ARTICLE 9

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

COMMON PROVISIONS

Section 1: Independent Commissions

Civil Service Commission
Commission on Elections
Commission on Audit
These Commissions perform key functions in the government and in order to protect their integrity, they have been made
constitutional bodies

Civil Service Commission Commission on Elections Commission on Audit

General To establish and promote
function professionalism and efficiency
in public service as the central
personnel agency of the
Government
Composition Chairman
and Two Commissioners
qualifications Natural-born Filipinos
At least 35 years old at the
time of appointment
With proven capacity for
public administration
Not candidates for any
elective position in the
elections immediately
preceding their appointment
To enforce all laws and
regulations relative to the
conduct of elections in the
Philippines
Chairman
Six Commissioners
Natural-born Filipinos
At least 35 years old at the
time of appointment
College-degree holders
Not candidates for any
elective position in the
elections immediately
preceding their appointment
However, majority thereof,
including the Chairman, shall
be members of the Philippine
Bar engaged in the practice of
law for at least 10 years
To examine the accuracy of
the records kept by the
accountable officers and to
determine whether
expenditures have been made
in conformity with law
Chairman
Two Commissioners
Natural-born Filipinos
At least 35 years old at the
time of appointment
CPA with not less than 10
years of auditing experience
Members of the Philippine Bar
engaged in the practice of law
for at least 10 years
Not candidates for any
elective position in the
elections immediately
preceding their appointment

831. MACALINTAL VS. COMELEC

The Constitution expressly mandates the independence of the COMELEC as a constitutional body intended to play a distinct and
important part in our scheme of government.

832. OMBUDSMAN VS. CSC

While it is true that constitutional agencies such as the Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to appoint its officials in
accordance with law, such law does not necessarily imply that their appointment will not be subject to the Civil Service Law and
Rules. Since all matters pertaining to appointments are within the realm of expertise to the Civil Service Commission, all laws, rules
and regulations it issues on appointments must be complied with.

Section 2: Prohibitions on Members

Shall not hold any other office or employment during his tenure
Shall not engage in the practice of any profession
Shall not engage in the active management or control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office
Shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the
government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including GOCCs of their subsidiaries
Purpose – to compel the chairmen and members of the Commissions to devote their full attention to the discharge of their duties
and, as well, to remove from them any temptation to take advantage of their official positions for selfish purposes

Section 3: Salary
The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure.

Section 4: Power to Appoint

The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in accordance with law.

Rotational scheme of appointments

The first appointees shall serve 7, 5 and 3 years, respectively.
Purpose:
To lessen the opportunity of the President to appoint a majority of the body during his term
To ensure continuance of the body, which always retains 2/3 of its membership
The system is expected to stabilize the policies of the body as maintained by the remaining members

Section 5: Fiscal Autonomy

The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.

833. CSC VS. DBM

The “no report, no release” policy by the Department of Budget and Management is unconstitutional and may not be validly
enforced against offices vested with fiscal autonomy. The automatic release of approved annual appropriations to the Civil Service
Commission, a constitutional commission vested with fiscal autonomy, should thus be construed to mean that no condition to fund
releases to it may be imposed.

Section 6: Promulgation of Rules

Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. Such
rules however shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
The Supreme Court has no power to disapprove internal rules promulgated by the Commissions except through its power of judicial
review when there is grave abuse of discretion.
In case of conflict between a rule of procedure promulgated by a Commission and a Rule of Court, which prevails?
The rule of the Commission shall prevail if the proceeding is before a Commission. But if the proceeding is before a court, the Rule of
Court prevails.
If the rules promulgated by a Commission are inconsistent with a statute, the statute prevails.

834. MACALINTAL VS. COMELEC

The COMELEC, as a constitutional body, is not under the control of either the executive or legislative departments of government.
Only the COMELEC itself can promulgate rules and regulations which may be changed or revised only by the majority of its
members, and such rules and regulations may be reviewed by the Court only in cases of grave abuse of discretion.

835. SABILI VS. COMELEC

The power of each Commission en banc to promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its
offices also includes the power to suspend such rules.

Section 7: Decisions of the Commissions

Shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its
submission for decision or resolution
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof
Certiorari may be resorted to when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy but a reconsideration is a speedy and
adequate remedy. Hence, a case may be brought to the Supreme Court only after reconsideration.

836. FILIPINAS ENGINEERING AND MACHINE SHOP VS. FERRER

What is contemplated by the term “final orders, rulings and decisions” of the COMELEC reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme
Court as provided by law are those rendered in actions or proceedings before the COMELEC and taken cognizance of by the said
body in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, and not administrative functions.
837. SALIGUMBA VS. CA
Decisions rendered in the exercise of administrative functions are not to be disturbed by the Courts except when there is grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

838. PTTC VS. COA

The two letters of the COA are not proper subjects of appeal and/or review by this Court. The COA, in the said letters, did not decide
the issue. It did not render a decision, order or final award. Hence, it cannot fall under the jurisdiction of the Court.

839. CUA VS. COMELEC

The Court ruled that the COMELEC en banc shall decide a case or matter brought before it by a majority of the members who
deliberated and voted thereon.
Note: This Court has been abandoned in Estrella vs. COMELEC.

840. ESTRELLA VS. COMELEC

The Court has abandoned this doctrine because it contradicts the constitutional provision of Section 7 Article IX-A of the Constitution
which clearly provides that decisions reached by the COMELEC en banc should be the majority vote of all its members and not only
those who participated and took part in the deliberations.

841. MISON VS. COA

Since the Commissions are collegial bodies, the decisions are made by the body and not by individual members of the body. No
individual member may make a decision acting for the Commission.

842. PAREDES VS. COMELEC

For the Court to exercise its power to review the rulings or findings of fact of the Commission on Elections, such rulings or findings of
fact be lacking in arbitrariness to be conclusive on this Court. There being no taint of arbitrariness in the conclusion arrived at, its
finding, being supported by substantial evidence, is entitled to be accorded full respect.

843. AMBIL VS. COMELEC

A final decision or resolution becomes binding only after it is promulgated and not before. There is no decision until the draft is
signed and promulgated. Accordingly, one who is no longer a member of the Commission at the time the final decision or resolution
is promulgated cannot validly take part in that resolution or decision. Hence, if a commissioner signs a decision but retires before the
decision is promulgated, his vote does not count even if it was he who penned the decision.

844. MATEO VS. CA

The established rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and controlled corporations are governed by
the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules and Regulations. Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases
involving dismissal of officers and employees covered by the Civil Service Law.

845. REYES VS. RTC

It is a general rule that a case through certiorari may be brought to the Supreme Court only after a motion for reconsideration and
such motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc.

846. ABS-CBN VS. COMELEC

The procedural requirement of filing for a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC was dispensed by the Court because the
need for relief is extremely urgent since the elections were already very close and there was no more time for another speedy
remedy besides a certiorari.
Note: This is an exception to the requirement of reconsideration before resorting to certiorari.

847. SALVA VS. MAKALINTAL

Only final orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC, in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, are reviewable
through certiorari by the Supreme Court. Since the COMELEC Resolution was a ministerial duty enjoined by law in the exercise of its
administrative functions, it involved no exercise of discretionary authority and adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power and therefore
cannot be reviewable by the Supreme Court through certiorari.
848. GARCES VS. CA
The “case” or “matter” referred to by the Constitution that may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Section 7,
Article IX-A are those that relate to the COMELEC’s exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving elective regional,
provincial and city officials.

849. DUMAYAS VS. COMELEC

With the withdrawal of the votes of the two Commissioners, the remaining votes among the four incumbent Commissioners would
be 3 to 1 and would still constitute a quorum at the time of the promulgation of the resolution. The effect of the withdrawal of their
votes would be as if they had not signed the resolution at all and only the votes of the remaining commissioners would be properly
considered for the purpose of deciding the controversy.

850. AGUILAR VS. COMELEC

But where a division of the COMELEC decides a motion for reconsideration in violation of Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution,
the division’s ruling is a complete nullity and may be brought to the Court on certiorari.

851. CAYETANO VS. COMELEC

It is a well-settled rule that the Court has no jurisdiction to review a final or interlocutory order, or even a final resolution of a
division of the COMELEC. Stated otherwise, the Court can only review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the COMELEC en
banc. However, the Court held that an exception to this rule applies where the commission of grave abuse of discretion is apparent
on its face. Where there is none, the Courts are without jurisdiction to review such case.

852. DELA LLANA VS. THE CHAIRPERSON, COA

The cases or matters referred to by the Constitution that may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Section 7, Article
IX-A are those that only relate to the exercise of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The Courts cannot take cognizance of cases or
matters of the Commission in the exercise of quasi-legislative powers.

853. CAGAS VS. COMELEC

It is a well-settled rule that the Court has no jurisdiction to review a final or interlocutory order, or even a final resolution of a
division of the COMELEC. Stated otherwise, the Court can only review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the COMELEC en
banc.

Section 8: Other Functions

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Section 1: Composition; Qualifications; Term

Chairman and two Commissioners
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines;
At least 35 years of age at the time of appointment;
With proven capacity of public administration; and
Must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding such appointment.
Term of 7 years without re-appointment

854. THELMA P. GAMINDE VS. COA

The extension of the term did not affect the term. Thus, reckoning the seven year term, the starting point is always a February 2
even if the appointee took office after February 2. Through this rotational system the staggering of the terms is preserved. It is
uniformly prescribed a seven-year term of office for Members of the Constitutional Commissions, without re-appointment, and for
the first appointees terms of seven, five and three years, without re-appointment.

855. ISMAEL A. MATHAY JR. VS. CA

The ordinance by the CSC was invalid. The CSC has no power or authority to order the mayor to reinstate private respondents. The
power of appointment is a discretionary power; the CSC cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the appointing power. Once
the CSC attests whether the person chosen to fill a vacant position is eligible, its role in the appointment process necessarily ends. It
cannot encroach upon the discretion vested in the appointing authority.
Section 2: Scope of the System

856. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE CUEVAS VS. ATTY. BACAL

The mere fact that a position belongs to the Career Service does not automatically confer security of tenure on its occupant even if
he does not possess the required qualifications. Such right will have to depend on the nature of his appointment, which in turn
depends on his eligibility or lack of it. A person who does not have the requisite qualifications for the position cannot be appointed
to it in the first place or, only as an exception to the rule, may be appointed to it merely in an acting capacity in the absence of
appropriate eligible.

Paragraph 1: Under Civil Service Law

All branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters

857. MWSS VS. HERNANDEZ

The Civil Service Law covers government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. Since the MWSS was created by
RA 6234, its employment is governed not by the Labor Code but by the Civil Service Law. Controversies arising therefrom are not
cognizable by the National Labor Relations Commission.

858. NASECO VS. NLRC

On the premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs the instant case because it is the Constitution in place at the time of
decision thereof, the NLRC has jurisdiction to accord relief to the parties. This Court had recognized the applicability of the Labor
Code to, and the authority of the NLRC to exercise jurisdiction over, disputes involving terms and conditions of employment in
government owned or controlled corporations, among them, the National Service Corporation (NASECO). As an admitted subsidiary
of the NIDC, in turn a subsidiary of the PNB, the NASECO is a government-owned or controlled corporation without original charter.

859. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. REGINO

As a mere government-owned or controlled corporation, UP was clearly a part of the Civil Service under the 1973 Constitution and
now continues to be so because it was created by a special law and has an original charter. As a component of the Civil Service, UP is
therefore governed by PD 807 and administrative cases involving the discipline of its employees come under the jurisdiction of the
Civil Service Commission.

860. MATEO VS. CA

The established rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and controlled corporations are governed by
the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules and Regulations. Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases
involving dismissal of officers and employees covered by the Civil Service Law.

861. DOH vs. NLRC

The Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital is one of the three leper colonies established under Commonwealth Act. No. 161. It
exercises strictly governmental functions relating to the management and control of leprosy. As it is clearly an agency of the
Government, the DJRMH falls well within the scope and/or coverage of the Civil Service Law in accordance with paragraph 1.,
Section 2, Article IX B, 1987 Constitution.

862. JUCO vs. NLRC

Considering the fact that the National Housing Corporation had been in incorporated under Act 1459, the former corporation law, it
is but correct to say that it is a government-owned or controlled corporation whose employees are subject to the provisions of the
Labor Code and come under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission.

863. FELICIANO vs. GISON

The Leyte Metropolitan Water District is a government-owned and controlled corporation with a special charter since it is created
pursuant to a special law. Since it is not created under the corporation law, it cannot be considered to be a private corporation.
Hence, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Law.

864. BLISS vs. CALLEJA

BDC is a government-owned corporation created under the Corporation Law. Since it was incorporated without an original charter, it
is governed by the Labor Code and not by the Civil Service Law because the Civil Service Commission does not embrace GOCCs under
the Corporation Law.
865. POSTIGO vs. PHILIPPINE TUBERCULOSIS SOCIETY
The PTS is a non-profit but private corporation under the Corporation Code. Hence, its employees are subject to the provisions of
the Labor Code and not of the Civil Service Law.

866. LRTA vs. VENUS

METRO is a GOCC without an original charter and is covered by the Labor Code despite its later acquisition by LRTA. Its employees
are covered by the Labor Code and are under the jurisdiction of the DOLE, whereas the employees of LRTA, a GOCC created by EO
603, are covered by the Civil Service Law.

Paragraph 2: Classifications and Appointments

Made according to merit and fitness

867. HIGC vs. CSC

Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined. The lack of merit and fitness
will no longer allow the person to avail the position.

868. MAUNA vs. CSC

The power of appointment is essentially discretionary and the CSC cannot substitute its judgment for that of the appointing power.
Neither does it have the power to overrule such discretion even if it finds that there are other persons more qualified to the
contested position.
869. RIMONTE vs. CSC
The law limits its authority only to whether or not the appointees possess the qualifications and nothing else. If an appointee is
deemed qualified, it is up to the discretion of the appointing authority to appoint such person even if there be someone else who
could be better or have superior credentials. The CSC has no choice but to attest and respect such appointment.

870. GLORIA vs. DE GUZMAN

Cerillo’s assignment was a mere designation. Not being a permanent appointment, a designation to the position cannot be the
subject of a case for reinstatement.

871. ATTY. ELIAS OMAR A. SANA VS. CESB

That although such provision may invoke the law on appointment, the pursuance of the petition towards the unconstitutionality of
the law can no longer be held if it is invoked.

Competitive/career service positions

Entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examinations or based on highly technical
qualifications
Security of tenure
Opportunity for advancement to higher career positions

872. SAMSON VS. CA

All positions in branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities of the Government belong to the competitive service except those
policy-determining, primarily confidential, and highly technical positions by nature.

Non-competitive/non-career positions
Entrance based on other tests than those usual of merit and fitness
Tenure
Which is limited to a period specified by law; or
Which is coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure; or
Which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made
Policy-determining, primarily confidential, highly technical

873. ASTRAQUILLO vs. MANGALUPAS

Political appointees in the Foreign Service possess tenure coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his
pleasure.
874. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT vs. BUENAOBRA
A presidential appointee is a non-career service position and thus may be removed from service at the discretion of the President.

Paragraph 3: Cause for Removal/Security of Tenure

Security of Tenure
Serves as a guarantee against arbitrary impairment, whether total or partial, of the right to continue in the position held.
It is a guarantee of a person in public office that he or she may not be removed from his or her position without due cause.
Due Cause – reasons which the law and sound public policy recognize as sufficient for removal. The reasonableness depends on law
and public policy and not the mere discretion of the appointing power.
Substantial and Procedural Limits – shall also be observed in termination of a public officer such that if there was no due process in
the removal of a public officer, that said removal is not valid

Who are covered by security of tenure?

GR: All persons holding public office or public position
XPN: Public officers who are elected.

Other means of termination

Primarily Confidential – when the confidence given to the public officer holding the position is lost
Highly Technical – when the public officer skills are no longer enough to hold the position given
Policy-determining – when the public officer was not able to produce any policy for the office

Does abolition of office violate security of tenure?

No, as long as the abolition of office is made:
In good faith
Not for personal or political reasons
Not in violation of the Law (Civil Service Law)

Notes:
An office that is created by law can only be abolished by law as well
Abolition by reorganization is also a recognized cause for termination
Abolition of office does not mean that the position is vacant but rather the whole existence of the abolished office ceases to exist
anymore.

894. HERNANDEZ V. VILLEGAS

Officials and employees holding primarily confidential positions continue only for so long as confidence in them endures. If the
confidence is lost, then it will be treated as expiration of term.

