1.

 Coquilla  vs.  COMELEC    

Posted  on  October  3,  2012   The   term   “residence”   is   to   be   understood   not   in  
G.R.  No.  151914;  385  SCRA  607   its   common   acceptation   as   referring   to  
September  17,  2002   “dwelling”   or   “habitation,”   but   rather   to  
  “domicile”   or   legal   residence,   that   is,   “the   place  
Facts:   where   a   party   actually   or   constructively   has   his  
Petitioner   Coquilla   was   born   of   Filipino   parents   permanent  home,  where  he,  no  matter  where  he  
in   Oras,   Eastern   Samar,   where   he   grew   up   and   may   be   found   at   any   given   time,   eventually  
resided.   intends  to  return  and  remain  (animus  manendi).  
  A  domicile  of  origin  is  acquired  by  every  person  
In  1965,  he  joined  the  US  Navy  and  subsequently   at   birth.   It   is   usually   the   place   where   the   child’s  
naturalized  as  a  US  citizen.   parents   reside   and   continues   until   the   same   is  
  abandoned   by   acquisition   of   a   new   domicile  
On   October   15,   1998,   petitioner   came   to   the   (domicile  of  choice).  
Philippines   and   took   out   a   residence   certificate,    
albeit  continued  making  several  trips  to  the  US.   In  the  case  at  bar,  petitioner  lost  his  domicile  of  
  origin   in   Oras   by   becoming   a   US   citizen   after  
On   November   10,   2000,   he   took   his   oath   as   a   enlisting   in   the   US   Navy   in   1965.   From   then   on  
citizen   of   the   Philippines   subsequently   after   his   and   until   November   10,   2000,   when   he  
application  for  repatriation  was  approved.   reacquired   Philippine   citizenship,   he   was   an  
  alien.  
On   November   21,   2000,   he   applied   for    
registration  as  a  voter  of  Butunga,  Oras,  Eastern   2.  DELA  TORRE  V.  COMELEC  (G.R.  No.  121592;  
Samar.   July  5,  1996)  
   
On   February   27,   2001,   he   filed   his   COC   stating   FACTS:  
therein   that   he   has   been   a   resident   of   Oras,   Petitioner   Rolando   dela   Torre   was   disqualified  
Eastern  Samar  for  2  years.   from  running  as  mayor  of  Cavinti  Laguna  on  the  
  ground   that   he   was   convicted   of   violation   the  
On  March  5,  2001,  respondent  incumbent  mayor   Anti-­‐Fencing  Law.  
of   Oras   who   was   running   for   re-­‐election,   sought    
the   cancellation   of   petitioner’s   COC   on   the   He   argues   that   he   should   not   be   disqualified  
ground   that   the   latter   had   resided   in   Oras   for   because   he   is   serving   probation   of   his   sentence  
only  about  6  months  since  when  he  took  his  oath   and   hence,   the   execution   of   his   judgment   was  
as  a  citizen  of  the  Philippines.   suspended   together   with   all   its   legal  
  consequences.  
On  May  14,  2001,  petitioner  garnered  the  highest    
number   of   votes   and   was   subsequently   ISSUE:  
proclaimed  mayor  of  Oras.   WON  Dela  Torre  is  disqualified  to  run  for  public  
  office.  
Issue:    
WON   petitioner   satisfied   the   residency   HELD:  
requirement  for  the  position  of  mayor.   Sec.40  of  LGC  provides:  
  Disqualifications.  
