lien in favor of the government on the certificate of title. Court of Appeals. (Gerochi v. Thus. but if regulation is the primary purpose. the court may substitute its own estimate of the value of the property only for valid reasons: (1) the commissioners have applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them.R. among others. in the ordinary course of things. the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial matter for the expropriation court. Municipality of Meycauayan. No. reliability. v. If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is merely incidental. 9225 (An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine citizens who acquire foreign citizenship permanent. the modality provided in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court for the appointment of 3 commissioners is not compulsory on the special agrarian courts. 24 March 2008) 16. The EPIRA. security and affordability of the supply of electric power” and “watershed rehabilitation and management” are sufficient standards. G. lands and buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) are exempt from real estate tax for the following reasons: a) MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but an instrumentality of the National Government. No. the imposition is a tax. such as the Torrens system. (Spouses Edmond Lee and Helen Huang v. 30 March 2006) 12. 159796. G. is complete in all its essential terms and conditions. Thus. . Article IV. and (b) the real properties of MIAA are owned by the Republic of the Philippines. Department of Energy. The distinction between police power and taxation rests in the purpose for which the charge is made. amending for the purpose C.A. this rule. the Supreme Court concluded that the Universal Charge imposed under Section 34 of the EPIRA is an exaction that invokes the State’s police power. Jr. G. Once the requisites mentioned above are established. 7 March 2008) 15. read and appreciated in its entirety. gleaned from Section 34 itself which enumerates the purposes of the Universal Charge which can be amply discerned as regulatory in character. in relation to Section 34 thereof. Time and again. While commissioners are to be appointed by the court for the determination of just compensation. it would have led to the cancellation of the title or at least. It was claimed that Section 2 allows all Filipinos whether natural-born or naturalized. If the Republic had actually made full payment of just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled that airports. G. the exercise of the power is construed strictly against local governments.R. However. Republic. No. 157882.R. Land Bank of the Philippines. De la Cruz. The rule is that a tax is never presumed and there must be clear language in the law imposing the tax. “to ensure the total electrification of the country and the quality. exempt from local taxation. 17 July 2007) 17.R. the fact that revenue is incidentally raised does not make the imposition a tax. one of which is when the strict application of the rule will defeat the effectiveness of a policy adopted to protect the public. 155650. 163130. The determination of whether the taking of the property is for a public purpose is not a condition precedent before the court may issue a writ of possession. or upon the instance of one of the parties. No. (Francia. while the general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel or laches by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents. G.3 compensable taking (Didipio Earth-Savers Multi-Purpose Association v. 170432. 2 February 2007) 14. When local governments invoke the power to tax on national government instrumentalities.R. (Manila International Airport Authority v. No. 63) was impugned. however. as they provide the limitations on the Energy Regulatory Commission’s power to formulate the Implementing Rules and Regulations. or (c) where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive (National Power Corporation v. Department of Energy. supra) 18. No. Provisions of the EPIRA such as. particularly its regulatory dimension. (Gerochi v. admits of exceptions. G. 7 September 2007) 13. No. and thus.