895. BRIONES V. OSMENA

Right to abolish cannot be used to discharge employees in violation of the civil service law nor can it be exercised for personal or
political reasons.

896. EUGENIO V. CSC

An office made by acts of legislation or by law can only be abolished by legislature. Abolition of the same will result to usurpation of
legislative functions.

897. ROMUALDEZ-YAP V. CSC

Abolition of an office due to reorganization is to be considered as valid it must not be done in bad faith.

898. FERNANDEZ V. STO. TOMAS

Public offices are given the right to reorganize. Reorganization does not amount to abolition of offices and does not involve
termination.

899. VINZONS-CHATO V. NATIVIDAD

Public offices are given the right to reorganize. Transfer of offices due to reorganization does not result to demotion.
900. DIVINAGRACIA V. STO. TOMAS
Unconsented lateral transfer can amount to removal from an office without cause hence invalid.

901. VINZONS-CHATO V. ZENOROSA

Public offices are given the right to reorganize. Transfer of offices due to reorganization does not result to demotion.

902. DE GUZMAN V. COMELEC

The rule that outlaws unconsented transfer as anathema only apply to officer who is appointed and not to those that are assigned.
This rule does not apply if the head of an agency carries out transfers pursuant to a statute authorizing them to do so.

903. CUEVAS V. BACAL

Reassignment and transfer of position or office is authorized as long as it is made in the interest of the public.

904. MAYOR V. MACARAIG

An employee may be removed from office through abolition of the same office due to reason of economy or redundancy of
functions. However, an upgrade in the qualification of officer cannot justify vacancy of a position

905.CANONIZADO V. AGUIRRE
Mere reorganization of an office does not equate to abolition. The officer illegally dismissed is considered as not having left his
officer. New appointments made in order to replace officers are not valid.

906. SALVADOR V. COURT OF APPEALS

An officer who accepted coterminous positions brought about by necessity cannot be terminated and questioned.

907. ENRIQUE V. COURT OF APPEALS

To be sent a notice of the formal charge against a public officer is sufficient to be considered due process.

908. CSC V. MAGNAYE

Both probationary and permanent or regular employees shall both enjoy security of tenure. Thus, in removal of a probationary, due
process is to be followed.

909. RUBENECIA V. CSC

Publication in a newspaper of general circulation of a resolution is deemed as substantial compliance with the requirement of
written notice to affected individuals and amount to due process.

910. PCSO V. LAPID

An employee who was not served with a formal charge shall equate to denial of due process. The effects therewith cannot be held
operative

911. CHUA V. CSC

Security of Tenure shall not be discriminatory between regular, temporary, casual and emergency employees. This shall also apply
with regards to the benefits arising from holding such employment.

912. NLDTRA V. CSC

When offices are subjected to abolition, it shall not be equated to vacancy. The positions are deemed to be non-existent and that
tenure cannot raise from the same.

913. CABAGNOT V. CSC

Assignment of an officer to a lower position in the same service which has lower compensation is tantamount to removal without
cause. This is contrary to the constitutionally granted security of tenure.

914. MAROHOMBSAR V. COURT OF APPEALS

Ad interim appointment only talks of the manner of an appointment however an employee by ad interim appointment cannot be
prejudiced to have condition or limitation as to tenure.
915. ONG V. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
A public officer cannot hold co-terminus positions and appointments. Such appointments can be revoked by the appointing
authority.

Paragraph 4: Electioneering or Partisan Political Party

Every form of solicitation of the elector’s vote in favor of a specific candidate including contribution of money for election purposes
and distribution of handbills

916. SANTOS VS. YATCO

A cabinet member is not embraced and included within the term “officers and employees in the civil service” that prohibits any
electioneering or partisan political campaign.

917. PEOPLE vs. DE VENECIA

A CSC member or employee may not aid in electioneering but may express his/her views on current political problems and may
mention the candidates he will vote for. He/she is forbidden from the solicitation, in every form, of the elector’s vote in favor of a
specific candidate.

Paragraph 5: Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike

Public employees, including public school teachers, have the right to unionize, self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities.
But are not allowed to stage strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in
temporary stoppage or disruption of public service.

918. SSS EMPLOYEES vs. CA

All government officers and employees are not allowed to stage strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of
mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service.

919. BANGALISAN vs. CA

The right of government employees to organize is limited only to the formation of unions or associations, without including the right
to strike which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service.

921. DE LA CRUZ vs. CA

The conduct of mass protests during school days while abandoning classes is highly prejudicial to the best interest of public service.

922. GSIS vs. KAPISANAN

The right to strike, however, is not enjoyed by the civil servants because it would prejudice the best interest of their service to the
public.

Paragraph 6: Temporary Employees

923. GLORIA VS. CA

While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without the employee’s prior consent, it cannot be done
when the transfer is a preliminary step toward his removal or is a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or designed
to indirectly terminate his service, or force his resignation.

Section 3: Purpose of a Civil Service System

To establish and promote professionalism and efficiency in public service

924. LAZO VS. CSC

Section 4: Oath or Affirmation

Section 5: Standardization of Compensation

Section 6. Prohibition of Appointment of “Lame Ducks”

An elected official whose successor has already been, or in the near-term will be, elected (political) or an unsuccessful person or
thing (ordinary)
Purpose – To prevent the extirpation of the “spoils system”

925. PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

One who is under the one-year prohibition, even if he has the other qualifications needed, is disqualified from being appointed.

Section 7: Prohibitions; Appointments; Office; Employment

For elective officials – shall not be appointed or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure
For appointive officials – shall not hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivisions, agency or
instrumentality including GOCCs or their subsidiaries
Exceptions
Vice-President may be appointed member of the Cabinet
Member of Congress is designated to sit in the Judicial and Bar Council
Members of Congress may accept appointments but must first resign from his elective position. If he fails, the appointment is
invalid, but he does not forfeit his elective seat.

926. FLORES vs. DRILON

If an elected official accepts an appointment in any government office other than his elective position, he must first resign from said
elective position.

927. IN RE EDUARDO ESCALA

All court personnel ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity, considering that their positions primarily
involve service to the public. The reason for prohibiting dual employment is there will be gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of public service.

928. LA CARLOTA CITY vs. ROJO

The prohibition against dual employment only applies if an elected official holds another government position that was not
prescribed by law. There is no duration required as to the gap between the resignation and forfeiture from the actual appointment
for as long as the requirements are properly complied with.

Section 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title

Prohibition against additional, double or indirect compensation unless specifically authorized by law
To manifest a commitment to the fundamental principle that a public office is a public trust; he is there to render public service
Additional compensation – when for one and the same office for which a compensation has been fixed there is added to such fixed
compensation an extra reward in the form of a bonus
Double compensation – two sets of compensation for two different offices held concurrently by one officer
Prohibition against acceptance of presents, emoluments, office or title of any kind from any foreign government without consent of
Congress

929. SADUESTA VS. MUNICIPALITY OF SURIGAO

The authority required by the Constitution to receive double/additional compensation is a specific authority given to a particular
employee/officer of the Government of peculiar/exceptional reasons warranting the payment of extra or additional compensation.

930. PERALTA VS. MATHAY

Where an officer’s pay provided by law was a fixed per diem, the Supreme Court disallowed additional compensation in the form of
cost of living allowances as well as incentives and Christmas bonuses. But when a per diem or an allowance is given as
reimbursement for expenses incident to the discharge of an officer’s duties, it is not an additional compensation prohibited by the
Constitution.

931. SANTOS VS. CA

Separation pay cannot include his years of service in the judiciary because it would constitute double compensation for the same
service in the judiciary which has already been paid.

932. CABILI VS. CSC

Bonuses given to one whose compensations under the law is merely a per diem violates the prohibition on additional compensation.
933. BENGUET STATE UNIVERSITY vs. COLTING
When a law says that money generated by a school may be used for other programs or projects of the university, such law is not
authorization for giving additional compensation or double compensation.

934. HERRERA vs. NPC

Absent any clear or unequivocal statutory authority, the grant of both retirement benefits and separation pay violates the
constitutional proscription on additional compensation. Thus retirees can only choose between retirement plan or separation pay,
whereas those who were separated can only receive a separation pay computed by the length of their tenure and their service
provided with no other forms of compensation be included.

938. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT VS. BOARD OF AIRLINES

Through the doctrine of finality, the BOC’s decision on promulgating the administrative order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals
since the doctrine emphasizes that administrative ordinances or promulgations have passed completeness and sufficiency standard
test.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Section 1: Composition; Qualifications; Term

Chairman and six Commissioners
Natural born citizens of the Philippines;
At least 35 years of age at the time of appointment;
Holders of a college degree;
Must not have been candidates of any elective position in the immediately preceding elections; and
Majority thereof, including the Chariman, must be members of Philippine Bar engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.
Term of 7 years without re-appointment

941. CAYETANO V. MONSOD

Engaged in the practice of law means to engage in “any activity, or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience.”

942. BRILLANTES V. YORAC

It is expressly stipulated in Article IX-C Section 1(2) that no member can be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity.

943. MATIBAG V. BENIPAYO

Chairman and Commissioners of the COMELEC are not subject to reappointment. Ad interim appointments are permanent.

944. HAYUDINI V. COMELEC

Under Sec. 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, it is required that a candidate must certify under oath that he is eligible for the public
office he seeks election. When a candidate states in his COC that he is a resident of the place where he is seeking to be elected, and
is eligible for a public office, but it turned out that he was declared to be a non-resident thereof in a petition for his inclusion in the
list of registered voters, he commits a false representation pertaining to a material fact in his COC, which is a ground for the
cancellation of his COC.

945. NAVAL V. COMELEC

A provincial member cannot be elected and serve for more than three consecutive terms.

946. TIMBOL V. COMELEC

To minimize the logistical confusion caused by nuisance candidates, their certificates of candidacy may be denied due course or
cancelled by respondent. This denial or cancellation may be “motu-proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, subject
to an opportunity to be heard.”

947. JALOVER V. OSMEÑA

To successfully challenge a winning candidate’s qualifications, the petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility
antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of
the people would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution
and laws so zealously protect and promote.

Section 2: Powers and Functions (EEDDRFRRS)

Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relating to the conduct of an Election, Plebiscite, Initiative, Referendum and Recall.
Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of elective regional,
provincial and city officials and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of
general jurisdiction or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, Final orders or
Rulings of the COMELEC contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executor and not appealable.
Decide, except involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including the determination of the number and location
of polling places, appointment of election officers and inspectors, and registration of voters.
Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including the
Armed Forces of the PH, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must
present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious
denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or
refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused
registration. Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or
candidates related to elections constitute interference in national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the
cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law.
File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and
malpractices.
Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, including limitation of places where propaganda
materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidates.
Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary
action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.
Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum,
or recall.

948. ALFIADO V. COMELEC

Sec. 74: Limitation on Recall - (a) any elective local official may be the subject of a recall election only once during his term of office
for loss of confidence. (b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official's assumption to office or one (1)
year immediately preceding a regular local election.

949. COLUMBRES V. COMELEC

Questions involving findings of fact (i.e., sufficiency of evidence) addressed by a COMELEC division is a proper subject of a motion for
reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc.

950. SAHALI V. COMELEC

Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to be heard.

951. CLAUDIO V. COMELEC

Recall is a process which begins with the convening of the preparatory recall assembly or the gathering of the signatures at least 25%
of the registered voters of a local government unit, and then proceeds to the filing of a recall resolution or petition with the
COMELEC, the verification of such resolution or petition, the fixing of the date of the recall election, and the holding of the election
on the scheduled date. However, as used in paragraph (b) of Sec 74, "recall" refers to the election itself by means of which voters
decide whether they should retain their local official or elect his replacement.

952. DE GUZMAN V. COMELEC

The COMELEC has the authority to affect the transfer of election officers.

953. SOCIAL WEATHER STATION INC. V. COMELEC

Section 5(4) is invalid because it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression, it is a direct and total suppression of a
category of expression even though such suppression is only for a limited period, and the governmental interest sought to be
promoted can be achieved by means other than suppression of freedom of expression.
954. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION V. COMELEC
The COMELEC may conduct automated election even if there is no pilot testing. COMELEC has no authority to use automated
counting machines in the 2004 Synchronized Elections when the purchase contract was in violation of laws, jurisprudence and its
bidding rules, and the hardware and software failed to pass legally mandated technical requirements.

955. BUAC V. COMELEC

The COMELEC has jurisdiction over plebiscite protest cases involving the conversion of a municipality to a city.

956. CAPALLA V. COMELEC

As COMELEC is confronted with time and budget constraints, and in view of COMELEC’s mandate to ensure free, honest, and
credible elections, the acceptance of the extension of the option period, the exercise of the option, and the execution of the Deed of
Sale, are the more prudent choices available to COMELEC for a successful 2013 automated elections.

957. FLORES VS. COMELEC

Municipal or Metropolitan Courts being courts of limited jurisdiction, their decisions in barangay election contests are subject to the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC.

958. GALIDO VS. COMELEC

Decisions, final orders or rulings of the Commission on Elections in contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are
final, executory and not appealable, does not preclude recourse to Supreme Court by way of a special civil action of certiorari.

977. PANGILINAN VS COMELEC

Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution should be read in relation to Sec. 2, Article IX-C of the same Constitution. The phrase
"including pre-proclamation controversies" used in Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution should be construed as referring only to
"pre-proclamation controversies" in election cases that fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the COMELEC "exclusive
original jurisdiction over all contest relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city
officials." It has no jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of
Representatives.

978. SARMIENTO V. COMELEC

Section 3, subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987 constitution provides that election cases include pre-proclamation controversies, and
all such cases must first be heard and decided by a Division of the Commission. The Commission, sitting en banc, does not have the
authority to hear and decide the same at the first instance.

979. CARNICOSA V. COMELEC

It is only in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers that the COMELEC is mandated to hear and decide cases
first by Division and then, upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. This is when it is jurisdictional. In the instant
case, as aforestated, the issues presented demand only the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative functions.

980. RAMAS V COMELEC

Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution vests the COMELEC with the authority to promulgate its rules of procedure in order to
expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. The COMELEC promulgated the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure. Section 1 of Rule 41 thereof expressly provides that "[i]n the absence of any applicable provision in [said] Rules, the
pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court in the Philippines shall be applicable by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect."
The rationale why such execution is allowed in election cases is “to give as much recognition to the worth of a trial judge’s decision
as that which is initially ascribed by the law to the proclamation by the board of canvassers.”

981. GARVIDA VS SALES

Section 3, subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987 All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions
for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.

982. VELAYO VS COMELEC

The SC ruled that said resolution was invalid because the records show that petitioner was not furnished any notice of the pre-
proclamation proceedings against him from beginning to end. Even the COMELEC's Second Division failed to notify petitioner about
the promulgation of its Order dated June 9, 1998 which dismissed the pre-proclamation cases against him for being moot and
academic.

983. SEBASTIAN VS COMELEC

A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the examination of incomplete, falsified, or materially defective returns, which appear
as such on their face. The rationale is that pre-proclamation controversies must be summarily decided to minimize the delay in the
canvass and proclamation. Where the issues raised would require the COMELEC to look beyond the face of the return, the proper
remedy is a regular election protest wherein the parties may litigate all the legal and factual issues raised by them in as much detail
as they may deem necessary or appropriate.

984. SOLLER VS COMELEC

Petitioner assails the decision of the RTC in denying his motion to dismiss the election protest of his rival that was filed in the same
court and the subsequent resolution of the COMELEC en banc in dismissing his petition for certiorari contending that the RTC acted
in grave abuse of discretion.

985. BARROSO V AMPIG

An election contest, unlike an ordinary civil action, is clothed with a public interest. The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain
whether the candidate proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. What is sought is the correction of
the canvass of votes, which was the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate.

986. MARUHON V COMELEC

The commission assumes the competence of the trial court to handle electoral protest and cannot encroach on its original and
exclusive jurisdiction on electoral protest cases involving the contested mayoralty seat.

987. BALINDOG V COMELEC

The COMELEC en banc ordered the Municipal Board of Canvassers to immediately reconvene, totally exclude from canvass the
election return for a certain precinct and count 88 votes in the election return for another precinct, not in favor of Balindog but
another mayoralty candidate by the name of Amir-Oden Balindong.

988. JARAMILLA V COMELEC

It is only in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers that the COMELEC is mandated to hear and decide cases first by
Division and then, upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. This is when it is jurisdictional. In the instant cases,
the issues presented demand only the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative functions.