Held:   The   following   persons   are   disqualified   from  
No.   Par.   39,   Chapter   1,   Title   2   of   the   Local   running  for  any  elective  local  position:  
Government   Code   (RA   7160)   provides   that   an   (a)          Those  sentenced  by  final  judgment  for  an  
elective   official   must   be   a   “…resident   therein   offense   involving   moral   turpitude   or   for   an  
(barangay,   municipality,   city   or   province)   for   at   offense   punishable   by   one   (1)   year   or   more   of  
least   1   year   immediately   preceeding   the   day   of   imprisonment  within  two  (2)  years  after  serving  
the  election…”   sentence;  
   The  Commission  on  Elections  declared  Manzano  
Moral   turopitude   is   considered   as   an   act   of   disqualified   as   candidate   for   said   elective  
baseness,   vileness,   or   depravity   in   the   private   position.  
duties   which   a   man   owes   his   fellow   men,   or   to    
society   in   general,   contrary   to   the   accepted   and   However,   in   a   subsequent   resolution   of   the  
customary   rule   of   right   and   duty   between   man   COMELEC   en   banc,   the   disqualification   of   the  
and   woman   or   conduct   contrary   to   justice,   respondent   was   reversed.   Respondent   was   held  
honesty,  modesty,  or  good  morals.   to   have   renounced   his   US   citizenship   when   he  
  attained   the   age   of   majority   and   registered  
In   this   case   of   fencing,   actual   knowledge   by   the   himself  as  a  voter  in  the  elections  of  1992,  1995  
"fence"   of   the   fact   that   property   received   is   and  1998.  
stolen   displays   the   same   degree   of   malicious    
deprivation   of   one's   rightful   property   as   that   Manzano  was  eventually  proclaimed  as  the  Vice-­‐
which   animated   the   robbery   or   theft   which,   by   Mayor  of  Makati  City  on  August  31,  1998.  
their  very  nature,  are  crimes  of  moral  turpitude.    
Hence   Dela   Torre   is   disqualified   from   seeking   Thus  the  present  petition.  
public  office.    
   
With   regard   to   his   argument   that   he   is   under   ISSUE:  
probation,  the  court  ruled  that  the  legal  effect  of    
probation   is   only   to   suspend   the   execution   of   the   Whether   or   not   a   dual   citizen   is   disqualified   to  
sentence.   hold  public  elective  office  in  the  philippines.  
   
Dela   Torre's   conviction   subsists   and   remains    
totally   unaffected   notwithstanding   the   grant   of   RULING:  
probation.   In   fact,   a   judgment   of   conviction   in   a    
criminal  case  ipso  facto  attains  finality  when  the   The   court   ruled   that   the   phrase   "dual  
accused   applies   for   probation,   although   it   is   not   citizenship"   in   R.A.   7160   Sec.   40   (d)   and   R.A.  
executory   pending   resolution   of   the   application   7854  Sec.  20  must  be  understood  as  referring  to  
for  probation   dual   allegiance.   Dual   citizenship   is   different   from  
  dual   allegiance.   The   former   arises   when,   as   a  
3.   Mercado   v.   Manzano   Case   Digest   [G.R.   No.   result   of   the   application   of   the   different   laws   of  
135083.  May  26,  1999]   two   or   more   states,   a   person   is   simultaneously  
FACTS:   considered   a   national   by   the   said   states.   Dual  
  allegiance  on  the  other  hand,  refers  to  a  situation  
Petitioner   Ernesto   Mercado   and   Eduardo   in   which   a   person   simultaneously   owes,   by   some  
Manzano  were  both  candidates  for  Vice-­‐Mayor  of   positive  act,  loyalty  to  two  or  more  states.  While  
Makati  in  the  May  11,  1998  elections.   dual  citizenship  is  involuntary,  dual  allegiance  is  
  a  result  of  an  individual's  volition.  Article  IV  Sec.  
Based   on   the   results   of   the   election,   Manzano   5  of  the  Constitution  provides  "Dual  allegiance  of  
garnered  the  highest  number  of  votes.  However,   citizens   is   inimical   to   the   national   interest   and  
his   proclamation   was   suspended   due   to   the   shall  be  dealt  with  by  law."  
pending   petition   for   disqualification   filed   by    
Ernesto  Mercado  on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  a   Consequently,   persons   with   mere   dual  
citizen  of  the  Philippines  but  of  the  United  States.   citizenship   do   not   fall   under   this   disqualification.  