Article VI of Republic Act No. Congress cannot validly delegate to the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Regional Assembly the power to create legislative districts. No. It allows dual citizenship. v. The power to increase the allowable membership in the House of Representatives and to reapportion legislative districts is vested exclusively in Congress. (2) the publication must be made once a week for three consecutive weeks. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic. The same notice must also indicate. This authority is an adjunct of the President’s power of control under Sections 1 and 17.R. Article VII.R. citing Section 7. Nothing in Section 20. (Sema v. Michael Hong. is void for being contrary to Section 5. Commission on Elections. 180843. it is the President who shall appoint the trustees. No. Commission on Elections. in upholding the validity of Rep. G. as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. appointing. Accordingly. G. 177271. 4 May 2007) 23.R. The President has the authority to carry out a reorganization of the Department of Health under the Constitution and statutes. Senate Committee on Accountability. (Bantay Republic Act 7941 v. No. No. Article X of the Constitution authorizes autonomous regions. 160093. by virtue of Section 16. However. granting the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces and cities. Under Section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law. 11 May 2007) 20. 177597. because the challenged section of the law is unconstitutional. 23 March 2006) 21. he or she may be appointed to the position merely in a . copies of the petition and notice of hearing must be posted in the office of the Clerk of Court or in the building where the office is locate. Section 3 stays clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifts the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. No. the President is the repository of the commander-in-chief. Romulo. it does not recognize dual allegiance. Thus. 160869. G. 16 July 2008) 22. (Malaria Employees and Workers Association of the Philippines. An exception to this rule is where. Article III of the Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern as complemented by the policy of full disclosure and transparency in Government. while Section 3 allows former natural-born citizens to regain their Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance without forfeiting their foreign allegiance. No. Secretary of Justice.R. 113956. A statute cannot circumvent the constitutional provisions on the power of appointment by filling vacancies in a public office through election by the co-workers in that office. (Neri v. 25 March 2008) 24.A. Under the Constitution. 9225. 31 July 2007) 26.4 to retain their Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship. the names of the witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to introduce at the trial. the Supreme Court ruled that the intent of the legislature is to do away with the provision in C.R. G. This manner of filling vacancies in public office has no constitutional basis. G. in order that there be a valid publication of the petition for naturalization. expressly or impliedly. but on its face. and is also an exercise of his “residual powers”. the following requisites must concur: (1) the petition and notice of hearing must be published. No. to create or reapportion legislative districts. the President must exercise good faith in carrying out the reorganization of any branch or agency of the executive department. and (3) the publication must be in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation in the province where the applicant resides. Article X. Consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers. 9054. 21 July 2006) 25. Inc. Endriga. among others. No. The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Elections has the constitutional duty to disclose and release the names of the nominees of the party-list groups. Section 19. A permanent appointment can issue only to a person who possesses all the requirements for the position to which he is appointed. (Calilung v. G. such as in the area of military and foreign relations. Plainly. (Rufino v. In addition. 63 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. G. in the absence of appropriate eligibles. 168877. Article VII of the Constitution which provides that the President has the power to appoint officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law. (Republic v. Article VI and Section 20.R.R. The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of the inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the Constitution to the President. pardoning and diplomatic powers. Act NO. the information relating to these powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others. the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship.

it must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence how such protective regulation would result in restraint of trade. unless sooner terminated by the appointing authority. 167472. an agency under the Executive Department. Thus. 9 October 2007) 29. Section 14 of the Rules on Amparo allows the grant by the court of interim reliefs.R. G. G. Accordingly. which may either be a temporary protection order. 24 October 2008) 2. the concurrent appointments of respondent Magdangal Elma as PCGG Chairman and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel violate Section 7. The basic attribute of an effective right to informational privacy is the right of the individual to control the flow of information concerning them. (Pest Management Association of the Philippines v. Elma. as well as other Presidential appointees.R.M.R. or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering. G. No. liberty and security. Thus. The essence of the constitutional right to informational privacy goes to the very heart of a person’s individuality. No. 21 February 2007) Constitutional Prerogative Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data 1. 07-9-12-SC. 2 February 2008) 6. 08-1-16-SC. the temporary appointee accepts the position with the condition that he shall surrender the office when called upon to do so by the appointing authority. The writ of amparo shall not issue when applied for as a substitute for the appeal or certiorari process. 5 June 2008) 4. Free enterprise does not call for the removal of protective regulations. collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person. The writ of habeas data is an independent remedy to protect the right to privacy. family. rather it seeks to prevent a hiatus in the discharge of official function by authorizing a person to discharge the same pending the selection of a permanent appointee. Del Rosario. Such termination of a temporary appointment may be with or without cause as the appointee serves merely at the pleasure of the appointing power. assuming they still have any despite the final and executory judgment adverse to them. 156041. 