989. BAUTISTA V COMELEC

Resolution No. 5404, the COMELEC en banc resolved to cancel Bautista's certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC en banc directed the
Election Officer to delete Bautista's name from the official list of candidates.

990. DE LLANA V COMELEC

The Constitution has vested to the COMELEC broad powers, involving not only the enforcement and administration of all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of elections, but also the resolution and determination of election controversies. It also granted
the COMELEC the power and authority to promulgate its rules of procedure, with the primary objective of ensuring the expeditious
disposition of election cases.

Concomitant to such powers is the authority of the COMELEC to determine the true nature of the cases filed before it. Thus, it
examines the allegations of every pleading filed, obviously aware that in determining the nature of the complaint or petition, its
averments, rather than its title/caption, are the proper gauges.

991. REPOL VS COMELEC

The COMELEC en banc is not even the proper forum where Petitoner may bring the assailed interlocutory Order for resolution. The
present controversy does not fall under any of the instances over which the COMELEC en banc can take cognizance of the case. It is
not one of the cases specifically provided under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure in which the COMELEC may sit en banc. Neither is
this case one where a division is not authorized to act nor a case where the members of the First Division unanimously voted to refer
the issue to the COMELEC en banc.
992. PEDRAGOZA VS COMELEC
The office of a petition for certiorari is not to correct simple errors of judgment but "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility." The court
have gone over the grounds petitioner raised in his motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc and find no such grave
error tainting the Resolution of 30 September 2005.

Section 3: Decisions

993. CAYETANO VS. COMELEC

The conduct of plebiscite and determination of its results is under the jurisdiction of COMELEC. It is an independent constitutional
body exclusively charged with the power of enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall.

994. MUNOZ VS. COMELEC

COMELEC en banc exceeded its authority and acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the new MBC to re-canvass all
ERs even before its First Division could decide on the SPC No. 04-124. It does not have the authority to hear and decide election
cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, at the first instance.

995. TAN VS. COMELEC

COMELEC en banc is vested with authority to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidates or to annul such proclamation,
however, that it may in the exercise of its discretion allow such proclamation or set aside its order annulling the proclamation of the
winning candidates. COMELEC can suspend the proclamation pending the resolution of the petition to declare a failure of election,
the same order, however, is merely provisional in nature and can be lifted when the evidence so warrants.

996. ENRIQUEL V. COMELEC

997. MENDOZA V. COMELEC

COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion when the concurrence of the majority of the members was not achieved as
well as when it issued the questioned Resolution affirming the ruling of its Second Division. All election cases shall be heard and
decided in divisions, provided that motions for reconsideration shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc.

998. MARIA LAARNI L. CAYETANO V. COMELEC

A decision or an order of a COMELEC Division cannot be elevated directly in the court through a special civil action for certiorari. A
motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of the COMELEC Division shall be elevated in the COMELEC en banc.

Section 4: Supervision/regulation of Public Utilities, Media Grants, Privileges

General rule – COMELEC may supervise and regulate the enjoyment and utilization of all franchises or permits for operation
Transportation and other public utilities
Media of communication or information
All grants, special privileges or concessions granted by the government or any subdivision, agency , or instrumentality, including
government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary

Exception – Only applicable during elections

Purposes
Ensure equal opportunity, time, space, and right to reply
Reasonable and equal rates for the use of media facilities for public information and forums among candidates
Hold a free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections

999. UNIDO V. COMELEC

The power to regulate media during “election period” also extends to the period of a plebiscite or referendum as the essence of the
latter is fair submission. Regulatory power during the period of plebiscite and referendum is also intended.
1000. SANIDAD V. COMELEC
The authority given by the Constitution is over holders of franchises. The purpose is to assure candidates equal opportunity and
equal access to media. Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and the people’s right to be informed must be preserved. The
people’s choice of forum for discussion should not be restricted.

1001. OSMENA V. COMELEC

COMELEC takes over the advertising page of newspapers or the commercial time of radio and TV stations and allocates these to the
candidates. The only prohibition is the sale or donation of print space and air time to candidates but require the COMELEC instead to
procure space and time in the mass media for allocation, free of charge, to the candidates.

1002. PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE V. COMELEC

Taking of print space must be appraised under the rubric of expropriation of private personal property for public use. The threshold
requisites for a lawful taking of private property for public use need to be examined here: one is the necessity for the taking and
another is the legal authority to effect the taking. Print Media may not be compelled to allocate free space to COMELEC. Such would
amount to prohibited taking of property without just compensation.

1003. TELECOM V. COMELEC

COMELEC does not take over the operation of radio and television stations but only the allocation of air time to the candidates for
the purpose of ensuring, among other things, equal opportunity, time, and the right to reply as mandated by the Constitution. What
the COMELEC is authorized to supervise or regulate by Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution is the use by media of information of
their franchises or permits, while what Congress (not the COMELEC) prohibits is the sale or donation of print space or air time for
political ads.

1004. ABS-CBN VS. COMELEC

Prohibiting the conduct of exit polls violates freedom of speech and freedom of press. Exit polls, when properly conducted and
publicized, can be vital tools for the holding of honest, orderly, peaceful and credible elections; and for the elimination of election-
fixing, fraud and other electoral ills.

1005. SWS VS. COMELEC

The grant of power to the COMELEC under Article IX-C Section 4 is limited to ensuring equal opportunity, time, space, and the right
to reply. Likewise, it is also responsible for fix reasonable rates of charge for the use of media facilities for public information and
forms among candidates.

Section 5: Favorable Recommendation for Pardon, Amnesty, Parole or Suspension of Sentence

There must be a favorable recommendation from COMELEC

Pardon – act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it
is bestowed from the punishment that the law inflicts for a crime he has committed
Amnesty – commonly denotes the general pardon to rebels for their treason and other high political offenses
Parole – refers to criminal offenders who are conditionally released from prison to serve the remaining portion of their sentence in
the community

Section 6: Free and Open Party System

Infinite number of candidates can run provided that parties will screen the candidates and make sure that those who join the
electoral race are also the best qualified for public office

Political parties – organized group of persons pursuing the same political ideals in a government and includes its branches, and
divisions
Registration confers juridical personality on the party;
Informs the public of the party’s existence and ideals; and
defines the party and its officers for purposes of regulation by the COMELEC

1006. Liberal Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 191771, May 6, 2010

Political parties should be understood in its generic sense that it covers political organizations and political coalitions as well.
Section 7: No Block-Voting
A large number of votes that are made in the same way by one person who represents a large group of people

General rule – Prohibited under Section 7, Article IX of the Constitution

Exception – For those registered under the party-list system

Section 8: Prohibition on Political Parties

Section 9: Election Period

Starts 90 days before the day of the election
Ends 30 days after the day of the election

Section 10: No Harassment and Discrimination

Section 11: Funds

COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Section 1: Composition; Qualifications; Term

Chairman and two Commissioners
Natural-born Filipinos
At least 35 years old at the time of appointment
Certified Public Accountants with not less than 10 years of auditing experience, or members of the Philippine Bar who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years
Must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment
At no time shall all Members of the Commission belong to the same profession
Term of 7 years without re-appointment

1007. MISON VS. COA

A manage of COA has no power whatsoever to render and promulgate a decision of or for the Commission. Even the Chairman,
alone, does not have that power. The commission, as a collegial body, has the jurisdiction to decide any case brought before it
within 60 days from the date of submission for resolution. (Subject to review by the Supreme Court by certiorari)

Section 2: General Functions and Powers

To examine the accuracy of the records kept by accountable officers and to determine whether expenditures have been made in
conformity with law
To examine and audit all forms of government revenues
To examine and audit all forms of government expenditures
To settle government accounts
To promulgate accounting and auditing rules, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures
To decide administrative cases involving expenditures of public funds

1008. BLUE BAR COCONUT PHIL. TANTUICO

The Constitution formally embodies the long established rule that private entities who handle government funds or subsidies in trust
may be examined or audited in their handling of said funds by government auditors.

1009. DBP VS. COA

DBP is no doubt a government corporation and the question of whether COA Circular 86-299 was retroactively applied to the subject
transaction is thus of no moment. To begin with, there was never any retroactive application of post-audit. Regardless of the result
of the pre-audit, it cannot be denied that respondent COA is so empowered to conduct a post-audit.

1010. Eslao v. COA

The post-audit authority is limited to determining compliance to government laws and regulations like checking if there is an
appropriation or budget, inquiring about the legality of transactions, and checking if proper approval and documentation was
followed not to determine which law is more applicable.
1011. J.F.F. Manacop v. CA – 266 SCRA 235 [1997]
The CA affirmed that petitioners should be paid but it set aside the trial court decision to base the payment on quantum meruit and
referred it to COA. The court settled the issue that petitioners should be paid for the construction made which arose from a quasi-
contractual relation. Quantum meruit allows recovery of the reasonable value regardless of any agreement as to value. It entitles the
party to "as much as he, reasonably deserves

1012. Polloso v. Gangan, GR 140563, July 14, 2000

COA circular was issued recognizing the problem of hiring private lawyers or law practitioners to render legal services for them
and/or to handle their legal cases in consideration of fixed retainer fees, at times in unreasonable amounts, paid from public fund
despite numerous laws that restrict the practice. The court said the circular was a safeguard to prevent the irregular, unnecessary,
excessive and extravagant or unconscionable expenditure.

1013. Uy v. COA, GR 130685, March 21, 2000

Whether respondent COA, in the exercise of its power to audit, can disallow the payment of back wages of illegally dismissed
employees by the Provincial Government of Agusan del Sur which has been decreed pursuant to a final decision of the Civil Service
Commission. The COA is bereft of power to disallow the payment of petitioners' back wages. Orders of the respondent Commission
on Audit are set aside.

1014. Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan – 265 SCRA 121 [1996]

COA’s approval of petitioner’s disbursements only relates to the administrative aspect of the matter of his accountability but it does
not foreclose the Ombudsman’s authority to investigate and determine whether there is a crime to be prosecuted for which
petitioner is answerable.

1015. DBP v. COA, 422 SCRA 459 [2004]

Severance of employment is a condition for the release of retirement benefits. Retirement benefits are not meant to recompense
employees who are still in the employ of the government. That is the function of salaries and other emoluments. Retirement
benefits are in the nature of a reward granted by the State to a government employee who has given the best years of his life to the
service of his country.

1016. Home Development Mutual Fund v. COA, GR 142297, June 15, 2004
the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the implementation of the statute is necessarily limited to what is
intended and provided for in the legislative enactment. Hence, the Supplemental Rules clarified that GOCCs performing proprietary
functions which are “created, maintained or acquired in pursuance of a policy of the state, enunciated in the constitution or by law,
and those whose officers and employees are covered by the Civil Service” are excluded from the coverage of RA 6971, “An Act to
Encourage Productivity and Maintain Industrial Peace by Providing Incentives to Both Labor and Capital,”

1017. DBP v. COA – 498 SCRA 537 [2006]

COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the purchase of motor vehicles by DBP. DBP, being a government-
owned and controlled corporation, could purchase the subject vehicles because it is not a "mere technicality" as DBP contends,
otherwise, administrative agencies would be free to utilize such funds freely as long as they can justify their use through the mere
invocation of laudable purposes. Since the disallowance was made pursuant to the applicable law, it cannot be assailed as an act of
grave abuse of discretion.

1018. Nava v. Palattao – 499 SCRA 745 [2006]

COA has the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination and to establish the required techniques and
methods; COA’s findings are accorded not only respect but also finality, when they are not tainted with grave abuse of discretion
COA always has the authority to define the scope of their audit.

1019. Gualberto De Llana v. COA, GR 180989, 7 Feb.

The only clear reference to pre-audit requirement is found in Section 2, paragraph 1, which provides that a post-audit is mandated
for certain government or private entities with state subsidy or equity and only when the internal control system of an audited
entity is inadequate. In such situation, the COA may adopt measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, to correct the
deficiencies

1020. Candelario L. Versoza Jr. v. Guillermo N Carague, GR 157838, 7 February 2012

The COA shall have exclusive authority, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods
required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and
properties.

1021. Philippine Coconut v. Republic – 663 SCRA 514 [2012]

Article VI, Section 29 (3) of the 1987 Constitution, restating a general principle on taxation, enjoins the disbursement of a special
fund in accordance with the special purpose for which it was collected, the balance, if there be any, after the purpose has been
fulfilled or is no longer forthcoming, to be transferred to the general funds of the government. If only to stress the point, P.D. No.
1234 expressly stated that coconut levies are special funds to be remitted to the Treasury in the General Fund of the State, but
treated as Special Accounts.

1022. Caltex v. COA – 208 SCRA 726 [1992

It is a settled rule that a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may have against the government.Taxes cannot
be the subject of compensation because the government and taxpayer are not mutually debtors and creditors of each other and a
claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off.The oil companies merely acted as agents
for the government in the latter’s collection since taxes are passed unto the end-users, the consuming public.

1023. Mamaril v. Domingo – 227 SCRA 206[1993]

The verification of the correctness of the evaluation and computation of the fees and penalties collectible under the Land
Transportation Law (R.A. No. 4136) are parts of the functions of the COA, which examines and audits revenue accounts (The
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, P.D. No. 1445, sec. 60). When any person is indebted to any government agency, the
COA may direct the proper officer to withhold the payment of any money due such person or his estate to be applied in satisfaction
of the indebtedness (P. D. No. 1445, sec. 37).

1024. Philippine Airlines v. COA – 245 SCRA 39 [1995]

As a business operation heavily dependent on fuel supply, for PAL to rely solely on a single supplier would indeed be impracticable.
To compel it to do so would amount to a grave abuse of discretion on its part as this might well lead to irregular, excessive or
unconscionable expenditures, the very evil sought to be avoided in the creation of the COA. This, however, is so much water under
the bridge. PAL's corporate complexion having changed during the pendency of the instant petition from government-controlled to
private ownership, we dismiss the petition for being moot and academic.

1025. CIR v. COA – 218 SCRA 203 [1993]

Respondent COA considers the payment of informer's reward in this case as placing a premium upon violations committed by
government agencies and therefore, improper. Supreme Court set aside COA’s claim and affirmed the reward to be given to
informants. That the informer's reward was sought and given in relation to tax delinquencies of government agencies provides no
reason for disallowance.

1026. CSC v. Pobre, GR 160568, Sept. 15, 2004

while the determination of the leave benefits is within the functions of the CSC the duty to examine accounts and expenditures
relating to such benefits properly pertain to COA. Where government expenditures are involved, CSC cannot claim exclusive
jurisdiction simply because leave matters are involved. Thus even SC recognizes CSC’s jurisdiction over the case, its power is not
exclusive as it is shared with COA. The COA and CSC are equally pre-eminent in their respective spheres. Neither one may claim
dominance over the others. In case of conflicting rulings it is the judiciary which ascertains which shall prevail.

1027. Veloso v. Commission on Audit GR. 193677

Under the 1987 Constitution, however, the COA is vested with the authority to determine whether government entities, including
LGUs, comply with laws and regulations in disbursing government funds, and to disallow illegal or irregular disbursements of these
funds. Sec. 2 par 2 of Article IX-D of the Constitution. Thus, LGUs, though granted local fiscal autonomy, are still within the audit
jurisdiction of the COA.

1028. Boy Scout of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 7 June 2011

the BSP is a public corporation and its funds are subject to the COA's audit jurisdiction.
1029. Dela Llana v. COA – 665 SCRA 176 [2012]
There is nothing in the said provision that requires the COA to conduct a pre-audit of all government transactions and for all
government agencies. . In such a situation, the COA may adopt measures, including a temporary or special pre-audit, to correct the
deficiencies. Hence, the conduct of a pre-audit is not a mandatory duty that this Court may compel the COA to perform.

Settle Government Accounts

1030. Philippine Operations, Inc. v. Auditor General, 94 Phil 868 [1953-1954]

The Auditor General has no jurisdiction or power to take cognizance of claims for unliquidated damages.

1031. ICNA v. Republic, 21 SCRA 40 [1967]

the money claims not easily determinable and which calls for the application of judgment and discretion upon the measure of
damages are not within the competence of the Auditor General to decide. However, those, which claim is already fixed and readily
determinable, can be addressed directly to the Auditor General. This is the case of the present petition. Since there was an assertion
of th existence of a specific and fixed indebtedness on the part of the Govt., it should be lodged with the Auditor General

1032. Dingcong v. Guingona, 162 SCRA 782 [1988]

The COA found that the labor contract which they disallowed, was excessive and thus disadvantageous to the Govt. however, the
court found out that that the rate given is not necessarily disadvantageous. The Bureau of Treasury hired Layson since he was the
one submitted the lowest price in the auction for the contract. Thus, it being found not disadvantageous, the decision of COA was
set aside and ordered the petitioner to refund the disallowed item.