  Unlike   those   with   dual   allegiance,   who   must,  
From   the   facts   presented,   it   appears   that   therefore,   be   subject   to   strict   process   with  
Manzano  is  both  a  Filipino  and  a  US  citizen.   respect   to   the   termination   of   their   status,   for  
  candidates  with  dual  citizenship,  it  should  suffice  
if,   upon   the   filing   of   their   certificates   of  
candidacy,   they   elect   Philippine   citizenship   to  
terminate   their   status   as   persons   with   dual   elections   in   this   country,   leaves   no   doubt   of   his  
citizenship  considering  that  their  condition  is  the   election  of  Philippine  citizenship.  
unavoidable   consequence   of   conflicting   laws   of    
different  states.   His   declarations   will   be   taken   upon   the   faith   that  
  he   will   fulfill   his   undertaking   made   under   oath.  
By   electing   Philippine   citizenship,   such   Should   he   betray   that   trust,   there   are   enough  
candidates  at  the  same  time  forswear  allegiance   sanctions  for  declaring  the  loss  of  his  Philippine  
to   the   other   country   of   which   they   are   also   citizenship   through   expatriation   in   appropriate  
citizens   and   thereby   terminate   their   status   as   proceedings.     In   Yu   v.   Defensor-­‐Santiago,   the  
dual   citizens.     It   may   be   that,   from   the   point   of   court   sustained   the   denial   of   entry   into   the  
view  of  the  foreign  state  and  of  its  laws,  such  an   country   of   petitioner   on   the   ground   that,   after  
individual   has   not   effectively   renounced   his   taking   his   oath   as   a   naturalized   citizen,   he  
foreign  citizenship.    That  is  of  no  moment.   applied   for   the   renewal   of   his   Portuguese  
  passport  and  declared  in  commercial  documents  
When   a   person   applying   for   citizenship   by   executed   abroad   that   he   was   a   Portuguese  
naturalization   takes   an   oath   that   he   renounces   national.     A   similar   sanction   can   be   taken   against  
his   loyalty   to   any   other   country   or   government   any   one   who,   in   electing   Philippine   citizenship,  
and   solemnly   declares   that   he   owes   his   renounces   his   foreign   nationality,   but  
allegiance  to  the  Republic  of  the  Philippines,  the   subsequently   does   some   act   constituting  
condition   imposed   by   law   is   satisfied   and   renunciation  of  his  Philippine  citizenship.  
complied   with.     The   determination   whether   such    
renunciation   is   valid   or   fully   complies   with   the   The  petition  for  certiorari  is  DISMISSED  for  lack  
provisions   of   our   Naturalization   Law   lies   within   of  merit.  
the   province   and   is   an   exclusive   prerogative   of    
our  courts.    The  latter  should  apply  the  law  duly   4.  Rodriguez  vs  COMELEC  [259  SCRA  236]  
enacted   by   the   legislative   department   of   the   Facts:      
Republic.    No  foreign  law  may  or  should  interfere    
with  its  operation  and  application.   In   1992,   petitioner   Rodriguez   and   respondent  
  Marquez   ran   for   Governor   of   Quezon   Province.  
The   court   ruled   that   the   filing   of   certificate   of   Rodriguez   won.   Marquez   challenged   Rodriguez’  
candidacy  of  respondent  sufficed  to  renounce  his   victory   via   a   Quo   Warranto   on   the   ground   that  
American   citizenship,   effectively   removing   any   there  is  a  charge  pending  against  him  at  the  Los  
disqualification   he   might   have   as   a   dual   citizen.   Angeles   Municipal   Court   for   fraudulent  
By   declaring   in   his   certificate   of   candidacy   that   insurance   claims,   grand   theft,   etc.   Thus,   he   is   a  
he  is  a  Filipino  citizen;  that  he  is  not  a  permanent   fugitive  from  justice.  
resident   or   immigrant   of   another   country;   that    
he   will   defend   and   support   the   Constitution   of   COMELEC   dismissed   the   case.   Upon   certiorari     to  
the  Philippines  and  bear  true  faith  and  allegiance   the   Supreme   Court,     it   was     held   that:     Fugitive    
thereto   and   that   he   does   so   without   mental   from   justice     includes   not     only   those     who   flee  
reservation,   private   respondent   has,   as   far   as   the   after  conviction    to  avoid  punishment,    but    also  
laws   of   this   country   are   concerned,   effectively   those     who   after     being   charged,     flee   to   avoid    
repudiated   his   American   citizenship   and   prosecution.   The   case   was   remanded   to   the  
anything   which   he   may   have   said   before   as   a   COMELEC   to   determine   WON   Rodriguez   is   a  
dual  citizen.   fugitive  from  justice.  