182795. Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority. honor and correspondence of the aggrieved party. liberty and security is violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. (Tapuz v. 182484. there is no legal basis for the issuance of the writ of amparo. The duties of the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel include giving independent and impartial legal advice on the actions of the heads of various executive departments and agencies and to review investigations involving heads of executive departments and agencies. (Public Interest Center v. No. an exclusive and personal sphere upon which the State has no right to intrude without any legitimate public concern. G. Article IX-B of the Constitution. Such a temporary appointment is made not for the benefit of the appointee. or of a private individual or entity. Petitioners’ right to their dwelling. (Justice Nachura in Outline/Reviewer in Political Law [2009 Ed. Public interest must be held over business interests. No. (Darangina v. no. without question. Thus. (A. or when it will inordinately interfere with these processes. does not constitute the right to life. 31 January 2007) 27. Civil Service Commission. G.R. No. No. his replacement by another non-eligible is not prohibited. (Canlas v. An incompatibility exists between the positions of the PCGG Chairman and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life. The PCGG is. 30 June 2006) 28.]) Bill of Rights .M. No writ of amparo may be issued unless there is a clear allegation of the supposed factual and legal basis of the right sought to be protected. (A.R. 17 January 2008) 5. Duque.R. No. inspection order. Trade must be subjected to some form of regulation for the public good.5 temporary capacity for a period of 12 months. production order or a witness protection order. The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. G. 138965. especially the right to informational privacy. 173034. 3. (Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. the Court held that where a noneligible holds a temporary appointment. the actions of the PCGG Chairman are subject to review by the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel. Napico Homeowners Association. Thus.

and its sole purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether the respondent therein is probably guilty of the crime. 168580. 26 August 2008) 3. A preliminary investigation is essentially an inquiry to determine whether (1) a crime has been committed. is not sufficient to constitute probable cause to justify the arrest.R. No. Nevertheless. It held that the public prosecutor is afforded wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation. No. The acts of the Secretary of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission in warning television stations against playing the “Garci tapes” under pain of revocation of their licenses. 22 February 2007) 9. No. (People v. Courts will not interfere with the conduct of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation or in the determination of what constitutes sufficient probable cause for the filing of the corresponding information against the offender. G.R. or is attempting to commit a crime.R. The unmistakable showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public prosecutor will justify judicial intrusion into the precinct of the executive. 27 July 2008) 2. Paglinawan. G. 170233. A preliminary investigation is held before an accused is place d on trial to secure the innocent against hasty. G. he may terminate the preliminary investigation and resolve the case (Judy Ann Santos v. Thus. It is necessary that two requisites concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he had just committed. 158793. they did not merely provide regulations as to time. place and manner of the dissemination of speech or expression. and to protect him from the trouble. expenses and anxiety of a public trial. (Baviera v. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Nuevas. They focused only on one subject – a specific content – the alleged taped conversations between the President and a Comelec official. (Tan Uy v. No. G.R. As a rule. 2000 (Limited Access Highway Act). G. No. Not all motorized vehicles are created equal – real and substantial differences exist between a motorcycle and other forms of transport sufficient to justify its classification among those prohibited from plying the toll ways. (Sanrio Company v. No.R. The Supreme Court reiterated the policy of non-interference with executive discretion in the determination of probable cause. 168380. a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search (People v. 168338. People.R.R. G. which prohibited motorcycles on limited access highways on the basis of Republic Act No. Nos. (Aguirre v. (Mirasol v. No. 170723. (Chavez v.R. 8 February 2008) 5. Where the petitioners assailed the validity of DPWH Administrative Order No. 1. No. the process cannot be reversed. 8 June 2006) 7. absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers. 156399-400. The public prosecutor determines during the preliminary investigation whether probable cause exists. 3 March 2008) 6. malicious and oppressive prosecution. 170233. G. were content-based restrictions. Nuevas. and should be subjected to the “clear and present danger test”. 8 February 2007) 4. thus the decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint depends on the sound discretion of the prosecutor. and upon satisfaction of the investigating prosecutor that probable cause exists based on the evidence presented. Lim.6 1. 22 February 2007) 8. Gonzalez. Department of Public Works and Highways. The preliminary investigation conducted by the Department of Justice is merely inquisitorial. it is a component of due process in administering criminal justice. Reliable information alone. and (2) whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty thereof. the arrest must precede the search. 173176. the Supreme Court held that there is a real and substantial distinction between a motorcycle and other motor vehicles.R. while the right is statutory rather than constitutional. G. is actually committing. This is an exception to the general rule of non-interference with executive discretion in the determination of probable cause. Secretary of Justice. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence. 15 February 2008) . it is not a trial on the merits. It is also intended to protect the State from having to conduct useless and expensive trials. Office of the Ombudsman. G.