1033. NHC v. COA – 226 SCRA 55 [1993]

The nature of the terminal phrase of the Dagat Dagatan project does not require the expertise of a foreign consultant and that the
finishing stage merely requires simple advisory stage that can be undertaken by the NHA or DPWH in-house technical staff or at the
most a local consultant.

1034. Euro-Med v. Province of Batangas, 495 SCRA 30 [2006]

Whether it is the COA or RTC which has primary jurisdiction to pass upon petitioner's money claim against the Province of Batangas.
We rule that it is the COA which does. Therefore, we deny the petition. This case is one over which the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction clearly held sway for although petitioner's collection suit for P487,662.80 was within the jurisdiction of the RTC, the
circumstances surrounding petitioner's claim brought it clearly within the ambit of the COA's jurisdiction.

1035. Danville Maritime v. COA,175 SCRA 701 [1989]

We see no reason to disturb the interpretation given by the COA to the term "public bidding" and what constitutes its "failure." No
less than the Constitution has ordained that the COA shall have exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination,
establish the techniques and methods required therefore, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including
those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or use
of government funds and properties.

1036. Leycano v. COA, 482 SCRA 215

In light of this function of the Inspectorate Team, its members may be held liable by the COA for any irregular expenditure of the SEF
if their participation in such irregularity can be established. While petitioner, in his capacity as member of the Inspectorate Team, is
not an accountable officer as contemplated in Section 101 of P.D. No. 1445, 5.

1037 NCMH v. COA, 265 SCRA 390 [1996]

"The terms 'irregular,' 'unnecessary,' 'excessive,' and 'extravagant,' when used in reference to expenditures of funds or uses of
property, are relative. The determination of which expenditure of funds or use of property belongs to this or that type is situational

1038 Ramos v. Aquino, 39 SCRA 256 [1971]

The exclusive jurisdiction of the Auditor General refer to auditorial requirements and approval but not to the criminal liability, if any,
of the persons involved in an alleged irregular or anomalous disbursement of public funds. The authority of the Fiscal to investigate
whether a criminal act has been committed or not in the disbursement of public funds is not included in the administrative findings
of the Auditor General.
1039. Salva v. Carague, 511 SCRA 258
an official or employee shall be personally liable for unauthorized expenditures if the following requisites are present, to wit: (a)
there must be an expenditure of government funds or use of government property; (b) the expenditure is in violation of law or
regulation; and(c) the official is found directly responsible.

1040. City of Basilan v. Hechanova, 58 SCRA 711 [1974]

The office of Assistant City Auditor is dissimilar from that of a city employee. It comes within the purview of the Auditor General, a
constitutionally created position. Itis a position primarily under the General Auditing Office. Therefore, the City of Basilan does not
have sole jurisdiction over the position, much less the power to abolish it.

Section 3: COA Jurisdiction

No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government from the jurisdiction of the COA

1041. Luciano Veloso v. Commisssion on Audit, GR 193677, 6 September 2011

Section 11, Chapter 4, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 states that the jurisdiction of the COA under the
first paragraph of the above provision, the COA's audit jurisdiction extends to the government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.

Section 4. Annual Report to the President and to Congress

ARTICLE X LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Consolidated Reviewer

ARTICLE X - SECTION 1
The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays.
There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.

SIGNIFICANCE ;
Provinces, cities and municipalities and barangays have been fixed as the standard territorial and political subdivisions of the
Philippines

Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COA, GR No. 79956, January 26, 1990 - Executive Order No. 220, which created the (Cordillera
Administrative Region, is assailed on the primary ground that it pre-empts the enactment of an organic act by the Congress. Held ;
No, CAR is not a public corporation or a territorial and political subdivision. It does not have a separate juridical personality, unlike
provinces, cities and municipalities.

SECTION 2 - The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.

SIGNIFICANCE ;
Its meant to free local governments from well-nigh absolute control by the legislature .

Is Autonomy and Decentralization the same? Not Really, Autonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization of
power.There is decentralization of administration when the central government delegates administrative powers to political
subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power. Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an
abdication of political power in the favor of local government units declared to be autonomous.

Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, GR No. 111097-Cagayan de Oro City, like other local political subdivisions, is empowered to enact
ordinances for the purposes indicated in the Local Government Code.However, local councils exercise only delegated legislative
powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise
powers higher than those of the latter.
Judge Leynes v. COA, GR No. 143596-The Local Government Code of 1991 was specially promulgated by Congress to ensure the
autonomy of local governments as mandated by the Constitution. By upholding, in the present case, the power of LGUs to grant
allowances to judges and leaving to their discretion the amount of allowances they may want to grant, depending on the availability
of local funds, we ensure the genuine and meaningful local autonomy of LGUs

Batangas CATV v. CA and Batangas City, GR No. 138810-LGUs must be reminded that they merely form part of the whole. Thus,
when the Drafters of the 1987 Constitution enunciated the policy of ensuring the autonomy of local governments,it was never their
intention to create an imperium in imperio and install an intra-sovereign political subdivision independent of a single sovereign
state.

SECTION 3-The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local
government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and
referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the
qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other
matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units.

Present form of Government - am executive distinct from the legislative body.

Garcia v. COMELEC, 227 SCRA 100 - The Constitution did not provide for any mode, let alone a single mode, of initiating recall
elections. 19 Neither did it prohibit the adoption of multiple modes of initiating recall elections.
SECTION 4 -The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to
component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays, shall ensure that the acts
of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions

POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION -To see to it that lower officers perform their functions. Excluding the power to substitute one's
judgement.

Ganzon v. CA, 200 SCRA 271-it is noteworthy that in spite of autonomy, the Constitution places the local government under the
general supervision of the Executive. The important distinction is between the power of general supervision which the president has,
and the power of control which the president does not have.

Joson v. Torres, 290 SCRA 279- The President remains the Disciplining Authority. What is delegated is the power to investigate, not
the power to discipline.

Drilon v. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994)-As we see it, that was an act not of control but of mere supervision. If the rules are not observed,
he may order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed rules. He may not prescribe his own manner for the
doing of the act. He has no judgment on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed.

Bito-onon v. Fernandez and National Liga v. Paredes -Supervisory power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere
oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any restraining authority over such body. It does not allow the supervisor to
annul the acts of the subordinate.

SEC. 5. Taxation Power of Local Government

The power of the LGU to tax is liberally interpreted in its favor against the state but is strictly construed against the LGU in favor of
the taxpayer. Petron vs. Mayor GR 158881
Power to impose tax within its territorial jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution and Local Government Code but must prove
the BASIS of such collection. Yamane v BA Lepanto Condominium GR 154993
The power to raise revenue by an LGU many only be defined and limited by guidelines and limitations set forth by the Congress.
Philippine Petroleum Cor v. Mun. of Pililia 198 SCRA 82
The rationale for the Congress Guidelines and Limitations:
Taxpayer will not be over burdened or saddled : Theory of Just and Progressive Taxation
LGU will have a fair share of available resources : IRA
Resources of National Govt will not be unduly distributed
Local Taxation will be fair, uniform and just
Exemption from taxes are construed strictly against the taxpayer unless categorically provided by the statute. Smart
Communications v City of Davao GR 155491
Double Taxation only happens when JUPPUTS concur.
JUrisdiction – Period – PUrpose – Taxing authority – Source

SEC. 6. Share in National Taxes

The provision is clear as to its intent and construction: JUST SHARE and AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED. No Administrative Order or
Legislation may contravene such intent of the Law. Pimentel v. Aguirre GR 132988
Any legislation setting forth other mechanism to release or additional requisites prior just share is distributed is VOID as contrary to
the Constitution. Batangas v. Executive Secretary GR 152774
Just Share is Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) which is based on (1) type of government unit; (2) land area and (3) population.

SEC. 7. Equitable Share in the Nat’l Wealth

The LGU’s Equitable share is determined by the direct contribution and proportion to their direct benefits.
The share only accrues from the National Government to the Local Government and on a reverse.
This is on of the sources of funds by an LGU to promote local autonomy and sufficiency.

Section 8, Article X: Term of Local Officials; Voluntary Renunciation

Term: 3 years; limit of 3 consecutive years

XPN: Barangay officials; Term determined by law
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time: not considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the
full term for which he was elected.

Policies embodied in Section 8, Art. X

Prevent Political dynasties
To enhance the freedom of choice of the people
Three-term limit applies when:
The local official concerned has been elected three consecutive times
He has fully served three consecutive terms

A vice-mayor who succeeds to the office of mayor by operation of law when the mayor died and serves the remainder of the term is
not considered to have served a full term in that office for the purpose of the three-term limit. (Borja v. Comelec)

Lonzanida was elected to a third term. His election was challenged and had to abandon his office. He could still run in the next
election year because his abandonment was not voluntary and did not serve three full terms. (Lonzanida vs Comelec)

Talaga lost when he ran for the third term. The winner lost to him in a recall election and served the rest of the former’s term.
Talaga could run again because he had not served three full terms. (Adormeo v. COMELEC)

Hagedorn served as mayor for three full terms. In the first year after the end of his third term, he ran in a recall election. He can still
run because between the end of his third term and the recall election, there was an interruption thus breaking the successiveness.
(Socrates v. COMELEC)

During the third term of the mayor, the municipality of Digos, Davao del Sur was converted into a city. The mayor was allowed to
finish the third term. He could not run as the mayor of the city in the next election. There has been no change in the territory nor in
constituency and there is no interruption in the continuity of service. (Latasa v. COMELEC)

The Constitution did not expressly prohibit Congress from fixing any term of office for barangay officials. It merely left the
determination of such term to the law-making body, without any specific limitation or prohibition, thereby leaving to the lawmakers
full discretion to fix such term in accordance with the exigencies of public service. The term of barangay officials shall be three years
under the Local Government Code of 1991. (David vs COMELEC)

An elected official may not run again for the same position if declaration of the nullity his previous election was rendered after he
already served his three full consecutive terms. (Rivera v. COMELEC, ONG v. COMELEC)

A Municipal Counicilor assumed the Office of the Vice Mayor in 2004 by operation of law when the Vice Mayor retired. He may still
run for as councilor for his last term. It was an involuntary severance from his office as municipal councilor. (Montebon v. COMELEC)
Conversion of a municipality to a city, generally, does not interrupt the service of a local elective official, in this case, a punong
barangay and hence, three-term limit rule will apply. (Laceda v. Lumina)

The mayor was ousted in the last month of his third term as the election was declared invalid. He did not serve three full terms. The
interruption of his tenure was involuntary. (Dizon v. COMELEC)

Abandonment, like resignation, is voluntary. Hence, a barangay official, a punong barangay in this case, who abandons his office and
ran for councilor, is a voluntary renunciation and no interruption operates. (Bolos v. COMELEC)

The preventive suspension of public officials does not interrupt their term for purposes of the three-term limit rule under the
Constitution. (Aldovino v. COMELEC)

Elective ARMM officials are local officials, they are covered and bound by the three-year term limit prescribed by the Constitution;
they cannot extend their term through a holdover. (Datu Michel Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines)

Section 9, Article X: Sectoral Representatives

Legislative bodies of local governments shall have sectoral representation as may be prescribed by law.

The Constitution does not prescribe the qualifications, they are prescribed by laws to which the President must observe when
making appointments.(Supangan Jr. v. Santos)
The Secretary of Local Government, may, by authority of the President inform the sectoral representatives of their appointments.
Otherwise stated, it is actually the President who has made appointments. (Supangan Jr. v. Santos)

Sec 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially
altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code and subject to approval by a majority of
the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
The creation of province, city, municipality, or barangay needs to fulfil the requisites of (a) Compliance with the requirements of the
Local Government Code; and (b) Approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held in the political units directly affected. In
instances where a province is to be divided into two (ex. Tan v COMELEC), the plebiscite should include the voters of the entire
province and not just voters from the supposed new province.
The requirements of the Local Government Code are to be considered such as the population, revenue, and area requirements.
According to RA 7160, Section 7:
Income - must be sufficient, based on acceptable standards, to provide for all essential government facilities and services and special
functions commensurate with the size of population, as expected of the local government unit concerned.
Population - it shall be determined as the total number of inhabitants within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government unit
concerned.
Land Area - it must be contiguous, unless it comprises two or more islands or is separated by a local government unit independent of
the others; properly identified by metes and bounds with technical descriptions and sufficient to provide for such basic services and
facilities to meet the requirements of its populace.

Tan v COMELEC (In the creation, abolition or change of boundaries of a province, the approval of a majority of votes in the plebiscite
in the unit/units affected must first be obtained).
Tobias v Abalos (The development and division of Mandaluyong from San Juan is still considered one subject, and not two
completely different subjects).
Mun. of Jimenez v Judge Baz (A municipality created by executive order is later impliedly recognized and its acts are accorded legal
validity, its creation can no longer be questioned).
Cawaling v COMELEC (The development and division of Sorsogon from Bacon is still considered one subject, and not two completely
different subjects).
League of Cities of the Philippines v COMELEC (No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged,
abolished or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code).
Sema v COMELEC (For Congress to delegate validly the power to create a province or city, it must also validly delegate at the same
time the power to create a legislative district).
Camid v Office of the President (A municipality created by executive order is later impliedly recognized and its acts are accorded
legal validity, its creation can no longer be questioned).
Navarro v Executive Secretary (The new province failed to comply with the requirements on population and land area in the creation
of a province under the LGC).
Sec 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10
hereof. The component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives
and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will hereby be created shall be limited to basic services
requiring coordination.
Special metropolitan political subdivisions can be created but these are limited to basic services requiring coordination.
It authorizes the creation of similar authorities in other metro-political regions in which the area of jurisdiction would not have the
totality of the municipal government but maintain basic services such as police power, power of eminent domain, and power of
taxation.

MMDA v Bel-Air Village Association (The MMDA is neither a local government unit not a metropolitan political subdivision to have
any police power).
MMDA v Garin (The MMDA can confiscate, revoke, suspend driver’s licenses as it is part of their duty to exercise such as it was
validly enacted or rather, delegated by the legislative).
Gancayco v City Government of Quezon City (The MMDA is neither a local government unit not a metropolitan political subdivision
to have any police power).
Sec 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting
for provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the province. The voters of component cities within a province, whose
charters contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial officials.

The types of cities identified in this provision:

Highly urbanized (as determined by law)
Component cities (cities still under provincial control); and
Independent component cities (non-highly urbanized cities whose voters are prohibited by the city charter from voting in provincial
elections)

Abella v COMELEC (Residents of “component cities whose charter prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials”
cannot run for provincial office).
Sec 13. Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services, and resources for purposes
commonly beneficial to them in accordance with law.
According to Sec. 33 of the Local Government Code:
Consolidation and coordination may be done through appropriate ordinances.
A public hearing should be conducted and the approval of the Saanggunian obtained.
An LGU can:
Contribute funds, real estate, equipment and other kinds of property
Appoint/assign personnel under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the participating LGUs through Memoranda of
Agreement.
Section 14. The President shall provide for regional development councils or other similar bodies composed of local government
officials, regional heads of departments and other government offices, and representatives from non-governmental organizations
when the regions for purposes of administrative decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the units therein and to accelerate
the economic and social growth and development of the units in the region.
PURPOSE - To foster administrative decentralization as a complement to political decentralization in order to make possible bottom-
to-top planning.
Decentralization of power - Involves an abdication of political power in the favor of local governments units declared to be
autonomous. In that case, the autonomous government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum
intervention from central authorities.
Decentralization of administration - when the central government delegates administrative powers to political subdivisions in order
to broaden the base of government power and in the process to make local governments 'more responsive and accountable' and
'ensure their fullest development a self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national
development and social progress.
Section 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities,
municipalities, and geographic areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures,
and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial
integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

Purpose - The creation of a situation which will allow each culture to flourish unhampered by the dominance of other cultures and
thereby contribute more effectively to national progress.
Muslim Mindanao – A short-hand expression to designate those areas of Mindanao which are predominantly Muslim. It is not meant
to characterize all of Mindanao as Muslim.
An autonomous region is organized “within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty.”

