Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Political Law Cases Penned by Justice Lucas Bersamin
Political Law Cases Penned by Justice Lucas Bersamin
1. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is rooted in the guarantee of
due process, and is safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released on bail,
and further binds the court to wait until after trial to impose any punishment on
the accused.
2. It is not disputed that the constitutional right to due process of law cannot be
denied to any accused. The Constitution has expressly ordained that “no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” An
essential part of the right is to be afforded a just and fair trial before his
conviction for any crime. Any violation of the right cannot be condoned, for the
impartiality of the judge who sits on and hears a case, and decides it is an
indispensable requisite of procedural due process. Lai vs. People, 761 SCRA
156, G.R. No. 175999 July 1, 2015
Page1
3. As provided in their respective charters, PHILHEALTH and ECC have the status
of a government corporation and are deemed attached to the Department of
Health and the Department of Labor, respectively. On the other hand, the GSIS
and HDMF fall under the Office of the President. The corporate powers of the
GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF are exercised through their governing
Boards, members of which are all appointed by the President of the Philippines.
Undoubtedly, the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF and the members of
their respective governing Boards are under the control of the President. As such,
the CSC Chairman cannot be a member of a government entity that is under the
control of the President without impairing the independence vested in the CSC by
the 1987 Constitution. Funa vs. Duque III, 742 SCRA 166, G.R. No. 191672
November 25, 2014
4. The putting up of the access fence on the petitioner’s property was in the valid
exercise of police power, assailable only upon proof that such putting up unduly
violated constitutional limitations like due process and equal protection of the
law. In Mirasol v. Department of Public Works and Highways, 490 SCRA 318
(2006), the Court has further noted that: A toll way is not an ordinary road. As a
facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain destinations, its use,
operation, and maintenance require close regulation. Public interest and safety
require the imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to
ordinary roads. As a special kind of road, it is but reasonable that not all forms of
transport could use it. Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation
vs. Toll Regulatory Board, 742 SCRA 395, G.R. No. 167290 November
26, 2014
9. There is double taxation when the same taxpayer is taxed twice when he should
be taxed only once for the same purpose by the same taxing authority within the
same jurisdiction during the same taxing period, and the taxes are of the same
kind or character. Double taxation is obnoxious. Nursery Care Corporation
vs. Acevedo, 731 SCRA 280, G.R. No. 180651 July 30, 2014
10. The Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department the conduct of
foreign relations for the Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners’ claim
against the Government of Japan is left to the exclusive determination and
judgment of the Executive Department. The Court cannot interfere with or
question the wisdom of the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive
Department. Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive Department, either by
Page1
11. An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the
same agency: Provided, That such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in
rank, status or salary. (Emphasis supplied.) x x x x The foregoing definition of
reassignment has been adopted by the CSC in Section 10 of Rule VII (Other
Personnel Action) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987 (Omnibus Rules), declaring that a reassignment “is
the movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the
same department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, status or
salary and does not require the issuance of an appointment.” Rule III of CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 40, Series of 1998 (Revised Omnibus Rules on
Appointments and Other Personnel Actions) includes reassignment in the
enumeration of personnel movements that do not require the issuance of a new
appointment. Ejera vs. Merto, 714 SCRA 397, G.R. No. 163109 January
22, 2014
13. The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at the very heart
of procedural due process. The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as
applied to administrative proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of. Administrative due process cannot be fully
Page1
equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former a formal or
trial-type hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules of procedure are
not strictly applied. Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 541 SCRA 444 (2007),
elaborates on the well-established meaning of due process in administrative
proceedings in this wise: x x x Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not
always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is
satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an
opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the
filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to
answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due
process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side, or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Vivo
vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), 709
SCRA 276, G.R. No. 187854 November 12, 2013
14. That the Constitutional Commission never intended to include lands used for
raising livestock and poultry, and commercial, industrial and residential lands
within the coverage of the Agrarian Reform Program of the Government is
already settled. In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,
192 SCRA 51 (1990), the Court pointed this out: The transcripts of the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the
word “agricultural” clearly show that it was never the intention of the framers of
the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the
constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.
15. The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions has
held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate
powers of the local government unit to enact and must be passed according to the
procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive
requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must
not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must
not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with
public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable. Legaspi vs. City of Cebu, 711
Page1
17. The doctrine of qualified political agency could not be extended to the acts of the
Board of Directors of TIDCORP despite some of its members being themselves
the appointees of the President to the Cabinet. Under Section 10 of Presidential
Decree No. 1080, as further amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8494,24
the five ex officio members were the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade
and Industry, the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Director-
General of the National Economic and Development Authority, and the Chairman
of the Philippine Overseas Construction Board, while the four other members of
the Board were the three from the private sector (at least one of whom should
come from the export community), who were elected by the ex officio members of
the Board for a term of not more than two consecutive years, and the President of
TIDCORP who was concurrently the Vice-Chairman of the Board. Such Cabinet
members sat on the Board of Directors of TIDCORP ex officio, or by reason of
their office or function, not because of their direct appointment to the Board by
the President. Evidently, it was the law, not the President, that sat them in the
Board. Manalang-Demigillo vs. Trade and Investment Development
Corporation of the Philippines (TIDCORP), 692 SCRA 359, G.R. No.
