This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
November 14, 2011Vicente D. Gerochi IV
Here are selected October 2011 rulings o the !u"reme #ourt o the $hili""ines on "olitical la%&
Constitutional Law #onstitutionalit' o () 101*+. (e"ublic )ct 101*+ reset the )(,, elections rom )ugust -, 2011, to the second ,onda' o ,a' 201+ and ever' three 'ears therea ter, to coincide %ith the countr'.s regular national and local elections. /he la% also granted the $resident the "o%er to a""oint o icers in charge or the O ice o the )(,, (egional Governor, the (egional Vice0Governor, and the ,embers o the (egional 1egislative )ssembl', %ho %ill hold said o ices until the o icials dul' elected in the ,a' 201+ elections shall have 2uali ied and assumed o ice. In addressing the constitutionalit' o this la%, the #ourt discussed the ollo%ing issues& Does the Constitution mandate the synchronization of elections? 3es. 4hile the #onstitution does not e5"ressl' state that #ongress has to s'nchroni6e national and local elections, the clear intent to%ards this ob7ective can be gleaned rom the /ransitor' $rovisions 8)rticle 9VIII: o the #onstitution, %hich sho% the e5tent to %hich the #onstitutional #ommission, b' deliberatel' ma;ing ad7ustments to the terms o the incumbent o icials, sought to attain s'nchroni6ation o elections. /he ob7ective behind setting a common termination date or all elective o icials, done among others through the shortening the terms o the t%elve %inning senators %ith the least number o votes, is to s'nchroni6e the holding o all uture elections < %hether national or local < to once ever' three 'ears. /his intention inds ull su""ort in the discussions during the #onstitutional #ommission deliberations. /hese #onstitutional #ommission e5changes, read %ith the "rovisions o the /ransitor' $rovisions o the #onstitution, all serve as "atent indicators o the constitutional mandate to hold s'nchroni6ed national and local elections, starting the second ,onda' o ,a', 1==2 and or all the ollo%ing elections. )lthough called regional elections, the )(,, elections should be included among the elections to be s'nchroni6ed as it is a >local? election based on the %ording and structure o the #onstitution. Does the passage of RA 10153 violate Section !" #$ Article %& of the Constitution? No. /hat section "rovides that be ore a bill "assed b' either the House or the !enate can become la%, it must "ass through three readings on se"arate da's. /he e5ce"tion is %hen the $resident certi ies to the necessit' o the bill.s immediate enactment. In this case, the records sho% that the $resident %rote to the !"ea;er o the House o (e"resentatives to certi ' the necessit' o the immediate enactment o a la% s'nchroni6ing the )(,, elections %ith the national and local elections. @ollo%ing 'olentino v( Secretary of )inance, the $resident.s certi ication e5em"ted both the House and the !enate rom having to com"l' %ith the three se"arate readings re2uirement. Does the re*uirement of a superma+ority vote for amendments or revisions to RA ,05violate Section 1 and Section 1!" #$ Article %& of the Constitution and the corollary doctrine on irrepeala.le la/s? 3es. Aven assuming that () =+++ and () 101*+ did in act amend () =0*4 8the #ourt ruled in this case that those t%o la%s did not amend () =0*4:, the su"erma7orit' 82B+: voting re2uirement re2uired under !ection 1, )rticle 9VII o () =0*4 has to be struc; do%n or giving that la% the character o an irre"ealable la% b' re2uiring more than %hat the #onstitution demands. () =0*4 is the !econd Organic )ct o the )(,,, %hich "rovided that the irst )(,, elections %ould be held on the second ,onda' o !e"tember 2001. () =+++ is one o several la%s "rior to () 101*+ that reset the date o the )(,, regional elections. !ection 1C82:, )rticle VI o the #onstitution "rovides that a >ma7orit' o each House shall constitute a 2uorum to do business.? )s long as ma7orit' o the members o the House o (e"resentatives or the !enate are "resent, these bodies have the 2uorum needed to conduct business and hold session. 4ithin a 2uorum, a vote o ma7orit' is generall' su icient to enact la%s or a""rove acts. In contrast, !ection 1, )rticle 9VII o () =0*4 re2uires a vote o no less than 2B+ o the ,embers o the House o
or revisions o . it is a limitation in e5cess o %hat the #onstitution re2uires on the "assage o bills and is constitutionall' obno5ious because it signi icantl' constricts the uture legislators. /his enlargement violates !ection 1-. room or action and le5ibilit'.rought /ith it? No. @urther. cities and geogra"hic areas %ill be included in the autonomous regions. and "ro"ert' la% 7urisdictionD and. in the %a' that #ongress did in () 101*+.lems that the ad+ustment of elections necessarily . and one mandate should not be given im"ortance over the other e5ce"t %here the "rimac' o one over the other is clear. Does RA 10153 violate the autonomy granted to the AR22? No. voting se"aratel'..(e"resentatives and o the !enate. the ramers o the #onstitution never e2uated autonom' %ith inde"endence..states that a "lebiscite is re2uired onl' or the creation o autonomous regions and or determining %hich "rovinces. /he autonom' granted to the )(. 