Section 16. The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
General Supervision – overseeing or the power or authority of to see that subordinate officers perform their duties.
Section 17. All powers, functions, and responsibilities not granted by the Constitution or by law to the autonomous regions shall be
vested in the National Government.
Powers not authorized to autonomous regions:
National defense and security
Foreign relations and foreign trade
Customs and tariff
Quarantine
Currency
Monetary affairs
Foreign exchange
Banking and quasi-banking
External borrowing
Posts and communications
Air and sea transport
Immigration and deportation
Citizenship and naturalization
General auditing

Section 18. The Congress shall enact an organic act for each autonomous region with the assistance and participation of the regional
consultative commission composed of representatives appointed by the President from a list of nominees from multisectoral bodies.
The organic act shall define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive department and legislative
assembly, both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units. The organic acts shall likewise provide
for special courts with personal, family, and property law jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of this Constitution and national
laws.

The creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a
plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall
be included in the autonomous region.

Organic Act – the charter of autonomous regions which will be passed by Congress in the manner and according to the substantive
specifications. Created and can be changed only through a plebiscite called for the purpose.
Autonomous regions cannot create a province, only the Congress has the power to do so.
Effectivity of autonomous regions – when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite held for
the purpose.
Plebiscite - is a direct vote by the people of a country or region in which they say whether they agree or disagree with a particular
policy, for example whether a region should become an independent state.
Only the provinces, cities, and geographic areas which vote favorably.

Section 19. The first Congress elected under this Constitution shall, within eighteen months from the time of organization of both
Houses, pass the organic acts for the autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
The failure of Congress to act cannot be allowed to frustrate the clear intent of the electorate.
The relatively short period is prescribed in order to emphasize the urgency of creating autonomous regions as a means towards
solving existing serious peace and order problems and foreclosing secessionist movements.

Section 20. The first Congress elected under this Constitution shall, within eighteen months from the time of organization of both
Houses, pass the organic acts for the autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.

Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the organic act of autonomous
regions shall provide for legislative powers over:

(1) Administrative organization;

(2) Creation of sources of revenues;
(3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;
(4) Personal, family, and property relations;
(5) Regional urban and rural planning development;
(6) Economic, social, and tourism development;
(7) Educational policies;
(8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and
(9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region.

When it conflicts the Constitution, the Constitution should always prevail.

The enumeration is intended as a political signal that indeed the Constitution takes the matter of regional autonomy seriously.

Section 21. The preservation of peace and order within the regions shall be the responsibility of the local police agencies which shall
be organized, maintained, supervised, and utilized in accordance with applicable laws. The defense and security of
ARTICLE XI. ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

A Public Office is a Public Trust

It shall not to be understood as a position of honor, prestige and power but position of rendering services for the public good and not
for public gain.

Section 1 furthermore stipulates the roles and duties of every Public Officers and Employees. be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Lead a Modest life: Public officers and employees should not expose themselves with extravagance. They shall live the same as an
ordinary Filipino.

1118.Hipolito v. Mergas

Respondent committed acts which may be called "moonlighting" and which are contrary to civil service rules and regulations. It is
not normally considered as a serious misconduct, However, because of the nature of his position as sheriff. It amounted to a
malfeasance in office.

1119.Bornasal, Jr. v. Montes

Deputy Sheriffs must at all times be circumspect in the performance of their duties and must be fully aware of the responsibilities
entailed in their functions and the propriety needed afforded them.

1120.Almario v. Resus

The clerk of court is mandated to safeguard the integrity of the court and its proceedings, and to maintain the authenticity and
correctness of court records. His willful and intentional failure to obey this mandate constituted grave misconduct or conduct highly
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which warrants dismissal from the service.

1121.Juan v. People

Public officer’s unauthorized and unlawful use of government property in their custody, in the pursuit of personal interests
constitute fraud against the government; thus, the present case is covered by Section 13 of RA 3019.

1122. Re; AWOL of Antonio Makalintal

Habitual absenteeism causes inefficiency in the public service. One’s plight does not excuse his total disregard of official duties. Any
act which falls short of the exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the
judiciary, shall not be countenanced.

1123.Estrella v. Sandiganbayan

An accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only
evidence is that there is a shortage in his accounts which he has not been able to explain the funds or property by reason of the
duties of his office.
1124.Malbas v. Blanco

The failure of sheriffs to verify complainants’ allegation that they were not parties to the case in which the writ of execution was
issued manifests blatant irresponsibility, for which they must be meted with the appropriate penalty by their acts, the sheriffs
committed grave misconduct, oppression and conducted themselves in a manner highly prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.

1125.Manaois v. Leomo

Judges unjustified interference in the enforcement of a warrant of arrest constitutes gross misconduct which can erode public
confidence in the judiciary, for it is the duty of a judge to uphold and respect the law, not to violate it.

1126.Re; Gideon Alibang

Habitual tardiness seriously impairs efficiency and hampers public service. Officials and employees of the Judiciary must be role
models in the faithful observance of the constitutional cannon that public office is a public trust.

1127.ABAKADA v. Purisima

Public officer binds himself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable skill and diligence, and to act primarily
for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the discharge of duties, a public officer is to use that prudence, caution, and attention which
careful persons use in the management of their affairs.

1128.Salumbides v. OMB

When a public officer takes an oath of office, one binds himself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable skill
and diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the discharge of duties, a public officer is to use that
prudence, caution and attention which careful persons use in the management of their affairs.

Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions,
and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution,
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be
removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

What is the purpose of impeachment?

It is not to punish an officer but to remove an officer who does not deserve to hold office.

Officers subject for impeachment:

President Members of Constitutional Commission

Vice President Ombudsman.

Members of Supreme Court

What are the grounds for Impeachment?

Culpable Violation of the Constitution Other High Crimes or Betrayal of Public Trust.

Treason

Bribery

Graft and Corruption

1129. Ombudsman v. CA – 452 SCRA 714 [2005]

Article 11 Section 2 is an exclusive list and may not be increased or reduced by legislative enactment. Ombudsman as enumerated
refers to rank and not to the office. Thus, its Deputies cannot be included in list of impeachable officer.

Impeachable Officer in a Quo Warranto Proceeding

1130.Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. 237428

Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly elected impeachable official may be removed
from the office. The language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto action against
impeachable officers. The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote discretion and cannot be construed as having a
mandatory effect, indicative of a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option.

Section 3: PROCEDURE FOR IMPEACHMENT

The House of Representatives has exclusive power to INITIATE all cases of impeachment.

Procedure:

1. Filling of verified complaint

Can be filed by:

Any member of the House of Representatives or

Any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member of the House or

By at least 1/3 of all the Members of the House of Representatives

2.) Inclusion of complaint in the order of business with 10 session days

3.) Referral to proper Committee within 3 session days thereafter

4.) Submission of Committee report to the House together with corresponding resolution

There should be a hearing

There should be a majority vote of the members

The report should be submitted within 60 days from referral, after hearing, and by a majority vote of ALL its members.

5.) Calendaring of resolution for consideration by the House

Should be done within 10 session days from receipt thereof

6.) Vote of at least 1/3 of all Members of the House necessary to:

Affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee or

To override its contrary resolution

Note: If the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment was filed by at least 1/3 of all the Members of the House, it shall
constitute the Articles of Impeachment. Trial in the Senate shall proceed.
7.) Trial in the Senate

Senate has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment

For this purpose, the Senators shall be under oath or affirmation

When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the CJ of the Supreme Court presides. However, he/she will not vote.

In Francisco vs. House of Representatives, an impeachment case is the legal controversy that must be decided by the Senate while
an impeachment proceeding is one that is initiated in the House of Representatives. For purposes of applying the one-year bar rule,
the proceeding is “initiated” or begins when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action

8.) Judgment of Conviction

This requires the concurrence of 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate

9.) Effect of the Impeachment

Removal from office of the official concerned

Disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines

Officer still liable to prosecution, trial, and punishment if the impeachable offense committed also constitutes a felony or crime.

Section 4: SANDIGANBAYAN

Sandiganbayan = the anti-graft court

Offenses fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan whenever the two requisites concur: (a) the offense
must have been committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office; and (b) the penalty prescribed for the offense
charged is higher than prision correctional or imprisonment for six (6) years or a fine of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00). This is true
even though the information originally filed before the RTC did not aver that the accused public officer had committed the offense
charged in relation to his office.

Sections 5: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Composition:

1.) Ombudsman/Tanodbayan

2.) Overall deputy

3.) At least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao

4.) Deputy for military establishment may be appointed

Section 6: APPOINTMENTS

The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, other than the deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman
according to the Civil Service Law.

Powers of the Ombudsman over his office:

Has the power to appoint all officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, except his deputies.

Include the power of setting, prescribing, and administering the standards of the officials and personnel of the Office.

Power of administrative control and supervision of the Office.

Authority to determine and establish the qualifications, duties, functions, and responsibilities of various directorates and allied
services of the Office.

Ombudsman vs. CSC, GR No. 162215, July 20, 2007

Under the Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman is an independent body as a guaranty of this independence, the Ombudsman
has the power to appoint all officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, except his deputies. This power necessarily
includes the power of setting, prescribing and administering the standards for the officials and personnel of the Office.

Section 7: TANODBAYAN AS SPECIAL PROSECUTORY

There are two distinct offices that were created in the Article 11 Section 7 provision. These are:

The Ombudsman or Tanodbayan

Inherits the title of the Tanodbayan.

Acts as champion of the people, independent and not beholden to the President.

Will have persuasive powers plus the ability to require that proper legal steps are taken by the officers concerned (final say as to
prosecution will belong to the executive department).

May seek to compel the fiscal to prosecute by mandamus in proper cases.

The Special Prosecutor

Inherits the prosecutorial responsibility of the Tanodbayanof the 1973 constitution but is no longer called Tanodbayan.

Quimpo vs. Tanodbayan, 146 SCRA 137 (1986)

The Tanodbayan has jurisdiction to entertain and prosecute complaint against employees of corporations which started as private
corporations but were later on acquired by the Government as subsidiaries of a government owned corporation, e.g., Petrophil
which is a subsidiary of PNOC.

Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 843 (1988)

The incumbent Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and who is supposed to retain powers and duties
NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly without authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal
cases with the Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman.
Acop v. Ombudsman, GR No. 120422, September 27, 1995

Military deputy may investigate civilian police. The Ombudsman "may exercise such other powers or perform such functions or
duties" as Congress may prescribe through legislation. Therefore, nothing can prevent Congress from giving the Ombudsman
supervision and control over the Ombudsman's deputies, one being the deputy for the military establishment.

Deloso v. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545

The office of the Ombudsman has the power, function and duty "to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner
against public officials" and to "investigate any act or omission of any public official when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper or inefficient."

Almonte v. Vasquez, GR No. 95367, May 22, 1995

The Ombudsman and his Deputies are designated by the Constitution “protectors of the people” and as such they are required by it
“to act promptly on complaints in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporation.”

Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 116033, February 26, 1997

Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual when the complaint charges the private individual either as a co-principal,
accomplice or accessory of a public officer or employee who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction.

Camanag v. Hon Guerrero, GR No. 121017 [1997]

The Tanodbayan’s powers under P.D. No. 1630 or subsequent amendatory legislation. It follows then that Congress may remove any
of the Tanodbayan’s/Special Prosecutor’s powers under P.D. No. 1630 or grant it other powers, except those powers conferred by
the Constitution on the Office of the Ombudsman.”

Macalino v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 140199-200

Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations; Employees and officials of the Philippine National Construction Corporation
(PNCC) are not public officers within the coverage of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, inasmuch as PNCC has no original charter as it was
incorporated under the general law on corporations, and the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over them.

BIR v. Ombudsman, GR No. 115103, April 11, 2002

“Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against
public officials or employees of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned
or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate case, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.”

Laurel v. Desierto, GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002

The Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner since he is a public officer.

Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera, GR No. 164250 [2005]

If the Ombudsman delegates his authority to conduct administrative investigation to the Special Prosecutor and the latter finds that
the preventive suspension of the public official or employee subject thereof is warranted, the Special Prosecutor may recommend to
the Ombudsman, or the designated Deputy Ombudsman if the Ombudsman inhibited himself, to place the said public officer or
employee under preventive suspension.
Perez v. Sandiganbayan, 503 SCRA 252

The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise
its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this
Constitution.

Calingin v. Desierto 529 SCRA 720 [2007]

The Special Prosecutor is a mere subordinate of the Ombudsman and can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s
authority or orders.

Section 8: QUALIFICATIONS

Natural born citizen of the Philippines

At least 40 years old

Members of the Philippine Bar

Must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding election

10 years or more been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines

Section 9: APPOINTMETS

The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be:

Appointed by the President of at least 6 nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council.

From a list of 3 nominees for every vacancy thereafter.

Appointments shall require no confirmation.

All vacancies shall be filled within 3 months after they occur.

Section 10: RANK

Chairman and Members of the Constitutional Commissions

Shall receive the same salary (shall not be decreased during their term of office).

Section 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years without reappointment. They shall not be
qualified to run for any office in the election immediately succeeding their cessation from office.

Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or
manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the
result thereof.(Gonzales III v. OP)

Determination of Scope of the Jurisdiction of Ombusman

A public officer is one to whom some of the sovereign function of the government have been delegated(Laurel v. Desierto)

Ombudsman may investigate any act or omission of any public official when suvh act or omission appears to be illegal,unjust,
improper or inefficient(Deloso v.Domingo, Lexina v. Ombudsman)

Ombudsman may start an investigation on the basis of an anonymous letter it does not violate the equal protection clause(Almonte
v. Vasquez, Baustista v. Sandiganbayan, Roxas v. Vasquez, Kara-an v. Sandiganbayan)

Ombudsman has jurisdiction over presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations
with original charters whenever charges of graft and corruption are involved (People v. sandiganbayan)

Ombudsman can act on complaints filled in any manner(Raro v. Sandiganbayan, Uy v. Sandiganbayan)

Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:

(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency,
when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.(Macalino v. Sandiganbayan, Samson v.
Ombudsman)

(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and
expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of
duties.(Garcia v. Miro, Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan)

(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.

(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with
copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds
or properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action. (Maceda v. Vasquez)

(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine,
if necessary, pertinent records and documents.

(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence.

(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government and make
recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.

(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law.

POWERS OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Can investigate only officers of government owned corporations with original charter.(Khan Jr. v. Ombudsman)

Jurisdiction of OMB over disciplinary cases involving public school teachers(Ombudsman v. Estandarte)

Imposes penalties in Adminintrativ v. Lucero)e cases(Ombudsman v. CA, Ombudsman

Special prosecutor may file an information without the authority from the OMB(Perez v. Sandiganbayan)

Conferred rule making power to govern procedures under it(Buencamino v. CA)

Preventive suspension will only last ninety days(90), not entire duration of the criminal case like petitioners seem to think.(Villas Nor
v.Sandiganbayan)

Powers of the OMB is delegable to an investigator or prosecutor of the Office of the OMB, or by any Provincial or City Prosecutor or
their assistance, either in their regular capacities or as deputized OMB prosecutors(Honasan II v. Panel of Investigators of the DOJ)

Note: The primary jurisdiction of the ombudsman to investigate any act or omission of a public officer or employee applies only in
cases cognizable by the sandiganbayan. In cases cognizable by regular courts, the ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with other
investigative agencies of government.( Ombudsman v. Rodriguez)

Section 13: POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES

KHAN JR VS OMBUDSMAN

The Ombudsman can investigate only the officers of the government owned corporations with original charter. Pal, even when still
owned by the government did not have original charter.

OMBUDSMAN VS ESTANDARTE

The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over disciplinary cases involving public school teachers has been modifies by Section 9 RA 4670,
otherwise known as Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, which says that such cases must first go to a committee appointed by
the Secretary of Education.

OMBUDSMAN VS LUCERO

The Ombudsman Act authorizes the Ombudsman to impose penalties in administrative cases.

OMBUDSMAN VS CA

The Ombudsman has the power to impose directly administrative penalty on the public official or employee.

SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY VS PUNONG BARANGAY

In Local Government Code, elective officials may be dismissed only by the proper court. Where the disciplining authority is given
only the power to suspend and not the power to remove, it should not be permitted to manipulate the law by usurping the power to
remove.

PEREZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN

The Special Prosecutor may not file an information without the authority from the Ombudsman. RA 6770, by conferring upon the
Ombudsman the power to prosecute, likewise grants to the Ombudsman the power to authorize the filing of information. A
delegated authority to prosecute was also given to the Deputy Ombudsman, but such delegation exists to the Special Prosecutor.
Nor is there an implied delegation. The Special Prosecutor prosecutes when authorized by the Ombudsman.