168613 March 5, 2013
Page1
18. Consistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the
Constitution, the Court deems it a sound judicial policy not to interfere in the
conduct of preliminary investigations, and to allow the Executive Department,
through the Department of Justice, exclusively to determine what constitutes
sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of supposed
offenders. By way of exception, however, judicial review may be allowed where it
is clearly established that the public prosecutor committed grave abuse of
discretion, that is, when he has exercised his discretion “in an arbitrary,
capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.” Ampatuan, Jr. vs. De
Lima, 695 SCRA 159, G.R. No. 197291 April 3, 2013
19. The picture images of the ballots are electronic documents that are regarded as
the equivalents of the original official ballots themselves. ut this juridical reality
does not authorize the courts, the COMELEC, and the Electoral Tribunals to
quickly and unilaterally resort to the printouts of the picture images of the ballots
in the proceedings had before them without notice to the parties. Despite the
equal probative weight accorded to the official ballots and the printouts of their
picture images, the rules for the revision of ballots adopted for their respective
proceedings still consider the official ballots to be the primary or best evidence of
the voters’ will. In that regard, the picture images of the ballots are to be used
only when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or their integrity has
been compromised. Maliksi vs. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 272,
G.R. No. 203302 April 11, 2013
20.Clearly, the primary functions of the Office of the Solicitor General are not related
or necessary to the primary functions of the Department of Justice. Considering
that the nature and duties of the two offices are such as to render it improper,
from considerations of public policy, for one person to retain both, an
incompatibility between the offices exists, further warranting the declaration of
Agra’s designation as the Acting Secretary of Justice, concurrently with his
designation as the Acting Solicitor General, to be void for being in violation of the
express provisions of the Constitution. Funa vs. Agra, 691 SCRA 196, G.R.
No. 191644 February 19, 2013
21. Indeed, an appropriation by Congress was required before the judgment that
rendered the UP liable for moral and actual damages (including attorney’s fees)
Page1
would be satisfied considering that such monetary liabilities were not covered by
the “appropriations earmarked for the said project.” The Constitution strictly
mandated that “(n)o money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance
of an appropriation made by law.” University of the Philippines vs. Dizon,
679 SCRA 54, G.R. No. 171182 August 23, 2012
23. As the findings of the RTC show, petitioner did not indicate the total number of
precincts in the municipality in his election protest. The omission rendered the
election protest insufficient in form and content, and warranted its summary
dismissal, in accordance with Section 12, Rule 2 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-
SC. Lloren vs. Commission on Elections, 681 SCRA 167, G.R. No.
196355 September 18, 2012
24. The evident purposes of the requirement for the filing of CoCs and in fixing the
time limit for filing them are, namely: (a) to enable the voters to know, at least 60
days prior to the regular election, the candidates from among whom they are to
make the choice; and (b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation
of the votes cast. If the law does not confine to the duly-registered candidates the
choice by the voters, there may be as many persons voted for as there are voters,
and votes may be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as a mark to
identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same election.
782 (2008), thuswise: x x x [A] petition for disqualification, on the one hand, can
be premised on Section 12 or 68 of the [Omnibus Election Code], or Section 40 of
the [Local Government Code]. On the other hand, a petition to deny due course to
or cancel a CoC can only be grounded on a statement of a material representation
in the said certificate that is false. The petitions also have different effects. While
a person who is disqualified under Section 68 is merely prohibited to continue as
a candidate, the person whose certificate is cancelled or denied due course under
Section 78 is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she never filed a CoC.
Talaga vs. Commission on Elections, 683 SCRA 197, G.R. No. 196804
October 9, 2012
25. The enactments of the Legislature decreed that the money to be paid to the
landowner as just compensation for the taking of his land is to be taken only from
the Agrarian Reform Fund. As such, the liability is not the personal liability of
Land Bank, but its liability only as the administrator of the ARF. In fact, Section
10, Rule 19 of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, reiterates that the
satisfaction of a judgment for just compensation by writ of execution should be
from the ARF in the custody of Land Bank. Land Bank of the Philippines vs.
Suntay, 662 SCRA 614, G.R. No. 188376 December 14, 2011
27. Judicial officers do not have to suffer the brunt of unsuccessful or dissatisfied
litigants’ baseless and false imputations of their violating the Constitution in
resolving their cases and of harboring bias and partiality towards the adverse
parties. The litigant who baselessly accuses them of such violations is not
immune from appropriate sanctions if he thereby affronts the administration of
justice and manifests a disrespect towards the judicial office. Re: Verified
Complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco, Chairman of the Board/CEO of
FH-Gymn Multi-Purpose and Transport Service Cooperative, Against
Hon. Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., Hon. Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Hon.
Florito S. Macalino, Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, 664 SCRA
465, A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 11-184-CA-J January 31, 2012
Page1
28.The requirements of due process in an administrative context are satisfied when
the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their
respective sides of the controversy, for the essence of due process is an
opportunity to be heard. Barayuga vs. Adventist University of the
Philippines, 655 SCRA 640, G.R. No. 168008 August 17, 2011
29. Compensation cannot be just to the owner in the case of property that is
immediately taken unless there is prompt payment, considering that the owner
thereby immediately suffers not only the loss of his property but also the loss of
its fruits or income. Thus, in addition, the owner is entitled to legal interest from
the time of the taking of the property until the actual payment in order to place
the owner in a position as good as, but not better than, the position he was in
before the taking occurred. Export Processing Zone Authority (now
Philippine Export Zone Authority) vs. Pulido, 656 SCRA 315, G.R. No.
188995 August 24, 2011
30.Even where there is no petition for bail in a case like Criminal Case No. 1138-03,
a hearing should still be held. This hearing is separate and distinct from the
initial hearing to determine the existence of probable cause, in which the trial
judge ascertains whether or not there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably
guilty of the crime. The Prosecution must be given a chance to show the strength
of its evidence; otherwise, a violation of due process occurs. Gacal vs. Infante,
658 SCRA 535, A.M. No. RTJ- 04-1845 October 5, 2011
31. The Cityhood Laws are constitutional. League of Cities of the Philippines
(LCP) vs. Commission on Elections, 643 SCRA 150, G.R. No. 176951
February 15, 2011
32. Once the State decides to exercise its power of eminent domain, the power of
judicial review becomes limited in scope, and the courts will be left to determine
the appropriate amount of just compensation to be paid to the affected
landowners. Only when the landowners are not given their just compensation for
the taking of their property or when there has been no agreement on the amount
of just compensation may the remedy of prohibition become available. Yusay vs.
Court of Appeals, 647 SCRA 269, G.R. No. 156684 April 6, 2011
considered as ill-gotten wealth, namely: (a) they must have “originated from the
government itself,” and (b) they must have been taken by former President
Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and close associates by illegal means.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division), 648 SCRA 47, G.R. No.
166859 April 12, 2011
34. To safeguard the spirit of social justice that the Court has advocated in favor of
the working man, therefore, the right to reinstatement is to be considered
renounced or waived only when the employee unjustifiably or unreasonably
refuses to return to work upon being so ordered or after the employer has offered
to reinstate him. Escario vs. National Labor Relations Commission
(Third Division), 631 SCRA 261, G.R. No. 160302 September 27, 2010
36. Although the law does not categorically state that only the Government, through
the Solicitor General, may attack the title of an alien transferee of land, it is
nonetheless correct to hold that only the Government, through the Solicitor
General, has the personality to file a case challenging the capacity of a person to
acquire or to own land based on non-citizenship. This limitation is based on the
fact that the violation is committed against the State, not against any individual;
and that in the event that the transferee is adjudged to be not a Filipino citizen,
the affected property reverts to the State, not to the previous owner or any other
individual. Balais-Mabanag vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 617
SCRA 1, G.R. No. 153142, March 29, 2010
37. The COMELEC does not lose jurisdiction over the provincial election contest by
reason of the transmittal of the provincial ballot boxes and other election
materials to the SET, because its jurisdiction over provincial election contest
exists side by side with the jurisdiction of the SET, with each tribunal being
supreme in its respective areas of concern, with neither being higher than the
Page1
other in terms of precedence; hence, the jurisdiction of one must yield to the
other. Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections, 617 SCRA 575, G.R. Nos.
187958, 187961, and 187962, April 7, 2010
Although the people vote for the party-list organization itself in a party-list
system of election, not for the individual nominees, they still have the right to
know who the nominees of any particular party-list organization are. The
publication of the list of the party-list nominees in newspapers of general
circulation serves that right of the people, enabling the voters to make intelligent
and informed choices. In contrast, allowing the party-list organization to change
its nominees through withdrawal of their nominations, or to alter the order of the
nominations after the submission of the list of nominees circumvents the voters’
demand for transparency. The lawmakers’ exclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal
has eliminated the possibility of such circumvention. Lokin, Jr. Commission
on Elections, 621 SCRA 385, G.R. Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010
40.True, the COMELEC, as the body tasked by no less than the 1987 Constitution to
investigate and prosecute violations of election laws, has the full discretion to
determine whether or not an election case is to be filed against a person and,
consequently, its findings as to the existence of probable cause are not subject to
review by courts. Yet, this policy of non-interference does not apply where the
COMELEC, as the prosecuting or investigating body, was acting arbitrarily and
capriciously, like herein, in reaching a different but patently erroneous result.
Guzman vs. Commission on Elections, 597 SCRA 499, G.R. No. 182380
Page1
42. The taking of property under CARL is an exercise by the State of the power of
eminent domain. A basic limitation on the State’s power of eminent domain is the
constitutional directive that private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation. Just compensation refers to the sum equivalent to the
market value of the property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller
in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition,
or the fair value of the property as between one who receives and one who desires
to sell. It is fixed at the time of the actual taking by the State. Thus, if property is
taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having
jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interests on its
just value, to be computed from the time the property is taken up to the time
when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. Apo Fruits
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 607 SCRA 200, G.R. No. 164195
December 4, 2009