man must be allowed to subscribe to the infinite. man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state. place and manner of holding public assemblies. be recognized even in the case of government employees was deemed untenable by the Supreme Court. The different interests of the defendant which the right to a speedy trial are designed to protect are: (1) to prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration. Petitioners imputed contumacious statements to respondent for referring to rumors that Chief Justice Panganiban has intentions of running for the Senate. Nothing in his statements can be considered as a malicious attack on the proceedings of the Court as to cast doubt on its integrity. This is a recognized exception to the exercise of the right even under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 27 October 2006) Administrative Law . as well as the lighter found by the latter in her bag. he must be held. in Osmeña v. 170470. and (3) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired. No. Third. In the absence of a showing that such state interest exists. Batas Pambansa Blg. Sr. G. No. Second. (Bayan v. If he does not do this. a neighbor of Roberto Separa. since they refer to any subject. (Estrada and Puwersa ng Masang Pilipino v. including religious freedom. he was already a suspect in the fire that destroyed several houses and killed the family of Roberto Separa. 8493 (The Speedy Trial Act) is a means of enforcing the right of the accused to a speedy trial. 169838. Comelec. No.7 10. and thus.R. place and manner of assemblies. (GSIS Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS. “protesting” and “influencing” in the definition of public assembly “content-based”. otherwise. 6 December 2006) 14. they would not be “peaceable” and entitled to protection. and should thus. 880 is constitutional.. But in the arena of religious exercise as a preferred freedom. Maingan. it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time. Republic Act No. may be enjoyed. Evardone. 22 June 2006 [Resolution]) 13. His remarks about the Chief Justice were mere speculations and personal observations based on a precedent not derogatory or contumacious enough to warrant sanction from the Court. 159098. In essence. Ermita. 26 September 2008) 15.R. (Estrada v. public convenience. No. the Supreme Court referred to it as content-neutral regulation of the time. the right to a speedy trial does not preclude the people’s equally important right to public justice. public safety. But the testimony of Mercedita Mendoza. the law is not overbroad. there is no prior restraint. It regulates the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and petition only to the extent needed to avoid a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. Fifth. public morals or public health. the delegation to the Mayors of the power to issue rally “permits” is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally sound “clear and present danger” standard. Adriano. Maximum tolerance is for the protection and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of the content of the expressions in the rally. is inadmissible in evidence. since the content of the speech is not relevant to the regulation. and so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that the violation will erode the very fabric of the state that will also protect the freedom. on the same confession.R. G. is admissible in evidence and is not covered by the exclusionary rule. No.R.R. Sr. No. because assemblies really have to be for lawful causes. G. 6 December 2007) 11. When accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall in the morning of 2 January 2001. G. The claim that the right to strike is part of the freedom of expression and the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. 23 April 2006) 12. the confession of accused-appellant given to the Barangay Chairman. It does not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms. (People v. place and manner of the assemblies. Fourth. Escritor. Neither are the words “opinion”. The Supreme Court recognized that the state interest must be upheld in order that freedoms. But the right to a speedy trial cannot be invoked where to sustain the same would result in a clear denial of due process to the prosecution. The spirit of the law is that the accused must go on record in the attitude of demanding a trial or resisting delay. G. and that nothing in his statements insinuate or suggest that the Court was susceptible to influence. A. First. (b) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused. The reference to “lawful cause” does not make it “content-based”. the permit can only be denied on the ground of “clear and present danger” to public order. the Supreme Court found as sufficient and acceptable the defense of respondent that he had no intention to undermine the integrity of the Court. 170132. 159751. to have waived the privilege (Uy v.M. p-02-1651. in law. It is not an absolute ban on public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time. Escritor’s arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion.