   
On   the   other   hand,   private   respondent’s   oath   of   In   1995,   Rodriguez   and   Marquez   again   ran   for  
allegiance   to   the   Philippines,   when   considered   Governor.   Marquez   filed   a   Petition   for  
with   the   fact   that   he   has   spent   his   youth   and   Disqualification   against   Rodriquez   on   the   same  
adulthood,   received   his   education,   practiced   his   ground   that   he   is   a   fugitive   from   justice.  
profession   as   an   artist,   and   taken   part   in   past   COMELEC   then   consolidated   both   cases   and  
found   Rodriguez   guilty   based   on   the  
authenticated  copy  of  the  warrant  of  arrest  at  LA   5.  Gamboa  vs  Aguirre  and  Araneta    (members  
Court  and  of  the  felony  complaint.   of  SP)  
  Facts:  
Rodriguez   won   again,   and   despite   a   Motion   to   In   the   1995   elections,   Rafael   Coscolluela,  
suspend   his   proclamation,   the   Provincial   Board   petitioner  Romeo  J.  Gamboa,  Jr.  and  respondents  
of  Canvassers  proclaimed  him.   Marcelo   Aguirre,   Jr.,   and   Juan   Y.   Araneta   were  
  elected   Negros   Occidental   Governor,   Vice-­‐
Upon  motion  of  Marquez,  the  COMELEC  nullified   Governor   and   SP   members,   respectively.  
the   proclamation.   Rodriguez   filed   a   petition   for   Sometime   in   August   of   1995,   the   governor  
certiorari.   designated  petitioner  as  Acting  Governor  for  the  
  duration  of  the  former’s  official  trip  abroad  until  
  his  return.  
Issue:    
  When   the   Sangguniang   Panlalawigan   held   its  
Is   Rodriguez   a   fugitive   from   justice   as   defined   by   regular   session,   respondents   questioned   the  
the  Court  in  the  MARQUEZ  Decision?   authority   of   petitioner   to   preside   therein   in   view  
  of  his  designation  as  Acting  Governor  and  asked  
  him   to   vacate   the   Chair.   The   latter,   however,  
Held:       refused   to   do   so.   In   another   session,   7members  
  of   the   SP   voted   to   allow   petitioner   to   continue  
No.   A   fugitive   from   justice   is   defined   as   “not   only   presiding   while   4   others   voted   against   with   1  
those   who   flee   after   conviction   to   avoid   abstention.   Respondents   filedbefore   the   lower  
punishment   but   likewise   who,   after   being   court   a   petition   for   declaratory   relief   and  
charged,   flee   to   avoid   prosecution.”   This   prohibition.   In   the   meantime,   the   Governor   re-­‐
indicates   that   the   intent   to   evade   is   the   assumed   his   office.Later,   the   trial   court   rendered  
compelling   factor   that   makes   a   person   leave   a   a   decision   and   declared   petitioner   as  
particular   jurisdiction,   and   there   can   only   be   “temporarily   legally   incapacitated   to   preside  
intent  to  evade  prosecution  or  punishment  when   over  the  sessions  of  the  SP  during  the  period  that  
the  fleeing  person  knows  of  an  already  instituted   he  is  the  Acting  Governor.”  
indictment,   or   of   a   promulgated   judgment   of    
conviction.   Intent   to   evade   on   the   part   of   a   Petitioner   filed   a   petition   for   review   raising   the  
candidate  must  therefore  be  established  by  proof   issue   earlier   mentioned.   Although   this   case   is  
that   there   has   already   been   a   conviction   or   at   dismissible   for   having   become   moot   and  
least,  a  charge  has  already  been  filed,  at  the  time   academic   considering   the   expiration   in   1998   of  
of   flight.   This   cannot   be   applied   in   the   case   of   the   terms   of   office   of   the   local   officials   involved  
Rodriguez.   Rodriguez   arrived   in   the   Philippines   herein,   the   Court   nonetheless   proceeds   to  
on   June   25,   1985,   five   months   before   the   filing   of   resolve  this  common  controversy  but  novel  issue  
the  felony  complaint  in  the  Los  Angeles  Court  on   under  theexisting  laws  on  local  government.  