3iven the constitutional o. regional autonom' %ill be res"ected instead o being sidelined. change or modi ' its governing eatures. %hile autonomous regions are granted "olitical autonom'. this 2B+ voting re2uirement is higher than %hat the #onstitution re2uires or the "assage o bills.+ective of synchronization$ did Congress gravely a. and served to restrain the "lenar' "o%ers o #ongress to amend.. those as"ects s"eci icall' mentioned in the #onstitution %hich #ongress must "rovide or in the Organic )ct < re2uire rati ication through a "lebiscite.. cannot be invo. as a regional entit' thus continues to o"erate %ithin the larger rame%or. /here ore. /he #ourt ound this to be an erroneous a""roach that violates a basic "rinci"le in constitutional construction that the #onstitution is to be inter"reted as a %hole. !ection 1. as the la% does not in an' %a' alter. $etitioners argued that %hile s'nchroni6ation ma' be constitutionall' mandated.iscite apply only to the creation of autonomous regions under paragraph $ Section 10$ Article 1 of the Constitution? 3es. is sub7ect to itD the regional autonom' granted to the )(. cannot be used to e5em"t the region rom having to act in accordance %ith a national "olic' mandated b' no less than the #onstitution. i(e(. )rticle 9 o the #onstitution.. /he' are interests that the #ourt should reconcile and give e ect to. an' change in the date o elections cannot be construed as a substantial amendment o the Organic )ct that %ould re2uire com"liance %ith the "lebiscite re2uirement... the Organic )ct constitutionall'0essential to the creation o autonomous regions < i(e.ed to de eat national "olicies and concerns. /he date o the )(. in order to amend that la%. /he )(. the )(. Does the re*uirement of a ple. 4hile a su"erma7orit' is not a total ban against a re"eal.. /his means that onl' amendments to. it cannot be used to de eat or to im"ede the autonom' that the #onstitution granted to the )(. amil'. #learl'. () =0*4 enlarged the "lebiscite re2uirement in the #onstitution %ith res"ect to the )(. revise or re"eal the la%s it had "assed. elections does not all under an' o the matters that the #onstitution s"eci icall' mandated #ongress to "rovide or in the Organic )ct. e5ce"t in a ver' tem"orar' manner and onl' as necessitated b' the attendant circumstances. $articularl'. save onl' or those s"eci ic areas reserved b' the #onstitution or regional autonomous determination.use its discretion or violate the Constitution /hen it addressed through RA 10153 the concomitant pro. /hese amendments to the Organic )ct are those that relate to& 8a: the basic structure o the regional governmentD 8b: the region. !'nchroni6ation is an interest that is as constitutionall' entrenched as regional autonom'. the s"ecial courts %ith "ersonal. o the !tate and is still sub7ect to the national "olicies set b' the national government. )rticle 9 o the #onstitution. 8c: the grant and e5tent o the legislative "o%ers constitutionall' conceded to the regional government under !ection 20. %hich "rovides the measure to transit to s'nchroni6ed regional elections %ith the least disturbance on the interests that must be res"ected. /he #ourt here .. $hrased in this manner.s 7udicial s'stem. !ince the s'nchroni6ation o elections is not 7ust a regional concern but a national one.. one %ould "resume that there e5ists a con lict bet%een t%o recogni6ed #onstitutional mandates < s'nchroni6ation and regional autonom' < such that it is necessar' to choose one over the other.
neither the A5ecutive nor the Fudiciar' can act to the contrar' b' ordering s"ecial elections instead at the call o the #O.ore "articularl'. #ongress has acted on the )(. %hich can be e5ercised onl' in the case o . until those elected in the s'nchroni6ed elections assume o ice. /he "o%er to i5 the date o elections is essentiall' legislative in nature. . . In the same %a' that the term o elective )(. the' are covered and bound b' the three0'ear term limit "rescribed b' the #onstitutionD #ongress cannot e5tend their term through a la% allo%ing o icials to serve in a holdover ca"acit'. e5ce"t baranga' o icials.. Aven #ongress itsel ma' be denied such "o%er. Eased on the #onstitution. I it %ill be claimed that the holdover "eriod is e ectivel' another term mandated b' #ongress. %hich shall be determined b' la%. ) ter #ongress has so acted. )rticle 9 o the #onstitution. /his o"tion violates !ection -. "articularl'. cannot ma.A1A#.A1A#. is s"eci icall' given to #ongress.ering %ould directl' contravene !ection -. #ongress itsel has madea "olic' decision in the e5ercise o its legislative %isdom that it shall not call s"ecial elections as an ad7ustment measure in s'nchroni6ing the )(. or more. %ith the terms o those elected to e5"ire %hen those elected in the s'nchroni6ed elections assume o iceD or 8+: authori6e the $resident to a""oint o icers in charge. not even #ongress and certainl' not the #ourt.. orless..A1A# has no "o%er to call or the holding o s"ecial elections unless "ursuant to a s"eci ic statutor' grant. to remain in o ice in a hold over ca"acit' until those elected in the s'nchroni6ed elections assume o iceD 82: hold s"ecial elections in the )(. %hich states that the term o o ice o elective local o icials..e this call %ithout thereb' su""lanting the legislative decision and e ectivel' legislating. the net result is or #ongress to create a ne% term and to a""oint the occu"ant or the ne% term. no legal basis e5ists to rule that the ne%l' elected )(. the "o%er to i5 the term o o ice o elective o icials. "he Court has no power to shorten the terms o# elective o##icials! Aven assuming that it is legall' "ermissible or the #ourt to com"el the #O.ansa 4ilang --1. congressional and other local elections.. o icials are local o icials. )rticle 9 o the #onstitution.A1A# to immediatel' conduct s"ecial elections "ursuant to !ection * and C o 4atas 5am. /he #ourt held that in choosing to grant the $resident the "o%er to a""oint OI#s. 2011 < or regional elections s'nchroni6ed %ith the "residential. to act in a %a' that %ould e ectivel' e5tend the term o the incumbents. #ongress chose the correct o"tion and "assed () 101*+ as a valid la%. /he #ourt. o icials elected in the s'nchroni6ed elections shall have assumed o ice. elections b' "ost"oning the scheduled )ugust 2011 elections and setting another date < . in contrast %ith the "o%er o #ongress to call or and to set the date o elections.. as sho%n %hen the #onstitution shortened the terms o t%elve !enators obtaining the least votes in the 1==2 congressional elections. elections %ith the other elections. and e5tended the terms o the $resident and the Vice0$resident in order to s'nchroni6e electionsD #ongress %as not granted this same "o%er. shall be three 'ears and no such o icial shall serve or more than three consecutive terms.. Holdover option is unconstitutional. /he settled rule is that terms i5ed b' the #onstitution cannot be changed b' mere statute. #ongress cannot also create a ne% term and e ectivel' a""oint the occu"ant o the "osition or the ne% term. is limited to en orcing and administering all la%s and regulations relative to the conduct o an election.a' 1+.. /he #ourt is not em"o%ered to ad7ust the terms o elective o icials. /his vie% < li.arangay o icials. COMELEC has no authorit to order special elections! )nother o"tion "ro"osed b' the "etitioner is or this #ourt to com"el #O. E' so doing. as this tin. the constitutional "o%er o #O. o icials shall hold o ice onl' until the )(. @urther.e the e5tension o the elective term < is constitutionall' in irm because #ongress cannot do indirectl' %hat it cannot do directl'. /his is e ectivel' an act o a""ointment b' #ongress and an unconstitutional intrusion into the constitutional a""ointment "o%er o the $resident.A1A# to hold s"ecial elections.. than the constitutionall' mandated three 'ears. i(e(. !ince elective )(.. #O. "ursuant to !ection + o () 101*+.identi ied the ollo%ing o"tions o"en to #ongress in order to resolve the "roblems& 81: allo% the elective o icials in the )(. has the authorit' to i5 the terms o elective local o icials in the )(.
.. s'nchroni6ation %ill tem"oraril' disru"t the election "rocess in a local communit'..o icials cannot be e5tended through a holdover. save onl' or the interim and tem"orar' measures that s'nchroni6ation o elections re2uires.s authorit' to a""oint OI#s emanates rom () 101*+.ers of the Regional 9egislative Assem.? @or then. Vie%ed rom another "ers"ective. () 101*+. Eut this conclusion %ould not be true under the ver' limited circumstances contem"lated in () 101*+ %here the "eriod is i5ed and. the "eo"le. /his is the grant that %ould rontall' breach the >elective and re"resentative? governance re2uirement o !ection 1-. and the limitations on or 2uali ications to the e5ercise o this "o%er should be strictl' construedD these limitations or 2uali ications must be clearl' stated in order to be recogni6ed. the assailed la% rests on clear constitutional basis.s right to choose the leaders to govern them ma' be said to be s'stemicall' %ithdra%n to the "oint o ostering an undemocratic regime. ho%ever. /his is %hat %ill ha""en < a term o less than t%o 'ears < i a call or s"ecial elections shall "revail. does not in an' %a' amend %hat the organic la% o the )(. the grant o the "o%er to the $resident under other situations or %here the "o%er o a""ointment %ould e5tend be'ond the ad7ustment "eriod or s'nchroni6ation %ould be to oster a government that is not >democratic and re"ublican. is the choice o the $resident.a' 201+ elections. and as allo%ed under !ection 1C. "ositions. but this %ill ta. )rticle VII o the #onstitution.. too. Eut the #ourt said this alleged constitutional "roblem is more a""arent than real and becomes ver' real onl' i () 101*+ %ere to be mista. !ince the $resident. I at all. o icials.ly /ho shall perform the functions pertaining to the said offices until the officials duly elected in the 2ay 013 elections shall have *ualified and assumed office(: /his "o%er is ar di erent rom a""ointing elective )(. 4hat () 101*+ in act onl' does is to 7appoint officers8in8charge for the 6ffice of the Regional 3overnor$ Regional %ice 3overnor and 2em. it alls under this grou" o o icials that the $resident can a""oint "ursuant to !ection 1C..e "lace under a situation o necessit' and as an interim measure in the manner that interim measures have been ado"ted and used in the creation o local government units and the ad7ustments o sub0"rovinces to the status o "rovinces. the term cannot be shortened b' "utting an e5"iration date earlier than the three 'ears that the #onstitution itsel commands. /he a""ointing "o%er is embodied in !ection 1C.. sets outs in terms o structure o governance. more im"ortant.s "o%er to a""oint < or a i5ed and s"eci ic "eriod as an interim measure. %ith ull e ect in accordance %ith the #onstitution. )rticle 9 o the #onstitution. Does the grant to the 5resident of the po/er to appoint 6&Cs in AR22 violate the Constitution? No. () =0*4 %ill govern unchanged and continuousl'.enl' read as a la% that changes the elective and re"resentative character o )(. Given the "lain unconstitutionalit' o "roviding or a holdover and the unavailabilit' o constitutional "ossibilities or lengthening or shortening the term o the elected )(. are used in light o the %ider national demand or the s'nchroni6ation o elections . )rticle VII o the #onstitution < an unconstitutional or unreasonable choice or #ongress to ma. /hus. /hese measures. %hich "ertinentl' states that the $resident shall a""oint all other o icers o the government %hose %hom the $resident ma' be authori6ed b' la% to a""oint. the terms o governance < both under !ection 1-. o icials or the abbreviated term ending on the assum"tion to o ice o the o icials elected in the . the gravest challenge "osed b' the "etitions to the authorit' to a""oint OI#s under !ection + o () 101*+ is the assertion that the #onstitution re2uires that the )(. as %ell as the communit'. e5ecutive and legislative o icials be >elective and re"resentative o the constituent "olitical units. )rticle VII o the #onstitution.s choice o leaders.eG )dmittedl'.? /his re2uirement indeed is an e5"ress limitation %hose non0observance in the assailed la% leaves the a""ointment o OI#s constitutionall' de ective. )rticle 9 o the #onstitution and () =0*4 < %ill not s'stemicall' be touched nor a ected at all.. the )(. /he "o%er to a""oint is essentiall' e5ecutive in nature.
the "rosecution merel' ma. the "o%er to establish 6ones or industrial. /herea ter. /he ado"tion o these measures. /he Ombudsman has the "o%er to grant immunit' b' itsel and even "rior to the iling o in ormation in court. Eased on the oregoing.s uni2ue "o%er to grant immunit' b' itsel and even "rior to the iling o in ormation in court. the' must be included irst in the in ormation iled %ith the court. concrete terms in the )""ointment o OI#. !ection 1I. a "o%er that the "ublic "rosecutor himsel generall' does not en7o'. the Ombudsman is engaged in >selective "rosecution? %hich is a clear case o grave abuse o discretion.udsman Simeon 2arcelo$ et al($ 3(R( @o( 1!. () No.s to address concerns arising rom the a""ointments b' "roviding. In this case.( 6cto. CII0 clari ies that in cases alread' iled %ith the courts. it is in the s"eci icit' o and the higher "riorit' given b' la% to the Ombudsman.C 1=3(R( @o( 1. it is clear that the "rimar' ob7ectives o the cit' council o Hue6on #it' %hen it issued the 2uestioned ordinance ordering the construction o arcades %ere the health and sa et' o the cit' and its inhabitantsD the "romotion o their "ros"erit'D and the im"rovement o their morals. "olice "o%er b' virtue o !ection 128oo: o (e"ublic )ct No.er 5$ 011( $olice "o%erD 6oning. @urthermore.e >into account the "ertinent "rovisions o the (ules o #ourt.? < i. =3(R( @o( 1.0. /he !u"reme #ourt held "etitioner. good order. #ongress e5"ressl' granted the cit' government. the >re"resentative? character o the chosen leaders need not necessaril' be a ected b' the a""ointment o OI#s as this re2uirement is reall' a unction o the a""ointment "rocessD onl' the >elective? as"ect shall be su""lanted b' the a""ointment o OI#s. %here one o the essential tests is the reasonableness o the interim measure ta. in other %ords.as <ida$ etc($ et al( vs( Senate of the 5hilippines$ etc($ et al(=4asari D( 2apupuno vs( Si>to 4rillantes$ etc($ et al(=Rep( ?dcel C( 9agman vs( 5a*uito @( 6choa$ Ar($ etc($ et al(=Almarin Centi 'illah$ et al( vs( 'he Commission on ?lections$ etc($ et al(=Atty( Romulo 4( 2acalintal vs( Commission on ?lections$ et al(=9uis 74aroB: 4iraogo vs( 'he Commission on ?lections$ et al(=Aacinto %( 5aras vs( ?>ecutive Secretary$ et al($ 3(R( @o( 1. /hus. the inter erence must be reasonable and not arbitrar'.e. 4 and * o the assailed la%.. In this regard. through the cit' council.en in light o the given circumstances. /his accounts or the Ombudsman.! C1=3(R( @o( 1. "eace. /hese arcades "rovide sa e and convenient "assage along the side%al.8vis the regional interests involved:.8considered vis8.C-5-( 6cto. there %as no grave abuse o discretion in this case. I there is an' distinction at all bet%een the "ublic "rosecutor and the Ombudsman in this endeavor.anner and $rocedure o )""ointing OI#s. under !ections +. commercial and residential uses is derived rom the "olice "o%er itsel and is e5ercised or the "rotection and bene it o the residents o a localit'. In this case. the court or their discharge so that the' can be used as state %itnesses under the conditions laid do%n in !ection 1I. ?rdito Duarto vs( 'he Eon( 6m. and the convenience. la% ul businesses and occu"ations to "romote the general %el are.ore . "ro"ert'. He claims that be ore the Ombudsman ma' avail o the res"ondents as state %itnesses. (ule 11= o the (ules o #ourt.es a "ro"osal and initiates the "rocess o granting immunit' to an accused0%itness in order to use him as a %itness against his co0 accused. /he rule under () No. or commuters and "edestrians. *+I. (ule 11= o the (ules o #ourt. com ort.s "ur"ose and ob7ective.s claim to be erroneous. CII0 ull' recogni6es this "rosecutor' "rerogative b' em"o%ering the Ombudsman to grant immunit'. or the (evised #harter o Hue6on #it'.C 0 =3(R( @o( 1. the Ombudsman can as. 7uris"rudence has recogni6ed that the government ma' enact legislation that ma' inter ere %ith "ersonal libert'. "etitioner argues that b' e5cluding the res"ondents in the in ormation.!305=3(R( @o( 1. is no di erent rom the e5ercise b' #ongress o the inherent "olice "o%er o the !tate.C 00=3(R( @o( 1. sub7ect to >such terms and conditions? as he ma' determine. Ho%ever.er 10$ 011. . OmbudsmanD "o%er to grant immunit'. not 7ust the residents o Hue6on #it'. and their Huali ications. /he onl' te5tual limitation im"osed b' la% on this authorit' is the need to ta. () 101*+ signi icantl' see.C3. Datu 2ichael A. 4ith regard to the "o%er o local government units to issue 6oning ordinances. the .
/he search %ill be "ermissible in its sco"e %hen the measures ado"ted are reasonabl' related to the ob7ectives o the search and not e5cessivel' intrusive in light o the nature o the misconduct.0related "ur"ose. Aven assuming that "etitioner had at least a sub7ective e5"ectation o "rivac' in his com"uter as he claims. control. in a business 6one along AD!). should be 7udged b' the standard o reasonableness under all the circumstances.er 11$ 011( (ight to "rivac'D unreasonable search and sei6ure. In the case o searches conducted b' a "ublic em"lo'er.0related misconduct. both the ince"tion and the sco"e o the intrusion must be reasonable.s o ice b' a su"ervisor %ill be >7usti ied at its ince"tion? %hen there are reasonable grounds or sus"ecting that the search %ill turn u" evidence that the em"lo'ee is guilt' o %or. $etitioner ailed to "rove that he had an actual 8sub7ective: e5"ectation o "rivac' either in his o ice or government0issued com"uter %hich contained his "ersonal iles. as %ell as or investigations o %or. #onse2uentl'.es"eciall' so because the contested "ortion o the building is located on a bus' segment o the cit'. ) "ublic em"lo'er. actions to maintain his "rivac' in the item.s relationshi" to the item sei6edD 82: %hether the item %as in the immediate control o the em"lo'ee %hen it %as sei6edD and 8+: %hether the em"lo'ee too. On the contrar'. /he #ourt ans%ered the irst issue in the negative. reasonable in its ince"tion and sco"eG Here.s need or su"ervision. that a "erson has e5hibited an actual 8sub7ective: e5"ectation o "rivac'D and second. a search o an em"lo'ee. that the e5"ectation be one that societ' is "re"ared to recogni6e as reasonable 8ob7ective:. is not a "rohibition o all searches and sei6ures but onl' o unreasonable searches and sei6ures. $etitioner 2uestions the legalit' o the search conducted on his o ice com"uter and the co"'ing o his "ersonal iles %ithout his . Neither did he allege that he used "ass%ords or ado"ted an' means to "revent other em"lo'ees rom accessing his com"uter iles.s com"uter. /his "roceeds rom the "rinci"le that the constitutional guarantee under !ection 2.33( 6cto. the #ourt then addressed the ollo%ing issues& 81: Did "etitioner have a reasonable e5"ectation o "rivac' in his o ice and com"uter ilesGD and 82: 4as the search authori6ed b' the res"ondent #ivil !ervice #ommission #hair. ?milio 3ancayco vs( Cito 3overnment of Duezon City and 2etro 2anila Development Authority=2etro 2anila Development Authority vs( Austice ?milio A( 3ancayco "Retired#$ 3(R( @o( 1CC00C=3(R( @o( 1CC.0related misconduct. or that the search is necessar' or a non0investigator' %or. he normall' %ould have visitors in his o ice. or that his o ice %as al%a's loc. the court needs to balance the invasion o the em"lo'ees. the same is negated b' the "resence o "olic' regulating the use o o ice com"uters( /he #!# had im"lemented a "olic' that "uts its . legitimate e5"ectations o "rivac' against the government. he submits that being in the "ublic assistance o ice o the #!#."lace.0related "ur"oses. /he right to "rivac' is a acet o the right "rotected b' the guarantee against unreasonable search and sei6ure under !ection 2. the co"'ing o the contents o the hard drive on "etitioner.no%ledge and consent. )rticle III o the 1=-I #onstitution. /his case involves a search o o ice com"uter assigned to a government em"lo'ee %ho %as charged administrativel' and eventuall' dismissed rom the service. the #ourt noted that the e5istence o "rivac' right involves a t%o0 old re2uirement& irst. )""l'ing the above standards and "rinci"les. %or. )rticle III. the relevant surrounding circumstances to consider include& 81: the em"lo'ee.s intrusions on the constitutionall' "rotected "rivac' interests o government em"lo'ees or non0investigator'. /he em"lo'ee. the enactment o the ordinance in this case is %ithin the "o%er o the Sangguniang 5anlungsod o Hue6on #it' and an' resulting burden on those a ected cannot be said to be un7ust. (el'ing on J! 7uris"rudence. $etitioner did not allege that he had a se"arate enclosed o ice %hich he did not share %ith an'one. He said this search violated his constitutional right to "rivac'.ed and not o"en to other em"lo'ees or visitors. the ne5t in2uir' is %hether the search alleged to have violated such right %as reasonable. and the e icient o"eration o the %or. Jnder this reasonableness standard. Ordinaril'. Once the right is established.s "ersonal iles stored in the com"uter %ere used b' the government em"lo'er as evidence o misconduct.
s "art to deliberatel' de ' the "olic' o the G!I!. %hile the "etitioner did not "artici"ate in the )ugust 1I. 4riccio 7RicBy: A( 5ollo vs( Chairperson <arina Constantino8David$ et al($ 3(R( @o( 101001( 6cto. the !u"reme #ourt did not see the t'"e o o"en de iance and disregard o G!I! rules that the #!# observed. the "etitioner irst sought the a""roval o his immediate su"ervisor be ore acting on the loan a""lications. there %as a customar' lenient "ractice in the a""roval o loans e5ercised b' some branch managers not%ithstanding the e5isting G!I! "olic'D and third.s subse2uent motion or reconsideration %hich cured %hatever de ect the Hearing O icer might have committed in the course o hearing the "etitioner. Ho%ever. 2onico <( &mperial$ Ar( vs( 3overnment Service &nsurance System$ 3(R( @o( 1. Jnder the circumstances o this case. the !u"reme #ourt did not characteri6e the o ense committed as grave. %hat negates an' due "rocess in irmit' is the "etitioner. $dministrative Law )dministrative agenciesD due "rocess. 200C "re0hearing con erence 8des"ite recei"t on )ugust 14.. 1*+0==.s actions "rior to the a""roval o the loans negate the "resence o an' intent on the "etitioner. the #ourt ans%ered in the a irmative. ) ormal or trial0t'"e hearing is not al%a's necessar'.? >clear intent to violate the la%? or > lagrant disregard o established rule? that must be "resent to characteri6e the misconduct as grave.s com"uter iles %as conducted in connection %ith an investigation o %or. Garcia dul' considered the arguments "resented in the "etitioner. /his im"lies that on0the0 s"ot ins"ections ma' be done to ensure that com"uter resources %ere used onl' or legitimate business "ur"oses.s case and submit su""orting evidence. Jnder this "olic'. No substantial evidence %as adduced to su""ort the elements o >corru"tion. $rocedural due "rocess is the constitutional standard demanding that notice and an o""ortunit' to be heard be given be ore 7udgment is rendered. the his liabilit' under the given acts %as ound to constitute as sim"le misconduct onl'.1 -( 6cto. )gain. )s long as a "art' is given the o""ortunit' to de end his interests in due course. send or receive on the o ice com"uters.1 -( 6cto. 200I dul' considered and discussed the de enses raised in the "leadings iled b' "etitioner. right to a hearing.s indings on the "etitioner. @urthermore.s counsel. 200C order: conducted b' the G!I!. store. 4hile great res"ect is accorded to the actual indings o administrative agencies.s decision o @ebruar' 21. "etitioner %as ound to have committed the acts com"lained o . i(e.0related misconduct. Due "rocess in administrative "roceedings re2uires com"liance %ith the ollo%ing cardinal "rinci"les& 81: the res"ondents. the "etitioner %as actuall' heard through his "leadings. must be observedD 82: the tribunal must consider the evidence "resentedD 8+: the decision . /hese circumstances run counter to the characteristic lagrant disregard o the rules that grave misconduct re2uires.s case. @irst.s motion or reconsideration %hen he rendered the Fune C.er -$ 011( )dministrative agenciesD indings o acts.ed the necessar' contribution re2uirements under $$G No. the #!# and the #) that the "etitioner.er -$ 011( )dministrative "roceedingsD due "rocess. 2onico <( &mperial$ Ar( vs( 3overnment Service &nsurance System$ 3(R( @o( 1. the #ourt held that the search conducted on "etitioner. %hich includes the right to "resent one. the #!# ma' monitor the use o the com"uter resources using both automated or human means.anager 4inston Garcia. /hus. In this case. the !u"reme #ourt disagreed %ith the indings o the G!I!.s acts constituted grave misconduct. he a""roved the re2uests or salar' loans o eight G!I! Naga @ield O ice em"lo'ees %ho lac. 200C o a a5 co"' o the )ugust 11. On the second issue. /hus. 200I resolution. Jnder the acts obtaining. G!I! branch managers have been granted in the "ast the authorit' to a""rove loan a""lications be'ond the "rescribed re2uirements o G!I!D second. G!I! $resident and General . the #!#. In act.s com"uter %as 7usti ied at its ince"tion and in sco"e. In this case. he %ould have no reason to com"lainD the essence o due "rocess is in the o""ortunit' to be heard. /he search o "etitioner.em"lo'ees on notice that the' have no e5"ectation o "rivac' in an'thing the' create.er 10$ 011.
s decision that ound him guilt' o grave misconduct.otion to !et the #ase or $reliminar' #on erence did not cure the violation o his right to due "rocess in this case.? #onse2uentl'. the de inition and coverage "rovided b' the earlier enacted $D 4*4 %ere deemed ado"ted b' the later decree. (e'es iled the said motion "recisel' to raise the issue o the violation o his right to due "rocess. $etitioner argues that !ection . $etitioner D$4H argues that the contracts %ith res"ondents %ere void or not com"l'ing %ith !ections -* and -C o $residential Decree 144*. Department of 5u. . 2001 on the basis o evidence that %ere not disclosed to (e'es. ho%ever. In this case. the tribunal must have acted on its o%n consideration o the la% and the acts o the controvers' and must not have sim"l' acce"ted the vie%s o a subordinateD and 8I: the decision must be rendered in such manner that res"ondents %ould .t. or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the "arties a ectedD 8C: in arriving at a decision. construction com"anies. "roo o increase in uel or cement "rice during the contract "eriod is enough to 7usti ' a claim or "rice escalation based on such increase. there %as an a""ro"riation amounting to $h"400 million. $etitioner stresses that res"ondent ailed to sho% the e5istence o these conditions.no% the reasons or it and the various issues involved.er 1. but based on a void contract.lic ForBs and Eigh/ays vs( Ronald ?( Dui/a$ doing under the name 7R(?(D( Construction$: et al($ 3(R( @o( 103---( 6cto. )s it %ere. /hus. /he act that (e'es %as able to assail the adverse decision o the "etitioner via a . "rovides 8in relation to ad7ustment o contract "rice or "ublic %or. $D 4*4.udsman vs( Antonio '( Reyes$ 3(R( @o( 1C051 ( 6cto. In the "resent case. /hese sections re2uire an a""ro"riation or the contracts and a certi ication b' the chie accountant o the agenc' or b' the head o its accounting unit as to the availabilit' o unds. /he contractor does not need to "rove that the increase in construction cost %as due to the direct acts o the government. In s"ite o the lac. o certi ication. /he contract in this case %as not illegal "er se. 5hilippine ?conomic zone Authority vs( 3reen Asia Construction G Development Corporation$ etc($ 3(R( @o( 1000!!( 6cto. 6ffice of the 6m. as amended b' A5ecutive Order No. "etitioner rendered its Decision dated !e"tember 24. /he issue here is %hether $residential Decree 1*=4 re2uires the contractor to "rove that the "rice increase o construction materials %as due to the direct acts o the government be ore a "rice escalation is granted in a construction contract. %hich %ere eventuall' made the bases o "etitioner. cannot be avoided. o a""ro"riation.er 5$ 011( Government contractD lac.$ 011.otion or (econsideration #um .s "ro7ects: that >increase o "rices o gasoline and other uel oils and o cement shall be considered direct acts o the Government. /hus.er 1 $ 011( Government construction contractsD "rice escalation. %hich %as enacted "rior to $D 1*=4. %hen $D 1*=4 re"roduced the "hrase >direct acts o the government? %ithout su""l'ing a contrar' or di erent de inition. /he unding %as or the rehabilitation o the areas devastated and a ected b' the eru"tion o .o $D 1*=4 re2uires the ollo%ing conditions be ore an ad7ustment o the contract "rice ma' be made& 8i: there %as an increase or a decrease in the cost o labor. undis"uted that there %as no certi ication rom the chie accountant o D$4H regarding the availabilit' o unds or the dis"uted e5"enditure.s %ere rendered b' res"ondents. %hich %as increased to $h"I00 million. the !u"reme #ourt held that 7uris"rudence has consistentl' recogni6ed the rule that "a'ment or services done on account o the government. ho%ever. /he #ourt disagreed. materials and su""lies or constructionD and 8ii: the increase or decrease is due to the direct acts o the government. e2ui"ment. %hich included the !acobia0Eamban0$arua (iver or %hich some o the channeling. it cannot be said that (e'es had a air o""ortunit' to s2uarel' and intelligentl' ans%er the accusations therein or to o er an' rebuttal evidence thereto. (e'es %as not "ro"erl' a""rised o the evidence o ered against him. $inatubo. desilting and di.must have some basis to su""ort itsel D 84: there must be substantial evidenceD 8*: the decision must be rendered on the evidence "resented at the hearing. It %as. or the Government )uditing #ode o the $hili""ines.ing %or. the i th re2uirement %as not com"lied %ith. 2=2.
A1A# should have considered the merits o the said motion in light o "etitioner.s motion or reconsideration.s and High%a's. or both. )dditionall'.s motion or reconsideration %as not veri ied..D) (esolution No. Instead. It is the denial o this o""ortunit' that constitutes violation o due "rocess o la%... /he act that someone else alsi ied the certi icate %ill not e5cuse him or . the acts and circumstances surrounding "etitioner. /he ordinance itsel clearl' states that it is the regular courts that %ill determine %hether there %as a violation o the ordinance.s intention not rom his o%n "rotestation o good aith.ing into consideration the violation o his right to "rocedural due "rocess. 2=04 itsel does not include the demolition o illegall' constructed buildings in case o violations. it is em"o%ered to demolish Fustice Ganca'co. good aith is actuall' a 2uestion o intention. the #O.. it necessaril' had no authorit' to carr' out the demolition. not%ithstanding the act that "etitioner. !ince there %as no evidence that the .33( 6cto. one can ascertain a "erson. It urther alleges that it demolished the "ro"ert' "ursuant to the Euilding #ode in relation to Ordinance No. /hese circumstances reveal "etitioner. 2=04. as de ined b' its mandate to "rotect the integrit' o elections. /he essence o due "rocess is to be a orded a reasonable o""ortunit' to be heard and to submit an' evidence in su""ort o one. Eesides.s "ro"ert'.D) had been delegated b' the D$4H to im"lement the Euilding #ode. .D) alleges that b' virtue o . Good aith is ordinaril' used to describe that state o mind denoting honest' o intention and reedom rom . /hus.er -$ 011. the !u"reme #ourt held that the "o%er to en orce the "rovisions o the Euilding #ode %as lodged in the De"artment o $ublic 4or. as amended. Public O##icers $ublic o icersD dishonest'. Cesar S( Dumduma vs( Civil Service Commission$ 3(R( @o( 10 !0!( 6cto. the #O.D)D "o%er to demolish.s . In other %ords. the #O. but rom evidence o his conduct and out%ard acts.er -$ 011. the "enalt' "rescribed b' Ordinance No. because it cannot be denied that he %as not a orded reasonable notice and time to ade2uatel' "re"are or and submit his brie .. %ithout ta. Hence.eted b' "rocedural rules in resolving election dis"utes.s #erti icate o Aligibilit' is beside the "oint. In this case. b' den'ing "etitioner. it merel' "rescribes a "unishment o a ine or b' im"risonment.? Here. /he act that "etitioner someho% ac2uired . 0202-. at the discretion o the court. He made a deal %ith a retired #!# o icial and acce"ted the #erti icate o Aligibilit' rom the latter.. In e5ercising its "o%ers and 7urisdiction. /his is "recisel' the reason %h' "etitioner %as onl' able to ile his $reliminar' #on erence Erie on the da' o the con erence itsel . )lthough this is something internal.-1-3( 6cto. .A1A# >must not be strait7ac.no%ledge or in ormation o the date set or the "reliminar' con erence b' means other than the o icial notice sent b' the #O. Salvador D( %iolago$ Sr( vs( Commission on ?lections and Aoan %( Alarilla$ 3(R( @o( 1.s meritorious claim that he %as not given timel' notice o the date set or the "reliminar' con erence.s re"resentative. Ho%ever.A1A# is not an e5cuse to dismiss his "rotest. the !u"reme #ourt held that that the #) did not err in a irming the "enalt' o dismissal and all its accessor' "enalties im"osed b' the #!#.no%ledge that the #!# o icial could have "ulled strings in order to obtain his #erti icate o Aligibilit' and have it delivered to his residence.s claim or de ense. %hether some #!# "ersonnel should be held administrativel' liable or alsi 'ing "etitioner.A1A# also guilt' o grave abuse o discretion.D). $rocedural due "rocess demands "rior notice and hearing. %hich is sel 0serving.no%ledge o circumstances %hich ought to "ut the holder u"on in2uir'.s ac2uisition o the #erti icate o Aligibilit' cast serious doubts on his good aith.no%ingl' using the same or his career advancement. not in .er 11$ 011( Election Law Alection "rotestD ailure to ile "reliminar' con erence brie . !eries o 2002. ?milio 3ancayco vs( Cito 3overnment of Duezon City and 2etro 2anila Development Authority=2etro 2anila Development Authority vs( Austice ?milio A( 3ancayco "Retired#$ 3(R( @o( 1CC00C=3(R( @o( 1CC.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.