Since the Evaluating Panel’s report was not adverse to petitioners. technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings. whether exercising judicial.8 1.’s own video footage of the ocular inspection discloses this purpose. Moreover. quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. it would have gathered the documents that it enumerated as lacking. prejudgment may not be attributed vicariously. under their power of subordinate legislation. board. to implement the broad policies laid down in the statute by “filling in” the details. in fact weighs heavily in favor of petitioners. Moreover. quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. and there is no appeal or any other plain. Court of Appeals. However. 157299. the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. G. not against legislative or quasi-legislative functions (Holy Spirit Homeowners Association v. as the power to amend or repeal a statute is vested in the legislature. All that is required is that the regulation be germane to the objectives and purposes of the law. Petitioners Santos-Concio et al. Had the Evaluation Panel carried out measures partaking of a criminal investigation. No. administrative bodies are allowed. speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Santos-Concio v. The measures taken by the Evaluating Panel do not partake of a criminal investigation. Secretary Defensor.R. officer or person. prohibition lies against the exercise of judicial. No. 163980. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no law or rule prohibiting the simultaneous prosecution or adjudication of pre-proclamation controversies and election protests. Department of Justice. The power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment. No. Partiality. In administrative proceedings. 18 January 2008) 2. to the rest of the state prosecutors. As long as the party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course. that the regulation does not contradict but conforms with the standards prescribed by law. G.R. No. No. Prohibition is an extraordinary writ directed against any tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld Governor Democrito Plaza’s order of preventive suspension issued against appointive local officials facing administrative charges. or is accompanied by grave abuse of discretion. the improbability of the DOJ contradicting its prior finding is hardly appreciable. For. Thus. 24 November 2006) Election Law and Law on Public Officers 1. which conducted the criminal investigation. (Public Schools District Supervisors Association v. It is thus foolhardy to inhibit the entire DOJ from conducting a preliminary investigation on the ground that the DOJ’s constituent unit conducted the criminal investigation. (Plaza v. Court of Appeals. a constituent unit of the Department of Justice. G. 19 June 2006) 3. (Civil Service Commission v. Edilberto de Jesus. administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strictest judicial sense. It was the NBI. A petition for prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail Implementing Rules and Regulations issued in the exercise of quasi-legislative functions. he was not denied due process. Evaluation for purposes of determining whether there is sufficient basis to proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation entails not only reading the report or documents in isolation. any conclusion on such sufficiency or insufficiency needs to rest on some basis or justification. 175057. The Evaluating Panel was dissolved functus oficio upon rendering its report. The law provides for the preventive suspension of appointive local officials and employees pending investigation of the charges against them. corporation. but also deems to include resorting to reasonably necessary means such as ocular inspection and physical evidence examination. if any obtains in this case.R. 29 January 2008) 2.R. . 138464. G. they having been done in aid of evaluation in order to relate the incidents to their proper context. It bears recalling that the Evaluating Panel found no sufficient basis to proceed with the conduct of a preliminary investigation. ultimately. 3 August 2006) 4. so to speak. G. 161086.R. The implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot extend the law or expand its coverage. ordering said entity or person to desist from further proceedings when the said proceedings are without or in excess of jurisdiction. This is one of the sacrifices which holding a public office requires for the public good.