November   12,   1985   and   of   the   issuance   of   the    
arrest   warrant   by   that   same   foreign   court.   It   was   Issue:  
clearly   impossible   for   Rodriguez   to   have   known   WON   Gamboa,   while   serving   as   the   Acting  
about   such   felony   complaint   and   arrest   warrant   Governor,   temporarily   relinquished   the   powers,  
at  the  time  he  left  the  US,  as  there  was  in  fact  no   functions,  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  Vice-­‐
complaint   and   arrest   warrant   —   much   less   Governor,   including   the   power   to   preside   over  
conviction  —  to  speak  of  yet  at  such  time.   the  sessions  of  the  SP  
   
Not   being   a   "fugitive   from   justice"   under   this   Held:  
definition,   Rodriguez   cannot   be   denied   the   YES  
Quezon   Province   gubernatorial   post.   (G.R.   No.    
120099.    July  24,  1996)   Ratio  Decidendi:    
  What  the  LGC  provides:  
The  LGC  provides  that  the  Vice-­‐Governor  shall  be    b)   president   of   the   panlalawigang  
the  presiding  officer  of  the  SP.  In  addition  to  such   pederasyon  ng  mga  sangguniang  kabataan    
function,  he  becomes  the  Governor  and  assumes    c)   president   of   the   provincial   federation  
the   higher   office   for   the   unexpired   term   of   his   of   sanggunian   members   of   municipalities   and  
predecessor,   in   case   of   “permanent   vacancy”   component  cities    
therei   n.   When   the   vacancy,   however,   is   merely    
temporary,   the   Vice-­‐   Governor   “shall   Not   being   included   in   the   enumeration,   the  
automatically   exercise   the   powers   (subject   to   Governor   is   deemed   excluded   and   thus,   local  
certain   limitations)and   perform   the   duties   and   executive   power   in   the   province   is   vested   alone  
functions”   of   the   Governor.   But,   no   such   in   the   Governor.   Consequently,   the   union   of  
contingency   is   provided   in   case   of   temporary   legislative-­‐executive   powers   in   the   office   of   the  
vacancy  in  the  office  of  the  Vice-­‐Governor.   local  chief  executive  under  the    former  Code  has  
  been  disbanded.    
Vice-­‐Governor  as  Acting  Governor:    
When   the   Vice-­‐   Governor   exercises   the   “powers   Being   the   Acting   Governor,   the   Vice-­‐Governor  
and  duties”  of    the  Governor,  he  does  not  assume   cannot   continue   to   simultaneously   exercise   the  
the   latter   office.   He   only   “acts”   as   the   Governor   duties  of  the  latter  office,  since  the  nature  of  the  
but   does   not   “become”   the   Governor.   His   duties   of   the   provincial   Governor   call   for   a   full-­‐
assumption   of   the   powers,   duties   and   functions   time  occupant  to  discharge  them.    
of  the  provincial  Chief  Executive  does  not  create    
a   permanent   vacuum   or   vacancy   in   his   position   Conclusion:    
as   the   Vice-­‐Governor.   Necessarily,   he   does   not   To  repeat,  the  creation  of  a  temporary  vacancy  in  
relinquish   nor   abandon   his   position   and   title   as   the   office   of   the   Governor   creates   a  
Vice-­‐Governor   by   merely   becoming   an   Acting   corresponding  temporary  vacancy  in  the  office    
Governor   or   by   merely   exercising   the   powers   of  the  Vice-­‐Governor  whenever  the  latter  acts  as  
and  duties  of  the  higher  office.     Governor   by   virtue   of   such   temporary   vacancy.    
  This   event   constitutes   an   “inability”   on   the   part  
A   Vice-­‐Governor   who   is   concurrently   an   Acting   of   the   regular   presiding   officer   (Vice   Governor)  
Governor   is   actually   a   quasi-­‐Governor.   This   to   preside   during   the   SP   sessions,   which   thus  
means,   that   for   purposes   of   exercising   his   calls   for   the   operation   of   the   remedy   set   in  
legislative   prerogatives   and   powers,   he   is   Article   49(b)   of   the   Local   Government   Code   –  
deemed  as  a  non-­‐member  of  the  SP  for  the  time   concerning   the   election   of   a   temporary   presiding  
being.   By   tradition,   the   offices   of   the   provincial   officer.    The  continuity    of  the  Acting  Governor’s  
Governor   and   Vice-­‐Governor   are   essentially   (Vice-­‐Governor)   powers   as   presiding   officer   of  
executive   in   nature,   whereas   plain   members   of   the   SP   is   suspended   so   long   as   he   is   in   such  
the  provincial  board  perform  functions  partaking   capacity.       Under   Section   49(b),   “(i)n   the   event   of  
of   a   legislative   character.   This   is   because   the   the   inability   of   the   regular   presiding   officer   to  
authority  vested  by  law  in  the  provincial  boards   preside   at   the   sanggunian   session,   the   members    
involves   primarily   a   delegation   of   some   present   and   constituting   a   quorum   shall   elect  
legislative   powers   of   Congress.   This   is   clear   from   from   among   themselves   a   temporary   presiding  
the   law,   when   it   provides   that   “local   legislative   officer.”  
power   shall   be   vested   in   the   SP,”   which   is   “the    
legislative   body   of   the   province,”   and   6.  Aguinaldo  vs  Santos  
enumerates  therein  its  membership  consisting  of   Facts:  
the:    
1)  Vice  Governor  as  presiding  officer     Aguinaldo   was   the   duly   elected   Governor   of   the  
2)  regular  elective  SP  members   province   of   Cagayan.   After   the   December   1989  
3)  3  elective  sectoral  representatives   coup   d’état   was   crushed,   DILG   Secretary   Santos  
4)  ex-­‐officio  members  namely:   sent   a   telegram   &   letter   to   Governor   Aguinaldo  
a)   president   of   the   provincial   chapter   of   requiring   him   to   show   cause   why   he   should   not  
the  liga  ng  mga  barangay     be   suspended   or   removed   from   office   for  
disloyalty   to   the   Republic.   A   sworn   complaint    
was   also   filed   by   Mayors   of   several   Issues:  
municipalities   in   Cagayan   against   Aguinaldo   for    
acts   committed   during   the   coup.   Aguinaldo   1.    WON  petitioner's  re-­‐election  to  the  position  of  
denied  being  privy  to  the  planning  of  the  coup  or   Governor   of   Cagayan   has   rendered   the  
actively  participating  in  its  execution,  though  he   administration  case  moot  and  academic  
admitted  that  he  was  sympathetic  to  the  cause  of    
the  rebel  soldiers.     2.  WON  the  Secretary  has  the  power  to  suspend  
  or   remove   local   government   officials   as   alter   ego  
The   Secretary   suspended   petitioner   from   office   of  the  President  
for  60  days  from  notice,  pending  the  outcome  of    
the   formal   investigation.   Later,   the   Secretary   3.   WON   proof   beyond   reasonable   doubt   is  
rendered   a   decision   finding   petition   guilty   as   required   before   petitioner   could   be   removed  
charged   and   ordering   his   removal   from   office.   from  office.  
Vice-­‐Governor  Vargas  was  installed  as  Governor.    
Aguinaldo  appealed.    
  Held:  
Aguinaldo   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   and    
prohibition   with   preliminary   mandatory   1.   Yes.   Aguinaldo’s   re-­‐election   to   the   position   of  
injunction  and/or  restraining  order  with  the  SC,   Governor   of   Cagayan   has   rendered   the  
assailing  the  decision  of  respondent  Secretary  of   administrative  case  pending  moot  and  academic.  
Local   Government.   Petitioner   argued   that:   (1)   It   appears   that   after   the   canvassing   of   votes,  
that   the   power   of   respondent   Secretary   to   petitioner   garnered   the   most   number   of   votes  
suspend   or   remove   local   government   official   among   the   candidates   for   governor   of   Cagayan  
under   Section   60,   Chapter   IV   of   B.P.   Blg.   337   was   province.  The  rule  is  that  a  public  official  cannot  
repealed   by   the   1987   Constitution;   (2)   that   since   be   removed   for   administrative   misconduct  
respondent   Secretary   no   longer   has   power   to   committed   during   a   prior   term,   since   his   re-­‐
suspend   or   remove   petitioner,   the   former   could   election   to   office   operates   as   a   condonation   of  
not   appoint   respondent   Melvin   Vargas   as   the  officer's  previous  misconduct  to  the  extent  of  
Governor;   and   (3)   the   alleged   act   of   disloyalty   cutting  off  the  right  to  remove  him  therefor.  The  
committed   by   petitioner   should   be   proved   by   foregoing   rule,   however,   finds   no   application   to  
proof   beyond   reasonable   doubt,   and   not   be   a   criminal  cases  pending  against  petitioner  for  acts  
mere  preponderance  of  evidence,  because  it  is  an   he  may  have  committed  during  the  failed  coup.    
act   punishable   as   rebellion   under   the   Revised    
Penal  Code.    
  2.   Yes.   The   power   of   the   Secretary   to   remove  
While   the   case   was   pending   before   the   SC,   local   government   officials   is   anchored   on   both  
Aguinaldo   filed   his   certificate   of   candidacy   for   the   Constitution   and   a   statutory   grant   from   the  
the   position   of   Governor   of   Cagayan.   Three   legislative   branch.   The   constitutional   basis   is  
petitions   for   disqualification   were   filed   against   provided   by   Articles   VII   (17)   and   X   (4)   of   the  
him   on   the   ground   that   he   had   been   removed   1987   Constitution   which   vest   in   the   President  
from  office.   the   power   of   control   over   all   executive  
  departments,  bureaus  and  offices  and  the  power  
The  Comelec  granted  the  petition.  Later,  this  was   of   general   supervision   over   local   governments.   It  
reversed   on   the   ground   that   the   decision   of   the   is   a   constitutional   doctrine   that   the   acts   of   the  
Secretary  has  not  yet  attained  finality  and  is  still   department   head   are   presumptively   the   acts   of  
pending   review   with   the   Court.     As   Aguinaldo   the   President   unless   expressly   rejected   by   him.  
won   by   a   landslide   margin   in   the   elections,   the   Furthermore,   it   cannot   be   said   that   BP337   was  
resolution   paved   the   way   for   his   eventual   repealed   by   the   effectivity   of   the   present  
proclamation  as  Governor  of  Cagayan.       Constitution   as   both   the   1973   and   1987  
  Constitution   grants   to   the   legislature   the   power  
and   authority   to   enact   a   local   government   code,  
which   provides   for   the   manner   of   removal   of  
local   government   officials.   Moreover,   in  
Bagabuyo   et   al.   vs.   Davide,   Jr.,   et   al.,   this   court  
had   the   occasion   to   state   that   B.P.   Blg.   337  
remained   in   force   despite   the   effectivity   of   the  
present   Constitution,   until   such   time   as   the  
proposed   Local   Government   Code   of   1991   is  
approved.   The   power   of   the   DILG   secretary   to  
remove   local   elective   government   officials   is  
found  in  Secs.  60  and  61  of  BP  337.    
 
 
3.   No.   Petitioner   is   not   being   prosecuted  
criminally,   but   administratively   where   the  
quantum   of   proof   required   is   only   substantial  
evidence.   (Aguinaldo   vs.   Santos,   G.R.   No.   94115,  
August  21,  1992)