BUENCAMINO VS COA

The Ombudsman has been conferred rule making power to govern procedures under it
MEDINA VS COA

The one who is answering an administrative complaint filed before the Ombudsman may not appeal to the procedural rules under
Civil Service Commission.

VILLASENOR VS SANDIGANBAYAN

Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. The purpose of the
suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence
potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him. Preventive suspension of
petitioners will only last 90 days, not the entire duration of the criminal case The Court has thus laid down the rule that preventive
suspension may not exceed the maximum period of 90 days.

OMBUDSMAN VS RODRIGUEZ

Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sangguniang Bayan over administrative cases against elective barangay officials
occupying positions below salary grade 27, such as private respondent in this case.

OMB VS ESTENDARTE

The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over disciplinary cases involving public school teachers has been modifies by Section 9 RA 4670,
otherwise known as Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, which says that such cases must first go to a committee appointed by
the Secretary of Education.

SALVADOR VS MAPA

Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of a law.

OMB VS MASING

The power of Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is not merely advisory or recommendatory but is
actually mandatory.

MEDINA VS COA

The one who is answering an administrative complaint filed before the Ombudsman may not appeal to the procedural rules under
Civil Service Commission.

BORJA VS PEOPLE

Local water districts are GOCCs and not private corporations because their existence do not derived from the Corporation Code, but
from Presidential Decree No. 198. Thus, Petitioner Borja is a Public Officer

Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties

1201. Buenaseda vs Favier [G.R No. 106719]

The petition was dismissed, When the constitution vested on the Ombudsman the power "to recommend the suspension" of a
public official or employees (Sec. 13 [3]), it referred to "suspension," as a punitive measure. All the words associated with the word
"suspension" in said provision referred to penalties in administrative cases, e.g. removal, demotion, fine, censure. Under the rule
of Noscitor a sociis, the word "suspension" should be given the same sense as the other words with which it is associated. Where a
particular word is equally susceptible of various meanings, its correct construction may be made specific by considering the
company of terms in which it is found or with which it is associated (Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh, 75 Phil. 371 [1945]; Caltex
(Phils.) Inc. v. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247 [1966]).

Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, which grants the Ombudsman the power to preventively suspend public officials and employees facing
administrative charges before him, is a procedural, not a penal statute. The preventive suspension is imposed after compliance with
the requisites therein set forth, as an aid in the investigation of the administrative charges.

1202. Hagad Vs Gozo-dadole [251 SCRA]

Taken in conjunction with Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, petitioner thus contends that the Office of the Ombudsman correspondingly
has the authority to decree preventive suspension on any public officer or employee under investigation by it. Said section of the law
provides:

Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. — The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his
authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment, the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or
employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant
removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.

The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six
months, without pay, except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault,
negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of
suspension herein provided.

1203. Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio – [GR. 118813] 271 SCRA 67

The clause "any [illegal] act or omission of any public official" is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public official.
The law does not qualify the nature of the illegal act or omission of the public official or employee that the Ombudsman may
investigate. It does not require that the act or omission be related to or be connected with or arise from the performance of official
duty. Since the law does not distinguish, neither should we.

The reason for the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987 Constitution and for the grant to it of broad investigative authority, is to
insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom that are able to penetrate judges' and fiscals' offices, and others involved
in the prosecution of erring public officials, and through the exertion of official pressure and influence, quash, delay, or dismiss
investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public officers. It was deemed necessary, therefore, to create a
special office to investigate all criminal complaints against public officers regardless of whether or not the acts or omissions
complained of are related to or arise from the performance of the duties of their office. The Ombudsman Act makes perfectly clear
that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses "all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance that have been
committed by any officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13 hereof, during his tenure of office (Sec. 16, RA 6770).

Case 1204. OMB v. CA – [160675] 491 SCRA 92

Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. – The Ombudsman and his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his
authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or
employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would
warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.

The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six
months, without pay, except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault,
negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of
suspension herein provided.
Case 1205. OMB v. Madriaga – [164316] 503 SCRA 631

We note that the proviso above qualifies the "order" "to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute" an officer or
employee – akin to the questioned issuances in the case at bar. That the refusal, without just cause, of any officer to comply with
such an order of the Ombudsman to penalize an erring officer or employee is a ground for disciplinary action, is a strong indication
that the Ombudsman's "recommendation" is not merely advisory in nature but is actually mandatory within the bounds of law. This
should not be interpreted as usurpation by the Ombudsman of the authority of the head of office or any officer concerned. It has
long been settled that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute any illegal act or omission of any public official is
not an exclusive authority but a shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged. By stating therefore that the
Ombudsman "recommends" the action to be taken against an erring officer or employee, the provisions in the Constitution and in
RA 6770 intended that the implementation of the order be coursed through the proper officer,

Case 1206. OMB v. CA 507 [167844] SCRA 593

Thus, the undeniable conclusion is that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction, authority and power only to recommend the penalties it
imposes in administrative matters, as in the instant case. Therefore, premises considered, we find the Ombudsman to have
committed reversible error in rendering the assailed Decision dated October 28, 2002 [and in] considering the aggravating
circumstance of previous conviction while failing to properly appreciate the mitigating circumstances. Thus, we find petitioner only
guilty of Neglect of Duty instead of Dishonesty and, accordingly, should be penalized with suspension from office for six (6) months
without pay.

Case 1207. Estorija v. Ranada – [159314] 492 SCRA 652

Although petitioner contends that the Ombudsman has only the powers enumerated under Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution;
and that such powers do not include the power to directly remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure a government official. Its
power is merely to recommend the action to the officer concerned. The court found petitioner’s contentions without merit. Rep. Act
No. 6770 provides for the functional and structural organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. In passing Rep. Act No. 6770,
Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman with the power to prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees
to make him a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public office. Moreover, the legislature has
vested the Ombudsman with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions.

Case 1208. - OMB v. Lucero – [168718] 508 SCRA 593

The Philippine Ombudsman departs from the classical Ombudsman model whose function is merely to receive and process the
people’s complaints against corrupt and abusive government personnel. The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, is
armed with the power to prosecute erring public officers and employees, giving him an active role in the enforcement of laws on
anti-graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses that may be committed by such officers and employees. The legislature has
vested him with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions.

Case 1209. Balbastro v. Junio – [154678] 527 SCRA 680 [2007]

The Court explicitly held in Estarija v. Ranada:

Thus, the Constitution does not restrict the powers of the Ombudsman in section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, but allows
the Legislature to enact a law that would spell out the powers of the Ombudsman. Through the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6770,
specifically Section 15, par. 3, the lawmakers gave the Ombudsman such powers to sanction erring officials and employees, except
members of the Congress, and the Judiciary. To conclude, we hold that Sections 15, 21, 22 and 25 of Republic Act No. 6770 are
constitutionally sound. The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. His office was given teeth to render this
constitutional body not merely functional but also effective. Thus, we hold that under Republic Act No. 6770 and the 1987
Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official
other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary
Case 1210- OMB v. CA – [168079] 527 SCRA 798 [2007]

The legislative history of Republic Act No. 6770 thus bears out the conclusion that the Office of the Ombudsman was intended to
possess full administrative disciplinary authority, including the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault. The lawmakers envisioned the Office of the Ombudsman
to be "an activist watchman," not merely a passive one.

In Estarija v. Ranada,1 petitioner assailed as unconstitutional his dismissal from the service by the Ombudsman. Petitioner
in Estarija alleged that the Ombudsman did not have direct and immediate power to remove government officials, whether elective
or appointive, who are not removable by impeachment. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 15, 21, and 25 of RA
6770, thus affirming that the powers of the Office of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. The Court ruled
in Estarija that under RA 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from
government service an erring public official, other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary

Case 1211- COA v. CA – [158672] 529 SCRA 245 [2007]

The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. Thus, we hold that under Republic Act No. 6770 and the 1987
Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official

(A/N: The following case have the same, or at least, similar main points)

1212. OMB v. Santiago

Respondent is guilty for violating AGACPA. OMB has the power to recommend the removal respondent for his act. Even if the word
“recommend” in Par. 3, Sec. 13, Art. 11 of the Constitution, the powers of the OMB are not merely recommendatory. OMB has the
constitutional power to directly remove an erring public official from his office except a member of Congress and Judiciary.

1213. Gobenchiong v. CA

OMB rightfully exercised its authority to place respondents under preventive suspension. It has the full administrative disciplinary
authority over erring public officials and employees, except members of Congress and Judiciary.

1214: Marohomsalic v. Cole

Marohomsalic was validly dismissed. OMB has the disciplinary authority to investigate, and prosecute erring public officials and
employees.

1215: Ombudsman v. Lisondra

CA held that OMB has no power to impose penalty on public officers. However, SC ruled that OMB is a constitutionally created
office. Lisondra and her companions were validly dismissed. OMB has the power to prosecute offenses committed by erring public
officials and employees.

1216: Miro v. Abugan

OMB has the power to impose administrative sanctions on erring government officials. Its powers are not recommendatory. It has
constitutional powers to impose penalties.
1217: Cesa v. Ombudsman

CA declared that the penalties that OMB can impose are only recommendatory. However, SC ruled that Cesa is guilty because of
neglect of their duty and the powers of OMB of recommending is not merely advisory but mandatory. It has constitutional powers to
directly remove erring government officials from their office.

1218: Ombudsman v. De Sahagun

CA rules that the nature of the function of the OMB was purely recommendatory and it did not have power to penalize erring
government officials. However SC ruled that CA erred and that the OMB has the power to directly impose the penalty of removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee.

1219: Ombudsman v. Samaniego

OMB is vested with full administrative disciplinary authority including the power to determine the appropriate penalty on erring
public officials or employees.

1220: Boncalon v. Ombudsman

OMB has the power to impose penalties to public officers, such as the removal from office in this case.

1221: Ombudsman v. Beltran

CA ruled that OMB could only recommend the removal of the erring public official or employee. However, SC ruled that The term
“recommend” in par. 3, Sec. 13, Art 11 of Constitution is not only advisory but mandatory. OMB has the power to impose the
penalty of removal to public officials or employees found to be at fault.

1222: Ombudsman v. Apolonio

OMB has the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or
employee, in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority.

SECTION 13: Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation

Fact-finding is the gathering of information to ascertain the facts. The fact-finding function, preparatory to the preliminary
investigation still to be conducted by the Ombudsman. (Raro v. Sandiganbayan)

Preliminary Investigation is the determination whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe
that the person accused of the crime is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan)

Section 14. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and
regularly released.

Like Judiciary (Article VIII, Sec 3), Constitutional Commission (Article IX, Sec 5) and Commission of Human Rights (Article XIII, Sec 17),
The Office of Ombudsman enjoys Fiscal Autonomy to further enhance its independence. It does not request to the office of the
President or any Government agency for the release of its approved annual appropriation.

Section 15. Right to Recover Properties Unlawfully Acquired

The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees
or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.

Section 15 does not prevent prescription of the crime.

1228: Heirs of Gregorio Licaros v. Sandiganbayan

The State can still recover the penalties unlawfully acquired by the defendants because this right of the State is not barred by
prescription. Thus the right to recover unlawfully acquired properties against Licaros have not prescribed.

1229: Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman

Petitioner’s contention is correct. Section 15 of Article 11 of the Constitution applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten
wealth and not to criminal cases.

Section 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for any business purpose may be granted, directly or
indirectly, by any government-owned or controlled bank or financial institution to the President, the Vice-President, the Members of
the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to any firm or entity in
which they have controlling interest, during their tenure.

Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a
declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the
armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.

OBJECTIVE:

Strengthen the concept of public office as public trust

Section 18. Allegiance of Public Officers

Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all times, and any public officer or employee who
seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law.

1230: Caasi v. CA

Section 18 does not apply to this case because Merito Miguel acquired the status of an immigrant of the US before he was elected to
public office, not “during his tenure” as mayor.

The law applicable to him is Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code which states that in order to be qualified to run for elective
office, he must “waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country”

In this case, he did not waive his status as a permanent resident of the US. Without which, he is disqualified to run for any elective
office.

1231: Sampayan v. Daza

Daza should not be disqualified as member of the HOR because this is already moot and academic and it is evident that the
petitioners seek to unseat Daza from his position in the HOR.

HET has the rightful jurisdiction since petitioners challenge the qualifications of Daza.

Appropriate remedy is to file a petition to cancel Daza’s certificate of candidacy before the election or quo warranto case with the
HET within 10 days after Daza’s proclamation.
ARTICLE 12

SECTION 1: THREEFOLD GOAL OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY

The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the
amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to
raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.

The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform,
through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and
foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.

In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop.
Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the
base of their ownership.

Paragraph 1. Threefold goal of the national economy:

More equitable distribution of wealth;
Increase of wealth for the benefit of the people; &
Increased productivity

Paragraph 2.
Industrialization as a result of releasing through agrarian reform capital locked up in land.
Related to Art. II Sec. 10 of the Constitution on social justice.
Does not necessarily mean that agricultural development should be prioritized over industrialization but a flexible and rational
relationship between the 2 as dictated by the common good.
“Unfair foreign competition and trade practices” does not intend to protect local inefficiency at the expense of the consuming
public.

SECTION 2: REGALIAN DOCTRINE

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural
lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be
under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-
production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable
for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure
and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve
its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming,
with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-
scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and
conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its
execution.

The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted
right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony
• Theory of jure regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest
• “Regalian” comes from the root word “regal” – meaning royal or royalty. It is explained in the adage that: “Everything in the
country without a registered owner is owned by the State.” It is closely related to the Latin term “Res Nullius” which got its roots
from the term “res” meaning things and “nullius” which means without an owner. “Res Nullius” therefore means things without an
owner.

Scope:
The following are owned by the State:
1. Lands of the public domain:
Waters
Minerals, coals, petroleum, and other mineral oils;
All sources of potential energy;
Fisheries;
Forests or timber;
Wildlife;
Flora and fauna; and
Other natural resources.
Alienation of Natural Resources
1. General Rule: All natural resources CANNOT be alienated
2. Exception: Agricultural lands
Exploration, Development and Utilization of Natural Resources
1. Shall be under the full control and supervision of the State
2. Means

The state may enter into CO-PRODUCTION, JOINT VENTURE OR PRODUCTION-SHARING arrangements with
• Filipino citizen or
• Corporation or association at least 60% of whose capital is owned by such citizens
3. Limitations:
A. Period: It should not exceed 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years
B. Under terms and conditions as may be provided by law.
4. In case of water rights/water supply/fisheries/industrial uses other than the development of water power

IMPERIUM AND DOMINIUM

• Imperium pertains to the government authority possessed by the State, which is appropriately embraced in the concept of
sovereignty
• Dominium pertains to the capacity to own and acquire property
• Dominium is the foundation of the theory of Regalian doctrine
Land of the public domain become private land
• When it is acquired from the government either by purchase or by grant. As held in Oh Cho v. Director of Lands,75 Phil. 890,
"all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An exception
to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors- in-interest since time
immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had
been private property even before the Spanish conquest.
Transform public land into private land
• Yes, if it is alienable land. "Open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by
law creates the legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite period ipso jure and without need of judicial or
other sanction, ceases to be public land and becomes private property.

UTILIZATION
Miners v Factoran
Accordingly, the State, in the exercise of its police power in this regard, may not be precluded by the constitutional restriction on
non-impairment of contract from altering, modifying and amending the mining leases or agreements granted under Presidential
Decree No. 463, as amended, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. Police Power, being co-extensive with the necessities of the case
and the demands of public interest; extends to all the vital public needs.

TANO V. SOCRATES [G.R. NO. 110249. AUGUST 21, 1997.]

In accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, marine resources belong to the State, and, pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution, their "exploration, development and utilization . . . shall be under the full control and supervision of the State."
Moreover, their mandated protection, development and conservation as necessarily recognized by the framers of the Constitution,
imply certain restrictions on whatever right of enjoyment there may be in favor of anyone.

A marginal fisherman is an individual engaged in fishing whose margin of return or reward in his harvest of fish as measured by
existing price levels is barely sufficient to yield a profit or cover the cost of gathering the fish, while a subsistence fisherman is one
whose catch yields but the irreducible minimum for his livelihood.

VILLAFLOR V. CA
It is well-settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied from the government.
It is indispensable then that there be showing of title from the state or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law. It is well-
settled that all lands remain part of the public domain unless severed there from by state grant or unless alienated in accordance
with law. The deeds of sale do not constitute clear and convincing evidence to establish that the contested area is of private
ownership. Hence, the property must be held to be public domain

ALVAREZ V PICOP
The Presidential Warranty cannot, in any manner, be construed as a contractual undertaking assuring PICOP of exclusive possession
and enjoyment of its concession areas. Such an interpretation would result in the complete abdication by the State in favor of PICOP
of the sovereign power to control and supervise the exploration, development and utilization of the natural resources in the area.

INITIATIVES FOR DIALOGUE AND EMPOWERMENT THROUGH ALTERNATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, INC. (IDEALS, INC.) V. POWER SECTOR
ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (PSALM) [G.R. NO. 192088. OCTOBER 9, 2012.]

While both waters and geothermal steam are, undoubtedly "natural resources", within the meaning of Section 2 Article XII of the
present Constitution, hence, their exploitation, development and utilization should be limited to Filipino citizens or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by Filipino citizens, the utilization thereof can be opened even
to foreign nationals, after the same have been extracted from the source by qualified persons or entities . The rationale is because,
since they no longer form part of the natural resources of the country, they become subject to ordinary commerce.

SECTION. 3: LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of
the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public
domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to
exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more
than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.

Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian
reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or
leased and the conditions therefor.

Paragraph 1. Public lands are classified as:

Agricultural;
Forest or timber;
Mineral; &
National Parks

By virtue of C.A. 141, the classification and reclassification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department
and not of the Courts. In the absence of such classification, the land remains unclassified. (This concept is in consonance with the
Constitutional precepts and the Regalian Doctrine.)

Director of Lands v Judge Aquino

Classification of land does not change automatically when the nature of the land changes. The legal nature may be different from
how the land actually looks like.
Republic v CA
A land cannot have a mixed classification (e.g. partly mineral, partly agricultural).

Republic v CA
In the application of the Regalian Doctrine, if a person is the owner of an agricultural land in which minerals are discovered, the
State may expropriate it to enable it to extract the minerals in the exercise of sovereign prerogative. Said owner is entitled to just
compensation.

Apex Mining v Southeast Mindanao Gold, Inc.

The president has been given the power to withdraw forest reserves found to be more valuable for their mineral contents than for
the purpose for which the reservation was made and convert the same into non-forests reserves.

Director of Forestry v Villareal

Mangrove swamps or manglares are forest lands as classified by the Administrative Code.

Republic v TAN Properties, Inc.

All lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the State, by incontrovertible evidence, the
presumption that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the applicant.

Rules on the disposition and exploitation of public agricultural lands:

Private corporations and associations may not acquire alienable lands of the public domain.
Qualified individuals may acquire a maximum of 12 hectares of alienable lands of the public domain. (144 hectares under 1935
Constitution and 24 hectares under 1973)
Private corporations may hold alienable lands of the public domain by lease up to 1000 hectares and for 25 years renewable for
another 25 years.
Qualified individuals may lease land of the public domain up to 500 hectares.
Qualified corporations may acquire private lands only. (applies to corporation sole)

Director of Lands v Intermediate Appellate Court

Public land owned within the maximum limit of the Constitution in effect at the time of acquisition may be registered even if it is
beyond the new land limit of the Constitution.

Director of Lands v Intermediate Appellate Court & Ten Forty Realty and Development Corp. v Cruz
Alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or through his predecessor in interest, openly, constinuously, and exclusively
for 30 years is converted to private property by prescription, ipso jure.

REPUBLIC V. SOUTHSIDE
A given parcel of land is released from its classification as part of the military reservation zone and reclassified by law or by
presidential proclamation as disposable and alienable, its status as part of a military reservation remains, even if incidentally it is
devoted for a purpose other than as a military camp or for defense.

Purposes of the constitutional prohibition of private corporations from acquiring public agricultural lands:
To equitably diffuse ownership;
To encourage “owner-cultivatorship”; &
To prevent recurrence of huge landholdings.(Lausan Ayog v Judge Cusi)
The above-mentioned constitutional prohibition has no retroactive application against corporations with vested right to the land.
(Lausan Ayog v Judge Cuison)

Paragraph 2. Congress shall fix the available lands of the public domain open to acquisition, exploration, development, and
utilization taking into consideration “the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development subject to the principles of
agrarian reform.”

SECTION 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine, by law, the specific limits of forest lands and national parks, marking
clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased
nor diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide for such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging in
endangered forests and watershed areas. (FORESTS & PARKS)

1. Congress to determine specific limits of forest lands and national parks

a) To determine as soon as possible by law the specific limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on
the ground
b) To provide, for such period as it may determine measures to prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas. Forest
lands and national parks whose boundaries have been marked as provided by law are to be conserved

2) Prohibition of logging

SECTION 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the
rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.

The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership
and extent of ancestral domain.
(Protection of indigenous communities to their ancestral domain)

1. The State protects the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands

2. In determining ownership and extent of ancestral domain, Congress may use customary laws on property rights and relations.

ANCESTRAL DOMAIN: All lands within and belonging to a cultural region not strictly occupied; an all-embracing concept referring to
lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and includes ancestral lands, etc., and other lands individually owned, whether alienable or not,
hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, etc.; They include lands which may no longer be exclusively used by indigenous
cultural communities but traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities.
ANCESTRAL LAND: Occupied portions of ancestral domain; narrower concept referring to lands utilized by cultural communities
under the claim of individual or traditional group ownership; includes, but are not limited to residential lots, rice terraces, etc.;
Those held under the same conditions but are limited to lands that are not merely occupied and possessed but are also utilized by
cultural communities.

Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain. They are private lands and belong to the
ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However,
the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include
the right to alienate the same. (CRUZ V. SEC. OF DENR, 347 SCRA 128 [2000])

SECTION 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and
private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and
operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common
good so demands.
(ENTERPRISE & COMMON GOOD)

Article XII, Section 6 of the Constitution says that cooperatives are subject to the duty of the state to intervene when the common
good demands. (La Union Electric cooperative v. Judge Yaranin [G.R. No. 87001]

Since a franchise is a mere privilege, the exercise of the privilege may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee
of some form of public service. Under Sec. 6 of Article XII of the Constitution, such privilege use of property is subject to the duty of
the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands. It is for the common good to grant
free air time for the candidates but even more of the public, particularly the voters, so that they will be fully informed of the issues
in an election. TELECOM & GMA NETWORKS, INC. V. COMELEC [G.R. NO. 132922. APRIL 21,1998.]

Free enterprise system – “free private enterprise” persons can own and operate business enterprises risking their own resources
and thereby taking the profits or the losses in consequence.
SECTION 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals,
corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. (Acquisition of private lands)

PRIVATE LAND - lands of private ownership including both lands owned by private individuals and those which are patrimonial
property of the State or of municipal corporations.

Private lands may be transferred or conveyed to the following:

1. Filipino Citizens (can both acquire and hold lands of public domain)
2. Filipino corporations and associations as defined in section 2 (cannot acquire but can hold by modes other than acquisition,
such as lease)
3. Aliens but only in cases of hereditary succession.
4. Natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship subject to limitations provided by law.

An alien, since he has no right to acquire private land, has no right to challenge the validity of the ease of a piece of land which his
wife had acquired.
(Matthews v. Taylor Spouses, G.R. No. 164584)
A foreigner may own a unit in a condominium because the prohibition on aliens is only from acquiring land. The land on which the
condominium stands is owned by the condominium corporation. (Hulst v. PR Builders, G.R. No. 15364)

SECTION 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his
Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.

Difference between provision of section 15, Article XIV (1973 as amended) and Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution as relative to
natural born citizens who lost their citizenship

-The 1981 amendment to the 1973 constitution limited to the right of such persons to the acquisition of private lands “for us by him
as the residence”. No limitation appears in the 1987 constitution. However, Congress may add such limitation as well as limitation
on size. Moreover, the size limitation imposed by statute under 1973 Constitution still holds.

Any [former] natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter
into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of five thousand (5000) square
meters, in the case of urban land, or Three (3) hectares in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. In the case of
married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted: Provided, that if both shall avail of the same, the total area
acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed.
"In the case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of
an additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, when added to those already owned by him, shall not exceed the
maximum areas herein authorized."
“A transferee under this Act may acquire not more than two(2) lots which should be situated in different municipalities or cities
anywhere in the Philippines: Provided, that the total land area thereof shall not exceed five thousand (5000) square meters for used
by him for business or other purposes. A transferee who has already acquired urban land shall be disqualified from acquiring rural
land area and vice versa.”

SECTION 9: The Congress may establish an independent economic and planning agency headed by the President, which shall, after
consultations with the appropriate public agencies, various private sectors, and local government units, recommend to Congress, and
implement continuing integrated and coordinated programs and policies for national development.

Until the Congress provides otherwise, the National Economic and Development Authority shall function as the independent planning
agency of the government.

NEED FOR A CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING BODY.

Economic planning is an essential part of development policy. It may cover the whole economy, or only certain sectors of it, or
particular region of a country.

FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS.

The following are the features and functions of the economic and planning agency which Congress is mandated to establish:
(a) It is independent;
(b) It is a central body for economic planning and policy;
(c) It is headed by the President, making it the highest economic policy planning organ;
(d) It shall prepare programs and policies for national development; &
(e) It shall prepare such programs and policies for approval of Congress;
(f) It shall prepare, recommend, and implement “continuing, integrated, and coordinated programs and policies”:
1) continuing because it is a continuous process of preparation, review and implementation, evaluation and follow-up;
2) Integrated because it has to present a unified set of policies; &
3) coordinated because cooperation and interaction among all is essential to success any development plan

SECTION 10: The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates,
reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that
will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to
qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its
national goals and priorities.

Filipinization – when ownership is limited to Filipino citizens of Filipino corporations.

Nationalization- when ownership is reserved to the state.

Existing laws limiting certain activities to Filipino citizens or corporations.

Under the present laws, activities in the following, among others, are limited to Filipino citizens or corporations wholly- owned by
Filipino citizens:

(1) Operation of rural banks:

(2) Engaging in the retail of trade business;
(3) Operations of registered overseas shipping;
(4) Engaging in the rice and corn industry;
(5) Engaging in tax-free cottage industries;
(6) Contracts for the supply of materials, equipment, goods and commodities for the government; and
(7) Operations of atomics energy facilities.

Regulation of foreign investments

(1) Sources of investment.

(2) Kinds of investment.
(3) Benefits and negative aspects of foreign direct investments.
(4) Need for foreign investment in the Philippines.
(5) Foreign investment policy.
(6)Objective of regulation.

SECTION 11: No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except
to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum of
whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer
period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to
amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation
in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise
shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or
association must be citizens of the Philippines.

First, prescribes that public utility franchises be granted only to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations, at least 60 per centum
of the capital of which is owned by citizens.

Second, allows the legislature to impair the obligation of franchise as contracts.

Third, enjoins the state to encourage equity participation by general public.
Last, authorizes foreign investors to participate in the governing boards.

FRANCHISE- includes any special privilege or right conferred by the State on persons or corporations. It may mean either the:

(1) Corporate or primary franchise, which is the right granted to a group of individuals to exist and act as a corporation;
(2) Secondary or special franchise, which is the right granted to an individual, or to a corporation after its incorporation, to exercise
certain power and privileges.

A public utility has been described as a business organization which regularly supplies the public with some service, as electricity,
gas, water, transportation, or telephone or telegraph service.
Public utilities are also known as public service companies. Public market are public services or utilities under the constitutional
provision.

Foreign participation in any public utility.

Investment. Foreigners may invest in public utility enterprises but to the extent of not more than 40% of the capital of the same. The
entry of foreign capital is allowed because the establishment and operation of public utilities may require the investment of a big
amount of capital which Filipino citizens may not afford.
Governing body and management. Foreigners can even be elected to the governing body of any public utility enterprises but their
number shall be limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof.

SECTION 12: The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods, and adopt
measures that help make them competitive.

(1) Duty of the State.

The State shall: (a) promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods; and (b) adopt
measures that help make them competitive.

(2) Aim of Policy. The constitutional policy is to give preference or dominance to Filipinos in their own country especially in the grant
of rights, privileges and concessions involving our national economy and patrimony, and make them competitive as against
foreigners in both domestic and foreign competition.

(3) Duty of buying public. Many Philippine-made products are at part with the world’s best. It is the duty of every self-respecting
Filipino citizen to buy the products of his own countrymen.

SECTION 13: The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of
exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.

Promotion of trade policy that serves the general welfare.

Trade policy as an implement to achieve specific goals. A trade policy is a policy affecting exports and imports and domestic
commerce formulated to achieve specific goals. Thus:

(a) High tariffs or duties, import quotas or even total import ban of certain commodities may be imposed to protect local industries
producing similar articles;
(b) Tariffs are made relatively low so as not to discourage imports and thus raise more revenues;
(c) Import controls are relaxed when they tend to encourage production of goods that are high-priced and low quality;
(d) A trade policy may be designed to promote export industries to earn more foreign exchange or the domestic-oriented industries
to replace imports: and
(e) The government may impose dumping duty on imported articles sold in the Philippines at less than their fair market value or
countervailing duty on such articles.
SECTION 14: The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs,
professionals, managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the
State. The State shall encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the national benefit.

The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.

Human resources- people- are the most critical sources of economic growth. They are the active factors of development that utilize
through their labor the passive factors (land and capital) to produce goods and services needed by a growing economy.
They determine the pace and quality of economic, social and political development. A country is only as good as its human
resources.

Profession - has been defined as a calling which requires the passing of an appropriate government or examination, such as the
practice law, medicine, public accountancy, engineering, etc.

Nature of right to practice – The practice of profession involves public interest and is open only to persons who have undergone the
necessary academic preparation and passed the appropriate government examination and who possesses such other special
qualification prescribed by law.

SECTION 15: The Congress shall create an agency to promote the viability and growth of cooperatives as instruments for social justice
and economic development.

Agency to promote viability and growth of cooperatives to be created.

Cooperative is a type of business unit through which individual members cooperate in providing specific types of services of
mutual benefit to the membership.

Cooperatives operate under certain basic principles. They may be classified as consumers, producers, marketing, credit, or
service cooperatives.

Cooperative can serve as a vehicle for attaining a more equitable distribution of wealth by increasing the income and purchasing
power of the low- income sector of the population and providing needed services not only for their members, but also for the
community in general.

SECTION 16: The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private
corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the
common good and subject to the test of economic viability.

Under this provision, Congress is prohibited from passing a special law or charter for the formation, organization, or regulation of
specific private corporations.
These matters are to be provided for by general law that is a law equally applicable to all private corporations.

The purpose then is to prevent discriminatory practices wherein special privileges are granted to a few without giving others the
right to obtain those privileges or the same conditions. The exception relates to private corporations that are owned or controlled by
the government.

SECTION 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the state may, during the emergency and under
reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business
affected with public interest.

Note:
Public interest on the occasion of national emergency is the primary consideration when the government decides to take
over.
The power to take over the operation of public utilities is activated only if congress grants emergency power under article
VI.
SECTION 18. The state may, in the of national welfare or defense, established and operate vital industries and upon payment of just
compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the government.

Note:
Sec. 18 deals with state ownership of public utilities and industries.
Business affected with public interest, generally speaking means that an industry for adequate reason is subject to control
for public good.

SECTION 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of
trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.

Note:
Monopoly – is the simplest form of monopoly exists when there is only one seller or producer of a product or service for
which there are no substitutes.
The operation of monopoly is not entirely banned by the constitution. However, the state shall regulate them when public interest
so requires.

SECTION 20. The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary authority, the members of whose governing board must
be natural-born Filipino citizens, of known probity, integrity, and patriotism, the majority of whom shall come from the private sector.
They shall also be subject to such other qualifications and disabilities as may be prescribed by law. The authority shall provide policy
direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit. It shall have supervision over the operations of banks and exercise such
regulatory powers as may be provided by law over the operations of finance companies and other institutions performing simila r
functions.

Until the Congress otherwise provides, the Central Bank of the Philippines, operating under existing laws, shall function as the central
monetary authority.

The congress shall establish an independent central monetary authority, members of whose governing board must be natural born
citizens.

Qualifications of the governing board:

Natural born citizen,
Of known probity, integrity and patriotism,
Majority shall come from the private sector,
Subject to such qualifications and disabilities as maybe prescribed by law.

SECTION 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation of the monetary authority. Information on
foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public.

Restrictions on contracting foreign laws:

Must be in accordance with laws

Must be in accordance with regulations of the monetary board.
Must be in prior concurrence with the monetary board.

SECTION 22. Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions of this Article shall be considered inimical to the national interest
and subject to criminal and civil sanctions, as may be provided by law.
ARTICLE XVII - AMMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least
three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following
the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all
its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such
amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held
not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the
petition.
SIGNIFICANCE
Indicates that the Philippines has adopted a rigid type of constitution, one that could not be changed by ordinary legislation but by a
more cumbersome process of change.
Identifies legal sovereignty as residing in the people

DISTGUISH CONSTITUENT POWER FROM LEGISLATIVE POWER

Constituent power is the power to formulate a constitution while legislative power is the power to pass, repeal or amend ordinary
laws or statutes
Constituent power is exercised by congress, constitutional convention or commission, by initiative or referendum whereas legislative
power is an ordinary power of the congress and of the people, also through initiative and referendum
The exercise of constituent power does not need the approval of the chief executive whereas in legislative power, it ordinarily needs
the approval of the chief executive except when done through initiative or referendum.
Definitions:

1) Amendment: an alteration of one or a few specific provisions of the Constitution. Its main purpose is to improve specific
provisions of the Constitution. The changes brought about by amendments will not affect the other provisions of the Constitution.

2) Revision: An examination of the entire Constitution to determine how and to what extent it should be altered. A revision implies
substantive change, affecting the Constitution as a whole.
3) Constituent power is the power to formulate a Constitution or to propose amendments to or revisions of the Constitution and
to ratify such proposal. Legislative power is the power to pass, repeal or amend or ordinary laws or statutes (as opposed to organic
law).

4) Constituent power is exercised by Congress (by special constitutional conferment), by a Constitutional Convention or
Commission, by the people through initiative and referendum, and ultimately by sovereign electorate, whereas legislative power is
an ordinary power of Congress and of the people, also through initiative and referendum.

5) The exercise of constituent power does not need the approval of the Chief Executive, whereas the exercise of legislative power
ordinarily needs the approval of the Chief Executive, except when done by people through initiative and referendum.

WHAT IS AMENDMENT AND REVISION AND HOW DO THEY DIFFER

Both signify change in the constitutional text
Amendment envisages and alteration of 1 or a few specific and isolated provisions in wanting to improve specific parts or add new
provisions
In revision, the guiding intention and plan contemplate a re-examination of the entire document to determine how and to what
extent it should be altered.
STEPS
There must be proposal of amendments or revisions - formulation of the changes contemplated
Submission of the proposed amendments or revisions to the people
Ratification
Proposal of amendments:

Amendments may be proposed by:

A. Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, by a 3/4 vote of all its members.
The power of Congress to propose amendments is NOT part of its ordinary legislative power.
The only reason Congress can exercise such power is that the Constitution has granted it such power.

B. Constitutional Convention:

1) How a Constitutional Convention may be called

a). Congress may call a ConCon by a 2/3 vote of all its members; or
b). By a majority vote of all its members, Congress may submit to the electorate the question of whether to call a ConCon or not.

2) Choice of which constituent assembly (either Congress or ConCon) should initiate amendments and revisions is left to the
discretion of Congress. In other words, it is a political question.

3) BUT: The manner of calling a ConCon is subject to judicial review, because the Constitution has provided for vote requirements.

4) If Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, calls for a ConCon but does not provide the details for the calling of such ConCon,
Congress – exercising its ordinary legislative power – may supply such details. But in so doing, Congress (as legislature) should not
transgress the resolution of Congress acting as a constituent assemble.

5) Congress, as a constituent assembly and the ConCon have no power to appropriate money for their expenses. Money may be
spent from the treasury only to pursuant to an appropriation made by law.

C. People’s Initiative
1) Petition to propose such amendments must be signed be at least 12% of ALL registered voters.

2) Every legislative district represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein.

3) Limitation:
It cannot be exercised oftener than once every 5 years.

Note:
1) While the substance of the proposals made by each type of constituent assembly is not subject to judicial review, the manner
the proposals are made is subject to judicial review.
2) Since these constituent assemblies owe their existence to the Constitution, the courts may determine whether the assembly
has acted in accordance with the Constitution.

3) Examples of justiciable issues:

a) Whether a proposal was approved by the required number of votes in Congress (acting as a constituent assembly).

b) Whether the approved proposals were properly submitted to the people for ratification.

Proposal of Revisions
1) By Congress, upon a vote of 3/4 of its members
2) By a constitutional convention

Ratification
1) Amendments and revisions proposed by Congress and/or by a ConCon:
a) Valid when ratified by a MAJORITY of votes cast in a plebiscite.
b) Plebiscite is held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days from the approval of such amendments or revisions.

2) Amendments proposed by the people via initiative:

a) Valid when ratified by a MAJORITY of votes cast in a plebiscite.
b) Plebiscite is held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the certification by COMELEC of the petition’s sufficiency

3) Requisites of a valid ratification:

a) Held in a plebiscite conducted under the election law;
b) Supervised by the COMELEC; and
c) Where only franchised voters (registered) voters take part.

4) Issues regarding ratification:

a) The Constitution does not require that amendments and revisions be submitted to the people in a special election. Thus, they
may be submitted for ratification simultaneously with a general election.

b) The determination of the conditions under which proposed amendments/revisions are submitted to the people falls within the
legislative sphere. That Congress could have done better does not make the steps taken unconstitutional.
c) All the proposed amendments/revisions made by the constituent assemblies must be submitted for ratification in one single
plebiscite. There cannot be a piece-meal ratification of amendments/revisions.

d) Presidential proclamation is NOT required for effectivity of amendments/revisions, UNLESS the proposed
amendments/revisions so provide.

WHO MAY PROPOSE

IN 1935 AND 1973 Constitution
Congress or National Assembly
Constitutional convention

In 1987 constitution
Congress or National Assembly
Constitutional convention
The electorate through popular initiative

WHO SUBMITS THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR RATIFICATION BY THE PEOPLE

Either congress, as a constituent assembly
Constitutional convention
Note ; However, if neither submits, Congress as and ordinary legislative body may do so,

HOW DOES A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COME INTO EXISTENCE

SECTION 3 - ART XVII

Article XVIII – Transitory Provisions

Purpose: The obvious purpose of transitory provisions is to facilitate the transition from the old Constitution to the new. In the case
of transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution, the transition is not just from its immediate predecessor, the Freedom
Constitution, but also from the 1973 Constitution.

Section 1. First Election under the New Constitution

First Election of the Member of the Congress under this Constitution shall be held on the 2 nd Monday of May, 1987. It shall include
the election of Members of the City or Municipal Councils in the Metropolitan Manila Area.
First Local elections shall be determined by the President, which may be simultaneous with the election of the Members of the
Congress.

Section 2. Term of First House Members and Local Officials

The Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, and the Local Officials first elected under this Constitution shall serve until
noon of June 30, 1992.
Of the Senators elected in the election in 1992, the first 12 obtaining the highest number of votes shall serve for six years and the
remaining 12 for three years.
Q- Why were 12 Senators to be elected in 1992 given only three years?
The purpose was to establish a staggered system of electing Senators. Every three years only 12 new Senators are elected.
Continuity I thus achieved.

Section 3. Status of Laws and other Legislation Passes Prior to the Constitution

All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instruction and other executive issuance not consistent with
this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked.
Q- Does Section 3 validate laws and executive acts which may have been invalidly passed under the previous Constitution?
No. Section 3 merely asserts the general principal of presumed validity of legislative acts of legislative authority.

Section 4. Status of Treaties and International Agreements

All existing laws treaties or international agreements which have not been ratified shall not be renewed or extended without the
concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.

Section 5. Presidential Term and Synchronization

The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the February 7, 1986 election is, for purposes of
synchronization of elections, hereby extended to noon of June 30, 1992.

Section 6. President Legislative

The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative power until the first Congress in convened.

Note: The legislative power of the President under this provision ended on July 27, 1987 when the First Congress convened. Acts of
the President under this provision may be amended or repealed only by statute, in the same way that Presidential Decrees of
President Marcos can be amended or repealed only by legislative act.

Section 7. Sectorial Representation

Until a law is passed, the President may fill by appointment from a list of nominees by the respective sectors the seats reserved for
sectoral representation in paragraph (2), Section 5 of Article VI of this Constitution.

. Section 8. Metropolitan Authority

Until otherwise provided by the Congress, the President may constitute the Metropolitan Authority to be composed of the heads of
all local government units comprising the Metropolitan Manila area.
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association- The creation of the Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA) is constitutional however, the
powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation,
management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and administration. The MMDA has no power to enact
ordinances for the welfare of the community. It is the local government units, acting through their respective legislative councils that
possess legislative power and police power. In the case at bar, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any
ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal and the
respondent Court of Appeals did not err in so ruling.

Section 9. Sub-Provinces
A sub-province shall continue to exist and operate until it is converted into a regular province or until its component municipalities
are reverted to the mother province.

Section 10-11. Security of Tenure Judges

All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this Constitution shall continue to exercise their jurisdiction, until otherwise
provided by law. The provisions of the existing Rules of Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws not inconsistent with this
Constitution shall remain operative unless amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the Congress.
The incumbent Members of the Judiciary shall continue in office until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated
to discharge the duties of their office or are removed for cause.

Section 12-14. Cases Filed Prior to Effectivity of New Constitution

The Supreme Court shall, within one year after the ratification of this Constitution, adopt a systematic plan to expedite the decision
or resolution of cases or matters pending in the Supreme Court or the lower courts prior to the effectivity of this Constitution. A
similar plan shall be adopted for all special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.

The legal effect of the lapse, before the ratification of this Constitution, of the applicable period for the decision or resolution of the
cases or matters submitted for adjudication by the courts, shall be determined by the Supreme Court as soon as practicable.

The provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4), Section 15 of Article VIII of this Constitution shall apply to cases or matters filed before the
ratification of this Constitution, when the applicable period lapses after such ratification.
Q- What is the legal effect of the lapse of applicable period for the decision or resolution of cases or matters submitted for
adjudication by the courts?
Two rules on the subject:
Those where the period lapsed before the ratification of this Constitution- the applicable rule is that found in the 1973 Constitution.
But since jurisprudence on this subject is unclear and even conflicting, Sec. 13 says that the SC must establish a clear rule as soon as
practicable through the resolution of cases pending before it.
Those where the period lapsed after the ratification of this Constitution- no matter when the case may have been filed, Article VIII,
Sec. 15(3) and (4) of this Constitution shall apply.

Section 15. Term of Carry-over Commission

The incumbent Members of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit shall continue
in office for one year after the ratification of this Constitution, unless they are sooner removed for cause or become incapacitated to
discharge the duties of their office or appointed to a new term thereunder. In no case shall any Member serve longer than seven
years including service before the ratification of this Constitution.
Q- Did the incumbent members of the Constitutional Commissions at the time of the ratification of this Constitution enjoy security
of tenure?
Yes, but only for one year. In effect, they were allowed to occupy the first year of the term of those who would later be appointed.
(Gaminde v. COA)

Section 16. Career Civil Service Officers

Purpose: this section is not a remedy for arbitrary removal of civil servants enjoying security of tenure but some form of relief for
members of the career civil service who may have been or may be legally but involuntarily “reorganized out” of the service. (Dario v.
Mison)
Mendoza v. Zamora - The ritual invocation of the abolition of office is not sufficient to justify the termination of the services of an
officer or employee in such abolished office. It is a paramount principle in Public Officers' Law that the power to abolish public
offices vested in the legislature is not absolute. It is subject to the limitations that it be exercised in good faith, should never be for
personal or political reasons, and cannot, be implemented in a manner contrary to law. If an executive department is bloated with
unnecessary employees, there can be no objection to a law abolishing the useless or non-essential items.
Ontiveros v. CA - Section 16, Art. XVIII of the [1987] Constitution which explicitly authorizes the removal of career civil service
employees not for cause but as a result of the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986.

Section 17-18. Readjustment of Salary

Congress provides for the salary rate
At the earliest possible time, the Government shall increase the salary scales of the other officials and employees of the national
government.

Section 19-21. Reversion of lands and real rights illegally acquired

Properties, Records, Equipment, Buildings, and Other Assets (P R E B OA) – abolished or reorganized shall be transferred to the office
of or body to which its powers, functions, and responsibilities substantially pertain.
The 1st Congress shall give priority to the determination of the period for the full implementation of free public secondary education
No transfer or disposition of such lands or real rights shall be allowed until after the lapse of one year from the ratification of this
Constitution.

Section 22. Idle/Abandoned Lands

At the earliest possible time, the government shall expropriate idle or abandoned agricultural lands as may be defined by law, for
distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program.

Section 23. Advertising Entities

Shall have five years from its ratification to comply on a graduated and proportionate basis with the minimum Filipino ownership
requirement therein.

Section 24. Private Armies

If not recognized by duly constituted authority – shall be dismantled
If not consistent with the citizen armed force – shall be dissolved or where appropriate, converted to the regular force

Section 25. Foreign Military Bases, Troops or Facilities

Military bases may not be renewed by executive agreement; any renewal must be through a strict treaty
Ratification of a treaty about military bases in a plebiscite is necessary only when Congress so requires.
Bayan v. Zamora - The Court is of the firm view that the phrase “recognized as a treaty” means that the other contracting party
accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. To require the other contracting state, the United States of America in this case,
to submit the VFA to the United States Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, is to accord strict meaning to the phrase.

Section 26. Sequestration Orders

Sequestration – to place or cause to be placed under its possession or control said property, or any building or office wherein any
such property and any records pertaining thereto may be found for the purpose of preventing the destruction of such until it can be
determined whether the property was in truth “ill-gotten”.
Freeze order – prohibits the person having possession or control of property alleged to constitute “ill-gotten wealth” “from
transferring, conveying, encumbering or otherwise depleting or concealing such property in its transfer, encumbrance, concealment,
or dissipation.”
Provisional takeover – is authorized, “in the public interest or to prevent disposal or dissipation of the enterprises.” It imports
something more than sequestration or freezing, more than the placing of the business under physical possession and control.

DIFFERENCE between a Sequestration/Freeze Order and a Search/Seizure Warrant:

Former is issued by an administrative authority; latter is issued only by a judge
Former issues only upon showing of a prima facie, a degree of proof higher than probable cause; latter only upon probable cause

(Case 1392)

Republic v. Sandiganbayan - The purpose of the constitutional requirement that the corresponding judicial action or proceeding be
filed within a definite period as regards orders of sequestration, freezing or provisional takeover, is not difficult to discern. They are
fundamentally remedies which are temporary, interim, provisional. They are not meant to bring about a permanent state of affairs.
They are severe, radical measures taken against apparent, ostensible owners of property, or parties against whom, at the worst,
there are merely prima facie indications of having amassed "ill-gotten wealth," indications which must still be shown to lead towards
actual facts in accordance with the judicial procedures of the land. The evident purpose was to preclude the possibility that the
PCGG indefinitely maintain its orders of sequestration.
Cojuangco v. Roxas - PCGG has no right to vote the sequestered shares of petitioners including the sequestered corporate shares.
Only their owners, duly authorized representatives or proxies may vote the said shares.
Araneta v. Sandiganbayan - Pursuant to EO 1, for a penal violation to fall under the jurisdiction of PCGG, the following elements must
concur: (1). It must relate to alleged ill-gotten wealth; (2). Of the late President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates
and close associates; (3). Who took undue advantage of their public office and/or used their power, authority, influence,
connections or relationship.
Rumualdez v. Sandiganbayan - The PCGG has the power, under Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 1, to investigate and prosecute
"offenses committed in the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. However, other violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act not
otherwise falling under the foregoing categories, require a previous authority of the President for the respondent PCGG to
investigate and prosecute in accordance with Section 2(b) of Executive Order No. 1. Otherwise, jurisdiction over such cases is vested
in the Ombudsman and other duly authorized investigating agencies.
Section 27. Effectivity
Immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous
Constitutions.
De Leon v. Esguerra - The 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, the date that the plebiscite for its ratification was held.

Section 26. Ill-Gotten Wealth; Sequestration/Freeze Orders - A Sequestration and freeze order is an administrative order from the
Presidential Commission on Good Governance in which estate, businesses or any profit inducing properties which was conceived
from ill-gotten wealth by incumbent or retired public officials, will be seized for government keeping and any transaction which was
operable on seized property cannot be legally recognized, thus preventing any further enrichment from the illicit property.

Cojuangco v. Roxas - As an administrative office, PCGG could only sequester properties by having solid basis that the questioned
item has actual proof that it was founded on ill – gotten wealth. It should sequester at the exact point of determination through its
positive basis since it would take six months before the proceedings of the case can commence – it should prevent possible
deprivation of constitutional right to life, liberty and property.