international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law. supra) 2. international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or by incorporation. The modern trend in public international law places primacy on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. 20 November 2006) Law on Local Governments 1. The case should be referred to the sanggunians of the municipality and the city concerned. 3 March 2008) 3. such as local legislation. by mere constitutional declaration. The transformation method requires that an international law principle be transformed into domestic law through a constitutional mechanism. 23 October 2006) Public International Law 1. No.R. Martinez. it is one of the sacrifices which holding a public office requires for the public good. (Plaza v. 21 September 2007) 4. 142601. 166143-47. misconduct in office and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. G. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems. sovereign immunity. G. (Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. but with the original jurisdiction to hear and decide the case in accordance with the procedure laid down in the law and its implementing rules and regulations. Director of Prisons. a person’s right to life. G. the principles contained therein are now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of the international community. held . The incorporation method applies when. Under the Constitution. 140474. The Local Government Code imposes upon the City Mayor the duty to “enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city”. Duque. liberty and due process. should any party aggrieved by the decision of the Sanggunian elevate the same. No. G. Commission on Elections. No. G. not only to bring the contending parties together and intervening or assisting in the amicable settlement of the dispute. supra) 3. he has the duty to enforce an ordinance as long as it has not been repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts.R.R. Nueva Vizcaya. 170626. and the Municipality of San Jose del Monte filed a case against the National Housing Authority with the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP). While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty. Duque. (Sangguniang Barangay of Don Mariano Marcos v. renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy.R. but their suspension must likewise be unjustified. The Regional Trial Court can decide the case only on appeal. He has no choice. it being clear from Section 60 of the Local Government Code that “an elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court”. (National Housing Authority v. The Court upheld the validity of the act of Governor Democrito Plaza preventively suspending respondents who were being investigated for administrative complaints lodged against them. Court of Appeals. (Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. As chief executive of the city. and the Sangguniang Bayan rendered a decision imposing upon Martinez the penalty of removal from office. In Mejoff v. (Social Justice Society v. The suspension is not justified. 156052. private respondents must not only be found innocent of the charges.9 Allowing the simultaneous prosecution scenario may be explained by the fact that preproclamation controversies and election protests differ in terms of the issues involved and the evidence admissible in each case. The petitioner filed with the Sangguniang Bayan of Bayombong.g. administrative charges against respondent for dishonesty. e. No.. and the objective each seeks to achieve. it is his ministerial duty to do so. Atienza. The phrase “generally accepted principles of international law” refers to norms of general or customary international law which are binding on all states. Fe v. supra) 3. The Sangguniang Bayan acted beyond its jurisdiction when it ordered the removal of Martinez from office. (Tan v. No. the Supreme Court ruled that COSLAP is without jurisdiction over the matter.R. Municipality of Aritao. The High Court held that the Sangguniang Bayan does not have the authority to remove elective local officials. in granting bail to a prospective deportee. the Supreme Court. 7 March 2007) 2. In a boundary dispute between the City of Caloocan and the Municipality of San Jose del Monte. a controversy over a housing area administered by the National Housing Authority arose. and pacta sunt servanda. To be entitled to back salaries. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan is vested with the function. (Municipality of Sta.

153675.10 that under the Constitution. (Government of Hongkong v. Jr. both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue. should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt. as enunciated by Chief Justice Puno. considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases.. If bail can be granted in deportation cases. No. Puruganan. The “clear and convincing evidence” standard. Hon. there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. the principles set forth in the Declaration are part of the law of the land. as discussed in Chief Justice Puno’s separate opinion in Government of the United States of America v.R. but higher than preponderance of evidence. G. 19 April 2007) . The potential extradite must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court for entitlement to bail. After all. The Court adopted a new standard to be used in granting bail in extradition cases. Felixberto Olalia.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful